Next Article in Journal
Circular Economy for Strategic Management in the Copper Mining Industry
Previous Article in Journal
A Combined Energy Management Strategy for Heavy-Duty Trucks Based on Global Traffic Information Optimization
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 14
10.3390/su17146365
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessing the Impact of Residual Municipal Solid Waste Characteristics on Screw Press Performance in a Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant Optimized with Anaerobic Digestion

by
Rzgar Bewani
1,*,
Abdallah Nassour
1,
Thomas Böning
1,
Jan Sprafke
1 and
Michael Nelles
1,2
1
Department of Waste and Resource Management, Rostock University, 18051 Rostock, Germany
2
DBFZ German Biomass Research Center GmbH, 04347 Leipzig, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(14), 6365; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146365
Submission received: 15 June 2025 / Revised: 2 July 2025 / Accepted: 8 July 2025 / Published: 11 July 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Mechanical–biological treatment plants face challenges in effectively separating organic fractions from residual municipal solid waste for biological treatment. This study investigates the optimization measures carried out at the Erbenschwang MBT facility, which transitioned from solely aerobic treatment to integrated anaerobic digestion using a screw press. This study focused on evaluating the efficiency of each mechanical pretreatment step by investigating the composition of the residual waste, organic fraction recovery rate, and screw press performance in recovering organic material and biogas to press water. The results showed that 92% of the organic material from the residual waste was recovered into fine fractions after shredding and trommel screening. The pressing experiments produced high-quality press water with less than 3% inert material (0.063–4 mm size). Mass balance analysis revealed that 47% of the input fresh mass was separated into press water, corresponding to 24% of the volatile solids recovered. Biogas yield tests showed that the press water had a biogas potential of 416 m3/ton VS, recovering 38% of the total biogas potential. In simple terms, the screw press produced 32 m3 of biogas per ton of mechanically separated fine fractions and 20 m3 per ton of input residual waste. This low-pressure, single-step screw press efficiently and cost-effectively prepares anaerobic digestion feedstock, making it a promising optimization for both existing and new facilities. The operational configuration of the screw press remains an underexplored area in current research. Therefore, further studies are needed to systematically evaluate key parameters such as screw press pressure (bar), liquid-to-waste (L/ton), and feed rate (ton/h).

1. Introduction

Mechanical biological treatment (MBT) technology is crucial for managing municipal solid waste (MSW) by combining mechanical or physical processes with biological ones. However, updated regulations and technological advancements have posed challenges to subpar facilities that do not meet current standards due to poor technology selection, high operational costs, and unsustainable financial viability. For example, the introduction of stricter technical requirements under the German Waste Disposal Directive in 2001 resulted in the closure of 16 existing MBT facilities [1]. Similarly, several MBT plants in cities such as Mumbai (India) and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) were decommissioned due to regulatory constraints and operational inefficiencies [2]. Optimizing existing MBT facilities towards integrated anaerobic digestion (AD) and preparing suitable substrates are key measures for improving plant performance.
Despite the long-standing European Union (EU) policy targets, such as the 1999 EU Landfill Directive, aimed at a 65% reduction in organic landfilling based on 1995 levels [3], and the mandatory separate collection of biowaste by January 2024 [4], the share of biodegradable material in residual municipal solid waste (RMSW) remains high. A recent study in Germany reported that 39.3% of the RMSW is organic [5], consistent with EU-wide estimates of 30–45% [6] and the average of 36% [7]. In 2020, approximately 77 million tons of organic waste was collected from RMSW bins across the EU, much of which was landfilled or incinerated [8,9]. Policy measures, such as including incineration plants in the EU Emissions Trading System and national fuel taxation schemes, have increased waste fees [10], prompting several countries with advanced thermal treatment capacities to explore strategies for diverting RMSW from incineration to material recovery [9] and processing of RMSW before final disposal has been reported by German experts [11]. The valorization of organics from RMSW has since gained strategic importance in EU policy discussions and national frameworks, such as Germany’s bioeconomy strategy [12].
Notwithstanding, numerous member states of the EU, including Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Greece, are at risk of failing to meet the recycling targets of 50% and 65% for the years 2030 and 2035, respectively [13,14]. Even in leading countries, like Austria, achieving these EU targets necessitates addressing the untapped potential in RMSW [15]. In this context, MBT has been recognized as a viable method [16] that is more cost-effective than thermal treatment, can be customized to specific locations to enhance material recovery [1], and has an adaptable plant capacity [17]. Policy-driven efforts to reduce landfilling are anticipated to stimulate the MBT technology market, as evidenced in Germany, where the number of MBT facilities rose from 27 in 2000 [1] to 46 in 2006 [18]. Consequently, the proportion of total RMSW treated by MBT technologies rose from 25% in 2006 [1] to 33% in 2021 [19]. A pivotal moment occurred with the advancement of MBT technology as an alternative to incineration in the early 2000s [20].
The mechanically separated fine fractions (MSFF) account for roughly 50% of the RMSW mass and 27% of its energy content [1], and they have typically been processed in MBT facilities employing only aerobic biological treatment (MBT (A)) due to minimal substrate preparation requirements [21]. In 2005, 18 of Germany’s 30 MBT plants used this approach, treating 1.9 million tons of RMSW compared to 1.3 million tons handled by MBT with anaerobic digestion (MBT (AD)) (Figure 1) [18]. However, MBT (A) yields a stabilized residue unsuitable for utilization as compost due to contamination, e.g., non-compostable fractions, trace elements, and inerts [16,22,23], and suffers from low energy efficiency and high external energy demand. MBT (AD) has emerged as a more sustainable and cost-effective solution for treating MSFF [24,25], with successful examples for MSFF [26]. The growing interest in MBT (AD) has come at the expense of MBT (A) [18,27], due to its sustainable and cost-effective advantage [28] and reliable performance [29]. For example, the Rostock MBT (A) plant integrated AD in 2009 [18]. Between 2005 and 2023, the number of MBT (A) facilities in Germany decreased from 18 to eight, while the number of MBT (AD) facilities remained constant (Figure 1).
A major challenge for AD facilities is the dewatering and management of digestate (GR) prior to external utilization or disposal [1,30,31]. A key innovation of the method presented in this study is its closed-loop operation, which eliminates the need for GR posttreatment. Another critical component is the substrate preparation for anaerobic digestion, which involves two separation steps: (1) extraction of MSFF from RMSW, and (2) processing of MSFF into a suitable substrate for AD. The first step aims to maximize the transfer of organic matter into the MSFF while minimizing impurities. In some cases, a significant portion of organics ends up in the mechanically separated coarse fractions (MSCF), which is undesirable. Therefore, the goal of all processes is to enhance the transformation of organic matter into the substrate while minimizing impurity content [32]. This study compares its results with previous research on MSFF quality from RMSW in Austria [33,34], Latvia [35,36], and France [37], as well as studies on impurity removal efficiency from separately collected biowaste [27,38].
The second step processes the MSFF into a high-quality substrate with high organic content and low impurities [32]. Several methods have been studied, including wet separation (e.g., pulping) and piston press techniques. Wet processes utilizing pulping rely on gravity to separate organics from impurities [39]. However, significant attention must be paid to the total solid content (TS) and particle size of the feed [40,41,42]. Studies have examined materials with TS below 20% using pulping [43] or hydrocyclone [40,44]. With a TS of 58%, the MSFF in this study is unsuitable for such methods due to poor performance [41,42], as confirmed by the unsuccessful application [42]. Moreover, the multiple mechanical components employed are associated with an economic burden due to high maintenance costs, which led to a shift away from the wet preparation process at a German MBT plant [45].
Piston press requires significantly high pressure [46]. Its application in the literature primarily focuses on the PW quality [47,48,49,50] without identifying the operating parameters, shown in Table 1, as recommended in the literature and evaluated in this study [51]. Challenges such as clogging and a high inert concentration in the generated press water (PW) were observed when using a piston at a pressure above 40 bars. Furthermore, the discontinuous operation of the piston, where feeding stops as the shaft moves forward to compress the waste and resumes only after it retracts and the door opens, requiring extra equipment for load regulation, was identified as a drawback [34].
This study evaluates separation efficiency by calculating the transfer rate of organic matter from RMSW to the substrate for AD using simple methods. A novel aspect of this method is that, unlike the wet process, the screw press (SP) method operates efficiently with feedstock of various TS contents and compositions without sensitivity issues and has demonstrated high practical performance. It is a single-stage process, requiring less space, lower energy consumption, and minimal maintenance costs [52,53]. Another innovation is that, unlike high-pressure piston presses, the SP in this study operates continuously at low pressure (2–5 bars) without clogging from fine particles of feedstocks. The SP basket of 5 mm in this study also generates low-inert PW, eliminating the need for additional treatment before AD, in contrast to PW from high-pressure piston press [54] and biowaste with larger mesh sizes (e.g., 20 mm), which contains high mineral content [52].
These advantages make the SP approach a cost-effective upgrade for the eight remaining MBT (A) facilities in Germany that lack AD (Figure 1), thereby enhancing energy efficiency and stabilizing press cake (PC). This study contributes to the ongoing discourse on pressing technologies for MBT [43] and source-separated biowaste [51,55]. However, factors such as SWM regulations [56], AD operational parameters, and economic feasibility [48] must be considered.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The MBT Plant of This Study

The Erbenschwang Recycling and Waste Disposal facility (EVA MBT) is located in a semi-rural area where the separate collection of recyclables and organic waste is effectively implemented. The delivered input waste consists of over 90% RMSW and a small percentage of commercial and industrial by-products. Before the integration of AD, the shredded RMSW was screened using a rotary drum, and the MSFF was aerated in the biological stage. The primary goal was to comply with waste disposal regulations in response to the landfill ban on untreated biodegradable waste in 2005 (AbfAblV, 2001). In light of numerous studies highlighting the climatic benefits of AD [24,57,58], its economic advantages, and reduced vulnerability during energy crises [59], wet AD with integrated SP was performed [53]. The EVA MBT plant is presented in Figure 2. The integration work demonstrated a high flexibility of AD for both newly designed and existing MBT plants by utilizing available components and simplifying civil engineering requirements. The integrated system comprises three components:
(1)
The Screw Press (SP) (type AS 625 from Bellmer-Kufferath);
(2)
Five small reactors (45 m3) and one large stirred tank reactor (435 m3)
(3)
Biogas treatment and utilization units.
The SP is used to prepare a substrate from MSFF that is less than 60 mm. The solubilization of the MSFF is enhanced by adding recirculated digestate from AD (GR) and process water from cleaning activities (PZ). While the SP washes some of the organic matter into the PW with the liquid, the dewatered solids, which still contain water and organic matter, are concentrated in the PC. In one operational line, the PW, serving as the main feedstock for energy production, is stored in a storage reactor and pumped to the wet AD without additional treatment. In another operational line, the PC is transported to the aerobic treatment zone, which existed even before the integration of AD. The separation of PW and PC optimizes the entire process: less space is required for the reactors compared to feeding the whole mixture into the AD, and aerobic treatment is enhanced by homogenizing and reducing the organic matter content in the PC [60].
The existing storage reactors ensure a continuous supply to the AD reactors, minimizing fluctuations in biogas generation outside the plant’s operating hours [60]. The generated biogas is processed through biofilters and activated carbon filters before final conversion in a Combined Heat and Power Unit (CHP). The heat and electricity produced are used to meet the plant’s demand, such as heating the AD reactors, drying the produced RDF, and heating office buildings, with any surplus fed into the public grid. The plant components and equipment available for processing the MSFF are utilized after optimizing the plant with the AD.

2.2. Sampling Methods

The instruction followed local standards, such as the Saxony method [61] and VDI 4630 [62], to ensure representative samples in terms of origin, quantity, and seasonal variation. In light of a recent nationwide study by Dornbusch et al. [5], which reported seasonal and regional variations in waste characterization, this work’s sampling and subsequent analyses were performed across different seasons throughout the year. Six samples were collected for input RMSW from households, the MSFF, and the PC for waste characterization. Additionally, sampling was conducted for the liquid streams added to the MSFF before pressing, namely, GR and PZ. Sub-samples from each solid and liquid material were collected every 30 min and 15 min, respectively, for each 3 h period of the experiment, from the same mix of deliveries from nearby towns to the MBT plant. The sub-samples of the solid streams were mixed, and the mass was reduced following the quartering rule until a sufficient mass of hundreds of kilos was obtained, which was then packed in special laboratory containers. The sampled materials are indicated as (*) in Figure 2. The materials were directly used for testing and analysis without any prolonged intermediate storage.

2.3. Analytical Methods

An overview of the characterization procedure is provided in Figure 3. The original samples of RMSW, MSFF, and PC were initially screened in the laboratory using a large 1 × 1 m square sieve machine equipped with a vibrator (called sieve set I). The sieving process involved stacking sieves of varying mesh sizes (60 mm, 50 mm, 20 mm, 8 mm) with a bottom layer. After screening each sample, the residues collected on each sieve were weighed and sampled for total solids (TSs), volatile solids (VSs), and ash content analysis. The materials retained on the 50 mm and 20 mm sieves were manually sorted into seven biodegradable and six non-organic components. Samples from the fractions smaller than 20 mm, collected from the 8 mm sieve and bottom layer of sieve set I, were then further screened using a smaller laboratory sieve machine with 30 cm diameter sieves (called sieve set II). This secondary small machine was necessary because only a portion of the fine fractions were screened, and all the required sieve sizes were available in the laboratory. For the fractions retained on the 8 mm sieve or smaller than 8 mm from sieve set I, a set of sieves ranging from 16 mm to 8 mm and from 6 mm to 2 mm, respectively, was used. Like in sieve set I, the particles retained on each sieve were tested for TS, VS, and ash content. The fractions remaining on the 16 mm to 4 mm sieves were then manually sorted by composition.
The original samples were dried at 105 °C in the laboratory to measure the TS content, following EN 14346:2007 [63]. The dry samples were then combusted at 550 °C to determine the VS content, by DIN EN 15169:2007 [64]. Additionally, the biogas yield of the samples was assessed through a Biogas Potential Test (BPT), as per the VDI 4630 standard [62]. The elution of solid samples was prepared according to the norm DIN 19747:2009 [65], and the Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) was measured for all samples following the instructions of DIN EN 1484:1997 [66].

2.4. Experimental Model with Screw Press at the EVA MBT Plant

Experiments took place during standard treatment operations at the full-scale EVA MBT plant. Each test lasted for 3 h. The MSFF is mixed with GR and PZ in the hopper and then falls by gravity into the SP. The input mixture is separated into PW and PC by applying pressure in the SP (Figure 4). The primary objective of the trial was to investigate the distribution of the input mixture into PW and PC, considering the fresh mass, dry mass, organic matter (measured as VS), and biogas. This information indicates the efficiency of the SP and the recovery rates of VS and biogas in the PW, which serves as the primary feedstock for AD.

2.5. Setup of the Operating Parameters of the Screw Press

Several key operating parameters were selected to investigate the performance of the SP in recovering VS and biogas from the input mix to the PW. These parameters include pressure, (GR + PZ)-to-MSFF, press basket mesh size, and feeding rate to the SP. These parameters remained constant during the trial to evaluate the impact of the MSFF properties on the quality of the PW. The setup of the SP is summarized in Table 1. A pressure of 4.5 bar and a press basket with 5 mm mesh size openings were used, selected as optimal conditions based on experience and the results of numerous trials conducted over 30 months as part of a research and development project. However, an optimal pressure of 5 bar and mesh openings of 10 mm have been identified as ideal for pure biowaste for the same SP at another MBT (AD) plant [52].
The ratio of GR to PZ was fixed at 4:1, corresponding to 80% GR and 20% PZ of the total liquid per ton of MSFF. Similarly, the amount of GR and PZ added per ton of MSFF was regulated to 1000 L per ton via an online system. Additionally, the duration of each test (in hours) and the feeding rate to the SP (in tons per hour) were measured to create a mass and energy balance, which was used to calculate the recovery rate into the PW. The impact of the organic content and particle size of the MSFF on the properties of the PW was determined by sampling each of the input and output materials from the SP.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Residual Municipal Solid Waste (RMSW)

Particle size distribution: The PSD analysis of RMSW from sieve set I revealed 67% MSCF and 33% MSFF, with MSCF containing recyclables and MSFF being rich in organics. The 17% of fractions < 20 mm exceeds Germany’s average (6% < 10 mm) [5,67], likely due to the study scope and sorting protocols. Similar fine fraction ranges (12–27%) were reported in other EU states [36,68]. After comminution, the PSD shifted to 38% MSCF and 62% MSFF, aligning with literature values [3,69,70] and conclusions by Araújo Morais et al. [71]. This PSD serves as a plant-based criterion influenced by waste characteristics. In Latvia, different distributions were noted (65% MSCF, 34% MSFF) [35,36]. Variations stem from shredding and screening methods [72]. For instance, manual sorting before shredding at MBT plants increased MSCF ratios [36].
Physical composition: Manual sorting revealed 21.6% organic content in RMSW, excluding fractions < 20 mm (Figure 5). Although PPK enhances biogas yield and adjusts the C/N ratio in AD [18], it was excluded due to uncertainty about passing through the 5 mm mesh SP basket. Including VS content of fractions < 20 mm, organic content increased to 29.8%, which is lower than Germany’s 39% national average [5]. This is due to the region’s successful record of separate biowaste collection, unlike many German cities that lack mandatory biowaste separation, leading to higher organic waste in RMSW. Beyond organics, brittle materials like glass, stone, and hard 3D plastics can impact SP performance by increasing inert content in PW.
Studies in EU states classify countries into two groups based on the proportions of biodegradable waste in residual waste. The first group includes Germany-like systems (Italy, Austria, UK), with 7–28% organics [26,69,73]. The second group comprises Eastern Europe (Serbia, Ukraine), where 40% of organics in RMSW indicate poor biowaste separation [74,75]. Even in areas relying on thermal treatment, putrescible fractions remain significant [76].
Effective separate collection in the study region has reduced recyclables in RMSW compared to areas with weaker systems, where metals, plastics, PPK, and glass are often discarded in RMSW [36]. For instance, PPK (4.5%) and glass (1.1%) are significantly lower than EU averages, while metals (2.7%) and plastics (12.3%, including composites) align with levels in Western and Northern Europe [6].
The sorting of the 21.6% putrescible material in RMSW revealed that food and kitchen waste were the dominant components, accounting for 8.1% of total organic waste: 7.1% avoidable and 1.0% unavoidable (Figure 5). This finding is significantly lower than the kitchen waste percentages found in RMSW values for large cities, such as 20.3% in Duisburg [67] and 30.3% in Stuttgart [23]. In addition, about one-third (6.5%) of the biodegradable waste was originally packaged food, exceeding the 6.1% and 3.4% reported in the large cities mentioned [23,67]. This low share in this study can be traced back to the separate collection of kitchen waste via the biowaste bin, as described above. Similarly, due to efficient green waste collection services (e.g., recycling yards), only a minor percentage was classified as green waste (0.2%). The remaining 5.4% was processed hardwood from construction residues and bulky waste.

3.2. Characteristics of Mechanically Separated Fine Fractions

TS and VS content: The laboratory analyses of MSFF are summarized in Table 4. The MSFF showed 58% TS (fresh mass, fm) and 44% VS (dry mass, dm), aligning with findings from countries with similar SWM systems [35,36,37]. Due to higher moisture content, its properties likely differ from the MSFF derived from pure organic waste. For instance, biowaste exhibited 29% TS (fm) and 76% VS (dm) [38], and 18.9% TS (FM) with 83.4% VS (DM) [77].
Physical composition: The manual sorting analysis of MSFF composition is compared with the literature presented in Table 2. The organic content increased in fractions <20 mm, while the lowest organic share (2.81%) was in the 60–50 mm fraction, predominantly composed of hygiene products (32%) and plastics (43%). Biodegradable material (23,03%) was found in the 20–8 mm and <8 mm fractions. On average, 26% of the total MSFF was organic, similar to the results in [35] and the 28% found in Arina et al. [36]. However, at an MBT plant in France, only 11% was recorded as putrescible, partly due to sorting protocols that excluded <20 mm particles, which accounted for 56% of the total mass [37]. This study manually sorted particles ≥ 4 mm.
The lower PKK levels found here, compared to the literature, suggest effective separate collection, supported by the nationwide high PKK recycling rates in Germany [78]. The minimal to no metal content shown in Table 2 aligns with the high metal recovery rates (up to 98%) before the sampling location, achieved through magnetic belts and eddy-current systems, as confirmed by the plant operator of this study and reported in the literature [72,79,80,81].
The results for other materials were consistent with the results of Arina et al. [36]: plastics (7% vs. 6%), textiles (1.0% vs. 1.8%), and metals (1.5% vs. 1.7%). However, glass, stone, and PKK varied significantly. The minimal glass level reported in Arina et al. [36] was likely due to a manual sorting line before the bag breaker, unlike the EVA MBT plant, where no manual sorting occurs. Higher glass content was found in <20 mm fractions in plants similar to EVA. This was caused by the shredding process, as highlighted by Meirer [43]. A comparable hygiene waste ratio (25–60 mm range) was also noted by Di Maria et al. [72].
Properties of each particle size: The PSD of MSFF (Table 3) indicates that 67% consists of fine fractions < 20 mm. With the SP basket’s 5 mm openings, 34% of MSFF (<8 mm) may pass through the mesh into PW. Large fractions (20–50 mm) account for one-third, and only 4% remains on the 50 mm sieve. The distribution of biodegradable material varies across size ranges: the majority of total VS is in the 50–20 mm range (8.5%), followed by <2 mm fractions (5.8%). VS levels remain steady for fractions 2–16 mm and generally increase as PSD decreases from 16 mm to 2 mm. The MSFF used in pressing trials yielded 280 L(N)/kg VS biogas, which is lower than the literature values (370–470 L(N)/kg VS) for MSFF of < 40 mm reported by Meirer [43]. The difference stems from smaller particles < 40 mm exhibiting higher biogas potential, as confirmed by greater yields for particles < 10 mm than for 0–40 mm [43]. The DOC concentration was 4238 mg/L.

3.3. Quality of the Digestate (GR) and Process Water (PZ) Added to MSFF

As explained in Section 2.3, the MSFF was mixed with GR and PZ before pressing. In contrast, the literature review indicates that published studies on pressing techniques were conducted using tap water. This set a limitation in evaluating the properties of these two liquid streams from the literature. Both GR and PZ are highly diluted, with TS below 3% (fm) and VS under 2% (fm) (Table 4). Pressing trials on separately collected biowaste at a German MBT (AD) plant using the same SP showed slight differences in GR and PZ quality. The GR had TS and VS of approximately 10% and 6%, whereas the PZ values were similar to those in this study (TS and VS up to 1%), which is attributed to variations in incoming waste [52]. Notably, the low TS and VS of GR in this study were below the PhD research average (10% TS, 4% VS (fm)), possibly due to sample preparation and laboratory analysis.
Since GR is recirculated from the AD, it becomes exhausted, resulting in minimal DOC and biogas yield (Table 4). Similar DOC levels (~3000 mg/L) were found for GR from AD treating pure biowaste. In contrast, PZ, collected from the aerobic treatment zone, is rich in organic matter, with a high DOC (4680 mg/L) and biogas yield (289 L(N)/kg VS). This demonstrates better quality compared to the PZ (1000 mg/L) collected at the mentioned AD processing of pure biowaste [52]. Since PZ is generated from cleaning activities and is available only in limited quantities, its continuous use is not possible.

3.4. Quality of the Press Water Generated from Pressing Experiments

In this study, the PW TS and VS were 16% and 8% (fm), respectively, while pre-trials with a mobile SP at the same MBT plant showed a higher TS range (20–24%) (Table 5). This variation stems from waste properties and SP operation (e.g., pressure, basket openings). Unlike this study, pre-trials used tap water instead of GR and PZ, highlighting how pressing conditions affect PW quality, even with the same equipment. Pre-soaking MSFF in warm water (70 °C) for 1.5 h before pressing at 40 bar with a piston press yielded diluted PW with 9% TS and 6% VS (fm) [43]. Overall, the TS and VS results of the generated PW in this study align well with findings in the literature on processed RMSW (Table 5). Beyond RMSW, PW from pure biowaste at a German MBT (AD) plant using the same SP had TS levels of 10–21% and VS of 8–11% (fm) [52]. Generally, literature values for pressed biowaste range from 10 to 28% TS and from 7 to 25% VS, showing minimal differences from PW in this study.
The PW-DOC concentration was 9050 mg/L, three times higher than GR, due to organic matter washout from MSFF. Similarly, the biogas yield rose from 146 L/kg VS (GR) to 416 L/kg VS (PW), aligning with Meirer [43], who used an even higher-pressure piston press. Pre-trials with a mobile SP at the same MBT plant showed an even higher yield (450–760 L/kg VS). This deviation stems from random testing without recording variables like liquid volume added to MSFF, SP pressure, mixing time, and SP basket size, so it can not be considered standard yield. In contrast, biowaste pressing typically yields 50–450 L/kg VS (Table 5).
Less than 20% of TS was greater than 0.063 mm, while 80% passed through the finest sieve (0.063 mm). Under higher pressure from the piston press machine, 90% of PW particles were less than 2 mm [43], compared to 97.5% in this study (PSD curve: Figure 6). The PW quality of this study is optimal and is usually achieved for pure biowaste through the complex wet process of pulping and hydrocyclone. This confirms that a significant portion of minerals remains in PC, not flowing to PW [32,51]. As a result, sorting sieved residues above 0.063 mm was infeasible due to the minimal quantity. The wet PW, with low fine particles and degradable organic matter, enhances microbial activity [51], boosting biodegradability and accelerating biogas conversion [27]. During the AD process, regular automatic desludging prevented sediment accumulation [43], while foam and floating layer challenges, noted by Cesaro et al. [51], were not observed.

3.5. Quality of the Press Cake Generated from Pressing Experiments

The laboratory screening analysis revealed a distinct PSD for the PC compared to the MSFF. Particles over 20 mm comprised 65% of the PC, with 57% in the 50–20 mm range and less than 8% on the 50 mm sieve. High MC caused particle clumping, preventing finer fractions from passing through the 20 mm sieve, particularly PPK and hygiene products, which absorb moisture and form large clumps. The high content of these fractions (22.33% PPK, 30.98% hygiene) in the 20–50 mm range supports this phenomenon (Table 6) and is further confirmed by the high MC (24.80%) in this size range (Table 6). To minimize MC’s influence, the PC sample was air-dried at room temperature for three days before screening, as screening was otherwise unfeasible.
Adding GR and PZ to the MSFF increased PC moisture, indicating partial liquid retention rather than full extraction into PW. However, this ensured an even distribution of MC, homogenization, and improved PC aerobic stabilization. The PC had a VS content of 22.5%, only 3.5% lower than the 26% in the MSFF. The manual sorting results (Table 6) show organic material percentages ranging from 17% to 23% for various particle sizes, except for fractions over 50 mm. The distribution of average VS (22.5%) in the PC across screened groups aligns with the PSD shown in Table 3. Increasing residue on a sieve correlates with a higher share of VS in the respective size range. For instance, 12.2% of the 50–20 mm fraction was VS, accounting for 53% of the total VS in the PC due to its high quantity in the PSD, followed by the fine fraction (<2 mm) at 2.46% and large components (>50 mm) at 2.14%. The VS content in the fractions between 20 mm and 2 mm remained relatively stable with minimal variation. This analysis highlights the organic fraction that could be recovered to PW instead of remaining in PC. The concentration of hard particles, like stone and glass, underscores the SP’s selective function, highlighted by Hansen et al. [32], ensuring these fractions remain in PC rather than pressing out with PW.

4. Discussion

4.1. Efficiency of Shredding and Screening to Separate Organics from Input RMSW to MSFF

The results of manual sorting are shown in Figure 7 (left), which includes organics from manual sorting (>20 mm) and VS tests (<20 mm). Mechanical pretreatment increased the organic content from 29.8% in RMSW to 44.1% in MSFF. MSFF contained 10.2% PKK, which is excluded from the total organic content. MSCF (>60 mm) had minimal organic content at 3.2%. Figure 7 (right) illustrates the organic distribution per ton of RMSW.
Screening with a 60 mm rotary drum yielded 38% MSCF and 62% MSFF. Of the 298 kg of organic matter per ton of RMSW, MSCF retained just 12 kg (4%), highlighting the efficiency of EVA MBT’s sorting compared to the 16% biodegradable content in MSCF found by Cook et al. [80]. The remaining 92% (273 kg) was recovered in MSFF, thereby increasing the organic share from 29% to 44%, aligning with improvements of 20% for RMSW [42] and a 15% increase for separately collected biowaste [38]. However, a lower % efficiency gain of 9% was also reported [42].
The combined 273 kg (MSFF) and 12 kg (MSCF), compared to the original 298 kg in RMSW, indicate a 4% organic loss. This value is negligible compared to the 15–20% VS losses reported in the literature [83,84]. This loss is mainly attributed to mechanical pretreatment and different shredding techniques [80]. We investigated this aspect and identified the entrapment of some organic fractions within metals separated by magnets. In summary, the EVA MBT plant efficiently recovered 92% of biodegradable material in MSFF (273 kg per ton of RMSW), which was then processed in the SP to produce PW for AD.

4.2. Impact of Particle Size of MSFF on the Screw Press Performance to Recover Organic Matter from MSFF to Press Water

The impact of MSFF particle size on organic matter recovery into PW was analyzed by comparing organic content across MSFF and PC size fractions (Table 3). Smaller particles showed higher transfer rates to PW, with 46.81% of VS in the 4–2 mm fraction and approximately 60% in particles < 2 mm washed into PW, while less than 30% of VS from materials > 20 mm recovered into PW (Figure 8). The 5 mm screw press opening played a key role, and results may vary with a different SP basket. However, some fine fractions were trapped in clumps formed during pressing in SP and remained on the 20 mm sieve of PC.

4.3. Performance of Screw Press Based on Recovery Rate from MSFF to Press Water

The efficiency of SP in preparing PW for AD was evaluated by measuring the recovery rate from the input mix into PW. This assessment was based on fresh mass, dry mass, VS, and biogas, with results presented in Table 7.
Fresh Mass (FM): The mass balance was calculated based on the total SP input (input mix). Approximately 47% was pressed into PW, while 53% remained in PC, yielding 950 L of PW per ton of MSFF. Similar efficiency was observed in PE2 at 50-bar pressure with a 330 L/t liquid-to-MSFF ratio. Fresh mass recovery depends on the liquid-to-MSFF ratio, set at 1000 L/t in this study, with PE3 showing over 67% recovery at a higher ratio (1560 L/t) [43]. Biowaste, due to its high moisture content, typically achieves higher PW recovery, with literature values ranging from 60% [32] to 87% [55]. MBT plant data using the same SP reported PW yields of 700–800 L per ton of municipal organic waste without knowledge of the applied liquid-to-waste [52].
Dry Mass: The MSFF had a TS of 58%, which was reduced to 30% by adding GR (TS 2.7%) and PZ (TS 1.5%). Approximately 22% of the input mix was pressed into PW based on dry mass, consistent with the PE3 results, where the input mix had a TS of 29%. Increasing the pressure to 50 bars in PE2 boosted the PW recovery rate to 35% by forcing more material through the mesh. However, adjusting the pressure from 4.5 to 5.5 bars for this study’s SP had little to no effect on recovery.
Total Volatile Solid (VS): The MSFF VS content (25.5%) was low compared to PE2 and PE3, indicating minimal organics in RMSW. Adding liquids diluted the input mix to 13% FM VS. At 4.5 bars, the SP separated 24% of the input VS into PW, similar to PE3 at higher pressures. Extending the mixing time of MSFF and liquids before pressing is expected to improve PW quality based on VS analyses that yielded 280, 147, and 289 m3/ton VS for MSFF, GR, and PZ, respectively. The low GR yield was anticipated due to its exhausted state, having been recirculated from the AD process. The input mix produced 276 m3/ton VS, increasing by 50% in PW to 416 m3/ton VS. This corresponds to a total biogas recovery of 38%. This high efficiency surpassed the piston press in PE2 and PE3, which recovered 23% and 30%, respectively.
Based on the total biogas generated by PW, the yield was calculated per waste fraction, resulting in 32 m3/ton MSFF (fed to SP) and 20 m3/ton RMSW (input MBT plant), totalling 92 m3/ton of organic material in RMSW. Despite strong performance, these values remain below the pure organic waste recovery rates of 40–60 m3/ton for biowaste [32] and 60 m3/ton [26].

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates the effective role of mechanical pretreatment in enhancing the efficiency of organic fraction separation from RMSW for AD. The discussion aims to evaluate the waste characteristics and their impacts on volatile solids and biogas recovery from the mechanically separated fine fractions into the generated press water for anaerobic digestion, leading to the following key conclusions:
(1)
Mechanical treatment: The combination of shredding and rotary drum screening significantly increased the organic content from 29% in RMSW to 46% in MSFF, achieving a 92% recovery of biodegradable material.
(2)
PW quality: The subsequent pressing process produced press water with minimal inert content, resulting in a 50% improvement in biogas yield compared to the input mix, reaching 416 m3/ton of VS.
(3)
VS and biogas recovery: The screw press setup in this study successfully recovered 24% of the VS and 38% of the biogas from the input mix to the PW, with higher recovery from finer fractions.
(4)
Recommendations: For future studies, it is recommended to optimize the operation of the screw press by investigating key parameters such as pressure (bar), liquid-to-MSFF ratio (L/ton), screw press basket opening size (mm), feed rate to the screw press (ton/h), and the mixing time of liquid and MSFF prior to pressing (minutes).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.B.; methodology, R.B.; formal analysis, R.B.; investigation, R.B. and T.B.; data curation, R.B.; writing—original draft preparation, R.B.; writing—review and editing, R.B., J.S. and A.N.; supervision, A.N. and M.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. This data collection was conducted based on the outcome of a Research and Development project funded by the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (German Federal Environmental Foundation). The project grant is: DBU-Förderkennzeichen: 33791/01 (English: DBU funding code: 33791/01).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within this article.

Acknowledgments

The corresponding author, Rzgar Bewani, would like to express his sincere gratitude to all those who supported this research, including the operator of the Erbenschwang MBT plant, the technical laboratory at the University of Rostock, Germany (Kersten Eckermann), and the Leichtweiß Institute at the University of Braunschweig, Germany (Eng. Kai Münich, Jolanthe Bambynek, and Anja Jenk).

Conflicts of Interest

The funding sponsor has no role in the design of this study; in the data evaluation; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results. The role of the funding sponsor was in the data collection and analyses.

References

  1. Dödens, H.; Gallenkemper, B.; Ketelsen, K.; Kranert, M.; Klaus, F. Status MBA in Deutschland: MBP—State oft the Art in Germany. Müll Abfall 2007, 39, 576–579. [Google Scholar]
  2. Pfaff-Simoneit, W. Entwicklung eines sektoralen Ansatzes zum Aufbau von nachhaltigen Abfallwirtschaftssystemen in Entwicklungsländern vor dem Hintergrund von Klimawandel und Ressourcenverknappung. Ph.D. Thesis, Universität Rostock, Rostock, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lornage, R.; Redon, E.; Lagier, T.; Hébé, I.; Carré, J. Performance of a low cost MBT prior to landfilling: Study of the biological treatment of size reduced MSW without mechanical sorting. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 1755–1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Statistisches Bundesamt. Neue Rekordmenge an Haushaltsabfällen im Jahr. 2021. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2022/12/PD22_546_321.html (accessed on 19 August 2024).
  5. Dornbusch, H.-J.; Hannes, L.; Santjer, M.; Böhm, C.; Wüst, S.; Zwisele, B.; Kern, M.; Siepenkothen, H.-J.; Kanthak, M. Vergleichende Analyse von Siedlungsrestabfällen aus repräsentativen Regionen in Deutschland zur Bestimmung des Anteils an Problemstoffen und verwertbaren Materialien: Abschlussbericht; Herausgegeben vom Umweltbundesamt: Dessau-Roßlau, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  6. Lenkiewicz, Z.; Tenald, D.; Filho, C.S.; Ramola, A. Beyond an Age of Waste; Turning Rubbish into a Resource: Global Waste Management Outlook 2024. Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/44939/global_waste_management_outlook_2024.pdf?sequence=3 (accessed on 15 August 2024).
  7. World Bank Group. What a Waste 2.0: Aglobal Snapshot of Solid Waste Managment to 2050: Urban Development Series; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  8. European Compost Network ECN e.V. Guidance Seperate Collection; European Compost Network ECN e.V.: Bochum, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  9. Favoino, E.; Giavini, M.; Di Parco Monz, S.A. Bio-Waste Generation in the EU—Current Capture and Future Potential; Bio-Based Industries Consortium (BIC): Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wirtschaftsbetriebe Duisburg. Abfallentsorgungsgebührensatzung Gültig ab 01.01.2025 (Lesefassung); Wirtschaftsbetriebe Duisburg: Duisburg, Germany, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  11. EUWID Recycling und Entsorgung. Pro und Contra Sortiergebot für gemischte Abfälle in Abfallrahmenrichtlinie. Available online: https://www.euwid-recycling.de/news/international/pro-und-contra-sortiergebot-fuer-gemischte-abfaelle-in-abfallrahmenrichtlinie/ (accessed on 17 August 2024).
  12. The Federal Government of Germany. National Bioeconomy Strategy; The Federal Government of Germany: Berlin, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  13. European Environment Agency. Reaching 2030’s Residual Municipal Waste Target—Why Recycling Is Not Enough—European Environment Agency. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/reaching-2030s-residual-municipal-waste?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 5 March 2025).
  14. European Environment Agency. Many EU Member States Not on Track to Meet Recycling Targets for Municipal Waste and Packaging Waste. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/many-eu-member-states (accessed on 17 August 2024).
  15. Blasenbauer, D.; Lipp, A.-M.; Fellner, J.; Lederer, J. Rückgewinnungspotential von Kunststoffverpackungen durch automatisierte Sortierung von gemischtem Siedlungsabfall–eine Fallstudie aus Österreich. In Proceedings of the 13 WISSENSCHAFTSKONGRESS Kreislauf—und Ressourcenwirtschaft; Zusammenarbeit mit der Fakultät für Bau—und Umweltingenieurwesen der Technischen Universität Wien, Technischen Universität Wien, Vienna, Austria, 15–16 February 2024; DGAW, Ed.; Volume 13, pp. 189–192. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bardos, P. Composting of Mechanically Segregated Fractions of Municipal Solid Waste—A Review; SITA Environmental Trust: Truro, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  17. Baere, L.D.; Mattheeuws, B. Anaerobic Digestion of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste in Europe:—Status, Experience and Prospects. Munic. Solid Wastes 2017, 38, 517–526. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ketelsen, K.; Becker, G. Weiterentwicklung der mechanisch-biologischen Abfallbehandlung (MBA) mit den Zielen der OptImierung der Ressourceneffizienz und Minimierung von Treibhausgasemissionen; Umweltbundesamt: Dessau-Roßlau, Germany, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bewani, R.; Böning, T.; Nassour, A.; Nelles, M. Increasing the Efficiency of Mechanical-Biological Residual Waste Treatment through the Fermentation of the Liquid after Pressing the Organic Fractions. In Proceedings of the 13 WISSENSCHAFTSKONGRESS Kreislauf—und Ressourcenwirtschaft; Zusammenarbeit mit der Fakultät für Bau—und Umweltingenieurwesen der Technischen Universität Wien, Technischen Universität Wien, Vienna, Austria, 15–16 February 2024; DGAW, Ed.; Volume 13, pp. 145–150. [Google Scholar]
  20. Merten, M.; Person, G.; Schreiber, M. Moderne Abfallbehandlung—Die MBA Kahlenberg. 2006, pp. 65–103. Available online: https://www.abfallwirtschaft-ortenaukreis.de/fileadmin/user_upload/11-MBA/MBA_Artikel_und_ZAK_Verfahren.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2025).
  21. de Baere, L. Will anaerobic digestion of solid waste survive in the future? Water Sci. Technol. 2006, 53, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Thanos Bourtsalas, A.C.; Themelis, N.J. Materials and energy recovery at six European MBT plants. Waste Manag. 2022, 141, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Bewani, R. Comparison of Biowaste and Compost Composition, Management, and Quality Analysis in Stuttgart and Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI). Master’s Thesis, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ketelsen, K. Umrüstung von Mechsnisch-Biologischen Abfallbehandlungsanlagen- Unter Kosten-, Klima- und Energieeffizienzaspekten. In Proceedings of the Conference Presentation “Berliner Energiekonferenz Erneuerbare Energien”, Berlin, Germany, 6 September 2010. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ketelsen, K.; Kanning, K.; Cuhls, C. Optimisation of MBT Considering Energy Efficiency and Protection of Resources and Climate (Presentaion). In Proceedings of the Conference Presentation “Waste-to-Resource”, Hannover, Germany, 24 May 2011. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bolzonella, D.; Pavan, P.; Mace, S.; Cecchi, F. Dry anaerobic digestion of differently sorted organic municipal solid waste: A full-scale experience. Water Sci. Technol. A J. Int. Assoc. Water Pollut. Res. 2006, 53, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bernstad, A.; Malmquist, L.; Truedsson, C.; La Cour Jansen, J. Need for improvements in physical pretreatment of source-separated household food waste. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 746–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Campuzano, R.; González-Martínez, S. Characteristics of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste and methane production: A review. Waste Manag. 2016, 54, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. de Baere, L. Anaerobic digestion of solid waste: State-of-the-art. Water Sci. Technol. 2000, 41, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lamolinara, B.; Pérez-Martínez, A.; Guardado-Yordi, E.; Guillén Fiallos, C.; Diéguez-Santana, K.; Ruiz-Mercado, G.J. Anaerobic digestate management, environmental impacts, and techno-economic challenges. Waste Manag. 2022, 140, 14–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chuda, A.; Ziemiński, K. Challenges in Treatment of Digestate Liquid Fraction from Biogas Plant. Performance of Nitrogen Removal and Microbial Activity in Activated Sludge Process. Energies 2021, 14, 7321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hansen, T.L.; La Jansen, J.C.; Davidsson, A.; Christensen, T.H. Effects of pre-treatment technologies on quantity and quality of source-sorted municipal organic waste for biogas recovery. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 398–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Meirer, M.; Müller, W.; Bockreis, A. Waste Management and The Environment VIII. In Proceedings of the Waste Management, Valencia, Spain, 7–9 June 2016; Brebbia, C.A., Itoh, H., Eds.; WIT Press Southampton: Torquay, UK, 2016; pp. 277–288. [Google Scholar]
  34. Meirer, M.; Müller, W.; Bockreis, A. Mechanische Abtrennung biogener Reststoffe aus Restabfall für die Co-Vergärung in Faultürmen kommunaler Kläranlagen. Österr Wasser Abfallw 2017, 69, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Arina, D.; Orupe, A. Comparison of municipal solid waste characteristics after separation by star and drum screen systems. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference Civil Engineering’13 Proceedings Part I Environment and Environmental Effects, Jelgava, Latvia, 16–17 May 2013; pp. 318–322. [Google Scholar]
  36. Arina, D.; Kalnacs, J.; Bendere, R.; Murasovs, A. Engineering for Rural Development. In Proceedings of the 18th International Scientific Conference Engineering for Rural Development, Jelgava, Latvia, 22 May 2019; pp. 1599–1604. [Google Scholar]
  37. Bayard, R.; Morais, J.d.A.; Ducom, G.; Achour, F.; Rouez, M.; Gourdon, R. Assessment of the effectiveness of an industrial unit of mechanical-biological treatment of municipal solid waste. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 175, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bolzonella, D.; Battistoni, P.; Susinii, C.; Cecchi, F. Anaerobic codigestion of waste activated sludge and OFMSW: The experiences of viareggio and treviso plants (Italy). Water Sci. Technol. A J. Int. Assoc. Water Pollut. Res. 2006, 53, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. BTA International GmbH. BTA—Biotechnical Recycling. Available online: https://bta-international.de/ (accessed on 11 November 2024).
  40. Jank, A.; Müller, W.; Waldhuber, S.; Gerke, F.; Ebner, C.; Bockreis, A. Hydrocyclones for the separation of impurities in pretreated biowaste. Waste Manag. 2017, 64, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Effenberger, J.; Jahn, L.; Kuehn, V. Co-digestion of press liquids of source-sorted municipal organic waste in anaerobic sludge treatment of municipal wastewater treatment plants. Water Sci. Technol. A J. Int. Assoc. Water Pollut. Res. 2016, 73, 3080–3086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Romero-Güiza, M.S.; Peces, M.; Astals, S.; Benavent, J.; Valls, J.; Mata-Alvarez, J. Implementation of a prototypal optical sorter as core of the new pre-treatment configuration of a mechanical–biological treatment plant treating OFMSW through anaerobic digestion. Appl. Energy 2014, 135, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Meirer, M. Physikalische Aufbereitung von Restabfällen zur Co-Vergärung in Abwasserreinigungsanlagen. Ph.D. Thesis, Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  44. Osei, K.; Andoh, R. Optimal Grit Removal and Control in Collection Systems and at Treatment Plants. In Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2008, Honolulu, HI, USA, 12–16 May 2008; Babcock, Roger, W., Eds.; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2008; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  45. Abfallzweckverband Südniedersachsen. MBA—Verfahrensbeschreibung: Phase I: Mechanische Aufbereitung (MA) der Abfälle Phase II: Biologische Behandlung (BA) in der Trockenvergärung. Available online: https://www.as-nds.de/mba/verfahren/index.html (accessed on 5 October 2024).
  46. Xu, S.; Kong, X.; Liu, J.; Zhao, K.; Zhao, G.; Bahdolla, A. Effects of high-pressure extruding pretreatment on MSW upgrading and hydrolysis enhancement. Waste Manag. 2016, 58, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Meirer, M.; Müller, W.; Bockreis, A. Innovative Abfallaufbereitung: Erzeugung hochwertiger Substrate für Biogas- & Kläranlagen: Poster. In Proceedings of the Österreichische Abfallwirtschaftstagung 2017, Graz, Austria, 10–11 May 2017. [Google Scholar]
  48. Nowak, O.; Ebner, C. Verwertung organischer Reststoffe in Faulbehältern kommunaler Kläranlagen. Österr Wasser Abfallw 2016, 68, 108–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nayono, S.E. Foodwaste as a Co-Substrate in a Fed-Batch Anaerobic Biowaste Digester for Constant Biogas Supply. Ph.D. Thesis, Universität Fridericiana zu Karlsruhe (TH), Karlsruhe, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lopes, A.C.P. Mechanical Pretreatment of Residual Waste for Codigestion in Wastewater Treatment Plants. Ph.D. Thesis, Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  51. Cesaro, A.; Cieri, V.; Belgiorno, V. Press-extrusion pretreatment of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste for enhanced methane production. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2020, 23, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sutco Recyclingtechnik GmbH; Entsorgungsgesellschaft Westmünsterland mbH; Universität Duisburg-Essen. Forschungs- und Entwicklungs-Vorhaben Energieeffiziente Bioabfallverwertung = EnBV: Abschlussbericht Anschlussvorhaben; Sutco Recyclingtechnik GmbH: Bergisch Gladbach, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  53. Erbenschwanger Verwertungs- und g g Abfallentsorgungs-Gesellschaft mbH; Universität Rostock. FuE-Vorhaben “Presswasservergärung Restabfall = PV-R”: An die Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU); Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU): Osnabrück, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  54. Anaergia Technologies GmbH. Separator FSP—Anaergia Technologies—Komponenten für eine nachhaltige Zukunft (EN). Available online: https://www.anaergia-technologies.com/en/products/separation/separator/ (accessed on 19 October 2024).
  55. Jank, A.; Müller, W.; Schneider, I.; Gerke, F.; Bockreis, A. Waste Separation Press (WSP): A mechanical pretreatment option for organic waste from source separation. Waste Manag. 2015, 39, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Tyagi, V.K.; Fdez-Güelfo, L.A.; Zhou, Y.; Álvarez-Gallego, C.J.; Garcia, L.R.; Ng, W.J. Anaerobic co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW): Progress and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 93, 380–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Huang, X. The Promotion of Anaerobic Digestion Technology Upgrades in Waste Stream Treatment Plants for Circular Economy in the Context of “Dual Carbon”: Global Status, Development Trend, and Future Challenges. Water 2024, 16, 3718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Córdoba, V.E.; Santalla, E.M. Estimation of long-term methane emissions from Mechanical-Biological Treatment waste through biomethane potential test. Environ. Technol. 2021, 43, 3835–3847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gesetz zur Förderung der Kreislaufwirtschaft und Sicherung der umweltverträglichen Bewirtschaftung von Abfällen (Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz KrWG): Bundesgesetz. 2012. Available online: https://datenbank.nwb.de/Dokument/434480/ (accessed on 15 January 2024).
  60. Nelles, M.; Böning, T.; Bewani, R.; Nassour, A. FuE-Vorhaben “Presswasservergärung Restabfall” DBU-Förderkennzeichen: 33791/01; Endbericht (vom 15.2.2022); Universität Rostock—Agrar-und Umweltwissenschaftliche Fakultät: Rostock, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  61. Wagner, J.; Kuegler, T.; Baumann, J.; Günther, M.; Finke, E. Bericht zur Fortschreibung der Sortierrichtlinie 1998: Bericht zur Fortschreibung der Richtlinie zur einheitlichen Abfallanalytik in Sachsen: Freistaat Sachsen; Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie: Dresden, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  62. Vergärung organischer Stoffe Substratcharakterisierung, Probenahme, Stoffdatenerhebung, Gärversuche. English “Fermentation of organic materials Characterisation of the substrate, sampling, collection of material data, fermentation tests”: VDI 4630, November 2016. Available online: https://www.vdi.de/en/home/vdi-standards/details/vdi-4630-fermentation-of-organic-materials-characterization-of-the-substrate-sampling-collection-of-material-data-fermentation-tests (accessed on 7 July 2025).
  63. Deutsches Institut für Normung. Characterization of Waste—Calculation of Dry Matter by Determination of Dry Residue or Water Content; German Version EN 14346:2006, 03/2007. Available online: https://www.dinmedia.de/en/standard/din-en-14346/92061940 (accessed on 7 March 2025).
  64. Deutsches Institut für Normung. Charakterisierung von Abfall—Bestimmung des Glühverlustes in Abfall, Schlamm und Sedimenten, Deutsche Fassung EN 15169:2007 (Characterization of Waste—Determination of Loss on Ignition in Waste, Sludge and Sediments; German Version EN 15169:2007), 05/2007. Available online: https://www.dinmedia.de/de/norm/din-en-15169/93016789 (accessed on 7 March 2025).
  65. Deutsches Institut für Normung. Untersuchung von Feststoffen—Probenvorbehandlung, -Vorbereitung und -Aufarbeitung für Chemische, Biologische und Physikalische Untersuchungen (Investigation of Solids—Pre-Treatment, Preparation and Processing of Samples for Chemical, Biological and Physical Investigations), 07.2009. Available online: https://www.dinmedia.de/de/norm/din-19747/118510306 (accessed on 5 March 2025).
  66. Deutsches Institut für Normung. Wasseranalytik—Anleitungen zur Bestimmung des Gesamten Organischen Kohlenstoffs (TOC) und des Gelösten Organischen Kohlenstoffs (DOC); Deutsche Fassung EN 1484:1997 (Water Analysis—Guidelines for the Determination of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC); German Version EN 1484:1997). Available online: https://www.din.de/de/mitwirken/normenausschuesse/naw/wdc-beuth:din21:301999219 (accessed on 5 March 2025).
  67. INFA GmbH; Wirtschaftsbetriebe Duisburg AöR. Zusammensetzung des Restabfalls in der Stadt Duisburg: Ergebnistabellen (intern). 2019. [Google Scholar]
  68. Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia. Assessment of Content of Municipal Solid, Hazardous and Producing Waste in Waste Management Regions; Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia: Rīga, Latvia, 2018; Online. (In Latvian)
  69. Lombardi, F.; Zingaretti, D.; Verginelli, I.; Costa, G. Optimization of the Biostabilization Process of an Italian Mechanical–Biological Treatment Plant to Account for Changes in Waste Composition. Waste Biomass Valor. 2022, 13, 3787–3800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Meirhofer, M.; Pieber, S.; Ragossnig, A.; Brooks, L.; Fercher, E. Behandlungsoptionen für eine MBA-Schwerfraktion—Am Beispiel der MBA Oberpullendorf. In Proceedings of the 10th DepoTech-Conference 2010, Leoben, Austria, 3–5 November 2010; Volume 2010, pp. 271–276. [Google Scholar]
  71. de Araújo Morais, J.; Ducom, G.; Achour, F.; Rouez, M.; Bayard, R. Mass balance to assess the efficiency of a mechanical-biological treatment. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 1791–1800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Di Maria, F.; Micale, C.; Sordi, A.; Cirulli, G.; Marionni, M. Urban mining: Quality and quantity of recyclable and recoverable material mechanically and physically extractable from residual waste. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 2594–2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Burnley, S.J.; Ellis, J.C.; Flowerdew, R.; Poll, A.J.; Prosser, H. Assessing the composition of municipal solid waste in Wales. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2007, 49, 264–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Matveev, Y.; Geletukha, G. Prospects of Energy Utilisation of Municipal Solid Waste in Ukraine: Uabio Position Paper № 22; Bioenergy Association of Ukraine: Kyiv, Ukraine, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  75. Ministry of Environment. Waste Management Program of the Republic of Serbia for the Period 2022–2031; Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2022.
  76. Edjabou, M.E.; Jensen, M.B.; Götze, R.; Pivnenko, K.; Petersen, C.; Scheutz, C.; Astrup, T.F. Municipal solid waste composition: Sampling methodology, statistical analyses, and case study evaluation. Waste Manag. 2015, 36, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Fantozzi, F.; Buratti, C. Anaerobic digestion of mechanically treated OFMSW: Experimental data on biogas/methane production and residues characterization. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 8885–8892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Stiftung Zentrale Stelle Verpackungsregister. Verwertungsmengen Verpackungen Privater Endverbrauch 2018–2021: Presentation. Available online: https://www.verpackungsregister.org/fileadmin/files/Presse/ZSVR_Auswertung_Recyclingquoten_2018-2021.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2025).
  79. Velis, C.A.; Longhurst, P.J.; Drew, G.H.; Smith, R.; Pollard, S.J.T. Biodrying for mechanical-biological treatment of wastes: A review of process science and engineering. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 2747–2761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Cook, E.; Wagland, S.; Coulon, F. Investigation into the non-biological outputs of mechanical-biological treatment facilities. Waste Manag. 2015, 46, 212–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Mechanical Biological Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste; Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs: London, UK, 2013.
  82. Nayono, S.E.; Winter, J.; Gallert, C. Anaerobic digestion of pressed off leachate from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 1828–1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Farneti, A.; Cozzolino, C.; Bolzonella, D.; Innocenti, L.; Cecchi, F. Semi-dry anaerobic digestion of OFMSW: The new full scale plant of Verona (Italy). In Proceedings of the II International Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste—II-ISAD-SW, Barcelona, Spain, 15–17 June 1999; Volume 2, p. 330. [Google Scholar]
  84. Lissens, G.; Vandevivere, P.; de Baere, L.; Biey, E.M.; Verstraete, W. Solid waste digestors: Process performance and practice for municipal solid waste digestion. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 44, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 06365 g001
Figure 1. Status of total number and treatment capacity of each type of MBT facility in Germany; abbreviations: MBT (A): MBT with Aerobic Treatment; MBT (AD): MBT with Anaerobic Digestion; MBS: Mechanical Biological Stabilization; MPS: Mechanical Physical Stabilization; MT: Mechanical Treatment (only); MBT BD: MBT with Biological Drying of Fine Fractions; BT: Biowaste Treatment; references: data from 2005–2017 were adopted from [18], data for 2023 were calculated in this work based on the recent changes in the plant reported by the plant operators.
Figure 1. Status of total number and treatment capacity of each type of MBT facility in Germany; abbreviations: MBT (A): MBT with Aerobic Treatment; MBT (AD): MBT with Anaerobic Digestion; MBS: Mechanical Biological Stabilization; MPS: Mechanical Physical Stabilization; MT: Mechanical Treatment (only); MBT BD: MBT with Biological Drying of Fine Fractions; BT: Biowaste Treatment; references: data from 2005–2017 were adopted from [18], data for 2023 were calculated in this work based on the recent changes in the plant reported by the plant operators.
Sustainability 17 06365 g001
Sustainability 17 06365 g002
Figure 2. Schematic process flow diagram of the EVA MBT plant in this study, shown before (top) and after (bottom) the integration of the screw press and fermentation stage (new components are highlighted in grey). Sample collection points are indicated as (*).
Figure 2. Schematic process flow diagram of the EVA MBT plant in this study, shown before (top) and after (bottom) the integration of the screw press and fermentation stage (new components are highlighted in grey). Sample collection points are indicated as (*).
Sustainability 17 06365 g002
Sustainability 17 06365 g003
Figure 3. Procedures for the material characterization of the samples used in the analyses and tests conducted in this work.
Figure 3. Procedures for the material characterization of the samples used in the analyses and tests conducted in this work.
Sustainability 17 06365 g003
Sustainability 17 06365 g004
Figure 4. Experimental setup used to evaluate the mechanical pretreatment steps for producing press water at the EVA MBT plant.
Figure 4. Experimental setup used to evaluate the mechanical pretreatment steps for producing press water at the EVA MBT plant.
Sustainability 17 06365 g004
Sustainability 17 06365 g005
Figure 5. Composition of RMSW based on manual sorting analysis at EVA MBT (all values are percentages).
Figure 5. Composition of RMSW based on manual sorting analysis at EVA MBT (all values are percentages).
Sustainability 17 06365 g005
Sustainability 17 06365 g006
Figure 6. Particle size distribution of the solid particles in the generated press water.
Figure 6. Particle size distribution of the solid particles in the generated press water.
Sustainability 17 06365 g006
Sustainability 17 06365 g007
Figure 7. Distribution of organic from RMSW to MSFF and MSCF at EVA MBT plant of this study: organic content in percentage (%) (left), and organic quantity in (kg) based on 1-ton RMSW to the MBT plant (right).
Figure 7. Distribution of organic from RMSW to MSFF and MSCF at EVA MBT plant of this study: organic content in percentage (%) (left), and organic quantity in (kg) based on 1-ton RMSW to the MBT plant (right).
Sustainability 17 06365 g007
Sustainability 17 06365 g008
Figure 8. Relationship between particle size of MSFF and recovery rate of organic matter into press water.
Figure 8. Relationship between particle size of MSFF and recovery rate of organic matter into press water.
Sustainability 17 06365 g008
Table 1. Summary of the setup and the operating parameters of the screw press used for the experiments.
Table 1. Summary of the setup and the operating parameters of the screw press used for the experiments.
Quality of WastePressure (bar)(GR + PZ)/MSFF (L/ton)Press Basket (mm)Feeding to SP (ton/h)
-
Organic content
-
Particle size of MSFF
4.51000
GR:PZ 4:1		518
-
MSFF: 9 t/h
-
GR + PZ: 9 m3/h
Investigated in this studyConstant
Table 2. Comparison of MSFF composition (mean ± standard deviation) from this study with results from similar MBT plants reported in the literature (values are presented in percentage).
Table 2. Comparison of MSFF composition (mean ± standard deviation) from this study with results from similar MBT plants reported in the literature (values are presented in percentage).
MSFF (This Study)FR (1)LAT (2)LAT (3)IT (4)
Fractions60–50 mm50–20 mm20–8 mm<8 mmAverage<70 mm<60 mm25–60 mm0–25 mm<20 mm
Organic2.8117.0323.0322.526 ± 5.46112820.314.736
Glass0.008.3126.7633.722.79 ± 2.6410.56.211.1021.5022.2
Stone0.004.6721.8030.318.43 ± 3.40-5.6---
3D plastic27.565.216.331.85.14 ± 2.65469.904.303.18
Plastic foil15.133.891.970.342.29 ± 1.334 -
PPK5.8422.331.983.198.88 ± 3.572.43618.506.20-
Hygiene31.8930.9810.7013.19 ± 0.973.65.610.301.80-
Textile12.761.060.700.471.08 ± 0.150.51.85.401.40-
Metals0.941.880.092.501.47 ± 0.601.71.72.22.100.69
Others3.063.706.644.565.18 ± 0.179.70.46.67.1028.9
Fine-----55.98.415.640.10-
(1) France [37]. (2) Latvia [36]. (3) Latvia [35]. (4) Italy [72].
Table 3. Distribution of volatile solids in the particle size range of MSFF and PC (mean ± standard deviation) from this study’s screening and manual sorting (values are presented in percentage).
Table 3. Distribution of volatile solids in the particle size range of MSFF and PC (mean ± standard deviation) from this study’s screening and manual sorting (values are presented in percentage).
Particle
Size [mm]		MSFF (This Study)PC (This Study)
MC [% fm]VS [% fm]Ash [% fm]MC [% fm]VS [% fm]Ash [% fm]
>501.00 ± 0.611.71 ± 1.030.78 ± 0.473.04 ± 0.412.14 ± 1.010.52 ± 0.38
50–2013.31 ± 4.868.50 ± 5.276.84 ± 5.4924.80 ± 2.9512.19 ± 3.4713.88 ± 2.65
20–161.16 ± 0.400.95 ± 0.560.48 ± 0.331.44 ± 3.370.65 ± 0.390.76 ± 0.09
16–12.51.95 ± 0.491.61 ± 0.430.79 ± 0.853.21 ± 3.211.20 ± 0.431.95 ± 2.58
12.5–102.25 ± 0.191.25 ± 0.351.52 ± 0.202.30 ± 0.510.77 ± 0.251.48 ± 0.35
10–83.17 ± 1.591.78 ± 0.452.04 ± 1.171.96 ± 0.010.87 ± 0.230.97 ± 0.22
8–61.31 ± 0.070.51 ± 0.230.86 ± 0.141.53 ± 0.210.40 ± 0.231.12 ± 0.09
6–44.20 ± 0.181.59 ± 0.011.71 ± 1.722.91 ± 0.531.29 ± 0.291.90 ± 0.04
4–25.64 ± 1.372.39 ± 0.782.94 ± 1.732.73 ± 0.011.21 ± 0.031.72 ± 0.10
<214.57 ± 6.395.75 ± 1.596.89 ± 1.985.15 ± 3.192.46 ± 1.333.02 ± 1.60
Table 4. Characteristics of the materials mixed and pressed by the SP (mean ± standard deviation) to conduct the experiments (TS and VS are percentages based on fresh mass).
Table 4. Characteristics of the materials mixed and pressed by the SP (mean ± standard deviation) to conduct the experiments (TS and VS are percentages based on fresh mass).
MaterialsTS [% fm]VS [% fm]DOC [mg/L]Biogas [l(N)/kg VS]
MSFF58 ± 1.5225.5 ± 2.814238280 ± 80.84
GR2.72 ± 0.751.01 ± 0.852709146 ± 20.67
PZ1.50 ± 0.160.80 ± 0.074680289 ± 0.03
PW16 ± 1.538.00 ± 2.329050416 ± 56.16
PC51 ± 3.4622.5 ± 2.214027211 ± 31.54
Table 5. Characteristics of the generated press water from this study and values from the literature (TS and VS values are expressed as percentages based on fresh mass).
Table 5. Characteristics of the generated press water from this study and values from the literature (TS and VS values are expressed as percentages based on fresh mass).
Type of WasteType of PressingTS [% fm]VS [% fm]DOC [mg/L]Biogas [L(N)/kg VS
(1)
RMSW
SP (4.5 bar)16 ± 1.538.00 ± 2.329050 ± 2752.59416 ± 56.16
(2)
RMSW
SP (4–5.5 bar)20–2413–16-570–760
(3)
RMSW
Piston press (40 bar)96-450
Range-9–246–16-450–760
(4)
Biowaste
SP (4 bar)10–218–1110,000–12,000250–450
(5)
Biowaste
SP12–197–12--
(6)
Biowaste
SP1712--
Range-10–287–25-50–458
(1) The result from this study. (2) Additional pre-trials using a mobile SP at the EVA MBT plant. (3) [43]. (4) [52]. (5) [41]. (6) [82].
Table 6. Composition of the press cake (mean ± standard deviation) produced from the pressing experiment in this study (values are presented in percentage).
Table 6. Composition of the press cake (mean ± standard deviation) produced from the pressing experiment in this study (values are presented in percentage).
Fractions60–50 mm50–20 mm20–8 mm<8 mmAverage
Organic2.8117.0323.0322.522.5 ± 1.99
Glass0.008.3126.7633.722.79 ± 2.27
Stone0.004.6721.8030.318.43 ± 0.34
3D plastic27.565.216.331.85.14 ± 0.39
Plastic foil15.133.891.970.342.29 ± 0.14
PPK5.8422.331.983.198.88 ± 1.33
Hygiene31.8930.9810.7013.19 ± 2.24
Textile12.761.060.700.471.08 ± 0.05
Metals0.941.880.092.501.47 ± 2.07
Others3.063.706.644.565.18 ± 1.53
Table 7. Overview of the recovery rate of fresh mass, TS, VS, and biogas from the input mix to the substrate for AD (recovery rate to PW is highlighted green).
Table 7. Overview of the recovery rate of fresh mass, TS, VS, and biogas from the input mix to the substrate for AD (recovery rate to PW is highlighted green).
ExperimentsMaterialsFresh MassTotal Solid (TS)Volatile Solid (VS)Biogas
Recovery Rate [% Input fm]Concentration [% fm]Recovery Rate [% Input TS]Concentration [% fm]Recovery Rate [% Input VS]Biogas Potential [m3/Mg VS]Recovery Rate [% Input Biogas]
Press Experiment 1 (PE1): This study
Pressure: 4.5 bars
GR + PZ/MSFF: 1000 L/ton
Mixing time before pressing: No
Mesh size: 5 mm		MSFF < 60 mm 58 25.50 280
GR 2.7 1.01 147
PZ 1.5 0.80 289
Input mix to SP1003010013100276100
PW4716228.002441638
PC53517822.507621162
PE2: Piston press
Pressure: 50 bars
Water (10 °C)/MSFF: 330 L/ton
Mixing time before pressing: 2 h
Mesh size: 5 mm		MSFF < 80 mm 72 46.10 470
Tap water -
Input mix1004810030.72100 100
PW49353521.703432023
PC51616539.6566-
PE3: Piston press
Pressure: 40 bars
Water (70 °C)/MSFF: 1560 L/ton
Mixing time before pressing: 1.5 h
Mesh size: 5 mm		MSFF < 40 mm 74 47 360
Tap water -
Input mix1002910018.27100 100
PW167922692445030
PW25193643-4
PC2877756272-66
References: PE2 and PE3: data adopted from experiments conducted in the frame of the PhD dissertation of [43]. The input materials were pressed twice in PE3.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bewani, R.; Nassour, A.; Böning, T.; Sprafke, J.; Nelles, M. Assessing the Impact of Residual Municipal Solid Waste Characteristics on Screw Press Performance in a Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant Optimized with Anaerobic Digestion. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146365

AMA Style

Bewani R, Nassour A, Böning T, Sprafke J, Nelles M. Assessing the Impact of Residual Municipal Solid Waste Characteristics on Screw Press Performance in a Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant Optimized with Anaerobic Digestion. Sustainability. 2025; 17(14):6365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146365

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bewani, Rzgar, Abdallah Nassour, Thomas Böning, Jan Sprafke, and Michael Nelles. 2025. "Assessing the Impact of Residual Municipal Solid Waste Characteristics on Screw Press Performance in a Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant Optimized with Anaerobic Digestion" Sustainability 17, no. 14: 6365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146365

APA Style

Bewani, R., Nassour, A., Böning, T., Sprafke, J., & Nelles, M. (2025). Assessing the Impact of Residual Municipal Solid Waste Characteristics on Screw Press Performance in a Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant Optimized with Anaerobic Digestion. Sustainability, 17(14), 6365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146365

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop