Waste Management 69 (2017) 407–422

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

A review on technological options of waste to energy for effective

management of municipal solid waste
Atul Kumar, S.R. Samadder ⇑
Department of Environmental Science & Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad 826004, India

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

Article history: Approximately one-fourth population across the world rely on traditional fuels (kerosene, natural gas,
Received 21 April 2017 biomass residue, firewood, coal, animal dung, etc.) for domestic use despite significant socioeconomic
Revised 25 August 2017 and technological development. Fossil fuel reserves are being exploited at a very fast rate to meet the
Accepted 26 August 2017
increasing energy demands, so there is a need to find alternative sources of energy before all the fossil
Available online 5 September 2017
fuel reserves are depleted. Waste to energy (WTE) can be considered as a potential alternative source
of energy, which is economically viable and environmentally sustainable. The present study reviewed
Keywords:
the current global scenario of WTE technological options (incineration, pyrolysis, gasification, anaerobic
Municipal solid waste management
Waste to energy
digestion, and landfilling with gas recovery) for effective energy recovery and the challenges faced by
Waste to energy technologies developed and developing countries. This review will provide a framework for evaluating WTE techno-
Developing countries logical options based on case studies of developed and developing countries. Unsanitary landfilling is
Developed countries the most commonly practiced waste disposal option in the developing countries. However, developed
Review countries have realised the potential of WTE technologies for effective municipal solid waste manage-
ment (MSWM). This review will help the policy makers and the implementing authorities involved in
MSWM to understand the current status, challenges and barriers for effective management of municipal
solid waste. This review concluded WTE as a potential renewable source of energy, which will partly meet
the energy demand and ensure effective MSWM.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
1.1. Present scenario of waste to energy at global level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
1.2. Need of waste to energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
2. Waste generation, characteristics and composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
3. Heating values of municipal solid waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
4. Waste to energy options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
4.1. Thermal conversion technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
4.1.1. Incineration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
4.1.2. Pyrolysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
4.1.3. Gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
4.2. Biological conversion technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
4.2.1. Anaerobic digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
4.3. Landfilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
4.3.1. Modelling landfill gas generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
5. Energy recovery potential and economics of WTE technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
6. Environmental and health impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
7. Impact on climate change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S.R. Samadder).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.046
0956-053X/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
408 A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder / Waste Management 69 (2017) 407–422

8. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419

1. Introduction developed and developing countries, and (v) environmental and

health impacts of WTE facilities. The previously published litera-
Currently fossil fuels are the most reliable sources of energy, tures and reports were selected and categorised based on these
meeting almost 84% of the global energy demand (Shafiee and identified aspects. This study will provide a source of scientific
Topal, 2009). It is the time to realise the potential of waste to information and analysed gap in the field of WTE to the scientific
energy (WTE) as an option for sustainable solid waste management audience and waste management planners.
and as one of the most significant future renewable energy sources, Global urban population is increasing at a fast rate (1.5%) than
which is economically viable and environmentally sustainable that of the total population (Ouda et al., 2016). At present, more
(Bajić et al., 2015; Kalyani and Pandey, 2014; Stehlik, 2009). Ali than half of the world population live in urban areas, so the global
et al. (2012) concluded that WTE is not only sustainable waste escalation of MSW generation is mainly due to the population
management solution, but also an economically feasible, especially growth, urbanisation and economic development (Kumar and
for developed countries. Baran et al. (2016) reported that energy Samadder (2017)). Presently, the per capita MSW generation rate
recovery from waste incineration (one of the WTE technologies) in developed countries is more than that of the developing coun-
is an integral part of environmentally sustainable waste manage- tries, because generation rate depends on economic and social
ment strategy. However, Yay (2015) did not find incineration as al- prosperity of a country. It was estimated that in coming decades
ways economically sustainable due to its high operational and the developing countries of Asia and other parts of the world will
maintenance cost. WTE is a way to recover the energy from waste match the MSW generation rate of developed countries (Fazeli
materials in the form of useable heat, electricity (by passing gas or et al., 2016). Slowly, the people of developing countries are adapt-
steam through turbine), or fuel (Zhao et al., 2016). WTE technolo- ing lifestyle of developed nations due to globalisation, resulting in
gies are now considered as the most suitable options for solving generation of large quantities of wastes. Thus, the escalation in
the waste related problems. MSW generation rate is mainly due to changing food habits, con-
This paper aims to investigate municipal solid waste (MSW) as sumption pattern and living standards of the urban population
a potential renewable energy source. The present paper reviewed (Khan et al., 2016).
the available literatures on current global scenario of WTE tech- Many researchers have reported that recycling is more pre-
nologies, necessary requirements for effective energy recovery ferred option than energy recovery (Tan et al., 2014; Ouda et al.,
and environmental impacts of different waste disposal techniques. 2016). It was observed from previous findings that the countries,
The WTE technologies adopted in developed countries have been which exercised high rate of energy recovery from wastes had
assessed to identify the challenges and barriers for effective imple- appreciable rates of recycling, whereas, for the developing coun-
mentation of WTE technologies in developing countries. In this tries where landfilling is the most prevalent waste management
review, 155 articles published in reputed journals, technical option, recycling rates were low (Achillas et al., 2011). Arafat
reports, and books related to WTE technologies (from year 1995 et al. (2015) reported the average recoverable energy contents
to 2017) were selected. More than 70% of the selected references (in terms of electrical energy efficiency) for different components
were from year 2010 to 2017. For performing the review, a system- of MSW using different WTE technologies (Fig. 1). From Fig. 1, it
atic approach was followed in which different aspects of WTE were is evident that, anaerobic digestion is the best suited WTE option
identified. The identified aspects are: (i) the present status of WTE for food and yard wastes, whereas, gasification is the best WTE
at global level, (ii) need of WTE, (iii) generation, characteristics and option for treating plastic wastes. Incineration remains an attrac-
compositional requirements for effective energy recovery, (iv) WTE tive option amongst all the waste streams (as specified by Arafat
technological options and challenges associated with them in et al., 2015), as it can be used for energy recovery from all the

3000

2500
Energy (kcal/kg)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
Paper Plastic Textile Food waste Yard waste Wood

Incineration Anaerobic Digestion Gasification

Fig. 1. Energy recovery potential of different WTE technologies for different MSW stream.
 A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder / Waste Management 69 (2017) 407–422 409

reported waste streams. However, other types of wastes such as energy from organic wastes, but at smaller scale. Nguyen et al.
inert, metals, glass, etc., were not considered in that study. (2014) estimated that, food waste alone could meet up to 4.1%
A major challenge, however, remains in identifying better WTE of Vietnam’s electricity demand if converted into biogas using
technologies. There are some social oppositions for development of anaerobic digestion process. The potential of WTE technologies
the WTE facilities due to potentially toxic emissions (Zhao et al., has not yet been recognised by many of the developing
2016). On the other hand, some characteristics of WTE facilities countries.
are also not favourable, such as high costs and difficulties in
arranging fund (Zhang et al., 2010). However, one of the major
1.2. Need of waste to energy
problems of WTE facilities is the protests from local communities,
especially in developing countries with high population density
At the end of this century, the global energy demand is expected
(Ren et al., 2016; Kalyani and Pandey, 2014). Thus, for successful
to be about six times more than that of the current demand
implementation of any WTE facility, its acceptance by the local
(Kothari et al., 2010). The current available energy supply is much
community is important (Kikuchi and Gerardo, 2009). Developed
lower than the actual energy required for consumption in many of
countries have realised the potential of WTE options and have
the developing countries. At present, one of the primary sources of
started implementing it for effective waste management
energy throughout the world is fossil fuels that meet the demand
successfully.
of approximately 84% of the total electricity generation (Ouda
et al., 2016). Due to rapid depletion of fossil fuel reserves, the world
1.1. Present scenario of waste to energy at global level
needs alternative sources of energy such as WTE for mitigating the
future energy crisis (Charters, 2001). The problem of disposal of
The world population was 3 billion in 1960, which has
huge quantity of generated MSW and the requirement of reliable
increased to 7 billion in 2011 and it is expected to reach 8.1 billion
source of renewable energy are common in many developing coun-
by 2025 (FAO, 2013). The dramatic increase in global population
tries. MSW causes serious environmental pollution, thus its use
coupled with economic development had led to rapid urbanisation
as a potential renewable energy source would serve the purpose
and industrialisation, which changed the consumption pattern of
of meeting increased energy demand as well as waste disposal.
the population that ultimately lead to the proliferation of MSW
Technological advancement, improved pollution control sys-
at an alarming rate. Many countries started adopting the WTE
tems, governmental incentives and stringent regulations have
technologies for effective management of huge quantity of waste
made WTE technology a potential alternative, especially for the
to produce energy. An estimate by the International Renewable
developed countries. It not only provides a source of energy, but
Energy Agency, showed that the world has a potential of generat-
also reduces the potential harmful impacts of waste on the envi-
ing approximately 13 Giga Watt of energy from WTE sector alone
ronment. If 1 tonne of MSW is incinerated for electricity generation
(IRENA, 2016). The WTE technologies have been greatly mod-
instead of landfilling (without gas recovery), then 1.3 tonnes of CO2
ernised and prioritised especially in the developed nations. In
equivalent emissions can be avoided if equivalent CO2 emissions
2012, USA alone generated 14.5 million MWh of electricity from
from fossil fuel based power plants are also considered to generate
84 WTE facilities (ERC, 2014). Incineration is the most widely used
the same amount of electricity (ASME, 2008). The waste incinera-
WTE option in populous countries like China (Liu et al., 2006),
tion plants with energy recovery facility run with pre-treated
which had around 160 incineration plants in operation till 2010
MSW as a primary fuel have slightly low net carbon emission fac-
(Lianghu et al., 2014). There were about 1900 waste incineration
tor (0.04–0.14 kg/MJ) compared to fossil fuel based power plants
plants in Japan, out of which, only 190 incineration plants were
(Patumsawad and Cliffe, 2002). The restrictions on landfill sites
equipped with power generation facilities (Montejo et al., 2011),
for MSW disposal and increase in public awareness on environ-
but Bajić et al. (2015) reported that only 102 waste incineration
mental impacts of MSW have forced the governments to find more
plants were in operation for electricity generation in Japan. Japan
effective ways of MSW disposal (Zhao et al., 2016). The land
is followed by the European Union (mainly France), and then the
requirement for WTE facilities is much less than that of landfill
United States in terms of quantity of waste incinerated (Montejo
facilities for handling same quantity of waste (Jamasb and Nepal,
et al., 2011). Out of the total quantity of MSW generated, 74% in
2010). WTE plant processing 1 million tonnes of wastes per year
Japan, 54% in Denmark, 50% in both Switzerland and Sweden are
has an average working life of more than 30 years and requires less
incinerated (The World Bank, 2012; Psomopoulos et al., 2009). Italy
than 100,000 m2 of land, whereas a landfill for 30 million tonnes of
installed many anaerobic co-digestion plants with capacity ranging
MSW requires a land of 300,000 m2.
from 50 kW to 1 MW (Pantaleo et al., 2013). The International Solid
Waste Association (ISWA) reported that, globally more than 130
million tonnes of MSW per year (10% of the total generated waste 2. Waste generation, characteristics and composition
globally) is treated to generate electricity (ISWA, 2012). A study
carried out by Earth Engineering Center of Columbia University Before selection and implementation of WTE technologies, it is
in 2013 regarding the percentage of waste recycled/composted, necessary to know the amount of waste generated its characteris-
landfilled or diverted towards WTE facility across different coun- tics and compositions. According to the World Bank report 2012,
tries found that most of the developed countries prefer to use envi- the global MSW generation rate was 1.3 billion tonnes per year
ronmentally sustainable techniques such as recycling/composting with average generation rate of 1.2 kg/c/d. The generation rate of
and WTE for the management of their generated wastes (ERC, MSW is expected to reach 2.2 billion tonnes per year by 2025
2014). The European countries such as Netherlands, Belgium, Den- and 4.2 billion tonnes per year by 2050 (Hoornweg and Bhada-
mark, Germany, Austria, Sweden and Switzerland divert most of Tata, 2012). The solid waste generation rate is directly proportional
their wastes from landfill for recycling and composting facilities to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of developing countries. Fig. 2
(Defra, 2013). In Asian countries, Singapore recycles 44% of their depicts the relationships between GDP of some countries and their
generated wastes, while in other countries (mostly developing), per capita MSW generation rates. Countries were categorised by
typically 8–11% wastes are recycled (Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009). International Monetary Fund into developed and developing coun-
It has been reported that, some cities such as Hanoi, achieved recy- tries based on GDP per capita (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). The
cling rate of 20–30% (Velis et al., 2012). Many developing countries countries with GDP per capita greater than US$ 10,000 per annum
such as India, Vietnam, and Malaysia have started recovering were termed as developed nations. Accordingly, the countries with
410 A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder / Waste Management 69 (2017) 407–422

6
5
4
3
2
1
0 VIETNAM

COLOMBIA

TURKEY

CHILE

SAUDI ARABIA

BELGIUM
INDONESIA

GREECE

ITALY

GERMANY

NETHERLANDS
AUSTRIA
JAPAN
UNITED STATES

DENMARK
SWEDEN

AUSTRALIA

NORWAY
NEPAL

INDIA

BAHRAIN
BANGLADESH

BHUTAN

SRI LANKA

CHINA

MALAYSIA

BRAZIL
ARGENTINA

ICELAND

IRELAND
SPAIN

CANADA

SWITZERLAND
PAKISTAN

PHILIPPINES

SOUTH AFRICA

RUSSIAN FEDERATION
URUGUAY

SINGAPORE
UNITED KINGDOM
Log10[GDP per capita (US$/year)] Waste gen (kg/c/d)

Fig. 2. Distribution of Waste generation rate and GDP of the different countries (Waste Atlas, 2016).

a numerical value of more than 4 [i.e. log10 {GDP per capita (US$/ For an effective management of MSW of a city using suitable
year)}] were considered as developed and the rest of the countries WTE facilities, it is absolutely essential to know the characteristics
were considered as the developing countries in the present study. and compositions of the generated waste (Yadav and Samadder,
The MSW generation rate is directly linked with overall develop- 2017). Actual energy production from MSW is significantly depen-
ment of a country. Most of the countries (as presented in Fig. 2) dent on these two parameters. The characteristics such as particle
showed linear relationships between GDP per capita and MSW size, moisture content, calorific value and density (Aleluia and
generation rate per capita. This result is consistent with the previ- Ferrão, 2016) are important factors for selecting and developing
ously reported studies (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012; Shekdar, an appropriate WTE facility. The waste characteristics and compo-
2009). However, Medina (1997) reported a weak correlation sition vary significantly across developed and developing coun-
between the wealth of a country and MSW generation rate. tries, even the cities of the same country have different waste
Another important observation from the Fig. 2 is that, a few of characteristics because of the heterogeneous nature of MSW. The
the developed countries such as Iceland, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, waste composition in various income group countries is shown
Australia, and Norway had less MSW generation rate as compared in Table 1 (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012). The physical compo-
to the other developed countries; this may be attributed to the dif- sition and characteristics of MSW depend upon various factors,
ferent definitions of MSW adopted by different countries (Aleluia such as socioeconomic profile, climatic conditions of an area,
and Ferrão, 2016) as well as the adopted waste reduction policies extent of recycling, collection frequency, demography, etc. Using
in countries such as Japan (Tanaka, 2014). The typical waste gener- the previously reported studies on physical classification of
ation rate of developed countries ranges from 1.00 to 2.50 kg/c/d MSW, the waste stream has been divided into six different compo-
and 0.50 to 1.00 kg/c/d for developing countries (Thitame et al., nents namely; kitchen/yard waste, paper/cardboard, plastic, met-
2010). als and glass, inert and miscellaneous (Table 2). The MSW of

Table 1
Average waste composition in various income group countries.

Type of countries Organic (%) Paper (%) Plastic (%) Metals and glass (%) Others (%)
Low income group 64 6 9 6 15
Middle income group 56 12 13 7 12
High income group 28 30 11 13 18

Table 2
Physical classification of MSW.

Component Material References

Kitchen/yard Food waste (e.g., food and vegetable refuse, fruit skins, corncob), yard waste (e.g., leaves, grass, tree Bajić et al. (2015), Qu et al. (2009) and
waste trimmings), etc. Eddine and Salah (2012)
Paper/cardboard Paper bags, cardboard, corrugated board, box board, newsprint, magazines, tissue, office paper, and mixed
paper, etc.
Plastic High-valued plastics [LDPE bottles (shampoo bottles, detergent bottles, etc.), polypropylene bottles (mess
tins made from rigid plastics, etc.), PET bottles (beverage bottles, etc.)], Low-valued plastics (Polythene
plastic bags, polystyrene plastic packages such as mess tins made from flexible plastics and plastic cup for
yoghurt, ice-cream, etc.) and others.
Metals & glass Ferrous (e.g., food cans, etc.), non-ferrous (e.g., aluminium cans, foil, ware, and bimetal, etc.), wire, fence,
knives, bottle covers, etc., and bottles, glassware, light bulbs, ceramics, etc.
Inert Stones and silt, soil, ash, dust, other inorganic material, etc.
Miscellaneous Discarded clothes, rags, leather, rubber, used batteries, medical waste, nappies/sanitary products, etc.
 A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder / Waste Management 69 (2017) 407–422 411

Table 3
Calorific value of MSW of developed and developing countries.

Countries Calorific value (kcal/kg) References

Developing Bangladesh (717) Hossain et al. (2014)
China (1200–1600) Zhou et al. (2014)
India (800–1100) Unnikrishnan and Singh (2010)
Malaysia (1500–2600) Kathirvale et al. (2004)
Sri Lanka (950–1250) Reddy (2011)
Thailand (500–1500) Reddy (2011)
Developed Japan (2000–2200) Hla and Roberts (2015)
S. Korea (2600–3000) Yi et al. (2011)
UK (2200–3000) Hla and Roberts (2015)

developed countries has less moisture content, for e.g., in USA and 4. Waste to energy options
European countries it varies from 20 to 30% as compared to 50 to
70% in developing countries such as in China and India (Cheng The aims of any waste management system are material and
et al., 2007; Mohee and Mudhoo, 2012). However, the waste energy recovery, followed by disposal of the residues. But, an opti-
stream of developed countries has high calorific values (2000– mal choice for a waste processing technology is not only subject to
4000 kcal/kg) as compared to the developing countries (700– economic requirements, energy recovery or waste destruction abil-
1600 kcal/kg) due to the presence of high percentage of paper ity, but also to look for environmental regulatory compliance
and other dry organic wastes (Patumsawad and Cliffe, 2002). The requirements of the concerned area. Therefore, it is necessary to
calorific values of MSW stream of some of the countries are shown select the best available technology for waste processing, which
in Table 3. In high income group countries, the decomposable fulfils all the required criteria for a successful operation (Ali
organic fraction in their MSW stream is less and the fraction of et al., 2010). A variety of waste conversion processes are available,
plastics, paper, textiles and other recyclable wastes is more. The in which the three most widely used technologies are (Kalyani and
organic content in MSW is below 30% (by weight) in developed Pandey, 2014): (i) thermal conversion [(incineration, pyrolysis,
countries such as Japan, USA, Singapore and South Korea, but the gasification, production of energy from refuse derived fuel (RDF)],
same in developing countries such as China, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, (ii) biological conversion (anaerobic digestion/biomethanation
and India is more than 50% (Aleluia and Ferrão, 2016). and composting), and (iii) landfilling with gas recovery. The
MSW treatment techniques along with the typical reaction prod-
ucts are shown in Fig. 3.
3. Heating values of municipal solid waste

One of the important parameters for determination of energy

content of MSW is the heating value or the calorific value. There- 4.1. Thermal conversion technologies
fore, it is necessary to have reliable and accurate heating value data
of MSW components for efficient design and successful operation Thermal conversion involves thermal treatment of organic mat-
and maintenance of a WTE facility (Shi et al., 2016). A major prob- ter present in MSW to produce either heat energy, fuel oil or gas.
lem is the inconsistencies in reporting the energy content of MSW. Thermal conversion technology is generally useful for dry waste
Generally, the reported studies described the energy content in (low moisture content) with high percentage of non-
terms of higher heating value (HHV), lower heating value (LHV), biodegradable organic matter. Sometimes, thermal conversion
calorific value, net heating value, gross heating value (Kathiravale technology is applied to RDF, which is a combustible material with
et al., 2003; González et al., 2001). Although these values are high calorific value. For production of RDF, the recyclable and non-
inter-related, but this inconsistency causes confusion to the read- combustible materials are removed from MSW followed by shred-
ers in comparing the results. The calorific value is normally classi- ding and/or pelletisation of the remaining waste. Incineration,
fied into HHV and LHV. LHV is the energy content available from which is a controlled combustion of wastes at high temperature
complete combustion and does not consider the latent heat of is the most widely used method in thermal conversion technology
vaporisation of moisture present in waste stream. Whereas, HHV (Shi et al., 2016). The other thermal conversion technologies
is the theoretical maximum energy content in which latent heat (pyrolysis and gasification) are still in research phase and they
of vaporisation of wastes is taken into consideration and is gener- are not feasible for commercial purpose at large scale, may be
ally measured with the help of a bomb calorimeter and sometimes due to lack of proper MSW characterisation data, poor feedstock
with the help of equations, which is a function of ultimate analysis quality and inappropriate design of the facility (Appels et al.,
of the substrate (Komilis et al., 2012). However, the measurements 2011; Shi et al., 2016). There are very few commercially operating
of heating value using bomb calorimeter is tedious, requires skilled pyrolysis/gasification plants across the world for treating MSW.
operator and all MSW management (MSWM) facilities are not These plants operate for treating MSW along with some other type
always equipped with bomb calorimeter (Kathiravale et al., of wastes such as industrial waste, biomedical waste, biomass, etc.
2003). The most commonly used equation in theoretical estimation (Ionescu et al., 2013). The typical reaction conditions and products
of heating value is Dulong equation (Kathiravale et al., 2003), from thermal treatment processes are shown in Table 4. The main
which was originally developed for estimation of heating value of differences among these three thermal treatment processes are the
coal and may not be applicable for the estimation of heating value atmospheric condition (i.e., presence of oxygen) and the operating
of MSW (Shi et al., 2016). LHV calculation is based on the HHV and temperature. The quality of the final products and the useful inter-
moisture content of feedstock (Abu-Qudais and Abu-Qdais, 2000; mediate products depends mainly on these two parameters. Oper-
Komilis et al., 2012). LHV has more practical applications than ating temperature of thermal processes largely depends on the
HHV and it is largely used in energy estimation, as this is the process design and feedstock materials. For incineration process,
energy that is actually used in electricity generation from a MSW pre-treatment of MSW is generally not practiced in developing
incinerator (Komilis et al., 2014). countries; raw MSW is directly used as a feedstock materials.
412 A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder / Waste Management 69 (2017) 407–422

Municipal Solid Waste

Thermal conversion Biological conversion Landfilling

Aerobic Composting Anaerobic Digestion

Compost Soil conditioner Biogas Landfill gas

Incineration Gasification Pyrolysis

Inert Heat/ Syngas

Slow Fast Energy/Electricity
residue Steam
Pyrolysis Pyrolysis

Bio-fuel

Fig. 3. Municipal solid waste treatment techniques and their products.

Table 4
Typical reaction conditions and products from thermal treatment processes.

Parameters Incineration Pyrolysis Gasification

Principle Full oxidative combustion Thermal degradation of organic material in the absence Partial oxidation
of oxygen
Operating temperature 850–1200 400–800 800–1600
(°C)
Atmosphere Presence of sufficient oxygen Absence of oxygen Controlled supply of oxygen
Reaction Solid Bottom ash, fly ash, slag, other non- Ash, char (combination of non-combustible and carbon) Ash, slag
products combustible
substances like metals and glass
Liquid Condensate of pyrolysis gas (pyrolysis oil, wax, tar)
Gas CO2, H2O, O2, N2 Pyrolysis gas (H2, CO, hydrocarbons, H2O, N2) Syngas (H2, CO, CO2, CH4, H2O, N2)
Pre-treatment Not necessary Required Required
Raw MSW Usually preferred Usually not preferred Usually not preferred

4.1.1. Incineration sometimes it is supplied to the industries like paper mill, and elec-
Initially the incinerators were used for volume reduction and tricity is produced in all the other cases (Brunner and Rechberger,
protecting the men and environment from the hazardous wastes, 2015). But in a few recent studies (Meylan and Spoerri, 2014;
but not for energy recovery (Brunner and Rechberger, 2015). After Allegrini et al., 2014), the scientists highlighted some other advan-
advances in air pollution control technologies, incineration is now tages of incineration apart from volume reduction and electricity
considered as an attractive waste treatment option, especially in generation such as, utilisation of bottom and fly ash of incineration
the developed countries (Psomopoulos et al., 2009; Ouda et al., plants in road construction & cement production and recovery of
2016). Scarlat et al. (2015) reported that incineration is one of ferrous and non-ferrous substances. Thus, further technological
the most common waste disposal techniques in the developed development in metal recovery from dry bottom ash of incinera-
countries (EU, US and Japan) due to the stringent waste-related tion plants will enhance the acceptance of WTE facilities (Morf
regulations on waste disposal using landfilling. The emissions from et al., 2013). But in the developing countries, the incineration is
waste incinerators have been reduced to such an extent that in considered as the most reliable and economical when it is used
2003, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US for mass burning without pre-treatment of MSW for electricity
EPA) declared incineration of MSW as a cleaner source of energy generation. Incineration generally takes place at different stages
(Leme et al., 2014). Incineration is the most common waste treat- depending upon the operating conditions and type of wastes incin-
ment techniques in which, the waste mass and volume can be erated (Table 5). One of the main advantages of MSW incineration
reduced by 70% and 90% respectively (Cheng and Hu, 2010; is the complete destruction of any living organisms and minerali-
Nixon et al., 2013a,b; Gohlke and Martin, 2007; Lombardi et al., sation of organic substances into harmless end products (Brunner
2015); at the same time, heat and/or electricity can also be pro- and Rechberger, 2015).
duced (Singh et al., 2011). From incinerators, heat is supplied if MSW composition and characteristics are highly heteroge-
there is a requirement for district heating (in cold countries), neous, thus they must be evaluated before designing any WTE
 A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder / Waste Management 69 (2017) 407–422 413

Table 5
Stages of incineration process.

S. No. Steps References

1
Drying and degassing Tabasová et al. (2012)

Pyrolysis and gasification

Oxidation
2
Incineration Lee et al. (2007) and Zheng et al. (2014)

Energy recovery

Air pollution control
3
Waste delivery and storage section (bunker) Branchini (2015)

Waste combustion section (furnace)

Energy recovery and conversion section

Flue gas cleaning section

facility (Turconi et al., 2011). Tan et al. (2014) suggested that, the waste incineration had more contribution to the overall renew-
incineration is suitable for combustible non-biodegradable MSW able energy generation in China. But Lombardi et al. (2015)
with low moisture content. Sometimes auxiliary fuels are used reported that China is facing several problems in MSW incineration
along with MSW during incineration, but it is worth to note that due to poor waste feedstock quality, incomplete combustion, and
the use of auxiliary fuels along with MSW is not required when increased air pollution. High moisture content, variable composi-
the LHV of waste is between 1000 kcal/kg and 1700 kcal/kg or tion and low energy content are some other major difficulties faced
above (Chen and Christensen, 2010; Komilis et al., 2014). Accord- in incinerating wastes in developing countries (Reddy, 2011).
ing to the World Bank report, the average calorific value of MSW
should be at least 1700 kcal/kg (World Bank, 1999) for an effective 4.1.2. Pyrolysis
incineration operation with energy recovery, whereas, according to Pyrolysis is an advanced thermal treatment method. It takes
International Energy Agency, the values must be greater than place in the temperature range of 400–800 °C in absence of oxygen.
1900 kcal/kg for the incineration operation to be feasible It produces pyrolysis gas, oil and char, whose yield and quality
(Melikoglu, 2013). It is apparent that the presence of inert waste mainly depend upon the heating rate, process temperature, resi-
and moisture content reduces the calorific value and affects the dence time (Lombardi et al., 2015), composition of wastes, and par-
combustibility of MSW, which directly affects the performance of ticle size of the waste (Kalyani and Pandey, 2014). At lower
an incinerator. As the moisture content increases in the waste temperature (500–550 °C), pyrolysis oil, wax and tar are the major
stream, its calorific value starts decreasing due to latent heat of products, and at higher temperature (>700 °C), pyrolysis gases are
vaporisation. Therefore, sometimes pre-treatment (thermal, the major products. For good quality pyrolysis products, the feed-
mechanical, chemical and biological) of wastes are done to remove stock should be of specific type of wastes (plastic, tyre, electronic
the excess moisture content, inert waste and toxic elements such equipment, electric waste, wood waste, etc.). Pyrolysis of specific
as chlorine and mercury (Lombardi et al., 2015). A typical inciner- type of wastes was reported in various previous studies, which
ator generates 544 kWh of energy and 180 kg of solid residue per focussed on the process itself rather than the possible commercial
tonne of MSW incinerated (Zaman, 2010). use of pyrolysis products. In particular, pyrolysis has received spe-
cial attention recently for recycling of scrap tyres for recovery of
4.1.1.1. Incineration in developed and developing countries. Modern oil, wire, carbon black and gas (Lombardi et al., 2015). As, it is evi-
MSW incineration plants operate quite well for recovering energy dent that pyrolysis performs well in treating specific waste stream,
in the form of steam for electricity generation in cities of industri- but very limited studies have been reported about energy recovery
alised nations (Psomopoulos et al., 2009). Less annual capital cost, from MSW using pyrolysis at commercial scale. A plant of 110 ton-
operational cost, better skill of the operators, higher daily through- nes/d capacity in Burgau, Germany has been successfully generat-
put (Psomopoulos et al., 2009), and high calorific value of the MSW ing electricity through MSW pyrolysis since 1987 (Lombardi et al.,
altogether made incineration a more attractive than other WTE 2015). Panepinto et al. (2014) reported about some other success-
technologies for the cities of developed countries. In Asian coun- fully operating MSW pyrolysis plants such as in Hamm, Germany
tries, Japan is particularly famous for waste incineration technol- (275 tonnes/d), Toyohashi, Japan (295 tonnes/d), UK (22 tonnes/
ogy due to stringent regulation and limited land area for waste d), and France (191 tonnes/d). Baggio et al. (2008) reported that
dumping. Incineration of MSW is done widely in different Western pyrolysis of MSW for production of gas can be used for energy
European countries ranging from 35% to as much as 80% of the recovery using Gas Turbines with a net conversion efficiency of
total waste generated (Reddy, 2011). Other European countries 28–30%.
also rely significantly on incineration for handling municipal
waste. The North-eastern US recovers energy from more than 4.1.3. Gasification
40% of its total solid waste generated using incineration only. Gasification is another thermal conversion technology, in which
Incineration is not feasible for many developing countries except organic compound gets converted into syngas in controlled atmo-
those with fast growing economies (such as China, Malaysia, sphere of oxygen at high temperature. Syngas is the main product
etc.), due to (a) the high capital, operating and maintenance costs, of gasification process, which can be used to produce energy
(b) unfavourable characteristics and composition of wastes, (c) lack through combustion. It can also be used to produce feedstock for
of technical expertise in the field, and (d) availability of compara- chemicals and liquid fuel (Yap and Nixon, 2015). Most of the
tively low cost land for waste disposal. But, China had gone for reported gasification studies are focussed on homogeneous flow
huge expansion in MSW incineration in the past decade and is of solid fuel (coal, wood, etc.) and specific type of MSW. Gasifica-
expected to reach up to 500,000 tonnes/d by 2020 (Lu et al., tion has been widely used in coal industry, but recently it has been
2017). Li et al. (2015) reported that, till 2013 China had 166 oper- considered as a potential energy recovery option from MSW
ational incineration plants for generation of electricity using MSW (Arafat and Jijakli, 2013). Panepinto et al. (2014) investigated 100
at the rate of 166,000 tonnes/d. Cheng and Hu (2010) claimed that plants around the world that use gasification technique to process
414 A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder / Waste Management 69 (2017) 407–422

MSW. MSW gasification technology is widely used in Japan, where

Organic matter
85 plants were operating till 2007. In other countries (such as in
USA, UK, Italy, Germany, Norway and Iceland), gasification has Hydrolysis
been used to process MSW at smaller scale (Panepinto et al.,
Soluble
2014). It has been reported that gasification process generates less
CO2 than the incinerator of similar capacity (Murphy and McKeogh, Acidogenesis
2004). Defra (2013) reported that, modern gasification units come
with enclosures, which effectively reduce the chance of water and Volatile fatty acids
soil contamination. Asia has seen a huge leap in the gasification
technology in last few years and can be considered as one of the Acetic acid Acetogenesis
H2, CO2
most favourable markets for gasification technology followed by
Europe, Africa and USA (Ouda et al., 2016).
Zaman (2010) reported that pyrolysis and gasification technolo- CH4 + CO2
Methanogenesis Methanogenesis
gies are more favourable than the incineration technology for MSW
from environmental impact and energy recovery prospective. Fig. 4. Stages in anaerobic digestion process.
Pyrolysis and gasification technologies can reduce the waste vol-
ume by 95% and require less intensive flue gas cleaning as com-
content), and ‘‘dry” (24–40% of dry matter content) processes
pared to incineration (Yap and Nixon, 2015). Pyrolysis and
(Luning et al., 2003). Wet process produces more liquid waste
gasification techniques are better than other WTE options in view
and less solid product. The required volume of reactor for wet pro-
of environmental emissions and energy recovery efficiency. How-
cess is less than that of the dry process. The type of reactors (single
ever, they are yet to be established at large scale across the world
stage or multi stage), processes (wet or dry) and methane yield
(predominantly in developing countries) for energy recovery from
depend on the region, quality of feedstock and the product
MSW (Luz et al., 2015) due to poor efficiency of gasifiers and gas
requirements.
cleaning systems, heterogeneity in MSW composition & particle
It has been estimated that anaerobic digestion can produce 2–
size, and high moisture content.
4 times more methane per tonne of MSW in 3 weeks than that of
a landfill in 6–7 years (Ahsan, 1999; Saxena et al., 2009). Murphy
4.2. Biological conversion technology
et al. (2004) reported that 1 m3 of biogas produced from anaerobic
digestion process can generate 2.04 kWh of electricity taking con-
Biological conversion technology is based on microbial decom-
version efficiency of 35%. About 150 kg of methane can be gener-
position of the organic content of MSW. Many researchers reported
ated from anaerobic digestion of 1 tonne of MSW considering
this technology as environmentally suitable for energy recovery
60% organic matter and 40% moisture (Scarlat et al., 2015). How-
from wastes (Pant et al., 2010). It is generally preferred for the
ever, the major problem associated with this process is the long
wastes with high percentage of organic biodegradable matter
duration (typically 20–40 days) of microbial reaction (Pham
(putrescible) and high moisture content. The main technological
et al., 2015). Sometimes, presence of nitrogen rich components
option for energy recovery under this category is anaerobic diges-
and cations (such as sodium, potassium, and calcium) in the waste
tion or biomethanation.
stream increases ammonia and salt concentrations (Fountoulakis
et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2008) that makes the process toxic for
4.2.1. Anaerobic digestion
methanogenic activities. Several studies (Gomez et al., 2006;
Anaerobic digestion (or biomethanation) is a process of micro-
Cristancho and Arellano, 2006) suggested co-digestion of MSW
bial degradation of organic biodegradable matter in absence of
with low nitrogen content waste, sewage sludge, and food waste
oxygen that produces biogas and stabilises the sludge. The quality
to reduce the high ammonia concentrations and to increase the
of the generated biogas depends on the process parameters and
biogas yield of the process. The methane yield of organic fraction
substrate composition; the biogas is typically composed of 50–
of MSW under different operating conditions reported by various
75% CH4, 25–50% CO2 and 1–15% of other gases (such as, water
researchers is summarised in Table 6. Most of the researchers used
vapour, NH3, H2S, etc.) (Surendra et al., 2014). The produced
food wastes along with the suitable inoculum for maximum gas
slurry/sludge can be used as a soil conditioner and/or as an organic
recovery. The quality of the biogas generated using anaerobic
amendment in agricultural field (Pivato et al., 2016; Tambone
digestion technology can be improved by removing CO2 and other
et al., 2009). Anaerobic digestion is used to recover both nutrient
trace gases for use as a transportation fuel called biomethane. This
and energy from biodegradable waste. Ali et al. (2016) reported
can substitute natural gas in variety of domestic and industrial
that, the quality (as a fertiliser) of solid products of anaerobic
applications (Kasturirangan, 2014; Appels et al., 2008). Earlier,
digestion depends mainly on the quality of feedstock (proteins,
anaerobic digestion was used for treatment of domestic sewage,
minerals and vitamins content of waste). Browne et al. (2014)
agricultural waste, organic waste and animal manure, but now it
reported that European legislation prohibited the use of solid prod-
is extensively used for energy recovery from MSW especially in
ucts of anaerobic digestion as a fertiliser, due to the presence of
the developing countries, where wastes have high moisture con-
undesirable materials in feedstock. In anaerobic digestion, the
tent (Yap and Nixon, 2015). Abbas et al. (2017) and Ali et al.
organic fraction of the biodegradable MSW gets degraded and con-
(2013a,b) evaluated the feasibility of biogas recovery and found
verted into methane through a series of stages. The initial stage is
that the biogas recovered from anaerobic digestion technology is
called hydrolysis, in which the complex organic compounds of
economically and environmentally sustainable.
MSW like carbohydrates, proteins and fats get converted into sol-
uble organic materials such as sugars, amino and fatty acids. Fer-
mentation is the next stage of anaerobic digestion process in 4.3. Landfilling
which the organic molecules break into acetic acid, H2 and CO2.
The final stage is methanogenesis, in which methane formation Sanitary landfilling is defined as the controlled disposal of
takes place. The detailed process flow for conversion of organic wastes on land to reduce the negative impact on the environment
matter into methane is shown in Fig. 4. The anaerobic digestion through biogas recovery and leachate management (Fig. 5). How-
processes are mainly of two types, ‘‘wet” (10–15% of dry matter ever, unsanitary landfilling offers a simpler and affordable solution
 A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder / Waste Management 69 (2017) 407–422 415

Table 6
Methane yield during anaerobic digestion of MSW.

References Feedstock Sampling Type of Operating conditions Inoculum Methane Observations/remarks

material area reactor yield
Zhang et al. (2007) Food waste San Batch (1 L) Avg. moisture content and Sludge from 435 mL Samples of weekends were not
from Francisco, Volatile Solids/Total Solids wastewater CH4/g of taken for the analysis. Samples
restaurants, California (VS/TS) was 70% and 83% treatment VS were taken from the waste
hotels and respectively, temperature plant management company (responsible
grocery was thermophilic for waste collection). Thus, direct
store (50 ± 2 °C). The reactor was sampling from the source of
monitored for 28 days generation could have reduced the
contamination of food waste from
other types of wastes and the
methane yield might have
increased.
Macias-Corral et al. Organic New Batch Avg. VS was 82%, Supernatant 37 mL Samples were taken from kerbside
(2008) fraction of Mexico, temperature was from CH4/g of collection truck and then
MSW USA thermophilic (55 °C) anaerobic dry waste segregated into organic fraction
(OFMSW) wastewater which might have reduced the
treatment quality of the samples. The OFMSW
plant contains mainly paper waste (70%).
Yong et al. (2015) Food waste Beijing, Batch (1 L) Organic loading was 5 g VS/ Anaerobic 0.392 m3 The methane yield has been
and straw China L, performed at mesophilic granular CH4/kg of increased by 39.5% and 149.7%
temperature (35 °C) sludge from VS compared with individual digestion
starch results of food waste and straw
processing respectively. The carbon to nitrogen
waste water (C/N) ratio for optimum digestion
should be in range of 25–30. But the
C/N ratio of food waste and straw
was 28.4 and 43.4 respectively and
thus the C/N ratio of mixed waste
was on slightly higher side of
optimum values.
Scano et al. (2014) Fruit and Sardinia, Continuous The reactor was monitored Digestate of 0.43 Nm3 Fruit wastes have high sugar
vegetable Italy (1.13 m3) for 174 days and pig manure CH4/kg of content which increases the CO2
wastes maintained at mesophilic VS concentration in the biogas and
conditions (35 ± 0.5 °C) reduces the CH4 yield. Thus,
optimum loading rate of substrates
is very much essential.
Komemoto et al. (2009) Food waste Saitama, Batch (2 L) TS and VS of the sampled No inoculum 64.7 mL Biogas production was found more
Japan waste was 16% and 94% CH4/g of at mesophilic conditions (35 °C and
respectively. The VS 45 °C) than the thermophilic, which
experiment was performed is contrary to the findings of several
at six different temp. 15 °C, previous researches. But at
25 °C, 35 °C, 45 °C, 55 °C thermophilic condition the HRT is
and 65 °C less which will effectively reduce
the reactor size.
Haider et al. (2015) Food waste Islamabad Batch (1 L) TS of food waste and rice Acclimatised 584 mL Food waste and rice husk were
and rice and husk was 24% and 90% cow dung biogas/g mixed in different ratios to get the
husk Faisalabad, resp., whereas VS was 92% of VS desired level of C/N ratio. Cow dung
Pakistan and 81% resp. The reactor as inoculum reduces the
was monitored for 45 days accumulation of VFA, thus protects
at mesophilic conditions digester from failure. Purity of the
(37 ± 1 °C) biogas was not mentioned.
Ma et al. (2011) Kitchen Belgium Batch TS and VS of waste was Sludge from 520 mL Different pre-treatment techniques
waste (1.2 L) 166 g/kg and 155 g/kg resp. potato waste biogas/g (acid, thermal, thermo-acid,
The reactor operated at treatment of COD pressure-depressure, freeze-thaw)
thermophilic conditions plant were applied to the kitchen waste
(55 ± 2 °C) and were found that the biogas
yield improved with the pre-
treated kitchen waste as compared
to the raw kitchen waste. However,
the process is not feasible in the
developing countries due to less
conversion efficiency of biogas to
energy, making the process costly.

for disposal of the increasing waste quantity and is the most com- (Talyan et al., 2008; Kumar and Chakrabarti, 2010). When the fac-
mon practice in developing countries, that poses a serious threat to tors such as environmental impact, health impact, land degrada-
the environment (Wang and Geng, 2015). Previous studies showed tion, and groundwater contamination are considered, landfilling
that landfilling causes the highest environmental impact compared becomes the worst option. However, developed countries have
to other waste management options (Cherubini et al., 2009; Emery started to discourage landfilling of wastes through stringent regu-
et al., 2007; Marchettini et al., 2007; ISWA, 2012). It has been lations, waste reduction and recycling. The landfill leachate (a dark
reported that most of the cities of developing countries, the waste effluent of unusually variable composition with recalcitrant com-
is disposed on low lying areas located at the outskirts of the city pounds) is a major polluting substance released from landfills or
416 A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder / Waste Management 69 (2017) 407–422

Fig. 5. A typical engineered landfill with biogas recovery system. Source: Zaman, 2010.

dumpsites (Müller et al., 2015) that pollutes the nearby surface applied for methane estimation from landfills. Although, TNO-
water courses and groundwater aquifers. According to experts, model was developed for the waste characteristics of Netherland,
only 10–15% of the total waste generated should go for landfilling but this can be used for the estimation of LFG for other countries
and it should be the last option for cities where land is limited. also as it has less relative error (22%) between observed and calcu-
lated values. In a study, it was estimated that 1 tonne of MSW gen-
erates 80 m3 of LFG and China alone may contribute 10 billion m3
4.3.1. Modelling landfill gas generation
LFG to the global LFG emissions in 2020 (Qu et al., 2009).
The organic matter present in the deposited wastes in landfills
undergoes complex biological and chemical decomposition that
results in the production of landfill gas (LFG). The degradation of 5. Energy recovery potential and economics of WTE
organic matter into LFG occurs in five different phases (Noor technologies
et al., 2013). The first phase is hydrolysis/aerobic degradation, in
which the aerobic bacteria breaks complex organic matter into At present, China generates about 300 million tonnes of waste
CO2 and H2O. The second phase is hydrolysis and fermentation, annually (World Energy Resources, 2016) and the waste contains
in which the soluble organic components are decomposed into high proportion of food waste of low calorific value and high mois-
CO2, H2, NH3 and organic acids in presence of facultative bacteria. ture content similar to that of other developing countries. There-
The third phase is acidogenesis/acetogenesis, in which the organic fore, the conventional incineration plants used in developed
acids produced during second phase get converted into acetic acid, countries are expected to perform poorly in such conditions. Thus,
formic acid, alcohols, H2 and CO2 by anaerobic bacteria. In the China has developed new circulating fluidised bed based incinera-
fourth phase (methanogenesis), the methanogenic bacteria con- tion plants to counter this problem and currently 28 such plants
sumes the product of the third phase and produces primarily are successfully generating electricity by processing 800 tonnes/d
CH4, CO2, as well as other trace gases in smaller amount. The final of MSW (World Energy Resources, 2016; Zhao et al., 2016).
phase is oxidation, in which CH4 gets converted into CO2 and H2O Cheng et al. (2007) reported that the grate based circulating flu-
under aerobic condition. The LFG production rate inside a landfill idised bed incinerator is well suited for MSW with high moisture
depends on various factors, such as, type of landfill, waste compo- and low energy content. A waste incineration plant in Ethiopia
sition, climatic condition (temperature and precipitation), mois- with capacity of 50 MW (the first WTE facility in Sub-Saharan
ture content, and waste age (Scarlat et al., 2015). LFG contains Africa) is expected to be commissioned in 2017, which will process
50–60% methane (Unnikrishnan and Singh, 2010) and is consid- 350,000 tonnes of waste per year. However, the plant may struggle
ered as one of the major source of anthropogenic methane emis- for its operational cost due to many issues such as low calorific
sions. As per an estimate, 30–70 million tonnes of methane gas is value of incoming MSW stream, lack of local technical expertise,
emitted per year from waste landfills (Johari et al., 2012). There- and low energy prices (World Energy Resources, 2016).
fore, recovery of methane from a landfill for electricity generation Perkoulidis et al. (2010) reported that a WTE facility in Central
or other use is necessary to reduce the emission. Sometimes, recov- Greece was expected to recover 0.55 MW electricity per tonne of
ery of LFG is technically not feasible, in that case on-site flaring of MSW, with net conversion efficiency of 22.5%. As per the estimate,
LFG is done. But, for this it is necessary to get the estimates of Malaysia is expected to generate 2.63  109 kWh of electricity
trapped LFG inside a landfill. The recommended approach involves from LFG alone by the year 2020, which will generate revenues
modelling of LFG generation. There are various models available to worth of US$ 262 million for Malaysia (Noor et al., 2013). The
predict the methane emissions from landfills. Some of the most energy recovery potential of five anaerobic digestion plants of
widely used models (seven models) are described in Table 7. How- Greece Municipality was found to be 695 kWh/tonne with an aver-
ever, different emission models give different results for a single age operating cost of 84 US$/tonne (Karagiannidis and Perkoulidis,
landfill and the models give accurate results for the region it has 2009). Brazil has a potential of generating approximately 660 MW
been developed, as the waste composition differs across the coun- electricity per day from MSW landfills alone. The present study
tries. Out of the seven models, six models are based on the Euro- reviewed more than 100 published articles from 2010 to 2017 on
pean scenario and one on the USA scenario. These models have WTE technologies, out of which the critical observation on some
greatly reduced the tedious measurement techniques generally of the recent literature on WTE technological options across
 A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder / Waste Management 69 (2017) 407–422 417

Table 7
Description of methane generation potential models.

Models Formula Model description Remarks

hP i
IPCC-model Q¼ T1 kðTx1Þ
 ekðTxÞ Þg  R  ð1  OXÞ First order decay model (the Emissions estimations produced
x¼S fMSWT x  MSWF x  L0;x ðe
(IPCC, 2006) IPCC-2006 revised equation). by the model will allow
where,
It takes into account the rates of countries to assess the impacts
L0 = methane generation potential (Gg of CH4/Gg of waste)
waste degradation and methane of different waste management
= 1.33  F  DOC  DOCF
generation over time. and emission mitigation
F = fraction by volume of CH4 in landfill gas
Based on waste landfilled and practices.
DOC = amount of degradable organic carbon (Gg C/Gg MSW)
degradable organic fraction. It was basically developed for
DOCF = fraction of DOC decomposes
the European countries.
Q = methane emissions (Gg/year)
MSWT = total MSW generated (Gg/year)
MSWF = fraction of MSW landfilled
k = reaction constant (year-1)
T = inventory year for which emissions are calculated
x = year in which waste was landfilled
S = start year of inventory calculation
R = recovered methane (in Gg/year)
OX = oxidation factor (fraction)
LandGEM P P Microsoft Excel-based software Based on US waste composition.
Q CH4 ¼ ni¼1 1j¼0:1 kL0 ðMi =10Þðektij Þ
(US-EPA, 2001) where, application developed by EPA Inaccurate assumptions about
QCH4 = estimated methane generation flow rate (m3/year) that uses a first-order decay rate variables such as organic
L0 = methane generation potential (m3/tonne) equation to calculate estimates content, future disposal rates,
Mi = mass of solid waste disposed in the ith year (tonne) for methane and LFG generation. site closure dates and collection
tij = age of the jth section of waste mass disposed in the ith year (decimal It assumes that methane efficiencies can result in large
years) generation is at its peak shortly errors.
i = one year time increment after initial waste placement
n = (year of the calculation)  (initial year of waste acceptance) and rate of methane generation
j = 0.1 year increment then decreases exponentially as
k = methane generation rate (year1) organic material is consumed by
bacteria.
TNO-model at ¼ 11:87AC 0 k1 ek1 t First order model whose Information on organic
(Oonk and Boom, where, parameters were based on real component of waste
1995) at = landfill gas production at a given time (m3/year) data of landfill gas generation. components are not available.
1 = dissimilation factor 0.58 Direct estimation of methane or The model is validated by
1.87 = conversion factor landfill gas. emission measurement at 20
A = amount of waste (in tonne) landfills across Netherlands and
C0 = amount of organic carbon in waste (kg of C/tonne of waste) was found that the mean
k1 = degradation rate constant 0.094 (year1) relative error between observed
t = time elapsed since depositing (year) and calculated landfill gas was
22%.
It is one of the few model, where
the models data were validated
with the actual site landfill gas
measurement.
GasSim Not available GasSim is a first order GasSim is based on UK waste
(Gregory et al., multiphase model, which statistics.
2003) quantifies all landfill gas related Calculation modules in the
problems of a landfill, ranging program are protected.
from methane emissions, effects
of utilisation of landfill gas on
local air quality to landfill gas
migration via the subsoil to
adjacent buildings.
P3
Afvalzorg at ¼ 1 i¼1 cAC 0;i k1;i e
k1;i t In this multiphase model, eight Based on Netherlands waste
(Scharff and where, waste categories and three characteristics.
Jacobs, 2006) at = landfill gas production at a given time (m3/year) fractions are distinguished. For Organic matter or carbon
1 = dissimilation factor each fraction LFG production is content data were not available
i = waste fraction with degradation rate k1,i calculated separately. for all waste categories.
c = conversion factor (m3 of LFG/kg of org. matter degraded)
A = amount of waste (tonne)
C0 = amount of organic matter (kg of org. matter/tonne of waste)
k1,i = degradation rate constant of fraction i (year-1)
t = time elapsed since depositing (year)
P P
EPER France FECH4 ¼ x FE0  ð 1;2;3 Ai  pi  ki  eki t Þ It gives two approaches, either The left and right hand side of
(Scharff and where, of which can be used for the the equation is not
Jacobs, 2006) FECH4 = annual methane production (m3/year) estimation of methane dimensionally matched.
FE0 = methane generation potential (m3/tonne of waste) generation from landfill. The However, a normalisation factor
Ai = normalisation factor second approach has been is included in the model
pi = waste fraction with degradation rate ki explained in this paper based on equation, but it seems it is
ki = degradation rate of fraction i (year1) ADEME model. missing from the spreadsheets.
t = age of waste (year) The model mentions three
waste category and different k
values for each category.

(continued on next page)

418 A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder / Waste Management 69 (2017) 407–422

Table 7 (continued)

Models Formula Model description Remarks

EPER Germany Me ¼ M  BDC  BDC f  F  D  C It is a zero order model that For the emission estimate
(Scharff and where, takes unconditioned residential purpose, coarse household
Jacobs, 2006) Me = amount of diffuse methane emission (tonne/year) and commercial waste. waste, household waste and
M = annual amount of landfilled waste (tonne/year) commercial waste were
BDC = prop. of biodegradable C (tonne of C/tonne of waste), 0.15 considered.
BDCf = proportion of biodegradable C converted, 0.5 The model is useful for the
F = calculation factor of carbon converted into CH4, 1.33 estimation of large fluctuation
D = collection efficiency (for, active degassing, D = 0.4, for no recovery, of methane emissions.
D = 0.9, and for active LFG recovery and cover, D = 0.1) It is basically used in Germany.
C = methane concentration, 50%

Table 8
Observations on the case studies of available WTE options.

References Study area Description of the study Critical observation

Abila (2014) Nigeria Review of options for deriving energy and improving material Due to the high percentage of biodegradable content in Nigeria,
recovery from MSW biogas production from MSW is the best option.
Paleologos et al. UAE Role of recycling and incineration for effective management of Recycling and incineration appeared to be most feasible waste
(2016) waste of high income countries by energy and material recovery. management solution, because the Abu Dhabi and Dubai, the two
most urbanised and populated cities were located in the coastal
areas of UAE, where landfilling is not advisable due to lack of
appropriate hydrogeological condition.
Korai et al. Hyderabad, Different treatment options have been evaluated using power Maximum power generating potential was shown by
(2016) Pakistan generation potential for possible waste to energy recovery. biochemical and thermochemical methods respectively, but
again the single strategy is not sufficient to provide the solution.
Jeswani and UK Identification of environmentally sustainable WTE option From energy recovery perspective, incineration has lesser impact
Azapagic amongst incineration and landfill gas recovery using Life Cycle than landfilling with gas recovery. In current scenario, diverting
(2016) Assessment. all the MSW intended for landfilling to incineration with energy
recovery, it could meet 2.3% of UK’s electricity demand and
would save 2–2.6 million tonnes of GHG emissions per year.
Fruergaard and Denmark Evaluation of energy recovery and emission potential of Waste incineration with energy recovery proved to be an
Astrup incineration and AD for source separated organic waste and environmentally sustainable solution for overall waste
(2011) mixed high calorific waste using LCA. management, whereas AD is a least preferable based on Danish
condition.
Psomopoulos USA Current status of WTE facilities in USA with regard to GHG, dioxin The emission of toxic and dangerous substances from WTE
et al. (2009) and mercury emissions, energy production and land facilities have been significantly reduced in the last decade with
conservation. the advancement of technologies. Also, the WTE facilities in USA
have quite lesser emission as compared to other power
production facilities from conventional fuel.
Cheng and Hu China Environmental and economic impact of waste incineration WTE incineration is expected to have a greater contribution in
(2010) technology in China. future renewable energy resources along with the solutions to
waste related problems of developing countries.
Noor et al. Malaysia Estimation of energy potential of landfill gas for possible Methane recovery from landfill gas will not only reduce the
(2013) methane recovery. burden of GHG from the environment, but also provides a cleaner
fuel, which will act as an alternative to fossil fuels.
Curry and Pillay Montreal, Feasibility analysis of AD process by estimation of biogas The decentralised or small-scale AD unit is an ideal solution for
(2012) Canada production potential of urban food wastes using ultimate the generated organic waste of an urban centres, which will save
analysis, molecular formula analysis, computer simulation the waste transportation cost along with reduction in the amount
techniques and a literature review. of waste sent for landfilling.

Table 9 indirect costs include the cost of planning, contractual support,

Cost comparison of WTE technologies. and technical & financial services throughout the development
stage. The operation cost is the daily running cost such as labour
WTE technologies Capital cost Operational cost
(US$/tonne (US$/tonne of and maintenance cost. The capital cost for a WTE plant depends
of MSW/year) MSW/year) on the quality of waste to be processed, the technology employed
Incineration 400–700 40–70 and its location. The average lifetime of a WTE facility has been
Pyrolysis 400–700 50–80 considered as 30 years. The range of cost as given in Table 9 is valid
Gasification 250–850 45–85 for both developed and developing countries. The lower value of a
Anaerobic digestion 50–350 5–35 range of cost represents the cost in developing countries (such as
Landfilling with Gas recovery 10–30 1–3
India) and the higher value represents the cost in developed coun-
tries (such as UK) (Yap and Nixon, 2015). The costs as shown in the
Table 9 are the estimated costs, as the actual cost depends on var-
different countries has been summarised in Table 8. In most of the ious other factors such as, governmental incentives, raw material
studies listed in Table 8, WTE option was recommended as a and the availability of skilled labour (Ouda et al., 2016).
potential technology with minimum environmental impacts.
The cost analysis of different WTE technologies was taken from 6. Environmental and health impacts
the previously published literatures (Ouda et al., 2016; Yap and
Nixon, 2015; Tolis et al., 2010) and are presented in Table 9. The MSW incineration may result in air pollution (due to the emis-
capital cost is the initial investment cost such as, land acquisition, sions of SOx, NOx, COx, dioxin and furans), soil and water pollution
equipment procurement, raw material requirement; and the (due to the presence of heavy metals in the fly ash and bottom
 A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder / Waste Management 69 (2017) 407–422 419

Table 10 (2010) estimated that integrated solid waste management using

Global warming potential of different waste treatment options. 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle) principle can reduce global
Waste treatment options Global warming potential References GHG emissions by 15–20%.
(kg CO2 equivalent per
unit MWh electricity
generation) 8. Conclusions
Incineration 424 Zaman (2010)
Pyrolysis and 412 Zaman (2010) This paper presents a comprehensive review of different WTE
Gasification technologies used for energy recovery. An attempt was made to
Anaerobic digestion 222 Whiting and summarise the current scenario of WTE sectors across the world.
Azapagic
(2014)
The MSW can be considered as one of the most potential renew-
Landfilling (without gas 746 Zaman (2010) able energy sources if WTE technologies are adopted that will
recovery) not only reduce the dependency on conventional energy sources
to meet the ever-increasing energy demand, but also reduce the
ash). But there has been a significant development in the pollution problem of MSWM. After reviewing all the available WTE technolo-
control technologies and energy recovery systems for incineration, gies, it can be inferred that the most feasible MSWM solutions in
which made it an attractive MSWM option (Damgaard et al., 2010). developing countries are anaerobic digestion for organic wastes,
The use of air pollution control equipment in incineration plants is incineration for mixed MSW (other than biodegradable waste),
mainly to capture particulate matters, nitrogen oxides, dioxin and pyrolysis and gasification for specific type of wastes (plastic, tyre,
furans for minimisation of the environmental impacts than the electronic equipment, electric waste, wood waste, etc.) and land-
conventional coal based thermal power plants (Liamsanguan and filling for inert wastes. However, the characteristics and composi-
Gheewala, 2007). tion of MSW play a vital role in selecting a suitable WTE technique.
Numerous studies reported the perceived health risk of waste GHG emissions can be reduced significantly by promoting WTE
incineration plants. Even the developed countries (such as UK) technologies for MSWM. WTE technologies have been extensively
are facing public opposition due to perceived health risk due to used in the developed countries for effective management of
emissions from incineration plants (Nixon et al., 2013a,b). Though MSW. However, WTE facilities in most of the developing countries
incinerators potentially emit large number of pollutants, but the lack proper infrastructure, pollution control system, and mainte-
main concern has been the emissions of the group of organic nance. The study found that the WTE sectors are well established
compounds known as ‘‘dioxins” such as polychlorinated dibenzo- and prioritised in many of the developed countries, where the
p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans and polychlorinated technology is matured. The developed countries are emphasising
biphenyls (Giusti, 2009) produced due to incomplete combustion. more on improvement on the process efficiency, recycling/recov-
International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded dioxins ery and pollution control strategy. In developing countries, it is
as highly carcinogenic based on the laboratory experiments on ani- essential to develop the WTE facilities following the requirements
mals and a cohort study of the groups living in industrial areas and the regulations of that country. WTE plants have been installed
(Giusti, 2009). However, many studies reported inconclusive and in some of the developing countries, but at smaller scale.
unconvincing results of public health impact of incinerators Government policies and regulations, financial support,
(World Energy Resources, 2016). A well developed and controlled improved technologies will strengthen the scenario of WTE facili-
system is essential for a waste incineration project successful and ties of developing countries. This paper will help the readers and
effective. the strategic decision makers in identifying the best WTE technol-
ogy for both developed and developing countries.

7. Impact on climate change

Acknowledgements
The studies on the impact of WTE plants and other MSWM
options on climate change are largely based on developed coun- The authors acknowledge the support provided by the Depart-
tries (UNEP, 2010). Climate change is a global problem that ment of Environmental Science & Engineering, Indian Institute of
requires a collective efforts from all the nations for its mitigation. Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad for carrying out
It is vital to implement technologies that can reduce greenhouse the research work.
gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate the climate change created by
the production and consumption of energy generated from con- References
ventional means (IPCC, 2007). MSW has been considered as the
third largest source of anthropogenic methane gas in the environ- Abbas, T., Ali, G., Adil, S.A., Bashir, M.K., Kamran, M.A., 2017. Economic analysis of
biogas adoption technology by rural farmers: the case of Faisalabad district in
ment, which is almost 3–4% of the global anthropogenic GHG emis- Pakistan. Renew. Energy 107, 431–439.
sions (Annepu, 2012; IPCC, 2006) and the total waste sectors are Abila, N., 2014. Managing municipal wastes for energy generation in Nigeria.
responsible for approximately 18% of global methane emissions Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 37, 182–190.
Abu-Qudais, M.D., Abu-Qdais, H.A., 2000. Energy content of municipal solid waste in
(Aleluia and Ferrão, 2016). At present, there is no fully established Jordan and its potential utilization. Energy Convers. Manage. 41 (9), 983–991.
method for direct measurement of methane emission from land- Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., Banias, G., Kafetzopoulos, G.,
fills, as a result theoretical models based on number of assump- Karagiannidis, A., 2011. Social acceptance for the development of a waste-to-
energy plant in an urban area. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (9), 857–863.
tions are used for this purpose (UNEP, 2010). Methane has high Ahsan, N., 1999. Solid waste management plan for Indian megacities. Indian J.
energy content and need a mechanism to capture it judiciously Environ. Prot. 19, 90–95.
to use it as a source of energy and to protect the environment from Aleluia, J., Ferrão, P., 2016. Characterization of urban waste management practices
in developing Asian countries: a new analytical framework based on waste
highly potential (21 times more potent than that of CO2) GHG.
characteristics and urban dimension. Waste Manage. 58, 415–429.
Waste minimisation and recycling can effectively reduce the global Ali, G., Bashir, M.K., Ali, H., Bashir, M.H., 2016. Utilization of rice husk and poultry
GHG emissions (Ali et al., 2013a,b). Aracil et al. (2017) reported wastes for renewable energy potential in Pakistan: an economic perspective.
that, biofuels produced from MSW (non-recyclable) will bring pos- Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 61, 25–29.
Ali, G., Abbas, S., Qamer, F.M., 2013a. How effectively low carbon society
itive impact on the climate change. The global warming potential development models contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation
of WTE technologies is presented in Table 10. Wilson et al. action plans in Asia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 26, 632–638.
420 A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder / Waste Management 69 (2017) 407–422

Ali, G., Abbas, S., Tanikawa, H., Ahmed, S., Mollah, N.A., Qamer, F.M., 2013b. Fazeli, A., Bakhtvar, F., Jahanshaloo, L., Sidik, N.A.C., Bayat, A.E., 2016. Malaysia’ s
Comparative cost analysis of waste recycling for best energy alternative. J. stand on municipal solid waste conversion to energy: a review. Renew. Sustain.
Biodivers. Environ. Sci. 3 (8), 111–120. Energy Rev. 58, 1007–1016.
Ali, G., Nitivattananon, V., Abbas, S., Sabir, M., 2012. Green waste to biogas: Fountoulakis, M.S., Drakopoulou, S., Terzakis, S., Georgaki, E., Manios, T., 2008.
Renewable energy possibilities for Thailand’s green markets. Renew. Sustain. Potential for methane production from typical Mediterranean agro-industrial
Energy Rev. 16 (7), 5423–5429. by-products. Biomass Bioenerg. 32 (2), 155–161.
Ali, G., Nitivattananon, V., Molla, N., Hussain, A., 2010. Selection of appropriate Fruergaard, T., Astrup, T., 2011. Optimal utilization of waste-to-energy in an LCA
technology for solid waste management: a case of Thammasat hospital, perspective. Waste Manage. 31 (3), 572–582.
Thailand. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 40, 251–254. Giusti, L., 2009. A review of waste management practices and their impact on
Allegrini, E., Maresca, A., Olsson, M.E., Holtze, M.S., Boldrin, A., Astrup, T.F., 2014. human health. Waste Manage. 29 (8), 2227–2239.
Quantification of the resource recovery potential of municipal solid waste Gohlke, O., Martin, J., 2007. Drivers for innovation in waste-to-energy technology.
incineration bottom ashes. Waste Manage. 34 (9), 1627–1636. Waste Manage. Res. 25 (3), 214–219.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), 2008. Waste-to-Energy: A Gomez, X., Cuetos, M.J., Cara, J., Moran, A., Garcia, A.I., 2006. Anaerobic co-digestion
Renewable Energy Source from Municipal Solid Waste; White Paper Submitted of primary sludge and the fruit and vegetable fraction of the municipal solid
to Congress; New York, NY. wastes: conditions for mixing and evaluation of the organic loading rate.
Annepu, R.K., 2012. Sustainable solid waste management in India. Columbia Renew. Energy 31 (12), 2017–2024.
University, New York. González, J.F., Encinar, J.M., Canito, J.L., Rodrı´guez, J.J., 2001. Pyrolysis of automobile
Appels, L., Baeyens, J., Degrève, J., Dewil, R., 2008. Principles and potential of the tyre waste. Influence of operating variables and kinetics study. J. Anal. Appl.
anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 34 Pyrol. 58, 667–683.
(6), 755–781. Gregory, R.G., Attenborough, G.M., Hall, D.H., Deed, C., 2003. The validation and
Appels, L., Lauwers, J., Degrève, J., Helsen, L., Lievens, B., Willems, K., Dewil, R., 2011. development of an integrated landfill gas risk assessment model GasSim.
Anaerobic digestion in global bio-energy production: potential and research Sardinia Proc.
challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (9), 4295–4301. Haider, M.R., Yousaf, S., Malik, R.N., Visvanathan, C., 2015. Effect of mixing ratio of
Aracil, C., Haro, P., Giuntoli, J., Ollero, P., 2017. Proving the climate benefit in the food waste and rice husk co-digestion and substrate to inoculum ratio on biogas
production of biofuels from municipal solid waste refuse in Europe. J. Clean. production. Biores. Technol. 190, 451–457.
Prod. 142, 2887–2900. Hla, S.S., Roberts, D., 2015. Characterisation of chemical composition and energy
Arafat, H.A., Jijakli, K., Ahsan, A., 2015. Environmental performance and energy content of green waste and municipal solid waste from Greater Brisbane,
recovery potential of five processes for municipal solid waste treatment. J. Australia. Waste Manage. 41, 12–19.
Clean. Prod. 105, 233–240. Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., 2012. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste
Arafat, H.A., Jijakli, K., 2013. Modeling and comparative assessment of municipal Management. Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers, World Bank,
solid waste gasification for energy production. Waste Manage. 33 (8), 1704– Washington DC.
1713. Hossain, H.Z., Hossain, Q.H., Monir, M.M.U., Ahmed, M.T., 2014. Municipal solid
Baggio, P., Baratieri, M., Gasparella, A., Longo, G.A., 2008. Energy and environmental waste (MSW) as a source of renewable energy in Bangladesh: revisited. Renew.
analysis of an innovative system based on municipal solid waste (MSW) Sustain. Energy Rev. 39, 35–41.
pyrolysis and combined cycle. Appl. Therm. Eng. 28, 136–144. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for
Bajić, B.Z., Dodić, S.N., Vučurović, D.G., Dodić, J.M., Grahovac, J.A., 2015. Waste-to- National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Japan, IGES.
energy status in Serbia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50, 1437–1444. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), 2007. Climate Change 2007:
Baran, B., Mamis, M.S., Alagoz, B.B., 2016. Utilization of energy from waste potential Synthesis Report. UNEP, WMO: 2007. <http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
in Turkey as distributed secondary renewable energy source. Renew. Energy 90, report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf> (accessed 20.12.2016).
493–500. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), 2016. Renewable Energy
Branchini, L., 2015. Waste-to-Energy: Advanced Cycles and New Design Concepts Statistics. <http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_
for Efficient Power Plants. Springer, Italy. RE_Statistics_2016.pdf> (accessed 21.03.2017).
Browne, J.D., Allen, E., Murphy, J.D., 2014. Assessing the variability in biomethane Ionescu, G., Rada, E.C., Ragazzi, M., Mărculescu, C., Badea, A., Apostol, T., 2013.
production from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste in batch and Integrated municipal solid waste scenario model using advanced pre-treatment
continuous operation. Appl. Energy 128, 307–314. and waste to energy processes. Energy Convers. Manage. 76, 1083–1092.
Brunner, P.H., Rechberger, H., 2015. Waste to energy–key element for sustainable ISWA, 2012. Waste-to-energy State-of-the-art-report. International Solid Waste
waste management. Waste Manage. 37, 3–12. Association, p. 2012.
Charters, W.W.S., 2001. Developing markets for renewable energy technologies. Jamasb, T., Nepal, R., 2010. Issues and options in waste management: a social cost–
Renew. Energy 22 (1), 217–222. benefit analysis of waste-to-energy in the UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (12),
Chen, D., Christensen, T.H., 2010. Life-cycle assessment (EASEWASTE) of two 1341–1352.
municipal solid waste incineration technologies in China. Waste Manage. Res. Jeswani, H.K., Azapagic, A., 2016. Assessing the environmental sustainability of
28 (6), 508–519. energy recovery from municipal solid waste in the UK. Waste Manage. 50, 346–
Chen, Y., Cheng, J.J., Creamer, K.S., 2008. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a 363.
review. Biores. Technol. 99 (10), 4044–4064. Johari, A., Ahmed, S.I., Hashim, H., Alkali, H., Ramli, M., 2012. Economic and
Cheng, H., Hu, Y., 2010. Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source of environmental benefits of landfill gas from municipal solid waste in Malaysia.
energy: Current and future practices in China. Biores. Technol. 101 (11), 3816– Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (5), 2907–2912.
3824. Kalyani, K.A., Pandey, K.K., 2014. Waste to energy status in India: a short review.
Cheng, H., Zhang, Y., Meng, A., Li, Q., 2007. Municipal solid waste fuelled power Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31, 113–120.
generation in China: a case study of waste-to-energy in Changchun city. Karagiannidis, A., Perkoulidis, G., 2009. A multi-criteria ranking of different
Environ. Sci. Technol. 41 (21), 7509–7515. technologies for the anaerobic digestion for energy recovery of the organic
Cherubini, F., Bargigli, S., Ulgiati, S., 2009. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste fraction of municipal solid wastes. Biores. Technol. 100 (8), 2355–2360.
management strategies: landfilling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy 34 Kasturirangan, K., 2014. Report of the Task Force on Waste to Energy, vol. I.
(12), 2116–2123. <http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_wte1205.pdf>
Cristancho, D.E., Arellano, A.V., 2006. Study of the operational conditions for (accessed 17.03.2016).
anaerobic digestion of urban solid wastes. Waste Manage. 26 (5), 546– Kathiravale, S., Yunus, M.N.M., Sopian, K., Samsuddin, A.H., Rahman, R.A., 2003.
556. Modeling the heating value of municipal solid waste. Fuel 82 (9), 1119–1125.
Curry, N., Pillay, P., 2012. Biogas prediction and design of a food waste to energy Kathirvale, S., Yunus, M.N.M., Sopian, K., Samsuddin, A.H., 2004. Energy potential
system for the urban environment. Renew. Energy 41, 200–209. from municipal solid waste in Malaysia. Renew. Energy 29 (4), 559–567.
Damgaard, A., Riber, C., Fruergaard, T., Hulgaard, T., Christensen, T.H., 2010. Khan, D., Kumar, A., Samadder, S.R., 2016. Impact of socioeconomic status on
Life-cycle-assessment of the historical development of air pollution control municipal solid waste generation rate. Waste Manage. 49, 15–25.
and energy recovery in waste incineration. Waste Manage. 30 (7), 1244–1250. Kikuchi, R., Gerardo, R., 2009. More than a decade of conflict between hazardous
Defra, 2013. Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste. Department for Environment, waste management and public resistance: a case study of NIMBY syndrome in
Food and Rural Affairs. <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ Souselas (Portugal). J. Hazard. Mater. 172 (2), 1681–1685.
uploads/attachment_data/file/221036/pb13889-incineration-municipal-waste. Komemoto, K., Lim, Y.G., Nagao, N., Onoue, Y., Niwa, C., Toda, T., 2009. Effect of
pdf> (accessed 20.01.2017). temperature on VFA’s and biogas production in anaerobic solubilization of food
Eddine, B.T., Salah, M.M., 2012. Solid waste as renewable source of energy: current waste. Waste Manage. 29 (12), 2950–2955.
and future possibility in Algeria. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 3 (1), 1–12. Komilis, D., Evangelou, A., Giannakis, G., Lymperis, C., 2012. Revisiting the elemental
Emery, A., Davies, A., Griffiths, A., Williams, K., 2007. Environmental and economic composition and the calorific value of the organic fraction of municipal solid
modelling: a case study of municipal solid waste management scenarios in wastes. Waste Manage. 32 (3), 372–381.
Wales. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 49 (3), 244–263. Komilis, D., Kissas, K., Symeonidis, A., 2014. Effect of organic matter and moisture on
ERC, 2014. The 2014 ERC Directory of Waste-To-Energy Facilities. the calorific value of solid wastes: an update of the Tanner diagram. Waste
<energyrecoverycouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ERC_2014_ Manage. 34 (2), 249–255.
Directory.pdf> (accessed 05.03.2016). Korai, M.S., Mahar, R.B., Uqaili, M.A., 2016. Optimization of waste to energy routes
FAO Statistics, 2013. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. through biochemical and thermochemical treatment options of municipal solid
<http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/home/E> (accessed 19.08.2016). waste in Hyderabad, Pakistan. Energy Convers. Manage. 124, 333–343.
 A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder / Waste Management 69 (2017) 407–422 421

Kothari, R., Tyagi, V.V., Pathak, A., 2010. Waste-to-energy: A way from renewable Noor, Z.Z., Yusuf, R.O., Abba, A.H., Hassan, M.A.A., Din, M.F.M., 2013. An overview for
energy sources to sustainable development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (9), energy recovery from municipal solid wastes (MSW) in Malaysia scenario.
3164–3170. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 20, 378–384.
Kumar, A., Samadder, S.R., 2017. An empirical model for prediction of household Oonk, J., Boom, A., 1995. Landfill Gas Formation, Recovery and Emissions. TNO Inst.
solid waste generation rate – a case study of Dhanbad, India. Waste Manage. 68, of Environmetal and Energy Technology, The Hague, pp. 95–203.
3–15. Ouda, O.K.M., Raza, S.A., Nizami, A.S., Rehan, M., Al-Waked, R., Korres, N.E., 2016.
Kumar, S., Chakrabarti, T., 2010. Effective Municipal Solid Waste Management in Waste to energy potential: a case study of Saudi Arabia. Renew. Sustain. Energy
India. INTECH Open Access Publisher. Rev. 61, 328–340.
Lee, V.K.C., Kwok, K.C.M., Cheung, W.H., McKay, G., 2007. Operation of a municipal Paleologos, E.K., Caratelli, P., El Amrousi, M., 2016. Waste-to-energy: an opportunity
solid waste co-combustion pilot plant. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2 (6), 631–639. for a new industrial typology in Abu Dhabi. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55,
Leme, M.M.V., Rocha, M.H., Lora, E.E.S., Venturini, O.J., Lopes, B.M., Ferreira, C.H., 1260–1266.
2014. Techno-economic analysis and environmental impact assessment of Panepinto, D., Tedesco, V., Brizio, E., Genon, G., 2014. Environmental performances
energy recovery from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in Brazil. Resour. Conserv. and energy efficiency for MSW gasification treatment. Waste Biomass Valorizat.
Recycl. 87, 8–20. 6 (1), 123–135.
Li, Y., Zhao, X., Li, Y., Li, X., 2015. Waste incineration industry and development Pant, D., Van Bogaert, G., Diels, L., Vanbroekhoven, K., 2010. A review of the
policies in China. Waste Manage. 46, 234–241. substrates used in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) for sustainable energy production.
Liamsanguan, C., Gheewala, S.H., 2007. Environmental assessment of energy Biores. Technol. 101 (6), 1533–1543.
production from municipal solid waste incineration. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. Pantaleo, A., De Gennaro, B., Shah, N., 2013. Assessment of optimal size of anaerobic
12 (7), 529–536. co-digestion plants: an application to cattle farms in the province of Bari (Italy).
Lianghu, S., Huang, S., Dongjie, N., Xiaoli, C., Yongfeng, N., Youcai, Z., 2014. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 20, 57–70.
Municipal solid waste management in China. In: Pariatamby, A., Tanaka, M. Patumsawad, S., Cliffe, K.R., 2002. Experimental study on fluidised bed combustion
(Eds.), Municipal Solid Waste Management in Asia and the Pacific Islands: of high moisture municipal solid waste. Energy Convers. Manage. 43 (17),
Challenges and Strategic Solutions. Springer-Verlag, Singapore, pp. 95–112. 2329–2340.
Liu, Z., Liu, Z., Li, X., 2006. Status and prospect of the application of municipal solid Perkoulidis, G., Papageorgiou, A., Karagiannidis, A., Kalogirou, S., 2010. Integrated
waste incineration in China. Appl. Therm. Eng. 26 (11), 1193–1197. assessment of a new Waste-to-Energy facility in Central Greece in the context
Lombardi, L., Carnevale, E., Corti, A., 2015. A review of technologies and of regional perspectives. Waste Manage. 30 (7), 1395–1406.
performances of thermal treatment systems for energy recovery from waste. Pham, T.P.T., Kaushik, R., Parshetti, G.K., Mahmood, R., Balasubramanian, R., 2015.
Waste Manage. 37, 26–44. Food waste-to-energy conversion technologies: current status and future
Lu, J.-W., Zhang, S., Hai, J., Lei, M., 2017. Status and perspectives of municipal solid directions. Waste Manage. 38, 399–408.
waste incineration in China: a comparison with developed regions. Waste Pivato, A., Vanin, S., Raga, R., Lavagnolo, M.C., Barausse, A., Rieple, A., Laurent, A.,
Manage. 69, 170–186. Cossu, R., 2016. Use of digestate from a decentralized on-farm biogas plant as
Luning, L., Van Zundert, E.H.M., Brinkmann, A.J.F., 2003. Comparison of dry and wet fertilizer in soils: an ecotoxicological study for future indicators in risk and life
digestion for solid waste. Water Sci. Technol. 48 (4), 15–20. cycle assessment. Waste Manage. 49, 378–389.
Luz, F.C., Rocha, M.H., Lora, E.E.S., Venturini, O.J., Andrade, R.V., Leme, M.M.V., del Psomopoulos, C.S., Bourka, A., Themelis, N.J., 2009. Waste-to-energy: a review of the
Olmo, O.A., 2015. Techno-economic analysis of municipal solid waste status and benefits in USA. Waste Manage. 29 (5), 1718–1724.
gasification for electricity generation in Brazil. Energy Convers. Manage. 103, Qu, X.Y., Li, Z.S., Xie, X.Y., Sui, Y.M., Yang, L., Chen, Y., 2009. Survey of composition
321–337. and generation rate of household wastes in Beijing, China. Waste Manage. 29
Ma, J., Duong, T.H., Smits, M., Verstraete, W., Carballa, M., 2011. Enhanced (10), 2618–2624.
biomethanation of kitchen waste by different pre-treatments. Biores. Technol. Reddy, P.J., 2011. Municipal Solid Waste Management: Processing, Energy Recovery,
102 (2), 592–599. Global Examples. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis group, New Jersey.
Marchettini, N., Ridolfi, R., Rustici, M., 2007. An environmental analysis for Ren, X., Che, Y., Yang, K., Tao, Y., 2016. Risk perception and public acceptance toward
comparing waste management options and strategies. Waste Manage. 27 (4), a highly protested Waste-to-Energy facility. Waste Manage. 48, 528–539.
562–571. Saxena, R.C., Adhikari, D.K., Goyal, H.B., 2009. Biomass-based energy fuel through
Macias-Corral, M., Samani, Z., Hanson, A., Smith, G., Funk, P., Yu, H., Longworth, J., biochemical routes: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (1), 167–178.
2008. Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste and agricultural waste and Scano, E.A., Asquer, C., Pistis, A., Ortu, L., Demontis, V., Cocco, D., 2014. Biogas from
the effect of co-digestion with dairy cow manure. Biores. Technol. 99 (17), anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes: experimental results on
8288–8293. pilot-scale and preliminary performance evaluation of a full-scale power plant.
Medina, M., 1997. The effect of income on municipal solid waste generation rates Energy Convers. Manage. 77, 22–30.
for countries of varying levels of economic development: a model. J. Solid Waste Scarlat, N., Motola, V., Dallemand, J.F., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Mofor, L., 2015.
Technol. Manage. 24 (3), 149–155. Evaluation of energy potential of municipal solid waste from African urban
Melikoglu, M., 2013. Vision 2023: assessing the feasibility of electricity and biogas areas. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50, 1269–1286.
production from municipal solid waste in Turkey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. Scharff, H., Jacobs, J., 2006. Applying guidance for methane emission estimation for
19, 52–63. landfills. Waste Manage. 26 (4), 417–429.
Meylan, G., Spoerri, A., 2014. Eco-efficiency assessment of options for metal Shafiee, S., Topal, E., 2009. When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished? Energy
recovery from incineration residues: a conceptual framework. Waste Manage. Policy 37 (1), 181–189.
34 (1), 93–100. Shekdar, A., 2009. Sustainable solid waste management: an integrated approach for
Mohee, R., Mudhoo, A., 2012. Energy from Biomass in Mauritius: Overview of Asian Countries. Waste Manage. 29, 1438–1448.
Research and Applications. In: Waste to Energy. Springer, London, pp. 297– Shi, H., Mahinpey, N., Aqsha, A., Silbermann, R., 2016. Characterization,
321. thermochemical conversion studies, and heating value modeling of municipal
Montejo, C., Costa, C., Ramos, P., del Carmen Márquez, M., 2011. Analysis and solid waste. Waste Manage. 48, 34–47.
comparison of municipal solid waste and reject fraction as fuels for incineration Singh, R.P., Tyagi, V.V., Allen, T., Ibrahim, M.H., Kothari, R., 2011. An overview for
plants. Appl. Therm. Eng. 31 (13), 2135–2140. exploring the possibilities of energy generation from municipal solid waste
Morf, L.S., Gloor, R., Haag, O., Haupt, M., Skutan, S., Di Lorenzo, F., Böni, D., 2013. (MSW) in Indian scenario. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (9), 4797–4808.
Precious metals and rare earth elements in municipal solid waste – sources and Stehlik, P., 2009. Contribution to advances in waste-to-energy technologies. J. Clean.
fate in a Swiss incineration plant. Waste Manage. 33 (3), 634–644. Prod. 17 (10), 919–931.
Müller, G.T., Giacobbo, A., dos Santos Chiaramonte, E.A., Rodrigues, M.A.S., Surendra, K.C., Takara, D., Hashimoto, A.G., Khanal, S.K., 2014. Biogas as a
Meneguzzi, A., Bernardes, A.M., 2015. The effect of sanitary landfill leachate sustainable energy source for developing countries: opportunities and
aging on the biological treatment and assessment of photoelectrooxidation as a challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31, 846–859.
pre-treatment process. Waste Manage. 36, 177–183. Tabasová, A., Kropáč, J., Kermes, V., Nemet, A., Stehlík, P., 2012. Waste-to-energy
Murphy, J.D., McKeogh, E., 2004. Technical, economic and environmental analysis of technologies: Impact on environment. Energy 44 (1), 146–155.
energy production from municipal solid waste. Renew. Energy 29 (7), 1043– Talyan, V., Dahiya, R.P., Sreekrishnan, T.R., 2008. State of municipal solid waste
1057. management in Delhi, the capital of India. Waste Manage. 28 (7), 1276–1287.
Murphy, J.D., McKeogh, E., Kiely, G., 2004. Technical/economic/environmental Tambone, F., Genevini, P., D’Imporzano, G., Adani, F., 2009. Assessing amendment
analysis of biogas utilisation. Appl. Energy 77 (4), 407–427. properties of digestate by studying the organic matter composition and the
Ngoc, U.N., Schnitzer, H., 2009. Sustainable solutions for solid waste management in degree of biological stability during the anaerobic digestion of the organic
Southeast Asian countries. Waste Manage. 29, 1982–1995. fraction of MSW. Biores. Technol. 100 (12), 3140–3142.
Nguyen, H.H., Heaven, S., Banks, C., 2014. Energy potential from the anaerobic Tan, S.T., Hashim, H., Lim, J.S., Ho, W.S., Lee, C.T., Yan, J., 2014. Energy and emissions
digestion of food waste in municipal solid waste stream of urban areas in benefits of renewable energy derived from municipal solid waste: analysis of a
Vietnam. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 5 (4), 365–374. low carbon scenario in Malaysia. Appl. Energy 136, 797–804.
Nixon, J.D., Dey, P.K., Ghosh, S.K., Davies, P.A., 2013a. Evaluation of options for Tanaka, M., 2014. Sustainable society and municipal solid waste management. In:
energy recovery from municipal solid waste in India using the hierarchical Pariatamby, A., Tanaka, M. (Eds.), Municipal Solid Waste Management in Asia
analytical network process. Energy 59, 215–223. and the Pacific Islands: Challenges and Strategic Solutions. Springer-Verlag,
Nixon, J.D., Wright, D.G., Dey, P.K., Ghosh, S.K., Davies, P.A., 2013b. A comparative Singapore, pp. 157–172.
assessment of waste incinerators in the UK. Waste Manage. 33 (11), 2234– The World Bank, 2012. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management.
2244. Washington, DC.
422 A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder / Waste Management 69 (2017) 407–422

Thitame, S.N., Pondhe, G.M., Meshram, D.C., 2010. Characterisation and composition World Bank, 1999. Municipal solid waste incineration. In: Technical Guidance Report.
of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated in Sangamner City, District World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 1999. <http://www.worldbank.org/
Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 170 (1), 1–5. urban/solidwm/erm/CWG folder/WasteIncineration.pdf> (accessed 24.02.2016).
Tolis, A., Rentizelas, A., Aravossis, K., Tatsiopoulos, I., 2010. Electricity and combined World Energy Resources, 2016. World Energy Council, Waste to Energy. <https://
heat and power from municipal solid waste; theoretically optimal investment www.worldenergy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/03/WEResources_Waste_to_
decision time and emissions trading implications. Waste Manage. Res. 28 (11), Energy_2016.pdf> (accessed 21.03.2017).
985–995. Yay, A.S.E., 2015. Application of life cycle assessment (LCA) for municipal solid
Troschinetz, A.M., Mihelcic, J.R., 2009. Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste management: a case study of Sakarya. J. Clean. Prod. 94, 284–293.
waste in developing countries. Waste Manage. 29 (2), 915–923. Yadav, P., Samadder, S.R., 2017. A global prospective of income distribution and its
Turconi, R., Butera, S., Boldrin, A., Grosso, M., Rigamonti, L., Astrup, T., 2011. Life effect on life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste management: a review.
cycle assessment of waste incineration in Denmark and Italy using two LCA Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 10 (24), 9123–9141.
models. Waste Manage. Res. 29 (10), S78–S90. Yap, H.Y., Nixon, J.D., 2015. A multi-criteria analysis of options for energy recovery
UNEP, 2010. Waste and Climate Change: Global trends and strategy framework. from municipal solid waste in India and the UK. Waste Manage. 46, 265–277.
United Nations Environmental Programme. <http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/ Yi, S., Yoo, K.Y., Hanaki, K., 2011. Characteristics of MSW and heat energy recovery
Publications/spc/Waste%26ClimateChange/Waste%26ClimateChange.pdf> between residential and commercial areas in Seoul. Waste Manage. 31 (3), 595–
(accessed 26.06.2017). 602.
Unnikrishnan, S., Singh, A., 2010. Energy recovery in solid waste management Yong, Z., Dong, Y., Zhang, X., Tan, T., 2015. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and
through CDM in India and other countries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (10), straw for biogas production. Renew. Energy 78, 527–530.
630–640. Zaman, A.U., 2010. Comparative study of municipal solid waste treatment
US-EPA (2001). Landfill Volume III. <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/ technologies using life cycle assessment method. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.
volume03/iii15_apr2001.pdf> (accessed 23.08.2016). 7 (2), 225–234.
Velis, C., Wilson, D.C., Rocca, O., Smith, S.R., Mavropoulos, A., Cheeseman, C.R., 2012. Zhang, D.Q., Tan, S.K., Gersberg, R.M., 2010. Municipal solid waste management in
An analytical framework and tool (‘InteRa’) for integrating the informal China: status, problems and challenges. J. Environ. Manage. 91 (8), 1623–1633.
recycling sector in waste and resource management systems in developing Zhang, R., El-Mashad, H.M., Hartman, K., Wang, F., Liu, G., Choate, C., Gamble, P.,
countries. Waste Manage. Res. 30, 43–66. 2007. Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion.
Wang, Z., Geng, L., 2015. Carbon emissions calculation from municipal solid waste Biores. Technol. 98 (4), 929–935.
and the influencing factors analysis in China. J. Clean. Prod. 104, 177–184. Zhao, X.G., Jiang, G.W., Li, A., Wang, L., 2016. Economic analysis of waste-to-energy
Waste Atlas, 2016. D-Waste. <http://www.atlas.d-waste.com/> (accessed industry in China. Waste Manage. 48, 604–618.
08.08.2016) Zheng, L., Song, J., Li, C., Gao, Y., Geng, P., Qu, B., Lin, L., 2014. Preferential policies
Whiting, A., Azapagic, A., 2014. Life cycle environmental impacts of generating promote municipal solid waste (MSW) to energy in China: current status and
electricity and heat from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion. Energy 70, prospects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 36, 135–148.
181–193. Zhou, H., Meng, A., Long, Y., Li, Q., Zhang, Y., 2014. An overview of characteristics of
Wilson, D.C., Blakey, N.C., Hansen, J.A., 2010. Waste prevention: its time has come. municipal solid waste fuel in China: physical, chemical composition and
Waste Manage. Res. 28 (3), 191–192. heating value. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 36, 107–122.