A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Carbon footprint of different recovery options for the repulping reject from liquid packaging board waste treatment process. | LitMetric

Carbon footprint of different recovery options for the repulping reject from liquid packaging board waste treatment process.

Waste Manag

Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology LUT, School of Energy System, Department of Sustainability Science, Yliopistonkatu 34, P.O. Box 20, 53851 Lappeenranta, Finland.

Published: December 2021

Liquid packaging board (LPB) is an integral part of storing and transporting liquid food. In addition to its significant advantages, LPB has been challenging the existing waste management sector since its introduction into the market. In most European countries, LPB waste is either incinerated or recycled in the recycling facilities where fibre is recycled, and the repulping reject is separated for incineration. Mechanical recycling and chemical recycling processes are other options for repulping reject treatment. This study used life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare the environmental impacts of three treatment processes, incineration, mechanical recycling and chemical recycling; each was considered with the functional unit of 1 tonne of repulping reject. Furthermore, two sub-scenarios based on the substituted heat produced by energy from the treatment processes were considered. In substituting biomass-based heat sources, chemical recycling generated the lowest greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, about 560 kg CO eq. tonne repulping rejects, followed by the mechanical recycling process (approximately 740 kg CO eq. tonne repulping reject). The maximum amount of GHG was emitted from the incineration scenario, which was about 1900 kg CO eq. tonne repulping rejects. By substituting natural gas-based heat sources, chemical recycling generated about 290 kg CO eq. tonne repulping rejects. On the contrary, the mechanical recycling process generated about 430 kg CO eq. tonne repulping rejects and incineration process generated 960 kg CO eq. tonne repulping rejects. Uncertainty analysis showed that some assumptions significantly impact the results; however, the chemical recycling process had the lowest environmental impact in almost all uncertainty analysis.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.10.003DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

tonne repulping
28
repulping reject
20
chemical recycling
20
repulping rejects
20
mechanical recycling
16
recycling process
12
repulping
10
recycling
10
options repulping
8
liquid packaging
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!