Resources, Conservation & Recycling 134 (2018) 315–328

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Full length article

A framework for calculating waste oil flows in the EU and beyond − the T
cases of Germany and Belgium 2015
⁎
Till Zimmermann , Dirk Jepsen
Ökopol Institute for Environmental Studies, Nernstweg 32-34, D-22765 Hamburg, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Lubricating oils are used throughout the economy. This comprises lubricant types such as engine oils, com-
Waste oil pressor oils, hydraulic oils, machine oils, and metal working oils among other types. Succeeding their intended
Re-refining use span, a relevant share of lubricating oils can be recovered as waste oils which need to be treated as hazardous
Engine oil waste. In the EU, a legal and institutional framework has been established to ensure a high-quality recycling and
Lubricants
a disposal that is compatible with the best public interest. To periodically evaluate the efficacy of the legal
Losses
framework and its implementation in the EU member states, the end-of-life situation of waste oils needs to be
Recycling
investigated periodically. So far, there is no consistent method for the (retrospective) evaluation of the efficacy
of the legal framework which can be adapted by the single states. In this article, a methodological framework for
the analysis of waste oil flows on a country level is presented. While this framework explicitly focuses on the
situation in the EU, its application to non-EU member states is possible, but potential differences in the avail-
ability of required input data need to be considered thoroughly. The presented calculation model is exemplarily
applied to the situation in Germany and Belgium in 2015. In Germany about three quarters of the collected waste
oil go to (domestic) re-refining. In Belgium, most waste oil is exported and re-refined abroad.

1. Background & goal stipulating that

Lubricating oils are used throughout the economy. This comprises
lubricant types such as engine oils, compressor oils, hydraulic oils,
machine oils, and metal working oils among other types. Succeeding
their intended use span, a relevant share of lubricating oils can be re-
covered as waste oils which need to be treated as hazardous waste.
Waste oil is the largest liquid hazardous waste stream in Europe (GEIR,
2016). At the same time, waste oil is a valuable resource and its proper
end-of-life treatment has a relevant potential for saving natural re-
sources and reducing anthropogenic environmental impacts. The po-
tential environmental benefits of waste oil recycling compared to other
end-of-life (EOL) options have been shown repeatedly in LCA and
carbon footprint studies (Fehrenbach, 2005; Geyer et al., 2013;
Kolshorn and Fehrenbach, 2000; Pires and Martinho, 2012, 2013). In
addition, recycling of waste oil contributes to the circular economy
which is a normative framework on EU level.
Against this background, a legal and institutional framework has
been established in the EU to ensure a high-quality recycling and a
disposal that is compatible with the best public interest. The end-of-life
treatment of waste oils is regulated by the Waste Framework Directive
2008/98/EC (EU, 2008). Article 21 refers explicitly to waste oils
• Waste oils are collected separately, where this is technically feasible;
• Waste oils are treated in accordance with Articles 4 (waste hier-
archy) and 13 (protection of the environment and human health)
• Waste oils of different characteristics and waste oils and other kinds
of waste or substances are not mixed, if such mixing impedes their
treatment where this is technically feasible and economically viable.
In addition to directive 2008/08/EC the European Association of re-
refineries GEIR (Groupement Européen de l'Industrie de la
Régénération) suggests the introduction of collection and recycling
targets to ensure the strict implementation of the waste hierarchy. GEIR
proposes the following EU-wide targets (GEIR, 2016):
• By 2020:
○ A collection rate of 95 % of collectable waste oil
○ A recycling rate of 60% of collectable waste oil
• By 2025:

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zimmermann@oekopol.de (T. Zimmermann).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.02.011
Received 27 October 2017; Received in revised form 9 January 2018; Accepted 8 February 2018
Available online 21 February 2018
0921-3449/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
T. Zimmermann, D. Jepsen
○ A collection rate of 100 % of collectable waste oil
○ A recycling rate of 85% of collectable waste oil
Collectable waste oil in this context refers to the share of waste oil
that is capable of being collected. The determination of the amount of
collectable waste oil is described in more detail later on. Even without
concrete targets for collection and recycling as suggested by GEIR, the
compliance with directive 2008/08/EC and here particularly with ar-
ticle 4 (waste hierarchy) requires a retrospective periodical review. To
periodically evaluate the efficacy of the legal framework and its im-
plementation in the EU member states, the end-of-life situation of waste
oils needs to be investigated periodically.
1.1. State of research on quantification of waste oil flows
So far, there is no consistent method for the evaluation of the effi-
cacy of the legal framework on waste oil treatment which can be
adapted by the single states. Member states as well as industry asso-
ciations such as GEIR or the BVA (Bundesverband Altöl e.V./German
Association of Waste Oil Refiners in Germany) regularly calculate fig-
ures of interest using their own models and assumptions. These calcu-
lations are, however, mostly based on non-disclosed data and various
expert assumptions and in most cases, are not transparent, i.e. the re-
sults can neither be reproduced nor used for further assessments and
comparison due to the uncertainty of their derivation.
A more comprehensive calculation model for waste oils flows has
been developed for the situation in Germany in a research project in
2005 (Sander et al., 2006) on behalf of the German Federal Environ-
ment Agency (Umweltbundesamt, UBA) and further refined in another
project in 2016 (Jepsen et al., 2016).
Besides, only few studies quantifying and analyzing waste lubricant
oil flows in detail have been published so far. A relatively sound study
has been conducted for the situation in California and published in a
series of reports and articles (Kline & Company, 2007, 2012; Kuczenski
et al., 2014). Other studies such as an analysis conducted for Finland
(Kapustina et al., 2014) are often based on outdated data and/or data
with a differing regional scope and make the need for a consistent
framework and methodology including a structuring of required data
inputs and sources even more evident.
1.2. Rationale for the development of a framework
If the endeavor to evaluate the efficacy of the existing legal fra-
mework, which requires a waste oil management in compliance with
the waste hierarchy, is taken seriously, the need for a consistent fra-
mework is evident. A consistent framework will enable a transparent
calculation of waste oil flows on a national level and will at least sig-
nificantly increase comparability of national waste oil flow calcula-
tions.
The framework presented in the following is a further development
of the model developed by Jepsen et al. (2016) which has been refined
and further developed into a generic framework for calculating (ret-
rospective) waste oils flows in EU member states based on statistics on
lubricant quantities placed on the market. Its application to non-EU
member states is possible, as well, but potential differences in the
availability of required input data need to be considered thoroughly.
Subsequently, the calculation model is exemplarily applied to the si-
tuation in Germany in 2015.
2. Waste oil flow model & calculation framework
The generic structure of the substance flow model of waste oil flows
is shown in Fig. 1. Quite generally, lubricants are placed on the market,
a share is lost in the use phase while the rest is available for collection
for further treatment. The amount of collectable waste oil is typically
calculated based on return rates which are specific per lubricant type.
316
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 134 (2018) 315–328
The collectable amount does not necessarily equal the collected amount
as informal treatment of waste oil may occur. The collected waste oil
amount needs to be corrected by imports and exports of waste oil. The
resulting total waste oil amount is typically split between different EOL
treatments. A share goes to re-refining, while the rest is combusted with
energy recovery. The single stages of the generic waste oil model are
looked at in more detail in the following.
2.1. Waste oil generation: relevant parameters and data situation
The types and uses of lubricants are diverse and comprise engine
oils, gear oils, greases, metalworking oils, and process oils. Some lu-
bricant types do not result in a collectable amount of waste oil as they
are completely lost or consumed (e.g., transformed into part of a pro-
duct). This is, for example, the case for two-stroke oil, process oil, or
greases.
Available categorizations for lubricant types such as Europalub ca-
tegories (European Lubricants Information Service) and BAFA cate-
gories (German Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control)
may differ in their level of details and nomenclature but generally agree
on most of the lubricant types. Table 1 gives on overview of the
Europalub categories, BAFA categories, and the categories used in
periodical analyses of collectable used oil in California (Kline &
Company, 2007, 2012).
For national calculations of waste oils flows, the categorization of
lubricant types needs to reflect the structure of the available input data.
Typically, statistical data on lubricants put on the market or data on
which basis the amount of lubricants placed on the market can be
calculated (domestic production, imports, exports), is maintained by
national authorities, e.g. in Germany by the BAFA, associations or other
institutions, e.g., in Belgium by Valorlub. In some countries, however,
no reliable statistics on the quantities of lubricants put on the market
are available. In some cases, the Union of European Lubricants Industry
can assist in such cases by providing country specific approximations
using proprietary algorithms.
For each category listed in the statistical input data, a specific return
rate which reflects the domestic situation for use and collection of the
respective lubricant type is needed in order to calculate the amount of
collected waste oil.
The development of (country) specific return factors is one of the
most time-consuming steps in the analysis of waste oil flows. Only few
studies on (country) specific return rates have been published so far,
most recently for Germany (Jepsen et al., 2016) and California (Kline &
Company, 2012; Kuczenski et al., 2014). Other studies presenting re-
turn rates are significantly older (EU Commission, 2001) or are based
on outdated data (UNEP, 2012). A step by step description of the pro-
cess in which return rates have been quantified for Germany can be
found in (Jepsen et al., 2016).
Although the return rates depend on the specific situation in the
analyzed country, there are some general statements, which can be
made regarding the different lubricant categories. For the lubricant
categories of process oils and greases a complete loss can be assumed.
The same is the case for 2-stroke oil which is burnt along with the fuel.
In general, it needs to be made as transparent as possible whether these
categories are included in calculation of, e.g., the overall collectable
share.
Regarding the other lubricant types return factors are typically de-
termined based on a combination of empirical data, statistical data, and
expert judgements. As a starting point, return rates found in literature
can be used. Table 2 provides an overview of return rates reported in
different publications. Regarding some lubricant types, the variations of
the return rates are relatively low. This concerns
• Hydraulic oil (reported return rates range from 75% to 88%)
• Industrial gear oils (reported return rates range from 75% to 80%)
• Electrical insulating oils (reported return rates range from 97% to
T. Zimmermann, D. Jepsen
Fig. 1. Diagram of waste oil flows − from generation to EOL treatment.
95%)
These ranges can be used in country specific studies as a starting
point for further discussions with market players. Regarding engine oils
(range from 52% to 86%), gear oils (range from 64% to 83%), metal
working oils (range from 20% to 90%), machine oils (40%–85%),
compressor oils (50%–85 %), and turbine oils (range from 50% to 85%)
there is much less consensus on the return rates.
Due to the high quantitative relevance of engine oils and gear oils
(including ATF), which together account for over 50% of the total
quantity of lubricants put on the market in Germany and over 60% in
Belgium, for example, a more detailed country specific analysis is
needed (see separate sections on engine oil and gear oil). For metal
317
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 134 (2018) 315–328
working oils, machine oils, compressor oils, and turbine oils, a survey
among experts might be considered. However, their quantitative re-
levance in the respective country should be taken in account regarding
the possible reduction of model uncertainties. E.g. in Belgium these
lubricant types account for less than seven percent of the total amount
put on the market and the influence of variations of the return rates is
rather low compared to categories such as engine oil and gear oils.
2.1.1. Engine oil return rate
Engine oils are typically the single most relevant category of lu-
bricants in terms of quantity. Engine oil is to some extent lost for re-
covery during its use phase. Different types of losses can be dis-
tinguished:
T. Zimmermann, D. Jepsen Resources, Conservation & Recycling 134 (2018) 315–328

Table 1
Examples for Categorizations of waste oils.

Europalub categories BAFA categories CA categories (Kline & Company, 2012)

1) Engine Oils Engine oils

1A Gasoline or diesel engine oils for passenger cars Gasoline or diesel engine oils for passenger cars Passenger car motor oil (PCMO)
1A1 First fill gasoline or diesel engine oils for passenger car First fill gasoline or diesel engine oils for passenger car Off road 2-stroke
1B Diesel engine oils for commercial l and industrial vehicles Diesel engine oils for commercial l and industrial vehicles Off road 4-stroke
1 B1 First fill diesel engine oils for commercial and industrial First fill diesel engine oils for commercial and industrial Heavy duty motor oil (HDMO)
vehicles vehicles
1 B2 Multipurpose diesel oils used in farm tractors and construction
1C Two-stroke engine oils
1D Other engine oils Other engine oils Other engine oils
1E Marine engine oils Marine engine oil
1F Aviation engine oils and turbine oils. Railroad engine oil
2) Gear oils and transmission oils Gear oils
2A Automatic transmission fluid (ATF) ATF ATF
2B Automotive gear oils Automotive gear oils Gear oils
2C Industrial gear oils Industrial gear oils Industrial gear oils
2D Hydraulic and transmission oils (including fire-resistant fluids) Hydraulic oils Non-synthetic hydraulic fluids
2 D1 Shock absorber oils
3) Greases Greases
3 A1 Automotive greases Automotive greases
A2 Industrial greases Industrial greases
4) Metalworking oils
4A Quenching oils Quenching oils Removal
4B Neat oils for metalworking Neat oils for metalworking Forming
4C Soluble oils for metalworking Soluble oils for metalworking Treating
4D Rust prevention products Rust prevention products Other
5) Highly refined oils
5A Turbine oils (excluding aviation application) Turbine oils Turbine oils
5B Electrical oils used in transformers (including cable oils) Electrical oils
6) Other oils
6A Compressor oils Compressor oils Compressor oils
6B General machine lubricants Machine oils
6C Other industrial oils for non-lubricating purposes Other industrial oils for non-lubricating purposes Refrigeration oils
Other
7) Process oils Process oils Process oils
7A Process oils (excluding aromatic extracts) Process oils Electrical
7 A1 Technical white oils Technical white oils White oils
7 A2 Medicinal white oils Medicinal white oils Rubber
Aromatic
Paraffinic
Naphthenic
Synthetic
8) Base oils Base oils

• Technical engine oil loss, depending on (Castrol, 2009): draining of used oil from vehicles. The quantitative importance of these
losses is typically rather low. Based on expert consultations within
○ Fitting, shape, contact pressure of piston rings different country specific studies and published reports (Jepsen et al.,
○ Leakprofeness of valve guides 2016; Sander et al., 2006), handling losses can be estimated to 1–1.3%
○ Leakprofeness of engine at the input side and about 0.7–0.9% at the output side.
○ Evaporation losses

• Evaporation loss
○ The evaporation loss is closely related to viscosity and quality of the
engine oil. Generally, it can said that the lower the viscosity, the
higher the evaporation loss at operating temperature (Castrol, 2009)
• Combustion with gasoline
In addition, losses related to handling of engine oil (input and
output related losses may occur). Besides these “physical” losses, for the
domestic analysis of waste oil return, losses through the export of filled
cars need to be considered.
The different types of losses and potential data sources are covered
in the model structure shown in the following figure.
2.1.1.1. Handling losses − input and output related. Handling losses
include any losses related to filling of vehicles with engine oil as well as
2.1.1.2. In-use losses for passenger cars. A key parameter in the
calculation model for engine oil losses are the specific in-use losses
per 1000 km. The in-use losses depend on the previously mentioned
factors:
• Technical engine oil loss
• Evaporation loss
• Combustion with gasoline
The results of a broad literature review with regard to in-use losses
of engine oil and an additional consultation of various lubricant experts
and manufacturers are provided in the following table. In addition, type
and quality of data are described briefly. As the different sources in-
dicate in-use losses of engine oils in different ways (i.e., in relation to
the input amount, in relation to the fuel consumption, per 1000 km), for
better comparison, the specific losses per 1000 km with regard to the
situation in Germany have been calculated and are shown in the Table 3
as well.

318
 T. Zimmermann, D. Jepsen

Table 2
Overview of return rates reported in literature.

Lubricant type Germany (Sander Germany (Jepsen California (Kuczenski California (Kline & UK (Oakdene Hollins, 2001) cited UK (DEFRA, 2006) Generic (UNEP, 2012)
et al., 2006) et al., 2016) et al., 2014) Company, 2007) in (DEFRA, 2006)

Engine oils 59,5% 51,9% 80–85 % 86% newer vehicles < 65% 75 % 85%
83% older vehicles (25% burnt in use)
Hydraulic oils 75% 75,0% 88,0% Non-synthetic 75% 80% 80% 80% for automotive
hydraulic oils
Synthetic 90% 20% for engineering
industry
80% for petroleum
industry
10% for other industries
Gear oils, total 64% 75,8% 83,0 % 80 % 80 %
Gear oils, different Gear oil 60% Gear oil 76,1% NN PC gear oil 83% 80% for hydraulic & transmission 80% for hydraulic & transmission 30% gear box oils
types oils oils
ATF 60%% ATF 76,1% ATF 88% 80% for other gear oil 80% for other gear oil 50% ATF
Industrial 75% Industrial 75% Commercial automotive

319
gear oils 83%
Metal working oils 45% 45,0% Total: 0–90% Removal 90% 20 % 20 % NN
Soluble 47% Removal 90% Forming: 80% Neat/soluble 20%
Non-soluble 52% Forming 80% Treating 0% recoverable
Treating 0% Other: 0%
Other: 0%
Machine oils 40% 50,0% 85,0% 50 % 50 % NN
Compressor oils 50% 50,0% 85,0% 30% for engineering
industry
30% for petroleum
industry
30% for other industries
Electrical insulating oils 90% 90,0% 87,0 % 87% 95 % 95 % NN
Turbine oils 70% 70,0% 85,0% 85% 50 % 75 % 80%
Process oils 0% 0,0% 0,0% 0% 0% 0
Greases 0% 0,0% 0,0% 0% 0–10 % 0–10 % NN
(automotive and industrial greases: (automotive and industrial greases:
10% recoverable) 10% recoverable)
Base oils 50% 50,0% NN NN NN NN NN
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 134 (2018) 315–328
 T. Zimmermann, D. Jepsen

Table 3
Overview of data on in-use losses.

Source/Reference Engine oil loss Type and quality of data Loss L per
1000 Lm

1 Expert information (from German Association of
Engineers)
2 Lubricant manufacturer (name cannot be disclosed)
3 Jepsen et al. (2016)
4 Information reg. passenger cars from 3 repair shops
(from a survey conducted within (Jepsen et al., 2016)
Normal: 20% of input; Expert judgement based on 20+ years of experience in the field. 0.064
50 % as maximal loss in some old vehicles
For passenger cars: Primary data from lubricant manufacturer which is based on laboratory tests, 0.073
0,1% of fuel consumption representative for “a large amount of literature and years of field experience.
engines”;
0,5% of fuel consumption as maximum for some vehicles
41% in-use including handling losses/0,16L per 1.000 km for Literature data (from Sander et al. 2006) which has been subject to expert 0.16
passenger cars, 0,4L per 1000 km for heavy duty vehicles consultations in 2016; figures considered “too high” by some experts consulted in the
project without additional information available
A) losses are “low” Primary data, collected in 2016. Only exemplary “point data”. 0.063
B) losses amount to 0,05L–0,075 L/1.000 km (avg 0,0625L/
1000 km)

320
C) in extreme cases, losses can be up 60% of input
5 (UBA, 2016a) 0,1%–0,15% of fuel consumption Literature data referring to non-automotive engines; relevant only for cross-checking 0.09
6 Kuczenski et al. (2014) 15–20% for passenger cars Literature data which is based on a calculation model partly fed with field data. Refers 0.06
to the situation in California, US.
7 CONCAWE (2014) 0.7 L per year per passenger car Primary data based on a survey among car owners in the UK conducted in 2011. 0.05
Possibly no representative sampling. Covers 242 passenger cars, 10 vans, 6 motobikes,
2 tractors, 1 digger, 2 small scale industrial vehicles (e.g. cement mixer).
8 Geyer et al. (2013) Loss fractions: Literature data which is based on a calculation model partly fed with field data. Refers 0.1
PCMO 19% of input (passenger cars) to the situation in California, US.
HDMO 35% of input (heavy duty vehicles)
9 Castrol (2009) Generally, < 0,5L/1.000 km for modern engines (passenger cars) Primary data; represents a maximum and does not allow conclusions on average 0.5
consumptions.
10 Online information from various car manufacturers ∼0,5L/1.000 km Web information; possibly represents a maximum value and does not allow 0.5
conclusions on average consumptions. According to consulted experts, car
manufacturers typically report high values “to be on the safe side”)
11 DEFRA (2006) 5%–35% lost due to combustion or other losses for passenger Literature data referring to a survey. No details on the survey available. Relatively old 0.1
cars/most cars covered in survey around 20% data.
12 NETCEN, 2004 cited in (DEFRA, 2006) 25% of engine oil burnt in use Secondary data (literature data). Relatively old data. 0.08
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 134 (2018) 315–328
T. Zimmermann, D. Jepsen
Table 4
In-use losses of engine oils in heavy duty vehicles.
Reference Specific loss [L/1.000 km] Relative losses
Jepsen et al. (2016) 0,4 49%
Geyer et al. (2013) 0,285 35%
Fig. 3 visualizes the specific losses according to the different refer-
ences from Table 3. While the x-axis indicates the specific losses per
1000 km, the y-axis shows the relative losses in relation to the quantity
put on the market with regard to the situation in Germany.
As it can be seen, only the online information from different car
manufacturers, (Castrol, 2009) and the maximum assumption provided
by the industry experts differ significantly from the rest of the data. The
two data sources considered to be the most reliable (1 and 2) indicate
specific losses between 0.064 and 0.073 L/1000 km. Some other refer-
ences are relatively close to this range (no. 4, 6, 7, 12 in the table).
Based on this, and with consideration of the fact that some references
indicate somewhat higher losses, we suggest analyzing a span from
0.064 to 0.11 with an average of 0.087 L/1000 km if no fleet specific
data is available.
2.1.1.3. In-Use losses for heavy-duty vehicles. For heavy duty vehicles,
significantly less information is available than for passenger cars. Only
two studies provide quantifications of losses here, namely (Jepsen et al.,
2016) for Germany and (Geyer et al., 2013) for California. The specific
and relative losses for both references are summarized in the following
table (Table 4).
All available information (including references without quantifica-
tions of losses) agree on the fact that engine oil losses in heavy duty
vehicles are significantly higher than in passenger cars, those references
proving quantification indicate losses about twice the size of the losses
in passenger cars. The specific loss assumed by Jepsen et al. (2016) of
0,4 L/1.000 km results in a relative loss of 49 %. If no country specific
information is available, it is suggested to assume to analyze a range
from 0,33 L/1.000 km to 0,5 L/1.000 km.
For motor bikes it is suggested to assume identical loss rates to
heavy motor vehicles. Due to the low quantitative relevance, however,
more detailed analysis wouldn’t provide a significant improve in ac-
curacy.
2.1.1.3.1. Engine oil POM and import-export of vehicles. The
Fig. 2. Schematic calculation model for return rates of engine oil.
321
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 134 (2018) 315–328
quantities of engine oil put on the market are typically available from
statistics maintained by public authorities and/or industry associations.
Often, statistics differentiate between first fill oil and top-up oil. These
quantities need to be treated carefully regarding import and export of
filled vehicles. Relevant questions in this regard are
• Do the quantities of engine oil POM include engine oil contained in
imported vehicles?
• Are quantities of engine oil contained in new (produced) vehicles
which are exported excluded from the quantities POM?
• Are there exports of used (second-hand) vehicles in a relevant scale?
• Are there imports of used (second-hand) vehicles in a relevant scale?
While question 1) and 2) basically concerns the statistical basis for
the calculations, questions 3) and 4) concern a potentially relevant type
of loss which is often neglected in other studies (e.g. (Kline & Company,
2012)). Fig. 4 visualizes the different flows of engine oil potentially
entering and leaving the considered geographical scope.
With regard to the statistical POM data, the institution providing the
data may be consulted for additional background information.
Experiences from different countries show, however, that a clarification
on what is and what is not included can often not be achieved. In such
cases, this fact should be made transparent and considered regarding
potential conclusions. Regarding the calculation of absolute losses using
a calculation model as outlined in Fig. 2, however, the absolute size of
the input is only of lower significance. The absolute quantities POM are
relevant regarding the calculation of the handling losses, but the
handling losses are only of minor importance compared to the in-use
and export losses which are calculated independently from the input
quantities but merely on statistical data on vehicle fleet, driving per-
formance, foreign trade etc.
The amount of imported and exported vehicles needs to be de-
termined based on vehicle statistics. This includes data on registrations
and de-registrations of vehicle, fate of de-registered vehicles and im-
port-export data. The required information typically needs to be com-
piled from different data sources which include statistics maintained by
public authorities as well as Eurostat statistics (e.g., on the EOL treat-
ment of vehicles per year).
The import-export balance of vehicles then needs to be multiplied
with the average amount of engine oil per vehicle. In studies for the
German market an average amount of 5.4 Liters per vehicle has been
T. Zimmermann, D. Jepsen
Fig. 3. Visualization of relative and specific engine oil losses according to different
sources with regard to the quantities put on the market in Germany, 2015.
determined as an average for the vehicle fleet (Sander et al., 2006), this
number has been validated in a more recent project in a discussion with
market players and with regard to the development of engine sizes (as
documented in statistical data) (Jepsen et al., 2016). For passenger
vehicles an amount of engine oil of 4 L/vehicle, for heavy duty vehicles
of up to 22 L/vehicle and for motorcycles of 3 L/vehicle is described in
(Sander et al., 2006). In addition, an internet search has been con-
ducted investigating the amounts of engine oil reported by manu-
facturers for different passenger car. For 15 passenger cars ranging from
small passenger car such as Renault Clio or VW Fox to SUVs such as VW
Touareg engine oil amounts have been investigated. The range identi-
fied here, ranges from 1.8 L (VW Fox) to 10.7 L (VW Touareg). Most
medium sized vehicles have an engine oil capacity between 3.5 and 4.9
liters.
2.1.1.3.2. Exemplary calculation for Germany, 2015. Fig. 5 shows an
exemplary calculation of engine oil losses and return for Germany in
Fig. 4. Quantities of engine oil entering and leaving the market.
322
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 134 (2018) 315–328
2015 (exception: for the net-export of vehicles 2014 had to be used as
more recent data has not been available). Regarding vehicle fleet and
driving performance KBA data is used (KBA, 2015), regarding the net-
import of used and new vehicles data from different public statistics is
used (UBA, 2016b; VDA, 2015). The in-use loss of engine oil in
passenger cars has been assumed as 0.087 L/1000 km based on the
data situation described above; for heavy-duty vehicles and motorbikes
a loss of 0.4 L/1000 km has been assumed.
2.1.2. Automotive gear oils
Automotive gear oil is used to protect the gears in automobiles. In
vehicle with automatic transmission automatic transmission fluid (ATF)
is used, which is optimized for the special requirements of an automatic
transmission.
The calculation of losses and return rate of automotive gear oil
(including automatic transmission fluid) is principally conducted ana-
logously to the approach for engine oil. The amount put on the market
needs to be corrected by handling losses, in-use losses, and export losses
to obtain the collectable amount and to calculate the return rate.
Contrary to engine oil, in-use losses are relatively low for automotive
gear oil as there is only little consumption of gear oil in the regular use
and changes only occur in exceptional cases.
2.1.2.1. Handling losses. Handling losses can be further divided into
residues in containers, adherence, and drop losses at input and output.
Table 5 shows loss rates based on different sources including results
from an expert consultation conducted by the authors in 2017.
2.1.2.2. In-use losses. In-use losses only occur on a very low scale for
gear oils and ATF. Based on different sources (Jepsen et al., 2016;
Sander et al., 2006) a loss rate of 0,5 % is assumed here.
2.1.2.3. Export losses. The export losses depend on the number of
vehicles (passenger cars and heavy-duty vehicles) exported, and the
amount of gear and transmission oil per vehicle. Waste oil studies for
T. Zimmermann, D. Jepsen Resources, Conservation & Recycling 134 (2018) 315–328

Fig. 5. Exemplary calculation of waste oil return from engine oil for Germany, 2015.

Table 5 2.1.2.3.1. Calculation for Germany, 2015. Using the described data
Loss factors for handling losses for automotive gear oil and ATF. and assumptions and information on the share of different drivetrain
technologies (available for most EU countries from International
Loss factor Sander et al. Jepsen et al. Results from an expert
(2006) (2016) consultation by Ökopol in
Council on Clean Transportation Europe statistics, ICCT, 2016), the
2017 calculation of automotive gear oil return can be conducted analogously
to the calculation for engine oils. The calculated return rates is 79 %.
Residues in 1,5% 1,5% 0,4%
containers
Drop losses at input 2%
2.2. Collected waste oil amount, informal and EOL treatment
and output
Adherence 2–8% 5% 9% The collected amount of waste oil is typically lower than the col-
lectable amount calculated based on the return rates. A share of the
collectable amount will undergo informal treatment, i.e. on-site com-
Germany indicate gear oil amounts of 2.5L (gear oil) and 5 L (ATF) per bustion, illegal disposal etc. Assumptions on the share of collectable
vehicle for passenger cars and 25 L per heavy duty vehicle (Jepsen waste oil undergoing informal treatment in different countries provided
et al., 2016; Sander et al., 2006). by GEIR range from 0% to 50%.
Other references all present numbers in the same range, i.e. between The total amount of waste oil for end-of-life treatment is calculated
2 and 3.3 Liters for passenger cars and 5–6 L of ATF, respectively based of the amount of collected waste oil which needs to be corrected
(Bußgeldkatalog, 2017; Daniell, 2009; Wallau, 2001). In addition, a by imports and exports of waste oil. Data on imports and exports is
research for gear and transmission oil amounts reported by manu- available from public statistics. As waste oil is a hazardous waste the
facturers has been conducted via internet and telephone. For 15 pas- respective data should be available in any EU member state.
senger cars ranging from small passenger car such as Renault Clio or Countries with a high re-refinery capacity typically have a relevant
VW Fox to SUVs such as VW Touareg gear oil amounts have been in- amount of net-imports from other countries while countries with low or
vestigated. The range identified here (about 1.8 L to 6 L) is slightly without re-refinery capacity export a relevant share of their waste oil.
larger than the range reported in literature, but does not differ sig- If data on the collected amount is available (either from public
nificantly. statistics or from the collection companies), the amount undergoing
Based on this, an average amount of 2.5 L of gear oil and 5.5 L of informal treatment can be calculated directly. If such data is not
automatic transmission fluid may be considered representative for available or not available in a sufficient quality, a backwards calcula-
passenger cars and 25L for heavy duty vehicles in most European ve- tion needs to be conducted based on the amounts going to re-refining
hicle fleets. and energetic recovery and the import-export quantities, i.e. the input

323
T. Zimmermann, D. Jepsen
to energetic recovery plus the input to re-refining plus the import-ex-
port balance is the collected amount.
2.3. End-of-life treatment of waste oil
The two major EOL options for waste oil are re-refining and in-
cineration with energy recovery.
2.3.1. Re-refining
In re-refining principally, two routes can be distinguished, the high-
quality recycling in the base oil route, and the recycling to other pro-
ducts than base oil such as secondary fuels.
While some countries like Germany, France, Spain, and Italy have
several of such re-refineries, other countries like, e.g., Austria, Czech
Republic, Hungary, Romania and the Baltic States have none.
Accordingly, in these states there are no domestic re-refining activities
to base oil and the corresponding waste oil flows in the calculation
model can be set to zero. Still, eventual re-refining to other products
than base oil such as fuels needs to be considered. Maps of re-refineries
in Europe are regularly published by GEIR.
There are generally two possible approaches to quantify the flows to
and within re-refining: forward and backward calculation.
The forward calculation approach follows the direction of the waste
oil flows and builds on quantitative data on the amount of waste oil to
re-refining and the split to base oil route and non-base oil route. This
data might be obtained from collectors (or waste oil transport compa-
nies, respectively), public statistics, or from industry (associations).
Public statistics might also contain data on the production of secondary
base oil and other products which completes the quantification of waste
oil flows in re-refining.
Sometimes, (as it is for example the case in Germany), public or
other available statistics do not provide information on the amount of
waste oil going to re-refining but only on the output of re-refining
(production amounts of secondary base oil and other products). In this
case, the backward calculation approach needs to be applied. The
backward calculation approach starts from the produced amount in
secondary production (in re-refining) and calculates the input flows
based on production efficiency factors in the two production routes.
The production efficiency factors need to be determined by a survey
among re-refineries. For Germany such a survey has been conducted by
Jepsen et al. (2016). Here, the production efficiency factor in the base
oil route amounts to 62.9 % and in the non-base oil route to 89.2 %.
Depending on the technologies used in other countries, particularly the
factor in the base oil route might be lower.
By dividing the amount of produced secondary base oil with the
production efficiency factor the input into the base oil route is quan-
tified. Regarding the non-base oil route, co-production from the base oil
route needs to be taken into account, i.e. input to the base oil route not
Fig. 6. Schematic overview of re-refining systems and key equations.
324
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 134 (2018) 315–328
recycled to base oil is recycled to other products than base oil. A
schematic overview of the structure of domestic re-refining is shown in
Fig. 6.
2.3.2. Energetic recovery
Co-combustion of waste oil with energy recovery is typically per-
formed in the cement and lime industry as well as in power plants and
steel works. On EU level, GEIR estimates a share of about 3% of the
collected waste oil being combusted in the cement industry, and about
5 % being combusted in power plants, lime work, and steel works.
Data on energetic recovery might typically be available from
• Industry associations
• Public statistics or
• Single cement, lime, steel, power plants
E.g., in the annual calculation of the German waste oil flows data
from the industry associations of the lime and cement industry is used.
2.4. Consideration of water content vs “dry” calculation
The presented calculation model always refers to “dry” waste oil,
i.e. oil without water content. In most cases, however, waste oil will be
contaminated by or mixed with, respectively, water. This means, the
used data needs to be checked whether it is referring to dry waste oil or
whether it is referring to waste oil including water.
In some cases, the data clearly refers to dry waste oil and general
statements can be made. This is the case for (statistical) data on do-
mestic lubricants production, imports of lubricants, and exports of lu-
bricants. I.e. the calculated amount of lubricants placed on the market
will typically refer to dry waste oil. For all steps subsequent to the use
phase (in which the contamination with water occurs) the considera-
tion of water content needs to be checked. Production amounts from re-
refining, however, will again refer to dry waste oil.
The return rates—if determined as suggested in this framework and
as conducted in detailed analyses such as in (Jepsen et al., 2016)—will
also refer to dry waste oil. This means, the amount of collectable waste
oil will refer to dry waste oil.
(Primary) data regarding
• Inputs to re-refining
• Inputs to energetic recovery/other combustion
• Collected amounts
• Imports and exports of waste oil
will in most cases refer to waste oil including water content.
The water content in waste oil depends on the application of the
lubricant and varies significantly between different waste oil types and
T. Zimmermann, D. Jepsen
Fig. 7. Waste oil calculation framework.
waste codes, respectively. The water content may range from > 90 %
for bilge oils to < 5 % for many machine and engine oils (Jepsen et al.,
2016).
Despite the ranges of water content in different waste oil categories
some general statements can be made. Waste oil suited for recycling
(category 1 waste oil according to German legislation) for example,
typically has a max. water content of about 3–9%. Category 1 waste oils
include
• mineral based non-chlorinated hydraulic oils
• mineral-based non-chlorinated engine, gear and lubricating oils
• synthetic engine, gear and lubricating oils
• other engine, gear and lubricating oils
• mineral-based non-chlorinated insulating and heat transmission oils
These oil types account for the majority off the total waste oil
amount. For Germany, a share of category 1 waste oils between 75%
and 86% has been determined. Due to a relatively similar distribution
of shares of different lubricant types put on the market, this range can
be assumed to be representative for most EU countries.
2.5. Dealing with uncertainties
Assuming that the data from statistics maintained by public au-
thorities, industry associations, companies etc. are accurate, the fol-
lowing main sources of uncertainties in the calculation model can be
identified:
• The assumptions on return rates
• (lack of) information on energetic recovery
• (lack of) information an informal treatment
325
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 134 (2018) 315–328
Regarding the return rates which are country specific as well as
specific for the different lubricant types, to a large extent no empirical
or measured data is available and their determination is widely based
on expert information and expert judgement combined with some sta-
tistical and industry data. This results in return rates which relate to
some uncertainties and/or ranges of return rates. The ranges indicated
in this article are based on the referenced studies and analyses or—in
the case of engine oil and automotive gear oil—result from the outlined
calculations.
Within energetic recovery data will typically collected only for
known routes of energetic recovery. I.e., if it is known that in the re-
spective country waste oil is used as fuel in the cement industry as well
as in selected steel works, this data can be collected targeted. If it is
unknown, for example, that, in addition, waste oil is used in a number
of power plants, it is likely that such data/information will be missed in
the data collection process.
Informal treatment which comprises on-site combustion of waste
oil, dumping of waste oil in nature, illegal mixing with other wastes or
substances, etc. is typically not documented in any form. In the calcu-
lation model, the waste oil amounts treated informally are included in
the “Rest” which is a result figure from the calculation.
The “Rest” includes the amounts treated informally as well as
amounts resulting from uncertainties regarding other factors, particu-
larly the described factors of return rates (collected amounts) and
possibly energetic recovery.
2.6. Framework summary: calculation steps
As described, the calculation framework follows the life cycle of
lubricants from the placement on the domestic market until its end-of-
life treatment by re-refining, energetic recovery, or other treatment.
Throughout the different steps, different data are needed. The
T. Zimmermann, D. Jepsen
Fig. 8. Results and data sources: Waste oil flows in Germany 2015.
calculation process following the described approach and data re-
quirements are summarized in Fig. 7.
3. The case of Germany 2015
Applying the presented framework, in the following, the waste oil
flows in Germany for 2015 are calculated. The quantities put on the
market as well as outputs from re-refining are available from BAFA
statistics (German Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export
Control). Imports and export quantities are available from statistics
maintained by the German Federal Agency of the Environment (UBA).
Data on energetic recovery has been obtained from the associations of
the cement industry (Verein Deutscher Zementwerke, VDZ) and lime
industry (Bundesverband Kalk). The return rates from Jepsen et al.
(2016) have been used and updated as described above for engine oils
and automotive gear and transmission oil. The results from the calcu-
lation and data sources are shown in Fig. 8.
Of the total waste oil amount, 76 % go to re-refining, 76 % hereof to
the base oil route. 5% of the total waste oil amount go to energy re-
covery. For about 18 % the fate is unclear. This includes a share which
is not-collected and treated informally, uncertainties from the model,
possible storage of waste oil, and statistical displacements (inaccuracies
326
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 134 (2018) 315–328
due to annual cut-off).
4. The case of Belgium 2015
In the following the waste oil flows in Belgium are calculated for the
year 2015. The quantities put on the market are available from Valorlub
(2015, 2017). The collectable amount has been calculated using the
same return rates as in the case study of Germany, 2015. Data on actual
collected amounts is available from Valorlub as well as data on the fate
of waste oil (Valorlub, 2015, 2017). The results are shown in Fig. 9.
Contrary to Germany, Belgium is a net exporter of waste oil and the
majority of Belgian waste oil is re-refined or used for energetic recovery
in other countries.
5. Conclusion and outlook
In this article, a methodological framework for the analysis of waste
oil flows on a country level is presented. The presented framework can
be used to consistently, transparently and periodically calculate waste
oil flows on a country level to validate compliance with EU and national
legislation. The application of the framework will make data require-
ments and requirements for more detailed studies/analysis evident.
T. Zimmermann, D. Jepsen
Fig. 9. Results and data sources: Waste oil flows in Belgium 2015.
Results can be used by market players as a basis for communication
with public authorities and vice versa. The applicability of the frame-
work has been demonstrated on two countries, Germany and Belgium.
Both countries are rather different regarding the fate of waste oil. While
Germany is a net importer of waste oil with large re-refining capacities,
Belgium exports most of its waste oil. In both cases, the analyses show
that the majority of waste oil is re-refined which is in line with the
requirements of the Waste Framework Directive.
While the methodological framework was developed for the retro-
spective analysis of waste oil flows using (retrospective) statistical data
it can be used to model potential future waste oil flows. This would
require assumptions on future quantities of lubricants put on the
market, assumptions on future return rates of waste oil, and assump-
tions on future end-of-life treatment of waste oil. An analysis of dif-
ferent scenarios for future development of, e.g., analyzing oil price
fluctuations, could be conducted. A low oil price, for example, can lead
to a higher share of waste oil going to energetic recovery.
Whereas the motivation for the methodological framework has been
the EU legislation, specifically the Waste Framework Directive 2008/
98/EC, and thus, the article explicitly focuses on the situation in the EU,
its application to non-EU member states is possible. Potential differ-
ences in the availability of required input data, however, need to be
considered thoroughly.
Acknowledgment
We thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful and con-
structive comments.
References
Bußgeldkatalog, 2017. Getriebeöl wechseln − Tipps aus der Werkstatt 2017. (https://
www.bussgeldkatalog.org/getriebeoel-wechseln/ [retrieved 22.03.17]).
CONCAWE, 2014. Use of Motor Fuels and Lubricants: Habits and Practices of Consumers
in Europe. Report No 4/14.
327
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 134 (2018) 315–328
Castrol, 2009. ABC der Schmierung. Aufbau, Verwendung und Eigenschaften von
Schmierstoffen, Zug, Schweiz.
DEFRA, 2006. Review of the Fate of Lubricating Oils in the UK.
Daniell, J.N., 2009. Traffic Incident Management in Hazardous Materials Spills in
Incident Clearance. Federal Highway Administration, Office of Transportation
Operations, Washington, DC.
EU Commission, 2001. Critical Review of Existing Studies and Life Cycle Analysis on the
Regeneration and Incineration of Waste Oils.
EU, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19
November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives: 2008/98/EC.
Fehrenbach, H., 2005. Ökologische und energetische Bewertung der Aufarbeitung von
Altöl zu Grundölen: Substitution von primären Grundölen inklusive halbsynthe-
tischer und synthetischer. Verbindungen, Heidelberg.
GEIR, 2016. Waste Framework Directive Revision: European Waste Oil Re-refining
Industry Position. n.l.
Geyer, R., Kuczenski, B., Henderson, A., Zink, T., 2013. Life cycle assessment of used oil
management in California. Report Produced for California Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery. Santa Barabara.
ICCT, 2016. European Vehicle Market Statistics: Pocketbook 2016/2017. ICCT, Berlin.
Jepsen, D., Zimmermann, T., Sander, K., Wagner, J., 2016. Erhebung der Struktur des
Altölsammelmarktes und Optimierungspotenziale für bessere Altölqualitäten im
Kontext der Abfallhierarchie. Dessau-Roßlau.
KBA, 2015. Fahrzeugzulassungen Bestand an Personenkraftwagen und Krafträdern nach
Motorisierung. KBA, Flensburg.
Kapustina, V., Havukainen, J., Virkki-Hatakka, T., Horttanainen, M., 2014. System ana-
lysis of waste oil management in Finland waste management & research the journal of
the international solid wastes and public cleansing association. ISWA 32 (4),
297–303.
Kline & Company, 2007. Lubricant Consumption and Used Oil Generation in California: A
Segmented Market Analysis: Part II: Collectable Used Oil Availability in California,
2000–2011. Kline & Company, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Kline & Company, 2012. Lubricant Consumption and Used Oil Generation in California: A
Segmented Market Analysis: Part II: Collectable Used Oil Availability in California,
2000–2011. Published 03/03/2015. Kline & Company, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Kolshorn, K., Fehrenbach, H., 2000. Ökologische-Bilanzierung von Altöl-
Verwertungswegen. Report UBA-Texte 20-00. Dessau-Roßlau.
Kuczenski, B., Geyer, R., Zink, T., Henderson, A., 2014. Material flow analysis of lu-
bricating oil use in California resources. Conserv. Recycl. 93, 59–66.
Oakdene Hollins, 2001. Report on Waste Oil Market.
Pires, A., Martinho, G., 2012. Carbon footprint analysis for the waste oil management
system in Portugal. Br. J. Environ. Clim. Change 2 (3), 278–287.
Pires, A., Martinho, G., 2013. Life cycle assessment of a waste lubricant oil management
system. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (1), 102–112.
Sander, K., Jepsen, D., Zangl, S., Schilling, S., 2006. Stoffstrom- und Marktanalyse zur
T. Zimmermann, D. Jepsen Resources, Conservation & Recycling 134 (2018) 315–328

Sicherung der Altölentsorgung. Forschungsbericht 204 31 32 UBA-FB 000883, VDA, 2015. Jahreszahlen Export. (retrieved 16.09.15). https://www.vda.de/de/
Dessau-Roßlau. services/zahlen-und-daten/jahreszahlen/export.html.
UBA, 2016a. UBA, Dessau-Roßlau. Valorlub, 2015. UEIL Local Report: Extended Producer Responsibility of Used Oils in
UBA, 2016b. Jahresbericht über die Altfahrzeug-Verwertungsquoten in Deutschland im Belgium.
Jahr 2014. UBA, Dessau-Roßlau. Valorlub, 2017. Belgian Waste Oil Market.
UNEP, 2012. Compendium of Recycling and Destruction Technologies for Waste Oils. Wallau, F., 2001. Kreislaufwirtschaftssystem Altauto Eine empirische Analyse der Akteure
UNEP, Osaka, Japan. und Märkte der Altautoverwertung in Deutschland. Springer, Heidelberg.

328