comparative life cycle assessment of different municipal solid waste management options in selected...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 300 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2017, pp. 300–308 Article ID: IJCIET_08_02_032 Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2 ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316 © IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

COMPARATIVE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF DIFFERENT MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS IN SELECTED WARDS OF BANGALORE

Basavaraj Itnal Research Scholar, Jain University, Bangalore, India

Prof. S M Prakash Principal, KNS Institute of Technology, Bangalore, India

ABSTRACT The main objectives of this paper to review the cost of the different municipal solid waste

management and to assess the different options using a comparative life cycle appraisal in selected wards of Bangalore. Life cycle appraisal methodology was used for optimum municipal solid waste management strategies in selected wards of Bangalore city. Bangalore is the largest city and business capital of Karnataka state. The population of the city as per the 2011 census is 8,443,675 with the total number of houses 2,101,831. The total of approximately 62.84 tons per day of waste is generated in selected wards of Bangalore. Environmental LCA is a system analysis tool is used to analyze and to evaluate different options that can be implemented to enable the good community solid waste management in the present study. Collected waste to the landfill and composting (Oc I) Optimized route for waste to landfill (OcII) vermin composting (62%) and landfill (32%) (OcIII), Entire waste Incineration (Oc IV), were taken into consideration. An effective Community Municipal Solid waste management system is needed in these selected wards, since the generated CMSW is transported to the dumped yard that has no liner, no biogas capture, etc. Based on the analysis indicates that, the Option OcI and OcIII led to the most adverse environmental impact in the human health and ecosystem quality damage category. Option OcII (Recycling, optimized route and landfilling) is the best option in terms of lower environmental impacts on human health, ecosystem quality and resources and financial requirements. The results also showed that the most eco-friendly scenario to be implemented in the future would be the combination of incineration and landfill (OcIV), further, Oc III option had the least helpful effect on the resources damage category. Theoverall analysis of different options implied that the scenario Sc-1 was the worst options, and followed by OcII and OcIII among the studied options. Key words: Waste Management option; life cycle assessment, composition, wards, Bangalore.

Cite this Article: Basavaraj Itnal and Prof. S M Prakash, Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Different Municipal Solid Waste Management Options in Selected Wards of Bangalore. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 300–308. http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2

Basavaraj Itnal and Prof. S M Prakash


1. INTRODUCTION Solid waste is composed with different biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials, also called as community waste. Community municipal solid waste management is a complex and multidisciplinary problem that should be considered from technical, economic and social aspects on a sustainability basis. For a healthy environment, both community waste and industrial wastes should be managed according to the solid waste management pyramid (prevention /minimization /recovery/ incineration/ landfilling). For this purpose, different techniques can be used (Gottinger, 1988 and Mufide Banar, et al., 2008).

Ashtashi, et al.,(2011) reported, currently, the environmental issues are heading due to improper disposal of community solid waste towards a potential risk. It is an important sensitive issue which is concerns about serious environmental problems in today’s ecosphere as well as in India. Present condition describes a serious impact of environmental pollution causing a human health related problem due to improper community solid waste management and also tremendous growth in population.

The present scenario describes, community solid waste management has become a major challenge in world and India, especially in urban areas. The community solid waste generation from various human activities directly affects the health and negative impact on the environment (Bhambulkar, 2011). Al-Ansari, et al, (2012) estimated in their study due to waste related disease 10% of the person lost their life. There are four ISO standards specifically designed for LCA application: (Nouri, et al., 2014) (i) ISO 14040: Principle and framework, (ii) ISO 14041: Goal and Scope definition and inventory analysis (iii) ISO 14042: Life Cycle Impact Assessment and (iv) ISO 14043: Interpretation. So, in the investigation presented in this paper, Environmental life cycle appraisal (ELCA) methodology was used to analyze and to evaluate different options that can be implemented to enable the good community solid waste management in selected wards of Bangalore. The aim to reduce the cost, to identify the best management practice in place of landfill and to suggest best options for selected wards of Bangalore city.

2. VERMICOMPOSTING The vermicomposting proposal is given in option III and non-biodegradable materials will be transported to the land fill using optimal route. Vermicomposting is the process of composting using different worms, generally red wigglers, white worms and other earthworms, to create a heterogeneous mixture of decomposing vegetable or food waste, bedding materials, and Vermicast, also called worm castings, worm humus or worm manure, is the end-product of the breakdown of organic matter by an earthworm. These castings have been shown to contain reduced levels of contaminants and a higher saturation of nutrients than do organic materials before vermicomposting (Ndegwa, et al., 2000). Containing water-soluble nutrients, vermicompost is an excellent, nutrient-rich organic fertilizer and soil conditioner (Coyne, et al., 2008). This process of producing vermicompost is called vermicomposting. While vermicomposting is generally known as a nutrient rich source of organic compost used in farming and small scale sustainable, organic farming, the process of vermicasting is undergoing research as a treatment for organic waste in sewage and wastewater plants around the world.

3. INCINERATION Incineration is a thermal waste treatment method where raw or natural waste can be used as raw material. The incineration process was considered in option IV does not have a recycling process. The incineration process takes place in the presence of sufficient quantity of air to oxidize the raw material (fuel). Waste is combusted in the temperature of 8500C and in this stage waste converted to carbon dioxide, water and non-combustible materials with solid residue state called incinerator bottom ash (IBA) that always contains a small amount of residual carbon (DEFRA, 2007). Their area two stages

Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Different Municipal Solid Waste Management Options in Selected Wards of Bangalore


of combustion (pre and post combustion) during these combustion, gas and slug or ashes are produced. Then, in the next phases flue gas is cleaned by water absorber or different filtering methods. Finally, the gaseous substances are emitted through the chimney to the air. Thermal conversation of waste to energy is now very much applied technology for waste management system due to the generation of power and energy from the solid waste (Zaman, 2010). The incineration of 1 mg of municipal waste in MSW incinerators is associated with the production/release of about 0.7 to 1.2 mg of carbon dioxide (CO2 output). The proportion of carbon of biogenic origin is usually in the range of 33 to 50 percent. The climate-relevant CO2 emissions from waste incineration are determined by the proportion of waste whose carbon compounds are assumed to be of fossil origin. Medina, (2010) explained in their study the high rate of moisture in municipal solid waste makes incineration difficult to perform at low costs.

4. MATERIALS AND METHODS

4.1. Study Area Bangalore lies at having latitude 13002’00.90``N and longitude 77034’32.17``E with an altitude of an average of 839 to 962 meters from mean sea level. The average rainfall is around 859 mm. The coolest month is December with an average low temperature of 15.4 °C and the hottest month is April with an average high temperature of 36 °C, generally varies from maximum of 37°C to minimum 13.0°C. The city covering an area of 709.49 Sq.km and population of the city as per the 2011 census is 8,443,675 and floating population of 12,000. The city is divided into 198 wards and the total number of houses 2,101,831 (source BBMP). In addition to these commercial complexes, hospitals and industries are established in and around the city which add up to solid waste generation. Bangalore is the planned city in India with a population of 8.4 million in 2011. Bangalore is the fifth most populous city in India and the 18th most populous city. The map of the study area is given in Figure 1. Table 1 gives the ward wise details including population growth rate and household infrastructure of the study area.

Figure 1 Topo-map showing the study Area and MSW dumping site at Movallipura

Out of total garbage 65% waste is organic waste, 8% is paper waste, 17% is plastic waste, 4% metal waste, 3% glass waste, and 3% other waste. Table 2. Organic waste includes fallen leaves, vegetable waste, kitchen waste, household waste and domestic residue etc. Paper waste includes paper



vessel, news paper, paper box, paper bags, food wrapping covers (e.g. Soap cover, tooth paste cover, match box cover) etc. (EPTRI. 1995). The average composition if given in Table 3.

Table 1 Ward-wise Population growth rate, household and other infrastructure facilities respectively

Radhakrishna Temple

Sanjay Nagar Ganganagar Hebbal

Ward number 18 19 20 21 Zone East East East East Constituency Hebbal Hebbal Hebbal Hebbal Population 55122 52491 27361 32516 Area Sq. km 1.9 1.5 2.5 1.2 Households 9058 8153 6592 8181 Road Length, km 54 44 31 36 Lakes 01 - - - Area in Sq. km 80474 - - - Parks 29 21 07 10 Area Sq. km 74685 37718 9386.52 13100 Population Density 18014 21096 12096 26455 Population Growth rate 36.30% 34.40% 4.20% 34.60%

Table 2 Composition of CMSW in selected wards of Bangalore

Locations Hebbal Division Radhakrishna

temple Sanjay Nagar Ganga Nagar Hebbal

Organic % 65.79 64.68 65.82 63.83 Paper % 6.52 7.01 6.54 5.03 Plastic & Rubber % 11.42 13.61 11.84 14.42 Metals & Glass 6.02 5.98 5.89 4.71 Fine Earth 7.21 6.82 7.25 9.21 other 3.04 2.1 2.64 2.8

Table 3 Average Composition (%) of CMSW generated in selected wards

Parameter pH Organic matter%

Carbon %

Nitrogen %

PO4

% K %

Calorific Value Months

January,15 8.9 58.6 12.4 0.52 0.42 0.48 698 February,15 8.8 58.2 13.8 0.62 0.58 0.52 729 March,15 8.2 59.6 14.3 0.68 0.46 0.60 968 April,15 7.9 60.4 13.9 0.59 0.57 0.62 1021 May,15 7.5 61.8 12.6 0.61 0.42 0.54 1014 June,15 7.8 62.8 14.2 0.60 0.42 0.60 989 July,15 8.8 66.8 10.2 0.38 0.42 0.30 948 August,15 8.6 67.2 11.6 0.42 0.34 0.28 765 Sepetember,15 7.2 61.6 12.5 0.45 0.40 0.33 782 October,15 7.4 60.4 12.2 0.42 0.32 0.26 772 November,15 7.3 61.4 12.3 0.41 0.34 0.28 892 December,15 7.2 62.3 11.9 0.45 0.36 0.26 848

Note: All parameters expressed in terms of % except pH,



4.2. ELCA methodology Environmental LCA is a system analysis tool. It also known as life cycle analysis, balancing system and cradle to grave analysis. It is used to analyses the environmental related impacts at all the stages of the life products and by products. This can be used to analyses the sequences of the solid waste management like from raw material acquisition through production, use and disposal. Many researches using in several countries to evaluate treatment options for specific waste segments and to understand the waste management systems (Obersteiner, et al., 2007 and Ozeleret al., 2006). The LCA findings have paved the way to sustainable development in waste management and have considered as inputs to decision-making in terms of the choice of waste management strategies. De Feo, & Malvano (2009) worked on various MSW management scenarios in southern Italy. The aim of this study was to apply the LCA procedure to MSW management on the Province of Avellino in Italy in order to choose the “best” management system in environmental terms.

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE OPTIONS

5.1. Option I This option is based on the exiting and current practice in selected wards of Banaglore. Total waste generated from the selected wards is 62.80 TPD, it is transported to the identified land fill area existing distance is 189.21 km with 3 shift per day, the total distance covered vehicle is 3973.41 km, to complete the shift total 994 liters diesel is required and total cost of the secondary transportation including salary and maintenance is Rs. 32,947,548/-.

5.2. Option II An optimal route was proposed for previous option. The generated 62.80 TPD waste is transported to the identified land fill area using optimal route and distance is 164.75 km with 3 shift per day, the total distance covered vehicle is 3459.75 km, to complete the shift total 885 liters diesel is required and total cost of the secondary transportation including salary and maintenance is Rs. 30,426,792/-.

5.3. Option III Transportation cost is minimized in this option by adopting the methodology vermicomposting through biological activity reduce the volume of the waste. The flow of the system is recyclable materials separated during the collection point itself and used for the vermicomposting in the ward itself. Biodegradable materials (about 62%) will be using for vermicomposting in the ward itself and non-biodegradable waste (about 32%) will be transported to landfill area. The totals cost includes vehicle requirement, initial investment and maintenance is Rs. 220,390,882/-

5.4. Option IV In this option instead of landfilling, existing and transportation an incineration process was added. The entire 62.80 TPD of waste generated from selected wards in the Bangalore city is incinerated using combustion technology in the ward itself. Incineration is the burning of MSW to reduce the volume of the waste, kills pathogens that may be present and destroys malodorous compounds. Moreover, the variety malodorous gases can be eliminated through pyrolysis. The cost was estimated includes initial investment and maintenance of incineration plant including land procurement is Rs. 170,214,880/-.

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The four options being examined here differ in existing, optimized, composting and incineration in availability to a given community. Selected four different options, the cost of the different options of



operation and maintenance are given Table 4. Total transportation of secondary municipal solid waste cost can also be reduced and calculated as per data given below.

Total Quantity of Waste generated in the study area TPD = 62.80 Total quantity of Biodegradable waste (@62.0%) TPD = 38.93 Vehicle capacity – Long haul compactor truck/lorry (MT) = 12 Maximum number of Trips per Truck per day = 3 Vehicle speed (stoppage, traffic and halts) km/hr = 25 Vehicle mileage (km/liter) = 4 Cost of the vehicle (Rs.) = 2,500,000 Current diesel rate (Rs.) = 54.28 Salary for Driver (Rs. per month) = 8,000 Salary for helpers (Rs. Per month) = 5,000

7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OPTIONS Life cycle assessment is an effective tool to analyze waste treatment technology based on environmental performances. From the analysis indicates that, all options are favorable to abiotic and ozone layer depletion due to energy recovery from the waste treatment facilities. Option III is contains transportation of non-biodegrable waste to the landfill has the significantly lower environmental impact, compared to Option IV incineration means combustion of waste using thermal treatment while gases are used for fuel with control emission environment. However, option III has significant impact on photochemical oxidation, global warming and acidification. Option III is energy recovery facilities is environmentally favorable (Andrew Emery, et al., 2007). However, due to large land requirement, difficult emission control system and long time span, restriction on land filling is applying more in present study. Comparatively, option II is more environmental friendly technology than option I due to loading and unloading of waste and transported to the landfill using optimized rote.

In case of energy use, Option II revealed the least energy consumption due to the lower collection frequencies and optimized rotes applied in the secondary collection stage as the recyclables were sorted at the collection points. It was followed by Option IV (Collection + Segregation + Incineration + Landfilling). Energy was produced as a result of the process, which decreased the overall total energy use of the option and cost is more for installation and maintenance. Option II was found to be exerting the least impact due to usage of optimized route for transportation of secondary waste frequency and recycling of dry recyclables.

Table 4 Comprehensive evaluation of the different options

Sl. No. Option I Option II Option III Option IV Existing Optimal

route Vermicomposting

with optimal Incineration in

the ward 1. Waste to transported TPD 62.80 62.80 62.80 62.80 2. Composting in the ward (cluster

type) TPD -- -- 38.93 --

3. Vehicles required to secondary waste transportation

07 07 (23.87MTD waste) 03 03

4. Number of Drivers and helpers required

42 42 18 18

5. Total cost of Vehicles (Rs.) 17,500,000/- 17,500,000/- 7,500,000/- 7,500,000/- 6. Distance covered by each vehicle

(km) 189.21 164.75 164.75 45

7. Total distance covered day (km) 3973.41 3459.75 1482.75 405



8. Diesel required per day (liters) 994 865 370 + 7 (inside the yard) 102 + 7 (inside the yard)

9. Vehicles required for the activities -- -- 05 (2,000,00/vehicle) 05 (2,000,00/vehicle)

10. Cost of the diesel per day (liters) 53954.32 46,952.20 20,463.56 5808.00 11. Cost of the diesel per month (liters) 1,618,629/- 1,408,566/- 613,907/- 174, 240/- 12. Total cost of the diesel per annum

(liters) 19,423,548/- 16,902,792/- 7,366,882/- 2,090,880/-

13. Number of drivers required (Salary /month)

14 (112,000/-)

14 (112,000/-) 11 (88,000/-) 11 (88,000/-)

14. Number of helpers required (Salary /month)

28 (140,000/-)

28 (140,000/-) 14 (70,000/-) 14 (70,000/-)

15. Total cost of vehicle maintenance (@6% of total) Rs.

10,500,000/- 10,500,000/- 12,000/- 12,000/-

16. Total salaries per annum (Rs.) 3,024,000/- 3,024,000/- 3,024,000/- 3,024,000/- 17. Cost of the Investment for total

Project -- -- 1,75,000,000/- 2,41,000,000/- ^^

18. Land procuring cost (3 acre required) based on the area

-- -- 20,000,000/- 20,000,000/-

19. Amount of Energy /Compost Produced

- -- - 85,000,000/- --

20. Cost Recovery for the Unit - 1,20,000,000/- 21. Annual Maintenance cost -- -- 1,00,000,000/- 24,100,000/- 22. Total amount required for CMSW

per annum 32,947,548/- 30,426,792/- 220,390,882/- 170,214,880/-

Note: ^^ Based on National Master Plan for Development of Waste-to-Energy in India, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), Government of India; details available at: www.mnes.nic.in.

According to the environmental evaluation, the highest human toxicity impacts was caused by the incineration means thermal treatment case, Option IV, due to high hazardous solid waste production that would lead to high heavy metal and gaseous emissions. The least contribution in terms of human toxicity impacts was observed to be Option II. According to Table 4, Option II was found to be the option with minimum contribution in all the impact categories. However, it was the first minimum case for these exceptions. Therefore, Option II was determined to be the best option with respect to environmental concerns (Schluchter, 2012). Comparatively, the minimum amount of final non-hazardous solid waste was obtained from option III; however, the highest amount of hazardous solid waste was also arising from option IV, which has a potential for higher toxicity impacts.

8. ECONOMICS OF OPTIONS Cost of the results of the different options were analyzed to understand initial investment and considered the some environmental problems. Option IV is higher than the other option I, II and III are lower due to avoided raw material usage through the recycling process. Methane is the most important impact for landfill scenarios (I and III). The global warming effect for option IV mostly results from CO2. II is the best scenario for this impact category. Option IV has the highest human toxicity effect due to nitrogen oxide, with a contribution of 100%. The options include recycling (I and III) are better than the others. All of the scenarios except option III show approximately same trend for acidification from ammonia and nitrogen dioxide in the air. Option III is the best scenario for this impact category because of the displacement with fertilizer (Mohammad Ali Rajaeifar, et al., 2015).

The calculation of the different options in the present study, option II (Source Reduction + collection + segregation + transportation + optimization of secondary route) was the most feasible



management of solid waste due to the source reduction process and subsequent recycling of the sorted materials.

Disadvantages of the incineration is, the generated all of the MSW cannot be burned, as incineration has a minimum requirement for calorific value. The calorific value of solid waste ranges from 698 Kcal/Kg to 1021Kcal/Kg in selected wards of Bangalore. (Sushmita Mohapatra, 2013) reported that, the plant required waste with calorific value of at least 1462.5 kcal/kg but the supplied waste was in the range of 600-700 kcal/kg. The disadvantages of the Option IV, incineration as a method for reducing waste destined for landfill can represent a costly capital investment (approximate 170 crores) in developing countries. In addition, option IV has the more positive impacts on energy consumption whereas other option has the least.

The present study reveals that comparatively four options, option IV is 6.6 times more expensive than option I and 5.4 times more than the option II. In case of option III and IV the total cost of the initial investment and maintenance of the incineration unit is about 1.3 times. The results of all assessed scenarios were further analyzed and recommendations were made to design integrated waste management solutions that are optimal not only from the ecological and social points of view, but which are also realistic within the given economic situation.

9. CONCLUSION Continuous growth in the amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) and growing demands for their environmentally-friendly handling are one of the main significances of the growing social and economic development rate in modern society. In developing country like India the urbanization and changing lifestyles have been the major reasons for the growing waste hazards. It has been observed that in spite of a stringent legislation in place, open dumping is the most widespread form of waste disposal. This study aims to help the local municipality administration in selected wards of Bangalore identify the most appropriate direction for current waste management and its optimization. The best scenario, regarding both environmental and social aspects, is scenario four in selected wards of Bangalore such as transported to landfilling, optimized route, vermicomposting, recycling and incineration, four combinations are selected as the best practical solid waste management options. Their environmental impacts are estimated and compared with each other by adopting LCA method. Taking into account all four options environmental, economic and social, only the option II and III are able to satisfy the objectives of waste management guidelines at commensurate costs and social acceptability. The reason is that only these two options offer the adequate waste processing in the form of mechanical-biological treatment. In conclusion, the study highlighted that the option with incineration and vermicomposting including optimized route (OcIV and OcIII) respectively are very costly compared to transportation of waste using optimized route and discharge of gaseous substances to the atmosphere, while the lowest environmental impact is related to option OcII. The first and the second scenarios, in which the waste transported through vehicles and an environmental point of view by means of optimized route, show intermediate results, which appear improved when the waste is transported using optimized route is simplified (OcII).

REFERENCES

[1] Al-Ansari, N.K, Hanbali, A. Al and Knutsson, S. 2012. Locating Solid Waste Landfills in Mafraq City, Jordan. Advance Science and Engineering Research, 2(1), 40-51.

[2] Andrew Emery, Anthony Davies, Anthony Griffiths and Keith Williams. 2007. Environmental and economic modelling: A case study of municipal solid waste management scenarios in Wales, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49, 244–263.

[3] Ashtashi, Vrushketu and Bhambulkar. 2011. Municipal solid waste collection Routes optimized with arc GIS network analyst. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Sciences and Technologies, Vol. No. 11, Issue No. 1, 202 – 207.



[4] Bhambulkar, A.V., 2011. Municipal Solid Waste Collection Routes Optimized with ARC GIS Network Analyst. Advanced Engineering Sciences and Technologies, 11(1), 202-207.

[5] Coyne, Kelly and Erik Knutzen. 2008. The Urban Homestead: Your Guide to Self-Sufficient Living in the Heart of the City. Port Townsend: Process Self Reliance Series.

[6] De Feo, G., & Malvano, C. 2009. The use of LCA in selecting the best management system. Waste Management, 29, 1901–1915.

[7] DEFRA., 2007. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Incineration of municipal solid waste, waste management technology brief, the new technologies work stream of the Defra Waste Implementation Programme.

[8] EPTRI, 1995. Status of solid waste disposal in Metropolis Hyderabad, Environmental Protection Institute, Hyderabad (1995).

[9] Gottinger, H.W., 1988. A computational model for solid waste management with application. European Journal of Operational Research 35, 350–364.

[10] Medina, M., 2010. Solid Wastes, Poverty and the Environment in Developing Country Cities: Challenges and Opportunities. Working Paper No. 2010/23. ISBN 978-92-9230-258-0.

[11] Mohammad Ali Rajaeifar, Meisam Tabatabaei, Hossein Ghanavati, Benyamin Khoshnevisan and Shahin Rafiee. 2015. Comparative life cycle assessment of different municipal solid waste management scenarios in Iran. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51, 886–898.

[12] Mufide Banar, Zerrin Cokaygil, Aysun Ozkan., 2008. Life cycle assessment of solid waste management options for Eskisehir, Turkey, Waste Management (2008) (Article in Press).

[13] Ndegwa, P. M., S.A. Thompson and K.C. Das. 2000. Effects of stocking density and feeding rate on vermicomposting of biosolids, Bioresource Technology 71, 5-12.

[14] Nouri, Gh, J. Ali Omrani, R. Arjmandi and M. Kermani. 2014. Comparison of solid waste management scenarios based on life cycle analysis and multi-criteria decision making (Case study: Isfahan city), Iranian Journal of Science & Technology, 38A3: 257-264 .

[15] Obersteiner, G., Binner, E., Mostbauer, P., Salhofer, S., 2007. Land II modelling in LCA – a contribution based on empirical data. Waste Management 27, S58–S74.

[16] Ozeler, D., Yetis, U., Demirer, G.N., 2006. Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste management methods: Ankara case study. Environment International 32, 405–411

[17] Thaiyalnayaki D. and Jayanthi R., Characterisation and Composition of Municipal Solid Waste - A Case Study. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(6), 2016, pp.61–66.

[18] Schluchter W., Rybaczewska-BáaĪejowska M. 2012. Life cycle sustainability assessment of municipal waste management systems, “Management”, University of ZielonaGóra, ZielonaGóra, p. 311–322.

[19] Sushmita Mohapatra. 2013. Technological Options for Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste of Delhi, International Journal of Renewable Energy Research, Vol. 3, No. 3.

[20] Zaman, A. U 2010. Comparative study of municipal solid waste treatment technologies using life cycle assessment method. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech., 7 (2), 225-234. Spring.

[21] Bhavya Bhanu Sigirisetty, SS. Asadi and A.V.S.Prasad, A Multi–Stage, Multi Criteria Approach For Solid Waste Disposal Site Design and Management: A Model Study. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(1), 2017, pp. 370–381.