The goal of this study is to use life cycle assessment (LCA) tool to assess possible environmental impacts of different municipal solid waste management (MSWM) scenarios on various impact categories for the study area Dhanbad City, India. The scenarios included in the present study are collection and transportation (denoted as S1); baseline scenario consisting of recycling, open burning, open dumping, and finally unsanitary landfilling without energy recovery (denoted by S2); composting and landfilling (denoted by S3); and recycling and composting followed by landfilling of inert waste without energy recovery (denoted by S4). One ton of municipal solid waste (MSW) was selected as the functional unit. The primary data were collected through sampling, surveys, and literatures. Background data were obtained from Eco-invent data of SimaPro 8.1 libraries. The scenarios were compared using the CML 2 baseline 2000 method, and the results indicated that the scenario S1 had the highest impact on marine aquatic ecotoxicity (1.86E + 04 kg 1,4-DB eq.) and abiotic depletion (2.09E + 02 kg Sb eq.). S2 had the highest impact on global warming potential (9.42E + 03 kg CO eq.), acidification (1.15E + 01 kg SO eq.), eutrophication (2.63E + 00 kg PO eq.), photochemical oxidation (2.12E + 00 kg CH eq.), and human toxicity (2.25E + 01 kg 1,4-DB eq.). However, S3 had the highest impact on abiotic depletion (fossil fuels) (2.71E + 02 MJ), fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity (6.54E + 00 kg 1,4-DB eq.), terrestrial ecotoxicity (3.36E - 02 kg 1,4-DB eq.), and ozone layer depletion (2.73E - 06 kg CFC-11 eq.). But S4 did not have the highest impact on any of the environmental impact categories due to recycling of packaging waste and landfilling of inert waste. Landfilling without energy recovery of mixed solid waste was found as the worst disposal alternative. The scenario S4 was found as the most environmentally suitable technology for the study area and recommended that S4 should be considered for strategic planning of MSWM for the study area.
Waste Manag. 2009 Jan;29(1):54-62
[PMID:
18280731]
Waste Manag. 2008 Dec;28(12):2552-64
[PMID:
18230413]
Waste Manag. 2010 Nov;30(11):2362-9
[PMID:
20427172]
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2005 Apr 1;52(2):175-84
[PMID:
16329904]
Waste Manag Res. 2009 Jun;27(4):399-406
[PMID:
19470539]
J Environ Manage. 2008 Apr;87(1):132-8
[PMID:
17350748]
Waste Manag. 2007;27(3):337-44
[PMID:
16600585]
J Environ Qual. 2010 Feb 19;39(2):713-24
[PMID:
20176844]
J Environ Qual. 2001 Mar-Apr;30(2):376-86
[PMID:
11285897]
J Environ Manage. 2010 May;91(5):1131-8
[PMID:
20116162]
Waste Manag Res. 2014 Jan;32(1):13-23
[PMID:
24163375]
Environ Technol. 2017 Jun 1;:1-16
[PMID:
28513337]
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2005;208(4):255-62
[PMID:
16078639]
Waste Manag Res. 2017 Mar;35(3):313-324
[PMID:
27928061]
J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2006 Mar;56(3):244-54
[PMID:
16573187]
Environ Int. 2006 Apr;32(3):405-11
[PMID:
16310852]
Waste Manag Res. 2017 Jan;35(1):79-91
[PMID:
27872406]
Waste Manag. 2016 Mar;49:15-25
[PMID:
26831564]
Waste Manag. 2009 Sep;29(9):2596-9
[PMID:
19375298]
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2017 Apr;24(10 ):9123-9141
[PMID:
28132194]
Sci Total Environ. 2017 Feb 15;580:593-601
[PMID:
27964987]
Waste Manag. 2007;27(8):1059-70
[PMID:
17418562]
Environ Monit Assess. 2011 Jul;178(1-4):487-98
[PMID:
20924666]
Waste Manag Res. 2010 Apr;28(4):298-308
[PMID:
19710120]