Life Cycle Assessment for Solid Waste Management- A Peer Review. LCA tool can be used as a decision-making approach for the many companies and especially LCA tool can be employed for finding the Impact assessment on Environment, Human health and vegetations.

1. STATE OF THE ART ON LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Presented by Yash Pujara
Guided by Dr. Archana Sharma
M. Tech. Environmental
Engineering

2. Outline
 Introduction
 Why Life Cycle Assessment Introduce for SWM..
 State of the Art on LCA
 Literature Review
 Critical Synthesis
 Conclusions
 References

3. Introduction
 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a useful tool to assess the
environmental performance of any system/process/methods.
 “An organized procedure for gathering and observing the inputs and
outputs of material, energy, and related environmental impacts that
unswervingly attribute to the running of a manufactured goods or
service system during its life cycle” (IS 14040-2006).
 It can be employed in decision-making approach.
 LCA method, which has the tenacity of diminishing the impending
effect on the environment, human health and resources, respectively.

4. Introduction
 According to the ISO 14040:2006 LCA has been divided into four
steps:
Goal
& Scope
Life Cycle
Inventory
Environmental,
Social
& Economic Impact
Assessment
Interpretation
from all Steps

5.  A Solid Waste Management System (SWMS) is a unique field where
LCA has been used to assess the environmental performances.
Developed and developing countries are facing huge problem due to
mismanagement of solid waste.
 The major challenge has been noticed for the collection, segregation,
recycling, treatment and disposal of the huge amount of solid waste.
It poses severe threats to environmental quality and human health.
 LCA was applied to analyze and evaluate the processes of SWMS.
Life Cycle Assessment for SWMS

6. Life Cycle Assessment for SWMS
 LCA utilizes several impact assessment software viz., GaBi software,
Ecoinvent-3, SimaPro, etc.
 SWM is very complex and multidisciplinary problem that involves
economical as well as technical aspects. Life Cycle Costing (LCC) may
be useful from either development or an analysis perception.
 Design of LCC is to assess the cost-effective performance of a system
in response to modify the system, while LCC study is to assess the
cost-effective performance of a structure in its existing state.

7. State-of-the-Art
 Critical review divided in 3 sub topics:
 Life Cycle Assessment for Waste Management
 Life Cycle Costing
 Environmental Impact and Assessment

8. S.N. Refere
nces
Functional Unit (FU),
Software (SW) &
Methods
Scenario(s) or Options Impact
Assessment
Parameters
Results Critical
Observations
1 Cetinka
ya et al.
(2018)
FU: Solid waste
composition
SW: SimaPro & Ecoinvent
Methods: Library of
Ecoinvent-3, Impact 2002+
to assess the chemical toxic
methods
Scenario-1: 75% Landfilling
+ 25% Composting
Scenario-2: 50% Landfill +
35% Anaerobic Digestion +
15% Incineration
Scenario-3: 35% landfilling +
25% AD + 25% Aerobic
digestion + 15% Incineration
Scenario-4: 30% landfilling +
70% incineration
1. Human
Health (HH)
2. Ecosystem
Quality (EQ)
3. Climate
Change (CC)
4. Resources
The lowermost
values for four
types of damage
categories:
Scenario-1
Study shows the
75% of landfilling
is a good option to
decrease the
environmental
damages but
landfilling without
any prior
treatment is the
worst application
2 Ghinea
et al.
(2014)
FU: Waste management &
recycled paper system
SW: GaBi
Methods: all the input and
output assessment
Scenario 1: Sorting,
composting and landfilling
Scenario 2: sorting,
composting, anaerobic
digestion and incineration
Scenario 3: Sorting,
composting, incineration
and landfilling
Scenario 4: Sorting,
composting and
incineration
1. Acidification
Potential (AP)
2.
Eutrophication
Potential (EP)
3. GWP
4.
photochemical
ozone creation
potential
(POCP)
5. Human
toxicity
Scenario 3 is the
most
environment
friendly
Tissue paper
manufacturing
scenarios
developed, which
propose the use of
recycled fibers
from recovered
paper as raw
materials, instead
of virgin fibers.

9. 3 Cleary
(2009)
FU: Fundamental of LCA
application for MSWM
SW: LCA Computer
models
Method: Literature review
Literature Review 1. AP
2. GWP
3. NEU
AP and GWP
effect is more
common than
any other
categories
Comparative
analysis study
suggested that
many LCA users
don’t make clear
decision during
goal and scope
phase
4 Cherubin
i et al.
(2009)
FU: landfill, sorting plant
and incineration
SW: N/A
Methods: LCA
Scenario 0: landfilling
Scenario 1: biogas recovery
from landfill
Scenario 2: waste sorting
plant
Scenario 3: waste
Incineration
1. GWP
2. AP
3. EP
4. Dioxin
emissions
Landfilling is
worst waste
management
option and that
significantly
environment
saving achieved
from undertaking
energy recycling
Sorting plant with
biogas recovery
and incineration
would be the best
option
5 Cremiato
et al.
(2017)
FU: Effect of Anaerobic
digestion, MRF and
secondary fuel production
SW: GaBi
Methods: Environmental
impact of MSWM using
LCA
Scenario A: Source
separation having diversion
rate 50%
Scenario B: Improved base
case with diversion rate up
to 60%
Scenario C: MRF and
Anaerobic digestion with
diversion rate of 50%
Scenario D: Improved MRF
and Anaerobic digestion
with diversion rate up to
1. AP
2. GWP
3. Human
Toxicity
4. Photo
oxidant
formation
5. EP
Improved MRF
and Anaerobic
digestion with
diversion rate up
to 60% is a good
option for
decrease on
environmental
burdens
Scenarios designed
with high rate of
diversion rate
unnecessarily
considered as least
environmental
impacts

10. Critical Synthesis
 The reviewed literature states that LCA is a good tool for managing
solid waste effectively.
 Study shows that landfilling is worst application for waste
management system that is why landfill system is the least
preferable waste management option.
 Incineration of waste is better than landfilling, but on the other
point of view Incineration increase the Global warming potential.
 System limitations were not permanently equivalent among the
financial and environmental measures of the assessment.

11. Critical Synthesis
 75% Landfilling-25% Composting has been suggested to decrease
the environmental damages.
 Secondary solid fuels were recovered from the consumption of fuel
received from waste.
 In this study, the evaluation of the environmental performances of
tissue paper manufacturing scenarios developed for the Romanian
case study was done, which propose the use of recycled fibers from
recovered paper as raw materials, instead of virgin fibers.

12. Conclusion
 The review of LCAs shows that the evaluation of the developed scenarios
using methodologies such as cost benefit analysis and multi criteria
evaluation, should consider not only the environment issues but also the
economic, technical aspects, etc.
 Segregation of waste, combined with electricity and biogas recovery
would be the best option for waste management.
 Landfilling should be the last option as per LCAs.
 Environmental burdens from generation, collection, and
treatment of waste as well as releases to air, soil, and water
have diverse impressions on the human health and

13. Conclusion
 GaBi software, which includes different algorithms dedicated to
performing an LCIA. GaBi software allowed us to calculate the
material and energy stabilities in order to calculate the
environmental impacts.
 Complexity and uniqueness of waste management system is to be
designed to satisfy targets or purpose or objectives i.e. waste policies
and environmental targets. That is why the holistic tools should be
developed.
 One such tool is LCA approach for decision-making to minimize the
environmental impacts.
 “Higher the energy and material yield from the waste disposal,
greater would be the saving”.

14. References
 A. Y. Cetinkaya, Levent, Bilgili and S. Levent, Kuzu, “Life cycle assessment
and greenhouse gas emission evaluation from Aksaray solid waste disposal
facility”, Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health, (2018) 1-10.
 A. S. Erses Yay, “Application of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for municipal
solid waste management: A case study of Sakarya”, Journal of Cleaner
Production 94 (2015) 284-293.
 C. Ghinea, M. Petraru, I. M. Simion, D. Sobariu, H. Th. A. Bressers and M.
Gavrilescu, “Life cycle assessment of waste management and recycled
paper systems”, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal,
(2014) Vol. 13, No. 8, 2073-2085.
 E. C. Gentil, A. Damgaard, M. Hauschild, G. Finnveden, O. Eriksson, S.
Thorneloe, P. O. Kaplan, M. Barlaz, O. Muller, Y. Matsui, R. Ii, T. H.
Christensen, “Models for waste life cycle assessment: Review of technical
assumptions”, Waste Management 30 (2010) 2636–2648.

15. References
 F. Cherubini, S. Bargigli and S. Ulgiati, “Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste
management strategies: Landfilling, sorting plant and incineration”, Energy,
34-12 (2009), 2116-2123.
 ISO 14040. 2 draft: life cycle assessment-principle and guidelines.
 J. Cleary, “Life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management
systems: A comparative analysis of selected peer-reviewed literature”,
Environmental International, (2009) 35-8, 1256-1266.
 J. Winkler, B. Bilitewski, “Comparative evaluation of life cycle assessment
models for solid waste management”, Waste Management 27 (2007) 1021–
1031.
 L. Rigamonti, I. Sterpi, M. Grosso, “Integrated municipal waste management
systems: An indicator to assess their environmental and economic
sustainability”, Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 1–7.

16. References
 M. Banar, Z. Cokaygil, A. Ozkan, “Life cycle assessment of solid waste
management options for Eskisehir, Turkey”, Waste Management 29 (2009)
54–62.
 M. M. Khasreen, P. F.G. Banfill, and G. F. Menzies, “Life-Cycle Assessment
and the Environmental Impact of Buildings: A Review”, Sustainability (2009),
1, 674-701.
 O. Parkes, P. Lettieri, I. David L. Bogle, “Life cycle assessment of integrated
waste management systems for alternative legacy scenarios of the London
Olympic Park”, Waste Management 40 (2015) 157–166.
 P. Yadav, S. R. Samadder, “A Critical Review of the Life Cycle Assessment
Studies on Solid Waste Management in Asian Countries”, Cleaner
Production (2018).

17. References
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S09596526173182
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-018-0559-3
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286021179
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544208002120
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412009001561
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652614005940
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X14005224
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION…