Content uploaded by Anusree Nn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anusree Nn on Dec 08, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 312 125
© ASCE
Life Cycle Analysis as a Tool to Assess the Sustainability of Waste Management Practices
in Bangalore City
P. Sughosh1; N. Anusree2; and G. L. Sivakumar Babu3
1Center for Sustainable Technologies (CST), Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012,
India. E-mail: sughosh.p@gmail.com
2Dept. of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram 695016,
India. E-mail: anusreen.129@gmail.com
3Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India. E-mail:
gls@civil.iisc.ernet.in
ABSTRACT
Bangalore generates around 3,500 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) per day. The current
waste management practices involve preliminary mechanical and biological treatment before
landfilling. Assessment of the waste management practices followed by the municipality by
using life cycle analysis (LCA) is presented in this study. LCA is also used in the study to
explore alternatives to the current practices and handle the waste in a more sustainable way. The
analysis is performed in terms of material flow, energy flow, and the impacts of waste processing
on the environment. Five impact categories consisting of global warming, acidification,
eutrophication, human toxicity, and aquatic ecotoxicity potentials were investigated. The result
presents the comparison of open dumping of MSW (which was practiced earlier) with the
existing integrated waste management (IWM) system. Results also show that the environmental
impact of IWM system with a bioreactor landfill having an energy recovery facility is lesser than
the above two cases.
INTRODUCTION
Municipal solid waste (MSW) management in India is a serious challenge considering the
amount of waste that is generated on a daily basis. According to Karnataka State Pollution
Control Board (KSPCB annual report 2013), Bangalore generates around 3500 tons/day of MSW
and has a collection efficiency of 85%. Bangalore has witnessed a rapid growth in its urban
population and waste generation rate in the last decade. The treatment system in Bangalore has
evolved from the open dumping of waste a decade ago (Ramachandra et al. 2007) to a
combination of waste treatment systems involving segregation, windrow composting and
controlled landfilling into the conventional landfills in the present times. Around eleven mixed
waste processing units and seven mixed waste processing units with landfills have been set up by
the Municipality to achieve 100% processing of MSW (KSPCB annual report, 2013). Even
though there has been a considerable increase in the processing capacity of the generated waste
in the recent years, the data about the actual waste processed is unavailable. Therefore, it is
assumed that both open dumping and waste treatment at integrated waste management (IWM)
units are prevalent in Bangalore currently. The impact of the present or the earlier waste
management practices in Bangalore has not been assessed until now. Such studies would help in
understanding the environmental burdens associated with the waste treatment systems. Life cycle
analysis (LCA) of the processes employed in the waste treatment facilities would help in
understanding their potential impacts and thereby assist in making important policy decisions.
The environmental impacts of MSW management systems can be assessed by using LCA
Geo-Congress 2019
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 03/27/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 312 126
© ASCE
tools (Chaya and Gheewala, 2007; Mendes et al. 2003). Several LCA studies on the management
practices involving open dumping, composting and landfilling (both conventional and bioreactor
type) are reported in the literature. Hong et al. (2010) assessed four solid waste management
scenarios through LCA in China and reported that the landfills contributed considerably to the
global warming potential due to direct methane gas emissions. However, electricity recovery
from methane gas was the key factor in reducing the potential impact of global warming. Sharma
et al. (2017) studied six solid waste management scenarios in Mumbai (India) and concluded that
the scenario with the combination of recycling, composting and landfill had the least
eutrophication and least human toxicity potential. They also stated that significant environmental
savings could be achieved with the help of energy recovery facility in all the waste management
scenarios. Other studies by Damgaard et al. (2011) and Babu et al. (2014) also had similar
findings about the energy recovery systems in bioreactor landfills.
In this study, LCA is used to access the performance of the waste management practices that
are currently proposed in the Bangalore city. Also, the potential benefits of incorporating the
bioreactor landfills in place of the proposed conventional landfills are also evaluated in the study.
METHODOLOGY
Three MSW treatment scenarios are considered here. The first scenario considers processing
only a small fraction of waste collected by means of composting (3.14%) and the rest of the
waste is directly discarded by open dumping (96.86%). This scenario was widely prevalent in
Bangalore in the late 2000’s (Ramachandra et al. 2007). The second scenario considers the
processing of the collected waste by preliminary mechanical and biological treatment such as
mechanical sorting and windrow composting prior to landfilling. This scenario represents the
present status of Bangalore city with the installed waste processing capacity almost equivalent to
the generation rate. The third scenario is similar to the second, except the waste is landfilled in
bioreactors instead of a conventional landfill. The gas generated from the bioreactor landfill is
used for power generation while in the open dumps and conventional landfills it is let off directly
to the atmosphere.
The treatment systems considered in each of the scenarios are given below.
Scenario 1: [Open dumps] (96.86%) and [Segregation + Composting] (3.14%)
Scenario 2: IWM system [Material Recovery Facility (MRF) + Composting + Conventional
landfill +leachate treatment]
Scenario 3: IWM system [MRF + Composting + Bioreactor landfill +leachate treatment
+Gas recovery and power generation]
Fig. 1. Flowchart of the scenario 1
Geo-Congress 2019
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 03/27/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 312 127
© ASCE
Scenario 1: The flowchart showing the handling of MSW in scenario 1 is given in Fig. 1.
Most of the MSW collected is disposed directly into open dumps, and only a fraction of MSW is
processed by composting, and then the rejects are discarded in open dumps. The gaseous
emissions and leachate generated (in composting units and open dumps) are let out without any
treatment into the environment.
Scenario 2: The MSW is fed into trommels of varying size (200 and100mm) to recover the
recyclable and combustible materials. The MSW passing through 100mm trommel is windrow
composted. The combustible materials are then compacted to produce refuse derived fuel (RDF).
The mechanically biologically treated (MBT) waste thus obtained is then passed through the 16 -
4mm trommels. The retained material (MBT waste) is then disposed in a conventional landfill.
The material passing through 4mm is compost and is sold as a natural fertilizer. The landfill gas
(LFG) is let out directly while the leachate generated is treated before discharging into the
natural water bodies.
Fig. 2. Flowchart of scenario 2 and 3
Scenario 3: All unit processes here are similar to scenario 2. Bioreactor landfill with power
generation from LFG produced is considered in this scenario. Fig. 2 shows the flowchart of the
scenario 2 and 3.
Fig. 3. System boundary of scenario 1, 2 and 3
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
In this paper, the LCA is carried out based on the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 14040:2006 methodology. It consists of four phases, which include, goal
definition and scoping, inventory analysis, life cycle impact assessment and interpretation or
Geo-Congress 2019
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 03/27/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 312 128
© ASCE
improvement analysis.
Table 1. Unit processes showing the material/energy flow in different scenarios.
Process
Material/Energy
Scenario
#
IN
OUT
Segregation
MSW
RDF
1, 2, 3
<100mm MSW
Electricity; 3.2 kW/T
Indirect emissions
1, 2, 3
Diesel; 3.21L/T
Gaseous emissions
1, 2, 3
Composting
<100mm MSW
Compost
1, 2, 3
Gaseous emissions;
ammonia gas
1, 2, 3
Electricity 0.88 kW/T
Indirect emissions
1, 2, 3
Diesel; 0.47 L/T
Gaseous emissions
1, 2, 3
Open dumping
MSW and MBT waste
Leachate; (generation is
proportional to rainfall);
COD, BOD, NH3, Ni, Zn
1
Diesel; 0.88 L/T
Gaseous emissions
1
LFG; CH4, CO2, SO2, NOx,
H2S and VOCs
1
Conventional/
Bioreactor landfill
MBT waste
Leachate; generation is 10%
of rainfall; COD, BOD,
NH3, Ni, Zn
2, 3
LFG; CH4, CO2, SO2, NOx,
H2S and VOCs
2, 3
Diesel; 0.9 L/T and 2L/T
for 2 and 3 respectively
Gaseous emissions
2, 3
Liners
2, 3
Covers
2, 3
Leachate
Treatment
Leachate
Treated Leachate
2, 3
Electricity; 0.244 MJ/T of
waste
Indirect emissions
2, 3
Power generation
LFG; 90% collection
efficiency and calorific
value of methane as 50
MJ/kg
Electricity and Gaseous
emissions
3
GOAL DEFINITION AND SCOPING
The goal of this study is to evaluate the above mentioned MSW management scenarios using
LCA methodology and to estimate its impact on the environment. One tonne of MSW is selected
as the functional unit for comparison of MSW management systems. The system boundaries
considered for all the scenarios are given in Fig. 3.
MSW, raw materials (liners, clay, gas collection system and leachate collection system) and
energy (electricity and fuel) are considered as inputs to the system. The output from the system is
the compost, refuse derived fuel (RDF), gaseous emissions and the leachate from the composting
yards/ open dumps/ landfills. The emissions can be from both the foreground systems like
Geo-Congress 2019
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 03/27/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 312 129
© ASCE
composting and landfill systems (direct emissions) and from the background systems (indirect
emissions) during the production and consumption of diesel and electricity.
Table 2. Physical composition of MSW in Bangalore (Chanakya et al. 2010)
Waste type
Composition (% by mass)
Fermentable
72
Paper and cardboard
11.6
Cloth, rubber, PVC, leather
1.01
Glass
1.43
Polythene/plastics
6.23
Metals
0.23
Dust and sweeping
6.53
The volume of daily cover in a landfill is estimated to be 0.1% of the volume of the deposited
waste and the volume of the cover system is estimated to be 0.08% of the volume of waste
(CPHEEO Manual 2000). The scenarios 2 and 3 consists of leachate collection and treatment
system. Scenario 3 consist of a gas collection system wherein the gas collected is used to
generate power. Table 1 shows the material/energy flow in different unit processes considered in
the study.
Fig. 4. Mass balance of MSW -Scenario 2 & 3
LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY ANALYSIS
Input analysis
The physical composition of MSW generated in Bangalore is given in Table 2. The organic
content of MSW is taken as 72% as per Chanakya et al. (2010). The MSW after entering the
system undergoes physical, mechanical and biological treatment during which it transforms into
Geo-Congress 2019
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 03/27/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 312 130
© ASCE
different by-products. The mass balance of MSW in the system with its different by-products are
shown in Fig. 4 (CPHEEO Manual 2014). The diesel requirement for open dumps, conventional
landfills and bioreactor landfills are assumed to be 0.88 L/T, 0.9 L/T and 2 L/T respectively
(Damgaard et al. 2011).
Diesel and electricity requirement to process one ton of waste in material recovery units and
composting units are taken as 3.21L and 3.2kWh and 0.47L and 0.88 kWh respectively (Sharma
et al. 2017).
OUTPUT ANALYSIS
Table 3 shows the four impact categories associated with the indirect environmental
emissions resulting from the production of electricity and diesel (GaBi 2014).
Compost emissions: The main emissions from the composting process are carbon dioxide
and ammonia. Biogenic carbon dioxide emission from the process is not included in the
inventory due to its carbon neutral considerations (Chandel et al. 2012; Zhao et al. 2009). The
amount of ammonia produced during composting is estimated as per the method given in Pichtel
(2005). Aerobic composting of MSW is given by the following Eq. (1). The molecular formula
of MSW is calculated based on the physical composition of Bangalore waste and from the
method suggested in Tchobanoglos et al. (1993). The formula for MSW estimated is
29.40 43.93 16.64 1
C H O N
. The formulae
C H O N
a b c d
and
C H O N
w x y z
in Eq. (1) represents the
composition of MSW and MBT waste respectively. The molecular formula of MBT waste was
found by performing CHN analysis and is of the form
15.86 2.26 13.35 1
C H O N
.
2
2 2 3
C H O N 0.5 2 O C H O N
CO H O d nz NH
a b c d w x y z
ny s r c n
sr
(1)
Where,
0.5 b nx 3(d nz)r
and
s a nw
The organic content and moisture content MBT waste were obtained experimentally and
were found to be 53.56% and 51% respectively. The usage of compost substitutes/avoids the use
of chemical fertilizers and helps in preventing the possible impacts due to their production. The
avoided impact due to the substitution of fertilizers by compost is shown in Table 4.
Table 3. Environmental burdens resulting from the production 1 MJ of electricity (Indian
grid) and 1 L of diesel (GaBi -2014; Sharma et al., 2017)
Electricity (1MJ)
Diesel (1L)
GWP (kg CO2 eq)
0.372
0.465
AP (kg SO2 eq)
0.00376
0.00349
EP (kg PO3- eq)
0.000212
0.000182
HTP (1,4 DB eq*)
0.13
0.08
*1,4 Dichlorobenzene eq
Landfill emissions: Emissions from both the conventional and bioreactor landfills are
assumed to be similar in composition (Babu et al. 2014). Methane, carbon dioxide, oxides of
nitrogen and sulfur, hydrogen sulfide and VOCs are assumed to be the major components of
landfill emissions. The landfill gas produced by the disposal of MSW (0.969T) and MBT waste
(0.216T) in open dumps and landfills is calculated by using LandGEM model version 3.02.
Geo-Congress 2019
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 03/27/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 312 131
© ASCE
Table 4. Emissions resulting from the production of mineral fertilizer (GaBi, 2014).
N (kg)
P (kg)
K (kg)
GW; kg CO2
6.8
1.2
0.5
AP; kg SO2
0.0417
0.0456
2.45E-03
Ep; kg of Phosphate
0.0219
0.0326
1.21E-03
HTP (1,4-DB-eq)
0.0195
0.046
0.046
Table 5. Emissions from Landfills
Parameter
Kg/T
NOX
8.03E-02
VOC
2.38E-02
H2S
1.31
SO2
1.46E-02
Table 6. Major parameters of leachate from open dumps and landfill in Bangalore
Parameter
Open dumps, mg/L
Landfills/Bioreactor landfills, mg/L
COD
1950
21400
BOD
405
6667
NH3
201
450
Ni
0.1
0.64
Zn
1.67
0.3
The waste is assumed to be deposited for a one-year period and the gas generated in that one-
year duration is used for all emission and power generation calculations. The values of methane
generation rate (year-1) and the methane generation capacity (m3/Mg) used in LandGEM model
were 0.4 and 144 respectively. From Hong et al. 2010, the other gaseous emissions produced per
ton of waste are estimated and is shown in Table 5. The efficiency of the gas collection systems
in bioreactor landfill is assumed to be 90% (Barlaz et al. 2003). The power generated from
methane is calculated by assuming the calorific value of methane as 50 MJ/kg (Obersteiner et al.
2007). The emission factors for gas power plant used in bioreactor landfill is taken from MOE
(2005).
Table 7. Characterization factors based on equivalency factors from IPCC 2001 GWP for
20 years and Eco-indicator 95
CH4
CO2
NOx
SOx
NH3
COD
BOD
Ni
Zn
GWP; kg CO2
62
1
AP; kg SO2
0.7
1
1.88
EP; kg of
Phosphate
0.13
0.33
0.022
AEP; BOD, Ni,
Zn
0.00013
0.79
1
GWP=global warming potential; AP= acidification potential; EP=eutrophication potential; AEP=aquatic eco-
toxicity potential
Leachate emissions: A few major parameters of leachate representing the open dumps and
conventional landfills of Bangalore are given in Table 6. The amount of leachate generated is
assumed to be around 10% of precipitation for the landfill sites (Cabaraban et al. 2007) and for
Geo-Congress 2019
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 03/27/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 312 132
© ASCE
open dumps it was assumed to be in proportional to the rainfall. The 100 years average annual
precipitation of Bangalore is taken as 77.98 mm as per the data from Indian Meteorological
Department. Leachate collection efficiency in conventional landfill and bioreactor landfill is
assumed to be 80% (Abduli et al. 2011). The electricity consumption in the leachate treatment is
assumed as 0.2436 MJ per ton (Finnveden et al. 2005).
Table 8. Impact assessment results for scenarios (per functional unit)
Scenario 1
(Comp/Open dumps)
Scenario 2
(MRF+Comp+CLF)
Scenario 3
(MRF+Comp+BLF)
GWP; kg CO2 eq.
2,084.25
467.00
43.81
AP; kg SO2 eq.
0.339
9.307
9.246
EP; kg of Phosphate
eq.
0.014
-0.038
-0.042
HTP; 1,4-
Dichlorobenzene eq.
0.176
4.424
2.617
AEP; BOD, Ni, Zn
1.36E-04
5.64E-07
5.64E-07
MRF=material recovery facility; Comp=composting; CLF=conventional landfill; BLF=bioreactor landfill
LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Five impact categories i.e., global warming, acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity and
aquatic ecotoxicity were investigated in this study. The impact categories were calculated by
multiplying the emissions accounted for in the inventory stage with an equivalency factor. The
various emissions contributing to different impact categories along with their characterization
factors that are considered in this study are given in Table 7.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The impact assessment results for the three scenarios are presented in Table 8. The global
warming potential of scenario 1 is greater than the other two cases. This is due to the direct
release of gaseous emissions from the open dumps. The recovery of methane and its utilization
for power generation reduces the GWP of scenario 3 considerably in comparison to scenario 2.
The acidification potential of scenario 2 and 3 are more than that of the open dumps. This is due
to the release of ammonia from the composting units of scenario 2 and 3 which are almost 32
times larger in size than that of the units in scenario 1. The eutrophication and aquatic
ecotoxicity potential are higher in open dumps in comparison to the conventional and bioreactor
landfills. This might be due to the contamination of untreated leachate with the water bodies. The
substitution of mineral fertilizers with compost results in considerable reduction in
eutrophication potential (by a factor of 4 and 8.37 in scenario 2 and 3 respectively). The human
toxicity potential of scenario 2 and 3 are higher than that of scenario 1 due to the indirect
emissions related to the utilization of electricity and fuel.
CONCLUSIONS
Among the alternatives considered, the integrated waste management system consisting of
MRF, composting and bioreactor landfills with leachate treatment and energy recovery option is
far more environmentally benign than the others. The study estimates that the aquatic ecotoxicity
potential of open dumps is considerably higher (a factor of 241) than the conventional or
Geo-Congress 2019
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 03/27/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 312 133
© ASCE
bioreactor landfills. The reports of leachate contaminating the ground and surface water sources
and its health impacts near the Mavallipura dump site (Lutringer, 2017) substantiates the above
finding. On the other hand, the study estimates that the by preferring bioreactor landfills over
open dumps, the GWP can be decreased by a factor of 48 in addition to the benefits of generating
power from LFG. Therefore, in case of Bangalore city, an integrated waste management system
consisting of bioreactor landfills with energy recovery would not only be an environmentally
benign, but also a sustainable and economically (Babu et al. 2014) viable option.
REFERENCE
Abduli, M. A., Naghib, A., Yonesi, M., & Akbari, A. (2011). "Life cycle assessment (LCA) of
solid waste management strategies in Tehran: landfill and composting plus
landfill". Environmental monitoring and assessment, 178(1-4), 487-498.
Babu, G. S., Lakshmikanthan, P., & Santhosh, L. G. (2014). "Life cycle analysis of municipal
solid waste (MSW) land disposal options in Bangalore City". In ICSI 2014: Creating
Infrastructure for a Sustainable World (pp. 795-806).
Barlaz, M. A., Kaplan, P. O., Ranjithan, S. R., & Rynk, R. (2003). "Comparing recycling,
composting and landfills". BioCycle, 44(9), 60-60.
Cabaraban, M. T. I., Khire, M. V., & Alocilja, E. C. (2008). "Aerobic in-vessel composting
versus bioreactor landfilling using life cycle inventory models". Clean Technologies and
Environmental Policy, 10(1), 39-52.
Chanakya, H.N., Shwetmala and Ramachandra, T. V. (2010). "Small-scale decentralized and
sustainable municipal solid waste management potential for Bangalore anchored around total
recycle and biomethanation plants". National Conference on Urban, Industrial and Hospital
Waste Managemen, Ahmadabad Management Association.
Chandel, M. K., Kwok, G., Jackson, R. B., & Pratson, L. F. (2012). "The potential of waste-to-
energy in reducing GHG emissions". Carbon Management, 3(2), 133-144.
Chaya, W., & Gheewala, S. H. (2007). "Life cycle assessment of MSW-to-energy schemes in
Thailand". Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(15), 1463-1468.
CPHEEO-Central Public Health & Environmental Engineering Organisation.(2014)."Municipal
solid waste management manual".Ministry of Urban Development, and Government of India.
CPHEEO-Central Public Health, & Environmental Engineering Organisation (India). (2000).
"Manual on municipal solid waste management". Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of
India.
Damgaard, A., Manfredi, S., Merrild, H., Stensøe, S., & Christensen, T. H. (2011). "LCA and
economic evaluation of landfill leachate and gas technologies". Waste management, 31(7),
1532-1541.
Finnveden, G., Johansson, J., Lind, P., & Moberg, A. (2005). "Life cycle assessments of energy
from solid waste". Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, 213–229.
GaBi (2014) GaBi 6.0 Product Sustainability Software and Database. PE International.
Hong, J., Li, X., & Zhaojie, C. (2010). "Life cycle assessment of four municipal solid waste
management scenarios in China". Waste management, 30(11), 2362-2369.
KSPCB, Municipal solid waste Annual Report of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board 2013-
2014.
Lutringer, C. (2017). “Environmental and Social Justice in Solid Waste Management. Interview
with Leo Saldanha and Bhargavi Rao, Environment Support Group”. International
Development Policy| Revue internationale de politique de développement, (8.2). DOI :
Geo-Congress 2019
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 03/27/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 312 134
© ASCE
10.4000/poldev.2487
Mendes, M. R., Aramaki, T., & Hanaki, K. (2003). "Assessment of the environmental impact of
management measures for the biodegradable fraction of municipal solid waste in Sao Paulo
City". Waste Management, 23(5), 403-409.
MOE (2005). National energy balance. Bureau of energy planning; Ministry of Energy (MoE), (p
632). Tehran, Iran: Energy balance.
Obersteiner, G., Binner, E., Mostbauer, P., & Salhofer, S. (2007). "Landfill modelling in LCA–a
contribution based on empirical data". Waste management, 27(8), S58-S74.
Pichtel, J. (2005). "Waste management practices: municipal, hazardous, and industrial". CRC
press.
Ramachandra, T. V., & Bachamanda, S. (2007). "Environmental audit of municipal solid waste
management". International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 7(3-4),
369-391.
Sharma, B. K., & Chandel, M. K. (2017). "Life cycle assessment of potential municipal solid
waste management strategies for Mumbai, India". Waste Management & Research, 35(1),
79-91.
Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., & Vigil, S. A. (1993). "Integrated solid waste management:
engineering principles and management issues". New York, New York, USA.
Zhao, W., Van Der Voet, E., Zhang, Y., & Huppes, G. (2009). "Life cycle assessment of
municipal solid waste management with regard to greenhouse gas emissions: case study of
Tianjin, China". Science of the Total Environment, 407(5), 1517-1526.
Geo-Congress 2019
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 03/27/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
