Waste PDF

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/268079134
PLASTICS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN INDIA: AN INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT APPROACH
Book · July 2014
CITATIONS READS
0 10,456
3 authors, including:
Tirthankar Banerjee Dr. R. K. Srivastava

Banaras Hindu University G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar
51 PUBLICATIONS 467 CITATIONS 50 PUBLICATIONS 443 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Source apportionment of aerosols and trace gases View project
Demonstration of Municipal Wastewater Management through Application of Fuelwood Plantation View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Dr. R. K. Srivastava on 11 November 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

March 27, 2012 11:24 9.75in x 6.5in b1272-ch17 Handbook of Environmental and Waste Management Vol. 2 1st Reading
Chapter 17
PLASTICS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN

INDIA: AN INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT APPROACH
1 Tirthankar Banerjee, Ph.D.

2 Research Fellow, Department of Environmental Sciences,
3 G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar-263 145,
4 U.S. Nagar (Uttarakhand), India
5 tirthankaronline@gmail.com, tirthankar@hotmail.com
6 Rajeev Kumar Srivastava, Ph.D.

7 Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences,
8 G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar-263 145,
9 U.S. Nagar (Uttarakhand), India
10 rajeev ks1@rediffmail.com, rajeevsrivastava08@gmail.com
11 Yung-Tse Hung, Ph.D., P.E., DEE

12 Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cleveland State
13 University, 16945 Deerfield Dr., Strongsville, Ohio 44136-6214, The USA
14 yungtsehung@yahoo.com, yungtsehung@gmail.com
15 Abstract
16 India has witnessed a substantial growth in the production of plastics and an
17 increased consumption of plastic. In the absence of adequate waste collection and
18 segregation process, the management of the waste created by discarded used plastics
19 items, especially ones used for packaging applications has become a challenging
20 task. This article provides an overview of the resource recovery from plastic waste
21 with consideration of integrated waste management (IWM), to evaluate the best
22 possible option for tackling waste in Indian circumstances.
23 Keywords: Plastics, polymer, waste management, recycle, energy recovery,

24 incineration, IWM, fuel.
1
2 T. Banerjee et al.
1 1. Introduction
2 Economic development significantly contributes to improvements in life standards.

3 Therefore, both economic development and environmental conservation are the
4 immense important aspects and priorities of 21st century. Both require simulta-
5 neous indispensable support and adequate consideration, so that they are in fact
6 not only being compatible but also remain mutually supportive. However, coupled
7 with life standard improvement, economic prosperity also induces environmental
8 degradation with long-term irreversible consequences for nature. Rapid population
9 growth, urbanization, and industrial growth have led to severe waste management
10 problems in several cities around the world. Simultaneous development in economic
11 prosperity and industrialization often conflict with sound environmental considera-
12 tions. The real problem, however, is the lack or inadequate environment management
13 at a grass root level. The basic requirement is, therefore, need an approach toward
14 technological development for the minimization of environmental degradation.
15 Plastic as a synthetic polymer substitute natural materials in almost every aspect
16 of our life and become an essential part of our society. Nature has witnessed a
17 considerable intensification in the production of plastics in last few decades and
18 simultaneous increased consumption of plastic materials. With time, stability and
19 durability of plastics have been improved continuously, and hence these groups of
20 materials are now considered as a synonym for materials being resistant to many
21 environmental constraints.1 The basic properties viz. durability, resistance to chem-
22 icals, safety and hygienic nature, relative inexpensiveness to produce, thermal and
23 electrical insulations, and lighter weight than the competing materials helped plastics
24 to be indispensible in every aspects of life. Plastics compromise diverse group of
25 chemically complex compounds. Plastics are formed into any number of products,
26 and different plastic resins are difficult to differentiate. This leads to problems in col-
27 lection, separations, and recycling. Because of its durability, plastics accumulate and
28 remain persistent in the environment at the rate of 25 MT per year.2 Moreover, con-
29 verting plastics down to their original chemical constituents is often technologically
30 infeasible or otherwise unprofitable. Management of plastics found in municipal
31 solid waste (MSW) is most critical sector because of continuous increase in plastic
32 proportion in MSW, its nonbiodegradability, and direct harmful effect to society.3
33 Basically, problems related to solid waste persist beyond merely its disposal.
34 In addition to technical and environmental complications, there are administrative,
35 economic, and societal tribulations that must be addressed. The scientific efforts to
36 sort out all these complications are usually referred as waste management. In this
37 aspect, the management encompasses planning, design, and operation of facilities
38 for collecting, transporting, processing, recovering, and finally disposing of waste.3
39 Waste management and disposal is the most neglected sector in India, and about 90%
Plastics Waste Management in India 3
1 of waste is currently disposed of by open dumping.4 There are lacks of efficient waste
2 collection, segregation, and treatment facilities in most parts of India, even in the
3 most developed cities. Some commonly used methods by which the waste could be
4 managed are incineration, landfilling, and composting. However, all these methods
5 are practiced in unscientific manner and precautions regarding safe disposal of waste
6 residues are not taken care off. The basic properties that have helped plastics to be
7 most useful in common life are also cause of concern in environmental safeguard
8 perspectives. Waste plastic thrown on land mostly enter into municipal drainage
9 lines and chokes it resulting into floods as experienced in Mumbai, India in 1998.
10 Again, millions of mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish are reported to be killed every
11 year by the ingestion of plastic bags. Mostly plastics affect marine wildlife either
12 by entangling creatures or by being eaten. Turtles are particularly badly affected
13 by plastic pollution, and all seven of the world’s turtle species are already either
14 endangered or threatened for a number of reasons.
15 Productive use of waste represents a means of mitigating some of the asso-
16 ciated problems of solid waste management. The concept of integrated solid waste
17 management (ISWM) is meant to provide a sustainable framework both for manu-
18 facturers and consumers.3 The ISWM is intended to guide decisions about the gener-
19 ation of wastes, recycling of materials and ultimate disposable of residues.5 It helps
20 to save and sustain natural resources that are not replenished, decreases environment
21 contamination, and serves to save and recycle energy production processes. Wastes
22 should be considered as potentially valuable resources merely awaiting appropriate
23 treatment and application.6 Unscientific disposal of plastic wastes triggers envi-
24 ronmental degradation due to their long biodegradation period, therefore, logical
25 methods for reduction of their negative effects should be application of ISWM
26 concept for its effective management with optimum recourse recovery.
27 2. Global Scenario of Waste Plastics
28 2.1. Plastic Production, Consumption, and Waste

29 Generation: Global Scenario
30 Globally, each year nearly 140 MT of plastics is produced.7 A recent study in Western
31 Europe estimated the annual total consumption of plastics at 49 MT (in 2003) cor-
32 responding to 98 kg per capita.8 Decadal growth (1993–2003) of per capita annual
33 plastic consumption in Western Europe was 34 kg. The global plastics additives
34 market was about 9.9 MT in year 2000 with a value of US$19 billion. Nearly, 80%
35 of the global plastics additives were being consumed by the USA, China, India, and
36 Eastern Europe outside of the European Union. However, South East Asia, especially
37 India and China, has emerged as the global leader in plastics consumption, with
Figure 1. Comparative Study of Global Plastic Production (MT) with Consumption (KT) in India
and UK.
1 over 52 MT consumption of plastics in 2004. Plastic additive markets are growing

2 at about 3% annual rate in Europe and Asia, whereas China is predicted to grow
3 at 8–10% (www.plastemart.com).9 The annual consumption of plastics in the USA
4 is estimated as 38.9 MT, closely followed by China 38.8 MT per annum. India is
5 also projected to be the third largest consumer market for plastics in 2009 with a
6 total annual consumption of 12.5 MT. In the 1990s, plastic consumptions in India
7 grew exponentially with an average growth rate of 12%.10 Current growth rate in
8 India’s plastic consumption is also predicted higher than that of China and any other
9 developing countries and well comparable to that of UK (Fig. 1).
10 2.2. Plastic Production, Consumption, and Waste

11 Generation: Indian Scenario
12 In 1990–1991, India produced 0.363 MT of plastics polymer, but within a decade, an
13 incredible 890% increase leads to total plastics production to 3.2 MT (2000–2001).
14 Plastics production in India further rises to 4.77 MT in 2005–2006, maximum of
15 which are polypropylene (PP) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE). Among dif-
16 ferent types of plastic polymer, low-density polyethylene (LDPE) demonstrates
17 maximum growth in consumption in India closely followed by HDPE and PP (Fig. 2).
18 Polyethylene (PE), PP, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) also contribute a large share
19 in India’s polymer market mainly due their low cost and durability. On an average,
20 the commodity plastics viz. PE, PP, PVC, and polystyrene (PS) accounts 80% of the
21 total plastic consumption in India (Fig. 3). In 1990–1991, per capita consumption of
22 plastics in India was 0.8 kg but within a decade, per capita consumption significantly
Figure 2. Average Growth Rate of Virgin Plastics Consumption in India.3,10,12,40
Figure 3. Consumption of Different Virgin Plastic Resins in India.40
1 increases to 3.5 kg (2000).3 However, it is still far below than the global average
2 (18 kg).10 However, the projected estimates of per capita plastics consumption in
3 2021 may reach to a substantial figure of 10.9 kg,11 which seems a realistic consid-
4 ering the rapidity with which plastics are replacing its competitive materials.
Figure 4. Percentage of Plastic Consumption in India by Different Market Sector.12
1 Packaging represents the largest single sector of plastics use in the India. The
2 sector accounts for 42% of plastics consumption and plastic is the material of choice
3 in nearly half of all packaged goods.12 Apart from use in packaging, plastics are also
4 extensively used in the consumer products such as furniture and housewares, building
5 and construction, and in industrial sectors (Fig. 4). However, according to research
6 findings of National Plastic Waste Management Task Force,13 packaging constitutes
7 52% of the total India’s plastic consumption. This is line with consumption pattern of
8 other countries such as the USA and UK, where packaging exhibit maximum share
9 in total plastic consumption. After primary use of this portion of plastics, annually
10 0.93 MT of waste plastics are discarded along with the household waste.11 Although,
11 rag pickers recover a considerable portion of this waste, but considerable amount
12 of it either being soiled with the organic matter or not found appropriate for further
13 processing. In India, PE, PP, and PVC dominate the market mainly because of its
14 low cost, chemical structure, physical advantages, and high durability. Polyolefins
15 account for 60% of the total plastic consumption in India.10
16 Annually 1.3 MT of plastic waste is generated in India, which is 36% of total
17 India’s plastics consumption. Nearly, 42% of total generated plastic waste is recycled
18 in India by 20,000 recycling industries with total potential of 0.37 MT/annum.
19 According to NPWMTF (1997), in 2000–2001, more than 5,400 tonnes of plastics
1 waste being generated in India per day. Percentage of plastics in MSW has also
2 increased significantly from 0.7% in 1971 to 4% in 1995.14
3 Lack of biodegradability of commercial polymers, particularly used in packaging,
4 industry, and agriculture, focused public attention on a potentially huge environ-
5 mental accumulation and pollution problem that could persist for centuries. Disposal
6 of plastic wastes has potential harmful effects on the environment and, therefore, the
7 logical methods should be to recover maximum energy to maintain environmental
8 sustainability. ISWM is the concept to formulate decisions about the generation of
9 wastes, recycling of materials, and ultimate disposal of waste residues.
10 3. Integrated Solid Waste Management
11 Solid waste treatment and disposal methods are burdened with problems. The col-
12 lection of solid waste and their transport to treatment facilities or to landfills accounts
13 for roughly three-fourth of the total cost of waste management. Health and hygienic
14 issues are also associated with transportation and, therefore, require special attention.
15 Landfill sites are mostly prone to soil and groundwater contamination, unless scien-
16 tifically managed. Recycling of waste materials also preferred in some aspects but
17 do possess technological constraints coupled with chances of future contaminations.
18 Incineration of waste materials has had problems with odor and air pollution and also
19 may not be found feasible due to intrinsic properties of the waste material. The pri-
20 ority of waste management policy is to reduce the quantity and toxicity of waste. The
21 concept of waste minimization has been also widely implemented in recent years.
22 The role of waste prevention can be suitably illustrated in Fig. 5. Together with waste
23 prevention, significant waste reduction can be achieved by inducing the concept of
24 changing product that should focus on pollution reduction and resource efficiency
25 and implementation of green design concept. Green design mainly concerns with the
26 reducing the environmental impacts associated with the collection and processing
27 of raw materials, manufacturing, product use, and disposal of the product (Fig. 6).
28 It is an important part of the waste and pollution prevention strategy. According
29 to the Office of Technology Assessment,15 major components of the green design
30 are waste prevention and better management of materials. Moreover, once a par-
31 ticular product reached to its end of life, the materials still possess some secondary
32 economic values and, therefore, additional savings can be made by reducing easy
33 disposal. Green design eases the process by which secondary raw material can be
34 retrieve from any product. Moreover, a critical stage in developing a product is the
35 selection of appropriate materials and, therefore, attempts should be made to select
36 such raw materials and technology that are economically feasible and also environ-
37 mentally sustainable. An important aspect of raw materials selection is the need to
Figure 5. Schematic Representation of Waste Minimization and Waste Prevention.
Figure 6. Schematic Representation of Green Design.15
1 reduce the toxicity of materials wherever possible. These toxic ingredients mostly
2 create enormous problems during the waste management stages when the product
3 loses its usability. Therefore, green design strategies help to reduce the amount of
4 toxicity associated with any compound without hampering its usefulness and quality.
1 3.1. Integrated Waste Management (IWM) and Resource

2 Recovery: Basic Concepts
3 Definition of waste has a significant effect on waste management. To define a material
4 as a “waste” has an impact on what measures can be taken, and also on what measures
5 are not permitted, as well as the administrative procedures applying to its transport,
6 export or processing, sale, and reuse.16 In general, waste is the material perceived
7 to have little or no value. However, waste can be properly defined as the material
8 that devoid of its primary economic value but possess secondary intrinsic value.
9 Waste minimization and its effective treatments is the most challenging field in
10 sustainable environment. Varieties of wastes are produced from different sectors and
11 due to continuous technological advancement in the processing sector, it is expected
12 that the characteristics of wastes are also changeable. It is mostly emphasized that
13 many of conventional waste problems can be solved by minimizing the quantities
14 of these materials and also through product substitution, waste recovery, recycling,
15 and waste minimization.3 The waste hierarchy as illustrated in Fig. 7 describes
16 some conventional approaches for the both minimization and management of waste.
17 In the hierarchy of the waste management, waste prevention is the most preferred
18 option. Waste prevention is also described as the combinations of source reduction
19 coupled with reuse of materials. It inherently minimizes the portion of a product to
20 be discarded after primary use and also motivate to reuse of a particular product in
21 different applications. Source reduction can be effectively implemented by designing
22 and manufacturing products and packaging with minimum volume and toxic content
23 so as to help ensure that the product has a longer useful life. Reuse follows source
24 reduction in waste management hierarchy. It is a waste reduction strategy where a
Figure 7. Hierarchy of Waste Management.

1 product is used for the same or new purpose without undergoing a physical change.
2 Reusing, when possible, is preferable to recycling because the item does not need
3 to be reprocessed before it can be used again.
4 After waste prevention, the recovery of materials for recycling and composting is
5 given the highest priority. Recycling is somewhat different from reuse or remanufac-
6 turing and it defines the use of collected waste materials to be used as a raw material
7 for a new compound. It provides the opportunity to reclaim valuable resources and to
8 minimize the amount of waste placed in landfills. Depending upon the characteristics
9 of the plastics, it may be recycled or not, but plastic recycling process do contain
10 some technological constraints due to probable contamination and, therefore, special
11 attention is required. The practice of the three R’s (reduction, reuse, and recycle) fits
12 very well within the sustainable development concept. Resource recovery, inciner-
13 ation, and landfilling are the less preferred options of waste management hierarchy,
14 as they contradict the waste prevention concepts. However, there are potentials to
15 recover huge amount energy and resources from the MSW if proper segregation and
16 technology are available. Despite of having some advantages, the hierarchy of waste
17 management has some limitations:
18 1. It is of little significance when combinations of waste management options are
19 used for waste treatment.
20 2. It also does not consider the economic aspects of the waste management options
21 and, therefore, it has some restricted applicability in different scenario.
22 3. Hierarchy does not address the specific local situations. As example, incineration
23 of MSW in India is not economically feasible, as MSW mostly comprises the
24 biodegradable compounds, which possess lower calorific value.
25 Therefore, rather than relying on a waste reduction hierarchy, IWM suggests the
26 optimization of the system and also consider that all options can have a simultaneous
27 role to play. The IWM uses a combination of techniques and approaches to handle
28 targeted portions of the waste stream. It is important to realize that the portions of
29 the hierarchy interact with each other and that change on one level will impact or
30 influence another level. Moreover, using a range of waste management options in an
31 integrated system gives the flexibility to choose the best possible waste management
32 option suitable in particular situations.
33 3.2. MSW and its Management

34 Waste is an inevitable product of the society. In general, solid wastes other than
35 hazardous and radioactive materials are considered as MSW, mostly comprises of
36 all solid and semisolid materials discarded by a community. Refuse is the fraction of
37 the MSW produced in a domestic household. The components of refuse are garbage
38 or food waste, rubbish, glasses, cans, and papers including trash. Although all the
98
100 Landfilled
89
Incineration
Other 78
80
68 66
62
Percentage
60
45
41
40
30
24 22
20 14 14 16
8 8 10
2 0 4
1
0
Australia Canada France Germany UK The USA India
countries
Figure 8. Comparison of MSW Disposal Processes in Different Countries.42
1 solid waste from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sources may
2 be considered as MSW; however, inherently, it does not include construction waste,
3 automobile bodies, municipal sludges, combustion ashes, and industrial process
4 waste even though waste might also be disposed to municipal landfills. MSW com-
5 promised a tiny fraction of all the generated waste, but requires most attention due
6 to its direct health impact. Historically, solid waste management was the most rudi-
7 mentary sort even in the most developed countries. Food wastes usually ended up
8 at a local dump, where open burning was the most common practices to sort out
9 the problems. For comparison, the percentages of waste generated that is landfilled,
10 incinerated, or treated by other means are illustrated in Fig. 8 for different coun-
11 tries. Countries with sparse population such as Australia and Canada tend to landfill
12 most of their generated MSW, whereas densely populated countries such as Japan
13 incinerate more. In present circumstances, scientific waste management in India
14 is a major problematic issue and about 90% of waste is currently disposed of by
15 open dumping or landfilling. However, landfills have also been widely unsuccessful
16 in India because of limited site availabilities. The population of the developing
17 countries is another factor that detrimentally impacts the function of landfill sites.
18 As the population keeps increasing, the garbage quantity also increases, which, in
19 turn, exhausts the landfill sites. Most recently, due to enhancement in consensus
20 of environmental conservation in general people, the technologies to manage the
21 waste have become more sophisticated. Gradual changes in the nature of wastes
22 trigger the concern for environmental conservation and also stimulate the necessity
23 for resource recovery. Recently, scientific landfills have replaced the open dumps,
24 incineration technologies have also been markedly improved with enhanced energy
25 efficiency and pollution control devices, and recycling of waste also become more
1 economical. In order to determine the quantities of MSW generated in a community,

2 there are few different processes, viz. input analysis, secondary data analysis, and
3 output analysis. Among these, the output analysis, which is the direct measure of
4 the quantity of the amount of MSW by weighting the refuse dumped at a disposal
5 site, is mostly preferable due to its direct quantification.
6 Solid waste generation in Indian cities has increased from 6 MT in 1947 to 48 MT
7 in 1997 and is expected to reach 300 MT per annum by 2050. According to National
8 Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI, Nagpur, India) and Central
9 Pollution Control Board (CPCB, India), the per capita waste generation in India
10 varied from 0.17 to 0.76 kg/day. However, absence of formalized collection and
11 waste segregation practices in most of municipalities, coupled with outdated tech-
12 nologies for waste management causes serious health repercussions. According to
13 the National Institute of Urban Affairs,17 the average waste collection efficiency in
14 159 cities in India varied from 66% to 77%. The national average of waste collection
15 is mere 72.5%, far below than that of developed countries. Table 1 reveals that per
16 capita generation of MSW has increased to almost 1.5 times, from 375 to 490 gm/day
17 during last 26 years (1971–1997)18 and plastics accounts nearly 0.5–5% of it. Waste
18 plastics account 0.7% in households across Indian society in 1971 (TERI, 1998),18
19 which further increased to a range of 4–9% in 199619 (Table 2).
Table 1. Decadal Growth of Per Capita and Total Urban MSW Generation in India.3,18
Per Capita Waste Total Urban Municipal

Year Generation (gm/day) Waste Generated (MT/yr)
1971 375 14.9

1981 430 25.1
1991 460 43.5
1997 490 48.1
2007 500 55.2
Table 2. Decadal Variation of Average Compositions of MSW in India.3,41
Components 1970 1995 2005
Paper 3.17 4.64 6.07

Plastics 0.64 3.22 4.88
Metals 0.66 0.43 0.19
Glass 0.38 1.72 0.34
Biodegradable 45.31 52.80 55.06
Ash and fine earth 40.76 26.82 29.6
Other unsorted 9.08 10.37 3.86
Note: All values are in percent dry weight.

1 3.3. Application of IWM for MSW Management

2 The IWM concept inherently integrates practical waste management system with
3 combination of waste stream, collection, treatment, and disposal methods. The
4 primary objective is to achieve environmental benefits, economic optimization, and
5 societal acceptability. The IWM effectively reduce the quantity of solid waste either
6 by recycling, incinerating, composting, or ultimate disposal of waste residue in sci-
7 entific manner. No one individual method of waste management can deal with all
8 the materials in a waste stream in an environmental sustainable way and also with
9 economic proficiency. Inherently, waste management is the amalgamation of many
10 closely related processes that are integrated itself. It is always seemed unrealistic to
11 have a major focus on a specific material only because of their ready recyclability (as
12 aluminum) or due to public interferences (as plastics). Therefore, the IWM (Fig. 9)
13 should be sustainable, market oriented, and multi-material approach. The integrated
14 approach of waste management was first proposed by W.R. Lynn, way back in
15 1962. It was initially discussed as “viewing the problem as interconnected system of
16 component operations and functions.” It was well understood that system analyses
17 coupled with mathematical modeling were necessary to optimize waste management
18 operations. Further, in 1975, Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach Colony, Florida
19 first develop and implement integrated programs of waste management incorpo-
20 rating waste transportation, processing, recycling, resource recovery, and disposal
Figure 9. Application of IWM for Waste Management and Maximum Resource Recovery.
1 technologies. Finally, in 1991, a task force from Economic Commission for Europe
2 defined IWM as a “process of change in which the concept of waste management
3 is gradually broadened to eventually include the necessary control of gaseous,
4 liquid and solid material flow in the human environment.” In 1996, United Nations
5 Environment Programme (UNEP) defined IWM as a framework of reference for
6 designing and implementing new waste management and for analyzing and opti-
7 mizing existing system.
8 In this resource-depleted world, managing the waste and to fetch maximum
9 resource with minimum economic expenses is now the need that society has to
10 address. Solid waste management practices were initially developed to avoid the
11 adverse health impacts that were being caused by the increasing amounts of waste
12 being generated in the society. In past, solid waste management primarily includes
13 collection, land disposal, and incineration of household waste. Industrial waste dis-
14 posal did not receive much attention. Even though MSW is dwarfed in size and also
15 in environmental impacts than that of industrial wastes, but generation of industrial
16 waste is only due to virtue of the process of providing society with the materials that
17 ultimately end up in our trash.5 Therefore, consumption of less, not only saves the
18 wastes that would have ended up in the municipal waste stream, but also reduces
19 the energy, materials, and waste associated with providing those items. Therefore,
20 attention need to be directed not just at the management of consumers waste, but
21 at the complete set of the processes that results in the products our society seems
22 to demand.5 The Brundtland report clearly established that sustainable development
23 can only be achieved if society in general, and industry in particular, learned to
24 produce “more from less”; more goods and services from less of the world’s resources
25 (including energy), while generating less pollution and waste. Therefore, the goal
26 of sustainable solid waste management should be the recovery of more valuable
27 products from the waste with the use of less energy and simultaneously managing
28 more positive environmental impact in terms of human health and safety. In addition
29 to these, a sustainable solid waste management must inherently be more economi-
30 cally affordable and socially acceptable.
31 The decision regarding waste management should be flexible in terms of its
32 selection from different elements of waste management options, which will result in
33 minimum energy use, environmental impact, and landfill space at a cost affordable
34 to the community. This goal can be achieved by various means such as segregating
35 waste type, recycling of certain types of waste, and beneficial reuse of industrial
36 by-products. The inherent concepts of IWM can also be applied in a community
37 levels essentially consists of the following five steps:
38 1. Characterization of waste and source identification.

39 2. Efficient and scientific waste collection.
1 3. Reduction of volume and toxicity of the waste with adequate treatments.

2 4. Selection of appropriate technologies in regard to different characteristics of the
3 waste.
4 5. Optimization of the first four steps to reduce cost and environmental impact and
5 enhance social acceptability.
6 Solid waste management all too often focuses almost entirely on what to do with a
7 given waste stream, with the key decision being whether to incinerate the waste or
8 bury it. The main goal is to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste being disposed.
9 According some beliefs, recycling is an additional financial burden on a community,
10 whereas land disposal based solely on the current tipping fee, which in most cases
11 is lower than recycling cost. However, landfills do possess limited space and often it
12 closed as unable to meet the new environmental regulations and also the total cost of
13 sitting future landfills is sometimes overlooked.Again in some instances, incinerators
14 were shut down due to its poor performances and as communities became more
15 agitated by the possible environmental effects of incineration. Recycling also possess
16 some constraints as entire municipal waste stream cannot be reduced to zero through
17 a waste recycling program. Therefore, using energy and material balance approach
18 at every stage in life cycle of a product can provide new insights into not only the
19 solid waste problem, but also the problems of air and water pollution.5
20 4. Management of Waste Plastics: Application

21 of IWM Concepts
22 4.1. Source Reduction

23 Waste minimization, waste reduction, or source reduction is often placed at the top
24 of hierarchy of conventional waste treatment process. Source reduction can be a
25 frontend waste management approach by designing and manufacturing products
26 and packaging with minimum volume and toxic content so as to help ensure that the
27 product has a longer useful life. For the individual consumer or household, source
28 reduction means consuming and throwing away less. Source reduction signifies to
29 any changes in the technology, raw material, designing process, packaging, and the
30 use of materials or products in certain ways to reduce their amount or toxicity before
31 ultimate disposal. Its often act as a precursor to effective waste management, rather
32 than a part of it. Source reduction includes the reuse of material, which is always a
33 better managemental process, because it avoids the costs of waste management. It
34 can be as simple as declining an unnecessary bag for a small purchase or as elaborate
35 as establishing a backyard composting program or choosing cleaning products that
36 do not contain hazardous chemicals.
1 4.2. Less Packaging

2 Plastics used in packaging represent the largest single sector to contribute in the
3 MSW, like in Germany, it constitutes a 30% share of MSW by weight and 50% by
4 volume.20 Packaging accounts for 35% in UK, 11% in Germany, and 28% in the
5 USA’s total plastics consumption. It is also most important application for plastics in
6 India representing 42% of total plastics consumption.12 Plastics used in packaging
7 sector are more prone to be dispose off and, therefore, produce environmental degra-
8 dation. Encouraging society to use less plastics bags and promoting manufacturers
9 to use less plastic in packaging sector and by enhancing its potentiality to be reused,
10 can reduce plastics solid waste up to a large extent.
11 4.3. Product Reuse

12 The reuse of materials involves either the voluntary continued use of a product for
13 a purpose for which it may not have been originally intended, such as the reuse of a
14 cardboard for a different purpose or the extended use of a product. Reuse is a waste
15 reduction strategy where a product is used for the same or new purpose without
16 undergoing a physical change. Reusing, when possible, is preferable because the
17 item does not need to be reprocessed before it can be used again. Reusable plastics
18 are used more than once and it competes with disposable or single-use products.
19 Reusing plastics is preferable to recycling, as it uses no energy. More durable and
20 multi-trip plastic packaging has become more widespread fashion in India in recent
21 years, replacing less durable and single-trip alternatives.3
22 4.4. More Durable Product

23 Within the principles of waste prevention, the extension of product life cycle is
24 very important aspect. The product that has the more durability certainly reduces
25 the possibility to throw away quickly and, therefore, reduces the quantity of waste
26 generation. Extending the product durability not only reduce waste generation, but
27 also consume less resources for manufacturing the product and, therefore, such kind
28 of practices should be developed in order to enhance product sustainability. Plastic
29 products are much more prone to easy disposal due their low cost, easy availability,
30 and product type. The service life of plastics ranges from 1 to 30 years. However,
31 mostly, the house-hold plastics have the service life much lesser than it should be.
32 Although the plastic compound possess the required durability, still it is our habit
33 that we used to through it away. However, change in public conceptions and practices
34 may reduce the problem. Moreover, through these means, the total service period
35 of plastic compounds is increased and the weighted average service life of plastic
36 compounds helps it to be consumer’s first choice.
1 5. Plastics: IWM & Resource Recovery
2 5.1. Recycling of Waste Plastics

3 Recycling is the combination of several technologies that are carried out on waste
4 plastics to produce secondary raw materials. Although recycling has a long-lasting
5 history, it has only recently that environmental concerns and waste management
6 issues are considered due to gradual increase in public awareness. Nearly, all the
7 waste materials found in a common MSW are well capable to undergo recycling
8 process with a variable extent of efficiencies. However, the process should be envi-
9 ronmentally sound, technically feasible, and economically profitable. Recovery of
10 secondary raw materials through recycling and composting is given the highest pri-
11 ority in the solid management hierarchy after source reduction and reuse. Recycling
12 is somewhat different from reuse, where the materials do not return for remanu-
13 facturing. The recycling process indeed requires the participation of public and,
14 therefore, the public must perform the separation of the waste material at initial
15 stage. Due to plastics chemical properties, the recycling of waste plastics possess
16 some technical complications but efficient collection and separation of waste plastics
17 leads enhanced recycling efficiencies.
18 5.1.1. Recycling: Comparison of Technologies

19 Plastics encompass a wide variety of resins or polymers with different chemical char-
20 acteristics. In general, plastics fall into one of the two main groups: thermoplastics
21 and thermoset plastics. Roughly, 80% of used plastics are thermoplastics that can
22 be repeatedly formed to a new product by the application of heat. The majorities of
23 house hold plastics comprise polyolefins (polyethylene terepthalate (PET), LDPE,
24 HDPE, or PP), which are thermoplastics and, therefore, are easily recyclable. Poly-
25 olefins are a major type of plastic used throughout the world in applications such
26 as soft-drink bottles, clear film for packaging (PET), packaging, bags, containers,
27 pipes (LDPE), milk and water bottles, housewares, industrial wrappings and film
28 (HDPE), automotive parts, film, battery cases, drinking straws, and electrical com-
29 ponents (PP) (Table 3). In India, polyolefins share the highest percentage of total
30 plastic consumption followed by PVC and PS, in contrast to 60% of the total ther-
31 moplastics in Western Europe. Therefore, the possibility of waste plastic recycling
32 can be more adequate, as it is anticipated that most of the waste plastics will be
33 thermoplasts and hence recyclable. In contrast, the thermoset plastics lose its ability
34 to be reformed or remolded when subjected to heat or pressure and converted to a
35 hard and rigid compound. Addition polymers such as PE cannot be easily recycled
36 by simple chemical methods as in case of condensation polymers. Therefore, ther-
37 mochemical recycling techniques such as pyrolysis are employed in order to produce
Table 3. Type of Plastic Resins, Recycling Potentials, and Use of Recycled Plastics.
Primary Recovery Recycling Use of Recycled

Polymer Application (%) Status Plastics
Polyethylene Soft drink and mineral 26 Frequently Multi-layer

terepthalate water bottles, textile recycled detergent bottles,
(PET) fibers, processed meat soft drink bottles,
packages, peanut butter and packaging
jars, pillow, and
sleeping bag filling
High-density Milk, water, juice, cream 6 Often recycled Crates, detergent
polyethylene bottles, and shopping bottles, irrigation
(HDPE) bottles pipes, and
buckets
Low-density Shopping and garbage 0.1 Rarely recycled Packaging, sheets
polyethylene bags, cups, and black for nursery, and
(LDPE) plastic sheets film for industry
Polyvinyl Automobile seat covers, Rarely recycled Floor materials and
chloride bottles, shoe soles, covering
(PVC) electricity pipes, materials
cooking oil bottles, food
wrap materials, and
building materials
Polypropylene Snack food wrap, straws, 6 Occasionally Buckets and worm
(PP) car batteries, drinking recycled factories
straws, disposable
syringes, medicine
bottles, and car seats,
batteries, and bumpers
Polystyrene Pharmaceutical bottles, 0.1 Rarely recycled Office accessories,
(PS) disposable cups, spools, and CD
packaging materials, boxes
laboratory ware, and
certain electronic uses
1 a series of refined petrochemical products similar with that of commercial gasoline.

2 The concept of recycling may broadly defined as the recovery of material from waste
3 for a purpose that would otherwise require the consumption of virgin resources.21
4 Under this concept, plastic recycling process does include both pyrolysis as chemical
5 recycling and incineration for waste to energy recovery. However, here, the incin-
6 eration of waste plastics is discussed separately from that of recycling in order to
7 have a comparison between two strategies. Although, the concepts of ISWM sug-
8 gests the judicious application of both technologies in order to achieve the highest
9 material and energy recovery, but here discussion were made separately. However,
10 it is now well established that in order to recover the optimum resources and energy
1 from waste plastics, the recycling process including both chemical recycling and
2 incineration exhibit the highest efficiency and low-environmental repercussions. The
3 various approaches that have been proposed for recycling of waste plastics mainly
4 include:
5 • Primary recycling,
6 • Mechanical recycling, and
7 • Plastic recycling.
8 Primary recycling is the in-plant process of recycling of waste scraps materials.
9 Mechanical recycling involves the separation of plastic polymer from its asso-
10 ciated contaminants and further reprocessed through melting, shredding, and other
11 related processes. During mechanical recycling of plastic compounds the most
12 important aspect is the separation of different types of plastic resins according to
13 their chemical characteristics. Due to variation in melting points, at a definite tem-
14 perature, a batch of plastic resins may fully transformed and a different batch may
15 exhibit partial transformations. Therefore, the mechanical recycling of waste plastics
16 are mostly carried out with a single-polymer waste stream and in order to achieve
17 maximum efficiency and homogenous mechanical property of produced goods.
18 Moreover, mechanical recycling mostly operated at a temperature of 200–300◦ C,
19 which also results in the generation of various toxic gases.
20 The third type of plastic recycling process is chemical recycling or feedstock
21 recycling, which ultimately leads to complete or partial depolymerization of plastics.
22 Chemical or feedstock recycling also includes pyrolysis, hydrogenation, and gasi-
23 fication. Depending upon the need of secondary materials and the availability of
24 technology coupled with economic feasibility, any one method can be adopted
25 for recycling of waste plastic streams. Chemical recycling is mostly the complete
26 depolymerization of the associated monomers or can be partial degradation of in
27 order to produce secondary commercial products. Of the many alternative chemical
28 recycling processes, pyrolysis has received the most attention. Due to thermal insta-
29 bility of organic compounds, pyrolysis in an oxygen devoid condition results in the
30 combination of thermal cracking and condenzation reactions that ultimately generate
31 various gaseous, liquids, and solids fractions. Pyrolysis is often called as destructive
32 distillation, as it is an endothermic process in contrast to most combustion processes
33 that are exothermic. The major compounds that are generated through pyrolysis
34 depends on the organic characteristics of the compounds but mostly comprises of a
35 gas stream primarily with hydrogen, methane, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide,
36 a liquid fraction that consists of a tar oil stream containing mostly acetic acid,
37 acetone, and methanol and a char consisting almost pure carbon with some inert
38 materials. The effective temperature of pyrolysis for waste plastic streams varied
from 400–650◦ C or higher. However, the processes are basically divided into three
1 classes as low, medium, and high temperature based on the required temperature
2 for complete or partial degradation of plastics. Products generated through chemical
3 recycling of plastics mostly depends on feed plastics, feeding rate, effective temper-
4 ature, residence time, and ultimately on efficiency of the reactor itself. However, the
5 generation of liquid compound enhanced at low temperature in contrast to gaseous
6 compounds at elevated temperature. According to the Achilias et al.,8 with defined
7 catalysts, oil and gaseous fractions were mostly recovered after chemical recycling
8 of HDPE, LDPE, and PP. Generated gaseous and oil fractions have the potential to
9 be reused as a feedstock in the petrochemical industries. Chemical recycling have
10 also been proved as an effective technology to produce fuel as effective as com-
11 mercial gasoline.22 Low temperature (400–500◦ C) chemical recycling of PE and
12 PP mostly results in the generation of high-calorific value gases and waxes coupled
13 with hydrocarbon mixture.8,22 The produced gaseous fractions possess high calorific
14 value and therefore, can be reused as feedstock and liquid fractions mainly consist
15 of linear olefin and paraffin mixture. The PP and PE at higher temperature (>700◦ C)
16 produce olefin mixture that has the potential to be reused for the production of
17 corresponding polyolefins.22,23 However, thermal cracking of HDPE and LDPE are
18 somewhat difficult due their low-thermal conductivity.24 Therefore, for these kinds
19 of plastic resins, chemical recycling at low temperature with effective catalysts are
20 found more appropriate due to reduced energy consumptions coupled with possible
21 formation of specific hydrocarbon compounds.8,25
22 In India, an approximately 4–5% of MSW are post-consumer plastics in com-
23 parison to 6–10% in the USA, Europe and other developed countries. Daily gen-
24 eration of post-consumer plastics varied from 4 to 5 thousand tons in India. The
25 percentage of plastic recycling in India is much higher than many of the developed
26 countries in the world. India recycled 47% of total plastic waste in contrast to China
27 (11%), the USA (3.5%), South Africa (15%), and UK (7%). India’s average waste
28 plastic recycling rate is also much higher than global average of 20%. There are
29 nearly 20 thousand industries in India in plastics recycling process with total daily
30 capacity of 1 KT. Although plastic recycling in India is mostly mechanized, but
31 generally operates at a low level of organization. There were over 2000 recycling
32 units in India along with 2,500 pelletizers. Easy availability of low-cost manpower
33 and exclusive market for the lower-quality products have helped in flourishing those
34 recycle industries in India.
35 5.1.2. Recycling: Technical Complications

36 Recycling of waste plastics cannot by itself solve the environmental concerns mainly
37 because of its continuous rise in proportion in MSW and also due to technical com-
38 plications arises during separation or processing of different types of plastic resins.
1 The incompatibility between different types of plastic polymers during the recycling
2 is the major issue to be addressed. As example, the presence of a single PVC bottle
3 in a batch of PET type of plastic resins may spoil the whole batch and also have
4 potential to damage the equipment. Different melting point of various plastic com-
5 ponents can induce degradation and may develop poor mechanical characteristics.
6 Moreover, the toxic emissions may have significant impact on health and quality of
7 life. Economic consideration of recycling waste plastics should also be addressed in
8 Indian scenario. In order to compute economic efficiencies of recycling process, we
9 should count the costs of collection, material processing, market value of recycled
10 products, and reduced cost saved due to avoidance of landfill. Although in India,
11 recycled plastics have the good market value but public awareness is minimum on
12 health hazard associated with recycling process. Moreover, recycling is not always
13 the best waste management option, due to plastic’s inherent properties. During recy-
14 cling, plastic can only be reprocessed into inferior types of plastics and, therefore,
15 it limits the times it undergoes recycling. Plastics cannot be recycled forever and
16 that is why after being recycled for three to four times, they become unfit for further
17 reprocessing. Plastics recycling process is further complicated by the potential for
18 contamination by products that they once contained.5
19 However, considering the limited available resources of the world, waste pre-
20 vention and resource recovery should be the fundamental principle to sustainable
21 development. The cost incurred at recycling may be effectively reduced if costs of
22 waste collection and segregation are performed scientifically. In addition, on this part
23 of waste management, public participation can increase the efficiency of the whole
24 system to a great extent. Without the active participation of citizen, a recovery and
25 waste prevention-centric approach cannot be functional in order to effective waste
26 management. In India, fundamental problems for effective waste management are
27 the waste collection, separation, and transportation to the treatment facilities. Poor
28 performances in this aspect lead to fallout of the whole waste management system.
29 The lacks of involvement of public with unawareness of possible health impacts
30 make huge repercussions on the entire waste management system.
31 5.2. Plastic Waste to Energy: Incineration

32 The most effective way to reduce the volume of solid waste is to burn it in a properly
33 designed and operating condition, the process called as incineration. In an ideal incin-
34 eration process, the hydrocarbon compounds of the combustible residue combine
35 chemically with the molecular oxygen to generates carbon dioxide and water, and as a
36 residue generates oxides of metals and minerals. The basic advantages of municipal
37 incinerator are that they require less land and also be effectively used for energy
38 generation. Apart from these, the incineration of waste materials has a number of
1 favorable attributes, including volume reduction, immediate disposal without waiting

2 for slow biodegradation process, less land requirement, destruction of hazardous
3 materials, and value addition to waste product by energy recovery or by generating
4 electricity.5
5 5.2.1. MSW Incineration: Comparison of Technologies

6 There are several technologies available for incineration of MSW, leading to dif-
7 ferent strategies based on the conversion plant itself and on the possible inclusion of
8 waste pretreatment units. Incineration for energy recovery is typically done by two
9 processes. The collected MSW may directly used to mass-burn incinerator or it may
10 be preprocessed to produce a more homogenous product called as refuse-derived
11 fuel (RDF). The RDF mostly comprises of combustible portion of MSW and gen-
12 erally produced through shredding and sorting a relatively uniform segment of MSW.
13 From the energy recovery perspective, MSW incineration through RDF gasification
14 demonstrates maximum efficiency, but it has some negative environmental reper-
15 cussions. In order to achieve environmental sustainability, a dedicated incinerator
16 with air pollution control devices provides the optimum results. However, in terms
17 of economic profitability, gasification allows the highest revenues from the sale of
18 energy.26 Selection of an appropriate technology for an MSW incineration system
19 depends critically upon the size of facility under consideration. Several researchers
20 have compared different waste to energy strategies of waste management options.
21 According to Klein,27 gasification reveals the best electrical conversion efficiency
22 but also posses higher operating costs. Murphy and McKeogh28 concluded that gasi-
23 fication is more suitable than traditional combustion process. Gasification produces
24 a greater quantity of electricity and results lower specific total costs coupled with
25 lower emissions of CO2 . Baggio et al.29 compared traditional combustion techniques
26 in a dedicated grate combustor with the thermo-select gasification process and the
27 high-temperature pyrolysis process associated with a plasma system. Gasification
28 and pyrolysis technologies generate lesser amount of gas to be treated than tradi-
29 tional combustion. Again, emission factors for most of the gases from traditional
30 combustion are higher than those from gasification, except oxides of nitrogen and
31 mercury. However, if comparisons are made between advanced thermal conver-
32 sions, such as pyrolysis and gasification, and mass burn combustion technologies
33 then advanced thermal conversion technologies have negligible variations in costs,
34 lower environmental emissions, and higher energy recovery efficiency.30
35 5.2.2. Incineration: Technical Complications

36 However, waste-to-energy faces societal resistance because of community fears that
37 its emission may cause adverse health impacts. Moreover, the incinerator plant is
1 relatively expensive in capital cost as well as operating cost.Again MSW in particular

2 locality may not suit for incineration if it does contain a majority of biodegradable
3 compounds. For instance, MSW high in plastics are very suitable for incineration but
4 unsuitable for biological degradation. In India, incineration is not a common waste
5 management practice, as the garbage is low in calorific value and waste volumes
6 are generally low for a central facility. The MSW composition is largely organic
7 with high moisture content, making it further unsuitable for incineration. The MSW
8 generated in Indian cities mostly comprises of 50% of moisture and nearly 25% of
9 inorganic content, which results a low energy value of 3,000–4,500 kJ/kg. Due to
10 similar reason, an incinerator once installed in Timarpur, Delhi had to shut down in
11 the 1980s. Moreover, the technology for incineration is not available domestically
12 and the import options are highly capital intensive. The performances of various
13 incinerators installed in various cities in India also demonstrate poor performances.
14 The possibility of production of RDF has also been not useful due to nonavailability
15 of a local market. In summary, developing countries such as India do not find this
16 method to be very favorable, especially considering the waste content and the high
17 costs of setting up and running the plants.
18 Incineration of MSW also leads to generation of toxic emissions that contain
19 heavy metals, dioxins, and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Metals viz.
20 zinc, cadmium, arsenic, lead, and mercury are the parts of waste stream and,
21 therefore, when incinerated, they become part of generated gases and also persist
22 with soot particles and generated ash. The removal of these metals are simplified
23 when they condensed and absorbed to fly ash particles in contrast to its removal
24 during combustion stage. Ashes produced through mass burn incinerator are also a
25 potential threat of contamination. Roughly 90% of the produced ash in an MSW
26 incinerator is bottom ash that is potentially less toxic than that of fly ash. Mostly,
27 the fly ash is considered as hazardous and, therefore, requires special attention for
28 further treatment. Apart from ash, dioxins, and furans may also produced through
29 MSW incinerators that can be carried long distances from their emission sources,
30 persist for decades in the environment without breaking down into less harmful com-
31 pounds, and accumulate in soil, water, and food sources. Further, landfills are still
32 required for the disposal of the ash, which adds to the operational cost of an incin-
33 erator. A proper incinerator location enhances acceptance, results in economic waste
34 collections, facilities efficiencies, and promotes economic feasibility. The factors that
35 should be considered for site selection of MSW incinerators are:
36 1. Constant availability of MSW and its characteristic compositions.

37 2. Isolation with respect to residential area.
38 3. Direction and persistence of wind and atmospheric stability.
Table 4. Basic Comparison of Heating Values of Different Components of MSW.
Heating values
Materials LHV (MJ/kg) DHV (MJ/kg) HHV (MJ/kg)
Paper 15.7 17.4 18.5

Plastics 32.8 33.1 36.5
PE 43.2 43.2 43.7
PS 37.4 37.4 37.5
PU 26.7 26.7 27.8
PVC 23.0 23.1 23.4
Textiles 18.5 17.3 22.5
Food wastes 5.2 11.7 15.2
Glass 0.2 0.2 0.1
Note: HHV: higher heat value or gross heat value, LHV: lower heat value, and
DHV: dry heat value.
1 4. Proper handling of residue and its effective disposal site.

2 5. Availability of power, skilled people, hygienic and safe transportation, and water.
3 The energy content of MSW depends on its composition as well as its moisture
4 content. Plastics have high calorific value (36,500 kJ/kg) (Table 4) and it is very much
5 comparable with the coal (28,500 kJ/kg) and fossil fuel (42,500 kJ/kg). However, in
6 polymers where the carbon-hydrogen content is diluted with the presence of other
7 elements such as chlorine, nitrogen, or oxygen, the calorific value gets lower. If waste
8 plastics are separated and processed for energy recovery with efficient emission
9 control then it can be better option to manage waste plastics. On an average, the
10 production of plastic uses 5% of the world’s oil as feedstock compared to 85% used
11 for heating and transport. Most of this is recoverable via energy recovery in the form
12 of heat, which can then be converted to electricity.
13 5.2.3. Fate of Plastics in Incineration

14 To determine the anticipated pollutants from incineration of MSW, the composition
15 of it should be established. Apart from generating air pollutants, other major consid-
16 eration is the charge that plastics provide to the active gases during the incineration,
17 which ultimately causes corrosion of the equipment. PVC is the major type of plastics
18 that responsible for the generation of hydrogen chloride (HCl). The burning of PVC
19 in incineration temperature above 300◦ C results in the generation of HCl, water
20 vapor, and carbon dioxide. The residues of incineration are mostly basic in nature and,
21 therefore, neutralize a portion of generated HCl. Additional application of lime to
22 refuse also contributes effectively for the reduction of corrosion due to HCl. Plastics
23 undergo different chemical transformation according to their chemical nature during
1 incineration; therefore, it is important to determine emission potential of it. In incin-

2 erator, the degradation of plastics takes place at 100–300◦ C. The incineration of
3 PVC at 170–300◦ C generates dioxin, poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), furan,
4 and HCl.21 The burning of PVC at 600◦ C yields a series of aliphatic and aromatic
5 hydrocarbons, among them benzene is the major organic degradation product.31
6 According to Baum & Parker,21 pollutants emission from the incineration of plastics
7 are much higher at lower temperature due to incomplete burning of plastics. Gen-
8 erally, mass-burn incinerator works at a temperature above 700◦ C and plastics goes
9 complete oxidation at a range of 700–900◦ C. The generation of dioxin and furans
10 can be reduced to nondeductible levels at temperature over 900◦ C with residence
11 times over 1–2 s.5 However, if during incineration dioxin-furan precursors have not
12 been completely destroyed, then as the exiting gases cool, it can react in the presence
13 of fly ash to form new dioxin and furans.
14 5.2.4. Comparison between Recycling and Incineration

15 Incinerator is a high-temperature heating system and a valuable means of waste dis-
16 posal. However, there can be significant impacts associated with the plastic incin-
17 eration process if adequate air pollution control devices are not installed. Again,
18 the process also may not be found feasible in a situation where mostly MSW com-
19 prises of biodegradable compounds. Recycling is the means of conserving energy
20 by replacing raw materials in manufacturing products, thereby reducing acquisition
21 of virgin materials from the natural environment. It may be now well demonstrated
22 that economically feasible technologies are available to mechanically sort out the
23 various components of the MSW and, therefore, to implement adequate technology
24 for each components. However, the objectives of the waste prevention or IWM
25 cannot only be achieved through incineration or recycling as both systems may be
26 most effectively only be used as complementary to each other. Some plastics are
27 recycled easily and, therefore, can be recycled to produce a new product. However,
28 recycling a plastic compound restricts its future use in certain sectors and at present
29 situation the market value of recycled components is not encouraging. Substances
30 such as pesticides and oils generally migrate slowly into the plastics and may remain
31 into it after melting or reforming process during recycling. Again recycling by itself
32 will not eliminate the solid waste problems. There are always considerable amount
33 of nonrecyclable plastics residue left for ultimate disposal and, therefore, in this
34 particular situation, incineration may be an encouraging practices. The primary
35 objectives of IWM were waste prevention and resource recovery from the waste
36 materials. Crude oil is mostly used for the manufacture of plastic additives and as
37 a nonrenewable source of energy, the future consumption of this limited resources
38 must be minimized. Recycling waste plastics conserves nonrenewable fuels almost
1 exclusively, but it depends on the chemical nature of plastics itself. Moreover, while
2 the environmental and resource value of the plastic recycling is well established, the
3 economic constrains under current scenario and regulatory conditions are uncertain.
4 Therefore, it will be inadequate to compare the effectiveness recycling and incin-
5 eration process for solid plastic waste management but simultaneous application
6 of both technologies depending on the characteristics of the plastic material and
7 economic efficiency for a particular situation should be more viable.
8 5.3. Landfilling of Waste Plastics

9 Landfilling is the means of disposing waste under the soil cover. Since plastics
10 are mostly act as inert materials, therefore, landfill methods are thought to be an
11 effective method for the disposal of waste plastics. Despite the continuous growth of
12 recycling, source reduction and energy recovery, some proportion of the waste will
13 always need to dispose. Further, the simplicity to practice landfilling makes it the
14 most common method for disposing of MSW. However, mostly plastics are resistant
15 against microbial attack and, therefore, remain persistent in environment that results
16 a significant source of environmental pollution, potentially harming life.
17 In landfill, the degradation of plastics is the process of physical or chemical
18 change in plastic polymer due to several environmental factors, viz. sunlight,
19 moisture, temperature, biological activity, etc. The biological degradation of plastic
20 polymers can be defined as the processes that induce changes in polymer prop-
21 erties due to effects of biologically induced chemical and physical reactions that
22 subsequently result the chemical transformations. The principle mechanism for
23 the biodegradation of high molecular weight plastic polymer is enzymatic oxi-
24 dation or hydrolysis that creates certain functional groups that gradually improves
25 its hydrophilicity. These functional groups make the plastic resins more prone
26 to gradual degradation to its monomer through the enzymatic actions of several
27 microbes. During degradation, the polymer is first converted to its monomers, which
28 further mineralized through the action of variety of microorganisms. Moreover,
29 due to depolymerization of long chain polymer, produced low molecular weight
30 makes it more accessible for further microbial assimilation.1 However, the extent
31 of biodegradation and the generation of final products depend on several envi-
32 ronmental factors. Under aerobic conditions, CO2 and H2 O are the final products
33 with microbial biomass. In contrast, under anoxic conditions like in landfills or
34 composting, primary products are the microbial biomass, CO2 , CH4 , and H2 O.32
35 However, complete biodegradation of plastic polymers can hardly be achieved as
36 the portion of polymer will generally incorporated into microbial biomass or any
37 other natural products. Degradation of PE in landfills has been reported by different
38 researchers through various mechanisms such as chemical degradation, thermal
1 degradation, photodegradation, and biodegradation. Mostly, PE is prone to pho-

2 todegradation and/or chemical degradation, which is mainly achieved through two
3 principle mechanisms: hydrobiodegradation and oxobiodegradation.33 However,
4 some researchers also reported that PE sheet incubated in moist soil for 12 years
5 shows no signs of deterioration34 and only partial degradation could be achieved after
6 32 years.35 Biodegradation of PS has not been extensively reported, but microbial
7 decomposition to its monomer has been described by Tsuchii et al.36 The PVC can be
8 subjected to thermal degradation and photodegradation but biodegradation of PVC
9 is only achieved partially by the application of white-rot fungi.37
10 However, traditional plastics are not biodegradable and, therefore, only disin-
11 tegrate into tiny particles that eventually liberate different compounds that have
12 potential to contaminate groundwater, if not properly managed. Moreover, burying
13 waste plastics in landfill is not a proper IWM approach, as it only reduces any
14 possibilities for recovery of any secondary raw materials or energy for further use.
15 Traditional plastics production requires large amounts of natural resources, primarily
16 nonrenewable fossil fuels, both as a raw material and to provide energy for the man-
17 ufacturing process. Roughly, 10% of the world’s annual petroleum production is
18 consumed in the production of plastic resins; 4% is used as a raw material and an
19 additional 6% is consumed in the form of fuel or energy during manufacture. Even-
20 tually, if the waste plastics are landfilled, then it reduces any possibilities to recover
21 the secondary raw materials from these waste products. Generation of waste not
22 only has significant environmental impacts, but it also places a great pressure on the
23 finite resources of the earth. Therefore, waste management decision must be tied
24 inextricably to conserve resources and its utilization. Moreover, burying the plastics
25 waste blocks the natural supply of air and water to the soil, thereby affecting plant
26 life, reducing the water-retaining capacity of the soil and affects the water table.
27 5.4. Plastic Waste Management: Recent Approaches

28 The productive use of waste material represents a means of alleviating some of the
29 problems of solid waste management. Since, the disposal of waste plastic in landfill
30 has several harmful effects on the environment; therefore, the logical methods for
31 reduction negative effects are the applications of these materials in other industries.
32 The application of waste plastics as a fuel in cement kilns has a potential to be an
33 effective measure of waste reduction. Moreover, due to extreme temperature inside
34 kilns, the possibility of generation of any toxic gases also reduces. Waste plastics are
35 most suited to be use as a fuel as it has a calorific value well comparable to that of
36 conventional fuel. However, chlorinated compound as PVC is especially considered
37 because produced HCL and chlorine gas can be readily neutralized. The efficient
38 use of waste plastics as a fuel has further environmental benefits, as no solid or ash
1 residues are produced and air emissions are not greater than fossil fuels. A cement
2 plant of annual 1 MT capacity have the potential to consume about 10–30 thousand
3 MT of plastics waste, which reveals the actual potential of this technology to be most
4 effective to sort out waste plastic disposal problems. In recent years, large fractions
5 of energy needed for the production of cement comes from the waste used as an
6 alternative fuels. Plastic wastes play a significant contribution to the replacement
7 of nonrenewable fossil fuels such as coal or petroleum. In several European coun-
8 tries, there is already growing competition between the cement industries and MSW
9 incinerators producing energy, both competing for the use of plastic waste as an
10 alternative fuels. However, the use of processed plastics as fuel for cement kilns is
11 often considered as in term of energy recovery.
12 The waste plastics have the potential to be reused as an alternative fuel in the
13 blast furnace and often considered as recycling of waste. For the smelting of iron ore
14 (FeO), traditionally, coal is used to fuel the furnace and to generate carbon monoxide
15 (CO) and heat. This reaction occurs when CO gas, released from the burning coal,
16 combines with the oxygen molecule from iron oxide to produce iron and carbon
17 dioxide (CO2 ). Recently, waste plastics have replaced substantial portion of coke
18 or pulverized coal for producing pig iron from iron ore. Waste plastics burnt in the
19 absence of sufficient oxygen similar to that of coal and produces CO that further
20 used as a reducing agent to convert iron ore to pig iron (Fe). Moreover, extreme tem-
21 perature (over 1,500◦ C) inside the blast furnace reduces the ash generation and any
22 possibilities of dioxin and HCl gas formation. However, eventually if any minute
23 amounts of dioxin or HCl do produce at blast furnace may readily neutralize by
24 limestone. However, it is essential to identify the optimal ratio of plastic to coal as
25 when plastic is added, hydrogen molecules from the plastic combine with oxygen
26 to produce water vapor (H2 O), iron and reduced amounts of CO2 . Water reacts
27 more aggressively than CO2 under high temperatures and causes other fuels in the
28 furnace to degrade. Moreover, the presence of PVC at waste plastic stream produces
29 chlorine gas that has the potential to corrode the furnace. In order to prevent the dif-
30 fusion of chlorine inside the blast furnace, coal tar and converter dust have excellent
31 implication.38
32 Except from the principles of waste prevention, the recycling of waste plastics has
33 become most promising and environmental friendly among the other means of IWM
34 methodologies. However, the recycling of waste plastics can be achieved by several
35 means depending on the characteristics of the plastic polymer and required product
36 itself and, therefore, can be classified into primary, secondary, tertiary, and qua-
37 ternary forms. Among these, the most efficient method in terms of environmental
38 conservation is feedstock or tertiary recycling that mainly useful to covert waste
39 polymers to original monomers or other valuable chemicals compounds. Feedstock
40 recycling principally converts waste plastics to their constituent monomers that are
1 then further processed either separately or with petroleum residues to derive conven-
2 tional fuel. With the presence of catalytic additives, long-chain plastic polymers split
3 to liquid, solid, and gaseous series of refined petrochemical products and particularly
4 of a liquid fraction very similar with that of gasoline.22 It has been previously dis-
5 cussed that at higher temperature due to thermal cracking of PE and PP, a mixture of
6 olefin with certain aromatic compounds and high-calorific value gases are achieved.
7 Chemical recycling of waste plastics viz. HDPE, LDPE, and PP with specific cata-
8 lysts generate aliphatic compounds that can be easily used as a raw material for the
9 production of refined fuels.8 However, coprocessing of petroleum residue with waste
10 plastics helped to enhance the hydrogen content of the final product and makes it
11 more useful. Therefore, apart from recycling only plastic polymer, researchers have
12 also studied coliquefaction of coal and waste polymers. On a laboratory scale exper-
13 iment, it was found feasible to convert waste plastics coupled with conventional coal
14 to liquid fuel at a relatively high temperature (400–450◦ C) and moderate to high
15 hydrogen pressure.39
16 6. Conclusion
17 In brief, this article emphasizes on the increasing trend of global as well as Indian
18 plastic production and consumption scenario. Moreover, with the concepts of ISWM,
19 plastic waste disposal problems are tried to sort out. Plastics are the integral part of the
20 society due to its extreme versatility and durability, light weight, excellent thermal
21 and electrical insulations, chemical resistance, and safety in regards to its competing
22 materials. However, coupled with all these properties and its relative inexpensiveness
23 have made these plastics much more prone to easy disposal and, therefore, causing
24 concern for environmental safeguard. When plastic products are used and discarded,
25 these plastics and additives are undesirable from an environmental view point. Tra-
26 ditional plastics are not biodegradable and are extremely difficult components for
27 landfilling for its volume and any future possibilities of groundwater and soil con-
28 taminations. Incineration is generally not found technically feasible in most of the
29 developing countries and also possess chances of air emission if not scientifically
30 managed. Recycling of waste plastics is the most attractive method in accordance
31 with the principles of sustainable development but can only be achieved for a limited
32 period as only inferior type of plastic can be produced through recycling with several
33 use restrictions.
34 All these emphasize that no one individual method is sufficient to deal effectively
35 with all materials in waste in an environmental sustainable way. In reality, if we
36 consider IWM principles, then it emphasizes that any waste management is built
37 up of many closely related and integrated processes. Therefore, instead of focusing
1 on and comparing individual options, attempt should be made to integrate waste

2 management systems in such a way that it can deal with the whole waste stream,
3 and then compare their overall performances in environmental and economic terms.
4 In fact, an IWM system can itself become a part of a resource management system,
5 where all resources are managed within a single optimized system.
6 However, in order to reduce the waste plastic problem what we can do is to
7 adopt the principles of waste prevention. Waste prevention undoubtedly needs to be
8 a central theme of social responsibility. Apart from this, considerable shifts in per-
9 ception and behavior among consumers are also essential in order to either restrict
10 or to minimize the use of plastics. The use of plastics need not be reduced but what is
11 of urgent required is to use the plastic compound judiciously and to promote reuse of
12 plastics. If plastic compounds are made more durable and if general the perception
13 of consumer is changed regarding the reuse of plastic and less disposal, then inher-
14 ently the waste plastic problem can be sort out. However, in Indian situations, there
15 are several constraints such as proper collection, segregation, and transportation of
16 the discarded plastic material. However, increase in public awareness coupled with
17 changes in individual behavior can be an effective way to reduce the environmental
18 repercussions of waste plastics. Apart from these, in a resource limited world, the
19 recovery of energy and resources should be fundamental principle to sustainable
20 development and in order to achieve its active public participation and proper imple-
21 mentation of regulations are essential.
22 References
23 1. Shah,A.A., Hasan, F., Hameed,A., andAhmed, S. (2007). Isolation and characterization

24 of poly (3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) degrading bacteria and purification
25 of PHBV depolymerase from newly isolated Bacillus sp. AF3. International Biodete-
26 rioration and Biodegradation 60: 109–115.
27 2. Orhan, Y. and Buyukgungor, H. (2000). Enhancement of biodegradability of dis-
28 posable polyethylene in controlled biological soil. International Biodeterioration and
29 Biodegradation 45: 49–55.
30 3. Banerjee, T. and Srivastava, R.K. (2009). Plastics waste management and resource
31 recovery in India. International Journal of Environment and Waste Management
32 (Accepted, in press).
33 4. Narayan, R. (1993). Biodegradation of polymeric materials (anthropogenic macro-
34 molecules) during composting, In: Science and Engineering of Composting: Design,
35 Environmental, Microbiological and Utilization Aspects, H.A.J. Hoitink and H.M.
36 Keener (Eds.), Washington: OH Renaissance Publishers.
37 5. Masters, G.M. (2004). Introduction to Environmental Engineering and Science, New
38 Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.
39 6. Ismail, Z.Z. and Hashmi, E.A.AL. (2008). Use of waste plastic in concrete mixture as
40 aggregate replacement. Waste Management 28: 2041–2047.
1 7. Business Line, (2002). Korean Tech. to Manage Plastics Pollution, New Delhi: Business
2 Line, The Hindu.
3 8. Achilias, D.S., Roupakias, C., Megalokonomos, P., Lappas, A.A., and Antonakou, E.V.
4 (2007). Chemical recycling of plastics wastes made from polyethylene (LDPE and
5 HDPE) and polypropylene (PP). Journal of Hazardous Materials 149: 536–542.
6 9. www.plastemart.com, (2009). Technical Articles & Reports on Plastic Industry
7 [available from www.plastemart.com, cited on 20th March].
8 10. Mutha, N.H., Patel, M., and Premnath, V. (2006). Plastics materials flow analysis for
9 India. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47: 222–244.
10 11. Gupta, S., Mohan, K., Prasad, R., Gupta, S., and Kansal, A. (1998). Solid waste man-
11 agement in India: Options and opportunities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling.
12 24: 137–154.
13 12. SGCCI, (2000). The Indian Plastic Industry, PlastIndia Foundation, Southern Gujarat
14 Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SGCCI), India.
15 13. NPWMTF, (1997). National Plastics Waste Management Task Force (NPWMTF)
16 Report, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, New Delhi.
17 14. Bose, R.K., Vasudeva, G., Gupta, S., and Sinha, C. (1998). India’s Environment Pol-
18 lution and Protection, TERI-Report No. 97ED57. Central Research Institute of Electric
19 Power Industry, CRIEPI, New Delhi.
20 15. OTA, (1992). Green Products by Design: Choices for a Cleaner Environment,
21 OTA-E-541, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office,
22 Washington, DC.
23 16. Staniškis, J. (2005). Integrated waste management: Concept and implementation.
24 Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 33(3): 40–46.
25 17. NIUA, (1989). Upgrading Municipal Services, Norms and Financial Implications, New
26 Delhi: National Institute of Urban Affairs.
27 18. TERI, (1998). Solid Wastes in Looking Back to Think Ahead: GREEN India 2047, New
28 Delhi: Tata Energy Research Institute.
29 19. Bhide, A.D. and Sundaresan, B.B. (1983). Solid Waste Management in Developing
30 Countries, New Delhi: Indian National Scientific Documentation Centre.
31 20. Geldern, V. (1993). ‘W Wege aus dem Wohstandsmu¨ll’, v. Hase und Ko¨hler, Mainz.
32 21. Baum, B. and Parker, C.H. (1974). Solid Waste Disposal, Volume 1, Incineration and
33 Landfill, Michigan: Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.
34 22. Scheirs, J. (1998). Polymer Recycling, W. Sussex: J. Wiley & Sons.
35 23. Kaminski, W., Schlesselmann, B., and Simon, C. (1995). Olefins from polyolefins and
36 mixed plastics by pyrolysis. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 32: 19–27.
37 24. Uddin, A., Koizumi, K., Murata, K., and Sakata,Y. (1997). Thermal and catalytic degra-
38 dation of structurally different types of polyethylene into fuel oil. Polymer Degradation
39 and Stability 56: 37–44.
40 25. Aguado, J. and Serrano, D.P. (1999). In: Feedstock Recycling of Plastic Wastes, J.H.
41 Clark, (Ed.), Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry.
42 26. Giugliano, M., Grosso, M., and Rigamonti, L. (2008). Energy recovery from municipal
43 waste: A case study for a middle-sized Italian district. Waste Management 28: 39–50.
44 27. Klein, A. (2002). Gasification: An Alternative Process for Energy Recovery and Dis-
45 posal of Municipal Solid Wastes [available from www.columbia.edu/cu/earth, cited on
46 24th October, 2008].
1 28. Murphy, J.D. and McKeogh, E. (2004). Technical, economic and environmental
2 analysis of energy production from municipal solid waste. Renewable Energy 29: 1043–
3 1057.
4 29. Baggio, P., Fedrizzi, S., Grigliante, M., and Ragazzi, M. (2003). Indagini ambientali e
5 valutazione dei rischi dei processi di termovalorizzazione (Environmental assessments
6 and risk analysis of thermal conversion technologies). Rifiuti Solidi. (6): XVII.
7 30. IEA Bioenergy and IEA CADDET, (1998). Advanced Thermal Conversion Tech-
8 nologies for Energy from Solid Waste [available from http://www.caddet.org, cited on
9 24th November, 2008.
10 31. O’Mara, M.M. (1970). High-temperature pyrolysis of poly (vinyl chloride): Gas
11 chromatographic-mass spectrometric analysis of the pyrolysis products from PVC resin
12 and plastisols. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 8(7): 1887–1899.
13 32. Barlaz, M.A., Ham, R.K., and Schaefer, D.M. (1989). Mass-balance analysis of anaer-
14 obically decomposed refuse. Journal of Environmental Engineering 115: 1088–1102.
15 33. Bonhomme, S., Cuer, A., Delort, A.M., Lemaire, J., Sancelme, M., and Scott, C. (2003).
16 Environmental biodegradation of polyethylene. Polymer Degradation and Stability 81:
17 441–452.
18 34. Potts, J.E. (1978). Biodegradation. In: Aspect of Degradation and Stabilization of
19 Polymers, H.H.G. Jelinek (Eds.), New York: Elsevier.
20 35. Otake, Y., Kobayashi, T., Ashabe, H., Murakami, N., and Ono, K. (1995). Biodegra-
21 dation of low-density polyethylene, polystyrene, polyvinyl-chloride, and urea-
22 formaldehyde resin buried under soil for over 32 years. Journal of Applied Polymer
23 Science 56: 1789–1796.
24 36. Tsuchii, A., Suzuki, T., and Takahara, Y. (1977). Microbial degradation of styrene
25 oligomer. Agricultural and Biological Chemistry 41: 2417–2421.
26 37. Kirbas, Z., Keskin, N., and Guner, A. (1999). Biodegradation of polyvinylchloride
27 (PVC) by white rot fungi. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
28 63: 335–342.
29 38. Kakuta,Y., Hirano, K., Sugano, M., and Mashimo, K. (2008). Study on chlorine removal
30 from mixture of waste plastics. Waste Management 28: 615–621.
31 39. Ali, M.F., Siddiqui, M.N., and Redhwi, S.H.H. (2004). Study on the conversion of waste
32 plastics/petroleum resid mixtures to transportation fuels. Journal of Material Cycles
33 and Waste Management 6: 27–34.
34 40. CPMA, (2000). Chemicals and Petrochemicals. Chemical & Petrochemicals
35 Manufacturers Association, New Delhi, 2(1): 17–23.
36 41. NEERI, (2005). Comprehensive Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste at Calcutta,
37 Kolkata, India: National Environmental Engineering Research Institute.
38 42. U.S. EPA (1994) Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1994
39 Update, Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste.
View publication stats

Waste PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waste PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

PLASTICS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN INDIA: AN INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE

Book · July 2014

Tirthankar Banerjee Dr. R. K. Srivastava

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Source apportionment of aerosols and trace gases View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

PLASTICS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN

1 Tirthankar Banerjee, Ph.D.

6 Rajeev Kumar Srivastava, Ph.D.

11 Yung-Tse Hung, Ph.D., P.E., DEE

23 Keywords: Plastics, polymer, waste management, recycle, energy recovery,

2 Economic development significantly contributes to improvements in life standards.

Plastics Waste Management in India 3

27 2. Global Scenario of Waste Plastics

28 2.1. Plastic Production, Consumption, and Waste

1 over 52 MT consumption of plastics in 2004. Plastic additive markets are growing

10 2.2. Plastic Production, Consumption, and Waste

Plastics Waste Management in India 5

Figure 2. Average Growth Rate of Virgin Plastics Consumption in India.3,10,12,40

Figure 3. Consumption of Different Virgin Plastic Resins in India.40

Figure 4. Percentage of Plastic Consumption in India by Different Market Sector.12

Plastics Waste Management in India 7

10 3. Integrated Solid Waste Management

Figure 5. Schematic Representation of Waste Minimization and Waste Prevention.

Figure 6. Schematic Representation of Green Design.15

Plastics Waste Management in India 9

1 3.1. Integrated Waste Management (IWM) and Resource

Figure 7. Hierarchy of Waste Management.

33 3.2. MSW and its Management

Plastics Waste Management in India 11

Figure 8. Comparison of MSW Disposal Processes in Different Countries.42

1 economical. In order to determine the quantities of MSW generated in a community,

Per Capita Waste Total Urban Municipal

1971 375 14.9

Table 2. Decadal Variation of Average Compositions of MSW in India.3,41

Components 1970 1995 2005

Paper 3.17 4.64 6.07

Note: All values are in percent dry weight.

Plastics Waste Management in India 13

1 3.3. Application of IWM for MSW Management

38 1. Characterization of waste and source identification.

Plastics Waste Management in India 15

1 3. Reduction of volume and toxicity of the waste with adequate treatments.

20 4. Management of Waste Plastics: Application

22 4.1. Source Reduction

1 4.2. Less Packaging

11 4.3. Product Reuse

22 4.4. More Durable Product

Plastics Waste Management in India 17

1 5. Plastics: IWM & Resource Recovery

2 5.1. Recycling of Waste Plastics

18 5.1.1. Recycling: Comparison of Technologies

Primary Recovery Recycling Use of Recycled

Polyethylene Soft drink and mineral 26 Frequently Multi-layer

1 a series of refined petrochemical products similar with that of commercial gasoline.

Plastics Waste Management in India 19

35 5.1.2. Recycling: Technical Complications

Plastics Waste Management in India 21

31 5.2. Plastic Waste to Energy: Incineration

1 favorable attributes, including volume reduction, immediate disposal without waiting

5 5.2.1. MSW Incineration: Comparison of Technologies

35 5.2.2. Incineration: Technical Complications