Article

Life Cycle Analysis of Energy Production from Food

Waste through Anaerobic Digestion, Pyrolysis and
Integrated Energy System
Suraj Adebayo Opatokun 1, Ana M. Lopez-Sabiron 2, German Ferreira 2 and Vladimir Strezov 1,*
1 Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University,
NSW 2109, Australia; suraj.opatokun@ mq.edu.au
2 Research Centre for Energy Resources and Consumption (CIRCE), Campus Río Ebro, CIRCE Building

Mariano Esquillor Gómez, 15, Zaragoza 50018, Spain; [email protected] (A.M.L.-S.);

[email protected] (G.F.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-2-9850-6959

Received: 29 September 2017; Accepted: 4 October 2017; Published: 5 October 2017

Abstract: The environmental performance of industrial anaerobic digestion (AD), pyrolysis, and
integrated system (AD sequence with pyrolysis) on food waste treatment were evaluated using life
cycle assessment. The integrated treatment system indicated similar environmental benefits to AD
with the highest benefits in climate change and water depletion in addition to the increased energy
generation potential and the production of valuable products (biochar and bio-oil). Pyrolysis
results illustrated higher impact across water, fossil fuel, and mineral depletion, although still
providing a better option than conventional landfilling of food waste. The dewatering phase in the
AD process accounted for 70% of the treatment impact while the pre-treatment of the food waste
was responsible for the main burden in the pyrolysis process. The study indicated that the three
treatment options of food waste management are environmentally more favorable than the
conventional landfilling of the wastes.

Keywords: life cycle assessment; environment; End-of-Life (EOL); food waste; digestion; pyrolysis

1. Introduction
Food waste management has rapidly been influenced by local and regional policies to ensure
recycling, resource optimization, and mitigation of environmental impacts. Waste management,
food and energy security, climate change, and resource recovery are the primary indicators [1–3]
shaping waste treatment and process adoption across the globe. The renewed acceptance of
anaerobic digestion (AD) in some countries, such as Australia and member states of the European
Union (EU), is closely associated with the Renewable Directives and the Waste Framework
Directives for renewable energy target against 2020 [4,5], while organic waste management in
developing countries is hinged on international initiatives, such as sustainable development and
resource conservation [6]. The ease at which wet biomass is treated without pre-treatment to harvest
energy and digestate may fundamentally be responsible for AD acceptance.
There are a large number of international developments for energy production through
anaerobic digestion. About 14 Million functional small-scale digesters were developed in China and
50,000 estimated in Nepal [6]. Germany expects a 30% increase of the current 7000 small and large
scale on farm AD systems by 2020 [4]. However, constraints associated with digestate utilization or
disposal includes physical and chemical (heavy metals and organic pollutants) impurities;
pathogens and biological matter concentrations [7]; distribution and mineralization dynamics of

Sustainability 2017, 9, 1804; doi: 10.3390/su9101804 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2017, 9, 1804 2 of 15

digestate nutrients in soil; and quality management [8]. Many studies delineated the merits of the
liquid (digestate with total solid (TS) range of 0.5 to 15%) and solid (digestate with TS > 15%)
residues [9] as bio-fertilizers [10,11]. Recently, energy extraction from digestate using pyrolysis is
reported as another sustainable management measure [12,13] to extract energy from this
bio-resistant or non-biodegradable organic product of the AD system. The soil enhancement and the
other environmental potentials of the biochar (black carbonaceous residue) from the thermochemical
process [14,15] are thus exploited. Supercritical water gasification of biomass is another
recommended technology for the processing of biomass streams rich in water [16].
Monitoring and quantifying the inputs and outputs of the anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis
treatment processes and their resultant products through a life cycle pattern expectedly enable the
identification of emissions, wastes, and more environmentally sustainable options in the system [4],
which consequently ensures sustainability of policy and its implementation. Life cycle assessment
[17] is an established technique for environmental analysis wherein system inputs (materials,
energy, and others) are adequately correlated with the outputs (product, waste, and emissions)
using standard methodologies with the aim of improving the system. However, LCA of waste
treatments are often based on a single treatment technique coupled with uncertainties, which make
them case specific with data unconnected to specific plant or functional scenarios [18,19].
Multiple and isolated treatment options mirrored through environmental metrics for food
wastes management may be a potential measure to utilize the increase in global food production.
This strategy is imperative as waste management industries transit from waste treatment and
disposal to being active suppliers of energy and recovered materials [20]. This study gives a novel
life cycle analysis approach by evaluating and comparing the environmental performance of three
end of life (EOL) management scenarios (anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, and the integration of AD
and pyrolysis) for food waste treatment processes and their resultant products with focus on the
environmental benefits and burdens using selected impact categories as characterized by the LCA
methodology.

2. Materials and Methods

The LCA is an established method, both technically and scientifically [21,22], and is
standardized by the International Organization for Standardization ISO 14040 [23]. This method was
synthesized in four interrelated phases: goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact
evaluation, and interpretation [24,25].
The inputs and outputs of each EOL management scenario were defined, and the developed
inventory was calculated using SimaPro v.8 (PRé Sustainability, Amersfoort, Netherlands) [26]. In
this study, the midpoint approach is used to evaluate the environmental impact using the ReCiPe
method [27], since it is one of the most recent and harmonized indicator approaches. The midpoint
indicators considered in this study were climate change (CC), ozone depletion (OD), terrestrial
acidification (TA), fresh water eutrophication (FE), marine eutrophication (ME), human toxicity
(HTox), photochemical oxidant formation (POF), particulate matter formation (PMF), terrestrial
ecotoxicity (TEcox), fresh water ecotoxicity (FEcox) marine ecotoxicity (MEcox), water depletion
(WD), minerals depletion (MD), and fossil fuel depletion (FD).

2.1. Scope of the Analysis and Functional Unit

This study proposes environmental analysis based on the LCA method to identify impacts
preventive measures and system improvement strategies necessary to improve the economic and
environmental performance of an existing industrial food waste treatment process. Alternative EOL
management scenarios, such as anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, or integrated system (sequence or
integration of anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis) are promoted to reduce the amount of food
landfilled while obtaining valuable by-products (bio-fertilizer, biochar, bio-oil, and biogas) for other
uses or applications. Therefore, it is necessary to provide a reference through which the process
inputs and outputs are correlated. In this study, 1 kg of food waste was established as the functional
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1804 3 of 15

unit. Details and characteristics of the food waste used in the modelling were described previously
[13,28].

2.2. Scope of the Analysis and Functional Unit

As shown in Figure 1, the assessment focused on three different EOL scenarios to manage food
waste. Considering this approach, previous stages related to the food production and use phase are
not included in this analysis, since they can be considered as independent of the evaluated scenarios.
Only the material and energy inputs and outputs associated with the different EOL treatment
processes and the strategies for application of the generated by-product are inside the system
boundaries, excluding the existing infrastructure. Moreover, in view of the assessment goal, disposal
in a landfill was considered as the conventional management option.
Since electricity consumption is an important parameter, relevant consideration to account is
the local energy supply mix [18]. In this case, the assessment was developed considering the
Australian country energy supply mix. The distribution per sources of the electricity generation
across Australia, which accounts for a high ratio of fossil fuels (86%), especially of coal (73%) and
natural gas (13%), and lower ratio of alternative energies (14%), including hydropower (7%), wind
power (4%), solar energy (2%), and bioenergy (1%) [29]. As a final assumption, the evaluation was
carried out excluding the infrastructure impact associated to the three scenarios studied.

2.3. EOL Management Scenarios Description

An industrial one-stage anaerobic digestion (henceforth refer to as AD) plant designated
predominantly for food waste treatment and the provision of electricity to the Australian national
grid was compared with a parallel pyrolysis treatment and an integrated treatment process (wherein
AD was sequenced with pyrolysis) for optimal energy and value added product extraction. The
three food waste treatment pathways were analyzed and compared as sustainable means for further
valorization of the generated food wastes.

2.3.1. Anaerobic Digestion Process

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is the microbial degradation of food waste or organics in the absence
of molecular oxygen to produce bio-methane gas, liquid, and solid residues as annotated in Case A
of Figure 1. The commercial one-stage AD treatment plant (1000 tonnes per week capacity) typically
collects suitable solid and liquid food waste materials from the industrial, commercial, and
residential sectors and converts it to energy and nutrient-rich fertilizer (digestate). The mesophilic
AD system generates methane, which is converted to electricity (supplied to the Australian national
grid for distribution) and heat through the combined heat and power (CHP) system. Some of the
operational data of the AD process may be obtained in the previous studies [13,28], as summarized
in Table 1. Part of the generated heat is used for de-watering of the digestate, control of the AD
process, and feedstock sterilization when necessary. Process parameters, such as temperature and
retention time (RT), are important to the AD performance [30], especially at an industrial scale.
Operational cost of maintaining sludge heat for microbial activities and mixing in the reactor
accounts for retention time trade-off, which results in residues with potential for energy recovery,
such as those targeted in the proposed integrated system (Case C).

2.3.2. Pyrolysis Treatment Process

Pyrolysis is an endothermic process through which pre-treated (dried) food waste or
bio-resistant digestate is thermally degraded for production of biogas, biochar, and bio-oil. Details of
the energy distribution yield and characterization results of these products produced at industrial
pyrolysis temperature (500 °C) were presented previously [13,28]. Heating rate may be defined to
influence the choice of products during pyrolysis. Slow heating rate ensures higher biochar yields
while fast heating rate produces higher bio-oil or biogas yields. The gas produced is expected to be
co-generated (CHP) to electricity, while the resultant heat is budgeted for the food waste
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1804 4 of 15

pre-treatment, as indicated in the schematic diagram (see Case B in Figure 1). Other related input
and output data of this scenario are presented in Table 1.

Figure 1. System boundaries of the three end of life (EOL) management scenarios including the
definition of the treatment and recovery processes. Case A: Anaerobic digestion; Case B: Pyrolysis;
and, Case C: Integrated or sequenced anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis system.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1804 5 of 15

2.3.3. Integrated Treatment Process

The integrated treatment process implied sequence or combining both anaerobic digestion and
pyrolysis processes, as shown in Case C of Figure 1. The summary of the inputs and outputs are also
provided in Table 1.

2.4. Life Cycle Inventory

The Life Cycle Inventory [31] includes the energy and materials involved in analysis of the EOL
scenarios. These data were obtained by combination of different sources; mainly from a functional
industrial one-stage anaerobic digestion food waste treatment plant in Sydney, laboratory tests,
methods, and analysis of samples, as reported previously [13,28], and standardized by the
Eco-invent 3.1 database [32]. Material and energy consumption associated with the waste treatment
processes involved in the pyrolysis and the proposed integrated management scenarios were
obtained from the laboratory experiments [13,28]. Since the industrial scale pyrolysis provides the
inert condition simulated by N2 in the laboratory scale, nitrogen was therefore excluded in the
evaluation while maintaining other data obtained through the pyrolysis trials. On the other hand,
data supported by Eco-invent database [32] after validation was selected to characterize the
modeling and use of the by-products and the conventional landfill scenario.
Table 1 shows the most relevant data included in the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) considering the
case studies and system boundaries defined in Figure 1. Additionally, it is necessary to take into
account the materials and energies saved or conserved through the recovery or recycling of the
useful products generated by the treatment processes, as included in the description of the EOL
management scenarios (Figure 1). For instance, in case A (digestion), the material saved by using the
digestate as a conventional fertilizer and the grid electricity saved were included in the evaluation.
In case B (pyrolysis), besides the grid energy saved, fossil fuel consumption was treated as potential
saving, since bio-oil was considered as a substitute for light fuel oil in boilers and biochar was
characterized as substitute for coal in industrial furnaces for heat production. This assumption was
predicated on the physicochemical properties of the pyrolyzed raw food waste, as detailed in
previous studies [28].
In case C (integrated digestion and pyrolysis system), similar recovery actions for electricity
generated from bio-oil alongside the cogeneration, while the biochar produced in this scenario was
considered as a conventional fertilizer due its nutrients and water retention potential (consequently,
saving irrigation water) and equally replace digestate function as bio-fertilizer were assumed.
Finally, it is important to note that the heat generated in the CHP (indicated in the Figure with
dotted arrow lines) are not considered as inputs since they are within the boundaries under
consideration, as shown in the illustrated system boundaries (see Figure 1).

2.5. Cut-off Criteria

All of the relevant environmental impacts were incorporated in the study through the following
cut-off criteria:
i. Materials: In this study, flows lower than 1% of the cumulative mass of the inputs and
outputs are excluded due to their environmental irrelevance, which predicates on the
type of flow of the LCI. However, this sum of the neglected material flows does not
exceed 5% of the mass, energy or environmental relevance.
ii. Energy: Flows <1% of the cumulative energy of all the inputs and outputs (depending on
the type of flow) of the LCI model, are excluded from this analysis. Their environmental
relevance is equally not a concern.
These criteria were established based on a thorough analysis of the system with adequate
evaluation of energy and mass balances of the processes involved.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1804 6 of 15

Table 1. Main inputs and outputs related to anaerobic digestion (Case A), Pyrolysis (Case B) and
Integration of Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and pyrolysis (Case C).

Main Inputs Main Outputs

Food waste 1 kg Electricity from biogas (CHP) 0.240 kWh
Water 0.569 kg Heat * 0.369 kWh
CASE A
Electricity 0.008 kWh Organic fertilizer 0.030 kg
Caustic soda 0.005 kg
Electricity from biogas (CHP) 0.026 kWh
Heat * 0.020 kWh
CASE B Food waste 1 kg
Biochar 0.097 kg
Bio-oil 0.181 kg
Food waste 1 kg Electricity from biogas (CHP) 0.242 kWh
Water 0.569 kg Heat * 0.365 kWh
CASE C
Electricity 0.136 kWh Biochar 0.013 kg
Caustic soda 0.005 kg Bio-oil 0.016 kg
Note: * Heat remained after covering the energy require along the process.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Case A: Anaerobic Digestion (AD)

The environmental impact results of industrial one stage anaerobic digestion treatment as EOL
management scenario are summarized in Table 2. The negative values observed in the results
represent environmental benefits in the analyzed impact categories, while positive values refer to
the environmental impacts. The results demonstrate that case A achieved environmental benefits
along the whole value chain of this EOL management scenario.
Although the food refuse treatment process entailed environmental impacts for all of the
indicators, these impacts were compensated through the energy generated by the biogas and the
digestate substituting for grid electricity and synthetic fertilizer, thus, enabling large enough
conventional EOL disposal to balance the rest of the contributed impacts. The environmental
impacts and benefits associated with specific phases and stages of AD treatment process are shown
in Figure 2. The most impacting stage for all of the indicators is the dewatering process, which
accounts for more than 70% of the total impacts associated with the AD treatment process.
In the AD process, ozone depletion (OD) rose to about 84% (Figure 2) to indicate the highest
impact category. The inclusion of wastewater treatment in the dewatering stage may have accounted
for the overall impacts. On a broader perspective, the electricity consumption associated with the
wastewater treatment related the most relevant impact, while the OD indicator was specifically
influenced by the use of sodium hydroxide. High quantities of tetra-chloromethane (CFC-10)
emissions are involved during NaOH production, which are factored for its use in the wastewater
treatment. In addition, although the dryer energy demand was sourced from the heat generated by
the CHP, this equally includes impacts associated with wastewater treatment, which consequently
accounted for an average of 11% of the impacts. Similarly, the hydro-pulper stage impacts were
indicated to be driven by electricity and water used during the phase. The microbial digestion phase
delineated the least impact due to low electricity demand of this treatment phase.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1804 7 of 15

Table 2. Environmental impacts for anaerobic digestion of food waste (Case A).

AD Use of
Impact Category Unit Treatment By-products and Total
Process Avoided Landfill
Climate change g CO2 eq 144.22 −901.38 −757.16
Ozone depletion µg CFC-11 eq 4.79 −5.24 −0.45
Terrestrial acidification g SO2 eq 0.57 −1.90 −1.33
Fresh water eutrophication g P eq 0.22 −0.42 −0.21
Marine eutrophication g N eq 0.06 −2.94 −2.88
Human toxicity g 1,4-DB eq 2.33 −12.85 −10.52
Photochemical oxidant formation g NMVOC 0.34 −1.10 −0.75
Particle matter formation g PM10 eq 0.17 −0.56 −0.39
Terrestrial ecotoxicity g 1,4-DB eq 0.01 −0.03 −0.02
Fresh water ecotoxicity g 1,4-DB eq 0.01 −0.18 −0.17
Marine ecotoxicity g 1,4-DB eq 0.02 −0.22 −0.20
Water depletion l 327.29 −918.85 −591.56
Minerals depletion g Fe eq 0.50 −0.99 −0.49
Fossil fuel depletion g oil eq 37.55 −125.48 −87.94

Figure 2. Environmental impacts for the industrial one stage anaerobic digestion treatment process.

Figure 3 shows the environmental benefits obtained by the application of the AD by-products
and the avoided landfilling implications. In this case, recovery process performance was predicated
on the indicator choice. Some indicators, such as TA, FE, POF, PMF, TEcox, WD, and FD, were
specifically affected by the Australian electricity production that would be avoided considering the
electricity production by biogas cogeneration. Nevertheless, other indicators reflected the fertilizer
role of digestate, for example OD, HTox, MEcox, and MD were more sensible to the fact that
synthetic fertilizer production can be avoided by the use of digestate produced during the AD
treatment system. Particularly averted is the high impact associated with urea and phosphate
production, which is one of the main material inputs during the manufacturing of synthetic NPK
fertilizers. Additionally, the conventional EOL scenario (landfill avoidance) had a significant
relevance for the environmental categories CC, ME, and FECox. The excess heat generated during
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1804 8 of 15

the cogeneration stage is another benefit when recycled into the system or deployed in industrial
furnaces, thus avoiding natural gas consumption. No relevant contribution was provided by the
intervention to any of the environmental categories.

CC OD TA FE ME HTox POF PMF TEcox FEcox MEcox WD MD FD

0%

-10%
Relative environmental impact (%)

-20%

-30%

-40%

-50%

-60%

-70%

-80%

-90%

-100%
Australian country mix substitution (A) Conventional fertilizer substitution (A)
Conventional NG substitution (A) Landfill avoided

Figure 3. Environmental impacts for the recovery processes included in Case A.

3.2. Case B: Pyrolysis

The environmental impact results obtained by the midpoint analysis using the ReCiPe method
for pyrolysis treatment process are summarized in Table 3. In this scenario, the results showed
different behavior depending on the analyzed indicators. Prominent environmental impacts were
indicated, especially on WD and FD, followed by MD, TA, FE, PMF, POF, and TEcox, while, CC, OD,
ME, HTox, FEcox, and MEcox of this EOL management scenario delineated environmental benefits
along the whole value chain. The neutralizing effect of the energy and materials produced during
the thermochemical treatment may be attributed to the aforementioned impact categories.
Regarding food refuse pre-treatment and its carbonization (pyrolysis) stages moisture removal
accounts for the total impact in all of the analyzed indicators, particularly due to the associated
electricity consumption. Recycling the heat generated during electricity production equally
compensated for some of the system energy demand.
On the other hand, Figure 4 shows the environmental benefits obtained from the use of the
by-products (biogas, bio-oil, and biochar) generated in this scenario and the avoided landfilling
implications. Similar to Case A, it was found that variation in the performance of the indicators is a
function of the considered product utilization choice. The benefits from the use of the biochar when
substituting for coal in industrial applications and the avoided conventional landfill disposal had the
highest impact in most of the indicators. For example, coal replacement with biochar influenced
specifically TA, FE, HTox, POF, PMF, TEcox, and MD categories accounting for relative benefits
from 43% (TEcox) to 72% (PMF) while the averted landfill disposal had high relevance in CC, ME,
FEcox, and MEcox with relative benefits ranging from 61% to 99%. The other options considered for
the utilization of the obtained by-products only show the predominant relevance in three of the
analyzed categories that is the WD in case of electricity generation from biogas through the CHP,
which prevents grid electricity consumption. Similarly, the OD and FD were improved in case when
bio-oil is used to substitute for light fuel oil in boilers due to the impacts avoided and associated to
the fossil fuel production.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1804 9 of 15

Table 3. Environmental impacts for pyrolysis of food waste (Case B).

Pyrolysis Use of
Impact Category Unit Treatment By-products and Total
Process Avoided Landfill
Climate change g CO2 eq 683.11 −809.08 −125.97
Ozone depletion µg CFC-11 eq 2.82 −14.63 -−11.82
Terrestrial acidification g SO2 eq 2.61 −1.19 1.43
Fresh water eutrophication g P eq 1.07 −0.10 0.96
Marine eutrophication g N eq 0.29 −2.84 −2.56
Human toxicity g 1,4-DB eq 10.27 −12.59 −2.32
Photochemical oxidant
g NMVOC 1.59 −1.39 0.20
formation
Particle matter formation g PM10 eq 0.76 −0.45 0.31
Terrestrial ecotoxicity g 1,4-DB eq 0.04 −0.01 0.03
Fresh water ecotoxicity g 1,4-DB eq 0.03 −0.14 −0.11
Marine ecotoxicity g 1,4-DB eq 0.10 −0.12 −0.02
Water depletion l 1457.88 −164.09 1293.79
Minerals depletion g Fe eq 2.32 −0.14 2.18
Fossil fuel depletion g oil eq 178.34 −81.38 96.97

CC OD TA FE ME HTox POF PMF TEcox FEcox MEcox WD MD FD

0%
-10%
Relative environmental impact (%)

-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
-60%
-70%
-80%
-90%
-100%
Australian country mix substitution (B) Conventional light fuel oil substitution (B)
Conventional coal substitution (B) Conventional NG substitution (B)
Landfill avoided

Figure 4. Environmental impacts for the recovery processes included in Case B.

3.3. Case C: Integrated system

The environmental impacts related to the integrated food waste EOL management scenario
wherein AD treatment is sequenced by pyrolysis are summarized in Table 4. This EOL management
scenario revealed the environmental benefits throughout the considered environmental categories,
except for OD with an impact along the entire value chain. Expectedly, material and energy (since
more combustible biogas is produced) substitution through by-products coupled with conventional
EOL disposal compensate for the impacts associated with this food waste treatment process.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1804 10 of 15

Table 4. Environmental impacts for integrated system of anaerobic digestion followed by pyrolysis
(Case C).

Integrated Use of by-products

Impact category Unit Treatment and avoided Total
process landfill
Climate change g CO2 eq 144.22 −865.66 −721.44
Ozone depletion µg CFC-11 eq 4.79 −3.88 0.91
Terrestrial acidification g SO2 eq 0.57 −1.57 −1.00
Fresh water eutrophication g P eq 0.22 −0.42 −0.21
Marine eutrophication g N eq 0.06 −2.92 −2.87
Human toxicity g 1,4-DB eq 2.33 −9.74 −7.41
Photochemical oxidant formation g NMVOC 0.34 −1.01 −0.67
Particle matter formation g PM10 eq 0.17 −0.46 −0.29
Terrestrial ecotoxicity g 1,4-DB eq 0.01 −0.02 −0.01
Fresh water ecotoxicity g 1,4-DB eq 0.01 −0.17 −0.16
Marine ecotoxicity g 1,4-DB eq 0.02 −0.16 −0.14
Water depletion l 327.29 −882.02 −554.73
Minerals depletion g Fe eq 0.50 −0.64 −0.14
Fossil fuel depletion g oil eq 37.55 −110.17 −72.63

In the integration scenario (case C), pyrolysis assumes the processing of the dried digestate.
Moreover, the biochar produced is expected to replace the agronomic role of digestate due to the
char NPK nominal properties and its water retention capacity. Therefore, the relative global impact
contribution of the system stages was analyzed, as depicted in Figure 5. Again, the dewatering
process constitutes more than 65% of the impacts in all of the indicators included in this study. The
main reason is related to the wastewater treatment included in the dewatering stage. However, the
rest of the process had a distributed impact to the environmental categories. Hydro-pulper and
drying components of the integrated system provided impacts of around 10–16%, respectively,
while the environmental impacts of the digestion process are less than 6% of the impacts across
different indicators.
The environmental benefits obtained by utilizing the by-products generated in this scenario and
the avoided landfill are shown in Figure 6. The two main relevant factors that accrue in this
treatment option offer the highest environmental gains in electricity generation (through the CHP
from the biogas produced consequently the mix electricity consumption is avoided) and the avoided
landfill use. The Australian electricity production has an important impact from the coal
consumption affecting the indicators such as TA, FE, HTox, POF, PMF, TEcox, WD, and FD, which
were avoided to imply benefits for the process. Additionally, the benefits from the avoided landfill
use were profound for ME, FEcox CC, and MEcox due to the associated treatments. The avoided
conventional fertilizer production by using the biochar equally accounts for about 80% and 30% of
the total impacts for MD and OD, respectively. Since NPK fertilizer was considered in the
assessment, the MD was particularly affected by the potassium chloride, while the urea production
had an important influence on the OD indicator.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1804 11 of 15

Figure 5. Environmental impacts for the treatment processes included in Case C.

CC OD TA FE ME HTox POF PMF TEcox FEcox MEcox WD MD FD

0%
-10%
Relative environmental impact (%)

-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
-60%
-70%
-80%
-90%
-100%
Australian country mix substitution (C) Conventional light fuel oil substitution (C)
Conventional fertilizer substitution (C) Conventinal NG substitution (C)
Landfill avoided

Figure 6. Environmental impacts for the recovery processes included in Case C.

3.4. Comparison of the Analyzed EOL Management Scenarios

The overall environmental performance of the scenarios related to the entrenched
environmental impacts were compared and equally related to the conventional landfill option, as
shown in Table 5. Although some indicators showed impacts in cases of B and C, the results evinced
that all of the case studies were environmentally better options than the conventional landfilling of
the food wastes as indicated by all of the impact categories. The degree of impacts in some of the
EOL management scenario, such as pyrolysis, when compared to the conventional landfilling, the
latter impacts are significant with 4000% higher FE and FD against the former.
Comparatively, out of the three scenarios, Case B was the least environmentally favored with
overall environmental impacts for FD, FE, PMF, TEcox, MD, POF, TA, and WD categories (see Table 5).
The integrated scenario C only exhibited an overall environmental impact for ozone depletion (OD),
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1804 12 of 15

while the AD treatment process indicated environmental benefits in all of the impact categories.
Case C and Case A indicated similar environmental performance in all the categories even though
the latter expressed slightly higher environmental gains. However, the feasibility and the
environmental viability of the two are reflected in the results.

Table 5. Comparison of the three EOL management scenarios and the conventional landfill
management.

Impact Category Unit Case A Case B Case C Landfill

Climate change g CO2 eq −757.16 −125.97 −721.44 498.27
Ozone depletion µgCFC-11 eq −0.45 −11.82 0.91 0.32
Terrestrial acidification g SO2 eq −1.33 1.43 −1.00 0.08
Fresh water eutrophication g P eq −0.21 0.96 −0.21 0.01
Marine eutrophication g N eq −2.88 −2.56 −2.87 2.81
Human toxicity g1,4-DB eq −10.52 −2.32 −7.41 3.41
Photochemical oxidant formation g NMVOC −0.75 0.20 −0.67 0.26
Particle matter formation g PM10 eq −0.39 0.31 −0.29 0.03
Terrestrial ecotoxicity g1,4-DB eq −0.02 0.03 −0.01 0.00
Fresh water ecotoxicity g1,4-DB eq −0.17 −0.11 −0.16 0.12
Marine ecotoxicity g1,4-DB eq −0.20 −0.02 −0.14 0.07
Water depletion l −591.56 1293.79 −554.73 34.98
Minerals depletion g Fe eq −0.49 2.18 −0.14 0.04
Fossil fuel depletion g oil eq −87.94 96.97 −72.63 1.86

The results obtained in this study were further related to previous studies. For example, similar
trends were reported by [33] during the evaluation of different municipal solid waste management
scenarios using a comparative LCA approach in Iran. The latter study included anaerobic digestion,
landfilling combined with composting, incineration, incineration combined with composting and
anaerobic digestion combined with incineration. The results obtained for climate change varied from
800 kg CO2 eq per tonne in case of landfilling to −250 kg CO2 eq per tonne in case of digestion
combined with incineration posited as the most eco-friendly scenario. Similarly, higher
environmental benefits (above 1000 kg CO2 eq per tonne) were reported by Rajaeifar et al. [34]
considering also the digestion and incineration treatment options. In the extended study by Parkes et
al. [20] wherein ten different integrated EOL scenarios were evaluated through four impact
categories, around −30 to −1100 kg CO2 eq per tonne was reported for CC, which was similar
emission trend to this study. The latter study equally reiterated that not a single management system
performed the best in all of the impact categories. The relevance of recycling and recovery of energy
and materials included in the EOL management scenarios were also addressed by Xu et al. [35]
focusing on biogas from food wastes. Similar to the results depicted in this study, the results
presented by Xu et al. [35] equally indicated that the environmental benefits achieved in the overall
treatment processes are pivoted on the utilization and recovery of the generated energy.

4. Conclusions
This study investigated the environmental impacts and benefits of three treatment scenarios for
food waste management, anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, and integrated anaerobic digestion
followed by pyrolysis. The results revealed the integrated system provides similar overall benefits
and impacts with AD. The coal based Australian electricity mix impact was significantly avoided in
the AD and integrated treatment processes, whereas it was accounted for the impacts associated to
pyrolysis, especially in the feedstock pre-treatment. The impacts assigned to pyrolysis were
predicated by the electricity mix configuration, while AD and integrated system were constrained
by the use of NaOH. The alternative means of moisture removal (pre-treatment of food) and
replacement of NaOH during wastewater treatment may substantially reduce the associated impacts
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1804 13 of 15

applicable to the scenarios. The uncertainties were minimized (using real time industrial data)
owing to the importance of food waste management.

Acknowledgment: The financial support by the Higher Degree Research Unit of Macquarie University, Sydney,
Australia is highly acknowledged. Also appreciated is the funding from the Spanish National Programme for
Research under the project Eco-PLUS received by German Ferreira and Ana M. Lopez-Sabiron. Authors
acknowledge the support by David Clark of EarthPower Technologies Sydney Pty Ltd with data and feedstock
supply. The CIRCE staff support during the training is also acknowledged.

Author Contributions: Suraj Adebayo Opatokun conceived and designed the experiments, performed the
experiments, analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. Ana M. Lopez-Sabiron analyzed the data and
contributed to writing the manuscript. German Ferreira performed analysis of the data. Vladimir Strezov
conceived and designed the experiments and contributed to developing the analysis tools.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

EOL: End of Life

LCA: Life Cycle Assessment
LCI: Life Cycle Inventory
CC: Climate Change
OD: Ozone Depletion
TA: Terrestrial Acidification
FE: Fresh water Eutrophication
ME: Marine Eutrophication
HTox: Human Toxicity
POF: Photochemical Oxidant Formation
PMF: Particulate Matter Formation
TEcox: Terrestrial Ecotoxicity
FEcox: Fresh water Ecotoxicity
MEcox: Marine Ecotoxicity
WD: Water Depletion
MD: Minerals Depletion
FD: Fossil fuel Depletion
AD: Anaerobic Digestion
MSW: Municipal Solid Waste
CHP: Combine Heat and Power

References
1. Edwards, J.; Othman, M.; Burn, S. A review of policy drivers and barriers for the use of anaerobic
digestion in Europe, the United States and Australia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015; 52, 815–828.
2. Wang, X.; Guo, F.; Li, Y.; Yang, X. Effect of pretreatment on microalgae pyrolysis: Kinetics, biocrude yield
and quality, and life cycle assessment. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017; 132, 161–171.
3. Ling-Chin, J.; Roskilly, A.P. A comparative life cycle assessment of marine power systems. Energy
Convers. Manag. 2016, 127, 477–493.
4. Evangelisti, S.; Lettieri, P.; Borello, D.; Clift, R. Life cycle assessment of energy from waste via anaerobic
digestion: A UK case study. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 226–237.
5. Vega, G.C.C.; Hoeve, M.T.; Birved, M.; Sommer, S.G.; Bruun, S. Choosing co-substrates to supplement
biogas production from animal slurry—A life cycle assessment of the environmental consequences.
Bioresour Technol. 2014, 171, 410–420.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1804 14 of 15

6. Wilkinson, K.G, A comparison of the drivers influencing adoption of on-farm anaerobic digestion in
Germany and Australia. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 1613–1622.
7. Al Seadi, T.; Lukehurst, C. Quality management of digestate from biogas plants used as fertiliser. IEA
Bioenergy, 2012. Available online: http://task37.ieabioenergy.com/files/
daten-redaktion/download/publi-task37/Digestate_Brochure_Revised_12-2010.pdf (accessed on 4
December 2015)
8. Alburquerque, J.A.; de la Fuente, C.; Ferrer-Costa, A.; Carrasco, L.; Cegarra, J.; Abad, M.; Bernal, M.P.
Assessment of the fertiliser potential of digestates from farm and agroindustrial residues. Biomass
Bioenergy 2012, 40, 181–189.
9. Li, Y., Park, S.Y. ; Zhu, J. Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane production from organic waste.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 821–826.
10. Alburquerque, J.; de la Fuente, C.; Canpoy, M.; Carrasco, L.; Nájerab, I.; Baixauli, C.; Caravaca, F.; Roldán, A.;
Cegarra, J.; Bernal, M.P. Agricultural use of digestate for horticultural crop production and improvement
of soil properties. Eur. J. Agron. 2012, 43, 119–128.
11. Tambone, F.; Scaglia, B.; D'Imporzano, G.; Schievano, A.; Orzi, V.; Salati, S.; Adani, F. Assessing
amendment and fertilizing properties of digestates from anaerobic digestion through a comparative
study with digested sludge and compost. Chemosphere 2010, 81, 577–583.
12. Monlau, F.; Sambusiti, C.p; Antoniou, N.; Barakat, A.; Zabaniotou, A. A new concept for enhancing
energy recovery from agricultural residues by coupling anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis process. Appl.
Energy 2015, 148, 32–38.
13. Opatokun, S.A.; Strezov, V.; Kan, T. Product based evaluation of pyrolysis of food waste and its digestate.
Energy 2015, 92, 349–354.
14. Bogusz, A.; Oleszczuk, P.; Dobrowolski, R. Application of laboratory prepared and commercially
available biochars to adsorption of cadmium, copper and zinc ions from water. Bioresour. Technol. 2015,
196, 540–549.
15. Cely, P.; Gascó, G.; Paz-Ferreiro, J.; Méndez, A. Agronomic properties of biochars from different manure
wastes. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis. 2015, 111, 173–182.
16. De Blasio, C.; Järvinen, M. Supercritical Water Gasification of Biomass. In Encyclopedia of Sustainable
Technologies, Abraham, M.A. (Ed.), Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2017, pp. 171–195.
17. Rios, R.; Stragliotto, F. M.; Peixoto, H. R.; Torres, A.E.B.; Bastos-Neto, M.; Azevedo, D.C.S.; Cavalcante,
C.L., Jr. Studies on the adsorption behavior of CO2-CH4 mixtures using activated carbon. Braz. J. Chem.
Eng. 2013, 30, 939–951.
18. Laurent, A.; Bakas, I.; Clavreul, J.; Bernstad, A.; Niero, M.; Gentil, ME.; Hauschild, M.E.; Christensen, T.H.
Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems–Part I: Lessons learned and perspectives.
Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 573–588.
19. Laurent, A. Clavreul, J.; Bernstad, A.; Bakas, I.; Niero, M.; Gentil, ME.; Christensen, T.H.; Hauschild, M.E.
Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems–Part II: Methodological guidance for a better
practice. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 589–606.
20. Parkes, O.; Lettieri, P.; Bogle, I.D.L. Life cycle assessment of integrated waste management systems for
alternative legacy scenarios of the London Olympic Park. Waste Manag. 2015, 40, 157–166.
21. Patel, B.; Guo, M.; Izadpanah, A.; Shah, N.; Hellgardt, K. A review on hydrothermal pre-treatment
technologies and environmental profiles of algal biomass processing. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 199,
288–299.
22. López-Sabirón, A.M.; Royo, P.; Ferreira, V.J.; Aranda-Usón, A.; Ferreira, G. Carbon footprint of a thermal
energy storage system using phase change materials for industrial energy recovery to reduce the fossil
fuel consumption. Appl. Energy 2014, 135, 616–624.
23. Morero, B.; Rodriguez, M.B.; Campanella, E.A. Environmental impact assessment as a complement of life
cycle assessment. Case study: Upgrading of biogas. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 190, 402–407.
24. Gnansounou, E.; Vaskan, P.; Pachón, E.R. Comparative techno-economic assessment and LCA of selected
integrated sugarcane-based biorefineries. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 196, 364–375.
25. Rebitzer, G.; Ekvall,, T.; Frischknecht, R.; Hunkeler, D.; Norris, G.; Rydberg, T.; Schmidt, W.P.; Suh, S.;
Weidema, B.P. Pennington, D.W. Life cycle assessment: Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition,
inventory analysis, and applications. Environ. Int. 2004, 30, 701–720.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1804 15 of 15

26. PRé Consultants. SimaPro 7 LCA software. 2010. Available online:

https://www.pre-sustainability.com/simapro, 2007 (accessed on 4 March 2016).
27. Goedkoop, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huijbregts, M.; Schryver, A.D.; Struijs, J.; van Zelm, R. A life cycle impact
assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint
level, Report I: Characterisation. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2009.
28. Opatokun, S.A.; Kan, T.; Al Shoaibi, A.; Srinivasakannan, C.; Strezov, V. Characterization of Food Waste
and Its Digestate as Feedstock for Thermochemical Processing. Energy Fuels 2015, 30, 1589–1597.
29. Origin Energy. Elecricity generation across Austrialia. 2015. Available:
https://www.originenergy.com.au/blog/about-energy/energy-in-australia.html (accessed on 29 January
2016).
30. Cao, Y.; Pawłowski, A. Sewage sludge-to-energy approaches based on anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis:
Brief overview and energy efficiency assessment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 1657–1665.
31. Viotti, P.; Di Genova, P.; Falcioli, F. Numerical analysis of the anaerobic co-digestion of the organic
fraction from municipal solid waste and wastewater: Prediction of the possible performances at Olmeto
plant in Perugia (Italy). Waste Manag. Res. 2004, 22, 115–128.
32. Weidema, B.P.; Bauer, C.; Hischier, R. Mutel, C.; Nemecek, T.; Reinhard, J.; Vadenbo, C.O.; Wernet, G.
Overview and methodology: Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. Swiss Centre for Life
Cycle Inventories: St Gallen, Switzerland, 2013.
33. Rajaeifar, M.A.; Tabatabaei, M; Ghanavati, H.; Khoshnevisan, B.; Rafiee, S. Comparative life cycle
assessment of different municipal solid waste management scenarios in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2015, 51, 886–898.
34. Schott, A.B.S.; Andersson, T. Food waste minimization from a life-cycle perspective. J. Environ. Manag.
2015, 147, 219–226.
35. Xu, C.; Shi, W.; Hong, J.; Zhang, F.; Chen, W. Life cycle assessment of food waste-based biogas
generation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 49, 169–177.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).