[SOLVED] sources of municipal solid waste (MSW), beneficial uses of MSW, and MSW landfills – Writing

Please see attachments for CSU REFERENCEs needed for the paper Unit IV EssayWeight: 10% of course gradeGrading RubricDue: Tuesday, 02/18/2020 11:59 PM (CST)InstructionsIn this unit, you became familiar with sources of municipal solid waste (MSW), beneficial uses of MSW, and MSW landfills.For this assignment, you will write an essay that addresses the components listed below.Discuss the sources and beneficial uses of municipal solid waste.Describe the differences between garbage, rubbish, and trash.Elaborate on the four characteristics of optimum routing of MSW collection trucks.Explain the purpose of transfer stations.Provide two positive and two negative aspects of incinerators.Describe the purpose of composting.Discuss four differences between dumps and landfills.Address the following question: If each person in a city of 20,000 people generates 5 pounds per day of MSW, how many pounds of MSW are generated in a year in the city?Address the following question: In a different city, if the landfill volume required per year is 300,000 m3, and the average fill depth is 15 m, what is the required landfill area (m2) per year?Your essay should flow smoothly from topic to topic with thoughtful transitions. It should be at least three pages in length, not counting the references page; a title page is optional.Support your essay with at least two peer-reviewed articles from the CSU Online Library. The articles should be no more than 20 years old. Feel free to use the textbook and other sources as references in addition to your two CSU Online Library sources. Be sure to properly cite and reference all sources, and use APA format.Impact of small municipal solid waste landfill on groundwater quality
Przydatek, Grzegorz 1
; Kanownik, Włodzimierz 2 1 Engineering Institute, State University of Applied Sciences in Nowy Sącz,
Nowy Sącz, Poland 2 Faculty of Environmental Engineering and Land Surveying, University of Agriculture
in Krakow, Kraków, Poland . Environmental Monitoring and Assessment ; Dordrecht Vol. 191, Iss. 3,
(Mar 2019): 1-14.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT (ENGLISH)
The aim of this paper is to analyse changes in the physicochemical elements in groundwater in the
vicinity of a small municipal solid waste landfill site located within the territory of the European Union
on the basis of 7-year hydrochemical research. Samples of groundwater and leachate near the examined
landfill were collected four times a year during two periods, between 2008 and 2012 during the use of
the landfill and between 2013 and 2014 at the stage of its closure. The research results were analysed
on the basis of general physicochemical properties: pH; total organic carbon (TOC); electrical
conductivity (EC); inorganic elements: Cr, Zn, Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg; and one organic element—polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH). The analysis was carried out in accordance with the EU and national
legislation requirements regarding landfill monitoring. The assessment of the groundwater and analysis
indicators of the leachate pollution allowed interpretation of the impact of the municipal solid waste
landfill on the state of the water environment in the immediate vicinity. The results show that the
increased values of Cd, EC, and TOC turned out to be the determinants of the negative impact of
leachate on the groundwater quality below the landfill. The integrated water threat model determined
the potential negative impact of a landfill site. The extent depended on local environmental conditions
and the self-cleaning process. Deterioration of the chemical status in the quality of the groundwater
within the landfill area was a consequence of the lack of efficiency of the existing drainage system,
which may result from the 19-year period of its use. The applied correlation relationship between
physicochemical elements between leachate and groundwater with a time shift due to the extended
time of migration of contaminants or mass transfer in waterlogged ground can be an important tool to
identify the threat of groundwater pollution in the area of landfill sites.
DETAILS
Subject:
Mercury; Environmental monitoring; Migration; Physicochemical properties;
Groundwater quality; Cadmium; Solid wastes; Municipal solid waste; Contaminants; Electrical resistivity;
Copper; Research; Landfill; Legislation; Groundwater; Mass transfer; Waste disposal sites; Organic
chemistry; Territory; Wastes; Quality; Municipal landfills; Total organic carbon; Drainage systems; pH;
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Leachates; Ground water; Aromatic hydrocarbons; Zinc; Conductivity;
Groundwater pollution; Pollution monitoring; Environmental conditions; Mercury (metal); Water
quality; Municipal waste management; Water pollution; Electrical conductivity; Landfills; Organic
carbon; Solid waste management; Pollution; Cleaning process; Waterlogged ground; Waste
management industry; Aromatics; Chromium; Cleaning; Lead; Marine environment
Location:
Europe
Publication title:
Volume:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment; Dordrecht
191
Issue: 3
Pages: 1-14
Publication year:
2019
Publication date:
Mar 2019
Publisher:
Springer Nature B.V.
Place of publication:
Dordrecht
Country of publication: Netherlands, Dordrecht
Publication subject:
ISSN:
0167- 6369
Environmental Studies
Source type:
Scholarly Journals
Language of publication:
Document type:
English
Journal Article
Publication history :
Online publication date:
Milestone dates:
DOI:
2019-02-19
2019-01-29 (Registration) 2018-08-16 (Received) 2019-01-29 (Accepted)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7279-5
ProQuest document ID: 2183043982
Document URL:
https://search.proquest.com/docview/2183043982?accountid=33337
Copyright:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment is a copyright of Springer, (2019). All Rights
Reserved., © 2019. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the
“License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in
accordance with the terms of the License.
Last updated:
201 9-12-13
Database:
ABI/INFORM Collection
Database copyright 2020 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest
Abbasi Energy, Sustainability and Society
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-018-0175-y
(2018) 8:36
Energy, Sustainability
and Society
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Open Access
The myth and the reality of energy
recovery from municipal solid waste
S A Abbasi
Abstract
Background: Any manner of development can be sustainable only if the waste generated by it is not allowed to
accumulate but is fully reused/recycled/recovered. Among the strategies to attain this goal have been the attempts
to recover energy from municipal solid waste (MSW). About 60% of MSW is carbonaceous, consisting of materials
which can either be biodegraded into fuels like methane or incinerated, thereby generating utilizable energy. MSW
also contains several components—like metallic scrap and glass pieces—which can be reused or recycled, thereby
achieving energy conservation. Given these attributes, MSW appears to be a potential source of energy and resources.
Indeed, this belief that MSW is usable if only we try sincerely enough to do so prompts most of us to keep generating
much more MSW than is warranted. But how realizable really is the energy potential of MSW? What perils loom into
view when we actually set out to utilize MSW as an energy source? The present study addresses these crucially
important questions.
Methods: The work is based on a critical content analysis of the prior art.
Results: The generation of MSW has consistently outpaced the world’s efforts to dispose of it cleanly, and the
energy (and material) recovery from MSW is easier said than done. In most instances, what is technically feasible
is economically unfeasible. And what is economically feasible—such as setting the waste on fire as is often done
in developing countries—is exceedingly harmful to the environment and the human health. Measures such as
sanitary landfilling and incineration create as many new problems as the old ones they solve. Moreover, despite
the use of these less-than-adequate technologies, a major portion of MSW generated in the world lies untreated.
Conclusions: As the MSW output is expected to double by 2025, this situation is only set to become worse. Rising
tides of E-waste would compound the problem even further. Hence, enormous stress should be put on the reduction
of MSW generation by controlling wanton consumerism and wastage, rather than continuing with it in the false hope
that technology will soon provide a magical solution and eliminate the problem.
Keywords: Municipal solid waste, Landfills, Incineration, Anaerobic digestion, Composting, Biogas
Background
The municipal solid waste problem
Municipal solid waste (MSW) is the name given to the
assorted, basically non-hazardous, biodegradable/nonbiodegradable, carbonaceous/non-carbonaceous, and
reusable/unusable solid waste that we generate in the
course of day-to-day living and regulatory/commercial
activities. Solid wastes from households, commerce,
trade, office buildings, and the yard, garden and street
sweepings come under the gamut of MSW [58, 136].
Correspondence: abbasi.cpee@gmail.com
Centre for Pollution Control and Environmental Engineering, Pondicherry
University, Chinnakalapet, Puducherry 605 014, India
Construction and demolition debris, sewage sludges,
industrial process waste, hazardous hospital waste etc. are
excluded [176].
Even though MSW is generated wherever human beings dwell, its quantity and complexity are much higher
in urban and suburban situations compared to rural
ones [22, 26, 29, 98]. With very rapidly increasing rate of
urbanization all over the world and the rapidly growing
globalization-fuelled consumerism, urban solid waste
generation in developing economies like India and China
is rising steeply [51, 59, 124, 163]. Even the periodic
spells of economic slowdown, or fall in the rate of population growth, do not seem to reduce the increasing rate
© The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Abbasi Energy, Sustainability and Society
(2018) 8:36
of MSW generation in developing countries. For example, despite a 3.8% decrease in economic activity and
only 0.8% population growth that occurred in 2015 in
Brazil, the total quantity of MSW generated there increased by 1.7% [21]. In terms of their present per capita
MSW generation, these countries may be way behind
the developed ones (Fig. 1), but due to their much larger
populations, the country-wise MSW production there is
approaching that of the developed countries. For example, China and India have become the world’s second
and the seventh biggest MSW producers [182, 197]. The
Russian Federation, Brazil and Mexico are also among
the world’s top 10 biggest MSW-generating countries
(Fig. 2). Moreover, of the world’s 15 most populous
countries, 13 belong to the developing world and 9 of
these have population densities 2 times (Mexico) to 36
times (Bangladesh) greater than that of the USA. The
two most populous countries of the world—India and
China—with their combined population approaching
three billion have population densities 13 times and 4
times greater than that of the USA, respectively. All
these countries have a lot less land mass, per head,
available to assimilate MSW than the USA and several
other less densely populated countries. For this reason,
and also lack of resources to manage MSW, the problem
of MSW disposal is fast acquiring catastrophic proportions in several countries [27, 96, 134]. It is common to
see solid waste dumped at street corners, roadside and
water-bodies even in relatively much cleaner and
well-managed cities like Puducherry, India [2] (Figs. 3
and 4). During the last two decades, there has been exponential growth in another form of solid waste—the
Page 2 of 15
electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) waste, or
E-waste—which is often dumped along with MSW or
sent to MSW landfills [72, 146, 188]. In another 13 years,
the world’s MSW output is expected to double from its
present 1.3 billion tons to 2.6 billion tons [26, 197]. The
quantities of E-waste are also expected to multiply in the
coming years [145, 147] which will put much greater
stress on the governments and the people who are unable to cleanly dispose of most of even what is being
presently generated.
It was in the early 1970s that the problem of MSW disposal had begun to look daunting as urbanization began
its runaway growth [5]. From then onwards, extensive
R&D efforts have been made to find ways and means of
gainfully utilizing MSW [6–8, 17, 23, 35, 36, 141, 163,
164]. Till now, these efforts have not fructified in most
regions of the world beyond occasional success stories of
a village here or a neighborhood there managing to
assimilate their MSW within their premises [200]. For
example, the extent of MSW that is recycled in Malaysia
is a mere 5% [17] even though Malaysia is regarded as
among the most advanced of developing nations. But
vigorous efforts are continuing to be made even as the
problem is actually increasing in magnitude and complexity rather than getting even partially solved [15, 22, 98,
103, 166, 196]. The focus in recent years has been on generating energy from MSW, besides material recovery [16,
20, 63, 113, 200, 204]. The hope that a ‘clean and sustainable solution to the MSW problem (and the E-waste problem)’ is around the corner continues to be expressed [116,
175, 186]. What are the odds that these hopes will be realized? This paper attempts to answer this question.
Fig. 1 Relationship of prosperity, as reflected from human development index (UNDP, 2009), and per capita waste generation. Based on representative
data of major cities of 18 countries as reported in UN-HABITAT [180]
Abbasi Energy, Sustainability and Society
(2018) 8:36
Page 3 of 15
Fig. 2 Estimates of MSW collection in the world’s top 10 MSW producing countries (based on data from UNSTATS, 2011)
MSW as an energy source
Urban waste is made up of an assortment of materials,
not all of which are reusable, but most are [35, 42, 40,
61, 138, 193]. Due to the very large, and rising, quantities in which urban waste is generated all over the
world [42, 47, 96, 101, 136, 164] and the fact that over
half of it is biodegradable [2, 149, 150, 163, 191], it is
considered as a large reservoir of renewable energy
[29, 32, 38, 51, 95]. Indeed as is true for other
non-conventional energy sources, the energy that can
be, theoretically, derived from MSW is enormous [71,
102, 120, 203, 194]. Also, considering that MSW is not only
‘free’, but entails expenditure in transportation and disposal,
any prospect of deriving energy from it appears a great
blessing. But, as has almost always been happening with
Fig. 3 Indiscriminate dumping of solid waste (Puducherry, India)
other non-conventional energy sources [2, 8–11] , the picture soon begins to lose its sheen as environmental
impacts of different forms and magnitudes begin to
show up.
Prospective energy saving by material recovery
from MSW
Even before any attempt is made to generate energy
from MSW, some energy can be indirectly gained
from it in the form of usable materials [188]. Material
recovery achieves energy saving; for example, production of aluminum is an extremely energy-intensive
process, but recycling aluminum requires just one
tenth as much energy as producing it from bauxite
[144, 179]. Recycling of other common metals is also
Fig. 4 Solid waste dumped in a canal (Puducherry, India)
Abbasi Energy, Sustainability and Society
(2018) 8:36
believed to cost much less energy than their ab initio
production (Table 1). For precious metals like silver
and gold contained in waste computers, material
recovery is even more energy-saving [76]. These attributes always make material recovery an enchanting
prospect. But, on the ground, the prospect is hardly
put to practice. The main reason is that the revenues
generated from waste recyclables are not able to offset
the cost of collecting, sorting and transporting of
waste [128]. What appears profitable on paper when
seen out of context of hidden costs ceases to be so
when actually attempted. A good deal of valuables are
being illegally recovered from E-waste by informal,
unscientific, and labour-intensive recycling methods in
developing countries, but it is leading to such gross
pollution of the environment and is posing such grave
risk of serious diseases that the cost of it all will, in
the long run, likely to be several times higher than the
short-term material gains [45, 75, 146, 174, 178, 179].
Moreover, the presence of brominated fire retardants
(BFRs) in the non-metallic components of E-waste
makes the recycling of those components exceedingly
difficult [194].
It is pertinent to report that South Korea recycles
58.1% of its MSW [141], topping the list of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in this respect. The countries
next to South Korea on this count are Germany and
Belgium who recycle 47.6% and 33.8% of their MSW,
respectively, while the average OECD MSW recycling
rate is only 25% [137]. Even this extent of success has
been achieved because these countries implement
‘volume-based waste fee’ (VWF) system or charge
‘pay-as-you-throw’ (PYT) fee. In this paradigm, the cost
of recycling items like plastic bags are added upfront to
their sale prices, and the revenue thus earned is utilized
in recycling the same items after they have been discarded. Seen from this perspective, VWF and PYT are
effective forms of taxes that are levied on certain items
to obtain the cost of recycling those items after they
had turn to waste. In this respect, VWF and PYT are
Table 1 Estimates of energy saved when a material is recovered
from waste in comparison to its ab initio production ([179])
Material
Energy savings (%)
Aluminum
90
Copper
85
Iron and steel
74
Lead
65
Zinc
60
Paper
64
Plastic
> 80
Page 4 of 15
similar to the concept of ‘extended producer responsibility’ that is invoked in case of computers and other
information technology gadgets in developed countries
due to which the cost of recycling is added to the selling price. But whereas these schemes have achieved
some success in South Korea and the developed countries, it has not been possible to implement them in
India and other developing countries [147]. This is
because political compulsions make the governments
disinclined to charge what will be perceived as an extra
tax. There are also difficulties in the implementation of
such measures because even most of the environmental
protection laws have been subject to more breech than
compliance [1, 12].
Interestingly the state of New Jersey in the USA,
which was the first state to make recycling mandatory
(in 1987) and which led other states in terms of recycling the highest fraction of MSW (44.5%) for several
years thereafter, has fallen back in recent years [1]. This
has occurred due to the absence of state or local aid to
finance recycling programmes and the drop in the cost
of waste removal. Similar situations exist in most parts
of India, and indeed, many other regions of the world,
which are limiting the utility of recycling as a means of
energy conservation in the present-day economic paradigm. For example, Queensland, which is the second
largest state in Australia, recycles only about 5% of the
waste it produces [49]. In India, rag-pickers eke out a
subsistence living by sifting through mounds of waste
but at great risk to their health [27, 53, 160]. Quite
often, to facilitate picking of metallic scrap, the mounds
of waste are set on fire [2, 12, 22, 98]. This is not only a
highly eco-degrading and unhygienic practice but
achieves only very little recycling at very high environmental costs.
If assessment is done of the net energy gains from
the recovery of various materials and incentives given
to recycling the wastes that are of more value when
recycled than incinerated, the situation may change
for the better. But, as of now, there is no such move
on the horizon. The political and economic viability of
such a move, even if it gets made, is low because providing ‘incentives’ indirectly means providing subsidies
at taxpayer’s cost. All in all, a state of near saturation
seems to have been reached as far as limits to economically reuse MSW is concerned. Whatever little is
easily retrievable is retrieved. One can say that new
technology may emerge to find more remunerative
uses of MSW, but such prospects are dim because
several decades of intensive research all over the world
has brought forth processes which are technically
feasible but too costly to implement. Unless the
present benefit-cost equations change in favour of
MSW reuse, which are not likely in foreseeable future,
Abbasi Energy, Sustainability and Society
(2018) 8:36
there may be no further gains in energy saving
through this option—certainly not substantial enough
to make a difference.
Energy recovery by incineration
The most prevalent method of generating energy from
urban waste continues to be incineration. Incineration
has the advantage of greatly diminishing solid waste
quantities (up to 70%) and volumes (up to 90%) for
landfill and killing pathogens [41, 203]. Depending on
their location, incineration plants may also reduce the
distance that municipal wastes have to be hauled. But
these advantages are offset by emissions of carbon oxides, sulfur oxides, particulates, heavy metals and other
pollutants from the incinerators. For each tonne of
MSW that is incinerated, 15–40 kg of hazardous waste
is produced, requiring further treatment [83, 85, 96,
114, 118, 139, 195]. Particular attention has been focused on the emissions of dioxins and furans [43, 44,
112, 130, 205, 206], which are more toxic and costlier
to control than other pollutants. Indeed, waste incineration is regarded as one of the greatest contributors to
the release of dioxins into the environment [126, 207].
As is true for any and every form of pollution, it is,
theoretically, possible to control the pollution generated
by incinerators as well. Some of the economically developed countries have been able to achieve relatively ‘clean’
incineration of MSW by implementing very rigorous pollution control measures, typified by Austria [73, 148, 196,
197]. But in practice, it gets more and more expensive to
do so for every incremental improvement in the level of
treatment. As the volumes of waste to be handled increase,
the number of players managing the incinerators increases,
profit margins shrink and departures from ‘best practice’
become more and more frequent [106, 114, 119, 196].
In developing countries like India, implementation of
pollution control regulations is far from rigorous [1, 9,
12, 158, 160]. It is not uncommon to find companies
which install pollution control systems with incinerators
(to get the mandatory licence) but then save upon costs
of operation and maintenance by not operating such systems properly—often not at all. Elsewhere in the world,
too, polluters tend to save the cost of pollution control
in one unethical way or the other [119]. We have before
us the example of E-waste. By introducing legislation
based on ‘extended producer responsibility’ (EPR) paradigm, which in turn follows the principle of life-cyclebased environmental management, the European Union
and other developed countries have made E-waste disposal cleaner than it was [145, 146]. But this has also
made the disposal much more expensive than it was.
The result is that huge volumes of E-waste from these
countries are illegally exported to China, India, Africa
Page 5 of 15
and other developing countries where they grossly toxify
the environment [145, 146]. In a way, EPR has prompted
developed countries to ‘sweep some of their dirt’ to the
backyards of other countries. On their part, developing
countries are well aware of the problem but are unable
to contain it because, to the crafty middlemen and the
impoverished multitudes who, together, sustain the illegal
trade and recycling of E-waste, the immediate economic
gains are too compelling to worry about long-term environmental losses [146].
Incineration leads to emissions of metals like mercury
[108] and organics like dioxins [18, 84, 109, 166] which
are highly toxic. They not only put the people living in
the vicinity of incinerators to great risk [28, 110] but also
cause dispersion of these pollutants far and wide [54].
Elevated levels of these pollutants and their adverse effect on human health are being reported with increasing
frequency [107, 112, 156, 162, 189, 208].
Incineration is also known to increase the lability of
toxic metals which, otherwise, would have remained
contained in polymeric matrices. In this manner, incineration can actually enhance the damage potential
of some of the MSW even as it reduces its quantity
[86, 146]. Concern has been mounting over the disposal of the ash residues from incinerators, more so
because the content of toxic elements—cadmium,
mercury, arsenic and others—in MSW is increasing due
to the contribution from discarded E-waste, batteries,
lighting fixtures and other sources [68, 112, 193, 206].
Ecotoxicological studies on leachates obtained from ashes
produced by urban waste incinerators in EU countries
have prompted calls for more stringent regulations for
ashes disposal and use [187].
At some quarters, biosolid combustion is still
spoken of as a ‘green energy source’ [165, 192, 202]
and ‘beneficial to environment’ [127], but the broader
consensus is that even as incineration does not always
produce more energy than it utilizes, it almost always
does prove to be a major environmental stressor.
Every single effort of the government in India to set
up MSW incineration plants—often euphemistically
called waste-to-energy plants—is being met with stiff
opposition from the people [27, 129].On the one hand,
such plants are a source of enormous pollution and,
on the other hand, generate energy which is about
twice as costly as the energy available from the grid,
even after budgeting for the clean development mechanism (CDM) credits. It is no wonder, then, that the
three waste-to-energy plants that were set up near
three major MSW dump sites in Delhi are almost idle
[27]. Elsewhere, the waste-to-energy plants that have
been set up by the Indian government in partnership
with private players have been heavily subsidized—
none is commercially viable [134].
Abbasi Energy, Sustainability and Society
(2018) 8:36
Worse still, once incinerators have been installed, the
compulsion to utilize their capacity to the full can (and
does) result in a tendency to increase the waste stream
through the curtailment of recycling, a situation wherein,
effectively, more energy is wasted than is produced. It can
be said that widespread reliance on incineration as a solid
waste management option may turn out to be ‘a remedy
worse than the disease’.
Capture and utilization of landfill gas
As per the information currently projected by the
United Nations Statistics Division [182], which is
based on the data pertaining to 2009 provided by 52 of
the developing countries, these countries were generating 368 million tonnes of MSW. But the list does
not include some of the world’s largest countries—
India, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.—and can be at
best considered broadly indicative. As per this data,
about three fourths of all the MSW is ‘landfilled’ in
developing countries. But except in China, where
about half the MSW is put in sanitary landfills, most
of the MSW in other developing countries—including
India which is among the most technologically advanced of developing countries—is just dumped on
public (government-owned) land [70, 158, 181, 198]. It
is erroneously called ‘landfilling’ because no compacting, sealing, leachate collection or methane capture is
exercised [22, 27, 51, 70, 98, 157, 198]. Even in
Delhi—which is the capital of India and from where
most of the scientific and technological research in
India is coordinated—the MSW is simply piled up on
land. The biggest of such dump sites, at Bhalaswa, has
by now risen to a height of 55 m, with no possibility of
it being closed from further dumping in the foreseeable future. This fact has made the Supreme Court of
India sarcastically remark that the landfill site ‘will
one day touch the height of Qutub Minar and red beacon light will have to be used to ward off the aircraft’
[27]. Ever so often these mountain-size piles tend to
collapse under their own weight. The most recent
such collapse, at the Ghazipur dump site, killed two
people [27]. With India now producing over 55 million
metric tonnes of MSW per year of which a mere 22%
is treated and disposed of [134], the heights of the
waste dumps are only going to increase across India.
The toppling of such dumps can spell disaster—at
least 39 people died, 11 houses destroyed and sewage
was dammed by waste when a MSW dump toppled in
Istanbul in 1993 [99]. Similar collapses of MSW
mounds in Quezon City, Philippines, in 2000 and in
Bandung, Indonesia, in 2005 resulted in 278 and 147
confirmed deaths, respectively.
Among developed countries, Canada, the USA, Ireland,
Portugal, Iceland, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Qatar
Page 6 of 15
and Spain send more than 50% of their MSW to landfills,
closely followed by Italy (49.2%), the UK (49.1%) and
Finland (46.1%). The USA, which has the highest per
capita MSW generation in the world, adds to about 205
million metric tonnes of MSW per annum and sends 63%
of it to landfills [45]. These figures indicate that the
reliance of the world on sanitary landfills is not only very
high; it is likely to increase in the future as India and other
developing countries may try to move from waste dumps
to sanitary landfills [22, 98, 157].
Hence, despite the by now well-documented problems of foul-smelling and toxic gas emissions, water
and soil pollution caused by the leachate, explosion
and fire hazards, and contribution to global warming,
[82, 97] landfills will continue to be used widely for
urban waste disposal for want of a better option [14,
24, 48, 62, 107, 115, 132]. No other solid waste management technology can handle substances of such
varied characteristics as sanitary landfills can nor is
any other technology as inexpensive, for each tonne of
assorted waste handled, as sanitary landfills. Indeed,
for many countries like India, who are hard put to
bear the costs of even sanitary landfills, the possibility
of using more expensive ‘cleaner’ technologies of
MSW management is very remote.
In a landfill, the compacted waste initially undergoes
aerobic decomposition [43, 74, 123], but the oxygen is
soon depleted and anaerobic degradation sets in [4,
124]. The resulting emissions typically contain about
55% methane (CH4) and about 45% carbon dioxide
(CO2). Both are global warming gases, of which the
former has, molecule to molecule, 25 times more global
warming potential (GWP) than the latter [3]. By some
estimates, CH4 has 34 times greater GWP than CO2
[159]. Several measurements at simulated lab-scale
landfills and also at full-scale existing landfills have indicated that landfills may also be emitting nitrous oxide
(N2O). Given that N2O has 300 times greater GWP
than CO2, this is a possibility of great concern [94]. But
of equally serious concern are the emissions of highly
toxic inorganics and organic compounds that occur in
the landfill gas (LFG), of which several are also
ozone-depleting substaces [83, 86]. These include mercury vapour [199, 171], highly toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances [131], other toxic volatile organics
[130] and malodorous hydrogen sulfide and mercaptans
[55, 100]. Dioxins have also been recorded among the
LFG emissions [111, 155]; their levels shoot up to
several thousand times higher if some part of the landfill contents happens to catch fire [60, 130]. It has also
been found that brominated flame retardants—which are
common in landfills—can undergo photolytic degradation
on the landfill surface to generate dioxin-like compounds [167, 168]. But if the toxic and odorous LFG is
Abbasi Energy, Sustainability and Society
(2018) 8:36
aesthetically offensive and hazardous to plants and
animals, it pales into insignificance in comparison to the
lethal cocktail of chemicals that a typical landfill leachate
is. Thick with toxic levels of metals and metalloids,
harmful organics including dioxins and pathogenic
microorganisms, the leachates play havoc with the soil,
water and biota which come in their contact [69, 78, 89,
109]. Even small quantities of landfill leachate are capable
of causing serious damage to surface and groundwater
receptors [13]. In recent years, a new class of pollutants
has entered landfill leachates—engineered nanomaterials
[142]. In what manner and to what extent they can harm
biota is largely unknown.
Whereas sanitary landfills have been monitored for
the quality of their LFG and leachate, no such assessment exists of the emissions that come from the mountains of garbage which are rising in India and elsewhere
due to the dumping of MSW. Ever so often fires break
out in these piles due to the emitting methane getting
auto-ignited. Equally often, rag-pickers set the MSW on
fire to make picking of metallic components easy. In
peri-urban areas and villages where there is no organized MSW collection, it is common for the inhabitants
to heap up the strewn MSW and set it on fire. In all
such instances, copious amounts of dioxin and other
toxic gases must be getting released, but of which no
account exists. There are a few reports on toxic emissions but only with reference to E-waste dumps [39]. In
the like manner, the leachate coming out of the waste
dumps must be severely polluting the soil and water,
but there is no documentation of it, let alone any measures to combat it being in place [12, 27, 134].
About 0.35 Nm3 of landfill gas (LFG)—also called ‘biogas’—is generated per kilogram of solid waste, representing a substantial source of energy. For long, the cost of
recovering, cleaning and using LFG had worked out
higher than the cost of equivalent amounts of fossil fuel
energy except at a few locations. Due to this, the LFG was
either simply allowed to escape or was flared off [2, 184].
But in recent years, LFG has been recognized as a major
contributor to the global GHG emissions—for example, it
is estimated to contribute as much as 12% of the global
methane emissions [184, 185]. This has prompted efforts
to capture and use LFG as a fuel [122, 183, 184, 186]. This
route still leads to CO2 emissions, but the GWP of LFG
gets substantially lowered due to the conversion of
methane into the much lesser global warming CO2 [3].
As of now, there are 632 operational LFG energy projects in the USA [184], in which methane from 26% of
the landfills in the USA is being captured for energy
recovery. The utilization of LFG in Germany and elsewhere in Western Europe is even better [57, 135, 153,
154]. The European Union has passed regulations to
enforce effective management of LFG [135, 201], and
Page 7 of 15
developing countries are also trying to catch-up [17, 19,
100, 104, 200, 204]. But the fact remains that under the
best of circumstances, not more than 90% of LFG can be
captured; the success rate in this respect is generally
closer to 60%, and very substantial quantities of methane
continue to escape. For example, despite vigorous implementation of LFG capture programmes in Germany
which reduced GHG emissions to approximately two
thirds, as much as 60,000 to 135,000 t CO2 equivalent of
LFG is still being emitted annually [81, 153]. Secondly,
the duration up to which a landfill emits biogas at a rate
adequately high for recovery at bearable costs is 7 to
10 years [88, 126, 190]. Subsequently, the gas flux
dwindles to make recovery prohibitively uneconomical
even as the gas continues to emerge for several decades
thereafter.
Thus, after a landfill has attained a certain age its
biogas emissions become too lean to make capture
practicable yet are significant enough to contribute to
global warming and other forms of pollution. Attempts
such as in situ aeration to shift the waste degradation
process from anaerobic to aerobic—so that it generates
CO2 instead of methane [79, 153]—are being made. But
they will only add to the cost of the landfill maintenance.
Much of what happens in a conventional sanitary
landfill cannot be controlled or doctored because a
conventional sanitary landfill is essentially alternative
layers of soil and MSW which have been compacted.
This realization had led to the concept of ‘bioreactor
landfills’, which was introduced in the late 1970s [80,
143]. The concept envisages to turn conventional
sanitary landfills into rigorously controlled ‘bioreactors’. For example if the MSW can be pre-processed in
terms of separating the non-biodegradables, then
shredding the biodegradable part, and if the leachate
is recirculated—after some pre-treatment— it may
enhance the rate of biodegradation occurring in the
landfill. This can, in turn, make the landfill more
space-efficient and ‘clean’. Provision can also be made
for steps such as ozonation of stabilized waste. To
achieve all these, appropriate controls of temperature,
moisture, pH and nutrients—factors which most
strongly effect the rate of biodegradation in a landfill—can be put in place.
During the last two decades, substantial efforts have
been invested in developing the bioreactor landfill technology [13, 30, 65, 66, 80, 81, 87, 80, 91–93, 118, 140,
153, 152, 172, 196]. But very few full-scale landfill bioreactors are currently in operation, of which none exists in
any developing country [12, 80, 81, 170]. The reasons
are not hard to see; every step to turn a conventional
landfill into a bioreactor requires capital and recurring
expenditure. The more controlled—hence efficient—a bioreactor landfill is, the costlier will be its commissioning
Abbasi Energy, Sustainability and Society
(2018) 8:36
and operation. When a large part of the world is unable to
afford even conventional sanitary landfills, there is a little
possibility that it will be able to set up bioreactor landfills.
Independent of the bioreactor concept, extensive research is also being done on the treatment of landfill
leachate [34, 77, 117, 133, 161, 198]. But in this case,
too, better the extent of treatment, higher is the cost. As
a result, much of the leachate is either not treated at
all—as in India [27, 134]—or is given only ‘affordable’
treatment which leaves much of its toxicity unaddressed.
The constraint in leachate treatment—as it indeed is in
most problems of pollution control being faced by the
world—is not the technology but the costs [12].
There are also risks associated with the failure of landfill
liners/covers and leachate dams. In one instance, this type
of failure, which occurred at Quezon City, Philippines, in
2000 led to as many as 278 confirmed deaths, besides over
80 people missing who were presumed dead [31, 121].
Considering that there are also risks of fire, explosion and
pollution [105, 125], the gain of energy recovery from
landfills can at best be viewed as ‘achieving some good
from a bad bargain’. It may reduce GHG emissions linked
to urban waste disposal but will not eliminate them.
Moreover, if the quantities of urban waste generation continue to rise, especially in the economically advancing
countries as is reflected clearly in the trends [2, 26], the
advantage would soon be offset by the additional emissions. Given this context, the hope expressed by some authors that ‘sustainable’ bio-plastic can be produced using
landfill-derived methane [46, 201] or ‘renewable energy
assets’ can be developed by harvesting solar energy falling
on landfills [90] appears rather unrealistic. In Europe
alone, an estimated 5.25 billion tonnes of MSW has been
landfilled between 1995 and 2015, of which plastic is estimated to have contributed over a billion tonnes [37].
Possibilities of excavating and recycling this plastic have
been assessed and found unattractive because of the
high level of ash, heavy metals and other impurities
now embedded in it [37].
Anaerobic digestion of MSW
Another route by which energy can be generated from
MSW is by anaerobic digestion (AD) of some of its biodegradable component. Efforts are being made to bring
in larger fractions of MSW within the preview of AD,
enhance the AD process efficiency and improve its presently negative energy balance [2, 25, 50, 52, 56, 71, 126,
151, 169, 177].
Anaerobic digestion has been a hugely successful option for treating liquid wastes carrying high chemical
oxygen demand (COD) [2, 172] and animal manure
[173]. Compared to aerobic processes, anaerobic processes need less energy to operate. They also generate
energy in the form of methane-rich biogas, and it is
Page 8 of 15
possible to run anaerobic digesters in a manner that they
become ‘energy positive’—in other words, yield more
energy than they consume [33, 71].
But serious operational problems are encountered
when MSW or other biodegradable solid waste (such as
leaf litter, weeds, vegetable and fruit peels, food waste)
is to be processed by anaerobic digestion [7, 64, 67].
Feeding such a waste and ensuring its digestion and the
movement of the digested product out of the reactor
are all besieged with problems because, unlike liquid
waste which can be easily homogenated and which
moves through reactors easily, solid waste creates
major difficulties in mass transport [7]. This necessitates a lot of pre-processing, pre-treatment and also
post-digestion processing which all add to the cost of
the system [2, 152, 178].
Developing countries, including the world’s two most
populous countries—China and India—extensively use
‘biogas plants’ which are essentially ‘low-rate’ anaerobic
digesters suitable for processing animal manure [173].
These and other developing countries also use ‘high-rate’
anaerobic digesters for treating high-COD wastewaters
such as distillery and food industry wastewaters [2, 3]. But
none of these countries can afford anaerobic digestion of
MSW because of the much higher costs involved. AD is
being utilized only in some of the developed countries,
especially of Western Europe [50] due to these attributes:
1. Because anaerobic digesters are enclosed systems,
they allow all of the biogas to be collected, unlike
the landfill biogas of which only 30–40% is usually
captured, if at all. Even at the best of times, a
maximum of 60% of landfill biogas is retrievable.
2. An end product that can be used as a soil
conditioner is produced. By mixing the refuse with
animal dung, the system efficiency can be improved,
allowing for a more simple process design, thereby
improving the economic viability of the system.
This is due to the better C:N ratio that is achieved
if MSW is mixed with dung.
3. By diverting easily digestible organic waste material
to anaerobic digesters instead of sending it to
landfills, better overall methane capture is possible
as also reduction of gaseous and liquid emissions
from landfills.
But anaerobic digestion of MSW is also besieged with
serious problems:
1. The nature of organic waste in MSW may vary
according to location and time of the year. In postharvest seasons, for example, levels of crop waste, leaf
litter, etc. may be higher. This may lead to a variation
in the C/N ratio and affect the rate of gas production.
Sizing of equipment
Biogas upgrading
Insufficient adaptation of fermenter and EG capacity which result in:
i) Reduced electrical efficiency of EG
ii) Increased pollutant emission from EG
iii) Intermittent operation of EG
The efficiency of H2S reduction cannot be estimated properly resulting in oversized or
undersized installations.
Lack of reliable data on the biogas yield of energy crops
Lack of reliable data on the degradation capacity of the H2S
oxidizing bacteria
i) Reduction of the ignitability of the gas due to the resultant lowering of the CH4 content of biogas
i) Uncontrolled methane emissions occur
Open digestate storage tanks
The moisture content poses problems in:
i) The transportation of biogas
ii) In the measuring devices in the gas main
iii) In the functioning of the EG
i) Stable mesophilic temperature conditions cannot be achieved
ii) Process failure occurs due to the reduced microbial activity above 42 °C
Formation of biogenic heat by mono-fermentation of energy crops
Incomplete drying of biogas
i) Large reactor volumes are needed thereby adversely effecting process economics
ii) Low specific methane productivity
iii) High energy input per ton of substrate for heating and mixing
Long hydraulic retention time
Entry of surplus air to the fermenter for biological desulphurization
i) Reduces biogas yield
ii) Incomplete degradation of the substrate
Short-circuiting during the flow of substrate
i) Reduces lifespan of the electricity generator (EG)
i) Reduction of the gas storage capacity in the top of the fermenter
ii) Fermenter can be operated only at reduced loading
iii) Gas pipe will get clogged
Accumulation of biogas in the fermenter digestate
Insufficient biological desulphurization
i) Reduces biogas yield
ii) Causes clogging of the overflow pipe
iii) The entire process can break down
i) Risk of blockage in screw conveyors of diameter < 300 mm ii) Piston systems cause compacting of long fiber crops iii) Flushing systems cannot be applied for crops of low density Direct solids feeding by screw conveyor, piston and flushing systems Scum formation i) Digestion occurs to some extent causing losses of methane to the atmosphere ii) Mixing consumes a lot of energy Mixing of silage and process water in an external open tank Fermenter and storage tank i) Reduces process stability ii) Reduces biogas yield iii) Can cause H2S-surges to occur in the biogas Nature of feed makes it impossible to achieve exactly continuous flow Solids feeding i) Would reduce anaerobic degradation rate ii) Risk of scum formation in the fermenter iii) Difficulty in the handling of the substrate Portions of the substrate may not get broken into sufficiently small pieces i) May cause inhibition of methanogenic activity in the digestion step Formation of mold during ensiling and storage of energy crops Substrate pre-treatment i) Amounts to loss of some utilizable portion of the substrate ii) Increases the risk of inhibition of the subsequent methanogenic process Formation of organic acids during storage (pickle-formation effect); partial digestion Storage Consequences Problems Process step Table 2 Problems encountered at different steps when anaerobic digestion process is sought to be utilized for crop and other solid waste (adopted from Weiland, 2005) Abbasi Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:36 Page 9 of 15 Abbasi Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:36 2. Inadequate mixing of refuse and sewage can affect the efficiency of the anaerobic digestion system. 3. Blockage of pipes can be caused if large pieces of waste enter the system. This problem is particularly common in continuous systems. Table 2 lists the problems and the difficulties that they cause. Hence, widespread use of anaerobic digestion for large-scale treatment of MSW is a very remote possibility. Even if the process is made less costly than it is today, the possibility of it becoming a net energy producer is still very remote. Conclusions From the time some four decades ago when the MSW problem started becoming serious due to the increasing MSW generation across the world, efforts have been made by researchers, governments, industry and voluntary organizations to address this problem. There has been a particularly strong emphasis from the outset on recovery, reuse and recycling. The expectation has been that these measures, together, may offset the monetary and environmental costs of MSW management. Particularly strong efforts have been made to develop technologies for the recovery of energy from MSW by direct use as fuel (incineration) or by converting MSW into gaseous or liquid fuels via landfilling, anaerobic digestion and other bioprocesses. The state-of-the-art reveals that the generation of MSW has consistently outpaced the world’s efforts to dispose it cleanly. It has become evident again and again that energy (and material) recovery from MSW is easier said than done. In most instances, what is technically feasible is economically unfeasible. And what is economically feasible—such as setting the waste on fire as is often done in developing countries—is exceedingly harmful to the environment and the human health. Measures such as sanitary landfilling and incineration create as many new problems as the old ones they solve. Moreover, despite the use of these less-than-adequate technologies, a major portion of MSW generated in the world lies untreated. As the MSW output is expected to double by 2025, this situation is only set to become worse. Rising tides of a new solid waste stream that has begun to swell from the late 1990s onwards—E-waste— are threatening to compound the problem even further. Yet another new complication is emerging ─ of nanomaterials entering MSW. Hence, enormous stress should be put on the reduction of MSW generation by controlling wanton consumerism and wastage, rather than continuing with it in the false hope that technology will soon provide a magical solution and eliminate the problem. Page 10 of 15 Abbreviations AD: Anaerobic digestion; CDM: Clean Development Mechanism; EG: Electricity generator; E-waste: Electronic waste; GHG: Global warming gas; LFG: Landfill gas; MSW: Municipal solid waste Acknowledgements SAA thanks the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, for the Emeritus Scientist position (21(1034)/16/EMR-II). Funding The work has not been based on any funding or other forms of support received from any source by the author. Author’s contributions The author has read and approved the final manuscript. Ethics approval and consent to participate There were no living systems, including human subjects, used in this study. The information presented here does not contain any individual person’s data. Competing interests The author declares that he has no competing interests. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Received: 17 February 2018 Accepted: 2 October 2018 References 1. Abbasi T, Abbasi SA (2012) Is the use of renewable energy sources an answer to the problems of global warming and pollution? Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 42:99–154 2. Abbasi T, Tauseef SM, Abbasi SA (2012) Biogas Energy. Springer, New Yark & Londan xiv+169 pages; ISBN 3. Abbasi T, Tauseef SM, Abbasi SA (2012) Anaerobic digestion for global warming control and energy generation─an overview. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:3228–3242 4. Abbasi AA, Jingsong G, Ping LZ, Ya PY, Al-Rekabi WS (2009) Review on landfill leachate treatments. J Appl Sci Res 5(5):534–545 5. Abbasi, S. A., and Ramasamy, E. V., (1999). Biotechnological methods of pollution control; Hydrabad: Orient longmans/UPIL, viii + 168 pp. 6. Abbasi T, Gajalakshmi S, Abbasi SA (2009) Towards modeling and design of vermicomposting systems: mechanisms of composting/vermicomposting and their implications. Indian J Biotechnol 8:177–182 7. Abbasi T, Abbasi SA (2010) Production of clean energy by anaerobic digestion of phytomass—new prospects, for a global warming amelioration technology. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:1653–1659 8. Abbasi T, Abbasi SA (2010) Biomass energy and the environmental impacts associated with its production and utilization. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14: 919–937 9. Abbasi T, Abbasi SA (2011) Small hydro and the environmental implications of its extensive utilization. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:2134–2143 10. Abbasi T, Abbasi SA (2011) Renewable’ hydrogen: prospects and challenges. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:3034–3040 11. Abbasi T, Abbasi SA (2011) Decorbonization of fossil fuels as a strategy to control global warming. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:1928–1834 12. Abbasi, T., and Abbasi, S. A., (2018). Perspectives in pollution control and sustainable development. Discovery Publishing House, New Delhi; xi+569 pages 13. Abuabdou, S. M., Bashir, M. J., Aun, N. C., and Sethupathi, S., (2018). April. Applicability of anaerobic membrane bioreactors for landfill leachate treatment: Review and opportunity. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 140(1), 012033. 14. Abujayyab SK, Sanusi MS, Yahya AS, Alslaibi TM (2017). March) GIS modeling for landfill site selection via multi-criteria decision analysis: a systematic review. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on High Performance Compilation, Computing and Communications(pp. 33-38), ACM 15. Ahamed A, Yin K, Ng BJH, Ren F, Chang VC, Wang JY (2016) Life cycle assessment of the present and proposed food waste management Abbasi Energy, Sustainability and Society 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. (2018) 8:36 technologies from environmental and economic impact perspectives. J Clean Prod 131:607–614 Ahmed SI, Johari A, Hashim H, Alkali H, Ramli M (2011) Renewable energy and carbon reduction potentials of municipal solid waste in Malaysia. In: 2011 IEEE 1st Conference on Clean Energy and Technology, CET 2011, art. no. 6041497, pp 280–286 Aja OC, Oseghale SD, Al-Kayiem HH (2014) Review and evaluation of municipal solid waste management practices in Malaysia. J Solid Waste Technol Manag 40(3):216–232. https://doi.org/10.5276/jswtm.2014.215 Akele ES, Tarekegn MM (2017) Assessment of dioxin and furan emission levels and management practices in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. J Health and Pollution 7(15):85–94 Akinade OO, Oyedele LO, Ajayi SO, Bilal M, Alaka HA, Owolabi HA, Bello SA, Jaiyeoba BE, Kadiri KO (2017) Design for Deconstruction (DfD): Critical success factors for diverting end-of-life waste from landfills. Waste management, 60, pp.3-13. Aleluia J, Ferrão P (2016) Characterization of urban waste management practices in developing Asian countries: a new analytical framework based on waste characteristics and urban dimension. Waste Manag 58:415–429 Alfaia RGSM, Costa AM, Campos JC (2017) Municipal solid waste in Brazil: a review. Waste Manag Res 35(12):1195–1209. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0734242x17735375 Annepu RK (2012) Sustainable solid waste management in India. Columbia University, New York, 2(01). Arena U (2012) Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste gasification A review. Waste Manag 32(4):625–639 Asakura H, Matsuto T, Inoue Y (2010) Adopted technologies and basis for selection at municipal solid waste landfill facilities constructed in recent years in Japan. Waste Manag Res 28(8):685–694 Baere LD, Mattheeuws B (2010) Anaerobic digestion of MSW in Europe. BioCycle, 51(2), pp.24-26. Banupriya, D., (2017). Towards development of mechanizable high-rate vermicomposting systems for converting biodegradable solid waste into organic fertilizers, PhD Thesis, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, pp 240. Bedi A (2018) The Greater Kailash of garbage. Oulook 58(16):34–39 Ben Y, Li T, Wan Y, Dong Z, Hu J (2017) Exposure assessment of PCDD/Fs for the population living in the vicinity of municipal waste incinerator: additional exposure via local vegetable consumption. Environ Pollut 224: 532–540 Beyene HD, Werkneh AA, Ambaye TG (2018) Current updates on waste to energy (WtE) technologies: a review. Renewable Energy Focus 24:1–11 Bilgili MS, Demir A, Ozkaya B (2004) Effects of recirculation on leachate characteristics at landfills. Fresenius Environ Bull 13(10):1000–1005 Blight G (2008) Slope failures in municipal solid waste dumps and landfills: a review. Waste Manag Res 26(5):448–463 Bolan NS, Thangarajan R, Seshadri B, Jena U, Das KC, Wang H, Naidu R (2013) Landfills as a biorefinery to produce biomass and capture biogas. Bioresour Technol 135:578–587 Bharathiraja B, Sudharsanaa T, Bharghavi A, Jayamuthunagai J, Praveenkumar R (2016) Biohydrogen and biogas – an overview on feedstocks and enhancement process. Fuel 185:810–828. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.fuel.2016.08.030 Bong CPC, Lim LY et al (2018) Review on the characteristic and feasibility of leachate for biogas production by anaerobic digestion. Chem Eng Trans 63: 73–78 Brandes W, Themelis NJ (2011) Materials and energy recovery from municipal solid waste: why they are both needed. 19th Annual North American Waste-to-Energy Conference, NAWTEC19, pp 127–142 Burlakovs J, Kriipsalu M, Klavins M, Bhatnagar A, Vincevica-Gaile Z, Stenis J, Jani Y, Mykhaylenko V, Denafas G, Turkadze T, Hogland M (2017) Paradigms on landfill mining: from dump site scavenging to ecosystem services revitalization. Resour Conserv Recycl 123:73–84 Canopoli L, Fidalgo B, Coulon F, Wagland ST (2018) Physico-chemical properties of excavated plastic from landfill mining and current recycling routes. Waste Manag Chai X, Tonjes DJ, Mahajan D (2016) Methane emissions as energy reservoir: context, scope, causes and mitigation strategies. Prog Energy Combust Sci 56:33–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2016.05.001 Chakraborty P, Selvaraj S, Nakamura M, Prithiviraj B, Cincinelli A, Bang JJ (2018) PCBs and PCDD/Fs in soil from informal e-waste recycling sites and Page 11 of 15 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. open dumpsites in India: levels, congener profiles and health risk assessment. Sci Total Environ 621:930–938 Chan MT, Selvam A, Wong JW (2016) Reducing nitrogen loss and salinity during ‘struvite’ food waste composting by zeolite amendment. Bioresource technology, 200, pp.838-844. Chen D, Christensen TH (2010) Life-cycle assessment (EASEWASTE) of two municipal solid waste incineration technologies in China. Waste Manag Res 28(6):508–519 Chen WY, Wu JH, Lin SC, Chang JE (2016) Bioremediation of polychlorinated-p-dioxins/dibenzofurans contaminated soil using simulated compost-amended landfill reactors under hypoxic conditions. J Hazard Mater 312:159–168 Cheng H, Hu Y (2010) Curbing dioxide emissions from municipal solid waste incineration in China: re-thinking about management policies and practices. Environ Pollut 158(9):2809–2814 Cheng H, Hu Y (2010) Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source of energy: Current and future practices in China. Bioresource technology, 101(11), 3816-3824. Chi X, Streicher-Porte M, Wang MYL, Reuter MA (2011) Informal electronic waste recycling: a sector review with special focus on China. Waste Manag 31(4):731–742 Chidambarampadmavathy K, Karthikeyan OP, Heimann K (2017) Sustainable bio-plastic production through landfill methane recycling. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 71 555–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.08. Clarke WP (2018) The uptake of anaerobic digestion for the organic fraction of municipal solid waste – push versus pull factors. Bioresour Technol 249: 1040–1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.10.086 Cuartas M, López A, Pérez F, Lobo A (2018) Analysis of landfill design variables based on scientific computing. Waste Manag 71:287–300 Davis G, Phillips PS, Coskeran T (2009) Driving commercial and industrial waste reduction in Queensland, Australia: the potential application of a UK waste minimisation club model. J Solid Waste Technol Manag 35(1):50–62 De Baere L, Mattheeuws B (2010) Anaerobic digestion of MSW in EUROPE. BioCycle 51(2):24–26 Dhar H, Kumar S, Kumar R (2017) A review on organic waste to energy systems in India. Bioresour Technol 245:1229–1237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biortech.2017.08.159 Dong L, Zhenhong Y, Yongming S (2010) Semi-dry mesophilic anaerobic digestion of water sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste (WSOFMSW). Bioresour Technol 101(8):2722–2728 Doron A, Jeffry R (2018) Incentivise with tools. Oulook 58(16):42–44 Douglas P, Freni-Sterrantino A, Leal Sanchez M, Ashworth DC, Ghosh RE, Fecht D, Font A, Blangiardo M, Gulliver J, Toledano MB, Elliott P (2017) Estimating particulate exposure from modern municipal waste incinerators in Great Britain. Environ Sci Technol 51(13):7511–7519 Du Y, Fang Y, Shen D, Long Y (2015) Review on pollution control technologies of hydrogen sulfide odor in landfill. Nongye Gongcheng Xuebao/Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering 31: 269–275. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2015.z1.032 Edwards J, Othman M, Burn S (2015) A review of policy drivers and barriers for the use of anaerobic digestion in Europe, the United States and Australia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 52:815–828 EUROSTAT (2015). Sustainable development indicators, http://ec.europa.eu/ eurostat/web/ sdi/ indicators (01.2015) EUROSTAT. (2010). WEEE collection rate . Accessed Oct 2012. Ezeah C, Roberts CL (2012) Analysis of barriers and success factors affecting the adoption of sustainable management of municipal solid waste in Nigeria. J Environ Manag 103:9–14 Fajković H, Ivanić M, Pitarević L, Nemet I, Rončević S, Prohić E (2018) Unsanitary landfill fires as a source of a PCDD/Fs contamination. Croat Chem Acta 91(1):71–79 Farzadkia M, Jorfi S, Akbari H, Ghasemi M (2012) Evaluation of dry solid waste recycling from municipal solid waste: case of Mashhad city, Iran. Waste Manag Res 30(1):106–112 Fazeli A, Bakhtvar F et al (2016) Malaysia’s stand on municipal solid waste conversion to energy: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 58:1007–1016 Fdez-Güelfo LA, Álvarez-Gallego C, Sales D, Romero García LI (2012) Drythermophilic anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste: methane production modeling. Waste Manag 32(3):382–388 Abbasi Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:36 64. Fernández Rodríguez J, Pérez M, Romero LI (2012) Mesophilic anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste: optimisation of the semicontinuous process. Chem Eng J 193-194:10–15 65. Ferrer I, Ponsá S, Vázquez F, Font X (2008) Increasing biogas production by thermal (70 C) sludge pre-treatment prior to thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Biochem Eng J 42(2):186–192 66. Francois V, Feuillade G, Matejka G, Lagier T, Skhiri N (2007) Leachate recirculation effects on waste degradation: study on columns. Waste Manag 27(9):1259–1272 67. Ganesh, G., Karthikeyan, O. P., and Joseph, K. (2010). Enhancing the hydrolysis step in anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste using rumen fluid, International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management,13(3–4), 311–321 68. Gomez E, Rani DA, Cheeseman CR, Deegan D, Wise M, Boccaccini AR (2009) Thermal plasma technology for the treatment of wastes, a critical review. J Hazard Mater 161:614–626 69. Gómez-Lavín S, San Román MF, Ortiz I, Fernández J, de Miguel P, Urtiaga A (2018) Dioxins and furans legacy of lindane manufacture in Sabiñánigo (Spain), The Bailín landfill site case study. Sci Total Environ 624:955–962 70. Goncalves-Araujo R, Rabe B, Peeken I, Bracher A (2018) High colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM) absorption in surface waters of the central-eastern Arctic Ocean: Implications for biogeochemistry and ocean color algorithms. PloS one, 13(1), 0190838. 71. Grando LR, de Souza Antune AM, da Fonseca FV, Sánchez A, Barrena R, Font X (2017) Technology overview of biogas production in anaerobic digestion plants: a European evaluation of research and development. Renew Sust Energ Rev 80:44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.079 72. Grant R, Oteng-Ababio M (2012) Mapping the invisible and real African economy: urban e-waste circuitry. Urban Geogr 33(1):1–21 73. Grech S (2015) Disability and poverty in the global South: Renegotiating development in Guatemala. Springer. 74. Gugele B, Ritter M, Mareckova K (2002) Greenhouse gas emission trends in Europe, 1990–2000, topic report 7/2002. Copenhagen, European Environment Agency 75. Guo Y, Huo X, Wu K, Liu J, Zhang Y, Xu X (2012) Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in umbilical cord blood of human neonates from Guiyu, China. Sci Total Environ 427-428:35–40 76. Hagelüken C, Meskers CEM (2008) Mining our computers – opportunities and challenges to recover scarce and valuable metals from end-of-life electronic devices. In: Reichl H et al (eds) Electronics goes green 2008. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart, pp 623–628 77. Hamid H, Li LY, Grace JR (2018) Review of the fate and transformation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in landfills. Environ Pollut 235: 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.12.030 78. Han Z, Ma H, Shi G, He L, Wei L, Shi Q (2016) A review of groundwater contamination near municipal solid waste landfill sites in China. Sci Total Environ 569-570:1255–1264. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2016.06.201 79. Hashisho J, El-Fadel M (2014) Determinants of optimal aerobic bioreactor landfilling for the treatment of the organic fraction of municipal waste. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 44(16):1865–1891. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10643389.2013.803798 80. Hettiaratchi P, Jayasinghe PH, Tay J, Yadav S (2015) Recent advances of biomass waste to gas using landfill bioreactor technology-a review. Curr Org Chem 19(5):413–422 81. Heyer KU, Hupe K, Stegmann R (2013) Methane emissions from MBT landfills. Waste Manag 33(9):1853–1860 82. Hodson EL, Martin D, Prinn RG (2010) The municipal solid waste landfill as a source of ozone-depleting substances in the United States and United Kingdom. Atmos Chem Phys 10(4):1899–1910 83. Holmes T, Baker B, Shoemaker L (2016) Materials for service in municipal waste- & biomass-fired power generation... a review of recent experience. In: NACE International Corrosion Conference Proceedings (p. 1). NACE International 84. Holmes, T., Baker, B., and Shoemaker, L., (2016). Materials for Service in Municipal Waste-& Biomass-Fired Power Generation... a Review of Recent Experience. In NACE International Corrosion Conference Proceedings (p. 1). NACE International. 85. Hossain, M. S., Haque, M. A., and Hoyos, L. R., (2010). Dynamic properties of municipal solid waste in bioreactor landfills with degradation. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 28(4), 391-403. Page 12 of 15 86. Huang TY, Chuieh PT (2015) Life cycle assessment of reusing fly ash from municipal solid waste incineration. Procedia Engineering 118:984–991 87. Hunte, C. A, (2010). Performance of a full-scale bioreactor landfill. PhD Thesis Department of Civil Engineering University of Calgary 88. Kerr, T., and Dargaville, R., (2008). Turning a liability into an asset: Landfill methane utilisation potential in India. International Energy Agency, 5-9. 89. Indelicato S, Orecchio S, Avellone G, Bellomo S, Ceraulo L, Di Leonardo R, Di Stefano V, Favara R, Candela EG, La Pica L, Morici S (2017) Effect of solid waste landfill organic pollutants on groundwater in three areas of Sicily (Italy) characterized by different vulnerability. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(20): 16869–16882 90. Jacob, B. A., and Ayers, M. R., (2017). Everything you ever wanted to know about solar energy landfill solar: trash to treasure. WEEC 2017 - orld Energy Engineering Congress, Proceedings 91. Jayasinghe PA, Hettiaratchi JPA, Mehrotra AK (2014) Reaction mechanism and rate constants of waste degradation in landfill bioreactor systems with enzymatic-enhancement. Bioresour Technol 162:279–282 92. Jayasinghe PA, Hettiaratchi JPA, Mehrotra AK, Kumar SK (2011) Enzymatic enhancement of leachate to increase gas production in landfill bioreactors. Bioresour Technol 102(7):4633–4637 93. Jayasinghe PA, Hettiaratchi JPA, Mehrotra AK, Steele MA (2013) Enhancing gas production in landfill bioreactors: a flow-through column study on leachate augmentation with enzyme. J Hazard Tox Radioact Waste 17(4): 253–258 94. Jia MS, Wang XJ, Chen SH (2014) Nitrous oxide emissions from municipal solid waste landfills and its measuring methodology: a review. Chin J Appl Ecol 25(6):1815–1824 95. Johari A, Ahmed SI, Hashim H, Alkali H, Ramli M (2012) Economic and environmental benefits of landfill gas from municipal solid waste in Malaysia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16(5):2907–2912 96. Karak T, Bhagat RM, Bhattacharyya P (2012) Municipal solid waste generation, composition, and management: the world scenario. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 42(15):1509–1630 97. Kexue Ban/Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis 46(4), 674–680 98. Khajuria A, Matsui T, Machimura T, Morioka T (2012) Decoupling and Environmental Kuznets Curve for municipal solid waste generation: evidence from India. Agris On-line Papers in Economics and Informatics 2(3):1670–1674 99. Kocasoy G, Curi K (1995) The Ümraniye-Hekimbaşi open dump accident. Waste Manag Res 13(4):305–314 100. Ko JH, Xu Q, Jang YC (2015) Emissions and control of hydrogen sulfide at landfills: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 45(19):2043–2083. https://doi. org/10.1080/10643389.2015.1010427 101. Kollikkathar N, Feng H, Stern E (2009) A purview of waste management volution: special emphasis on USA. Waste Manag 29:974–985 102. Komilis D, Evangelou A, Giannakis G, Lymperis C (2012) Revisiting the elemental composition and the calorific value of the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes. Waste management, 32(3), 372-381. 103. Krishna G (2017) Why urban waste continues to follow the path of least resistance. Econ Polit Wkly 52(17):95–101 104. Kumar S, Chiemchaisri C, Mudhoo A (2011) Bioreactor landfill technology in municipal solid waste treatment: an overview. Crit Rev Biotechnol 31(1):77–97 105. Kumar, A., Datta, M., Nema, A. K., Singh, R. K., & Gurjar, B. R., (2018). Improved rating system for hazard assessment related to subsurface migration of landfill gas from municipal solid waste landfills and dumps. J Hazard Toxic, and Radioactive Waste, 22(3). doi: https://doi. org/10.1061/(asce)hz.2153-5515.0000393 106. Kuo JH, Lin CL, Chen JC, Tseng HH, Wey MY (2011) Emission of carbon dioxide in municipal solid waste incineration in Taiwan: a comparison with thermal power plants. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 5:889–898 107. Laner D, Crest M, Scharff H, Morris JWF, Barlaz MA (2012) A review of approaches for the long-term management of municipal solid waste landfills. Waste Manag 32(3):498–512 108. Li G, Wu Q, Wang S, Duan Z, Su H, Zhang L, Li Z, Tang Y, Zhao M, Chen L, Liu K (2018) Improving flue gas mercury removal in waste incinerators by optimization of carbon injection rate. Environ Sci Technol 52(4):1940–1945 109. Li J, Wang C, Du L, Lv Z, Li X, Hu X, Niu Z, Zhang Y (2017) Did municipal solid waste landfill have obvious influence on polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs) in ambient air: a case study in East China. Waste Manag 62:169–176 Abbasi Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:36 110. Li J, Zhang Y, Sun T, Hao H, Wu H, Wang L, Chen Y, Xing L, Niu Z (2018) The health risk levels of different age groups of residents living in the vicinity of municipal solid waste incinerator posed by PCDD/Fs in atmosphere and soil. Sci Total Environ 631:81–91 111. Lin X, Chen Z, Lu S, Zhang S, Zhang M, Li X, Yan J (2018) Emission characteristics of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans from the co-combustion of municipal solid waste in a lab-scale drop-tube furnace. Energy Fuel 32(4):5396–5404 112. Liu S, Jiang CS, Hao QJ, Li QL, Shi Y (2012) The particle size distribution, gross contents of heavy metals and its leaching behavior of fly ash from municipal solid wastes incineration of Chongqing. Adv Mater Res 414:166–171 113. Lohri CR, Faraji A, Ephata E, Rajabu HM, Zurbrügg C (2015) Urban biowaste for solid fuel production: waste suitability assessment and experimental carbonization in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Waste Manag Res 33(2):175–182 114. Lu JW, Zhang S, Hai J, Lei M (2017) Status and perspectives of municipal solid waste incineration in China: A comparison with developed regions. Waste Management, 69, 170-186. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.wasman.2017.04.014 115. Mali Sandip T, Khare Kanchan C, Biradar Ashok H (2012) Enhancement of methane production and bio-stabilisation of municipal solid waste in anaerobic bioreactor landill. Bioresour Technol 110:10–17 116. Malinauskaite J, Jouhara H, Czajczyńska D, Stanchev P, Katsou E, Rostkowski P, Spencer N (2017) Municipal solid waste management and waste-to-energy in the context of a circular economy and energy recycling in Europe. Energy 141:2013–2044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. energy.2017.11.128 117. Mandal P, Dubey BK, Gupta AK (2017) Review on landfill leachate treatment by electrochemical oxidation: drawbacks, challenges and future scope. Waste Manag 118. Margallo M, Taddei MBM, Hernández-Pellón A, Aldaco R, Irabien A (2015) Environmental sustainability assessment of the management of municipal solid waste incineration residues: a review of the current situation. Clean Techn Environ Policy 17(5):1333–1353 119. Mascarenhas AM, Sutherland JJ (2015) What is all this talk about emissions? J Pet Technol 67(11):23–25 120. Mazumdar NB (2013) MSW to energy in India: the scenario and expectations. Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, India 121. Merry SM, Kavazanjian E, Fritz WU (2005) Reconnaisance of the July 10 2000, Payatas landfill failure. ASCE J Performance of Constructed Facilities 19:100–107 122. Mendez AP, Ridao AR, Toro MZ (2008) Environmental diagnosis and planning actions for municipal waste landfills in Estado Lara (Venezuela). Renew Sust Energ Rev 12(3):752–771 123. Meraz RL, Vidales AM, Domínguez A (2004) A fractal-like kinetics equation to calculate landfill methane production. Fuel 83:73–80 124. Mian MM, Zeng X, Nasry ANB, Al-Hamadani SMZF (2017) Municipal solid waste management in China: a comparative analysis. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 19(3):1127–1135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-016-0509-9 125. Miroslav N, Therrien R, Lefebvre R, Gaclinas P (2001) Gas production and migration in landfill and geological materials. J Contamination Hidrol 52: 187–211 126. Minh, N. H., Anh, D.H., Tri, T. M., Anh, H. Q., Mai, P. T. N., Nam, V. D., Viet, P. H. , and Minh, T. B., (2016). c. In Persistent organic chemicals in the environment: status and trends in the Pacific Basin Countries I contamination status (pp. 55–83). American Chemical Society 127. MNRE—Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. Govt. of India. Annual Report 2010–11. 2011. http://www.mnre.gov.in/. Accessed 19 May 2011. 128. Moyna (2012) What a waste. Down To Earth 21(10):18–19 129. Moyna (2012) Patronising dirty technology. Down To Earth 20(23):9–10 130. Nadal M, Rovira J, Díaz-Ferrero J, Schuhmacher M, Domingo JL (2016) Human exposure to environmental pollutants after a tire landfill fire in Spain: health risks. Environ Int 97:37–44 131. Nadal M, Rovira J, Sánchez-Soberón F, Schuhmacher M, Domingo JL (2016) Concentrations of metals and PCDD/Fs and human health risks in the vicinity of a hazardous waste landfill: a follow-up study human and ecological risk assessment. An Int J 22(2):519–531 132. Nadaletti WC, Cremonez PA et al (2015) Potential use of landfill biogas in urban bus fleet in the Brazilian states: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 41:277–283 Page 13 of 15 133. Naveen BP, Mahapatra DM, Sitharam TG, Sivapullaiah PV, Ramachandra TV (2017) Physico-chemical and biological characterization of urban municipal landfill leachate. Environ Pollut 220:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol. 2016.09.002 134. Nayar L (2018) Keep it simple, stupid. Outlook 28:40–41 135. Nelles M, Grünes J, Morscheck G (2016) Waste management in Germany–development to a sustainable circular economy? Procedia Environ Sci 35:6–14 136. Ngusale GK, Oloko M, Agong S, Nyakinya B (2017). Energy recovery from municipal solid waste. Energy Sources, Part A: recovery, utilization and environmental effects, 39(16), 1807–1814. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15567036.2017.1376007 137. OECD. Publishing (2017). OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2017. OECD Publishing. 138. Ogwueleka TC, Ogwueleka N (2010) Modelling energy content of municipal solid waste using artificial neural network. 139. Ouda OKM, Raza SA (2014) Waste-to-energy: solution for municipal solid waste challenges-global perspective. ISTMET 2014 - 1st international symposium on technology management and emerging technologies, Proceedings 140. Pacey J, Augenstein D, Morck R, Reinhart D Yazdani R (1999). The bioreactor landfill-an innovation in solid waste management. MSW management, 53-60. 141. Park S (2018) Factors influencing the recycling rate under the volume-based waste fee system in South Korea. Waste Manag 74:43–51 142. Part F, Berge N, Baran P, Stringfellow A, Sun W, Bartelt-Hunt S, Mitrano D, Li L, Hennebert P, Quicker P, Bolyard SC (2018) A review of the fate of engineered nanomaterials in municipal solid waste streams. Waste Manag 75:427–449 143. Pohland FG, Al-Yousfi AB, Reinhart DR (2003) Anaerobic digestion of organic solid waste in bioreactor landfills. In: Mata-Alvarez J (ed) Biomethanization of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. IWA Publishing, pp 303–315 144. Pollock, C., (1987). Mining urban wastes: the potential for recycling. Worldwatch paper (USA). no. 76. 145. Premalatha M, Tauseef SM, Abbasi T, Abbasi SA (2012) The real origin of the e-waste problem and its truly ‘sustainable’ solution. Ecolo Environ Conserv 18:987–991 146. Premalatha M, Tabassum-Abbasi, Abbasi T, Abbasi SA (2014) A critical view on the eco-friendliness of small and large hydroelectric installations. Sci Total Environ 481:638–−643 147. Premalatha M, Tabassum A, Abbasi T, Abbasi SA (2014) The generation, impact, and management of E-waste: state of the art. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 44(14):1577–1678. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2013.782171 148. Purger D, Lengyel A, Kevey B, Lendvai G, Horváth A, Tomić Z Csiky J (2014) Numerical classification of oak forests on loess in Hungary, Croatia and Serbia. Preslia, 87, 47-66. 149. Ramasamy EV, Abbasi SA (2000) High-solids anaerobic digestion for the recovery of energy from municipal solid waste (MSW). Environ Technol 21(3):345–349 150. Ramasamy EV, Abbasi SA (1999) Utilization of biowaste solids by extracting volatile fatty acids with subsequent conversion to methane and manure. J Solid Waste Technol Manag 26(3):133–139 151. Rapport JL, Zhang R, Williams RB, Jenkins BM (2012) Anaerobic digestion technologies for the treatment of municipal solid waste. Int J Environ Waste Manag 9(1–2):100–122 152. Reinhart, D. R., McCreanor, P. T., . Townsend, T. (2002) The bioreactor landfill: its status and future. Waste Manage Res, 20(2), 172–186 153. Ritzkowski M, Stegmann R (2007) Controlling greenhouse gas emissions through landfill in situ aeration. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 1(3):281–288 154. Rostron J (2008) The law and regulation of waste in the United Kingdom: a review. Environ Qual Manag 18(1):47–65 155. Roumak VS, Umnova NV, Levenkova ES, Turbabina KA, Pivovarov EA, Shelepchikov AA, Pavlov SD (2017) Dioxins in the environment and the body of animals near landfill: to the methodology of public health risk evaluation. Ekologiya Cheloveka/Human Ecology 10:9–15 156. Rovira J, Nadal M, Schuhmacher M, Domingo JL (2018) Concentrations of trace elements and PCDD/Fs around a municipal solid waste incinerator in Girona (Catalonia, Spain) Human health risks for the population living in the neighborhood. Sci Total Environ 630:34–45 157. Sapkal VR, Chandel MK et al (2016) Treatment of municipal solid waste leachate: a review. J Environ Sci Engineering 58(2):167–174 Abbasi Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:36 158. Sarkar C, Abbasi SA (2006) QUALIDEX: a virtual instrument for continuous monitoring of water quality indices. Environ Monit Assess 119:201–231 159. Schindell DT, Faluvegi G, Koch DM, Schmidt GA, Unger N, Bauer SE (2009) Improved attribution of climate forcing to emissions. Science, 326(5953): 716-718. Shaltout, K.H., Al-Sodany, Y.M. and Eid, E.M. 160. Selvi PK, Akolkar AB, Saranya P (2012) Occupational health hazards of the working group associated with municipal solid waste management at Kolkata in eastern India. Int J Environ Health 6(2):141–154 161. Shehzad A, Bashir MJK, Sethupathi S, Lim JW, Younas M (2016) Bioelectrochemical system for landfill leachate treatment – challenges, opportunities, and recommendations. Geosystem Engineering 19(6):337– 345. https://doi.org/10.1080/12269328.2016.1188029 162. Shen H, Guan R, Ding G, Chen Q, Lou X, Chen Z, Zhang L, Xing M, Han J, Wu Y (2017) Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/furans (PCDD/Fs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in Zhejiang foods (2006–2015): market basket and polluted areas. Sci Total Environ 574:120–127 163. Siddiqui FZ, Zaidi S, Pandey S, Khan ME (2013) Review of past research and proposed action plan for landfill gas-to-energy applications in India. Waste Manag Res 31(1):–3 164. Singh RP, Tyagi VV, Allen T, Ibrahim MH, Kothari R (2011) An overview for exploring the possibilities of energy generation from municipal solid waste (MSW) in Indian scenario. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(9):4797–4808 165. Soler A, Conesa JA, Iñiguez ME, Ortuño N (2018) Pollutant formation in the pyrolysis and combustion of materials combining biomass and e-waste. Sci Total Environ 622:1258–1264 166. Song Q, Wang Z, Li J, Duan H, Yu D, Liu G (2017) Comparative life cycle GHG emissions from local electricity generation using heavy oil, natural gas, and MSW incineration in Macau. Renew Sust Energ Rev 167. Srogi K (2008) Levels and congener distributions of PCDDs PCDFs and dioxin-like PCBs in environmental and human samples: a review. Environ Chem Letters 6:1–28 168. Su G, Letcher RJ, Farmahin R, Crump D (2018) Photolysis of highly brominated flame retardants leads to time-dependent dioxin-responsive mRNA expression in chicken embryonic hepatocytes. Chemosphere 194: 352–359 169. Surroop D, Mohee R (2011) Comparative assessment of anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste at mesophilic and thermophilic temperatures. Int J Environ Technol Manag 14(1–4):238–251 170. Swati M, Karthikeyan OP, Joseph K, Visvanathan C, Nagendran R (2011) Pilotscale simulation of landfill bioreactor and controlled dumping of fresh and partially stabilized municipal solid waste in a tropical developing country. J Hazard Toxic, and Radioactive Waste 15(4):321–330 171. Tao T, Sondalle SB, Shi H, Zhu S, Perez-Atayde AR, Peng J, Baserga SJ, Look AT (2017) The pre-rRNA processing factor DEF is rate limiting for the pathogenesis of MYCN-driven neuroblastoma. Oncogene, 36(27), p.3852. 172. Tauseef SM, Abbasi T, Abbasi SA (2013) Energy recovery from wastewaters with high-rate anaerobic digesters. Renew Sust Energ Rev 19:704–741 173. Tauseef SM, Premalatha M, Abbasi T, Abbasi SA (2013) Methane capture from livestock manure. J Environ Manag 117:187–207 174. Tian M, Chen SJ, Wang J, Luo Y, Luo XJ, Mai BX (2012) Plant uptake of atmospheric brominated flame retardants at an e-waste site in southern China. Environ Sci Technol 46(5):2708–2714 175. Thanh NP, Matsui Y (2013) Assessment of potential impacts of municipal solid waste treatment alternatives by using life cycle approach: a case study in Vietnam. Environ Monit Assess 185(10):7993–8004. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10661-013-3149-8 176. Tonjes DJ, Greene KL (2012) A review of national municipal solid waste generation assessments in the USA. Waste Manag Res 30(8):758–771 177. Tran LTH, Rollon AP, Nakasaki K (2012) Anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) in two-phase system. Int J Environ Waste Manag 9(1–2):5–17 178. Tsydenova O, Bengtsson M (2011) Chemical hazards associated with treatment of waste electrical and electronic equipment. Waste Manag 31(1):45–58 179. UNEP (2009) Recycling—from E-waste to Resources. United Nations Environment Programme pp xxiv+90 180. Habitat, U. N., (2010). The state of African cities 2010: Governance, inequality and urban land markets. United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations. Page 14 of 15 181. United Nation Development Programme (UNDP)/World Health Organization (WHO). The energy access situation in developing countries: a review focusing on the least developed countries and Sub-Saharan Africa UNDP, New York, United States; 2009. 182. (UNSTATS) (2018): United Nations Statistics Division IAEG-SDGs. Tier classification for global SDG indicators. URL: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/ iaeg-sdgs/tier-classification/ (09.03.2018) 183. USEPA (1996) Opportunities for landfill gas energy recovery in WisconsinDraft profiles of candidate landfills and current projects, report no. 430B96031, p 132 184. USEPA (2018). Landfill methane outreach program. www.epa.gov/lmop 185. USEPA (2011) Global anthropogenic non-CO2 greenhouse gas emission: 1990–2030, EPA 430-D-11-003. United States Environmental Protection Agency available online at URL: www.epa.gov, Accessed: Oct 2012 186. Vaish B, Sharma B, Srivastava V, Singh P, Ibrahim MH, Singh RP (2017) Energy recovery potential and environmental impact of gasification for municipal solid waste. Biofuels:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2017.1368061 187. Valerio F (2008) Review on environmental impact of solid wastes produced by municipal urban waste incinerators. Epidemiol Prev 32:244–253 188. Vergara SE, Tchobanologus G (2012) Municipal solid waste and the environment: a global perspective. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:277–309 189. Vinceti M, Malagoli C, Werler MM, Filippini T, De Girolamo G, Ghermandi G, Fabbi S, Astolfi G, Teggi S (2018) Adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with changing patterns of exposure to the emissions of a municipal waste incinerator. Environ Res 164:444–451 190. Vourdoubas J, Skoulou VK (2016) Case study of viability of bioenergy production from landfill gas (LFG). J Agric Sci 8(10):165 191. Wei GX, Liu HQ, Zhang R, Zhu YW, Xu X (2016) Mass concentrations of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs) and heavy metals in different size fractions of hospital solid waste incinerator fly ash particles. Aerosol Air Qual Res 16:1569–1578 192. Wang H, Brown SL, Magesan GN, Slade AH, Quintern M, Clinton PW, Payn TW (2008) Technological options for the management of biosolids. Environ Sci Pollut Res 15:308–317 193. Wang JJ, Zhao HW, Zhong XP, Liu YS, Zeng H (2011) Concentration levels and spatial distribution of heavy metals in soil surrounding a municipal solid waste incineration plant (Shenzhen). Huanjing Kexue/Environmental Science 32(1):298–304 194. Wang R, Xu Z (2014) Recycling of non-metallic fractions from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE): a review. Waste Manag 34(8): 1455–1469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.03.004 195. Wang Y, Yan Y, Chen G, Zuo J, Du H (2015) Effective approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from waste to energy process: a China study. Resour Conserv Recycl 104:103–108 196. Weng YC, Fujiwara T, Houng HJ, Sun CH, Li WY, Kuo YW (2015) Management of landfill reclamation with regard to biodiversity preservation, global warming mitigation and landfill mining: experiences from the Asia-Pacific region. J Clean Prod 104:364–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2015.05.014 197. WI (Solid Waste Management in the World’s Institute), 2012. Global municipal solid waste continues to grow. http://www.worldwatch.org/ global-municipal-solid-waste-continues-grow-0. 198. Wu D, Wang T, Huang X, Dolfing J, Xie B (2015) Perspective of harnessing energy from landfill leachate via microbial fuel cells: novel biofuels and electrogenic physiologies. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99(19):7827–7836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-015-6857-x 199. Xevgenos D, Papadaskalopoulou C, Panaretou V, Moustakas K, Malamis D (2015) Success stories for recycling of MSW at municipal level: a review. Waste and Biomass Valorization 6(5):657–684 200. Yi S, Jang YC (2018) Life cycle assessment of solid refuse fuel production from MSW in Korea. J Mater Cycles and Waste Manag 20(1):19–42 201. Zamorano M, Ignacio Pérez Pérez J, Aguilar Pavés I, Ramos Ridao A (2007) Study of the energy potential of the biogas produced by an urban waste landfill in southern Spain. Renew Sust Energ Rev 11(5):909–922 202. Zeman F (2010) Considering carbon capture and storage for energy generation from municipal solid waste. J Environ Eng 136(8):756–761 203. Zhang JH (2012) Characterization of a Rhizobium larrymoorei FJ exhibiting high level Cr(VI) reduction potential. Adv Mater Res 356-360:1009–1014 204. Zhao C, Zhao L, Chen X, Yin P, Yang Y (2012) A study on the collection efficiency of methane in municipal solid waste landfill. Huanjing Kexue Xuebao/Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae 32(4):954–959 Abbasi Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:36 205. Zhao H, Wang J (2018) Chemical-looping combustion of plastic wastes for in situ inhibition of dioxins. Combustion and Flame 191:9–18 206. Zhong XP, Wang JJ, Zhao HW, Liu YS, Zeng H (2010) Investigation of heavy metals pollution in predominant plants around a municipal solid waste incineration plant: a case study in Shenzhen Qingshuihe MSWI plant. Acta Sci Nat Univ Pekin 46(4):674–680 207. Zhou H, Meng A, Long Y, Li Q, Zhang Y (2015) A review of dioxinrelated substances during municipal solid waste incineration. Waste Manag 36:106–118 208. Zubero MB, Eguiraun E, Aurrekoetxea JJ, Lertxundi A, Abad E, Parera J, Goñi-Irigoyen F, Ibarluzea J (2017) Changes in serum dioxin and PCB levels in residents around a municipal waste incinerator in Bilbao, Spain. Environ Res 156:738–746 Page 15 of 15 © 2018. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. Purchase answer to see full attachment

Why Choose Us

• 100% non-plagiarized Papers
• 24/7 /365 Service Available
• Affordable Prices
• Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
• Will complete your papers in 6 hours
• On-time Delivery
• Money-back and Privacy guarantees
• Unlimited Amendments upon request
• Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

• Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
• Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
• Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
• Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
• From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.