MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162575831 · doi:10.3390/ma14102586

Pyrolytic Conversion of Plastic Waste to Value-Added Products and Fuels: A Review

2021· review· en· W3162575831 on OpenAlexafffund
Sadegh Papari, Hanieh Bamdad, Franco Berruti

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPyrolysisWaste managementDiesel fuelPetrochemicalRaw materialMaterials scienceHeat of combustionFluid catalytic crackingEnvironmental scienceFlash pointMunicipal solid wastePyrolysis oilCrackingCombustionOrganic chemistryChemistryComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plastic production has been rapidly growing across the world and, at the end of their use, many of the plastic products become waste disposed of in landfills or dispersed, causing serious environmental and health issues. From a sustainability point of view, the conversion of plastic waste to fuels or, better yet, to individual monomers, leads to a much greener waste management compared to landfill disposal. In this paper, we systematically review the potential of pyrolysis as an effective thermochemical conversion method for the valorization of plastic waste. Different pyrolysis types, along with the influence of operating conditions, e.g., catalyst types, temperature, vapor residence time, and plastic waste types, on yields, quality, and applications of the cracking plastic products are discussed. The quality of pyrolysis plastic oil, before and after upgrading, is compared to conventional diesel fuel. Plastic oil yields as high as 95 wt.% can be achieved through slow pyrolysis. Plastic oil has a heating value approximately equivalent to that of diesel fuel, i.e., 45 MJ/kg, no sulfur, a very low water and ash content, and an almost neutral pH, making it a promising alternative to conventional petroleum-based fuels. This oil, as-is or after minor modifications, can be readily used in conventional diesel engines. Fast pyrolysis mainly produces wax rather than oil. However, in the presence of a suitable catalyst, waxy products further crack into oil. Wax is an intermediate feedstock and can be used in fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) units to produce fuel or other valuable petrochemical products. Flash pyrolysis of plastic waste, performed at high temperatures, i.e., near 1000 °C, and with very short vapor residence times, i.e., less than 250 ms, can recover up to 50 wt.% ethylene monomers from polyethylene waste. Alternatively, pyrolytic conversion of plastic waste to olefins can be performed in two stages, with the conversion of plastic waste to plastic oil, followed by thermal cracking of oil to monomers in a second stage. The conversion of plastic waste to carbon nanotubes, representing a higher-value product than fuel, is also discussed in detail. The results indicate that up to 25 wt.% of waste plastic can be converted into carbon nanotubes.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations219
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207