4.5 Article

Hunting for valuables from landfills and assessing their market opportunities A case study with Kudjape landfill in Estonia

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH
卷 35, 期 6, 页码 627-635

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X17697816

关键词

Landfill mining; waste characterization; landfill plastic; solid recovered fuel; metals recovery

资金

  1. European Cohesion Fund
  2. Estonian Environmental Investments Centre (KIK)
  3. Swedish Institute within project Closing the life cycle of landfills - landfill mining in the Baltic Sea region for future

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Landfill mining is an alternative technology that merges the ideas of material recycling and sustainable waste management. This paper reports a case study to estimate the value of landfilled materials and their respective market opportunities, based on a full-scale landfill mining project in Estonia. During the project, a dump site (Kudjape, Estonia) was excavated with the main objectives of extracting soil-like final cover material with the function of methane degradation. In total, about 57,777 m(3) of waste was processed, particularly the uppermost 10-year layer of waste. Manual sorting was performed in four test pits to determine the detailed composition of wastes. 11,610 kg of waste was screened on site, resulting in fine (<40 mm) and coarse (>40 mm) fractions with the share of 54% and 46%, respectively. Some portion of the fine fraction was sieved further to obtain a very fine grained fraction of <10 mm and analyzed for its potential for metals recovery. The average chemical composition of the <10 mm soil-like fraction suggests that it offers opportunities for metal (Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn) extraction and recovery. The findings from this study highlight the importance of implementing best available site-specific technologies for on-site separation up to 10 mm grain size, and the importance of developing and implementing innovative extraction methods for materials recovery from soil-like fractions.

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