Economic and environmental feasibility of recycling flexible plastic packaging from single stream collection.
Saved in:
| Title: | Economic and environmental feasibility of recycling flexible plastic packaging from single stream collection. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Lin, Yingqian1 (AUTHOR) yingqian.lin@inl.gov, Severson, Michael H.1 (AUTHOR), Nguyen, Ruby T.1 (AUTHOR), Johnson, Anne2 (AUTHOR), King, Christopher2 (AUTHOR), Coddington, Beth2 (AUTHOR), Hu, Hongqiang1 (AUTHOR), Madden, Brennan2 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Resources, Conservation & Recycling. May2023, Vol. 192, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Packaging recycling, *Plastic recycling, *Recycled products, *Greenhouse gases, Plastics in packaging, Flexible packaging |
| Geographic Terms: | United States |
| Abstract: | • Economics & carbon footprint of a piloted US flexible plastic packaging recycling. • Roof coverboard, pallets, pellets, and film are downstream market pathways. • Cleaning and pelletizing steps contributed the most to recycled product footprints. • Recycled products are environmentally & economically better than competitors. As demand for plastic increases, there is an urgent need to ramp up its collection and recycling rate. This study reports results of a pilot study in the United States to recycle flexible plastic packaging (FPP) from single stream curbside collection focusing on both the economic feasibility and carbon footprint. To explore the marketability of recycled FPP, four downstream market pathways were studied, including roof coverboard, plastic pellets, pallets, and film. Results indicated that (1) the cleaning and pelletizing process at reclaimers contributed the most to the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of recycled FPP products, and (2) the GHG emissions of recycled FPP products in all four pathways are lower than the comparator products. Therefore, using a higher percentage of recycled FPP substituted in a product can result in greater GHG emission reductions. All the recycled FPP products also showed favorable economics compared to their direct competitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Resources, Conservation & Recycling is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | GreenFILE |
Be the first to leave a comment!
