Skip to main content
. 2021 May 1;126:694–705. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2021.04.002

Table 2.

Sorting and recycling rates of target materials at the MRFs and RECs surveyed in the study. For the purpose of comparison, we report the figures from selected literature studies that provide primary data from full-scale operating plants in EU. Average, median, 75% percentile and standard deviation (TD: triangular distribution was assumed) are calculated on the basis of the primary and literature data listed in the Table. These parameters are the ones used for the material flow analysis modelling. MRF: material recovery facility; REC: recycling plant; NA: not available.

Plant ID/Reference PET PP PS Films HDPE PVC
Sorting rate
MRF1 45% 31% 31% 55% 95%
MRF2 84% 72% 87%
MRF3 80% 65% 60% 85%
MRF4 25% 18%
MRF5 97% 89% 13%
Eule (2013) 94% 73% 86%
Mastellone et al. (2017) 89% 7% 100%
Van Eygen et al. (2018) 72% 44% 37% 53%
WRAP (2019) 91% 91% 79% 85% 98% 73%
Conte (2016) 62% 78% 21% 64%
Brouwer et al. (2019) 86% 68% 59% 77%
Brouwer et al. (2018) 84% 60% 49% 80%
Average 81% 57% 47% 58% 76% 73%
Mediana 85% 64% 37% 59% 85% 73%
75% percentileb 91% 79% 65% 73% 91% 73%
Standard deviation (TD) 11% 18% 12% 15% 19% NA



Recycling rate
REC1 53% 55%
REC2 66%
REC3 63%
REC4 70% 70%
REC5 87%
REC6 60% 72%
REC7 90% 72% 50% 88%
REC8 85% 75%
WRAP (2019) 75% 56% 57% 71% 87% 80%
Brouwer et al. (2019) 95% 95% 94% 95%
Brouwer et al. (2018) 93% 86% 86% 94%
Average 80% 71% 66% 71% 84% 80%
Mediana 81% 66% 66% 71% 88% 80%
75% percentileb 91% 85% 71% 86% 93% 80%
Standard deviation (TD) 7% 9% 4% 9% 5% NA
a

main value used in the “status quo” MFA scenario.

b

main value used in the “future targets” MFA scenario.