Biowaste Management in Italy: Challenges and Perspectives
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Case Study Framework
2.2. Biowaste Quantitative Analysis and Geo-Localization
2.3. Biowaste Qualitative Analysis: Physico–Chemical Features
2.4. Current Biowaste Management
2.5. Technical and Environmental Analysis of Biowaste Valorization through Biorefineries Processes
2.6. Full-Scale Biorefinery Systems in Italy
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Case Study Framework
3.2. Biowaste Quantitative Analysis and Geo-Localization
3.3. Biowaste Qualitative Features
3.4. Current Biowaste Management
3.5. Technical and Environmental Assessment of Biowaste Valorization through Biorefinery Processes
3.6. Full-Scale Biorefinery Systems in Italy
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Parajuli, R.; Dalgaard, T.; Jørgensen, U.; Adamsen, A.P.S.; Knudsen, M.T.; Birkved, M.; Gylling, M.; Schjørring, J.K. Biorefining in the prevailing energy and materials crisis: A review of sustainable pathways for biorefinery value chains and sustainability assessment methodologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 43, 244–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maity, S.K. Opportunities, recent trends and challenges of integrated biorefinery: Part I. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 43, 1427–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Jong, E.; Jungmeier, G. Biorefinery Concepts in Comparison to Petrochemical Refineries. Ind. Biorefin. White Biotechnol. 2015, 1, 3–33. [Google Scholar]
- Koutinas, A.A.; Vlysidis, A.; Pleissner, D.; Kopsahelis, N.; Garcia, I.L.; Kookos, I.K.; Papanikolaou, S.; Kwan, T.H.; Lin, C.S.K. Valorization of industrial waste and by-product streams via fermentation for the production of chemicals and biopolymers. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 2587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- UNRICH. Centro Regionale Delle Nazioni Unite 2018. Available online: https://www.unric.org/it/agenda-2030. (accessed on 12 December 2019).
- Eurostat. Air Emissions Accounts. Available online: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_ac_ainah_r2&lang=en (accessed on 8 February 2019).
- Alexandri, M.; Venus, J. Feedstock flexibility in sustainable chemistry: Bridging sectors still not sufficiently familiar with each other–Showcases of ongoing and emerging initiatives. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2017, 8, 4–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mossman, M. Chemical Building Blocks from Municipal Solid Waste. BEsustainable. Available online: http://www.besustainablemagazine.com/cms2/chemical-building-block-from-municipal-solid-waste/?utm_campaign=BE-Sustainable:%20Bioenergy%20and%20bioeconomy%20updates&utm_medium=email&utm_source=EOACLK (accessed on 12 December 2019).
- Eurostat. GDP Per Capita, Consumption Per Capita and Price Level Indices. Available online: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=prc_ppp_ind&lang=en (accessed on 12 December 2019).
- Dahiya, S.; Kumar, A.N.; Sravan, J.S.; Chatterjee, S.; Sarkar, O.; Mohan, S.V. Food waste biorefinery: Sustainable strategy for circular bioeconomy. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 248, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Istat. Ambiente e Energia. Available online: http://www4.istat.it/it/files/2017/12/C02.pdf (accessed on 14 January 2019).
- Istat. Popolazione e Famiglie. Available online: http://www4.istat.it/it/files/2017/12/C03.pdf (accessed on 14 January 2019).
- Eurostat. Population Density by NUTS 2. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tps00003 (accessed on 20 February 2018).
- Eurostat. Generation of Municipal Waste Per Capita. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/cei_pc031 (accessed on 27 February 2018).
- Eurostat. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=ten00020&plugin=1 (accessed on 3 January 2018).
- Ispra. Rapporto Rifiuti Speciali Ed.2016 n.246 Versione Integrale. Available online: http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/files/pubblicazioni/rapporti/RapportoRifiutiSpeciali_Ed.2016n.246_Vers.Integrale.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2019).
- Ispra. Rapporto Rifiuti Urbani Edizione 2017 n272 in Versione Integrale. Available online: http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/files2017/pubblicazioni/rapporto/RapportoRifiutiUrbani_Ed.2017_n.272_Vers.Integrale_rev08_02_2018.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2019).
- Ispra. Rapporto Rifiuti Speciali Edizione 2017 n.264 in Versione Integrale. Available online: http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/public_files/RapportoRifiutiSpecialiEd.2017n264VersioneIntegrale2.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2019).
- Ispra. Rapporto Rifiuti Urbani Edizione 2018 n292 in Versione Integrale. Available online: http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/files2018/pubblicazioni/rapporti/RapportoRif297.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2019).
- EEA (European Environmental Agency). Effectiveness of Waste Management Policies in the European. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/diverting-waste-from-landfill-effectiveness-of-waste-management-policies-in-the-european-union (accessed on 30 January 2019).
- FAO. Available online: http://www.fao.org/home/en/ (accessed on 19 February 2019).
- ENEL. Dichiarazione Ambientale Aggiornamento. Available online: https://corporate.enel.it/content/dam/enel-it/progetti/documenti/impianti-emas%20move/Bastardo/dichiarazione-ambientale-aggiornamento_2018.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2019).
- Novamont. Available online: http://www.novamont.com/ (accessed on 2 February 2019).
- Betarenewable. Available online: http://www.betarenewables.com/it/proesa/che-cos-e-proesa (accessed on 2 February 2019).
- Acea Pinerolese. Available online: http://www.aceapinerolese.it/ (accessed on 2 February 2019).
- TRM. Available online: http://trm.to.it (accessed on 2 May 2018).
- ENI. Available online: https://www.eni.com/it_IT/innovazione/piattaforme-tecnologiche/bio-refinery.page (accessed on 2 February 2019).
- Enea. Censimento Potenziale Energetico Biomasse, Metodo Indagine, Atlante Biomasse Su WEB-GIS. Available online: http://aida.casaccia.enea.it/aida/file/RSE167.pdf (accessed on 7 February 2019).
- Corte dei Conti. Relazione Emergenza. Available online: http://www.rifiutilab.it/_downloads/Relazione-emergenza-CORTE-CONTI-6-2007-G.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do (accessed on 4 May 2018).
- Eurostat. Sewage Sludge Production and Disposal. Available online: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_ww_spd&lang=en (accessed on 15 February 2019).
- US EPA. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ (accessed on 2 February 2019).
- Sultana, A.; Kumar, A. Development of tortuosity factor for assessment of lignocellulosic biomass delivery cost to a biorefinery. Appl. Energy 2014, 119, 288–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golecha, R.; Gan, J. Biomass transport cost from field to conversion facility when biomass yield density and road network vary with transport radius. Appl. Energy 2016, 164, 321–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramli, N.N.; Epplin, F.M. Cost to produce liquid biofuel from invasive eastern redcedar biomass. Biomass-Bioenergy 2017, 104, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behera, S.; Arora, R.; Nandhagopal, N.; Kumar, S. Importance of chemical pretreatment for bioconversion of lignocellulosic biomass. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 36, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Budzianowski, W.M. High-value low-volume bioproducts coupled to bioenergies with potential to enhance business development of sustainable biorefineries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 793–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pleissner, D. Decentralized utilization of wasted organic material in urban areas: A case study in Hong Kong. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 86, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demichelis, F.; Cassini, S.; Fiore, S. The pivoting role of biomass for process and product design in 2G-biorefinery system. Unpublished work.
- Van Lier, J.; Mahmoud, N.; Zeeman, G. Anaerobic Wastewater Treatment Principles Modelling and Design; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Venus, J.; Fiore, S.; Demichelis, F.; Pleissner, D. Centralized and decentralized utilization of organic residues for lactic acid production. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 778–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerda, A.; Artola, A.; Font, X.; Barrera, R.; Gea, T.; Sánchez, A. Composting of food wastes: Status and challenges Part, A. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 248, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schanes, K.; Dobernig, K.; Gözet, B. Food waste matters - A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 978–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, I.M.; Kim, J.K.; Lee, K.J.; Park, S.K.; Lee, J.H.; Son, N.S.; Jin, Y.K.; Kim, S.H. Geographic authentication of Asian rice (Oryza sativa L.) using multi elemental and stable isotopic data combined with multivariate analysis. Food Chem. 2018, 240, 840–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nečemer, M.; Potočnik, D.; Ogrinc, N. Discrimination between Slovenian cow, goat and sheep milk and cheese according to geographical origin using a combination of elemental content and stable isotope data. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2016, 52, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banerjee, J.; Singh, R.; Vijayaraghavan, R.; Macfarlane, D.; Patti, A.F.; Arora, A. Bioactives from fruit processing wastes: Green approaches to valuable chemicals. Food Chem. 2017, 225, 10–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lam, S.S.; Liew, R.K.; Lim, X.Y.; Ani, F.N.; Jusoh, A. Fruit waste as feedstock for recovery by pyrolysis technique. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2016, 113, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Link, S.; Arvelakis, S.; Paist, A.; Liliedahl, T.; Rosén, C. Effect of leaching pretreatment on the gasification of wine and vine (residue) biomass. Renew. Energy 2018, 115, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barone, G.; Dambrosio, A.; Storelli, A.; Busco, A.; Ioanna, F.; Quaglia, N.C.; Giacominelli-Stuffler, R.; Storelli, M.M. Traditional Italian cheeses: Trace element levels and estimation of dietary intake. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2018, 66, 205–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vidal, G.; Carvalho, A.; Mendez, R.; Lema, J.M. Influence of the content in fats and proteins on the anaerobic biodegradability of the dairy wastewaters. Bioresour. Technol. 2000, 74, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahzad, K.; Narodoslawsky, M.; Sagir, M.; Ali, N.; Ali, S.; Rashid, M.I.; Ismail, I.M.I.; Koller, M. Techno-economic feasibility of waste biorefinery: Using slaughtering waste streams as starting material for biopolyester production. Waste Manag. 2017, 67, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kokossis, A.; Koutinas, A. Integrated Biorefineries: Design Analysisys and Otimisation; Stuart, P., El-Halwagi, M., Eds.; CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012; pp. 469–487. [Google Scholar]
- Haque, M.A.; Kachrimanidou, V.; Koutinas, A.; Lin, C.S.K. Valorization of bakery waste for biocolorant and enzyme production by Monascus purpureus. J. Biotechnol. 2017, 231, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gustavsson, J.; Cederberg, C.; Sonesson, U.; Otterdijk, R.V.; Meybeck, A. Global Food Losses and Bakery Waste; Extent, Causes and Prevention; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, C.S.K.; Pfaltzgraff, L.A.; Herrero-Davila, L.; Mubofu, E.B.; Abderrahim, S.; Clark, J.H.; Koutinas, A.A.; Kopsahelis, N.; Stamatelatou, K.; Dickson, F.; et al. Bakery waste as a valuable resource for the production of chemicals, materials and fuels. Current situation and global perspective. Energy Environ. Sci. 2013, 6, 426–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Innangi, M.; Niro, E.; D’Ascoli, R.; Danise, T.; Proietti, P.; Nasini, L.; Regni, L.; Castaldi, S.; Fioretto, A. Effects of olive pomace amendment on soil enzyme activities. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017, 119, 242–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruffino, B.; Fiore, S.; Roati, C.; Campo, G.; Novarino, D.; Zanetti, M. Scale effect of anaerobic digestion tests in fed-batch and semi-continuous mode for the technical and economic feasibility of a full scale digester. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 182, 302–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruffino, B.; Zanetti, M.C.Z. Present and future solutions of waste management in a candied fruit–jam factory: Optimized anaerobic digestion for one site energy production. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 159, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woiciechowski, A.L.; Pandey, A.; Machado, C.M.M.; Cardoso, E.B.; Soccol, C.R. Hydrolysis of Coffee Husk: Process Optimization to Recover Its Fermentable Sugar. In Coffee Biotechnology and Quality; Sera, T., Soccol, C.R., Pandey, A., Roussos, S., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Yuea, D.; Youa, F.; Snyderba, S.W. Biomass-to-bioenergy and biofuel supply chain optimization: Overview, key issues and challenges. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2014, 66, 36–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eurostat. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Carbon_dioxide_equivalent (accessed on 7 February 2019).
- Sirini, P.; Tchobanoglous, G.; Noto La Diega, R.C. Ingegneria dei Rifiuti Solidi; Mc Graw Hill: Milan, Italy, 2015; pp. 651–660. [Google Scholar]
- Angelidaki, I.; Alves, M.; Bolzonella, D.; Borzacconi, L.; Campos, J.L.; Guwy, A.J.; Kalyuzhnyi, S.; Jenicek, P.; Van Lier, J.B. Defining the biomethane potential of solid organic wastes and energy crops: A proposed protocol for batch assays. Water Sci. Technol. 2009, 59, 927–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agriregionieuropa. Andrea Bartolazzi le Energie Rinnovabili; Hoepli: Milan, Italy, 2006; ISBN 88-203-3587-5. In Italian; Available online: https://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/it/content/article/31/21/le-emissioni-di-gas-serra-della-zootecnia-potenzialita-di-mitigazione-e (accessed on 7 February 2019).
Corn and Wheat [t × 1000] | Other Agro-Waste [t × 1000] | Rice Waste [t × 1000] | Fruit and Vegetables Waste [t × 1000] | Pomace Waste [t × 1000] | Olives Waste [t × 1000] | Animal Manure [t × 1000] | Total [t × 1000] | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Piemonte | 295.7 ± 273.0 | 10.0 ± 16.9 | 24.4 ± 43.5 | 0.8 ± 1.5 | 6.1 ± 7.6 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 166.2 ± 269 | 503.1 |
Lombardia | 330.1 ± 303.7 | 242.0 ± 789.7 | 13.7 ± 36.1 | 0.2 ± 0.6 | 1.5 ± 3.1 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 253.4 ± 268.1 | 840.9 |
Valle d’Aosta | 0.2 ± 0 | 1.7 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.3 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 67.8 ± 0.0 | 70.0 |
Trentino Alto Adige | 0.8 ± 0.4 | 0.6 ± 0.2 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 8.6 ± 8.5 | 10.0 |
Veneto | 249.2± 134.0 | 52.4 ± 52.6 | 0.5 ± 0.9 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 10.5 ± 10.7 | 0.2 ± 0.0 | 158.4 ± 101.7 | 471.3 |
Friuli Venezia Giulia | 148.2 ± 180.2 | 14.1 ± 10.8 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 2.8 ± 2.1 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 44.0 ± 47.3 | 209.1 |
Liguria | 1.1 ± 1.1 | 4.8 ± 3.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.3 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.0 | 7.1 ± 1.2 | 14.4 |
Emilia Romagna | 173.0 ± 107.9 | 44.3 ± 33.8 | 0.9 ± 2.6 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 6.9 ± 6.7 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 127.0 ± 122.5 | 352.1 |
Toscana | 72.4 ± 65.8 | 23.8 ± 20.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 2.8 ± 3.3 | 3.6 ± 2.9 | 18.3 ± 15.5 | 120.9 |
Umbria | 215.0 ± 233.2 | 50.9 ± 38.5 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 5.5 ± 1.2 | 1.3 ± 1.4 | 56.6 ± 45.3 | 329.5 |
Marche | 134.8 ± 12.6 | 14.5 ± 11.2 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 3.3 ± 2.6 | 1.0 ± 0.5 | 20.2 ± 15.6 | 173.8 |
Lazio | 87.4 ± 52.3 | 49.6 ± 28.5 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 4.0 ± 8.6 | 3.3 ± 3.6 | 8.1 ± 3.2 | 115.5 ± 49.9 | 267.8 |
Abruzzo | 57.3 ± 51.8 | 72.6 ± 92.7 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 7.5 ± 10.9 | 6.3 ± 7.2 | 34.1 ± 13.5 | 177.7 |
Molise | 81.7 ± 98.2 | 15.7 ± 16.1 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.1 ± 0.01 | 7.7 ± 8.9 | 6.8 ± 7.2 | 42.0 ± 14.4 | 154.2 |
Campania | 63.4 ± 60.5 | 57.3 ± 14.2 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 2.4 ± 2.3 | 5.7 ± 4.3 | 7.4 ± 8.0 | 167.5 ± 171.2 | 303.7 |
Puglia | 243.9 ± 332.6 | 162.8 ± 84.1 | 3.4 ± 7.6 | 1.2 ± 1.2 | 22.3± 18.3 | 51.7 ± 33.6 | 63.4 ± 47.2 | 548.6 |
Basilicata | 226.0 ± 37.1 | 25.0 ± 26.2 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 1.8 ± 0.3 | 4.0 ± 0.2 | 86.3 ± 58.1 | 343.1 |
Calabria | 42.4 ± 34.5 | 202.4 ± 165.8 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 1.3 ± 0.9 | 36.7 ± 28.2 | 59.0 ± 41.5 | 341.8 |
Sicilia | 81.3 ± 68.0 | 66.4 ± 36.7 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 6.1 ± 4.9 | 13.5 ± 20.7 | 7.2 ± 3.9 | 65.9 ± 48.1 | 240.4 |
Sardegna | 65.0 ± 36.3 | 30.2 ± 19.5 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.1 ± 0.2 | 4.1 ± 2.4 | 3.1 ± 1.1 | 127.3 ± 54.6 | 229.8 |
Category | Biomass | C [%] | N [%] | S [%] | H [%] | O [%] | ST [%] | SV/ST [%] | Formula | References |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WSS | WSS | 50 | 3 | 1.9 | 8.6 | 36.5 | 2 | 65 | C19NH40O11 | [39] |
MSW | OFMSW | 49.66 ± 8.23 | 2.64 ± 0.34 | 0.44 ± 0.27 | 6.03± 1.03 | 35.98 ± 6.52 | 18 ± 0.29 | 45 | C22NH3O12 | [40,41,42] |
ALW | rice waste | 37.17 | 7.24 | 18.43 | 5 | 32.16 | 88 | 98 | C6NS1H11O6 | [41,43] |
animal manure | 40.96 | 1.48 | 0 | 5.2 | 33.14 | 19 | 98 | C32NH49O20 | [44] | |
corn and wheat | 43.6 | 0.6 | 5 | 8 | 42.8 | 89 | 94 | C85NS4H187O65 | [45] | |
fruit and vegetable from agro-waste | 41.3 ± 5.57 | 1.2 ± 1.17 | 0 | 5.65 ± 0.39 | 51.85 ± 5.14 | 21 | 95 | C40NH66O37 | [46,47] | |
FIW | winery waste | 49.8 | 2 | 0 | 5.8 | 42.4 | 85 | 81 | C29NH41O38 | [48,49] |
milking waste | 46.5 | 4.9 | 5.62 | 8.43 | 34.55 | 13 | 98 | C11NSH24O7 | [44,49] | |
dairy waste | 46.9 | 4.9 | 5.62 | 9.03 | 33.55 | 43 | 97 | C11NSH26O7 | [44,48] | |
slaughter waste | 54.9 | 5.9 | 1 | 8.5 | 29.7 | 90 | 80 | C11NSH20O4 | [50,51] | |
processed candies waste | 44.4 | 0.15 | 0 | 7.3 | 42.53 | 77 | 98 | C22NH40O14 | [52,53,54] | |
olive and oil waste | 49 | 3.4 | 0 | 10.3 | 30.3 | 56 | 99 | C5NH14O3 | [55] | |
processed fruit and vegetable waste | 43.2 | 0.15 | 0 | 6.22 | 50.43 | 66 | 99 | C345NH596O302 | [54,56,57] | |
spent coffee ground | 47.5 | 1.18 | 0 | 6.01 | 44.86 | 86.8 ± 6.3 | 90.7 ± 3.0 | C47NH71O33 | [37,58] |
Biowaste | Formula | AD | TH | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C/N | SBP [Nm3/kgsv] | CH4 [%] | Primary Energy [kWh/kg] | LHV [kcal/kg] | Primary Energy [kWh/kg] | |||
WSS | wastewater and sewer sludge | C19NH40O11 | 16.7 | 1.0 | 60.0 | 4.6 | 2118 | 2.46 |
MSW | OFMSW | C22NH3O12 | 18.8 | 1.0 | 53.0 | 6.7 | 1912 | 2.22 |
ALW | rice waste | C6NS1H11O6 | 5.1 | 0.7 | 44.0 | 5.9 | 3570 | 4.14 |
animal manure | C32NH49O20 | 27.7 | 1.0 | 53.0 | 2.52 | 2000 | 2.32 | |
corn-wheat-waste | C85NS4H187O65 | 72.7 | 0.9 | 55.0 | 4.8 | 4017 | 4.66 | |
fruit and vegetable from agro-waste | C40NH66O37 | 34.4 | 0.8 | 46.0 | 18.9 | 2261 | 2.62 | |
FIW | winery waste | C29NH41O38 | 24.9 | 0.9 | 70.0 | 8.2 | 8092 | 7.39 |
milking waste | C11NSH24O7 | 9.5 | 0.9 | 58.0 | 12.9 | 4760 | 5.52 | |
dairy waste | C11NSH26O7 | 9.6 | 0.9 | 61.0 | 13.6 | 4284 | 4.97 | |
slaughter waste | C11NSH20O4 | 9.3 | 1.0 | 60.0 | 9.0 | 6182 | 7.17 | |
processed candies waste | C22NH40O14 | 295.9 | 0.9 | 65.0 | 6.4 | 2618 | 3.04 | |
olive and oil waste | C5NH14O3 | 14.1 | 0.9 | 63.0 | 11.6 | 9996 | 10.60 | |
processed fruit and vegetable waste | C345NH596O302 | 18.5 | 0.9 | 55.0 | 6.7 | 3570 | 4.14 | |
spent coffee ground | C47NH71O33 | 40.3 | 1.1 | 57.0 | 8.4 | 4046 | 4.69 |
Biowaste | Formula | AD | TH | AD vs. TH kgCO2 Avoided/kg Biowaste | Current Biowaste Management in 2012–2016 According to [20] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
kg CO2 Emitted/kg Biowaste | kg CO2 Avoided/kg Biowaste | kg CO2 Emitted/kg Biowaste | kgCO2 Avoided/kg Biowaste | [%] | kg CO2 Emitted/kg Biowaste | |||
WSS | wastewater and sewer sludge | C19NH40O11 | 0.09 | 2.02 | 1.83 | 1.08 | 46.5 | 10.1 ± 1.5 |
MSW | OFMSW | C22NH3O12 | 0.074 | 2.95 | 1.82 | 0.98 | 66.9 | 3.6 ± 0.1 |
ALG | rice waste | C6NS1H11O6 | 0.46 | 2.60 | 1.38 | 1.82 | 29.8 | 103.4 ± 12.1 |
animal manure | C32NH49O20 | 0.16 | 1.11 | 1.5 | 1.02 | 7.9 | ||
corn-wheat-waste | C85NS4H187O65 | 0.65 | 2.11 | 1.7 | 2.05 | 2.9 | ||
fruit and vegetable from agro-waste | C40NH66O37 | 0.16 | 8.32 | 1.54 | 1.15 | 86.1 | ||
FIW | winery waste | C29NH41O38 | 0.59 | 3.61 | 1.83 | 3.25 | 9.9 | 11.1 ± 0.6 |
milking waste | C11NSH24O7 | 0.09 | 5.68 | 1.71 | 2.43 | 57.2 | ||
dairy waste | C11NSH26O7 | 0.3 | 5.98 | 1.37 | 2.19 | 63.5 | ||
slaughter waste | C11NSH20O4 | 0.6 | 3.96 | 2.01 | 3.15 | 20.3 | ||
processed candy waste | C22NH40O14 | 0.53 | 2.82 | 1.58 | 1.34 | 52.5 | ||
olive and oil waste | C5NH14O3 | 0.37 | 5.10 | 1.79 | 4.66 | 8.6 | ||
processed fruit and vegetable waste | C345NH596O302 | 0.61 | 2.95 | 1.75 | 1.82 | 38.2 | ||
spent coffe ground | C47NH71O33 | 3.3 | 3.70 | 1.74 | 2.06 | 44.2 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Demichelis, F.; Piovano, F.; Fiore, S. Biowaste Management in Italy: Challenges and Perspectives. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4213. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154213
Demichelis F, Piovano F, Fiore S. Biowaste Management in Italy: Challenges and Perspectives. Sustainability. 2019; 11(15):4213. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154213
Chicago/Turabian StyleDemichelis, Francesca, Francesco Piovano, and Silvia Fiore. 2019. "Biowaste Management in Italy: Challenges and Perspectives" Sustainability 11, no. 15: 4213. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154213