Waste and Biomass Valorization

, Volume 6, Issue 5, pp 657–684 | Cite as

Success Stories for Recycling of MSW at Municipal Level: A Review

  • D. Xevgenos
  • C. Papadaskalopoulou
  • V. Panaretou
  • K. Moustakas
  • D. Malamis


Waste management is increasingly considered one of the most critical environmental challenges on a worldwide basis. Municipal solid waste and packaging waste in specific is an important and growing waste stream. It has been widely recognized that recycling practices and in specific separation at source schemes should be adopted in order to achieve sustainable management of municipal solid waste and efficient resource use. Separation at source provides a promising option with environmental and economic benefits, as it contributes to the recovery of high quality materials with, eventually, cost savings for the waste management authorities. This paper provides a review and evaluation of all instruments, as well as strategies employed in operating waste management schemes at international level. More specifically, nineteen case studies are presented and assessed. Special emphasis was given in those best practice schemes that follow the waste hierarchical approach, namely prevention, preparing for re‐use, recycling, other recovery (e.g. energy recovery), disposal. Additionally, local policies that encourage separate collection at source of at least four waste streams (paper, metal, plastic, glass) were taken under consideration. The factors found to influence recycling performance were the implementation of kerbside waste collection schemes, the provision of economic incentives as well as the use of legal instruments. Furthermore, the level of public awareness and engagement achieved, the population size as well as the duration of the implementation of the scheme were also found to influence the effectiveness of the applied schemes.


Municipal solid waste Recycling Separation at source Extended producer responsibility Pay-as-you-throw Deposit-refund Landfill/incineration taxes Regulatory instruments Zero waste Success stories 



The authors acknowledge the European financial instrument for the Environment, LIFE+, for part financing this work in the framework of the Recycling@home project (LIFE11 ENV/GR/000950) and the ISWM-TINOS project (LIFE10 ENV/GR/000610).


  1. 1.
    United States Geological Survey: Materials Flow and Sustainability (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    EEA: Μaterial resources and waste—2012 update the Εuropean environment state and outlook 2010. (2012). Accessed 5 Jan 2015
  4. 4.
    Meyer, B.: Macroeconomic modelling of sustainable development. (2011). Accessed 7 Jan 2015
  5. 5.
    EC: COM (2014) 398Towards a circular economy: A zero waste programme for Europe. (2014). Accessed 8 Jan 2015
  6. 6.
    More jobs, less waste. Potential for job creation through higher rates of recycling in the UK and EU (2010).
  7. 7.
    Suttibak, S., Nitivattananon, V.: Assessment of factors influencing the performance of solid waste recycling programs. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53, 45–56 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cahill, R., Grimes, S.M., Wilson, D.C.: Extended producer responsibility for packaging wastes and WEEE—a comparison of implementation and the role of local authorities across Europe. Waste Manage. Res. 29, 455–479 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    EXPRA: EPR for packaging in Europe Learnings and best practices. Accessed 19 May 2015
  10. 10.
    Holmes, A., Fulford, J., Pitts-Tucker, C.: Investigating the Impact of Recycling Incentive Schemes, Full Report. Eur. Commission. Eunomia Research & Consulting (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weisfeld, S.: Container Deposit Legislation in Ireland, A proposed deposit and refund scheme. Report for Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment, VOICE (2012)
  12. 12.
    Astrup, N., Hedh, A.: European Refunding Scheme for Drinks Containers (Report). Joint Parliamentary Committee, European Economic Area (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anderson, R.C.: International Experiences with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment. Report EPA-236-R-04-001. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anderson, R.C.: The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nicolli, F., Mazzanti, M.: Landfill diversion in a decentralized setting: a dynamic assessment of landfill taxes. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 81, 17–23 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischer, C., Lehner, M., & McKinnon, D.L.: Overview of the use of landfill taxes in Europe. ETC/SCP (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Watkins, E., Hogg, D., Mitsios, A., Mudgal, S., Neubauer, A., Reisinger, H., Troeltzsch, J., Van Acoleyen, M.: Use of economic instruments and waste management performances. Final report for the European Commission. (2012)
  18. 18.
    Bartelings, H., van Beukering, P.J.H., Kuik, O.J., Linderhof, V.G.M., Oosterhuis, F.H., Brander, L.M., Wagtendonk, A.J.: Effectiveness of landfill taxation. Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Puig Ventosa, I., Calaf Forn, M., Mestre Montserrat, M.: Guide for the implementation of pay-as-you-throw systems for municipal waste. Agència de Residus de Catalunya (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    US EPA: Pay-As-You-Throw. Accessed on 19 May 2015
  21. 21.
    Batllevell, M., Hanf, K.: The fairness of PAYT systems: some guidelines for decision-makers. Waste Manag. 28(12), 2793–2800 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bilitewski, B.: From traditional to modern fee systems. Waste Manag. 28(12), 2760–2766 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reichenbach, J.: Status and prospects of pay-as-you-throw in Europe–A review of pilot research and implementation studies. Waste Manag. 28(12), 2809–2814 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aldy, J.E., Bauer S.D., Miranda, M.L.: Unit pricing programs for residential municipal solid waste: an assessment of the literature. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hogg, D., Wilson, D., Gibbs, A., Astley, M., Papineschi, J.: Modelling the Impact of Household Charging for Waste in England. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (defra). Eunomia Research and Consulting Ltd (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reichenbach, J. (ed.): Handbook on the implementation of Pay-As-You-Throw as a tool for urban waste management, R&D&I project funded by the European Commission (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hogg, D.: Financing and incentive schemes for municipal waste management. Case Studies. Case 9, 55–60 (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fullerton, D., Kinnaman, T.C.: The Economics of Household Garbage and Recycling Behavior. New Horizons in Environmental Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    European Environment Agency: Managing municipal solid waste—a review of achievements in 32 European countries. EEA Report No 2/2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    DEFRA: Landfill bans and restrictions in the EU and US- A Green Alliance project for Defra (ref WR1202) (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Song, Q., Jinhui, L., Xianlai, Z.: Minimizing the increasing solid waste through zero waste strategy. J. Clean. Prod. (2014, in press)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zaman, A.U.: A comprehensive review of the development of zero waste management: lessons learned and guidelines. J. Clean. Prod. 91, 12–25 (2015)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zaman, A.U., Lehmann, S.: The zero waste index: a performance measurement tool for waste management systems in a ‘zero waste city’. J. Clean. Prod. 50, 123–132 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Allen, C., Gokaldas, V., Larracas, A., Minot, L.A., Morin, M., Tangri, N., et al.: On the Road to Zero Waste: Successes and Lessons learned from Around the World. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Berkeley (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Australian Government: National Waste Policy: Less Waste, More Resources—Fact sheet (2009)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Australian Government: Australian Government 2011–12 Report on the Australian Packaging Covenant Action Plan 2010–2015 (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    European Commission: Being wise with waste: the EU’s approach to waste management. (2010). Accessed 19 May 2015
  38. 38.
    Ministry of the Environment of Japan: History and Current State of Waste Management in Japan (2014)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    US Environment Protection Agency: Beyond RCRA: Waste and Materials Management In the Year 2020 (2002)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    US Environment Protection Agency: Sustainable materials management: the road ahead (2009)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    R4R: Local instruments. (2014). Accessed 12 Jan 2015
  42. 42.
    Dahlén, L., Lagerkvist, A.: Pay as you throw: strengths and weaknesses of weight-based billing in household waste collection systems in Sweden. Waste Manage. 30, 23–31 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kogler, T.: Waste Collection. (2007). Accessed 7 Jan 2015
  44. 44.
    Fujii, S.: International Workshop on Local Initiatives towards a Low Carbon Asia Session 1-B Kamikatsu’s Approach. (2011). Accessed 19 May 2015
  45. 45.
    Larsen, A.W., et al.: Waste collection systems for recyclables: an environmental and economic assessment for the municipality of Aarhus (Denmark). Waste Manag. 30, 744–754 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    The Danish action plan for promotion of eco-efficient technologies—Danish Lessons. Aarhus—making waste collection aesthetic. (2013). Accessed 10 Jan 2015
  47. 47.
    State of Green: Underground waste containers in the Aarhus city centre. Accessed 18 Jan 2015
  48. 48.
    Extended Producer Responsibiliyt Alliance (EXPRA): EXPRA Inspiring Packaging Recycling. (2014). Accessed 10 Feb 2015
  49. 49.
    European Environment Agency: Municipal waste management in Belgium. (2013). Accessed 15 Feb 2015
  50. 50.
    ZeroWaste Europe: Case Study #2—The story of Argentona. (2014). Accessed 9 Jan 2015
  51. 51.
    Verdu Recicla: Porta–PortaGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Oslo Commune: Source separation of food waste and plastic packaging in Oslo. Accessed 10 Jan 2015
  53. 53.
  54. 54.
    Björk, H.: Zero Waste Society in Borås City, Sweden Strategies to Action. Accessed 15 Jan 2015
  55. 55.
    City of Gloucester: 2015 Recycling and Trash Collection Information. Pay as you throw for the city of Gloucester. (2015). Accessed 15 Jan. 2015
  56. 56.
    LG Action: Brief case study on local climate and energy actions # 23 MILTON KEYNES, United Kingdom Biogas from food waste collection into National Grid. Accessed 18 May 2015
  57. 57.
    C40 cities: Waste Management System. Accessed 18 May 2015
  58. 58.
    Zero Waste Europe: The first European Zero Waste Research Center—Capannori, Italy. Accessed 8 March 2015
  59. 59.
    Cimpan, C., Maul, A., Jansen, M., Pretz, T., Wenzel, H.: Central sorting and recovery of MSW recyclable materials: a review of technological state-of-the-art, cases, practice and implications for materials recycling. J. Environ. Manage. 156, 181–199 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    TEMA NORD: Collection and recycling of plastic waste. Improvements in existing collection and recycling systems in the Nordic countries. (2014). Accessed 3 Apr 2015
  61. 61.
    Barr, C., Gilg A.W.: Conceptualising and analysing household attitudes and actions to a growing environmental problem Development and application of a framework to guide local waste policy. Appl. Geogr. 25, 226–247 (2005)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Adelaide City Council: Waste Management Action Plan 2011-2015. (2011). Accessed 26 Jan 2015
  63. 63.
    Regions for Recycling: Good Practices. Good Practice Lisbon: Door-To-Door Selective Collection. (2014). Accessed 2 Feb. 2015
  64. 64.
    City of Palo Alto. Official Website. History of waste and the Baylands. Accessed 5 March 2015
  65. 65.
    Sidique, S.F., Lupi, F., Joshi, S.V.: The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop-off recycling activities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 163–170 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Sidique, S.F., Joshi, S.V., Lupi, F.: Factors influencing the rate of recycling: an analysis of Minnesota counties. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 242–249 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Byrne, S., Regan, B.: Attitudes and actions towards recycling behaviours in the Limerick, Ireland region. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 87, 89–96 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Timlett, R.E., Williams, I.D.: The impact of transient populations on recycling behaviour in a densely populated urban environment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53, 498–506 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Marques, R.C., Cruz, N.F., Simões, P., Ferreira, S.F., Pereira, M.C., Jaeger, S.: Economic viability of packaging waste recycling systems: a comparison between Belgium and Portugal. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 85, 22–33 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hickle, G.T.: An examination of governance within extended producer responsibility policy regimes in North America. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 92, 55–65 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    BIO Intelligent service: Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility. (2014). Accessed 2 Apr 2015
  72. 72.
    Cruz, N.F., Ferreira, S., Cabral, M., Simões, P., Marques, R.C.: Packaging waste recycling in Europe: is the industry paying for it? Waste Manage. (Oxford) 34, 293–308 (2014)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    PACNEXT: Policy Best Practices that Support Harmonization. Summaries of eleven Global EPR Programs. (2014). Accessed 28 March 2015
  74. 74.
    Cecilia Allen: Flanders-Belgium. Europe’s Best Recycling and Prevention Program. (2012). Accessed 24 March 2015
  75. 75.
    PRO-EUROPE, Official Website, Accessed 17 May 2015
  76. 76.
    Massarutto, A.: The long and winding road to resource efficiency—An interdisciplinary perspective on extended producer responsibility. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 85, 11–21 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Lehmann, M.A.: Voluntary environmental agreements and competition policy: the case of the German system for packaging waste management. Environ. Resourc. Econ. 28, 435–449 (2004)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    OECD: The State of Play on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Opportunities and Challenges. (2014). Accessed 10 Jan 2015
  79. 79.
    Chacón, L., Friend, G., Kordesch, N., Reinhardt, S.: Product Stewardship and Extended Producer Responsibility. (2010). Accessed 2 Feb 2015
  80. 80.
    Comhshaol, Pobal agus Rialtas Áitiúil, Review of the Producer Responsibility Initiative Model in Ireland. (2014). Accessed 3 Apr 2015
  81. 81.
    Bradley, H.J.: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (2013). Accessed 2 May 2015
  82. 82.
    Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection: MASSACHUSETTS 2010-2020 SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN APRIL 2013 Pathway to Zero Waste. (2013). Accessed 2 May 2015
  83. 83.
    Walls, M. (2011). Deposit-refund systems in practice and theory. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper, pp. 11–47Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Hassi and Pietkäinen (2011): Creating an EU-wide deposit system for bottles and cans. European Parliament. Parliamentary Questions, 23 May 2011Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Eunomia (2011): Options and Feasibility of a European Refund System for Metal Beverage Cans.
  86. 86.
    European Commission: Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste. COM(2003) 301 final (2003)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Productivity Commission: Waste Management, Report no. 38, Canberra (2006)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    CalRecycle: Landfill Tipping Fees in California. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (2015)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    CalRecycle: State of Disposal in California. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (2015)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Environment Protection Authority: Waste levy regulations-Guidelines. South Australia (2013)Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    DEFRA: Landfill bans and restrictions in the EU and US—A Green Alliance project for Defra (ref WR1202). Final Report—Annex : WR1202 “Landfill bans and restrictions in the EU and US”—Case Study Annex: Massachusetts (2009)Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    WSP Environmental Ltd: Investigation into the performance (environmental and health) of waste to energy technologies internationally (2013)Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Davies, B., Doble, M.: The development and implementation of a landfill tax in the UK. Addressing the Economics of Waste, pp. 63–80 (2004)Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Grigg, S.V., Read, A.D.: A discussion on the various methods of application for landfill tax credit funding for environmental and community projects. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 32(3), 389–409 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Dinan, T.M.: Economic efficiency effects of alternative policies for reducing waste disposal. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 25(3), 242–256 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    CEWEP: Landfill taxes and bans. Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (2012)Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    WME-Hyder Consulting: Inside Waste Industry Report 2011–2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Shin, D.: Generation and Disposition of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in the United States—A National Survey (2014)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Randell, P., Pickin, J., Grant, B.: Waste generation and resource recovery in Australia Reporting period 2010/11—Final report. DSEWPaC and Blue Environment Pty Ltd (2013)Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    United Nations: Environmental indicators—Waste, Municipal Waste treatment (last update 2011)
  101. 101.
    Watson, D.: Municipal waste management in the United Kingdom. ETC/SCP EEA (2013)Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Seely, A.: Landfill tax: introduction and early history. Note in House of Common Library. Standard Note SN/BT/237. Last updated 06/10/2009. Business and Transport Section (2009a)Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Seely, A.: Landfill tax: recent developments. Note in House of Common Library. Standard Note SN/BT/1963. Last updated 15/12/2009. Business and Transport Section (2009b)Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Calaf-Forn, M., Roca, J., Puig-Ventosa, I.: Cap and trade schemes on waste management: a case study of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) in England. Waste Manag. 34(5), 919–928 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Scharff, H.: Landfill reduction experience in The Netherlands. Waste Manag. 34(11), 2218–2224 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Sahlin, J., Ekvall, T., Bisaillon, M., Sundberg, J.: Introduction of a waste incineration tax: effects on the Swedish waste flows. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 51(4), 827–846 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Smith, K., O’Farrell, K., Brindley, F.: Waste and recycling in Australia 2011. Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd (2012)Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Sora, M.J.: Incineration overcapacity and waste shipping in Europe: the end of the proximity principle? Fundacio Ent January 7th (2013)Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Dubois, M.: Towards a coherent European approach for taxation of combustible waste. Waste Manag. 33(8), 1776–1783 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Cassing, J., Kuhn, T.: Strategic environmental policies when waste products are tradable. Rev. Int. Econ. 11, 495–511 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Barrett, S.: Strategic environmental policy and international trade. J. Public Econ. 54, 325–338 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Kennedy, P.W.: Equilibrium pollution taxes in open economies with imperfect competition. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 27, 49–63 (1994)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Van de Wiel, H.: Incineration tax unpopular with European Industry. Reward good behaviour, punish bad behaviour. Afvalforum. 6–9 (2010)Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Salmons, R.: New Areas for Application of Tradeable Permits–Solid Waste Management. In OECD, 2002: Implementing domestic tradeable permits: recent developments and future challenges. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, pp. 187–226 (2001)Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Driesen, D.M.: The Economic Dynamics of Environmental Law. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2003)Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    EC: Screening of waste management performance of EU Member States. (2012). Accessed 15 Jan 2015
  117. 117.
    Aldy, J.E., Bauer S.D., Miranda, M.L.: Unit pricing programs for residential municipal solid waste: an assessment of the literature. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006)Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Puig-Ventosa, I.: Charging systems and PAYT experiences for waste management in Spain. Waste Manag. 28, 2767–2771 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Dawkins, E., Allan, P.: Landfill Ban Investigation. Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd, Australia (2010)Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Sfenvironment—Our Home. Our City. Our Planet. Legislation.
  121. 121.
    Californians Against Waste: Plastic Bags: Local Ordinances. Last updated on 19 Apr 2015
  122. 122.
    Ehrenberg-Bass UniSA: Plastic Bag Ban Research. Institute for Marketing Science (2009)Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Fullerton, D., Raub, A.: Economic analysis of solid waste management policies. In: OECD: addressing the economics of waste. OECD Publishing (2004)Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Hill, J., Shaw, B., Hislop, H.: A zero waste UK. Institute for public policy research and green alliance (2006)Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Zero Waste International Alliance.
  126. 126.
    Cole, C., Osmani, M., Quddus, M., Wheatley, A., Kay, K.: Towards a zero waste strategy for an english local authority. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 89, 64–75 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Zaman, A.U., Lehmann, S.: Urban growth and waste management optimization towards ‘zero waste city’. City Culture Soc. 2(4), 177–187 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Zero Waste Europe: Case Study #3 The Story Of Cappannori By Aimee Van Vliet (2013)Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    City of Palo Alto: Palo Alto Zero Waste Strategic Plan (2005)Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    City of Palo Alto: Zero Waste Operational Plan (2007)Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Holman, K.: Palo Alto’s Zero Waste Program, presentation made by the Mayor (2015)Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Milton Keynes Council: Draft interim report of the Waste strategy review group. Cabinet 8(B) (2002)Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Milton Keynes Council: Municipal Waste Strategy Draft for Cabinet Approval 20th December 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Scottish Government: Scotland’s zero waste plan (2010)Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Milton Keynes Council Waste Strategy Refresh-Executive Summary 2011Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Xevgenos
    • 1
  • C. Papadaskalopoulou
    • 1
  • V. Panaretou
    • 1
  • K. Moustakas
    • 1
  • D. Malamis
    • 1
  1. 1.Unit of Environmental Science and Technology, School of Chemical EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations