Next Article in Journal
Selection of Inertial and Power Curtailment Control Methods for Wind Power Plants to Enhance Frequency Stability
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Physical and Chemical Properties of Residue from Gasification of Biomass Wastes
Previous Article in Journal
Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Rotor–Rotor Interaction Characteristics inside a Multistage Transonic Axial Compressor
Previous Article in Special Issue
Intermediate Pyrolysis of Brewer’s Spent Grain: Impact of Gas Atmosphere
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 15
Issue 7
10.3390/en15072629
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Plastic Waste Management towards Energy Recovery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Example of Protective Face Mask Pyrolysis

by
Magdalena Skrzyniarz
1,
Marcin Sajdak
2,
Monika Zajemska
1,
Józef Iwaszko
1,
Anna Biniek-Poskart
3,
Andrzej Skibiński
3,
Sławomir Morel
1 and
Paweł Niegodajew
4,*
1
Faculty of Production Engineering and Materials Technology, Czestochowa University of Technology, 19 Armii Krajowej Avenue, 42-200 Czestochowa, Poland
2
Department of Air Protection, Faculty of Energy and Environmental Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, 22 B Konarskiego Avenue, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland
3
Faculty of Management, Czestochowa University of Technology, 19 B Armii Krajowej Avenue, 42-200 Czestochowa, Poland
4
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science, Czestochowa University of Technology, 21 Armii Krajowej Avenue, 42-200 Czestochowa, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2022, 15(7), 2629; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072629
Submission received: 4 March 2022 / Revised: 29 March 2022 / Accepted: 31 March 2022 / Published: 3 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomass and Waste Conversion: Latest Advances and Prospects)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper presents an assessment of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the waste management sector, and then, based on laboratory tests and computer calculations, indicates how to effectively manage selected waste generated during the pandemic. Elemental compositions—namely, C, H, N, S, Cl, and O—were determined as part of the laboratory tests, and the pyrolysis processes of the above wastes were analysed using the TGA technique. The calculations were performed for a pilot pyrolysis reactor with a continuous flow of 240 kg/h in the temperature range of 400–900 °C. The implemented calculation model was experimentally verified for the conditions of the refuse-derived fuel (RDF) pyrolysis process. As a result of the laboratory tests and computer simulations, comprehensive knowledge was obtained about the pyrolysis of protective masks, with particular emphasis on the gaseous products of this process. The high calorific value of the pyrolysis gas, amounting to approx. 47.7 MJ/m3, encourages the management of plastic waste towards energy recovery. The proposed approach may be helpful in the initial assessment of the possibility of using energy from waste, depending on its elemental composition, as well as in the assessment of the environmental effects.

1. Introduction

The appearance and rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus have caused an intensive increase in the demand for personal protective equipment, especially face masks, due to the obligation to wear them in public spaces [1]. The production of disposable food packaging has also significantly risen during the pandemic [2]. Quarantine, isolation, and the fear of a personal visit to the store have caused an increase in online sales of food, as well as other products necessary in everyday life [3,4]. For practical and hygienic reasons, many of these items are packed in disposable plastic packaging [5,6]. The necessity to ship the ordered products involves the use of cardboard boxes, packaging, cling film, bubble wrap, etc. to safely deliver the ordered products [7]. In addition, shoppers are encouraged to wear disposable gloves and to pack all fresh produce separately in plastic bags when shopping in stationery stores [8,9]. The consequence of this state of affairs is, unfortunately, an enormous increase in the amount of plastic waste, which, as of 22 November 2020, in the 25 countries with the highest incidence of COVID-19, reached approximately 54,000 tons [10]. This situation was also reflected in the production of the European plastics industry, especially in the second half of 2020.
The presented data show that the production of plastics before the COVID-19 pandemic increased until 2018 and with it the amount of plastic waste (Figure 1). In contrast, the production of the European plastics industry has decreased since 2018. However, after a sharp decline in production due to the restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic in the first half of 2020, in the second half of this year, the production of plastics in EU countries began to increase rapidly, according to the Association Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (Plastics Europe) and the European Association of Plastics Recycling and Recovery Organisations (EPRO).
The pandemic has also had a negative impact on the economy and the proper functioning of local governments [12]. Municipalities and cities are struggling with an augmenting amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) [13] and medical waste, with a simultaneous lower budgetary inflow of funds as a result of the economic downturn [14]. Local governments cannot adequately manage the growing amount of hazardous waste placed in municipal landfills because of a lack of forces and resources at their disposal [15]. It should be noted that the challenges associated with plastics are largely owing to the fact that the ways in which such plastics are produced and utilised are not sustainable, because personal protective equipment (PPE) for hygiene reasons cannot be reusable, recycled, or are often made of single-use plastic. There is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the production and use of plastics [16]. These plastics significantly contribute to limiting the spread of the virus [12]. Nonetheless, according to the authors of this publication, the rapid increase in plastic waste due to the widespread use of masks and gloves, as well as changes in the manufacture and use of disposable products, could, in the short term, undermine EU efforts to reduce plastic pollution and move to more sustainable plastic handling [17,18].
The shock of the outbreak and expansion of the virus on a global scale poses enormous challenges to economies, public finances, and health systems with the threat of a possible recession [19]. The solid waste management sector is particularly susceptible, especially in EU countries, including Poland, which do not meet the requirement of recycling 50% of municipal waste (in 2020, recycling of MSW amounted to 26.7%, according to GUS data) [20,21]. Taking the example of Poland, it can be seen that during the pandemic there was a clear slowdown in the amount of processed waste, resulting in lower incomes in waste management treatment (WMT). Moreover, the situation in the secondary raw materials market had a negative impact on the entire waste industry. The prices of new commodities also fell, which resulted in their greater demand. On the other hand, the waste-to-energy industry (WTE) achieved good ratings and results. For example, the solid waste disposal sector in the Chinese market did not experience large deviations from the turnover recorded in 2019 [22].
The demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) has grown enormously worldwide since the start of the pandemic [23]. Such a high demand for PPE has led to the generation of huge amounts of plastic waste. For example, in Singapore, during 2 months of lockdown, an additional 1400 tons of plastic was generated [24]. Estimated calculations performed by Sazzadul Haque et al. [25] in Bangladesh have resulted in forecasts that the combined production of disposable face masks and other personal protective equipment is 3.4 billion units per month. This, in turn, translates into the production of 472.3 tons of plastic waste. According to estimates provided by Benson et al. [26], in Africa alone, assuming that people used at least one mask every day, it is estimated that the number of masks produced and disposed of during the day per person is around 412 million. Thus, more than 12 billion medical or textile masks are thrown away every month. Assuming that the average mass of the mask is 8.58 g, this gives the probability that about 105 Mt of masks per month only on the African continent may be discharged into the environment. According to Aragaw et al. [27], each month, around 129 billion masks and 65 billion disposable gloves are used and discarded worldwide.
The waste produced during the pandemic mainly consists of plastics such as polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polyester (PEs), polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and high-density polyethylene (HDPE), in addition to a small amount of paper, textiles, cotton, and natural rubber (Table 1) [28,29]. As can be seen from the literature review (Table 1), plastic waste can be a valuable fuel due to its high calorific value (38–46 MJ/kg).
Disposable face masks account for a significant share of the plastic waste stream generated during the pandemic [35]. As reported by Benson et al., the global production of disposable face masks is around 1.6 million tons/day, which means around 3.4 billion are thrown away daily due to the COVID-19 pandemic [26]. Protective masks are made of heterogeneous material, i.e., they consist mainly of several layers of PP and PE [36] (and additionally, they are equipped with an elastic band for the ears and a stiffening wire on the nose), which hinders their safe and quick recycling [37,38].
The most appropriate method of neutralising PPE should be material recycling, but due to the difficulty of separating the individual layers from each other, it would be a very time-consuming process [39]. Considering all the emerging difficulties that may arise in the recycling of PPE, one of the most effective methods of their disposal is the thermal transformation process [40,41,42]. Thus, effective waste management is a global concern that necessitates a reassessment of current technology and solutions. [43]. According to the introduced regulations, among others in Poland, waste generated during a pandemic and ending up in the mixed waste stream should be thermally neutralised by incineration, pyrolysis, or gasification [44,45]. In addition, mobile installations using the method of the thermal conversion of waste, i.e., pyrolysis, may occur to be an effective solution that responds to the needs of the waste industry during the pandemic. Mobile installations could be successfully utilised by entities collecting waste during the COVID-19 epidemic to neutralise hazardous (infectious) waste directly at the place of its collection, thus minimising the risk to public health and the environment. The above solution may also be used in the case of municipal waste contaminated with a biological agent from quarantine facilities and from places of isolation of patients at home. For the safe disposal of post-COVID-19 waste, a novel and sustainable approach is needed. As indicated in the literature, one of the most perspective methods of the thermal conversion of solid municipal waste, including plastic waste is pyrolysis, which can be a promising route to sustainable waste management. It is a thermochemical process carried out in the absence of oxygen in a pyrolysis reactor, in which waste decomposes at a temperature of 400–900 °C. This method enables the effective neutralisation of hazardous waste, but also leads to the formation of valuable solid (char) and gaseous (high-calorific pyrolysis gas) products that can be used, thus reducing the total cost of pyrolysis. The share and quality of individual products varies, depending, among others, on the type of pyrolysis reactor, type of waste, temperature, and residence time in the reactor [45].
The advantage of a pyrolysis installation compared with a waste incineration plant is its greater flexibility in terms of the amount of processed waste. These installations are economically justified also in the case of disposing of smaller amounts of waste than in the case of incineration plants, which gives opportunities, for example, to small municipal corporations operating, among others, in Polish conditions, for effective and profitable solid waste management. The proposed disposal method is also characterised by lower financial outlays and environmental fees, compared with incineration plants, as well as lower emissions of pollutants, i.e., SO2 and NOx. Hence, pyrolysis is considered to be a sustainable solution that may be economically profitable on a large scale and could minimise environmental concerns [46]. According to available data, with the limited number of possible solutions in this area, there is a great need for innovation enabling it to meet the key challenges in the field of plastic waste management in the pandemic era and to integrate new solutions in the field of thermal waste treatment technologies into the existing waste management system.
Taking into account above mentioned facts, pyrolysis seems to be the most promising thermal conversion method for such kind of waste into an environmentally inert, as well as valuable product from the energy point of view. Furthermore, considering the latest research results obtained by the authors of the article [47], in the case of RDF pyrolysis, it is justified to develop pyrolysis technology with simultaneous management of the products of this process.
Pyrolysis gas’s high calorific value (30 MJ/m3) encourages its use in both heating and the iron and steel industry. The gas produced by RDF pyrolysis can be co-incinerated with natural gas in industrial heating chambers, reducing the consumption of that fossil fuel. Pyrolysis gas can also be a substitute for coke oven gas for heating furnaces. This gas could be a viable alternative to conventional fuels, helping to reduce the role of waste storage while also improving environmental protection. The liquid fraction, in turn, is a potential source of valuable chemicals such as benzene and toluene. It can also be used as liquid fuel with properties similar to fuel oil or diesel fuel. Moreover, the preliminary technological tests carried out by the authors have shown the possibility of using the solid pyrolysis product in the production of insulating building materials, which increases the economic attractiveness of pyrolysis compared with other methods, e.g., combustion.
Bearing in mind the above, the authors of this study undertook this study to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the waste management sector and to identify an effective method of managing selected waste generated during the pandemic.

2. Materials and Methods

The subject of the research was non-medical, three-layer, biologically uncontaminated disposable face masks presented in Figure 2, produced by Quanzhou Ruoxin Hygiene Products Co. Ltd. Caicuo, Luoyang, Huian Country, Quanzhou City, Fujian Province, China, manufactured according to the GB/T 32610-2016 standard, model NS-2020.
As part of the research, both laboratory experiments and computer simulations were carried out. The research scheme is shown in Figure 3.

2.1. Experimental Procedures

2.1.1. Proximate Analysis

Proximate analysis, e.g., the total moisture and ash content, were determined in the studied material. The total moisture content was determined by drying a sample in a laboratory dryer to a constant weight at 105 ± 3 °C. The ash content of the samples was determined by sample incineration. The investigated sample was put in a muffle furnace and heated in an air atmosphere at 600 ± 10 °C. This temperature was maintained until the sample reached a constant weight [48].

2.1.2. Ultimate Analysis

The elementary Cta, Hta, Na, Sta, and Ota compositions in the examined material (protective mask) were measured using a Vario MACRO Cube automatic elemental analyser [49]. At 1150 °C, the material was put through an automated quantitative combustion process in an oxygen stream. Then, the combusted gases were transferred to a reduction tube (filled with copper) in which the sulphur and nitrogen oxides were reduced to SO2 and N2. The combustion gases were sent to a dynamic separation system after passing through the reduction tube. The absorption columns were desorbed thermally in order in the separation system. A thermal conductivity detector was used to identify gases including N2, CO2, H2O, and SO2 (TCD). An NDIR detector was used to examine low SO2 concentrations [47].
The oxygen concentration was measured quantitatively using sample pyrolysis at 1120–1150 °C in an H2O-, CO2-, and O2-free reductive environment (95% N2 and 5% H2). The sample was put in a pyrolysis tube containing elemental carbon, and carbon dioxide was produced as a result of the interaction between the oxygen in the sample and the carbon in the filler (Boudouard equilibrium). Granulated NaOH absorbed the acidic compounds obtained during the pyrolysis process, such as H2S, HCN, and HCl, while a dehumidifier absorbed the generated water. The other gases did not need to be separated because the NDIR detector was only sensitive to CO. The inert pyrolysis products (N2 and CH4) might be immediately transported into a carbon monoxide measuring device.

2.1.3. Chlorine Determination

The chlorine content in the studied sample was determined by a potentiometric method [50]. The approach involves thoroughly burning a sample in an oxygen bomb calorimeter with an Eschka mixture (MgO and Na2CO3, ratio 2:1). The generated chlorides (combustion products) were extracted in nitric acid (V) and titrated for chloride ions with 0.1 mol/L AgNO3. The potentiometric titration method used a silver sulphide electrode with a potential that was dependent on that of a reference electrode. The concentration of chloride ions is measured by the potential difference between the electrodes.

3. Results and Discussion

The results of the above-mentioned studies are summarised in Table 2.

3.1. TGA Analysis

The tested material (protective mask) was homogenised and then pulverised with a cryogenic mill for thermogravimetric analysis. A Luxz 409 PG thermogravimetric analyser was used in conjunction with a Netzsch QMS 403D Aëolos mass spectrometer. The experiments were conducted in an argon environment with a 25 mL/min flow rate. Measurement began at a temperature of 40 °C. During the research, water jacket testing was used to stabilise the equilibrium. The pyrolysis operations reached a maximum temperature of 700 °C. The sample was 5.0 0.1 mg in weight. The samples were put in 6 mm diameter Al2O3 crucibles. The mass loss (TG) and maximum rate of mass loss (DTG) during the reaction, as well as the beginning and final temperatures at each step of the pyrolysis processes, could all be calculated using the data acquired (Figure S1 in Supplementary Material). To illustrate the differences between the various materials, in Figure 3, in addition to the protective mask test sample, the results of thermogravimetric analysis for pure polypropylene and pure polyethylene terephthalate are shown, as well as three biomass samples [49].

3.2. Computational Simulation

Calculations were made for the pyrolysis process carried out in a pilot continuous pyrolysis reactor, described in detail in [47], using licensed Ansys CHEMKIN-PRO software. Surgical masks with the elemental composition presented in Table 2, as well as PET and PP, the elemental composition of which were taken from studies of [51] and [49] were analysed. A detailed mechanism for the thermal conversion of solid fuels was implemented for the calculations, based on the Arrhenius equation for the rate constant of a reaction [52], developed by the CRECK Modeling Group, including 169 compounds and 4656 chemical reactions [53]. The mechanism was based on the detailed mechanism of HCl and Cl2 high-temperature chemistry reported in [54]. The chemical mechanism adopted for calculations has been used many times by Ranzi [55,56], Faravelli [57], as well as by the authors of this article to model the thermal conversion of fuels and waste [47,58,59]. The calculations assume that pyrolysis occurs in a reactor with perfect reactant mixing, i.e., a perfectly stirred reactor (PSR) [60]. A diagram of the performed calculations with the input data and the conditions of the pyrolysis process is shown in Figure 4.
As part of the computer simulations, the chemical composition of the gaseous pyrolysis products of the above-mentioned waste was determined, on the basis of which the calorific value of the pyrolysis gas was calculated. The following compounds were analysed in detail: CO, CO2, H2, CH4, C3H8, C4H4, C6H6, C2H2, C2H4, C2H6, and C3H6. The obtained results were compared with the experimental data obtained from RDF pyrolysis with a high content of plastic waste (over 60%).

3.3. TGA Analysis

Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) quickly shows the subsequent phases of the thermal conversion process of the studied sample. The mass loss of the examined material during heating is explained by this analysis. The TGA function’s second derivative, which is mass change as a function of temperature (DTG), is used to determine the temperature at which the decomposition rate (in the considered example) is highest. The type of studied material is determined by the temperature and the shape of the DTG curve (e.g., one small and sharp peak or a wide peak).
The outcomes of the obtained repetitions are comparable, as can be shown (Figure 5.).
As a result, further research may be conducted.
To optimise the number of gaseous products generated during the pyrolysis process, thermogravimetric analysis was carried out at a final temperature of 700 °C for the TGA analysis and 900 °C for the TGA-MS study. The face mask might degrade in four stages, according to TGA data (Figure 4).
The temperature ranges for the four stages were 50–200 °C, 201–392 °C, 393–500 °C, and 501–700 °C. The first stage represents minor degradation regions due to the occurrence of moisture evaporation (~2 wt%). The second stage indicates the sample’s first substantial decomposition zone, with a mass loss of 16.11 wt% due to organic material degradation below 392 °C, caused by the release of pyrogenetic water from the research material made from polypropylene and a melt blown filter (PP). The third stage represents the second major decomposition region of the investigated sample, with a mass loss of 72.55 wt%, owing to the decomposition of organic materials below 455 °C, which corresponds to polypropylene thermoplastic material [61]. The last decomposition stage represents minor degradation regions due to char devolatilisation/decomposition (~2 wt%). The decomposition of the mineral portion present in the sample, magnesite (MgCO3), which is used as a filler in polymer processing, is connected with the DTG peak detected at 677.6 °C in this location. The DTG curve (Figure 6) shows that the components included in the material from which the investigated face mask were made decompose into two main components (two major degradation peaks), but both corresponded to PP pyrolysis products. During the decomposition of the polypropylene portion at 403.8 °C, one of the most significant emissions of gaseous chemicals from the examined sample is detected—pyrogenetic water (m/z 18) and carbon dioxide (m/z 44). The gaseous fraction, rich in alkanes (CnH2n+1+), alkenes (CnH2n-1+), is observed at a higher temperature of 455.3 °C during the pyrolysis process. They correspond to the mass ions at m/z 43, 55, 56, 57, 69, and 70, respectively, for C3H7+, C4H7+, C4H8+, C4H9+, C5H9+, and C5H10+. The mass ion m/z 53 corresponds to C3H3N+, which may come from the degradation of a pigment added to the plastic material of one side of the mask. The results from mass spectrometry are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7.

3.4. Results of Computational Simulation

As part of the computer simulations, the effect of temperature was investigated on the proportion of primary pyrolysis gaseous products determining the calorific value of the pyrolysis gas—namely, CO, H2, CH4, C3H8, C4H4, C6H6, C2H2, C2H4, C2H6, and C3H6 (Figure 8).
The calculations show that the concentration of all the analysed compounds strongly depends on the process temperature. The largest share is observed for CO (up to 65%) in the entire temperature range but only for polyethylene terephthalate (PET). On the other hand, for PP and protective masks, a high proportion of hydrogen, even 50%, is visible, but only in the lower temperature range, i.e., from 400 °C to 500 °C. At the temperature of 700 °C, there is a clear decrease in the H2 concentration to 15% for the masks and 22% for PP. At the same time, an increase in the hydrogen content from PET pyrolysis is observed; however, it does not exceed 5%. The opposite situation is observed for CH4, the share of which increases with the rise in the process temperature, reaching a concentration of approx. 35% for both masks and PP at 700 °C, with a simultaneous low concentration (less than 5%) for PET. Noteworthy is the high proportion of C6H6 benzene in the pyrolysis gas for all the analysed wastes, at the level of approx. 20% for PP and masks and 17% for PET. From the energy point of view, the significant content of C2H4 is also significant, which grows with the temperature to approx. 9% at 800 °C for the masks and PP, and C6H6, reaching even 7% at the temperature of 650 °C for polypropylene. For the remaining compounds—namely, C3H8, C4H4, and C2H2 (except for PET), with increasing temperature, a sharp decrease in the concentration is observed for all the waste, and it does not exceed a 5% share in the pyrolysis gas.
The results of the model were compared with those of experimental research for RDF pyrolysis at 900 °C, presented in [47] (Figure 9).
Comparing the results obtained by modelling with the results from the experiment, the potential resulting from the pyrolysis of plastic waste, in particular polypropylene, the main component of protective masks, is visible. The high proportion of flammable compounds such as H2, CH4, and C6H6 translates into the high calorific value of the pyrolysis gas, amounting to 49.73 MJ/m3 for PP pyrolysis gas, and 47.74% for mask pyrolysis (Figure 10). It should be mentioned that the presence of heavy organic molecules and their derivatives in the wet pyrolysis gas, which can account for up to 30% of the gas volume, has a substantial impact on the high calorific value. As a result of the condensation of these chemicals, pyrolysis oil is produced. According to preliminary research undertaken by the article’s authors, direct management of wet pyrolysis gas (i.e., a mixture of pyrolysis gas and gaseous oil) in high-temperature heating chambers with temperatures exceeding 1300 °C is possible. The disposal of the problematic liquid portion, i.e., pyrolysis oil, is favoured at such a high temperature, resulting in considerable economic gains. The proposed method is described in great detail in [62].

4. Conclusions

The following conclusions and statements were formulated based on the conducted research and the obtained results:
  • The pyrolysis of plastic waste generated during the COVID-19 pandemic is an effective and environmentally safe solution with great application potential.
  • Thermal conversion of waste by pyrolysis is characterized by a high yield of high-calorific pyrolysis gas. This gas can potentially be used as a substitute for natural gas for energy production.
  • It is possible to forecast the chemical composition of gaseous pyrolysis products of plastic waste and on this basis to estimate the calorific value of the pyrolysis gas produced in the process.
  • The pyrolysis of polypropylene, the main component of protective masks, allows one to obtain high-calorific pyrolysis gas (47.7 MJ/m3), the main components of which are H2, CH4, and C6H6.
  • The results of the conducted research and computer simulations show the enormous energy value of plastic waste, especially those generated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Increasing the share of the above-mentioned waste in the municipal waste stream from which the so-called overflow and RDF fraction will increase the calorific value of the pyrolysis gas.
  • Effective disposal of the new category of waste is both a technological- and material-related challenge. Solving this challenge and creating technological techniques and know-how will enable the safe treatment of municipal waste in the COVID-19 era, and will also point the way to effective thermal conversion products management.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/en15072629/s1. Figure S1 clarified the data of mass loss (TG) and maximum rate of mass loss (DTG) during the reaction, as well as the beginning and final temperatures at each step of the pyrolysis processes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, M.S. (Magdalena Skrzyniarz), M.Z., J.I., A.S. and P.N.; methodology, M.S. (Magdalena Skrzyniarz), M.S. (Marcin Sajdak), M.Z. and J.I.; software, M.Z.; validation, M.Z.; formal analysis, M.S. (Marcin Sajdak) and M.Z.; resources, M.S. (Magdalena Skrzyniarz) and M.Z.; data curation, M.S. (Magdalena Skrzyniarz); writing—original draft preparation, M.S. (Magdalena Skrzyniarz), M.S. (Marcin Sajdak), M.Z., J.I., A.S., P.N. and S.M.; writing—review and editing M.S. (Magdalena Skrzyniarz), M.S. (Marcin Sajdak), M.Z., J.I., A.S., P.N. and S.M.; supervision, A.B.-P.; project administration, A.B.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rahimi, N.R.; Fouladi-Fard, R.; Aali, R.; Shahryari, A.; Rezaali, M.; Ghafouri, Y.; Ghalhari, M.R.; Asadi-Ghalhari, M.; Farzinnia, B.; Conti Gea, O.; et al. Bidirectional association between COVID-19 and the environment: A systematic review. Environ. Res. 2021, 194, 110692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Penteado, C.S.G.; de Castro, M.A.S. COVID-19 effects on municipal solid waste management: What can effectively be done in the Brazilian scenario? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Nanda, S.; Berruti, F. A technical review of bioenergy and resource recovery from municipal solid waste. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 403, 123970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Chand Malav, L.; Yadav, K.K.; Gupta, N.; Kumar, S.; Sharma, G.K.; Krishnan, S.; Rezania, S.; Kamyab, H.; Pham, Q.B.; Yadav, S.; et al. A review on municipal solid waste as a renewable source for waste-to-energy project in India: Current practices, challenges, and future opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 123227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Anastopoulos, I.; Pashalidis, I. Single-use surgical face masks, as a potential source of microplastics: Do they act as pollutant carriers? J. Mol. Liq. 2021, 326, 115247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. You, S.; Sonne, C.; Ok, Y.S. COVID-19: Resource recovery from plastic waste against plastic pollution. Cogent Environ. Sci. 2020, 6, 1801220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ikiz, E.; Maclaren, V.W.; Alfred, E.; Sivanesan, S. Impact of COVID-19 on household waste flows, diversion and reuse: The case of multi-residential buildings in Toronto, Canada. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dharmaraj, S.; Ashokkumar, V.; Pandiyan, R.; Halimatul Munawaroh, H.S.; Chew, K.W.; Chen, W.H.; Ngamcharussrivichai, C. Pyrolysis: An effective technique for degradation of COVID-19 medical wastes. Chemosphere 2021, 275, 130092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sharma, H.B.; Vanapalli, K.R.; Cheela, V.S.; Ranjan, V.P.; Jaglan, A.K.; Dubey, B.; Goel, S.; Bhattacharya, J. Challenges, opportunities, and innovations for effective solid waste management during and post COVID-19 pandemic. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 162, 105052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Purnomo, C.W.; Kurniawan, W.; Aziz, M. Technological Review on Thermochemical Conversion of COVID-19-related Medical Wastes. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 167, 105429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Plastics Europe Market Research Group (PEMRG) and Conversio Market & Strategy GmbH. Plastics—The Fact. 2021. Available online: https://plasticseurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plastics-the-Facts-2021-web-final.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2022).
  12. Kulkarni, B.N.; Anantharama, V. Repercussions of COVID-19 pandemic on municipal solid waste management: Challenges and opportunities. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 743, 140693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Elsner, W.; Wysocki, M.; Niegodajew, P.; Borecki, R. Experimental and economic study of small-scale CHP installation equipped with downdraft gasifier and internal combustion engine. Appl. Energy 2017, 202, 213–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Park, C.; Choi, H.; Andrew Lin, K.Y.; Kwon, E.E.; Lee, J. COVID-19 mask waste to energy via thermochemical pathway: Effect of Co-Feeding food waste. Energy 2021, 230, 120876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ragazzi, M.; Rada, E.C.; Schiavon, M. Municipal solid waste management during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and lockdown ease: Lessons from Italy. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 745, 141159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhao, X.; You, F. Waste respirator processing system for public health protection and climate change mitigation under COVID-19 pandemic: Novel process design and energy, environmental, and techno-economic perspectives. Appl. Energy 2021, 283, 116129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Skibiński, A. Demograficzne aspekty zarządzania gospodarką stałymi odpadami komunalnymi w dobie COVID-19. Przemysł Chem. 2021, 1, 94–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Variny, M.; Varga, A.; Rimár, M.; Janošovský, J.; Kizek, J.; Lukáč, L.; Jablonský, G.; Mierka, O. Advances in biomass co-combustion with fossil fuels in the European context: A review. Processes 2021, 9, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mohammad, A.; Goli, V.S.N.S.; Singh, D.N. Discussion on ‘Challenges, opportunities, and innovations for effective solid waste management during and post COVID-19 pandemic, by Sharma et al. (2020)’. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Available online: https://raportsdg.stat.gov.pl/2020/index.html (accessed on 3 March 2022).
  21. Solarz, J.; Waliszewski, K. Pandrmia czy wojna pokoleń? J. Financ. Financ. Law 2020, 2, 99–114. [Google Scholar]
  22. Zhou, C.; Yang, G.; Ma, S.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, Z. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on waste-to-energy and waste-to-material industry in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 139, 110693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dharmaraj, S.; Ashokkumar, V.; Hariharan, S.; Manibharathi, A.; Show, P.L.; Tung, C.C.; Ngamcharussrivichai, C. The COVID-19 pandemic face mask waste: A blooming threat to the marine environment. Chemosphere 2021, 272, 129601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shams, M.; Alam, I.; Mahbub, M.S. Plastic Pollution During COVID-19: Plastic Waste Directives and Its Long-term Impact on The Environment. Environ. Adv. 2021, 5, 100119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Haque, M.S.; Sharif, S.; Masnoon, A.; Rashid, E. SARS-CoV-2 pandemic-induced PPE and single-use plastic waste generation scenario. Waste Manag. Res. 2021, 39, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Benson, N.U.; Fred-Ahmadu, O.H.; Bassey, D.E.; Atayero, A.A. COVID-19 Pandemic and Emerging Plastic-based Personal Protective Equipment Waste Pollution and Management in Africa. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Aragaw, T.A.; Mekonnen, B.A. Current plastics pollution threats due to COVID-19 and its possible mitigation techniques: A waste-to-energy conversion via Pyrolysis. Environ. Syst. Res. 2021, 10, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Wang, J.; Shen, J.; Ye, D.; Yan, X.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, W.; Li, X.; Wang, J.; Zhang, L.; Pan, L. Disinfection technology of hospital wastes and wastewater: Suggestions for disinfection strategy during coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in China. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 262, 114665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Ramteke, S.; Sahu, B.L. Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: Considerations for the biomedical waste sector in India. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2020, 2019, 100029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, Y.; Ji, G.; Chen, C.; Wang, Y.; Wang, W.; Li, A. Liquid oils produced from pyrolysis of plastic wastes with heat carrier in rotary kiln. Fuel Process. Technol. 2020, 206, 106455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Veksha, A.; Yin, K.; Moo, J.G.S.; Oh, W.D.; Ahamed, A.; Chen, W.Q.; Weerachanchai, P.; Giannis, A.; Lisak, G. Processing of flexible plastic packaging waste into pyrolysis oil and multi-walled carbon nanotubes for electrocatalytic oxygen reduction. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 387, 121256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Mishra, R.K.; Iyer, J.S.; Mohanty, K. Conversion of waste biomass and waste nitrile gloves into renewable fuel. Waste Manag. 2019, 89, 397–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kumar Mishra, R.; Mohanty, K. Co-pyrolysis of waste biomass and waste plastics (polystyrene and waste nitrile gloves) into renewable fuel and value-added chemicals. Carbon Resour. Convers. 2020, 3, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Singh, R.K.; Ruj, B.; Sadhukhan, A.K.; Gupta, P. Thermal degradation of waste plastics under non-sweeping atmosphere: Part 1: Effect of temperature, product optimization, and degradation mechanism. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 239, 395–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kataki, S.; Chatterjee, S.; Vairale, M.G.; Sharma, S.; Dwivedi, S.K. Concerns and strategies for wastewater treatment during COVID-19 pandemic to stop plausible transmission. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Palmieri, V.; De Maio, F.; De Spirito, M.; Papi, M. Face masks and nanotechnology: Keep the blue side up. Nano Today 2021, 37, 101077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mohajerani, A.; Burnett, L.; Smith, J.V.; Markovski, S.; Rodwell, G.; Rahman, M.T.; Kurmus, H.; Mirzababaei, M.; Arulrajah, A.; Horpibulsuk, S.; et al. Recycling waste rubber tyres in construction materials and associated environmental considerations: A review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 155, 104679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ippolito, M.; Vitale, F.; Accurso, G.; Iozzo, P.; Gregoretti, C.; Giarratano, A.; Cortegiani, A. Medical masks and Respirators for the Protection of Healthcare Workers from SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses. Pulmonology 2020, 26, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rowan, N.J.; Laffey, J.G. Unlocking the surge in demand for personal and protective equipment (PPE) and improvised face coverings arising from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic—Implications for efficacy, re-use and sustainable waste management. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 752, 142259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jung, S.; Lee, S.; Dou, X.; Kwon, E.E. Valorization of disposable COVID-19 mask through the thermo-chemical process. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 405, 126658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Anuar Sharuddin, S.D.; Abnisa, F.; Wan Daud, W.M.A.; Aroua, M.K. A review on pyrolysis of plastic wastes. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 115, 308–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Das, P.; Tiwari, P. The effect of slow pyrolysis on the conversion of packaging waste plastics (PE and PP) into fuel. Waste Manag. 2018, 79, 615–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Variny, M.; Jediná, D.; Rimár, M.; Kizek, J.; Kšiňanová, M. Cutting Oxygen Production-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Improved Compression Heat Management in a Cryogenic Air Separation Unit. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Liu, H.C.; You, J.X.; Lu, C.; Chen, Y.Z. Evaluating health-care waste treatment technologies using a hybrid multi-criteria decision making model. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 932–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kumar Jha, K.; Kannan, T.T.M. Recycling of plastic waste into fuel by pyrolysis—A review. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 37, 3718–37203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zaman, C.Z.; Pal, K.; Yehye, W.A.; Sagadevan, S.; Shah, S.T.; Adebisi, G.A.; Marliana, E.; Rafique, R.F.; Johan, R. Pyrolysis: A Sustainable Way to Generate Energy from Waste, Pyrolysis; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2017; Tom 1; pp. 3–36. [Google Scholar]
  47. Rajca, P.; Poskart, A.; Chrubasik, M.; Sajdak, M.; Zajemska, M.; Skibiński, A.; Korombel, A. Technological and economic aspect of Refuse Derived Fuel pyrolysis. Renew. Energy 2020, 161, 482–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jagustyn, B.; Kmieć, M.; Smędowski, Ł.; Sajdak, M. The content and emission factors of heavy metals in biomass used for energy purposes in the context of the requirements of international standards. J. Energy Inst. 2017, 90, 704–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sajdak, M.; Muzyka, R. Use of plastic waste as a fuel in the co-pyrolysis of biomass. Part I: The effect of the addition of plastic waste on the process and products. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2014, 107, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mazurek, I.; Skawińska, A.; Sajdak, M. Analysis of chlorine forms in hard coal and the impact of leaching conditions on chlorine removal. J. Energy Inst. 2021, 94, 337–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gałko, G.; Rejdak, M.; Tercki, D.; Bogacka, M.; Sajdak, M. Evaluation of the applicability of polymeric materials to BTEX and fine product transformation by catalytic and non-catalytic pyrolysis as a part of the closed loop material economy. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2021, 154, 105017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wilk, M.; Magdziarz, A.; Gajek, M.; Zajemska, M.; Jayaraman, K.; Gokalp, I. Combustion and kinetic parameters estimation of torrefied pine, acacia and Miscanthus giganteus using experimental and modelling techniques. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 243, 304–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Mlonka-Mędrala, A.; Evangelopoulos, P.; Sieradzka, M.; Zajemska, M.; Magdziarz, A. Pyrolysis of agricultural waste biomass towards production of gas fuel and high-quality char: Experimental and numerical investigations. Fuel 2021, 296, 120611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pelucchi, M.; Frassoldati, A.; Faravelli, T.; Ruscic, B.; Glarborg, P. High-temperature chemistry of HCl and Cl2. Combust. Flame 2015, 162, 2693–2704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Ranzi, E.; Cuoci, A.; Faravelli, T.; Frassoldati, A.; Migliavacca, G.; Pierucci, S.; Sommariva, S. Chemical Kinetics of Biomass Pyrolysis. Energy Fuels 2008, 22, 4292–4300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ranzi, E.; Pierucci, S.; Aliprandi, P.C.; Stringa, S. Comprehensive and detailed kinetic model of a traveling grate combustor of biomass. Energy Fuels 2011, 25, 4195–4205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Faravelli, T.; Frassoldati, A.; Migliavacca, G.; Ranzi, E. Detailed kinetic modeling of the thermal degradation of lignins. Biomass Bioenergy 2010, 34, 290–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Poskart, A.; Skrzyniarz, M.; Sajdak, M.; Zajemska, M.; Skibiński, A. Management of lignocellulosic waste towards energy recovery by pyrolysis in the framework of circular economy strategy. Energies 2021, 14, 5864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zajemska, M.; Rajca, P.; Szwaja, S.; Morel, S. The chemical mechanism of the HCL formation in the pyrolysis process of selected wastes. Przem. Chem. 2019, 98, 907–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sieradzka, M.; Rajca, P.; Zajemska, M.; Mlonka-Mędrala, A.; Magdziarz, A. Prediction of gaseous products from refuse derived fuel pyrolysis using chemical modelling software—Ansys Chemkin-Pro. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 248, 119277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yousef, S.; Eimontas, J.; Striūgas, N.; Abdelnaby, M.A. Pyrolysis kinetic behaviour and TG-FTIR-GC–MS analysis of Coronavirus Face Masks. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2021, 156, 105118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Szwaja, S.; Zajemska, M.; Szwaja, M.; Maroszek, A. Integration of waste biomass thermal processing technology with a metallurgical furnace to improve its efficiency and economic benefit. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 15 02629 g001 550
Figure 1. Plastic industry production in EU27 (index 2015 = 100, seasonally adjusted quarterly data) [11].
Figure 1. Plastic industry production in EU27 (index 2015 = 100, seasonally adjusted quarterly data) [11].
Energies 15 02629 g001
Energies 15 02629 g002 550
Figure 2. View of disposable protective mask used for studies.
Figure 2. View of disposable protective mask used for studies.
Energies 15 02629 g002
Energies 15 02629 g003 550
Figure 3. Research scheme.
Figure 3. Research scheme.
Energies 15 02629 g003
Energies 15 02629 g004 550
Figure 4. Scheme of calculation procedure.
Figure 4. Scheme of calculation procedure.
Energies 15 02629 g004
Energies 15 02629 g005a 550Energies 15 02629 g005b 550
Figure 5. Comparison of repeated TG curves (a) and the TG and DTG curve (b).
Figure 5. Comparison of repeated TG curves (a) and the TG and DTG curve (b).
Energies 15 02629 g005aEnergies 15 02629 g005b
Energies 15 02629 g006 550
Figure 6. TG-DTG curves with curves of MS ion currents of volatile fraction (m/z 18, 43, 55, 56).
Figure 6. TG-DTG curves with curves of MS ion currents of volatile fraction (m/z 18, 43, 55, 56).
Energies 15 02629 g006
Energies 15 02629 g007 550
Figure 7. TG-DTG curves with curves of MS ion currents of volatile fraction (m/z 44, 53, 57, 69, 70).
Figure 7. TG-DTG curves with curves of MS ion currents of volatile fraction (m/z 44, 53, 57, 69, 70).
Energies 15 02629 g007
Energies 15 02629 g008a 550Energies 15 02629 g008b 550
Figure 8. Influence of temperature on formation of (a) CO, (b) H2, (c) CH4, (d) C6H6, (e) C2H4, (f) C2H6, (g) C3H8, (h) C2H2, (i) C3H6, (j) C4H4.
Figure 8. Influence of temperature on formation of (a) CO, (b) H2, (c) CH4, (d) C6H6, (e) C2H4, (f) C2H6, (g) C3H8, (h) C2H2, (i) C3H6, (j) C4H4.
Energies 15 02629 g008aEnergies 15 02629 g008b
Energies 15 02629 g009 550
Figure 9. Comparison of selected gaseous pyrolysis products.
Figure 9. Comparison of selected gaseous pyrolysis products.
Energies 15 02629 g009
Energies 15 02629 g010 550
Figure 10. Calorific value of gas from pyrolysis of selected waste.
Figure 10. Calorific value of gas from pyrolysis of selected waste.
Energies 15 02629 g010
Table
Table 1. Proximate and ultimate analysis of plastic waste.
Table 1. Proximate and ultimate analysis of plastic waste.
PlasticProximate Analysis
(wt% Dry Basis)		Elemental Analysis
(wt% Dry Basis)		LHV (MJ/kg)Source
Volatile MatterAshCHNSO
HDPE98.21.884.513.80.10.11.543.0[30]
LDPE99.80.086.812.90.1-0.243.6
PP99.60.485.013.90.10.01.043.6
PS99.80.190.57.90.40.21.038.8
PET92.96.962.54.00.10.033.521.1
PET-12-4.977.112.60.2-5.2-[31]
PET-28-12.167.29.70.1-10.9-
PET86.756.8363.944.520.010.0431.49-[32]
PS98.81-92.27.8---41.25[33]
PE99.96-85.514.5----
HDPE91.883.983.412.711.080.0022.846.48[34]
PP93.843.6883.2813.811.010.0011.9044.43
PS94.330.8489.28.780.010.002.0140.34
“-” No data available.
Table
Table 2. Proximate and ultimate analysis of plastic waste of protective masks.
Table 2. Proximate and ultimate analysis of plastic waste of protective masks.
MaterialProximate Analysis
(wt% Dry Basis)		Elemental Analysis
(wt% Dry Basis)
AshMoistureVoltaire MatterCHNSOCl
Plastic waste of protective mask4.761.2395.2476.411.651.120.164.650.03
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Skrzyniarz, M.; Sajdak, M.; Zajemska, M.; Iwaszko, J.; Biniek-Poskart, A.; Skibiński, A.; Morel, S.; Niegodajew, P. Plastic Waste Management towards Energy Recovery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Example of Protective Face Mask Pyrolysis. Energies 2022, 15, 2629. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072629

AMA Style

Skrzyniarz M, Sajdak M, Zajemska M, Iwaszko J, Biniek-Poskart A, Skibiński A, Morel S, Niegodajew P. Plastic Waste Management towards Energy Recovery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Example of Protective Face Mask Pyrolysis. Energies. 2022; 15(7):2629. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072629

Chicago/Turabian Style

Skrzyniarz, Magdalena, Marcin Sajdak, Monika Zajemska, Józef Iwaszko, Anna Biniek-Poskart, Andrzej Skibiński, Sławomir Morel, and Paweł Niegodajew. 2022. "Plastic Waste Management towards Energy Recovery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Example of Protective Face Mask Pyrolysis" Energies 15, no. 7: 2629. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072629

APA Style

Skrzyniarz, M., Sajdak, M., Zajemska, M., Iwaszko, J., Biniek-Poskart, A., Skibiński, A., Morel, S., & Niegodajew, P. (2022). Plastic Waste Management towards Energy Recovery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Example of Protective Face Mask Pyrolysis. Energies, 15(7), 2629. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072629

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop