Comparative waste management options for rigid polyurethane foam waste in Thailand
Comparative waste management options for rigid polyurethane foam waste in Thailand
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.166
复制
发表时间：
2018-09-20
影响因子：
11.1
通讯作者：
Methacanon, Pawadee
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tantisattayakul, Thanapol;Kanchanapiya, Premrudee;Methacanon, Pawadee
本研究通过分析对环境、能源和经济方面的影响，评估了泰国冰箱/冰柜拆解剩余硬质聚氨酯废物（RPUW）管理的适当方案。RPUW管理有四个选项：选项1 -填埋;选项2 -焚烧;选项3 -水解+填埋;选项4 -生产与RPUW混合的轻质混凝土（LWC-RPUW）。从环境和能源的角度，使用Simapro软件的生命周期评估（LCA），结果表明，选项4具有最低的人类毒性，其次是选项3，选项1和选项2，分别。另一方面，备选方案1对气候变化和化石消耗的影响最小，其次分别是备选方案2、备选方案3和备选方案4。然而，在不考虑轻质碳酸钙作为建筑墙体材料使用阶段的能源消耗的情况下，方案4对能源和环境的影响最小。关于经济影响，选项4是唯一可以盈利的选项，其净现值（NPV）为正值。换句话说，值得冰箱回收商投资LWC-RPUW生产厂。备选方案4在没有任何组织补贴的情况下实际上是可行的，而其他备选方案的执行费用很高。考虑到这里研究的所有三种影响，为了推广选项4，有必要在LWC-RPUW产品的绝缘性能方面改进选项4，以减少产品使用阶段能源消耗对环境的影响。(C)2018爱思唯尔有限公司版权所有
This research assesses the appropriate options for managing rigid polyurethane waste (RPUW) remaining from refrigerator/freezer dismantling in Thailand by analyzing the impacts on environment, energy and economic aspects. There are four options for RPUW management: option 1 - landfill; option 2 - incineration: option 3 - hydrolysis + landfill; and option 4 - production of lightweight concrete (LWC) mixed with RPUW (LWC-RPUW). From environmental and energy perspectives using Life cycle assessment (LCA) by Simapro software, the results showed that option 4 had the lowest human toxicity, followed by option 3, option 1 and option 2, respectively. On the other hand, option 1 had the lowest climate change and fossil depletion impacts, followed by option 2, option 3 and option 4, respectively. However, without considering energy consumption during the use phase of LWC as wall material in building, option 4 has the least energy and environmental impact. Regarding economic impact, option 4 is the only one option that can make a profit, and its net present value (NPV) is positive. In other words, it is worth refrigerator recyclers investing in a LWC-RPUW production plant. Option 4 is feasible to perform practically without subsidizing from any organization, while the other options are costly to carry out. To promote option 4, which is more appropriate considering all three kinds of impact studied here, it will be necessary to improve option 4 in terms of the insulation properties of the LWC-RPUW products to reduce the environmental impact from energy consumption during the product use phase. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.