1.

Introduction
One of the major problems in developed countries is
treatment of a large amount of municipal solid wastes
(MSW). Especially, in countries where the population
density is high and space for landfilling is limited, MSW
treatment poses a serious problem. The best method for
waste treatment is recycling and reuse. But the amount of
waste that can be recycled is limited to less than
approximately 40% of the total volume .
LAND FILLING:
Landfilling is known to be the most expedient,
inexpensive method to dispose non-recyclable solid
wastes. However, this simple method causes many
problems, for example, groundwater pollution from
landfill leachate, odor emission and soil contamination.
Furthermore, any toxic materials present in the original
waste will remain in an unknown, uncontrolled form
inside the landfill. Thus, incineration of MSW has been
considered as a new strategy in many countries, such as
Japan and several European countries.
INCINERATION:

Incineration reduces the volume of the waste as much as

90% and does not produce further problems from leachate
and odor. Moreover, this is a sanitary method for
treatment of MSW that does not cause biological
problems.

On the other hand, incineration has some

disadvantages compared with landfilling. Incineration
requires high energy consumption and leaves a large
amount of fly and bottom ash, which are produced in
the proportion of 1030 wt.% of the original amount
of waste. Of these, high energy consumption is being
compensated with the rising economic and
environmental costs of landfilling.
FLY ASH METHOD:
But ash treatment remains unsolved. Particularly, fly
ash must be detoxified or decontaminated because it
contains significant concentrations of heavy metals
[2], such as lead, chromium, copper, zinc, as well as
organic pollutants such as dioxins. Several techniques
to treat these incinerator ashes have been proposed.
These include

 cement-based techniques,
wet chemical treatment
thermal treatment including vitrification.
Fly ash used in the experiments was sampled from a
stoker-type incinerator in Da-Dae MSW Disposal
(Pusan, Korea). The fly ash collection system was an
electrostatic precipitator (EP) with a capacity of
60,000 Nm3/h. Fly ash appeared as a fine powder, gray
in color. The chemical composition of fly ash was
analyzed with a combination of inductively coupled
plasmaatomic emission spectroscopy (ICPAES) and
X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (XRF). Specimens for
XRF analysis were prepared in the form of pellets to
reduce loss of volatile materials. Phase constitution was
examined with X-ray diffractometer (XRD) using Cu
K radiation.

When planning waste management, it is important to

know that the choice of waste treatment method affects
processes outside the waste management system, such as

generation of district heating, electricity, vehicle fuel,

plastic, cardboard, and fertiliser.

THE ORWARE MODEL:

In the Orware model, the waste management system
consists of treatments and transports, according to .In all
submodels, the annual turnover (use of) of materials,
energy and financial resources in the processes are
calculated. Materials turnover is characterised by (1) the
supply of waste materials and process chemicals, (2) the
output of products and by-products, and (3) emissions to
air, water and crops. Energy turnover is the use of
different energy carriers such as coal, oil, or biomass, and
the recovery of heat, electricity, hydrogen, and biogas
from waste. The financial turnover is defined as monetary
costs for the processes included.

Fig. 2.
Conceptual model of the total system in Orware.

Scenarios studied

Type of treatment

Incineration (two
scenarios)

Scenario short
Common
name and
features
specific
features
IncAll
Incineration of
Incineration
all waste.
with heat
Energy is
recovery and recovered as
power
district heating
generation.
with a degree
of efficiency
above 90%.
Collection and Inc90%
utilisation of Incineration of
landfill gas in 90% of all
power
waste, 10% is
generation.
landfilled
during
summertime.
This is due to

Scenario short
Common
name and
Type of treatment
features
specific
features
maintenance of
the incineration
plant and low
demand for
district heating
leading to
partial
shutdown of
the plant.
BioBus
Source
Incineration+biological separation of Anaerobic
treatment (three
70% of the
digestion.
scenarios)
biodegradable Biogas used for
waste.
fuelling busses.
BioEl
Anaerobic
digestion. The
The rest of the
biogas is
waste is
combusted in
incinerated.
an engine for
generating heat
and power.
BioCar

Scenario short
Common
name and
Type of treatment
features
specific
features
Anaerobic
digestion.
Biogas used for
fuelling cars.
RecPl
Source
separation and
Long distance material
transport of
recycling of
recyclable
70% of HDPE
Incineration+materials materials to
from
recycling (two scenarios) facilities
households and
outside the
80% of HDPE
municipality and LDPE from
border.
business. The
rest of the
waste is
incinerated.
RecCb
Source
separation and
material
recycling of

Type of treatment

Landfilling (one
scenario)

Scenario short
Common
name and
features
specific
features
70% of
cardboard from
households and
80% of
cardboard from
business. The
rest of the
waste is
incinerated.
Collection and Landf
utilisation of
landfill gas in Landfilling of
power
all waste.
generation.

7. Discussion
Despite the fact that the systems studied are designed with
a high degree of source separation and well functioning
facilities, the differences between energy recovery and
materials and nutrients recycling are relatively small. This
is explained by that, even with a high degree of source
separation, a large part of the waste has to be incinerated.

A marginal study [6], comparing differences between

incineration and recycling of 1 kg of plastic, would show
a greater difference. Our study covers the whole waste
stream as the aim is to find the total impact for different
changes in the treatment of specific fractions. It is
however obvious that straight landfilling of mixed
household waste is not a good waste treatment option.
The results show that there are benefits and drawbacks
associated with all waste management options:

A material recycling of plastic containers is

comparable to incineration from an welfare economic
point of view, but gives less environmental impact
and lower energy useon condition that the recycled
plastic replaces virgin plastic. Recycling of plastic is
the most expensive recycling option but results in the
lowest impacts.

A material recycling of cardboard containers is

comparable to incineration for welfare economy and
consumption of energy resources, but has both
environmental advantages and disadvantages.

Anaerobic digestion of easily degradable waste has a

higher welfare economic cost than incineration, and
has both environmental advantages and
disadvantages. Conclusions regarding energy use
depend upon how the biogas is used.

Composting of biodegradable waste is comparable to

anaerobic digestion from a welfare economic point of
view, but gives higher energy use and environmental
impact.
The study does not (with exception for the welfare
economy) include a valuation of the importance of the
different impact categories amongst themselves.
The overall conclusion from the study is that as long as
landfilling is avoided, several waste treatments are
possible and they are all better with respect to
environmental impact, use of energy resources and
economy. A combination of anaerobic digestion (with an
improvement of the spreading technologies in the
agricultural sector), materials recycling and incineration
would probably be the best solution to avoid landfilling as
much as possible. This conclusion holds true if the
options are seen as being of almost equal merit in terms of
costs and environmental impact, and having a redundant
system (not to stick to only one method) is a wise thing.

With respect to environment and consumption of energy

resources, transports are of minor importance. In sparsely
populated areas, collection and transports can be
expensive, relatively speaking. In city areas, transports
may affect human health comprising impacts as noise, etc.
These impacts have not been evaluated in this study, due
to difficulties in the assessment of ecotoxicology and
impacts on human health

Many of the results in this study are heavily dependent on

assumptions for the design of the compensatory system
and the scenarios. Further research can be directed at
identifying and describing the influence on the results of
the assumptions that have major importance for the main
results. A broader discussion of the waste management
from a social point of view may also be of interest. The
effort needed from households differs between different
waste management strategies, and this most certainly can
have a major influence on the results.

Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) is one of

the major environmental problems of Indian cities.

Improper management of municipal solid waste (MSW)

causes hazards to inhabitants. Various studies reveal that
about 90% of MSW is disposed of unscientifically in open
dumps and landfills, creating problems to public health
and the environment. In the present study, an attempt has
been made to provide a comprehensive review of the
characteristics, generation, collection and transportation,
disposal and treatment technologies of MSW practiced in
India. The study pertaining to MSWM for Indian cities
has been carried out to evaluate the current status and
identify the major problems. Various adopted treatment
technologies for MSW are critically reviewed, along with
their advantages and limitations.
Sewerage system and centralised aerobic wastewater
treatment plants (WTP) should not be considered as the
only possible solution for sanitation. Systems with source
control can avoid many problems of the endof-pipe
technology by respecting different qualities of wastewater
and by treating them appropriately for reuse.
Different qualities of waste and wastewater in human
settlements and appropriate treatment technologies can
be: 1. low diluted faeces with/without urine and bio waste
(composter or anaerobic digester), 2. grey water/aerobic
biofilm plant, 3. storm water (usage and infiltration) and
4. non-biodegradable waste (reuse as raw material). In
order to perform resource management, the material

originating from agriculture should be returned to the soil

as fertiliser. Of similar importance is the organic material.
This helps maintaining or building up humus and creates
a sink for carbon when the C-content in the soil is
increased. Energy will be saved, too: energy-intensive
aerobic treatment with nitrification is obsolete as well as
the production of the respective amount of replaced
artificial fertiliser. A pilot project for a new settlement for
about 300 inhabitants in Lbeck, Germany, shall
demonstrate the feasibility of a new integrated system
with vacuum toilets and pipes for the collection of black
water. This will be mixed with shredded bio waste and fed
to a semicentralised biogas plant that produces liquid
fertiliser without dewatering. Grey water will be treated in
decentralised biofilm systems. Storm water is collected,
retained and infiltrated in a trench system. This way the
expensive centralised sewerage system can be avoided for
this settlement.