Resources, Conservation and Recycling 95 (2015) 114

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

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

Full length article

Environmental impact of recycling digested food waste as a fertilizer

in agricultureA case study
Yoon Lin Chiew a, , Johanna Spngberg a , Andras Baky b ,
Per-Anders Hansson a , Hkan Jnsson a
a
b

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Energy and Technology, Box 7032, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Box 7033, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 3 April 2014
Received in revised form 7 September 2014
Accepted 22 November 2014
Keywords:
Biogas production
LCA
Digestate
Fertilizer
Food waste treatment

a b s t r a c t
This study assessed the environmental impacts of recycling the plant nutrients in anaerobically digested
food waste as fertilizer in agriculture. This was compared with the impacts of using chemical fertilizer,
where the food waste was incinerated, producing heat. The study site was a biogas plant in central
Sweden and life cycle assessment methodology was used. The impacts studied were primary energy
use, global warming potential (GWP), potential acidication, potential eutrophication, cadmium ow
to farmland and use of phosphate rock. Use of digested food waste as fertilizer proved to have larger
negative results than use of chemical fertilizer in all categories assessed except use of non-renewable
phosphate rock. Sensitivity analyses showed that the scenarios were comparable in terms of primary
energy use and better for GWP if some improvements in the anaerobic digestion system were made.
However, acidication and eutrophication caused by digestate handling and the cadmium content of
digestate should still be considered.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Food waste contains plant nutrients mainly originating from
agriculture. To maintain its fertility, agricultural land needs to be
compensated for the loss of these nutrients. One obvious way of
doing this is to recycle them back to arable land, in line with both the
European Union (EU) waste hierarchy and the principles of ecology
in organic farming, as this promotes reuse and recycling (IFOAM,
2013). The need for external plant nutrients is large for farms producing cereals and vegetables for the market (Doltra et al., 2011).
In conventional agriculture this need is normally covered by using
chemical fertilizers. However, their use is not allowed in organic
agriculture, which leads to the use of more expensive fertilizers,
e.g. pelletized meat meal.
An alternative fertilizer rapidly becoming more widely used
by both conventional and organic farmers in Sweden is anaerobically digested food waste (Avfall Sverige, 2013). Compared with
chemical fertilizer, digested food waste fertilizer ought to have
several environmental advantages, as high quality energy is gained
in the production process and the nutrients are preserved within
the efuent, i.e. the digestate. On the other hand, production of

Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 1867 2209.

E-mail addresses: yoonlin.chiew@slu.se, chiew.yoonlin@gmail.com (Y.L. Chiew).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.11.015
0921-3449/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

chemical fertilizer is energy intensive, contributing about 56% to

indirect energy use in Swedish agriculture (Ahlgren, 2009) and
xes nitrogen from the atmosphere, thus increasing the amount
of nitrogen in the biosphere. Chemical fertilizer production thus
increases the global ows of nitrogen and phosphorus at a time
when the levels of nitrogen have already exceeded the safe planetary boundaries and the levels of phosphorus are about to do
so (Rockstrm et al., 2009). Use of pelletized meat meal fertilizer
recycles nitrogen and phosphorus and does not increase their
global ows, but has the disadvantage that it is relatively energy
demanding (Spngberg et al., 2011).
Use of digestate also contributes to carbon sequestration, as
digestate organics are incorporated into the soil. The production
of biogas is the reason why anaerobic digestion of food waste
is rapidly increasing in Sweden, by 25% between 2009 and 2011
(Energimyndigheten, 2012a). Recently, the Swedish parliament set
a national goal that by 2018, 40% of all food waste should be treated
in such a way that both nutrients and energy are recovered, i.e. that
it is digested (Swedish Government, 2012).
The Swedish population is exposed to high levels of cadmium
(Cd), resulting in adverse effects on both skeleton and kidney tissues. The main exposure routes are through food and smoking.
Food cadmium intake is high, partly due to high levels of cadmium
in Swedish agricultural soils. The maximum level in fertilizers in
Sweden to prevent this situation deteriorating further has been

Y.L. Chiew et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 95 (2015) 114

estimated at 12 mg Cd per kg phosphorus (KEMI, 2011). Meeting

this level is a challenge for all recycled fertilizers. Manure contains about 815 mg Cd per kg phosphorus (KEMI, 2011) and food
waste around 35 mg (Jnsson et al., 2005). Chemical fertilizers used
in Sweden mostly contain around 36 mg Cd per kg phosphorus
(KEMI, 2011). However, chemical fertilizers give a net cadmium
input to the soil, while recycled fertilizers, such as manure and food
waste, largely recycle cadmium previously taken up from the soil
and therefore should not increase the level in the long run.
Earlier life cycle assessment (LCA) studies on anaerobic digestion of food waste have mainly focused on assessing different
waste treatment alternatives at the level of city (Bernstad and la
Cour Jansen, 2011; Kirkeby et al., 2006) or country (Brjesson and
Berglund, 2007; Fruergaard and Astrup, 2011; Kim et al., 2013;
Khoo et al., 2010). A few LCA studies have shown that incineration of food waste is a better alternative than anaerobic digestion
in terms of the environmental impact (Kim et al., 2013; Fruergaard
and Astrup, 2011; Brjesson and Berglund, 2007). Other LCA studies have reported that anaerobic digestion of food waste is more
benecial than incineration (Khoo et al., 2010; Bernstad and la
Cour Jansen, 2011). However, in those studies infrastructure and
digestate handling were not included.
Several studies (Kim et al., 2013; Brjesson and Berglund, 2007)
have reported that anaerobic digestion of food waste gives a net
contribution to GWP. Other studies have reported a net negative GWP (e.g. Fruergaard and Astrup, 2011; Bernstad and la Cour
Jansen, 2011; Poeschl et al., 2012). Incineration of food waste for
energy recovery is often reported to avoid GWP (Kim et al., 2013;
Fruergaard and Astrup, 2011), but sometimes reported to contribute to GWP (Bernstad and la Cour Jansen, 2011; Brjesson
and Berglund, 2007). The results on eutrophication and acidication in some previous studies showed no signicant difference
between incineration and digestion of food waste (Brjesson and
Berglund, 2007; Kirkeby et al., 2006), but these studies seemed not
to include digestate handling, which is where the main acidifying and eutrophying emissions occur. Other studies showed that
eutrophication (included as nutrient enrichment) was greater for
biogas production than for incineration of food waste and results
on acidication were greater for incineration than for biogas production (Bernstad and la Cour Jansen, 2011; Fruergaard and Astrup,
2011). The main reasons for these differences in eutrophication and
acidication impacts were that digestate storage was not included
by either of the studies compared and that nitrogen leaching was
included, mainly causing eutrophication. In contrast, the present
study included infrastructure and assessed the handling and use
of digestate from anaerobic digestion of food waste as a fertilizer
for conventional or organic farming. The study was based on data
from an organically certied anaerobic digestion plant in central
Sweden.

2. Methodology
LCA methodology was used according to ISO 14040 and 14044
(ISO, 2006). System description and data used are provided below.

land, and the same amount of food waste as was source separated
in the DF scenario was incinerated, producing heat.
2.2. Functional unit
The functional unit (FU) assessed was the production, handling and spreading of a fertilizer containing 1 kg plant-available
nitrogen and 0.20 kg phosphorus after spreading on arable land.
The amount of phosphorus was based on the composition of the
digested food waste after spreading. The collection and treatment
of 254 kg pure food waste from households was also included in the
functional unit. This corresponded to 266 kg food waste (including
paper bags and contaminants such as stones, plastic etc.) being collected in the DF scenario and 259 kg in the CF scenario (including
contaminants but not paper bags).
2.3. Impact categories
The impact categories of global warming, acidication and
eutrophication were evaluated, as these have been shown to be
most important for organic fertilizers (Spngberg, 2014; Brentrup
et al., 2004). Emissions to air and water affecting these impact categories were estimated, e.g. emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2 ),
methane (CH4 ), nitrous oxide (N2 O), nitrogen oxides (NOx ), sulphur oxides (SOx ), ammonia (NH3 )and phosphate (PO4 3 ). Global
warming was quantied using a 100-year perspective (IPCC, 2006).
Eutrophication and acidication were quantied using the CML
2001 method (Guine et al., 2002). The primary energy was calculated as the cumulative energy demand (Ecoinvent, 2010) or by
multiplying the energy carriers used by their primary energy factor. Use of phosphate rock and the ow of cadmium to arable land
were also assessed.
2.4. System boundaries
The processes and activities included are shown in Fig. 1. Data
from a biogas plant in central Sweden were used for the DF scenario.
The emissions from collection of source-separated food waste from
households, production and use of biogas, storage, handling of the
liquid and solid digestates, and handling and disposal of reject fractions were included. The biogas produced from food waste was
upgraded to vehicle fuel, replacing natural gas. Food waste contaminated with plastic, wood, textiles etc. ended up in the dry and
wet reject fractions. The dry reject fraction was incinerated, with
recovery of heat, and the wet reject fraction was composted, producing a substrate for soil production. The heavy reject fraction
was landlled. The data used in this scenario were average data
for the period 20102012. In the CF scenario, the food waste was
collected in a mixed household waste fraction and incinerated, producing heat that replaced average Swedish district heating. The y
and bottom ash generated were sent to landll. In this scenario,
chemical fertilizer was used to fertilize arable land and thus full
the functional unit. European data were used for the manufacture of chemical fertilizer. The infrastructure of both scenarios was
included in the study. Leakage of nitrogen from arable land was
neglected, as this was considered to be similar for both scenarios.

2.1. Goal and scope

3. System description and data used

The goal of this study was to assess the impacts on the environment and resources of using digested food waste as fertilizer and
to compare these impacts with those of using chemical fertilizer. In
the digestate fertilizer (DF) scenario, food waste was digested, the
digestion residues spread as fertilizer on arable land and the biogas
produced used as vehicle fuel. In the chemical fertilizer (CF) scenario, chemical fertilizer was manufactured and spread on arable

3.1. Food waste characteristics

Food waste was collected from households and businesses such
as restaurants and industries, in approximate proportions of 82%
from households and 18% from restaurants and industries (Jnsson
et al., 2005). The composition of food waste treated was calculated
from the composition of food waste from households, restaurants

Y.L. Chiew et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 95 (2015) 114

Fig. 1. System boundaries and processes included in the digestate fertilizer (DF) and chemical fertilizer (CF) scenarios. Avoided processes and products are shown in
dashed line boxes. Box in light grey involves no treatment. Note that different amounts of food waste were collected in the two scenarios (see Section 2.2). Abbreviations:
prod. = production.

and industries, in paper bags glued with starch for the DF scenario.
However, for the CF scenario paper bags and glue were not included
(Table 1).
3.2. Digestate fertilizer scenario
3.2.1. Collection and transportation of food waste
The food waste was collected from a total of 155,273 households
in 12 municipalities in central Sweden. The food waste was collected in an open, ventilated system based on paper bags placed in
bag holders in the kitchen. Full paper bags were brought by householders to ventilated waste bins in or close to the house. Table 2
shows the amount of paper bags, paper bag holders and waste bins
used for food waste collection. The paper bags distributed yearly
to households were 9-L paper bags (98.5%), while restaurants and
Table 1
Dry matter content, volatile solids and composition of food waste.
Waste fraction

Units

Food waste + paper

bagsc

Food waste

Dry matter (DM) content

Volatile solids (VS)
C-tot, biological
N-tot
P-tot
Cd

% Of wet weight
% Of DM
% Of DM
% Of DM
% Of DM
% Of DM

30.1
90.1
48.3
2.4
0.30
1.3E 05

28.7a
90.1a
48.9b
2.6a
0.32a
1.2E 05b

G. Hagskold (pers. comm. 2014).

Jnsson et al. (2005).
Data on DM, VS, C-tot, N-tot, P-tot and Cd for the paper bags were taken from
Sundqvist et al. (1999).
b

schools used larger paper bags of 22 L (0.9%) and 45 L (0.6%). The

households used paper bag holders distributed by the municipalities. The restaurants and trade used their own facilities and these
were not included in the study. Five sizes of waste bins were used,
120140 L and 190 L for single households and 240 L, 370 L and
400 L for multi-households, recycling houses and restaurants and
trade. According to the municipal authorities, 76.4% of the waste
bins used were 120140 L, 21.3% were 240 L and 2.3% were other
sizes. The production of paper bags, paper bag holders and waste
bins, as well as the transportation involved during distributing

Table 2
Amount of paper bags used, paper bag holders, waste bins, food waste collected and
fuel consumption during collection of food waste.

Paper bags
Paper bag holders
Waste bins
Food waste collected
Fuel
consumption

Collection
Transport (from
ve stations to the
biogas plant)c

Units

Amount

[t y1 ]
Diesel [L y1 ]a
Biogas [N m3 yr1 ]b
Diesel [L y1 ]

19449,000
140,025
58,201
14,823
56,941
48,134
11,953

a
Waste collection trucks used 49% pure diesel and 51% diesel blended with 5%
biodiesel (K. Pettersson, pers. comm. 2013).
b
Waste collection trucks in one municipality used biogas as vehicle fuel. The gas
used was a mixture of 70% biogas and 30% natural gas. Units: N m3 (Normal cubic
metres, 1 m3 at 10 kPa and 0 C).
c
Trucks and trailer used Swedish average diesel mix: 17% pure diesel and 83%
diesel blended with 5% biodiesel (Energimyndigheten, 2012b).

Y.L. Chiew et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 95 (2015) 114

them, are described in an Appendix to this paper (Tables A1 and A2).

The food waste was collected once every two weeks in residential districts (single household), while in apartment building areas
(multi-households) it was collected every week using waste collection trucks with two compartments. Fuel consumption for food
waste collection was estimated by allocating it in relation to the
mass of food waste collected, which was about 25% of the total
mass of waste collected. The food waste was transported to ve
reloading stations, where it was reloaded to trucks (2840 t capacity) for further transport to the biogas plant. The distance travelled
from reloading stations to the biogas plant varied from 30 to 71 km,
assuming the trucks made a round trip and were empty on returning from the plant. The emissions from collection and transport of
food waste from municipalities were calculated from the amount of
diesel and biogas fuel used, as described in Table 2, by multiplying
by the emissions data described in Appendix (Tables A1 and A2).
3.2.2. Digestion and biogas production
On average, 14,823 t per year of source-separated food waste
with 30.1% DM arrived at the digestion plant (Table 2). It was
unloaded in the reception hall and visually inspected for contamination. If it passed this inspection, the paper bags were
mechanically shredded, passed through a mechanical screen and
mixed with tap and reject water to a slurry. This was pasteurized for 1 h at 70 C before entering a digestion reactor running at
around 40 C with a hydraulic retention time of 20 days. The digestate leaving the reactor partly owed to centrifuges producing a
solid digestate (29% DM) and partly left the plant as non-dewatered
digestate, i.e. as a liquid digestate (4% DM).
Of the arriving food waste, 6.58% (976 t) did not pass the visual
inspection or the initial screen. This dry reject mainly consisted of
biowaste (84.5%) and some plastics, wood etc. (15.5%). It was incinerated for energy recovery. In the preparation of the slurry, 8.46%
(1254 t) of the arriving food waste ended up as wet reject and 0.46%
(69 t) as heavy reject. The wet reject consisted of organic material
(mixture of oating food waste, bres, etc.). It was composted and
used for soil production. The heavy reject mainly consisted of stones
and sand and was landlled.
The substrate in the reactor consisted of 12,525 t of food waste
including paper bags after pre-treatment, 2235 t of sludge from
grease separators and 2085 t of silage. Data on the amount of
resources used by the biogas plant (electricity, heat, freshwater
and chemicals) were collected from environmental reports (SVAB,
2011, 2012) and allocated to the different substrates according
to their mass, i.e. 77% to the food waste. The plant used 3777 GJ
green electricity consisting of 99% hydropower and 1% wind power
(K. Pettersson, pers. comm. 2013) and 5634 GJ heat from the district heating network of the municipality. The biogas plant used
11,917 m3 of tap water for preparation of the slurry. The chemicals
and fresh water used in the biogas plant and data on infrastructure
for the biogas plant are described in Appendix (Table A1).
On average, 1406,304 N m3 of methane gas were produced
before losses and this was allocated to the substrates according
to their methane production potential. Thus 84% of the methane
production was allocated to food waste and paper bags (Table A3
in Appendix). Methane losses from the biogas plant were 4.94% of
the total methane produced (SVAB, 2011, 2012).
3.2.3. Upgrading and use of biogas
The biogas produced, containing 1320,811 N m3 methane gas
from food waste and paper bags, was sent to the upgrading
plant, puried and compressed to vehicle quality biogas with 97%
methane gas. About 1.5% of the methane gas was lost from the
upgrading plant (SVAB, 2011). Losses of methane gas and resources
used in the upgrading plant were allocated according to methane
production. For the upgrading process, an average of 2873 GJ

electricity and 7106 m3 water were used. Due to interruptions in

the upgrading process, on average 1.2% of methane gas was used in
a gas engine or was torched. In total, the system produced vehicle
fuel containing 1301,000 N m3 methane gas from food waste and
paper bags. The vehicle fuel was used in city buses, replacing
natural gas. Emissions from production and use of natural gas and
data for upgrading plants are described in Appendix (Table A1).
3.2.4. Disposal of reject fractions
The biowaste (dry reject) and all the organic materials (wet
reject) were assumed to be food waste and the emissions from
transport and treatment of these rejects were included. However,
for the contaminants (e.g. plastics, metal, textile, wood), only the
transport emissions were included. The dry reject was incinerated
and 90% of this fraction was sent 71 km to Avesta and 10% was sent
88 km to Uppsala. The heat recovered, slag and y ash produced
were calculated using the ORWARE incineration model (Bjrklund,
1998), while the resources used and the emissions generated were
estimated from an environmental report (Vrmevrden, 2013) and
allocated based on heat produced. The recovered heat replaced
average Swedish district heating.
The wet reject was transported 43 km to the composting plant
at Istra, which uses semi-permeable membrane composting technology. The wet reject contained 9.2 kg total nitrogen (tot-N) and
0.8 kg ammonium nitrogen (NH4 N) on a wet weight basis and
the ash content was about half that in the food waste (Carlsson
et al., 2013). The compost was used for production of soil, replacing
chemical fertilizer. Data on energy use and emissions during composting wet reject were described in Appendix (Tables A1 and A4).
During composting, 94 kg nitrogen per tonne of dry reject were lost
as gaseous emissions, estimated as 15% nitrous oxide, 11% ammonia
and 74% nitrogen gas from the denitrication process. Ammonium
nitrogen was estimated to be 1% of total nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen 6% of total nitrogen in the mature compost (Sonesson, 1996).
The total nitrogen in compost was calculated from total nitrogen in
wet reject minus nitrogen losses. The phosphorus content of the
compost was estimated to be 0.2% of total solids, based on the
ratio of ash content in the wet reject (Carlsson et al., 2013). The
amount of chemical fertilizer replaced was calculated by assuming that 17.5% of the total nitrogen content in the nished compost
would replace chemical fertilizer (Odlare et al., 2000). Assuming
no leachate during composting, the phosphorus remained in the
compost. Avoided chemical fertilizer components were ammonium
nitrate (AN) and triple superphosphate (TSP), with a content of
35% nitrogen and 21% phosphorus, respectively. The emissions and
energy use from production and spreading of these fertilizers were
included. The production of both compounds was assumed to be
in Finland (Table A2). Data on emissions and energy use from the
spreading operation were taken from Lindgren et al. (2002). Nitrous
oxide emissions were calculated as 1% (N2 ON) of applied nitrogen
(tot-N) (IPCC, 2006).
Transport of the heavy reject to landll was included, while
the emissions from landlling this fraction were not included, as
this occurred in both scenarios. The distance between biogas plant
and the landll was approximately 2.7 km, including a stop at the
weighing station.
3.2.5. Digestate handling
One tonne of food waste entering the digestion process resulted
in about 1.4 t of liquid digestate and 0.2 t of solid digestate (Table 3),
due to the dilution with tap water. The yearly amounts produced
and their characteristics can be found in Table 3.
The liquid digestate fraction was stored in a 3000 m3 concrete
storage tank covered with a plastic roof beside the biogas plant
and in 2000 m3 satellite storage tanks made of plastic and with a

Y.L. Chiew et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 95 (2015) 114

Table 3
Total amounts, dry matter content, volatile solids and nutrient concentrations of the two digestate fractions.

Liquid fraction
Solid fraction
a
b

Amounta [t]

DMb [%]

VSb [%]

Ntotb [kg t1 wet weight]

NH4 Nb [kg t1 wet weight]

Ptotb [kg t1 wet weight]

20,843
2319

4.3
28.8

3.0
20.9

4.3
8.2

3.6
3.4

0.4
2.4

Average produced 20102012 (SVAB, 2011; G. Hagskld, pers. comm. 2013).

Calculations based on digestate analysis 20102012 and ORWARE simulation (G. Hagskld, pers. comm. 2012; Bjrklund, 1998).

oating roof beside the eld. The solid fraction was stored in a container beside the biogas plant and on a concrete pad (about 30 m2 ,
no roof) beside the eld. The production of the container was not
included, as this was assumed to be used for other purposes regardless of the digestate production. The average distance to the farm
was 15 km and the transport was done weekly by lorry (G. Hagskld,
pers. comm. 2013). Data on materials and transport can be found
in Appendix (Tables A1 and A2). The liquid fraction was assumed
to be spread in spring by band spreading equipment and the solid
fraction in autumn by solid manure equipment. Data on spreading
activities were taken from Lindgren et al. (2002).
During storage and after spreading, digestate, just as other
organic substrates, emits methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia.
Ammonia emissions when storing liquid digestate were assumed to
be the same as when storing liquid manure under roof and with bottom ll-up, and those when storing solid digestate as when storing
solid manure (Table A4). For ammonia emissions after spreading
liquid digestate, emissions after spreading of liquid manure with
pH 7.5 and 7.9 were used for interpolation to the pH of the liquid digestate, 7.6 (Rodhe et al., 2013). The nitrous oxide emissions
from storage of liquid digestate were also based on data for liquid
manure, but adjusted for the difference in NH4 N/tot-N ratio of liquid digestate compared with liquid manure. Data on emissions of
methane after spreading of liquid manure were used for spreading
of liquid digestate. No data were found on ammonia emissions after
spreading solid digestate and therefore data for emissions after
spreading non-digested solid manure, incorporated after 4 h, were
used. Indirect nitrous oxide emissions were calculated as 1% of volatized NH3 N (IPCC, 2006). Emissions of nitrous oxide and methane
were only calculated for storage during summer, as these emissions are negligible during winter according to Rodhe et al. (2013),
while ammonia emissions were accumulated emissions over the
total storage period. Average storage time for liquid digestate was
about 46 summer days and 137 winter days and for solid digestate
91 summer days and 91 winter days.
3.3. Chemical fertilizer scenario
3.3.1. Collection and transportation of food waste
Food waste was put together with residual waste in plastic bags,
collected and transported to an incineration plant. Used plastic bags
(used shopping bags) were assumed to be employed for this purpose and therefore no environmental load was allocated to them.
As no separate waste bins were needed to collect the food waste
in this scenario, the waste bins were reduced, i.e. only 37% of the
total weight of waste bins in the DF scenario was estimated to be
needed. This was estimated by assuming that 120 L and 140 L waste
bins were replaced by 190 L and 240 L waste bins, and that 190 L and
240 L waste bins were replaced by 370 L and 400 L waste bins. However, 370 L and 400 L waste bins were assumed to be same as in the
DF scenario. Since the waste bins were used for collection of mixed
waste, only 25% of the weight of waste bins in the CF scenario was
allocated to the food waste (K. Pettersson, pers. comm. 2012). Collection routes for food waste were assumed to be the same as in
the DF scenario. Emissions from waste collection trucks were also
assumed to be the same, even though one-compartment collection
trucks were used instead of two-compartment versions. However

transport was changed, as the food waste was assumed to go to the

incineration plants at Avesta and Uppsala (90% to Avesta and 10%
to Uppsala, the same distribution as for the dry reject fraction sent
to incineration).
3.3.2. Incineration of food waste and replaced district heat
On average, 14,416 t of food waste (without paper bags) were
reloaded to transport trucks and sent to the incineration plant in
Avesta. The incineration plant has ue gas condensation, but no
production of electricity. Only incineration of food waste was considered, not the incineration of contaminants such as 0.5% sand and
stones and 1.0% wood and textiles, as these were outside the system
boundaries. As the food waste was collected in non-ventilated used
plastic shopping bags, it had a lower dry matter content (28.7%; see
Table 1) than in the DF scenario, and thus both higher and lower
heating values were reduced, to 6091 and 4117 MJ per tonne of
food waste, respectively. Due to lack of data, the same incineration model as calibrated for Avesta was used. However, this model
was initially developed for the incinerator in Uppsala, which has
ue gas condensation and only heat recovery (Bjrklund, 1998).
Using this model, heat production was calculated to be 5326 MJ per
tonne of food waste. Air and water emissions and use of resources
in the form of electricity, ammonia (for ue gas cleaning) and
the calcium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide and activated hydroxide
used (Table A1) when incinerating food waste were all calibrated
according to the 2012 environmental report for the Avesta waste
incineration process which, like Uppsala, has ue gas condensation
and only recovers heat (Vrmevrden, 2013). Allocation was based
on heat production. The heat generated from food waste replaced
average Swedish district heat. The data for incineration plant and
landlling are presented in Table A1.
3.3.3. Disposal of bottom ash and y ash
The y and bottom ash from food waste were transported from
the incineration plant in Avesta to landll in Hgbytorp (Stockholm) and from Uppsala to the landll in Hovgrden (Uppsala). The
distances were measured to be about 122 km and 44 km, respectively (Table A2). Data on the emissions from landlling y and
bottom ash were taken from the SPINE report (CPM, 2013).
3.3.4. Plant availability and chemical fertilizer production
The plant available nitrogen content of the liquid digestate was
assumed to be 80% of total nitrogen and that of the solid digestate
50% of total nitrogen (Delin et al., 2012; Svensson et al., 2004). As in
previous studies (Bernstad and la Cour Jansen, 2011), all phosphorus in the digestate was assumed to be plant available. The chemical
fertilizers needed to supply 1 kg plant available nitrogen and 0.20 kg
phosphorus, according to the FU, were produced and spread as the
chemical fertilizer in Section 3.2.4.
3.4. Cadmium content of digestate and chemical fertilizer
The food waste contained 37 mg Cd per kg phosphorus (Jnsson
et al., 2005), while the food waste and paper bag mixture contained
39 mg Cd per kg phosphorus, due to the paper bags also containing
some cadmium. The cadmium level of the chemical fertilizer in this
study was assumed to be 3 mg per kg phosphorus, the content of the

Y.L. Chiew et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 95 (2015) 114

Fig. 2. Primary energy use for the digestate fertilizer (DF) and chemical fertilizer (CF)scenarios. Rejects handling denotes heat production and chemical fertilizers avoided
by incineration of the dry reject and composting of the wet reject.

majority of the phosphate rock used in Sweden, which originates

from the Kola Peninsula (Yara, 2010).
3.5. Potential carbon sequestration
When carbon is added to soil sequestration can take place, and
there is thus a reduction in the carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration is complex, depending on e.g. soil
type, temperature, microbial activity, etc. In the DF scenario, the
carbon added to arable land with digestate, the carbon in the composted wet reject fraction for soil production and the carbon in the
bottom ash remaining after incineration of dry reject was included.
In the CF scenario, only the bottom ash remaining after incineration
contributed to carbon sequestration. The carbon sequestration of
digestate and compost was estimated to be 7% of the total carbon
added to soil in a 100-year perspective, based on previous studies (Bernstad and la Cour Jansen, 2012; Lund Hansen et al., 2006).
For the bottom ash going to landll, all the carbon in the ash, i.e.
2% of the initial carbon in the food waste (Bjrklund, 1998), was
assumed to be sequestered, as this was considered to be approximately as stable as the carbon in charcoal, which can be sequestered
for centuries (Fowles, 2007).
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Primary energy use
The DF scenario had a net primary energy balance of 283 MJ
per FU, i.e. it avoided more primary energy than it used (Fig. 2).
The upgraded biogas avoided use of 870 MJ primary energy per FU
and rejects handling avoided use of 41 MJ per FU, while 276 MJ of
primary energy per FU were used at the plant for digestion and
upgrading of the biogas. In addition, 330 MJ per FU were used for
collection of the source-separated biowaste. Of this, 76% was used
for production and distribution of the paper bags. Digestate handling used 22 MJ per FU. Compared with the DF scenario, the CF

scenario generated more primary energy, with a balance of 784 MJ

per FU. This was due to incineration of the food waste, which produced 1358 MJ of heat. As Swedish district heat is partly generated
from heat pumps and waste heat from industries, the primary
energy conversion factor was less than 1 (0.79). This led to 1073 MJ
per FU of primary energy being avoided by the incineration. The
total primary energy use for collecting, transporting and incinerating biowaste was about 73 MJ per FU, while chemical fertilizer
production and handling used 43 MJ per FU and ash handling used
7 MJ per FU.
The production of kraft paper, i.e. the material used for paper bag
production, was about 64% of the primary energy used in collection
and transportation and 20% was used for distributing the paper bags
and the rest for production of the bags. The biogas produced from
food waste and paper bags replaced 870 MJ of natural gas, which is
more in terms of the primary energy, as the conversion factor was
1.09.

4.2. Global warming potential (GWP)

The net impact on global warming potential was 8.4 kg CO2 eq
per FU for the DF scenario, while it was 17.1 kg CO2 eq per FU
for the CF scenario, i.e. emissions of 17.1 kg CO2 eq per FU were
avoided (Fig. 3). Biogas production and digestate handling contributed 28.5 and 19.0 kg CO2 eq per FU, respectively. Methane
leakage was the main factor causing GWP emissions from biogas
production, contributing about 75% of the total GWP emissions for
that process. Of the GWP from digestate handling, nitrous oxide
emissions from storage of the solid digestate contributed most,
36%. The contribution from the collection and transport of the
source-separated food waste was also large, 16.6 kg CO2 eq per FU,
with the largest contribution, 51%, from the production and distribution of the kraft paper bags used for food waste collection.
These large contributions were partly balanced by avoided emissions due to the upgraded biogas replacing natural gas as fuel for
city buses (57.8 kg CO2 eq), but also partly due to the treated reject

Y.L. Chiew et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 95 (2015) 114

Fig. 3. Global warming potential for the digestate fertilizer (DF) and chemical fertilizer (CF) scenarios. Rejects handling denotes heat production and chemical fertilizers
avoided by incineration of the dry reject and composting of the wet reject.

fractions replacing chemical fertilizer and Swedish district heat.

In the CF scenario, the emissions were small for food waste collection and transport, incineration and ash handling. The largest
contribution was from the production and handling of chemical fertilizer. The avoided greenhouse gas emissions were also
small in the CF scenario. Large amounts of primary energy were

avoided by the heat produced by incineration, but most of the

avoided heat caused relatively low GWP, from biofuel, heat pumps
etc. However, the avoided GWP was large enough to give a net
negative balance, 17.1 kg CO2 eq per FU. Carbon sequestration
also contributed somewhat to GWP in both scenarios (see Section
4.6).

Fig. 4. Potential acidication for the digestate fertilizer (DF) and chemical fertilizer (CF) scenarios. Rejects handling denotes heat production and chemical fertilizers avoided
by incineration of the dry reject and composting of the wet reject.

Y.L. Chiew et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 95 (2015) 114

Fig. 5. Potential eutrophication for the digestate fertilizer (DF) and chemical fertilizer (CF) scenarios. Rejects handling denotes heat production and chemical fertilizers
avoided by incineration of the dry reject and composting of the wet reject.

4.3. Potential acidication

The potential acidication was about 0.58 kg SO2 eq per FU
for the DF scenario, while the CF scenario avoided insignicant
amounts, net 0.02 kg SO2 eq per FU (Fig. 4). In the DF scenario,
the digestate handling contributed most to the potential acidication (0.52 kg SO2 eq per FU), mainly due to ammonia emissions
after spreading the liquid digestate. The avoided fuel contributed
0.10 kg SO2 eq in the DF scenario and handling of reject fractions
also led to a small amount being avoided. This was followed by
collection and transport (0.02 kg SO2 eq per FU), mainly due to
emissions from the production of paper bags (71%). All the processes in the CF scenario emitted small amounts of the compounds
that can cause acidication, e.g. nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide,
hydrogen chloride and ammonia.
4.4. Potential eutrophication
As for acidication, ammonia emissions in digestate handling
were one of the main contributors to eutrophication in the DF scenario (0.13 kg PO4 3 eq per FU). The contribution from collection
and transportation of food waste was fairly small (0.02 kg PO4 3
eq per FU) (Fig. 5), and was mainly due to production of the paper
bags used. Avoided emissions mainly came from the avoided fuel
(0.02 kg PO4 3 eq per FU). The total eutrophication in the CF scenario was only 8% of that in the DF scenario. The largest contribution
in the CF scenario came from incineration (0.01 kg PO4 3 eq per
FU). In the CF scenario, the incineration of food waste for heat
production avoided 0.007 kg PO4 3 eq per FU.
4.5. Flows of phosphorus, nitrogen and cadmium
The DF scenario provided fertilizer with renewable phosphorus.
In addition, the compost from the wet reject avoided use of 0.02 kg
phosphorus from non-renewable phosphate rock per FU, while
the CF scenario used 0.20 kg phosphorus from non-renewable

phosphate rock. For the ow of nitrogen, a mass balance for

nitrogen is given for the DF scenario in Table 4.
The ow of cadmium to arable land per FU was 8.6 mg for the
DF scenario and 0.6 mg for the CF scenario. For comparison, results
based on the average level of 6 mg Cd per kg phosphorus of chemical
fertilizers sold in Sweden (KEMI, 2011) and the median cadmium
content of phosphorus fertilizers used in Europe of 87 mg Cd per kg
phosphorus (Nziguheba and Smolders, 2008) were calculated. If the
average level of Cd content in Sweden had been used for chemical
fertilizers, 2.3 mg Cd would have been added to the soil in the CF
scenario, while if a European median chemical fertilizer had been
used 17.0 mg Cd would have been added. However, the cadmium
added with the digestate mainly originated from arable land and
thus did not cause much further accumulation in the soil. On the
other hand, it is important to consider the importance of decreasing
the cadmium content in arable soil and thus KEMI (2011) recommends a maximum level of 12 mg Cd per kg phosphorus for
fertilizers.
4.6. Potential carbon sequestration
The carbon content in the waste products in the DF scenario
was estimated to be 5.7 kg per FU in digestate, 4.0 kg per FU in the
composted wet reject fraction for soil production and 1.8 kg in the
dry reject going to incineration. The carbon content of the food
waste incinerated in the CF scenario was 31.8 kg per FU. Potential
carbon sequestration in the DF scenario (with digestate, compost
and landlled slag) was about 0.7 kg, while it was 0.6 kg carbon
Table 4
Mass balance for the nitrogen ow (kg total nitrogen FU1 ) of the digestate fertilizer
(DF) scenario.

Liquid digestate
Solid digestate
Total

At start

Storage

Spreading

Nitrogen to eld

1.33
0.28
1.61

0.01
0.07
0.08

0.17
0.03
0.20

1.15
0.18
1.33

Y.L. Chiew et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 95 (2015) 114

Table 5
Results of the sensitivity analyses for the digestate fertilizer (DF) and chemical fertilizer (CF) scenarios.
Primary energy use
[MJ FU1 ]

GWP
[kg CO2 eq FU1 ]

Acidication
[kg SO2 eq FU1 ]

CF scenario
Recent technology for incineration plant
Replacing CF production with MMF production

784
875
587

17.1
5.6
18.0

0.02
0.01
0.01

0.01
0.01
0.02

0.6

0.6

DF scenario
Recent technology for incineration plant (dry reject)
Reduction of 50% in methane leakage from biogas
plant and upgrading plant
BAT (CH4 loss 0.13% in biogas plant and 0.27% in
upgrading)
Swedish average electricity mix in biogas and
upgrading plants
Swedish average district heating in biogas and
upgrading plants
Replacing use of diesel
Replacing paper bag with used plastic shopping bags
assuming same amount of reject
50% reduction in emissions from digestate handling
50% increase in emissions from digestate handling

283
290
312

8.4
9.2
7.0

0.58
0.58
0.58

0.13
0.13
0.13

8.6

349

21.3

0.57

0.13

196

9.1

0.58

0.13

367

5.3

0.59

0.13

80
470

17.1
4.5

0.59
0.55

0.13
0.11

251
304

2.7
17.7

0.31
0.91

0.07
0.20

7.8
9.4

Potential of combined improvements for DF scenario

BAT for biogas and upgrading plants
Used plastic shopping bag
Swedish heat replaces Vsters heat
Emissions from digestate (50%)

67
187
84
32

29.7
4.0
3.2
5.8

0.01
0.03
0.01
0.27

0.00
0.02
0.00
0.06

0.8

Total reduction

306

42.6

0.31

0.08

0.8

Result of improvements

589

34.2

0.27

0.05

7.8

in the CF scenario (with landlled slag), which would represent a

decrease in GWP of 2.6 and 2.3 kg CO2 eq, respectively, in a 100year perspective (see Fig. 3). The GWP was estimated based on the
assumption that only carbon dioxide emissions would have been
emitted from the soil and could thus be larger if methane were
also formed. The potential GWP of carbon sequestration given was
based on the amount left in the soil after 100 years and was thus
an underestimate. The fact that the emissions are delayed from a
large part of the initial carbon degraded in the soil during the 100
years was not taken into consideration.
4.7. Sensitivity analysis and uncertainty
To test the sensitivity of some assumptions made in the study, a
few changes in the scenarios were made one at a time: (1) application of most recent technology for incinerating food waste; (2) the
chemical fertilizer in CF scenario was replaced with pelletized meat
meal fertilizer; (3) the 100% renewable electricity and district heating from municipality used by the biogas plant were replaced with
Swedish average electricity and Swedish average district heating;
and (4) diesel as fuel was replaced instead of natural gas. In addition,
the sensitivity to various improvements in anaerobic digestion of
food waste was investigated, such as: (5) the food waste collection
system; (6) reduction of methane losses in biogas production and
upgrading; and (7) emissions from digestate handling. The sensitivity analysis results are shown in Table 5.
In the CF scenario, the data on resource use and emissions for the
incineration plant were taken from the Avesta incineration plant,
which has a ue gas condensation system but only recovers heat. It
used 196 MJ electricity per tonne of food waste and was assumed
to have an incineration efciency of 91% and a condensation efciency of 80%. Recent technology for an incinerator without ue
gas condensation, i.e. data on a waste incinerator in Gothenburg,
was assumed. The electricity consumption of this plant was 19 MJ
per tonne of food waste. The energy generated was assumed to
equal the average proportions of energy produced at Swedish waste

Eutrophication
[kg PO4 3 eq FU1 ]

Cd [mg]

plants incinerating household waste, i.e. 18% as electricity and 82%

as heat (Bjrklund, 1998; CPM, 2013). As a result of these assumptions, the primary energy balance in the CF scenario increased by
12%, but the avoided GWP was smaller, about 33% of the original
amount found for the CF scenario. When the same assumptions
were applied for incinerating the dry reject fraction in the DF scenario, similar tendencies were found, i.e. primary energy increased
by 3% and net GWP increased by 9% due to the smaller contribution
of avoided GWP from the dry reject. The reason was that the electricity produced avoided average Swedish electricity mix with a low
GWP impact factor, only 43% of the GWP impact factor of average
Swedish district heating (0.025 kg CO2 eq/MJ). Half of the Swedish
electricity mix is generated by nuclear power (51%) and another
large fraction comes from hydro power (40%). Both of these have
low GWP impacts and the impacts on acidication and eutrophication are insignicant. Application of the most recent technology
to waste incineration will thus provide benets in terms of energy
efciency, but not in terms of the environmental impact.
Pelletized meat meal fertilizer (MMF) is a common type of fertilizer used in organic farming in Sweden. It is produced from
slaughterhouse waste. The meat meal fertilizer product in this
study was produced by drying and pelletizing slaughter waste, Animal By-Product Category 2, under Swedish conditions (Spngberg
et al., 2011). Included in the analysis were the production of a meat
meal fertilizer and the avoided use of fossil fuel oil, as a similar fuel,
animal fat, is co-produced in meat meal production. A more common way to treat slaughter waste is to incinerate it. Thus, when
meat meal fertilizer is produced, another fuel needs to be incinerated. This other fuel was assumed to be biofuel and its production
and incineration were included. To full the functional unit of the
study, 12.5 kg meat meal fertilizer, containing 0.38 kg phosphorus,
were needed. As the amount of phosphorus was greater than in
the functional unit of this study, use of 0.18 kg phosphate fertilizer was avoided. Treatment of food waste was by incineration, as
in the CF scenario. Sequestered carbon was estimated based on a
rst degradation of 80% of the organic matter, corresponding to the

10

Y.L. Chiew et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 95 (2015) 114

plant available nitrogen content of meat meal (Spngberg et al.,

2011). Of the remaining amount of carbon, 7% was assumed to be
sequestered (Bernstad and la Cour Jansen, 2012; Lund Hansen et al.,
2006).
Meat meal fertilizer production used slightly larger amounts of
energy than chemical fertilizer production, so the total primary
energy balance was somewhat less favourable for meat meal than
for the original CF scenario. Due to the replacement of fossil fuels,
the production of meat meal fertilizer caused less GWP than chemical fertilizer production and thus the net result for GWP was better
for meat meal fertilizers than chemical fertilizer. The results for
eutrophication and acidication did not change, as eld emissions
from the meat meal fertilizer and the chemical fertilizer, which
were the main contributors to these categories, were similar.
The methane gas losses in the biogas plant and upgrading plant
contributed about 27 kg CO2 eq per FU. The total methane losses in
these plants were measured to be about 6.4%. A reduction of 50%
in the methane losses in the biogas and upgrading plants would
reduce GWP by 16 kg CO2 eq per FU, and allow 30 MJ more primary
energy to be gained. With best available technology (BAT) for biogas
plants and upgrading plants, the methane losses can be reduced to
0.13% for the biogas plant and 0.27% for the upgrading plant (Gthe,
2013). If this were to be achieved, the DF scenario would generate
67 MJ more primary energy and avoid 21 kg CO2 eq per FU.
If the paper bags were replaced with used plastic bags, both the
production and distribution of kraft paper bags would be avoided.
The amount of waste bins used and the transportation routes in
the collection system would be approximately the same, but the
amount of organic matter to the reactor would decrease by about
8%, as it would no longer include paper bags. The methane gas
production would also decrease by 8%. The DF scenario without
paper bags for collection of food waste would improve the primary energy balance by about 66%, and the GWP would be reduced
by almost 47%, provided that the food waste lost with reject fractions remained the same. Acidication and eutrophication would
be reduced slightly compared with the original DF scenario.
If the biogas and upgrading plants used average Swedish electricity mix, the primary energy use would be 86 MJ higher, the GWP
would be about 0.6 kg CO2 eq higher and there would be no effects
on acidication and eutrophication. On the other hand, if Swedish
district heating were used, the scenario results would be 96 MJ
better for primary energy use and 3.6 kg CO2 eq better for GWP,
the impacts on acidication would be slightly worse and those on
eutrophication would be insignicant.
If the upgraded biogas were to be used for replacing diesel, the
primary energy replaced would be 203 MJ lower, due to the higher
efciency of engines using diesel compared with natural gas. The
GWP impacts would be 8.6 kg CO2 eq higher. The use of diesel in
city buses could also slightly increase the acidication and eutrophication impacts compared with natural gas. The DF scenario would
have less benet in all impact categories if the biogas were used for
replacing diesel.
The data used on emissions from storage and spreading had a
great impact on the results, since they contributed directly to GWP,
potential eutrophication and potential acidication and indirectly
to energy use. This was because any nitrogen loss increased the
amount of food waste needed to be digested to full the FU. Results
were calculated for a reduction of 50% in all emissions from storage
and spreading, representing better management in the handling of
digestate, and for an increase in the emissions of 50%, representing
a more temperate scenario with a warmer climate and thus higher
microbial activity and emissions.
The impact on the results from changing the emissions from
storage and spreading resulted in larger and smaller amounts,
respectively, of food waste needing to be treated per FU. This change
in food waste needed to full the FU involved a difference in the

amount of food waste to collect, transport and treat, but also a difference in the amount of energy produced from the treatment. In
total, these impacts affected the results in both a negative and positive way for both scenarios. The largest impact of changing the
emissions from storage and spreading could be seen in the results
of GWP, where a 50% reduction lowered the total GWP balance
by about 68%. This was mainly due to the large impact of nitrous
oxide emissions, which is a strong climate gas. The results for acidication and eutrophication were also reduced, by about 47 and
46%, respectively, when emissions from digestate handling were
reduced. The results on primary energy use were affected in the
opposite way to the other results, as this impact was not directly
inuenced by changes in the emissions from storage and spreading,
but by the decreased amount of food waste treated per FU. Here it
should be noted that the results for a comparable CF scenario would
also change as the amount of food waste treated changed, increasing by about 10% when the emissions increased and decreasing by
about 10% when the emissions decreased.
4.8. General discussion
The results of this study demonstrate that life cycle assessment
(LCA) can be used as a support tool for farmers when they want
to choose a fertilizer that helps them reduce their environmental impact. The life cycle methodology illustrates the importance
of the system boundaries set for the study and the assumptions
made for the processes included. In this case study, this was especially evident for the local conditions specied for collection of food
waste, methane losses at the biogas plant etc. The sensitivity analysis showed how important these specications were for the results.
However, it was a challenge to collect sufcient high-quality data
on the mass balance of material, nutrients, dry matter, organic matter and ash in the reactor. Getting these balances correct proved
important for the amount and composition of the digestate from
the food waste, and thus for the emissions from the digestate.
The DF scenario beneted from resource recovery from the
reject fractions, i.e. incineration of dry reject generated 7 MJ primary energy per tonne food waste treated and avoided 218 kg CO2
eq. However, infrastructure included in the DF scenario, such as
paper bag holders, waste bins and biogas and upgrading plants,
lowered the benets of that scenario. Of the factors contributing
to the DF scenario, such infrastructure represented 5% of primary
energy, 6% of GWP, 2% of acidication and 3% of eutrophication. For
the CF scenario, waste bins, incinerator and landll represented less
than 5% of primary energy, 11% of GWP, 16% of acidication and 24%
of eutrophication.
The collection system should be scrutinized to make it more
efcient, and collection in used plastic bags might be an environmentally favourable option. However, aspects such as better
materials in paper bags, more efcient distribution of the paper
bags etc. should also be considered, and improvements along these
lines are underway in the municipalities studied here. Improved
handling of digestate, e.g. storage and spreading, to reduce emissions of methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia would reduce
impacts on GWP, acidication and eutrophication, as shown in
Table 5. This could be achieved by e.g. using a gasproof storage cover
and methane collection from the digestate storage. This has been
shown to decrease the environmental impacts of digestate management considerably (Poeschl et al., 2012). Other potential means to
reduce emissions from digestate include e.g. lowering the temperature or pH of the digestate to inhibit microbial activity. The biogas
and upgrading plants currently use green electricity to reduce the
impacts on GWP. This is an environmentally wise choice, as can be
seen from the sensitivity analysis. The biogas plant also uses the district heat system of the municipality (0.06 kg CO2 eq per MJ), which
is produced by use of more fossil fuels than the average Swedish

Y.L. Chiew et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 95 (2015) 114

district heat (0.03 kg CO2 eq per MJ). If the municipality were to

change to producing its district heat with a similar mix as the average Swedish mix, the GWP for the DF scenario would decrease by
3 kg CO2 eq per FU. A change to using meat meal fertilizer instead of
chemical fertilizer would not alter the results signicantly (Table 5).
For the DF scenario, it is important to optimize the biogas yield
by reducing methane losses, which have currently been reduced to
2.3% at biogas and upgrading plants. Furthermore, it is important
to optimize the fuel replaced, as this study showed improvements
in terms of primary energy, GWP, acidication and eutrophication
when natural gas was replaced rather than diesel. It is also interesting to note that when energy recovered by incineration replaces
electricity, a larger amount of primary energy can be avoided but
less GWP is avoided, due to Swedish electricity production relying
mainly on hydro and nuclear power, with low emissions of GWP.
Swedish district heat production uses just small amounts of fossil fuels but relatively more than electricity production. Thus, if
GWP is prioritized, then heat production should be preferred over
electricity and maximized by ue gas condensation.
If BAT for methane leakage in biogas and upgrading plants were
to be applied, paper bags eliminated in the collection system and
digestate management improved, the DF scenario could generate a
net approx. 560590 MJ primary energy and avoid about 2034 kg
CO2 eq GWP (Table 5). This would make the DF scenario better
than the CF scenario for GWP and comparable for primary energy,
although acidication and eutrophication would still be signicantly higher for the DF scenario.
One large uncertainty in this study is the estimated emissions
from storage and spreading of the digestate. Our estimates of
methane and nitrous oxide emissions from storage of the solid
digestate were based on a study on dewatered sewage sludge with
e.g. total nitrogen content about 1.8 times that of solid digestate. Methane emissions from spreading of solid digestate were
also based on a study on sewage sludge. All emissions from liquid
digestate, except for nitrous oxide emissions from spreading, were
based on studies on digested liquid manure, which also differed
in composition, although the emissions were adjusted based on
ammonia content. For direct nitrous oxide emissions from spreading the digestate the default value of IPCC was used, which is a rough
estimate. A Swedish study on digested liquid manure showed signicantly lower results, 0.1% N2 ON of tot-N, compared with the
1% gure used by IPCC (2006). However, the study period in the
Swedish study was only 72 days, whereas IPCC estimates the emissions over a year. Furthermore, the Swedish study was conducted
under summer conditions and thus these emissions might be lower
under Swedish conditions. It was also shown that the nitrous oxide
and ammonia emissions from the solid digestate at storage and
after spreading were signicantly higher per kg nitrogen than for

11

the liquid digestate. One way to reduce these emissions could thus
be to mix the solid and liquid digestate and to handle it as a liquid
digestate with a slightly higher dry matter content.
The use of digested food waste in this study gave a larger
negative impact for all categories studied than using chemical fertilizers and incineration of the food waste. However, considering
the potential improvements mentioned earlier in the discussion,
digestate could be better than chemical fertilizer in terms of GWP.
From the perspective of plant nutrient recycling, the nutrients in
the food waste, including micronutrients and organic matter, are
lost in the incineration process and the nutrient loop is not closed. A
consequence of this is that non-renewable phosphorus sources are
needed. To move towards more sustainable agriculture, we need
to close the nutrient loops to a larger extent. Thus, digestion of
food waste for use as fertilizer is an interesting option. However,
as this study showed, the digestion system needs to be improved
if it is to compare favourably with a system with incineration and
chemical fertilizer. For organic farming, digestate is an interesting
fertilizer, especially when considering that manure handling also
causes emissions contributing to acidication and eutrophication.
The cadmium content of the digestate should be considered, as it is
relatively high in relation to the recommendations by KEMI (2011).
5. Conclusions
In this case study, use of chemical fertilizers and incineration
of food waste proved to make a better net contribution to primary
energy, lower the GWP and cause less eutrophication and acidication than digestion of the food waste and use of the digestate as
fertilizer. If improvements in the digestion system are implemented
successfully, digestate as fertilizer could be better than chemical
fertilizer in terms of lowered GWP and use of non-renewable phosphate rock. However, it would still cause more eutrophication and
acidication than chemical fertilizer use. The relatively large cadmium ow with digested food waste should be considered.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council Formas
(Grant number 2007-1683) and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. We thank Vafab Milj AB for the data support and
Mary McFee for the English revision.
Appendix A. Appendix
This appendix contains inventory data on input materials, processes, infrastructure and all transport included in the study.
Tables A1A4.

Table A1
Inventory data for the input materials, processes and infrastructures in the study.
Material/process/infrastructure

Description/assumption/weight

Reference for emissions

Paper bags
Kraft paper
Glue

19 g kraft paper and 0.50.6 g glue

Electricity consumption for production 1 paper bag is 0.027 MJ.
Swedish conditions
100 g potato starch in 375 g water

Potato starch
Paper bag production

San Sac (n.d.), G. Wallin (pers. comm., 2013)

L. Zanders (pers. comm., 2013)
Korsns (2011)
Avebe Adhesives (2010), C. Hansson (pers.
comm., 2013)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)

Paper bag holders

Polypropylene (PP)
Injection moulding

0.173 kg polypropylene (PP), 10-year life span

European average
Electricity consumption for production of paper bag holders is an estimated
0.27 kW h and input PP is 0.247 kg to produce 1 kg paper bag holder material.

K. Pettersson (pers.comm., 2013)

Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010), R. Ferm (pers. comm., 2012)

Waste bins

120 L, 140 L, 190 L, 240 L, 370 L, 400 L are 9.9 kg, 10.6 kg, 13 kg, 14.4 kg, 19 kg
and 22 kg, respectively. High-density polyethylene (HDPE), 20-year life span
European average

PWS Nordic (n.d.)

High-density polyethylene(HDPE)

Ecoinvent (2010)

12

Y.L. Chiew et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 95 (2015) 114

Table A1 (Continued)
Material/process/infrastructure

Description/assumption/weight

Reference for emissions

Injection moulding

To produce 1 kg waste bin material, the input HDPE plastics were assumed to
be 1.06 kg and the energy consumption 5.33 MJ of Germany medium voltage
electricity production.

Ecoinvent (2010)

Electricity

99% Hydro and 1% wind

Swedish electricity mix

Gode et al. (2011)

Ecoinvent (2010)

Heat

District heating of municipality of Vsters

Swedish district heating

MlarEnergi (2013)
Gode et al. (2011), Vattenfall (n.d.)

Chemicals used in biogas plant

Lubricant oil
Degreaser

Products and amounts

Lubricant oil, at plant; Mineral: 1030 kg year1 and synthetic: 1549 kg year1
Fatty acid, from vegetable oil, at plant; 103 kg year1
Naphtha, at regional storage; 27 kg year1
Ethanol from ethylene, at plant; 163 kg year1
Ethylene glycol, at plant; 511 kg year1
Petrol, low sulphur, at regional storage; 175 kg year1
Sodium hydroxide, 50% in H2 O, production mix, at plant; 2153 kg year1
Iron(III) chloride, 40% in H2 O, at plant; 124,200 kg year1
Nitrogen liquid; 800 kg year1

K. Pettersson (pers.comm., 2013)

Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)

Products and amounts used at biogas plant

Lime, hydrated, packed, at plant; 3.1 kg
Carbon dioxide liquid, at plant; 1.7 kg
Electricity, low voltage, production NORDEL, at grid; 230 MJ(63.9 kW h)

SVAB (2011 and 2012)

Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)

Production and utilization

Production and utilization
Fuel consumption: 0.46 m3 km1
Production and utilization
City buses of municipality of Vsters
Fuel consumption: 0.52 m3 km1

Gode et al. (2011)

Gode et al. (2011)
Uppenberg et al. (2001)
Gode et al. (2011)
Biogasmax (2010)
Biogasmax (2010)

Biogas plant

Anaerobic digestion plant (biowaste), 25 years for life span; 1 p

Ecoinvent (2010)

Upgrading plants

25 Years for life span; 1 p

Amount of material inputs was taken from Valorgas (n.d.) and adjusted.
Cement, at plant; 4333 kg
Sand; 8667 kg
Tap water; 1000 kg
Steel, unalloyed, at plant; 11,000 kg
Fibre glass, at plant; 5 kg
Natural rubber-based sealant, at plant; 5 kg
PE, granulate, at plant; 25 kg
Torch efciency: 90%

Ecoinvent (2010)

Composting wet reject

Fertilizer AN production
Fertilizer TSP production

Energy consumption: 0.2 MJ kg1 input material, Swedish electricity mix

Best available technology (BAT)
Average European production data for 2006

Khner (2001)
Brentrup and Pallire (2008)
Davis and Haglund (1999)

Digestate storage and spreading

Liquid storage at plant

Life time 30 years by eld, 50 years at plant

Concrete, normal, at plant; 168 m3
Reinforcing steel, at plant; 5.6 t
Polyvinylchloride, regional storage; 3.7 t
Excavationhydraulic digger; 1000 m3
Bottom lining HDPE, granulate, at plant; 1.6 m3
Roof polyvinylchloride, regional storage; 1.1 m3
Concrete, normal, at plant; 4.3 m3
Concrete, normal, at plant; 10.9 m3

Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)

Chemicals used in
incineration plant

Lime, hydrated, at plant; 88.0 t year1

Sodium hydroxide, 50% in H2 O, production mix, at plant; 3935 kg year1
Ammonia, liquid; 28.1 t year1
Activated carbon, at plant; 1263 kg year1

Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)

Incinerator plant

Municipal waste incineration plant; 1 p, 40 years for life span

Ecoinvent (2010)

Landlling facility

Slag compartment; 1 p, 35 years for life span

Ecoinvent (2010)

Ethanol
Glycol
Petrol
Sodium hydroxide
Iron(III) chloride
Nitrogen gas
Fresh water
production

Vehicle fuel
Diesel/diesel blend 5% biodiesel
Natural gas
Biogas

Liquid storage at eld

Solid storage at eld

Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
UNFCCC (2010)

Y.L. Chiew et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 95 (2015) 114

13

Table A2
Transport included in the study.
Transport

Means of transportation

Distance [km]

Reference for emissions

Paper factory to paper bag factory

Paper bag to municipality (from Linkping)
Distribution of paper
bag in municipality

Truck 1632 t, EURO 5

Diesel van (<3.5 t)
Diesel consumption 0.168 L km1
83% Diesel blended with biodiesel and 17%
pure diesel.
Truck 1632 t, EURO 5

Ferry (freight ship)

Truck 1632 t, EURO 5

Truck and trailer

Truck and trailer
Diesel consumption are 0.394 L km1 (fully
loaded) and 0.235 L km1 (empty).
Truck 1632 t, EURO 5
Truck 1632 t, EURO 5
Freight ship
Truck 1632 t, EURO 5
Truck 1632 t, EURO 5
Truck 1632 t, EURO 5

2356a
17,200b

Included in Krsnas data

Ecoinvent (2010)
NTM (2008)
Energimyndigheten (2012b)
Gode et al. (2011)

4600a

756a
9450a

Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
B.Hedenstrm (pers.
comm., 2013)
Energimyndigheten (2012b)
Energimyndigheten (2012b)
Gode et al. (2011)

Refer to text
15
700
600
122/44
122/24

Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)

Paper bag holders to 12 municipalities (from Gislaved)

Paper bag holder to household
Waste bins factory to municipality (from Rostock, Germany)
Distribution of waste bins in municipality
Collection of food waste
Reload stations to
biogas plants
Dry/wet/heavy rejects
Digestate from biogas plant to farm
Chemical fertilizer
product (from Finland)
Fly ash (Avesta/Uppsala Hgbytorp)
Bottom ash (Avesta Hgbytorp/Uppsala Hovgrden)
a
b

Distance estimated from Google maps, shortest distance used.

Estimated value based on phone interviews with 12 municipalities.

Table A3
Methane-forming potential of substrates.
Substrate

Units
3 1

Source-separated food waste

Sludge from grease separators
Silage

[N m t wet weight]
[N m3 t1 wet weight]
[N m3 t1 total solids]

Values

References

114.4
26.4
330.0

Avfall Sverige (2008)

Berglund and Brjesson (2003)
Avfall Sverige (2008)

Table A4
Emissions values used for methane (CH4 ), nitrous oxide (N2 O) and ammonia nitrogen (NH3 N).
CH4

N2 O

NH3 N

Composting
Wet reject

0.309 kg t1 inputa

0.163 kg t1 inputa

0.001 kg t1 inputa

Storage
Liquid digestate
Solid digestate

16.3 g CH4 C kg1 VSb

0.123 g CH4 m3 ,hd

0.26% N2 ON of Ntotb
0.198 g N2 O m3 ,hd

1% NH3 N of Ntotc
20% NH3 N of Ntotc

Spreading
Liquid digestate
Solid digestate

0.007% of Ctotb
0.010% of Ctote

1% N2 ON of Ntotf
1% N2 ON of Ntotf

15% NH3 N of NH4 Nb

35% NH3 N of NH4 Nc

a
b
c
d
e
f

Kehres (2010).
Field study on digested manure by Rodhe et al. (2013).
Karlsson and Rodhe (2002).
Field study on dewatered sludge by Flodman (2002).
Field study on sewage sludge by Ambus et al. (2001).
IPCC (2006).

References
Ahlgren S. Crop production without fossil fuel: production systems for tractor fuel
and mineral nitrogen based on biomass. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agriculture; 2009 (Doctoral thesis).
Ambus P, Jensen JM, Priem A, Pilegaard K, Kjller A. Assessment of CH4 and N2 O
uxes in a Danish beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest and an adjacent N-fertilised
barley (Hordeumvulgare) eld: effects of sewage sludge amendments. NutrCyclAgroecosys 2001;60:1521.
Avebe Adhesives. Product specication SOLVICOL 1289; 2010 [Online] Available
at: www. Avebe.com (accessed 25 April 2013).
Avfall Sverige. Den svenska biogaspotentialen frn inhemska rvaror. In: Rapport
2008:02. Swedish, Mlmo: Avfall Sverige Utveckling; 2008, ISSN 1103-4092.
Avfall Sverige. Svensk avfallshantering 2013; 2013 (In Swedish).
Bernstad A, la Cour Jansen J. A life cycle approach to the management of household
food wastea Swedish full-scale case study. Waste Manage 2011;31:187996.
Bernstad A, la Cour Jansen J. Review of comparative LCAs of food waste management systemscurrent status and potential improvements. Waste Manage
2012;32:243955.

Berglund M, Brjesson P. Energianalys av biogassystem. Lund: Lunds Tekniska

Hgskola, Lunds universitet, Institutionen fr teknik och samhlle; 2003.
Biogasmax. Teknisk uppfljning av tunga biogasfordonStockholm, Vsters och
Arlanda. In: Inegrated project no 019795. Miljfrvaltningen Stockholm, Biogasmax, European Commission; 2010.
Bjrklund A. Environmental systems analysis waste management with emphasis
on substance ows and environmental impact. Stockholm: Royal Institute of
Technology; 1998 (Licentiate thesis).
Brentrup F, Ksters J, Kuhlmann H, Lammel J. Environmental impact assessment of
agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment methodology I.
Theoretical concept of a LCA method tailored to crop production. Eur J Agron
2004;20:24764.
Brentrup F, Pallire C. GHG emissions and energy efciency in European nitrogen
fertiliser production and use. In: Proceeding 639; 2008.
Brjesson P, Berglund M. Environmental systems analysis of biogas systems-Part
II: The environmental impact of replacing various reference systems. Biomass
Bioenergy 2007;31:32644.
Carlsson M, Holmtrm D, Lagerkvist A, Bisaillon M. Frbehandling av biogassubstrat
i systemanalys. Bors, Sverige: Waste Renery; 2013.

14

Y.L. Chiew et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 95 (2015) 114

CPM (The Swedish Life Cycle Center). SPINE LCI dataset: waste
treatmentincineration in combined heat and power plant (SWEA CHP).
Gteborg: Chalmers University of Technology; 2013 [Online] Available at:
http://cpmdatabase.cpm.chalmers.se/Scripts/sheet.asp?ActId=JT-2013-03-1837 (assessed on 14 November 2013).
Davis J, Haglund C. Life cycle inventory (LCI) of fertiliser production: fertiliser products used in Sweden and Western Europe. In: SIK-report 654. Gteborg, Sweden:
The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology; 1999.
Delin S, Stenberg B, Nyberg A, Brohede L. Potential methods for estimating nitrogen
fertilizer value of organic residues. Soil Use Manage 2012;28:28391.
Doltra J, Lgdsmand M, Olesen JE. Cereal yield and quality as affected by nitrogen availability in organic and conventional arable crop rotations: a combined
modeling and experimental approach. Eur J Agron 2011;34:8395.
Ecoinvent. Ecoinvent data v2.2. In: Final reports no. 125. Dbendorf, Switzerland:
Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories; 2010.
Energimyndigheten. Produktion och anvndning av biogas r 2011. In: ES 2112:08.
Eskilstuna: Energimyndigheten; 2012a.
Energimyndigheten. Transportsektorns energianvndning. In: ES 2112:01. Eskilstuna: Energimyndigheten; 2012b.
Flodman M. Emissioner av metan, lustgas och ammoniak vid lagring av avvattnat
rtslam. Examensarbete; 2002, ISSN 1101-0843.
Fowles M. Black carbon sequestration as an alternative to bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 2007;31:42632.
Fruergaard T, Astrup T. Optimal utilization of waste-to-energy in an LCA perspective.
Waste Manage 2011;31:57282.
Gode J, Martinsson F, Hagberg L, man A, Hglund J, Palm D. Miljfaktaboken
2011 Uppskattade emissionsfaktorer fr brnslen, el, vrme och transporter.
In: Vrmeforsk rapport 1183. Stockholm: Vrmeforsk; 2011.
Gthe L. Metanutslpp i den svenska fordonsgaskedjanEn nulgesanalys [Methane
emissions in the Swedish CNG/CBG chaina current situation analysis]. In: SGC
Rapport 2013; 2013. p. 282.
Guine JB, Gorre M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, et al. , editors. Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.
IFOAM. Principles of organic agriculture; 2013 [Online] Available at:
www.ifoam.org/en/organic-landmarks/principles-organic-agriculture
(assessed on 31 July 2013).
IPCC. Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, editors. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Japan: IGES; 2006 (Prepared by
the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme).
ISO. Environmental management life cycle assessment principles and framework. In: ISO 14040: 2006; 2006.
Jnsson H, Baky A, Jeppsson U, Hellstrm D, Krrman E. Composition of urine, faeces, greywater and biowaste for utilisation in the URWARE model. Gothenburg:
Urban Water; 2005.
Karlsson S, Rodhe L. versyn av Statistiska Centralbyrns berkning av ammoniakavgngen i jordbruket-emissionsfaktorer fr ammoniak vid lagring och
spridning av stallgdsel. Uppsala: JTI Uppdragsrapport; 2002.
Kehres B. Betrieb von Kompostierungsanlagen mit geringen Emissionen klimarelevanter Gase. Kln, Germany: Bundesgtegemeinschaft Kompost e.V; 2010.
KEMI. Kadmiumhalten mste minskafr folkhlsans skull: en riskbedmning av
kadmium med mineralgdsel i fokus. In: Rapport frn ett regeringsuppdrag.
Sundbyberg: KEMI; 2011.
Khoo HH, Lim TZ, Tan RBH. Food waste conversion options in Singapore:
environmental impacts based on an LCA perspective. Sci Total Environ
2010;408:136773.
Kim MH, Song HB, Song Y, Jeong IT, Kim JW. Evaluation of food waste disposal options
in terms of global warming and energy recovery: Korea. Int J Energy Environ Eng
2013;4:1.
Kirkeby JT, Birgisdottir H, Lund Hansen T, Christensen TH, Singh Bhander G,
Hauschild M. Evaluation of environmental impacts from municipal solid waste
management in the municipality of Aarhus, Denmark (EASEWASTE). Waste
Manage Res 2006;24:1626.
Korsns AB. Environmental product declaration Korsns SF-N. Gvle: Korsns; 2011.
Khner M. Kompostierung unter semipermeblen planenabdeckungen. Stuttgart,
Germany: Erich Schmidt Verlag GMBH & Co; 2001.

Lindgren M, Pettersson O, Hansson P-A, Norn O. Jordbruks-och anlggningsmaskiners motorbelastning och avgasemissionersamt metoder att minska
brnslefrbrukning och avgasemissioner. In: JTI-rapport nr. 308. Uppsala: JTIInstitutet fr jordbruks-och miljteknik; 2002.
Lund Hansen T, Singh Bhander G, Christensen TH, Bruun S, Stoumann Jensen L. Life
cycle modelling of environmental impacts of application of processed organic
municipal solid waste on agricultural land (EASEWASTE). Waste Manage Res
2006;24:15366.
MlarEnergi. Origin of district heating and emissions; 2013, Available
at:
http://www.malarenergi.se/sv/privat/fjarrvarme/sa-fungerarfjarrvarme/branslefordelning/ (assessed 20 Nov 2013), [Online, In Swedish:
Fjrrvrmensursprungochutslpp].
NTM. NTM-environmental data for international cargo transport. In: Road transport
Europe, version 2008-12-22. NTM-Ntverket fr traken och miljn; 2008.
Nziguheba G, Smolders E. Input of trace elements in agricultural soils via phosphate
fertilizers in European Countries. Sci Tot Environ 2008;390:537.
Odlare M, Pell M, Persson PE. Kompostanvndning i jordbruket: en internationell
utblick. In: RVF utveckling. Malm, Sverige: Svenska renhllningsverksfreningen; 2000.
Poeschl M, Ward S, Owende P. Environmental impacts of biogas deployment e Part
II: life cycle assessment of multiple production and utilization pathways. J Clean
Prod 2012;24:184201.
PWS Nordic AB. Products for waste management: Waste container, n.d.,
[Pamphlet] Available at: http://www.pwsab.se/upload/2%20o%203%20o
%204hjulsbeh%C3%A5llare.pdf (accessed 5 April 2013).
Rockstrm J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson , Chapin S, Lambin E, et al. A safe operating
space for humanity. Nature 2009;461:4725.
Rodhe L, Ascue J, Tersmeden M, Willn A, Nordberg , Salomon E, et al. Vxthusgaser frn rtad och ortad ntytgdsel vid lagring och efter spridning-samt
bestmma ammoniakavgng och skrd i vrkorn. In: Rapport 413. Uppsala:
Lantbruk & Industri, JTI-Institutet fr jordbruks- och miljteknik; 2013.
San Sac AB. Sacks/bags for collection of food waste, n.d., [Online] Available at:
http://www.sansac.se/print/index.php?groupID=62 (accessed 5 April 2013).
Sonesson U. Modelling of the compost and transport process in the ORWARE simulation model. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; 1996.
Svensson K, Odlare M, Pell M. The fertilizing effect of compost and biogas residues
from source separated household waste. J Agric Sci 2004;142:4617.
Spngberg J. Recycling plant nutrients from waste and by-products, a life cycle perspective. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae; 2014. p. 20 (Doctoral
thesis).
Spngberg J, Hansson PA, Tidker P, Jnsson H. Environmental impact of meat meal
fertilizer vs. chemical fertilizer. Resour Conserv Recyl 2011;55:107886.
SVAB. Miljrapport 2011. Textdel. In: Gryta Biogasanlggning Vsters kommun
1980-62-014. Sweden: Svensk Vxtkraft AB; 2011.
SVAB. Miljrapport 2012. Textdel. In: Gryta Biogasanlggning Vsters kommun
1980-62-014. Sweden: Svensk Vxtkraft AB; 2012.
Swedish Government. Svenska miljmlpreciseringar av miljkvalitetsmlen och
en frsta uppsttning etappml. Environmental Department; 2012. p. 23 (Ds
2012).
UNFCCC. Tool to determine project emissions from aring gasses containing
methane; 2010 [Online] Available at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/
PAmethodologies/tools/am-tool-06-v1.pdf/history view (assessed on 26 June
2013).
Uppenberg S, Almemark M, Brandel M, Lindfors L-G, Marcus H-O, Stripple H, et al.
Miljfaktabok fr brnslen Del 2. Bakgrundsinformation och teknisk bilaga. In:
IVL B 1334B-2. Stockholm: IVL Svenska Miljinstitutet AB; 2001.
Valorgas. Data on the operations involved in food waste management for
energy recovery presented in a standardised format for use in comparative life cycle assessment, n.d., [Online] Available at:http://www.valorgas.
soton.ac.uk/deliverables.htm (accessed 20 December 2013).
Vattenfall AB. Miljfakta i Uppsala. Emission from district heating 20102012, n.d., [Online] Available at: http://www.vattenfall.
se/sv/miljofakta-i-uppsala-privat.htm (accessed 3 September 2014).
Vrmevrden AB. Miljrapport fr Kllhagsverket, Avesta 2012; 2013 (In Swedish).
Yara AB. Kadmiumhalterna fortfarande lga. In: Hyltn-Cavallius. I. Vxtpressen No.;
2010. p. 2.