Waste and Biomass Valorization

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 1355–1363 | Cite as

Technical Feasibility of Zero Waste for Paper and Plastic Wastes

  • Deepak K. Sharma
  • Shalmali Bapat
  • William F. Brandes
  • Elizabeth Rice
  • Marco J. CastaldiEmail author
Original Paper


Complete material recovery followed by recycling of paper and plastic waste streams is crucial for the success or failure of achieving zero waste targets. The highest recovery of material from paper and plastic waste streams reported in the U.S. and Europe are 85 and 73% respectively. However, this means there is still a remaining 15 and 27% of paper and plastic waste which is not recycled or reused indicating it is not possible to completely recycle all paper and plastic. Investigating the limitations that impede recovery and recycle identifies other avenues for engineering a zero-waste process. This study discusses the effects of various properties of paper and plastics on their quality and recycling rates. Furthermore, we present a thorough analysis of the estimated recovery for paper and plastic wastes in processing facilities. The results show that the recovery rate obtained from a traditional material recovery facility (MRF) is lower than that obtained from a combined MRF and a modern mixed-waste processing facility (MWPF). However, the MWPF is still being commercialized, posing a practical limitation in recycling operation. This paper focuses on delineating major technical issues underlying the limited recycle of paper and plastic as well as the limitations to collection systems. For example, in the U.S. the state-of-the-art recycling equipment used for paper had a stagnant recovery rate (~ 46,000 tonnes) from 2008 to 2013 of 66.4% although the amount of paper available for recycle is near 70,000 tonnes. Plastic recycling is a similar case where nearly 79% can be technically recovered due to problems associated with specific property requirements for final recycled products. Importantly, these limitations are independent of the actual market available for the recycled material.


Recycling Zero waste Municipal solid waste Paper waste Plastic waste 



The authors would like to thank Peter Chromec and greatly acknowledge the funding support from The Earth Engineering Center of City College of New York (EEC/CCNY).


  1. 1.
    Shin, D.: Generation and Disposition of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in United States—A National Survey. Earth Engineering Center of Columbia University. (2014). Accessed 8 July 2017
  2. 2.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Advancing sustainable materials management: 2014 Fact Sheet. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Committee on Grand Challenges for Sustainability in the Chemical Industry and National Research Council: Sustainability in the chemical industry: grand challenges and research needs - a workshop report. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. (1990)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Rigamonti, L., Falbo, A., Grosso, M.: Improving Integrated waste management at the regional level: the case of Lombardia. Waste Manage. Res. 31, 946–953 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Solid waste management in Florida 2012 annual report. (2012). Accessed 8 July 2017
  7. 7.
    Faul, A.M.: Quality requirements in graphic paper recycling. Cellulose Chem. Technol. 44, 451–460 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morawski, C.: Understanding economic and environmental impacts of single-stream collection system. Container Recycling Institute, Culver City (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Paper Recycles: Statistics: Paper & Paperboard Recovery. Accessed 22 June 2017
  11. 11.
    Bajpai, P.: Recycling and deinking of recovered paper, 1st edn. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pivnenko, K., Olsson, M.E., Gotze, R., Eriksson, E., Astrup, T.F.: Quantification of chemical contaminants in the paper and board fractions of municipal solid waste. Waste Manage. 51, 43–54 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shaikh, H., Luo, J.: Identification, validation and application of a cellulose specifically to improve the runnability of recycled furnishes. Proceedings of the 9th international technical conference on pulp, paper and allied industry (Paperex’09). New Delhi (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Howard, R.C.: The effects of recycling on paper quality. J. Pulp Pap. Sci. 16, J143 (1990)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pivnenko, K., Laner, D., Astrup, T.F.: Materials cycles and chemicals: dynamic material flow analysis of contaminants in paper recycling. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 12302–12311 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Waste & Resources Action Programme: Kerbside recycling: indicative costs and performance. Waste & Resources Action Programme, Banbury (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marc, J.: The story of Contarina. Zero Waste Europe. (2015). Accessed 8 July 2017
  18. 18.
    Van Vliet, A.: The Story of Capannori. Zero Waste Europe. (2015). Accessed 8 July 2017
  19. 19.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Advancing sustainable materials management: facts and figs. 2013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Joint Research Centre, European Commission: Study on the selection of waste streams for end of waste assessment. European Commission, Seville (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R., Kosior, E.: Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. 364, 2115–2126 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gent, R.M., Menendez, M., Torano, J., Toro, S.: Optimization of recovery of plastics for recycling by density media separation. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 472–482 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Foster, S.: An assessment of technical, environmental and economic viability of recycling domestic mixed plastics packaging waste in UK. Waste & Resources Action Programme, Banbury (2008). ISBN 1-84405-396-2Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dvorak, R., Evans, R., Kosior, E.: Commercial scale mixed plastics recycling. Waste and Resources Action Programme, Banbury (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Strapasson, R., Amico, S.C., Pereira, M.F.R., Sydenstricker, T.H.D.: Tensile and impact behavior of polypropylene/low polyethylene blends. Polym. Test. 24, 468–473 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ramesh, V., Biswal, M., Mohanty, S., Nayal, S.K.: Recycling engineering plastics from waste electrical and electronic equipment: Influence of virgin polycarbonate and impact modifier on final performance of blends. Waste Manage. Res. 32, 379–388 (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Confederation of European Paper Industries: CEPI sustainability report 2013. Confederation of European Paper Industries, Brussels (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pivnenko, K., Jakobsen, L.G., Eriksen, M.K., Damgaard, A., Astrup, T.F.: Challenges in plastics recycling. In: Margherita di Pula S. (ed.) Proceedings Sardinia 2015: 15th international waste management and landfill symposium Cagliari, Italy. CISA Publisher, Padova (2015)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rogoff, M.J., Clark, B.J.: Magazines: MSW Management. (2016). Accessed 25 June 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deepak K. Sharma
    • 1
  • Shalmali Bapat
    • 1
  • William F. Brandes
    • 2
  • Elizabeth Rice
    • 3
  • Marco J. Castaldi
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Chemical Engineering & Earth Engineering CenterThe City College of New York, CUNYNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.RB ConsultingFrederickUSA
  3. 3.Gershman, Brickner & Bratton Inc.McleanUSA

Personalised recommendations