IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jcltec/v4y2022i2p23-394d812863.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Comparison of Different Mechanical–Biological Treatment Plants by Combining Life Cycle Assessment and Material Flow Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Giovanni Gadaleta

    (Department of Civil, Environmental, Land, Building Engineering and Chemistry (DICATECh), Politecnico di Bari, Via E. Orabona n.4, 70125 Bari, Italy)

  • Sabino De Gisi

    (Department of Civil, Environmental, Land, Building Engineering and Chemistry (DICATECh), Politecnico di Bari, Via E. Orabona n.4, 70125 Bari, Italy)

  • Francesco Todaro

    (Department of Civil, Environmental, Land, Building Engineering and Chemistry (DICATECh), Politecnico di Bari, Via E. Orabona n.4, 70125 Bari, Italy)

  • Michele Notarnicola

    (Department of Civil, Environmental, Land, Building Engineering and Chemistry (DICATECh), Politecnico di Bari, Via E. Orabona n.4, 70125 Bari, Italy)

Abstract

The role of Mechanical–Biological Treatment (MBT) is still of the utmost importance in the management of residual Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). These plants can cover a wide range of objectives, combining several types of processes and elements. The aim of this work is to assess and compare, from an environmental point of view, the performance of seven selected MBT plants currently operating in different countries, which represent the main MBT layout and processes. For the scope, a combined Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Material Flow Analysis (MFA) approach has been adopted to assess plant-specific efficiencies in materials and energy recovery. Metals recovery was a common and high-efficiency practice in MBT; further recovery of other types of waste was often performed. Each assessed MBT plant achieved environmental benefits: among them, the highest environmental benefit was achieved when the highest amount of waste was recovered (not only with material recycling). Environmental results were strongly affected by the recycling processes and the energy production, with a little contribution from the energy requirement. The impacts achieved by the MBT process were, on average, 14% of the total one. The main condition for a suitable MBT process is a combination of materials recovery for the production of new raw materials, avoiding disposal in landfill, and refuse-derived fuel production for energy recovery. This work can be of help to operators and planners when they are asked to define MBT schemes.

Suggested Citation

  • Giovanni Gadaleta & Sabino De Gisi & Francesco Todaro & Michele Notarnicola, 2022. "Environmental Comparison of Different Mechanical–Biological Treatment Plants by Combining Life Cycle Assessment and Material Flow Analysis," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-15, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jcltec:v:4:y:2022:i:2:p:23-394:d:812863
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/4/2/23/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/4/2/23/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giovanni Gadaleta & Sabino De Gisi & Michele Notarnicola, 2021. "Feasibility Analysis on the Adoption of Decentralized Anaerobic Co-Digestion for the Treatment of Municipal Organic Waste with Energy Recovery in Urban Districts of Metropolitan Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-17, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Evangelia Pagona & Kyriaki Kalaitzidou & Vasileios Zaspalis & Anastasios Zouboulis & Manassis Mitrakas, 2022. "Effects of MgO and Fe 2 O 3 Addition for Upgrading the Refractory Characteristics of Magnesite Ore Mining Waste/By-Products," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-24, October.
    2. Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi & Rajaeifar, Mohammad Ali & Rostom, Madona & Malmir, Behnam & Yazdani, Morteza & Suh, Sangwon & Heidrich, Oliver, 2022. "Integrating life cycle assessment and multi criteria decision making for sustainable waste management: Key issues and recommendations for future studies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giovanni Gadaleta & Sabino De Gisi & Francesco Todaro & Michele Notarnicola, 2022. "Carbon Footprint and Total Cost Evaluation of Different Bio-Plastics Waste Treatment Strategies," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Jean Joël Roland Kinhoun & Ao Li & Minghuan Lv & Yunpeng Shi & Bin Fan & Tingting Qian, 2022. "Human Excreta and Food Waste of a Typical Rural Area in China: Characteristics and Co-Fermentation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-13, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jcltec:v:4:y:2022:i:2:p:23-394:d:812863. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.