Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38975073›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Characterisation of household single-use packaging flows through a municipal waste system: A material flow analysis for New South Wales, Australia.

Ben Madden, Nick Florin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ben MaddenInstitute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, New South Wales, 2007, Australia.
Nick FlorinInstitute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, New South Wales, 2007, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Household single-use packaging has poor rates of recycling, and presents a challenge in transitioning to a circular packaging economy. This study characterises the flows of household single-use packaging in the municipal waste system for 2020-21 in New South Wales, Australia. Households are an important source of packaging usage in Australia, accounting for over 40 % of all packaging used in 2020-21. Our focus spans 17 single-use packaging materials and 11 formats. We estimate the composition of single-use consumer packaging in the kerbside collection stream, and the ultimate fate of used packaging. Results show 1000 ± 8 % kt of packaging was used by households in NSW in 2020-21 (∼123 kg/cap). Composition of the used packaging stream was dominated by glass (36 %), paper (29 %) and plastic (28 %) packaging. HDPE (26 % of plastic packaging), LDPE (24 %) and PET (19 %) were the main polymers in use. 63 % ± 5 % of used packaging was collected for recycling, and 34 % ± 7 % was recovered via recyclate generation and overseas exports. Glass packaging had the highest recycling rates at 52 % ± 3 %, while plastic packaging had the poorest at 11 % ± 10 %. Findings indicate incorrect disposal of recyclables at the household to mixed-waste systems as a major limitation of the system to improve recycling rates. Expansion in recovery capacity is also essential for improving recycling rates, and the potential for generating the packaging-grade recyclate essential for meeting recycled content targets. The study offers contributions to the understanding of consumer packaging managed within the municipal waste system. Insights gained have application in informing sustainable packaging and waste management strategies.

Indexed as

Circular economyMaterial flow analysisPackagingRecycling ratesSeparate waste collectionWaste management

Identifiers

PMID38975073
PMCPMC11226917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.