IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i24p16898-d1005648.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the Environmental and Economic Performance of Municipal Solid Waste Disposal by All-Component Resource Recovery

Author

Listed:
  • Zhenjiang Liang

    (School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China)

  • Ziling Luo

    (School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China)

  • Jiangang Yuan

    (School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China)

  • Meiyun Li

    (School of Business, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China)

  • Yongyan Xia

    (School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China)

  • Tingting Che

    (School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China)

  • Lingyue Huang

    (School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China)

  • Jianyi Liu

    (School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China)

Abstract

Disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) has become increasingly challenging. In this study, we used life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate environmental impacts and financial performance of a new approach for MSW disposals, namely All-components Resource Recovery (AcRR), which is based on automatic sorting. We compared AcRR with the standardized Waste-to-Energy incineration (WtE) to provide decision-making support for MSW management. The results show that WtE and AcRR are both good MSW resource treatment methods. Through MSW disposal, WtE generates electricity, while AcRR generates secondary resources such as metals, plastics, pulp and organic fertilizers. WtE releases trace amounts of HCl, PM 10 , heavy metals, dioxins and dust, while AcRR does not produce such pollutants; AcRR produces more odor gases such as SO 2 and H 2 S. AcRR produces four environmental issues, i.e., Global Warming, Acidification, Photochemical Ozone Synthesis, and Eutrophication, each of which has a smaller impact than WtE; WtE has two more impacts than AcRR: Human Toxicity and Soot and Ashes. The total environmental impact potential of WtE is 3.38 times that of AcRR, and the greenhouse gas emission equivalent is 6.82 times that of AcRR. The cost of construction and operation of AcRR is lower than that of WtE, while the net profit of AcRR is much higher. In conclusion, AcRR is able to screen the mixed MSW into various secondary resources with less environmental emissions and environmental impacts and better financial performance; it may be a promising MSW disposal approach, especially for small cities, but a corresponding supporting industrial system is needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhenjiang Liang & Ziling Luo & Jiangang Yuan & Meiyun Li & Yongyan Xia & Tingting Che & Lingyue Huang & Jianyi Liu, 2022. "Evaluating the Environmental and Economic Performance of Municipal Solid Waste Disposal by All-Component Resource Recovery," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-15, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16898-:d:1005648
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16898/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16898/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fan, Weiguo & Xu, Ming & Dong, Xiaobin & Wei, Hejie, 2017. "Considerable environmental impact of the rapid development of China's express delivery industry," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 174-176.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Saidia Ali & Farid Shirazi, 2023. "The Paradigm of Circular Economy and an Effective Electronic Waste Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-11, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sisi Wu & Xuan Gong & Yunfei Wang & Jian Cao, 2022. "Consumer Cognition and Management Perspective on Express Packaging Pollution," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-23, April.
    2. Song, Jiawen & Cai, Lanhui & Yuen, Kum Fai & Wang, Xueqin, 2023. "Exploring consumers’ usage intention of reusable express packaging: An extended norm activation model," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16898-:d:1005648. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.