Next Article in Journal
Flow Boiling Heat Transfer Enhancement via Femtosecond Laser-Textured Inclined Microfeatures
Previous Article in Journal
Experimental Investigation of 2-Ethylhexyl Nitrate Effects on Engine Performance and Exhaust Emissions in Biodiesel-2-Methylfuran Blend for Diesel Engine
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 18
Issue 11
10.3390/en18112731
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Quantifying Resource and Energy Losses from Waste Fires in Poland: A Barrier to Circular Economy Transition

by
Katarzyna Grzesik
1,*,
Magdalena Zabochnicka
2,*,
Robert Oleniacz
1 and
Ryszard Kozakiewicz
1
1
Department of Environmental Management and Protection, Faculty of Geo-Data Science, Geodesy and Environmental Engineering, AGH University of Krakow, Mickiewicza 30 Av., 30-059 Krakow, Poland
2
Department of Sanitary Networks and Installations, Faculty of Infrastructure and Environment, Czestochowa University of Technology, Brzeźnicka 60a, 42-201 Częstochowa, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2025, 18(11), 2731; https://doi.org/10.3390/en18112731
Submission received: 10 April 2025 / Revised: 19 May 2025 / Accepted: 22 May 2025 / Published: 24 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Waste to Watt: Biomass and Waste Valorization to Fuels)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Waste fires are significant sources of atmospheric pollutants that contribute to environmental degradation and public health risks. They also lead to considerable losses in recyclable materials and energy. In Poland, waste fire incidents have increased in recent years, peaking in 2018–2019. This study quantifies the volume and mass of waste burned and assesses the associated losses in material and energy potential. A detailed incident inventory was compiled, including waste types and burned volumes, which were converted to mass values. This study estimates the potential fate of this waste under proper waste management scenarios. Recyclable materials, such as plastics, metals, paper, textiles, and rubber, are permanently removed from circulation, increasing the reliance on virgin resources. Energy losses were calculated using the lower heating values of each waste type, assuming a full energy recovery potential. In 2018, large and very large fires resulted in an estimated 170,000–1,016,640 m3 of burned waste, with corresponding energy losses of 495–2970 TJ. In 2019, estimates ranged from 68,000–410,000 m3 and 139–831 TJ. Plastics, refuse-derived fuel (RDF), and tires accounted for the majority of these losses. These findings highlight the relevance of waste fires in undermining recycling or energy recovery efforts and slowing progress toward a circular economy.

1. Introduction

The current model of civilizational development generates enormous amounts of municipal and industrial waste, driven by industrialization, urbanization, and consumerism. The total generation of urban waste (municipal, commercial, industrial, including construction and demolition waste) is in the range of 7–10 billion metric tons (MT) per year [1]. The global generation of municipal solid waste alone exceeds 2 billion MT annually [2]. In 2022, the total waste generated in the European Union (EU) by all economic activities and households amounted to 2.2 billion MT [3]. The municipal waste generated in the EU exceeds 230 million MT yearly, which corresponds to 511 kg per capita [4].
The waste hierarchy introduced by the Waste Framework Directive [5], along with the recently implemented transition to a circular economy [6], requires that waste management practices follow a specific order. The highest priority is given to waste prevention, followed by preparation for reuse, recycling, recovery, and disposal as the least preferred option. Waste disposal–particularly landfilling–has been systematically restricted for many years, partly due to the Landfill Directive [7], which introduced limitations on the disposal of biodegradable waste in landfills. Alternatives to landfilling involve the increasing deployment of various facilities, such as waste incineration (WI) or waste-to-energy (WtE) plants, material recovery facilities (MRF), and mechanical−biological treatment (MBT) plants. The growing use of waste incineration has led to an increased need for waste storage [8]. Municipal waste is stored to ensure the continuous operation of WtE plants. If not incinerated, mixed municipal waste is processed in MBT plants to produce refuse-derived fuel (RDF) with a high calorific value. During the storage and processing of high-calorific-value waste, there is a risk of spontaneous fires [9].
The growing demand for energy carriers, such as coke, drives increased fuel production, which consequently leads to greater volumes of industrial waste and sewage sludge, posing significant environmental risks if landfilled [10,11]. On the other hand, improper waste treatment in the least preferred manner, that is, disposal of biowaste contained in municipal waste in anaerobic landfill conditions, generates landfill gas, whose main component is methane. Moreover, sewage sludge disposed of in landfills can contain heavy metals and other inorganic contaminants that can be released into the environment during waste fires [12,13,14,15,16,17]. If landfill gas is not collected and handled properly, it could expose the risk of explosion or fires [18,19]. While waste fires often occur in storage and processing facilities in countries with advanced waste management systems, fires are frequent in landfills in countries that have not fully introduced the waste hierarchy. These fires may result from the presence of flammable and self-heating components in the composition of processed or landfilled waste, which increases the risk of spontaneous ignition [20,21,22].
In recent years, reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has become a central strategy for addressing climate change [23,24,25]. Therefore, it is important to find effective ways to limit the release of these gases into the atmosphere [26,27,28]. A range of organic and inorganic sorbents is suitable for CO2 capture. By-products from these processes can often be reused in other technological applications that are in agreement with the circular economy [29]. Among the methods for mitigating global warming is the reuse of post-production and post-consumer waste, which enables a reduction in the consumption of primary raw materials and fuels in manufacturing processes, as well as savings in the energy required for their extraction and processing [30,31]. Consequently, the loss of waste recyclability and energy recovery potential due to fire leads to a decreased climate change mitigation potential within the waste management system.
Waste burning in uncontrolled conditions undoubtedly causes serious air pollution both locally and on a broader spectrum, contributing to global environmental problems and adverse health effects in exposed populations [32,33,34].
Landfills and waste fires are widely recognized as significant sources of air pollution, emitting hazardous pollutants that pose risks to both the environment and public health [35,36,37,38,39,40]. Numerous studies have documented the impact of such fires on air quality, highlighting the release of particulate matter (PM), polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and heavy metals. For example, Weichenthal et al. [41] investigated the impact of a large landfill fire on air quality in Iqaluit, Canada, during the spring and summer of 2014. They found that the median daily concentrations of PCDD/Fs were 66 times higher during active burning (0.2 pgTEQ/m3) than those at post-extinguishment levels (0.003 pgTEQ/m3). This study also monitored criteria pollutants such as PM2.5, O3, and NO2 and concluded that airborne concentrations of PCDD/Fs and other toxic substances can be significantly elevated during landfill fires, even when criteria air pollutants remain within acceptable levels [41].
Similarly, Wang et al. [42] conducted an inventory of heavy metal emissions from the open burning of municipal solid waste [MSW] in China, identifying nine toxic heavy metals: Hg, As, Pb, Cd, Cr, Se, Cu, Zn, and Ni. Their findings emphasized the temporal and spatial variability of these emissions, highlighting the associated environmental and health risks. Blomqvist et al. [43] estimated the annual emissions of PCDD/Fs, PAHs, and VOCs from fires in Sweden, reporting total PCDD/F emissions in the range of 0.5–1.4 g TEQ, PAH emissions between 2 and 12 MT, and VOC emissions between 13 and 200 MT. These estimates, based on data from building, vehicle, waste, and forest fires in 1999, demonstrated the significant contribution of waste fires to atmospheric pollution [43].
The health risks associated with waste fires are further illustrated by studies such as Nadal et al. [44], who examined the impact of a tire landfill fire in Spain. Air and soil samples collected near the fire site revealed PAH levels up to six times higher than those at background sites, with cancer risks for nearby residents estimated to be 3–5 times greater than those living farther away. Additionally, elevated PAH concentrations have been detected in local crops, such as lettuce, indicating potential food safety concerns [44]. In another study, Morales et al. [45] analyzed the impact of a landfill fire on air quality in Santiago, Chile, in 2016. They reported PM2.5 concentrations reaching 1000 μg/m3 at the fire site and exceeding 200 μg/m3 at distances of up to 20 km, emphasizing the need for preventive measures, including the evacuation of pollution-sensitive populations [45].
Recent studies have highlighted the global nature of this issue. Sharma et al. [46] documented a 60–70% increase in PM2.5 concentrations during a fire at the Bhalswa landfill in Delhi, India, while Elihn et al. [47] reported elevated levels of PM10, PM2.5, black carbon, and heavy metals during a waste fire in Stockholm, Sweden. These findings underscore the widespread and persistent air quality impacts of waste fires. Furthermore, Kannankai and Devipriya [48] quantified emissions from a waste fire in Kochi, India, revealing the release of substantial amounts of PM10, PM2.5, CO, NOx, and VOCs, further emphasizing the environmental and health risks associated with such incidents.
In addition to their localized impacts, waste fires can affect air quality over long distances from the source. Oleniacz et al. [49] demonstrated that pollutants from waste fires in Poland could be detected up to 200–300 km from the fire site, with significant increases in PM10, PM2.5, and other pollutants recorded at the air quality monitoring stations. This study also highlighted the influence of waste fire emissions on atmospheric aerosol optical depth (AOD), as observed through satellite imagery. Similarly, Bihałowicz et al. [50] estimated annual emissions from waste fires in Poland, revealing substantial releases of CO, NOx, PM10, and greenhouse gases, thereby exposing millions of people to elevated PM10 levels.
Waste fires also significantly affect soil, leachate, and water quality, often introducing hazardous pollutants that persist in the environment. Escobar-Arnanz et al. [51] investigated the effects of an uncontrolled tire landfill fire on soil, identifying 118 volatile and semi-volatile aromatic compounds, including PAHs, sulfur-, oxygen-, and nitrogen-containing PAHs, and emerging organophosphorus flame retardants. These findings highlight the complex mixture of toxic substances that can contaminate soil, posing long-term environmental and health risks. Similarly, Øygard et al. [52] examined the impact of landfill fires on leachate quality, reporting significant short-term increases in chemical oxygen demand (COD) and heavy metal concentrations, such as chromium, during and immediately after the fire. Although most pollutant levels returned to baseline within a month, this study underscores the potential for waste fires to temporarily exacerbate leachate contamination, particularly through the disruption of landfill structures and increased metal mobility due to oxidation processes [52].
Moreover, waste fires in storage facilities result in significant economic losses, including both direct and indirect costs. According to Stenis and Hogland [53], the economic impact of such fires includes increased energy taxes, costs of firefighting equipment, personnel, and water usage. Additionally, waste management companies incur expenses related to the establishment of new storage facilities, the final disposal of burned materials, and elevated insurance premiums. The study emphasizes that preventive measures, such as improved storage practices and enhanced cooperation between waste management companies and fire brigades, could substantially reduce these costs, yielding benefits for both companies and society [53].
In recent years, Poland has experienced an increasing number of waste fire incidents, with a peak observed in 2018–2019 [54]. The environmental consequences of these events have been extensively discussed in numerous scientific publications [49,55,56,57,58,59]. However, no study has estimated the material and fuel losses resulting from fire incidents at waste treatment facilities.
This study aims to address this gap by providing a detailed analysis of waste fires in Poland during 2018–2019. It examines the scale of these fires and the specific types of waste involved in them. Furthermore, the total amount of waste burned was estimated, along with potential losses in recyclable material and fuel value, which is understood as the energy that could have been recovered. The findings of this research contribute to understanding the extent of both material and energy losses resulting from large-scale waste fires (which prevent the reuse of these resources) and the related constraints these losses pose to the transition toward a circular economy. However, the aims of this paper do not include a thorough discussion of economic losses.

2. Materials and Methods

This study follows a systematic, logical approach to analyze waste fire incidents in Poland to estimate the quantity of burned waste and assess its potential material and energy value loss. The methodology consists of the following key steps:
  • This study begins with an overview of recent waste management practices in Poland, focusing on policies, regulations, and operational challenges. This provides context for understanding the causes and consequences of waste fires in the region.
  • A comprehensive inventory of waste fire incidents was compiled, identifying fire occurrences in waste management facilities across Poland. For our analysis, we intentionally selected data from 2018–2019 rather than more recent periods. These years marked the peak in the occurrence of large-scale waste fires, with the highest recorded volumes of burned waste and the associated energy losses. In contrast, subsequent years exhibited a noticeable decline in these incidents. By focusing on this critical time frame, we aimed to quantify the most substantial losses in both material and potential energy.
  • Data from the Fire Department were analyzed to determine the specific waste management facilities where the fires occurred. The Fire Department’s records indicate only the size of the affected area; therefore, further steps were needed to assess waste types and quantities.
  • Data from the Regional Environmental Protection Inspectorate and the Fire Department were cross-referenced to identify the types of waste involved in each fire incident.
  • The estimated volume of burned waste was determined based on the reported fire sizes and facility characteristics.
  • Using data on the specific gravities and bulk densities of different waste types, volume estimates were converted into mass (MT). This step ensured a more accurate assessment of the total quantity of waste lost to fires.
  • The burned waste was classified into different categories (e.g., municipal, industrial, hazardous, and recyclables) to evaluate the extent of material loss.
  • The study further estimated the potential fate of the burned waste if it had not been lost to fire. This involved assessing whether the waste could be recycled, used for alternative fuel production, or sent to waste incineration plants for energy recovery.
  • Assuming that the total amount of burned waste could be used for energy recovery, the potential energy lost was calculated based on the lower heating values of individual waste types.

2.1. Waste Management Practices in Poland

The total weight of waste generated in Poland in recent years has remained at approximately 130–140 Tg (million MT) annually, with municipal waste accounting for 12–13 Tg [60,61,62]. Since joining the European Union in 2004, Poland has undergone significant transformations in its waste management system, driven by EU regulations and national policies aimed at reducing landfilling and increasing recycling rates. In the early 2000s, over 90% of municipal waste was landfilled, with minimal recycling or other treatment methods such as composting. However, the implementation of Directive 1999/31/EC on waste landfilling [7] introduced restrictions on the disposal of biodegradable waste in landfills. Subsequently, the Waste Framework Directive [5] mandated a 50% recycling rate for paper, glass, metal, and plastic from household waste. These directives were transposed into Polish law through the Act on Waste [63].
In 2015, the European Commission adopted the Circular Economy Action Plan [6], setting ambitious recycling targets: 55% of municipal waste by 2025, 60% by 2030, and 65% by 2035, as well as 65% of packaging waste by 2025 and 70% by 2030. In Poland, a significant milestone was reached in 2016 with the introduction of a ban on landfilling municipal waste or post-processing waste with a calorific value exceeding 6 MJ/kg [64]. This measure aims to promote material recycling and energy recovery.
Driven by EU and Polish regulations and strategies, Poland has made remarkable progress in waste management. By 2019, landfilling had decreased to 43%, and recycling rates had stabilized at 25–27%. Thermal waste treatment (incineration) also increased, reaching 22.9% in 2019, providing an alternative to landfilling [65,66].
However, the country continues to face infrastructure challenges, particularly in WtE plants. The rapid development of MBT plants since 2012 has become a key component of Poland’s waste management system. These facilities, which could receive the status of regional installations, processed mixed municipal waste and produced RDF as their main output. While RDF was primarily intended for incineration in cement plants, the low quality of RDF derived from mixed municipal waste often renders it unsuitable for such use. Consequently, the waste management sector has struggled with large quantities of high-calorific-value waste that are difficult to dispose of properly.
Compounding these challenges was an increase in waste imports to Poland, particularly after China’s 2018 ban on plastic waste imports from Europe [67]. The high cost of plastic recycling, coupled with low revenues from recycled products like plastic regranulate, has made it economically unviable for many facilities. In this context, waste fires have emerged as a troubling “solution” for waste treatment facilities and storage sites. Between 2018 and 2019, Poland experienced a sharp rise in the number of waste fires, reaching a record high. Many of these fires were suspected to be cases of deliberate arson set to avoid recycling costs and clear storage space. Fires were particularly concentrated in waste storage sites and treatment facilities, where improperly stored combustible waste was highly vulnerable to both accidental ignition and intentional burning.
While Poland has made significant strides in reducing landfilling and increasing recycling rates, it continues to face challenges related to infrastructure gaps, low-quality RDF, rising waste imports, and enforcement issues. These factors, combined with economic pressures, have contributed to an alarming increase in waste fires, particularly in 2018–2019.

2.2. Addressing Data Challenges in Estimating Material and Energy Losses

This research relied on multiple data sources, including official reports from Statistics Poland, the National Headquarters of the State Fire Service, and the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection. However, the lack of comprehensive and consistent data on waste fires poses significant challenges, necessitating the development of a methodological framework to estimate material losses.

2.2.1. Data Sources and Collection

The first official data on waste fires in Poland were published in the Environment 2019 report by Statistics Poland, which included information on landfill fires since 2012 [68]. Subsequent reports, Environment 2019 [69] and Environment 2020 [60], expanded the scope to include waste fires at storage and waste treatment sites. However, the primary source of data on waste fires is the National Headquarters of the State Fire Service, which maintains detailed records of fire incidents [70].
For this study, data on waste fires in 2018 and 2019 were requested from the State Fire Service. The requested information included the following:
  • Address and date of the fire;
  • Surface area affected by the fire;
  • Details of firefighting actions (duration, number of units involved, extinguishing media used)
  • Type of waste facility;
  • Type and quantity of burned waste;
  • Volume of burned waste.
The State Fire Service provided detailed data on firefighting actions, including the time and surface area of fires. Fires were classified into four categories based on size: small, medium, large, and very large, as shown in Table 1.
However, no data on the quantity or volume of the burned waste were provided. Additionally, the State Fire Service’s classification of facilities often lacks specificity, with many entries simply labeled as “garbage” or “garbage dump”, reflecting the fact that fire brigades are not experts in waste management.
To complement these data, information was requested from the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection. This institution provided data on the names of waste facilities and types of burned waste for most cases. However, no information was provided on the quantity or volume of burned waste or the surface area of the fires, making it impossible to determine the size of the fires (small, medium, large, or very large). Furthermore, the data from the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection did not align with State Fire Service data in terms of the number of fires, addresses, or dates.

2.2.2. Data Integration and Analysis

To address the discrepancies between the two datasets, a comparative analysis was conducted. Large and very large fires identified in the State Fire Service data were cross-referenced with the data from the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection. While slight differences in locations and dates were observed, this comparison provided valuable insights into the types of waste facilities, storage sites, or illegal dump sites involved, as well as the types of waste burned in most cases.

2.2.3. Estimating Material Losses

The next step in the methodology involved estimating the amount of each type of waste burned. The total fire surface area for each type of waste in 2018 and 2019 was calculated for large and very large fires. However, due to the lack of data on fire dimensions [specifically the height of burned waste], it was impossible to directly calculate the volume of burned waste. To address this limitation, assumptions were made based on the study by Bihałowicz et al. [50], who suggested that the height of burned waste typically ranges from 0.5 to 3.0 m. Using these assumptions, low and high variants of the burned waste volume were calculated.
Additionally, for each type of waste, the potential use of the material—if it had not been burned—was considered. This analysis aimed to assess the material losses and environmental impact of waste fires, particularly in terms of the resources that could have been recovered through recycling or other waste management practices.

2.2.4. Estimating Energy Losses

To assess the energy potential lost when waste is burned in uncontrolled fires instead of being utilized as fuel in incineration or cement plants, the waste volume must first be converted into mass. This requires calculating the weight of individual waste types in tons by converting their volume [m3] using bulk density values. The calculation follows the formula:
M = V × ρ
where M is the mass of waste (tons), V is the volume of waste (m3), and ρ is the density of waste (tons/m3).
To perform this calculation, specific weight or density values are required for the waste types involved in the fires. These values were assigned based on literature sources and waste characterization studies [71,72,73,74,75,76]. The bulk densities of certain waste types are listed in Table 2.
The exact values of the bulk density for individual wastes accepted for further calculations, along with an indication of the sources, are presented in Table 5.
In the next steps, we determined the heating value. The heating value (calorific value) represents the energy released when waste is burned and is expressed in MJ/kg or GJ/Mg. Two key values were considered.
  • Higher Heating Value (HHV): includes the total energy content.
  • Lower Heating Value (LHV): excludes the energy lost in moisture evaporation.
Typical LHVs for waste types are as follows [71,72,77,78,79,80,81,82]:
  • MSW: ~8 MJ/kg;
  • Wood waste: ~16 MJ/kg;
  • Paper waste: varies;
  • Plastic waste: high (~30–40 MJ/kg);
  • Textile waste: varies;
  • Food waste: low due to moisture content;
  • RDF: higher than that of raw MSW.
To determine the energy potential of the burned waste, the following formula is used:
EGJ = M × CV
where: EGJ—energy in GJ; M—mass of waste [Mg]; CV = Heating value [GJ/Mg]
Since power plants use GWh, a conversion is required according to the following formula:
EGWh = EGJ/3.6
where EGWh is the Energy in GWh; EGJ = Energy in GJ.
Waste-to-energy plants typically recover 20–30% of the theoretical energy, indicating that the actual energy losses in fires are lower than the theoretical estimates. Validation through efficiency-adjusted calculations ensures accuracy in assessing the energy loss potential.

2.2.5. Limitations of the Methodology

The methodology faced several limitations, primarily due to the lack of comprehensive and consistent data on waste fires. The absence of data on the quantity and volume of burned waste and the height of burned objects required the use of assumptions, which introduced uncertainty into the calculations. The inconsistencies between the data from the State Fire Service and the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection made it difficult to create a unified dataset. The vague classification of waste facilities by the State Fire Service (e.g., “garbage” or “garbage dump”) limited the ability to analyze the types of facilities involved in fires.
Despite these limitations, the methodology provides a framework for estimating material losses and assessing the environmental impact of waste fires in Poland. The integration of data from multiple sources, combined with assumptions based on existing research, allowed for a preliminary analysis of the scale and consequences of waste fires in 2018 and 2019.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Overview of Waste Fires in Poland (2018–2019)

The data provided by the National Headquarters of the State Fire Service indicate that 243 waste fires occurred in 2018 and 176 were recorded in 2019. Figure 1 illustrates the monthly distribution of waste fires in 2018 and 2019. The highest number of fires occurred during the warmer months, particularly from April to August. In 2018, the peak was observed in April, with 45 fires, followed by those in May and June. Similarly, in 2019, the highest number of fires occurred in April and May.
A clear seasonal trend was observed, characterized by a marked increase in the number of waste fires during the spring and summer months. This pattern aligns closely with the findings of Nigl et al. (2020) [20], who also reported a pronounced seasonal rise in such incidents. The increased fire frequency during warmer months is likely driven by higher ambient temperatures and drier conditions, which heighten the flammability of stored and processed waste materials, thereby increasing the risk of ignition and fire spread within waste management facilities. The data also highlights the need for enhanced fire prevention measures during high-risk periods.
Waste fires were classified based on size, as shown in Figure 2. The majority of waste fires in both years were categorized as small fires. In 2018, the highest number of fires occurred in the Łódź province (45), followed by Lower Silesia (29) and Silesia (28). In 2019, Silesia recorded the highest number of fires (30), with Lower Silesia (17), Holy Cross (16), and Łódź province (16) following closely. Silesia, Poland’s most industrialized and densely populated region, has the highest concentration of waste facilities, contributing to a greater number of waste-related fire incidents.
A significant number of large and very large waste fires were recorded in both years. In 2018, 20 very large fires and 33 large fires were documented, whereas in 2019, the numbers decreased to 19 very large and 15 large fires. The locations of the very large and large waste fires are shown in Figure 3.
The largest fires (above 5000 m2) in 2018 were recorded in the following locations:
  • Jakubów (Masovian province)—hazardous waste storage site;
  • Radom (Masovian province)—landfill site with MBT post-processed waste;
  • Żory (Silesian province)—waste treatment facility with old tires;
  • Studzianki (Podlaskie province)—mixed municipal waste site;
  • Dąbrówka Wielkopolska (Lubuskie province)—plastics storage site;
  • Dąbrówka Wielkopolska (Lubuskie)—plastics, storage site;
  • Grabów (Łodź province)—plastics, storage site;
  • Wrocław (Lower Silesia)—plastics and waste treatment facility.
Similarly, in 2019, major fires exceeding 5000 m2 were observed in:
  • Gać (Lower Silesia)—bulky and MBT post-processed waste;
  • Jastrzębie-Zdrój (Silesia)—landfill;
  • Fałków (Holy Cross province)—plastics and textiles waste treatment facility;
  • Serniki (Lublin province)—old tire waste treatment facility.
Fires above 3000 m2 in 2019 were recorded in Pysząca (Greater Poland)—plastics and waste treatment facility, Studzianki (Podlaskie)—mixed municipal waste and waste treatment facility, and Ruszczyn (Łódź province)—landfill.
The causes of waste fires varied significantly, with a substantial number recorded as “unknown”. Among the identified causes, many were linked to human factors, such as carelessness or deliberate arson. Although both are subject to legal prosecution by the police and public prosecutors, there is a fundamental distinction between the two. Arson involves the intentional act of setting a fire, often with malicious intent. In contrast, carelessness refers to a failure to fulfill one’s responsibilities or the careless handling of fire, such as cigarettes, which may unintentionally ignite a fire. The other identified causes of fires were technical failures or spontaneous ignition.
In 2018, several fires were caused by deliberate arson, including a fire at a plastic waste storage site in Kutno (Łódź province) and a fire at a waste treatment facility in Żory (Silesian province). In 2019, a significant fire at a waste treatment facility in Gać (Lower Silesia) was caused by the improper storage of hazardous substances.

3.2. Waste Types and Fire Surface Areas

The types of waste involved in the fires varied, with plastics, post-processed waste from MBT installations, and municipal waste being the most commonly burned materials. In 2019, the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection did not specify the waste type for many waste fire sites. After careful analysis of the data by the State Fire Service, we classified the waste as municipal.
Table 3 provides a detailed breakdown of the types of waste and total fire surface area for large and very large fires in 2018 and 2019. Plastics and MBT post-processed waste, including RDF, were the most significant contributors to the total fire surface area.
The total fire surface area for large and very large fires in 2018 was 169,440 m2 (16.94 ha), while in 2019, it was significantly lower at 68,352 m2 (6.83 ha). In 2018, the largest fire surface area was associated with hazardous waste (34,100 m2), followed by plastics (58,656 m2) and MBT post-processed waste (30,600 m2). In 2019, the largest fire surface area was associated with municipal waste (22,119 m2), followed by plastic (16,375 m2) and bulky waste (10,500 m2).

3.3. Potential Use of Burned Waste

Many of the waste types that were burned had a high calorific value and could have been used as fuel or converted into secondary raw materials. Table 4 provides an estimation of the potential uses of burned waste and the calculated volume of waste burned in both low and high variants.
Taking only large and very large fires into account, the estimated burned waste volume in 2018 ranged from 170,000 m3 (low estimate) to 1,016,640 m3 (high estimate). In 2019, the estimated burned waste volume was between 68,000 m3 (low estimate) and 410,000 m3 (high estimate).
The burning of waste in fires represents a significant loss to the circular economy by destroying valuable materials that could otherwise be recycled or recovered. Burning loses the embedded energy used in producing materials, while alternative methods, like recycling or composting, can retain more value. Recyclable materials such as plastics, metals, paper, textiles, and rubber are permanently removed from circulation, increasing reliance on virgin resources. Many chemicals can be refined and reused in industrial applications. For biowaste, instead of being composted or anaerobically digested for biogas and fertilizer, burning results in a complete loss of nutrients that could be returned to the soil.
Proper recovery of hazardous waste can reclaim critical materials (e.g., metals from batteries and solvents), whereas burning can destroy recoverable components. Old tires contain valuable rubber that can be reused for new tires, flooring, or construction materials. Burning reduces the reuse potential of these materials. Metals, plastics, and rubber can be recovered from end-of-life vehicles. Burning results in wasted materials that require energy-intensive virgin production. Many textiles can be reused or recycled into new fibers. Incineration results in the loss of both material and embedded production energy. Furniture, wood, and other bulky waste items can be broken down for material recovery instead of being burned without any energy recovery. Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment contains valuable metals (copper and rare earth elements). Burning results in the total loss of these critical materials and toxic emissions.

3.4. Estimated Energy Losses

To calculate the lost energy potential from burned waste, it is essential to determine both the bulk density of various waste types and their lower heating values. Table 5 lists these values, which were used for further calculations, along with the corresponding references.
Bulk density is arguably one of the most variable and uncertain parameters in waste management. Even for a single waste type, the bulk density can exhibit substantial intra-sample variation due to the heterogeneity in composition and particle size. Furthermore, bulk density is highly sensitive to the stage of waste processing—whether the waste is loose in containers, compacted during transport, sorted, baled, shredded, or otherwise processed. These operational factors significantly influence the mass-to-volume relationship.
In response, we carefully selected bulk density values for volume-to-mass conversions based on a synthesis of the available literature (see Table 2) and practical knowledge from the Polish waste management sector. However, we acknowledge that these values are subject to a high degree of uncertainty. This is primarily due to the inability to directly measure the bulk density of waste stored in facilities prior to burning during waste fires. Furthermore, the literature sources referenced often provide a broad range of density values—or simply label them as “variable”—and typically refer to non-compacted waste. In contrast, most of the waste involved in fires is stored in facilities where compaction is common, further complicating the accurate estimation of the actual bulk densities.
For instance, literature sources report bulk density values for end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) in the range of 1000–1500 kg/m3, typically corresponding to compacted material prepared to be sent to a shredding facility. However, we adopted a significantly lower value of 300 kg/m3 based on the assumption that the ELVs involved in fires were not compacted but consisted of dismantled, low-value components stored prior to further processing. Similarly, for old tires, reported densities to range from 100–150 kg/m3 for whole tires to approximately 500 kg/m3 for shredded materials. Since no information was available regarding the form of tires involved in the fires, we adopted an intermediate value of 400 kg/m3 to reflect a plausible mixture or partially processed state.
For refuse-derived fuel (RDF), the literature reports bulk density values in the range of 150–300 kg/m3, typically referring to loose, non-compacted material. However, RDF stored in waste management facilities is usually compacted, resulting in significantly higher density. Similarly, for mechanically−biologically treated (MBT) post-processed waste, the literature often describes the bulk density as “variable” without specifying a definitive range. Given the storage conditions and based on practical experience, we adopted a bulk density of 500 kg/m3 for both RDF and MBT post-processed waste to better reflect the compacted state in which these materials are typically stored prior to further treatments.
Table 6 and Figure 4 quantify the energy lost due to waste fires, expressed in terajoules (TJ), for both the low and high scenarios. These values are calculated using the bulk density and lower heating values provided in Table 5.
There are significant discrepancies between the low and high scenarios for both years, primarily due to uncertainties in estimating the volume of burned waste. These estimates are based solely on data regarding the burn surface area and a height range of 0.5 to 3 m. The actual energy losses are likely to fall between the low and high estimates.
Despite this uncertainty, there was a notable decrease in the total energy loss in 2019 compared with that in 2018. In 2018, the energy losses ranged from 495 TJ (low variant) to 2970 TJ (high variant). By 2019, these values had decreased substantially to between 139 TJ and 831 TJ. The maximum potential of the estimated energy loss in 2018 corresponds to the amount of annual energy produced as heat or electricity in a modern large-scale WtE plant (with a processing capacity of 300,000–400,000 Mg/year) or in 2–3 medium-sized WtE plants (each with a processing capacity of 100,000–200,000 Mg/year), depending on the calorific value of the incinerated waste and energy recovery efficiency [95,107,108,109].
Although the estimated energy losses exhibit considerable variability—primarily due to incomplete data on the volume of waste affected by fires—the implications remain unequivocal. In addition to causing severe environmental pollution of air, soil, and water, waste fires result in substantial and quantifiable losses of both energy and material resources. These findings highlight the critical need for enhanced preventive strategies and informed policy interventions to reduce the incidence of such events.
Plastics were the most significant contributor to energy loss, accounting for 1056 TJ in 2018 and 295 TJ in 2019. This is due to their high calorific value, which makes their uncontrolled combustion a major source of wasted energy.
Mechanical−biological treatment (MBT) post-processed waste and refuse-derived fuel (RDF) also contributed notably to energy losses. RDF, in particular, is specifically produced for use as fuel, and its loss—ranging from 92 TJ to 551 TJ in 2018—represents a direct forfeiture of energy that could otherwise be recovered in energy recovery facilities.
Old tires also represented a significant energy source, with losses increasing from 135 TJ in 2018 to 254 TJ in 2019. Their high energy content makes uncontrolled burning especially wasteful. In contrast, biowaste contributed minimally to energy loss, as its calorific value is relatively low.
Overall, plastics, hazardous waste, RDF, and tires account for the majority of energy losses due to their high-calorific values. These materials are better suited for controlled energy recovery processes. The ongoing burning of municipal waste and RDF in 2018 and 2019 highlights a missed opportunity for more sustainable waste-to-energy (WtE) practices [110].
Beyond the immediate energy implications, these losses also represent a setback for circular economy goals. Materials such as plastics, RDF, and tires are not only energy-rich but also potentially recyclable or recoverable in a circular system. Their uncontrolled combustion undermines efforts to retain materials within the economy for as long as possible, diminishing resource efficiency and increasing reliance on virgin input. Therefore, addressing such losses is essential not only for energy efficiency but also for achieving broader sustainability and circular economy targets [111,112,113].

4. Conclusions

Poland experienced a notable surge in waste fire incidents, peaking in 2018 and 2019, with 243 and 176 cases recorded, respectively. In 2018, authorities documented 20 very large and 33 large fires, while in 2019, these numbers declined slightly to 19 and 15. A clear seasonal pattern emerged, with a higher incidence of fires in the spring and summer months. This trend is likely driven by elevated temperatures and lower humidity levels, which increase the flammability of stored and processed waste, thereby increasing the risk of ignition and fire propagation within waste management facilities.
The causes of these fires varied significantly, although a considerable proportion were classified as “unknown”. Among those identified, human factors such as carelessness and intentional arson were the most common, along with technical failures and spontaneous combustion.
Focusing on large and very large fires, the estimated volume of burned waste in 2018 ranged from 170,000 m3 to 1,016,640 m3, and in 2019, from 68,000 m3 to 410,000 m3. The most frequently involved waste types include plastics, post-processed materials from mechanical−biological treatment (MBT) facilities, and mixed municipal waste.
These fires not only result in significant environmental pollution but also represent a major loss of material and energy resources, undermining the principles of the circular economy. By destroying recoverable materials, waste fires reinforce a linear “take-make-dispose” consumption model rather than promoting resource efficiency.
The frequent burning of plastics, recyclables, and municipal waste constitutes a critical loss of secondary raw materials that could otherwise be reintegrated into the production cycle. Instead of closing material loops, such incidents increase dependence on virgin resources, intensify environmental pressures, and negate the benefits of recycling and waste-to-energy (WtE) strategies. Moreover, the destruction of high-calorific waste further exacerbates inefficiencies by eliminating opportunities for controlled energy recovery.
Although the estimated energy losses vary—ranging from 495 TJ to 2970 TJ in 2018—they highlight a substantial missed opportunity. The upper-bound estimate for 2018 corresponds to the annual energy output of a modern large-scale WtE facility (with a processing capacity of 300,000–400,000 Mg/year) or two to three medium-sized plants (each processing 100,000–200,000 Mg/year). Instead of contributing to sustainable energy production, this lost potential reinforces the reliance on non-renewable sources and weakens progress toward a more resilient and sustainable waste management system.
To mitigate these losses and advance circular economy objectives, urgent and coordinated actions are required. Strengthening waste management regulations, improving fire prevention measures, and intensifying oversight of illegal waste storage practices are essential. Waste fires not only pose an environmental threat but also signal systemic failures in preserving materials and energy. Addressing these issues is essential for reducing resource depletion, mitigating economic losses, and facilitating a broader transition to a circular economy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.G.; methodology, K.G., R.K. and R.O.; software, K.G.; validation, K.G. and M.Z.; formal analysis, K.G.; investigation, K.G.; resources, K.G. and M.Z.; data curation, R.K.; writing—original draft preparation, K.G.; writing—review and editing, K.G., M.Z. and R.O.; visualization, K.G., R.O. and R.K.; supervision, M.Z.; project administration, K.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the statute subvention of the Czestochowa University of Technology, Faculty of Infrastructure and Environment as well as the grant “Excellence initiative—research university” and the research subvention no. 16.16.150.545 for the AGH University of Krakow.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
MTmetric tons
WIwaste incineration
WtEwaste-to-energy
MRFmaterial recovery facility
MBTmechanical−biological treatment
RDFrefuse-derived fuel
PMparticulate matter
PCDD/Fpolychlorinated dibenzodioxin and dibenzofuran
PAHpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
VOCvolatile organic compound
TEQtoxic equivalency
MSWmunicipal solid waste
AODaerosol optical depth
CODchemical oxygen demand
ELVend-of-life vehicle
HHVhigher heating value
LHVlower heating value

References

  1. UNEP. Global Waste Management Outlook; United Nations Environment Programme: 2015. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-waste-management-outlook (accessed on 31 December 2024).
  2. Kaza, S.; Yao, L.C.; Bhada-Tata, P.; Van Woerden, F. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050; World Bank: 2018. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/d3f9d45e-115f-559b-b14f-28552410e90a (accessed on 31 December 2024).
  3. Eurostat. Waste Statistics; European Commission: 2025. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Waste_statistics#Total_waste_generation (accessed on 31 December 2024).
  4. Eurostat. Municipal Waste Statistics; European Commission: 2025. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Municipal_waste_statistics (accessed on 31 December 2024).
  5. European Commission. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives. Off. J. Eur. Union 2008, L 312, 3–30. [Google Scholar]
  6. Closing the Loop—An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy; COM(2015) 614 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2 December 2015.
  7. European Commission. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the Landfill of Waste. Off. J. Eur. Union 1999, L 182, 1–19. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1999/31/oj/eng (accessed on 2 January 2025).
  8. Mikalsen, R.F.; Lönnermark, A.; Glansberg, K.; McNamee, M.; Storesund, K. Fires in Waste Facilities: Challenges and Solutions from a Scandinavian Perspective. Fire Saf. J. 2021, 120, 103023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ibrahim, M.A. Risk of Spontaneous and Anthropogenic Fires in Waste Management Chain and Hazards of Secondary Fires. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 159, 104852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bargieł, P.; Zabochnicka-Świątek, M. Technologies of Coke Wastewater Treatment in the Frame of Legislation in Force. Ochr. Srod. Zasobow Nat. 2018, 29, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zabochnicka, M. Industrial wastewater as a growth medium for microalgal biomass for a sustainable circular bioeconomy. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Conesa, J.A.; Font, R.; Fullana, A.; Martin-Gullon, I.; Aracil, I.; Gálvez, A.; Moltó, J.; Gómez-Rico, M.F. Comparison between emissions from the pyrolysis and combustion of different wastes. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 2009, 84, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kamizela, T.; Włodarczyk-Makuła, M. Unit Quantities of Municipal Sewage Sludge Produced in Agglomerations Included in KPOŚK Reports. Instal 2024, 10, 43–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pejic, L.M.; Anez, N.F.; Torrent, J.G.; Ramírez-Gómez, Á. Determination of spontaneous combustion of thermally dried sewage sludge. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2015, 36, 352–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shen, X.; Jin, Y.; Li, J.; Ye, L.; Yang, H.; Wang, Y. Co-pyrolysis behavior of sewage sludge and coal slurry: Pyrolysis characteristics, interaction mechanisms, and gas emissions. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 379, 124926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Stanczyk-Mazanek, E.; Nalewajek, T.; Zabochnicka, M. Drug-resistant microorganisms in soils fertilized with sewage sludge. Arch. Environ. Prot. 2012, 38, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zabochnicka-Świa̧tek, M.; Malińska, K.; Krzywonos, M. Removal of biogens from synthetic wastewater by microalgae. Environ. Prot. Eng. 2014, 40, 87–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chavan, D.; Manjunatha, G.S.; Singh, D.; Periyaswami, L.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, R. Estimation of spontaneous waste ignition time for prevention and control of landfill fire. Waste Manag. 2022, 139, 258–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Moqbel, S.; Reinhart, D.; Chen, R.H. Factors influencing spontaneous combustion of solid waste. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 1600–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nigl, T.; Rübenbauer, W.; Pomberger, R. Cause-oriented investigation of the fire incidents in Austrian waste management systems. Detritus 2020, 9, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nigl, T.; Baldauf, M.; Hohenberger, M.; Pomberger, R. Lithium-Ion Batteries as Ignition Sources in Waste Treatment Processes—A Semi-Quantitate Risk Analysis and Assessment of Battery-Caused Waste Fires. Processes 2021, 9, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Manjunatha, G.S.; Lakshmikanthan, P.; Chavan, D.; Baghel, D.S.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, R. Detection and extinguishment approaches for municipal solid waste landfill fires: A mini review. Waste Manag. Res. 2024, 42, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Krzywonos, M.; Borowski, P.F.; Kupczyk, A.; Zabochnicka-Swiatek, M. Abatement of CO2 emissions by using motor biofuels. Przem. Chem. 2014, 83, 1124–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Czech, R.; Zabochnicka-Świątek, M.; Świątek, M. Air pollution as a result of the development of motorization. Glob. NEST J. 2020, 22, 220–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nunes, L.J.R. The Rising Threat of Atmospheric CO2: A Review on the Causes, Impacts, and Mitigation Strategies. Environments 2023, 10, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wei, T.; Wu, J.; Chen, S. Keeping track of greenhouse gas emission reduction progress and targets in 167 cities worldwide. Front. Sustain. Cities 2021, 3, 696381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Popielak, P.; Majchrzak-Kucęba, I.; Wawrzyńczak, D. Climate change mitigation with CCUS—A case study with benchmarking for selected countries in adapting the European Union’s Green Deal. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2024, 132, 104057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kobyłecki, R.; Zarzycki, R. How to realistically and cheaply reduce the costs of CO2 emissions in heating? Energ. Cieplna i Zawod. 2024, 2, 95–102. [Google Scholar]
  29. Zabochnicka-Świątek, M. Utilization of Chlorella vulgaris and sediments after N-NH4 removal containing clinoptilolite for sorption of heavy metals from wastewater. Rocz. Ochr. Srod. 2013, 15, 324–347. [Google Scholar]
  30. Cantzler, J.; Creutzig, F.; Ayargarnchanakul, E.; Javaid, A.; Wong, L.; Haas, W. Saving resources and the climate? A systematic review of the circular economy and its mitigation potential. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 123001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yaman, C.; Anil, I.; Alagha, O. Potential for greenhouse gas reduction and energy recovery from MSW through different waste management technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 264, 121432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mohammad, A.; Paleologos, E.K.; Ogrodnik, P.; Koda, E.; Osiński, P.; Podlasek, A.; Vaverková, M.D.; Goli, V.S.N.S.; Singh, P.; Wang, K. Occurrence and ecotoxicological effects of fires at municipal solid waste landfills. Environ. Geotech. 2023, 11, 518–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Anokye, K.; Mohammed, A.S.; Agyemang, P.; Agya, A.B.; Amuah, E.E.Y.; Sodoke, S. A systematic review of the impacts of open burning and open dumping of waste in Ghana: A way forward for sustainable waste management. Clean. Waste Syst. 2024, 8, 100152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pathak, G.; Nichter, M.; Hardon, A.; Moyer, E. The open burning of plastic wastes is an urgent global health issue. Ann. Glob. Health 2024, 90, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Singh, A.; Spak, S.N.; Stone, E.A.; Downard, J.; Bullard, R.L.; Pooley, M.; Kostle, P.A.; Mainprize, M.W.; Wichman, M.D.; Peters, T.M.; et al. Uncontrolled combustion of shredded tires in a landfill—Part 2: Population exposure, public health response, and an air quality index for urban fires. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 104, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Adetona, O.; Ozoh, O.B.; Oluseyi, T.; Uzoegwu, Q.; Odei, J.; Lucas, M. An exploratory evaluation of the potential pulmonary, neurological and other health effects of chronic exposure to emissions from municipal solid waste fires at a large dumpsite in Olusosun, Lagos, Nigeria. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 30885–30892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mazzucco, W.; Costantino, C.; Restivo, V.; Alba, D.; Marotta, C.; Tavormina, E.; Cernigliaro, A.; Macaluso, M.; Cusimano, R.; Grammauta, R.; et al. The Management of Health Hazards Related to Municipal Solid Waste on Fire in Europe: An Environmental Justice Issue? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Jakhar, R.; Samek, L.; Styszko, K. A Comprehensive Study of the Impact of Waste Fires on the Environment and Health. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Deary, M.E.; Griffiths, S.D. The Impact of Air Pollution from Industrial Fires in Urban Settings: Monitoring, Modelling, Health, and Environmental Justice Perspectives. Environments 2024, 11, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Griffiths, S.D.; King, H.M.; Wilkinson, J.; Kelly, F.J.; Entwistle, J.A.; Deary, M.E. Evaluating Public Exposure to Airborne Particulates from Major Incident Fires: A Back Trajectory Plume Modelling Approach. J. Hazard. Mater. 2025, 490, 137455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Weichenthal, S.; Van Rijswijk, D.; Kulka, R.; You, H.; Van Ryswyk, K.; Willey, J.; Jessiman, B. The Impact of a Landfill Fire on Ambient Air Quality in the North: A Case Study in Iqaluit, Canada. Environ. Res. 2015, 142, 46–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, Y.; Cheng, K.; Wu, W.; Tian, H.; Yi, P.; Zhi, G.; Liu, S. Atmospheric Emissions of Typical Toxic Heavy Metals from Open Burning of Municipal Solid Waste in China. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 152, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Blomqvist, P.; Persson, B.; Simonson, M. Fire Emissions of Organics into the Atmosphere. Fire Technol. 2007, 43, 213–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nadal, M.; Rovira, J.; Díaz-Ferrero, J.; Schuhmacher, M.; Domingo, J.L. Human Exposure to Environmental Pollutants after a Tire Landfill Fire in Spain: Health Risks. Environ. Int. 2016, 97, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Morales, S.R.G.; Toro, A.R.; Morales, L.; Leiva, G.M.A. Landfill Fire and Airborne Aerosols in a Large City: Lessons Learned and Future Needs. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2018, 11, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sharma, M.; Khare, M.; Mishra, R.K. Air Quality Changes in Delhi Due to Open Waste Burning: An Accidental Fire in Bhalswa Landfill. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 21, 655–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Elihn, K.; Dalmijn, J.; Froment, J.; Håland, A.; Johansson, J.H.; Karlsson, H.L.; Martin, J.W.; Mikoviny, T.; Norman, M.; Piel, F.; et al. Air Quality Impacts of a Large Waste Fire in Stockholm, Sweden. Atmos. Environ. 2023, 315, 120124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kannankai, M.P.; Devipriya, S.P. Air Quality Impacts of Landfill Fires: A Case Study from the Brahmapuram Municipal Solid Waste Treatment Plant in Kochi, India. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 916, 170289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Oleniacz, R.; Drzewiecki, W.; Gorzelnik, T.; Grzesik, K.; Kozakiewicz, R.; Kowalewski, Z.; Kossakowska, K. Assessment of the Impact of Waste Fires on Air Quality and Atmospheric Aerosol Optical Depth: A Case Study in Poland. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, 16–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bihałowicz, J.S.; Rogula-Kozłowska, W.; Krasuski, A. Contribution of Landfill Fires to Air Pollution—An Assessment Methodology. Waste Manag. 2021, 125, 182–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Escobar-Arnanz, J.; Mekni, S.; Blanco, G.; Eljarrat, E.; Barceló, D.; Ramos, L. Characterization of organic aromatic compounds in soils affected by an uncontrolled tire landfill fire through the use of comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography–time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2018, 1536, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Øygard, J.K.; Måge, A.; Gjengedal, E.; Svane, T. Effect of an Uncontrolled Fire and the Subsequent Firefight on the Chemical Composition of Landfill Leachate. Waste Manag. 2005, 25, 712–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Stenis, J.; Hogland, W. Fire in Waste-Fuel Stores: Risk Management and Estimation of Real Cost. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2011, 13, 247–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Oleniacz, R. Pożary i otwarte spalanie odpadów jako źródło emisji zanieczyszczeń do powietrza. In Współczesne Wyzwania Nauk Przyrodniczych—Analiza i Perspektywy Rozwoju, T. 2; Kalbarczyk, K., Mołdoch-Mendoń, I., Eds.; Wydawnictwo Naukowe TYGIEL: Lublin, Poland, 2024; pp. 16–38. [Google Scholar]
  55. Gorzelnik, T.; Oleniacz, R.; Drzewiecki, W.; Grzesik, K.; Kowalewski, Z.; Kozakiewicz, R.; Kossakowska, K. Air pollution caused by fires at waste storage sites: Analysis of selected episodes in Poland. In New Insights into Environmental and Energy Development; Sornek, K., Ed.; Institute of Sustainable Energy: Krakow, Poland, 2021; pp. 5–11. [Google Scholar]
  56. Bihałowicz, J.S.; Rogula-Kozłowska, W.; Krasuski, A.; Salamonowicz, Z. The critical factors of landfill fire impact on air quality. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 104026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bihałowicz, J.S. Waste Fires in Poland and Some of Their Environmental Implications—A Ten-Year Perspective. J. Ecol. Eng. 2022, 23, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rykała, W.; Fabiańska, M.J.; Dąbrowska, D. The Influence of a Fire at an Illegal Landfill in Southern Poland on the Formation of Toxic Compounds and Their Impact on the Natural Environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kuta, Ł.; Hachoł, J.; Wdowczyk, A.; Hochman, J. Impact of Fires at Illegal Waste Storage Sites on Soil Contamination—A Study of Five Cases from Poland. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Statistics Poland. Environment 2020; Statistics Poland: Warsaw, Poland, 2020. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/environment-energy/environment/environment-2020,8,3.html (accessed on 31 December 2024).
  61. Statistics Poland. Environment 2022; Statistics Poland: Warsaw, Poland, 2022. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/environment-energy/environment/environment-2022,1,14.html (accessed on 31 December 2024).
  62. Statistics Poland. Environment 2024; Statistics Poland: Warsaw, Poland, 2024. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/srodowisko-energia/srodowisko/ochrona-srodowiska-2024,1,25.html (accessed on 31 December 2024).
  63. Republic of Poland. Act of 14 December 2012 on Waste; Journal of Laws of 2023, Item 1587, as Amended. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20130000021/U/D20130021Lj.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2025).
  64. Republic of Poland. Regulation of the Ministry of Economy of 16 July 2015 on Accepting Waste for Landfilling; Journal of Laws of 2015, item 1277. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20150001277/O/D20151277.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2025).
  65. Republic of Poland. National Waste Management Plan 2022; Resolution No 88 of the Council of Ministers of 1 July 2016, Item 784. Available online: https://bip.mos.gov.pl/fileadmin/user_upload/bip/strategie_plany_programy/DGO/Krajowy_plan_gospodarki_odpadami_2022_____M.P._poz._784_.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2025).
  66. Republic of Poland. National Waste Management Plan 2028; Resolution No 96 of the Council of Ministers of 12 June 2023, Item 702. Available online: https://dziennikustaw.gov.pl/M2023000070201.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2025).
  67. Wang, W.; Themelis, N.J.; Sun, K.; Bourtsalas, A.C.; Huang, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, Z. Current influence of China’s ban on plastic waste imports. Waste Dispos. Sustain. Energy 2019, 1, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Statistics Poland. Environment 2018; Statistics Poland: Warsaw, Poland, 2019. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/environment-energy/environment/environment-2018,1,10.html (accessed on 31 December 2024).
  69. Statistics Poland. Environment 2019; Statistics Poland: Warsaw, Poland, 2020. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/environment-energy/environment/environment-2019,1,11.html (accessed on 31 December 2024).
  70. Przybyła, A. Zasady Ewidencjonowania Zdarzeń w Systemie Wspomagania Decyzji Państwowej Straży Pożarnej; Komenda Główna Państwowej Straży Pożarnej, Biuro Planowania Operacyjnego: Warszawa, Poland, 2023. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/attachment/2f2b0693-f65c-44e3-be86-2ce8eb554ade (accessed on 31 December 2024).
  71. Christensen, T. (Ed.) Solid Waste Technology and Management; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  72. UNEP. Solid Waste Management (Vol. I); United Nations Environment Programme: 2005. Available online: https://www.eawag.ch/fileadmin/Domain1/Abteilungen/sandec/E-Learning/Moocs/Solid_Waste/W2/Solid_waste_management_UNEP_2005.pdf (accessed on 31 December 2024).
  73. Yesiller, N.; Hanson, J.L.; Cox, J.T.; Noce, D.E. Determination of Specific Gravity of Municipal Solid Waste. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 848–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Zekkos, D.; Bray, J.D.; Kavazanjian Jr, E.; Matasovic, N.; Rathje, E.M.; Riemer, M.F.; Stokoe, K.H. Unit Weight of Municipal Solid Waste. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2006, 132, 1250–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Vilar, O.M.; Carvalho, M. Mechanical Properties of Municipal Solid Waste. J. Test. Eval. 2004, 32, 438–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Du, J.; Zhou, C.; Zhang, Y.; Shen, H.; Wu, W.; Liu, G. Physical-Chemical Properties of Municipal Solid Waste and Their Implication for Urban Management on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 11692–11701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Neuwahl, F.; Cusano, G.; Gómez Benavides, J.; Holbrook, S.; Roudier, S. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Waste Incineration; EUR 29971 EN; Publication Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2019; Available online: https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2020-01/JRC118637_WI_Bref_2019_published_0.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2025).
  78. Pohl, M.; Gebauer, K.; Beckmann, M. Characterisation of Refuse Derived Fuels in View of the Fuel Technical Properties. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Industrial Furnaces and Boilers (INFUB-8), Vilamoura, Portugal, 25–28 March 2008. [Google Scholar]
  79. Shi, H.; Mahinpey, N.; Aqsha, A.; Silbermann, R. Characterization, Thermochemical Conversion Studies, and Heating Value Modeling of Municipal Solid Waste. Waste Manag. 2016, 48, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Boumanchar, I.; Chhiti, Y.; Alaoui, F.E.M.; El Ouinani, A.; Sahibed-Dine, A.; Bentiss, F.; Jama, C.; Bensitel, M. Effect of Materials Mixture on the Higher Heating Value: Case of Biomass, Biochar, and Municipal Solid Waste. Waste Manag. 2017, 61, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Finet, C. Heating Value of Municipal Solid Waste. Waste Manag. Res. 1987, 5, 141–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zhou, H.; Meng, A.; Long, Y.; Li, Q.; Zhang, Y. An Overview of Characteristics of Municipal Solid Waste Fuel in China: Physical, Chemical Composition, and Heating Value. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 36, 107–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Grzesik, K.; Kossakowska, K.; Kozakiewicz, R.; Kowalewski, Z.; Gorzelnik, T.; Oleniacz, R.; Drzewiecki, W. Waste Fires—Waste of Energy, Waste of Materials. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Sustainable Energy and Environmental Development (SEED), Poland, Krakow, 13–15 October 2021. [Google Scholar]
  84. Montejo, C.; Costa, C.; Ramos, P.; Márquez, M.C. Analysis and Comparison of Municipal Solid Waste and Reject Fraction as Fuels for Incineration Plants. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2011, 31, 2135–2140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Brożek, P.; Złoczowska, E.; Staude, M.; Baszak, K.; Sosnowski, M.; Bryll, K. Study of the Combustion Process for Two Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) Streams Using Statistical Methods and Heat Recovery Simulation. Energies 2022, 15, 9560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Jędrczak, A.; Myszograj, S.; Połomka, J. The Composition and Properties of Polish Waste Focused on Biostabilisation in MBT Plants during the Heating Season. Energies 2020, 13, 1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ranieri, L.; Mossa, G.; Pellegrino, R.; Digiesi, S. Energy Recovery from the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste: A Real Options-Based Facility Assessment. Sustainability 2018, 10, 368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. U.S. EPA. Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors 2016. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-04/documents/volume_to_weight_conversion_factors_memorandum_04192016_508fnl.pdf (accessed on 31 December 2024).
  89. Sukarni, S.; Sumarli, S.; Puspitasari, P.; Suryanto, H.; Wati, R.F. Physicochemical Characteristics of Various Inorganic Combustible Solid Waste (ICSW) Mixed as Sustainable Solid Fuel. AIP Conf. Proc. 2017, 1887, 020066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ioelovich, M. Energy Potential of Natural, Synthetic Polymers and Waste Materials—A Review. Acad. J. Polym. Sci. 2018, 1, 555553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Garcés, D.; Díaz, E.; Sastre, H.; Ordóñez, S.; González-LaFuente, J.M. Evaluation of the Potential of Different High Calorific Waste Fractions for the Preparation of Solid Recovered Fuels. Waste Manag. 2016, 47, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Rivera, J.A.; López, V.P.; Casado, R.R.; Hervás, J.-M.S. Thermal Degradation of Paper Industry Wastes from a Recovered Paper Mill Using TGA. Characterization and Gasification Test. Waste Manag. 2016, 47, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Brożek, M. Evaluation of Selected Properties of Briquettes from Recovered Paper and Board. Res. Agric. Eng. 2015, 61, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lombardi, L.; Castaldi, M.J. Energy Recovery from Residual Municipal Solid Waste: State of the Art and Perspectives within the Challenge to Climate Change. Energies 2024, 17, 395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Banaś, M.; Pająk, T.; Bator, J.; Wróbel, W.; Ciuła, J. Energy Efficiency Analysis of Waste-to-Energy Plants in Poland. Energies 2024, 17, 2390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Jaworski, T.; Wajda, A.; Jaworska-Bytomska, K. Enhancing the Performance of a Hazardous Waste Incineration Facility through the Usage of a Dedicated Application. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Floriani, S.L.; Virmond, E.; Luiz, D.B.; Althoff, C.; José, H.; Moreira, R. Potential of Industrial Solid Wastes as Energy Sources and Gaseous Emissions Evaluation in a Pilot Scale Burner (ES2008-54355). J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2010, 132, 011003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Jiang, H.; Lu, P.; Xue, Z.; Zhao, D.; Bu, C.; Ge, H.; Song, T. Prediction and Evaluation on Fuel Properties and Pyrolysis Characteristics of Combustible Industrial Solid Wastes. J. Energy Inst. 2022, 105, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Martínez, J.D.; Puy, N.; Murillo, R.; García, T.; Navarro, M.V.; Mastral, A.M. Waste Tyre Pyrolysis—A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 23, 179–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Santini, A.; Morselli, L.; Passarini, F.; Vassura, I.; Di Carlo, S.; Bonino, F. End-of-Life Vehicles Management: Italian Material and Energy Recovery Efficiency. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 489–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lanoir, D.; Trouve, G.; Delfosse, L.; Froelich, D.; Kassamaly, A. Physical and Chemical Characterization of Automotive Shredder Residues. Waste Manag. Res. 1997, 15, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Tanguay-Rioux, F.; Heroux, M.; Legros, R. Physical Properties of Recyclable Materials and Implications for Resource Recovery. Waste Manag. 2021, 136, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Nunes, L.J.; Godina, R.; Matias, J.C.; Catalão, J.P. Economic and Environmental Benefits of Using Textile Waste for the Production of Thermal Energy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 1353–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Rago, Y.P.; Surroop, D.; Mohee, R. Torrefaction of Textile Waste for Production of Energy-Dense Biochar Using Mass Loss as a Synthetic Indicator. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 811–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Achilias, D.S.; Charitopoulou, M.-A.; Ciprioti, S.V. Thermal and Catalytic Recycling of Plastics from Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment—Challenges and Perspectives. Polymers 2024, 16, 2538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Wang, R.; Xu, Z. Recycling of Non-Metallic Fractions from Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE): A Review. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 1455–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Lombardi, L.; Carnevale, E.A. Evaluation of the environmental sustainability of different waste-to-energy plant configurations. Waste Manag. 2018, 73, 232–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kwon, Y.; Lee, S.; Bae, J.; Park, S.; Moon, H.; Lee, T.; Kim, K.; Kang, J.; Jeon, T. Evaluation of Incinerator Performance and Policy Framework for Effective Waste Management and Energy Recovery: A Case Study of South Korea. Sustainability 2024, 16, 448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Han, Q.L.; Liu, H.Q.; Wei, G.X.; Zhu, Y.W.; Li, Q.; Li, T.; Su, X.; Duan, W.Y. Environmental-energy-economic analyses of waste incinerators and Co-combustion pathways: A bottom-up study of over 300 cities in China. Energy Convers. Manag. 2025, 325, 119437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Bień, J. Production and use of waste-derived fuels in Poland: Current status and perspectives. Prod. Eng. Arch. 2021, 27, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Kledyński, Z.; Bogdan, A.; Jackiewicz-Rek, W.; Lelicińska-Serafin, K.; Machowska, A.; Manczarski, P.; Masłowska, D.; Rolewicz-Kalińska, A.; Rucińska, J.; Szczygielski, T.; et al. Condition of circular economy in Poland. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2020, 66, 37–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Avdiushchenko, A. Circular Economy in Poland: Main Achievements and Future Prospects. In Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions. Results of SSPCR 2019; Bisello, A., Vettorato, D., Ludlow, D., Baranzelli, C., Eds.; Green Energy and Technology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Oleniacz, R.; Grzesik, K. Assessment and Analysis of Waste Treatment and Environmental Management. Energies 2025, 18, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 18 02731 g001
Figure 1. Number of waste fires in Poland in individual months from 2018 to 2019.
Figure 1. Number of waste fires in Poland in individual months from 2018 to 2019.
Energies 18 02731 g001
Energies 18 02731 g002
Figure 2. Number and size of waste fires in Poland during 2018–2019.
Figure 2. Number and size of waste fires in Poland during 2018–2019.
Energies 18 02731 g002
Energies 18 02731 g003
Figure 3. Locations of large and very large waste fires in Poland in 2018 and 2019 (own study based on data from the National Headquarters of the State Fire Service [83]).
Figure 3. Locations of large and very large waste fires in Poland in 2018 and 2019 (own study based on data from the National Headquarters of the State Fire Service [83]).
Energies 18 02731 g003
Energies 18 02731 g004
Figure 4. Estimated total energy potential lost in the low and high variants in 2018 and 2019.
Figure 4. Estimated total energy potential lost in the low and high variants in 2018 and 2019.
Energies 18 02731 g004
Table 1. Fire size classification criteria [70].
Table 1. Fire size classification criteria [70].
Fire SizeSurface Area [m2]Volume [m3]
Small<70<350
Medium71–300351–1500
Large301–10001501–5000
Very Large>1001>5001
Table 2. Bulk density of waste types (own study based on [71,72,73,74,75,76]).
Table 2. Bulk density of waste types (own study based on [71,72,73,74,75,76]).
Waste TypeDensity [kg/m3]
MBT post-processed wastevariable
Refuse-derived fuel (RDF)150–300
Biowaste130–480
Chemicalsvaries
Old paper40–130
Municipal solid waste (MSW)100–400
Hazardous wastevaries
Industrial wastevaries
Old tires (whole)100–150
Old tires (shredded)~500
End-of-life vehicles (ELVs)1000–1500
Plastics40–130
Textiles130–250
Bulky wastevariable
Waste electrical & electronic equipment (WEEE)200–300
Table 3. Types of burned waste and total fire surface for large and very large fires.
Table 3. Types of burned waste and total fire surface for large and very large fires.
Burned Waste TypeTotal Surface of Fires [m2]
20182019
MBT post-processed waste and RDF30,6001018
No data 1804022,119
Biowaste 650
Chemicals800
Old paper900
Municipal waste20,7256700
Hazardous waste34,100
Industrial waste23001000
Old tires28195300
End-of-life vehicles1300
Plastics58,65616,375
Textiles 3490
Bulky waste840010,500
Waste electronic and electric equipment8001200
Total169,44068,352
1 No data according to the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection; based on the data from the State Fire Service, we assumed waste to be municipal.
Table 4. Potential use and estimated volume of burned waste in 2018 and 2019 in the low and high variants.
Table 4. Potential use and estimated volume of burned waste in 2018 and 2019 in the low and high variants.
Burned Waste TypePotential Use of WasteEstimated Volume of Waste Burned [m3]
20182019
Low VariantHigh VariantLow VariantHigh Variant
MBT post-processed waste and RDFRDF (fuel)15,30091,8005093054
Biowasteto be processed into RDF 3251950
Chemicalsrecovery4002400
Old paperrecycling4502700
Municipal wasteto be processed into RDF14,38386,29514,41086,457
Hazardous wasterecovery/
disposal		17,050102,300
Industrial wasterecovery/
disposal		115069005003000
Old tiresRDF14108457265015,900
End-of-life vehiclesrecycling6503900
Plasticsrecycling29,328175,968818849,125
TextilesRDF 174510,470
Bulky wasteRDF420025,200525031,500
Waste electronic and
electric equipment		recycling40024006003600
Total volume 169,4401,016,64068,352410,112
Table 5. Bulk density and lower heating value of the waste types adopted for further calculations.
Table 5. Bulk density and lower heating value of the waste types adopted for further calculations.
Waste TypeBulk Density [kg/m3]Lower Heating Value LHV [MJ/kg]References
MBT post-processed waste and RDF50012[84,85,86]
Biowaste4008[87,88]
Chemical waste60020[77,89,90,91]
Old paper50012[92,93]
Municipal waste2008[94,95]
Hazardous waste50018[77,96]
Industrial waste34017[97,98]
Old tires40040[99]
End-of-life vehicles30020[91,100,101]
Plastics15040[90,102]
Textiles15016[103,104]
Bulky waste15015[91]
Waste electrical & electronic equipment2008[105,106]
Table 6. Estimated lost energy potential in 2018 and 2019 for the low and high variants.
Table 6. Estimated lost energy potential in 2018 and 2019 for the low and high variants.
Burned Waste TypeEstimated Lost Energy Potential [TJ]
20182019
Low VariantHigh VariantLow VariantHigh Variant
MBT post-processed waste and RDF92551318
Biowaste0016
Chemicals52900
Old paper31600
Municipal waste2313823138
Hazardous waste15392100
Industrial waste740317
Old tires2313542254
End-of-life vehicles42300
Plastics176105649295
Textiles00425
Bulky waste9571271
Waste electrical & electronic equipment1416
Total4952970139831
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Grzesik, K.; Zabochnicka, M.; Oleniacz, R.; Kozakiewicz, R. Quantifying Resource and Energy Losses from Waste Fires in Poland: A Barrier to Circular Economy Transition. Energies 2025, 18, 2731. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18112731

AMA Style

Grzesik K, Zabochnicka M, Oleniacz R, Kozakiewicz R. Quantifying Resource and Energy Losses from Waste Fires in Poland: A Barrier to Circular Economy Transition. Energies. 2025; 18(11):2731. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18112731

Chicago/Turabian Style

Grzesik, Katarzyna, Magdalena Zabochnicka, Robert Oleniacz, and Ryszard Kozakiewicz. 2025. "Quantifying Resource and Energy Losses from Waste Fires in Poland: A Barrier to Circular Economy Transition" Energies 18, no. 11: 2731. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18112731

APA Style

Grzesik, K., Zabochnicka, M., Oleniacz, R., & Kozakiewicz, R. (2025). Quantifying Resource and Energy Losses from Waste Fires in Poland: A Barrier to Circular Economy Transition. Energies, 18(11), 2731. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18112731

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop