Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Waste Management 29 (2009) 5462

www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Life cycle assessment of solid waste management options

for Eskisehir, Turkey
Mude Banar *, Zerrin Cokaygil, Aysun Ozkan
Anadolu University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Department of Environmental Engineering, Iki Eylul Campus, 26555 Eskisehir, Turkey
Accepted 3 December 2007
Available online 15 February 2008

Abstract
Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology was used to determine the optimum municipal solid waste (MSW) management strategy for
Eskisehir city. Eskisehir is one of the developing cities of Turkey where a total of approximately 750 tons/day of waste is generated. An
eective MSW management system is needed in this city since the generated MSW is dumped in an unregulated dumping site that has no
liner, no biogas capture, etc. Therefore, ve dierent scenarios were developed as alternatives to the current waste management system.
Collection and transportation of waste, a material recovery facility (MRF), recycling, composting, incineration and landlling processes
were considered in these scenarios. SimaPro7 libraries were used to obtain background data for the life cycle inventory. One ton of municipal solid waste of Eskisehir was selected as the functional unit. The alternative scenarios were compared through the CML 2000 method
and these comparisons were carried out from the abiotic depletion, global warming, human toxicity, acidication, eutrophication and
photochemical ozone depletion points of view. According to the comparisons and sensitivity analysis, composting scenario, S3, is the
more environmentally preferable alternative.
In this study waste management alternatives were investigated only on an environmental point of view. For that reason, it might be
supported with other decision-making tools that consider the economic and social eects of solid waste management.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Solid waste management is a complex and multidisciplinary problem that should be considered from technical,
economic and social aspects on a sustainability basis. For a
healthy environment, both municipal and industrial wastes
should be managed according to the solid waste management hierarchy (prevention/minimization/recovery/incineration/landlling). For this purpose, dierent techniques
can be used. Studies on modeling of solid waste management systems were started in the 1970s and were increased
with the development of computer models in 1980s. While
models in the 1980s were generally based on an economic
perspective (Gottinger, 1988), models that included
recycling and other waste management methods were
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 222 3213550x6400; fax: +90 222

3239501.
E-mail address: mbanar@anadolu.edu.tr (M. Banar).
0956-053X/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2007.12.006

developed for planning of municipal solid waste management systems in the 1990s (MacDonald, 1996). Models
developed in recent years have taken an integrated solid
waste management approach, and included both economic
and environmental analyses. Models have included linear
programming with Excel-Visual Basic (Abou Najm and
El-Fadel, 2004), Decision Support Systems (Fiorucci
et al., 2003; Haastrup et al., 1998), fuzzy logic (Chang
and Wang, 1997) and Multi Criteria Decision-Making
techniques (Hokkanen and Salminen, 1997).
One important aspect of waste management planning is
to ensure the identication of areas in which specic measures should be taken to reduce the environmental impacts
of waste management. To demonstrate the performance of
management alternatives in the decision-making process,
authorities, communities, industry and waste management
companies should consider environmental aspects in addition to the evaluation of technical and economic aspects. It
is accepted that life cycle assessment (LCA) concepts and

M. Banar et al. / Waste Management 29 (2009) 5462

techniques provide solid waste planners and decision makers with an excellent framework to evaluate MSW management strategies (Obersteiner et al., 2007).
Environmental LCA is a system analysis tool. It was
developed rapidly during the 1990s and has reached a certain level of harmonization and standardization. An ISO
standard has been developed, as well as several guidelines.
LCA studies the environmental aspects and potential
impacts throughout a product life (i.e., cradle-to-grave)
from raw material acquisition through production, use
and disposal. This is done by compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs of a system (the inventory analysis), evaluating the potential impacts of those inputs and
outputs (the impact assessment), and interpreting the
results (the interpretation) in relation to the objectives of
the study (dened in the goal and scope denition at the
beginning of a study).
In the denition of LCA, the term product includes not
only product systems but can also include service systems,
for example waste management systems. LCA is currently
being used in several countries to evaluate treatment
options for specic waste fractions (Obersteiner et al.,
2007; Buttol et al., 2007; Boer et al., 2007; Winkler and
Bilitewski, 2007; Borghi et al., 2007; Finnveden, 1999;
Ozeler et al., 2006).
So, in the study presented in this paper, LCA methodology was used to analyze and to evaluate dierent alternatives that can be implemented to enable the targets
required by the European Landll and Packaging and
Packaging Waste Directives for solid waste management
in the city of Eskisehir, Turkey. The European Landll
Directive (1999) and the Packaging and Packaging Waste
Directive (2004) aim to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal wastes going to landll. Therefore in this
study, SimaPro7 (2006) software has been applied to model
the dierent waste management scenarios. All of the data
needed for the life cycle inventory was gathered from the
literature, the database of the software and the
submunicipalities.
2. Description of the scenarios
Because of increasing population and developing industry in Eskisehir, the quantities of municipal and industrial
solid waste in the city are rising rapidly. Approximately
750 tons of MSW is generated daily in Eskisehir. Two private companies are employed by the two submunicipalities
(Tepebasi and Odunpazari) to collect the municipal solid
wastes. Vehicles collect wastes in plastic bags that are discarded and piled up on the streets by the residents, and
transport the wastes to the unregulated dumping site to
dumped there at all hours of the day in an uncontrolled
manner.
The composition of the Eskisehir MSW is given in
Table 1. Recyclables (paper/cardboard, glass and aluminum) have been separated by scavengers and these materials (2.04%, 0.71% and 0.25% of paper/cardboard, glass and

55

Table 1
Composition of MSW in Eskisehir
Component

Composition (wt.%)

Papercardboard
Metala
Glass
Plastic
Food
Ash
Othersb
Total

10.07
1.26
2.49
5.62
67.04
3.87
9.65
100.00

Source: Personal communication with submunicipalities.

a
It was assumed that all metals are aluminum cans.
b
This component includes predominantly yard wastes.

aluminum, respectively) are sent directly to the reprocessing facility. The restwaste (97%) is collected from curbside
collection points and taken to the unregulated dumping
site. This unregulated dumping site is an open area where
the recyclable components of the waste are partially separated (7%) manually under unhygienic conditions and piled
up there to recycle. Then, all of the recyclable materials are
sent to the recycling facilities that are in other cities. The
composition of the leachate from the current unregulated
dumping site is given in Table 2 (Banar et al., 2006).
Wastes have been dumped in a natural valley as controlled sustainable MSW management systems are not
practiced in this city. Therefore, in this study, ve alternative scenarios to the current waste management system in
Eskisehir were developed, and these scenarios were evaluated by the means of LCA. Flowcharts of the scenarios
are given in Fig. 1ae.
Scenario 1: This scenario was based on the current waste
management system, incorporating some improvements. In
this scenario, a material recovery facility (MRF) and a
landll were added to the system. The percentages of recycling and landlling are same as for the current waste management system. The recyclable fraction (3%) collected by
Table 2
Composition of leachate at Eskisehir dumpsite
Parameters

(mg/l leachate)

Suspended solids
COD
BOD5
N-org
NO3
Cl
Na+
K+
Ca+2
SO4
Fe
Zn
Cu
Ni
Cd
Pb

2080
4418
3044
255
1361
9150
132
725
450
2000
8.08
0.59
5.63
0.95
0.06
0.65

Source: Banar et al., 2006.

56

M. Banar et al. / Waste Management 29 (2009) 5462

MSW
100 %

Scavengers, 3 %

97 %

Others, mix
97 %

Paper-cardboard
2.04 %

Glass
0.71 %

Aluminum
0.25 %

MRF

Papercardboard
3.40 %

Papercardboard
2.04 %

Plastic
2.00 %

Glass
0.71 %

Glass
1.18 %

Aluminum
0.25 %

Aluminum
0.42 %
Others
90 %

Landfill
Recycling
(in other city)

Landfill
(in other city)

MSW
100 %

Source separation, 9.72 %

90.28 %

Others, mix
90.28 %

Paper-cardboard
5.04 %

Glass
1.25 %

Aluminum
0.63 %

Plastic
2.81 %

MRF

Paper-cardboard
5.04%

Papercardboard
4.53 %
Plastic
2.53%

Plastic
2.81%

Glass
1.12 %

Glass
1.25 %

Aluminum
0.57 %

Aluminum
0.63 %

Others
81.53 %

Landfill

Recycling
(in other city)

Landfill
(in other city)

Fig. 1. Flowcharts of the scenarios (after eciencies). (a) Scenario 1 (S1): 7.5% recycling + 92.5% landlling. (b) Scenario 2 (S2): 15% recycling + 85%
landlling. (c) Scenario 3 (S3): 15% recycling + 77% composting + 8% landlling. (d) Scenario 4 (S4): 15% recycling + 85% incineration and (e) Scenario 5
(S5): 100% incineration. (The percentages represent the proportion of the total municipal solid waste stream.)

M. Banar et al. / Waste Management 29 (2009) 5462

MSW
100 %

57

Source separation, 9.72 %

90.28 %

Others, mix
90.28 %

Paper-cardboard
5.04 %

Glass
1.25 %

Aluminum
0.63 %

Plastic
2.81 %

MRF

Paper-cardboard
5.04%

Papercardboard
4.53 %
Plastic
2.53%

Plastic
2.81%

Glass
1.12 %

Glass
1.25 %

Aluminum
0.57 %

Aluminum
0.63 %

Organics
76.69 %

Recycling
(in other city)

Others
4.84 %
Landfill
(in other city)

Composting
Landfill

Residuals

MSW
100 %

Source separation, 9.72%

90.28 %

Others, mix
90.28 %

Paper-cardboard
5.04 %

Glass
1.25 %

Aluminum
0.63 %

Plastic
2.81 %

MRF

Paper-cardboard
5.04%

Papercardboard
4.53 %
Plastic
2.53%

Plastic
2.81%

Glass
1.12 %

Glass
1.25 %

Aluminum
0.57 %

Aluminum
0.63 %

e
MSW
(100 %)

Others
81.53 %

Incineration

Recycling
(in other city)

Residuals
Landfill

Landfill
(in other city)

Fig. 1 (continued)

Incineration
(100 %)

Landfill
Residuals

58

M. Banar et al. / Waste Management 29 (2009) 5462

scavengers is sent to the MRF, which was located on the

landll site. The rest of the recyclables (4.30%) was separated in the MRF. These two parts were processed separately since their qualities are dierent. After separation,
recyclable materials are sent to the recycling facilities
located in other cities. Recycling eciencies for these materials are 80% and 70% for the materials brought by scavengers and those separated in the MRF, respectively. The
residuals after the recycling process were landlled in the
city where the recycling was undertaken. The restwaste
(92.70%) was landlled in Eskisehir.
Scenario 2: In this scenario a source separation system
with eciency of 50% was added as an improvement to
Scenario 1. The recyclables obtained from source separation (9.72%) were sent to the MRF, and after processing
they were sent to the recycling facilities in other cities to
recycle, at an eciency of 92%. The recyclables mixed in
organic waste were also processed and sent to the recycling
facility with an eciency of 70%. After the recycling process, residuals are sent to the landlls.
Scenario 3: This scenario emphasizes the recovery of the
biologically degradable fraction. The ow of the system is
similar to Scenario 2 for recyclable materials, while organic
fraction (77%) from the MRF is transported to the composting facility. The residue from the MRF is sent to the landll (8.24%).
Scenario 4: An incineration process was added to system
instead of a composting facility. In this case, all organic
wastes and the wastes from the separated recyclables are
transported to the incinerator (85%).
Scenario 5: In this scenario it was considered that all
MSW is sent to the incineration facility (100%).
3. Methodology
The LCA methodology has been used to conduct an
environmental comparison of the alternative scenarios to
the current waste management system. This evaluation
was conducted according to TSE EN ISO 14040 (1996).
According to TSE ISO 14040, an LCA comprises four

major stages: goal and scope denition, life cycle inventory,

life cycle impact analysis and interpretation of the results.
3.1. Goal and scope denition
The aim of this study is to select an optimum waste management system for Eskisehir by evaluating, from an environmental point of view, alternatives to the existing system.
It is thought that the results of the study would be helpful
for the Metropolitan municipality and submunicipalities of
Eskisehir.
3.1.1. Functional unit
The functional unit selected for the comparison of the
alternative scenarios is the management of 1 ton of municipal solid waste of Eskisehir.
3.1.2. System boundaries
The system of the study starts with collection of MSW
from residential areas and includes waste transport, waste
treatment alternatives (recycling, composting and incineration) and landlling of waste. The system was limited at the
landlling of residual materials after treatment processes.
Life cycle analyses of the secondary materials obtained
from the recycling and composting processes were not considered. Fig. 2 shows the system boundaries.
3.2. Life cycle inventory
The data for life cycle inventory was gathered from
actual applications in Eskisehir, literature and the database
of the SimaPro7. The database of the software was
adjusted to the conditions in Turkey. The DQI (Data Quality Indicators) option of the software was used to select the
most suitable system for data quality indicators such as
time, geography, technology and representativeness.
3.2.1. Collection and transport
There are two submunicipalities in Eskisehir; Tepebasi
and Odunpazari. Tepebasi and Odunpazari were divided

Waste source
Transport
Transport

MRF

Raw
Materials
Compost

Composting

Incineration

Recycling facility / facilities

Transport

Energy

Atmospheric
emissions

Waterborme
emissions

Solid emissions

Energy
Landfilling

Energy

Fig. 2. System boundaries.

Residuals

M. Banar et al. / Waste Management 29 (2009) 5462

into 26 and 25 districts, respectively, according to the data

gathered from these submunicipalities. Half of the MSW in
Odunpazari is collected on even days and the other part is
collected on single days of the week; the district where the
waste generation is high is collected every night. The MSW
is collected every day in Tepebasi.
In this study, new infrastructure was considered to be
located at the same site to take advantage of economic
and environmental cost savings; therefore, it was assumed
that the MRF, compost facility, incinerator and landll
were at the same site, which would decrease the environmental and economic eects of transport.
Private recycling facilities licensed by the Turkey Ministry of Environment and Forestry were investigated, and
the closest recycling facilities were selected since there are
no facilities of this type in Eskisehir. The recycling facilities in Ankara city (233 km) were selected for paper,
plastic and aluminum recycling, while Kocaeli city
(219 km) was selected for glass recycling. The calculated
total recycling rates and transport distances are given in
Table 3.
3.2.2. Electrical energy
The source ratios used in electric generation in Turkey
are given in the Table 4, according to the 2006 program
of TEIAS (The Transmission System Operator of Turkey).
A medium voltage mixed electricity prole of the city has
been created by using Buwal 250 (2004) and ETH-ESU

Table 3
Total recycling rates and transport distances for the scenarios

Scenario 1

Scenarios
2/3/4

Scenario5

Collection (km/
ton MSW)

Transport for recycling

4.11

Paper
cardboard
Plastic
Glass
Aluminum
Paper
cardboard
Plastic
Glass
Aluminum

4.11

4.11

Total recycling
rates (%)

Transport
distance (km)
5.44

233

2.00
1.89
0.67
10.07

233
219
233
233

5.62
2.49
1.26

233
219
233

Return of the collection vehicle from the waste area was not considered.

Table 4
Electrical energy sources and their contributions in Turkey
Energy sources

Contribution of energy sources (%)

Fuel-oil
Coal
Lignite
Natural gas
Hydraulic energy
Total

2.9
7.6
21.8
44.7
23.0
100.0

Source: calculated from 2006 program of TEIAS.

59

96 (2004) data for Turkey in collaboration with these

ratios. This average data was also used to calculate the
emissions saved by energy displaced by energy from waste,
i.e. landll gas and incineration.
3.2.3. Recycling and material recovery facility (MRF)
Mixed recyclables and separated recyclables (depending
on the scenario) were sent to a MRF. Electricity consumption of the MRF for sorting equipment and compressing
bales was 0.059 kW h/ton (Bovea and Powell, 2006).
It was considered that processes before recycling were
carried out in three ways scavengers, source separation
and MRF. Recycling data was obtained from the Buwal
250 library of the SimaPro7. Also, dierent eciencies that
were used for dierent collection types are given as






Source separation of recyclables: 50%.

Separation of recyclables from mixed waste: 70%.
Recycling of recyclables after source separation: 92%.
Recycling of recyclables collected by scavengers: 80%.
Recycling of recyclables after separation of recyclables
from mixed waste: 70%.

3.2.4. Composting
A chemical formula (C333H528O195N16PS) for compostable waste (that includes food and yard waste) based on the
Eskisehir MSW composition was formed by using elemental analysis (C, H, O, N, S, P) results taken from Tchobanoglous et al. (1993). Furthermore, N and P values for
the compost produce were calculated by using this chemical
formula (28.2 kg N/ton waste; 3.9 kg P/ton waste). The
organic material obtained from the composting process is
used as a fertilizer. The avoided material is a chemical fertilizer containing an equivalent amount of nutrients (N and
P). Also, CO2 and NH3 emissions after composting were
calculated by using the same chemical formula (1.85 ton
CO2/ton waste; 0.37 ton NH3/ton waste).
The life cycle inventory data for the chemical N and P
fertilizer avoided is obtained from the IDEMAT 2001
library of the SimaPro7. According to Bovea and Powell
(2006), the energy consumption during the composting
process is due to electricity demand (54.4 MJ/ton of input
to the composting process) and the consumption of diesel
in the wheel loader, mills and strainers (555.5 MJ/ton of
input to the composting process).
3.2.5. Incineration
The incineration process was considered in scenarios 4
and 5. Scenario 5 does not have a recycling process. The
Buwal 250 library for the 2000 data was used for incineration of plastic, glass, paper and aluminum. Buwal 250
(2000) data reects the future technology, and the incinerator of the year 2000 has a more advanced ue gas treatment and mainly catalytic deNOx treatment. It was
determined that the incinerator of the year 2000 supplies
the requirements of 2007.

60

M. Banar et al. / Waste Management 29 (2009) 5462

Atmospheric emissions from the incineration of organic

waste were calculated by using the chemical formula
(C333H528O195N16PS) of the organic fraction of MSW.
3.2.6. Landlling
Landll processes for the scenarios were performed by
using the Buwal 250 library of the SimaPro7. In these landll processes, production of biogas is at 200 m3/ton wastes
(47% methane, 37% carbon dioxide, 13% nitrogen); 47% is
directly emitted into the air and 53% is combusted. Energy
production from biogas combustion is regarded as a coproduct without emissions. The use of methane produced
by the landll is 31% of the total gas production for production of electricity and heat. The nal eciency is only
11% of the total energy content of the gas produced. The
energy production is deducted in the energy use of the total
system and is product specic allocated, depending on the
degradability of the materials.

of 100 years (GWP100), in kg carbon dioxide/kg emission

(Goedkoop et al., 2004).
3.3.3. Human toxicity
Characterization factors, expressed as Human Toxicity
Potentials (HTP), are calculated with USES-LCA, describing fate, exposure and eects of toxic substances for an innite time horizon. For each toxic substance, HTPs are
expressed as 1,4-dichlorobenzene equivalents/kg emission
(Goedkoop et al., 2004).
3.3.4. Acidication
The major acidifying pollutants are SO2, NOx, HCl and
NH3. What acidifying pollutants have in common is that
they form acidifying H+ ions. A pollutants potential for
acidication can thus be measured by its capacity to form
H+ ions. The acidication potential is dened as the number of H+ ions produced per kg substance relative to SO2
(Bauman and Tillman, 2004).

3.3. Life cycle impact assessment

In this study, six impact categories included by the
CML 2000 method (CML 2 baseline 2000 method is
an update from the CML 1992 method) were investigated: abiotic depletion, global warming, human toxicity,
acidication, eutrophication, and photochemical oxidation. Characteristics of the impact categories are discussed below.
3.3.1. Depletion of abiotic resources
This impact category indicator is related to extraction of
minerals and fossil fuels due to inputs in the system. The
Abiotic Depletion Factor (ADF) is determined for each
extraction of minerals and fossil fuels (kg antimony equivalents/kg extraction) based on concentration of reserves
and rate of deaccumulation (Goedkoop et al., 2004).
3.3.2. Climate change
The characterization model as developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is selected
for development of characterization factors. Factors are
expressed as Global Warming Potential for time horizon

3.3.5. Eutrophication
Eutrophication is a phenomenon that can inuence terrestrial as well as aquatic ecosystems. Nitrogen (N) and
phosphorus (P) are the two nutrients most implicated in
eutrophication. Eutrophication potentials are often
expressed as PO4 3 equivalents (Bauman and Tillman,
2004).
3.3.6. Photochemical oxidation
This impact indicator denes substances with the potential to contribute to photochemical ozone formation as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which contain hydrogen
(not fully substituted) and/or double bond (s) (unsaturated). The impact potentials are expressed as an equivalent emission of the reference substance ethylene, C2H4
(Hauschild and Wenzel, 1998).
4. Results
The results of the characterization analysis per functional unit (1 ton of MSW managed) for each impact category for each scenario are reported in Table 5. As shown in

Table 5
Characterization results
Scenarios
Abiotic depletion
(kg Sb eq/ton waste managed)
Global warming (GWP100)
(kg CO2 eq/ton waste managed)
Human toxicity
(kg 1.4 DB eq/ton waste managed)
Acidication
(kg SO2 eq/ton waste managed)
Eutrophication
(kg PO4 3 eq/ton waste managed)
Photochemical oxidation
(kg C2H4/ton waste managed)

S1
0.437

S2
1.11

S3
1.08

S4
1.15

S5
0.16

6990

6950

1360

1370

1510

135

271

269

182

91.9

43.6

42.6

41.4

36.7

38.3

37.9

37.8

9.13

9.89

9.98

1.63

1.57

2.06

2.14

0.0857

M. Banar et al. / Waste Management 29 (2009) 5462

61

1000

100

10

1
EI99

EPS

EI95

Fig. 3. Results of sensitivity analyses using three LCIA methods.

the table, the investigated results for each impact category

are as follows:
Abiotic depletion: S5 is higher than the other scenarios;
S2, S3 and S4 are lower due to avoided raw material usage
through the recycling process.
Global warming: Methane is the most important impact
for landll scenarios (S1 and S2). The global warming eect
for S4 and S5 mostly results from CO2. S3 is the best scenario for this impact category.
Human toxicity: S5 has the highest human toxicity eect
due to nitrogen oxide, with a contribution of 100%. The
scenarios that include recycling (S2, S3 and S4) are better
than the others; when the background of the software
was investigated, it was seen that the avoided human toxicity eect resulted from the recycling of aluminum.
Acidication: All of the scenarios except S3 show approximately same trend for acidication from ammonia and
nitrogen dioxide in the air. S3 is the best scenario for this
impact category because of the displacement with fertilizer.
Eutrophication: The contribution to eutrophication
eect for S1 and S2 is shared by chemical oxygen demand
(COD) and ammonia at the rates of 74% and 25%, respectively. Nitrogen dioxide is the dominant substance for the
eutrophication eect of S4 and S5. S3 has the lowest value
for this impact category due mostly to ammonia in the air.
Photochemical ozone depletion: S3 is the best scenario
in this impact category. Photochemical ozone depletion
eect for S1 and S2 results from methane. S4 and S5 have
higher values than S1 and S2 because of NO2 emissions.
5. Discussion and conclusion
In compliance with ISO 14042, a sensitivity analysis was
performed and three dierent impact assessment methods
(EcoIndicator95, EcoIndicator99 and EPS00) were
applied to analyze their inuence on the results. Results
are presented as points (Pt) on a logarithmic scale (see
Fig. 3). According to this gure, the order of alternative
scenarios from better to worse from the environmental
point of view is as follows:
 EcoIndicator99: S3, S2, S1, S4, S5;
 EcoIndicator95: S3, S4, S5, S2, S1;
 EPS00: S3, S4, S5, S2, S1.

These orders show that the composting scenario, S3, is

the more environmentally preferable. EPS00 and EI95
show the same order, while EI99 has other results for
S1, S2 and for S4, S5.
In this study, waste management alternatives were investigated from only an environmental point of view. For that
reason, it might be supported with other decision-making
tools that consider the economic and social eects of solid
waste management.
References
Abou Najm, M., El-Fadel, M., 2004. Computer-based interface for an
integrated solid waste optimization model. Environmental Modelling
and Software 19, 11511164.
Bovea, M.D., Powell, J.C., 2006. Alternative scenarios to meet the
demands of sustainable waste management. Journal of Environmental
Management 79, 115132.
Banar, M., Ozkan, A., Kurkcuoglu, M., 2006. Characterization of the
leachate in an urban landll by physicochemical analysis and solid
phase microextraction-GC/MS. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 121, 439459.
Bauman, H., Tillman, A., 2004. The Hitch Hikers Guide to LCA.
Studentlitteratur AB, Sweden.
Boer, J., Boer, E., Jager, J., 2007. LCA-IWM: A decision support tool for
sustainability assessment of waste management systems. Waste Management 27, 10321045.
Borghi, A., Binaghi, L., Borghi, M.G.M., 2007. The application of the
environmental product declaration to waste disposal in a sanitary
landll. International Journal of LCA 12 (1), 4049.
Buttol, P., Masoni, P., Bonoli, A., Goldoni, S., Belladonna, V., Cavazzuti,
C., 2007. LCA of integrated MSW management systems: case study of
the Bologna district. Waste Management 27, 10591070.
Chang, N., Wang, S.F., 1997. A fuzzy goal programming approach for the
optimal planning of metropolitan solid waste management systems.
European Journal of Operational Research 99, 303321.
European Union. 1999. 99/31/EC: European Landll Directive.
European Union. 2004. 2004/12/EC: European Packaging and Packaging
Waste Directive.
Finnveden, G., 1999. Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of
integrated solid waste management systems. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 26, 173177.
Fiorucci, P., Minciardi, R., Robba, M., Sacile, R., 2003. Solid waste
management in urban areas development and application of a
decision support system. Resources Conservation and Recycling
37, 301328.
Goedkoop, M., Oele, M., Eting, S., 2004. SimaPro Database Manual
Methods library. PRe Consultants, Netherlands.
Gottinger, H.W., 1988. A computational model for solid waste management with application. European Journal of Operational Research 35,
350364.

62

M. Banar et al. / Waste Management 29 (2009) 5462

Haastrup, P., Maniezzo, V., Mattarelli, M., Mazzeo Rinaldi, F., Mendes, I.,
Parruccini, M., 1998. A decision support system for urban waste
management. European Journal of Operational Research 109, 330341.
Hauschild, M., Wenzel, H., 1998. Environmental Assessment of Products.
Scientic background, vol. 2. Chapman & Hall, UK.
Hokkanen, J., Salminen, P., 1997. Choosing a solid waste management
system using multicriteria decision analysis. European Journal of
Operational Research 98, 1936.
MacDonald, M., 1996. Solid waste management models: a state of the art
review. Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management 23 (2), 7383.
Obersteiner, G., Binner, E., Mostbauer, P., Salhofer, S., 2007. Land ll
modelling in LCA a contribution based on empirical data. Waste
Management 27, S58S74.

Ozeler, D., Yetis, U., Demirer, G.N., 2006. Life cycle assessment of
municipal solid waste management methods: Ankara case study.
Environment International 32, 405411.
Personal communication with CEVKO-Turkish Authorized Recovery
Organization.
Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., Vigil, S.A., 1993. Integrated Solid Waste
Management. McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
Turkish Standards Institution (TSE), 1996. TSE EN ISO 14040: environmental management: life cycle assessment: principles and guidelines
(Turkish Standard).
Winkler, J., Bilitewski, B., 2007. Comparative evaluation of life cycle
assessment models for solid waste management. Waste Management
27, 10211031.