CHARACTERISATION OF MUNICIPAL

SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION INTO

MODEL INPUTS

J. LAMBORN
Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences, Swinburne University of
Technology, Australia
Email: jlamborn@swin.edu.au

SUMMARY: Landfill gas generation models require the conversion of waste composition data
into model inputs. Waste composition data is usually collected in the form of waste fractions:
green waste, food, plastics, metals, paper, inert etc. These waste fractions need to be
characterised into cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin and inert; for inputs into models. This paper
analyses the work that has been done on this characterisation and identifies where future work
could be undertaken to help with the conversion of waste composition data into model inputs.

1. INTRODUCTION

A landfill gas generation model is a tool that provides an estimation of generated methane or
total landfill gas volume over time from a particular volume of waste. The purpose of a model is
to describe (in simple terms) the complex changes during decomposition of waste in a landfill.
For a model to accurately reflect the processes within a landfill, it must take into account the
complex nature of the microbiological decomposition of waste within a landfill, the nature of the
landfill itself, the chemical reactions and the ability of gases and liquids to move through the
landfill. These types of models are known as component models and are the next generation of
landfill models. The leading component models are LDAT (University of Southampton, UK),
POSE (Technical University Braunshweig, Germany), HBM (Napier University, UK) and
MODUELO (University of Cantabria, Spain). These models were all compared as part of the
Hydro-Physico-Mechanics 2 (HPM2) Challenge to landfill modellers in 2007 (Ivanova, Richards
et al. 2007b).
One of the main inputs required for any landfill gas generation model is the waste
composition data. For this data to be of use for a landfill model, it must be converted into input
values that the particular model requires. Depending on the complexity of the model being used,
the waste compositions are normally converted into the categories of fast, medium and slow
degradation rates. Simple models tend to combine all these rates together to create a combined
decay rate that is normally used within a first order decay model. Better developed models use a
combination of degradation rates.
Component models vary in their approach to dealing with the conversion of the waste
composition into model inputs. Majority of models require two - three degradation rates. From
the results of HPM2 (Beaven, Ivanova et al. 2007) it was noted that the conversion of the
experimental data into input data was challenging for most of the models.

Third International Workshop “Hydro-Physico-Mechanics of Landfills”

Braunschweig, Germany; 10 - 13 March 2009
 Third International Workshop “Hydro-Physico-Mechanics of Landfills”, 2009

2. WASTE COMPOSITION DATA

Waste composition data is usually collected in the form of waste fractions such as: green waste,
food, plastics, metals, paper, textiles, glass, inert etc. Many Environment Protection Agencies
around the world undertake regular analysis of their municipal solid waste (US-EPA 2008)
(Sustainability-Victoria 2007). Waste composition and quantities vary from country to country
and within regions within the one country. Therefore local data is required to predict landfill
degradation rates and methane quantities. Some landfills and large scale test cells have a good
record of the waste composition, quantities and length of filling; however most full–scale
landfills are lacking this high quality input data. The waste surveys undertaken at regional, state
and/or national level can help provide guidance when individual site data in missing.
A good comparison of waste composition data from around the world was undertaken by
Barlaz in 2006, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Selected global waste composition data (Barlaz 2006)

Waste component US Singapore UK Germany Spain Australia
2001 2000 2004 2001 1999
Total paper 28.0 20.6 19 10.3 21 9.9
Newsprint 3.0
Office paper 2.1
Magazines 0.9
Boxes 5.4
Other paper 16.6
Total metals 7.4 3.2 8 5.4 4 7.1
Aluminium cans 0.5
Steel cans 0.6
Other metals 6.3
Total plastics 14.9 5.8 7 7.9 11 7.3
PET 0.3
Milk and water 0.3
bottles (HDPE)
Other plastic 14.3
Total glass 6.3 1.1 4 4 7 6.8
Glass containers 5.3
Other glass 1.0
Food waste 15.8 38.8 38.1
Yard waste 7.5 2.7 17.8
Compostables 41 26.0 44
Textiles, rubber and 8.5 0.9 2 3.5 5
leather
Wood 7.4 8.9 6 3.3 6.4
Other 2.0 15.3 13 34.5 8 6.6
Miscellaneous 2.2 2.7 5.1
inorganics

Once the waste composition data for a particular site is known (or estimated), this information
needs to be converted into terms that predictive landfill models can use. The number and type of
parameters required will depend on the model. However, the component models tend to require
multiple degradation rates, rather than a single decay rate such as the more simple models use
 Third International Workshop “Hydro-Physico-Mechanics of Landfills”, 2009

i.e. the US-EPA first order decay model, LANDGEM (US-EPA 2005).

3. WASTE CHARACTERISATION STUDIES

A number of studies have been undertaken over the last decade examining the characterisation of
waste composition into cellulose, hemicellulose, and in some cases lignin.
● (Ham, Norman et al. 1993)
● (Stinson and Ham 1995)
● (Eleazer, Odle Iii et al. 1997)/(Barlaz, Eleazer et al. 1997b), (Barlaz, Eleazer et al. 1997a)
● (Wang, Odle et al. 1997)
● (Baldwin, Stinson et al. 1998)
● (Komilis and Ham 2000)
● (Environment_Agency 2004)
● (Rodriguez, Hiligsmann et al. 2005)
● (Barlaz 2006)
● (Ivanova, Richards et al. 2007a)
● (Barlaz 2008)
These studies have examined different waste streams and some of these studies are
significantly more comprehensive than others.

3.1 Municipal Solid Waste Studies

These studies show a large variety in values of all the MSW composition studies examined. This
is due to the issues, as discussed above, in the composition and quantities of municipal solid
waste between regions, states and countries. Therefore, these values should only be used a guide
for modelling purposes due to the range of results, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparison of Municipal Solid Waste studies

Hemi- Volatile
Source Secondary source Cellulose Lignin Protein (C+H)/L
cellulose solids

% % % %
(Ham, Norman
17.28 5.14 12.67 2.77 1.77 38.85
et al. 1993)
(Eleazer, Odle
Iii et al. 1997)
(Barlaz, Eleazer
28.8 9 23.1 1.64 75.2
et al. 1997b)
(Barlaz, Eleazer
et al. 1997a)
Ham and
(Barlaz 2006) 42.4 6.6 10.9 3.89
Bookter (1982)
 Third International Workshop “Hydro-Physico-Mechanics of Landfills”, 2009

Hemi- Volatile
Source Secondary source Cellulose Lignin Protein (C+H)/L
cellulose solids

% % % %
Jones and
Grainger 25.6 11.9 7.2 4.5 59.6
(1983a,b)
Bookter and
63.4 9 15.7 4.04
Ham (1982)
Barlaz et al.
51.2 8.7 15.2 4.15 78.6
(1989)
Eleazer et al.
28.8 10.6 23.1 1.64 75.2
(1997)
Rhew and Barlaz
38.5 6.7 28 1.68
(1995)
Ress et al. (1998) 48.2 10 14.5 4.06 71.4
Barlaz
36.7 10.8 13.6 3.19
(unpublished)
Price et al.
43.9 5.8 25.1 2.15
(2003)
Barlaz
54.3 12.1 5.38 86
(unpublished)
Barlaz
22.4 11 2.57
(unpublished)
(Ivanova,
Richards et al. 24.8 6.7 9.7 3.2
2007a)
Average 37.59 8.41 15.85 2.77 3.13 69.26
SD 13.62 2.19 6.39 1.24 15.60

3.2 Various Waste Composition Studies

The results from a number of studies have been grouped by waste type as shown in tables 3 – 6.

Table 3. Comparison of Paper Product Studies

Secondary Hemi- (C+H)/ Volatile
Category Source Cellulose Lignin Protein
source cellulose L solids
% % % %
Newspaper (Stinson and
51 25.1
Ham 1995)
(Eleazer, Odle
48.5 9 23.9 2.41 98.5
Iii et al. 1997)
(Environment
_Agency 18.5 9
2004)
Wu et al.
48.3 18.1 22.1 3.00 98
(Barlaz 2006) (2001)
 Third International Workshop “Hydro-Physico-Mechanics of Landfills”, 2009

Secondary Hemi- (C+H)/ Volatile

Category Source Cellulose Lignin Protein
source cellulose L solids
% % % %
Eleazer et
48.5 9 23.9 2.41 98.5
al. (1997)
(Barlaz 2008) 48.5 9 23.9 2.41 98.5
Average 43.88 10.82 23.78 2.56 98.38
SD 12.48 4.07 1.07 0.30 0.25

Office (Eleazer, Odle

87.4 8.4 2.3 41.65 98.6
Paper Iii et al. 1997)
Wu et al.
64.7 13 0.93 83.55 88.4
(Barlaz 2006) (2001)
Eleazer et
87.4 8.4 2.3 98.6
al. (1997)
(Barlaz 2008) 87.4 8.4 2.3 98.6
Average 81.73 9.55 1.96 62.60 96.05
SD 11.35 2.30 0.69 29.63 5.10

Magazines (Environment
_Agency 42.3 9.4
2004)

Other (Stinson and

100 0
paper Ham 1995)
(Eleazer, Odle
42.3 9.4 15 3.45 74.3
Iii et al. 1997)
(Environment
_Agency 87.4 8.4
2004)
Eleazer et
42.3 9.4 15 3.45 74.3
(Barlaz 2006) al. (1997)
(Barlaz 2008) 42.3 9.4 15 3.45 74.3
Average 62.86 9.15 11.25 3.45 74.30
SD 28.50 0.50 7.50 0.00 0.00

Corrugated (Eleazer, Odle

57.3 9.9 20.8 3.23 98.2
containers Iii et al. 1997)
(Environment
_Agency 57.3 9.9
2004)
Eleazer et
57.3 9.9 20.8 3.23 92.2
(Barlaz 2006) al. (1997)
(Barlaz 2008) 57.3 9.9 20.8 3.23 92.2
Average 57.30 9.90 20.80 3.23 94.20
SD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.46
 Third International Workshop “Hydro-Physico-Mechanics of Landfills”, 2009

Table 4. Comparison of Green Waste Studies

Secondary Hemi- (C+H)/ Volatile
Category Source Cellulose Lignin Protein
source cellulose L solids
% % % %
(Eleazer, Odle
23.4 4.7 22.5 1.25 48.2
Seed Iii et al. 1997)
(Barlaz, Eleazer
et al. 1997b)
18.3 3.7 22.1 1.00 42.4
(Barlaz, Eleazer
et al. 1997a)
(Wang, Odle et
18.3 3.7 22.1 3.8 1.00 42.2
al. 1997)
(Baldwin,
Stinson et al.
1998)
Average 20.00 4.03 22.23 3.80 1.08 44.27
SD 2.94 0.58 0.23 0.15 3.41

(Eleazer, Odle
26.5 10.2 28.4 1.29 85
Grass Iii et al. 1997)
(Barlaz, Eleazer
et al. 1997b)
25.6 14.8 21.6 1.87 87.8
(Barlaz, Eleazer
et al. 1997a)
(Barlaz 2008) 26.5 10.2 32.6 1.13 96.9
Average 26.20 11.73 27.53 1.43 89.90
SD 0.52 2.66 5.55 0.39 6.22

(Eleazer, Odle
15.3 10.5 43.8 0.59 90.2
Leaves Iii et al. 1997)
(Barlaz 2008) 15.3 10.5 43.8 0.59 90.2

(Eleazer, Odle
35.4 18.4 32.6 1.65 96.6
branches Iii et al. 1997)
Eleazer et
35.4 18.4 32.6 1.65
(Barlaz 2006) al. (1997)
(Barlaz 2008) 35.4 18.4 32.6 1.65 96.6

Green (Environment_
25.7 13
waste Agency 2004)
 Third International Workshop “Hydro-Physico-Mechanics of Landfills”, 2009

Table 5. Comparison of Food Waste Studies

Secondary Hemi- (C+H)/ Volatile

Category Source Cellulose Lignin Protein
source cellulose L solids

% % % %
Food waste (Wang, Odle et
46.1 6.2 8.32 6.29 90.2
al. 1997)
55.4 7.2 11.4 18.8 5.49 93.7
(Eleazer, Odle
55.4 7.2 11.4 5.49 93.8
Iii et al. 1997)
(Environment_
55.4 7.2
Agency 2004)
Eleazer et
55.4 7.2 11.4 5.49 93.8
(Barlaz 2006) al. (1997)
Barlaz
40.9 6.1 7.4 6.35 88.6
(unpubl.)
Barlaz
32.2 11 15 2.88 87.3
(unpub.)
(Barlaz 2008) 55.4 7.2 11.4 5.49 93.8
Average 49.53 7.41 10.90 18.80 5.35 91.60
SD 8.94 1.53 2.47 1.16 2.84

Table 6. Miscellaneous Waste Studies

Hemi- (C+H)/ Volatile

Category Source Cellulose Lignin Protein
cellulose L solids

% %
Textiles (Environment_Agency
20 20
2004)
Diapers (Environment_Agency
25 25
2004)
Misc (Environment_Agency
25 25
combustible 2004)
10mm fines (Environment_Agency
25 25
2004)

4. CALCULATION OF METHANE GENERATED FROM WASTE

The quantity of methane generated from waste during its degradation can be calculated from the
quantities of cellulose and hemicellulose within that waste. These fractions make up over 90 %
of the methane potential (Wang, Byrd et al. 1994). The methane potential of lignin is assumed to
be zero due to its inability to decompose under anaerobic conditions (Ivanova, Richards et al.
2008). The maximum theoretical methane potential can be calculated using the following
 Third International Workshop “Hydro-Physico-Mechanics of Landfills”, 2009

equation (Wang, Byrd et al. 1994):

⎡ ⎛ a ⎞ ⎛ b ⎞⎤ ⎡⎛ n ⎞ ⎛ a ⎞ ⎛ b ⎞⎤ ⎡⎛ n ⎞ ⎛ a ⎞ ⎛ b ⎞⎤
Cn H aOb + ⎢n − ⎜ ⎟ − ⎜ ⎟⎥ H 2O → ⎢⎜ ⎟ − ⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟⎥C2O + ⎢⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ − ⎜ ⎟⎥CH 4
⎣ ⎝ 4 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎦ ⎣⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 8 ⎠ ⎝ 4 ⎠⎦ ⎣⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 8 ⎠ ⎝ 4 ⎠⎦

Where C6H10O5 is cellulose

C5H8O4 is hemicellulose

The maximum methane potential is useful for providing the upper limit of methane generation
and is based on all the cellulose and hemicellulose converting to methane. However in reality,
lignin can inhibit the degradation of cellulose and hemicellulose as it physically impedes
microbial access to these components (Barlaz 2008). Also, not all cellulose and hemicellulose is
in a bio-available form and therefore these components do not all convert to methane (Wang,
Byrd et al. 1994).
The chemical pathways for the conversion of cellulose and hemicellulose has been presented
by Barlaz (Barlaz 2008):

Cellulose (C6H10O5)n + n H2O = 3n CO2 + 3n CH4

Hemicellulose (C5H8O4)n + n H2O = 2.5n CO2 + 2.5 n CH4

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The above tables often show the same results reported by different papers. As many of these
papers are from the same or similar groups of authors, the conclusion must be drawn that the
same initial study has often provided the final figures. Therefore, for some waste categories
insufficient testing has been undertaken to characterise the waste stream. There are a reasonable
number of studies undertaken for the combined categories of green waste and paper/cardboard;
however, further studies in the area of food waste, in particular, would be beneficial.
Table 1 showed a significant variation in waste composition around the world, and Table 2
showed significant variation in the standard deviation of the results of the different MSW
studies. The individual waste composition studies shown in Tables 3 – 6 demonstrate the
variation in measured results, and therefore the likely errors which would occur if using an
overall generic municipal solid waste study (i.e. from Table 2) instead of site (or region) specific
composition data for modelling purposes.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The characterisation of municipal solid waste composition into cellulose and hemicellulose can
help simplify the conversion of waste composition into inputs that component models can
handle. This comparison of studies highlights the importance of having the best site specific
data for the model inputs. Using generic municipal solid waste composition data or generic
characterisation of MSW data is likely to cause significant errors in the predicted methane
generated from a landfill.
 Third International Workshop “Hydro-Physico-Mechanics of Landfills”, 2009

REFERENCES

Baldwin, T. D., Stinson, J., et al. (1998). "Decomposition of Specific Materials Buried within
Sanitary Landfills." Journal of Environmental Engineering 124(12): 1193-1202.
Barlaz, M. A. (2006). "Forest products decomposition in municipal solid waste landfills." Waste
Management 26(4): 321-333.
Barlaz, M. A. (2008). "The fate of carbon in municipal waste landfills: methane, carbon dioxide
and carbon sequestration." Seminar, WMAA, Melbourne
Barlaz, M. A., Eleazer, W. E., et al. (1997a). Biodegradative analysis of municipal solid waste in
laboratory-scale landfills. - Final report Aug 96-Mar 97, NTIS.
Barlaz, M. A., Eleazer, W. E., et al. (1997b). Biodegradative Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste
in Laboratory-Scale Landfills: Project Summary, US-EPA.
Beaven, R. P., Ivanova, L. K., et al. (2007). Long Term Data from the Challenge Experiment and
a Review of Responses to the Challenge. HPM2, University of Southampton, UK.
Eleazer, W. E., Odle Iii, W. S., et al. (1997). "Biodegradability of municipal solid waste
components in laboratory- scale landfills." Environmental Science and Technology 31(3):
911-917.
Environment_Agency (2004). Guidance on the management of landfill gas: 124.
Ham, R. K., Norman, M. R., et al. (1993). "Chemical Characterization of Fresh Kills Landfill
Refuse and Extracts." Journal of Environmental Engineering 119(6): 1176-1195.
Ivanova, L. K., Richards, D. J., et al. (2007a). A Challenge to Landfill Modellers: To Predict the
Performance of a Laboratory Experiment on the Biodegradation and Settlement of MSW
Based on Starting Conditions and Operational Procedures. HPM2, University of
Southampton.
Ivanova, L. K., Richards, D. J., et al. (2007b). Application of fibre analysis methods to predict
the gas potential of wastes. HPM2, University of Southampton.
Ivanova, L. K., Richards, D. J., et al. (2008). "Assessment of the anaerobic biodegradation
potential of MSW." Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Waste and Resource
Management 161(4): 167-180.
Komilis, D. P. and Ham, R. K. (2000). "Laboratory method to investigate gaseous emissions and
solids decomposition during composting of municipal solid wastes." Compost Science and
Utilization 8(3): 254-265.
Rodriguez, C., Hiligsmann, S., et al. (2005). "Development of an enzymatic assay for the
determination of cellulose bioavailability in municipal solid waste." Biodegradation 16(5):
415-422.
Stinson, J. A. and Ham, R. K. (1995). "Effect of Lignin on the Anaerobic Decomposition of
Cellulose as Determined Through the Use of a Biochemical Methane Potential Method."
Environmental Science & Technology 29(9): 2305-2310.
Sustainability-Victoria (2007). Victorian Local Government Annual Survey 2006 – 2007.
US-EPA (2005), "LANDGEM", Program.
US-EPA (2008). Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures.
Wang, Y.-S., Odle, W. S., et al. (1997). "Methane Potential Of Food Waste And Anaerobic
Toxicity Of Leachate Produced During Food Waste Decomposition." Waste Management &
Research 15: 149-167.
Wang, Y. S., Byrd, C. S., et al. (1994). "Anaerobic biodegradability of cellulose and
hemicellulose in excavated refuse samples using a biochemical methane potential assay."
Journal of Industrial Microbiology 13(3): 147-153.