Fuel Communications 22 (2025) 100135

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel Communications
journal homepage: [Link]/journal/fuel-communications

Life cycle environmental assessment of Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) as an

alternative to fossil fuels in cement production: A sustainable approach for
mitigating carbon emissions
Helia Salaripoor , Hossein Yousefi * , Mahmood Abdoos
School of Energy Engineering and Sustainable Resources, College of Interdisciplinary Science and Technology, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study evaluates the environmental impacts of using Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) as an alternative fuel in the
Refuse-Derived Fuel cement industry during natural gas shortages in Tehran, Iran. Given the increasing municipal solid waste pro­
Cement industry duction and the cement industry’s significant carbon emissions, this research takes an innovative approach to
Life cycle assessment
assess RDF’s potential to mitigate these issues through a life cycle approach. The analysis employs OpenLCA
Environmental impact
Municipal solid waste
software to compare the environmental effects of RDF against traditional fossil fuels fuel oil and coal during
Energy sustainability colder months when natural gas is scarce. The study examines two RDF compositions, including organic waste
and one excluding it, to determine their impacts on sustainability and fuel efficiency. Key findings indicate that
RDF, mainly when produced with organic waste, offers substantial reductions in global warming potential (GWP)
and other environmental impacts compared to conventional fuels. Specifically, the results demonstrate that RDF
can significantly lower CO₂ emissions associated with cement production, positioning it as a viable option for
enhancing energy sustainability within the industry. This research underscores the importance of integrating
waste management strategies with energy recovery solutions, providing valuable insights for policymakers
aiming to address both waste disposal and energy needs sustainably.

1. Introduction such as land scarcity, methane emissions, and soil contamination. The
current waste management practices in Tehran are unsustainable in the
During the past decades, several factors, including population long term [5]. A more integrated approach, combining recycling, com­
growth, urbanization, economic development, and consumer purchas­ posting, landfilling, and energy recovery through thermal treatment, is
ing habits, have contributed to a dramatic increase in waste production necessary. Today biomass, which solid waste is a part, is considered as
globally. This trend shows no sign of slowing down in the future, and the the most advanced renewable energy source providing 35 % of the en­
predictions indicate that by 2050, the production of municipal solid ergy needs of developing countries [6]. Among various waste-to-energy
waste worldwide will increase by almost 90 % from 2025, reaching 4.2 methods, RDF has emerged as a feasible solid fuel alternative to fossil
billion tons [1]. Therefore, urban solid waste management has become a fuels in several industries [7,8].
common concern worldwide, and choosing a sustainable solution that The cement industry, a major player in any country’s economic and
responds to the environmental and economic dimensions at the same infrastructural heritage, is recognized for its importance in the building
time is a shared priority for policymakers and world nations [2]. sectors. Cement production, a highly energy-intensive process, requires
Tehran, the capital of Iran, covers over 700 square kilometers and approximately 3.3 GJ of energy per tonne of cement produced [9,10]. A
has an estimated population of 8.4 million people [2]. The city generates significant portion of this energy demand- around 85 % to 90 %- is met
roughly 7100 tons of waste daily [3,4], with an average per capita waste through the combustion of fossil fuels. The cement industry’s global
generation of 850 grams. Like many countries where landfilling is the contribution to carbon dioxide emissions, about 7 % (~2.9 billion tons
primary waste disposal method, Iran faces environmental challenges of CO2 per year in 2021), underscores its role in climate change and the

Abbreviations: RDF, Refuse-Derived Fuel; GWP, Global Warming Potential; BOD, Biochemical Oxygen Demand; COD, Chemical Oxygen Demand; LCA, Life Cycle
Assessments; MSW, Municipal Solid Waste; PAHs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hosseinyousefi@[Link] (H. Yousefi).

[Link]
Received 27 December 2024; Received in revised form 28 January 2025; Accepted 9 February 2025
Available online 22 February 2025
2666-0520/© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ([Link]
nc-nd/4.0/).
H. Salaripoor et al. Fuel Communications 22 (2025) 100135

urgent need for mitigation strategies [11]. Calcination (50 %), fuel produced annually, equivalent to 10–30 % of the coal consumption.
combustion in the kiln (40 %), and manufacturing operations (10 %) are Another study assessed RDF production’s role in promoting a circular
the three sources responsible for CO2 emission in cement production economy by closing material and energy loops. It examines RDF prop­
process [12]. erties, production challenges, and global markets, with Europe leading
In Iran, during winter days, the shortage of its natural gas stock in integration. Acoording to the results, incentives could enhance RDF
troubles the production of cement; therefore, it needs to burn such adoption, reduce carbon footprints, and serve as a short-term mitigation
alternative fuels as fuel oil and rarely coal. According to Iran cement strategy [23].
association, the country produces approximately 76–90 million tons of Galko et al. [24] reviews the production precedure and difficulties
cement annually, with around 70 % of plants relying on heavy fuel oil associated with using RDFs as alternative fuels. The usability of RDFs in
(mazut) during gas shortages. The energy intensity of cement production energy generation was investigated, finding that only 48 % of RDFs can
in Iran is about 4.32 GJ per ton, which is significantly higher than the be safely utilized under current conditions, while the remaining 52 %
global average [13]. That implies adding RDF or any other low-carbon requires advanced technological or thermal solutions. Furthermore, the
alternative fuel in large quantities to the cement production process application of RDFs in coke-making blends for blast furnace coke pro­
effectively be used to reduce emissions, reduce the carbon footprint of duction was investigated, suggesting potential pathways for more
cement production, and improve sustainability in the use of energy widespread RDF use.
within the industry [14]. The study conducted by Tihin [25] discussed the application of RDF
In the field of waste management, the case study of Tehran was in cement kilns while providing an overview of MSW generation,
addressed by Akhavan[15] et al., who presented five various scenarios composition, and pre-treatment processes required to enhance RDF
and evaluated them using life cycle analysis concerning the impacts on properties to meet ASTM/EN [Link] outcomes emphasize RDF’s
human health, ecosystem quality, and resource efficiency. These results role in advancing a circular carbon economy while addressing envi­
showed that the fourth scenario composting, recycling, and landfilling ronmental concerns and technical challenges. In this regard, Kara [26]
was the most environmentally sustainable option. A recent study on studied RDF application in the cement industry, examining the potential
municipal solid waste management in Tehran identified key challenges of RDF prepared from non-recycled waste as an alternative fuel for
driven by urbanization and population growth. Issues include inade­ cement production. In the research, mixing RDF with petroleum in
quate data systems, inefficient source separation, improper storage, various proportions 0 %, 8 %, 12 %, 15 % resulted in a CO2 emission
frequent collections, low-quality compost, unregulated informal waste savings of $9.50/hour, with an overall $94/hour saved from RDF usage.
picking, and non-compliant [Link] systems, upgraded infra­ A related study in Jordan concluded that a 15 % RDF input into cement
structure, and improved composting and landfills alongside addopting kilns equivalent to 4.92 tons/hour translated into a savings of
appropriate policies were the proposed solutions [16]. $486/hour due to reduced petcoke use and a reduction of 2.27 ton­
Nabavi-Pelesaraei et al. [17] studied energy use in various waste s/hour in CO2 emissions [27].
management scenarios, revealing that burning and landfilling 8500 tons In a relatively different study, Ouigmane et al. [28] dealt with the
of municipal solid waste, alongside transportation, showed energy impact of RDF recycling on leachate quality, using tests in cement fac­
consumption at 406.08 GJ. Their life cycle assessment found that waste tory furnaces. According to the COD/BOD 5 ratio, leachate from
incineration reduces toxicity-related parameters due to electricity gen­ RDF-recycled waste is biodegradable and can be treated using biological
eration and phosphate fertilizer production. Daily greenhouse gas treatments.
emissions from incineration and landfilling were estimated at 4499.07 RDF production from municipal solid waste to be used as a com­
kg and 92,170.30 kg of CO2 equivalent, respectively. bustion fuel in cement industry furnaces instead of traditional fossil fuels
Also several studies have examined the management of urban solid during the cold season is a relatively new concept. Despite the increasing
waste with a focus on RDF as a sustainable solution [18]. For example, attention, more comprehensive studies are needed regarding its envi­
Havukainen et al. [19] conducted an environmental assessment of RDF ronmental, economic, and technical implications. The impact of RDF on
production and combustion as an alternative to directly burning environmental parameters depends on the characteristics of municipal
municipal solid waste with coal in Hangzhou, China. Their study solid waste, its recovery rate, the RDF production processes, its heating
demonstrated that RDF production can yield significant environmental value and etc. Since all properties and compositions of RDF are location-
benefits, depending on the type of organic material processed. The re­ dependent, the environmental effects and economic considerations
sults showed up to a 33 % reduction in GWP, a − 90 % to 34 % related to the production and use of RDF can also be diverse, which
improvement in acidification potential, and changes in eutrophication indicates the importance of investigating the mentioned issue, specif­
potential ranging from − 1200 % to 350 % compared to the baseline ically regarding production waste in the metropolis of Tehran.
scenario. Longo et al. [20] conducted a study in Italy comparing two Current research will focus on analyzing the environmental impacts
RDF production and combustion processes. The first process subjected of RDF production from Tehran waste and its utilization as a fuel oil and
all waste to biological treatment and crushing as the only mechanical coal substitute in the cement industry during colder months. RDF is
treatment. The second process involved mechanical pre-treatment to prepared in two different compositions, including organic waste and
separate organic waste for biological treatment, while the dry fraction without organic waste so that the secondary objective of the study will
was used as an energy resource or sent to landfill. The study concluded highlight the benefits and losses each RDF composition would have on
that no RDF production process can simultaneously reduce all envi­ environmental sustainability and fuel efficiency.
ronmental impacts.
Prihandoko et al. [21] explored the feasibility and economic viability 2. Methods and materials
of establishing an RDF production facility at the Piyungam landfill. Their
findings indicated that implementing RDF production could reduce the This study aims to assess the overall environmental impacts of RDF
volume of waste entering the landfill by an average of 43 % annually. production and its use as an alternative fuel in the cement industry
This highlights RDF’s potential to address waste management challenges during the cold season and periods of natural gas shortage, compared to
while delivering environmental benefits, such as reducing landfill use fuel oil and coal. Fig. 1: General framework of the study. RDF produced
and supporting cleaner energy solutions. from a portion of municipal solid wastes in Tehran is used in the cement
Besides, Sarquah et al. [22] carried out a feasibility study of RDF industry, providing practical insights for the industry. The environ­
production in Ghana using municipal solid waste increasing the calorific mental aspects of the application of this RDF are analyzed and compared
value of solid waste following RDF production from 28.66 to 30.64 to those of fuel oil and coal from the life cycle perspective.
MJ/kg. It was estimated that between 12 to 58 kilotons of RDF could be To realize this aim, the comprehensive life cycle assessments (LCA)

2
H. Salaripoor et al. Fuel Communications 22 (2025) 100135

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the study process.

3
H. Salaripoor et al. Fuel Communications 22 (2025) 100135

approach was applied using OpenLCA software. This method, known for characteristics, as well as how it’s made, according to ASTM standards
its thoroughness, is typically based on four main stages: goal and scope (Table 2) [34]. When selecting the right RDF for cement production,
definition, inventory data compilation, impact assessment, and inter­ several important factors need to be considered, such as its energy
pretation of results [29]. OpenLCA is a widely recognized software tool content, moisture levels, particle size, and chlorine content.
for conducting LCA. Its flexibility and extensive database make it ideal For instance, Type 1 RDF isn’t suitable for cement production
for analyzing the environmental impacts of products and processes because its high moisture content can reduce combustion efficiency,
across various industries, including building materials and concrete. Its lower the quality of the clinker, and lead to equipment corrosion.
user-friendly interface simplifies complex analyses, making it a valuable Additionally, if chlorine levels are too high, chlorine-based compounds
tool for researchers and industry professionals [30]. can form, which can negatively affect kiln performance. Therefore,
Fig. 1 presents the study process step by step, starting from goal and keeping chlorine content within safe limits is critical. As shown in
scenario definition, to RDF production and scenario implementation in Table 2, RDF Types 3 and 4 are the most suitable for use in cement kilns
the OpenLCA software. [26].
After waste is collected, the RDF production process goes through
2.1. Tehran waste composition several stages: primary separation, shredding to reduce particle size,
screening, drying, and quality control to ensure it meets industry stan­
The description of the municipal solid waste (MSW) management dards. Non-combustible materials like metals, glass, and compostable
system of Tehran and RDF production influential factors should be organic waste are removed as much as possible. The leftover materials,
outlined before the LCA application. Wastes from 22 districts of Tehran such as textiles, plastics, and paper, are then processed into RDF. This
and some cities around it are transported to the 8 existing waste pro­ method focuses on utilizing non-recyclable dry waste for RDF
cessing halls in Aradkooh. According to 2018 statistics, almost 6500 production.
tons/day of waste is delivered to the area (Figs. 2 and 3). In this study, two different RDF compositions were considered. One
The composition and the amount of waste processed are given in of the compositions includes non-compostable organic waste. In Tehran,
Table 1, and the contribution of each part is shown in Fig. 1. 10.5 % of waste is composted, which represents about 61 % of the city’s
Waste in Tehran can be divided into three basic categories: food organic waste [35]. Based on this, a portion of the remaining organic
waste (wet), valuable dry waste, and non-valuable dry waste. Valuable waste could be used for RDF production. The mass balance in Table 3
dry waste includes items such as bread, PET, linoleum, nylon, other shows that from 1 kilogram of municipal solid waste, 841 grams of RDF
recyclable plastics, paper, cardboard, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, can be produced.
and glass. Non-valuable dry waste includes non-recyclable plastics, In many previous studies, organic waste hasn’t been used in the
wood, rubber, leather, sanitary items, Tetrapak packaging, horticultural production of RDF [36–39]. In this current study, however, an alterna­
waste, special waste, and other miscellaneous types of waste [32,33]. tive RDF composition is explored where organic waste is entirely
excluded. As a result, the drying step in the RDF production process is no
2.2. RDF production longer necessary. The details of this adjusted process can be found in
Table 4.
The process of producing RDF varies depending on the type of waste The calorific value, or energy content, is the most critical factor when
being used and how the final product will be applied. RDF is divided into it comes to RDF, as it directly influences fuel consumption and its po­
seven categories, based on both its physical and chemical tential to replace conventional fuels in industries like cement produc­

Fig. 2. Image of Aradkoh processing and disposal complex [31].

4
H. Salaripoor et al. Fuel Communications 22 (2025) 100135

Fig. 3. Tehran MSW percentage composition.

Table 1
Tehran waste composition amounts.
Waste Type Organic Paper Plastic Glass Metals Textiles Hazardous Other Total (Annual)

Quantity (tons) 1731,925 227,760 185,055 37,960 59,312 99,645 7117 237,25 2372,500

Table 2 Table 4
RDF Classification based on ASTM. RDF without biomass yield (%) by weight from MSW.
Category State Description Components Input (MSW) % Output (RDF) %

RDF-1 Raw Municipal solid waste with minimal processing to remove Compostable Organic 10.5 0
bulky waste. Non-Compostable Organic 60.7 0
RDF-2 Coarse Processed municipal solid waste sized to coarse particles, Paper 9.6 41
with or without ferrous metal separation. 95 % of the Plastic 7.2 31
weight passes through a 6-inch mesh screen. Metals 2.5 0
RDF-3 Fluff Crushed and processed municipal solid waste to remove Glass 1.6 0
metal, glass, and other minerals. 95 % of the weight passes Textiles 3.6 5.1
through a 2-inch square mesh screen. Rubber and Leather 0.6 15.2
RDF-4 Powdered Ground combustible waste. 95 % of the weight passes Wood 1.8 7.7
through a 10 mesh (0.035 square inch) screen. Hazardous 0.3 0
RDF-5 Densified Compressed combustible waste in the form of pellets, logs,
cubes, briquettes, or similar shapes.
RDF-6 Liquid Combustible waste converted into liquid fuel. tion. To calculate the calorific value of RDF is calculated using (Eq. 1)
RDF-7 Gaseous Combustible waste converted into gaseous fuel through which factors in the energy values of each individual component is re­
gasification.
ported in Table 5 [39,40].
n ( )
∑ mi
HVtotal = × HVi (1)
Table 3 i=1
mtotal
RDF yield (%) by weight from MSW.
Components Input (MSW) % Output (RDF) %
Table 5
Compostable Organic 10.5 0
Calorific value of RDF constituents.
Non-Compostable Organic 60.7 72.2
Paper 9.6 11.4 Material Heating Value (MJ/kg)
Plastic 7.2 8.6
Metals 2.5 0 Organic Waste 15
Glass 1.6 0 Paper 15
Textiles 3.6 4.3 Plastic 34
Rubber and Leather 1.2 1.4 Rubber 30
Wood 1.8 2.1 Textiles 22
Hazardous 0.3 0 Wood 18.5
Leather 30
RDF 17.2
RDF without Organic Waste 23.8

5
H. Salaripoor et al. Fuel Communications 22 (2025) 100135

footprint than the mechanical processes involved in RDF production. For

2.3. Goal and scope definition example, carbon dioxide emissions from RDF refinement contribute only
0.18 % of the total emissions produced during RDF combustion [37].
While RDF production can recover energy and sometimes lower As mentioned earlier, the production of RDF itself involves various
emissions by replacing fossil fuels, the process itself still consumes re­ mechanical processes that consume energy and emit pollutants. The
sources and emits pollutants. This makes it important to look at RDF energy required for RDF production mainly comes from equipment like
production through a life cycle perspective, assessing its full environ­ conveyors, shredders, chillers, and dryers, though the energy used for
mental impact. A key part of this analysis is comparing RDF with other material separation is not included [41,42]. While the efficiency of each
fuel alternatives to understand its overall effects. The goal of this life stage impacts energy use, on average, producing 1 kilogram of RDF
cycle assessment is to evaluate the environmental impact of RDF pro­ consumes about 0.6 kilowatt-hours of energy[43]. For RDF without
duction and use, compared to traditional fossil fuels. This study com­ organic waste (since the drying process is skipped), this figure drops to
pares the emissions from producing and burning RDF in cement kilns to 0.35 kilowatt-hours. Table 6 provides a breakdown of the energy con­
those from burning natural gas, coal, and fuel oil fuel. Fig. 4 outlines the sumption for different stages of RDF production.
system boundaries, starting from waste collection and seperation (the To assess the overall environmental impact of the cement production
first step in RDF production) to RDF combustion in cement furnaces. process, the Ecoinvent_371 database was used for life cycle analysis.
This LCA contains two functional units: the production of 1 kilogram Since no specific dataset exists for Iran, the American dataset was chosen
of RDF and the production of 1 kilogram of clinker (the key component as the closest approximation, as both countries rely heavily on natural
in cement). In fact, the emissions resulting from the production and then gas for clinker production. The inputs and outputs from the American
burning of RDF in the clinker kiln have been cumulatively calculated database were customized based on the available data for Iran.
and then compared with the emissions resulting from the burning of The calorific values of natural gas, coal, and fuel oil used in Iran are
fossil fuels in the clinker kiln. assumed to be 35.9 megajoules per cubic meter, 24 MJ/kg, and 41.4 MJ/
kg, respectively [27].Also, in terms of fuel usage, in Iran, producing 1
kilogram of clinker requires about 0.0977 cubic meters of natural gas,
2.4. Life cycle inventory
which is equivalent to 0.0204 kilograms of RDF, 0.147 kilograms of RDF
The shortage of natural gas during winter months poses a major
challenge for the cement industry in Iran, disrupting production signif­ Table 6
icantly. Approximatley this shortage spans from the beginning of Amounts of energy consumption of the RDF production machines [44].
October to the end of February, leading to a five-month period where the Equipment Electricity Consumption
industry either ceases production or shifts to alternative fuels like fuel (kWh/kg)
oil or coal. To address this issue, the adoption of RDF is suggested as a Shredder 0.2
potential solution to keep production going while reducing reliance on Screener 0.03
conventional fossil fuels. Using RDF in cement kilns has several envi­ Conveyor 0.02
Grinder 0.1
ronmental benefits, including energy recovery and reducing the indus­
Dryer 0.25
try’s dependence on fossil fuels. However, it is crucial to assess the Electricity for producing 1 kg of RDF 0.6
environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions from RDF combus­ Electricity for producing 1 kg of RDF without 0.35
tion in comparison to emissions from fossil fuels. organic waste
RDF combustion typically has a more significant environmental

Fig. 4. Clarification of the structure and boundaries of the study.

6
H. Salaripoor et al. Fuel Communications 22 (2025) 100135

without organic waste, 0.126 kilograms of coal, or 0.0868 kilograms of Table 8

fuel oil. RDF constituents emission factors.
The emissions resulting from the burning of each fuel have been Material CO2 (kg/ NOx (g/ SO2 (g/ CO (g/ PM10 (g/
calculated using their emission coefficients (Table 7) . Also, regarding kg) kg) kg) kg) kg)
the combustion emissions of two types of RDF, the emission coefficients Paper 1.52 1 1 3 1
for individual RDF components were analyzed, enabling the calculation Plastic 2.90 5 1 8 2
of emission factors for RDF with and without organic waste. It should be Textiles 2 2 2 5 3
noted that the emissions of the organic waste sector are considered Wood 1.80 1 1 4 2
Leather and 3 10 5 10 10
0 (Table 8). Rubber
RDF 0.586 0.791 0.377 1.469 0.579
2.5. Impact assessment RDF without 2.2 3.659 1.659 5.793 2.85
Organic Waste

During the impact assessment stage, each data point in the inventory
is associated with a midpoint or endpoint impact category using char­
acterization factors. These factors quantify how much a specific input or Table 9
output, contributes to an environmental impact. This process allows for Impact categories.
the evaluation of the extent and intensity of each effect, providing a Impacts Unit
clearer understanding of the overall environmental burden. These im­ Global Warming kg CO2 eq
pacts are categorized into areas such as global warming potential, ozone Human Toxicity 1,4-DCB
formation, human toxicity, land use, and dependence on fossil resources. Fossil Resource Depletion kg oil eq
Units and effects of these categories are explained in detail in Table 9. Land Use m²a crop eq
Land Acidification kg SO₂ eq
Life cycle inventory results are linked to environmental impact in­ Ozone Formation kg NOx eq
dicators using the ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint (H) method. This method is
widely accepted for its balanced approach, alignment with current
environmental policy, and ability to cover key impact categories effec­ emissions resulting a relatively low GWP at 1.11012 kg CO₂ equivalent
tively. The midpoint approach also facilitates comparison with other as the biogenic carbon from organic waste contributes to a carbon-
studies, enhancing validity and compatibility. neutral cycle, making it a more environmentally sustainable option
than RDF without biomass (Fig. 5).
3. Results and discussion
3.2. Land use
Table 10 presents the life cycle assessment results, showing the
environmental impacts of clinker production under different fuel sce­ Fig. 6 also shows that land use in the coal scenario amounts to 0.0453
narios. Five fuel options are compared: Fuel oil, hard coal, natural gas, square meters of agricultural product equivalent, which is significantly
RDF with biomass, and RDF without biomass. The results showed sig­ higher than the 0.03342 square meters in the fuel oil scenario and
nificant differences in ecosystem performance across impact categories 0.03302 square meters in the natural gas [Link] is due to the large
like global warming potential, particulate matter formation, and land areas required for coal mining and waste storage, emphasizing coal’s
use. Natural gas performed best in all categories except for reliance on greater ecological footprint compared to other fuels.
fossil fuels, due to its cleaner combustion and lower pollutant emissions. In contrast, RDF production from municipal solid waste significantly
When natural gas is unavailable, RDF is the best option compared to reduces the amount of waste landfilled. For example, in the RDF sce­
fuel oil and hard coal in most environmental impact categories. RDF nario that includes organic waste, only around 16 % of waste ends up in
provides a better environmental profile, particularly in global warming a landfill, compared to the current 70 % landfill rate in Tehran.
potential and other bio-impact categories. Currently, about 28,500 [45] tons of waste are buried per hectare of
land. Implementing RDF production could potentially free up around 45
3.1. Global warming potential hectares of land from landfill use annually.

Fig. 4 highlights that global warming potential, measured in kilo­ 3.3. Fossil resource depletion
grams of CO₂ equivalent, is a key metric for evaluating the environ­
mental impact of clinker production. The coal scenario exhibits the Fossil resource depletion is another critical environmental concern.
highest GWP, reaching 1.25183 kg CO₂ equivalent, which is mainly As shown in Fig. 7, both the natural gas and fuel oil scenarios result in
attributed to coal’s high carbon content and inefficient combustion. In high depletion values 0.12093 and 0.13629 kg of oil equivalent,
contrast, the natural gas scenario shows the lowest GWP, at 1.05435 kg respectively. RDF without biomass has the least impact on fossil
CO₂ equivalent, due to its cleaner combustion and lower carbon emis­ resource depletion, underscoring the benefits of waste-derived fuels in
sions. RDF with biomass presents a relatively low GWP of 1.11012 kg decreasing dependence on fossil resources. By converting waste into
CO₂ equivalent. This lower impact is largely due to the carbon-neutral energy, RDF helps reduce the consumption of synthetic fossil fuels,
properties of biomass, which help offset fossil fuel usage. thereby contributing to more sustainable energy practices.
RDF without biomass, though requiring less electricity during its
production, results in higher combustion emissions due to its chemical
composition. However, RDF with biomass further reduces net CO₂ 3.4. Human toxicity (Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic)

As seen in Fig. 8, coal exhibits the highest levels of both carcinogenic

Table 7
and non-carcinogenic toxicity. This is primarily due to the release of
Fossil fuels emission factors.
harmful substances like heavy metals, sulfur oxides, and polycyclic ar­
Material CO2 (kg/kg) NOx (g/kg) SO2 (g/kg)
omatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) during coal combustion, which are noto­
Natural Gas 1.942 1.8 0.1 rious for their negative impacts on human health. On the other hand,
Fuel Oil 3.04 5 10 natural gas and RDF, particularly RDF with biomass, show much lower
Coal 2.86 7.4 13.7
toxicity levels. This reduction is largely due to cleaner combustion

7
H. Salaripoor et al. Fuel Communications 22 (2025) 100135

Table 10
Comparative LCA results in 5 scenarios of clinker production fuels.
Impact Categories Unit Natural Gas Fuel Oil Hard Coal RDF RDF without Biomass

Fossil Resource Depletion kg oil eq 0.13629 0.13967 0.12093 0.06993 0.05728

Global Warming kg CO2 eq 1.05435 1.12974 1.25183 1.11012 1.21934
Human Toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 0.51379 0.51618 0.52253 0.51402 0.5126
Land Use m²a crop eq 0.03302 0.03342 0.0453 0.0329 0.03289
Ozone Formation kg NOx eq 0.00531 0.00611 0.00628 0.00589 0.00575
Land Acidification kg SO₂ eq 0.00156 0.0027 0.00388 0.00178 0.00194

Fig. 5. Comparison of the global warming potential of 5 scenarios. Fig. 8. Comparison of human toxicity impact of 5 scenarios.

processes that involve fewer fossil fuels and toxic materials. Fuel oil,
though positioned between these extremes, still presents significant
toxicity due to its higher sulfur content and associated emissions.

3.5. Ozone formation

Fig. 9 illustrates that natural gas leads in minimizing ozone forma­

tion potential, with emissions of 0.00264 kg of NOx equivalent. This is
largely due to its cleaner combustion, which results in reduced nitrogen
oxide emissions, a key contributor to ozone formation. In contrast, coal
has the highest impact, with 0.00363 kg of NOx equivalent, driven by
the high levels of nitrogen oxides released during its combustion. RDF
scenarios also contribute to ozone formation, although less than coal.
Among RDF options, RDF with biomass performs better than fuel oil fuel
in terms of reducing ozone-forming emissions.
Fig. 6. Comparison of land use impact in 5 scenarios.
3.6. Acidification

As depicted in Fig. 10, coal has the highest impact in terms of sulfur
dioxide emissions, at 0.00388 kg of SO₂. This is primarily due to coal’s
high sulfur content, which leads to the formation of sulfur dioxide and

Fig. 7. Comparison of fossil resource scarcity impact of 5 scenarios.

Fig. 9. Comparison of ozone formation impact of 5 scenarios.

8
H. Salaripoor et al. Fuel Communications 22 (2025) 100135

Fig. 11. Relative LCIA results.

Fig. 10. Comparison of acidification impact of 5 scenarios.

feasiblity of RDF adoption across various industries and how scalable it
is, looking into alternative methods and technologies of RDF production
contributes significantly to acid rain. In comparison, RDF, particularly
with the aim of reducing its environmental footprint even further,
RDF with biomass, demonstrates much lower acidification impacts
evaluating the long term impact of RDF on clinker quality and the effi­
(0.00178 kg SO₂ eq) due to its reduced sulfur content and cleaner
ciency of cement production under different conditions, and investi­
combustion profile. Natural gas, as the cleanest fuel, shows the lowest
gating the social and policy effects of implementing RDF solutions
acidification impact, primarily because of its minimal sulfur content.
within waste management and energy sectors, are some suggested topics
Fuel oil, while still contributing to SO₂ emissions, produces fewer
worth considering.
emissions compared to coal, but more than natural gas and RDF options.
This highlights the vital role of environmentallu friendly fuel alterna­
tives suchas RDF in reducing sulfur emissions to mitigate acid rain and CRediT authorship contribution statement
its environmental consequences such as harmful effects on soil,water
Helia Salaripoor: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original
bodies and ecosystems.
draft, Visualization, Software, Methodology, Formal analysis. Hossein
Fig. 11 shows the relative indicator results of the respective project
Yousefi: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Supervi­
variants. For each indicator, the maximum result is set to 100 % and the
sion, Project administration, Methodology. Mahmood Abdoos: Writing
results of the other variants are displayed in relation to this result.
– review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation,
Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Formal analysis.
4. Conclusion

The analysis clearly demonstrates that transitioning from coal and Declaration of competing interest
fuel oil to RDF, particularly RDF with biomass, in times when natural gas
is scarce, can significantly lower the environmental impacts associated The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
with clinker production. After natural gas, RDF offers the lowest global interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
warming potential and fewer human toxicity effects. Additionally, the the work reported in this paper.
undeniable impact that RDF has on reducing dependence on fossil fuels
cannot be overemphasized. By substituting conventional fuels like coal Data availability
and fuel oil, RDF helps reduce reliance on limited fossil resources,
making energy sources more sustainable while simultaneously Data will be made available on request.
addressing waste management challenges. These results highlight the
importance of fuel choice in reducing the environmental footprint of References
industrial processes and emphasize the considerable advantages of
adopting cleaner, renewable energy sources like RDF. [1] Kumari T, Raghubanshi AS, et al. Chapter 33 - waste management practices in the
A critical aspect of RDF production is the removal of organic waste, developing nations: challenges and opportunities. In: Singh P, et al., editors. Waste
management and resource recycling in the developing world. Elsevier; 2023.
which has both pros and cons. On the positive side, eliminating organic p. 773–97. Editors.
material improves the quality and calorific value of the RDF and [2] Badeenezhad A, et al. Economic and waste flow analysis of available scenarios to
removes the need for energy-intensive drying processes, making pro­ improve food waste management in Tehran. Results Eng 2024:102852.
[3] Jamialahmadi N, Hashemi M, Ghazizade MJalili. Assessment of the current
duction simpler and more efficient. However, this method also compli­ municipal solid waste management system in Tehran, Iran: challenges and
cates the separation process and leads to a notable decrease in RDF opportunities for sustainable development. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 2022;24
output, with only 234 grams of RDF produced from 1 kilogram of input (5):2054–67.
[4] Zahedi R, Daneshgar S, Golivari S. Simulation and optimization of electricity
waste. Additionally, RDF without organic waste generates higher generation by waste to energy unit in Tehran. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 2022;
emissions during combustion compared to RDF with biomass, making it 53:102338.
a less environmentally favorable option. [5] Bahrani S, et al. Modeling landfill site selection by multi-criteria decision making
and fuzzy functions in GIS, case study: shabestar, Iran. Environ Earth Sci 2016;75:
To overcome these challenges, optimizing the RDF production pro­ 1–14.
cess is essential. Techniques such as heat recovery during the drying [6] Moltames R, et al. Assessment of potential sites for biogas production plants from
stage or improving the efficiency of production equipment could domestic, agricultural, and livestock waste. Fuel Comm 2025;22:100132.
[7] Genon G, Brizio E. Perspectives and limits for cement kilns as a destination for RDF.
dramatically reduce the environmental impact of RDF. These advance­
Waste Manage (Oxford) 2008;28(11):2375–85.
ments could make RDF a more sustainable and effective alternative fuel [8] Yousefi H, et al. Landfill site selection using a multi-criteria decision-making
for the cement industry, further reducing its reliance on traditional fossil method: a case study of the Salafcheghan special economic zone, Iran.
fuels and enhancing the industry’s overall sustainability. Sustainability 2018;10(4):1107.
[9] Sharma P, Sheth P, Mohapatra B. Recent progress in refuse derived fuel (RDF) Co-
Future research could focus on several areas to deepen the under­ processing in cement production: direct firing in kiln/calciner vs process
standing and enhance the application of RDF. Exploring economic integration of RDF gasification. Waste Biomass Valorization 2022;13:1–28.

9
H. Salaripoor et al. Fuel Communications 22 (2025) 100135

[10] Chaves GdLD, et al. Synergizing environmental, social, and economic sustainability [29] Seto K, Panesar D, Churchill C. Criteria for the evaluation of life cycle assessment
factors for refuse derived fuel use in cement industry: a case study in Espirito software packages and life cycle inventory data with application to concrete. Int J
Santo, Brazil. J Environ Manage 2021;288:112401. Life Cycle Assess 2017:22.
[11] Ali MB, Saidur R, Hossain MS. A review on emission analysis in cement industries. [30] Ormazabal, M., C. Jaca, and R. Puga-Leal, Analysis and comparison of life cycle
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15(5):2252–61. assessment and carbon footprint software. 2014. p. 1521–1530.
[12] Hanifa M, et al. A review on CO2 capture and sequestration in the construction [31] Rupani PF, et al. Current scenario of the Tehran municipal solid waste handling
industry: emerging approaches and commercialised technologies. J CO2 Utilizat rules towards green technology. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16(6):979.
2023;67:102292. [32] Rupani PF, et al. Current scenario of the Tehran municipal solid waste handling
[13] Karbassi AR, et al. Reduction of environmental pollution through optimization of rules towards green technology. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16:979.
energy use in cement industries. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2010;7(1):127–34. [33] Aravani VP, et al. LCA analysis on the management of typical lignocellulosic
[14] Silva V, Contreras F, Bortoleto AP. Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid waste agricultural wastes: case studies and comparison in Greece and China. Biomass
management options: A case study of refuse derived fuel production in the city of Bioenergy 2024;190:107386.
Brasilia, Brazil. J Cleaner Prod 2021;279:123696. [34] Kerdsuwan S, Meenaroch P, Chalermcharoenrat T. The novel design and
[15] Akhavan Limoodehi F, et al. Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste manufacturing technology of densified RDF from reclaimed landfill without a
management in Tehran. Environ Energy Econ Res 2017;1(2):207–18. mixing binding agent using a hydraulic hot pressing machine. In: MATEC Web of
[16] Golzary A, Nematollahi H, Tuysserkani M. Assessment and pathways for improving Conferences. EDP Sciences; 2016.
municipal solid waste management in rapidly urbanizing Tehran, Iran. Clean [35] Mir, A. and S.S. Nabavi. Optimization of municipal solid waste management
Technol Environ Policy 2024;26(6):1901–17. system. 2015.
[17] Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, et al. Modeling of energy consumption and environmental life [36] Shapouri M, Moghimi OH. RDF production from municipal wastes (Case Study:
cycle assessment for incineration and landfill systems of municipal solid waste Babol City). Environ Energy Econ Res 2018;2(2):137–44.
management - A case study in Tehran Metropolis of Iran. J Cleaner Prod 2017;148: [37] Reza B, et al. Environmental and economic aspects of production and utilization of
427–40. RDF as alternative fuel in cement plants: a case study of Metro Vancouver Waste
[18] Tihin GL, et al. Overview of municipal solid wastes-derived refuse-derived fuels for Management. Resour Conserv Recycl 2013;81:105–14.
cement co-processing. Alexand Eng J 2023;84:153–74. [38] Aliaghaei F, et al. Evaluating of refuse derived fuel (RDF) production from
[19] Havukainen J, et al. Environmental impact assessment of municipal solid waste municipal solid waste (Case Study: Qazvin Province). Environ Energy Econ Res
management incorporating mechanical treatment of waste and incineration in 2020;4(2):97–109.
Hangzhou, China. J Cleaner Prod 2016;141. [39] Dong TTT, Lee B-K. Analysis of potential RDF resources from solid waste and their
[20] Longo S, Cellura M, Girardi P. Life Cycle Assessment of electricity production from energy values in the largest industrial city of Korea. Waste Manag (Oxford) 2009;
refuse derived fuel: a case study in Italy. Sci Total Environ 2020;738:139719. 29(5):1725–31.
[21] Prihandoko D, et al. Application of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) plant in piyungan [40] Triyono B, et al. Experimental study on utilization of Indonesian non-recycled
landfill municipal solid waste management. ASEAN J Chem Eng 2022;22(2): organic waste as renewable solid fuel using wet torrefaction process. Eng J 2018;
296–305. 22:81–92.
[22] Sarquah K, et al. Characterization of municipal solid waste and assessment of its [41] Tun MM, Juchelková D. Drying methods for municipal solid waste quality
potential for refuse-derived fuel (RDF) valorization. Energies 2023;16(1):200. improvement in the developed and developing countries: a review. Environ Eng
[23] Mateus M, et al. Refuse derived fuels as an immediate strategy for the energy Res 2019;24(4):529–42.
transition, circular economy, and sustainability. Business Strategy Environ 2023. [42] Omidi Kashani B, Khoshbakhti Saray R, Kheiri R. Modeling and thermodynamic
[24] Gałko G, et al. Evaluation of alternative refuse-derived fuel use as a valuable analysis of municipal solid waste dryer: a parametric study. Iranian J Chem Chem
resource in various valorised applications. Energy 2023;263:125920. Eng 2022;41(8):2848–72.
[25] Tihin GL, et al. Overview of municipal solid wastes-derived refuse-derived fuels for [43] Antoine Pinasseau BZ, Roth J, Canova M. Serge roudier best available techniques
cement co-processing. Alexand Eng J 2023;84:153–74. (BAT) reference document for wastetreatment. Publications Office of the European
[26] Kara M. Environmental and economic advantages associated with the use of RDF in Union; 2018.
cement kilns. Resour Conserv Recycl 2012;68:21–8. [44] Pinasseau A, et al. Best available techniques (BAT) reference document for waste
[27] Hemidat S, et al. Potential utilization of RDF as an alternative fuel to be used in treatment. Ind Emiss Directive 2010;75. p. 2019-11.
cement industry in Jordan. Sustainability 2019;11(20):5819. [45] Zhang X, et al. A sustainability analysis of a municipal sewage treatment ecosystem
[28] Ouigmane A, et al. The impact of RDF valorization on the leachate quality and on based on emergy. Ecol Eng - ECOL ENG 2010;36:685–96.
emissions from cement kiln (Case Study of a Region in Morocco). Pollution 2021;7
(2):293–307.

10