877682

research-article2019
WMR0010.1177/0734242X19877682Waste Management & ResearchYao et al.

Original Article

Waste Management & Research

Comparative study on the pyrolysis

1­–8
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
kinetics of polyurethane foam from sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X19877682
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X19877682

waste refrigerators journals.sagepub.com/home/wmr

Zhitong Yao1 , Shaoqi Yu1, Weiping Su1, Weihong Wu1,

Junhong Tang1 and Wei Qi2

Abstract
Thermal treatment offers advantages of significant volume reduction and energy recovery for the polyurethane foam from waste
refrigerators. In this work, the pyrolysis kinetics of polyurethane foam was investigated using the model-fitting, model-free and
distributed activation energy model methods. The thermogravimetric analysis indicated that the polyurethane foam decomposition
could be divided into three stages with temperatures of 38°C–400°C, 400°C–550°C and 550°C–1000°C. Peak temperatures for
the major decomposition stage (<400°C) were determined as 324°C, 342°C and 344°C for heating rates of 5, 15 and 25 K min-1,
respectively. The activation energy (Eα) from the Friedman, Flynn–Wall–Ozawa and Tang methods increased with degree of
conversion (α) in the range of 0.05 to 0.5. The coefficients from the Flynn–Wall–Ozawa method were larger and the resulted Eα
values fell into the range of 163.980–328.190 kJ mol-1 with an average of 206.099 kJ mol-1. For the Coats–Redfern method, the
diffusion models offered higher coefficients, but the E values were smaller than that from the Flynn–Wall–Ozawa method. The
Eα values derived from the distributed activation energy model method were determined as 163.536–334.231 kJ mol-1, with an
average of 206.799 kJ mol-1. The peak of activation energy distribution curve was located at 205.929 kJ mol-1, consistent with
the thermogravimetric results. The Flynn–Wall–Ozawa and distributed activation energy model methods were more reliable for
describing the polyurethane foam pyrolysis process.

Keywords
Polyurethane foam, electronic waste, pyrolysis kinetics, model-fitting and -free method, distributed activation energy model
Received 21st June 2019, accepted 1st September 2019 by Editor in Chief Arne Ragossnig.

Introduction Recent treatment technologies for PUR can be grouped into

The rapid rate of technologies innovations and consequent fre-
quent replacement of electrical and electronic equipment has
resulted in shorter lifespans for these products (Yao et al., 2017,
2018; Zeng et al., 2018). The recent report from United Nations
University revealed that 44.7 million tonnes of electronic waste
was generated in 2016 and it will reach 52.2 million tonnes by
2021. According to the report ‘White paper on WEEE recycling
industry in China 2017’ (China Household Electric Appliance
Research Institute, 2018), the theoretical amount of scrapped
residential equipment reached 1.25 billion units in 2017. The pro-
portion of dismantled TV sets in formal recycling plants decreased
from 70% in 2015 to 61% in 2017, whereas, the proportion of
refrigerators increased 81.8% over that in 2015. During the
refrigerators dismantling, they are first crushed under negative
pressure, preventing the uncontrolled release of chlorofluorocar-
four categories: Physical (Abdel Rahman et al., 2019; Junco
et al., 2018), chemical (Sheel and Pant, 2018), biological
(Magnin et al., 2019) and thermal (Li et al., 2016). Physical
treatment could destroy the chemical structure of PUR to some
extent, resulting into a degradation of performance for the regen-
erated products. For the chemical treatment of alcoholysis, it is
difficult to separate various chemical components. Biological
treatment is time-consuming and inefficient. Thermal treatment,
especially pyrolysis, is an alternative that offers advantages of
significant volume reduction and energy recovery (Cheng et al.,
2019; Qi et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2019). Modelling the thermal
1Collegeof Materials and Environmental Engineering,
Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China
2Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion, Chinese

bons (Montzka et al., 2018). The metals, glass and plastics are Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China

then mechanically separated using eddy currents and electrostatic

separation, leaving low-value polyurethane foam (PUR) Corresponding author:
(Tantisattayakul et al., 2018). PUR is light weight but bulky, so Zhitong Yao, College of Materials and Environmental
Engineering, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou 310018,
that it takes up a lot of storage space. It is imperious to develop China.
an alternative treatment technology for PUR. Email: sxyzt@126.com
2 Waste Management & Research 00(0)

processes is significant for understanding their behaviour at an
industrial scale (Fernandez-Lopez et al., 2016; Qi et al., 2018)
and will provide references for the reactors designing and
parameters optimising. However, there are sparse researches on
this. Xu et al. (2012) studied the pyrolysis behaviour and kinet-
ics of PUR using the thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA)/
Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) technique. The evolution
characteristics of gaseous products was mainly focused, how-
ever, the pyrolysis was preliminarily studied using the distribu-
tion activation energy model (DAEM). Rogers and Ohlemiller
(1981) investigated the pyrolysis kinetic of PUR. The raw mate-
rial was flexible PUR, which was distinct from the rigid PUR
from waste refrigerators. Therefore, in this work, a series of
thermogravimetric experiments of PUR were conducted. Based
on the thermogravimetric analysis, the activation energies (E)
were calculated using three model-free methods, including
Friedman, Flynn–Wall–Ozawa (FWO) and Tang. The model-
fitting method Coats–Redfern (CR) and DAEM were also
applied to comparatively study the pyrolysis kinetics.
model-free method, mostly employed for the study of solids
decomposition (Khawam and Flanagan, 2005). Model-fitting
method is commonly applied, attributing to its availability of
determining the kinetic parameters directly. Different reaction
models have been proposed (Aboulkas and El Bouadili, 2010;
Chong et al., 2017; Khawam and Flanagan, 2006; Ma et al.,
2018b) and kinetic parameters can be determined based on these
models. For the model-free method, there are no previous
assumptions about the reaction model and allows the kinetic
parameters to be calculated as a function of α (degree of conver-
sion). Different model-free methods, such as Friedman, FWO,
Kissinger–Akahira–Sunose, Starink and Tang methods (Hardi
et al., 2018; Srivastava et al., 2017), have been proposed for the
kinetic study.
The thermogravimetric results can be expressed as a function
of α, which is defined based on the mass change of solids:
m0 − mt
α= (1)
m0 − m f

where m0 and mf refer to the initial and final weight of samples,

Experimental mt represents the instantaneous mass at time of t.
The conversion rate (dα/dt) can be expressed as:
Materials
dα dα
The PUR waste was collected from a typical electrical and =β = k (T ) × f (α ) (2)
electronic equipment recycling plant located in Shandong dt dT
province, China. It was compacted during refrigerator disman- where β is the heating rate (dT/dt K min-1); k(T) refers to the reac-
tling and thus crushed prior to use. The major chemical compo- tion rate constant; f(α) represents the kinetic model function
sitions of PUR were determined and consisted of following (Vyazovkin et al., 2011).
elements (in wt.%): C 61.2, O 26.1, H 6.2, N 6.5. Fourier trans- The k(T) can be described according to the Arrhenius equation:
form infrared (FT-IR) analysis indicated that the PUR sample E
−
could be ascribed to polyester polyurethane (Supplemental f (T ) = Ae RT (3)
Figure S1, available online).
where A refers to the pre-exponential factor (min-1); E is the activa-
tion energy (kJ mol-1); T and R represent the absolute temperature
Experimental procedure (K) and universal gas constant (8.314 J (mol K)-1), respectively.
The FT-IR analysis of the PUR sample was recorded in the range Under constant temperature ramp conditions, combining
of 400–4000 cm-1 by a NEXUS 670 FT-IR spectrometer (Thermo equations (2) and (3) yields:
Nicolet Corporation, USA) with a resolution of 2 cm-1. The ther-
dα A − RTE
mogravimetric experiments were carried out using the simultane- = e f (α ) (4)
ous thermal analyser (STA) 6000 (PerkinElmer, USA). During dT β
the thermogravimetric experiment, approximately 2 mg of the
sample was placed on the crucibles and heated from 38°C to CR method
1000°C under a nitrogen gas (purity > 99.998%) flow of The CR method is an integral model-fitting method that uses
20 mL min-1. The tests were repeated at three heating rates of 5, asymptotic series expansion for estimation of temperature inte-
15 and 25 K min-1. The sample weight and temperature changes gral. The integral form of the reaction model can be obtained by
were recorded in the thermogravimetric (TG) and derivative ther- integrating equation (4) as:
mogravimetric (DTG) profiles.
dα A −
Eα
AEα ∞ e − x AEα
g (α ) = ∫ α0 = ∫ T0 e RT dT = ∫ x 2 x
d = p ( x) (5)
Kinetic modelling f (α ) β βR x βR

The basic theories of kinetic models for solid fuels is presented where x equals to (Eα/RT). The p(x) is temperature integral and
here and more details can be found elsewhere (Brown et al., has no analytical form. Therefore, equation (5) can only be solved
2000; Criado, 1978; Papari and Hawboldt, 2015; Vyazovkin using either numerical integration or approximations to deal with
et al., 2011). They are two major methods, model-fitting and complex integral (Vyazovkin et al., 2011).
Yao et al. 3
−2 − x
By introducing an approximation p ( x) = x e (20⩽x⩽50) and integrated it into equation (8), which yields:
proposed by Murray and White (1955) into equation (5), the rela- β Eα
ln = −1.00145033 +C (11)
tion between heating rate and inverse temperature becomes: T 1.894661
RT

ART 2 Eα
2 RT − RT where C is a constant and equals to:
g (α ) = (1 − )e (6)
β Eα Eα AEα
ln + 3.63504095 − 1.894661lnEα
Rg (a )
Taking the natural logarithm of both sides for equation (6) yields:
The plot of:
g (a) AR 2 RT Eα β 1
ln = ln (1 − )− (7) ln 1.894661 against
T2 β Eα Eα RT T T
gives a straight line and Eα values can be obtained from the slope
Owing to 2RT/E<<1, the equation can be simplified as: of −1.00145033Eα/R.

g (a) AR Eα
ln = ln − (8) DAEM method
T 2
β Eα RT
The DAEM model (Anthony and Howard, 1976) is a multiple
For a fixed β and proposed reaction mechanisms g(α), plotting reaction model and assumes that the decomposition of solids is
ln (g(α)/T2) versus 1/T gives a straight line. The slope of –Eα/R carried out through many independent and parallel reactions,
can be used to determine Eα. each with its own activation energy (Cai et al., 2013, 2014). Each
reaction can be described by an activation energy distribution
Friedman method focused on a medium value with a temperature range that covers
The Friedman method (Friedman, 1964) is based on the assump- this value depending on the standard deviation.
tion that solids decomposition depends only on the rate of mass The general equation of this model can be described as (Li
loss and is independent from the temperature. Therefore, the f(α) et al., 2015):
can be considered constant and taking the natural logarithms of
dα ∞ t −
E

both sids for equation (4) yields: 1− = ∫ exp[−k0 ∫ exp RT dt ] f ( E )dE (12)
dt 0 0

dα Eα
ln( β ) = ln [ Af (α ) ] − (9) where k0, E and R are the prefrequency factor, activation energy
dT RT and universal gas constant (8.314 J (mol K)-1), respectively. f(E)
Because ln[Af(α)] is a constant, so for a given α and β value, the is distribution function that encapsulates the range and variation
Eα values can be calculated from the slope of straight line by in the activation energies of the simultaneous first-order irrevers-
plotting: ible reactions and is normalised as:
dα versus 1 .
ln( β ) ∞
dT T ∫ 0
f ( E )dE = 1 (13)

FWO method Taking into the correlation among T, t and β, equation (5) can
be expressed as (Chen et al., 2016):
The FWO method (Flynn and Wall, 1966; Ozawa, 1965) uses
Doyle’s equation for approximation of temperature integral. Tak- dα ∞ k T −
E
1− = ∫ exp[− 0 ∫ exp RT
dT ] f ( E )dE (14)
ing into account of the approximation, lnp ( x) = −5.331 − 1.052 x , dT 0 β 0

equation (5) can be converted as:

For simplification, equation (14) can be rewritten as:
AEα Eα
lnβ = ln − 5.331 − 1.052 (10) dα ∞ Es
Rg (α ) RT = 1 − ∫ f ( E )dE = ∫ f ( E )dE (15)
dT Es 0

For a fixed α, each plot of lnβ versus 1/T gives a straight line. The
Miura (1995) obtained a simpler method to calculate the activa-
Eα values can be determined through the slope of −1.052Eα/R
tion energy and pre-exponential factor as follows:
over a series of α.
β kR Eα
ln 2
= In 0 + 0.6075 − (16)
T Eα RT
Tang method
The detailed procedures used to estimate Eα, k0, and f(E) are
Tang et al. (2003) developed an estimation of Arrhenius tempera-
described as follows:
ture integral:
e− x 1 1. Measure and plot α as a function of T for at least three differ-
p( x) = ( )
x 1.001989 x + 1.873912 ent heating rates.
4 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
Figure 1. TG and DTG profiles of PUR at different heating
rates.
2. Plot ln(β/T2) versus 1/T for different heating rates at each α.
3. For each α in the plot, linearise the data of different heating
rates and obtain the Eα and k0 values from slope and intercept,
respectively.
4. Plot α against E and differentiate the relationship by E to
obtain f(E) (Ma et al., 2018a).
Results and discussion
Thermogravimetric analysis
The TG and DTG profiles of PUR pyrolysis at different heating
rates are displayed in Figure 1. From the TG curve, it can be
seen that the decreasing trends are similar among the profiles at
three heating rates. Overall, the decomposition of PUR can be
divided into three stages with temperatures of 38°C–400°C,
400°C–550°C and 550°C–1000°C, which was consistent with
literature (Xu et al., 2012). The weight loss were determined as
approximately 52%, 18% and 11% for these stages, respec-
tively. From the DTG curve, it can be found that there were two
significant weight losses in the first and second stages. This was
consistent with reports (Ciecierska et al., 2016; Jiao et al.,
2013), where the maximum decomposition temperatures were
observed at 314°C–331°C and 530°C–562°C. For the first
stage, the weight loss rate increased from 0.72%•min-1 to
2.17%•min-1 and 3.49%•min-1 with heating rates increasing
from 5 K min-1 to 15 K min-1 and 25 K min-1. The corresponding
peak temperatures shifted from 324°C, to 342°C and 344°C
(Table 1), which was also reported in the pyrolysis of coal (Du
et al., 2016; Song et al., 2016), biomass (Wang et al., 2016a,
2016b), and oil shales (Bai et al., 2015). This is attributed to the
heat and mass transfer limitations, which cause temperature
gradients within the sample and inside each particle. At a lower
heating rate, the heating of particles occurs gradually leading to
an improved heat transfer to the inner portions and among the
particles. However, raising the heating rate increases the tem-
perature gradient between the surface and inner of the particles,
which strengthens the inertia effect of devolatilisation and
affects the decomposition of the inner part of particles and then
Table 1. Peak temperatures and sample mass loss in the
first stage.
Heating rate Temperature interval Tmax Mass loss
(K min-1) (°C) (°C) (%)
5 38–400 324 30.78
15 38–400 342 31.03
25 38–400 344 28.93
increases the peak temperature. The weight loss during the first
stage may be attributed to the rupture of urethane bonds into
isocyanates and polyols (Ciecierska et al., 2016; Dyer and
Newborn Jr, 1958; Jiao et al., 2013; Valencia et al., 2009). At
temperatures above 400°C, the resulted two types of products
decomposed further (Valencia et al., 2009). Further increasing
the temperature to 550°C, the material residues decompose into
small molecules. The above results revealed that the first stage
with α of 0.05–0.5 was the major decomposition stage for PUR,
and thus it was selected for the further kinetic study.
Model-free method
According to Supplemental Table S1 (available online), linear
regression graphs were plotted for the Friedman, FWO and
Tang methods, respectively (Figure 2). The parallel behaviour
between the straight lines of the major linear fit presented sat-
isfactory coefficients (0.8887–1.0000 for Friedman, 0.8944–
1.0000 for FWO and 0.8884–1.0000 for Tang). The low
correlations for α beyond 0.45 could be attributed to the change
of thermal decomposition mechanism with the heating rate
increasing. Another factor was the difficult definition of the
mass interval, namely the definition of the initial and final
mass, where the start-point and end-point are defined arbitrar-
ily (Alves et al., 2019; Anca-Couce et al., 2014). For all meth-
ods, there was a larger gap between the straight lines at
conversions 0.05 and 0.1, which indicated a slow conversion of
PUR, namely the low temperature at the initial stage was not
enough to break down the urethane bonds. Subsequently, the
temperatures increased to rupture the molecules causing an
approaching of the straight line after the conversion of 0.1. A
larger gap between the straight lines at conversions 0.45 and
0.5 was also observed, which indicated the change of thermal
decomposition mechanism.
The obtained Eα values are displayed in Table 2 and Figure 3.
It can be seen that the values display a similar trend for those
methods. They gradually increased from 163.595 kJ mol-1 to
209.55 kJ mol-1 with α increasing from 0.05 to 0.45, and reaching
335.852 kJ mol-1 with α = 0.5. The progressive increase observed
was representative of the great variety of bonds and the multipha-
sic character of its conversion. It might correspond to competitive
or consecutive reactions (Carrier et al., 2016; Papageorgiou, 2018).
The average Eα values were determined as 207.632 kJ mol-1,
206.099 kJ mol-1 and 207.328 kJ mol-1 for Friedman, FWO and
Tang methods, respectively. As a comparison, the FWO method
was more reliably attributed to its larger R values.
Yao et al. 5

Model-fitting method
From equation (8), the activation energy for all g(α) functions in
Table 3 can be obtained, and the resulted kinetic parameters are
displayed in Table 4 and Figure 3. For each model, the Eα values
slightly increased with an increasement in heating rate. However,
the three groups (nucleation models, diffusion models and reac-
tion order models) of reaction models manifested different pro-
files. The diffusion models endowed larger Eα values, however,
the nucleation models gave lower values.
It was noted that the E values from the model-fitting method
was significantly smaller than that from model-free method,
which was also reported in literatures (Dhaundiyal et al., 2018;
Wang et al., 2018). Unlike the model-free method, which is
based on α, the CR method depends on β. There are two main
reasons for the disagreement between the two methods in case of
non-isothermal runs. The first is a result of the force-fitting of
non-isothermal data to hypothetical reaction model (Dhaundiyal
et al., 2018). Arrhenius parameters are determined by a form of
g(α), which is already assumed. Moreover, both parameters T
and α are simultaneously varying with time. The model-fitting
model is not able to distinguish separately temperature depend-
ence of k(T) and α. Consequently, any assumed model can be
easily synchronised with thermoanalytical data at the expense of
drastic variation between the assumed model and the true
unknown model. Owing to this reason, the model-fitting method
provide ambiguous values of Arrhenius parameters. Another
reason is the existence of multi-reaction mechanisms with dif-
ferent activation energies, as contribution of these steps to the
overall decomposition rate is influenced by T and α, which
implies activation energy calculated from the model-fitting
method is a function of T and α. However, the calculated value
of activation energy represents the average value for the overall
process. This value is derived in such a way that it is invariant to
the reaction mechanism and kinetics with change in T and α,
therefore, the isoconversional method is prefer to the model-
based scheme to overcome aforementioned drawbacks, as these
models check dependency of date with respect to α or T without
Figure 2. Linear fitting curves under different conversions prior judgement about the assumed model.
for Friedman, FWO and Tang methods. Recently, there have been ongoing debates about the use of
isoconversional methods for the solids decomposition of the E
Table 2. The kinetic parameters determined using the values. Some researchers claimed that the model-fitting method
model-free methods. might not describe the complex processes, such as biomass
α Friedman FWO Tang decomposition, sufficiently, since numbers of reactions are
involved simultaneously in the process. At this point, the model-
E R E R E R free method played a critical role for the investigation of activa-
(kJ mol-1) (kJ mol-1) (kJ mol-1)
tion energy according to varying α. It has been reported that the
0.05 163.595 0.9906 163.980 0.9900 164.010 0.9889 activation energy produced by the Friedman method was consist-
0.1 177.180 0.9981 176.404 0.9982 176.656 0.9980 ent with that of the FWO and Kissinger-Akahira-Sunose (KAS)
0.15 185.078 1.0000 183.738 1.0000 184.155 1.0000
methods. In this work, it has also confirmed that the Ea values
0.2 194.265 0.9996 193.735 0.9996 194.506 0.9996
from three model-free methods was comparable.
0.25 197.715 0.9948 196.580 0.9956 197.366 0.9952
0.3 200.126 0.9912 200.160 0.9920 201.008 0.9913
0.35 206.179 0.9913 205.471 0.9921 206.470 0.9913
0.4 206.778 0.9968 205.408 0.9968 206.254 0.9966 DAEM method
0.45 209.550 0.9939 207.328 0.9941 208.050 0.9935 The fitting curves of ln(β/T2) versus 1/T were plotted according
0.5 335.852 0.8887 328.190 0.8944 334.804 0.8884
to equation (16) and the results are displayed in Figure 4. The Eα
6 Waste Management & Research 00(0)

Table 4. The kinetic parameters calculated using the CR

method.

Reaction β (K min-1))
models
15 25 35

E R E R E R
(kJ mol-1) (kJ mol-1) (kJ mol-1)
P2 22.812 0.9764 23.217 0.9858 24.551 0.9674
P3 12.021 0.9608 12.210 0.9760 13.048 0.9474
P4 6.626 0.9262 6.707 0.9536 7.297 0.9055
A2 26.632 0.9870 27.084 0.9927 28.646 0.9804
A3 14.568 0.9800 14.788 0.9889 15.777 0.9705
A4 8.536 0.9662 8.640 0.9812 9.343 0.9518
D1 119.929 0.9872 122.282 0.9925 128.077 0.9818
D2 124.760 0.9893 127.171 0.9939 133.257 0.9842
D3 129.940 0.9910 132.409 0.9950 138.802 0.9864
D4 126.481 0.9899 128.917 0.9943 135.102 0.9850
F0 55.184 0.9846 56.238 0.9909 59.061 0.9782
F1 62.824 0.9909 63.970 0.9949 67.249 0.9862
F2 71.269 0.9932 72.513 0.9950 76.307 0.9900
F3 80.509 0.9922 81.854 0.9921 86.216 0.9904

Figure 3. Comparison of kinetic parameters from model-free

and model-fitting methods.

Table 3. Expressions of g(α) for reaction mechanisms used in

this work.

Reaction models Symbols g(α)

Nucleation models
Power law P2 α1/3
Power law P3 α1/2
Power law P4 α3/2
Avrami–Erofeev A2 [-ln(1-α)]1/2
Avrami–Erofeev A3 [-ln(1-α)]1/3
Avrami–Erofeev A4 [-ln(1-α)]1/4
Diffusion models
One-dimensional diffusion D1 α2
Two-dimensional diffusion D2 (1-α)In(1-α)+ α
Three-dimensional D3 [1-(1-α)1/3]2
diffusion (Jander equation)
Four-dimensional D4 1-(2/3)α-(1-α)2/3
diffusion (Ginstling– Figure 4. Linear fitting curves under different conversions for
Brounshetein) the DAEM method and the activation energy distribution.
Reaction order models
Zero-order F0 α values at selected levels of α were determined from the slope of
First-order F1 -ln(1-α) plots (Gokul et al., 2019). The relationship between α versus Eα
Second-order F2 (1-α)-1-1
could be obtained by plotting α against corresponding Eα values
Third-order F3 (1/2)[(1-α)-2-1]
as shown in Figure 4. The Eα values increased from 163.536 to
Yao et al.
334.231 kJ mol-1 with α increasing. The average Eα value was
determined as 206.799 kJ mol-1, comparable with 206.099 kJ mol-1
from the FWO method. When the curves for relationship between
α and Eα were differentiated graphically by Eα , f(E) curves for
PUR pyrolysis were obtained. The peak of f(E) curve appeared at
205.929 kJ mol-1 and the maximum thermal decomposition takes
place at this point. Calculated results of the fitting procedure
using the DAEM method showed good agreement with experi-
mental DTG data in Figure 1.
Conclusions
The thermogravimetric analysis indicated that the PUR decom-
position process could be divided into three stages with tempera-
tures of 38°C–400°C, 400°C–550°C and 550°C–1000°C. Eα
values from three model-free methods displayed a similar trend.
The R values from the FWO method were larger and the resulted
E values fell into the range of 163.980–328.190 kJ mol-1. For the
CR method, the diffusion models had higher R values, although
the E values were smaller than that from the FWO method. The
activation energy distribution from the DAEM method showed
that the Eα values increased with α increasing. The average Eα
value was 206.799 kJ mol-1, consistent with that from the FWO
method. The the FWO and DAEM were better for the description
of the PUR pyrolysis process.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work
was financially supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China [Grant no. 51606055 and 51911530460] and
the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant
no. LY19B070008].
ORCID iD
Zhitong Yao https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9180-2329
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Abdel Rahman HA, Younes MM and Khattab MM (2019) Recycling of
polyurethane foam waste in the production of lightweight cement pastes
and its irradiated polymer impregnated composites. Journal of Vinyl and
Additive Technology 40: 1–11.
Aboulkas A and El Bouadili A (2010) Thermal degradation behaviors of pol-
yethylene and polypropylene. Part I: Pyrolysis kinetics and mechanisms.
Energy Conversion and Management 51: 1363–1369.
Alves JLF, Da Silva JCG, Da Silva Filho VF, et al. (2019) Kinetics and ther-
modynamics parameters evaluation of pyrolysis of invasive aquatic mac-
rophytes to determine their bioenergy potentials. Biomass and Bioenergy
121: 28–40.
7
Anca-Couce A, Berger A and Zobel N (2014) How to determine consistent bio-
mass pyrolysis kinetics in a parallel reaction scheme. Fuel 123: 230–240.
Anthony DB and Howard JB (1976) Coal devolatilization and hydrogastifica-
tion. AIChE Journal 22: 625–656.
Bai F, Sun Y, Liu Y, et al. (2015) Thermal and kinetic characteristics of
pyrolysis and combustion of three oil shales. Energy Conversion and
Management 97: 374–381.
Brown ME, Maciejewski M, Vyazovkin S, et al. (2000) Computational
aspects of kinetic analysis: Part A: The ICTAC kinetics project-data,
methods and results. Thermochimica Acta 355: 125–143.
Cai J, Wu W and Liu R (2014) An overview of distributed activation energy
model and its application in the pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 36: 236–246.
Cai J, Wu W, Liu R, et al. (2013) A distributed activation energy model for the
pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass. Green Chemistry 15: 1331–1340.
Carrier M, Auret L, Bridgwater A, et al. (2016) Using apparent activation
energy as a reactivity criterion for biomass pyrolysis. Energy & Fuels
30: 7834–7841.
Chen T, Zhang J and Wu J (2016) Kinetic and energy production analysis of
pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass using a three-parallel Gaussian reac-
tion model. Bioresource Technology 211: 502–508.
Cheng S, Qiao Y, Huang J, et al. (2019) Effects of Ca and Na acetates on
nitrogen transformation during sewage sludge pyrolysis. Proceedings of
the Combustion Institute 37: 2715–2722.
China Household Electric Appliance Research Institute (2018) White Paper
on Current Situation and Trend of WEEE Recycling Industry in China. 22
May 2018, Beijing, China. Available at: http://www.cheari.org/ (accessed
7 October 2019).
Chong YY, Thangalazhy-Gopakumar S, Gan S, et al. (2017) Kinetics
and mechanisms for copyrolysis of palm empty fruit bunch fiber
(EFBF) with palm oil mill effluent (POME) sludge. Energy & Fuels
31: 8217–8227.
Ciecierska E, Jurczyk-Kowalska M, Bazarnik P, et al. (2016) The influence
of carbon fillers on the thermal properties of polyurethane foam. Journal
of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 123: 283–291.
Criado JM (1978) Kinetic analysis of DTG data from master curves.
Thermochimica Acta 24: 186–189.
Dhaundiyal A, Singh SB, Hanon MM, et al. (2018) Determination of kinetic
parameters for the thermal decomposition of Parthenium hysterophorus.
Environmental and Climate Technologies 22: 5–21.
Du R, Wu K, Xu D, et al. (2016) A modified Arrhenius equation to predict
the reaction rate constant of Anyuan pulverized-coal pyrolysis at different
heating rates. Fuel Processing Technology 148: 295–301.
Dyer E and Newborn GE Jr (1958) Thermal degradation of carbamates of
methylenebis-(4-phenyl Isocyanate). Journal of the American Chemical
Society 80: 5495–5498.
Fernandez-Lopez M, Pedrosa-Castro GJ, Valverde JL, et al. (2016)
Kinetic analysis of manure pyrolysis and combustion processes. Waste
Management 58: 230–240.
Flynn JH and Wall LA (1966) A quick, direct method for the determination
of activation energy from thermogravimetric data. Journal of Polymer
Science Part B: Polymer Letters 4: 323–328.
Friedman HL (1964) Kinetics of thermal degradation of char-forming plas-
tics from thermogravimetry. Application to a phenolic plastic. Journal of
Polymer Science Part C: Polymer Symposia 6: 183–195.
Gokul PV, Singh P, Singh VP, et al. (2019) Thermal behavior and kinet-
ics of pyrolysis of areca nut husk. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery,
Utilization, and Environmental Effects. Epub ahead of print 19 February
2019. DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2019.1582733.
Hardi F, Imai A, Theppitak S, et al. (2018) Gasification of char derived from
catalytic hydrothermal liquefaction of pine sawdust under a CO2 atmos-
phere. Energy Fuels 32: 5999–6007.
Jiao L, Xiao H, Wang Q, et al. (2013) Thermal degradation characteris-
tics of rigid polyurethane foam and the volatile products analysis with
TG-FTIR-MS. Polymer Degradation and Stability 98: 2687–2696.
Junco C, Gutiérrez S, Gadea J, et al. (2018) Cement mortars lightened with
rigid polyurethane foam waste applied on-site: Suitability and durability.
In: Taha M (ed.) International Congress on Polymers in Concrete (ICPIC
2018), Cham: Springer, pp.457–463.
8 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
Khawam A and Flanagan DR (2005) Complementary use of model-free and
modelistic methods in the analysis of solid-state kinetics. The Journal of
Physical Chemistry B 109: 10073–10080.
Khawam A and Flanagan DR (2006) Solid-state kinetic models: Basics and
mathematical fundamentals. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 110:
17315–17328.
Li K, Pau DS and Zhang H (2016) Pyrolysis of polyurethane foam: Optimized
search for kinetic properties via simultaneous K–K method, genetic algo-
rithm and elemental analysis. Fire and Materials 40: 800–817.
Li S, Chen X, Liu A, et al. (2015) Co-pyrolysis characteristic of biomass and
bituminous coal. Bioresource Technology 179: 414–420.
Ma Y, Wang J and Zhang Y (2018a) Analysis of pyrolysis characteristics
and kinetics of Euphausia superba shell waste using TG-FTIR and dis-
tributed activation energy model. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
8: 1–9.
Ma Z, Wang J, Yang Y, et al. (2018b) Comparison of the thermal degra-
dation behaviors and kinetics of palm oil waste under nitrogen and air
atmosphere in TGA-FTIR with a complementary use of model-free and
model-fitting approaches. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis
134: 12–24.
Magnin A, Hoornaert L, Pollet E, et al. (2019) Isolation and characterization
of different promising fungi for biological waste management of polyure-
thanes. Microbial Biotechnology 12: 544–555.
Miura K (1995) A new and simple method to estimate f(E) and k0(E) in the
distributed activation energy model from three sets of experimental data.
Energy & Fuels 9: 302–307.
Montzka SA, Dutton GS, Yu P, et al. (2018) An unexpected and persistent
increase in global emissions of ozone-depleting CFC-11. Nature 557:
413.
Murray P and White J (1955) Kinetics of the thermal dehydration of clays.
Part IV. Interpretation of the differential thermal analysis of the clay
minerals. Transactions and Journal of the British Ceramic Society 54:
204–238.
Ozawa T (1965) A new method of analyzing thermogravimetric data. Bulletin
of the Chemical Society of Japan 38: 1881–1886.
Papageorgiou GZ (2018) Thinking green: Sustainable polymers from renew-
able resources. Polymers 10: 952.
Papari S and Hawboldt K (2015) A review on the pyrolysis of woody biomass
to bio-oil: Focus on kinetic models. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 52: 1580–1595.
Qi W, He C, Wang Q, et al. (2018) Carbon-based solid acid pretreatment
in corncob saccharification: specific xylose production and efficient
enzymatic hydrolysis. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 6:
3640–3648.
Qi W, Liu G, He C, et al. (2019) An efficient magnetic carbon-based solid acid
treatment for corncob saccharification with high selectivity for xylose and
enhanced enzymatic digestibility. Green Chemistry 21: 1292–1304.
Rogers FE and Ohlemiller TJ (1981) Pyrolysis kinetics of a polyurethane
foam by thermogravimetry; a general kinetic method. Journal of
Macromolecular Science—Chemistry 15: 169–185.
Sheel A and Pant D (2018) Chemical Depolymerization of Polyurethane
Foams via Glycolysis and Hydrolysis, Recycling of Polyurethane Foams.
Netherlands: Elsevier, pp.67–75.
Song H, Liu G and Wu J (2016) Pyrolysis characteristics and kinetics of low
rank coals by distributed activation energy model. Energy Conversion
and Management 126: 1037–1046.
Srivastava A, Chandel N and Mehta N (2017) Calorimetric studies of crys-
tallization for multi-component glasses of Se-Te-Sn-Ag (STSA) system
using model-free and model-fitting non-isothermal methods. Journal of
Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 128: 907–914.
Tang W, Liu Y, Zhang H, et al. (2003) New approximate formula for
Arrhenius temperature integral. Thermochimica Acta 408: 39–43.
Tantisattayakul T, Kanchanapiya P and Methacanon P (2018) Comparative
waste management options for rigid polyurethane foam waste in Thailand.
Journal of Cleaner Production 196: 1576–1586.
Valencia LB, Rogaume T, Guillaume E, et al. (2009) Analysis of principal
gas products during combustion of polyether polyurethane foam at differ-
ent irradiance levels. Fire Safety Journal 44: 933–940.
Vyazovkin S, Burnham AK, Criado JM, et al. (2011) ICTAC Kinetics
Committee recommendations for performing kinetic computations on
thermal analysis data. Thermochimica Acta 520: 1–19.
Wang L, Lei H, Liu J, et al. (2018) Thermal decomposition behavior and
kinetics for pyrolysis and catalytic pyrolysis of Douglas fir. RSC
Advances 8: 2196–2202.
Wang S, Dai G, Ru B, et al. (2016a) Effects of torrefaction on hemicel-
lulose structural characteristics and pyrolysis behaviors. Bioresource
Technology 218: 1106–1114.
Wang S, Lin H, Ru B, et al. (2016b) Kinetic modeling of biomass components
pyrolysis using a sequential and coupling method. Fuel 185: 763–771.
Xu M, Guan J and Wang JW (2012) Pyrolysis behavior and kinetics of polyu-
rethane insulation materials from waste refrigerators. Advanced Materials
Research 356–360: 1752–1758.
Yao Z, Ling T, Sarker PK, et al. (2018) Recycling difficult-to-treat e-waste
cathode-ray-tube glass as construction and building materials: A critical
review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81: 595–604.
Yao Z, Wu D, Liu J, et al. (2017) Recycling of typical difficult-to-treat
e-waste: Synthesize zeolites from waste cathode-ray-tube funnel glass.
Journal of Hazardous Materials 324: 673–680.
Yu S, Su W, Wu D, et al. (2019) Thermal treatment of flame retardant plas-
tics: A case study on a waste TV plastic shell sample. Science of The Total
Environment 675: 651–657.
Zeng X and Mathews JA amd Li J (2018) Urban mining of e-waste is becom-
ing more cost-effective than virgin mining. Environmental Science &
Technology 52: 4835–4841.