INDUSTRIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION

Dalia M. M. Yacout*, M. A. Abd El-Kawi and M.S. Hassouna

Environmental Studies Department, Institute of Graduate Studies & Research, Alexandria
University, Alexandria, Egypt
*
Corresponding author: dalia.yacout@gmail.com
Abstract
Waste management is a successful instrument to minimize generated wastes, improve
environmental conditions, reduce water and energy consumptions. In the current study a waste
management system was implemented in a local textile plant. Generated wastes from the
manufacturing process: air emissions, liquid discharge and solid wastes were identified. The
system was established based on the continues improvement framework, the implementation of
the waste management system achieved a 2.9% reduction in generated waste, leading to an
estimated cost saving of 854,700 EGP/Year.
Furthermore, the environmental impacts of the waste management strategy were
determined using life cycle assessment methodology. The strategy considered treatment of liquid
effluent in the effluent treatment plant, recycling of non-hazardous solid wastes, and incineration
verses landfill treatment of hazardous solid wastes. Results revealed that highest impacts were on
ecotoxicity and carcinogenic potentials due to the release of metals from pigment wastes to
surface and ground waters. Those impacts could be mitigated if state of the art landfill was used.
Impacts on climate change, human respiratory system due to inorganic substances, fossil fuels
depletion and acidification/eutrophication potential came next. Smallest impacts were on land
use due to the occupation of road network during transfer of the hazardous solid wastes from the
plant area to the landfill and occupation of the dump site itself. No impacts were detected on
radiation potential, ozone layer depletion, minerals depletion, because the waste stream did not
generate any substances that may affect any of them. In addition, neither organic substances nor
minerals were used.
Keywords: Waste management, Life cycle assessment, textile industry.
1. Introduction
The textile industry is having an important role in the development of civilization through
the centuries. Technological developments over the years caused to an extraordinary growth of
textile manufacturing. The production of man made textiles begin in the twentieth century and
grew exponentially (Schönberger & Schäfer 2003). Acrylic fibers are man-made textile material.
They are made primary from acrylonitrile a petrochemical. Acrylic fiber is the best alternative of
wool and cashmere, its price is lower than wool. It is widely used and has a wide range of
application in apparels, home furnishings and industrial uses such as: asbestos and concrete
replacement (Xibin 2010).
Africa and Middle East are emerging as important consuming regions, accounting
together for about 25% of total global demand for acrylic fibers (World Acrylic Fiber 2013). As
for Egypt, According to the Egyptian central agency for public mobilization and statics, the total
production of synthetic fibers reached 109,200 ton in 2011 and raised to 114,700 ton in 2012
(CAMPAS 2014). The growing demand in Egypt and the Arab region is met by importing
acrylic fiber from European and South East Asian countries, (EIA 2007).
At the present time, one of most important points addressing the acrylic fiber industry in the
world is to develop an eco-friendly technology and accelerate sustainable development (Xibin
2010). The textile process required large amount of energy and emits many pollutants (Rock &
Angel 2007). The production of textiles often requires high levels water consumption. Industrial
processes of textile emits large quantities of pollutants to the environment (Lo et al. 2012).
Therefore, it is very important to minimize its impact on the environment by establishing a
proper waste management system (Ozturk 2005).
The study aimed to investigate and apply a waste management system for the acrylic fiber
industry and ensure the protection of the surrounding area and environment, by:

- Investigate means of waste management including minimization policies, waste handling and
disposal.
- Make an inventory of wastes generated from the fiber industry.
- Establish and implement an applicable waste policy.
- Identify environmental impacts of waste handling
- Compare between two waste handling strategies (landfill and incineration), in order to
recommend which strategy is more environmental friendly.

1.2. Waste management in textile industry

According to the European Commission Environment (ECE 2003) the main purpose of
waste management is to give an outline of waste streams and treatment options. Waste
management plans are important instruments contributing to implementation and achievement of
policies and targets set up in the field of waste management at the national level.
Lo et al. (2012) studied the impact of environmental management systems in textiles
industries and stated that the production of textiles and related products often requires high levels
of energy and water consumption and emits large quantities of pollutants to the environment.
Therefore, the adoption of environmental management systems is important and could have a
significant impact on firms’ operational performance. They revealed that the adoption of
ISO14001:2004, the most popular environmental management systems, improves manufacturers’
profitability.
Briga-Sáet al. (2013) investigated the potential of reusing textile wastes. They illustrated
that is an enormous source of secondary raw material that is not used, but can be re-injected into
the market.
According to ISO14001:2004 the environmental management system requires the control of
activities so that any environmental impacts are minimized. That will be achieved by doing in
practice what has been stated in the environmental policy, recording what has occurred and
learning from experience. The environmental management system (ISO14001:2004) is based on
the implementation of a continuous improvement cycle.
 According to Lo et al. (2012) there are a few case studies that explore how environmental
management systems adoption could improve textiles firms’ performance. For example, Fresner
(1998) analyzed an Austrian textile mill and found that the adoption of ISO14001:2004 helps the
firm to reduce solid waste production and thus its overall productivity. Brito et al. (2008) find
that firms that adopt ISO14000 improve their customer services and reduce costs, leading to
eventual improvement in the overall performance of their supply chains.
1.3. Life Cycle Assessment in Textile Industry
Nakamura and Kondo (2002) studied the different models of waste management
assessment and illustrated that the main concern of waste management LCA consists of the
economic and environmental impacts that may result from the introduction of alternative waste-
recycling methods and/or alternative waste treatment methods. Ekvall et al. (2007) investigated
the importance of LCA on waste management assessments. They declared that in assessments of
the environmental impacts of waste management, life-cycle assessment helps expanding the
perspective beyond the waste management system. In particular, the broad perspective of LCA
makes it possible to take into account the significant environmental benefits that can be obtained
through different waste management processes such as: waste incineration with energy recovery
reduces the need for other energy sources and material from recycling processes replaces
production of virgin material. The broad system perspective makes LCA a powerful tool for
environmental comparison of different options for waste management of a specific product, a
material or a complex waste flow. Udo de Haes and Heijungs (2007) also studied LCA
applications regarding waste hierarchy and integrated waste-management. They stated that the
waste hierarchy implies a fixed order of waste management options, from most to least
preferable: product reuse, materials recycling, incineration with energy recovery, incineration
without energy recovery, and finally land fill. A step down on this ladder is only to be taken if
the higher step appears to be impossible.
Cherubini et al. (2009) illustrated that there is an increasing interest in the several options for
management of resources and waste in order to design strategies for integrated, sustainable
resource and waste management policies. LCA methodologies can be used in this context as an
input to decision-making regarding the choice of waste management systems or strategic
decisions concerning resource use priority. In fact, LCA is able to provide an overview of the
environmental aspects of different waste management strategies and makes possible to compare
the potential environmental impacts of these options.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1.Guidelines
According to ISO 14001:2004 a waste management program was established in a local
textile plant in Egypt, based on the Plan - Do - Check - Act (PDCA) continual improvement
framework. The PDCA approach is outlined as following:
- Plan: conduct reviews and establish the baseline, performance indicators, objectives, targets
and action plans necessary to deliver results that will improve performance in accordance with
organization's policy.
- Do: implement the action plans.
- Check: monitor and measure processes and the key characteristics of operations that determine
waste performance against the policy and objectives, and report the results.
- Act: take actions to continually improve performance.
2.2.Methods
2.2.1.Data Collection
According to ISO 19011:2002 the organization recorded and maintained waste review data.
Historical data for monthly waste data was available for 2012. The collection and monitoring of
daily waste data started by the initiation of the programs on 2012. The following data was
collected: Waste fiber generated (TF/Day), Low grade fiber generated (TF/Day), Liquefied waste
(TF/Day), Treated waste water (m3 /Month) and Total production (TF /Day). Using this data the
waste generation ratio was calculated by dividing the total production by the generated waste.
2.2.2.Auditing
Based on ISO 19011:2002 the organization performed internal audits on weekly basis to
identify any leakages of water or raw material, recognize abnormalities or losses in a specific
area.
2.2.3.Creation of action plan and Goals setting
According to ISO 14001:2004 a tracking system was followed to review the action plan, it
contained: Status of action, Goal description, Actions required, responsible of implementing the
action, Date of completion, and Expected savings (EGP).
2.3.Life cycle impact assessment
The used method in the current study was “Eco-indicator 99”, it included impact categories
which cover the most important environmental issues. The eleven impact categories taken into
consideration were: Global Warming Potential (GWP) represented by climate change,
Acidification Potential (AP), Eutrophication Potential (EP), Carcinogens Potential (CP),
Ecotoxicity Potential (ETP), Respiratory Inorganic Formation Potential (RIFP), Respiratory
Organic Formation Potential (ROFP), Radiation Potential (RP), Ozone Layer Depletion (OLD),
Minerals Depletion (MD), Land Use (LU), and Fossil Fuels Depletion (FFD). These impact
categories are grouped in three groups: impact on human health, impact on ecosystem quality
and impact on resources. As for fossil fuels depletion the used methodology was “Cumulative
Energy Demand (CED)”. The evaluation of the impact categories were expressed in mega points
(mPt) to evaluate the impact of a product or process, more points mean worst environmental
burden (Goedkoop et al., 2008). The life cycle assessments was realized by software SimaPro7.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Waste Generation
In this respect air emission, liquid and solid wastes were included. Regarding air
emissions, two sources of air emissions were found: a) water vapours from the washing, gel
dyeing and stretching which are sucked and vented through duct to the atmosphere and b)
vapours from the vessels and reactor in the polymerization area which are scrubbed in a
monomer gas absorber and recycled back to the process. As for liquid in the current case study
the raw water for the plant is received from the Nubariya canal. The inflows to the treatment
plant are generated from two major streams: inflow generated from process plant areas and
inflow generated from utilities. The inflow generated from process plant represent 43.3% of the
total raw generated effluent and the rest 56.7 % are generated from the utilities. Both steams are
treated through an effluent treatment plant. On actual inventory it was found that available flow
meters only exist for monitoring the overall effluent to the treatment plant (EIA 2007). It was
found that pollution levels for treated effluent from the E.T.P were within Egyptian
environmental regulations; consequently more focus was addressed to handling of solid waste
generation.
Concerning solid wastes the textile industry produces a variety of solid waste by volume,
it is the second largest waste stream after liquid effluent. The source of solid waste includes
waste fiber, residues from finishing chemicals, hydrocarbons, dyes and chemicals from solvent
recovery systems, sludge from effluent treatment plant, dye containers, chemical containers,
pallets, fly ash and general paper trash. The quantity and type of solid waste produced depends
on the nature of the operation, the efficiency of the processes and the level of awareness about
solid waste management (US EPA 1996).
It was observed that the domestic solid waste runs an independent system. Solid wastes
of chemical empty bags and dye empty cans were collected and disposed by a government
recognized contractor. The filter pads and waste water treatment sludge are being disposed off by
government recognized sites for toxic material. As for the wet and dry fiber waste from the
production lines, it was recovered and utilized again in the material preparation area. The fiber
with lowest grade was liquefied in the gel dissolving unit using sodium thiocyanate.
4.2. Development of Waste Management System
In accordance to ISO 14001:2004 the policy states that organization is committed to
achieve continual improvement and prevention of pollution. The major wastes generated by the
textile sector are fiber wastes. The planned policy focused on solid waste generation aiming to
reduce solid waste generated in form of waste fiber to reach less than 1% of the production. A
number of preventive and corrective actions were implemented in order to achieve that
including: avoid batch discharge, use continuous flow operations instead of batch operations,
providing a new liquefaction unit to liquefy the solid wastes and reduce waste generation through
training operators on waste reduction practices.
Shown in Table 1 the present generated waste in 2011 reached 5.4% of the production
(average per month), after the implementation of the waste management program the generated
waste reduced till 2.7% of the production (average per month). In terms of money the direct
saving of this reduction was equal to 854,700 EGP/Year as calculated by Eq.1.
Table 1.Generated waste, target and actual.

Generated Waste
2011 Target 2012
Ton (waste/month) 80.9 15.0 40.2
Generated (%) 5.4 1 2.7

Direct Saving from waste reduction (EGP)/month

= Cost of acrylic fiber (EGP/Ton) x Amount of reduced waste (2012 – 2011) (Ton) (1)
4.3. Implementation of Waste Management System
4.3.1. Establishing working groups
According to Stapleton et al. (2001) an effective implementation team is pivotal to the
success of any organization. In agreement with ISO 14001:2004 a waste management team was
appointed with appropriate skills and competence. Their roles were included: waste monitoring,
reporting, identifying and implement improvement actions. The committee consisted of a
manager, coordinator and a cross functional technical team from different departments such as
material preparation, production, utility, safety and mechanical.
Weekly audits were conducted by the members to identify raw materials and water
leakages, a monthly review meeting was held as well to identify abnormalities, suggest
improvement areas, set targets and review taken actions. Moments of meetings were being
documented and circulated to all concerned. Recommendations of these meetings were being
discussed and the agreed goals set in the action plan.
4.3.2. Monitoring and Performance Assessment
Performance assessment and goals setting cannot be done without analysis of proper data.
This was best achieved through an effective and efficient system of reporting. The monitoring
system of solid waste included daily data collection of production, waste fiber generated from
the production lines, low grade fiber and daily liquefied fiber.
The low grade fiber is a final produced fiber that cannot be sold for high quality textile
applications, however, it is sold for low quality applications like padding material. Fig.1 presents
the amount of generated waste from production within 2012. It can be noticed that the generated
waste was more than 1% in all months, highest percentage in April, July and December due to
repeated steam failures and forced shut downs in line.

Fig.1.Generated waste from production line in 2012

Fig.2 shows the percent of low grade fiber. Fig.2 is closely similar to Fig.1 as low grade
fiber is part of the generated waste. Both wastes should be minimized by reducing the generated
waste from production in first place. This can be achieved by reducing machines breakdowns
through improving planned maintenance. Furthermore, Fig.3 shows the liquefied waste. The
generated fiber waste is liquefied in a special unit using a strong solvent and used once again in
the production process. The monthly liquefied amount is independent of the generated waste
from the production line; it depends on the operation stability of liquefying unit. It can be noticed
that the liquefied amount of waste increased especially within the last quarter of the year. This
was achieved by installing a new unit for waste liquefaction. The installation of this unit was one
of the goals set in the action plan for waste reduction.
 Fig.2. Low grade waste within 2012 Fig.3. Liquefied waste in 2012

4.3.3. Implementation of action plan

According to ISO 14001:2004 an action plan for the waste management system was
established. Covered points by the waste management team included: identifying and attending
leakage, avoid batch discharge, switch to use continuous flow operations instead of batch
operations, recycling of solid waste and development of awareness raising.
4.3.3.1. Recycling of waste in the liquefaction unit
Chemical use may be reduced through recovery and reuse (Barclay & Buckley 2000). In
order to recover a portion of the waste generated fiber a special unit is used to dissolve that waste
fiber using a strong solvent and use it once again in the production process. This liquefied
amount is independent of the generated waste from the production line, it depends on the
operation stability of the liquefying unit.
One unit was already in operation, it consisted of two tanks for liquefaction. However, it
did not meet the liquefaction requirements due to the high percentage of waste fiber from
production. Installation of a new liquefaction unit was set as a goal in the action plan of waste
reduction. The new unit was manufactured on site using a 30 m 3tank, proper agitator and a motor
for the agitator were provided. The tank was installed in the material preparation area close to the
existing liquefying unit. Operation tests were done during September 2012 and actual operation
of the unit started in October 2012.
4.3.3.2.Development of awareness raising
An awareness campaign was launched in the facility to introduce the importance of waste
management to involved employees. The campaign consisted of training to shop floor employees
about waste reduction, started the practice of recycling and reusing some waste materials and
spread awareness about different environmental issues such as going green and waste reduction
through awareness competitions.

4.4. LCA of waste handling strategies

4.4.1. Goal and Scope Definition
The investigation compared the environmental impacts of two waste streaming approaches:
landfill and incineration of the generated hazardous waste from 1 ton production of acrylic fiber.
The aim was to analyze and evaluate their environmental impacts based on the current case study
plant and find out which approach has less negative impacts on the environment. The used
method in the current study was “Eco-indicator 99”. The eleven impact categories taken into
consideration were previously stated in the materials and methods section. These categories have
been chosen given their environmental significance and also because they are internationally
accepted in accordance with the requirements of ISO14044:2006.
4.4.2. Inventory Analysis
LCA was applied for two waste streaming scenarios: incineration of hazardous solid waste
and landfill of the hazardous solid waste. All wastes were done for 1 ton production of acrylic
fiber. The foreground data in the inventory was gotten from the case study plant from process
production manuals, utility manuals, data sheets and environmental impact assessment study of
the facility. Background data was created utilizing eco-profiles from the Eco-Invent database for
all the necessary input materials and processes. All input/output data used in the study are
presented in Table (2). In compliance with ISO14044:2006 Section 4.2.3.3., a cut-off criteria of
0.1% was chosen, as suggested by Goedkoop et al. (2008) as a cut-off criteria of 0.1% shows
only process that has more than 0.1% of the environmental load. Eco-indicator 99 methodology
was used for LCA single score and weighting of the eleven impact categories taken into
consideration (Goedkoop and Spriensma, 2000) and (Frischkneckt et al. 2007). It was found that
calculated results of fossil fuel depletion by Eco-indicator 99 methodology were multiple
indicators, consequently, as suggested by Van der Velden et al.,(2014) Cumulative Energy
Demand (CED) methodology was used as a single-issue indicator to energy consumption. The
used LCA simulation model considered the following as well: a) for detecting the impacts of
waste streaming it was envisaged to use “worse - case scenario” in both landfilling and
incineration. b) regarding landfill: short term leaching to wastewater treatment plant and long
term leaching to ground water in case of base lining failure and c) regarding incineration: short
term emissions to rivers and long term emissions to ground water from slag bottom.
Table 2. Input/output data for acrylic fiber production (1 Ton production)
Inputs

Inputs from Materials

Name Amount Unit Remarks
Acrylonitrile 910.0 kg
Vinyl Acetate 92.5 kg
Sodium Chlorate 6.0 kg
Sodium Metabisulphite 18.0 kg
Sulphuric Acid 0.3 kg
Sodium Hydroxide (50%) 19.0 kg
Titanium Dioxide 4.2 kg
Sodium Sulphate 0.7 kg
Nitric Acid 2.4 kg
Demineralized water 144.0 m3 Treated water for production process
Inputs from Electricity/Heat
Electricity 1320.0 kWh
Steam 9.8 Ton Used mainly in dryers and material preparation
area
Outputs
Product
Acrylic Fiber 1.0 Ton Main product
Waste and emissions
Waste Effluent 69.2 m3 Collected from all areas
Hazardous waste from process 1.0 kg Pigment waste, chemical bags and cans
Chemical sludge 1.2 kg From water treatment plant
Reused mixed plastics containers 1.0 kg Non-hazardous solids (containers)
Recycled textiles 4.0 kg Filter cloth and waste fiber
 Excess solvents (Sulphuric Acid and Sodium Hydroxide) are recovered and recycled.

4.4.3. Life Cycle Impact Analysis

Results in Table (3) and Fig (4-5) present the overall environmental impacts of the waste
streaming approaches: landfill and incineration. In worse - case scenario a sanitary landfill and
leachate takes place as assessed by the model, a high ecotoxicity and carcinogenic potential have
been detected due to the release of cadmium and arsenic as shown in Fig (4-5). In order to
avoid/minimize the environmental impacts, a landfill needs to be constantly monitored
(Cherubini et al. 2009). As for incineration, if the incinerator does not control the emissions
properly as assumed, various impacts could be detected as presented in Fig (4-5). In accordance
with previous results reported by Arena et al. (2003), Mendes et al. (2004), Finnveden et al.
(2005), Cherubini et al. (2009), Assamoi and Lawryshyn (2012) and Lettieri et al. (2014), Fig (5)
indicates that incineration is more environmentally friendly.
 Table (3) shows that the highest impact of both approaches is on ecosystem quality due to
their ecotoxicity potential from copper, zink and nickel emissions. Overall impact of incineration
on ecosystem quality is higher than overall impact of landfill, reaching 68.4% and 51.3%,
respectively. On the other hand due to the high potential of cadmium release into the effluent, the
human health indicator is the second highest impact. Landfill has an overall impact of 46.8% on
human health as compared to 28 % overall impact by incineration. As for resources it is evident
that the impact of incineration approach is higher than the impact of landfill with, 3.5 % and
2.0%, respectively. The amount of fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) used by incineration is
higher than the used in a landfill. Fossil fuels are mainly consumed during incineration through
the combustion process and during landfill by transportation and handling processes.
Furthermore, LCA results in Fig (4-5) show the impact assessment of the two waste streaming
approaches on the different environmental categories. Ecotoxicity is the highest category
affected by both waste streams, followed by carcinogens potential, climate change, human
respiratory system, due to inorganic substances. Fossil fuels depletion and
acidification/eutrophication potential came next. Smallest impact of both waste streams was on
land use which could be attributed to the occupation of road network during transfer of the
hazardous solid wastes from the plant area to the landfill or incineration area and occupation of
the dump site itself. It can be noticed in Fig (4) that land use potential in case of landfill is higher
than incineration due to the large dump site area required for the landfilling. No impact was
detected on radiation, ozone layer depletion, minerals depletion or human respiratory system due
to organic substances. The reason for not detecting any impact on the previous categories is that
both waste streams do not generate any substances that may affect the ozone layer nor cause
radiation. Neither organic substances nor minerals are used in both waste handling approaches.

Table 2. Impact assessment of waste streaming approaches

Category Landfill Incineration

46.8 (%) 28.0 (%)
Human health
51.3 (%) 68.4 (%)
Ecosystem quality
2.0 (%) 3.5 (%)
Resources

Fig 4. Comparison of impact assessment of two Fig 5. Comparison of impact assessment of two
waste streaming approaches (weighting) waste streaming approaches (Single score)

4.4.4. Global Warming Potential (GWP)

 In accordance with Cherubini et al., (2009) the calculated GWP through the life cycle
analysis indicates that landfill is more preferable in terms of climate change impact. The GWP is
expressed in CO2 equivalent as shown in Fig (4-5). The usage of landfill for the treatment of
hazardous wastes generated from 1 ton acrylic fiber releases 32.9 gm CO 2 equivalent. The
footprint is mainly constituted by landfill methane. As for incineration, it releases 513.1 gm CO 2
equivalent. The combustion step strongly affects final results: CO 2 from fossil carbon and NOx
emissions. Similar results were reported by Cherubini et al. (2009).
4.4.5. Acidification Potential (AP)
Life cycle analysis indicates that landfill is also more preferable in terms of acidification
potential, Assamoi and Lawryshyn (2012) and Lettieri et al. (2014) reported the same. Gases
responsible of rain acidification are SO2, NOx, HCl, H2S and NH3. AP is expressed in SO2
equivalent. As a result to the combustion process in incineration approach, it can be
contemplated that the released SO2 from incineration is higher than the released from landfill:
46.85 mg against 35.12 mg SO2 equivalent/TF.
4.4.6. Eutrophication Potential (EP)
Nitrogen and phosphorous levels released to waterways contribute to eutrophication
potential. NO2 emissions from incineration are almost five times higher than NO 2 emissions from
landfill i.e. 488.54 and 88.02 mg NO2 equivalent/TF, respectively. NO2 emissions from
incineration are generated from the combustion process of acrylic fiber hazardous wastes and
from the used fossil fuels through the incineration process. Assamoi and Lawryshyn (2012)
reported in their environmental comparison between landfilling and incineration that the
landfilling option has a noticeably smaller eutrophication impact on the environment
4.4.7. Carcinogens Potential (CP)
The carcinogens potential of acrylic fiber hazardous solid waste treatment is presented in
Fig (4-5). It can be noticed that the CP of landfill approach is almost ten times higher than the CP
of incineration. The effects of polluted surface run-off and leachate on surface water and ground
water are the most serious pollution in the mid and long term perspective brought by landfills
(Law-wai 2001 and Doka 2003). Life cycle analysis results indicate that CP by landfill of
hazardous solid wastes generated from acrylic fiber industry is a result of arsenic, zink and
cadmium reaching the effluent. As indicated previously some pigments and dyes contain zinc,
trace concentrations of cadmium and arsenic (Laing 1991 and Barclay & Buckley 2000).
4.4.8. Ecotoxicity Potential (ETP)
Effect of the ecotoxicity potential by landfill and incineration in Fig (4-5), indicated that
ecotoxicity has the highest impact of both approaches on environment, moreover, landfill has a
higher ecotoxicity potential than incineration.
As indicated in the previous section, in worse - case approach landfill and leachate takes
place, high ecotoxicity potential are expected due to the surface run-off and leachate reaching
surface water and ground water containing copper, zink, nickel, cadmium, lead and mercury
released from the pigment wastes. As for incineration, cadmium and arsenic could be released
from pigment wastes which would cause the ecotoxicity potential
4.4.9. Respiratory Inorganic Formation Potential (RIFP)
Analysis results Fig (4-5) show that the respiratory inorganic formation potential
generated by incineration approach is almost two and half times the RIFP generated by landfill,
due to the emissions of NOx, SO2, NH3, CO, Particulates < 2.5 µm and Particulates > 2.5 and <
10 µm released to air. In agreement with Buonannoet al.,(2008)the most significant negative
outcome of incineration is the emissions that result from combustion. This air pollution has both
a harmful effect on the local area and on the climate in general. As indicated before in the GWP
section, the combustion step during incineration, which releases NO x emissions, strongly affects
the final results. Similar results were reported by Cherubini et al. (2009).
4.4.10. Fossil Fuels Depletion
As shown in Fig (4-5) incineration consumption of fossil fuels is higher than landfill
consumption. The life cycle analysis indicates that 95% of the fossil fuels used in the
incineration approach are consumed within the combustion process. On the other hand, 94% of
the used fossil fuels by landfill are consumed during landfill operations: transportation, waste
spreading and landfill shaping.
In agreement with Mendes et al. (2004), Finnveden et al. (2005), Assamoi and
Lawryshyn (2012) and Lettieriet al. (2014) waste treatment is recommended by incineration,
shifting waste treatment from landfilling to incineration would decrease the overall
environmental impact and will allow energy recovery. Finnveden et al. (2005) stated that debates
are currently ongoing regarding how to reduce the use of fossil fuels and increase the use of
renewable fuels, waste is sometimes regarded as a renewable fuel. Waste-to-energy technologies
hold the potential to create sustainable renewable energy.

5. CONCLUSION
The study aimed to identify a proper waste management system for the textile industry by
establishing and implementing a waste management program in a local Synthetic fiber textile
plant. According to ISO 14001:2004 standard a waste management program was developed
based on the continual improvement framework. The system aimed to achieve direct cost savings
by minimizing waste generation. Accordingly, an action plan was created and implemented, it
included identifying and attending leakages, avoid batch discharge, switch to use continuous
flow operations instead of batch operations, recycling of solid waste and development of
awareness raising. The implementation of the action plan reduced the generated waste till 2.9%
of the production and it was expected to achieve the targeted waste reduction to less than 1% of
the production through continues implementation.
The implementation of a waste management system is cost-effective and achieved a
number of direct cost savings. The textile industry has a lot of potential for waste saving
opportunities and the established system in this study can be implemented in different industries
as well.
Furthermore, two waste streaming approaches for hazardous solid waste treatment
(landfill and incineration) were investigated to identify which approach was more
environmentally friendly. Results revealed that incineration was better. If landfill is not properly
designed as a sanitary landfill or if a long term leachate to ground water occur due to base lining
failure, high ecotoxicity and carcinogenic potential would be expected due to the release of
metals from pigment wastes to surface and ground waters. Those impacts could be mitigated if
state of the art incinerator or landfill were used.

5. REFERENCES
Arena U, Mastellone ML, Perugini F (2003) The environmental performance of alternative solid
waste management options: a life cycle assessment study. Chemical Engineering Journal
96(1-3): 207-222.
Assamoi B, Lawryshyn, Y (2012). The environmental comparison of landfilling vs. incineration
of MSW accounting for waste diversion. J. Waste Management 32(1): 1019-1030
Badania Z, Ait-Amara H, Si-Salahb A, Brikc M, and Fuchs W (2005) Treatment of textile waste
water by membrane bioreactor and reuse. Desalination 185(1): 411–417.
Barclay, S., & Buckley, C. (2000) Waste minimisation guide for the textile industry: A step
towards cleaner production. Volume II. Water Research Commission of South
Africa.University of Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Briga-Sá, A., Nascimento, D., Teixeira, N., Pinto, J., Caldeira, F., Varum, H., & Paiva, A.
(2013)Textilewaste as analternativethermalinsulationbuilding material solution.
Construction and Building Materials 38(1): 155-160.
Brito, M.P.D., Carbone, V., & Blanquart, C.M. (2008)Towards a sustainable fashion retail
supply chain in Europe: organization and performance International Journal of
Production Economics 114(2): 534-553.
CAMPAS (2014) Egypt in figures 2014 report. Central Agency for public mobilization and
statics, (March 2014 ed.), Egypt.
Cherubini F, Bargigli S, Ulgiati S (2009) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management
strategies: Landfilling, sorting plant and incineration. Journal of Energy 34: 2116–2123.
Doka G (2003) Life cycle inventories of waste treatment services. Ecoinvent Report No.13. In
Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Dübendorf, Switzerland.
ECE.European Commission for Environment (2003).Preparing a waste management plan, A
methodological guidance note. European Commission, Directorate-General Environment,
Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Vienna, BiPRO GmbH, Munich, Ekotoxikologické Centrum,
Bratislava.
EIA (2007)Environmental impact assessment for acrylic fibers plant extension.ENVIRO-INFO
consultants. Alexandria, Egypt.
Engelhardt, A. W. (2013)World survey on textiles and nonwovens.The Fiber Year GmbH
Consulting. Issue 13, April 2013.
Finnveden G, Johansson J, Per L, Moberg G (2005) Life cycle assessment of energy from solid
waste—part 1: General methodology and results. Journal of Cleaner Production 13: 213-
229.
Fresner, J. (1998) Starting continuous improvement with a cleaner production assessment in an
Austrian textile mill.Journal of Cleaner Production(6).
IPPC.Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (2001).Reference document on best available
techniques for the textiles industry. European Commission, Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies, Technologies for Sustainable Development, European IPPC
Bureau. Seville – Spain.
ISO14001: 2004 Environmental Systems Handbook. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Geneva,
Switzerland.
ISO19011: 2002Guidelines for Quality and/or Environmental Management Systems Auditing.
Geneva, Switzerland.
Goedkoop M, Spriensma R, (2000) Eco-indicator 99 methodology report: PRé Consultants. The
Netherlands.
Goedkoop M, Schryver A, Oele M, (2008) Introduction to LCA with SimaPro 7: PRé
Consultants.The Netherlands.
Laing GI, (1991) The Impact of effluent regulations on the dyeing industry. Colouration 12: 56 -
70.
Lettieri P, Evangelisti S, Borello D, Clift, Rd (2014) Life cycle assessment of energy from waste
via anaerobic digestion: A UK case study. J. of Waste Management 34: 226–237.
Law-wai E, (2001) Mobilization and transport of arsenic by landfill leachates and contamination
of groundwater at Winthrop, Maine. Master of Science in Earth Resources Engineering,
Columbia University, USA.
Lawrence RD, (1996). Pollution prevention in the textile industry. U.S. EPA. Pollution
prevention work group. Dallas, USA.
Lo, Chris K.Y., Yeung, Andy C.L., & T.C.E.Cheng. (2012)The impact of environmental
management systems on financial performance in fashion and textiles industries. Int. J.
Production Economics135: 561-567.
Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R.P., &Calantone, R. (2003) Assessing the impact of environ- mental
management systems on corporate and environmental performance. Journal of
Operations Management 21(3): 329-351.
Ozturk, H. K. (2005) Energy usage and cost in textile industry: A case study for Turkey. Energy
30(13): 2424-2446.
Rock, M.T., & Angel, D.P. (2007) Grow first, industrial transformation in East Asia.
Environment 49(4): 10-19.
Schönberger, H., &Schäfer, T. (2003)Best Available Techniques in Textile
Industry.Environmental research of federal ministry of the environment,
Umweltbundesamt Publications, Berlin, Germany.
Stapleton, J. P., Margaret, A. Glover., & Davis, S. Petie(2001)Environmental Management
Systems: An Implementation Guide for Small and Medium-Sized Organizations. Glover-
Stapleton Associates, USA.
Textile Export Council (2010)Industry report. Acrylic in Focus conference, 8-10 March
2010.Textile Export Council, Alexandria, Egypt.
Van der Velden NM, Martin KP, Vogtländer JG, (2014) LCA benchmarking study on textiles
made of cotton, polyester, nylon, acrylic, or elastane. The International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment 19: 331-356.
Vandevivere PC, Bianchi R, Verstraete W, (1998) Treatment and reuse of waste water from the
textile wet processing industry: review of emerging technologies. Journal of Chemical
Technology and Biotechnology 72(4): 289-302.
Udo de Haes HA, Heijungs R, (2007). Life cycle assessment for energy analysis and
management. Journal of Applied Energy 84: 817–827.
US. Environmental Protection Agency (US.EPA) (1996)Best management practices for pollution
prevention in the textile industry. Office of research and development, National risk
management research laboratory, Center of environmental research information and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Reference number EPA/625/R-96/004, Ohio, USA.
Woodard, F. (2001)Industrial Waste Treatment Handbook.Butterworth–Heinemann Publications,
USA.
World Acrylic Fibre (2013) Industry report: Trend in Demand & Supply. India Centerac
Technologies Limited, India.
Xibin, S. (2010)Analysis of Acrylic Fiber Industry & Development of New Type Fibers.The 7th
China International Acrylonitrile and Acrylic Fiber Forum, March 2010, Shanghai,
China.