Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 8 (2023) 100491

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/case-studies-in-chemical-
and-environmental-engineering

Case Report

Sustainable energy generation from municipal solid waste: A brief overview

of existing technologies
Luka Traven a, b
a
Department of Environmental Health, Medical Faculty, University of Rijeka, Braće Branchetta 20/1, 51000, Rijeka, Croatia
b
Teaching Institute of Public Health of the Primorsko-goranska County, Krešimirova 52a, 51000, Rijeka, Croatia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The aim of this mini review is to outline the currently existing methods of energy recovery from municipal solid
Municipal solid waste waste (MSW), including incineration, pyrolysis, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas recovery and utilization,
Energy recovery providing tentative suggestions for further research. Through a comparative analysis of these technologies, the
Combustion
paper evaluates their feasibility in the context of MSW management and presents current research related to
Pyrolysis
these technologies. Incineration and landfill gas capture and utilization emerge as the most prominent options for
Anaerobic digestion
Landfill gas capture energy recovery from municipal solid waste. Incineration effectively reduces waste volume, sanitize the waste,
Sustainability and generates electricity and heat, while landfill gas capture uses methane emissions from the decomposition of
Waste management landfilled waste to generate electricity and reduce environmental impact. Pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion, on
the other hand, have limited use for obtaining energy from MSW due to their complex processes and challenges
associated with heterogeneous MSW composition and there are problems that needs to be addressed before their
successful application at an industrial scale. In addition, the paper analyses the thermal treatment of waste in the
context of the waste management hierarchy. This review underscores the importance of matching technology
choices to waste characteristics and highlights the importance of tailored approaches in waste management in
general and Waste-to-Energy projects in particular.

1. Introduction
Although in use for several decades, thermal treatment of waste with
or without energy recovery, remains a highly controversial issue. Old
waste incinerators had little to no emission controls and were thus
significantly contributing to air pollution causing adverse health effects
[1]. Modern Waste-to-Energy (WtE) plants, on the other hand, are
equipped with sophisticated and tightly automated emission control
systems ith monitoring emissions of pollutants to the atmosphere in real
time, thus dramatically reducing the potential for causing adverse
environmental and health effects [2,3]. The aim of this brief review is to
analyse the role that thermal treatment of waste plays in the context of
the waste management hierarchy and a summarize the pro and cons of
the main technologies currently in use to obtain energy from waste.
2. Thermal treatment of waste and the waste management
hierarchy
The concept of waste management hierarchy has been on the global
agenda for almost 40 years but has gained traction only in the last
decade [4]. Although widely proclaimed as a sound and logical frame­
work for managing waste [5], the concept has also been criticized to
create more problems than it solves [6,7]. According to Van Ewijk and
Stegemann [8], the concept was introduced by the private company 3M,
whereas in Europe it has been advocated for in 1979 by Ad Lansik, a
Dutch politician. The concept requires waste to be managed according to
priorities with the main priority being reduction in the production of
waste. If the production of waste cannot be reduced it should be reused,
or alternatively recycled. If reuse and recycling are not feasible, waste
should be treated (biologically or thermally) with disposal being the last
option. Although the concept makes sense in theory, it has proven
difficult to put into practice [9]. We live in a consumeristic society and
reducing the amount waste that is produced is becoming an elusive
target. This fact is strongly corroborated by findings that waste quanti­
ties are increasing globally every year with a projected 6,1 million
tonnes of municipal solid waste expected to be generated by 2025 [10].
Regarding reuse and recycling we are witnessing the rise of extremely
sophisticated systems for material recycling [11]; however, the recycled
materials are still not of comparable quality to virgin materials and
separately collecting the waste, treating it in a material recovery facility

E-mail address: luka.traven@medri.uniri.hr.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2023.100491
Received 1 September 2023; Received in revised form 10 September 2023; Accepted 12 September 2023
Available online 16 September 2023
2666-0164/© 2023 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
L. Traven
and selling it on the market is not economically feasible [12]. The
problem is additionally compounded by prices of recycling material on
the market which exhibit exuberant variability. An illustrative example
is the pricing pattern for recycled aluminium cans, which typically es­
calates during spring as can manufacturers gear up for the high summer
demand. In contrast, autumn sees a decline in prices due to the increased
supply of returned cans and a decreased demand. Furthermore, sub­
stantial price fluctuations also occur across broader temporal scales. For
instance, recycled paper faced minimal demand in the early 1990s, with
paper processors occasionally having to pay mills to dispose of it. This
situation underwent a transformative shift, partly driven by President
Clinton’s 1993 executive order that mandated federal agencies to pro­
cure printing and writing paper with a minimum of 20% postconsumer
material by 1994’s end, raising to 30% by 1998. As a result, the recycled
paper market experienced a sudden boom. In 1995, mills were known to
pay up to $140 per ton for mixed paper, which in previous years was
traded at a mere $25 per ton. The market quickly reached saturation,
resulting in a subsequent price collapse a few years later. Following
various price fluctuations, by 2005, mixed paper was trading at
approximately $75 per ton [13].
The 2022 energy crisis had a significant impact on the paper recy­
cling industry. As energy prices rose and supply chain disruptions
continued, the cost of processing and transporting recycled paper sky­
rocketed. Paper recycling facilities, which rely heavily on energy to
operate, faced higher production costs, which in turn led to lower profit
margins. In addition, rising energy prices caused some recycling facil­
ities to curtail or even temporarily shut down their operations, further
straining recycling capacity. Combined with rising transportation costs,
it became increasingly difficult for the industry to maintain efficient and
cost-effective recycling operations. As a result, the energy crisis under­
scored the vulnerability of the paper recycling sector to external energy-
related shocks and highlighted the need for the industry to be resilient
and adaptable. Taking the above into consideration, it becomes obvious
that waste reduction, reuse and recycling offer limited potential for
effectively solving the waste management problem. On the other hand,
treating the waste to obtain energy holds great potential. In that respect
it has to be mentioned that WtE can play a significant role in the circular
economy as well. As a matter of fact, waste-to-energy (WtE) technology
plays a crucial role in the context of the circular economy by bridging
the gap between waste management and resource efficiency. In a cir­
cular economy, the goal is to minimize waste generation and maximize
the reuse, recycling and recovery of materials and resources. Obtaining
energy from waste contribute to this by efficiently converting residual,
non-recyclable, waste into energy, usually in the form of electricity or
heat. In this way, not only is the amount of waste sent to landfills
reduced, but the energy potential contained in waste streams is har­
nessed and converted into valuable resources. Incorporated into a cir­
cular economy, waste to energy helps in extracting additional value
from waste materials while contributing to a more sustainable and
environmentally friendly waste management system. By generating
energy from waste, WtE is consistent with the principles of the circular
economy, which views waste as a potential resource rather than a
disposal problem, promoting a more sustainable and resource-efficient
approach to waste management.
Modern waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities not only fulfil the original
goals of waste management such as waste reduction and sanitization,
but also play an important role in conserving resources, producing en­
ergy, and meeting environmental protection needs.
3. Incineration of waste
A Waste-to-Energy (WtE) plant is an incineration facility where
waste is treated with the aim of reducing its mass, destroy toxic sub­
stances and obtain electricity and heat to be used for residential and/or
industrial purposes [14]. Compared to old incinerators, modern WtE
facilities have revolutionized waste management by combining
2
Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 8 (2023) 100491
incineration and energy recovery [15]. These innovative systems use
several components, including a waste storage and sorting pit, a
charging crane, a special combustion chamber with heat-resistant re­
fractory bricks, a heat recovery network with steam generation tubes, an
efficient ash handling system, and sophisticated air pollution controls
[16]. The combustion chamber, often characterized by a movable grate,
is the heart of the process where the waste is burned and ultimately
generates valuable steam in a boiler. The design and operation of such
advanced plants provide a sustainable solution for waste treatment
while at the same time harnessing valuable energy in the form of elec­
tricity and heat [17].
The waste can be burned directly (the so-called “mass burn”
approach) with no pre-processing of waste prior to it being fed into the
combustion unit. On the other hand, the waste can be pre-processed to
produce refuse derived fuel (RDF) where the non-combustible part of the
waste is removed. This usually results in the processed waste having a
higher heating value and better combustion characteristics compared to
unprocessed waste. As a result, less excess air is needed for combustion
compared to the mass burn approach (50% vs 100% excess air). This
lowers dramatically the costs of air pollution control systems since a
much smaller volume of exhaust gas is produced during combustion,
reducing the costs of air pollution control devices. However, operating
an RDF producing plant often presents problems such as corrosion and
equipment failure. Also, self-ignition of RDF can occur during storage
with catastrophic consequences [18]. The issue whether to process the
waste into RDF or use a mass burn approach remains controversial, and
weather there is a real advantage of incurring additional costs related to
the production of RDF remains contentious [19–22].
Although incineration of waste provides several advantages since it
reduces the mass of waste by more than 90% and effectively destroys
toxic compounds in the waste, there are several environmental and
health issues that needs to be carefully considered and addressed for a
successful and safe operation of such facilities.
The main public concern when WtE facilities are concerned is the
emissions of toxic compounds, such as dibenzodioxins and di­
benzofurans, to the atmosphere. Members of the family of dioxins and
furans are characterized by two benzene rings linked together with ox­
ygen bridges and are extremely toxic. Nevertheless, modern, well
operated, WtE facilities do not contribute to environmental levels of
these compounds to any significant degree, a fact which has been
corroborated by several studies and systematic reviews [23,24].
Regarding other toxic compounds which carry a cancer risk, a study
which assessed the lung cancer risk at a receptor site of a WtE plant
found that excess risk of lung cancer due to the presence of the facility is
below the target prescribed by the World Health Organization (WHO)
[25]. Another systematic review of the health impact of WtE facilities
provided evidence that well-designed and operated WtE facilities using
sorted feedstock (RDF) have a reduced potential for adverse health ef­
fects compared to landfill or unsorted incineration [26]. All of the above
is not surprising taking into consideration that combustion temperatures
reach more than 900 ◦ C with gas-residence times of over 2 s, which
reduces dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans emissions to non-detectable
levels resulting in no elevated ambient levels of these compounds in
the proximity of WtE plants [27,28]. Still, it has to be mentioned that in
cases where the combustion process has not entirely removed the pre­
cursors of dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans, including substances such
as hydrogen chloride, phenols, chlorophenols, and aromatic hydrocar­
bons, a reaction of these precursors in the presence of fly ash is possible.
The reaction happens when flue gases exit the smokestack and gradually
cool. This particular circumstance can lead to the formation of novel
dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans. To effectively mitigate this issue, it is
imperative that a complete combustion occurs and that downstream
emission control systems are implemented. Such combined efforts are
necessary to ensure that the emission levels remain within acceptable
limits, safeguarding both human health and the environment. Regarding
other pollutants of concern, a published report compiled data on
L. Traven
atmospheric emissions from 70 WtE plants located in the United States
(US). The study reports that atmospheric emissions were significantly
below the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard
for all criteria pollutants with only nitrogen oxides (NOx), on average,
emitted at a level of 35% below emission limits [29].
An additional issue of concern is the production of waste heat during
combustion. Burning waste produces steam which can be used for
driving turbines and producing electricity, but the remaining heat has
little to no industrial use. The problem is usually solved by using a heat
distribution network to provide heating to buildings or other industrial
facilities [30].
The third problem is the production of ash during the combustion
process [31–33]. Ash formed during the combustion process consists of
bottom ash and fly ash, with most pollutants such as heavy metals being
concentrated in the fly ash [34,35]. Roughly 90% of generated ash is
bottom ash and 10% fly ash [13]. While bottom ash contains little to no
of the pollutants contained in the waste stream, fly ash usually has a very
high concentration of toxic compounds and is thus often characterized
as hazardous waste. The problem is resolved by cooling the exhaust gas
before it is being released to the environment which leads to the
condensation of heavy metals and their adsorption to particulate matter
in the exhaust gas. Afterwards, particulate matter with heavy metals is
contained using control devices such as cyclones, electrostatic pre­
cipitators, or bag filters. The effects of such systems are extremely high
approaching 99,8% or more [36]. Regarding bottom ash the main
constituent is SiO2 in the form of quartz [37], and due to the low pres­
ence of toxic compounds it is usually considered as non-hazardous waste
which can be disposed of by landfilling. Bottom ash can contain very
valuable components such as ferrous (Fe) and non-ferrous (non-Fe)
metals which are usually recovered using magnetic and eddy currents
separators. A material analysis of bottom ash performed at three WtE
plants in the Czech Republic showed that the bottom ash from WtE fa­
cilities contained 9.2–22.7% glass, 1.8–5.1% ceramics and porcelain,
0.2–1.0% unburnt organic matter, 10.2–16.3% magnetic fraction,
6.1–11.0% Fe scrap, and 1.3–2.8% non-Fe metals in the dry matter [38].
Besides landfilling it, bottom ash can be used for earth works [37], in the
production of ceramics [39], pavement [40] or used as an aggregate in
the production of Portland Cement with a caveat that compressive
strength testing of samples demonstrated a decrease in strength with
increasing bottom ash replacement percentages [41].
In conclusion, the above analysis proves that when modern WtE fa­
cilities are concerned, public concerns about the impact on air quality
and human health are mostly unfounded and are based on risk percep­
tion rather than facts.
Some new and innovative solutions are being proposed regarding
incineration which include the integration of waste incineration with
other systems for obtaining energy. The study by Khan et al. [42] pro­
poses a novel system with the aim of enhancing the performance of a
WtE plant. This innovative design entails the integration of a solar
thermal system to improve the performance of the thermal conversion of
waste. In this enhanced scheme, the steam exiting the superheater of the
municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration boiler undergoes an addi­
tional heating process via the solar thermal system. This supplementary
heating serves to elevate both the temperature and quality of the steam
before it enters the steam turbine. The findings indicate that within the
integrated system, the energy and exergy efficiencies stand at approxi­
mately 21.34% and 16.64%, respectively. Conversely, the MSW incin­
eration plant itself demonstrates thermal and exergy efficiencies of
37.35% and 35.22%, respectively. A comprehensive exergo-economic
assessment reveals that the system incurs an exergy destruction rate of
42,965 kW, accompanied by an exergetic cost rate of $542 per hour and
a total cost rate of $665 per hour.
Another interesting development in the field is carbon capture from
WtE plants to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and contribute to
the climate action. Among the promising and new technologies aimed at
mitigating global CO2 emissions, oxy-fuel combustion (OFC) technology
3
Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 8 (2023) 100491
stands out as a propitious method for carbon capture. OFC involves the
utilization of oxygen and recycled flue gas as oxidizers during the
combustion process. Its application in biomass waste incineration holds
the potential for achieving negative CO2 emissions, primarily because a
portion of the carbon within municipal solid waste is of biogenic origin.
This technology is often referred to as BECCS and has recently gained
notable interest among scientists [43]. It must be stated that in addition
to facilitating CO2 capture, the adoption of oxy-fuel combustion for
municipal solid waste incineration offers several advantages including a
reduction in flue gas volume, an elevation in combustion temperatures,
and the feasibility of retrofitting existing incineration facilities.
Finally, it has to be stated that waste incineration can offer a viable
solution for extracting energy from plastic waste which has shown a
surge (especially medical waste) due to the COVID-19 pandemic [44].
4. Pyrolysis and gasification
Pyrolysis is a chemical transformation process which involves a
destructive distillation process in an oxygen-deficient environment. The
resulting products include (a) a solid residue, (b) a liquid component,
and (c) a gaseous byproduct. An example of the process is the pyrolysis
of cellulose which can be described by the following chemical reaction:
C6H10O5 + heat energy → CH4 + H2 + CO2 + C2H4 (ethylene)
+ C + H2O (1)
In the above case, the solid product is carbon, the liquid component is
ethylene, and the resulting gas is methane. Each of these substances can
be used as fuel.
A variation of pyrolysis is gasification, in which a limited amount of
oxygen is supplied, either in the form of pure oxygen or air. During the
subsequent oxidation, sufficient heat is generated to maintain the system
independently. Consequently, depending on the amount of heat and
oxygen supplied, the reaction can be either exothermic or endothermic.
The temperature range used during the pyrolysis process varies be­
tween 300 ◦ C and 900 ◦ C, with more typical ranges being between
500 ◦ C and 550 ◦ C. At these temperature liquid products represent the
major portion of products, whereas at higher temperature the major
product is gas.
Pyrolysis of municipal solid waste was believed to hold great po­
tential, since it is a process with virtually no emissions thus having an
excellent environmental profile, which produces several useful fuels.
This is why several studies have been performed to determine the py­
rolysis behaviour of several components of municipal solid waste (MSW)
[45–48]. The studies showed that the parameters important for driving
the pyrolysis reaction when MSW components are concerned include the
temperature, heating rate (HR), residence time in the reaction zone and
the type of material used. It has to be pointed out that municipal solid
waste is extremely non-homogenous and, accordingly, pyrolysis yields
vary substantially. According to Hwang et al. [49], when municipal solid
waste is concerned, the gas yield is usually lower than 1 Nm kg-1 with a
lower heating value of approximately 15 MJ Nm-1 when temperatures
not lower than 600 ◦ C are being used.
Despite remarkable environmental credentials and a capacity to
yield a variety of valuable fuels the use of pyrolysis to harness energy
from waste unfortunately reveals a disheartening narrative, particularly
when examining its track record with regards to MSW treatment.
Despite its potential, pyrolysis has a history fraught with challenges and
limitations when MSW is concerned. These issues have hindered its
widespread adoption and realization of its full potential [50]. During
1970s several large facilities were constructed with the aim of producing
liquid and solid fuel from waste, and all of them failed due to operational
problems. Pyrolysis is a reliable and successful process only when the
incoming feed is well controlled and homogenous [51–53] which, when
MSW is concerned, is never the case.
In summary, while there was initial optimism about utilizing
L. Traven
pyrolysis of municipal solid waste (MSW) as a feasible and eco-friendly
method to extract energy from waste, practical implementation faced
significant challenges. Despite the theoretical potential, operational
difficulties have led to the abandonment of pyrolysis as a viable tech­
nology for MSW treatment.
Regarding new developments on the use of pyrolysis for obtaining
energy from waste the utilization of hydrogen derived from the pro­
cesses and the conversion of waste materials presents a novel avenue for
delivering a clean fuel source. This prompts in turn the question of
whether waste-to-hydrogen can find a place within the zero-carbon
energy landscape, emerging as a viable and environmentally benign
hydrogen source.
The study by Lui et al. [54] evaluated the potential of waste as a
source for hydrogen production, describing diverse thermochemical
processes including gasification and pyrolysis, as well as biochemical
methods including fermentation and photolysis. Investigations have
revealed that gasification of mixed waste feedstock can yield hydrogen
production rates of 33.6 mol/kg with hydrogen concentrations reaching
82%. In parallel, fermentation has demonstrated the ability to produce
hydrogen at levels of up to 418.6 mL/g. Nevertheless, there are still
problems which needs to be solved since the technology for obtaining
hydrogen using pyrolysis or gasification included cost-intensive pro­
duction and operational processes, heterogeneous nature of feedstock,
suboptimal process efficiencies, logistical and management challenges,
and the absence of robust policy support. To address these challenges
feedstock preprocessing and the adoption of advanced energy-efficient
procedures, such as torrefaction of feedstock can be used. To navigate
the selection of suitable technologies and guide system design, please
see the paper by Lui et al. [54] which considered factors such as feed­
stock quality, process requisites, and technological accessibility.
To address these bottlenecks, enhancing hydrogen yields and pro­
duction rates are intrinsically tied to feedstock preprocessing and the
adoption of advanced energy-efficient procedures, such as torrefaction
of feedstock, which has exhibited promising thermal efficiencies in
gasification, reaching up to 4 MJ/kg. The economic viability of waste-to-
hydrogen will depend on achieving these improvements.
An interesting development in the field of catalytic gasification of
waste is the gasification in air over Ni-loaded Ultra-stable Y-type zeolite.
The utilization of Ni-USY(5) resulted in a comparatively elevated gas
yield of 72.19 wt%, along with higher percentages of H2 (31.94 vol%)
and CO (34.57 vol%), while yielding lower amounts of CH4 and C2-C4
when compared to Ni-USY(30) and Ni-USY(60). The gas yield remained
unaffected when Ni loading on the USY(5) support increased from 5 wt%
to 30 wt%. However, as the Ni loading increased from 5 wt% to 20 wt%,
there was a notable increase in the concentrations of H2 (41.16 vol%)
and CO (38.62 vol%). Subsequently, these concentrations significantly
decreased when the Ni loading exceeded 20 wt% [55]. In addition, a
study using a Ni-based catalyst under CO2 atmosphere proved as an
environmentally friendly technique for the pyrolysis of food waste. The
study proved that CO2-assisted catalytic pyrolysis over the Ni-EG cata­
lyst could prove as an eco-friendly and sustainable strategy for disposal
of food waste which also provides a clean and high-quality source of
energy [56].
5. Anaerobic digestion
Anaerobic digestion (AD) includes the decomposition of the biode­
gradable fraction of solid waste under anaerobic conditions. The
biodegradable fraction of waste undergoes decomposition through four
distinct phases: hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methano­
genesis [57,58]. It is important to note that not all the carbon which is
present in the waste undergoes degradation: the only significant source
of carbon is decomposed and turned into methane and carbon dioxide
are paper and biodegradable waste such as food items. For an extensive
and comprehensive revie of anaerobic digestion the reader is advised to
consult the work by Li et al. [59].
4
Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 8 (2023) 100491
In the case of municipal solid waste, the organics must be firstly
separated from the refuse and are usually mixed with sewage sludge
before being treated in an anaerobic digester. The mixture is than heated
in an enclosed tank with the gas being captured using a floating cover or
collected in a separate tank. It is essential to apply appropriate refine­
ment techniques to the biogas produced during AD. These treatments
focus on eliminating carbon dioxide and other unwanted gases, ensuring
it is well-suited for energy applications. The process generates a residual
in the form of a dark, odorous slurry which must be disposed of.
In general terms the process can be described by the following
reaction:
(complex organics) + heat → CO2 + CH4 + H2S + NH+
4 (2)
The amount of gas produced is driven mainly by the detention time of
the material in the digester and the digester temperature [60].
Although AD has been used to treat different types of waste and
biosolids including food waste [61], fruit and vegetables [62] and
household waste [63–65] the process is rife by complexity, poor oper­
ational performance, high sensitivity to environmental conditions,
sensitivity to toxicants, long retention and start-up times, as well as
undesired sludge dewaterability [66]. Some authors believe that AD is
the most complex biological process in the environment [66] with the
complexity encompassed along three axes: microbiological, operational,
and chemical.
Regarding the microbiological aspect the types of microorganisms
which play a role in AD are varied and include saccharolytic bacteria,
proteolytic bacteria, lipolytic bacteria and methanogens [67]. The bal­
ance between these microorganisms is delicate and must be carefully
maintained. If not properly sustained, the methane yields and the overall
performance of the process will suffer. A widely common method for
protecting microbiological communities during AD is the use of granu­
lation [68]. In the context of anaerobic digestion, granulation refers to
the aggregation of microorganisms, including bacteria and archaea, into
small clusters or granules. These granules are composed of various mi­
crobial species that work together in a symbiotic manner, each
contributing to different stages of the anaerobic digestion process.
Sometimes the additions of ions such as calcium [69], magnesium [70],
aluminium chloride [71] and ferrous ions [72] increase significantly the
rate of granulation and thus make the AD process more efficient.
Operational aspects include the temperature which is important for
the stability of the microbiological communities. Even small variations
in temperature affect dramatically the microbiological activity during
an AD process. Interestingly, when aerobic digestion is concerned the
microbial communities are not nearly as sensitive to the variation in
temperature [66]. AD is usually performed in the mesophilic tempera­
ture range, but the thermophilic ranges of temperature offer advantages
including increased reaction rates, an increase in the fraction of bio­
solids digested, an improvement in solid-liquid separation and a more
efficient destruction of pathogenic microorganisms [73]. Other opera­
tional aspects are the organic loading rates, retention time and mixing,
the start-up period after maintenance, pretreatment of microbiological
communities to increase the solubility of the cell wall thus improving the
AD process and the oxidation reduction potential which can offer
important information on aerobic and anaerobic limits which helps in
pretreatment of biosolids before AD.
The chemical aspects that must be controlled include the pH, the
presence of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous since they are
required for the microorganisms to function properly as well as the
presence of toxicants which have the capability of inhibiting microbio­
logical activity. According to Speece [74] the amount of nitrogen
(NH4+-N) must not be below 50 mg/L whereas the amount of phos­
phorous (HPO−4 -P) should not be below 10 mg/L. In addition, the ratio of
C/N should be kept in an optimal range which varies between 20:1 to
30:1. Typically, when MSW is concerned, the ratio is not optimal for full
degradation of biosolids and this why sewage sludge rich in nitrogen is
L. Traven Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 8 (2023) 100491

usually introduced in the mix. methanogenic unsteady phase and (d) the methanogenic steady phase.
It must be emphasized that anaerobic biological treatment of The products of anaerobic decomposition of waste are carbon dioxide
municipal solid waste has gained traction several decades ago [75,76] (CO2), methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3).
However, anaerobic digestion when MSW is concerned did not lived up The process of degradation of waste in a landfill can be represented
to its promises. First, there is no way of removing the toxicants before by the following equation:
the waste goes into the digester resulting in so-called “sour” digesters.
Also, there is problem of mixing of the slurry. The optimal target for CaHbOcNd + nH2O → mCH4 + CO2 + NH3 (3)
solid concentration in aerobic digesters is usually set at 10%, resulting in where:
the formation of a substantially viscous and thixotropic slurry which
exhibits time-dependent changes in visosity. Addressing the intricacies n=
(4a − b − 2c + 3d)
(4)
of effective mixing within such high-solid and variable environments is 4
very challenging. In that respect comprehensive tracer studies have
(4a + b − 2c − 3d)
provided insightful revelations, providing evidence that a mere 25% of m= (5)
8
the total volume of these digesters is effectively mixed, with the
remaining volume constituting “dead space” where mixing struggles to (4a − b + 2c + 3d)
occur at the desired efficacy [77]. In addition, anaerobic digesters s= (6)
8
require large areas amounting to 5 ha for a 1000 ton/day plant [78].
The rate of decomposition within landfills is influenced by several
Finally there is the problem of the disposal of digestate. The produced
factors, such as moisture levels, nutrient availability, pH, and temper­
digestate could have a potential application in agriculture as fertilizer
ature. Among these, the quantity of moisture accessible for decompo­
[79,80]. However, the biodegradable fraction of municipal solid waste it
sition stands as the most important factor. This fact has contributed to
is usually polluted to such a degree that the digestate does not meet the
the practice of recirculating leachate into the landfill environment. This
criteria for being used as fertilizer for agricultural soil. A solution to this
intervention aims to fine-tune moisture content, thus expediting
problem is to use source sorted feed, a practice which has not gained
decomposition kinetics and facilitating methane production and
widespread acceptance yet [81].
capture.
In conclusion, although AD has theoretical capabilities for success­
Landfill gas capture and utilization has distinct environmental,
fully obtaining energy from MSW in practice there are still several
economic as well as energy related advantages. Usually, once the gas is
problems which need to be efficiently addressed and solved.
captured it is flared or used in Gas-to-Energy (LFGTE) system to produce
Anaerobic digestion technology has garnered significant attention in
electricity. A study addressed the benefits of landfill gas capture and
recent times due to its potential to address two major challenges faced
utilization using the LandGEM and IPCC FOD models to calculate CH4
by our rapidly developing world: the increasing energy demand and
generation for Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and it has found that between 18
environmental pollution. However, for this technology to effectively
and 21 Mkg/year of CH4 are released with an energy potential between
meet the escalating energy needs and serve as a viable alternative to
51 and 61 GWh/year [84]. If the landfill gas is flared it contributes
conventional energy sources, substantial improvements in both its yield
significantly to climate action. Landfill gas is often enriched by
and efficiency are imperative.
removing the carbon dioxide. An innovative process for removing CO2
Several obstacles currently hinder the widespread adoption of
from landfill gas is the use of bottom ash. A study using a landfill gas wih
anaerobic digestion technology. These include low methane production,
a carbon dioxide concentration between 70% and 80% and has proven,
extended hydraulic retention times (HRT), the generation of inhibitory
on a laboratory scale, that it is possible to reduce the content of carbon
compounds, and reactor instability. To overcome these challenges and
dioxide to approximately 60%, which required approximately 36 kg of
unlock the full potential of anaerobic digestion, innovative approaches
bottom ash per Nm3 of landfill gas treated. When the result are upscaled
are being explored.
to an industrial size plant processing between 100 and 1000 Nm3 of
A promising new approach which could solve some of the problems
landfill gas the bottom ash requirements raised to 28.760–287.600
inherent to the anaerobic digestion involves combining various feed­
tonnes of bottom ash per year with a cost between 0,052 and 0,241 Euro
stocks (co-digestion) [75,79]. This technique offers numerous advan­
per Nm3 treated [85]. The captured gas is a renewable energy resource
tages, including enhanced microbial stability, increased methane yield,
which can be used directly to produce electricity or can be converted
and reduced hydraulic retention times (HRT). Co-digestion helps in
into pipeline natural gas. As mentioned above, biogas upgrading (CO2
maintaining the optimal carbon-to-nitrogen ratio and accelerates the
removal) is an important process to produce biomethane that meets the
conversion from the acidification phase to the methanogenesis phase by
fuel quality standards for pipelines injection [86]. The study by Murray
mitigating the accumulation of inhibitory compounds like volatile fatty
et al. [87] have found that in the United States (US), under certain as­
acids and ammonia. A crucial method for improving anaerobic digestion
sumptions, the generation of biogas could provide approximately 3–5%
is the pretreatment of feedstock. This process accelerates the hydrolysis
of the total domestic natural gas requirements at projected prices of
phase, resulting in a substantial reduction in HRT and an enhancement
$5–6/MMBtu, with the largest potential source coming from thermal
in biogas production.
gasification of agriculture and forest residues and biomass. It must be
Another approach which is currently being explored and which could
stressed that the potential for energy generation does also provide
potentially help solve some of the AD issues is the use of nanobubble
substantial economic incentives for landfill operators [88–91]. Finally,
water (NBW) assisted anaerobic digestion (AD) system. It has proven to
capturing landfill gas prevents the release of VOC and other toxic
elevate methane production when processing common organic solid
compounds to the environment and thus improves local air quality.
waste materials and holds promise as a sustainable technology for har­
Still, landfill gas capture and utilization have some important
nessing energy from organic waste [82].
drawbacks as well. First, landfill gas is composed of a mixture of gases,
primarily methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), along with trace
6. Landfill gas capture and utilisation
amounts of other compounds. The gas composition does vary widely
over time, especially during the methanogenic non-stable phase. This
During decomposition of organic matter in landfills under anaerobic
variability can impact the efficiency of energy generation and require
conditions, landfill gas gets formed which contains approximately 50%
continuous monitoring and adjustment of the gas treatment processes.
of methane that can be captured and used for energy production [83].
Second, landfill gas often contains trace contaminants such as volatile
The decomposition of organic fraction in a landfill has four distinct
organic compounds (VOCs), hazardous air pollutants, and siloxanes
phases which include: a) the aerobic phase, (b) the acid phase, (c) the

5
L. Traven
[92]. These contaminants can cause equipment corrosion, fouling, and
operational challenges in gas treatment systems. Third, as the waste
continues to decompose within the landfill, settlement of the landfill
does occur. This can potentially cause changes in the distribution and
pathways of gas migration, affecting the predictability of gas capture
and potentially causing gas leaks. Fourth, inadequate gas capture sys­
tems or poorly managed landfill sites can result in the migration of
landfill gas beyond the designated capture areas. This poses serious
safety risks if methane reaches nearby buildings or structures where it
can cause an explosive atmosphere (methane is explosive at concen­
trations in the atmosphere between 5 and 15%) [93]. Also, there are
economic issues to content with. Landfill gas capture and utilization
requires a significant initial investment in infrastructure, such as gas
collection wells, piping networks, and gas treatment facilities. Addi­
tionally, ongoing operation and maintenance costs can be substantial
due to the need for continuous monitoring, system maintenance, and gas
treatment.
In conclusion, landfill gas capture is a promising technology for
obtaining energy from waste. However, one must have in mind that the
EU mandates a landfilling cap of 10% of generated MSW by 2035 and
thus the potential for obtaining gas from landfill, at least in the EU, will
be limited in the future. Still, it is a promising and mature technology
which can provide distinct environmental and economic benefits.
Regarding new developments in landfill gas use and capture there
are advanced gas collection and extraction technologies currently being
deployed which use horizontal gas wells, vacuum-enhanced systems,
and permeable landfill covers, which allow for a higher percentage of
recovery of methane from landfills. In addition, new methods are being
developed for conditioning the landfill gas before use and remove im­
purities which could compromise subsequent gas use [94,95]. An
interesting development is the use of landfill gas as feedstock for Carbon
Capture and Utilization (CCU) technologies, where captured carbon
dioxide is converted into valuable products like biofuels, chemicals, or
building materials [83,96,97]. Finally, research is being performed
aimed at understanding the role of the microbial communities respon­
sible for methane production in landfills which could lead to targeted
approaches for controlling landfill gas emissions [98–100].
The amount of energy production with different technologies is
shown in Table 1 [101].
7. Existing research gaps and proposal for future research
Comprehensive research is still needed to fully understand the
emissions of pollutants like dibenzodioxins, dibenzofurans, especially
when hazardous waste is incinerated [102], in addition heavy metals
emissions when waste is burned in low power boilers is also an area of
future rese [103] including the behaviour of nanoparticles from waste
incineration processes [104–107]. This includes, among other, investi­
gating their behaviour and dispersion patterns in the atmosphere,
assessing long-term effects on human health, and developing effective
strategies to mitigate possible adverse effects.
Even though emission control technologies in waste incineration
facilities proved to be a success and are continuously developing,
additional research is needed for assessing their long-term reliability
especially regarding new air pollution control technologies [16].
In addition, waste streams can exhibit significant variations in
Table 1
Energy recovery potential per ton of MSW for the different waste to energy
technologies.
Energy recovery potential per ton of MSW
Incineration 2 MJ (electricity)
Pyrolysis and gasification 2 MJ (electricity)
Anaerobic digestion 0,04–0,09 MJ (electricity)
Landfill gas capture and use 0,003 m3/min
6
Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 8 (2023) 100491
composition, impacting the efficiency and emissions of waste incinera­
tion. New research should concentrate on characterizing different waste
streams and analysisng their combustion behaviours to optimize the
combustion processes and the effect that the variations in the compo­
sition of waste streams are having on pollution abatement technologies.
As stated previously, there are valuable materials such as Fe and non-
Fe metals which are present in bottom ash, have economic value and
should be recovered. Advanced techniques for recovering resources
from incineration residues and novel ways of reusing residues from
incineration plants is also a viable venue of future research which can
further increase the long-term sustainability of WtE facilities.
While conventional waste incineration is quite well researched,
ongoing research into alternative waste-to-energy technologies, such as
advanced gasification and pyrolysis processes, will be essential in the
future and additional research efforts will have to be made to allow to
solve the problems associated with these technologies in order for them
to be implemented at an industrial scale.
A very prominent and popular area of research, especially when
energy from waste is considered, is Carbon Capture and Utilization
(CCU) which will be vital for reducing GHG emissions from WtE facil­
ities as and landfills. New research should also investigate the possibility
of conversion of the captured carbon dioxide into new and valuable
products.
Furthermore, research is needed to understand how waste inciner­
ation can be integrated into a circular economy. This involves studying
strategies to maximize resource recovery, minimize waste generation,
and promote sustainability within waste to energy field.
Finally, any waste management project heavily hinges on public
acceptance and engagement with stakeholders. Future work will need
teams of interdisciplinary researchers which will include social scientists
to devise novel strategies to advance public understanding and accep­
tance for waste to energy projects. This will also include developing
effective local, regional, and national policies and regulations with
concurrent studies on the effects that these policies are having on waste
to energy systems.
8. Conclusion
In this brief review, we have examined a range of technologies for
energy recovery from municipal solid waste, focusing on incineration,
pyrolysis, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas. A comparative analysis
of these methods was conducted to determine their feasibility in the
context of municipal waste management. The analysis showed that
municipal waste incineration is a proven, reliable and widely used en­
ergy recovery process. Controlled incineration converts municipal solid
waste into heat, which is then used to generate electricity and heat for
residential and industrial applications. This method not only reduces the
waste volume and destroys toxic compounds present in the waste, but
also generates energy in a consistent and efficient manner. Novel ave­
nues of research pertinent to waste incineration include the integration
of WtE facilities with a thermal solar system and carbon capture from
incineration facilities which has a considerable potential for advancing
climate change action. The capture and use of landfill gas is also proving
to be a promising and viable way to generate energy from waste. The
decomposition of municipal waste in landfills produces landfill gas rich
in methane – a potent greenhouse gas. Capturing and using this gas can
yield both environmental benefits and energy gains, contributing to
sustainable waste management. Pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion, on
the other hand, may not be the most appropriate options for energy
recovery from MSW. Pyrolysis, while suitable for certain homogenous
waste streams, due to its complexity, high energy requirements, and
problems associated with heterogeneous composition of waste make it
less appropriate for large-scale municipal waste applications. However,
new advances in pyrolysis and gasification revealed that these ap­
proaches can be used to produce hydrogen, a clean fuel. However, there
are still operational, economic and policy issues to be solved before
L. Traven
adoption of the technology on an industrial scale. Similarly, while
anaerobic digestion is effective for organic wastes assuming a clean and
homogenous input feed, it may not be as beneficial for energy recovery
of municipal wastes due to the diversity of materials present in the waste
stream and the presence of contaminants. Some of the problems asso­
ciated with anaerobic digestion could be solved by combining various
feedstock (co-digestion), pretreatment of feedstock as well as utilizing
novel techniques such as nanobubble water assisted systems which have
proven to increase methane yields. In summary, for energy recovery
from MSW, incineration and landfill gas recovery and utilization are
currently the most promising options. While incineration efficiently
converts waste into energy, landfill gas capture utilizes emissions and
minimizes environmental impacts. The limited suitability of pyrolysis
and anaerobic digestion in the MSW energy recovery sector underscores
the importance of matching technological choices to waste composition
and characteristics. By carefully evaluating the strengths and limitations
of each approach, municipalities can make informed decisions which are
consistent with their energy goals and environmental considerations.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
References
[1] L. Traven, Busting the myth: waste-to-energy plants and public health, Arh. Hig.
Rada. Toksikol. 74 (2) (2023) 142–143.
[2] M.J. Castaldi, N.J. Themelis, The case for increasing the global capacity for waste
to energy (WTE), Waste Biomass Valorization 1 (1) (2010) 91–105.
[3] N. Vukovic, E. Makogon, Waste-to-Energy generation: complex efficiency analysis
of modern technologies, Sustainability 14 (21) (2022) 18.
[4] M. Gil-Lamata, M.P. Latorre-Martinez, The circular economy and sustainability: a
systematic literature review, Cuad Gest 22 (1) (2022) 129–142.
[5] M. Geissdoerfer, M.P.P. Pieroni, D.C.A. Pigosso, K. Soufani, Circular business
models: a review, J. Clean. Prod. 277 (2020) 17.
[6] H. Corvellec, A.F. Stowell, N. Johansson, Critiques of the circular economy,
J. Ind. Ecol. 26 (2) (2022) 421–432.
[7] L. Traven, Circular economy and the waste management hierarchy: friends or
foes of sustainable economic growth? A critical appraisal illustrated by the case of
the Republic of Croatia, Waste Manag. Res. 37 (1) (2019) 1–2.
[8] S. Van Ewijk, J.A. Stegemann, Limitations of the waste hierarchy for achieving
absolute reductions in material throughput, J. Clean. Prod. 132 (2016) 122–128.
[9] A. Pires, G. Martinho, Waste hierarchy index for circular economy in waste
management, Waste Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.) 95 (2019) 298–305.
[10] D. Hoornweg, P. Bhada-Tata, What a Waste : A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2012.
[11] P.H. Brunner, H. Rechberger, Waste to energy - key element for sustainable waste
management, Waste Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.) 37 (2015) 3–12.
[12] H. Ino, N. Matsueda, The curse of low-valued recycling, J. Regul. Econ. 55 (3)
(2019) 282–306.
[13] G.M. Masters, P.E. Wendell, Introduction to Environmental Engineering and
Science, Pearson Education Limited, Essex, England, 2014.
[14] B. Dastjerdi, V. Strezov, M.A. Rajaeifar, R. Kumar, M. Behnia, A systematic review
on life cycle assessment of different waste to energy valorization technologies,
J. Clean. Prod. 290 (2021) 31.
[15] S. Yi, Y.C. Jang, A.K. An, Potential for energy recovery and greenhouse gas
reduction through waste-to-energy technologies, J. Clean. Prod. 176 (2018)
503–511.
[16] Z. Shareefdeen, A.A. Mishu, Air emissions in waste to energy (W2E) plants, Clean
Technol. Environ. Policy 25 (2) (2023) 717–726.
[17] W.A. Worell, P.A. Vesilind, Solid Waste Engineering, Cengage Learning,
Stamford, USA, 2012.
[18] A. Yasuhara, Y. Amano, T. Shibamoto, Investigation of the self-heating and
spontaneous ignition of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) during storage, Waste Manage.
(Tucson, Ariz.) 30 (7) (2010) 1161–1164.
[19] C. Cimpan, H. Wenzel, Energy implications of mechanical and mechanical-
biological treatment compared to direct waste-to-energy, Waste Manage.
(Tucson, Ariz.) 33 (7) (2013) 1648–1658.
[20] A.C. Caputo, P.M. Pelagagge, RDF production plants: II Economics and
profitability, Appl. Therm. Eng. 22 (4) (2002) 439–448.
7
Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 8 (2023) 100491
[21] A.C. Caputo, P.M. Pelagagge, RDF production plants: I Design and costs, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 22 (4) (2002) 423–437.
[22] Y.H. Chang, W.C. Chen, N.B. Chang, Comparative evaluation of RDF and MSW
incineration, J. Hazard Mater. 58 (1–3) (1998) 33–45.
[23] A. Buekens, K. Cen, Waste incineration, PVC, and dioxins, J. Mater. Cycles Waste
Manag. 13 (3) (2011) 190–197.
[24] A. Nzihou, N.J. Themelis, M. Kemiha, Y. Benhamou, Dioxin emissions from
municipal solid waste incinerators (MSWIs) in France, Waste Manage. (Tucson,
Ariz.) 32 (12) (2012) 2273–2277.
[25] M. Scungio, G. Buonanno, L. Stabile, G. Ficco, Lung cancer risk assessment at
receptor site of a waste-to-energy plant, Waste Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.) 56 (2016)
207–215.
[26] T. Cole-Hunter, F.H. Johnston, G.B. Marks, L. Morawska, G.G. Morgan, M. Overs,
et al., The health impacts of waste-to-energy emissions: a systematic review of the
literature, Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (12) (2020) 18.
[27] G. Lonati, A. Cambiaghi, S. Cernuschi, The Actual Impact of Waste-To-Energy
Plant Emissions on Air Quality: a Cas Study from Northern Italy Detritus, vol. 6,
2019, pp. 77–84.
[28] G. Lonati, S. Cernuschi, P. Giani, Air quality impact assessment of a waste-to-
energy plant: modelling results vs. Monitored data, Atmosphere 13 (4) (2022) 20.
[29] M.J. Castaldi, Scientific Truth about Waste to Energy, Chemical Engineering
Department, The City College of New York, New York, USA, 2021. City University
of New York.
[30] J. De Greef, B. Verbinnen, J. Van Caneghem, Waste-to-energy: coupling waste
treatment to highly efficient CHP, Int. J. Chem. React. Eng. 16 (10) (2018) 12.
[31] H. Naganuma, T. Mori, S. Watanabe, A. Sawada, T. Goto, Y. Ueki, et al., Ash
deposition mechanisms in Waste-to-Energy plants, Mech. Eng. J 9 (4) (2022) 7.
[32] Y.X. Tian, A.C. Bourtsalas, S. Kawashima, S.W. Ma, N.J. Themelis, Performance of
structural concrete using Waste-to-Energy (WTE) combined ash, Waste Manage.
(Tucson, Ariz.) 118 (2020) 180–189.
[33] Characterization of ash deposits from municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration
plants, in: L. Wang, B. Oye, O. Skreiberg, M. Becidan, P.S. Vatland, M. Fossum, et
al. (Eds.), 9th International Conference on Applied Energy (ICAE), AMSTERDAM:
Elsevier Science Bv, Cardiff, ENGLAND, 2017, 2017 Aug 21-24.
[34] Y.X. Tian, N.J. Themelis, A.C. Bourtsalas, S. Kawashima, Y. Gorokhovich,
Systematic study of the formation and chemical/mineral composition of waste-to-
energy (WTE) fly ash, Mater. Chem. Phys. 293 (2023) 17.
[35] A. Uliasz-Bochenczyk, M. Mazurkiewicz, E. Mokrzycki, Fly ash from energy
production - a waste, byproduct and raw material, Gospod. Surowcami Miner. 31
(4) (2015) 139–149.
[36] S. Shanthakumar, D.N. Singh, R.C. Phadke, Flue gas conditioning for reducing
suspended particulate matter from thermal power stations, Prog. Energy
Combust. Sci. 34 (6) (2008) 685–695.
[37] Feasibility of reuse of bottom ash from MSW waste-to-energy plants in India, in:
G. Gupta, M. Datta, G.V. Ramana, B.J. Alappat, S. Bishnoi (Eds.), 8th
International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics (ICEG); 2018 Oct 28-Nov
01; Hangzhou, PEOPLES R CHINA, Springer-Verlag Singapore Pte Ltd,
SINGAPORE, 2019.
[38] M. Syc, A. Krausova, P. Kamenikova, R. Somplak, M. Pavlas, B. Zach, et al.,
Material analysis of Bottom ash from waste-to-energy plants, Waste Manage.
(Tucson, Ariz.) 73 (2018) 360–366.
[39] A. Bourtsalas, L. Vandeperre, S. Grimes, N. Themelis, R. Koralewska,
C. Cheeseman, Properties of ceramics prepared using dry discharged waste to
energy bottom ash dust, Waste Manag. Res. 33 (9) (2015) 794–804.
[40] J.G. Roessler, T.G. Townsend, C.C. Ferraro, Use of leaching tests to quantify trace
element release from waste to energy bottom ash amended pavements, J. Hazard
Mater. 300 (2015) 830–837.
[41] J. Roessler, J. Paris, C.C. Ferraro, B. Watts, T. Townsend, Use of waste to energy
bottom ash as an aggregate in Portland cement concrete: impacts of size
fractionation and carbonation, Waste Biomass Valorization 7 (6) (2016)
1521–1530.
[42] M.S. Khan, Q. Huan, M. Yan, M. Ali, O.U. Noor, M. Abid, A novel configuration of
solar integrated waste-to-energy incineration plant for multi-generational
purpose: an effort for achieving maximum performance, Renew. Energy 194
(2022) 604–620.
[43] P. Wienchol, A. Szlek, M. Ditaranto, Waste-to-energy technology integrated with
carbon capture - challenges and opportunities, Energy 198 (2020) 11.
[44] K.S. Khoo, L.Y. Ho, H.R. Lim, H.Y. Leong, K.W. Chew, Plastic waste associated
with the COVID-19 pandemic: crisis or opportunity? J. Hazard Mater. 417 (2021)
16.
[45] C.H. Wu, C.Y. Chang, C.H. Tseng, Pyrolysis products of uncoated printing and
writing paper of MSW, Fuel 81 (6) (2002) 719–725.
[46] C.H. Wu, C.Y. Chang, C.H. Tseng, J.P. Lin, Pyrolysis product distribution of waste
newspaper in MSW, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 67 (1) (2003) 41–53.
[47] J. Zheng, Y.Q. Jin, Y. Chi, J.M. Wen, X.G. Jiang, M.J. Ni, Pyrolysis characteristics
of organic components of municipal solid waste at high heating rates, Waste
Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.) 29 (3) (2009) 1089–1094.
[48] L. Zhao, D. Chen, Z. Wang, X. Ma, G. Zhou, in: E.C. Rada (Ed.), Pyrolysis of Waste
Plastics and Whole Combustible Components Separated from Municipal Solid
Wastes: Comparison of Products and Emissions, Apple Acad Press Inc, Oakville,
2017, pp. 121–131.
[49] I.H. Hwang, J. Kobayashi, K. Kawamoto, Characterization of products obtained
from pyrolysis and steam gasification of wood waste, RDF, and RPF, Waste
Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.) 34 (2) (2014) 402–410.
[50] Potentials of pyrolysis processes in the waste management sector, in:
D. Czajczynska, T. Nannou, L. Anguilano, R. Krzyzynska, H. Ghazal, N. Spencer,
L. Traven
et al. (Eds.), 1st International Conference on Sustainable Energy and Resource Use
in Food Chains (ICFES)/Symposium on Heat Recovery and Efficient Conversion
and Utilisation of Waste Heat, AMSTERDAM: Elsevier Science Bv, Windsor,
ENGLAND, 2017, 2017 Apr 19-20.
[51] W.W. Han, D.S. Han, H.B. Chen, Pyrolysis of waste tires: a review, Polymers 15
(7) (2023) 26.
[52] R. Miranda, C. Sosa-Blanco, D. Bustos-Martinez, C. Vasile, Pyrolysis of textile
wastes I. Kinetics and yields, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 80 (2) (2007) 489–495.
[53] J.Z. Wang, X.W. Qi, X.J. Dong, S.Y. Luo, Y. Feng, M. Feng, et al., The co-pyrolysis
of waste tires and waste engine oil, Energy Sources, Part A Recovery, Util.
Environ. Eff. 44 (4) (2022) 9764–9778.
[54] J.D. Lui, W.H. Chen, D.C.W. Tsang, S.M. You, A critical review on the principles,
applications, and challenges of waste-to-hydrogen technologies, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 134 (2020) 14.
[55] S. Valizadeh, S.H. Jang, G.H. Rhee, J. Lee, P.L. Show, M.A. Khan, et al.,
Biohydrogen production from furniture waste via catalytic gasification in air over
Ni-loaded Ultra-stable Y-type zeolite, Chem. Eng. J. 433 (2022) 9.
[56] S. Valizadeh, C.H. Ko, J. Lee, S.H. Lee, Y.J. Yu, P.L. Show, et al., Effect of eggshell-
and homo-type Ni/Al2O3 catalysts on the pyrolysis of food waste under CO2
atmosphere, J. Environ. Manag. 294 (2021) 10.
[57] B. Schink, Anaerobic digestion: concepts, limits and perspectives, Water Sci.
Technol. 45 (10) (2002) 1–8.
[58] G. Bitton, Wastewater Microbiology, third ed., John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2005,
p. 772.
[59] W.L. Li, R. Gupta, Z.K. Zhang, L.X. Cao, Y.Q. Li, P.L. Show, et al., A review of
high-solid anaerobic digestion (HSAD): from transport phenomena to process
design, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 180 (2023) 14.
[60] W.A. Worell, P.A. Vesilind, Solid Waste Engineering, second ed., Cengage
Learning, Stamford, USA, 2012.
[61] K. Tsukahara, T. Yagishita, T. Ogi, S. Sawayama, Treatment of liquid fraction
separated from liquidized food waste in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
reactor, J. Biosci. Bioeng. 87 (4) (1999) 554–556.
[62] H. Bouallagui, R. Ben Cheikh, L. Marouani, M. Hamdi, Mesophilic biogas
production from fruit and vegetable waste in a tubular digester, Bioresour.
Technol. 86 (1) (2003) 85–89.
[63] L. Krzystek, S. Ledakowicz, H.J. Kahle, K. Kaczorek, Degradation of household
biowaste in reactors, J. Biotechnol. 92 (2) (2001) 103–112.
[64] L. De Baere, Will anaerobic digestion of solid waste survive in the future? Water
Sci. Technol. 53 (8) (2006) 187–194.
[65] J.T. Nwabanne, O.D. Onukwuli, C.M. Ifeakandu, Biokinetics of anaerobic
digestion of municipal waste, Int. J. Environ. Res. 3 (4) (2009) 511–516.
[66] T. Amani, M. Nosrati, T.R. Sreekrishnan, Anaerobic digestion from the viewpoint
of microbiological, chemical, and operational aspects - a review, Environ. Rev. 18
(2010) 255–278.
[67] M.H. Gerardi, Wastewater Microbiology Series: the Microbiology of Anaerobic
Digesters, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 2003.
[68] Y.W. Fang, Y.J. Lu, F.X. Lv, X.M. Bie, H.Z. Zhao, Y. Wang, et al., Improvement of
alkaline lipase from Proteus vulgaris T6 by directed evolution, Enzym. Microb.
Technol. 44 (2) (2009) 84–88.
[69] S. Uyanik, P.J. Sallis, G.K. Anderson, Improved split feed anaerobic baffled
reactor (SFABR) for shorter start-up period and higher process performance,
Water Sci. Technol. 46 (4–5) (2002) 223–230.
[70] H. Grootaerd, B. Liessens, W. Verstraete, Effects of directly soluble and fibrous
rapidly acidifying chemical oxygen demand and reactor liquid surface tension on
granulation and sludge-bed stability in upflow anaerobic sludge-blanket reactors,
Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 48 (3) (1997) 304–310.
[71] H.Q. Yu, H.H.P. Fang, J.H. Tay, Enhanced sludge granulation in upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket (UASB) reactors by aluminum chloride, Chemosphere 44 (1)
(2001) 31–36.
[72] A. Vlyssides, E.M. Barampouti, S. Mai, Influence of ferrous iron on the granularity
of a UASB reactor, Chem. Eng. J. 146 (1) (2009) 49–56.
[73] R.R. Rimkus, J.M. Ryan, E.J. Cook, Full-scale thermophilic digestion at the West-
Southwest -Sewage-Treatment-Works, Chicago, Illinois, J. Water Pollut. Control
Fed. 54 (11) (1982) 1447–1457.
[74] R.E. Speece, Anaerobic Biotechnology for Industrial Wastewater, Archaea Press,
1996.
[75] G. Esposito, L. Frunzo, A. Giordano, F. Liotta, A. Panico, F. Pirozzi, Anaerobic co-
digestion of organic wastes, Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 11 (4) (2012)
325–341.
[76] G. Kiely, G. Tayfur, C. Dolan, K. Tanji, Physical and mathematical modelling of
anaerobic digestion of organic wastes, Water Res. 31 (3) (1997) 534–540.
[77] H.D. Monteith, J.P. Stephenson, Mixing efficiencies in full-scale anaerobic
digesters by tracer methods, J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 53 (1) (1981) 78–84.
[78] S.J. Hille, Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste and Sewage Sludge to Methane,
Washington, D.C, 1975. Contract No.: EPA OSWMP SW-15g.
[79] K.D. McMahon, P.G. Stroot, R.I. Mackie, L. Raskin, Anaerobic codigestion of
municipal solid waste and biosolids under various mixing conditions - II:
microbial population dynamics, Water Res. 35 (7) (2001) 1817–1827.
[80] P.G. Stroot, K.D. McMahon, R.I. Mackie, L. Raskin, Anaerobic codigestion of
municipal solid waste and biosolids under various mixing conditions - I. Digester
performance, Water Res. 35 (7) (2001) 1804–1816.
Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 8 (2023) 100491
[81] V.N. Gunaseelan, Anaerobic digestion of biomass for methane production: a
review, Biomass Bioenergy 13 (1–2) (1997) 83–114.
[82] X.Z. Wang, Z.F. Lei, K. Shimizu, Z.Y. Zhang, D.J. Lee, Recent advancements in
nanobubble water technology and its application in energy recovery from organic
solid wastes towards a greater environmental friendliness of anaerobic digestion
system, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 145 (2021) 11.
[83] N.S. Bolan, R. Thangarajan, B. Seshadri, U. Jena, K.C. Das, H. Wang, et al.,
Landfills as a biorefinery to produce biomass and capture biogas, Bioresour.
Technol. 135 (2013) 578–587.
[84] D.V. Pheakdey, V. Noudeng, T.D. Xuan, Landfill biogas recovery and its
contribution to greenhouse gas mitigation, Energies 16 (12) (2023) 19.
[85] L. Lombardi, E.A. Carnevale, Analysis of an innovative process for landfill gas
quality improvement, Energy 109 (2016) 1107–1117.
[86] A.A. Abd, M.R. Othman, I.K. Shamsudin, Z. Helwani, I. Idris, Biogas upgrading to
natural gas pipeline quality using pressure swing adsorption for CO2 separation
over UiO-66: experimental and dynamic modelling assessment, Chem. Eng. J. 453
(2023) 15.
[87] B.C. Murray, C.S. Galik, T. Vegh, Biogas in the United States: estimating future
production and learning from international experiences, Mitig. Adapt. Strategies
Glob. Change 22 (3) (2017) 485–501.
[88] F. Caresana, G. Comodi, L. Pelagalli, P. Pierpaoli, S. Vagni, Energy production
from landfill biogas: an Italian case, Biomass Bioenergy 35 (10) (2011)
4331–4339.
[89] D. Di Trapani, M. Volpe, G. Di Bella, A. Messineo, R. Volpe, G. Viviani, Assessing
methane emission and economic viability of energy exploitation in a typical
Sicilian municipal solid waste landfill, Waste Biomass Valorization 10 (10) (2019)
3173–3184.
[90] P.Y. Hoo, H. Hashim, W.S. Ho, Opportunities and challenges: landfill gas to
biomethane injection into natural gas distribution grid through pipeline, J. Clean.
Prod. 175 (2018) 409–419.
[91] K.M. Winslow, S.J. Laux, T.G. Townsend, An economic and environmental
assessment on landfill gas to vehicle fuel conversion for waste hauling operations,
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 142 (2019) 155–166.
[92] M. Schweigkofler, R. Niessner, Determination of siloxanes and VOC in landfill gas
and sewage gas by canister sampling and GC-MS/AES analysis, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 33 (20) (1999) 3680–3685.
[93] O.I.D. Bashi, W.Z.W. Hasan, S. Shafie, N. Azis, Ieee (Eds.), Pattern Investigation
for Landfill of Methane Gas Concentration Measurement. 2nd IEEE International
Symposium on Robotics and Manufacturing Automation (IEEE-ROMA), Ieee,
Ipoh, MALAYSIA. NEW YORK, 2016, 2016 Sepp. 25–27.
[94] O. Johnson, U. Gopalakrishnan, B. Joseph, J.N. Kuhn, Landfill gas upgrading
using amine-functionalized silica sorbents, Int. J. Green Energy (2022) 8.
[95] J. Roels, W. Verstraete, Occurrence and origin of phosphine in landfill gas, Sci.
Total Environ. 327 (1–3) (2004) 185–196.
[96] G.V. Brigagao, J.L. de Medeiros, O.D.F. Araujo, H. Mikulcic, N. Duic, A zero-
emission sustainable landfill-gas-to-wire oxyfuel process: bioenergy with carbon
capture and sequestration, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 138 (2021) 13.
[97] T. Islamoglu, S. Behera, Z. Kahveci, T.D. Tessema, P. Jena, H.M. El-Kaderi,
Enhanced carbon dioxide capture from landfill gas using bifunctionalized
benzimidazole-linked polymers, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 8 (23) (2016)
14648–14655.
[98] I. Sagar, Y. Nimonkar, D. Dhotre, Y. Shouche, D. Ranade, S. Dewala, et al.,
A microcosm model for the study of microbial community shift and carbon
emission from landfills, Indian J. Microbiol. 62 (2) (2022) 195–203.
[99] J.D. Semrau, Current knowledge of microbial community structures in landfills
and its cover soils, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 89 (4) (2011) 961–969.
[100] X.L. Wang, A.X. Cao, G.Z. Zhao, C.B. Zhou, R. Xu, Microbial community structure
and diversity in a municipal solid waste landfill, Waste Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.)
66 (2017) 79–87.
[101] S. Alam, K.S. Rahman, M. Rokonuzzaman, P.A. Salam, M.S. Miah, N. Das, et al.,
Selection of waste to energy technologies for municipal solid waste management-
towards achieving sustainable development goals, Sustainability 14 (19) (2022)
17.
[102] F.Y. He, Y.Q. Peng, F. Wang, Y.H. Dong, K. Chen, S.Y. Lu, Inhibition of PCDD/Fs
in a full-scale hazardous waste incinerator by the quench tower coupled with
inhibitors injection, Environ. Pollut. 314 (2022) 11.
[103] D. Krol, P. Motyl, S. Poskrobko, Waste incineration and heavy metal emission-
laboratory tests, Energies 15 (21) (2022) 18.
[104] H. Forster, T. Thajudeen, C. Funk, W. Peukert, Separation of nanoparticles:
filtration and scavenging from waste incineration plants, Waste Manage. (Tucson,
Ariz.) 52 (2016) 346–352.
[105] A. Massari, M. Beggio, S. Hreglich, R. Marin, S. Zuin, Behavior of TiO2
nanoparticles during incineration of solid paint waste: a lab-scale test, Waste
Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.) 34 (10) (2014) 1897–1907.
[106] T. Walser, F. Gottschalk, Stochastic fate analysis of engineered nanoparticles in
incineration plants, J. Clean. Prod. 80 (2014) 241–251.
[107] T. Walser, L.K. Limbach, R. Brogioli, E. Erismann, L. Flamigni, B. Hattendorf, et
al., Persistence of engineered nanoparticles in a municipal solid-waste
incineration plant, Nat. Nanotechnol. 7 (8) (2012) 520–524.