ArticleHeliyon2024
Life cycle assessment of recycling metallised food packaging plastics using mechanical, thermal and chemical processes.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single treatment of metallised food packaging plastics waste (MFPW) has shown disappointing results with recycling rate <20 % due to its complex structure consisting of 10 % aluminium (Al) and 90 % mixed plastic films made of PE, PP, PS, PET, etc. Besides, it is generating many emissions and residues that must be landfilled making it difficult to integrate them into the circular economy. Therefore, a multi-stage recycling (MSR) approach has recently been developed using several sequential mechanical, thermal and chemical processes to recover energy and Al from MFPW with additional revenue for recycling plant operators. The thermal treatment helps to decompose the plastic fraction into wax or oil, gaseous, and solid residue (SR) composed of Al and coal, while the mechanical process can be used as a pre-treatment of MFPW feedstock and SR. Finally, the chemical treatment (leaching and functionalization) can be used to extract Al from SR and to refine coal into carbon microparticles (CPs), respectively. In order to investigate the environmental performance of the proposed MSR system, this research was developed. The investigation was performed using SimaPro life cycle analysis (LCA) tool according to ISO 14040/44 Standards and the impact assessment method is ReCiPe 2016. Five different scenarios were proposed in the constructed LCA layout, namely, conversion of MFPW to a) wax and gas (pyrolysis), b) wax, gas, and aluminium chloride (AlCl₃) (pyrolysis and leaching), c) wax, gas, AlCl₃, and CPs (pyrolysis, leaching, and functionalization), and d) oil, gas, AlCl₃, and CPs (catalytic pyrolysis, leaching, and functionalization). Besides, the oil produced from catalytic pyrolysis is used for generation of electricity (scenario e). The results showed that wax and gas recovery scenario (a) has better environmental potential and environmental benefits compared to incineration practice. The results did not change much after extraction of Al and CPs (scenario b, c), with a few increasing by 2-4% in the total score. While a lot of environmental burdens from upgrading and utilization (Scenario d, e) were recorded, reaching 79 % due to the huge amount of the catalyst was used. Thus, MSR systems have bigger environmental benefits, however, the chemical and catalytic processes still need to be further improved to reduce the effect of terrestrial acidification.
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.