Next Article in Journal
Multi-Temporal Analysis of Cropping Patterns and Intensity Using Optical and SAR Satellite Data for Sustaining Agricultural Production in Tamil Nadu, India
Previous Article in Journal
A Proposal for the Sustainable Enhancement of the Cultural and Social Heritage of the Alps: The Project “La Montagna al Femminile”
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 4
10.3390/su17041612
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Recovery and Recycling of Selected Waste Fractions with a Grain Size Below 10 mm

by
Anna Gronba-Chyła
1,
Agnieszka Generowicz
2,3,*,
Paweł Kwaśnicki
1,4 and
Anna Kochanek
5
1
Faculty of Natural and Technical Sciences, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Konstantynów 1 H, 20-708 Lublin, Poland
2
Faculty of Environmental Engineering and Energy, Cracow University of Technology, Warszawska 24, 31-155 Cracow, Poland
3
Interdisciplinary Center for Circular Economy, Cracow University of Technology, Warszawska 24, 31-155 Kraków, Poland
4
Research & Development Centre for Photovoltaics, ML System S.A. Zaczernie 190G, 36-062 Zaczernie, Poland
5
Institute of Engineering, State University of Applied Sciences in Nowy Sącz, ul. Zamenhofa 1A, 33-300 Nowy Sącz, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(4), 1612; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041612
Submission received: 26 January 2025 / Revised: 13 February 2025 / Accepted: 13 February 2025 / Published: 15 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Waste and Recycling)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
There are still no appropriate technologies for the disposal of waste below 10 mm in order to prevent it from being deposited in a landfill, while it constitutes a significant mass stream, with little studied composition, often varying in quantity and seasonally. There is also a lack of concise and clear literature outlining the issues surrounding this waste. These are wastes of both municipal and industrial origin, from various sources and varying in composition. The aim of this paper is to present the results of a literature analysis of the quantity, composition, and sources of waste in the fraction below 10 mm, with a view to defining the possibilities of its recovery, recycling, and disposal. The sources of generation included municipal waste recovered at the screens of the sorting plant for mixed and sorted municipal waste, waste from the recovery and reclamation of raw fractions, and brownfield, tailings, and ash from coal combustion and construction. Defining the sources of their generation and determining their quality will allow the targeting and development of recovery and recycling methods for these wastes. An analysis of the literature has shown that the most valid option for dealing with waste below 10 mm is to incorporate it into new products, for example, building materials.

1. Introduction

Waste management has become a huge global problem due to the high production rate of waste materials [1]. We are also dealing with a sharp increase in waste also from renewable energy sources [2,3]. The research estimates that, in 2014, each European Union citizen produced an average of 480 kg of waste per year, and each US citizen around 740 kg [4,5]. A positive correlation was found to exist between income per capita, gross domestic product (GDP/capita/year), and waste generation per capita (kg/capita/year). A correlation (r = 0.653, p < 0.05) also exists between income per capita and resource recovery/recycling per capita per year [6]. In 2022, the average amount of municipal waste generated per capita in the European Union was 513 kg. The most waste was generated by countries with high wealth, such as Austria—803, Denmark—802, and Luxembourg—721, and countries with a high proportion of tourists, such as Cyprus—673, and Malta—618. Poland has one of the lowest indicators among EU countries. Of the total volume of municipal waste generated in the European Union, 49% was recycled and composted, 26% was thermally treated, and 23% was neutralized through landfilling. Of the 6.4 million tons of municipal waste that Poland collected and received in 2023, 46% was intended for recovery. Of this amount, 2.1 million tons (16%) were intended for recycling, 2.7 million tons (20%) were sent for thermal treatment with energy recovery, and 1.6 million tons (12%) were sent for biological treatment processes (composting or fermentation). The volume of waste managed in EU countries between 2004 and 2022 was at a similar level, ranging from 1.9 billion tons to 2.2 billion tons. The share of disposal in the amount of treated waste decreased from 54.1% in 2004 to 38.6% in 2022, and the share of recovery increased from 45.9% in 2004 to 61.4% in 2022. The amount of de-recovered waste, i.e., incinerated with energy recovery, recycled, or used for backfilling, increased by 35.9%—from 0.9 billion tons in 2004 to 1.2 billion tons in 2022 [7].

2. Waste Fraction Below 10 mm

While there are good recycling opportunities for waste above the 10 mm fraction, the waste fraction below 10 mm still requires new management ideas. This fraction includes municipal waste and transmission waste. In municipal waste, we distinguish between the following: fine waste recovered from landfills—landfill mining (LM); waste generated during mechanical–biological treatment, in equipment and sorting lines for the mechanical–biological treatment (MBT) of municipal waste; ashes from coal and wood combustion in households; fine waste generated in households after renovation and demolition work; and street-sweeping waste. Industrial waste with a fraction of less than 10 mm includes the following: minor construction waste; fly ash from power plants; and tailings from coal mining. There is a research gap in the literature when it comes to describing the properties of and collecting information on the 10 mm waste fraction, and another gap occurs when it comes to finding descriptions of new management methods compatible with the circular economy for this fraction. Figure 1 shows an example of a photo of waste with a fraction smaller than 10 mm.

3. Waste Extracted from Landfills—Landfill Mining

In the literature sources, there are many references to recycling waste above 10 mm. However, the <10 mm fraction is a problem. The <10 mm fraction can be found in waste of various origins, starting with landfills. The studies confirmed that a large amount of chemical elements accumulate in the fine fraction of the waste. Results from studies of the fine fraction of waste from the Torma and Högbytorp landfills have provided information on the content of major and minor elements as well as rare trace elements. These could be an extractable resource’s future worth. Major elements and rare earth elements are recovered and employed in degraded industrial soils and/or continuing landfill cleanup initiatives. The results indicated that the fine fraction (<10 mm) of the waste taken from the Högbytorp landfill had significant concentrations of manganese: 418–823 mg/kg, nickel: 41–84 mg/kg, cobalt: 10.7–19.3 mg/kg, and cadmium: 1.0–3.0 mg/kg. The fine fraction < 10 m of the waste taken from the Torma landfill had significant concentrations of chromium: 49–518 mg/kg, and lead: 30–264 mg/kg. There was a substantial degree of sample variability. Given the enormous latent potential for valuable materials in landfills, landfill waste is a resource that can be used to close the anthropogenic material cycle. Landfill waste represents a valuable resource for closing the anthropogenic material cycle, given the significant latent potential for valuable materials contained within landfills.
Landfill mining (LFM) is the process of extracting minerals or other solid natural resources from waste materials that have previously been removed by burial in the ground [8,9]. In the composting of substantial green waste with a high initial carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, such as 50:1, mineral nitrogen accumulates due to the slow decomposition and net nitrogen immobilization in bigger particles, but net nitrogen mineralization occurs rapidly in smaller fractions [10].

4. Waste Less than 10 mm Arising from Mechanical–Biological Treatment Installations

Over the past 20 years, Europe has seen a considerable expansion in both the number and capacity of mechanical–biological treatment (MBT) plants. This stems from the legal requirement to minimize the disposal of biodegradable waste in landfills and to enhance recycling and energy recovery from waste materials. The role of these facilities is to process the leftover municipal waste for recovery and disposal, focusing specifically on the recovery of the input fraction and the separation and stabilization of the readily biodegradable fraction. The final outputs of MBT technology consist of secondary raw materials, a high-calorific fraction utilized for the production of refuse-derived fuel (RDF), a stabilizer, and the leftover residual fraction [11,12,13]. An example MBT station consists of a mechanical sorting operation, an aerobic rotary bioreactor, a forced aeration process in open-air tunnels’ stabilization, maturation platforms, and a sanitary landfill for waste disposal in separate cells [14]. Bayard et al. showed for the entire plant an 18.9% reduction in dry matter and a 39.0% reduction in oxidative organic matter. A 46.2% decrease in biogas production was observed. In the bioxidation stages, a high decrease of 88.1% in biogas potential and 57.7% in oxidative organic matter content is observed [15]. The use of MBT processes prior to landfilling reduces the environmental impact and the weight of the waste by approximately 30%. Organic fractions are stabilized, resulting in an oxygen uptake rate of less than 1600 mg O2 h−1 kg−1 VS, while inorganic materials are utilized [16,17,18]. Lorange et al. showed that shredded waste below 10 mm and screened samples contained significantly more biodegradable organic matter than screened samples alone [19]. The study by Lonardo et al. shows that, often, after 4 weeks of stabilization, the waste still shows a lack of biological stability. Waste shredding reduces the size of big particles and increases the amount of biodegradable materials accessible. In environmental remediation operations, fine waste (less than 10 mm) can be collected. There are notable concentrations of heavy metals in the fraction less than 10 mm. The portion of municipal garbage that is less than 10 mm is recovered using screens and sifters at mechanical–biological treatment (MBT) facilities or municipal waste-sorting facilities. This fraction is treated as waste contaminating the raw material fractions [20,21]. Biostabilized waste generated in mechanical–biological treatment (MBT) plants can meet environmental requirements, and the relevant parameters can be improved by extending the biostabilization process [22,23]. In laboratory-scale studies on the parameters selected for the MBT process, waste is often subjected to grinding to a fraction < 10 mm [24]. Large quantities of contaminants in non-biological waste generate losses for MBPs [25]. In addition to having a sizable proportion of the biodegradable fraction, the fine fraction of municipal waste that is less than 10 mm is frequently treated as a mineral fraction. Its quantity and composition are variable and depend on the size and nature of the collection site, the time of year, climatic and atmospheric conditions (for example, icy conditions in winter increase the use of de-icing agents), and the habits and nature of the inhabitants’ lives. The size of the collection, the type of collecting location, the lifestyle of the population, the season, and the meteorological and climatic conditions all affect its quantity and composition. About 20% of the MSW stream’s weight is made up of inorganic waste, which is a substantial amount. In 2012–2015 in Poland, the average mineral matter content of mixed municipal waste ranged from 16% to 36% [26,27]. The highest share of the fine fraction is characterized by the spring and autumn period, which is due to the ash content from coal combustion in single-family housing [28]. Furthermore, the <10 mm fraction contaminates other wastes present in the entire municipal waste stream, making it much more difficult to dispose of them. This reduces the calorific value of municipal waste and impedes thermal processes, which, in turn, hinders recycling and recovery processes and lowers the economic value of usable fractions [29]. The evaluation of the effect of the fine mineral fraction on compost in the biological treatment of waste varies in scientific papers [30]. It was found that the addition of minerals to organic material can be beneficial because it stimulates the decomposition of organic pollutants in the compost. In contrast, another study found that the mineral fraction in waste has a low nutrient content, does not significantly affect microbial activity in the composting process, and, thus, reduces the value of the compost. Because it is a waste fraction, its only uses are separation from other fractions, biological stabilization, and storage, as well as volume reduction during stabilization procedures [31]. Figure 2 shows an example of a biological–mechanical waste treatment scheme.

5. Household Ashes

In Poland and other European nations, some households have been burning municipal refuse [32]. The morphological and chemical composition of waste is linked to the presence of various hazardous substances that undergo transformation during incineration and, subsequently, accumulate in the ashes. Consequently, the storage of these substances presents a potential risk to both the aquatic environment and the soil, as they can be readily leached and integrated into the geochemical cycle [33,34,35]. The main components of ash are silicon oxide—SiO2, aluminum oxide—Al2O3, iron oxide—Fe2O3, magnesium oxide—MgO, and calcium oxide—CaO. Ash also contains other substances such as chlorides, sulphates, and phosphates, high concentrations of which pose a threat to the environment and infrastructure [36,37,38]. The compositional profile of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDFs), non-ortho- and mono-ortho PCBs (polychlorinated bi-phenyls), and PCNs of several types of bottom ash of cookers, obtained after the combustion of coal, coke, wood, and a mixture of solid domestic waste in a mu-flow cooker for domestic use, was investigated. According to the study, the highest maximum concentrations of dioxin-like compounds were recorded in wood ash [39]. The content of heavy metals in the bottom ash from the furnace was investigated. The individual elements were mainly present in the following forms: cadmium and zinc in carbonate form, copper and lead in organic and residual form, and nickel and chromium in residual form. Heavy metals in the residual fraction do not pose a potential environmental risk [40]. Individual household cookers in open and closed fireplaces generate mainly ash from the combustion of wood and briquettes produced from coniferous wood and hardwood [41]. Alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, sulfur, chlorine, and silicon are commonly found in biomass ash. This ash can be used as a liming and neutralizing agent [42]. Studies indicate that bottom ash has a much lower concentration of heavy metals than fly ash. Therefore, a mixture of fly ash and bottom ash may be suitable for use as an additive to forest soils, improving their qualities. The unburned carbon present in the ash may allow the possibility of using the ash as a fuel to be determined. Residual carbon in the ash limits its use in construction as it reduces its binding properties in the building material [43,44,45,46]. The variable melting points of biomass ash have been described in a large number of scientific papers. However, it should be noted that the melting temperatures only occur for pure, i.e., single-component, systems. Biomass ash, on the other hand, is a multi-component powder material system and cannot have a specific melting point [47]. Ash from coal combustion is less alkaline than that from biomass combustion. Domestic cookers have a temperature of <300 °C; this results in the release of organic compounds through the volatilization/evaporation of water vapor from the burnt coal [48,49]. The extent of the process depends on the moisture content of the coal bound to the coal. In addition to volatilization, the main chemical reactions under smoldering conditions include water elimination, the depolymerization and fragmentation of coal macromolecules, the oxidation of organic matter, and charcoal formation [50]. The quantity and quality of compounds in hard coal ash depends largely on the coal’s carbonization. Coals with a low degree of carbonization tend to produce isotropic carbon. Anisotropic coke with distinct granular characteristics is produced from bituminous coals with a higher degree of carbonization [51,52,53]. Due to the high content of potentially hazardous elements such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, and chromium, the environmental contamination of ash and fly ash has been widely studied. It is generally acknowledged that using fly ash in place of certain cement might enhance the cement matrix’s microstructure. It improves the prepared mortar or concrete’s durability and mechanical qualities [54,55,56,57].

6. Construction Waste Below 10 mm

The proper use of construction waste is a solution to the rapid degradation of virgin raw materials in the construction industry [58]. Recycling construction waste (CWR) is a good way to prevent landfills [59,60,61]. Also problematic with fine construction waste is the variability in its composition over time, due to newer and increasingly variable construction materials [62]. Rubble from construction and demolition projects accounts for 35% of solid waste worldwide [63]. Trash materials like wood, concrete, asphalt, plaster, glass, steel, and shingles are all accepted by recycling and processing facilities for building and demolition trash. At these plants, sorting, shredding, and grinding are common processes. During these processes, particles of PM 10 and smaller enter the environment, causing environmental pollution [64]. The fine fraction of construction waste includes crushed concrete, mortar, bricks, glass, tiles, metals, wood, ceramics, plastics, and other waste generated during construction, infrastructure projects, and maintenance that is valuable for construction applications [65]. To mitigate negative impacts, sustainable construction is being promoted and an effective circular economy is being created [66,67,68]. Fine fractions can be used as a raw material for cement manufacture, as a filler in asphalt mixtures, as a road base and sub-base material, as a natural sand or conventional aggregate substitute in concrete, and as a raw material for brick and tile production [69,70]. In Spain, in construction waste processing plants, a mixture is made containing 75% recycled fine aggregates with a maximum nominal size of 5–8 mm [71]. Depending on the technology of the crushing process, approximately one-third of crushed concrete is concrete sand. This concrete sand grain fraction of 0–4 mm is rarely reused as concrete aggregate. This is due to the fact that crushed sand for concrete has different fundamental qualities than natural sand. As a result, it does not satisfy the requirements for aggregates [72]. The use of construction waste to produce concrete is seen as a sustainable solution for more environmentally friendly concrete production, as it is the most versatile and widely used building material in the world [73,74]. The construction industry actively supports sustainable practices and the development of a circular economy by including aggregates made from recycled bricks, sand, concrete, and clay. Geopolymer mortars containing aggregate from recycled concrete are environmentally friendly [75]. The addition of waste brick powder to produce alkali-activated materials has been shown to result in a significant reduction in energy consumption [76]. One potential substitute for traditional materials that satisfies sustainability standards is the use of construction industry demolition debris as recycled aggregates in the manufacturing of concrete [77]. Powders with a <10 mm fraction extracted from construction and demolition waste (CDW), such as recycled clay brick powder (RBP) and recycled concrete powder (RCP), have been used as a partial additive for cement for mortar preparation [78]. The waste concrete powder mainly consists of quartz, sodium feldspar, and calcite. Waste brick powder is mainly composed of quartz, alumina, and hematite [79,80]. As an alternative binder, concrete waste is frequently processed into fine concrete powder (WCP) with a percentage of ≤150 μm for use in new cementitious materials [81,82]. Construction waste with a small fractionation < 10 mm, ground to powder, can contain active phases that participate in cement hydration products through pozzolanic reactions, resulting in effects similar to those of fly ash. Therefore, brick powder and concrete waste can be used as a partial substitute for ordinary Portland cement in the preparation of concrete or cement mortar [83,84]. Concrete based on CDW has shown the lowest environmental impact compared to concrete made from natural aggregates [85].

7. Municipal Waste from Street Sweeping

Another municipal waste with a fraction < 10 mm is street-sweeping waste, classified in the group of waste belonging to municipal waste, under the code 20 03 03. There is no management technology for them to be reused; for this reason, they end up in landfills. Municipal waste is characterized by high multiannual as well as seasonal variability. Therefore, research should be conducted periodically throughout the year to obtain the most accurate findings. Surveys carried out in this way will give a more reliable indication of their quantity and composition and identify trends of change over time [86]. These wastes, among other things, due to their high chloride content, the highest being after the winter period (caused by the use of de-icing salts), can contribute to changes in surface and groundwater salinity and soil salinization, with consequent changes in entire ecosystems and the local environment. As they are deposited entirely on landfill sites, they also contribute to the salinity of the leachate generated here. Street cleaning undoubtedly improves the aesthetics and hygiene of streets [87,88]. Maintaining the quality of the environment and human health is a major responsibility of city managers [89,90]. The removal of street debris (including tire dust and asphalt abrasion) has the dual beneficial effect of reducing the re-suspension of dust in the atmosphere due to the turbulence generated by vehicle traffic, and reducing the impact of microplastics in the environment [91,92,93,94]. The results showing the effectiveness of street sweeping and washing are shown by controlling the concentration of particulate matter. The effectiveness is also brought by mechanical street sweeping and washing with water to reduce PM10 and PM5 concentrations in ambient air. It consists of minerals commonly found in soil such as quartz, dolomite and calcite, phosphates, calcium, sulphates, fluorides, chlorides, nitrogen compounds, magnesium, sodium, potassium, a small admixture of organic fraction, aromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals [95,96,97]. The assimilable phosphorus content was very high; the elevated content of analyzed heavy metals (copper, lead, nickel, chromium, manganese, and iron) resulted in a low humus content; and the enzymatic activity of the waste was low, which is related to the poor release and availability of mineral substances to plants [98,99]. The qualitative content of the waste resulting from cleaning Krakow’s streets was ascertained using the SEM/EDS method. The presence of Zn, Mg, Cu, Ni, Cd, Pb, and Cr was found [100,101,102]. The majority of sediments and metals are found in the 0.125–0.5 mm sandy fractions. Street sweeping has been shown to be more effective at removing coarse sediment than fine sediment [103,104,105]. Another important aspect is the presence of chlorides in waste < 10 mm from street cleaning. It has been shown that varying the sampling locations of these wastes has made it possible to determine where contaminants accumulate [106]. In a sewage sump, the highest chloride concentration ever measured was 1732 mg/dm3. The salinity of landfill leachate can be raised by excessively high chloride concentrations in sweeping debris that is dumped in a landfill in significant amounts. The production of biogas, the extended breakdown of materials, and the likelihood of groundwater salinization are all significantly impacted by this. It also leads to hindering biological processes in wastewater treatment plants [107]. An important aspect found in street-cleaning waste is the presence of PM 10, less often referred to as road dust [108]. Road dust comes from a variety of sources, both biogenic and anthropogenic, the latter being the largest contributor. It is very important to distinguish which sources, traffic, industry, or natural background are responsible for its deposition in a given region, taking into account the local characteristics of the region [109]. Road dust is generated as a result of wear and tear on the road surface by studded tires or from sand and salt sprinkling. In winter where the weather conditions are cold and wet, dust accumulates in the snow and ice and in the wet structure of the road surface. In spring, when the snow and ice melt and the street surfaces dry out, large amounts of dust enter the air to form particulate matter [110,111,112]. A frequently used practice in the management of small waste is to incorporate it into lightweight aggregates [113,114,115,116]. Street and pavement sweeping waste is a serious health problem due to particulates below 10 um. They provide a significant challenge to a closed-loop economy since there is no generally recognized alternative technology for managing them, and their high management costs make them an economic issue as well. They are dumped in landfills, which has a detrimental effect on the environment and the economy. Gonba-Chyła et al. showed that a good idea to manage this waste according to the circular economy concept is to incorporate it into a new building material, corresponding to the characteristics of lightweight aggregate [117].

8. Industrial Waste from Coal Preparation (Tailings), and Ash from Coal Combustion

Waste incineration is a consolidated technology resulting in a reduction in the mass and volume of waste, which is combined with efficient energy recovery [118,119]. The incineration process produces a large amount of ash. The final solid residues constitute about 30% of the total input mass. These residues can be divided into fly ash and bottom ash [120]. Bottom ash is commonly reused as an additive for building materials. Fly ash was disposed of in landfills because it posed a risk to human health and the environment. Fly ash contains higher concentrations of heavy metals than bottom ash and therefore needs to be treated to make it environmentally safe before landfilling. Fly ash has also found a use in the road industry, as an embankment for road construction [121]. Fly ash is handled safely using three primary methods: heat treatment, solidification/stabilization (S/S), and separation procedures. Chlorides, and other salts like sulfate, bromine, and iodine, as well as heavy metals and bases, are typically reduced by using separation techniques [122,123,124]. One by-product that has a high ash level is fine coking coal (FWCC). Large amounts are produced during the process of separating raw coking coal, and they are stored outside without any treatment, posing a risk to the environment and wasting energy. Yang et al., 2019 showed that it was possible to recover clean coal with an ash content less than 12.5% by spiral separation, grinding, and flotation processes. Analyses of physical properties showed that FWCC could be pre-processed by gravity in a spiral separator, as it contains a large amount of high-density materials. This yielded 46.28% pure spiral coal with an ash content of 26.50% and 53.72% spiral waste with an ash content of 68.94%, respectively, removed by the spiral separator under the right conditions. As the grinding time increases, clean coal’s flotation efficiency theoretically rises. According to experimental flotation experiments, when the grinding duration goes from 3.5 min to 15 min, the maximum actual yield of clean coal first rises and then falls. The application is relevant in metallurgical plants and possesses economic value [125]. Galos and Szluga quantify mining and processing waste; it represents the largest group of industrial waste generated and stored in Poland and Europe. The most important group is waste from the mining and processing of hard coal, currently generating 29–33 million Mg per year, of which about 85% is managed. These are two groups: mining waste (up to 20%) from preparatory and production mining operations; and processing waste classified as coarse-grained waste from dense, medium–heavy separation, fine-grained waste from jiggers and very fine-grained flotation tailings. Poland mined 84 million tons (Mt) of hard coal in 2008, and, despite a subsequent reduction, it continues to be the primary supply of high-quality coal for domestic energy and steel industries, as well as neighbors in Europe and elsewhere. In the process of extracting valuable coal products, the production of 1 ton of hard coal results in the generation of 0.4 tons of mining ‘waste material’. This waste material includes waste rock, which may contain lost coal, as well as wash rejects and tailings, both of which contain economically recoverable coal [126,127,128]. This chapter examines the circumstances in Poland and its neighboring countries, detailing initiatives to reclaim this lost coal, while also providing valuable insights into analogous situations in other significant coal-producing nations. This chapter concludes with a case study highlighting a successful project recently completed by RecyCoal in the UK. We quantify the volume of tailings generated in Poland in 2008 [129]. In total, 84 million tons (Mt) of hard coal were extracted. Although there has been a subsequent decline, it remains a significant source of high-quality coal in Europe and beyond [130]. In the process of extracting valuable coal products, the production of 1 ton of hard coal results in the generation of 0.4 tons of mining “waste material”, which includes gangue and mud waste. This waste contains materials that have the potential for further utilization [131,132].
Table 1 provides a summary and comparison of the key characteristics included in the literature.

9. Conclusions

The subject of waste below 10 mm is of narrow interest to researchers. After analyzing the literature, some difficulties were encountered in obtaining clear information on effective methods of managing the −10 mm waste fraction. Such difficulties were encountered with waste −10 mm from mechanical–biological treatment and street-sweeping waste. One of the forms of the recovery/recycling of waste with a fraction smaller than 10 mm, and, at the same time, their reuse, is the creation of mixtures from waste in order to create a new product for use and recycling. A wide range of waste materials with a fraction of less than 10 mm has been studied in the literature as a partial or complete substitute for conventional raw materials in the production of lightweight aggregates and other construction materials. Closing the loop for troublesome waste with a fraction below 10 mm can be performed by making new products or materials from them. Such solutions have been in use for a long time and are in increasing demand. This is due to the depletion of natural resources and, thus, the increasing demand for lightweight building materials (mainly concrete) and coating materials with improved thermal, thermohygrometric, and acoustic properties, such as lightweight mortars and external thermal insulation systems. It is worth developing this line of research towards the recycling of 10 mm waste, in line with the concept of the circular economy. Leaving this waste fraction without rational reuse will have environmental and economic consequences.

Funding

This research was funded in whole or in part by [“National Science Centre”, Poland] grant number [2024/08/X/ST10/00568].

Acknowledgments

“National Science Centre”, Poland 2024/08/X/ST10/00568. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC-BY public copyright licence to any Author-Accepted Manuscript (AAM) version arising from this submission.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Al-Sakkari, E.G.; Habashy, M.M.; Abdelmigeed, M.O.; Mohammed, M.G. Review of municipal waste. In Waste-to-Energy; Abomohra, A.E.F., Wang, Q., Huang, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kwaśnicki, P.; Jarzębski, M.; Kardasz, P.; Inglot, M. Characterization techniques of sandwich-type TiO2/QD composites for low-cost quantum dots’ solar cell. Opto-Electron. Rev. 2019, 27, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Augustowski, D.; Kwaśnicki, P.; Dziedzic, J.; Rysz, J. Magnetron Sputtered Electron Blocking Layer as an Efficient Method to Improve Dye-Sensitized Solar Cell Performance. Energies 2020, 13, 2690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hauser, H.E.; Blumenthal, K. Each Person in the EU Generated 475 kg of Municipal Waste in 2014; Eurostat Press: Luxembourg, 2016; Volume 56. [Google Scholar]
  5. Jouhara, H.; Czajczyńska, D.; Ghazal, H.; Krzyżyńska, R.; Anguilano, L.; Reynolds, A.J.; Spencer, N. Municipal waste management systems for domestic use. Energy 2017, 139, 485–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zaman, A.U. A comprehensive study of the environmental and economic benefits of resource recovery from global waste management systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 124, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Statistics Poland, Agriculture and Environment Department, 2024, ISSN 0867-3217, 148-174 (In Polish). Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/srodowisko-energia/srodowisko/ochrona-srodowiska-2024,1,25.html (accessed on 7 February 2025).
  8. Mönkäre, T.J.; Palmroth, M.R.T.; Rintala, J.A. Characterization of fine fraction mined from two Finnish landfills. Waste Manag. 2016, 47, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Burlakovs, J.; Jani, Y.; Kriipsalu, M.; Vincevica-Gaile, Z.; Kaczala, F.; Celma, G.; Ozola, R.; Rozina, L.; Rudovica, V.; Hogland, M.; et al. On the way to ‘zero waste’ management: Recovery potential of elements, including rare earth elements, from fine fraction of waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 186, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Haynes, R.J.; Belyaeva, O.N.; Zhou, Y.-F. Particle size fractionation as a method for characterizing the nutrient content of municipal green waste used for composting. Waste Manag. 2015, 35, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. den Boer, E.; Jędrczak, J. Performance of mechanical biological treatment of residual municipal waste in Poland. E3S Web Conf. 2017, 22, 00020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Grąz, K. Qualitative Studies of Selected Types of Composts. Rocz. Ochr. Sr. 2024, 26, 700–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Grzesik, K.; Mailinowski, M. Life Cycle Assessment of Mechanical–Biological Treatment of Mixed Municipal Waste. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2024, 34, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zaman, A.U. Identification of waste management development drivers and potential emerging waste treatment technologies. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 10, 455–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bayard, R.; de Araújo Morais, I.; Ducom, G.; Achour, F.; Rouez, M.; Gourdon, R. Assessment of the effectiveness of an industrial unit of mechanical–biological treatment of municipal solid waste. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 175, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Nithikul, J.; Karthikeyan, O.P.; Visvanathan, C. Reject management from a Mechanical Biological Treatment plant in Bangkok, Thailand, Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 417–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Trulli, E.; Ferronato, N.; Torretta, V.; Piscitelli, M.; Masi, S.; Mancini, I. Sustainable mechanical biological treatment of solid waste in urbanized areas with low recycling rates. Waste Manag. 2018, 71, 556–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Tintner, J.; Smidt, E.; Böhm, K.; Binner, E. Investigations of biological processes in Austrian MBT plants. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 1903–1907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Lorange, R.; Redon, E.; Lagier, T.; Hébé, I.; Carré, J. Performance of a low cost MBT prior to landfilling: Study of the biological treatment of size reduced MSW without mechanical sorting. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 1755–1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Di Lonardo, M.C.; Lombardi, F.; Gavasci, R. Quality evaluation and improvement of mechanically–biologically treated municipal solid waste in view of a possible recovery. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 12, 3243–3254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Di Lonardo, M.C.; Lombardi, F.; Gavasci, R. Characterization of MBT plants input and outputs: A review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2012, 11, 353–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lieto, A.; Zingaretti, D.; Lombardi, F.; Gavasci, R. Effect of a Further Maturation Phase on the Chemical and Environmental Properties of a Bio-stabilised Waste from a Mechanical–Biological Treatment Plant. Waste Biomass Valorization 2019, 10, 3659–3671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Alvarez-Gallego, C.J.; Fdez-Güelfo, L.A.; Romero Aguilar, M.d.l.A.; Romero García, L.I. Thermochemical Pretreatments of Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste from a Mechanical-Biological Treatment Plant. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 3769–3782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jędrczak, A.; Suchowska-Kisielewicz, M. Comparison of waste stability indicators in mechanical-biological treatment and composting plants. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Cook, E.; Wagland, S.; Coulon, F. Investigation into the non-biological outputs of mechanical–biological treatment facilities. Waste Manag. 2015, 46, 212–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Śniadecka, N.; Tonderski, A.; Hänel, A.; Wojda-Gburek, J.; Hupka, J. Mineral matter in municipal solid waste. Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process. 2016, 52, 973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sharifi, Z.; Renella, G. Assessment of a particle size fractionation as a technology for reducing heavy metal, salinity and impurities from compost produced by municipal solid waste. Waste Manag. 2015, 38, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Gronba-Chyła, A.; Generowicz, A. Municipal waste fraction below 10 mm and possibility of its use in ceramic building materials. Przemysł Chem. 2020, 99, 1318–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cimpan, C.; Maul, A.; Jansen, M.; Pretz, T.; Wenzel, H. Central sorting and recovery of MSW recyclable materials: A review of technological state-of-the-art, cases, practice and implications for materials recycling. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 156, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Jones, D.L.; Chesworth, S.; Khalid, M.; Iqbal, Z. Assessing the addition of mineral processing waste to green waste-derived compost: An agronomic, environmental and economic appraisal. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 770–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Van Gestel, K.; Mergaert, J.; Swings, J.; Coosemans, J.; Ryckeboer, J. Bioremediation of diesel oil-contaminated soil by composting with biowaste. Environ. Pollut. 2003, 125, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Mazur, I.; Jagustyn, B.; Sajdak, M. The detection of ash derived from the illegal co-combustion of solid waste with coal in domestic boilers with the aid of spectrometric approaches and statistical learning. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2023, 19, 100758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kicińska, A. Chemical and mineral composition of fly ashes from home furnaces, and health and environmental risk related to their presence in the environment. Chemosphere 2019, 215, 574–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Galvín, A.P.; Ayuso, J.; García, I.; Jiménez, J.R.; Gutiérrez, F. The effect of compaction on the leaching and pollutant emission time of recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 83, 294–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Assi, A.; Bilo, F.; Zanoletti, A.; Ponti, J.; Valsesia, A.; La Spina, R.; Zacco, A.; Bontempi, E. Zero-waste approach in municipal solid waste incineration: Reuse of bottom ash to stabilize fly ash. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Brancolia, P.; Boltona, K.; Eriksson, M. Environmental impacts of waste management and valorisation pathways for surplus bread in Sweden. Waste Manag. 2020, 117, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Van Praagh, M.; Modin, H. Leaching of chloride, sulphate, heavy metals, dissolved organic carbon and phenolic organic pesticides from contaminated concrete. Waste Manag. 2016, 56, 352–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Izquierdo, M.; Querol, X. Leaching behaviour of elements from coal combustion fly ash: An overview. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2012, 94, 54–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wyrzykowska, B.; Hanari, N.; Orlikowska, A.; Yamashita, N.; Falandysz, J. Dioxin-like compound compositional profiles of furnace bottom ashes from household combustion in Poland and their possible associations with contamination status of agricultural soil and pine needles. Chemosphere 2009, 76, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Mizerna, K. Determination of forms of heavy metals in bottom ash from households using sequential extraction. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 44, 00116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Smołka-Danielowska, D.; Jabłońska, M. Chemical and mineral composition of ashes from wood biomass combustion in domestic wood-fired furnaces. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 19, 5359–5372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Đolić, M.; Ćujić, M.; Stanišić, T.; Čičkarić, D.; Ristić, M.; Perić Grujić, A. Contribution to the Serbian coal ranking and fly ash characterization using Pb isotopic ratio. Metall. Mater. Eng. 2022, 28, 675–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nurmesniemi, H.; Manskinen, K.; Pöykiö, R.; Dahl, O. Forest fertilizer properties of the bottom ash and fly ash from a large-sized (115 mw) industrial power plant incinerating wood-based biomass residues. J. Univ. Chem. Technol. Metall. 2012, 47, 43–52. [Google Scholar]
  44. James, A.K.; Thring, R.W.; Helle, S.; Ghuman, H.S. Ash Management Review—Applications of Biomass Bottom Ash. Energies 2012, 5, 3856–3873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Khan, A.; Jong, W.; Jansens, P.; Spliethoff, H. Biomass combustion in fluidized bed boilers: Potential problems and remidies. Fuel Process. Technol. 2009, 90, 21–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gomez-Barea, A.; Vilches, L.; Campoy, M.; Fernandez-Pereira, C. Plant optimization and ash recycling in fluidised waste gasification. Chem. Eng. J. 2009, 146, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Vassilev, S.V.; Baxter, D.; Andersen, L.K.; Vassileva, C.G. An overview of the composition and application of biomass ash. Part 1. Phase–mineral and chemical composition and classification. Fuel 2013, 105, 40–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fabiańska, M.J.; Smółka-Danielowska, D. Biomarker compounds in ash from coal combustion in domestic furnaces (Upper Silesia Coal Basin, Poland). Fuel 2012, 102, 333–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cieślik, E.; Fabiańska, M.J. Preservation of geochemical markers during co-combustion of hard coal and various domestic waste materials. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 768, 144638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Franco, A.; Diaz, A.R. The future challenges for “clean coal technologies”: Joining efficiency increase and pollutant emission control. Energy 2009, 34, 348–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Maroto-Valer, M.M.; Taulbee, D.N.; Hower, J.C. Characterization of differing forms of unburned carbon present in fly ash separated by density gradient centrifugation. Fuel 2001, 80, 795–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Xu, S.; Zhou, Z.; Gao, X.; Yu, G.; Gong, X. The gasification reactivity of unburned carbon present in gasification slag from entrained-flow gasifier. Fuel Process. Technol. 2009, 90, 1062–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ribeiro, J.; Silva, T.F.; Mendonça Filho, J.G.; Flores, D. Fly ash from coal combustion—An environmental source of organic compounds. Appl. Geochem. 2014, 44, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Saha, A.K. Effect of class F fly ash on the durability properties of concrete. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2018, 28, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Şahmaran, M.; Li, V.C. Durability properties of micro-cracked ECC containing high volumes fly ash. Cem. Concr. Res. 2009, 39, 1033–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Li, G.; Zhao, X. Properties of concrete incorporating fly ash and ground granulated blast-furnace slag. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2003, 25, 293–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hefni, Y.; Abd El Zaher, Y.; Wahab, M.A. Influence of activation of fly ash on the mechanical properties of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 172, 728–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Swinnerton, S.; Kurtz, K.; Neba Nforsoh, S.; Caver, V.; Tsai, C. The manufacturing process and consequent occupational health and environmental risks associated with the use of plastic waste in construction bricks in small-scale recycling plants. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 477, 143818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Thomas, J.; Wilson, P.M. Construction waste management in India. Am. J. Eng. Res. (AJER) 2013, 2, 6–9. [Google Scholar]
  60. Lam, P.T.I.; Yu, A.T.W.; Wu, Z.; Poon, C.S. Methodology for upstream estimation of construction waste for new building projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 1003–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Omer, M.M.; Rahman, R.A.; Almutairi, S. Construction waste recycling: Enhancement strategies and organization size. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2022, 126, 103114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ramos, M.; Martinho, G. Influence of construction company size on the determining factors for construction and demolition waste management. Waste Manag. 2021, 136, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Brunner, P.H.; Stämpfli, D.M. Material Balance of a Construction Waste Sorting Plant. Waste Manag. Res. 1993, 11, 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Llatas, C. A model for quantifying construction waste in projects according to the European waste list. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 1261–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Young, J.M.; Kelly, T.M.; Vance, L. Determination of size fractions and concentrations of airborne particulate matter generated from construction and demolition waste processing facilities. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2008, 1, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Cocco, P.L.; Ruggiero, R. From rubbles to digital material bank. A digital methodology for construction and demolition waste management in post-disaster areas. Environ. Res. Technol. 2021, 6, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gálvez-Martos, J.-L.; Styles, D.; Schoenberger, H.; Zeschmar-Lahl, B. Construction and demolition waste best management practice in Europe, Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 136, 166–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bao, Z.; Lee, W.M.W.; Lu, W. Implementing on-site construction waste recycling in Hong Kong: Barriers and facilitators. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 747, 141091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Panizza, M.; Natali, M.; Garbin, E.; Tamburini, S.; Secco, M. Assessment of geopolymers with Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) aggregates as a building material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 181, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Besklubova, S.; Kravchenko, E.; Tan, B.Q.; Zhong, R.Y. A feasibility analysis of waste concrete powder recycling market establishment: Hong Kong case. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2023, 103, 107225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Schildkamp, M.; Silvestri, S.; Araki, Y. Rubble stone masonry buildings with cement mortar: Design specifications in seismic and masonry codes worldwide. Front. Built Environ. 2020, 6, 590520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Del Rey, I.; Ayuso, J.; Barbudo, A.; Galvín, A.P.; Agrela, F.; de Brito, J. Feasibility study of cement-treated 0–8 mm recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste as road base layer. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2015, 17, 678–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Weimann, K.; Giese, L.B.; Mellmann, G.; Simon, F.-G. Building Materials from Waste. Mater. Trans. 2003, 44, 1255–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Munir, Q.; Abdulkareem, M.; Horttanainen, M.; Kärki, T. A comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete produced from industrial side streams in comparison with traditional concrete. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 865, 161230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Munir, Q.; Lahtela, V.; Kärki, T.; Koivula, A. Assessing life cycle sustainability: A comprehensive review of concrete produced from construction waste fine fractions. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 366, 121734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Kul, A.; Ozel, B.F.; Ozcelikci, E.; Gunal, M.F.; Ulugol, H.; Yildirim, G.; Sahmaran, M. Characterization and life cycle assessment of geopolymer mortars with masonry units and recycled concrete aggregates assorted from construction and demolition waste. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 78, 107546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Liang, G.; Luo, L.; Yao, W. Reusing waste red brick powder as partial mineral precursor in eco-friendly binders: Reaction kinetics, microstructure and life-cycle assessment. Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 185, 106523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Joseph, H.S.; Pachiappan, T.; Avudaiappan, S.; Maureira-Carsalade, N.; Roco-Videla, Á.; Guindos, P.; Parra, P.F. A comprehensive review on recycling of construction demolition waste in concrete. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zhang, H.; Zhang, C.; He, B.; Yi, S.; Tang, L. Recycling fine powder collected from construction and demolition wastes as partial alternatives to cement: A comprehensive analysis on effects, mechanism, cost and CO2 emission. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 71, 106507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wu, H.; Yang, D.; Ma, Z. Micro-structure, mechanical and transport properties of cementitious materials with high-volume waste concrete powder and thermal modification. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 313, 125477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Xue, C.; Qiao, H.; Cao, H.; Feng, Q.; Li, Q. Analysis on the strength of cement mortar mixed with construction waste brick powder. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 8871280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Horsakulthai, V. Effect of recycled concrete powder on strength, electrical resistivity, and water absorption of self-compacting mortars. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2021, 15, e00725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rocha, S.; Sousa-Coutinho, J. Construction and demolition waste as partial cement replacement. Adv. Cem. Res. 2019, 31, 411–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Irki, I.; Debieb, F.; Ouzadid, S.; Dilmi, H.L.; Settari, C.; Boukhelkhel, D. Effect of Blaine fineness of recycling brick powder replacing cementitious materials in self compacting mortar. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2018, 32, 963–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sui, Y.; Ou, C.; Liu, S.; Zhang, J.; Tian, Q. Study on properties of waste concrete powder by thermal treatment and application in mortar. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Dawood, A.O.; Hayder, A.K.; Falih, R.S. Physical and mechanical properties of concrete containing PET wastes as a partial replacement for fine aggregates. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2021, 14, e00482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Gronba-Chyła, A. Experimental Investigation on the Properties of Street and Sidewalk Cleaning Waste. Archit. Civ. Eng. Environ. 2023, 16, 149–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wahab, B.; Ogunlola, B. The Nature and Challenges of Street Sweeping in Ado-Ekiti. Afr. J. Psychol. Stud. Soc. Issues 2014, 17, 145–167. [Google Scholar]
  89. Hajduga, G.; Generowicz, A.; Kryłów, M. Human health risk assessment of heavy metals in road dust collected in Cracow. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Interdisciplinary Problems in Environmental Protection and Engineering, EKO-DOK 2019, Polanica-Zdroj, Poland, 8–10 April 2019; Volume 100, p. 00026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Chen, M.; Wang, X.; Cai, L.; Ma, L. Designing visually and operationally attractive routes to improve driver acceptance in road cleaning vehicle routing problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 2025, 177, 106973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kryłów, M.; Generowicz, A. Impact of Street Sweeping and Washing on the PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations in Cracow (Poland). Rocz. Ochr. Sr. 2019, 21, 691–711. [Google Scholar]
  92. Ragazzi, M.; Zuccato, C.; Schiavon, M.; Rada, E.C. Overview and possible approach to street sweeping criticalities. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Järlskog, I.; Strömvall, A.M.; Magnusson, K.; Galfi, H.; Björklund, K.; Polukarova, M.; Garção, R.; Markiewicz, A.; Aronsson, M.; Gustafsson, M.; et al. Traffic-related microplastic particles, metals, and organic pollutants in an urban area under reconstruction. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 774, 145503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kupiainen, K.; Ritola, R.; Stojiljkovic, A.; Pirjola, L.; Malinen, A.; Niemi, J. Contribution of mineral dust sources to street side ambient and suspension PM10 samples. Atmos. Environ. 2016, 147, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Chang, Y.-M.; Chou, C.-M.; Su, K.-T.; Tseng, C.-H. Effectiveness of Street Sweeping and Washing for Controlling Ambient TSP. Atmos. Environ. 2005, 39, 1891–1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Aldrin, M.; Hobæk Haff, I.; Rosland, P. The Effect of Salting with Magnesium Chloride on the Concentration of Particular Matter in a Road Tunnel. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 1762–1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Järlskog, I.; Strömvall, A.-M.; Magnusson, K.; Gustafsson, M.; Polukarova, M.; Galfi, H.; Aronsson, M.; Andersson-Sköld, Y. Occurrence of tire and bitumen wear microplastics on urban streets andin sweepsand and washwater. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 729, 138950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Clark, C.F.; Smith, P.G.; Neilson, G.; Dinnie, R.M. Chemical characterization and legal classification of sludges from road sweepings. Water Environ. Manag. 2000, 14, 99–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Lemanowicz, J.; Bartkowiak, A. The assessment of the possible use of municipal waste—Code 20 03 03 based on its physicochemical and biochemical properties. Arch. Waste Manag. Environ. Prot. 2015, 17, 79–86. [Google Scholar]
  100. Aryal, R.; Beecham, S.; Sarkar, B.; Chong, M.N.; Kinsela, A.; Kandasamy, J.; Vigneswaran, S. Readily Wash-Off Road Dust and Associated Heavy Metals on Motorways. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2017, 228, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Generowicz, A.; Wassilkowska, A.; Kryłów, M. Qualitative composition of waste from street cleaning on the example of research carried out in Krakow. Przemysł Chem. 2020, 99, 1312–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Generowicz, A.; Gronba-Chyła, A.; Kulczycka, J.; Harazin, P.; Gaska, K.; Ciuła, J.; Ocłoń, P. Life Cycle Assessment for the environmental impact assessment of a city’ cleaning system. The case of Cracow (Poland). J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 382, 135184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Beylot, A.; Muller, S.; Descat, M.; Ménard, Y.; Villeneuve, J. Life cycle assessment of the French municipal solid waste incineration sector. Waste Manag. 2018, 80, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Tan, Z.; Lu, S.; Zhao, H.; Kai, X.; Jiaxian, P.; Win, M.S.; Yu, S.; Yonemochi, S.; Wang, W. Magnetic, geochemical characterization and health risk assessment of road dust Xuanwei and Fuyuan, China. Environ. Geochem. Health 2018, 40, 1541–1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. German, J.; Svensson, G. Metal content and particle size distribution of street sediments and street sweeping waste. Water Sci. Technol. 2002, 46, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Bartolozzi, I.; Baldereschi, E.; Daddi, T.; Iraldo, F. The application of life cycle assessment (LCA) in municipal solid waste management: A comparative study on street sweeping services. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 455–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Acosta, J.A.; Gabarrón, M.; Faz, A.; Martínez-Martínez, S.; Zornoza, R.; Arocena, J.M. Influence of Population Density on the Concentration and Speciation of Metals in the Soil and Street Dust from Urban Areas. Chemosphere 2015, 134, 328–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Gronba-Chyła, A.; Generowicz, A.; Kwaśnicki, P.; Cycoń, D.; Kwaśny, J.; Grąz, K.; Gaska, K.; Ciuła, J. Determining the Effectiveness of Street Cleaning with the Use of Decision Analysis and Research on the Reduction in Chloride in Waste. Energies 2022, 15, 3538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Rienda, I.C.; Alves, C.A. Road dust resuspension: A review. Atmos. Res. 2021, 261, 105740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Acosta, J.A.; Faz, A.; Kalbitz, K.; Jansen, B.; Martínez-Martínez, S. Partitioning of heavy metals over different chemical fraction in street dust of Murcia (Spain) as a basis for risk assessment. J. Geochem. Explor. 2014, 144 Pt B, 298–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Amato, F.; Pandolfi, M.; Viana, M.; Querol, M.; Alastuey, A.; Moreno, T. Spatial and chemical patterns of PM10 in road dust deposited in urban environment. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 1650–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Amato, F.; Querol, X.; Johansson, C.; Nagl, C.; Alastuey, A. A Review on the Effectiveness of Street Sweeping, Washing and Dust Suppressants as Urban PM Control Methods. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408, 3070–3084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Alves, C.A.; Evtyugina, M.; Vicente, A.M.P.; Vicente, E.D.; Nunes, T.V.; Silva, P.M.A.; Duarte, M.A.C.; Pio, C.A.; Amato, F.; Querol, X. Chemical profiling of PM10 from urban road dust. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 634, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Aubert, J.E.; Husson, B.; Vaquier, A. Use of municipal solid waste incineration fly ash in concreto. Cem. Concr. Res. 2007, 34, 957–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Ayati, B.; Ferrándiz-Mas, V.; Newport, D.; Cheeseman, C. Use of clay in the manufacture of lightweight aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 162, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Balapour, M.; Rao, R.; Garboczi, E.J.; Spatari, S.; Hsuan, Y.G.; Billen, P.; Farnam, Y. Thermochemical principles of the production of lightweight aggregates from waste coal bottom ash. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2021, 104, 613–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Chen, H.J.; Yang, M.D.; Tang, C.W.; Wang, S.Y. Producing synthetic lightweight aggregates from reservoir sediments. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 28, 387–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Gronba-Chyła, A.; Generowicz, A.; Alwaeli, M.; Mannheim, V.; Grąz, K.; Kwaśnicki, P.; Kramek, A. Municipal waste utilization as a substitute for natural aggregate in the light of the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 440, 140907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Benassi, L.; Dalipi, R.; Consigli, V.; Pasquali, M.; Borgese, L.; Depero, L.E.; Clegg, F.; Bingham, P.A.; Bontempi, E. Integrated management of ash from industrial and domestic combustion: A new sustainable approach for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from energy conversion. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 14834–14846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Zhao, X.-g.; Jiang, G.-w.; Li, A.; Li, Y. Technology, cost, a performance of waste-to-energy incineration industry in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 55, 115–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Guarienti, M.; Gianoncelli, A.; Bontempi, E.; Moscoso Cardozo, S.; Borgese, L.; Zilioli, D.; Mitola, S.; Depero, L.E.; Presta, M. Biosafe inertization of municipal solid waste incinerator residues by COSMOS technology. J. Hazard. Mater. 2014, 279, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Mehta, A.; Siddique, R. An overview of geopolymers derived from industrial by-products. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 127, 183–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Colangelo, F.; Cioffi, R.; Montagnaro, F.; Santoro, L. Soluble salt removal from MSWI fly ash and its stabilization for safer disposal and recovery as road basement material. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 1179–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Bosio, A.; Zacco, A.; Borgese, L.; Rodella, N.; Colombi, P.; Benassi, L.; Depero, L.E.; Bontempi, E. A sustainable technology for Pb and Zn stabilization based on the use of only waste materials: A green chemistry approach to avoid chemicals and promote CO2 sequestration. Chem. Eng. J. 2014, 253, 377–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Zacco, A.; Borgese, L.; Gianoncelli, A.; Struis, R.P.W.J.; Depero, L.E.; Bontempi, E. Review of fly ash inertisation treatments and recycling. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2014, 12, 153–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Przydatek, G.; Kochanek, A.; Basta, M. Analysis of changes in municipal waste management at the county level. J. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 18, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Kochanek, A.J.; Kobylarczyk, S. The Analysis of the Main Geospatial Factors Using Geoinformation Programs Required for the Planning, Design and Construction of a Photovoltaic Power Plant. J. Ecol. Eng. 2024, 25, 49–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Kochanek, A.; Ciuła, J.; Generowicz, A.; Mitryasova, O.; Jasińska, A.; Jurkowski, S.; Kwaśnicki, P. The Analysis of Geospatial Factors Necessary for the Planning, Design, and Construction of Agricultural Biogas Plants in the Context of Sustainable Development. Energie 2024, 17, 5619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Yang, Z.; Xia, Y.; Wei, C.; Cao, Y.; Sun, W.; Liu, P.; Cheng, H.; Xing, Y.; Gui, X. New flotation flowsheet for recovering combustible matter from fine waste coking coal. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 225, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Galos, K.; Szlugaj, J. Management of hard coal mining and processing wastes in Poland. Miner. Resour. Manag. 2014, 30, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Sobiecka, E. Thermal and physicochemical technologies used in hospital incineration fly ash utilization before landfill in Poland. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2016, 91, 2457–2461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Jahandari, S.; Tao, Z.; Chen, Z.; Osborne, D.; Rahme, M. 4—Coal wastes: Handling, pollution, impacts, and utilization. In The Coal Handbook (Second Edition) Towards Cleaner Coal Utilization; Volume 2 in Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2023; pp. 97–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 01612 g001aSustainability 17 01612 g001b
Figure 1. Photographs of waste with a fraction below 10 mm: (a) household hearth ash, (b) stabilizer from the mechanical–biological waste treatment plant, (c) fraction > 10 mm of waste, from mechanical–biological waste treatment plants, (d) waste from street sweeping, and (e) tailings from coal enrichment.
Figure 1. Photographs of waste with a fraction below 10 mm: (a) household hearth ash, (b) stabilizer from the mechanical–biological waste treatment plant, (c) fraction > 10 mm of waste, from mechanical–biological waste treatment plants, (d) waste from street sweeping, and (e) tailings from coal enrichment.
Sustainability 17 01612 g001aSustainability 17 01612 g001b
Sustainability 17 01612 g002
Figure 2. Schematic of the biological–mechanical treatment of waste.
Figure 2. Schematic of the biological–mechanical treatment of waste.
Sustainability 17 01612 g002
Table 1. Summary and comparison of the different types of waste fraction −10 mm.
Table 1. Summary and comparison of the different types of waste fraction −10 mm.
Waste Type Less Than 10 mmLiterature Highlights
Landfill miningContent of major and minor elements and rare earth elements. Research into their extraction is worthwhile.
The resulting installations of mechanical–biological processingPrecipitates other waste fractions landfilled.Stabilizer difficult to manage—landfilled.
Ashes from the combustion of coal and wood in domestic hearthsThe main components of ash are oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, and magnesium. Ashes also contain other substances such as chlorides, sulphates, and phosphates. Coal combustion ash is alkaline in nature. They are deposited in landfills.
Power plant fly ashUsed for mural mortar due to its pozzulanic properties. Extensive use under road embankments.
Construction wasteBuilding and demolition processing and recycling facilities accept demolition waste materials, then grind them up and add them to new materials. During grinding, particles below PM10 enter the environment.
Street-sweeping wasteDue to the high seasonal homogeneity of the chloride content, the waste is deposited in landfills. New research directions suggest a new management method by incorporating the waste into lightweight aggregates.
Wastes from coal preparationDespite modern flotation methods, this waste still contains large amounts of coal (up to 50%), stored in mining dumps. Sometimes used for road construction.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gronba-Chyła, A.; Generowicz, A.; Kwaśnicki, P.; Kochanek, A. Recovery and Recycling of Selected Waste Fractions with a Grain Size Below 10 mm. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041612

AMA Style

Gronba-Chyła A, Generowicz A, Kwaśnicki P, Kochanek A. Recovery and Recycling of Selected Waste Fractions with a Grain Size Below 10 mm. Sustainability. 2025; 17(4):1612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041612

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gronba-Chyła, Anna, Agnieszka Generowicz, Paweł Kwaśnicki, and Anna Kochanek. 2025. "Recovery and Recycling of Selected Waste Fractions with a Grain Size Below 10 mm" Sustainability 17, no. 4: 1612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041612

APA Style

Gronba-Chyła, A., Generowicz, A., Kwaśnicki, P., & Kochanek, A. (2025). Recovery and Recycling of Selected Waste Fractions with a Grain Size Below 10 mm. Sustainability, 17(4), 1612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041612

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop