Recyclability of Post-Consumer Polystyrene at Pilot Scale: Comparison of Mechanical and Solvent-Based Recycling Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solvent-based and mechanical recycling technology approaches were compared with respect to each process's decontamination efficiency. Herein, post-consumer polystyrene (PS) feedstock was recycled by both technologies, yielding recycled PS resins (rPS). The process feedstock was subjected to four recycling cycles in succession to assess the technology perennity. The physico-chemical and mechanical properties of the rPS were then evaluated to discern the advantages and drawbacks of each recycling approach. The molecular weight of the mechanically recycled resin was found to decrease by 30% over the reprocessing cycles. In contrast, the solvent-base recycling technology yielded a similar molecular weight regarding the feedstock. This consistency in the rPS product is critical for consumer applications. Further qualitative and quantitative analyses on residual organic compounds and inorganic and particulate contaminants were investigated. It was found that the solvent-based technology is very efficient for purifying deeply contaminated feedstock in comparison to mechanical recycling, which is limited to well-cleaned and niche feedstocks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".