See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303915483

Impact of paper and cardboard suppression on OFMSW anaerobic digestion

Article  in  Waste Management · June 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.023

CITATIONS READS

13 691

4 authors:

Xavier Fonoll Almansa Sergi Astals

University of Michigan University of Barcelona
12 PUBLICATIONS   795 CITATIONS    92 PUBLICATIONS   3,595 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Joan Dosta Joan Mata-Álvarez

University of Barcelona University of Barcelona
59 PUBLICATIONS   2,235 CITATIONS    171 PUBLICATIONS   8,373 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

REsources from URban BIo-waSte (RES URBIS) View project

Better BMP (B-BMP) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xavier Fonoll Almansa on 21 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Waste Management 56 (2016) 100–105

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Impact of paper and cardboard suppression on OFMSW anaerobic

digestion
X. Fonoll a,b,⇑, S. Astals a,c, J. Dosta a, J. Mata-Alvarez a
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Barcelona, C/ Martí i Franquès, No. 1, 6th floor, 08028 Barcelona, Spain
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, 1351 Beal Avenue, 219 EWRE Building, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125, USA
c
Advanced Water Management Centre, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia

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

Article history: Mechanical-biological treatment plants treat municipal solid waste to recover recyclable materials, nutri-
Received 3 March 2016 ents and energy. Waste paper and cardboard (WP), the second main compound in municipal solid waste
Revised 17 May 2016 (30% in weight basis), is typically used for biogas generation. However, its recovery is gaining attention
Accepted 24 May 2016
as it can be used to produce add-value products like bioethanol and residual derived fuel. Nevertheless,
Available online 8 June 2016
WP suppression or replacement will impact anaerobic digestion in terms of biogas production, process
stability and digestate management. Two lab-scale reactors were used to assess the impact of WP in
Keywords:
anaerobic digestion performance. A control reactor was only fed with biowaste (BioW), while a second
Anaerobic digestion
Biowaste
reactor was fed with two different mixtures of BioW and WP, i.e. 85/15% and 70/30% (weight basis).
Paper Results indicate that either replacing half of the WP by BioW or removing half of the WP has little impact
Cardboard on the methane production. When removing half of the WP, methane production could be sustained by a
Municipal solid waste larger waste biodegradability. The replacement of all WP by BioW increased the reactor methane produc-
Digestate tion (37%), while removing all WP would have reduced the methane production about 15%. Finally,
replacing WP loading rate by BioW led to a system less tolerant to instability periods and with poorer
digestate quality.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and cardboard), nutrients (e.g., fertilizer) and energy generation

Municipal solid waste (MSW) generation is one of the most
important environmental problems in the world. Almost 1.3 billion
of tons were generated in 2010 by 161 of the world’s countries and
it is predicted that the annual MSW generation from these coun-
tries will be almost 2.2 billion of tons in 2025 (Hoornweg and
Bhada-Tata, 2012). Although MSW have been typically presented
as a burden for society, nowadays, it is considered a valuable
resource for recyclable materials (e.g., glass, plastic, metals, paper
Abbreviations: AD, anaerobic digestion; BioW, biowaste; BOD5, 5-day biochem-
ical oxygen demand; HRT, hydraulic retention time (HRT); MBT, mechanical-
biological treatment; MSW, municipal solid waste; OFMSW, organic fraction of
MSW; OLR, organic loading rate; PA, partial alkalinity; RDF, refuse derived fuel; RW,
real digester feedstock; SMP, specific methane production; TA, total alkalinity; TAN,
total ammonia nitrogen; TS, total solids; VFA, volatile fatty acids; VS, volatile solids;
WP, waste paper.
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Michigan, 1351 Beal Avenue, 107 EWRE Building, Ann Arbor, MI
48109-2125, USA.
E-mail address: xfonolla@umich.edu (X. Fonoll).
(e.g., biogas, refuse derived fuel (RDF), bioethanol)
(Pandyaswargo et al., 2012). Several life cycle analysis studies have
concluded that mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) plants
equipped with anaerobic digestion (AD) have the best environ-
mental performance for organic fraction of MSW (OFMSW) treat-
ment (Abeliotis et al., 2012; Beylot et al., 2015; Pires et al.,
2011). MBT plants are constituted by different mechanical sorting
steps aiming to recover valuable materials and prepare the MSW
for the following biological stages. Sorting strategies and intensi-
ties are designed according to the MSW characteristics, digester
configuration and desired products (Hilkiah Igoni et al., 2008).
The recovery of paper and cardboard from MSW is gaining
importance, since (i) new sorting technologies (e.g., optical sorter)
allow higher recovery yields at a reduced cost (Romero-Güiza et al.,
2014), and (ii) they can be used for the generation of add-value
products such as bioethanol and RDF. Bioethanol production from
waste paper is interesting as their carbohydrates are more accessi-
ble than those present in agro-industrial lignocellulosic substrates
(Wang et al., 2013, 2012). Additionally, due to their calorific value
(13–22 MJ kg 1) waste paper and cardboard (named as WP from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.023
0956-053X/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 X. Fonoll et al. / Waste Management 56 (2016) 100–105
waste paper) from MSW are also a suitable compound for RDF.
However, the removal of WP will have an impact on
down-stream AD performance as they are the second main com-
pound in MSW with a wet weight ranging between 15% and 30%
(Bolzonella et al., 2006; Montejo et al., 2010; Saint-Joly et al.,
2000).
Saint-Joly et al. (2000) evaluated the impact of different types of
waste collection on AD performance. In the study, the OFMSW con-
taining the highest percentage of paper and cardboard exhibited
the lowest specific methane production (SMP) but the highest
absolute methane production. Removing waste paper (WP) can
lead to different benefits such as: (i) larger retention times of the
food waste in the digester, which will lead to a more stable diges-
tate, (ii) lower digestate management cost, especially regarding the
digestate transfer from the MBT plant to its next destination (e.g.,
post-treatment plant, soil amendment, landfilling. . .), and (iii)
increased treatment capacity, which could be used to add an in-
plant or external co-substrate. Nonetheless, such factors have
rarely been considered in MBT plants studies. Consequently,
research support is needed to understand how WP suppression
from OFMSW will affect down-stream AD in terms of biogas pro-
duction and digestate management.
The aim of this study is to understand the impact of WP fraction
removal on OFMSW AD in terms of digester methane yield, process
stability and digestate quality. The latter has been evaluated by
aerobic (BOD5d) and anaerobic (residual methane potential) assays.
To achieve these goals two lab-scale reactors were fed with
OFMSW; one reactor (control) was only fed with food waste, while
the other was fed with two different mixtures between food waste
and WP (i.e. 85/15% and 70/30%, weight basis).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Substrate and inoculum origin and characteristics
The reactors were fed with real digester influent (RW from
residual waste) screened at 1 cm (stage I), and a laboratory pre-
pared feedstock using food waste (BioW from biowaste), WP and
digester supernatant from the MBT plant (Stage II, III and IV). The
lab prepared feedstock was used to (i) have total control over reac-
tors influent, (ii) allow different mixtures, and (iii) remove unde-
sired materials (e.g., glass, debris, textile and metals) from the
feedstock. The lab prepared feedstock was diluted to 50 g TS L 1
with digester supernatant and, afterward, grinded with a food pro-
cessor to achieve a particle size below 1 cm.
The RW, BioW, WP and digester supernatant, used as reactors
feedstock were obtained from a MBT plant in Barcelona (Spain),
which treats 186,000 tons of residual waste per year (Romero-
Güiza et al. (2014) provides an extensive description of the MBT
plant configuration). The sampling point selected for BioW and
WP was the effluent of the vibrating screen (after hand-sorting,
dual trommel and magnetic sorting), just before the AD feedstock
refining stages. This stream has an average composition of 60%
BioW, 25% WP and 15% undesired materials (weight basis; w:w).
Before starting the experiments, batches of BioW and WP were
collected and characterized at different days to assess their
Table 1
Characterization in % of BioW and WP (w:w).
BioW WP
Vegetables 37 Soiled paper towel 61
Fruits 44 Cardboard 27
Meat 11 Office paper 10
Others (Carbohydrates) 8 Newspaper 2 (w:w)
101
composition for the lab feedstock preparation (Table 1). The sam-
pling point for RW was the effluent of the hydrocyclone–decanter
unit, just before the digester feedstock storage tank.
BioW and WP samples were collected every two weeks and
stored at 4 °C; a tradeoff between the time spent on sample collec-
tion and waste degradation in the fridge. Before storage, BioW and
WP samples were sorted, in order to obtain the different fractions
listed in Table 1, so the laboratory feedstock could be prepared. The
supernatant was collected once a month to avoid constant changes
on digester medium (e.g., alkalinity, ammonia), and also stored at
4 °C. The inoculum used for reactors start-up was obtained from
a lab-scale reactor treating similar OFMSW at a HRT of 18 days.
2.2. Reactors operational conditions
Two 5 L lab-scale semi-continuous stirred tank reactors with a
working volume of 3.5 L were used at mesophilic conditions
(35 °C) as the MBT plant digesters where the different materials
were collected. The operational temperature was ensured by circu-
lating water from a heated water bath through the jacket sur-
rounding the reactor, while the reactor medium was constantly
stirred at 60 rpm by an IKAÒ overhead stirrer equipped with an
anchor-type impeller. The reactors were manually fed and purged
once per day. The hydraulic retention time (HRT) and the organic
loading rate (OLR) of both reactors were set at 15 days and
2.9 ± 0.4 gVS LR 1 day 1, respectively, to match the nominal treat-
ment conditions of the MBT plant. These conditions are also repre-
sentative for most wet mesophilic AD plants treating OFMSW. The
reactors OLR slightly fluctuated due to the intrinsically heterogene-
ity of the OFMSW, and it was kept constant during the whole
experiment despite the change in influent composition. The latter
was decided in order to attribute changes in reactor behavior to
the influent composition change rather than a combined effect
between influent composition and OLR change. An additional rea-
son for keeping the OLR constant is that at full-scale the reduction
of the digester load due to WP removal would likely be recovered
with another municipal/commercial food waste. The biogas pro-
duction was on-line monitored using a tipping bucket gas meter
(RitterÒ MGC-1) and its composition was analyzed twice a week
using a gas chromatograph.
Anaerobic reactors operation was divided in four different
stages (Table 2). At Stage I both reactors were fed with real
digester feedstock (RW) to provide a base line reactor perfor-
mance (used to correlate lab and full-scale results). Stage I was
also used to assure that both systems reached similar opera-
tional conditions. At Stage II both reactors were fed with BioW
to assess the scenario where the organic matter refining process
eliminates the entire WP fraction from the AD feedstock. Later
on, Stage III and IV were used to evaluate the reactor perfor-
mance at two different concentrations of WP in the feedstock.
Specifically, during stage III and IV, R2 was fed with a mixture
BioW/WP of 85/15% and 70/30% (w:w), respectively, while R1
(control) was only fed with BioW.
Table 2
Operational conditions of both reactors at each stage.
Stage I II III IV
Reactor R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2
Period of 0–40 40–80 80–123 123–210
days
Feedstock RW RW BioW BioW BioW BioW BioW BioW
+ WP + WP
Mixture 100/ 100/ 100/ 100/ 100/ 85/15 100/ 70/30
0 0 0 0 0 0
102 X. Fonoll et al. / Waste Management 56 (2016) 100–105
2.3. Analytical methods
Most of the analytical methods were performed following the
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
(APHA, 2012). Total solids (TS) and volatile solids (VS) were
determined following the guidelines given by the standard method
2540G, where volatile fatty acids (VFA) losses during TS determi-
nation were taken into account and then combined to give a final
TS and VS value (Peces et al., 2014). Total (TA) and partial (PA)
alkalinity were determined by a titration method at pH 4.30 and
at 5.75, respectively. Individual VFAs (acetate, propionate, iso-
butyrate, n-butyrate, iso-valerate and n-valerate) were analyzed
by a HP 5890-Serie II gas chromatograph equipped with a capillary
column (NukolTM) and a flame ionization detector. Total ammonia
nitrogen (TAN) concentration was analyzed by an 863 Advanced
Compact Metrohm ionic chromatograph using Metrosep columns.
The biogas composition was determined with a Shimadzu GC-
2010+ gas chromatograph equipped with a CarboxenÒ-1010 PLOT
column and a thermal conductivity detector. The biogas and
methane productions are reported at standard temperature and
pressure conditions (i.e. 0 °C and 1 bar).
Digestate stability was evaluated by aerobic (5-day biochemical
oxygen demand) and anaerobic (residual methane potential)
assays. The 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) was done
following the 5210D standard method procedure (APHA, 2012)
using WTW OxitopÒ as a measuring system. The residual methane
potential of the digestate was analyzed by determining the
methane released after 40 incubation days. Specifically, 200 mL
of digestate were added to a 265 mL serum bottle. All bottles were
flushed with N2, sealed with a rubber stopper and placed in a 35 °C
water bath. Methane production was calculated from the head-
space pressure increase (vacuometer Ebro – VAM 320) and
methane content, and expressed at standard temperature and
pressure conditions (i.e. 0 °C and 1 bar).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effect of paper waste fraction on methane production
Fig. 1 shows reactors methane production per reactor volume,
SMP, and VS removal for R1 and R2 over time. The reactors adapted
quickly to the new influent (i.e. RW) and operational conditions
(Stage I) since steady-state conditions were reached within
20 days. During Stage I, the only difference between the reactors
was the slightly lower methane production of R1 compared to R2
(Table 3); this small difference was related to waste heterogeneity
since no gas leaks were detected. Under steady-state conditions,
the lab-scale reactors had a lower specific methane production
(0.32 LCH4 gVS 1) compared to the full-scale digester (0.45
LCH4 gVS 1). This variance was mainly attributed to the difference
on OLR between the lab (2.9 gVS LR 1 day 1) and the full-scale
(1.0–2.5 gVS LR 1 day 1) reactor. In Stage II, the change of the feed-
stock composition from RW to BioW reduced the amount of non-
biodegradable material (e.g., glass, dirt, debris and metals) fed into
the reactors, which, as expected, led to a higher methane yield and
VS removal. Later on (55–70th day), intrinsic changes in feedstock
composition caused a drop on methane production; however, pre-
vious methane yields (0.41 LCH4 gVS 1) were recovered after
feeding BioW from a new OFMSW batch (Fig. 1a).
The substitution of 15% (wet basis) of BioW by WP in R2 feed-
stock (Stage III) did not have a significant impact on R2 methane
yield (compared to R1) during the first-half of the stage (till
108th day). However, a 10–20% reduction of the SMP was
recorded from day 108th to 120th (after a new OFMSW batch
was fed), when R1 and R2 averaged 0.43 and 0.36 LCH4 gVS 1 -
day 1, respectively. Interestingly, the drop of OLR between day
88 and 100 from 2.8 to 2.2 gVS LR 1 day 1 did not affected reac-
tors daily methane production but increased the reactors SMP
(Fig. 1a and b); suggesting that a larger BioW biodegradability
can compensate to a certain extent assumed methane losses
due to WP removal. These results indicate that replacing half of
the WP by BioW (constant OLR scenario) or only removing WP
from the reactor feedstock (reduced OLR scenario) will have little
impact on reactor methane recovery (especially at relatively high
OLR). At the beginning of Stage IV (138–152th day) reactors oper-
ation was disrupted by the acidification of the supernatant used
to dilute reactors feedstock. Reactors recovered after a starvation
period (no feeding) and the reestablishment of feed supply using
a new supernatant batch (see details at Section 3.2). New steady-
state conditions were reached at the 185th day. As can be seen in
Fig. 1, the substitution of 30% (wet basis) of BioW for WP (stage
IV) had a significant impact on R2 methane yield, reducing R2
methane production by 30% as an average (0.34 ± 0.04 LCH4
gVS 1 day 1). These results indicate that replacing the WP load-
ing rate by BioW (constant OLR scenario) will have a clear posi-
tive impact on reactor methane production, whereas only
removing WP (reduced OLR scenario) will led to a noticeable loss
of methane production (15%). The latter scenario will only be
applicable if the revenues obtained from WP sale offset the eco-
nomic losses incurred by the lower methane production.
3.2. Effect of waste paper removal on process stability
Reactors start-up (Stage I) took place without any instability
sign, reaching 150 mg VFA L 1 at steady-state conditions (Fig. 2).
Despite operating conditions difference, this value is similar to
the full-scale VFA levels which typically range from 100 to
250 mg VFA L 1. Changing the influent from RW to BioW, a more
biodegradable substrate, increased VFA concentration up to
600 mg L 1; however, VFA values decreased to 300 mg L 1 10 days
after the VFA peak. A VFA peak after a change in reactor feedstock
composition is a well-known phenomenon for AD systems, but it
rarely affects process performance (Fonoll et al., 2015). Later on,
the replacement of 15% (Stage III) and 30% (Stage IV) of BioW for
WP did not affect VFA and alkalinity levels (Table 3). At Stage IV,
the acidification of the feedstock supernatant (from 5.7 g VFA L 1
to 24 g VFA L 1) led to a rapid accumulation of VFA in both reac-
tors. This batch was used for a 14 days period (138–151th) and uti-
lized to compare process robustness during instability periods. As
can be seen in Fig. 2, VFA accumulation was higher in R1
(4500 mg VFA L 1) than in R2 (2400 mg L 1), but in both reactors
it decreased methane production (Fig. 1a). At day 154, feed supply
was reestablished using a new supernatant (2.4 g VFA L 1). The
reactors were not fed on days 152, 153, 162, 163, 165, 169 and
170 to facilitate VFA removal. After 1.5 HRT, the concentrations
of valerate, butyrate and propionate were below 50 mg L 1, while
acetate concentrations were 750 and 350 mg L 1 for R1 and R2,
respectively. The present results indicate that replacing WP load-
ing rate by BioW results in a system less tolerant to instability peri-
ods; however, such instability can be managed by controlling
reactor OLR and VFA profile.
3.3. Digestate stability
Table 4 shows BOD5 (aerobic) and post-methane (anaerobic)
digestate stability results of each reactor and stage. Both diges-
tate stability assays showed that digestate stability is affected
by the reactor feedstock biodegradability, since digestates from
less biodegradable substrates (i.e. RW and BioW + WP digestates)
were more stable than BioW digestates. This is in agreement
with Trzcinski and Stuckey (2011) who compared the digestate
 X. Fonoll et al. / Waste Management 56 (2016) 100–105 103

Fig. 1. Performance of R1 and R2: (A) methane production and OLR (R1 (—) and R2 (–
–); (B) specific methane production; (C) volatile solids removal.

Table 3
Average performance of both reactors during the last 15 days of each stage.

Units Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV

R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2
SMP LCH4 g VS 1 0.30 ± 0.03 0.34 ± 0.03 0.41 ± 0.06 0.41 ± 0.04 0.43 ± 0.06 0.36 ± 0.03 0.47 ± 0.05 0.34 ± 0.04
Methane production LCH4 day 1 3.3 ± 0.3 3.6 ± 0.4 4.2 ± 0.7 4.2 ± 0.5 4.5 ± 0.7 3.8 ± 0.4 4.3 ± 0.4 3.1 ± 0.2
TS removal % 54 ± 3 54 ± 3 62 ± 2 60 ± 3 68 ± 1 68 ± 1 56 ± 2 55 ± 2
VS removal % 66 ± 3 66 ± 2 74 ± 2 74 ± 2 79 ± 2 77 ± 2 68 ± 2 67 ± 2
pH – 7.7 ± 0.1 7.8 ± 0.1 7.8 ± 0.1 7.8 ± 0.1 7.7 ± 0.1 7.6 ± 0.1 7.8 ± 0.1 7.8 ± 0.1
TA g CaCO3 L 1 9.3 ± 0.1 9.3 ± 0.1 6.8 ± 0.1 6.9 ± 0.1 6.3 ± 0.1 6.1 ± 0.2 8.0 ± 0.2 8.2 ± 0.2
PA g CaCO3 L 1 7.3 ± 0.4 7.2 ± 0.1 5.2 ± 0.4 5.2 ± 0.4 4.8 ± 0.1 4.6 ± 0.1 6.3 ± 0.1 6.5 ± 0.2
VFA mg L 1 162 ± 44 180 ± 53 239 ± 85 239 ± 85 64 ± 14 66 ± 18 973 ± 155 474 ± 105
HAc mg L 1 150 ± 40 167 ± 46 202 ± 85 202 ± 85 42 ± 7 45 ± 10 920 ± 157 439 ± 108
HPr mg L 1 6±4 7±5 24 ± 15 24 ± 15 10 ± 3 10 ± 3 18 ± 3 12 ± 2
VFA/TA – 0.02 ± 0.01 0.02 ± 0.01 0.08 ± 0.07 0.08 ± 0.07 0.01 ± 0.01 0.02 ± 0.01 0.15 ± 0.02 0.07 ± 0.02
TAN gNL 1 1.5 ± 0.5 1.5 ± 0.6 1.5 ± 0.3 1.5 ± 0.3 1.3 ± 0.1 1.3 ± 0.1 2.1 ± 0.4 2.1 ± 0.4
1
NH3 mg NH3-N L 105 ± 30 135 ± 27 109 ± 28 109 ± 28 73 ± 7 62 ± 11 153 ± 44 173 ± 37

stability after using two different feedstocks and concluded that Residual methane potential test results indicated that reactors
the feedstock with higher lignocellulosic content (less biodegrad- operational conditions (OLR 2.9 gVS LR 1 day 1) did not allow
able) presented the lowest VS removal but the better digestate recovering all the methane potential from the feedstock, hindering
stability. waste stabilization and storage. However, such performance is
104 X. Fonoll et al. / Waste Management 56 (2016) 100–105

Fig. 2. VFA concentration for R1 and R2.

Table 4 tion (37%), while it was estimated that removing all WP

BOD5 and residual methane potential results.
(reduced OLR scenario) would have reduced the methane pro-
BOD5 (mg O2 gVS 1
) RMP (mg O2 gVS 1 a
) duction about 15%. Finally, as expected, replacing WP loading
R1 R2 R1 R2 rate by BioW led to a system less tolerant to instability periods
and with poorer digestate quality.
Phase I 238 ± 24 213 ± 38 478 ± 40 488 ± 40
R1 (RW)
R2 (RW) Acknowledgments
Phase II 264 ± 16 260 ± 20 595 ± 34 617 ± 43
R1 (BioW)
R2 (BioW)
The authors are grateful to CESPA, S.A. and the Ecoparc del
Phase III 281 ± 6 255 ± 17 669 ± 34 584 ± 20 Mediterrani, S.A. for the support of this project. The authors are
R1 (BioW) also thankful to Cristian Velasco Granero for helping in sample col-
R2 (85% BioW, 15% WP) lection. The authors are also grateful to the Spanish Ministerio de
Phase IV 267 ± 17 191 ± 18 561 ± 37 466 ± 11
Economia y Competitividad for its financial support (CTM2008-
R1 (BioW)
R2 (70% BioW, 30% WP) 05986). Xavier Fonoll wishes to thank the financial support
a
obtained from the Foundation Credit Andorrà.
1 mg O2 equals 0.35 mL CH4.

common in OFMSW AD plants which are more focused on energy
recovery than on waste large stabilization. This practice is also con-
sequence of the presence of undesired materials in the digestate
which impede digestate direct utilization as soil conditioner.
Digestate stability results showed that replacing WP for BioW
(constant OLR scenario) will worsen digestate stability (35 mL
CH4 g 1 VS). It is expected that partially or totally removing WP
from the reactor feeding (reduced OLR scenario) will improve
digestate stability and, consequently, reduce digestate manage-
ment cost (e.g., transport cost, post-treatment plant fee). Either
way, a detailed economic study is required to assess which is the
more favorable scenario for a specific MBT plant.
4. Conclusions
Recovering waste paper from the OFMSW is an interesting
opportunity for MBT plants since it can be used to produce
add-value products like bioethanol and residual derived fuel.
Nevertheless, the suppression (reduced OLR scenario) or substi-
tution of waste paper by food waste (constant OLR scenario) will
have an impact on anaerobic digestion methane production, sta-
bility and digestate quality. Experimental results indicated that
either replacing half of the WP by BioW (constant OLR scenario)
or removing half of the WP (reduced OLR scenario) have little
impact on the reactor methane production. In the reduced OLR
scenario, methane production could be sustained by a larger
waste biodegradability. The replacement of all WP by BioW
(constant OLR scenario) increased the reactor methane produc-
References
Abeliotis, K., Kalogeropoulos, A., Lasaridi, K., 2012. Life cycle assessment of the MBT
plant in Ano Liossia, Athens, Greece. Waste Manage. 32, 213–219. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.09.002.
APHA, AWWA, WEF, 2012. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 22nd ed., Washington, DC.
Beylot, A., Vaxelaire, S., Zdanevitch, I., Auvinet, N., Villeneuve, J., 2015. Life Cycle
Assessment of mechanical biological pre-treatment of Municipal Solid Waste: a
case study. Waste Manage. 39, 287–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2015.01.033.
Bolzonella, D., Pavan, P., Mace, S., Cecchi, F., 2006. Dry anaerobic digestion of
differently sorted organic municipal solid waste: a full-scale experience. Water
Sci. Technol. 53, 23–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2006.232.
Fonoll, X., Astals, S., Dosta, J., Mata-alvarez, J., 2015. Anaerobic co-digestion of
sewage sludge and fruit wastes: evaluation of the transitory states when the co-
substrate is changed. Chem. Eng. J. 262, 1268–1274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cej.2014.10.045.
Hilkiah Igoni, A., Ayotamuno, M.J., Eze, C.L., Ogaji, S.O.T., Probert, S.D., 2008. Designs
of anaerobic digesters for producing biogas from municipal solid-waste. Appl.
Energy 85, 430–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2007.07.013.
Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., 2012. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management. World Bank, Washington, DC, <http://siteresources.worldbank.
org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-1334852610766/What_a_
Waste2012_Final.pdf> (accessed 8.12.15).
Montejo, C., Ramos, P., Costa, C., Márquez, M.C., 2010. Analysis of the presence of
improper materials in the composting process performed in ten MBT plants.
Bioresour. Technol. 101, 8267–8272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2010.06.024.
Pandyaswargo, A.H., Onoda, H., Nagata, K., 2012. Energy recovery potential and life
cycle impact assessment of municipal solid waste management technologies in
Asian countries using ELP model. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 3, 28. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1186/2251-6832-3-28.
Peces, M., Astals, S., Mata-Alvarez, J., 2014. Assessing total and volatile solids in
municipal solid waste samples. Environ. Technol. 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/09593330.2014.929182.
Pires, A., Chang, N.-B., Martinho, G., 2011. Reliability-based life cycle assessment for
future solid waste management alternatives in Portugal. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
16, 316–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0269-7.
 X. Fonoll et al. / Waste Management 56 (2016) 100–105
Romero-Güiza, M.S., Peces, M., Astals, S., Benavent, J., Valls, J., Mata-Alvarez, J., 2014.
Implementation of a prototypal optical sorter as core of the new pre-treatment
configuration of a mechanical–biological treatment plant treating OFMSW
through anaerobic digestion. Appl. Energy 135, 63–70. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.077.
Saint-Joly, C., Desbois, S., Lotti, J.P., 2000. Determinant impact of waste collection
and composition on anaerobic digestion performance: industrial results. Water
Sci. Technol. 41, 291–297.
Trzcinski, A.P., Stuckey, D.C., 2011. Parameters affecting the stability of the digestate
from a two-stage anaerobic process treating the organic fraction of municipal
View publication stats
105
solid waste. Waste Manage. 31, 1480–1487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2011.02.015.
Wang, L., Sharifzadeh, M., Templer, R., Murphy, R.J., 2013. Bioethanol production
from various waste papers: economic feasibility and sensitivity analysis. Appl.
Energy 111, 1172–1182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.08.048.
Wang, L., Sharifzadeh, M., Templer, R., Murphy, R.J., 2012. Technology performance
and economic feasibility of bioethanol production from various waste papers.
Energy Environ. Sci. 5, 5717. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c2ee02935a.