Cited by 124Municipal Solid Waste ManagementWaste Management and RecyclingMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution

Characterisation of source-separated, rigid plastic waste and evaluation of recycling initiatives: Effects of product design and source-separation system

Open access
Eriksen, M.K., Astrup, T.F.·2019·Waste Management

Abstract

Recycling of plastic from household waste (HHW) is crucial in the transition towards a circular plastic economy. Plastic from HHW consists of numerous immiscible polymers, product types and product designs (e.g. colour, polymer separability), which often lead to considerable physical losses during sorting, and low-quality recycled plastic. Consequently, recycling initiatives have been proposed to enhance the quantity and quality of plastic recycling from HHW. To quantify the potential effects of such initiatives, a detailed composition of plastic waste is necessary. The aim was to provide such detailed composition of Danish source-separated rigid plastic waste, including information regarding the polymer of the main product component, product type, polymer design and separability as well as colour. The potential effects on recycled quantity and quality from implementing selected recycling initiatives were quantified and recommendations provided. PET, PE and PP made up >90% of the source-separated plastic and both food- and non-food packaging existed in all three polymers. In total, 10-11% of the plastic was black, and around 44% consisted of multiple polymers, of which one-third was non-separable. Initiatives improving product design for recycling will likely result in increased quantity of recycled plastic. By effectively separating food from non-food packaging, e.g. by introducing two bins in the households or politically aligning polymers and product types (all food packaging in PET and PP, all non-food packaging in PE), 39-63% of the waste could potentially be recycled in a closed loop into food-grade quality packaging. The overall highest benefits were reached by combining initiatives.

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.wasman.2019.02.006

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • If multi-polymers have to be used, designing individual and separable components, such as modular design, allows components made from multi-polymers to be separated and sorted during recycling.

    “If multi-polymers have to be used, Eriksen and Astrup (2019) suggested to design individual and separable components, such as modular design, in which case, components made from multi-polymers can be separated and sorted during recycling.”

    From Packaging design for the circular economy: A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as Eriksen and Astrup (2019)

    The available Abstract passage (page not given) discusses separating food from non-food packaging and aligning polymers with product types. Searches for modular design, separable components, and multi-polymer packaging found no passage saying that such components can be separated and sorted during recycling. (LLM, conf=0.68)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Nowadays 10-11 % of the PET, PP and PE plastics used in packaging is black.

    “However, nowadays 10-11 % of the PET, PP and PE plastics used in packaging is black (Eriksen and Astrup, 2019).”

    From Packaging design for the circular economy: A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as Eriksen and Astrup, 2019

    The available Abstract passage discusses separating PET, PP and PE packaging for recycling, but gives no proportion that is black. Searches for “black” and “10–11%” found no passage addressing the claimed figure. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 18 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eriksen, M. K., & Astrup, T. F.
Affiliations
Technical University of Denmark (DK)
Corresponding author
Eriksen, M.K.
Venue
Waste Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-03
Volume
87
Pages
161-172
ISSN
0956-053X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2914817600
Cited by
124
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3
FWCI
10.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Waste Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Danish Environmental Agency
  • Technical University of Denmark
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Waste Management and Recycling
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
Keywords
source separation, household waste, plastic recycling, design for recycling, food packaging, PET, polyethylene, polypropylene, black plastics, recycling programs, circular economy, closed-loop recycling
MeSH terms
Plastics, Polymers, Product Packaging, Recycling

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