Anna Bernstad

Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems - Part I: Lessons learned and perspectives

The continuously increasing solid waste generation worldwide calls for management strategies that integrate concerns for environmental sustainability. By quantifying environmental impacts of systems, life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool, which can contribute to answer that call. But how, where and to which extent has it been applied to solid waste management systems (SWMSs) until now, and which lessons can be learnt from the findings of these LCA applications? To address these questions, we performed a critical review of 222 published LCA studies of SWMS. We first analysed the geographic distribution and found that the published studies have primarily been concentrated in Europe with little application in developing countries. In terms of technological coverage, they have largely overlooked application of LCA to waste prevention activities and to relevant waste types apart from household waste, e.g. construction and demolition waste. Waste management practitioners are thus encouraged to abridge these gaps in future applications of LCA. In addition to this contextual analysis, we also evaluated the findings of selected studies of good quality and found that there is little agreement in the conclusions among them. The strong dependence of each SWMS on local conditions, such as waste composition or energy system, prevents a meaningful generalisation of the LCA results as we find it in the waste hierarchy. We therefore recommend stakeholders in solid waste management to regard LCA as a tool, which, by its ability of capturing the local specific conditions in the modelling of environmental impacts and benefits of a SWMS, allows identifying critical problems and proposing improvement options adapted to the local specificities.

Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems Part II: Methodological guidance for a better practice

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is increasingly used in waste management to identify strategies that prevent or minimise negative impacts on ecosystems, human health or natural resources. However, the quality of the provided support to decision- and policy-makers is strongly dependent on a proper conduct of the LCA. How has LCA been applied until now? Are there any inconsistencies in the past practice? To answer these questions, we draw on a critical review of 222 published LCA studies of solid waste management systems. We analyse the past practice against the ISO standard requirements and the ILCD Handbook guidelines for each major step within the goal definition, scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation phases of the methodology. Results show that malpractices exist in several aspects of the LCA with large differences across studies. Examples are a frequent neglect of the goal definition, a frequent lack of transparency and precision in the definition of the scope of the study, e.g. an unclear delimitation of the system boundaries, a truncated impact coverage, difficulties in capturing influential local specificities such as representative waste compositions into the inventory, and a frequent lack of essential sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. Many of these aspects are important for the reliability of the results. For each of them, we therefore provide detailed recommendations to practitioners of waste management LCAs.

A life cycle approach to the management of household food waste - A Swedish full-scale case study

Environmental impacts from incineration, decentralised composting and centralised anaerobic digestion of solid organic household waste are compared using the EASEWASTE LCA-tool. The comparison is based on a full scale case study in southern Sweden and used input-data related to aspects such as source-separation behaviour, transport distances, etc. are site-specific. Results show that biological treatment methods - both anaerobic and aerobic, result in net avoidance of GHG-emissions, but give a larger contribution both to nutrient enrichment and acidification when compared to incineration. Results are to a high degree dependent on energy substitution and emissions during biological processes. It was seen that if it is assumed that produced biogas substitute electricity based on Danish coal power, this is preferable before use of biogas as car fuel. Use of biogas for Danish electricity substitution was also determined to be more beneficial compared to incineration of organic household waste. This is a result mainly of the use of plastic bags in the incineration alternative (compared to paper bags in the anaerobic) and the use of biofertiliser (digestate) from anaerobic treatment as substitution of chemical fertilisers used in an incineration alternative. Net impact related to GWP from the management chain varies from a contribution of 2.6kg CO(2)-eq/household and year if incineration is utilised, to an avoidance of 5.6kg CO(2)-eq/household and year if choosing anaerobic digestion and using produced biogas as car fuel. Impacts are often dependent on processes allocated far from the control of local decision-makers, indicating the importance of a holistic approach and extended collaboration between agents in the waste management chain.

Review of comparative LCAs of food waste management systems – Current status and potential improvements

Twenty-five comparative cycle assessments (LCAs) addressing food waste treatment were reviewed, including the treatment alternatives landfill, thermal treatment, compost (small and large scale) and anaerobic digestion. The global warming potential related to these treatment alternatives varies largely amongst the studies. Large differences in relation to setting of system boundaries, methodological choices and variations in used input data were seen between the studies. Also, a number of internal contradictions were identified, many times resulting in biased comparisons between alternatives. Thus, noticed differences in global warming potential are not found to be a result of actual differences in the environmental impacts from studied systems, but rather to differences in the performance of the study. A number of key issues with high impact on the overall global warming potential from different treatment alternatives for food waste were identified through the use of one-way sensitivity analyses in relation to a previously performed LCA of food waste management. Assumptions related to characteristics in treated waste, losses and emissions of carbon, nutrients and other compounds during the collection, storage and pretreatment, potential energy recovery through combustion, emissions from composting, emissions from storage and land use of bio-fertilizers and chemical fertilizers and eco-profiles of substituted goods were all identified as highly relevant for the outcomes of this type of comparisons. As the use of LCA in this area is likely to increase in coming years, it is highly relevant to establish more detailed guidelines within this field in order to increase both the general quality in assessments as well as the potentials for cross-study comparisons.

Food waste minimization from a life-cycle perspective

This article investigates potentials and environmental impacts related to household food waste minimization, based on a case study in Southern Sweden. In the study, the amount of avoidable and unavoidable food waste currently being disposed of by households was assessed through waste composition analyses and the different types of avoidable food waste were classified. Currently, both avoidable and unavoidable food waste is either incinerated or treated through anaerobic digestion. A hypothetical scenario with no generation of avoidable food waste and either anaerobic digestion or incineration of unavoidable food waste was compared to the current situation using the life-cycle assessment method, limited to analysis of global warming potential (GWP). The results from the waste composition analyses indicate that an average of 35% of household food waste is avoidable. Minimization of this waste could result in reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 800-1400 kg/tonne of avoidable food waste. Thus, a minimization strategy would result in increased avoidance of GWP compared to the current situation. The study clearly shows that although modern alternatives for food waste treatment can result in avoidance of GWP through nutrient and energy recovery, food waste prevention yields far greater benefits for GWP compared to both incineration and anaerobic digestion.

Need for improvements in physical pretreatment of source-separated household food waste

The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficiency in physical pretreatment processes of source-separated solid organic household waste. The investigation of seventeen Swedish full-scale pretreatment facilities, currently receiving separately collected food waste from household for subsequent anaerobic digestion, shows that problems with the quality of produced biomass and high maintenance costs are common. Four full-scale physical pretreatment plants, three using screwpress technology and one using dispergation technology, were compared in relation to resource efficiency, losses of nitrogen and potential methane production from biodegradable matter as well as the ratio of unwanted materials in produced biomass intended for wet anaerobic digestion. Refuse generated in the processes represent 13-39% of TS in incoming wet waste. The methane yield from these fractions corresponds to 14-36Nm(3)/ton separately collected solid organic household waste. Also, 13-32% of N-tot in incoming food waste is found in refuse. Losses of both biodegradable material and nutrients were larger in the three facilities using screwpress technology compared to the facility using dispersion technology.(1) Thus, there are large potentials for increase of both the methane yield and nutrient recovery from separately collected solid organic household waste through increased efficiency in facilities for physical pretreatment. Improved pretreatment processes could thereby increase the overall environmental benefits from anaerobic digestion as a treatment alternative for solid organic household waste.

Household food waste separation behavior and the importance of convenience.

Two different strategies aiming at increasing household source-separation of food waste were assessed through a case-study in a Swedish residential area (a) use of written information, distributed as leaflets amongst households and (b) installation of equipment for source-segregation of waste with the aim of increasing convenience food waste sorting in kitchens. Weightings of separately collected food waste before and after distribution of written information suggest that this resulted in neither a significant increased amount of separately collected food waste, nor an increased source-separation ratio. After installation of sorting equipment in households, both the amount of separately collected food waste as well as the source-separation ratio increased vastly. Long-term monitoring shows that results where longstanding. Results emphasize the importance of convenience and existence of infrastructure necessary for source-segregation of waste as important factors for household waste recycling, but also highlight the need of addressing these aspects where waste is generated, i.e. already inside the household.

Separate collection of household food waste for anaerobic degradation – Comparison of different techniques from a systems perspective

Four systems for household food waste collection are compared in relation the environmental impact categories eutrophication potential, acidification potential, global warming potential as well as energy use. Also, a hotspot analysis is performed in order to suggest improvements in each of the compared collection systems. Separate collection of household food waste in paper bags (with and without drying prior to collection) with use of kitchen grinders and with use of vacuum system in kitchen sinks were compared. In all cases, food waste was used for anaerobic digestion with energy and nutrient recovery in all cases. Compared systems all resulted in net avoidance of assessed environmental impact categories; eutrophication potential (-0.1 to -2.4kg NO(3)(-)eq/ton food waste), acidification potential (-0.4 to -1.0kg SO(2)(-)eq/ton food waste), global warming potential (-790 to -960kg CO(2)(-)eq/ton food waste) and primary energy use (-1.7 to -3.6GJ/ton food waste). Collection with vacuum system results in the largest net avoidence of primary energy use, while disposal of food waste in paper bags for decentralized drying before collection result in a larger net avoidence of global warming, eutrophication and acidification. However, both these systems not have been taken into use in large scale systems yet and further investigations are needed in order to confirm the outcomes from the comparison. Ranking of scenarios differ largely if considering only emissions in the foreground system, indicating the importance of taking also downstream emissions into consideration when comparing different collection systems. The hot spot identification shows that losses of organic matter in mechanical pretreatment as well as tank connected food waste disposal systems and energy in drying and vacuum systems reply to the largest impact on the results in each system respectively.

Life cycle assessment of a household solid waste source separation programme: a Swedish case study

The environmental impact of an extended property close source-separation system for solid household waste (i.e. a systems for collection of recyclables from domestic properties) is investigated in a residential area in southern Sweden. Since 2001, households have been able to source-separate waste into six fractions of dry recyclables and food waste sorting. The current system was evaluated using the EASEWASTE life cycle assessment tool. Current status is compared with an ideal scenario in which households display perfect source-separation behaviour and a scenario without any material recycling. Results show that current recycling provides substantial environmental benefits compared to a non-recycling alternative. The environmental benefit varies greatly between recyclable fractions, and the recyclables currently most frequently source-separated by households are often not the most beneficial from an environmental perspective. With optimal source-separation of all recyclables, the current net contribution to global warming could be changed to a net-avoidance while current avoidance of nutrient enrichment, acidification and photochemical ozone formation could be doubled. Sensitivity analyses show that thetype of energy substituted by incineration of non-recycled waste, as well as energy used in recycling processes and in the production of materials substituted by waste recycling, is of high relevance for the attained results.

Property-close source separation of hazardous waste and waste electrical and electronic equipment - A Swedish case study.

Through an agreement with EEE producers, Swedish municipalities are responsible for collection of hazardous waste and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). In most Swedish municipalities, collection of these waste fractions is concentrated to waste recycling centres where households can source-separate and deposit hazardous waste and WEEE free of charge. However, the centres are often located on the outskirts of city centres and cars are needed in order to use the facilities in most cases. A full-scale experiment was performed in a residential area in southern Sweden to evaluate effects of a system for property-close source separation of hazardous waste and WEEE. After the system was introduced, results show a clear reduction in the amount of hazardous waste and WEEE disposed of incorrectly amongst residual waste or dry recyclables. The systems resulted in a source separation ratio of 70 wt% for hazardous waste and 76 wt% in the case of WEEE. Results show that households in the study area were willing to increase source separation of hazardous waste and WEEE when accessibility was improved and that this and similar collection systems can play an important role in building up increasingly sustainable solid waste management systems.