4.7 Article

Comparisons of four categories of waste recycling in China's paper industry based on physical input-output life-cycle assessment model

Journal

WASTE MANAGEMENT
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages 603-612

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.020

Keywords

Input-output model; Life-cycle assessment; Material flows; Paper production; Waste recycling

Funding

  1. National Technology Support Projects of China [2009BAC64B01]
  2. Shanghai Tongji Gao Tingyao Environmental Science & Technology Development Foundation (STGEF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Waste recycling for paper production is an important component of waste management. This study constructs a physical input-output life-cycle assessment (PIO-LCA) model. The PIO-LCA model is used to investigate environmental impacts of four categories of waste recycling in China's paper industry: crop straws, bagasse, textile wastes and scrap paper. Crop straw recycling and wood utilization for paper production have small total intensity of environmental impacts. Moreover, environmental impacts reduction of crop straw recycling and wood utilization benefits the most from technology development. Thus, using crop straws and wood (including wood wastes) for paper production should be promoted. Technology development has small effects on environmental impacts reduction of bagasse recycling, textile waste recycling and scrap paper recycling. In addition, bagasse recycling and textile waste recycling have big total intensity of environmental impacts. Thus, the development of bagasse recycling and textile waste recycling should be properly limited. Other pathways for reusing bagasse and textile wastes should be explored and evaluated. Moreover, imports of scrap paper should be encouraged to reduce large indirect impacts of scrap paper recycling on domestic environment. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available