Simulation-based design for resource efficiency of metal production and recycling systems: Cases - copper production and recycling, e-waste (LED lamps) and nickel pig iron

  • Markus A. ReuterEmail author
  • Antoinette van Schaik
  • Johannes Gediga



This paper illustrates how a product-centric approach to recycling, building on the extensive expertise, knowhow and tools of the mineral-centric classical minerals and metallurgical processing, should be core to Design for Resource Efficiency (DfRE).


Process simulation (HSC Sim 1974-2014, Outotec's design tool) and environmental software (GaBi 2014) are applied to quantify resource efficiency (RE) in a rigorous manner. These digitalisation tools are linked and will be used to show how the environmental performance of copper primary production, the processing of residues and the recycling of e-waste, e.g. light emitting diode (LED) lamps as well as the production of nickel pig iron can be evaluated. The paper also shows how technologies can be compared relative to a precise thermodynamic and techno-economic baseline.


The results include simulation-based environmental indicators, exergy, recycling and recovery rates, as well as the qualities and quantities of the recyclates, losses and emissions of materials during production recycling. The complete mass and energy balance simulation provides the mineralogical detail of all streams (both mineral and recyclate as well as offgas and dust) to define and improve environmental assessment, while at the same time revealing the aspects of LCA databases and their results that require improvement. Furthermore, this paper presents an approach for industry to implement life-cycle methods in practice. It shows that the DfRE is all about predicting stream grades and thus is equivalent to Design for Recyclate grade and quality (as this determines whether a recyclate or product stream has economic value and can be treated or processed further). DfRE also reveals especially the grade, composition, minerals etc. of the leakage streams, i.e. diffuse emissions, thus permitting a more precise evaluation of environmental impact.


The prediction of recyclate and stream compositions and grade makes the environmental analysis of systems more precise and will help to expand the detail that defines these flows on environmental databases. This is especially valuable for DfR, where the methodological rigour suggested in this paper is a very necessary addition and requirement for estimating the true environmental impact of product redesigns and the resource efficiency of processing technology and complete recycling systems. The methodology produces mass- and energy-consistent, economically viable best available technique (BAT) process blocks, the inclusion of which on environmental databases will be invaluable in benchmarking technology and systems in terms of estimating the achievable resource efficiency baseline.


Copper production and scrap recycling Design for Resource Efficiency E-waste and WEEE Greenprinting LED lamp recycling Nickel pig iron (NPI) production Process metallurgy Product-centric Design for Recycling (DfR) System design Ecodesign LCA 


  1. Ayres RU, Ayres LW (2002) Handbook of Industrial Ecology. Edward Elgar Northampton MA, USA, 680pGoogle Scholar
  2. Biemer, J, Dixon W, Blackburn N (2013) Our environmental handprint the good we do. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. Presented at the 2013 I.E. Conference on Technologies for Sustainability 8 pGoogle Scholar
  3. Brunner PH, Rechberger H (2004) Practical handbook of material flow analysis. Lewis Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Cartman R (2012) Nickel pig iron—a long term solution? 3rd Euronickel Conference. Hatch Associates Limited, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  5. EC (2012) Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) guide deliverable 3 and 4B to the administrative arrangement between DG Environment and Joint Research Centre No. N 070307/2009/552517, including Amendment No.1 from December 2010. Ref. Ares (2012)873788-17/07/2012Google Scholar
  6. EC (2013) European Commission Decision C 8631 of 10 December 2013. Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2014–2015. Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materialsGoogle Scholar
  7. FACT Sage 6.4: ©CRCT 2006-2013 (
  8. Fagan JE, Reuter MA, Langford KJ (2010) Dynamic performance metrics of integrated urban water systems. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:719–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finkbeiner M, Schau MS, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustain 2:3309–3322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. GaBi 6, Software and System Databases for Life Cycle Engineering, Stuttgart-Echterdingen, (1992–2013)
  12. Geisler G, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2005) Uncertainty analysis in life cycle assessment (LCA): case study on plant protection products and implications for decision-making. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(3):184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. HSC and HSC Sim 7.1&8, Thermochemical and process simulation, Outotec Research Center, (1974–2014)
  14. Huda N, Naser J, Brooks G, Reuter MA, Matusewicz RW (2012) Computational fluid dynamic modeling of zinc slag fuming process in top-submerged lance smelting furnace. Metall Trans B 43(1):39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huijbregts MAJ, Norris G, Bretz R, Ciroth A, Maurice B, von Bahr B, Weidema BP, de Beaufort ASH (2001) Framework for modelling data uncertainty in life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(3):127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunkeler D, Rebitzer G (2005) The future of life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(5):305–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klöpffer W (2003) Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(3):157–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products (with comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes, p. 95). Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krinke S, van Schaik A, Reuter MA, Stichling J (2009) Recycling and DfR of multi-material vehicles (as part of ‘Life cycle assessment and recycling of innovative multi-material applications’ by). In: Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Innovative Developments for Lightweight Vehicle Structures’, May, 26–27th 2009, Wolfsburg, Germany (Volkswagen Head Office), 196–208Google Scholar
  20. Lloyd SM, Ries R (2007) Characterizing, propagating, and analyzing uncertainty in life-cycle assessment: a survey of quantitative approaches. J Ind Ecol 11(1):161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pagan R (2009) Environmental life cycle costing: a code of practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(5):389–391Google Scholar
  22. Rebitzer G, Schäfer JH (2009) The remaining challenge—mainstreaming the use of LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:101–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reuter MA (1998) The simulation of industrial ecosystems. Miner Eng 11(10):891–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reuter MA (2011) Limits of design for recycling and “Sustainability”: a review. Waste Biomass Valorisation 2:183–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reuter MA, van Schaik A (2012) Opportunities and limits of recycling—a dynamic-model-based analysis. MRS Bull 37(4):339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reuter MA, van Schaik A (2015) Product-centric simulation based design for recycling: Case of LED lamp recycling. J Sustain Metall 1(1):4–28Google Scholar
  27. Swarr TE, Hunkeler D, Klöpffer W, Pesonen H-L, Ciroth A, Brent AC, Pagan R (2011) Environmental life cycle costing: a code of practice. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  28. UNEP Reuter MA et al (2013) Metal Recycling: Opportunities, Limits, Infrastructure”, United Nations Environmental Programme UNEP 316 p.
  29. Van Schaik A, Reuter MA (2010) Dynamic modelling of E-waste recycling system performance based on product design. Miner Eng 23:192–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Schaik A, Reuter MA (2014) Material-Centric (Aluminium and Copper) and Product-Centric (Cars, WEEE, TV, Lamps, Batteries, Catalysts) Recycling and DfR Rules. In: Worrel E, Reuter MA (eds) Handbook of Recycling (doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-396459-5.00022-2), pp. 307–378
  31. Von Krüger P, Silva CA, Vieira C, Aruajo FGS, Seshadri (2012) Relevant aspects relating to production of iron nickel alloys (pig iron containing nickel) in mini blast furnaces. In: Proceedings of The Twelfth International Ferroalloys Congress Sustainable Future, June 6–9, 2010, Helsinki, Finland, pp 671–680Google Scholar
  32. Worrel E, Reuter MA (2014) Handbook of Recycling. Elsevier BV, Amsterdam, 595pGoogle Scholar
  33. Xianyun C (2008) Methods on producing nickel bearing pig iron. Ferro-Alloys 4:1–7 (in Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus A. Reuter
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Antoinette van Schaik
    • 3
  • Johannes Gediga
    • 4
  1. 1.Outotec OyjEspooFinland
  2. 2.Aalto UniversityHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.MARAS BVThe HagueThe Netherlands
  4. 4.PE International AGLeinfelden-EchterdingenGermany

Personalised recommendations