Solid Waste Valorization: Concepts, Principles, Valorization Techniques, and Integrated Waste Management

  1. Ronei De Almeida
  2. Ana Ghislane Henriques Pereira van Elk

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Waste mismanagement challenges sustainability and harms the environment and public health – it contributes to water, soil, and air pollution. In this context, the waste valorization perspective views undesired streams as potential resources for protecting natural resources, generating wealth, preventing depletion, and reducing the negative externalities associated with improper disposal. This review introduces the main techniques for valorizing a broad spectrum of wastes, including recycling, bioconversion (e.g., composting and anaerobic digestion), and thermochemical methods (e.g., pyrolysis and gasification). The integration of waste valorization techniques is briefly discussed. The implementation of the waste valorization technique primarily depends on the waste characteristics and the process's technical, economic, and operational feasibility. The integration of multiple valorization techniques will not always boost resource recovery and energy efficiency. Besides,  there is no one-size-fits-all management strategy, and the best option should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Lack of infrastructure, incentives, or a legal framework to support recovery methods can hamper the full promotion of waste valorization and resource utilization, especially in developing economies. Technological development in the waste sector and digital transformation are still required to prompt the recovery of resources from waste streams.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/23067223.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Partly The introduction is very informative concerning the scope of the study. We would have loved to see a research objective or aim of the study. Also, we expected to see something new concerning waste valorization, as many authors have reviewed this concept.
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Neither appropriate nor inappropriate The preprint lacks a methodological section. It's stated (author's contributions) but not explained. We advise the authors to add this section to clearly explain how the literature was identified and selected. Also, we would like to know if it's a narrative or critical...
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Somewhat supported The statement "Atificial Intelligence (AI) and AI tools in the waste management system can be particularly relevant for improving waste valorization and better resource utilization" is not supported. We encourage the authors to support this statement. Also, we would have loved to see the limitations of the study.
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? I don't know
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Neither clearly nor unclearly Some efforts are needed to discuss findings in relation to others and interpretations and explain why certain technologies perform differently. This is to say that the preprint is more descriptive rather than interpretative.
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Not likely The authors declare, "A version of the material presented in this manuscript is currently under consideration for publication as a book chapter. "Then this is not the right place (preprint server). We believe that for a preprint to contribute to the advancement of science, it should provide new empirical findings, a reproducible approach, and address a research gap.
    Would it benefit from language editing? Yes There is a need to engage with someone in the domain of environmental engineering and waste management terminology. Also, there are some grammatical errors to be reviewed.
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, but it needs to be improved We believe that the target audience plays a crucial role in shaping the content. For instance, if the audience consists of researchers focused on waste management, it is essential to include elements such as methodology, research gaps, and quantitative comparisons.
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? No, it needs a major revision

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

    Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

    The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.

  2. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/23068254.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Partly The introduction is very informative concerning the scope of the study. We would have loved to see a research objective or aim of the study. Also, we expected to see something new concerning waste valorization, as many authors have reviewed this concept.
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Neither appropriate nor inappropriate The preprint lacks a methodological section. It's stated (author's contributions) but not explained. We advise the authors to add this section to clearly explain how the literature was identified and selected. Also, we would like to know if it's a narrative or critical...
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Somewhat supported The statement "Atificial Intelligence (AI) and AI tools in the waste management system can be particularly relevant for improving waste valorization and better resource utilization" is not supported. We encourage the authors to support this statement. Also, we would have loved to see the limitations of the study.
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? I don't know
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Neither clearly nor unclearly Some efforts are needed to discuss findings in relation to others and interpretations and explain why certain technologies perform differently. This is to say that the preprint is more descriptive rather than interpretative.
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Not likely The authors declare, "A version of the material presented in this manuscript is currently under consideration for publication as a book chapter. "Then this is not the right place (preprint server). We believe that for a preprint to contribute to the advancement of science, it should provide new empirical findings, a reproducible approach, and address a research gap.
    Would it benefit from language editing? Yes There is a need to engage with someone in the domain of environmental engineering and waste management terminology. Also, there are some grammatical errors to be reviewed.
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, but it needs to be improved We believe that the target audience plays a crucial role in shaping the content. For instance, if the audience consists of researchers focused on waste management, it is essential to include elements such as methodology, research gaps, and quantitative comparisons.
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? No, it needs a major revision

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

    Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

    The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.

  3. Version published to 10.1590/scielopreprints.16654 on SciELO Preprints