Plastics waste management: A review of pyrolysis technology

Abstract

The world is today faced with the problem of plastic waste pollution more than ever before. Global plastic production continues to accelerate, despite the fact that recycling rates are comparatively low, with only about 15% of the 400 million tonnes of plastic currently produced annually being recycled. Although recycling rates have been steadily growing over the last 30 years, the rate of global plastic production far outweighs this, meaning that more and more plastic is ending up in dump sites, landfills and finally into the environment, where it damages the ecosystem. Better end-of-life options for plastic waste are needed to help support current recycling efforts and turn the tide on plastic waste. A promising emerging technology is plastic pyrolysis; a chemical process that breaks plastics down into their raw materials. Key products are liquid resembling crude oil, which can be burned as fuel and other feedstock which can be used for so many new chemical processes, enabling a closed-loop process. The experimental results on the pyrolysis of thermoplastic polymers are discussed in this review with emphasis on single and mixed waste plastics pyrolysis liquid fuel.

Full text

Clean Technologies and Recycling, 1(1): 50–69.
DOI: 10.3934/ctr.2021003
Received: 01 May 2021
Accepted: 13 July 2021
Published: 19 July 2021
http://www.aimspress.com/journal/ctr
Review
Plastics waste management: A review of pyrolysis technology
Wilson Uzochukwu Eze1,*, Reginald Umunakwe2, Henry Chinedu Obasi3, Michael Ifeanyichukwu
Ugbaja1, Cosmas Chinedu Uche4 and Innocent Chimezie Madufor3
1 Department of Polymer Technology, Nigerian Institute of Leather and Science Technology, P.M.B.
1034, Zaria, Nigeria
2 Department of Metallurgical and Material Engineering, Federal University, Oye-Ekiti, Nigeria
3 Department of Polymer and Textile Engineering, School of Engineering and Engineering Technology,
Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 1526, Owerri, Nigeria
4 Department of Environmental Management, School of Environmental Sciences, Federal University of
Technology, P.M.B. 1526, Owerri, Nigeria
* Correspondence: Email: wilstyrene@yahoo.ca.
Abstract: The world is today faced with the problem of plastic waste pollution more than ever before.
Global plastic production continues to accelerate, despite the fact that recycling rates are comparatively
low, with only about 15% of the 400 million tonnes of plastic currently produced annually being
recycled. Although recycling rates have been steadily growing over the last 30 years, the rate of global
plastic production far outweighs this, meaning that more and more plastic is ending up in dump sites,
landfills and finally into the environment, where it damages the ecosystem. Better end-of-life options for
plastic waste are needed to help support current recycling efforts and turn the tide on plastic waste. A
promising emerging technology is plastic pyrolysis; a chemical process that breaks plastics down into
their raw materials. Key products are liquid resembling crude oil, which can be burned as fuel and other
feedstock which can be used for so many new chemical processes, enabling a closed-loop process. The
experimental results on the pyrolysis of thermoplastic polymers are discussed in this review with
emphasis on single and mixed waste plastics pyrolysis liquid fuel.
Keywords: conventional waste plastics recycling; pyrolysis; liquid fuel; microwave-assisted pyrolysis;
properties of liquid fuel

51
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
1. Introduction
The discovery of synthetic plastics in 1907 and it(s) rapid commercialization in the early 1950’s [1]
has brought about advances in technology cutting across all facets of human endeavours. For instance,
plastics have contributed extensively to the development of computers, cell phones, light weight
automobile parts, roofing and ceiling materials as well as most of the lifesaving advances of modern
medicine among many other areas of application. Even the current fight against COVID 19 pandemic
will be impossible without personal protective gears made largely from plastics [2,3]. Furthermore,
plastics have shown excellent insulating and dielectric properties and as such are widely employed in the
fields of electrical and electronics [4,5].
Owing to the increasing these applications and more, we have become increasingly addicted to this
modern material most of which are single-use articles.
In recent decades, the production and consumption of plastics have increased. Between 1950 and
2015, about 8,300 million tonnes (Mt) of virgin plastics were produced across the globe, generating
approximately 6,300 Mt of plastic wastes, of which about 9% have been recycled, 12% incinerated, and
79% accumulated in landfills [6]. Consequently, the volumes of post-consumer plastic waste
(PCPW) are steadily on the increase in the environment [7,8]. Global plastic production was estimated
at around 300 million tons per year and is continuously increasing every year [9,10]. Waste generated
from indiscriminate disposal of used plastics represents a considerable proportion of the total waste stream
in many countries today [11,12]. Even more worrisome is the marine plastic litters which have been found
to disintegrate into microplastics and nanoplastics, and are consumed by aquatic animals [13–16].
Research has shown that this poses serious negative impact on population and mortality of zooplankton
which is an important source of energy for marine environment [15].
Presently, plastic wastes pose danger to global economy, human, animal and environment,
especially for under developed and developing countries, which lack modern recycling facilities and
weak policies on plastics production, usage and regulation [17].
Depending on type, application and service condition, plastic may contain some if not all of the
following additives; plasticizers, fire retardants, antioxidants, light stabilisers, lubricants, pigments,
antistatic agents and thermal stabilisers. Research has shown that many of these additives find their ways
into human and animal systems and has the ability to mimic, block, or interfere with hormones in
the body’s endocrine system as such, are classified as endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) [18].
Many have also been listed as Persistent organic pollutants (POPs), sometimes known as “forever
chemicals”. They are organic compounds that are resistant to environmental degradation
through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes. Most flame retardants; polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), hexachlorobenzene, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDs),
hexabromobiphenyls (HBB), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), short-chain chlorinated paraffins
(SCCPs) and the fluorinated tensides like perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) are all in this class [19].
While plastics have demonstrated excellent properties and uses towards advances in modern
technology, inappropriate use, disposal of its waste and weak regulation on addition of additives in
plastics meant for food packaging may result in the release of toxic substances, which is fueled by open
burning of domestic and industrial plastics [20]. In this regard authorities around the world have resorted
to non-scientific approach, such as waste plastic buyback, partial to outright ban of some categories of
plastic articles in a bid to circumvent pollution from used discarded plastics [21,22]. However, these

52
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
policies have not yielded substantial positive impact because of both; negative economic, legislative,
political, technical and operational limitations [23,24].
To keep-up with the technological advances brought about by the use of plastics and its sustainable
economic growth, it will require more than the mechanical recycling techniques; where used plastics are
down cycled or up-cycled to a more holistic close loop approach. Mechanical recycling only delays the
time taken for used plastics to get to the dumpsites and marine environment. The only way to
permanently eliminate plastic waste is by destructive thermal treatment, such as controlled combustion
or pyrolysis. Pyrolysis of plastic wastes is a holistic close-loop approach; a technique used to convert
plastic waste into energy, in the form of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels [25–27].
Unlike mechanical recycling, Pyrolysis seems to be a suitable way to recover materials and energy
from wastes plastic without selectivity of plastic type (thermoplastic or thermosetting) [28], component
separation or sorting into various plastic type [27], provided an efficient method for reducing toxic
compounds is applied.
In this reviews, we present conventional approach for plastics waste management with emphasis on
their drawbacks and critical review on pyrolysis techniques as an effective depolymerisation approach
for energy and resource recovery from waste plastics.
2. Conventional approach for plastic wastes management
The conventional and new technologies for plastic waste management are shown in Figure 1. The
conventional methods include:
2.1. Landfilling
Landfilling is the most common conventional approach for waste management in many countries,
however, due to increasing human population and consequential urbanization has lead to scarcity of
space for landfills. Plastic waste landfilling is the least favoured waste management option today
because of growing environmental and public health concern. The types and quantities of toxic
chemicals and their potential for leaching at landfill sites into groundwater is a huge public health
issue [29].
2.2. Incineration or open burning
Open burning of plastics fraction in municipal solid waste (MSW) is an old practice that is still
prevalent in most communities around the world especially in underdeveloped and developing countries.
Incineration of plastic waste in open fields is a major source of air pollution. About 12 percent of most
municipal solid waste is made up of plastics of different kind, and 40 percent of the world’s garbage is
burned [30].
The burning of plastics releases toxic gases like dioxins, furans, mercury and polychlorinated
biphenyls (better known as BCPs) into the atmosphere, and poses a threat to vegetation, and human and
animal health [20]. Disposal of waste into landfills implies an irreversible loss of valuable raw materials
and energy. The incomplete combustion of Polyethylene (PE), Polypropylene (PP) and Polystyrene (PS)

53
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
during open burning can cause high concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and noxious emissions,
while PVC generates dioxins, carbon black and aromatics like pyrene and chrysene.
Furthermore, the by-products of plastic combustion are airborne particulate emission (soot) and
solid residue ash (black carbonaceous colour). Many studies have reported that soot and solid residue
ash possess a high potential of causing health and environmental concerns, especially Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), semi-VOCs, smoke (particulate matter), particulate bound heavy metals, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF’s) and dioxins [20,31].
Currently, landfills and dumpsites pose threat in most cities around the world as plastic fraction in
MSW is burnt along with other wastes, a concerted and deliberate effort is needed to communicate
information about danger of this practice, its health and environmental consequences in the long and
short time.
2.3. Mechanical recycling
Mechanical recycling of plastics refers to the processing of plastics waste into secondary raw
material or products without significantly changing the chemical structure of the material. In principle,
all types of thermoplastics can be mechanically recycled with little quality impairment which depends
on the number of time the article is recycled. Additions of additive and blending with virgin plastic
could help improve the quality of the new article. It is currently the almost, if not, the sole form of
recycling in most countries, representing more than 99% of the recycled quantities.
The burden from collection, sorting, transport and recycling operations tends to render the process
cost ineffective; as such most plastic processing companies tends to prefer the use of virgin material to
the detriment of the environment.
Mechanical recycling of plastic wastes can be classified into: downcycling and upcycling.
2.3.1. Downcycling of plastic waste
Downcycling, is the recycling of plastic waste where the recycled material is of lower quality and
functionality than the original material. However, unlike other materials like glass and metal, recycled
plastics are not able to continually serve the same purpose after recycling. This is usually so because
plastics tend to lose certain qualities like, mechanical integrity, optical clarity and other inherent
properties, as such renders it unfit for its initial application. For example, a plastic water bottle may be
downcycled to become artificial turf or plastic furniture. Generally, mechanical recycling of plastics by
heating and rmoulding operations leads to downcycling in the long run; this is because the material
overtime is no longer suitable for articles with stringent engineering requirements.
2.3.2. Upcycling of plastic waste
Upcycling, also known as creative reuse, is the process of transforming waste plastic materials into
new materials or products perceived to be of greater quality, such as artistic value or environmental
value. For example, Plastic bottles can be upcycled into flower pots, bird feeders, garden sprinklers,
green parking canopy, chandeliers, Christmas trees, kid's toys, and more. However, as stated earlier in
2.3.1 above, if heating and remoulding is involved in the repurposing process of waste plastics articles is

54
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
not able to serve in most stringent engineering application over time, hence are downcycled. Upcycling
of waste single and mixed plastics have been achieved through thermo-chemical processes. pyrolysis is
one of such thermo-chemical processes techniques that is gaining much attention today.
Figure 1. Conventional and new technology for plastics waste management.
3. Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is the thermal degradation of plastic waste at different temperatures (300–900°C), in the
absence of oxygen, to produced liquid and gaseous fuel [9]. In pyrolysis, feedstock such as waste plastic
is heated in the absence of oxygen or low-oxygen environment and, instead of burning, breaks down into
mixture of simpler hydrocarbons. This process is simply thermal depolymerisation, plastics are made
from small building blocks (monomers) through a process known as polymerization. Pyrolysis is a
process that revert used, discarded plastics into valuable resource in the form of monomers, fuel and
other useful resources.
Pyrolysis presents a several advantages over other conventional waste plastic management
approaches. For instance most waste plastics during recycling are down cycled; plastics are used in
producing articles of lower quality and application. This is because the plastic tends to lose properties
such as clarity, strength and flexibility as they are recycled again and again.
Secondly, the cost associated with sorting, washing and blending before waste plastics are recycled
mechanically is completely non-existing in pyrolysis technique.
Furthermore, mechanical recycling involves melting and remolding of used or discarded plastics
into new articles. This implies that only wastes from thermoplastic articles are suitable for this technique,
therefore thermoset fraction will persist in the dumpsites since they cannot be remolded. On the other

55
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
hand, in pyrolysis techniques, both thermoset and thermoplastic can be used as feedstock [26]. Pyrolysis
technique can also be used to treat waste of many novel materials, such as composites [32], especially in
the emerging technology were polymer composites are replacing traditional materials in most
engineered application.
Finally, depending on the feedstock composition, process condition (temperature, heating rate,
reaction gas) and presence of catalyst (catalytic pyrolysis) or absence of catalyst (thermal pyrolysis), the
product and yield composition can be varied.
3.1. Classification of pyrolysis base on heating rates
3.1.1. Slow pyrolysis (non-isothermal)
Slow pyrolysis is the slow heating of the feedstock in absence of oxygen. Instead of combusting,
the volatiles from the organic material evaporate partly, and a product (char) remains, consisting for a
large part (normally 80%) of carbon. Slow pyrolysis is also called carbonisation, and emphasises the
solid char as main product, instead of fast pyrolysis which emphasises the liquid product. Heating rates
is kept at 10°C/s.
3.1.2. Fast pyrolysis (Isothermal)
Fast pyrolysis involves rapidly heating the feedstock to moderate temperatures (400–600°C) at
short residence time (few seconds) to yield high amount of pyrolysis liquid fuel. Fast pyrolysis provides
a condition to maximize the production of the liquid, the reactor is considered to operate isothermally. It
is the most common of the methods, both in research and in practical use in pyrolysis of plastics.
Heating rates is kept at 100°C/s.
3.1.3. Ultra-fast/flash pyrolysis.
Ultra-fast, or flash pyrolysis is an extremely rapid thermal decomposition pyrolysis, with a high
heating rate, the main products are gases and bio-oil. Heating rates can vary from 100–10,000°C/s and
residence times are short in duration.
3.2. Other classification of pyrolysis
3.2.1. Thermal pyrolysis technique
Thermal cracking or pyrolysis involves the depolymerisation or cracking of the plastics materials
by heating them to a very high temperature in the absence or low oxygen environment. The temperature
ranges between 350 and 900°C. The products formed include; gaseous, liquid and carbonized char (solid
residues). The liquid fuel is usually recovered from the condensable fraction of the volatile product,
while the remaining is a noncondensable high calorific value gas.
Thermal pyrolysis is a thermochemical treatment (TCT) its liquid product is a mixture of paraffins,
isoparaffins, olefins, naphthenes, and aromatics. Because of chain scission, breaking of bonds, the

56
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
intermolecular and intramolecular forces, elevated temperatures of up to 900°C are required [33]. Scott
et al. [34] reported in their work that at temperatures lower than 700°C the major part of the product
yielded was solid, whereas at higher temperatures the main product was a gas. Thermal pyrolysis of
most single plastics has been widely reported in literature. The physical properties of the liquid fuel
obtained by this process largely vary with the plastic type [35]. Table 1, Gave a summary of some of the
properties of liquid fuel from the pyrolysis of different single plastics as reported in literatures.
Table 1. Some properties of liquid fuel from the pyrolysis of single plastic feed.
Plastic
fuel
Density 40°C
(g/cm3 )
Viscosity at
40°C (cSt)
Flash
poin
t
(°C)
Calorific
value (MJ/kg)
Appearance References
HDPE 0.800–0.920 2.420–2.52 40–48 45.4 Light oil,
Brown
Kunwar, et al.
[36]
LDPE 0.768–0.8020 1.650–1.801 50 39.1 Light oil,
Brown
Shah, et al.
[37]
PP 0.767–0.80 2.72 31–36 40 Light oil,
Yellow
Yohandri, et
al. [38]
PET 0.087–0.90 NA NA 28.2 Light oil,
Brown
Honus, et al.
[39]
PS 0.85–0.86 1.4 at 50°C 28 43.0 Light oil,
deep brown
Miandad, et al.
[40]
Note: NA: not available in literature.
Furthermore, analysis of chemical properties on the produced liquid fuel by thermal pyrolysis
technique has shown that it is a mixture of various hydrocarbons Table 2. The chemical properties of the
liquid product vary from the other depending on plastic type. The comparative study of chemical
structures HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS and PET shows that in HDPE and LDPE similar –CH2– and –CH3–
group appear in their polymer chain. However, PS and PET in mixed feed contain aromatic benzene
compound [41] which are completely not found in HDPE, LDPE products.

57
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
Table 2. Yield, carbon distributions and elemental composition of some plastic pyrolysis
liquid fuel at various temperatures.
Plastic Temperature
(°C)
Liquid yield
(%)
Elemental composition (%) Carbon
number
distribution
References
C H N O
HDPE 460 86 85.3 14.2 0.5 0.00 C3–C28 Kunwar et
al. [36],
Olufemi,
et al. [41]
LDPE 430 75.6 85.3 14.2 0.5 0.00 C5–C28 Olufemi,
et al. [41],
PP 350
250
70
45
85.61 14.38 0.00 C3–C25 Yohandri
et al. [38],
Olufemi et
al. [41]
PS 92.32 7.73 0.00 0.00 NA Honus, et
al. [39]
PET 450
600
59.50
67.70
62.10 4.21 - 33.69 NA Honus, et
al. [39]
Note: NA: not available.
3.2.2. Microwave-assisted pyrolysis technique
Microwave pyrolysis (also known as microwave-assisted pyrolysis) is pyrolysis that involves
microwave dielectric heating. Microwaves interact in three ways with different materials; it is reflected
by conductors, transmitted by perfect insulators, or absorbed and decayed on the way inside materials
depending on their dielectric properties. The heat is generated in dielectric materials due to agitation of
molecules by the alternating electromagnetic fields. The mechanism of plastic microwave pyrolysis is
based on absorbing the microwave energy via absorbent and subsequently transferring thermal heat to
the plastic via conduction. The physical properties and the volume ratio of the absorbent affect the
uniformity of heating distribution. Furthermore, different microwave power gives completely different
product distribution.
It has been established that microwave induced pyrolysis can be used to get value added chemicals
and fuels through its numerous noted advantages in contrast to thermal and catalytic pyrolysis [42]. The
process has the potential for fast, volumetric and selective heating of plastics for the recovery of energy.
However, plastics cannot absorb microwave energy, as it has a very low dielectric loss factor. Therefore,
an absorbent must be mixed with the plastic to aid in heating the plastic in pyrolysis. Materials with high
dielectric loss factor are good candidates as absorbents for plastic pyrolysis e.g. tyre shredded and
silicon carbide [43], carbon [44], iron mesh [45].

58
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
Microwave pyrolysis of most single plastic types has been reported in literature. Some of these
plastics are; polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET)
and polyvinylchloride (PVC). None of these plastics is able to absorb microwave without the use of
microwave absorbent. Table 3 below summarizes the yield (solid, liquid and gaseous), absorbent to
polymer ratio, run time and microwave power of the above mentioned five plastic types using Tires
instead of coal as microwave absorber.
Table 3. Microwave pyrolysis: correlation between microwave power and yield using Tires
as microwave absorber.
Plastic Microwave
power range
(KW)
Time (min) Absorbent-
plastic ratio
Solid
(wt%)
Liquid
(wt%)
Gas (wt%)
HDPE 3 75 1:2 0.40 83.92 15.68
PP 3 68 1:2 15.89 70.82 13.29
PVC 3 21 1:2 14.69 3.44 81.87
PET 1.8–3 40 2.51 38.20 35.32 26.48
PS 3–6 59 1:2 6.83 89.25 8.92
Note: Source: Undri et al. [46].
3.2.3. Catalytic pyrolysis technique
Catalytic pyrolysis involves the degradation of the polymeric materials by heating them in the
absence of oxygen and in the presence of a catalyst. Catalysts are employed in plastic pyrolysis
primarily to lower the energy requirement, influence the composition of the product through cracking
and reduce the process time. The most commonly used catalysts reported in the literature for plastic
waste pyrolysis includes silica alumina [47], zeolites [48], fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) [49] and mobil
classification of materials (MCM-41) [10]. Higher conversion is usually achieved with zeolite-based
catalysts due to their high acid strength compared to nonzeolitic catalysts, as such tends to give more
gaseous product.
The conversion of polyethylene into gasoline-range fuels by two-stage catalytic degradation using
silica-alumina and HZSM-5 zeolite was studied by Uemichi et al. [50]. They reported that two-stage
method provides some advantages compared with the one-stage degradation over each catalyst. There
was an improved gasoline yield and a high octane number despite low aromatics content. Significant
results were obtained when silica-alumina and HZSM-5 were used in a weight ratio of 9:1 as upper and
lower catalysts, respectively, in a flow reactor. The reverse sequence of catalysts showed no advantage.
It was suggested that large pores and moderate acidity of the silica-alumina loaded in the upper layer
operated favorably to catalyze the degradation of polyethylene into liquid hydrocarbons. The resulting
oils showed low quality, and they were transformed into high-quality gasoline on the strongly acidic
sites of the HZSM-5 loaded in the lower layer at the expense of oil yield.
Ratnasari et al. [10] reported a study on catalytic pyrolysis of waste plastics using staged catalysis
for production of gasoline range hydrocarbon oils. The catalytic process involved staged catalysis,
where a mesoporous catalyst was layered on top of a microporous catalyst with the aim of maximising

59
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
the conversion of the waste plastic to gasoline range hydrocarbons. The catalysts used were mesoporous
MCM-41 followed by microporous ZSM-5, and different MCM-41: zeolite ZSM-5 catalyst ratios were
investigated. The MCM-41 and zeolite ZSM-5 were also used alone for comparison. The results showed
that using the staged catalysis a high yield of oil product (83.15 wt%) was obtained from high density
polyethylene at a MCM-41: ZSM-5 ratio of 1:1 in the staged pyrolysis-catalysis process. The main gases
produced were C2 (mainly ethene), C3 (mainly propene), and C4 (mainly butene and butadiene) gases. In
addition, the oil product was highly aromatic (95.85 wt% of oil) consisting of 97.72 wt% of gasoline
range hydrocarbons.
Furthermore, Uddim et al. [51] studied the degradation of four different types of polyethylene (PE)
namely high density PE (HDPE), low density PE (LDPE), linear low density PE (LLDPE), and cross-
linked PE (XLPE) was carried out at 430°C by batch operation using silica-alumina as a solid acid
catalyst and thermally without any catalyst. For thermal degradation, both HDPE and XLPE produced a
significant amount of wax-like compounds and the yields of liquid products (58–63 wt%) were lower
than that of LDPE and LLDPE (76–77 wt%). LDPE and LLDPE produced a very small amount of wax-
like compounds. Thus the structure of the degrading polymers influenced the product yields. The liquid
products from thermal degradation were broadly distributed in the carbon fraction of n-C5 to n-C25
(boiling point range, 36–405°C). With silica-alumina, all of the polyethylenes were converted to liquid
products with high yields (77–83 wt%) and without any wax production. The liquid products were
distributed in the range of n-C5 to n-C20 (mostly C5–C12). A solid acid catalyst indiscriminately degraded
the various types of polyethylene into light fuel oil with an improved rate [52,53] in separate studies on
the effect of nonacidic catalysts for the pyrolysis of plastics using BaCO3 and MgCO3, observed that
the % oil yield for MgCO3 and BaCO3 is 33.60% and 29.60% respectively when used as catalyst at
450°C pyrolysis of High-density polyethylene. In addition, when CaCO3 was used as a catalyst under
the same reaction conditions, the obtained % oil yield was 32.20%.
Recently, many researchers have focused on the use of clay as catalyst for plastic pyrolysis [26,27,42].
Hakeem et al. [54] carried out research on catalytic pyrolysis of waste polypropylene using Ahoko
kaolin from Nigeria. They reported that in the absence of Ahoko kaolin, the process gave yields of liquid,
gaseous, and solid products of 67.48, 8.85, and 23.67 wt%, respectively, but with the kaolin clay in
catalytic pyrolysis of the same feedstock for catalyst-to-plastic ratio of 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, and 1:4 at the same
operating parameters as in thermal cracking. Optimum yield was obtained at a catalyst-to-plastic ratio of
1:3 with a yield of 79.85, 1.48, and 18.67 wt% for liquid, gaseous, and solid products, respectively.
Catalytic Cracking of Polyethylene over Clay Catalysts and Comparison with an Ultrastable Y
Zeolite was conducted by Manos et al. [48], they reported that the clays were found to be less active
than US-Y zeolite around 600K, at slightly higher process temperatures, they were able to completely
decompose polyethylene. Their yields to liquid products were around 70%, compared to less than 50%
over US-Y zeolite. They also observed that the liquid products obtained over the clay catalysts were
heavier. These they attribute to the milder acidity of clays.
(1) Effect of Catalyst Contact Mode
There are two basic modes by which catalyst can be used in the pyrolysis of plastics in a reactor:
liquid phase contact (in-situ) and vapor phase contact (ex-situ). In the former, the catalyst and polymer
are mixed together, and then they are placed in the reactor and heated to appropriate reaction
temperature (Figure 2a). However, in the later, the polymer is first subjected to thermolysis to produce

60
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
the volatile fraction. The catalyst is introduced in the path of the moving vapour, and as the vapour
passes through the catalyst, the hydrocarbon vapour is cracked to get the required product distribution
(Figure 2b). Xue et al. [55] studied the effects of feedstock-catalyst contact mode for polyethylene (PE),
polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET). It was found that in-situ
catalytic pyrolysis produces higher yields of aromatics than ex-situ catalytic pyrolysis for PET, PE and
PP. For PS, ex-situ catalytic pyrolysis produced more aromatics than in-situ catalytic pyrolysis because
of a high yield of styrene in the products. They concluded that the variations in the product composition
from the two modes suggest that the depolymerization of the plastics occur at different reaction
mechanisms.
Figure 2. A typical set-up for (a) in-situ and (b) ex-situ plastic pyrolysis (Source: Xue et al. [55]).
(2) Effect of polymer to catalyst ratio
Several studies have reported that polymer to catalyst ratio has significant effect on both the yield
and composition of plastic pyrolysis products. However, it can be concluded that with the increase in the
amount of catalyst, a direct proportionality in terms of increase in conversion or general effectiveness is
not obtained. The increase in catalyst amount increases the conversion up to particular limit, but a
further increase in the catalyst percentage does not give any appreciable increase in the conversion rate.
Nnamso et al. [56] studied the effect of polymer to catalyst ratio in the degradation of polyethylene over
ultrastable Y zeolite catalysts. An initial sharp increase was observed at lower catalyst to polymer ratio,

61
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
afterwards a negative correlation was observed with further increase in catalyst composition, showing a
maximum at a value around 7% of pure US-Y.
(3) Effect of temperature
Temperature has a strong effect on the pyrolysis process, if the catalytic pyrolysis is taking place at
higher operating temperature or at high heating rates, it enhances bond breaking as such tends to favour
the production of smaller molecules [57,58]. As the extent of conversion increases with increase in
temperature, formation of gaseous product is improved with resulting decrease in liquid products. The
effect of different catalysts on the liquid yield and the product distribution becomes less significant with
increasing temperature this is because the reaction taking place becomes similar to thermal degradation.
Basically, catalytic pyrolysis of plastics proceeds at much lower temperature compared with thermal
pyrolysis under the same process condition [59,60]. Increase in the cracking rate at lower temperatures
was observed under catalytic conditions [61].
(4) Effect of flow rate of nitrogen Gas
Nitrogen is an inert gas, as such does not interfere with the pyrolysis reaction going on inside the
reactor. However, it enhances the movement of volatiles into the condenser thereby leading to
availability of gases for condensing into liquid fuel. Usually the nitrogen flow rate is kept at about 10
mL/s for most plastic pyrolysis reported in literature [62].
Nowadays, pyrolysis technology is more and more widely used in the waste plastic management
instead of landfill or recovery through secondary recycling, since it can convert various kinds of waste
plastics to liquid fuel, which can not only effectively manage waste plastic but also bring very good
economic benefit.
4. Advantages of using pyrolysis technology in plastic waste management
4.1. High heating value
The liquid fuel from plastic waste is usually heavier compared to conventional commercial grade
fuel, consequently has higher heating value slightly lower or greater than 10,000 kcal/L [63,64]. This
property is an advantage for fuel used in boilers, cement factory, steel mill and glass factories.
4.2. Feed selectivity
Pyrolysis technology is suitable for almost all kinds of waste plastic, clean or unwashed and
unsorted. For a batch waste plastic pyrolysis plant, no need to do the shredding works. All the processes
from plastic to fuel are carried out inside the waste pyrolysis reactor together with its accessory system,
very convenient and man-power saving. Co-pyrolysis of plastics with waste paper [65], biomass [66]
and even plastics from medical wastes [67] has also been reported.

62
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
4.3. Pyrolysis of mixed waste plastics
A major advantage of pyrolysis technology for plastic waste management is its ability to use
various types and class of plastics as a single feedstock without the need for disassembling and sorting.
Unlike recycling, pyrolysis does not require a careful sorting of different plastics. Most plastics are not
compatible with each other consequently, cannot be processed together during recycling. For example, a
little fraction of PVC in PET recycle stream will degrade the whole PET resin by becoming yellowish
and brittle [68].
Demirbas [69] on polyolefin and PS mixture collected from landfill which was approximately 46.6
wt% of total plastic waste yielded 35 wt% of solid and of 2.2 wt% of gas. Baiden [67] carried out
pyrolysis of mixed waste plastics comprising HDPE, LDPE, PP and Thermoplastic Polyurathane, TPU.
They reported that the highest liquid product yield was obtained using 80 V for 55 min and was 89.5
wt% of the initial weight of the plastic waste sample pyrolyzed. The recorded maximum reaction
temperature recorded for this yield was 497–500°C.
Donaj et al. [70] conducted a study on pyrolysis of polyolefin mixed plastics. The mixed plastics
consist of 75 wt% LDPE, 30 wt% HDPE and 24 wt% PP. They conducted two sets of experiments at
650 and 730°C by thermal pyrolysis and at 500 and 650°C using Z–N catalyst in fluidized quartz-bed
reactor. The ratios of gas/liquid/solid mass fractions via thermal pyrolysis were: 36.9/48.4/15.7 wt%.
and 42.4/44.7/13.9 wt% at 650 and 730°C while via catalytic pyrolysis were: 6.5/89.0/4.5 wt% and
54.3/41.9/3.8 wt% at 500 and 650°C, respectively.
Pratama and Saptoadi [71] studied the pyrolysis of mixed waste plastics in two stages batch
reactors: pyrolysis and catalytic reforming reactor, at maximum temperature 500°C and 450°C
respectively. They used Waste Polyethylene (PE), Polypropylene (PP), Polystyrene (PS), Polyethylene
Terepthalate (PET) were used as raw material. They reported that the highest weight percentage of
liquid fuel derived from mixture of PE waste (50 wt%), PP waste (40 wt%) and PS waste (10 wt%) is
45.13 wt%.
Eze et al. [26] conducted a study on thermal and catalytic pyrolysis using five different types of
plastics that dominates in municipal solid wastes stream, mimicking the proportion in which they are
found. Figure 3 shows the composition of the feedstock and yield.
The catalyzed liquid sample with the optimum yield of 46.7wt% was obtained using 10.49 wt%,
32.42 wt%, 27.09 wt% and 30 wt%, of Zeolite-Y, metakaolin, aluminun hydroxide and sodium silicate
respectively as catalyst, while the thermal pyrolysis gave a liquid yield of 66.9 wt% (Figure 3).
The use of the zeolite-Y base catalyst led to reduction of pyrolysis temperature from 490°C to
350°C, this is a huge energy reduction for the overall process. Some of the physical properties reported
in this study include; density at 23°C (0.8945 g/cm3), dynamic viscosity at 32°C (2.03 mPa.s), fire point
(90°C) and calorific value (14,751 J/g) for thermal pyrolysis. The corresponding values for catalytic
pyrolysis were density at 23°C (0.8336 g/cm3), dynamic viscosity at 32°C (1.03 mPa.s), fire point (84°C)
and calorific value (24,919 J/g) respectively.

63
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
Figure 3. Feed composition and yield of mixed plastics pyrolysis (Source: Exe et al. [26]).
4.3.1. Chemical properties of liquid fuel from mixed plastic waste pyrolysis
Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectrometer (GC/MS) analysis of most studies on mixed waste
plastics (MWPs) liquid fuel reveals that catalysed liquid fuel contain light liquid product with carbon
range C6–C13 and absence of long chain alkanes and alkenes such as Eicosane, nonadecane, heptadecane,
octadecene, pentadecane, tetradecane and undecene compared to the thermal pyrolysis liquid product
with carbon range of C7–C20 [26,54,67,72].
Wathakit et al. [72] studied the chemical compositions and physicochemical properties of distilled
waste plastic oil (WPO) and crude waste plastic oil (CWPO).The experimental results show that CWPO
contains the highest percentage of carbon atoms in the C4–C11 group, while WPO contains the highest
percentage of carbon atoms in the C12–C20 group, similar to the main compositions of diesel fuel.
Similarly, Eze et al. [26] studied the effect of zeolite-y based catalyst on pyrolysis fuel from mixed
waste plastics comprising HDPE, LDPE, PP and PS in the ratio shown in Figure 3. The result of the
study revealed that catalysed liquid sample consist of predominantly gasoline (93%) and 7% diesel
range of fuel compared to the thermal pyrolysis liquid sample with 59%, 36% and 5% of gasoline, diesel
and fuel oil respectively Table 4. The organic elemental analysis (CHNS) result of the MWPs for both
thermal and catalysed sample with optimum yield is shown in Table 5. Sulphur content of the catalysed
pyrolysis fuel was slightly lower than that of the thermal pyrolysis product; this can be attributed to the
activities of the catalyst. Lower sulphur content is necessary to reduce possibility of formation of sulfur
oxides (SOx) when fuel is burn in internal combustion engines [73]. The sulphur content of MWPs for
both thermal and catalysed samples are significantly higher than gasoline (0.014%), diesel (0.15%), and
other types of fuel oil because waste plastic contains some contamination [63]. However, plastic
pyrolysis fuel can be subjected to desulphurization to bring its sulphur content to acceptable limit.

64
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
Table 4. Range of hydrocarbon and fuel type distribution in the thermal pyrolysis and
catalysed liquid fuel samples.
Gasoline (wt%)
(C6–C12)
Diesel (wt%)
(C13–C18)
Fuel oil (wt%)
(C19–C23)
Residual fuel (wt%)
(C24)
Thermal
pyrolysis
59 36 5 -
Catalysed
pyrolysis
93 7 - -
Note: Source: Eze et al. [27].
Table 5. Elemental analysis of mixed waste plastic pyrolysis liquid samples.
Wt% Thermal pyrolysis Catalysed pyrolysis
C 94.24 97.11
H 11.73 10.12
N 0.61 0.28
S 4.8 4.36
Note: Source: Eze et al. [27].
5. Disadvantages of using pyrolysis technology in Plastic waste management
5.1. High sulphur content
Liquid fuel from plastic waste has higher sulfur content than conventional fuel, even though many
industries are equipped with environment protection devices to scrubber the smoke produced in the
heating process, this becomes a huge concern for automobile and transportation fuel. The presence of
sulphur in vehicle fuels causes emissions of oxides of sulphur into the atmosphere which is a major
contributor of acid rain.

65
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
Figure 4. Sulphur content of different types of fuel oil (Source: Khan et al. [63]).
Liquid fuel from pyrolysis of different plastic types has been reported to have sulphur content
significantly higher than conventional gasoline, kerosene and commercial grade diesel. Khan et al. [63]
carried out pyrolysis of High density polyethylene, HDPE, to obtain waste plastic pyrolysis oil (WPPO).
They reported sulphur content of 0.246% for the WPPO which is significantly higher than 0.15% for
diesel and 0.014% for gasoline Figure 4. Furthermore, Eze et al. [27] reported that the sulphur content of
both thermal (4.8%) and catalytic (4.36%) pyrolysis liquid fuel obtained from mixed waste plastics
Table 3, are higher than the desired acceptable standard for low sulphur and ultra low sulfur fuel [74].
5.2. Lower flash point
The flash point of liquid fuel from plastic waste is <40 degrees, though it may vary depending on
the plastic type used as feed. For single feed plasticlike polyethylene it could be as low as 10 degrees.
The flash point of conventional diesel is about 50 degrees. A low flash point indicates the presence of
highly volatile materials in the fuel that is a serious safety concern in handling and transporting [63].
6. Conclusions
Authorities around the world are intensifying their call for ban of certain catigories of plastics; this
is because the conventional approaches have not impacted the environment positively. Furthermore,
mechanical recycling of plastics is being considered as one of the most widely accepted remedies to the
threat of growing volume of plastic waste by both the public and scientists. In practice, the approach is
associated with many difficulties, such as problems related to separation, sorting and cleaning operations,
high transport and electricity costs, coupled with feed stock selectivity.
Instead of combustion and incineration, pyrolysis can be another alternative method which is
known to produce less toxic substances provided the process conditions are appropriate; fuel and several
other useful raw materials are recovered in the process. Furthermore, the increasing amounts of plastic

66
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
waste and the increasing fraction of thermosetting plastics highlight the importance of pyrolysis as a
holistic approach. However, there are understandable issues surrounding the toxic byproducts generated
by the pyrolysis of certain plastics like polyvinyl chloride, this can be negated through proper feedstock
selection. Finally, liquid fuel from plastic pyrolysis may not be suitable for most engineered application
due to high sulphur content. However, by further treatment and blending with commercial grade fuel,
this can be circumvented.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Philippe C (2019) The history of plastics: from the capitol to the Tarpeian Rock. Field Actions Sci
Rep 19: 6–11.
2. Livingston E, Desai A, Berkwits M (2020) Sourcing personal protective equipment during the
COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA 323: 1912–1914.
3. Czigány T, Ronkay F (2020) The coronavirus and plastics. Express Polym Lett 14: 510–511.
4. Gaiya JD, Eze WU, Ekpenyong SA, et al. (2018) Effect of carbon particles on electrical
conductivity of unsaturated polyester resin composite national engineering conference, 142–144.
5. Gaiya JD, Eze WU, Oyegoke T, et al. (2021) Assessment of the dielectric properties of
polyester/metakaolin composite. Eur J Mater Sci Eng 6: 19–29.
6. Babayemi JO, Nnorom IC, Osibanjo O, et al. (2019) Ensuring sustainability in plastics use in
Africa: consumption, waste generation, and projections. Environ Sci Eur 31: 60.
7. Li WC, Tse HF, Fok L (2016) Plastic waste in the marine environment: a review of sources,
occurrence and effects. Sci Total Environ 567: 333–349.
8. Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL (2017) Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv 3:
1–5.
9. Miandad R, Barakat MA, Aburiazaiza AS, et al. (2016) Catalytic pyrolysis of plastic waste: a
review. Process Safety Environ Protect 102: 822–838.
10. Ratnasari DK, Nahil MA, Williams PT (2016) Catalytic pyrolysis of waste plastics using staged
catalysis for production of gasoline range hydrocarbon oils. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 124: 631–637.
11. Kawai K, Tasaki T (2016) Revisiting estimates of municipal solid waste generation per capita and
their reliability. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 18: 1–13.
12. ESI Africa (2018) S. Africa: 1.144 m tonnes of recyclable plastic dumped in landfills. Available
from: https://www.esi-africa.com/top-stories/s-africa-1-144m-tonnes-of-recyclable-plastic-dumped-
in-landfills/.
13. Wagner M, Scherer C, Alvarez-Munoz D, et al (2014) Microplastics in freshwater ecosystems:
what we know and what we need to know. Environ Sci Eur 26: 9.
14. Wrighta SL, Thompson RC, Galloway TS (2013) The physical impacts of microplastics on marine
organisms: a review. Environ Pollut 178: 483–492.
15. Werner S, Budziak A, van Franeker J, et al. (2016) Harm caused by marine litter. MSFD GES TG
marine litter—Thematic Report; JRC Technical report; EUR 28317 EN.

67
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
16. Anderson JC, Park BJ, Palace VP (2016) Microplastics in aquatic environments: implications for
Canadian ecosystems. Environ Pollut 218: 269–280.
17. Srivastava V, Ismail SA, Singh P, et al. (2015) Urban solid waste management in the developing world
with emphasis on India: Challenges and opportunities. Rev Environ Sci Bio-Technol 14: 317–337.
18. Schuga TT, Janesickb A, Blumbergb B, et al. (2011) Endocrine disrupting chemicals and disease
susceptibility. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 127: 204–215.
19. Willner SA, Blumberg B (2019) Encyclopedia of endocrine diseases (second edition).
20. Verma R, Vinoda KS, Papireddy M, et al. (2016) Toxic pollutants from plastic waste-a review.
Procedia Environ Sci 35: 701–708.
21. Conlon K (2021) A social systems approach to sustainable waste management: leverage points for
plastic reduction in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol 1–19.
22. Clapp J, Swanston L (2009) Doing away with plastic shopping bags: international patterns of norm
emergence and policy implementation. Environ Polit 18: 315–332.
23. Imam A, Mohammed B, Wilson DC, et al. (2008) Solid waste management in Abuja, Nigeria.
Waste Manage 28: 468–472.
24. Chida M (2011) Sustainability in retail: The failed debate around plastic shopping bags. Fashion
Pract 3: 175–196.
25. Devy K, Nahil MA, Williams PT (2016) Catalytic pyrolysis of waste plastics using staged catalysis
for production of gasoline range hydrocarbon oils. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 124: 631–637.
26. Eze WU, Madufor IC, Onyeagoro GN, et al. (2020) The effect of Kankara zeolite-Y-based catalyst
on some physical properties of liquid fuel from mixed waste plastics (MWPs) pyrolysis. Polym Bull
77: 1399–1415.
27. Eze WU, Madufor IC, Onyeagoro GN, et al. (2021) Study on the effect of Kankara zeolite-Y-based
catalyst on the chemical properties of liquid fuel from mixed waste plastics (MWPs) pyrolysis.
Polym Bull 78: 377.
28. Vasile C, Brebu M, Karayildirim T, et al. (2006) Feedstock recycling from plastic and thermoset
fractions of used computers (I): pyrolysis. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 8: 99–108.
29. Teuten EL, Saquin JM, Knappe DR, et al. (2009) Transport and release of chemicals from plastics
to the environment and to wildlife. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 364: 2027–2045.
30. Hopewell J, Dvorak R, Kosior E (2009) Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities. Philos
Trans R Soc B 364: 2115–2126.
31. Valavanidid A, Iliopoulos N, Gotsis G, et al. (2008) Persistent free radicals, heavy metals and
PAHs generated in particulate soot emissions and residual ash from controlled combustion of
common type of plastics. J Hazard Mater 156: 277–284.
32. Qureshi MS, Oasmaa A, Pihkola H, et al (2020) Pyrolysis of plastic waste: Opportunities and
challenges. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 152: 104804.
33. López A, de Marco I, Caballero BM, et al. (2011) Influence of time and temperature on pyrolysis of
plastic wastes in a semi-batch reactor. Chem Eng J 173: 62–71.
34. Scott DS, Czernik SR, Piskorz J, et al. (1990) Fast pyrolysis of plastic wastes. Energy Fuels 4: 407–411.
35. Santaweesuk C, Janyalertadun A (2017) The production of fuel oil by conventional slow pyrolysis
using plastic waste from a municipal landfill. Int J Environ Sci Dev 8: 168–173.
36. Kunwar B, Moser BR, Chandrasekaran SR, et al. (2016) Catalytic and thermal depolymerization of
low value post-consumer high density polyethylene plastic. Energy 111: 884–892.

68
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
37. Shah J, Jan MR, Mabood F, et al. (2010) Catalytic pyrolysis of LDPE leads to valuable resource
recovery and reduction of waste problems. Energy Convers Manage 51: 2791–2801.
38. Bow Y, Rusdianasari, Pujiastuti LS (2019) Pyrolysis of polypropylene plastic waste into liquid fuel.
IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 347: 012128.
39. Honus S, Kumagai S, Fedorko G, et al. (2018) Pyrolysis gases produced from individual and mixed
PE, PP, PS, PVC, and PET—Part I: Production and physical properties. Fuel 221: 346–360.
40. Miandad R, Rehan M, Barakat MA, et al. (2019) Catalytic pyrolysis of plastic waste: Moving
Toward Pyrolysis Based Biorefineries. Front Energy Res 7: 27.
41. Olufemi AS, Olagboye S (2017) Thermal conversion of waste plastics into fuel oil. Int J Petrochem
Sci Eng 2: 252–257.
42. Kaminsky W (1992) Plastics, recycling, In: Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry, 57 73,
Wiley-VCH, 3-52730-385-5, Germany.
43. Meredith R (1998) Engineers’ handbook of industrial microwave heating, The Institution of
Electrical Engineers, 0-85296-916-3, United Kindom.
44. Ludlow-Palafox C, Chase HA (2001) Microwave-induced pyrolysis of plastic wastes. Ind Eng
Chem Res 40: 4749–4756.
45. Hussain Z, Khan KM, Hussain K (2010) Microwave-metal interaction pyrolysis of polystyrene. J
Anal Appl Pyrolysis 89: 39–43.
46. Undri A, Rosi L, Frediani M, et al. (2011) Microwave pyrolysis of polymeric materials, Microwave
Heating, Usha Chandra, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/24008. Available from:
https://www.intechopen.com/books/microwave-heating/microwave-pyrolysis-of-polymeric-materials.
47. Panda AK, Singh RK (2011) Catalytic performances of kaoline and silica alumina in the thermal
degradation of polypropylene. J Fuel Chem Technol 39: 198–202.
48. George M, Yusof IY, Papayannakos N, et al. (2001) Catalytic cracking of polyethylene over clay
catalysts. Comparison with an Ultrastable Y Zeolite. Ind Eng Chem Res 40: 2220–2225.
49. Kumar KP, Srinivas S (2020) Catalytic Co-pyrolysis of Biomass and Plastics (Polypropylene and
Polystyrene) Using Spent FCC Catalyst. Energy Fuels 34: 460–473.
50. Yoshio U, Nakamura J, Itoh T, et al. (1999) Conversion of polyethylene into gasoline-range fuels
by two-stage catalytic degradation using Silica−Alumina and HZSM-5 Zeolite. Ind Eng Chem Res
38: 385–390.
51. Uddin MA, Koizumi K, Murata K, et al. (1997) Thermal and catalytic degradation of structurally
different types of polyethylene into fuel oil. Polym Degrad Stab 56: 37–44.
52. Rasul JM, Shah J, Gulab H (2010) Catalytic degradation of waste high-density polyethylene into
fuel products using BaCO3 as a catalyst. Fuel Process Technol 91: 1428–1437.
53. Rasul JM, Shah J, Gulab H (2010) Degradation of waste High-density polyethylene into fuel oil
using basic catalyst. Fuel 89: 474–480.
54. Hakeem IG, Aberuagba F, Musa U (2018) Catalytic pyrolysis of waste polypropylene using Ahoko
kaolin from Nigeria. Appl Petrochem Res 8: 203–210.
55. Xue Y, Johnston P, Bai X (2017) Effect of catalyst contact mode and gas atmosphere during
catalytic pyrolysis of waste plastics. Energy Convers Manage 142: 441–451.
56. Akpanudoh NS, Gobin K, Manos G (2005) Catalytic degradation of plastic waste to liquid fuel over
commercial cracking catalysts: Effect of polymer to catalyst ratio/acidity content. J Mol Catal A:
Chem 235: 67–73.

69
AIMS Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 1, Issue 1, 50–69.
57. Bridgewater AV (2012) Review of fast pyrolysis of biomass and product upgrading. Biomass
Bioenergy 38: 68–94.
58. Miskolczi N, Angyal A, Bartha L, et al. (2009) Fuel by pyrolysis of waste plastics from agricultural
and packaging sectors in a pilot scale reactor. Fuel Process Technol 90: 1032–1040.
59. Chen D, Yin L, Wang H, et al. (2014) Pyrolysis technologies for municipal solid waste: a review.
Waste Manage 34: 2466–2486.
60. Achilias DS, Roupakias C, Megalokonomos P, et al. (2007) Chemical recycling of plastic wastes
made from polyethylene (LDPE and HDPE) and polypropylene (PP). J Hazard Mater 149: 536–542.
61. Lee SY (2001) Catalytic degradation of polystyrene over natural clinoptilolite zeolite. Polym
Degrad Stab 74: 297–305.
62. Christine C, Thomas S, Varghese S (2013) Synthesis of petroleum-based fuel from waste plastics
and performance analysis in a CI engine. J Energy 2013: 608797.
63. Khan MZH, Sultana M, Al-Mamun MR, et al. (2016) Pyrolytic waste plastic oil and its diesel
Blend: fuel characterization. J Environ Public Health 2016: 7869080.
64. Panda AK, Alotaibi A, Kozhevnikov IV, et al. (2020) Pyrolysis of plastics to liquid fuel using
sulphated zirconium hydroxide catalyst. Waste Biomass Valor 11: 6337–6345.
65. Sophonrat N (2018) Pyrolysis of mixed plastics and paper to produce fuels and other chemicals.
Doctoral Dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology School of Industrial Engineering and
Management Department of Materials Science and Engineering Unit of Processes, Sweden.
66. Supramono D, Nabil M, Setiadi A, et al. (2018) Effect of feed composition of co-pyrolysis of
corncobs–polypropylene plastic on mass interaction between biomass particles and plastics. IOP
Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 105: 012049
67. Baiden (2018) Pyrolysis of plastic waste from medical services facilities into potential fuel and/or
fuel additives. Master’s Theses, 3696. Available from:
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/3696.
68. Hopewell J, Dvorak R, Kosior E (2009) Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities. Philos
Trans R Soc London B Biol Sci 364: 2115–2126.
69. Demirbas A (2004) Pyrolysis of municipal plastic wastes for recovery of gasoline range
hydrocarbons. J Anal Appl Pyrol 72: 97–102.
70. Donaj PJ, Kaminsky W, Buzeto F, et al. (2012) Pyrolysis of polyolefins for increasing the yield of
monomers’ recovery. Waste Manage 32: 840–846.
71. Pratama NN, Saptoadi H (2014) Characteristics of waste plastics pyrolytic oil and its applications
as alternative fuel on four cylinder diesel engines. Int J Renewable Energy Dev 3: 13–20.
72. Wathakit K, Sukjit E, Kaewbuddee C, et al. (2021) Characterization and impact of waste plastic oil
in a variable compression ratio diesel engine. Energies 14: 2230.
73. Abnisa F, Wan Daud WMA, Arami-Niya A, et al. (2014) Recovery of liquid fuel from the aqueous
phase of pyrolysis oil using catalytic conversion. Energy Fuels 28: 3074–3085.
74. Alam M, Song J, Acharya R, et al. (2004) Combustion and emissions performance of low sulfur,
ultra low sulfur and biodiesel blends in a DI diesel engine. SAE Trans 113: 1986–1997.
©2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)