| Title | Statistical analysis for the quality assessment of digestates from separately collected organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) and agro-industrial feedstock. Should input feedstock to anaerobic digestion determine the legal status of digestate? |
|---|---|
| ID_Doc | 25144 |
| Authors | Beggio, G; Schievano, A; Bonato, T; Hennebert, P; Pivato, A |
| Title | Statistical analysis for the quality assessment of digestates from separately collected organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) and agro-industrial feedstock. Should input feedstock to anaerobic digestion determine the legal status of digestate? |
| Year | 2019 |
| Published | |
| Abstract | Management options for digestate produced by anaerobic digestion plants influence the environmental and economic sustainability of the biogas sector. Further, digestate can be both used or disposed of according to its legal classification: that is, waste or by-product, or product (by using End of Waste procedure). Currently, legal digestate status is decided by EU member states on a case-by-case basis, according to specific positive lists of input feedstocks and quality requirements in terms of physical properties and chemical concentrations. Biased exclusion of input feedstock can force digestate to a specific waste classification and undergo post-treatment and disposal options that can negatively affect the profitability of biogas installations. This is the case of the Italian regulation, where the positive list of input feedstock excludes a priori separately collected organic fractions of municipal solid waste (OFMSW), while including agro-industrial residues (AGRO). This study determined the differences between the two digestate typologies (OFMSW versus AGRO) through statistical analysis, implemented on a dataset, designed to gather data about digestate's physical-chemical parameters from relevant scientific literature and unpublished private databases. The datasets consisted of 190 entries, derived from more than 2,000 samples. Further, the study provided a compliance assessment between the resulting parameter means and the current regulation limits. Upper confidence limits for the means (level of significance alpha = 0.05) calculated for both digestate typologies were found to be compliant with the legal requirements. Therefore, no statistical ratio seems to support the difference in the legislative approach as proposed by Italian lawmakers. OFMSW resulted significantly different from AGRO for VS (650.1 g/kg TS vs. 843.8 g/kg TS, respectively), N-NH4 (81.9 g/kg TS vs. 46.19 g/kg TS), N-TOT (109.7 g/kg TS vs. 65.32 g/kg TS), P-TOT (7.22 g/kg TS vs. 21.9 g/kg TS), Pb (18.6 mg/kg TS vs. 4.66 mg/kg TS), Ni (11.03 mg/kg TS vs. 8.20 mg/kg TS), Cr-TOT (12.74 mg/kg TS vs. 8.74 mg/kg TS) and Hg (0.08 mg/kg TS vs. 0.05 mg/kg TS). However, the statistical analysis must be implemented on a wider set of parameters not covered by this study (e.g. ecotoxicological features). (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. |
Similar Articles
| ID | Score | Article |
|---|---|---|
5017
|
Peng, W; Pivato, A Sustainable Management of Digestate from the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste and Food Waste Under the Concepts of Back to Earth Alternatives and Circular Economy(2019)Waste And Biomass Valorization, 10, 2 | |
| 29422
|
Lamolinara, B; Pérez-Martínez, A; Guardado-Yordi, E; Fiallos, CG; Diéguez-Santana, K; Ruiz-Mercado, GJ Anaerobic digestate management, environmental impacts, and techno-economic challenges(2022) | |
| 14169
|
Angouria-Tsorochidou, E; Thomsen, M Modelling the quality of organic fertilizers from anaerobic digestion e Comparison of two collection systems(2021) | |
| 25501
|
Stürmer, B; Pfundtner, E; Kirchmeyr, F; Uschnig, S Legal requirements for digestate as fertilizer in Austria and the European Union compared to actual technical parameters(2020) | |
| 24612
|
Spagnolo, S; Tinello, A; Cavinato, C; Zabeo, A; Semenzin, E Sustainability Assessment Of Two Digestate Treatments: A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment(2019)Environmental Engineering And Management Journal, 18, 10 | |
| 13436
|
Valenti, F; Liao, W; Porto, SMC Life cycle assessment of agro-industrial by-product reuse: a comparison between anaerobic digestion and conventional disposal treatments(2020)Green Chemistry, 22, 20 | |
| 9291
|
Magrí, A Research Trends on Nutrient Management From Digestates Assessed Using a Bibliometric Approach(2018) | |
| 13245
|
Seruga, P; Krzywonos, M; Seruga, A; Niedzwiecki, L; Pawlak-Kruczek, H; Urbanowska, A Anaerobic Digestion Performance: Separate Collected vs. Mechanical Segregated Organic Fractions of Municipal Solid Waste as Feedstock(2020)Energies, 13, 15 | |
| 23589
|
Demichelis, F; Piovano, F; Fiore, S Biowaste Management in Italy: Challenges and Perspectives(2019)Sustainability, 11, 15 | |
| 25795
|
Casallas-Ojeda, MR; Marmolejo-Rebellón, LF; Torres-Lozada, P Identification of Factors and Variables that Influence the Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Biowaste and Food Waste(2021)Waste And Biomass Valorization, 12, 6 |