146 Int. J. Environment and Waste Management, Vol. 17, No.

2, 2016

Life cycle assessment of household hazardous waste

management options for Semarang City, Indonesia

Elanda Fikri*
Diponegoro University,
Jl. Imam Bardjo SH, No. 5,
Semarang, Indonesia
and
Department of Environmental Health,
Bandung Health Polytechnic,
Babakan Loa 10A, Cimahi Utara,
Cimahi 40154, Indonesia
Email: elandafikri@yahoo.com
*Corresponding author

P. Purwanto
Department of Chemical Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering,
Diponegoro University,
Jl. Prof Sudharto SH, Tembalang,
Semarang, Indonesia
Email: p.purwanto@gmail.com

Henna Rya Sunoko

Faculty of Medicine,
Diponegoro University,
Jl. Prof Sudharto SH, Tembalang,
Semarang, Indonesia
Email: hennarsunoko@gmail.com

Abstract: Hazardous and toxic materials are not only produced by industrial
sectors, but also by household sector. Unfortunately, no established regulation
and standard operational procedure was found for handling household
hazardous waste (HHW) in Indonesia. The research aimed to produce the most
effective and efficient scenario of HHW. This research used life cycle
assessment (LCA) approach according to ISO 14040:2006 by using 150 kg of
HHW. The LCIA method used was IPCC 2007 by using Simapro (version 7.1)
and TDEPs guidelines. The result show, characteristic of HHW in Semarang
was consist of corrosive (1.9%), ignitable/reactive (5.8%), toxic (17.4%), and
infectious (74.9%). HHW generation is 0.01 kg/person/day or 0.0591
l/person/day. Estimated HHW generation in 2014 reach 16.003 tons/day or
94.415 m3/day. Scenario 2 with recycling HHW is the best scenario. The
impact of GHG emissions is only about 135.25 kgCO2 eq. This scenario can
reduce impact of 17.57% compared with current conditions.

Copyright 2016 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Life cycle assessment of household hazardous waste management 147

Keywords: ISO 14040: 2006; household hazardous waste; HHW; greenhouse

gas; GHG; emissions; global warming; life cycle assessment; LCA.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Fikri, E., Purwanto, P. and
Sunoko, H.R. (2016) Life cycle assessment of household hazardous waste
management options for Semarang City, Indonesia, Int. J. Environment and
Waste Management, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.146157.

Biographical notes: Elanda Fikri received his PhD in Doctorate Program of

Environmental Studies, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia. He
received his Masters in Public Health, Faculty Department of Environmental
Heath in 2011. He is a Lecturer at the Department of Environmental Health,
Bandung Health Polytechnic. He has published some papers in national
journals and conference proceedings. With due regard to the importance of
environmental pollution, he changed his field of study. This paper is derived
from his PhD dissertation.

P. Purwanto is a Professor at the Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty

of Engineering, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia. He received his
Master and Doctor from ENSIGC-INP Toulouse Perancis, with Chemical
Process Technology specialisation. He has published research papers at
national and international journals and conference proceedings. He has been
associated with several professional bodies.

Henna Rya Sunoko obtained her PhD in Faculty of Medicine Diponegoro

University, Semarang, Indonesia. She received her Master from Dalhousie
University Canada, with Environmental Toxicology specialisation. She is a
Lecturer at the Department of medicine and Department of Environmental
Science. She has published research papers at national and international
journals and conference proceedings.

This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled

Household hazardous waste (HHW) generation based on economic status in
Semarang City presented at National Seminar on Natural Resources and
Environment Management, Postgraduate Program of Environmental Studies,
Diponegoro University, Jl. Imam Bardjo SH, No. 5, Semarang, Indonesia,
16 October 2014.

1 Introduction

The escalation of society needs will increase the waste production. It is included on
household hazardous waste (HHW). Nowadays, the industrial sector is considered as the
hazardous and toxic material resource. In fact, the household activities also produce
HHW. Waste disposal in the society settlement is insufficient. Due to huge population,
there is no special treatment, it will seriously cause the danger for the environment and
human health.
Many people do not know household activities can produce dangerous waste and
endanger health and surrounding environment. Many household products contain the
same chemical materials with industrial waste and can cause environmental pollution
(Otoniel et al., 2008). In Indonesia, the efforts in processing hazardous waste also focus
on industrial hazardous waste processing. Domestic and settlement hazardous waste do
148 E. Fikri et al.

not get enough attention. Semarang city is a metropolitan city where the population
increases each year. The rate of growth of population in Semarang City is 1.11% per year
in 2011. The impact of population growth is the increase of the consumption of products
categorised in HHW (Praditya, 2012). This is related to life style and the public
convenient in using products categorised HHW so they will impact on the dependence
towards the use of products categorised in HHW.
Although the existence of HHW in the waste appearance from city people is
relatively small, by more increasing population growth, it will cause not only much waste
production but also HHW. Besides that, Semarang City still uses controlled landfill
system, where the waste or garbage is only backfilled and at any time it will be backfilled
by soil. This system will create accumulation from the hazardous and toxic materials in
the landfills. The accumulation of the waste will cause negative impacts such as soil
pollution and ground water pollution around the landfill. The danger posed is that the
products categorised HHW comes into ground water such as deep well, surface water
such as shallow well and rivers or direct contact to human beings or other living things
(Bass et al., 1990).
The impact of HHW is the exposure of health and the reduction of environment
quality. From the health point of view, it is stated that one of HHW characteristics is
toxic. The toxic can come into food chain and it will be accumulated on human and be
able to cause some gene mutation, cancer and congenital (Ziaee et al., 2012). From the
environment reduction point of view, it reduces the quality of surface water and ground
water around landfills. The sample shows of that there waste the content of Pb, Ni, Cd
and also the increase of physic parameter concentration and chemical such as pH,
turbidity, conductivity and phosphate (Ololade et al., 2009; Tuthill et al.,1987).
Other researches, which were done to see the impact batteries disposal from
household on landfill, in Italy (Panero et al., 1995), in Thailand (Karnchanawong and
Limpiteeprakan, 2009), in Iran (Zand and Abduli, 2008), and in Florida (Shapek, 1995).
From the researches, it can be seen that there is a serious problem related to the batteries
disposal on the landfill with the environment damage and health impact. it is caused by
the batteries which were thrown on the landfill contribute to the reduction of leachete
quality which contain a big amount of metals, for example mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd),
mangan (Mn) and zinc (Zn).
Considering the potential of the impact of HHW to the health and the reduction of
environment quality, the effort of household hazardous waste management (HHWM)
must have been started well. It is based on the model of waste management in big cities
in Indonesia which most of them uses an old paradigm collect-transport-throw away
(centralisation) and prioritising downstream sector. Another thing that should be
highlighted is the weakness of control mechanism on the HHWM from the city
government as the controller. In addition, there is no fixed operational formula, so the
HHWM system in society is individually interpreted as their habits.
It can be concluded that there is no fixed operational formula about HHWM. In
addition, the impact on health and the reduction of the environment quality is being the
background of the research. So that, an approach strategy to manage the HHW is needed.
The approach used is life cycle assessment (LCA). LCA is a systematic approach to
identify, to measure, and to assess environment effect from all life cycle on the evaluated
process (Barton et al., 1996; Rebitzer et al., 2004). LCA approach can be applied in
planning waste management system, including HHW. The use of LCA approach gives
 Life cycle assessment of household hazardous waste management 149

benefit in generating the most effective scenario in managing HHW by considering the
effect toward the environment to reach the nature preservation.

2 Description of the scenarios

Because of increasing population and developing industry in Semarang city, the

quantities of municipal and industrial solid waste in the city are rising rapidly.
Approximately 16.003 tons of HHW is generated daily in Semarang City. The
characteristic of HHW in Semarang was divided into 4 types: corrosive, combustible,
poisonous and infectious. Corrosive (1.9%), combustible (5.8%), poisonous (17.4%), and
infectious (74.9%). While the HHW generation in Semarang City is 0.01 kg/person/day
(5.1% MSW) or 0.0591 l/person/day (3.9% MSW).
Table 1 Examples of HHW in Semarang City

Corrosive Combustible Poisonous Infectious

Bleach Motor oil and Pesticides Diapers
oil filters
Fabric softener Fluorescent lamps including Bandage
Thiner tubes and compact fluorescent
Household cleaners Condom
lamps (CFLs)
Solvent
Accu
Parfume
Aerosol cans
Batteries (auto, household,
Fertilisers
and rechargeable) Catridge
Pharmaceuticals
Pool chemicals Nail polish
and removers Rat poison
Glue Detergent
Deodorant
Cosmetics

Projection result in the next 5 years (2019) is estimated to reach minimum 17.1 ton/day or
101 m3/day. Even this trend will increase by 18.5 ton/day each year or 109.4 m3/day in
2025 (linear equations: y = 1.278 +82.00 (volume), y = 0.216 +13.89 (weight).
Wastes have been dumped in a natural valley as controlled sustainable MSW
management systems are not practiced in this city. Therefore, in this study, six alternative
scenarios to the current HHWM system in Semarang city were developed, and these
scenarios were evaluated by the means of LCA. HHWM scenario in Semarang city:
Scenario 0: baseline scenario, HTHW with plastics, in this scenario it was considered
that all HTHW is sent to the landfill facility (100%) (open dumping).
Scenario 1: HHW with plastics category will be sent to the recycling facility (8.2%),
metal and infectious category will be managed in the waste processing company
(91.8%).
Scenario 2: HHW with plastics and metal category will be sent to the recycling
facility (12.49%), while infectious category will be conducted to the incineration
facility (87.51%).
150 E. Fikri et al.

Scenario 3: HHW with plastics category will be sent to the incineration facility
(8.2%), metal category will be managed in the recycling facility (4.29%), and
infectious category will be managed in the waste processing company (87.51%).
Scenario 4: HHW with plastic category will be sent to the recycling facility (8.2%),
metal category will be managed in the waste processing company (4.29%), and
infectious category will be sent to the incineration facility (87.51%).
Scenario 5: HHW with plastics category will be sent to the incineration facility
(8.2%), metal and infectious category will be managed in the waste processing
company (91.8%).
Scenario 6: in this scenario it was considered that all HHW is sent to the incineration
facility (100%).

3 Study methods

The LCA methodology has been used to conduct an environmental comparison of the
alternative scenarios to the current HHWM system. This evaluation was conducted
according to ISO-14040 (2006). According to ISO 14040, an LCA comprises four major
stages: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory, life cycle impact analysis and
interpretation of the results.

3.1 Goal and scope definition

The aim of this study is to select an optimum HHWM system for Semarang City by
evaluating, from an environmental point of view, alternatives to the existing system. It is
thought that the results of the study would be helpful for the Metropolitan municipality
and sub-municipalities of Semarang City, Indonesia.

3.1.1 Functional unit

The functional unit is the comparison unit in a life cycle inventory. In this study,
management of 150 kg HHW is chosen. All emissions, energy consumption, and
materials are based to this functional unit.

3.1.2 System boundaries

Figure 1 show system boundaries HHWM in Semarang City, Indonesia (from the HHW
generation to the landfill site) with the LCA result [GWP with the indicator of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission]. The system of the study starts with collection of HHW
from residential areas and includes waste transport, waste treatment alternatives
(recycling, incineration, waste processing company) and landfilling of waste. Processes
included in the scenarios are summarised as follow:
1 infrastructure of recycling, incineration, and landfill
2 road transport of HHW to waste processing company
 Life cycle assessment of household hazardous waste management 151

3 direct emissions generated from recycling, incineration, waste processing company,

and landfill scenarios
4 material and energy production.

Figure 1 System boundaries household hazardous waste management (HTHWM) in Semarang

City, Indonesia (from the HTHW generation to the landfill site) with the LCA result
(GWP with the indicator of GHG emission)

3.2 Life cycle inventory

The data for life cycle inventory was gathered from actual applications in Semarang City,
literature and the database of the SimaPro7. The database of the software was adjusted to
the conditions in Indonesia. The data quality indicators (DQI) option of the software was
used to select the most suitable system for DQI such as time, geography, technology and
representativeness. Life cycle inventory including:

3.2.1 Electrical energy

A medium voltage mixed electricity profile of the city has been created by using Buwal
250 (2004). This average data was also used to calculate the emissions from recycling,
incineration, landfilling and waste processing company.
152 E. Fikri et al.

3.2.2 Collection and transport

In this study, new infrastructure was considered to be located at the same site to take
advantage of economic and environmental cost savings; therefore, it was assumed that
the MRF, incinerator and landfill were at the same site, which would decrease the
environmental and economic effects of transport.
Private recycling facilities licensed by the Indonesia Ministry of Environment and
Forestry were investigated, and the closest recycling facilities were selected since there
are no facilities of this type in Semarang city. Waste Processing facilities in Tegal city
(164.85 km) were selected for HHW recycling. The calculated total recycling rates and
transport distances are given in Table 2.
Table 2 Total recycling rates and transport distances for the scenarios based on 150 kg HTHW
functional unit

Transport Transport for recycling

Process
distance (km) Total recycling rates (%) Collection (kg)a
MRF to plastics recycling 25.44 Plastics 8.20 12.3
MRF to metal recycling 5.68 Metal 4.29 6.44
MRF to waste processing company 164.85 Infectious material 87.51 131.26
Note: aTotal collection in MRF per functional unit (150 kg HTHW)

3.2.3 Incineration
LCA was conducted in accordance with ISO 14040 standards. Incineration data from
Indonesia were used when available. In case that these were not available, data and
relevant background data from China were used, including data on infrastructure, raw
materials, chemicals, energy production (Hong et al., 2010). Life cycle inventories in
incinerator operation are given in Table 3.
Table 3 The life cycle inventories in incinerator operation using 150 kg HTHW

No. Material consumption Per ton dry waste Per 150 kg HTHWb
1 Diesel 6.87 L 1.0305 L = 9.34 kkal
2 Electricity consumption 152.73 kwh 22.9095 kwh
3 Electricity recovery 696.84 kwh 104.426 kwh
4 Water 0.23 m3 0.0345 m3
Note: bCalculate after comparing study in China
Source: Hong et al. (2010)

3.2.4 Landfill
Calculation of methane gas in landfills using the equation of IPCC (1996) (Jensen and
Pipatti, 2014). MCF value is 0.6 (Tsai, 2007), DOC value based on the recommendation
of the IPCC to Indonesia was 0.17 (IPCC, 1996), DOCF value used is 0.77, and the
fraction of methane gas is 0.5 (default). Estimation methane gas in the Semarang landfill
with domestic waste generation 2,555x102 tons/year is 10,568.6 tons of CH4 equivalent to
221,940.69 tons CO2 eq.
 Life cycle assessment of household hazardous waste management 153

3.3 Life cycle impact assessment

The impact category [life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)] was observed and limited on
global warming with the indicator of GHG emission. The LCIA method used was IPCC
2007 GWP 100a V1.01 and TDEPs guidelines (Chen and Lin, 2008).

4 Results and discussion

4.1 The best scenario model making in the management of HHW

Figure 2 show comparing impact GHG Emission between baseline scenarios with six
alternative scenarios HHWM in Semarang city, Indonesia HHWM in Semarang city,
Indonesia. Based on the 6 scenarios made and analysed using IPCC 2007 GWP 100a
V1.01, IPCC 2006 (incinerator) and TDEPs Guidelines in Fig 2, the result showed that
scenario order showing GWP effect from the biggest to the smallest respectively;
scenario 3, scenario 5, scenario 1, scenario 6, scenario 4, and the last scenario 2 with the
segregation in unit MRF. In other words, the highest GWP effect was shown in
scenario 3, and the lowest GWP was shown in scenario 2 with the segregation HHW in
unit MRF.

Figure 2 Comparing impact GHG Emission between baseline scenario with six alternative
scenario HHWM in Semarang city, Indonesia (see online version for colours)

200
182,49
177,48 177,73
180
158,36
160
142,93 143,46
GHG Emission (Kg CO eq)

135,25
140

120

100 Baseline scenario

80

60 Alternative scenario

40
The best scenario
20

0
Sce 0 Sce 1 Sce 2 Sce 3 Sce 4 Sce 5 Sce 6

Scenario HHW Management in Semarang City (functional unit : 150kg HHW)

The research result showed that HHWM process in recycling industry (scenario 2) gave
lower GWP of environment effect compared with only single process of combustion in
the incinerator and the management process in waste processing company. This result
also showed that management process using incinerator contributed significant effect
toward CO2 release. It was figured out that the average of CO2 release on the incinerator
process was 66%75% per functional unit.
Recycling activity (scenario 2) as a part of the best scenario is an important activity in
the waste management practice. Recycling would be returned to the previous materials
for the market selected to be reusable products. There are many benefits from the
recycling. At least it protects natural sources and decreases the effect toward
154 E. Fikri et al.

environment. Recycling can support landfill capacity, besides this activity can reduce
well water pollution (Suyuto, 2004).
This research result is supported by the previous research result showing the same
point related to the benefit of recycling. The research result shows that recycling can
reach the significant energy saving including the reduce of GHG emission. It is supported
by the research conducted by Finnveden and Ekvall (1998) in Sweden (Finnveden and
Ekvall, 1998), Chen and Lin (2008) in Taipei (Taiwan), Liamsanguan and Gheewala
(2008) in Phuket, Thailand, Batool and Chuadhry (2009) in Lahore (Pakistan), and King
and Gutberlet (2013) in Riberiao Pires (Brazil). Moreover, recycling lower the economic
cost, and can contribute in the preservation of natural resources.
The strength of this research is the ability to analyse the phenomenon scientifically.
Most institutions or researchers stated that waste management using incinerator
contributed high emission toward the environment. The statement is true indeed if it is
viewed from one side point of view that is combustion point, but a lot of researchers who
did not see that in fact waste management have strong enough side effects. It can be seen
from the previous process or when the management process was contributing the life-
cycle unit. In this point, the benefit of using LCA method is able to study the
environment effect from cradle to grave. In other words, it is not only the final output
resulted, but also the material input and the process included in the study of environment
effect.

4.2 Sensitivity analysis

A sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the strategy possibly conducted to
decrease the effect on the environment from the HHWM process through the modelling
scenario. The result showed that using integrated model in one area (in the landfill) could
lower the environment effect to GWP 55.43 kg CO2 eq. In other words, there was 4.71 kg
CO2 eq or 3.48% decreasing, which was previously 60.14 kg CO2 eq. The next sensitivity
analysis was the direction of HHW segregation in MRF unit, not in the house. This effort
could lower the environment effect of GWP 16.91 kg CO2 eq or 11.59%, which
previously was 77.05 kg CO2eq.

4.3 Challenge and alternative model of HHWM scenario

The development of the model was leading to the incinerator substitution with recycling
system for infectious group of HHW type. This system would lower GWP effect by 48.17
kg CO2 or 47.65% from the use of incinerator in the previous scenario 2. Other study by
Deloitte (2011) in England, it was stated that the recycling of baby diapers could reduce
71% CO2 emission compared with landfill base management or incinerator. If it was
related with scenario 2 with HHWM using incinerator, in fact that recycling could replace
incinerator, because recycling could lower CO2 emission to 70.756 kg CO2 eq or not
more than 30.324 kg CO2 released to the environment.

4.4 The HHWM scenario proposed

It referred scenario 2 to be the scenario proposed in this research. This selection of
scenario 2 as a model was based on 3 points. They are the GWP effect criteria caused by
 Life cycle assessment of household hazardous waste management 155

LCA method and released CO2 directly to the environment, support from the expert and
the stakeholder; and support from the society in the research area.
It is difficult to succeed in the waste management. However, the key success was not
only the sophisticated technology but also the strong commitment from the politician and
the government of this country. Some keys identified to succeed in HHWM are:

1 credibility for the decision maker

2 significant attention on recycling market

3 public involvement.

Based on the above explanation, one important point was to customise the waste
management in each different city to make it succeed. Considering the different physical
condition, economic level, law and culture, it was not proper to immediately adopt the
program conducted in developed country.

4.5 LCA and cost HHWM

Based on the cost of waste management LCA approach, the assumptions used is 1 USD
per m3 HHW. These costs include, fee collection (25.3%), transportation (42.8%) and the
cost of processing (31.9%). Based on the six scenarios that have been made, scenario 2
shows the best scenario, based on environmental impact (GHG) and cost of waste
management. Although the second scenario requires investment cost is quite expensive in
the beginning. But these costs will soon return from the sale of recycled HHW.
A considerable cost difference was shown between scenario 2 and scenario 1,
amounting to 410 USD per ton HHW (47.5%), while a small fee shown difference
between scenario 2 with scenario 6 which is equal to 117.54 USD per ton B3 RT
(17.5%). Differences in cost difference are influenced by transportation and material
costs.

5 Conclusions

The feasible scenario of HHWM to apply was scenario 2 with HHW segregation in MRF
unit. This scenario can reduce the GHG impact of 17.57%. Indonesias future challenge is
to realise that it is time to manage HHW of infectious group like sanitary napkins and
baby diapers using recycling system related with quantity, effect, and product
valorisation.

Acknowledgements

This study was financially supported by Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP),
Ministry of Finance, Indonesia scheme (Contract : PRJ-598/LPDP/2014).
156 E. Fikri et al.

References
Barton, J.R., Dalley, D. and Patel, V.S. (1996) Life cycle assessment for waste management,
Waste Management, Vol. 16, Nos. 13, pp.3350.
Bass, E.S., Calderon, R.L. and Khan, M.E. (1990) Household hazardouse waste: a review of
public attitudes and disposal problem, Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 52, No. 6,
pp.358361.
Batool, S.A. and Chuadhry, M.N. (2009) The impact of municipal solid waste treatment methods
on greenhouse gas emissions in Lahore, Pakistan, Waste Management, Vol. 29, No. 1,
pp.6369.
Chen, T.C. and Lin, C.F. (2008) Greenhouse gases emissions from waste management practices
using life cycle inventory model, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 155, Nos. 12,
pp.2331.
Deloitte (2011) Absorbent Hygiene Products Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (Summary of
Findings), Knowaste Ltd., UK.
Finnveden, G. and Ekvall, T. (1998) Life cycle assessment as a decision-support tool the case of
recycling versus inceneration of paper, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 24,
Nos. 34, pp.235256.
Hong, J., Li, X. and Zhaojie, C. (2010) Life cycle assessment of four municipal solid waste
management scenarios in China, Waste Management, Vol. 30, No. 11, pp.23622369.
IPCC (1996) Waste (Revised 1996 IPCC Guidlines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
Workbook), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [online]
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/guidelin/ch6wb1.pdf (accessed 9 October 2014).
ISO-14040 (2006) Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Requirements and
Guidelines, International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva.
Jensen, J.E.F. and Pipatti, R. (2014) CH4 Emissions From Solid Waste Disposal. Good Practice
Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories [online]
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/5_1_CH4_Solid_Waste.pdf (accessed 16
August 2014).
Karnchanawong, S. and Limpiteeprakan, P. (2009) Evaluation of heavy metal leaching from spent
household batteries disposed in municipal solid waste, Journal Waste Management, Vol. 29,
No. 2, pp.550558.
King, M.F. and Gutberlet, J. (2013) Contribution of cooperative sector recycling to greenhouse
gas emissions reduction: a case study of Ribeiro Pires, Brazil, Waste Management, Vol. 33,
No. 12, pp.27712780.
Liamsanguan, C. and Gheewala, S.H. (2008) LCA: a decision support tool for environmental
assessment of MSW management systems, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 87,
No. 1, pp.132138.
Ololade, I.A., Adewunmi, A., Ologundudu, A. and Adeleye, A. (2009) Effect of household waste
on surface and underground waters, International Journal of Physical Science, Vol. 4, No. 1,
pp.2229.
Otoniel, B.D., Liliana, M.B. and Francelia, P.G. (2008) Consumption patterns and household
hazardous solid waste generation in an urban settlement in Mexico, Waste Management,
Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.5256.
Panero, S., Romoli, C., Achilli, M., Cardarelli, E. and Scrosati, B. (1995) Impact of household
batteries in landfills, Journal of Power Sources, Vol. 57, Nos. 12, pp.912.
Praditya, O. (2012) Waste Management in Sekaran District, Semarang City (qualitative study),
Unnes Public Health Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.17.
Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G., Rydberg, T., Schmidt, W.P.,
Suh, S., Weidema, B.P. and Pennington, D.W. (2004) Life cycle assessment Part 1:
Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications, Journal
Environment International, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp.701720.
 Life cycle assessment of household hazardous waste management 157

Shapek, R.A. (1995) Local government household battery collection programs: costs and benefits,
Journal Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.119.
Suyuto, B. (2004) Waste Havoc (Case Study: Bantar Gebang Landfill), Adi Kencana Publisher,
Jakarta.
Tsai, W.T. (2007) Bioenergy from landfill gas (LFG) in Taiwan, Renewable and Sustainable
Reviews, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.331344.
Tuthill, R.W., Edward J.S., Willis, C. and Moore, G.S. (1987) Degree of public support for
household hazardous waste control alternative, American Journal of Public Health (AJPH),
Vol. 77, No. 3, pp.304306.
Zand, A.D. and Abduli, M.A. (2008) Current situation of used household batteries in Iran and
aproriate management policies, Journal Waste Management, Vol. 28, No. 11, pp.20852090.
Ziaee, S., Omrani, G., Agha, M.M.A. and Mansouri, N. (2012) Qualitative and quantitative
examination of household hazardous waste in Tehran, Advances in Environmental Biology,
Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.676683.