{"title":"Resource-efficient treatment of organic industrial waste: Optimization of different treatment options using reMIND","authors":"Emma Lindkvist","doi":"10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The aim of this work was to find the optimal resource-efficient treatment alternative for organic waste from the food industry. For that, four different treatment methods for thirteen feedstocks were studied: animal fodder production, incineration, biological treatment and biogas production. An optimization model was used to find which treatment alternative is the optimal from a variety of perspectives.</p><p>The studied systems were evaluated from three different evaluation perspectives: economy, energy and environment. The energy evaluation included two different electricity systems: coal condensing power and wind energy.</p><p>The results show that there is no single optimum feedstock treatment method taking all the perspectives studied into account. Instead, it is important to consider all different perspectives when evaluating the resource efficiency of the treatment method for a feedstock. However, both incineration and anaerobic digestion of the food waste can be considered as resource-efficient treatment options for the studied feedstocks.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21153,"journal":{"name":"Resources Conservation and Recycling","volume":"197 ","pages":"Article 107065"},"PeriodicalIF":11.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resources Conservation and Recycling","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092134492300201X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The aim of this work was to find the optimal resource-efficient treatment alternative for organic waste from the food industry. For that, four different treatment methods for thirteen feedstocks were studied: animal fodder production, incineration, biological treatment and biogas production. An optimization model was used to find which treatment alternative is the optimal from a variety of perspectives.
The studied systems were evaluated from three different evaluation perspectives: economy, energy and environment. The energy evaluation included two different electricity systems: coal condensing power and wind energy.
The results show that there is no single optimum feedstock treatment method taking all the perspectives studied into account. Instead, it is important to consider all different perspectives when evaluating the resource efficiency of the treatment method for a feedstock. However, both incineration and anaerobic digestion of the food waste can be considered as resource-efficient treatment options for the studied feedstocks.
期刊介绍:
The journal Resources, Conservation & Recycling welcomes contributions from research, which consider sustainable management and conservation of resources. The journal prioritizes understanding the transformation processes crucial for transitioning toward more sustainable production and consumption systems. It highlights technological, economic, institutional, and policy aspects related to specific resource management practices such as conservation, recycling, and resource substitution, as well as broader strategies like improving resource productivity and restructuring production and consumption patterns.
Contributions may address regional, national, or international scales and can range from individual resources or technologies to entire sectors or systems. Authors are encouraged to explore scientific and methodological issues alongside practical, environmental, and economic implications. However, manuscripts focusing solely on laboratory experiments without discussing their broader implications will not be considered for publication in the journal.