A quantitative analysis of the US materials flow methodology and comparison to the EU methodology for MSW statistics

Demetra Tsiamis, Fabio Poretti, Stefano Consonni, Marco J. Castaldi
{"title":"A quantitative analysis of the US materials flow methodology and comparison to the EU methodology for MSW statistics","authors":"Demetra Tsiamis,&nbsp;Fabio Poretti,&nbsp;Stefano Consonni,&nbsp;Marco J. Castaldi","doi":"10.1007/s42768-023-00171-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The European Union (EU) and the United States (US) determine municipal solid waste (MSW) statistics differently. The EU applies a site-specific methodology that directly measures waste whereas the US employs a materials flow methodology that estimates MSW statistics indirectly based on production and recovery data from industries. This study dissects the materials flow methodology and presents quantitative materials flow Sankey diagrams for the primary MSW materials to highlight data gaps that can be addressed to improve the methodology’s accuracy. Private industry plastics data were applied to the materials flow methodology, and the results were within 10% of the plastics statistics reported by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Drawbacks to the methodologies include EU measurement inaccuracies due to double-counting and not accounting for residual waste in the US. The latter may partially explain why landfilling tonnages reported by the US EPA were approximately 60% less than the tonnages reported by the Waste to Energy Research and Technology Council (WTERT) in its national MSW survey that applied the EU methodology in the US. Unlike the EU, there is no US national policy that requires states to measure and report state-level waste data to the US EPA. Future improvements in US MSW statistics rely heavily on the implementation of national policies to homogenize the measurement and collection of waste data from states.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":807,"journal":{"name":"Waste Disposal & Sustainable Energy","volume":"6 1","pages":"85 - 94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Waste Disposal & Sustainable Energy","FirstCategoryId":"6","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42768-023-00171-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The European Union (EU) and the United States (US) determine municipal solid waste (MSW) statistics differently. The EU applies a site-specific methodology that directly measures waste whereas the US employs a materials flow methodology that estimates MSW statistics indirectly based on production and recovery data from industries. This study dissects the materials flow methodology and presents quantitative materials flow Sankey diagrams for the primary MSW materials to highlight data gaps that can be addressed to improve the methodology’s accuracy. Private industry plastics data were applied to the materials flow methodology, and the results were within 10% of the plastics statistics reported by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Drawbacks to the methodologies include EU measurement inaccuracies due to double-counting and not accounting for residual waste in the US. The latter may partially explain why landfilling tonnages reported by the US EPA were approximately 60% less than the tonnages reported by the Waste to Energy Research and Technology Council (WTERT) in its national MSW survey that applied the EU methodology in the US. Unlike the EU, there is no US national policy that requires states to measure and report state-level waste data to the US EPA. Future improvements in US MSW statistics rely heavily on the implementation of national policies to homogenize the measurement and collection of waste data from states.

Abstract Image

对美国材料流方法的定量分析以及与欧盟都市固体废物统计方法的比较
欧盟(EU)和美国(US)确定城市固体废物(MSW)统计数据的方法不同。欧盟采用针对具体地点的方法直接测量废物,而美国则采用材料流方法,根据各行业的生产和回收数据间接估算城市固体废物统计数据。本研究对材料流方法进行了剖析,并为主要的都市固体废物材料提供了定量材料流桑基图,以突出可用于提高该方法准确性的数据缺口。私营企业的塑料数据被应用于材料流方法,其结果与美国环境保护局(US EPA)报告的塑料统计数据相差不超过 10%。该方法的缺点包括:由于重复计算和未考虑美国的残余废物,导致欧盟的测量不准确。后者可以部分解释为什么美国环保局报告的填埋吨数比废物变能源研究与技术委员会(WTERT)在其全国 MSW 调查中报告的吨数少约 60%,而后者在美国采用的是欧盟的方法。与欧盟不同,美国没有要求各州测量并向美国环保局报告州级废物数据的国家政策。未来美国 MSW 统计数据的改进在很大程度上有赖于国家政策的实施,以统一各州对废物数据的测量和收集。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信