三种估算建筑垃圾成分方法的比较分析。

IF 7.1 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
Yiman Jiang, Ruoxin Wang, Dongxing Xuan, Chi Fai Cheung, Chi Sun Poon
{"title":"三种估算建筑垃圾成分方法的比较分析。","authors":"Yiman Jiang, Ruoxin Wang, Dongxing Xuan, Chi Fai Cheung, Chi Sun Poon","doi":"10.1016/j.wasman.2025.01.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Determination of the relative compositions of the mixed construction waste is crucial and an important step to enhance resource management. This information influences the design of construction waste recycling and sorting facilities, and aids in formulating effective management strategies for recycled and sorted waste products. However, different methods for waste sorting and composition recognition possess distinct characteristics and only apply to specific practical scenarios. In this study, three methods are compared: (i) manual sorting as a reference method, (ii) a manual image recognition method using infrared thermal imaging, and (iii) a deep learning-based image recognition method based on the SegFormer semantic segmentation model. The comparison focuses on accuracy, preferences, prerequisites, socio-environmental impacts, costs, and improvement potential. Results show that both manual and deep learning-based image recognition methods yield comparable accuracy to manual sorting for inert waste, with relative errors below 5.2%, but relatively higher recognition errors for non-inert waste. Overall, manual sorting remains the most cost-effective and fastest method, despite its high labor demand, spatial constraints, environmental impacts, and limited improvement potential. In comparison, manual image recognition requires approximately 9.2 times the processing time and 2.3 times the cost of manual sorting, while deep learning-based image recognition incurs about 9.9 times the time and 2.5 times the cost. Nevertheless, both image recognition methods offer potential environmental benefits and long-term efficiency gains.</p>","PeriodicalId":23969,"journal":{"name":"Waste management","volume":"194 ","pages":"210-220"},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of three methods for estimating the compositions of construction waste.\",\"authors\":\"Yiman Jiang, Ruoxin Wang, Dongxing Xuan, Chi Fai Cheung, Chi Sun Poon\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.wasman.2025.01.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Determination of the relative compositions of the mixed construction waste is crucial and an important step to enhance resource management. This information influences the design of construction waste recycling and sorting facilities, and aids in formulating effective management strategies for recycled and sorted waste products. However, different methods for waste sorting and composition recognition possess distinct characteristics and only apply to specific practical scenarios. In this study, three methods are compared: (i) manual sorting as a reference method, (ii) a manual image recognition method using infrared thermal imaging, and (iii) a deep learning-based image recognition method based on the SegFormer semantic segmentation model. The comparison focuses on accuracy, preferences, prerequisites, socio-environmental impacts, costs, and improvement potential. Results show that both manual and deep learning-based image recognition methods yield comparable accuracy to manual sorting for inert waste, with relative errors below 5.2%, but relatively higher recognition errors for non-inert waste. Overall, manual sorting remains the most cost-effective and fastest method, despite its high labor demand, spatial constraints, environmental impacts, and limited improvement potential. In comparison, manual image recognition requires approximately 9.2 times the processing time and 2.3 times the cost of manual sorting, while deep learning-based image recognition incurs about 9.9 times the time and 2.5 times the cost. Nevertheless, both image recognition methods offer potential environmental benefits and long-term efficiency gains.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23969,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Waste management\",\"volume\":\"194 \",\"pages\":\"210-220\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Waste management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2025.01.009\",\"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://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2025.01.009","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

确定混合建筑垃圾的相对成分是加强资源管理的重要步骤。这些资料会影响建筑废物回收及分类设施的设计,并有助制订有效的废物回收及分类管理策略。然而,不同的垃圾分类和成分识别方法具有不同的特点,只适用于特定的实际场景。在本研究中,比较了三种方法:(i)人工分类作为参考方法,(ii)使用红外热成像的人工图像识别方法,(iii)基于SegFormer语义分割模型的基于深度学习的图像识别方法。比较的重点是准确性、偏好、先决条件、社会环境影响、成本和改进潜力。结果表明,人工和基于深度学习的图像识别方法对惰性废物的分类精度与人工分类相当,相对误差低于5.2%,但对非惰性废物的识别误差相对较高。总的来说,人工分拣仍然是最具成本效益和最快的方法,尽管它的高劳动力需求,空间限制,环境影响和有限的改进潜力。相比之下,人工图像识别的处理时间约为人工分类的9.2倍,成本约为人工分类的2.3倍,而基于深度学习的图像识别的处理时间约为人工分类的9.9倍,成本约为人工分类的2.5倍。然而,这两种图像识别方法都提供了潜在的环境效益和长期的效率提升。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative analysis of three methods for estimating the compositions of construction waste.

Determination of the relative compositions of the mixed construction waste is crucial and an important step to enhance resource management. This information influences the design of construction waste recycling and sorting facilities, and aids in formulating effective management strategies for recycled and sorted waste products. However, different methods for waste sorting and composition recognition possess distinct characteristics and only apply to specific practical scenarios. In this study, three methods are compared: (i) manual sorting as a reference method, (ii) a manual image recognition method using infrared thermal imaging, and (iii) a deep learning-based image recognition method based on the SegFormer semantic segmentation model. The comparison focuses on accuracy, preferences, prerequisites, socio-environmental impacts, costs, and improvement potential. Results show that both manual and deep learning-based image recognition methods yield comparable accuracy to manual sorting for inert waste, with relative errors below 5.2%, but relatively higher recognition errors for non-inert waste. Overall, manual sorting remains the most cost-effective and fastest method, despite its high labor demand, spatial constraints, environmental impacts, and limited improvement potential. In comparison, manual image recognition requires approximately 9.2 times the processing time and 2.3 times the cost of manual sorting, while deep learning-based image recognition incurs about 9.9 times the time and 2.5 times the cost. Nevertheless, both image recognition methods offer potential environmental benefits and long-term efficiency gains.

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