Advertisement

Environmental impact of two aerobic composting technologies using life cycle assessment

  • Erasmo Cadena
  • Joan Colón
  • Adriana ArtolaEmail author
  • Antoni Sánchez
  • Xavier Font
LCA FOR WASTE

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

Composting is a viable technology to treat the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) because it stabilizes biodegradable organic matter and contributes to reduce the quantity of municipal solid waste to be incinerated or land-filled. However, the composting process generates environmental impacts such as atmospheric emissions and resources consumption that should be studied. This work presents the inventory data and the study of the environmental impact of two real composting plants using different technologies, tunnels (CT) and confined windrows (CCW).

Materials and methods

Inventory data of the two composting facilities studied were obtained from field measurements and from plant managers. Next, life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology was used to calculate the environmental impacts. Composting facilities were located in Catalonia (Spain) and were evaluated during 2007. Both studied plants treat source separated organic fraction of municipal solid waste. In both installations the analysis includes environmental impact from fuel, water, and electricity consumption and the main gaseous emissions from the composting process itself (ammonia and volatile organic compounds).

Results and discussion

Inventory analysis permitted the calculation of different ratios corresponding to resources consumption or plant performance and process yield with respect to 1 t of OFMSW. Among them, it can be highlighted that in both studied plants total energy consumption necessary to treat the OFMSW and transform it into compost was between 130 and 160 kWh/t OFMSW. Environmental impact was evaluated in terms of global warming potential (around 60 kg CO2/t OFMSW for both plants), acidification potential (7.13 and 3.69 kg SO2 eq/t OFMSW for CT and CCW plant respectively), photochemical oxidation potential (0.1 and 3.11 kg C2H4 eq/t OFMSW for CT and CCW plant, respectively), eutrophication (1.51 and 0.77 kg \( {\text{PO}}_4^{3-} \)/t OFMSW for CT and CCW plant, respectively), human toxicity (around 15 kg 1,4-DB eq/t OFMSW for both plants) and ozone layer depletion (1.66 × 10−5 and 2.77 × 10−5 kg CFC−11 eq/t OFMSW for CT and CCW plant, respectively).

Conclusions

This work reflects that the life cycle perspective is a useful tool to analyze a composting process since it permits the comparison among different technologies. According to our results total energy consumption required for composting OFMSW is dependent on the technology used (ranging from 130 to 160 kWh/t OFMSW) as water consumption is (from 0.02 to 0.33 m3 of water/t OFMSW). Gaseous emissions from the composting process represent the main contribution to eutrophication, acidification and photochemical oxidation potentials, while those contributions related to energy consumption are the principal responsible for global warming.

Recommendations and perspectives

This work provides the evaluation of environmental impacts of two composting technologies that can be useful for its application to composting plants with similar characteristics. In addition, this study can also be part of future works to compare composting with other OFMSW treatments from a LCA perspective. Likewise, the results can be used for the elaboration of a greenhouse gasses emissions inventory in Catalonia and Spain.

Keywords

Composting Environmental impact Forced-aerated windrow Greenhouse gasses emissions (GHG) In-vessel composting Life cycle assessment (LCA) Organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) Turned windrow 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was financially supported by the Agència de Residus de Catalunya and the Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (Project CTM2006-00315/TECNO). Erasmo Cadena and Joan Colón wish to thank the Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas (México) and Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Spain) respectively for the award of a predoctoral fellowship.

References

  1. Agència de Residus de Catalunya (2007) Llistat de caracteritzacions (in catalan), https://sdr.arc.cat/sdr/ListCaracteritzacions.do, May 2009.
  2. Alvarez MD, Sans R, Garrido N, Torres A (2008) Factors that affect the quality of the bio-waste fraction of selectively collected solid waste in Catalonia. Waste Manag 28:359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banar M, Cokaygil Z, Ozkan A (2009) Life cycle assessment of solid waste management options for Eskisehir, Turkey. Waste Manag 29:54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton JR, Dalley D, Patel VS (1996) Life cycle assessment for waste management. Waste Manag 16:35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blengini GA (2008) Using LCA to evaluate impacts and resources conservation potential of composting: a case study of the Asti District in Italy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52:1373–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BUWAL 250/II (1998) Life cycle inventories for packagings, vol. II. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forest and Landscape (SAEFL). Environmental Series No. 250/II. CH-3003 Berne.Google Scholar
  7. Colón J, Martínez-Blanco J, Gabarrell X, Rieradevall J, Font X, Artola A., Sánchez A (2009) Performance of an industrial biofilter from a composting plant in the removal of ammonia and VOCs after material replacement. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, DOI  10.1002/jctb.2139.
  8. Diaz R, Warith M (2005) Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid wastes: development of the WASTES model. Waste Manag 26:886–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diggelman C, Ham R (2003) Household food waste to wastewater or to solid waste? That is the question. Waste Management and Research 21:501–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emery A, Davies A, Griffiths A, Williams K (2007) Environmental and economic modeling: a case study of municipal solid waste management in Wales. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49:244–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eriksson O, Reich M, Frostell B, Björklund A, Assefa G, Sundquvist J, Granath J, Baky A, Thyselius L (2005) Municipal solid waste management from a systems perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 13:241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Finnveden G (1999) Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of integrated solid waste management systems. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 26:173–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finnveden G, Johansson J, Lind P, Moberg Å (2005) Life cycle assessment of energy from solid waste-part 1: general methodology and results. Journal of Cleaner Production 13:213–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Finnveden G, Björklund A, Moberg Å, Ekxall T (2007) Environmental and economic assessment methods for waste management decision-support: possibilities and limitations. Waste Management and Research 25:263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fricke K, Santen H, Wallmann R (2005) Comparison of selected aerobic and anaerobic procedures for MSW treatment. Waste Manag 25:799–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goedkoop M (2004) SimaPro 6. Introduction to LCA with SimaPro. Pré Consultants, Report version 3Google Scholar
  17. Güereca L, Gasso S, Baldasano J (2006) Life cycle assessment of two biowaste management systems for Barcelona, Spain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49:32–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Güereca LP, Baldasano J, Agell N, Gasso S (2007) Fuzzy approach to life cycle impact assessment: an application for biowaste management systems. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12:488–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haug R (1993) The Practical Handbook of Composting Engineering. Lewis, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  20. Hellebrand H, Kalk W (2001) Emission of methane, nitrous oxide, and ammonia from dung windrows. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 60:83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ishikawa S, Hoshiba S, Hinata T, Hishinuma T, Morita S (2006) Evaluation of a biogas plant from life cycle assessment (LCA). International Congress Series 1293:230–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kirkeby JT, Hansen TL, Birgisdóttir H, Bhander GS, Hauschild MZ, Christensen TH (2005) Environmental assessment of solid waste systems and technologies: EASEWASTE. Waste Management and Research 24:3–15Google Scholar
  23. Komilis D, Ham R, Park J (2003) Emission of volatile organic compounds during composting of municipal solid wastes. Water Res 38:1707–1714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liamsanguan C, Gheewala S (2008) The holistic impact of integrated solid waste management on greenhouse gas emissions in Phuket. Journal of Cleaner Production 16:1865–1871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ménard JF, Lesage P, Deschênes L, Samson R (2004) Comparative life cycle assessment of two landfill technologies for the treatment of municipal solid waste. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 6:371–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muñoz I, Rieradevall J, Domènech X, Milà L (2004) LCA application to integrated waste management planning in Gipuzkoa (Spain). International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 9:272–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Özeler D, Yetis Ü, Demirer GN (2006) Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste management methods: Ankara case study. Environmental International 32:405–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pagans E, Font X, Sanchéz A (2006) Emission of volatile organic compounds from composting of different solid wastes: abatement by biofiltration. Journal of Hazardous Materials B131:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Queensland Government Environmental Protection Agency (2008), ecoBiz Program, Conversions and Units. http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/sustainability/ecobiz_queensland/, May 2009.
  30. Rabl A, Benoist A, Dron D, Peuportier B, Spadaro JV, Zoughaib A (2007) How to account for CO2 emissions from biomass in an LCA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12:281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Part 2:impact assessment and interpretation. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13:374–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Richard T (1992) Municipal solid waste composting. Physical and biological processing. Biomass & Bioenergy 3:163–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Skordilis A (2004) Modelling of integrated solid waste management system in an island. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 41:246–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sonesson U, Dalemob M, Mingarinic K, Jönssona H (1997) ORWARE—a simulation model for organic waste handling systems. Part 2: Case study and simulation results. Resources. Conservation and Recycling 21:39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Solid waste management and greenhouse gases. A life-cycle assessment of emissions and sinks. 3rd Edition.Google Scholar
  36. Veeken A, de Wilde V, Hamelers B (2002) Passively aerated composting of straw-rich pig manure: effect of compost bed porosity. Compost Science and Utilization 10:114–128Google Scholar
  37. Weitz K, Barlaz M, Ranjithan R, Brill D, Thorneloe S, Ham R (1999) Life cycle management of municipal solid waste. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 4:195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilson EJ (2002) Life cycle inventory for municipal solid waste management Part 2: MSW management scenarios and modeling. Waste Management and Research 20:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erasmo Cadena
    • 1
  • Joan Colón
    • 1
  • Adriana Artola
    • 1
    Email author
  • Antoni Sánchez
    • 1
  • Xavier Font
    • 1
  1. 1.Composting Research Group, Department of Chemical EngineeringUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations