38
L. S. Franca et al.
avoided GHG emissions as a result of the use of by-products from MSM treatment
in substitution of raw materials in a production chain. The current treatment stage,
with a carbon footprint of 224 kg CO 2 e/t waste , was compared with several alternative
scenarios for solid waste treatment. The authors concluded that the scenarios based on
total recovery of by-products from waste-to-energy or anaerobic digestion treatments
present the lowest carbon footprint.
Ali et al. [1] used an energy approach to evaluate the environmental footprint of
solid waste management alternatives in Gujranwala city, Pakistan, with the perspective based on LCA. This methodology outputs the direct GHG emissions from fossil
energy consumption, waste digestion and combustion, as well the net GHG emissions, which is calculated based on direct emissions minus the emissions avoided by
the implementation of the strategies proposed. The study evaluated three scenarios
of solid waste treatment and disposal: open dumping; composting and material recycling with sanitary landfill; composting and recycling with incineration. The adoption
of composting and recycling for solid waste treatment and the sanitary landfill for
final disposal of the waste were identified as the best alternatives. The incineration
practice, instead of landfilling, results in similar amount of carbon emissions but the
first one results in relatively lower stress on the environment.
Islam [26] investigated the GHG emissions of MSW management in Bangladesh
through existing and proposed scenarios, by carbon flow model using the annual
urban waste generation data. The proposed scenarios considered the landfill gas
(LFG) recovery, waste to energy (WtE) and material recovery facility (MRF). For
modelling the carbon flows, the study indicates the horizontal and vertical fluxes and,
also, the carbon stocks of the processes. The conclusions show that environmental
benefits could be nationally and globally achieved with the incorporation of mixed
waste incineration and LFG recovery to generate electricity.
Finally, Malakahmad et al. [28] aims to evaluate the GHG emissions of solid
waste technologies by assessing the carbon footprint of three proposed scenarios for
Malaysia reality: solid waste landfilling with gas recovery; organic waste treated on
anaerobic digestion system and recycling of inert solid waste such as plastic, glass
and textile; and waste incineration. The study considers the 2006 IPCC methodology for carbon footprint emissions calculation. The results indicated that the
highest avoided CO 2 e emissions were achieved by the second scenario and landfilling
practice produces 0.291 t CO 2 e.
Therefore, taking into account the background literature on carbon footprint tools
and the obtained results for GHG emissions from food waste management and the
incorporation of AD treatment, the methodology applied for the current case study
is given in the flowing section.
3 Methodology
Figure 1 shows the food supply chain considered in this chapter and also highlights
the boundaries involved, with the food waste and loss being generated in each step.
L. S. Franca et al.
avoided GHG emissions as a result of the use of by-products from MSM treatment
in substitution of raw materials in a production chain. The current treatment stage,
with a carbon footprint of 224 kg CO 2 e/t waste , was compared with several alternative
scenarios for solid waste treatment. The authors concluded that the scenarios based on
total recovery of by-products from waste-to-energy or anaerobic digestion treatments
present the lowest carbon footprint.
Ali et al. [1] used an energy approach to evaluate the environmental footprint of
solid waste management alternatives in Gujranwala city, Pakistan, with the perspective based on LCA. This methodology outputs the direct GHG emissions from fossil
energy consumption, waste digestion and combustion, as well the net GHG emissions, which is calculated based on direct emissions minus the emissions avoided by
the implementation of the strategies proposed. The study evaluated three scenarios
of solid waste treatment and disposal: open dumping; composting and material recycling with sanitary landfill; composting and recycling with incineration. The adoption
of composting and recycling for solid waste treatment and the sanitary landfill for
final disposal of the waste were identified as the best alternatives. The incineration
practice, instead of landfilling, results in similar amount of carbon emissions but the
first one results in relatively lower stress on the environment.
Islam [26] investigated the GHG emissions of MSW management in Bangladesh
through existing and proposed scenarios, by carbon flow model using the annual
urban waste generation data. The proposed scenarios considered the landfill gas
(LFG) recovery, waste to energy (WtE) and material recovery facility (MRF). For
modelling the carbon flows, the study indicates the horizontal and vertical fluxes and,
also, the carbon stocks of the processes. The conclusions show that environmental
benefits could be nationally and globally achieved with the incorporation of mixed
waste incineration and LFG recovery to generate electricity.
Finally, Malakahmad et al. [28] aims to evaluate the GHG emissions of solid
waste technologies by assessing the carbon footprint of three proposed scenarios for
Malaysia reality: solid waste landfilling with gas recovery; organic waste treated on
anaerobic digestion system and recycling of inert solid waste such as plastic, glass
and textile; and waste incineration. The study considers the 2006 IPCC methodology for carbon footprint emissions calculation. The results indicated that the
highest avoided CO 2 e emissions were achieved by the second scenario and landfilling
practice produces 0.291 t CO 2 e.
Therefore, taking into account the background literature on carbon footprint tools
and the obtained results for GHG emissions from food waste management and the
incorporation of AD treatment, the methodology applied for the current case study
is given in the flowing section.
3 Methodology
Figure 1 shows the food supply chain considered in this chapter and also highlights
the boundaries involved, with the food waste and loss being generated in each step.