Review of comparative LCAs of food waste management systems – Current status and potential improvements

► GHG-emissions from different treatment alternatives vary largely in 25 reviewed comparative LCAs of bio-waste management. ► System-boundary settings often vary largely in reviewed studies. ► Existing LCA guidelines give varying recommendations in relation to several key issues. Twenty-five compara...

Celý popis

Uložené v:
Podrobná bibliografia
Vydané v:Waste management (Elmsford) Ročník 32; číslo 12; s. 2439 - 2455
Hlavní autori: Bernstad, A., la Cour Jansen, J.
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:English
Vydavateľské údaje: Kidlington Elsevier Ltd 01.12.2012
Elsevier
Predmet:
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
Applied sciences
biofertilizers
CARBON
Chemical Engineering
COMBUSTION
COMPOSTING
composts
emissions
energy recovery
Engineering and Technology
environmental impact
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Exact sciences and technology
FERTILIZERS
FOOD
Food waste
General treatment and storage processes
global warming
GREENHOUSE EFFECT
guidelines
heat treatment
HEAT TREATMENTS
Kemiteknik
Key issues
LAND USE
landfills
Life-cycle assessment
MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES, AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES
management systems
NUTRIENTS
Pollution
POTENTIAL ENERGY
RECOMMENDATIONS
SANITARY LANDFILLS
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Solid Waste
System-boundaries
Teknik
Waste Management - methods
WASTE STORAGE
waste treatment
Wastes
Food waste
System-boundaries
Key issues
Life-cycle assessment
Compost
Waste dumping
Global warming potential
Heat treatment
Sensitivity analysis
Life cycle (environment)
Fertilization
Waste treatment
Ecobalance
Energy recovery
Combustion
Pollutant emission
Anaerobic digestion
Fertilizers
Waste management
Composting
Environment impact
ISSN:0956-053X, 1879-2456, 1879-2456
On-line prístup:Získať plný text
Tagy: Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
Popis
Shrnutí:► GHG-emissions from different treatment alternatives vary largely in 25 reviewed comparative LCAs of bio-waste management. ► System-boundary settings often vary largely in reviewed studies. ► Existing LCA guidelines give varying recommendations in relation to several key issues. Twenty-five comparative cycle assessments (LCAs) addressing food waste treatment were reviewed, including the treatment alternatives landfill, thermal treatment, compost (small and large scale) and anaerobic digestion. The global warming potential related to these treatment alternatives varies largely amongst the studies. Large differences in relation to setting of system boundaries, methodological choices and variations in used input data were seen between the studies. Also, a number of internal contradictions were identified, many times resulting in biased comparisons between alternatives. Thus, noticed differences in global warming potential are not found to be a result of actual differences in the environmental impacts from studied systems, but rather to differences in the performance of the study. A number of key issues with high impact on the overall global warming potential from different treatment alternatives for food waste were identified through the use of one-way sensitivity analyses in relation to a previously performed LCA of food waste management. Assumptions related to characteristics in treated waste, losses and emissions of carbon, nutrients and other compounds during the collection, storage and pretreatment, potential energy recovery through combustion, emissions from composting, emissions from storage and land use of bio-fertilizers and chemical fertilizers and eco-profiles of substituted goods were all identified as highly relevant for the outcomes of this type of comparisons. As the use of LCA in this area is likely to increase in coming years, it is highly relevant to establish more detailed guidelines within this field in order to increase both the general quality in assessments as well as the potentials for cross-study comparisons.
Bibliografia:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
ISSN:0956-053X
1879-2456
1879-2456
DOI:10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.023