See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/200702806

Thermal Plasma Waste Treatment

Article  in  Journal of Physics D Applied Physics · March 2008

DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/41/5/053001

CITATIONS READS

183 7,794

2 authors, including:

Anthony Bruce Murphy

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
288 PUBLICATIONS   7,083 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ball Lightning View project

Biologically active surfaces View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anthony Bruce Murphy on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IOP PUBLISHING JOURNAL OF PHYSICS D: APPLIED PHYSICS
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001 (20pp) doi:10.1088/0022-3727/41/5/053001

TOPICAL REVIEW

Thermal plasma waste treatment

Joachim Heberlein1 and Anthony B Murphy2
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
2
CSIRO Industrial Physics, PO Box 218, Lindfield NSW 2070, Australia

Received 5 July 2004, in final form 1 November 2007

Published 14 February 2008
Online at stacks.iop.org/JPhysD/41/053001

Abstract
Plasma waste treatment has over the past decade become a more prominent technology
because of the increasing problems with waste disposal and because of the realization of
opportunities to generate valuable co-products. Plasma vitrification of hazardous slags has
been a commercial technology for several years, and volume reduction of hazardous wastes
using plasma processes is increasingly being used. Plasma gasification of wastes with low
negative values has attracted interest as a source of energy and spawned process developments
for treatment of even municipal solid wastes. Numerous technologies and approaches exist for
plasma treatment of wastes. This review summarizes the approaches that have been developed,
presents some of the basic physical principles, provides details of some specific processes and
considers the advantages and disadvantages of thermal plasmas in waste treatment applications.
(Some figures in this article are in colour only in the electronic version)

1. Introduction the ancillary components. Additionally, inaccurate if not false

Treatment of waste has become one of the central problems
of our age, as traditional waste repositories, such as landfills
and ocean dumpsites, become less and less available. Many
countries have introduced tight regulations that restrict
dumping in landfills. Since many types of waste are
combustible, incineration has been increasingly used for
reduction of the waste; however, high off-gas flow rates and
the consequent high cost of off-gas clean-up, as well as the
production of residues containing hazardous materials, mean
that incineration does not offer a complete answer to the waste
problem. Furthermore, many wastes have a low heating value,
and their combustion requires additional sources of fuel.
Use of plasma for treatment of wastes has had a fascination
for many years because of the ability of the plasma to vaporize
anything and destroy any chemical bonds. However, ‘there is
a history of dishonesty regarding plasma arc technology (for
waste processing)’ (Wikipedia website on plasma arc waste
disposal). While this statement may be a bit too strong, it
does reflect a widespread opinion that plasma processes are
unreliable. This opinion has been fed by frequent exaggerated
claims by process inventors, who naively underestimated the
difficulties of scaling-up from a laboratory demonstration to
an entire treatment facility, in particular the interfacing with
statements about the capabilities of plasma processes have been
promulgated, undermining the credibility of the entire plasma
processing community. However, the fact is that numerous
plasma waste treatment installations have been in operation
for many years, and it is clear that prudent use of plasmas can
offer distinct advantages in waste treatment. The realization
that waste streams can be a source of energy, and that plasmas
can be useful to tap this source through controlled gasification
processes, has further increased the number of plasma process
developments.
The principal advantages that a plasma offers to treatment
processes are [1, 2]:
(a) high energy densities and high temperatures, characteris-
tics which allow:
• rapid heating and reactor start-up,
• high heat and reactant transfer rates,
• smaller installation size for a given waste throughput,
• melting of high temperature materials,
• high quench rates to obtain non-equilibrium
compositions or metastable materials, and
(b) use of electricity as the energy source, resulting in:
• decoupling of the heat generation from the oxygen
potential and the mass flow rate of the oxidant or air,

0022-3727/08/053001+20$30.00 1 © 2008 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK

J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001
• control of the processing environment,
• more options for the process chemistry,
• lower off-gas flow rates and consequently lower gas
cleaning costs,
• the possibility of producing saleable co-products.
In addition, increased process controllability and
flexibility, and smaller installation size, allow integration of
the waste treatment process into the manufacturing process.
The disadvantages associated with the plasma process,
besides the already mentioned (largely perceived) lack of
reliability, lie in the use of electricity, the most expensive form
of energy. Consequently, economic considerations provide the
strongest barrier for use of plasmas for waste treatment. This
topic is therefore addressed in a separate section.
In the following section, a description of the plasma
generation methods used in waste processing and of the
associated plasma characteristics is offered, and the advantages
of specific reactor designs are outlined. An overview of plasma
processes for waste treatment and a classification of waste
materials follows in section 3. This section is followed by a
review of specific process developments and the corresponding
installations, with section 4 devoted to treatment of gaseous
and liquid wastes and section 5 to treatment of solid wastes.
It is clear that only a fraction of the many processes available
can be described. Processes designed for recovery of materials
from processing wastes are briefly reviewed in section 6. Some
brief comments on economic aspects in section 7 lead to the
conclusions in section 8.
It must be emphasized that plasma treatment of off-
gases, including car engine exhausts, feed lot odours or other
exhausts with contaminants, is not described in this review.
These processes typically use glow, barrier or corona discharge
plasmas at low gas temperatures and require completely
different approaches. This review deals with so-called thermal
plasma treatments, i.e. with plasmas that, at least during their
generation process, are close to local thermal equilibrium. It
must also be mentioned that with more and more commercial
success, fewer publications have appeared describing new
developments, and one is largely dependent on information
transmitted at specialized conferences, through the internet and
through personal communications.
2. Description of plasma generating devices for
waste processing
Most thermal plasmas are generated by either an electric arc
or by a radio-frequency induction (rfi) discharge. In waste
treatment, arc plasmas dominate because they are relatively
insensitive to changes in process conditions.
The arc-generated plasma is used in two configurations:
a transferred arc where one of the electrodes is usually the
material to be treated and a non-transferred arc plasma, where
the arc is contained inside a plasma torch and the plasma jet
exiting the torch is used for processing [3]. In the transferred
arc configuration, the waste material is exposed to the arc
plasma which typically has peak temperatures of 12 000 to
over 20 000 K, depending on plasma gas, location in the arc
and the cooling of the arc. Minimal plasma gas flow rates
2
Topical Review
are required for the operation of such an arc, however, high
flow rates can be imposed. Transferred arc reactors exist for a
very wide range of power levels, ranging from a few hundred
watts to tens of megawatts. Transferred arcs can have multiple
rod electrodes. Such an arrangement allows (a) the arcing
between two rod electrodes for initial indirect heating of the
waste, (b) the establishment of multiple series arcs between
the electrodes and the waste material and (c) operation in ac or
three-phase mode.
In contrast, the non-transferred arc plasma torch provides
a plasma flow for treating the waste. The plasma exiting
the water-cooled plasma torch has peak temperatures of
10 000–14 000 K depending on the torch power level, the
plasma gas and the torch design. However, since the plasma is
decaying outside the torch, the material to be treated is usually
not exposed to these high temperatures, and ‘average’ values
are used for temperature and velocity of the plasma flow, i.e.
values based on the mass averaged enthalpy flow

R
2π ρvhrdr
have = o
, (1)
ṁ
where ρ, v and h are, respectively, the density, velocity and
enthalpy of the plasma jet, as functions of the radial position
r, R the channel radius and ṁ the total plasma gas mass flow
rate. The average enthalpy is easily determined from an energy
balance of the torch
ṁhave = I V − Qloss , (2)
where I is the arc current, V the arc voltage and Qloss the heat
lost to the plasma torch cooling water. Typically 10–30% of
the electric power is lost to the cooling water. The average
temperature is defined as the temperature corresponding to the
value of the average enthalpy, have = h(Tave ). The average
velocity is defined as
ṁ
vave = (3)
ρ(Tave )A
with A the cross-sectional area of the flow channel. Use
of these average quantities is somewhat attractive because
only current, voltage, plasma gas flow rate and cooling water
flow rate and temperature rise have to be measured and used
together with a table of the thermodynamic properties density
and enthalpy as a function of temperature. However, it has
to be kept in mind that the peak values of temperature and
velocity are typically more than twice the average values, and
for optimizing designs, in particular the mixing of reactants
with the plasma, more detailed calculations or measurements
are required giving temperature and velocity distributions in
the reactor. Power levels can range from a few hundred watts to
several mega watts and arc current, plasma gas and gas flow rate
and torch design determine the power level and the enthalpy
flow, i.e. the power that can be used for waste processing.
For processing applications where high heat fluxes and
high total heat flows are desired, the transferred arc reactor
offers advantages because a major fraction of the heat flux is
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001
associated with the current flow. For example, the heat flux to
the anode is given by
 
k  dTa dTe
qA = je φw + 2 + je Te − Ka − Ke
e σ dz dz
+ ji (xi − φw ) + Qrad , (4)
where je is the current density, φw the workfunction of
the anode material,  the thermodiffusion coefficient, σ
the electrical conductivity, k is Boltzmann’s constant, e the
electronic charge, Te and Ta are the electron and heavy particle
temperatures, respectively, Ke and Ka the electron and heavy
particle thermal conductivities, respectively, xi the ionization
energy of the plasma gas and Qrad the radiation transfer. The
first two terms are usually responsible for over 50% of the heat
transfer and the last three terms contribute usually less than
10% [4, 5].
In contrast, the heat transfer to the waste material from the
non-current carrying plasma jet can be determined using the
convective heat transfer relation
qp = hT (T0 − TS ) + Qrad , (5)
where hT is the heat transfer coefficient, T0 and Ts are the
temperatures of the plasma and of the solid, respectively.
The expression for the heat transfer coefficient as a function
of Reynolds and Prandtl numbers is dependent on the fluid
dynamic situation, i.e. if the heat transfer is to a dispersed
medium or to a surface in a stagnation flow arrangement [6,7].
Since the gas properties vary strongly in the thermal boundary
layer (in the case of molecular gases non-monotonically), the
use of properties at an average ‘film’ temperature between the
free stream and the surface temperatures can lead to wrong
results, and an average over an integral quantity should be
taken, e.g. for the thermal conductivity

T0
T K(T ) dT
K= s (6)
T0 − T s
to account for plasma reactions enhancing the heat transfer.
Numerous model descriptions exist for transferred arcs,
and the results in general are supported by experimental
findings except for some uncertainties in the electrode
regions. Non-transferred arc plasma torches have recently
been described by three-dimensional, time dependent models
[8–11] for configurations with a thermionic rod shaped cathode
and an anode nozzle, for a limited number of gases. The
results depict the unstable fluid dynamic behaviour of the
plasma flow. To our knowledge, no model exists describing
the arc behaviour inside a plasma torch where both electrodes
consist of tubular metal rings posed coaxially side by side,
with the plasma gas entering the arcing channel between the
electrodes.
Both arc configurations are used with either thermionic
rod type cathodes or with water-cooled tubular ‘cold’ cathodes.
Thermionic refractory cathodes show strong erosion behaviour
with oxidizing gases requiring special design features to
protect the hot surfaces. Cold cathodes can be used with
oxidizing gases, but have in general higher erosion rates. It
should be mentioned that the usual measure of erosion rate
3
Topical Review
in g/C is not a good indication of electrode wear with tubular
electrodes because local melting leads to a redistribution of
the electrode wall material and to regions where the wall is
thinned. Moving the arc attachment with swirl flow or with
a solenoidal magnetic field acting on the radial component of
the current limits the electrode wear. Development of special
electrode materials and designs have allowed to extend the
electrode lifetime for operation with air as plasma gas to well
over 1000 h. Use of argon as plasma gas can increase electrode
life even more.
Plasma torches or reactors operating with ac or three-phase
current were common 30 years ago in particular for transferred
arc reactors. However, the majority of newer installations use
dc because of (a) improved control over the arc position, and
(b) reduced or eliminated need for power factor correction and
filtering to avoid interaction with the electrical grid. One three-
phase torch development should be mentioned that has been
used for waste processing, the three-electrode non-transferred
plasma torch described by Rutberg [12, 13]. The electrodes
consist of water-cooled copper tubes, and movement of the arc
attachment using the self-magnetic field of the current in the
electrodes (rail gun effect) minimizes erosion.
The most frequently used plasma gas is air, for
economic reasons and for providing oxygen for reactions with
carbonaceous materials. Use of oxygen as the plasma gas
reduces the total gas flow in the reactor and the amount of
nitrogen, which can be advantageous in some applications.
Nitrogen and carbon dioxide are also used as plasma gas
because the higher arc voltages increase the jet power. A
similar effect can be obtained with steam plasmas; however,
the mixture of hydrogen, oxygen and OH radicals leads to
strong electrode erosion. Plasma torches operating with
steam, such as the development by the Czech Academy of
Sciences [14] or at the Tokyo Institute of Technology [15], offer
definite advantages for waste processing applications. Use of
argon as plasma gas provides long electrode life; however,
the low specific heat of argon results in relatively low torch
power levels and enthalpy fluxes of the gases leaving the
torch. Furthermore, reactive species such as oxygen atoms are
generated only indirectly through energy transfer from argon
to oxygen, and the relatively low thermal conductivity of argon
leads to low energy transfer rates.
Electrode erosion can be avoided by using a radio-
frequency induction plasma reactor. In this reactor, the plasma
is generated by a high frequency (typically 2–27 MHz) current
flowing in a coil surrounding the plasma chamber. The
induced electric field inside the chamber can drive a current
along a ring-shaped path inside the reactor generating the
plasma. Introduction of waste material into the rf plasma
torch requires careful optimization of the injection location
and of the gas flow rates. Injection of waste material into
the plasma jet is less problematic, however, rf torches are not
quite as flexible with regard to plasma gas flow rates and torch
power as arc plasma torches. Also, torch heating efficiencies
are usually lower. Radio-frequency plasma torches have
been used for destruction of hazardous liquids injected into
the torch.
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001
3. Overview of approaches for plasma treatment of
different types of wastes
Plasmas can provide high heat fluxes at high temperatures and
high fluxes of reactive species. Plasma treatment can consist
of the following approaches.
(a) Plasma pyrolysis, i.e. thermal breakdown of chemical
components without oxidation.
(b) Plasma gasification, i.e. incomplete oxidation of organic
components of the waste and generation of a combustible
gas, typically a mixture of carbon monoxide with
hydrogen (syn-gas) with possibly some other gases
included; this gas can be used for generation of hydrogen,
for combustion in gas engines to generate electric power,
or for heating steam to drive a steam turbine.
(c) Plasma compaction and vitrification of solid wastes by
gasifying organic material, melting inorganic material
eliminating voids and binding hazardous metals in a
ceramic matrix (e.g. a silicate) by adding appropriate
fluxes; high plasma temperatures allow melting of high
temperature fluxes resulting in vitrified ceramics with low
leach rates.
(d) Combinations of (a) and (c) or of (b) and (c), particular
for solids with high fractions of organics.
Wastes are usually classified according to the form in which
they appear and according to the hazardous material content.
Following is a frequently used list of different waste materials:
• Hazardous liquids and gases, including PCB-containing
oils, chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs) and various widely
used solvents. Most of these fluids, with the exception of
CFCs, have relatively high heating values; however, their
incineration can lead to the formation of other hazardous
products because of the presence of halogens.
• Municipal solid waste (MSW), the largest waste stream,
usually with low levels of contaminants, traditionally
deposed of in landfills. However, limitations on landfill
use have necessitated use of volume reduction methods.
Incineration is widely used because of the heating value
of the waste.
• Hospital solid waste (HSW), with a wide range of
contaminated material. The high heating values favour
incineration.
• Incinerator residues, i.e. bottom ash and fly ash, frequently
containing heavy metals as contaminants.
• Contaminated soil, usually with hazardous organic
materials.
• Sewage sludge waste (SSW) and other sludge wastes,
with a range of organic contaminants, and high moisture
content.
• Low level radioactive waste (LLRW), ranging from
contaminated structural materials to clothing.
• Military waste and other ‘problem’ wastes, ranging from
nerve gas ordinance to asbestos materials.
• Manufacturing wastes that lend themselves to materials
recovery, such as electric arc furnace (EAF) dusts and
aluminium dross.
4
Topical Review
• Recovery of valuable materials from waste, e.g. platinum
from discarded exhaust catalysts.
For the purpose of selecting the optimal treatment process,
a further classification can be made according to the waste
composition:
(1) Wastes with high concentration of organic materials with
high heating values; recovery of this heating value in the
form of synthesis gas (syn-gas) using a plasma process is
an attractive alternative to complete combustion and steam
generation.
(2) Wastes with high concentration of halogen, e.g. including
most of the plastic materials; these require higher
temperature treatment and quenching, and it is more
difficult to obtain a saleable co-product.
(3) Inorganic solid materials which can be treated for
reclamation of valuable components or can be reduced
in volume through melting or can be oxidized and
immobilized in a non-leaching slag.
Specific issues are associated with some of these classes.
Hazardous liquids and gases are relatively easy to pyrolyze
with a plasma. However, emission of hazardous exhaust gases
must be controlled (these hazardous exhausts can include gases
that contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer and to
global warming). Rapid quenching of the exhaust gases is
usually employed for controlling the product composition.
Furthermore, since these wastes usually contain halogens it
is difficult to obtain saleable co-products, and the economics
are usually unfavourable, and waste treatment processes are
generally only implemented if required by regulations. On
the other hand, plasmas may provide reactants that can lead
to favourable process chemistries, such as atomic oxygen and
hydrogen or hydroxyl radicals, which minimizes the formation
of hazardous co-products. Furthermore, flow rates of exhaust
gases are much lower in plasma processes, reducing the cost
of off-gas treatment. Lastly, plasma installations can work
efficiently with a rather small size, thus allowing transport
of the installation to waste sites and avoiding transport of
hazardous materials. Because plasma pyrolysis requires good
mixing of the waste with the plasma and usually does not
require high heat fluxes, non-transferred plasma torches are
mostly used as plasma sources. Of all waste treatment
processes, plasma pyrolysis has seen the most extensive
fundamental studies, with CFD calculation of the plasma flow
in the reaction chamber combined with chemical reaction
calculations. A summary of this work is provided in section 4
of this review.
For contaminated solid wastes, decontamination is desired
in conjunction with volume reduction and immobilization of
inorganic contaminants. The high heat fluxes available in
transferred arc reactors provide advantages for melting of
solids, and most solid waste treatment approaches use some
form of transferred arc reactor. Exceptions are, among others,
the approaches pursued by Westinghouse and by Europlasma,
in which non-transferred plasma torches provide some of the
process heat for waste processing furnaces, with much of the
process energy provided by the heating value of the waste or by
the addition of coke. Another exception is the shipboard waste
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001
treatment reactor provided by Pyrogenesis, in which the plasma
is used for providing the reaction heat in a minimal space. The
two drawbacks of transferred arcs are the high concentration of
the heat flux over a small area and the need for an electrically
conductive waste. The first issue has been addressed by
moving the waste in a rotating reactor vessel, an approach
developed by RETECH [16, 17], by moving the plasma torch,
as implemented by Tetronics [18], or by having multiple arcs in
series, an approach pursued by several companies. The second
issue can be addressed by providing a metal insert serving as
an anode until the waste has sufficiently high conductivity, by
initially operating the plasma torch in non-transferred mode
until the waste is conducting, or by using multiple arcs, where
initially an arc can be struck between two electrodes, indirectly
heating the waste material until it can conduct the current
between two attachment spots (e.g. Tetronics) [19, 20].
A typical plasma system for treatment of solid wastes
consists of (a) the plasma reactor, with collection of the metal
(if applicable) and the slag at the bottom, periodically tapped
and cast into some usable form, with power supply, cooling
water supply gas supplies and control and data acquisition
equipment, (b) a secondary combustion chamber for allowing
sufficient residence time at elevated temperatures to assure
complete reactions and gasification of soot; this secondary
combustion chamber can be fired either by a burner or by
a low power non-transferred plasma torch; (c) depending
on the waste, a quenching chamber (usually water quench)
to avoid formation of dioxins and furans, (d) a cyclone for
particulate removal, (e) a scrubber for eliminating acidic
gases, (f) if necessary a hydrogen sulfide absorber, (g) high
efficiency filters or precipitators for small particulate removal,
(h) an activated carbon filter for removal of heavy metals and
(i) finally a fan for generating subatmospheric pressures in
the entire installation. Additionally, various forms of waste
preparation and feeding systems have to be integrated with the
reactor.
Plasma treatment of HSW allows a reduction of the
exhaust gases to as low as 10% compared with incineration
[20, 21], the possibility of having small local treatment plants
and a volume reduction of the waste by 90%, which is larger
than that achieved in incinerators. These types of waste have
a relatively low negative value, i.e. any treatment must be
inexpensive or favoured by regulations. A purely plasma-
based process for such wastes must offer significant advantages
such as production of fuel gas for electricity generation.
Hybrid processes incorporating plasma technology combined
with incineration or some other thermal processing technology
usually allow better use of the heating value of the waste
material. A special case that has become increasingly
important is automobile shredder waste, which has a high metal
content. Plasma processes allow the metal to be separated from
the other material and recovered.
Incineration of MSW has become much more common,
in particular in countries where use of landfills is tightly
controlled. In Japan, about 70% of the municipal waste is
incinerated, and 15–30% of the waste is collected as bottom ash
(below the grate) or fly ash (in the filters) [22]. Most hazardous
materials are usually contained in the fly ash because most
5
Topical Review
toxic heavy metals easily evaporate, and fly ash treatment is
also required in Europe. For an incinerator treating about 110
to 130 kt yr−1 , about 40 kt yr−1 of ash must be treated [18, 23].
For treatment of these incinerator residues, plasma technology
offers distinct advantages. This is one of the most widespread
uses of plasma waste treatment technologies. Besides resulting
in a volume reduction of typically 50%, the toxic heavy
metals can be encapsulated in a non-leaching glassy slag
formed with the addition of high temperature fluxing agents
with typical slag temperatures between 1500 and 1700 ◦ C.
Significant work has gone into determining the stability of such
slags, and the leach rates of heavy metals from these slags can
be significantly lower than those specified in any regulations.
Similar considerations apply to contaminated soil and sewage
sludge. These wastes can usually be treated at relatively low
temperatures to remove contaminants and moisture, resulting
in a volume reduction by a factor of about 20. Plasmas can
play an auxiliary role, in particular in rendering the off-gases
useful for combustion.
Low level radioactive wastes, asbestos and military
wastes have higher negative values, and landfill disposal and
incineration are in most cases not possible. In all cases, plasma
treatment will yield a significant volume reduction, typically
by a factor of 3. Furthermore, plasma processes may allow
separation of hazardous materials (e.g. radioactive) from non-
hazardous materials with different thermal characteristics, and
immobilization of the radioactive material in a non-leaching
glassy slag has been achieved. Care must be exercised that
the low boiling point radioactive materials are collected in a
filter from the exhaust gases and reprocessed. Several plasma
processes have been developed for compaction of LLRW, and
few competing processes are available.
Among the approaches that use a combination of plasma
technology with another thermal treatment technology, plasma
heating combined with either incineration or resistive heating
should be emphasized. The first approach is particularly
interesting when combustible exhaust gases are generated that
are used for on-site generation of the required electric power.
In the second approach, the waste is resistively heated by
a current, thus using electrical energy more efficiently for
the melting of the material, while the plasma provides the
required high temperature environment. The advantages of a
combined plasma and incineration installation are described
by Bendix and Hebecker [24] who argue that separating
harmful components (e.g. items containing halogens such as
most plastic materials and metals) from the MSW would
allow operation of an incineration plant at higher temperatures
because less corrosion would be encountered, leading to higher
temperature steam production and more efficient electric power
generation. The harmful wastes would be treated in a parallel
stream in a high temperature plasma reactor. A combination of
conventional gasification technology with plasma treatment of
residues is pursued by Tetronics (see section 5). For materials
with a high fraction of metal content, e.g. some LLRW,
combination of plasma treatment with induction heating may
be of interest [15].
Several processes in a developmental stage make use of
the high fluxes of reactants from a plasma to achieve desired
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001
thermochemical reactions. These processes are based on
selective oxidation, fluorination, chlorination or evaporation
to separate in particular radioactive components from the
material. Examples are treatment of ion exchange resins
for nuclear plant water cleaning systems, where oxidation
of the radioactive components Co and Cs and gasification
of the carbonaceous material using an oxygen plasma results
in a weight reduction of 95% and trapping of the hazardous
component of the material [15]. Selective fluorination or
chlorination of surface oxides has been used for treating metal
alloys contaminated by radioactive materials. Examples are
the fluorination and gasification of uranium contaminating
structural components or the fluorination of cobalt and
subsequent removal of the fluoride with water [15, 25, 26].
These and similar processes were obtained with plasmas
produced by microwaves, a dielectric barrier discharge or a jet
from a dc plasma torch, containing high concentrations of Cl
or F reactants. Similarly, radioactive Nb can be separated from
a Nb–Zr alloy by plasma fluorination of Zr in the temperature
range between 3500 and 4500 K [25].
Recent advances in computer simulation capabilities
have led to increased use of models for optimization of
reactor designs, using advanced 3-D CFD codes, possibly
coupled with a chemical reaction kinetics model. These
modelling efforts have concentrated on predicting mixing of
the waste material with the plasma and the reactions of volatile
components in the plasma-heated reactor [27–29], but one
of the models includes the arc in a twin-torch reactor [30],
and another describes the twin-torch reactor and includes the
melting of the material in a cold wall crucible and the formation
of a skull [31]. However, only Murphy and Hanus include
the reaction kinetics in their fluid dynamics models, and for
treatment of organics this approach has been shown to be
necessary for predicting the destruction efficiency [27, 28].
Many of the more recent developments have emphasized
the generation of saleable co-products as part of the treatment
process. Obviously, this is the primary purpose of the
reactor in the reclamation of valuable metals. However, even
with municipal waste treatment, syn-gas can be produced for
electricity generation, reducing one of the major drawbacks
of plasma technology, the high electricity cost; it is possible
to obtain a net energy gain from the plant. The majority of
the recent developments of plasma treatment processes for
large waste streams with a high fraction of organics (and low
fraction of halogen and metal containing components) collect
syn-gas from the exhaust. To demonstrate the feasibility
of net energy production from the production of syn-gas,
we use cellulose to represent a solid waste material. The
composition of cellulose can be represented by (C6 H10 O5 )n .
Partial combustion produces syn-gas as follows:
C6 H10 O5 + 21 O2 → 5H2 + 6CO. (7)
The amount produced is 1.1 t syn-gas per tonne of cellulose.
The syn-gas can be used for hydrogen, liquid fuel or chemical
production, or combusted to produce heat:
5H2 + 6CO + 11
2 2
O → 5H2 O + 6CO2 + 3117 kJ, (8)
6
Topical Review
which corresponds to 20 GJ, or 5.6 MWh, per tonne of
cellulose. Of course, real waste will contain a mixture of
different materials; typical figures for the treatment of solid
wastes by commercial systems are given in section 5.
Many of the plasma processes can be used to produce
ceramic tiles for construction, with the addition of some fluxing
agents into the molten waste. In a laboratory demonstration, a
plasma pyrolysis process has been shown to generate industrial
diamonds from PCBs and other hazardous liquids. In the
following several approaches are described in detail.
4. Plasma pyrolysis of hazardous liquids and gases
As discussed in section 3, non-transferred arc processes are
preferred for treatment of liquids and gases, because of the
more uniform temperature distribution and the availability
of reactive species. Further, the quantity of fluid requiring
treatment is generally relatively low, so small installations
are usually required; non-transferred arcs are more easily
scaled down. Radio-frequency induction plasmas and even
microwave plasmas have also been shown to be commercially
viable in small-scale applications.
The pioneering plasma waste treatment process was the
Pyroplasma process developed by Westinghouse in the early
1980s [32–36]. The prototype system was housed in a trailer,
allowing mobile operation. The plasma torch, which operates
on air, is shown in figure 1. Destruction of PCBs to the
99.999999% level was demonstrated for 850 kW torch power
and 4–12 l min−1 input flow. The system is no longer in
operation.
The PLASCON process, developed by CSIRO and SRL
Plasma Ltd in Australia in the 1990s, and now owned by
DoloMatrix International Ltd, uses a dc plasma torch with a
tungsten cathode. The plasma gas is argon, but by lengthening
the arc, the power delivered can be up to 150 kW. The
process has destroyed a wide range of liquids and gases,
which are injected downstream of the plasma torch, together
with an oxidizing gas. Ten plants are currently operating in
Australia, Japan, USA and Mexico, destroying halons and
CFCs, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), PCBs, insecticides and the
waste liquid from herbicide manufacture. A schematic of the
process is shown in figure 2. A rapid water quench is used
to avoid production of dioxins. Typical feed rates are around
100 kg h−1 for halons and CFCs, for which destruction is to
the level of 99.9999%.
The process to destroy HFCs is particularly interesting.
Trifluoromethane (CHF3 , or HFC-23), an extremely strong
greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 11700,
is an unavoidable by-product of the process used to
produce hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs are
CFC replacement chemicals that are being phased out in
the developed world, but whose use is permitted until 2030
in the developing world under the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. For example,
Quimobasicos plant in Monterrey, Mexico, produces about
185 t yr−1 of CHF3 , which is equivalent to 2.2 Mt yr−1 of
CO2 , corresponding to the emissions from a 300 MW coal-
fired power station or 500 000 cars. Until last year, when a
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001 Topical Review

Figure 1. Schematic of Westinghouse plasma torch with two cylindrical electrodes and the process gas being injected between them with a
swirl component. Electrodes are water-cooled and surrounded by magnetic field coils to drive the arc attachment in a circumferential
direction. The plasma exits at the left-hand side. (Figure reproduced with kind permission of Westinghouse Plasma Corp.)

Figure 2. Schematic of the PLASCON process for the treatment of

hazardous liquids and gases. The dc plasma torch operates in argon.
The waste is injected downstream of the torch, together with an
oxidizing gas such as oxygen or steam. After passing through a
reaction tube, the hot gases are quenched and then scrubbed using
caustic soda.
PLASCON plant was installed to destroy the CHF3 via the
overall chemical reaction CHF3 + 2H2 O → CO2 + 3HF + H2 ,
the CHF3 was released to the atmosphere. The destruction
process results in the production of about 7 t CO2 per tonne of
CHF3 (mainly from the generation of the required electricity),
which is negligible compared with the destruction of 11 700
CO2 equivalent. The destruction of the CHF3 is funded under
the Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism, through
CERs (carbon emission reductions or carbon credits). The
value of these CERs varies greatly, but at $10 t−1 of CO2
equivalent, the rate per tonne of CHF3 is about $120 000.
The full cost of destruction is less than $10 000 t−1 , including
depreciation, labour and consumables.
The PLASCON process has been well characterized by
thermodynamic, chemical kinetic and fluid dynamic modelling
Figure 3. Measured concentrations of CCl2 F2 , CClF3 and CF4 in
the off-gas as a function of CCl2 F2 feed rate, normalized to the arc
power, with oxygen as the oxidizing gas. Measurements were
performed in a demonstration scale system.
studies, particularly its application to halons and CFCs,
referred to collectively as ozone-depleting substances (ODSs).
These studies provided useful insights into the chemistry and
physics of the waste destruction process, and are reviewed here
briefly.
Chemical equilibrium, in particular the concept of ‘mixing
temperature’, the temperature that is reached assuming that
the waste fluid and the plasma and oxidizing gases react
fully to reach chemical equilibrium, was found to be useful
in predicting the level of destruction for a given waste feed
rate [27]. However, chemical equilibrium calculations did not
adequately model the recombination reactions that led to the
interconversion of ODSs. For example, figure 3 shows that,
in the destruction of CCl2 F2 with oxygen as the oxidizing gas,
significant quantities of CCl3 F and CF4 are produced. The
former is an ODS with the same ozone-depletion potential as

7
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001 Topical Review

CCl2 F2 , while CF4 has the very high global warming potential
of 6500. Similar effects, although less marked, were found for
the destruction of other CFCs and the halon CBrClF2 [37, 38].
Chemical kinetic calculations of the reactions of CFCs
and halons predicted these experimental results reasonably
accurately. For example, in the destruction of CCl2 F2 , the
most important reactions are successive dissociation reactions
to produce CF2 :

CCl2 F2 + M → CClF2 + Cl + M, (9)

CClF2 + M → CF2 + Cl + M, (10)

where M denotes any species, and reactions with oxygen atoms
to give chlorine and fluorine atoms:

CClF2 + O → CF2 O + Cl, (11)

CF2 + O → CO + 2F. (12)

The chlorine and fluorine atoms then recombine with CF2 to
produce CClF3 and CF4 :

CF2 + F + M → CF3 + M, (13)

CF3 + Cl + M → CClF3 + M, (14)

CF3 + F + M → CF4 + M. (15)
Further chemical kinetic calculations showed that replacing
oxygen by steam as the oxidizing gas, the interconversion
reactions could be reduced to a negligible level. The halogen
atoms released by the initial dissociation of the input ODS
reacted with hydrogen atoms to form HF, HCl and HBr,
preventing the recombination reactions (13), (14) and (15)
that led to the formation of CClF3 and CF4 . The overall
reaction was
CCl2 F2 + 2H2 O → CO2 + 2HF + 2HCl. (16)
The chemical kinetics calculations were one-dimensional,
were based on estimated temperatures and residence times and
did not take into account diffusion and recirculation. To obtain
a more complete and accurate picture of the chemical reactions,
a combined electromagnetic, fluid dynamic and chemical
kinetic model of the PLASCON process was developed
[39]. The equations used to model the electromagnetic and
fluid dynamic processes have been given elsewhere [40].
The chemical kinetics were modelled by solving a species
conservation equation for each species i:
∇ · (ρν Yi ) + ∇ · J i = ri (17)



where ρ is the mass density, ν is the flow velocity and Yi , J i

fraction, the diffusive mass
and ri are, respectively, the mass
the plasma torch, the conversion of CCl2 F2 to CCl3 F close to
flux and the net rate of production by chemical reactions of
species i. For a set of L chemical reactions involving a total
of N species:

L 
L scattering measurements of temperature [42]. As a result of
νj i A i ↔ νj i Ai , j = 1, 2, . . . , L, (18)
j =1 j =1
Figure 4. Calculated temperature, streamlines and mass fractions of
CCl2 F2 (CFC-12) and CClF3 (CFC-13) for 15 kW arc power,
42 l min−1 argon plasma gas flow, and feed rate of 40 l min−1 CCl2 F2
and 40 l min−1 O2 . The plasma torch and reaction tube regions are
shown.
where Ai denotes the chemical symbol of species i, and νj i
and νj i are stoichiometric coefficients, ri is given by
   N   N  
ρYl νj l r  ρYl νj l
L

ri = mi (νj i − νj i ) kj
f
−kj ,
ml ml
j =1 l=1 l=1
(19)
where kjfand kjr are, respectively, the forward and reverse
reaction rates of reaction j . A total of 23 species and 42
reactions were considered [41]. Figure 4 shows temperatures,
streamlines and concentrations of CCl2 F2 and CCl3 F for the
case of CCl2 F2 as the feed gas and oxygen as the oxidizing gas.
The figure demonstrates the strong recirculation that occurs as
the result of the change in diameter between the plasma torch
and the reaction tube, the rapid cooling of the plasma due to
introduction of the feed and oxidizing gases downstream of
the injection point of the CCl2 F2 , and the different rates of
destruction of the CCl2 F2 and CCl3 F in the reaction tube.
The model was validated by comparison of predicted and
measured concentrations of the residual species and of laser
the chemical kinetic and fluid dynamic modelling studies, the
PLASCON plants for the destruction of CFCs, halons and

8
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001 Topical Review

HFCs were designed to use steam rather than oxygen as the

oxidizing gas. Sekiguchi et al [43] also examined the kinetics
of CFC destruction by an argon plasma torch in the presence
of hydrogen and oxygen, although their study focused on the
prevention of Cl2 formation in the quench region.
Several processes for the destruction of ODSs have been
developed in Japan [15, 41, 44]. A system based on a 185 kW
radio-frequency induction plasma torch was developed by a
consortium of companies under the auspices of the Ministry
for International Trade and Industry. It treats gaseous ODS
mixed with steam at a pressure of 26 kPa, and destruction
and removal efficiencies of 99.99% have been obtained for
feed rates of 50–80 kg h−1 . A commercial plant has been
operated since 1995 by the Clean Japan Center located at
Ichikawa City, Chiba Prefecture, destroying CFCs, HCFCs
(hydrochlorofluorocarbons) and HFCs. A similar process
using an atmospheric pressure steam plasma in a 90 kW radio-
frequency induction plasma torch has also been developed.
The steam feed rate is 14–20 kg h−1 , and the CFC feed rate is
30–40 kg h−1 .
A nitrogen arc technology, similar to the PLASCON
process in that it uses a non-transferred dc plasma torch, has Figure 5. Schematic of plasma fired furnace at Utashinai, Japan.
been developed by ShinMaywa Auto Engineering. Five units Four Westinghouse plasma torches provide preheating of the
are being used commercially, destroying CFCs, HCFCs and combustion air in the furnace charged with ASR or MSW and coke.
Additional blast air is provided. The off-gases are combusted in the
HFCs. The torch power is relatively low, only 15 kW, which furnace at right and generate steam for driving a steam turbine. The
limits the waste feed rate to 10 kg h−1 . slag is vitrified and removed. (Figure reproduced with kind
A microwave plasma technology was developed by permission of Westinghouse Plasma Corp.)
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd and launched in 2000. In this
case, a thermal plasma is generated by 2.45 GHz microwaves 5.6 g min−1 of benzene and CCl4 , respectively, which were
in a coaxial cavity. The plasma operates on a mixture of CFCs destroyed to the level of 99.98% and 99.999%, respectively.
or HCFCs with steam, although argon is used to initiate the PCB destruction tests using oxygen as the atomizing gas
plasma. Again, this is a small-scale process, with feed rates of resulted in destruction and removal efficiencies exceeding
about 2 kg h−1 and power level of about 2 kW. 99.9998%. Changing the atomizing gas to hydrogen reduced
Researchers at the Tokyo Institute of Technology have the destruction efficiency but directing the plasma jet towards a
developed a dc plasma torch running on steam [15, 45]. A water-cooled substrate resulted in the growth of diamond films
refractory cathode consisting of a hafnium button inserted in at a rapid rate from the PCB-containing oil [49].
copper is used; the electrodes do not require water cooling.
The reported arc power is only 1 kW, and 99.9% destruction
efficiency of HCFC-134a at a feed to plasma power rate of 5. Plasma compaction of solid wastes
1.5 mol kWh−1 is reported (this should be compared with the
5.1. Non-transferred arc reactors
results for PLASCON, for which 99.999% or better destruction
is obtained for feed to plasma power ratios 6–10 mol kWh−1 , In reactors with non-transferred arc torches, the plasma
depending on the ODS being treated [37]). The Tokyo Institute provides heat and the possibility of adjusting the chemical
of Technology process has now been scaled up, in cooperation environment for generating useful off-gases. Two types of
with Kyronenprorede Co. Ltd, into a mobile system, initially reactors are in use: the plasma fired shaft furnace developed
for treatment of PCBs and asbestos. Electrical power of by Westinghouse and the reactor in which the waste is heated
180 kW will be used to generate the plasma, and estimated directly by plasma jets, developed by Europlasma. While the
treatment rates are 200 l h−1 for PCB and 0.5 m3 h−1 for fundamental developments have been performed in the 1980ies
asbestos [46]. and 1990ies, the implementation for actual waste processing
In general, plasma processes for treatment of liquid and on a commercial scale has in general occurred in the last
gaseous wastes do not produce useful by-products. However, 2–10 years.
a laboratory study demonstrated the possibility of depositing The Westinghouse approach is best illustrated by the plant
diamond films from the by-products of simulants of hazardous designed by Hitachi Metals Corp. and operated in Utashinai,
waste such as CCl4 and benzene [47–49]. These liquids were Japan [50, 51]. The plant has two furnaces and was designed
atomized with hydrogen gas and sprayed into the plasma jet predominantly for compaction of automobile shredder residue
formed by a 20 kW dc plasma torch with the addition of a (ASR), with a 165 t d−1 capacity, but can also treat up to
small amount of water vapour. Diamond growth rates of up 300 t d−1 MSW. Figure 5 shows a schematic of the installation.
to 100 µm h−1 were observed for feed rates of 1.8 g min−1 and Four 300 kW plasma torches heat air for a shaft furnace

9
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001 Topical Review

Figure 6. Schematic of Europlasma reactor in CENON for fly ash vitrification with one 500 kW Aerospatiale plasma torch. (Figure
reproduced with kind permission of Europlasma.)

containing the waste and coke (about 4% of the total charge).

The plasma heating of a fraction of the air reduces the amount
of coke and air needed to generate the high temperatures in
the furnace. The fraction of the air that is plasma heated is
determined by the waste composition. Addition of calcination
agents allows production of ceramic tiles for construction.
The off-gases contain a high fraction of carbon monoxide and
hydrogen.
Burning these off-gases in a second reaction chamber
provides the heat for steam generation which in turn is used
to drive a steam turbine. Electricity is generated at a rate of
8 MW, and less than half of the generated electric power is
used for plant operation, the remainder is transferred to the
electric power grid. Electric power requirements for the waste
treatment range from 100 to 250 kWh t−1 .
Figure 7. Schematic of the Europlasma asbestos treatment plant
Europlasma in France is using non-transferred arc torches INERTAM with three Aerospatiale plasma torches. (Figure
in plasma reactors for incinerator residue compaction [52,53]. reproduced with kind permission of Europlasma.)
Figure 6 shows a schematic of the installation in Cenon, France.
The incinerator processes about 120 000 t yr−1 of MSW, and
the plasma reactor processes up to 10 t d−1 of fly ash using a 2 MW each. The specific energy requirement is 1300 kWh t−1 .
500 kW torch operating with air. The energy requirement is The material is fed continuously into the reactor at a rate of
1300 kWh t−1 of fly ash. Several larger installations exist in 20 t d−1 , and the slag is removed periodically. The vitrified
Japan using Europlasma designed reactors, most notably the product is being used in road construction. A post-combustion
plant in Shimonoseki, designed to process 42 t d−1 fly ash and chamber is used as in many of the Europlasma installations to
bottom ash with a two torch reactor, each rated at 1.3 MW. The assure complete combustion of carbon-containing gases and to
specific energy consumption is about 800 kWh t−1 . All these satisfy incinerator regulations.
reactors have been operating for several years with regular A special situation is addressed in a development by
maintenance requirements of about 1 h per 300 h of operation. Pyrogenesis Corp. (Montreal, Canada), namely that of
Europlasma has also developed a process for treating asbestos compaction of shipboard waste [55–58]. With tighter
[52, 54]. The Inertam plant in St. Denis, France, heats regulation for ocean water pollution, volume reduction of
the crushed asbestos-containing material with three plasma shipboard waste has become an important issue. Plasma
torches providing heat at different locations (see figure 7). One reactors offer the possibility of requiring minimal volume
of the torches is rated at 500 kW and the other two are rated at and small footprints. In the elegant Pyrogenesis design (see

10
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001
Figure 8. Schematic of Pyrogenesis shipboard waste treatment
installation (with kind permission of Pyrogenesis).
Figure 9. Pyrogenesis plasma fired eductor for gasifying ship board
waste. (Figure reproduced with kind permission of Pyrogenesis.)
figure 8) [58], the waste is pretreated by separating the metallic
content, and shredding and milling the combustible material
into a fine lint-like structure, and this material is injected into a
plasma jet emanating from a non-transferred plasma torch. The
mixing with the plasma occurs in a water-cooled ‘eductor’ shell
(see figure 9) [58], and the resulting mixture of incompletely
reacted gases is completely reacted with additional air in
a secondary combustion chamber. Subsequent quenching
with water minimizes the formation of dioxins and furans;
200 kg h−1 can be treated. Use of a plasma torch allows a
rapid start-up time of about 5 min (since there are no refractory
furnace walls to heat) and rapid shut-down times, minimization
of the reactor size and lowering of the gas flow rates through
preheating the combustion air. No fuel gases are needed. The
torch is operating at about 109 kW and provides about 15%
of the energy needed for the treatment, the rest of the energy
is provided by the heating value of the waste. The specific
energy consumption, not counting the waste preparation, is
about 665 kWh t−1 . The system has been installed in a cruise
liner and has been operating for more than 4 years.
Phoenix Solutions Co. (Minneapolis, MN) has recently
developed a reactor fired by a non-transferred plasma torch
for processing of solids contaminated with PCBs [28]. The
plasma torch operates at 150 kW with nitrogen as plasma gas,
and lamp ballasts have been fed into the reactor (see figure 10).
The off-gases are quenched with water to avoid formation
of toxic co-products. Extensive instrumentation has shown
that contamination of the off-gas, the waste water, the waste
water filter cake, as well as the slag leach rate are all well
below the regulatory limits. Off-gases have a composition of
11
Topical Review
about 30% hydrogen, 20% carbon monoxide and nitrogen as
the plasma gas making up the majority of the remainder. Of
particular interest is that the reactor design has been optimized
by using advanced CFD simulation of the fluid flow and the
temperature—time history of every fluid particle injected into
the reactor or evaporated from the reactor wall. A similar
reactor was developed for processing contaminated soil, with
a 1 t h−1 feed rate and operating with a 1 MW non-transferred
plasma torch [22].
A pilot plant reactor for treating wastes with high chloride
and fluoride content (i.e. plastics) is described by Bendix and
Hebecker [24]. The waste is injected into a vertical shaft
furnace and into a plasma generated by three plasma torches
mounted on the walls of the reactor and running at 4–15 kW
each. Gas cooled silicon carbide walls allow operation at
high wall temperatures. The plasma gas is a mixture of air,
steam and part of the recycled exhaust gas. For treatment
rates of about 20 kg h−1 a specific energy consumption of
1 kWh kg−1 is obtained. Performance is strongly dependent
on optimization of the plasma waste mixing, and electrode life
is so far limited to 50 h.
Rutberg [12] describes a system for treatment of medical
waste based on the three-phase non-transferred plasma torch.
Two plasma torches are used, one for treatment of the waste
by firing arc heated air into a rotary kiln reactor, and the
second for providing hot air for the secondary combustion
chamber (thermal residence chamber). Throughputs of
200–300 kg h−1 are given, and a specific energy requirement
on 0.8–1 kWh kg−1 .
Another reactor designed to treat fluorocarbon waste,
including CF4 and Teflon has been described by Ponelis and
v.d. Walt [59]. The material is introduced into a reactor fired by
a 150 kW non-transferred plasma torch at a rate of 10 kg h−1 .
Quenching at a water-cooled cold surface allows recovery of
some of the fluoride as C2 F4 or C3 F6 with a 40% yield. No
specific energy requirement data are available.
A process similar to the Westinghouse–Hitachi approach
and specifically designed for generation of syn-gas from
organic wastes (with no halide content) is described by Rutberg
et al [60] and by Bratsev et al [61]. A shaft furnace packed
with waste is fired by a non-transferred plasma torch either
from the top or from the side. Feed rates are in the order of
50 kg h−1 , and air and/or steam addition (depending on the
waste) is used to generate the syn-gas which is extracted at the
bottom of the reactor. Specific energy consumption is given
as 1–2 kWh kg−1 depending on the waste material, and some
excess electricity could be generated if the heating value of the
syn-gas is converted to electricity with a 50% efficiency.
A process developed by HydroQuebec and commercial-
ized by PASO (St Laurent, Canada) concentrates on the
treatment of sludges from pulp and paper production [62]. A
200 kW torch operating with air treats about 2 t h−1 of sludge
in a rotary kiln. Most of the energy for drying the sludge is
derived from reacting the organic material, and the plasma pro-
vides only about 10% of the required energy, but is necessary
for a continuous reaction because of the high concentration of
steam that is produced in the reactor. The steam, at tempera-
tures above 500 ◦ C, can be used for generating electricity.
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001 Topical Review

Figure 10. Schematic of Phoenix Solutions installation for processing contaminated solids [22]. (Figure reproduced with kind permission
of Phoenix Solutions Co.)

5.2. Transferred arc reactors

There are numerous transferred arc reactor designs available
for waste treatment, several of them based on successful
developments for metallurgical plasma processes.
Tetronics (Faringdon, UK) offers two types of reactors,
single-torch reactors and twin-torch reactors [18–20, 63].
In the single-torch reactor, the arc is transferred from one
electrode to the melt, the electrode is usually the cathode,
and can be either water-cooled metal or graphite. Plasma
gases are usually argon or nitrogen. The dominant single-
torch application is incinerator ash vitrification, and numerous
installations are in operation, the majority in Japan. Operating
powers range from 200 to 1200 kW for metal cathode torches
and up to 2.75 MW for high current graphite cathodes (up to
9800 A). Corresponding treatment rates range from 200 kg h−1 Figure 11. Tetronics single-torch transferred arc reactor. (Figure
to over 5800 kg h−1 . Figure 11 [63] shows a schematic of one reproduced with kind permission of Tetronics.)
of these single-torch transferred arc reactors. A schematic of
the Tetronics ash vitrification installation is shown in figure 12 transferred mode, where the current flow is from one electrode
[23]. Tetronics also offers a twin-torch reactor, where one to the charge, through the charge and then back to the other
of the torches serves as the anode while the other serves electrode. In this transferred mode case, the flow of the current
as the cathode (see figure 13) [64]. Again, the electrodes through the melt provides Joule heating of the molten waste.
can be either graphite or water-cooled metal. In the case of The desired mode of operation is assured by changing the
the metal electrodes, a small amount of argon plasma gas positions of the electrodes. Usually, the arc is initiated directly
flowing around the electrodes shields them from exposure to between the two electrodes until the reactor and the charge is at
the gases from the waste, resulting in a typical electrode life a sufficiently high temperature for the charge to be conducting.
of 200–300 h. The process gas is introduced through a shroud The furnace has water-cooled refractory lined side walls and
surrounding the electrode. In the case of graphite electrodes, roof, and a water-cooled copper crucible for containing the
the plasma gas is introduced through a hole down the centre waste. During start-up, a small amount of waste is melted to
of the electrode. Waste material is introduced into the plasma establish a skull on the copper surface. Since the charge is not
between the two electrodes. The twin-arc arrangement can be an electrode, electro-chemical reactions between the slag and
operated in the non-transferred mode, where the arc current the refractory liner are avoided. A 250 kW twin-torch reactor
flow is directly from one electrode to the other, or in the has been used for processing of 50 kg h−1 of bottom ash, with

12
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001
Figure 12. Process schematic for Tetronics ash vitrification process using single-torch transferred arc reactor. (Figure reproduced with kind
permission of Tetronics.)
Figure 13. Schematic of Tetronics twin-torch reactor. (Figure reproduced with kind permission of Tetronics.)
a specific energy requirement of 550 kWh t−1 [19]. Extensive
leach tests show that heavy metal leach rates are well below
the regulatory limits [18,19]. Higher power installations are in
operation up to 2800 kW, processing up to 3300 kg h−1 of ash.
While ash treatment has been the dominant waste processing
application of these torches, they have also been used for
treatment of sewage sludge, incinerator ashes, solid hospital
waste and low level nuclear waste simulants with a 480 kW,
70 kg h−1 installation [20]. The twin-torch arrangement has the
additional advantage of a more distributed heat load to the melt
and, therefore, reduced evaporation of metallic components
and formation of fine particulates.
Tetronics is also addressing the issue of energy
reclamation from large waste streams. The Gasplasma process
is combining fluidized bed gasification with plasma cleaning
of the resulting hydrogen rich syn-gas. More than half of the
heating value can be recovered in the form of syn-gas, and
over 60% of the generated power can be exported. The plasma
13
Topical Review
provides the high temperature environment for processing
residual tars and chars, and allows vitrification of the ash into
a non-leaching slag [64].
PHOENIX Solutions/PEC (Minneapolis, MN) has
installed plasma systems for a number of ash vitrification
plants, again the majority in Japan. Figure 14 [22] shows
a typical flow diagram for such an ash treatment process.
It should be mentioned that the torch is started in a non-
transferred mode, and the arc is then transferred to the charge.
These torches typically operate with the torch electrode serving
as the anode and the charge as the cathode, and very long
electrode life can be obtained this way. The power levels range
from 150 kW to 2 MW, and five of the installations use multiple
torches. Molten bath temperatures are given as >1500 ◦ C,
allowing addition of ceramic materials to allow casting of
the slag into ceramic tiles with very low leach rates. This
company has also an installation for asbestos treatment with
a 500 kW torch installed in a mobile reactor. A treatment
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001
Figure 14. Plant lay-out for Phoenix Solutions ash vitrification
installation. (Figure reproduced with kind permission of Phoenix
Solutions.)
Figure 15. Schematic of RETECH plasma arc centrifugal treatment
system (PACT) showing the rotating container and the arc
transferred from the tubular electrode to the molten material.
(Figure reproduced with kind permission of RETECH [66].)
rate of 250 kg h−1 has been achieved, with an immobilization
of the asbestos fibres and a volume reduction by a factor
of 12 [22].
Another interesting plasma system has been developed
by RETECH Inc. (Ukiah, CA) based on a system used for
metal remelting [17, 65]. While this system has been well
described in the literature over the past 18 years, it was recently
certified for treatment of low level nuclear waste with two
commercial installations in operation. In this approach, the
arc is transferred from a torch that can be operated also in the
non-transferred mode, to the waste material which is contained
in a rotating tub with an opening in its centre. At starting, the
arc may operate in the non-transferred mode, or it may be
transferred to a conducting refractory base in the centrifuge.
The tub rotates at around 60 rpm. Periodically, the rotation
is slowed and the liquid waste material is allowed to flow
through the central hole into a crucible below. Figure 15 [66]
shows a schematic of the reactor, and figure 16 [66] shows the
schematic of a waste processing installation.
14
Topical Review
Figure 16. Schematic of the RETECH waste treatment installation
using the PACT system. (Figure reproduced with kind permission of
RETECH.)
The waste is contained unsorted in large drums and
consists typically of a mixture of organic and inorganic waste
material, and the drums are fed without being opened. The
off-gas is treated first in a secondary combustion chamber to
assure complete reaction of all organic material before going
through a regular off-gas cleaning process. However, off-gas
flow rates are very low because there is no need to stabilize
the transferred arc. This system has been used by MGC Co. in
Switzerland for the development of a low level nuclear waste
compaction system, which is now operating in Zwilag (i.e. the
Swiss nuclear waste depository) using a 1.2 MW RETECH
plasma reactor [67, 68]. A similar system is operated in Japan
by the Japan Atomic Power Co.
An interesting approach, the plasma enhanced melter
(PEM), has been pursued by Integrated Environmental
Technologies, LLC (IET, Richland, WA) [69]. The PEM
process can treat a variety of wastes by a mixture of plasma
heating and Joule heating. A dc arc is established between two
graphite electrodes or between each electrode and the melt in a
series configuration. Once the waste has become conductive,
an ac current is passed through it heating and melting it
resistively (see figure 17) [70]. The reactor is periodically
tapped to remove the molten metal and the slag. The off-
gas enters a thermal residence container to assure complete
reaction of any volatile organic components, followed by
a steam quench and a filtration and scrubbing system (see
figure 18) [70].
The syn-gas produced consists typically of 30–50%
hydrogen and 30–40% of CO, depending on the type of waste,
and can be used for generation of pure hydrogen. The low level
of nitrogen (around 6%) is due to the fact that the atmosphere
in the plasma chamber consists of oxygen rather than air. Two
basic systems are offered, with nominal processing rates of
10 t d−1 and 17 t d−1 , respectively. The ac power used for
Joule heating is 150 kW and 225 kW, respectively, for the two
systems, and comparable power values have to be added for
utilities (e.g. pumps, etc). The dc power for the plasma torches
is typically between 150 and 900 kW, and depends on the
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001
Figure 17. Schematic of the IET plasma enhanced melter (PEM) showing the two graphite arcing electrodes and the ac contacts for resistive
heating of the molten material. (Figure reproduced with kind permission of Integrated Environmental Technologies.)
Figure 18. Schematic of the IET plasma enhanced melter
installation for waste processing. (Figure reproduced with kind
permission of Integrated Environmental Technologies.)
plasma gas and on the type of waste. Correspondingly, the
specific power requirement is 1100 kWh t−1 for medical waste
(this includes the utility power; only 300 kWh t−1 is required
for the plasma power). Typical energy content of the syn-gas
is of the order of 10 MJ m−3 . It is estimated that for waste
throughputs of 6–10 t d−1 enough electricity can be generated
to operate the installation. Figure 19 [70] shows the energy and
mass flow schematic for treatment of municipal solid waste,
assuming a 125 t d−1 system and ‘nominal’ MSW composition,
indicating an excess power production of 600 kWh t−1 of
waste. Several commercial systems treating up to 17 t d−1
are in operation, including one in Richland, WA, for treating
LLRW [70].
Pyrogenesis has also developed a process which combines
vitrification of inorganics and gasification of the organic waste
material and has tested it in pilot plant operation with a
variety of waste materials [21, 56, 57, 71]. In this plasma
resource recovery system, the shredded waste material is
introduced into an arc furnace with two graphite electrodes.
The plasma volatilizes the organic material and vitrifies the
inorganic material. The off-gases are mixed with air plasma
15
Topical Review
and steam in a plasma fired eductor, as used in the ship board
waste treatment. This way, unreacted organic material as
well as soot is gasified. Particulate filters and quenching
complete the installation. The resulting gas composition for
an MSW treatment test run consisted of about 20–29% CO
and 8–14% H2 , with most of the remaining gas being nitrogen.
This gas has been used for electric power generation in gas
engines. Performance data projected from pilot plant operation
for a 240 t d−1 MSW plant are 843 kWh t−1 specific energy
requirement; 3900 kW is required to operate the reactor with
all the ancillary equipment, resulting in a net power production
of 4530 kW [21].
6. Plasma waste treatment for materials recovery
Some manufacturing processes produce a significant amount
of waste, and the high temperatures of a plasma allow recovery
of much of this waste. Examples are the dross formation in
aluminium production or the formation of dust during metal
melting. The advantages of using plasmas for the reclamation
of these materials will be briefly discussed in this section even
though the developments are not recent. Also, many discarded
components contain valuable materials, e.g. the platinum in
automobile exhaust catalysts. Such a Pt recovery process
using plasma melting of the components and subsequent metal
separation with metallo-chemistry has been in operation for
over 20 years; however, little detail has been communicated
about this process.
6.1. Aluminium recovery from dross
Aluminium dross is a by-product of aluminium production
and consists of finely divided metal inclusions in aluminium
oxide. Approximately 5% of the produced aluminium is
lost in the dross, and the dross typically contains between
50% and 75% of aluminium. A significant fraction of the
aluminium produced today is generated through recycling,
and recycling of aluminium is particularly attractive because
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001
Figure 19. Energy and mass flow diagram for the plasma enhanced melter system. (Figure reproduced with kind permission of Integrated
Environmental Technologies.)
it requires only about 5% of the energy that is being used in
gaining aluminium from ore reduction. Traditional recycling
or dross treatment furnaces melt the charge in a rotary furnace
with combustion flames, with the addition of salts to minimize
surface oxidation of the aluminium and to crack oxide layers
on aluminium components in the charge. The resulting salty
slag (secondary dross) is considered a hazardous waste. The
higher temperatures in a plasma process allow the elimination
of the salt addition and result in lower energy requirements
and higher recovery rates. Alcan, based on a development by
HydroQuebec, has installed a plasma fired rotary kiln (fired
by a Westinghouse 1 MW non-transferred plasma torch) for
aluminium recovery from dross and scrap using air as the
plasma gas. This has resulted in a significant reduction in
operating cost compared with the gas-fired furnace [72, 73].
Air is used as the plasma gas for economic reasons, and it
results in a reduction of the aluminium recovery by about 3%,
however, the oxidation reaction provides about 35% of the
energy required to melt the charge. Because of the lower gas
flow rates compared with the gas-fired furnace, the stack losses
are significantly reduced, and the input energy to the charge
is significantly increased. A similar development pursued in
Brazil by the Research Institute of Technology, uses a 300 kW
plasma torch operating with argon, thus reducing the losses
through oxidation [74]. The analysis of this process shows that
82% of the input energy is used to treat the charge, compared
with 66% in a salt furnace, and 94% of the aluminium in the
dross is recovered compared with 88% in the salt furnace.
Recovery from scrap is between 85% and 96%.
6.2. Metal recovery from baghouse dust
Electric arc furnaces for melting of steel scrap produce a
significant amount of dust, typically about 16 kg dust per tonne
of steel, or up to 10 000 t/yr−1 for a typical mini-mill [75]. With
the increased production of steel in arc furnaces (approaching
40% of total steel production), the amount of dust has also
increased, and the heavy metal content does not allow its direct
disposal in landfills. The dust consists of particles in the size
range from 0.01 to 100 µm, with the majority having diameters
below 10 µm. Typically, the regular carbon steel dust contains
16
Topical Review
besides the major components Fe and Zn, significant amounts
of Pb and minor amounts of Cd and Cr. Among the plasma
processes developed to treat this dust, two are mentioned in
the following.
Tetronics developed a transferred arc process in
collaboration with Bethlehem Steel, which used a graphite
cathode, operating at 700 kW [76, 77]. The dust could be
injected through the hollow cathode. Two operating modes
were developed, total reduction and selective reduction. The
total reduction operates in a strongly reducing atmosphere
(relatively high amounts of coal addition), resulting in iron
recovery in the furnace and zinc recovery in a splash condenser.
The selective reduction mode reduces the amount of coal and
of gas throughput, leaving the iron as oxide in the slag and
collecting the zinc as oxide in particulate form in filters. The
selective recovery mode was considered more economically
attractive.
Scanarc developed a dust recovery system operating in
Sweden where the dust was injected into a coke-filled shaft
furnace fired with three 6 MW plasma torches [78, 79]. The
metal is recovered by tapping the furnace. The furnace can
treat 60 kt of dust per year with an energy requirement of
1900–2000 kWh t−1 , depending on the type of dust.
7. Some comments on the economics
Waste has by definition a negative value, and a process that
adds value to it should reduce the cost of disposal. The
cost of disposal is, of course, tied to Government regulations,
and it is higher for hazardous wastes than for other wastes.
Compared with other waste treatment technologies, the
principal advantages of plasma technology are the reduction of
exhaust gas flow rates, in most cases higher volume reduction,
installations with smaller footprints and lower investment costs
for a given throughput, and faster start-up and shut-down times.
Clearly, plasma treatment is advantageous where landfill is
difficult or impossible, where storage costs are encountered,
or where stringent emission standards make combustion-based
treatment expensive. This is usually the case for hazardous
materials, in particular for low level nuclear wastes. There
appears to be no general conclusion so far on how much a
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001
Figure 20. Economic analysis of plasma vitrification plant
operating cost as function of daily throughput based on 300 d yr−1 ,
24 h d−1 operation with four 3 person teams of operators. Electricity
cost is assumed to be US $0.06 kWh−1 , and no use of off-gas for
electricity generation is considered [80]. (Figure reproduced with
kind permission of the authors.)
more efficient conversion of the heating value of the waste into
syn-gas and/or electric power will influence the economics of
plasma processes compared with incineration processes.
While smaller, mobile plasma waste treatment plants
sound very attractive, because they allow elimination of waste
transportation cost and reduce investment costs, labour costs
make this type of treatment more expensive. Figure 20
[80] shows the various operating cost elements that enter
the process economics per tonne of waste, for the specific
example of a plasma vitrification plant. The data are based
on assuming plant operation 300 d yr−1 , 24 h d−1 , with four
operating teams of three persons per team, an 8 year lifetime of
the installation with linear depreciation, and electricity costs
of US $0.06 kWh−1 . Electricity costs can be minimized by
power generation using the exhaust gases. The advantages of
operating with a throughput of more than 100 t d−1 are clear.
A special case can be made for destroying ozone-depleting
substances (ODSs). There are several factors that make plasma
technologies competitive with high temperature incineration
for destruction of ODSs. Firstly, the ODSs are usually in
concentrated form, which means that energy is not wasted in
heating non-hazardous diluents. Second, because of the high
ratio of halogen to carbon atoms in ODSs, around half or more
of the cost of ODS destruction is incurred in neutralizing acid
gases that are released; this is the same for all processes, but
the costs increase with higher gas flow rates. Third, the high
fluorine content of ODS can lead to damage to incinerator
equipment by the HF produced; this requires modifications to
scrubbing systems, etc. Even with these modifications, the
fraction of fluorine in the feed has to be limited to around 1%.
8. Conclusions
Plasma waste treatment technology is well established. Plasma
pyrolysis of organic substances and plasma compaction and
vitrification of inorganic materials are proven technologies.
While plasma treatment offers specific advantages, process
economics and Government regulations are the driving factors
controlling the use of specific technologies. The most widely
accepted use of plasmas for waste treatment is the vitrification
17
Topical Review
of incinerator ash, a hazardous waste that can be immobilized
with a plasma treatment. Plasma pyrolysis of hazardous
liquids is becoming increasingly important for liquids with
high fraction of halogens. Several installations already exist
that use plasmas for concentration of nuclear material from low
level nuclear wastes, and this application is expected to grow
when experience shows the reliability of the plasma process.
For the majority of the wastes, economic considerations
dictate the combined use of several treatment technologies.
Here, the use of plasmas is attractive when a valuable
co-product can offset the negative value of the waste
augmented by the treatment cost. Generation of syn-gas,
hydrogen or electricity are prime examples of such
co-products.
There are several specific waste treatment technologies
using plasmas, and most of them can be adapted to provide
the specific treatment for any type of waste. However, the
optimal choice of a specific technology will depend on local
regulations, the types of waste to be treated, and other local
considerations, such as existing auxiliary installations. Once
more it needs to be emphasized that there exist many more
approaches than described in this review, where the emphasis
has been on processes that have proven to be commercially
successful or that provide some new ideas.
As a science base for adapting the technologies to
specific applications, the fluid dynamic modelling capabilities
combined with chemical reaction kinetics models have
progressed to a point where they can be used as reactor design
tools. A thorough understanding of the flows and chemistry,
obtained either through modelling or empirically, can greatly
aid the design process. Advances in our knowledge of arc–
electrode interactions are likely to have the strongest impact on
acceptance of plasma treatment technologies because process
reliability and cost are both strongly tied to electrode erosion
and instabilities.
Acknowledgments
The permission given by several companies and individuals to
reproduce figures owned by them is gratefully acknowledged.
In particular, figures 1 and 5 are reproduced with the permission
of Westinghouse Plasma Corporation, figures 6 and 7 are
reproduced with permission of Europlasma, figures 8 and 9
are reproduced with permission of Pyrogenesis, figures 10
and 14 are reproduced with permission of Phoenix Solutions
Co., figures 11–13 are reproduced with permission of Tetronics
Ltd, figures 15 and 16 are reproduced with permission of
RETECH, Inc., figures 17–19 are reproduced with permission
of Integrated Environmental Technologies, and figure 20 is
reproduced with permission by the authors.
We further acknowledge with gratitude the information
provided by several individuals, in particular, Dr Shyam
Dighe, Westinghouse Plasma Corporation, Dr Chris Chapman,
Tetronics Ltd, Dr Gary Hanus, Phoenix Solutions Co.,
Dr Richard Eschenbach, RETECH, Inc., Dr James Batdorf,
Integrated Environmental Technologies, Dr Pierre Carabin,
Pyrogenesis Corp., Dr Amelie Hacala, Europlasma and
Dr Takayuki Watanabe, Tokyo Institute of Technology.
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001
References
[1] Heberlein J 1992 Thermal plasmas for the destruction of
hazardous wastes Proc. Plasma Technologies for Hazardous
Waste Destruction (Como, Italy) ed G Bonizzoni et al
(Bologna, Italy: Editrice Compositori) pp 59–76
[2] Heberlein J 1993 Thermal plasmas for the destruction of
hazardous wastes Industrial Applications of Plasma Physics
ed G Bonizzoni et al (Bologna, Italy: Italian Physical
Society) pp 219–35
[3] Heberlein J 1992 Generation of thermal and pseudothermal
plasmas Pure Appl. Chem. 64 p629
[4] Sanders N A and Pfender E 1984 Measurement of anode falls
and anode heat transfer in atmospheric pressure high
intensity arcs J. Appl. Phys. 55 714–22
[5] Jenista J J, Heberlein and Pfender E 1997 Model for anode
heat transfer from an electric arc Proc. 4th Int. Thermal
Plasma Processes Conf. (Athens, Greece ) p 805
[6] Pfender E and Lee Y C 1985 Particle dynamics and particle
heat and mass transfer in thermal plasmas: I. The motion of
a single particle without thermal effects Plasma Chem.
Plasma Process. 5 211–37
[7] Pfender E 1989 Particle behaviour in thermal plasmas Plasma
Chem. Plasma Process. 9 167–94
[8] Trelles J P, Pfender E and Heberlein J 2006 Multiscale finite
element modeling of arc dynamics in a DC plasma torch
Plasma Chem. Plasma Process. 26 557–75
[9] Mariaux G C, Bandry and Vardelle A M 2001 3-D modeling
of gas flow and particle spray jet in plasma spraying
Proc. Thermal Spray 2001: New Surfaces for a New
Millenium ed C C Berndt et al (Materials Park, OH: ASM
International) pp 933–42
[10] Colombo V and Ghedini E 2005 Time dependent 3-D
simulation of a non-transferred arc plasma torch: anode
attachment and downstream region effects Proc. 17th Int.
Symp. on Plasma Chemistry (Toronto, Canada)
ed J Mostaghimi et al (University of Toronto)
unpaginated CD
[11] Trelles J P, Heberlein J V R and Pfender E 2007
Non-equilibrium modeling of arc plasma torches J. Phys.
D: Appl. Phys. 40 5937–52
[12] Rutberg P G 2002 Some plasma environmental technologies
developed in Russia Plasma Sources Sci. Technol.
11 A159–65
[13] Rutberg P G 2003 Plasma pyrolysis of toxic waste Plasma
Phys. Control. Fusion 45 957–69
[14] Hrabovsky M 2002 Generation of thermal plasmas in
liquid-stabilized and hybrid dc-arc torches Pure Appl.
Chem. 74 429–33
[15] Watanabe T and Shimbara S 2003 Halogenated hydrocarbon
decomposition by steam thermal plasmas High Temp.
Mater. Process. 7 455–74
[16] Schlienger M P 1988 Apparatus and Method for High
Temperature Disposal of Hazardous Waste Materials US
Patent No 4770109
[17] Eschenbach R C 1989 Use of plasma torches for melting
special metals and for destroying and stabilizing hazardous
wastes Proc. Workshop Industrial. Plasma Applications
(Pugnochiuso, Italy) ed M I Boulos (Bari, Italy: Universita
di Bari) p 127
[18] Chapman C D, Williams J K, Heanley C P, Iddles D M,
Forde A J and Risdon G 1995 Development of a plasma
reactor for the treatment of incinerator ashes Proc. Int.
Symp. on Environmental Technologies: Plasma Systems and
Applications (Georgia Tech Research Corp; Atlanta, GA)
pp 129–40
[19] Deegan D, Chapman C and Bowen C 2002 The production of
shaped glass-ceramic materials from inorganic waste
precursors using controlled atmospheric DC plasma
18
Topical Review
vitrification and crystallization Proc. 2002 EMRS Conf.
(Strasbourg, France)
[20] Wolf C J, Heanley C P and Cashell P V 1998 Plasma arc
system for vitrification of LLRW Proc. 19th US Department
of Energy Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conf.
(Salt Lake City, UT, USA)
[21] Carabin P and Holcroft G 2005 Plasma resource recovery
technology—converting waste to energy and valuable
products Proc. 13th North American Waste to Energy Conf.
(Orlando, FL, USA) pp 71–9
[22] Hanus G 2007 Phoenix Solutions Co., personal
communication
[23] Heanley C P, Chapman C D and Wolf C J 1998 Plasma arc
vitrification of incinerator ash Proc. Int. Conf. Incineration
and Thermal Treatment Technologies (Salt Lake City, UT,
USA)
[24] Bendix D and Hebecker D 2003 Energy recovery from waste
and plasma conversion High Temp. Mater. Process.
7 435–54
[25] Suzuki M, Ichihashi T, Jote A, Nishio S and Kawagoe S 2003
Application of reactive plasma to nuclear waste
treatment—possibility of separation of Zr–Nb alloy by
reactive thermal plasma treatment High Temp. Mater.
Process. 7 475–85
[26] Suzuki M, Kadowaki M, Windarto H and Mori S 2005
Comparison of different types of plasma in radioactive
decontamination process Mater. Sci. Forum
502 321–6
[27] Murphy A B and McAllister T 2001 Modeling of the physics
and chemistry of thermal plasma waste destruction Phys.
Plasmas 8 2565–71
[28] Hanus G J and Springer M D 2007 Plasma thermal
destruction and recovery treatment of PCB-contaminated
liquids and solids Proc. Int. Conf. Incineration and
Thermal Treatment Technologies (Phoenix, AZ,
USA)
[29] Fiedler J, Lietz E, Bendix D and Hebecker D 2004
Experimental and numerical investigations of a plasma
reactor for the thermal destruction of medical waste
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 37 1031–40
[30] Colombo V, Ghedini E, Mentrelli A and Malfa E 2005 3-D
Modelling of DC transferred arc twin torch for asbestos
inertization. Nucl. Reactor Phys. (88-7992-211-4)
169–196
[31] Barthelemy B, Girold C, Delalondre C, Paya B and
Baronnet J M 2003 Modeling a pilot-scale combustion
vitrification furnace under oxygen plasma arc transferred
between twin torches Proc. 16th Int. Symp. Plasma Chem.
(Taormina, Italy) ed R d’Agostino et al (Bari, Italy:
Universita di Bari)
[32] Barton T G and Mordy J A 1984 The destruction of
halogenated organic chemicals by plasma pyrolsis Can. J.
Physiol. Pharmacol. 62 976–8
[33] Barton T G 1984 Mobile plasma pyrolysis Hazardous Waste 1
237–47
[34] Joseph M F 1986 Incineration of PCBs by plasma arc Proc.
33rd Ontario Industrial Waste Conf. pp 201–5
[35] Joseph M F and Barton T G 1987 Pyrolysis of hazardous
waste with a mobile plasma arc system Management of
Hazardous and Toxic Wastes (Amsterdam: Elsevier Applied
Science)
[36] Heberlein J V R 1989 Adaptation of plasma torches to
new applications of plasma technology Proc. Workshop
of Industrial Applications of Plasma Chemistry
(Pugnochiuso, Italy) ed M I Boulos (Bari, Italy: Universita
di Bari) p 1
[37] Murphy A B, Farmer A J D, Horrigan E C and McAllister T
2002 Plasma destruction of ozone depleting substances
Plasma Chem. Plasma Process. 22 371–85
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001
[38] Deam R T, Dayal A R, McAllister T, Mundy A E, Western R J,
Besley L M, Farmer A J D, Horrigan E C and Murphy A B
1995 Interconversion of chlorofluorocarbons in plasmas
J. Chem. Soc. Chem. Commun. 347–8
[39] Murphy A B and McAllister T 1998 Destruction of
ozone-depleting substances in a thermal plasma reactor
Appl. Phys. Lett. 73 459–61
[40] Murphy A B and Kovitya P 1993 Mathematical model and
laser-scattering temperature measurements of a
direct-current plasma torch discharging into air J. Appl.
Phys. 73 4759–69
[41] Murphy A B 2003 Thermal plasma destruction of
ozone-depleting substances: technologies and chemical
equilibrium, chemical kinetic and fluid dynamic
modelling High Temp. Mater. Process.
7 415–33
[42] Murphy A B 1999 Plasma destruction of gaseous and liquid
wastes Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 891 106–23
[43] Sekiguchi H, Honda T and Kanzawa A 1993 Thermal plasma
decomposition of chlorofluorocarbons Plasma Chem.
Plasma Process. 13 463–78
[44] Watanabe T 2005 personal communication
[45] Watanabe T, Tsuru T and Takeuchi A 2005 Water plasma
generation under atmospheric pressure for effective CFC
destruction Proc. 17th Int. Symp. Plasma Chemistry
(Toronto, Canada) ed J Mostaghimi et al (University of
Toronto) Unpaginated CD
[46] Watanabe T 2006 personal communication
[47] Han Q Y, Heberlein J and Pfender E 1993 Feasibility study of
thermal plasma destruction of toxic wastes in a counter-flow
liquid injection plasma reactor J. Mater. Synth. Process. 1
25–32
[48] Han Q Y, Zhuang Q, Tormanen W, Heberlein J and Pfender E
1993 The destruction of chlorinated hydrocarbon wastes
in a counter-flow plasma reactor Proc. 11th Int. Symp. on
Plasma Chemistry (Loughborough, UK) ed J Harry
(Loughborough University) pp 758–63
[49] Han Q, Zhuang Q D, Tormanen W and Heberlein J V R
1995 Thermal plasma destruction of hazardous waste
with simultaneous production of valuable co-products
Emerging Technologies in Hazardous Waste
Management ed D W Tedder and F G Pohland
(Washington, DC: American Chemical Society)
pp 135–43
[50] Westinghouse Plasma Systems 2006
http://www.westinghouse-plasma.com
[51] Dighe S 2007 Westinghouse Plasma Systems, personal
communication
[52] Hacala A 2007 High power non transferred arc plasma torch
applications Proc. Thermal Plasma Fundamentals and
Applications (Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt)
[53] Hacala A 2007 Europlasma, personal communication
[54] Blary F and Rollin M 1995 Vitrification of asbestos wastes
Proc. Int. Symp. on Environmental Technologies: Plasma
Systems and Applications (Georgia Tech Research Corp.
Atlanta, GA) pp 141–8
[55] Chronopoulos C, Chevalier P, Picard J, Kaldas A, Carabin P
and Holcroft G 2005 The plasma arc waste destruction
system—one year of maritime experience Proc. 24th Int.
Conf. Incineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies
(Galveston, TX, USA)
[56] Carabin P and Gagnon J-R 2006 Thermal destruction of waste
using plasma Proc. Biomass and Waste to Energy Symp.
(Venice, Italy) (Italy: CISA Environmental Sanitary
Engineering Centre)
[57] Holcroft G 2005 A novel approach to waste treatment aboard
ships and on land Proc. 17th Int. Symp. Plasma
Chemistry—Industrial Workshop (Toronto, Canada)
(University of Toronto)
19
Topical Review
[58] Kaldas A, Alexakis T and Tsantrizos P 2003 Optimization of
the marine plasma waste destruction technology Proc. IT3
Conf. (Orlando, FL, USA)
[59] Ponelis A A and Walt I J v d 2003 Plasma conversion of
fluorocarbon waste materials to useful products
Proc. 16th Int. Symp. Plasma Chemistry (Taormina,
Italy) ed R d’Agostino et al (Bari, Italy: Universita di Bari)
[60] Rutberg P, Bratsev A N and Ufimtsev A A 2004
Plasmochemical technologies for processing of
hydrocarbonic raw material with syngas
production High Temp. Mater. Process. 8 433–45
[61] Bratsev A N, Popov S V, Shtengel S V and Rutberg A P 2006
Some aspects of development and creation of plasma
technology for solid waste gasification High Temp. Mater.
Process. 10 549–56
[62] Bacon M 2005 Plasma assisted sludge oxidation Proc. 17th
Int. Symp. Plasma Chemistry—Industrial Workshop
(Toronto, Canada) (University of Toronto)
[63] Chapman C D, Deegan D E and Ly H 2007 Integrated
process solution for advanced thermal treatment of
hazardous waste materials using plasma arc
technology Proc. Int. Round Table on Thermal Plasma
Fundamentals and Applications (Sharm el Sheikh
Egypt)
[64] Chapman C D 2007 Tetronics Ltd, personal communication
[65] Eschenbach R C, Schlienger M P and Haun R E 1995 Swirl
flow transferred plasma arc for vitrification of waste, metal
recovery and special metal refining Proc. Int. Symp. on
Environmental Technologies: Plasma Systems and
Applications (Georgia Tech Research Corp., Atlanta, GA)
pp 251–60
[66] Eschenbach R C 1999 RETECH personal communication
[67] Fünfschilling M R, Bernhard W and Eschenbach R C 1992
Test results with the plasma centrifugal furnace Proc.
Plasma Technologies for Hazardous Waste Destruction
(Como, Italy) ed G Bonizzoni et al (Bologna, Italy: Editrice
Compositori)
[68] Shuey M W and Ottmer P P 2006 LLW processing and
operational experience using a plasma arc centrifugal
treatemnt (PACT™ ) system Proc. 2006 Waste Management
Conf. (Tucson, AZ, USA)
[69] Environmental Technology Evaluation Center 2002
Environemntal Technology Verification Report for
the Plasma Enhanced Melter CERF/IIEC Report No
40633
[70] Batdorf J 2007 Integrated Environmental Technologies,
personal communication
[71] Carabin P, Palumbo E and Alexakis T 2004 Two state plasma
gasification of waste Proc. 23rd Intern Conf. on
Incineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies
(Phoenix, AZ, USA)
[72] Drouet M G 1992 High temperature processes for
industrial waste treatment and valorisation Proc. Int.
Workshop on Plasma Technologies for Hazardous
Waste Destruction (Como, Italy) ed G Bonizzoni
et al (Bologna, Italy: Editrice Compositori)
pp 77–88
[73] Drouet M G, Meunier J, Laflamme C B, Handfield M D,
Biscaro A and Lemire C 1995 A rotary arc furnace for
aluminum dross processing Proc. Int. Symp. on
Environmental Technologies: Plasma Systems and
Applications (Georgia Tech Research Corp., Atlanta, GA)
pp 539–48
[74] da Cruz A C 2005 Universal plasma-arc fired rotary tiltable
aluminum recycling furnace Proc. 17th Int. Symp. Plasma
Chemistry—Industrial Workshop (University of Toronto,
Toronto, Canada)
[75] Chapman C D, Liddiard L J and Deegan D E 2001 Clean
plasma technology for the treatment and utilization of iron
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 053001
and steel making wastes Proc. China Steel Conf.
(Kaohsung, Taiwan)
[76] MacRae D R and Cowx M 1988 Plasma furnace
treatments of electric arc furnace dust as demonstrated
by Bethlehem-Tetronics, EPRI-CMP 88-2 Report
[77] Chapman C D and Cowx P M 1991 Tetronics process for the
treatment of electric arc furnace dust The Steel Times
219 301–4
[78] Santen S 1993 Scanarc’s development of plasma based
processes for recovery of metals and heat energy from
20
View publication stats
Topical Review
waste and hazardous waste materials Proc. Plasma
Technologies for Hazardous Waste Destruction (Como,
Italy) ed G Bonizzoni et al (Bologna: Editrice Compositori)
pp 109–29
[79] Scanarc 2007 www.scanarc.se
[80] Mustoe T N and Liang F W 1999 The power of plasma:
commercialization and the environment Proc. Int. Conf.
Incineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies
(Orlando, FL, USA)