Chair of Waste Processing Technology and Waste Management (AVAW), Montanuniversität Leoben, Franz-Josef-Strasse 18, 8700 Leoben, Austria; DTU SUSTAIN, Department of Environmental Engineering, Danish Technical University, Bygningstorvet, 115, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
DTU SUSTAIN, Department of Environmental Engineering, Danish Technical University, Bygningstorvet, 115, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Waste Manag. 2024 Dec 15;190:578-592. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2024.10.018. Epub 2024 Oct 30.
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.
当前的废物管理系统在优化处理可生物降解塑料(BDP)方面面临诸多挑战,其中之一是消费者对于如何最佳地进行BDP 分类回收存在困惑。本研究基于环境生命周期评估,考察了在奥地利三种废物流(包装废物、生物废物和残余废物)中收集 BDP 的后果。将 BDP 作为 (i) 包装废物进行收集会导致焚烧(SP1)或机械回收(SP2),(ii) 生物废物会导致堆肥(SB1)或厌氧消化(AD)(SB2),以及 (iii) 残余废物进行焚烧(SR1)。在大多数 16 个调查的影响类别(ICs)中,SP2 的表现最佳。三项情景分析表明,(i) 将 BDP 用作替代燃料来替代工艺热,比 SP1 和 SP2 中的焚烧产生更多的环境效益,(ii) 在 SB2 中添加具有 AD 的材料回收设施(MRF)会增加环境负荷,而 (iii) 零电力进口加生物质热的能源情景在 16 个 IC 中对大多数替代途径表现最佳。基于数据质量、灵敏度比和分析不确定性,确定了 8 个技术参数(97 个参数中的 8 个)对结果最为重要;它们与废物焚烧、MRF、回收设施、堆肥和 AD 过程有关。总体而言,机械回收是最有利的选择,这与欧盟废物框架指令中提到的废物层级相符。然而,BDP 的有效机械回收需要 (i) “足够”的废物量,(ii) 回收物的市场,以及 (iii) 相关的机械回收基础设施。