MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290889280 · doi:10.1021/acsenvironau.2c00029

Upcycling of Plastic Wastes and Biomass for Sustainable Graphitic Carbon Production: A Critical Review

2022· review· en· W4290889280 on OpenAlexafffund
Haftom Weldekidan, Amar K. Mohanty, Manjusri Misra

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Environmental Au · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and TradeCanada Foundation for InnovationOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceCanada Research ChairsOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsGovernment of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsPyrolysisMaterials sciencePolyethyleneCarbon fibersBiomass (ecology)Chemical engineeringComposite materialComposite number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Upcycling of waste plastics diverts plastics from landfill, which helps in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Graphitic carbon is an interesting material with a wide range of applications in electronics, energy storage, fuel cells, and even as advanced fillers for polymer composites. It is a very strong and highly conductive material consisting of weakly bound graphene layers arranged in a hexagonal structure. There are different ways of synthesizing graphitic carbons, of which the co-pyrolysis of biomass and plastic wastes is a promising approach for large-scale production. Highly graphitized carbon with surface areas in the range of 201 m 2 /g was produced from the co-pyrolysis of polyethylene and pinewood at 600 °C. Similarly, porous carbon having a superior discharge capacity (290 mAh/g) was developed from the co-pyrolysis of sugar cane and plastic polymers with catalysts. The addition of plastic wastes including polyethylene and high-density polyethylene to the pyrolysis of biomass tends to increase the surface area and improve the discharge capacity of the produced graphitic carbons. Likewise, temperature plays an important role in enhancing the carbon content and thereby the quality of the graphitic carbon during the co-pyrolysis process. The application of metal catalysts can reduce the graphitization temperature while at the same time improve the quality of the graphitic carbon by increasing the carbon contents. This work reports some typical graphitic carbon preparation methods from the co-pyrolysis of biomass and plastic wastes for the first time including thermochemical methods, exfoliation methods, template-based production methods, and salt-based methods. The factors affecting the graphitic char quality during the conversion processes are reviewed critically. Moreover, the current state-of-the-art characterization technologies such as Raman, scanning electron microscopy, high-resolution transmission electron microscopy, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy are discussed in detail, and finally, an overview on the applications, scalability, and future trends of graphitic-like carbons is highlighted.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations59
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Environmental AuSame topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207