Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

ISSN: 1096-2247 (Print) 2162-2906 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20

Polyfunctional Plants for Industrial Waste

Disposal—Part II: Economics and Model Evaluation

Antonio C. Caputo & Pacifico M. Pelagagge

To cite this article: Antonio C. Caputo & Pacifico M. Pelagagge (1999) Polyfunctional Plants for
Industrial Waste Disposal—Part II: Economics and Model Evaluation, Journal of the Air & Waste
Management Association, 49:11, 1362-1367, DOI: 10.1080/10473289.1999.10463963

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.1999.10463963

Published online: 27 Dec 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 52

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20
Caputo and Pelagagge
TECHNICAL PAPER
Polyfunctional Plants for Industrial Waste Disposal—Part II:
Economics and Model Evaluation
Antonio C. Caputo and Pacifico M. Pelagagge
Department of Energetics, Faculty of Engineering, University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy
ABSTRACT
This is the second part of a two-part paper dealing with the
preliminary design and costing of polyfunctional waste
treatment plants. In this article, we present some criteria
for estimating capital investment and annual operating costs
of polyfunctional plants for industrial waste treatment. The
process and equipment design methods presented in Part I
of this article, together with the economic approach pro-
posed here, allow for complete technical/economic analy-
ses. The overall mathematical model appears to be a useful
tool in economic feasibility studies. The accuracy of the
developed computer mathematical model has been dem-
onstrated, referring to actual cost data from the literature.
INTRODUCTION
Particularly interesting is the use of polyfunctional plants
(PPs) for the treatment and disposal of industrial waste,
thanks to the related improvements in process integration,
resource conservation, and economy of scale. Significant
advantages are therefore expected from the widespread uti-
lization of polyfunctional plants from the standpoint of
IMPLICATIONS
Polyfunctional plants for the treatment and disposal of
industrial waste are particularly interesting, thanks to their
related advantages in process integration, resource con-
servation, and economy of scale.
In the first part of this article, we proposed some
criteria for process and equipment design for general-
purpose polyfunctional plants. In order to quantitatively
assess the conditions of economic convenience, in this
second part, we present capital and operating cost fac-
tors for the main sections and equipment of a
polyfunctional plant.
The overall technical/economic mathematical model
developed allows economic feasibility analyses of such
plants. The proposed methodology for plant preliminary
sizing and evaluation of significant cost items, even when
simplified, has shown the capability for accurate esti-
mates, compatible with profitability evaluations, and
should be of interest to planners and managers of indus-
trial waste disposal systems.
1362 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
ISSN 1047-3289 J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 49:1362-1367
Copyright 1999 Air & Waste Management Association
environmental and economic impacts. In the first part of
this paper, we proposed some criteria for process and equip-
ment design for general purpose polyfunctional plants,
aimed at flexibility and ease of use.
In order to quantitatively assess the conditions of eco-
nomic convenience, in this second part we present capital
and operating cost factors for the main sections and equip-
ment of a polyfunctional plant, based on data from both
literature and suppliers. The overall technical/economic
mathematical model developed enables economic feasibil-
ity analyses of such plants. The procedure has been evalu-
ated by comparison between capital and operating costs of
actual installations and those estimated by the model. Com-
parison results are presented with reference to both single
sections and whole plants.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT EVALUATION
The polyfunctional plant total capital investment (TCI)
may be estimated following the standard procedures
adopted in process industries.1-3 The TCI is therefore as-
sumed to be the sum of direct capital costs (DCC) and
indirect capital costs (ICC)
TCI = Σj DCCj + ICC (1)
where the subscript j stands for the jth treatment section,
and indirect costs are evaluated comprehensively for the
whole plant. In this paper, the adopted currency unit is the
Italian lira (1 US$ = 1800 £).
The ICC comprises land and urbanization cost (as-
sumed to be 80,000 £/m2), engineering and project man-
agement charges (10% of TCI), patents, licenses and
know-how costs (3% of TCI), plant startup (3% of TCI),
allowance for funds during construction, personnel train-
ing (15 staff-months), spares and construction materials (2%
of TCI), and overhead (5% of TCI). The cost of the chemi-
cal analysis laboratory has been estimated at 4% of TCI,
and that of auxiliary plant utilities at 7% of TCI. Fixed
charges for connection to electric energy, the natural gas
distribution grid, and the telecommunications network are
considered to be 0.15% of TCI.
Volume 49 November 1999
 Caputo and Pelagagge

DCC, on the other hand, is the sum of the physical
module cost (PM) of each piece of equipment plus costs for
specific site preparation (S), cost of auxiliary civil works (B),
costs of instrumentation, control systems, and auxiliary
equipment (X), as pertains to each piece of equipment and
treatment section. PM is based on the free on-board cost
(FOB), composed of fabrication and transportation costs,
suitably increased by a labor and material factor (LM) to
account for installation and startup costs as well as civil
works and auxiliary equipment. Taxes and custom charges
should be added, as applicable, specific to each equipment.
Therefore, for the generic ith equipment of the jth treatment
section, the following relationships may be established:
PMi = LMi·FOBi
DCCj = Σi PMij + Sj + Bj + Xj
Cost estimates have been made based on current cost
as supplied by manufacturers and literature correlations
updated to 1996 values through the Marshall and Swift
cost index. All costs are given in millions of Italian lire
except were otherwise indicated.
Incineration Section
Incinerator costs depend mainly on furnace type. Rotary
kilns (or fluidized-bed combustors in the case of large waste
flow rates) are generally adopted because conventional
grate incinerators used for municipal solid waste (MSW)
are not suited to waste containing a high percentage of
liquids and sludges, such as industrial waste.
As specified in Part I of this work,4 a battery of rotary
kilns having a specific capacity of 2500 kg/hr has been
considered. PM for the entire battery, including feeding
equipment and post-combustor, as a function of the an-
nual flow rate to be treated, P (t/year, ranging from 3000
to 120,000), is
PMESP = 3 S 0.8431 when 4650 m2<S<93,000 m2 (5b)
while the scrubber cost is correlated to flow rate, Q, (kNm3/hr):
PMSCRUB = 0.026 + 0.197 Q – 5.32 10-5 Q2 (6)
Cost of the heat recovery section can be evaluated
from the data in Table 16 through the use of the following
scaling equation:
PM = C* (S/S*)n (7)
where PM is the cost corresponding to the desired equip-
ment size, S, and C* is the PM cost of the equipment at
(2) the reference size S*.
Table 1 refers to a heat recovery steam generator op-
(3) erating at 42 bar and 360 °C, and a condenser at 0.1 bar
operating with 20 °C and 1 bar tubeside. A 10% cost in-
crement is added to account for pumps, piping, air heater,
and so on. Fans and ductwork costs have been estimated
according to the work of Vatavuk.7
Chemical/Physical/Biological (CPB) Section
Capital cost estimation for process equipment of the CPB
section is based mainly on the works of Wright and
Woods,8-10 from which Table 2 is adapted. Equipment costs
may be estimated in this case too by using eq 7.
Cost of vacuum filters is correlated with the filtering
surface, S (m2), by
PMFILT = 106 S0.483 (8)
while the cost of a storage tank, for volumes V up to 40
m3, is given by
PMTANK = 0.437 V + 6.742 (9)

PMkiln = 11,785 – 0.187 P + 4.625 10-6 P2 (4) Stabilization/Solidification Section

In this case, the entire TCI of the stabilization/solidifica-
Electrostatic precipitator (ESP) cost5 is correlated to tion section has been considered, which is given as a func-
the collection area, S, (m2) tion of annual treatment capacity, PA, (t/year, ranging from
20,000 to 120,000).
PMESP = 19.02 S 0.6276 when 930 m2 < S<4,650 m2
(5a) TCIS/S = 10.046 PA0.5743 (10)

Table 1. Heat recovery section equipments cost.

Equipment Actual Size S Reference Cost C* Reference Size S* n

4
Steam generator Steam flow rate from 0.1 to 10 kg/hr 855 10 kg/hr 0.81
Turbogenerator Power from 0.5 to 1,000 MW 3,100 4 MW 0.84
Condenser Cooling power from 0.05 to 2.8 kW 310 103 kW 0.61
3 3
Degasifier Water flow rate from 0.004 to 0.08 m /sec 33 0.01 m /sec 0.43

Volume 49 November 1999 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1363
Caputo and Pelagagge

Table 2. CPB treatment section equipment cost.

Equipment Actual Size S Reference Cost C* Reference Size S* n

Pretreatment: comminutor Flow rate (m3/day) 350–8,000 24 8000 m3/day 0.29

Concrete equalization and loading basins Volume (m3) 40–300,000 119 800 m3 0.52
3 3
Coagulation and flocculation reactors Volume (m ) 50–1,000 238 1000 m 0.45
2 2
Clarifier (w/o scraper) Surface (m ) 60–400 623.7 400 m 0.56
Sludge scraper Surface (m2) 60–7,000 402.5 220 m2 0.62
2 7 2
Aeration basin Surface (m ) 90–1.7 10 590 2000 m 0.74
Aerator Power (kW) 0.75–3,700 126 75 kW 0.55
Liquids pumping station Flow rate (m3/day) 40–1.2 106 590 7000 m3/day 0.7
3 4 3
Sludges pumping and recirculation station Flow rate (m /day) 870–5 10 95 50000 m /day 0.53
Lime storage tank (15 days) Dosing (kg/day) 720–5,700 460 5700 kg/day 0.61
FeCl3 storage tank (15 days) Dosing (kg/day) 570–5,700 220 5700 kg/day 0.5
Polyelectrolite storage tank (15 days) Dosing (kg/day) 4.4–38 130 38 kg/day 0.68
Sludge thickener Surface (m2) 60–400 623.7 400 m2 0.56

OPERATING COSTS EVALUATION
Operating costs for each plant section, CSj, comprise per-
sonnel and labor costs, energy costs, maintenance (either
labor and materials), overhead, and general operating
charges. This last item is considered to be 15% of total
operating charges for each section. As far as the entire
plant is concerned, landfill disposal costs (CA) and waste
collection costs (CR) are to be accounted for, resulting in
a total annual cost (TAC)
where CF is the fuel cost (190 £/104 kcal), MC is the hourly
fuel consumption (kg/hr), H is the low heating value (kcal/
kg), and T is the annual operating hours. Electric power
for ESP operation (kW) is expressed as a function of col-
lecting area, S (m2)
PESP = 2.08 10-2 S (13)
while for fan operation (kW) it is

TAC = [Σj CSj] + CA + CR (11) PFAN = 4.196 10–6 ∆p Q (14)

Personnel requirements for each section are shown
in Table 3. Costs can be computed based on the following
annual specific costs: 50 M£/year/person for laborers, 55–
60 M£/year/person for technicians and specialized work-
ers, and 70 M£/year/person for supervisors.
Electric energy cost is assumed to be 160 £/kWh when
bought from an external supplier rather than utilizing
autonomously produced energy. Energy cost for the in-
cineration section is composed of fuel and electric power
costs. The auxiliary fuel charge is
CFUEL = CF H MC T
where Q (Nm3/hr) is the fume flow rate and ∆P is the total
head loss (mm H2O). Head loss for scrubber7 (in mbar) is
∆PSCR = 38.37 d-1.39, d (µm) being the minimum diameter
of particles which are removed with an efficiency greater
than 99.9%, while head loss for the ESP is around 25 mm
H2O. The power requirement for each rotating kiln has
been estimated at 25 kW. Power absorbed by the heat re-
covery equipment is 5% of the power consumption for
the whole section. Maintenance cost is 15% of section
capital investment.
In the CPB section, maintenance costs are assumed
(12) to be 5% of the section capital investment, while reactant

Table 3. Personnel requirements.

Plant Capacity
up to 250,000 t/year up to 500,000 t/year up to 750,000 t/year

Section S T W S T W S T W

CPB 1 4 4 2 6 6 3 8 8
Incineration 1 4 4 2 6 6 3 8 8
Stabilization 1 4 4 2 6 6 3 8 8
Laboratory 3 3 3 5 5 7 7 7 7

W = Workers, T = Technicians, S = Supervisors

1364 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 49 November 1999
 Caputo and Pelagagge

costs are assumed; thus, FeCl3 = 320 £/kg, lime = 50 £/kg,
polyelectrolite = 8000 £/kg, and pulverized activated car-
bon = 3000 £/kg. Power consumption can be computed
from actual equipment size and the values of specific
power consumption. The comminutor located in the pre-
treatment section has an installed power of 550 W for
flow rates up to 10,000 m3/day and 750 W for higher flow
rates. Propeller mixers in the equalization and feeding
basins have a power requirement of 8–15 W/m3, while in
the case of the mixers in the coagulation and flocculation
reactor the power is 400 and 20 W/m3, respectively. Set-
tling basins require about 10–20 W/m2 for sludge ex-
tracting apparatus, while reactants storage tanks
require about 250 W/m3 for mixing and dosing. The
sludge removal device of the thickening basin requires
about 1 W/m 3 , while the energy requirement of
vacuum filters is 40 kWh/ton suspended solids. Power
for liquids and sludge-moving is obviously dependent
on the actual plant layout.
In the stabilization/solidification section, a greater in-
cidence of maintenance cost (10% of capital investment) is
considered due to the aggressive acid nature of treated slud-
ges, while operating materials (cement and silicates) account
for 40–45% of operating costs. Laboratory maintenance
costs are 5% of capital investment, while reactants and gen-
eral expenses are 15% of operating costs. Disposal costs for
stabilized refuse and incineration slag are composed of the
actual cost of disposal (80–120 £/kg) and cost of transpor-
tation to landfill. This last item depends on landfill dis-
tance, D, assumed to be 33 £/kg if D<<100 km, 50 £/kg if D
≈100 km, and 50–110 £/kg if D>100 km. Therefore, the to-
tal disposal cost to landfill lies in the range of 100–200 £/
kg. Waste collection cost (£/kg) for the polyfunctional plant
may be evaluated by the following equation,11 which ac-
counts for truck capital recovery, fuel, and personnel costs:
CR = (10 + DA/5) (15)
where DA is the average distance between plant and
waste source.
MODEL EVALUATION
The ability of the model to correctly size equipment and
estimate the capital and operating costs of polyfunctional
plants for industrial waste treatment has been validated
through comparison of model results with actual litera-
ture data from similar plants, as shown in Table 4. Spe-
cialized plants, corresponding to single sections of a PP,
and two entire PP were considered. However, available
references usually provided only general information
about plant operation, such as plant capacity, average
waste heating value and so on, and, in absence of detailed
data, typical average values were assumed, for the other
unknown parameters, when needed.
It appears that the model tends to slightly overesti-
mate capital investments; for operating costs, negative
deviations were also observed. Maximum deviations of
single-section capital investments are 4.4% for incinera-
tion, 5.7% for stabilization/solidification, and 2.7% for
CPB treatment. It is particularly interesting that good ac-
curacy was observed in incineration cost estimation, and
this is particularly important, as this section usually pre-
sents the highest portion of total plant cost. As far as op-
erating costs are concerned the maximum deviation was
9% obtained for an incineration section, with a negative
deviation in one case.12
Similar considerations hold for cost estimation for
entire polyfunctional plants. The same underestimation
of operating cost has been observed with respect to the
data of Canziani et al.,12 although this may be explained
by the fact that the PP considered in that work included

Table 4. Comparison with literature data.

Literature Data This Work Deviation (%)

Source Capacity (ton/day) Investment (M£) Operating Cost Investment (M£) Operating Cost Investment Operating Cost

Incineration
Ref. 14 750 250,000 - 261,055 - +4.4 -
Ref. 11 250 50,000 - 49,116 - +1.8 -
Ref. 14 500–800 - 45–75 M£/day - 48.8–81.7 M£/day - +8–+9
CPB
Ref. 12 760 7,390 1,460 M£/year 7,592 1431 M£/year +2.7 -1.9
Stabilization
Ref. 15 90 3,000 - 3,172 - +5.7 -
Ref. 13 170 - 225 £/kg - 241.7 £/kg - +7.4
Polyfunctional Plant
Ref. 12 560 89,673 9,366 M£/year 93,236 8,951 M£/year +3.9 -4.4
Ref. 12 700 112,708 11,404 M£/year 116,466 11,147 M£/year +3.3 -2.3

Volume 49 November 1999 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1365
Caputo and Pelagagge

some special CPB subsections devoted to treatment of
cyanide and chromium compounds, which are absent in
the general purpose plant considered in this work.
Finally, it should be noted that the operating cost
shown for the solidification/stabilization plant described
by Costanzini13 is a total specific treatment cost, including
capital recovery and landfill disposal/transportation costs.
The accuracy demonstrated by the cost estimation
model described herein appears to be particularly satis-
factory, considering that it is intended to be used prima-
rily in economic feasibility studies and that equipment
cost correlations from literature (which usually pro-
vide an accuracy in the range of ±30%) are employed
to a large extent.
A sensitivity analysis has been carried out to assess
the effect of variations of cost parameters in the literature
considered (Table 4). Equipment costs have been subjected
to a ±20% variation, while parameters affecting operat-
ing costs have been varied as described in Table 5. The
impact of each cost item has been computed separately
in this table. The maximum deviations from average cost,
observed with reference to the test cases of Table 4 and
attributable to the combined effect of all parameters, are
shown in Table 6.
As far as the investment costs of the incineration sec-
tion are concerned, the main influence obviously has been
that of rotary kilns and ESP, showing an impact of ±3.5%
and ±2.45% respectively, when assuming a section capac-
ity of 750 t/day.14 The greatest impact on operating costs
is instead that of waste heating value (±15% for a 500-t/
day plant as described by Cenerini).14 In the CPB section,
the greatest influences on capital investment have been
sludge treatment (±3.7%) and biological treatment
(±2.6%), while the greatest sensitivity of operating cost,
apart from maintenance, has been shown by HM con-
centration, which directly dictates lime consumption.
BOD and SS concentration, on the other hand, affect capi-
tal investment more than operating cost because they
directly influence equipment sizes. In case of the stabili-
zation plant operating cost, again the data in Table 6 refer

Table 5. Influence of operating parameters.

Parameter Minimum Value Modal Value Maximum Value Deviation (%)

Fuel cost (£/kg) 180 200 220 ±6.9

Maintenance (incineration and CPB) (%) 2% 3% 4% ±8.4 (incineration) ±6.2 (CPB)
Waste heating value (kcal/kg) 4,800 5,000 5,200 -15.3, +14.7
Sludge filter efficiency (%) 85 90 95 -1.4, +1.7
Growth factor f 0.04 0.05 0.06 -2.1, +2.9
FeCl3 (£/kg) 250 320 390
Lime (£/kg) 40 50 60 ±1.4
Polyelectrolite (£/kg) 6,500 8,000 9,500
BOD (mg/l) 2,000 4,000 8,000 -0.4, +0.6
SS (mg/l) 2,500 5,000 10,000 -0.3, +0.5
HM (mg/l) 750 1,500 3,000 -3, +5.9
Landfill cost (£/kg) 80 100 120 ±9.8
Trasportation cost (£/kg) 33 50 110 -8.3, +29.4
Maintenance (%) (stabilization) 8 10 12 ±1.9
Reactants (%) (stabilization) 35 42.5 50 -3.1, +4.5
Interest rate (%) 7 9 11 ±0.6
Plant life (years) 10 15 20 -0.6, +1.3

Table 6. Summary of model performance and combined parameters influence.

Plant Max. Deviation from Literature Data (%) Max. Deviation from Literature Data (%)
(average values of parameters) (combined parameters variation)
Capital Investment Operating Costs Capital Investment Operating Costs

Incineration +4.4 +9 ±6.3 -28.9, +32

CPB +2.7 -1.9 -21, +24 -10, +15.6
Stabilization +5.7 +7.4 ±10 -24.2, +48

1366 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 49 November 1999

to the work of Costanzini,13 where a total annual cost
comprehensive of capital recovery is considered.
Results show that the uncertainty in the total cost
evaluated, resorting to average values of the cost param-
eters, is fully offset by the uncertainty connected to the
actual variation range of such parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the development of a tool enabling a meth-
odological approach for feasibility studies of
polyfunctional plants has been carried out. Use of this
type of plant will be increasingly widespread due to both
superior safety and reliability in respect to distributed so-
lutions and the high level of technology integration, al-
lowing for energy and materials saving. Furthermore, a
wide range of waste may be treated in a safe and correct
manner. The proposed methodology for plant preliminary
sizing and evaluation of significant cost items, even when
simplified, has shown the ability to produce accurate es-
timates compatible with profitability evaluations. In fact,
the cost estimates of both the overall plant and single
treatment sections are in good agreement with literature
data pertaining to existing plants, especially when the
great uncertainty of economic data is taken into account.
The developed model enables quick plant sizing and the
computation of economic evaluation indexes (e.g., net
present value, payback time, and internal rate of return)
in order to assess the investment profitability for differ-
ent plant architectures and waste input flows and mixes.
Future research will be aimed at the application of
this methodology to industrial areas characterized by small
and very small enterprises, where the resort to
polyfunctional plants is more stringent. At the same time,
the influence of treatment capacity on profitability will
be analyzed in order to determine the optimal plant size.
Volume 49 November 1999
Caputo and Pelagagge
REFERENCES
1. Kharbanda, O.P.; Stallworthy, E.A. Capital Cost Estimating for the Pro-
cess Industries; Butterworths: London, 1988.
2. Peters, M.S.; Timmerhaus, K.D. Plant Design and Economics for Chemi-
cal Engineers; 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1991.
3. Ostwald, P.F. Engineering Cost Estimating; 3rd ed.; Prentice-Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992.
4. Caputo, A.C.; Pelagagge, P.M. “Polyfunctional plants for industrial
waste disposal. Part I: process and equipment design,” J. Air & Waste
Manage. Assoc. 1999, 49.
5. Turner, J.H.; Lawless, P.A.; Yamamoto, T.; Coy, D.W.; Greiner, G.P.;
McKenna, J.D.; Vatavuk, W. “Sizing and costing of electrostatic pre-
cipitators: Part 2,” J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 1988, 38, 715-726.
6. Woods, D.R.; Anderson, S.J.; Norman S.L. “Evaluation of capital cost
data: offsite utilities,” Canadian J. Chem. Eng. 1979, 57, 533-566.
7. Vatavuk, W.M. Estimating Costs of Air Pollution Control; Lewis Publish-
ers: Chelsea, MI, 1990.
8. Wright, D.G.; Woods, D.R. “Evaluation of capital cost data. Part 7:
liquid waste disposal with emphasis on physical treatment,” Cana-
dian J. Chem. Eng. 1993, 71, 575-590.
9. Wright, D.G.; Woods, D.R. “Evaluation of capital cost data. Part 8:
liquid waste disposal with emphasis on biological treatment,” Cana-
dian J. Chem. Eng. 1994 72, 342-351.
10. Wright, D.G.; Woods, D.R. “Evaluation of capital cost data. Part 9:
liquid waste disposal with emphasis on chemical treatment,” Cana-
dian J. Chem. Eng. 1995, 73, 546-561.
11. Ciancio, G.; Mura, A. “Lo smaltimento dei rifiuti urbani: sistemi e
tecnologie di riferimento - Parte II,” Rifiuti Solidi 1994, 2, 93-107, (in
Italian).
12. Canziani, R.; Germani, L.; Morettin, M. “Costi di trattamento e
smaltimento dei rifiuti industriali in piattaforme polifunzionali - Parte
II: Determinazione dei costi specifici di smaltimento,” Rifiuti Solidi
1993, 4, 245-251 (in Italian).
13. Costanzini, B. “Piattaforma di Modena: l’inertizzazione di rifiuti e
fanghi,” Rifiuti Solidi, 1993, 5 ,333-341, (in Italian).
14. Cenerini, R. “Costi di investimento e di gestione - Bilancio economico,”
Rifiuti Solidi 1996, 4, 244-251, (in Italian).
15. Lombardini, S.; Malaman, R. Rifiuti ed Ambiente: Aspetti Economici,
Tecnologici e Giuridici; Il Mulino: Bologna, Italy, 1993 (in Italian).
About the Authors
Dr. Pacifico M. Pelagagge is an associate professor in the
Engineering Faculty at the University of L’Aquila, 67040
Monteluco di Roio (AQ), Italy. Dr. Antonio C. Caputo is an
assistant professor in the Engineering Faculty at the same
university (e-mail: caputo@ing.univaq.it).
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1367