DOI: 10.1111/jiec.

12847

R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Assessment of secondary zinc reserves of nations

Kyaw Nyunt Maung Cherry Myo Lwin Seiji Hashimoto

Ritsumeikan University, Shiga, Japan

Correspondence
Kyaw Nyunt Maung, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Graduate School of
Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University,
1-1-1 Noji-higashi, Kusatsu, Shiga 525–8577,
Japan
Email: kyawnyunt.maung@gmail.com
Funding information
This research was supported by the Environ-
ment Research and Technology Development
Fund (1-1402 and 3K163001) of the Ministry of
Environment, Japan and by a Grant-in-Aid for Sci-
entific Research (B) (26281056) from the Japan
Society for the Promotion of Science.
Editor Managing Review: Ichiro Daigo
Abstract
When addressing the sustainable use of metals, one must consider not only primary metals in the
natural environment but also alternative resources, such as secondary metals found in society. For
that purpose, elucidating the availability of secondary metals, that is, secondary metal reserves, is
important. A classification framework of the secondary resources was applied to investigate its
applicability to zinc and to assess the secondary zinc reserves and resources of major targeted
countries. Our estimates show that Japan and the United States have secondary zinc reserves of
14 and 13 Mt, respectively, and showed the total estimated amount of secondary zinc reserves of
the study countries is equivalent to about 24% of the global primary zinc reserves. On a per-capita
basis, France, Germany, and Japan have the largest secondary zinc reserves. The application of a
classification framework showed that a considerable amount of secondary zinc resources is found
in landfills, providing a future potential target for secondary zinc landfill mining. The framework
provides details about the sizes and locations of secondary zinc resources. This information is use-
ful for both industry and policy makers to maximize access to valuable secondary zinc sources. This
study also highlights the necessity for the integrated management of primaszzry and secondary
zinc resources.

KEYWORDS
industrial ecology, McKelvey diagram, recycling, secondary resources, stock accounting, urban
mining

1 INTRODUCTION

Metals are used as important materials in almost every aspect of industrial society because their properties fulfill essential functions of everyday
life. Significant increases in the rate of population growth and urbanization in recent decades are responsible for the rising trend in the demand
for global metals. These trends can become challenging because material scarcity and depletion might eventually limit the potential future supply
(Dawkins et al., 2012). When determining the long-term depletion or scarcity of primary metal resources, one must consider not only primary
metals in the environment but also alternative resources, such as secondary metals found in society. This notion led to the development of the
urban mining concept, which is regarded as having a fundamentally important role in driving a move away from the use of limited raw primary
materials toward the increasing use of secondary materials, thus mitigating reliance on primary metals.
From this perspective, based on a classification framework of natural resources, that is, the McKelvey diagram, Hashimoto and colleagues (2008,
2019) proposed a classification framework for secondary materials accumulated in society as well as in the environment. This framework is a useful
visualization tool for quantifying secondary reserves using different degrees of knowledge and economic recoverability. Secondary reserves rep-
resent a portion of secondary resources and are economically and technologically available for reutilization. Here, the secondary resources are the
total secondary materials in society that are currently or potentially available for reutilization.
In industrial societies, zinc is the third most commonly used non-ferrous metal after aluminum and copper because zinc has good drawability,
corrosive protection, and wear resistance. In 2010, world zinc reserves were estimated at 250 Mt (USGS 2010). The International Lead and Zinc
Study Group (ILZSG 2011) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS 2010) also estimated that global zinc mine production, zinc production,
and zinc consumption increased by 40%, 34%, and 27%, respectively, between 2000 and 2010. This trend in zinc consumption cannot be sustained
indefinitely because, as Alonso and colleagues (2007) pointed out, based on current zinc reserves the time to depletion could be as little as 35
years. Using data of reserves divided by annual production from the USGS (2012), Stuermer and Schwerhoff (2013, December) estimated that zinc

Journal of Industrial Ecology 2019;1–12. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jiec 

c 2019 by Yale University 1
2 MAUNG ET AL .

TA B L E 1 Framework for classification of secondary resources (modified from Hashimoto et al., 2008; 2019)

Knowledge

Products in/after use Wastes in

Dissipated
Emerging Not emerging managed
materials
in a year in a year landfill sites

Secondary reserves Secondary reserves

Economic
in a year in future
Profitability

Marginally Marginal secondary Marginal secondary

economic reserves in a year reserves in future

Sub-economic Sub-economic Sub-economic Sub-economic

Sub-
secondary secondary secondary secondary
economic
resources in a year resources in future resources resources
Unrecoverable Unrecoverable Unrecoverable Unrecoverable
Other materials (other) materials (other) materials (other) materials (other)
Unrecoverable materials (mixed metal losses)

would be available for another 21 years. Zinc may be supply limited due to the closing of large mines and the difficulty in finding new ones (Deaux
& Matthew 2015, April 8). However, zinc can remain in products and infrastructure for a very long time, similarly to other metals. This fact reminds
us to consider zinc stocks in society as an urban mine for available secondary zinc.
Over the past several decades, results from different multiscale (Daigo et al., 2014; Gordon et al., 2004; Graedel et al., 2005; Meylan & Reck,
2016), regional (Harper, Bertram, & Graedel, 2006; Spatari, Bertram, Fuse, Graedel, & Shelov, 2003), and multicountry (Graedel & Cao, 2010) stud-
ies of zinc stocks and flows have been published. Specific country-scale studies include China (Yan, Wang, Chen, & Li, 2013), Japan (Tabayashi, Daigo,
Matsuno, & Adachi, 2009), and the United States (Jolly, 1992). City-scale studies have also been undertaken (Beers & Graedel, 2004). Among these
studies, Meylan and Reck (2016) characterized the global anthropogenic zinc cycles in 2010 for the top zinc-consuming countries across eight world
regions. Rauch (2009) estimated the global in-use stocks of zinc by global mapping. Daigo and colleagues (2014) also analyzed the global-scale sub-
stance flow of zinc associated with steel in order to discuss the sustainable use of zinc resources in the future. Yan and colleagues (2013) published
a study on dynamic material flow analysis of zinc metal in China and predicted end-of-life (EoL) scrap generation and recycling until 2020. Beers
and Graedel (2004) quantified the magnitude and spatial distribution of in-use stocks in Cape Town, South Africa, in 2000 and predicted future
stocks of in-use zinc for 2010, 2020, and 2030.
Maung and colleagues (2017a; 2017b) assessed secondary reserves of nations for copper and aluminum. However, none of these earlier works
focused on secondary zinc reserves, that is, technologically and economically recyclable secondary zinc resources. Moreover, limited knowledge
related to the availability of secondary zinc reserves has hampered our insights not only regarding future resources but also our understanding of
the entire zinc cycle. These reasons led to our vital interest in examining secondary zinc reserves. In this study, a classification framework of sec-
ondary resources (Hashimoto et al., 2008; 2019) was applied to zinc for two specific objectives: (a) to investigate the applicability of the framework;
and (b) to assess secondary zinc reserves and resources in the major countries.
With the availability of reported data on the principal end-use of zinc semiproducts (Supporting Information Figure S1 available on the journal's
website), which play an important role in this study, we targeted the top six zinc-consuming countries in 2010: China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
and the United States (Meylan & Reck, 2016) (Supporting Information Figure S2).

2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES

2.1 Classification of secondary resources

Hashimoto and colleagues (2008, 2019) proposed the classification framework of secondary resources shown in Table 1. In this classification frame-
work, the horizontal arrow indicates the level of knowledge regarding such components as the form of existence, and the time of emergence as
recyclable or non-recyclable zinc products. Recyclable zinc is returned for use in our society through the recycling process, but non-recyclable zinc
terminates in managed landfill sites or is dissipated or lost in the form of mixed metals. Dissipation to the environment is mainly accounted for
MAUNG ET AL . 3

Exported/
Exported/ Exported/ Exported/ Exported/
Imported
Imported Imported Imported Imported
Semi
Zinc Refined Finished End-of-life
Finished
Concentrates Zinc Products Products
Products

Semi- End-of-
Zinc Refined Home Finished Stocks Landfilled
Finished life Scrap
Concentrates Zinc Scrap Products In-use scrap
Products

Primary Galvanizing Construction Construction

Smelting Refined
& Copper Industrial Industrial
Zinc Machinery Machinery
Alloys
Refinery Waste
Fabrica- Manufac-
Chemicals Transportation Use Transportation Manage-
Secondary tion turing
ment
Refined
Elect. and Elect. and
Zinc Rolled Zinc electronic goods electronic goods

Die-casting Agriculture Agriculture

Low High Recovered
Quality Quality Misc. Uses
Process Misc. uses Misc. uses
Scrap Scrap Scrap

Recovered
Exported/ End-of-life
Imported Scrap
Scrap

Dissipated Losses in
Legend: Process Goods Materials Mixed Metals

FIGURE 1 Structure of the zinc flow model

during the use stage, for example, reaching from the finished products, and at the waste management stage, for example, disposal to unmanaged
landfill sites and abandonment of managed landfill sites.
The vertical arrow indicates the potential for the reutilization of secondary resources based on different degrees of profitability: economic,
marginally economic, subeconomic, and other conditions at the time of estimation. We introduced a factor “secondary reserve ratio (SRR)” (SRR)
as shown in the following section to estimate secondary reserves and marginal secondary reserves. Marginal secondary reserves border on
being economically producible and its essential characteristic is economic uncertainty. Under the economic and marginally economic conditions,
secondary resources are classified as secondary reserves based on their technological and economic recoverability after their lifespans at the study
year, which is 2010 in this study. The secondary zinc reserves are considered to be the amount of recyclable zinc products in/after use in the human
society. Conversely, the secondary resources under subeconomic and other categories are regarded as unrecoverable zinc products in/after use at
the time of estimation. In this study, a category of “unrecoverable materials (losses to mixed metals)” was added to the original classification table
because it is difficult to identify where those lost metals are located among products in/after use, waste in managed landfill sites, or dissipated
materials.

2.2 Defining the life cycle of zinc

The zinc flowchart presented in this study is a simplified and developed version of the generic zinc cycle outlined in Gordon and colleagues (2004)
and considers primary refined zinc production, fabrication of semifinished products, manufacturing of finished products, as well as use and waste
management as shown in Figure 1. A mass balance principle was applied to all processes and in our model. Processes and goods are portrayed as
ovals and boxes, respectively.

2.3 Secondary and marginal secondary zinc reserves

The amounts of secondary zinc reserves shown in Table 1 were calculated as follows:

∑
SZR(t,c) = ZS(t,c,i) × SRR(t,c) (1)
i
4 MAUNG ET AL .

∑
SZRe(t,c) = GEoLS(t,c,i) × SRR(t,c) (2)
i

SZRn(t,c) = SZR(t,c) − SZRe(t,c) (3)

where SZR(t,c) stands for the secondary zinc reserves in country c in year t; e and n denote emerging in a year and not emerging in a year; ZS(t,c,i)
represents the zinc stocks of finished product i in country c in year t; SRR(t,c) represents the SRR in country c in year t, which is the fraction of zinc
stocks (ZS(t,c,i)) that are economically and technologically recoverable; and GEoLS(t,c,i) is the generated EoL scrap of finished product i in country
c in year t (see Supporting Information Table S1 for a list of variables in this paper; see Supporting Information Note S1 for the estimation method
used for ZS(t,c,i) and GEolS(t,c,i)).
The amounts of marginal secondary zinc reserves were estimated in a similar manner using the following equations:

∑
MSZR(t,c) = ZS(t,c,i) × (SRR(thigh ,c) − SRR(t,c) ) (4)
i

∑
MSZRe(t,c) = GEoLS(t,c,i) × (SRR(thigh ,c) − SRR(t,c) ) (5)
i

MSZRn(t,c) = MR(t,c) − MRe(t,c) (6)

where MSZR(t,c) is marginal secondary zinc reserves of country c in year t; thigh represents the year in which SRR was highest during the analyzed
period. The highest SRR indicates economical recyclability potential.

2.4 Subeconomic secondary resources and unrecoverable materials

The amounts of subeconomic secondary resources and unrecoverable materials (others) in the column of final products in/after use were estimated
as shown in the following equations:

∑
SSZRe(t,c) = GEoLS(t,c,i) − SZRe(t,c) − MSZRe(t,c) (7)
i

∑
SSZRn(t,c) = ZS(t,c,i) − SSZRe(t,c) − SZR(t,c) − MSZR(t,c) (8)
i

where SSZR(t,c) represents subeconomic secondary zinc resources and unrecoverable materials (others) in products in/after use in country c in
year t.
The amounts of subeconomic secondary zinc resources and unrecoverable materials (others) in the column of waste in managed landfill sites
(SSZRw) and dissipated materials (SSZRd), as shown in Table 1, were estimated as follows:

∑
SSZRw(t,c) = SSZRe(t′ ,c) × LFR(t′ ,c) (9)
t′

∑
SSZRd(t,c) = ZS(t,c,i) × DpR(t′ ,c,i) (10)
i

where w and d denote wastes in managed landfill sites and dissipated materials, respectively; LFR(t’,c) is the landfill ratio in country c in year t’; and
DpR(t’,c,i) is the dissipation ratio of finished products i in country c in year t’. In the “others” row in Table 1, unrecoverable materials (mixed metal
losses) were estimated as

∑
SSZRm(t,c) = SSZRe(t′ ,i) × MMLR(t′ ,c) (11)
i

where m represents mixed metal loss, and MMLR(t’,c) is the mixed metal loss ratio in country c in year t’.
MAUNG ET AL . 5

2.5 Estimation of the secondary reserve ratio

The SRR is the fraction of zinc stocks (ZS(t,c,i)) that is economically and technologically recoverable. In this study, the ratio was estimated by dividing
the amount of recovered EoL scrap by the total amount of generated EoL scrap (i.e., the EoL recycling ratio):

∑
SRR(t,c) = REoLS(t,c) ∕ GEoLS(t,c) (12)
i

where REoLS(t,c) signifies the amount of recovered EoL scrap in country c in year t. REoLS(t,c) was estimated using the following equations:

[ ]
REoLS(t,c) = US(t,c) − RPS(t,c) ] + [ EXS(t,c) − IMS(t,c) (13)

[ ]
US(t,c) = HQS(t,c) + LQS(t,c) = SP(t,c) − RZC(t,c) ] + [ RZP(t,c) − ZCC(t,c) (14)

∑
RPS(t,c) = SC(t,c,i) × (1 − FE(t,c,i) ∕100) (15)
i

where US(t,c) is the amount of utilized scrap in country c in year t; RPS(t,c) is the amount of recovered processed scrap in country c in year t; EXS(t,c)
is the amount of exported scrap in country c in year t; IMS(t,c) is the amount of imported scrap in country c in year t; HQS(t,c) is the amount of utilized
high-quality scrap in country c in year t; LQS(t,c) is the amount of utilized low-quality scrap in country c in year t; SP(t,c) is the amount of semiproduct
production in country c in year t; RZC(t,c) is the amount of refined zinc consumption in country c in year t; RZP(t,c) is the amount of refined zinc
production in country c in year t; ZCC(t,c) is the amount of zinc concentrate consumption in country c in year t; SC(t,c,i) is the amount of semifinished
product i consumption in country c in year t; and FE(t,c,i) is the fabrication efficiency of semifinished product i for the production of finished products
in country c in year t (%).

2.6 Data sources

Data from ILZSG (ILZSG, 2016) were used to define the production of zinc concentrates, primary refined zinc, and secondary refined zinc from
1960 to 2010 and also for determining exports and imports of zinc concentrates and refined zinc. UN Comtrade (United Nations, 2016) data were
also used to determine exports and imports of semifinished products and finished products and scraps. Zinc content data were used to determine
the zinc content of the traded commodities (see Supporting Information Table S2). In order to compare our results on secondary zinc reserves with
primary zinc reserves, data from the U.S. Geological Survey (2012) were used.
Data from the World Bureau of Metals Statistics (WBMS, 2013) were used to define the principal uses of zinc (semifinished products) in Ger-
many, France, Italy, Japan, and the United States from 1982 to 2010 (see Supporting Information Figure S1). The data prior to 1982 was estimated
by extrapolating the country specific usage trends during the 1980s. Data from the China Non-ferrous Metals Industry Association (CNMIA, 2005)
were used to define the principal uses of zinc (semifinished products) from 1990 to 2004 (see Supporting Information Figure S1). In China, the
principal uses in 2004 were assumed to be the same until 2010 because we could not find any data on principal uses from 2005 to 2010. Further,
regional models of the allocation of semifinished products to finished products (end-use allocation share) (Meylan & Reck, 2016) were used in this
study.
Country-specific data on fabrication efficiency and finished product lifetimes are very limited. Therefore, in this study, the average global fabrica-
tion efficiency and lifetime information by the finished product have been adapted from Van Genderen (2014) and Meylan and Reck (2016), respec-
tively (Supporting Information Table S3). The landfill ratio (LFR(t’,c)) from Equation (9) and the dissipation ratio (DpR(t’,c,i)) from Equation (10) were
taken from Gordon and colleagues (2004) and Meylan and Reck (2016), respectively. The mixed metal loss ratio (MMLR(t’,c)) from Equation (11)
was based on our assumptions (Supporting Information Table S4).

2.7 Sensitivity analysis

A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the reliability of these estimates for understanding the effects of changes in the main
parameters (end-use allocation share, fabrication efficiency, and mean lifetime) used in our study on the changes in zinc stocks in each
country.
6 MAUNG ET AL .

30
China France Germany

25 Italy Japan USA

20
Million tonnes

15

10

0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

F I G U R E 2 Historical patterns of total zinc stocks and

per capita zinc stocks

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Analysis of zinc stocks in or after use

Figure 2 shows the trends of zinc stocks for the six major countries with the highest rates of zinc consumption. The United States’ zinc stock was
the largest throughout the study period, followed by Japan and China. The zinc stock of the United States was estimated at 16 and 27 Mt in 1990
and 2010, respectively, denoting a 68% increase in 20 years. The zinc stock in Japan increased from 10 Mt in 1990 to 21 Mt in 2010, denoting a
two-fold increase. Prior to the 1990s, the zinc stock of China was the lowest among the six major countries and was approximately estimated at 4
Mt in 1990. A zinc stock of 26 Mt was estimated in 2010, indicating a more than eight-fold increase that is characterized by a moderate growth until
the beginning of the 1990s and a rapid growth thereafter. Furthermore, the zinc stocks of France, Germany, and Italy increased respectively from
7, 6, and 5 Mt in 1990 to 11, 13, and 11 Mt in 2010, equivalent to increases of 57%, 100% and 100%, respectively. Aside from China, the trends of
growth in zinc stocks in all of the developed countries have shown a sign of slowdown in recent years.
It is noteworthy to point out that the developed nations likely had a certain amount of zinc already accumulated in 1962, resulting in a slight
underestimation in our estimates.
On a per-capita basis in 2010, Italy had the highest per capita zinc stock at 180 kg followed by 170 kg in both France and Japan as depicted
in Figure 2. Among the developed countries, the United States’ per capita zinc stock was estimated as the lowest despite holding the largest total
MAUNG ET AL . 7

Change in Zinc Stocks

0% 5% 10% 15%

China
10% increase in allocation share
of construction (2% decrease in
others)
France

Germany
10% increase in fabrication
efficiency
Italy

Japan
10% increase in lifetime

FIGURE 3 Sensitivity analysis of the zinc stock USA

estimates

zinc stock. Even though the total stocks showed a rapid increase, the per capita zinc stock in China was the lowest throughout the study period
(Figure 2).
Jolly (1992) estimated that the zinc stock in-use in the United States was about 23 Mt in 1990, which is greater than our value of about 17 Mt
but the same as our estimate for 1999 shown in Figure 2. One possible reason is the longer time-series data (1850–1990) used to estimate in-use
zinc stocks in Jolly (1992) than that used for our estimate (1960–2010). When taking into consideration only die-casting, galvanized sheets, and
other galvanized products in Japan, Tabayashi and colleagues (2009) estimated that the recyclable zinc stock was about 3.3 Mt in 2005, which is
less than that observed in our results. In the present study, zinc alloy, rolled zinc, zinc oxides, and other uses were included in the zinc stocks but
they were ignored completely in the estimate presented in Tabayashi and colleagues (2009). This discrepancy is attributable to the use of different
definitions of zinc stocks and time-series data. In the present study, we defined zinc stock as all the zinc in the in-use stage and did not distinguish if
it was recycled or not.
After reviewing 54 studies of metal in-use stocks, Gerst and Graedel (2007) concluded that the per capita zinc in-use stocks in more developed
countries ranged from 80–200 kg, which is very close to our estimates. In 1990, Jolly (1992) estimated a U.S. per-capita zinc stock of 92 kg, which
is larger than our per-capita result of 65 kg. By combining concentrations of zinc in the main in-use reservoirs with geographic information system
data sets, van Beers and Graedel (2006) estimated per capita in-use zinc stocks of 205 kg in Australia, which is higher than our values for Italy,
France, Japan, and Germany.
Figure 3 shows the sensitivity analysis results for the zinc stock estimates. The main contribution to zinc stocks came from the data on fabrication
efficiency and end-use allocation share by the finished product. In this study, only global average fabrication efficiency was used for all the study
countries. However, this is a point to be improved in the future study.

3.2 Trends in the secondary reserve ratio

In this model, the SRR is the most important variable used for determining the amount of secondary zinc reserves. Figure 4 shows the three-year
moving average of the estimated SRR(t,c) from Equation (7) for France, Germany, Japan, and the United States.
The estimated (SRR(t,c)) from Equation (12) fluctuated because the estimated recovered EoL scraps (REoLS(t,c)) also fluctuated. As shown in
Equations (13), REoLS(t,c) was estimated based on the amount of utilized scrap (US(t,c)) and recovered processed scrap (RPS(t,c)). The fluctuations
in REoLS(t,c) are mainly driven by the fluctuations in US(t,c), which are largely affected by the accuracy of the statistical dataset and other factors.
During the period of 2005–2010, SRRs for almost all major countries were in the range of about 25% to 80%. Despite using a three-year moving
average, the SRR(t,c) for China and Italy were out of range (negative).
Norgate and Rankin (2002) reported that the global recycling rate was 36%, and 40% for the United States. This value closely approximates our
estimated value for 2008 to 2009. At the country level, Meylan and Reck (2016) revealed that the estimates of the EoL recycling rate in 2010 were
33% at global scale, 48% in France, 44% in Germany, 43% in Japan, and 37% in the United States. These estimates are smaller than our estimates.
Graedel and colleagues (2011) estimated that the global average EoL recycling rate of zinc was greater than 50% during the 2000–2005 period.
In most cases, our estimates are comparable to these values during the 2005–2010 period. Alonso and colleagues (2007) explained that resource
prices influence demand and the recycling rate. Using the global market share basis, Ciacci et al. (2015) estimated the potential recyclability rate
8 MAUNG ET AL .

100%
France Germany Japan USA

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% F I G U R E 4 Three-year moving average of estimated secondary

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 reserve ratios

Change in Secondary Reserve Ratio

-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%

10% increase in allocation France

share of construction (2%
decrease in others)

Germany

10% increase in fabrication

efficiency

Japan

10% increase in lifetime

USA

FIGURE 5 Sensitivity analysis of the SRR estimates

(PRR) of zinc to be about 77%, an almost identical ratio to our 2010 estimates for France, Germany, and Japan. SRRs are the rations that actually
recovered in a specific country and year, and not necessary the ratios that potentially could be recovered. PRR of Ciacci et al. (2015) is the ratio
for which only today's technology is compatible with their recovery, and not the ratios that are currently recyclable. SRRs of France, Germany, and
Japan are approaching to the PRR of Ciaci et al. (2015). It means that they are on the right track.
As described previously, China and Italy's SRRs were negative (as low as −200%) during the 2005–2010 period, indicating that the amount of
recovered process scraps was less than the use of these scraps (as per Equation (13)). Graedel and colleagues (2005) added additional flows to
their framework to better represent the mass balance of the contemporary zinc cycle, which included a dotted-line box of additional flows. These
flows can be attributable to the lack of transparency in trade or to the illegal (not reported) trade of second-hand products and EoL scrap. The
actual amounts were likely higher than the reported amounts (Janz & Bilitewski, 2009), which can strongly affect the estimation of SRRs. In order
to estimate secondary zinc reserves in the following section, the global average EoL recycling rate (maximum of 41% during 2000–2009 and 33%
in 2010) was used for China and Italy (Meylan & Reck, 2016).
Figure 5 shows the sensitivity analysis results for the SRR estimates for France, Germany, Japan, and the United States. The results indicate that
the SRR is also sensitive to the change in the end-use allocation share and fabrication efficiency.

3.3 Estimated secondary zinc reserves and their comparison with primary zinc reserves
Figure 6 presents the estimated secondary zinc reserves in our study countries along with the countries with the top four primary reserves in 2010
(China and the United States are in both groups). Australia had the largest primary zinc reserves of 53 Mt in 2010, which is approximately 21% of
MAUNG ET AL . 9

x1.7
Germany

France
USA Italy Japan
China

x4

x12
x2

Peru
25 200
20 Australia
150

Secondary

Secondary
kg/person
Primary

Primary
15

Mt
100
10

5 50

0 0

F I G U R E 6 Distribution of primary and secondary zinc reserves in 2010. Primary reserves are shown for the countries with the top four primary
reserves; secondary reserves are shown for the studied countries. The United States and China are in both groups. Note. Mt = Million tonnes and
kg = kilogram

the global zinc reserve, followed by China with 42 Mt (17%) and Peru with 23 Mt (9%) (USGS 2011). Our results show that Japan and the United
States had the largest amount of estimated secondary zinc reserves at 14 and 13 Mt, followed by 10 Mt in Germany. China, Italy, and France had in
the range of 5–10 Mt of secondary zinc reserves in 2010. The integrated management of both zinc resources is important for China and the United
States because they both have significant amounts of primary and secondary zinc reserves, whereas countries such as Japan, Germany, France,
and Italy have only secondary zinc reserves. Countries with only secondary zinc reserves need to implement inclusive policies for improving the
domestic recycling infrastructure to handle the amount of generated EoL zinc scraps, thus, reducing not only the risks of supply chain disruption of
raw materials (geopolitical, economic, or social limits) but also the dependency on depleting zinc resources. In 2010, our total estimated amount of
secondary zinc reserves for the study countries was 60 Mt, which represents about 24% of the 250 Mt global primary zinc reserves for 2010 (USGS
2011). The quantity of secondary zinc reserves of Japan and Germany is similar to that of the primary zinc reserves of Peru and the United States.
On a per-capita basis, Australia has the highest primary reserves of about 2,300 kg/person, followed by 780 kg/person in Peru and about
38 kg/person in the United States. It is interesting to note that these values are significantly greater than the per-capita secondary zinc reserves in
the study countries, where the largest number is about 128 kg/person in France, followed by about 120 kg/person in Germany and 109 kg/person
in Japan.
Necessarily, secondary reserves of zinc are expected to play an important role in countries with no primary zinc reserves. Understanding the
sizes of both primary and secondary zinc reserves becomes essential for informing and establishing comprehensive mechanisms for sustainable
governance and use of zinc within the boundary and beyond. The role of the SRR variable is important for determining the size of the secondary zinc
reserves. Elevating the SSR through the promotion of recycling can increase the amount of secondary reserves. This requires both technological
competency and for the necessary infrastructure to be in place.
There is a marked difference between primary and secondary zinc reserves. The availability of primary zinc reserves is limited not only by the
quantity that is economically and technologically extractable but also by geopolitical settings in the area. Moreover, the supply chain for primary
resources is most likely affected by changes in domestic politics in the resource-rich countries. For secondary zinc reserves, the availability of zinc
stocks in use for reutilization is regulated by the quantity of EoL products entering the waste management system. In other words, the potential
recovery of secondary zinc reserves is determined by the product lifetime. Zinc products remain in use until the end of their lifetime, which can
vary from a few years to several decades (see Supporting Information Table S3).

3.4 Application of classification framework for secondary resources

The classification framework for secondary resources (Hashimoto et al., 2008; 2019) was applied to zinc for Germany, Japan, and the United States
in 2010. These countries are representative of major countries in Europe, Asia, and North America and as countries for which our SRR results were
derived in a consistent manner.
10 MAUNG ET AL .

TA B L E 2 Classification of secondary zinc resources in (a) Germany, (b) Japan, and (c) the United States in 2010

a) Germany
Products in/after use (kt)
Waste in managed
Emerging in a year Not emerging in a year landfill sites (kt) Dissipated materials (kt)
Economic 243 9,182
(1%) (43%)
Marginally economic 12 476
(0%) (2%)
Subeconomic and others 54 3,054 2,166 3,835
(0%) (14%) (10%) (18%) Total (kt)
Mixed metal losses 2,254 (11%) 21,279 (100%)
b) Japan
Products in/after use (kt)
Waste in managed
Emerging in a year Not emerging in a year landfill sites (kt) Dissipated materials (kt)
Economic 305 13,572
(1%) (31%)
Marginally economic 0 0
(0%) (0%)
Subeconomic and others 166 7,392 7,504 5,655
(0%) (17%) (17%) (13%) Total (kt)
Mixed metal losses 9,908 (22%) 44,265 (100%)
c) The United States
Products in/after use (kt)
Waste in managed
Emerging in a year Not emerging in a year landfill sites (kt) Dissipated materials (kt)
Economic 325 12,461
(0%) (17%)
Marginally economic 0 0
(0%) (0%)
Subeconomic and others 357 13,711 15,459 10,224
(0%) (19%) (21%) (14%) Total (kt)
Mixed metal losses 20,001 (28%) 72,539 (100%)

Note. kt = Kilotonnes.

As presented in Table 2, Germany, Japan, and the United States have respective total amounts of secondary zinc resources of about 21, 44, and
73 Mt. Germany has 9.4 Mt (44%) of economically recoverable secondary zinc, whereas Japan and the United States have 14 Mt (32%) and 13
Mt (17%), respectively. Germany's higher share of economically recoverable secondary zinc was observed throughout the study years. Germany's
secondary zinc reserves, including marginally economic secondary reserves, were estimated at 9.9 Mt (46%). The percentage of the yearly available
secondary zinc (economic zinc resources emerging in a year) was between 0.5% and 1% for each country. The amount of secondary zinc available on
a yearly basis is important information for the recovery of these resources. The amount of yearly available secondary zinc emerging in a year shown
in Table 2 represents more than 48% of the recent annual zinc consumption in Germany, 38% in Japan, and 33% in the United States, encouraging
those countries to actively tap their urban mines.
The United States has a large amount (15 Mt) of secondary zinc resources in the form of waste in managed landfill sites, which is comparable to
Japan's secondary zinc reserves (14 Mt). Similar amounts of secondary zinc resources (7 Mt) are also found in landfill sites in Japan. In the future,
these deposits present potential sources for extraction of secondary zinc through landfill mining activities.
The application of the classification framework provides detailed information regarding the sizes and locations of secondary zinc resources
that is useful for industry and policy makers to maximize access to valuable secondary zinc sources through partnership on zinc recycling. The
quantitative assessment of secondary zinc reserves presented by the classification framework plays a fundamental role in moving toward a circular
economy that encompasses system-wide management strategies of secondary zinc resources. In order for countries to meet their zinc demand, the
estimates of secondary zinc reserves and resources can be regarded as the major indicators of domestic potential exploitable zinc resources that
can ensure the security of zinc supply and a circular economy in the future.
MAUNG ET AL . 11

4 CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES

In this study, the classification framework of secondary resources was applied to zinc and the applicability of the framework was assessed in relation
to secondary zinc reserves and resources of six major countries. We estimated the amount of secondary zinc reserves and compared it to primary
reserves. The results show that Japan and the United States have large secondary zinc reserves of 14 and 13 Mt, respectively. For countries with
primary reserves, such the United States and China, an integrated management approach to both primary and secondary zinc resources is impor-
tant. The results of this study also show that the total estimated amount of secondary zinc reserves in the six study countries was equivalent to
about 24% of world primary reserves in 2010. Furthermore, it is shown that a significant amount of secondary zinc is in landfill sites, making them
potential targets for the future extraction of secondary zinc and indicating the requirement for policies and measures to be put in place in order to
avoid flows to landfill sites.
Overall, if compared to all the zinc cycle studies reviewed in the introduction, our classification framework provides a better understanding of
the quantity of available secondary resources and waste deposits to date, thus enabling the implementation of an integrated management approach
to primary and secondary resources (UNEP 2010; Izatt 2016).
The classification framework is applicable to other important metals as well as non-metallic resources. However, we need to elaborate and
enhance our understanding of the recycling flows. SRR should be product-specific in respective country and year and this is a point to be improved
in the future study. Future assessments can differentiate subeconomic secondary zinc resources from unrecoverable materials (other), by using the
PRR within the framework (Ciacci et al., 2015). The classification framework presented in this study can be applied to further case studies of other
subnational territories, regions, and the entire globe.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors have no conflict to declare.

ORCID

Kyaw Nyunt Maung https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0923-288X

REFERENCES
Alonso, E., Gregory, J., Field, F., & Kirchain, R. (2007). Material availability and the supply chain: Risks, effects and responses. Environmental Science & Technol-
ogy, 41(19), 6649–6656.
China Non-ferrous Metals Industry Association [CNMIA]. (2005). The yearbook of China non-ferrous metals industry and the National Bureau of Statistics, 1991–
2005. Beijing, China: Author.
Ciacci, L., Reck, B. K., Nassar, N. T., & Graedel, T. E. (2015). Lost by design. Environmental Science & Technology, 49, 9443–9451.
Daigo, I., Osako, S., Adachi, Y., & Matsuno, Y. (2014). Time-series analysis of global zinc demand associated with steel. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 82,
35–40.
Dawkins, E., Roelich, K., Falk, R., & Chadwick, M. (2012). Metals in a low-carbon economy: Resource scarcity, climate change and business in a finite world (Policy
brief). Stockholm, Sweden: SEI Policy Brief.
Deaux, J., & Matthew, C. (2015, April 8). In a world filled with gluts, one metal is suddenly difficult to find. Bloomberg Business. Retrieved from
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-08/in-a-world-filled-with-gluts-one-metal-is-suddenly-hard-to-find
Gerst, M. D., & Graedel, T. E. (2007). In-use stocks of metals: Status and implications. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(19), 7038–7045.
Gordon, R. B., Lifset, R. J., Bertram, M., Reck, B., Spatari, S., & Graedel, T. E. (2004). Where is all the zinc going: The stocks and flows project, part 2. The Journal
of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 56(1), 24–29.
Graedel, T. E., & Cao, J. (2010). Metal spectra as indicators of development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107,
20905–20910.
Graedel, T. E., van Beers, D., Bertram, M., Fuse, K., Gordon, R. B., Gritsinin, A., … Spatari, S. (2005). The multilevel cycle of anthropogenic zinc. Journal of
Industrial Ecology, 9, 67–90.
Harper, E. M., Bertram, M., & Graedel, T. E. (2006). The contemporary Latin America and the Caribbean zinc cycle: One year stocks and flows. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 47, 82–100.
Hashimoto, S., Daigo, I., Murakami, S., Matsubae-Yokoyama, K., Fuse, M., Nakajima, K., … Umezawa, O. (2008). Framework of material stock accounts toward
assessment of material accumulation in the economic sphere. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on EcoBalance, C-08.
Hashimoto, S., Daigo, I., Murakami, S., Matsubae, K., Fuse, M., Nakajima, K., … Yamasue, E. (2019). Framework of material stock accounts and classification of
secondary resources. Resources, Conservation and Recycling (in review).
International Lead and Zinc Study Group [ILZSG]. (2011). Review of trends in 2010-Zinc: International Lead and Zinc Study Group news release. Lisbon, Portugal:
Author.
12 MAUNG ET AL .

International Lead and Zinc Study Group [ILZSG]. (2016). International Lead and Zinc Study Group statistical database. Retrieved from http://stats-
database.ilzsg.org
Janz, A., & Bilitewski, B. (2009). WEEE in and outside Europe: Hazards, challenges and limits. In: P. Lechner (Ed.), Prosperity Waste and Waste Resources: Pro-
ceeding of Third BOKU Waste Conference (pp. 113–122). Vienna, Austria.
Jolly, J. H. (1992). Materials flow of zinc in the United States 1850–1990 (Open file report 72–92). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines.
Meylan, G., & Reck, B. K. (2016). The anthropogenic cycle of zinc: Status quo and perspectives. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 123, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.01.006
Maung, K. N., Hashimoto, S., Mizukami, M., Morozumi, M., & Lwin, C. M. (2017a). Assessment of the secondary copper reserves of nations. Environmental
Science & Technology, 51(7), 3824–3832.
Maung, K. N., Yoshida, T., Liu, G., Lwin, C. M., Muller, D. B., & Hashimoto, S. (2017b). Assessment of secondary aluminum reserves of nations. Resources, Con-
servation and Recycling, 126, 34–41.
Norgate, T. E., & Rankin, W. J. (2002). The role of metals in sustainable development. Australia: CSIRO Minerals.
Rauch, J. N. (2009). Global mapping of Al, Cu, Fe, and Zn in-use stocks and in-ground resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 106(45), 18920–18925.
Spatari, S., Bertram, M., Fuse, K., Graedel, T. E., & Shelov, E. (2003). The contemporary European zinc cycle: 1-year stocks and flows. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 39, 137–160.
Stuermer, M., & Schwerhoff, G. (2013, December). Technological change in resource extraction and endogenous growth (Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 12/2013).
Tabayashi, H., Daigo, I., Matsuno, Y., & Adachi, Y. (2009). Development of a dynamic substance flow model of zinc in Japan. The Iron and Steel Institute of Japan
International, 49, 1265–1271.
United Nations. (2016). United Nations commodity trade statistics database. Retrieved from http://comtrade.un.org/data
U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]. (2010). Mineral commodity summaries. Reston, VA: Author.
U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]. (2011). Mineral commodity summaries. Reston, VA: Author.
U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]. (2012). Mineral Commodity Summaries. Reston, VA: Author.
Van Genderen, E. (2014). International Zinc Association, personal communication by Meylan G.
Van Beers, D., & Graedel, T. E. (2004). The magnitude and spatial distribution of in-use zinc stocks in Cape Town, South Africa. African Journal of Environmental
Assessment and Management-RAGEE, 9, 18–36.
Van Beers, D., & Graedel, T. E. (2006). Spatial characterization of multi-level in-use copper and zinc stocks in Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 849–
861.
World Bureau of Metal Statistics [WBMS]. (2013). Zinc Principal End-uses, 1982–2010. Herts, UK: Author.
Yan, L., Wang, A., Chen, Q., & Li, J. (2013). Dynamic material flow analysis of zinc resources in China. Resource, Conservation and Recycling, 75, 23–31.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of the article.

How to cite this article: Maung KN, Lwin CM, Hashimoto S. Assessment of secondary zinc reserves of nations. Journal of Industrial Ecology.
2019;1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12847