Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 809–815

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Waste to energy technologies for municipal solid waste management

in Gaziantep
Alperen Tozlu 1, Emrah Özahi n, Ayşegül Abuşoğlu 2
University of Gaziantep, Faculty of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering Department, 27310 Gaziantep, Turkey

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Landfill gas (LFG) which is produced by means of municipal solid waste (MSW) treatment activities can
Received 2 April 2015 be considered as a source of greenhouse gases, including mostly methane. Therefore its management
Received in revised form plays an important role. During the process of methane production in MSW plants, LFG is collected,
1 September 2015
treated and then used for power production purposes. Although there have been many technologies
Accepted 21 October 2015
existed, incineration and landfilling methods are mostly preferred all over the world today due to their
high energy production potentials. The increasing amount of solid waste arising from municipalities and
Keywords: other sources and its consequent disposal have been the major environmental and economic problems in
Municipal solid waste Turkey. Furthermore, providing more effective and eco-friendly solutions has been a key point for Turkey
Landfill gas
while being a candidate country for European Union (EU) accession. In this paper, a brief overview on
Waste to energy
recent technologies and methods applied to MSW management in the world is presented. Current
Gaziantep
Power research studies accessed on the literature on MSW are outlined. Moreover, recent MSW management in
Gaziantep metropolitan city is displayed with the existing method which produces LFG for power pro-
duction. Some concluding remarks and recommendations are presented for future developments in
MSW management.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
2. Recent studies on MSW management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
3. WTE technologies in the world and Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
4. MSW management in Gaziantep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815

1. Introduction to increase MSW generation in developing countries. Landfill gas

(LFG) which is produced by means of MSW treatment activities
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) known as trash or garbage can be considered as a source of greenhouse gases, including
consists of food waste, paper, cardboard, plastics, PET, glass, tex- mostly methane. Thus, all treatment activities of MSW can also be
tiles, metals, wood and leather, nappies, slug, ash, etc. Urbaniza- turned into an opportunity for a sustainable production of energy
tion level, population growth and technological changes support which is known as "waste-to-energy" (WTE). Due to the moisture
content of MSW, its lower heating value varies between 5 and
20 MJ/kg. In the same manner, International Energy Agency (IEA)
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 90 342 3601200/2567; fax: þ90 342 3601104. reported that a ton of MSW should have a calorific value between
E-mail addresses: alperentozlu@gantep.edu.tr (A. Tozlu),
8 and 12 MJ/kg for an effective energy generation [1].
ozahi@gantep.edu.tr (E. Özahi), ayabusoglu@gantep.edu.tr (A. Abuşoğlu).
1
Tel.: þ90-342-3601200/2524; fax: þ 90-342-3601104. In previous years, unsanitary landfill activities, open dumping
2
Tel.: þ90-342-3601200/2576; fax: þ90-342-3601104. and open incineration methods were common solutions to remove

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.097
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
810 A. Tozlu et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 809–815
MSW from city centers without considering their energy potential
and environmental impact. Rapid increase in population and
industrial developments has led to findings of new technologies
alternatively to these conventional insufficient methods for dis-
posal of MSW. Besides, WTE technologies have become popular
research area for governments, researchers and entrepreneurs.
There are three fundamental types of WTE technologies [2]:
(i) thermal conversion methods (incineration, pyrolysis, and gasi-
fication), (ii) biochemical conversion, (iii) landfill. In thermal
conversion technology, the mostly used method is incineration.
“Incineration” method is mainly the waste destruction in a furnace
by controlling combustion at high temperatures. By the incinera-
tion method, approximately 70% of total waste mass and thus 90%
of total volume can be reduced [3]. Incineration process is com-
pleted in three steps which are incineration, energy recovery and
air pollution. After incineration process, air pollutants such as SOx,
COx, and NOx which are harmful for human health occur. The
process is performed between 750 and 1000 °C. “Pyrolysis” is
another method in which thermal waste treatment is taken place
in an oxygen free environment. There are three types of pyrolysis
methods which are conventional pyrolysis (550–900 K), fast pyr-
olysis (850–1250 K), and flash pyrolysis (1050–1300 K). The third
thermal conversion method, “gasification”, is a process that con-
verts MSW into CO2, CO and H2O, which occurs by reacting MSW
at high temperatures ( 4700 °C), without combustion, with a
controlled amount of oxygen and/or steam [2]. Due to reactor
design and operational parameters, gasification process generates
other higher hydrocarbons (HC) besides methane. The obtained
combustible gas includes CO, CO2, CH4, H2, H2O, some inert gases,
trace amounts of higher HCs and various contaminants such as
small char particles, tars and ash.
The second main group of WTE technology is biochemical
conversion. It is much more eco-friendly when compared with
others. Biochemical conversion is primarily based on the reaction
of microorganism enzymes. Biochemical conversion method is
divided into two subgroups as “Anaerobic Digestion” and “Com-
posting” [2]. In “Anaerobic Digestion”, MSW is collected in an
oxygen free environment, which is a combination of series of
biological processes in which microorganisms break down to
biodegradable material. This process which occurs at almost 65 °C
decreases the amount of waste and produces biogas for combined
heat and power or as a transport fuel. The rest of the production
such as inorganic and the inert waste are either incinerated or
gasified. By means of this process, 2–4 times as much methane
may be produced in 3 weeks when compared with methane
production with landfill process in which 6–7 years are needed for
1 t of MSW. On the other hand, “Composting” is a biological
decomposition of biodegradable solid waste under predominantly
aerobic conditions. It is a natural process of recycling decomposed
organic materials into a rich soil known as compost [2].
One of the mostly used and practical technology, a third main
group, for WTE today is “Landfilling” which is a soil-based waste
disposal technique that uses engineering principles to confine
solid waste to smallest area possible and reduce it to the lowest
allowable volume in sanitary landfill [4]. Sanitary landfill can be
defined as a scientific dumping of MSW using an engineering
facility which requires detailed planning and specifications, careful
construction and efficient operation [5]. The schematic repre-
sentation of a typical landfilling process with its steps [3] is shown
in Fig. 1.
Although landfill is the most common waste treatment tech-
niques in the world, the developed countries prefer to reduce their
MSW by using incineration technology due to reduction of
approximately 70% of total waste mass and thus 90% of total
volume. However, it is a fact that mass burning of MSW creates
major environmental problems due to pollutant discharges.
Site
Selection
Specific land
preparation
Layerwise sanitary
land filling
Final soil cover
and maturing
Leachate Compost
pumping out segregation
Combustible
gas
Water Final compost
treatment
Gas engine
Treated
water Electric
generator
Fig. 1. Flow diagram of MSW plant based on sanitary landfill [3].
Therefore the best alternative technique for energy recovery for
MSW is controlled methane production at landfills. The more
details about the advantages and disadvantages of WTE technol-
ogies are given in Table 1.
In this paper, an overview about WTE technology in the world as
well as that in Turkey is presented. Some important current studies
on MSW management are outlined. Then, recent MSW management
in Gaziantep metropolitan city is displayed with the current WTE
technology applied, giving some concluding remarks and recom-
mendations for future developments in MSW management.
2. Recent studies on MSW management
Despite of these WTE plants operated for many years, there are
still several MSW management problems in the world and the
current technology is needed to be developed. For this reason,
many investigations are performed to improve the current WTE
technologies to increase the amount of generated energy as well as
decreasing the amount of MSW. MSW management is crucially
important to organize the current WTE plants efficiently and
ecofriendly. In this respect, there are also many studies on MSW
management for local regions. Many of these studies are related
with MSW management and policy of existing systems in local
regions presenting the recent portrait and giving further recom-
mendations for developments and/or modifications.
Metin et al. [6] presented a general overview of MSW management
in Turkey during the last decade. They indicated that the composition of
recovered material shows some variations depending on the source
(commercial, residential and mixed) and the season of the year, and the
majority of the material collected. They clarified that initial investment
to set up large-scale collection and recovery schemes still remained to
be the major barrier that the municipalities have to overcome.
 A. Tozlu et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 809–815 811

Table 1
Advantages and disadvantages of WTE technologies [2].

Technology Advantages Disadvantages

Thermal conversion Incineration – Most suitable for high calorific value waste – Least suited for aqueous, high moisture content, low calorific
– Units with high throughput and continuous feed value and chlorinated waste
can be set up – Toxic metal concentration in ash, particulate emissions, SOx,NOx,
– Thermal energy for power generation or direct chlorinated compounds, ranging from HCL to dioxins
heating – High capital and O&M costs
– Relatively noiseless and odorless – Skilled personnel required
– Low lands are required – Overall efficiency for small power stations is low
– Can be located within city limits, reducing
transportation costs
– Hygienic
Pyrolysis/ – Production of fuel gas/oil, which can be used for – Net energy recovery may suffer in waste with excessive moisture
gasification various – High viscosity of pyrolysis oil may be problematic for its burning
– purposes and transportation
– Control of pollution superior as compared to
incineration
Biochemical Conversion – Energy recovery with production of high grade soil – Unsuitable for wastes containing less organic matter
conditioner – Requires waste segregation for improving digestion efficiency
– No power requirement for sieving and turning of
waste pile
– Enclosed system enables trapping the gas produced
for use
– Controls GHG emissions
– Free from bad odor, rodent and fly menace, visible
pollution and social resistance
– Compact design needs less land area
– Net positive environmental gains
– Can be done in small scale
Landfilling – Least cost option – Surface runoff during rainfall causes pollution
– Gas produced can be utilized for power generation – Soil and groundwater may get polluted by the leachate
or direct thermal application – Yields only 30%–40% of the total gas generated
– Skilled personnel not required – Large land area required
– Natural resources are returned to the soil and – Significant transportation costs
recycled – Cost of pre-treatment to upgrade the gas to pipeline quality and
– Can convert marshy lands to useful areas leachate treatment may be significant
– Spontaneous explosion due to methane gas build up

Magrinho et al. [7] introduced the basic principles of MSW manage-
ment in Portugal. They stated that it was needed to give a considerable
amount of effort in order to obtain real and significant positive evolu-
tion in MSW prevention, reduction and recovery. Turan et al. [8]
showed a brief history of the legislative trends in Turkey for MSW
management. They claimed that primitive disposal methods such as
open dumping and discharge into surface water had been used in
various parts of Turkey although strict regulations on MSW manage-
ment were in place. They also clarified that 70.57% of the total amount
of MSW was disposed of without any control. Manaf et al. [9] studied
on MSW management in Malaysia. They emphasized that a new
institutional and legislation framework has been structured with the
objectives to establish a holistic, integrated, and cost-effective MSW
management system, with an emphasis on environmental protection
and public health, increasing the efficiency of MSW management
towards 2020. Aydoğan et al. [10] determined and explained the MSW
management, solid waste quality, collecting method of solid wastes,
transportation and waste disposal options in Gaziantep. Oteng-Ababio
et al. [11] studied on a case study in new MSW technologies in Accra
city in Africa. They stated that rigorous evaluation of all waste man-
agement options was the best way to safeguard against ill-fated
investments and toward meaningful advancement in sound MSW
management in the long-term. Herva et al. [12] presented the results of
the environmental evaluation of MSW processes in Portugal in the
period 2007–2011. They concluded that the environmental gains of
MSW were higher than the environmental impacts, and highlighted
that the electricity generated in the energy recovery plant was
remarkable. On contrary to all these, Fobil et al. [13] discussed research
experiences in Accra, Ghana for utilizing MSW for energy generation.
They concluded that MSW had a low energy recovery efficiency,
approximated at 40% recovery, due to high equipment installation and
plant maintenance costs.
Leachate is an important problem in a sanitary landfill area
such that leachate water may diffuse into underground water.
Hence it is very crucial for public health and this problem have to
be overcome. Ağdağ [14] presented a general overview and com-
pared old and new MSW management practices in Denizli. It was
claimed that there were still some deficiencies in the new MSW
management system such as no leachate treatment and poor
source separation collection. The content of MSW also plays an
important role in MSW management and for efficiency of energy
production. In this respect, many studies can be found in selection,
sorting and segregation processes of MSW. Horttanainen et al. [15]
collected Finnish studies concerning the composition and energy
content of mixed MSW (organic waste, paper, plastic and card-
board, etc.), which is incinerated for energy production. They
found that in mixed MSW, the renewable share of the energy
content could be significantly lower than the general assumptions
(50–60%). They also claimed that the low share of biowaste in
mixed MSW decreases the moisture content of the waste,
increasing the heating value. Besides of this, it was also found that
high share of plastic increases the heating value and the non-
renewable share of energy in the waste material. Also the
improvement of paper and cardboard recycling is seen to decrease
the share of renewable energy in mixed MSW.
The available WTE techniques are compared by many scientists
regarding the waste material, capacity of landfill area, etc. Ojeda-
Benitez and Beraud-Lozano [16] performed an analysis for sanitary
landfill and the uncontrolled dump in four cities of Mexico. They
pointed out the disadvantage of uncontrolled dump due to pollutants
and a serious threat to human health, and proposed a development
812 A. Tozlu et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 809–815
and an extensive construction of integrated sanitary landfills. Bovea
et al. [17] performed a case study on environmental assessment of
alternative MSW management strategies in Spain applying LCA
methodology. They found that biogasification and energy recovery
achieved better environmental performances than landfill without
energy recovery. Cheng and Hu [18] presented a perspective on MSW
discussing the major challenges in expanding WTE incineration in
China in terms of capital and operational costs, equipment corrosion,
air pollutant emissions and fly ash disposal. They claimed that WTE
incineration gave greater contribution for supplying renewable
energy in China. Kanat [19] presented the situation of MSW man-
agement in İstanbul considering current requirements and chal-
lenges in relation to the optimization of İstanbul's MSW collection. It
was stated that there was a great need to reduce the volume of solid
waste in Istanbul and recommended to design a waste-management
system according to capacity. It was mentioned that landfilling
technique was not a proper solution for metropolitan cities, such as
İstanbul. The WTE techniques are also considered in terms of their
emissions. Lino and Ismail [20] studied on the energy savings and the
avoided emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere as a result of recycling
and production of LFG from landfills in Brazil. It was mentioned that
the solid waste deposited in landfills without treatment impacted on
the public health. And they also stated that the anaerobic degrada-
tion of the organic matter to produce LFG alleviated the ambient
from the CO2 and CH4 emissions otherwise liberated to the atmo-
sphere. Udomsri et al. [21] presented an evaluation of the potential of
MSW incineration for climate change mitigation and promotion of
biomass-based electricity production in a more sustainable direction
in Thailand. They resulted that MSW incineration had the ability to
lessen environmental impact associated with waste disposal, and it
could contribute positively towards expanding biomass-based
energy production. It was emphasized that hybrid cycles could be
used to improve system performance and overall electrical efficiency
of conventional incineration. Akinci et al. [22] performed a future
planning for the waste management in Izmir, Kula, and Usak. They
proposed methane production in Izmir for the biological degradation
of Izmir green wastes, and composting method for Kula and Uşak.
Arafat et al. [23] studied on the environmental impacts for MSW
treatment processes with energy recovery potential using life cycle
assessment (LCA) methodology. They claimed that it was the best to
recycle paper, wood and plastics; to anaerobically digest food and
yard wastes; and to incinerate textile waste. In view of the treatment
processes, anaerobic digestion and gasification were found to per-
form better environmentally than the other processes, while com-
posting had the least environmental benefit. Melikoğlu [1] estimated
the potential of electricity generation via MSW combustion and
methane harnessing at the landfills of 81 Turkish cities. It was
claimed that the energy recovery from MSW is less than 1% coun-
trywide. Melikoğlu [1] preferred incineration technique for further
methods for energy production from MSW. Phillips and Mondal [24]
performed a mathematical model of sustainability of options for
MSW disposal in India. They clarified that gasification may be the
best potential sustainable option for MSW disposal due to positive
impacts overall for the local environment and community. Hossain
et al. [25] reviewed the types of MSW in Bangladesh. They stated that
WTE incineration was playing a fundamental role for renewable
energy production reducing space for new landfills. However, low
calorific value and high water content were pointed out to deficit the
power generation from MSW incineration.
3. WTE technologies in the world and Turkey
It can be stated that there are many WTE plants which have
been constructed in the world since 1990's. In 1990, 394 trillion
Btu of energy which was produced from MSW was consumed in
USA. On the other hand, some of energy demand in Japan was
provided from 102 waste incineration plants in the end of 1991.
Also there were many WTE plants in Germany in the 90's. In
United Kingdom, the 70th report by the Royal Commissions on
Environmental Pollution emphasized the importance of modern
technology in MSW plants [2,26].
Agricultural biomass is used to generate electricity in Poland. At
the end of 2012, there are 29 agricultural biogas plants in Poland
with an average installed capacity of 1 MW [2,27]. Agricultural
biomass has also been used in many African countries including
Ghana to produce decentralized rural energy. The total output is
around 12.5 kW electric power using two generators rated 5 kV A
and 7.5 kV A. The produced electricity is supplied to the commu-
nity using a local grid of 230 V for 12 h per day [2,28]. In South-
eastern Asia, Malaysia has also been very active in MSW techni-
ques. Methane emissions from Malaysian landfills for 2010 were
equivalent to 2.20  109 kW h of electricity [2,29,30]. In Europe,
Italy has many anaerobic co-digestion plants ranging between
50 kW and 1 MW [2,31]. Thessaloniki in Greece has been following
the integrated solid waste management and energy production,
and now biocell technology is used in order to utilize the better
biogas production using innovations [2,32]. Also, in Singapore,
food waste is used as an alternative option for the energy recovery
and many policies are developed for MSW technology and man-
agement [2,33]. Canada has also accelerated the MSW technology
to convert MSW to energy by means of designed various systems
to recover the energy of MSW. They produce 134.6 MW h per year
of surplus energy [2,34].
Although the historical background of WTE technology dates
back to 1990's in the world and the most of energy needed in
Turkey has been imported, the efficient technology in MSW
management could not be achieved in Turkey until 2002. The
developments in WTE technology have been accelerated in Turkey
over the last two decades by means of the government's recent
progress in the frame of Turkey's 2023 vision. 30% of the demand
of electricity in Turkey is planned to be met from renewable
energy sources by 2023.
The increasing amount of solid waste arising from munici-
palities and other sources and its consequent disposal have been
the major environmental and economic problems in Turkey. These
problems enforce MSW to be one of the renewable energy sources
in Turkey such that 25 million tons of MSW is produced annually
nationwide. Landfilling technique which is used to generate
energy from MSW is a primary waste management option in
Turkey. However, this technique has some environmental pro-
blems such as anthropogenic methane and carbon dioxide emis-
sions, water pollution due to leachate production, etc. According to
the European Union (EU) landfill directive (1999/31/EC), the
amount of biodegradable organic waste deposited in landfills
should be decreased by 65% of the 1995 level by 2016. On contrary
to this, landfill technique is more eco-friendly one when compared
with incineration technique [1].
Most of people which are about 83% of the population in Tur-
key receive MSW services, as well as this value is about 99% in
municipality area, but still there are more than 2000 open dumps
in Turkey [8,35]. According to Turkish Statistical Institutes data-
base, 176,300 GW h of electricity was produced in 2006 but only
0.2% of the produced energy was provided from renewable energy
sources and waste [35] whereas the consumption of electricity
was about 143,070 GW h in 2006. In 2013, there was a significant
increase in energy production from renewable energy sources and
waste such that 4.2% of 240,154 GW h electricity was produced
from the mentioned sources whereas the total electricity con-
sumption was 194,923 GW h.
According to 2013 values, there were 80 sanitary landfills,
2 incineration plants and 5 compost plants in Turkey. The number
 A. Tozlu et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 809–815 813

of sanitary landfills in Turkey is planned to increase 130 at the end
of 2017. The WTE techniques applied in Turkey by 2012 is sum-
marized in Fig. 2. According to Turkish Statistical Institute values
[35], 59.9% of MSW was disposed in municipality sanitary landfills,
0.11% of MSW was combusted with incineration, 1.15% of MSW was
disposed by using a recycling method, and 37.8% of MSW was
accumulated by means of municipality dumps in Turkey by 2012.
The rest of waste (0.64% of MSW) was disposed with other
methods. The situation of MSW management in Turkey with
comparisons of other regions is tabulated in Table 2 [35,36]. As can
be seen from Table 2, sanitary landfill for disposal of MSW is more
preferable technique in Turkey. Besides, less popular technique in
Turkey is seen to be incineration one as can be noticed from the
table. Although incineration technique in Europe is a common
method, it is not favorable in North America. In North and Latin
America, sanitary landfill is mostly used technique. On the other
hand, open dump disposal method is very common in Asian and
African countries.
4. MSW management in Gaziantep
Gaziantep, which is located in the southeast region of Turkey, is
the 6th biggest city as a population which is about 2,000,000. Total
land area of Gaziantep is 7642 km2. With the total consumption of
electricity, Gaziantep is on the 11th rank in Turkey [35]. Annual
electricity consumption per capita is 2560 kW h in Gaziantep. The
reason of this high electricity consumption is clearly due to dense
population and industrial facilities in the city. Over the last dec-
ades, industry in Gaziantep has developed very rapidly, especially
in plastic, textile, food, carpet and package industries.
In Gaziantep, there are some private companies which produce
their own electricity using natural gas, fuel oil, LFG and also hydro-
power. The installed power capacities of these companies are
shown in Fig. 3 [37].
Among this distribution, LFG produced from MSW plays an
important role for energy production in Gaziantep, in terms of
WTE concept. As the historical background of MSW management
in Gaziantep is considered, MSW was collected by Gaziantep
Metropolitan Municipality in an unsanitary landfill until 1996, for
only disposal purpose at Beylerbeyi location which was too close
to the city center. After 1993, Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality
has started to construct a sanitary landfill plant with an installed
power capacity of 5.66 MW for both disposal of MSW and energy
production from produced LFG in Mazmahor, Uzundere under the
grant of Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP). This constructed
sanitary landfill has 32.3 ha solid waste storage area and also
10,000,000 m3 solid waste capacities which will fulfill the need
until 2046 [10]. This plant produces 1.25% of total power demand
of Gaziantep. Average percentage compositions of MSW in
Gaziantep and its comparison with other metropolitan cities is
given in Table 3 [6,10,14].
Fig. 4 shows the schematic representation of Gaziantep Municipal
Solid Waste Power Plant (GMSWPP). In GMSWPP, LFG is created
during the anaerobic decomposition of organic substances in domestic
solid waste, industrial, and medical wastes. The total MSW carried to
GMSWPP is 1500 t daily. All wastes collected in GMSWPP are sub-
jected to mechanical segregation of plastic, metal and glass, and then
rest of MSW is sent to sanitary landfilling area. On the other hand,
medical waste is sterilized first as a pretreatment and then sent into
landfilling area. MSW which is buried underground in landfilling area
is led to produce LFG for months. The produced LFG from the storage
area is collected from 114 high density polyethylene (HDPE) funnels
with a diameter of 800 mm, which are underground in 8–41 m
depths. The collected LFG is then transferred to 6 manifold stations. If
temperature of LFG is higher than 40–45 °C, it is cooled through a heat
8 6.7 5.66 24.63
8.6
9.73
20 189
21
25
37

Sanitary
49
Landfill 49
Incineration Karkam1ş Dam and HEPP (HE) Goren 2 TPP (NG)
Goren 1 NGPP (NG) Gülsan Syn. Man. NGPP (NG)
Recycling Başp1nar CU (FUELOIL) Naksan EPP 2 (NG)
Naksan CU (NG) Melike Tex. NGPP (NG)
Open Dump Selçuk Tex. NGPP (NG) Naksan EPP (NG)
Gürteks Tex. NGPP (NG) Gaziantep MSW Plant (LFG)
Open
Other
Burning
Other HEPP: Hydroelectric Power Plant, TPP: Thermal Power Plant
NGPP: Natural Gas Power Plant, CU: Cogeneration Unit
EPP: Energy Power Plant, SEPP: Solar Energy Power Plant

Fig. 2. Distribution of WTE techniques applied in Turkey. Fig. 3. Distribution of energy production in MWe in Gaziantep.

Table 2
Worldwide MSW management in 2012 [35,36].

Region Sanitary landfill (%) Incineration (%) Recycling (%) Open dump (%) Open burning Other (%)

Turkey 59.9 0.11 1.15 37.8 0.4 0.64

Africa 29 2 4 47 9 9
Asia 31 5 8 51 2 3
Europe 27 14 11 33 12 3
North America 91 0 8 0 0 1
Latin America 59 2 3 31 4 1
814 A. Tozlu et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 809–815

exchanger by means of chilled water in the direction which is denoted
with blue arrows in Fig. 4. LFG which is under 40–45 °C is sucked into
tandem demisters/filters in order to eliminate water and particulates
such as aluminum, ash, etc by using blowers having the operating
vacuum pressure of  6 kPa. There is one flare stack mounted at the
exit of blowers in order to drain excess LFG at any emergency case.
The collected water is sent back to a drain tank. The filtered LFG
sucked through four pipelines is collected in A/C tanks for desul-
phurization process. At the exit of the A/C tanks, if the operating
pressure exceeds 14.5 kPa gage, excess LFG is sent back to the
beginning of process pipeline by using a pressure control valve. At the
same time, volumetric content of LFG are measured and also recorded
on a control panel. At any instant, the average volumetric values of the
components of LFG are given in Table 4. The percentage of methane in
constructed to the existing system in order to increase the capacity of
the power plant. Fig. 6 illustrates the monthly energy production in
MW h in the power plant. The average energy production for each
month is almost 1650 MW h which satisfies the energy demand of
2000 households in Gaziantep.
5. Conclusions
In Gaziantep, there was only one unsanitary landfill which had
serious environmental problems because of uncontrolled gas
Table 4
Average volumetric composition of LFG produced in GMSWPP.

LFG according to the monthly distribution in 2014 is also shown in Components Chemical formula (%) Dry volume
Fig. 5. As can be seen from the figure, the average volumetric per-
centage of methane is nearly 45. Moreover, the operation is stopped Methane CH4 45–53
Carbon dioxide CO2 30–32
automatically when methane content is decreased below 38% and
Carbon monoxide CO 1–5
oxygen is increased above 6%. The flow rate, operating pressure and Nitrogen N2 2–6
temperature data are measured at 7, 15 and 5 stations, respectively Oxygen O2 3–5
throughout the process pipeline. The volumetric flow rate of LFG is Hydrogen H2 3–7
Hydrogen Sulfur H2S 0–2
measured 17.5 m3/min through the main pipeline. After the reduction
of H2S content in LFG to 100–120 ppm, it is then pumped into three
1.13 MW Janbacher-4 type gas engines coupled with generators to CH4
produce electricity. The exhaust gas is recorded as nearly 550–600 °C 60
at the end of the process. Due to the increasing amount of MSW in
Gaziantep, two 1.13 MW Janbacher-4 type gas engines will be 50

Table 3 40
Composition of MSWc in 6 metropolitan cities in Turkey [6,10,14].
% 30
(%) Compositions
20
Cities Organic Paper/cardboard Plastic Metal Glass Others

Istanbul 43 7.8 14.2 5.8 6.2 23.1 10

Izmir 46 12 12 3 4 23
Bursa 53.1 18.4 11.6 3 3.4 10.5 0
Gaziantep 41.6 6.1 4.8 1 7.1 39.5
B

L
R

V
P
N

PR

CT
N

EC
SE
JU
FE

O
A
JA

JU
A

D
Adana 64.4 14.8 5.9 1.4 3.1 11.4
M

N
M

Mersin 63 18.4 6.7 1.3 3.1 7.6

Fig. 5. Monthly methane content in LFG produced in GMSWPP.

Fig. 4. Schematic layout of GMSWPP.

 A. Tozlu et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 809–815 815

ENERGY PRODUCTION [7] Magrinho A, Didelet F, Semiato V. Municipal solid waste disposal in Portugal.
Waste Manag 2006;26:1477–89.
2000 [8] Turan NG, Çoruh S, Akdemir A, Ergun ON. Municipal solid waste management
1800 strategies in Turkey. Waste Manag 2009;29:465–9.
[9] Manaf L, Samah MA, Zukki N. Municipal solid waste management in Malaysia:
1600
practices and challenges. Waste Manag 2009;29:2902–6.
1400 [10] Aydoğan Ö, Varank G, Bilgili MS. Municipal solid waste management in
1200 Gaziantep. J. Eng Neutral Sci 2011;3:268–75.
[11] Oteng-Ababioa M, Arguello J, Gabbay O. Solid waste management in African
MWh

1000 cities: sorting the facts from the fads in Accra, Ghana. Habitat Int 2013;39:96–104.
800 [12] Herva M, Neto B, Roca E. Environmental assessment of the integrated
municipal solid waste management system in Porto (Portugal). J Clean Prod
600 2014;70:183–93.
400 [13] Fobil JN, Carboo D, Armah NA. Evaluation of municipal solid wastes (MSW) for
utilisation in energy production in developing countries. Int J Environ Tech-
200
nol Manag 2005;5(1):76–86.
0 [14] Ağdağ ON. Comparison of old and new municipal solid waste management
systems in Denizli, Turkey. Waste Manag 2009;29:456–64.
B

L
R

V
P
CT
N

PR

EC
SE
JU
FE

O
A
JA

JU

[15] Horttanainen M, Teirasvuo N, Kapustina V, Hupponen M, Luoranen M. The

A

D
M

N
M

composition, heating value and renewable share of the energy content of

Fig. 6. Monthly electricity production in GMSWPP.
emissions and air pollution until the end of 1990s. The systematic
MSW disposal has been improved in Gaziantep city during the
past years. However, the new strategy to construct new plants and
to develop the old facility should be planned and taken into con-
sideration using new technology and methodologies due to
developing population and rapid increase in amount of MSW. In
the city, sanitary landfill has 5.66 MW installed power. This plant
produces only 1.25% of total power demand of Gaziantep. The
methane that can be produced in Gaziantep from MSW is in the
range of 40–52 million m3 and estimated to be as 45–58 million
m3 in 2023 [1]. This rate can be improved with some regulations
such as:
MSW of all districts of Gaziantep should be collected in
Gaziantep sanitary landfill for producing more LFG.
1. Alternatively to sanitary landfill, an incineration plant may be
installed due to rapidly increasing volume of MSW with respect
to population growth.
2. Awareness of public may be raised about MSW segregation due
to being very costly process.
Acknowledgments
This study is supported by TUBITAK (The Scientific and Tech-
nological Research Council of Turkey) with the project under the
Grant number of 114M142. The authors would like to thank
TUBITAK and CEV (Clean Energy & Vehicles) Energy.
References
[1] Melikoğlu M. Vision 2023: assessing the feasibility of electricity and biogas
production from municipal solid waste in Turkey. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;19:52–63.
[2] Kalyani KA, Pandey KK. Waste to energy status in India: a short review.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;31:113–20.
[3] Kumar S. Technology options for municipal solid waste-to-energy project. TERI
Inf Monit Environ Sci 2000;5:1–11.
[4] Barros RM, Filho GLT, da Silva TR. The electric energy potential of landfill
biogas in Brazil. Energy Policy 2014;65:150–64.
[5] O’Leary, Walsh, Introduction to Solid Waste Lecture Notes, University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
[6] Metin E, Eröztürk A, Neyim C. Solid waste management practices and review of
recovery and recycling operations in Turkey. Waste Manag. 2003;23:425–32.
mixed municipal solid waste in Finland. Waste Manag 2013;33:2680–6.
[16] Ojeta-Benitez SJ, Beraud-Lozano JR. The municipal solid waste cycle in Mexico:
final disposal. Resour Conserv Recycl 2003;39:239–50.
[17] Bovea MD, Ibáñez-Forés V, Gallardo A, Colomer-Mendoza FJ. Environmental
assessment of alternative municipal solid waste management strategies. A
Spanish case study. Waste Manag 2010;30:2383–95.
[18] Cheng H, Hu Y. Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source of energy:
current and future practices in China. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:3816–24.
[19] Kanat G. Municipal solid-waste management in Istanbul. Waste Manag
2010;30:1737–45.
[20] Lino FAM, Ismail KAR. Energy and environmental potential of solid waste in
Brazil. Energy Policy 2011;39:3496–502.
[21] Udomsri S, Petrov MP, Martin AR, Fransson TH. Clean energy conversion from
municipal solid waste and climate change mitigation in Thailand: waste
management and thermodynamic evaluation. Energy Sustain Dev
2011;15:355–64.
[22] Akinci G, Guven ED, Gok G. Evaluation of waste management options and
resource conservation potentials according to the waste characteristics and
household income: a case study in Aegean Region, Turkey. Resour Con-
serv Recycl 2012;58:114–24.
[23] Arafat HA, Jijakli K. Modeling and comparative assessment of municipal solid
waste gasification for energy production. Waste Manag 2013;33:1704–13.
[24] Philiips J, Mondal MK. Determining the sustainability of options for municipal
solid waste disposal in Varanasi, India. Sustain Cities Soc 2014;10:11–21.
[25] Hossain HMZ, Hossain QH, Monir MM, Ahmed MT. Municipal solid waste
(MSW) as a source of renewable energy in Bangladesh: revisited. Renew Sus-
tain Energy Rev 2014;10:11–21.
[26] Wolpert VM. Incineration of municipal solid waste combined with energy
production–latest developments. Renew Energy 1994;5:782–5.
[27] Justyna CM, Szymanska D. Agricultural biogas plants- a chamce for diversifi-
cation of agriculture in Poland. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;20:514–8.
[28] Mohammed YS, Mokhtar AS, Bashir N, Saidur R. An overview of agricultural
biomass for decentralized rural energy in Ghana. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;20:15–22.
[29] Noor Z, Yusuf R, Abba A, Hassan M, Din M. An overview for energy recovery
from municipal solid waste (MSW) in Malaysia scenario. Renew Sus-
tain Energy Rev 2013;20:378–84.
[30] Johari A, Ahmet S, Hashim H, Alkali H, Ramli M. Economic and environmental
benefits of landfill gas from municipal solid waste in Malaysia. Renew Sus-
tain Energy Rev 2012;16:2907–12.
[31] Pantaleo A, Gennaro BD, Shah N. Assessment of optimal size of anaerobic
codigestion plants: an application to cattle farms in the Province of Bari (Italy).
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;20:57–70.
[32] Koroneos CJ, Nanaki EA. Integrated solid waste management and energy
production- a life cycle assessment approach: the case study of the city of
Thessaloniki. J Clean Prod 2012;27:141–50.
[33] Khoo H, Lim T, Tan R, Conversion Food Waste. Options in Singapore: envir-
onmental impacts based on an LCA perspective. Sci Total Environ
2010;408:1367–73.
[34] Curry N, Pillay P. Biogas prediction and design of a food waste to energy
system for the urban environment. Renew Energy 2012;41:200–9.
[35] URL: Turkish Statistical Institute, (〈www.tuik.gov.tr〉).
[36] URL: 〈http://www.worldbank.org/〉.
[37] URL: 〈www.enerjiatlasi.com〉.