Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • A Decision Support Tool For Planning Biowaste Management Systems - Elsevier Enhanced Reader PDF

    Uploaded by

    Anurag Deepak
    7 views12 pages

    Original Title

    A decision support tool for planning biowaste management systems _ Elsevier Enhanced Reader.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views12 pages

    A Decision Support Tool For Planning Biowaste Management Systems - Elsevier Enhanced Reader PDF

    Uploaded by

    Anurag Deepak

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 12
    Journal of Caner Production 242 (2020) 1840 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect eney estas Journal of Cleaner Production ELSEVIER journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locatelic pro A decision support tool for planning biowaste management systems ® san. Monica Delgado, Ana Lopez *, Miguel Cuartas °, Carlos Rico *, Amaya Lobo * + Envroamental Engineering Goup Departnent of cence and Techniques of Water and the Enitonment, Univers of Cantabria, ve. Ls Casas 39005, Stade Conabria. pa " normation Technologies Cro, Deparment of Applied Mathematics and Computer Scie, Unive of Cantabria, Ae Lat Casto 4, 2005, ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT ‘ie Rise Biowaste is one of the predominant fractions in municipal waste. ts easy degradation in the ground Aeceved 26 Api 2019 ‘causes the emission of polluting gases and generates leachate, which pose a great environmental risk Peale Defining solutions for biowaste management may have a number of varied, sometimes opposing ob jectives, and involve several linked sages. This article presents anew tool for the planning of biowaste ‘management systems. The tool distinguishes four stages within the waste management line: collection (ened by the separation model and the collection system), pre-treatment, treatment, and aplication, Several alternatives are considered for each stage. The ilferent combinations of alternatives that define the management systems are evaluated in two phases. First the compatibility matrix establishes the ality betwcen the alternatives selected foreach stage and then each alternative is assessed using Indicators associated with environmental, social, technical and economic criteria. Both management alternatives and criteria considered in the tool can be modified or extended according tothe lca ce ‘cumstances. The paper describes a case study that shows the value ofthe tool as an aid in decison Deceped 1 September 2019 ‘ailabe online 17 September 2019 anating ator Hs Ca ‘eywors Organi waste Mulcrtera analysis Compacity mati Stora ‘making for alternative selection in waste management systems under different scenarios and priorities, 1 2019 Elsevier Ld. Al rights reserved 1. Introduction ‘waste generated, and is the majority fraction (Kaa et al, 2018). In the last few decades, international directives have focused on “Biowaste" is defined in Directive (2008)/98/EC (FC - European preventing the disposal of biowaste in landfills (Pubule tal, 2015), Commission, 2008) as “Biodegradable waste from gardens and parks, food and kitchen waste from homes, restaurants, collective catering services and retail establishments, and comparable waste {rom food processing plants”. Within the category of municipal ‘waste, biowaste (hereafter used synonymously with ‘organic frac- tion’ includes food and kitchen waste from homes and small-size sgreen waste. This is one of the most problematic fractions, due to the large volume generated and its easy degradability when {deposited in landfills. Moreover, this kind of waste presents several characteristics that determine its treatment. Its a heterogencous residue that changes with the habits of the population (Abdullahi ct al, 2008) it is unstable due to its composition and high water content (around 70-80%) (Li et al, 2014), and its density is also variable and high. ‘According to data from the World Bank, the average worldwide generation of green and food waste represents 44% of the total + corresponding auto ‘malades olgaosmeunicans (M, Delgado) pe oi org/ 101016 4e 90.2019 18460 ‘while trying to promote its use by, for example, collecting it sepa: rately and establishing a hierarchy of actions for its correct man- agement (EC - European Commission, 2008), ‘The choice of alternatives forthe organic waste management isa ‘complex task that requites taking into consideration numerous factors that may vary n each scenario. For this reason, most studies conducted on different options for municipal waste management systems (WMS) make use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) techniques. Wilutinovie etal, (2014) developed a model to evaluate the sustainability of waste treatment scenarios based on Analytic Hierarchy Process. Santos et al. (2017) studied the ‘municipal solid waste management in a Brazilian metropolitan area based on PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method {or Enrichment Evaluations). Goulart Coelio etal (2017) presented critical review of MCDA methods to support waste management. In their review, TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) was one ofthe methods used by several authors, such as Pulle etal. (2015) in their study conducted to find an optimal solution for biowaste management in the Baltic 2 (M.D a Jura of Ceaser Production 2 2020) 18460 ‘Abbreviations WMS Waste Management System MCDA Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis PROMETHEE Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations ‘TOPSIS Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution MW Mixed Waste P&C Paper & Cardboard G Glass b Light Packaging oF Organic Fraction cB Curbside Bins UB Underground Bins Pc Pneumatic Collection DDC Door-to-Door Collection PI —S Primary Pre-Treatment Simple Triage P1—1 Primary Pre-Treatment Intensive Triage P2—SH Secondary Pre-Treatment Shredding and homogenization, P2.~ MGF Secondary Pre-Treatment Mix with Green Fraction P3—P Tertiary Pre-Treatment Pulping P3— PP Tertiary Pre-Treatment Pulping with Pre-hydrolysis, P3—B_ Tertiary Pre-Treatment Biological P2—DP Tertiary Pre-Treatment Drying and Pelletizing c Compost BAT Biological Anaerobic Treatment ve Vermicomposting DAS Dry Anaerobic Digestion WAD Wet Anaerobic Digestion L Incineration G Gasification P Pyrolysis L Landfill without biogas use le Landfill with biogas use AS Compost Application in Soil BAS —_Biostabilized Application in Soll EG Energy Generation D Disposal States. Other studies use life cycle assessment, such as Hong et al. (2010), which evaluated four municipal solid waste management scenarios, and Edwards etal. (2018), which compared the impact of seven contemporary food WMS using. this method. ‘The main limitation of these studies is that they are focused on specific cases, such as Di Maria and Micale (2015), who studied different organic waste management options, starting from an existing urban waste management scenatio in italy. The same oc- curs with other authors (Hong et al, 2010; Santos et al, 2017; Ng et al, 2017; De Feo et al, 2019), whose methods are not translat- able to other contexts. In addition, only a few of them focus on biowaste (Edwards etal, 2018; Lombardi et al, 2015). ‘Thisarticle presents a new tool, created to help decision-making in the process of optimizing the biowaste management system. The tool may be adapted to particular scenarios, taking into account different alternatives, priorities and circumstances. Moreover, the work reveals the strengths and weaknesses of different alternatives Within each stage of biowaste management, based on a specific Weighting scenario and presents a case study that shaws the use- fulness of the tool 2. Decision support tool 2.1, Tool structure Fig. shows a general outline ofthe tool developed in this study. ‘The complete biowaste management line is divided into four stages that are defined and assessed separately: collection, pre-treatment, treatment, and application. Different options may be introduced for each stage, according to the aim of the study. The figure below shows the alternatives considered in the work presented here, For the definition of management lines, two elements, used, together, facilitate decision-making: the compatibility matrix and an assessment through indicators. Both the alternatives considered and the suggested indicators and their score in each case can be ‘modified according to the scenario under study. 22. Compatibility matrix Following the structure proposed by Maurer etal. (2012), the compatibilities between the existing alternatives in the different stages can be organized in a compatibility matrix. Table | shows the compatiblity matrix created for the stages and altematives «described in the previous section. Compatibility is represented by a simple numerical nomenclature, defining the possibilty of two ‘options coexisting in the same WMS. Three possible values have been used in this approach: 0, 0.5 and 1. The most favorable com- bination will always be the one with a degree of compatibility of 1, while, if compatibility is 0, the alternatives considered cannot be part of the same management system. Alternatives that have a degree of compatibility of 05 can be adopted jointly, but their combination is not the most appropriate option. n a more detailed version of the tool, intermediate numerical values could be used for 4 more accurate description of compatibility. ‘The matrix allows the development of a management system defined by means of several steps. To promote the use of waste and obtain environmental, economic and social benefits, the entry in the matrix should be based on the desired final application of the biowaste. Next, the separation model and collection system are successively defined by choosing among those alternatives that are compatible with the application selected andl with each other. The treatment is then selected to finally establish the pre-treatments needed in stages I, and Il. These will be determined, in most cases, directly by their compatibility with the chosen treatment. 23, Multcriteria assessment ‘The selection of alternatives in the management system must consider technical, but also environmental, economic and social criteria. Here, an assessment of criteria, weighted integration thereof and a weighted aggregation of the stages is proposed to obtain the overall evaluation of the treatment line. For criteria integration, the TOPSIS method (Hwang, and Yoon, 1981) was selected because itis easy to apply and due to its suitability forthe ‘main proposal ofthe tool developed here. namely, to compare and order several alternatives assessed using different scales and units. Different authors (Pubule et al, 2015: Topaloglu et al, 2018; ‘Mondalet al. 2019) have used itin studies with similar goals. [Meld etl jour of eaner Peducion 242 (2020) 11860 3 ‘CRITERIA Fig 1 Scheme ofthe tol seucue 2334. Description of the method ‘The objective ofthis method is to help in making decisions with ‘multiple criteria by classifying the alternatives according 0 the distance that separates them from the ideal solution. To do this, a normalization of the values is performed to compare and order ‘them according to the alternative that most closely approximates the Ideal Positive Solution. ‘The normalized values (bj) are obtained by applying Eq. (1) or Eq. (2), where xj the score defined for each of the alternatives (i) {or the indicator (). They are then weighted following Eq. (3). by = MAU =A if manny preferable: a i= MON min is preferable a ~ mmaxxy — ming * ™N xj fs preferable: ] ee tet 2 Next, the Ideal Positive and Negative Solution, the best and ‘worst possible rating for the alternatives, are defined. The distance of each alternative from the Ideal Positive (d+) and Negative So- lution (d-) is calculated through Eq. 4) and Eq. (5) Distance from the Ideal Positive Solution: m. @ (Fou) Distance from the Ideal Negative Solution: @ yee) i=1,2,,m © The final calculation isthe relative closeness of each alternative {othe ideal solution (Rj), for each criterion (k) and stage (s), which is defined by Ea. (6) i m Ram egy ta? ©) Ra iim the range between O and 1, withthe best alternative being, the one closest to 1, since this means that i is closer to the ideal alternative. ‘As Fi, | shows, dfflerent weights may be assigned to each stage (W) and each criterion (Py). The values of these weights can be ‘modified according to the priorities in each case. In the resuits shown below, the default values have been used, which are the same for all stages and forall criteria Ras corresponds to the assessment of each alternative iin stage obtained by integrating all ofthe criteria considered, Ea. (7) 5 Ras = DPR ” a 232. Indicators assessed Different indicators have been selected for each ofthe stages, in an attempt to reflect the main aspects tobe evaluated in each ei- Terion consideted. Some of the indicators are assessed quantta- tively with a certain degree of precision based on the units ofeach indicator found in the literature. The rest of the indicators are assessed using a scale of order of preference from Ito 4, except in the “Treatments” stage, where, due to the greater number of al- termatives, the rating scale extends 10 5. For this assessment the "most favorable value ofeach indicator isthe one closest to unity. “ables 2-6 show the assessment proposed for each indicator ‘within the diferent stages (x3) and the assessment ofeach alter- native obtained through the equally weighted integration of all the axiteria (Rg) Figs. 2-6 show the overall ating obtained for each alternative acording to each criterion (Ris) 4) Separation modet First, for the criterion “Use of organic mater”, it is understood that the more separated the organic fraction is, the easier it will be (M.D a Jura of Ceaser Production 2 2020) 18460 Compauitty Matric for the biwaste management aeratvs defined inthis work ‘able wo-Bece---8--0---88988-0--- =~ a Ql eee : Poe eer het ee 2 2 8 35 aeuabeive eeeod¥¥¥osvb gv82_.. 2f]denaae i : i 5 5 : i 5 FF poe | é i i : 228 ce zie 7 The meunng of he abbreviations can be found on the Fist page othe paper Delgado Journal of Cleaner Produsin 222020) 18860, 5 touse it and the fewer losses there will be inthe processes of triage and separation (Gallardo etal, 2012). Related to that criterion is the “Separation quality’, which means that the greater the separation into fractions is, the higher the quality ofthe collected waste will be, including the organic fraction (Callardo etal, 2012). “Transport Emissions" considers only those attributable to collection, which will be higher the more separated the collection is, since there will be a greater deployment of vehicles with their corresponding emissions. By considering the entire cycle of waste _management, these emissions could be offset by the uses given to ‘the organic matter separated at source (Alvare-Prado et al, 2010), “Social Involvement” will be greater when more fractions are separated in the system. With more separated fractions, itis ex- pected that citizens will be more involved in managing their owa ‘waste, which will lead to greater awareness and this results in a better predisposition toward improved waste management in the future. However, "Convenience to users" is greater with a smaller number of separated fractions, due to the easy separation and storage of waste in homes, which favors citizen participation (Gallardo et al, 2012), This situation may vary depending on environmental education and the awareness of citizens in each region. Even though "Mixed Waste” separation has a better overall assessment for the balanced case, taking into account social or environmental criteria, the case involving five factions would be the most favorable (Fig. 2) ‘These results match those obtained by Gallardo et al.(2010) and fother authors (Mondal et al, 2019; De Feo et al, 2019), which showed that the higher the level of source separation was, the lower the overall impacts were. by Collection systems To assess the different collection options considered, the in- dlicators in Table 3 have been taken into account. The table also shows the assessments of each alternative (Ry) “Odors” are predominant in containers situated on the sidewalk, since large amounts of waste can remain in them for long periods of time. In addition, they are located very close to pedestrians, which ‘makes the smell more easly noticeable. In door-to-door collection the containers are smaller, geographically distributed in different areas, and they have a schedule for deposition, so the waste does ‘not remain in the containers fora long time (Alvarez-Prado et al, 2010). Pneumatic collection systems reduce the level of odors considerably, thereby improving the hygiene conditions of the area (Punkinen et al, 2012) “Separation quality” will be lower in the underground and pneumatic containers (MAGRAMA - Ministerio de Agricultura Alimeatacion y Medio Ambiente, 2073a) because the mouths are small, which sometimes makes it difficult to introduce the waste and to distinguish the container corresponding to each fraction “Facilites” are more complex in the pneumatic collection s tem, since it is necessary to install a complex system of suction pipes (Teevioja etal, 2012). They are also relevant in the under- sground container system, where civil works are necessary to bury the containers. "Flexi i also associated with the in- frastructures, as the less complex they are, the greater the flexibility of the system willbe, since it will be possible to modify the situa- tion, the size or the number of containers (Fundaciéa para la Economia Circular, 2014). “Damage” will be more frequent in con- {ainers on the sidewalk, since their entire surface is exposed to the effects of the weather or vandalism. “Complexity of implementation” is greater in pneumatic collection (Teerioja etal, 2012) and underground containers, due 10 ‘the major civil works that need to be carried out. They are followed by door-to-door collection since, even though it does not require large infrastructures, an exhaustive planning of schedules and callection routes is necessary. "Social involvement" is greater in systems with door-to-door collection, since users are more closely linked to the management ‘of their waste and this increases their awareness (Alvaves-Prado et al, 2010) ‘Service cost” data (MAGRAMA - Ministerio de Agricultura Alimentacién y Medio Ambiente, 2013a) include cleaning, amort- zation, replacement and maintenance of containers, expenses and ‘maintenance of vehicles, and staff costs ‘The results obtained through these indicators show that door- to-door and curbside bins are the two best collection options, as other authors conclude (Iriarte et al, 2008; Mondal et al, 2019), Even though door-to-door has higher greenhouse gas emissions than other options, the energy savings obtained from recycling, exceed the energy requirements (Laso et al, 2019), making it a sustainable alternative, 6) Pre-treatments ‘The pre-treatments considered in this study are shown in ‘Table 4 This same table also shows the results ofthe rating of each Indicator for each type of pre-treatment (Rs) “Greenhouse gas emissions" are higher as more machinery is needed to carry out the process, Moreover, in the drying and pelletizing process the emissions increase due tothe greater energy ‘consumption, ‘As for "Water pollution”, the pulping process with pre hydrolysis is the one that consumes the most water and will therefore cause greater contamination of it, which will require a subsequent treatment In the case of pre-composting, leachate will be produced from the degradation of waste, which will also need to be treated to avoid contamination of the adjacent waters, Regarding "Improvement of efficiency", with pre-hydrolysis, pulping and with biological pre-treatment, better performances are obtained in the subsequent treatments. Both “Technological Complexity” and "Sensitivity of the process" are greater in the alternative of pulping with pre-hydrolysis since it requires greater ‘monitoring of the control parameters to ensure its correct opera- tion, as well as a more advanced process technology (‘eC!4, 2018), “Occupational risks” are higher in those treatments in which workers are exposed to a greater number of dangerous sit- ations, such as the use of machinery or direct contact with waste ‘The comparison between the pre-treatment options should be ‘made distinguishing between P1, P2 and PPI ~ S, P2 - MGF and P3 — Pare the best options within each pre-treatment stage (rable 4) 4) Treatments. “Greenhouse Gas emissions” have been assessed as net CO2 emissions, which correspond to those emitted in the process, ‘except the ones potentially avoidable with the use of the products ‘obtained. Of all the alternatives contemplated, the ones that can prevent the most emissions are these involving anaerobic diges- tion, while the most problematic treatment in terms of emissions. ‘would be the landéill deposit without biogas use. Regarding the "Sensitivity of the pracess", those that have bio- logical processes for which a greater follow-up of the established control parameters is needed have been considered as the most sensitive treatments. “Social acceptance’ attempts to represent the alternatives that are perceived in a more positive way by the sur- rounding populations. Thus, due to their low rates of emissions, noise and pollution, treatments such as vermicomposting or 5 (M.D a Jura of Ceaser Production 2 2020) 18460 ‘Table? Assessment of separation model ternative Sige Crier Tadao Mawr PRCIG IWRC TIP MW —~PRCTGAPIOF OW ‘Separation model Environmental Onanie mater we 4 3 2 7 Transport emisions t 2 a 4 Separation gua 4 3 2 Jpbereation 4 3 2 Economie coleion cost v 2 a Re on 056 oa MW, Mined Waste; PAC, Paper & CardbordG, Gas Ligh ockagings OF, Organic Faction. ‘able? Assesment of cllocton stem alteratves Suse cr Tnaieton = ve Be alection tems ‘Environmental ‘odors a a 7 7 ‘ceupancy of ple space 4 a 3 1 Separation quality 2 3 3 1 Greenhouse gas emisions 1 3 4 4 Technical Faces 2 3 4 7 Flexbilty 2 3 4 1 Damage a 3 2 2 Comes of implementation 1 3 4 i sca Convenience othe wes T 7 3 a Jpbecation 2 3 1 Distance from the bome 3 4 1 xonomie Fralites ose 2 3 7 Seve cst eft) 130 60 150 on 036 39 020 ome * Curbside Bins; UB, Underground Bins PC Pneumatic Collection; DDG Door te Doo Collection, Tabled Assessment of pre-treatment alternatives Sass ere Teor Psi) SH eM PB Pre-treatment Environmental Greenhouse gas emisions 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 a iter ptiation 3 4 3 2 Techni maproverneat of ficiency — : 5 v 2 3 Technological complenty. 2 a 1 2 4 3 3 Energy consumption 2 8 1 3 3 3 4 Sens ofthe process 2 4 3 2 socal ‘Occupational sks a at 7 3 3 3 3 Jeb creation 3 1 Economic Cont 2 3 3 7 z a a a Ror ome 028 050 ~—«OaS~CS CCC S. rimary Pe weatment_ Simple Tage: PIL Primary Pe eaten! — intensive Wage; P2 SH Secondary Pe Weatnent ~Shreding and homogeniation F2— MF, Secondary pre-treatment Tera Pe tentment Bogie "Mov with Groen ration: 3” P Terry Pre-seatment Paling FPP Terry Pre-ueatment~Pulpag with Pe-bysross P38 DP, Tertiary Pre-treatment - Drying sod Peltizing "the symbol) indicates thatthe alternative has ot been evalaed based on this eerie, anaerobic digestion are better accepted socially than others such as incineration (Barbers, 2011). Furthermore, the jobs generated by each thousand tons treated, “Job creation”, will be higher in less mechanized treatments and in ‘ones which treat smaller amounts of waste, such as vermi- composting or traditional composting, The "Investment Costs” include the costs of the land, planning, construction and initial ‘operation of each installation. “Costs of operation” include all ex- penses related to the operation and maintenance of the facilities ‘except those related to the management of waste and personnel. In spite of their high complexity. dry anaerobic digestion and. wet anaerobic digestion are the best rated alternatives in the overall calculation (Table 5). These results coincide with those of other authors, such as Colén et al. (2015), who highlight the contribution of anaerobic digestion to reduce the environmental Impacts of the OF treatment, especially favored by the energy recovered from biogas. Kio etal. (2010) conclude that, in their case study, composting is environmentally favorable compared to [Malad tl jour of Ceaner Reduction 22 (2020) 11860 2 ‘Tables ‘Assessment of treatment alternatives Sage ener Indies © aa ve pS wah te Treatments Enironmenal Greeahowe gas eyssions ig COreaINRIBI a2 15 38 —>_128 6S sas Sait ccupation (1415161 [71 08 08 763 129 129 of of at 322322 Matera recovery (weigh) 8] ss 6 0 3% 20 0 9 0 0 Technical Greray proce (HID rr Sensi ofthe process a4 5 5 5 3 3 4 1 2 Energy eansumpuan WA 9} ee soci Social Acceptance z 2) 1 45 4 35 54 (ception! ss 10) a 4 3020 2 4 4 4 5 4 Job ctetion Jo1002 [21 (6 as oa as oss Or tata Economic Investment cot (67-99) 12) 1S 185 S87 —«OOS AD

    You might also like