# End-of-Life Tyres: Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Treatment Scenarios
## 3 Results  
Impact results are provided in Table 2 with reference to the treatment of 1 t of ELTs, for the two analysed scenarios (recycling and incineration). As it can be noticed, both the options generally lead to environmental benefits. Therefore, the incineration scenario provides heat and electricity, avoiding the impacts of energy production through the \"standard\" processes (the average European grid mix is considered). Figure 4 shows impacts (red arrows) and benefits (green arrows) of the incineration scenario, with reference to the CC impact category. Figure 4: Flow chart with impacts and benefits of the incineration scenario. On the other hand, through the recycling of ELT it is possible to recover rubber granulates, as well as steel and textile (these latter considered as avoided products, with a system expansion approach). In addition, the use of CR in asphalt wearing course allows to reduce the employment of primary raw materials and to extend the service life of the wearing course. Analogously to Figures 4 and 5 show impacts and benefits of the recycling scenario for the CC impact category. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Impact Category (Method: ILCD Midpoint)** & **Unit** & **Incineration Scenario** & **Recycling Scenario** \\ \hline Climate change & kg CO\({}_{2}\) eq & \(-9.32\times 10^{2}\) & \(-1.39\times 10^{3}\) \\ Ozone depletion & kg CFC-11 eq & \(-2.14\times 10^{-4}\) & \(-6.04\times 10^{-4}\) \\ Human toxicity, non-cancer effects & CTUh & \(7.03\times 10^{-4}\) & \(-4.37\times 10^{-4}\) \\ Human toxicity, cancer effects & CTUh & \(-5.70\times 10^{-5}\) & \(-1.32\times 10^{-4}\) \\ Particulate matter & kg PM2.5 eq & \(-3.53\times 10^{-1}\) & \(-1.54\) \\ Ionizing radiation HH & kBq U235 eq & \(-5.96\times 10^{2}\) & \(-2.10\times 10^{2}\) \\ Ionizing radiation E (interim) & CTUe & \(-1.38\times 10^{-3}\) & \(-1.38\times 10^{-3}\) \\ Photochemical ozone formation & kg NMVOC eq & \(-1.09\) & \(-8.92\) \\ Acidification & mole H\({}^{+}\) eq & \(-5.72\) & \(-1.06\times 10^{1}\) \\ Terrestrial eutrophication & molc N eq & \(-6.98\) & \(-2.14\times 10^{1}\) \\ Freshwater eutrophication & kg P eq & \(-1.11\) & \(-3.83\times 10^{-1}\) \\ Marine eutrophication & kg N eq & \(-5.22\times 10^{-1}\) & \(-2.18\) \\ Freshwater ecotoxicity & CTUe & \(-4.73\times 10^{3}\) & \(-8.87\times 10^{3}\) \\ Land use & kg C deficit & \(-6.47\times 10^{2}\) & \(-9.13\times 10^{3}\) \\ Water resource depletion & m\({}^{3}\) water eq & \(-7.77\) & \(9.46\times 10^{-1}\) \\ Mineral, fossil \& ren resource depletion & kg Sb eq & \(-6.62\times 10^{-3}\) & \(-7.71\times 10^{-2}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Impact results for the two analysed EoL scenarios for 1 t of ELT. Figure 5: Flow chart with impacts and benefits of the recycling scenario. For most part of the impact categories, the recovery of material results providing higher environmental benefits than energy recovery. This result is in line with the Waste Framework Directive. Figure 6 shows the relative impacts/benefits of the two scenarios for the categories of CC, HT-nc, PM, RD. As it can be noticed, the employment of CR for roads construction results a better environmental choice for all these four categories. The highest benefits of recycling against incineration is reached for the category of human toxicity (non-cancer): while ELT incineration causes impacts (in absolute value 7.03 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-7}\) CTUh), the ELT recycling provides environmental credits (in absolute value \(-\)4.4 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-7}\) CTUh). For the categories of CC, PM and RD, both the scenarios are responsible of environmental benefits, even though these latter are lower for incineration in comparison to recycling (67% for CC, 23% for PM, 9% for RD). The life cycle extension of the CR wearing course (20 years) against the traditional one (18 years) contributes to the 11% of the benefits of the recycling route.