New user?

Revision history [back]

click to hide/show revision 1
initial version

In addition Dorcas here are a few Abstracts : Engineering Village Selected Records Download: 4/3/2014

<record 1=""> Evaluation of dry solid waste recycling from municipal solid waste: Case of Mashhad city, Iran Farzadkia, Mahdi1; Jorfi, Sahand2; Akbari, Hamideh3; Ghasemi, Mehdi4 Source: Waste Management and Research, v 30, n 1, p 106-112, January 2012 ; ISSN: 0734242X, E-ISSN: 10963669; DOI: 10.1177/0734242X10395659;

Publisher: SAGE Publications LtdAuthor affiliation: 1 Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran2 Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran3 Health Promotion Research Center, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran4 Department of Environmental Health, Gonabad University of Medical Sciences, Gonabad, Iran

Abstract: The recycling for recovery and reuse of material and energy resources undoubtedly provides a substantial alternative supply of raw materials and reduces the dependence on virgin feedstock. The main objective of this study was to assess the potential of dry municipal solid waste recycling in Mashhad city, Iran. Several questionnaires were prepared and distributed among various branches of the municipality, related organizations and people. The total amount of solid waste generated in Mashhad in 2008 was 594 800 tons with per capita solid waste generation rate of 0.609 kg person-1 day-1. Environmental educational programmes via mass media and direct education of civilians were implemented to publicize the advantages and necessity of recycling. The amount of recycled dry solid waste was increased from 2.42% of total dry solid waste (2588.36 ton year-1) in 1999 to 7.22% (10 165 ton year-1) in 2008. The most important fractions of recycled dry solid waste in Mashhad included paper and board (51.33%), stale bread (14.59%), glass (9.73%), ferrous metals (9.73%), plastic (9.73%), polyethylene terephthalate (2.62%) and non-ferrous metals (0.97%). It can be concluded that unfortunately the potential of dry solid waste recycling in Mashhad has not been considered properly and there is a great effort to be made in order to achieve the desired conditions of recycling. © The Author(s) 2012. (29 refs.)Main Heading: Municipal solid wasteControlled terms: Energy conversion - Iron - Polyethylene terephthalates - Raw materials - Recycling - Surveys - Waste managementUncontrolled terms: Desired conditions - Dry solids - Educational programmes - Ferrous metals - Iran - Mashhad city - Mass media - Paper and boards - Per capita - Solid waste generation - Solid waste recycling - Total dry solidsClassification Code: 951 Materials Science - 815.1.1 Organic Polymers - 545.1 Iron - 525.5 Energy Conversion Issues - 452.3 Industrial Wastes - 452 Municipal and Industrial Wastes; Waste Treatment and Disposal - 405.3 Surveying Database: Compendex Compilation and indexing terms, Copyright 2013 Elsevier Inc.

<record 2=""> Assessing recycling versus incineration of key materials in municipal waste: The importance of efficient energy recovery and transport distances Merrild, Hanna1; Larsen, Anna W.1; Christensen, Thomas H.1 Source: Waste Management, v 32, n 5, p 1009-1018, May 2012 ; ISSN: 0956053X, E-ISSN: 18792456; DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.12.025;

Publisher: Elsevier LtdAuthor affiliation: 1 Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Miljoevej, Building 113, DK-2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark

Abstract: Recycling of materials from municipal solid waste is commonly considered to be superior to any other waste treatment alternative. For the material fractions with a significant energy content this might not be the case if the treatment alternative is a waste-to-energy plant with high energy recovery rates. The environmental impacts from recycling and from incineration of six material fractions in household waste have been compared through life cycle assessment assuming high-performance technologies for material recycling as well as for waste incineration. The results showed that there are environmental benefits when recycling paper, glass, steel and aluminium instead of incinerating it. For cardboard and plastic the results were more unclear, depending on the level of energy recovery at the incineration plant, the system boundaries chosen and which impact category was in focus. Further, the environmental impact potentials from collection, pre-treatment and transport was compared to the environmental benefit from recycling and this showed that with the right means of transport, recyclables can in most cases be transported long distances. However, the results also showed that recycling of some of the material fractions can only contribute marginally in improving the overall waste management system taking into consideration their limited content in average Danish household waste. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. (47 refs.)Main Heading: Waste incinerationControlled terms: Environmental impact - Incineration - Life cycle - Materials - Recovery - Recycling - Waste treatmentUncontrolled terms: EASEWASTE - Energy content - Energy recovery - Environmental benefits - High energy - High-performance technologies - Household waste - Incineration plant - Key materials - LCA - Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) - Material fractions - Material recycling - Municipal waste - Pre-Treatment - Recyclables - Recycling of materials - Recycling paper - System boundary - Transport - Transport distances - Waste management systems - Waste-to-energy plantsClassification Code: 452 Municipal and Industrial Wastes; Waste Treatment and Disposal - 454.2 Environmental Impact and Protection - 531 Metallurgy and Metallography - 913.1 Production Engineering - 951 Materials Science Database: Compendex Compilation and indexing terms, Copyright 2013 Elsevier Inc.

<record 3=""> Alternative method for pyrometallurgical recycling of EAF dust using plastic waste containing tetrabromobisphenol A Oleszek-Kudlak, S.1, 2; Grabda, M.1, 2; Shibata, E.1; Nakamura, Takashi1 Source: High Temperature Materials and Processes, v 30, n 4, p 359-366, August 2011 ; ISSN: 03346455; DOI: 10.1515/HTMP.2011.057;

Publisher: Freund and Pettman PublishersAuthor affiliation: 1 Institute of Multidisciplinary Research for Advanced Materials, Tohoku University, 1,1-Katahira, 2-Chome, Aobaku, 980-8577 Sendai, Japan2 Institute of Environmental Engineering, Polish Academy of Sciences, Zabrze, Poland

Abstract: Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) is the largest volume brominated flame retardant (BFR) in production today, used in more than 70% of the world's electronic and electric (E&E) appliances as well as in many plastics, textiles and so forth. There is constant growth in the production of such products and they become obsolete quickly, this generates huge amounts of BFR-containing wastes and causes significant problems for their safe disposal and recycling. The most common way to use them is in thermal processing. TBBPA easily decomposes during this process, generating significant amounts of gaseous HBr. The HBr is present mostly in the flue gas and can act as a bromination agent for selective bromination-evaporation of heavy metals present in co-combusted metallurgical dusts, like zinc and lead-rich electric arc furnace (EAF) dust. EAF dust, though classified by various government regulatory agencies as hazardous waste, is considered a valuable secondary raw material in the production of zinc. The worldwide generation of EAF dust represents a possible recovery of approximately 1.4 million tons of zinc. Thus the co-combustion of the mixed wastes can be chance for simultaneous recovery of both, energy from waste plastics and inorganic fractions from the dust, while the separated iron oxide-rich residues can be used as iron-making and steelmaking resources. In this study, a laboratory-scale furnace was used to investigate (1) the reactivity of zinc with the product of the thermal decomposition of TBBPA, and effect of (2) temperature on the efficiency of the bromination and vaporization processes. Copyright © 2011 De Gruyter. (32 refs.)Main Heading: Electric furnacesControlled terms: Decomposition - Dust control - Elastomers - Energy conversion - Flue gases - Heavy metals - Iron oxides - Metal recovery - Plastics - Recycling - Waste disposal - Waste incineration - ZincUncontrolled terms: Alternative methods - Brominated flame retardants - Cocombustion - EAF dust - Electric arc furnace dust - Hazardous wastes - Inorganic fractions - Iron making - Laboratory scale - Mixed wastes - Plastic wastes - Regulatory agencies - Safe disposals - Secondary Raw Materials - TBBPA - Tetrabromobisphenol A - Vaporization process - Waste plastic - Zinc recoveryClassification Code: 817.1 Polymer Products - 804.2 Inorganic Compounds - 802.2 Chemical Reactions - 546.3 Zinc and Alloys - 532.3 Electric Metallurgical Furnaces - 818.2 Elastomers - 531 Metallurgy and Metallography - 521 Fuel Combustion and Flame Research - 452.4 Industrial Wastes Treatment and Disposal - 452.3 Industrial Wastes - 451.2 Air Pollution Control - 525.5 Energy Conversion Issues Database: Compendex Compilation and indexing terms, Copyright 2013 Elsevier Inc.

<record 4=""> Feasibility of target material recycling as waste management alternative El-Guebaly, Laila A.1; Wilson, P.1; Henderson, D.1; Varuttamaseni, A.1 Source: Fusion Science and Technology, v 46, n 3, p 506-518+519, November 2004 ; ISSN: 15361055; Publisher: American Nuclear SocietyAuthor affiliation: 1 University of Wisconsin-Madison, Fusion Technology Institute, 1500 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706

Abstract: The issue of waste management has been studied simultaneously along with the development of the ARIES heavy-ion-driven inertial fusion energy (IFE) concept. Options for waste management include disposal in repositories, recycling, or clearance from regulatory control, following a reasonable cooling period. This paper concerns the feasibility of recycling the heavy-ion-beam targets, in particular the hohlraum wall materials that include, for example, Au/Gd, Au, W, Pb, Hg, Ta, Pb/Ta/Cs, Hg/W/Cs, Pb/Hf, Hf, solid Kr, and solid Xe. The choice between target material disposal and recycling depends on the amount of waste generated relative to the nuclear island, the strategy to solve the recycling problem, and the impact of the additional cost and complexity of the recycling process on the overall machine. A detailed flow diagram for the elements of the recycling process was developed to analyze two extreme activation cases: (a) one-shot use and then disposal in a repository and (b) recycling continuously during plant life without removal of transmutation products. Metrics for comparing the two scenarios included waste level, dose to re cycling equipment, additional cost, and design complexity. Comparing the two approaches indicated a preference for the one-shot scenario as it generates 1 m3/yr of extremely low-level waste (Class A) and offers attractive design and economics features. Recycling reduces the target waste stream by a factor of 10 or more but introduces additional issues. It may produce high-level waste, requires remote handling, adds radioactive storage facilities, and increases the cost and complexity of the plant. The inventory analysis indicated that the heavy-ion-beam (HIB) target materials represent a very small waste stream compared to that of the nuclear island (<1% of the total waste). This means recycling is not a "must" requirement for IFE-HIB power plants unless the target materials have cost and/or resource problems (e.g., Au and Gd). In this case, the additional cost and complexity of the recycling process should be factored into the economics of IFE power plants. (31 refs.)Main Heading: RecyclingControlled terms: Cooling - Costs - Deuterium - Heavy ions - Industrial economics - Inventory control - Ion beams - Radioactive materials - Tritium - Waste disposal - Waste management - X raysUncontrolled terms: Inertial fusion - Inertial fusion energy (IFE) - Target materials - Transmutation productsClassification Code: 932.1 High Energy Physics - 931.3 Atomic and Molecular Physics - 911.3 Inventory Control - 911.2 Industrial Economics - 911 Cost and Value Engineering; Industrial Economics - 801.4.2 Radiation Chemistry - 641.2 Heat Transfer - 622.1.1 Radioisotopes - 452.4 Industrial Wastes Treatment and DisposalTreatment: Economic (ECO); Theoretical (THR) Database: Compendex Compilation and indexing terms, Copyright 2013 Elsevier Inc.

<record 5=""> Extended exergy accounting applied to energy recovery from waste: The concept of total recycling Sciubba, Enrico1 Source: Energy, v 28, n 13, p 1315-1334, November 2003 ; ISSN: 03605442; DOI: 10.1016/S0360-5442(03)00111-7;

Publisher: Elsevier LtdAuthor affiliation: 1 Universita di Roma 1, La Sapienza, Dipto. di Meccanica e Aeronautica, via Eudossiana 18, Roma 00184, Italy

Abstract: A novel systematic approach to the evaluation of energy conversion processes and systems, based on an extended representation of their exergy flow diagram is presented and discussed in this article. The method constitutes a substantial generalisation of Szargut's cumulative exergy consumption procedure, and provides a coherent and consistent framework for including non-energetic quantities like capital, labour and environmental impact into an engineering optimisation procedure (the apposition 'extended' refers to these enhanced capabilities). It is argued that some of the issues that are difficult to address with a purely monetary or even with a thermo-economic approach can be resolved in a straightforward manner by extended exergy accounting ('EEA' in this article). As an indication of the potential of the method, a general, qualitative example is offered of the application of EEA to the evaluation of a technical alternative between a non-integrated waste recycling and an integrated waste recycling and incineration facility. © 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. (48 refs.)Main Heading: Waste heat utilizationControlled terms: Energy conversion - Energy utilization - Exergy - RecyclingUncontrolled terms: Flow diagramClassification Code: 452.3 Industrial Wastes - 525.3 Energy Utilization - 525.5 Energy Conversion Issues - 641.1 ThermodynamicsTreatment: Theoretical (THR) Database: Compendex Compilation and indexing terms, Copyright 2013 Elsevier Inc.

<record 6=""> Changes and demands, alternative uses for waste paper and energy implications Ervasti, Ilpo1 Source: Paper Technology, v 37, n 10, p 37-44, Dec 1996 ; ISSN: 0306252X;

Publisher: Paper Industry Technical AssociationAuthor affiliation: 1 Jaakko Poyry Consulting Oy, Finland

Abstract: The use of wastepaper as energy source creates a more stable wastepaper market that will put an end to the wild fluctuations in price which have occurred during the last decade. The recovery and consumption of recycled fiber in the world and the whole wastepaper market, international trade, utilization in Western Europe, and alternative uses other than recycling in the paper industry, are presented. Prices of recovered paper grades vary depending on availability, quality, and end-use possibilities.Main Heading: Waste paperControlled terms: Combustion - Deinking - Economics - Energy resources - International trade - Marketing - Recycling - Waste utilizationUncontrolled terms: Energy valueClassification Code: 452.3 Industrial Wastes - 521.1 Fuel Combustion - 525.1 Energy Resources and Renewable Energy Issues - 811.1 Pulp and Paper - 911.4 MarketingTreatment: General review (GEN) Database: Compendex Compilation and indexing terms, Copyright 2013 Elsevier Inc.

<record 7=""> Plastic waste management in the context of a European recycling society: Comparing results and uncertainties in a life cycle perspective Lazarevic, David1, 2, 3; Aoustin, Emmanuelle1; Buclet, Nicolas2; Brandt, Nils3 Source: Resources, Conservation and Recycling, v 55, n 2, p 246-259, December 2010 ; ISSN: 09213449; DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.09.014;

Publisher: ElsevierAuthor affiliation: 1 Veolia Environnement Recherche et Innovation, 10 rue Jacques Daguerre, 92 500 Rueil-Malmaison, France2 Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Sustainable Development, Institute Charles Delaunay, University of Technology, Troyes, BP 2060, 10010 Troyes Cedex, France3 Division of Industrial Ecology, School of Industrial Engineering and Management, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract: A number of life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have been undertaken within the last 15 years comparing end-of-life treatment options for post-consumer plastic waste, including techniques such as: mechanical recycling, feedstock recycling, incineration with energy recovery and landfilling. These have attempted to support decisions in the formulation of waste management strategies and policies. In light of the introduction of life cycle thinking into European waste policies, specifically in relation to the waste hierarchy, a literature review of publically available LCA studies evaluating alternative end-of-life treatment options for plastic waste has been conducted. This has been done in order to: establish if a consensus exists as to the environmentally preferable treatment option for plastic waste; identify the methodological considerations and assumptions that have led to these conclusions; and determine the legitimacy of applying the waste hierarchy to the plastic waste stream. The majority of the LCA studies concluded that, when single polymer plastic waste fractions with little organic contamination are recycled and replace virgin plastic at a ratio of close to 1:1, recycling is generally the environmentally preferred treatment option when compared to municipal solid waste incineration. It has been found that assumptions relating to the virgin material substitution ratio and level of organic contamination can have a significant influence upon the results of these studies. Although a limited number of studies addressed feedstock recycling, feedstock recycling and the use of plastic waste as a solid recovered fuel in cement kilns were preferred to municipal solid waste incineration. Landfilling of plastic waste compared to municipal solid waste incineration proved to be the least preferred option for all impact categories except for global warming potential. Due to the uncertainty surrounding some assumptions in the studies, it cannot be said with confidence that the waste hierarchy should be applied to plastic waste management as a general rule. © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. (40 refs.)Main Heading: Waste incinerationControlled terms: Brickmaking - Energy conversion - Environmental impact - Feedstocks - Global warming - Kilns - Life cycle - Plastics - Recycling - Refuse incinerators - Solid wastes - Waste treatmentUncontrolled terms: Cement kiln - End-of-life - Energy recovery - Feedstock recycling - Global warming potential - Landfilling - Life cycle assessment - Life cycle thinking - Life-cycle assessments - Literature reviews - Management strategies - Mechanical recycling - Municipal solid waste incinerations - Organic contamination - Plastic waste - Plastic wastes - Post-consumer - Single polymers - Solid recovered fuels - Virgin materials - Waste policyClassification Code: 913.1 Production Engineering - 817.1 Polymer Products - 804 Chemical Products Generally - 803 Chemical Agents and Basic Industrial Chemicals - 642.2 Industrial Furnaces and Components - 525.5 Energy Conversion Issues - 454.2 Environmental Impact and Protection - 452.4 Industrial Wastes Treatment and Disposal - 452.3 Industrial Wastes - 451 Air Pollution - 414.1 Brickmaking Database: Compendex Compilation and indexing terms, Copyright 2013 Elsevier Inc.

<record 8=""> A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) comparison of three management options for waste papers: Bioethanol production, recycling and incineration with energy recovery Wang, Lei1; Templer, Richard2; Murphy, Richard J.1 Source: Bioresource Technology, v 120, p 89-98, September 2012 ; ISSN: 09608524, E-ISSN: 18732976; DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.130;

Publisher: Elsevier LtdAuthor affiliation: 1 Department of Life Science, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom2 Department of Chemistry, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom

Abstract: This study uses Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to assess the environmental profiles and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for bioethanol production from waste papers and to compare them with the alternative waste management options of recycling or incineration with energy recovery. Bioethanol production scenarios both with and without pre-treatments were conducted. It was found that an oxidative lime pre-treatment reduced GHG emissions and overall environmental burdens for a newspaper-to-bioethanol process whereas a dilute acid pre-treatment raised GHG emissions and overall environmental impacts for an office paper-to-bioethanol process. In the comparison of bioethanol production systems with alternative management of waste papers by different technologies, it was found that the environmental profiles of each system vary significantly and this variation affects the outcomes of the specific comparisons made. Overall, a number of configurations of bioethanol production from waste papers offer environmentally favourable or neutral profiles when compared with recycling or incineration. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. (35 refs.)Main Heading: BioethanolControlled terms: Environmental management - Environmental technology - Ethanol - Greenhouse gases - Incineration - Life cycle - Recycling - Waste management - Waste paperUncontrolled terms: Alternative management - Bio-ethanol production - Dilute acids - Energy recovery - Environmental burdens - Environmental profile - GHG emission - Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) - Management options - Pre-Treatment - Pre-treatmentsClassification Code: 452 Municipal and Industrial Wastes; Waste Treatment and Disposal - 452.3 Industrial Wastes - 454 Environmental Engineering - 523 Liquid Fuels - 804.1 Organic Compounds - 913.1 Production Engineering Database: Compendex Compilation and indexing terms, Copyright 2013 Elsevier Inc.