Recycling portable alkaline/ZnC batteries for a circular economy: An assessment of natural resource consumption from a life cycle and criticality perspective

Abstract It has been recognized that a proper and sustainable management strategy might help prevent the risks of leaching from waste portable batteries (WPBs), which are an important waste stream, and aid the conservation of raw materials. Unlike existing studies on WPB management, which focus mainly on emissions, this case study uses a resource-oriented approach to thoroughly analyze the performance of a WPB collection and recycling scheme. This study focused on the WPB take-back and recycling system managed by Bebat in Belgium. Life cycle assessment was conducted using three different existing life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods representing three different perspectives: Cumulative Exergy Extracted from the Natural Environment; Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP), split into impact categories called ADP elements and ADP fossilfuels ; and damage to Resource Cost. A new LCIA method, the criticality-based impact assessment method, has also been introduced to cover the socioeconomic aspects of natural resource consumption. The performance of the mixed waste (i.e., batteries, flashlights) collection and sorting system was assessed from 2011 to 2013. This analysis showed that in 2012, the use of collection receptacles made of plastic bags with 30% recycled content, instead of non-recycled paper or cardboard with 30% recycled content, was one of the main reasons for the low impact of the whole system from all assessment perspectives. The performance of entire take-back and recycling system for alkaline and zinc-carbon (ZnC) batteries, the two most popular portable batteries, was subsequently analyzed and benchmarked against two incineration scenarios: with and without bottom ash recovery. The comparisons of the four LCIA methods show differing results. The most prominent result is that the ADP elements score of the recycling scenario is 7–9 times lower than that of the incineration scenario, mainly due to metals (i.e., iron and zinc) savings via recycling. The recycling system requires 17–52% less material criticality, but extracts 13–18% more exergy from the natural environment and has a higher ADP fossilfuels score (about 14–16%) than the incineration system. These comparisons indicate that although the alkaline/ZnC battery management system run by Bebat does not reduce consumption of all resources, especially fossil fuels and land, it is beneficial in terms of minerals and metals savings. To further improve the efficiency and environmental performance of the collection system, different measures were implemented. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impacts of those measures on the mixed waste collection and sorting system and the alkaline/ZnC battery take-back and recycling system. The results suggested that a combination of different measures, especially reducing the number of receptacles used and enhancing their environmental performance, can considerably reduce the resource footprint.

[1]  Simon Warren,et al.  Methodology of metal criticality determination. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  S. Pauliuk,et al.  Solid Waste and the Circular Economy: A Global Analysis of Waste Treatment and Waste Footprints , 2017 .

[3]  E. Hirst,et al.  Food-Related Energy Requirements , 1974, Science.

[4]  R. Geyer,et al.  Circular Economy Rebound , 2017 .

[5]  S. Ulgiati,et al.  A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems , 2016 .

[6]  Dieuwertje Schrijvers,et al.  Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[7]  Jo Dewulf,et al.  Exergy-based accounting for land as a natural resource in life cycle assessment , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[8]  T. Koellner,et al.  UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[9]  J Dewulf,et al.  Cumulative exergy extraction from the natural environment (CEENE): a comprehensive life cycle impact assessment method for resource accounting. , 2007, Environmental science & technology.

[10]  João Patrício,et al.  Primary and secondary battery consumption trends in Sweden 1996-2013: method development and detailed accounting by battery type. , 2015, Waste management.

[11]  Lucia Mancini,et al.  Characterization of raw materials based on supply risk indicators for Europe , 2018, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[12]  João Patrício,et al.  Portable battery lifespans and new estimation method for battery collection rate based on a lifespan modeling approach , 2017 .

[13]  J. Dewulf,et al.  Recycling rechargeable lithium ion batteries: Critical analysis of natural resource savings , 2010 .

[14]  Pilar Swart,et al.  Abiotic Resource Use , 2015 .

[15]  Matthew Doolan,et al.  The Environmental Impacts of Recycling Portable Lithium-Ion Batteries , 2016 .

[16]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[17]  Yajuan Yu,et al.  Environmental Impact Assessment and End-of-Life Treatment Policy Analysis for Li-Ion Batteries and Ni-MH Batteries , 2014, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[18]  J. Guinée Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges? , 2016 .

[19]  Mary Stewart,et al.  A Consistent Framework for Assessing the Impacts from Resource Use - A focus on resource functionality (8 pp) , 2005 .

[20]  David Pennington,et al.  Criticality on the international scene: quo vadis? , 2016 .

[21]  Denise Crocce Romano Espinosa,et al.  Recycling of batteries: a review of current processes and technologies , 2004 .

[22]  Linda Gaines,et al.  Recovery of metals from spent lithium-ion batteries with organic acids as leaching reagents and environmental assessment , 2013 .

[23]  T. Astrup,et al.  Quantification of the resource recovery potential of municipal solid waste incineration bottom ashes. , 2014, Waste management.

[24]  Pennington David,et al.  Including Resource Security of Supply in LCA: a proposal , 2014 .

[25]  Carl Vadenbo,et al.  Impact assessment of abiotic resources in LCA: quantitative comparison of selected characterization models. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[26]  Göran Wall,et al.  Exergy - a useful concept within resource accounting , 1977 .

[27]  P A Wäger,et al.  Environmental impacts of the Swiss collection and recovery systems for Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE): a follow-up. , 2011, The Science of the total environment.

[28]  Eric Masanet,et al.  Single-Use Alkaline Battery Case Study: The Potential Impacts of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in California on Global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions , 2012 .

[29]  Dieuwertje Schrijvers,et al.  Critical review of guidelines against a systematic framework with regard to consistency on allocation procedures for recycling in LCA , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[30]  Jeroen B. Guinée,et al.  The Abiotic Depletion Potential: Background, Updates, and Future , 2016 .

[31]  Susana Xará,et al.  Life cycle assessment of three different management options for spent alkaline batteries. , 2015, Waste management.

[32]  S. Pfister,et al.  Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[33]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  Impact categories for natural resources and land use : survey and analysis of existing and proposed methods in the context of environmental life cycle assessment , 1997 .

[34]  Jan Szargut,et al.  Exergy Analysis of Thermal, Chemical, and Metallurgical Processes , 1988 .

[35]  Rana Pant,et al.  Rethinking the area of protection "natural resources" in life cycle assessment. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[36]  R. Heijungs,et al.  Economic allocation: Examples and derived decision tree , 2004 .

[37]  Amelia L. Craighill,et al.  Lifecycle assessment and economic evaluation of recycling: A case study , 1996 .

[38]  Markus Berger,et al.  The economic resource scarcity potential (ESP) for evaluating resource use based on life cycle assessment , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[39]  K Briffaerts,et al.  Waste battery treatment options: comparing their environmental performance. , 2009, Waste management.

[40]  Patrick Hofstetter,et al.  Midpoints versus endpoints: The sacrifices and benefits , 2000 .

[41]  Eskinder Demisse Gemechu,et al.  From a critical review to a conceptual framework for integrating the criticality of resources into Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment , 2015 .

[42]  Konstadinos Abeliotis Life Cycle Assessment in Municipal Solid Waste Management , 2011 .

[43]  Keith R. Skene,et al.  Circles, spirals, pyramids and cubes: why the circular economy cannot work , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[44]  Martin Faulstich,et al.  Raw Material Criticality in the Context of Classical Risk Assessment , 2015 .

[45]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Allocation in ISO 14041—a critical review , 2001 .

[46]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  A critical view on scientific consensus building in life cycle impact assessment , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.