Life cycle assessment of plastic packaging recycling embedded with responsibility distribution as driver for environmental mitigation

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216305%3A26210%2F23%3APU146610" target="_blank" >RIV/00216305:26210/23:PU146610 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352554122003503" target="_blank" >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352554122003503</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2022.100946" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.scp.2022.100946</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Life cycle assessment of plastic packaging recycling embedded with responsibility distribution as driver for environmental mitigation

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Life cycle assessment modelling of multi-cycle recycling systems is challenging. There is still neither consensus on applying allocation approaches nor a one-size-fits-all solution. This study proposes an allocation approach embedded with the responsibility distribution of stakeholders rather than the standard approach, which is assessed based on stages. It is applied to the case study of plastic packaging recycling and compared to simple and economic allocation cut-off methods. A total of four multiple recycling or cascade utilisation scenarios are assessed, consisting of the linear system (disposal), mechanical recycling, waste to energy and chemical recycling, for at least one of the cycles. Scenario 2, with mechanical recycling as the end-of-life management in all three multiple cycles, has the lowest overall GHG emissions (∼4.8 t CO2eq/t plastic packaging) regardless of allocation method, even after considering deducted savings due to the degraded quality along the cycles. The simple cut-off method could not drive the selection in the first cycle toward the recycling alternatives (Scenario 2–4) with overall lower emissions as the GHG saving from utilising recycled resources are accounted for in the second cycle. Regarding eutrophication potential, as the burdening impact of disposal is significantly higher, recycling options accounted for following the simple cut-off method are preferable even when the burdening effect is entirely embraced by the first cycle without the unburdening accounting. Economic allocation cut-offs provide a better incentive to recycle in the assessed cycles. However, the standard accounting is by stages such as material production, product manufacturing, recycling and disposal. It is unclear whose responsibility, either the raw material producer (MP), the product manufacturer (PM) or the consumer (C). The proposed method with defined responsibility (e.g. 6.2 t CO2eq/t by MP; 2.9 t CO2eq/t by PM; 0.5 t CO2eq/t by C in Scenario 1) is more

Název v anglickém jazyce

Life cycle assessment of plastic packaging recycling embedded with responsibility distribution as driver for environmental mitigation

Popis výsledku anglicky

Life cycle assessment modelling of multi-cycle recycling systems is challenging. There is still neither consensus on applying allocation approaches nor a one-size-fits-all solution. This study proposes an allocation approach embedded with the responsibility distribution of stakeholders rather than the standard approach, which is assessed based on stages. It is applied to the case study of plastic packaging recycling and compared to simple and economic allocation cut-off methods. A total of four multiple recycling or cascade utilisation scenarios are assessed, consisting of the linear system (disposal), mechanical recycling, waste to energy and chemical recycling, for at least one of the cycles. Scenario 2, with mechanical recycling as the end-of-life management in all three multiple cycles, has the lowest overall GHG emissions (∼4.8 t CO2eq/t plastic packaging) regardless of allocation method, even after considering deducted savings due to the degraded quality along the cycles. The simple cut-off method could not drive the selection in the first cycle toward the recycling alternatives (Scenario 2–4) with overall lower emissions as the GHG saving from utilising recycled resources are accounted for in the second cycle. Regarding eutrophication potential, as the burdening impact of disposal is significantly higher, recycling options accounted for following the simple cut-off method are preferable even when the burdening effect is entirely embraced by the first cycle without the unburdening accounting. Economic allocation cut-offs provide a better incentive to recycle in the assessed cycles. However, the standard accounting is by stages such as material production, product manufacturing, recycling and disposal. It is unclear whose responsibility, either the raw material producer (MP), the product manufacturer (PM) or the consumer (C). The proposed method with defined responsibility (e.g. 6.2 t CO2eq/t by MP; 2.9 t CO2eq/t by PM; 0.5 t CO2eq/t by C in Scenario 1) is more

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

20704 - Energy and fuels

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GF21-45726L" target="_blank" >GF21-45726L: Udržitelný hodnotový řetězec plastů pro přechod na oběhové hospodářství</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2023

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy

ISSN

2352-5541

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

31

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

100946

Stát vydavatele periodika

NL - Nizozemsko

Počet stran výsledku

14

Strana od-do

100946-100946

Kód UT WoS článku

001006102300001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85144531421