168
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0
shares
    • Review: found
    Is Open Access

    Review of 'Elemental and Thermogravimetric Analysis of Plastic-Paper Composites as Refuse-derived Fuels for Energy Generation.'

    AUTHOR
    Bookmark
    3
    Elemental and Thermogravimetric Analysis of Plastic-Paper Composites as Refuse-derived Fuels for Energy Generation.Crossref
    Average rating:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Level of importance:
        Rated 2 of 5.
    Level of validity:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Level of completeness:
        Rated 2 of 5.
    Level of comprehensibility:
        Rated 4 of 5.
    Competing interests:
    None

    Reviewed article

    • Record: found
    • Abstract: found
    • Article: found
    Is Open Access

    Elemental and Thermogravimetric Analysis of Plastic-Paper Composites as Refuse-derived Fuels for Energy Generation.

    Waste generation in Nigerian cities continue to rise with increasing population. Where and how to effectively and efficiently channel these wastes remains a serious challenge for the nation. In this study, plastic and paper waste samples were collected – as received, dried and sorted manually into sub-fractions, pulverized and homogenized in prescribed mixing ratio by weight, and compacted into briquettes. The elemental analysis to determine the carbon (C), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), sulphur (S), and oxygen (O) content of the samples was carried out in accordance with ASTM D3176-15 standard using an element analyzer. While, thermogravimetric tests were performed on the samples in a thermal analyser according to IUPAC procedure. The results revealed that; plastic –paper composite samples in the group exhibited a lower elemental carbon and hydrogen than the pure (PL100) plastic benchmark; the tested composite samples displayed a comparably higher presence of elemental oxygen, with exception of the composite sample with 25wt%. of paper; it was evident that plastic-paper composite samples with 25 wt%., 50wt%., and 75wt%. of paper exhibited 0.08 %, 0.04 %, and trace % increase in sulphur content, while for sample with 100wt%. of paper showed a decrease in elemental sulphur by 0.04wt%. Based on the peak temperature at the maximum weight loss rate indicating sample combustibility, samples PL100 with DTG peak temperatures (417.08- 474.62 o C), PL50+PA50 (383.27- 441.47 o C) and PL75+PA25 (373.70- 426.41 o C) are more combustible than samples PL5+PA95 (322.52+ 402.05 o C) and PA100 (367.48 o C), and would be recommended for use as refuse-derived fuel for on account of their energy recovery potentials.
      Bookmark

      Review information

      10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-ENG.AP4S0BD.v1.RZUPPK
      This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

      Engineering
      peak temperature,thermogravimetric analysis,Plastic-paper composites,Plastic- paper composites, elemental analysis, thermogravimetric analysis, peak temperature.,elemental analysis

      Review text

      Please provide full affiliation, including country of origin.

      Abstract,

      For clarity and scientific rigor, include the samples acronyms before providing their results samples with 25 wt%. (PL75+PA25) and so on.

      Introduction

      Could you provide more recent data for your waste composition in Table 1? FMEnv (2004) is nearly 20 years old information.

      Materials and Methods

      Include caption for figures in section 2.1 and number it accordingly in a crescent order with the rest of the manuscript’s figures.

      Table 1 should be named Table 2.

      Figures in section 2.3 must also be captioned and numbered.

      Results and Discussions

      Values in Figure 1 are not clearly distinguished and as exact figures to the second decimal number are not visible on the axis.

      Would you expect a different result than plastic having the highest Carbon content? And why?

      Anonymous authors are not acceptable in scientific publication, refer to another study.

      Again sulfur content values are not visible in Figure 1 and the extremely low quantities can be questioned as instrument variability, can you provide the sensibility of the equipment used to analyse the samples and include them in Materials and Methods?

      Subsections in this section should be renamed as 3.1, 3.2, etc. and not i, ii, etc.

      Is there any particular reason to include the stages of coal oxidation? How relevant is this information to this study on Paper/Plastic? 

      Can you recheck the temperatures for polymers degradation in air and inert gas, 300C and 500C respectively?

      How do you relate the samples’ chemical composition to their thermal behaviour? This should be better discussed in the manuscript and possibly a sentence included in conclusions and abstract sections.

      Comments

      I am indeed delighted by your thorough review of the paper manuscript. I have perused throught the paper and made the necessary corrections as instructed . I want to thank you for the painstaking effort you made to improve the quality of the paper.

       

      REVIEWERS COMMENTS AND AUTHOR’S RESPONSE

       

      Please provide full affiliation, including country of origin. Noted and corrected.

      Abstract,

      For clarity and scientific rigor, include the samples acronyms before providing their results samples with 25 wt%. (PL75+PA25) and so on. Noted and corrected.

       

      Introduction

      Could you provide more recent data for your waste composition in Table 1? FMEnv (2004) is nearly 20 years old information. Noted and corrected

       

      Materials and Methods

      Include caption for figures in section 2.1 and number it accordingly in a crescent order with the rest of the manuscript’s figures. Noted and corrected

      Table 1 should be named Table 2. Noted and corrected

      Figures in section 2.3 must also be captioned and numbered. Noted and corrected

       

      Results and Discussions

      Values in Figure 1 are not clearly distinguished and as exact figures to the second decimal number are not visible on the axis. Noted and corrected.

      Would you expect a different result than plastic having the highest Carbon content? And why? Yes. Because plastic has a high carbon footprint- perhaps as high fossil fuel

      Anonymous authors are not acceptable in scientific publication, refer to another study. Noted and corrected

      Again sulfur content values are not visible in Figure 1 and the extremely low quantities can be questioned as instrument variability, can you provide the sensibility of the equipment used to analyse the samples and include them in Materials and Methods? Even though instrument variability could impact negatively on the outcome of the Sulphur content reading, the result of Sulphur content obtained from this study are not very different from what obtains from polymeric material as shown from literature.  

      Subsections in this section should be renamed as 3.1, 3.2, etc. and not i, ii, etc. Noted and corrected

      Is there any particular reason to include the stages of coal oxidation? How relevant is this information to this study on Paper/Plastic? – Not necessary, and the stages of coal oxidation has been expunged.

      Can you recheck the temperatures for polymers degradation in air and inert gas, 300C and 500C respectively? – It has been rechecked and the thermal behavior are somewhat the same.

       

      How do you relate the samples’ chemical composition to their thermal behavior? This should be better discussed in the manuscript and possibly a sentence included in conclusions and abstract section-

      Specifically, the relatively high molecular weight and long polymer chain length result in entanglement, and the lack of covalent intermolecular bonds facilitates polymer chain mobility.

       

       

      2022-09-12 23:42 UTC
      +1

      Comment on this review

      Version and Review History