Os desafios da gestão de resíduos sólidos urbanos nos países do BRICS: uma revisão sistemática de literatura

Gonçalves, Andriani Tavares Tenório; Moraes, Flávia Tuane Ferreira; Marques, Guilherme Lima; Lima, Josiane Palma; Lima, Renato da Silva

doi:10.4136/ambi-agua.2157

Sumário Anterior Atual Seguinte

Sumário

ARTICLES • Rev. Ambient. Água 13 (2) • 2018 • https://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.2157 linkcopiar

Os desafios da gestão de resíduos sólidos urbanos nos países do BRICS: uma revisão sistemática de literatura

Autoria SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

A Gestão de Resíduos Sólidos Urbanos (GRSU) é um desafio mundial. Com o rápido processo de urbanização, crescimento populacional e econômico nos países pertencentes ao BRICS (Brasil, Rússia, Índia, China e África do Sul) o desafio é ainda maior, decorrente do aumento do volume de Resíduos Sólidos Urbanos (RSU) gerados por esses processos. Neste contexto, o presente trabalho tem por objetivo analisar o status da gestão dos RSU nos países do BRICS, bem como promover um intercâmbio de experiência e estratégias de gestão, apontando possíveis caminhos para melhorar os sistemas de GRSU, cuja a implementação deve ser adaptada à realidade de cada país. Para isso, foi realizada uma revisão sistemática de literatura a partir de uma análise bibliométrica. Os resultados mostraram que os sistemas de gestão de RSU nos países membros do BRICS não apresentam uma estrutura bem desenvolvida, muitas vezes a coleta não é eficiente, os resíduos são armazenados de maneira imprópria e destinados em áreas irregulares. A participação do setor informal é característica marcante na GRSU dos países do BRICS, notando-se, portanto, a necessidade de integração do setor informal ao sistema formal de coleta destes resíduos. Devido à alta fração orgânica, é notória as vantagens da compostagem como forma de aproveitamento dos resíduos orgânicos e como meio de reduzir a quantidade de resíduos enviados a aterros. O conhecimento da geração de RSU e a descentralização dos serviços oferecidos de GRSU possibilitaria um maior êxito no atendimento à população.

Palavras-chave:
BRICS; gestão de resíduos sólidos urbanos (GRSU); revisão sistemática de literatura.

Journals	Number of Publications	TGCS	JCR
Waste Management	509	8954	3,829
Waste Management & Research	235	1862	1,338
Resources Conservation and Recycling	153	1880	3,280
Journal of Cleaner Production	91	1118	4,959
Journal of Environmental Management	67	1397	3,131
Environmental Engineering and Management Journal	46	255	1,008
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews	46	547	6,798
Journal of Hazardous Materials	42	1124	4,836

Authors	Countries (Cities under study)	Generation and Composition
Couth and Trois (2010); Snyman and Vorster (2011)	South Africa (Cape Town and Tshwane)	Generation: 870,000 tons of recyclable material. Generation per capita: NI* Composition: South Africa – 50% of USW is organic (Liebenberg, 2007) Projection: Estimation of diminishing fraction of organic waste to 42.5% by 2022 in the city of Tshwane
Lino and Ismail (2013); Toso and Alem (2014); Leme et al. (2014); Rutkowski and Rutkowski (2015)	Brazil (Campinas, Sorocaba and Betim)	Generation: 200 tons of USW per day in Betim Generation per capita: 1,062 kg/inhabitant/day for Brazil (ABRELPE, 2015) Composition: Campinas – 46% organic material, 20% paper, 15% plastic, 4% metal, 2% glass and 13% other materials Sorocaba – of recyclable material, 30.2% are cardboard, 25.5% paper, 4.3 tetra pack, 9% metal, 17.4% plastic and 12.3% glass Projection: NI*
Hui et al. (2006); Song et al. (2013); Jiang et al. (2009); Zhen-Shan et al. (2009); Minghua et al. (2009); Liu and Wu (2010); Liu et al. (2015); Fei et al. (2016); Zhao et al. (2008); Dorn et al. (2012); Wang and Wang (2013); Chen et al. (2010); Dai et al. (2011); Fu et al. (2015)	China (Chongqing, Macao, Lhasa, Shigatse, Nedong District, Bayi District in Nyingchi, Beijing, Shanghai (Pudong), Suzhou, Zhejiang, Guangdong, Hebei, Henan and Sichuan)	Generation: 1,805 million tons of solid waste for domestic urban areas in 2013 Generation per capita: 1.134 kg/inhabitant/day for China Composition: Macao – 45.65% organic material, 16.3 paper, 14.13% plastic, 5.43% glass, 3.25% metal, 2.17% cloth, 8.7% wood, and 4.35% other materials. Projection: estimated generation of 4,942 tons/day in 2020 in Tibet region
Pattnaik and Reddy (2010); Sharma et al. (2010); Patel et al. (2010); Chattopadhyay et al. (2009); Kumar et al. (2009); Sharholy et al. (2008); Ravindra et al. (2015); Chakrabarti et al. (2009); Kumar and Goel (2009)	India (Pune, Puducherry, Hardwar, Madhya Pradesh, Kolkata, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Deli, Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu, Kashmir, Cashmere and Kharagpur)	Generation: 48 million tons, annual, of USW. Generation per capita: 0.561 kg/inhabitant/day for India Composition: 81.41% of USW are biodegradable and 18.59% are not Projection: Increase to 250 million tons by 2047 (Sharholy et al., 2007)
Starostina et al. (2014)	Russia (Irkutsk)	Generation: 500 million tons in 2011 of USW, for Irkutsk (MNREIR, 2012) Generation per capita: 230 kg/inhabitant for solid waste in Irkutsk (MOI, 2008) Composition: 30% organic material, 23.5% paper, 11.3% glass, 15.8% plastic, 7% textile, 2.6% metal, 1.2% rubber, 1% leather, 1% wood and 6.6% others Projeção: NI*

Authors	Countries (Cities Under Study)	Storage
Jiang et al. (2009); Minghua et al. (2009); Tai et al. (2011); Dai et al. (2011)	China (Lhasa, Shigatse, Nedong District, Bayi District in Nyingchi, Beijing, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Xiamen and Guilin)	Types of Recipients: Containers, dumpsters and closed locations Location: Residential and commercial streets, scheduled collection points, transfer stations or stored by USW collection companies
Kumar and Goel (2009); Pattnaik and Reddy (2010); Kumar et al. (2009); Zia and Devadas (2008); Talyan et al. (2008); Ravindra et al. (2015)	India (Kharagpur, Puducherry, Metropolitan Cities, States Capitals, Deli, States of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Deli, Hariyana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu , Cashmere and Chandigarh)	Types of recipients: Small trash recipients at the source, community containers and concrete deposits (open and closed) Location: Open areas and in streets, without source separation
Starostina et al. (2014)	Russia (Irkutsk)	Type of Recipient: Common trash cans (containers around 0.75m2) Location: Residencies

Authors	Countries (Cities Under Study)	Collection, Transportation and Transfer
Snyman and Vorster (2011); Couth and Trois (2010).	South Africa (Cape Town, Tshwane and Johannesburg)	Collection method: Door-to-door Utilization of transfer stations: Yes (10 stations in Tshwane). Form of Transportation: NI* Responsible: NI* Frequency: NI* Efficiency: NI*
Rutkowski and Rutkowski (2015).	Brazil (25 Brazilian Cities)	Collection method: Door-to-door and/or delivery point. Utilization of transfer stations: Form of Transportation: Choice made in relation to topography. Responsible: NI* Frequency: NI* Efficiency: Collection efficiency is 90%(ABRELPE, 2015).
Hui et al. (2006); Song et al. (2013); Jiang et al. (2009); Zhen-Shan et al. (2009); Dai et al. (2011); Wang and Wang (2013); Minghua et al. (2009); Liu et al. (2015); Wang et al. (2008); Yang et al. (2015).	China (Chongqing, Macao, Lhasa, Shigatse, Nedong District, Bayi District in Nyingchi, Beijing and Shanghai)	Collection method: Delivery points Utilization of transfer stations: Yes Form of Transportation: Trucks (with and without compaction) Responsible: State owned and private companies. Frequency: NI* Efficiency: NI*
Narayana (2009); Pattnaik and Reddy (2010); Sharma et al. (2010); Chattopadhyay et al. (2009); Kumar et al. (2009); Sharholy et al. (2008); Zia and Devadas (2008); Talyan et al. (2008); Pandey et al.(2012); Rajamanikam et al. (2014); Ravindra et al. (2015); Chakrabarti et al.(2009); Kumar and Goel (2009).	India (Puducherry, Hardwar, Kolkata, Metropolitan Cities, States Capitals, Kanpur, Delhi, Bhagalpur and Kharagpur)	Form of Collection: Door-to-door and/or delivery points. Utilization of Transfer Stations: Yes Form of Transportation: Trucks (with and without compaction) Responsible: State owned and private companies. Street sweepers and recyclable materials collectors. Frequency:From Monday to Friday Efficiency: The efficiency measurement in India is around 60 to 70%.
Starostina et al. (2014).	Russia (Irkutsk)	Form of Collection: Delivery points. Utilization of Transfer Stations: NI* Form of Transportation: NI* Responsible: NI* Frequency: Every day, every-other day or two times per week, depending on necessity. Efficiency: NI*

Authors	Countries (Cities under study)	Treatment
Snyman and Vorster (2011); Couth and Trois (2010).	South Africa (Cape Town, Tshwane and Johannesburg)	Type of treatment: Composting for urban solid waste. (Coetzee et al., 2007)
Rutkowski and Rutkowski (2015).	Brazil (25 Brazilian Cities)	Type of treatment: recycling and of reuse of urban solid waste.
Song et al. (2013); Jiang et al. (2009); Zhen-Shan et al. (2009); Minghua et al. (2009); Liu et al. (2015); Tai et al. (2011); Dorn et al. (2012); Chen et al. (2010); Dai et al. (2011); Wang and Wang (2013); Zhao et al. (2008).	China (Macao, Lhasa, Shigatse, Nedong Lhoka District, Bayi District in Nyingchi, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Xiamen and Guilin)	Type of treatment: incineration, compost and recycling.
Narayana (2009); Jha et al. (2008); Chattopadhyay et al. (2009); Kumar et al. (2009); Zia and Devadas (2008); Sharholy et al. (2008); Rajamanikam et al. (2014); Chakrabarti et al. (2009); Kumar and Goel (2009).	India (Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta, Chennai, Metropolitan Cities, State Capitals, Kanpur, Puducherry and Kharagpur)	Type of treatment: 47% of USW generated were recovered through active recycling and composting practices in the area of Raj Bhavan and Puducherry.
Starostina et al. (2014).	Russia (Irkutsk)	Type of Treatment: Only 3% of USW are recycled in the city.

Authors	Countries (Cities under study)	Selective Collection
Couth and Trois (2010)	South Africa (Cape Town and Johannesburg)	Type of collection: NI* Separation: Dry and wet waste materials Responsible: NI*
Lino and Ismail (2013); Toso and Alem (2014); Ferri et al. (2015); Rutkowski and Rutkowski (2015)	Brazil (Campinas, Sorocaba and others 25 Brazilian Cities)	Type of collection: Door-to-door and VDP Separation: Recyclable Wastes are collected and then sorted. Responsible: Public authorities, private companies, associations and cooperatives.
Hui et al. (2006); Liu et al. (2015); Fei et al. (2016); Xu et al. (2015); Wang et al. (2008)	China (Chongqing, Beijing, Suzhou and Haidian (Beijing District))	Type of collection: NI* Separation: Separated in trash cans, streets and/or locations for final disposal. Responsible: Informal sector – by gatherers and informal buyers of recyclable materials.
Zia and Devadas (2008); Rajamanikam et al. (2014)	India (Kanpur, State of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu, Cashmere and Puducherry)	Type of collection: Inhabitants sell them in recycling areas. Separation: Dry and wet waste materials. Responsible: Informal sector.
Starostina et al. (2014)	Russia (Irkutsk)	Type of collection: Paper and glass are commercialized on the market. Separation: NI* Responsible: NI*

Authors	Countries (Cities under study)	Final Disposition
Snyman and Vorster (2011).	South Africa (Tshwane)	Type of final disposal: Landfills
Lino and Ismail (2013); Toso and Alem (2014); Leme et al. (2014); Rutkowski and Rutkowski (2015).	Brazil (Campinas, Sorocaba, Betim and others 25 Brazilian Cities)	Type of final disposal: open dump (open-air, without treatment), controlled landfills
Song et al. (2013); Jiang et al. (2009); Zhen-Shan et al. (2009); Minghua et al. (2009); Liu et al. (2015); Tai et al. (2011); Chen et al. (2010); Dai et al. (2011); Wang and Wang (2013).	China (Macao, Lhasa, Shigatse, Nedong Lhoka District, Bayi Nyingtri District, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Xiamen and Guilin)	Type of final disposal: Landfills and dumps
Narayana (2009); Jha et al. (2008); Pattnaik and Reddy (2010); Chattopadhyay et al. (2009); Kumar et al. (2009); Zia and Devadas (2008); Talyan et al. (2008); Hazra and Goel (2009); Pandey et al. (2012); Ravindra et al. (2015); Chakrabarti et al. (2009); Kumar and Goel (2009); Sharma et al. (2010).	India (Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta, Chennai, Puducherry, Kolkata, Metropolitan Cities, States Capitals , Kanpur, Bhagalpur, State of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu, Cashmere, Chandigarh, Kharagpur and Haridwar)	Type of final disposal: uncontrolled landfills, dumps and clandestine dumping sites (highways and empty lots)
Starostina et al. (2014).	Russia (Irkutsk)	Type of disposal: 500,000 tons of USW deposited, per year, in the landfills.

location_on

Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais em Bacias Hidrográficas Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais em Bacias Hidrográficas (IPABHi), Estrada Mun. Dr. José Luis Cembranelli, 5000, Taubaté, SP, Brasil, CEP 12081-010 - Taubaté - SP - Brazil
E-mail: ambi.agua@gmail.com

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN1] *Not included.