Solid recovered fuels (SRF) can provide another treatment option to the solid waste management (SWM) sector. However, in developing countries, to date, this system approach has not found considerable application. In Bolivia, SRF is not deemed within the national regulation and the final disposal in open dumping areas is still a reality. This research article provides the first attempt in evaluating the SRF characteristics and its potentialities in Bolivia, taking La Paz as a case study. Laboratory analysis of the rejects produced after selective collection and sorting has been conducted, focusing on non-hazardous and non-recyclable waste fractions. The international standards related to EN 15359:2011 for the classification of the SRF were employed, assessing the most feasible mix of materials to provide the highest classification of SRF in terms of low calorific value (LCV), chlorine, and mercury concentration. Results reported that the SRF made of 80% plastics (85% PE and 15% PP) and 20% cellulosic (blend 2), as well as 30% plastics (50% PP and 50% PE) and 70% cellulosic (blend 1), can be considered an alternative fuel in Bolivia. On balance, it has been estimated that the use of non-recyclable plastics and cardboard from municipal solid waste can provide, on average, about 0.9–2.7 billion MJ of energy for cement kilns, solving about 1.4–5.3% of the SWM issues and covering about 8–23.4% of the energy demand for cement production in Bolivia. These results are novel for the scientific literature for estimating the potentialities of SRF in Latin America.

Perspectives in solid recovered fuel production in Bolivia: Analysis of characteristics and potential benefits

Ferronato, Navarro;Torretta, Vincenzo
2022-01-01

Abstract

Solid recovered fuels (SRF) can provide another treatment option to the solid waste management (SWM) sector. However, in developing countries, to date, this system approach has not found considerable application. In Bolivia, SRF is not deemed within the national regulation and the final disposal in open dumping areas is still a reality. This research article provides the first attempt in evaluating the SRF characteristics and its potentialities in Bolivia, taking La Paz as a case study. Laboratory analysis of the rejects produced after selective collection and sorting has been conducted, focusing on non-hazardous and non-recyclable waste fractions. The international standards related to EN 15359:2011 for the classification of the SRF were employed, assessing the most feasible mix of materials to provide the highest classification of SRF in terms of low calorific value (LCV), chlorine, and mercury concentration. Results reported that the SRF made of 80% plastics (85% PE and 15% PP) and 20% cellulosic (blend 2), as well as 30% plastics (50% PP and 50% PE) and 70% cellulosic (blend 1), can be considered an alternative fuel in Bolivia. On balance, it has been estimated that the use of non-recyclable plastics and cardboard from municipal solid waste can provide, on average, about 0.9–2.7 billion MJ of energy for cement kilns, solving about 1.4–5.3% of the SWM issues and covering about 8–23.4% of the energy demand for cement production in Bolivia. These results are novel for the scientific literature for estimating the potentialities of SRF in Latin America.
2022
2022
Developing countries; Latin America; Waste-to-energy; Solid waste management; Sustainable development; SRF
Ferronato, Navarro; Calle Mendoza, Iris Jabneel; Marconi Siñani, Nayda Grace; Gorritty Portillo, Marcelo Antonio; Torretta, Vincenzo
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
201-WM-Bolivia SRF-Torretta-2022.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: DRM non definito
Dimensione 6.29 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
6.29 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11383/2133007
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact