Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 176

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Environmental life cycle cost assessment: Recycling of hard plastic waste collected at Danish recycling centres

Open access
Faraca, Giorgia, Martinez-Sanchez, Veronica, Astrup, Thomas F.·2019·Resources, Conservation and Recycling

Abstract

Abstract Recycling of plastic waste is promoted by the European Union as an important step toward a circular economy. Recovered plastic waste is a complex and heterogeneous material, and the impurities and/or untargeted polymers associated to plastic waste may affect the recycling process and potentially decrease the intended benefits. An environmental and financial assessment was conducted on one tonne of hard plastic waste collected at Danish recycling centres. Three management scenarios were considered: two mechanical recycling (a simpler and a more advanced configuration, namely sMR and aMR) and a feedstock recycling (FR) scenario based on conversion through pyrolysis. Scenario aMR provided the largest savings in the highest number of impact categories (including global warming potential) and total costs; scenarios sMR and FR provided smaller savings (or even burdens), depending on the environmental impact category considered. A scenario analysis evaluating the type of energy provision, location of recycling facilities and the application of the recycled material confirmed the ranking of results with respect to global warming potential and total costs. A global sensitivity assessment of model data inputs demonstrated that three to nine parameters were typically sufficient to achieve more than 90% of total variance of the results; critical parameters were mainly related to sorting efficiencies, technical yields and market substitution factors. The study demonstrates that if high quality of the recycled plastic is achieved, both environmental savings and financial revenues are possible.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.014

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 176

Metadata

Authors
Faraca, G., Martinez-Sanchez, V., & Astrup, T. F.
Venue
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
143
Pages
299-309
ISSN
0921-3449 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2910055516
Cited by
176
References
1
FWCI
13.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Environmental life cycle cost assessment: Recycling of hard plastic waste collected at Danish recycling centres. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.014
The paper
Faraca, G., Martinez-Sanchez, V., & Astrup, T. F. (2019). Environmental life cycle cost assessment: Recycling of hard plastic waste collected at Danish recycling centres. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.014

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.