IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i15p4213-d254676.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biowaste Management in Italy: Challenges and Perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Francesca Demichelis

    (DIATI, Politecnico di Torino, corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy)

  • Francesco Piovano

    (DIATI, Politecnico di Torino, corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy)

  • Silvia Fiore

    (DIATI, Politecnico di Torino, corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy)

Abstract

The aim of this work is the development of a methodology for the technical and environmental assessment of biowaste valorization in 2G biorefineries. Italy was chosen as case study, considering years 2016–2017. Approach : the Italian context was evaluated through the following key parameters: Gross domestic power, climate, demography, and population density distribution described the Italian framework. The four most abundant biowaste categories were defined through their amounts and geo-localization: wastewater and sewage sludge (WSS, 4.06 Mt/y), organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW, 1.7 Mt/y), agricultural livestock waste (ALW, 5.7 Mt/y), and waste deriving from the food industry (FIW, 2.6 Mt/y). The geo-localization and quantitative evaluations of the available biowaste amounts were aimed at defining the dimension and localization of the biorefinery plant and at optimizing supply and transport chains, while the qualitative characteristic were aimed to evaluate the most promising process among thermo-valorization (TH) and anaerobic digestion (AD). Results: All considered biowastes were appropriate for biorefinery processes, since carbon content exceeds 40% and the carbon–nitrogen ratio was between 10 and 30. All biowaste categories were evaluated as feedstocks for two biorefinery processes: anaerobic digestion (AD) and thermo-valorization (TH) with energy recovery. Compared to TH, AD achieved in all cases the best performances in terms of produced energy and avoided CO 2 emissions. The primary energy production of AD and TH for WSS, OFMSW, ALW, and FIW were respectively: 7.89 vs. 2.4 kWh/kg; 8.7 vs. 2.6 kWh/kg; 10.85 vs. 5.5 kWh/kg; and 12.5 vs. 7.8 kWh/kg. The main findings of this work were: the adoption of AD was technically more suitable than TH; AD increased the avoided CO 2 emissions of 10%–89.9% depending on biowaste category.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesca Demichelis & Francesco Piovano & Silvia Fiore, 2019. "Biowaste Management in Italy: Challenges and Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-21, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:15:p:4213-:d:254676
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4213/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4213/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sultana, Arifa & Kumar, Amit, 2014. "Development of tortuosity factor for assessment of lignocellulosic biomass delivery cost to a biorefinery," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 288-295.
    2. Maity, Sunil K., 2015. "Opportunities, recent trends and challenges of integrated biorefinery: Part I," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1427-1445.
    3. Budzianowski, Wojciech M., 2017. "High-value low-volume bioproducts coupled to bioenergies with potential to enhance business development of sustainable biorefineries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 793-804.
    4. Maity, Sunil K., 2015. "Opportunities, recent trends and challenges of integrated biorefinery: Part II," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1446-1466.
    5. Parajuli, Ranjan & Dalgaard, Tommy & Jørgensen, Uffe & Adamsen, Anders Peter S. & Knudsen, Marie Trydeman & Birkved, Morten & Gylling, Morten & Schjørring, Jan Kofod, 2015. "Biorefining in the prevailing energy and materials crisis: a review of sustainable pathways for biorefinery value chains and sustainability assessment methodologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 244-263.
    6. Golecha, Rajdeep & Gan, Jianbang, 2016. "Biomass transport cost from field to conversion facility when biomass yield density and road network vary with transport radius," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 321-331.
    7. Link, Siim & Arvelakis, Stelios & Paist, Aadu & Liliedahl, Truls & Rosén, Christer, 2018. "Effect of leaching pretreatment on the gasification of wine and vine (residue) biomass," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 1-5.
    8. Behera, Shuvashish & Arora, Richa & Nandhagopal, N. & Kumar, Sachin, 2014. "Importance of chemical pretreatment for bioconversion of lignocellulosic biomass," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 91-106.
    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. Aiban Abdulhakim Saeed Ghaleb & Shamsul Rahman Mohamed Kutty & Yeek-Chia Ho & Ahmad Hussaini Jagaba & Azmatullah Noor & Abdulnaser Mohammed Al-Sabaeei & Najib Mohammed Yahya Almahbashi, 2020. "Response Surface Methodology to Optimize Methane Production from Mesophilic Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Oily-Biological Sludge and Sugarcane Bagasse," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-11, March.
    2. Anna Rolewicz-Kalińska & Krystyna Lelicińska-Serafin & Piotr Manczarski, 2020. "The Circular Economy and Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste Recycling Strategies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, August.
    3. Andrea Taffuri & Alessandro Sciullo & Arnaud Diemer & Claudiu Eduard Nedelciu, 2021. "Integrating Circular Bioeconomy and Urban Dynamics to Define an Innovative Management of Bio-Waste: The Study Case of Turin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Laura Brenes-Peralta & María F. Jiménez-Morales & Rooel Campos-Rodríguez & Fabio De Menna & Matteo Vittuari, 2020. "Decision-Making Process in the Circular Economy: A Case Study on University Food Waste-to-Energy Actions in Latin America," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-25, May.
    5. Nour El Houda Chaher & Safwat Hemidat & Qahtan Thabit & Mehrez Chakchouk & Abdallah Nassour & Moktar Hamdi & Michael Nelles, 2020. "Potential of Sustainable Concept for Handling Organic Waste in Tunisia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-31, October.
    6. Aniello Falciano & Alessio Cimini & Paolo Masi & Mauro Moresi, 2022. "Carbon Footprint of a Typical Neapolitan Pizzeria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-23, March.
    7. Stefano Castelluccio & Claudio Comoglio & Silvia Fiore, 2022. "Environmental Performance Reporting and Assessment of the Biodegradable Waste Treatment Plants Registered to EMAS in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-14, June.
    8. Isabella Pecorini & Elena Rossi & Renato Iannelli, 2020. "Bromatological, Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of OFMSW for Different Seasons and Collection Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-20, March.
    9. Nesrin Ada & Yigit Kazancoglu & Muruvvet Deniz Sezer & Cigdem Ede-Senturk & Idil Ozer & Mangey Ram, 2021. "Analyzing Barriers of Circular Food Supply Chains and Proposing Industry 4.0 Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-29, June.

    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. Melts, Indrek & Ivask, Mari & Geetha, Mohan & Takeuchi, Kazuhiko & Heinsoo, Katrin, 2019. "Combining bioenergy and nature conservation: An example in wetlands," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 293-302.
    2. Awasthi, Mukesh Kumar & Sindhu, Raveendran & Sirohi, Ranjna & Kumar, Vinod & Ahluwalia, Vivek & Binod, Parameswaran & Juneja, Ankita & Kumar, Deepak & Yan, Binghua & Sarsaiya, Surendra & Zhang, Zengqi, 2022. "Agricultural waste biorefinery development towards circular bioeconomy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    3. Furtado Júnior, Juarez Corrêa & Palacio, José Carlos Escobar & Leme, Rafael Coradi & Lora, Electo Eduardo Silva & da Costa, José Eduardo Loureiro & Reyes, Arnaldo Martín Martínez & del Olmo, Oscar Alm, 2020. "Biorefineries productive alternatives optimization in the brazilian sugar and alcohol industry," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    4. Tim Patterson & Jaime Massanet‐Nicolau & Rhys Jones & Alessio Boldrin & Francesco Valentino & Richard Dinsdale & Alan Guwy, 2021. "Utilizing grass for the biological production of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) via green biorefining: Material and energy flows," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(3), pages 802-815, June.
    5. Morone, Amruta & Apte, Mayura & Pandey, R.A., 2015. "Levulinic acid production from renewable waste resources: Bottlenecks, potential remedies, advancements and applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 548-565.
    6. Troiano, D. & Orsat, V. & Dumont, M.J., 2020. "Status of filamentous fungi in integrated biorefineries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    7. Demichelis, Francesca & Fiore, Silvia & Pleissner, Daniel & Venus, Joachim, 2018. "Technical and economic assessment of food waste valorization through a biorefinery chain," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 38-48.
    8. Alessandra Cesaro & Vincenzo Belgiorno, 2015. "Combined Biogas and Bioethanol Production: Opportunities and Challenges for Industrial Application," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-24, August.
    9. Jonas Zetterholm & Elina Bryngemark & Johan Ahlström & Patrik Söderholm & Simon Harvey & Elisabeth Wetterlund, 2020. "Economic Evaluation of Large-Scale Biorefinery Deployment: A Framework Integrating Dynamic Biomass Market and Techno-Economic Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-28, September.
    10. López-González, D. & Puig-Gamero, M. & Acién, F.G. & García-Cuadra, F. & Valverde, J.L. & Sanchez-Silva, L., 2015. "Energetic, economic and environmental assessment of the pyrolysis and combustion of microalgae and their oils," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1752-1770.
    11. Carvalho, Ana Karine F. & Bento, Heitor B.S. & Izário Filho, Hélcio J. & de Castro, Heizir F., 2018. "Approaches to convert Mucor circinelloides lipid into biodiesel by enzymatic synthesis assisted by microwave irradiations," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 747-754.
    12. Perkins, Greg & Bhaskar, Thallada & Konarova, Muxina, 2018. "Process development status of fast pyrolysis technologies for the manufacture of renewable transport fuels from biomass," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 292-315.
    13. Kalil Rahiman, M. & Santhoshkumar, S. & Subramaniam, D. & Avinash, A. & Pugazhendhi, Arivalagan, 2022. "Effects of oxygenated fuel pertaining to fuel analysis on diesel engine combustion and emission characteristics," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PD).
    14. Sunčica Beluhan & Katarina Mihajlovski & Božidar Šantek & Mirela Ivančić Šantek, 2023. "The Production of Bioethanol from Lignocellulosic Biomass: Pretreatment Methods, Fermentation, and Downstream Processing," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-38, October.
    15. Lee, Jechan & Choi, Dongho & Kwon, Eilhann E. & Ok, Yong Sik, 2017. "Functional modification of hydrothermal liquefaction products of microalgal biomass using CO2," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 412-418.
    16. Van Meerbeek, Koenraad & Muys, Bart & Hermy, Martin, 2019. "Lignocellulosic biomass for bioenergy beyond intensive cropland and forests," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 139-149.
    17. Ren, Qiangqiang & Zhao, Changsui, 2015. "Evolution of fuel-N in gas phase during biomass pyrolysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 408-418.
    18. Walter Stefanoni & Francesco Latterini & Javier Prieto Ruiz & Simone Bergonzoli & Consuelo Attolico & Luigi Pari, 2020. "Mechanical Harvesting of Camelina: Work Productivity, Costs and Seed Loss Evaluation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-14, October.
    19. Berazneva, Julia & Woolf, Dominic & Lee, David R., 2021. "Local lignocellulosic biofuel and biochar co-production in Sub-Saharan Africa: The role of feedstock provision in economic viability," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    20. Tang, Xing & Wei, Junnan & Ding, Ning & Sun, Yong & Zeng, Xianhai & Hu, Lei & Liu, Shijie & Lei, Tingzhou & Lin, Lu, 2017. "Chemoselective hydrogenation of biomass derived 5-hydroxymethylfurfural to diols: Key intermediates for sustainable chemicals, materials and fuels," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 287-296.

    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:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:15:p:4213-:d:254676. 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.