Upcycling of Plastic Wastes and Biomass for Sustainable Graphitic Carbon Production: A Critical Review
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
/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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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