Optimization of process parameters by response ...

G Model

JECE 226 1–8 Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jece 1 2 3 4 5

Optimization of process parameters by response surface methodology (RSM) for catalytic pyrolysis of waste high-density polyethylene to liquid fuel Q1 Sachin

Kumar *, R.K. Singh 1

National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Orissa, India

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 10 July 2013 Accepted 1 December 2013

Response surface methodology (RSM) was used to optimize the process for catalytic pyrolysis of waste high-density polyethylene to liquid fuel over modified catalyst. The reaction temperature, acidity of the modified catalysts and mass ratio between modified catalysts to waste high-density polyethylene (HDPE) were chosen as independent variables. Face centered central composite (FCCD) design of experiment has been used. Optimum operating conditions of reaction temperature (450 8C), acidity of catalyst (0.341) and catalyst to waste HDPE ratio (1:4) were produced the maximum liquid product yield of 78.7%. The quadratic model obtained fits well to predict the response with a high determination coefficient of R2 (0.995). The liquid fuel obtained by catalytic pyrolysis of waste HDPE at optimized condition consists of petroleum products range hydrocarbons (C10–C25) with high heating value (40.17 MJ/kg). ß 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Catalytic pyrolysis Waste HDPE Modified kaolin catalyst Optimization Liquid fuel

6 7

Introduction

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

High-density polyethylene (HDPE) is a thermoplastic material composed of carbon and hydrogen atoms joined together forming high molecular weight products. Methane gas is converted into ethylene, then, with the application of heat and pressure, into polyethylene [1]. The increased demand and production of HDPE has led to the accumulation of large amount of its waste in the final waste stream due to its low useful life. Recycling of plastics already occurs on a wide scale. The most attractive technique of chemical feedstock recycling is pyrolysis [2,3]. Pyrolysis is known to be an environmentally friendly method because no wastes are produced during the process. The effect of temperature and the type of reactor on the pyrolysis of waste HDPE have been studied by different researchers [4–6]. The thermal degradation of waste HDPE can be improved by using suitable catalysts in order to obtain valuable products. The most common catalysts used in this process are: alumina and silica–alumina [7,8], zeolites [9–12], FCC catalyst and reforming catalyst [13]. A number of studies for liquid fuel production from pyrolysis of waste plastics have been

* Corresponding author at: C/O Prof. (Dr.) R.K. Singh, Department of Chemical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Orissa 769008, India. Tel.: +91 8895530406. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (S. Kumar), [email protected], [email protected] (R.K. Singh). 1 Address: Department of Chemical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Orissa 769008, India. Tel.: +91 661 2462022; fax: +91 661 2462260; mobile: +91 9861285425.

reported at various scales and with varying success [14,15]. The yield of liquid from thermal or catalytic pyrolysis depends on the relationship of parameters set in the process. In terms of modeling and optimization of pyrolysis process, there are only few researchers focused on improving the process optimization. A Hybrid Artificial Neural Network-Genetic Algorithm (ANN-GA) method was used for the modeling and optimization of plastic waste conversion to liquid fuels over modified-residual catalytic cracking catalysts by Istadi et al. [16]. Pinto et al. used response surface methodology (RSM) to predict the influence of experimental conditions on product yields formed by waste mixtures pyrolysis. Experiment Factorial Design was used for the optimization of reaction time, temperature and initial pressure to maximize the yield and composition of liquid products for the waste mixture studied [17]. Miranda et al. studied the thermal degradation of waste tyres and waste plastics mixture with the aim of producing liquid fuel. Regression analyses of experimental data were performed according to response surface methodology (RSM). As a result, experimental conditions optimized based on Factorial Design Methodology were 370 8C, 0.48 MPa for initial pressure and 15 min for reaction time. In order to validate the results obtained by the RSM model, three extra runs were conducted sequentially and average values were calculated and found to be: gas yield of 4.9% (w/w), liquid yield of 81.3% (w/w) and solid yield of 12.7% (w/w) with an experimental deviation of 0.95% [18]. Xiong et al. studied for development of an open-source computational tool to help understand the complex phenomena involved with in the biomass fast pyrolysis process. In this frame work, a multi-fluid model is applied to simulate the multi-phase

2213-3437/$ – see front matter ß 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2013.12.001

Please cite this article in press as: S. Kumar, R.K. Singh, Optimization of process parameters by response surface methodology (RSM) for catalytic pyrolysis of waste high-density polyethylene to liquid fuel, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jece.2013.12.001

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

G Model

JECE 226 1–8 S. Kumar, R.K. Singh / Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

2

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

hydrodynamics while global reaction kinetics is used to describe the physic chemical conversion [19]. Wan Nadhari et al. optimized the manufacturing conditions with RSM for the production of environmental friendly binderless particleboard from waste oil palm trunk [20]. Kumar et al. used computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and response surface methodology (RSM) in combination for the modelization and optimization of photocatalytic degradation of Rhodamine B in an annular photocatalytic reactor [21]. The single and combined effects of operating parameters such as gas velocity, liquid velocity, initial static bed height and average particle size on the adsorption of arsenic (III) from wastewater are analyzed using response surface methodology (RSM) [22]. Response surface methodology (RSM) has an advantage to reduce the number of costly experiments by selecting the right experimental conditions. Therefore, response surface methodology (RSM) can be a method used to solve the optimization problem with the desired goal to maximize the liquid yield. In the present work, catalytic pyrolysis of waste high-density polyethylene was carried out to evaluate the yield and quality of liquid fuel produced. The mass ratio between modified catalysts to waste HDPE, temperature, and acidity of the modified catalysts were chosen as independent variables. The process was optimized by using response surface methodology with the aim of maximizing liquid yield. The liquid obtained was tested for physical properties, gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR).

81

Materials and methods

82

Characterization of raw material

83 84 85 86 87 88 89

Waste HDPE was collected from the National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Orissa, India campus waste yard and used in this experiment. The plastic waste was cut into small pieces (approx. 1 cm2) and used in the pyrolysis reaction. The ultimate analysis was done by using a CHNS analyzer (ELEMENTAR VARIO EL CUBE CHNSO). Calorific value of the raw material was found by ASTM D5868-10a.

90

Preparation of catalysts

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115

The kaolin clay used in this experiment is procured commercially from Chemtex Corporation, Kolkata, India. The modification of kaolin using four different acids and one base of 3 M concentration was carried out by adding 50 g of the kaolin clay to 500 ml of acetic acid, hydrochloric acid, phosphoric acid, nitric acid and sodium hydroxide solution of 3 M concentration and refluxing at 110 8C under the atmospheric pressure in a round bottomed flask equipped with a reflux condenser for 4 h. The resulting clay suspension was then quickly quenched by adding 500 ml ice cold water. The content was then filtered, repeatedly washed with distilled water to remove any residual acid, dried in an oven, calcined at 550 8C for 4 h and ground in a mortar pastel to powder form. The untreated sample is referred to as KC and acid treated samples after calcination at 550 8C are referred to as KC (HCl), KC (CH3COOH), KC (HNO3), KC (H3PO4) and KC (NaOH). The clay samples were characterized for elemental and chemical analysis using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer (Model-PW2400 of Phillips) with X-ray tube of rhodium anode and scintillation detector with a current 40 mA and voltage 40 mV and acidity using temperature-programmed desorption TPD (ammonia) in Micromeritics 2900 TPD equipment. The acid treated kaolin clay samples were outgassed under He flow (50 N ml/min) by heating with a rate of 15 8C/min up to 650 8C and remaining at this temperature for 30 min. After cooling to 180 8C, the samples were treated with a 30 N ml/min ammonia flow for 30 min. The physisorbed ammonia

was removed by passing a He flow at 180 8C for 90 min. The chemically adsorbed ammonia was determined by increasing the temperature up to 650 8C with a heating rate of 15 8C/min, remaining at this temperature for 30 min, and monitoring the ammonia concentration in the effluent He stream with a thermal conductivity detector.

116 117 118 119 120 121

Pyrolysis experimental setup and procedure

122

The experiment was conducted in a reactor-furnace system in which the temperature was maintained using a PID controller as shown in previous study [2]. The mixture of catalyst and waste HDPE (20 g) in different catalyst to waste HDPE proportion (1:2, 1:4, 1:6) was placed into the 300-ml reactor and the reactor was heated in the furnace to the desired temperature from 400 8C to 500 8C in 25 8C increments at a heating rate of 20 8C/min and the temperature was maintained for the desired length. Vapors were condensed in a condenser at the outlet of the reactor and the condensed liquid was collected in a jar.

123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132

Optimization study

133

The responses and the corresponding factors are modeled and optimized using the response surface methodology. The RSM technique is aimed for: (a) designing of experiments to provide adequate and reliable measurements of the response, (b) developing a mathematical model having the best fit to the data obtained from the experimental design, and (c) determining the optimal value of the independent variables that produces maximum or minimum value of the response. Therefore, RSM was used to determine the optimum and experimental design matrix in this study specified according to the face central composite design (FCCD) method. Three effective parameters (temperature, catalysts to feed ratio and acidity of catalyst) were applied in this study with each parameter being evaluated at fifteen different points. Each point was investigated to select the points that produced the largest volume of pyrolytic liquid. The variables and the experimental domain in this design are specified in Table 1. The CCD consists of 8 cube points, 6 center points in cube, 6 axial points and 0 center points in axial. Therefore, the CCD in this study, resulting in 20 experiments. The CCD matrix for varying 3 variables was constructed in Table 2. All experiments were performed randomly to reduce the effect of unexplainable variance in the observed response caused by unrelated variables. After running the experiments, the results were fitted to a quadratic polynomial model to predict the system response as given in Eq. (1).

134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158

Y ¼ bo þ

n X

n X

n X n X

i¼1

i¼1

i¼1 j > 1

bi Xi þ

bii Xi2 þ

bi j XiX j

(1)

where Y is the predicted response; n is the number of experiments; bo, bi, bii and bij are regression coefficients for the constant, linear, quadratic and interaction coefficients, respectively; and Xi and Xj are the coded independent factors. Predicted values were solved from the derived equations for each of the response. These values

Table 1 Range of independent variables and the experimental domain. Variables

Experimental domain (1)-level

0-level

(+1)-level

T: temperature (8C) A: acidity of catalysts CR: catalysts ratio

400 0.109 2

450 0.225 4

500 0.341 6


160 159 161 162 163 164

G Model


3

Table 2 The CCD matrix of experimental and yield response. Run order

1 4 6 14 17 18 2 5 7 9 13 19 3 8 10 11 12 15 16 20

Actual variables

Coded levels

Response

Temperature (8C)

A (acidity of catalysts)

CR (catalysts to waste HDPE ratio)

T

A

CR

Predicted liquid yield ‘Y’ (wt%)

Observed liquid yield ‘Y’ (wt%)

450 450 450 450 500 400 450 450 450 450 450 450 500 500 400 400 400 500 400 500

0.225 0.225 0.109 0.341 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.109 0.341 0.109 0.341 0.109 0.341 0.341 0.109

6 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 2 2 6 2 6 2

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

54.1 68.3 10.7 78.0 68.3 66.8 68.3 21.9 68.3 18.2 29.4 15.9 68.3 56.4 24.2 27.1 26.5 31.7 68.3 13.0

51.8 70.6 11.5 78.9 69.9 63.9 71.2 21.6 68.5 18.9 29.9 17.8 67.9 56.4 23.4 27.2 27.1 28.8 67 12.8

165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179

were plotted to obtain contour plots that were used for the optimization process. Minitab software Version 16.2.0 (Minitab Inc., PA, USA) was used in this study. Three-dimensional response surfaces and contour plots were used for facilitating a straight forward examination of the influence of experimental variables on the responses. The individual response surface and the contour plots were created by holding both variables constant at their center points. Coefficients of the models for one response were estimated with multiple regression analysis. The fit quality of the models was judged from their coefficients of correlation and determination. The adequacy of each model was also checked with the analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Fisher F-test [23–26]. This test is purposed to determine the relationship between the response variable and a subset of the independent variables.

180

Characterization of liquid fuel

181 182 183 184 185 186

Density, specific gravity, viscosity, conradson carbon, flash point, fire point, pour point, cloud point, calorific value, sulphur content and cetane index of the liquid fuel was determined using the standard test methods. FTIR of the pyrolysis liquid fuel obtained at optimized condition was done in a Perkin-Elmer Fourier transformed infrared spectrophotometer with a resolution

of 4 cm1, in the range of 400–4000 cm1 using Nujol mull as reference. GC/MS-QP 2010 SHIMADZU, equipped with flame ionization and mass spectrometry detection (GC-FID–MS) was used to determine the chemical compounds present in the liquid fuel. A capillary column coated with a 0.25 mm film of DB-5 with length of 30 m and diameter 0.25 mm was used. The GC was equipped with a split injector at 200 8C with a split ratio of 1:10. Helium gas of 99.995% purity was used as carrier gas at flow rate of 1.51 ml min1. The oven initial temperature was set to 70 8C for 2 min and then increased to 300 8C at a rate of 10 8C min1 and maintained for 7 min. All the compounds were identified by means of the NIST library. Mass spectrometer was operated at an interface temperature of 240 8C with ion source temperature of 200 8C of range 40–1000 m/z.

187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200

Results and discussion

201

Characterization of raw material and catalyst modification

202

The ultimate or elemental analysis of waste HDPE is shown in Table 3. The oxygen is 5.19% in the ultimate analysis of waste HDPE. The oxygen in the waste HDPE sample may not be due to the fillers but rather to other ingredients that are added to the resin in the manufacturing of HDPE. Calorific value of waste HDPE was

203 204 205 206 207

Table 3

Q2 Ultimate or elemental analysis of waste HDPE. Sample

C (wt%)

H (wt%)

N (wt%)

S (wt%)

O (wt%)

Cl (wt%)

GCV (MJ/kg)

Waste HDPE Mixed plastics [20]

80.58 79.9

13.98 12.6

0.60 –

0.080 –

5.19 5.10

– 1.13

45.78 44.40

Table 4 XRF analysis and acidity of parent and acid treated kaolin clay. Material

Chemical content (% weight) SiO2

Al2O3

MgO

CaO

K2O

ZnO

TiO2

V2O5

KC KC KC KC KC KC

43.12 48.80 56.42 45.83 44.03 56.14

46.07 37.61 27.88 41.51 43.81 29.30

0.027 0.016 0.02 Nil 0.026 0.070

0.030 0.017 0.008 0.01 0.017 0.186

0.010 0.01 0.008 0.007 0.01 0.017

0.0064 0.0064 0.0064 0.0064 0.0065 0.0064

0.74 0.26 0.23 0.44 0.20 0.12

0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.003 Nil

(HCl) (HNO3) (H3PO4) (CH3COOH) (NaOH)

Si/Al ratio

Acidity (mmol/g)

0.82 1.144 1.782 0.972 0.885 1.688

0.049 0.225 0.341 0.114 0.109 0.112


G Model


208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242

45.78 MJ/kg. From the comparison of waste HDPE with mixed plastic waste [27] in Table 3, it was found that the carbon and hydrogen percentage and gross calorific value (GCV) are more in waste HDPE as compared to mixed plastic waste. Mixed plastic waste contained 1.13% of chlorine which was not found in case of waste HDPE. The chemical composition of the catalyst (kaolin clay and modified kaolin clay after acid treatment) was determined by the X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis. Table 4 shows the results of chemical analysis of the parent kaolin clay and acid treated kaolin clay. The parent kaolin clay contains alumina and silica which are in major quantities where as other oxides such as magnesium oxide, calcium oxide, potassium oxide, zinc oxide and titanium oxide are present in trace amounts. After acid treatment, it was observed that the composition of the parent kaolin clay changes significantly. The Al2O3, MgO, CaO and K2O contents in the acid treated kaolin clay decreased progressively after the acid treatment of pure kaolin clay. Simultaneously, SiO2 content increased after acid treatment of pure kaolin clay due to which the Si/Al ratio increased. The alumina content in the acid treated kaolin clay decreased due to the leaching of the Al3+ ions from the octahedral layer under acidic conditions by hydrolysis. The relative amount of the acid sites of the samples was evaluated by thermal desorption of ammonia. Ammonia is a strong base (pKb 5) that reacts even with extremely weak acid sites, which therefore makes NH3-TPD a useful technique for evaluating the relative amount of acid sites present on a surface. The acidity of the acid treated kaolin clay is summarized in Table 4. The acidity of the kaolin clay is 0.049 mmol/g which increases to 0.109 mmol/g, 0.112 mmol/g and 0.114 mmol/g, 0.225 mmol/g and 0.341 mmol/ g by treating it with 3 M acetic acid, sodium hydroxide, phosphoric acid, hydrochloric acid and nitric acid respectively followed by calcination at 650 8C. The increase of acidity is due to creation of specific acid sites on the surface of silica generated due to leaching [28].

243

Optimization study of liquid fuel yield

244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253

Response surface methodology simulation focused on effect of reactor temperature, catalyst to feed ratio and acidity of catalysts on yields of liquid fuel in a semi batch reactor for present study. Three effective parameters (temperature, catalysts to feed ratio and acidity of catalyst) were selected in this study with each parameter being evaluated at five different points. Each point was investigated to select the points that produced the largest volume of pyrolytic liquid. The temperatures were varied in 25 8C increments from 400 8C to 500 8C, the acidities of catalysts were varied in range of 0.109, 0.112, 0.114, 0.225 and 0.341 and the

80 70

Predicted Liquid Yield (%)

4

2

R = 0.995

60 50 40 30 20 10 10

20

30 40 50 60 70 Observed Liquid Yield (%)

80

Fig. 1. Plot of observed versus predicted values.

ratios of different catalysts to waste HDPE were 1:2, 1:4 and 1:6 in this optimization study. A maximum liquid fuel yield response was obtained using optimization by RSM. Coefficients of the liquid fuel yield model proposed in Eq. (1) were estimated using multiple regression analysis in the RSM. The coded factor model developed to fit a quadratic model is represented in Eq. (2), where Y is yield of pyrolytic liquid, T is temperature, A is acidity, and CR is catalyst to feed ratio. Y ¼ 3134:40 þ 14:08ðTÞ 88:32ðAÞ þ 25:66ðCRÞ 0:22ðT 2 Þ þ 303:35ðA2 Þ 3:28ðCR2 Þ

(2)

The above regression model explains perfectly the experimental range studied, as can be seen from the comparison of the graphical representation of observed versus predicted values (Fig. 1). The observed wt% of liquid yield varied between 16.1% and 78.9%, and the model prediction matched these observational results satisfactorily. The results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) for yield ‘ Y’ were summarized in Table 5. The analysis showed that the p-value (less than 0.05) as a statistic test indicated that the model terms are significant. In this case, T, A, T2, A2 and CR2 are significant model terms. The parameter having the most significant effect on pyrolytic liquid yield is the acidity ( A) since the p-value of A is the smallest in value compared to other conditions. The optimum condition for maximum liquid fuel yield is 78.0 wt% at the 0.341 acidity value and 1:4 catalyst to

Table 5 ANOVA for liquid fuel yield model. Source

Degree of freedom (df)

Sum of squares (SS)

Mean Square (MS)

F-value

p-Value

Regression Linear T A CR Square T*T A*A CR*CR Residual error Lack-of-fit Pure error

6 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 13 8 5

10,855.8 394.3 68.6 312.5 13.2 10,461.5 9986 2.2 473.2 46.3 32.8 13.5

1809.3 3458.9 4205.53 18.83 445.07 3487.15 4240.47 45.82 473.24 3.56 4.11 2.69

507.83 970.84 1180.41 5.29 124.92 978.77 1190.22 12.86 132.83 – 1.52 –

0 0 0 0.039 0 0 0 0.003 0 – 0.334* –

Total S = 1.88753

19 R2 = 0.9958

10,902.1 R2 (pred) = 0.9881

–

– R2(adj) = 0.9938

–

*

254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261

Insignificant (p-value > 0.05).


264 262 263 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277

G Model


5

Fig. 2. (a) 3D response surface plot showing the effect of acidity and reaction temperature on liquid yield, (b) 3D response surface plot showing the effect of catalyst ratio and reaction temperature on liquid yield, (c) 2D contour plot showing the effect of acidity and reaction temperature on liquid yield, (d) 2D contour plot showing the effect of catalyst ratio and reaction temperature on liquid yield

waste HDPE ratio from the predicted model. At this optimum condition, the observed liquid fuel yield is 78.9% experimentally. Furthermore, the model developed also shows a high determination coefficient of R 2 (0.995), indicating a close fit of the model to the actual data.

283

Surface plots and contour plots of optimization

284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297

The interaction effects were analyzed using 3D response surface plots. From Fig. 2(a), it has been observed that yield of liquid fuel increases with increase in temperature from 400 8C to 450 8C and decreases with further increase in temperature from 450 8C to 500 8C due to the formation of more noncondensable gaseous/ volatile fractions by rigorous cracking at higher temperature. Yield of liquid fuel increases with use of different catalyst of increasing acidity due to the increase in the acid centers which is mainly responsible for cracking process [29]. Fig. 2(b) shows that yield of liquid fuel increases with increase in catalyst to feed ratio from 1:2 to 1:4 and decreases with further increase in ratio from 1:4 to 1:6 due to increase in rate of reaction and formation of wax like product. Fig. 2(c) and (d) shows 2D contour plots for effect of catalyst ratio ‘CR’ and temperature ‘T’ on liquid yield ‘Y’ and effect of acidity

120 100 80

%T

278 279 280 281 282

1639

60

966 722

40 1461

20 0 4000

2956

3000

2000

1000

cm-1 Fig. 3. FT-IR spectrometry of liquid fuel obtained at optimized condition by catalytic pyrolysis of waste HDPE.


G Model


6

Table 6 GC–MS analysis of liquid fuel obtained at optimized condition by catalytic pyrolysis of waste HDPE.

298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305

Table 7 Physical properties of liquid fuel obtained by catalytic pyrolysis of waste HDPE at optimized condition.

R. time (min.)

Area%

Name of compound

Molecular formula

Tests

Results obtained

Test method

6.301 6.408 6.450 8.110 8.241 9.733 9.854 11.223 11.332 12.607 12.706 13.900 13.990 15.122 15.202 16.278 16.350 17.374 17.439 18.474 19.461 20.404 21.307 23.003 23.801

1.64 1.36 1.59 3.04 2.22 3.48 3.11 2.83 4.80 2.33 5.79 2.06 6.52 3.61 7.44 2.73 8.07 2.19 7.87 6.70 5.97 4.54 3.64 1.84 4.62

1-Decene 2-Methyl-2-Nonene Decane n-1-Undecene n-Undecane 1-Dodecene n-Dodecane 1-Tridecene Tridecane 1-Tetradecene Tetradecane 1-Pentadecene Pentadecane 1-Hexadecene n-Hexadecane 1-Octadecene n-Heptadecane 1-Octadecene n-Octadecane Nonadecane Eicosane n-Heneicosane Docosane n-Tetracosane Pentacosane

C10H20 C10H20 C10H22 C11H22 C11H24 C12H24 C12H26 C13H26 C13H28 C14H28 C14H30 C15H30 C15H32 C16H32 C16H34 C18H36 C17H36 C18H36 C18H38 C19H40 C20H42 C21H44 C22H46 C24H50 C25H52

Specific gravity @ 15 8C/15 8C Density @ 15 8C in kg/cc Kinematic viscosity @ 40 8C in Cst Kinematic viscosity @ 100 8C in Cst Conradson carbon residue Flash point by Abel method Fire point Cloud point Pour point Gross calorific value in MJ/kg Sulphur content Calculated cetane index (CCI) Distillation: Initial boiling point Final boiling point

0.7906 0.7900 2.1 1.0 200

43 53–80 100–170 90–180

321 322 323 324

alkenes and the C–H bending vibrations at frequency 722 cm1 indicates the presence of phenyl ring substitution bands [30]. The results were found consistent when compared with the results of GC–MS.

325

GC–MS of the oil sample

326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336

The GC –MS analysis of the liquid fuel sample obtained by catalytic pyrolysis of waste HDPE was carried out to know the compounds present in the fuel (Fig. 4) and is summarized in Table 6. It has been observed that the pyrolytic oil contains around 25 compounds. Taking into account of area percentage, the highest peak areas of total ion chromatogram (TIC) of the compounds were n-heptadecane, n-octadecane, n-hexadecane, nonadecane, pentadecane, eicosane, tetradecane and tridecane. The components present in waste HDPE liquid fuel are mostly the aliphatic hydrocarbons (alkanes and alkenes) with carbon number C10 –C25.

337

Physical properties of oil sample

338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356

Table 7 shows the results of physical property analysis of liquid fuel obtained from catalytic pyrolysis of waste HDPE at optimized condition. The appearance of the oil is dark yellowish free from visible sediments. From comparison with other transportation fuels as shown in Table 8, the density and viscosity of liquid product can be modified by blending it with commercial transportation fuels. The flash point of the liquid product is in a comparable range and a pour point is minus 1 8C which will not cause any trouble in most of the regions but in colder regions with sub-zero climates it may lead to freezing problems. Liquid fuel obtained by catalytic pyrolysis of waste HDPE has GCV of 40 MJ/kg which is in the range of gasoline and diesel; therefore this liquid product would perform relatively well in engines. From the distillation report of the oil it is observed that, the boiling range of the liquid fuel is 58–376 8C, which infers the presence of mixture of different oil components such as gasoline, kerosene and diesel in the oil. From this result, it is observed these could be possible feedstock for further upgrading or use of lighter compounds as a diesel fuel.

357

Conclusion

358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368

The optimization of three experimental parameters (reaction temperature, acidity of modified catalysts and catalysts to plastic ratio) to maximize liquid fuel yield was achieved by response surface methodology (RSM). An optimization process with reduced number of costly experiments was successfully attained by RSM. The optimized value of experimental variables were 450 8C, 0.341 and 1:4 for reaction temperature, acidity of catalyst and catalyst to waste HDPE ratio respectively to produce maximum liquid fuel yield of 78.7%. The obtained quadratic model fits well to predict the response with a high determination coefficient of R2 (0.995). The liquid fuel obtained by catalytic

1 40 40 to 1 3 to 19 –

GCV (MJ/kg)

40.17 42–46 42–45 37–40 40

IBP (8C)

FBP (8C)

Chemical formula

58

376

C10–C25

27 172 315 –

225 350 350 –

C4–C12 C8–C25 C12–C22 –

pyrolysis of waste HDPE at optimized condition consists of petroleum products range hydrocarbons (C10 –C25) with high heating value (40.17 MJ/kg).

369 370 371

References

372

[1] S. Kumar, A.K. Panda, R.K. Singh, A review on tertiary recycling of high-density polyethylene to fuel, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (2011) 893–910. [2] S. Kumar, R.K. Singh, Recovery of hydrocarbon liquid from waste high density polyethylene by thermal pyrolysis, Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 28 (4) (2011) 659–667. [3] S. Kumar, R.K. Singh, Thermolysis of high-density polyethylene to petroleum products, J. Petrol. Eng. 2013 (2013) 987568. [4] M.D. Wallis, S.K. Bhatia, Thermal degradation of high density polyethylene in a reactive extruder, Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 92 (2007) 1721–1729. [5] J.A. Consea, R. Font, A. Marcilla, A.N. Garcia, Pyrolysis of polyethylene in a fluidized bed reactor, Energy Fuels 8 (1994) 1238–1246. [6] J. Walendziewski, M. Steininger, Thermal and catalytic conversion of waste polyolefins, Catal. Today 65 (2001) 323–330. [7] P.L. Beltrame, P. Carniti, G. Audisio, F. Bertini, Catalytic degradation of polymers: Part II – degradation of polyethylene, Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 26 (1989) 209–220. [8] Y.H. Seo, K.H. Lee, D.H. Shin, Investigation of catalytic degradation of high-density polyethylene by hydrocarbon group type analysis, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 70 (2003) 383–398. [9] R. Bagri, P.T. Williams, Catalytic pyrolysis of polyethylene, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 63 (2002) 29–41. [10] P.B. Venuto, E.T. Habib, Fluid Catalytic Cracking with Zeolite Catalysts, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 1979. [11] P.N. Sharratt, Y.H. Lin, A.A. Garforth, J. Dwyer, Investigation of the catalytic pyrolysis of high-density polyethylene over a HZSM-5 catalyst in a laboratory fluidized-bed reactor, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 36 (5) (1997) 118–124. [12] J.W. Park, J.H. Kim, G. Seo, The effect of pore shape on the catalytic performance of zeolites in the liquid-phase degradation of HDPE, Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 76 (2002) 495–501. [13] N. Miskolczi, L. Bartha, Investigation of hydrocarbon fractions form waste plastic recycling by FTIR, GC, EDXRFS and SEC techniques, J. Biochem. Biophys. Methods 70 (2008) 1247–1253. [14] A.K. Panda, R.K. Singh, Catalytic performances of kaoline and silica alumina in the thermal degradation of polypropylene, J. Fuel Chem. Technol. 39 (3) (2011) 198–202. [15] A.K. Panda, R.K. Singh, D.K. Mishra, Thermo-catalytic degradation of thermocol waste to value added liquid products, Asian J. Chem. 24 (12) (2012) 5539– 5542. [16] L. Istadi, Buchori, Suherman, Plastic waste conversion to liquid fuels over modified-residual catalytic cracking catalysts: modeling and optimization using hybrid artificial neural network-genetic algorithm, Reaktor 13 (3) (2011) 131–139. [17] F. Pinto, F. Paradela, I. Gulyurtlu, A.M. Ramos, Prediction of liquid yields from the pyrolysis of waste mixtures using response surface methodology, Fuel Process. Technol. 116 (2013) 271–283. [18] M. Miranda, F. Pinto, I. Gulyurtlu, I. Cabrita, C.A. Nogueira, A. Matos, Response surface methodology optimization applied to rubber tyre and plastic wastes thermal conversion, Fuel 89 (2010) 2217–2229. [19] Q. Xiong, S.C. Kong, A. Passalacqua, Development of a generalized numerical framework for simulating biomass fast pyrolysis in fluidized-bed reactors, Chem. Eng. Sci. 99 (2013) 305–313. [20] W.N.A. Wan Nadhari, R. Hashim, O. Sulaiman, M. Sato, T. Sugimoto, M.E. Selamat, Utilization of oil palm trunk waste for manufacturing of binderless particleboard: optimization study, BioResources 8 (2) (2013) 1675–1696. [21] J. Kumar, A. Bansal, Photocatalytic degradation in annular reactor: modelization and optimization using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and response surface methodology (RSM), J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 1 (2013) 398–405. [22] T.K. Dora, Y.K. Mohanty, G.K. Roy, B. Sarangi, Adsorption studies of As(III) from wastewater with a novel adsorbent in a three-phase fluidized bed by using response surface method, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 1 (2013) 150–158. [23] D.C. Montgomery, Design Analysis of Experiments, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2001. [24] G.M. Clarke, R.E. Kempson, Introduction to the Design and Analysis of Experiments, Arnold, London, 1997.

373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435


G Model

JECE 226 1–8 8

436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443

S. Kumar, R.K. Singh / Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

[25] J.A. Cornell, How to Apply Response Surface Methodology, American Society for Quality Control, Wisconsin, 1990. [26] G.E.P. Box, W.G. Hunter, J.S. Hunter, Statistics for Experimenters: An Introduction to Design, Data Analysis, and Model Building, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1978 . [27] M.H. Cho, S.H. Jung, J.S. Kim, Pyrolysis of mixed plastic wastes for the recovery of benzene, toluene and xylene (BTX) aromatics in a fluidized bed and chlorine removal by applying various additives, Energy Fuels 24 (2010) 1389–1395.

[28] S. Kumar, A.K. Panda, R.K. Singh, Preparation and characterization of acid and alkali treated kaolin clay, Bull. Chem. React. Eng. Catal. 8 (1) (2013) 61–69. [29] K. Takuma, Y. Uemichi, A. Ayame, Product distribution from catalytic degradation of polyethylene over H-gallosilicate, Appl. Catal. A: Gen. 192 (2000) 273–280. [30] S. Kumar, R. Prakash, S. Murugan, R.K. Singh, Performance, emission analysis of blends of waste plastic oil obtained by catalytic pyrolysis of waste HDPE with diesel in a CI engine, Energy Convers. Manage. 74 (2013) 323–331.


444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451