where:Qmi,j = material flow i, whic

where:
Qmi,j = material flow i, which undergoes the treatment
method j, tonne waste material/year
EFi,j = emission factor (kgCO2e/tonne waste material) of
each material i, in each treatment j.
The data for material flows were taken from Eurostat
database (2015), while the emission factors were considered
from authors who have suggested CF aggregated models:
Smith et al. (2001), EPA (2006), Chen and Lin (2008),
Christensen et al. (2009). These emission factors are
developed considering national average conditions in USA
and EU, respectively. The values obtained for each of the
suggested models may vary substantially, due to different
methodologies used, definition of waste categories, different
greenhouse gases (GHG) accounting. There are cases in which
EF value may be positive or negative. The model proposed by
Christensen et al. (2009) provides a range of minimum and
maximum values for the EF. Based on these observations, the
study compares the values of different waste streams and
timeline within the same model and in between models.
In this study, 6 main types of waste could be considered for
the Romanian case study namely: organic or biodegradable
waste, metals (ferrous and non-ferrous), glass, paper and
cardboard, plastic, and wood wastes. The data on waste
generation per these specific waste categories and treatment
options were available only for 2010 and 2012. Due to data
constraints, the use of CF aggregated models is preferred,
because they represent an efficient solution to obtain
information on the environmental impact, especially on the
air emission issues, as compared to other methodologies.
Thus, it was possible to calculate the Carbon footprint
of the 6 solid waste streams. To our best knowledge, this is
the first study that estimates carbon footprint based on this
methodology, for all 6 waste categories and mentioned years,
for Romania.

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 2:

where:
qmi, J = Material flow I, which undergoes the Treatment
method J, TONNE waste Material / year
efi, J = emission factor (KgCO2e / TONNE waste Material) of
each Material I, in each Treatment J.
The Data for Material flows. were taken from Eurostat
Database (2015), while the emission factors were considered
from Authors Who have SUGGESTED CF aggregated models:
Smith et al. (The 2,001th), EPA (the 2,006th), Chen and Lin (in 2008),
Christensen et al. (2009). These emission factors are
developed considering National average conditions in USA
and EU, respectively. The values ​​obtained for each of the
models SUGGESTED May Vary substantially, Due to different
methodologies used, Definition of waste categories, different
greenhouse Gases (GHG) accounting. Cases in which there are
positive or negative EF VALUE May be. The Model Proposed by
Christensen et al. (The 2009th) provides a Range of minimum and
maximum values ​​for the EF. Based on these observations, the
Study compares the values ​​of different waste Streams and
Timeline Within the Same Model and in between models.
In this Study, 6 Main types of waste could be considered for
the Romanian Case Study namely: Organic or biodegradable
waste, Metals. (ferrous and non-ferrous), Glass, Paper and
cardboard, Plastic, Wood and wastes. Data on the waste
Generation per these specific waste categories and Treatment
options were available for only two thousand and ten and 2012. Data Due to
constraints, the use of CF Preferred is aggregated models,
because they represent an efficient Solution to obtain
information on the Environmental Impact, especially. on the
Air emission issues, as compared to Other methodologies.
Thus, it was possible to Calculate the Carbon footprint
of the 6 Solid waste Streams. Knowledge to our best, this is
the First Carbon footprint Study estimates that based on this
methodology, for all waste categories and mentioned 6 years,
for Romania.