Biodegradable plastics – Where to throw? A life cycle assessment of waste collection and management pathways in Austria

Publikationen: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftArtikelForschung(peer-reviewed)

Standard

Biodegradable plastics – Where to throw? A life cycle assessment of waste collection and management pathways in Austria. / Mhaddolkar, Namrata; Lodato, Concetta; Tischberger-Aldrian, Alexia et al.
in: Waste management, Jahrgang 190.2024, Nr. 15 December, 30.10.2024, S. 578-592.

Publikationen: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftArtikelForschung(peer-reviewed)

Vancouver

Mhaddolkar N, Lodato C, Tischberger-Aldrian A, Vollprecht D, Fruergaard Astrup T. Biodegradable plastics – Where to throw? A life cycle assessment of waste collection and management pathways in Austria. Waste management. 2024 Okt 30;190.2024(15 December):578-592. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2024.10.018

Bibtex - Download

@article{395cb248c24846b1bfb168f828ff6ed2,
title = "Biodegradable plastics – Where to throw? A life cycle assessment of waste collection and management pathways in Austria",
abstract = "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 {\textquoteleft}sufficient{\textquoteright} waste amount, (ii) a market for recyclates, and (iii) relevant mechanical recycling infrastructure.",
keywords = "Biodegradable plastic waste management, Life cycle assessment, Packaging waste, Recycling, Waste collection & sorting",
author = "Namrata Mhaddolkar and Concetta Lodato and Alexia Tischberger-Aldrian and Daniel Vollprecht and {Fruergaard Astrup}, Thomas",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2024 The Author(s)",
year = "2024",
month = oct,
day = "30",
doi = "10.1016/j.wasman.2024.10.018",
language = "English",
volume = "190.2024",
pages = "578--592",
journal = "Waste management",
issn = "0956-053X",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "15 December",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biodegradable plastics – Where to throw? A life cycle assessment of waste collection and management pathways in Austria

AU - Mhaddolkar, Namrata

AU - Lodato, Concetta

AU - Tischberger-Aldrian, Alexia

AU - Vollprecht, Daniel

AU - Fruergaard Astrup, Thomas

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s)

PY - 2024/10/30

Y1 - 2024/10/30

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Biodegradable plastic waste management

KW - Life cycle assessment

KW - Packaging waste

KW - Recycling

KW - Waste collection & sorting

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85207691635&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.wasman.2024.10.018

DO - 10.1016/j.wasman.2024.10.018

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85207691635

VL - 190.2024

SP - 578

EP - 592

JO - Waste management

JF - Waste management

SN - 0956-053X

IS - 15 December

ER -