A Critical Review of SCWG in the Context of Available Gasification Technologies for Plastic Waste
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
End of life packaging is nowadays one of the major environmental problems due to its short usage time, the low biodegradability, and the big volume occupied. In this context, gasification is one of the most promising chemical recycling techniques. Some non-recyclable or non-compostable waste gasification plants are already operating such as Enerkem Alberta Biofuels in Canada or the Sierra’s FastOx Pathfinder in California. In this review, we have examined works about plastic gasification from the last fifteen years with a specific focus on polyolefin (PP, PE), plastics mix, and co-gasification of plastic with biomass. For each of these, the best operating conditions were investigated. A very in-depth section was dedicated to supercritical water gasification (SCWG). The most used reactors in gasification processes are fluidized bed reactors together with air or steam as gasifying agents. Tar removal is commonly performed using olivine, dolomite, or nickel based catalysts. SCWG has numerous advantages including the inhibition of tar and coke formation and can be used to remove microplastics from the marine environment. In co-gasification of plastic material with coal or biomass, synergistic effects are observed between the raw materials, which improve the performance of the process, allowing to obtain higher gas yields and a syngas with a high energy content.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it