Waste and Resource Management Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jwarm.16.00013
Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid Paper 1600013
Received 03/07/2016 Accepted 24/10/2016
waste management
Keywords: recycling & reuse of materials/waste management &
Mali and Patil disposal

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Life-cycle assessment of
municipal solid waste
management
&
1 Sandip T. Mali PhD &
2 Swapnali S. Patil ME
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, D. Y. Patil
Pimpri Chinchwad College of Engineering, Pune, India (corresponding College of Engineering and Technology, Kolhapur, India
author: stmali@rediffmail.com; sandipmali05@gmail.com)

1 2

The aim of the study was to assess municipal solid waste (MSW) management system through life-cycle assessment
methodology. A field study was carried out for characterisation of MSW and leachate analysis for the landfill site of
Kolhapur city, India. The total MSW generation rate in the city was 180 t/d, out of which the organic matter content
was 70·33% and the inorganic matter content was 29·67%. The characteristics of the leachate showed more pollution
strength compared with the standards. SimaPro software was used for analysing environmental burden through
different impact categories. Municipal waste management scenarios such as open dumping, composting, anaerobic
digestion and pyrolysis–gasification were compared with the centre for environmental studies method. The impact
assessment categories that were considered were emission of greenhouse gases, ozone layer depletion, acidification,
eutrophication, ecotoxicity, human toxicity and summer smog. The result of this study has revealed a more feasible
treatment scenario based on environmental impact analysis. Open dumping has shown the highest environmental
impact. Pyrolysis–gasification with energy recovery potential and composting is an environmentally favourable MSW
management option.

1. Introduction strategic way to achieve the objectives of sustainable waste

Solid waste management is becoming a major public health
and environmental concern in urban areas of developing
countries. Improper solid waste management leads to substan-
tial negative environmental impacts. Municipal solid waste
management (MSWM) refers to the collection, transfer, pro-
cessing, recycling, resource recovery, treatment and disposal of
solid waste in urban areas. Integrated waste management
systems (IWMSs) are one of the effective strategies to solve
waste management problems. IWMS offers the flexibility of
recovery, recycling and waste treatment options based on
different waste fractions. Models developed in recent years
have taken an IWMS approach and included both economics
and environmental analysis (Sanaz et al., 2012). Energy and
materials can be recovered through IWMS. It is important to
integrate different waste management technologies in a
management. Therefore, it is important to know different tech-
nologies through a comparative study for different options and
that might be a guiding tool for the decision-making process
(Zaman, 2009). Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is a commonly
applied methodology for assessing the environmental aspects
and practical impacts associated with a product or service by
compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs of
the product system over the entire life cycle (ISO, 1997). LCA
is generally adopted to analyse environmental burden for
waste management technologies (Zaman, 2010). In this study,
recycling of material and three different treatment options such
as composting, anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis–gasification for
compostable matter and open dumping were analysed to inves-
tigate the most feasible treatment scenario based on environ-
mental impact analysis by LCA using SimaPro 7 software.

Downloaded by [ University Of Colorado - University Libraries] on [30/11/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Waste and Resource Management Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid
waste management
Mali and Patil

2. Study area 3.1 MSW composition

Kolhapur city is located in the southwestern part of the state
of Maharashtra, India. The geographical coordinates are
16° 42′ N latitude and 74° 14′ E longitude and 569 m above
mean sea level. The population of the city is 549 283 with a
land area of 66·82 km2. The city of Kolhapur is urbanising
rapidly. The development plan indicates a total of 67% of the
area is to be developed under residential, commercial, indus-
trial, public/semipublic areas, for the purpose of recreation and
transportation. This has increased the total solid waste quan-
tity in the municipal as well as in the commercial area. The
present average generation of solid waste is 0·35 kg/capita/d.
The total municipal solid waste (MSW) generation rate in the
city is 180 t/d (ESR, 2012–2013). Solid waste generation
rates in different states in India is 0·157–0·457 kg/capita/d
(Sharholy et al., 2008) and in major Asian cities are 0·47–
0·98 kg/capita/d (SWM, 2007). Low-income countries with
yearly per capita gross domestic product that does not exceed
US$ 5000 have the lowest MSW generation rates, which are
in the range 0·3–0·9 kg/capita/d. In high-income countries it
reaches a range of 1·4–2·0 kg/capita/d (Khatib, 2011).
3. Methodology
The study had been carried out in three parts: composition of
MSW, leachate analysis and comparison of alternative solid
waste management scenarios by using the centre for environ-
mental studies (CML) method.
IWMS depends on the composition of the MSW. The MSW
sampling and physical analysis was carried out at the landfill
site. The waste was dumped without processing or treatment.
The samples were collected from three to four locations where
waste was unloaded. A typical load of solid waste in the vehicle
weighs between 9 and 12 t. It was not practically possible to
separate the entire load or a load from an even larger vehicle
(Zeng et al., 2005). A coning and quartering method was used
for MSW sampling (Mali et al., 2011; Peavy et al., 1985;
Tchobanoglous et al., 1993). MSW was spread horizontally
and approximately four quarters were made and out of that one
quarter was selected for sampling. The quantity of the sample
was about 50 kg for the physical analysis of MSW. According
to the waste found on the landfill site, waste samples were
manually sorted into seven categories namely paper, plastic,
rubber (synthetic, leather), glass, metals, compostable and inert
material with the help of workers. The MSW composition
study was carried out for 8 months. Waste samples collected
from the dumping site were characterised for their physical par-
ameters. All physical components of waste were segregated
manually on-site and the results are summarised in Table 1.
The variation in the characteristics of MSW was found to be in
a wide range. The average composition of MSW in mass per-
centage was paper (5·56%), plastic (13·10%), metal (0·56%),
glass (1·67%), compostable (70·33%), rubber (3·22%) and inert
(5·56%). The percentage of compostable matter was more.
Hence, biological waste treatment methods would be preferred.

Composition: % mass

Sampling period Paper Plastic Metal Glass Compostable Rubber Inert

12 August 2013 2·0 12·0 1·0 1·0 83·0 0 1·0

16 September 2013 6·0 18·0 0 5·0 60·0 9·0 2·0
20 October 2013 2·0 14·0 0 1·0 72·0 6·0 5·0
11 November 2013 5·0 13·0 0 2·0 70·0 6·0 4·0
15 December 2013 7·0 12·0 1·0 2·0 75·0 2·0 1·0
13 January 2014 7·0 9·0 0 1·0 79·0 2·0 2·0
15 February 2014 9·0 16·0 1·0 2·0 59·0 2·0 11·0
17 March 2014 9·0 13·0 2·0 1·0 60·0 0 15·0
11 April 2014 3·0 11·0 0 0 75·0 2·0 9·0
Range 2–9 9–18 0–2 0–5 59–83 0–9 1–15
Average 5·56 13·11 0·56 1·67 70·33 3·22 5·56
Standard deviation 2·74 2·66 0·72 1·41 8·88 3·07 5·00

Plastic: plastic bags, plastic bottles, wraps, mixed plastics; paper: office paper, packaging paper, cardboards, news prints,
magazines; rubber: cloth, synthetic, leather, rubber; metal: ferrous, non-ferrous, tin cans, metal foils; inert: stone, construction
material, sand, aggregate, crockery; glass: clear, green and brown glass bottles and containers; compostable: food, vegetables,
yard trimmings, wood, leaves, grass

Table 1. MSW composition analysis

Downloaded by [ University Of Colorado - University Libraries] on [30/11/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Waste and Resource Management
3.2 Leachate analysis
To study the impact of emission to water in LCA, leachate analy-
sis was required. Physico-chemical characteristics of the leachate
depend primarily on the waste composition and water content in
total waste. Leachate samples were collected from 4·85 ha of
low-lying land within the landfill site. Samples were randomly
collected from three different locations and mixed prior to their
analysis. The leachate was analysed using the standard methods
(APHA et al., 1998). The characteristics of the leachate samples
collected from the dump site and the typical range of leachate
characteristics are presented in Table 2. Characteristics of the lea-
chate showed more pollution strength compared with Central
Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization
(CPHEEO) standards (MSWM, 2000).
3.3 LCA
3.3.1 Goal and scope definition
The aim of the study was to identify an optimum waste man-
agement system for Kolhapur city by comparing different
MSW management scenarios with respect to environmental
impacts. The study was carried out by using SimaPro 7 soft-
ware, using the CML method.
3.3.2 Functional unit
The functional unit selected for the comparison of the alterna-
tive scenarios was the management of 1 t of MSW of
Kolhapur city.
3.3.3 System boundary
The system boundary includes collection of MSW, waste trans-
port, recycling of waste, waste treatment alternatives (compost-
ing, anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis–gasification) and
landfilling of waste (Figure 1). LCA of secondary materials
obtained from the recycling was considered in the pyrolysis–
gasification process. The system was limited at the landfilling
of residual materials after the treatment process.
3.4 Development of scenarios
The composition of MSW of Kolhapur landfill site on mass
basis comprised paper (5·56%), plastic (13·10%), metals
(0·56%), glass (1·67%), rubber (3·22%), compostable (70·33%)
and inert materials (5·56%). Recyclables considered from MSW
are paper (5·56%), plastic (13·10%), metals (0·56%), glass
(1·67%) and rubber (3·22%). The total quantity of recyclables is
24·11% of MSW. Recyclables are assumed to be separated and
sent to the recycling facility. Composting and anaerobic diges-
tion treatment options were suitable for waste containing highly
compostable matter (Mali et al., 2011). By focusing on capital
cost and land requirement, the pyrolysis–gasification and mass
incineration require less cost rather than other treatment
options (Saini et al., 2012). Mass incineration is not practised
in Indian cities; therefore, pyrolysis–gasification was considered
Downloaded by [ University Of Colorado - University Libraries] on [30/11/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid
waste management
Mali and Patil
in this study (Sharholy et al., 2008). The assumptions for the
development of scenarios were as follows.
& The transport distance of waste for all processes in the
system were assumed to be the same.
& The separation of recyclables from mixed waste will be
carried out at the processing site into various categories
such as paper, plastic, glass, metal and rubber/leather/
synthetic and would be sent to the recycling process unit.
& The compost that is produced from composting processes,
electricity produced from anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis
gasification processes were considered as avoided products
(avoided products are the product or outcome from the
respective process that are useful, and reducing the use of
new material and reducing the environmental burden by
utilising that product).
& Emissions to air and water were considered for all
processes. Emissions to soil were considered only for
composting and anaerobic digestion processes.
Four scenarios studied are as follows.
& Scenario I – open dumping (S1): In this scenario, the
present solid waste management system was considered.
Solid waste generated in the city was collected and dumped
in open land (100%). Since the recovery of recyclables
through scavengers was an insignificant amount, it was
neglected. This scenario includes collection of solid waste
from various sources and transporting it to open dumping.
& Scenario II – composting scenario (S2): This scenario
emphasises the recovery of compost from the
biodegradable fraction. This scenario includes collection
and transportation, recycling, composting and landfilling
of MSW (Figure 2). It was assumed that the MSW will be
segregated into three categories – that is, compostable,
recyclables and inert. It had been assumed that recyclables
(16·88%) will be separated from total recyclable
components (24·11%) and transported to the recycling
facility. The efficiency of recovery of recyclables was
assumed to be 70%, as the waste was mixed and source
segregation of waste was not adopted in the city. It was
assumed that compostable matter (70·33%) would be sent
for composting treatment. Inert matter (5·56%), rejected
waste from recycling facility (7·23%) and residue from
composting (5%) would be sent to the landfill.
& Scenario III – anaerobic digestion scenario (S3): This
scenario focuses on recovery of biogas and compost from
the biodegradable fraction (70·33%) through an anaerobic
digestion process (Figure 2). The flow of the system was
similar to scenario II for the recyclable materials and
residue sent to the landfill.
& Scenario IV – pyrolysis–gasification scenario (S4): This
scenario focuses on the recovery of energy through the
biodegradable fraction (70·33%) and residue from the
 4

Waste and Resource Management

12 August 16 September 20 October 11 November 13 January CPHEEO standards
Parameters Unit 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 Range Average (MSWM, 2000)

pH 9·10 8·45 8·48 8·55 9·14 8·45–9·14 8·74 5·5–9·0

Turbidity NTU 13·3 45·7 41·7 47·4 52·2 13·3–52·2 40·1 —
Conductivity mho/cm 11·35 12·94 12·61 14·8 15·7 11·35–15·7 13·48 —
Total solids mg/l 6830 7740 7870 7790 9100 6830–9100 7866 —
Dissolved solids mg/l 6060 7450 7370 6890 8000 6060–8000 7154 2100
Volatile solids mg/l 1912 2100 1700 1590 1865 1590–2100 1796·66 —
Chloride (Cl−) mg/l 1867 1801 1833 2971 3501 1801–3501 2395 1000
Sulfate (SO2−4 ) mg/ 329·24 572·07 456·83 483·58 707·87 329·24–707·87 509·91 —
Hardness mg/l as calcium 1880 1260 1050 1026 1075·8 1026–1880 1258·36 —
carbonate

Mali and Patil

waste management
Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid
Total alkalinity mg/l calcium 1080 840 1000 700 1280 700–1280 980 —
carbonate
COD mg/l 103 880 102 000 99 000 48 600 61 440 48 600–103 880 82 984 250
BOD5 mg/l 720 645 560 645 2150 560–2150 944 30
Total kjeldahl mg/l 50·6 40·3 35·2 50·4 72·5 35·2–72·5 49·8 50
nitrogen (N)

—, value is not mentioned in CPHEEO standard

Table 2. Leachate analysis

Downloaded by [ University Of Colorado - University Libraries] on [30/11/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Waste and Resource Management Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid
waste management
Mali and Patil

Raw material Energy

Compost

Composting
Organic
waste Anaerobic
digestion Landfilling
Waste
Transport Segregation
source Pyrolysis–
Mixed waste
gasification
Recyclable Residue

Transport Energy

Recycling
facility

Atmospheric Water Soil

Residuals
emissions emissions emissions

Figure 1. System boundary for MSW treatment processes

recycling facility (7·23%) by pyrolysis–gasification process
(Figure 2). The flow of the system was similar to scenario II
for the recyclable materials. The rejected waste from recycling
and compostable waste (70·33%) was sent to the treatment
facility. Residue after pyrolysis–gasification (5%) and inert
matter separated from waste (5·56%) was sent to landfill.
3.5 Life-cycle inventory (LCI)
The data used in this study were derived from on-site investi-
gations, from municipal corporation, literature and from
SimaPro7. Data of the collection and transportation of MSW
were calculated from Kolhapur city municipal corporation
office information. Since specific data on material recycling,
composting, anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis–gasification and
landfill were not available for Kolhapur MSW management
system, the relevant data was obtained from the literature. The
database of the software was adjusted to the conditions in
Kolhapur. The data quality indicators (DQI) option of the
software was used to select the most suitable system for DQI
such as time, geography, technology and representativeness.
3.5.1 Collection and transport
Waste collection and transport in Kolhapur were carried out
by diesel-refused compacters with a capacity of 9–12 t, which
collect the MSW from roadsides and deliver it to the waste dis-
posal site. The transport distance of waste for all process
systems was between 5 and 15 km and for calculation of con-
sumption of diesel an average distance of 10 km was con-
sidered. Diesel consumption was calculated at 0·67 l/t of waste
and the estimated emission is 4·4918 kg CO2/t of waste,
2·3673  10−4 kg CH4/t of waste and 2·3673  10−4 kg N2O/t
of waste based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC, 2001) calculation method. It was assumed that
recovery of recyclables, waste treatment (composting or anaero-
bic digestion or pyrolysis gasification) and landfilling of waste
would be carried out at the same site, which would reduce the
economic and environmental impacts of transport.
3.5.2 Recycling
Mixed recyclables will be separated into waste paper, glass,
metals, rubber and plastics at site and sent to the recycling
process unit. Emissions from material recycling facilities had
been taken from LCI data sets for material production of alu-
minium, glass, paper, plastic and steel (LCI, 2003). The recy-
cling LCI data on waste plastic was assumed to be high-
density polyethylene, waste paper to be office paper and waste
metal to be steel. Recycling and production of rubber
(synthetic/leather) had not been considered in this study.
3.5.3 Aerobic composting
It was assumed that organic waste that was separated during
segregation was delivered to a compost plant. Energy

Downloaded by [ University Of Colorado - University Libraries] on [30/11/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Waste and Resource Management Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid
waste management
Mali and Patil

MSW
100%

Compostable Recyclable Inert

70·33% 24·11% 5·56%

Anaerobic Pyrolysis– Paper Plastic Metal Glass Rubber

Composting
digestion gasification 5·56% 13·10% 0·56% 1·67% 3·22%

Residue Residue
5% 7·23%

Landfilling

Figure 2. Flowchart of waste management scenarios: open dump (65·33%) + landfilling (17·64%) and pyrolysis–gasification
(S1) = landfilling (100%), composting (S2) = recycling (S4) = recycling (16·88%) + pyrolysis–gasification
(16·88%) + composting (65·33%) + landfilling (17·64%), (70·33% + 7·23%) + landfilling (10·56%)
anaerobic digestion (S3) = recycling (16·88%) + composting

consumption and gas emissions from composting were taken
from the literature. Leachate produced is 24 l/t feedstock.
Compost produced is considered as 450 kg compost/t of waste
and reject waste considered as 5% – that is, 50 kg/t of waste
(Guidelines for the use of LCA in the waste management
sector, 2002). The organic material obtained from composting
process will be used as fertiliser. The avoided material was a
chemical fertiliser containing an equivalent amount of nutri-
ents (nitrogen and phosphorous). Table 3 illustrates the emis-
sions to air, water and soil through the composting process.
3.5.4 Anaerobic digestion
Organic waste was separated and delivered to an anaerobic
digestion plant. The energy recovery potential from anaerobic
digestion was calculated at 22·52 kWh. Anaerobic digestion
processes produce 100 kg of liquid per tonne of waste input
(Defra, 2010). The electricity required and produced, and
emissions to air, water and soil from the anaerobic digestion
process is given in Table 3.
3.5.5 Pyrolysis–gasification
Segregated organic waste and residue from the recycling facility
was assumed to be sent to the pyrolysis–gasification plant.
Energy recovery potential from pyrolysis–gasification was calcu-
lated at 348 kWh. The bottom ash and fly ash had been dis-
posed into landfill. Quantities of solid residues were assumed
to be 50 kg/t processed waste input (Defra, 2010). Data of
emissions from residual material landfill after recycling and ash
landfill after pyrolysis–gasification were taken from the literature
(Denison, 1996; Ozeler et al., 2006; Zaman, 2010). The electri-
city required and produced, and emission to air and water from
the pyrolysis–gasification process is given in Table 3.

Downloaded by [ University Of Colorado - University Libraries] on [30/11/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Waste and Resource Management
Treatment

Parameters Transportation Composting Anaerobic digestion Pyrolysis–gasification Open dumping

Inputs from Electricity: kWh 0·13 10 339·3 —

techno sphere
(material/fuels) Diesel: l 0·67 l/t km 5·53 — — —

Avoided product Compost Electricity Electricity —

0·45 t 0·929 kWh 345·6 kWh
Output
Emissions to air Carbon dioxide 4·49 kg/t km From literaturea From literaturea: g/t From literaturea: g/t From literatureb: g/t
Methane 0·000236 kg/t km Methane:4 kg Nitrogen dioxide:188 Nitrogen dioxide:780 Methane: 5·63  106
Nitrous oxide 0·000236 kg/t km Nitrous oxide:0·3 kg Sulfur dioxide :3 Sulfur dioxide:52 Carbon dioxide: 3·89  106
Nitrous oxide:8·48  106 (mg/t)

Mali and Patil

waste management
Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid
Hydrogen chloride:0·02 Hydrogen chloride:32
Emissions to — From literaturea: g/t From literaturea: g/t From literaturea: g/t Suspended solids:53 400
water Ammonium:18 Dissolved solids: 80 Aluminium: 18 000 Chloride:179 600
Nitrogen:19·2 Total nitrogen: 10 Iron:9700 BOD5:70 800
Chloride:4800
Emissions to soil — From literaturea: g/t From literaturea: g/t — —
Arsenic:3 Cadmium:2·4
Cadmium:0·5 Zinc:510

Source: a Defra (2010), b Saheri et al. (2012)

Table 3. Inventory data

7

Downloaded by [ University Of Colorado - University Libraries] on [30/11/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Waste and Resource Management Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid
waste management
Mali and Patil

3.5.6 Open dumping
Emissions to water were considered from leachate analysis at
the dumping site of Kolhapur city. Emissions to air from open
dumping had been calculated on the basis of IPCC (2001) cal-
culation method.
3.5.7 Life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
LCIA for different waste treatment options were carried out
using the CML method. Environmental impacts from four
MSW treatment facilities were analysed based on seven impact
categories in the CML method. Impact categories in the CML
method were emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), ozone
layer depletion, ecotoxicity, human toxicity, eutrophication,
acidification and summer smog (Table 4). Characterisation
values of each impact categories were analysed; normalisation
values of each category were based on global values. In this
study, European values were considered.
4. Result and discussion
Table 4 shows the contribution of emissions in different impact
categories.
anaerobic digestion. The second highest contribution to eco-
toxicity from scenario pyrolysis–gasification (S4)
(8·08  105 kg) was due to the release of lead from residue dis-
posal to landfill after pyrolysis–gasification.
4.3 Human toxicity
The human toxicity result showed the highest impact from
scenario open dumping (S1) (1·78  105 kg) due to the release
of methane and sulfur dioxide (SO2) from open dumping. The
second highest contribution to human toxicity was from scen-
ario anaerobic digestion (S3) (60·7 kg) due to the release of
lead from residue disposal to landfill after the anaerobic diges-
tion process.
4.4 Eutrophication
Eutrophication is caused by the release of phosphate, nitrogen
oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitrates and ammonia
(NH4). Nitrogen oxide released from open dumping (S1)
showed the highest eutrophication impact (7·93  103 kg).
Other higher contribution was from scenario composting (S2)
(−0·0115 kg) due to the release of ammonia from water.

4.1 GHG 4.5 Acidification

The Greenhouse Effect is the effect of increasing temperature
due to emissions of GHG such as carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Scenario open
dumping (S1) shows higher global warming impact compared
with other scenarios. Contribution to this impact by scenario
of open dumping was 6·58  107 kg. The second highest
contribution to the Greenhouse Effect from scenario pyrolysis–
gasification (S4) (567 kg) was due to the release of carbon
dioxide from electricity production.
4.2 Ecotoxicity
The ecotoxicity result shows the highest ecotoxicity impact
from scenario anaerobic digestion (S3) (2·85  108 kg) due to
the release of mercury from waste disposal to landfill after
Acidification is caused by the release of acidifying substances
including sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitrogen oxides
(NOx), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride, sulfur
oxides and ammonia. The result has shown that the higher
acidification impact of scenario open dumping (S1) was due to
the release of ammonia. Contribution to this impact by open
dumping was 4·86  104 kg. The second highest contribution
to acidification was from scenario composting (S2)
(−0·00266 kg) due to the release of sulfur dioxide during the
transportation of waste.
4.6 Summer smog
Summer smog impact from scenario open dumping (S1) was
relatively high (3·94  104 kg), due to the release of methane

Open dumping Composting Anaerobic digestion Pyrolysis–gasification

Sr. number Impact categories Unit (S1) (S2) (S3) (S4)

1 Greenhouse kg GWP 6·58  107 150 −101 567

2 Ozone layer depletion kg ODP 0 0 0 0
3 Ecotoxicity EC 0 0 2·85  108 8·08  105
4 Human toxicity HC 1·78  105 0·185 60·7 −0·748
5 Eutrophication kg EP 7·93  103 −0·0115 −0·064 −0·062
6 Acidification kg AP 4·86  104 −0·00266 −0·678 −1·07
7 Summer smog kg POPC 3·94  104 0·014 0·00294 0·0009

Table 4. Characterisation result

Downloaded by [ University Of Colorado - University Libraries] on [30/11/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Waste and Resource Management
from open dumping. The second highest contribution to
summer smog was from scenario composting (S2) (0·014 kg)
due to the release of methane from composting.
4.7 Impact assessment and limitations of the study
Table 3 shows the lowest and highest consumption of
electricity and fuel for composting (S2) and pyrolysis gasi-
fication (S4) scenario, respectively. Anaerobic digestion (S3)
and pyrolysis gasification (S4) scenario produce energy from
waste treatment and composting (S2) does not produce
any energy. Electricity production from waste will be 0·929
and 345·6 kWh/t from anaerobic digestion (S3) and pyrolysis
gasification (S4) scenario, respectively. Compost production
will be 450 kg/t of compostable matter in composting
scenario (S2).
Impact categories were compared individually for each scen-
ario developed in Table 4. The significant change was observed
in the impact categories of GHG emissions, ecotoxicity and
human toxicity and less variation in ozone layer depletion,
eutrophication, acidification and summer smog was noted. The
open dumping scenario (S1) was the worst in terms of having
the highest environmental impact. Emission of GHG was
more in the pyrolysis–gasification scenario as it is a thermal
process and less in anaerobic digestion as it is a biological
process (Ozeler et al., 2006). The composting scenario (S2) was
best in terms of a reduced environmental impact of acidifica-
tion, ecotoxicity and eutrophication. The anaerobic digestion
scenario (S3) was best in terms of a reduced environmental
impact of GHG emissions, eutrophication and acidification.
Pyrolysis–gasification (S4) scenario was best in terms of less
environmental impact of human toxicity, eutrophication and
acidification. In accordance with the results obtained from an
analysis of impact categories, the composting scenario (S2)
was found to be the option with minimum environmental
impacts (Table 4).
4.8 Limitations of the study
In this study, waste management alternatives were investigated
from only an environmental point of view; it also should be
supported with other decision-making tools that consider the
economic and social aspects of solid waste management.
Additionally, impacts in work environment, infrastructure pro-
cesses, noise and odour were not considered. The study was
carried out based on the process of LCA analysis, which was
based on waste fraction.
5. Conclusion
& Current solid waste management practice of Kolhapur city
needs to develop a proper waste treatment and disposal
system.
Downloaded by [ University Of Colorado - University Libraries] on [30/11/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid
waste management
Mali and Patil
& Characterisation of MSW for Kolhapur city open dumpsite
showed that it contains a high percentage of organic matter
(70·33%), which confirms the feasibility of biological
treatment.
& The open dump site causes higher pollution potential in
terms of leachate characteristics.
& Open dumping shows the highest environmental impact
mainly in GHG.
& Composting was a favourable option compared to energy
production as a treatment option.
& Considering waste treatment with energy production
potential pyrolysis–gasification is a comparatively
favourable option rather than anaerobic digestion due
to its lower environmental impact in terms of
ecotoxicity, human toxicity, acidification and summer
smog.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to PRé Consultants, the
Netherlands, for providing SimaPro 7 software and for solving
their queries very efficiently. They also acknowledge Mr Vijay
Sarjerao Patil (Incharge Chief Sanitary Inspector Kolhapur
Municipal Corporation) and his staff for providing valuable
information.
REFERENCES
APHA, AWWA, WEF (American Public Health Association,
American Water Works Association, Water Environment
Federation) (1998) Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater, 20th edn. American Public
Health Association-American Water Works Association,
Water Environment Federation Publication, Washington,
DC, USA.
Bjarnadottir HJ, Fridriksson GB, Johnsen T and Sletsen H (2002)
Guidelines for the use of LCA in the Waste Management
sector. Nordtest, Taastrup, Denmark.
Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
(2010) DECC’s GHG Conversion Factors for Company
Reporting: Methodology Paper for Emission Factors. Defra,
London, UK.
Denison RA (1996) Environmental life cycle comparisons of
recycling, landfilling and incineration: a review of recent
studies. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
21: 191–237.
ESR (Environmental Status Report) (2012–2013) Environmental
Status Report. Kolhapur Municipal Corporation,
Kolhapur, India.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third
Assessment Report: Climate Change. IPCC, New York,
NY, USA.
 Waste and Resource Management
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (1997)
Environmental management – life cycle assessment –
principles and framework. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Khatib IA (2011) Municipal solid waste management in
developing countries: future challenges and possible
opportunities. In Integrated Waste Management. Intech,
Croatia, vol. II, pp. 35–48.
LCI (Life-Cycle Inventory) (2003) Data Sets for Material
Production of Aluminum, Glass, Paper, Plastic, and Steel in
North America. RTI International, Research Triangle Park,
NC, USA.
Mali ST, Khare KC and Biradar AH (2011) Characterisation of
municipal solid waste at landfill India. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers – Waste and Resource
Management 164(4): 247–255, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1680/warm.2011.164.4.247.
MSWM (Municipal Solid Waste Management) (2000) Manual on
Municipal Solid Waste Management, 1st edn. Central
Public Health and Environmental Engineering
Organization (CPHEEO) Ministry of Urban Development
Government of India, New Delhi, India.
Ozeler D, Yetiş U and Demirer GN (2006) Life cycle assessment
of municipal solid waste management methods: Ankara
case study. Environment International 32: 405–411.
Peavy HS, Rowe DR and Tchobanoglous G (1985) Environmental
Engineering. McGraw Hill International Editions,
Singapore, Singapore, Civil Engineering Series 582.
Saheri S, Mir AM, Bsari AN, Mahmood BN, Begum AR (2012)
Life cycle assessment for solid waste disposal options in
malaysia. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 21(5):
1377–1382.
Saini S, Rao P and Patil Y (2012) City based analysis of MSW to
energy generation in India, calculation of state-wise
potential and tariff comparison with EU. International
Conference on Emerging Economies – Prospects and
10
Downloaded by [ University Of Colorado - University Libraries] on [30/11/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid
waste management
Mali and Patil
Challenges. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
pp. 407–416.
Sanaz S, Masoud AM, Noor AB, Noor ZBM and Rawshan AB
(2012) Life cycle assessment for solid waste disposal in
Malaysia. Pollution Journal Environment Study 21(5):
1377–1382.
Sharholy M, Ahmad K, Mahmood G and Trivedi RC (2008)
Municipal solid waste management in Indian cities – a
review. Waste Management 28: 459–467.
SWM (Solid Waste Management) (2007) Solid Waste
Management: Issues and Challenges in Asia. Published by
the Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan.
Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H and Vigil S (1993) Integrated Solid
Waste Management Engineering Principles and
Management Issues. McGraw Hill International Editions,
Singapore, Singapore, Civil Engineering Series 1993.
Zaman AU (2009) Life cycle environmental assessment of
municipal solid waste to energy technologies. Global
Journal of Environmental Research 3(3): 155–163.
Zaman AU (2010) Comparative study of municipal solid waste
treatment technologies using life cycle assessment method.
International Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology 7(2): 225–234.
Zeng Y, Trauth KM, Peyton RL and Banerji SK (2005)
Characterization of solid waste disposed at Columbia
Sanitary Landfill in Missouri. Waste Management and
Research 23: 62–71.
Further reading
http://www.archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/statistics/.../
health-report.pdf.
http://www.fenur.is/assets/files/LCA/Guideline_-_final2_00093.pdf.
http://mswdst.rti.org/docs/lci_report_ocr.pdf.
http://www.fenur.is/assets/files/LCA/Guideline_-_final2_00093.pdf.
HOW CAN YOU CONTRIBUTE?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions from
the civil engineering profession (and allied disciplines).
Information about how to submit your paper online
is available at www.icevirtuallibrary.com/page/authors,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.