Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 64e76

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Biopower and biofertilizer production from organic municipal solid

waste: An exergoenvironmental analysis
Mortaza Aghbashlo a, *, Meisam Tabatabaei b, c, d, **, Salman Soltanian b,
Hossein Ghanavati b, c
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
b
Biofuel Research Team (BRTeam), Karaj, Iran
c
Microbial Biotechnology Department, Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran (ABRII), Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education
Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran
d
Faculty of Plantation and Agrotechnology, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

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

Article history: In this study, the environmental performance of a genset-coupled anaerobic digestion plant is analyzed
Received 25 August 2018 at component-level using an exergoenvironmental method. The plant digests organic municipal solid
Received in revised form waste (MSW) while producing two main products, i.e., biopower and biofertilizer. A comprehensive
7 March 2019
exergoenvironmental modeling of the plant is conducted using actual operating data in order to high-
Accepted 20 April 2019
Available online 4 May 2019
light the main units consuming exergy and causing environmental burdens. The exergoenvironmental
indicators of all units of the system are computed by integrating exergy and environmental impact
balances. The unitary exegetic environmental impact of biopower and biofertilizer are determined at
Keywords:
Biopower
11.10 and 0.36 mPts/GJ, respectively. This means that the biofertilizer generation causes less environ-
Biofertilizer mental burden over the biopower due to the ease of its production. The highest total environmental
Environmental impact rate impact rate (37.05 mPts/h) is caused by the genset followed far behind by the digester (8.56 mPts/h).
Exergoenvironmental analysis Although the genset has the highest operation-related environmental impact rate (36.97 mPts/h), the
Municipal solid waste highest component-related environmental impact rate (7.87 mPts/h) is associated with the digester.
Therefore, the exergoenvironmental performance of the plant can be boosted by minimizing the rate of
exergy dissipation of the genset while mitigating the environmental impacts related to the development
and construction of the digester.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction areas. If not handled properly, it can seriously affect environmental

The quantity of municipal solid waste (MSW) has increased
dramatically worldwide as a consequence of the expanding popu-
lation, growing urbanization, rapid industrialization, and rising
living standards. MSW management is undoubtedly one of the
most critical issues of the global environment, particularly in urban
* Corresponding author. Department of Mechanical Engineering of Agricultural
Machinery, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, College of Agri-
culture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.
** Corresponding author. Microbial Biotechnology Department, Agricultural
Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran (ABRII), Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Education Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.
E-mail addresses: maghbashlo@ut.ac.ir (M. Aghbashlo), meisam_tabatabaei@
abrii.ac.ir (M. Tabatabaei).
quality by releasing unpleasant odor, generating leachate, and
emitting greenhouse gases. Landfilling is the main disposal route to
deal with MSW in the majority of the countries worldwide
regardless of the per capita income [1]. However, this treatment
method has been criticized because of its high environmental im-
pacts and incompatibility with the concept of circular bioeconomy.
During the past few decades, numerous environmentally-
friendly biochemical (anaerobic digestion, fermentation, compost-
ing) and thermochemical (gasification, pyrolysis, hydrothermal
carbonization) pathways have been developed and commercialized
throughout the globe to mitigate the problems associated with
MSW disposal. Among the various technologies developed, anaer-
obic digestion has gained more adherents worldwide because of a
high biodegradable organics fraction (40e50%) of MSW collected
from households and municipal areas [2]. Using this technically-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.109
0960-1481/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Aghbashlo et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 64e76
Nomenclatures
Notations
A Ash percent (%)
b Unitary exegetic environmental impact (mPts/GJ)
B_ Environmental impact rate (mPts/h)
C Carbon percent (%)
e Specific exergy (kJ/kg)
E_ Exergy rate (kJ/s)
f Exergoenvironmental factor (%)
H Yearly working hours (h)
H Hydrogen percent (%)
N Plant lifespan (year)
N Nitrogen percent (%)
O Oxygen percent (%)
r Relative difference of unitary exergetic
environmental impact ()
S Sulfur percent (%)
W_ Work rate (kJ/s)
feasible and economically-viable technology, double goals of waste
management and energy recovery can be simultaneously achieved,
promoting the circular bioeconomy and sustainable development.
In-vessel anaerobic digestion process as an environmentally
sympathetic pathway of MSW treatment produces biogas and
nutrient-rich fertilizer under mesophilic conditions at tempera-
tures in the range of 25e40
C. Biogas consisting of methane, car-
bon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, water, and oxygen is evolved by
breaking down the organic MSW using a consortium of anaerobic
microorganisms under controlled conditions. The obtained
renewable fuel can be directly converted into heat, electricity, and
mechanical work. In addition, the remained liquid and solid efflu-
ents are high-quality fertilizers that can be applied to enhance soil
fertility. Since the successful commercialization of anaerobic
digestion technology in the late of 1980s [3], various research ef-
forts have been devoted to analyzing organic MSW-fed commercial
anaerobic digestion plants aimed at improving their technical,
financial, environmental, social, and managerial dimensions [4,5].
Even though an anaerobic digestion process is an attractive option
to treat wastes and to provide renewable energy, its sustainability
and renewability aspects should still be comprehensively assessed
by implementing more elaborate assessment tools like life cycle
assessment (LCA) approach and exergetic methods.
LCA is one of the most powerful tools used for examining and
measuring the cradle-to-grave environmental consequences of
making and using a product/service [6]. This method is started by
compiling the relevant inputs and outputs of a given production/
servicing system, followed by determining their associated envi-
ronmental impacts, and is finally finished by translating and
interpreting the results achieved in the inventory analysis and
impact assessment stages [7]. The multiple impacts on natural
resource use, human health, global climate change, and ecological
well-being can be reliably measured using this method [8].
Accordingly, LCA approach has been recently applied in several
research works to evaluate the environmental impacts of anaerobic
digestion plants. For example, Lijo
et al. [9] have environmentally
analyzed electricity generation from biogas produced through co-
digestion of pig slurry, maize silage, and triticale silage by means
65
Y_ Component-related environmental impact rate
(mPts/h)
Y Component-related environmental impact (mPts)
Greeks
h Exergy efficiency of the whole plant (%)
ε Standard chemical exergy (kJ/mol)
j Exergoenvironmental performance of the whole
plant (%)
Subscripts
D Destruction
F Fuel
k kth component
L Loss
net Net
O Operation-related
OM Organic matter
P Product
TOT Total
of LCA methodology. Pe
rez-Camacho et al. [10] have carried out an
LCA analysis to evaluate the environmental impacts of incorpo-
rating food wastes into conventional anaerobic digestion feed-
stocks. Ramírez-Arpide et al. [11] have used LCA method to analyze
the environmental impacts of biogas produced from co-digestion of
nopal cladodes and dairy cow manure. These studies have shown
that LCA is a powerful method for the eco-design of anaerobic
digestion systems by determining the quantity of all energy and
materials utilized as well as wastes and emissions released into the
environment.
On the other hand, derived by consolidating the first and second
laws of thermodynamics [12], exergy is the possible work that can
be attained from a given thermodynamic system when it is allowed
to interact with the surroundings [13]. Unlike conventional energy
analysis, exergy analysis can quantitatively and qualitatively value
an energy/material flow [14]. In fact, exergy analysis can provide
unique insights into more efficient use of energy/materials in
waste-to-energy (WTE) systems by identifying, quantifying, and
locating the energy quality loss or thermodynamic non-idealities
[15]. Accordingly, this engineering method can be reliably
employed for measuring the degree of renewability of energy
systems by determining the quantity of exergy destruction as
resource costs [16]. During the last decade, there has been a great
deal of interest in using the exergetic methods for analyzing,
optimizing, and retrofitting WTE projects. For instance, Yag lı et al.
[17] have exergetically investigated the exhaust waste heat recov-
ery potential of a biogas-fed combined heat and power system
through an organic Rankine cycle working at subcritical/super-
critical conditions. Prodromidis and Coutelieris [18] have used the
exergy concept to investigate a solid oxide fuel cell system fueled
with biogas. Mudasar et al. [19] have analyzed an organic Rankine
cycle annexation into a sewage plant for waste heat recovery from
the exergetic viewpoint. These investigations have revealed the fact
that exergy analysis can undoubtedly aid designer and engineers
with developing more energy-efficient, cost-effective, and eco-
friendly WTE projects.
Given the outcomes of the above investigations, both LCA and
exergy methods appear to be increasingly popular engineering
66 M. Aghbashlo et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 64e76
tools for investigating renewable energy projects from the sus-
tainability and renewability perspectives. However, these ap-
proaches have always been implemented independently in the
majority of WTE projects, leading to distinct impacts and/or irre-
versibility results. In fact, LCA-based decision-making might be
misleading as LCA method assesses the projects under investiga-
tion regarding environmental constraints while such findings
might not necessarily satisfy the thermodynamic goals achieved
using the exergy analysis, and vice versa. To this end, exergoenvir-
onmental method interconnecting the LCA constraints with the
exergy concepts has been proposed by Meyer et al. [20]. Indeed,
exergoenvironmental method benefits from the irreversibility
aspect of exergy method and the sustainability feature of LCA
approach [16]. Exergoenvironmental analysis can provide a deep
understanding of environmental burdens caused by each stream
and component of energy conversions systems, thus pinpointing
the breakthrough points for further environmental sustainability
improvement. Notably, neither exergy analysis nor LCA approach
can provide such invaluable information as a stand-alone proced-
ure. In light of that, the so-called exergoenvironmental method has
been used in numerous investigations to study and optimize
different energy/material conversion systems both thermody-
namically and environmentally. For example, the optimum com-
bination of a gas-fueled steam power plant and a site utility system
have been exergoenvironmentally sought by Khoshgoftar Manesh
et al.. [21]. Aghbashlo et al. [22] have exergoenvironmentally
evaluated and optimized biodiesel production from waste cooking
oil in an ultrasound-assisted reactor. Aghbashlo et al. [23] have
analyzed and optimized acetins synthesis from Amberlyst-
catalyzed glycerol esterification process with acetic acid by means
of exergoenvironmental approach.
The findings of the above-referred investigations have shown
that various WTE systems can be analyzed, planned, and optimized
adequately from the sustainability and renewability standpoints via
exergoenvironmental analysis. Even though a number of research
publications have applied exergoenvironmental approach for
investigating different energy conversion systems, there is no
report on applying this comprehensive tool for evaluating and
scrutinizing a real-world commercial genset-coupled anaerobic
digestion plant to the best of our knowledge. Notably, in a typical
anaerobic digestion plant, anaerobic microbes are harnessed to
assimilate organic wastes within digesters, resulting in the pro-
duction of biogas and biofertilizer. The resultant biogas can be used
to generate renewable biopower using various technologies like
fuel cells, gas/steam turbines, gensets, etc. Among these technolo-
gies, biogas conversion to biopower using gensets is regarded as a
much more practical approach because of its relatively more
favorable fuel flexibility and low capital cost. Gensets convert the
evolved biogas into mechanical energy, powering an alternator to
generate biopower. The thermal energy delivered to the coolant of
gensets is also used to provide mesophilic/thermophilic conditions
inside digesters.
In our previous studies, exergy analysis [24] and exer-
goeconomic approach [25] have been used to identify the hotspots
of exergy dissipation and cost loss, but without performing a
component-level detailed environmental analysis of the plant.
Hence, in the present work, the environmental performance of a
commercial genset-coupled organic MSW-fed anaerobic digestion
plant is conducted using the exergoenvironmental method to
highlight the breakthrough points for further explorations. To this
end, the real-world operating data and environmental constraints
are used in the analysis. Generally, the outputs of such compre-
hensive analyses can be valuable to researchers and engineers
involved in developing and optimizing WTE systems.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Plant definition
A genset-coupled organic MSW-fed anaerobic digestion plant is
considered throughout this study. More detailed information on
the development and performance of the plant can be found in our
previous publications [24,25]. In brief, the plant has been estab-
lished in Abali in the vicinity of Tehran, Iran, in an area of
30,000 m2. This plant has been designed and constructed by an
Italian Company (Seko, Curtarolo, Italy). The required data for both
exergy and LCA analyses are obtained from this plant. Databases
recorded and gathered in the year 2016 are averaged and used in
the exergetic and environmental computations. Biopower and
biofertilizer (liquid and solid digestates) are the main products of
the plant. The daily input of the plant is 300 tons discarded MSW
with approximately 120 tons of palatable organic substances. Given
the water content of the delivered organic MSW (i.e., ranging be-
tween 64 and 68%), the daily intake of the plant is 40 tons of dry
organic matters. The delivered MSW is fractioned into organic,
recyclable, and rejected materials through a materials recovery
facility. This unit of the plant with an hourly capacity of 30 tons
discarded MSW composes of a series of mechanical components.
The separated organic MSW is conveyed to the pre-digestion units
and then is transferred into the main digesters (first and second
digesters). The recyclable materials including PET, HDPE, nylon,
glass, paper, and cardboard are sold in the markets, while the
rejected matters are landfilled. The organic MSW fed into the pre-
digesters is blended with the recycled digestate. In this unit, the
heavy impurities of organic MSW are settled while the light im-
purities are floated. Accordingly, both heavy/light impurities are
separated from organic fraction of MSW. The mix of fresh organic
MSW and recycled digestate is then conveyed to the main digesters.
In the digestion unit, the organic MSW is continuously digested by a
two-step wet anaerobic digestion process under mesophilic con-
ditions. The capacity of the primary digester is 1200 m3, while this
value is 1500 m3 for the secondary digester. Both the primary and
secondary digesters are continuously stirred. Various sensors
measuring pH, pressure, and temperature are installed on different
locations of the digesters for monitoring and controlling the pro-
cess. The majority of the digestate leaving the secondary digester is
fed back into the pre-digesters for feed preparation. The recycled
digestate is blended with the fresh organic MSW and then fed into
the main digesters. Notably, a smaller fraction of the digestate is
sun-dried and warehoused for subsequent use as fertilizer after
dewatering in the centrifuge separator and composting.
The evolved biogas in this plant contains 65% methane, 34.5%
carbon dioxide, and 0.5% oxygen (all in v/v dry basis). The methane
content obtained in this study is in line with the values (55e70%)
reported in the published literature [26e28]. The biogas also con-
tains 1300 ppmv hydrogen sulfide which is removed in a wet
chemical scrubber using NaOH solution. It should be noted that a
portion of the evolved carbon dioxide is also removed in the
scrubber. Thereafter, the moisture content of the sulfur-free biogas
is decreased using a chiller in order to meet the fuel purity
requirement of the engine. The desulfurized and dehumidified
biogas is then charged into the genset. The plant has two 16-cyl-
inder turbocharged gensets (Perkins 4016-61TRS2) with a
maximum power of 1042 kW. The plant includes thirteen ther-
modynamically relevant units as schematically illustrated in Fig. 1.
Notably, the vapor-compression refrigerator provides the cooling
water required for the dehumidification of the moist biogas. Since
the lower heating value of the evolved biogas is lower than that of
its petroleum-derived counterpart, it is compressed using the
blower. The regulator is used to lower the pressure of the biogas
 M. Aghbashlo et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 64e76
Fig. 1. A schematic view of the plant. (A) pre-digestion unit, (B) digester, (C) separation unit, (D) wet chemical scrubber, (E) vapor-compression refrigerator, (F) chilling unit, (G)
blower, (H) pressure regulator, (I) genset, (J) freshwater cooler, (K) heat exchanger, (L) pump and pipeline, (M) pump and pipeline Adapted from Barati et al. [24]. With permission
from Elsevier. Copyright© 2019. License Number: 4540120344472.
leaving the blower a safe level of the genset. The freshwater cooling
system is used to cool down the turbocharged intake air in order to
make the combustion process more efficient. In addition, the raw
water is heated up through the heat exchanger in order to sustain
the metabolic functions of the mesophilic bacteria and archaea in
the digesters.
2.2. Theoretical considerations
The exergetic calculations of the plant have been presented in
detail in our recent paper [24]. The reference model proposed by
0:73704 CH4 þ 0:24176 CO2 þ 0:00481 O2 þ 0:01630 H2 O þ 5:69698 N2 þ 1:57493 O2 þ 0:00229 CO2
þ 0:14533 H2 O/0:98109 CO2 þ 1:63571 H2 O þ 0:10566O2 þ 5:69698N2
Szargut et al. [29] for the chemical compositions of the reference
state is considered throughout this study. According to Szargut
et al. [29], the reference environment includes N2, O2, H2O, CO2, Ar,
He, Ne, and Kr with molar percentages of 75.67, 20.34, 3.03, 0.03,
0.92, 0.00052, 0.0018, and 0.000076, respectively.
The specific chemical exergy of each organic stream is estimated
using the following model proposed by Song et al. [30].
eOM ¼ 363:439C þ 1075:633H  86:308O þ 4:14N þ 190:798S
 21:1A
(1)
67
In order to use the equation above, the mass percentages of
elements of each organic stream (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, ni-
trogen, sulfur, ash) are first computed. It should be noted that the
water elements, i.e., hydrogen and oxygen are considered in the
elemental calculations according to its mass fraction through each
organic stream.
The actual air/fuel mass ratio is 13 for the genset. Accordingly,
the molar fraction of each substance in the flue gas is determined
using the following complete stoichiometric reaction for measuring
the specific chemical exergy of the exhaust gas:
(2)
After determining the exergy rates associated with all the
streams, the environmental impact balances, fuel rules, product
rules, auxiliary environmental impact equations, the unitary
exegetic environmental impact of products, and the unitary
exegetic environmental impact of fuels are written for all the units
of the system according to the specific exergy costing approach
[31]. Exergy and exergoenvironmental impact balance equations
for the units of the plant can be written as below:
Pre-digestion unit (A):
68 M. Aghbashlo et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 64e76

 
E_ 1 þ E_ 5 þ W_ ¼ E_ þ E_ þ E_
A 2 L;A D;A (3) b11 E_ 11 þ b27 E_ 27  b28 E_ 28
bF;F ¼   (22)
E_ 11 þ E_ 27  E_ 28
b1 E_ 1 þ b5 E_ 5 þ b20 W_ þ Y_ ¼ b E_ þ b E_
A A 2 2 F;A L;A (4)
Blower (G):

b1 E_ 1 þ b5 E_ 5 þ b20 W_
A E_ 13 þ W_ ¼ E_ þ E_ þ E_ (23)
bF;A ¼ (5) G 14 L;G D;G
E_ þ E_ 5 þ W
1
_
A

Digester (B): b13 E_ 13 þ b20 W_ þ Y_ ¼ b E_ þ b E_

G G 14 14 F;G L;G (24)
 
E_ 2 þ E_ 24  E_ 25 þ W_ B ¼ E_ þ E_ þ E_ L;B þ E_ D;B
3 4 (6) b13 E_ 13 þ b20 W_
G
bF;G ¼ (25)
E_ þ W
13
_
G
 
b2 E_ 2 þ b24 E_ 24  b25 E_ 25 þ b20 W_ B þ Y_ B Pressure regulator (H):

¼ b3 E_ 3 þ b4 E_ 4 þ bF;B E_ L;B (7) E_ 14 ¼ E_ 15 þ E_ L;H þ E_ D;H (26)

b24 ¼ b25 ðF  ruleÞ (8) b14 E_ 14 þ Y_ H ¼ b15 E_ 15 þ b14 E_ L;H (27)

Genset (I):
b3 ¼ b4 ðP  ruleÞ (9)
   
  E_ 15 þ E_ 21 ¼ E_ 16  E_ 17 þ E_ 19  E_ 18 þ E_ 20 þ E_ 22 þ E_ L;I þ E_ D;I
b2 E_ 2 þ b24 E_ 24  b25 E_ 25 þ b20 W_
B
bF;B ¼   (10) (28)
_ _ _
E2 þ E24  E25 þ W B _
   
b15 E_ 15 þ b21 E_ 21 þ Y_ I ¼ b16 E_ 16  b17 E_ 17 þ bF;I E_ 19  E_ 18
Separation unit (C):
þ b20 E_ 20 þ bF;I E_ 22 þ bF;I E_ L;I
E_ 6 þ W_ ¼ E_ 7 þ E_ þ E_
C 8 D;C (11)
(29)

b6 E_ 6 þ b20 W_ þ Y_ ¼ b E_ þ b E_
C C 7 7 8 8 (12) b16 E_ 16  b17 E_ 17
¼ b20 ðP  ruleÞ (30)
E_  E_
16 17
b7 ¼ b8 ðP  ruleÞ (13)
Wet chemical scrubber (D): b15 E_ 15 þ b21 E_ 21
bF;I ¼ (31)
E_ þ E_
15 21
E_ 3 þ E_ 9 þ W_ D ¼ E_ þ E_ þ E_ L;D þ E_ D;D
10 11 (14)
Freshwater cooler (J):
 
b3 E_ 3 þ b9 E_ 9 þ b20 W_ D þ Y_ D ¼ bF;D E_ þ b E_ þ bF;D E_ L;D
10 11 11 (15) E_ 19  E_ 18 þ W_ J ¼ E_ L;J þ E_ D;J (32)

It should be noted that the freshwater cooler is a dissipative

b3 E_ 3 þ b9 E_ 9 þ b20 W_D
component because this unit does not perform productive pro-
bF;D ¼ (16)
E_ þ E_ þ W
3 9
_D cesses. Accordingly, the environmental impact balance of this unit
is eliminated from the set of environmental impact balances
Vapor-compression refrigerator (E):
developed for the productive components.
  Heat exchanger (K):
_ E ¼ E_  E_ _
W 27 28 þ ED;E (17)
   
E_ 16  E_ 17 ¼ E_ 23  E_ 26 þ E_ L;K þ E_ D;K (33)
 
b20 W_ E þ Y_ E ¼ b E_  b E_ (18)
27 27 28 28    
b16 E_ 16  b17 E_ 17 þ Y_ K ¼ b23 E_ 23  b26 E_ 26 þ bF;K E_ L;K (34)
Chilling unit (F):
 
E_ 11 þ E_ 27  E_ 28 ¼ E_ 12 þ E_ 13 þ E_ L;F þ E_ D;F (19) b16 ¼ b17 ðF  ruleÞ (35)

  b16 E_ 16  b17 E_ 17
b11 E_ 11 þ b27 E_ 27  b28 E_ 28 þ Y_ F ¼ bF;F E_ 12 þ b13 E_ 13 þ bF;F E_ L;F bF;K ¼ (36)
E_  E_
16 17
(20) Pump and pipeline (L):

b27 ¼ b28 ðF  ruleÞ (21) E_ 23 þ W_ ¼ E_ þ E_ þ E_

L 24 L;L D;L (37)
 M. Aghbashlo et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 64e76
b23 E_ 23 þ b20 W_ L þ Y_ L ¼ b E_ þ bF;L E_ L;L
24 24
b23 E_ 23 þ b20 W_
L
bF;L ¼
_
E þ WL _
23
Pump and pipeline (M):
E_ 25 þ W_ M ¼ E_ þ E_ L;M þ E_ D;M
26
b25 E_ 25 þ b20 W_ M þ Y_ M ¼ b E_ þ bF;M E_ L;M
26 26
b25 E_ 25 þ b20 W_M
bF;M ¼
_
E þ WM _ specific environmental impact of NaOH (stream 9) is 0.46 mPts/kg.
25
In addition to the above-mentioned environmental impact
balances, environmental impact balances and auxiliary relations
are expressed for a junction linking units A, B, and C as below:
E_ 4 ¼ E_ 5 þ E_ 6
b4 E_ 4 ¼ b5 E_ 5 þ b6 E_ 6
b4 ¼ b5 ¼ b6
In the above-mentioned equations, the unitary exegetic envi-
ronmental impacts of the undesirable streams, i.e., lost and waste
streams are equal to the unitary exegetic environmental impact of
the fuel provided to the corresponding unit. This can be attributed
to the fact that the aim of the plant is to provide useful work
(exergy) and, therefore, all the environmental impacts associated
with the development and operation of each unit of the plant must
be charged to the useful exergy. Notably, the exergy rate of desul-
furization slurry (E_ 10 ), condensed water (E_ 12 ), exhaust hot flue air
(E_ 22 ), and thermal exergy delivered to the freshwater cooler (E_ 19 
E_ 18 ) are considered as waste exergy streams.
The environmental impact rate (Y_ i ) of each component is ob-
tained as follows:
Y0
Y_ i ¼ i
N:H
where Y 0i is the total environmental impact of each unit, H denotes
the yearly working hours, and N stands for the plant lifespan. The
yearly working hours and the plant lifespan are considered to be
8000 h and 30 years, respectively.
The total environmental impact of each component of the
Table 1
Environmental impact associated with each unit of the plant.
Component Environmental impact (mPts)
A 617,714.0
B 1,889,737.9
C 4989.3
D 6440.6
E 1871.8
F 1270.5
G 100.0
H 176.1
I 17,647.3
J 11,761.3
K 875.4
L 5182.5
M 3455.0
Overall 2,561,221.7
69
system is determined according to the damage oriented “IMPACT
(38) 2002þ” method throughout this study. This LCA methodology is an
integration of four environmental impact assessment methods, i.e.,
IMPACT 2002, Eco-indicator 99, CML, and IPCC. IMPACT 2002þ
(39) includes fifteen mid-points damage categories while providing four
end-point damage categories. Ecoinvent database (SimaPro soft-
ware version 8.2.3) is used to obtain the background data con-
cerning the materials consumed in the construction and
(40) development of the units of the plant. Table 1 summarizes the
environmental impact associated with each unit of the plant.
Furthermore, the environmental impact related to organic MSW
(41) (stream 1) is considered to be zero due to the fact that it does not
require materials and energy for generation. The environmental
impact of air (stream 21) is considered to be zero as well. The
(42)
The relative difference of unitary exergetic environmental
impact of each unit of the plant is obtained as follows:
bP;k  bF;k
rk ¼ (47)
bF;k
(43)
The operation-related environmental impact (environmental
impacts associated with exergy destruction and loss) of each unit
(44) (B_ O;k ) of the system is determined as follows:
 
(45) B_ O;k ¼ B_ D;k þ B_ L;k ¼ bF;k E_ D;k þ E_ L;k (48)
Therefore, the total environmental impact rate of each unit is
measured as below:
B_ TOT;k ¼ Y_ k þ B_ O;k ¼ Y_ k þ B_ D;k þ B_ L;k (49)
Exergoenvironmental factor of each unit of the system is
calculated as below:
Y_ k Y_ k
fk ¼ ¼ (50)
B_ TOT;k Y_ k þ B_ O;k
The exergetic efficiency of the whole plant is determined as
follows [24]:
W_ þ E_ þ E_
(46) h ¼ _ net _ 7 _ 8 (51)
E1 þ E9 þ E21
The exergoenvironmental performance of the entire plant is
calculated as follows:
b20 W_ net þ b7 E_ 7 þ b E_
j¼ 8 8
(52)
b1 E_ 1 þ b9 E_ 9 þ b21 E_ 21 þ Y_ TOT
3. Results and discussions
Table 2 provides the thermodynamic properties, exergy rate,
unitary exegetic environmental impact, and environmental impact
rate of each stream of the plant with respect to their thermody-
namic status shown in Fig. 1. It should be noted that detailed and
comprehensive insights into the exergetic indicators of each unit of
the plant can be found elsewhere [24]. However, in order to facil-
itate the understanding of the outcomes of the exergoenvir-
onmental method, the results of exergy analysis have been
concisely described and discussed throughout this study. Biopower,
liquid biofertilizer, and solid biofertilizer are the main useful
products of the plant with the exergy rates of 1596.0, 1880.0, and
6878.3 kW, respectively. The unitary exegetic environmental
70 M. Aghbashlo et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 64e76

Table 2
Thermodynamic properties, exergy rate, unitary exergetic environmental impact, and environmental impact rate of each stream involved in the process.

State Stream type Temperature Pressure Mass flow rate Exergy rate Unitary exegetic environmental Environmental impact rate
No. (K)a (kPa)a (kg/s)a (kW) impact (mPts/GJ) (mPts/h)

1 Organic MSW 293.2 100.0 1.40 14133.6 0.00 0.00

2 Mixed organic MSW and 309.2 100.0 4.20 29135.5 0.21 22.40
recycled slurry
3 Biogas 315.2 101.0 0.23 4684.8 0.33 5.57
4 Digested slurry 313.2 100.0 3.97 23765.2 0.33 28.25
5 Recycled slurry 313.2 100.0 2.80 15002.4 0.33 17.83
6 Digested slurry 313.2 100.0 1.17 8762.8 0.33 10.42
7 Liquid biofertilizer 313.2 100.0 0.93 1882.5 0.36 2.41
8 Solid biofertilizer 313.2 100.0 0.23 6878.8 0.36 8.82
9 NaOH solution 293.2 100.0 0.11 98.7 246.80 87.69
10 Desulfurization slurry 306.2 100.0 0.16 43.6 5.43 0.85
11 Wet biogas 307.2 101.0 0.18 4656.6 5.54 92.80
12 Condensed water 283.2 100.0 0.01 0.5 5.56 0.01
13 Dehumidified biogas 283.2 100.8 0.17 4655.2 5.56 93.18
14 Biogas 313.2 140.0 0.17 4661.4 5.60 93.97
15 Biogas 313.2 111.0 0.17 4657.1 5.61 93.97
16 Freshwater 364.2 200.0 0.83 26.0 11.10 1.04
17 Freshwater 354.2 180.0 0.83 19.5 11.10 0.78
18 Hot water 309.2 160.0 10.00 18.2 5.61 0.37
19 Hot water 313.2 180.0 10.00 28.1 5.61 0.57
20 Electricity e e e 1800.0 11.10 71.93
21 Fresh intake air 293.2 100.0 2.24 0.0 0.00 0.00
22 Hot flue gas 741.2 104.0 2.41 1008.4 5.61 20.35
23 Raw-water 343.2 150.0 0.34 5.5 25.18 0.50
24 Raw-water 341.2 150.0 0.34 5.1 31.59 0.58
25 Raw-water 323.2 150.0 0.34 2.1 31.59 0.24
26 Raw-water 321.2 150.0 0.34 1.8 39.62 0.26
27 Chilled-water 268.2 400.0 1.67 7.9 26.84 0.76
28 Chilled-water 277.2 400.0 1.67 3.7 26.84 0.35
a
Obtained from Barati et al. [24].

impact of biopower is determined at 11.10 mPts/GJ, while the uni-
tary exegetic environmental impact of both liquid and solid bio-
fertilizers is found to be 0.36 mPts/GJ. The unitary exegetic
environmental impact of a given stream is representative of the
normalized and weighted environmental load per its exergetic
content imposed by the corresponding thermodynamic system.
The dimensionless environmental load value is the summation of
the normalized and weighted environmental impacts of four
midpoint damage categories, i.e., human health, ecosystem quality,
climate change, and resources that are computed by multiplying
their values by the corresponding weighting factors. The main
purpose of introducing environmental load value is to environ-
mentally compare relative differences between various streams of a
system. It is noteworthy that a higher unitary exegetic environ-
mental impact represents a higher damage to the environment and
vice versa.
Notably, NaOH solution as the main input of the plant has the
highest unitary exegetic environmental impact (246.80 mPts/GJ)
among all the streams involved in the process. Obviously, biopower
generation leads to more environmental burden compared to the
liquid and solid biofertilizers. This can be ascribed to the fact that
the biofertilizer production is much simpler than the biopower
production. The environmental impact rate of the net biopower is
63.78 mPts/h, while the environmental impact rates of the liquid
and solid biofertilizers are 2.41 and 8.82 mPts/h, respectively. The
highest environmental impact rate (93.97 mPts/h) is associated
with the purified biogas injected into the gensets. The environ-
mental impact rate of the NaOH solution having the highest unitary
exegetic environmental impact is determined to be 87.69 mPts/h.
The environmental impact rate of a given stream/competent is the
normalized and weighted environmental load, which is imposed by
the corresponding thermodynamic system per unit of time.
Generally speaking, a higher damage rate is represented by a higher
environmental impact rate.
Table 3 summarizes some results of exergy and exergoenvir-
onmental analyses of the plant. The electrical exergy consumption
of the whole plant is 204.0 kW. In better words, over 11% of the total
biopower (1800 kW) generated in the plant is utilized by the other
equipment of the plant. The environmental impact rate associated
with the biopower consumed by the units of the plant is found to be
8.15 mPts/h, accounting for 8.29% of the environmental impact
brought by the entire plant. The digester has the highest electrical
exergy consumption (80 kW), contributing to about 40% of the
electrical power consumption of the whole plant. The exergy
destruction rate and irreversibility-related environmental impact
rate of the entire plant are determined at 2740.4 kW and 39.55
mPts/h, respectively. These values respectively amount to 19.3% of
the chemical exergy fed into the whole plant and 40.21% of the
environmental impact caused by the entire system.
The genset shows the greatest irreversibility rate (1768.8 kW) as
well as the irreversibility-related environmental impact rate (35.69
mPts/h) among the units of the plant. This unit contributes to 64.5%
and 90.24% of the exergy destruction rate and irreversibility-related
environmental impact rate of the whole plant, respectively. The
digester has the second highest irreversibility rate (765.05 kW) and
the second highest irreversibility-related environmental impact
rate is caused by the wet chemical scrubber (1.82 mPts/h). The
digester contributes to 27.9% of the irreversibility rate of the entire
system, while 4.6% of the irreversibility-related environmental
impact rate of the whole system is caused by the wet chemical
scrubber. Interestingly, 12.4% of the exergy supplied to the entire
system is irreversibly dissipated in the genset. In addition, the
environmental impact rate brought by the genset amounts to over
36.3% of the environmental impact rate caused by the whole plant.
Overall, the high irreversibility rate occurs in the genset as a result
of several irreversible processes like combustion, heat transfer,
mixing, and friction could be expressed as the main reasons for
these findings.
 M. Aghbashlo et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 64e76 71

Table 3
Some results of exergy and exergoenvironmental analyses of the plant.

Unit Electrical Exergy loss Exergy Environmental impacts associated with Environmental impact associated Environmental impact associated with
exergy rate rate (kW)a destruction rate electrical exergy work (mPts/h) with exergy loss (mPts/h) exergy destruction (mPts/h)
(kW)a (kW)a

A 50.00 0.50 49.95 2.00 3.40  104 3.39  102

B 80.00 3.48 765.05 3.20 3.09  103 6.79  101
C 20.00 0.00 21.48 0.80 0.00 2.74  102
D 10.00 0.35 92.93 0.40 6.84  103 1.82
E 10.00 0.00 5.78 0.401 0.00 2.31  101
F 0.00 1.84 3.21 0.00 3.68  102 6.42  102
G 20.00 0.20 13.63 0.80 4.02  103 2.74  101
H 0.00 0.00 4.27 0.00 0.00 8.61  102
I 1800.00 63.57 1768.80 71.90 1.28 35.7
J 10.00 10.26 9.61 0.40 3.09  101 2.90  101
K 0.00 0.53 2.22 0.00 2.12  102 8.87  102
L 3.00 0.84 2.57 0.12 6.11  102 1.87  101
M 1.00 0.35 0.91 0.04 3.14  102 8.17  102
a
Obtained from Aghbashlo et al. [25].

Table 4
Results of the exergoenvironmental analysis of the system.

Unit Unitary exegetic environmental impact of Unitary exegetic environmental impact of Relative difference of unitary exergetic Exergoenvironmental
fuel (mPts/GJ) product (mPts/GJ) environmental impact () factor (%)

A 0.19 0.21 0.13 98.70

B 0.25 0.33 0.34 92.06
C 0.35 0.36 0.00 43.11
D 5.43 5.54 0.02 1.46
E 11.10 26.84 1.42 3.27
F 5.56 5.56 0.00 7.62
G 5.58 5.60 0.00 0.15
H 5.60 5.61 0.00 0.84
I 5.61 11.10 0.98 0.21
J 8.37 0.00 e e
K 11.10 18.07 0.63 3.94
L 20.21 31.59 0.56 7.15
M 24.93 39.62 0.59 20.92

Fig. 2. Total environmental impact rates of various units of the system.

72 M. Aghbashlo et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 64e76
The exergy loss rate and loss-related environmental impact rate
of the entire plant are determined at 81.9 kW and 1.76 mPts/h,
respectively. The genset is corresponded to the highest exergy loss
rate (63.57 kW) as well as loss-related environmental impact rate
(1.28 mPts/h). These values amount to 77.60% and 73.02% of the
exergy loss rate and loss-related environmental impact rate of the
whole system. The waste exergy rate of the entire plant is
1062.44 kW, accounting for 7.46% of the total chemical exergy
provided to the system. The total environmental impact rate related
to the waste exergy is 21.41 mPts/h, amounting to 21.77% of the
environmental impact caused by the whole plant. Interestingly, the
exhaust combustion gas alone contributes to 94.92% of the waste
exergy rate and 95.04% of the waste-related environmental impact
of the entire system. Moreover, the exergy rate of the exhaust
combustion gas and its associated environmental impact account
for 7.09% of the total chemical exergy supplied to the system and
20.69% of the environmental impact brought by the whole plant,
respectively. This means that recovering and reusing the exhaust
Fig. 3. Environmental impact rate flow diagram for the plant.
combustion gas can markedly improve the plant thermodynami-
cally and environmentally. According to the present results, one can
deduce that the exergy analysis alone cannot present sound per-
formance metrics to make decisions on the sustainability and
renewability aspects of WTE projects.
The outcomes of the exergoenvironmental method of the plant
are presented in Table 4. The unitary exegetic environmental
impact of the fuels and products for various units of the plant vary
in the range of 0.19e24.93 and 0.21e39.62 mPts/GJ, respectively.
The second pump and pipeline unit (M) shows the highest unitary
exegetic environmental impact of the fuel and product. The unitary
exegetic environmental impact of the fuel and product for the
genset as the principal unit consuming exergy and causing envi-
ronmental burden are found to be 5.61 and 11.10 mPts/GJ, respec-
tively. Fig. 2 displays the total environmental impact rates of all the
units of the system. This indicator can rank the units of the plant
according to their importance from the exergoenvironmental
viewpoint. The genset exhibits the highest total environmental
 M. Aghbashlo et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 64e76
impact rate (37.05 mPts/h) followed far behind by the digester (8.56
mPts/h). The total environmental impact rates of the genset and
digester respectively amount to 71.27% and 16.46% of the envi-
ronmental impact rate of the whole plant. The operation-related
environmental impact rate (environmental impact due to irre-
versibility and loss) of the genset is remarkably higher compared
with those of the other units, while the highest component-related
environmental impact takes place in the digester. Interestingly, the
component-related environmental impact rate of the pre-digester
is profoundly higher than that of the genset. The operation-
related environmental impact rate of the genset accounts for over
71% of the environmental impact rate of the entire plant. Overall, it
can be concluded that attempts to improve the system exer-
goenvironmentally must mainly concentrate on boosting the
thermodynamic efficiency of the genset, even though this effi-
ciency improvement would augment its component-related envi-
ronmental impact rate. In addition, the component-related
environmental impact rate of the digester must be mitigated to
promote the exergoenvironmental efficiency of the plant.
The relative difference of unitary exergetic environmental
impact of various units of the system is found to be in the range of
Fig. 4. Effects of yearly working hours and plant lifespan on the unitary exegetic environmental impact of biopower.
73
0.00e1.42 (Table 4). This index shows the possibility of reducing
the unitary exegetic environmental impact of the product. The
unitary exegetic environmental impact of product for a component
having a lower relative difference of unitary exergetic environ-
mental impact can hardly be mitigated by any modifications and
vice versa. Therefore, the unitary exegetic environmental impact of
the product vapor-compression refrigeration unit can be reduced
with a little effort compared with the other units. This indicator is
determined at 0.98 for the genset as the principal unit consuming
exergy and bringing environmental burden. This means that
conscious and elaborated modifications must be considered to
improve genset exergoenvironmentally.
The exergoenvironmental factor of different units of the system
varies in the range of 0.15e98.69%. The contributions of the oper-
ation- and component-related environmental impact rates to the
total environmental impact rate for each unit can be determined
using this indicator. The operation-related environmental impact
rate dominates the component-related environmental impact for a
component with a lower value of this index and vice versa. The
exergoenvironmental factor of the genset is found to be 0.21,
showing that its operation-related environmental impact rate
74 M. Aghbashlo et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 64e76
Fig. 5. Effects of yearly working hours and plant lifespan on the unitary exegetic environmental impact of biofertilizers.
dominates the component-related environmental impact rate.
Unlike the genset, the component-related environmental impact
rate of the digester is markedly higher compared with its
operation-related environmental impact rate.
The environmental impact rate flow diagram for the plant is
shown in Fig. 3. The exergetic and exergoenvironmental efficiencies
of the whole plant are found to be 72.77% and 76.27%, respectively.
The net biopower, liquid biofertilizer, and solid biofertilizer
contribute respectively to 15.41%, 18.18%, and 66.42% of the total
useful exergy produced by the system. The contribution of the net
biopower to the overall environmental impact of the products is
determined at 85.02%, while these values are 3.22% and 11.76% for
the liquid and solid biofertilizers, respectively. Obviously, there are
significant differences between the outcomes of the conventional
exergy analysis with those of the exergoenvironmental method,
showing the reliability and fidelity of the exergoenvironmental
approach to make comprehensive decisions on the performance of
WTE systems.
A sensitivity analysis is conducted to examine the influences of
plant lifespan and yearly working hours on the unitary exegetic
environmental impact of biopower (Fig. 4) and biofertilizer (Fig. 5).
The unitary exegetic environmental impact of both biopower and
biofertilizer are nonlinearly decreased with enhancing the plant
lifespan and yearly working hours. This can be attributed to the fact
that the component-related environmental impacts of all the units
of the plant are decreased with increasing both plant lifespan and
yearly working hours.
Table 5 summarizes the unitary exegetic environmental impact
of the electricity generated from various resources reported in the
published literature. Apparently, the unitary exegetic environ-
mental impact of the power produced from various resources is not
comparable with each other. This might be stemmed from different
environmental impact assessment methodologies and assumptions
considered in those studies. In addition, the inherent difference in
technologies utilized for producing power might have resulted in
such discrepancy. In spite of the fact that electricity generation from
MSW using genset-coupled anaerobic digestion plants has its
environmental impacts, this strategy undoubtedly mitigates
greenhouse gas emissions imposed on the environment compared
with the other methods such as landfilling/dumping. In addition,
this technology can not only significantly reduce the contribution of
fossil-based electricity to the electricity pattern, but also effectively
diminish the land pressure problem in urban areas [32].
 M. Aghbashlo et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 64e76
Table 5
Comparison of the unitary exegetic environmental impact of the electricity generated from various resources.
Plant/system Fuel
Combined cycle power plant Natural gas
Combined cycle power plant Natural gas
(pure
methane)
Combined cycle power plant with chemical looping Natural gas
(pure
methane)
Combined cycle power plant Natural gas
Integrated solar combined cycle power plant Natural gas
Bioenergy conversion plant including high-temperature Biomass
solid oxide fuel cell combined with biomass gasification
process
Genset-coupled anaerobic digestion system producing Organic
biopower and biofertilizer from organic MSW MSW
4. Concluding remarks
In this study, a genset-coupled anaerobic digestion system
yielding biopower and biofertilizer from organic MSW is exer-
goenvironmentally modeled and analyzed on the basis of actual
operational data. Specific exergy costing approach is considered in
order to determine the exergoenvironmental parameters of all the
units of the plant for identifying the hotspots of the environmental
impact. The key results and main conclusions of this investigation
are as follows:
1) The unitary exegetic environmental impact of biopower and
biofertilizer are determined at 11.10 and 0.36 mPts/GJ, respec-
tively. This implies that biopower production results in more
environmental burden in comparison with the biofertilizer due
to the complexity of its generation.
2) The environmental impact rates related to the net biopower,
liquid biofertilizer, and solid biofertilizer are found to be 63.78,
2.41, and 8.82 mPts/h, respectively. The higher environmental
impact rate associated with the net biopower can be attributed
to its higher unitary exergetic environmental impact.
3) The highest irreversibility-related environmental impact rate
(35.69 mPts/h) takes place in the genset. Therefore, the exergy
destruction rate of this component should be mitigated as much
as possible in order to make the plant more exergoenvir-
onmentally sustainable.
4) The environmental impact rate associated with the exhaust
combustion gas amounts to 20.69% of the environmental impact
rate caused by the whole plant. This means that by using the
exergy of the combustion gas, the plant performance can be
significantly improved from the exergoenvironmental
perspective.
5) The genset exhibits the highest total environmental impact rate
(37.05 mPts/h) followed far behind by the digester (8.56 mPts/
h). This unit is proposed by the exergoenvironmental analysis as
the first improvement priority, while the digester is ranked
second for improvement among the plant components.
6) The highest operation-related environmental impact rate is
found for the genset, while the component-related environ-
mental impact rate of the digester is remarkably higher
compared with those of the other units. Accordingly, efforts to
improve the plant exergoenvironmentally should be focused on
minimizing the irreversibility rate of the genset while miti-
gating the component-related environmental impact rate of the
digester.
75
Environmental Electricity generator(s) (Unitary exegetic environmental impact Ref.
impact assessment (mPts/GJ))
method
CML2002 Gas turbine (8.422), steam turbine (131.677) [33]
Eco-indicator 99 Gas turbine (5579), high pressure steam turbine (7137), [34]
intermediate pressure steam turbine (6993), low pressure steam
turbine (8142)
Eco-indicator 99 Gas turbine (5729), high pressure steam turbine (7276), [34]
intermediate pressure steam turbine (7239), low pressure steam
turbine (8404)
Eco-indicator 99 Gas turbine (4626), steam turbine (6885) [35]
Eco-indicator 99 Gas turbine (4626), steam turbine (6209) [35]
Eco-indicator 99 Solid oxide fuel cell (1499) [20]
Impact 2002þ Gas internal combustion engine (11.1) Present
study
7) The exergoenvironmental performance of the entire plant is
determined at 76.27%, while the exergy efficiency of the whole
plant is 72.77%. These values imply that there is a room to
improve the plant from the exergetic and environmental
viewpoints.
Overall, like any other renewable energy production systems,
genset-coupled anaerobic digestion plants have their own envi-
ronmental impacts that have to be evaluated, diminished, and
managed, in order to promote their application. Notably, energy
recuperation and greenhouse gas emissions mitigation can be
effectively realized using genset-coupled anaerobic digestion
plants, making these economically viable and environmentally
sustainable systems.
5. Recommendations for further research
Future research works should be conducted to reveal the in-
teractions among the units of the plant by splitting their
irreversibility-related environmental impact rates into endoge-
nous/exogenous and avoidable/unavoidable portions using
advanced exergoenvironmental analysis. In addition, all the ther-
modynamic, economic, and environmental aspects of WTE plants
should be considered simultaneously for a better understanding of
WTE plants thermodynamically, economically, and environmen-
tally. This can be carried out by using an elaborated combination of
exergy analysis, economic accounting, and environmental impact
assessment called “exergoeconoenvironmental analysis” [36].
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by
University of Tehran, Biofuel Research Team (BRTeam), and Iranian
Biofuel Society (IBS).
References
[1] A.U. Zaman, A comprehensive study of the environmental and economic
benefits of resource recovery from global waste management systems,
J. Clean. Prod. 124 (2016) 41e50.

rez, L.I. Romero, Anaerobic digestion of municipal
[2] T. Forster-Carneiro, M. Pe
solid wastes: dry thermophilic performance, Bioresour. Technol. 99 (2008)
8180e8184.
[3] W.P. Clarke, The uptake of anaerobic digestion for the organic fraction of
municipal solid wasteepush versus pull factors, Bioresour. Technol. 249
(2018) 1040e1043.
[4] F.S. Nayal, A. Mammadov, N. Ciliz, Environmental assessment of energy gen-
eration from agricultural and farm waste through anaerobic digestion,
J. Environ. Manag. 184 (2016) 389e399.
76 M. Aghbashlo et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 64e76
[5] M.A. Rajaeifar, H. Ghanavati, B.B. Dashti, R. Heijungs, M. Aghbashlo,
M. Tabatabaei, Electricity generation and GHG emission reduction potentials
through different municipal solid waste management technologies: a
comparative review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 79 (2017) 414e439.
[6] M.A. Mandegari, S. Farzad, E. van Rensburg, J.F. Go € rgens, Multi-criteria anal-
ysis of a biorefinery for co-production of lactic acid and ethanol from sugar-
cane lignocellulose, Biofuel. Bioprod. Bioref. 11 (2017) 971e990.
[7] M. Ahanchi, M. Tabatabaei, M. Aghbashlo, K. Rezaei, F. Talebi, A. Ghaffari,
B. Khoshnevisan, Z. Khounani, Pistachio (Pistachia vera) wastes valorization:
enhancement of biodiesel oxidation stability using hull extracts of different
varieties, J. Clean. Prod. 185 (2018) 852e859.
~ arrubia Fernandez, D.H. Liu, J. Zhao, LCA studies comparing alkaline
[8] I.A. Pen
and immobilized enzyme catalyst processes for biodiesel production under
Brazilian conditions, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 119 (2017) 117e127.

, S. Gonza
[9] L. Lijo
lez-García, J. Bacenetti, M. Fiala, G. Feijoo, J.M. Lema,
M.T. Moreira, Life Cycle Assessment of electricity production in Italy from
anaerobic co-digestion of pig slurry and energy crops, Renew. Energy 68
(2014) 625e635.
[10] M.N. Pe
rez-Camacho, R. Curry, T. Cromie, Life cycle environmental impacts of
substituting food wastes for traditional anaerobic digestion feedstocks, Waste
Manag. 73 (2018) 140e155.
[11] F.R. Ramírez-Arpide, G.N. Demirer, C. Gallegos-Va
zquez, G. Herna
ndez-Euge-
nio, V.H. Santoyo-Corte
s, T. Espinosa-Solares, Life cycle assessment of biogas
production through anaerobic co-digestion of nopal cladodes and dairy cow
manure, J. Clean. Prod. 172 (2018) 2313e2322.
[12] M. Geerts, A. Van Veghel, F.K. Zisopoulos, A. Van der Padt, A.J. Van der Goot,
Exergetic comparison of three different processing routes for yellow pea
(Pisum sativum): functionality as a driver in sustainable process design,
J. Clean. Prod. 183 (2018) 979e987.
[13] F.K. Zisopoulos, S.N. Moejes, F.J. Rossier-Miranda, A.J. van der Goot, R.M. Boom,
Exergetic comparison of food waste valorization in industrial bread produc-
tion, Energy 82 (2015) 640e649.
[14] M. Genc, S. Genc, Y. Goksungur, Exergy analysis of wine production: red wine
production process as a case study, Appl. Therm. Eng. 117 (2017) 511e521.
[15] M. Aghbashlo, M. Tabatabaei, H. Jazini, H.S. Ghaziaskar, Exergy-based opti-
mization of a continuous reactor applied to produce value-added chemicals
from glycerol through esterification with acetic acid, Energy 150 (2018)
351e362.
[16] M. Aghbashlo, M.A. Rosen, Consolidating exergoeconomic and exergoenvir-
onmental analyses using the emergy concept for better understanding energy
conversion systems, J. Clean. Prod. 172 (2018) 696e708.
[17] H. Yaglı, Y. Koç, A. Koç, A. Go
€rgülü, A. Tandirog
lu, Parametric optimization and
exergetic analysis comparison of subcritical and supercritical organic Rankine
cycle (ORC) for biogas fuelled combined heat and power (CHP) engine exhaust
gas waste heat, Energy 111 (2016) 923e932.
[18] G.N. Prodromidis, F.A. Coutelieris, Thermodynamic analysis of biogas fed solid
oxide fuel cell power plants, Renew. Energy 108 (2017) 1e10.
[19] R. Mudasar, F. Aziz, M.-H. Kim, Thermodynamic analysis of organic Rankine
cycle used for flue gases from biogas combustion, Energy Convers. Manag. 153
(2017) 627e640.
[20] L. Meyer, G. Tsatsaronis, J. Buchgeister, L. Schebek, Exergoenvironmental
analysis for evaluation of the environmental impact of energy conversion
systems, Energy 34 (2009) 75e89.
[21] M.H. Khoshgoftar Manesh, P. Navid, M. Baghestani, S.K. Abadi, M.A. Rosen,
A.M. Blanco, M. Amidpour, Exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental eval-
uation of the coupling of a gas fired steam power plant with a total site utility
system, Energy Convers. Manag. 77 (2014) 469e483.
[22] M. Aghbashlo, M. Tabatabaei, S. Hosseinpour, On the exergoeconomic and
exergoenvironmental evaluation and optimization of biodiesel synthesis from
waste cooking oil (WCO) using a low power, high frequency ultrasonic
reactor, Energy Convers. Manag. 164 (2018) 385e398.
[23] M. Aghbashlo, M. Tabatabaei, H. Jazini, H.S. Ghaziaskar, Exergoeconomic and
exergoenvironmental co-optimization of continuous fuel additives (acetins)
synthesis from glycerol esterification with acetic acid using Amberlyst 36
catalyst, Energy Convers. Manag. 165 (2018) 183e194.
[24] M.R. Barati, M. Aghbashlo, H. Ghanavati, M. Tabatabaei, M. Sharifi,
G. Javadirad, A. Dadak, M. Mojarab Soufiyan, Comprehensive exergy analysis
of a gas engine-equipped anaerobic digestion plant producing electricity and
biofertilizer from organic fraction of municipal solid waste, Energy Convers.
Manag. 151 (2017) 753e763.
[25] M. Aghbashlo, M. Tabatabaei, S. Soltanian, H. Ghanavati, A. Dadak, Compre-
hensive exergoeconomic analysis of a municipal solid waste digestion plant
equipped with a biogas genset, Waste Manag. 87 (2019) 485e498.
[26] R.B. Gupta, A. Demirbas, Gasoline, Diesel, and Ethanol Biofuels from Grasses
and Plants, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, 2010.
[27] G. Leonzio, Upgrading of biogas to bio-methane with chemical absorption
process: simulation and environmental impact, J. Clean. Prod. 131 (2016)
364e375.
[28] Y. Qian, S. Sun, D. Ju, X. Shan, X. Lu, Review of the state-of-the-art of biogas
combustion mechanisms and applications in internal combustion engines,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 69 (2017) 50e58.
[29] J. Szargut, D.R. Morris, F.R. Steward, Energy Analysis of Thermal, Chemical, and
Metallurgical Processes, 1988.
[30] G. Song, J. Xiao, H. Zhao, L. Shen, A unified correlation for estimating specific
chemical exergy of solid and liquid fuels, Energy 40 (2012) 164e173.
[31] A. Lazzaretto, G. Tsatsaronis, SPECO: a systematic and general methodology
for calculating efficiencies and costs in thermal systems, Energy 31 (2006)
1257e1289.
[32] M.A. Rajaeifar, S.S. Hemayati, M. Tabatabaei, M. Aghbashlo, S.B. Mahmoudi,
A review on beet sugar industry with a focus on implementation of waste-to-
energy strategy for power supply, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 103 (2019)
423e442.
[33] M. Kim, D. Kim, I.J. Esfahani, S. Lee, M. Kim, C. Yoo, Performance assessment
and system optimization of a combined cycle power plant (CCPP) based on
exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses, Kor. J. Chem. Eng. 34
(2017) 6e19.
[34] F. Petrakopoulou, A. Boyano, M. Cabrera, G. Tsatsaronis, Exergoeconomic and
exergoenvironmental analyses of a combined cycle power plant with chem-
ical looping technology, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Contr. 5 (2011) 475e482.
[35] E.J.C. Cavalcanti, Exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses of an
integrated solar combined cycle system, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67
(2017) 507e519.
[36] M. Aghbashlo, M.A. Rosen, Exergoeconoenvironmental analysis as a new
concept for developing thermodynamically, economically, and environmen-
tally sound energy conversion systems, J. Clean. Prod. 187 (2018) 190e204.