Fuel 82 (2003) 11191125

www.fuelfirst.com

Modeling the heating value of Municipal Solid Wasteq

Sivapalan Kathiravalea, Muhd Noor Muhd Yunusa, K. Sopianb,*, A.H. Samsuddinb,
R.A. Rahmanb
a
MINT Incineration and Renewable Energy Center, Malaysian Institute for Nuclear Technology Research, Bangi 43000,
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
b
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600,
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
Received 11 March 2002; accepted 25 December 2002; available online 30 January 2003

Abstract
The most common methods currently being practiced to evaluate the heating value of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) are by using the
equation derived by Dulong, or experimentally by using the bomb calorimeter. There have been numerous other mathematical equations,
which were created based on data from the physical composition, proximate or elemental analysis of the MSW. Questions have been raised
on the size of the samples used for the experiments and on the applicability of these equations in different parts of the globe. This study was
initiated to tackle these problems and also to establish a mathematical model that could calculate the Higher Heating Value of Malaysian
MSW. Results showed that the correlation from the physical composition gave the best correlation coefficient when compared to the other
correlation created based on the proximate or elemental analysis results. The new equations were also tested against other established
equations and produced better results in all the different categories.
Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: Municipal Solid Waste; Higher Heating Value; Mathematical model

1. Introduction the heating value of the MSW will give insight into the
amount of fuel needed to burn the MSW and also the amount
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generated in Malaysia of energy that could be recovered.
has grown from 0.5 0.8 kg/capita/day in 1987 to 1.4
1.6 kg/capita/day in 2001 with an anticipated increase of
2. Literature review
another 1% per capita per annum until the year 2010 [1].
Landfill sites in Malaysia are nearing their lifespan whereas
Data on the characteristics of MSW with particular
new landfill areas were scarce due to the rapid development
interest to the Higher Heating Value (HHV) have been
or the land was designated as water catchment areas. With
published worldwide. A literature survey of these data
this in view, incinerating the MSW generated was
shows some inconstancy in the reporting and they are:
considered as the main option to manage the MSW
especially in urban areas. Although the issue has been A major problem with the reporting of the HHV is that,
addressed in Malaysia, but data is not available in a sometimes the analytical method used to get the data is not
comprehensive sense on the generation rates, physical and reported, i.e. by bomb calorimeter or by employing a
chemical composition and particularly the heating value of mathematical model [7,8]. Analytical method is important
the MSW. Unfortunately, there is a critical need to have when determining the accuracy and validity of the data.
accurate and reliable data for the design, operation and Inconsistency in the term used to report the energy
maintenance of an incineration plant. Determination of content, usually being described in terms of HHV, Lower
Calorific Value, Net Heating Value or Gross Heating
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 60-3-8929-6515; fax: 60-3-8929-6145.
E-mail addresses: ksopian@vlsi.eng.ukm.my (K. Sopian), sivapalan@
Value [2 4]. Although there are relationships between
mint.gov.my (S. Kathiravale). these terms but inconsistent reporting causes problems in
q
Published first on the web via Fuelfirst.comhttp://www.fuelfirst.com comparing the reported values.
0016-2361/03/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
doi:10.1016/S0016-2361(03)00009-7
1120 S. Kathiravale et al. / Fuel 82 (2003) 11191125

Literature also shows inconsistency in the units used to
report the energy content. There are many units used
such as kJ/kg, kcal/kg, Btu/lb, etc. again causing
inconvenience in comparing the reported values [5,6].
Finally, some of the data gives the HHV of the individual
components and also the weighted average of the HHV
based on the individual weight percentage, where else
some of the data only reports the HHV of the MSW on a
commingle basis [8,9].
To add to the problems with reporting, there are also
many variations by which the HHV of the MSW could be
obtained. Currently the determination of the heating value
of MSW samples can be done either experimentally or by
using mathematical models. Experimental determination by
using a bomb calorimeter utilize a sample size of 1 g which
is inadequate to account for the vast variance in MSW
composition, thus requiring bigger sample size [10 12].
Furthermore, the experimental method is tedious and also
requires technical skills in handling the equipment and the
combustion by products. As for the mathematical models,
they were created to avoid over reliance on lengthy
experimental techniques. These models have been created
based on data from the physical composition, proximate
analysis and elemental analysis of the fuel or refuse which
have limitations and are as follows:
When a model is created, the basis used, such as the
weight, in percentage or in fraction, on an ash free or
moisture free basis or both, is not defined in the equation,
causing inaccurate usage [13,14].
A review also shows that sometimes the same model is
reproduced based on different units causing confusion,
i.e. Btu/lb, kJ/kg, kcal/kg, etc. [15 17].
Another study clearly states that the models created,
performs best in the country/locality in which it is
created, while producing over or under prediction
when used internationally [18].
Table 1 shows some of the more common models that
have been used. The positive point is that these models
do give an accurate estimation of the calorific values of
the samples. Unfortunately, to obtain or to use the equations,
data on the elemental, proximate or physical composition is
needed, which again requires experimental analysis. At this

Table 1
Some of the models available from literature review for the prediction heating value

Name Equation Units Remarks Application Ref.

1. Models based on ultimate analysis

Dulong HHV 8080C 34,460H 2 4,308O 2250S kcal/kg Original (wt fraction) Coal [9]
Dulong HHV 81C 342.5(H 2 O/8) 22.5S 2 6(9H 2 W) kcal/kg Modified (wt%) MSW/Coal [18]
Dulong HHV 144.5C 609.6H 2 76.2O 40S 10N Btu/lb Modified (wt%) Coal [26]
Dulong HHV 78.31C 359.32(H 2 O/8) 22.12S 11.87O 5.78N kcal/kg Modified (wt%) Coal [9]
Steuer HHV 81(C 2 3 O/8) 57 3 O/8 kcal/kg (wt%) MSW [18]
345(H 2 O/10) 25S 2 6(9H W)
ScheurerKestner HHV 81(C 2 3 O/4) 342.5H 22.5S kcal/kg (wt%) MSW [18]
57 3 O/4 2 6(9H W)
Chang HHV 8561.11 179.72H 2 63.89S 2 111.17O 2 kcal/kg (wt%) MSW [24]
91.11Cl 2 66.94N
Boie HHV 83.22C 274.3H 2 25.8O 15N 9.4Cl 65P kcal/kg (wt%) Refuse [24]
Vondracek HHV C(89.17 2 0.0622C1) 270(H 2 O/10) 25S kcal/kg (wt%) Refuse [24]
(C1carbon content on moisture and ash free basis)
Wilson HHV 7831Corg 35,932(H 2 O/8) kcal/kg (wt fraction) MSW [24]
2212S 2 3545Cinorg 1187O 578N
Mott and Spooner HHV 0.336C 1.418H 2 0.0145O 0.0941S MJ/kg (wt%) Coal/Refuse [26]
Inst. for Gas Tech., USA HHV 0.3417C 1.3221H 0.1232S 2 MJ/kg (wt%) Coal/Refuse [26]
0.1198(O N) 2 0.0153A
2. Models based on proximate analysis
Goutal HHV 147.6 FC K VM Btu/lb (wt%) Coal/refuse [9]
(K is a constant that varies with the value of VM)
Bento HHV 44.75 VM 2 5.85 W 21.2 kcal/kg (wt%) Refuse [18]
Traditional HHV 45 VM 2 6 W kcal/kg (wt%) Refuse [18]
3. Models based on physical composition
Conventional HHV 88.2Pl 40.5(Ga Pa) 2 6W kcal/kg (wt%) Refuse [18]
Tokyo HHV [(100W)/100]{38.8(Pa Ga T Oc) kcal/kg (wt%) MSW [25]
50.9(Te Ru) 73.7Pl} 2 6W
Ali Khan HHV [23(Ga 3.6 Pa)] Btu/lb (wt%) MSW [9]
[160(Pl Ru)]

HHV net calorific value; W wt% of water, dry basis; A wt% of ash, dry basis; VM %volatile matter; FC %fixed carbon; W total moisture;
Pa paper; Ga garbage/food; Te textile; Ru rubber and leather; Pl plastics; Oc other combustibles; T wood and grass.
 S. Kathiravale et al. / Fuel 82 (2003) 11191125 1121

point again questions are raised on the validity of the models Materials (ASTM) [28 30]. Elemental analysis was carried
and the analytical approaches. out using the CHN analyzer (Model EA 1108) which was in
Elemental composition based models are the most accordance to the procedures as required by the ASTM
reported with Dulongs equation being among the first [31,32]. The calorific value of the MSW was determined by
available to calculate the calorific value of coal [9 14, using the Mahler Bomb Calorimeter (Model T151D) which
16 27]. However, further to the problems discussed in the is also in accordance with the ASTM [33]. Analysis of the
earlier paragraph with regards to the problems associated to samples was done not only for the individual components but
models, the elemental analysis itself has some queries. The also for commingle samples. This approach allowed for
sample size used for elemental analysis is only 1 10 mg comparison of results from individual component basis,
which is even smaller than that used for the conventional weighted average basis, and commingle sample basis.
bomb calorimeter, thus invoking the sample size represen-
tation argument. Furthermore, elemental analysis is expens-
ive and tedious and needs skilled workers to carry out the 4. Results and discussion
analysis [10 12,19 23].
In response to these comments, models were created The average values of the physical composition,
based on proximate analysis or physical composition. Most proximate analysis and ultimate analysis for 30 MSW
of the equations created were used to estimate the HHV of samples analyzed are given in Table 2. The HHV results
either coal or MSW. Ideally these models were well accepted obtained in this study by using the bomb calorimeter will be
in their locality only but did not perform well against used as the base line for all comparisons. Other physical,
international data [18]. Proximate analysis models created proximate and elemental data from the 30 samples were
were based on the weight percentage of the volatile matter then used to create mathematical models by regression
and fixed carbon in the MSW. The advantage of using analysis. All possible combinations of the variables that
proximate analysis data was that it gave results based on would contribute to the energy content of the MSW were
sample sizes which where about 1 5 g [18]. This sample size used and evaluated to produce mathematical models. Only
was more representative of the total MSW size when equations that had a R2 value greater than 0.6 were short-
compared to the sample sizes used in the experimental listed and are shown in Table 3.
method by bomb calorimeter (max. of 1 g) or in the elemental The regression analysis in Table 3 shows clearly that the
analysis (1 5 mg). A further enhancement in the sampling models obtained from the physical composition had a
size was envisaged by using the physical composition, and superior R2 value as compared to the models obtained from
this brought about the approach for modeling the equation the proximate and elemental analysis data. This indicates
from this data [18]. Models based on the physical that sample size plays a big role in the accuracy of the
composition were created based on the weight percentage resultant correlations. The sample size used for the physical
of the food; paper and plastic content generally but also analysis is 200 300 kg where else the sample size for
included other components when there was a relationship. proximate analysis is only 5 10 g and the sample size for
With this in view, this research was initiated to develop a the elemental analysis is only 1 5 mg. This is in line with
new equation/model for the calculation of HHV for the argument put forward by some researchers [18] who
Malaysian MSW. The equations proposed will be based called for bigger sampling size for analysis that would give
on data from either the physical, proximate or elemental more accurate and representative results.
composition of the MSW. The models created were next used to calculate the
HHV and then compared with the HHV data obtained
3. Materials and methods
Table 2
A total of 30 samples were sampled from the Municipality MSW characteristics generated in Kuala Lumpur
of Kuala Lumpur, which was carried out from March to Composition Weight% Proximate analysis (wet) Weight%
August 2000. This study adopted the truckload sampling
method where the whole truckload of waste from an Organics/Food 51.94 Moisture content 55.01
identified source is sorted into 12 (organic and inorganic) Paper 11.23 Volatile matter content 31.36
components [24 26]. Identified truckloads of MSW were Plastics 20.97 Fixed carbon content 4.37
Wood 1.80 Ash content 9.26
weighed at the incoming weighbridge and directed to a pre-
Rubber 0.68 Elemental analysis (dry)
cleaned flat area where manual segregation of the MSW into Textile 1.58 Carbon content 46.11
the individual components was done. The waste components Yard 4.50 Hydrogen content 6.86
were then weighed and samples were taken to the Glass 2.54 Nitrogen content 1.26
laboratories for further analysis. Aluminum 0.24 Oxygen content 28.12
Ferrous 2.28 Sulfur content 0.23
At the laboratory, the proximate analysis was carried out
Fine (20 mm sieve) 2.24 Ash content 17.06
as prescribed by the American Society for Testing and
1122 S. Kathiravale et al. / Fuel 82 (2003) 11191125

Table 3
List of equations short-listed from regression analysis carried out on data

Name Equation Units Remarks R2

1. Models based on ultimate analysis

Eq. (5) HHV 416.638C 2 570.017H 259.031O 598.955N 2 5829.078 kJ/kg Dry (wt%) 0.625
2. Models based on proximate analysis
Eq. (4) HHV 356.248VM 2 6998.497 kJ/kg Dry (wt%) 0.682
Eq. (3) HHV 356.047VM 2 118.035FC 2 5600.613 kJ/kg Dry (wt%) 0.691

3. Models based on physical composition

Eq. (1) HHV 112.157Ga 183.386Pa 288.737Pl 5064.701 kJ/kg (wt%) 0.779
Eq. (2) HHV 81.209Ga 285.035Pl 8724.209 kJ/kg (wt%) 0.645
Eq. (6) HHV 112.815Ga 184.366Pa 298.343Pl 2 1.920W 5130.380 kJ/kg (wt%) 0.779

HHV net calorific value; W wt% of water, dry basis; A wt% of ash, dry basis; VM %volatile matter; FC %fixed carbon; W total moisture;
Pa paper; Ga garbage/food; Te textile; Ru rubber and leather; Pl plastics; Oc other combustibles; T wood and grass.

experimentally. The same were done for the other equations
in the various categories in Table 1 and compared to the
HHV obtained experimentally. The graphical representation
of these data based on physical composition, proximate and
elemental analysis are presented in Figs. 1, 3 and 5. These
figures indicate the trend of the predicted values as
compared to the experimental values. It is not possible to
infer which is the best performing model, based solely on
these trends. Therefore some statistical evaluations of the
predicted and experimentally obtained data were carried out
and the results are shown in Tables 4 6 and Figs. 2, 4 and 6.
The statistical evaluations shown in Tables 4 6 are,
namely the average, standard deviation and the range
between the maximum and minimum error that occurred,
which will indicate the performance of the model. The
evaluation criteria for the said parameters should be:
the average should be nearest/closest to zero;
the range (between the maximum and minimum values)
shall be the smallest;
lastly, the standard deviation should also show the
smallest value.
As for Figs. 2, 4 and 6, they show the average with the
maximum and minimum HHV value, which ably shows the
divergence of the averages, maximum, and minimum values
from the experimental data. An evaluation by the above-
mentioned criteria will clearly indicate the best model,
which should be similar or closest to the experimental
values, without the prediction being skewed either posi-
tively or negatively.
Fig. 1 shows that the regression analysis on the
physical composition data confirmed the predictions that
food/garbage, paper and plastic would contribute posi-
tively towards the calorific value. Moisture does not play
an active part in this model because the study reports
the calorific value in terms of HHV. In contrast to this if
the calorific value were to be reported in terms of LCV,
then the model would be moisture dependent. Plastic as

Fig. 2. Average, maximum and minimum values for models based on

Fig. 1. HHV values from models based on physical composition. physical composition.
 S. Kathiravale et al. / Fuel 82 (2003) 11191125
Fig. 3. HHV values from models based on proximate analysis.
an individual component accounted for about 20% of the
total weight but it contributed the most to the calorific
value (based on the coefficient in the models produced)
of MSW followed by paper and food/garbage.
Fig. 1 shows that data from Equation (1) is well poised on
the experimental values whereas data from Equation (2) and
the Conventional Equation deviate from the experimental
value line. Although Equation (2) is one of the model
created by this study, but the R2 value is much lower than
that of Equation (1). This indicates the superiority of
Equation (1). Analysis of Fig. 2 shows that again, Equation
(1) is the best suited against the experimental value. Finally
Table 4 further strengthens Equation (1) credibility where
the predicted HHV values are not skewed either positively
or negatively with a small percentage error range.
Fig. 4. Average, maximum and minimum values for models based on
proximate analysis.
1123
Fig. 5. HHV values from models based on elemental analysis.
Validation of accuracy for Equation (2) and the Conven-
tional Equation shown in Table 4 proves that the predicted
HHV by Equation (2) is skewed negatively whereas the
Conventional Equations prediction was skewed positively.
Table 4 also confirms that Equation (1) is better than
Equation (2) due to a higher R2 value and smaller standard
deviation. Thus Equation (1) determined in this study is a
much superior tool for the prediction of the HHV values for
MSW generated in Malaysia. Lastly, this finding also proves
that models determined in foreign countries, such as that by
the Conventional Equation above, are not necessarily
applicable in predicting the calorific value of MSW in
Fig. 6. Average, maximum and minimum values for models based on
elemental analysis.
1124 S. Kathiravale et al. / Fuel 82 (2003) 11191125

Table 4 Table 6
Results of %error analysis from models based on physical composition data Results of %error analysis from models based on elemental analysis data as
as compared to bomb calorimeter data compared to bomb calorimeter data

Physical composition Ultimate analysis

Equation (1) Equation (2) Conventional Equation (5) Dulong Steuer Scheurer

Average 20.49 23.10 13.90 Average 20.59 21.28 6.04 212.32

Stdev. 8.88 14.68 14.50 Stdev. 9.50 13.34 9.05 10.34
Maximum 13.57 18.27 62.96 Maximum 14.97 41.28 19.01 4.14
Minimum 216.46 256.05 26.13 Minimum 222.65 232.56 211.51 236.15

other countries with the same accuracy as that in their native
country.
Fig. 3 shows the trends between the predicted HHV
obtained from models created in this study based on data
from proximate analysis, HHV obtained from the Bentons
Equation (refer Table 1) using data from this study and the
experimentally obtained HHV. As predicted, the HHV has a
linear function with the volatile matter and fixed carbon
content. On an individual basis, the HHV is a function of the
volatile matter but not fixed carbon alone. This is in line
with the literature [18] indicating that fixed carbon does not
play a significant part in the calorific value of MSW. This is
also supported by the regression results, which indicate that
volatile matter is a major contributor towards the calorific
value.
There is a small difference in the R2 values of Equations
(3) and (4) but they give almost the same predictions on the
HHV values, which are well distributed and poised directly
on the experimental values. In contrast to this, Bentons
equation is skewed towards a positive HHV value. This is
shown well in Fig. 3. Further analysis on the average,
maximum and minimum values in Fig. 4, strengthens the
arguments that both Equations (3) and (4) gave good
prediction as compared to Bentons Equation. This is further
strengthened by the percentage error analysis for proximate
analysis in Table 5, which indicates that the average for
Equation (3) is almost zero with a smaller range between the
maximum and minimum values, as compared to Equation
(4) and Bentons Equation. Thus, Equation (3) is the best
model in this category. The finding of the proximate
analysis results strengthens the argument that models are
best suited in their own area of creation and this finding is
Table 5
Results of %error analysis from models based on proximate analysis data as
compared to bomb calorimeter data
Proximate analysis
Equation (3) Equation (4)
Average 20.29 20.70
Stdev. 12.34 12.66
Maximum 26.42 24.29
Minimum 229.68 232.61
precise and accurate in predicting the HHV of MSW in
Malaysia.
Fig. 5 shows the HHV from regression models that were
developed using the elemental analysis data. Observations
on Equation (5), indicate that the energy content is a positive
function of carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, whereas the model
has a negative value for the hydrogen content and also the
constant to the equation. Regression analysis also revealed
that the main contributors to this model is carbon, oxygen
and hydrogen. Sulfur content could not be traced so it did
not contribute significantly to the calorific value. An
interesting finding is that the hydrogen content contributed
negatively whereas nitrogen and oxygen contributed
positively. In contrast to this, most of the equations under
the elemental analysis category in Table 1, showed a
positive contribution by hydrogen and a negative contri-
bution by oxygen and nitrogen. This could be because the
equations in Table 1 is based on LCV which is heavily
dependant on the moisture content of the MSW whereas the
equation in this study is based on HHV which is less
dependent on the moisture content of the MSW. This
argument, however, needs further clarification.
Validity of the elemental analysis model created was
carried out as done previously and are shown in Fig. 5.
There is only one model in this category as the other models
attempted had a low (, 0.6) R2 value. There have been
many models predicting the calorific value of the MSW in
this category and from the results in Fig. 5 it shows that
there is not much difference between the HHV predicted by
the existing models such as the Dulongs, Steuer or the
Scheurer Kestner Equations as compared to Equation (5).
However, there is still some distinguishing details, which
indicate that the model created by this study is superior,
compared to the other equations. This is indicated in Table 6
where the percentage error that is obtained from Equation
(5) is much closer to zero when compared to the range
achieved by the other equations. This is further supported by
the fact that the HHV predicted by Equation (5) has a
Benton smaller range of maximum and minimum whereas the other
equations are either skewed positively or negatively. This
32.08 can be observed clearly in Fig. 6. Even the world-renowned
7.79 Dulongs Equation has a percentage error, which is bigger
43.03
than the percentage error that is reported by Equation (5).
10.27
Thus, again the model created by this study is the best suited
 S. Kathiravale et al. / Fuel 82 (2003) 11191125
to predict the HHV for MSW in Malaysia. Finally this goes
to prove beyond any grounds that mathematical models
created to predict the calorific value of MSW is well suited
for the locality of the study by which they are created.
5. Conclusions
The major conclusions from this study are as follows:
1. The model from the physical composition, Equation (1)
is the best. Thus, the bigger the sample size the more
accurate the data, leading to a better mathematical model
and finally a more precise HHV prediction.
2. All mathematical models created in this study-performed
better than other equations in predicting the HHV values
when compared against the HHV values obtained
experimentally. This proves beyond any doubt, that an
equation for the prediction of the calorific value of MSW
is best suited in its own area of study.
3. There was a linear relationship between parameters that
make up the physical composition, proximate analysis
and elemental analysis towards the energy content of
MSW. It is possible to build models based on data from
physical composition, proximate and elemental analysis
using regression analysis.
Acknowledgements
This project was carried out in The Malaysian Institute
for Nuclear Technology Research. The author would like to
thank the management for the usage of the facilities.
A special note of thanks is also due to the staff of the MINT
Incineration and Renewable Energy Center (MIREC) and
also the Environmental and Radiochemistry Group of MINT
for all the assistance and help in carrying out the project.
1125
References
[1] Hassan MN, Chong TL, Rahman MM, Salleh MN, Zakariah Z, Yunus
MMN. Solid waste managementwhats the Malaysian position.
Seminar Waste to Energy 2000. Malaysia: Universiti Putra Malaysia;
2000.
[2] Brunner PH, Ernst WR. Waste Mgmt Res 1986;4:14760.
[3] Korzun EA. J Energy Engng 1990;116(1):3951.
[4] Korzun EA. J Energy Engng 1991;117(3):13350.
[5] Nels C. Waste Mgmt Res 1984;2:3751.
[6] Agrawal RK. Waste Mgmt Res 1988;6:271 80.
[7] Kirklin DR, Colbert JC, Decker PH, Ledford AE, Ryan RV, Dohalski
ES. Resour Conserv 1983;9:281300.
[8] Klee AJ. J Environ Engng 1993;2:11925.
[9] Khan MZA, Abu-Ghararah ZH. J Environ Engng 1991;3:37681.
[10] Reilly ML, Churney KL, Kirklin DR, Ledford AE, Comalski ES.
Resour Conserv 1982;8:147 57.
[11] Ledford AE, Ryan RV, Reily ML, Domalski ES, Churney KL. Resour
Conserv 1982;8:15965.
[12] Vesillind PA, Uhl ME, Gullett BK. Waste Mgmt Res 1993;1:
14755.
[13] Ikeguchi T, Karchannawong S, Koottatep S. Environ Technol 1994;
15:3959.
[14] Franjo CF, Ledo JP, Anon JAR, Regueira LN. Environ Technol 1992;
13:10859.
[15] Haith DA. J Environ Engng 1998;124(1):67 75.
[16] Lorenz H, Rau H. Fuel 1997;3(77):127 34.
[17] Uzun D, Ozdogan S. Fuel 1998;14(77):1599604.
[18] Liu JI, Papde RD, Holsen TM. J Air Waste Mgmt Assoc 1996;
46:650.
[19] Jimenez L, Gonzalez F. Fuel 1991;70:94750.
[20] Dermirbas A. Fuel 1997;9/10(77):111720.
[21] Demirbas A. Fuel 1996;5(76):431 4.
[22] Raveendran K, Ganesh A. Fuel 1996;15(75):171580.
[23] Fernandez P, Diaz RM, Xiberta J. Fuel 1997;10(76):951 5.
[24] Corbitt RA. Standard handbook of environmental engineering. USA:
McGraw-Hill; 1989.
[25] Hasselriis F. What is municipal solid waste. Refuse derived
fuel processing. London: Butterworth Publisher; 1989 (chapter 1,
p. 1 42).
[26] Yacio. Waste characteristics. Report submitted to the Ministry of
Housing and Local Government, Malaysia. Ministry of Housing and
Local Government, Kuala Lumpur; 2000.
[27] General Electric Company. Solid waste management technology
assessment. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1975. p. 69 79.