G

R

M

Ra

b

c

a

ARRA

KMMEVV

1

wLlToimtwmwid

wcs

(

B

0d

ARTICLE IN PRESSModel

ECYCL-2384; No. of Pages 11

Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / resconrec

anagement of urban solid waste: Vermicomposting a sustainable option

ajeev Pratap Singha,1, Pooja Singha, Ademir S.F. Araujoc,∗, M. Hakimi Ibrahima, Othman Sulaimanb

Environmental Technology Division, School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Pulau Pinang, MalaysiaBioresource, Paper and Coatings technology, School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Pulau Pinang, MalaysiaFederal University of Piauí, Agricultural Science Center, Soil Quality Lab., Teresina, PI, Brazil

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 10 June 2010eceived in revised form 2 September 2010ccepted 27 February 2011

eywords:unicipal solid waste

a b s t r a c t

Solid waste management is a worldwide problem and it is becoming more and more complicated day byday due to rise in population, industrialization as well as changes in our life style. Presently most of thewaste generated is either disposed of in an open dump in developing countries or in landfills in the devel-oped ones. Landfilling as well as open dumping requires lot of land mass and could also result in severalenvironmental problems. Land application of urban/municipal solid waste (MSW) can be carried out asit is rich in organic matter and contains significant amount of recyclable plant nutrients. The presence of

anagementarthwormsermicompostingermicast

heavy metals and different toxics substances restricts its land use without processing. Vermicompost-ing of MSW, prior to land application may be a sustainable waste management option, as the vermicastobtained at the end of vermicomposting process is rich in plant nutrients and is devoid of pathogenicorganism. Utilization of vermicast produced from urban/municipal solid waste in agriculture will facili-tate in growth of countries economy by lowering the consumption of inorganic fertilizer and avoiding landdegradation problem. Vermicomposting of urban/MSW can be an excellent practice, as it will be helpful

t nutr

in recycling valuable plan

. Introduction

Solid waste generation is a natural phenomenon and amount ofaste produced is directly proportional to the population growth.

ess population means less demand for food and shelter, as well asesser pressure on other natural resources for their various needs.he last five decades have resulted in an uncontrolled exploitationf different kinds of natural resources due to rapid urbanization,ndustrialization and changes in the way of life. The uncontrolled

isuse of the abundant resources has finally resulted in genera-ion of a huge quantity of complex solid waste. The sustainableaste management practices are necessary to keep the environ-ent clean and green. In present circumstances it is advisable thataste products of one industry should be investigated be with an

ntention to use it as raw material for other industry to get theesired product.

Please cite this article in press as: Singh RP, et al. Management of urban soli(2011), doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.02.005

Urban/municipal solid waste (MSW) is usually regarded as theaste that is generated from human settlements, small industries,

ommercial and municipal activities (Table 1). There are few moreources from which MSW originates i.e. waste water treatment

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 86 3215 5740; fax: +55 86 3215 5743.E-mail addresses: rajeevprataps@gmail.com (R.P. Singh), asfaruaj@yahoo.com.br

A.S.F. Araujo).1 Current address: Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development,anaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005, India.

921-3449/$ – see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2011 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rioi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.02.005

ients. This review deals with various aspects of vermicomposting of MSW.Crown Copyright © 2011 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

plants (sewage sludge), household (glass, paper, metals, etc.), publicareas (waste from parks, streets, etc.) (Table 1). Often the residen-tial waste is referred as MSW, and in high income countries about25–35% of the overall waste comes from residential sources (WorldBank, 1999).

Over the past few decades, the Malaysian economy had fabu-lous growth, which has resulted in population increase along witha great influx of foreign workers (Kathirvale et al., 2004) owing to itthere is an increase in the waste production. In Malaysia the urbanmunicipal solid waste production rate was 0.81 kg cap−1 day−1 in1995 and is assumed to reach 1.40 kg cap−1 day−1 up to year 2025(Hoornweg et al., 1999). As the world population is increasing grad-ually, the demand of foodstuff and shelter is also likely to boost.Consequently there is a tremendous pressure on industries to raiseits production. According to a World Bank study it is estimated thatin the selected countries per capita urban waste generation rateswill climb by 1.14–1.73 times between 1995 and 2025 (Hoornweget al., 1999). Tackling with such an enormous quantity of waste is anextra ordinary task and if not dealt properly may results in furtherdeterioration of environment quality.

There is a rise in growing interest in vermicomposting of thiswaste nowadays as the process adds value to waste, and further-

d waste: Vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resour Conserv Recy

more reduces the volume to make its application easier (Yusriet al., 1995; Danmanhuri, 1998). Municipal solid waste (MSW) ishighly organic in nature; therefore vermicomposting of MSW hasbecome a suitable option for the safe, hygienic and cost effectivedisposal. Solid wastes generated from agricultural activities such

ghts reserved.

ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model

RECYCL-2384; No. of Pages 11

2 R.P. Singh et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

Table 1General sources of municipal solid waste.

Source Activities, typical amenities, or locations where wastes aregenerated

Types of solid waste

Residential Single-family and multi-family home, low, medium, andhigh rise apartments, etc.

Food wastes, rubbish, paper waste,ashes, special wastes

Commercial and institutional Warehouses, restaurants, markets, office buildings, hotels,shopping malls, schools, print shops, auto repair shops,medical facilities and institutions, prisons

Food wastes, rubbish, ashes,demolition and construction wastes,special wastes, occasionally hazardouswastes

Open areas Streets, alleys, parks, vacant lots, playgrounds, beaches,highways, recreational areas, marriage halls, etc.

Street sweepings, roadside litter,rubbish, and other special wastes

l wast

S

adnnp2et2mapw

2c

grtu(ngwwor

inwi

TW

G

Treatment plant sites Water, sewage and industriaprocesses

ource: Peavy et al. (1987).

s crop residues and animal excreta requires special attention forisposal as they are rich in organic matter and recyclable plantutrients. Reuse of these wastes after bioprocessing can supplyutrients to plants, improve the physico-chemical and biologicalroperties of soil and enhance its fertility (Bansal and Kapoor,000). Wastes can be either supplemented to the soil directly (Silvat al., 2010; Singh and Agrawal, 2008, 2007, 2010a,b) or some-imes require pretreatment prior to its amendment in soil (Suthar,010). This is due to presence of toxic pollutants or pathogenicicroorganisms in it (Ayuso et al., 1996; Hassen et al., 2001; Singh

nd Agrawal, 2009, 2010a,b). The present review deals with theotential of vermicomposting in management of municipal solidaste.

. Generation of municipal solid waste in differentountries

Rapid urbanization and industrialization coupled with the everrowing population in developing countries have led to a sharpise in quantity of the municipal solid waste (MSW). Generally,he greater the economic prosperity and higher the percentage ofrban population, larger is the amount of solid waste producedHassan, 2000) (Table 2). Geographical factors such as level of eco-omic development and urban population density influences theeneration of municipal waste in a country. Presence of industriesithin the municipal jurisdiction and level of industrialization as ahole greatly influences the quantity as quality of waste, as most

f the industrial wastes from small and medium scale industriesoute their waste through the municipal system.

Please cite this article in press as: Singh RP, et al. Management of urban soli(2011), doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.02.005

In the Asia-Pacific region the amount of solid waste generateds about 700 million tons yr−1 and industrial activities contributeearly 1900 million tons of waste yr−1 (ESCAP, 1995). The entireaste produced in the region accounts to 2.6 billion tons yr−1. It

s also estimated that about 30–50% of this waste is not collected

able 2aste generation rates (kg cap−1 day−1) of selected countries (1995–2025).

Countries Waste generation rates Gross national productc

1995 2025 (GNP) per capita

Chinaa 0.80 0.90 620Indiaa 0.46 0.70 340Indonesiab 0.76 1.00 980Thailanda 1.10 1.50 2740Bangladesha 0.49 0.60 240Vietnama 0.55 0.70 240Cambodiaa 0.69 0.80 260Malaysiaa 0.81 1.40 3890

NP 1997 per capita in $.a Source: Hoornweg et al. (1999).b Source: Mukawi (2001).c Source: World Bank (1999).

e water treatment Treatment plant sludges

(ESCAP, 1995). In India, urban solid waste management (SWM) isone of the largely neglected areas. The urban population gener-ated about 114,576 tons day−1 of MSW in 1996, which predictedto amplify fourfold in future and could reach 440,460 tons day−1

by the year 2026 (Hoornweg and Laura, 1999). The gross domesticproduct (GDP), reflecting the level of country’s economy, specifiesthe characteristics as well as quantity of the waste generated. Theaccelerated development of China has resulted in enormous growthin MSW generation within a period of five years of 1998–2002. Thissignificant rise in waste production is attributed to the increase inits GDP (World Bank, 2003). The rise in GDP affects the consump-tion pattern of less productive rural communities, which eventuallyleads to production of more waste. Among different countries Japanand South Korea generates around 0.4 tons/capita MSW, whilecountries like the Philippines and India generate slightly more than0.1 tons/capita/year (Lacoste and Chalmin, 2007). The per capitawaste production of selected countries is indicated in Table 2, whichclearly distinguish the difference between the waste generationrates among different countries. The amount of waste producedvaries among the different countries and also amid regions of samecountry (Table 2). This variation of waste generation rates may bedue to dissimilar consumption patterns, and different systems forMSW collection and disposal. Throughout the dry season in southAsia and China, MSW contains vast components of sand and dustfrom street sweepings. Similarly, in southern India and other trop-ical coastal regions, a large quantity of waste in the form of rawcoconut shells is produced (Ramachandra et al., 2004). The Euro-pean Union produces about 1.43 billion tons wastes per year. Thisaccounts to about 3.5 metric ton of solid waste per capita per year(ACRR, 2005). The industrial wastes are markedly different andspecific to each serving industry. The situation over the last twodecades has been aggravated due to the unabated increase in solidwaste from different urban sources. An additional source of wastethat finds their way to MSW is the waste from hospitals and clin-ics. In the majority of countries most of the smaller units does nothave any specific technique of managing these waste. When thesewastes are mixed with MSW, they pose threat for health and alsothey may have long term effect on environment (Dwivedi et al.,2009; Pattnaik and Reddy, 2009).

3. Production of MSW in some of the Malaysian cities

World population expansion has resulted in rapid boost in wastegeneration. Increase in waste generation has been mainly dueto improved standard of living (Odum and Odum, 2006). In year

d waste: Vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resour Conserv Recy

1998, the population of Kuala Lumpur (KL), Malaysia was about1,446,803, which ascended up to 2,150,000 in year 2005, how-ever, solid waste generation was 2257 tons day−1 in 1998 whichis estimated to reach up to 3478 tons day−1 in 2005 (Sivapalanet al., 2002). The country produced 5475,000 tons of solid waste

ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model

RECYCL-2384; No. of Pages 11

R.P. Singh et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 3

Table 3Solid waste composition of selected locations in peninsular Malaysia.

Wastecomposition(percentageby weight)

Petaling Jayab Kuala Lumpura Shah Alamb Bangic

Garbage 36.5 68.67 47.8 40.0Plastics 16.4 11.45 14.0 15.0Bottle/glass 3.1 1.41 4.3 4.0Paper/cardboard 27.0 6.43 20.6 18.0Metals 3.9 2.71 6.9 4.0Fabric/textiles 3.1 1.50 2.4 6.0Miscellaneous 10.0 7.83 4.0 9.0

iCdii

ot(5f(eFMaroanaallaSgpip

4w

es2fmaDwhsgiict

Table 4Relative composition of municipal solid waste from low, medium and high-incomecountries.

Parameters (%) Low-income country Medium High-income

Organic (putriscible) 40–85 20–65 20–30Paper 1–10 15–30 15–40Plastics 1–5 2–6 2–10Metal 1–5 1–5 3–13Glass 1–10 1–10 4–10Rubber, leather, etc. 1–5 1–5 2–10Other 15–60 15–50 2–10Moisture content (%) 40–80 40–60 5–20

−3

a Nasir (2007).b Wahid et al. (1996).c Wan Abdul Rahim Wan Ali (1992).

n 2001, which is about 0.81 kg cap−1 day−1 (Hanssan et al., 2001).urrently, about 26,000 tons of MSW is produced in Malaysia peray (Agamutu, 2008). Solid waste composition of selected locations

n peninsular Malaysia is given in Table 3. The waste production rates anticipated to rise steadily as the Malaysian economy grows.

According to the Malaysian statistics department the populationf Kuala Lumpur was 1604 million in 2007 (Saeed et al., 2009) andhis city all alone produces around 3000 tons of solid waste each daySivapalan et al., 2002). Unofficial recycling activities divert about% of this waste while the remaining 95% go to the landfill sitesor dumping (Agamuthu and Fauziah, 2008). Around 1 billion RMUS$26 million) is required to dispose off these wastes and it isxpected to swell up with the increase in fuel price (Agamuthu andauziah, 2007). According to Yunus and Kadir (2003) presently, inalaysia landfilling is the only technique used for the MSW disposal

nd almost all of the landfill sites are open dumping areas, whichesults severe environmental and social threats. Landfill disposalf wastes is becoming more difficult day by day as existing sitesre filling up at a very fast pace. Simultaneously, construction ofew landfill sites is becoming more difficult due to scarcity of land,nd increasing land prices and high demands, especially in urbanreas due to population rise. The massive disposal of waste intoandfills may results in different environmental impacts includingeachate contamination, problem of pest, land degradation and maylso create health-hazard to the residents living in close proximity.olid waste management has become a foremost problem for localovernments as well industries in Malaysia. If these wastes are dis-osed of as such it will require huge land mass and may result

n ground and surface water contamination, pathogens and odourroblems.

. Physico-chemical characteristics of municipal solidaste

By and large lifestyles, cultural traditions, economic status, lit-racy rates, dietary habits, climatic and geographical conditionsignificantly contribute to the varied MSW characteristics (Jin et al.,006) (Table 4). In Europe, MSW includes the waste that originatingrom households, public buildings areas, as well as in small com-

erce (Eurostat, 2003). It does not include human faeces (night soil)nd the sewage sludge generated in waste water treatment plants.emolition debris, agricultural throw away, industrial wastes asell as hospital fritter away are also not incorporated. On the otherand, in Asia, MSW is considered as the waste generated by humanettlements as well by the industries which produce consumer

Please cite this article in press as: Singh RP, et al. Management of urban soli(2011), doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.02.005

oods. Therefore, waste from demolition debris and agricultural arencluded. Hospital waste and sometimes also human excrement arencluded as well. Since all types of waste generated in an area areollected altogether, industrial waste resulting from the produc-ion of consumer goods can also be included, even though it is not

Density (kg m ) 250–500 170–330 100–170Calorific value (kcal kg−1) 800–1100 1000–1300 1500–2700

Source: INTOSA (2002) and Cointreau (2006).

covered by the term MSW. Consequently, waste from The Asiancities can have a significant hazardous potential than that of TheEuropean. The amounts as well as composition of generated solidwaste are also affected by several factors like the socio-economicdevelopment of the area, degree of industrialization, and climate.The difference in waste composition (%) of low, middle, and highIncome countries can be seen in Table 4. However, Table 5 showsthe chemical characteristics of municipal solid waste generatedfrom different Indian cities.

5. Existing waste management practices

According to Tchobanoglous et al. (1993) six functional elementsconstitute solid waste management (SWM) practices. It begins withwaste generation, followed by storage and handling of waste at thesource, collection, transfer and transport, treatment and transfor-mation processes, and at last disposal process. The most basic andfundamental elements of SWM practices is getting reliable and con-sistent data about the sources and types of solid wastes, along withthe composition data and rates of generation.

Currently Asia’s urban centre spend around US$25 billion onSWM each year, this figure will amplify and is supposed to reachto US$47 billion in 2025 (Bartone, 2000). This amount is usedin collecting more than 90% of the waste in high income coun-tries, just about 50–80% in middle income countries, and only30–60% in low income countries (World Bank, 1999). By year2025, the Asian governments should look forward to spend atleasttwice over of amount (in 1998 US dollars) on SWM activities(World Bank, 1999). Presently daily waste generation rate is about760,000 tons which is expected to rise and reach to 1.8 million tonsby 2025 (Mongkolnchaiarunya, 2005). The improper waste han-dling system, its collection, storage and disposal techniques resultsin environmental and public health risks.

In densely populated urban centers appropriate and safe MSWmanagement is of utmost importance to create a healthy environ-ment for the people. In the developing world one to two thirdsof the MSW generated is dumped indiscriminately on streets orin drains (World Resources Institute, 1996), consequently result-ing floods, insect and rodent breeding grounds and the spread ofdiseases (UNEP-IETC, HIID, 1996). The collected waste is usuallydumped on land in a relatively unrestrained way (Mosler et al.,2006). Due to lack of adequate waste disposal techniques, surfaceand groundwater are contaminated as a result of leachate, the soilby direct waste contact or leachate, the air by means of waste burn-ing or the uncontrolled release of methane from anaerobic wastedecomposition, the spread of diseases by different vectors such as

d waste: Vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resour Conserv Recy

birds, insects and rodents (Schertenleib and Meyer, 1992). The so-called landfill is by and large a covering refuse in the dump site bysoil, neither with proper technical input nor with treatment of theemerging emissions to water, air and soil. The undesirable SWM

ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model

RECYCL-2384; No. of Pages 11

4 R.P. Singh et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

Table 5Chemical characteristics of municipal solid waste in Indian cities.

Population range(in million)

Moisture content Organic mattercontent

Nitrogen as total N Phosphorus asP2O2

Potassium as K2O2 C/N ratio Calorific value(kcal kg−1)

0.1–0.5 25.81‘ 37.09 0.71 0.63 0.83 30.94 1009.890.5–1.0 19.52 25.14 0.66 0.56 0.69 21.13 900.611.0–2.0 26.98 26.89 0.64 0.82 0.72 23.68 980.05

S

pti2

tsrremrnrvam

wampedsimuofvsetpopo

aaewiwrstu

6

ts

2.0–5.0 21.03 25.60 0.56>5.0 38.72 39.07 0.56

ource: Sharholy et al. (2008) and Anon. (2000).

ractices in most cities of developing countries results in problemshat impair human and animal well being and ultimately resultsn economic, environmental and biological losses (Sharholy et al.,008).

According to Collivignarelli et al. (2004), in the developing coun-ries solid waste management system deals with various complexituations, together with low technical skill and small financialesources covering collection and transfer costs only, leaving noesources for safe final disposal. Owing to limited resource, thever-growing quantities of MSW are not accompanied with properanagement practice. These situations pose a serious public health

isks and have also resulted in environmental degradation in aumber of cities of the developing world (Diaz et al., 1999). Severalesearchers have been reported inappropriate SWM practices inarious cities of developing countries (Sharholy et al., 2008; Chungnd Carlos, 2008). Fig. 1 shows the existing municipal solid wasteanagement system in India.Waste minimization is a technique used to achieve lessening of

aste, mainly via reduction at source, but also includes recyclingnd reuse of materials. Recycling process is a very significant ele-ent of the sustainable waste management system that follows the

rinciple of reducing the amount of the waste disposed by recov-ring the useful resources which would otherwise end up in theisposal sites. Recycling is a series of activities involving collection,orting and processing or converting used or discarded materialsnto useful products. Discarded materials are collected from the

unicipal waste stream and used as raw materials in the prod-ct manufacturing process rather than for energy generation. Lotsf materials comprising MSW can be reduced, reused and recycledor which have markets value. Recycling process coverts waste intoaluable resources that would otherwise become waste. Materialsuch as paper, glass, plastic, leather, rubber and metals can be recov-red from MSW stream (Bhoyar et al., 1996) and sent to facilitieshat can process them into new materials or products. Recycledaper is well recognized raw product for paper industry. The econ-my as well as environment is benefited from waste minimizationrocess. It helps in reducing the burden of final waste to be disposedff.

In India the recycling process is mainly carry out by rag pickersnd they play a significant role in the economy of solid waste man-gement process (Agarwal et al., 2005). According to Mangalangt al. (2003) presently, recyclable materials are removed from theaste stream and recycled at many points such as prior to disposal

n the household, during segregated collection, in the garbage truckhile transporting the waste to disposal site, by rag pickers from

oadside litters and illegally dumped garbage and at the dumpingite by resident waste pickers. Rag pickers nourish the demand ofhe intermediary buyers, who in turn meet the demand of factoriessing recyclable solid waste as raw materials.

Please cite this article in press as: Singh RP, et al. Management of urban soli(2011), doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.02.005

. Options for MSW management

For providing efficient MSW management systems that areechnically feasible, reliable, economically viable, environmentallyound and socially acceptable, there are number of technologies

0.69 0.78 22.45 907.180.52 0.52 30.11 800.70

that have the potential for application in Malaysia as well indeveloping countries like India, Thailand, Indonesia, etc. Thesetechnologies include landfilling, waste to energy, land applica-tion, composting, vermicomposting and the more recent systemslike pyrolysis and refuse-derived fuel. Waste management withhelp of biological or thermal treatment can result in recovery ofuseful products such as compost or energy. Biological treatmentinvolves use of microorganisms to decompose the biodegradablecomponents of waste. There are two types of biological treatmentprocesses i.e. aerobic and anaerobic processes. Waste managementvia thermal treatment technologies includes combustion, incin-eration, gasification as well as pyrolysis, which usually involvehigh temperatures to facilitate chemical process reactions to takeplace. In many developing countries a wide range of msw man-agement alternatives are available and some of them are discussedbelow.

6.1. Land filling

Landfill is an area of land upon or into which waste is deposited.The aim of the technology is to avoid any contact between the wasteand the surrounding environment, particularly the groundwater.According to Barrett and Lawlor (1995) landfill is the simplest,cheapest and most cost-effective method of disposing of waste. Inthe majority of low to medium income developing nations, more orless 100% of waste generated finds its way to landfill sites. Even inmany developed countries, most solid waste is landfilled. Landfillscan be classified into three categories, which are:

(i) Open dumps or open landfills: These are the most commonnon-engineered disposal techniques frequently used in alldeveloping countries. Open dumping process involves therefuse simply being dumped haphazardly into low lying areasof open land. An open dumpsite is a land disposal site at whichsolid wastes are disposed of in a manner that does not pro-tect the environment, is susceptible to open burning, and isexposed to the elements, disease vectors and scavengers. Dis-posal of MSW involving unscientific practices attracts birds,rodents and fleas to the waste dumping site and creating unhy-gienic conditions (Anon., 2001; Suchitra, 2007). In India morethan 90% of solid waste in cities and towns are directly disposedoff on land in an unacceptable manner (Sharholy et al., 2008;Narayana, 2009), thereby causing numerous health, environ-mental and aesthetic hazards (Ambulkar and Shekdar, 2004).

(ii) Semi-controlled or operated landfills: These are selected siteswhere the dumped refuse is compacted and daily a topsoilcovering is provided to prevent any nuisances. All kinds ofmunicipal, industrial, and clinical/hospital wastes are dumpedwithout segregation. This type of landfill is not engineered tomanage the leachate discharge or emissions of landfill gases.

d waste: Vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resour Conserv Recy

(iii) Sanitary landfills: These are used in developed countries andhave facilities for interception and treatment of the leachates.There are generally two major environmental concerns withsanitary landfills: the generation of leachate and obnoxiousgases. These types of landfill have arrangements for the control

ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model

RECYCL-2384; No. of Pages 11

R.P. Singh et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 5

waste

tscpoftprttpim

6

oqp

••••

Hol

Fig. 1. Existing municipal solid

of gases generated from waste decomposition (Tchobanoglouset al., 1993).

Sanitary landfilling is an entirely engineered disposal alterna-ive, which avoids harmful effects of uncontrolled dumping bypreading, compacting and covering the wasteland that has beenarefully engineered before use. Through proper site selection,reparation and management, the operators can lessen the effectsf leachates and gas production both in the present and in theuture. Waste arriving at sanitary landfills site is compacted andhen covered with a layer of soil, usually every day. The com-acted soil layer restricts continued access to the waste by insects,odents and other animals. It also isolates the refuse, minimizinghe amount of surface water entering into and gas escaping fromhe waste (Turk, 1970). Since all other waste management optionsroduce some residue that must be disposed off through landfill-

ng, sanitary landfilling is a necessary component of solid wasteanagement.

.2. Waste to energy

The most important parameters, which determine the potentialf energy recovery from wastes (Including MSW), are quantity anduality (physico-chemical characteristics) of waste. The importanthysical parameters of waste requiring consideration include:

Size of constituentsDensityMoisture contentCalorific value

Please cite this article in press as: Singh RP, et al. Management of urban soli(2011), doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.02.005

Smaller size helps in more rapid decomposition of the waste.igh density waste reflects a high proportion of biodegradablerganic matter and moisture content in waste. On the other handow-density wastes indicate a high proportion of paper, plastic

management system in India.

and other combustibles matter. High moisture content results inmore rapid decomposition of biodegradable waste fraction thanthat in dry conditions. It also renders the waste rather unsuitable forthermo-chemical conversion (incineration, pyrolysis/gasification)for energy recovery, as heat must first be supplied for moistureremoval. The average calorific value of the Malaysian MSW isabout 2200 kcal kg−1 ranging between 2640 and 1540 kcal kg−1

(Kathirvale et al., 2004). Table 5 shows the moisture content as wellas calorific value of MSW originated from different Indian cities.Some of the wastes to energy technologies are as followed.

Bio-chemical conversion: This process involves the enzymaticdegradation of organic matter by microbial action to producemethane gas or alcohol. This process is preferred for wastes hav-ing higher percentage of biodegradable organic (putriscible) matterand high level of moisture/water content, which aids microbialactivity.

Biogasification: This is also called biomethanisation. This pro-cess involves biomass decomposition using anaerobic bacteria toproduce biogas containing 60:40 mixtures of methane (CH4), andcarbon dioxide (CO2) and simultaneously generating an enrichedsludge fertilizer – with an energy content of 22.5 MJ m−3. In Anaer-obic digestion (AD) the organic fraction of municipal solid wasteoffers the advantage of both a net energy gain by producingmethane as well as the production of a fertilizer from the residuals(Edelmann et al., 2000).

Pyrolysis and gasification: Pyrolysis is the thermal degradationof waste in the absence of air to produce gas (often termed syn-gas), liquid (pyrolysis oil) or solid (char, mainly ash and carbon).Pyrolysis generally takes place between 400 and 1000 ◦C. Gasifi-cation process takes place at higher temperatures than pyrolysis

d waste: Vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resour Conserv Recy

(1000–1400 ◦C) in a controlled amount of oxygen (NSCA, 2002). Theend product of pyrolysis and gasification process is syngas, whichis mainly composed of carbon monoxide and hydrogen (85%), withsmaller quantities of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane and variousother hydrocarbon gases (Bridgwater, 1994). Syngas has a calorific

IN PRESSG

R

6 vation and Recycling xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

voic

rapsoo

rtahuacbcp

6

wcpaain2ocHwmmifh

6

ttl(cctniniimwptc

Table 6Difference between composting and vermicomposting process.

Parameters Composting Vermicomposting

Wastecharacteristics

Sorted organic fractionof MSW, preferablewith same rate ofdecomposition

Any organic wastewhich is notappreciably oily, spicy,salty or hard, and thatdo not have excessalkalinity or acidity

Particle size Between 25 and 75 mmfor optimum results

Between 25 and 50 mmfor optimum results

C/N ratio Between 20 and 50initially, release ofammonia andimpeding of biologicalactivity at lower ratios.Nitrogen as a limitingnutrient at higherratios

30:1 preferred

Moisture content 55% optimum 40–55% preferable;cover the tank withwet sack and sprinklewater as required

pH Not requirement of anyspecific pH

Vermi-beds have to bemaintained atfavorable pH

Process involved Thermophilic stagemust be attained

No thermophilic stageis required

Time duration Microorganismsdecompose substrateand it takes a longerperiod to mature

Microorganisms andearthworms combinetheir activities totransform thesubstrate. Maturesrelatively faster thancompost

Texture Compost is coarsertextured

Vermicomposts arefiner textured

Fate of heavy metal Risk of heavy metals in Heavy metals are

ARTICLEModel

ECYCL-2384; No. of Pages 11

R.P. Singh et al. / Resources, Conser

alue, so it can be used as a fuel to generate electricity or steamr as a basic chemical feedstock in the petrochemical and refiningndustries. The calorific value of this syngas will depend upon theomposition of the input waste to the gasifier.

Pyrolysis as well as gasification of MSW is very attractive ineducing and avoiding corrosion and emissions by retaining alkalind heavy metals (Malkow, 2004). From the pyrolysis/gasificationrocesses there would be a net reduction in the emission of theulphur di-oxide and particulates matter. However, the emissionf oxides of nitrogen VOCs and dioxins might be similar with thether thermal waste treatment technology (DEFRA, 2004).

Incineration: It is a thermal waste management process whereaw or unprocessed waste can be used as feedstock. Incinera-ion occupies the last priority in an integrated waste managementpproach, after waste prevention, reuse, recycling and compostingave been carried out. Incineration is the combustion of wastesnder controlled conditions at 850 ◦C in an enclosed structurend at last waste is converted to carbon dioxide, water and non-ombustible materials with solid residue state called incineratorottom ash (IBA) that always contains a small amount of residualarbon (DEFRA, 2007). The incineration process takes place in theresence of sufficient quantity of air to oxidize the feedstock (fuel).

.3. Land application of waste

This process involves the direct land application of organicaste in agricultural area without any pretreatment. Land appli-

ation of organic waste materials such as such as sewage sludgerovides valuable nutrients and helps in organically enriching soilsnd restoring the opportunity for improved plant growth (Singhnd Agrawal, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010a). Organic waste from munic-pal area usually contains high organic matter, micronutrients,itrogen, phosphorous, potassium (Sigua, 2005; González et al.,008). The macronutrients present in waste serves as a good sourcef plant nutrients and the organic constituents provide benefi-ial soil conditioning properties (Singh and Agrawal, 2008, 2010b).eavy metals are also abundant in waste due to mixing of industrialastes and changing life style (Mc Grath et al., 2000). This is cause ofain concern. As their long-term use can cause heavy metal accu-ulation in soil (Lopez-Mosquera et al., 2000). Once accumulated

n soil, heavy metals may be transferred at elevated levels to theood chain (Page et al., 1987), which may pose a variety of humanealth problems (Wang et al., 2003).

.4. Composting

Composting is one of the most preferred methods of SWM prac-ice, principally due to the high percentage of organic material inhe waste composition. Composting is the process of aerobic bio-ogical decomposition of organic waste under controlled conditionstemperature, humidity and pH) resulting in a soil conditioner thatan be used in landscaping, agriculture and horticultural works. Itan be an alternative technique for reducing the amount of wasteshat are landfilled, thus extending their lifespan. Composting doesot generate odors and does not attract flies or other animals when

t is conducted under controlled conditions. It helps in recyclingutrients by returning them back to the soil. The lower content of

norganic materials that enters in the process, higher is the qual-ty of resultant compost. As organic matter generally contains high

Please cite this article in press as: Singh RP, et al. Management of urban soli(2011), doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.02.005

oisture content, evaporation and decomposition can reduce theeight of the material by about 50%. Composting also preventsollution and extends the life of landfills. It is socially desirableo divert as much as possible organic matter from the landfills foromposting process, if it can be done at a low cost.

and pathogen the compost, may havechances of pathogens

removed andaccumulated withinworm bodies, pathogenfree

6.5. Vermicomposting

It is a comparatively new method in composting, and involvesthe stabilization of organic solid waste through earthworm con-sumption that converts the waste into earthworm castings.Vermicomposting is the result of combined activity of microorgan-isms and earthworms (Table 6). Table 6 deals with the differencesbetween composting and vermicomposting process. The choice ofthe right species of earthworm for vermicomposting is the primestep as it affects the rate of waste stabilization therefore theirproper selection is essential. There are lots of earthworm’s specieshaving the potential to be used in waste management and sludgestabilization practices. The earthworm’s species having the capabil-ity to colonize organic throw away naturally, high rates of organicmatter consumption, digestion and assimilation, able to toleratea wide range of environmental stress, having high reproductiverates by producing large number of cocoons having short hatch-ing time, rapid growth and maturation rate of hatchlings to adults(Domínguez and Edwards, 2004) are suitable to be used in ver-micomposting process. The comparison among some universallyused earthworm species in vermicomposting is given in Table 7.Earthworms sustain aerobic conditions in the waste mixture, ingestsolids, and convert a share of the organic matter into biomass andrespiration products (Benitez et al., 1999). Earthworms expels the

d waste: Vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resour Conserv Recy

residual partially stabilized matter as discrete material commonlyknown as vermicasting (Benitez et al., 1999). The amount turnedover by earthworm depends on the availability of total suitableorganic matter. If the soil physical conditions are suitable the num-ber of earthworms increases, until the food becomes a limiting

ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model

RECYCL-2384; No. of Pages 11

R.P. Singh et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 7

Table 7Comparison of some earthworms species used in vermicomposting.

Parameter Eisenia fetida Eisenia andrei Lumbricus rubellus Perionyx excavatus

Colour Brown and buff bands Red Reddish brown Reddish brownOptimum temperature (◦C) 18–25 15–20 25–30Age for cocoon production (weeks) 5–9 15–18No of young’s/cocoon 2–4 2–4 1 1Life cycle (days) 45–51 45–51 120–170 40–50Incubation period (days) 18–26 18–26 35–40 18

02

S

fiso

7

emintotbdwtfimitdteraillaoplatlmc

fthcticwmgwo

Average weight of adult (g) 0.55Time to maturity (days) 28–30

ource: Dash and Senapati (1985) and Domínguez and Edwards (2004).

actor. The smaller earthworms feeding on the litter produces castn form of almost entirely fragmented litter, whereas the largerpecies consume large proportion of soil, and their casts have lessrganic matter.

. Preferred technologies for waste management

An effective SWM system must be both environmentally andconomically sustainable. The waste management technologyust reduce the environmental impacts of as much as possible and

t should also be cost affective. Effective management and coordi-ation between several solid waste techniques such as collection,ransportation and processing is necessary to manage and disposef the specific components of the waste stream. To do this effec-ively, the different management activities have to be supportedy practical, sound and effective policies and strategies. Table 8eals with the environmental impacts of different municipal solidaste management techniques. Emissions from landfill sites are

he third largest contributors to global warming in India. The land-ll gas constitute of 50–60% methane (Suchitra, 2007), which isain greenhouse gas contributing significantly to global warm-

ng. Land filling in appropriate way results in serious damages inerms of deteriorated water quality in nearby areas of landfill sitesue to percolation of leachates, adverse health impacts on popula-ion living in close proximity, bad odors and the constant fear of anxplosion of methane gas emitted from landfill sites (Table 8). Manyeviews suggested an association between exposure to landfill sitesnd ill health. Sever (1997) and Johnson (1997, 1999) highlighted anncreased risk of birth defects and some cancers for the inhabitantsiving near landfill sites. Ultimate disposal of wastes at sanitaryandfills is given the least priority in an integrated waste man-gement approach. Sanitary landfills are essential for final disposalf the wastes that cannot be prevented, reused, recycled or com-osted. Sanitary landfill requires significant investments. Sanitary

andfills may include pollution control measures, such as collectionnd treatment of leachate, and venting or flaring of methane. Elec-ricity can be produced by burning the methane generated fromandfills. Properly managed sanitary landfills significantly mini-

ize pollution and risks to human health and the environment asompared to open dumping.

Wastes from developing countries are usually not allowedor energy recovery, due to their high moisture and high con-ent of organic matter (Table 5). Experience with incinerationas been almost negative in developing countries. The moistureontent of wastes from developing countries is so high that addi-ional fuel is required to maintain combustion, which significantlyncreased the costs. Malaysia, being a country with a tropicallimate, enjoys abundant rainfall throughout the year. Together

Please cite this article in press as: Singh RP, et al. Management of urban soli(2011), doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.02.005

ith this is fact Malaysians usually dispose of their garbage inakeshift containers, which allow rainfall to get in, causing the

arbage to collect water. This affects the calorific value of theaste, which is only about 2200 kcal kg−1. Calorific value of most

f the Indian waste had a just 800.13 kcal kg−1 (3350 J g−1) com-

.55 0.80 0.50–0.601–28 74–91 28–42

pared with 2197.38 kcal kg (9200 J g−1) in high-income countries(Satishkumar et al., 2000). This calorific value is very low for self-sustaining combustion, thus making incineration of this kind ofwaste an uneconomical option. Inspite of this the foremost concernabout incinerators has been the emission of a group of persistentorganic compounds known as “dioxins” specifically polychlori-nated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans(PCDFs), and polychlorinated biphenils (PCBs) (Table 8). Incom-plete combustion of municipal waste, medical waste and householdwaste produces PCDDs and PCDFs (Dyke et al., 1997; Fielder, 2007).These substances are non biodegradable and get accumulated infood (dairy products, eggs, fish, animal fat), and many of them(29) are considered to be toxic (USEPA, 1994a, 1994b). Experienceof composting of mixed municipal solid wastes has been largelynegative in developing countries. When inorganic materials suchas plastics and metals are mixed in with organic matter, they areconsidered contaminants and the quality of the compost is lower.Source separation of organic matter at residences for compostingis a difficult task. Market waste, however, usually contains a highpercentage of organic matter, since it is composed, to a large extent,of discarded produce.

It can be concluded from Table 5, that the Indian waste has ahigh organic matter content, which makes it suitable for processessuch as composting/vermicomposting and anaerobic digestion. TheC/N ratio falls between 20 and 30 and to a great extent this ratiois suitable for composting process (Eiland et al., 2001). The aware-ness for organic manure is increasing rapidly in developing worldthat will in turn increase the demand for the manure produced fromMSW (Garibay and Jyothi, 2003). If not managed properly the prob-lem of methane emission a major green house gase and chances ofexplosion restricts the uses of anaerobic digestion technology.

8. Benefits of vermicomposting process

Like the conventional compost, vermicompost is advantageousto agricultural soil due to increased moisture retention ability, bet-ter nutrient holding capacity, superior soil structure, and higherlevels of microbial activity (Tables 9 and 10). According to Suthar(2009) vermicomposting results in a better quality product in termsof nutrient availability than traditional composting system. Vermi-culture technology has a number of benefits, as it is odourless, costefficient, free of toxic waste and its resultant is a valuable end prod-uct. According to Ghosh et al. (1999) vermicomposting might be anefficient technology for providing better P nutrition from differentorganic wastes.

Atiyeh et al. (2000) reported that compost is superior in ammo-nium, whereas vermicompost tends to be higher in nitrates,which is the more plant-available form of nitrogen. Similarly,

d waste: Vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resour Conserv Recy

Hammermeister et al. (2004) reported that vermicompostedmanure has higher available N than usually composted manurehave. Supply rate of number of nutrients were amplified as resultof vermicomposting as compared with traditional composting(Hammermeister et al., 2004). Norbu (2002) reported that volatile

ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model

RECYCL-2384; No. of Pages 11

8 R.P. Singh et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

Table 8Environmental impacts of different municipal solid waste management techniques.

Landfill Waste-energy(incineration)

Composting Recycling Land spreading Anaerobicdigestion

Air pollution Carbon dioxide, CO2 *** **** *** *** *** ****Methane, CH4 ***a *** ****Nitrous oxide, N2O *** ****VOCs *** *** *** *** ***Odour and dustBioaerosols

*** *** ***

Noise pollution Noise *** *** ***Soil pollution HMs and toxic compounds *** *** *** ***Water pollution Leachates (HMs, synthetic

organic compounds)*** Fall out of

atmosphericpollutants

*** *** ***

Bacteria, viruses, vectors, etc. *** *** *** ***

a Anon. (2003) and Giusti (2009); VOCs, volatile organic compounds; HMS, heavy metals.

Table 9Comparison between composting and vermicomposting process.

Pretreatment indicators Aerobic composting Vermicomposting Remarks

Volatile solid Applicable Applicable Greater reduction was obtained during vermicompostingC/N ratio Applicable Applicable Greater reduction was obtained during vermicompostingpH Applicable Not applicable Vermi-beds have to be maintained at favorable pHVolume reduction Applicable Applicable Not comparable, as waste input in the Vermibed has to be precomposedTemperature Not-applicable Applicable Vermibed beds have to be maintained at favorable temperatureElemental concentration Applicable Applicable Higher in compost as compared to that in the vermicompost.

Exchangeable nutrients are higher in vermicompost

Source: Norbu (2002).

Table 10Comparative study between vermicompost and compost produced from MSW.

Day Volatile solid reduction Nitrogen % C/N ratio

Compost Vermicompost Compost Vermicompost Compost Vermicompost

1 68 68 1.76 1.76 21.46 21.464 63.6 67 1.75 1.76 20.19 21.147 64 63 × × × ×10 60 64 1.77 1.8 18.83 19.75

7756

S

sth

iataotp

TP

S

16 60 55 1.Reduction % 11.76 19.11 −0.

ource: Norbu (2002).

olid reduction during the vermicomposting process proved betterhan the aerobic composting, the difference of 7.3% was recordedigher in the former case (Table 9).

Vermicomposting is an environmentally sustainable process ast leads in destruction of pathogens, small green house emissions,nd is scalable to suit any volume. According to Eastman (1999)he process of vermicomposting can also result in a product with

Please cite this article in press as: Singh RP, et al. Management of urban soli(2011), doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.02.005

lower pathogen level than that in compost. The nutrient contentf the vermicompost depends upon the quality of feed materialo earthworm. The physico-chemical characteristics of vermicom-ost formed in appropriate manner have been given in Table 11

able 11hysico-chemical parameters of vermicompost.

Parameters Values

1 pH 6.8–7.52 Organic carbon 25.4–27.5%3 Nitrogen 1.2–1.6%4 C/N ratio 15–185 Phosphorus (available) 0.3–0.5%6 Potassium (available) 0.6–0.7%7 Calcium 4.2–6.7%8 Magnesium 0.2–0.3%9 Sulphur 0.4–0.5%

ource: Kale (2002).

1.89 18.83 16.16−7.38 12.25 24.69

(Kale, 2002). The vermicompost is found to be rich in nitrogenand organic carbon. Carbon:nitrogen ratios also falled between15 and 18 (Table 11). C:N ratio is one of the most widely usedindicators of vermicompost maturation (Kale, 2002). The loss ofcarbon as CO2 during microbial respiration and addition of nitro-gen rich excretory material helps in decreasing the C:N ratio of thesubstrate.

Elevated amounts of NH4, NO3, Mg, K and P have been identi-fied in earthworm castings as compared to soil by several workers(Gupta and Sakal, 1967; Tiwari et al., 1989). According to Govindan(1998) earthworm body contains 65% protein, 14% fats, 14% carbo-hydrates and 3% ash. In the same way Ronald and Donald (1977)concluded that, 72% of the dry weight of an earthworm is proteinand about 0.01 g of nitrate is released in the soil on the death of anearthworm. In addition to this, earthworms consume large amountof plant organic matter containing considerable quantities of N, andmuch of this is returned in form of their excretions to the soil. It hasreported that N mineralization would be greater in the presence ofearthworms and this mineral N is retained in soil in nitrate form(Hand et al., 1988). According to Parthasarathi and Ranganathan

d waste: Vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resour Conserv Recy

(2000) enhanced N, P and K contents in vermicomposts may bedue to microbial enzyme activities while passing through the gutof earthworms. Earthworms help in lowering the C/N ratio of freshorganic matter during respiration (Edwards, 1998; Talashilkar et al.,1999).

ING

R

vation

ecacoamin1ehae

9

wiedalutaapciwaeeoacivtTgovttr

A

(p

R

A

A

A

ARTICLEModel

ECYCL-2384; No. of Pages 11

R.P. Singh et al. / Resources, Conser

Earthworm ingests large amount of substrates and are thereforexposed to heavy metals through their skin and intestine. They con-entrate heavy metals in their body from the substrates (Morgannd Morgan, 1999; Leonard et al., 2001) due to this reason, vermi-omposting can be used in the toxic metals removal and breakdownf complex chemicals to non-toxic forms (Jain et al., 2004; Jainnd Singh, 2004). Shahmansouri et al. (2005) reported that heavyetals absorption in the vermicompost decreased with increas-

ng composting time. Vermicompost can be used effectively as aatural absorbent for heavy metal accumulation (Landgraf et al.,998; Matos and Arruda, 2003). According to Saxena et al. (1998),arthworms (Eisenia foetida) accumulate higher concentration ofeavy metals during vermicomposting of sewage sludge. Spurgeonnd Hopkin (1995) reported drastic reduction in reproduction ofarthworm in soils contaminated with copper.

. Conclusions

Disposal of the municipal solid waste is a serious problemorldwide. Landfilling requires huge landmass and is econom-

cally expensive process. Land filling may also result in severalnvironmental and health problems. Municipal solid waste fromeveloping world has high moisture content and calorific value islso very low, therefore waste to energy option is also not eco-ogically as well as environmentally feasible. Land application ofrban/municipal solid waste can be a good waste managementechnology as it is rich in organic matter and contains significantmount of recyclable plant nutrients, but presence of heavy met-ls and different toxics substances restricts its land use withoutrocessing. Composting of these wastes is a feasible option butompost resulting from the process is low in nutritive value andt is a time consuming process. Vermicomposting of solid organic

aste from industrial as well as municipal origin can be a suit-ble alternative technology for the managing these waste. As thend product is pathogen free, odourless and rich in plant nutri-nts as compared to conventional compost. Agricultural utilizationf vermicompost will help in recycling the plant nutrients to soilnd also avoid soil degradation. Agricultural utilization of vermi-ompost will also add to the economy by reducing the load onnorganic fertilizer and increasing the plant yield. Moreover usingermicompost as organic amendment will help in maintaininghe sustainability of ecosystem. In developing world like Malaysia,hailand, Korea, Indonesia, etc. there are very few research workoing on vermicomposting of municipal solid waste or other wastef organic origin. They have lot of potential for this technology. Theermicomposting of these wastes will be very helpful in tacklinghe waste disposal problem as well it will be useful in recyclinghe plant nutrients present and will convert this waste into usefulesource.

cknowledgement

The authors acknowledge USM for providing research facilitiesGrant number 304/PTEKIND/6310003). Ademir S.F. Araujo is sup-orted by personal fellowship from CNPq-Brazil.

eferences

gamuthu P, Fauziah SH. Recent issues in solid waste management in Malaysia:the solid waste bill. In: Proceedings of the 3rd expert meeting on solid wastemanagement in Asia and Pacific Islands; 2007. p. S1-3-1–S1-3-6.

Please cite this article in press as: Singh RP, et al. Management of urban soli(2011), doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.02.005

gamuthu P, Fauziah SH. Waste management technologies in Malaysia: the futureprospect. In: Proceeding of ICAST future challenge: an integrated approachtowards science and technology for sustainable development Pahang; 2008. p.1–3.

gamutu P. Electure is presented between Malaysia and Japan. Faculty of Science,University of Malaya; 2008, January.

PRESSand Recycling xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 9

Agarwal A, Singhmar A, Kulshreshtha M, Mittak AK. Municipal solid waste recyclingand associated markets in Delhi, India. Resources, Conservation and Recycling2005;44(1):73–90.

Ambulkar AR, Shekdar AV. Prospects of biomethanation technology in theIndian context: a pragmatic approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling2004;40(2):111–28.

Anon. Municipal solid waste and its role in sustainability. A position paper preparedby IEA Bioenergy; 2003, http://www.ieabioenergy.com.

Anon. India States of the environment, hazardous waste: special reference to munic-ipal solid waste management; 2001, http://cpcb.delhi.nic.in, p. 133–149.

Anon. The Expert Committee, manual on municipal solid waste management. TheMinistry, The Government of India, Vols. 1–2, p. 789; 2000.

Association of Cities and Regions for recycling (ACRR), Brussels Office, Gulledelle 100,B -1200 Bruxelles, Belgique, acrr@ibgebim.be, General Secretariat, The BritishSchool, Otley Street, Skipton, North Yorkshire BD23 1EP, UK, acrr@acrr.org, in:http://www.acrr.org/publications/tech-reports.htm; 2005.

Atiyeh RM, Subler S, Edwards CA, Bachman G, Metzger GD, Shuster W. Effects ofvermicomposts and composts on plant growth in horticultural container mediaand soil. Pedobiologia 2000;44:579–90.

Ayuso M, Pascual JA, Garcia C, Hernandez T. Evaluation of urban wastes for agricul-tural use. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 1996;42:105–11.

Bansal S, Kapoor KK. Vermicomposting of crop residues and cattle dung with Eiseniafoetida. Bioresource Technology 2000;73:95–8.

Barrett A, Lawlor J. The economics of waste management in Ireland. Dublin: Eco-nomic and Social Research Institute; 1995. p. 129.

Bartone CR. Strategies for improving urban solid waste services: lessons from adecade of World Bank lending. Bangkok: International workshop on creatingsustainable cities through urban environmental management, AIT; 2000, March.

Benitez E, Nogales R, Elvira C, Masciandaro G, Ceccanti B. Enzyme activities as indi-cators of the stabilization of sewage sludges composting with Eisenia foetida.Bioresource Technology 1999;67:297–303.

Bhoyar RV, Titus SK, Bhide AD, Khanna P. Municipal and industrial solid waste man-agement in India. Journal of Indian Association of Environment Management1996;23:53–64.

Bridgwater AV. Catalysis in thermal biomass conversion. Applied Catalyst A1994;116(1–2):5–47.

Chung SS, Carlos WHLo. Local waste management constraints and waste adminis-trators in China. Waste Management 2008;28(2):272–81.

Cointreau S. Occupational and environmental health issues of solid waste manage-ment; World Bank urban Sector Board. Urban Paper Series No. UP-2; July 2006.p. 48.

Collivignarelli C, Sorlini S, Vaccari M. Solid wastes management in developing coun-tries. Rome, Italy: CD-ROM of ISWA World Congress; 2004 October.

Danmanhuri MA. Hands-on experience in the production of empty fruit bunches(EFB) compost. Paper presented at the CETDEM Malaysian Organic Farming Sem-inar. Petaling, Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia; 1998. p. 50–61. Dateline: 25/10/200209:45:09r.

Dash MC, Senapati BK. Vermitechnology: potentiality of Indian earthworms for ver-micomposting and vermifeed. In: Mishra MM, Kapoor KK, editors. Proc., soilbiology symposium; 1985. p. 61–9.

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Incineration of munici-pal solid waste, waste management technology brief, the new technologies workstream of the Defra Waste Implementation Programme; 2007.

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Review of environ-mental and health effects of waste management: municipal solid waste andsimilar wastes, accomplished by Enviros Consulting Ltd. and University of Birm-ingham with Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd., Open University and Maggie Thurgoo;2004.

Diaz LF, Savage GM, Eggerth LL. Overview of solid waste management in econom-ically developing countries. In: Proceedings of organic recovery and biologicaltreatment, ORBIT 99, Part 3, Rhombos; 1999. p. 759–65.

Domínguez J, Edwards CA. Vermicomposting organic wastes: a review. In: HannaSHS, Mikhail WZA, editors. Soil zoology for sustainable development in the 21stcentury; 2004.

Dwivedi AK, Pandey S, Shashi. Hospital waste: at a glance. In: Trivedi PC, editor.Microbes applications and effect. Jaipur, India: Aavishkar Publishers and Dis-tributors; 2009. p. 114–9, ISBN 978-81-7910-271-8.

Dyke P, Coleman P, James R. Dioxins in ambient air, bonfire night 1994. Chemosphere1997;34:1191–201.

Eastman BR. Achieving pathogen stabilization using vermicomposting. Biocycle1999:62–4.

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). The state of theenvironment in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: Economic and Social Commissionfor Asia and the Pacific; 1995.

Edelmann W, Schleiss K, Joss A. Ecological, energetic and economic comparisonof anaerobic digestion with different competing technologies to treat biogenicwastes. Water Science and Technology 2000;41(3):263–73.

Edwards CA. The use of earthworms in the breakdown and management of organicwastes. In: Edwards CA, editor. Earthworm Ecology. The Netherlands: CRC Press;1998. p. 327–54.

d waste: Vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resour Conserv Recy

Eiland FM, Klamer AM, Lind M, Leth E, Baath. Influence of initial C/N ratio on chem-ical and microbial composition during long term composting of wheat straw.Microbial Ecology 2001;41(3):272–80.

Eurostat. Waste generated and treated in Europe; 2003. p. 46.Fielder H. National PCDD/PCDF release inventories under the Stockholm convention

on persistent organic pollutants. Chemosphere 2007;67:S96–108.

ING

R

1 vation

G

G

G

G

G

G

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

I

J

J

J

J

J

K

K

L

L

L

L

M

M

M

M

M

M

ARTICLEModel

ECYCL-2384; No. of Pages 11

0 R.P. Singh et al. / Resources, Conser

aribay SV, Jyothi K. Market opportunities and challenges for Indian organic prod-ucts. Research Institute for Organic Agriculture and AC Nielson ORG-MARG;2003.

hosh M, Chattopadhyay GN, Baral K. Transformation of phosphorus during vermi-composting. Bioresource Technology 1999;69:149–54.

iusti L. A review of waste management practices and their impact on human health.Waste Management 2009;29(8):2227–39, August.

onzález M, Mingorance M, Sánchez L, Pena A. Pesticide adsorption on a cal-careous soil modified with sewage sludge and quaternary alkyl-ammoniumcationic surfactants. Environmental science and pollution research international2008;15:8–14.

ovindan VS. Vermiculture and vermicomposting. In: Trivedy RK, Arvind Kumar,editors. Ecotechnology for pollution control and environmental management.Karad: Enviro Media; 1998. p. 49–57.

upta ML, Sakal R. Role of earthworms on availability of nutrients in gardenand cultivated soils. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science 1967;15:149–51.

ammermeister AM, Warman PR, Jeliakova EA, Martin RC. Nutrient supply andlettuce growth in response to vermicomposted and composted cattle manure.Journal of Bioresource Technology 2004 (Quoted in Munroe, 2007).

and P, Hayes WA, Frankland JC, Satchell JE. The vermicomposting of cow slurry.Pedobiologia 1988;31:199–209.

anssan MN, Chong TL, Rahman M, Salleh MN, Zakaria Z, Away M. Solid waste man-agement in Southeast Asian Countries with special attention to Malaysia. In:Proceedings Sardinia, 8th international waste management and landfill sympo-sium; 2001.

assan MN. Policies to improve solid waste management in developing countries:some insights in Southeast Asian Countries. In: Chang EE, Chiang PC, Huang CP,Vasuki NC, editors. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on solidwaste management; 2000. p. 191–207.

assen A, Belguith K, Jedidi N, Cherif A, Cherif M, Boudabous A. Microbial charac-terization during composting of municipal solid waste. Bioresource Technology2001;80:217–25.

oornweg D, Laura T. What a waste: solid management in Asia. Working PaperSeries No. 1. Washington, DC: Urban Development Sector Unit, East Asia andPacific Region, The World Bank; 1999.

oornweg D, Thomas L, Verma K. What a waste: solid waste management inAsia. Washington DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Develop-ment/World Bank; 1999.

nternational Organisation of Supreme audit institutions (INTOSAI) Towards audit-ing Waste Management. INTOSAI working group on environmental Auditing;2002.

ain K, Singh J, Chauhan LKS, Murthy RC, Gupta SK. Modulation of flyash-inducedgenotoxicity in Vicia faba by vermicomposting. Ecotoxicology and Environmen-tal Safety 2004;59:89–94.

ain K, Singh J. Modulation of fly ash induced genotoxicity in Vicia faba by vermi-composting. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2004;59:89–94.

in J, Wang Z, Ran S. Solid waste management in Macao: practices and challenges.Waste Management 2006;26:1045–51.

ohnson BL. A review of the effects of hazardous waste on reproductive health.American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1999;181(1):S12–6.

ohnson BL. Hazardous waste: human health effects. Toxicology and IndustrialHealth 1997;13(2–3):p.121–143.

ale RD. Vermicomposting technology in India: an answer to shortages in nutrientsupplies. In: Edwards CA, editor. Earthworms in the processing and utilizationof organic wastes. PA: Publ. J.G.Press; 2002, Chapter 22.

athirvale S, Yunus MNM, Kamaruzzaman S, Samsuddin AH. Energy potential frommunicipal solid waste in Malaysia Renewable Energy 2004;29(4):559–67.

acoste E, Chalmin P. From waste to resource: 2006 world waste survey. Paris:Economica; 2007.

andgraf MD, da Silva SC, Rezende MOO. Mechanism of metribuzin herbicide sorp-tion by humic acid samples from peat and vermicompost. Analytica ChimicaActa 1998;368:155–64.

eonard AO, Dolfing J, Wei-Chun M, Lexman TM. Cadmium uptake by earthwormsas related to the availability in the soil and the intestine. Environmental Con-tamination and Toxicology 2001;20:1785–91.

opez-Mosquera ME, Moiron C, Carral E. Use of dairy industry sludge as fertilizer forgrassland in northwest Spain: heavy metal levels in the soil and plants. ResourceConservation and Recycling 2000;30:95–109.

alkow T. Novel and innovation pyrolysis and gasification technologies forenergy efficient and environment sound MSW disposal. Waste Management2004;24:53–79.

angalang A, Diaz LF, Eggerth LL. Community-based waste reduction and recovery:a mandatory requirement of the Philippine Ecological Solid Waste ManagementAct. In: Christensen Thomas H, Raffaello Cossu, editors. Sardinia 2003 ninthinternational waste management and landfill symposium; 2003.

atos GD, Arruda MAZ. Vermicompost as an adsorbent for removing metal ionsfrom laboratory effluents. Process Biochemistry 2003;39(1):81–8.

c Grath S, Postma L, McCormack RJ, Dowdall C. Analysis of Irish sewage sludges:suitability of sludge for use in agriculture. Irish Journal of Agricultural & Food

Please cite this article in press as: Singh RP, et al. Management of urban soli(2011), doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.02.005

Research 2000;39:73–8.ongkolnchaiarunya J. Promoting a community-based solid waste management ini-

tiative in local government: Yala municipality, Thailand. Habitat International2005;29(1):27–40.

organ JE, Morgan AJ. The accumulation of metals (Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn and Ca) bytwo ecologically contrasting earthworm species (Lumbricus rubellus Aporrec-

PRESSand Recycling xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

todea caliginosa): implications for ecotoxicological testing. Applied Soil Ecology1999;13:9–20.

Mosler HJ, Drescher S, Zurbrügg C, Rodriguez TC, Miranda OG. Formulating wastemanagement strategies based on waste management practices of households inSantiago de Cuba, Cuba. Habitat International 2006;30(4):849–62.

Mukawi TY. Urban solid waste policy in Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the Asia Pacificregional workshop on sustainable waste management, Singapore; 2001.

Narayana T. Municipal solid waste management in India: from waste disposal torecovery of resources? Waste Management 2009;29:1163–6.

Nasir A. Institutionalising Solid Waste Management in Malaysia, Ministry of Housingand Local Government, Malaysia, 6thDecember 2007, ppt-presentation.

Norbu T. Pretreatment of Municipal Solid waste by windrow composting and Vermi-composting. M. Sc Thesis. Asian Institute of Technology, School of EnvironmentResource and Development, Thailand. 2002.

NSCA. Comparison of emissions from waste management options. National Societyfor Clean Air and Environmental Protection; 2002.

Odum HT, Odum EC. The prosperous way down. Energy 2006;31(1):21–32.Page AL, Logan TJ, Ryan JA, editors. Land Application of Sludge. Chelsea, MI: Lewis

Publishers; 1987.Parthasarathi K, Ranganathan LS. Chemical characteristics of mono and polycul-

tured soil worms casts by tropical earthworms. Environment and Ecology2000;18:742–6.

Pattnaik S, Reddy MV. Assessment of municipal solid waste managementin Puducherry (Pondicherry), India. Resources, Conservation and Recycling2009;54:512–20.

Peavy HS, Rowe DR, Tchobanoglous G. Environmental engineering. New York, NY,USA: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1987.

Ramachandra TV, Kamakshi G, Shruthi BV. Bioresource status in Karnataka. Renew-able Sustainable Energy Review 2004;8:1–47.

Ronald EG, Donald ED. Earthworms for ecology and profit, ‘Scientific EarthwormFarming’. California: Bookworm Publishing Company, Ontario; 1977, 1, ISBN0-916302-05-9.

Saeed MO, Hassan MN, Mujeebu MA. Assessment of municipal solid waste gen-eration and recyclable materials potential in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. WasteManagement 2009;29:2209–13.

Satishkumar R, Chanakya HN, Ramachandra TV. Feasible Solid Waste Management,CES Technical Report 85, Bangalore; 2000.

Saxena M, Chauhan A, Ashokan P. Fly ash vermicomposting from non-ecofriendlyorganic wastes. Pollution Research 1998;17:5–11.

Schertenleib R, Meyer W. Municipal solid waste management in DC’s: problemsand issues. Duebendorf Switzerland: Need for Future Research, IRCWD News(No. 26); 1992.

Sever LE. Environmental contamination and health effects: what is the evidence?Toxicology and Industrial Health 1997;13(2–3):145–61.

Shahmansouri MR, Pourmoghadas H, Parvaresh AR, Alidadi H. Heavy metals bioac-cumulation by Iranian and Australian Earthworms (Eisenia fetida) in the sewagesludge vermicomposting. Iranian Journal of Environmental Health, Science andEngineering 2005;2(1):28–32.

Sharholy M, Ahmad K, Mahmood G, Trivedi RC. Municipal solid waste managementin Indian cities – a review. Waste Management 2008;28(2):459–67.

Sigua GC. Current and future outlook of dredged and sewage sludge materialsin agriculture and environment. Journal of Soils and Sediments 2005;5(1):50–2.

Silva JD, Leal TT, Araújo AS, Araujo RM, Gomes RL, Melo WJ, et al. Effect ofdifferent tannery sludge compost amendment rates on growth, biomass accu-mulation and yield responses of Capsicum plants. Waste Management 2010.,doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.03.011.

Singh RP, Agrawal M. Effects of sewage sludge amendment on heavy metal accu-mulation and consequent responses of Beta vulgaris plants. Chemosphere2007;67:2229–40.

Singh RP, Agrawal M. Variations in heavy metal accumulation, growth and yield ofrice plants grown at different sewage sludge amendment rates. Ecotoxicologyand Environmental Safety 2010b;73:632–41.

Singh RP, Agrawal M. Effects of different sewage sludge amendment rates ongrowth, biomass accumulation, nutritional quality, heavy metal accumulationand yield of mung bean Vigna radiata L. plants. Ecological Engineering 2010a;36:969–72.

Singh RP, Agrawal M. Potential benefits and risks of land application of sewagesludge. Waste Management 2008;28:347–58.

Singh RP, Agrawal M. Use of sewage sludge as fertilizer supplement for Abel-moschus esculentus plants: physiological, biochemical and growth responses.International Journal of Environment and Waste Management 2009;3:91–106.

Sivapalan K, Muhd Noor MY, Abd Halim S, Kamaruzzaman S, Rakmi AR. Com-prehensive Characteristics of the Municipal Solid Waste Generation in KualaLumpur. In: Proceedings of the regional symposium on environment and naturalresources; 2002 April. p. 359–68.

Spurgeon DJ, Hopkin SP. Extrapolation of the laboratory-based OECD earthwormtoxicity test to metal-contaminated field sites. Ecotoxicology 1995;4:190–205.

Suchitra M. Outside: burnt or buried, garbage needs land. Down to Earth

d waste: Vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resour Conserv Recy

2007;15:22–4, March.Suthar S. Recycling of agro-industrial sludge through vermitechnology. Ecological

Engineering 2010;36:1028–36.Suthar S. Vermicomposting of vegetable market solid waste using Eisenia foetida:

impact of bulking material on earthworm growth and decomposition rate. Eco-logical Engineering 2009;35:914–20.

ING

R

vation

T

T

T

T

U

C

H

on refuse derived fuel and biogasification integration. In: International sympo-

ARTICLEModel

ECYCL-2384; No. of Pages 11

R.P. Singh et al. / Resources, Conser

alashilkar SC, Bhangarath PP, Mehta VP. Changes in chemical properties duringcomposting of organic residues as influenced by earthworm activity. Journal ofthe Indian Society of Soil Science 1999;47:50–3.

chobanoglous G, Theisen H, Vigil SA. Integrated solid waste management: engi-neering principles and management issues, McGraw Hill International editions,Civil Engineering series. Singapore: McGraw Hill Inc; 1993.

iwari SC, Tiwari BK, Mishra RP. Microbial population, enzyme activity activi-ties and nitrogen–phosphorous–potassium enrichment in worm casts and inthe surrounding soil of a pineapple plantation. Biology and Fertility of Soils1989;8:178–82.

urk LJ. Disposal of solid wastes acceptable practice or geological nightmare. In:Environmental geology. Washington, DC: American Geological Institute; 1970.p. 1–42.

nited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), International EnvironmentalTechnology Centre (IETC), International Source Book on Environmentally SoundTechnologies for Municipal Solid Waste Management. IETC Technical Publica-tion Series, Issue 6; 1996.

ombustion Emission Technical Resource Document (CETRED), Report No. EPA 530-

Please cite this article in press as: Singh RP, et al. Management of urban soli(2011), doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.02.005

R-94-014, US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Solid WasteEmergency Response, Washington, DC, USA; 1994a.

ealth Assessment Document for 2, 3, 7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD)and Related Compounds. EPA/600/Bp-92/001c Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-like Compounds, epa/600/6-88/005cb, US Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA), Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA; 1994b.

PRESSand Recycling xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 11

Wahid AG, Hassan MN, Muda A. Domestic and commercial waste: present andfuture trends. In: CAP-SAM national conference on the state of the Malaysianenvironment. Penang: RECDAM; 1996.

Wan Abdul Rahim Wan Ali. Classification and characterisation of local domesticsolid waste, Unpublished M. Eng. Thesis, Faculty of Engineering, University ofMalaya, Kuala Lumpur; 1992.

Wang QR, Cui YS, Liu XM, Dong YT, Christrie P. Soil contamination and plant uptakeof heavy metals at polluted sites in China. Journal of Environment Science andHealth (A) 2003;38:823–38.

World Bank Data. Website http://www.worldbank.org/adat/countrydata/countrydata.htm; March 2003.

World Bank. What a waste: solid waste management in Asia. Urban DevelopmentSector Unit East Asia and Pacific Region; 1999.

World Resources Institute. United Nations environment programme, United Nationsdevelopment programme. The World Bank, World Resources 1996–97 – TheUrban Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.

Yunus MNM, Kadir KA. The development of solid waste treatment technology based

d waste: Vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resour Conserv Recy

sium on renewable energ; 2003.Yusri A, Mat Rasol A, Mohammed O, Azizah H, Kume T, Hashimoto S. Biodegradation

of oil palm empty fruit bunch into compost by composite microorganisms. Paperpresented at the EU-ASEAN Conf. Combustion of Solids and Treated Product;1995.