Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 1028e1038

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Sustainability analysis of landfilling and composting-landfilling for

municipal solid waste management in the north of Iran
Leyla Behrooznia a, Mohammad Sharifi a, **, Reza Alimardani a,
Seyed Hashem Mousavi-Avval b, *
a
Department of Agricultural Machinery Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
b
Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study evaluates the energy use, exergy demand and the main hot spots of two municipal solid waste
Received 23 March 2018 (MSW) management scenarios including landfilling (100% landfilling) and composting-landfilling (48%
Received in revised form composting, 50.5% landfilling, 1.5% recycling), available in Rasht, Iran. The functional unit was defined as
9 July 2018
100 t MSW. The system boundaries encompassed activities ranging from MSW collection in the city up to
Accepted 29 August 2018
Available online 29 August 2018
MSW burial in the landfill and delivery of compost and recyclable materials to the market. For quanti-
fying the environmental impacts, 11 impact categories were analyzed using life cycle assessment
methodology, and the outcomes of characterization and normalization of impact categories were
Keywords:
Energy
interpreted. The results showed that total energy consumption for composting-landfilling was greater
Life cycle assessment than that of landfilling (22.5 vs. 17.5 GJ/100tMSW). Composting-landfilling scenario showed avoided
Composting environmental emissions in the forms of abiotic depletion, terrestrial ecotoxicity and freshwater aquatic
Landfilling ecotoxicity associated with the production of compost; moreover, global warming potential, human
MSW toxicity, marine aquatic ecotoxicity, photochemical oxidation and acidification of landfilling scenario
were found to be higher than those of composting-landfilling scenario by 495%, 239%, 49%, 679% and
669%, respectively. On the other hand, composting-landfilling scenario had higher fossil fuels abiotic
depletion, ozone layer depletion and eutrophication potential. Transportation accounted for the highest
contribution to overall environmental emissions in both of the investigated scenarios, demonstrating the
importance of decreasing environmental burdens during this step. Overall, compared to landfilling
scenario, the lower environmental burdens associated with composting-landfilling scenario make it
more environmentally attractive.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction in most of the developing countries. Landfilling of MSW without

World population growth, urbanization and changes of social
lifestyle along with development and use of less biologically
products lead to generation of more municipal solid waste (MSW)
and consequently various hot spots (Asase et al., 2009). Environ-
mental burdens and health risks associated with the improper
MSW management are important challenges in the developing
countries. For a long time, landfilling has been mostly used for
MSW management in many places around the world and specially
* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: m.sharifi@ut.ac.ir (M. Sharifi), mousaviavval.1@osu.edu
(S.H. Mousavi-Avval).
energy recovery or emission control systems causes several public
health problems and environmental loads such as greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, and soil and groundwater contaminations (Tan
et al., 2014). Currently, management of MSW is known as a big
challenge for local officials and municipal planners due to indus-
trialization, population growth and limited resources (Khan et al.,
2016). For this reason, governments and citizens have attempted
to develop more sustainable and cleaner MSW management stra-
tegies (Assamoi and Lawryshyn, 2012).
MSW management is among the leading drivers of impacts to
the environment and application of new technologies in this field
has developed several alternative systems. Composting is a viable
alternative to landfilling, and it is an ecofriendly biochemical
method used for sustainable MSW management. It has currently
gained a wide acceptance as a key component of integrated

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.307
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 L. Behrooznia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 1028e1038 1029

management of MSW (Jara-Samaniego et al., 2017). Composting the management scenarios to the input parameters. The outcomes of
organic part of MSW has several advantages including economic this research are useful for decision makers to develop more sus-
benefits, improving soil properties through compost application, tainable MSW management systems in the region and other places
and avoiding some environmental burdens that would otherwise in the world with similar climatic and lifestyle conditions.
emitted from waste (Bernstad et al., 2016).
System analysis tools are useful techniques to assess the 2. Materials and methods
promising waste management strategies (Seadon, 2010). Life cycle
thinking is considered as a key concept for the development of This section describes the methodology for energy, environ-
more sustainable systems. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) can be used mental and exergy assessments of available MSW management
for the analysis of environmental emissions related to a processes, systems in Rasht, Iran. The overall framework for this methodo-
products, or services, by identifying the physical inputs, energy logical approach follows four steps including the goal and scope
consumption, and associated environmental hot spots. LCA has definition, data collection or inventory analysis, assessment of the
been used in the production and supply chains of products (Tassielli indicators, and interpretation of the results. The inputs, outputs and
et al., 2018). interactions between these four steps are illustrated in Fig. 1.
Comparison of alternative MSW management technologies
from the environmental life cycle perspective has been the subject
2.1. Case study region
of several studies; Ayodele et al. (2017) used LCA methodology for
environmental assessment of MSW based power generation sys-
This study was conducted in Rasht city, Guilan, Iran. This city is a
tems in 12 cities of Nigeria. They provided comparative analyses of
touristic place located in the geographical coordinates of 49
3501900
four MSW management scenarios including landfill without energy
E longitude and 37
160 3300 N latitude in the north of Iran and in the
recovery, landfill with energy recovery system, combination of
south of Caspian Sea. Rasht city, with around 640,000 inhabitants,
incineration and anaerobic digestion, and combination of inciner-
is the most populated city of the north of Iran, and it has a moderate
ation and landfill with energy recovery system. Then the potential
climate with an average moisture content of 81.2%. With the
energy generation and associated environmental emissions,
highest rainfall level in Iran, this city is known as the wettest city in
including global warming and acidification for these scenarios,
the country. The location of the study area is given in Fig. 2.
were highlighted. In another study Milutinovic et al. (2017) applied
The MSW management systems of Rasht city include the com-
LCA and multi-criteria analysis tools to compare different scenarios
posting and landfilling sites located in southwest of the city on
for the MSW management. Also, Rajaeifar et al. (2015) conducted a
Tehran-Rasht road. The average distances of the composting and
study to compare five different MSW management scenarios in
landfilling sites from the city are 10 km and 30 km, respectively. The
Tehran, Iran. They concluded that combination of anaerobic
Rasht composting site was established in 2005 with the MSW ca-
digestion and incineration is the most environment-friendly sce-
pacity of 250 t/day. In 2014 the daily capacity of this site increased
nario. Alavi Moghadam et al. (2009) investigated the present situ-
to 400 t/day (RWMO, 2017). MSW from Rasht city and surrounded
ation of MSW management in the north of Iran and they reported
villages is delivered to these composting and landfilling sites.
that the main challenges of MSW management in this region
According to the data provided by the Rasht Waste Management
include lack of resources, infrastructure, suitable planning, leader-
Organization (RWMO, 2017), the daily per capita of waste produc-
ship, and public awareness. However, they did not provide in-depth
tion in this region is about 931 g. The physical composition of MSW
analysis on energy consumption or quantitative environmental
consequences of MSW management in this region.
Overall, attempts have been made to investigate the environ-
mental emissions of MSW management and most of them have
highlighted the need for analyzing MSW management scenarios by
taking into account the effects of local conditions, because the
lifestyle, climatic conditions and MSW physical composition vary
from place to place. Reviewing the literature reveals that there is no
study to analyze the available MSW management systems in the
north of Iran and hence this is the focus of our research for the first
time; moreover, comprehensive study of alternative MSW man-
agement scenarios, from the integrated energy, exergy and envi-
ronmental perspectives, is useful for appropriate decision making
on designing the sustainable agroecosystem. So, the main objective
of the present study is to evaluate the sustainability of available
MSW management systems in the north of Iran. To accomplish this
main objective, the following four specific objectives are identified:
1) investigate energy profiles of available MSW management sce-
narios in the case study region; 2) analyze exergy demand and the
main hot spots of MSW management processes via the LCA
methodology; 3) analyze the sensitivity of environmental impact
categories to the individual independent parameters; and 4)
identify potential options for improving the sustainability of MSW
management systems in the north of Iran based on the results of
energy analysis, LCA and sensitivity analysis. The novelty of this
research is not application of LCA, but performing comprehensive
analyses of MSW management scenarios from energy, exergy and
environmental perspectives. Moreover, this study for the first time Fig. 1. General framework for energy, exergy and environmental assessments of MSW
analyzes the sensitivity of environmental emissions of MSW management systems.
1030 L. Behrooznia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 1028e1038
Fig. 2. Location of study region in Rasht city, Guilan province, Iran.
in Rasht is presented in Fig. 3. As it is seen, organic materials part
has the main contribution (64.1%) to total MSW in this region
(RWMO, 2017). This composition of MSW makes composting the
appropriate strategy for the treatment of MSW in this region.
2.2. Goal and scope definition
In goal and scope definition, the system boundaries are identi-
fied and accordingly the functional unit is defined. The goals are
highlighting the energy consumption, identifying the main hot
spots, and quantifying exergy demand of available MSW manage-
ment in the north of Iran. Accordingly, the functional unit was
defined as 100 t MSW, indicating that the energy consumption,
environmental emissions and exergy demand are calculated based
on treatment of 100 t MSW. The system boundaries included the
production of inputs and MSW generation in the background pro-
cesses, followed by the foreground processes of MSW trans-
portation, separation, composting until delivery of coarse and fine
composts to the market, as well as landfilling of inert materials and
delivery of recyclable materials to the market (Fig. 4). In addition,
the direct emissions resulting from transportation, composting and
landfilling processes, as well as the indirect emissions from the
production process of diesel fuel, lubricant (oil), electricity, ma-
chinery, and pesticide were included in the system boundaries
Fig. 3. MSW composition in Rasht, Iran (RWMO, 2017).
(Fig. 4). Defining these system boundaries allows better under-
standing of the MSW management scenarios with more
environment-friendly strategies by considering the treatment of
the same amount of waste.
2.3. Scenario description
Currently, the total production of MSW in Rasht and surrounded
villages is around 750 tons per day (RWMO, 2017). Two available
scenarios of MSW management in Rasht include: 1) composting-
landfilling (CL), and 2) landfilling (L). In L scenario the MSW is
totally buried in the landfill without any separation. The physical
composition of MSW in this scenario is the same as that of Fig. 3,
and it contains organic, inert and recyclable components. There is
no energy recovery nor leachate treatment in the available land-
filling system of Rasht. Currently, 350 t/day MSW follows this sce-
nario and it is directly transported from the city to the landfilling
site by the distance of 30 km. Landfilling process includes geolog-
ical modifications, waste handling and placement, compaction,
shredding, providing coverage materials, and tracking and control
operations. On the other hand, CL scenario begins with trans-
portation and consequently centralized separation at the com-
posting site. Currently, 400 t/day MSW follows this scenario and
MSW is transported from the city to the composting site by the
distance of 10 km. The physical composition of MSW entering the
separation process is the same as that of Fig. 3. During the
centralized separation 1.5% (6 t/day) is separated as recyclable
materials, i.e. metals, glass, plastic, PET (PolyEthylene Ter-
ephatalate), and it is delivered to the market after transportation by
10 km; 50.5% (202 t/day) is separated as inert materials and it is
delivered to the landfill after transportation using trucks by 20 km;
and the remaining of 48% (192 t/day) is separated as organic ma-
terials and transferred to the decomposition hall for composting
(Fig. 4). The composting process includes handling, sizing, mixing,
aeration, biological decomposition and control operations (Fig. 4).
2.4. Data collection
The primary data of processing scale, inputs and products for
this study were gathered by monitoring the composting and
landfilling sites of Rasht during 2017. The processing scale data
included MSW delivery rates for each scenario, separation rates,
and rate of MSW that follows each process. The input data included
composition of MSW, operational time and specifications of
 L. Behrooznia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 1028e1038
Fig. 4. System boundaries of MSW composting and landfilling systems in Rasht, Iran.
machinery and equipment, as well as amounts of electricity, natural
gas, diesel fuel and lubricant, labor, pesticide, and other materials
needed for the processing of MSW during the transportation and
handling, separation, landfilling and composting operations. The
data of products included compost production yield and amounts
of recyclable materials. After collecting the primary data, the
amounts of indirect and direct emissions were estimated. Indirect
emissions associated with the production of inputs during the
background processes were estimated using LCA databases. Direct
emissions associated with combustion of diesel by machinery and
equipment were also estimated using LCA databases (Nemecek and
Kagi, 2007). Direct emissions during the landfilling and composting
processes were estimated by application of the existing tools and
using the factors available in the literature. Further explanations are
provided in section 2.6.
2.5. Energy analysis
Energy consumption in MSW management systems is an
important factor to assess the sustainability. Energy analysis for
each of the scenarios was conducted by multiplying the amounts of
physical inputs by their associated energy coefficients. Energy co-
efficients are presented in Table 1. Diesel fuel, lubricant, natural gas,
electricity, pesticide, human labor and machinery were considered
as inputs. The output in CL scenario was organic fertilizer, while in L
scenario there was no output as there was no biogas collection
system in current situation.
For better analyzing the energy flow in CL scenario of MSW
management, energy indicators for the functional unit of 1 t MSW
were estimated using the following equations:
Energy productivity (t GJ1) ¼ Organic fertilizer (t) / Input energy
(GJ) (1)
1031
Specific energy (GJ t1) ¼ Input energy (GJ) / Organic fertilizer (t)(2)
2.6. Environmental assessment
LCA is a powerful and popular tool in the world to assess the
environmental impacts of a product or system over its lifetime
(Liamsanguan and Gheewala, 2007). This methodology has already
been applied in analyses of the waste landfilling, sorting plant and
incineration systems in Italy (Cherubini et al., 2009) and also for the
comparison of waste management scenarios in India (Sharma and
Chandel, 2017).
In quantifying the life cycle inventory of two scenarios, the
physical amounts of inputs as well as energy consumption and
direct emissions were calculated based the functional unit. For
calculating the amount of machinery use, the depreciated weight of
machinery was estimated based on the weight of machine, eco-
nomic life time and operational time. Transportation is one of the
main contributors to total energy consumption and environmental
emissions in MSW management. In this study MSW transportation
was estimated by multiplying the amount of transported MSW, in
tons, by transportation distance, in km, and it was reported as t.km.
The transportation distance in CL scenario was considered based on
the distances of 10 km from the city to the composting site for
transporting total amount of MSW, 20 km from composting site to
landfill for transporting inert materials, and 10 km from compost-
ing site to the market for transporting the recyclable materials
(Fig. 4). Data of electricity consumption were taken by considering
that the combination of energy sources for electricity production in
Iranian condition is 92% fossil fuels and 8% renewable energy
sources. In CL scenario, diesel fuel was mainly used by on-site
machinery, i.e. loaders, trucks, windrower, bulldozer and shovel.
Direct emissions associated with diesel fuel combustion, from all of
the steps of composting and waste disposal, were estimated based
on the Ecoinvent 2.2 database (Nemecek and Kagi, 2007) and the
1032 L. Behrooznia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 1028e1038
Table 1
Energy equivalent of inputs and output in waste management systems.
Items Unit
A. Inputs
1) Human labor hr
2) Diesel fuel L 47.8  103
3) Transportation t.km
4) Electricity kWh
5) Lubricant L 42  103
6) Pesticide kg
7) Machinery kg
8) Natural gas m3
B. Output
1) Organic fertilizer t 0.3
energy equivalent of diesel fuel as presented in Table 1. During the
landfilling process, the direct emissions to air were estimated using
LandGem version 3.02 model (Alexander et al., 2005); the direct
emissions to water were calculated using the coefficients presented
by Erses Yay (2015); and the direct emissions to soil associated with
use of chemicals (deltamethrin) were estimated using the LCA
databases (Nemecek and Kagi, 2007). Similarly, during the com-
posting process the direct emissions were estimated using the
emission factors provided from the study conducted by the EPA
(2010).
The next step in LCA, after quantifying the life cycle inventory, is
the life cycle impact assessment in which the data of physical inputs
and direct emissions are converted to their equivalent emissions.
This step was conducted using CML-IA baseline V3.04/World 2000
model available in SimaPro 8.3.0 software (Pre-Consultants, 2017).
Since this part of study is central in quantifying the different
environmental impacts while comparing two MSW management
systems, the attributional modeling principle was chosen for this
comparative LCA. This modeling principle has already been applied
in LCA of MSW management systems (Ripa et al., 2017). The impact
categories of this model include abiotic depletion potential (AD),
abiotic depletion of fossil fuels (ADF), acidification potential (AC),
eutrophication potential (EP), global warming potential (GWP),
terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TE), ozone layer depletion poten-
tial (OLD), human toxicity potential (HT), freshwater aquatic eco-
toxicity potential (FE), marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (ME)
and photochemical oxidation potential (PO) (Guinee et al., 2001).
2.7. Exergy analysis
Exergy is known as maximum useful energy that should be
validated within the life cycle framework and should be achieved
when the system is compatible with the reference circumference.
Cumulative exergy demand (CExD) is a quantitative index which
evaluates the quality of energy consumption and it contains also
the non-energetic materials. The CExD represents the sum of
exergy of all the natural sources required to produce a product and
it can be determined by the natural resources exergy quantity.
Exergy unit is known as Joule (Erses Yay, 2015). The concept of
exergy was used for the resources existent in the equivalent data-
base. Exergy analysis methods are based on life-cycle viewpoint
and cradle-to-grave concept. Analysis of exergy demand is part of
LCA and it is based on the described methodology for the life cycle
inventory analysis for quantifying the resources consumption
(Dewulf et al., 2007).
2.8. Sensitivity analysis
Finally, the sensitivities of each impact category to the individ-
ual inputs were analyzed to quantify the possible variations of
Energy equivalent (GJ unit1) Reference
1.96  103 Fathollahi et al., 2018
Fathollahi et al., 2018
4.5  103 Tabatabaeefar et al., 2009
11.93  103 Mousavi-Avval et al., 2011
Kitani, 1999
101.2  103 Mousavi-Avval et al., 2017
62.7  103 Fathollahi et al., 2018
49.5  103 Kitani, 1999
Mousavi-Avval et al., 2017
environmental emissions impact categories by percentile changes
of the individual inputs. Sensitivity analyses were performed for
both of the investigated scenarios based on ±10% change on
average levels of individual parameters. For analyzing the sensi-
tivity of each of the impact categories to parameter X, average value
of individual parameter X was changed by ±10%, assuming that all
of other factors remain constant at their average values, and then
the variation of impact category was presented.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Inventory analysis of MSW management scenarios
The amounts of physical inputs, products and direct emissions
to air, water and soil in landfilling and composting-landfilling
scenarios are presented in Table 2. As it is seen, labor use in CL
scenario was considerably higher than that of L scenario. It was due
to higher use of human labor for separation of MSW in centralized
separation unit. Similarly, diesel fuel consumption in CL scenario
was higher than that of L scenario (141.53 vs. 33.66 L/100t MSW).
Transportation in CL scenario was found to be 2078.85 t km/
100tMSW, while it was calculated as 3140.24 t .km/100tMSW in L
scenario; the difference was mainly due to higher distance of
landfilling site compared to that of composting site from the city.
The direct emissions of both of L and CL scenarios are presented in
Table 2. For example, CH4 emissions during the landfilling
(7185.87 kg/100tMSW) was considerably higher than CH4 emis-
sions during the composting-landfilling (913.74 kg/100 t MSW).
3.2. Energy analysis of MSW management scenarios
Energy conversion coefficients, shown in Table 1, were used to
convert physical inputs to energy and the results are presented in
Table 3. As it is seen, total energy consumption for CL scenario was
22.54 GJ/100t MSW, while it was found to be 17.49 GJ/100t MSW for
L scenario. Also, the results showed that energy consumptions from
human labor, diesel fuel, electricity, lubricant, machinery, natural
gas, and water in CL scenario were higher than those of L scenario;
while transportation energy in L scenario was higher than that of CL
scenario. On the other hand, energy amount of 0.9 GJ/100t MSW
associated with compost was produced in CL scenario, while there
was no energy generation in L scenario.
Contributions of energy sources to total energy consumption are
presented in Fig. 5. The results revealed that transportation (80.8%),
diesel fuel (9.2%) and machinery (8.7%) were the main contributors
to total energy consumption in L scenario. Similarly, in CL scenario
the most of energy was consumed by transportation (41.5%), fol-
lowed by diesel fuel (30%), electricity (17.6%) and machinery (7.5%).
The contributions of pesticide, human labor, lubricant and water
were almost negligible in both of the scenarios. Considering these
 L. Behrooznia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 1028e1038 1033

Table 2 Table 3
Inventories of inputs, product and direct emissions of MSW management scenarios Energy inputs and output in MSW management scenarios (FU: 100 t MSW).
(FU: 100 t MSW).
Items MSW management scenarios
Items Unit MSW management
CL (GJ) L (GJ)
scenarios
A. Inputs
CL L
Human labor 0.26 0.03
MSW t 100 100 Diesel fuel 6.77 1.61
A. Inputs Transportation 9.35 14.13
Human labor hr 132.70 15.69 Electricity 3.98 e
Diesel fuel L 141.53 33.66 Oil 0.24 0.08
Transportation t.km 2078.85 3140.24 Pesticide 0.01 0.02
Electricity kWh 333.33 0.00 Machinery 1.69 1.52
Lubricant L 5.64 1.81 Gas 0.12 e
Pesticide kg 0.11 0.23 Water 0.12 0.10
Machinery kg 26.92 24.27 Total energy input 22.54 17.49
Natural gas m3 2.50 0.00 B. Output
Water L 122.50 96.75 Compost (Organic fertilizer) 0.9 e
Compost 3.00 e
B. Emissions to air
B.1. Emissions from fuel combustion
Carbon dioxide (CO2) a kg 503.99 119.87 electricity consumption in CL scenario is of high importance for
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) a kg 0.16 3.88  102 energy management.
Methane (CH4) a
kg 2.08  102 4.96  103 With considering the compost as the product of CL scenario, we
Benzenea kg 1.18  103 2.80  104
estimated some energy indicators and the results are presented in
Cadmium (Cd) a kg 1.62  106 3.85  107
Chromium (Cr) a kg 8.05  106 1.91  106 Table 4. It is evident that energy productivity was 3.33 t GJ1,
Copper (Cu) a kg 2.75  104 6.53  105 indicating that for consuming 1 GJ energy, 3.33 t compost materials
1.93  102 4.60  103 are produced. Specific energy of 0.3 GJ t1 indicates that for the
a
Dinitrogen monoxide (N2O) kg
Nickel (Ni) a
kg 1.13  105 2.69  106
production of 1 ton compost materials, 0.3 GJ energy is needed.
Zinc (Zn) a
kg 1.62  104 3.85  105
Benzo (a) pyrene a kg 4.84  106 1.15  106
Ammonia (NH3) a kg 3.23  103 7.68  104
3.3. Environmental analysis of MSW management scenarios
Selenium (Se) a kg 1.62  106 3.85  107
PAH (polycyclic hydrocarbons) a kg 5.31  104 1.26  104
Hydro carbons (HC, as NMVOC) a
kg 0.46 0.11 3.3.1. Characterization of LCA results
a
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) kg 7.17 1.71 The life cycle impact assessment was performed based on 11
a
Carbon monoxide (CO) kg 1.01 0.24 damage categories as summarized in Table 5. In analysis of envi-
Particulates (b2.5 mm) a kg 0.72 0.17
ronmental impacts of MSW management scenarios, two types of
B.2. CO2eq from labor b kg 92.89 10.98
B.3. Emissions from landfilling and composting impacts including gross impacts and net impacts were considered.
CH4 c,d kg 913.74 7185.87 The gross impacts refer to those emitted during the whole life cycle
CO2 d kg 10782.77 21737.24 in MSW management scenarios without considering positive
d
CO kg 0.50 3.90 environmental impacts of products; however, the net impacts refer
d
NMVOC kg 43.53 343.19
N2 d kg 0.52 4.10
to negative environmental emissions by subtracting the positive
N2O d kg 5.76 0.00 impacts associated with the products (Cherubini et al., 2009). In
HCL d kg 322.71 2544.18 LCA of L scenario there was no output, and therefore the positive
SO2 d kg 259.63 2046.88 environmental impacts were zero; however, in quantifying the
C. Emissions to water
environmental profile of CL scenario the compost product was
COD e
kg 2.17  102 1.71  101
BOD e kg 1.24  102 9.74  102 assumed to has positive environmental impacts as it was the
TKN e kg 1.65  105 1.30  104 outcome of this MSW management scenario; so, the impacts
AKM e kg 1.31  102 1.03  101 associated with compost product were subtracted from environ-
Top P e kg 2.14  105 1.69  104 mental emissions associated with the whole process; hence, the net
Top Cr e kg 6.52  106 5.14  105
Cr 6þ e
kg 2.89  106 2.28  105
environmental impacts of some of the impact categories were
Pb e
kg 2.65  106 2.09  105 found to be less than zero, which are in line with those of other
Fe 2þ e
kg 2.56  105 2.02  104 researches (Rajaeifar et al., 2015). As it is seen from Table 5, for the
Fe3þ e kg 1.53  108 1.21  107 functional unit of 100t MSW, the impacts of AD, FE and TE in L
Cu e 1.05  105 8.26  105
kg
scenario were 4.37  103 kg Sbeq, 1.56  102 kg 1,4-DBeq and
Zn e kg 7.91  106 6.24  105
D. Emissions to soil 2.17 kg 1,4-DBeq, respectively. CL scenario had avoided environ-
Deltamethrin f
kg 2.83  103 5.76  103 mental emission in the forms of AD, FE and TE. Avoided emissions
a
Emissions from fuel combustion by on-site machinery and equipment from
account for the substitution of compost synthetic fertilizer with
Ecoinvent 2.2 database (Nemecek and Kagi, 2007). nutrients (nitrogen N, phosphorus P and potassium K) recovered
b
Obtained from Ghaderpour et al. (2018). during the production of compost (organic fertilizer) as a useful
c
Methane from landfilling calculated based on LandGEM model (Alexander et al., output in this scenario (Parkes et al., 2015). Similar observations
2005).
d were reported by Abduli et al. (2011). The results also revealed that
Obtained from EPA (2010).
e
Obtained from Erses Yay (2015). GWP, HT, ME, PO, AC of L scenario were higher than those of CL
f
Obtained from Ecoinvent 2.2 database (Nemecek and Kagi, 2007). scenario by 495%, 239%, 49%, 679% and 669%, respectively (Table 5).
ADF, OLD and EP of CL scenario were higher than those of L sce-
nario. GWP is mainly caused by GHGs emitted during the processes.
results, more attention to transportation management, diesel fuel Higher GWP of landfilling can be interpreted by lack of energy re-
use, as well as machinery and equipment operations are needed for covery or emission control system in the landfill site, which causes
reducing energy consumption in both of the scenarios. Also, direct CH4 emission to the atmosphere. In particular, CH4 is the
1034 L. Behrooznia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 1028e1038

Fig. 5. Contributions of energy resources in L and CL scenarios of MSW management.

Table 4 categories of CL scenario are depicted in Fig. 6. As it is seen, direct

Energy indices in CL scenario of MSW management in Rasht, Iran. emissions are the main contributors to GWP, PO, AC and EP.
Items Unit Quantity in CL scenario Moreover, AD, TE and FE had the highest avoided environmental
emissions which were associated with the production of compost.
Energy productivity t GJ1 3.33
Specific energy GJ t1 0.3 AD shows the amount of inorganic resources which are consumed
during the product life cycle. Avoided AD indicates the amount of
AD which is needed for the production of the same amount of
compost. Similarly, avoided TE, ME and FE show the corresponding
main contributor to GWP during the landfilling process (Banar
environmental emissions that can be potentially generated with
et al., 2009). CH4 has a significant warming potential, so that,
the production of the same amount of compost. Transportation
over a 20-year period, one kg of CH4 causes 72 times more warming
showed significant effects on ME, OLD and FE. The contributions of
than one kg of CO2. Adaptation of gas collection facilities and en-
water, lubricant and pesticide were minimal as they were used in
ergy recovery system in landfilling site will cause not only reduc-
minimum quantities.
tion of emissions to the atmosphere, but also generation of energy
ADF expresses the amount of fossil resources, consumed during
and consequently benefits in monetary term. It is a suitable solu-
the product life cycle. Transportation and diesel fuel consumption
tion which can help establishing more sustainable and
for industrial machines were the main contributors to ADF in both
environment-friendly MSW management systems in the region.
of the scenarios (Figs. 6 and 7). However, ADF of CL scenario was
These findings can be supported by Sharma and Chandel (2017)
higher than that of L scenario (24500 vs. 14500 MJ/100tMSW). The
who found that a scenario of 80% landfilling and 20% recycling
difference is interpreted by high use of diesel fuel and electricity in
MSW had the highest global warming effect between 5 scenarios of
separation, aeration and mixing processes of CL scenario.
MSW management in India. PO of L scenario was found to be 142 kg
EP is the ecosystem reaction to increase natural or artificial
C2H4eq, while it was estimated as 18.2 kg C2H4eq in CL scenario. PO is
substances such as nitrate and phosphorus that are added to the
an important factor in air pollution, which is mainly caused by
environment through chemical materials (Bauman and Tillman,
direct emissions.
2004). EP of L scenario was found to be 1.01 kg PO34eq; while in
The percent contributions of resources to each of the impact

Table 5
Characterization results of environmental impacts for MSW management scenarios in Rasht, Iran (FU: 100 t MSW).

Impact Unit CL L Difference

 
categories TL  TCL
Direct Indirect Total net emissions Direct Indirect Total net emissions (%)  100
TCL
emissions emissions (TCL) emissions emissions (TL)

AD kg Sbeq. 0 1.48  102 1.48  102 0 4.37  103 4.37  103 129
ADF MJ 6.89  103 1.76  104 2.45  104 1.61  103 1.29  104 1.45  104 41
GWP kg CO2eq 3.70  104 6.71  102 3.76  104 2.23  105 7.59  102 2.24  105 495
OLD kg CFC11eq 0 1.86  104 1.86  104 0 1.52  104 1.52  104 18
HT kg 1,4- 2.02  102 3.57  102 0.56  103 1.47  103 4.28  102 1.90  103 239
DBeq
FE kg 1,4- 0.36 30.40 0.30  102 0.68 1.55  102 1.56  102 618
DBeq
2 5 5 2 5 5
ME kg 1,4- 3.37  10 2.90  10 2.91  10 1.01  10 4.34  10 4.34  10 49
DBeq
TE kg 1,4- 2.96  102 20.38 20.35 5.05  102 2.12 2.17 111
DBeq
PO kg C2H4eq 18.10 0.10 18.20 1.41  102 1.58  101 142.00 679
AC kg SO2eq 3.16  102 3.28 0.32  103 2.46  103 2.85 2.46  103 669
EP kg PO3
4 eq 1.24 0.21 1.45 0.23 0.78 1.01 31
 L. Behrooznia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 1028e1038 1035

Fig. 6. Characterization results of CL scenario from different sources.

CL scenario it was 1.45 kg PO34eq. The difference was mainly due to
higher nitrate emissions during the composting process.
The percent contributions of resources for the characterization
results of L scenario are depicted in Fig. 7. It is evident that, direct
emissions during the CL process, transportation and machinery
were the main contributors to most of the impact categories. It
should be noted that emissions associated with diesel combustion
were also included in direct emissions.
Pollutants due to diesel fuel combustion, such as PM, SO2, NOx,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc are main
contributors to toxicity impacts. Leachate is a potential source of
emissions to groundwater and surface water (Kjeldsen et al., 2002).
FE potential is mainly due to toxic substances which affect the
quality of surface water. TE potential is affected by toxic substances
on the soil. The results revealed that transportation and machinery
were the main contributors to FE, ME and TE in both of the sce-
narios; furthermore, in CL scenario the positive contribution of
compost product on these impact categories was significant.
AC is mainly caused by SO2, NOx and NH3. It can cause acid rain
which is related to the release of SO2 and NOx into the atmosphere.
Acid rain can reduce forest, acidify the soil and damage to buildings
(Guinee et al., 2001). As it is seen in Table 5, AC of L scenario was
considerably higher than that of CL scenario (2460 vs. 320 kg SO2eq/
FU).
3.3.2. Normalization of LCA results
The characterization results of LCA presents each of the impact
categories in their specific unit, making it difficult to compare the
impact categories. To overcome this problem, normalization of the
results was performed using the normalization factors available in
CML-IA baseline V3.04/World 2000 model and the results are
presented in Table 6. As it is seen, the main impact categories
contributing to the total environmental loads of L scenario were AC,
GWP and PO. Similarly, ME, AC and GWP were the main impact
categories in CL scenario. Moreover, most of the impact categories
in CL scenario were smaller than those of L scenario, which is also
evident in Fig. 8. Abeliotis et al. (2012) investigated the LCA of MSW
management scenarios in Greece. They hold a similar view that
MSW landfilling had the highest environmental emissions
compared to other MSW management scenarios. In another study,
landfilling of MSW in Czech Republic without energy recovery
system showed the highest environmental impacts (Koci and
Trecakova, 2011). Similarly, Banar et al. (2009) maintained that
MSW composting in Turkey was more environmentally preferable
than landfilling; in the same vein, MSW landfilling in China had the
highest environmental impacts, mainly on human health, and it
was due to lack of gas recovery system (Song et al., 2013).

Fig. 7. Characterization results of L scenario from different sources.

1036 L. Behrooznia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 1028e1038

Table 6 Table 7
Normalized environmental impacts of MSW management scenarios (FU: 100 t CExD results of MSW management scenarios based on LCA.
MSW).
Impact category Unit CL L
Impact categories CL scenario (  109) L scenario (  109)
Nonrenewable, fossil MJ 17602.31 13071.33
AD 0.07 0.02 Nonrenewable, nuclear MJ 1676.26 227.52
AD (fossil fuels) 0.06 0.04 Renewable, kinetic MJ 5.91 11.12
AC 1.34 10.30 Renewable, solar MJ 0.12 0.29
EP 0.01 0.01 Renewable, potential MJ 121.91 109.11
GWP 0.90 5.35 Nonrenewable, primary MJ 124.06 1.14
OLD 0.01 0.01 Renewable, biomass MJ 1253.62 84.86
HT 0.22 0.74 Renewable, water MJ 956.71 34.43
FE 0.01 0.07 Nonrenewable, metals MJ 194.10 255.00
ME 1.50 2.24 Nonrenewable, minerals MJ 19.79 40.45
TE 0.02 0.01
PO 0.50 3.85

individual parameters, assuming that all of the other parameters

3.4. Exergy analysis of MSW management scenarios
By the definition of exergy as a quantitative index for measuring
the useful energy, CExD is a suitable indicator based on the concept
of useful energy and it can be used for analyzing the quality of
resources that are applied for a process. This indicator quantifies
the exergy demand during the whole life cycle of a process, as the
summation of exergy equivalent of all resources required for the
process. Table 7 presents the results of the CExD analysis for both of
the scenarios. As it is seen, exergy demand in the form of non-
renewable and fossil resources in the CL and L scenarios was
17602.31 and 13071.33 MJ/FU, respectively. Moreover, exergy de-
mand in the forms of nonrenewable resources of nuclear and pri-
mary energy as well as renewable resources of biomass and water
in CL scenario were found to be negative values, indicating that the
production of compost positively contributes to exergy demand
from these resources.
3.5. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis of LCA results was conducted to quantify the
sensitivity of each impact category to the individual input param-
eters. The input parameters included transportation, machinery
and fuel, compost yield, natural gas, water, electricity, pesticide,
landfill emissions, and composting emissions. Finally, the 5 most
sensitive parameters on each impact category were identified and
the results are presented in Fig. 9. These tornado diagrams show the
sensitivities base on ±10% change in average values of the
are constant at their average levels. Vertical line in graph shows the
average environmental impacts for each of the impact categories.
Deviations from the vertical line show how impact categories
change by 10% increase or 10% decrease in average values of
parameter. As it is seen, AD of landfilling scenario was mainly
affected by transportation, followed by machinery and fuel; how-
ever, AD of composting-landfilling scenario was mainly affected by
compost yield, followed by machinery and fuel, and transportation.
GW also showed the highest sensitivity to transportation in both of
the scenarios. The second sensitive parameter on GW of landfilling
scenario was direct emissions of landfill, while that of composting-
landfilling scenario was electricity (Fig. 9, L2). Considering the re-
sults of sensitivity analysis, implementation of efficient trans-
portation systems in MSW management can significantly reduce
environmental emissions in both of the MSW management sys-
tems. Moreover, increasing compost yield significantly increases
avoided emissions and consequently decreases total emissions of
CL scenario. On-site machinery management is a possible pathway
for reducing the environmental emissions associated with diesel
fuel production and use, and it can help develop more sustainable
MSW management systems in the studied region.
4. Conclusions
Landfilling has been the most common method of municipal
solid waste (MSW) management for a long time. Currently, com-
posting has gained wide acceptance as a key component of inte-
grated MSW management. However, the sustainability of these

Fig. 8. Normalized environmental impact categories of MSW management scenarios.

 L. Behrooznia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 1028e1038 1037

Fig. 9. Sensitivity analysis (tornado diagram) of some of impact categories to individual input parameters on L scenario (L1-L8) and CL scenario (CL1-CL8) (FU: 100 t MSW). Blue
(brown) bars show changes of impact category by 10% decreasing (increasing) of individual parameters from the average. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
1038 L. Behrooznia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 1028e1038
systems are not clear enough. The objectives of this study were to
compare the energy use, exergy demand and environmental pro-
files of two MSW management systems, including landfilling and
composting-landfilling, available in Rasht, Iran. Data of physical
composition, energy consumption, labor requirement and equip-
ment were collected and consequently direct and indirect envi-
ronmental emissions for landfilling and composting-landfilling
systems were estimated.
Energy requirement of CL scenario was 29% higher than that of L
scenario for the treatment of the same amount of MSW. Trans-
portation, diesel fuel and machinery were the main contributors to
total energy consumption in both of the scenarios; consequently,
for reducing energy consumption in both of these scenarios, more
attention should be paid to transportation management, as well as
diesel fuel use and machinery operations.
CL scenario offered positive environmental impacts in the forms
of AD, FE and TE and less GWP, HT, ME, PO, AC compared to L
scenario. However, due to higher use of machinery and diesel fuel
for separation and compost processing, impact categories of ADF,
OLD and EP of CL scenario were higher than those of L scenario.
Overall, lower environmental burdens associated with CL scenario
in comparison with C scenario makes CL scenario of MSW man-
agement more environmentally attractive.
Environmental emissions of L scenario showed high sensitivities
to transportation, use of machinery and fuel, and landfill emissions;
on the other hand, the impact categories of CL scenario were mainly
affected by transportation, machinery and fuel, compost yield and
electricity. Efficient use of transportation system in MSW man-
agement can reduce transportation emissions in both of the sce-
narios. Moreover, machinery management and application of more
energy efficient equipment are possible pathways to reduce envi-
ronmental emissions due to use of electricity and fuel. Future work
needs to focus on these issues.
Acknowledgment
The financial support provided by the University of Tehran, Iran
is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Abduli, M.A., Naghib, A., Yonesi, M., Akbari, A., 2011. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of
solid waste management strategies in Tehran: landfill and composting plus
landfill. Environ. Monit. Assess. 178, 487e498.
Abeliotis, K., Kalogeropoulos, A., Lasaridi, K., 2012. Life cycle assessment of the MBT
plant in Ano Liossia. Waste Manag. 32, 213e219.
Alavi Moghadam, M.R., Mokhtarani, N., Mokhtarani, B., 2009. Municipal solid waste
management in Rasht City, Iran. Waste Manag. 29, 485e489.
Alexander, A., Burklin, C., Singleton, A., 2005. Landfill Gas Emissions Model (Land-
GEM) Version 3.02 User's Guide. EPA, Washington, DC. Available at: https://
www3.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/landgem-v302-guide.pdf. (Accessed 31 May
2018).
Asase, M., Yanful, E.K., Mensah, M., Stanford, J., Amponsah, S., 2009. Comparison of
municipal solid waste management Systems in Canada and Ghana: a case study
of the cities of London, Ontario, and Kumasi, Ghana. Waste Manag. 29 (10),
2779e2786.
Assamoi, B., Lawryshyn, Y., 2012. The environmental comparison of Landfilling vs.
incineration of MSW accounting for waste diversion. Waste Manag. 32 (5),
1019e1030.
Ayodele, T.R., Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., Alao, M.A., 2017. Life cycle assessment of waste-
to-energy (WtE) technologies for electricity generation using municipal solid
waste in Nigeria. J. Clean. Prod. 94, 284e293.
Banar, M., Cokaygil, Z., Ozkan, A., 2009. Life cycle assessment of solid waste man-
agement options for Eskisehir, Turkey. Waste Manag. 29, 54e62.
Bauman, H., Tillman, A., 2004. The Hitch Hiker's Guide to LCA. Studentlitteratur AB,
Sweden.
Bernstad, A., Wenzel, H., la Cour Jansen, J., 2016. Identification of decisive factors for
greenhouse gas emissions in comparative life cycle assessments of food waste
management - an analytical review. J. Clean. Prod. 119, 13e24.
Cherubini, F., Bargigli, S., Ulgiati, S., 2009. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste
management strategies: landfilling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy 34,
2116e2123.
Dewulf, J., Bosch, M.E., Meester, B.D., Vorst, G.V.D., Langenhove, H.V., Hellweg, S.,
Huijbregts, M.A., 2007. Cumulative Exergy extraction from the natural envi-
ronment (CEENE): a comprehensive life cycle impact assessment method for
resource accounting. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41 (24), 8477e8483.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency, USA), 2010. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Estimation Methodologies for Biogenic Emissions from Selected Source Cate-
gories: Solid Waste Disposal Wastewater Treatment Ethanol Fermentation.
Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/efpac/ghg/GHG_Biogenic_Report_
draft_Dec1410.pdf. (Accessed 31 May 2018).
Erses Yay, A.S., 2015. Application of life cycle assessment (LCA) for municipal solid
waste management: a case study of Sakarya. J. Clean. Prod. 94, 284e293.
Fathollahi, H., Mousavi-Avval, S.H., Akram, A., Rafiee, S., 2018. Comparative energy,
economic and environmental analyses of forage production systems for dairy
farming. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 852e862.
Ghaderpour, O., Rafiee, S., Sharifi, M., Mousavi-Avval, S.H., 2018. Quantifying the
environmental impacts of alfalfa production in different farming systems.
Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 27, 109e118.
Guinee, J.B., Gorre e, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., 2001. Life Cycle
Assessment an Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, The Netherlands.
Jara-Samaniego, J., P_erez-Murcia, M.D., Bustamante, M.A., P_erez-Espinosa, A.,
Paredes, C., L_opez, M., Moral, R., 2017. Composting as sustainable strategy for
municipal solid waste management in the Chimborazo Region, Ecuador: suit-
ability of the obtained Composts for seedling production. J. Clean. Prod. 141,
1349e1358.
Khan, M.M.-U.-H., Jain, S., Vaezi, M., Kumar, A., 2016. Development of a decision
model for the techno-economic assessment of municipal solid waste utilization
pathways. Waste Manag. 48, 548e564.
Kitani, O., 1999. CIGR handbook of Agricultural Engineering. Energy and biomass
engineering, vol. 5. ASAE Publications, St. Joseph, MI.
Kjeldsen, P., Barlaz, B.A.M., Rooker, P.A., Baun, A., Anna, L., Christensen, H.T., 2002.
Present and long-term composition of MSW landfill leachate: a review. Crit.
Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32 (4), 297e336.
Koci, V., Trecakova, T., 2011. Mixed municipal waste management in the Czech
Republic from the point of view of the LCA method. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16,
113e124.
Liamsanguan, C., Gheewala, S., 2007. Environmental assessment of energy pro-
duction from municipal solid waste incineration. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12,
529e536.
Milutinovic, B., Stefanovic, G., Ðekic, P.S., Mijailovi, I., Tomic, M., 2017. Environ-
mental assessment of waste management scenarios with energy recovery using
life cycle assessment and multi-criteria analysis. Energy 137, 917e926.
Mousavi-Avval, S.H., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A., Mohammadi, A., 2011. Improving energy
use efficiency of canola production using data envelopment analysis (DEA)
approach. Energy 36, 2765e2772.
Mousavi-Avval, S.H., Rafiee, S., Sharifi, M., Hosseinpour, S., Notarnicola, B.,
Tassielli, G., Renzulli, P.A., 2017. Application of multi-objective genetic algo-
rithms for optimization of energy, economics and environmental life cycle
assessment in oilseed production. J. Clean. Prod. 140 (Part 2), 804e815.
Nemecek, T., Kagi, T., 2007. Life Cycle Inventories of Swiss and European Agricul-
tural Production Systems Final Report Ecoinvent V2.0 No. 15a. Agroscope
Reckenholz-Taenikon Research Station ART, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle In-
ventories, Zurich and Dübendorf, CH.
Parkes, O., Lettieri, P., Bogle, I.D.L., 2015. Life cycle assessment of integrated waste
management systems for alternative legacy scenarios of the London Olympic
Park. Waste Manag. 40, 157e166.
Pre-Consultants, 2017. SimaPro 8.3.0. Available at URL: http://www.pre-
sustainability.com/simapro.
Rajaeifar, M.A., Tabatabaei, M., Ghanavati, H., Khoshnevisan, B., Rafiee, S., 2015.
Comparative life cycle assessment of different municipal solid waste manage-
ment scenarios in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51, 886e898.
Ripa, M., Fiorentino, G., Vacca, V., Ulgiati, S., 2017. The relevance of site-specific data
in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The case of the municipal solid waste man-
agement in the metropolitan city of Naples (Italy). J. Clean. Prod. 142, 445e460.
RWMO, 2017. Statistics of Waste Management Organization of Rasht. Rasht Waste
Management Organization, Rasht, Iran. http://www.rasht-bazyaft.ir.
Seadon, J.K., 2010. Sustainable waste management Systems. J. Clean. Prod. 18,
1639e1651.
Sharma, B.K., Chandel, M.K., 2017. Life cycle assessment of potential municipal solid
waste management strategies for Mumbai, India. Waste Manag. Res. 35 (1),
79e91.
Song, Q., Wang, Z., Li, J., 2013. Environmental performance of municipal solid waste
strategies based on LCA method: a case study of Macau. J. Clean. Prod. 57,
92e100.
Tabatabaeefar, A., Emamzadeh, H., Varnamkhasti, M.G., Rahimizadeh, R., Karimi, M.,
2009. Comparison of energy of tillage Systems in wheat production. Energy 34
(1), 41e45.
Tan, S.T., Lee, C.T., Hashim, H., Ho, W.S., Lim, J.S., 2014. Optimal process network for
municipal solid waste management in Iskandar Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 71,
48e58.
Tassielli, G., Notarnicola, B., Renzulli, P.A., Arcese, G., 2018. Environmental life cycle
assessment of fresh and processed sweet cherries in southern Italy. J. Clean.
Prod. 171, 184e197.