Open Access
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 349, 2022
10th International Conference on Life Cycle Management (LCM 2021)
Article Number 05001
Number of page(s) 7
Section Innovations in Circular Economy
Published online 20 May 2022
  1. PlasticsEurope, “Plastics the Facts 2020.” PlasticsEurope, 2020. [Online]. Available: [Google Scholar]
  2. K. Pivnenko, L. G Jakobsen, M. Eriksen, A. Damgaard, and T. Astrup, “Challenges in Plastic Recycling,” presented at the International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, Sardinia, Nov. 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. J. N. Hahladakis and E. Iacovidou, “Closing the loop on plastic packaging materials: What is quality and how does it affect their circularity?,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 630, pp. 1394–1400, Jul. 2018, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.330. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. M. G. Davidson, R. A. Furlong, and M. C. McManus, “Developments in the life cycle assessment of chemical recycling of plastic waste – A review,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 293, p. 126163, Apr. 2021, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126163. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. M. K. Eriksen, A. Damgaard, A. Boldrin, and T. F. Astrup, “Quality Assessment and Circularity Potential of Recovery Systems for Household Plastic Waste,” Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 156–168, 2019, doi:10.1111/jiec.12822. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. S. Huysman, J. De Schaepmeester, K. Ragaert, J. Dewulf, and S. De Meester, “Performance indicators for a circular economy: A case study on post-industrial plastic waste,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 120, pp. 46–54, May 2017, doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.013. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. J. Nakatani, “Life Cycle Inventory Analysis of Recycling: Mathematical and Graphical Frameworks,” Sustainability, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 6158–6169, Sep. 2014, doi:10.3390/su6096158. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. H. Jeswani et al., “Life cycle environmental impacts of chemical recycling via pyrolysis of mixed plastic waste in comparison with mechanical recycling and energy recovery,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 769, p. 144483, May 2021, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144483. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. R. Volk et al., “Techno-economic assessment and comparison of different plastic recycling pathways: A German case study,” Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. n/a, no. n/a, 2021, doi: [Google Scholar]
  10. European Commission, “Product environmental footprint category rules (PEFCR) guidance, Version 6.3.” European Commission, 2018. [Online]. Available: [Google Scholar]
  11. WG PE, “Gesetzliche Mindestquoten für Rezyklate in Kunststoffverpackungen?” Working Group Packaging and Environment, 2020. [Online]. Available: [Google Scholar]
  12. European Commission, Integration of resource efficiency and waste management criteria in European product policies. Report n° 3. LU: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012. Accessed: Jun. 30, 2021. [Online]. Available: [Google Scholar]
  13. L. Rigamonti, S. E. Taelman, S. Huysveld, S. Sfez, K. Ragaert, and J. Dewulf, “A step forward in quantifying the substitutability of secondary materials in waste management life cycle assessment studies,” Waste Management, vol. 114, pp. 331–340, Aug. 2020, doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2020.07.015. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.