Cited by 45Landfill Environmental Impact StudiesMunicipal Solid Waste ManagementSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics

The decay of engineered wood products and paper excavated from landfills in Australia

Open access
Ximenes, Fabiano A., Cowie, Annette L., Barlaz, Morton A.·2018·Waste Management

Abstract

Large volumes of engineered wood products (EWPs) and paper are routinely placed in landfills in Australia, where they are assumed to decay. However, the extent of decay for EWPs is not well-known. This study reports carbon loss from EWPs and paper buried in landfills in Sydney, Brisbane and Cairns in Australia, located in temperate, subtropical and tropical climates, respectively. The influence of pulp type (mechanical and chemical) and landfill type (municipal solid waste - MSW and construction and demolition - C&D) on decay levels were investigated. Carbon loss for EWPs ranged from 0.6 to 9.0%; though there is some uncertainty in these values due to limitations associated with sourcing appropriate controls. Carbon loss for paper products ranged from 0 to 58.9%. Papers produced from predominantly mechanical pulps generally had lower levels of decay than those produced via chemical or partly chemical processes. Typically, decay levels for paper products were highest for the tropical Cairns landfill, suggesting that climate may be a significant factor to be considered when estimating emissions from paper in landfills. For EWPs, regardless of the landfill type and climate, carbon losses were low, confirming results from previous laboratory studies. Lower carbon losses were observed for EWP and paper excavated from the Sydney C&D landfill, compared with the Sydney MSW landfill, confirming the hypothesis that conditions in C&D landfills are less favourable for decay. These result…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11.035

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ximenes, F. A., Cowie, A. L., & Barlaz, M. A.
Affiliations
  • New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (AU)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
Corresponding author
Ximenes, Fabiano A.
Venue
Waste Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-04
Volume
74
Pages
312-322
ISSN
0956-053X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2775378935
Cited by
45
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Waste Management (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
  • Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Accounting
  • Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australian Government
  • Forest and Wood Products Australia
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Landfill Environmental Impact Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Keywords
engineered wood products, carbon loss, mechanical pulp, chemical pulp, municipal solid waste landfill, construction and demolition waste, climate effects on decomposition, greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gas inventory, Australia
MeSH terms
Australia, Carbon, Methane, Refuse Disposal, Wood, Solid Waste, Waste Disposal Facilities

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