IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v18y2026i3p1350-d1851614.html

Techno-Economic Feasibility and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment of Composting Versus Biodrying in Mechanical–Biological Treatment: Case Study in Alexandria, Egypt

Author

Listed:
  • Nehad Ahmed

    (Egypt Solid Waste Management Center of Excellence, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, 1 Elsarayat St., Abassia, Cairo 11517, Egypt)

  • Maisara M. Rabie

    (Egypt Solid Waste Management Center of Excellence, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, 1 Elsarayat St., Abassia, Cairo 11517, Egypt)

  • Haniyeh Jalalipour

    (Faculty of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of Rostock, Justus von Liebig Weg 6, 18059 Rostock, Germany)

  • Abdallah Nassour

    (Faculty of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of Rostock, Justus von Liebig Weg 6, 18059 Rostock, Germany)

  • Sherien Elagroudy

    (Egypt Solid Waste Management Center of Excellence, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, 1 Elsarayat St., Abassia, Cairo 11517, Egypt)

Abstract

Egypt’s municipal solid waste (MSW) sector faces persistent challenges due to increasing generation rates, limited recovery, and a high organic fraction, motivating the selection of appropriate biological treatment options within Mechanical–Biological Treatment (MBT) systems. This study compares composting-based MBT and biodrying-based MBT for a case application in Alexandria, Egypt, using an integrated techno-economic and greenhouse gas (GHG) assessment. Discounted cash-flow modelling was applied using defined CAPEX and OPEX, along with revenue from recovered products. GHG accounting used documented emission factors and activity data against an unmanaged landfill baseline representative of current disposal practices. The system boundary covers waste reception and mechanical processing, biological treatment, process energy use, and residual disposal. Results show that composting achieves higher financial performance (NPV USD 2.55 million) than biodrying (NPV USD 0.99 million), while delivering a 48.5% reduction in net system GHG emissions relative to the baseline. Sensitivity analysis indicates that the comparative ranking is primarily driven by electricity prices, revenue assumptions, CAPEX, and baseline-related emissions parameters. Under the defined assumptions, composting is the preferred MBT biological pathway for the analyzed case, and interpretations are limited to the evaluated boundaries.

Suggested Citation

  • Nehad Ahmed & Maisara M. Rabie & Haniyeh Jalalipour & Abdallah Nassour & Sherien Elagroudy, 2026. "Techno-Economic Feasibility and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment of Composting Versus Biodrying in Mechanical–Biological Treatment: Case Study in Alexandria, Egypt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-23, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:3:p:1350-:d:1851614
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/3/1350/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/3/1350/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:18:y:2026:i:3:p:1350-:d:1851614. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.