Life cycle assessment (LCA) on waste management options for derelict fishing gear

被引:8
|
作者
Schneider, Falk [1 ,2 ]
Parsons, Sophie [1 ]
Clift, Sally [1 ]
Stolte, Andrea [3 ]
Krueger, Michael [4 ]
McManus, Marcelle [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bath, Dept Mech Engn, Bath BA2 7AY, England
[2] Natl Cheng Kung Univ, Dept Environm Engn, 1 Univ Rd, Tainan 701, Taiwan
[3] WWF Germany, Balt Sea Dept, Neuer Markt 2, D-18439 Stralsund, Germany
[4] PreZero Deutschland KG, Pforte 2, D-32457 Porta Westfalica, Germany
来源
关键词
Marine litter; Environmental impact; Mixed waste; Recycling; Gasification; Recovery; Landfill; MUNICIPAL SOLID-WASTE; ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT; MARINE DEBRIS; FLOW-ANALYSIS; TECHNOLOGIES; PLASTICS; SUSTAINABILITY; INCINERATION; RESIDUES;
D O I
10.1007/s11367-022-02132-y
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Purpose Derelict fishing gear (DFG) is one of the most abundant and harmful types of marine litter that gets increasingly retrieved from the ocean. However, for this novel waste stream recycling and recovery pathways are not yet commonly established. To identify the most suitable waste management system, this study assesses the potential environmental impacts of DFG waste treatment options in Europe.Methods This study applies an attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) to four DFG waste treatment scenarios, namely a mechanical recycling, syngas production, energy recovery and landfill disposal. The scope spans from the retrieval and transport processes to pre- and end-treatment steps until the outputs are sent to landfill or assumed to substitute products or energy. Primary data was collected from retrieval and waste treatment trials in Europe. Contribution, sensitivity and uncertainty analyses were conducted using the LCA software SimaPro and ReCiPe as the impact methodology.Results and discussion The results show that the mechanical recycling and energy recovery achieve the lowest potential environmental impacts. The syngas production and landfill disposal scenario are not environmentally competitive because they require too much electricity, or their avoided production credits were too small to offset their emissions. Unlike the pre-treatment and transport processes, the retrieval and end-treatment processes have a significant impact on the overall results. The transport distances, energy mix and market and technological assumptions are least sensitive, while changes to the waste composition significantly affect the results. Especially a reduced lead content benefits the human toxicity impact potential of the landfill disposal scenario. The uncertainty analysis showed that the results are very robust in nine of twelve impact categories.Conclusions This is the first LCA study that compares waste treatment options for marine litter. The results indicate that a disposal of DFG is hazardous and should be replaced with mechanical recycling or energy recovery. While this may be technologically possible and environmentally beneficial, economic and social factors should also be considered before a final decision is made. To further reduce environmental impacts, marine litter prevention should play a more important role.
引用
收藏
页码:274 / 290
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Life cycle assessment (LCA) on waste management options for derelict fishing gear
    Falk Schneider
    Sophie Parsons
    Sally Clift
    Andrea Stolte
    Michael Krüger
    Marcelle McManus
    [J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2023, 28 : 274 - 290
  • [2] Life cycle assessment of food waste management options
    Lundie, S
    Peters, GM
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2005, 13 (03) : 275 - 286
  • [3] Life cycle assessment of bagasse waste management options
    Kiatkittipong, Worapon
    Wongsuchoto, Porntip
    Pavasant, Prasert
    [J]. WASTE MANAGEMENT, 2009, 29 (05) : 1628 - 1633
  • [4] Life cycle assessment of municipal waste management options
    Sarigiannis, D. A.
    Handakas, E. J.
    Karakitsios, S. P.
    Gotti, A.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, 2021, 193
  • [5] Odour and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in Waste Management: A Local Assessment Proposal
    Mathilde Marchand
    Lynda Aissani
    Pascal Mallard
    Fabrice Béline
    Jean-Pierre Réveret
    [J]. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 2013, 4 : 607 - 617
  • [6] Odour and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in Waste Management: A Local Assessment Proposal
    Marchand, Mathilde
    Aissani, Lynda
    Mallard, Pascal
    Beline, Fabrice
    Reveret, Jean-Pierre
    [J]. WASTE AND BIOMASS VALORIZATION, 2013, 4 (03) : 607 - 617
  • [7] Life cycle assessment of solid waste management options for Eskisehir, Turkey
    Banar, Mufide
    Cokaygil, Zerrin
    Ozkan, Aysun
    [J]. WASTE MANAGEMENT, 2009, 29 (01) : 54 - 62
  • [8] Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste management options for India
    Khandelwal, Harshit
    Thalla, Arun Kumar
    Kumar, Sunil
    Kumar, Rakesh
    [J]. BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2019, 288
  • [9] A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) comparison of three management options for waste papers: Bioethanol production, recycling and incineration with energy recovery
    Wang, Lei
    Templer, Richard
    Murphy, Richard J.
    [J]. BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2012, 120 : 89 - 98
  • [10] Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management strategies: Landfilling, sorting plant and incineration
    Cherubini, Francesco
    Bargigli, Silvia
    Ulgiati, Sergio
    [J]. ENERGY, 2009, 34 (12) : 2116 - 2123