Review and meta-analysis of 82 studies on end-of-life management methods for source separated organics

This article reports on a literature review and meta-analysis of 82 studies, mostly life cycle assessments (LCAs), which quantified end-of-life (EOL) management options for organic waste. These studies were reviewed to determine the environmental preferability, or lack thereof, for a number of EOL management methods such as aerobic composting (AC), anaerobic digestion (AD), gasification, combustion, incineration with energy recovery (often denoted as waste-to-energy incineration), mechanical biological treatment, incineration without energy recovery (sometimes referenced by just the word "incineration"), and landfill disposal with and without energy recovery from generated methane. Given the vast differences in boundaries as well as uncertainty and variability in results, the LCAs among the 82 studies provided enough data and results to make conclusions regarding just four EOL management methods - aerobic composting, anaerobic digestion, mass burn waste-to-energy (WTE), and landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE). For these four, the LCAs proved sufficient to determine that aerobic composting and anaerobic digestion are both environmentally preferable to either WTE or LFGTE in terms of climate change impacts. For climate change, LCA results were mixed for WTE versus LFGTE. Furthermore, there is a lack of empirically reliable estimates of the amount of organics input to AD that is converted to energy output versus remaining in the digestate. This digestate can be processed through aerobic composting into a compost product similar to the compost output from aerobic composting, assuming that the same type of organic materials are managed under AD as are managed via AC. The magnitude of any trade-off between generation of energy and production of compost in an AD system appears to be critical for ranking AC and AD for differing types of organics diversion streams. These results emphasize how little we generally know, and exemplify the fact that in the reviewed literature no single EOL management method consistently topped all other management options across all environmental impacts, and that future studies must strive to match existing analytical boundaries and alternatives assessed to increase knowledge if as a community we expect to be able to make even more generalized conclusions.