4.5 Article

Evaluation of municipal solid waste management performance by material flow analysis: Theoretical approach and case study

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH
卷 33, 期 10, 页码 871-885

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X15595284

关键词

Waste management; assessment; indicators; material flow analysis; separate collection; recycling; recovery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The main role of a waste management plan is to define which is the combination of waste management strategies and method needed to collect and manage the waste in such a way to ensure a given set of targets is reached. Objectives have to be sustainable and realistic, consistent with the environmental policies and regulations and monitored to verify the progressive achievement of the given targets. To get the aim, the setting up and quantification of indicators can allow the measurement of efficiency of a waste management system. The quantification of efficiency indicators requires the developing of a material flow analysis over the system boundary, from waste collection to secondary materials selling, processing and disposal. The material flow analysis has been carried out with reference to a case study for which a reliable, time- and site-specific database was available. The material flow analysis allowed the evaluation of the amount of materials sent to recycling, to landfilling and to waste-to-energy, by highlighting that the sorting of residual waste can further increase the secondary materials amount. The utilisation of energy recovery to treat the low-grade waste allows the maximisation of waste diversion from landfill with a low production of hazardous ash. A preliminary economic balance has been carried out to define the gate fee of the waste management system that was in the range of 84-145Eurot(-1) without including the separate collection cost. The cost of door-by-door separate collection, designed to ensure the collection of five separate streams, resulted in 250Eurot(-1) +/- 30%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据