Affiliation:
1. Department of Production Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Design, Kaunas University of Technology, LT-51424 Kaunas, Lithuania
2. Lithuanian Energy Institute, Laboratory of Energy Systems Research, Breslaujos 3, LT-44403 Kaunas, Lithuania
3. Lithuanian Energy Institute, Laboratory of Combustion Processes, Breslaujos 3, LT-44403 Kaunas, Lithuania
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, more than 24 billion pieces of surgical mask waste (WM) were generated in the EU region, with an acute shortage of their management and recycling. Pyrolysis and gasification are among the most promising treatments that were proposed to dispose of WMs and convert them into pyrolysis oil and hydrogen-rich syngas. This work aimed to investigate the techno-economic analysis (TEA) of both treatments in order to assess the feasibility of scaling up. The TEA was carried out using a discounted cash flow model and its data were collected from practical experiments conducted using a fluidised bed pyrolysis reactor and bubbling fluidised bed gasifier system with a capacity of 0.2 kg/h and 1 kg/h, respectively, then upscaling to one tonne/h. The technological evaluation was made based on the optimal conditions that could produce the maximum amount of pyrolysis oil (42.3%) and hydrogen-rich syngas (89.7%). These treatments were also compared to the incineration of WMs as a commercial solution. The discounted payback, simple payback, net present value (NPV), production cost, and internal rate of return (IRR) were the main indicators used in the economic feasibility analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed using SimLab software with the help of Monte Carlo simulations. The results showed that the production cost of the main variables was estimated at 45.4 EUR/t (gate fee), 71.7 EUR/MWh (electricity), 30.5 EUR/MWh (heat), 356 EUR/t (oil), 221 EUR/t (gaseous), 237 EUR/t (char), and 257 EUR/t (syngas). Meanwhile, the IRR results showed that gasification (12.51%) and incineration (7.56%) have better economic performance, while pyrolysis can produce less revenue (1.73%). Based on the TEA results, it is highly recommended to use the gasification process to treat WMs, yielding higher revenue.
Funder
European Regional Development Fund
Research Council of Lithuania
Subject
Energy (miscellaneous),Energy Engineering and Power Technology,Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment,Electrical and Electronic Engineering,Control and Optimization,Engineering (miscellaneous),Building and Construction
Reference57 articles.
1. The face behind the COVID-19 mask—A comprehensive review;Ganesapillai;Environ. Technol. Innov.,2022
2. Production of value-added aromatics from wasted COVID-19 mask via catalytic pyrolysis;Lee;Environ. Pollut.,2021
3. An eco-friendly strategy for recovery of H2-CH4-rich syngas, benzene-rich tar and carbon nanoparticles from surgical mask waste using an updraft gasifier system;Eimontas;Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util. Environ. Eff.,2023
4. An overview of filtration efficiency through the masks: Mechanisms of the aerosols penetration;Tcharkhtchi;Bioact. Mater.,2020
5. Microplastics waste in environment: A perspective on recycling issues from PPE kits and face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic;Ray;Environ. Technol. Innov.,2022
Cited by
13 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献