Materials Science for Energy Technologies 2 (2019) 634–646

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Science for Energy Technologies

CHINESE ROOTS
GLOBAL IMPACT
journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/materials-science-for-energy-technologies

Utilization and recycling of end of life plastics for sustainable and clean
industrial processes including the iron and steel industry
Sheila Devasahayam a,⇑, Guntamadugu Bhaskar Raju b, Chaudhery Mustansar Hussain c
a
Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne, Australia
b
National Metallurgical Laboratory (Formerly), CSIR Madras Complex, Chennai, India
c
Department of Chemistry and Environmental Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark 07102, NJ, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: About 400 million tonnes of plastics are produced per annum worldwide. End-of-life of plastics disposal
Received 21 April 2019 contaminates the waterways, aquifers and limits the landfill areas. Options for recycling plastic wastes
Revised 16 August 2019 include, feedstock recycling, mechanical /material recycling, industrial energy recovery, municipal solid
Accepted 16 August 2019
waste incineration. Incineration of plastics containing E-Wastes releases noxious odours, harmful gases,
Available online 19 August 2019
dioxins, HBr, polybrominated diphenylethers and other hydrocarbons. This study focusses on recycling
options, in particular, feedstock recycling of plastics in high-temperature materials processing, for a sus-
Keywords:
tainable solution to the plastic wastes not suitable for recycling. Of the 7% CO2 emissions attributed to the
Waste plastics
Thermo and thermoset plastics
iron and steel industry worldwide,
30% of the carbon footprint is reduced using the waste plastics com-
Iron and steel industry pared to other carbon sources, in addition to energy savings. Plastics have higher H2 content, than the
Feedstock recycling coal. Hydrogen evolved from the plastics acts as the reductant alongside the carbon monoxide.
Carbon sequestration Hydrogen reduction of iron ore in presence of plastics increases the reaction rates due to higher diffusion
Energy and emissions savings of H2 compared to CO. Plastic replacement reduces the process temperature by at least 100–200 °C due to
the reducing gases (hydrogen) which enhance the energy efficiency of the process. Similarly, plastics
greatly reduce the emissions in other high carbon footprint process such as magnesia production while
contributing to energy.
Ó 2019 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co., Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635
2. Options for end of life plastic wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635
2.1. Land filling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636
2.2. Industrial energy recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636
2.2.1. Incineration of municipal solid waste (MSWI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637
2.2.2. Pyrolysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637
2.3. Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638
2.3.1. Biological recycling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638
3. Plastics for carbon sequestration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642
4. Advantages/disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642
5. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sheiladevasahayam@gmail.com (S. Devasahayam), chaudhery.m.hussain@njit.edu (C. Mustansar Hussain).
Peer review under responsibility of KeAi Communications Co., Ltd.

Production and hosting by Elsevier

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mset.2019.08.002
2589-2991/Ó 2019 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co., Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 S. Devasahayam et al. / Materials Science for Energy Technologies 2 (2019) 634–646
Declaration of Competing Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644
1. Introduction
About 400 million tonnes of plastics are produced per annum
worldwide. End-of-life of plastics disposal contaminates water-
ways and aquifers, limits the landfill areas and generating noxious
odours, harmful gases and other hydrocarbons during incinera-
tions [1]. The image of a dead sperm whale with 29 kg of plastic
inside its digestive system from ingestion of plastics highlights
the gravity of the plastic pollution [2]. Plastics disintegrate into
smaller particles to <0.1 mm. Depending on the size, disintegrated
plastics are classified as macroplastics (>5 cm); mesoplastics
(5 mm to 5 cm); microplastics (100 nm to 5 mm); and nanoplastics
(<100 nm). Microplastics convey pollutants via food to the users
affecting the ecosystems [3]. The nano- and microplastics are
ingested by most marine and terrestrial organisms.
The Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries
(IGB) reports of tiny pieces of plastic surfaces carrying pathogens
facilitating the spread of maladies in the environment. Microplas-
tics can interact with soil fauna, impacting their wellbeing and soil
functions. Earthworms, make their tunnels in a different way in the
presence of microplastics in the soil, affecting their fitness and the
soil condition. Phthalates and Bisphenol A seeping out of plastics
interrupt the hormone scheme of vertebrates and invertebrates
[1]. Nanoplastics cause inflammation of the cells; pass through or
change cellular obstacles, traverse selective membranes such as
the blood-brain wall or the placenta, elicit deviations in gene
expression and biochemical responses inside cells, e.g. behavioural
patterns of fish change as the blood-brain barrier is crossed [1].
Hence it is important to dispose of end of life plastics sensibly.
Despite plastics being the source of energy, replacing the non-
renewable resources and diminishing carbon foot print, only 9%
of the plastic wastes have been recycled, 12% incinerated and
79% still in the landfills as of 2015 [4]. In 2015, around 55% of glo-
bal plastic waste was discarded, 25% incinerated, and 20% recycled.
Annual Australian plastics recycling in 2016–17 is 415200 t at
Fig. 1. In 2016, for the first time, more plastic waste recycled compared to the landfilled [6], reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of PlasticsEurope: https://
www.plasticseurope.org/en/privacy-policy.
635
recycling rate of 11.8% [5]. According to Plastics Europe, for the first
time, recycling (31.1%) overcame landfill (27.3%) in 2016, [6]
(Fig. 1). From 2006 to 2016, the volumes of plastic waste collected
for recycling increased by 79%, energy recovery increased by 61%
and landfill decreased by 43%.
Waste plastics are classified into the hydrocarbons containing
no heteroatoms e.g. polyethylene, polypropylene and polystyrene;
and, hydrocarbons containing heteroatoms, e.g. polyvinylchloride,
acrylonitrilestyrene-butadiene resin (ABS) and polyethylene
terephthalate. One of the major components of E-Waste is ABS,
containing brominated flame retardants (BFRs), tetrabromobisphe-
nol A (TBBPA) and brominated epoxy oligomers. Plastics that con-
tain BFRs include epoxy and polycarbonate resins, ABS, brominated
ABS (Br-ABS), high impact polystyrene, brominated polystyrene
and phenolic resins [7]. The presence of bromine in ABS results
in dioxin and/or benzofuran formation during pyrolysis because
of the reactions of organic halogen compounds in the pyrolysis
oil [8,9].
Polymeric matrices are divided into thermoplastics and ther-
mosets. Thermoplastics undergo chemical [10,11], thermal,
photo-, or biodegradation [12]. They can be transformed or repoly-
merized into new products. However, the challenge is to ensure
material performance during its useful lifetime is not compro-
mised during the end-of-life degradation and/or reprocessing [13].
Opportunities for the waste plastics and their impact on the
environment are discussed in the following section.
2. Options for end of life plastic wastes
Figs. 2 and 3 and Table 1 illustrates the relative Net-energy/
GHG-effects of different disposal/ repurposing options [14]. Incin-
eration and gasification show the highest net emissions. Pyrolysis
and the catalytic depolymerisation show negative net emissions
[15].
636 S. Devasahayam et al. / Materials Science for Energy Technologies 2 (2019) 634–646

Fig. 2. Net-energy/GHG- effects of recycling, recovery and disposal processes for LDPE [14] (Harald Pilz, 2014).

Fig. 3. Saved energy resources using different recycling processes [14] (Harald Pilz, 2014).

Table 1
GHG emissions for different disposal options [15] reproduced under open Government license (https://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/OpenGovernmentLicence).

GHG Emissions (kg CO2(e) per tonne of mixed plastic)

Input materials Transport Processing Displacement savings Net emissions
Landfill 0.0 15.1 55.7 0.0 70.8
Incineration 0.0 15.1 2408.0 565.5 1857.6
Pyrolysis 13.0 197.2 55.6 425.5 159.7
Gasification w/MTG 153.7 153.7 995.5 261.7 1041.2
Gasification w/F-T 153.7 139.3 285.2 147.1 431.1
Gasification w/Bio 153.7 187.7 1217.1 454.9 1103.6
Catalytic depolymerisation 16 197.5 51.0 397.4 132.8

2.1. Land filling
Land filling EOL plastics wastes are valuable resources with no
net Green House Gas (GHG productions or benefit. Degradation
of polyethylene (PE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and
polyvinylchloride (PVC) generate organic pollutants such as poly
chlorobiphenyl and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Thermosets
and composites such as epoxy cannot be re-formed and need to be
landfilled or incinerated [16,17]. Disposal of silicone (mixed
inorganic-organic polymers) wastes from electrical, electronic,
medical and other industries in landfill results in methane contam-
ination. Offensive smells, high temperatures constrain the recycla-
bility of silicones [18,19].
2.2. Industrial energy recovery
Energy recovery processes convert solid waste in to energy or
feed stocks. Plastics have heating values in excess of 40 MJ/kg,
due to high carbon, hydrogen and low ash content. One kg plastic
waste has the same heating value as 1 liter fuel oil. Energy claimed
from EOL plastics is converted as heat, steam or electricity. Indus-
tries such as cement kilns, fluidised bed combustion processes
 S. Devasahayam et al. / Materials Science for Energy Technologies 2 (2019) 634–646 637

Fig. 4. CO2 emission Reduction for RPF [21].

Table 2
Pyrolysis yield of LDPE and HDPE with HZSM-5 (nanocrystalline zeolites) [36] (Data Incineration of chlorine containing plastics like polyvinyl chloride,
sourced with permission).
(PVC) reduces landfilled wastes, but leads to dioxins generation.
Yield (% wt) LDPE HDPE LDPE-HZSM-5 HDPE-HZSM-5
Gas Fraction 14.6 16.3 70.7 72.6
Liquid Fraction/wax 93.1 84.7 18.3 17.3 2.2.2. Pyrolysis
Solid Fraction – – 0.5 0.7 Pyrolysis can treat mixed and dirty plastics. It results in dechlo-
rination, breaking of C–C and C–H bonds (scission) or recombina-
tion of gases, liquids and solids to provide new crosslinked
structures similar to high energy radiolysis products [22–27]. Thus,
high energy radiolysis is recommended as a recycling option for
(paper industry) and coal fired power stations utilise the energy
waste plastics [28].
recovered from the mixed plastic waste directly substituting fossil
Pyrolysis of organic materials lead to formation of gases, liquids
fuels.
and solids (char). Pyrolysis products include carbon, HCl, H2, ben-
Energy recovery remains a suitable option for the mixed and
zene and toluene in the absence of oxygen between 300 °C and
soiled plastic wastes that are technically and economically difficult
500 °C (Table 2) [29]. Biofuel produced during pyrolysis can substi-
to recycle [20]. ‘‘Refuse Paper and Plastic Fuel (RPF), generated
tute fossil fuel with no toxic or harmful emissions. The dioxins pro-
from difficult-to-recycle wastes such as laminated paper coated
duction is controlled in pyrolysis unlike in incineration. Various
with plastics and waste plastics is cheaper and emits 2/3rd CO2
pyrolysis processes for processing plastics containing BFRs include,
for the same calorific value compared to coal [21] (Fig. 4).
fluidized bed pyrolysis [30], two-stage pyrolysis [31], long resi-
dence time pyrolysis [32], and pyrolysis in the presence of iron
2.2.1. Incineration of municipal solid waste (MSWI) and calcium based catalysts [33].
Energy efficiency of MSWI plants using mixed plastic waste, is Waste plastics carbonization yields roughly about 20% coke,
less than the industrial energy recovery process. Incineration 40% tar and light oil, and 40% gases [34], in addition to energy
results in net positive CO2 generation [14], steam and cinders. and other materials [35] with net emissions of –160 kg CO2. The

Table 3
Cradle-to-gate life cycle inventory data of commodity plastics [38].

Resin type Energy (GJ tonne1) Water (kL tonne1) CO2-ea (–) Usageb (ktonne)
PET 82.7 66 3.4 2160
HDPE 76.7 32 1.9 5468
PVC 56.7 46 1.9 6509
LDPE 78.1 47 2.1 7899
PP 73.4 43 2.0 7779
PS 87.4 140 3.4 2600
Recycled plastics 8–55 Typical 3.5c Typical 1.4 3130
a
CO2-e is global-warming potential (GWP), calculated as 100-yr equivalent to CO2 emissions (M. Patel, N. von Thienen, E. Jochem, E. Worrel, Res. Cons. Recycl. 2000, 29, 65–
90).
b
2002 Usage for the aggregate EU-15 countries across all market sectors.
c
Typical water and GHG emissions values for recycling 1 kg PET from waste plastics (Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R., Kosior, E. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2009, 364, 2115–2126).
638 S. Devasahayam et al. / Materials Science for Energy Technologies 2 (2019) 634–646
breakdown of GHG emissions by pyrolysis compared to other pro-
cesses are given in Table 1 [15].
2.3. Recycling
Recycling allows the reuse of materials, saving on resources and
emissions, and a better option compared to landfill or the energy
recovery. Energy and water needed for plastic recycling are less
compared to the production of commodity plastics from cradle to
gate [37]. Table 3 lists the global warming potential of plastics
compared to an equivalent amount of CO2 indicating higher envi-
ronmental benefits associated with plastics recycling compared
to other treatment options. Collection and sorting steps determine
the yield and the quality of the overall recycling chain [38]. The
type of plastics, whether thermo or thermoset or composites,
determine their recyclability.
2.3.1. Biological recycling
Biodegradable polymers are mainly used in food/catering
industries. They photo-degrade in six weeks to convert back to
the biomass under suitable conditions. For example, photodegrad-
able plastic will not degrade in the absence of light when buried in
a landfill site. Anaerobic biodegradation of these materials results
in increased GHG methane. Mixing the biodegradable and non-
degradable plastics can hinder plastics sorting systems. United
Nations Environment Programme report concludes that: ‘‘the
adoption of plastic products labelled as ‘biodegradable’ will not
bring about a significant decrease either in the quantity of plastic
entering the ocean or the risk of physical and chemical impacts
on the marine environment, on the balance of current scientific
evidence” [39,40].
2.3.1.1. Mechanical recycling. High environmental benefits are real-
ized when ‘‘pure” polymer waste fractions are recycled mechani-
cally (Fig. 2). However, the type and purity of the waste plastics
limit their applications in recycled products [38,14]. Mechanical
recycling can save resources up to 60 MJ/kg recycled plastic waste
as shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Saved resources are very small, even
0 MJ/kg for recycled mixed plastic wastes to produce palisades,
roofing tiles, etc. [14].
2.3.1.2. Feedstock recycling in blast furnaces and electric arc fur-
naces. About 1.3 billion tonnes of steel is produced per annum
globally [41]. The iron and steel industry is one of the biggest
industrial CO2 emitters. Globally, between 4 and 7% of the anthro-
pogenic CO2 emissions originate from this industry [20]. During
feedstock recycling mixed plastic wastes are depolymerized into
chemicals having smaller molecular weights (e.g. methanol, or
CO and H2). In the BF feedstock recycling of plastic wastes, com-
bustion generates heat and gasification produces reducing gases
such as carbon monoxide and hydrogen, to reduce the iron ore into
iron and can be used in place of coke or pulverized coal.
Waste plastics application in iron making involves [42]:
Table 4
Chemical make-up of plastics, coal and fuel oil [56–58].
Wt% PE PP PS PET
C 85.6 85.75 92.16 64.71
H2 14.21 14.15 7.63 3.89
S – – – – 0.03
Ash 0.19 0.1 0.21 0.17
Cl – – – –
K – – – – –
Na – – – –
Fig. 5. Thermal decomposition curves of plastics and coal. PE, polyethylene; PP,
polypropylene; PVC, polyvinyl chloride; PS, polystyrene; PET, polyethylene tereph-
thalate [34] (Reproduced with permission).
 Planned gasification producing reducing gas [43,44];
 Utilization of plastic wastes-coke blends, or composite agglom-
erates, or as fuel for sintering [45];
 Direct injection of plastic wastes via tuyeres.
Thermoplastics find application in blast furnaces due to their
phase transformation at high-temperature melt state [46]. In
Japan, thermo plastic wastes replace metallurgical coke up to
40% in iron and steel making as a reducing agent and fuel [47–
49,34]. Since 1996 Japanese began waste plastics injection into
BFs, and by 2004 they injected about 56,000 t [50]. The NKK’s feed-
stock recycling system of waste plastics has an utilization effi-
ciency of 80% in blast furnace, (up to 55% in material recycling
and 25% in thermal recycling). It has an annual capacity of
30,000 tons [51]. JFE Steel injected about 480,000 t of waste plas-
tics between 2000 and 2007 [52]. As part of the EU27, Austria
and Germany also are injecting waste plastics into BF.
The chemical composition of the plastics used in BFs including
the coal is shown in Table 4. The thermal decomposition pattern
of the waste polymers and coal are shown in Fig. 5 [34]. Thermo-
plastics yield low carbon but excessive volatiles at the high tem-
peratures of ironmaking [53,54]. At 740 °C, the residual carbon
yield of Polyvinylchloride (PVC) is 9%; Polyethylene (PE) is 1.8%;
Polypropylene (PP) is 1.6%; Polystyrene (PS) is 0.6%; and at
850 °C in N2 atmosphere, residual carbon yield for PVC, PE and
PP are 5.9%, 0.2%, 2.3% and respectively.
Chlorine containing plastics, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC),
can be used in the BF because the hydrogen chloride generated
during the burning process can easily be neutralized by the lime-
stone used as the flux in the BF processes. High temperatures of
the BF processes prevent dioxin formation from the PVCs. Also,
the reducing atmosphere at top of the furnace even at a low tem-
perature prevents dioxin formation [55].
The Hydrogen to carbon ratio of waste plastics is greater com-
pared to the equivalent amount of pulverized coal. Plastics contain

3 times more hydrogen than the pulverized coal (Table 4). Due to
PVC Waste plastics (packaging) Pulverised coal Fuel oil
41.4 77.81 79.6 85.9
5.3 11.99 4.32 10.5
0.9 0.97 2.23
0.4 4.9 9.03 0.05
47.7 1.4 0.2 0.04
0.05 0.27 0.001
– 0.09 0.08 0.001
 S. Devasahayam et al. / Materials Science for Energy Technologies 2 (2019) 634–646 639

Fig. 6. Reduction potential of CO2 emissions with 1 t waste plastics injection in

coke oven [59] Reproduced with permission. Fig. 8. Reactivities of carbonaceous materials. S1 from coke; S2 from keyboard; S3
from disc; S4 from beverage bottle [64]. Reproduced with permission.

7 [47,59]. PP and PS show a higher CO2 emission reduction poten-

Fig. 7. Reduction potential of CO2 emissions with 1 t waste plastics injection in
blast furnace [59] Reproduced with permission.
the smaller size of H2 compared to the CO, the diffusion and reduc-
tion abilities of H2 are greater. Therefore, replacing pulverized coal
with waste plastics in the blast furnace ironmaking process is ben-
eficial to increase productivity and to reduce coke ratio. Waste
plastics in BF increases the H2 content within and in the off gas
exiting the furnace. Increased bosh gas H2, reduces the pressure
drop to allow a greater gas flow for the same pressure by decreas-
ing the bosh gas density.
A kilogram of plastic is equivalent to 0.75 kg of coke [55]. Inject-
ing waste plastics into coke oven and Blast Furnaces can reduce the
coke requirement by about 30% and lower the CO2 emissions
depending on the type of polymers used as shown in Figs. 6 and
tial, while PET shows a negative reduction potential. This is due to
the smaller coke product yield of PET, leading to a less substitution
of coal by PET (Table 5).
Reduction characteristics depend upon the calorific values (CV)
of plastic wastes. Heat supplied by materials having high CV can
reduce coke consumption greatly. CV values of PE is
46 MJ/kg;
PP 44 MJ/kg, PS 40.5 MJ/kg, PET 23.5 MJ/kg and PVC 18.8 MJ/kg
(Table 5) [60]. The strength and hardness of the waste plastics
are important for BF operations. Low strength plastic agglomerates
can break down during transport and combustion leading to block-
age problems and a lower combustion efficiency [46].
The reaction rate of the waste plastic is superior to that of the
pulverized coal [63]. This is attributed to the carbon bearing mate-
rials from remnant waste plastics after gasification are trans-
formed to porous structure with higher carbon reactivities than
the coal-coke (Fig. 8), [64]. Reactivity of carbon in a char is
increased when it is produced from low rank coal, e.g. Lignite char,
which does not undergo softening and caking during pyrolysis,
[65]. For a solid-gas phase reaction, enhanced porosity translates
to better gas mass transfer, enhancing the rate of reduction [64].
In the fluidized iron smelting technology, sticking of fine iron
ore due to mutual reunion of metal atoms diminishes reduction
efficiency hampering non-stop operation [66]. 8% mass content
of energetic waste plastics can inhibit the sticking between fine
iron particles. Waste plastics influences metallization rate during
fluidized reduction and the sticking ratio.
Two states of carbon namely, graphite and carbon from Fe3C,
are deposited from waste plastics. Carbon from Fe3C prevents the
fine iron ore from sticking. Graphite hinders the direct contact of
iron atoms, thus controlling the sticking. Metallic iron and Fe3C
when covered with graphite, avoid contact with each other during
particle collision. Consequently, the solid bridge creation from
mutual diffusion is deterred eliminating the sticking force between
the particles, inhibiting the sticking completely [66].

Table 5
Properties of resins [59,13,61,62].

Coke PE PP PS PET PVC Epoxy

Calorific value (kJ/kg) 25000–30000 44,800 42,700 41,900 23,200 18,000
32000
Carbon contents (kg C/kg) 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.62 0.38 0.70
Fixed carbon (wt%) Anthracite: 92–98; HDPE: 0.01–0.03 0.16–1.22 0.12–0.20 7.77–13.17 5.19–6.30 10.1
Bituminous 69–86 LDPE: 0.16–1.22
Volatile (wt%) Anthracite: 2–14 HDPE: 98.57–99.81 95.08–97.85 99.50–99.63 86.83–91.75 93.70–94.82
Bituminous 14–31 LDPE: 99.60–99.70
640 S. Devasahayam et al. / Materials Science for Energy Technologies 2 (2019) 634–646
Sustainable iron making is classified as direct smelting (liquid
product) and direct reduction (solid product) processes. Corex,
Finex and Hismelt are categorized under direct smelting. FASTMET
and MIDREX (gas based) are classified as direct reduction pro-
cesses. Waste plastics can be fed directly into the Corex and the
other smelting reduction processes to reduce the fuel rate, elimi-
nating the need for expensive injection systems needed in conven-
tional iron making [67].
In a Hydrogen flash smelting process, iron ore concentrates can
be sprayed directly into a suspension or flash-type furnace cham-
ber and the reductant used can be synthetic gas produced from
partial combustion of coal and/or waste plastics [55]. This process
could use approximately 38 percent less energy than a BF. When
using Hydrogen, this new technology will produce only 4% of the
CO2 produced in the BF process, and 90% to 99% reduction achieved
in a few seconds at temperatures 1300 °C. This is attributed to the
smaller hydrogen molecules as reductant are capable of diffusing 5
times faster than the CO.
Benefits of this process: compared to BF include [68]:
 Mitigation of CO2 production
 Reduction in energy consumption and energy savings up to 7.4
GJ/t hot metal (>50% BF energy use)
 Reduced iron oxide waste
Application of waste plastics in direct reduction process is
demonstrated by Sinha (2015) [69]. Reduction of iron ore pellets
using coke-plastic showed improved reduction for all the PET com-
positions when compared to 100% coke composition, with 5% PET
and coke mixture offering a high degree of reduction. Higher per-
centage (10%, 20%) of PET-coke lead to reduction in permeability
when the accumulated PET char in the reaction vessel are fused
to huge hive like configurations.
Ironmaking in the rotary hearth furnace (RHF), a direct reduc-
tion process can utilise non coking coal and low-grade carbona-
ceous materials such as waste plastic as reductant, for the
reduction of iron ore e.g. Commercially operating Fastmet’
process/‘Fastmelt’ process, and ITmk3 process, ‘Redsmelt’ process,
‘Inmetco’ process, ‘Iron Dynamics’ process, ‘DRyIron’ process,
‘Comet’ and ‘SidComet’ processes and Hi-QIP process. Higher per-
centage of volatile matter of the carbonaceous reductant can cause
rapid evolution of gas to increase the internal pressure within the
pellets or briquettes leading to break-down of the same [70].
MIDREX NGTM, the natural gas-based configuration of the
MIDREXÒProcess, produces direct reduced iron (DRI). The high
temperature MIDREXÒ Reformer converts natural gas into reducing
gas rich in H2 and CO (methane dry forming reaction), reducing the
iron ore to iron. The reaction also produces CO2 and H2O. CO2 from
the reduction furnace is used in the reforming reaction of CH4 + -
CO2 to produce more reducing gases 2H2 and 2CO, used in DRI
production.
 MIDREXÒ Reformer facilitates the reaction between both CO2
and H2O with natural gas and does not require any CO2 removal
system [71]. The syngas produced from plastics can be used in a
Midrex DR plant and it is estimated that this alternative route
results in 5% CO2 mitigation [72].
JFE Engineering, developed electric arc melting furnace ECOARC.
Which can process press scraps from scrapped automobiles,
with high plastics and other combustible content. Benefits of
ECOARC compared to conventional EAFs include [73]:
 electrode consumption reduced by 50%
 reduced electricity consumption: 196 kWh/ton at an oxygen
consumption of 40 m3 /ton oxygen
 improvement in yield by 1.5%
 flicker level reduced by 40%
 productivity improved by 40%
 reduction in dust emissions by 40%
 elimination of odour or white smoke from scrap preheating
 Dioxin emissions regulatory requirement met.
In the EAF steel making,
30% of the coke and coal can be
replaced by PE wastes. Energy savings up to
12 kWh/t of plastic
charge can be realised [74]. About 1.7 kg of tyres can replace 1 kg
of anthracite [75]. Carbon neutral natural rubber in tyres con-
tribute to lower CO2 emissions [76]. Tyre injection trials at OneS-
teel’s Sydney steel mill, Australia, reduced electrical energy
consumption from 1.526 MJ/kg to 1.483 MJ/kg billet (
0.043 MJ/
kg savings in energy), reduced the amount of carbon injected from
464 kg/heat to 406 kg/heat, and improved number of liquid tonnes
per power-on time minute from 2.12 to 2.2 t/min [77].
The chemical composition and physical characteristics of waste
plastics and their char determine the reduction characteristics in
BFs and EAFS. Plastics contain lower sulfur and alkaline amounts
compared to coal, heavy oil or coke. Plastics reduce sulfur content
in the hot metal due to their lower sulfur content [78]. The low ash
and sulfur content of the plastic can reduce the amount of lime
(flux) in the blast furnace, and thus reduce the slag ratio and iron-
making cost of the blast furnace. Because waste plastics show
lower thermal ignition temperature, shorter burning time, higher
burning rate, lower ash ratio and higher calorific values when com-
pared to pulverized coal, they are more beneficial for blast furnace
injection and as a suitable secondary fuel [79,80]. HDPE char from
fast pyrolysis contain, Carbon, 42.62%; Hydrogen, 3.06%; Nitrogen,
0.43%; and Sulfur, 1.8%. The calorific value is 18.82 MJ/kg [81].
Hydrogen in polymers leads to high H2O and a low CO2 emission,
and aid the reduction reaction [according to reactions (1) and
(2)] [82]:
Fe2 O3 + 3CO = 2Fe + 3CO2 (coke, pulverized coal) ð1Þ
Fe2 O3 + 2CO + H2 = 2Fe + 2CO2 + H2 O (using plastic) ð2Þ
The pyrolysis reactions of plastics include conversion of poly-
mers into hydrocarbons (mainly CH4):
Polymers ! Cn Hm (g) ð3Þ
Decomposition of hydrocarbons into carbon and H2;
Cn Hm (g) ! nC (s) + m/2 H2 (g); DH = hydrocarbon dependent
ð4Þ
(e.g. CH4 ? C (s) + 2H2 (g); DH° = 75.6 kJ/mol);
The hydrocarbon could also act as a sink for CO2 gas, producing
CO and H2 (reaction (5))
Cn Hm (g) + nCO2 (g) ! 2nCO (g) + H2 (g) ð5Þ
Water vapour reacts with C produced from the cracking reac-
tion of CnHm:
H2 O + CðsÞ ! H2ðgÞ + COðg ); DG = 133.72—0.1419 T kJ/mol ð6Þ
The reduction of H2O to H2 and CO through Eq. (6) occurs
between 2 and 6% in the temperature range 1000–1200 °C [83].
CH4 + CO2 ! 2CO + 2H2 ; DH = 247.3 kJ/mol (methane dry reforming)
ð7Þ
and the Boudouard reaction (reaction (8)).
C + CO2 ! 2 CO; DH = 172 kJ/mol ð8Þ
CO + H2 O (g) ! CO2 + H2 ; DH = 41 kJ/mol; (water gas shift reaction)
ð9Þ
 S. Devasahayam et al. / Materials Science for Energy Technologies 2 (2019) 634–646 641

CO + 3 H2 ! CH4 + H2 O (g); DH = 205 kJ/mol; (reverse steam reforming reaction)
ð10Þ
Secondary reactions increase the CO content. CO content is
greater than the CO2 at a high heating rates and depends on the
Boudouard reaction (reaction (8)) [84]. As the hydrogen content
in the bosh gas increases, the water–gas shift (reaction (9)) gains
prominence in the reduction process.
Reduction by H2 needs less energy compared to the direct
reduction as the process is less endothermic, needing less energy.
Diffusivities of H2 and H2O are higher compared to CO and CO2
resulting in faster reduction rates especially at lower temperatures.
High H2 content in the raceway reduces the optimum raceway adi-
abatic flame temperature (RAFT) [85]. A higher H2 content in the
shaft increases amounts of coke fines in the furnace shaft,
decreases permeability and offers a higher calorific value (CV) than
coal.
Production of 1 ton of hot metal requires 370 kg of coke and
90 kg of heavy oil depending on the iron ore quality and the pro-
cess. The 90 kg of heavy oil can be partly replaced by up to 70 kg
plastics waste. A 220000 t of mixed plastic waste in a BF, achieves
the following [20,86]:
 880,000 m3 of saved landfill,
 >10 millions GJ of saved energy,
 > 400,000 t CO2 saved per annum, as well as decreased SO2
and dust into the air.
Plastic waste feedstock recycling in BF saves 47 MJ/kg of
resources as shown in Figs. 2 and 3 [14].
Energy saving and carbon emission reduction (DE) of recyclable
wastes recycling can be calculated using embodied energy/carbon
method as follows [87]:
Eraw ¼ Mraw  f raw ð11Þ
Embodied energy is the amount of energy consumed to extract,
refine, process, transport and fabricate a material or product
(including buildings). It is often measured from cradle to (factory)
gate, cradle to site (of use), or cradle to grave (end of life). Likewise,
embodied carbon footprint is the amount of carbon (CO2 or CO2e
emission) to produce a material. The calculated embodied energy
and the embodied carbon values from cradle to gate are given in
the Table 6. The calculation is based on the data sourced from Geoff
and Craig 2008, Dong 2018 and O’Farrell, 2018, [5,87,88].
The embodied energy coefficients can be obtained by compar-
ing the calorific value of plastics with that of the coke or coal its
replacing [87] in blast furnace or EAF. Accordingly, since both plas-
tics and coal have similar calorific values (Table 7), The energy sav-
ing coefficient of plastic (fplas) is equivalent to one [87].
Japan Iron & Steel Federation aims to recycle 60% of its waste
plastics (
600,000 tons) every year in order to save energy [89].
In 2000, Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation used a coke
oven to commercially recycle large amount of waste plastics [90].
About 200,000 tons per year of waste plastics are thermally
decomposed into approximately 20 mass% coke, 40 mass% hydro-
carbon oil (tar and light oil) and 40 mass% coke oven gas, which
are utilized as iron ore-reducing agents in blast furnaces, raw
materials for the chemical industry, and a fuel for power plants,
respectively.
Table 8. shows the Energy and emission saving in Nippon’s
waste plastics recycling process (1,200,000 t/yr.) in coke ovens
for various plastics calculated from data in Table 6. PET feedstock
energy (chemical energy stored in a material when not used as a
fuel) is assumed to be 40 MJ/kg [61,91].
Carbon dissolution into liquid iron is a significant part of the
carburizing process in iron and steelmaking, as the metal carbon
content dictates the melting point of the iron. Up to 5.28 wt% car-

Table 7
Erecy ¼ Mrecy  f recy ð12Þ Calorific values of conventional fuels [39], reproduced
with permission.

Fuel Calorific value (MJ/kg)

DE ¼ Eraw  Erecy ð13Þ
Methane 53
Gasoline 46
Eraw and Erecy denotes the embodied energy (or embodied carbon)
Fuel oil 43
of raw materials and recycled wastes, respectively. M is the quan- Coal 30
tity of materials, fraw and frecy represent the embodied energy (or Polyethylene 43
embodied carbon) coefficients to produce one unit of raw materials Mixed plastics 30–40
and recycled materials, respectively [87]. Municipal solid waste 10

Table 6
Embodied coefficients for raw materials and recyclable wastes.

Material Embodied Embodied DE = (Eraw  Erec), Embodied Embodied Carbon emission Feedstock
energy, Raw, energy, Energy reduction carbon in raw, carbon in reduction by recycling, energy
ERaw MJ/kg, Recyclable, by recycling Craw, kg CO2/kg recyclable,Crec, kg CO2/kg included,
ERec MJ/kg kg CO2/kg DC = Craw  Crec MJ/kg
General 89.84 17.97 71.87 2.82 0.57 2.26 35.6
ABS 114.2 7.19 107.01 3.715 0.23 3.48 48.6
High density polyethylene 62.9 18.6 44.3 1.31 0.39 0.92 54.3
(HDPE)
Low density Polyethylene (LDPE) 64.5 11.29 53.21 1.40 0.25 1.16 51.6
Nylon 6 365 1.10 363.91 16.66 0.05 16.61 38.6
Polypropylene 107.44 11.17 96.26 5.66 0.59 5.08 55.7
Expanded polystyrene 104.03 90.25 13.78 2.93 2.55 0.39 46.2
General Purpose Polystyrene 104.03 90.25 13.78 3.25 2.82 0.43 46.3
Polyurethane 104.6 11 93.6 5.45 0.57 4.88 34.67
Polyethylene terephalate (PET) 109.5 21.9 87.6 5.70 0.46 5.24 40
PVC General 71.53 15.1 56.43 2.23 0.47 1.76 28.1
PVC pipe 67.5 0.95 66.56 2.5 0.04 2.46 24.4
Rubber (General) 57.24 12.08 45.16 1.79 0.38 1.41 41.1
Synthetic rubber 120 4.02 42
Natural latex rubber 67.6 1.63 39.43
Epoxide resin 139.3 5.91 42.6
642 S. Devasahayam et al. / Materials Science for Energy Technologies 2 (2019) 634–646

Table 8
Saved Embodied Energy and Carbon in coke oven from recycled plastic streams.

Components PE PS PP PVC PVDC PET Others

Components of the waste plastics, % 21.4 24.8 13.7 5.2 0.4 15.5 19
Component of the waste plastics, tons 25,680 29,760 16,440 6240 480 18,600 22,800
Embodied Energy in Virgin raw, Eraw, MJ/kg 64.50 104.03 107.44 71.53 109.50
Embodied Energy In recycled components, Erec, MJ/kg 13.80 25.80 14.72 3.72 16.97
DE = (Eraw  Erec), Energy reduction by recycling, MJ/kg 50.70 78.23 92.72 67.81 92.53 50.70
Embodied carbon in raw, Craw, kg CO2/kg 1.40 3.25 5.66 2.23 5.71
Embodied carbon in recyclable, Crec, kg CO2/kg 0.30 0.81 0.78 0.12 0.88
Carbon emission reduction by recycling, kg CO2/kg DC = Craw  Crec 1.10 2.44 4.89 2.12 4.82
Feedstock energy, MJ/kg 11.04 11.48 7.63 1.46 6.20

bon dissolve in liquid steel, influenced by methane, hydrogen, ash
content, Si, S and microporosity. Carbon pick-up for metallurgical
coke in liquid steel is
0.8%; for raw HDPE it is 2.48 wt%, and for
PET it is
2.3 wt% [92]. Carbon pick up for graphite is
3%, for
pet coke
4.2%, for charcoal
2%, and for coal and nut coke

1.5% [93].
Even though, the use of thermoplastics has been extensive in
iron and steel industries, the thermoset plastics have not been used
to the same extent. Only options for EOL thermoset composite
materials are: mechanical recycling, chemical degradation and
thermal degradation towards materials and energy recovery [94].
Thermosets once formed cannot be reformed. Thermoset polymers
with cross-links that reverse [95] or exchange [96] at high temper-
atures are being developed, making it possible to reworking these
materials before reuse. Connora Technologies profess commercial-
ization and recyclability of thermosetting composites for re-use or
repurposing [16,17]. Fully recyclable bio epoxy resins are being
used in composite formation [97].
Raw thermoset resins aid iron alloy formation, e.g. nano scale
iron carbide (<2 nm), SiC and ferro silicon at much lower temper-
atures (
1500 °C) than the conventional temperatures above
1800 °C, greatly reducing energy and emission [98,82].
Commercial epoxy resin, epiglue and silicones replace nonre-
newable resources such as coke and pure quartz. The feedstock
recycling of silicones allows maximum resource recovery in iron
alloy production while lessening the landfill/depolymerization of
silicones. Silicon, carbon and hydrogen in waste silicones, can sub-
stitute for metallurgical coke and quartzite as alloying elements in
FeSi or SiC [98]. Carbon pick up >3% was observed for the raw (not
the chars) thermosets. Recyclable thermosets can contribute to
sustainable, cleaner and cost-effective processes.
Earlier studies on iron ore reduction alloy formation mainly
involved a solid-gas wetting reaction and mechanism for coke/
char-metal oxide. Devasahayam, 2018, reported a wetting mecha-
nism involving a solid–liquid-gas reaction providing a better inti-
mate contact and reaction efficiency [82,98–101]. The raw
epoxies and silicones form interfacial covalent bond between the
metal oxide and the alloying elements in the resins enabling the
movement of the alloying elements into iron matrix to form alloys.
Plastic wastes (centrifuge tubes) aid Multi-Walled Carbon Nan-
otubes (CNTs) formation requiring no external catalyst source, the
iron based reactor acting as the catalyst [102,103]. Iron catalyst
and MgO substrate is one of most common catalyst-substrate com-
binations used for CNT [104]. 61.5 vol% of CNTs helps increase
both soft magnetic and mechanical properties in Fe–Co alloys.
The CNTs also increase the volume fraction of the long range
ordered structures in the matrix alloy [105].
It is reported that in Fe alloys, iron carbides form as a result of a
chemical reaction between the iron matrix and the included CNTs.
Iron carbide alloy formation enhances the microstructure-related
and mechanical properties of the composites due to the formation
of strong interfacial bonds in presence of CNT’s in its matrix. Refs.
[106,99,100,82,98] offering broader industrial applications requir-
ing high strength, e.g. car bodies, ships, fittings of overhead electric
transmission lines and greatly in construction [107].
3. Plastics for carbon sequestration
High carbon foot-print processes, e.g. calcination of magnesium
carbonate, carried out in presence of waste plastics and biomass
show 99% and 98% reduction in reduction in CO2 and methane
emissions respectively [108,109]. One ton of magnesia (MgO) pro-
duction releases 1.1 t CO2 from the magnesium carbonate
endothermic thermal decomposition according to the reaction
(14) [110].
MgCO3 ! MgO + CO2 ð14Þ
The energy demand for MgO production is up to 12 GJ/t MgO
[111]. MgCO3 calcination results in excessive amounts of CO2
(1:1 MgO:CO2), consequently the Carbon Avoidance Potential is
very negligible. Biomass and thermoset plastics (epoxy resin)
together greatly decrease CO2 and CH4, increase H2 and hydrocar-
bons production. Addition of epoxy resin causes 99% reduction in
Carbon emission. Net Calorific Value, LHV of 0.26 MJ/kg organic
matter and 16.86 MJ/kg organic matter are realized in presence
of epoxy and bio mass and epoxy together respectively, contribut-
ing to hydrogen economy [108]. Plastics also greatly reduced CH4,
generated in presence of biomass using MgCO3/MgO as catalyst
[109].
Plastics Waste can replace approximately 15% of normal fossil
fuel in Cement Kilns, at a very high temperature of 1500 °C or
more, without the risk of toxic emission due to the burning of plas-
tic wastes. A million-ton capacity cement plant can consume about
10,000 MTs to 30,000 MTs of plastics waste annually [112]
4. Advantages/disadvantages
Pyrolysis of waste plastics generates CH4, H2, CO, CO2 and
hydrocarbons. They replace non-renewable resources in iron and
steel processing [35,113]. Two thermodynamically stable phases
of polymers at 1100 °C are solid phase, carbon and the gas phase,
CH4 and H2 [114]. Plastics replace fossilized resources as reductant,
alloying materials and binders in iron ore pelletization, contribute
to reduction in process temperature, saving on energy resources,
contribute to energy generation and hydrogen economy and
reduce harmful emissions. Plastics are used in both direct smelting
and direct reduction iron making processes. Both the thermo plas-
tics and the thermosets benefit the iron ore industry. The ther-
mosets offer a solid-liquid-gas wetting mechanism offering a
new paradigm to the efficient iron ore pelletization and iron alloy
production. Plastics have higher H2 content, than the coal. They
also have high calorific value with high carbon reactivity. They
inhibit sticking of iron ore during smelting processes with high
metallization rate. Presence of plastics increases the reduction
rates due to higher diffusivity of H2 than CO. Plastics aid carbon
 S. Devasahayam et al. / Materials Science for Energy Technologies 2 (2019) 634–646 643

nanotube formations offering broader industrial applications
requiring high strength, e.g. car bodies, ships, fittings of overhead
electric transmission lines and greatly in construction. Carbon dis-
solution in liquid steel alloy is enhanced in presence of plastics.
Use of plastics in blast furnaces, saves resources up to 60 GJ/t.
Dry coke to hot metal ratio has declined to 0.45:1 in 2008 from
1:1 in 1950. Plastic replacement can also reduce the process tem-
perature by at least 100–200 °C [115]. Tyre injection One Steel’s
Sydney steel mill, Australia, reduced the electrical energy con-
sumption by 0.043 MJ/kg, reduced the carbon injectant by 58 kg/
heat [77].
As waste plastics contain negligible amounts of sulfur, the SO2
emissions are greatly reduced (Table 4). Table 9 shows the offgases
generated from different polymers. Carbon emissions from other
fuels are shown in Table 10 for comparison [116]. It is reported that
NOx, SOx and particulate emissions from German BFs due to waste
plastics injection met the statutory environmental regulations
[117]. BF operation results in nil dioxins from waste plastics and
reduced CO2 (Fig. 4). Since the CO is consumed as a reductant in
iron and steel industry it contains the CO emissions to the atmo-
sphere. Adding 2 wt% waste plastics to coke in BF mitigates CO2
emissions by 2% [43,46]. Combustion of waste thermoset thermo-
plastics and e-wastes release dioxins, HBr, polybrominated diphe-
nylethers. When halogenated wastes are subjected to pyrolysis,
polybrominated diphenylethers emissions are lowered accompa-
nied by carbon, H2, HCl, benzene and toluene generation, but no
dioxins [118]. Calcium carbonate added as a flux can control the
release of C6H6 and HBr [119].

Table 9
Off gas in the presence and in the absence of plastic resins [59] (data sourced from Sekine et al. (2009)).

Offgas No plastics PE PP PS PET

Input
Iron ore, t 0.313 0.313 0.313 0.313 0.313
Coke, kg/thm 384.9 326.2 334.2 320.9 356.5
Pulverised coal, kg/thm 139 139 139 139 139
Sintered ore, t 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17
Output
Amount, m3/thm 1670.9 1747.3 1787.2 1684.4 1741.8
Composition, %
CO 22.9 21.1 21.2 21.9 22.4
CO2 21.3 20.2 20 20.8 20.6
H2 4.6 7.3 7.2 6.3 5.4
H2O 2.4 3.8 3.8 3.3 2.7
N2 48.9 47.5 47.9 47.8 48.9
CV, MJ/m3 3.4 3.47 3.46 3.44 3.41

Table 10
Fuel combustion emission factors data sourced from [116], (licensed under the Creative Commons, www.environment.gov.au Ó Commonwealth of Australia 2017).

Fuel combusted Emission factor kg CO2-e/GJ (relevant oxidation

factors incorporated)
CO2 CH4
Unprocessed natural gas 51.4 0.1
Compressed natural gas (reverting to standard conditions) 51.4 0.1
Bituminous coal 90 0.03
Sub-bituminous coal 90 0.03
Anthracite 90 0.03
Brown coal 93.5 0.02
Coking coal 91.8 0.02
Coal briquettes 95 0.07
Coal coke 107 0.04
Coke oven gas 37.0 0.03
Coal tar 81.8 0.03
Solid fossil fuels other than those mentioned in the items above 95 0.07
Industrial materials and tyres that are derived from fossil fuels, if recycled 81.6 0.02
and combusted to produce heat or electricity
Non-biomass municipal materials, if recycled and combusted to produce 87.1 0.7
heat or electricity
Dry wood 0 0.1
Green and air-dried wood 0 0.1
Sulphite lyes 0 0.07
Bagasse 0 0.2
Biomass municipal and industrial materials, if recycled and combusted to 0 0.7
produce heat or electricity
Charcoal 0 4.8
Primary solid biomass fuels other than those mentioned in the 0 0.7
items above
Blast furnace gas 234.0 0.0
Gasoline for use as fuel in an aircraft (avgas) 67 0.2
Kerosene (other than for use as fuel in an aircraft) 68.9 0.0
Fuel oil 73.6 0.04
Biodiesel 0.0 0.07
Ethanol for use as a fuel in an internal combustion engine 0.0 0.07
644 S. Devasahayam et al. / Materials Science for Energy Technologies 2 (2019) 634–646
Trinkel et al. (2015) [120] concluded that the utilization of
waste plastics does not influence the heavy metals emissions of a
blast furnace under actual process conditions and loadings; and
that the heavy metal content of waste plastics has decreased sig-
nificantly over the years.
CAP of carbothermic Mg production from MgO/MgCO3 and the
dead burnt MgO production in presence of plastics and biomass
can be greatly increased with synergistic effects. Plastics in pres-
ence of biogas and MgCO3/MgO catalyst system offer sequestration
solutions for CO2 and CH4. The process uses less than required
resources partially substituted by waste plastics diverted from
landfill [121,122]. In addition, the process offers cheaper means
of hydrogen production contributing to hydrogen economy.
5. Conclusions
This paper summarises various end of life options for plastics
and environmental benefits offered by feedstock recycling in mate-
rial processing, especially in iron and steel industries. Plastics in
presence of biogas and MgCO3/MgO catalyst system offer seques-
tration solutions for CO2 and CH4. Plastics replace fossilized
resources as reductant, alloying materials and binders in iron ore
pelletization, contribute to reduction in process temperature, sav-
ing on energy resources, contribute to energy generation and
hydrogen economy and reduce harmful emissions. Plastics are
used in sustainable iron and steel making including the direct
smelting, and direct reduction. Both the thermo plastics and the
thermosets benefit the iron ore industry. The thermosets offer a
solid-liquid-gas wetting mechanism offering a new paradigm to
the efficient iron ore pelletization and iron alloy production. Plas-
tics have higher H2 content, than the coal. They also have high
calorific value with high carbon reactivity. They inhibit sticking
of iron ore during smelting processes with high metallization rate.
Iron ore reduction in presence of plastics increases the reaction
rates due to higher diffusion of H2 compared to CO, reducing the
process temperature by at least 100–200 °C. Plastics aid carbon
nanotube formations offering broader industrial applications
requiring high strength, e.g. car bodies, ships, fittings of overhead
electric transmission lines and greatly in construction. Plastics in
presence of biogas and MgCO3/MgO catalyst system offer seques-
tration solutions for CO2 and CH4. The feedstock recycling offers
competent waste management strategy for waste plastics.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] https://phys.org/news/2018-02-land-based-pollution-microplastics-
underestimated-threat.html, 2018 (Online).
[2] Jess Murray, (Online) Available: https://truththeory.com/2018/04/13/whale-
with-29kg-of-plastic-in-its-stomach-highlights-our-plastic-problem/, 2018
(accessed Aug 2019).
[3] Ee Ling Ng, Plastic pollutants pervade water and land, The Scientist (2017).
[4] H. Ritchie, Blog: FAQs on Plastics September 2 2018. (Online). Available:,
2018. https://ourworldindata.org/faq-on-plastics.
[5] K. O’Farrell, ‘‘National Report,” 1 May 2018.
[6] PlasticsEurope, Plastics – The Facts 2017 An Analysis of European Plastics
Production, Demand and Waste Data [Online]. Available:, 2018. https://
www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/5715/1717/4180/Plastics_
the_facts_2017_FINAL_for_website_one_page.pdf.
[7] T. Wajima, Z.Z. Hlaing, A. Saito, H. Nakagome, Takaaki Wajima, Zar Zar Hlaing,
Akiko Saito, Hideki Nakagome, J. Multidiscip. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2 (2) (2015)
1201–1204.
[8] E. Borojovich, Z. Aizenshtat, Thermal behavior of brominated and
polybrominated compounds I: closed vessel conditions, and II: Pyroproducts
of brominated phenols as, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 63 (2002) 129–145.
[9] Electrical and Electronics Group of the American Plastics Council, Plastics
from Residential Electronics Recycling Report, 2000.
[10] J.M. Garcia, G.O. Jones, K. Virwani, B.D. McCloskey, D.J. Boday, G.M. ter
Huurne, H.W. Horn, D.J. Coady, A.M. Bintaleb, A.M.S. Alabdulrahman, F.
Alsewailem, H.A.A. Almegren, J.L. Hedrick, Recyclable, strong thermosets and
organogels via paraformaldehyde condensation with diamines, Science
(2014) 732–735.
[11] D. Schneiderman, M. Vanderlaan, A. Mannion, T. Panthani, D. Batiste, J. Wang,
F. Bates, C. Macosko, M. Hillmyer, Chemically recyclable biobased
polyurethanes, ACS Macro Lett. (2016) 515–518.
[12] S. Ma, D. Webster, F. Jabeen, Hard and flexible, degradable thermosets from
renewable bioresources with the assistance of water and ethanol,
Macromolecules (2016) (2016) 3780–3788.
[13] J.M. Garcia, M.L. Robertson, The future of plastics recycling, Science (2017)
870–872.
[14] H. Pilz, Criteria for Eco-efficient (Sustainable) Plastic Recycling and Waste
Management, GmbH Hietzinger Hauptstrasse, 28 1130, Austria Vienna, 2014.
[15] S. Haig, L. Morrish, R. Morton, U. Onwuamaegbu, P. Speller, S. Wilkinson,
Plastic to Oil Products, Axionconsulting, 2013.
[16] S. Pastine, Can epoxy composites be made 100% recyclable?, Reinforced Plast
Mag. (2012).
[17] G. Gardiner, Recyclable epoxy proven in HP-RTM, Compos. World (2016).
[18] K. Takeshi, Process for Recycling Silicone, 1997.
[19] USA ECO, Silicone Recycling, 2015.
[20] PlasticsEurope AISBL, Plastics Convert Iron Ore to Steel, Feedstock Recycling
in Blast Furnaces, 2009.
[21] Earthtechnica Co LTD, Development of ‘‘RPF”, an Inexpensive New Fuel that
Emits a Smaller Amount of CO2 than Fossil Fuels, Sekishouten, Co. LTD, 2014
[Online]. (Accessed 2019).
[22] S. Devasahayam, D.J.T. Hill, A. Whittaker, G-values for scission and
crosslinking on c-radiolysis of ultem at 303 K-, High Perform. Polym. 15 (3)
(2003) 259–267.
[23] S. Devasahayam, D.J.T. Hill, P. Pomery, A. Whittaker, The radiation chemistry
of ultem as revealed by ESR, Radiat. Phys. Chem. 64 (2002) 299–308.
[24] S. Devasahayam, D.J.T. Hill, J.W. Connell, A Comparative study of the radiation
resistance of four optically transparent polyimides, Radiat. Phys. Chem. 62
(2001) 189–194.
[25] I. Brereton, S. Devasahayam, D.J.T. Hill, A. Whittaker, Towards identifying the
new structures formed on the -radiolysis of Ultem (NMR), Radiat. Phys. Chem.
69 (2004) 65–77.
[26] S. Devasahaya, D.J.T. Hill, J. Connell, Effect of electron beam radiolysis on
mechanical properties of high-performance polyimides, a comparative study
of transparent polymer films, High Perform. Polym. 17 (2005) 547–559.
[27] S. Devasahayam, D.J.T. Hill, J.W. Connell, FT-Raman studies of a range of
Polyimides subjected to high-energy radiations at room and elevated
temperature, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 101 (2006) 1575–1582.
[28] G. Martínez-Barrera, L.I. Ávila-Córdoba, M. Martínez-López, E.S. Herrera-Sosa,
E. Vigueras-Santiago, C.E. Barrera-Díaz, F. Ureña-Nuñez, N. González-Rivas,
Gamma radiation as a recycling tool for waste materials used in concrete,
evolution of ionizing, Evolution of Ionizing Radiation Research, IntechOpen,
2015.
[29] K. Nakanoh, S. Hayashi, K. Kida, Waste treatment using induction heated
pyrolysis, Fuji Electr. Rev. 47 (3) (2001) 69–73.
[30] W. Hall, A.P. Williams, Pyrolysis of brominated feedstock plastic in a fluidised
bed reactor, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 77 (2006) 75.
[31] T. Bhaskar, W. Hall, N. Mitan, A. Muto, P. Williams, Y. Sakata, Controlled
pyrolysis of polyethylene/polypropylene/polystyrene mixed plastics with
high impact polystyrene containing lame retardant: effect of
decabromodiphenylethane (DDE), Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 92 (2007) 211–221.
[32] N. Miskolcz, W. Hall, A. Angyal, L. Bartha, P. Williams, Production of oil with
low organobromine content from the pyrolysis of flame retarded HIPS and
ABS plastics, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 83 (2008) 115–123.
[33] M. Brebu, T. Bhaskar, K. Murai, A. Muto, Y. Sakata, A.M. Uddin, Removal of
nitrogen, bromine, and chlorine from PP/PE/PS/PVC/ABS–Br pyrolysis liquid
products using Fe- and Ca-based catalysts, Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 87 (2005)
225–230.
[34] K. Kato, S. Nomura, H. Uematsu, Waste plastics recycling process using coke
ovens, J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 5 (2003) 98–101.
[35] S. Devasahayam, Review: opportunities for simultaneous energy/materials
conversion of carbon dioxide and plastics in metallurgical processes, Sustain.
Mater. Technol. 22 (2019) e00119.
[36] A. Marcilla, M.I. Beltrán, R. Navarro, Thermal and catalytic pyrolysis of
polyethylene over HZSM5 and HUSY zeolites in a batch reactor under
dynamic conditions, Appl. Catal. B, Environ. 86 (1) (2009) 78–86.
[37] V. Wollny, G. Dehoust, U. Fritsche, P. Weinem, Ind. Ecol. 5 (2002) 49–63.
[38] B.J. Luijsterburg, Mechanical Recycling of Plastic Packaging Waste Eindhoven
Eindhoven, 2015.
[39] UNEP, Biodegradable Plastics and Marine Litter. Misconceptions, Concerns
and Impacts on Marine Environments, United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), 2015.
[40] A. Panda, R.K. Singh, D. Mishra, Thermolysis of waste plastics to liquid fuel A
suitable method for plastic waste management and production of value
 S. Devasahayam et al. / Materials Science for Energy Technologies 2 (2019) 634–646
added products – a world prospective, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010)
233–248.
[41] Marlene Arens, Energy efficiency and CO2 emissions reduction in the steel
industry, Efonet Workshop 4.3 Increasing Energy Efficiency in Industrial
Processes, 2010.
[42] A. Hesham, New trends in the application of carbon-bearing materials in blast
furnace iron-making, Minerals 8 (2018) 561–581.
[43] F. Hanrot, D. Sert, J. Delinchant, R. Pietruck, T. Bürgler, A. Babich, M. Fernández
López, R. Álvarez García, M. Díez Díaz-Estébanez, CO2 mitigation for
steelmaking using charcoal and plastics wastes as reducing agents and
secondary raw materials, Proceedings of the 1st Spanish National Conference
on Advances in Materials Recycling and Eco-Energy, 2009.
[44] A. Babich, D. Senk, Recent developments in blast furnace iron-making
technology, Iron Ore: Mineralogy, Processing and Environmental
Sustainability, Elsevier, York, NY, USA, 2015.
[45] S. Nomura, Recent developments in cokemaking technologies, Japn. Fuel
Process. Technol. 159 (2017) 1–8.
[46] A.M. Carpenter, CO2 Abatement in the Iron and Steel Industry, IEA Clean Coal
Centre, London, 2012, pp. 67–70.
[47] Y. Ogaki, K. Tomioka, A. Watanabe, K. Arita, I. Kuriyama, T. Sugayoshi,
Recycling of Waste Plastic Packaging in a Blast Furnace System, 2001.
[48] M. Asanuma, T. Ariyama, M. Sato, R. Murai, T. Nonka, I. Okochi, H. Tsukiji, K.
Nemoto, Development of waste plastics injection process in blast furnace, ISIJ
Int. 40 (3) (2000) 244251.
[49] K.K. Fujikaoka, Fuel Energy 25 (1) (1997) 18–22.
[50] H. Aizawa, H. Yoshida, S. Sakai, Current results and future perspectives for
Japanese recycling of home electrical appliances, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52
(12) (2008) 1399–1410.
[51] K. Wakimoto, A feedstock recycling system of waste plastics in a blast furnace
at NKK, 60th Ironmaking Conference Proceedings, Iron and Steel Society,
2001.
[52] M. Asanuma, M. Kajioka, M. Kuwabara, Y. Fukumoto, K. Terada, Establishment
of advanced recycling technology for waste plastics in blast furnace, JFE Tech.
Rep. (2009).
[53] A. Demirbas, Pyrolysis of municipal plastic wastes for recovery of gasoline –
range hydrocarbons, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 72 (2004) 97–102.
[54] Y. Ono, H. Kitagawa, Y. Sendoda, Transpermation of lower alkanes in to
aromatic hydrocarbons over ZSM-5 Zeolites, Sekiyu Gakkaishi 30 (1987) 77–
88.
[55] A. Hasanbeigi, M. Arens, L. Price, Emerging Energy-efficiency and Carbon
Dioxide Emissions-reduction Technologies for the Iron and Steel Industry,
2013.
[56] J. Janz, W. Weiss, Injection of waste plastics into the blast furnace of
Stahlwerke Bremen, 3rd Int Cokemaking Congress, CRM-VDEh, Gent,
Belgium, 1996.
[57] S. Long, F. Cao, S. Wang, L. Sun, J. Pang, Y. Sun, Study on combustion
characteristic of waste plastic particle and coal powder at the blast
temperature of blast furnace, Proceedings, 4th International Congress on
the Science and Technology of Ironmaking (ICSTI ‘06), Osaka, Japan, 2006.
[58] L. Sørum, M. Grønli, J.E. Hustad, Pyrolysis characteristics and kinetics of
municipal solid wastes, Fuel 80 (2001) 1217–1227.
[59] Y. Sekine, K. Fukunda, K. Kato, Y. Adachi, Y. Matsuno, CO2 reduction potentials
by utilizing waste plastics in steel works, Int. J. Life Cycl. Assess. 14 (2) (2009)
122–136.
[60] H. Ida, Current status of plastics recycling in Japan, Feedstock Substitutes,
Energy Efficient Technology and CO2 Reduction for Petrochemical Products
Workshop, Paris, France, 2009.
[61] H. Jouhara, D. Ahmad, I.v.d. Boogaert, E. Katsou, S. Simons, N. Spencer,
Pyrolysis of domestic based feedstock at temperatures up to 300 °C, Therm.
Sci. Eng. Prog. 5 (2018) 117–143.
[62] L. Pilato, Phenolic Resins: A Century of Progress SpringerLink: Springer e-
Books, Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, p. 545.
[63] H. Zhang, G. Wang, J.-S. Wang, Q.-G. Xue, Recent development of energy-
saving technologies in ironmaking industry, IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.
233 (2019), 052016, 2019.
[64] C. Zhang, S. Chen, X. Miao, H. Yuan, Properties and effects of remaining carbon
from waste plastics gasifying on iron scale reduction, J. Environ. Sci. 23 (2011)
S132–S134.
[65] R. Cyprès, C. Soudan-Moinet, Pyrolysis of coal and iron oxides mixtures. 2.
Reduction of iron oxides, Fuel 60 (1) (1981) 33–39.
[66] Q. Xu, Z. Liu, Z. Li, J. Wang, L. Zhou, The effect of carbon dissection of waste
plastics on inhibiting the adhesion of fine iron ore particles during hydrogen
reduction, Metals 8 (2018) 523–539.
[67] S. Gupta, Corex Process: One of the Dynamic Routes for Gel Making with
Special Reference to the Success of JVSL, 2004.
[68] American Iron Steel Institute, Technology Roadmap Research Program for the
Steel, 2010.
[69] O. Sinha, Reduction behavior of iron ore pellets with addition of plastics along
with conventional reducing agents 1 2 2, J. Metall. Mater. Sci. 57 (2015) 167–
171.
[70] S.K. Sarna, Ironmaking in Rotary Hearth Furnace [Online]. Available:, 2017.
http://www.ispatguru.com/ironmaking-in-rotary-hearth-furnace/#.
[71] MIDREX NGTM, Natural Gas-Based Ironmaking, 2014. [Online]. Available:
https://www.midrex.com/assets/user/media/MIDREX_NG.pdf2014.
[72] F. Hanrot, D. Sert, J. Delinchant, R. Pietruck, T. Bürgler, A. Babich, M.
Fernández, R. Alvarez, M. Diez, CO2 mitigation for steelmaking using charcoal
645
and plastics wastes as reducing agents and secondary raw materials, 1st
Spanish National Conference on Advances in Materials Recycling and Eco –
Energy, S05-4, 2009.
[73] JP Steel Plantech Co, ECOARC, 2012.
[74] E. Worrell, P. Blinde, M. Neelis, E. Blomen, E. Masanet, Energy Efficiency
Improvement and cost Saving Opportunities for the U.S. Iron and Steel
Industry. An ENERGY STAR Guide for Energy and Plant Managers, 2010,
Berkeley, CA, USA.
[75] C. Clauzade, in: End-of-life Tyres in Electric Arc Furnaces: An Industrial
Success Story, Aliapur, 2006, p. 8.
[76] Atech Group, A National Approach to Waste Tyres, Commonwealth
Department of Environment, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 2001.
[77] OneSteel, Building a Sustainable Future. Sustainability Report, OneSteel Ltd,
Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2010.
[78] Ernst Worrell, Paul Blinde, Maarten Neelis, Eliane Blomen, Eric Masanet,
Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost Saving Opportunities for the U.S.
Iron and Steel Industry: An ENERGY STAR Guide for Energy and Plant
Managers, 2010.
[79] F. Luo, C. Shigang, L. Zhiguo, The combustion efficiencies of the waste plastics
as supplemental fuel for blast furnace, Steel Res. Int. 76 (2005) 690–694.
[80] Y. Ogaki, K. Tomioka, A. Watanabe, K. Arita, I. Kuriyama, T. Sugayoshi,
Recycling of Waste Plastic Packaging in a Blast Furnace System, 2001.
[81] C.L.J. Jamradloedluka, Characterization and utilization of char derived from
fast pyrolysis of plastic wastes, Procedia Engineering, 69, 2014, pp. 1437–
1442.
[82] S. Devasahayam, A novel iron ore pelletization for increased strength under
ambient conditions, Sustain. Mater. Technol. 17 (2018) e00069.
[83] Y. Ueki, R. Mii, K. Ohno, T. Maeda, K. Nishioka, M. Shimizu, Reaction behaviour
during heating waste plastic materials and iron oxide composites, ISIJ Int. 48
(2008) 1670–1675.
[84] E.C. Efika, J.A. Onwudili, P. Williams, Products from the high temperature
pyrolysis of RDF at slow and rapid heating rates, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 112
(2015) 14–22.
[85] A. Carpenter, Injection of Coal and Waste Plastics in Blast Furnaces, 2010,
London, UK.
[86] H. Pilz, B. Brandt, R. Fehringer, The impact of plastics on life cycle
energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, Denkstatt
(2010).
[87] H. Dong, Y. Geng, X. Yu, J. Li, Uncovering energy saving and carbon reduction
Uncovering energy saving and carbon reduction potential from recycling
wastes: a case of Shanghai in China, J. Clean. Prod. 205 (2018) 27–35.
[88] H. Geoff, J. Craig, Inventory of carbon & energy (ICE), Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.
Energy, Bath, UK, 2008, Version 1.6 a.
[89] K. Kato, S. Nomura, K. Fukuda, H. Uematsu, H. Kondoh, Development of waste
plastics recycling process using coke oven, Nippon Steel Tech. Rep. (2006).
[90] S. Nomura, Use of waste plastics in coke oven: a review, J. Sustain. Metall. 1
(2015) 85.
[91] T.A. Tukker, Plastics Waste – Feedstock Recycling, Chemical Recycling and
Incineration, 2002.
[92] V. Sahajwalla, M. Zaharia, S. Kongkarat, R. Khanna, M. Rahman, N. Chaudhury,
P. O’Kane, J. Dicker, C. Skidmore, D. Knights, Arc furnace steelmaking process:
fundamentals of polymer reactions with slag and metal, Energy Fuels 26
(2012) 58–66.
[93] D. Bandyopadhyay, S.D. Singh, D. Sanyal, K. Singh, K. Singh, A study on
dissolution kinetics of carbon in liquid iron bath, Chem. Eng. J. 94 (2) (2003)
79–92.
[94] S. Pimenta, S. Pinho, Recycling carbon fibre reinforced polymers for structural
applications: technology review and market outlook, Waste Manage. (2011)
31, 378e92.
[95] J. Wertz, I. Kuczynski, D. Boday, Thermally conductive-silicone composites
with thermally reversible cross-links, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 8 (2016)
13669–13672.
[96] M. Röttger, T. Domenech, R.V.D. Weegen, A. Breuilla, R. Nicolaÿ, L. Leibler,
High-performance vitrimers from commodity thermoplastics through
dioxaborolane metathesis, Science 356 (6333) (2017) 62–65.
[97] G. Cicala, E. Pergolizzi, F. Piscopo, D. Carbone, G. Recca, Hybrid composites
manufactured by resin infusion with a fully recyclable bioepoxy resin,
Compos. Part B: Eng. 132 (1) (2018) 69–76.
[98] S. Devasahayam, Sustainable development of selective iron carbide, silicon
carbide and ferrosilicon (low temperature) phases during iron ore reduction
using only polymers, Sustain. Mater. Technol. 16 (2018) 23–37.
[99] S. Devasahayam, Interfacial toughness in polymer layered laminar
composites, J. Polym. Sci. Part B: Polym. Phys. 42 (2004) 3822–3835.
[100] S. Devasahayam, Effect of moisture ingress on adhesion energy in a metal
oxide-polymer system, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 99 (2006) 2052–2061.
[101] S. Devasahayam, Towards improving wet-adhesion in a metal oxide-polymer
coating system, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 99 (2006) 3318–3327.
[102] P.K. Tripathi, S. Durbach, N.J. Coville, Synthesis of multi-walled carbon
nanotubes from plastic waste using a stainless-steel CVD reactor as catalyst,
Nanomaterials 7 (10) (2017) 284.
[103] M.G. Donato, S. Galvagno, M. Lanza, G. Messina, C. Milone, E. Piperopoulos, A.
Pistone, S. Santangelo, Influence of carbon source and Fe-catalyst support on
the growth of multi-walled carbon nanotubes, J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 9 (6)
(2009) 3815–3823.
[104] E. Dündar-Tekkaya, N. Karatepe, Production of carbon nanotubes by iron
catalyst, Int. J. Mater. Metall. Eng. 5 (7) (2011) 541–547.
646 S. Devasahayam et al. / Materials Science for Energy Technologies 2 (2019) 634–646
[105] M.K. Mani, G. Viola, M.J. Reece, J.P. Hall, S.L. Evans, Fabrication of carbon
nanotube reinforced iron based magnetic alloy composites by spark plasma
sintering, J. Alloys Compd. 601 (2014) 146–153.
[106] A. Azarniya, M.S. Safavi, S. Sovizi, A. Azarniya, B. Chen, H.R.M. Hosseini, S.
Ramakrishna, Metallurgical challenges in carbon nanotube-reinforced metal
matrix nanocomposites, Metals 7 (10) (2017) 384.
[107] M. Iqbal, A. Nairan, M.A. Faridi, Surface modification of mild steel by carbon
nanotubes reinforcement, Mater. Sci. (2015), pp. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1505.02168.
[108] S. Devasahayam, V. Strezov, Thermal decomposition of magnesium carbonate
with biomass and plastic wastes for simultaneous production of hydrogen
and carbon avoidance, J. Clean. Prod. 174 (10) (2018) 1089–1095.
[109] S. Devasahayam, Catalytic actions of MgCO3/MgO system for efficient carbon
reforming processes, Sustain. Mater. Technol. 22 (2019) e00122.
[110] D. Sheila, Thermal analysis studies on the decomposition of magnesite, Int. J.
Mineral Process. 37 (1993) 73–88.
[111] European IPPC Bureau at the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies,
Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries, European
Commission, 2010.
[112] The INDIAN Centre for Plastics in Environment, Use of plastics waste in blast
furnace, Management of Plastics, Polymer Wastes and Bio-Polymers and
Impact of Plastics on the, vol. 4, no. 2, 2006, pp. 1–7.
[113] S. Devasahayam, R. Singh, K. Chennakesavulu, S. Bhattacharya, Review:
Polymers-villain or hero? Polymers and recycled polymers in mineral and
metallurgical processing, Materials 12 (2019) 655.
[114] VOEST, High temperature pyrolysis of plastic waste, Plant Construction of
VOEST-Alpine, Styrian Material Flow Management, Styrian Provincial
Government, Austria, 1997.
[115] G. Baldauf-Sommerbauer, S. Lux, W. Aniser, M. Siebenhofer, Reductive
calcination of mineral magnesite: hydrogenation of carbon dioxide without
catalysts, Chem. Eng. Technol. 39 (2016) 2035–2041.
[116] The Department of the Environment and Energy, National Greenhouse
Accounts Factors Australian National Greenhouse Accounts, 2017.
[117] A. Ziëbik, W. Stanek, Forecasting of the energy effects of injecting plastic
wastes into the blast furnace in comparison with other auxiliary fuels, Energy
(Oxford) 26 (2001) 1159–1173.
[118] S.H.K.K. Katsuhiro Nakanoh, Waste treatment using induction heated
pyrolysis, Fuji Electr. Rev. 47 (3) (2001) 69–73.
[119] X. Zuo, L. Damoah, L. Zhang, T. Schman, J. Kers, ‘‘Green pyrolysis of used
printed wiring board powder, in: recycling of electronic waste II, Proceedings
of the Second Symposium, 2011.
[120] V. Trinkel, N. Kieberger, T. Burgler, H.J. Rechberger, J. Fellner, Influence of
waste plastic utilisation in blast furnace on heavy metal emissions, J. Clean.
Prod. 94 (2015) 312–320.
[121] J.S.V.S. Ewijk, Limitations of the waste hierarchy for achieving absolute
reductions in material throughput, J. Clean. Prod. 132 (2016) 122–128.
[122] K.M. Ranjeet Kumar Mishra, Thermal and catalytic pyrolysis of pine sawdust
(Pinus ponderosa) and Gulmohar seed (Delonix regia) towards production of
fuel and chemicals, Mater. Sci. Energy Technol. 2 (2) (2019) 139–149.