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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Mechanical and chemical recycling of solid plastic waste
Ragaert, K., Delva, L., & Van Geem, K. (2017) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.044 · Cited by 3,276
Cited by
Dogu, O., Pelucchi, M., Van de Vijver, R., Van Steenberge, P. H. M., D'hooge, D. R., Cuoci, A., Mehl, M., Frassoldati, A., Faravelli, T., & Van Geem, K. M. (2021) · Progress in Energy and Combustion Science · doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2020.100901 · Cited by 698
Plastic waste from recycling centres: characterisation and evaluation of plastic recyclability
Faraca, G., & Astrup, T. (2019) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2019.06.038 · Cited by 370
Self-citationRepurposing waste plastics into cleaner asphalt pavement materials: A critical literature review
Wu, S., & Montalvo, L. (2021) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124355 · Cited by 310
Hahladakis, J. N., & Iacovidou, E. (2019) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.120887 · Cited by 307
Structure of the global plastic waste trade network and the impact of China’s import Ban
Wang, C., Zhao, L., Lim, M. K., Chen, W.-Q., & Sutherland, J. W. (2020) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104591 · Cited by 259
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.