See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351058158

Emerging Trends in Sustainable Treatment and Valorisation Technologies for

Plastic Wastes in Nigeria: A Concise Review

Article in Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy · April 2021

DOI: 10.1002/ep.13660

CITATIONS READS

18 297

2 authors:

Bemgba B. Nyakuma Tertsegha JOHNPAUL Ivase

Pen Resource University bioresource development center makurdi
217 PUBLICATIONS 1,600 CITATIONS 20 PUBLICATIONS 136 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bemgba B. Nyakuma on 25 December 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 25 September 2020 Revised: 2 April 2021 Accepted: 18 April 2021
DOI: 10.1002/ep.13660

REMEDIATION TREATMENT

Emerging trends in sustainable treatment and valorisation

technologies for plastic wastes in Nigeria: A concise review

Bemgba B. Nyakuma1 | Tertsegha J.-P. Ivase2

1
School of Chemical and Energy Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
2
Bio-resources Development Centre, National
Biotechnology Development Agency, Makurdi,
Benue State, Nigeria
Correspondence
Bemgba B. Nyakuma, School of Chemical and
Energy Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor,
Malaysia.
Email: bbnyax1@gmail.com
Abstract
The article presents an overview of the status, challenges, and prospects of current and
emerging trends for the sustainable treatment and valorisation technologies of plastic
wastes. The proliferation is ascribed to the growing population, living standards, and use
of low cost, unbiodegradable, and chemically resistant plastic wastes in Nigeria. This sce-
nario is exacerbated by the lack of comprehensive strategies for the collection, transport,
segregation, and management of plastic wastes. Currently, plastic wastes treatment is
accomplished by open-air burning, dumping, and landfilling. More advanced technologies,
such as thermal (incineration, gasification), chemical (catalytic cracking and selective dis-
solution), and biological (microbial degradation) methods, are also utilized for treatment
and valorisation. However, these high-cost, obsolete, and inefficient technologies result
in GHG emissions, toxic fumes, toxins and leachates. Hence, novel technologies for the
reuse, recycling, reduction, and valorisation of plastic wastes must emphasize energy,
materials, and resource recovery. The article proposes the upcycling of plastic wastes into
carbon nanomaterials (carbon microspheres, carbon nanofibers (CNFs), graphene flakes,
carbon nanotubes), polymeric composite materials (wood-polyethylene composites,
wood-fiber-reinforced plastics), biocrude/bio-oil, fuels, chemicals, and char through sol-
vent/solvothermal treatment and plasma conversion. Solvent/solvothermal treatment
can effectively treat and upcycle plastic wastes along with the removal of toxic, recalci-
trant and bio-accumulative pollutants such as brominated flame retardants and organo-
phosphorus flame retardants. However, the study identified numerous challenges that
currently hamper plastic wastes disposal, management, and valorisation. Hence, sustain-
able and socially friendly approaches for plastic waste management and valorisation are
required to address their short- and long-term impacts on human health, safety and the
environment in Nigeria.

KEYWORDS
biodegradation, Nigeria, plastic waste, thermochemistry, waste management

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N
The total municipal solid wastes (MSW) generated in Nigeria is 40,960
tons per day or the equivalent of 0.56 kg per capita per day, which is
higher than the average waste generation per capita per data (0.22 tons)
for low-income countries (LIC). Based on a collection efficiency of 43%, it
is estimated that MSW disposal and management will cost LIC about US
$1.5 billion annually over the years. Furthermore, analysts project that by
2025, Nigeria's population will soar to over 200 million people thereby
increasing the MSW generation per capita to 0.8 kg per day or a total
generation capacity of 101,307 tons per day.1 Based on this assessment,
Nigeria will have one of the highest rates of MSW generation in Africa

Environ Prog Sustainable Energy. 2021;e13660. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ep © 2021 American Institute of Chemical Engineers. 1 of 18
https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.13660
2 of 18
potentially exacerbating the nation's socio-economic and environmental
challenges. Furthermore, the collection efficiency of MSW in Nigeria is
very low, which has resulted in the large heaps of scattered solid wastes
sighted around many cities and towns.2,3 This alarming increase in MSW
dumpsites is ascribed to numerous socio-economic, environmental, policy
and technological factors such as the unexpected and rapid population
growth in towns and cities.4 Other factors include; poor metropolis plan-
ning, reckless disposal of wastes, income growth, and the changing life-
styles of citizens.3 The poor handling, disposal, and management of solid
wastes could result in significant social, economic, and environmental
challenges for current and future generations.5
The MSW generated in Nigeria consists of 57% organic materials,
18% plastics, 11% paper, 5% glass, 5% metals, and 4% other mate-
rials.1 The findings reveal that plastics account for the highest share
of non-biodegradable wastes generated in the country. This revelation
heightens the concerns about the wanton disposal and management
of solid wastes such as plastics, which have become a growing prob-
lem in Nigeria. According to Adekomaya and Ojo,6 plastics account for
a large proportion of all the toxic solid wastes generated in Nigeria.
The utilization of plastics has steadily risen over the years due to soar-
ing demand and production. Furthermore, the extensive use, long life
cycle, poor biodegradability, disposal and management of plastics
pose major socio-economic, environmental, and health challenges for
the nation.
Therefore, there is an urgent need to examine the status and chal-
lenges of current plastic wastes disposal and management strategies
in the country. The study will also present an overview of the novel,
innovative and emerging trends for the sustainable treatment,
valorisation, and upcycling of plastic wastes. It is envisaged that the
findings will assist policymakers and the citizen in the quest to effec-
tively dispose and manage future solid wastes such as plastics.
2 | C U R RE N T S TA T U S OF P L A S T I C
WASTES IN NIGERIA
The global production of plastics has increased significantly from 1.5
million tons (Mt) in 1950 to roughly 245 Mt in 2008,7 indicating that
global production could triple by 2050. As expected, the utilization of
plastics in Nigeria is also expected to drastically increase due to the
nation's rising population and increased demand. Table 1 presents
the various sources of plastics in Nigeria from the year 1996 to 2014.
Over the last few years, Nigeria has witnessed an enormous
increase in the use of plastic products. Typically, the plastic products
used in Nigeria are mainly manufactured from imported raw materials
or recycled waste. The importation of plastics (products or primary
forms) accounts for a large share of the overall plastics used in Nige-
ria. According to the study, a total of 23.4 Mt of plastic was imported
into the market in Nigeria. However, only about 10%–12% is typically
recycled after usage, indicating that 88%–90% is either disposed of
into landfills or subjected to other treatment techniques such as
open-air burning at dumpsites.7 Hence, plastics represent a large pro-
portion of the solid wastes generated in the country. Typically, plastic
NYAKUMA AND IVASE
TABLE 1 Various sources of plastics in Nigeria from 1996 to
20147
Amount
Plastic source (tons)
Imported plastic (in primary form and as products) 17,620,000
Plastic components of refrigerators 145,920
Plastic components of air conditioning equipment 40,350
Plastic components of laundry washing machines 27,301
Plastic components of motor vehicles 2,932,128
Categories 3 & 4 of the European Union EEE/WEEE 2,400,000
classification
Toys 193,993
TOTAL 23,359,692
Abbreviation: WEEE, waste electrical and electronic equipment.
wastes are subjected to open burning in towns and cities, thereby
emitting significant quantities of toxic fumes along with greenhouse
gases (GHG) and particulate matter (PM) into the atmosphere. The
inefficiency of such measures poses grave risks to human health,
safety, and the environment. More so, these approaches highlight the
inefficiency of current disposal, management methods and lack of reli-
able data on the quantity of MSW generated in the country.
Since plastic waste is an integral part of MSW, it is expedient to
quantify and qualify the wastes to enhance the design, development,
and implementation of sustainable disposal and management strate-
gies. For example, the European Union-Packaging Directive (EU-PD)
stipulates signatory nations to deposit data on plastic waste genera-
tion and treatment in their regions.8 Besides, the directive seeks to
enhance the environmental performance of packaging by setting
recovery, recycling targets and reuse deadlines in the region. After the
EU-PD, the European Commission established the European Strategy
for Plastics in a Circular Economy and the Single-Use Plastics Direc-
tive in the year 2018.9,10 Hence, it is crucial for developing countries
such as Nigeria to establish robust policies and strategies to address
the scourge of plastic wastes. According to Duru et al.,5 there is a lack
of numerical data on the manufacture and import of plastic wastes in
Nigeria. Furthermore, the efficient acquisition of data and proper doc-
umentation of the total quantity and types of solid wastes or toxic
effluents generated will help to address the current problems associ-
ated with plastic wastes in Nigeria.
3 | P L A S T I C WA S T E A N D M A N A G E M E N T
STRATEGIES IN NIGERIA
Over the years, plastics have become a common characteristic of solid
wastes in Nigerian settlements due to numerous socio-economic,
environmental, policy and technical reasons. The sight of piles of solid
wastes on major streets, roads, waterways, and drainages is a com-
mon feature of many urban settlements in Nigeria.11,12 Among other
factors, the low cost, lightweight and chemical resistance of plastics
NYAKUMA AND IVASE
has promoted extensive use for packaging and storage in Nigeria.5
According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Valuing Plastics report of the year 2014, only about 8% of plastics
materials are currently recovered through recycling.13 Consequently,
the remainder is typically landfilled, whereas a small fraction ends up
in oceans, streams, and rivers. These strategies, along with the
increasing consumption of plastics, have prompted uncertainties
about the future of plastics. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the
sustainable management of plastic wastes. However, there are feasi-
ble alternatives to the current strategies for plastic wastes disposal.
One potential approach for the sustainable management of plastic
wastes is through the reduce, reuse and recycling (3Rs) concepts of
waste management hierarchy, as depicted in Figure 1. This approach
to sustainable waste management involves various techniques for the
storage, collection, processing, transportation, segregation, and treat-
ment or disposal of plastic wastes in a socially acceptable, cost-effec-
tive, and environmentally friendly manner.11,14 It also involves the
volume reduction and recurrent reuse of wastes, which aim to mini-
15
mize waste creation. According to Rukina and Filatov, the proper
disposal, recycling and reuse of plastics is a reflection of the waste
management culture and social development status of any nation.
Pankaj16 stated that the quantity or quality of waste depends on the
technological preference for recycling or reuse. Other essential fac-
tors, such as the class and characteristics of wastes, economies of
scale, and availability of technology also affect solid waste manage-
ment practices.11
The sustainable management of wastes in the developed world
typically involves efficiently managing the flow and handling of waste
materials, greenhouse gas mitigation, and curbing pollutant emissions
to protect humans and the environment.11 This holistic process also
incorporates the creation of long-term jobs, resources, and revenue
generation into solid wastes management. However, the efficient
management of solid wastes typically requires effective planning,
design, and implementation.11,17 This approach requires the creation
of long-term, self-proficient and resource-efficient systems that
encompass the socio-economic, environmental, technical, and geopo-
litical dynamics of waste management.
Despite the growing concerns about plastic wastes, developing
countries still lack robust systems for the efficient and effective
management of solid wastes. Ezechi et al.11 proposed a systematic
approach for waste management in Nigeria. The study revealed that
solid waste management involves the collection, transportation,
disposal and storage at dumpsites located in the nation's cities and
towns. In some cases, large proportions of the plastic wastes are
simply landfilled without proper strategies or policies for reduction,
recycling, reuse or valorisation (resource recovery) into value-added
19
products. Accordingly to Ayotamuno and Gobo, this scenario is
ascribed to the lack of a comprehensive national policy or blueprint
for plastic waste management in Nigeria. This unsustainable sce-
nario has created numerous challenges for plastic waste manage-
ment in Nigeria, particularly due to its long-term effects on
terrestrial and marine organisms and ecosystems.5,7,19,20 Based on
the outlined submissions, it can be reasonably inferred that plastic
3 of 18
F I G U R E 1 3Rs of the waste management hierarchy18 [Color
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
waste management in Nigeria is greatly lacking and thus requires
significant efforts to elevate its existing status. Currently, Nigeria
depends on haphazard open waste dump sites and landfills, which
presents public health, safety and environmental hazards. The poor
management of plastics and other solid MSW wastes through open
dumping pollutes air, land, soil, and groundwater along with distor-
tion of landscape aesthetics and quality of human life.11 Hence,
future strategies for plastic waste management need to emphasize
recovery, reuse, and recycling to reduce generation through the use
of innovative, cost-effective, socially acceptable, and environmen-
tally friendly systems.
First and foremost, plastic waste management involves planning,
design, and implementation of strategies for the holistic storage, col-
lection, processing, transportation, segregation, treatment and dis-
posal, as depicted in Figure 2.11,14,16 The proposed strategy must
account for essential dynamics, such as economic value, energy pres-
ervation, aesthetic problems, and toxicity of the wastes. To achieve
these objectives, the wastes require effective categorization, separa-
tion or segregation. Hence, one of the most critical steps in the man-
agement of solid wastes such as plastics is the separation, processing
or categorization of plastic waste otherwise broadly termed segrega-
tion.21 Segregation is defined as the separation of various compo-
nents of solid wastes typically based on their origin. It is considered
the first step toward the reduction, reuse, and recycling of wastes, as
the process aids in the cost-effective and environmentally friendly
separation of biodegradable and nonbiodegradable components of
waste streams.22 Besides, the process of segregation encompasses
the collection, washing, screening or sorting, extrusion, size reduction,
and granulation of plastic wastes.21 The most common methods for
segregation are through manual (hand pickers), physical or mechanical
techniques, which comprises micro sorting and micro sorting. How-
ever, human health and safety hazards, such as contagious diseases,
physical injury, and exposure to contaminants or chemicals associated
with manual or hand-picker segregation, have prompted the need for
innovative methods. Examples of the novel approaches currently
employed include the use of image processing, machine learning, neu-
ral networks, and deep learning smart or computer programs have also
been proposed in the literature.22-25
4 of 18
Solid Waste
Generation
Waste Handling,
Separation, & Storage
Collection
Transfer & Transport Separation & Processing
Treatment (Recycling,
Reuse) OR
Final Disposal
F I G U R E 2 Schematic for solid waste management, modified from
Saleh and Koller14 [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
The process of segregation of plastic wastes through smart tech-
nologies is considered an effective approach that employs the use of
color, shape, origin, texture, particle size, density, class distribution,
magnetic and electrical properties to enhance waste separation effi-
ciency, and recycling rates.21,22 However, the high costs of implemen-
tation and ancillary parts (microcontrollers, sensors, inductive
proximity detectors and Radio-frequency identification, RFID), highly
skilled or trained personnel and critical infrastructure such as constant
power requirements are drawbacks for implementing such applica-
tions unlike the conventional physical or mechanical segregation.
Broadly, the selection of segregation methods for energy, materials or
resource recovery during solid waste management is reliant on the
following criteria16:
• Primary recycling: Involves converting plastic wastes into products
with almost similar comparability levels to the original plastics
made from natural sources.
• Secondary recycling: Involves converting plastic waste into prod-
ucts with less stringent performance requirements than the original
material.
• Tertiary recycling: Involves converting plastic waste into other
products, such as fuels, chemicals, or value-added products.
• Quaternary recycling: Involves the recovery of energy from plastic
waste through incineration.
Another major consideration for the segregation of plastics during
recycling is the use of the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) or
Resin Identification Codes (RIC) proposed by the Plastics Industry
Association (PIA). The system or codes classify plastics for recycling
based on the resin used to produce the material. The classification is
as follows; SPI code 1–Polyethylene terephthalate (PETE or PET); SPI
code 2–High-density polyethylene (HDPE); SPI Code 3–Polyvinyl
NYAKUMA AND IVASE
chloride (PVC); SPI Code 4–Low-density polyethylene (LDPE); SPI
Code 5–Polypropylene (PP); SPI Code 6–Polystyrene (Styrofoam); and
lastly SPI Code 7–Other plastics such as polycarbonates and poly-
lactides, which cannot be grouped into the other six classes and hence
problematic to recycle.26,27 Typically, plastic waste recycling is also
known as the waste recovery process. Therefore, the recovery pro-
cesses can be classified into energy recovery (i.e., mechanical and
feedstock recycling) and material recovery (i.e., gasification, pyrolysis).
Figure 3 presents an overview of the various paths of the waste
recovery process.16 Lastly, the plastic waste is subjected to various
treatment techniques after sorting and segregation. The standard
treatment processes typically aim for volume reduction and toxicity
remediation of solid wastes before transport, valorisation or dis-
posal.28 Consequently, the conventional and novel techniques for the
valorisation of plastic wastes are presented in the following sections
of the article.
4 | C U R R E N T T E C H NO LO G I E S F O R
P L A S T I C WA S T E M A N A G E M E N T
Developing countries require low-cost, socially acceptable and envi-
ronmentally friendly technologies and strategic systems for the man-
agement of plastic wastes. The selected technologies or systems
synergize with the pillars of sustainability (i.e., social, environmental,
and economics). Other essential factors required to select an effective
technology or system for waste treatment systems include; character-
istics of the waste, moisture, and organic content. Besides, the prox-
imity to transportation, energy or calorific value, investment, scenery,
and cost of operations are important considerations.28 Broadly, the
technologies for the treatment and valorisation of plastic wastes are
varied but can be broadly classified into three (3) groups based on the
SPI/RIS code systems of the SPI or RIC proposed by the PIA. These
include;
• Thermal treatment,
• Chemical treatment,
• Biological treatment.
4.1 | Thermal treatment methods
The thermal treatment of plastic wastes is currently accomplished by
gasification, pyrolysis, and incineration (or combustion). Typically,
these technologies are utilized for either the volume reduction or the
conversion of wastes into various forms of fuels, chemicals, and other
value-added products.
4.1.1 | Gasification
The process involves the thermal conversion of carbonaceous mate-
rials into synthesis gas (syngas) at high temperatures (600–1000 C) in
NYAKUMA AND IVASE
F I G U R E 3 Representation of plastic
recovery alternatives16 [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Energy Recovery
Other Options such as
Gasification, Pyrolysis...
Blast Furnace (Steel Plant),
cement kiln, coke oven,
gasification, liquefaction and
Plasma pyrolysis
the partial presence of an oxidant (e.g., air, oxygen, steam) using spe-
cially designed equipment called gasifiers. Typically, the different
techniques for waste gasification are characterized based on an oxi-
dizing medium. Examples include steam gasification and plasma melt-
ing gasification, which is a novel waste gasification technology.29
Therefore, the gasification of plastic wastes is a thermal recycling pro-
cess whereby the materials are thermally degraded primarily into
gases depending on the selected operational conditions for effective
utilization in power generation, heating, and lighting.30 Hence, the
process is suitable for various plastics particularly SPI codes 1, 3, and
7, such as PET, PVC, and non-virgin plastics that, are difficult to recy-
cle due to the poor mechanical properties that result from repeated
recycling and reuse.27 Consequently, the process is considered a sim-
ple yet efficient and cost-efficient technique for the valorisation of
wastes such as plastics.30 The drawback is the presence of nitrogen in
the air, which reduces the high energy value of the fuel owing to the
mixture of fuel gases. Various authors have examined the gasification
of plastics along with biomass, coal and other feedstocks for syngas
31-38
and hydrogen production with varying degrees of success. Xiao
et al.31 examined the fluidized bed gasification of PP-based plastic
wastes using air as the gasification medium. The study examined the
parametric effects of the gasification parameters namely; equivalence
ratio (ER), bed height (H) and fluidization velocity (μf) on the product
distribution, gas yield, gas composition, and syngas heating value. The
findings demonstrated that gasification of PP generates a rich, low tar,
3
syngas with a heating value ranging from 5.2 to 11.4 MJ/m . Likewise,
Martínez-Lera et al.38 investigated the gasification of plastic wastes in
a bubbling fluidized bed using air. The authors observed that the
5 of 18
Plastic Waste
Material Recovery
Feedstock Mechanical
Recycling Recycling
Semi-finished or
Chemical raw
finished
materials (Gas,
products for
Liquid, Solid)
non-critical
monomerization
applications
gasification of plastics produced a rich distribution of product gases
with a syngas calorific value of 5 MJ/m3, along with carbon conver-
sion and cold gas efficiencies of 66% and 61%, respectively, without
the typically problematic products such as tar, ashes, and char. Erkiaga
et al.39 examined the parametric catalytic gasification of polyethylene
(PE) in a conical shaped spouted bed reactor using steam as the gasifi-
cation agent for syngas production. The catalyst bed materials (olivine
and gamma-alumina, γ-Al2O3) used in the study were aimed at miti-
gating the formation of tar, which hampers gasification efficiency
resulting in poor gas yields and distribution. The findings demon-
strated that catalytic gasification of the plastic wastes enhanced car-
bon conversion efficiency ( 94%), syngas yield (H2/CO ratio = 2.2),
tar reduction (4.8%), and downstream application of the syngas prod-
ucts. Other studies have examined the co-conversion of plastics and
other fuel feedstocks such as biomass using various reactors.
Ruoppolo et al.37 investigated the H2-rich syngas production from the
co-gasification of plastics and biomass through a fluidized bed gasifier.
Likewise, the study by Wilk and Hofbauer36 employed a fluidized bed
steam dual gasifier to examine the co-gasification of mixed plastic
wastes. In another study, Wu et al.35 investigated catalytic gasification
of plastic wastes using Co/SiO2 fused H-ZSM-5 core-shell catalyst for
promoting hydrogen production from syngas. The findings showed
that the catalyst enhanced syngas reforming from plastic gasification
resulting in  90% hydrogen production, while maintaining catalytic
stability over the 15 h under examination. Likewise, Chai et al.,40
investigated the combined pyrolysis and gasification of plastic wastes
plastics and biomass using Ni CaO C as a novel catalyst for the pro-
cess. The findings revealed enhanced hydrogen (H2  87 mol% and
6 of 18 NYAKUMA AND IVASE

115 mmol 1
g 1
) production and carbon dioxide (CO2  7 mol%)
yields, which indicates the feasibility of the proposed catalytic com-
Plastic Wastes
bined pyrolysis and gasification of waste plastics with biomass feed-
stocks. Based on the findings of these studies, the gasification of
plastic wastes using various reactor technologies, catalysts, bed mate-
rials and feedstocks is a feasible thermal process that could be
adopted in Nigeria. Pyrolysis
Temp (350-700 °C)
With/without catalysts

4.1.2 | Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis is a thermal technique whereby solid materials such as plas-

tic wastes are heated at mid to high temperatures (350–700 C) in the Condensation of vapours

absence of an oxidant (air or oxygen) to generate fuel gas mixtures

(H2, CO, CO2, CH4), solid (char, coke) and liquid (pyrolysis oils,
chemicals, water) products.30 Therefore, it is an important recycling or
volume reduction technology currently employed to treat or valorize
plastic wastes.41-43 In principle, various researchers have examined
the pyrolysis of plastics through catalytic, optimization and co-firing
routes in the literature. The findings have shown that the pyrolysis of
plastic yields various high calorific values products such as gaseous
and liquid-based fuels with socio-economic and environmental bene-
fits. The process also protects the environment from poisonous halo-
genated flame retardants from the conversion of plastics through
open-air burning or combustion. Figure 4 presents a simplified illustra-
tion of the pyrolysis of plastics in the literature. Numerous researchers
have also sought to demonstrate the feasibility of pyrolysing plastic
wastes in the literature. Demirbas44 investigated the pyrolytic conver-
sion of MSW into hydrocarbon fuels in the gasoline range. According
to the findings, the pyrolysis of MSW streams consisting of polysty-
rene (PS), PE, and PP produced high yields of gas, liquid, and solid
products. A high yield of liquid (bio-oil such as styrene) products was
observed for PS pyrolysis, whereas the PE and PP feedstock produced
higher yields of pyrolysis gas products. Paradela et al.45 examined the
combined energy recovery from plastic wastes and pine biomass feed-
stock through slow pyrolytic decomposition. The process was carried
out using an autoclave reactor based on the pyrolysis conditions from
350 - 450 C for 5–30 min and pressures of 0.2–1.0 MPa. The authors
demonstrated the feasibility of optimizing liquid products
(HHV = 44.7 MJ/kg, which was comparable to boiler fuel oil) over
solid char (HHV = 33.6 MJ/kg). The gas products of the process also
exhibited a high calorific value. In conclusion, the authors showed that
although the temperature, pressure and time affected the yield and
distribution of products, the most crucial reaction parameter was the
content of pine biomass in the feedstock mixture. The addition of pine
enhanced gas and solid products.
pez et al.
In another study, Lo 48
investigated the effects of Red
Mud and the zeolite ZSM-5 catalysts on the pyrolysis of plastic
wastes using a semi-batch reactor. The pyrolysis reactions were per-
formed from 440 to 500 C. The findings showed that zeolite had a
more significant influence on the properties, yield and distribution of
the gas and liquid products. This finding was attributed to its higher
surface area (BET SA = 412 m2/g). Adrados et al.49 performed
Char Fuel gases Pyrolysis Oil
Solid Fuel for Power generation/ Transportation
Electricity
Combustion Fuel after Cracking
after Scrubbing
F I G U R E 4 Schematic for pyrolysis of plastics modified from
Campos et al.46 and Gore pyrolysis47 [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
comparative studies on the pyrolysis of plastic packaging waste acquired
from material recovery facilities. Miandad et al.50 investigated the influ-
ence of various types of plastic wastes on liquid oil during pyrolysis. The
study adopted PE, PP, PS, and PET as feedstock for pyrolysis at 450 C
and 75 min using a mini pilot-scale pyrolysis reactor. The pyrolysis oil
produced from the feedstocks were found to exhibit comparable proper-
ties (dynamic viscosity, kinematic viscosity, density, pour point, freezing
point, flash point, and high heating value) to convention diesel. Other
researchers have also examined pyrolytic energy recovery from non-
recycled plastics,51 slow pyrolysis of packaging plastic,52 catalytic pyroly-
sis and steam reforming of waste plastics,53 catalytic pyrolysis and
multiphase aromatization54 as well as plastic pyrolysis for diesel produc-
tion.55 The findings highlight the existence of synergistic interaction
between plastic wastes and various feedstocks, as also reported in the
recent study by Jin et al.56 Based on these submissions, these processes
can be considered tertiary recycling processes57 with significant benefits
for developing countries.
4.1.3 | Combustion
This is the most common thermal technique employed for the treat-
ment or management of wastes worldwide. The process, also known
NYAKUMA AND IVASE
F I G U R E 5 Combustion of plastics,
products and secondary wastes, modified
from Song and Hall58 [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Plastic Wastes
as incineration, involves the high-temperature conversion of the volatile
organic and inorganic matter present in the carbonaceous materials
under oxidative or combustion conditions. Typically, the process con-
verts the feedstock materials, such as plastic wastes into heat energy,
flue gases, toxins, and particulates as illustrated in Figure 5. Typically, the
process generates flue gases comprising nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide
(CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), water vapor (H2O) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) and Sulfur (SOx). On the other hand, the toxins typically consist of
dibenzofurans, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, pentachlorophenols,
hexabromocyclodedecanes, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins,
polychlorobenzenes, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Lastly, the
58,59
particulates consist of PMs, heavy metals, ash and mineral matter.
The advantages of incineration include its capacity to significantly reduce
the volume, organic matter, and microbial load of waste streams for
energy and resource recovery.11 However, the process is expensive,
energy-intensive, and prone to greenhouse gas emissions, which could
exacerbate global warming and climate change. Furthermore, the process
generates secondary wastes, including slag, clinker and ashes that con-
tain potentially hazardous elements (PHEs), persistent organic pollutants
(POPs), poly-aromatic hydrocarbons, ultrafine particulates, and
nanoparticles.60,61 In summary, incineration is prone to numerous chal-
lenges, and if not properly managed could pose severe risks to human
health, safety, and the environment. Numerous studies have examined
the combustion of plastic wastes in the literature.
Wang and Zhao62 examined the chemical looping combustion of
plastic wastes using CaO-decorated Fe2O3/Al2O3 as the oxygen car-
rier for the process. The findings showed that the process presents
opportunities for the valorisation of plastic wastes as new feedstock
and the mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions and other pollutant
gases such as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans
(PCDD/Fs) typically ascribed to the chlorine content in plastics. The
use of the decorated catalysts also minimized ash formation, oxygen
carrier (OC) reactivity, and chlorine content during the process. In a
separate study, Zhao and Wang63 investigated the in situ suppression
7 of 18
Energy
Gases
Combustion
Toxins
Particulates
of the dioxins generated from the combustion of plastic wastes. The
study examined the chemical looping combustion, which ensures
the complete absence of oxygen (O2) in the reactor for potential dis-
posal of plastic wastes, characterization of 17 toxic PCDD/Fs conge-
ners and their distribution. The results showed that the toxicity
equivalence and distribution of PCDD/Fs were lowered by 89% and
94%, respectively. Furthermore, the anoxic reaction settings also
lowered the chlorine yield along with substantial inhibition of CaO
enhanced dechlorination and Deacon reactions, which impacted the
formation of PCDD/Fs. Likewise, Ma et al.64 investigated the combus-
tion of plastic wastes through a chemical looping approach in an inter-
connected fluidized bed reactor operating in semi-continuously mode.
The selected oxygen carrier (OC) was natural Fe2O3 (81.89 wt %)
with/without CaO (5 wt %) as an adsorbent. The results showed that
the chemical looping process is suitable for the valorisation of plastic
wastes and fluidized bed reactor technology can effectively mitigate
PCDD/Fs through CaO decoration to Fe2O3. More recently, Yaqub
and Oboirien65 investigated the co-combustion of plastics, paper and
blends of plastic/paper. The study demonstrated the potential for the
combustion of plastic wastes particularly PET, HDPE, PVC, LDPE, PP,
and PS, which correspond to the SPI codes 1–6. Overall, the studies
demonstrate that chemical looping combustion is an effective tech-
nique for the valorisation of plastic wastes via catalytic oxygen car-
riers. The process also serves as an emissions mitigation process,
which ensures the removal of PCDD/Fs arising from high chlorine
content in plastic wastes. Another important combustion or incinera-
tion process is co-incineration (co-processing). Typically, the process
ensures that feedstock materials such as plastic waste are used as a
surrogate for primary fuel and raw material (AFR) in the industrial pro-
cesses. For example, plastics and other feedstock materials could be
utilized in cement kiln, power stations, or combustion plants. Essen-
tially, the process can conserve fossil fuel or raw materials used in var-
ious processes. Likewise, the process eliminates the need to explore
other plastic waste practices.
8 of 18
4.2 | Chemical treatment methods
This approach involves the treatment of solid wastes using various
types of chemicals. In principle, the process involves the breakdown
or cracking of the macromolecules of feedstock such as plastic or
polymers into micro molecules using chemicals. The most common
chemicals used for plastics pyrolysis include; acids, bases, ionic liquids,
and aromatic compounds such as benzene, phenol, and toluene,
among others.66,67 Numerous authors have examined the use of
chemicals for the treatment of plastics. Others have examined the cat-
alytic cracking and selective dissolution (re-precipitation) for the cata-
lytic cracking of solvent dissolved plastics. Other techniques include
monomerization, which is a conceptualized process for the chemical
recycling of plastic wastes. During the process, plastic wastes are
degraded into monomer units through depolymerization. The prod-
ucts are plastic raw materials of higher quality than the original mate-
rial. In general, the process produces high-quality plastic or recycled
products for various potential applications. More recently, the use of
plastic wastes as raw materials for road construction has been
reported in the literature.68-70 The use of recycled polymer blended
bitumen for road construction was first documented in the early
2000s. The entire process begins with the mechanical fractionation of
the plastic wastes through the use of a shredding machine. Next, the
conglomeration mix is heated to 165 C and transferred to the integra-
tion compartment containing the bitumen, which is also pre-heated at
165 C resulting in excellent binding. Subsequently, the torn plastic
waste is added to the aggregate, which aligns with the aggregate
within 30–60 s. The resulting mixture of plastic waste coated aggre-
gates combined with the hot bitumen is then used for road construc-
tion. Numerous advantages can be derived from combining plastic
waste with bitumen in road construction. For example, potholes that
hitherto are not easily formatted due to the inability of the bitumen to
be stripped off the aggregate or distorting water access can be
resolved. Besides, bitumen plastic blends can prevent the leaching of
71,72
poisonous compounds into the soil. The adoption of such tech-
nologies could help to significantly reduce the scourge of plastics in
dumpsites and landfills in Nigeria.
4.3 | Biological treatments methods
The treatment of plastic wastes can also be accomplished through biologi-
cal treatment methods. Numerous bio-based innovations have been pro-
posed to address the problems associated with the thermal and chemical
methods of treating or recycling plastic wastes. For example, various
researchers have proposed the use of microorganisms such as bacteria
and fungi to decompose plastics into useful products through a process
termed biodegradation. The biodegradation of various plastics using dif-
ferent types of microorganisms, processes and techniques are described
in the literature.73-76 Shimao75 reviewed the prospects of plastics biodeg-
radation as an approach to address the associated problems posed by
synthetic plastic wastes in the environment. The study highlighted the
prospects of polymer-degrading microorganisms, along with recent
NYAKUMA AND IVASE
discoveries on isolation techniques, degradation enzymes, and gene clon-
ing for biodegradation. Likewise, Ghosh et al.76 examined the potential
for plastics biodegradation through the use of microbes. The authors
noted that the growing prevalence of plastics wastes could cause numer-
ous environmental hazards. Hence, innovative approaches such as the
microbial degradation of synthetic polymers and plastics are required to
efficiently degrade plastics. The study also noted that there is an urgent
need to critically examine the capacities of microbes and comprehensively
understand the nature, enzymes and mechanism of microbial biodegrada-
tion of plastics. Yang et al.77 demonstrated the potential of bacterial bio-
degrading PE by the caterpillar or larvae (Wax worms or Indian meal
moths) of Plodia interpunctella. The study showed that the isolation of
bacterial strains (Enterobacter asburiae YT1 and Bacillus sp. YP1) from the
guts of the larvae of P. interpunctella could effectively eat or degrade
 6.1% ± 0.3% and 10.7% ± 0.2% or 100 mg of the PE films over an
incubation period of 28–60 days. Besides, the morphological and micro-
structural characterization of the biofilms formed during biodegradation
showed pits or cavities on the surface of PE and carbonyl groups. Overall,
the authors demonstrated the potential of microbial degradation of plas-
tics. In a separate study by Yang et al.,73 the biodegradation and minerali-
zation of poly-styrofoam were carried out using mealworms (Tenebrio
molitor L. larvae). The study which examined the physicochemical and iso-
topic characterization of the plastic-eating organisms revealed that meal-
worms rapidly and effectively biodegraded the Styrofoam under 24 h and
exhibited long-term biodegradation potential after 1 month of sole diet
on the feedstock. Furthermore, the post characterization of the starchy
sediment (fecula) excreted by the organisms revealed the mechanism of
biodegradation. The fecula confirmed the cleavage or depolymerisation of
long-chain PS molecules into carbon dioxide (CO2) and other residual
metabolites located in the gut of the microbes. In another separate but
related study, Brandon et al.78 investigated the biodegradation of mix-
tures of PE and PS using the larvae of mealworms and highlighted the
effects of the process on the gut microbiome. The study also examined
the potential of T. molitor mealworms to biodegrade mixtures of PE and
PS. The findings indicated that 49.0% ± 1.4% of PE was converted into
carbon dioxide (CO2) at comparable rates to PS. The post characterization
tests through NMR and FTIR analyses showed the patterns consistent
with the chemical transformations of polymers. Furthermore, an investi-
gation of the mealworm gut revealed two operational taxonomic
168 units (OTUs) Citrobacter sp. and Kosakonia sp. associated with the
biodegradation of PE and PS. Overall, the study showed that mealworms
can adapt and biodegrade diverse plastic-based feedstock. In the recent
study by Yang et al.,79 the PS was subjected to biodegradation and miner-
alization using the Zophobas atratus. The plastic-eating superworms were
found to degrade and mineralize PS over the study period. The results
showed that Z. atratus can consume PS at an average rate of 0.58 mg/d,
which is higher than reported for mealworm in previous studies. The
empirical evidence also showed  37% of carbon in the ingested Styro-
foam was converted into carbon dioxide (CO2) during the 16 days of the
study. The mechanism of the process was ascribed to the depolymeriza-
tion of the macromolecular chains of PS into lower molecular-weight
products, which occur in the gut of the Z. atratus larve as deduced from
spectroscopic characterization. The authors demonstrated various insects
NYAKUMA AND IVASE
and microorganisms can be employed to biodegrade and bio-mineralize
plastics in the environment. Hence, the use of various fungi has been
80-83
examined by numerous researchers in the literature. Jeyakumar
82
et al. examined the biodegradation of untreated, pre-treated, pro-
oxidant blended (MI-PP) and starch blended polypropylenes (ST-PP) facili-
tated by two strains of fungi, namely; Phanerochaete chrysosporium NCIM
1170 (F1) and Engyodontium album MTP091 (F2). The synergic influence
of pre-treatment (100 C or UV) and blending on the process for the
10 days was also highlighted in the study. The biodegradation of the pre-
treated and blended samples produced high yields of oxygenated com-
pounds and un-oxidized hydrocarbons with low-molecular-weight. The
authors demonstrated that blending and pre-treatment could be
employed as an efficient approach for optimum waste disposal and
valorisation. Sheik et al.80 examined the potential of an endophytic fungus
to biodegrade γ-irradiated low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and PP using
plastic degrading enzymes over 90 days. The findings indicated that the
isolated endophytic fungi from two widespread plants Psychotria flavida
and Humboldtia brunonis can efficiently degrade plastics. Likewise the
81
group of Barton-Pudlik et al. investigated the prospects of biodegrading
wood-polyethylene composites (WPCs) through filamentous fungi. The
growth of filamentous fungi was found to influence the rate of WPC bio-
degradation. The use of biological treatment methods can be applied to
treat and valorize various plastic wastes comprising PE, PS (Styrofoam),
and other forms of plastics in Nigeria. Currently, there are no known pro-
jects either at laboratory, pilot or demonstration stage for the biodegrada-
tion of plastics in Nigeria, which could be ascribed to numerous
challenges as highlighted in section 6.
5 | N O V E L A ND E M E R G I N G
TECHNOLOGIES FOR PLASTIC WASTE
MANAGEMENT
The recent technologies for sustainable management of plastic wastes
primarily seek to ensure more efficient reduction, recycling and reuse
of wastes. Hence, numerous novel approaches have been proposed
over the years to ensure energy, materials, and resource recovery
from the valorisation of plastic wastes. Examples of novel plastic
waste conversion and valorisation technologies include their conver-
sions into;
• Carbon nanomaterials (CNMs),
• Polymers and composite materials,
• Solvent/solvothermal treatment,
• Plasma conversion.
5.1 | Carbon nanomaterials
One of the most notable processes has been the upcycling of plastic
wastes in CNMs through various thermal, chemical and biological
routes. In principle, upcycling is the process of upgrading or enhancing
the quality or value of products using cheap carbon-based feedstocks.
9 of 18
Hence, the high carbon content of plastics (>90 wt %) provides oppor-
tunities for their utilization as cheap feedstock for the production of
value-added products such as CNMs through upcycling.84 Examples
of CNMs produced by upcycling include; fullerenes, carbon fibers, car-
bon nanotubes (CNTs), and graphene.85,86 Other notable carbon-
based products include; light hydrocarbons, activated carbons, and
carbon dots. Typically, CNMs are synthesized through various tech-
niques such as flame (combustion) synthesis,84 arc discharge,87 chemi-
cal vapor deposition,88 and laser ablation,89 for applications in a wide
variety of products and processes. Furthermore, the combustion,
pyrolysis and hydrothermal conversion of plastic wastes into CNMs
with/without catalysts and promoters have been reported in the liter-
ature.90-92 Over the years, numerous research groups have examined
the upcycling of plastics wastes into CNMs in the literature. The broad
discussion will focus on developments in CNMs ranging from carbon
microspheres (CMSs) to CNTs among others. The conversion of plas-
tic wastes into CMSs is considered an alternative approach for
upcycling plastic wastes using environmentally friendly processes.
CMS is a black, solid-state, and spherical shaped carbon-based mate-
rial with diameters ranging from 1–20 μm along with high purity, para-
magnetic, and conducting properties. Due to their unique properties,
CMSs are extensively utilized for batteries,93,94 supercapacitors,95
paints,96 printer toners,97 lubricants among others applications.96,98
Pol97 synthesized CMSs from various grades of plastics (SPI Codes 1–
6) through an environmentally friendly autogenic process at 700–
800 C, 50–1000 psi, and 1–3 h in a 5 cc reactor without the solvent
requirements or the high energy, costly and emissions observed dur-
ing incineration or multistep recycling. The findings revealed that the
autogenic process of plastic waste upcycling yielded CMSs (diameter
from 1–10 μm; yields 30%–55% or  40% on average) along with
water and hydrogen gas. However, the distribution of CMSs and their
by-products (including CO2 and hydrocarbon gases) was found to be
dependent on the operational settings, selected substrate, and oxidiz-
ing/non-oxidizing environment. Likewise, Wei et al.94 examined the
use of discarded PET (SPI Code No 1) based soft drink bottle for CMS
production. However, the authors investigated the upcycling of the
selected plastic waste from 500–650 C and 10 C/min heating rate
for 3 h under supercritical CO2 pyrolysis conditions in an autoclave
reactor. The findings revealed that reaction time and pressure are crit-
ical factors for CMS yields. The CMS yield ranged from 13% to 45.4%
with diameters ranging from 2 to 10 μm, although the maximum yield
of 47.5% was observed at 650 C after the reaction time of 9 h. The
carbon content of the CMS was 93.15 wt % compared to 61.73 wt %
in the raw material PET, which indicates high degree of carbonization
but low graphitization and amorphous carbon, as shown during XRD
analysis. Lastly, the authors proposed a detailed mechanism for the
upcycling process, which is illustrated in Figure 6.
As observed, the PET feedstock is first deformed, typically at
300–350 C, before undergoing thermal degradation into aromatic
hydrocarbons such as biphenyl. Consequently, the aromatic HCs fur-
ther degrade at 500–650 C and longer reaction times before
decomposing or condensing to yield the CMS under Sc-CO2 condi-
tions. Similarly, Mirjalili et al.99 investigated the upcycling of PET
10 of 18
Heat
PET
350 °C
Heat
Hydrocarbons
650 °C, Sc-CO2
Decomposition &
Condensation
Carbon Microspheres By-Products
F I G U R E 6 Mechanism for carbon microsphere production94
[Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
plastic wastes for the synthesis of micro-porous carbon structure
(MCS) with potential applications such as a double-layer super-
capacitor material with self for energy storage. The results showed
that the MCS is a high surface area amorphous carbon with strength-
ening characteristics. Other authors have also synthesized porous
forms of carbon such as carbon dots from PET plastics for material
applications.100,101
The synthesis of graphene from cheap and widely available
carbon-rich sources such as plastic wastes has also gained interests
over the years. Hence, various researchers have synthesized various
graphene-based materials, such as graphene flakes (GF), graphene
nanosheets, flash graphene, and other graphene-based nanostructures
from various forms of plastics outlined in the SPI coding system. Gong
102
et al. examined the upcycling of PP (SPI Code 5) through catalytic
carbonization for the high yield production of GF using naturally mod-
ified montmorillonite. The catalytic carbonization of PP was carried
out at 700 C to examine the yield, morphology, microstructure, sur-
face element composition, phase structure, and thermal stability of
GFs. The findings showed that the catalyst ensured the conversion
of PP into light hydrocarbons and aromatics as well as the further con-
version of the resulting products. Overall, the study demonstrated the
potential of the process as an effective route for the utilization of the
selected plastic waste as carbons sources for upcycling. Pandey
et al.103 synthesized graphene nanosheets (GNs) through the catalytic
two-step pyrolysis of PP, PE and PET plastic wastes via graphene
oxide (GO) for the fabrication of supercapacitors and dye-sensitized
solar cells (DSSCs). The selected catalyst was nanosized Bentonite
clay, which also served as a degradation agent during the pyrolytic
process at 450 C and 945 C. The electrical characterization of GNs as
an active layer material for supercapacitors revealed high energy den-
sity (Ed) and power density (Pd), whereas analysis as photoanode
material in DSSC revealed high fill factor and Voc values. The study
NYAKUMA AND IVASE
thus demonstrated the potential of upcycling PP, PE and PET plastic
wastes into value-added product materials with the potential for a
low carbon economy. Likewise, Kamali et al.104 developed a novel
molten salt technique for the synthesis of high surface area, crystalline
and electrically conductive graphene nanostructures from PET
through oxidative pyrolysis. The authors demonstrated that plastic
wastes can be upcycled into amorphous carbon under oxidative con-
ditions that eliminate the need for protective gases such as nitrogen
and argon gases or complex apparatuses typically employed in con-
ventional pyrolysis processes. Furthermore, the graphene nanosheets
produced during the process are characterized by low bulk density,
production costs (US$6/kg), nanosize particles along with high electri-
cal conductivity, which could be potentially utilized in conductive or
electric devices in the future.
The upcycling of plastic wastes for the synthesis of CNTs has also
been widely researched and reported in the literature.85 CNTs are
nanosized, millimeter-length, and cylindrically shaped materials that
consist of hexagonally arranged and hybridized carbon atoms. Struc-
turally, CNTs are allotropes of carbon derived from graphite sheets
rolled up to form either single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs),
double-walled carbon nanotubes (DWCNTs), or multiwalled carbon
nanotubes (MWCNTs).105,106 Over the years, the scientific interest in
CNTs has soared due to their unique physical, chemical, mechanical,
and electronic properties.107 For example, CNTs are low weight mate-
rials that possess high surface area, strength, aspect ratio, and elec-
tron transfer rate, and metallic or semiconductor properties.106-108
Other studies have demonstrated the high chemical resistance, ther-
mal stability, and porosity along with numerous active sites,
π-conjugative structures and sidewall curvature.106 As a result, CNTs
have extensive applications in nanotechnology, materials such as
adsorbents,106 electrical sensors and resonators,109 energy storage,107
high-performance polymer composites,110 and ceramics.111 Hence,
numerous researchers have examined the use of various techniques
and precursor materials for the synthesis of CNTs. To address the
growing problems of plastic wastes, research into their use as cheap
feedstock for CNT production has also been examined in the litera-
ture. The study by Aboul-Enein et al.112 investigated the catalytic
pyrolysis of various plastic wastes (PET, PS, PP, LDPE, and HDPE) for
the synthesis of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs). The two-
stage process involved the thermal degradation of the selected plastic
in the first horizontal reactor at temperatures between 650 and
750 C and heating rate 20 C/min. The resulting pyrolysis gases com-
prising hydrocarbons were subsequently decomposed in the second
reactor containing the Ni-Mo/Al2O3 catalysts to produce the CNTs.
The findings revealed that the optimum temperature for CNT synthe-
sis is 750 C. Similarly Borsodi et al.113 synthesized CNTs from the
resulting gases derived from the pyrolysis of various plastics such as
PE, PP, PS, PVC, polyamide, and municipal sources. The synthesis was
performed at lower temperatures (560–570 C) with/without catalysts
via chemical vapor deposition using a single horizontal tubular reactor.
The synthesized CNTs were subsequently tested as reinforcement in
LDPE for application in a polymer matrix. Other research groups have
also examined the production of CNTs via CVD.114-116 The study by
NYAKUMA AND IVASE
Tripathi et al.114 synthesized MWCNTs from plastic waste using Fe,
Ni, and various alloys catalysts in a two-stage stainless steel vessel
and catalytic chemical vapor deposition (CVD) furnace reactor. The
optimum yield 42% MWCNTs and Raman ID/IG ratio of 0.48 were
observed at 900 C based on the selected reaction conditions. More
recently Wang et al.,117 examined the influence of reaction pressure
and catalysts on the synthesis of CNTs from plastic waste pyrolysis.
The findings showed that pressure had a more significant influence on
the process and product due to the higher yield of thicker and
smoother CNTs particularly at 1.0 MPa (198 mg/gPP) compared to
the effect of catalysts.
5.2 | Polymer composite materials
The production of polymers and composite materials otherwise ter-
med polymer composite materials (PCMs) is another practical
approach for the recycling or reuse of plastic wastes generated world-
wide. In the past, PCMs were largely produced from petroleum prod-
ucts for military, aerospace, energy materials and other high-end
applications owing to their unique material properties.118,119 The
PCMs utilized for these advanced applications are light weight, corro-
sion resistant and typically characterized by high specific strength,
thermal and mechanical stability, and fracture toughness.119 Due to
the high quality and specialized nature of the PCMs developed for
high-end applications, their use in the manufacture of common prod-
ucts required for everyday human life, activities and products is
expensive. This cost limitation presents opportunities for addressing
the social and environmental challenges currently experienced with
plastics wastes. However, the low cost, versatility, and abundant sup-
ply of various streams of plastic wastes are suitable for reuse or
recycling into plastic-based composites. Furthermore, plastics are typi-
cally light weight, transparent, corrosion-resistant, and readily trans-
formed into other forms such as composites.120 The most
commercially manufactured, scientifically researched and material
applied plastic-based composites are wood-plastic composites (WPCs)
and wood-fiber-reinforced plastics (WFRPs). WPCs have gained sig-
nificant interest due to growing calls for the replacement of
petroleum-based materials with sustainable bio-based materials and
the need to reduce the landfilling of wastes and other unsustainable
121
plastics recycling technologies. In practice, the WPCs are hybrid
biocomposites produced by blending fine wood particles such as saw-
dust with plastics such as PP, PE and PVC at the ratio of 50:50 within
an extruder.122,123 The compounding of the wood and plastics is typi-
cally performed at temperatures above plastics melting tempera-
ture.122 The extruded materials are subsequently processed by
injection or compression molding for the manufacture of specialized
121
products. WPCs are considered cheap, low maintenance, flame
retardant, and high durability materials for automobile, building and
construction applications such as decking, flooring, vehicle parts
124-126
among others. However, the recycling and reuse of plastic
wastes into WPCs must address wood deterioration, mold vulnerabil-
ity and polymer degradation problems124,127 along with high density,
11 of 18
poor machinability, and nailability,123 linked to these materials. On the
other hand, the WFRPs are low cost, rigid and lightweight bio-
composites materials comprising wood or cellulosic fibers distributed
as either fillers or reinforcements within the matrix of the selected
plastic.128,129
In practice, WFRP is produced by melt blending the wood or cel-
lulosic fibers and plastics in a thermo-kinetic mixer followed by injec-
tion, extrusion, or compression molding.130 The plastic-fiber matrix is
influenced by radiation-reactive adhesion promoters, additives or
chemical coupling agents (e.g., alkoxysilanes and maleic anhydride and
polymethylene polyphenyl isocyanate), whereas the aesthetic appear-
ance is dependent on temperature and residence time of melt blend-
ing.128,131 The economic, structural and mechanical advantages of
WFRP make these materials suitable for application in the automobile,
building and construction industries.
5.3 | Solvent/solvothermal treatment
More recently, the recycling and reuse of plastic wastes have been
proposed using solvent-based and solvothermal treatment techniques
in the literature. The use of solvent and solvothermal treatments has
also been employed for material and resource recovery from plastic
wastes in the literature. Solvent extraction is also considered an envi-
ronmentally benign and potentially profitable technique for the sepa-
ration, remediation, recycling and recovery of plastics.132,133 The
process typically involves the four major processes, namely; impurities
removal, dissolution, reprecipitation (devolatilization), and polymers
separation recovery.133 The process begins with the segregation and
mechanical fractionation of the selected plastic wastes to reduce the
volume and bulky heterogeneous nature of the wastes. Next,
the homogenous sized particles are subjected to dissolution to dis-
solve, crystallize, and recover the targeted polymers as well as remove
impurities using highly selective solvents. Typically, the solvents used
for dissolution include water, methanol, propanol, hexane, dic-
hloromethane, toluene, xylene134,135 among others, which are based
on broad classifications such as strong or weak solvents.133 The
homogeneous or heterogeneous process of dissolution is also signifi-
cantly influenced by the polarity, solubility, and cohesion between the
solvent and polymer.136 After dissolution, the recovered polymers are
reprecipitated by adding non-solvents or supercritical fluids to per-
form the process of supercritical fluid extraction to obtain the
recycled polymers. The last stage is the treatment and processing of
the recovered polymers and solvents through filtration, washing and
drying. The process of solvent extraction of plastic wastes requires
low energy input and emits less CO2 compared to other processes,
which makes it an environmentally benign process.133
Hence, various studies have examined the solvent extraction and
recovery of plastic wastes in the literature. Yang and Yang137 investi-
gated the recovery of PS foam using the solvent mixture of toluene,
dichloroethane, and ethanol (precipitant) with the solvent method.
The percentage PS recovered was 94% at the optimal operating con-
ditions; 50 C (temperature), 30 mins (dissolution time), 95% (ethanol
12 of 18
volume fraction), and 85% (mixed solvent volume fraction). Likewise,
Peng et al.138 examined the extraction of PS for the recovery of poly-
brominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) via dissolution in d-limonene by
supercritical carbon dioxide (sc-CO2) extraction. The findings revealed
that 97% PBDE was recovered at the optimal operating conditions;
sc-CO2 to PS ratio 2:1, temperature and pressures of 65 C and
20 MPa, respectively. The authors demonstrated that the proposed
supercritical CO2 extraction is a practical process for recycling plastic
136
wastes. Zhao et al. numerically investigated the recovery of poly-
mers comprising PS, styrene–acrylonitrile (SAN) polycarbonate (PC),
and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) from e-waste through a
mixed solvent extraction method. The study revealed that the
selected approach successfully recovered the targeted polymers at
high purity, energy-saving (30.7%–99.6%), and recovery rates (64%–
143%) computed from the ratio of the recovered to the feedstock
plastic by mass. The study demonstrated that mixed solvent extrac-
tion of targeted polymers can be accomplished at room temperature
with significant cost, energy and emissions savings.
The combined utilization of solvents and thermal treatments for
the recovery of energy, materials, and resources from plastics has also
been widely examined in the literature. The solvothermal treatment is
a thermochemical process that utilizes solvents (such as methanol,
ethanol, propanol, toluene, acetone, and benzene) to liquefy carbona-
ceous feedstocks into high-value biocrude and biochemical prod-
ucts.139,140 Recently, the process has been employed for the
treatment of plastics as an alternative to inefficient and unsustainable
141
practices such as incineration and landfilling. Karmore and
Madras142 examined the supercritical degradation and kinetics of PS
using benzene in a 450 cm3 high-pressure stirred batch reactor by
varying the temperature from 300 to 330 C and fixed pressure of
5 MPa. The results showed that the supercritical conditions signifi-
cantly improved the degradation rates as evident in the degradation
rate coefficients and activation energies, which are two times higher
than values reported at similar temperatures and pressures for sub-
critical solvents. Other studies have also examined the recovery and
removal of harmful compounds and substances from plastics through
solvothermal treatment132,141 as a substitute to conventional pro-
cesses, such as Soxhlet, supercritical fluid, pressurized liquid, and
microwave-assisted extraction. The most notable toxic, recalcitrant
and bio-accumulative pollutants in plastic wastes are tetra-
bromobisphenol A (TBBPA), PBDE, and hexabromocyclododecane
(HBCDD), which are broadly classified as brominated flame retardants
(BFRs), whereas triphenyl phosphate (TPPO) is a organophosphorus
flame retardant (PFR).141,143
132
Zhang and Zhang employed the solvothermal approach to
remove TBBPA from e-wastes using ethanol, isopropanol, and metha-
nol solvents. The bromine-free plastic was obtained at the optimal
conditions; temperature (90 C), extraction time (120 min) and the
ratio of solvent to plastic (15:1) using methanol. The main products of
the solvent catalyzed debromination processes were Bisphenol A and
copper (I) bromide. Functional group and morphologic characterization
of the bromine-free product revealed that the structure of the plastic
remains unchanged, which suggest the solvothermal process is an
NYAKUMA AND IVASE
effective approach for the clean and efficient removal of toxic mate-
rials in plastics. In a separate study, Zhang et al.141 investigated the
removal of TBBPA from computer house plastic through solvothermal
treatment and vacuum rotary evaporation. The findings reported the
recovery efficiency and purity of yellow, stable and powdered TBBPA
are; 78.9% and 95.6%, respectively, whereas the kinetic mechanism, is
largely influenced by the diffusion across the polymer layer during the
process. Similarly, Evangelopoulos et al.144 investigated the reduction
and pyrolytic thermal decomposition of TBBPA in waste electrical and
electronic equipment using isopropanol and toluene solvent extrac-
tion. The results showed that the TBBPA was successfully reduced as
evident in the total removal of bromine content of 36.5% along with
the complete removal of the two brominated organic compounds
2,5-Dibromobenzo(b)thiophene and 2,4,6-tribromophenol. Baloch
et al.145 examined the solvothermal co-liquefaction and optimization
of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and sugarcane bagasse for
biocrude production under sub-supercritical conditions. The results
showed that the yield and higher heating values (HHV) of the
biocrude product were 32.3 wt % and 29.6 MJ/kg, respectively, based
on 60% conversion. The study confirmed the feasibility of co-
conversion of biomass and plastic wastes. The process increased the
qualitative and quantitative features of bio-crude oil. Saha et al.140
examined the solvothermal liquefaction of plastic wastes for biocrude
using toluene as solvent. The findings showed that the use of solvent
enhances the yield and properties of the biocrude. Safety analysis
showed that the solvent and biocrude are flammable and hazardous
particularly under subcritical and supercritical experimental settings.
5.4 | Plasma conversion
This technique is also considered a vital thermal process for the treat-
ment of plastics wastes. Typically, the technique combines the ther-
mal (heat) and chemical properties of plasma to convert materials into
various products. Punčoch
ař et al.146 describe plasma conversion as
an innovative, non-incineration, and thermal technique that can be
used to transform carbonaceous feedstock into valuable syngas (CO,
H2, and hydrocarbons) through plasma. Likewise, Pankaj16 describes
the process as the thermal decomposition of carbon materials in an
oxygen-deficient surrounding. Furthermore, the high-temperature
thermal plasma of the process ensures the destruction of microbes
such as Bacillus subtilis and Sterio thermophilus. Consequently, it is
considered an adaptable and robust technology for the safe disposal
and reliable treatment of all categories of plastic waste. Tang et al.147
examined the plasma pyrolytic conversion of PP into gaseous fuels
and chemicals using an arc nitrogen plasma reactor. The findings
showed 18% hydrogen gas yield and 5% acetylene based on the opti-
mal power input of 35.2 kVA, the feed rate of 60 g/min, carbon con-
1
version of 96% and 2160 ml g gas productivity. The plasma-
assisted process ensured the satisfactory thermal decomposition of
PP, which indicates it is a practical route for energy recovery and the
production of chemicals. Mączka et al.148 also examined the thermo-
chemical valorisation of plastic wastes using plasma technology, while
NYAKUMA AND IVASE
Dave and Joshi149 presented an overview of the combined pyrolysis
and gasification of plastic waste using plasma technology at tempera-

tures of 430–480 C. The authors noted that plasma conversion
increases the hydrocarbon and aromatic content of the pyrolysis of
PE and PS. Other studies have demonstrated the thermal effects
of plasma pyrolysis coupled with rapid quenching on the
depolymerisation of plastics for the recovery of monomer units.
The mechanism of the process ensures that the feedstock is rapidly
decomposed at high heating rates, plasma power (10–20 kVA), and
rapid quenching (1  103 ks 1
) of the pyrolysis vapor. Consequently,
the polymeric forms of the plastic are converted in its corresponding
monomer while bypassing the secondary conversion of the
product.149
6 | C H A L L E N G E S O F P L A S T I C WA S T E
MANAGEMENT IN NIGERIA
The challenges hindering the sustainable disposal, management or
valorisation of plastic wastes in Nigeria can be broadly classified into
socio-economic, environmental and technological.
6.1 | Socio-economic challenges
The limitation of human and financial resources to effectively dispose
and manage plastics is a major challenge for developing countries such
as Nigeria. Hence, the collection, sorting, and valorisation of plastics
wastes is significantly lacking in such countries. The lack of resources
has also hampered scientific research into more sustainable strategies
and technologies that could ensure the efficient disposal and manage-
ment of wastes. In regions where waste management and disposal
strategies exist, the facilities and personnel tasked with managing
wastes are overstretched, inefficient or poorly maintained, which
exacerbates the process of effective management. In Nigeria, the
state and local governments are responsible for the collection and
management of wastes. However, due to inadequate budgets, these
metropolitan regions are financially inept to cover the costs of the
entire processes involved in solid waste management. Hence, wastes
are simply dumped in open spaces, drainages, burned in the open air
or buried in the ground (landfilled) devoid of the attendant risks such
practices have on human health, safety, and the environment. Besides,
the lack of a national policy on plastic wastes has also hampered pro-
gress in the quest to effectively dispose of, recycle, and manage these
streams of wastes. The lack of a cohesive strategy on plastic and other
solid waste management prevents waste collection, isolation, and
valorisation. Such challenges also hamper the creation of a value chain
system for wastes in general in the country; as opposed to the sce-
nario obtainable in developed countries where wastes disposal and
management is a commercially viable venture. In such climes, entre-
preneurs have grabbed the opportunity to efficiently collect, manage
and valorize solids wastes for energy, resource, and environmental
benefits. However, this level of sophistication is lacking, which means
13 of 18
the citizenry, aspiring entrepreneurs and other stakeholders are not
encouraged to venture into commercial plastics waste management.
Lastly, government support through social awareness, campaigns, and
programmes is greatly lacking. With the right support, the disposal of
plastic waste can be curtailed, and where lacking, policy strategies can
be established to effectively manage and valorize wastes into value-
added products and services.
6.2 | Environmental challenges
The poor disposal and management of plastic wastes pose environ-
mental problems in Nigeria. These challenges could be ascribed to
diverse environmental factors. First, the weather and climatic condi-
tions in tropical countries such as Nigeria hamper effective waste dis-
posal, collection, and management. For instance, the year-round high
temperatures, humidity, and precipitation hamper the process of plas-
tics and solid waste management, particularly when juxtaposed
against the poor roads, transport, and logistics infrastructure in the
country. Common practices, such as the open-air burning or combus-
tion of plastic wastes generate toxic fumes (gases), aerosols, PM, and
toxins (such as dioxins, furans, heavy metals, mercury, polychlorinated
biphenyls, and PAHs),150,151 which exposes humans to respiratory or
skin diseases such as cancers and asthma. The long-term landfilling
or burying of plastic wastes results in the formation of toxic liquid by-
products called leachates after undergoing physical, chemical and bio-
logical degradation reactions.152 The composition of leachate typically
depends on the composition of the waste, moisture content, compac-
tion degree, and weather conditions.153 In general, the leachate is
characterized by strong odors and coloration along with high pH,
nitrogen compounds, heavy metals, chemical oxygen demand, and
biological oxygen demand.154,155 Over time, the formed leachates
seep toxic chemicals and pollutants into surface water and groundwa-
ter, which could contaminate water and surrounding soils. In the long
term, this could result in water-borne diseases and the death of micro-
organisms and aquatic life.152 The presence of heavy metals (such as
Cd, Pb, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cr, Hg) and anionic ions (Br , Cl , F , NO3 ,
HCO3 , and SO42 ) also poses risks to human health, safety and the
ecosystem.152 Furthermore, the hazardous, estrogenic, genotoxic, and
mutagenic nature of leachates even at low levels in humans, water
and surrounding soils has been confirmed by in vitro cell measure-
ments.156 This observation is particularly problematic in developing
nations such as Nigeria where integrated plastic wastes management
and advanced engineering of landfills is non-existent. Furthermore,
the poor planning of urban areas particularly in Nigerian cities has
contributed to the poor disposal and management of solid wastes
such as plastics. The lack of clearly mapped regions or spaces for resi-
dential, commercial, and industrial areas in many Nigerian cities along
with sparse road networks hamper waste disposal, collection,
processing, and management. Therefore, there are areas littered with
different classes of wastes, including toxic and non-hazardous mate-
rials. In some regions, the waste is transported over long distances to
landfill land areas or large open dumps without processing or sorting.
14 of 18
With time the wastes encroach into the living areas, arable or produc-
tive land resulting in shortages, the competition of space and conflicts.
As a result, land disputes and other socio-environmental challenges
have become significant issue. More so, the quest by governments
around the world to optimize the collection, disposal and valorisation
of wastes has generated controversies due to the “not in my back-
yard” (NIMBY) mindset. Hence, it is envisaged that the growing short-
age of land, resources, and other environmental issues could also
affect plastic wastes, particularly in Nigeria.
6.3 | Technological challenges
Technology is crucial to sustainable development. In the same vein,
the selection of appropriate technology is essential for the effective
collection, sorting, management, and valorisation of plastic wastes.
Over the years, numerous thermochemical and biochemical technolo-
gies such as pyrolysis, gasification, incineration, composting, and bio-
degradation among others have been proposed to address the
growing global plastics problems. The advantage of these technologies
is the ability to physically, thermally, chemically, and biologically trans-
form the volumes, sizes, compositions, and product properties of plas-
tic wastes after valorisation using advanced conversion equipment.
However, current practices in most developing countries like Nigeria
are limited to the collection, dumping, or landfilling of wastes, includ-
ing all forms of plastic wastes. Hence, the adoption of innovative tech-
nologies for effective collection, sorting, and valorisation of wastes
remains lacking in the Nigerian context. This is due to the high capital
costs of procuring such equipment or facilities. Furthermore, the
waste management industry lacks trained and qualified professionals
for effectiveness. This dynamic is crucial to the rapid adoption of the
novel technologies such as waste quality, and quantity assessment
required for effective plastics waste management. Another crucial
challenge of plastics waste management is the lack of reliable data on
the nature and sources of wastes streams. According to Babayemi
et al.,20 reliable data and documentation of wastes generated in Nige-
ria are greatly lacking. Hence, the planning, design, and adoption of
innovative technologies and sustainable strategies for plastics wastes
remain non-existent in Nigeria. It stands to reason then that the future
of plastic wastes in the country urgently needs urgent attention. The
authorities in states and local government regions require novel poli-
cies and strategic approaches to address plastic wastes management
in Nigeria.
7 | CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
OUTLOOK
The article presented a concise review of the emerging trends in sus-
tainable treatment and valorisation technologies for plastic wastes in
Nigeria. The current status, challenges, and prospects of plastics waste
management in the country were also presented in detail. The findings
NYAKUMA AND IVASE
revealed that plastic wastes account for a significant fraction of all
solid wastes generated in Nigeria. This has been ascribed to numer-
ous factors such as the low cost, lightweight, chemical resistance,
and extensive utilization of plastics as materials for packaging, stor-
age, and sale of products. Currently, the disposal and management of
plastics are accomplished through open-air burning, dumping in
waste sites, and landfilling. The more advanced technologies for plas-
tic waste treatment and valorisation are broadly classified into three
(3) groups thermal, chemical, and biological methods based on the
SPI/RIC codes proposed by the PIA. However, the outlined tech-
niques for the disposal, management, and valorisation are largely
obsolete, inefficient and environmentally hazardous, which result in
GHG emissions, toxic fumes, and chemically hazardous toxins and
leachates that could potentially impact human health, safety, and the
environment. Hence, more sustainable strategies are required to
address the immediate and long-term effects of plastic wastes on
Nigerian society. To this effect, the article proposed that future poli-
cies and strategies for plastics must emphasize waste reuse,
recycling, and reduction as well as integrate energy, materials, and
resource recovery. Examples of novel plastic wastes conversion and
valorisation technologies include converting the waste streams into
CNMs (such as CNTs, CNFs, graphene), polymeric composite mate-
rials (such as WPCs, WFRPs), biocrude/bio-oil through solvent/
solvothermal treatment, and fuel gases and char through plasma con-
version. The review of literature also showed that the outlined tech-
nologies could effectively valorize and sustainably upcycle plastic
wastes into materials, energy, fuels and chemicals for future applica-
tions. However, proper planning, design, and implementation are
required to effectively collect transport, segregate, process, and treat
plastic wastes. The study identified numerous socio-economic, envi-
ronmental, and technological challenges that currently hamper plastic
wastes disposal, management, and valorisation. Most importantly,
the lack of clear policy directives, strategies, focused funding, public
awareness, and innovative technologies to tackle plastic wastes in
Nigeria must be addressed critically. Sustainable approaches should
also be supplemented by socially friendly approaches, such as
encouraging plastics use, reduction, recycling, and non-littering.
Lastly, a comprehensive policy for plastic waste disposal, manage-
ment and valorisation is required to address their short and long-term
impacts on human health, safety and the environment in Nigeria.
CONFLIC T OF INT ER E ST
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interests.
AUTHOR CONTRIBU TIONS
Bemgba Nyakuma: Conceptualization; formal analysis; writing-original
draft; writing-review & editing. Tertsegha Ivase: Funding acquisition;
resources; supervision; writing-original draft; writing-review & editing.
DATA AVAILABILITY STAT EMEN T
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were gener-
ated or analysed during the current study.
NYAKUMA AND IVASE
ORCID
Bemgba B. Nyakuma https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5388-7950
RE FE R ENC E S
1. Hoornweg, D., and Bhada-Tata, P. What a waste: a global review of
solid waste management, World Bank, Washington, DC(2012).
2. Ayuba KA, Manaf LA, Sabrina AH, Azmin SWN. Current status of
municipal solid waste management practise in FCT Abuja. Res J Envi-
ron Earth Sci. 2013;5:295-304.
3. Aliu IR, Adeyemi OE, Adebayo A. Municipal household solid waste
collection strategies in an African megacity: analysis of public private
partnership performance in Lagos. Waste Manag Res. 2014;32:
67-78.
4. Ayuba IG, Achuenu S, Musa CC. Sustainability of Solidwaste Man-
agement in Nigerian Urban Areas: challenges and solution. Int J Sci
Energy Res. 2015;3:522-543.
5. Duru R, Ikpeama E, Ibekwe J. Challenges and prospects of plastic
waste management in Nigeria. Waste Disposal Sustain Energy. 2019;
1:117-126.
6. Adekomaya O, Ojo K. Adaptation of plastic waste to energy devel-
opment in Lagos: an overview assessment. Niger J Technol. 2016;35:
778-784.
7. Babayemi JO, Ogundiran MB, Weber R, Osibanjo O. Initial inventory
of plastics imports in Nigeria as a basis for more sustainable manage-
ment policies. J Health Pollution. 2018;8:180601.
8. EUROPEN. In position papers, European Union (EU), Brussels, Bel-
gium, 2020.
9. European Commission, Brussel, Belgium 2020.
10. European Commission, European Union (EU), Brussel, Belgium.
2020.
11. Ezechi EH, Nwabuko CG, Enyinnaya OC, Babington CJ. Municipal
solid waste management in aba, Nigeria: challenges and prospects.
Environ Eng Res. 2017;22:231-236.
12. Igbinomwanhia DI, Ohwovoriole EN. A study of the solid waste
chain in Benin Metropolis, Nigeria. J Appl Sci Environ Manag. 2011;
15:589-593.
13. Raynaud, J. In working papers (Richens, J., and Russell, A.,
Eds.),2014, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nai-
robi, Kenya
14. Saleh HM, Koller M. Introductory chapter: municipal solid waste.
Municipal Solid Waste Management. London, United Kingdom:
IntechOpen; 2019. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84757.
15. Rukina I, Filatov V. The role of fundamental values in social develop-
ment. Microeconomics. 2017;4:107-116.
16. Pankaj VP. Sustainable model of plastic waste management. Int J
ChemTech Res. 2015;7:440-458.
17. Ikhlayel M. An integrated approach to establish e-waste manage-
ment systems for developing countries. J Clean Prod. 2018;170:
119-130.
18. Open University, Open University, United Kingdom (UK), 2021.
19. Ayotamuno JM, Gobo AE. Municipal solid waste management in
Port Harcourt Nigeria: Obstacles and Prospects. Manag Environ Qual.
2004;15:389-398.
20. Babayemi JO, Nnorom IC, Osibanjo O, Weber R. Ensuring sustain-
ability in plastics use in Africa: consumption, waste generation, and
projections. Environ Sci Eur. 2019;31:60.
21. Serranti S, Bonifazi G. Techniques for separation of plastic wastes.
In: Pacheco-Torgal F, Khatib J, Colangelo F, Tuladhar R, eds. Use of
Recycled Plastics in Eco-efficient Concrete. The Netherlands:
Woodhead Publishing, Elsevier B.V.; 2019.
22. Tarun, K., Sreelakshmi, K., and Peeyush, K. Materials Science and
Engineering,, IOP Publishing, IOP Conference Series. 2019
23. Rafeeq, M., and Alam, S. 2016 International Conference on Commu-
nication and Electronics Systems (ICCES),2016, 1-5, IEEE
15 of 18
24. Pereira, W., Parulekar, S., Phaltankar, S., and Kamble, V. 2019 Amity
International conference on artificial intelligence (AICAI), 2019,
274-279, IEEE.
25. Sreelakshmi K, Vinayakumar R, Soman K. Deep segregation of plastic
(DSP): segregation of plastic and non-plastic using deep learning. Big
Data Recommender Systems. Vidyapeetham, India: Recent Trends
and Advances, Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET);
2019.
26. Garcia JM. Catalyst: design challenges for the future of plastics
recycling. Chem. 2016;1:813-815.
27. Thiounn T, Smith RC. Advances and approaches for chemical
recycling of plastic waste. J Polym Sci. 2020;58:1347-1364.
28. Akkucuk U. Handbook of Research on Developing Sustainable Value in
Economics, Finance, and Marketing. PA: IGI Global Hershey; 2015.
29. Arena U, Zaccariello L, Mastellone ML. Fluidized bed gasification of
waste-derived fuels. Waste Manag. 2010;30:1212-1219.
30. Awasthi, A.K., Shivashankar, M., and Majumder, S. Materials Science
and Engineering Conference Series, 2017, 022024.
31. Xiao R, Jin B, Zhou H, Zhong Z, Zhang M. Air gasification of polypro-
pylene plastic waste in fluidized bed gasifier. Energ Conver Manage.
2007;48:778-786.
32. Mastellone ML, Zaccariello L, Arena U. Co-gasification of coal, plas-
tic waste and wood in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor. Fuel. 2010;
89:2991-3000.
33. Burra K, Gupta A. Synergistic effects in steam gasification of com-
bined biomass and plastic waste mixtures. Appl Energy. 2018;211:
230-236.
34. Salaudeen S, Arku P, Dutta A. Gasification of plastic solid waste and
competitive technologies. Plastics to Energy. Norwich, New York:
Elsevier; 2019.
35. Wu S-L, Kuo J-H, Wey M-Y. Hydrogen promotion by co/SiO2@
HZSM-5 core-shell catalyst for syngas from plastic waste gasifica-
tion: the combination of functional materials. Int J Hydrogen Energy.
2019;44:13480-13489.
36. Wilk V, Hofbauer H. Conversion of mixed plastic wastes in a dual
fluidized bed steam gasifier. Fuel. 2013;107:787-799.
37. Ruoppolo G, Ammendola P, Chirone R, Miccio F. H2-rich syngas pro-
duction by fluidized bed gasification of biomass and plastic fuel.
Waste Manag. 2012;32:724-732.
38. Martínez-Lera S, Torrico J, Pallarés J, Gil A. Design and first experi-
mental results of a bubbling fluidized bed for air gasification of plas-
tic waste. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag. 2013;15:370-380.
39. Erkiaga A, Lopez G, Amutio M, Bilbao J, Olazar M. Syngas from
steam gasification of polyethylene in a conical spouted bed reactor.
Fuel. 2013;109:461-469.
40. Chai Y, Gao N, Wang M, Wu C. H2 production from co-pyro-
lysis/gasification of waste plastics and biomass under novel catalyst
Ni-CaO-C. Chem Eng J. 2020;382:122947.
41. Miandad R, Rehan M, Barakat MA, et al. Catalytic pyrolysis of plastic
waste: moving towards pyrolysis based biorefineries. Front Energy
Res. 2019;7:1-17.
42. Quesada L, Pérez A, Godoy V, Peula F, Calero M, Bl azquez G. Opti-
mization of the pyrolysis process of a plastic waste to obtain a liquid
fuel using different mathematical models. Energ Conver Manage.
2019;188:19-26.
43. Fivga A, Dimitriou I. Pyrolysis of plastic waste for the production of
heavy fuel substitute: a techno-economic assessment. Energy. 2018;
149:865-874.
44. Demirbas A. Pyrolysis of municipal plastic wastes for recovery of
gasoline-range hydrocarbons. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis. 2004;72:97-102.
45. Paradela F, Pinto F, Gulyurtlu I, Cabrita I, Lapa N. Study of the co-
pyrolysis of biomass and plastic wastes. Clean Technol Environ Policy.
2009;11:115-122.
46. Campos U, Zamenian H, Koo DD, Goodman DW. Waste-to-energy
(WTE) technology applications for municipal solid waste (MSW)
16 of 18
treatment in the urban environment. Int J Emerg Technol Adv Eng.
2015;5:504-508.
47. Gore Pyrolysis. 2021, WebSource, Gore Plastics and Carbouys Inc,
Maharashtra, India.
48. Lo pez A, De Marco I, Caballero B, Laresgoiti M, Adrados A,
Aranzabal A. Catalytic pyrolysis of plastic wastes with two different
types of catalysts: ZSM-5 zeolite and red mud. Appl Catal Environ.
2011;104:211-219.
49. Adrados A, De Marco I, Caballero B, Lo  pez A, Laresgoiti M, Torres A.
Pyrolysis of plastic packaging waste: a comparison of plastic resid-
uals from material recovery facilities with simulated plastic waste.
Waste Manag. 2012;32:826-832.
50. Miandad R, Barakat M, Aburiazaiza AS, Rehan M, Ismail I, Nizami A.
Effect of plastic waste types on pyrolysis liquid oil. Int Biodeter Bio-
degr. 2017;119:239-252.
51. Sharuddin SDA, Abnisa F, Daud WMAW, Aroua MK. Energy recov-
ery from pyrolysis of plastic waste: study on non-recycled plastics
(NRP) data as the real measure of plastic waste. Energ Conver Man-
age. 2017;148:925-934.
52. Das P, Tiwari P. Valorization of packaging plastic waste by slow
pyrolysis. Resour Conserv Recy. 2018;128:69-77.
53. Barbarias I, Lopez G, Artetxe M, Arregi A, Bilbao J, Olazar M.
Valorisation of different waste plastics by pyrolysis and in-line cata-
lytic steam reforming for hydrogen production. Energ Conver Man-
age. 2018;156:575-584.
54. Gaurh P, Pramanik H. A novel approach of solid waste management
via aromatization using multiphase catalytic pyrolysis of waste poly-
ethylene. Waste Manag. 2018;71:86-96.
55. Mangesh V, Padmanabhan S, Tamizhdurai P, Ramesh A. Experimen-
tal investigation to identify the type of waste plastic pyrolysis oil
suitable for conversion to diesel engine fuel. J Clean Prod. 2020;246:
119066.
56. Jin Q, Wang X, Li S, et al. Synergistic effects during co-pyrolysis of
biomass and plastic: gas, tar, soot, char products and ther-
mogravimetric study. J Energy Inst. 2019;92:108-117.
57. Almeida D, Marques MDF. Thermal and catalytic pyrolysis of plastic
waste. Polímeros. 2016;26:44-51.
58. Song B, Hall P. Densification of biomass and waste plastic blends as
a solid fuel: hazards, advantages, and perspectives. Front Energy Res.
2020;8:58.
59. Tomsej T, Horak J, Tomsejova S, et al. The impact of co-combustion
of polyethene plastics and wood in a small residential boiler on emis-
sions of gaseous pollutants, particulate matter, PAHs and 1, 3,
5-triphenylbenzene. Chemosphere. 2018;196:18-24.
60. Li C-T, Lee W-J, Mi H-H, Su C-C. PAH emission from the incinera-
tion of waste oily sludge and PE plastic mixtures. Sci Total Environ.
1995;170:171-183.
61. Li C-T, Zhuang H-K, Hsieh L-T, Lee W-J, Tsao M-C. PAH emission
from the incineration of three plastic wastes. Environ Int. 2001;27:
61-67.
62. Wang J, Zhao H. Evaluation of CaO-decorated Fe2O3/Al2O3 as an
oxygen carrier for in-situ gasification chemical looping combustion
of plastic wastes. Fuel. 2016;165:235-243.
63. Zhao H, Wang J. Chemical-looping combustion of plastic wastes for
in situ inhibition of dioxins. Combust Flame. 2018;191:9-18.
64. Ma J, Wang J, Tian X, Zhao H. In-situ gasification chemical
looping combustion of plastic waste in a semi-continuously oper-
ated fluidized bed reactor. Proc Combust Inst. 2019;37:4389-
4397.
65. Yaqub ZT, Oboirien BO. Process Modelling of chemical looping com-
bustion of paper plastics, paper/plastic blend waste, and coal. ACS
Omega. 2020;5:22420-22429.
66. Wong S, Ngadi N, Tuan Abdullah TA, Inuwa IM. Catalytic cracking of
LDPE dissolved in benzene using nickel-impregnated zeolites. Ind
Eng Chem Res. 2016;55:2543-2555.
NYAKUMA AND IVASE
67. Wong SL, Tuan Abdullah TA, Ngadi N, Ahmad A, Inuwa IM. Paramet-
ric study on catalytic cracking of LDPE to liquid fuel over ZSM-5
zeolite. Energ Conver Manage. 2016;122:428-438.
68. Rebeiz K, Craft A. Plastic waste management in construction: tech-
nological and institutional issues. Resour Conserv Recy. 1995;15:
245-257.
69. Vasudevan R, Sekar ARC, Sundarakannan B, Velkennedy R. A tech-
nique to dispose waste plastics in an ecofriendly way–application in
construction of flexible pavements. Construct Build Mater. 2012;28:
311-320.
70. Sahoo KK, Gupta M, Sahu R, Mudgal K, Shankar YS. Experimental
investigation for the feasible applications of processed recyclable
plastic waste in construction sector. Advances in Waste Management.
Singapore: Springer; 2019.
71. Rajput PS, Yadav R. Use of plastic waste in bituminous road con-
struction. Int J Sci Technol Eng. 2016;2:509-513.
72. Appiah JK, Berko-Boateng VN, Tagbor TA. Use of waste plastic
materials for road construction in Ghana. Case Studies Constr Mater.
2017;6:1-7.
73. Yang Y, Yang J, Wu W-M, et al. Biodegradation and mineralization
of polystyrene by plastic-eating mealworms: part 1 chemical and
physical characterization and isotopic tests. Environ Sci Technol.
2015;49:12080-12086.
74. Yang Y, Yang J, Wu W-M, et al. Biodegradation and mineralization
of polystyrene by plastic-eating mealworms: part 2 role of gut micro-
organisms. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49:12087-12093.
75. Shimao M. Biodegradation of plastics. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2001;
12:242-247.
76. Ghosh SK, Pal S, Ray S. Study of microbes having potentiality for
biodegradation of plastics. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2013;20:4339-
4355.
77. Yang J, Yang Y, Wu W-M, Zhao J, Jiang L. Evidence of polyethylene
biodegradation by bacterial strains from the guts of plastic-eating
waxworms. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:13776-13784.
78. Brandon AM, Gao S-H, Tian R, et al. Biodegradation of polyethylene
and plastic mixtures in mealworms (larvae of Tenebrio molitor) and
effects on the gut microbiome. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:6526-
6533.
79. Yang Y, Wang J, Xia M. Biodegradation and mineralization of poly-
styrene by plastic-eating super worms Zophobas atratus. Sci Total
Environ. 2019;708:135233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.
2019.135233.
80. Sheik S, Chandrashekar K, Swaroop K, Somashekarappa H. Bio-
degradation of gamma-irradiated low-density polyethylene and
polypropylene by endophytic fungi. Int Biodeter Biodegr. 2015;
105:21-29.
81. Barton-Pudlik J, Czaja K, Grzymek M, Lipok J. Evaluation of wood-
polyethylene composites biodegradability caused by filamentous
fungi. Int Biodeter Biodegr. 2017;118:10-18.
82. Jeyakumar D, Chirsteen J, Doble M. Synergistic effects of pre-
treatment and blending on fungi mediated biodegradation of poly-
propylenes. Bioresour Technol. 2013;148:78-85.
83. Catto AL, Montagna LS, Almeida SH, Silveira RMB, Santana RMC.
Wood-plastic composites weathering: effects of compatibilization
on biodegradation in soil and fungal decay. Int Biodeter Biodegr.
2016;109:11-22.
84. Zhuo C, Levendis YA. Upcycling waste plastics into carbon
nanomaterials: a review. J Appl Polym Sci. 2014;131:1-14. https://
doi.org/10.1002/app.39931.
85. Kumar R, Singh RK, Singh DP. Natural and waste hydrocarbon pre-
cursors for the synthesis of carbon-based nanomaterials: Graphene
and CNTs. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2016;58:976-1006.
86. Yee MJ, Mubarak N, Abdullah E, et al. Carbon nanomaterials based
films for strain sensing application—a review. Nano-Struct Nano-Obj.
2019;18:100312.
NYAKUMA AND IVASE
87. Arora N, Sharma NN. Arc discharge synthesis of carbon nanotubes:
comprehensive review. Diamond Relat Mater. 2014;50:135-150.
88. Okada T, Saida T, Naritsuka S, Maruyama T. Low-temperature syn-
thesis of single-walled carbon nanotubes with co catalysts via alco-
hol catalytic chemical vapour deposition under high vacuum. Mater
Today Commun. 2019;19:51-55.
89. Thamaraiselvan C, Wang J, James DK, et al. Laser-induced graphene
and carbon nanotubes as conductive carbon-based materials in envi-
ronmental technology. Mater Today. 2020;34:115-131.
90. Tang T, Chen X, Meng X, Chen H, Ding Y. Synthesis of multiwalled
carbon nanotubes by catalytic combustion of polypropylene. Angew
Chem Int Ed. 2005;44:1517-1520.
91. Gogotsi Y, Libera JA, Yoshimura M. Hydrothermal synthesis of multi-
wall carbon nanotubes. J Mater Res. 2000;15:2591-2594.
92. Zhuo C, Hall B, Richter H, Levendis Y. Synthesis of carbon nan-
otubes by sequential pyrolysis and combustion of polyethene. Car-
bon. 2010;48:4024-4034.
93. Alcantara R, Lavela P, Ortiz GF, Tirado JL. Carbon microspheres
obtained from resorcinol-formaldehyde as high-capacity electrodes
for sodium-ion batteries. Electrochem Solid St. 2005;8:A222.
94. Wei L, Yan N, Chen Q. Converting poly (ethylene terephthalate)
waste into carbon microspheres in a supercritical CO2 system. Envi-
ron Sci Technol. 2011;45:534-539.
95. Zhu D, Wang Y, Gan L, et al. Nitrogen-containing carbon micro-
spheres for supercapacitor electrodes. Electrochim Acta. 2015;158:
166-174.
96. Sahoo PC, Kausar F, Lee JH, Han JI. Facile fabrication of silver nano-
particle embedded CaCO 3 microspheres via microalgae-templated
CO 2 biomineralization: application in antimicrobial paint develop-
ment. RSC Adv. 2014;4:32562-32569.
97. Pol VG. Upcycling: converting waste plastics into paramagnetic, con-
ducting, solid, pure carbon microspheres. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;
44:4753-4759.
98. Chen M, Wang W, Liang X, et al. Sulfur/oxygen codoped porous
hard carbon microspheres for high-performance potassium-ion bat-
teries. Adv Energy Mater. 2018;8:1800171.
99. Mirjalili A, Dong B, Pena P, Ozkan CS, Ozkan M. Upcycling of poly-
ethene terephthalate plastic waste to microporous carbon structure
for energy storage. Energy Storage. 2020;2:e201.
100. Yuan X, Cho M-K, Lee JG, Choi SW, Lee KB. Upcycling of waste
polyethene terephthalate plastic bottles into porous carbon for CF4
adsorption. Environ Pollut. 2020;265:114868.
101. Chaudhary S, Kumari M, Chauhan P, Ram Chaudhary G. Upcycling
of plastic waste into fluorescent carbon dots: an environmentally
viable transformation to biocompatible C-dots with potential pros-
pects in analytical applications. Waste Manag. 2021;120:675-686.
102. Gong J, Liu J, Wen X, et al. Upcycling waste polypropylene into
Graphene flakes on organically modified Montmorillonite. Ind Eng
Chem Res. 2014;53:4173-4181.
103. Pandey S, Karakoti M, Surana K, et al. Graphene nanosheets derived
from plastic waste for the application of DSSCs and supercapacitors.
Sci Rep. 2021;11:3916.
104. Kamali AR, Yang J, Sun Q. Molten salt conversion of polyethene
terephthalate waste into graphene nanostructures with high surface
area and ultra-high electrical conductivity. Appl Surf Sci. 2019;476:
539-551.
105. Holban AM, Grumezescu AM, Andronescu E. Inorganic
nanoarchitectonics designed for drug delivery and anti-infective sur-
faces. In: Grumezescu AM, ed. Surface Chemistry of Nano-
biomaterials. Norwich, New York: William Andrew Publishing; 2016.
106. Mallakpour S, Rashidimoghadam S. Carbon nanotubes for dyes
removal. In: Kyzas GZ, Mitropoulos AC, eds. Composite
Nanoadsorbents. Netherlands: Elsevier; 2019:211-243.
107. Rakhi RB. Preparation and properties of manipulated carbon nano-
tube composites and applications. In: Khan A, Jawaid M, Inamuddin,
17 of 18
Asiri AM, eds. Nanocarbon and its Composites. Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Woodhead Publishing; 2019:489-520.
108. Othman RN, Wilkinson AN. Carbon nanotube hybrids and their
polymer nanocomposites. In: Rashid SA, Raja Othman RNI,
Hussein MZ, eds. Synthesis, Technology and Applications of Carbon
Nanomaterials. The Netherlands: Elsevier; 2019:29-60. https://doi.
org/10.1016/C2017-0-03040-9.
109. Harik V. Nanotechnology of carbon nanotubes: sensors, transistors
and nanocomposites. In: Harik V, ed. Mechanics of Carbon Nan-
otubes. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2018.
110. Porwal H, Saggar R. Ceramic matrix nanocomposites. In:
Beaumont PWR, Zweben CH, eds. Comprehensive Composite Mate-
rials II. Oxford: Elsevier; 2018:138-161.
111. Wang X, Bradford PD, Li Q, Zhu Y. Aligned carbon nanotube com-
posite prepregs. In: Schulz MJ, Shanov VN, Yin Z, eds. Nanotube
Super Fibre Materials. Boston: William Andrew Publishing; 2014:
649-670.
112. Aboul-Enein AA, Adel-Rahman H, Haggar AM, Awadallah AE. A sim-
ple method for synthesis of carbon nanotubes over Ni-Mo/Al2O3
catalyst via pyrolysis of polyethene waste using a two-stage process.
Fullerenes, Nanotubes Carbon Nanostruct. 2017;25:211-222.
113. Borsodi N, Szentes A, Miskolczi N, Wu C, Liu X. Carbon nanotubes
synthesized from gaseous products of waste polymer pyrolysis and
their application. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis. 2016;120:304-313.
114. Tripathi PK, Durbach S, Coville NJ. Synthesis of multi-walled carbon
nanotubes from plastic waste using a stainless-steel CVD reactor as
catalyst. Nanomaterials. 2017;7:284.
115. Modekwe H, Mamo M, Moothi K, Daramola M. Synthesis of bime-
tallic NiMo/MgO catalyst for catalytic conversion of waste plastics
(polypropylene) to carbon nanotubes (CNTs) via chemical vapour
deposition method. Mater Today: Proc. 2021;38:549-552.
116. Aboul-Enein AA, Arafa EI, Abdel-Azim SM, Awadallah AE. Synthesis
of multiwalled carbon nanotubes from polyethene waste to enhance
the rheological behaviour of lubricating grease. Fullerenes, Nanotubes
Carbon Nanostruct. 2021;29:46-57.
117. Wang J, Shen B, Lan M, Kang D, Wu C. Carbon nanotubes (CNTs)
production from catalytic pyrolysis of waste plastics: the influ-
ence of catalyst and reaction pressure. Catalysis Today. 2020;351:
50-57.
118. Kaminsky W. Fluidized bed pyrolysis of waste polymer compos-
ites for oil and gas recovery. In: Goodship V, ed. Management,
Recycling and Reuse of Waste Composites. Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Woodhead Publishing; 2010.
119. Carlone P, Sorrentino L, Kent RM. Process control for polymeric
composite manufacture. In: Beaumont PWR, Zweben CH, eds.
Comprehensive Composite Materials II. Oxford: Elsevier; 2018:
337-354.
120. Shrivastava A. Plastic properties and testing. In: Shrivastava A,
ed. Introduction to Plastics Engineering. Norwich, New York: William
Andrew Publishing; 2018.
121. Spear MJ, Eder A, Carus M. Wood polymer composites. In:
Ansell MP, ed. Wood Composites. Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Woodhead Publishing; 2015.
122. Adam, T., Vikram, Y., Karl, R.E., David, H., and Jae-Woo, K.
(Adam, T., Ed.), 2012, University of Tennessee Institute of Agricul-
ture, Tennessee, USA
123. Matuana LM, Stark NM. The use of wood fibres as reinforcements
in composites. In: Faruk O, Sain M, eds. Biofiber Reinforcements in
Composite Materials. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Woodhead Pub-
lishing; 2015.
124. Stark NM, Gardner DJ. Outdoor durability of wood–polymer com-
posites. In: Niska KO, Sain M, eds. Wood–Polymer Composites. Cam-
bridge, United Kingdom: Woodhead Publishing; 2008.
125. Carus M, Gahle C, Korte H. Market and future trends for wood–
polymer composites in Europe: the example of Germany. In:
18 of 18
Niska KO, Sain M, eds. Wood–Polymer Composites. Cambridge,
United Kingdom: Woodhead Publishing; 2008.
126. Mohd Ishak ZA, Mat Taib R. Multifunctional polymer composites
using natural fibre reinforcements. In: Friedrich K, Breuer U, eds.
Multifunctionality of Polymer Composites. Oxford: William Andrew
Publishing; 2015:71-101.
127. Klyosov AA. Wood-Plastic Composites. Cambridge, United Kingdom:
John Wiley & Sons; 2007.
128. Drobny JG. Industrial applications of ionizing radiation. In:
Drobny JG, ed. Ionizing Radiation and Polymers. Norwich, New York:
William Andrew Publishing; 2013.
129. Akhtarkhavari A, Kortschot M, Spelt J. Adhesion and durability of
latex paint on wood fibre reinforced polyethene. Prog Org Coat.
2004;49:33-41.
130. English, B., Stark, N., and Clemons, C. In Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Woodfiber-Plastic Composites, 1997,
237–244.
131. Czvikovszky, T. (1992). Radiation Processing of Wood-Plastic Com-
posites, Radiation processing of polymers,
132. Zhang C-C, Zhang F-S. Removal of brominated flame retardant from
electrical and electronic waste plastic by solvothermal technique.
J Hazard Mater. 2012;221-222:193-198.
133. Zhao Y-B, Lv X-D, Ni H-G. Solvent-based separation and recycling
of waste plastics: a review. Chemosphere. 2018;209:707-720.
134. Weeden GS Jr, Soepriatna NH, Wang N-HL. Method for efficient
recovery of high-purity polycarbonates from electronic waste. Envi-
ron Sci Technol. 2015;49:2425-2433.
135. Shikata S, Watanabe T, Hattori K, Aoyama M, Miyakoshi T. Dissolu-
tion of polystyrene into cyclic monoterpenes present in tree essen-
tial oils. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag. 2011;13:127.
136. Zhao Y-B, Lv X-D, Yang W-D, Ni H-G. Laboratory simulations of the
mixed solvent extraction recovery of dominate polymers in elec-
tronic waste. Waste Manag. 2017;69:393-399.
137. Yang S, Yang Q. Study on process of recovering polystyrene with
the solvent method. Modern Chem Ind. 2012;32:43-45.
138. Peng S, Liang S, Yu M, Li X. Extraction of polybrominated diphenyl
ethers contained in waste high impact polystyrene by supercritical
carbon dioxide. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag. 2014;16:178-185.
139. Oliveux G, Dandy LO, Leeke GA. Current status of recycling of fibre
reinforced polymers: review of technologies, reuse and resulting
properties. Prog Mater Sci. 2015;72:61-99.
140. Saha N, Uddin MH, Reza MT. Preliminary safety evaluation of
solvothermal liquefaction of plastic wastes using toluene as solvent.
Clean Technol Environ Policy. 2021;1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10098-021-02064-5.
141. Zhang C-C, Sahajwalla V, Zhang F-S. Tetrabromobisphenol a recov-
ery from computer housing plastic by a new solvothermal process.
Environ Chem Lett. 2014;12:347-352.
142. Karmore V, Madras G. Continuous distribution kinetics for the deg-
radation of polystyrene in supercritical benzene. Ind Eng Chem Res.
2000;39:4020-4023.
View publication stats
NYAKUMA AND IVASE
143. Zhang C-C, Zhang F-S. Recovery of triphenyl phosphate from waste
printed circuit boards by solvothermal process. Chem Eng J. 2014;
240:10-15.
144. Evangelopoulos P, Arato S, Persson H, Kantarelis E, Yang W. Reduc-
tion of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in plastics from waste
electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) by solvent extraction
and the influence on their thermal decomposition. Waste Manag.
2019;94:165-171.
145. Baloch HA, Siddiqui MTH, Nizamuddin S, et al. Solvothermal co-
liquefaction of sugarcane bagasse and polyethene under sub-
supercritical conditions: optimization of process parameters. Process
Safety Environ Protect. 2020;137:300-311.
146. Punčoch ař M, Ruj B, Chatterj P. Development of process for dis-
posal of plastic waste using plasma pyrolysis technology and option
for energy recovery. Proc Eng. 2012;42:420-430.
147. Tang L, Huang H, Zhao Z, Wu C, Chen Y. Pyrolysis of polypropylene
in a nitrogen plasma reactor. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2003;42:1145-1150.
148. Mączka T, Śliwka E, Wnukowski M. Plasma gasification of waste
plastics. J Eco Eng. 2013;14:33-39.
149. Dave PN, Joshi AK. Plasma Pyrolysis and Gasification of Plastics
Waste–a Review. JSIR. 2010;69:177-179. https://bit.ly/3euu5Ej.
150. Valavanidis A, Iliopoulos N, Gotsis G, Fiotakis K. Persistent free radi-
cals, heavy metals and PAHs generated in particulate soot emissions
and residue ash from controlled combustion of common types of
plastic. J Hazard Mater. 2008;156:277-284.
151. Verma R, Vinoda K, Papireddy M, Gowda A. Toxic pollutants from
plastic waste-a review. Proc Environ Sci. 2016;35:701-708.
152. Youcai Z. Leachate from municipal solid wastes. In: Youcai Z,
ed. Pollution Control Technology for Leachate from Municipal Solid
Waste. Oxford, United Kingdom: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2018.
153. Jayawardhana Y, Kumarathilaka P, Herath I, Vithanage M. Municipal
solid waste biochar for prevention of pollution from landfill leachate.
In: Prasad MNV, Shih K, eds. Environmental Materials and Waste.
Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2016.
154. Raghab SM, Abd El Meguid AM, Hegazi HA. Treatment of leachate
from municipal solid waste landfill. HBRC J. 2013;9:187-192.
155. Ehrig H-J, Stegmann R. Leachate quality. In: Cossu R, Stegmann R,
eds. Solid Waste Landfilling. The Netherlands: Elsevier; 2018.
156. Baderna D, Caloni F, Benfenati E. Investigating landfill leachate tox-
icity in vitro: a review of cell models and endpoints. Environ Int.
2019;122:21-30.
How to cite this article: Nyakuma BB, Ivase TJ-P. Emerging
trends in sustainable treatment and valorisation technologies
for plastic wastes in Nigeria: A concise review. Environ Prog
Sustainable Energy. 2021;e13660. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.
13660