nach oben

Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

Erschienen in:

05.10.2022 | ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Statistical analysis in estimating probable concentrations of representative chemical species in leachate: a solution for the source term of new or unmonitored landfills

verfasst von: Fernanda Bento Rosa Gomes, Vinícius Bignoto da Rocha Cândido, Isabela Salgado Vargas, Luiz Evaristo Dias de Paiva, Jonathas Batista Gonçalves Silva, Otavio Eurico de Aquino Branco, Samuel Rodrigues Castro

Erschienen in: Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management | Ausgabe 1/2023

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Leakage modeling can be crucial for environmental management and control of waste landfills. However, defining boundary conditions for these models can be difficult, especially in absence of primary monitoring data. Thus, this work proposes methodological steps to characterize and estimate probable concentrations of representative chemicals in landfill leachates to enable the simulation of the transport of contaminants for landfills where there are no monitoring data available. The paper presents a case study in which real leachate monitoring data were used to estimate source term concentrations. Criteria for the selection of representative chemicals were proposed based on data analysis and environmental and health risks related to the chemicals. A statistically robust procedure to estimate reference values for the concentration of selected contaminants were provided. In the study case, a total of 25 chemicals monitored in a non-hazardous landfill were identified as representative substances in leachate. The proposed method can be applied to establish the source term for models using primary or secondary data and also can be used to guide other crucial management actions, such as the design of leachate treatment plants or the elaboration of monitoring plans.

Vorheriger Artikel Ferronickel slag as free-draining rockfill dike material: a novel waste solution for mining regions

Nächster Artikel The improvement of strength and microstructural properties of fly ash-based geopolymer by adding elemental aluminum powder

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

WBG (2018) What a Waste 2.0: a global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. World bank group

Lin J, Chen Q, Liu R, Ye W, Luis P, Van der Bruggen B et al (2021) Sustainable management of landfill leachate concentrate via nanofiltration enhanced by one-step rapid assembly of metal-organic coordination complexes. Water Res 204:117633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117633CrossRef

McBean EA, Rovers F, Farquhar GJ (1994) Solid waste landfill engineering and design. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

Brennan RB, Healy MG, Morrison L, Hynes S, Norton D, Clifford E (2016) Management of landfill leachate: the legacy of European Union directives. Waste Manage 55:355–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.10.010CrossRef

de Souza PN, Shinzato MPB, Morita AKM, Martins LGB, Wendland EC (2020) Innovative device to assay leachate production in non-sanitary landfills. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 22(6):1985–1998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-01084-5CrossRef

Baettker EC, Kozak C, Knapik HG, Aisse MM (2020) Applicability of conventional and non-conventional parameters for municipal landfill leachate characterization. Chemosphere 251:126414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126414CrossRef

Giang NV, Kochanek K, Vu NT, Duan NB (2018) Landfill leachate assessment by hydrological and geophysical data: case study NamSon, Hanoi. Vietnam J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 20(3):1648–1662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0732-7CrossRef

Bidone FRA, Povinelli J (1999) Conceitos básicos de resíduos sólidos. EESC/USP, São Paulo

Khalil C, Al Hageh C, Korfali S, Khnayzer RS (2018) Municipal leachates health risks: chemical and cytotoxicity assessment from regulated and unregulated municipal dumpsites in Lebanon. Chemosphere 208:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.05.151CrossRef

10.

Fang C, Mao H, Jiang L, Long Y (2020) Transformation of di-n-butyl phthalate in an anaerobic/anoxic/oxic leachate treatment process. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 22(1):221–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-00930-5CrossRef

11.

Rendell-Bhatti F, Paganos P, Pouch A, Mitchell C, D’Aniello S, Godley BJ et al (2021) Developmental toxicity of plastic leachates on the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus. Environ Pollut 269:115744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115744CrossRef

12.

Sales Junior SF, Costa Amaral IC, Mannarino CF, Hauser-Davis RA, Correia FV, Saggioro EM (2021) Long-term landfill leachate exposure modulates antioxidant responses and causes cyto-genotoxic effects in Eisenia andrei earthworms. Environ Pollut 287:117351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117351CrossRef

13.

Qi C, Yu G, Zhong M, Peng G, Huang J, Wang B (2019) Organophosphate flame retardants in leachates from six municipal landfills across China. Chemosphere 218:836–844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.11.150CrossRef

14.

Ishimori H, Hasegawa R, Ishigaki T (2021) Long-term leaching and volatilization behavior of stabilized and solidified mercury metal waste. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 23(2):741–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-01170-8CrossRef

15.

Kameoka H, Ito K, Ono J, Banno A, Matsumura C, Haga Y et al (2022) Investigation of perfluoroalkyl carboxylic and sulfonic acids in leachates from industrial and municipal solid waste landfills, and their treated waters and effluents from their closest leachate treatment plants. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 24(1):287–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-021-01319-zCrossRef

16.

Knutsen H, Mæhlum T, Haarstad K, Slinde GA, Arp HPH (2019) Leachate emissions of short- and long-chain per- and polyfluoralkyl substances (PFASs) from various Norwegian landfills. Environ Sci Process Impacts 21(11):1970–1979. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9EM00170KCrossRef

17.

Sibiya I, Poma G, Cuykx M, Covaci A, DasoAdegbenro P, Okonkwo J (2019) Targeted and non-target screening of persistent organic pollutants and organophosphorus flame retardants in leachate and sediment from landfill sites in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Sci Total Environ 653:1231–1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.356CrossRef

18.

Wijesekara SSRMDHR, Mayakaduwa SS, Siriwardana AR, de Silva N, Basnayake BFA, Kawamoto K et al (2014) Fate and transport of pollutants through a municipal solid waste landfill leachate in Sri Lanka. Environ Earth Sci 72(5):1707–1719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3075-2CrossRef

19.

Hagan GB, Darko E (2020) Stochastic analysis of the groundwater velocity field and implications for contaminant transport within the Ga East and Adentan municipalities. Ghana J Afr Earth Sci 170:103929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2020.103929CrossRef

20.

Tangviroon P, Noto K, Igarashi T, Kawashima T, Ito M, Sato T et al (2020) Immobilization of lead and zinc leached from mining residual materials in kabwe, zambia: possibility of chemical immobilization by dolomite, calcined dolomite, and magnesium oxide. Minerals 10(9):763. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10090763CrossRef

21.

Zhang Q-Q, Tian B-H, Zhang X, Ghulam A, Fang C-R, He R (2013) Investigation on characteristics of leachate and concentrated leachate in three landfill leachate treatment plants. Waste Manage 33(11):2277–2286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.07.021CrossRef

22.

ATSDR (2022) Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual (PHAGM)-Element 2: environmental fate and transport. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pha-guidance/conducting_scientific_evaluations/exposure_pathways/environmental_fate_and_transport.html. Accessed 20 July 2022

23.

Haque MA (2016) Assessment of nickel leaching phenomena from landfill waste mixed paving block for eco-friendly field application. J Clean Prod 139:99–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.028CrossRef

24.

Akpan Usoh G, Edwin Ahaneku I, Taiwo Horsfall I, UwadiegwuAlaneme G, Hogan Itam D (2022) Numerical modeling and simulation of leachate transport in MSW contaminated soil: impact on seasonal changes. Cleaner Materials 4:100089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clema.2022.100089CrossRef

25.

Cooke AJ, Rowe RK, Rittmann BE (2005) Modelling species fate and porous media effects for landfill leachate flow. Can Geotech J 42(4):1116–1132. https://doi.org/10.1139/t05-039CrossRef

26.

Min J-E, Kim M, Kim JY, Park I-S, Park J-W (2010) Leachate modeling for a municipal solid waste landfill for upper expansion. KSCE J Civ Eng 14(4):473–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-010-0473-1CrossRef

27.

Li Y, Li J, Chen S, Diao W (2012) Establishing indices for groundwater contamination risk assessment in the vicinity of hazardous waste landfills in China. Environ Pollut 165:77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.12.042CrossRef

28.

Shafi S, Sweetman A, Hough RL, Smith R, Rosevear A, Pollard SJT (2006) Evaluating fugacity models for trace components in landfill gas. Environ Pollut 144(3):1013–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2006.01.048CrossRef

29.

Chai J-C, Miura N, Hayashi S (2005) Large-scale tests for leachate flow through composite liner due to geomembrane defects. Geosynth Int 12(3):134–144. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2005.12.3.134CrossRef

30.

Kalbe U, Berger W, Simon FG, Eckardt J, Christoph G (2007) Results of interlaboratory comparisons of column percolation tests. J Hazard Mater 148(3):714–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.03.039CrossRef

31.

McWatters RS, Rowe RK (2009) Transport of volatile organic compounds through PVC and LLDPE geomembranes from both aqueous and vapour phases. Geosynth Int 16(6):468–481. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2009.16.6.468CrossRef

32.

Gray D, Pollard SJT, Spence L, Smith R, Gronow JR (2005) Spray irrigation of landfill leachate: estimating potential exposures to workers and bystanders using a modified air box model and generalised source term. Environ Pollut 133(3):587–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2004.06.010CrossRef

33.

Giroud JP, Touze-Foltz N (2005) Equations for calculating the rate of liquid flow through geomembrane defects of uniform width and finite or infinite length. Geosynth Int 12(4):191–204. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2005.12.4.191CrossRef

34.

Cartaud F, Goblet P, Touze-Foltz N (2005) Numerical simulation of the flow in the interface of a composite bottom liner. Geotext Geomembr 23(6):513–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2005.04.002CrossRef

35.

Xie H, Chen Y, Lou Z (2010) An analytical solution to contaminant transport through composite liners with geomembrane defects. Sci China Technol Sci 53(5):1424–1433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-010-0111-7CrossRefMATH

36.

Barna R, Rethy Z, Imyim A, Perrodin Y, Moszkowicz P, Tiruta-Barna L (2000) Environmental behaviour of a construction made of a mixture of hydraulic binders and air pollution control residues from municipal solid waste incineration part 1. Physico-chemical characterisation and modelling of the source term. Waste Manage 20(8):741–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-053X(00)00032-5CrossRef

37.

Konikow LF (2011) The Secret to Successful Solute-Transport Modeling. Groundwater 49(2):144–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2010.00764.xCrossRef

38.

Climate Data (2022) Climate betim. https://en.climate-data.org/south-america/brazil/minas-gerais/betim-2887. Accessed Feb. 2022.

39.

Gerais M (2010) Plano Municipal de Resíduos Sólidos. Prefeitura Municipal de Betim-Secretaria Municipal de Infraestrutura, Betim

40.

IBGE (2022) Betim. https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/mg/betim/pesquisa/38/47001?tipo=ranking&indicador=47006>. Accessed Feb. 2022.

41.

Singh A, Maichle R, Lee SE (2006) On the computation of a 95% upper confidence limit of the unknown population mean based upon data sets with below detection limit observations. U. S Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

42.

Reimann C, Filzmoser P, Garrett RG, Dutter R (2008) Statistical data analysis explained: applied environmental statistics with R. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterCrossRef

43.

USEPA (2013) ProUCL Version 5.0.00 Technical Guide. U S Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

44.

New Zealand (2018) Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality Management for New Zealand: Datasheets part 2.1, Chemical and Physical Determinands. Ministry of Health, Wellington

45.

WHO (2017) Guidelines for drinking-water quality: fourth edition incorporating the first addendum, 5th edn. World Health Organization, Geneva

46.

Canada (2017) Guideline for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Health Canada, Ottawa

47.

Australia (2018) The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 6 2011 version 17 updated January 2022. NHMRC/NRMMC, Canberra

48.

USEPA (2018) 2018 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. U. S Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

49.

Idaho DEQ (2014) Statistical guidance for determining background ground water quality and degradation. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Boise

50.

Statsoft (2007) Statistica (data analysis software system). Version 8.

51.

USEPA (2016) ProUCL Version 5.1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC

52.

NSW EPA (2014) Waste Classification Guidelines-Part 1: Classifying waste. NSW Environment Protection Agency, Sydney

53.

USEPA (2002) Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites. U. S Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC

54.

USEPA (2002) RCRA waste sampling draft technical guidance - Planning, implementation, and assessment. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC

55.

CETESB (2001) Relatório de estabelecimento de valores orientadores para solos e águas subterrâneas no estado de São Paulo. Companhia de Tecnologia de Saneamento Ambiental, São Paulo

56.

Singh A (2011) Statistical methods used to establish background datasets using sampled data collected from DTLS, and surface and subsurface soils of three RBRAS of the two formations and compute estimates of background threshold values based upon established background datasets (with and without nondetect observations) for the Santa Susana field laboratory investigation. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Brandeis, CA

57.

Brasil (2009) Resolução n 420, de 28 de dezembro de 2009. Dispõe sobre critérios e valores orientadores de qualidade do solo quanto à presença de substâncias químicas e estabelece diretrizes para o gerenciamento ambiental de áreas contaminadas por essas substâncias em decorrência de atividades antrópicas. Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente. Brasília, DF

58.

Karachaliou T, Protonotarios V, Kaliampakos D, Menegaki M (2016) Using risk assessment and management approaches to develop cost-effective and sustainable mine waste management strategies. Recycling 1(3):328–342. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling1030328CrossRef

59.

Xiao G, Wang Z, Ja C, Qiu Z, Li Y, Qi J et al (2013) Occurrence and infection risk of waterborne pathogens in Wanzhou watershed of the Three Gorges Reservoir. China J Environ Sci 25(9):1913–1924. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(12)60241-1CrossRef

60.

Beggio G, Schievano A, Bonato T, Hennebert P, Pivato A (2019) Statistical analysis for the quality assessment of digestates from separately collected organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) and agro-industrial feedstock. Should input feedstock to anaerobic digestion determine the legal status of digestate? Waste Manage 87:546–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.02.040CrossRef

61.

Clausen JL, Georgian T, Gardner KH, Douglas TA (2018) Applying incremental sampling methodology to soils containing heterogeneously distributed metallic residues to improve risk analysis. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 100(1):155–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-017-2252-xCrossRef

62.

Siemering GS, Thiboldeaux R (2021) Background concentration, risk assessment and regulatory threshold development: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in Milwaukee. Wisconsin surface soils Environ Pollut 268:115772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115772CrossRef

63.

Zhou Y, Webster R, ViscarraRossel RA, Shi Z, Chen S (2019) Baseline map of soil organic carbon in Tibet and its uncertainty in the 1980s. Geoderma 334:124–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.07.037CrossRef

64.

Gomes FBR, Pereira RdO, Castro SR, Brandt EMF (2021) Ocorrência de espécies inorgânicas em águas do Brasil. AIDIS 14(1):224. https://doi.org/10.22201/iingen.0718378xe.2021.14.1.70304CrossRef

65.

Gomes FBR, Fagundes PBSS, Castro SR, Ribeiro CBM (2020) Avaliação de impactos ambientais do desastre de Brumadinho-MG pela proposição de valores de referência. Rev Min Recur Hídr 1:1–20

66.

von Sperling M, Verbyla ME, Oliveira SMAC (2020) Assessment of treatment plant performance and water quality data: a guide for students, researchers and practitioners. IWA Publishing, London

67.

Lee L (2017) Package ‘NADA’. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/NADA/NADA.pdf. Accessed 28 January 2022.

68.

ABNT (2004) NBR 10004-Resíduos sólidos–Classificação. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, Brasília DF

69.

Brasil (2010) Deliberação Normativa Conjunta COPAM/CERH nº 02, de 08 de setembro de 2010. COPAM/CERH-MG, Belo Horizonte, MG

70.

Brasil (2005) Resolução CONAMA nº 357, de 17 de março de 2005.Dispõe sobre a classificação dos corpos de água e diretrizes ambientais para o seu enquadramento, bem como estabelece as condições e padrões de lançamento de efluentes, e dá outras providências. Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente, Brasília, DF

71.

Brasil (2008) Deliberação Normativa Conjunta COPAM/CERH-MG nº 01, de 05 de maio de 2008. COPAM/CERH-MG, Belo Horizonte MG

72.

Christensen TH, Kjeldsen P, Bjerg PL, Jensen DL, Christensen JB, Baun A et al (2001) Biogeochemistry of landfill leachate plumes. Appl Geochem 16(7):659–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-2927(00)00082-2CrossRef

73.

Brasil (2021) Portaria GM/MS Nº 888, de 4 de maio de 2021. Ministério da Saúde, Brasília DF

74.

ATSDR (2020) Toxicological profile for lead. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA

75.

ATSDR (2012) Toxicological profile for cadmium. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA

76.

IFEU (1992) Vergleich der Auswirkungen verschiedener Verfahren der Restmüllbehandlung auf die Umwelt und die menschliche Gesundheit. Institut für Energie-und Umweltforschung, Heidelberg, GmbH. Heidelberg, November. McDougall, F.R., White, P.R., Franke, M. et al. 2011. Integrated solid waste management: A Life Cycle Inventory. Blackwell Science New Jersey

77.

Souto GDB, Povinelli J (2007) Características do lixiviado de aterros sanitários no Brasil. 24o Congresso Brasileiro de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental. Belo Horizonte, MG

78.

Oman CB, Junestedt C (2008) Chemical characterization of landfill leachates–400 parameters and compounds. Waste Manage 28(10):1876–1891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.06.018CrossRef

79.

Tigini V, Prigione V, Varese GC (2014) Mycological and ecotoxicological characterisation of landfill leachate before and after traditional treatments. Sci Total Environ 487:335–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.04.026CrossRef

80.

Naveen BP, Mahapatra DM, Sitharam TG, Sivapullaiah PV, Ramachandra TV (2017) Physico-chemical and biological characterization of urban municipal landfill leachate. Environ Pollut 220:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.09.002CrossRef

81.

de Castro Peixoto AL, dos Santo RF, de Salazar Barboza JC, Filho HJI (2018) Characterization of controlled landfill leachate from the city of Guaratinguetá SP, Brazil. Rev Ambient Água. https://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.2136CrossRef

82.

Ma S, Zhou C, Pan J, Yang G, Sun C, Liu Y et al (2022) Leachate from municipal solid waste landfills in a global perspective: Characteristics, influential factors and environmental risks. J Clean Prod 333:130234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130234CrossRef

83.

Ishchenko V (2018) Prediction of heavy metals concentration in the leachate: a case study of Ukrainian waste. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 20(3):1892–1900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0740-7MathSciNetCrossRef

84.

Urase T, Miyashita K (2003) Factors affecting the concentration of bisphenol A in leachates from solid waste disposal sites and its fate in treatment processes. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 5(1):0077–0082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101630300012CrossRef

85.

Yu X, Sui Q, Lyu S, Zhao W, Liu J, Cai Z et al (2020) Municipal solid waste landfills: an underestimated source of pharmaceutical and personal care products in the water environment. Environ Sci Technol 54(16):9757–9768. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00565CrossRef

86.

Aziz SQ, Aziz HA, Yusoff MS, Bashir MJK, Umar M (2010) Leachate characterization in semi-aerobic and anaerobic sanitary landfills: a comparative study. J Environ Manage 91(12):2608–2614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.07.042CrossRef

87.

Liu J, Gu Z, Wang X, Li Q (2022) The molecular differences of young and mature landfill leachates: molecular composition, chemical property, and structural characteristic. Chemosphere 287:132215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132215CrossRef

88.

Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H, Vinil S (1993) Integrated solid waste management: engineering principles and management issues. McGraw-Hill, New York

Titel: Statistical analysis in estimating probable concentrations of representative chemical species in leachate: a solution for the source term of new or unmonitored landfills
verfasst von: Fernanda Bento Rosa Gomes
Vinícius Bignoto da Rocha Cândido
Isabela Salgado Vargas
Luiz Evaristo Dias de Paiva
Jonathas Batista Gonçalves Silva
Otavio Eurico de Aquino Branco
Samuel Rodrigues Castro
Publikationsdatum: 05.10.2022
Verlag: Springer Japan
Erschienen in: Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management / Ausgabe 1/2023
Print ISSN: 1438-4957
Elektronische ISSN: 1611-8227
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-022-01517-3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2023

Household waste generation, composition and determining factors in rapidly urbanizing developing cities: case study of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia

Ecological treatment of El Kriymat boiler ash for recovering vanadium, nickel and zinc from sulfate leach liquor

On-site characteristics of airborne particles at a formal electronic waste recycling plant: size distribution and lung deposited surface area

Ferronickel slag as free-draining rockfill dike material: a novel waste solution for mining regions

Physical–chemical processes of sustainable materials’ production from hazardous toner waste, galvanic glass waste and spent foundry sand

Assessment of an appropriate integrated waste management plan targeting the Circular Economy based on the LCA method