Department of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, Sackville Street, M13 9PL, UK.
BASF SE, Carl-Bosch-Str. 38, 67056 Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Sci Total Environ. 2021 May 15;769:144483. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144483. Epub 2021 Jan 5.
A large portion of plastic produced each year is used to make single-use packaging and other short-lived consumer products that are discarded quickly, creating significant amounts of waste. It is important that such waste be managed appropriately in line with circular-economy principles. One option for managing plastic waste is chemical recycling via pyrolysis, which can convert it back into chemical feedstock that can then be used to manufacture virgin-quality polymers. However, given that this is an emerging technology not yet used widely in practice, it is not clear if pyrolysis of waste plastics is sustainable on a life cycle basis and how it compares to other plastics waste management options as well as to the production of virgin plastics. Therefore, this study uses life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare the environmental impacts of chemical recycling of mixed plastic waste (MPW) via pyrolysis with the established waste management alternatives: mechanical recycling and energy recovery. Three LCA studies have been carried out under three perspectives: waste, product and a combination of the two. To ensure robust comparisons, the impacts have been estimated using two impact assessment methods: Environmental footprint and ReCiPe. The results suggest that chemical recycling via pyrolysis has a 50% lower climate change impact and life cycle energy use than the energy recovery option. The climate change impact and energy use of pyrolysis and mechanical recycling of MPW are similar if the quality of the recyclate is taken into account. Furthermore, MPW recycled by pyrolysis has a significantly lower climate change impact (-0.45 vs 1.89 t CO eq./t plastic) than the equivalent made from virgin fossil resources. However, pyrolysis has significantly higher other impacts than mechanical recycling, energy recovery and production of virgin plastics. Sensitivity analyses show that some assumptions have notable effects on the results, including the assumed geographical region and its energy mix, carbon conversion efficiency of pyrolysis and recyclate quality. These results will be of interest to the chemical, plastics and waste industries, as well as to policy makers.
每年生产的大量塑料被用于制造一次性包装和其他短命的消费品,这些消费品很快就被丢弃,产生了大量的废物。根据循环经济原则,妥善管理这些废物非常重要。管理塑料废物的一种选择是通过热解进行化学回收,这可以将其转化回可用于制造原始质量聚合物的化学原料。然而,由于这是一种尚未广泛应用于实践的新兴技术,因此不清楚废塑料的热解在生命周期基础上是否可持续,以及与其他塑料废物管理选择以及原始塑料生产相比如何。因此,本研究使用生命周期评估 (LCA) 来比较通过热解对混合塑料废物 (MPW) 进行化学回收与既定废物管理替代方案:机械回收和能源回收的环境影响。在三个视角下进行了三项 LCA 研究:废物、产品和两者的组合。为了确保稳健的比较,使用两种影响评估方法:环境足迹和 ReCiPe 来估计影响。结果表明,与能源回收选项相比,通过热解进行化学回收的气候变化影响和生命周期能源使用降低了 50%。如果考虑到再循环材料的质量,热解和 MPW 的机械回收的气候变化影响和能源使用相似。此外,与由原始化石资源制成的等效物相比,通过热解回收的 MPW 的气候变化影响显着降低(-0.45 与 1.89 t CO eq./t 塑料)。然而,与机械回收、能源回收和原始塑料生产相比,热解具有显着更高的其他影响。敏感性分析表明,一些假设对结果有显着影响,包括假设的地理区域及其能源组合、热解的碳转化率和再循环材料的质量。这些结果将引起化学、塑料和废物行业以及政策制定者的兴趣。