Full length article
Life cycle assessment as a decision-making tool for the design of urban solid waste pre-collection and collection/transport systems

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104988Get rights and content

Highlights

  • LCA to evaluate the environmental impact of MSW collection/transport systems.

  • In general, conventional systems generate less impact than pneumatic ones.

  • Surface containerization systems generate less impact than underground systems.

  • Pneumatic systems have a better performance in impacts related to the NOx emissions.

  • Pneumatic system: pipelines & electricity consumption have the greatest contribution.

Abstract

This paper compares the environmental performance of different municipal waste pre-collection and collection/transport systems, using the life cycle assessment methodology. The scenarios compared consider conventional containerisation systems, underground containerisation and pneumatic collection/transport systems.

The results show that pneumatic systems have a greater impact on climate change, acidification, particulate matter and stratospheric ozone depletion due to their significant electricity consumption and the environmental impact of pipelines manufacture. However, in relation to terrestrial eutrophication and photochemical ozone formation, underground containers exhibit a greater impact.

A general sensitivity analysis was carried out, for all of the scenarios analysed, and a specific one for the pneumatic scenario. Results show that the environmental impact of pneumatic systems and underground containerization is higher than that of conventional systems. These results are completely determined by the consumption of materials (in the two cases) and energy (for pneumatic scenario). This environmental conclusion has to be taken into account for policy making in urban areas, along with other social and economic aspects.

In terms of climate change, the comparison allows us to conclude that pneumatic systems have a carbon footprint 119% higher than the lowest impact scenario (side-loading containers located in drop-off-points). Among the conventional pre-collection and collection/transport scenarios, the one with the greatest carbon footprint is the one that uses underground containers; 16% higher than the scenario with side-loading containers located at drop-off-points. Among the scenarios that use conventional containers on the surface, the door-to-door scenario has the greatest impact.

Introduction

Municipal solid waste (MSW) management includes different stages (pre-collection, collection/transport and treatment). The pre-collection stage consists of the elements needed to deposit citizen's waste (surface and underground containers in conventional systems; pre-collection boxes in pneumatic systems). The collection/transport is the intermediate stage between the pre-collection and treatment stages, in which the waste is collected and transported to recovery and/or disposal centres. Each of these stages generates a growing impact: for instance, discarded materials embody lost energy and non-renewable resources; waste disposal generates air, soil and water pollutants; their transport to treatment plants consumes energy, produces air emissions and imposes economic and public health costs in terms of roadway-related congestion, damages and accidents (Miller et al., 2014).

The growth in MSW generation is determined by the increase in the world's population and the greater consumption of products and services, which compromise a sustainable future (Severo et al., 2018). According to World Bank 2020, the world's total urban population is increasing at a rate of 2% yearly and the MSW generated by urban residents is expected to get almost doubled from 3.5 million metric tons/day in 2002 to 6.1 million metric tons/day in 2025 (Khandelwal et al. 2018). Then, one of the most challenging issues for building sustainable cities is the improvement of MSW management (Wilson, 2015), which requires a substantial effort to reduce its production and improve its collection, transport and treatment (United Nations (UN) 2013).

MSW management contributes to many environmental problems: global warming, human health hazards, photochemical ozone formation, stratospheric ozone depletion, ecosystem damages, or mineral and renewable resource depletion (Laurent et al., 2014). In order to reduce these impacts, the decision-making requires an assessment to minimize the associated hazards. The main methodology used to evaluate the environmental impact of the different stages of any system in general, and MSW management in particular, is the life cycle assessment (LCA), based on the standards ISO 14040 and 14044 (ISO 2006a; 2006b). This methodology has been widely applied to MSW treatments in cities all over the world (i.e., Al-Salem et al., 2014; Buratti et al., 2015; Erses Yay, 2015; Fernández-Nava et al., 2014; Habib et al., 2013; Herva et al., 2014; Laurent et al., 2014; Margallo et al., 2014; Montejo et al., 2013; Parkes et al., 2015; Vergara et al., 2011; Yildiz-Geyhan et al., 2016). It has also been applied to evaluate the environmental loads from the collection/transport stage (i.e., Chàfer et al., 2019; Hidalgo et al., 2018; Maimoun et al., 2013; Peri et al., 2018; Punkkinen et al., 2012; Rose et al., 2013). The contribution of this stage varies by the type of collection and transport system in place: pneumatic systems or conventional systems that rely on trucks. In the last case, the fuel used has a significant influence on the environmental loads, especially in carbon footprint (Jayaratne et al., 2010; López et al., 2009; Maimoun et al., 2013; Rose et al., 2013; Quiros et al., 2017) and urban air quality (Fontaras et al., 2012; Giechaskiel et al., 2019; Grigoratos et al., 2019; Lozhkina and Lozhkin, 2016; Sandhu et al., 2014; Suthawaree et al., 2012; Vermeulen et al., 2018).

Nevertheless, there are few researches applying the LCA methodology to the pre-collection stage, either as part of the MSW management analysis (Bovea et al., 2010) or only for this stage (Rives et al., 2010). Its contribution to the total impact caused by MSW management is lower than collection/transport and treatment stages (Bovea et al., 2010; Mühle et al., 2010; Vergara et al., 2011). However, an inadequate pre-collection capacity, a bad distribution, or an improper use at the urban level can needlessly worsen the environmental impact. In addition, the associated inefficiency also affects the transport stage through unnecessary routes, higher number of vehicles, lower average driving speeds, or increased number of stops, leading to higher environmental impact. Then, in Pérez et al. (2017a), the research team carried out a deep analysis of the pre-collection stage, considering aspects involving collection capacity, total MSW collected or collection effectiveness, which determine the environmental impact. That work presents a methodology that covers the previous gap of estimating the environmental impact for this stage, applying LCA methodology. The methodology was applied to the City of Madrid for 2013, considering only conventional systems with surface containers, not for underground containers or pneumatic systems. Subsequently, the research team published similar methodologies for calculating the carbon footprint of the collection/transport (Pérez et al., 2017b) and treatment stages (Pérez et al., 2018).

In the case of the pneumatic systems, the pre-collection and collection/transport stage are completely linked. Therefore, a comparison with conventional systems must take into account the pre-collection and the collection/transport stages. According to Miller et al. (2014), these systems have been attracting a lot of attention and some cities have started to use it, replacing conventional systems based on containers and collection trucks. Those authors stated that the costs and environmental impact of the installations will vary depending on the design of pneumatic (amount of MSW managed, number of MSW fractions, length of pipeline network and number of pre-collection boxes) and the conventional system characteristics (distances travelled, routes, truck type, MSW generation density).

Iriarte et al. (2009) used the LCA methodology to compare the environmental impact of three MSW collection/transport systems in urban areas: mobile pneumatic versus two conventional systems, multi-container and door-to-door systems. Those authors concluded that the mobile pneumatic system has a greater environmental impact in the categories of global warming, fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, acidification and eutrophication, with values between 30% and 122% higher than those of the other two systems. The door-to-door system shows the greatest environmental impact in the categories of depletion of abiotic resources, ozone depletion and human toxicity, with higher values (26-61%). The impacts of door-to-door collection are mainly the effect of the diesel emissions produced by the waste transport associated with the longer collection routes typical of this system.

Eisted et al. (2009) concluded that a pneumatic collection/ transport system in Denmark generates a carbon footprint that can vary between 18 and 77 kg CO2 eq/tMSW.

Punkkinen et al. (2012) calculated the environmental loads for a hypothetical pneumatic waste collection/transport system modelled on an existing dense urban area in Helsinki (Finland) and the results are compared to those of the prevailing, container-based, door-to-door waste collection system. The results indicate that replacing the prevailing system with stationary pneumatic collection/transport in an existing urban infrastructure would increase total air emissions: 3 times for CO2 emissions. They also concluded that: 1) in the waste collection area, emissions would nonetheless diminish, as collection traffic decreases; 2) electricity consumption of the pneumatic system and the origin of electricity have a significant bearing on the results; 3) emissions due to manufacturing the components of the pneumatic system prove decisive.

Aranda Usón et al. (2013) compared a stationary pneumatic system with a conventional system based on multi-container and collection trucks, in a neighbourhood of Zaragoza, Spain. In that case, carbon footprint of the pneumatic system varies between 33 and 147 kg CO2 eq/tMSW, depending on the system load factor.

Hidalgo et al. (2018) also studied the impact of the MSW collection/transport system in two Spanish cities (Barcelona and León) and concluded that the pneumatic system needs more electricity but fewer fossil fuels when compared with the conventional collection/transport system using trucks. Nonetheless, this work does not consider the whole life cycle.

Cháfer et al. (2019) remarked the relevance of the electricity consumption when evaluating different waste collection/transport systems in terms of LCA. The environmental impact associated with the electricity consumption depends on the method of electricity generation.

The existing references do not consider underground containers and their environmental impact. In addition, other deficiencies have been identified: 1) in collection/transport stage for conventional systems, the vehicle life cycle is not considered in a large number of studies, which only consider the fuel life cycle (Erses Yay, 2015; Iriarte et al., 2009; Maimoun et al., 2013; Punkkinen et al.,2012); 2) those studies that take the fuel life cycle into account primarily deal with the tank-to-wheel stage (Al-Salem et al., 2014; Aranda Usón et al., 2013; Bovea et al., 2010; Buratti et al., 2015; Fernández-Nava et al., 2014; Habib et al., 2013; Hidalgo et al., 2018; Parkes et al., 2015; Pastorello et al., 2011); 3) not all possible pre-collection systems are being considered; 4) comparisons are not being made under the same conditions.

Then, this paper focuses on a deep evaluation of the environmental impact of the pre-collection and collection/transport stages, applying the LCA methodology, under different scenarios that consider the available options. As it was mentioned above, the contribution of these two stages to the total impact of the MSW management is lower than that of the treatment stage. However, local entities have to decide on their design and subsequent implementation (Gallardo et al., 2015; López Álvarez et al., 2009) by adhering to environmental criteria that minimise the impact (Khandelwal et al., 2019). In that sense, a deep evaluation of the environmental impact associated with the entire life cycle of the different pre-collection and collection/transport systems is needed. Even more as there are few exhaustive researches that compare all the existing options. Thus, the results obtained in the environmental comparison of all the existing conventional systems against underground or pneumatic systems would help, together with other economic and social aspects, the decision making process for a more sustainable urban planning.

Section snippets

Pre-collection and collection/transport systems

Based on a literature review (Bovea et al., 2010; Gallardo et al. 2015; 2012; 2010; Iriarte et al. 2009; Rodrigues et al. 2016a; 2016b; Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) 2014; Yildiz-Geyhan et al., 2016), there are different pre-collection and collection/transport systems (Fig. 1). Beyond special fixed and mobile drop-off points (located at specific areas of the cities), which are places provided to collect every MSW fraction, including those materials that exhibit special characteristics

Results and discussion

The LCI data collected in previous section, and the SimaPro 8.5.2 software (PRé, 2017) and the Ecoinvent 3.4 database (Ecoinvent, 2018), were used to determine, first, the environmental emissions and then the environmental impact. The results for each impact category are shown in Table 6 in the specific units to each impact category, per tonne of waste collected/transported.

In order to facilitate the analysis, the results obtained are evaluated based on the relative differences of each scenario

Conclusions

The obtained results show that, in general, the environmental impact from pneumatic systems is higher than from conventional systems. Furthermore, within the conventional systems, underground installations have a higher impact than surface containerisation systems.

For example, regarding the impact on climate change, the pneumatic scenario exhibits a carbon footprint of 68 kg CO2 eq/tMSW, which 63% corresponds to the manufacture of the pipes and all their sub-processes while the contribution of

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This work was done as part of the research project entitled OPTIMIZATION OF THE MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT (reference number CTQ2013-48280-C3-2-R) granted by the Ministry of Economics and Competitiveness.

REFERENCES (76)

  • A. Gallardo et al.

    Analysis of collection systems for sorted household waste in Spain

    Waste Manage

    (2012)
  • A. Gallardo et al.

    Comparison of different collection systems for sorted household waste in Spain

    Waste Manage

    (2010)
  • T. Grigoratos et al.

    Real world emissions performance of heavy-duty Euro VI diesel vehicles

    Atmos Environ

    (2019)
  • K. Habib et al.

    A historical perspective of global warming potential from municipal solid waste management

    Waste Manag

    (2013)
  • M. Herva et al.

    Environmental assessment of the integrated municipal solid waste management system in Porto (Portugal)

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2014)
  • D. Hidalgo et al.

    Sustainable vacuum waste collection systems in areas of difficult access

    Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol.

    (2018)
  • A. Iriarte et al.

    LCA of selective waste collection systems in dense urban areas

    Waste Manage

    (2009)
  • E.R. Jayaratne et al.

    Carbon dioxide emissions from diesel and compressed natural gas buses during acceleration

    Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.

    (2010)
  • M.K. Jaunich et al.

    Characterization of municipal solid waste collection operations

    Resour. Conserv. Recy.

    (2016)
  • H. Khandelwal et al.

    Application of life cycle assessment in municipal solid waste management: a worldwide critical review

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2019)
  • A. Laurent et al.

    Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems – Part I: Lessons learned and perspectives

    Waste Manage

    (2014)
  • J.M. López et al.

    Comparison of GHG emissions from diesel, biodiesel and natural gas refuse trucks of the City of Madrid

    Appl. Energy

    (2009)
  • O.V. Lozhkina et al.

    Estimation of nitrogen oxides emissions from petrol and diesel passenger cars by means of on-board monitoring: effect of vehicle speed, vehicle technology, engine type on emission rates

    Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.

    (2016)
  • M.A. Maimoun et al.

    Emissions from US waste collection vehicles

    Waste Manage

    (2013)
  • M. Margallo et al.

    Environmental sustainability assessment in the process industry: a case study of waste-to-energy plants in Spain

    Resour. Conserv. Recycl.

    (2014)
  • B. Miller et al.

    Costs and benefits of pneumatic collection in three specific New York City cases

    Waste Manag

    (2014)
  • C. Montejo et al.

    Mechanical biological treatment: performance and potentials. An LCA of 8 MBT plants including waste characterization

    J. Environ. Manag

    (2013)
  • S. Mühle et al.

    Comparison of carbon emissions associated with municipal solid waste management in Germany and the UK

    Resour. Conserv. Recy.

    (2010)
  • O. Parkes et al.

    Life cycle assessment of integrated waste management systems for alternative legacy scenarios of the London Olympic Park

    Waste Manag

    (2015)
  • C. Pastorello et al.

    Effect of a change towards compressed natural gas vehicles on the emissions of the Milan waste collection fleet

    Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.

    (2011)
  • J. Pérez et al.

    A methodology for the development of urban energy balances: ten years of application to the city of Madrid

    Cities

    (2019)
  • J. Pérez et al.

    Evaluating carbon footprint of municipal solid waste treatment: methodological proposal and application to a case study

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2018)
  • J. Pérez et al.

    Methodology to evaluate the environmental impact of urban solid waste containerization system: A case study

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2017)
  • J. Pérez et al.

    A methodology for estimating the carbon footprint of waste collection vehicles under different scenarios: Application to Madrid

    Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.

    (2017)
  • G. Peri et al.

    Greening MSW management systems by saving footprint: the contribution of the waste transportation

    J. Environ. Manag.

    (2018)
  • H. Punkkinen et al.

    Environmental sustainability comparison of a hypothetical pneumatic waste collection system and a door-to-door system

    Waste Manage

    (2012)
  • D.C. Quiros et al.

    Greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty natural gas, hybrid, and conventional diesel on-road trucks during freight transport

    Atmos. Environ.

    (2017)
  • J. Rives et al.

    LCA comparison of container systems in municipal solid waste management

    Waste Manage

    (2010)
  • Cited by (18)

    • Integrated district electricity system with anaerobic digestion and gasification for bioenergy production optimization and carbon reduction

      2023, Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments
      Citation Excerpt :

      KW recovery is a systematic process conducted on a municipal scale. Before biomass recovery, the generated KW is shipped to transfer stations for pretreatment and sent to treatment plants, causing indirect carbon emissions by using carbon-heavy fuel and gray electricity in production activities [19,20]. In addition, the energy required for these activities is supplied by large-scale power plants and distributed to the waste treatment industry through high-voltage transmission and distribution networks.

    • A comparison of different waste collection methods: Environmental impacts and occupational risks

      2022, Journal of Cleaner Production
      Citation Excerpt :

      Bueno et al. (2015), Kaplan et al. (2009), Finnveden et al. (2005), and Chaya and Gheewala (2007) compared the environmental impact of alternative approaches for MWM through the implementation of the LCA method and tool. Taşkın and Demir (2020) applied LCA to model the current situation of five metropolitan municipalities. A guideline for low emission and energy consumption WMS is the main finding of the work.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text