Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Energy and Technology, Box 7032, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Box 7033, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 3 April 2014
Received in revised form 7 September 2014
Accepted 22 November 2014
Keywords:
Biogas production
LCA
Digestate
Fertilizer
Food waste treatment
a b s t r a c t
This study assessed the environmental impacts of recycling the plant nutrients in anaerobically digested
food waste as fertilizer in agriculture. This was compared with the impacts of using chemical fertilizer,
where the food waste was incinerated, producing heat. The study site was a biogas plant in central
Sweden and life cycle assessment methodology was used. The impacts studied were primary energy
use, global warming potential (GWP), potential acidication, potential eutrophication, cadmium ow
to farmland and use of phosphate rock. Use of digested food waste as fertilizer proved to have larger
negative results than use of chemical fertilizer in all categories assessed except use of non-renewable
phosphate rock. Sensitivity analyses showed that the scenarios were comparable in terms of primary
energy use and better for GWP if some improvements in the anaerobic digestion system were made.
However, acidication and eutrophication caused by digestate handling and the cadmium content of
digestate should still be considered.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Food waste contains plant nutrients mainly originating from
agriculture. To maintain its fertility, agricultural land needs to be
compensated for the loss of these nutrients. One obvious way of
doing this is to recycle them back to arable land, in line with both the
European Union (EU) waste hierarchy and the principles of ecology
in organic farming, as this promotes reuse and recycling (IFOAM,
2013). The need for external plant nutrients is large for farms producing cereals and vegetables for the market (Doltra et al., 2011).
In conventional agriculture this need is normally covered by using
chemical fertilizers. However, their use is not allowed in organic
agriculture, which leads to the use of more expensive fertilizers,
e.g. pelletized meat meal.
An alternative fertilizer rapidly becoming more widely used
by both conventional and organic farmers in Sweden is anaerobically digested food waste (Avfall Sverige, 2013). Compared with
chemical fertilizer, digested food waste fertilizer ought to have
several environmental advantages, as high quality energy is gained
in the production process and the nutrients are preserved within
the efuent, i.e. the digestate. On the other hand, production of
2. Methodology
LCA methodology was used according to ISO 14040 and 14044
(ISO, 2006). System description and data used are provided below.
land, and the same amount of food waste as was source separated
in the DF scenario was incinerated, producing heat.
2.2. Functional unit
The functional unit (FU) assessed was the production, handling and spreading of a fertilizer containing 1 kg plant-available
nitrogen and 0.20 kg phosphorus after spreading on arable land.
The amount of phosphorus was based on the composition of the
digested food waste after spreading. The collection and treatment
of 254 kg pure food waste from households was also included in the
functional unit. This corresponded to 266 kg food waste (including
paper bags and contaminants such as stones, plastic etc.) being collected in the DF scenario and 259 kg in the CF scenario (including
contaminants but not paper bags).
2.3. Impact categories
The impact categories of global warming, acidication and
eutrophication were evaluated, as these have been shown to be
most important for organic fertilizers (Spngberg, 2014; Brentrup
et al., 2004). Emissions to air and water affecting these impact categories were estimated, e.g. emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2 ),
methane (CH4 ), nitrous oxide (N2 O), nitrogen oxides (NOx ), sulphur oxides (SOx ), ammonia (NH3 )and phosphate (PO4 3 ). Global
warming was quantied using a 100-year perspective (IPCC, 2006).
Eutrophication and acidication were quantied using the CML
2001 method (Guine et al., 2002). The primary energy was calculated as the cumulative energy demand (Ecoinvent, 2010) or by
multiplying the energy carriers used by their primary energy factor. Use of phosphate rock and the ow of cadmium to arable land
were also assessed.
2.4. System boundaries
The processes and activities included are shown in Fig. 1. Data
from a biogas plant in central Sweden were used for the DF scenario.
The emissions from collection of source-separated food waste from
households, production and use of biogas, storage, handling of the
liquid and solid digestates, and handling and disposal of reject fractions were included. The biogas produced from food waste was
upgraded to vehicle fuel, replacing natural gas. Food waste contaminated with plastic, wood, textiles etc. ended up in the dry and
wet reject fractions. The dry reject fraction was incinerated, with
recovery of heat, and the wet reject fraction was composted, producing a substrate for soil production. The heavy reject fraction
was landlled. The data used in this scenario were average data
for the period 20102012. In the CF scenario, the food waste was
collected in a mixed household waste fraction and incinerated, producing heat that replaced average Swedish district heating. The y
and bottom ash generated were sent to landll. In this scenario,
chemical fertilizer was used to fertilize arable land and thus full
the functional unit. European data were used for the manufacture of chemical fertilizer. The infrastructure of both scenarios was
included in the study. Leakage of nitrogen from arable land was
neglected, as this was considered to be similar for both scenarios.
The goal of this study was to assess the impacts on the environment and resources of using digested food waste as fertilizer and
to compare these impacts with those of using chemical fertilizer. In
the digestate fertilizer (DF) scenario, food waste was digested, the
digestion residues spread as fertilizer on arable land and the biogas
produced used as vehicle fuel. In the chemical fertilizer (CF) scenario, chemical fertilizer was manufactured and spread on arable
Fig. 1. System boundaries and processes included in the digestate fertilizer (DF) and chemical fertilizer (CF) scenarios. Avoided processes and products are shown in
dashed line boxes. Box in light grey involves no treatment. Note that different amounts of food waste were collected in the two scenarios (see Section 2.2). Abbreviations:
prod. = production.
and industries, in paper bags glued with starch for the DF scenario.
However, for the CF scenario paper bags and glue were not included
(Table 1).
3.2. Digestate fertilizer scenario
3.2.1. Collection and transportation of food waste
The food waste was collected from a total of 155,273 households
in 12 municipalities in central Sweden. The food waste was collected in an open, ventilated system based on paper bags placed in
bag holders in the kitchen. Full paper bags were brought by householders to ventilated waste bins in or close to the house. Table 2
shows the amount of paper bags, paper bag holders and waste bins
used for food waste collection. The paper bags distributed yearly
to households were 9-L paper bags (98.5%), while restaurants and
Table 1
Dry matter content, volatile solids and composition of food waste.
Waste fraction
Units
Food waste
% Of wet weight
% Of DM
% Of DM
% Of DM
% Of DM
% Of DM
30.1
90.1
48.3
2.4
0.30
1.3E 05
28.7a
90.1a
48.9b
2.6a
0.32a
1.2E 05b
Table 2
Amount of paper bags used, paper bag holders, waste bins, food waste collected and
fuel consumption during collection of food waste.
Paper bags
Paper bag holders
Waste bins
Food waste collected
Fuel
consumption
Collection
Transport (from
ve stations to the
biogas plant)c
Units
Amount
[t y1 ]
Diesel [L y1 ]a
Biogas [N m3 yr1 ]b
Diesel [L y1 ]
19449,000
140,025
58,201
14,823
56,941
48,134
11,953
a
Waste collection trucks used 49% pure diesel and 51% diesel blended with 5%
biodiesel (K. Pettersson, pers. comm. 2013).
b
Waste collection trucks in one municipality used biogas as vehicle fuel. The gas
used was a mixture of 70% biogas and 30% natural gas. Units: N m3 (Normal cubic
metres, 1 m3 at 10 kPa and 0 C).
c
Trucks and trailer used Swedish average diesel mix: 17% pure diesel and 83%
diesel blended with 5% biodiesel (Energimyndigheten, 2012b).
Table 3
Total amounts, dry matter content, volatile solids and nutrient concentrations of the two digestate fractions.
Liquid fraction
Solid fraction
a
b
Amounta [t]
DMb [%]
VSb [%]
20,843
2319
4.3
28.8
3.0
20.9
4.3
8.2
3.6
3.4
0.4
2.4
oating roof beside the eld. The solid fraction was stored in a container beside the biogas plant and on a concrete pad (about 30 m2 ,
no roof) beside the eld. The production of the container was not
included, as this was assumed to be used for other purposes regardless of the digestate production. The average distance to the farm
was 15 km and the transport was done weekly by lorry (G. Hagskld,
pers. comm. 2013). Data on materials and transport can be found
in Appendix (Tables A1 and A2). The liquid fraction was assumed
to be spread in spring by band spreading equipment and the solid
fraction in autumn by solid manure equipment. Data on spreading
activities were taken from Lindgren et al. (2002).
During storage and after spreading, digestate, just as other
organic substrates, emits methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia.
Ammonia emissions when storing liquid digestate were assumed to
be the same as when storing liquid manure under roof and with bottom ll-up, and those when storing solid digestate as when storing
solid manure (Table A4). For ammonia emissions after spreading
liquid digestate, emissions after spreading of liquid manure with
pH 7.5 and 7.9 were used for interpolation to the pH of the liquid digestate, 7.6 (Rodhe et al., 2013). The nitrous oxide emissions
from storage of liquid digestate were also based on data for liquid
manure, but adjusted for the difference in NH4 N/tot-N ratio of liquid digestate compared with liquid manure. Data on emissions of
methane after spreading of liquid manure were used for spreading
of liquid digestate. No data were found on ammonia emissions after
spreading solid digestate and therefore data for emissions after
spreading non-digested solid manure, incorporated after 4 h, were
used. Indirect nitrous oxide emissions were calculated as 1% of volatized NH3 N (IPCC, 2006). Emissions of nitrous oxide and methane
were only calculated for storage during summer, as these emissions are negligible during winter according to Rodhe et al. (2013),
while ammonia emissions were accumulated emissions over the
total storage period. Average storage time for liquid digestate was
about 46 summer days and 137 winter days and for solid digestate
91 summer days and 91 winter days.
3.3. Chemical fertilizer scenario
3.3.1. Collection and transportation of food waste
Food waste was put together with residual waste in plastic bags,
collected and transported to an incineration plant. Used plastic bags
(used shopping bags) were assumed to be employed for this purpose and therefore no environmental load was allocated to them.
As no separate waste bins were needed to collect the food waste
in this scenario, the waste bins were reduced, i.e. only 37% of the
total weight of waste bins in the DF scenario was estimated to be
needed. This was estimated by assuming that 120 L and 140 L waste
bins were replaced by 190 L and 240 L waste bins, and that 190 L and
240 L waste bins were replaced by 370 L and 400 L waste bins. However, 370 L and 400 L waste bins were assumed to be same as in the
DF scenario. Since the waste bins were used for collection of mixed
waste, only 25% of the weight of waste bins in the CF scenario was
allocated to the food waste (K. Pettersson, pers. comm. 2012). Collection routes for food waste were assumed to be the same as in
the DF scenario. Emissions from waste collection trucks were also
assumed to be the same, even though one-compartment collection
trucks were used instead of two-compartment versions. However
Fig. 2. Primary energy use for the digestate fertilizer (DF) and chemical fertilizer (CF)scenarios. Rejects handling denotes heat production and chemical fertilizers avoided
by incineration of the dry reject and composting of the wet reject.
Fig. 3. Global warming potential for the digestate fertilizer (DF) and chemical fertilizer (CF) scenarios. Rejects handling denotes heat production and chemical fertilizers
avoided by incineration of the dry reject and composting of the wet reject.
Fig. 4. Potential acidication for the digestate fertilizer (DF) and chemical fertilizer (CF) scenarios. Rejects handling denotes heat production and chemical fertilizers avoided
by incineration of the dry reject and composting of the wet reject.
Fig. 5. Potential eutrophication for the digestate fertilizer (DF) and chemical fertilizer (CF) scenarios. Rejects handling denotes heat production and chemical fertilizers
avoided by incineration of the dry reject and composting of the wet reject.
Liquid digestate
Solid digestate
Total
At start
Storage
Spreading
Nitrogen to eld
1.33
0.28
1.61
0.01
0.07
0.08
0.17
0.03
0.20
1.15
0.18
1.33
Table 5
Results of the sensitivity analyses for the digestate fertilizer (DF) and chemical fertilizer (CF) scenarios.
Primary energy use
[MJ FU1 ]
GWP
[kg CO2 eq FU1 ]
Acidication
[kg SO2 eq FU1 ]
CF scenario
Recent technology for incineration plant
Replacing CF production with MMF production
784
875
587
17.1
5.6
18.0
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.6
0.6
DF scenario
Recent technology for incineration plant (dry reject)
Reduction of 50% in methane leakage from biogas
plant and upgrading plant
BAT (CH4 loss 0.13% in biogas plant and 0.27% in
upgrading)
Swedish average electricity mix in biogas and
upgrading plants
Swedish average district heating in biogas and
upgrading plants
Replacing use of diesel
Replacing paper bag with used plastic shopping bags
assuming same amount of reject
50% reduction in emissions from digestate handling
50% increase in emissions from digestate handling
283
290
312
8.4
9.2
7.0
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.13
0.13
0.13
8.6
349
21.3
0.57
0.13
196
9.1
0.58
0.13
367
5.3
0.59
0.13
80
470
17.1
4.5
0.59
0.55
0.13
0.11
251
304
2.7
17.7
0.31
0.91
0.07
0.20
7.8
9.4
67
187
84
32
29.7
4.0
3.2
5.8
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.27
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.06
0.8
Total reduction
306
42.6
0.31
0.08
0.8
Result of improvements
589
34.2
0.27
0.05
7.8
Eutrophication
[kg PO4 3 eq FU1 ]
Cd [mg]
10
amount of food waste to collect, transport and treat, but also a difference in the amount of energy produced from the treatment. In
total, these impacts affected the results in both a negative and positive way for both scenarios. The largest impact of changing the
emissions from storage and spreading could be seen in the results
of GWP, where a 50% reduction lowered the total GWP balance
by about 68%. This was mainly due to the large impact of nitrous
oxide emissions, which is a strong climate gas. The results for acidication and eutrophication were also reduced, by about 47 and
46%, respectively, when emissions from digestate handling were
reduced. The results on primary energy use were affected in the
opposite way to the other results, as this impact was not directly
inuenced by changes in the emissions from storage and spreading,
but by the decreased amount of food waste treated per FU. Here it
should be noted that the results for a comparable CF scenario would
also change as the amount of food waste treated changed, increasing by about 10% when the emissions increased and decreasing by
about 10% when the emissions decreased.
4.8. General discussion
The results of this study demonstrate that life cycle assessment
(LCA) can be used as a support tool for farmers when they want
to choose a fertilizer that helps them reduce their environmental impact. The life cycle methodology illustrates the importance
of the system boundaries set for the study and the assumptions
made for the processes included. In this case study, this was especially evident for the local conditions specied for collection of food
waste, methane losses at the biogas plant etc. The sensitivity analysis showed how important these specications were for the results.
However, it was a challenge to collect sufcient high-quality data
on the mass balance of material, nutrients, dry matter, organic matter and ash in the reactor. Getting these balances correct proved
important for the amount and composition of the digestate from
the food waste, and thus for the emissions from the digestate.
The DF scenario beneted from resource recovery from the
reject fractions, i.e. incineration of dry reject generated 7 MJ primary energy per tonne food waste treated and avoided 218 kg CO2
eq. However, infrastructure included in the DF scenario, such as
paper bag holders, waste bins and biogas and upgrading plants,
lowered the benets of that scenario. Of the factors contributing
to the DF scenario, such infrastructure represented 5% of primary
energy, 6% of GWP, 2% of acidication and 3% of eutrophication. For
the CF scenario, waste bins, incinerator and landll represented less
than 5% of primary energy, 11% of GWP, 16% of acidication and 24%
of eutrophication.
The collection system should be scrutinized to make it more
efcient, and collection in used plastic bags might be an environmentally favourable option. However, aspects such as better
materials in paper bags, more efcient distribution of the paper
bags etc. should also be considered, and improvements along these
lines are underway in the municipalities studied here. Improved
handling of digestate, e.g. storage and spreading, to reduce emissions of methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia would reduce
impacts on GWP, acidication and eutrophication, as shown in
Table 5. This could be achieved by e.g. using a gasproof storage cover
and methane collection from the digestate storage. This has been
shown to decrease the environmental impacts of digestate management considerably (Poeschl et al., 2012). Other potential means to
reduce emissions from digestate include e.g. lowering the temperature or pH of the digestate to inhibit microbial activity. The biogas
and upgrading plants currently use green electricity to reduce the
impacts on GWP. This is an environmentally wise choice, as can be
seen from the sensitivity analysis. The biogas plant also uses the district heat system of the municipality (0.06 kg CO2 eq per MJ), which
is produced by use of more fossil fuels than the average Swedish
11
the liquid digestate. One way to reduce these emissions could thus
be to mix the solid and liquid digestate and to handle it as a liquid
digestate with a slightly higher dry matter content.
The use of digested food waste in this study gave a larger
negative impact for all categories studied than using chemical fertilizers and incineration of the food waste. However, considering
the potential improvements mentioned earlier in the discussion,
digestate could be better than chemical fertilizer in terms of GWP.
From the perspective of plant nutrient recycling, the nutrients in
the food waste, including micronutrients and organic matter, are
lost in the incineration process and the nutrient loop is not closed. A
consequence of this is that non-renewable phosphorus sources are
needed. To move towards more sustainable agriculture, we need
to close the nutrient loops to a larger extent. Thus, digestion of
food waste for use as fertilizer is an interesting option. However,
as this study showed, the digestion system needs to be improved
if it is to compare favourably with a system with incineration and
chemical fertilizer. For organic farming, digestate is an interesting
fertilizer, especially when considering that manure handling also
causes emissions contributing to acidication and eutrophication.
The cadmium content of the digestate should be considered, as it is
relatively high in relation to the recommendations by KEMI (2011).
5. Conclusions
In this case study, use of chemical fertilizers and incineration
of food waste proved to make a better net contribution to primary
energy, lower the GWP and cause less eutrophication and acidication than digestion of the food waste and use of the digestate as
fertilizer. If improvements in the digestion system are implemented
successfully, digestate as fertilizer could be better than chemical
fertilizer in terms of lowered GWP and use of non-renewable phosphate rock. However, it would still cause more eutrophication and
acidication than chemical fertilizer use. The relatively large cadmium ow with digested food waste should be considered.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council Formas
(Grant number 2007-1683) and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. We thank Vafab Milj AB for the data support and
Mary McFee for the English revision.
Appendix A. Appendix
This appendix contains inventory data on input materials, processes, infrastructure and all transport included in the study.
Tables A1A4.
Table A1
Inventory data for the input materials, processes and infrastructures in the study.
Material/process/infrastructure
Description/assumption/weight
Paper bags
Kraft paper
Glue
Potato starch
Paper bag production
Waste bins
120 L, 140 L, 190 L, 240 L, 370 L, 400 L are 9.9 kg, 10.6 kg, 13 kg, 14.4 kg, 19 kg
and 22 kg, respectively. High-density polyethylene (HDPE), 20-year life span
European average
High-density polyethylene(HDPE)
Ecoinvent (2010)
12
Table A1 (Continued)
Material/process/infrastructure
Description/assumption/weight
Injection moulding
To produce 1 kg waste bin material, the input HDPE plastics were assumed to
be 1.06 kg and the energy consumption 5.33 MJ of Germany medium voltage
electricity production.
Ecoinvent (2010)
Electricity
Heat
MlarEnergi (2013)
Gode et al. (2011), Vattenfall (n.d.)
Biogas plant
Ecoinvent (2010)
Upgrading plants
Ecoinvent (2010)
Khner (2001)
Brentrup and Pallire (2008)
Davis and Haglund (1999)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Chemicals used in
incineration plant
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Incinerator plant
Ecoinvent (2010)
Landlling facility
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ethanol
Glycol
Petrol
Sodium hydroxide
Iron(III) chloride
Nitrogen gas
Fresh water
production
Vehicle fuel
Diesel/diesel blend 5% biodiesel
Natural gas
Biogas
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
UNFCCC (2010)
13
Table A2
Transport included in the study.
Transport
Means of transportation
Distance [km]
2356a
17,200b
4600a
756a
9450a
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
B.Hedenstrm (pers.
comm., 2013)
Energimyndigheten (2012b)
Energimyndigheten (2012b)
Gode et al. (2011)
Refer to text
15
700
600
122/44
122/24
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Ecoinvent (2010)
Table A3
Methane-forming potential of substrates.
Substrate
Units
3 1
[N m t wet weight]
[N m3 t1 wet weight]
[N m3 t1 total solids]
Values
References
114.4
26.4
330.0
Table A4
Emissions values used for methane (CH4 ), nitrous oxide (N2 O) and ammonia nitrogen (NH3 N).
CH4
N2 O
NH3 N
Composting
Wet reject
0.309 kg t1 inputa
0.163 kg t1 inputa
0.001 kg t1 inputa
Storage
Liquid digestate
Solid digestate
0.26% N2 ON of Ntotb
0.198 g N2 O m3 ,hd
1% NH3 N of Ntotc
20% NH3 N of Ntotc
Spreading
Liquid digestate
Solid digestate
0.007% of Ctotb
0.010% of Ctote
1% N2 ON of Ntotf
1% N2 ON of Ntotf
a
b
c
d
e
f
Kehres (2010).
Field study on digested manure by Rodhe et al. (2013).
Karlsson and Rodhe (2002).
Field study on dewatered sludge by Flodman (2002).
Field study on sewage sludge by Ambus et al. (2001).
IPCC (2006).
References
Ahlgren S. Crop production without fossil fuel: production systems for tractor fuel
and mineral nitrogen based on biomass. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agriculture; 2009 (Doctoral thesis).
Ambus P, Jensen JM, Priem A, Pilegaard K, Kjller A. Assessment of CH4 and N2 O
uxes in a Danish beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest and an adjacent N-fertilised
barley (Hordeumvulgare) eld: effects of sewage sludge amendments. NutrCyclAgroecosys 2001;60:1521.
Avebe Adhesives. Product specication SOLVICOL 1289; 2010 [Online] Available
at: www. Avebe.com (accessed 25 April 2013).
Avfall Sverige. Den svenska biogaspotentialen frn inhemska rvaror. In: Rapport
2008:02. Swedish, Mlmo: Avfall Sverige Utveckling; 2008, ISSN 1103-4092.
Avfall Sverige. Svensk avfallshantering 2013; 2013 (In Swedish).
Bernstad A, la Cour Jansen J. A life cycle approach to the management of household
food wastea Swedish full-scale case study. Waste Manage 2011;31:187996.
Bernstad A, la Cour Jansen J. Review of comparative LCAs of food waste management systemscurrent status and potential improvements. Waste Manage
2012;32:243955.
14
CPM (The Swedish Life Cycle Center). SPINE LCI dataset: waste
treatmentincineration in combined heat and power plant (SWEA CHP).
Gteborg: Chalmers University of Technology; 2013 [Online] Available at:
http://cpmdatabase.cpm.chalmers.se/Scripts/sheet.asp?ActId=JT-2013-03-1837 (assessed on 14 November 2013).
Davis J, Haglund C. Life cycle inventory (LCI) of fertiliser production: fertiliser products used in Sweden and Western Europe. In: SIK-report 654. Gteborg, Sweden:
The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology; 1999.
Delin S, Stenberg B, Nyberg A, Brohede L. Potential methods for estimating nitrogen
fertilizer value of organic residues. Soil Use Manage 2012;28:28391.
Doltra J, Lgdsmand M, Olesen JE. Cereal yield and quality as affected by nitrogen availability in organic and conventional arable crop rotations: a combined
modeling and experimental approach. Eur J Agron 2011;34:8395.
Ecoinvent. Ecoinvent data v2.2. In: Final reports no. 125. Dbendorf, Switzerland:
Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories; 2010.
Energimyndigheten. Produktion och anvndning av biogas r 2011. In: ES 2112:08.
Eskilstuna: Energimyndigheten; 2012a.
Energimyndigheten. Transportsektorns energianvndning. In: ES 2112:01. Eskilstuna: Energimyndigheten; 2012b.
Flodman M. Emissioner av metan, lustgas och ammoniak vid lagring av avvattnat
rtslam. Examensarbete; 2002, ISSN 1101-0843.
Fowles M. Black carbon sequestration as an alternative to bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 2007;31:42632.
Fruergaard T, Astrup T. Optimal utilization of waste-to-energy in an LCA perspective.
Waste Manage 2011;31:57282.
Gode J, Martinsson F, Hagberg L, man A, Hglund J, Palm D. Miljfaktaboken
2011 Uppskattade emissionsfaktorer fr brnslen, el, vrme och transporter.
In: Vrmeforsk rapport 1183. Stockholm: Vrmeforsk; 2011.
Gthe L. Metanutslpp i den svenska fordonsgaskedjanEn nulgesanalys [Methane
emissions in the Swedish CNG/CBG chaina current situation analysis]. In: SGC
Rapport 2013; 2013. p. 282.
Guine JB, Gorre M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, et al. , editors. Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.
IFOAM. Principles of organic agriculture; 2013 [Online] Available at:
www.ifoam.org/en/organic-landmarks/principles-organic-agriculture
(assessed on 31 July 2013).
IPCC. Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, editors. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Japan: IGES; 2006 (Prepared by
the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme).
ISO. Environmental management life cycle assessment principles and framework. In: ISO 14040: 2006; 2006.
Jnsson H, Baky A, Jeppsson U, Hellstrm D, Krrman E. Composition of urine, faeces, greywater and biowaste for utilisation in the URWARE model. Gothenburg:
Urban Water; 2005.
Karlsson S, Rodhe L. versyn av Statistiska Centralbyrns berkning av ammoniakavgngen i jordbruket-emissionsfaktorer fr ammoniak vid lagring och
spridning av stallgdsel. Uppsala: JTI Uppdragsrapport; 2002.
Kehres B. Betrieb von Kompostierungsanlagen mit geringen Emissionen klimarelevanter Gase. Kln, Germany: Bundesgtegemeinschaft Kompost e.V; 2010.
KEMI. Kadmiumhalten mste minskafr folkhlsans skull: en riskbedmning av
kadmium med mineralgdsel i fokus. In: Rapport frn ett regeringsuppdrag.
Sundbyberg: KEMI; 2011.
Khoo HH, Lim TZ, Tan RBH. Food waste conversion options in Singapore:
environmental impacts based on an LCA perspective. Sci Total Environ
2010;408:136773.
Kim MH, Song HB, Song Y, Jeong IT, Kim JW. Evaluation of food waste disposal options
in terms of global warming and energy recovery: Korea. Int J Energy Environ Eng
2013;4:1.
Kirkeby JT, Birgisdottir H, Lund Hansen T, Christensen TH, Singh Bhander G,
Hauschild M. Evaluation of environmental impacts from municipal solid waste
management in the municipality of Aarhus, Denmark (EASEWASTE). Waste
Manage Res 2006;24:1626.
Korsns AB. Environmental product declaration Korsns SF-N. Gvle: Korsns; 2011.
Khner M. Kompostierung unter semipermeblen planenabdeckungen. Stuttgart,
Germany: Erich Schmidt Verlag GMBH & Co; 2001.
Lindgren M, Pettersson O, Hansson P-A, Norn O. Jordbruks-och anlggningsmaskiners motorbelastning och avgasemissionersamt metoder att minska
brnslefrbrukning och avgasemissioner. In: JTI-rapport nr. 308. Uppsala: JTIInstitutet fr jordbruks-och miljteknik; 2002.
Lund Hansen T, Singh Bhander G, Christensen TH, Bruun S, Stoumann Jensen L. Life
cycle modelling of environmental impacts of application of processed organic
municipal solid waste on agricultural land (EASEWASTE). Waste Manage Res
2006;24:15366.
MlarEnergi. Origin of district heating and emissions; 2013, Available
at:
http://www.malarenergi.se/sv/privat/fjarrvarme/sa-fungerarfjarrvarme/branslefordelning/ (assessed 20 Nov 2013), [Online, In Swedish:
Fjrrvrmensursprungochutslpp].
NTM. NTM-environmental data for international cargo transport. In: Road transport
Europe, version 2008-12-22. NTM-Ntverket fr traken och miljn; 2008.
Nziguheba G, Smolders E. Input of trace elements in agricultural soils via phosphate
fertilizers in European Countries. Sci Tot Environ 2008;390:537.
Odlare M, Pell M, Persson PE. Kompostanvndning i jordbruket: en internationell
utblick. In: RVF utveckling. Malm, Sverige: Svenska renhllningsverksfreningen; 2000.
Poeschl M, Ward S, Owende P. Environmental impacts of biogas deployment e Part
II: life cycle assessment of multiple production and utilization pathways. J Clean
Prod 2012;24:184201.
PWS Nordic AB. Products for waste management: Waste container, n.d.,
[Pamphlet] Available at: http://www.pwsab.se/upload/2%20o%203%20o
%204hjulsbeh%C3%A5llare.pdf (accessed 5 April 2013).
Rockstrm J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson , Chapin S, Lambin E, et al. A safe operating
space for humanity. Nature 2009;461:4725.
Rodhe L, Ascue J, Tersmeden M, Willn A, Nordberg , Salomon E, et al. Vxthusgaser frn rtad och ortad ntytgdsel vid lagring och efter spridning-samt
bestmma ammoniakavgng och skrd i vrkorn. In: Rapport 413. Uppsala:
Lantbruk & Industri, JTI-Institutet fr jordbruks- och miljteknik; 2013.
San Sac AB. Sacks/bags for collection of food waste, n.d., [Online] Available at:
http://www.sansac.se/print/index.php?groupID=62 (accessed 5 April 2013).
Sonesson U. Modelling of the compost and transport process in the ORWARE simulation model. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; 1996.
Svensson K, Odlare M, Pell M. The fertilizing effect of compost and biogas residues
from source separated household waste. J Agric Sci 2004;142:4617.
Spngberg J. Recycling plant nutrients from waste and by-products, a life cycle perspective. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae; 2014. p. 20 (Doctoral
thesis).
Spngberg J, Hansson PA, Tidker P, Jnsson H. Environmental impact of meat meal
fertilizer vs. chemical fertilizer. Resour Conserv Recyl 2011;55:107886.
SVAB. Miljrapport 2011. Textdel. In: Gryta Biogasanlggning Vsters kommun
1980-62-014. Sweden: Svensk Vxtkraft AB; 2011.
SVAB. Miljrapport 2012. Textdel. In: Gryta Biogasanlggning Vsters kommun
1980-62-014. Sweden: Svensk Vxtkraft AB; 2012.
Swedish Government. Svenska miljmlpreciseringar av miljkvalitetsmlen och
en frsta uppsttning etappml. Environmental Department; 2012. p. 23 (Ds
2012).
UNFCCC. Tool to determine project emissions from aring gasses containing
methane; 2010 [Online] Available at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/
PAmethodologies/tools/am-tool-06-v1.pdf/history view (assessed on 26 June
2013).
Uppenberg S, Almemark M, Brandel M, Lindfors L-G, Marcus H-O, Stripple H, et al.
Miljfaktabok fr brnslen Del 2. Bakgrundsinformation och teknisk bilaga. In:
IVL B 1334B-2. Stockholm: IVL Svenska Miljinstitutet AB; 2001.
Valorgas. Data on the operations involved in food waste management for
energy recovery presented in a standardised format for use in comparative life cycle assessment, n.d., [Online] Available at:http://www.valorgas.
soton.ac.uk/deliverables.htm (accessed 20 December 2013).
Vattenfall AB. Miljfakta i Uppsala. Emission from district heating 20102012, n.d., [Online] Available at: http://www.vattenfall.
se/sv/miljofakta-i-uppsala-privat.htm (accessed 3 September 2014).
Vrmevrden AB. Miljrapport fr Kllhagsverket, Avesta 2012; 2013 (In Swedish).
Yara AB. Kadmiumhalterna fortfarande lga. In: Hyltn-Cavallius. I. Vxtpressen No.;
2010. p. 2.