% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Meys:889912,
      author       = {Meys, Raoul and Frick, Felicitas and Westhues, Stefan and
                      Sternberg, André and Klankermayer, Jürgen and Bardow,
                      André},
      title        = {{T}owards a circular economy for plastic packaging wastes
                      – the environmental potential of chemical recycling},
      journal      = {Resources, conservation and recycling},
      volume       = {162},
      issn         = {0921-3449},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier Science},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2021-00520},
      pages        = {105010 -},
      year         = {2020},
      abstract     = {Plastic packaging waste faces increasingly stringent
                      sustainability targets such as recycling rates of $55\%$
                      imposed by the European Commission. To realize the vision of
                      a circular economy, chemical recycling is advocated as a
                      large-scale avenue to decrease fossil resource depletion and
                      greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In this work, we develop a
                      theoretical model for chemical recycling technologies
                      assuming ideal performance. The theoretical model allows us
                      to compute the minimal environmental impacts for chemical
                      recycling technologies and compare them to real-case
                      benchmark waste treatments. Thereby, we robustly identify
                      chemical recycling technologies that will not result in
                      environmental benefits, since their minimal environmental
                      impacts are already higher than those of current benchmark
                      waste treatments. In this way, we show that PET, HDPE, LDPE,
                      PP and PS should not be recycled chemically to refinery
                      feedstock or fuel products and rather be treated by
                      mechanical recycling and energy recovery in cement kilns in
                      order to reduce global warming impacts. In contrast,
                      chemical recycling to monomers or value-added products could
                      potentially reduce global warming impacts compared to all
                      benchmark waste treatments by up to 4.3 kg CO2-eq per kg
                      treated PET packaging waste. By analyzing 75 waste treatment
                      scenarios for 5 environmental impacts, our analysis offers
                      guidance to stakeholders involved in chemical recycling to
                      identify the most promising as well as the least promising
                      chemical recycling technologies.},
      cin          = {IEK-10},
      ddc          = {690},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-10-20170217},
      pnm          = {899 - ohne Topic (POF3-899)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-899},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000569614800006},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105010},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/889912},
}