The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Recycling of glass: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions
Abstract
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to recycling of glass waste were assessed from a waste management perspective. Focus was on the material recovery facility (MRF) where the initial sorting of glass waste takes place. The MRF delivers products like cullet and whole bottles to other industries. Two possible uses of reprocessed glass waste were considered: (i) remelting of cullet added to glass production; and (ii) re-use of whole bottles. The GHG emission accounting included indirect upstream emissions (provision of energy, fuels and auxiliaries), direct activities at the MRF and bottle-wash facility (combustion of fuels) as well as indirect downstream activities in terms of using the recovered glass waste in other industries and, thereby, avoiding emissions from conventional production. The GHG accounting was presented as aggregated global warming factors (GWFs) for the direct and indirect upstream and downstream processes, respectively. The range of GWFs was estimated to 0—70 kg CO 2 eq. tonne —1 of glass waste for the upstream activities and the direct emissions from the waste management system. The GWF for the downstream effect showed some significant variation between the two cases. It was estimated to approximately —500 kg CO 2-eq. tonne— 1 of glass waste for the remelting technology and —1500 to —600 kg CO 2-eq. tonne—1 of glass waste for bottle re-use. Including the downstream process, large savings of GHG emissions can be attributed to the waste management system. The results showed that, in GHG emission accounting, attention should be drawn to thorough analysis of energy sources, especially electricity, and the downstream savings caused by material substitution.
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
Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and wood substitution
Eriksson, E., Gillespie, A. R., Gustavsson, L., Langvall, O., Olsson, M., Sathre, R., & Stendahl, J. (2007) · Canadian Journal of Forest Research · doi:10.1139/x06-257 · Cited by 244
Cited by
Carbon accounting: a systematic literature review
Stechemesser, K., & Guenther, E. (2012) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.021 · Cited by 411
Xiao, R., Ma, Y., Jiang, X., Zhang, M., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Huang, B., & He, Q. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119610 · Cited by 359
Hahladakis, J. N., & Iacovidou, E. (2019) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.120887 · Cited by 307
Environmental evaluation of municipal waste prevention
Gentil, E. C., Gallo, D., & Christensen, T. H. (2011) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.07.030 · Cited by 172
Self-citationLiu, Z., Adams, M., Cote, R. P., Chen, Q., Wu, R., Wen, Z., Liu, W., & Dong, L. (2018) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.038 · Cited by 154
Metadata
- Authors
- Larsen, A. W., Merrild, H., & Christensen, T. H.
- Venue
- Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-08-26
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 754-762
- ISSN
- 0734-242X (ISSN-L)
- 1096-3669
- OpenAlex
- W2130352539
- Cited by
- 204
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 19.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Recycling of glass: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0734242x09342148
- The paper
- Larsen, A. W., Merrild, H., & Christensen, T. H. (2009). Recycling of glass: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x09342148
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.
