Next Article in Journal
Stress and Cardiometabolic Disease Risk for Indigenous Populations throughout the Lifespan
Next Article in Special Issue
Energetic and Economic Evaluation of Zero-Waste Fish Co-Stream Processing
Previous Article in Journal
Go Virtual to Get Real: Virtual Reality as a Resource for Spinal Cord Treatment
Previous Article in Special Issue
Process Simulation and Environmental Aspects of Dimethyl Ether Production from Digestate-Derived Syngas
Article

Feasibility Analysis on the Adoption of Decentralized Anaerobic Co-Digestion for the Treatment of Municipal Organic Waste with Energy Recovery in Urban Districts of Metropolitan Areas

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale, del Territorio, Edile e di Chimica, Politecnico di Bari, Via E. Orabona, 4, I-70125 Bari, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Yu-Pin Lin
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(4), 1820; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041820
Received: 7 January 2021 / Revised: 7 February 2021 / Accepted: 9 February 2021 / Published: 13 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biotechnology for Waste and Byproduct Treatment and Valorization)
Anaerobic digestion (AD) of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) is considered an excellent solution for both waste management and energy generation, although the impacts of waste collection and transportation on the whole management system are not negligible. AD is often regarded as a centralized solution for an entire community, although recently, there has been some debate on the adoption of decentralized, smaller facilities. This study aims to evaluate the techno-economic feasibility of an AD plant at the local scale for the treatment of organic waste generated from urban districts. Depending on the type of feedstock, two scenarios were evaluated and compared with the reference scenario, based on composting treatment: (1) mono-AD of OFMSW and (2) co-AD of OFMSW and sewage sludge (SS). Furthermore, different district extensions of the metropolitan area were considered with the goal of determining the optimal size. Results showed the advantage of the two scenarios over the reference one. Scenario 1 proved to be the most suitable solution, because the introduction of SS in Scenario 2 increased costs and payback time, rather than generating a higher waste amount and lower biogas yield. The preferred district extension was the medium-sized one. Capital cost strongly affected the economic analysis, but revenue from the city for the management operation of the organic waste could significantly decrease costs. Further studies about the differences in the type of feedstock or the introduction of other criteria of analysis (such as environmental) are considered necessary. View Full-Text
Keywords: anaerobic digestion; co-generation; decentralized system; methane yield; municipal solid waste; techno-economic analysis anaerobic digestion; co-generation; decentralized system; methane yield; municipal solid waste; techno-economic analysis
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Gadaleta, G.; De Gisi, S.; Notarnicola, M. Feasibility Analysis on the Adoption of Decentralized Anaerobic Co-Digestion for the Treatment of Municipal Organic Waste with Energy Recovery in Urban Districts of Metropolitan Areas. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1820. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041820

AMA Style

Gadaleta G, De Gisi S, Notarnicola M. Feasibility Analysis on the Adoption of Decentralized Anaerobic Co-Digestion for the Treatment of Municipal Organic Waste with Energy Recovery in Urban Districts of Metropolitan Areas. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(4):1820. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041820

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gadaleta, Giovanni, Sabino De Gisi, and Michele Notarnicola. 2021. "Feasibility Analysis on the Adoption of Decentralized Anaerobic Co-Digestion for the Treatment of Municipal Organic Waste with Energy Recovery in Urban Districts of Metropolitan Areas" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 4: 1820. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041820

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop