(Engineering Materials) Rezgar Hasanzadeh, Parisa Mojaver - Plastic Waste Treatment and Management - Gasification Processes-Springer (2023)

Engineering Materials
Rezgar Hasanzadeh
Parisa Mojaver Editors
Plastic Waste
Treatment and
Management
Gasification Processes
This series provides topical information on innovative, structural and functional
materials and composites with applications in optical, electrical, mechanical, civil,
aeronautical, medical, bio- and nano-engineering. The individual volumes are
complete, comprehensive monographs covering the structure, properties, manufac-
turing process and applications of these materials. This multidisciplinary series is
devoted to professionals, students and all those interested in the latest developments
in the Materials Science field, that look for a carefully selected collection of high
quality review articles on their respective field of expertise.
Indexed at Compendex (2021) and Scopus (2022)
Rezgar Hasanzadeh · Parisa Mojaver
Editors
Plastic Waste Treatment

and Management
Gasification Processes
Editors
Rezgar Hasanzadeh Parisa Mojaver
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering Faculty of Engineering
Urmia University Urmia University
Urmia, Iran Urmia, Iran
ISSN 1612-1317 ISSN 1868-1212 (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-031-31159-8 ISBN 978-3-031-31160-4 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31160-4
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2023
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Dedicated to our parents, who know neither
the plastic waste treatment and management
nor the gasification process but teach us all
of them.
Preface
Plastic has become one of the most ubiquitous materials in the world, with applica-
tions in a vast array of industries. They are materials that can be molded or shaped into
various forms and are made from synthetic or semi-synthetic organic compounds.
Plastics are widely used in many different industries and applications. Some of the
most common applications for plastics include packaging, construction, automotive,
and electronic components. Plastics are also used in medical devices and implants,
sports equipment and food storage containers. The widespread use of plastics is due
to their low cost, durability, and versatility.
Due to the extensive usages of plastics, plastic waste is a major environmental
issue, as it can take centuries to break down and pollutes both land and water. There
are some efforts being made to reduce plastic waste, such as recycling programs and
bans on single-use plastics. However, more needs to be done to address this problem.
In recent years, there has been a growing concern over the accumulation of plastic
waste in the environment since its treatment is challenging due to its complex compo-
sition. Various thermochemical processes have been proposed for the treatment of
plastic waste, including combustion, pyrolysis, and gasification.
Plastic waste gasification is a process in which plastic waste is converted into a
valuable gaseous fuel called syngas. This process has many advantages over other
methods of plastic waste treatment and management, such as incineration or land-
filling. First, gasification is much more efficient than other methods such as inciner-
ation, meaning that more energy can be recovered from the same amount of plastic
waste. Second, gasification produces a gaseous fuel that can be used to generate elec-
tricity or heat, making it a valuable resource. Third, gasification does not produce
harmful emissions like dioxins and furans, which are released when plastics are
burned. Fourth, gasification can be used to treat mixed plastic waste streams that
contain both organic and inorganic materials. This is important because it allows us
to recycle plastic materials that would otherwise end up in landfill. Fifth, the process
of gasification is relatively clean and quiet, making it suitable for use in urban areas.
Overall, gasification is an attractive option for treating and managing plastic waste.
It is efficient, produces valuable resources, and does not produce harmful emissions.
vii
viii Preface
With proper planning and implementation, gasification can play a key role in reducing
our reliance on landfill and incineration of plastic waste.
In this edited book, we aimed to present a comprehensive overview on the gasi-
fication process as an efficient and valuable technique for plastic waste treatment
and management. Chapter Plastic Types and Applications deals with introducing the
most important plastic types and their applications in different fields. The plastic
waste generation and its forecasting by 2050 using time-series algorithms are the
objectives of Chap. Collected Plastic Waste Forecasting by 2050. Different ther-
mochemical processes for treating plastic waste especially gasification process are
introduced in Chap. Plastic Waste Gasification. Modeling of air and steam plastic
waste gasification using two thermodynamic techniques are conducted in Chaps. Air
Plastic Waste Gasification and Steam Plastic Waste Gasification, respectively. As a
case study, polyurethane foam waste is considered as the feedstock of a gasification
process and its air gasification is evaluated in Chap. Evaluation of Air Polyurethane
Foam Waste Gasification while Chap. Evaluation of Steam Polyurethane Foam
Waste Gasification deals with evaluation of steam gasification of polyurethane foam
waste. Chapter Multi-criteria Decision-Making Analysis of Plastic Waste Gasifica-
tion provides a comprehensive multi-criteria decision-making analysis on the air and
steam gasification of most prevalent plastic waste types.
The editors and authors hope that the contents of this book will be a step forward
in the development of gasification process for treatment and management of plastic
waste.
Urmia, Iran Dr. Rezgar Hasanzadeh

March 2023 Dr. Parisa Mojaver
Contents
Plastic Types and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Mahboube Mohamadi
Collected Plastic Waste Forecasting by 2050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Amir Reza Gharibi, Reza Babazade, and Rezgar Hasanzadeh
Plastic Waste Gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Parisa Mojaver, Ata Chitsaz, Seyyed Joneid Hasannejad,
and Morteza Khalilian
Air Plastic Waste Gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Parisa Mojaver and Shahram Khalilarya
Steam Plastic Waste Gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Parisa Mojaver, Shahram Khalilarya, and Ata Chitsaz
Evaluation of Air Polyurethane Foam Waste Gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Rezgar Hasanzadeh, Taher Azdast, and Chul B. Park
Evaluation of Steam Polyurethane Foam Waste Gasification . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Rezgar Hasanzadeh and Taher Azdast
Multi-criteria Decision-Making Analysis of Plastic Waste
Gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Rezgar Hasanzadeh, Ali Doniavi, and Marc A. Rosen
ix
Contributors
Taher Azdast Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,

Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
Reza Babazade Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Ata Chitsaz Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Ali Doniavi Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Urmia
University, Urmia, Iran
Amir Reza Gharibi Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Seyyed Joneid Hasannejad Institute for Energy Systems and Thermodynamics,
TU Wien, Vienna, Austria
Rezgar Hasanzadeh Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engi-
neering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
Shahram Khalilarya Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engi-
Morteza Khalilian Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engi-
Mahboube Mohamadi Department of Polymer Engineering, Faculty of Engi-
Parisa Mojaver Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
xi
xii Contributors
Chul B. Park Microcellular Plastics Manufacturing Laboratory (MPML), Depart-

ment of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON,
Canada
Marc A. Rosen Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario
Institute of Technology, Oshawa, ON, Canada
Plastic Types and Applications
Mahboube Mohamadi
Abstract Plastics, as a generic name for polymers in the literature, represent an

advanced class of materials with unique structures and tailored properties. The
tremendous increase in industrial demand for polymers is due to their wide appli-
cation range, which is connected to enhancing the quality of our daily lives. There-
fore, comprehensive knowledge of these particular materials and an introduction to
their characteristics are essential before any further discussion. Though this topic in
polymer science is widely investigated, there is a demand to summarize the basic defi-
nitions and different classifications of polymeric materials as a reference for future
discussions which are addressed in this chapter. Additionally, this chapter reviews
recent advances in the development of new polymeric materials with potential appli-
cations in various fields, besides their common uses, to emphasize the reasons for
the need of vast production and usage of polymers in recent decades.
Keywords Plastics · Polymers · Classifications · Applications
1 Definition and Essential Concepts
The common term “plastics” often refers to the general concept of polymers, and
they are used interchangeably in the literature in many cases [1, 2]. The wide-ranging
applications of polymers in everyday use around us make them a group of mate-
rials with an enormously important role in modern society. This is why polymers
have completely integrated themselves into daily life, as evident from the increased
production and usage volume over the past decades [3]. It is also the reason that they
have been a subject of continuing interest in both academia and industry. Thus, an
in-depth understanding of the definition, structures, classifications, properties, and
applications of polymeric materials seems vital before any further discussion about
them.
M. Mohamadi (B)
Department of Polymer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
e-mail: m.mohamadinasrabadi@urmia.ac.ir
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 1

R. Hasanzadeh and P. Mojaver (eds.), Plastic Waste Treatment and Management,
Engineering Materials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31160-4_1
2 M. Mohamadi
Fig. 1 a Ethylene monomers, polymerization process, and extended structure of polyethylene (PE).
b Structural repeating unit of PE in parenthesis. n denotes the degree of polymerization and refers
to the number of “mers” in a polymer structure
In the simplest definition, a polymer is a long-chain molecule or a macromolecule

consisting of smaller molecules known as monomers before they are converted
into polymers. The monomers are chemically bonded together via a polymerization
process. The component that repeatedly appears in the structure of the polymer is
the structural repeating unit which is also referred to as a “mer”. The name polymer
has a Greek origin consisting of two parts: “poly” meaning many, and “meros”
meaning parts or units. In other words, a long chain known as a polymer is formed
by the connection of many of the same parts by the polymerization reaction. Most
commercial polymers are organic in nature and are based on covalent compounds of
carbon.
Nowadays, polymers offer tremendous technological potential in several areas,
such as medical devices, protection against corrosion, building and construction,
packaging, automobiles, defense products, and etc. [4]. Polyethylene (PE) is counted
as one of the popular and significant thermoplastics, which is widely used for pack-
aging, containers, tubing, and household goods. In Fig. 1, monomer, extended struc-
ture, polymerization reaction, and repeating unit of PE are illustrated as an example
for clarification of the concepts described above.
2 Classifications
According to different criteria such as origin, polymerization process, chemical struc-

ture, physical properties, mechanical behavior, and thermal characteristics, polymers
can be classified into many possible categories. Some of the most well-known and
vital classifications are summarized in the following sub-sections.
2.1 Origin
This is the simplest and most general way to classify polymeric substances, that is,
natural, synthetic, or semi-synthetic. Natural polymers are available in nature and
originate from plants or animals with a designed primary task to sustain life [5].
Polysaccharides, nucleic acids, and proteins are the three main sources of natural
Plastic Types and Applications 3
polymers. Natural rubber, starch, cellulose, collagen, chitin, deoxyribonucleic acid

(DNA), and ribonucleic acid (RNA) are well-known examples [5, 6]. With the
discovery of synthetic polymers in the nineteenth century, the polymer industry
experienced rapid expansion. They are synthesized in a chemical laboratory and
are mainly derived from petroleum using controlled polymerization conditions to
produce polymers with the properties to meet specific requirements. The majority
of the in-use polymers around us are made of synthetic polymers like polyolefins,
polyamides, and polyesters. Organic or inorganic polymers could be considered as
a subset of synthetic polymers. In this sense, the presence or absence of carbon
atoms in the chain backbone distinguishes between organic and inorganic polymers.
Despite the availability of organic synthetic polymers owing to the petrochemical
industry, inorganic ones containing oxygen, silicon, nitrogen, or phosphorus in their
backbones can be utilized for high-tech applications [7]. Chemical modifications of
natural polymers with the purpose of optimizing some of their properties and charac-
teristics result in the third group, called semi-synthetic polymers. Vulcanized natural
rubber or esters and ethers of cellulose are examples of semi-synthetic polymers
[5, 8].
2.2 Structure of Repeating Unit
Depending on the type of monomer participating in the chain backbone of the

macromolecule, polymers can be classified as homopolymers or copolymers. Poly-
mers with only one type of monomer or repeating unit are so-called homopolymers,
while the ones with more than one type of repeating unit or one monomer specie
in their structures are copolymers. Also, there are terpolymers, which refer to the
macromolecules synthesized in the presence of three different monomers by specific
reactions. Regarding the randomness or the existence of specific order between the
structural units in the copolymers, they may form different copolymers, including
statistical, alternating, random, block, graft and so on [9].
2.3 Chain Structure
Based on the molecular structure, polymers are classified as: linear, branched, and
crosslinked/network. When the polymer is a collection of long linear chains linked
together by covalent bonds, with no branches or chemical links with neighboring
chains, the resultant polymer is linear [10]. Regarding the ability of the backbone
chains to be closely packed together, they generally indicate higher densities and
melting points along with advanced tensile strength.
Branched polymers, on the other hand, consist of branches of short or long length
located at random points along the chain backbone. The monomer must be capable of
4 M. Mohamadi
Fig. 2 Schematic representation of possible molecular structures in polymers
growing in more than two directions, and hence, the monomer must have a function-
ality greater than two [10]. Low or imperfect packing of the main chains in branched
polymers leads to materials with lower densities and melting points. Commonly,
branching occurs as a result of shortfalls during the polymerization process, but it
can also happen intentionally in order to modify the internal structure and properties
of the polymer. Thermoplastics consist of linear or branched polymers.
Crosslinked polymers are formed when chemical bonds grow in three-dimensional
directions from the side chains emerging from individual polymer chains [5]. This
network structure develops due to the curing process through heating or adding
curing agents [6]. The existence of irreversible chemical bonds in the structure of
crosslinked polymers and restricted chain-segment mobility make them hard and
brittle materials that cannot be recycled or reshaped upon heating. The interest of
industries in them is because of their insolubility in different solvents, high strength,
excellent dimensional stability, and heat resistivity [6, 9].
In recent years, more complicated structures have been developed, like dendrimers
or dendrons with advanced medical applications. They can be defined as perfectly
hyper-branched polymers with tree-like structures. They are three-dimensional,
monodisperse, and mostly globular macromolecules consisting of a typically
symmetric well-defined inner core covered by many branches attached to it [11].
Different classification of polymers based on their molecular structure is depicted in
Fig. 2.
2.4 Thermal Response
The response of polymers to heat is one of the oldest and most common ways to
classify them. Based on this classification, three types of polymers can be defined:
thermoplastics, elastomers, and thermosets.
“Thermoplastics”, often called in the short form “plastics”, are a group of polymers
with linear or branched chains which are solid at ambient temperature but soften
or melt when heated to elevated temperatures. This characteristic allows them to
transfer into the desired shape, and be molded easily by heating. This processing is
reversible, and the heating and cooling cycles can be applied several times without
affecting the properties much [5]. For this reason, the recollection and recycling of
plastic wastes into new products of lower added value on demand have currently
drawn considerable attention. It should be noted that the common term “plastics”
in the literature sometimes refers to the general concept of polymers and also may
denote the specific types of polymers, which are thermoplastics. In the latter case,
plastics are a subgroup of polymers that are similar but by no means identical to
polymers [10]. Depending on the existence of crystalline regions in the polymer
structure, two different behaviors can be introduced by a thermoplastic material
upon heating. The non-crystalline/amorphous regions experience a transition from
rigid/glassy state to a more flexible state, which is called a rubbery state by increasing
temperature. It is called “glass transition temperature” or “T g ”. If the polymer is
semi-crystalline which means it is partially crystalline, the crystalline structure of
the polymer goes through a melting process by a further increase in the temperature
[12].
Unlike the thermoplastics, “thermosets” are typically rigid materials that cannot
be softened or melted on heating due to having dense cross-linking networks in their
structure. They are generally composed of viscous fluids with low molecular weights.
Upon heating or chemical treatment, heavy chemical cross-linking (curing) occurs
among individual chains, which result in the hardening of the material [12]. After
this stage, the material cannot be reshaped or molded by heating, and at relatively
high temperatures, it cannot flow but decomposes. Superior mechanical properties,
high resistance to heat, solvents, and electricity make them a good candidate for
various applications, including kitchenware, electrical insulators, and automotive
components [5].
The third group is “elastomers” or “rubbers” because they can be easily stretched
by applying a very slight force and recovered to the original dimensions after removal
of the stress. Therefore, they are flexible and elastic which are the characteristics of
rubbers. Very weak intermolecular forces between flexible chains in the elastomers
may cause the chains to slide past one another and display plastic flow or defor-
mation [5]. To prevent plastic deformation and incorporate elasticity, some degree
of crosslinking should be formed in the elastomers. This process is known as the
vulcanization of rubber, and the final product is vulcanized rubber [12]. Elastomers
are polymers that are used above their glass-transition temperature [7].
2.5 Polymerization Process
One of the oldest and yet, most important classification of polymers was proposed by
Carothers in 1929. The polymers can be divided into two groups based on their poly-
merization process: (i) addition polymerization and (ii) condensation polymerization
[7].
The monomer in addition polymerization commonly has a double or triple bond
which opens during the process. The repeating unit of the final polymer is the same
as the alkene or functionally-substituted alkene monomers used to make them. Three
main stages are defined for the addition polymerization, including initiation, propa-
gation, and termination steps. In the initiation step, free radicals are formed from an
6 M. Mohamadi
Fig. 3 Main stages of addition polymerization in polyethylene
initiator present in the process that decomposes into free radicals either thermally or
photolytically [12]. This active specie attacks the monomer, opens the double bond,
and therefore, new reactive radical forms. In the next stage, which is propagation, the
monomers can be added sequentially to the new activation sites. The growing chain
can be terminated either by combining two radical chains or by pulling hydrogen from
another radical chain through a disproportionation process. The three steps of addi-
tion polymerization are schematically shown for polyethylene in Fig. 3. Radical,
cationic, anionic, and catalytic coordination polymerization are the four common
polymerization techniques in synthesizing addition polymers [5].
In condensation polymerization as the second class, common condensation
reactions of organic components occur. In this regard, bifunctional or polyfunc-
tional monomers are combined by the reaction of functional groups in an alter-
nating structure. The formation of nylon 6,6 as a well-known polymer belongs to
polyamides is illustrated in Fig. 4 where adipic acid (a dicarboxylic acid) and 1,6-
hexamethylenediamine react with each other along with the loss of water molecules.
If a polymerization process meets any of the following criteria, the resultant polymer
can be considered a condensation polymer: (1) loss of a small molecule in the form
of water, gas, or salt during the synthesis process; (2) containing functional groups
as part of the main polymer chain, such as ester, urethane, amide, or ether; (3) lack of
some atoms in the repeating unit of polymer that are present in the initial monomer
which can be decomposed to. If the polymerization process does not satisfy any of
these, it is an addition polymer [7].
2.6 Polymerization Mechanism and Kinetics
With the advancement in polymerization chemistry, certain polymers were devel-

oped that cannot be classified either in condensation or addition polymers. A good
Fig. 4 Condensation
polymerization of nylon 6,6
from adipic acid and
1,6-hexamethylenediamine
example is the polymerization of polyurethane with a kinetics similar to condensation

polymerization but without the elimination of a condensation product [9]. Therefore,
a more accurate classification of the polymerization routes is needed based on reac-
tion kinetics. In this manner, two classes of polymerization mechanisms are now
established: chain-growth polymerization and step-growth polymerization.
Chain-growth polymerization, also known as chain polymerization, is an alterna-
tive term for addition polymerization but a more consistent name for the polymeriza-
tion mechanism. The characteristics of chain-growth polymerization are described
as the appearance of long chains at early stages, the addition of monomers to lengthy
chains and steady disappearance of monomers during the process, no evolution
of small molecules, formation of relatively high molecular weight polymers, and
increase of the conversion rate by the reaction progress, not the chain length [10].
In step-growth polymerization, on the other hand, the chain growth develops step by
step and in stages, and almost low molecular weight components form at early stages.
It can be accompanied by the release of a small molecule. The average molecular
weight of polymers is usually low to the medium range when compared to chain-
growth polymerization. In addition, the extension of the polymerization process
increases both conversion and molecular weights [9, 10]. The polymers produced by
these two methods have totally different properties, average molecular weight, and
molecular weight distribution.
Aside from classical processes described for the production of commercial poly-
mers, newer techniques are being developed to obtain polymers with novel topolo-
gies, designed structures and properties, precise control over the chain length and
monomer sequences, and defined molar masses and networks. Although the signifi-
cant developments in this field are still in the experimental stages, industrial use of
some of these methods has been provided. The living polymerization technique is
one of the newly developed methods for the controlled formation of block copoly-
mers [12]. The mechanism is similar to classical addition polymerization. However,
there is no termination step, and the reaction continues until all monomers have been
exhausted/consumed. Since the end of the chains is still reactive, the polymerization
can proceed in the presence of the second type monomer, leading to synthesizing
8 M. Mohamadi
Fig. 5 Variation of molecular weight versus conversion rate in a chain-growth polymerization, b

step-growth polymerization, and c living polymerization
a block copolymer. The variation of molecular weight versus conversion rate for
different polymerization techniques is presented in Fig. 5. Other classifications can
be considered from the point of view of polymerization environments (bulk, solution
suspension, emulsion, dispersion, and etc.) or polymerization reactors (continuous,
batch or semi-continuous polymerization reactors).
2.7 Tacticity
In the linear chains with the substitute or pendant groups, such as polypropylene (PP)
and poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), the stereochemistry or stereoregularity of
the side substituents around the chain backbone determines the degree of order termed
tacticity. Three different configurations are defined based on the tacticity (Fig. 6):
I. Atactic: when the arrangement of pendant groups is random and there is a
complete lack of order around the carbon backbone chain
II. Isotactic: where the side substitute groups appear regularly on the same side of
the plane of the backbone chain
III. Syndiotactic: where the side substitute groups are positioned regularly and
alternately on the polymer chain.
Besides the different order and regularity of the side groups, different properties of
the polymers are also affected by tacticity regarding its influence on the morphology.
2.8 Form and Uses
There is a general classification of polymers from a practical point of view. On this

basis, they can be categorized into two major subclasses, including general-purpose
polymers and engineering polymers. General purpose or commodity polymers are
easy to process and cost-effective materials to replace with metals or ceramics. Due
to the mass production of commodity polymers, they have endless applications,
Fig. 6 Spatial configuration of polystyrene along with the different tacticity regarding the position
of the phenyl group attached to every other carbon atom in its backbone
such as food and beverage packaging, toys, electronic product casings, households,
pipes, and etc. They are known as materials with relatively weak to medium mechan-
ical and thermal properties and are used when exceptional properties are not required
[13]. Examples are polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polystyrene (PS), and
polyvinylidene chloride (PVC). On the other hand, engineering or high-performance
polymers are not mass-produced compared to commodity plastics with relatively
higher costs. They have superior physical, mechanical, thermal properties, and in
overall, high functionality [13]. Therefore, they are designed or produced to withstand
mechanical and environmental conditions in specific applications. The most common
10 M. Mohamadi
polymers in this category are polyamides (PA), polycarbonates (PC), and acryloni-
trile butadiene styrene (ABS). The commodity plastics can also be considered as
engineering ones in reinforced, blended, or copolymer forms [14].
Another classification of polymers based on their performance is according to
their form, uses, and response to the applied stress. They can be classified as thermo-
plastics, elastomers, thermosets, fibers, resins, foams, composites (either micro or
nanocomposites), and blends. The definition of thermoplastics, elastomers and ther-
mosets are fully described in Sect. 2.4. Fibers are drawn polymers into filament-like
products with a length of at least 100 times their diameter. Due to strong intermolec-
ular forces between the polymer chains in fibers, they exhibit high tensile strength,
low elongation, superior heat, and chemical resistance. Resins are typically viscous
polymers with a relatively low molecular weight that can be converted into rigid
materials by the curing process. They can be used to produce varnishes, adhesives,
sealants, potting compounds, food glazing agents, and etc. Polymer composites, in
general, are defined as a multi-phase material consisting of reinforcements/fillers
with various physical shapes (particulate, fibrous, laminate, and etc.) and different
origins (mineral, metal, ceramic, organic, and etc.) embedded in a polymer matrix
in which synergistic properties and hence, improved performance can be achieved
from both components. A polymer blend is the mixture of at least two macromolec-
ular compounds, polymers, or copolymers to create a new material with different
physical properties. Polymer blends can be broadly divided into three categories
including immiscible, compatible, and miscible blends. The motivation towards
polymer composites and blends is that they are much more cost-effective than the
synthesis of new polymers having unknown properties [9].
In summary, all the considered types and classifications of plastics mentioned in
Sect. 2 are depicted in Fig. 7. Besides the different classifications mentioned above,
there are many other possible plastic types regarding developing new polymeric
materials through modification or functionalization. Up to this part, this chapter
provides the fundamental matters and primary classifications of plastic materials
in general. As a continuation, diverse applications of polymers that significantly
improved the lifestyle of humanity or developed based on specific requirements will
be discussed in the following section.
3 Applications
The wide application range of polymers in consumer products and everyday life has
made them the first-choice materials for many usages and an excellent replacement
for other materials. The everyday use of polymers in the modern world is mainly
due to their lightweight, easy manufacturing, and the possible tailoring procedures
that suit the needs of consumers [6]. Besides, the possibility of modifying polymers
through functionalization, blending, or addition of micro/nanoparticles can broaden
their present applications, and more advanced and dynamic materials will be achieved
for specific applications. Typical applications of polymers extend from adhesives,
materials
Fig. 7 Various
classifications of polymeric
Plastic Types and Applications
Polymer classifica tions
Origin Structure of Chain structure Thermal response Polymerization Polymerization Tacticity Application
repeating unit process mechanism and kinetics
Natural Synthetic Linear Cross-linked Isotactic Atactic

Branched Addition Condensation
Semi-synthetic Syndiotactic
Homopolymer Copolymer General purpose Engineering

Thermoplastic Thermoset Chain-growth Step-growth
Elastomer
11
12 M. Mohamadi
Building & Electrical & Industrial

Construction electronic machinery Textile
4.3% 4.2% 0.4% 14.9%
Transportation
5.6%
Consumer products
12.1%
Other
12.5% Packaging
46%
Fig. 8 Global consumption of plastics based on the generated plastic wastes by industry in 2018
[6]
coatings, foams, pipes, tanks, packaging materials, children’s toys, and sports wares,
to textile and industrial fibers, agricultural films, automobile parts, floor coverings,
building, and construction. Over the past two decades, polymers have been explored
for advanced and high-tech applications. The global consumption of plastics based
on the generated plastic wastes are presented in Fig. 8. In the following subsections,
some of them will be briefly discussed somewhat just to give the readers a basic
understanding, but their applications are not limited.
3.1 Packaging
Outstanding packaging ability is another important property of polymers that can be

derived from thermoplastics since they are cheap and malleable, and allow a wide
variety of packaging formats [15]. In addition, the possibility of recycling them on
demand increases their production and importance in the future due to advancements
in recycling technology, and the shift in the global demand from single-use poly-
mers to recyclable ones [6]. The enhanced barrier properties to UV rays and gasses,
long-term stability, significant toughness, good dielectric properties, heat resistance,
durable mechanical strength and stiffness are the main reasons for the enormous
interest of food companies in polymeric insulators and packaging materials [16]. The
most widely used polymers for the packaging industry are polyethylene terephthalate,
nylon, polystyrene, polyolefins, polylactide, polyamides, polyimides, epoxy resins,
polyurethane and ethylene–vinyl alcohol [3, 17, 18]. Recently, active and intelli-
gent/smart packaging materials with improved antimicrobial, mechanical, and barrier
properties have been designed to extend shelf life, monitor freshness, display infor-
mation on quality, improve safety, and convenience. The main feature of designing
active packaging is to adsorb or release substance from, into, and around the packaged
food, which is done with the aid of some nanoparticles with antimicrobial features,
including metal nanoparticles (Au, Ag and Zn), metal oxide nanoparticles, and carbon
nanotubes [17]. On the other hand, intelligent packaging is capable of examining and
control the packaged food condition or environment the food is surrounded during
food storage using pathogen sensors, freshness indicators, and oxygen indicators
[16]. Environmental concerns, the increasing burden of plastic waste disposal, the
utilization of industrial food waste, and consumer demands for natural, nutritional,
and healthy foods are the main motives for replacing bioplastic packaging with
conventional one [19]. The two main groups of bioplastics are biobased polymers
and biodegradable plastics [20]. The concept of edible films and coatings is based
on the biobased polymers generated from biodegradable food industry wastes or
underutilized sources of proteins, lipids, or polysaccharides [19].
3.2 Textile
The textile industry can be counted as one of the most important functional areas
of polymer engineering, with the first application in human clothing and extended
progress in the production of intended materials in recent years. Either polymer
with natural sources (such as silk, hemp wool, and cotton fibers) or synthetic base
(including nylon, polyester, and rayon) are utilized with the same goal of providing
the most comfortable product for a wide range of consumers [16]. Despite the advan-
tages of natural polymers, including high mechanical strength, good biocompatibility,
and desired stability in non-aqueous or aqueous solutions, their restricted applications
due to their monotonous functional groups are still a problem. Synthetic polymers, on
the other hand, suffer from rapid burning, low biodegradability, and skin damage. To
develop the present properties and create innovative characteristics in conventional
polymeric materials, novel technologies like surface functionalization via different
agents have emerged. This has led to the various features which make them suitable to
be used in different fields like sports, healthcare, military, and fashion [21]. Further-
more, smart textiles with the ability to sense and respect environmental changes could
be provided. The main examples of these stimuli-responsive polymers are antimi-
crobial textiles, luminescent textiles, self-cleaning textiles, temperature-regulated
textiles, moisture-wicking textiles, flame-retardant textiles, and self-healing textiles
[16, 22, 23].
3.3 Hydrogels
Regarding the environmental and ecosystem concerns of synthetic petroleum-based

polymers, a great step towards replacing this class of polymers with sustainable and
green polymers has been taken. The latter category is less toxic, more biocompatible,
14 M. Mohamadi
and more environmental-friendly. Hydrogels are one of the developed green poly-
mers with the ability to retain a great amount of moisture in their structure. They have
a three-dimensional (3D) hydrophilic polymeric network owing to chemical and/or
physical crosslinking with an excellent ability to absorb or retain massive water
without disintegration [24, 25]. Tunable properties, high sensitivity to physiological
environments, hydrophilic nature, soft tissue-like water content, and facile prepara-
tion methods of the hydrogels have led to their various applications in biotechnology
and engineering, such as drug-delivery systems, cell-laden matrix, anti-fogging films,
antifouling coatings, self-healing film, soft robotics, 3D printing technology, catal-
ysis, pollutant removal, and energy storage [24, 26, 27]. Physical gels are often
reversible and may dissolve by changing environmental conditions, while cross-
linking polymers in the dry state or solution in “permanent” or “chemical” gels result
in the formation of a network having covalent bonds between different macromolec-
ular chains [28]. The hydrogel products can be classified on different bases as source,
configuration, types of crosslinking, physical appearance, and etc. [15, 27, 29].
3.4 Shape Memory Polymers
Smart/intelligent polymers are stimuli-responsive materials that can change their

shapes, mechanical responses, light transmissions, controlled releases, and other
functional properties under external stimuli [30–32]. According to the prominent
role of self-repairing and intelligent polymers in the near future, there is a growing
interest in a new class of materials, so-called shape-memory polymers (SMPs) [31].
Applying different external stimuli, especially heat, electric/magnetic field, light, a
change in pH value, humidity, and redox reaction, results in the change of different
properties of polymers and in specifically, their shapes by undergoing significant
macroscopic deformation [33]. This temporary shape can be recovered into its perma-
nent shape after the release of the external stimulus [34]. The combination of polymer
structure and morphology, along with the applied processing and programming tech-
nology, determines the shape-memory effect of a specific polymer. The netpoints
and switching domains in the molecular architecture of the SMPs control the shape
changes. They can either have physical nature (entanglement coupling, crystalline
phase or copolymers), or chemical origin (covalent bonds). There are comprehen-
sive possible applications of SMPs and their composites, including aerospace engi-
neering, sensors, actuators, morphing structures, artificial muscles, high-performance
textiles, smart fabrics, SMP foams, shrinkable packaging, and self-healing plastic
components in every kind of transportation vehicles [30, 31, 33].
3.5 Self-Cleaning Polymers
As the simplest definition, self-cleaning materials are easily cleaned by a water rinse,
and this feature can be applied in many areas, including exterior surfaces and textiles.
The usage of such materials in windows, paints, satellite dishes, solar energy panels,
and automotive windshields has led to reduced maintenance costs, less labor required,
and no need for detergents which provides minimal impact on the environment [35].
In addition, the application of self-cleaning polymers in the textile industry makes
apparel and outdoor textiles wash-free or with the reduced number of washing cycles,
offering convenience for everyday use and providing additional value to the product
[35].
Two different approaches can be employed to produce self-cleaning surfaces,
which require specific surface topography and chemical design of the surface to
control wettability. In this regard, both superhydrophilic and superhydrophobic mate-
rials can be used. In the case of superhydrophilic polymers, the complete wettability
of the surface allows water to cover the surface entirely and washes all the dirt by
the formation of a continuous film. On the other side, applying superhydrophobic
coatings on the surfaces force the water droplets to form high contact angle on the
surface, easily roll off the surface and pick up dirt particles on their way. This is
called the Lotus effect, which is inspired by the extreme water repellency and self-
cleaning surface effect exhibited in Lotus leaves [36]. Some essential criteria in the
superhydrophobic surfaces should be evaluated, including contact angle (>150°), the
low contact angle hysteresis, low angle of the slide (<10°), self-cleaning ability, and
the elastic collision of liquid droplets [37].
3.6 Biomedical Applications
A standard definition of biomaterial is a nonviable material intended to interact with

biological systems to evaluate, treat, augment, or replace any tissue, organ, or func-
tion of the body [38, 39]. In the last decades, the development of polymeric materials
for biomedical applications has advanced significantly [39]. This is mainly due to
their biodegradability, biocompatibility, antimicrobial activity, non-toxicity, versa-
tile chemical modification along with preferred physical and mechanical properties
[40]. As a result, other materials, such as metals, alloys, and ceramics, are rapidly
replaced by biopolymers. The remarkable features of natural and synthetic biopoly-
mers meet the requirements of advanced biomedical applications, including tempo-
rary implants, three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering, pharmacological
applications such as delivery vehicles for controlled/sustained drug release, wound
healing, chemical sensors, and etc. [38, 41]. The selection of biopolymers for biomed-
ical applications is based on material chemistry, shape structure, molecular weight,
hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity, lubricating property, surface energy, degradation rate,
water absorption, erosion mechanism, and solubility [42].
16 M. Mohamadi
3.7 Energy Generation and Storage
Another crucial area for polymer applications is due to their electrical and energy-
related properties. Energy harvesting devices, actuators, electronic textiles, solar
cells, sensors, piezoelectric nanogenerators, fuel cells, optical switches, and lithog-
raphy can be considered examples of different applications of polymers in this field
[21, 43–45]. Harmful effects and over-consumption of fossil fuels as the primary
energy source have become challenging issues in the case of power supply for future
generations. This is the main motive of scientists towards advanced energy harvesting
technologies from other energy sources as an alternative to fossil fuels and renew-
able energies [44]. An energy harvesting device converts different types of waste
energy (solar, wind, nuclear power, thermal energy, or mechanical vibration) into
electricity and can supply power for low electronic devices. The advantages of energy
harvesters based on mechanical vibrations, such as greater potential, better lifespan,
and comparatively high-power density, are the reasons for the increased attention
to this type of energy source [44]. Electromagnetic, electrostatic, and piezoelectric
effects are the main methods for transforming mechanical vibrations into electricity.
Regarding many available piezoelectric materials for energy harvesting devices, the
piezoelectric effect has been the subject of many researches. Aside from the better
piezoelectric performance of piezoelectric ceramics, their applications in energy
harvesting technology are limited because of the rigidity, brittleness, toxicity, high
density, lower voltage coefficient, and lack of design flexibility [44]. Therefore,
piezoelectric polymers can stand forward as a better candidate.
3.8 Water and Wastewater Treatment
Water pollution as a result of industrial activities has caused severe damage to the
environment. The pollutants added to the wastewater (such as suspended solids,
dyes, pesticides, toxicants, and heavy metals) are primarily toxic, leading to the
accumulation in living organisms and a high risk for their health [42]. Among a
variety of methods employed for the removal of these contaminations, functionalized
polymers can selectively and efficiently deplete specific pollutants due to the presence
of specific functional groups [16]. Their efficiency for targeted contamination and
water treatment method is directly related to the chemical nature of the functional
groups, physical state, and physical features (beads, gels, fibers, membranes) of the
polymer [16]. Various functional groups, including hydroxyl, carboxylic, amines,
phosphonic and sulfonic, are commonly utilized for the removal of specific pollutants
based on their reaction pathways. Some of the advanced properties and applications
of polymers are summarized in Fig. 9.
Fig. 9 Some of the

advanced properties and
applications of polymers
Polymers
4 Conclusions
The commercial importance of polymers, which are known by several common

names as plastics or macromolecules, is not covered by anyone since they have
become integrated into our daily life due to their direct or indirect use in the majority
of commodity items. Therefore, the first chapter of the book provides brief and
systematic coverage of the definition, essential concepts, and different classifica-
tions of polymers that the readers may confront in the following chapters. After
introducing polymers as an essential class of materials, general applications of poly-
mers are addressed. Additionally, some specific properties of polymers are discussed
because they result in the development of numerous advanced products such as
smart packaging, intelligent textiles, energy harvesters, and stimuli-responsive poly-
mers. Biomedical applications of biopolymers have also become an important area of
recent investigations since they meet the critical requirements for tissue engineering,
drug delivery, and wound healing. Hydrogels, shape-memory, self-cleaning, and self-
healing polymers are also introduced in the first chapter regarding their importance
and vast usages in various technological areas. Although the present chapter provides
a glimpse into the fundamental aspects of polymers and a short note on different
applications of plastics, it also emphasizes the massive production of polymers and
generation of the huge amounts of plastic wastes. This causes severe land and water
pollution, which are currently a global concern.
18 M. Mohamadi
References
1. Frias, J.P.G.L., Nash, R.: Microplastics: finding a consensus on the definition. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
138, 145 (2019)
2. da Silva, T.R., de Azevedo, A.R.G., Cecchin, D., Marvila, M.T., Amran, M., Fediuk, R., et al.:
Application of plastic wastes in construction materials: a review using the concept of life-cycle
assessment in the context of recent research for future perspectives. Materials 14, 3549 (2021)
3. Rai, P., Mehrotra, S., Priya, S., Gnansounou, E., Sharma, S.K.: Recent advances in the sustain-
able design and applications of biodegradable polymers. Bioresour. Technol. 325, 124739
(2021)
4. Subramanian, M.N.: Basics of Polymer Chemistry. River Publishers (2017)
5. Narain, R.: Polymer Science and Nanotechnlogy: Fundamentals and Applications. Elsevier
(2020)
6. AlMaadeed, M.A.A., Ponnamma, D., El-samak, A.A.: Polymers to improve the world and
lifestyle: physical, mechanical, and chemical needs. Polym. Sci. Innov. Appl. 1–19 (2020).
Elsevier
7. Saldivar-Guerra, E., Vivaldo-Lima, E.: Handbook of Polymer Synthesis, Characterization, and
Processing. John Wiley & Sons Inc. (2013)
8. Pahari, A.K., Chauhan, B.S.: Engineering Chemistry. Laxmi Publications Ltd. (2006)
9. Kumar, A.: Fundamentals of Polymer Engineering. Marcel Dekker, Inc. (2003)
10. Ram, A.: Fundamentals of Polymer Engineering. Springer Science and Business Media, LLC
(1997)
11. Abbasi, E., Aval, S.F., Akbarzadeh, A., Milani, M., Nasrabadi, H.T., Joo, S.W., et al.:
Dendrimers: synthesis, applications, and properties. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 9, 247 (2014)
12. Bower, D.I.: An Introduction to Polymer Physics. Cambridge University Press (2002)
13. Xavier, S.F.: Thermoplastic Polymer Composites: Processing, Properties, Performance, Appli-
cations and Recyclability. John Wiley & Sons Inc. (2022)
14. Murray, G.T.: Handbook of Materials Selection for Engineering Applications. Marcel Dekker,
Inc. (1997)
15. Leyva-jim, F.J., Oliver-simancas, R., Castangia, I., Rodríguez-García, A.M., Ala, M.E.:
Comprehensive review of natural based hydrogels as an upcoming trend for food packing.
Food Hydrocolloids 135, 108124 (2023)
16. Makvandi, P., Iftekhar, S., Pizzetti, F., Zarepour, A., Zare, E.N., Ashrafizadeh, M., et al.:
Functionalization of polymers and nanomaterials for water treatment, food packaging, textile
and biomedical applications: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 19, 583 (2021)
17. Zhong, Y., Godwin, P., Jin, Y., Xiao, H.: Biodegradable polymers and green-based antimicrobial
packaging materials: a mini-review. Adv. Ind. Eng. Polym. Res. 3, 27 (2020)
18. Wu, F., Misra, M., Mohanty, A.K.: Challenges and new opportunities on barrier performance
of biodegradable polymers for sustainable packaging. Prog. Polym. Sci. 117, 101395 (2021)
19. Umaraw, P., Munekata, P.E.S., Verma, A.K., Barba, F.J., Singh, V.P., Kumar, P., et al.: Edible
films/coating with tailored properties for active packaging of meat, fish and derived products.
Trends Food Sci. Technol. 98, 10 (2020)
20. Geueke, B.: Bioplastics as food contact materials. In: Food Packaging Forum, pp. 1–8 (2014)
21. Carpi, F., De Rossi, D.: Electroactive polymer-based devices for e-textiles in biomedicine.
IEEE Trans. Inf Technol. Biomed. 9, 295 (2005)
22. Shi, J., Liu, S., Zhang, L., Yang, B., Shu, L., Yang, Y., et al.: Smart textile-integrated
microelectronic systems for wearable applications. Adv. Mater. 32, 1901958 (2019)
23. Hu, J., Meng, H., Li, G., Ibekwe, S.I.: A review of stimuli-responsive polymers for smart textile
applications. Smart Mater. Struct. 21, 053001 (2012)
24. He, X., Lu, Q.: Design and fabrication strategies of cellulose nanocrystal-based hydrogel and
its highlighted application using 3D printing: a review. Carbohyd. Polym. 301, 120351 (2023)
25. Kabiri, K., Omidian, H., Doroudiani, S., Mp, T.O.N., Street, K.: Superabsorbent hydrogel
composites and nanocomposites : a review. Polym. Compos. 32, 277 (2011)
26. Kamoun, E.A., Kenawy, E.R.S., Chen, X.: A review on polymeric hydrogel membranes for
wound dressing applications: PVA-based hydrogel dressings. J. Adv. Res. 8, 217 (2017)
27. Ahmed, E.M.: Hydrogel: preparation, characterization, and applications. J. Adv. Res. 6, 105
(2015)
28. Caló, E., Khutoryanskiy, V.V.: Biomedical applications of hydrogels: a review of patents and
commercial products. Eur. Polymer J. 65, 252 (2015)
29. Madduma-Bandarage, U.S.K., Madihally, S.V.: Synthetic hydrogels : synthesis, novel trends,
and applications. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 138, 50376 (2020)
30. Dayyoub, T., Maksimkin, A.V., Filippova, O.V., Tcherdyntsev, V.V., Telyshev, D.V.: Shape
memory polymers as smart materials : a review. Polymers 14, 3511 (2022)
31. Lendlein, A., Kelch, S.: Shape-memory polymers. Angew. Chem. 41, 2034 (2002)
32. Roy, D., Cambre, J.N., Sumerlin, B.S.: Future perspectives and recent advances in stimuli-
responsive materials. Prog. Polym. Sci. 35, 278 (2010)
33. Leng, J., Lan, X., Liu, Y., Du, S.: Progress in Materials Science Shape-memory polymers and
their composites : stimulus methods and applications. Prog. Mater Sci. 56, 1077 (2011)
34. Meng, H., Li, G.: A review of stimuli-responsive shape memory polymer composites. Polymer
54, 2199 (2013)
35. Sas, I., Gorga, R.E., Joines, J.A., Thoney, K.A.: Literature review on superhydrophobic self-
cleaning surfaces produced by electrospinning. J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys. 50, 824
(2012)
36. Sethi, S.K., Manik, G., Sahoo, S.K.: Fundamentals of superhydrophobic surfaces. Superhy-
drophobic Polym. Coat. Fundam. Des. Fabr. Appl. 3–29 (2019). Elsevier Inc.
37. Wei, D.W., Wei, H., Gauthier, A.C., Song, J., Jin, Y., Xiao, H.: Superhydrophobic modification
of cellulose and cotton textiles : methodologies and applications. J. Bioresour. Bioprod. 5, 1
(2020)
38. Ratner, B.D., Bryant, S.J.: Biomaterials: where we have been and where we are going. Annu.
Rev. Biomed. Eng. 6, 41 (2004)
39. Song, R., Murphy, M., Li, C., Ting, K., Soo, C., Zheng, Z.: Current development of
biodegradable polymeric materials for biomedical applications. Drug Des. Dev. Ther. 12, 3117
(2018)
40. Lim, S., Hudson, S.M.: Review of chitosan and its derivatives as antimicrobial agents and their
uses as textile chemicals. J. Macromol. Sci. - Part C Polym. Rev. 43, 223 (2003)
41. Ding, J., Zhang, J., Li, J., Li, D., Xiao, C., Xiao, H., et al.: Electrospun polymer biomaterials.
Prog. Polym. Sci. 90, 1 (2019)
42. Kouhi, M., Prabhakaran, M.P., Ramakrishna, S.: Edible polymers: an insight into its application
in food, biomedicine and cosmetics. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 103, 248 (2020)
43. Smela, E.: Conjugated polymer actuators for biomedical applications. Adv. Mater. 15, 481
(2003)
44. Mishra, S., Unnikrishnan, L., Nayak, S.K., Mohanty, S.: Advances in piezoelectric polymer
composites for energy harvesting applications: a systematic review. Macromol. Mater. Eng.
304, 1800463 (2019)
45. Surmenev, R.A., Orlova, T., Chernozem, R.V., Ivanova, A.A., Bartasyte, A., Mathur, S., et al.:
Hybrid lead-free polymer-based nanocomposites with improved piezoelectric response for
biomedical energy-harvesting applications: a review. Nano Energy 62, 475 (2019)
Collected Plastic Waste Forecasting
by 2050
Amir Reza Gharibi, Reza Babazade, and Rezgar Hasanzadeh
Abstract The public’s attention has been drawn to the severe increase of plastic
waste. Researchers from many sectors are working to develop various solutions
for plastic waste treatment and management. Exact forecasting and estimation of
collected plastic waste helps decision makers to take efficient policies for recycling,
treatment or disposal of different types of plastic waste. Estimation is an important
tool for making informed decisions. Regardless of the size and profile of the company,
forecasting helps the organization’s management predict the trend of important indi-
cators. Different statistical algorithms and machine learning methods are utilized to
assess the future trends in light of historical data and current patterns. In this chapter,
different regression models and autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA)
techniques are used to forecast the collected plastic waste by 2050.
Keywords Plastic production · Plastic waste · Forecasting · Regression · ARIMA
1 Introduction
Future prediction has always piqued people’s curiosity, from shamanic rites to horo-
scopes and weather forecasts. As a result, the term “Futurology” has become the
catch-all for everything linked to making predictions about the future. Futurology
is the study of potential futures via the examination of both recent and historical
patterns. Practitioners frequently refer to it as futures. It is a methodical attempt to
foretell the future by analyzing past and current trends. The futurists use a variety
of approaches, including computer modeling, statistical methods, machine learning
techniques and the Delphi method [1].
A broad category of additives and polymers with a range of chemical and physical
properties are referred to be plastic in general. A few examples of the finished goods
A. R. Gharibi · R. Babazade (B)

Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
e-mail: r.babazadeh@urmia.ac.ir
R. Hasanzadeh
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

22 A. R. Gharibi et al.
are synthetic fibers used in the textile or fishing industries, buoys, food wrapping,
plastic bottles, and fishing lines. Plastic contamination is as widespread as plastic
consumption. An unparalleled environmental calamity is being brought on by an
estimated ten million tons of plastic leaking into the ocean annually. Due to technical
constraints and disorganized evaluation campaigns, measuring or forecasting this
issue is a difficult endeavor. Extrusion, molding, casting, or spinning are just a few
of the numerous methods that can be used to shape plastic materials. Modern plastics
(or polymers) have several highly desirable features, including a high strength-to-
weight ratio, outstanding thermal properties, electrical insulation, and resistance to
acids, alkalis, and solvents, to mention a few. Plastics are crucial for usage in many
applications because they have distinctive properties, such as their strength, electrical
and thermal insulation performance, flexibility, processability, and durability [2].
Beginning in the 1950s, the commercial production of plastics has experienced
phenomenal expansion, reaching the worldwide annual production of 459 million
metric tons (Mt) for 2019. This amount is closer to 459 Mt when the resin used in
textile fiber spinning is included, which is an interesting value because it corresponds
to the global human biomass. Within the next 20 years, production of plastics is
predicted to double at the current rate of increase. Plastics’ remarkable success in
construction and packaging, the two principal applications of plastics, is unmatched
by any rival material [3].
The statics of waste generation by different sectors are illustrated in Fig. 1 [4].
According to this figure, packaging sector generates remarkable plastic waste world-
wide and needs more attentions by decision makers. Also, building and construction,
and textile sectors are the next important sectors having remarkable share of plastic
waste generation worldwide.
Packaging 146
Building and Construction 65
Textiles 59
Other sectors 47
Consumer & Institutional products 42
Transportation 27
Electrical/Electronic 18
Industrial machinery
0 40 80 120 160
Plastic waste generation (Mt)
Fig. 1 Global plastic waste generation by industrial sector in 2015

Collected Plastic Waste Forecasting by 2050 23
0.8
Plastic waste (kg/person/day)

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Country
Fig. 2 Daily global plastic waste generation per capita
Packaging makes for 60% of all plastic waste produced in Europe and accounts for
40% of the demand for plastic. The European commission (EC) has made plastics a
priority material in its first action plan for the circular economy, which was followed
by an extensive strategy for plastics in a circular economy to reduce their detrimental
effects. By 2030, the strategy hopes to encourage recycling, influence product design
to make it simple and straightforward to recycle, and support the development of a
healthy secondary plastics market in Europe [5]. Figure 2 indicates the 10 countries
with the highest per capita rate of plastic waste generation [4].
Population growth and, as a result, growing global plastic consumption in recent
years have generated increasing amounts of plastic garbage, raising awareness of
the need for its management [6]. Plastics in use, post-consumer managed plastic
waste, and mismanaged plastic waste, which includes urban litter, are the three
main fractions of plastics in the world environment [7]. Plastics used in packaging
have a very brief in-use phase, which causes them to predominate in municipal
plastic garbage and, consequently, improperly managed waste. Mismanaged trash
also includes garbage that is not properly confined, like that found in open dumps,
and is consequently spread by runoff and wind in addition to urban litter [8].
2 Preliminary Data Analysis
The common use of plastics, and as a result, the generation of plastic waste on a large
scale has caused serious environmental problems that require proper management and
control of plastic waste generation in the future [9]. Since many factors can influence
waste trends, an accurate forecast of waste generation is a crucial first step for effective
waste management system planning. Statistical and machine learning models are
helpful tools that provide trustworthy support for decision-making processes [10].
For this purpose, plastic production dataset from 1950 to 2019 [4], and plastic
waste dataset from 1970 to 2015 [7] were analyzed and forecasted until 2050 using
the mentioned dataset. Due to the fact that the datasets are time series, statistical
models and time series forecasting algorithms should be selected. For this purpose,
four different models have been selected to develop: simple linear regression, 2nd-
order polynomial regression, ARIMA, and finally the LSTM algorithm. All the
methods mentioned are classic statistical methods except the LSTM algorithm, which
is based on deep learning [11]. Although LSTM has been selected, we are restricted
to the Arima model’s outcomes because of its solid performance and do not discuss
neural networks or deep learning techniques. Therefore, in this work, three of the
four mentioned algorithms were investigated: simple linear regression, 2nd-order
polynomial regression, and ARIMA.
2.1 Global Plastic Production
To check the trend, the data has been visualized using a simple plot (see Fig. 3).
According to Fig. 3, the global plastic production has increased significantly from 2
to 460 Mt between 1950 and 2019. In 2009, plastic production had a small fluctuation,
probably due to the economic crisis of 2008.
Table 1 indicates the statistical parameters including the mean, absolute deviation,
minimum and maximum values for global plastic production from 1950 to 2019.
500
450
Global plastic production (Mt)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Year
Fig. 3 Global plastic production from 1950 to 2019

Table 1 Statistical
Global plastics production
information for global
plastics production dataset Record count 70
Mean (tons) 136,341,478
Std (tons) 131,479,820
Min (tons) 2,000,000
Max (tons) 459,745,870
2.2 Global Plastic Waste Generation
Figure 4 illustrates the plastic waste generation from 1970 to 2015. According to
Fig. 4, the global plastic waste generation has increased significantly from 9 to 252
Mt between 1991 and 2015. This could be due to the move of countries towards
industrialization.
Table 2 shows the statistical information about plastic waste generation from 1970
to 2015.
300
250
Global plastic waste generation (Mt)
200
150
100
50
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year
Fig. 4 Global plastic waste generation from 1970 to 2015

Table 2 Statistical
Plastic waste generation
information for plastic waste
generation data set Record count 46
Mean (tons) 129,300,000
Std (tons) 63,200,000
Min (tons) 37,000,000
Max (tons) 252,000,000
3 Models for Time Series Forecasting
3.1 Regression
Regression analysis is a type of predictive modeling technique that looks at

how a dependent and independent variable are related. Although there are many
different forms of regressions, including “linear regression”, “polynomial regres-
sion”, “logistic regression”, and others, we will focus on “linear regression” and
“polynomial regression” in this chapter [12].
3.2 Simple Linear Regression
Linear regression is a basic and commonly used type of predictive analysis which
usually works on continuous data. An effective technique for determining the value
of a continuous target variable is regression method. The first model that is used is
simple linear regression, where a single continuous predictor variable and a single
continuous response variable are roughly correlated using a straight line [13].
3.2.1 Assumptions of Simple Linear Regression
These assumptions are considered for the simple linear regression:

1. Homoscedasticity: across the range of values of the independent variable, the
magnitude of the error in our forecast remains rather constant.
2. Independence of observations: there are no hidden correlations among the obser-
vations in the dataset, which was assembled using statistically sound sampling
techniques.
3. Normality: the data is distributed normally.
4. The dependent and independent variables have a linear relationship. A straight
line forms the best fit through the data points (instead of a curve or grouping
factor of any kind) [14].
The formula for a simple linear regression is:
y = β0 + β1 x + ∈ (1)
where y is the predicted value of the dependent variable for any given value of the
independent variable (x), β0 is the intercept, β1 is the regression coefficient, and ε is
the error of the estimate.
The above equation is the linear equation that needs to be obtained with the
minimum error. The values ‘β1 ’ and ‘β0 ’ must be chosen so that they minimize the
error. To reduce the error, the cost function is used.
3.2.2 Error Measurement (Cost Function)
The cost function is used to assess how well a machine learning model performed
given a set of data. The cost function quantifies and presents the difference between
the anticipated and expected values as a single real number. Depending on the
problem at hand, many approaches can be used to generate cost functions. Cost
function should either be decreased or maximized. There are many cost functions
used to measure the effectiveness of the model for instance: MSE (mean square
error), MAE (mean absolute error) and MAPE (mean absolute percentage error). In
this study, MAPE has been utilized to assess the models’ efficacy [15].
3.2.3 R-Squared
R-squared is a statistical metric that illustrates how much the variation of a dependent
variable in a regression model is explained by one or more independent variables.
R-squared, as opposed to correlation, which reflects the strength of the link between
independent and dependent variables, assesses how well the variation of one variable
accounts for the variance of the second.
R-squared estimates the relationship between the movements of a dependent vari-
able based on an independent variable movement. It does not measure how the chosen
model works, and it cannot recognize whether the data and predictions are biased.
Due to the mentioned limitations, in this work, it has been preferred to use MAPE
to evaluate deployed models [16].
3.2.4 MAPE (Mean Absolute Percentage Error)
The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) measures accuracy of a forecast system.
It measures this accuracy as a percentage, and can be calculated as the average
absolute percent error for each time period minus actual values divided by actual
values. The MAPE is the most common measure used to measure forecast error,
probably because the variable units are scaled to percentage units, which makes it
easier to understand [17].

1 n At − Ft
M AP E = (2)
n t=1 At
where n is the number of fitted points, At is the actual value, Ft is the forecast value,
and ∑ is summation notation (the absolute value is summed for every forecasted
point in time).
3.3 Polynomial Regression
Polynomial regression is a type of regression analysis that uses an nth-degree poly-

nomial in x to model the relationship between the independent variable x and the
dependent variable. It is common practice to fit polynomial regression models using
the least squares fitting approach. Because of the Gauss-Markov theorem’s criteria,
the unbiased estimators of the coefficients’ variance are reduced by using the least-
squares approach [18]. The goal of regression analysis is to express the value of an
independent variable (or a vector of independent variables) in terms of the value
that will be assigned to a dependent variable, y. Model for simple linear regression
(Eq. 1), a scalar variable called x-conditioned unobserved random error with a mean
of zero is used. In this model, for every unit increase in the value of x, the conditional
expectation of y increases by one unit [19].
In many situations, such a linear relationship might not be accurate. For instance,
if we model the relationship between time of day and the altitude of the sun, we can
discover that the location of sun does not change linear. We could suggest a quadratic
model of the following type in this scenario:
y = β0 + β1 x + β2 x 2 + ε (3)
In this model, the predicted altitude varies by β1 + β2 (2x + 1) when the time of
day is changed from x to x + 1 unit. Even if the model is linear in the parameters that
need to be estimated, the fact that the change in altitude relies on x is what makes
the connection between x and y nonlinear. The generic polynomial regression model
results from modelling the predicted value of y as an nth degree polynomial:
y = β0 + β1 x + β2 x 2 + β3 x 3 + ... + βn x n + ε (4)
Conveniently, since the regression function is linear in terms of the unknown

parameters, from an estimating standpoint, each of these models is linear. The compu-
tational and inferential problems of polynomial regression for least squares analysis
can be therefore completely addressed by multiple regression methodologies. In a
multiple regression model, the model is achieved by treating x1 , x2 and etc. as unique
independent variables [20].
3.4 Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA)
The differenced autoregressive model and the moving average model are combined
to form the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model. It is written
as:
y ' t = I + α1 y ' t−1 + α2 y ' t−2 + · · · + α p y ' t− p + et + θ1 et−1 + θ2 et−2 + · · ·

+ θq et−q (5)
The model can be broken down into smaller parts as follows in accordance with
the name:
• AR: An autoregressive model that depicts a particular kind of random process.
The model’s output is directly related to its own prior value, represented by the
number of lagged data points or previous observations.
• MA: A moving average model is one whose output is linearly dependent on the
current and a number of previous observations of a stochastic variable.
• I: Integrated refers to the process of generating stationary time series data through
differencing, which involves removing the seasonal and trend components.
The time series is regressed on its own historical data, as seen by the AR component
of ARIMA. The forecast error is a linear combination of the previous respective
mistakes, according to the MA component of ARIMA. As required by the ARIMA
model technique, the I part of ARIMA demonstrates that the data values have been
swapped out for different d values in order to provide stationary data [21].
According to Eqs. (3)–(5), the moving average part’s lagged q errors and the
autoregressive part’s lagged p data points (both of which are differenced) are the
predictors. The differenced yth in the dth order is the prediction. The ARIMA (p, d,
q) model is used to describe this. When ARIMA learns from the training data in a time
series, it estimates the coefficients for a given p, d, q. The p, d, and q specifications
can be challenging (and a significant constraint), but one can experiment with other
combinations and assess the model’s effectiveness. After specifying p, d, and q for
the ARIMA model, the coefficients of Eqs. (3)–(5) must be estimated. The maximum
likelihood estimation (MLE) is the most used method of estimation.
Similar to the least square estimation for the regression equation, MLE calculates
the model’s coefficients in a method that maximizes the likelihood that the real data
will be found. The models that will be explored in this chapter are ARIMA (1,2,1)
and ARIMA (2,2,2) [22].
4 Projections Until 2050 Using Mentioned Algorithms
4.1 Global Plastic Production Forecasting
4.1.1 Global Plastic Production Forecasting Using Linear Regression
To develop a simple linear regression model using the global plastic production
data set, first the characteristics (input variables) must be properly preprocessed. To
preprocess, there are two kinds of features unique for time series: time-step features
and lag features. In this work, we have used time-step feature to develop a simple
linear regression model. Features that could be generated directly from the time index
are known as time-step features. The time dummy, which counts off time steps in
the series from start to finish, is the most basic time-step feature. As Table 3 shows,
time-step feature is added to the data to preprocess timeseries data in order to develop
linear regression model.
After the time step feature is added to the data, it should be ready to develop the
model. For this purpose, a constant value is added to the data as shown in Table 4.
Now the data is ready to develop a regression model. The data train data has been
preprocessed as Table 4.
Table 3 Global plastic

Year Global plastics production (tons) Time-step feature
production data with added
time-step feature 1950 2,000,000 0
1951 2,000,000 1
1952 2,000,000 2
… … …
2017 420,052,500 67
2018 441,055,125 68
2019 459,745,870 69
Table 4 Preprocessed global

Constant x
plastic production data for
simple linear regression 1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
… …
1 57
1 58
1 59
1 60
500
Global
plastics
production
Global plastic production(Mt)
400
Linear
regression
300
200
100
0
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
-100
Year
Fig. 5 Fitted line using regression on train data of global plastic production
To test and validate the built model after training, the data set is divided into
two parts, test and train. The data from 1950 to 2010 are considered as the train
data and from 2011 to 2019 as the test data. According to Fig. 5, linear regression
cannot fit well on the data and the model has an underfitting problem with R2 of 0.86.
According to Fig. 5, it cannot be expected that the model (Eq. 6) will perform well
on the test data. To illustrate the validation performed on the test data, Fig. 6 is used.
To evaluate the performance of the model on the test data, the MAPE has been used,
and the number obtained for linear regression is 27.62.
y = −51163405.61 + 5016922.26x + ε (6)
As the results showed in Fig. 6, the linear regression model showed a poor perfor-
mance even on test data, and it cannot be expected that the model would show a good
performance on test data; therefore, it has not been used to forecast data until 2050.
4.1.2 Global Plastic Production Forecasting Using Polynomial

Regression
According to the plot of global plastic production (Fig. 3), it is expected that polyno-
mial regression will regress data better, compared to linear regression; therefore, the
2nd-degree polynomial regression is implemented on the global plastic production
data to forecast plastic production until 2050. The train data has been preprocessed
and transformed as Table 5.
The polynomial regression model coefficients are estimated as β0 =8,214,096.85,
β1 = −1,021,467.82 and β2 = 100,639.83, and the final equation for polynomial
regression is:
600
500
Global plastic production(Mt)
400
300
200
100
0
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
-100
Year
Linear regression Global plastics production Forecasted Actual Split line
Fig. 6 Global plastic production data forecasting from 2010 to 2019 using linear regression
Table 5 Preprocessed global

Constant x x2
plastic production data for
2nd degree polynomial 1 0 0
regression 1 1 1
1 2 4
1 3 9
… … …
1 57 3249
1 58 3364
1 59 3481
1 60 3600
y = 8214096.85 − 1021467.82x + 100639.83x 2 (7)
According to Fig. 7, 2nd-degree polynomial regression performance is accept-

able on test data that has considered plastic production from 2010 to 2019. Plastic
production in 2019 was approximately 460 Mt, and the polynomial model estimated
417 Mt. Because the model performed well, the projection was extended until 2050.
The forecasted values are 571 Mt in the year 2030 and 912 Mt in the year 2050, but as
Fig. 7 shows, it seems that the model underestimates plastic production. Therefore,
we do not limit ourselves to this model and go to the Arima model.
The forecast made using the 2nd degree regression model has an R-squared value
of 77.78% and the MAPE is 4.36%. 2nd-degree polynomial regression has better
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060
Year
Global plastic production Validation Forecast Split line
Fig. 7 Global plastic production data forecasting from 2019 to 2050 using 2nd degree polynomial
regression
Table 6 Comparison of the linear regression and the 2nd degree polynomial regression models to
forecast global plastic production with respect to MAPE values
Model MAPE (%)
Linear regression 27.62
2nd-degree polynomial regression 4.36
performance than simple linear regression to forecast the global plastic production. To
compare the performance of the models, their MAPE values have been presented in
Table 6. The results show that the 2nd-degree polynomial regression models have
significantly smaller MAPE value compared to the linear regression model.
4.1.3 Global Plastic Production Forecasting Using ARIMA
The first step to build an ARIMA model is to make timeseries data stationary. It is
obvious in Fig. 3 that the data has an upward trend and is not stationary. Furthermore,
the results of the ADF test show that the data is not stationary and that a first difference
should be made. The ACF displays how the time series and its own lag-time values
correlate. It shows the relationship between the series and its previous values. PACF
displays every further correlation, which is explained by the lag term that follows. The
correlation between observations made at two different times, taking into account
that both observations have relationships with observations made at other times.
The autocorrelation function (ACF) plot (Fig. 8a) is declining gradually with lags,
and the partial autocorrelation function (PACF) plot (Fig. 8b) is significant only for
two lags. This situation shows an AR(2) process, but the data is not stationary, and
the difference should be determined before the ACF and PACF plots are investigated.
To make the time series data stationary, the differencing method has been used.
The first difference has been conducted for plastic production data (Table 7) to
make it stationary. In the differencing process, it is clear that the first record of data
is removed; in this case, the record for 1950 has been removed.
After the first difference (Table 7), the graph (Fig. 9a) is usually checked to find
out whether the data is stationary or not. In case of being stationary, augmented
dickey fuller (ADF) test is performed to fully ensure the stability of the data. If the
data is not stationary, the second difference is performed. According to Fig. 9a, it is
a bit hard to consider the stationarity, therefore, the ADF test has been conducted.
Fig. 8 a ACF plot of initial global plastic production data, b PACF plot of initial global plastic
production data
Table 7 First difference data

Year Global plastic production (tons) Difference 1
for stationarity of global
plastic production data 1950 2,000,000
1951 2,000,000 0
1952 2,000,000 0
1953 3,000,000 1,000,000
… … …
2008 281,000,000 −14,000,000
2009 288,000,000 7,000,000
2010 313,000,000 25,000,000
The p-value is 0.78; the null hypothesis has been rejected (the null hypothesis of
the ADF test is that the time series is non-stationary). Due to the ADF test result,
the second difference should be conducted to make the timeseries data stationary. In
addition, ACF (Fig. 9b) and PACF (Fig. 9c) should be checked to find p and q values
for ARIMA but the data has not been stationary yet. Table 8 shows the results of the
second difference, which begin in 1953 because the second record that belongs to
year 1952 was removed after the second difference.
The second difference has been done and the previous steps should be taken to
check the data stationarity. From the Fig. 10a, it is obvious that the data are stationary,
and to ensure the hypothesis of stationarity, the ADF test has been performed and
the obtained p-value is 0. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted and the value for
d is two (the data has been stationary in two differences). After achieving the data
stationarity ACF (Fig. 10b) and PACF (Fig. 10c) plots in second difference should
be used to determine the values for p and q.
2 differences have been done to make the data stationary, and the d value is two.
To determine the q, first lag in ACF plot (Fig. 10b) is significant because q is equal
to one. In PACF plot (Fig. 10c), the first lag is also significant because p is equal
to one. If there were two or three lags that were significant, the simpler model is
better to be built. The final model which has been built is ARIMA (1,2,1). Statistical
results for ARIMA (1,2,1) are shown in Table 9, MA (1) coefficient is not significant
statistically but coefficient for AR (1) and constant value are significant statistically
(<<0.05).
After building the model, the residuals are plotted to ensure that there are no
patterns (to check constant mean and variance). According to Fig. 11, the residual
errors seem fine with near zero mean and uniform variance.
The model building process is done, the built model should be evaluated. Figure 11
illustrates how the model has been fitted. According to Fig. 12, the ARIMA model fits
well on global plastic production, with an R-squared value of 94% and a MAPE value
of 2.91%, demonstrating the model’s high performance. For example, in 2019, the
actual value for plastic production was nearly 459.745 Mt, while ARIMA forecasted
it at 459.633 Mt. Because of the ARIMA model’s excellent performance, projections
Fig. 9 a Global plastic production line plot after first difference, b ACF plot of global plastic
production after first difference, c PACF plot of global plastic production after first difference
Table 8 Second difference

Year Global plastic production Difference 1 Difference 2
data for stationarity of global
(tons)
plastic production data
1950 2,000,000
1951 2,000,000 0
1952 2,000,000 0 0
1953 3,000,000 1,000,000 −1,000,000
… … …
2008 281,000,000 −14,000,000 29,000,000
2009 288,000,000 7,000,000 −21,000,000
2010 313,000,000 25,000,000 −18,000,000
have been made until 2050, resulting in plastic production amounts of 670 tons Mt
and 1.18 billion tons Bt in 2030 and 2050, respectively.
Table 10 compare the models from the MAPE value viewpoint. According to the
results, the ARIMA (1,2,1) has the MAPE value of 2.91% which is significantly
smaller than the linear regression and the 2nd degree polynomial regression models.
This shows that the ARIMA model has better performance between the three models
have been deployed to forecast the global plastic production.
4.2 Global Plastic Waste Generation
4.2.1 Global Plastic Waste Generation Forecasting Using Linear

Regression
The same models applied to plastic production data were also applied to plastic waste
generation data because of the similarity and correlation between the two data sets. To
develop a simple linear regression model using the global plastic waste generation
data set, first the characteristics (input variable) must be properly preprocessed.
Time-step feature is added to main data from 1970 to 2015 (Table 11).
To preprocess the data, the time step feature was added as in the previous linear
regression model (Table 4), and the data was transformed as Table 12 with a constant
column and the time-step feature:
To test and validate the built model after training, the data set is divided into two
parts, test and train. The data from 1970 to 2010 are considered as the train data
and from 2011 to 2019 as the test data. Figure 13 illustrates how a linear regression
model regressed plastic waste generation data from 1970 to 2015. The actual amount
of plastic waste generated in 2015 was 252 metric tons Mt, while the forecasted
amount using a linear regression model was 221 Mt. This is not a desirable result,
therefore, polynomial regression and ARIMA models were developed in Sect. 3.4.
Fig. 10 a Global plastic production line plot after second difference, b ACF plot of global plastic
production after second difference, c PACF plot of global plastic production after second difference
Table 9 Results for ARIMA

ARIMA (1,2,1) Coef P > |z|
(1,2,1)
const 423,700.00 0.00
AR1 −0.02 0.00
MA1 −0.83 0.39
Fig. 11 Residual plots for ARIMA (1,2,1)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060
Year
Global plastic production Validation Forecast Split line
Fig. 12 Global plastic production data forecasting from 2019 to 2050 using ARIMA (1,2,1)
Table 10 Comparison of
Model MAPE (%)
models used to forecast
global plastic production with Linear regression 27.62
respect to MAPE values 2nd-degree polynomial regression 4.36
ARIMA (1,2,1) 2.91
Table 11 Global plastics

Year Global plastics waste generation (Mt) Time-step feature
waste generation with added
time-step feature data 1970 48 0
1971 46 1
1972 37 2
… … …
2013 241 43
2014 246.5 44
2015 252 45
Table 12 Preprocessed
constant x
global plastic waste
generation data for linear 1 0
regression 1 1
1 2
… …
1 43
1 44
1 45
The forecast that was made using the linear regression model has an R-squared
value of 0.93% on train data, and the MAPE value is 10.29% on test data. The
implemented linear regression model equation is:
y = 31.2125 + 4.228397x + ε (8)
4.2.2 Global Plastic Waste Generation Forecasting Using 2nd Degree

Polynomial Regression
According to the Fig. 4, which visualizes the trend in data, the 2nd degree polynomial
regression has been implemented. The time-step features should also be preprocessed
before developing the model as described in Sect. 3.4. As Fig. 14 shows, polynomial
regression had a good performance on test data from 2010 to 2015; the actual value of
the plastic waste generation amount is 252 Mt, whereas it has been forecasted at 265
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Year
Plastic waste generation Validation Forecast
Split line Regression line
Fig. 13 Global plastic waste generation data forecasting from 2019 to 2050 using linear regression
Mt. The projection was made until 2050 using 2nd degree polynomial regression,
and the amounts of plastic waste generation that were forecasted are 418 Mt and 685
Mt in 2030 and 2050, respectively.
The forecast that was made using the 2nd degree polynomial regression as
expected was better compared to linear model, the value obtained for MAPE is
3.91%. To compare the models with more details the Table 13 has been provided.
The models’ performance was compared using the MAPE value, as shown in Table
13. The MAPE value for the polynomial model is far superior to the linear model.
4.2.3 Global Plastic Waste Generation Forecasting Using ARIMA
To implement the model as in the section—all the steps have been implemented so
that the data is stationary, The plastic waste data became stationary with the second
difference, and after testing the stationarity of the data for more certainty, using the
ADF test, the ACF and PACF charts to determine the values p and q were used, and
the value of two was obtained for both, and after specifying the parameters of the
model, the ARIMA (2,2,2) model was built, and the results obtained from the model
are shown in the Table 14. The P-values of the constant and AR(2), MA(1), MA(2)
terms are significant (<0.05) but the AR(1) coefficient is not significant.
The residuals also were plotted mean was zero and the variance was uniform.
According to Fig. 15, the ARIMA model has shown extremely good performance
on test data from 2010 to 2015; for instance, the forecasted amount of plastic waste
generation was 256(Mt) while the actual amount is 252 Mt. Therefore, projections
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Year
Plastic waste generation Validation Forecast Split line
Fig. 14 Global plastic waste generation data forecasting from 2019 to 2050 using 2nd degree
polynomial regression
Model MAPE (%)
global plastic waste Linear regression 10.29
generation, by MAPE values 2nd degree polynomial regression 3.91
Table 14 Results for

ARIMA (2,2,2) Coef P > |z|
ARIMA (2,2,2)
const 0.1085 0
AR1 −0.4114 0.842
AR2 −0.2811 0
MA1 −0.9758 0.02
MA2 −0.0241 0.03
were made until 2050 using ARIMA, and the obtained values for the amount of
plastic waste generation in 2030 and 2050 are 377 Mt and 576 Mt, respectively.
According to the chart, the model is well fitted on the data for accurate evaluation
of model the R-squared values is 86% and MAPE value is 1.7%, which according
to the Table 15 ARIMA model performs better than the previous two models from
the MAPE point of view. Due to the results shown in Table 15, ARIMA is the best
model to do projections on global plastic waste generation amount.
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Year
Plastic waste generation Validation Forecast Split line
Fig. 15 Global plastic waste generation data forecasting from 2019 to 2050 using Arima (2,2,2)
Model MAPE (%)
global plastic waste Linear Regression 10.29
generation by MAPE values 2nd-degree polynomial regression 3.91
ARIMA (2,2,2) 1.7
5 Plastic Waste Management Scenarios
Feedstock recycling, mechanical recycling, incineration, and landfill are the four
options depending on the categorization of [23]. Burned or dumped plastic garbage
was considered to be treated as a part of the municipal solid waste stream. The
scenarios have been categorized according to the dominant technology that is
modelled in each one, even though some of the scenarios for managing plastic waste
involve multiple technologies for treatment, such as material and/or energy recovery
and the disposal of residual solid waste from these processes in landfills. Tech-
nologies for mechanical recycling involved steps such as polymer type separation,
decontamination, size reduction, remelting, and extrusion into pellets. Near-infrared
sorting and sink/float density separation were two sorting methods modeled in the
life cycle assessment (LCA) study.
The definition of feedstock recycling is the conversion of plastic polymers back
into hydrocarbon products that can be utilized as chemical feedstock or in the
synthesis of new polymers through the application of heat or chemical agents [24].
Among the feedstock recycling methods assessed by the studies were pyrolysis,
gasification, hydrocracking, the use of plastic waste as a reducing agent in blast
furnaces to create steel, and the Watech and Stigsnaes processes for PVC waste.
It was believed that the byproducts of these operations may take the place of new
chemical feedstock.
Among the incinerator technologies taken into account in the LCA studies were
the burning of plastic waste as part of a solid recovered fuel (SRF) and the combustion
of municipal solid waste (MSW). In each scenario, energy recovery was assessed
as either heat and electricity, heat alone, or electricity alone. The type of energy
recovered is based on assumptions made in accordance with the national rules and
infrastructure already in place.
6 Conclusions
The primary analysis was done for the collected data, which analyzed the generation
of plastic waste by industry sector and the country, that the packaging industry has
the highest amount of plastic waste generation among other industrial sectors, and
the country of Kuwait also has the highest waste generation rate per person among
the surveyed countries.
Regression and ARIMA models were implemented on the data of global plastic
production and global production of plastic waste to forecast data until the year 2050,
and the results are as follows:
The models were implemented in two parts on 2 collected datasets, the first part
is the global plastic production data, in which 3 simple linear regression models,
2nd degree regression and Arima model were implemented. Based on the MAPE
obtained for each model, it is 27.62, 4.36 and 2.91%, respectively, that the Arima
model had the best performance among the three implemented models.
Due to the correlation of two datasets, the same models were implemented on
global plastic waste generation data, due to trend of plastic waste data the linear model
performance was better compared to its performance on plastic production data. In
this section, as in the previous section, the Arima model performed better than the
previous two models, and the MAPE values obtained for the linear regression and 2nd
degree regression and ARIMA models are 10.29%, 3.91%, and 1.7%, respectively,
which confirms this result.
References
1. Dunmire, P.L.: Knowing and controlling the future: a review of futurology. Prose Stud. 32(3),
240–263 (2010)
2. Nkwachukwu, O.I., Chima, C.H., Ikenna, A.O., Albert, L.: Focus on potential environmental
issues on plastic world towards a sustainable plastic recycling in developing countries. Int. J.
Ind. Chem. 4(1), 1–13 (2013)
3. Lebreton, L., Andrady, A.: Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal.
Palgrave Commun. 5(1), 1–11 (2019)
4. Plastics Europe. Plastics-The Facts: An analysis of European plastics production, demand and
waste data (2020)
5. Cimpan, C., Bjelle, E.L., Strømman, A.H.: Plastic packaging flows in Europe: a hybrid input-
output approach. J. Ind. Ecol. 25(6), 1572–1587 (2021)
6. Bernardo, C.A., Simões, C.L., Pinto, L.M.C.: Environmental and economic life cycle analysis
of plastic waste management options. A review. AIP Conf. Proc. 1779(1), 140001 (2016). AIP
Publishing LLC
7. Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Law, K.L.: Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci.
Adv. 3(7), 1700782 (2017)
8. Kaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P., Van Woerden, F.: What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of
Solid Waste Management to 2050. World Bank Publications (2018)
9. Luan, X., Kou, X., Zhang, L., Chen, L., Liu, W., Cui, Z.: Estimation and prediction of plastic
losses to the environment in China from 1950 to 2050. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 184, 106386
(2022)
10. Ghinea, C., Drăgoi, E.N., Comăniţă, E.D., Gavrilescu, M., Câmpean, T., Curteanu, S.I.L.V.I.A.,
Gavrilescu, M.: Forecasting municipal solid waste generation using prognostic tools and
regression analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 182, 80–93 (2016)
11. Siegel, A.F.: Chapter 14-time series: understanding changes over time. In: Practical Business
statistics, pp. 431–66 (2016)
12. Reid, J.P., Proctor, R.S., Sigman, M.S., Phipps, R.J.: Predictive multivariate linear regres-
sion analysis guides successful catalytic enantioselective Minisci reactions of diazines. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 141(48), 19178–19185 (2019)
13. De Menezes, D.Q.F., Prata, D.M., Secchi, A.R., Pinto, J.C.: A review on robust M-estimators
for regression analysis. Comput. Chem. Eng. 147, 107254 (2021)
14. Rath, S., Tripathy, A., Tripathy, A.R.: Prediction of new active cases of coronavirus disease
(COVID-19) pandemic using multiple linear regression model. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. 14(5),
1467–1474 (2020)
15. Lakshmi, J.V.N.: Stochastic gradient descent using linear regression with python. Int. J. Adv.
Eng. Res. Appl. 2(7), 519–524 (2016)
16. Gelman, A., Goodrich, B., Gabry, J., Vehtari, A.: R-squared for Bayesian regression models.
Am. Stat. (2019)
17. Chicco, D., Warrens, M.J., Jurman, G.: The coefficient of determination R-squared is more
informative than SMAPE, MAE, MAPE, MSE and RMSE in regression analysis evaluation.
PeerJ Comput. Sci. 7, 623 (2021)
18. Ajona, M., Vasanthi, P., Vijayan, D.S.: Application of multiple linear and polynomial regression
in the sustainable biodegradation process of crude oil. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 54,
102797 (2022)
19. Calonico, S., Cattaneo, M.D., Farrell, M.H.: Coverage error optimal confidence intervals for
local polynomial regression. Bernoulli 28(4), 2998–3022 (2022)
20. Qiu, S., Dooley, L.M., Xie, L.: How servant leadership and self-efficacy interact to affect service
quality in the hospitality industry: a polynomial regression with response surface analysis. Tour.
Manage. 78, 104051 (2020)
21. Satrio, C.B.A., Darmawan, W., Nadia, B.U., Hanafiah, N.: Time series analysis and forecasting
of coronavirus disease in Indonesia using ARIMA model and PROPHET. Procedia Comput.
Sci. 179, 524–532 (2021)
22. Alsharif, M.H., Younes, M.K., Kim, J.: Time series ARIMA model for prediction of daily and
monthly average global solar radiation: the case study of Seoul, South Korea. Symmetry 11(2),
240 (2019)
23. Lazarevic, D., Aoustin, E., Buclet, N., Brandt, N.: Plastic waste management in the context of
a European recycling society: comparing results and uncertainties in a life cycle perspective.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55(2), 246–259 (2010)
24. Kumagai, S., Nakatani, J., Saito, Y., Fukushima, Y., Yoshioka, T.: Latest trends and challenges
in feedstock recycling of polyolefinic plastics. J. Jpn. Petrol. Inst. 63(6), 345–364 (2020)
Plastic Waste Gasification
Parisa Mojaver, Ata Chitsaz, Seyyed Joneid Hasannejad,
and Morteza Khalilian
Abstract Thermochemical processes are used to manage non-recyclable plastic

waste. Direct combustion, pyrolysis, and gasification are the three major thermo-
chemical conversion processes of plastic waste. As a result of gasification, carbona-
ceous solids are heated to 700 to 1200 °C in a low oxygen environment in order to
produce synthesis gas. The gas produced during the process of synthesis is composed
of flammable gases such as carbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane, nitrogen, carbon
dioxide, and smaller hydrocarbon molecules. The gasification process can be used
to produce electricity, make transportation fuels such as diesel and ethanol, or create
chemicals for use in industry. The gasification conversion process can be classi-
fied into four main processes: drying, pyrolysis, oxidation, and reduction. There are
different types of gasification reactors suitable for different types of feeds, so they
can adapt to each feed’s unique characteristics. Gasification reactors are classified
into five main categories including up-draft, down-draft, cross-draft, fluidized bed,
and entrained bed from the point of view of the configuration.
Keywords Plastic waste · Thermochemical process · Gasification · Types of

gasifiers
1 Introduction
It is clear that the use of renewable energy sources and efficient technologies must
become a priority, to ensure a sustainable future for our planet. We cannot keep relying
on hydrocarbon-based fuels forever if we want to avoid devastating consequences
brought about by climate change. Fortunately, leaders from different countries are
starting to work together towards this priority objective in order to make sure that a
global effort is made when it comes to protecting the environment. Through initiatives
P. Mojaver (B) · A. Chitsaz · M. Khalilian

e-mail: p.mojaver@urmia.ac.ir
S. J. Hasannejad
Institute for Energy Systems and Thermodynamics, TU Wien, 1040 Vienna, Austria

48 P. Mojaver et al.
like international emissions trading systems or carbon taxes for industries, govern-
ments can encourage businesses and individuals alike towards more eco-friendly
practices [1].
At an individual level, everyday citizens have an important role as well: everybody
should participate in this effort by educating themselves with respect to environmental
issues and taking personal steps like reducing their consumption of energy resources
or participating in local initiatives geared towards sustainability. To tackle the energy
issue and its connected perils, the world has sought out alternative energy sources that
can meet the demand while minimizing environmental risks. Subsequently, numerous
studies have been conducted to utilize these renewable energies [2].
Conventional energy sources are available to a limited number of countries, while
renewable energy sources have much wider geographical access. The use of renew-
able technologies provides many economic and environmental advantages, aiding
the area in achieving greater energy independence. Biomass and waste are viable
sources of renewable energy with the added bonus of being more environmentally
friendly than fossil fuels. Plastic waste especially is significant due to its high carbon
content.
2 Thermochemical Processes of Plastic Waste Management
Non-recyclable plastic waste is managed using thermochemical processes. Direct

combustion, pyrolysis and gasification are the three major thermochemical conver-
sion processes of plastic waste [3–5]. When plastic waste is directly combusted, it
produces thermal energy with a temperature ranging from 800 to 1600 °C [6]. This
type of energy is commonly used to produce heat and electricity. A direct combustion
produces thermal energy and flue gas mainly composed of carbon dioxide and water,
which is the result of the rapid reaction of fuel and oxygen.
An important technique of the production of biofuels is the pyrolysis of plastic
waste. Pyrolysis is a thermochemical conversion process that acts as a precursor for
other thermochemical conversion processes, such as gasification and combustion. A
thermochemical process known as pyrolysis decomposes plastic waste when it is not
exposed to oxygen at temperatures between 300 and 900 °C without oxygen [7, 8].
The process of gasification involves converting carbonaceous solids into synthesis
gas by heating them to 700 to 1200 °C in an atmosphere devoid of oxygen [9,
10]. Synthesis gas includes flammable gases including carbon monoxide, hydrogen,
methane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and smaller hydrocarbons. Carbonaceous solids
or liquids can be converted into low molecular weight gas mixtures through gasifica-
tion. This is because these feedstocks have a higher volatile content than coal, which
makes them more easily converted into gas.
One of the most attractive features of gasification is the flexibility of its application,
including thermal energy production, hydrogen production, and synthesis of fuels
and chemicals. This prospect offers gasification-based energy refineries that produce
Plastic Waste Gasification 49
Conversion
Pyrolysis Gasification Combustion
technology
Primary
Char Tar & Oil Gas Heat
products
Product
Extraction Upgrading Synthesis Gas turbine Engine Boiler
recovery
Secondary
Chemicals Gasoline Methanol Ammonia Electricity
products
Fig. 1 Thermochemical conversion processes and their products
a combination of energy and chemical products. Figure 1 shows the processes of

thermochemical conversion and the products of the processes.
3 Gasification
The process involves heating the material to a high temperature with low oxygen,
causing it to break down into simpler molecules. The resulting syngas can be burned
for energy or converted into liquid fuels such as methanol and gasoline. Gasification
is attractive because of its potential to use a wide range of feedstocks while reducing
emissions compared with traditional coal-burning power plants. It also offers advan-
tages over other renewable technologies such as wind and solar, which have limited
capacity factors (i.e., the amount of electricity they can generate relative to their
nameplate rating).
Gasification technology has been around since the early 1900s but has seen
renewed interest in recent years due to advances in gasifier design and increased
awareness of environmental concerns associated with burning fossil fuels. Gasifiers
are now commonly used in industrial settings for producing heat and steam, as well as
generating electricity from biomass resources like wood chips or sawdust. They are
also being explored for applications ranging from powering ships at sea to providing
fuel for vehicles on land.
The gasification process can be used to produce electricity, make transporta-
tion fuels such as diesel and ethanol, or create chemicals for use in industry. The
inputs to the gasification process are a carbon-containing feedstock and oxygen or
air. The feedstock is heated to high temperatures (700–1200 °C), which causes the
carbon in the feedstock to react at high temperatures to form carbon monoxide and
hydrogen syngas. The output of the gasification process is a syngas consisting of

carbon monoxide and hydrogen, as well as a solid residue called char. The syngas
can be used to power a gas turbine or fuel cell to generate electricity, or it can be
processed further to create transportation fuels such as diesel and ethanol.
Gasification converts raw materials into synthesis gas and other gaseous products
through a series of reactions. The main components of synthesis gas include hydrogen
and carbon monoxide. Gasification of any carbonaceous or hydrocarbon material is
essentially the conversion of carbon compounds by any of a variety of chemical
processes to produce combustible gases.
This conversion is generally done by introducing a gasification agent such as
oxygen, air, water vapor and carbon dioxide into the gasification reactor. In the
gasification reactor, in addition to the gasification agent, raw materials (plastic waste)
are present at a controlled temperature and pressure. Gas products resulting from
gasification and the properties of these gases depend on the chemical composition
of the input feed, type of input feed, thermodynamics and chemistry of gasification
reactions and gasification agent [11, 12]. Figure 2 shows the gasification process and
output related to the relevant applications.
The gasification conversion process can be classified into four main processes:
drying, pyrolysis, oxidation and reduction [13]. Figure 3 shows an example of a
gasification reactor that separates the four main stages of the gasification process.
As Fig. 3 shows, in a plastic waste gasification process, in general, plastic waste
enters the gasifier from the top and the gasification agent enters the gasifier from
the bottom. After the gasification operation, the produced synthesis gas is removed
from the upper part of the gasifier and the remaining materials are removed from the
lower part.
The details of gasification reaction steps are as follows:
Gasification Gas utilization

• Size reduction • Cleaning of tar from
• Drying syngas
• Heating • Gas turbine
• Preparation of • Reforming of the
• Chemical reactions • Gas burner
gasifying agents syngas
• Catalysis • Catalysis • Fuel cell
• Heat and power
Preprocessing of Gas clean-up and
feedstock reforming
Fig. 2 Gasification process and output related to related applications

Fig. 3 Four main processes through a gasification conversion process
3.1 Drying Region
In this step, the moisture in the plastic waste is evaporated by applying heat, and the
dry plastic waste is removed in this step. The drying operation of the waste is done
by applying heat in the temperature range of 100 to 135 °C and the dry plastic waste
is ready to enter the second area. Equation 1 presents this phenomenon [14, 15].
Plastic waste including moisture + Heat → Dry plastic waste + Steam (1)
3.2 Pyrolysis Region
The plastic wastes that were dried in the previous stage are exposed to high-
temperature levels (500 to 550 °C) in this stage which is assessed in Eq. (2) and
requires heat [16]. During this process, the loose chemical bonds of plastic waste are
broken and volatile gases and char are produced [17].
Dry plastic waste + Heat → Volatile gases + Char (2)

3.3 Oxidation Region
Volatile materials and char produced in the previous step react with the gasification
agent and produce gases such as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide as the main
product and ash as the residue. In this stage, in addition to the formation of gases
and ash, some heat is released, which accumulates in the enclosure and leads to an
increase in the temperature required for the gasification area. In this way, in order to
speed up the reactions, the temperature is in the range of 800–1000 °C [18, 19]. The
main reactions in this region are presented in Eqs. (3)–(5).
C + 0.5O2 → CO + Heat (3)
C + O2 → CO2 + Heat (4)
H2 + 0.5O2 → H2 O + Heat (5)
3.4 Reduction Region
Volatile materials and char remaining from the pyrolysis stage react together with
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and water vapor formed in the oxidation stage
at the temperature obtained from the previous stage (800–1000 °C). In this stage,
several reactions take place among the components, which lead to the formation of
synthesis gas and amounts of other gases. The dominant reactions performed are
presented in Eqs. (6)–(11) as follows [20, 21]:
C + CO2 → 2CO H = +172 kJ/mol (6)
C + H2 → CH4 H = −74.8 kJ/mol (7)
C + H2 O → H2 + CO H = +131 kJ/mol (8)
CH4 + H2 O → 3H2 + CO H = +206 kJ/mol (9)
CO + H2 O → H2 + CO2 H = −41.2 kJ/mol (10)
CH4 + 2H2 O → 4H2 + CO2 H = +165 kJ/mol (11)

4 Types of Gasifier
A gasifier is a type of energy conversion device that transforms solid fuel into gaseous
fuel. Gasification is a thermo-chemical process that involves partial oxidation of the
solid fuel at high temperatures (>700 °C). This results in the production of gases,
including carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and methane, which can be used as fuel for
internal combustion engines or other power generation systems.
There are several different types of gasifiers, each with its own advantages and
disadvantages. Different types of feedstock are capable of gasification, and these
fuels are very different in terms of physical and chemical properties, so each type
of feedstock requires a specific method for gasification. Each type of gasification
reactor is designed differently based on the feed and its requirements so that it can
respond to the unique properties of a regular feed or a variety of feeds.
Gasification reactors are classified into five main categories from the point of view
of configuration:
4.1 Up-Draft Gasifier
The fixed bed gasifier of the high flow type is designed with the feed located in
the upper part and the gasifying agent in the lower section. As the agent travels up
through the seam of the fuel, its speed is relatively low allowing for reactions to
take place. First, by using sensible heat from the gas, moisture evaporation occurs,
followed by hydrogenation from the hydrogen found in the gas. The combustion
process then creates ash as a result [22].
Typically, in this system, coal or other carbon-based feed is used and air, steam,
or oxygen are employed as gasification agents to create synthesis gas and either dry
ash or slag. Where there is residue left in slag form, more of an agent to carbon ratio
is needed to get temperatures above the fusion point for ash. On account of the lower
temperature output of produced gas, these models demonstrate high thermal effi-
ciency and relatively lower power requirements. Additionally, they produce methane
and tar as well.
Not only does this type of gasifier have an efficient heat exchange during the
first stage but also it is not influenced by moisture level due to the use of gener-
ated gas drying incoming feed. With simple procedures and cost-effectiveness being
advantages, its technology has been proven to be effective [23]. Figure 4 indicates
an elementary model of an up-draft gasifier.
Fig. 4 An elementary model Plastic waste

of an up-draft gasifier Syngas
Drying
Pyrolysis
Oxidation
Reduction
Agent
4.2 Down-Draft Gasifier
The down-draft gasifier works by burning the fuel at the bottom of a contained
space, such as a combustion chamber. The heat generated is then used to push air
through or above the fuel bed, allowing for more efficient and complete combustion.
This process also produces syngas which can be further refined if desired. Down-
draft gasifiers are well suited for small scale applications that do not require large
amounts of electricity production; they usually have higher efficiency levels than an
up-draft design due to their ability to use all available oxygen in the fuel bed [24].
They are also better at controlling emissions compared to other types of air-
driven systems since any exhaust gases produced will be passed back through the
combustion chamber as opposed to being released into the environment. Finally,
these systems often produce less ash than conventional fossil fuels used in electric
generators making them ideal for remote locations where there may not be access to
traditional removal services.
The advantages of down-draft gasifiers have caught the attention of energy
researchers and industry professionals around the world. Gasification technology
is being used to produce clean fuel for everything from large-scale power plants to
small residential generators. This makes it an attractive option for both commercial
and home power generation applications. The flexibility of the down-draft design
also lends itself well to distributed systems, making them ideal for use in remote
locations where a traditional electrical grid may not be available or economical. For
these reasons, the down-draft gasifier has become an increasingly popular choice for

of a down-draft gasifier
Drying
Pyrolysis
Agent Oxidation
Reduction
Syngas
electricity generation. In fact, many power plants around the world use a down-draft
gasifier to produce energy.
By taking advantage of this technology, governments and businesses are able to
reduce their carbon footprints by powering facilities with clean burning fuels that
have fewer emissions than traditional fossil fuel sources. Additionally, businesses can
save money on their electricity bills as the cost savings from using a more efficient
source of energy will often outweigh any extra costs associated with its construction
and operation. Figure 5 shows an elementary model of a down-draft gasifier [25].
4.3 Cross-Draft Gasifier
This type of gasifier is the most efficient, producing less smoke and more heat from
a given amount of fuel. The draft helps to keep flame temperatures high, resulting in
lower emissions rates than other types of gasifiers. Cross-draft gasification can also
provide an excellent way to control the concentration and quality of combustible
gases released into the atmosphere.
The design of these systems allows for effective segregation between air and
combustible components in order to create a desired mixture ratio for maximum
efficiency. Air enters through one side while fuel is fed on the other side with
exhaust exiting at yet another location ensuring clean exhaust air-flow throughout
the system’s operation cycle. This process reduces impurities such as soot particles,
carbon dioxide, and hydrocarbons normally found in wood gases making it ideal for
residential use when it comes to burning plastic waste without creating too much
pollution that might disturb neighbors or violate local regulations [26].
Despite these disadvantages, cross-draft gasifiers are becoming increasingly
popular in a variety of applications. They are especially suitable for industrial fuel

of a cross-draft gasifier
Drying
Pyrolysis
Agent Oxidation Syngas
Reduction
production and powering vehicles. The fact that they require less energy to operate
makes them ideal for use in remote locations where electricity may be unavailable
or too expensive. Furthermore, when compared with other types of gasifiers, cross-
draft gasifiers can reduce emissions from burning fuels by up to 90%. With their
increasing popularity, it is likely that their use will continue to grow over time as
people become more environmentally conscious and look for cleaner sources of
energy. Figure 6 demonstrates an elementary model of a cross-draft gasifier.
4.4 Fluidized Bed Gasifier
A fluidized bed gasifier is a very efficient way of turning solid fuels, such as biomass,
coal or plastic waste materials into combustible gases. These gases are then burned
in an engine to produce heat or used for applications where high temperatures are
required. Fluidized bed gasifiers have relatively low emissions and can be operated
with a wide range of fuel types. Fluidized bed gasifiers are typically made up of
two parts, the bottom part contains the heated material that forms the ‘fluidized’
bed, while the top part holds a combustion chamber in which burner flames ignite
small pieces of fuel within the bed. The resulting hot gases pass through what is
known as a ‘gasification zone’ in which further reactions take place before being
drawn off and passed on towards downstream processes such as power generation
or recirculated back into the system itself. Another advantage is the ability to deal
with large particles and even chunks of fuel, giving them more versatility in dealing
with different kinds of feedstock. This can be especially helpful if you are trying to
gasify low-value or waste resources [27, 28].
Fluidized bed reactors also offer better control over reaction conditions such
as temperature, pressure, residence time, and turbulence level, allowing for higher
conversion efficiency than other types of gasifiers. The combination of these variables
can produce a highly combustible gas that contains fewer pollutants such as tars and
particulates when compared to other processes. This means a cleaner end product
which brings greater environmental benefits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions
from burning fossil fuels. Lastly, fluidized beds have significantly lower operating
costs due to their reduced energy losses during operation. They also produce cleaner
gas than other types of gasifiers, due to the fact that the fuel is burned in a controlled
environment [29, 30].
There are two main types of fluidized bed gasifiers: indirect and direct. Indirect
gasifiers use a separate chamber to heat the fuel while direct gasifiers combust the
fuel in the same chamber as the bed material. The most common type of fuel used
in fluidized bed gasifiers is coal, but biomass and plastic waste can also be used.
Biomass-based fuels offer the advantage of being renewable and often have lower
emissions than coal when combusted. Figure 7 reveals an elementary model of a
fluidized-bed gasifier.
4.5 Entrained Bed Gasifier
The fuel is mixed with a source of oxygen, or air, and then heated until it begins
to break down into combustible gases in entrained-bed gasifier. As the gasification
process progresses, the remaining particles are subjected to intense temperatures
which further reduce them into ash. The gas that is produced can be used as a
Syngas
Plastic waste
Agent
Fig. 7 An elementary model of a fluidized bed gasifier

fuel for engines or other uses requiring clean-burning fuels. One type of entrained
bed gasifier used in some stationary applications is called a steam reformer. In this
system, steam reacts with both carbonaceous feedstock and air while being passed
through an oxidation zone at high temperature thus producing hydrogen along with
carbon dioxide and nitrogen. This mixture is cooled by passing over cooling coils
allowing condensation of water vapor along with cleaner burning hydrocarbon gases
like methane. The bed of particles is typically made up of a material such as sand,
gravel, or ceramic balls [31].
The entrained-bed gasifier also requires less fuel to produce a given amount of
energy, which can save money as well as reduce emissions. Additionally, the flamma-
bility and chemical reaction characteristics of this type of gasifier allow for lower
emissions and better emission control than other systems. The entrained-bed gasifier
is also capable of burning a variety of fuels, including coal, biomass, and plastic
waste streams. This means that it has more flexibility in terms of what conditions
are suitable for use in different situations or environments. Furthermore, the design
enables quick start-up times with minimal risk associated with production operations
compared to other types of combustion processes. As such it is ideal for applications
where downtime needs to be minimized or avoided entirely.
The entrained-bed gasifiers are less likely to experience issues with clogging or
slagging than other types of gasifiers. Moreover, they have low throughput and are
prone to clogging issues due to ash accumulation on the surface of the grate. Finally,
since these gasifiers operate at high temperatures, there is a risk of nitrogen oxide
(NOx ) and sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) pollution which can be quite damaging for both
human health and environment [32]. Figure 8 illustrates an elementary model of an
entrained bed gasifier.
Fig. 8 An elementary model Plastic waste Agent

of an entrained bed gasifier
Syngas
References
1. Klemeš, J.J., Varbanov, P.S., Ocłoń, P., Chin, H.H.: Towards efficient and clean process inte-
gration: utilisation of renewable resources and energy-saving technologies. Energies 12(21),
4092 (2019)
2. Bagherian, M.A., Mehranzamir, K.: A comprehensive review on renewable energy integration
for combined heat and power production. Energy Convers. Manage. 224, 113454 (2020)
3. Demirbas, A.: Thermochemical conversion processes. In: Biofuels: Securing the Planet’s Future
Energy Needs, pp. 261–304 (2009)
4. Alam, S.S., Husain Khan, A., Khan, N.A.: Plastic waste management via thermochemical
conversion of plastics into fuel: a review. Energy Sources Part A: Recover. Util. Environ.
Effects 44(3), 1–20 (2022)
5. Nanda, S., Berruti, F.: Thermochemical conversion of plastic waste to fuels: a review. Environ.
Chem. Lett. 19, 123–148 (2021)
6. Lebedev, I.K., Mikhailenko, S.A.: Influence of gaseous atmosphere on fly ash ability to form
buildup on boiler heating surfaces. Teploenergetika (Moscow) (USSR) 1 (1982)
7. McBeath, A.V., Wurster, C.M., Bird, M.I.: Influence of feedstock properties and pyrolysis
conditions on biochar carbon stability as determined by hydrogen pyrolysis. Biomass Bioenergy
73, 155–173 (2015)
8. Ilo, O.P., Nkomo, S.P.L., Mkhize, N.M., Mutanga, O., Simatele, M.D.: Optimisation of process
parameters using response surface methodology to improve the liquid fraction yield from
pyrolysis of water hyacinth. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 30(3), 6681–6704 (2023)
9. Hannl, T.K., Sefidari, H., Kuba, M., Skoglund, N., Öhman, M.: Thermochemical equilibrium
study of ash transformation during combustion and gasification of sewage sludge mixtures with
agricultural residues with focus on the phosphorus speciation. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery
11, 57–68 (2021)
10. Castro, J., Leaver, J., Pang, S.: Simulation and techno-economic assessment of hydrogen
production from biomass gasification-based processes: a review. Energies 15(22), 8455 (2022)
11. Bridgwater, A.V.: Catalysis in thermal biomass conversion. Appl. Catal. A 116(1–2), 5–47
(1994)
12. Higman, C., van der Burgt, M., Higman, C., Vanderburgt, M.: The thermodynamics of gasifica-
tion. In: Gasification, pp.11–31. Gulf Professional Pub./Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, Boston
(2008)
13. Sharma, A.K.: Modeling and simulation of a downdraft biomass gasifier 1. Model development
and validation. Energy Convers. Manag. 52(2), 1386–1396 (2011)
14. Haarlemmer, G.: Simulation study of improved biomass drying efficiency for biomass gasi-
fication plants by integration of the water gas shift section in the drying process. Biomass
Bioenergy 81, 129–136 (2015)
15. Holmberg, H., Ahtila, P.: Evaluation of energy efficiency in biofuel drying by means of energy
and exergy analyses. Appl. Therm. Eng. 25(17–18), 3115–3128 (2005)
16. Paucar-Sánchez, M.F., Calero, M., Blázquez, G., Muñoz-Batista, M.J., Martín-Lara, M.A.:
Characterization of liquid fraction obtained from pyrolysis of post-consumer mixed plastic
waste: a comparing between measured and calculated parameters. Process Saf. Environ. Prot.
159, 1053–1063 (2022)
17. Ali, L., Palamanit, A., Techato, K., Baloch, K.A., Jutidamrongphan, W.: Valorization of rubber-
wood sawdust and sewage sludge by pyrolysis and co-pyrolysis using agitated bed reactor for
producing biofuel or value-added products. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29, 1338–1363 (2022)
18. Loha, C., Karmakar, M.K., De, S., Chatterjee, P.K.: Gasifiers: types, operational principles, and
commercial forms. In: Coal and Biomass Gasification: Recent Advances and Future Challenges,
pp.63–91 (2018)
19. Fani, M., Haddadzadeh Niri, M., Joda, F.: A simplified dynamic thermokinetic-based model
of wood gasification process. Process Integr. Optim. Sustain. 2, 269–279 (2018)
20. Nivash, V., Sakthivadivel, D.: Characterization and thermo-chemical conversion of inva-
sive biomass by varying gasifying agents for hydrogen rich producer gas using ASPEN
Plus. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 1–19 (2022)
21. Faraji, M., Saidi, M.: Process simulation and optimization of groundnut shell biomass air
gasification for hydrogen-enriched syngas production. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 47(28), 13579–
13591 (2022)
22. Wang, X., Niu, B., Deng, S., Liu, Y., Tan, H.: Optimization study on air distribution of an actual
agriculture up-draft biomass gasification stove. Energy Procedia 61, 2335–2338 (2014)
23. Gumino, B., Pohlman, N.A., Barnes, J., Wever, P.: Design features and performance evaluation
of natural-draft, continuous operation gasifier cookstove. Clean Technol. 2(3), 252–269 (2020)
24. Alahakoon, A.M.Y.W., Karunarathna, A.K., Dharmakeerthi, R.S., Silva, F.H.C.A.: Design and
Development of a Double-chamber Down Draft (DcDD) pyrolyzer for biochar production from
rice husk. J. Biosyst. Eng. 47(4), 458–467 (2022)
25. Sivakumar, S., Ranjithkumar, N., Ragunathan, S.: Design and development of down draft wood
gasifier. Int. J. Mech. Eng. 2(2), 1–10 (2013)
26. Li, H., Mou, H., Zhao, N., Chen, D., Zhou, Y., Dong, R.: Impact of fuel size on combustion
performance and gaseous pollutant emissions from solid fuel in a domestic cross-draft gasifier
stove. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 1–12 (2021)
27. Emiola-Sadiq, T., Zhang, L., Dalai, A., Gerspacher, R., Campbell, B., Evitts, R.: Parametric and
hydrodynamics studies on gasification performance of biomass pellets in a pilot-scale fluidized
bed gasifier. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 1–23 (2023)
28. Ganesan, P.: Effect of biomedical waste co-feeding in the steam gasification of Indian palm
kernel shell in fluidized bed gasifier. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29(24), 36788–36800 (2022)
29. Hanchate, N., Ramani, S., Mathpati, C.S., Dalvi, V.H.: Biomass gasification using dual fluidized
bed gasification systems: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 280, 123148 (2021)
30. Gallucci, F., Palma, A., Vincenti, B., Carnevale, M., Paris, E., Ancona, V., Caputi, M.M.,
Borello, D.: Fluidized bed gasification of biomass from plant assisted bioremediation (PABR):
lab-scale assessment of the effect of different catalytic bed material on emissions. Fuel 322,
124214 (2022)
31. Yazdanpanah Jahromi, M.A., Atashkari, K., Kalteh, M.: Comparison of different woody
biomass gasification behavior in an entrained flow gasifier. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 1–13
(2021)
32. Donskoy, I.G.: Influence of coal-biomass fuel composition on the efficiency of its conversion
in entrained-flow gasifiers. Solid Fuel Chem. 53, 113–119 (2019)
Air Plastic Waste Gasification
Parisa Mojaver and Shahram Khalilarya
Abstract There is a recognized need for plastic waste management and treatment.
Plastic waste gasification is becoming an interesting thermochemical method for
upcycling plastics waste. Plastic waste is converted into hydrogen-rich syngas with
a high heating value in this method. This chapter set out to comprehensively develop
air gasification modeling for plastic waste. In this chapter, equilibrium constant and
Gibbs free energy minimization coupled with Lagrange undetermined multipliers
techniques for air gasification modeling were developed and applied to the plastic
waste. The research was based on two case studies. (1) Air gasification of plastic waste
by equilibrium constant technique. (2) Air gasification of plastic waste by Gibbs free
energy minimization coupled with Lagrange undetermined multipliers technique.
All modeling cases were comprehensively described and validated compared to the
experimental results reported. The results confirmed that the models predicted the
syngas composition with desirable accuracy in all cases.
Keywords Gasification · Plastic waste · Air gasification · Gasification modeling
Nomenclature
◦
h f,PW Standard formation enthalpy of plastic waste (J/mol)
h vap,H2 O Vaporization enthalpy of water (J/mol)
E˙x D Exergy destruction rate (W)
E˙x i ith exergy rate (W)
E˙x i
ch
ith chemical exergy rate (W)
E˙x i
ph
ith physical exergy rate (W)
◦
H in Standard formation enthalpy of reactants (J)
◦
H out Standard formation enthalpy of products (J)
(continued)
P. Mojaver (B) · S. Khalilarya


62 P. Mojaver and S. Khalilarya
(continued)
Q̇ in Heat transfer (W)
ex ich,0 ith standard chemical exergy (J/mol)
◦
h T,i ith standard enthalpy difference (J/mol)
h Standard enthalpy (J/mol)
Ea Activation energy (J)
Ei ith component energy (J)
E in Gasifier input energy (J)
◦
GT Standard Gibbs free energy (J)
L H V PW Lower heating value of plastic waste (J/mol)
L H V syngas Lower heating value of syngas (J/mol)
Pi ith partial pressure (Pa)
R Universal gas constant (J/mol.K)
s Standard entropy (J/mol.K)
εCO2 Normalized carbon dioxide emission (g/W.h)
ηcg Cold gas efficiency (%)
ηex Exergy efficiency (%)
μi ith molar numbers of components
μt Total moles of syngas (mol)
τi Total atom number of ith component
ϕH Molar ratio of hydrogen to carbon (mol/mol)
ϕO Molar ratio of oxygen to carbon (mol/mol)
C Carbon
H Hydrogen
N Nitrogen
O Oxygen
T Temperature (K)
x Feeding rate of air
y Moisture content of feedstock
z Feeding rate of steam
1 Air Gasification Process
Gasification process is a thermochemical reaction taking place between a feedstock

and a gasifying agent containing oxygen. This reaction results in a syngas with high
heating value mainly containing hydrogen, methane, carbon monoxide and carbon
dioxide. When air is considered as the gasifying agent, one of the main components
Air Plastic Waste Gasification 63
of this valuable syngas will be nitrogen. In this chapter, air is considered as the
gasifying agent.
The chemical composition of plastic waste is considered as CHα1 Nα2 Oα3 . The air
gasification of plastic waste is considered according to [1]:
x(O2 + 3.76N2 ) + yH2 O + CHα1 Nα2 Oα3 → syngas a (1)
where x denotes the feeding rate of air as the gasifying agent and y indicates
the moisture content of the plastic waste. α1 , α2 and α3 are the hydrogen/carbon,
nitrogen/carbon and oxygen/carbon molar ratio in the plastic waste. syngas a refers
to the syngas obtained in the air gasification process and is as follows [2]:
syngas a → μ1 H2 + μ2 CH4 + μ3 CO + μ4 CO2 + μ5 H2 O + μ6 N2 (2)
where μi indicates the ith molar numbers of the components obtained through the
gasification process.
In this chapter, the air gasification modeling of the plastic waste is conducted
by two methods of (i) equilibrium constant and (ii) Gibbs free energy minimiza-
tion coupled by Lagrange undetermined multipliers (this method is named as
Gibbs/Lagrange coupled method, in short). These two methods are introduced in
the following.
2 Air Gasification Modeling of Plastic Waste

by Equilibrium Constant Method
The molar numbers of the components in the syngas are the unknowns of the air gasi-
fication process and they are six components. Therefore, the identifying problem of
the molar numbers needs six equations for air gasification. We can develop four equa-
tions by mass balance for carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen for air gasification
of the plastic waste as follows [3]:
1 = μ2 + μ3 + μ4 Carbon balance (3)
2y + 1.598 = 2μ1 + 4μ2 + 2μ5 Hydrogen balance (4)
(2 × 3.76)x + 0.06413 = 2μ6 Nitrogen balance (5)
2x + y + 0.2175 = μ3 + 2μ4 + μ5 Oxygen balance (6)
Therefore, we need to develop two other equations for identifying the syngas
components. These equations are developed using equilibrium constant technique.
Water–gas shift reaction and methanation reactions are considered as follows [4]:
CO + H2 O → CO2 + H2 Water − gas shift (7)
C + 2H2 → CH4 Methanation (8)
κ1 is developed as the equilibrium constant of the water–gas shift reaction and κ2 is

established as the equilibrium constant of the methanation reaction as follows [5]:
n in vi
P PCO2 .PH2 μ4 .μ1
κ1 = (xi )vi → κ1 = = (9)
i P0 PCO .PH2 O μ3 .μ5
n in vi μ2
P PCH μ μ2 .μt
κ2 = (xi ) vi
→ κ2 = 4 2 = t = (10)
i P0 PH2 μ1
2
μ21
μt
where Pi indicates the ith partial pressure and μt denotes the total moles of syngas.
The equilibrium constants are obtained using the following equations [6]:
◦
G T
lnκ = − (11)
R.T
◦ n ◦
G T = μi G f,T,i (12)
i
κ = κ0 .e− R.T
Ea
(13)
◦
where G T denotes the standard Gibbs free energy, E a indicates the activation energy,
R refers to the universal gas constant and T denotes the temperature.
3 Air Gasification Modeling of Plastic Waste

by Gibbs/Lagrange Coupled Method
The molar numbers of the syngas components which are the unknowns of the
gasification process are identified using Gibbs/Lagrange coupled method in this
section.
Total Gibbs free energy and Lagrangian multipliers are defined as follows [7]:
n
μi
G= μi G i + RT ln Gibbs free energy (14)
i=1
μt
E C

λ=G+ λr τ − μi τi Lagrangian multiplier (15)
r =1 i=1
where τi is the total atom number of the ith component as follows [8]:
n
τ= μi τi (16)
i=1
λ is minimized at its extremum point as follows:
∂λ
=0 (17)
∂μi
By considering the syngas components, their molar numbers are obtained as

follows [9]:
μ1
G H2 + RT ln + 2λH = 0 Hydrogen (18)
μt
μ2
G CH4 + RT ln + λC + 4λH = 0 Methane (19)
μt
μ3
G CO + RT ln + λC + λO = 0 Carbon monoxide (20)
μt
μ4
G CO2 + RT ln + λC + 2λO = 0 Carbon dioxide (21)
μt
μ5
G H2 O + RT ln + 2λH + λO = 0 Steam (22)
μt
μ6
G N2 + RT ln + 2λN = 0 Nitrogen (23)
μt
4 Energy Analysis on Air Gasification of Plastic Waste
Energy balance of the gasifier can be considered as follows [10, 11]:

◦ ◦
H in + Q̇ in = H out (24)
◦ ◦
where H in and H out are the standard formation enthalpy of the reactants and the
products, respectively, and Q̇ in is the heat transferred in the process.
◦
In the air gasification of the plastic waste, H in is considered as follows [12]:
◦ ◦ ◦
H in = h f,PW + y h f,H2 Ol + h vap,H2 O
◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
+ x h f,O2 + h T,O2 + 3.76 h f,N2 + h T ,N2 (25)
◦ ◦
where h f,PW is the standard formation enthalpy of the plastic waste, h f,i denotes the
ith standard formation enthalpy, h vap,H2 O refers to the vaporization enthalpy of the
◦
water and h T ,i indicates the ith standard enthalpy difference between the given and
the reference states.
If the air enters the gasifier by the atmospheric conditions (pressure and
temperature of 1 atm and 298.15 K), Eq. (25) can be re-written as follows [13]:
◦ ◦ ◦
H in = h f,PW + y h f,H2 Ol + h vap,H2 O (26)
◦
In the air gasification of the plastic waste, H out is considered as follows [14]:
◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
H out = μ1 h f,H2 + h T ,H2 + μ2 h f,CH4 + h T ,CH4 + μ3 h f,CO + h T ,CO
◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
+ μ4 h f,CO2 + h T,CO2 + μ5 h f,H2 O + h T,H2 O + μ6 h f,N2 + h T ,N2
(27)
◦
h T ,i is obtained as follows [15]:
T
h T = δ1 + δ2 T + δ3 T 2 + δ4 T 3 dT (28)
T0
where δi are constant values as presented in Table 1 for the temperature in the range
of 273–1800 K.
Table 1 δi values in Eq. (28) [15]

Component δ1 δ2 δ3 δ4
H2 11.29 −0.001916 0.4003 × 10–5 −0.8704 × 10–9
CH4 19.89 0.052040 1.2690 × 10–5 −11.010 × 10–9
CO 28.16 0.001675 0.5372 × 10–5 −2.2222 × 10–9
CO2 22.26 0.059810 −3.5010 × 10–5 −7.4690 × 10–9
H2 O 32.24 0.001923 1.0550 × 10–5 −3.5950 × 10–9
N2 28.90 −0.001571 0.8081 × 10–5 −2.8730 × 10–9
5 Exergy Analysis on Air Gasification of Plastic Waste
Exergy balance of the gasifier is defined for the air gasification of the plastic waste
as follows [16]:
E˙x D = Ė x PW + Ė x Q − Ė x syngas (29)
where E˙x D indicates the exergy destruction rate and E˙x i denotes the ith exergy rate.
The exergy rate corresponding to the plastic waste ( Ė x PW ), the steam ( Ė x steam )
and the syngas ( Ė x syngas ) can be considered in two parts of the physical and the
chemical exergy rates as follows:
E˙x i = E˙x i + E˙x i

ph ch
(30)
where E˙x i and E˙x i denote the ith physical and chemical exergy rates, respectively,
ph ch
and they are defined as follows [16]:

E˙x i =
ph
ṅ i h i − h 0 − T0 (s i − s 0 ) (31)
i

ṅ i ch,0 ṅ i ṅ i
E˙x i = ṅ t
ch
ex + RT0 ln (32)
i
ṅ t i i
ṅ t ṅ t
where h and s denote the standard enthalpy and entropy, respectively, and i and
0 subscripts refers to input and ambient conditions. Also, ex ich,0 indicated the ith
standard chemical exergy and their values for different species are presented in
Table 2.
It is noteworthy to mention that E˙x PW , i.e. the physical exergy rate of the plastic
ph
waste, is neglected compared to E˙x PW which is the chemical exergy rate of the plastic
ch
waste obtained as follows:
Table 2 exi ch,0 for different

Component exi ch,0 (kJ/mol)
species
H2 236.1
CH4 831.6
CO 275.1
CO2 19.87
H2 O (g) 9.5
H2 O (l) 0.9
N2 0.72
O2 3.97
E˙x PW = ṅ PW (β.L H V PW )
ch
(33)
where L H V PW denotes the lower heating value of the plastic waste and β indicates
a constant value obtained as follows [15]:
1.0414 + (0.0177ϕH ) − [(0.3328ϕO ) × (1 + (0.0537ϕH ))]

β= (34)
1 − (0.4021ϕO )
where ϕH and ϕO denote the molar ratio of hydrogen and oxygen to carbon in the
chemical composition of the plastic waste.
Ė x Q is obtained as follows:
T0
E˙x Q = 1 − Q̇ (35)
T
6 Performance Evaluation of Air Gasification of Plastic

Waste
Different performance indicators can be defined for evaluation of the gasification

performance. Lower heating value of the syngas (L H V syngas ) is one of the important
performance indicators defined as follows [17]:
L H V syngas = E H2 + E CH4 + E CO (36)
where E i denotes the ith component energy obtained as follows [2, 18]:
E i = μi × L H V i (37)
Cold gas efficiency (ηcg ) is another important performance indicator defined as

follows [19]:
L H V syngas
ηcg = (38)
E in
where E in indicates the input energy to the gasifier and is defined as follows for the
air plastic waste gasification [18]:
E in = E PW (39)
Hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio as one of the important performance indexes

is defined as follows:
H2 μ1
= (40)
CO μ3
Another important performance indicator is the exergy efficiency (ηex ) defined

for the air plastic waste gasification as follows [20]:
E˙x syngas
ηex = (41)
E˙x PW
Normalized carbon dioxide emission (εCO2 ) is defined as an environmental

performance indicator as follows:
m CO2
εCO2 = (42)
μ̇H2 × L H V H2 + μ̇CH4 × L H V CH4 + μ̇CO × L H V CO
7 Modeling Validation of Air Gasification of Plastic Waste
In this section, both methods utilized for the air gasification modeling of the plastic
waste are validated by comparing with the results reported in the literature. Each
method is validated for the air gasifying agents. Therefore, there are two categorizes
of (i) air gasification of plastic waste using equilibrium constant method and (ii) air
gasification of plastic waste using Gibbs/Lagrange coupled method.
7.1 Modeling Validation of Air Gasification of Plastic Waste

Based on Equilibrium Constant Method
In this section, the syngas composition of air gasification using equilibrium constant
method is compared with the results reported by Ptasinski et al. [21] for four different
feedstocks include coal, vegetable oil, straw and wood (Fig. 1). The results confirm
that the model of air gasification using equilibrium constant method predicts the
syngas composition with desirable accuracy for all feedstocks considered in this
regard.
7.2 Modeling Validation of Air Gasification of Plastic Waste

Based on Gibbs/Lagrange Coupled Method
The performance of air gasification modeling using Gibbs/Lagrange coupled method

is conducted in this section. The syngas composition is compared with two different
Fig. 1 Modeling validation of air gasification for coal, vegetable oil, straw and wood using
equilibrium constant method
studies of biomass air gasification by Jayah et al. [22] and plastic air gasification
by Cho et al. [23]. These results are presented in Fig. 2. The results confirm that
the air gasification modeling using Gibbs/Lagrange coupled method has desirable
accuracy and can efficiently predict the syngas composition in both cases of biomass
air gasification and plastic air gasification.
The main goal of the current study was to develop an air gasification modeling
for plastic waste. This study set out to provide two different modeling techniques for
the air gasification of plastic waste:
(i) Air gasification of plastic waste by equilibrium constant technique.
(ii) Air gasification of plastic waste by Gibbs free energy minimization coupled by
Lagrange undetermined multipliers technique.
These modeling cases were developed in this study, and their performances in
predicting the syngas component were evaluated and validated compared to the
experimental results.
Fig. 2 Modeling validation of air gasification using Gibbs/Lagrange coupled method
References
1. Hasanzadeh, R., Mojaver, M., Azdast, T., Park, C.B.: A novel systematic multi-objective opti-
mization to achieve high-efficiency and low-emission waste polymeric foam gasification using
response surface methodology and TOPSIS method. Chem. Eng. J. 430, 132958 (2022)
2. Hasanzadeh, R., Azdast, T., Mojaver, M., Park, C.B.: High-efficiency and low-pollutant waste
polystyrene and waste polystyrene foam gasification: comprehensive comparison analysis,
multi-objective optimization and multi-criteria decision analysis. Fuel 316, 123362 (2022)
3. Ayub, H.M.U., Qyyum, M.A., Qadeer, K., Binns, M., Tawfik, A., Lee, M.: Robustness enhance-
ment of biomass steam gasification thermodynamic models for biohydrogen production:
Introducing new correction factors. J. Clean. Prod. 321, 128954 (2021)
4. Ajorloo, M., Ghodrat, M., Scott, J., Strezov, V.: Recent advances in thermodynamic analysis
of biomass gasification: a review on numerical modelling and simulation. J. Energy Inst. 102,
395–419 (2022)
5. Liao, L., Zheng, J., Li, C., Liu, R., Zhang, Y.: Thermodynamic modeling modification and
experimental validation of entrained-flow gasification of biomass. J. Energy Inst. 103, 160–168
(2022)
6. Mojaver, P., Khalilarya, S., Chitsaz, A.: Performance assessment of a combined heat and power
system: a novel integrated biomass gasification, solid oxide fuel cell and high-temperature
sodium heat pipe system part I: thermodynamic analysis. Energy Convers. Manage. 171, 287–
297 (2018)
7. Zaman, S.A., Ghosh, S.: A generic input–output approach in developing and optimizing an
Aspen plus steam-gasification model for biomass. Biores. Technol. 337, 125412 (2021)
8. Mojaver, P., Hasanzadeh, R., Chitsaz, A., Azdast, T., Mojaver, M.: Tri-objective central
composite design optimization of co-gasification of eucalyptus biomass and polypropylene
waste. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02597-9
9. Hashmi, S., Taqvi, S.A.A., Abideen, Z., Ahmed, J.P., Talha, M., Bhatti, M.A., Shahid, H.,
Naqvi, S.R., Almomani, F.: Simulation of steam gasification of halophyte biomass for syngas
production using Aspen Plus®. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 1–10 (2022)
10. Mojaver, M., Azdast, T., Hasanzadeh, R.: Assessments of key features and Taguchi analysis
on hydrogen rich syngas production via gasification of polyethylene, polypropylene, polycar-
bonate and polyethylene terephthalate wastes. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 46(58), 29846–29857
(2021)
11. Mojaver, M., Azdast, T., Hasanzadeh, R.: Corrigendum to “Assessments of key features
and Taguchi analysis on hydrogen rich syngas production via gasification of polyethylene,
polypropylene, polycarbonate and polyethylene terephthalate wastes” [Int. J. Hydrog. Energy

46(58), 29846–29857 (2021)]. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 47(23), 12036–12037 (2022)
12. Niu, M., Xie, J., Liang, S., Liu, L., Wang, L., Peng, Y.: Simulation of a new biomass integrated
gasification combined cycle (BIGCC) power generation system using Aspen Plus: Performance
analysis and energetic assessment. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46(43), 22356–22367 (2021)
13. Papa, A.A., Di Carlo, A., Bocci, E., Taglieri, L., Del Zotto, L., Gallifuoco, A.: Energy analysis of
an integrated plant: fluidized bed steam gasification of hydrothermally treated biomass coupled
to solid oxide fuel cells. Energies 14(21), 7331 (2021)
14. Mojaver, P., Khalilarya, S., Chitsaz, A.: Multi-objective optimization and decision analysis
of a system based on biomass fueled SOFC using couple method of entropy/VIKOR. Energy
Convers. Manage. 203, 112260 (2020)
15. Mojaver, P., Jafarmadar, S., Khalilarya, S., Chitsaz, A.: Investigation and optimization of a
Co-generation plant integrated of gasifier, gas turbine and heat pipes using minimization of
Gibbs free energy, Lagrange method and response surface methodology. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy
45(38), 19027–19044 (2020)
16. Hasanzadeh, R., Mojaver, M., Azdast, T., Park, C.B.: Polyethylene waste gasification syngas
analysis and multi-objective optimization using central composite design for simultaneous
minimization of required heat and maximization of exergy efficiency. Energy Convers. Manage.
247, 114713 (2021)
17. Chu, C., Boré, A., Liu, X.W., Cui, J.C., Wang, P., Liu, X., Chen, G.Y., Liu, B., Ma, W.C., Lou,
Z.Y., Tao, Y.: Modeling the impact of some independent parameters on the syngas character-
istics during plasma gasification of municipal solid waste using artificial neural network and
stepwise linear regression methods. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 157, 112052 (2022)
18. Hasanzadeh, R., Mojaver, P., Chitsaz, A., Mojaver, M., Jalili, M., Rosen, M.A.: Biomass and
low-density polyethylene waste composites gasification: orthogonal array design of Taguchi
technique for analysis and optimization. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 47(67), 28819–28832 (2022)
19. He, S., Gao, L., Dong, R., Li, S.: A novel hydrogen production system based on the three-step
coal gasification technology thermally coupled with the chemical looping combustion process.
Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 47(11), 7100–7112 (2022)
20. Onigbajumo, A., Taghipour, A., Will, G., Van, T.C., Couperthwaite, S., Steinberg, T., Rainey, T.:
Effects of process-thermal configuration on energy, exergy, and thermo-economic performance
of solar driven supercritical water gasification. Energy Convers. Manage. 251, 115002 (2022)
21. Ptasinski, K.J., Prins, M.J., Pierik, A.: Exergetic evaluation of biomass gasification. Energy
32(4), 568–574 (2007)
22. Jayah, T.H., Aye, L., Fuller, R.J., Stewart, D.F.: Computer simulation of a downdraft wood
gasifier for tea drying. Biomass Bioenergy 25(4), 459–469 (2003)
23. Cho, M.H., Mun, T.Y., Kim, J.S.: Production of low-tar producer gas from air gasification
of mixed plastic waste in a two-stage gasifier using olivine combined with activated carbon.
Energy 58, 688–694 (2013)
Steam Plastic Waste Gasification
Parisa Mojaver, Shahram Khalilarya, and Ata Chitsaz
Abstract In this chapter, steam gasification process of plastic waste as one of the
most efficient upcycling technologies has been developed. This chapter set out to
comprehensively develop steam gasification modeling for plastic waste. Equilibrium
constant and Gibbs free energy minimization coupled with Lagrange undetermined
multipliers techniques were developed for steam gasification modeling and applied
to the plastic waste. The research was based on two case studies. (1) Steam gasi-
fication of plastic waste by equilibrium constant technique. (2) Steam gasification
of plastic waste by Gibbs free energy minimization coupled with Lagrange undeter-
mined multipliers technique. All modeling cases were comprehensively described
and validated compared to the experimental results reported. The results confirmed
that the models predicted the syngas composition with desirable accuracy in all cases.
Keywords Gasification · Plastic waste · Steam gasification · Gasification modeling
Nomenclature
◦
h f,PW Standard formation enthalpy of plastic waste (J/mol)
h vap,H2 O Vaporization enthalpy of water (J/mol)
E˙x D Exergy destruction rate (W)
E˙x i ith exergy rate (W)
E˙x i
ch
ith chemical exergy rate (W)
E˙x i
ph
ith physical exergy rate (W)
◦
H in Standard formation enthalpy of reactants (J)
◦
H out Standard formation enthalpy of products (J)
Q̇ in Heat transfer (W)
ex ich,0 ith standard chemical exergy (J/mol)
(continued)
P. Mojaver (B) · S. Khalilarya · A. Chitsaz

(continued)
◦
h T,i ith standard enthalpy difference (J/mol)
h Standard enthalpy (J/mol)
Ea Activation energy (J)
Ei ith component energy (J)
E in Gasifier input energy (J)
◦
GT Standard Gibbs free energy (J)
L H V PW Lower heating value of plastic waste (J/mol)
L H V syngas Lower heating value of syngas (J/mol)
Pi ith partial pressure (Pa)
R Universal gas constant (J/mol.K)
s Standard entropy (J/mol.K)
εCO2 Normalized carbon dioxide emission (g/W.h)
ηcg Cold gas efficiency (%)
ηex Exergy efficiency (%)
μi ith molar numbers of components
μt Total moles of syngas (mol)
τi Total atom number of ith component
ϕH Molar ratio of hydrogen to carbon (mol/mol)
ϕO Molar ratio of oxygen to carbon (mol/mol)
C Carbon
H Hydrogen
N Nitrogen
O Oxygen
T Temperature (K)
x Feeding rate of air
y Moisture content of feedstock
z Feeding rate of steam
1 Steam Gasification Process
The chemical composition of plastic waste is considered as CHα1 Nα2 Oα3 . The steam
gasification of plastic waste is considered according to [1]:
(z + y)H2 O + CHα1 Nα2 Oα3 → syngas s (1)
where z denotes the feeding rate of steam as the gasifying agent and y indicates
the moisture content of the plastic waste. α1 , α2 and α3 are the hydrogen/carbon,
Steam Plastic Waste Gasification 75
nitrogen/carbon and oxygen/carbon molar ratio in the plastic waste. syngas s refers
to the syngas obtained in the steam gasification process and is as follows [2]:
syngas s → μ1 H2 + μ2 CH4 + μ3 CO + μ4 CO2 + μ5 H2 O (2)
where μi indicates the ith molar numbers of the components obtained through the
gasification process.
In this chapter, the steam gasification modeling of the plastic waste is conducted
by two methods of (i) equilibrium constant and (ii) Gibbs free energy minimiza-
tion coupled by Lagrange undetermined multipliers (this method is named as
Gibbs/Lagrange coupled method, in short). These two methods are introduced in
the following.
2 Steam Gasification Modeling of Plastic Waste

by Equilibrium Constant Method
The molar numbers of the components in the syngas are the unknowns of the steam
gasification process and they are five components. Therefore, the identifying problem
of the molar numbers needs five equations for steam gasification. For steam gasifica-
tion of the plastic waste, the nitrogen is negligible in the syngas because the nitrogen
content of the plastic waste is tiny. Therefore, we can develop only three equations
for mass balance of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen for the steam gasification of the
plastic waste as follows [3]:
1 = μ2 + μ3 + μ4 Carbon balance (3)
2(z + y) + 1.598 = 2μ1 + 4μ2 + 2μ5 Hydrogen balance (4)
(z + y) + 0.2175 = μ3 + 2μ4 + μ5 Oxygen balance (5)
Therefore, we need to develop two other equations for identifying the syngas
components. These equations are developed using equilibrium constant technique.
Water–gas shift reaction and methanation reactions are considered as follows [4]:
CO + H2 O → CO2 + H2 quadWater − gas shift (6)
C + 2H2 → CH4 Methanation (7)
κ1 is developed as the equilibrium constant of the water–gas shift reaction and κ2 is

established as the equilibrium constant of the methanation reaction as follows [5]:
n in vi
P PCO2 .PH2 μ4 .μ1
κ1 = (xi ) vi
→ κ1 = = (8)
i P0 PCO .PH2 O μ3 .μ5
n in vi μ2
P PCH4 μt μ2 .μt
κ2 = (xi ) vi
→ κ2 = 2 = = (9)
i P0 PH2 μ1
2
μ21
μt
where Pi indicates the ith partial pressure and μt denotes the total moles of syngas.
The equilibrium constants are obtained using the following equations [6]:
◦
G T
lnκ = − (10)
R.T
◦ n ◦
G T = μi G f,T,i (11)
i
κ = κ0 .e− R.T
Ea
(12)
◦
where G T denotes the standard Gibbs free energy, E a indicates the activation energy,
R refers to the universal gas constant and T denotes the temperature.
3 Steam Gasification Modeling of Plastic Waste

by Gibbs/Lagrange Coupled Method
The molar numbers of the syngas components which are the unknowns of the
gasification process are identified using Gibbs/Lagrange coupled method in this
section.
Total Gibbs free energy and Lagrangian multipliers are defined as follows [7]:
n
μi
G= μi G i + RT ln Gibbs free energy (13)
i=1
μt
E C

λ=G+ λr τ − μi τi Lagrangian multiplier (14)
r =1 i=1
where τi is the total atom number of the ith component as follows [8]:
n
τ= μi τi (15)
i=1
λ is minimized at its extremum point as follows:
∂λ
=0 (16)
∂μi
By considering the syngas components, their molar numbers are obtained as

follows [9]:
μ1
G H2 + RT ln( ) + 2λH = 0 Hydrogen (17)
μt
μ2
G CH4 + RT ln + λC + 4λH = 0 Methane (18)
μt
μ3
G CO + RT ln + λC + λO = 0 Carbon monoxide (19)
μt
μ4
G CO2 + RT ln + λC + 2λO = 0 Carbon dioxide (20)
μt
μ5
G H2 O + RT ln + 2λH + λO = 0 Steam (21)
μt
4 Energy Analysis on Steam Gasification of Plastic Waste
Energy balance of the gasifier can be considered as follows [10]:

◦ ◦
H in + Q̇ in = H out (22)
◦ ◦
where H in and H out are the standard formation enthalpy of the reactants and the
products, respectively, and Q̇ in is the heat transferred in the process.
◦
In the steam gasification of the plastic waste, H in is considered as follows [11]:
◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
H in = h f,PW + y h f,H2 Ol + h vap,H2 O + z h f,H2 O + h T,H2 O (23)
◦ ◦
where h f,PW is the standard formation enthalpy of the plastic waste, h f,i denotes the
ith standard formation enthalpy, h vap,H2 O refers to the vaporization enthalpy of the
◦
water and h T ,i indicates the ith standard enthalpy difference between the given and
the reference states. ◦
In the steam gasification of the plastic waste, H out is considered as follows
[11]:
Table 1 δi values in Eq. (25) [12]

Component δ1 δ2 δ3 δ4
H2 11.29 −0.001916 0.4003 × 10–5 −0.8704 × 10–9
CH4 19.89 0.052040 1.2690 × 10–5 −11.010 × 10–9
CO 28.16 0.001675 0.5372 × 10–5 −2.2222 × 10–9
CO2 22.26 0.059810 −3.5010 × 10–5 −7.4690 × 10–9
H2 O 32.24 0.001923 1.0550 × 10–5 −3.5950 × 10–9
N2 28.90 −0.001571 0.8081 × 10–5 −2.8730 × 10–9
◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
H out = μ1 h f,H2 + h T,H2 + μ2 h f,CH4 + h T ,CH4 + μ3 h f,CO + h T,CO
◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
+ μ4 h f,CO2 + h T,CO2 + μ5 h f,H2 O + h T ,H2 O (24)
◦
h T ,i is obtained as follows [12]:
T
h T = δ1 + δ2 T + δ3 T 2 + δ4 T 3 dT (25)
T0
where δi are constant values as presented in Table 1 for the temperature in the range
of 273–1800 K.
5 Exergy Analysis on Steam Gasification of Plastic Waste
Exergy balance of the gasifier is defined for the steam gasification of the plastic waste
as follows [13]:
Ė x D = Ė x PW + Ė x steam + Ė x Q − Ė x syngas (26)
where E˙x D indicates the exergy destruction rate and E˙x i denotes the ith exergy rate.
The exergy rate corresponding to the plastic waste ( Ė x PW ), the steam ( Ė x steam )
and the syngas ( Ė x syngas ) can be considered in two parts of the physical and the
chemical exergy rates as follows:
E˙x i = E˙x i + E˙x i

ph ch
(27)
where E˙x i and E˙x i denote the ith physical and chemical exergy rates, respectively,
ph ch
and they are defined as follows [13]:

E˙x i =
ph
ṅ i h i − h 0 − T0 (s i − s 0 ) (28)
i
Table 2 exi ch,0 for different

Component exi ch,0 (kJ/mol)
species
H2 236.1
CH4 831.6
CO 275.1
CO2 19.87
H2 O (g) 9.5
H2 O (l) 0.9
O2 3.97

ṅ i ch,0 ṅ i ṅ i
E˙x i
ch
= ṅ t ex + RT0 ln (29)
i
ṅ t i i
ṅ t ṅ t
where h and s denote the standard enthalpy and entropy, respectively, and i and
0 subscripts refers to input and ambient conditions. Also, ex ich,0 indicated the ith
standard chemical exergy and their values for different species are presented in Table
2.
It is noteworthy to mention that E˙x PW , i.e. the physical exergy rate of the plastic
ph
waste, is neglected compared to E˙x PW which is the chemical exergy rate of the plastic
ch
waste obtained as follows:
E˙x PW = ṅ PW (β.L H V PW )
ch
(30)
where L H V PW denotes the lower heating value of the plastic waste and β indicates
a constant value obtained as follows [12]:
1.0414 + (0.0177ϕH ) − [(0.3328ϕO ) × (1 + (0.0537ϕH ))]

β= (31)
1 − (0.4021ϕO )
where ϕH and ϕO denote the molar ratio of hydrogen and oxygen to carbon in the
chemical composition of the plastic waste.
Ė x Q is obtained as follows:
T0
E˙x Q = 1 − Q̇ (32)
T
6 Performance Evaluation of Steam Gasification of Plastic

Waste
Different performance indicators can be defined for evaluation of the gasification

performance. Lower heating value of the syngas (L H V syngas ) is one of the important
performance indicators defined as follows [14]:
L H V syngas = E H2 + E CH4 + E CO (33)
where E i denotes the ith component energy obtained as follows [14]:
E i = μi × L H V i (34)
Cold gas efficiency (ηcg ) is another important performance indicator defined as

follows [15]:
L H V syngas
ηcg = (35)
E in
where E in indicates the input energy to the gasifier and is defined as follows for the
steam plastic waste gasification [14]:
E in = E PW + E steam + E Q (36)
Hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio as one of the important performance indexes

is defined as follows:
H2 μ1
= (37)
CO μ3
Another important performance indicator is the exergy efficiency (ηex ) defined

for the steam plastic waste gasification as follows [16]:
E˙x syngas
ηex = (38)
E˙x input
Normalized carbon dioxide emission (εCO2 ) is defined as an environmental

performance indicator as follows:
m CO2
εCO2 = (39)
μ̇H2 × L H V H2 + μ̇CH4 × L H V CH4 + μ̇CO × L H V CO
7 Modeling Validation of Steam Gasification of Plastic

Waste
In this section, both methods utilized for the steam gasification modeling of the
plastic waste are validated by comparing with the results reported in the literature.
Each method is validated for the steam gasifying agents. Therefore, there are two cate-
gorizes of (i) steam gasification of plastic waste using equilibrium constant method
and (ii) steam gasification of plastic waste using Gibbs/Lagrange coupled method.
7.1 Modeling Validation of Steam Gasification of Plastic

Waste Based on Equilibrium Constant Method
In this section, the modeling of steam gasification using equilibrium constant method
is validated by comparing the syngas composition with the results reported by Loha
et al. [17] at four different processing conditions of (i) temperature of 750 °C and
steam to feedstock ratio (S/F) of 1 and (ii) temperature of 750 °C and steam to
feedstock ratio (S/F) of 1.7 (presented in Fig. 9), (iii) temperature of 730 °C and
steam to feedstock ratio (S/F) of 1.32 and (iv) temperature of 770 °C and steam
to feedstock ratio (S/F) of 1.32 (presented in Fig. 1). The results confirm that the
modeling of steam gasification using equilibrium constant method has desirable
accuracy to predict the syngas composition in all processing conditions considered
in this regard.
7.2 Modeling Validation of Steam Gasification of Plastic

Waste Based on Gibbs/Lagrange Coupled Method
In this section, the steam gasification modeling using Gibbs/Lagrange coupled

method is validated by comparing the results of syngas composition with the results
reported by Rapagnà et al. [18] for biomass steam gasification and those reported
by Wu and Williams [19] for plastic steam gasification. The results are presented in
Fig. 2. The results confirm that the steam gasification modeling using Gibbs/Lagrange
coupled method has high validity and presents a desirable accuracy to predict the
syngas composition for both biomass and plastic steam gasification types.
The steam gasification of plastic waste has been modeled and developed in this
chapter. Two different methods have been used for the steam gasification of plastic
waste:
(i) Steam gasification of plastic waste by equilibrium constant technique.
(ii) Steam gasification of plastic waste by Gibbs free energy minimization coupled
by Lagrange undetermined multipliers technique.
Fig. 1 Modeling validation of steam gasification using equilibrium constant method at different
conditions
Fig. 2 Modeling validation of steam gasification using Gibbs/Lagrange coupled method

After modeling, their performances to predict the syngas composition was

validated compared to the results reported in the literature.
References
1. Ayub, H.M.U., Qyyum, M.A., Qadeer, K., Binns, M., Tawfik, A., Lee, M.: Robustness enhance-
ment of biomass steam gasification thermodynamic models for biohydrogen production:
introducing new correction factors. J. Clean. Prod. 321, 128954 (2021)
2. Sun, Y., Chen, J., Zhang, Z.: Biomass gasification using the waste heat from high temperature
slags in a mixture of CO2 and H2 O. Energy 167, 688–697 (2019)
3. Talero, G., Kansha, Y.: Simulation of the steam gasification of Japanese waste wood in an
indirectly heated downdraft reactor using PRO/II™: numerical comparison of stoichiometric
and kinetic models. Energies 15(12), 4181 (2022)
4. Lampropoulos, A., Binas, V., Konsolakis, M., Marnellos, G.E.: Steam gasification of Greek
lignite and its chars by co-feeding CO2 toward syngas production with an adjustable H2/CO
ratio. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46(56), 28486–28500 (2021)
5. Mojaver, P., Khalilarya, S., Chitsaz, A.: Multi-objective optimization using response surface
methodology and exergy analysis of a novel integrated biomass gasification, solid oxide fuel
cell and high-temperature sodium heat pipe system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 156, 627–639 (2019)
6. Ziółkowski, P., Badur, J., Pawlak-Kruczek, H., Stasiak, K., Amiri, M., Niedzwiecki, L.,
Krochmalny, K., Mularski, J., Madejski, P., Mikielewicz, D.: Mathematical modelling of gasi-
fication process of sewage sludge in reactor of negative CO2 emission power plant. Energy
244, 122601 (2022)
7. Mojaver, M., Hasanzadeh, R., Azdast, T., Park, C.B.: Comparative study on air gasification
of plastic waste and conventional biomass based on coupling of AHP/TOPSIS multi-criteria
decision analysis. Chemosphere 286, 131867 (2022)
8. Babatabar, M.A., Saidi, M.: Hydrogen production via integrated configuration of steam gasi-
fication process of biomass and water-gas shift reaction: Process simulation and optimization.
Int. J. Energy Res. 45(13), 19378–19394 (2021)
9. Khalilarya, S., Chitsaz, A., Mojaver, P.: Optimization of a combined heat and power system
based gasification of municipal solid waste of Urmia University student dormitories via ANOVA
and Taguchi approaches. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46(2), 1815–1827 (2021)
10. Inayat, A., Raza, M., Khan, Z., Ghenai, C., Aslam, M., Shahbaz, M., Ayoub, M.: Flowsheet
modeling and simulation of biomass steam gasification for hydrogen production. Chem. Eng.
Technol. 43(4), 649–660 (2020)
11. Mojaver, M., Azdast, T., Hasanzadeh, R.: Assessments of key features and Taguchi analysis
on hydrogen rich syngas production via gasification of polyethylene, polypropylene, polycar-
bonate and polyethylene terephthalate wastes. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 46(58), 29846–29857
(2021)
12. Mojaver, P., Jafarmadar, S., Khalilarya, S., Chitsaz, A.: Investigation and optimization of a co-
generation plant integrated of gasifier, gas turbine and heat pipes using minimization of Gibbs
free energy, Lagrange method and response surface methodology. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 45(38),
19027–19044 (2020)
247, 114713 (2021)
14. Cao, Y., Bai, Y., Du, J.: Air-steam gasification of biomass based on a multi-composition
multi-step kinetic model: a clean strategy for hydrogen-enriched syngas production. Sci. Total
Environ. 753, 141690 (2021)
15. Song, Y., Tian, Y., Zhou, X., Liang, S., Li, X., Yang, Y., Yuan, L.: Simulation of air-steam
gasification of pine sawdust in an updraft gasification system for production of hydrogen-rich
producer gas. Energy 226, 120380 (2021)
16. Piazzi, S., Patuzzi, F., Baratieri, M.: Energy and exergy analysis of different biomass gasification
coupled to Fischer-Tropsch synthesis configurations. Energy 249, 123642 (2022)
17. Loha, C., Chattopadhyay, H., Chatterjee, P.K.: Thermodynamic analysis of hydrogen rich
synthetic gas generation from fluidized bed gasification of rice husk. Energy 36(7), 4063–4071
(2011)
18. Rapagnà, S., Jand, N., Kiennemann, A., Foscolo, P.U.: Steam-gasification of biomass in a
fluidised-bed of olivine particles. Biomass Bioenergy 19(3), 187–197 (2000)
19. Wu, C., Williams, P.T.: Hydrogen production by steam gasification of polypropylene with
various nickel catalysts. Appl. Catal. B 87(3–4), 152–161 (2009)
Evaluation of Air Polyurethane Foam
Waste Gasification
Rezgar Hasanzadeh, Taher Azdast, and Chul B. Park
Abstract Plastic waste gasification plays a crucial role in plastic waste manage-
ment and treatment. Polyurethane foam contributed the most to global polyurethane
consumption, and flexible polyurethane foam ranked first with a contribution of
31% to global polyurethane consumption. Several studies have documented plastic
waste gasification. However, flexible polyurethane foam waste gasification has yet
to be understood. The principal objective of this study was to evaluate the gasi-
fication process of flexible polyurethane foam waste. This study analyzed the air
gasification of flexible polyurethane foam waste. It examined the effects of vital
variables on the gasification performance. Lower heating value of syngas, cold gas
efficiency, hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio, exergy efficiency, and normalized
carbon dioxide emission were considered as the performance indicators. In air gasi-
fication, the moisture content of flexible polyurethane foam waste, equivalence ratio,
and temperature were evaluated as the key variables. The gasification performance
of flexible polyurethane foam waste was comprehensively studied by considering the
syngas composition changes versus the variable parameters. In the air gasification
of flexible polyurethane foam waste:
(1) The hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio improved, the lower heating value
of syngas declined, the cold gas efficiency lessened, the exergy efficiency
decreased, and the normalized carbon dioxide emission increased when the
moisture content of flexible polyurethane foam waste increased.
(2) When the equivalence ratio increased, the hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio
remained constant, the lower heating value of the syngas reduced, the cold
gas and the exergy efficiencies declined, and the normalized carbon dioxide
emission enlarged.
(3) Increasing temperature resulted in decreasing the hydrogen to carbon
monoxide ratio, improving the lower heating value of the syngas, enhancing
R. Hasanzadeh (B) · T. Azdast

e-mail: re.hasanzadeh@urmia.ac.ir
C. B. Park
Microcellular Plastics Manufacturing Laboratory (MPML), Department of Mechanical &
Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, 5 King’s College Road, Toronto, ON, Canada

86 R. Hasanzadeh et al.
the cold gas efficiency, boosting the exergy efficiency, and mitigating the
normalized carbon dioxide emission.
Keywords Plastic waste gasification · Polyurethane · Flexible polyurethane

foam · Gasification · Air gasification
1 Introduction
Recent years have seen considerable interest in plastic waste management and treat-
ment. The quantity of the plastic production/consumption does not match the quan-
tity of the plastic waste post-consumer in a specific year because the plastic products
have 1–50 years of use phase nowadays. Thermoplastics and thermosets are the main
types of plastics, the first one is melted when delivers a heat while the latter one is
experienced a chemical change when subjected to a heat source [1]. Polyethylene,
polypropylene, polystyrene, polycarbonate, polyamide, polyethylene terephthalate,
poly methyl methacrylate and polyvinyl chloride are the most applicable thermoplas-
tics [2] and polyurethane ranks the first among the thermosets from usage viewpoint
[3].
World produced almost 368 million tonnes of plastics in 2019, with the share of
57.9 million tonnes for Europe [4]. This quantity was 359 million tonnes in 2018
for global plastics production, with the share of 61.8 million tonnes for Europe [5].
In 2020, world produced 367 million tonnes of plastics including thermoplastics,
polyurethanes, elastomers, thermosets, PP-fibers, coating and sealants and adhesives.
The share of the Europe was 55 million tonnes in 2020 global plastics production
[6]. Figure 1 shows the global plastics production distribution by country in 2020
[6]. China with the share of 32% ranks the first followed by North American Free
3% 4%
3%
32%
7% CIS-3%
Japan-3%
Latin America-4%
15% Middle east, Africa-7%
Europe-15%
Rest of Asia-17%
NAFTA-19%
China-32%
17%
19%
Fig. 1 Global plastics production distribution by country in 2020

Evaluation of Air Polyurethane Foam Waste Gasification 87
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the share of 19%. The third and the fourth ranks
belongs to rest of Asia and Europe with the shares of 17 and 15%. Middle east and
Africa contribute by 7% followed by Latin America and Japan with the shares of 4
and 3%, respectively. Commonwealth of Independent States contributes the last but
not the least with the share of 3% on 367 million tonnes of global plastics production
in 2020.
Figure 2 presents the end-use markets for the global plastics production by
segments in 2020 [6]. Packaging with the share of 40.5% is the largest end-use
market for the global plastics production. Building & construction ranks the second
with the share of 20.4%. Automotive ranks the third of the end-use market with
the share of 8.8%. Electrical & electronics with the share of 6.2% and household,
leisure and sports with the share of 4.3% are the fourth and the fifth biggest end-
use markets. Agriculture ranks the sixth with the share of 3.2%. Others end-use
markets include furniture applications, medical industry, machinery applications and
mechanical engineering, technical products and etc. with the share of 16.6%.
Figure 3 presents the European plastics production by type in 2019 and 2020 [4,
6]. In both years, polypropylene (PP) contributed the most in the plastics produc-
tion by 9.87 million tonnes in 2019 and 9.70 million tonnes in 2020. Low-density
and high-density polyethylene (PE) contributed the second and the third in the plas-
tics production, respectively. Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) contributed by 8.85
million tonnes in 2019 and 8.57 million tonnes in 2020. The contribution of high-
density polyethylene (HDPE) was by 6.29 million tonnes in 2019 and 6.32 million
tonnes in 2020. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) ranked the fourth by 5.09 million tonnes
in 2019 and 4.70 million tonnes in 2020. Polyurethane (PUR) was the fifth plastic
type by 4.01 million tonnes of production in 2019 and the sixth plastic type by 3.81
million tonnes in 2020. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) with 3.99 million tonnes
in 2019 and 4.14 million tonnes in 2020 was the sixth and the fifth plastic type with
large production, respectively. Other plastics (OP) and other thermoplastics (OT)
16.6% 3.2%
Others-16.6%
40.5% 4.3% Agriculture-3.2%
6.2% Houshold, Leisure, Sports-4.3%
Electrical & Electronics-6.2%
Automotive-8.8%
8.8%
Building & Construction-20.4%
Packaging-40.5%
20.4%
Fig. 2 European plastics production distribution by end-use markets in 2020

Fig. 3 European plastics production by type in 2019 and 2020
Fig. 4 European plastics production distribution by type in 2019 and 2020
ranked the seventh and the eighth, respectively. Generally, PUR is among the sixth
plastic type with large production.
Figure 4 presents the plastics production distribution by type in the Europe in
2019 and 2020 [4, 6]. Polypropylene (PP) has applications in food packaging, pipes,
sweet and snack wrappers, automotive parts, microwave containers, hinged caps,
bank notes, etc. and it has been assigned 19.4 and 19.7% of the European plastics
production distribution in 2019 and 2020, respectively. Polyethylene (PE) with appli-
cations in pipes, agricultural film, toys, food packaging films, reusable bags, bottles,
trays and containers, etc. has a cumulative distribution (LDPE + HDPE) of 29.8
and 30.3% in 2019 and 2020, respectively. Polyurethane (PUR) has 7.9 and 7.8% of
the European plastics production distribution in 2019 and 2020 with applications in
building insulation, insulating foams for fridges, pillows and mattresses and etc.
Figure 5 presents the plastic and waste production by industrial sectors [7, 8].
According to this data, plastic waste production is a major concern. It can be seen
that the packaging sector contributed the most to both plastic generation and waste
production in 2015 by 146 and 141 million tonnes, respectively. What is interesting
Fig. 5 Plastic and waste productions in 2015 with respect to different industrial sectors
about the data is that the in-use lifetime of packaging is very short. Although the
building and construction sector consumed 59 million tonnes of global plastics gener-
ation in 2015, its waste production was only 13 million tonnes because of its long
in-use lifetime. The textile sector ranked the second with 42 million tonnes of waste
production in 2015.
Global consumption of polyurethane was 23.89 million tonnes in 2020. This
value reached 24.72 million tonnes in 2021 indicating 3.47% of growth in the global
polyurethane market volume. It has been estimated that the global consumption
of polyurethane will reach 26.91 million tonnes in 2025 and 29.19 million tonnes
in 2029. In other words, the global market volume for polyurethane will growth
by 18.08% in 2029 compared to 2021 based on the projections [9]. This global
polyurethane market volume valued 63 billion USD in 2021 and it has been estimated
to value 89 billion USD in 2029 [10].
Figure 6 presents the polyurethane global consumption in 2016 [11]. The data
indicates that the main consumption of the polyurethane is in the foam industry.
31% of the global polyurethane consumption belonged to the flexible polyurethane
foam. Rigid polyurethane foam and molded polyurethane foam contributed by 25
and 11% in the global polyurethane consumption. Cumulatively, polyurethane foam
contributed by 67% in the global polyurethane market volume and this shows the
importance of this polymeric foam type. Accordingly, polyurethane foam contributes
significantly on the plastic post-consumer waste, and therefore, polyurethane foam
waste treatment is a major area of interest within the field of plastic waste management
and treatment.
In this chapter, air gasification process of polyurethane foam waste is studied as
one of the most applicable thermochemical processes to treat this material.
Fig. 6 Polyurethane global consumption in 2016
2 Air Gasification Evaluation of Flexible Polyurethane

Foam Waste
For evaluation of air gasification of flexible polyurethane foam waste, moisture

content of flexible polyurethane foam waste, equivalence ratio and gasification
temperature are considered as the key variables of the process. Moisture content of
flexible polyurethane foam waste is studied in the range of 10–30 wt%, equivalence
ratio is evaluated ranging from 0.3 to 0.4 and gasification temperature is assessed
in the range of 950–1250 K. Their influences are evaluated on H2 /CO ratio, lower
heating value (LHV) of syngas, cold gas efficiency, exergy efficiency and normalized
CO2 emission.
3 Effect of Moisture Content on Air Gasification of Flexible

Polyurethane Foam Waste
Figure 7 shows the effect of moisture content of flexible polyurethane foam waste on
the H2 /CO ratio in air gasification of polyurethane foam waste. The results show that
the H2 /CO ratio is improved when the moisture content increases. The H2 /CO ratio
is 0.9444 mol/mol at the moisture content of 10 wt% and passes 1 mol/mol when
the moisture content almost reaches 13.5 wt%. The H2 /CO ratio further increases to
1.364 mol/mol when the moisture content is 30 wt%. The reason for increasing the
H2 /CO ratio with moisture content is improving H2 yield and declining CO yield.
Figure 7b indicates that H2 yield is considerably boosted and CO yield is markedly
declined when the moisture content increases. By increasing moisture content from
10 to 30 wt%, H2 yield boosts from 22.95 to 26.16 mol% and CO yield declines from
Fig. 7 Effect of moisture content on H2 /CO ratio (a) and H2 and CO molar concentrations (b) in
air gasification of polyurethane foam waste
24.30 to 19.18 mol%. These observations are in accordance with the water–gas shift
reaction as follows [12, 13]:
CO2 + H2 ↔ CO + H2 O Water−gas shift H = +41.2 kJ/mol (1)
According to this reaction, increasing moisture content of flexible polyurethane

foam waste provides more H2 O and forces this reaction to the left side [14]. Therefore,
this phenomenon consumes more CO and produces more H2 .
Figure 8 depicts the effect of the moisture content on the LHV of syngas in air
gasification of polyurethane foam waste. According to the results, when the moisture
content increases, the LHV of syngas is mitigated. This mitigation is from 443.1 to
437.2 kJ/mol when the moisture content changes from 10 to 30 wt%. As the results of
Fig. 8b show, alongside with increasing H2 yield and declining CO yield (previously
described and discussed), CH4 yield is also mitigated. This mitigation is accordance
with the Sabatier reaction as follows [15, 16]:
Fig. 8 Effect of moisture content on LHV of syngas (a) and H2 , CO and CH4 molar concentrations
(b) in air gasification of polyurethane foam waste
CH4 + 2H2 O ↔ CO2 + 4H2 Sabatier H = +165 kJ/mol (2)
Higher moisture content of flexible polyurethane foam waste provides more H2 O

for forcing the Sabatier reaction, and therefore, the reaction shifts to the right side
and more CH4 is consumed.
Overall, H2 yield is increased and CO and CH4 yields are mitigated. Mitigation
of CO and CH4 yields conquers increment of H2 yield, and therefore, the LHV of
syngas declines due to the high LHV of CH4 .
It is noteworthy that H2 yield raises from 22.95 to 26.16 mol%, CO yield mitigates
from 24.30 to 19.18 mol% and CH4 yield declines from 0.02467 to 0.00866 mol%
when the moisture content changes from 10 to 30 wt%.
Figure 9 shows the effect of moisture content of flexible polyurethane foam waste
on cold gas efficiency in air gasification. The results indicate that the cold gas effi-
ciency is reduced when the moisture content increases. Increasing moisture content
from 10 to 30 wt% reduces the cold gas efficiency from 57.66 to 56.90%. This reduc-
tion in the cold gas efficiency is accordance with the reduction of the LHV of syngas
since the input energy remains constant as depicted in Fig. 9b. When moisture content
increases from 10 to 30 wt%, the LHV of syngas reduces from 443.1 to 437.2 kJ/mol
and the input energy remains constant at 768.5 kJ/mol. These observations result in
reduction in the cold gas efficiency.
on exergy efficiency in air gasification. The results show that the exergy efficiency
is reduced with the moisture content. When the moisture content increases from
10 to 30 wt%, the exergy efficiency reduces from 52.95 to 50.43%. This reduction
is accordance with the changes of syngas exergy and input exergy as depicted in
Fig. 10b. The syngas exergy is decreased from 456.7 to 434.9 kW when the moisture
content increases from 10 to 30 wt% due to the reduction of the LHV of syngas. It
is noteworthy that the input exergy remains constant at 862.5 kW when the moisture
content changes. Therefore, the exergy efficiency is reduced due to the reduction of
the syngas exergy.
Fig. 9 Effect of moisture content on cold gas efficiency (a) and LHV of syngas and input energy
Fig. 10 Effect of moisture content on exergy efficiency (a) and exergy of syngas and input exergy
Fig. 11 Effect of moisture content on normalized carbon dioxide emission (a) and carbon dioxide
emission and LHV of syngas (b) in air gasification of polyurethane foam waste
The effect of the moisture content on the normalized CO2 emission in air gasifi-
cation of polyurethane foam waste is presented in Fig. 11. According to the results,
the normalized CO2 emission is augmented when the moisture content increases.
Increasing moisture content from 10 to 30 wt% augments the normalized CO2 emis-
sion from 49.31 to 105.3 kg/MW.h. This augmentation is due to increasing CO2
yield and decreasing the LHV of syngas. As the results of Fig. 11a indicate, CO2
yield increases from 6.069 g to 12.78 g when the moisture content increases from
10 to 30 wt%. This increment is accordance with the Sabatier reaction (Eq. (8.2)).
More CH4 reacts with more H2 O available at higher moisture content of flexible
polyurethane foam waste and shifts the Sabatier reaction toward producing more
CO2 . Increment of CO2 yield from one side and decrement of LHV of syngas from
other side (discussed in Fig. 8) leads to increasing the normalized CO2 emission.
4 Effect of Equivalence Ratio on Air Gasification

of Flexible Polyurethane Foam Waste
Figure 12 shows the effect of equivalence ratio on the H2 /CO ratio in air gasification of
polyurethane foam waste. According to the results, the H2 /CO ratio remains constant
when the equivalence ratio changes. By increasing equivalence ratio from 0.3 to 0.4,
the H2 /CO ratio remains at 1.129 mol/mol. This phenomenon is explained by the
changes of H2 and CO yields as depicted in Fig. 12b. The results indicate that H2 and
CO yields are declined with the equivalence ratio. H2 yield is declined from 27.76 to
21.62 mol% and CO yield is reduced from 24.59 to 19.18 mol/mol when equivalence
ratio increases from 0.3 to 0.4. These declines are in accordance with the following
reactions [17, 18]:
2H2 + O2 → 2H2 O (3)
2CO + O2 → 2CO2 (4)
Higher equivalence ratio provides more O2 for these reactions and forces them
[19]. Therefore, H2 and CO are consumed in these reactions, and hence, their yields
are reduced. Reducing these yields are in such a way that their ratio remains constant.
The effect of equivalence ratio on LHV of syngas in air gasification of
polyurethane foam waste is presented in Fig. 13. When equivalence ratio increases,
the LHV of syngas declines. This decline is from 474.0 to 406.5 kJ/mol by increasing
equivalence ratio from 0.3 to 0.4 and is accordance with the component yields as
depicted in Fig. 13b.
According to the results, H2 , CO and CH4 yields are declined when the equivalence
ratio increases. The H2 and CO yields were discussed in Fig. 12. The CH4 yield
Fig. 12 Effect of equivalence ratio on H2 /CO ratio (a) and H2 and CO molar concentrations (b) in
Fig. 13 Effect of equivalence ratio on LHV of syngas (a) and H2 , CO and CH4 molar concentrations
reduction is accordance with the following reaction [20, 21]:
CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2 O (5)
Higher equivalence ratio provides more O2 for this reaction and forces it to the
right side. Therefore, CH4 is consumed and its yield decreases.
H2 yield reduces from 27.76 mol% to 21.62%, CO yield decreases from 24.59 to
19.18 mol% and CH4 yield drops from 0.03173 to 0.0068 mol% when equivalence
ratio increases from 0.3 to 0.4. Consequently, the LHV of syngas decreases.
Figure 14 presents the effect of equivalence ratio on cold gas efficiency in air gasi-
fication of polyurethane foam waste. The results indicate that the cold gas efficiency
is dropped with the equivalence ratio. Increasing equivalence ratio from 0.3 to 0.4
drops the cold gas efficiency from 61.68 to 52.89%. This drop is in accordance with
the changes of LHV of syngas and input energy as depicted in Fig. 14b. As it was
explained in Fig. 13, the LHV of syngas declines from 474.0 to 406.5 kJ/mol and
Fig. 14 Effect of equivalence ratio on cold gas efficiency (a) and LHV of syngas and input energy
the input energy remains constant at 768.5 kJ/mol. As the LHV of syngas decreases,
the cold gas efficiency also decreases.
The effect of equivalence ratio on exergy efficiency in air gasification of
polyurethane foam waste is presented in Fig. 15. The results illustrate that the exergy
efficiency is reduced with the equivalence ratio. When the equivalence ratio increases
from 0.3 to 0.4, the exergy efficiency is declined from 55.59 to 48.25%. This decline
is in accordance with the decline in the syngas exergy as depicted in Fig. 15b. The
syngas exergy is decreased from 479.5 to 416.1 kW when the equivalence ratio
increases from 0.3 to 0.4. Since the input exergy remains constant at 862.5 kW, the
exergy efficiency is declined as a consequence of reduction in syngas exergy.
Figure 16 presents the effect of equivalence ratio on normalized carbon dioxide
emission in air gasification of polyurethane foam waste. The results reveal that the
normalized carbon dioxide emission is enlarged with the equivalence ratio. Increasing
the equivalence ratio from 0.3 to 0.4 enlarges the normalized carbon dioxide emission
from 50.84 to 106.1 kg/MW.h. This enlargement is in accordance with the changes
Fig. 15 Effect of equivalence ratio on exergy efficiency (a) and exergy of syngas and input exergy
Fig. 16 Effect of equivalence ratio on normalized carbon dioxide emission (a) and carbon dioxide
of CO2 yield and the LHV of syngas as depicted in Fig. 16b. According to the results,
the LHV of syngas is reduced from 474.0 to 406.5 kW.h (as discussed in Fig. 7) and
CO2 yield is increased from 6.694 to 11.98 g when the equivalence ratio increases
from 0.3 to 0.4. Increasing CO2 yield is in accordance with the reaction of Eq. 5.
Higher equivalence ratio provides more O2 for this reaction and forces this reaction
to the right side. Therefore, more CO2 is generated. Increasing CO2 yield from one
side, and decreasing the LHV of the syngas from another side result in enlarging the
normalized carbon dioxide emission.
5 Effect of Temperature on Air Gasification of Flexible

Figure 17 presents the effect of temperature on the H2 /CO ratio in air gasification
of polyurethane foam waste. The results show that the H2 /CO ratio is declined with
the temperature. Increasing temperature from 950 to 1250 K declines the H2 /CO
ratio from 1.271 to 1.031 mol/mol. As can be seen in Fig. 17b, the H2 yield is
firstly increased from 24.36 to 24.63 mol% when the temperature increases from
950 to 1010 K, and then, it is decreased to 23.78 mol% when the temperature further
increases to 1250 K. These two behaviors are justified as follows:
(i) At low temperatures, the water–gas reaction is predominant. This reaction is
as follows [22, 23]:
C + H2 O ↔ CO + H2 Water − gas H = +131 kJ/mol (6)
This reaction is endothermic and higher temperature forces it [24]. Therefore,

increasing temperature forces it to the right side and it means higher H2 yields.
Fig. 17 Effect of temperature on H2 /CO ratio (a) and H2 and CO molar concentrations (b) in air
gasification of polyurethane foam waste
(ii) At high temperature, the water–gas shift reaction is predominant as presented

in Eq. 1. This reaction is also endothermic and is forced at higher temperatures
[25]. Forcing to the right-side means consuming the H2 and decreasing the H2
yield.
According to the results of Fig. 17b, the CO yield is increased from 19.17 to
23.06 mol% when the temperature increases from 950 to 1250 K. This increment is
in accordance with the Boudouard reaction as follows [26, 27]:
C + CO2 ↔ 2CO Boudouard H = +172 kJ/mol (7)
This reaction is endothermic and is forced by increasing temperature [28].

Therefore, more CO is generated at higher temperatures.
Overall, decreasing H2 yield and increasing CO yield result in reduction in the
H2 /CO ratio.
The effect of temperature on the LHV of the syngas in air gasification of
polyurethane foam waste is depicted in Fig. 18. As the results illustrate, the LHV
of the syngas is improved with the temperature. This improvement is from 432.0 to
441.9 kJ/mol when the temperature increases from 950 to 1250 K and is accordance
with the improvement of the CO yield. Figure 18b shows that alongside with the H2
yield, the CH4 yield is also decreased when the temperature increases. The H2 yield
decreases from 24.36 to 23.78 mol% as discussed in Fig. 17, while the CH4 yield
reduces from 0.7389 mol% to almost 0 mol%. However, the CO yield improves from
19.17 to 23.06 mol%. This improvement in the CO yield conquers the reductions in
the H2 and CH4 yields, and therefore, the LHV of the syngas improves as the CO
yield improves.
Figure 19 depicts the effect of temperature on the cold gas efficiency in air gasifi-
cation of polyurethane foam waste. According to the results, the cold gas efficiency is
boosted with the temperature. When the temperature increases from 950 to 1250 K,
Fig. 18 Effect of temperature on LHV of syngas (a) and H2 , CO and CH4 molar concentrations
the cold gas efficiency boosts from 56.21 to 57.50%. This enhancement is in accor-
dance with the changes of the LHV of the syngas as depicted in Fig. 19b. As discussed
in Fig. 18, the LHV of the syngas is improved from 432.0 to 441.9 kJ/mol and the
input energy remains constant at 768.5 kJ/mol when the temperature increases from
950 to 1250 K. Taking into account of the constant input energy, as the LHV of the
syngas is improved, the cold gas efficiency is enhanced.
Figure 20 shows the effect of temperature on the exergy efficiency in air gasifi-
cation of polyurethane foam waste. The results indicate that the exergy efficiency is
enhances with the temperature. When the temperature increases from 950 to 1250 K,
the exergy efficiency enhances from 50.07 to 53.20%. This enhancement is in accor-
dance with the changes of the syngas exergy as depicted in Fig. 20b. According to
the results, by increasing temperature from 950 to 1250 K, the input exergy remains
constant at 862.5 kW, while the syngas exergy improves from 431.9 to 458.8 kW. As
the syngas exergy improves, the exergy efficiency enhances.
Fig. 19 Effect of temperature on cold gas efficiency (a) and LHV of syngas and input energy (b) in
Fig. 20 Effect of temperature on exergy efficiency (a) and exergy of syngas and input exergy (b) in
Fig. 21 Effect of temperature on normalized carbon dioxide emission (a) and carbon dioxide
The effect of temperature on the normalized carbon dioxide emission in air gasi-
fication of polyurethane foam waste is presented in Fig. 21. The results reveal that
the normalized carbon dioxide emission is mitigated with the temperature. When the
temperature increases from 950 to 1250 K, the normalized carbon dioxide emission
is mitigated from 103.2 to 62.30 kg/MW.h. This mitigation has two reasons:
(i) The CO2 yield is declined from 12.38 to 7.647 g as depicted in Fig. 21b. This
decline is in accordance with the Boudouard reaction presented in Eq. 7. Since
the Boudouard reaction is endothermic, it is forced to the right side [29], and
therefore, more CO2 is consumed and its yield is diminished.
(ii) The LHV of the syngas is increased as discussed in Fig. 18.
The normalized carbon dioxide emission is mitigated since the CO2 yield and the
LHV of the syngas are lessened.
6 Conclusions
The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the gasification process of the flexible
polyurethane foam waste with the air gasifying agent. The gasification performance
was assessed concerning the key variable parameters.
The higher moisture content of the flexible polyurethane foam waste in the air
gasification resulted in higher hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratios because the H2
yield was improved and the CO yield was diminished due to governing the water–gas
shift reaction. However, the CH4 yield declined by increasing the moisture content
of the flexible polyurethane foam waste by forcing the Sabatier reaction. Decreasing
the CO and the CH4 yields led to the decrement of the LHV of the syngas at higher
moisture contents of the flexible polyurethane foam waste. As the LHV of the syngas
was decreased, the cold gas efficiency was also reduced. At higher moisture contents
of the flexible polyurethane foam waste, the exergy efficiency declined as a conse-
quence of decreasing the syngas exergy. The normalized carbon dioxide emission
was increased because the CO2 emission was increased, and the LHV of the syngas
was decreased by increasing the moisture content of the flexible polyurethane foam
waste.
In the air gasification of flexible polyurethane foam waste, the H2 /CO ratio
remained constant versus the equivalence ratio because both the H2 and the CO
yields were decreased. Decreasing the H2 , the CO, and the CH4 yields with the
equivalence ratio resulted in the lower LHV of the syngas at higher equivalence
ratios. The lower the LHV of the syngas was, the lower the cold gas efficiency was
by increasing the equivalence ratio. At higher equivalence ratios, the syngas exergy
was decreased, resulted in lower exergy efficiency. Increasing the CO2 yield and
decreasing the LHV of the syngas increased the normalized carbon dioxide emission
when the equivalence ratio increased.
Higher temperatures in air gasification of flexible polyurethane foam waste led
to the decrement of the H2 /CO ratio because the H2 yield was generally decreased
due to the shifting of the water–gas shift reaction, and the CO yield was increased
due to the shifting of the Boudouard reaction. This CO yield increment resulted in
higher LHV of the syngas, although the H2 and the CH4 yields were decreased.
The higher the LHV of the syngas was, the higher the cold gas efficiency was. As
the syngas exergy was improved at higher temperatures, the exergy efficiency was
also enhanced. The normalized carbon dioxide emission was mitigated since the
CO2 emission was decreased, and the LHV of the syngas was increased when the
temperature increased.
References
1. Bîrcă, A., Gherasim, O., Grumezescu, V., Grumezescu, A.M.: Introduction in thermoplastic and
thermosetting polymers. In: Materials for Biomedical Engineering, pp. 1–28. Elsevier (2019)
2. Kumartasli, S., Avinc, O.: Recycled thermoplastics: textile fiber production, scientific and
recent commercial developments. In: Recent Developments in Plastic Recycling, pp. 169–192.
Springer, Singapore (2021)
3. Fałtynowicz, H., Janik, H., Kucinska-Lipka, J., Sienkiewicz, M.: Polyurethanes. In: Handbook
of Thermoset Plastics, pp. 231–262. William Andrew Publishing (2022)
4. PlasticsEurope: Plastics—the facts 2020. An analysis of European plastics production, demand
and waste data. Plastics Europe (2020)
7. Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Law, K.L.: Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci.
Adv. 3(7), 1700782 (2017)
8. Ritchie, H., Roser, M.: Plastic pollution. Our World in Data (2018)
9. Market volume of polyurethane worldwide from 2015 to 2025, with a forecast for
2022 to 2029. https://www.statista.com/statistics/720341/global-polyurethane-market-size-for
ecast/. Accessed 31 Oct 2022
10. Market value of polyurethane worldwide from 2015 to 2021, with a forecast for 2022 to
2029. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/720449/global-polyurethane-mar
ket-size-forecast/. (accessed on 31 October 2022)
11. Gama, N.V., Ferreira, A., Barros-Timmons, A.: Polyurethane foams: past, present, and future.
Materials 11(10), 1841 (2018)
12. Lodato, C., Hamelin, L., Tonini, D., Astrup, T.F.: Towards sustainable methane supply from
local bioresources: anaerobic digestion, gasification, and gas upgrading. Appl. Energy 323,
119568 (2022)
247, 114713 (2021)
14. Hasanzadeh, R., Mojaver, P., Chitsaz, A., Mojaver, M., Jalili, M., Rosen, M.A.: Biomass and
low-density polyethylene waste composites gasification: orthogonal array design of Taguchi
technique for analysis and optimization. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 47(67), 28819–28832 (2022)
15. Skorek-Osikowska, A.: Thermodynamic and environmental study on synthetic natural gas
production in power to gas approaches involving biomass gasification and anaerobic digestion.
Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 47(5), 3284–3293 (2022)
16. Mojaver, P., Jafarmadar, S., Khalilarya, S., Chitsaz, A.: Study of synthesis gas composition,
exergy assessment, and multi-criteria decision-making analysis of fluidized bed gasifier. Int. J.
Hydrog. Energy 44(51), 27726–27740 (2019)
17. Mojaver, P., Khalilarya, S., Chitsaz, A.: Multi-objective optimization using response surface
methodology and exergy analysis of a novel integrated biomass gasification, solid oxide fuel
cell and high-temperature sodium heat pipe system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 156, 627–639 (2019)
18. Shang, F., Ge, Z., Wang, Y., Zhou, C., Guo, S., Ren, C.: Numerical study on a single char
particle gasification considering Stefan flow effects in a hot CO2/O2/H2O atmosphere. Fuel
324, 124804 (2022)
19. Janajreh, I., Adeyemi, I., Raza, S.S., Ghenai, C.: A review of recent developments and future
prospects in gasification systems and their modeling. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 138, 110505
(2021)
20. Zhong, F., Zheng, L., Wang, X., Shao, X., Jia, H., Shi, Z., Zhang, J.: Comparative study on
flame instability and combustion characteristics of CH4/O2/CO2 and CH4/O2/N2 mixtures. J.
Energy Inst. 102, 70–81 (2022)
21. Hasanzadeh, R., Azdast, T., Mojaver, M., Park, C.B.: High-efficiency and low-pollutant waste
polystyrene and waste polystyrene foam gasification: comprehensive comparison analysis,
multi-objective optimization and multi-criteria decision analysis. Fuel 316, 123362 (2022)
22. Ajorloo, M., Ghodrat, M., Scott, J., Strezov, V.: Recent advances in thermodynamic analysis
of biomass gasification: a review on numerical modelling and simulation. J. Energy Inst. 102,
395–419 (2022)
24. Hasanzadeh, R., Mojaver, P., Chitsaz, A., Mojaver, M., Rosen, M.A.: Analysis of variance
and multi-objective optimization of efficiencies and emission in air/steam rigid and flexible
polyurethane foam wastes gasification. Chem. Eng. Process.-Process Intensif. 176, 108961
(2022)
25. Wei, J., Wang, M., Wang, F., Song, X., Yu, G., Liu, Y., Vuthaluru, H., Xu, J., Xu, Y., Zhang,
H., Zhang, S.: A review on reactivity characteristics and synergy behavior of biomass and coal
Co-gasification. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 46(33), 17116–17132 (2021)
26. Zhang, S., Yu, S., Li, Q., Mohamed, B.A., Zhang, Y., Zhou, H.: Insight into the relationship
between CO2 gasification characteristics and char structure of biomass. Biomass Bioenerg.
163, 106537 (2022)
27. Mojaver, P., Jafarmadar, S., Khalilarya, S., Chitsaz, A.: Investigation and optimization of a Co-
Generation plant integrated of gasifier, gas turbine and heat pipes using minimization of Gibbs
free energy, Lagrange method and response surface methodology. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
45(38), 19027–19044 (2020)
29. Hanchate, N., Ramani, S., Mathpati, C.S., Dalvi, V.H.: Biomass gasification using dual fluidized
bed gasification systems: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 280, 123148 (2021)
Evaluation of Steam Polyurethane Foam
Waste Gasification
Rezgar Hasanzadeh and Taher Azdast
Abstract This study analyzed the steam gasification of flexible polyurethane foam
waste. Moisture content of flexible polyurethane foam waste, steam to flexible
polyurethane foam waste ratio and temperature were assessed as the variable param-
eters affecting the gasification performance. In the steam gasification of flexible
polyurethane foam waste:
(1) Increasing moisture content of flexible polyurethane foam waste resulted in

declining the hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio, advancing the lower heating
value of the syngas, slightly improving the cold gas efficiency, increasing the
exergy efficiency, and decreasing the normalized carbon dioxide emission.
(2) The hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio enhanced, the lower heating value of
syngas improved firstly, and then, decreased, the cold gas efficiency mitigated,
the exergy efficiency lessened and the normalized carbon dioxide emission
enlarged when the steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio heightened.
(3) When the temperature increased, the hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio
decreased, the lower heating value of the syngas improved, the cold gas
efficiency firstly enhanced, and then, decreased, the exergy efficiency firstly
improved, and then, slightly decreased, and the normalized carbon dioxide
emission mitigated.
Keywords Plastic gasification · Polyurethane · Flexible polyurethane foam ·

Gasification · Steam gasification
R. Hasanzadeh (B) · T. Azdast

106 R. Hasanzadeh and T. Azdast
1 Steam Gasification Evaluation of Flexible Polyurethane

Foam Waste
For evaluation of steam gasification of flexible polyurethane foam waste, moisture

content of flexible polyurethane foam waste, steam to flexible polyurethane foam
waste ratio and gasification temperature are considered as the key variables of the
process. Moisture content of flexible polyurethane foam waste is studied in the range
of 10–30 wt%, steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio is evaluated ranging
from 1 to 3 and gasification temperature is assessed in the range of 950–1250 K. Their
influences are evaluated on H2 /CO ratio, lower heating value (LHV) of syngas, cold
gas efficiency, exergy efficiency and normalized CO2 emission.
2 Effect of Moisture Content on Steam Gasification

of Flexible Polyurethane Foam Waste
Figure 1 depicts the effect of moisture content of flexible polyurethane foam waste on
H2 /CO ratio in steam gasification of polyurethane foam waste. The results illustrate
that the H2 /CO ratio is dropped when the moisture content raises. Increasing moisture
content from 10 to 30 wt% drops the H2 /CO ratio from 2.534 to 2.359 mol/mol. This
drop is accordance with the changes of H2 and CO yields as depicted in Fig. 1b. The
results show that H2 yield is slightly declined and CO yield is enlarged when the
moisture content increases. Increasing moisture content from 10 to 30 wt% declines
H2 yield from 64.86 mol% to 64.37 wt% and enlarges CO yield from 25.60 to
27.28 mol%.
The effect of moisture content of the LHV of syngas in steam gasification of
polyurethane foam waste is depicted in Fig. 2. According to the results, the LHV of
syngas is enhanced with the moisture content. Increasing moisture content from 10
Fig. 1 Effect of moisture content on H2 /CO ratio (a) and H2 and CO molar concentrations (b) in
steam gasification of polyurethane foam waste
Evaluation of Steam Polyurethane Foam Waste Gasification 107
Fig. 2 Effect of moisture content on LHV of syngas (a) and H2 , CO and CH4 molar concentrations
(b) in steam gasification of polyurethane foam waste
to 30 wt% slightly enhances the LHV of syngas from 658.2 to 659.5 kJ/mol. The
results of Fig. 2b indicate that increasing moisture content results in decrement of H2
yield and increment of CO and CH4 yields. By increasing moisture content from 10
to 30 wt%, H2 yield decreases from 64.86 to 64.37 mol%, CO yield increases from
25.6 to 27.28 mol% and CH4 boosts from 0.06247 to 0.08638 mol%. The increment
of CO and CH4 yields conquers the decrement of H2 yields, and overall, the LHV of
syngas enhances.
Figure 3 shows the effect of the moisture content of flexible polyurethane foam
waste on cold gas efficiency in steam gasification. According to the results, the
cold gas efficiency is enhanced slightly with the moisture content. When moisture
content increases from 10 to 30 wt%, the cold gas efficiency enhances from 69.16
to 69.55%. This enhancement is in accordance with the changes of LHV of syngas
and input energy as depicted in Fig. 3b. The results show that the LHV of syngas
improves from 658.2 to 659.5 kJ/mol and the input energy declines from 951.7 to
948.0 kJ/mol when moisture content increases from 10 to 30 wt%. The decline of
the input energy is due to the less steam required for the gasification process because
the flexible polyurethane foam contains more moisture. Increment of LHV of syngas
and decrement of input energy results in improving the cold gas efficiency.
on exergy efficiency in steam gasification. The results show that the exergy efficiency
is improved with the moisture content. When the moisture content increases from 10
to 30 wt%, the exergy efficiency improves from 58.04 to 59.35%. This improvement
is in accordance with the exergy changes as depicted in Fig. 4. The results of Fig. 4b
show that the syngas exergy enhances from 552.5 to 570.0 kW and the exergy of
flexible polyurethane foam waste remains constant at 819.4 kW when the moisture
content increases from 10 to 30 wt%. In the other hand, the results of Fig. 4c indicates
that the steam exergy is reduced from 33.30 to 20.78 kW and the heat exergy is
increased from 99.3 to 120.2 kW when the moisture content increases from 10 to
30 wt%. Overall, the syngas exergy is improved and the steam exergy is declined.
Fig. 3 Effect of moisture content on cold gas efficiency (a) and LHV of syngas and input energy
These phenomena overcome the increment of the heat exergy, and therefore, the
exergy efficiency is enhanced when the moisture content increases.
Fig. 4 Effect of moisture content on exergy efficiency (a), exergy of syngas and flexible
polyurethane foam (b) and exergy of steam and heat (c) in steam gasification of polyurethane
foam waste
Fig. 5 Effect of moisture content on normalized carbon dioxide emission (a) and carbon dioxide
emission and LHV of syngas (b) in steam gasification of polyurethane foam waste
Figure 5 presents the effect of moisture content of flexible polyurethane foam

waste on the normalized CO2 emission in steam gasification. The results indicate
that the normalized CO2 emission is mitigated with the moisture content. Increasing
moisture content from 10 to 30 wt% mitigates the normalized CO2 emission from
64.91 to 55.70 kg/MW.h. This mitigation is accordance with the changes of CO2 yield
and the LHV of syngas in Fig. 5b. According to the results, CO2 yield decreases from
11.87 to 10.21 g and LHV of syngas increases from 658.2 to 659.5 kW.h by increasing
moisture content from 10 to 30 wt%. Decreasing CO2 yield and increasing LHV of
syngas results in normalized CO2 emission decrement.
3 Effect of Steam to Flexible Polyurethane Foam Waste

Ratio on Steam Gasification of Flexible Polyurethane
Foam Waste
Figure 6 shows the effect of steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio on
the H2 /CO ratio in steam gasification. The results illuminate that the H2 /CO ratio
is improved markedly with the steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio.
The H2 /CO ratio improves from 1.672 to 3.159 mol/mol when the steam to flexible
polyurethane foam waste ratio increases from 1 to 3. This improvement is in accor-
dance with the changes of H2 and CO yields depicted in Fig. 6b. When the steam to
flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio increases from 1 to 3, H2 yield boosts from
60.92 to 66.20 mol% and CO yield declines from 36.44 to 20.96 mol%. Increasing
H2 yield and decreasing CO yield with steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste
ratio is justified based on the water–gas shift reaction presented in Eq. 1 [1, 2]:
CO2 + H2 ↔ CO + H2 O Water − gas shift H = +41.2 kJ/mol (1)

Fig. 6 Effect of steam to polyurethane foam ratio on H2 /CO ratio (a) and H2 and CO molar
concentrations (b) in steam gasification of polyurethane foam waste
Higher steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio provides more H2 O for
the right side of this reaction and forces it to the left side. Therefore, more CO is
consumed and more H2 is generated. Increasing H2 yield and decreasing CO yield
result in improvement of H2 /CO ratio.
The effect of steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio on the LHV of the
syngas in steam gasification is presented in Fig. 7. According to the results, the LHV
of the syngas is first improved, and then, is decreased with the steam to flexible
polyurethane foam waste ratio. The LHV of the syngas is improved from 662.6 to
663.5 kJ/mol when the steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio increases
from 1 to 1.2, and then, it is declined to 654.1 kJ/mol by further increasing of the
steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio to 3. This trend is accordance with
the changes of H2 , CO and CH4 yields as depicted in Fig. 7b. As discussed in Fig. 6,
the H2 yield boosts from 60.92 to 66.20 mol% and the CO yield declines from 36.44
to 20.96%. According to the results, the CH4 yield is also declined from 0.8787 to
0.02504 mol% when the steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio increases
from 1 to 3 due to the Sabatier reaction presented in Eq. 2. Higher steam to flexible
polyurethane foam waste ratio provides more H2 O for the Sabatier reaction and
forces this reaction to the right side [3, 4].
CH4 + 2H2 O ↔ CO2 + 4H2 Sabatier H = +165 kJ/mol (2)
Therefore, more CH4 is consumed and its yield is declined. H2 yield improvement
has a higher rate in low steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratios and it is
the predominate phenomenon and improves the LHV of the syngas at low steam to
flexible polyurethane foam waste ratios. However, the decline in the CO and CH4
yields conquer the improvement of the H2 yield and result in reduction of the LHV
of the syngas at higher steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratios.
Fig. 7 Effect of steam to polyurethane foam ratio on LHV of syngas (a) and H2 , CO and CH4
molar concentrations (b) in steam gasification of polyurethane foam waste
Figure 8 shows the effect of steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio on
the cold gas efficiency in steam gasification. The results indicate that the cold gas
efficiency is declined with the steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio. The
cold gas efficiency is decreased from 72.62 to 66.52% when the steam to flexible
polyurethane foam waste ratio increases from 1 to 3. This decrement is in accordance
with the changes of the LHV of the syngas and the input energy as depicted in Fig. 8b.
As discussed in Fig. 7, the LHV of the syngas is declined from 662.6 to 654.1 kJ/mol.
The input energy is increased from 912.4 to 983.4 kJ/mol mainly due to the increase
in the energy of input steam and the more heat required for the gasification process.
Declining the LHV of the syngas and increasing the input energy result in notable
reduction in the cold gas efficiency.
Figure 9 presents the effect of steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio on
the exergy efficiency in steam gasification. The results show that the exergy efficiency
is declined with the steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio. Increasing the
steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio from 1 to 3 declines the exergy
Fig. 8 Effect of steam to polyurethane foam ratio on cold gas efficiency (a) and LHV of syngas
and input energy (b) in steam gasification of polyurethane foam waste
efficiency from 68.86 to 51.76%. Figure 9b indicates that the syngas exergy is reduced
from 640.7 to 500.5 kW when the steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio
increases from 1 to 3, while the flexible polyurethane foam waste exergy remains
constant at 819.4 kW. Figure 9c reveals that the steam exergy and the heat exergy is
increased and mitigated, respectively. The steam exergy is increased from 11.43 to
42.64 kW and the heat exergy is mitigated from 111.5 to 105.0 kW when the steam to
flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio increases from 1 to 3. Decreasing the syngas
exergy and increasing the steam exergy result in the reduction in the exergy efficiency.
The effect of steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio on the normalized
carbon dioxide emission in steam gasification is evaluated in Fig. 10. According to
the results, the normalized carbon dioxide emission is augmented with the steam to
flexible polyurethane foam waste ratio. Increasing the steam to flexible polyurethane
foam waste ratio from 1 to 3 increases the normalized carbon dioxide emission from
10.75 to 91.86 kg/MW.h. This decrement has two reasons:
(i) Decreasing the LHV of the syngas from 662.6 to 654.1 kW.h as discussed in
Fig. 7.
Fig. 9 Effect of steam to polyurethane foam ratio on exergy efficiency (a), exergy of syngas and
flexible polyurethane foam (b) and exergy of steam and heat (c) in steam gasification of polyurethane
foam waste
Fig. 10 Effect of steam to polyurethane foam ratio on normalized carbon dioxide emission (a) and
carbon dioxide emission and LHV of syngas (b) in steam gasification of polyurethane foam waste
(ii) Increasing the CO2 yield from 1.978 to 16.69 g as shown in Fig. 10b. This
increment in the CO2 emission is in accordance with the Sabatier reaction
presented in Eq. 2. As explained before, higher steam to flexible polyurethane
foam waste ratio provides more H2 O for this reaction and forces it to the right
side, and therefore, more CO2 is generated.
4 Effect of Temperature on Steam Gasification of Flexible

Figure 11 shows the effect of temperature on the H2 /CO ratio in steam gasification
of polyurethane foam waste. The results reveal that the H2 /CO ratio is lessened with
the temperature. When temperature increases from 950 to 1250 K, the H2 /CO ratio
lessens from 2.954 to 2.191 mol/mol. This lessen is in accordance with the changes of
the H2 and CO yields as depicted in Fig. 11b. The H2 yield experiences two different
behavior versus the temperature:
(i) The H2 yield is improved with the temperature when the temperature increased
from 950 to 1055 K. This improvement is from 62.99 to 64.67 mol% and is
governed by the water–gas reaction as presented in Eq. 3 [5, 6].
C + H2 O ↔ CO + H2 Water − gas H = +131 kJ/mol (3)
(ii) The H2 yield is lessened from 64.67 to 63.93 mol% when the temperature further
increases from 1055 to 1250 K. This lessen is governed by the water–gas shift
reaction as presented and discussed in Eq. 1 [7].
Fig. 11 Effect of temperature on H2 /CO ratio (a) and H2 and CO molar concentrations (b) in steam
gasification of polyurethane foam waste
On the other hand, the CO yield is augmented from 21.33 to 29.18 mol% because
its yield is governed by the Boudouard reaction as presented in Eq. 4 [8, 9].
C + CO2 ↔ 2CO Boudouard H = +172 kJ/mol (4)
In the first region, the augmentation of the CO yield conquers the improvement
of the H2 yield, and therefore, the H2 /CO ratio reduces. In the second region, the
H2 /CO ratio decreases since the H2 yield increases and the CO yield reduces.
Figure 12 shows the effect of temperature on the LHV of the syngas in steam
gasification of polyurethane foam waste. According to the results, the LHV of the
syngas is improved with the temperature. When the temperature increases from
950 to 1250 K, the LHV of the syngas improves from 639.4 to 661.6 kJ/mol. This
improvement is in accordance with the component yields as depicted in Fig. 12b. As
discussed in Fig. 11, the H2 yield is firstly increases, and then, is diminished with
the temperature, while the CO yield is continuously enhanced. The CH4 yield is also
lessened from 2.804 mol% to almost 0 mol%. The results indicate that the changes
in the LHV of the syngas is mainly affected with the changes in the CO yield. As the
CO yield is continuously enhanced, the LHV of the syngas is improved.
The effect of temperature on the cold gas efficiency in steam gasification of
polyurethane foam waste is depicted in Fig. 13. The results show that the cold
gas efficiency is first boosted with the temperature, and then, decreased. When the
temperature increases from 950 to 1025 K, the cold gas efficiency boosts from 69.34
to 69.62%, and then, it decreased to 69.06% by further increasing of the temperature
to 1250 K. This behavior is in accordance with the changes of the LHV of the syngas
and the input energy as depicted in Fig. 13b. In the first region, the LHV of the syngas
increases markedly and conquers the declining of the input energy. However, in the
second region, the increasing the input energy is the dominant phenomenon, and
therefore, the cold gas efficiency decreases.
Fig. 12 Effect of temperature on LHV of syngas (a) and H2 , CO and CH4 molar concentrations
Fig. 13 Effect of temperature on cold gas efficiency (a) and LHV of syngas and input energy (b) in
steam gasification of polyurethane foam waste
Figure 14 shows the effect of temperature on the exergy efficiency in steam gasi-
fication of polyurethane foam waste. The results show that the exergy efficiency
experiences two regions:
(i) It is improved from 57.97 to 59.11% when the temperature increases from 950
to 1055 K.
(ii) The exergy efficiency is declined from 59.11 to 58.84% when the temperature
further increases from 1055 to 1250 K.
Figure 14b shows that the exergy of the flexible polyurethane foam waste is
constant at 819.4 kW versus the temperature, while the syngas exergy is enhanced
from 539.5 to 569.1 kW when the temperature increases from 950 to 1250 K.
Figure 14c indicates that the steam exergy remains constant at 27.04 kW when
the temperature changes, while the heat exergy is increased from 84.18 to 120.8 kW
when the temperature increases from 950 to 1250 K.
Fig. 14 Effect of temperature on exergy efficiency (a), exergy of syngas and flexible polyurethane
foam (b) and exergy of steam and heat (c) in steam gasification of polyurethane foam waste
The two regions of the exergy efficiency versus the temperature are justified as
follows:
(i) The first region, i.e. improving the exergy efficiency at low temperatures, is
governed by the improving the syngas exergy as shown in Fig. 14b.
(ii) The second region, i.e. declining the exergy efficiency at high temperatures, is
governed by the increasing the heat exergy. At high temperatures, the improving
rate of the syngas exergy is declined and the increasing the heat exergy is the
predominant phenomenon, and therefore, the exergy efficiency is decreased.
Figure 15 shows the effect of temperature on the normalized carbon dioxide
emission in steam gasification of polyurethane foam waste. The results indicate that
the normalized carbon dioxide emission is diminished with the temperature. The
normalized carbon dioxide emission is declined from 86.21 to 45.74 kg/MW.h when
the temperature increases from 950 to 1250 K. This decline is in accordance with
the changes of the CO2 yield and the LHV of the syngas as depicted in Fig. 15b.
Two reasons cause the decline of the normalized carbon dioxide emission with the
temperature. The first reason is the decrement of the CO2 yield which is due to the
Boudouard reaction as discussed in Eq. 4. The second reason is due to the increment
of the LHV of the syngas as discussed in Fig. 12.
Fig. 15 Effect of temperature on normalized carbon dioxide emission (a) and carbon dioxide
emission and LHV of syngas (b) in steam gasification of polyurethane foam waste
5 Conclusions
The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the gasification process of the
flexible polyurethane foam waste with the steam gasifying agent. The gasification
performance was assessed concerning the key variable parameters.
In steam gasification of the flexible polyurethane foam waste, higher moisture
content resulted in a lower H2 /CO ratio because the H2 yield was decreased and the
CO yield was increased. The higher the CO and the CH4 yields were, the higher the
LHV of the syngas was. Increasing the moisture content of the flexible polyurethane
foam waste decreased the input energy, and taking into account the increasing LHV of
the syngas, the cold gas efficiency was slightly improved. Higher syngas exergy and
lower steam exergy at higher moisture content resulted in higher exergy efficiency.
By increasing the moisture content of the flexible polyurethane foam waste, the
normalized carbon dioxide emission declined as the CO2 yield decreased and the
LHV of the syngas increased.
The higher steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste improved the H2 /CO ratio
because the H2 yield was enhanced, and the CO yield declined. Declining the CO
yield alongside the decline of CH4 yield decreased the LHV of the syngas. As the
LHV of the syngas decreased and the input energy was increased with the steam
to flexible polyurethane foam waste, the cold gas efficiency was reduced. At higher
steam to flexible polyurethane foam waste, the syngas exergy was decreased, and
the steam exergy was increased. As as a consequence, the exergy efficiency was
declined. The normalized carbon dioxide emission was increased when the steam
to flexible polyurethane foam waste increased because the CO2 yield was increased
and the LHV of the syngas was decreased.
The higher temperature in the steam gasification of the flexible polyurethane foam
waste resulted in a lower H2 /CO ratio generally because the CO yield was markedly
increased by governing the Boudouard reaction. The higher the CO yield was, the
higher the LHV of the syngas was. The cold gas efficiency was firstly increased
at higher temperatures due to increasing the LHV of the syngas, however, it was
decreased by further increasing the temperature because of markedly increasing
behavior of the input energy. The exergy efficiency was firstly improved, and then,
declined with the temperature. The improving the exergy efficiency at low temper-
atures was due to the enhancing the syngas exergy. On the other hand, the exergy
efficiency was decreased at high temperatures because of the increasing heat exergy.
Since the CO2 yield was decreased and the LHV of the syngas was increased at high
temperatures, the normalized carbon dioxide emission was reduced.
References
2. Chen, Y., Yi, L., Wei, W., Jin, H., Guo, L.: Hydrogen production by sewage sludge gasification
in supercritical water with high heating rate batch reactor. Energy 238, 121740 (2022)
4. Gabbrielli, R., Barontini, F., Frigo, S., Bressan, L.: Numerical analysis of bio-methane production
from biomass-sewage sludge oxy-steam gasification and methanation process. Appl. Energy 307,
118292 (2022)
5. Hasanzadeh, R., Mojaver, P., Azdast, T., Chitsaz, A., Park, C.B.: Low-emission and energetically
efficient co-gasification of coal by incorporating plastic waste: a modeling study. Chemosphere
299, 134408 (2022)
6. Chen, J., Wang, Q., Xu, Z., Jiaqiang, E., Leng, E., Zhang, F., Liao, G.: Process in supercrit-
ical water gasification of coal: a review of fundamentals, mechanisms, catalysts and element
transformation. Energy Convers. Manage. 237, 114122 (2021)
7. Mojaver, P., Khalilarya, S., Chitsaz, A.: Performance assessment of a combined heat and power
system: a novel integrated biomass gasification, solid oxide fuel cell and high-temperature
sodium heat pipe system part I: thermodynamic analysis. Energy Convers. Manage. 171, 287–297
(2018)
8. Zi-Zhao, D., Zhang, S., Qiang, L., Ming-Hui, D., Rui, G., Jie-Ping, W., Guang-Yue, L., Ying-
Hua, L.: Boudouard reaction accompanied by graphitization of wrinkled carbon layers in coke
gasification: a theoretical insight into the classical understanding. Fuel 297, 120747 (2021)
9. Jansen, A.A., Van der Walt, I.J., Crouse, P.L.: Waste-tyre pyrolysis and gasification via the reverse
Boudouard reaction: derivation of empirical kinetics from TGA data. Thermochim. Acta 708,
179104 (2022)
Multi-criteria Decision-Making Analysis
of Plastic Waste Gasification
Rezgar Hasanzadeh, Ali Doniavi, and Marc A. Rosen
Abstract Polypropylene, low-density polyethylene, high-density polyethylene,

polyvinyl chloride, flexible polyurethane foam, polyethylene terephthalate, and
polystyrene are considered the most prevalent types of plastic waste. Here, air and the
steam gasification processes of these plastic waste types are examined using multi-
criteria decision-making analysis. The performances of the prevalent plastic waste
types in air and steam gasification are studied and compared with respect to hydrogen
to carbon monoxide ratio in the syngas, lower heating value of the syngas, cold
gas efficiency, exergy efficiency, and normalized CO2 emission. In air gasification,
high-density polyethylene has the best performance with respect to the H2 /CO ratio,
low-density polyethylene has the best performance with respect to the lower heating
value of the syngas, polyethylene terephthalate has the best performance with respect
to the cold gas and exergy efficiencies, and polystyrene has the best performance with
respect to normalized CO2 emission. In steam gasification, polyvinyl chloride has
the best performance with respect to H2 /CO ratio, low-density polyethylene has the
best performance with respect to lower heating value of the syngas and cold gas
efficiency, polypropylene has the best performance with respect to exergy efficiency,
and polystyrene has the best performance with respect to normalized CO2 emission.
Therefore, selecting the best plastic waste for each gasification process requires
a multi-criteria decision analysis and, in this regard, a technique for order prefer-
ence by similarity to an ideal solution is utilized. The results for several scenarios
show that low-density polyethylene is the best plastic waste for air gasification, and
high-density polyethylene is the best plastic waste for steam gasification.
R. Hasanzadeh (B)
A. Doniavi
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
M. A. Rosen
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000
Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, ON L1G 0C5, Canada
Keywords Plastic waste · Gasification · Multi-criteria decision making ·

Low-density polyethylene · High-density polyethylene
1 Plastic Waste Types Considered for Multi-criteria

Decision Analysis
The most prevalent plastic waste types are considered for air and steam gasification
process in this chapter. These plastic waste types include polypropylene (PP), low-
density polyethylene (LDPE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polyvinyl chloride
(PVC), flexible polyurethane foam (PUF), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and
polystyrene (PS). Their chemical properties are presented in Table 1.
Figure 1 presents the elemental composition of the plastic wastes. It is seen that
the main component of all plastic wastes is carbon. In PP, LDPE, HDPE, and PS,
hydrogen ranks second after carbon in the chemical composition. In PUF and PET,
oxygen ranks second in chemical composition. In PVC, oxygen ranks first in the
chemical composition, and carbon ranks second.
The air and steam gasification of these types of plastic waste have been modeled
based on the Gibbs/Lagrange coupled method, described and developed in Chaps. 4
and 5 of this book, respectively, and the results are obtained based on the validated
model presented there.
2 Performance of Plastic Waste Types in Air Gasification
Hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio of the syngas (H2 /CO), lower heating value of
the syngas (LHV), cold gas efficiency (ηcg ), exergy efficiency (ηex ), and normalized
CO2 emission (εCO2 ) are considered as performance indicators for the air gasification
of plastic wastes. All air gasification processes are examined at a moisture content of
Table 1 Chemical properties of plastic waste types considered as feedstock

10 Proximate analysis (wt%) Ultimate analysis (wt%) HHV Ref
Fixed Volatiles Moisture Ash C O H S N (MJ/kg)
carbon
PP – 99.30 – 0.70 86.40 – 12.30 0.17 0.72 44.70 [1]
LDPE – 99.70 0.30 – 85.70 0.05 14.20 – 0.05 46.60 [2]
HDPE – 100.00 – – 80.60 5.20 14.00 0.08 0.60 45.78 [3]
PVC 1.55 98.45 – – 46.76 47.41 5.60 0.21 0.02 18.04 [4]
PUF – 94.94 1.68 – 64.42 18.68 8.58 0.03 4.82 32.45 [5]
PET 12.00 88.00 – 0.04 62.80 32.80 4.30 0.04 0.07 22.77 [6]
PS – 99.90 – 0.10 92.00 – 8.00 0.04 – 43.76 [7]
Multi-criteria Decision-Making Analysis of Plastic Waste Gasification 121
Fig. 1 Breakdown by chemical composition of various types of plastic waste
15 wt%, equivalence ratio of 0.35 and gasification temperature of 1100 K. Values of

performance parameters of plastic wastes in the air gasification process are presented
in Table 2.
The performances of the plastic wastes in the air gasification process are compared
and contrasted in Fig. 2. The best and worst performances are identified in green and
orange colors, respectively. Figure 2a indicates that HDPE has the best performance
with respect to H2 /CO ratio in air gasification process, while PET has the worst
performance. HDPE air gasification results in H2 /CO ratio 1.27 mol/mol. According
to Fig. 2b, LDPE has the best performance, and PVC has the worst performance with
respect to the LHV of the syngas in air gasification process. The syngas of the LDPE
Table 2 Performance of plastic wastes in air gasification

Plastic waste Performance indicator
H2 /CO (mol/mol) LHV (kJ/mol) ηcg (%) ηex (%) εCO2 (kg/MWh)
PP 1.086 487.2 79.79 73.33 36.44
LDPE 1.226 508.8 78.77 72.07 39.51
HDPE 1.274 508.1 74.98 68.34 45.22
PVC 0.949 336.2 73.07 65.29 163.6
PUF 1.031 441.7 76.59 69.85 62.57
PET 0.644 351.5 82.05 75.41 91.06
PS 0.754 436.1 77.31 71.75 24.63
air gasification has an LHV of 509 kJ/mol. Figure 2c, d show that PET has the best
performance and PVC has the worst performance with respect to cold gas and exergy
efficiencies in air gasification. The cold gas and the exergy efficiencies of PET air
gasification are 82.1 and 75.4%, respectively. Figure 2e shows that PS has the best
performance and PVC has the worst performance with respect to normalized CO2
emission in air gasification. PS air gasification emits 24.6 kg/MWh of normalized
CO2 emission. Overall, in air gasification, HDPE has the best performance with
respect to the H2 /CO ratio, LDPE has the best performance with respect to the LHV
of the syngas, PET has the best performance with respect to the cold gas and the
exergy efficiencies and PS has the best performance with respect to normalized CO2
emission. Therefore, selecting the best plastic waste type for air gasification is a
challenging issue and requires multi-criteria decision analysis.
3 Performance of Plastic Waste Types in Steam Gasification
For the steam gasification of plastic wastes, the performance indicators are similar to
those for the air gasification process. All steam gasification processes are examined
at a moisture content of 15 wt%, steam to feedstock ratio of 2, and gasification
temperature of 1100 K. The performances of plastic wastes in the steam gasification
process are presented in Table 3.
The performances of the plastic wastes in the steam gasification process are
compared in Fig. 3. The best and the worst performances are identified by green and
orange colors, respectively. Figure 3a indicates that PVC has the best performance
and PS has the worst performance with respect to H2 /CO ratio in steam gasification.
PVC steam gasification leads to H2 /CO ratio of 3.32 mol/mol. Figure 3b reveals that
LDPE has the best performance with respect to the LHV of the syngas in steam
gasification while PVC has the worst performance. LDPE steam gasification results
in a syngas with LHV of 764 kJ/mol According to Fig. 3c, LDPE has the best perfor-
mance, and PVC has the worst performance with respect to cold gas efficiency in
Fig. 2 Performance comparison of plastic wastes in air gasification for a H2 /CO ratio, b LHV of
syngas, c cold gas efficiency, d exergy efficiency, and e normalized CO2 emission
Table 3 Performance of plastic wastes in steam gasification

Plastic waste Performance indicator
H2 /CO (mol/mol) LHV (kJ/mol) ηcg (%) ηex (%) εCO2 (kg/MWh)
PP 2.160 729.6 89.44 84.64 21.57
LDPE 2.333 763.6 89.47 83.82 21.51
HDPE 2.475 762.9 88.79 80.42 28.95
PVC 3.319 495.5 74.86 54.53 174.8
PUF 2.472 658.7 85.85 74.63 61.74
PET 2.302 516.5 81.45 67.42 119.2
PS 1.750 648.9 89.34 84.47 21.42
Fig. 3 Performance comparison of plastic wastes in steam gasification for a H2 /CO ratio, b LHV
of syngas, c cold gas efficiency, d exergy efficiency, and e normalized CO2 emission
steam gasification. LDPE steam gasification results in cold gas efficiency of 89.5%.
Figure 3d shows that PP has the best performance with respect to exergy efficiency
in steam gasification, while PVC has the worst performance. PP steam gasification
leads to an exergy efficiency of 84.6%. Figure 3d indicates that PS has the best
performance, and PVC has the worst performance with respect to normalized CO2
emission in steam gasification. PS steam gasification emits 21.4 kg/MWh of normal-
ized CO2 emission. Overall, in steam gasification, PVC has the best performance
with respect to H2 /CO ratio, LDPE has the best performance with respect to LHV
of the syngas and cold gas efficiency, PP has the best performance with respect to
exergy efficiency and PS has the best performance with respect to normalized CO2
emission. Therefore, selecting the best plastic waste type for the steam gasification
process is a challenging issue and needs multi-criteria decision analysis.
4 Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal

Solution (Topsis)
Multi-criteria decision-making analysis is beneficial when the decision making is

challenging and involves several alternatives and criteria [8, 9]. Alternatives may have
different performances with respect to the considered criteria. One of the alternatives
may have the best performance when considering one of the criteria, whereas it may
perform the worst based on another criterion. In this challenging situation, multi-
criteria decision-making techniques are very useful [10, 11]. TOPSIS is an alternative
ranking method to select the best alternative, which is the one that has the shortest
and the longest distances from the ideal and negative ideal solutions, respectively
[12, 13]. The ideal solution or the positive solution results in the maximization of
the benefit criteria and the minimization of the cost criteria, while the negative ideal
solution leads to the minimization of the benefit criteria and the maximization of the
cost criteria [14, 15]. The steps in the TOPSIS method based on the decision matrix
are now described [16, 17].
The decision matrix is normalized as follows [18, 19]:
Xi j
Ni j = /∑ (1)
n
i=1 X i2j
where X i j refers to the performance value of the ith alternative with respect the jth
criterion, and Ni j denotes the normalized value of the decision matrix.
Ni j is weighted as follows [20, 21]:
λi j = Ni j × w j (2)
where λi j denotes the weighted normalized value and w j indicates the jth criterion
weight.
The ideal (S + ) and negative-ideal (S − ) solutions are defined as follows [20–22]:
⎧
{ } max j λi j , for beneficial criteria
S + = λ 1 + , . . . λn + = (3)
min j λi j , for non − beneficial criteria
⎧
−
{ − −
} min j λi j , for beneficial criteria
S = λ 1 , . . . λn = (4)
max j λi j , for non − beneficial criteria
where S + and S − denote the ideal and the negative-ideal solutions, respectively.
The distances of each alternative from the ideal and the negative-ideal solutions
are calculated as follows [23]:
|
|
| n
Dj = |
+
(λi j − λi+ )
2
(5)
i=1
|
|
| n
D −j = | (λi j − λi− )
2
(6)
i=1
where D +j and D −j denote the distances from the ideal and the negative-ideal
solutions, respectively.
C is defined as the closeness coefficient for each alternative as follows [24]:
Di−
C= (7)
Di+ + D −j
The larger the C values are, the better is the rank [25].
5 Topsis Analysis for Plastic Waste Gasification
In this section, the TOPSIS analysis is applied to plastic waste gasification to select
the best plastic waste for the gasification process with respect to multiple criteria. PP,
LDPE, HDPE, PVC, PUF, PET, and PS are considered as alternatives, and hydrogen
to carbon monoxide ratio in the syngas, lower heating value of the syngas, cold gas
efficiency, exergy efficiency, and normalized CO2 emission are considered as criteria.
For implementing the TOPSIS method, different scenarios are defined as presented
in Table 4. Scenario I gives the criteria an equal weight of 0.20. In other scenarios,
a single criterion is considered more important than the other criteria with a weight
of 0.40, and the other ones are assigned a weight of 0.15.
5.1 TOPSIS Analysis for Plastic Waste Air Gasification
TOPSIS analysis is conducted on plastic air gasification, and the results of the close-
ness coefficient and the ranks for different scenarios are presented in Table 5. The
Table 4 Scenarios considered for TOPSIS analysis of plastic waste gasification

Criteria Weight
Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV Scenario V Scenario VI
H2 /CO ratio 0.20 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
LHV of syngas 0.20 0.15 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.15
ηcg 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.40 0.15 0.15
ηex 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.40 0.15
εCO2 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.40
Table 5 Results of TOPSIS analysis of plastic waste air gasification

Alternative Closeness coefficient and rank
C Rank C Rank C Rank C Rank C Rank C Rank
PP 0.874 2 0.795 3 0.874 2 0.870 2 0.870 2 0.907 1
LDPE 0.894 1 0.905 1 0.906 1 0.883 1 0.881 1 0.893 3
HDPE 0.850 3 0.886 2 0.868 3 0.818 3 0.813 3 0.852 4
PVC 0.141 7 0.287 7 0.127 7 0.140 7 0.139 7 0.060 7
PUF 0.705 5 0.668 4 0.685 5 0.696 5 0.695 5 0.723 5
PET 0.459 6 0.330 6 0.399 6 0.470 6 0.475 6 0.511 6
PS 0.765 4 0.565 5 0.732 4 0.759 4 0.761 4 0.896 2
results show that LDPE has the first rank in almost all scenarios; only in Scenario VI,
PP has the first rank. In most scenarios, PP is the second rank and HDPE is the third
rank. Overall, the LDPE is the best alternative for air gasification of plastic waste.
5.2 TOPSIS Analysis for Plastic Waste Steam Gasification
TOPSIS analysis is applied to plastic steam gasification, and the results of the close-
ness coefficient and the ranks for the scenarios are presented in Table 6. The results
indicate that HDPE has the first rank in Scenarios I, II, III, and IV and LDPE has the
second rank in these scenarios. HDPE exhibits the second rank in Scenarios V and
VI, and LDPE exhibits the first rank in these scenarios. PP has the third rank in all
scenarios. Overall, HDPE is the best alternative for the steam gasification of plastic
waste.
Table 6 Results of TOPSIS analysis of plastic waste steam gasification

Alternative Closeness coefficient and rank
C Rank C Rank C Rank C Rank C Rank C Rank
PP 0.798 3 0.604 3 0.808 3 0.802 3 0.817 3 0.910 3
LDPE 0.825 2 0.650 2 0.842 2 0.829 2 0.840 1 0.923 1
HDPE 0.835 1 0.679 1 0.852 1 0.838 1 0.839 2 0.916 2
PVC 0.253 7 0.475 6 0.231 7 0.249 7 0.232 7 0.117 7
PUF 0.694 5 0.600 4 0.676 5 0.696 5 0.689 5 0.729 5
PET 0.355 6 0.354 7 0.311 6 0.359 6 0.369 6 0.361 6
PS 0.737 4 0.520 5 0.711 4 0.742 4 0.759 4 0.879 4
6 Closing Remarks
This chapter focuses on and describes the multi-criteria decision-making analysis of

plastic waste gasification by considering air and steam gasifying agents. The most
prevalent types of plastic waste, including PP, LDPE, HDPE, PVC, PUF, PET, and
PS, are considered as the feedstock. H2 /CO ratio, LHV of syngas, cold gas and
exergy efficiencies, and normalized CO2 emission are considered the performance
indicators. Although PET exhibits the best performance with respect to cold gas
and exergy efficiencies and PS ranks first with respect to normalized CO2 emission,
the TOPSIS results reveal that, for air gasification, LDPE is the best alternative. A
sensitivity analysis is utilized to confirm this result for various scenarios. For steam
gasification, LDPE exhibits the best performance with respect to LHV of the syngas
and cold gas efficiency while PP ranks the first with respect to exergy efficiency;
however, the TOPSIS results reveal that HDPE is the best alternative. This finding
is confirmed based on a sensitivity analysis performed for the criteria weights.
References
1. Xiao, R., Jin, B., Zhou, H., Zhong, Z., Zhang, M.: Air gasification of polypropylene plastic
waste in fluidized bed gasifier. Energy Convers. Manage. 48(3), 778–786 (2007)
2. Park, S.S., Seo, D.K., Lee, S.H., Yu, T.U., Hwang, J.: Study on pyrolysis characteristics of
refuse plastic fuel using lab-scale tube furnace and thermogravimetric analysis reactor. J. Anal.
Appl. Pyrol. 97, 29–38 (2012)
3. Kumar, S., Singh, R.K.: Recovery of hydrocarbon liquid from waste high density polyethylene
by thermal pyrolysis. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 28, 659–667 (2011)
4. Ning, X., Teng, H., Wang, G., Zhang, J., Zhang, N., Huang, C., Wang, C.: Physiochemical,
structural and combustion properties of hydrochar obtained by hydrothermal carbonization of
waste polyvinyl chloride. Fuel 270, 117526 (2020)
5. Hasanzadeh, R., Mojaver, P., Khalilarya, S., Azdast, T., Chitsaz, A., Mojaver, M.: Polyurethane
foam waste upcycling into an efficient and low pollutant gasification syngas. Polymers 14(22),
4938 (2022)
6. Burra, K.G., Gupta, A.K.: Synergistic effects in steam gasification of combined biomass and
plastic waste mixtures. Appl. Energy 211, 230–236 (2018)
7. Burra, K.R.G., Liu, X., Wang, Z., Li, J., Che, D., Gupta, A.K.: Quantifying the sources of
synergistic effects in co-pyrolysis of pinewood and polystyrene. Appl. Energy 302, 117562
(2021)
8. Huang, Z., Yang, C., Zhou, X., Gui, W.: An improved TOPSIS-based multi-criteria decision-
making approach for evaluating the working condition of the aluminum reduction cell. Eng.
Appl. Artif. Intell. 117, 105599 (2023)
9. Dehshiri, S.S.H., Firoozabadi, B.: A new multi-criteria decision making approach based on
wins in league to avoid rank reversal: a case study on prioritizing environmental deterioration
strategies in arid urban areas. J. Clean. Prod. 383, 135438 (2023)
10. Al-Sakkaf, A., Mohammed Abdelkader, E., Elshaboury, N., El-Zahab, S., Bagchi, A. and
Zayed, T.: An integrated multi-criteria decision making model for evaluating sustainability
rating systems. In: Canadian Society of Civil Engineering Annual Conference, pp. 405–418.
Springer, Singapore (2023)
11. Yalcin, A.S., Kilic, H.S., Delen, D.: The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in
business analytics: a comprehensive literature review. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 174,
121193 (2022)
12. Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S.K., Yazdani, M., Ignatius, J.: A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS
applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 39(17), 13051–13069 (2012)
13. Pathan, A.I., Girish Agnihotri, P., Said, S., Patel, D.: AHP and TOPSIS based flood risk
assessment-a case study of the Navsari City, Gujarat, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 194(7),
1–37 (2022)
14. Chen, Y.L., Shen, S.L., Zhou, A.: Assessment of red tide risk by integrating CRITIC weight
method, TOPSIS-ASSETS method, and Monte Carlo simulation. Environ. Pollut. 314, 120254
(2022)
15. Chodha, V., Dubey, R., Kumar, R., Singh, S., Kaur, S.: Selection of industrial arc welding robot
with TOPSIS and entropy MCDM techniques. Mater. Today: Proc. 50, 709–715 (2022)
17. Mojaver, P., Khalilarya, S., Chitsaz, A., Assadi, M.: Multi-objective optimization of a power
generation system based SOFC using Taguchi/AHP/TOPSIS triple method. Sustain. Energy
Technol. Assess. 38, 100674 (2020)
19. Foroozesh, F., Monavari, S.M., Salmanmahiny, A., Robati, M., Rahimi, R.: Assessment of
sustainable urban development based on a hybrid decision-making approach: group fuzzy
BWM, AHP, and TOPSIS–GIS. Sustain. Cities Soc. 76, 103402 (2022)
20. Wang, Y., Liu, P., Yao, Y.: BMW-TOPSIS: a generalized TOPSIS model based on three-way
decision. Inf. Sci. 607, 799–818 (2022)
21. Çelikbilek, Y., Tüysüz, F.: An in-depth review of theory of the TOPSIS method: an experimental
analysis. J. Manag. Anal. 7(2), 281–300 (2020)
22. de Farias Aires, R.F., Ferreira, L.: A new approach to avoid rank reversal cases in the TOPSIS
method. Comput. Ind. Eng. 132, 84–97 (2019)
23. Alaa, M., Albakri, I.S.M.A., Singh, C.K.S., Hammed, H., Zaidan, A.A., Zaidan, B.B., Albahri,
O.S., Alsalem, M.A., Salih, M.M., Almahdi, E.M., Baqer, M.J.: Assessment and ranking frame-
work for the English skills of pre-service teachers based on fuzzy Delphi and TOPSIS methods.
IEEE Access 7, 126201–126223 (2019)
24. Lin, M., Chen, Z., Xu, Z., Gou, X., Herrera, F.: Score function based on concentration degree
for probabilistic linguistic term sets: an application to TOPSIS and VIKOR. Inf. Sci. 551,
270–290 (2021)
25. Salih, M.M., Zaidan, B.B., Zaidan, A.A., Ahmed, M.A.: Survey on fuzzy TOPSIS state-of-
the-art between 2007 and 2017. Comput. Oper. Res. 104, 207–227 (2019)

(Engineering Materials) Rezgar Hasanzadeh, Parisa Mojaver - Plastic Waste Treatment and Management - Gasification Processes-Springer (2023)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Engineering Materials) Rezgar Hasanzadeh, Parisa Mojaver - Plastic Waste Treatment and Management - Gasification Processes-Springer (2023)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Materials

Plastic Waste Treatment

ISSN 1612-1317 ISSN 1868-1212 (electronic)

Urmia, Iran Dr. Rezgar Hasanzadeh

Plastic Types and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Taher Azdast Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,

Chul B. Park Microcellular Plastics Manufacturing Laboratory (MPML), Depart-

Abstract Plastics, as a generic name for polymers in the literature, represent an

Keywords Plastics · Polymers · Classifications · Applications

1 Definition and Essential Concepts

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 1

In the simplest definition, a polymer is a long-chain molecule or a macromolecule

According to different criteria such as origin, polymerization process, chemical struc-

polymers. Natural rubber, starch, cellulose, collagen, chitin, deoxyribonucleic acid

2.2 Structure of Repeating Unit

Depending on the type of monomer participating in the chain backbone of the

2.3 Chain Structure

Fig. 2 Schematic representation of possible molecular structures in polymers

2.4 Thermal Response

2.5 Polymerization Process

Fig. 3 Main stages of addition polymerization in polyethylene

2.6 Polymerization Mechanism and Kinetics

With the advancement in polymerization chemistry, certain polymers were devel-

example is the polymerization of polyurethane with a kinetics similar to condensation

Fig. 5 Variation of molecular weight versus conversion rate in a chain-growth polymerization, b

2.8 Form and Uses

There is a general classification of polymers from a practical point of view. On this

Polymer classifica tions

Natural Synthetic Linear Cross-linked Isotactic Atactic

Homopolymer Copolymer General purpose Engineering

Building & Electrical & Industrial

Outstanding packaging ability is another important property of polymers that can be

Regarding the environmental and ecosystem concerns of synthetic petroleum-based

3.4 Shape Memory Polymers

Smart/intelligent polymers are stimuli-responsive materials that can change their

3.5 Self-Cleaning Polymers

3.6 Biomedical Applications

A standard definition of biomaterial is a nonviable material intended to interact with

3.7 Energy Generation and Storage

3.8 Water and Wastewater Treatment

Fig. 9 Some of the

The commercial importance of polymers, which are known by several common

Amir Reza Gharibi, Reza Babazade, and Rezgar Hasanzadeh

Keywords Plastic production · Plastic waste · Forecasting · Regression · ARIMA

A. R. Gharibi · R. Babazade (B)

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 21

Building and Construction 65

Consumer & Institutional products 42

Fig. 1 Global plastic waste generation by industrial sector in 2015

Plastic waste (kg/person/day)

Fig. 2 Daily global plastic waste generation per capita

2 Preliminary Data Analysis

2.1 Global Plastic Production

Fig. 3 Global plastic production from 1950 to 2019

2.2 Global Plastic Waste Generation

Fig. 4 Global plastic waste generation from 1970 to 2015

3 Models for Time Series Forecasting

Regression analysis is a type of predictive modeling technique that looks at

3.2 Simple Linear Regression

3.2.1 Assumptions of Simple Linear Regression

These assumptions are considered for the simple linear regression:

3.2.2 Error Measurement (Cost Function)

3.2.4 MAPE (Mean Absolute Percentage Error)