2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Techno-economic assessment of central sorting at material recovery facilities – the case of lightweight packaging waste

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
80
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(85 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
4
80
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Waste recycling means repeated use of the resources that have already been used (De Beir et al 2010). Primarily, the effort is aimed at the maximum possible saving of raw material resources, fuels and energy, reduction of waste volume and sustainable economics (Cimpan et al 2016). Secondly, material recycling contributes to environment conservation, but also to prevent pollution (Jagannadha Rao 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Waste recycling means repeated use of the resources that have already been used (De Beir et al 2010). Primarily, the effort is aimed at the maximum possible saving of raw material resources, fuels and energy, reduction of waste volume and sustainable economics (Cimpan et al 2016). Secondly, material recycling contributes to environment conservation, but also to prevent pollution (Jagannadha Rao 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the increasing material complexity and fast growing urbanization have increased the challenges in collection [13]. The importance of separation cannot be underestimated, as for example recent studies have shown that the share of sorting costs is 30-50% of the total system cost of packaging waste management [14].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1, the sorting can be challenging. The price of mixed plastics may also be negative in material recovery facilities [14]. For this reason, plastic sorting is one of the most commonly studied sorting systems.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We modelled two contrasting cases: (1) a simple MRF, reflecting small scale, low technology plants (mainly manual sorting) which are common in Brazil, and (2) an advanced MRF, reflecting more the state-of-the-art in Europe and the US, characterized by larger scale and mechanical sorting complemented with manual sorting. Consumption of electricity (15 and 20 kWh.t -1 , respectively), diesel (0.7 L.t -1 ) and steel wire for bales (0.85 kg.t -1 ) was estimated considering previous work by Cimpan et al (2016. Sorting efficiencies in the two plants are presented in the Table 1-5, the first number represents the MRF low tech: low technology, low to medium capacity, manual picking plant and the second number, represented in red colour, the MRF high tech: high technology, medium to large capacity, mechanical sorting and manual picking plant.…”
Section: Msw Generationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The transfer coefficients employed for each fraction and each year are presented in Table 2-11 to Table 2-14. Consumption of electricity (15 kWh.t -1 ), diesel (0.7 L.t -1 ) and steel wire for bales (0.85 kg.t -1 ) were included in the process LCI (Cimpan et al, 2016). Source: (Cimpan et al, 2016;PMCG & DMTR, 2017c) 2.4.4 Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT)…”
Section: Materials Recovery Facility (Mrf)mentioning
confidence: 99%