Advanced

Separate collection of household food waste for anaerobic degradation - Comparison of different techniques from a systems perspective.

Bernstad, Anna LU and la Cour Jansen, Jes LU (2012) In Waste Management 32(5). p.806-815
Abstract
Four systems for household food waste collection are compared in relation the environmental impact categories eutrophication potential, acidification potential, global warming potential as well as energy use. Also, a hotspot analysis is performed in order to suggest improvements in each of the compared collection systems. Separate collection of household food waste in paper bags (with and without drying prior to collection) with use of kitchen grinders and with use of vacuum system in kitchen sinks were compared. In all cases, food waste was used for anaerobic digestion with energy and nutrient recovery in all cases. Compared systems all resulted in net avoidance of assessed environmental impact categories; eutrophication potential (-0.1... (More)
Four systems for household food waste collection are compared in relation the environmental impact categories eutrophication potential, acidification potential, global warming potential as well as energy use. Also, a hotspot analysis is performed in order to suggest improvements in each of the compared collection systems. Separate collection of household food waste in paper bags (with and without drying prior to collection) with use of kitchen grinders and with use of vacuum system in kitchen sinks were compared. In all cases, food waste was used for anaerobic digestion with energy and nutrient recovery in all cases. Compared systems all resulted in net avoidance of assessed environmental impact categories; eutrophication potential (-0.1 to -2.4kg NO(3)(-)eq/ton food waste), acidification potential (-0.4 to -1.0kg SO(2)(-)eq/ton food waste), global warming potential (-790 to -960kg CO(2)(-)eq/ton food waste) and primary energy use (-1.7 to -3.6GJ/ton food waste). Collection with vacuum system results in the largest net avoidence of primary energy use, while disposal of food waste in paper bags for decentralized drying before collection result in a larger net avoidence of global warming, eutrophication and acidification. However, both these systems not have been taken into use in large scale systems yet and further investigations are needed in order to confirm the outcomes from the comparison. Ranking of scenarios differ largely if considering only emissions in the foreground system, indicating the importance of taking also downstream emissions into consideration when comparing different collection systems. The hot spot identification shows that losses of organic matter in mechanical pretreatment as well as tank connected food waste disposal systems and energy in drying and vacuum systems reply to the largest impact on the results in each system respectively. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Waste Management
volume
32
issue
5
pages
806 - 815
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • wos:000303082100003
  • pmid:22321897
  • scopus:84858800767
ISSN
1879-2456
DOI
10.1016/j.wasman.2012.01.008
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
3dd74dd1-6f6c-4e56-b792-56a22c6ba623 (old id 2367095)
date added to LUP
2012-03-06 17:06:50
date last changed
2017-09-10 04:10:33
@article{3dd74dd1-6f6c-4e56-b792-56a22c6ba623,
  abstract     = {Four systems for household food waste collection are compared in relation the environmental impact categories eutrophication potential, acidification potential, global warming potential as well as energy use. Also, a hotspot analysis is performed in order to suggest improvements in each of the compared collection systems. Separate collection of household food waste in paper bags (with and without drying prior to collection) with use of kitchen grinders and with use of vacuum system in kitchen sinks were compared. In all cases, food waste was used for anaerobic digestion with energy and nutrient recovery in all cases. Compared systems all resulted in net avoidance of assessed environmental impact categories; eutrophication potential (-0.1 to -2.4kg NO(3)(-)eq/ton food waste), acidification potential (-0.4 to -1.0kg SO(2)(-)eq/ton food waste), global warming potential (-790 to -960kg CO(2)(-)eq/ton food waste) and primary energy use (-1.7 to -3.6GJ/ton food waste). Collection with vacuum system results in the largest net avoidence of primary energy use, while disposal of food waste in paper bags for decentralized drying before collection result in a larger net avoidence of global warming, eutrophication and acidification. However, both these systems not have been taken into use in large scale systems yet and further investigations are needed in order to confirm the outcomes from the comparison. Ranking of scenarios differ largely if considering only emissions in the foreground system, indicating the importance of taking also downstream emissions into consideration when comparing different collection systems. The hot spot identification shows that losses of organic matter in mechanical pretreatment as well as tank connected food waste disposal systems and energy in drying and vacuum systems reply to the largest impact on the results in each system respectively.},
  author       = {Bernstad, Anna and la Cour Jansen, Jes},
  issn         = {1879-2456},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {5},
  pages        = {806--815},
  publisher    = {Elsevier},
  series       = {Waste Management},
  title        = {Separate collection of household food waste for anaerobic degradation - Comparison of different techniques from a systems perspective.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.01.008},
  volume       = {32},
  year         = {2012},
}