4.7 Article

Technical and market substitutability of recycled materials: Calculating the environmental benefits of mechanical and chemical recycling of plastic packaging waste

Journal

WASTE MANAGEMENT
Volume 152, Issue -, Pages 69-79

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2022.08.006

Keywords

Life cycle assessment; Plastic waste; Mechanical Recycling; Chemical recycling; Food packaging; Substitutability

Funding

  1. MATTER project (Mechanical and Thermochemical Recycling of Plastic Waste), a Catalisti-ICON project
  2. Flanders Innovation and Entrepreneurship (VLAIO) [HBC.2018.0262]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study presents a data-driven method for quantifying the overall substitutability of plastics, focusing on both technical and market substitutability. By analyzing non-food contact material applications and hypothetical future food contact material applications, the study reveals the differences in environmental performance between mechanical recycling and thermochemical recycling in various scenarios.
Most plastics are today mechanically recycled (MR), whereas chemical recycling (CR) is an emerging technology. Substitutability of virgin material is vital for their environmental performance assessed through life cycle assessment (LCA). MR faces the reduction in the material's technical quality but also the potential market because legal safety requirements currently eliminate applications such as food packaging. This study presents a data-driven method for quantifying the overall substitutability (OS), composed of technical (TS) and market substitutability (MS). First, this is illustrated for six non-food contact material (non-FCM) applications and three hypothetical future FCM applications from mechanical recyclates, using mechanical property and market data. Then, OS results are used in a comparative LCA of MR and thermochemical recycling (TCR) of several plastic waste fractions in Belgium. For mechanical recyclates, TS results for the studied non-FCM and FCM applications were comparable, but OS results varied between 0.35 and 0.79 for non-FCM applications and between 0.78 and 1 for FCM applications, reflecting the lower MS results for the current situation. Out of nine application scenarios, MR obtained a worse resource consumption and terrestrial acidification impact than CR in six scenarios. MR maintained the lowest global warming impact for all scenarios. This study contributes to an improved under-standing of the environmental benefits of MR and TCR. Inclusion of other criteria (e.g. processability, colour, odour) in the quantification of the overall substitutability for MR products should be further investigated, as well as the environmental performance of TCR at industrial scale.

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