A technical review of bioenergy and resource recovery from municipal solid waste

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123970Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Massive amounts of heterogeneous municipal solid waste (MSW) are generated globally.

  • MSW requires effective segregation, sorting, disposal, processing and treatment.

  • MSW can be converted to clean fuels by thermochemical, hydrothermal and biological technologies.

  • Waste-to-energy conversion can reduce the diversion of MSW from landfilling.

  • Pyrolysis, liquefaction, gasification and biomethanation are promising for MSW conversion.

Abstract

Population growth, rapid urbanization, industrialization and economic development have led to the magnified municipal solid waste generation at an alarming rate on a global scale. Municipal solid waste seems to be an economically viable and attractive resource to produce green fuels through different waste-to-energy conversion routes. This paper reviews the different waste-to-energy technologies as well as thermochemical and biological conversion technologies for the valorization of municipal solid waste and diversion for recycling. The key waste-to-energy technologies discussed in this review include conventional thermal incineration and the modern hydrothermal incineration. The thermochemical treatments (e.g. pyrolysis, liquefaction and gasification) and biological treatments (e.g. anaerobic digestion and composting) are also elaborated for the transformation of solid wastes to biofuel products. The current status of municipal solid waste management for effective disposal and diversion along with the opportunities and challenges has been comprehensively reviewed. The merits and technical challenges of the waste-to-energy technologies are systematically discussed to promote the diversion of solid wastes from landfill disposal to biorefineries.

Introduction

Rapid industrialization and energy consumption go hand-in-hand with globalization and urbanization. The prosperity of a nation for economic development and urbanization often leads to compromising the natural environment. It is projected that the world population will increase from the current 7.7 billion to 8 billion by 2030 (United States Census Bureau USCB, 2020). With the rise in the global population, the basic needs of survival are also indispensable, which includes food, water, air, shelter, clothing, energy source and lifestyle requirements such as fuel and electricity. There is an upsurge in the per capita energy consumption with a human birth eight seconds (Nanda et al., 2015). Fossil fuels (e.g. crude oil, gasoline, diesel, coal and natural gas) have dominated the global energy market since the industrial revolution. Fossil fuels have augmented the worldwide industrialization, but have also compromised environmental quality. The exploiting use of fossil fuels has led to an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, air pollution, acid rain, smog, global warming and climate change.

Fawzy et al. (2020) have systematically reviewed some key approaches to abate climate change, which include conventional mitigation, negative emissions and radiative forcing geoengineering. Conventional mitigation technologies aim to mitigate CO2 emissions from fossil fuels by making a paradigm shift and adapting to nuclear power and carbon-neutral renewable energy sources (e.g. solar, tidal, wind and biofuels). On the other hand, negative emissions technologies intend to capture and sequester CO2 through the application of biochar, afforestation, reforestation, ocean fertilization, terrestrial weathering, ocean alkalinity enhancement, wetland restoration as well as direct air carbon capture and storage strategies. On the contrary, radiative forcing geoengineering strategies to curb climate change by regulating the earth’s radiative energy budget and stabilizing global temperatures. This approach includes some notable techniques such as stratospheric aerosol injection, marine sky brightening, space‑based mirroring, surface‑based brightening and Cirrus cloud thinning, to name a few. A detailed description of these aforementioned topics can be found in the review by Fawzy et al. (2020).

Every year, the energy consumption and urban population augment by 1.1% and 1.5%, respectively ([International Energy Agency IEA, 2007], [Kumar and Samadder, 2017]). Population growth, rapid urbanization and economic development have significantly increased the generation of municipal solid waste (MSW). Municipal solid waste is also known as garbage, thrash and refuse refers to the solid wastes discarded by the public daily. Currently, about 1.9 billion tonnes of MSW are produced every year on a global scale, out of which nearly 30% remain uncollected by municipalities' waste management systems (Waste Atlas, 2018). However, the generation of MSW is expected to escalate to 3.4 billion tonnes by 2050 (The World Bank, 2020). According to The World Bank (2020), an average individual generates nearly 0.74 kg of solid waste footprint every day. After the collection of MSW, approximately 70% ends up in landfills, 19% is recycled and 11% is used for energy recovery. The effective management of MSW is categorized under two of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), namely Goal 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) (United Nations, 2020). However, an additional goal (i.e. Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy) can also be achieved if the MSW is diverted for waste-to-energy conversion.

The composition of MSW varies greatly among different municipalities worldwide, but it typically comprises of both biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials from organic and inorganic sources. MSW is collected from households, offices, institutions and commercial enterprises, which typically include organic wastes (e.g. kitchen waste and yard waste), paper, plastics, glass, metal and miscellaneous garbage (e.g. electronic waste, inert materials, pharmaceuticals as well as construction, demolition and renovation wastes) as summarized in Table 1. The management of MSW varies within municipalities, cities, states and countries. The basic platforms in MSW management are: (i) generation of wastes at the source; (ii) collection and transfer of waste; and (iii) disposal, processing and treatment of wastes (Fig. 1).

MSW is one of such waste resources that require immediate attention to effective management techniques. Moreover, MSW is a valuable, renewable and economical waste resource that can recover usable solid, liquid and gaseous fuels to supplement the amplifying energy demands. The composition and management of MSW vary largely from municipalities to countries. Fig. 2 illustrates the composition of MSW on a global scale. Waste-to-energy is an economically viable and environmentally sustainable solution to recover energy from waste resources in the form of fuel, heat and electricity. It is indispensable for realizing the true potential of WtE conversion pathways to address the concerns of solid waste management and alternative energy generation. Typically, the WtE technologies are selected based on MSW composition, seasonality, communal socio-economic levels, local municipality policies, economic assessment and environmental impacts (Moya et al., 2017).

The available WtE technologies for MSW can be chiefly classified into thermochemical and biological processes (Fig. 3). Depending on the thermochemical conversion technologies, the major fuel products can be bio-oil, producer gas, synthesis gas and char. On the contrary, biological conversion processes include anaerobic digestion and composting that produce biogas (i.e. biomethane) and compost (i.e. decomposed organic matter). Some next-generation biological conversion processes that could be applied to the solid organic fraction and leachate of MSW to produce biohydrogen are dark and photo-fermentation, direct and indirect bio-photolysis, microbial electrolysis cells as well as microbial electro-hydrogenesis cells ([Zhen et al, 2016], [Allegue et al, 2020], Kamaraj et al., 2020, [Osman et al, 2020], [Sarangi and Nanda, 2020]). The chief WtE technologies applied for MSW are conventional incineration and hydrothermal incineration and oxidation. Opposed to landfill disposal, these technologies have the candidacy to significantly reduce GHG emissions and transform MSW to usable fuels to energy products.

There is a lack of standard methods to assess the effective energy recovery and environmental impacts of different waste-to-energy (WtE) conversion technologies. Certain properties of MSW can aid in determining its candidacy for either thermochemical or biological WtE conversion technology. For example, a higher proportion of moisture-containing organic fraction in MSW (i.e. kitchen waste, food waste and yard waste) is found to be suitable for biological conversion technologies (e.g. anaerobic digestion and composting) as well as hydrothermal technologies (i.e. subcritical/supercritical water-assisted liquefaction, gasification and incineration). The biological conversion pathways involve the use of microorganisms and their enzymes to decompose the organic fraction of MSW for conversion to biomethane, biohydrogen, compost and digestate. The feedstock of biological conversion must be prepared considering the organic content, dry solids, volatile solids, carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio, moisture, micro-nutrients and macro-nutrients for microorganisms without any contaminants (e.g. pesticides, insecticides, disinfectants, antibiotics, pharmaceuticals, inert materials such as glasses, plastics and metals). Based on the metabolism of the responsible microorganisms (i.e. aerobic, anaerobic, photosynthetic or dark), the appropriate biological conversion pathways such as composting, anaerobic digestion, bio-photolysis, dark fermentation and photo-fermentation are determined.

On the contrary, MSW containing recalcitrant organic components (e.g. paper waste, packaging boxes and cardboards) and non-biodegradable organics (e.g. plastics, rubber, polymers and tires) are more suitable for thermochemical conversion technologies (e.g. pyrolysis, liquefaction and gasification). Some physicochemical properties of broadly heterogeneous MSW, which can help access their WtE valorization are proximate composition (i.e. moisture, volatile matter, fixed carbon and ash), ultimate composition (i.e. carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur and oxygen), thermal stability (i.e. devolatilization pattern), elemental composition (micro- and macro-elements), particle size, porosity, bulk density and biopolymeric composition (i.e. cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, fatty acids, proteins, lipids, amino acids and salts), to name a few.

The WtE technologies applied to MSW management can contribute to the circular economy for offsetting the environmental risks and impacts and GHG emissions, while at the same time, increasing waste recycling as well as resource and energy recovery rates. Farrell et al. (2020) reported a critical analysis of closed-loop recycling and open-loop cascading options of the circular economy, which are primarily used to evaluate the environmental impacts in waste management. Through the closed-loop recycling of MSW, the main products and by-products can enter its supply chain with wide-ranging applications and marketability. In contrast, open-loop recycling of MSW can be performed when the main products do not meet the quality requirement for direct commercial applications but can find utility in alternative industries. The cascade option in open-loop recycling refers to the post-processing of the product before it can enter into other industrial processes as a precursor to undergo re-designing and engineering for opportunistic recovery.

There is a growing interest in effectively and safely managing municipal solid waste in nexus with its efficient valorization. According to the Scopus database, in the last ten years (2010–2020), more than 13,000 technical documents (e.g. articles and reviews) were published in indexed journals on “municipal solid waste” mentioned in the article title, abstract and keywords (Scopus, 2020). However, only 240 articles were indicated during the same decade with “municipal solid waste to energy” as the search option. Although tremendous amounts of MSW are generated in both developing and developed countries, there is a lack of technology transfer between the nations. Based on this notion, the current paper intends to comprehensively review MSW as a potential resource for alternative energy generation across the world. This paper attempts to systematically review the incineration as a popular WtE technology as well as different thermochemical and biological conversion technologies. These MSW treatment technologies have been technically evaluated to identify the opportunities, challenges and barriers to effective implementation and sustainable waste management.

Section snippets

Conventional incineration

Incineration is the most common waste treatment technology dealing with the combustion or burning of organic waste materials. Incineration is referred to as a traditional and widely used WtE technology that recovers high-temperature heat from the combustion of waste materials for combined heat and power plants. The heat released through the incineration of wastes can also be used to generate electricity. Incineration of MSW has been a preferred alternative to landfills that are malodorous,

Anaerobic digestion or biomethanation

Biogas or biomethane is produced by the natural or induced decomposition of organic matter under anaerobic conditions. The anaerobic digestion or biomethanation of biodegradable materials takes place in the absence of oxygen with the aid of anaerobic microorganisms (Prajapati et al., 2018). The process produces combustible biogas and stabilized biosludge. Wide varieties of biodegradable feedstocks that can be used for anaerobic digestion are MSW, cattle manure, sewage sludge and agricultural

Conclusions and perspectives

The adoption of MSW as a candidate feedstock for alternative fuel production can not only reduce the dependency on fossil fuels but also provide new ways for their eco-friendly remediation. Table 3 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of different WtE technologies potentially applied to MSW. Pyrolysis and liquefaction of MSW can produce energy-dense bio-oil, whereas gasification results in H2-rich syngas. Char, a solid residue from pyrolysis and gasification, is rich in stable aromatic

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Sonil Nanda: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Roles/Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Franco Berruti: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Mitacs and the City of London, Ontario for funding this research.

References (142)

  • M.D. Bermejo et al.

    Experimental study of hydrothermal flames initiation using different static mixer configurations

    J. Supercrit. Fluids

    (2009)
  • P. Cabeza et al.

    Experimental study of the supercritical water oxidation of recalcitrant compounds under hydrothermal flames using tubular reactors

    Water Res.

    (2011)
  • M. Carrier et al.

    Thermogravimetric analysis as a new method to determine the lignocellulosic composition of biomass

    Biomass Bioenergy

    (2011)
  • J. Chen et al.

    A review of biomass burning: emissions and impacts on air quality, health and climate in China

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2017)
  • H. Dhar et al.

    Effect of organic loading rate during anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste

    Bioresour. Technol.

    (2016)
  • A. Dindi et al.

    Applications of fly ash for CO2 capture, utilization, and storage

    J. CO2 Util.

    (2019)
  • C. Dong et al.

    Tests on co-firing of municipal solid waste and coal in a circulating fluidized bed

    Energy Convers. Manag.

    (2002)
  • D. Elango et al.

    Thermophilic composting of municipal solid waste

    Appl. Energy

    (2009)
  • S. Fang et al.

    A study on experimental characteristic of co-pyrolysis of municipal solid waste and paper mill sludge with additives

    Appl. Therm. Eng.

    (2017)
  • C.C. Farrell et al.

    Technical challenges and opportunities in realising a circular economy for waste photovoltaic modules

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2020)
  • M. Gong et al.

    Lewis acid catalyzed gasification of humic acid in supercritical water

    Catal. Today

    (2017)
  • M. Gong et al.

    Subcritical and supercritical water gasification of humic acid as a model compound of humic substances in sewage sludge

    J. Supercrit. Fluids

    (2017)
  • M.F. Hamoda et al.

    Evaluation of municipal solid waste composting kinetics

    Resour. Conserv. Recycl.

    (1998)
  • M. He et al.

    Hydrogen-rich gas from catalytic steam gasification of municipal solid waste (MSW): influence of catalyst and temperature on yield and product composition

    Int. J. Hydrog. Energy

    (2009)
  • J.B. Holm-Nielsen et al.

    The future of anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization

    Bioresour. Technol.

    (2009)
  • J. Hong et al.

    Intensification of municipal solid waste disposal in China

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2017)
  • X. Hu et al.

    An analytical model to evaluate the heating conditions for drilling in hard rock using an innovative hydrothermal spallation method

    Appl. Therm. Eng.

    (2018)
  • K.M. Isa et al.

    Hydrogen donor solvents in liquefaction of biomass: a review

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2018)
  • M.N. Islam et al.

    Pyrolytic oil from fixed bed pyrolysis of municipal solid waste and its characterization

    Renew. Energy

    (2005)
  • S. Jain et al.

    A comprehensive review on operating parameters and different pretreatment methodologies for anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2015)
  • W. Jiang et al.

    Liquefaction of lignocellulosic materials and its applications in wood adhesives—a review

    Ind. Crop. Prod.

    (2018)
  • C.H. Jung et al.

    Behavior of metals in ash melting and gasification-melting of municipal solid waste (MSW)

    Waste Manag.

    (2005)
  • K. Kazemi et al.

    Design of experiment (DOE) based screening of factors affecting municipal solid waste (MSW) composting

    Waste Manag.

    (2016)
  • Y. Kikuchi et al.

    Analysis of supercritical water oxidation for detoxification of waste organic solvent in university based on life cycle assessment

    J. Hazard. Mater.

    (2011)
  • A. Kumar et al.

    A review on technological options of waste to energy for effective management of municipal solid waste

    Waste Manag.

    (2017)
  • H. Li et al.

    Highly efficient liquefaction of wheat straw for the production of bio-polyols and bio-based polyurethane foams

    Ind. Crop. Prod.

    (2017)
  • J.W. Lu et al.

    Status and perspectives of municipal solid waste incineration in China: a comparison with developed regions

    Waste Manag.

    (2017)
  • S. Luo et al.

    Effect of particle size on pyrolysis of single-component municipal solid waste in fixed bed reactor

    Int. J. Hydrog. Energy

    (2010)
  • A. Magdziarz et al.

    Properties of ash generated during sewage sludge combustion: a multifaceted analysis

    Energy

    (2016)
  • D.R. McIlveen-Wright et al.

    A techno-economic assessment of the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions through the use of biomass co-combustion

    Fuel

    (2011)
  • M.D. Meena et al.

    Municipal solid waste (MSW): strategies to improve salt affected soil sustainability: a review

    Waste Manag.

    (2019)
  • A. Miller et al.

    Supercritical water oxidation of a model fecal sludge without the use of a co-fuel

    Chemosphere

    (2015)
  • P. Mohanty et al.

    Evaluation of the physiochemical development of biochars obtained from pyrolysis of wheat straw, timothy grass and pinewood: effects of heating rate

    J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis

    (2013)
  • A. Molino et al.

    Municipal waste leachate conversion via catalytic supercritical water gasification process

    Fuel

    (2017)
  • F. Monlau et al.

    A new concept for enhancing energy recovery from agricultural residues by coupling anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis process

    Appl. Energy

    (2015)
  • A. Morandeau et al.

    Impact of accelerated carbonation on OPC cement paste blended with fly ash

    Cem. Concr. Res.

    (2015)
  • M. Mosteiro-Romero et al.

    Liquefaction of wood in hot compressed water. Part 1 — Experimental results

    Chem. Eng. Sci.

    (2014)
  • D. Moya et al.

    Waste-to-energy technologies: an opportunity of energy recovery from municipal solid waste, using Quito – Ecuador as case study

    Energy Proc.

    (2017)
  • M. Muthuraman et al.

    A comparison of co-combustion characteristics of coal with wood and hydrothermally treated municipal solid waste

    Bioresour. Technol.

    (2010)
  • S. Nanda et al.

    An assessment on the sustainability of lignocellulosic biomass for biorefining

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2015)
  • Cited by (207)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text