Influence of input waste feedstock on solid recovered fuel production in a mechanical treatment plant

Muhammad Nasrullah, Markku Hurme, Pekka Oinas, Janne Hannula, Pasi Vainikka

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

In solid recovered fuel (SRF) production, type and nature of input waste stream influences the quality of fuel product. This paper presents the influence of input waste stream on SRF production in a mechanical treatment (MT) plant. The SRF was produced at industrial scale from three different types of waste streams: commercial and industrial waste (C&IW), construction and demolition waste (C&DW) and municipal solid waste (MSW). Here, the stream of MSW used for SRF production was energy waste collected from households. In the SRF production from MSW, higher yields of material were recovered in the form of SRF as compared with that of recovered from C&IW and C&DW. Of the input MSW to the MT plant, 72 wt% was recovered as SRF, equivalent to 86% energy recovery. The energy consumed to produce unit tonne of SRF from C&IW, C&DW and MSW was 1153 MJ, 1246 MJ and 1626 MJ, respectively. In the SRF production, removal of chlorine (Cl), lead (Pb) and mercury (Hg) from C&IW feedstock was worse than from C&DW and MSW feedstocks. In the SRF production from C&IW, of the input mass of chlorine, lead and mercury to the MT process 60%, 58% and 45%, respectively was found in the SRF. The SRF produced from C&DW contained the lowest mass fraction of the input chlorine, lead and mercury in comparison with the SRF produced from C&IW and MSW, namely 34%, 8% and 30%, respectively. Among the waste components rubber, plastic (hard) and textile (synthetic) were identified as potential sources of polluting and toxic elements, whereas wood, paper & cardboard and plastic (soft) were found to contain the lowest content of polluting and toxic elements. The pollutant and toxic elements investigated in this research work were chlorine, lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)35-44
Number of pages10
JournalFuel Processing Technology
Volume163
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2017
MoE publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed

Fingerprint

Feedstocks
Municipal solid waste
Chlorine
Mercury
Poisons
Lead
Synthetic textile fibers
Plastics
Industrial Waste
Demolition
Mercury (metal)
Industrial wastes
Rubber
Arsenic
Cadmium
Wood

Keywords

  • solid recovered fuel
  • waste feedstock
  • mechanical treatment
  • polluting and toxic elements

Cite this

Nasrullah, Muhammad ; Hurme, Markku ; Oinas, Pekka ; Hannula, Janne ; Vainikka, Pasi. / Influence of input waste feedstock on solid recovered fuel production in a mechanical treatment plant. In: Fuel Processing Technology. 2017 ; Vol. 163. pp. 35-44.
@article{620e798195fa4a0991515ffc77be953a,
title = "Influence of input waste feedstock on solid recovered fuel production in a mechanical treatment plant",
abstract = "In solid recovered fuel (SRF) production, type and nature of input waste stream influences the quality of fuel product. This paper presents the influence of input waste stream on SRF production in a mechanical treatment (MT) plant. The SRF was produced at industrial scale from three different types of waste streams: commercial and industrial waste (C&IW), construction and demolition waste (C&DW) and municipal solid waste (MSW). Here, the stream of MSW used for SRF production was energy waste collected from households. In the SRF production from MSW, higher yields of material were recovered in the form of SRF as compared with that of recovered from C&IW and C&DW. Of the input MSW to the MT plant, 72 wt{\%} was recovered as SRF, equivalent to 86{\%} energy recovery. The energy consumed to produce unit tonne of SRF from C&IW, C&DW and MSW was 1153 MJ, 1246 MJ and 1626 MJ, respectively. In the SRF production, removal of chlorine (Cl), lead (Pb) and mercury (Hg) from C&IW feedstock was worse than from C&DW and MSW feedstocks. In the SRF production from C&IW, of the input mass of chlorine, lead and mercury to the MT process 60{\%}, 58{\%} and 45{\%}, respectively was found in the SRF. The SRF produced from C&DW contained the lowest mass fraction of the input chlorine, lead and mercury in comparison with the SRF produced from C&IW and MSW, namely 34{\%}, 8{\%} and 30{\%}, respectively. Among the waste components rubber, plastic (hard) and textile (synthetic) were identified as potential sources of polluting and toxic elements, whereas wood, paper & cardboard and plastic (soft) were found to contain the lowest content of polluting and toxic elements. The pollutant and toxic elements investigated in this research work were chlorine, lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic.",
keywords = "solid recovered fuel, waste feedstock, mechanical treatment, polluting and toxic elements",
author = "Muhammad Nasrullah and Markku Hurme and Pekka Oinas and Janne Hannula and Pasi Vainikka",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.fuproc.2017.03.034",
language = "English",
volume = "163",
pages = "35--44",
journal = "Fuel Processing Technology",
issn = "0378-3820",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Influence of input waste feedstock on solid recovered fuel production in a mechanical treatment plant. / Nasrullah, Muhammad; Hurme, Markku; Oinas, Pekka; Hannula, Janne; Vainikka, Pasi.

In: Fuel Processing Technology, Vol. 163, 01.01.2017, p. 35-44.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Influence of input waste feedstock on solid recovered fuel production in a mechanical treatment plant

AU - Nasrullah, Muhammad

AU - Hurme, Markku

AU - Oinas, Pekka

AU - Hannula, Janne

AU - Vainikka, Pasi

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - In solid recovered fuel (SRF) production, type and nature of input waste stream influences the quality of fuel product. This paper presents the influence of input waste stream on SRF production in a mechanical treatment (MT) plant. The SRF was produced at industrial scale from three different types of waste streams: commercial and industrial waste (C&IW), construction and demolition waste (C&DW) and municipal solid waste (MSW). Here, the stream of MSW used for SRF production was energy waste collected from households. In the SRF production from MSW, higher yields of material were recovered in the form of SRF as compared with that of recovered from C&IW and C&DW. Of the input MSW to the MT plant, 72 wt% was recovered as SRF, equivalent to 86% energy recovery. The energy consumed to produce unit tonne of SRF from C&IW, C&DW and MSW was 1153 MJ, 1246 MJ and 1626 MJ, respectively. In the SRF production, removal of chlorine (Cl), lead (Pb) and mercury (Hg) from C&IW feedstock was worse than from C&DW and MSW feedstocks. In the SRF production from C&IW, of the input mass of chlorine, lead and mercury to the MT process 60%, 58% and 45%, respectively was found in the SRF. The SRF produced from C&DW contained the lowest mass fraction of the input chlorine, lead and mercury in comparison with the SRF produced from C&IW and MSW, namely 34%, 8% and 30%, respectively. Among the waste components rubber, plastic (hard) and textile (synthetic) were identified as potential sources of polluting and toxic elements, whereas wood, paper & cardboard and plastic (soft) were found to contain the lowest content of polluting and toxic elements. The pollutant and toxic elements investigated in this research work were chlorine, lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic.

AB - In solid recovered fuel (SRF) production, type and nature of input waste stream influences the quality of fuel product. This paper presents the influence of input waste stream on SRF production in a mechanical treatment (MT) plant. The SRF was produced at industrial scale from three different types of waste streams: commercial and industrial waste (C&IW), construction and demolition waste (C&DW) and municipal solid waste (MSW). Here, the stream of MSW used for SRF production was energy waste collected from households. In the SRF production from MSW, higher yields of material were recovered in the form of SRF as compared with that of recovered from C&IW and C&DW. Of the input MSW to the MT plant, 72 wt% was recovered as SRF, equivalent to 86% energy recovery. The energy consumed to produce unit tonne of SRF from C&IW, C&DW and MSW was 1153 MJ, 1246 MJ and 1626 MJ, respectively. In the SRF production, removal of chlorine (Cl), lead (Pb) and mercury (Hg) from C&IW feedstock was worse than from C&DW and MSW feedstocks. In the SRF production from C&IW, of the input mass of chlorine, lead and mercury to the MT process 60%, 58% and 45%, respectively was found in the SRF. The SRF produced from C&DW contained the lowest mass fraction of the input chlorine, lead and mercury in comparison with the SRF produced from C&IW and MSW, namely 34%, 8% and 30%, respectively. Among the waste components rubber, plastic (hard) and textile (synthetic) were identified as potential sources of polluting and toxic elements, whereas wood, paper & cardboard and plastic (soft) were found to contain the lowest content of polluting and toxic elements. The pollutant and toxic elements investigated in this research work were chlorine, lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic.

KW - solid recovered fuel

KW - waste feedstock

KW - mechanical treatment

KW - polluting and toxic elements

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85017527929&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.fuproc.2017.03.034

DO - 10.1016/j.fuproc.2017.03.034

M3 - Article

VL - 163

SP - 35

EP - 44

JO - Fuel Processing Technology

JF - Fuel Processing Technology

SN - 0378-3820

ER -