4.7 Article

Material stocks and flows accounting for copper and copper-based alloys in Japan

期刊

RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING
卷 53, 期 4, 页码 208-217

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.11.010

关键词

Dynamic material flow analysis; In-use stock; Material recycling; Obsolete scraps; Uncollected material

资金

  1. Ministry of the Environment, Japan [K1810, K1930, K2031]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recovery of scrap metal for recycling contributes to the conservation of natural resources and the construction of a sound material-cycle economy. Dynamic material flow analysis (MFA) allows us to investigate the potential for scrap metal recovery in a given region. This paper performs a dynamic material stock and flow analysis of copper in Japan. Previous studies paid little attention to the grade of the materials; the present paper considers the division between high-purity copper and copper alloys. The paper applies a dynamic MFA model with greater detail than many earlier studies and demonstrates an additional level of disaggregated analysis on waste flows. The analysis of differing grades of copper quantified the flow of downgraded scrap from the pure copper cycle to the copper alloy cycle. In addition, the amount of scrap collected, as estimated by the dynamic MFA. was approximately consistent with that reported in the statistics. This result indicated the validity of the parameters used in the dynamic model. The current in-use copper stock in Japan was estimated to be 18.7 Tg including the mass of alloying elements, and the amount of cumulative uncollected copper was estimated to be 9.9 Tg. This uncollected copper could have been mixed with other metals (e.g., mixed in secondary steels), incinerated with combustible waste, landfilled, or exported in several forms. The amounts of copper to these final destinations were quantified. Finally, the Japanese pure-copper cycle and copper alloy cycle for 2005 were constructed. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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