IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i15p7083-d1717729.html

Valorization of Waste Mineral Wool and Low-Rank Peat in the Fertilizer Industry in the Context of a Resource-Efficient Circular Economy

Author

Listed:
  • Marta Huculak-Mączka

    (Department of Engineering and Technology of Chemical Processes, Faculty of Chemistry, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 50-373 Wroclaw, Poland)

  • Dominik Nieweś

    (Department of Engineering and Technology of Chemical Processes, Faculty of Chemistry, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 50-373 Wroclaw, Poland)

  • Kinga Marecka

    (Department of Engineering and Technology of Chemical Processes, Faculty of Chemistry, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 50-373 Wroclaw, Poland)

  • Magdalena Braun-Giwerska

    (Department of Engineering and Technology of Chemical Processes, Faculty of Chemistry, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 50-373 Wroclaw, Poland)

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate eco-innovative solutions in the fertilizer industry that allow for waste valorization in the context of a resource-efficient circular economy. A comprehensive reuse strategy was developed for low-rank peat and post-cultivation horticultural mineral wool, involving the extraction of valuable humic substances from peat and residual nutrients from used mineral wool, followed by the use of both post-extraction residues to produce organic–mineral substrates. The resulting products/semifinished products were characterized in terms of their composition and properties, which met the requirements necessary to obtain the admission of this type of product to the market in accordance with the Regulation of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development of 18 June 2008 on the implementation of certain provisions of the Act on fertilizers and fertilization (Journal of Laws No 119, item 765). Elemental analysis, FTIR spectroscopy, and solid-state CP-MAS 13 C NMR spectroscopy suggest that post-extraction peat has a relatively condensed structure with a high C content (47.4%) and a reduced O/C atomic ratio and is rich in alkyl-like matter (63.2%) but devoid of some functional groups in favor of extracted fulvic acids. Therefore, it remains a valuable organic biowaste, which, in combination with post-extraction waste mineral wool in a ratio of 60:40 and possibly the addition of mineral nutrients, allows us to obtain a completely new substrate with a bulk density of 264 g/m 3 , a salinity of 7.8 g/dm 3 and a pH of 5.3, with an appropriate content of heavy metals and with no impurities, meeting the requirements of this type of product. A liquid fertilizer based on an extract containing previously recovered nutrients also meets the criteria in terms of quality and content of impurities and can potentially be used as a fertilizing product suitable for agricultural crops. This study demonstrates a feasible pathway for transforming specific waste streams into valuable agricultural inputs, contributing to environmental protection and sustainable production. The production of a new liquid fertilizer using nutrients recovered from post-cultivation mineral wool and the preparation of an organic–mineral substrate using post-extraction solid residue is a rational strategy for recycling hard-to-biodegrade end-of-life products.

Suggested Citation

  • Marta Huculak-Mączka & Dominik Nieweś & Kinga Marecka & Magdalena Braun-Giwerska, 2025. "Valorization of Waste Mineral Wool and Low-Rank Peat in the Fertilizer Industry in the Context of a Resource-Efficient Circular Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-20, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:15:p:7083-:d:1717729
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/15/7083/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/15/7083/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marzena Smol & Paulina Marcinek & Joanna Duda & Dominika Szołdrowska, 2020. "Importance of Sustainable Mineral Resource Management in Implementing the Circular Economy (CE) Model and the European Green Deal Strategy," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Marzena Smol & Paulina Marcinek & Joanna Duda & Dominika Szołdrowska, 2020. "Correction: Smol, M., et al. Importance of Sustainable Mineral Resource Management in Implementing the Circular Economy (CE) Model and the European Green Deal Strategy. Resource 2020, 9 , 55," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-3, June.
    3. Coccia, Mario, 2019. "Why do nations produce science advances and new technology?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    4. Marzena Smol, 2021. "Transition to Circular Economy in the Fertilizer Sector—Analysis of Recommended Directions and End-Users’ Perception of Waste-Based Products in Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-19, July.
    5. Neocleous, Damianos & Savvas, Dimitrios, 2016. "NaCl accumulation and macronutrient uptake by a melon crop in a closed hydroponic system in relation to water uptake," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 22-32.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Paolo Pariso & Alfonso Marino, 2026. "Assessing the Circular Economy Transition in the EU: Predictive Insights From an Artificial Neural Network Model," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(S1), pages 538-556, January.
    2. Gyula Nagy & Soma Ádám Heiner & Zoltán Kovács, 2025. "Exploring the Presence and Absence of Academic Discourse on Public Participation in the European Green Deal: A Central and Eastern European Perspective," Societies, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-24, February.
    3. Smol, Marzena, 2022. "Is the green deal a global strategy? Revision of the green deal definitions, strategies and importance in post-COVID recovery plans in various regions of the world," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    4. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    5. Francis Pavloudakis & Christos Roumpos & Philip-Mark Spanidis, 2024. "Sustainable Mining and Processing of Mineral Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-8, September.
    6. Marzena Smol, 2020. "Inventory of Wastes Generated in Polish Sewage Sludge Incineration Plants and Their Possible Circular Management Directions," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-24, July.
    7. de Almeida, Liliane & Augusto de Jesus Pacheco, Diego & Caten, Carla Schwengber ten & Jung, Carlos Fernando, 2021. "A methodology for identifying results and impacts in technological innovation projects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    8. Margarita Ignatyeva & Vera Yurak & Natalia Pustokhina, 2020. "Recultivation of Post-Mining Disturbed Land: Review of Content and Comparative Law and Feasibility Study," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-17, June.
    9. Xian Gong & Paul X. McCarthy & Colin Griffith & Claire McFarland & Marian-Andrei Rizoiu, 2025. "Cosmos 1.0: a multidimensional map of the emerging technology frontier," Papers 2505.10591, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2025.
    10. Christina G. Siontorou, 2023. "Fair Development Transition of Lignite Areas: Key Challenges and Sustainability Prospects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-14, August.
    11. Neocleous, Damianos & Nikolaou, Georgios & Ntatsi, Georgia & Savvas, Dimitrios, 2021. "Nitrate supply limitations in tomato crops grown in a chloride-amended recirculating nutrient solution," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    12. Kateryna Redko & Olena Borychenko & Anatolii Cherniavskyi & Volodymyr Saienko & Serhii Dudnikov, 2023. "Comparative Analysis of Innovative Development Strategies of Fuel and Energy Complex of Ukraine and the EU Countries: International Experience," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 13(2), pages 301-308, March.
    13. Pracheta Tejasmayee & Bhakti Agarwal & Shailesh Rastogi & Rohini Rokde, 2026. "Does Circular Economy Effect the Valuation of the Indian Automobile Firms?," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 1-19, April.
    14. Marge Lanno & Maris Klavins & Oskars Purmalis & Merrit Shanskiy & Anu Kisand & Mait Kriipsalu, 2022. "Properties of Humic Substances in Composts Comprised of Different Organic Source Material," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-14, October.
    15. Marta Ferrer-Serrano & M. Pilar Latorre-Martínez & Lucio Fuentelsaz, 2021. "The European research landscape under the Horizon 2020 Lenses: the interaction between science centers, public institutions, and industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 828-853, June.
    16. Cao, Qinwei & Qiu, Shunli & Huang, Jian, 2022. "Contradiction and mechanism analysis of science and technology input-output: Evidence from key universities in China," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    17. Ewa Lewicka & Katarzyna Guzik & Krzysztof Galos, 2021. "On the Possibilities of Critical Raw Materials Production from the EU’s Primary Sources," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    18. Marzena Smol, 2023. "Circular Economy in Wastewater Treatment Plant—Water, Energy and Raw Materials Recovery," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-18, May.
    19. Marzena Smol & Paulina Marcinek & Zuzana Šimková & Tomáš Bakalár & Milan Hemzal & Jiří Jaromír Klemeš & Yee Van Fan & Kinga Lorencz & Eugeniusz Koda & Anna Podlasek, 2022. "Inventory of Good Practices of Sustainable and Circular Phosphorus Management in the Visegrad Group (V4)," Resources, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, December.
    20. Assel Sopykhanova & Almkhan Maytanov & Alla Kiseleva & Roza Zhamiyeva, 2023. "Problems of Legal Regulation and State Policy Measures Related to Nature Management in the Framework of Achieving the SDGs: Examples from Russia and Kazakhstan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-22, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:17:y:2025:i:15:p:7083-:d:1717729. 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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (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.