Energy Conversion and Management 124 (2016) 333343

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Optimization of waste to energy routes through biochemical

and thermochemical treatment options of municipal solid waste
in Hyderabad, Pakistan
Muhammad Safar Korai a,, Rasool Bux Mahar b, Muhammad Aslam Uqaili c
a
Institute of Environmental Engineering & Management, Mehran UET, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan
b
U.S.-Pakistan Center for Advance Studies in Water (US-PACASW), Mehran UET, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan
c
Electrical Engineering Department, Mehran UET, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Improper disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) has created many environmental problems in
Received 18 April 2016 Pakistan and the country is facing energy shortages as well. The present study evaluates the biochemical
Received in revised form 11 July 2016 and thermochemical treatment options of MSW in order to address both the endemic environmental
Accepted 12 July 2016
challenges and in part the energy shortage. According to the nature of waste components, a number of
Available online 20 July 2016
scenarios were developed to optimize the waste to energy (WTE) routes. The evaluation of treatment
options has been performed by mathematical equations using the special characteristics of MSW. The
Keywords:
power generation potential (PGP) of biochemical (anaerobic digestion) has been observed in the range
Bio-chemical
Thermo-chemical
of 5.911.3 kW/ton day under various scenarios. The PGP of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF), Mass Burn
Municipal solid waste Incinerator (MBI), Gasification/Pyrolysis (Gasi./Pyro.) and Plasma Arc Gasification (PAG) have been
Power generation potential found to be in the range of 2.7118.6 kW/ton day, 3.8164.7 kW/ton day, 4.2184.5 kW/ton day and
5.2224 kW/ton day, respectively. The highest values of biochemical and all thermochemical
technologies have been obtained through the use of scenarios including the putrescible components
(PCs) of MSW such as food and yard wastes, and the non-biodegradable components (NBCs) of MSW such
as plastic, rubber, leather, textile and wood respectively. Therefore, routes which include these compo-
nents are the optimized WTE routes for maximum PGP by biochemical and thermochemical treatments
of MSW. The findings of study lead to recommend that socio-economic and environmental feasibility of
WTE conversion technologies should be performed in the context of the country.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction caused many urban environmental issues in the country [5]. No

Pakistan faces both an energy crisis on one hand and difficulty
in transporting wastes from generation to final disposal as a result
of a rapidly increasing population. The population of Pakistan was
recorded as 188.08 million in 2014 and continuously increasing
with growth rate of 1.9%, making it one of the worlds most popu-
lous countries and further exacerbating waste management issues
[13]. Approximately 38.55% of the population is concentrated in
urban centers, while the remaining 61.42% is in rural [14]. The
entrances as well as exits of each city are plagued by the unsani-
tary burning and dumping of huge quantities of solid wastes. In
monsoon seasons, the waste management issues reach an extreme
level. The roads, streets, and sewers become clogged with litter.
The improper handling, storage, and processing of MSW have
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: safar.korai@faculty.muet.edu.pk (M.S. Korai).
one optimized collection route of MSW has been determined even
in major cities of Pakistan [5,6]. As compared to other countries
(i.e., Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, UK, USA, China, etc.), less
than 50% of MSW is only disposed by landfill and composting in
improper way in Pakistan [7,8]. The dumping of MSW disposal
method is the major source of various environmental issues
including water pollution, soil pollution, green house gases emis-
sions, etc.
Municipal solid waste is the fourth largest global emissions
contributor [911]. Approximately 550 Tg of global methane
emissions are annually contributed by MSW [11,12]. The global
warming potential of methane is about 2123 times higher than
carbon dioxide [9]. The third largest anthropogenic sources of
CH4 emissions are solid wastes in landfills [13]. The emissions from
MSW landfills are predicted to rise up to 816MtCO2-eq by 2020
[14] if little or no efforts are made to reduce them. Pakistan shares
about 0.8% of total global green house gases (GHG) emissions by

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.07.032
0196-8904/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
334 M.S. Korai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 124 (2016) 333343
standing on 135th position [15]. The rise in above global standing
position is expected by 2030 because of the rapidly growing popu-
lation rate leading to urbanization, increasing transport, energy
and waste generation [12]. About 4.73MtCO2-eq of CH4 was con-
tributed by waste management in Pakistan with 2832 tonnes from
solid waste and others from wastewater as mentioned in the
national 2008 inventory of GHG emisions [14]. Also the shortage
of energy has become major point of discussion for every Pakistan
government during the last two decades. Presently, power demand
has increased to 19,000 MW as reported by Zofeen [16]. Like in
other developing countries, the conventional energy sources like
fossil fules have remained the choice of Pakistan [5,17]. Immense
efforts are being made worldwide to reduce GHG emissions and
to harness hidden renewable energy resources. The acknowledg-
ment regarding to reduce GHG emissions and to convert waste into
energy are universally going towards the vital role of waste sector.
The increasing of cost associated with conventional energy
generation and waste disposal has globally compelled developing
countries to move towards the waste to energy concept [1820].
Exploitation of energy from MSW will play a significant role in
the future and has many advantages as an effective solution for
reducing environmental impacts while potentially relieving the
energy crisis.
Adoption of WTE technologies is an effective way to harness
energy from MSW and to reduce GHG emisions from
burning/dumping. There are various WTE technologies including
biochemical (i.e., composting, anaerobic diegsestion process, etc.)
and thermochemical (i.e., incineration, pyrolysis, gasification,
etc.). Biomethanation is an anaerobic digestion (AD) process during
which complex organic substances are decomposed in by microor-
ganisms in the absence of oxygen to generate biogas containing
5060% methane [21,22]. About 0.075 kW can be produced from
one cubic meter of biogas during biomethanation process in Indian
MSW [22,23]. Current usage of biogas from AD plants is increasing
in combined heat and power generation systems and may also
serve as vehicle or other fuel in many countries [21,24]. Almost
244 AD plants with a capacity of 8 million tons of organic wastes
are operating in Europe [21,25]. More than 6000 domestic AD
plants are operating in Pakistan by using cattle manure as sub-
strate [26]. There is potential to produce biogas of 9 million m3 per
day from animal dung by installing AD plant of size 70 m3 in the
rural areas of Pakistan [27,28]. Whereas the disposal of organic
fractions of MSW in Pakistan is either burning or dumping with
other wastes in open air and very little amount of organic waste
is used for informal composting [5,6]. According to the findings
of study [27], the methane production potential of different
biomass such as buffalo dung, cotton straw, rice husk, wheat straw,
maize and MSW is about 50, 2, 14, 200, 250 and 100 m3/ton respec-
tively in pakistan. The fully utilization of livestock and bagasse for
power generation can share up to 40% in the present scenarios of
Pakistan [29]. In Pakistan, biogas energy sources such as livestock,
bagasse, agriculture wastes and MSW can be significantly utilized
for energy production [30,31]. The huge quantity of rice husk,
wood wastes and other crop residues in Pakistan can be used for
the gasification process [27]. The RDF pellets can be used an
efficient fuel having advantages over using coal because of its high
Table 1
Various MSW characteristics along with standard methods and equipment.
Characteristics Method
Moisture content ASTMD3173
Volatile matter and fixed carbon ASTMD3175
Ash content ASTMD3174
Element analysis BBOT23122013
Calorific value
calorific value (0.145 kW/kg) [32]. In Malaysia, 1 MW electricity is
being produced from 100 tons of MSW per day by incineration
technology [33,34]. The net PGP of Gasi./Pyro. is about 2026
kW/ton of MSW [22,35,36]. The PGP of MBI, Gasification, Pyrolysis
and PAG has been observed to be in the range of 0.750.85 MW
h/ton year, 0.40.8 MW h/ton year, 0.30.6 MW h/ton year and
0.50.8 MW h/ton year of MSW [37,38]. Presently about
130 million tons of MSW are annually being treated in more than
600 WTE facilities around the world to produce electricity [37].
The same study reports that 88 and 7 WTE plants are functioning
in the USA and Canada, respectively, by using 27 million tons of
MSW annually. Approximately 750,000 tons of MSW per year are
treated using MBI in over 90% of the WTE treatment facilities in
Europe [39,40]. Mainly three technologies (i.e., RDF, Incineration
and Biomethanation) are functional in India [22]. Whereas, neither
biochemical treatment plant for organic fractions of MSW nor any
well designed WTE treatment facility has been observed in
Pakistan and even major cities of the country are facing problems
associated with conventional disposal of MSW [5]. In this regard
the present study has been formulated by considering main two
objectives. The first is to determine the PGP of biochemical and
thermochemical treatment options for MSW under various
scenarios and the second is to evaluate various technologies
(AD, RDF, MBI, Gasi./Pyro. and PAG) in order to optimize the
potential WTE routes of MSW in Hyderabad, Sindh, Pakistan.
2. Methodology
2.1. MSW quantification and composition analysis
For quantification and composition of MSW, various samples of
waste were collected randomly from residential as well as com-
mercial areas and recycling shops. Then, separation and weighing
of different waste components such as food wastes, yard waste,
wood, plastic, paper, cardboard, rubber, cloth waste, glass, metals
including ferrous as well as non-ferrous, were carried out manually
and by using physical balance. On the basis of composition, further
quantities of MSW along with potential components were esti-
mated using the Eq. (i) [41] by considering the 2.4% growth rate
of MSW [10,42].
EqMSW GrMSW  PqMSW  n PqMSW i
where Eq(MSW), Gr(MSW), and Pq(MSW) are estimated quantity, growth
rate, and present quantity of MSW, respectively, during n years.
2.2. MSW characterization
After collection, MSW samples for analysis were prepared
according to the quartering method [39,41,43]. Various MSW
characteristics including moisture content (MC), total solids (TS),
volatile matter (VM), fixed carbon (FC), ash content (AC), calorific
value (CV), and element analysis were determined by adopting
standard methodologies as given in Table 1.
Theoretical biogas potential (TBP) of waste samples was also
estimated. Molar concentrations of elements were first estimated
Equipment
Oven Dry
Muffle Furnace
Muffle Furnace
FlashEA 1112 Organic Elemental Analyzer
Gallenkamp Ballistic Bomb Calorimeter
 M.S. Korai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 124 (2016) 333343
by using element analysis of MSW. After that, approximate chem-
ical formulas of MSW were determined with and without sulfur.
Then the derived coefficients of each chemical formula were used
in Eq. (ii) to estimate TBp of various waste components. Eq. (ii)
was modified from the basic equation given by [44] in which the
complete stabilization of organic fractions was assumed in pres-
ence of microorganisms.
0n4nx2y3zo n o
4nx2yz
CH4  Sp:Wt: of CO2 CO2  Sp:Wt: of CH4
8 8
TBP @
Cn Hx Oy Nz  Sp:Wt: of Biogas
 1000:
2.3. Assessment of waste to energy potential
Energy generation potential of various conversion technologies
has been computed by considering special characteristics of MSW
like calorific value (CV), theoretical biogas potential (TBp), etc.
[22,37,4547]. In present study, the energy potential of different
WTE technologies was estimated according to the procedures
outlined in previous studies.
2.3.1. Thermochemical conversion process
In thermochemical conversion both biodegradable and non-
biodegradable matter contribute to energy output. Energy recovery
and power generation potential of thermal treatment options of
MSW were estimated by Eqs. (iii) and (iv), respectively [22,46].
ERP 1:16  NCV  SWdq
PGP 0:048  NCV  SWdq  g=1000
ERP is energy recovery potential (kW h/ton day), PGP is the
power generation potential (MW/ton day), SWdq is the dry waste
quantity (about 100 tons/day), NCV is the net calorific value (k-
cal/kg) and g is the conversion efficiency of the thermo-chemical
conversion process. According to Ouda, the conversion efficiency
for running waste to energy in various places across the world is
approximately 2530% [48] and around 18% for refuse derived fuel
[46,49]. Janajreh et al. [50] reported an average efficiency of Plasma
Arc Gasification (PAG) is 42%. The conversion efficiency of each
thermochemical conversion process for MSW including RDF, MBI,
Gasi./Pyro. and PAG Technology was determined according to the
URS Corporation U.S., which documented the energy production
to the grid per ton of MSW as given in Table 2.
2.3.2. Biochemical conversion process
In biochemical conversion, only the biodegradable fraction of
the organic matter can contribute to the energy output. Energy
recovery and power generation potential of biochemical
(biomethanation) conversion of the gas phase of MSW were esti-
mated by Eqs. (v) and (vi), respectively [22,46] with methane gen-
eration potential quantified by Eq. (vii) [47,51].
ERP MG  NCV=0:042
PGP MG  NCV  g=1008
Table 2
Thermochemical process and net energy to grid [47].
S.No. Thermo-chemical conversion process Energy production to
grid (kW h/ton of MSW)
1 Mass Burn Incineration 544
2 Pyrolysis 571
3 Conventional Gasification 685
4 Plasma Arc Gasification 816
335
MG TMP  gd  OBF  VM  SWdq  1000 vii
ERP is the energy recovery potential (kW h/ton day), PGP is the
power generation potential (MW/ton day), MG is the methane
generation (m3/day), NCV is the net calorific value of biogas which
was considered as 0.1940.242 kW/m3 [22,46], g is the conversion
efficiency of biochemical conversion process considered as 30%
[22,46,52,53], TMP is the theoretical methane potential (m3/kgVM),
1
SWdq is the dry quantity of MSW (100 tons/day as considered), VM
A is the volatile Matter (Dry Basis in %), approximately 4570% and
3560% as the average values for typical digestion efficiency (gd)
ii and organic bio-degradable fraction (OBF) respectively were con-
sidered which have been reported in the literature by other
researchers [47,51].
2.4. Development of various scenarios of MSW
Municipal solid waste is a heterogeneous mixture of rapidly
degradable (i.e., putrescible) components including food and yard
wastes and other less readily degraded materials such as plastic,
wood, rubber, and cloth. Different scenarios were developed for
optimizing the energy potential from various MSW components
as shown in Fig. 1.
Mix.-MSW is the mixed municipal solid waste (cardboard, food
waste, leather, paper, plastic, rubber, textile, wood, yard waste,
glass, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, ash, dirt, and bricks).
Mix.-OFMSW contains mixed organic fractions of MSW (ex. card-
board, food waste, leather, paper, plastic, rubber, and cloth, wood,
iii and yard wastes). BCs-MSW is the biodegradable components of
MSW including food waste, yard waste, paper, and cardboard.
iv NBCs-MSW is the non-biodegradable components of MSW such
as plastic, rubber, leather, textiles, and wood. NPCs-MSW is the
non-putrescible components of MSW like cardboard, leather,
paper, plastic, rubber, textiles, and wood. PCs-MSW is the putresci-
ble components of MSW such as food and yard wastes. CCs-MSW
contains combustible components of MSW that are leather, rubber,
textiles, and wood. RCs-MSW is the recyclable components of
MSW including cardboard, paper, plastic, glass, and metal. Fig. 2
summarizes the methodology for the study.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Analysis of MSW composition and quantification
There are different factors which affect the composition as well
as quantity of MSW. Quantity and composition of MSW are highly
influenced by seasonal variations [54]. Hyderabad city of Pakistan
mostly observes four seasons like winter, spring, summer and
autumn. Therefore, the composition and quantity of MSW are
significantly changed because of variations in the season. MSW
generated in Hyderabad city is categorized into three types
including residential wastes, recyclable wastes & commercial
v
vi
Fig. 1. Scenarios for energy recovery potential of MSW.
336 M.S. Korai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 124 (2016) 333343
Fig. 2. Visual summary of methodology.
Fig. 3. Contribution of different types of solid waste [55].
wastes and their share in MSW corresponding is 46%, 28% and 26%
as in Fig. 3.
From Fig. 3, it can be observed that about 28% of total MSW in
Hyderabad is collected by scavengers or any other needy persons
who then sell the goods to recycling shops within city. From
there, it is transported to Lahore and Karachi. Approximately 24%
of 72% of total MSW is improperly collected by the municipal
authority and openly dumped near the water canals or any other
low lying areas. The remaining portion of MSW is not collected
but is instead dumped or burned by local residents in the
Fig. 4. Average physical composition of MSW.
immediate vicinity. The average contribution of different
components of MSW generated in Hyderabad city is shown
graphically in Fig. 4.
The share of putrescible components (i.e. food and yard wastes)
is higher than other components (Fig. 4). The higher contribution of
food and yard wastes observed in this study is in agreement with
physical composition of MSW generated in different Indian cities
(Fig. 5) and also other developing countries (Fig. 6).
Further contribution of various components in MSW was
determined as an average based on the classification of solid
wastes according the nature of its biodegradability [59] as shown
in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7 illustrates that, on average, MSW is comprised of 28%
inorganic wastes and 72% organic wastes. Moreover, inorganic
and organic wastes are divided into 4% and 24% of degradable
and non-degradable and 27% and 45% of non-putrescible
(combustible) & putrescible wastes respectively. Total quantities
of various types of MSW were estimated up to 2045 in tons per
year as reported in Fig. 8, which shows the total generation of
MSW is increasing at an alarming rate due to rapid growth in pop-
ulation and urbanization. In 2045, the total generation of MSW is
predicted to have risen to approximately 1.18 million tons (Fig. 8).
3.2. Existing status of MSW in Hyderabad city
Municipal solid waste is highly neglected as a potential energy
source in Pakistan. The combination of a lack of source segregation,
equipment, and funds, and the presence of undesigned collection
routes with lackluster political attention has resulted in less
importance being accorded to MSW for energy recovery [5].
Fig. 9 shows the existing condition of MSW. From total amount
of MSW (1859 tons/day), 27.49% of recycling items reach recycling
shops with 8.60% as moisture content and the remaining 91.40% in
the dry condition. Whereas, 72.59% of MSW is contributed by res-
idential and commercial wastes with 33.97% as moisture content
and 66.03% of dried wastes (Fig. 9).
The dried wastes consist of various components as explained in
Table 3 along with their final destiny. According to the observa-
tions of [6] that most of solid wastes are frequently either dumped
in low lying areas or buned on road sides. There is a lack of well
designed collection route for MSW collection from various points
of genertaion. Hyderabad is not the worst city in Pakistan where
MSW is concerned. Even major cities of the country are also facing
problems associated with the collection of MSW. Due to a lack of
basic recycling policy, only 2030% of MSW is recycled improperly
in Pakistan [60].
 M.S. Korai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 124 (2016) 333343 337

Fig. 5. Physical composition of MSW in Indian cities [56].

Fig. 6. Physical composition of MSW in developing countries [57,58].

Fig. 7. Estimated percent by weight of various components of MSW.

3.3. Characterization of MSW for various scenarios
Characteristics such as density, proximate analysis including
moisture content (MC), volatile matter (VM), fixed carbon (FC),
and ash content (AC), ultimate analysis (C, H, O, S & N), and calorific
value (HCV & LCV) of waste samples in various scenarios were
determined as given in Table 4.
Density, MC%, VM%, FC% and AC% of each scenario from one to
eight were obtained in the range of 73.77686.71 kg/m3 (lower
stands for scenario-6 and higher for scenario-3), 5.0168.05%
338 M.S. Korai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 124 (2016) 333343

Fig. 8. Estimated quantity of MSW.

Fig. 9. Flow diagram of existing status of MSW in Hyderabad.

(lower belongs to scenario-8 whereas higher stands for scenario-
3), 52.2188.74% (first stands for scenario-1 & last belongs to
scenario-3), 3.5433.04% (lower concerns with scenario-3 whilst
higher stands for scenario-8) and 1.3831.90% (first belongs to
scenario-3 & last concerns with scenario-8) respectively. Higher
results regarding MC% as well as VM% and lower findings regarding
FC% as well as AC% of scenario-3 containing putrescible waste com-
ponents (i.e. food and yard wastes) indicate that these types of
wastes are more suitable for biological conversion process. Accord-
ing to the various studies that high MC% and VM% of food as well as
yard wastes show that these are easily biodegradable and thus are
feasible for anaerobic digestion to yield energy in terms of biogas
[6165]. Moreover, the biomethanation process for wastes having
high MC% is a more attractive option for generation of biogas com-
posed primarily of methane and carbon dioxide [66]. The methane
gas from the biomethanation process can be converted into elec-
tricity [67,68] while the effluents from the same biomethanation
plant contain nutrients which are useful for the improvement of
soil fertility [6770]. Inverse relationships between VM and FC of
samples in almost all scenarios was also observed similarly as
found by Arthur et al. [71]. Since, rapidly combustion of biomass
has been generally observed due to highest VM and lowest FC as
in case of coal [72]. According to the study carried out by Vassilev
et al. [73], pure biomass like pine, oak wood and forest residue con-
sist of high VM that are correspondingly 83.3%, 78.1% and 79.9%.
Therefore, waste components contained by other scenarios are
good candidates for thermo-chemical processes because of their
high VM and low FC.
Percentages of C, H, O, S and N in all scenarios were determined
which ranges from 6.95% (scenario-3) to 45.20% (scenario-5), 2.83%
(scenario-8) to 10.43% (scenario-3), 36.21% (scenario-8) to 80.98%
(scenario-3), 0.02% (scenario-3) to 0.07% (scenario-1) and 0.01%
(scenario-5,6 & 7) to 0.28% (scenario-1) respectively. The amount
of all scenarios was lower than 1.1% of bituminous coal [74]. This
highlights the feasibility of MSW for combustion process. Since
during combustion, emissions would be reduced because of lower
quantity of S and N present in biomass [71]. HCl as well as LCV of
waste samples were measured in the range of 223214,541 kcal/kg
and 31613,728 kcal/kg, respectively (lower stands for scenario-1
& higher stands for scenario-5 in both cases). The LCV of scenarios
from one to four are within the range of LCV of MSW generated in
China, Jorden, and Malaysia which range from 1992 to 2092
kcal/kg [75], 2747 kcal/kg [76] and from 500 to 2600 kcal/kg [77].
Calorific values (CVs) of scenarios from five to eight are higher than
 M.S. Korai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 124 (2016) 333343 339

Table 3
Contribution of MSW components and their final destiny in Hyderabad city.

Waste categories Waste components Quantity (%) Final destiny

Putrescible components (PCs)
Combustible components (CCs)
Recyclable components (RCs)
Other components (OCs)
Food and yard wastes
Plastic, rubber, leather, textile and wood wastes
Cardboard, paper, glass and metal
Ash, bricks, stones, etc.
21.62 Consumed by animals as their feedstock and remaining portion
either naturally converted into compost under aerobic conditions,
burned in the open air, or disposed of into natural water body
21.36 Directly either burned in the open air or disposed of into natural
water body
31.61 Collected by scavenger as a source of income and the remaining
portions either burned or disposed of into a water body
25.41 Openly dumped and burned along with other components

Table 4
Characteristics of waste sample in scenarios.

Scenarios Waste components Density (kg/m3) Proximate Analysis

MC (%) VM (%) FC (%) AC (%)
Scenario-1 Mixed MSW 197 33.97 52.21 24.48 24.22
Scenario-2 Mixed OFMSW 165 44.46 86.06 5.56 4.88
Scenario-3 PCs-MSW 686.71 68.05 88.74 3.54 1.38
Scenario-4 BCs-MSW 242.23 54.63 86.35 5.30 3.85
Scenario-5 NBCs-MSW 81.69 5.36 83.80 6.59 5.14
Scenario-6 NPCs-MSW 73.77 6.14 84.57 7.22 9.29
Scenario-7 CCs-MSW 123 10.36 72.14 10.68 4.11
Scenario-8 RCs-MSW 86.66 5.01 60.41 33.04 31.90

C (%) H (%) O (%) S (%) N (%)

Ultimate analysis
Scenario-1 Mixed MSW 22.78 5.92 46.73 0.07 0.28
Scenario-2 Mixed OFMSW 21.47 7.3 66.08 0.05 0.22
Scenario-3 PCs-MSW 6.95 10.43 80.98 0.02 0.24
Scenario-4 BCs-MSW 11.48 9.30 75.09 0.04 0.23
Scenario-5 NBCs-MSW 45.20 4.20 45.42 0.03 0.01
Scenario-6 NPCs-MSW 38.62 4.10 47.93 0.05 0.01
Scenario-7 CCs-MSW 16.52 8.64 70.68 0.04 0.01
Scenario-8 RCs-MSW 29.00 2.83 36.21 0.03 0.03
Chemical Formula CV (kcal/kg)
S=1 N=1 HCV LCV
Scenario-1 Mixed MSW C842H2601O1296N9S C95H294O147N 4456 2744
Scenario-2 Mixed OFMSW C1232H4983O2846N11S C112H454O259N 4953 2491
Scenario-3 PCs-MSW C703H12552O6155N20S C36H640O314N 2232 316
Scenario-4 BCs-MSW C771H7424O3783N13S C58H559O285N 3284 1171
Scenario-5 NBCs-MSW C3486H3857O2628N1S C6656H7363O5018N 14,541 13,728
Scenario-6 NPCs-MSW C2054H2595O1913N1S C10268H12973O9567N 11,312 10,579
Scenario-7 CCs-MSW C1092H6792O3506N1S C2184H13584O7013N 9581 8528
Scenario-8 RCs-MSW C2818H3273O3506N2S C1208H1403O1132N 8159 7719

reported CVs because of presence of plastic and rubber compo-
nents of MSW in these scenarios. Biogas potential along with share
of methane and carbon-dioxide of scenarios was estimated theo-
retically and illustrated in Fig. 10.
According to Fig. 10, the contribution of methane is higher than
carbon-oxide in scenario-3 as compared to other scenarios. In Pak-
istan, there is no any system for segregation of food and yard
wastes and only practices for their disposal are dumping and/or
burning along with other wastes. By this practices, the contribution
of methane gas in atmosphere is increasing which causes green-
house effect leading to global warming. As global warming poten-
tial of methane is higher than carbon dioxide [9].
3.4. Waste to energy assessment of scenarios
Energy potential of MSW from scenario one to eight was esti-
mated as given in Table 5.
Biomethanation and thermochemical potentials of MSW from
scenarios one to eight were obtained with ranges from 5.9 to
11.3 kW/ton day and from 4 to 165 kW/ton day, respectively. The
PGP of bio- and thermochemical of MSW has been found to be
11.5 kW/ton and 14.4 kW/ton of MSW by [45]. The variation
between past and present studies is because of the contribution
of different components of MSW and their characteristics. More-
over, different technologies were evaluated in terms of PGP as
graphically represented by Fig. 11.
PGP of biomethanation by AD from scenarios one through eight
was estimated to be 0.62, 0.87, 1.13, 0.98, 0.89, 0.85, 0.82 and
0.59 MW/100 tons day respectively (Fig. 11). Whereas, PGP of
thermo-chemical by RDF, MBI, Gasi./Pyro. and PAG were found in
the range of 0.2711.86 MW/100 ton day, 0.3816.47 MW/100
tons day, 0.4218.45 MW/100 tons day and 0.5222.40
MW/100 tons day correspondingly (lower results stand for
scenario-3 whilst high values belong to scenario-5) as mentioned
in Fig. 11. Results of present study especially scenario three and
five are within the range of other studies. Monojit et al. [22] found
a biomethanation potential for producing energy in the range
of 210 MW/day from MSW. Same authors observed the
energy potentials of RDF, MBI, Gasi./Pyro. and PAG in the range
of 1128 MW/day, 719 MW/day, 1732 MW/day and
340 M.S. Korai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 124 (2016) 333343

Fig. 10. Biogas potential of scenarios along with methane and carbondioxide share.

Table 5 regarding the evaluation of different technologies (Fig. 11) implied

Power generation potential of various scenarios. that maximum PGP could be obtained through scenario three and
Scenarios Waste components PGP (kW/ton day) five by AD and thermochemical technologies, respectively. There-
fore, scenarios three and five are the best options for optimized
Biomethanation Thermo-chemical
WTE routes to recover energy from MSW by different WTE conver-
Scenario-1 Mixed MSW 6.2 33
sion technologies in Hyderabad, Sindh, Pakistan.
Scenario-2 Mixed OFMSW 8.7 30
Scenario-3 PCs-MSW 11.3 4
Scenario-4 BCs-MSW 9.8 14
3.5. Comparison between biochemical and thermochemical conversion
Scenario-5 NBCs-MSW 9.0 165
Scenario-6 NPCs-MSW 8.5 127 technologies
Scenario-7 CCs-MSW 8.2 102
Scenario-8 RCs-MSW 5.9 93 The decomposition of organic matter of MSW under microbial
action to produce ethanol, biogas, and compost or digestate
product is performed by a biochemical conversion processes
1128 MW/day respectively. In comparing the findings of all sce- (i.e., fermentation, composting and biomethanation) [45].
narios, it was observed that scenario-3 and 5 gave the highest Composting has not been fully adopted because of odor problems
results of PGP with regard to biomethanation and thermochemical and issues of public perception [78]. The quality of soil and
treatment process, respectively (Table 5). Additionally, the results groundwater is also deteriorated by applying compost products

Fig. 11. Power generation potential of technologies.

 M.S. Korai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 124 (2016) 333343
[79]. Losses of energy are usually observed during composting of
organic wastes because the aerobic process rates are slower than
anaerobic processes and also compost product is low in quality
and has the potential to introduce heavy metals to the human food
chain [80,81]. The low operating and capital costs of biomethana-
tion, meanwhile, make it more beneficial over other technologies.
However, the primary drawback of using biomethanation is the
space it requires for covering the waste to develop anaerobic condi-
tions [22]. The conversion of one ton MSW by controlled biometha-
nation process would yield 24 times as much methane in three
weeks than landfill one tone of wastes [82,83]. The biomethanation
process of biodegradable components of MSW has been accepted as
a proven and preferred biochemical process and it has more
advantages over other biochemical technologies [21,84,85].
The electricity and heat produced by thermochemical treatment
of WTE like RDF, MBI, Gasi./Pyro. and PAG were also evaluated in
this study. The installation and maintenance costs of RDF are
lowest when compared to other thermochemical options [22,86].
Other advantages of using RDF include higher heating value
(i.e. 0.1450.194 kW/kg), the ease of storage, handling and trans-
portation, and the lower GHG emissions [8789]. However, the
applications of incineration with RDF requires more available
funds and has environmental impacts [90]. Globally, MBI is one
of the most important WTE technologies. The volume of waste
can be reduced up to 90% by MBI and its capital cost is lower than
the biomethanation process [91]. The minimum 0.07 kW/kg CV of
MSW is required for MBI which is very difficult to obtain due to the
high moisture content of wastes. Additionally, controlling GHG
emissions from MBI has not been easy [92,93]. By using Gasi./Pyro.,
the volume of MSW can be reduced up to 5090% [22,94]. The
pollution control from Gasi./Pyro. is easer than incineration, but
the high viscosity of its oil may create problems during burning
and transportation [80]. The other main drawbacks of adopting
Gas./Pyro. include the requirement of a cleanup system for control-
ling compounds such as tar, alkali metals, and acidic gas (i.e. HCl)
and the capital cost of Gas./Pyro being typically higher than other
available biochemical technologies [22,95,96]. The PAG is one of
the most efficient of thermochemical techniques [45]. The PAG is
a new technology still in need of development and acceptance
[90]. The gasification, pyrolysis and PAG are also known as
advanced thermal treatment technologies and carry additional
technology risks in the short term as compared to conventional
combustion technologies (i.e., MBI) [37].
4. Conclusion
The proper management of MSW plays a significant role in
order to protect the environment and to use it as renewable energy
sources. In Pakistan, the shortage of energy and conventional
means of MSW disposal have generated many socio-economic as
well as environmental problems. By considering this situation in
the country, this study has analyzed different options for energy
recovery from MSW under various scenarios. The evaluation of
MSW composition show that its major constitute is putrescible,
followed by non-putrescible, non-biodegradable, and finally
degradable material. Energy potential of biochemical and thermo-
chemical processes range from 5.9 to 11.3 kW/ton day and from 4
to 165 kW/ton day, respectively. Moreover, five technologies
(AD, RDF, MBI, Gasi./Pyrol. and PAG) have been evaluated to com-
pute possible waste to energy generation potential. From different
scenarios, PGP of AD, RDF, MBI, Gasi./Pyrol and PAG has been found
to be in the range of 0.591.13, 0.2711.86, 0.3816.47, 0.4218.45
and 0.5222.40 MW/ton day, respectively. The highest results of
AD and thermochemical methods have been achieved by scenarios
containing PCs and NBCs of MSW respectively. Therefore, scenarios
341
containing these components are the best optimized WTE routes
through which maximum energy from MSW can be harnessed by
biochemical and thermochemical methods respectively. From the
comparison between different WTE technologies, it can be seen
that no one strategy is able to provide a complete solution. Each
one has advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, further
in-depth study will be required to analyze the socio-economic
and environmental feasibility of various WTE technologies in
Pakistan in order to better manage MSW.
Acknowledgements
Authors acknowledge the Institute of Environmental
Engineering and Management, Mehran University of Engineering
and Technology, Sindh, Pakistan for providing the facilities in order
to perform experimental work. Authors also would like to thank
Katherine Colburn, Research Assistant at the University of Utah,
for additional language editing.
References
[1] PES (Pakistan Economic Survey). Population, labor force and
employment. Government of Pakistan: Ministry of Finance; 20132014.
<www.finance.gov.pk/survey_1314.html>.
[2] Population projections for the 10th five years peoples plan: 210-15.
[3] WPDS (World Population Data Sheet); 2013. <www.prb.org/pdf13/2013-
population-data-sheet_eng.pdf>.
[4] CIA. World fact sheet; 2014. <https://books.google.com.pk/books?isbn=
1466674067>.
[5] Korai MS, Mahar RB, Uqaili MA. Assessment municipal solid waste
management practices and energy recovery potential in Pakistan. In:
Proceeding of 14th international conference on environmental science and
Technology (CEST), Rhodes, Greece; 35 September, 2015.
[6] Masood M, Barlow CY. Status of solid waste management practices in
developing countries: a case study at Lahore, Pakistan. Waste Manage
2014;34:83849.
[7] Essays UK. Electricity from MSW at Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan. Environmental
Science Essay; 2013. <www.ukessays.com/essays/environmental
science/electricity> from MSW.
[8] Daniel H, Perinaz BT. What a waste: a global review of solid waste
management. Urban Dev Ser Knowl Pap 2012;15:878.
[9] IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; 2006.
[10] Pak-EPA (Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Solid
Waste Management; 2005.
[11] Mattews E, Themelis NJ. Potential for reducing methane emissions from
landfills, 20002030. Sardinia, Italy; 2007.
[12] Jibran MSZ, Shazia FA. Greenhouse effect reduction by recovering energy from
waste landfills in Pakistan. Energy Convers Manage 2015;44:11731.
[13] UNESPA. Global anthropogenic non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. 1990
2020, Washington; 2006.
[14] Bashir BH. An update on Pakistan. Vancouver, Canada; 2013.
[15] Malik AAK, Amir P, Ramay SA, Munawwar Z, Ahmed V. National economic and
environmental development study. Pakistan Government: Ministry of
Environment; 2011.
[16] Zofeen T. Pakistans energy crisis could topple government, Warn expert. Daily
dawn dated; March 5; 2015.
[17] PES (Pakistan Economic Survey). Energy. Government of Pakistan: Ministry of
Finance; 20142015. p. 23546.
[18] Zhang R, El-Mashad HM, Hatman K. Characterization of food waste as feed
stock for anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 2007;98:92935.
[19] Zhang L, Charles C. Champagne overview of recent advances in
thermochemical conversion of biomass. Energy Convers Manage
2010;51:96982.
[20] Vidhya P, Anasuya G, Srikanth M. Biochemical methane potential of agro
wastes. J Energy 2013;34:17.
[21] Adekunle KF, Okolie JA. A review of biochemical process of anaerobic
digestion. Adv Biosci Biotechnol 2015;6:20512. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/
abb.2015.63020.
[22] Monojit C, Chhemendra S, Jitendra P, Prabhat KG. Assessment of energy
generation potentials of MSW in Delhi under different technological options.
Energy Convers Manage 2013;75:24955.
[23] Kameswari KSB, Velmurugan B, Thirumaran K, Ramanujam RA.
Biomethanation of vegetable market waste: untapped carbon trading
opportunities; 2007. <http://www.swlf.ait.ac.th/IntlConf/Data/ICSSWM%
20web/FullPaper/Session%20VI-B/6_BA10%20_Balakameswari_pdf>.
[24] Al Seadi T, Ruiz D, Prassl H, Kottner M, Finsterwaldes T, Volke S, et al.
Handbook of biogas. Esbjerg: University of Southern Denmark; 2008. p.
23345.
[25] De Baere L. Anaerobic digestion of solid waste: state of the art. Water Sci
Technol 2000;41:28390.
342 M.S. Korai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 124 (2016) 333343
[26] Sahito AR, Mahar RB, Farooq A. Effect of buffalo dung to the water ratio on
production of methane through anaerobic digestion. Mehran Univ Res J Eng
Technol 2014;33:23744.
[27] Raheem A, Hassan MY, Shakoor R. Bioenergy from anaerobic digestion in
Pakistan: potential, development and prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;59:26475.
[28] Raheem A, Hassan MY, Shakoor R, Rasheed N. Economic feasibility of
standalone wind energy hybrid with bioenergy from anaerobic digestion for
electrification of remote area of Pakistan. Int J Integr Eng 2014;6:18.
[29] Zuberi MJS, Hasany SZ, Tariq MA, Fahrioglu M. Assessment of biomass energy
resources potential in Pakistan for power generation. In: 4th international
conference on power engineering, energy and electrical derives (POWERENG).
[30] Ahmed S, Mahmood A, et al. A comparative review of China, India and Pakistan
renewable energy sectors and sharing opportunities. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2016;1:132.
[31] Mirza UK, Nasir A, Tariq M. An overview of biomass energy utilization in
Pakistan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008;12(7):198896.
[32] Bhatnagar D, Basak PR. Electricity from MSW: the first of its kind in the
country; 2004. <http://www.resourcesaver.com/file/toolmanager/
O105UF1325.pdf>.
[33] Tan ST, Ho WS, Hashim H, Lee CT, Taib MR, Ho CS. Energy, economic and
environmental (3E) analysis of waste-to-energy (WTE) strategies for
municipal solid waste (MSW) management in Malaysia. Energy Convers
Manage 2015;102:11120.
[34] Yip CH, Chua KH. An overview on the feasibility of harvesting landfill gas from
MSW to recover energy. ICCBT 2008;28:30310.
[35] Banwari L, Reddy MRVP. Wealth from waste. The Energy & Resources Institute;
2011.
[36] Alexander K, Nickolas JT. Energy recovery from municipal solid wastes by
gasification; 2003. <http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/
NAWTEC-gasificationklein.pdf>.
[37] Shashank M, Vishal U, Prakhar, Sulekha S. Energy from municipal solid waste.
Int Adv Res J Sci Eng Technol 2015;2(1):31921.
[38] AECOM Canada Ltd. Management of MSW in Metro Vancouver: a comparative
analysis of options for management of waste after recycling; 2009. p. 13463.
[39] Korai MS, Mahar RB, Uqaili MA. Assessment of power generation potential
from municipal solid waste: a case study of Hyderabad city, Sindh, Pakistan.
Pak J Anal Environ Chem 2014;15(1):1827.
[40] Malkow T. Novel and innovative pyrolysis and gasification technologies for
energy efficiency and environment sound MSW disposal. Waste Manage
2004;24:5379.
[41] Korai MS, Mahar RB, Uqaili MA, Memon SA, Lashari IA. Energy recovery
potential from organic fractions of municipal solid waste (OFMSW): a case
study of Hyderabad city, Pakistan. Waste Manage Res J 2016;34(4):32736.
[42] Adeel AK, Zeeshan A, Siddique MS. Issues with solid waste management in
South Asian countries, a situational analysis of Pakistan. J Environ Occup Sci
2012;1(2):12931.
[43] Prasada PVR, Venkata KS, Sudhir JK. Waste to energy: a case study of Eluru, A.P.
India. Int J Environ Sci Dev 2010;3:35664.
[44] Bushwell MA, Mueller HF. Mechanism of methane fermentation. Ind Eng Chem
1952;44(3):5502.
[45] Tickson TS, Tsunatu DY, Sam KD, Namo JM. Municipal solid waste as
alternative source of energy generation: a case study of Jalingo Metropolis
Taraba State. Int J Eng Technol 2015;5(3):18592.
[46] Rafat AW, Omar KM, Syed AR. Potential value of waste to energy facility in
Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia. 8th jordanian international mechanical conference
at Amman, Jordan. 2014.
[47] Samir S, Prakash R, Yogesh P. City based analysis of MSW to energy generation
in India, calculation of state-wise potential and tariff comparison with EU.
Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2012;37:40716.
[48] Ouda KM. Assessment of the environmental values of waste to energy in the
Gaza Strip. Curr World Environ 2013;8(3):33564.
[49] MWA (Metro Waste Authority). Alternative disposal feasibility, report; 2013.
[50] Janajreh I, Raza SS, Valmundsson AS. Plasma gasification process: modeling,
simulation and comparison with conventional air gasification. Energy Convers
Manage 2013;65:8019.
[51] Rao MS et al. Bioenergy conversion studies of the organic fraction of MSW-
assessment of ultimate bioenergy production potential of municipal garbage.
Appl Energy 2000;66(1):7587.
[52] Gotmare M, Dhoble RM, Pittule AP. Biomethanation of dairy waste water
through UASB at mesophilic temperature range. Int J Adv Eng Sci Technol
2011;8(1):019.
[53] Samuel C, Enrique O, Tiangco C. Promotion of renewable energy, energy
efficiency and greenhouse gas abatement(PREGA) Philippines waste to energy
project. Pineapple processing waste biomethanation and treatment plant: a
feasibility study report, prepared by national technical experts from CPI
energy philippines; 2006.
[54] Tchobanoglous G, Kreith F. Hand book of solid waste management. NewYork,
USA: McGraw-Hill; 2002.
[55] Korai MS. Characterization and composting the MSW of Hyderabad city, Sindh,
Pakistan. Master thesis. Institute of environmental engineering &
management, Mehran university of engineering & technology, Jamshoro,
Sindh, Pakistan; 2009.
[56] Shashikanta K, Biswajit DP. A review on the recent scenario of municipal solid
waste management in India. Int J Eng Res Genet Sci 2015;3(3):52842.
[57] Visvanathan C. Solid waste management in Asian perspectives. In: School of
environment resources and development. Asian Institute of Technology; 2008.
<http://www/swlf.ait.ac.th/NewInterface>.
[58] Tenzing G. Quantification of methane emissions from uncontrolled dumping of
solid waste and from different sanitation systems in developing countries.
Term paper, Institute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics Department
of Environmental science. ETH Zurich; 2008.
[59] Landva A, Clark JI. Geo techniques of waste fills: theory and practices. ASTM
International; 1990.
[60] Saadullah A. Pro-poor and sustainable solid waste management for secondary
cities and small towns. Pakistan: International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN); 2013.
[61] Mata AJ, Cesshi F, Llabres P, Pavan P. Anaerobic digestion of the Barcelona
central food market organic wastes: plant design and feasibly study. Biores
Technol 1992;42:3342.
[62] Bouallagui H, Ben CR, Marouani L, Hamdi M. Mesophilic biogas production
from fruit and vegetable waste in tubular digester. Biores Technol
2003;86:8590.
[63] Bouallagui H, Touhami Y, Ben CR, Hamdia M. Bioreactor performance in
anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes: review. Process Biochem
2005;40:98995.
[64] Bouallagui H, Lahdheb H, Ben RE, Rachdi B, Hamid M. Improvement of fruit
and vegetable waste anaerobic digestion performance and stability with co-
substrates addition. J Environ Manage 2009;90:18449.
[65] Garcia PEI, Parameswaran P, Kang DW, Canul CM, Krajmalnik BR. Anaerobic
digestion and co-digestion processes of vegetable and fruit residues: process
and microbial ecology. Biores Technol 2011;102:944755.
[66] Naik SN, Vaibhav V, Goud Prasant KR, Ajay KD. Production of fruit and second
generation biofuels: a comprehensive review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2010;14:57897.
[67] Clemens JM, Trimborn P, Weiland P, Amon B. Mitigation of greenhouse gas
emissions by anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry. Agric Ecosyst Environ
2006;112:1717.
[68] Lansing S, Viquez J, Martinez H, Botero R, Martin J. Electricity quantifying
waste generation and transformation in a low-cost, plug-flow anaerobic
digestion system. Ecol Eng 2008;34:33248.
[69] Ahring BK, Mladenovska Z, Ianpour R, Westermann P. State of the art and
future perspectives of thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Water Sci Technol
2002;45:2938.
[70] Chami R, Vivanco E. Biogas potential: identification and classification of
different types of biomass available in Chile for the generation of biogas.
Project for renewable energy, German technical co-operation, vol. 82; 2007.
[71] Arthur O, Mahir S, Karoli N, Geoffrey J, Peter M. Energy recovery routes from
municipal solid waste: a case study of Arusha-Tanzania. J Energy Technol
Policy 2014;4(5):18.
[72] Mckendry P. Energy production from biomass, part 1, overview of biomass.
Biores Technol 2002;83(1):3746.
[73] Vassilev SV, Baxter D, Andersen LK, Vassileva CG. An overview of the chemical
composition of biomass. Fuel 2010;89(5):91333.
[74] Nakao T, Aozasa O, Ohta S, Miyata. Formation of toxic chemicals including
dioxin-related compounds by combustion from a small home waste
incinerator. Chemosphere 2006;62(3):45968.
[75] Abdul HS, Sopian K, Muhad Noor MY, Sivapalan K. Energy potential from
MSWin Malaysia. Renew Energy 2003;29:559.
[76] Qudais MA, Qdais HAA. Energy content of municipal solid waste in Jordan and
its utilization. Energy Convers Manage 2000;41(9):8019.
[77] Chunming W, Qilun Z, Yunghua J, Yongbin W. Physical composition and
Calorific value calculation of MSW in Zengcheng, Guangzhou, China. Sci J
Environ Pollut Prot 2013;2:18.
[78] Korai MS, Mahar RB, Sahito AR. Characterization and aerobic biological
treatment of MSW: a case study of Hyderabad city. Mehran Univ Res J Eng
Technol 2014;33(3):3229.
[79] Bhmer S, Seidi MA, Stubenvoll J, Zerz HJ. Component 1-Waste-to-energy in
Malta, scenarios for implementation. Tech Rep 2008:1337.
[80] Bojana ZB, Sinisa ND, Damjan GV, Jelena MD, Jovana AG. Waste-to-energy
status in Serbia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:143744.
[81] Pinamonti F, Stringari G, Gasperi F, Zorzi G. The use of compost: its effects on
heavy metal levels in soil and plants. Resour Conserv Recycl 1997:21.
[82] Saxena R, Adhikari D, Goyal H. Biomass based energy fuel through biochemical
routes: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:16778.
[83] Ahsan N. Solid waste management plan for Indian megacities. Indian J Environ
Prot 1999;19(2):905.
[84] Jeihanipour A. Waste textiles bioprocessing to ethanol and biogas Doctoral
thesis. Gothenburg: Chalmers University of Technology; 2011. p. 34451.
[85] Teghammar A. Biogas production from lignocelluloses: pretreatment,
substrate characterization, co-digestion and economic evaluation Doctoral
thesis. Gothenburg: Chalmers University of Technology; 2013. p. 36372.
[86] Quadrennial technology review. Chapter 7: Advancing systems and
technologies to produce cleaner fuels. Technology assessments. US
Department of Energy. 2015; 1-7.
[87] Sikka P. Energy from MSW RDF pelletization a Pilot Indian Plant; 2000. p. 16.
<http://www.environmental-expert.com/articles/energy-frommsw-rdf-
pelletization-a-pilot-indian-plant-2080/view-comments>.
[88] Chang YH, Chen WC, Chang NB. Comparative evaluation of RDF and MSW
incineration. J Hazard Mater 1998;58:3345.
 M.S. Korai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 124 (2016) 333343
[89] Gupta AK, Rohrbach EM. Refuse derived fuels: technology, processing, quality
and combustion experiences, FACT-refused derived fuel (RDF): quality,
standard and processing. ASME 1991;13:4958.
[90] Dasanayaka SWSB et al. Economic and financial feasibility risks of power
generation through municipal solid wastes to reduce environmental impacts, a
case study based on western province in Sri Lanka. Int J Emerg Technol
Comput Appl Sci 2014;8(1):10417.
[91] Cheng H, Hu Y. Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source of energy:
current and future practices in China. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:381624.
[92] MGBEPS (Malaysian Green and Blue Environment Protection Society), MSW
Manual; 2012. <http://greenbluegroup.blogspot.in/2012/04/incinerator-for-
municipal-solid-waste.html>.
[93] Karagiannidis A, Bilitewski B, Tchobanoglous G, Themelis NJ, Wittmaier M,
Tsatsarelis T. Waste to energy: on thermal treatment & energetic utilization of
343
solid wastes. In: Golish TV, editor. Waste management research trends. New
York: Nova Science Publisher; 2008. p. 10563.
[94] Roy GK. Municipal solid waste recycle an economic proposition for a
developing nation. Indian J Environ Prot 1988;8(1):514.
[95] National Master Plan for Development of Waste-to-Energy in India. Technical
memorandum on waste-to-energy technologies; 2006. <http://ebookbrowse.
com/national-master-plan-technical-memorandum-onstudyofgovernment-
infrastructure-pdf-d348576610>.
[96] Quaak P, Knoef H, Stassen H. Energy from biomass: a review of combustion
and gasification technologies. World Bank technical paper no. 422; 1999.
<http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/
IB/2000/07/08/000094946_99033105581764/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf>.