Computer Model for Municipal Solid

Waste Treatment in Developing

Countries
A M I T J A I N ,

H A R S A N G E E T K A U R , A N D
S U N I L K H A N N A *
Department of Biotechnology and Environmental Sciences,
Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Patiala 147004, India
Many integrated solid waste management (ISWM) models
are available but are of little use to developing countries
such as India since they do not take into account typical
developing countries municipal solid waste characteristics
such as high organic content, poor performance of formal
sector control and support, high activity of scavengers
and waste pickers, etc. The goal of this study is to create
a computer program to determine the least cost treatment
and disposal system for a given solid waste management
problem. To demonstrate its applicability, the model was
applied to the Indian city Amritsar. A typical Indian city like
Amritsar generates about 500 ton of MSW/d with 45%
moisture content, 30% volatile matter, and calorific value
of 1500 kcal/kg. The computer model was run for various
technologies. Results showthat for Amritsar city incineration
an expenditure of U.S. dollars (USD) 6.62 is incurred,
whereas landfilling, composting, and biomethanation digester
give an income of USD 0.13, USD 0.20, and USD 0.23 per
ton of MSW, respectively. This empirical exercise not only
reveals the models strengths such as highlighting
important interdependencies in the waste management
sector but also its requirement for quality data.
Introduction
InIndia, theper capitawastegenerationinurbanareas ranges
from 0.2 to 0.6 kg, leading to a generation of 38 million ton
of municipal solid waste (MSW) per year (1). The Ministry
of Urban Development (MoUD) in India estimates that the
rate of collection [ton of MSW collected by municipal
corporation/ton of MSW generated by city) 100] is 75-
100%for urbanareas, whileTheEnergyandResearchInstitute
(TERI) estimates the rate at 72.5% (2). Urban local bodies
spend about U.S. dollar (USD) 10-30 per ton on solid waste
for collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal (3) of
which about 60-70% is spent on manpower for street
sweeping and waste collection, 20-30% on transportation,
and less than 5% on final disposal of waste. This indicates
that very little attention is given to the scientific and safe
disposal of waste (4).
Several quantitative models have been developed to
address different important aspects of MSWsuchas allocation
of waste over disposal sites, routing of collection vehicles,
waste estimation and prediction, rankings of disposal
alternatives, and location of municipal solid waste manage-
ment (MSWM) facilities suchas transfer stations, processing
plants, and disposal sites (5). But most of these models are
designed using developed countries systematic MSWM. In
developing countries, many explicit and implicit variables
both inside and outside the system make these models less
applicable. Therefore, a new computer model is proposed
that takes these factors into consideration.
Dalemo et al. (6) developed a computer-based model for
calculation of substance flows, environmental impacts, and
costs of waste management while Chang and Li (7) used a
modeling-to-generate-alternatives (MGA) approach for pre-
liminarydesignof MSWMsystems for generatingalternatives.
The programwas used to determine the least cost treatment
and disposal systems for a given MSWM problem and to
generate a set of alternatives that are widely different with
respect to treatment processes that cost no more than a
specified percent above the lowest cost design. Barata (8)
appliedanenvironmental input-output modeling approach
in Portugal to give an analytical representation of the
interdependencies between the economic activities and the
quantity of waste generated, the main sources of waste
generation, the significance of hazardous substances present
inthewastegenerated, andtheoverall dependenceonlandfill
consumption of individual industries. In Campania, Italy, a
decisional model for integrated management of MSW was
appliedby Antonioet al. (9) using anoptimizationalgorithm
for the solution of the decisional model to spread the waste
components among the envisaged plants with or without
source-separated collection, while imposing four objectives
for minimummaterial recovery. Themelis et al. (10) calculated
energy recovery from New York City MSW and showed that
of the 4.1 million t of MSW collected by the city annually,
16.6%are recycled, 12.4%are combustedinwaste-to-energy
(WTE) plants, and the remaining 71% are land-filled.
Although many of the above models are available for use,
they are too sophisticated and do not reflect the MSWM
requirements of developing countries such as India. These
models do not take into account MSW characteristics such
as high organic content, poor performance of formal sector
[municipal corporationof city] control andsupport, the high
activity of scavengers and waste pickers, etc. A cost mini-
mizationmodel was developedfor developing countries and
was appliedfor the wastes generatedinBangalore city (India)
(5), but it couldnot giveconcretesolutions. This was primarily
due to the absence of reliable data on MSW both in terms
of quality and quantity (11). The National Environmental
ResearchInstitute, Nagpur (NEERI) (12), carriedout extensive
characterization of solid waste for 43 cities during 1970-
1994 andshowedthat the compositionof the MSWis directly
influenced by the food habits, culture, socioeconomic
conditions, andclimatic conditions. Themajorityof theMSW
in India, according to the Central Pollution Control Board
(CPCB), is composed of moisture (44%) and inert material
(42%), including fine dirt, stones, and ash. Most of the
recyclablematerial (e.g. paper, cardboard, plastics, andmetal)
is frequently recycled either by households or more often by
rag pickers from the informal recycling sector. Unlike the
formal system of waste management in industrialized
counties, there is anactive informal network inIndiancities.
This networkconsists of wastepickers, itinerant wastebuyers
(IWB), waste dealers and wholesalers, and small recycling
enterprises (13). The calorific value ranges between1000 and
1500 kcal/kg.
Taking clues fromthe model of Gerlagh et al. (5), a model
is proposedwhose prime objective is tominimize the overall
systemcost andtoidentifythelowcost alternatives tomanage
* Corresponding author phone: +0175-2393043; fax: +0175-
2393738; e-mail: Khanna85@rediffmail.com.

Presently workingas asoftwareengineer at Infosys Technologies.

thegeneratedwasteeffectively. Theobjectiveof our computer
model is to calculate the energy recovery from MSW for the
various disposal options such as biomethanation digester
process, composting, incineration, andlandfilling. Themodel
concentrated on these technological options to suggest the
most economically viable option. This was done by calculat-
ing the cost incurred and the amount of energy that can be
recovered during MSWtreatment by these disposal options.
Data on the waste quality and quantity were collected from
a typical Indiancity (Amritsar) northof Delhi, andthe model
has been applied on it.
Materials and Methods
Gerlagh et al. (5) applied a cost minimization model to
Bangalore city that describes the activities of the waste
management sector resulting from the demands in other
parts of the economy for the processing of waste and for the
production processes of output. These activities required
the supply of production factors such as labor and capital.
The cost minimization model attempts to minimize the
difference between input cost and output cost:
where c is the overall cost; p
k
is the external price for input
factors, intermediate inputs, and environmental resources;
r
k
is the input factors, intermediate inputs, and environ-
mental resource vector; p
j,h
is the value of goods to external
actors outside the waste sector, such as the value of recycled
paper for printers; y
j,h
is the supply of waste-good pair (j,h)
by internal actors; kK ) {1, ..., K} is the factors and
intermediateinputs (labor, capital, petrol, vehicles, andother
inputs; jJ ) {1, ..., J} is the internal actors (households,
hospitals, waste pickers, composting plants, etc.); and hH
){1, ..., H} is thewaste-goods (biodegradablewaste, disposed
waste, recycled products). Tildes denote variables on an
aggregate level.
The model of Gerlagh et al. (5) was the starting point. We
developedit further toaccount for (i) energy productionand
organic compost recovery from MSW and (ii) technology
effectiveness for incineration, biomethanation digester,
landfilling, and composting (see Table 1). The general
equations used in our model are as follows:
For example, recovery by heat recovery:
If calorific value of MSW ) 1200 kcal/kg and WWE (14)
)25%, then output cost )14.4 Wcost of power per unit
Recovery by gas recovery:
If volatile solids (VS) )30%, digestion efficiency in terms
of volatile solid destruction (15) ) 60%, bio-gas yield (16) )
0.80 m
3
/kg of VS destroyed, calorific value of bio-gas (17) )
5000 kcal/m
3
, and WWE (18) )30%, then output cost )11.5
W cost of power per unit.
Somefractionof thepower generatedduringthetreatment
of the waste is consumedby the treatment plant itself, which
decreases the output power sold to the market to a
considerable extent. Otherwise, ingeneral, 100tonof MSW/d
withthe above-mentionedMSWcharacteristics cangenerate
about 1-1.5 MWpower. Aroughassessment of the potential
of recovery of energy fromMSWthroughdifferent treatment
methods can be made from knowledge of its calorific value
and organic fraction. In thermochemical conversion, all of
the organic matter, biodegradable as well as nonbiodegrad-
able, contribute to the energy output. In biochemical
conversion, only the biodegradable fraction of the organic
matter can contribute to the energy output.
Our computer model for integrated MSW was developed
in the computer CLanguage. The software developed on the
basis of cost minimization model requires key inputs from
the user such as moisture content, volatile contents, plastics
content, and methane production per unit mass. The model
requires specific input values for the decision variables, but
sometimes in the absence of complete and accurate data, a
default value is used. For example, MSWinIndia shows more
or less the same characteristic (i.e., around 45% moisture
content and 1000-1500 kcal/kg calorific value). These
standard values are takenrather thancreating artificial data.
When better data are available, they can be incorporated
into the model. For example, not every user can calculate
methane production per unit mass of MSW. In this case, a
default value is used.
Results and Discussions
Amritsar with a population of around 1 million [as per 2001
census, India] and an area of 135 km
2
generates 500 ton of
MSWper day. It canbe consideredas a representative Indian
city. Furthermore, extensiveandaccuratedatawereavailable
from the Municipal Corporation of Amritsar, which divided
the city into four zones. The first zone is a residential zone
that includes purely residential areas without commercial or
industrial activity, the second zone is an industrial area
comprising small industries, the thirdzone was a mixedarea
comprising of commercial complexes, while the fourth zone
is an open zone of agriculture area that does not contribute
toward MSW. Amritsar generates around 500 ton of MSW
per day with 45%moisture content, 30%volatile matter, and
calorific value of 1500 kcal/kg (Table 2).
A comparative analysis of all the technologies operating
for 300 d/yr and treating 500 ton of MSW/d indicates that
the Municipal Corporation of Amritsar will have to spend
USD 6.6 per ton of MSW in case of incineration treatment
technology while landfilling, composting, and biomethana-
tiondigester process couldgive anincome of USD0.13, USD
0.20, and USD 0.23 per ton of MSW, respectively (Table 3).
This is mainly due to the sale of gas or organic compost
formed during the treatment.
Computer model was also applied to the different zones
of Amritsar, which indicated that the selection of a single
TABLE 1. Variables Used for Energy Recovery during MSW
Treatment
variable comment
dry waste quantity
a
(W in tons)
energy recovery potential (ERP in kWh)
power generation potential (PGP in kW) ERP/24
typical waste-to-wire conversion
efficiency
b
(WWE)
net PGP (NPGP in kWh) WWE PGP
output cost in USD NPGP cost of
power per unit
a
Total MSW quantity excluding the moisture content.
b
Efficiency
with which heat energy contained in fuel (waste) is converted into
electrical energy. It is expressedas electricityproducedas apercentage
of the total energy content of the fuel consumed.
minimum cost involved ) input cost - output cost
min c )

kK
p
k
r
k
-

hH

jJ
p
j,h
y
j,h
TABLE 2. Detailed Physical and Chemical Analysis of MSW of
Different Zones of Amritsar
a
residential
area
industrial
area
mixed
area
calorific value (kcal/kg) 1898 1251 1398
volatile matter (%) 38 19 27
moisture content (%) 54 26 53
density (kg/m
3
) 450 485 425
quantity of MSW (ton/day) 329 77 82
a
Source: Municipal Corporation of Amritsar.
facility for treatment/ disposal of waste inall the zones is not
appropriate (Figure 1). Composting is best for industrial and
mixed zones while the biomethanation digester process is
preferable for residential zone due tothe highvolatile matter.
Incineration would not be a preferred treatment option for
any of the zones. Results for the landfilling technology for
different zones of the city were not performed because the
data were not available from Municipal Corporation of
Amritsar.
Validation of the model was accomplished by applying
the model to a refuse incineration and power generation
station at Timarpur, New Delhi, which was designed and
built by a Danish operator M/s Volund Miljotecknik A/S,
Brondby, Denmark. It was designed to incinerate 300 ton of
MSWof Delhi per day(24h) andgenerate3.775MWof electric
power. The minimum waste quality (composition and
calorific value) specified by the operator for the rated power
output of 3.775 MWat the time of the supply of the plant was
calculated. The computer model was applied on the same
given values, and the results are shown in Table 4. In case
of the Timarpur plant, the model shows 300 ton of waste/d
with net calorific value of 1462.5 kcal/kg can generate about
3.5 MW power.
On the basis of preliminary calculations of the economic
viability of various technological options, it appears that
landfill gas technology, composting, or biomethanation
digester plant technology cangiveaprofit for MSWtreatment
whereas, incineration always incurs a loss. The model can
be modified to local conditions, but the model accuracy is
directly proportional to the set of detailed and precise data.
This maybedifficult indevelopingcountries wherethequality
of thedatavaries significantly. But default valueoptionsolves
the problem to a large extent. Furthermore, the software
that has beenusedfor modelingis comprehensive. Tooperate
or modify the model, a basic level of understanding on C
Language and economic principles is required.
Literature Cited
(1) CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board). Manual on Municipal
Solid Waste Management, 1st ed.; Prepared by The Expert
Committee constitutedby the Ministry of UrbanDevelopment,
The Government of India: January 2000.
(2) Singhal, S.; Pandey, S. Solidwaste management inIndiasStatus
and future directions. TERI Inf. Monit. Environ. Sci. 2001, 6 (1),
1-4.
(3) Shekdar, A. V.; Bhide, A. D.; Tikekar, V. G.; Krishnaswamy, K.
N. Indian urban solid waste management systems: Jaded
systems inneedof resourceaugmentation. Waste Manage. 1992,
12, 379-387.
(4) Baud, I.; Schenk, H. Solid Waste Management: Modes, Assess-
ments, Appraisals and Linkages in Bangalore; Manohar Pub-
lications: New Delhi, 1994.
(5) Gerlagh, R.; Beukering, P. V.; Verma, M.; Yadav, P. P.; Pandey,
P. Integrated modeling of solid waste in India. CREEDWorking
Paper No. 26, 1999; pp 11-27.
(6) Dalemo, M.; Frostell, B.; Jonsson, H.; Mingarini, K.; Nybrant, T.;
Sonesson, U.; Sundqvist, J. O.; Thyselius, L. ORWAREsA
simulation model for organic waste handling systems. Part 1:
Model description, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1997, 21, 17-37.
(7) Chang, S. Y.; Li, Z. A computer model to generate solid waste
disposal alternatives. J. Solid Waste Technol. Manage. 1997. 24
(1).
(8) Barata, E. J. G. Solid waste generation and management in
Portugal. Presented at the 7th Biennial Conference of the
International Society for Ecological Economics, Environment
and Development: Globalization & the Challenges for Local &
International Governance, Sousse, Tunisia, March 6-9, 2002.
(9) Antonio, G.; Fabbricino, M.; Pirozzi, F. Decisional model for
integratedmanagement of municipal solidwaste. J. SolidWaste
Technol. Manage. 2002, 28 (1).
(10) Themelis, N. J.; Kim, Y. H.; Brady, M. H. Energy recovery from
NewYorkCity municipal solidwastes. Waste Manage. Res. 2002,
20, 223-233.
TABLE 3. Economic Viability of Treatment Technologies for Average MSW Characteristics
biomethanation incineration composting landfilling
(A) general features
capital cost (million USD) 8.2 6.67 1.1 0.16
operating cost (USD per ton) 7.3 9.6 3.8 1.24
(B) annual expenditure (million USD)
operating cost 1.330 1.45 0.57 0.189
interest on capital cost at 0.75% per yr (soft loan) 0.065 0.05 0.008 0.001
cost of marketing at USD 1.1 per ton of organic compost 0.020 0.04
subtotal 1.415 1.5 0.62 0.19
(C) annual recovery (million USD)
sale of power at USD 0.05/kWh 1.150 0.5
sale of organic compost at USD 18 per ton 0.300 0.65
subtotal 1.450 0.5 0.65 0.213
(D) yearly profit/loss margin (million USD) 0.035 -1.0 0.03 0.02
(E) profit/loss margin (USD per ton of MSW) 0.23 -6.62 0.20 0.13
FIGURE 1. Comparison of different treatment options for different
zones of Amritsar.
TABLE 4. Energy Estimations of Timarpur Incineration Plant,
Delhi
a
quantity of MSW (ton per d) 300
combustibles (%) 40.16
moisture content (%) 30
inert (%) 29.84
net calorific value (kcal/kg) 1462.5
power generation estimation
b
(MW) 3.775
net energy available estimation by application
of computer model (mWh)
85
net power available estimation by application
of computer model (MW)
3.54
a
Source: www.mnes.nic.in/tender_notice/information.pdf.
b
ByM/s
Volund Miljotecknik A/S, Brondby, Denmark.
(11) Hoornweg, D.; Thomas, L. What a Waste: Solid Waste Manage-
ment in Asia; The World Bank Working Paper Series; May 1999;
p 4.
(12) Strategy paper on solid waste management in India. NEERI,
1996.
(13) Furedy, C. Garbage: exploring non-conventional options in
Asian cities. Environ. Urbanization 1992, 4 (2), 43-60.
(14) http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/research/health/
pdf/health-report10.pdf.
(15) http://www.cpcb.delhi.nic.in/slaughterhouse/slaughterhouse-
ch6.htm.
(16) http://www.cpcb.delhi.nic.in/slaughterhouse/slaughterhouse-
ch6.htm.
(17) http://mnes.nic.in/u3.htm.
(18) http://www.westbioenergy.org/swine.
Received for review May 26, 2004. Revised manuscript re-
ceived March 14, 2005. Accepted March 15, 2005.
ES0492236