Science of the Total Environment 816 (2022) 151541

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

An integrated life cycle multi-objective optimization model for

health-environment-economic nexus in food waste management sector
Zuchao Lin, Jun Keat Ooi, Kok Sin Woon ⁎
School of Energy and Chemical Engineering, Xiamen University Malaysia, Jalan Sunsuria, Bandar Sunsuria, 43900 Sepang, Selangor, Malaysia

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• A life cycle optimization model is devel-

oped for the food waste (FW) sector.
• Human health, ecosystems, and eco-
nomic impacts are optimized in the
model.
• Anaerobic digestion of FW has the low-
est impacts on human health and eco-
systems.
• If cost is included, high-temperature
drying sterilization exceeds other op-
tions.
• Results are sensitive to the prices of
electricity, cooking gas, and livestock
feed.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Food waste is a universal problem in many countries. In line with Sustainable Development Goals 7 and 12, it is
Received 6 July 2021 crucial to identify a cost-effective food waste valorization management framework with the least human health
Received in revised form 4 October 2021 and environmental impacts. However, studies on the synergistic effect of life cycle assessment and mathematical
Accepted 4 November 2021
optimization interconnected with human health, environment, and economic are relatively few and far between;
Available online 10 November 2021
hence they cannot provide holistic recommendations to policymakers in developing environmental and eco-
Editor: Deyi Hou nomic feasibility of food waste management frameworks. Taking Malaysia as a case study, this study proposes
a simple and deterministic model that integrates life cycle assessment and multi-objective mathematical optimi-
zation to unpack the health-environment-economic wellbeing nexus in food waste management sector. The
Keywords: model evaluates the life cycle human health, environmental, and economic impacts of five food waste disposal
Life cycle assessment and valorization technologies: open landfill, sanitary landfill, aerated windrow composting, high-temperature
General algebraic modeling system drying sterilization, and anaerobic digestion, and identifies the optimal food waste valorization configuration so-
Pareto-optimal solution lution in Malaysia. Based on the results modeled by SimaPro 9.0 and General Algebraic Modeling System with
Hotspot analysis
augmented ε-constraint, valorization of food waste into electricity via anaerobic digestion is the most favorable
Valorization technology
option, with 146% and 161% reduction of human health and ecosystems, respectively, as compared with open
Malaysia
landfill. If cost is combined as an objective function with human health and ecosystems, high-temperature drying
sterilization is the most attractive scenario due to the high livestock feed revenue. Among the 10 Pareto-optimal
solutions, 9% sanitary landfill, 3% aerated windrow composting, 30% high-temperature drying sterilization, 30%
anaerobic digestion to electricity, and 28% anaerobic digestion to cooking gas, is recommended as future food
waste management configuration. The sensitivity results demonstrate that prices of electricity, cooking gas,
and livestock feed affect the optimal configuration food waste management system.
© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: koksin.woon@xmu.edu.my (K.S. Woon).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151541
0048-9697/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Z. Lin, J.K. Ooi and K.S. Woon Science of the Total Environment 816 (2022) 151541

deciding the feasibility of different FW valorization technologies to valu-

Abbreviations
able byproducts:
AD anaerobic digestion
Question 1: How can we scientifically and holistically analyze the rel-
AUGMENCON2 augmented ε-constraint version 2
ative impacts of various environmental factors (e.g., climate change,
DALY disability-adjusted life years
acidification, eutrophication) for different FW valorization technologies?
FW food waste
Question 2: How can we determine the optimal combination solu-
GAMS general algebraic modeling system
tion of different FW valorization technologies based on the SDG 2030
GHG greenhouse gases
Agenda, which emphasizes the synergistic effect of people (human
LCA life cycle assessment
health), planet (ecosystems), and prosperity (cost)?
LFG landfill gas
Question 3: How can we adopt an integrated assessment to achieve si-
MILP mixed-integer linear programming
multaneous life cycle environmental evaluation (Question 1) and optimal
MYR Malaysia ringgit
configuration (Question 2) of different FW valorization technologies?
SDG sustainable development goal
To resolve Question 1, life cycle assessment (LCA) can be used as an
Mathematical notations analytical tool for establishing a scientific analysis of FW management
(Chiu et al., 2016); hence the potential life cycle environmental impacts
σs quantity of food waste sent into each scenario
associated with the process can be assessed and the hotspot areas can
σs,p quantity of pth type product from each scenario
be identified (Albizzati et al., 2021). For Question 2, mathematical
in inflow of food waste into each scenario
optimization modeling can be applied to minimize or maximize the ob-
out outflow of food waste from each scenario
jective functions under certain constraints to obtain an optimal solution.
βs binary parameter indicate if scenario is selected
LCA tool can only evaluate the life cycle impacts of different FW valori-
βs,p binary parameter indicate if pth type of product can
zation technologies without providing an optimal solution. In contrast,
produce from each scenario
mathematical optimization does not analyze the life cycle impacts of
CCs,p conversion rate of food waste to pth product in each
the FW valorization technologies. To better judge the decision-making
scenario
process as captioned in Question 3, an integrated assessment model
CAPs capacity of each scenario
should be developed to bridge the limitations of both tools.
Es electricity generated in each scenario
Table A.1 in the supplementary material summarizes LCA and opti-
ED renewable energy demand
mization studies that evaluated the environmental feasibility of differ-
PD product demand
ent FW valorization technologies. Keng et al. (2020) performed an LCA
CAPEX total capital expenditure
study on a composting system at the University of Nottingham
OPEX total operational expenditure
Malaysia. Choong et al. (2019) evaluated the GHG emissions of recycled
REV total revenue from product
wood waste for biomass-fired fuel in Malaysia using LCA. Yet, no study
ACAPEXs annualized capital cost of each scenario
integrates the LCA and optimization model to identify an optimal FW
ns number of plant from each scenario
treatment configuration solution based on the local condition in
UOPEXs unit operational cost of each scenario
Malaysia. Guven et al. (2019) presented the mid-point results of four
PRICEp price of pth type product
major processes: transportation, wastewater treatment, FW treatment,
Hhealths human health impact of each scenario
and sludge treatment. Yeo et al. (2019) evaluated the environmental
Ecos ecosystems impact of each scenario
hotspots of transportation and production of wooden biochips to co-
compost with FW at ReCiPe mid-point level. These studies did not
categorize the input and output data according to the individual sub-
process, hence unable to identify the key emissions from each sub-
1. Introduction process and hard to provide specific recommendations for technology
improvement. Meanwhile, the mid-point categories make the results
Food waste (FW) constitutes the highest composition, accounting interpretation complex, rendering a hard decision to be made as the re-
for 44% of global solid waste (Kaza et al., 2018). FW consists of perish- sults are multi-faceted. Aggregating mid-point categories can obtain
able, odorous, and high moisture content characteristics. Thus, inappro- end-point categories to provide a more convenient and consolidated in-
priate FW disposal and treatment methods may result in severe terpretation of results (Pérez-Camacho et al., 2018).
environmental impacts, economic costs, and human health threats (Jin For mathematical optimization, cost minimization is the most fre-
et al., 2021). The Food and Agriculture Organization underlined that quently studied objective (Chinchodkar and Jadhav, 2018; Garibay-
about 30% of food production (equivalent to 1.3 billion tonnes) was Rodriguez et al., 2018). Some recent studies examined the economic
wasted, leading to 3.3 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and environmental aspects simultaneously using a multi-objective opti-
and 750 billion USD direct economic cost (FAO, 2013). Chen et al. mization model (Hoang et al., 2019; Rizwan et al., 2020). The weighting
(2017) elucidated that untreated FW is considered a misplaced resource approach was used to integrate two objective functions due to its sim-
as valuable byproducts such as livestock feed, compost, electricity, plicity. Yet, the weights of each objective function are highly influenced
cooking gas, and biogas vehicle fuel could have been valorized from by the authors' preferences, making the results less deterministic. Aug-
FW. Turning FW into valuable byproducts not only contributes to the mented ε-constraint version 2 (AUGMENCON2) method was proposed
economic benefits (e.g., biogas vehicle fuel could save 0.45 USD/Nm3 by Mavrotas and Florios (2013) to eliminate the weighting method in
as petrol substitute) but also minimizes adverse impacts on human solving the multi-objective model.
health and the environment through air and water pollution (Lo and Some studies combined both LCA and mathematical optimization to
Woon, 2016). The FW valorization is in line with Sustainable Develop- compensate for the limitations of each approach (Chen et al., 2017;
ment Goal (SDG) 7 Affordable and Clean Energy (Hettiarachchi et al., Falahi and Avami, 2020; Laso et al., 2018; Malmir et al., 2020;
2018) and SDG 12 Responsible Consumption and Production (Beretta Movahed et al., 2020; Rizwan et al., 2020; Roberts et al., 2018). Laso
and Hellweg, 2019). et al. (2018) combined the environmental results (i.e., water, energy,
Considering the complexity of FW physical and chemical character- and climate change) and the nutritional content using the weighting
istics, local government policies, national circumstances, and invest- method and optimized the FW management process, yet the economic
ment budget constraints, there is no “one-size-fits-all” formula when factor was not considered. Most studies in Table A.1 neglected the im-
treating the FW (Ooi et al., 2021). Several issues are raised when pact of human health on FW management. Falahi and Avami (2020)

2
Z. Lin, J.K. Ooi and K.S. Woon
compared the optimized configuration from life cycle environmental
impacts and emergy cost perspective separately. To date, action has
not gone far enough to integrate the LCA and optimization model con-
sidering human health, environmental, and economic factors (Roberts
et al., 2018). Studies that explicitly explore the interconnectedness of
LCA and optimization models are still in their relative infancy on FW
management. Hitherto, no clear and holistic step-by-step methodology
framework of integrated life cycle multi-objective optimization has
been developed to enhance the study's consistency and accuracy. The
methodology framework should be simple and deterministic to en-
hance the synergistic effect on LCA and optimization model. This can
be done by employing the AUGMENCON2 method to optimize the LCA
end-point results (i.e., human health and ecosystems) and the economic
perspective (i.e., total cost of the FW management system).
Considering the above-mentioned limitations, this study's main ob-
jective is to develop a model that integrates LCA and mathematical opti-
mization for FW management. The life cycle optimization model
identifies FW management's optimal configuration solution considering
human health, environmental, and economic factors. Malaysia is se-
lected as a case study to apply this integrated assessment model. In
Malaysia, 16,688 tonnes/day of FW (or 0.53 kg/person/day) was pro-
duced, in which 44.5% from household sector in 2018 (Bernama,
2020). The current FW management in Malaysia is a pressing burden
with high dependence on landfills. Out of 170 landfills, only 14 are san-
itary landfills with landfill gas (LFG) recovery systems (Bong et al., 2017;
Shamsul, 2016). Given the recent enabling policies for carbon trading
(Bernama, 2021), valorizing FW to different FW-based byproducts can
reduce carbon emissions, environmental pollution, and human health
impacts and provide economic benefits due to revenue generation
from valuable byproducts (Woon et al., 2016). The Malaysian govern-
ment explores other FW valorization technologies such as sanitary land-
fills with LFG recovery systems, composting, high-temperature drying
sterilization, and anaerobic digestion (AD) for turning FW into different
byproducts. At Ulu Tiram, Johor, a FOLO (feed our loved ones) farm
composted 3.0 tonnes/day of FW to produce 1.1 tonnes/day of organic
fertilizer for application on-site (Lim et al., 2019). Mentari Alam EKO
(MAEKO) has utilized composters to convert more than 7500 tonnes
of FW to organic fertilizer since 2015 (MAEKO, 2021). Worming Up, a
social enterprise in Kuching, upcycled 450 tonnes/year of FW as live-
stock feed for the maggots of black soldier flies, in which dead flies are
harvested and sold to fish farms and poultry breeders (Worming Up,
2021). The renewable biogas generated from FW can also be valorized
as cooking gas and electricity. The Malaysia Energy Commission
(2018) reported that 5.56 × 105 tonnes of liquefied petroleum gas and
3.11 × 104 GWh of electricity were consumed for residential use in 2016.
This study also bridges the limitations in the previous literature by
performing hotspot analysis of sub-processes of each studied FW valori-
zation technology to identify the key emissions from the hotspot area;
hence appropriate recommendations can be provided to reduce the bur-
dens. After the integrated LCA-optimization evaluation, the robustness of
key parameters affecting the optimal configuration is investigated
through parametric sensitivity analysis. While Malaysia is selected as a
case study, it is hoped that the results can provide a comprehensive and
data-driven decision to the policymakers in other countries when design-
ing a sustainable FW management framework through enhancing the
interlinkages of three main nexuses (i.e., people, planet, and prosperity)
based on the SDG 2030 Agenda.
2. Methodology
2.1. General framework of integrated life cycle multi-objective optimization
model
A life cycle multi-objective optimization framework is developed as
shown in Fig. 1. Stage 1 defines the system boundaries and problem
statement. Stage 2 is the inventory analysis that compiles and quantifies
3
Science of the Total Environment 816 (2022) 151541
the inputs and output from a life cycle perspective and the different cost
components. Life cycle impact assessment is performed in Stage 3 to
characterize the life cycle impacts of human health and ecosystems.
Key emissions identification of sub-processes in each FW valorization
technology is determined and appropriate recommendations are pro-
vided to reduce the environmental burdens. In Stage 4, a mixed-
integer linear programming (MILP) mathematical model is formulated
via the AUGMENCON2 method by integrating the LCA end-point results
and the total cost. A three-dimensional set of Pareto-optimal solutions is
generated via GAMS software to help policymakers identify FW valori-
zation technologies that provide environmental benefits/burdens and
cost impact. Post integrated LCA-optimization analysis on the sensitive
parameters is conducted in Stage 5.
2.2. Stage 1: goal and scope definition
This study aims to determine an optimal structure of FW allocation
by considering the life cycle impacts of human health, environmental,
and economic perspectives to provide a holistic view for stakeholders
in developing sustainable FW management. Despite Malaysia's abun-
dance of fossil fuels, the government has committed to becoming a
carbon-neutral nation by 2050 (Abdul Hamid, 2017). Under the Na-
tional Renewable Energy Policy, the Malaysian government strives to
decrease carbon emissions intensity of economic activity by 45% by
2030 relative to the 2005 level and raise the renewable energy mix to
20% by 2025 (MESTECC, 2018). Therefore, FW valorization can be an at-
tractive option for Malaysia in waste reduction and renewable energy
production.
To apply the integrated life cycle multi-objective optimization
model in this case study, some major assumptions are made as listed
below.
1. The FW amount is formulated based on 2016 and 2018 data
(i.e., 15,000 tonnes/day, and 16,688 tonnes/day, respectively). This
FW amount is forecasted from 2016 to 2046 based on a compound
annual growth rate of 5.63%;
2. The operating life year of the FW valorization technology is 30 years;
3. The transportation of FW collection in different scenarios is as-
sumed to be similar and negligible due to the small geographical
area of Malaysia. This assumption is in line with integrated
waste management facilities proposed under Twelfth Malaysia
Plan (EPU, 2021) and a centralized system for FW treatment
under the National Strategic Plan on FW Management (Bong
et al., 2017); hence relative impacts due to transportation for dif-
ferent technologies can be omitted;
4. The capacity of each FW valorization technology is capped at
5000 tonnes/day (30% of total FW generated per day) to ensure the
diversity of valorization technologies and obtain higher product vari-
ety. This can reduce the reliance of FW management on one single
technology or one single product market. Thus, risks such as inade-
quate labor force or technical experts, imbalance byproduct supply
and demand can be minimized.
Four proposed scenarios encompassing different FW valorization
technologies, namely sanitary landfill, aerated windrow composting,
high-temperature drying sterilization, and AD, are compared to the
existing FW disposal scenario (i.e., open landfill). These proposed tech-
nologies are chosen because they are appropriate for Malaysia's current
situation and policy needs (Woon et al., 2021). A functional unit is de-
fined as 1 tonne of FW (wet basis) treated in each scenario to provide
a fair comparison. The system boundary is defined as “bin-to-cradle”,
ranging from the treatment process in different FW disposal and valori-
zation scenarios to valuable byproducts. Fig. 2 shows the schematic pro-
cess flow diagram of each FW valorization scenario with its respective
individual sub-process. The descriptions of each scenario are shown in
Table 1.
Z. Lin, J.K. Ooi and K.S. Woon Science of the Total Environment 816 (2022) 151541

Fig. 1. The framework of the integrated life cycle multi-objective optimization model.

4
Z. Lin, J.K. Ooi and K.S. Woon Science of the Total Environment 816 (2022) 151541

Fig. 2. A schematic process flow diagram of each FW valorization scenario.

2.3. Stage 2: life cycle inventory
Input and output data, such as the elementary composition of FW (as
shown in Table A.2 in the supplementary material), air and leachate
emissions, electricity generation, organic fertilizer generation, livestock
feed generation, cooking gas, and biogas fuel generation, are collected.
The collected data are converted by the defined functional unit and cat-
egorized based on the individual sub-process of each scenario in
Tables A.4–A.12 in the supplementary material. The data are mainly
sourced from on-site surveys (for open landfill), Malaysian Government
official websites and reports, peer-reviewed journals, calculations using
International Panel on Climate Change guidelines provided in Table A.3
in the supplementary material, and Ecoinvent Database 3. The maxi-
mum and minimum ranges of certain data are included in the study to
provide the results' standard deviation. These ranges include the LFG
component by volume (i.e., 45–60% of CH4 and 40–60% of CO2)
(ATSDR, 2001) in S1 and composition of biogas (e.g., 50–75% of CH4
and 25–50% of CO2) in S4 (Anukam et al., 2019). The air emissions in
S2 and the amount of organic fertilizer during aerated windrow
composting are provided by Keng et al. (2020), as shown in Table A.8
in the supplementary material.
For the byproducts production phase of the four proposed FW valo-
rization, the valuable byproducts replace the conventional products.
Avoided environmental impacts for electricity production from S1 and
S4a lead to offsets in the pollutant emissions from the current electricity
generation based on the electricity generation mix (i.e., 43% coal, 40%
natural gas, and 17% hydro) in Malaysia (Energy Commission, 2018).
Organic fertilizer in S2 substitutes the chemical fertilizer, in which the
quantity of organic fertilizer is obtained from Keng et al. (2020). Live-
stock feed in S3 replaces the conventional livestock feed (i.e., 85% of soy-
bean feed and 15% of fishmeal) based on a study conducted by Kim and
Kim (2010). For S4b, the biogas is upgraded into cooking gas to replace
the liquefied petroleum gas, while the upgraded biogas in S4c substi-
tutes natural gas as biogas vehicle fuel. The avoided emissions of lique-
fied petroleum gas and natural gas are obtained from Edwards et al.
(2014) and Jahirul et al. (2007), respectively. The emissions data for
avoided products such as electricity mixed by fuel, chemical fertilizer,
soybean feed and fishmeal, liquefied petroleum gas, and natural gas

Table 1
The descriptions of the FW disposal and valorization scenarios.

Scenario Description

Scenario 0 (S0): open landfill (baseline
scenario)
Scenario 1 (S1): sanitary landfill
Scenario 2 (S2): aerated windrow
composting
Scenario 3 (S3): high-temperature
drying sterilization
Scenario 4 (S4): anaerobic digestion
This is the business-as-usual scenario in Malaysia, in which FW is discarded in the open landfill without any proper environmental
protection measures such as LFG and leachate collection treatment facilities. The FW bio-decomposition process produces uncol-
lected LFG and leachate, resulting in pollutant emissions to the atmosphere and groundwater. This scenario is constructed based on
an existing open landfill site in Bukit Beruntung, Hulu Selangor (with a treatment capacity of 1500 tonnes/day).
The landfill is equipped with proper LFG recovery and leachate collection systems. There are insufficient LFG emissions for electricity
generation in the first year of the landfill operation, so the LFG recovery rate is zero. From the third to tenth year of operation, the LFG
recovery rate increases to 35–70%, while the rest of the operation period (from the eleventh to thirtieth year), the recovery rate
reaches 90% (Woon and Lo, 2013). The collected LFG is sent to a gas turbine with 40% efficiency for electricity generation (Johari et al.,
2012). The electricity generated is used on-site, while excess electricity is sold to a national power plant based on a feed-in-tariff of
0.25 MYR/kWh (SEDA, 2021). Meanwhile, excess collected LFG is burned in a flaring system and then released into the atmosphere.
The leachate emissions standard follows Malaysia's Environmental Quality Regulation (DOE, 2010). 0.188 m3 of leachate is estimated
to be generated from 1 tonne of FW (Malakahmad et al., 2017).
A 4.5 kW wood chipper is used to shred wood into sawdust with a 0.1 tonne/h (Keng et al., 2020). Then FW is mixed with the
sawdust in a mass ratio of 1:0.179 to control moisture and reduce the toxicity of FW (Kim and Kim, 2010). Then, the mixture
performs bio-reaction under the aerobic condition to enhance fermentation. The byproduct of S2 is sold as organic fertilizer to replace
existing commercial fertilizer.
FW is injected into a storage tank, followed by crushing and screening to control FW quality for livestock feed. The FW is then
homogenized to about 100 μm, and the water content is reduced to less than 12% via a pulse combustion drying technology at 140 °C.
Finally, the byproduct is stored in a vertical silo to maintain its quality before selling as a livestock feed (San Martin et al., 2016).
FW is converted into biogas in an anaerobic biogas digester at mesophilic temperature (around 35 °C) (Jouhara et al., 2017). The
biogas generated is directly sent to a gas turbine by a 12 kW blower to generate electricity in S4a. For S4b and S4c, the biogas is
further upgraded via water scrubbing technology with 1% of CH4 fugitive emissions (Banks et al., 2018). Then, the purified biogas
(with 98% of CH4 composition) is used as cooking gas (i.e., S4b) and biogas vehicle fuel (i.e., S4c).

5
Z. Lin, J.K. Ooi and K.S. Woon
are provided by Ecoinvent 3-allocation at point of substitution in the
SimaPro 9.0 database.
The economic data are collected from Malaysia's governmental offi-
cial reports published by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government
Malaysia. The same data source is used to ensure the data are standard-
ized by the methodology and year. Table A.13 in the supplementary ma-
terial summarizes the capital and operating cost of different FW
valorization technologies. The yield and market price of the byproducts
valorized from FW can be found in Table A.14 in the supplementary ma-
terial. All costs are discounted to 2021 with a discount rate of 4%. The
proposed model can be readily adopted to other countries/regions by
using their specific data to create a more sustainable circularity FW
management sector.
2.4. Stage 3: life cycle impact assessment and interpretation
ReCiPe 2016 End-point (E) in the SimaPro 9.0 software is adopted to
categorize and characterize the data collected in Stage 2 into different
mid-point and end-point categories. The mid-point category is defined
as “problem-oriented approach” to evaluate the impact category at the
mid-point level, while the end-point category is a “damage-oriented ap-
proach” obtained by aggregating the mid-point category (Pérez-
Camacho et al., 2018). 12 mid-point categories and two end-point cate-
gories (i.e., human health and ecosystems) are evaluated in this study as
provided in Table A.15 in the supplementary material. These mid-point
categories are frequently investigated for the studied FW valorization
technologies (Guven et al., 2019). Eight mid-point categories, namely
global warming (human health and terrestrial ecosystems), fine partic-
ulate matter formation, human carcinogenic toxicity, human non-
carcinogenic toxicity, terrestrial acidification, and freshwater eutrophi-
cation, and marine ecotoxicity, are selected for further analysis as these
eight mid-point categories are contributing significant results with ac-
counting for more than 2% of environmental impact for the studied
end-point categories. After characterizing the data into different mid-
point and end-point categories, hotspot analysis is conducted to identify
the individual sub-process of each scenario that incurs the highest envi-
ronmental burdens; hence appropriate recommendations are provided.
2.5. Stage 4: mathematical model formulation
The mathematical model comprising objective functions and con-
straints is developed in this stage. As indicated from Eqs. (1) to (7),
four major constraints are formulated in this mathematical model.
Eq. (1) emphasizes the availability of ith type FW that is allocated to dif-
ferent valorization technologies. Eq. (2) represents the flow of FW in the
process stream. Eq. (3) shows that the product output leaving the FW
valorization technologies. Eq. (4) indicates the mass balance between
input and output streams. Eq. (5) ensures the total FW received is distrib-
uted among the valorization technologies without exceeding their capac-
ity. Renewable energy target constraint is described by Eq. (6). The total
capacity of the electricity generating FW valorization technologies built
shall not exceed the Malaysia renewable energy mix target (i.e., 20% of
electricity generation mix by 2025) to avoid over-investment. Eq. (7) em-
phasizes that the supply of the valuable byproducts generated from FW
valorization technologies should not exceed the consumption of that
byproduct in Malaysia to prevent overproduction.
FW availability and mass balance : W ≥ ∑σs
βs ð1Þ
s
in ¼ ∑σs
βs ð2Þ
s
out ¼ ∑∑CCs, p
∑∑ðβs, p
σsÞ ð3Þ
s p s p
in ≥ out ð4Þ
6
Science of the Total Environment 816 (2022) 151541
FW valorization technology capacity : ∑σs ≤ ∑CAPs
βs ð5Þ
s s
Renewable energy target : ∑Es ≤ ED ð6Þ
s
Byproduct demand : ∑∑σs, p ≤ PD ð7Þ
s p
There are three objective functions in this mathematical model.
Eq. (8) represents the first objective function in the model which high-
lights the total cost minimization of the FW management. The cost com-
ponents comprise the annualized capital and operation cost of the FW
valorization technologies and the revenue generated from the main
products. Details of each cost component are shown in Eqs. (9) to
(11). Eq. (12) illustrates the second objective function, which minimizes
the human health impact. Eq. (13) is the third objective function that
minimizes the ecosystems impact. The parameters of human health
and ecosystems are obtained from the end-point categories of LCA re-
sults as obtained in Stage 3.
Min ðF1Þ ¼ OPEX þ CAPEX − REV ð8Þ
OPEX ¼ ∑ðUOPEX
σsÞ ð9Þ
s
CAPEX ¼ ∑βs
ACAPEXs
ns ð10Þ
s
REV ¼ ∑ðPRICE
σs, pÞ ð11Þ
s
Min ðF2Þ ¼ ∑ðHealths
σsÞ ð12Þ
s
Min ðF3Þ ¼ ∑ðEcos
σsÞ ð13Þ
s
The proposed integrated LCA-optimization model adopts a multi-
objective MILP to solve problems as MILP can handle constraints that the
variables can be both integers or non-integers. It is programmed using
GAMS and solved with the CPLEX solver (GAMS, 2019). There are three
conflicting objective functions; therefore, the AUGMENCON2 method, as
defined in Eq. (14), is used to solve the problem. AUGMENCON2 imple-
ments lexicographic optimization on all the objective functions to identify
the alternative optima and form the pay-off table (Mavrotas and Florios,
2013). The range of the objective functions is calculated and divided into
equal intervals using intermediate equidistant grid points. Total grid
points are obtained to vary the right-hand side of the objective function.
Ultimately, a set of Pareto-optimal solutions, which consists of equally
good alternatives with different trade-offs, is obtained.
  
max f 1 ðxÞ þ eps
s2 =r2 þ 10−1 s3 =r3 þ . . . þ 10−ðp−2Þ sp =rp ð14Þ
such that f2(x) − s2 = e2, eps = [10−6, 10−3].
2.6. Stage 5: post-optimization analysis
The optimal solutions are analyzed following the current policy
needs and local conditions in Malaysia. An optimal mix of FW valoriza-
tion technology configuration is proposed to assist the policymakers in
developing a circular FW management. To tackle the uncertainties in
the key parameters, the effect of the variation in byproduct price on
the FW allocation on the scenario is evaluated through parametric sen-
sitivity analysis to accommodate the high volatility of byproduct price in
the future. The capacity of each FW valorization technology is adjusted
to +50% and +100% to observe the changes in the optimal configura-
tion of the FW management network.
Z. Lin, J.K. Ooi and K.S. Woon Science of the Total Environment 816 (2022) 151541

3. Result and discussion natural gas) in the current Malaysia electricity generation mix to biogas
via AD for electricity generation avoids significant emissions reduction in
3.1. Life cycle impact assessment and interpretation pollutants, including a reduction of 419 g PM2.5/tonne FW, 733 g SO2/
tonne FW, and 11.8 g Zn/tonne FW. Converting FW to livestock feed in
Fig. 3 indicates eight mid-point and two end-point categories results S3 (i.e., high-temperature drying sterilization) shows the least environ-
for the sub-processes of five scenarios. The other four mid-points are mental burden for global warming (human health and terrestrial ecosys-
provided in Fig. A.1 in the supplementary material because they only ac- tems). This result is in line with Laso et al. (2018), in which valorizing FW
count for 0.01–0.14% of the studied end-point category (i.e., ecosystems). into livestock feed has comparatively lower GHG emissions than sanitary
The quantitative results of each sub-processes can be found in Table A.16 landfill. The rank order of five scenarios for 12 mid-point categories is
in the supplementary material. Negative values indicate that the envi- tabulated in Table A.17 in the supplementary material.
ronmental benefit is gained by the corresponding sub-process, whereas To identify the key emissions from these five scenarios, hotspot
positive values refer to the environmental burden incurred in the respec- analysis is conducted by investigating each scenario's sub-process that
tive sub-process. The black square dots represent the net environmental incurs the highest environmental burdens for respective mid-point cat-
impact (i.e., the sum of each scenario's environmental burdens and envi- egories. In Fig. 3(a) and (e), fugitive LFG emissions in S1 (i.e., sanitary
ronmental benefits). The error bars indicate the standard deviation due landfill) incur lower impacts in global warming (human health and ter-
to the variability for emissions and production associated with each restrial ecosystems) than LFG with no collection system in S0. S1 has
scenario. significantly reduced 71.3% of CH4 emissions to the atmosphere as
Among the studied mid-point categories, S0 (i.e., open landfill) indi- compared to S0. This is because the installations of LFG recovery sys-
cates the highest-burden with the largest positive values in global tems for electricity generation and flaring systems prevent polluting
warming (human health and terrestrial ecosystems), human non- gases (e.g., CH4 and non-methane volatile organic compounds) into
carcinogenic toxicity, and marine ecotoxicity. S2 (i.e., aerated windrow the atmosphere during the lifespan of sanitary landfills (Malakahmad
composting) incurs the worst result for fine particulate matter formation et al., 2017). Besides, leachate emission in S0 contributes the highest en-
and terrestrial acidification due to NH3 emissions to the atmosphere. S4b vironmental burdens in human non-carcinogenic toxicity and marine
(i.e., cooking gas generation from AD) provides the most burden on ecotoxicity, mainly attributing to 44.4 g Zn/tonne FW emissions as
human carcinogenic toxicity and freshwater eutrophication because of depicted in Fig. 3(d) and (h). The installation of high-density polyethyl-
the electricity consumption in the biogas upgrading process. S4a ene layers as lining systems for leachate collection in S1 prevents heavy
(i.e., electricity generation from AD) contributes the highest environmen- metals (e.g., Zn, Ni, Hg, and Cd) emissions to groundwater (Hussein
tal benefits on six mid-point categories, including fine particulate matter et al., 2019), leading to a 76.2–99.2% reduction of heavy metals emis-
formation, human carcinogenic toxicity, human non-carcinogenic toxic- sions compared to S0. Hence, S1 does not cause any significant environ-
ity, terrestrial acidification, freshwater eutrophication, and marine mental burdens in human non-carcinogenic toxicity and marine
ecotoxicity. The fuel switching from conventional fuel (i.e., coal and ecotoxicity. The error bars in Fig. 3(b) and (f) indicate that S0 and S1

2.0x10-3 2.0x10-4
Fine particulate matter formation (DALY)

(a) (b)
Global warming, Human health (DALY)

1.0x10-3 1.0x10-4

0.0
0.0

-1.0x10-3
-1.0x10-4
-2.0x10-3
-2.0x10-4
-3.0x10-3

-3.0x10-4
-4.0x10-3

-5.0x10-3 -4.0x10-4

-6.0x10-3 -5.0x10-4
Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4a Scenario 4b Scenario 4c Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4a Scenario 4b Scenario 4c

5.0x10-4 3.0x10-2
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity (DALY)

(c) (d)
Human carcinogenic toxicity (DALY)

2.5x10-2
0.0

2.0x10-2
-5.0x10-4
1.5x10-2

-1.0x10-3 1.0x10-2

5.0x10-3
-1.5x10-3
0.0

-2.0x10-3
-5.0x10-3

-2.5x10-3 -1.0x10-2
Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4a Scenario 4b Scenario 4c Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4a Scenario 4b Scenario 4c

Fig. 3. Mid-point results (per tonne of FW on wet basis) generated by each scenario (a) global warming human health; (b) fine particulate matter formation; (c) human carcinogenic
toxicity; (d) human non-carcinogenic toxicity; (e) global warming terrestrial ecosystems; (f) terrestrial acidification; (g) freshwater eutrophication; (h) marine ecotoxicity. End-point
results (per tonne of FW on wet basis) generated by each scenario (i) human health; (j) ecosystems.

7
Z. Lin, J.K. Ooi and K.S. Woon Science of the Total Environment 816 (2022) 151541

Global warming, Terrestrial ecosystems (species.yr)

4.0x10-6 3.0x10-7
(e) (f)
3.0x10-6

Terrestrial acidification (species.yr)

2.5x10-7
2.0x10-6
1.0x10-6 2.0x10-7
0.0 1.5x10-7
-1.0x10-6
-6 1.0x10-7
-2.0x10
-3.0x10-6 5.0x10-8
-4.0x10-6
0.0
-5.0x10-6
-6.0x10-6 -5.0x10-8
-7.0x10-6 -1.0x10-7
-8.0x10-6
-9.0x10 -6 -1.5x10-7

-1.0x10-5 -2.0x10-7
-1.1x10-5
-2.5x10-7
Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4a Scenario 4b Scenario 4c Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4a Scenario 4b Scenario 4c

2x10-8 1.5x10-5
(g) (h)
Freshwater eutrophication (species.yr)

1x10-8

Marine ecotoxicity (species.yr)

0
1.0x10-5
-1x10-8

-2x10-8

-3x10-8
5.0x10-6
-4x10-8

-5x10-8

-6x10-8 0.0
-7x10-8

-8x10-8

-9x10-8 -5.0x10-6
Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4a Scenario 4b Scenario 4c Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4a Scenario 4b Scenario 4c

3.00x10-2 2x10-5
(i) (j)
Ecosystems (species.yr)
Human health (DALY)

1x10-5
1.50x10-2

0.00

-1x10-5

-1.50x10-2
Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4a Scenario 4b Scenario 4c Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4a Scenario 4b Scenario 4c

Fig. 3 (continued).

have high standard deviations in fine particulate matter formation biochar is effective due to its porosity and high nutrient absorbability
(i.e., 3.12 × 10−5 DALY/tonne FW for S0 and 2.48 × 10−5 DALY/tonne (Awasthi et al., 2020). Fig. 3 (c) and (g) illustrate that the shredding
FW for S1) and terrestrial acidification (i.e., 8.59 × 10−8 species·yr/ process in S2 causes the highest environmental loads in human
tonne FW for S0 and 8.36 × 10−8 species·yr/tonne FW for S1). This is carcinogenic toxicity and freshwater eutrophication. The dominant
administered by the high volume ratio variation of NH3 in LFG emis- contributor is fossil fuels combustion due to electricity consumption
sions (i.e., 0.1–1%). At the maximum point of error bars in S0, the aggre- from shredding machines. Despite the aerobic bio-reaction process
gated results of S0 generates higher values in fine particulate matter emits 0.15 kg N2O/tonne FW to the atmosphere as depicted in Fig. 3
formation (i.e., 8.53 × 10−5 DALY/tonne FW) and terrestrial acidifica- (a) and (e), S2 outperforms 62% in global warming (human health and
tion (i.e., 2.35 × 10−7 species·yr/tonne FW) than the net results terrestrial ecosystems) as compared to S0, providing a similar finding
(i.e., black square dots) of S2 in fine particulate matter formation with Lim et al. (2019).
(i.e., 6.97 × 10−5 DALY/tonne FW) and terrestrial acidification As indicated in Fig. 3(a) and (e), high amounts of GHGs are emitted
(i.e., 2.15 × 10−7 species·yr/tonne FW). in S3 due to high electricity (i.e., 6.76 kWh/tonne FW) and natural gas
As displayed in Fig. 3(b) and (f), the aerobic bio-reaction process is the consumption (i.e., 261.6 kWh/tonne FW) in the pulse combustion dry-
hotspot area in S2 that incurs the worst results in fine particulate matter ing process, contributing to 31% of the total electricity used in the plant.
formation and terrestrial acidification, mainly due to 528 g NH3/tonne FW San Martin et al. (2016) reported that a rotatory oven could be applied
emissions to the atmosphere. To reduce the NH3 emissions in S2, adding to avoid high energy consumption in the drying process, in which 34%

8
Z. Lin, J.K. Ooi and K.S. Woon
of energy consumption can be reduced compared to pulse combustion
drying. Although a high electricity consumption in the drying process,
the livestock feed production in S3 compensates the environmental
burdens by replacing soybean feed and fishmeal, rendering a negative
value (i.e., environmental benefits) to global warming human health
(i.e., −3.34 × 10−3 DALY/tonne FW) and global warming terrestrial
ecosystems (i.e., −6.68 × 10−6 species·yr/tonne FW).
For S4, the environmental burdens in global warming human health
and global warming terrestrial ecosystems are mainly caused by anaer-
obic bio-reaction due to the fugitive CH4 emissions in S4a and electricity
consumption by biogas upgrading process in S4b and S4c. IRENA (2017)
reported that chemical scrubbers as biogas upgrading technology could
be adopted due to low electricity demand (i.e., 0.09 kWh/m3 biogas).
Fig. 3(i) and (j) depict the two end-point categories, namely human
health and ecosystems, for all studied scenarios. It is worth noting that
human non-carcinogenic toxicity affects the most under the human
health end-point category, while global warming terrestrial ecosystems
shows the highest contribution to the ecosystems end-point category.
S4a is the most environmentally friendly scenario, while S0 is the
worst performing scenario for both end-point categories. The results in-
dicate that valorizing FW into electricity via AD (i.e., S4a) contributes
146% and 161% reduction of human health and ecosystems, respec-
tively, compared with S0.
The detailed rankings of the scenarios for these two end-point cate-
gories are provided in Table A.18 in the supplementary material. All five
scenarios show similar ranking locations in both end-point categories,
only a swap between S4b and S4c. S4b incurs higher overall adverse im-
pacts on the fine particulate matter formation, human carcinogenic tox-
icity, and human non-carcinogenic toxicity. The production of cooking
gas is insufficient to compensate for the environmental burden caused
by electricity consumption, rendering a worse ranking than S4c in
5
6
Fig. 4. Three-dimensional Pareto frontier of 10 Pareto-optimal solutions.
9
Science of the Total Environment 816 (2022) 151541
human health. Meanwhile, S4b contributes a significant environmental
benefit (i.e., −2.39 × 10−7 species·yr/tonne FW) in global warming ter-
restrial ecosystems, making S4b (i.e., −2.13 × 10−7 species·yr/tonne
FW) ranks better than S4c (i.e., −1.46 × 10−7 species·yr/tonne FW)
in ecosystems.
3.2. MILP optimization results with three-dimensional Pareto frontier
Based on the end-point results described in Section 3.1 and the total
cost collected in Stage 2, 10 Pareto-optimal solutions for FW manage-
ment in Malaysia are generated using the augmented ε-constraint
method via GAMS software. The 10 Pareto-optimal solutions are non-
dominated alternatives with trade-offs from the most economical to
least damaging burden (i.e., human health and ecosystems). Since
there are three interdependence objective functions, the solutions are
plotted into a three-dimensional Pareto frontier, as shown in Fig. 4.
The exact values for each Pareto-optimal solution can be found in
Table A.19 in the supplementary material.
When the Pareto-optimal solutions transit from the most economi-
cal solution (1st solution) to the least damaging solution (10th solu-
tion), the Pareto-optimality changes are not linear as the distance
between solutions narrows down. This finding is supported by Ooi
and Woon (2021), which reported the non-uniform gaps of the Pareto
curve. Starting from the most economical solution, an increase in the
total cost of 0.43 MYR/tonne FW reduces the human health and ecosys-
tems of the FW management system by 1.8% and 2.0%, respectively, in-
curring a significant gap between the 1st and 2nd Pareto-optimal
solution. When it is approaching the least damaging solution (i.e., taking
the 8th and 9th solutions as an example), the gap is narrower since an in-
crease in the total cost of 0.68 MYR/tonne has a minimal impact of 0.7%
and 0.3% on reducing human health and ecosystems, respectively.
7 8 9 10
Z. Lin, J.K. Ooi and K.S. Woon
Fig. 5 demonstrates the amount of FW allocated into different FW
valorization technologies to achieve optimal conditions, as shown in
the 10 Pareto-optimal solutions. The result shows that four types of sce-
narios, namely S4a, S4b, S3, and S1, should be adopted in the FW man-
agement system in Malaysia. S0 (i.e., open landfill), which is currently
practiced in FW management in Malaysia, has ceased to exist in all
Pareto-optimal solutions as open landfill lacks adequate leachate and
LFG collection systems; hence no valuable byproduct is generated. It is
interesting to note that S4c is not chosen as one of the configurations
in the Pareto-optimal solutions, mainly attributed to the high cost in-
curred in biogas upgrading unit and lower avoided emissions in pollut-
ants than the other scenarios.
S4a and S3 are both at maximum capacity throughout all the Pareto-
optimal solutions, indicating that they are the most cost-effective,
human-health-friendly, and ecosystem-friendly alternatives. Therefore,
sensitivity analysis on their capacity is carried out to provide a more in-
depth discussion for both scenarios. A prominent trend is observed
when the solutions move from the most economical solution (i.e., 1st
solution) to the least damaging solution (i.e., 10th solution), the capac-
ity of S4b decreases by 2665 tonnes/day (16% of total FW) and S1 in-
creases by 3205 tonnes/day (19% of total FW). This suggests that S1 is
less damaging but more expensive compared to S4b. This is because of
the high yield of biogas from AD and the high selling price of cooking
biogas, providing a higher revenue generated for S4b. It is important
to note that the price of byproducts is region-specific, and hence locally
representative data is essential. Therefore, sensitivity analysis on
byproduct selling price is discussed in Section 3.3.2 to investigate the ro-
bustness of this parameter.
Since human health and ecosystems show negative values
(i.e., environmental benefits) for all Pareto-optimal solutions, the 1st so-
lution (i.e., the most economical solution) is recommended as the blue-
print for the FW management system in Malaysia. The configuration of
the 1st solution is 9% sanitary landfill, 3% aerated windrow composting,
30% high-temperature drying sterilization, 30% AD to electricity, and
28% AD to cooking gas. This result is echoed to the waste management
policies in several European countries (e.g., Finland and Germany),
which limit landfill activity since the 1990s (EEA, 2013). Sanitary land-
fills and AD cut fossil fuel consumption, avoiding considerable GHG
emissions due to renewable energy generation. The bioenergy products
(i.e., cooking gas and electricity from S1, S4a, and S4b) correspond to
Malaysia National Renewable Energy Policy of achieving the renewable
Fig. 5. Configuration of FW valorization technologies of each Pareto-optimal solution.
10
Science of the Total Environment 816 (2022) 151541
energy mix to 20% by 2025. The proposed FW management optimal
configuration can contribute to the carbon-neutral target by 2050, as
stated in the Twelfth Malaysia Plan (EPU, 2021).
3.3. Sensitivity analysis
3.3.1. The effect of capacity
The capacity of each proposed FW valorization technology is capped
at 5000 tonnes/day, as mentioned in Section 2.2. Since S1, S3, S4a, and
S4b are selected for the blueprint for the FW management system in
Malaysia, the capacity constraints of these four scenarios are relaxed
to observe the effect of capacity on the outcome. The maximum capacity
is increased by 50% and 100%, and the results are demonstrated in Fig. 6.
S1 appears to be the most sensitive FW valorization technology as the
optimization model excludes it after increasing the maximum capacity
by 50% and 100%. This illustrates that S1 is the least attractive one
among the four scenarios.
As shown in Fig. 6(b), S3 is the most attractive valorization technol-
ogy as it occupies almost all Pareto-optimal solutions in full capacity ex-
cept the last three Pareto-optimal solutions (i.e., 8th, 9th, and 10th) of
100% maximum capacity increment. This is mainly due to the lucrative
profit and high avoided emissions of livestock feed production from
S3. When maximum capacity is set to 10,000 tonnes/day, the percent-
age of S3 drops accordingly for the last three Pareto-optimal solutions
and is replaced by S4a by 5.11%, 19.12%, and 33.12%, respectively. This
shows that S4a is the second attractive valorization technology from
the cost, human health, and ecosystems perspective. S4a has a higher
total cost but generates more benefits to human health and the ecosys-
tems than S3. When comparing S4a and S4b, S4a shows an increasing
trend from the most economical solution towards the least damaging
solutions (i.e., from the 1st to 10th Pareto-optimal solution), whereas
S4b has a decreasing trend. This demonstrates that S4b is more econom-
ically favorable, whereas S4a is more human-health-friendly and
ecosystem-friendly.
3.3.2. The effect of the byproducts selling price
A sensitivity analysis is performed with all the selling prices varied
by ±50% to accommodate the impact of the volatile selling price of
byproducts. The results in Fig. 7 show that the price fluctuations of elec-
tricity, cooking gas, and livestock feed give a different degree of influ-
ence. The variations in vehicle fuel (S4c) and organic fertilizer (S2)
Z. Lin, J.K. Ooi and K.S. Woon
Fig. 6. The effect of increasing in capacity constraint by 50% and 100% on the proposed FW management system (a) S1: sanitary landfill; (b) S3: high-temperature drying sterilization;
(c) S4a: anaerobic digestion to electricity; (d) S4b: anaerobic digestion to cooking gas.
prices do not affect the optimal configuration as the degree of reduc-
tions in total cost are insufficient to compensate for the human health
and ecosystems impact.
An increment of electricity price by 50% does not alter the optimal
configuration of the FW management system. Nevertheless, if the
electricity price decreases, the optimal configuration changes signif-
icantly, where S4a is selected in the last three Pareto-optimal solu-
tions (i.e., 8th, 9th, and 10th), occupying 9.25%, 23.23%, and 29.96%
in the total FW amount respectively. This is because the profit of
electricity-generating valorization technology can no longer cover
its high capital and operational cost. In this case, S4b and S0 are cho-
sen. S0 is selected as an alternative in the most economical solution
due to its low capital and operational costs. However, it should be
emphasized that S0 is not a viable option for treating FW due to the
significant human health and ecosystems burdens as described in
Section 3.1.
As the cooking gas price increases, S4b has become one of the
most favorable scenarios in the least damaging solution. However,
the decrease in cooking gas price renders S4b to be wholly replaced
by S1 and S2. For S3, the increase in livestock feed price has no effect
on the result as the capacity for all solutions is full. In contrast, the
decrease in livestock feed price causes S1 and S2 to be more cost-
effective than S3. Hence, S3 only appears in the last four solutions,
occupying 3.57%, 12.38%, 21.37%, and 29.96% in the total FW amount,
respectively.
4. Conclusion
A simple and deterministic life cycle multi-objective optimiza-
tion model that integrates LCA and mathematical optimization is de-
veloped to foster synergies and maximize benefits across human
health, environment, and economic nexus for sustainable FW man-
agement planning. The developed framework is applied to five FW
disposal and valorization scenarios by assessing 12 mid-point cate-
gories, 2 end-point categories (i.e., human health and ecosystems),
and cost impact based on Malaysia's circumstances. The results
11
Science of the Total Environment 816 (2022) 151541
show that S4a (AD to electricity) outperforms other FW valorization
technologies in both end-point categories (i.e., −1.28 × 10−2 DALY/
tonne FW in human health and −1.03 × 10−5 species·yr/tonne FW
in ecosystems), while open landfill (i.e., business-as-usual scenario)
incurs the most burdens in both end-point categories. Compared to
S0 (open landfill), S4a contributes 146% and 161% reduction of
human health and ecosystems, respectively. For hotspot analysis,
the leachate emissions in S0 (open landfill) has the most significant
burden for both end-point categories due to heavy metals (e.g., Zn,
Ni, Cu, and Hg) emissions to groundwater, followed by the drying
process in S3 (high-temperature drying sterilization) due to high
electricity consumption in the dryer.
By integrating the LCA end-point results with the MILP optimiza-
tion, 10 Pareto-optimal solutions that optimize three objective func-
tions (i.e., human health, ecosystems, total cost) are generated. The
optimal configurations of FW management of all Pareto-optimal so-
lutions include four types of most favorable scenarios, ranking from
S3 (high-temperature drying sterilization), S4a (AD to electricity),
S4b (AD to cooking gas), S1 (sanitary landfill), and S2 (aerated
windrow composting). Since all of the Pareto-optimal solutions ex-
hibit human health and ecosystems benefit, the most economical so-
lution, namely 9% sanitary landfill, 3% aerated windrow composting,
30% high-temperature drying sterilization, 30% AD to electricity, and
28% AD to cooking gas, is recommended for future FW management
policy planning in Malaysia. The decrease in electricity price signifi-
cantly impacts the FW management system, followed by cooking gas
and livestock feed prices. The proposed integrated life cycle multi-
objective optimization model is expected to provide comprehensive
and data-driven insights into FW management planning. This, in
turn, creates a more sustainable circularity FW strategy, resource-
efficient, and greener economy. The explicit relationship between
the modeling results with Malaysia's national targets and policies
can be investigated for further research. Parametric sensitivity anal-
ysis related to the cost of FW valorization technologies can also be
studied to investigate the cost variation impact on the modeling
results.
Z. Lin, J.K. Ooi and K.S. Woon Science of the Total Environment 816 (2022) 151541

Fig. 7. The effect of adjusting the byproducts selling price by +50% and −50% on the proposed FW management system (a) electricity price increases by 50%; (b) electricity price decreases
by 50%; (c) cooking gas price increases by 50%; (d) cooking gas price decreases by 50%; (e) vehicle fuel increases by 50%; (f) vehicle fuel decreases by 50%; (g) compost increases by 50%;
(h) compost decreases by 50%; (i) livestock feed increases by 50%; (j) livestock feed decreases by 50%.

CRediT authorship contribution statement Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis,

Writing - original draft. Kok Sin Woon: Supervision, Conceptu-
Zuchao Lin: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, alization, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Funding acqui-
Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Jun Keat Ooi: sition.

12
Z. Lin, J.K. Ooi and K.S. Woon
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank for the financial support from the
Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia through the Fundamental
Research Grant Scheme (FRGS/1/2020/TK0/XMU/02/2).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151541.
References
Abdul Hamid, Z., 2017. Towards a carbon-neutral Malaysia by 2050 [WWW Document].
URLNew Straits Times (accessed 4.21.21) https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/
columnists/2017/11/302480/towards-carbon-neutral-malaysia-2050.
Albizzati, P.F., Tonini, D., Astrup, T.F., 2021. High-value products from food waste: an en-
vironmental and socio-economic assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 755, 142466. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142466.
Anukam, A., Mohammadi, A., Naqvi, M., Granström, K., 2019. A review of the chemistry of
anaerobic digestion: methods of accelerating and optimizing process efficiency. Pro-
cesses https://doi.org/10.3390/PR7080504.
ATSDR, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2001. Landfill Gas Primer - An
Overview for Environmental Health Professionals - Chapter 2: Landfill Gas Basics
[WWW Document]. URLAgency Toxic Subst. Dis. Regist (accessed 4.20.21). https://
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/landfill/html/ch2.html.
Awasthi, S.K., Sarsaiya, S., Awasthi, M.K., Liu, T., Zhao, J., Kumar, S., Zhang, Z., 2020.
Changes in global trends in food waste composting: research challenges and oppor-
tunities. Bioresour. Technol. 299, 122555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.
122555.
Banks, C., Heaven, S., Zhang, S., Baier, U., 2018. Food waste digestion: anaerobic digestion
of food waste for a circular economy. IEA Bioenergy Task, p. 37.
Beretta, C., Hellweg, S., 2019. Potential environmental benefits from food waste preven-
tion in the food service sector. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 147, 169–178. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.023.
Bernama, Malaysian National News Agency, 2020. Food waste drops during MCO, rises
soon after [WWW document]. URLHarakah Dly (accessed 9.20.21). https://
harakahdaily.net/index.php/2020/10/20/food-waste-drops-during-mco-rises-soon-
after/.
Bernama, Malaysian National News Agency, 2021. Tuan Ibrahim: Govt’s approach to cli-
mate change issues outlined in MyCAC [WWW document]. URLNew Straits Times
(accessed 4.15.21). https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2021/04/682056/tuan-
ibrahim-govts-approach-climate-change-issues-outlined-mycac.
Bong, C.P.C., Ho, W.S., Hashim, H., Lim, J.S., Ho, C.S., Peng Tan, W.S., Lee, C.T., 2017. Review
on the renewable energy and solid waste management policies towards biogas de-
velopment in Malaysia. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 70, 988–998. https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.RSER.2016.12.004.
Chen, T., Shen, D., Jin, Y., Li, H., Yu, Z., Feng, H., Long, Y., Yin, J., 2017. Comprehensive eval-
uation of environ-economic benefits of anaerobic digestion technology in an inte-
grated food waste-based methane plant using a fuzzy mathematical model. Appl.
Energy 208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.082.
Chinchodkar, K.N., Jadhav, O.S., 2018. Optimal Planning for Aurangabad Municipal Solid
Waste through Mixed Integer Linear Programming. 13, pp. 11883–11887.
Chiu, S.L.H., Lo, I.M.C., Woon, K.S., Yan, D.Y.S., 2016. Life cycle assessment of waste treat-
ment strategy for sewage sludge and food waste in Macau: perspectives on environ-
mental and energy production performance. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11367-015-1008-2.
Choong, J.E., Onn, C.C., Yusoff, S., Mohd, N.S., 2019. Life Cycle Assessment of Waste-to-
Energy : Energy Recovery from Wood Waste in Malaysia. 28, pp. 2593–2602.
https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/93925.
DOE, Department of Environment, 2010. Environmental Requirements: A Guide for Inves-
tors. Environmental Quality (Control of Pollution from Solid Waste Transfer Station
and Landfill) Requlations 2009.
Edwards, R., Karnani, S., Fisher, E.M., Johnson, M., Naeher, L., Smith, K.R., Morawska, L.,
2014. WHO Indoor Air Quality Guidelines: Household fuel Combustion - Review 2:
Emissions of Health-Damaging Pollutants from Household Stoves, pp. 1–42.
EEA, European Environment Agency, 2013. Municipal Waste Management in Germany.
European Environment Agency.
Energy Commission, 2018. Malaysia Energy Statistics 2018. Putrajaya.
EPU, Economic Planning Unit, 2021. The Twelfth Malaysia Plan, 2021-2025. Prime Minis-
ter's Department, Malaysia.
Falahi, M., Avami, A., 2020. Optimization of the municipal solid waste management sys-
tem using a hybrid life cycle assessment–emergy approach in Tehran. J. Mater. Cycles
Waste Manag. 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-00919-0.
13
Science of the Total Environment 816 (2022) 151541
FAO, 2013. Food Wastage Footprint - Impact on Natural Resources (Summary Report).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
GAMS, 2019. General Algebraic Modeling System V28.2.0. GAMS Development Corp.
Garibay-Rodriguez, J., Laguna-Martinez, M.G., Rico-Ramirez, V., Botello-Alvarez, J.E., 2018.
Optimal municipal solid waste energy recovery and management: a mathematical
programming approach. Comput. Chem. Eng. 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compchemeng.2018.09.025.
Guven, H., Wang, Z., Eriksson, O., 2019. Evaluation of future food waste management al-
ternatives in Istanbul from the life cycle assessment perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 239.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117999.
Hettiarachchi, H., Meegoda, J.N., Ryu, S., 2018. Organic waste buyback as a viable method
to enhance sustainable municipal solid waste management in developing countries.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112483.
Hoang, G.M., Fujiwara, T., Pham Phu, T.S., Nguyen, L.D., 2019. Sustainable solid waste
management system using multi-objective decision-making model: a method for
maximizing social acceptance in Hoi An city, Vietnam. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3498-5.
Hussein, M., Yoneda, K., Zaki, Z.M., Othman, N.A., Amir, A., 2019. Leachate characteriza-
tions and pollution indices of active and closed unlined landfills in Malaysia. Environ.
Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enmm.2019.100232.
IRENA, 2017. Biogas for Road Vehicles Technology Brief. IREA International Renewable
Energy Agency.
Jahirul, M.I., Saidur, R., Hasanuzzaman, M., Masjuki, H.H., Kalam, M.A., 2007. A comparison
of the air pollution of gasoline and CNG driven car for Malaysia. Int. J. Mech. Mater.
Eng. 2, 130–138.
Jin, C., Sun, S., Yang, D., Sheng, W., Ma, Y., He, W., Li, G., 2021. Anaerobic digestion: an al-
ternative resource treatment option for food waste in China. Sci. Total Environ. 779,
146397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146397.
Johari, A., Ahmed, S.I., Hashim, H., Alkali, H., Ramli, M., 2012. Economic and environmental
benefits of landfill gas from municipal solid waste in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. En-
ergy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.005.
Jouhara, H., Czajczyńska, D., Ghazal, H., Krzyżyńska, R., Anguilano, L., Reynolds, A.J.,
Spencer, N., 2017. Municipal waste management systems for domestic use. Energy
139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.162.
Kaza, S., Yao, L.C., Bhada-Tata, P., Van Woerden, F., 2018. What a Waste 2.0: A Global
Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050, What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot
of Solid Waste Management to 2050. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1329-0.
Keng, Z.X., Chong, S., Ng, C.G., Ridzuan, N.I., Hanson, S., Pan, G.T., Lau, P.L., Supramaniam,
C.V., Singh, A., Chin, C.F., Lam, H.L., 2020. Community-scale composting for food
waste: a life-cycle assessment-supported case study. J. Clean. Prod. 261, 121220.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121220.
Kim, M.H., Kim, J.W., 2010. Comparison through a LCA evaluation analysis of food waste
disposal options from the perspective of global warming and resource recovery. Sci.
Total Environ. 408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.04.049.
Laso, J., Margallo, M., García-Herrero, I., Fullana, P., Bala, A., Gazulla, C., Polettini, A., Kahhat,
R., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Irabien, A., Aldaco, R., 2018. Combined application of life cycle
assessment and linear programming to evaluate food waste-to-food strategies: seek-
ing for answers in the nexus approach. Waste Manag. 80, 186–197. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2018.09.009.
Lim, L.Y., Lee, C.T., Bong, C.P.C., Lim, J.S., Klemeš, J.J., 2019. Environmental and economic
feasibility of an integrated community composting plant and organic farm in
Malaysia. J. Environ. Manag. 244, 431–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.
05.050.
Lo, I.M.C., Woon, K.S., 2016. Food waste collection and recycling for value-added products:
potential applications and challenges in Hong Kong. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23,
7081–7091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4235-y.
MAEKO, Mentari Alam E.K.O., 2021. Maeko food waste counter [WWW document]. URL
https://www.maeko.com.my/ (accessed 9.20.21).
Malakahmad, A., Abualqumboz, M.S., Kutty, S.R.M., Abunama, T.J., 2017. Assessment of
carbon footprint emissions and environmental concerns of solid waste treatment
and disposal techniques; case study of Malaysia. Waste Manag. 70. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.044.
Malmir, T., Ranjbar, S., Eicker, U., 2020. Improving municipal solid waste management
strategies of Montréal (Canada) using life cycle assessment and optimization of tech-
nology options. Energies 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13215701.
Mavrotas, G., Florios, K., 2013. An improved version of the augmented s-constraint
method (AUGMECON2) for finding the exact pareto set in multi-objective integer
programming problems. Appl. Math. Comput. 219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.
2013.03.002.
MESTECC, 2018. Malaysia Third National Communication and Second Biennial Update Re-
port to the UNFCCC. Ministry of Energy, Science, Technology, Environment and Cli-
mate Change, Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Movahed, Z.P., Kabiri, M., Ranjbar, S., Joda, F., 2020. Multi-objective optimization of life cycle
assessment of integrated waste management based on genetic algorithms: a case
study of Tehran. J. Clean. Prod. 247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119153.
Ooi, J.K., Woon, K.S., 2021. Simultaneous greenhouse gas reduction and cost optimization
of municipal solid waste management system in Malaysia. Chem. Eng. Trans. 83.
https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2183082.
Ooi, J.K., Woon, K.S., Hashim, H., 2021. A multi-objective model to optimize country-scale
municipal solid waste management with economic and environmental objectives: a
case study in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 316, 128366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2021.128366.
Pérez-Camacho, M.N., Curry, R., Cromie, T., 2018. Life cycle environmental impacts of
substituting food wastes for traditional anaerobic digestion feedstocks. Waste
Manag. 73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.12.023.
Z. Lin, J.K. Ooi and K.S. Woon
Rizwan, M., Saif, Y., Almansoori, A., Elkamel, A., 2020. A multiobjective optimization
framework for sustainable design of municipal solid waste processing pathways to
energy and materials. Int. J. Energy Res. 44. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.4884.
Roberts, K.P., Turner, D.A., Coello, J., Stringfellow, A.M., Bello, I.A., Powrie, W., Watson,
G.V.R., 2018. SWIMS: a dynamic life cycle-based optimization and decision support
tool for solid waste management. J. Clean. Prod. 196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.05.265.
San Martin, D., Ramos, S., Zufía, J., 2016. Valorization of food waste to produce new raw
materials for animal feed. Food Chem. 198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.
2015.11.035.
SEDA, Sustainable Energy Development Authority, 2021. Feed-in tariff -renewable energy
Malaysia [WWW document]. URL http://www3.seda.gov.my/iframe/ (accessed
4.21.21).
Shamsul, A., 2016. Landfills is the way forward for Malaysia, says Abdul Rahman Dahlan
[WWW document]. URLSun Dly (accessed 4.20.21). https://www.thesundaily.my/
archive/1686458-MSARCH349131.
14
Science of the Total Environment 816 (2022) 151541
Woon, K.S., Lo, I.M.C., 2013. Greenhouse gas accounting of the proposed landfill ex-
tension and advanced incineration facility for municipal solid waste management
in Hong Kong. Sci. Total Environ. 458–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.
2013.04.061.
Woon, K.S., Lo, I.M.C., Chiu, S.L.H., Yan, D.Y.S., 2016. Environmental assessment of
food waste valorization in producing biogas for various types of energy use
based on LCA approach. Waste Manag. 50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2016.02.022.
Woon, K.S., Phuang, Z.X., Lin, Z., Lee, C.T., 2021. A novel food waste management frame-
work combining optical sorting system and anaerobic digestion: a case study in
Malaysia. Energy 232, 121094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121094.
Worming Up, 2021. Worming up about us [WWW document]. URL http://wormingup.
com/donation/ (accessed 9.20.21).
Yeo, J., Chopra, S.S., Zhang, L., An, A.K., 2019. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of food waste
treatment in Hong Kong: on-site fermentation methodology. J. Environ. Manag.
240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.119.