Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Optimization of the municipal solid waste management system using a hybrid life cycle assessment–emergy approach in Tehran

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 29 October 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

The sustainable design of the waste-management system is of crucial importance for cities like Tehran, capital of Iran. Tehran’s municipal solid-waste management has adopted modern practices and technologies very slowly. This study proposes the optimum pathway to reach maximum environmental benefits as well as the most cost-effective technologies according to the financial limits. The hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA)–emergy approach is applied to utilize the life cycle emissions as an inventory database to estimate the ecosystem services provided by the natural ecosystem to dilute the emissions and compensate raw material consumption. Among organic waste-treatment options, composting is optimally chosen by the hybrid LCA–emergy approach while considering the LCA method solely; the anaerobic digestion is the preferable option. Recycling is the most preferable solution for paper, plastic, and glass in terms of energy recovery and cost saving. However, the budget constraint affects the results. Considering the budget constraint, 65% of ferrous metals are diverted from recycling into metal landfill. Cost reduction of recycling technologies may divert metal flow from landfill to recycling. The limited budget has a significant impact on recycling solutions. Overall, the combination of composting and source separation should be considered as the most sustainable and eco-friendly pathway in Tehran.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 29 October 2019

    In the original publication of the article.

Abbreviations

AP:

Acidification potential

POF:

Photochemical ozone formation

NE:

Nutrient enrichment

FAETP:

Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential

MAETP:

Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential

TETP:

Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential

RE:

Respiratory effect

IR:

Ionized radiation

ARD:

Abiotic resource depletion

RD:

Resource depletion

GWP:

Global warming potential

EQ:

Ecosystem quality

HTP:

Human toxicity potential

CED:

Cumulative energy demand

IS:

Impact score

CF:

Characterization factor

m :

Life cycle intervention

EI:

Environmental impact (end-point impact unit/year)

NEm:

Net emergy

C:

Unit emergy coefficient (SeJ/ton)

f:

Flow of waste (ton/year)

Mair :

Fresh air (kg air/year)

D:

Air density (kg/m3)

AE:

Annual air emission of each technology (kg emission/yr)

c :

Standard concentration for a pollutant (kg emission/m3 air)

R air :

Ecosystem emergy equivalent (SeJ)

N kinetic :

Air kinetic energy (J)

tr:

Transformity (SeJ/J)

trair :

Dry air transformity (SeJ/J)

v air :

Wind speed (m/s)

TW:

Total generation of waste

W:

Waste

SSW:

Source segregated waste

DDW:

Direct disposed waste

WIP:

Waste entered into processing unit

DW:

Total disposed waste

RW:

Total recovered waste

B:

Total annual budget of waste-management system

O:

Operational cost of waste-treatment technology

e :

Impact category

t :

Technology

x :

Substance

p :

Pollutant

i :

Emission compartment

j :

Emergy output item

k :

Emergy input item

Tr:

Treatment node

\( \tau \) :

Waste type (organic, paper, plastic, glass, metal, and other)

s :

Waste source (city, hospital, towns, and firms)

il:

Inert landfill

pal:

Paper landfill

gl:

Glass landfill

pll:

Plastic landfill

ml:

Metal landfill

ol:

Organic landfill

co:

Composting

ad:

Anaerobic digestion

pa:

Paper

g:

Glass

pl:

Plastic

m:

Metal

or:

Organic

o:

Other waste

References

  1. Rigamonti L, Sterpi I, Grosso M (2016) Integrated municipal waste management systems: an indicator to assess their environmental and economic sustainability. Ecol Indic 60:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Shekdar AV (2008) Sustainable solid waste management: an integrated approach for Asian countries. Waste Manag 29:1438–1448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. ISO, “ISO 14040:2006,” 2006. [Online]. https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html. Accessed 2017

  4. Hadzic A, Voca N, Golubic S (2017) Life-cycle assessment of solid waste management in city of Zagreb, Crotia. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 20:1286–1298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu G, Hao Y, Dong L, Yang Z, Zhang Y, Ulgiati S (2017) An emergy-LCA analysis of municipal solid waste management. Resour Conserv Recycl 120:131–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cherubini F, Bargigli S, Ulgiati S (2009) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management strategies: landfilling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy 34:2116–2123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Laurent A, Bakas I, Clavreul J, Bernstad A, Niero M, Gentil E, Hauschild MZ, Christensen TH (2014) Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems—part I: lessons learned and perspectives. Waste Manag 34(3):573–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ikhlayel M (2018) Development of management systems for sustainable municipal solid waste in developing countries: a systematic life cycle thinking approach. J Cleaner Prod 180:571–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chaya W, Cheewala SH (2007) Life cycle assessment of MSW-to-energy schemes in Thailand. J Cleaner Prod 15:1463–1468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Banar M, Zerrin C, Ozkan A (2008) Life cycle assessment of solid waste management options for Eskisehir, Turkey. Waste Manag 29:54–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Khoo HH (2009) Life cycle impact assessment of various waste conversion technologies. Waste Manag 29:1892–1900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Assamoi B, Lawryshyn Y (2011) The environmental comparison of landfilling vs. incineration of MSW accounting for waste diversion. Waste Manag 32:1019–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Evangelisti S, Lettieri P, Borello D, Clift R (2013) Life cycle assessment of energy from waste via anaerobic digestion: a UK case study. Waste Manag 34:226–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Di Maria F, Micale C, Contini S, Morettini E (2016) Impact of biological treatments of bio-waste for nutrient, energy and bio-methane recovery in a life cycle perspective. Waste Manag 52:86–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jeswani H, Azapagic A (2016) Assessing the Environmental Sustainability of Energy Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste in the UK. Waste Manag 50:346–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. R. Cremiato, M. L. Mastellone, C. Tagliaferri, L. Zaccariello and P. Lettieri, “Environmental Impact of Municipal Solid Waste Management using Life Cycle Assessment: The Effect of Anaerobic digestion, Materials Recovery and Secondary Fuels Production,” Renewable Energy, 2017

  17. Fernández-González J, Grindlay A, Serrano-Bernardo F, Rodríguez-Rojas A, Zamorano M (2017) Economic and environmental review of waste-to-energy systems for municipal solid waste management in medium and small municipalities. Waste Manag 67:360–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dong J, Tang Y, Nzihou A, Chi Y, Weiss-Hortala E, Ni H (2018) Life cycle assessment of pyrolysis, gasification and incineration waste-to-energy technologies: theoretical analysis and case study of commercial plants. Sci Total Environ 626:744–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rajcoomar A, Ramjeawon T (2017) Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste managemet scenarios on the small island fo mauritius. Waste Manage Res 35(3):313–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Neri E, Passarini F, Cespi D, Zoffoli F, Vassura I (2017) Sustainability of a bio-waste treatment plant: impact evolution resulting from technological improvements. J Cleaner Prod 171:1006–1019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Thomsen M, Seghetta M, Mikkelsen MH, Gyldenkaerne S, Becker T, Caro D, Frederiksen P (2017) Comparative life cycle assessment of biowaste to resource management systems–a Danish case study. J Cleaner Prod 142:4050–4058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rajaeifar MA, Tabatabaei M, Ghanavati H, Khoshnevisan B, Rafiee S (2015) Comparative life cycle assessment of different municipal solid waste management scenarios in Iran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 51:886–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Bayat R, Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Afrasyabi H, Chau K-W (2017) Modeling of energy consumption and environmental life cycle assessment for incineration and landfill systems of municipal solid waste management—a case study in tehran metropolis of Iran. J Cleaner Prod 148:427–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Brown M, Sweeney S, Campbell DE, Rydbergy T, Wigand C, Schuetz NB (2015) Emergy synthesis 8: theory and applications of the emergy methodology. In: 8th Biennial Emergy Conference

  25. Brown MT, Brandt-Williams S, Tilley D, Ulgiati S (1999) Emergy Synthesis: An Introduction,” Gainesville, Florida

  26. Amponsah Y, Corre OL (2011) Critical review of the usage of unit emergy values in recent studies. Gainesville, Florida

  27. Raugei M, Rugani B, Benetto E, Ingweresen WW (2013) The added value of integrating emergy into LCA. Gainesville, Florida

  28. Lei K, Wang Z (2008) Municipal wastes and their solar transformities: an Emergy synthesis for Macao. Waste Manag 28:2522–2531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Almeida C, Frimaio G, Bonilla S, Da Silva C, Giannetti B (2012) An evaluation of a MSW-to-energy system using emergy synthesis. Int J Environ Sustain Dev 11(3):258–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Marchettini N, Ridolfi R, Rustici M (2006) Environmental analysis for comparing waste management options and strategies. Waste Manag 27:562–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Granai C, Pulselli RM, Ridolfi R (2006) Environmental accounting of a waste management system: outcomes from the emergy analysis. WIT Trans Ecol Envrion 94:31–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu G, Yang Z, Chen B, Zhang Y, Su M, Zhang L (2013) Emergy evaluation of the urban solid waste handling in Liaoning Province, China. Energies 6:5486–5506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bala Gala A, Raugei M, Ripa M, Ulgiati S (2015) Dealing with waste products and flows in life cycle assessment and emergy accounting: methodological overview and synergies. Ecol Model 315:69–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rugani B, Benetto E (2012) Improvements to emergy evaluations by using life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 46:4701–4712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Raugei M, Rugani B, Benetto E, Ingweresen WW (2014) Integrating emergy into LCA: potential added value and lingering obstacles. Ecol Model 271:4–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Odum HT (2000) Handbook of emergy evaluation: a compendium of data for emergy computation issued in a series of folios (Folio #2 Emergy of Global Processes). Center for Environmental Policy, Gainesville

    Google Scholar 

  37. University of Waterloo (2004) Integrated Waste Management Model for Municipalities. Waterloo, ON

    Google Scholar 

  38. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Amersfoort

  39. Yang Z (2017) Eco-cities: a planning guide, 1st edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  40. Akhavan Limoodehi F, Tayefeh SM, Heydari R, Abdoli MA (2017) Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste management in Tehran. Environ Energy Econ Res 1(2):207–218

    Google Scholar 

  41. Heidari L, Jalili Ghazizade M (2017) Municipal solid waste management using life cycle assessment approach: case study of Maku city. Iran. Int J Mech Mech Eng 11(6):1256–1261

    Google Scholar 

  42. Moradikia S (2015) Emission estimation of Tehran’s organic waste collection and transportation activities and result evaluation of some conservative transportation scenarios. Tehran Waste Manag Org, Tehran

    Google Scholar 

  43. Moradikia S (2015) Final report of waste management’s cost calculation in city of Tehran (in Persian), Tehran

  44. Tahmasebi V (2012) Offering solutions for recycling management in city of Tehran (in Persian), Tehran

  45. Nasiri J (2008) Feasibility study of biogas plant in saveh (in Persian). In: 4th National Conference of Waste Management, Tehran

  46. Rand T, Haukohl J, Marsen U (2000) Municipal Solid Waste Incineration: A Decision Maker’s Guide. Washington D.C, World Bank

    Google Scholar 

  47. Group of Authors (2011) Technical and Economic Analysis of Cardboard Egg-holder from Recycled Paper (in Persian). Iran San’at, Shirvan, Northern Khorasan

    Google Scholar 

  48. Group of Authors, “Primary Feasibility Study on Recycling of Plastic Scrap (in Persian),” Northern Khorasan Province, 2011

  49. Vaziri M (2007) Primary feasibility study on zinc and aluminium recycling from juice container (in Persian),” Khorasan Razavi Province

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Energy Systems Engineering Group, Department of Energy Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Azadi Ave, P.O. Box 14565-114, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran

    Mohammad Falahi & Akram Avami

Authors
  1. Mohammad Falahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Akram Avami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akram Avami.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

Table 7 Operational costs of treatment technologies
Full size table
Table 8 Waste fractions of total waste flow
Full size table
Table 9 Product(s) and byproduct(s) of treatment technologies
Full size table
Table 10 Emergy input (cost) equivalent to energy, cost, ecosystem service, land occupation, and human labor (SeJ/ton of waste)
Full size table
Table 11 Emergy input (cost) equivalent to extraction of virgin materials
Full size table
Table 12 Emergy output (revenue) of each treatment technology
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Falahi, M., Avami, A. Optimization of the municipal solid waste management system using a hybrid life cycle assessment–emergy approach in Tehran. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 22, 133–149 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-00919-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-00919-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation