生物降解塑料--扔向何处?奥地利废物收集和管理途径的生命周期评估。

IF 7.1 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
Namrata Mhaddolkar , Concetta Lodato , Alexia Tischberger-Aldrian , Daniel Vollprecht , Thomas Fruergaard Astrup
{"title":"生物降解塑料--扔向何处?奥地利废物收集和管理途径的生命周期评估。","authors":"Namrata Mhaddolkar ,&nbsp;Concetta Lodato ,&nbsp;Alexia Tischberger-Aldrian ,&nbsp;Daniel Vollprecht ,&nbsp;Thomas Fruergaard Astrup","doi":"10.1016/j.wasman.2024.10.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The current waste management systems are struggling to optimally handle biodegradable plastics (BDPs) and are facing numerous challenges; one of which is the consumer confusion about how to best source-segregate BDPs. Based on an environmental life-cycle assessment, this study investigated the consequences of collecting BDPs in one of three waste streams (packaging waste, biowaste, and residual waste) in Austria. Collecting BDPs as (i) packaging waste resulted in incineration (SP1) or mechanical recycling (SP2), (ii) biowaste resulted in composting (SB1) or anaerobic digestion (AD) (SB2), and (iii) residual waste in incineration (SR1). SP2 performed best in most of the 16 investigated impact categories (ICs). Three scenario analyses demonstrated that (i) utilisation of BDPs as an alternative fuel for process heat substitution yielded more environmental benefits than incineration in SP1 and SP2, (ii) adding a material recovery facility (MRF) with AD increased the environmental load for SB2, while (iii) the energy scenario with zero electricity imports plus heat from biomass performed best for most alternative pathways across the 16 ICs. Eight technology parameters (out of 97) were identified as most relevant for the results based on data quality, sensitivity ratio, and analytical uncertainty; they were related to waste incineration, MRF, recycling facility, compost- and AD processes. Overall, mechanical recycling emerged as the most favourable option which is aligned with the waste-hierarchy mentioned in the European Union Waste Framework Directive. However, effective mechanical recycling of BDPs requires (i) a ‘sufficient’ waste amount, (ii) a market for recyclates, and (iii) relevant mechanical recycling infrastructure.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23969,"journal":{"name":"Waste management","volume":"190 ","pages":"Pages 578-592"},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biodegradable plastics – Where to throw? A life cycle assessment of waste collection and management pathways in Austria\",\"authors\":\"Namrata Mhaddolkar ,&nbsp;Concetta Lodato ,&nbsp;Alexia Tischberger-Aldrian ,&nbsp;Daniel Vollprecht ,&nbsp;Thomas Fruergaard Astrup\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.wasman.2024.10.018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The current waste management systems are struggling to optimally handle biodegradable plastics (BDPs) and are facing numerous challenges; one of which is the consumer confusion about how to best source-segregate BDPs. Based on an environmental life-cycle assessment, this study investigated the consequences of collecting BDPs in one of three waste streams (packaging waste, biowaste, and residual waste) in Austria. Collecting BDPs as (i) packaging waste resulted in incineration (SP1) or mechanical recycling (SP2), (ii) biowaste resulted in composting (SB1) or anaerobic digestion (AD) (SB2), and (iii) residual waste in incineration (SR1). SP2 performed best in most of the 16 investigated impact categories (ICs). Three scenario analyses demonstrated that (i) utilisation of BDPs as an alternative fuel for process heat substitution yielded more environmental benefits than incineration in SP1 and SP2, (ii) adding a material recovery facility (MRF) with AD increased the environmental load for SB2, while (iii) the energy scenario with zero electricity imports plus heat from biomass performed best for most alternative pathways across the 16 ICs. Eight technology parameters (out of 97) were identified as most relevant for the results based on data quality, sensitivity ratio, and analytical uncertainty; they were related to waste incineration, MRF, recycling facility, compost- and AD processes. Overall, mechanical recycling emerged as the most favourable option which is aligned with the waste-hierarchy mentioned in the European Union Waste Framework Directive. However, effective mechanical recycling of BDPs requires (i) a ‘sufficient’ waste amount, (ii) a market for recyclates, and (iii) relevant mechanical recycling infrastructure.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23969,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Waste management\",\"volume\":\"190 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 578-592\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Waste management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X24005397\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Waste management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X24005397","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前的废物管理系统正努力以最佳方式处理可生物降解塑料(BDPs),并面临着诸多挑战;其中之一就是消费者对如何以最佳方式对 BDPs 进行源头分类感到困惑。基于环境生命周期评估,本研究调查了奥地利在三种废物流(包装废物、生物废物和残余废物)中收集生物降解塑料的后果。将 BDP 作为 (i) 包装废物收集后,可进行焚烧(SP1)或机械回收(SP2),(ii) 生物废物可进行堆肥(SB1)或厌氧消化(AD)(SB2),(iii) 剩余废物可进行焚烧(SR1)。在调查的 16 个影响类别 (IC) 中,SP2 在大多数情况下表现最佳。三种情景分析表明:(i) 在 SP1 和 SP2 中,利用生物柴油作为替代燃料替代工艺热量比焚烧产生更多的环境效益;(ii) 在 SB2 中,增加一个采用厌氧消化(AD)的材料回收设施(MRF)会增加环境负荷;(iii) 在 16 个 IC 中的大多数替代途径中,零电力进口加生物质热量的能源情景表现最佳。根据数据质量、灵敏度比和分析不确定性,确定了与结果最相关的 8 个技术参数(共 97 个);它们与垃圾焚烧、MRF、回收设施、堆肥和厌氧消化工艺有关。总体而言,机械回收是最有利的选择,符合欧盟废物框架指令中提到的废物等级制度。然而,对生物废弃物进行有效的机械再循环需要(i)"足够 "的废物量,(ii)回收物市场,以及(iii)相关的机械再循环基础设施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Biodegradable plastics – Where to throw? A life cycle assessment of waste collection and management pathways in Austria
The current waste management systems are struggling to optimally handle biodegradable plastics (BDPs) and are facing numerous challenges; one of which is the consumer confusion about how to best source-segregate BDPs. Based on an environmental life-cycle assessment, this study investigated the consequences of collecting BDPs in one of three waste streams (packaging waste, biowaste, and residual waste) in Austria. Collecting BDPs as (i) packaging waste resulted in incineration (SP1) or mechanical recycling (SP2), (ii) biowaste resulted in composting (SB1) or anaerobic digestion (AD) (SB2), and (iii) residual waste in incineration (SR1). SP2 performed best in most of the 16 investigated impact categories (ICs). Three scenario analyses demonstrated that (i) utilisation of BDPs as an alternative fuel for process heat substitution yielded more environmental benefits than incineration in SP1 and SP2, (ii) adding a material recovery facility (MRF) with AD increased the environmental load for SB2, while (iii) the energy scenario with zero electricity imports plus heat from biomass performed best for most alternative pathways across the 16 ICs. Eight technology parameters (out of 97) were identified as most relevant for the results based on data quality, sensitivity ratio, and analytical uncertainty; they were related to waste incineration, MRF, recycling facility, compost- and AD processes. Overall, mechanical recycling emerged as the most favourable option which is aligned with the waste-hierarchy mentioned in the European Union Waste Framework Directive. However, effective mechanical recycling of BDPs requires (i) a ‘sufficient’ waste amount, (ii) a market for recyclates, and (iii) relevant mechanical recycling infrastructure.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Waste management
Waste management 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
15.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
492
审稿时长
39 days
期刊介绍: Waste Management is devoted to the presentation and discussion of information on solid wastes,it covers the entire lifecycle of solid. wastes. Scope: Addresses solid wastes in both industrialized and economically developing countries Covers various types of solid wastes, including: Municipal (e.g., residential, institutional, commercial, light industrial) Agricultural Special (e.g., C and D, healthcare, household hazardous wastes, sewage sludge)
×
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