Anaerobic Digestion Scenarios in the South of

Tuscany
Lidia Lombardi, Donata Bacchi, Ennio Carnevale. Università degli Studi di Firenze
Andrea Corti. Università degli Studi di Siena

CONTACT

Name: Lidia Lombardi

Email: lidia.lombardi@unifi.it

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the frame of a project co-financed by the Tuscany Region (DATO – Digestione Anaerobica in
TOscana) a characterisation and evaluation of the potential for anaerobic digestion of source select-
ed organic fraction of Municipal Solid Waste was carried out, with reference to the territory of the
south of Tuscany (Italy). The evaluation was carried out considering technical, technological and
environmental point of views.

One of the main aims of the project was to evaluate the potential of integrating the anaerobic diges-
tion treatment of the source selected organic fraction with existing and available plants, in particular
putting the anaerobic treatment before the aerobic biostabilization process, in order to produce bio-
gas and recover energy, before the subsequent recovering of material as compost. Also the possibil-
ity of source selected organic fraction and Waste Water Treatment Plant sludge co-digestion was
analysed.

In order to proceed with the analysis, the studied territory was characterised in terms of source se-
lected organic fraction production with reference to future production and treatment capacity of the
existing – and planned – aerobic biostabilization plants.

The capacity of the aerobic biostabilization plants resulted to be adequate – also in the future – for
the treatment of the digestate exiting from the anaerobic process.

Different scenarios for the source selected organic fraction management were considered: several
small anaerobic digesters spread over the territory up-stream the existing aerobic biostabilization
plants; three anaerobic digesters; co-digestion potential exploiting. The analysed scenarios were
compared by means of Life Cycle Assessment.

INTRODUCTION

This study was originated within the collaboration with the Authority of municipal solid waste
management Ambito Territoriale Ottimale Toscana Sud (ATO Toscana Sud) in the frame of a pro-
ject co-financed by the Tuscany Region (DATO – Digestione Anaerobica in TOscana). The aim of
the project is to evaluate the potential for anaerobic digestion of source selected organic fraction
(SS-OF) of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) with reference to the territory of competence of the
ATO Toscana Sud.

In particular it was investigated the possibility to integrate the anaerobic digestion treatment of the
SS-OF with existing and available plants through an anaerobic treatment before the aerobic biosta-
bilisation process, in order to produce biogas and recover energy before the subsequent material re-
covery as compost. Also the possibility of applying co-digestion of the SS-OF with the sludge from
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in existing sludge digestors was evaluated.

In order to proceed with the analysis, the studied territory was characterised in terms of SS-OF pro-
duction with reference to future scenarios and treatment capacity of the existing – and planned –
aerobic biostabilization plants.

The different management possibilities were characterised in terms of mass and energy inventory
and compared performing a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).

This paper shows the main results of the assessment and their interpretation.

LCA: GOAL AND SCOPE DEFINITION

According to the ISO 14040-44, the goal definition is the first phase of the LCA in which the pur-
pose of the study is described.

The purpose of this LCA is to compare the environmental impacts and resource consumption of
four different management scenarios for the SS-OF collected in the South Tuscany territory: aerobic
composting in already existing plants, which represents the present situation (Scenario 1); anaerobic
digestion realizing an anaerobic plant up-stream each already existing aerobic plant (Scenario 2);
anaerobic digestion realizing three centralized anaerobic plants (Scenario 3); co-digestion of a part
of the SS-OF with sludge from WWTP in existing sludge anaerobic digestion plants, while the re-
maining SS-OF is processed in decentralized anaerobic plant realized up-stream the existing aerobic
ones (Scenario 4).

The functional unit is defined as the management and the treatment of the whole amount of SS-OF
produced in the South of Tuscany, with reference to the quantity expected in the year 2013.

For each of the studied scenario, the analyzed system boundary starts with the arrival of the SS-OF
to the first treatment plant (i.e. separate collection and transport impacts are not included), the bio-
logical processes (anaerobic and/or aerobic), energy production, residual water treatment and even-
tual transport of SS-OF or digestate among plants (as better described later in the scenarios defini-
tion).

INVENTORY

In this phase, all the environmental inputs and outputs occurring in the life cycle of the systems pre-
viously defined are inventoried to perform a quantitative description of all flows of materials and
energy across the system boundary either into or out of the system itself.

The data collected are gained from several sources: electronic data base (in particular SimaPro da-
tabase), direct measurements, calculations and estimations.

Generally speaking, in the modelled system, different sub processes have been considered: pre-
treatment process, anaerobic digestion, dewatering of the output digestate, final stabilization and
compost refining process, energy production and wastewater treatment (Figure 1).
 Figure 1 Modeled process system

Source Selected Organic Fraction of MSW Characterization

The graphic in Figure 2 shows the waste material composition considered as input of the anaerobic
digestion models. It was the result of sample analysis of SS-OF from a road-side collection system
in two municipalities in the South of Tuscany.

Figure 2 SS-OF from MSW characterization

Moving from data about Total Solid (TS) and Total Volatile Solid (TVS) for each material category
(Miller and Clesceri, 2003), it was possible to estimate the value of TS, TVS and moisture of the
waste type of Table 1.

Table 1 TS, TVS and Moisture in SS-FO

TS 35,69 %
TVS 75,70 % TS
Moisture 64,31 %

Furthermore, it was assumed that, during the aerobic stabilization of the digestate, a fixed quantity
of garden waste is added too. The characteristics of this fraction are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Garden waste characteristics (Miller and Clesceri, 2003)

TS 40 %
TVS 85 % TS
Moisture 60 %
Scenario 1 – Aerobic Composting
Scenario 1 represents the present situation in the reference territory. It is built around the aerobic
composting of the estimated amount of SS-OF and GW for 2013, in already existing plants, as re-
ported in Table 3.

Table 3 Amounts of SS-OF and GW expected in South Tuscany in 2013, reported according to the existing plants
that receive them
SS-OF GW
Plant Type Capacity
[t] [t]
A 9.430 1.850 Composting 15.000 t/a
B 20.854 1.889 Composting 35.000 t/a
C 27.648 2.500 Composting 24.000 t/a
D 10.002 1.724 Composting 13.000 t/a
E 22.096 2.792 Composting 27.500 t/a
F 15.369 1.547 Composting 9800 t/a
Total amount 105.399 12.302 - -

Actually, plants C and F would not be able to process the estimated amount of waste. So, for the re-
al application of Scenario 1, an increment in the two plants capacity should be considered.
The composting process was modeled according to the assumptions reported in Table 4.

Table 4 Main data used for modeling composting process

EE consumption 21,5 kWh/t (ANPA, 2002)
Degradation efficiency 40,00 % of input TVS ATO Toscana Sud. Personal communication
TS output compost 45,00 % (ANPA, 2002)
3
Wastewater production 0,4 m /t compost ATO Toscana Sud. Personal communication
Scraps 9 % Assumption

Scenario 2 – Six Decentralised Anaerobic Digestion Plants

Scenario 2 is built around the hypothesis of realising six anaerobic digestion plant for the SS-OF
upstream each existing aerobic composting plant. The use of a wet anaerobic digestion process,
equipped with an upstream pre-treatment based on a pulper, for the SS-OF was assumed and mod-
eled according to the parameters in Table 5.

The dehydrated digestate from the solid/liquid separation step requires an aerobic biostabilization
process. Digestate is mixed with the GW amount available at each plant – according to Table 3 -
and the mixture is aerobically stabilized, according to the same assumptions previously reported in
paragraph 3.2.
 Table 5 Main data used for modeling wet aerobic digestion
TS in the reactor
TVS degradation efficiency
TS in wastewater
TS in digestate after solid/liquid
separation
Biogas volumetric composition
Fresh water make-up
Flocculants consumption
EE consumption
8,5 % (Bozano Gandolfi, 2008)
54 % (Bozano Gandolfi, 2008)
0,79 % Assumption
27 % Assumption
H2O=5% CO2=33% CH4=62% (Bozano Gandolfi, 2008)
17,73 % of mass flow exiting from the pulper (Bozano Gandolfi, 2008)
0,026 % of mass flow exiting from digester (Bozano Gandolfi, 2008)
60,68 kWh/tSS-OF (Bozano Gandolfi, 2008)

TE consumption 115,64 kWh/tSS-OF (Bozano Gandolfi, 2008)

Scraps – light fraction 6,5 % (Bozano Gandolfi, 2008)

Scraps – heavy fraction 2,47 % (Bozano Gandolfi, 2008)

Inert 1,61 % (Bozano Gandolfi, 2008)

Scenario 3 – Three Centralised Anaerobic Digestion Plants

Scenario 3 is built around the hypothesis of realizing only three anaerobic digestion plants, located
upstream three of the six existing aerobic composting plants, each of them located in one of the
three provinces (Arezzo, Siena and Grosseto) belonging to the South Tuscany territory. All the pro-
cesses were modeled as for Scenario 2. The only difference between Scenario 2 and 3 lays in the
SS-OF transport requirements, as reported in Table 6. The digestate is aerobically biostabilized in
the local plant with the available GW. The other existing aerobic biostabilization plants - without an
up-stream digestor – proceed to only GW composting.

Table 6 Amount of SS-OF and GW to AD and composting plants, in Scenario 3

Plant SS-OF to AD [t/y] GW to composting [t/y]
A 30.284* 1.850
B - 1.889
C 37.650** 2.500
D - 1.724
E 37.465*** 2.792
F - 1.547
* 20.854 t/y from plant B, distance 32 km.
** 10.002 t/y from plant D, distance 60 km.
*** 15.369 t/y from plant F, distance 80 km.

Scenario 4 – Co-digestion
Scenario 4 is built around the hypothesis of using existing anaerobic digestors serving WWTP, in
order to realize the co-digestion of SS-OF and WWTP sludge. After a wide survey in the territory of
interest, the WWTP, equipped with anaerobic digestion and suitable for accepting SS-OF as co-
substrate, were selected and reported in Table 7, together with the amount of input waste water, in
reference to year 2007 (SINTAI, 2011). The amounts of produced sludge per each WWTP - which
are subsequently addressed to anaerobic digestion - were estimated, according to specific sludge
production factors retrieved from literature (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991), and reported in Table 10. TS
and TVS contents for sludge were assumed from literature (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991). The amounts of
SS-OF consequently acceptable by each WWTP digestor was calculated assuming to produce a
feeding co-substrate characterized by an overall TS content of about 5% (Lombardi et al., 2009).
Co-digestion process was modeled on the basis of assumptions reported in Table 8.
The overall amount of SS-OF acceptable in co-digestion (20.198 t/y) is far less than the overall pro-
duced amount (105.399 t/y). For this reason, in Scenario 4 it was assumed that part of the SS-OF is
still processed in devoted anaerobic digestion plants, as in Scenario 2, while part is transported to
the WWTP, according to the amounts reported in Table 9. The digestate flows from co-digestion
plants are returned to the existing aerobic biostabilization plants and there composted together with
the local digestate and GW. Also in this case transport were considered.

Table 7 WWTP equipped with anaerobic digestion of sludge, in the South Tuscany, and their estimated capacity
of co-digesting SS-OF
Sludge to AD TS in sludge TVS Acceptable
Input WW
Plant 3 6 [t/year] [%] [% of TS] SS-OF
[m 10 /year]
[t/year]
WWTP1 5 67.388 1,7 68 9.430
WWTP2 2,763 37.234 1,7 68 5.810
WWTP3 2,358 31.763 1,7 68 4.957

Table 8 Main parameter assumptions for the co-digestion process

TVS degradation efficiency
Biogas volumetric composition
EE consumption
ET consumption
TS in dehydrated digestate
59,24 % (Lombardi et al., 2009)
H2 =0% H2O=5,48% CO2=43,30% CH4=51,22% (Lombardi et al., 2009)
17,69 kWh/m3 (Lombardi et al., 2009)
43,06 kWh/m3 (Lombardi et al., 2009)
30 % (Publiacqua. Personal
communication)

Table 9 Amounts of SS-OF entering digestion and co-digestion plants

Plant A B C D E F WWTP1 WWTP2 WWTP3
SS-OF [t] - 20.854 21.838 10.002 22.096 10.411 9.430* 5.810** 4.957***
*SS-OF from plant A, distance 3 km; digestate to plant B, distance 35 km.
**SS-OF from plant C, distance 68 km; digestate to plant C.
***SS-OF from plant F distance 43; digestate to plant F.

In order to make comparable the Scenario 4 with the others, it is necessary to take into account the
avoided effect of conventional anaerobic digestion of WWTP sludge, subtracting the environmental
impacts due to this treatment. Such a treatment was modeled according to assumptions in Table 10.

Table 10 Main parameter assumptions for the digestion process of only sludge
TVS degradation efficiency 34,3 % (Lombardi et al., 2009)
Biogas volumetric composition 72,20% CH4; 22,31% CO2; 5,49% H2O (Lombardi et al., 2009)
EE consumption 43,8 kWh/t of 5%TS sludge (Lombardi et al., 2009)
ET consumption 78,6 kWh/t of 5%TS sludge (Lombardi et al., 2009)
TS in dehydrated digestate 30 % (Publiacqua. Personal
communication)

Other Modelled Processes

Some processes are present in more than one scenario, as: wastewater treatment, energy production
from biogas and transport.

Wastewater Treatment
Wastewaters, originated from composting process and dehydration of excess water in digestion and
co-digestion processes, require further treatment prior to discharge in a water receptor body. Acti-
vated sludge based treatment was considered, with the aim of estimating the oxygen demand and
electric energy consumption for aeration, sludge production, and methanol consumption for denitri-
fication. The specific consumptions reported in Table 11 were assumed.
 Table 11 Specific consumption for the wastewater treatment (Publiacqua. Personal communication.)
Oxygen demand 4,21 kgO2/m3
EE Consumption 3,50 kWh/m3
Methanol Consumption 0,58 kg/m3
Sludge Production 4,79 kgTS/m3

Energy Production from Biogas

The produced biogas is used to cogenerate EE and thermal energy (TE) in an Internal Combustion
Engine (ICE), assuming respectively 0,35 and 0,53 EE and TE conversion efficiencies. Also main
atmospheric emissions from ICE were considered, assuming emission factors (nitrous oxides: NOx;
particulate matter: PM and carbon monoxide: CO) for methane combustion in ICE (US-EPA,
2000).

Transport
Fuel consumption and pollutant emissions from transport were estimated according to methodology
reported in EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook (EEA, 2009), considering a
heavy duty vehicle with 14-20 t capacity, fuelled by diesel, Euro III, at 60 km/h average speed.

Data from Database

Water, diesel, methanol, flocculants, EE and TE inventories were retrieved from SimaPro database
(PRé, 2012).

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Impact assessment results are presented according to the nine environmental indicators included in
the Eco-indicator'95 method (Goedkoop, 1995). Two additional indicators were added: Primary En-
ergy consumption, calculated as the sum of low heating value of energy sources in the inventory;
and Solid Waste, calculated as the sum of amount of solid waste in the inventory, disregarding their
types. The Pesticides indicators resulted equal to zero for all the scenarios and, thus, it is not shown.
Figure 3 – Figure 6 show the calculated results.

Impact assessment indicators related to digestion and co-digestion scenarios (n. 2, 3 and 4) have in
general negative values, while aerobic stabilization scenario (n. 1) ones have positive values. As a
matter of fact, the introduction of anaerobic digestion allows for energy and emissions savings
through the electric and thermal net energy production. This leads to avoided effects and hence neg-
ative values of the indicators.

Scenario 2 is the one with the lowest values for all the considered indicators, except Solid Waste.
All the environmental effect indicators agree in the scoring of the considered scenarios (according
to the following classification; scenario 2; scenario 3; scenario 4; scenario 1), except the Ozone De-
pletion, Eutrophication and Solid Waste ones.

However, indicator values for scenario 2, 3 and 4 are very similar. The slight differences from Sce-
nario 2 to 3 have to be ascribed uniquely to transport impact. The differences between Scenario 2
and 4 are due mainly to transport (of both SS-OF and digestate) and to larger amount of wastewater
to be processed.

Concerning the Ozone Depletion indicator, in this case the value for Scenario 4 resulted better than
the value for Scenario 3. This difference is mainly due to the avoided effects related to conventional
sludge treatment.
Also in the Eutrophication indicator case, the Scenario 4 value is better than the Scenario 3’s one.
The reduction is mainly due to the avoided effect of sludge treatment, in particular to avoided emis-
sions of NOx from only sludge biogas combustion.

The Solid Waste indicator is the only one for which Scenario 2 has not the best result. For this indi-
cator the values are positive for all the four scenarios. Moreover, for this indicator the Scenario 1
has the lowest value. This is due to the fact that the SS-OF requires more pre-treatment before being
fed to anaerobic digestion, with respect to aerobic biostabilization, hence larger amount of residues
are produced. Contributions to the indicator come from the resulting sludge from larger amount
wastewater treatment, too. For Scenario 4, the indicator values is also slightly higher due to the fact
that higher amount of sludge from wastewater treatment are produced.

5,00E+07
0,00E+00
-5,00E+07
-1,00E+08
-1,50E+08
-2,00E+08
-2,50E+08
-3,00E+08
Green Prima
Solid
house ry
Wast
Effect Energ
e [kg]
[kgC… y [MJ]
Scenario 1 1,53E+06 2,67E+07 6,26E+06
Scenario 2 -1,57E+07 -2,74E+08 1,16E+07
Scenario 3 -1,55E+07 -2,71E+08 1,16E+07
Scenario 4 -1,46E+07 -2,55E+08 1,20E+07
Figure 3 Comparison of Greenhouse Effect, Primary Energy and Solid Waste indicator values for the four sce-
narios

2,00E+04
1,00E+04
0,00E+00
-1,00E+04
-2,00E+04
-3,00E+04
-4,00E+04
-5,00E+04
Acidificat Winter
ion Smog
[kgSO2e [kgSO2e
q.] q.]
Scenario 1 8,78E+03 6,57E+03
Scenario 2 -3,98E+04 -3,83E+04
Scenario 3 -3,86E+04 -3,80E+04
Scenario 4 -3,79E+04 -3,69E+04
Figure 4 Comparison of Acidification and Winter Smog indicator values for the four scenarios
 1,00E+03
0,00E+00
-1,00E+03
-2,00E+03
-3,00E+03
-4,00E+03
Eutrophi Summer
cation Smog
[kgPO4e [kgC2H4
q.] eq.]
Scenario 1 5,40E+02 2,53E+02
Scenario 2 -7,54E+01 -2,91E+03
Scenario 3 1,29E+02 -2,63E+03
Scenario 4 1,30E+00 -2,56E+03
Figure 5 Comparison of Eutrophication and Summer Smog indicator values for the four scenarios

1,00E+01
0,00E+00
-1,00E+01
-2,00E+01
-3,00E+01
-4,00E+01
Ozon
e
Deple
tion…
Scenario 1 1,52E-01 4,03E+00 8,68E-02
Scenario 2 -1,63E+00 -3,41E+01 -1,01E+00
Scenario 3 -1,21E+00 -3,37E+01 -1,01E+00
Scenario 4 -1,31E+00 -3,23E+01 -9,42E-01
Figure 6 Comparison of Ozone Depletion, Heavy Metals and Carcinogens indicator values for the four scenarios

CONCLUSIONS

The possibility of applying anaerobic digestion process of the source selected organic fraction in the
South of Tuscany territory was evaluated. With respect to a reference scenario, in which the overall
amount of source selected organic fraction and garden waste - expected in 2013 – are addressed to
aerobic biostabilization process (Scenario 1), three alternative scenarios were proposed, modeled
and compared by Life Cycle Assessment. The first one is based on realizing one anaerobic diges-
tion anaerobic plant up-stream each already existing aerobic plant (Scenario 2). The second one is
based on realizing only three centralized anaerobic plants (Scenario 3). The third alternative is
based on co-digestion of a part of the source selected organic fraction with sludge from Waste Wa-
ter Treatment Plants in existing sludge anaerobic digestion plants; the remaining part of source se-
lected organic fraction is processed in devoted anaerobic digestion plants up-stream each already
existing aerobic plant (Scenario 4).

LCA impact assessment results show that anaerobic digestion application is always favorable with
respect the reference scenario in which organic wastes are aerobically processed. Anaerobic diges-
tion allows for net production of thermal and electric energy, generating negative impacts due to
avoided emissions and avoided resources consumptions.

Among the compared alternatives of anaerobic digestion application, the scenario based on decen-
tralized plants (one anaerobic plant up-stream each existing aerobic plant) resulted to be most fa-
vorable, collecting the best value for all the considered environmental indicators, except the Solid
Waste one. This indicator is higher for anaerobic digestion scenarios, mainly because a deeper sepa-
ration of undesired material for source selected organic fraction is required for feeding the process
with respect to aerobic biostabilization, thus a larger amount of scraps are produced. Also, being the
considered anaerobic process a wet one, wastewaters are produced and sludge from the wastewater
treatment are generated, contributing to the Solid Waste indicator.

Scenario 3, based on three centralized anaerobic digestion plants, resulted to be the second scored
one after Scenario 2. The values for the considered indicators are in general less favorable than
Scenario 2, but better than Scenario 4 (with the exception of Ozone Depletion and Eutrophication).
However, indicator values are very close to those of Scenario 2, being the difference due only to the
additional transport for moving the source selected organic fraction from the local plant to the cen-
tralized one. Indicators increase in a range from 2 to 10% moving from Scenario 2 to Scenario 3
(except Ozone Depletion and Eutrophication). The choice between decentralized and centralized
anaerobic plant strategy should be evaluated also from an economic point of view, which was not
the object of this study. In fact this study it was not checked if the decentralized anaerobic plant siz-
es were above the lower limits for the economic sustainability, that could represent a strong con-
straint in planning the proper plant system

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the Regione Toscana - Direzione Generale Politiche Territoriali e Ambi-
entali for co-funding this study.

REFERENCES

ANPA, ONR (2002). Il recupero di sostanza organica dai rifiuti per la produzione di ammendanti di
qualità. Manuali e Linee Guida 7/2002 (in Italian). Availabe at http://www.apat.gov.it/site/it-
IT/APAT/Pubblicazioni/Manuali_e_linee_guida/Documento/manuali_lineeguida_2002_7.html [last
accessed April 2012]

ATO Toscana Sud. Piano Straordinario, Area Vasta ATO7, ATO8 e ATO9, approvato il 16 Aprile
2008 (in Italian). Available at http://www.atotoscanasud.it/pianificazionisettoriali/psats [last ac-
cessed April 2012].

Bozano Gandolfi P. (2008). Practical experiences in the production of biogas and energy from
waste. Proceedings of Venice 2008. Second International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and
Waste 17-20 November 2008. Venice, Italy

EEA (2009). EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook. Available at

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009. [last ac-
cessed 04/2011].

ISO 14040 (2006). Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework.

ISO 14044 (2006). Environmental Management. Life Cycle Assessment. Requirements and Guide-
lines.

Lombardi L., Corti A., Lubello C., Caffaz S. (2009). Anaerobic co-digestion of source selected or-
ganic fraction of municipal solid waste and wastewater treatment plant sludge. Sardinia 2009
Twelfth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari,
Italy; 5 - 9 October 2009. Cisa Editore. (ISBN 978-88-903557-0-7)
Mark Goedkoop (1995). The Eco-indicator 95, Final Report. PRé Consultants. Available at
http://www.pre-sustainability.com/content/reports [last accessed April 2012].

Metcalf & Eddy. Wastewater Engineering: treatment, disposal, reuse. (3rd edn.) McGraw-Hill Inc,
New York (1991)

Miller P.A. and Clesceri N.L. (2003). Waste Sites as Biological Reactors – Characterization and
Modeling. Lewis Publishers.

PRé (2012). http://www.pre-sustainability.com/content/simapro-lca-software. [last accessed

04/2011].

SINTAI - Sistema Informativo Nazionale per la Tutela delle Acque Italiane – ISPRA. Available at
http://www.sintai.sinanet.apat.it/ [last accessed 04/2011].

US-EPA (2000). AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I. Chapter 3: Stationary Internal Combustion
Sources. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42 [last accessed 04/2011].