Waste Management

Highlights

 Biomass fuel out of MSW suitable for the use in biomass power plants.
 Input demonstration plant of 10 t/h dried MSW.
 Enrichment of biogenic material into the fine fractions <40 mm by sieving.
 Three experimental process setups of different processing depths were tested.
 Successful production, calorific values above 12,000 kJ/kg, fossil content rd. 5%.
Abstract
The main goal of the project MARSS (Material Advanced Sustainable Systems) is to build
a demonstration plant in order to recover a renewable biomass fuel suitable for the use in
biomass power plants out of mixed municipal solid waste (MMSW). The demonstration
plant was constructed in Mertesdorf (Germany), working alongside an existing
mechanical–biological treatment plant, where the MMSW is biological dried under aerobe
conditions in rotting boxes. The focus of the presented sorting campaign was set on the
processing of fine grain particles minor than 11.5 mm which have the highest mass
content and biogenic energy potential of the utilized grain size fractions. The objective was
to produce a biomass fuel with a high calorific value and a low content of fossil (plastic,
synthetic) materials while maximizing the mass recovery. Therefore, the biogenic
components of the dried MMSW are separated from inert and fossil components through
various classification and sifting processes. In three experimental process setups of
different processing depths, the grain size fraction 4–11.5 mm was sifted by the use of air
sifters and air tables.
Keywords
Biomass fuel; Municipal solid waste; Mechanical biological treatment; Landfill directive;
Biodegradable municipal solid waste; Density separation
1. Introduction
According to Article 5,2 c, the EU Landfill Directive demands the avoidance of
biodegradable waste being landfilled by at least 65% (by mass) in comparison to the
production of biodegradable waste in 1995 (EU, 1999). However, the European
Environment Agency (EEA) states that several European countries do not yet meet the
requirements (EEA, 2013). Many of these countries have rather just started deciding on
whether or how to set up their waste management system. Although there already is a
number of existing waste processing techniques available today, they are not always
suitable for the specific circumstances existing in these countries (for further information
see Cioranu et al., 2014).
Fig. 1 shows the main waste management systems and there relevance in the countries of
the EU-28. It shows that in many eastern and southern Europe countries landfilling is still
the main waste disposal method. Mechanical biological treatment (MBT) is prior to waste
incineration in most European countries to condition landfill material (Eurostat, 2014).
Some MBT processes focus on recovering energy by generating high calorific refused
derived fuels (RDF). However, research of press releases of the last decades shows that
waste and RDF incineration is poorly accepted in some EU-countries. Most likely, the
incineration of bio-waste is more easily accepted by the population.

In order to provide an alternative to the existing waste management systems, the Life +
demonstration project MARSS (Material Advanced Recovery Sustainable Systems) was
designed.
A consortium of five partners from Germany, Italy and Spain (coming from industry and
academia together with a medium-sized enterprise) have developed a joint project to build,
test and monitor a demonstration plant in Germany to determine the most effective way to
separate the biologic material from MMSW into a refined renewable biomass fuel
commonly known as Refuse Recovered Biomass Fuel (RRBF) and reuse it as a source for
energy production.
The goal is to produce a RRBF that reaches the market demands of purity together with a
high calorific value, and complies with the demands of the EU Landfill Directive Art. 5 and
Art. 6. If the processing is successful, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will be reduced
by the substitution of fossil fuels as well as by avoiding biodegradable substances being
landfilled and hence resulting in further reductions of emissions (for further information see
also Rada et al., 2012 and Velis et al., 2009). With small technical effort it is possible to
add a processing plant module to an MBT technology to produce a biomass fuel.
The new demo plant will be built in Mertesdorf, near Trier, Germany, working alongside the
existing MBT plant which employs the Herhof Stabilat Process®. In this process the
MMSW (water content 45–50 M.%) is stabilized and dried through aerobic biological
treatment steps to produce high calorific refused derived fuels (RDFs). Microorganisms
which are present in the waste produce the heat to vaporize a majority of the water content
(total mass loss by drying process: ∼35%). The average water content of the dried
material is about 10% by mass (Clausen et al., 2013).
Due to the fact that the majority of biogenic material is found in the fraction minor than 40
mm, only this material will be investigated in the MARSS Project regarding suitability to be
used as a RRBF.
The Department of Processing and Recycling (I.A.R.) analyses the potential of the demo
plant’s input material and carries out sorting campaigns to produce RRBF out of dried
MMSW of different grain sizes, for example minor than 11.5 mm (Clausen et al., 2013 and
Giani et al., 2014). With focus on the sorting, the results of these campaigns will be
presented.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Project concept
The demo plant was installed in the period between April and July 2014 and consists of
the following main machine components:

 Sieving: one drum screen, two flip-flow-screens

 Density separation: one air sifter, one air table
 Metal separation: one overhead magnetic separator, one eddy current separator
The plant is designed to be partly mobile. The combination or maintenance of several
conveyor belts and screens can thus be performed easily. This flexible modular plant uses
a feed hopper that enables a reapplication of intermediate goods. Therefrom different
processing cycles can be realized and finally be adapted to the fluctuations of the input
material composition. One possible treatment process chain is shown in Fig. 2 and
described as follows.
Using a bypass-system, the MARSS demonstration plant receives a separate stream of 10
t/h of the dried MMSW from the MBT plant. Within the demo plant treatment process the
dried MMSW passes several sieving processes. The input material is first sieved at 40 mm
using a drum screen. Following sieving processes, using flip-flow-screens at 11.5 and 4
mm, produce suitable grain-size bands (11.5–40 mm and 4–11.5 mm), which are needed
for further density sorting in air sifters or air tables. For sifting, the ratio between the
maximum and minimum particle size should not be more than 3:1 (Pretz and Julius, 2010).
The light fraction of the density sorting processes and the material fraction 0–4 mm will be
merged to a RRBF product.

In this publication, only the results of the sieving and the fine grain density separation tests
are presented. The coarse grain density separation and the ferrous and non-ferrous metal
separation will additionally be utilized within the demo plant.

2.2. Basic information and objectives of the I.A.R. test campaign

The dried MMSW input material composition and the potential of producing a RRBF was
analyzed in previous test campaigns. Fig. 3 shows the average material composition of the
MMSW minor than 40 mm and the distribution of the materials into fuel groups (Biogenic
Carbon, Fossil Carbon, Mixed Carbon and Inert Material) according to Clausen et al.
(2013). Therefore, the material was sieved at 10 mm as the fraction major than 10 mm
was separated manually.

Using a bypass-system, the MARSS demonstration plant receives a separate stream of 10

t/h of the dried MMSW from the MBT plant. Within the demo plant treatment process the
dried MMSW passes several sieving processes. The input material is first sieved at 40 mm
using a drum screen. Following sieving processes, using flip-flow-screens at 11.5 and 4
mm, produce suitable grain-size bands (11.5–40 mm and 4–11.5 mm), which are needed
for further density sorting in air sifters or air tables. For sifting, the ratio between the
maximum and minimum particle size should not be more than 3:1 (Pretz and Julius, 2010).
The light fraction of the density sorting processes and the material fraction 0–4 mm will be
merged to a RRBF product.
In this publication, only the results of the sieving and the fine grain density separation tests
are presented. The coarse grain density separation and the ferrous and non-ferrous metal
separation will additionally be utilized within the demo plant.
2.2. Basic information and objectives of the I.A.R. test campaign
The dried MMSW input material composition and the potential of producing a RRBF was
analyzed in previous test campaigns. Fig. 3 shows the average material composition of the
MMSW minor than 40 mm and the distribution of the materials into fuel groups (Biogenic
Carbon, Fossil Carbon, Mixed Carbon and Inert Material) according to Clausen et al.
(2013). Therefore, the material was sieved at 10 mm as the fraction major than 10 mm
was separated manually.

An analysis of the particle size distribution showed that almost half of the input material 0–
40 mm is minor than 10 mm. Furthermore, due to Clausen et al., over 45% of the total
input energy potential is present in the fraction 0–10 mm. For this reason, this fraction
plays an important role for the production of a RRBF.

The 0–10 mm fraction can be characterized by the following: Due to its small particle size,
the fraction minor than 10 mm cannot be separated manually. Information about the water
content, the organic and inert content of this fraction can be provided analyzing the water
content (DIN EN 14774) and the ash content (DIN 14775). The organic fraction consists of
biogenic carbon as well as fossil carbon. Contents of fossil carbon can be estimated
following the guidelines described in the “Methodological manual for analyzing organic
fertilizer, soil improvers and substrates” of the “Federal Compost Quality Association”
(Kehres and Thelen-Jüngling, 2006).
Fig. 4 shows the analysis results of the minor than 10 mm material and for comparison the
results of raw dried biowaste material separated from MMSW major than 10 mm based on
the data from Clausen et al. (2013).
In the fraction minor than 10 mm, the inert substances accounts to 50% by mass and
holds the largest share. The organic carbon is composed of fossil carbon (about 2% by
mass) and biogenic carbon (about 37% by mass), the water content is minor than 10% by
mass.

The arrows specify the target direction of the test campaign. Objective is to enrich the
biogenic fraction and to reduce inert substances as well as fossil carbon. At the same time
mass recovery should be high. For reference values the analysis results of raw biowaste
separated from MMSW major than 10 mm are given. By removing inert substances, the
calorific value will be increased and the ash content will be reduced. The key objectives of
the test campaign are listed below:

 •producing a RRBF with a calorific value (ar = as received) in the range of

12,000 kJ/kg
 achieving a high mass recovery
 reducing the fossil carbon in the RRBF in range of 5% by mass

2.3. I.A.R. test campaigns

The test campaign is composed of the process sections sieving and density sorting. Size
and number of the taken samples follow the guidelines LAGA PN98 (guideline for the
procedure of physical, chemical and biological analysis regarding recycling/disposal of
Waste) (LAGA, 2001).

2.3.1. Sieving tests

As shown in Fig. 2, the dried MMSW is sieved using a drum screen at 40 mm and two flip-
flow-screens at 11.5 and 4 mm. The functionality of drum and flip-flow-screens is specified
in relevant literature (Pretz and Julius, 2010). As mentioned, the purposes of the sieving
tests are pre-conditioning steps of the MMSW for the subsequent density separation tests.

2.3.2. Density sorting tests

After sieving, the grain size fraction 4–11.5 mm was sorted by density to remove inert
materials.

The usage of an air sifter (see Fig. 5) effects a separation according to the density and the
materials specific surface. Heavier, dense, inert materials such as glass and stones are
separated out into the heavy material group called heavy fraction. The lighter, organic
materials are blown out by the air stream into a cyclone where particles are separated
from the air. This fraction is the light fraction (Schubert, 2003).

Beside the use of air sifters the inert particles can be removed using air tables (see Fig. 6).
These feature a higher selectivity than air sifters, but a specific lower throughput. The
methods of air tables also underlie a separation of materials according to their density and
the specific surface. The principle is shown in Fig. 7 as a zoomed illustration (Pretz and
Julius, 2010).
 Fig. 6. 
Construction of an air table (Pretz and Julius, 2010).
Figure options

Fig. 7. 

Principle of separating particles according to density in an air table (Pretz and

Julius, 2010).
Figure options

Particles lying on the screen within the air table get fluidized by streaming air coming from
below. Specifically heavier particles like stones or metal displace lighter particles like
organic carbon. The lighter particles move upwards within the mixture and spill over an
overflow weir at the bottom of the table (Fig. 7). The heavy fraction is transported upwards
the screen based on the friction between the particles and the screen. Generally air tables
offer multiple options of adjustments which are summarized in Pretz and Julius (2010). In
the test campaign, only the air velocity was changed. The selection of the individual air
velocity in the air table processes was set by rating the qualities of the heavy and light
fraction visually. Until the appropriate air velocity was achieved, preliminary tests were
conducted. Other adjustments and their influence on sorting results like the height of the
overflow weir, the amplitude and frequency, etc. will be utilized in the demo plant.

2.3.3. Density sorting process setups

Three experimental process setups of different processing depths were tested (see Fig. 8).
The hence generated different products were evaluated in terms of purity, calorific value
(DIN 51900), water content (DIN EN 14774), ash content (DIN 14775), content of fossil
carbon (Kehres and Thelen-Jüngling, 2006), elementary composition (Deutsches Institut
für Normung, 2001, Deutsches Institut für Normung, 2007 and Deutsches Institut für
Normung, 2012) and mass recovery.

Fig. 8. 

Flow charts of three experimental density sorting processes.

 Figure options

The processing depth rises from process A to process C. Process A uses only one air
sifter with an air velocity of 8.7 m/s to produce a light fraction presenting the potential
RRBF and a residuals fraction containing the inert fractions.

Process B uses a combination of one air sifter at 7.5 m/s and one air table with an air
velocity of 12.5 m/s. With the comparatively low air sifter velocity a higher purity of organic
carbon with little inert particles will be achieved (Giani et al., 2014). To gain a higher mass
recovery non-discharged light organic carbon is aimed to be discharged later by using the
air table.
The third, density sorting process C consists of two air sifter processes using air velocities
of 10 m/s and 7.5 m/s and an air table at 11 m/s. In this process the high selected air
velocity of the first air sifter discharges the majority of light materials, but inert particles too,
aiming for a high mass recovery. The light fraction is cleaned using the second air sifter.
As in process B the air table process should gain a higher percentage mass output of
RRBF by reducing organic carbon in the residuals fractions that could not be separated by
the air sifting processes.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Sieving tests

Regarding the fossil carbon, the input material minor than 40 mm (Fig. 3) contains
approximately 7% by mass. The content of fossil carbon in the grain size fraction 0–
11.5 mm is less than 2% by mass (Fig. 4). Thus, it is possible to reduce fossil carbon in
the fine fraction by sieving at 11.5 mm.
Characteristics of the sieving products are presented in Fig. 9 in form of product summary
information notes. Thus, 41% by mass of the input material minor than 40 mm is minor
than 11.5 mm and 19% by mass is minor than 4 mm. The grain size fraction 4–11.5 mm
which is the input of the density separation tests has a mass content of 22%. The ash
content dry of this fraction is 55% by mass which influences the calorific value (ar) with
only 7000–8000 kJ/kg. In order to classify this, the biowaste separated from MMSW major
than 10 mm (Fig. 4) has a calorific value (ar) of 12,000–13,000 kJ/kg (Clausen et al.,
2013). In order to raise the calorific value, it is necessary to separate the inert fractions,
e.g. using density sorting.
Fig. 9. 
 Characteristics of flip-flow sieving tests in form of product summary information
notes (Giani et al., 2014).
Figure options

Calculated mechanical efficiencies of the used flip-flow-screens were about 90% for a
mesh size of 11.5 mm and about 73% for 4 mm. These results were determined by sieving
the screen overflow over and over until a mass constancy of the fed material and the
screen overflow was reached.

3.2. Density sorting tests

Fig. 10 summarizes the characteristics of the input material 4–11.5 mm and the achieved
products of the density sorting RRBF (light fractions) and residuals (heavy fractions). It
poses the mass percentages of organic carbon (biogenic and fossil), the ash content and
the content of water on the left primary y-axis. The net calorific value (ar and dry) are
represented on the right secondary y-axis.

Fig. 10. 

Composition of the input, RRBF and residuals in terms of water, organic dry
substance and inert substance (primary y-axis) combined with the specific net
calorific value (secondary y-axis).
 Figure options

In Process B and C multiple light fractions were generated, these were respectively
merged into one RRBF. The mass recovery refers to the input fraction 4–11.5 mm.

Regarding the RRBF products, an enrichment of the biogenic carbon and a reduction of
the inert material were achieved in comparison to the input material. The ash contents
within the RRBF products were reduced by half from about 50–55% by mass to about 25–
30% by mass. This removal of inert materials means an enrichment of organic substances
respectively biogenic carbon and fossil carbon on more than 60% by mass. Conversely,
this means an enrichment of inert substance in the residuals fractions, as the ash contents
are major than 70%. The biogenic carbon in residuals is overall reduced to about 20%.

As it is targeted the RRBF products of all process set ups feature a calorific value (ar)
above 12,000 kJ/kg (DIN 51900). Comparing the RRBF products of each process set up, it
is conspicuous that the content of biogenic carbon in the RRBF products is nearly the
same with about 60% by mass. Even the ash content, depicts the same ranges of about
25–30%. The fossil carbon content of the RRBF in process A possesses a fossil carbon
content of about 5.4% and the RRBF in process B and in process C a content of 3.6% and
3.8%.
In comparison to process B and process C, process A produces a RRBF with the highest
calorific value (ar) of about 13,200 kJ/kg using only one air sifter with a medium air velocity
of 8.7 m/s. The RRBF products of process B and process C have a calorific value (ar) of
about 12,000–12,700 kJ/kg. These differences are most likely caused by the highest
content of fossil carbon, high content of biogenic carbon and low water content of the
RRBF in process A in comparison to the other RRBF products.

Based on the input material 4–11.5 mm, process A achieves a mass recovery of about
52%. Process B features a mass recovery of 45% and process C a mass recovery of 48%.
The differences in terms of mass balances are presented in Sankey diagrams. The
following Fig. 11, Fig. 12 and Fig. 13 show the mass flows of every potential process set
up including the sieving and density sorting.
Fig. 11. 

Mass flow of process A presented as a Sankey diagram.

Figure options
Fig. 12. 

Mass flow of process B presented as a Sankey diagram.

Figure options
 Fig. 13. 

Mass flow of process C presented as a Sankey diagram.

Figure options

In all diagrams, the mass balances of the sievings are equal. The input material minor than
40 mm consists to 41% of the fraction 0–11.5 mm. This is different to the results ofClausen
et al. (2013) as 45% were 0–10 mm. Maybe theses light differences are due to seasonal
aspects as Clausen et al. refers to samples from winter while the samples presented within
this paper were taken in spring.
Referring to the material minor than 40 mm, the RRBF mass recovery (light fraction and
dust) for all process set ups is approximately 10–11%.

In process C the calorific values (ar) of the light fractions are almost similar to the calorific
value of the heavy fraction which indicates that the density sorting using an air table in
those combinations and adjustments is not successful. The air table test being carried out
in process B was more successful than in process C, but the calorific value (ar) of the
heavy fraction with about 6000 kJ/kg is still high in comparison to the heavy fractions after
air sifting at air velocities of 8.7 m/s (4600 kJ/kg) and 10 m/s (3500 kJ/kg). This shows that
a density sorting using air tables is not as efficient as using air sifters, based on the
chosen adjustments and combinations.

4. Conclusions and outlook

The results shown in the bar chart (Fig. 10) summarize that all presented process setups
enable the production of a RRBF. The objectives of the fine grain separation were
achieved by producing RRBF products with calorific values above 12,000 kJ/kg and fossil
carbon contents of about 5%.
The use of air sifter and air tables within a density sorting process is possible, since the
ash content can be reduced from about 50% to about 25–30% by mass. Based on the
chosen process set ups and adjustments, the density sorting using air tables was not as
efficient as using air sifters.

Summarizing the test campaign, the structure of process A with the lowest processing
depth reaches the highest mass recovery and the highest calorific value. Due to this,
process A is the most adequate way to produce a RRBF in the project of MARSS.
Furthermore, a process with low processing depth is less sensitive and cheaper in
purchasing and operating.

Based on the input material minor than 40 mm, a mass recovery of about 10–11% was
achieved. The total mass recovery can be raised by processing the grain size fraction
11.5–40 mm as well as by merging the RRBF with the grain size fraction 0–4 mm (Giani et
al., 2014). Corresponding test campaigns and their effects on the RRBF product will be
investigated within the MARSS demo plant.
The demo plant will be in operation until end of 2015 monitoring the process performance
for one year to incorporate the different seasonal fluctuations concerning changes in waste
material qualities.

The advantages of the proposed process are the reduction of CO 2 and landfill capacity by
avoiding waste being landfilled as well as by the substitution of fossil fuel. Furthermore
costs and fees for landfilling can be reduced. The specific processing costs are specified
within the end of the project.
Especially southern and eastern European countries have a low acceptance rate of
incinerating their waste. In the MARSS-Project the acceptance of the incineration of RRBF
will be utilized. The project is less relevant for countries with an overcapacity of
incineration plants. For instance in Germany, most parts of MSW is burned not only the
biological materials.

The main requirement for using the MARSS-process is the reduction of the water content
of MSW to at least 15–20% otherwise the waste cannot be processed effectively.

Acknowledgements

The Project MARSS is an EU LIFE+ Project (LIFE11 ENV/DE/343).

The financial support from the Union amounts 49.91%, which equals 2.073.727 €. The
author hereby expresses her gratitude towards the EC for supporting this project and thus
the presented analyses.

References
o Cioranu et al., 2014
o S.-I. Cioranu, M. Grigoriu, M. Ragazzi, E.C. Rada, G. Ionescu
o Assessment of alternatives for RMSW treatment for Valcea County,
Romania
o Rev. Chim., 65 (3) (2014), pp. 257–261
o View Record in Scopus
Citing articles (6)

o Clausen et al., 2013

o C. Clausen, H. Giani, A. Feil, Th. Pretz
o Production of biomass fuel from mixed municipal solid waste by MBT
o R. Cossu, P. He, P. Kjeldsen, Y. Matsufuji, D. Reinhard, R. Stegmann
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Waste Management and Landfill
Symposium, Sardinia, Italy, 30.09.–4.10.2013, Cisa Publisher, Padova, Italy (2013)
o Deutsches Institut für Normung, 2000
o Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. [DIN] (Ed.), 2000. DIN 51900-1 –
Bestimmung des Brennwertes mit dem Bomben-Kalorimeter und Berechnung des
Heizwertes. Berlin. English: German Institute for Standardization (2000). Testing of
Solid and Liquid Fuels – Determination of Gross Calorific Value by the Bomb
 Calorimeter and Calculation of Net Calorific Value – Part 1: Principles, Apparatus,
Methods. Berlin.
o Deutsches Institut für Normung, 2001
o Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. [DIN] (Ed.), 2001. DIN 51727 – Prüfung
fester Brennstoffe – Bestimmung des Chlorgehaltes. Berlin. English: German Institute
for Standardization (2001). Testing of Solid Fuels – Determination of Chlorine
Content. Berlin.
o Deutsches Institut für Normung, 2009
o Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. [DIN] (Ed.), 2009. DIN EN 14774.
Feste Brennstoffe - Bestimmung des Wassergehaltes. Berlin. English: German
Institute for Standardization (2009). DIN EN 14774. Solid Biofules - Determination of
moisture Content. Berlin.
o Deutsches Institut für Normung, 2007
o Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. [DIN] (Ed.), 2007. DIN 51732. Prüfung
fester Brennstoffe – Bestimmung des Gesamtgehaltes an Kohlenstoff, Wasserstoff
und Stickstoff – Instrumentelle Methoden. Berlin. English: German Institute for
Standardization (2007). Testing of Solid Mineral Fuels – Determination of Total
Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen – Instrumental Methods. Berlin.
o Deutsches Institut für Normung, 2010
o Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. [DIN] (Ed.), 2010. DIN 14775. Feste
Biobrennstoffe –Bestimmung des Aschegehaltes, Deutsche Fassung EN 14775:
2009. Berlin. English: German Institute for Standardization (2010). DIN 14775. Solid
Biofuels – Determination of Ash Content, EN 14775: 2009. Berlin.
o Deutsches Institut für Normung, 2012
o Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. [DIN] (Ed.), 2012. DIN 51724-1.
Prüfung fester Brennstoffe – Bestimmung des Schwefelgehaltes – Teil 1:
Gesamtschwefel. Berlin. English: German Institute for Standardization (2012). Testing
of Solid Fuels – Determination of Sulfur Content – Part 1: Total Sulfur.
o EEA, 2013
o European Environment Agency [EEA] (Ed.), 2013. Managing Municipal
Solid Waste – A Review of Achievements in 32 European Countries. Copenhagen.
o EU, 1999
o European Union [EU] (Ed.), 1999. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April
1999 on the Landfill of Waste. Official Journal L 182.
o Eurostat, 2014
o Eurostat (2014). Im Jahr 2012 wurden 42% der behandelten kommunalen
Abfälle recycelt oder Kompostiert. Pressemitteilung. English: In the Year 2012 42% of
the Treated Municipal Waste was Recycled or Composted; Press Release, Product
Code: KS-EI-14-001, Issued on 16-Dec-2014.
<http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/5180418/8-25032014-AP-
DE.PDF/ff9031a1-4f50-4c6c-9e35-964a873a0567?version=1.0>.
o Giani et al., 2014
o Giani, H., Feil, A., Hornsby, K., Clausen, A., Pretz, T., 2014. Processing
concept for the production of biomass fuel from mixed municipal solid waste. In:
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste
Management, Athens, 12th–14th June 2014.
o Kehres and Thelen-Jüngling, 2006
o B. Kehres, M. Thelen-Jüngling
o Methodenhandbuch zur Analyse organischer Düngemittel,
Bodenverbesserungsmittel und Substrate; English: Methodological Manual for
Analyzing Organic Fertilizer, Soil Improvers and Substrates
o Bundesgütegemeinschaft Kompost e.V, Köln (2006)
o Kranert and Cord-Landwehr, 2010
o T. Pretz, J. Julius
o M. Kranert, K. Cord-Landwehr (Eds.), Einführung in die Abfallwirtschaft.
English: Introduction to Waste Management, Vieweg + Teubner Verlag, Wiesbaden
(2010), pp. 167–170
o View Record in Scopus
Citing articles (1)

o LAGA, 2001
o Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Abfall [LAGA] (Ed.), 2001. LAGA PN 98.
Richtlinie für das Vorgehen bei physikalischen, chemischen und biologischen
Untersuchungen im Zusammenhang mit der Verwertung/Beseitigung von Abfällen.
English: Guideline for Procedures for Physical, Chemical and Biological Testing in
Connection with the Recovery/Disposal of Waste. Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt
und Geologie (Ed.) (1998). Richtlinie Abfallanalytik.
o
o Rada et al., 2012
o E.C. Rada, M. Ragazzi, A. Badea
o MSW bio-drying: design criteria from A 10 years research
o UPB Sci. Bull. Ser. D, 74 (3) (2012), pp. 209–216
o View Record in Scopus
Citing articles (23)

o Schubert, 2003
o H. Schubert
o Handbuch der Mechanischen Verfahrenstechnik. English: Manual for
Mechanical Process Engineering. Band 2.
o WILEY-VCH Verlag, Weinheim (2003)
o Velis et al., 2009
o C.A. Velis, P.J. Longhurst, G.H. Drew, R. Smith, S.J.T. Pollard
o Biodrying for mechanical–biological treatment of wastes: a review of
process science and engineering
o Bioresour. Technol., 100 (11) (2009), pp. 2747–2761