Co-pyrolysis of biomass and waste plastics for production of chemicals and liquid fuel: A review on the role of plastics and catalyst types

Zulkafli, Aizatul Hikmah; Hassan, H.; Ahmad, Mohd Azmier; Din, Azam Taufik Mohd; Wasli, Siti Maryam

doi:10.1016/j.arabjc.2022.104389

Cited by 25 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 133 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Electrochemical methods such as electrocoagulation [127] and electro-Fenton processes [93] have added a new dimension to chemical methods to improve their efficiency but were less frequently combined with other technologies. It was also interesting to note that pyrolysis and co-pyrolysis technologies which were touted as promising approaches for MP removal over the last decade based on their extra advantages of low-cost fuel production [202,203] were virtually absent from the technology/method combinations identified in this review.…”

Section: Levels Of Efficacy Across Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application and Efficacy of Management Interventions for the Control of Microplastics in Freshwater Bodies: A Systematic Review

Munien,

Adhikari,

Reycraft

et al. 2024

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review represents one of the first attempts to compare the efficacy of the full suite of management interventions developed to control (prevent or remove) microplastics (MPs) in freshwater bodies, both man-made and natural. The review also traces the evolution of research on the topic in relation to the timing of key policy and regulatory events and investigates whether interventions are being applied within regions and freshwater bodies that represent concerns in terms of MP pollution. The review incorporated bibliometric analysis and meta-analysis of 124 original research articles published on the topic between 2012 and April 2023. To supplement the key findings, data were extracted from 129 review articles on the major knowledge gaps and recommendations. The number of articles on the topic increased with each year, coinciding with a range of global policy commitments to sustainability and mitigating plastic pollution. The majority of the studies focused on MPs in general, rather than any particular particle shape or polymer type, and were conducted at wastewater/sludge treatment plants. Upstream interventions accounted for the majority of studies reviewed (91.1%). A smaller proportion (4.8%) of studies involved reduction in production and physical removal at the point of production (1.6%); treatment-related objectives such as removal through filtration and separation and the combination of these with other technologies in hybrid systems were dominant. Of the physical, chemical and biological methods/technologies (and combinations thereof) employed, physical types (particularly membrane filtration) were most common. The majority of the studies within the wastewater/sludge, stormwater and in situ water/sediment categories exhibited removal efficacies >90%. Although new interventions are constantly being developed under laboratory conditions, their scalability and suitability across different settings are uncertain. Downstream interventions lack sustainability without effective upstream interventions. Though in situ methods are technically achievable, they may not be feasible in resource-limited settings.

show abstract

Section: Levels Of Efficacy Across Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application and Efficacy of Management Interventions for the Control of Microplastics in Freshwater Bodies: A Systematic Review

Munien,

Adhikari,

Reycraft

et al. 2024

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In summary, the interaction between the oxides from cellulose and the free radicals produced from PP chain breaking created a synergistic effect. This understanding is crucial for comprehending the synergistic mechanism of PS-PP mixtures [38].…”

Section: Interaction Between Co-pyrolysis Of Ps With Ppmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synergistic Effects and Kinetic Analysis in Co-Pyrolysis of Peanut Shells and Polypropylene

Huang,

Wu,

Yang

et al. 2024

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of COVID-19 has boosted growth in the takeaway and medical industries but has also generated a large amount of plastic waste. Peanut shells (PS) are produced in large quantities and are challenging to recycle in China. Co-pyrolysis of peanut shells (PS) and polypropylene (PP) is an effective method for processing plastic waste and energy mitigation. Thermogravimetric analysis was conducted on PS, PP, and their blends (PS-PP) at different heating rates (10, 20, 30 °C·min−1). The results illustrated that the co-pyrolysis process of PS-PP was divided into two distinct decomposition stages. The first stage (170–400 °C) was predominantly linked to PS decomposition. The second stage (400–520 °C) resulted from the combinations of PS and PP’s thermal degradations, with the most contribution from PP degradation. With the increase in heating rate, thermogravimetric hysteresis appeared. Kinetic analysis indicated that the co-pyrolysis process reduced the individual pyrolysis activation energy, especially in the second stage, with a correlation coefficient (R2) generally maintained above 0.95. The multi-level reaction mechanism function model can effectively reveal the co-pyrolysis process mechanism. PS proved to be high-quality biomass for co-pyrolysis with PP, and all mixtures exhibited synergistic effects at a mixing ratio of 1:1 (PS1-PP1). This study accomplished effective waste utilization and optimized energy consumption. It holds significance in determining the interaction mechanism of mixed samples in the co-pyrolysis process.

show abstract

“…Growing environmental concerns and increasing global demand for fuel have spurred the exploration of alternative, clean, and renewable energy sources [36]. By more efficiently using renewable feedstocks and reducing our reliance on finite, non-renewable energy sources [37], this advanced technique offers a viable alternative to traditional fossil-fuelbased production methods.…”

Section: Co-pyrolysis and Catalytic Co-pyrolysis (Ccp) Of Biomass-pla...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compared to non-catalytic pyrolysis, CCP produces higher yields of liquid products with better quality, making it an energy-efficient and cost-effective process. Lignocellulose biomass has attracted attention as a cheap, non-edible, renewable, and environmentally beneficial source for producing liquid biofuels and other useful compounds [38], making it a promising solution to the financial and environmental challenges associated with fossil fuels [36].…”

Section: Co-pyrolysis and Catalytic Co-pyrolysis (Ccp) Of Biomass-pla...mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review on Catalytic Co-Pyrolysis of Biomass and Plastics Waste as a Thermochemical Conversion to Produce Valuable Products

Mo,

Ullah,

Zada

et al. 2023

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to satisfy the increasing need for renewable chemicals and fuels, it is important to replace petroleum-based products with alternative feedstocks. Lignocellulosic biomass is considered to be the most capable alternative source for producing sustainable biofuels. Catalytic co-pyrolysis (CCP) is a process that involves simultaneously pyrolyzing biomass and plastics to produce a combination of liquid and gaseous products, such as bio-oil and syngas. Catalysts are used to raise the reaction degree and the selectivity of the co-pyrolysis process, with the choice of catalyst dependent on the physico-chemical features of the feedstock. Catalytic pyrolysis is a useful method for producing high-quality biofuels directly from biomass, although it typically yields a modest amount of aromatic hydrocarbons (HCs) and a large amount of coke, even with highly effective catalysts. Adding a co-reactant high in hydrogen to the CCP process can significantly increase the yield of aromatics while reducing coke formation. The use of CCP can help to address the environmental issues related to waste plastic disposal and improve energy security. This review article thoroughly discusses the process and mechanism of catalytic co-pyrolysis, the influence of plastics on the process, and how the addition of plastics can improve the quality and output of bio-oil while reducing the production of oxygenated compounds and coke. The importance of various catalysts (such as biochar, activated carbon, and acid and base catalysts) in improving the production and quality of obtained products is also compared and discussed.

show abstract

Co-pyrolysis of biomass and waste plastics for production of chemicals and liquid fuel: A review on the role of plastics and catalyst types

Cited by 25 publications

References 133 publications

Application and Efficacy of Management Interventions for the Control of Microplastics in Freshwater Bodies: A Systematic Review

Application and Efficacy of Management Interventions for the Control of Microplastics in Freshwater Bodies: A Systematic Review

Synergistic Effects and Kinetic Analysis in Co-Pyrolysis of Peanut Shells and Polypropylene

A Review on Catalytic Co-Pyrolysis of Biomass and Plastics Waste as a Thermochemical Conversion to Produce Valuable Products

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About