Feasibility Study for Catalytic Cracking of Waste

Plastic to Produce Fuel Oil with Reference to

Malaysia and Simulation using ASPEN Plus
J.N. Sahu,a K.K. Mahalik,b Ho Kim Nam,a Tan Yee Ling,a Teoh Swee Woon,a
Muhammad Shahimi bin Abdul Rahman,a Y.K. Mohanty,b N.S. Jayakumar,a and S.S. Jamuarc
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia;
jnsahu@um.edu.my (or) jay_sahu@yahoo.co.in (for correspondence)
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, Gandhi Institute of Engineering and Technology, Gunupur, Orissa, India
c
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
Published online 00 Month 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/ep.11748

A technical and feasibility assessment has been conducted
for catalytic cracking of waste plastics to produce fuel oils in
Malaysia. The availability and current technologies for using
plastic waste has been reviewed. Flow sheet for the process
has been conceptualized and the material and energy balan-
ces for the process along with a plant-wide simulation using
the software ASPEN Plus have been undertaken. Amorphous
silica-alumina has been proposed as catalyst to give 94.36%
conversion. Furthermore, the economic analyses for small,
medium, and large scale have been done and in all cases,
the rates of return (ROR) analysis have been undertaken.
From the economic analysis, it has been observed that the
total estimated cost for a large scale plant would be USD
$58,591,260 for an annual feed rate of 120,000 ton. Based
on current market of gasoline and diesel the payback period
for the large scale plant would be 1.42 yr with the total
annual profit of USD $72,933,156, which corresponds to a
ROR of 35.97%. V C 2013 American Institute of Chemical
Engineers Environ Prog, 00: 000–000, 2013
Keywords: simulation; feasibility; catalyst; waste plastic;
rate of return; fixed cost
INTRODUCTION
Plastics are one of the greatest innovations of the millen-
nium and have certainly proved their reputation to be true.
There are numerous ways in which plastic is used in the
years to come. Plastics are now indispensable materials and
their applications in the industrial field are continually
increasing. Plastics are produced from petroleum derivatives
and are composed primarily of hydrocarbons but also
contain additives such as antioxidants, colorants, and other
stabilizers. However, when plastic products are used and dis-
carded, these additives are undesirable from an environmen-
tal point of view [1,2]. However, waste plastics create a very
serious environmental challenge because of disposal of huge
quantity. Plastics are not presently biodegradable and are
extremely troublesome components for land filling. Their
destruction by incineration poses serious air pollution prob-
C 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers
V plastic has been dumped and this will continue for hundreds
lems due to the release of airborne particles and carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere [3,4]. Recycling has become a
major response to the environmental challenges facing the
plastics industry.
With a view of the environmental protection and reduc-
tion of nonregeneration resource, recycling technology for
converting to oil from plastic wastes has drawn much atten-
tion all over the world. Some universities and institutes have
developed the basic theories and technology for industriali-
zation of plastic liquefaction [5,6]. Furthermore, the economic
prosperity and quality of life of a country are closely linked
to the level of its per capita energy consumption and the
strategy adopted to use energy as a fundamental tool to
achieve the same [7,8]. Therefore, finding cost-effective
energy sources has been a rising concern for the past 20 yr.
In addition to energy considerations, the solid-waste problem
has escalated to a staggering magnitude. Efficient ways of
disposing or converting solid wastes must be determined.
Thus, more focus has been placed on catalytic cracking of
waste plastics. This alternative is attractive mainly because
the waste material, when processed, provides, raw material
that can increase production capacity and hence can
improve the process economics. This directly offers hope for
potential commercialization. Recent research efforts [9,10]
have shown that the conversion of coal and plastic waste
into liquid fuel is possible on a laboratory scale. This conver-
sion is achieved by processing coal and waste plastics at a
relatively high temperature (400–450 C) and moderate to
high hydrogen pressure (800–2000 psi). Conversion as high
as 100% is achievable for reactions involving plastic waste
alone with yields to the oil fraction ranging between 86 and
92% [9].
Plastics are polymer type of component with high molec-
ular weight [11]. There are two types of plastic, which are
thermoplastics and thermosets. Thermoplastics such as Poly-
ethylene (PE), Polypropylene (PP), Polystyrene (PS), and
Polyvinyl chloride can easily be melted and softened [11].
Despite the aggressive economic development in Malaysia,
the solid waste management is relatively poor and haphazard
[12]. Study shows that since 1950, more than 1 billion ton of

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep Month 2013 1
or even more than thousands of years [11]. This indicates
that plastics will continue to exist and accumulate from year
to year. Therefore, plastic is the best raw material to go with
for its abundance and availability.
CURRENT STATUS OF WASTE PLASTIC IN MALAYSIA
The amount of the solid waste generated in Malaysia is
steadily increasing and the government is focusing on the
method to solve this problem. The private sector plays an
important role in waste management in the near future.
According to the ninth Malaysia Plan, waste plastic contribute
to 24% of solid waste produced in Malaysia. The official
estimated Kuala Lumpur’s (KL, The capital city of Malaysia)
population is 1.604 million according to statistic department
2007. The quantity of waste generation in KL alone is pro-
jected to increase from 2620 tons in the year 1995 up to 3070
tons per day in the year 2000 [13]. In 2005, KL solid waste
generation was about 3478 tons/day [14]. Privatization pro-
gram of the municipal solid waste management at KL State
Territory began in 1996, in which Alam Flora Sdn Bhd
(AFSB) has been sworn as concession holder, and took over
solid waste transfer station management namely Taman
Beringin Transfer Station (TBTS) that started in 2001. Further-
more, as a technical problem occurred in AFSB, the manage-
ment of the site TBTS then has transferred to the Solid Waste
Disposal Sdn Bhd in the year 2006.The number of municipal
solid waste generated from KL State Territory and delivered
to TBTS was recorded of 2,000-tons per day. Accordingly,
the solid waste generation average for any person is 1.2 kg a
day. The price of solid waste (plastic) collected from plastic
used market at several places on KL City area is about RM
0.45 per kg, due to data taken on May 2010 [15]. Solid waste
management in Malaysia is governed under concurrent list of
the ninth schedule of the federal constitution [16]. Under this
list public health and sanitation can be carried out by the
Federal government, state and also the local authorities that
include collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal of
wastes. Economic growth in Malaysia has brought prosperity.
It has started to impose costs of industrial pollution and deg-
radation of the urban environment [17]. In Malaysia planning
and management of solid waste are under the responsibility
of local government and its departments that deal with urban
cleansing and services. Solid waste management can be
defined as the discipline associated with the control of
generation [18].
Therefore, keeping in view the abundance of waste plas-
tic and the demand of high quality fuel oil in Malaysia, we
decided to study an alternative way to cater to the demand
of fuel oil by using huge amount of waste plastics generated
in the region. There are several methods to be considered to
overcome the flooding of plastic in municipal solid waste
such as Landfill, Mechanical Recycling, Biological Recycling,
thermal cracking, and catalytic cracking [19]. However, cata-
lytic cracking of plastic to produce hydrocarbon shows enor-
mous potentiality in plastic waste management due to lower
cost reducing. The proposed technique for producing fuel
oil by catalytic cracking of waste plastics is very much cost
effective and environmental friendly.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Plastic Waste Feedstock and Supply
The composition of plastic waste generated is around 9.0
to 16.4% of the total solid waste in selected location KL. The
total municipal solid waste generated in KL in the year 2005
is 3478 tons/day, which means that the plastic wastes gener-
ated in KL only is around 313.02 tons/day[14,15]. Three ways
to obtain the plastic wastes are as follows: collection from
rubbish bin by own, collection from house to house, and
purchase from sorted waste company. There are advantages
2 Month 2013 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep
and disadvantages of various ways of collection of waste
plastics and we chose to collect plastic waste from house to
house, since the price of collection is relatively low compare
to purchase from sorted waste company and it can guarantee
continuous supply. Pretreatment of plastic waste is needed
to remove the undesired impurities.
Selection of Catalyst and Reactor
Suitable catalyst and reactor in a process plant have the
ability to control the product yield, and leads to a cost effec-
tive process with more valuable products. Suitable catalyst
and reactor also can reduce the reaction temperature
[20].Nowadays, molecular sieves are the most studied and
employed materials for the chemical decomposition of
plastic waste. Other catalyst systems may be effective for
breaking polymer chains, such as the previously used Frie-
del-Crafts catalysts; however, they present corrosion and
environmental problems [21]. Molecular sieves are a wide
range of solid materials of porous microstructure. Many of
them possess acid or basic properties, very useful in catalytic
reactions. There are several types of molecular sieves,
depending mainly, on their chemical composition and their
pore system. The catalytic decomposition of plastic waste
polymer chains takes place following the same pathways as
the hydrocarbon catalytic cracking reactions used in petro-
leum refinery processes and, catalysts employed by this
industry are useful for polymer decomposition. Alumina,
silica, amorphous silica-alumina (SA), and crystalline alumi-
nosilicates (mainly zeolites) are widely used in petroleum
processes. Hydrocarbon cracking reactions may take place
through hydride remotion, promoted by Lewis acid sites, or
through a carbocation intermediate, from the carbon proto-
nation by Br€ onsted acid sites.
Research attention has also been focused on new molecu-
lar sieves with pore sizes larger than those of zeolites, such
as MCM-41 or SBA-15, that allow larger molecules inside the
pore channels. These materials have mostly weak acid
properties as such, but they can be functionalized in many
different ways. Their acid properties can be greatly enhanced
by the introduction of for instance, aluminum, gallium, iron,
or zirconium atoms during the synthesis [22–24] or by the
immobilization of sulfonic or heteropolyacid strong acid
groups onto the pore channels, after the synthesis [25–30].
Recent studies have also employed hybrid microporous/
mesoporous materials [31].
However, reforming catalysts are based on transition met-
als supported on SA. The most commonly used reforming
catalyst is Pt: SiO2Al2O3 with about 0.5 wt % Pt [32]. This
type of catalyst is bifunctional. Uemichi et al. [33] reported
that when Pt impregnated on SiO2-Al2O3 was tested and
showed an increase in the yield of aromatic at the reduced
cost of normal and isoalkanes. This data seems to support
that reforming catalysts enhance aromatic formation in plas-
tics cracking. However, the transition metal of Platinum is
very expensive. Therefore, the reforming catalyst is not cho-
sen for our work.
Furthermore, catalyst such as metal oxides, metal com-
plexes of the type MCln–AlCl3 or M(AlCl4)n (M 5 Li, Na, K,
Mg, Ca, Ba; n 5 1–2), and alkali metal carbonates or alkaline
metal carbonates have been used in past by researchers.
Zhibo et al. reported that degradation of PE on solid bases
(ZnO, MgO, and TiO2) yield more oil and olefins than on
solid acid but it will produce less aromatics and low octane
number for oil [34]. So, the rich olefinic oil is not expected
for fuel oils because of their polymerization during preserva-
tion and transportation. As a result, the catalysts based on
solid bases are not suitable in this process.
Amorphous silica–alumina (FCC-SA) catalyst is a meso-
pore structure that has relatively low surface area, big pore
Figure 1. Simple block diagram of process flow.
size and pore volume. It has low acid strength as compared
to zeolites. However, it has a sufficient diffusion of heavy
hydrocarbon having large kinetic diameter through the
pores. Amorphous SA shows a great activity on cracking PP
and PE to form lighter hydrocarbons. It also generates high
yield of lighter olefins in oil product due to strong acidity
[19,35]. Azhar et al. [36] reported that with SA, all the PE is
found to be converted to liquid products with high yield
(77–83 wt %) and without any wax production. Guohua Luo
et al. [20] reported that SA could produce higher yield of liq-
uid fuel and more valuable gas product at a temperature
ranging from 400 to 550 C. Its liquid fuel conversion is about
86% and the residual level is <8 wt % at 500 C.
Keeping in view the high yields of liquid products, low
yield of residue and the low price, the amorphous silica alu-
mina has been chosen to be best suitable for the catalytic
cracking of plastics to produce fuel oil.
Fluidized-bed reactor is chosen to be used to produce the
fuel gas from the waste plastic. Based on the process flexibil-
ity, this type of the reactor is excellent because it can be
used for low and high-temperature pyrolysis in the presence
or absence of the catalyst and can produce the desired prod-
ucts as compared with other reactors. Besides, different plas-
tic wastes can be treated by using fluidized bed reactor. In
addition, it gives an excellent temperature control in large-
scale operations as well as moderate equipment costs and
low maintenance costs.
Process Conceptualization and Simulation
The simplified block diagram of the process for produc-
ing light and heavy fuel oil from waste plastic is shown in
Figure 1. The actual process flow diagram is shown in Figure
2. The whole process comprises of three stages, namely,
Preparation of raw material and drying, Pyrolysis, and Sepa-
ration and purification.
Waste plastics (40% PP, 40% PE, and 20% PS) are fed to
washer tank and are washed with water. The feeding ratio of
plastic to water is 1:1 in mass. The waste water from the
washer tank is recycled for cooling process while the clean
plastics are sent to the shredder. The clean waste plastics are
shred into small spherical pieces having mean particle size of
3 mm. After the shredding process, nitrogen gas at 176.7 C is
used to purge and dry the moist plastics.
Waste plastics from drying processes are fed to pyrolysis
reactor. The general reaction is shown below:
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep
catalyst
waste plastic ! liquid fuel 1 gases fuel (1)
The operating condition in the pyrolysis reactor is set to 1
atm, temperature is maintained at 500 C, and reaction time
taken 30 min. The fluidized bed reactor is chosen and the
catalyst used is silica alumina. The conversion of the fuel
products is 94.62% [37,38]. The catalyst from the cyclone is
recycled and fed back to the reactor.
The gaseous products from the reactor are fed to the
cooler to cool down the products from 500 to 300 C before
sending to the first separator. Methane, ethane, ethylene,
propene, propane, and hydrogen are separated at top as fuel
gas products, which in turn are used to heat up the reactor.
The bottom products are sent to the second separator to sep-
arate it into light fuel oil and heavy fuel oil products. Light
oil is classified as gasoline, range hydrocarbon while the
heavy oil is classified as diesel range hydrocarbon. Light fuel
oil will be heated up to room temperature while the heavy
fuel oil will be cooled down to same temperature as that of
light fuel oil, to avoid wax deposition in pipe line. Both the
products are stored in the storage tanks.
Having developed a conceptual flow sheet for the pro-
cess, one is now in a position to simulate the plant and con-
duct the necessary calculations for material and energy bal-
ances as well as other technical aspects. Material and energy
balances for the plant have been conducted. In addition, a
plant-wide simulation has also been undertaken. Most of the
units were simulated using the software ASPEN Plus. This is
a commercially available software program that can be used
to model most of the industrial unit operations (e.g., separa-
tion units, pumps/compressors, etc.). This package provides
the user with the flexibility of selecting the system of units
and various thermodynamic models [39].
Material balance for drying process, reaction and separa-
tion processes generated from the simulation have been
shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The corresponding
simulation diagrams have been shown in Figure 3. The basis
for material balance is taken as 10,000 tons/yr. The composi-
tion of raw material (plastics) is PE:40%, PP: 40%, and PS:
20%. It is assumed that during material balance all streams
are in steady state condition, uniform physical conditions
exist along each stream, vapors behave as ideal-gas and
liquids behave as ideal-solution, there are no accumulation
of mass, and reaction only takes place inside the reactor, no
Month 2013 3
Figure 2. Overall process flow diagram.

Table 1. Material balance for drying process from simulation.

Stream MWP CLN-MWP H2O W-H2O WET-MWP INDRIER S-1 COLD-N2 HOT-N2 EXHAUST
Mass Flow (kg/h)
H2O 0 0 1141.55 1130.15 11.4 11.4 0 0 0 11.4
N2 0 0 0 0 0 5000 0 5000 5000 5000
PE 456.62 456.62 0 0 456.62 456.62 456.62 0 0 0
PP 456.62 456.62 0 0 456.62 456.62 456.62 0 0 0
PS 228.31 228.31 0 0 228.31 228.31 228.31 0 0 0
Total Flow 1141.55 1141.55 0 0 1152.95 6152.95 1141.55 5000 5000 5011.4
Pressure (atm) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Temperature (oC) 25 25 25 25 25 135 135 25 178 135

other side reactions occur, operating hour per year is 8400
hr/yr, waste plastic is completely dried in drying process and
solid residue is neglected due to very low yield.
In this process design, energy balance is made to deter-
mine the energy requirements for a particular process, for
energy auditing and for adiabatic operation. The calculation
of the enthalpy balance on the process is based on the first
law of thermodynamics where kinetic energy differences,
potential energy differences, and work done on the system
by its surrounding are zero. For calculating the energy
requirement for different units the system was assumed to
exhibit, ideal mixing behavior, where kinetic and potential
energy are neglected and there is no heat loss. Energy bal-
ance data have been extracted from ASPEN Plus simulation
and the data has been tabulated in Table 3.
A heat integration process has been performed to deter-
mine the number of heat exchanger needed and minimize
the hot and cold utilities needed. Before the integration pro-
cess being performed, the number of heater needed was 3,
and the number of cooler needed was 2. After performing
the integration process, it was found that those heaters and
coolers could be replaced by 4 numbers of heat exchangers.
The simulation diagram after integration process being per-
formed has been shown in Figure 4.
Economic Analysis of the Proposed Process
In this section, economic aspects of for small, medium,
and large scale process are discussed. Further, the rate of
return (ROR) analysis for all plants has been studied. Finally,
breakeven analysis as well as sensitivity analysis have been
performed to know whether the proposed project is eco-
nomical acceptable or not.
Small Scale Economic Analysis
An acceptable design plant must have a process that is
capable to yield a profit. An estimation of the investment is
required and the cost of the production is needed before the

4 Month 2013 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep
Table 2. Material balance for reaction and separation process from simulation.

Stream S-1 S-2 S-3H S-3C S-4 S-5C S-5H S-6 S-6P S-7C S-7H S-8H S-8C
Mass Flow (kg/m3)
N2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PE 456.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PP 456.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PS 228.31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CH4 0 23.5 23.5 23.5 0 23.5 23.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
C2H4 0 23.14 23.14 23.14 0 23.14 23.14 0 0 0 0 0 0
C2H6 0 1.18 1.18 1.18 0 1.18 1.18 0 0 0 0 0 0
C3H6 0 8.57 8.57 8.57 0 8.57 8.57 0 0 0 0 0 0
C3H8 0 3.65 3.65 3.65 0 3.65 3.65 0 0 0 0 0 0
H2 0 0.91 0.91 0.91 0 0.91 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 0
C5H12 0 187.85 187.85 187.85 0 0.00 0.00 187.85 187.85 187.85 187.85 0.00 0.00
C6H14 0 444.02 444.02 444.02 0 0.00 0.00 444.02 444.02 444.02 444.02 0.00 0.00
C7H14 0 170.78 170.78 170.78 0 0.00 0.00 170.78 170.78 170.78 170.78 0.00 0.00
C7H8 0 6.56 6.56 6.56 0 0.00 0.00 6.56 6.56 6.56 6.56 0.00 0.00
C8H18 0 34.616 34.616 34.616 0 0.00 0.00 34.616 34.616 33.79 33.79 0.83 0.83
C8H8 0 210.42 210.42 210.42 0 0.00 0.00 210.42 210.42 188.83 188.83 21.59 21.59
C9H10 0 7.69 7.69 7.69 0 0.00 0.00 7.69 7.69 1.22 1.22 6.47 6.47
C9H8 0 1.13 1.13 1.13 0 0.00 0.00 1.13 1.13 0.02 0.02 1.11 1.11
C9H12 0 17.08 17.08 17.08 0 0.00 0.00 17.08 17.08 12.86 12.86 4.22 4.22
C10H10 0 0.45 0.45 0.45 0 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45
Total Flow 1141.55 1141.55 1141.55 1141.55 0.00 60.95 60.95 1080.6 1080.6 1045.9 1045.93 34.67 34.67
Pressure (atm) 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 1 1.5 1.5 1.5
Temperature 134.76 500 500 300 300 25.05 119.31 28.35 28.46 65.2 25 150.1 25
( C)

profitability of a project is evaluated. In this section, capital
cost of plant, components of raw material, operating cost,
laboratory cost are discussed. Table 4 shows the equipment’s
price in the year 2007 [40]. By using the conversion factor of
US dollars based on 2011 estimation (0.993) [41], the equip-
ment cost have been estimated to be $ 3,372,700. Indirect
costs, which cover the cost of installation, piping, electrical
etc., are counted by using the Lang factor (ƒL) of a solid-fluid
process type [42]. ‘‘Lang factors-ƒL,’’ are characteristic of the
industry sector considered, particularly the type of products
manufactured, the average cost of equipment items used,
plant capacity, and location [43]. The ratio of the complete
plant cost, IF to the sum of the purchased costs of all equip-
ment termed Lang factor can be represented by the equation
[44–52]:
X  tion cost from the annual profit, which has been found out
IF 5fL MPEC (2)
where, MPEC is the main plant equipment costs. In view of
their large influence on the total estimated cost, it is impor-
tant that the Lang factor be as accurate as possible.
Indirect costs, which cover the cost of installation, piping,
electrical etc., is counted by using the Lang factor with solid-
fluid process type [43]. Total physical plant cost is calculated
by using the equation:
X
n 
PPC5MPCE ð11fn Þ (3)
1
The viability of a project is needed to be judged by esti-
mating the cost of operation. Total production cost is also
one of the important parameter of the economy analysis of a
plant. The operating cost include maintenance cost, variable
costs, miscellaneous materials cost, laboratory costs, plant
overheads, insurance, license fees, capital charges, and local
taxes [43,53]. Total production cost includes the summation
of variable cost, fixed cost, and other expenses, which have
been estimated to be $ 5,457,798.
Assuming that the price of light fuel oil and heavy fuel oil
are same as current gasoline and diesel price respectively,
production profit can be expressed as $ 0.481/L. Total annual
profit is the sum of the profit obtained from light oil and
heavy oil, which has been estimated to be $ 6,077,763. The
net profit can be obtained by subtracting the annual produc-
to be $ 619,965. By this way, the ROR based on the total
investment is 4.17%. Payback period is the time required to
reach the break-even point at which the income (profit from
sale revenue) equals to the cost of production, which has
been estimated to be 23.99 yr.
Medium and Large Scale Economic Analysis
The equipment cost from Table 4 has been used to scale
up to medium and large scale plant.
Cost of equipment A
5 cost of equipment Bðcapital A=capital BÞe (5)

where “e” is exponent, the Eq. (5) used to calculate medium

where, ƒn is the Lang factor of the specific equipment as
given in Table 5 and PPC is the plant physical cost. In our
found PPC is $ 10,624,005.
Fixed capital cost is calculated by using the equation:
FC 5PPCð11fn Þ
and is found to be $ 14,873,607.
scale (60,000 tons/yr), and large scale (120,000 tons/yr). It
has been observed that the total proposed production cost
for medium scale and large scale plants are $ 27,132,632 and
$ 52,019,998, respectively, for a conversion factor of 94.4%.
The cost for waste treatment and miscellaneous material is
(4) based on the assumption of 15% and 10% of equipment cost,
respectively. The amount of catalyst needed for cracking has
been calculated by scaling down based on capacities and

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep Month 2013 5
Figure 3. Simulation of (a) drying process; (b) reaction and separation before process integration being performed.

Table 3. Energy balance from simulation.

Pressure Phase Fraction Enthalpy Change/Work Required

Unit Operation P (atm) Vapor Liquid Solid kW
Washer 1 0 0.5 0.5 0
Shredder 1 0 0 1 0
Dryer 1 0.814 0 0.186 0
Heater 1 1 0 0 1 185.75
Reactor 1 0 0 1 875.50
Cyclone 1 1 1 0 0 0
Cooler 1 1 1 0 0 2163.23
Distillation Column 1 1 1 0 0 262.44
Heater 2 1 1 0 0 0.94
Pump 1 1 0 1 0 0.037
Distillation Column 2 1 0 1 0 19.20
Heater 3 1 0 1 0 4.89
Cooler 2 1 0 1 0 22.02

cost available in the literature and assuming that the catalyst
cost-capacity functionality behaves linearly [20,35–38]. How-
ever, waste plastics may have a positive raw material cost if
incoming plastic to be processed is paid for, or a negative
raw material cost (i.e., generate revenue) if a tipping fee is
charged for all incoming plastics to be processed.
Two important indicators, commonly used in economic
assessment, are gross profit and ROR. Gross profit is defined
as the difference between the total annual revenue and the
total production cost. ROR is determined by dividing this
gross profit by the total capital invested. ROR and gross
profit were 35.69% and $ 72,933,156, respectively, for

6 Month 2013 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep
Figure 4. Simulation diagram after process integration being performed.

conversion factors of 94.4% for large scale plant. ROR,

Table 4. Cost of equipment for small scale plant. payback period, and net profit of plants have been shown in
Table 6.
Type of equipment Cost in USD ($)
Breakeven Analysis
Storage Tank Breakeven analysis can determine the required produc-
Waste Plastic 150,800 tion per year to recover the initial and annual operating cost.
Shred waster plastic 3 2 279,000 Figure 5 shows the breakeven analysis of cost ($/yr) vs. unit
Light Oil 3 2 431,800 of production (L/yr). Breakeven point is the point where two
Heavy Oil 3 2 431,800 lines (revenue and production cost) intersect each other.
Fuel gas 94,100 From the graph, the minimum production of light oil is
Shredder 3 2 60,200 around 16,000,000 L/yr where as the production of the large
Washer 206,500 scale plant is 20,000,000 L/yr. Hence, this project is economi-
Dryer 120,000 cally acceptable.
Heat exchanger 3 4 371,200
Conveyor
Sensitivity Analysis
Conveyor 1 115,600
Sensitivity analysis determine how a measure of annual
Conveyor 2 8,500
worth and the alternative maybe altered if a particular pa-
Reactor 244,300
rameter varies over a stated range of values. Sensitivity analy-
Cyclone 136,100
sis has been performed on one parameter, which is the sell-
Compressor 3 4 373,200
ing price of fuel oil. Figure 6a shows that the USD $0.06
Pump 3 6 99,600
increment of fuel oil selling price while Figure 6b showing
Distillation Column
the USD $0.06 decrement of fuel oil selling price. The degree
Distillation Column 1 113,200
of sensitivity is determined by the slope of the graphs above.
Distillation Column 2 113,200
Greater slope represent higher degree of sensitivity. Since
Total estimation cost 3,349,100
both figures both have small gradient of curve, it is mean
that the viability of the project is not affected by either
increase or decrease the selling price of fuel oil.

CONCLUSION
Table 5. Lang’s factor for physical and fixed capital cost. In the catalytic cracking of waste plastic process, the cata-
lyst and types of reactor proposed are Alumina-silica and flu-
Description Lang’s Factor idized bed reactor, respectively, which can give a conversion
of 94.6%. Technical assessment of the proposed plants
Physical Plant Cost (small, medium, and large scale), process simulation, and
Equipment Erection 0.45 economic analysis have been done. Preliminary screening
Piping 0.45 reveals that it is highly feasible to break-even at reasonable
Instrumentation 0.15 conversion, yield, and tipping fee. The economy feasibility
Electrical 0.10 analysis shows that for the annual feed rate of 120,000 tons
Building, Process 0.10 the first investment cost is USD $58,591,260. The total cost of
Utilities 0.45 production would be USD $52,019,998 per year. It is
Storage 0.20 expected to get a net profit of USD $20,913,158 per year.
Site development 0.05 The payback period for this production is 1.42 yr. The total
Ancillary buildings 0.20 annual profit for this large scale plant would be USD
Fixed Capital $72,933,156 based on the current market of gasoline and die-
Design and Engineering 0.25 sel. The ROR for this plant is 35.69%. From the preliminary
Contractor’s fee 0.05 studies, it can be concluded that to cater the demand of high
Contingency 0.10 quality gasoline and diesel oil in Malaysia catalytic cracking

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep Month 2013 7
Table 6. Profit, ROR, and payback period for small, medium, and large scale plant.

Description Small Scale Middle Scale Large Scale

Fixed Capital Cost (FCC) USD $14,873,607 USD $39,285,162 USD $58,591,260
Total Annual Production Cost USD $5,457,798 USD $27,132,632 USD $52,019,998
Total Annual Profit USD $6,077,763 USD $36,466,578 USD $72,933,156
Net Profit (per year) USD $619,965 USD $9,333,946 USD $20,913,158
Payback period 24 yr 4.5 yr 3 yr
ROR 4.17% 23.76% 35.69%

Figure 5. Breakeven analysis for (a) small; (b) medium; (c) large scale plants of cost in $/yr versus unit of production in L/yr.
[Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

8 Month 2013 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep

Figure 6. Sensitivity analysis of the annual net profit to the
$0.06 (RM 0.2) of gasoline price (a) increment; (b) decrement
to year 5. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue,
which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
of waste plastics to produce fuel oil is one of the best
option.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from Uni-
versity of Malaya (UM) and Ministry of Higher Education
(MOHE), Malaysia having Project/Grant Account No.:
D000020-16001 in carrying out this research.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Yamada, H., Mori, H., & Tagawa, T. (2010). CO2 reform-
ing of waste plastics, Journal of Industrial and Engineer-
ing Chemistry 16, 7–9.
2. Williams, P.T., & Williams, E.A. (1999). Interaction of
plastics in mixed-plastics pyrolysis, Energy Fuels, 13,
188–196.
3. Saeed, L., & Zevenhoven, R. (2002). Comparison between
two-stage waste combustion with HCl recovery and con-
ventional incineration plants, Energy Sources 24, 41–57.
4. Hamid, S.H., & Amin, M.B. (1995). Lifetime prediction of
polymers, Journal of Applied Polymer Science 55, 1385–
1394.
5. Huang, Y., Yan, H.-X., & Zhang, Q.-Y. (2002). Liquid fuel
manufactured from waste plastics cracking, Plastics 31,
36–40.
6. Li, X.-X., Shi, Y.-F., & Yu, H.-R. (2002). Preparation of
fuel oil from plastic waste by catalytic cracking, Environ-
mental Protection Chemical Industries 22, 90–94.
7. Singh, K.J., & Sooch, S.S. (2004). Comparative study of
economics of different models of family size biogas plant
for state of Punjab, India Energy Conversion and Man-
agement, 45, 1329–1341.
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep
8. Amigun, B., Sigamoney, R., & Von-Blottnitz, H. (2008).
Commercialisation of biofuel industry in Africa: A review,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 12, 690–711.
9. Taghiei, M.M., Huggins, F.E., & Huffman, G.P. (1993). Co-
liquefaction of waste plastics with coal, Preprints of ACS
Meeting (pp. 816–822), Chicago.
10. Anderson, L.L., & Tuntawiroon, W. (1993). Co-liquefac-
tion of coal and polymers to liquid fuels, Preprints of
ACS Meeting (pp. 816–822), Chicago.
11. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic.
12. Hassan, M.N., Zakaria, Z., & Rahaman, R.A. (1999). Man-
aging costs of urban pollution in Malaysia: The case of
solid waste, paper presented in MPPJ Seminar Petaling
Jaya, Malaysia.
13. Mansor, W.G. (1999). Waste prevention: A consumerist
approach to waste management. Paper presented in
EPSM seminar on local communities and the environment
(Volume 27).
14. Sivapalan, K., Muhd Noor, M.Y., Abd Halim, S., Kamaruz-
zaman, S., & Rakmi, A.R. (2002) Comprehensive charac-
teristics of the municipal solid waste generation in Kuala
Lumpur. Proceedings of the Regional Symposium on
Environment and Natural Resources 10–11th April 2002
(Volume 1. pp. 359–368), Hotel Renaissance Kuala Lum-
pur, Malaysia.
15. Budhiarta, I., Siwar, C., & Basri, H. (2012). Current status
of municipal solid waste generation in Malaysia, Interna-
tional Journal on Advanced Science Engineering Informa-
tion Technology, 2, 16–21.
16. Nasir, A.A. (2007). Institutionalizing solid waste manage-
ment in Malaysia: Department of National Solid Waste
Management. Ministry of Housing and Local Government
Malaysia, Power Point Presentation.
17. Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., & Vigil, S. (1993).Inte-
grated solid waste management-engineering principles
and management issues. New York: McGraw-Hill.
18. Wahid, A.G., Hassan, M.N., & Muda, A. (1996). Domestic
and commercial waste: Present and future trends. CAP-
SAM National Conference on the State of the Malaysian
Environment, Penang: RECDAM.
19. Panda, A.K., Singh, R.K., & Mishra, D.K. (2010). Thermol-
ysis of waste plastics to liquid fuel: suitable method for
plastic waste management and production of value
added products-A world prospective, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, 233–248.
20. Guohua, L., Tomohiko, S., Satomi, Y., & Kunio, K.
(2000). Catalytic degradation of high density polyethylene
and polypropylene into liquid fuel in a powder-particle
fluidized bed, Polymer Degradation and Stability, 70, 97–
102.
21. Clark, J.H. (1999). Feedstock recycling of plastic wastes,
Royal Society of Chemistry Clean Technology Mono-
graphs, London.
22. Chen, L.F., Zhou, X., Nore~ na, L.E., Yu, G., Li, C., & Wang,
J.A. (2007). Framework modification and acidity enhance-
ment of zirconium-containing mesoporous materials,
Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis, Recent Progress
in Mesostructured Materials (Volume 165, pp. 199–202).
23. Chen, L.F., Nore~ na, L.E., Zhou, X.L., Wang, J.A., Navar-
rete, J., Salas, P., & Montoya, A. (2006). Comparative
studies of mesoporous Zr-MCM-41 and Zr-MCM-48: Syn-
thesis and physicochemical properties, Applied Surface
Science, 253, 2443–2451.
24. Dıaz-Garcıa, M., Aguilar-Pliego, J., Herrera-Perez, G.,
Guzman, L., Schachat, P., Nore~ na-Franco, L., Aguilar-
errez-Arzaluz, M. (2010). Isomeriza-
Elguezabal, A., & Guti
tion of pinene with Al- and Ga- modified MCM-41
mesoporous materials, Advanced Materials Research, 132,
162–173.
Month 2013 9
25. Boveri, M., Aguilar-Pliego, J., Perez-Pariente, J., & Sastre,
E. (2005). Optimization of the preparation method of
HSO3-functionalized MCM-41 solid catalysts, Catalysis
Today, 107-108, 868–873.
26. Hernandez, A., Nore~ na, L., Chen, L.F., Wang, J.A., & Agui-
lar, J. (2010). Refinery oil fraction fuels obtained from
polyethylene catalytic cracking employing heteropolya-
cid-MCM-41 materials, Advanced Materials Research, 132,
236–245.
27. Schacht, P., Aguilar-Pliego, J., Ramırez-Garnica, M.,
Ramırez, S., Abu, I., & Nore~ na-Franco, L. (2010).
Effect of CoMo/HSO3-functionalized MCM-41 over
heavy oil, Journal of The Mexican Chemical Society,
54, 194–200.
28. Wang, J.A., Zhou, X.L., Chen, L.F., Nore~ na, L.E., Yu, G.X.,
& Li, C.L. (2009). Hydroisomerization of n-heptane on Pt/
H3PW12O40/Zr-MCM-41 catalysts, Journal of Molecular
Catalysis A: Chemical, 299, 68–76.
29. Wang, J.A., Chen, L.F., Nore~ na, L.E., Navarrete, J., & Lla-
nos, M.E. (2008). Mesoporous structure, surface acidity
and catalytic properties of Pt/Zr-MCM-41 catalysts pro-
moted with 12-tungstophosphoric acid, Microporous &
Mesoporous Materials, 112, 61–76.
30. Yang, X.K., Chen, L.F., Wang, J.A., Nore~ na, L.E., &
Novaro, O. (2009). Study of the Keggin structure and cat-
alytic properties of Pt-promoted heteropolycompound/
Al-MCM- 41 hybrid catalysts, Catalysis Today, 148,
160–168.
31. Serrano, D.P., Aguado, J., Escola, J.M., Rodriguez, J.M., &
Peral, A. (2010). Catalytic properties in polyolefin crack-
ing of hierarchical nanocrystalline HZSM-5 samples pre-
pared according to different strategies, Journal of
Catalysis, 276, 152–160.
32. Buekens, A.G., & Huang, H. (1998). Catalytic plastics
cracking for recovery of gasoline-range hydrocarbons
from municipal plastic wastes, Resources Conservation
and Recycling, 23, 163–181.
33. Uemichi, Y., Makino, Y., & Kanazuka, T. (1989). Degrada-
tion of polyethylene to aromatic hydrocarbons over
metal-supported activated carbon catalysts, Journal of An-
alytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 14, 331–344.
34. Zhibo, Z., Nishio, S., Morioka, Y., Ueno, A., Ohkita, H., &
Tochihara, Y. (1996). Thermal and chemical recycle of
waste polymers, Catalysis Today, 29, 303–308.
35. Seo, Y.H., Lee, K.H., & Shin, D.H. (2003). Investigation of
catalytic degradation of high density, polyethylene by
hydrocarbon group type analysis, Journal of Analytical
and Applied Pyrolysis, 70, 383–398.
36. Azhar-uddin, M., Koizumi, K., Murata, K., & Sakata, Y.
(1997). Thermal and catalytic degradation of structurally
10 Month 2013 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep
different types of polyethylene into fuel oil, Polymer
Degradation and Stability, 56, 37–44.
37. Buekens, A.G., & Huang, H. (1998).Catalytic plastics
cracking for recovery of gasoline-range hydrocarbons
from municipal plastic wastes, Resources Conservation
and Recycling, 23, 163–181.
38. Miranda, R., Pakdel, H., Roy, C., & Vasile C. (2001).Vac-
uum pyrolysis of commingled plastics containing PVC II.
Product Analysis, Polymer Degradation and Stability, 73,
47–67.
39. Sahu, J.N., Chava, V.S.R.K., Hussain, S., Patwardhan, A.V.,
& Meikap, B.C. (2010). Optimization of ammonia produc-
tion from urea in continuous process using ASPEN Plus
and computational fluid dynamics study of the reactor
used for hydrolysis process, Journal of Industrial and En-
gineering Chemistry, 16, 577–586.
40. Retrieved from http//www.matche.com.
41. Retrieved from http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/
facultyresearch/sahr/cv2008.pdf.
42. Sinnott, R.K., & Coulson, R. (1948). Chemical Engineering
(Volume 6, 4th Edition), UK: Butterworth Heinemann.
43. Lang, H.J. (1948). Simplified approach to preliminary cost
estimates, Chemical Engineering, 55, 112–113.
44. Wilson, G.T. (1971). Capital investment for chemical
plant, British Chemical Engineering, 16, 931–934.
45. Peters, M.S., & Timmerhaus, K.D. (1980). Plant design
and economics for chemical engineers, New York:
McGraw-Hill Book.
46. Montfoort, A.G., & Meijer, F.A. (1983). Improved Lang
factor approach to capital cost estimating, Process Eco-
nomics International, 4, 20–21.
47. George, D.J. (1988). A guide to capital cost estimation
(3rd Edition), The Institution of Chemical Engineers,
Rugby, England.
48. Kharbanda, O.P., & Stallworthy, E.A. (1988). Capital cost
estimating for the process industry, London: Butterworth
& Co. Ltd.
49. Turton, R., Baillie, R.C., Whiting, W.B., & Shaewitz, J.A.
(1989). Analysis, synthesis and design of chemical pro-
cess, NJ, USA: Parentic Hall, OTR.
50. Remer, D.S., & Chai, L.H. (1990). Estimate cost of scaled-
up process plants, Chemical Engineering, 94, 138–175.
51. Sinnott, R.K. (1996). Chemical process design. In J.M.
Coulson & J.F. Richardson (Eds.), Chemical Engineering
Design (Volume 6, 3rd Edition, pp. 243–260), UK: Butter-
worth Heinemann.
52. Garret, D.E. (1998). Chemical engineering economics,
New York: Van Nostrand.
53. Smith, R. (2005). Chemical process design and integration
(2nd Edition), UK: Wiley.