ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Process Simulation and Life Cycle Assessment of Waste Plastics: A Comparison of Pyrolysis and Hydrocracking.
Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Process Design and Greenhouse Gas Analysis of an Electrified Mixed Plastic Waste-to-Olefins Value Chain.Industrial & engineering chemistry research · 2026Article
- Plastic Valorization into Added-Value Products via Microwave and Conventional Pyrolysis: A Review.ACS environmental Au · 2026Review
- Continuous flow hydroprocessing of waste plastics using ionic liquid catalyst.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Life Cycle Inventory Availability: Status and Prospects for Leveraging New Technologies.ACS sustainable chemistry & engineering · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Pyrolysis and hydrocracking of plastic waste can produce valuable products with manageable effects on the environment as compared to landfilling and incineration. This research focused on the process simulation and life cycle assessment of the pyrolysis and hydrocracking of high-density polyethylene. Aspen Plus was used as the simulator and the Peng-Robinson thermodynamic model was employed as a fluid package. Additionally, sensitivity analysis was conducted in order to optimize product distribution. Based on the simulation, the hydrocracking process produced value-added fuels, i.e., gasoline and natural gas. In contrast, pyrolysis generated a significant quantity of pyrolysis oil with a high number of cyclo-compounds and char, which are the least important to be utilized as fuels. Moreover, in the later part of the study, life cycle assessment (LCA) was adopted in order to investigate and quantify their impact upon the environment using simulation inventory data, which facilitates finding a sustainable process. Simapro was used as a tool for LCA of the processes and materials used. The results demonstrate that hydrocracking is a better process in terms of environmental impact in 10 out of the 11 impact categories. Overall, the present study proposed a promising comparison based on energy demands, product distribution, and potential environmental impacts, which will help to improve plastic waste management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.