Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/18511
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Hahladakis, JN | - |
dc.contributor.author | Purnell, P | - |
dc.contributor.author | Iacovidou, E | - |
dc.contributor.author | Velis, CA | - |
dc.contributor.author | Atseyinku, M | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-06-19T10:18:05Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2018-05-01 | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-06-19T10:18:05Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2018-02-10 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Waste Management, 2018, 75 pp. 149 - 159 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0956-053X | - |
dc.identifier.issn | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.009 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1879-2456 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/18511 | - |
dc.description.abstract | The European Commission (EC) recently introduced a ‘Circular Economy Package’, setting ambitious recycling targets and identifying waste plastics as a priority sector where major improvements are necessary. Here, the authors explain how different collection modalities affect the quantity and quality of recycling, using recent empirical data on household (HH) post-consumer plastic packaging waste (PCPP) collected for recycling in the devolved administration of England over the quarterly period July-September 2014. Three main collection schemes, as currently implemented in England, were taken into account: (i) kerbside collection (KS), (ii) household waste recycling centres (HWRCs) (also known as ‘civic amenity sites’), and (iii) bring sites/banks (BSs). The results indicated that: (a) the contribution of KS collection scheme in recovering packaging plastics is higher than HWRCs and BBs, with respective percentages by weight (wt%) 90%, 9% and 1%; (b) alternate weekly collection (AWC) of plastic recyclables in wheeled bins, when collected commingled, demonstrated higher yield in KS collection; (c) only a small percentage (16%) of the total amount of post-consumer plastics collected in the examined period (141 kt) was finally sent to reprocessors (22 kt); (c) nearly a third of Local Authorities (LAs) reported insufficient or poor data; and (d) the most abundant fractions of plastics that finally reached the reprocessors were mixed plastic bottles and mixed plastics. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 149 - 159 | - |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | Elsevier | en_US |
dc.subject | Circular economy | en_US |
dc.subject | Household waste | en_US |
dc.subject | Local authorities | en_US |
dc.subject | Plastic packaging | en_US |
dc.subject | Recycling | en_US |
dc.subject | Waste collection schemes | en_US |
dc.title | Post-consumer plastic packaging waste in England: Assessing the yield of multiple collection-recycling schemes | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.009 | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | Waste Management | - |
pubs.publication-status | Published | - |
pubs.volume | 75 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1879-2456 | - |
Appears in Collections: | Dept of Life Sciences Research Papers |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
FullText.pdf | 2.71 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.