Resources: Particle Size Distribution in Municipal Solid Waste Pre-Treated For Bioprocessing

resources
Article
Particle Size Distribution in Municipal Solid Waste
Pre-Treated for Bioprocessing
Yue Zhang 1 , Sigrid Kusch-Brandt 1, * , Shiyan Gu 1,2, * and Sonia Heaven 1
1 Water and Environmental Engineering Group, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 7QF, UK;
[email protected] (Y.Z.); [email protected] (S.H.)
2 Liaoning Key Laboratory of Agricultural Biology Environment and Energy Engineering,
Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China
* Correspondence: [email protected] (S.K.-B.); [email protected] (S.G.)

Received: 20 September 2019; Accepted: 17 October 2019; Published: 21 October 2019
Abstract: While it is well known that particle size reduction impacts the performance of bioprocessing
such as anaerobic digestion or composting, there is a relative lack of knowledge about particle size
distribution (PSD) in pre-treated organic material, i.e., the distribution of particles across different size
ranges. PSD in municipal solid waste (MSW) pre-treated for bioprocessing in mechanical–biological
treatment (MBT) was researched. In the first part of this study, the PSD in pre-treated waste at two
full-scale MBT plants in the UK was determined. The main part of the study consisted of experimental
trials to reduce particle sizes in MSW destined for bioprocessing and to explore the obtained PSD
patterns. Shredders and a macerating grinder were used. For shear shredders, a jaw opening of
20 mm was found favourable for effective reduction of particle sizes, while a smaller jaw opening
rather compressed the wet organic waste into balls. Setting the shredder jaw opening to 20 mm does
not mean that in the output all particles will be 20 mm or below. PSD profiles revealed that different
particle sizes were present in each trial. Using different types of equipment in series was effective in
reducing the presence of larger particles. Maceration yielded a PSD dominated by very fine particles,
which is unsuitable for composting and potentially also for anaerobic digestion. It was concluded
that shredding, where equipment is well selected, is effective in delivering a material well suited for
anaerobic digestion or composting.
Keywords: particle size reduction; household waste; pre-treatment; shredding; mechanical–biological

treatment; bioprocessing
1. Introduction
The mechanical–biological treatment (MBT) makes use of a bioprocessing step for biological
stabilisation of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW). Enforced by EU legislation that
requires diversion of organics from landfills, thermal MSW treatment and MBT are widely applied
in Europe [1,2]. In the UK alone, around 30 MBT plants were in operation or under construction in
2017 [3]. MBT schemes consist of a series of mechanical and biological processes with the aim to recover
valuable materials and energy in line with circular economy efforts, reduce MSW volume and stabilise
the organic fraction. Final MBT outputs include recyclables such as metals, the high calorific fraction
used to produce refuse derived fuel (RDF), the stabilised organic fraction and the remaining residual
fraction. The bioprocessing step in MBT consists either of anaerobic digestion (AD) or composting.
Particle size of a substrate is known to be a factor that may affect the performance of biological
processes such as AD (anaerobic digestion) [4–6] or composting [7,8]. A smaller particle size entails
a greater unit surface area exposed to enzymatic attack, which may improve carbon accessibility
and hydrolysis of the processed material [9–11]. On the other hand, based on their re-analysis of
Resources 2019, 8, 166; doi:10.3390/resources8040166 www.mdpi.com/journal/resources

Resources 2019, 8, 166 2 of 24
data from other studies Mason and Stuckey [12] identified what they referred to as the particle size
paradox. According to this, for smaller particles the relative rate of gas production per unit surface
area diminishes rapidly with decreasing particle size, indicating that other factors besides the mean
particle size have a key role. Based on a literature review, Hernadez-Beltran et al. [13] concluded that
there is no universal optimum particle size suitable for bioprocessing.
For conventional wet AD (stirred tank reactor), faster biomass stabilisation has been observed at
smaller particle sizes [14–16]. It was also reported, however, that very fine material (mean particle size
2 mm) caused severe foaming in wet AD and in consequence lower biogas yields due to the need to
reduce organic loading rates [17]. Similarly, Izumi et al. [18] observed severe accumulation of volatile
fatty acids and lower methane yield in wet AD after excessive particle size reduction. For dry AD
(operated at higher total solids content than wet AD) the presence of components with larger size
(several centimetres rather than millimetres) is a prerequisite for good performance, because the process
requires a substrate matrix with voids to allow movement of liquids, gas and micro-organisms [19,20].
Particle size reduction in the range of several centimetres is favourable to achieve faster degradation
in dry AD [21,22]; but too small a particle size risks lowered biological activity in the reactor, due to
slumping and compaction of material [19,22,23], with channelling and short-circuiting through the
substrate body [24]. Composting also requires the presence of particles with larger size. While some
particle size reduction is favourable [7], Hamoda et al. [8] observed faster composting at 40 mm
compared to 20 or 30 mm, which was explained by better oxygen access because the larger particles
created bigger voids in the substrate body. Taken together, these observations suggest that, while
particle size reduction is an important element to support biological waste treatment, minimising the
particle size is not the most suitable option for any of the commonly applied bioprocessing schemes
(wet or dry anaerobic digestion, composting).
Particle size reduction of MSW today is standard in MBT; in consequence, the organic-rich fraction
of MSW, when diverted to the bioprocessing step of an MBT scheme, will typically have been exposed
to some such pre-treatment. In practice shredding is most commonly applied in mechanical–biological
waste treatment [22,25], but other processes such as milling are also in frequent use [26]. Hammer
milling of MSW was extensively investigated [27,28] and it was found that the particle size distribution
of the output depended on that of the solid waste fed into the hammermill, as well as its residence
time in the equipment. Problems of plugging were, however, reported for biomass with a moisture
content over 10%–15% [29], and therefore hammer milling was found more suitable for materials
with low moisture such as straw or corn stalks [30,31]. Shredders consume less energy, are robust
in operation and are less destructive than mills [26,29]; shredding typically reduces the particle size
to few centimetres or less. Several researchers report a generally positive impact of shredding on
bioprocessing of MSW [22,25,32], although the impact differs for different types of organic material
such as paper or woody components [33].
Relatively little information is available, however, about the actual particle size distribution
(PSD) obtained after size reduction, and especially on the PSD in the organic-rich fraction destined
for biological treatment, i.e., the occurrence of different particle size ranges in MSW pre-treated for
bioprocessing. Knowing the maximum or the mean particle size, which is commonly reported for
material exposed to particle size reduction, is limited information. No waste particle size reduction
method will deliver an output composed of uniform particles with equal size; instead, pre-treated
waste will contain a variety of particles of different sizes. PSD can be assumed to directly influence
biodegradation patterns, and also the final output. As an example, for MSW compost, higher degrees
of compost maturity were reported for fine fractions, but also higher heavy metal contents; while the
larger fractions were richer in fertilizer content [34,35]. This work emphasises that researching and
understanding the actual PSD in pre-treated solid material merits more efforts to achieve progress
towards more effective bioprocessing schemes.
This study explored particle size distributions in waste after different pre-treatments were applied
to prepare an organic-rich particle size-reduced substrate for subsequent bioprocessing. Actual
Resources 2019, 8, 166 3 of 24
performance of the materials in bioprocessing is reported elsewhere [17], and this work focuses on
studying the presence of particles of different sizes in pre-treated waste. The first part of the study
assessed PSD in pre-treated non source segregated MSW collected from two full-scale MBT plants
operated in the UK, where the pre-treated material serves as input to the bioprocessing. In one case
this consisted of hydraulically shredded MSW with no separation after size reduction; and in the
second case of ball mill processed MSW followed by a mechanical separation pre-treatment. These
two MBT plants represent very different but common types of MBT schemes operated in the UK;
the one implements aerobic bioprocessing of the whole MSW stream after size reduction, while the
second implements AD of the organic-rich fraction only. Experiments with different particle size
reduction equipment and modes of operation were also performed. Shredding was the main interest
of this work, and the focus was on dry shredding with commercial equipment suitable for large-scale
waste processing. Shredding is not suitable to achieve an output that consists primarily of very fine
particles below 5 mm. To achieve finer particles, wet processing was additionally performed using a
macerating grinder, equipment suggested as particularly favourable for such application due to its low
operating costs [36]. A typical household waste stream from an urban UK area, after separation of dry
recyclables and bulky items, was exposed to different particle size reduction schemes and the resulting
PSD patterns were analysed. The study design acknowledges that different bioprocessing schemes
benefit from different particle sizes. The goal, therefore, was not to achieve maximum reduction of
particle sizes, but to better understand the PSD that occurs with different processing.
The remainder of this publication is organised as follows. Section 2 describes the experimental
design and documents material and methods that were used in this study. Section 3 presents and
discusses the results of the experimental work, and with the last subsection includes a discussion about
limitations of this study and further research needs. Section 4 presents the conclusions of this work.
2. Materials and Methods

The experimental work comprised two parts, both aimed at understanding the patterns of PSD
obtained from processing MSW through different types of mechanical size reduction equipment.
The first part of the work assessed outputs from machinery operated at two full-scale MBT plants in
the UK. The second part comprised a series of particle size reduction trials using different types of
equipment, with the aim of identifying a favourable choice of technology and processing. Materials
were analysed for PSD as described in Section 2.1. Waste samples obtained from full-scale MBT plants
are documented in Section 2.2, while the experimental particle size reduction work using different
equipment is described in Sections 2.3 and 2.4.
2.1. Analysis of Particle Size Distribution (PSD)

PSD in the solid waste substrates was analysed using a British Standard test sieve shaker (Endecotts
Ltd., London, UK). The sieve apertures used were 5, 6.7, 13.2, 20 and 37.5 mm (except for Trials 1a–d
described in Section 2.3, where there was no sieve aperture of 13.2 mm but additional sieve apertures
of 10 and 12 mm were used). Sieve diameter was around 70 cm and the vertical separation between
the sieves was approximately 15 cm. Samples of 30 kg were processed (20 kg in Trials 1a–d), and the
test sieve shaker was operated for a 20-min period.
The PSD can be expressed either as the cumulative percent oversize or undersize in relation to the
particle diameters; or as a distribution of the weight present in each of a number of defined size classes.
The latter method was used in this study, with weights expressed as a percentage of the total wet
weight. Unless noted, assessment of contamination levels followed the procedures in PAS 100 [37] and
in guidance from the UK Environment Agency (EA) [38]. These require analysis of size distribution
followed by a physical assessment of the contaminants in each of the particle size fractions >5 mm
(EA Guidance) or >2 mm (PAS 100). This work applied the >5 mm threshold. In accordance with the
EA and PAS 100 specifications, fines below this size were not analysed for contaminants but entirely
Resources 2019, 8, 166 4 of 24
allocated to the organic fraction. The EA Guidance also includes nappies, leather, wood and textiles as
biodegradable organic matter.
For material exposed to extensive particle size reduction through wet processing in a macerating
grinder, an adapted PSD analysis methodology was applied, as described in Section 2.4.
Mean particle size in this study was calculated as the mass mean particle size [39,40], which
represents the mass weighted average of the PSD (Equation (1)):
X X
Mass mean particle size = (mi × xi )/ mi , (1)
where i: size class; mi : mass in size class i and xi : mean particle size in size class i expressed as mean of
sieve apertures at low and high end of size class i.
2.2. Particle-Size-Reduced MSW (Input to Bioprocessing) from Two Full-Scale MBT Plants
Samples of non-source segregated waste were collected from two full-scale MBT plants operating
size reduction equipment. These two plants use very different MBT schemes, and both types are
commonly found in the UK and Europe. Further reasons to select these two sites were that both are
well established and considered representative; waste components have been studied in published
papers [41–43]. Samples were analysed as received (i.e., after pre-treatment at the full-scale plant)
without further pre-treatment. In both cases, the analysed material represents MSW that had undergone
regular pre-treatment at the full-scale plant before being delivered to bioprocessing. The first material
was a hydraulically shredded non-segregated MSW and the second material was a ball mill processed
non-source segregated MSW.
The hydraulically shredded waste sample was collected from Thornley waste transfer station,
Durham, operated by Premier Waste Management Ltd. This site hosted one of the demonstrator plants
in the Defra Waste Implementation Programme (WIP), in which the waste was subsequently treated
by in-vessel aerobic digestion [44]. MSW was first shredded, then composted under forced aeration
and then separated into the various fractions (metals, glass, high-calorific fractions and compost-like
output). The heavy-duty hydraulic shredder used to pre-process this non-segregated waste was a
Super 3G 515X (Shear Technology Ltd., Nottinghamshire, UK) with an electro-hydraulic drive powered
by two 132 kW motors. The shredder has twin shafts with blades turning at different speeds to create
the shredding effect. The shredded waste contained a large proportion of contaminants and of material
greater than the maximum 37.5 mm mesh size used (Figure A1a in Appendix A); these fractions were
manually separated and classified as either inert or organic according to the EA guidance as described in
Section 2.1. PSD size fractions of the whole sample, obtained from sieving (Figure A1b), were assessed
for composition as described above (Section 2.1). The materials of all PSD size-graded fractions were
included in the data on the sample composition in terms of organic matter and physical contaminants.
The sample of ball mill processed waste was collected from Bursom recycling centre, Leicester,
operated by Biffa Plc. At this plant the waste is continuously fed along a conveyor and into a 6.4 m
diameter drum containing a large number of 5.5 kg steel balls. As the drum slowly rotates the balls break
the waste down into small pieces, which pass through 80 mm slots in the drum and are then fed into a
trommel. This separates the material into two fractions of 0–40 mm and 40–80 mm. The 40–80 mm
fraction is passed through a magnetic separator for ferrous metals recovery and then into a ballistic
separator. This separates out plastic, paper and card, which is baled as a refuse-derived fuel (RDF)
and sent to a cement kiln. The inert material goes through an eddy current separator for recovery of
non-ferrous metals and the remainder is sent to landfill. The 0–40 mm fraction (mainly putrescibles)
goes through a flip-flop slotted screen, which removes excess water and then through a 5 mm grid.
The material is then transferred to closed containers and, after a further plastics separation stage at
Wanlip treatment plant, is used as substrate for anaerobic digestion [43,45]. The sample analysed for
PSD (Figure A2a in Appendix A) was taken from containers destined for the Wanlip AD facility. Unlike
Resources 2019, 8, 166 5 of 24
the hydraulically shredded waste from Thornley waste transfer station, the ball mill processed waste
from Bursom recycling centre did not contain significant proportions of large-size contaminants.
Materials were sampled in sufficient quantity to meet the requirement described in Section 2.1
(processed sample size > 30 kg) and were analysed for PSD according to the procedures described in
Section 2.1. For this purpose, as described in Section 2.1, constituents of the studied sample were first
size-graded and then each particle size fraction with >5 mm mesh size was hand sorted to identify the
shares of organic material and non-organic contaminants (glass, plastic, metal and non-combustibles).
Figure A2b (Appendix A) shows an example of hand-sorted fractions of size-graded waste from the
Bursom recycling centre (ball mill processed waste).
2.3. Pilot Scale Particle Size Reduction Studies Using Different Types and Opeartion Modes of Shredders
A single source of residual domestic waste was chosen for the particle size reduction studies.
The waste used was obtained from Otterbourne transfer station (Otterbourne, Hampshire, UK), which
is operated by Veolia Hampshire Ltd. and serves residential kerbside collections from Southampton,
Eastleigh and Winchester. Various aspects of the management of waste from Otterbourne transfer
station have been studied by a number of researchers [46–50]. Hampshire was the location of a
ground-breaking waste management partnership between 13 local authorities and contractor Veolia
Environmental Services; this aimed to provide sustainable integrated waste management for all
domestic waste in the county. Started in 1995, the initiative received widespread praise including the
award of Beacon Council for waste management in 2002 [51–54].
To ensure consistency, whenever possible the waste was obtained in the same week of each month,
on the same day of the week and from the same collection round. This was identified as a round from
the urban Winchester area in which a separate source segregated kerbside collection of dry recyclable
materials was also in operation. The material should therefore have a reduced content of plastic bottles,
newsprint, metal cans and glass, as these are targeted materials for the separate collection. Details
of the collection round sampled each month are given in Table 1. The sampling involved taking a
representative portion of approximately 400 kg of the material discharged from the refuse collection
vehicle (RCV). This was separated from the bulk of the waste using a mechanical shovel and placed
in an open area. A preliminary sort typical of the manual removal of contaminants at a materials
recycling facility (MRF) was carried out to remove obvious bulky non-biodegradable wastes, such as
electrical appliances and construction material residues.
Table 1. Collection details and rejection rates for residual municipal solid waste (MSW) after
secondary sorting.
Net Weight Net Weight of Rejected

MSW Sample Water Proportion
Collection Month of Waste
Discharged Taken for Waste Type Content after
Round 1 Collection Source
from RCV Experiments (%) 2 Laboratory
(tonne) (kg) Sorting (%)
1 November 6640 ca. 400 Winchester Household 46.9 18.7
2 January 4940 ca. 400 Winchester Household 69.6 21.0
3 February 5660 ca. 400 Winchester Household 55.9 31.9
4 March n/a ca. 400 Winchester Household 52.5 30.7
5 April n/a ca. 400 Winchester Household 60.3 27.6
6 July 7100 ca. 400 Winchester Household 43.4 45.1
7 August 6880 ca. 400 Winchester Household 52.3 36.2
8 September 6840 ca. 400 Winchester Household 63.5 39.0
9 November 6460 ca. 400 Winchester Household n/a 25.6
10 December 8960 ca. 400 Winchester Household n/a 24.7
11 January 10,200 ca. 400 Winchester Household n/a 33.5
12 February 8880 ca. 400 Winchester Household n/a 37.1
1 One collection round per month (sampling was generally done in consecutive months, while during 4 single
months no collection could be performed, i.e., the collections span a total period of 16 months). 2 Variations in water
content do not necessarily reflect seasonal effects but rather weather conditions such as rain during collection and
preparation for experiments. No values are reported for the last collections, where water content was determined
only after laboratory sorting, and data therefore might not be comparable.
Resources 2019, 8, 166 6 of 24
After this preliminary sort, a sub-sample of approximately 200 kg was further hand-sorted in the
laboratory to remove non-biological materials such as steel, aluminium, glass and plastics. This left
an enriched organic fraction including paper/cardboard, kitchen waste, garden waste and pet waste.
In a full-scale process these steps would be carried out using automated magnetic or eddy current
separators, trommel screens and densitometric methods in a series of mechanical pre-processing
operations. The percentage rejects in the secondary sorting are shown in Table 1.
The enriched organic fraction obtained from the collection rounds was subjected to different
particle size reduction methods, as described in Table 2, and the size-reduced material was then
analysed for PSD with the sieve shaker according to the procedures described in Section 2.1. Choice of
processing schemes for the later trials in Table 2 was based on observations made during preceding
trials (as discussed in the results section). Promising processing methods were repeated twice to
four times, using material from different collection rounds. As an example, Trials 9b, 10c, 11c and
12c are repetitions, but using materials obtained from different rounds (collection rounds 9, 10, 11
and 12 in Table 1). In some cases, multiple repetitions were carried out as shown in Table 2 because
the trial was actually performed to obtain material for subsequent processing. Due to availability of
machinery, only those trials using the Alko-Kober garden waste shredder were directly performed
by the University of Southampton, while the other shredding operations were carried out by Biogen
Greenfinch Ltd. (Shropshire, UK) under instruction from the University of Southampton.
Three groups of particle size reduction trials were performed (Table 2): (A) Basic assessment of
two types of shredding equipment and identification of a favourable jaw opening range for shear
shredders; (B) assessment of PSD performance of a commercial shredder suitable for large-scale waste
preparation and (C) advanced processing combining different methods to further reduce the proportion
of large particles.
The material from the first two collections (Trials 1a to 2d) was used to assess the particle size
reduction efficiency of two types of shredding equipment. The first type was a rotating shaft shear
shredder (30001-1206-DI Muffin Monster, JWC Environmental, Santa Ana, CA, USA) in which the
space between cutting discs on the shaft could be adjusted; and the second was the garden shredder
type with rotary chopping blades, i.e., a high speed cutter where a feed pusher assists in feeding in
material. Two models of garden waste shredder were used: a household machine (Alko-Kober Limited,
Warwickshire, UK), and a commercial heavy-duty Viking electric garden shredder (Andreas Stihl Ltd.,
Surrey, UK).
Materials from collection rounds 3 to 12 were processed in an Untha commercial shear shredder
(RS404S, Untha Ltd., Karlstadt, Germany) installed on the Defra Demonstrator plant at Ludlow,
Shropshire and operated by Biogen Greenfinch Ltd. The equipment had four counter-rotating shafts
with cutting blades and a 20 mm jaw spacing, and a rejection screen the size of which could be changed.
Material rejected by the screen is recycled through the shredder until it passes (i.e., the maximum
two-dimensional size is the aperture of rejection screen). The equipment can be seen in operation in
Figure A3 (Appendix A).
Materials from collection rounds 9 to 12, after having been processed with the Untha shear
shredder, were subjected to further treatment, with the aim of further reducing the presence of large
particles. The waste was first processed by passing it through the Untha shredder twice, and then the
particle size of the fraction >20 mm was further reduced using the Alko-Kober shredder.
Resources 2019, 8, 166 7 of 24
Table 2. Shredders used for processing each batch in the particle size reduction trials.
Trial 1 Type of Shredder Operator PSD Analysis

Group A of trials: Basic assessment of different types of shredding equipment and identification of favourable range of jaw
opening for shear shredders
1a Shear shredder with 12 mm jaw opening Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 2a
1b Shear shredder with 25 mm jaw opening Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 2b
1c Shear shredder with 50 mm jaw opening Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 2c
1d Heavy-duty garden shredder (Viking) Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 2d
2a Shear shredder with 12 mm jaw opening Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 3a
2b Shear shredder with 25 mm jaw opening Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 3b
2c Heavy-duty garden shredder (Viking) Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 3c
2d Light-duty garden shredder (Alko-Kober) Univ. Southampton Figure 3d
Group B of trials: Application of a commercial shear shredder (Untha with a 20 mm jaw spacing, equipped with an
adjustable rejection screen to recycle material through the shredder until it passes)
3 Commercial shear shredder Untha with a 50 mm reject screen Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 4a
4 Untha with a 50 mm reject screen Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 4b
5a Untha with a 50 mm reject screen Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 4c
5b Double processing through Untha with a 50 mm reject screen Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 4d
6a Untha with an 80 mm reject screen Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 5a
6b Double processing through Untha with an 80 mm reject screen Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 5b
7a Untha with an 80 mm reject screen Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 5c
7b Triple processing through Untha with an 80 mm reject screen Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 5d
8a Untha with an 80 mm reject screen Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 5e
8b Triple processing through Untha with an 80 mm reject screen Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 5f
Group C of trials: Advanced processing combining the commercial Untha shredder (20 mm jaw spacing, adjustable
rejection screen) with the light-duty garden shredder to further reduce the share of large particles
9a Double processing through Untha (20 mm jaw spacing) with Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 6a
an 80 mm reject screen
9b Further processing of the >20 mm fraction of double Univ. of Figure 6b
processed waste from Untha (80 mm reject screen), obtained in Southampton
Trial 9a, using the light-duty garden shredder (Alko-Kober)
10a Untha 20 mm jaw spacing) with an 80 mm reject screen Greenfinch Ltd. Figure A4a
10b Double processing through Untha (20 mm jaw spacing) with Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 6c
an 80 mm reject screen
10c Further processing of the >20 mm fraction of double processed Univ. of Figure 6d
waste from Untha (80 mm reject screen), obtained with Trial Southampton
10b, using the light-duty garden shredder (Alko-Kober)
11a Untha with an 80 mm reject screen Greenfinch Ltd. Figure A4b
11b Double processing through Untha with an 80 mm reject screen Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 6e
11c Further processing of the >20 mm fraction of double processed Univ. of Figure 6f
12a Untha with an 80 mm reject screen Greenfinch Ltd. Figure A4c
12b Double processing through Untha with an 80 mm reject screen Greenfinch Ltd. Figure 6g
12c Further processing of the >20 mm fraction of double processed Univ. of Figure 6h
1 The number indicates the MSW collection round specified in Table 1, i.e., trials with the same number used material
from the same collection round (e.g., Trials 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d used material from collection round 1).
2.4. Wet Processing of Test Material (Maceration)

To produce a fine material with a significantly smaller average particle size than can be achieved
with the mechanical processing schemes described in Section 2.3, a batch of test material was subjected
to wet particle size reduction. Waste that had first been processed through the Untha shredder
was passed through a macerating grinder (S52/010 Waste Disposer, Imperial Machine Company
Ltd., Hertfordshire, UK). This feed preparation technique was designed to simulate the action of
hydro-pulping technology, which has been adapted from the paper industry as a pre-treatment method
for anaerobic processes such as the Linde BTA system (Linde-KCA-Dresden). A similar type of material
could be produced using macerator pumps, although these are probably not as effective in achieving
such a small particle size.
To determine the particle size of the prepared small-size waste it was diluted to give a slurry with
a solids content of approximately 5% (w/v), and then analysed using a wet sieving technique [55].
Resources 2019, 8, 166 8 of 24
This was performed manually using laboratory test sieves (Endecotts Ltd., London, UK) with a
decreasing sequence of apertures (4.75, 3.18, 2, 1, 0.6 and 0.3 mm). The screened undersize material
(particle size <0.3 mm) was collected in two 25-litre containers and then centrifuged to concentrate the
finest particles prior to weight determination. The waste retained on each of the larger mesh size sieves
was rinsed off with water. The centrifugate and the rinse waters were air-dried to a constant weight
allowing the quantity of the macerated waste retained on each sieve to be expressed as a percentage
weight fraction.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Particle Size Distribution Analysis on Materials Obtained from Full-Scale MBT Plants
For materials collected from the two full-scale MBT plants, the proportion classified as either
organic or inert (physical contamination) based on the EA classification (Section 2.1) is shown in
Table 3, as a percentage of the total sample weight. The low contamination in the ball mill processed
waste is a result of the more complex processing scheme at this MBT plant, which included separate
recuperation of different recyclables as described above. Clearly, this delivers a low-contamination
input to the anaerobic digestion process at this site: the organic fraction represented nearly 92% of this
mechanically pre-processed waste stream.
Table 3. Proportions of organic matter and physical contaminants present in pre-treated waste at two
full-scale mechanical–biological treatment (MBT) plants, representing material destined to serve as
feed to the bioprocessing step (% of whole sample).
Fractions Proportion Accountable to Each Fraction (% w/w)

Hydraulically Shredded Waste Ball Mill Processed Waste
(Thornley Waste Transfer Station) (Bursom Recycling Centre)
Organic fraction and fines 59.9 91.97
Physical contaminants
Plastic 18.0 4.34
Metal 5.3 0.16
Glass 4.7 3.08
Non-combustibles 12.2 0.46
Figure 1 presents the results of particle size grading of the collected MBT materials. From Figure 1a
it can be clearly seen that the hydraulic shredding process at Thornley waste transfer station is not
highly effective, with 44% of waste falling into the >37.5 mm fraction. The finer particles (<5 mm)
were thought to be naturally present in the waste, rather than being physically changed as a result
of the action of the cutting blades (an observation also made during later experiments as discussed
below in Section 3.2). Very different results were found for the ball mill processed MSW collected from
Bursom recycling centre. This mechanically pre-processed waste had a mean particle size of 6.0 mm
and more than 99% of the material was less than 13.2 mm (Figure 1b).
Resources 2019, 8, 166 9 of 24
Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 26
(a) (b)
Figure 1. Particle size distribution in pre-treated MSW collected from two full-scale MBT plants,
representing pre-treated
Figure 1. Particle waste destined
size distribution to serve asMSW
in pre-treated inputcollected
to the bioprocessing: (a) Hydraulically
from two full-scale MBT plants,
shredded MSW collected at Thornley waste transfer station, Durham and (b) ball
representing pre-treated waste destined to serve as input to the bioprocessing: (a) mill processed MSW
Hydraulically
collected
shredded at MSW
Bursom recycling
collected at centre, Leicester.
Thornley waste transfer station, Durham and (b) ball mill processed
MSW collected at Bursom recycling centre, Leicester.
The overall process at Bursom recycling centre is thus effective in both sorting and particle size
reduction, based on mechanical processing.
The overall process at Bursom recycling centre is thus effective in both sorting and particle size
reduction, based
3.2. Dry Waste on mechanical
Shredding processing.
to Preliminary Assess Performance of Different Shredders and to Identify a Suitable
Jaw Spacing for Shear Shredders (Trials 1a to 2d)
3.2. Dry Waste Shredding to Preliminary Assess Performance of Different Shredders and to Identify a Suitable
Jaw Figure
Spacing2a–c shows
for Shear the PSD(Trials
Shredders profiles
1a obtained
to 2d) with the two-shaft shear shredder with adjustable
jaw spacing (set to 12 mm in Figure 2a, 25 mm in Figure 2b and 50 mm in Figure 2c). For the 50 mm
spacing Figure 2a–c2c),
(Figure shows the PSD
an almost profiles
linear obtained
gradation with thesize
of particle two-shaft shear shredder
was observed, with adjustable
from particles above
jaw spacing (set to 12 mm in Figure 2a, 25 mm in Figure 2b and 50
37.5 mm (37%) to those between 5–6.7 mm (2%). The finer particles (<5 mm) were thought mm in Figure 2c). For the 50
to mm
be
spacing (Figure 2c), an almost linear gradation of particle size was observed,
naturally present in the waste rather than being physically changed as a result of the action of the from particles above
37.5 mm
cutting (37%) to those between 5–6.7 mm (2%). The finer particles (<5 mm) were thought to be
discs.
naturally
At the present
smaller in jawthe waste rather
openings than
of 12 and 25being physically
mm (Figure 2a,b)changed
there wasasana increase
result ofinthe
theaction of the
percentage
cutting discs.
of materials in the size range 10–37.5 mm and a reduction to approximately 27% in the proportion
At theabove
of particles smaller 37.5jaw
mm.openings of 12 and
The proportions of 25
the mm (Figure
smaller 2a,b) there
size fractions was anabout
remained increase in the
the same,
percentagethe
supporting of materials
view thatin the size
those below range
10 mm10–37.5
weremm and a reduction
naturally present in totheapproximately
waste material 27%
andinnot
the
proportion of particles above 37.5 mm. The proportions of the smaller size fractions
generated as a result of the processing. Reducing the jaw size to less than 12 mm (results not shown) remained about
the same,
proved supporting
ineffective the view
in cutting that
the thoseand
waste below
only10served
mm were naturally present
to compress the damp in the
foodwaste material
component
andballs.
into not generated as a result of the processing. Reducing the jaw size to less than 12 mm (results not
shown) proved
To reduce the ineffective in cutting
apparent particle size ofthe
thewaste
material and only aserved
further, to compress
high speed thewas
rotary cutter damp food
needed:
component
this technology intois balls.
typically employed in green waste cutting machinery and was simulated by the use
To reduce
of garden shredders. the After
apparentuse ofparticle size of the
the heavy-duty material
Viking further,
electric garden a shredder
high speed rotary
(Trial cutter
1d) 27% was
of the
needed: this technology is typically employed in green waste cutting machinery
material was able to pass the smallest mesh size used in the analysis and 60% was able to pass the and was simulated
10bymmthesieve
use of garden
(Figure shredders. After use of the heavy-duty Viking electric garden shredder (Trial
2d).
1d) 27% of the material was able to pass the smallest mesh size used in the analysis and 60% was able
to pass the 10 mm sieve (Figure 2d).
Resources 2019, 8, 166 10 of 24
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 2. Particle size analysis on shredded waste from collection 1: (a) Trial 1a: Shear shredder with a
12Figure
mm jaw2. opening; (b) Trial
Particle size 1b: Shear
analysis shredder
on shredded withfrom
waste a 25 mm jaw opening;
collection (c) Trial
1: (a) Trial 1c: Shear
1a: Shear shredder
shredder with
with a 50 mm jaw opening and (d) Trial 1d: Commercial heavy-duty garden shredder (Viking).
a 12 mm jaw opening; (b) Trial 1b: Shear shredder with a 25 mm jaw opening; (c) Trial 1c: Shear
shredder with a 50 mm jaw opening and (d) Trial 1d: Commercial heavy-duty garden shredder
The results from Trials 2a, 2b and 2c (Figure 3a–c), which used the same equipment as Trials 1a,
(Viking).
1b and 1d to process material from collection round 2, gave a similar pattern, but with less effective
shredding at the 25 mm jaw opening and also less effective shredding with the heavy-duty garden
The results from Trials 2a, 2b and 2c (Figure 3a–c), which used the same equipment as Trials 1a,
shredder.
1b and 1dThe elevatedmaterial
to process water content of the material
from collection round used2, gaveforathese
similartrials (see Table
pattern, 1) isless
but with a potential
effective
explanation for the less effective shredding; however, further research would
shredding at the 25 mm jaw opening and also less effective shredding with the heavy-duty garden be required to understand
implications
shredder. The of humidity.
elevated Thewaterlight-duty
content garden shredderused
of the material (Alko-Kober)
for these used
trialsin(see
Trial 2d was
Table 1) isparticularly
a potential
effective at achieving particle sizes below 20 mm (ca. 70% particles < 20 mm; Figure 3d).
explanation for the less effective shredding; however, further research would be required to
It can be implications
understand concluded that of ahumidity.
shear-typeThe shredder
light-dutyis unsuitable for preparing
garden shredder a high moisture
(Alko-Kober) used incontent
Trial 2d
waste fraction when the jaw size is closed down to less than 12 mm, due to compression
was particularly effective at achieving particle sizes below 20 mm (ca. 70% particles < 20 mm; Figure of the material.
Such
3d). risk of compression of high-moisture biomass during particle size reduction processing was
previously
It cannoted in literature
be concluded that[29]. It can furthermore
a shear-type shredder be is
concluded
unsuitable thatforthepreparing
larger jawa size
high(>25 mm)
moisture
gives verywaste
content little fraction
cutting action
when to thereduce
jaw sizetheisparticle
closed size
down to to
less than
less thanthat12ofmm,
the jaw
due opening, and canof
to compression
only be regarded as providing a rough treatment to cut down objects that
the material. Such risk of compression of high-moisture biomass during particle size reduction are bulky in more than one
plane. The optimum jaw spacing for the shear shredder appeared to be
processing was previously noted in literature [29]. It can furthermore be concluded that the larger between 12.5–25 mm and
when set (>25
jaw size up inmm) thisgives
mannerveryit little
gavecutting
a substantial
action to increase
reducein theparticles
particle insizethetomid rangethat
less than of between
of the jaw
opening, and can only be regarded as providing a rough treatment to cut down objects that are
bulky in more than one plane. The optimum jaw spacing for the shear shredder appeared to be
Resources 2019,
Resources 8, 8,
2019, 166x FOR PEER REVIEW 1111
ofof
2426
between 12.5–25 mm and when set up in this manner it gave a substantial increase in particles in the
10–37.5 mm. For ‘dry’ shredding to a finer particle size, the action of high-speed cutters appears to be a
mid range of between 10–37.5 mm. For ‘dry’ shredding to a finer particle size, the action of
favourable option.
high-speed cutters appears to be a favourable option.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 3. Particle size analysis on shredded waste from collection 2: (a) Trial 2a: Shear shredder with a
12Figure
mm jaw opening;size
3. Particle (b) analysis
Trial 2b: on
Shear shredder
shredded with
waste a 25collection
from mm jaw opening; (c)2a:
2: (a) Trial Trial 2c: shredder
Shear Commercial
with
heavy-duty garden shredder (Viking) and (d) Trial 2d: Light-duty garden shredder
a 12 mm jaw opening; (b) Trial 2b: Shear shredder with a 25 mm jaw opening; (c) Trial 2c: (Alko-Kober).
Commercial heavy-duty garden shredder (Viking) and (d) Trial 2d: Light-duty garden shredder
Based on these findings, a commercial shear shredder with 20 mm jaw spacing (Untha) was
(Alko-Kober).
selected for the subsequent trials, keeping in mind that additional processing would be required to
achieve an average
Based particle
on these size in
findings, the fine or medium
a commercial size range
shear shredder (majority
with 20 mmofjaw
particles
spacing<20(Untha)
mm). was
selected for the subsequent trials, keeping in mind that additional processing would be required to
3.3. Commercial Shredder (Untha) Suitable for Large-Scale Waste Preparation (Trials 3 to 8b)
achieve an average particle size in the fine or medium size range (majority of particles <20 mm).
Three runs were carried out using the Untha shredder (20 mm jaw spacing) equipped with a
503.3.
mm reject screen
Commercial (Trials(Untha)
Shredder 3, 4 andSuitable
5b, using waste fromWaste
for Large-Scale collection rounds(Trials
Preparation 3–5). The
3 to results
8b) from the
sieve analysis are shown in Figure 4a–c. An additional run was carried out in which the post rejection
Three runs were carried out using the Untha shredder (20 mm jaw spacing) equipped with a 50
screen material was processed a second time (equivalent to having two machines in series), as shown in
mm reject screen (Trials 3, 4 and 5b, using waste from collection rounds 3–5). The results from the
Figure 4d. The results show that when operated in a single pass mode the equipment gave a consistent
sieve analysis are shown in Figure 4a–c. An additional run was carried out in which the post
processed material with 70%–80% in the size range 6.7–20 mm and a mean value of 13–14 mm. Again,
rejection screen material was processed a second time (equivalent to having two machines in series),
the proportion in the lower size fraction band is typical of that found in unprocessed waste, but the
as shown in Figure 4d. The results show that when operated in a single pass mode the equipment
fraction above 20 mm was significantly reduced compared to that from the test rig used in the first two
gave a consistent processed material with 70%–80% in the size range 6.7–20 mm and a mean value of
runs, due to the recycling of material from the reject screen. The double processing of the material
13–14 mm. Again, the proportion in the lower size fraction band is typical of that found in
further reduced this larger size fraction to less than 5% (Figure 4d).
unprocessed waste, but the fraction above 20 mm was significantly reduced compared to that from
Resources 2019, 8, 166 12 of 24

the test rig used in the first two runs, due to the recycling of material from the reject screen. The
double processing of the material further reduced this larger size fraction to less than 5% (Figure 4d).
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 4. Particle size analysis on shredded waste using a commercial four-shaft shear shredder (Untha
Ltd.) with 4.
Figure a 50 mm reject
Particle sizescreen: (a) on
analysis Trial 3 (waste waste
shredded from collection
using a round 3); (b) four-shaft
commercial Trial 4 (collection round
shear shredder
4); (Untha
(c) Trial Ltd.)
5a (collection round 5) and (d) Trial 5b: Double shredding of waste from collection
with a 50 mm reject screen: (a) Trial 3 (waste from collection round 3); (b) Trial round 5. 4
(collection round 4); (c) Trial 5a (collection round 5) and (d) Trial 5b: Double shredding of waste from
From Trial 6 (waste collection round 6) onwards, the aperture of the reject screen in the Untha
collection round 5.
shredder was increased to 80 mm and the waste was processed using this screen. When compared
to results withTrial
From the 50 mm reject
6 (waste screen,round
collection there 6)
was a significant
onwards, increaseof
the aperture inthe
thereject
proportion
screenofinparticles
the Untha
the >20 mm
in shredder range as can be seen in Figure 5a,c,e. This observation was confirmed
was increased to 80 mm and the waste was processed using this screen. When compared in later trials to
(Trials 10a,with
results 11a the
and5012a;
mm results
rejectshown
screen,inthere
FigurewasA4a in Appendixincrease
significant B). Double or proportion
in the triple processing of the in
of particles
waste reduced this larger size fraction, as shown in Figure 5b,d,f, resulting in
the >20 mm range as can be seen in Figure 5a,c,e. This observation was confirmed in later trialsa mean particle size of
13–14 mm. Triple processing tended to compress the damp food component, however,
(Trials 10a, 11a and 12a; results shown in Figure B1 in Annex B). Double or triple processing of the and this can be
seen fromreduced
waste the reduced proportion
this larger of material
size fraction, as recovered in the <5
shown in Figure mm size
5b,d,f, range.inItawas
resulting meanconcluded that of
particle size
double processing using the Untha shear shredder with an 80 mm reject screen
13–14 mm. Triple processing tended to compress the damp food component, however, and this gave approximately thecan
same
be size
seendistribution as using the
from the reduced same equipment
proportion of materialin a single
recoveredpass in
modethe with
<5 mma 50 mm
size reject
range.screen
It was
(confirmed in Section 3.5). The commercial Untha equipment installed on the
concluded that double processing using the Untha shear shredder with an 80 mm reject screen gave Defra Demonstrator
plant in Ludlow was
approximately the equipped
same size with an 80 mm
distribution reject screen
as using the same by equipment
decision of in thea operator, and
single pass material
mode with a
was shredded twice with this equipment during subsequent trials.
50 mm reject screen (confirmed in Section 3.5). The commercial Untha equipment installed on the
Defra Demonstrator plant in Ludlow was equipped with an 80 mm reject screen by decision of the
operator, and material was shredded twice with this equipment during subsequent trials.
Resources 2019, 8, 166 13 of 24
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Figure 5. Particle size analysis on shredded waste using a commercial four-shaft shear shredder (Untha
Ltd.) with5.anParticle
Figure 80 mmsize
reject screen:on
analysis (a)shredded
Trial 6a (waste
wastefromusingcollection roundfour-shaft
a commercial 6); (b) Trialshear
6b: Double
shredder
shredding of waste from collection round 6; (c) Trial 7a (waste from collection round
(Untha Ltd.) with an 80 mm reject screen: (a) Trial 6a (waste from collection round 6); (b) Trial 7); (d) Trial 7b:6b:
Triple shredding
Double shreddingof waste from
of waste collection
from round
collection round7; (e) Trial
6; (c) 8a (waste
Trial from
7a (waste collection
from round
collection 8) and
round 7); (d)
(f)Trial
Trial 7b:
8b: Triple
Triple shredding
shredding of waste from collection round 8. 7; (e) Trial 8a (waste from collection round
8) and (f) Trial 8b: Triple shredding of waste from collection round 8.
3.4. Combining the Commercial Shredder (Untha) with Subsequent High-Speed Rotary Chopping (Alko-Kober
Garden Shredder; Trials 9a to 12c)
3.4. Combining the Commercial Shredder (Untha) with Subsequent High-Speed Rotary Chopping (Alko-Kober
The results
Garden ofTrials
Shredder; Trials9a
9atoto12c)
12c, aiming to further reduce the particle sizes to smaller ranges by
applying different technologies in series, are shown in Figure 6.
The results of Trials 9a to 12c, aiming to further reduce the particle sizes to smaller ranges by
applying different technologies in series, are shown in Figure 6.
Resources 2019, 8, 166 14 of 24
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
(g) (h)
Figure 6. Particle size analysis on shredded waste after using in series a commercial four-shaft shear
Figure(Untha
shredder 6. Particle sizeand
Ltd.) analysis on shredded
a garden shredderwaste after using(a)
(Alko-Kober): inTrial
series9aa (Untha-shredded
commercial four-shaft wasteshear
from
shredder
collection (Untha
round Ltd.)
9); (b) and9b
Trial a garden shredder (Alko-Kober):
(Untha-shredded (a) Trial 9a (Untha-shredded
plus Alko-Kober-shredded); waste fromto
(c) Trial 10b (repetition
collection
Trial round
9a); (d) Trial 9);(repetition
10c (b) Trial 9bto
(Untha-shredded plus
Trial 9b); (e) Trial 11bAlko-Kober-shredded);
(repetition to Trial 9a);(c)(f)Trial
Trial10b
11c(repetition
(repetition
to Trial 9b); (g) Trial 12b (repetition to Trial 9a); and (h) Trial 12c (repetition to Trial 9b).
Resources 2019, 8, 166 15 of 24
While some presence of larger particles is favourable in composting and dry anaerobic digestion,
wet digestion generally benefits from smaller sized material. To further reduce the average particle
size obtained with mechanical pre-treatment, material from the commercial Untha shredder was
additionally processed with the light-duty garden shredder (Alko-Kober). This was applied to four
batches, namely material from the last four collection rounds (9–12). Waste was processed by passing
it through the Untha shredder twice, and the particle size of the fraction >20 mm was subsequently
further reduced using the Alko-Kober shredder. The results of Trials 9a to 12c, aiming to further
reduce the particle sizes to smaller ranges by applying different technologies in series, are shown in
Figure 6. Four repetitions of the same approach, but using waste from other collection rounds are
visualised: Figure 6a,c,e,g represent repetitions of sending the waste twice through the commercial
Untha shredder, while in Figure 6b,d,f,h the waste was first passed twice through the Untha shredder
and then additionally through the Also-Kober equipment.
This combined treatment using the Untha and Alko-Kober shredders in series achieved an output
where all particles were below 20 mm and the mean particle size was 10 mm in all four batches
(Figure 6b,d,f,h). The mean particle size of 10 mm is significantly below that of waste that had been
shredded only with the Untha equipment. Shredding the material once produced a waste where
around 30% of particles were >20 mm and the mean particle size was 15–17 mm (PSD of three batches
shown in Figure A4, Appendix B). Double shredding with the Untha equipment (Figure 6a,c,e,g)
generated a mean particle size of 13–14 mm.
3.5. Mean Values across the Different Trials Using the Commercial Shredder (Trials 3 to 12c)
Mean values of trials where the same processing was applied to waste are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Summary of results from trials using the commercial Untha shredder, showing average values
(mean and standard deviation) from trials with the same processing (n: number of trials).
Proportion of Fractions (% w/w) Mean Particle

Processing n
<5 mm 5–6.7 mm 6.7–10 mm 10–20 mm >20 mm Size (mm) 1
(A) Mean values of trials using single processing (waste passed through equipment once)
Untha with 50 mm
3 3.6 ± 1.3 9.3 ± 2.2 29.2 ± 3.6 44.1 ± 1.2 13.4 ± 0.9 13.7 ± 0.3
reject screen
Untha with 80 mm
6 4.3 ± 2.4 8.9 ± 2.7 24.8 ± 5.1 32.4 ± 4.3 29.7 ± 6.9 16.7 ± 1.6
reject screen
(B) Mean values of trials using multiple processing in series (double or triple shredding)
Untha, 50 mm reject,
1 6.1 ± n/a 8.3 ± n/a 37.3 ± n/a 43.6 ± n/a 4.7 ± n/a 11.6 ± n/a
double shredding
5 5.5 ± 2.1 12.0 ± 3.0 32.2 ± 6.0 34.5 ± 6.6 15.8 ± 4.1 13.4 ± 1.1
double shredding
2 2.3 ± 1.1 6.1 ± 0.9 30.8 ± 1.2 48.5 ± 4.0 12.4 ± 4.8 13.8 ± 0.8
triple shredding
double shredding + 4 7.5 ± 0.5 15.7 ± 2.0 38.6 ± 2.9 38.2 ± 4.3 0.0 10.1 ± 0.3
Alko-Kober shredding
1 Mass mean particle size [39,40] (mass weighted average of the particle size distribution).
Shredding the waste once with the commercial Untha shredder equipped with an 80 mm reject
screen achieved an average particle size of 17 mm and a relatively high proportion (30%) of larger
particles (>20 mm). Shredding the waste twice with this equipment or using a 50 mm reject instead
reduced the mean particle size to 13–14 mm and the proportion of larger particles (>20 mm) to
ca. 15%, while the proportion of very fine particles (<5 mm) was 4%–6%. For triple shredding,
as explained above, the very low proportion of fine particles was due to compression of damp
components with agglomeration into larger particles. While in wet digestion this might not affect
process performance, because agglomerated particles may re-suspend into the stirred liquid reactor
contents, such compressed material is of concern in dry digestion or composting [8,19,24]. No such
Resources 2019, 8, 166 16 of 24
compression was observed when waste was first shredded twice with the Untha shredder and then
passed through the Alko-Kober light-duty garden shredder, achieving an average particle size of
10 mm.
A high reproducibility of treatment output (indicated by a low standard deviation across batches)
would improve predictability of PSD patterns and of average particle size. It was expected that
multiple processing, using several types of equipment or processes in series, would reduce output
variations across batches and thus increase the predictability of treatment output. However, compared
to single processing, lower standard deviations were only partially found for trials where waste had
been exposed to multiple processing. For the experiments using the Untha shredder with an 80 mm
reject screen, PSD pattern variation across batches was indeed lower after triple shredding (either
triple shredding with the Untha machinery or double shredding with the Untha plus shredding with
Alko-Kober); but this was not the case after double shredding. The lowest variation (lowest standard
deviation) was found for single processing using the Untha shredder with a 50 mm reject screen.
This suggests that, while multiple processing might in some cases improve reproducibility of results
and therefore the predictability of outcome, such increased output predictability cannot generally be
expected for schemes that use several types of equipment in series compared to schemes with just
one machinery.
3.6. Further Observations from the ‘Dry’ Mechanical Treatments Using Shredding Equipment (Trials 1 to 12c)
When using the shredder equipment, particles larger than the jaw opening of the shredders were
found in the PSD analysis. This is due to the functioning principle of shear shredders and to the nature
of the material itself, which is not uniform in all dimensions. The shearing action tears or cuts the
materials, but thin flexible items may slip through the gaps between the knives [26,29]. Another factor
is the method of analysis used. For example, paper can pass through the shredder as torn strands,
which on a sieve analysis lie flat against the mesh of the sieve. This was an unavoidable limitation
in the analytical method, despite the use of British Standard equipment. The results from different
samples can still be compared, however, provided that these are processed in the same manner.
It was expected that studying the different ‘dry’ mechanical treatments applied to the organically
enriched MSW in Trials 1 to 12c would allow identification of a processing that could be used to generate
a waste composed of particles primarily in a medium size range between 10 and 20 mm, with particles
in other size ranges more or less absent. A waste with such purposely-tailored PSD can be expected to
show favourable performance in composting and dry anaerobic digestion, where some particle size
reduction is beneficial, but the presence of fine particles is unwanted due to the risk of inhibition of the
biological degradation. In practice, however, such tailored processing to a ‘medium-sized’ material
was not possible. PSD of each treatment revealed the presence of a significant proportion of fine
particles, with even the smallest fraction (<5 mm) making up to 10% of total weight. This is explained
by the fact that even before shredding the waste already had an inherent component of smaller particle
sizes. Presence of such small particles in MSW was previously reported in literature [56,57].
Some PSD profiles suggest a certain level of symmetry; PSD in waste that was shredded twice
with the commercial rotating shaft shear shredder (Untha equipment) was close to a bell-shaped
curve (Figure 6a,c,e,g). However, such symmetric particle distribution was not generally observed.
Some trials rather showed a near-linear gradation of particle sizes (e.g., Figure 6b,d,f,h). In other
trials no distinct PSD pattern occurred. These findings highlight that symmetry in the PSD cannot be
assumed in the shredded organic fraction of MSW, which implies that knowledge of a mean particle
size will not allow estimation of the actual distribution of particle sizes.
What can be concluded, however, is that processing the organic fraction of MSW with a rotating
shaft shear shredder, which is the common type of shredding equipment in MBT, produces a PSD
pattern with a maximum of particles close to the shredder’s jaw spacing (20 mm in this work); but also
with significant amounts of smaller and larger particles. In contrast, the high speed rotary cutter
(garden shredder), which is common in green waste treatment but not in MBT, was more effective at
3.7. Wet Processing of Test Material with the Macerating Grinder
The results of the wet processing using the macerating grinder are shown in Figure 7. The mean
particle size of wet processed material was 1.7 mm, with a substantial percentage (33%) being less
than 0.3 mm. These results confirm that wet processing of MSW using a macerating grinder is17very
Resources 2019, 8, 166 of 24
effective in terms of particle size reduction. Less than 10% of material belonged to the particle size
range >5 mm. However, such extensive particle size reduction might not be beneficial to improve
reducing larger
performance ofparticles, and the
the material resulting
during PSD profilesNotably,
bioprocessing. showed withlittle similarity
such fine tomaterial
those from
thererotating
is an
shaft shear shredders. Clearly, garden shredders cannot be used to simulate
increased risk of foaming during wet anaerobic digestion [17]. Gunaseelan [11] also reported no rotating shaft shear
shredding indigestion
significant MBT. benefit from such an extensive size reduction. For dry digestion and
composting, which require a substrate matrix with voids between the solid particles [8,19,24], such
3.7. Wet Processing
pre-treatment of Test Material
is generally with the Macerating Grinder
not suitable.
The results
volatileofsolids (VS)
the wet content ofusing
processing each the
fraction of the macerated
macerating grinder arewasteshownwas measured
in Figure and
7. The this
mean
revealed that the smaller particle sizes had a higher ash content, indicating that
particle size of wet processed material was 1.7 mm, with a substantial percentage (33%) being less than a proportion of these
could
0.3 mm.beThese
soil results
or similar material.
confirm that wet This supports
processing the earlier
of MSW using aobservation that MSW
macerating grinder contains
is very effective a
in terms of particle size reduction. Less than 10% of material belonged to the particle size range >5 mm.
substantial inherent fraction of small-size particles (usually around 5% and up to 10% w/w of <5 mm
in the earlier
However, such trials of thisparticle
extensive study) size
and reduction
suggests that
mightthis fraction
not incorporates
be beneficial to improvea significant amount
performance of
of the
inert material.
material duringItbioprocessing.
has previously been reported
Notably, with suchthatfine the fine fraction
material there is an of increased
MSW contains
risk of elevated
foaming
proportions of inert materials
during wet anaerobic digestionsuch
[17].asGunaseelan
sand [56]. The[11]presence of sand
also reported noand similar digestion
significant inert materials
benefitis
unfavourable in bioprocessing,
from such an extensive since itFor
size reduction. causes abrasion of
dry digestion andtechnical
composting,equipment, reduceda operating
which require substrate
reactor volume
matrix with voids asbetween
result oftheaccumulating inert
solid particles fractions
[8,19,24], such(inpre-treatment
particular in iswet anaerobic
generally not digestion)
suitable.
and a need for regular removal of such material from the reactor [58].
Figure 7. Particle size distribution of wet processed waste and volatile solids content of each particle
Figure 7. Particle size distribution of wet processed waste and volatile solids content of each particle
size fraction.
size fraction.
The volatile solids (VS) content of each fraction of the macerated waste was measured and this
3.8. Specific
revealed that Value and Limitations
the smaller particleofsizes
the Study
had a higher ash content, indicating that a proportion of these
couldThis
be soil or similar
study material.
explored This supports
the performance of the earlierparticle
different observation
size that MSW contains
reduction processesa substantial
applied to
inherent fraction of small-size particles (usually around 5% and up to 10% w/w of
MSW fractions, under the lens of understanding the resulting PSD patterns. The results contribute <5 mm in the
to
earlier trials
closing of this
the gap study) andaround
of knowledge suggestsPSD that this fractionwaste.
in pre-treated incorporates a significant
The information amount
obtained is ofofuse
inert
in
material. It has previously been reported that the fine fraction of MSW contains elevated proportions
of inert materials such as sand [56]. The presence of sand and similar inert materials is unfavourable in
bioprocessing, since it causes abrasion of technical equipment, reduced operating reactor volume as
result of accumulating inert fractions (in particular in wet anaerobic digestion) and a need for regular
removal of such material from the reactor [58].
3.8. Specific Value and Limitations of the Study

This study explored the performance of different particle size reduction processes applied to
MSW fractions, under the lens of understanding the resulting PSD patterns. The results contribute to
closing the gap of knowledge around PSD in pre-treated waste. The information obtained is of use in
evaluating the suitability of technologies for the pre-treatment of material destined for different types
of bioprocessing (composting and anaerobic digestion).
The results remain preliminary, in so far as testing was done with MSW from one UK urban region
only. The waste was collected from the same transfer station and round in 12 different months, but there
Resources 2019, 8, 166 18 of 24
was no comparison to MSW from other regions. While several repetitions were performed for many of
the processing schemes studied, some testing was done once only, such as the wet processing using the
macerating grinder. Although this does not limit the informative value of results in answering the
defined research questions, a more complex study design, based on a higher number of waste samples
and including waste from different regions, would be required to allow statistically supported final
conclusions about particle size distributions in pre-treated organic wastes. In addition, more complex
studies should compare the outputs of commercial equipment from different manufacturers. The results
of this work suggest that caution is needed in generalising observations. The organic fraction of MSW
is composed of various types of materials, including food waste, paper, wood or textiles, which might
all show different performance under specific pre-treatments, and especially as constituents of damp
mixtures. Performance of individual constituents of organic waste was not studied in this work.
Observations made during the different trials suggest that the shape of particles is a relevant
factor (see Section 3.6), which was not studied in detail in this work. Therefore, future research should
explore the actual shape of particles. Finally, energy consumption of equipment was not monitored,
but would need to be considered when evaluating overall efficiency of pre-treatment schemes.
4. Conclusions
Assessment of the particle size distribution (PSD) in the output from mechanical size reduction
equipment operated at two full-scale MBT plants, i.e., PSD in pre-treated municipal solid waste (MSW)
that serves as the input to bioprocessing at these MBT sites, revealed two major points of interest:
• The hydraulic shredder used at the Thornley waste transfer station, Durham, was not effective in
reducing the particle size of the waste stream as delivered.
• The ball mill and mechanical pre-treatment used at the Burson plant, Leicester, was very effective
in producing a fine graded material suitable as a feedstock for bioprocessing.
From the experimental work of this study, which consisted of using different particle size reduction
equipment and modes of operation to pre-treat MSW destined for bioprocessing, the following
conclusions are drawn:
• MSW (domestic waste collected from Otterbourne transfer station) was shown to have a substantial
fraction of small size particles inherent in the material without any pre-treatment.
• Shear-type shredders appeared to be unsuitable for preparing a high moisture content waste
fraction at a small jaw opening size (below 12 mm), as compression forms the material into balls.
A jaw opening around 20 mm was found favourable to process the organic fraction of MSW.
• Shear shredders can be used effectively to reduce the particle size of material larger than the jaw
spacing and/or reject screen aperture, but the output still contains particles that are larger than the
jaw spacing.
• The particle size distribution can be influenced by changing jaw spacing, screen aperture and/or
number of passes through the shredder but this affects the mid-range rather than the smaller sizes
which pass through the shredder without change.
• The reject screen aperture of shear shredders in combination with the jaw opening is important in
determining the upper size limit, but cannot be used to ‘grade’ the waste material: PSD in treated
organic waste spans across multiple size ranges.
• High-speed cutters appeared to be effective in reducing the particle size of larger dry fractions of
the waste material.
• The wet grinder (macerator) was very effective in producing a homogeneous material of particle
size less than 5 mm with a mean of 1.7 mm; however, such extensive particle size reduction might
not be favourable during subsequent bioprocessing.
While several particle size reduction technologies and schemes were shown to be effective in
reducing the mean particle size, it was also revealed that variations exist across actual particle size
particle size less than 5 mm with a mean of 1.7 mm; however, such extensive particle size
reduction might not be favourable during subsequent bioprocessing.
While several particle size reduction technologies and schemes were shown to be effective in
reducing the mean particle size, it was also revealed that variations exist across actual particle
Resources 2019, 8, 166
size
19 of 24
distribution patterns. At the same time, different bioprocessing schemes benefit from different
particle sizes. Therefore, choice in favour of a pre-treatment scheme must be made under
distribution
consideration patterns. At the same time,
of the bioprocessing different
scheme bioprocessing
in scope. The results schemes benefitfacilitate
of this work from different particle
the selection of
sizes. Therefore, choice in favour of a pre-treatment scheme must be made
an MSW pre-treatment scheme that supports best performance of the organic material duringunder consideration of the
bioprocessing
bioprocessing. scheme
Further in research
scope. The results of to
is required this workthe
reveal facilitate the selection
performance of an MSW
of different waste pre-treatment
constituents
scheme
during that supports
particle sizebest performance
reduction, i.e., of
thetheresulting
organic material during bioprocessing.
component-specific Further
particle size research
distribution
ispatterns.
requiredThere
to reveal the performance of different waste constituents during particle size
is also a need to extend the study to commercially available equipment from other reduction, i.e.,
the resulting component-specific
manufacturers, in order to betterparticle size distribution
understand patterns.
to what degree There
particle is also
size a need topatterns
distribution extend theare
study to commercially
not only replicable butavailable equipment from other manufacturers, in order to better understand to
also transferable.
what degree particle size distribution patterns are not only replicable but also transferable.
Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, S.H. and Y.Z.; methodology, S.H. and Y.Z.; formal analysis, Y.Z.,
S.K.-B. Contributions:
Author and S.G.; investigation, Y.Z.; resources,
Conceptualisation, S.H.;
S.H. and Y.Z.;data curation, Y.Z.;
methodology, writing—original
S.H. and draft preparation,
Y.Z.; formal analysis, Y.Z., S.K.-B.
Y.Z., S.H., S.K.-B. and S.G.; writing—review and editing, S.K.-B., S.G., S.H. and Y.Z.; visualisation,
and S.G.; investigation, Y.Z.; resources, S.H.; data curation, Y.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.Z., Y.Z.S.H.,
and
S.K.-B.;and
S.K.-B. project
S.G.;administration,
writing—review Y.Z.;
andsupervision, S.H.S.G., S.H. and Y.Z.; visualisation, Y.Z. and S.K.-B.; project
editing, S.K.-B.,
administration, Y.Z.; supervision, S.H.
Funding: This work was carried out with funding from the Defra Technologies Research and Innovation Fund
Funding: This work
(TRIF). Shiyan wassupported
Gu was carried outbywith funding
a China from theCouncil
Scholarship Defra Technologies Research
Visiting Scholar and Innovation Fund
Fellowship.
(TRIF). Shiyan Gu was supported by a China Scholarship Council Visiting Scholar Fellowship.
Acknowledgments: The
Acknowledgments: The authors
authorswould
wouldparticularly
particularly like to acknowledge
like to acknowledge the the
staff staff
of Greenfinch Ltd. (now
of Greenfinch Ltd.
BiogenGreenfinch) for their support and assistance.
(now BiogenGreenfinch) for their support and assistance.
ConflictsofofInterest:
Conflicts Interest:The
Theauthors
authorsdeclare
declareno
noconflict
conflictofofinterest.
interest.The
Thefunders
fundershad
hadno
norole
rolein
inthe
thedesign
designofofthe
the
study;
study;ininthe
thecollection,
collection,analyses,
analyses,or
orinterpretation
interpretationofofdata;
data;ininthe
thewriting
writingof
ofthe
themanuscript,
manuscript,or
orininthe
thedecision
decisiontoto
publish
publishthetheresults.
results.
Appendix A
Appendix A
(a)
(b)
Figure A1. Size-graded organic waste and contaminants in the waste from Thornley waste transfer
station, Durham: (a) Composite components greater than 37.5 mm mesh size, manually separated (as
labelled) and (b) size fractions (in mm) as recovered after the particle size analysis (as labelled).
Resources
Resources 2019,
2019, 8, x8,FOR
x FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 2121
of of
26 26
Figure
Figure A1.A1. Size-graded
Size-graded organicwaste
organic wasteand
andcontaminants
contaminants in
in the
the waste
waste from
from Thornley
Thornleywaste
wastetransfer
transfer
station,
station, Durham:(a) Composite components greater than 37.5 mm mesh size, manually separated(as(as
(a) Composite components greater than 37.5 mm mesh size, manually separated
Resources 2019, Durham:
8, 166 20 of 24
Glass
Glass Plastic
Plastic
Rubble Metal Organic fraction

Rubble Metal Organic fraction
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure A2.A2.MBT
Figure MBTmaterial
materialfrom
fromBursom
Bursom recycling
recycling centre,
centre, Leicester:
Leicester: (a)(a) Non
Non source-segregated
source-segregated
mechanically
mechanically pre-treated MSW
pre-treated MSW (ball mill
(ball processed
mill waste)
processed as
waste) received
as from
received the
from
Figure A2. MBT material from Bursom recycling centre, Leicester: (a) Non source-segregated recycling
the centre,
recycling before
centre,
it before
would beit would
sent to be sent
Wanlip to
forWanlip
further for further
processing processing
as feed for as
thefeed for
anaerobicthe anaerobic
digester
mechanically pre-treated MSW (ball mill processed waste) as received from the recycling centre, anddigester
(b) and (b)
hand-sorted
hand-sorted
fractions of sizefractions
graded of size(6.7–13.2
waste graded waste
mm (6.7–13.2size).
particle mm particle size).
before it would be sent to Wanlip for further processing as feed for the anaerobic digester and (b)
hand-sorted fractions of size graded waste (6.7–13.2 mm particle size).
Figure A3. Operation of the Untha shear shredder at the Biocycle plant, Ludlow (photos illustrate the
Figure
feeding A3. Operation
mechanism, the of the cutters
shaft Untha shear shredder
and the at thematerial
processed Biocycleleaving
plant, Ludlow
via the(photos illustrate the
conveyor).
feeding mechanism, the shaft cutters and the processed material leaving via the conveyor).
Figure A3. Operation of the Untha shear shredder at the Biocycle plant, Ludlow (photos illustrate the
feeding mechanism, the shaft cutters and the processed material leaving via the conveyor).
Resources 2019, 8, 166 21 of 24

Appendix B
Appendix B
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure
Figure A4. Particle size analysis on shredded waste using a commercial
B1. Particle commercial four-shaft
four-shaft shear
shear shredder
shredder
(Untha
(Untha Ltd.)
Ltd.) with an 80 mm reject screen: (a) Trial 10a (waste from collection round 10); (b) Trial
Trial 11a
11a
(collection
(collection round
round 11)
11) and
and (c)
(c) Trial
Trial12a
12a(collection
(collectionround
round12).
12).
References
References
1.
1. Malinauskaite,
Malinauskaite, J.; J.; Jouhara,
Jouhara, H.;H.; Czajczynska,
Czajczynska,D.; D.;Stanchev,
Stanchev,P.;P.;Katsou,
Katsou,E.;E.;Rostkowski,
Rostkowski, P.;P.;
Thorne,
Thorne,R.J.; Colon,
R.J.; J.;
Colon,
Ponsa, S.; S.;
J.; Ponsa, Al-Mansour,
Al-Mansour, F.; et
F.;al.
et Municipal
al. Municipalsolid waste
solid management
waste managementand andwaste-to-energy
waste-to-energy in the
incontext of a
the context
circular economy
of a circular economyand energy
and energyrecycling in Europe.
recycling Energy
in Europe. 141, 128.
2017,2017,
Energy [CrossRef]
141, 128.
2.
2. Lee, P.; Sims, E.; Bertham, O.; Symington, H.; Bell, N.; Pfaltzgraff,
Lee, P.; Sims, E.; Bertham, O.; Symington, H.; Bell, N.; Pfaltzgraff, L.; Sjögren, P.; L.; Sjögren, P.; Wilts,
Wilts, H.;
H.; O’Brien,
O’Brien, M.M.
Towards
Towardsa aCircular
Circular Economy—Waste
Economy—Waste Management
Management in theinEU;
theEuropean Parliamentary
EU; European ResearchResearch
Parliamentary Service: Brussels,
Service:
Belgium,
Brussels, 2017.
Belgium, 2017.
3.
3. Tolvik
Tolvik Consulting.
Consulting. 20172017 Briefing Report:Mechanical
Briefing Report: Mechanical Biological
Biological Treatment—15
Treatment—15 YearsYears
of UK ofExperience;
UK Experience.
2017.
2017. Available
Available online: https://www.tolvik.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Tolvik-2017-Briefing-Report- online:
Mechanical-Biological-Treatment.pdf (accessed on 6 October 2019).
https://www.tolvik.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Tolvik-2017-Briefing-Report-Mechanical-Biological-
4. Panigrahi,
Treatment.pdf S.; Dubey,
(accessedB.K.on A 6critical
Octoberreview
2019).on operating parameters and strategies to improve the biogas
4. yield from anaerobic digestion of
Panigrahi, S.; Dubey, B.K. A critical revieworganic fraction of municipal
on operating and Renew.
solid waste.
parameters Energy
strategies 2019, 143,
to improve the779–797.
biogas
[CrossRef]
yield from anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Renew. Energy 2019, 143, 779–797.
5.
5. Hartmann,
Hartmann, H.; H.; Ahring,
Ahring, B.K.
B.K. Strategies
Strategies for
for the
the anaerobic
anaerobic digestion
digestion of
of the
the organic
organic fraction
fraction ofof municipal
municipal solid
solid
waste:
waste: An overview. Water
An overview. Water Sci. Technol. 2006,
Sci. Technol. 2006, 53,
53, 7–22.
7–22. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.
6. Yadvika;
Yadvika; Santosh;
Santosh; Sreekrishnan,
Sreekrishnan, T.R.; T.R.; Kohli,
Kohli, S.;
S.; Rana,
Rana, V. V. Enhancement
Enhancement of of biogas
biogas production
production fromfrom solid
solid
substrates using different techniques—A review. Bioresour. Technol.
substrates using different techniques—A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2004, 95, 1–10. 2004, 95, 1–10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Reyes-Torres, M.; Oviedo-Ocana, E.R.; Dominguez, I.; Komilis, D.; Sánchez, A. A systematic review on the
composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization strategies. Waste Manag. 2018, 77, 486–499.
8. Hamoda, M.F.; Abu Qdais, H.A.; Newham, J. Evaluation of municipal solid waste composting kinetics.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1998, 23, 209–223.
Resources 2019, 8, 166 22 of 24
7. Reyes-Torres, M.; Oviedo-Ocana, E.R.; Dominguez, I.; Komilis, D.; Sánchez, A. A systematic review on the
composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization strategies. Waste Manag. 2018, 77, 486–499.
[CrossRef]
8. Hamoda, M.F.; Abu Qdais, H.A.; Newham, J. Evaluation of municipal solid waste composting kinetics.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1998, 23, 209–223. [CrossRef]
9. Dahunsi, S.O. Mechanical pretreatment of lignocelluloses for enhanced biogas production: Methane yield
prediction from biomass structural components. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 280, 18–26. [CrossRef]
10. Karthikeyan, P.O.; Trably, E.; Mehariya, S.; Bernet, N.; Wong, J.W.C.; Carrere, H. Pretreatment of food waste
for methane and hydrogen recovery: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 249, 1025–1039. [CrossRef]
11. Gunaseelan, V.N. Anaerobic digestion of biomass for methane production: A review. Biomass Bioenergy 1997,
13, 83–114. [CrossRef]
12. Mason, P.M.; Stuckey, D.C. Biofilms, bubbles and boundary layers–A new approach to understanding
cellulolysis in anaerobic and ruminant digestion. Water Res. 2016, 104, 93–100. [CrossRef]
13. Hernadez-Beltran, J.U.; Hernández-De Lira, I.O.; Cruz-Santos, M.M.; Saucedo-Luevanos, A.;
Hernández-Terán, F.; Balagurusamy, N. Insight into pretreatment methods of lignocellulosic biomass
to increase biogas yield: Current state, challenges, and opportunities. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3721. [CrossRef]
14. Martinez, E.J.; Rosas, J.G.; Moran, A.; Gomez, X. Effect of ultrasound pretreatment on sludge digestion and
dewatering characteristics: Application of particle size analysis. Water 2015, 7, 6483–6495. [CrossRef]
15. Sanders, W.T.M.; Geerink, M.; Zeeman, G.; Lettinga, G. Anaerobic hydrolysis kinetics of particulate substrates.
Water Sci. Technol. 2000, 41, 17–24. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Sharma, S.K.; Mishra, I.M.; Sharma, M.P.; Saini, J.S. Effect of particle size on biogas generation from biomass
residues. Biomass 1988, 17, 251–263. [CrossRef]
17. Zhang, Y.; Banks, C.J. Impact of different particle size distributions on anaerobic digestion of the organic
fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 297–307. [CrossRef]
18. Izumi, K.; Okishio, Y.-K.; Nagao, N.; Niwa, C.; Yamamoto, S.; Toda, T. Effects of particle size on anaerobic
digestion of food waste. Int. Biodeter. Biodegr. 2010, 64, 601–608. [CrossRef]
19. Kusch, S. Methanisierung Stapelbarer Biomassen in Diskontinuierlich Betriebenen Feststofffermentationsanlagen;
Utz Verlag: Munich, Germany, 2007.
20. Martin, D.J. Mass transfer limitations in solid-state digestion. Biotechnol. Lett. 1999, 21, 809–814. [CrossRef]
21. Kusch, S.; Oechsner, H.; Jungbluth, T. Biogas production with horse dung in solid-phase digestion systems.
Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 99, 1280–1292. [CrossRef]
22. Sponza, D.T.; Agdag, O.N. Effects of shredding of wastes on the treatment of municipal solid wastes (MSWs)
in simulated anaerobic recycled reactors. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2005, 36, 25–33. [CrossRef]
23. Vandevivere, P.; De Baere, L.; Verstrate, W. Types of anaerobic digester for solid wastes. In Biomethanisation
of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Wastes; Mata-Alvarez, J., Ed.; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2003;
pp. 111–140.
24. Ten Brummeler, E. Full scale experience with the Biocel-process. In Proceedings of the 2nd International
Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste, Barcelona, Spain, 15–17 June 1999; Volume 1, pp. 308–314.
25. Di Lonardo, M.C.; Lombardi, F.; Gavasci, R. Characterization of MBT plants input and outputs: A review.
Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2012, 11, 353–363. [CrossRef]
26. Bardos, P. Composting of Mechanically Segregated Fractions of Municipal Solid Waste—A Review; SITA
Environmental Trust Project; r3 Environmental Technology Limited: Hertfordshire, UK, 2004. Available
online: http://www.compostinfo.info/content/SET%20Critical%20Review%20MSW%20Composting.pdf
(accessed on 18 August 2019).
27. Shiflett, G.R.; Trezek, G.J. Parameters governing refuse comminution. Resour. Recovery Conserv. 1979, 4,
31–42. [CrossRef]
28. Trezek, G.J. Significance of Size Reduction in Solid Waste Management; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1977.
29. Kratky, L.; Jirout, T. Biomass Size Reduction Machines for Enhancing Biogas Production. Chem. Eng. Technol.
2011, 34, 391–399. [CrossRef]
30. Moiceanu, G.; Paraschiv, G.; Voicu, G.; Dinca, M.; Negoita, O.; Chitoiu, M.; Tudor, P. Energy Consumption at
Size Reduction of Lignocellulose Biomass for Bioenergy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2477. [CrossRef]
Resources 2019, 8, 166 23 of 24
31. Mani, S.; Tabil, L.G.; Sokhansanj, S. Grinding performance and physical properties of wheat and barley
straws, corn stover and switchgrass. Biomass Bioenergy 2004, 27, 339–352. [CrossRef]
32. Lornage, R.; Redon, E.; Lagier, T.; Hébé, I.; Carré, J. Performance of a low cost MBT prior to landfilling:
Study of the biological treatment of size reduced MSW without mechanical sorting. Waste Manag. 2007, 27,
33. Krause, M.J.; Chickering, G.W.; Townsend, T.G.; Pullammanappallil, P. Effects of temperature and particle
size on the biochemical methane potential of municipal solid waste components. Waste Manag. 2018, 71,
34. Zhao, S.; Liu, X.; Duo, L. Physical and chemical characterization of municipal solid waste compost in different
particle size fractions. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2012, 21, 509–515.
35. Lopez, R.; Hurtado, M.D.; Cabrera, F. Compost properties related to particle size. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ.
2002, 56, 509–516.
36. Hartmann, H.; Angelidaki, I.; Ahring, B.K. Increase of anaerobic degradation of particulate organic matter in
full-scale biogas plants by mechanical maceration. Water Sci. Technol. 2000, 41, 145–153. [CrossRef]
37. BSI. Publicly Available Specification 100: Specification for Composted Materials; British Standards Institution:
London, UK, 2002; ISBN 0580405907.
38. Environment Agency. Guidance on Monitoring MBT and Other Pre-Treatment Processes for the Landfill Allowances
Schemes (England and Wales); Environment Agency: Bristol, UK, 2005.
39. ETH. Milling and Analysis of Particles; ETH Swiss Federal Institute of Technology: Zurich, Switzerland,
2016. Available online: https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/mavt/process-engineering/particle-
technology-laboratory-dam/documents/lectures/practica-fourth-semester/2016/Size-distribution_2016.pdf
(accessed on 8 August 2019).
40. Horiba Scientific. A Guidebook to Particle Size Analysis; Horiba Instruments: Irvine, CA, USA, 2017. Available
online: https://www.horiba.com/fileadmin/uploads/Scientific/eMag/PSA/Guidebook/pdf/PSA_Guidebook.
pdf (accessed on 8 August 2019).
41. Cook, E.; Wagland, S.; Coulon, F. Investigation into the non-biological outputs of mechanical–biological
treatment facilities. Waste Manag. 2015, 46, 212–226. [CrossRef]
42. Yang, Y.; Heaven, S.; Venetsaneas, N.; Banks, C.J.; Bridgwater, A.V. Slow pyrolysis of organic fraction of
municipal solid waste (OFMSW): Characterisation of products and screening of the aqueous liquid product
for anaerobic digestion. Appl. Energy 2018, 213, 158–168. [CrossRef]
43. Zhang, Y.; Banks, C.J.; Heaven, S. Anaerobic digestion of two biodegradable municipal waste streams.
J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 104, 166–174. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Stentiford, E. Research, Monitoring and Evaluation of the Premier Waste Tower Composting System at Thornley,
county Durham; DEFRA New Technologies Demonstrator Programme Project; Leeds University: Leeds,
UK, 2010.
45. Biffa Leicester. Composting Facility—Anaerobic Digester. Available online: http://biffaleicester.co.uk/about/
composting-facility-anaerobic-digester/ (accessed on 16 August 2019).
46. Yirong, C.; Zhang, W.; Heaven, S.; Banks, C.J. Influence of ammonia in the anaerobic digestion of food waste.
J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 5131–5142. [CrossRef]
47. Serna-Maza, A.; Heaven, S.; Banks, C.J. Biogas stripping of ammonia from fresh digestate from a food waste
digester. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 190, 66–75. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. McLeod, F.N.; Cherrett, T.J.; Waterson, B.J. The scope for joint household/commercial waste collections:
A case study. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2011, 14, 399–411. [CrossRef]
49. Yunus, A.; Smallman, D.J.; Stringfellow, A.; Beaven, R.; Powrie, W. Characterisation of the recalcitrant organic
compounds in leachates formed during the anaerobic biodegradation of waste. Water Sci. Technol. 2011, 64,
311–319. [CrossRef]
50. Goulson, D.; Hughes, W.O.; Chapman, J.W. Fly populations associated with landfill and composting sites
used for household refuse disposal. Bull. Entomol. Res. 1999, 89, 493–498. [CrossRef]
51. Veolia Environmental Services UK, Hampshire. Project Integra. Available online: https://www.veolia.co.uk/
hampshire/waste-management/overview (accessed on 6 October 2019).
52. Thomas, C. Public understanding and its effect on recycling performance in Hampshire and Milton Keynes.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2001, 32, 259–274. [CrossRef]
Resources 2019, 8, 166 24 of 24
53. Lisney, R. Project Integra: A Personal History by Robert Lisney; Hampshire County Council: Winchester,
UK, 2003.
54. Bull, R.; Petts, J.; Evans, J. Social learning from public engagement: Dreaming the impossible? J. Environ.
Plan. Manag. 2008, 51, 701–716. [CrossRef]
55. Vogt, G.M.; Liu, H.W.; Kennedy, K.J.; Vogt, H.S.; Holbein, B.E. Super blue box recycling (SUBBOR) enhanced
two-stage anaerobic digestion process for recycling municipal solid waste: Laboratory pilot studies. Bioresour.
Technol. 2002, 85, 291–299. [CrossRef]
56. Arina, D.; Kalnacs, J.; Bendere, R.; Murasovs, A. Mechanical pre-treatment for separation of bio-waste
from municipal solid waste: Case study of district in Latvia. In Proceedings of the Engineering for Rural
Development Conference, Jelgava, Latvia, 22–24 May 2019; pp. 1599–1604.
57. Ruf, J.A. Particle Size Spectrum and Compressibility of Raw and Shredded Municipal Solid Waste.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, 1974.
58. Nayono, S.E. Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid Waste for Energy Production; KIT Scientific Publishing:
Karlsruhe, Germany, 2010.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Resources: Particle Size Distribution in Municipal Solid Waste Pre-Treated For Bioprocessing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resources: Particle Size Distribution in Municipal Solid Waste Pre-Treated For Bioprocessing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Resources: Particle Size Distribution in Municipal Solid Waste Pre-Treated For Bioprocessing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

resources

Keywords: particle size reduction; household waste; pre-treatment; shredding; mechanical–biological

Resources 2019, 8, 166; doi:10.3390/resources8040166 www.mdpi.com/journal/resources

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Analysis of Particle Size Distribution (PSD)

Net Weight Net Weight of Rejected

Trial 1 Type of Shredder Operator PSD Analysis

2.4. Wet Processing of Test Material (Maceration)

3. Results and Discussion

Fractions Proportion Accountable to Each Fraction (% w/w)

Resources 2019, 8, 166 12 of 24

Proportion of Fractions (% w/w) Mean Particle

3.8. Specific Value and Limitations of the Study

Rubble Metal Organic fraction

Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 26

You might also like