Next Article in Journal
The Value of a Properly Maintained Hiking Trail Network and a Traditional Landscape for Mountain Recreation in the Dolomites
Next Article in Special Issue
Benefit Analysis and Regulatory Actions for Imported Palm Kernel Shell as an Environment-Friendly Energy Source in Taiwan
Previous Article in Journal
Food Waste Recovery with Takakura Portable Compost Boxes in Offices and Working Places
Previous Article in Special Issue
Stakeholder Management: An Approach in CCS Projects
Article Menu
Issue 4 (December) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle

Risk Assessment in a Materials Recycling Facility: Perspectives for Reducing Operational Issues

1
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu; 550024 Sibiu, Romania
2
Academy of Romanian Scientists, 010071 Bucharest, Romania
3
Department of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, Insubria University, 21100 Varese, Italy
4
Department of Civil Engineering, La Sapienza University, 00184 Roma, Italy
5
Department of Environmental Economics, Ural Federal University, 620002 Ekaterinburg, Russia
6
Department of Civil Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, 38123 Trento, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Resources 2018, 7(4), 85; https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7040085
Received: 24 October 2018 / Revised: 5 December 2018 / Accepted: 6 December 2018 / Published: 10 December 2018
  |  
PDF [876 KB, uploaded 10 December 2018]
  |  

Abstract

Mechanical separation of light packaging waste is a useful practice for improving the quality of the recyclable waste flows and its exploitation in a frame of the circular economy. Materials Recovery Facilities can treat from 3000 to 5000 tons per year of light packaging waste. Concerning the plastic content, this is divided in four flows: PET, HDPE, other plastics, and waste rejects. The last two are generally used for energy recovery. For improving the quality of the recyclable plastic waste, a manual separation is required for reducing the impurities detectable in the final products. However, this practice could enhance the risk at work of the operators, which should be constantly monitored. This article explores the main differences of a manual separation and of a mechanical separation, assessing the costs and the health risk for the workers. The analysis started from the situation in an Italian Materials Recovery Facility, generalizing the context; a future scenario with the application of a mechanical separation is theoretically introduced. The main results obtained suggest that the manual separation plant improves the quality of the material, though increasing the risk of the operators due to the possible contact with sharp waste, sanitary danger, and risk of injuries for the mismanagement of machines, among others. The mechanical separation can be considered a real advantage from an economic point of view, since the operating costs are lower and the investment could be recovered in around 10 years, in an Italian-like context. On balance, on the one hand, the article provides indications for the private sector for improving the management of a Materials Recovery Facility, while, on the other hand, it detects the main pros and cons of both methodologies. View Full-Text
Keywords: circular economy; manual separation; mechanical separation; MRF; risk assessment circular economy; manual separation; mechanical separation; MRF; risk assessment
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Cioca, L.I.; Ferronato, N.; Viotti, P.; Magaril, E.; Ragazzi, M.; Torretta, V.; Rada, E.C. Risk Assessment in a Materials Recycling Facility: Perspectives for Reducing Operational Issues. Resources 2018, 7, 85.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Resources EISSN 2079-9276 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top