Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 167 (2022) 112715

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

A review of pyrolysis technologies and feedstock: A blending approach for

plastic and biomass towards optimum biochar yield
Aisha Al-Rumaihi, Muhammad Shahbaz, Gordon Mckay, Hamish Mackey, Tareq Al-Ansari *
College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The efficient and sustainable disposal or value addition of waste plastic has of major importance. Recent studies
Biochar on the char produced via pyrolysis have demonstrated that it is a valuable additive with multiple applications
Biochar production parameters ranging from soil and water amendment, improving agricultural yield, supercapacitors, fuel cells, and in sup­
Co-pyrolysis
port/catalysts, sustainable chemistry, and carbon sequestration. Thus, it is essential to ensure the quality and
Pyrolysis parameters
Biochar yield
efficacy of biochar produced from any combination of feedstock and process to ensure maximum benefits.
Pyrolysis reactor types However, very few studies have focussed on techniques or process parameters to optimize biochar yield. This
study aims to review pyrolysis techniques, reactor types, and pyrolysis parameters to identify the process pa­
rameters that could enhance the generation of biochar from co-pyrolysis of plastic and biomass feedstock. This
review discusses biochar production techniques, the mechanism of pyrolysis technology, pyrolysis types, and the
reactor types. This is followed by a review of the factors that can be used to optimize biochar production.
Accordingly, the review identified temperature, heating rate, reactor bed height and type, residence time,
pressure, feedstock type and blending ratio of feedstock as the determinants that had the highest influence on the
yield, stability, and carbon content of biochar. Most importantly, the technology readiness level (TRL) of biomass
pyrolysis, plastic pyrolysis and co-pyrolysis of biomass and plastic is discussed. The review necessitates further
studies on these parameters to ascertain the accuracy of optimization that can be achieved by configuring py­
rolysis processes to biochar production.

1. Introduction
The rate of climate change has heralded an era of research and
technologies that aim to combat concerns related to greenhouse gas
emissions, while tackling the rising demand for energy amidst depleting
fossil fuel reserves [1]. The harmful emissions from fossil fuels should be
curtailed with the use of renewable and efficient use of waste resources
in power production [2,3]. The conversion of biomass and other organic
and inorganic waste into fuel and other products that can add value to
the society and economy is a potential solution to this problem [4].
Pyrolysis has emerged as the most cost-efficient, scalable, and simplest
technology that can convert biomass and other feedstock into energy
and other useable by-products [5,6]. Pyrolysis is the thermal decom­
position of organic matter in the absence of oxygen [7]. The pyrolysis
process conditions can significantly affect the physicochemical proper­
ties, quality, and yield of the pyrolyzed products [8–10]. Thus, the py­
rolysis process can be modified to enhance the yield of pyrolytic
products, as the process parameters are crucial in determining and
enhancing the final quality and quantity of the output [11]. Due to its
versatility, ease of use, and upgradeability, most studies have focused on
producing oil from biomass pyrolysis, while considering the solid char as
waste that could be combusted to provide energy for pyrolysis [6,12].
Recently, researchers have focussed on understanding the application of
biochar in soil treatment and improvement, leaching heavy metals from
the soil, and reducing carbon emissions both directly by avoiding the use
of additional energy resources and indirectly via carbon sequestration
[12].
The importance of biochar has increased in recent years due to its
application in various fields such as fertilizer in agriculture, adsorbent
[13], supercapacitors, fuel cells, charcoal in stell and power, and sup­
port/catalyst in many processes [14,15]. Recently the importance of
biochar as a soil conditioner has been the focus of much research. The
benefits of biochar to soil improvement include an increase in the con­
centration of organic carbon within the soil, an increase in its water
retention and cation exchange capacity, improvement in soil aeration as
well as microbial ecology, while amending the soil pH for better plant

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: talansari@hbku.edu.qa (T. Al-Ansari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112715
Received 20 March 2022; Received in revised form 24 May 2022; Accepted 13 June 2022
Available online 22 June 2022
1364-0321/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Al-Rumaihi et al.
growth, especially in case of acidic soils [16]. Biochar is also used in soils
to inhibit CH4 and N2O emissions through abiotic and biotic processes
[17]. In anaerobic processes, N2O is released from the soil through
denitrification reactions. The addition of biochar to the soil could reduce
the availability of nitrogen required for denitrification, thus reducing
the potential emission of N2O [16]. The use of biochar in acidic soils in
Colombia contributed to a 50% reduction in N2O from soybean plan­
tations and completely suppressed CH4 emissions [18]. Mahdi et al. [19]
reported that biochar increases the agricultural yield by increasing soil
fertility, nutrient retention, water retention, cation exchange, soil mi­
crobial activity, and soil pH. Lehmann et al. [20] have reviewed the
impact of mixing of biochar in soil and their impact on soil quality and
impact on plant yield. Hassan et al. [21] reported that one of the possible
applications of biochar is to soils considering potential merits such as the
reduction in global warming due to reduced CO2 emissions from the soil.
Carbon sequestration is significantly influenced by the type and
composition of the feedstock and the pyrolysis temperature. Thus, there
is a need to consider the amount of carbon and its soil stability in the
biochar, compared to the total mass of the original food waste. Full
analysis should also consider the carbon emissions associated with py­
rolysis [22,23]. The application of biochar in sugarcane fields across the
state of Brazil could lead to carbon sequestration of up to 31% of all
carbon produced in the country in 2016. It was estimated that approx­
imately 2.35 ± 0.4 tons of carbon were sequestered per hectare per year
[24]. Utilisation of biochar has also been demonstrated to increase soil
water retention by up to 46% [25] and 37% [26].
Previous research and reviews on pyrolysis and co-pyrolysis have
mainly focused on the production of energy, bio-oil, and syngas from
biomass, plastic [27–29], and other feedstocks identifying the operating
parameters for optimum yield of bio-oil [27], studying the composition
of the produced bio-oil, and improving the quality of the output [30,31].
Recently, Suresh et al. [31] reviewed the microwave pyrolysis of
biomass, plastic and coal. Whereas some studies have only focused on
the gas production from the pyrolysis and co-pyrolysis of plastic with
other wastes [29,32]. Additionally, some studies have reviewed the
production of pyrolysis technologies only concerning biomass or plastic
[33,34]. While there is limited research focusing on optimising pyrolysis
technology for biochar production, researchers have begun to focus on
techniques to optimise biochar production. Certain reviews have
focussed on the various biochar production processes and their effect on
biochar yield [35,36]. While others have focussed on the parameters of
biochar production and their effect on biochar yield [23,37]. Panwar
et al. [8] and Tripathi et al. [37] studied different types of processes used
to produce biochar, the various feedstocks used, and the attributes of the
yield. Similarly, Yaashikaa et al. [38] reviewed the outcomes of varia­
tions in process parameters on the pyrolytic production of biochar. Laird
et al. [35] studied the application of pyrolysis techniques to the
co-production of biochar and bio-oil. Tomczyk et al. [9] studied the ef­
fect of temperature and feedstock on biochar yield. Alternatively, Jafri
et al. [39] focused on the production of biochar for feasible imple­
mentation in direct carbon fuel cells.
There is a subsequent variation in biochar’s yield and physico­
chemical properties because of the extensive variations in biochar pro­
duction processes and different combinations of feedstock. This
variability affects biochar performance in soil amendment, water and
soil treatment, carbon sequestration and emission reduction [40]. Thus,
biochar science is faced with the challenge of ensuring and assuring the
quality and efficacy of biochar produced from any combination of
feedstock and process to ensure maximum benefits of biochar produc­
tion to agriculture, environment and economy [41]. Amongst the tech­
nologies used to produce biochar, pyrolysis can convert waste into
energy and useable by-products. The quantity and yield of these prod­
ucts are dependent on multiple factors such as temperature, pressure,
heating rate, residence time, particle size, catalysts, carrier gas flow rate,
feedstock composition, moisture content, and reactor configuration
[42]. Additionally, its scalability and economic costs make it the
2
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 167 (2022) 112715
preferred technology for biochar production [43]. However, as the
complete separation of waste plastic and biomass is an expensive,
time-consuming, and laborious process, not to mention the technical
difficulties of the same, the co-pyrolysis of plastic and biomass presents a
novel solution for producing high-quality biochar from industrial and
agricultural wastes while encompassing/presenting all the advantages
of pyrolysis with respect to agricultural, industrial, and environmental
applications, along with energy production and waste management. By
considering the reported studies and to the best knowledge of the au­
thors, no published review article has discussed biochar production
considering the optimum blend of biomass and plastic waste.
From the above discussion and challenges mentioned, it is very
important that biochar production is further studied and utilized for
improving agriculture, environment, and the economy. It is crucial that
research provides the ability to ensure the quality and efficacy of biochar
produced from any combination of feedstock and process to ensure
maximum benefits. The understanding of process parameters will ensure
the production of quality biochar that can be used for soil amendment,
water treatment, carbon sequestration and emission reduction. This
review intends to provide analyse biochar production from the co-
pyrolysis biomass and plastic with maximum possible yield and tech­
nology maturity. This study aims to review pyrolysis techniques, reactor
types, and pyrolysis parameters to identify the process parameters that
could optimise biochar production from co-pyrolysis of plastic and
biomass feedstock. The first section will discuss biochar production
techniques, the second section will discuss the workings of pyrolysis
technology, the types of pyrolysis and the reactor types. This will be
followed by a review of plastic pyrolysis, biomass pyrolysis, plastic-
biomass co-pyrolysis, advantages of co-pyrolysis, and a review of the
factors that can be used to optimize biochar production. In the last
section, the technical maturity of pyrolysis of biomass, plastic, and blend
of plastic and biomass concerning various products such as pyrolysis oil,
biochar, and gas. Finally, the challenges faced by technology and the
areas of further research are highlighted. This article supports the
growing domain of the co-pyrolysis of biomass and plastic for a valued
added product (biochar), which provides insights that can support
further research and commercial enterprisers when embarking on any
related initiatives. Fig. 1 illustrates the structure of the review with
respect to the aim of the study.
2. Biochar production techniques and pyrolysis
Many processes have been used to produce biochar such as com­
bustion, torrefaction, gasification, and pyrolysis of both slow and fast
types [10]. Each process results in a different char yield and level of
carbon. These processes are distinguished by differences in their tem­
perature ranges, heating rate, residence times for feedstock and vapours,
char yield, carbon content, and carbon yield as presented in Table 1 [40,
44,45]. Most of the technologies have focused on producing energy from
biomass [46]. One of the earliest methods was using woody biomass to
produce charcoal through combustion. However, the production process
was eventually abandoned due to low yields and extreme levels of air
pollution. Over time, technology advanced to enable the extraction of
maximum yields of energy from organic matter via endothermic and
exothermic processes. Combustion and gasification are exothermic
processes. While combustion produces heat and gasification produced
gas by thermally decomposing organic matter in the presence of oxygen
[47]. These processes are less efficient and less than satisfactory in
reducing emissions while meeting energy requirements [48,49]. In
contrast, multiple studies have shown pyrolysis to be an effective
methodology for meeting energy requirements while reducing emissions
and managing waste [50–52].
2.1. Pyrolysis mechanism
Pyrolysis is a complex, multi-step process by which organic matter is
A. Al-Rumaihi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 167 (2022) 112715

Fig. 1. Structure of the review article.

Table 1
Biochar Production Processes [40,44,45].
Process type Process temperature (◦ C) Residence time Char yield (%feedstock by weight) (A) Carbon content (%mass of the char) (B) Carbon yield (A)/(B)

Torrefaction ~290 C◦
10–60 min 61%–84% 51%–55% 0.67 to 0.85
Slow pyrolysis ~400 ◦ C Minutes to days ~30% 95% ~0.58
Flash carbonisation ~300 ◦ C–600 ◦ C Less than 30 min 37% ~85% ~0.65
Gasification ~800 ◦ C ~10–20 sec ~10% – –
Fast pyrolysis ~500 ◦ C–1000 ◦ C ~1 sec 12%–26% 74% 0.2 to 0.26

thermally disintegrated under the effect of controlled application of heat 800 ◦ C will yield greater quantities of gas and ash [47,54]. Thus, the
within varying temperature ranges that provide the energy required to composition of by-products and their yields depend upon the combi­
decompose the feedstock’s chemical structure [47,53]. This process nation of feedstock, its moisture content, reactor type, heating rate,
mainly emits carbonaceous gases, hydrogen, and methane, with the final temperature range, residence time, pressure, catalysts, and type and
product consisting of varying proportions of oil, char, and gases [54]. flowrate of fluidizing gas [47,54]. The primary and secondary mecha­
Overall, pyrolysis is composed of two mechanisms – primary and sec­ nisms of the pyrolysis process are presented in Fig. 2.
ondary. The primary mechanism comprises the processes in which
breakdown of chemical bonds of feedstock and releases volatile com­
pounds in the reactor under the heat, which undergo further reactions as 2.2. Pyrolysis technologies
part of the secondary mechanism [47,55]. The initial phase of thermal
decomposition results in the creation of benzene rings that combine to Pyrolysis is the thermal decomposition of organic matter in the
form the solid char residue with organic matter continuing to decom­ absence of oxygen, resulting in the creation of three primary products, i.
pose up to 800 ◦ C [56]. Organic matter is composed of long polymeric e., char, oil, and gas, in varying proportions. However, the process could
chains, decomposition results in depolymerisation for breaking organic be tailored to enhance the production of any one of the three by
matter into monomers. This releases water, incondensable gas, con­ changing the conditions in the reactor [62,63]. All contemporary
densable vapours (oils and tars), and other volatile compounds during
the primary mechanism. The latter is released at a much higher rate
during the initial phase of pyrolysis, i.e., at about 250–300 ◦ C [47,57].
The final stage of the primary mechanism creates small-chain organic
compounds and incondensable gases due to the association of covalent
bonds within the monomers [55]. Whereas in the secondary mechanism,
unstable compounds either crack or recombine to restructure. During
cracking, these compounds breakdown and form molecules with low
molecular weights, while during recombination volatile compounds
combine to form inert or volatile compounds with high molecular
weights [55,58]. In addition, secondary mechanisms can also result in
the formation of char in some cases [59]. Moisture content is crucial to
the pyrolysis process, as a high amount of moisture will yield mostly
liquid by-products, while a low moisture content will generate mostly
ash rather than oil [60]. Pyrolysis at slow heating rates and temperatures
less than 450 ◦ C will yield higher quantities of biochar, intermediate
temperature ranges with slightly higher heating rates will yield higher
Fig. 2. Primary and secondary mechanism of pyrolysis process [61]. Copyright
quantities of bio-oil, and high heating rates at temperatures greater than
2022, Wiley and Sons.

3
A. Al-Rumaihi et al.
pyrolysis processes in operation can be categorized into one of the three
following categories: slow, fast, and flash pyrolysis. Other technologies
include microwave pyrolysis, catalytic pyrolysis, catalytic
hydro-pyrolysis, hydrous pyrolysis, and hydro-pyrolysis [47]. The sub­
sequent sections will describe the process of conventionally used py­
rolysis techniques and the variance in the composition of their
respective outputs.
2.2.1. Slow pyrolysis
Slow pyrolysis, or conventional pyrolysis, is a pyrolysis technique
that dates back to the early 1900s, when wood was pyrolyzed in in­
dustries for 24 h to produce methanol, ethanol, acetic acid, and coal
[54]. This technique utilizes continuous systems known as “charcoal”
systems, which slowly heat the organic matter in an anaerobic envi­
ronment at temperatures greater than 400 ◦ C, with minimum heating
rates, ranging between 5 to 7 ◦ C/min and maximum heating rates
ranging between 20 to 100 ◦ C/min [53,64]. Maximum temperatures
range between 400 to 650 ◦ C, and residence times range between 5 to
30 min to over days, during which volatile organic compounds undergo
cracking and recombining to produce char and other fractional liquids.
This combination of low heating rates, low temperature, and high resi­
dence times results in a greater yield of high-quality char, while mini­
mizing the production of liquid and gaseous products [35,60,65]. In this
context, slow pyrolysis is a developed technology in the case of biochar
production, whereas bio-oil production at currently at a pilot-scale from
slow pyrolysis [6].
2.2.2. Fast pyrolysis
Rapid or fast pyrolysis is a pyrolysis technique that maximizes the
production of high-quality liquid oil. This oil is an intermediate dense
energy fuel that can be upgraded to hydrocarbons in petrol and diesel
[66]. During fast pyrolysis, organic matter is thermally treated in the
absence of oxygen at about 600–650 ◦ C at high heating rates of up to
1000 ◦ C/sec. This causes the organic matter to decompose rapidly,
producing mostly vapours and aerosols, with small amounts of gas and
coal. Globally, research and development have shown a significant in­
terest in this technology. It can produce large yields of high-quality fuel
oil that can be used as energy sources for industrial applications in en­
gines, turbines, and boilers [64]. This is because fast pyrolysis tech­
niques guarantee the initial disintegration of the molecular structure of
organic matter, while enabling further upgrading. Additionally, it can
use a variety of feedstocks to produce oil, ranging from plant residues to
municipal and industrial waste. The process also enables easy storage
and transportation of the fuel and provides options for transforming
conventional fuels, speciality chemicals, or other additives. Most
importantly, the process is highly scalable, thus making it economically
feasible [61]. Most importantly, gas production is higher in fast pyrol­
ysis than slow pyrolysis [53]. Another advantage is that fast pyrolysis
can be conducted in various reactors, such as the vacuum furnace
reactor, bubbling fluidised bed reactor, dragged-flow reactor, rotary
reactor, and vortex reactor among others [64].
2.2.3. Flash pyrolysis
Flash pyrolysis is known as such due to the extremely fast nature of
the process. However, even though speed is a critical aspect of this
process, a lot depends upon the processes by which heat, and mass are
transferred across the feedstock [67]. As with fast pyrolysis, flash py­
rolysis also produces dark brown pyrolysis oil post the feedstock
decomposition, cooling, and condensation. The pyrolysis generates
mainly vapours and aerosols with a small quantity of char. Flash py­
rolysis is conducted at temperatures closer to 1000 ◦ C, with heating rates
greater than 700 ◦ C/sec, and extremely low retention times (<0.5 sec)
[44]. Thus, the process is very carefully optimised to produce high yields
of quality oil [44]. Certain distinguishing factors include the need to
subject the feedstock to optimum temperatures to enable reaction, using
small-sized particles in fluidized bed reactors to reduce coke formation,
4
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 167 (2022) 112715
and ensuring faster transfer of heat to the surface of the particles, as
done during ablation [60]. Flash pyrolysis can yield up to 75% of py­
rolysis oil by the weight of the product [67,68]. However, flash pyrolysis
suffers from poor thermal stability. Moreover, the char exhibits a cata­
lytic effect resulting in the production of a more viscous oil that contains
solid residue at times, making it economically infeasible due to the
additional expenditure for upgradation to enhance the quality [47].
2.2.4. Catalytic pyrolysis and hydro-pyrolysis
Catalytic pyrolysis processes utilize various catalysts during the py­
rolysis process to produce and enhance the pyrolysis products [69].
Catalysts can be added to the feedstock before the pyrolysis process or to
the downstream process for volatile and gaseous matters to obtain as a
required product. The latter was found to be more useful in achieving
the desired products [70]. Research has suggested ZSM-5 to be used as a
catalyst, as it is beneficial for producing hydrocarbons [71]. However,
the procedure resulted in higher quantities of coke creation, thus leading
to low efficiency and wastage. However, recent improvements in tech­
nology have allowed the generation of high-quality oil from wood chips,
with yields rising to 60 gallons per ton of biomass [33]. Contrarily, the
catalytic hydro-pyrolysis technique uses a fluidized bed reactor to carry
out pyrolysis under a hydrogen flow, while using a metal catalyst in
place of a fluidized bed. Recent research advocates the use of pressures
of about 7–34 bars during the pyrolysis [72]. However, the technology
remains in a nascent stage due to its complexity with regard to feeding
organic matter into a pressurized pyrolyser and the presence of
hydrogen in the process. Moreover, this complexity increases the cost of
establishing such a process, thus reducing its economic feasibility [47].
In summary, most pyrolysis processes can be categorised as either
slow or fast based on their heating rates. In slow pyrolysis, organic
matter takes longer to attain pyrolysis temperature as compared to the
retention time after reaching the pyrolysis temperature. In contrast, the
organic matter heats quickly to pyrolysis temperature in fast pyrolysis
but is retained at peak temperature for a much shorter time [53]. Slow or
conventional pyrolysis technologies are used to produce char from wood
and other organic matter, with a primary goal of providing energy for
domestic and industrial uses [73,74]. Vapour residence times are higher
in slow pyrolysis, leading to a higher production of char. In recent times,
the char has found applications in agriculture and carbon sequestration
on processes. In contrast, fast pyrolysis processes are used to maximise
the output of high-quality oil from pyrolysis. Pyrolysis can also be
categorized as hydrous and hydro-pyrolysis, depending upon the me­
dium of pyrolysis [73]. While slow and fast pyrolysis is executed
anaerobically, hydro-pyrolysis is performed in the presence of hydrogen,
and hydrous pyrolysis is in the presence of water.
2.3. Types of reactors
Reactor type determines the successful conversion of organic matter
into energy (gaseous, liquid, solid fuels) during pyrolysis [75]. Reactors
are crucial to the pyrolysis process in which thermal degradation of
organic matter is carried out [53]. Reactors are designed by considering
the specifications of heating temperature, required pressure, vapour
residence time, and other parameters [75]. The common reactor con­
figurations used for pyrolysis include batch and semi-batch, fixed and
fluidized bed, conical sprouted bed reactors, and microwave-assisted
technology. Fig. 3 segregates reactor types according to feedstock
movement and mechanism of heat transfer. A summary of different
types of reactors used in pyrolysis is presented in Table 2 with their
working mechanisms, advantages and challenges.
3. Feedstock pyrolysis
This section provides a critical discussion for biomass pyrolysis,
plastic pyrolysis, and plastic and biomass pyrolysis to highlight the ad­
vantages, disadvantages, and roam of improvement for biochar
A. Al-Rumaihi et al.
Fig. 3. Reactor types according to feedstock movement and heat transfer.
production.
3.1. Plastic pyrolysis
Plastic is one of the most critical wastes produced, and its safe
disposal and recycling have many issues. Research on plastic pyrolysis
has been primarily focused on the conversion of plastic into pyrolysis oil
and pyrolysis gas. Fig. 4 illustrates the pyrolysis process.
Multiple researchers have investigated the potential of PET in py­
rolysis. However, the acidic nature of pyrolysis oil was termed unfav­
ourable because of its corrosive nature, which worsens the quality of the
fuel produced. Additionally, sublimation of benzoic acid would clog the
heat exchanger and the piping, thereby increasing costs during indus­
trial application [101]. Diaz-Silvarrey et al. [102] revealed that up to 27
wt% gaseous yield and 10 wt% of CO2 could be recovered from PET.
High-density polyethylene (HDPE) is one of the most basic types of
plastic is produced. HDPE has also been used for plastic waste pyrolysis
based on various operating parameters and the resulting product yield
[103–105]. The pyrolysis HDPE demonstrates that the highest yield
occurred at 350 ◦ C, with the liquid being the primary yield in the 80.88
wt% of the recovered material [106]. As such, based on these findings, it
is apparent that the bio-oil yield from the pyrolysis of PET ranges from
24 to 40 wt%, while the yield of gas ranges 52–77 wt%, making PET an
important plastic for pyrolysis [106]. High-value range gasoline is pro­
duced from HDPE pyrolysis in a fixed bed reactor, and the resulting fuel
complied with existing market standards for aromatic and aliphatic
constituents [13]. Hassan et al. [21] used a fixed bed reactor to perform
co-pyrolysis of HDPE and sugarcane bagasse (60:40), obtaining 34 wt%
of oil. These results reveal that HDPE is appropriate for the pyrolysis
process. The thermal degradation of HDPE waste can be enhanced by
optimizing the reaction conditions, for example, using catalysts such as
silica-alumina, reforming catalysts, and zeolite [107]. As with HDPE,
LDPE was also investigated widely through pyrolysis, but its pyrolysis
yielded more liquid oil, further indicating its potential applicability for
plastic waste recycling [108]. Zattini et al. [109] showed that LDPE
pyrolysis resulted in high yields of waxes, oils, and gas enriched with
carbon oxides. Researchers pointed out that moderate temperatures of
500–550 ◦ C using a batch reactor is a suitable pyrolysis process for
recovering LDPE wastes into valuable oils rich in simple aromatic hy­
drocarbons and aliphatic hydrocarbons, or gas that can be applied as
fuel or petrochemical feedstock [109]. Thus, LDPE was considered a
potential plastic waste that can be used in pyrolysis in the energy re­
covery of used packaging materials.
As with PET; HDPE, LDPE, PP, and PS have also been widely studied
in plastic pyrolysis. The pyrolysis of PP with rice bran shows coke or char
formation occurred at higher temperature [110]. Chattopadhyay et al.
[103] examined the pyrolysis of PP at a greater temperature of 380 ◦ C,
and the bio-oil was 80% of the total product yield, whereas residues and
gaseous were 13.3 wt% and 6.6 wt%, respectively. Fakhr Hoseini et al.
[111] achieved a greater liquid yield of 82.12 wt% when PP was pyro­
lyzed at 500 ◦ C. However, any additional increment of temperature
5
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 167 (2022) 112715
above 500 ◦ C has been reported to result in a reduced liquid oil yield.
The negative impact of temperature increase on the liquid oil yield was
confirmed by Demirbaş et al. [112], where pyrolysis of PP at 740 ◦ C using
a batch reactor resulted in 1.6 wt% char, 49.6 wt% gaseous materials,
and 48.8 wt% of liquid oil. Therefore PP is a suitable material for oil
production at the optimal operating temperature ranges from 380 ◦ C to
500 ◦ C. Researchers have also examined the use of PS as potential waste
material for the pyrolysis process. Iftikhar et al. [113]conducted cata­
lytic co-pyrolysis of sugarcane bagasse and PS in a fixed bed reactor,
with maximum yield being obtained at a mix ratio of 1:3 at 56.8 wt%,
with the lowest yield of 20.8 wt% being obtained. Miandad et al. [114]
examined the effect of reaction time and temperature on the quality and
yield amount of liquid oil from PP pyrolysis. The maximum yield of bio
oil, gas and char was 76 wt%, 8 wt%, and 16 wt%, respectively at a
temperature of 400 ◦ C and a residence time of 75 min. However, when
the temperature was raised to 450 ◦ C, gaseous yield was 13 wt%, while
char yield reduced to 6.2 wt%, and liquid yield increased to 80.8 wt%.
Unlike other plastic waste, pyrolysis of PVC has been limited because
of the potential production of hydrogen chloride (HCl) [115]. De Souza
et al. [116]cautioned that HCl is often toxic and corrosive when
moderately heated and, as a result, often increases the risk of damaging
equipment used for pyrolysis. Al-Harahsheh et al. [117] investigated the
pyrolysis kinetics of PVC using an electric arc furnace dust, resulting in
the release of HCl, benzene, volatile hydrocarbons, iron oxides, and
metals such as lead and zinc recovered from the chlorides. The release of
HCL in product gas was also noticed for co-pyrolysis of PVC and semi­
conducting materials in electrical products [118]. Micro-wave assisted
technology is also utilized to perform co-pyrolysis of PVC and micro­
algae, and PVC content displayed an inverse relationship with oil at high
temperatures and energy [119]. Thus, results revealed that the PVC
pyrolysis process is not commercially viable since only 30% of the PVC
was recoverable. Table 3 summarizes a few studies based on plastic,
reactor, temperature, output composition by percentage and major
by-products.
However, plastic pyrolysis has some technical challenges, as Uzoe­
jinwa et al. [115] stated. Pyrolysis of plastic can create a corrosive layer
at the bottom that can affect the feedstock’s heating rate, shorten the
reactor’s life, and reduce the economic feasibility of the process. In
addition, differences in melting points of different plastic types inhibit
the ability to control yield due to the lack of reactor configurations.
Moreover, the thermal decomposition of plastic waste, such as PVC and
polystyrene, results in toxic gases and chlorinated hydrocarbons that are
harmful to human health and can cause blindness, vomiting and other
complications in children.
3.2. Pyrolysis of biomass
Biochar is an important product of pyrolysis and can be obtained
from different biomass and wastes. The composition, properties and
pyrolysis conditions determine the properties and yield of biochar
[121]. The abundant materials, which are usually considered waste and
hence obtained at low or no cost, are considered for biochar production
[122]. Agricultural wastes such as waste wood, peanut shells, hazelnut,
and wheat straw can be used to produce biochar via slow pyrolysis
within reaction temperature of 300–900 ◦ C in an oxygen-free environ­
ment [12]. Gases and other by-products produced during this reaction
can be used as energy sources to produce heat and electricity [6,123].
Research has shown that feedstocks and reaction processes largely in­
fluence the intended application of the obtained biochar. High lignin
content biomass has been noted to produce relatively high biochar
yields. Additionally, the pyrolysis of wood-based feedstock such as olive
husks and date pits results in a hardier and coarser biochar with a carbon
content of up to 80% by weight. Keiluweit et al. [124] reported high
biochar yield from switchgrass and poultry litter pyrolyzed at 350 ◦ C. On
the other hand, biochar produced from sorghum, oil palm, sugarcane,
corn, and peanut wastes reports comparatively lower yields but high
A. Al-Rumaihi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 167 (2022) 112715

Table 2
A summary of reactor types.
Reactor type Working mechanism Advantages Challenges References

Batch Reactor - Sealed system; there is no outflow or inflow of - Very simple build-up and operation - Product variability from one batch to [76,77]
products or reactants. - Good for lab-scale biochar another.
- Reactants are placed in reactor for the desired production. - Difficulties related to using batch reactors
duration. - Preferable for char production. in large scale pyrolysis production.
- Only raw material is present in the
reactor.
Semi-Batch Reactor The reactant addition and product extraction is - Advantage of reaction selectivity - Sintering of catalyst through coke [78–80]
possible simultaneously. and product variability. deposition.
- Semi-batch reactors are suited to - Low production rate due to un-uniform
the production of high yields of oil. heat and mass transfer.
Fixed Bed Reactors The catalyst is packed in a static bed in pelletized form. - Low cost, simple build up and - Upscaling and heat and mass transfer [75,
operation. issue 81–83]
- Lengthy residence time for higher - Tar removal and cleaning problem
carbon conversion rate - Low yield of liquid and gas products.
- High yield of char and low ash
carryover.
Fluidized Bed - Feed and bed material are mixed through the - Flexible reaction processes and - Emission of pollutants [75,84,85]
Reactors fluidization work at higher temperature - High capital cost and pre-treatment cost
- Velocity of fluidized medium is used to mix them. - Uniform heat and mass transfer - Pipes corrosions and blockage of feeding
- Continues operation - Controlling of the vapour holding system.
time.
- Easy in scaling up for biochar
production
Bubbling Fluidized - Air distribution grid at the bottom to fluidised the - Very efficient at heat transfer - Oxidation spots formation due to oxygen [86,87]
Bed Reactor feed particles and inert material. - Ease of construction and operation diffusion.
- Fluidization velocity used. - Excellent storage capacity - High capital cost
- Pilot plant operation up to 60 kg/h.
Circulating - Similar operation like bubbling fluidized with the - To handle large quantities of feed - Costly for low scale operation [86,88]
Fluidized Bed recycling of fluidized agent/gas - Energy efficient for circulating
Reactors fluidizing agent and material
Ablative Reactors - Heat is transferred to feed particles through direct - Good heat transfer and low energy - Sophisticated and compels set up - Scaling [75,77,89]
contact of dis, cone or liquid. are needed. is not easy.
- Fast decomposition of organic matter makes flash - Does not require fluidising gases.
pyrolysis - Lenient to size of the organic
particles, thereby saving additional
costs.
Vacuum Pyrolysis - Feed is fed through a conveyor belt and stirred - Does not require any carrier gas. - Unable to handle larger particles [41,90]
Reactors mechanically. - Complicated design and maintenance
- Need special input apparatus
Conical Spouted - An alternative of fluidized bed reactor and useful - Able to handle a wide range of - Challenges such as the feeding of catalysts [76,91,92]
Bed reactors flash pyrolysis and continuous feed. particle sizes, shapes and densities. and entrainment.
- Lower attrition rate and bed - Product collection like liquid and solid.
segregation
Rotating Cone Centrifugal forces use to mix the sand and feed move - High yields of pyrolysis oil. - Complex design. [93–95]
Reactors upward. Feed enter from the bottom - Economical at large-scale.
PyRos Reactor The combination of cyclonic reactor and spouted - Short residence time and low tar - Difficult to separate the products. [47,93]
reactor the mixture in a downward direction. - Compact and low-cost setup
maintenance.
Plasma reactor Feed stock is placed in the cylindrical tube that is fitted Fats reaction and fast reactions and Energy-intensive and High operating cost [96,97]
with two copper electrodes. low tar formation.
Microwave reactor Facilitate energy transfer via atomic or molecular - Lowe by-product formation effec­ - Scaling up and continuing operational [93,98]
interaction using a microwave. tive heat transfer and chemical issue
recovery. - Waste particle size control and poor
- Good for co-pyrolysis for oil and mixing
gas production - High dependence on waste dielectric
properties.
Solar Reactors Solar reactors are composed of opaque quartz tubes - Low cost heating process - The need for a proper solar design to [99,100]
and the outer walls are used to highly 4 concentrate - Fast start-up and shut down time generate solar energy is still needed to be
solar radiation. for the pyrolysis process investigated.

carbon and nitrogen content and greater porosity. This makes them
suitable for soil applications to increase moisture content and water
retention [124]. Of late, various feedstocks have been identified to be
suited to the production of biochar, such as seaweeds, animal manure,
wood chips, marine algae, and residues of plants. However, the feed­
stock’s specific type and nature largely affect the biochar properties and
its subsequent application [124].
The variance in feedstock compositions and pyrolysis processes
would produce different products and potential applications and uses
[22]. For instance, feedstock such as biomass energy crops including
oilseed rape, palm oil, wood pellets, cereals, and corn can either treated
by an anhydrous reaction (fast pyrolysis), carbonisation (brown at 300
◦
C and black biochar at 380 ◦ C), or slow pyrolysis at the low temperature
of 450–550 ◦ C to produce biochar anaerobically [125]. Based on the
process and temperature, the by-products of these processes can be used
for soil enhancement, increasing soil porosity and water retention, as
fuel for heating and cooking, or as a substitute for coal-derived coke for
metal smelting. Biochar produced at lower temperatures is more suited
to provide robust benefits to agriculture in terms of plant growth as
compared to biochar produced at higher temperatures. Similarly, bio­
char produced via carbonisation is better suited to be used as coke
[126]. Table 4 presents the properties of biochar produced from
commonly used feedstock. As discussed previously, biochar usage for
soil enhancement is mainly hindered due to the lack of uniformity in the

6
A. Al-Rumaihi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 167 (2022) 112715

used as landfills, reducing the costs of waste management and treat­

ment; thus, solving subsequent environmental problems that occur due
to the dumping of wastes in landfills, all while providing an efficient and
alternative source of energy [51,135]. The co-pyrolysis of biomass and
plastics is highly beneficial to the environment as it decreases the
quantity of plastic waste while converting it into reusable energy. Still it
also allows the replenishment and substitution of chemicals and fossil
fuels [50,136]. The synergistic effect of the reaction between the
interacting materials in the mixed feedstock is the main gist of the
co-pyrolysis process. It is effected by many factors such as; type of
feedstock, the ratio of the blend, the contact between the two compo­
nents, heating and temperature rates, the nature of the catalyst, the
duration of the process, and the stabilization or removal of volatile
Fig. 4. Pyrolysis of plastic waste with output and possible applications.
substances that form during the process [137,138]. Hence, the
co-pyrolysis of biomass and plastic feedstock is a critical subject of
Table 3 research for the energy industry due to its efficient performance and
Summary of the results of plastic pyrolysis. cost-effectiveness.
Co-pyrolysis of plastics with biomass discards the requirement of
References Plastic Temp Char (%wt) Liquid (% Gas (%
Type (◦ C) wt) wt) hydrogen, catalysts, or other solvents, which tend to add significantly to
the economic cost of a regular pyrolysis process [138]. Co-pyrolysis at
[111] PET 500 8.98 52.13 39.89
[106] HDPE 300–400 33.05–0.54 80.88 –
average temperatures of 500 ◦ C with short residence times tend to
[107] HDPE 600 34.7 18.1 28.9 produce good quality of higher bio-oils yields that are about 75% of the
[120] PP 300–700 78.8 21.8 7.2 weight of the feedstock mixture, with minimal adjustments of the
[119] PVC 500–700 – 29.65–0.38 – operating parameters [50,139]. Additionally, it does not require any
[108] LDPE 350–600 12.7 74.4 36.8
upgrading that is necessary for bio-oils generated from the regular py­
[103] PP 380 13.3 80.1 6.6
[112] PP 740 1.6 48.8 49.6 rolysis processes [138]. Kositkanawuth et al. [140] reviewed the
[114] PP 400 16 76 8 co-pyrolysis of co-pyrolysis of plastic with biomass and concluded that
- ¼ Not reported mixed feedstock co-pyrolysis improved the quality of the bio-oil. Most
importantly, co-pyrolysis techniques are more profitable when
compared to regular pyrolysis of biomass, indicating its relevance and
biochar composition produced from various sources. Thus, it is impor­
potential for commercial development [141] due to its direct blending
tant to optimize the production of biochar to ensure uniformity across
with fuel as compared to the oil obtained from individual pyrolysis
the desired parameters and yield of biochar. Variations in the yield and
[138]. However, the co-pyrolysis of plastic and biomass produces a
physicochemical properties of biochar due to feedstock properties are
stable and homogenous pyrolysis oil that does not suffer from phase
further discussed in section 4.8.
separation [142].
The type of reactor used for co-pyrolysis depends upon the process
3.3. Co-pyrolysis of plastic and biomass and the conditions. Co-pyrolysis that is optimised for biochar production
will require slow pyrolysis reactors such as drum, rotary, and screw-fed
Biomass gasification and pyrolysis are considerably developed and reactors, whereas co-pyrolysis optimised to produce oil and gas will use
widely prevalent technologies for generating syngas, biochar and liquid fast reactors such as fixed and fluidized bed reactor, vacuum, rotating
fuels. However, the industrial application of biochar as a soil amend­ cones, auger reactor and ablative reactors [138,143,144]. Additionally,
ment agent is limited due to the lack of research on the optimum process parameters such as heating rate, residence times, temperature,
composition of biochar material [12]. Of late, research has focused on feedstock type, and blending ratio are crucial to the char’s final yield,
blending biomass and plastic material to produce biochar that is effec­ composition, and physicochemical properties. Generally, fluidized beds
tive for different applications using the process of co-pyrolysis [113]. and rotating cone reactors are widely used due to their scalability and
Co-pyrolysis of varying types of plastic and biomass feedstocks reduces cost-effectiveness. However, auger and fluidized bed reactors are more
the economic cost of production, increases the convenience of the pro­ configurable in terms of feeding rate [145,146]. Table 5 summarizes the
cess, improves its effectiveness and efficiency in producing valuable results of co-pyrolysis of plastic and biomass, comparing the yield and
products, and reduces the formation of wastes [134]. Critically, difference in calorific value to a pyrolysis mixture consisting of biomass
co-pyrolysis could be an effective method of waste management, leading only. Accordingly, a combination of woody biomass works with most
to overall reductions in the volume of waste, sparing land from being plastic types. Fig. 5 summarizes the pyrolysis products based on the

Table 4
Properties of biochar produced from commonly used agricultural and forest residues.
References Biochar feedstock Pyrolysis Temp (◦ C) C N H O Char Yield (%) Ash (%) Gas (%)

[127] Algae matter 300–700 50.4 10.6 7.54 30.7 40–90 4.8 –
[128] Bamboo 500–900 54.49 0.19 6.15 37.1 – – –
[20] Corn Stover 600 70.5 – – – – 16.6 23.6
[129] animal dung 800 27.78 1.67 3.98 20.3 53.1 34 13
[124] Pine wood 400 74.1 0.06 4.95 20.9 35.3 1.5 36.4
[130] Wheat straw 500 62.9 – – – 29.8 18.0 17.6
[131] Walnut shell 900 55.3 0.47 0.89 1.6 – 40.4 –
[131] Turkey litter 700–800 15.6 0.78 0.83 4.4 – 64 –
[14] Timothy grass 450 67.5 1.9 2.3 28.2 43 3.5 7.5
[132] Sugarcane bagasse 600 76.5 3.03 2.93 19.8 – – –
[133] Rice husk 400 37.2 1.3 1.2 12.4 – 47.9 38.2
- ¼ Not reported

7
A. Al-Rumaihi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 167 (2022) 112715

Table 5
Summary of the results of Co-pyrolysis of plastic and biomass.
References Plastic Biomass Type Temp Product Yield (wt%) Product Yield (wt%) Calorific Value (MJ/kg) Calorific Value (MJ/kg)
Type (◦ C) (Plastic-biomass) biomass pyrolysis (Plastic-biomass) Biomass pyrolysis

[147] PS Palm shell 500 61.63 15.5 38.01 22.51

[148] Plastic Pine residue 400 53 21 45 25
waste
[149] PS Karanja seeds, 550 60.11 27.21 27.92 42.18 4.53
Niger Seeds 61.31 41.42 9.27
[150] PP Cotton straw 380–480 35.80 15.8 46.9 31.4
[151] LDPE Pinecone 500 63.90 16.4 46.33 –
PP 64.10 16.6 45.58 –
PS 69.70 22.2 46.43 –
[152] PP (block) Wood chip 500 63.10 23.8 45 25.1
[153] LDPE Sunflower stalk 600 57.17 27.23 – –
Cedar Wood 64.08 25.25 – –
Fallopia Japonica 58.96 28.53 – –
Stem
[154] PS Cellulose 500 58.8 13.3 – –
[155] HDPE Potato skin 500 39 16 45.61 13.61
- ¼ Not reported

feedstock and pyrolysis process. make it the preferred technology for biochar production. However, the
complete separation of waste plastic and biomass is an expensive,
time-consuming, and laborious process, not to mention the technical
3.4. Advantages of co-pyrolysis of plastic and biomass for biochar
difficulties of the same. The co-pyrolysis of plastic and biomass presents
production
a novel solution to produce high-quality biochar from industrial and
agricultural wastes while presenting all the advantages of pyrolysis in
The production of biochar and its usage have many economic and
terms of agricultural, industrial, and environmental applications, along
social benefits. The process of biochar production is important for
with energy production and waste management [42,43].
mitigating climate change, a source of energy, soil improvement, water
Multiple studies have assessed the outcomes of co-pyrolysis on bio­
treatment, and waste management [8,156]. Pyrolysis can churn waste
char properties concluding that co-pyrolysis helps to obtain the targeted
into energy and useable by-products, where the quantity and yield of
physicochemical properties of biochar for specific applications. Rodri­
these products are dependent on multiple factors such as catalysts,
guez et al. [43] conducted a study to analyse the effect of co-pyrolysis on
carrier gas flow rate, temperature, pressure, heating rate, particle size,
biochar properties by pyrolyzing biochars produced from an equal parts
residence time, feedstock composition and moisture content, and reactor
mixture by weight of swine manure and poultry litter with the tyre,
configuration [12]. Additionally, its scalability and economic costs

Fig. 5. Pyrolysis products are based on the feedstock and pyrolysis process.

8
A. Al-Rumaihi et al.
construction wood, and PVC plastic. The resulting feedstock was pyro­
lyzed at the temperature range of 300–700 ◦ C at increments of 100 ◦ C.
The study found that mixing biomass with plastic improved the ash
content of the biochar, its water holding capacity (WHC), cation ex­
change capacity (CEC), and alkalinity, making it suitable for increasing
the supply of nutrition and CEC in soils. Additionally, the low molar
ratios of Hydrogen to Carbon (0.06), and Oxygen to Carbon (0.3) indi­
cated the possibility of soil carbon sequestration due to high stability
[43]. It was noticed that the co-pyrolysis of agricultural and industrial
waste were improved the physicochemical properties of biochar [43].
Similarly, Rathnayake et al. [42] studied the co-pyrolysis of biomass
with plastic wastes at 550 ◦ C in a fixed bed reactor. The study combined
plastic growing bags from agriculture and horticulture setups with
mulching sheets, spent growing mediums, and residues of bean crop in
five mixtures, with plastic waste comprising 0, 0.25, 2.5, 5, and 10% of
the feedstock by weight. The results showed that low plastic ratios in the
feedstock improved the quality and yield of biochar, while high ratios of
plastic in the feedstock had a negative effect on the same. While the
proportion of grow bags in the mix of spent growing mediums and
plastic grow bags did not affect the growth of the plant, the proportion of
mulching sheets in the mix of mulching sheets and bean residues dis­
played a phytotoxic effect, adversely affecting the growth of the plant.
Washing the mulching sheet and bean residue biochar reduced the
phytotoxic effect in all mixtures other than the 10% mix. Thus, the study
concluded that low ratios of LDPE plastic had a positive effect on biochar
yield and plant growth, while high ratios of LDPE plastic reduced the
germination rate of plants [42]. The following section analyses the
production parameters and technology that could be used for the opti­
miszation of biochar produced from the co-pyrolysis of plastic and
biomass.
4. Optimizing parameters of co-pyrolysis to maximize biochar
production
The pyrolysis process conditions can significantly affect the physi­
cochemical properties, quality, and yield of the products [8–10]. Thus,
the pyrolysis process parameters are crucial in determining and
enhancing the final quality and quantity of the output.
4.1. Temperature
Being a thermochemical process, pyrolysis temperature is obviously
crucial to biochar’s yield and physicochemical properties, such as sta­
bility, proportion of elemental components, surface area, pore structure,
and functional groups due to the influx of volatile matters at high
temperatures [157]. Multiple studies show that pyrolytic temperature is
inversely related to biochar’s yield and directly related to bio-oil yield.
As the temperature increased from 400 ◦ C to 700 ◦ C biochar yield
decreased by about 10–30% [43,158]. Similarly, a 250 ◦ C increase in
temperature decreased the biochar yield by approximately 90% [159]. A
study by Mahdi et al. [16] showed that the highest biochar yield of
45.18% was obtained at 350 ◦ C. For comparison, biochar yield was
34.92% at 450 ◦ C and 26.44% at 550 ◦ C. Higher pyrolysis temperatures
result in increased surface area and pore size, higher pH, carbon content
while decreasing the CEC of biochar [43,160–162]. Moreover, pyrolysis
at lower temperatures (<500 ◦ C) produced biochar that is relatively
more hydrophilic as compared to biochar produced from pyrolysis at
higher temperatures (>650 ◦ C) [163]. While Uchimiya et al. [164] have
shown higher temperatures (>400 ◦ C) result in biochar that is suitable
for soil and water treatment due to greater surface area and pore
structure [161,165], reiterate that sorption differs in its mechanism
based on pyrolysis temperature, with no changes in efficacy. Among
other changes, the carbon content of biochar is directly associated with
pyrolysis temperature and inversely associated with the oxygen,
hydrogen, and nitrogen contents of biochar [166,167]. Additionally,
while research has shown that biochar stability increases with an
9
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 167 (2022) 112715
increase in temperature, the ratio of stable biochar to total biochar does
not depend upon temperature [41]. It is thus concluded that the opti­
mum temperature for biochar production is helpful for yield and
application.
4.2. Heating rate
The heating rate affects the composition of pyrolytic products.
Higher heating rates induce fragmentation that increases oil and gas
yield, whereas lower heating rates induce secondary pyrolysis stages
and favour char production [12]. In fast pyrolysis, heating rates vary
from 10 to 200 ◦ C/min, and it usually favours liquid and gas products.
Whereas slow pyrolysis occurs at a lower heating rate of 0.1–1 ◦ C/min
and the longest residence time yielded solid products biochar up to
70–80 wt% of biochar at the lower temperature range of 300–500 ◦ C
[168]. Increasing the heating rates from 30 to 50 ◦ C with a concurrent
rise in temperature from 400 to 500 ◦ C reduced the yield of biochar
[169]. Heating rates also affect the surface morphology of biochar,
which is similar to the temperature effect. Surface area and pore volume
decrease with increasing heating rates due to the higher evaporation of
volatile matters [12,166]. Similarly, the change in heating rate from 10
to 30 ◦ C at a similar temperature affects the biochar yield. Still, it has less
effect on the composition of biochar and other properties. Chen et al.
[170] noticed the 4–5% variation in the biochar yield at various tem­
perature and no effect on C% in biochar for biomass pyrolysis. Higher
heating rates were also associated with reduced oxygen content within
the biochar [171]. With the changes in surface characteristics and other
physical properties change the application of biochar. It is utter
importance to find the optimum heating rate to produce the biochar for
a particular application. In the case of blending of plastic and biomass,
the optimum heating rate will be more significant due to the difference
in the thermal degradation of feedstocks.
4.3. Reactor configuration
The reactor is an important aspect that determines the eventual yield
and composition of the pyrolysis products as it can be configured ac­
cording to the requirement of the process. The heat transfer rate be­
tween the reactor and the feedstock particles is one of the most crucial
factors determining yield [53]. This transfer can occur via convection or
conduction. Fixed bed reactors rely on conduction for heat transfer,
whereas moving bed reactors combine convection and conduction to
hasten heat transfer between reactor and feedstock particles [60].
Additional studies have shown that the height of the reactor bed also
affects the yield of biochar. This is because taller beds enable longer
residence times for vapours, thus inducing repolymerisation that in­
creases the yield of biochar [75,81–83]. On the other hand, shorter beds
retard the yield of biochar due to shorter residence times for vapours,
thus preventing repolymerisation and subsequently affecting the yield of
biochar [75,84,85]. Meesuk et al. [172] displayed that biochar yield
decreased by 12% (28.48%–25.04%) as bed height doubled (5 cm–10
cm). However, further increments in bed height increased the yield of
biochar [173]. Commercial pyrolysis processes use continuous tech­
niques such as drum pyrolyser, screw pyrolyzer, and rotary kilns to
produce biochar [8]. The reactor configuration and type will be care­
fully selected by considering the following factors product type, yield,
surface characteristics, and most importantly blending ratio of various
feedstock.
4.4. Pressure
The pyrolysis process is usually performed at atmospheric pressure,
although the variation in the reactor pressure during pyrolysis can
enhance the yield of biochar. Studies have shown that biochar yield is
enhanced when reactor pressure is greater than atmospheric pressure
[174]. The production of volatile matter during the pyrolysis process
A. Al-Rumaihi et al.
creates liquid and gas during fast pyrolysis. High pressure increases the
process’s residence time, which causes volatile matter to combine with
char, thus increasing biochar yield [175]. Additionally, higher pressure
in the reactor is associated with a higher concentration of carbon in the
biochar yield, which results in enhanced energy density of the biochar
[40]. Other studies also found higher reactor pressure associated with
greater carbon concentration, higher char stability, and higher electrical
conductivity, thus improving the potential for soil improvement, carbon
sequestration, CEC, and energy production. However, a combination of
high temperature and high pressure significantly lowered the yield of
biochar, while augmenting the yield of pyrolysis gas along with
enhancing the carbon content and CEC of the char [85,176–178].
4.5. Residence time
Residence time is an important factor that is also decisive for the
composition of the pyrolytic product. Short residence time favours the
liquid and gas products whereas the longer residence times increase the
yield of biochar by enabling the greater possibility of repolymerisation
[53]. Scott et al. [179] investigated the biochar from the pyrolysis of
sorghum bagasse at 525 ◦ C, concluding that residence time directly
correlated with biochar yield and an inverse relationship with bio-oil
yield. A 0.7-sec increase in residence time reduced bio-oil yield from
75% to 57%. Similarly, Kim et al. [180]conducted a study on
yellow-brown coal and wood biomass to conclude that longer residence
times yield greater quantities of biochar. Additionally, other studies
have shown that residence times also affect the composition and quality
of pyrolysis products [34,181]. However, certain studies have shown
that residence time affects biochar yield due to an interactive effect with
temperature, thus making it difficult to make direct conclusions with
regard to its singular effect on biochar yield [34,182]. Fassinou et al.
[183] showed that a combination of high temperature with longer
residence times increased the yield of biochar. In comparison, a com­
bination of low temperature and longer residence times reduced the
yield of biochar, thus indicating the possibility that temperature mod­
erates the effect of residence time on biochar yield. This has been
corroborated by Liang et al. [184], who demonstrated that increasing
residence times while maintaining lower temperatures of 300 ◦ C
decreased biochar yield while increasing residence times at tempera­
tures beyond 600 ◦ C had little to no effect on biochar yield. Therefore,
the optimum residence time is the main contributor for biochar yield
and should be taken for co-pyrolysis of biomass and plastic.
4.6. Carrier gas flow rate
During the process of pyrolysis, the carrier gas flow rate purges the
vapours that are produced during the pyrolysis process. If left unpurged,
these vapours participate in secondary reactions, adversely affecting
pyrolysis products’ physicochemical properties and yield [185]. The
carriers gas flow rate increased the yield of stable C in the biochar [186].
The most common carrier gases are argon, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and
steam [187]. However, nitrogen gas is widely used in commercial py­
rolysis operations due to its inert behaviour, availability, and
cost-effectiveness. Abbas-Abadi et al. [78] investigated the impact of
various carrier gas on the condensed and non-condensed products from
the pyrolysis of polypropylene. H2 was found to be a more effective
condensed product yield [188].found that carrier gas flow rate is
inversely proportional to biochar production, as biochar yield decreased
by about 8–10% when the flow rate was increased from 1.2 to 4.5
mL/min.
4.7. Catalysts
Catalysts can be either categorized as primary or secondary catalysts
depending upon their effects and their phase of incorporation in the
pyrolysis process [189]. The impact of the former is usually mixed with
10
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 167 (2022) 112715
the feedstock in either dry or wet mode before the pyrolysis process,
while the latter is placed downstream to the primary chamber in which
pyrolysis is conducted. Some of the most common catalysts used in
biochar production are oxides of nickel, oxides of magnesium, alumina,
ZMS-5, and Al-MCM-41 [189]. The impact of various catalysts in plastic
pyrolysis was reviewed by Al-Salem et al. [190]. Most of these inorganic
salts have been shown to augment biochar yield, while decreasing the
yield of oil and gas [191]. Biochar yields have also been depicted to
increase post modification of the acid or base content of biomass, as
shown by Smets et al. [192] who catalysed biomass with ZSM-5,
resulting in higher biochar yields compared to biomass catalysed with
sodium carbonate and alumina oxide. However, the efficacy of ZSM-5 in
increasing biochar yield is contradicted by other studies that show
ZSM-5 reduces the yield of biochar [173]. Overall, catalysts mostly in­
crease the yield of biochar when added with biomass during co-pyrolysis
[193].
4.8. Feedstock composition and blending ratios
Feedstock composition is an important determinant of the compo­
sition and yield of pyrolytic products. The primary purpose of co-
pyrolysis is to utilisze the different composition feedstock to produce
the augmented product yield and composition. As co-pyrolysis includes
two different types of feedstock components – plastic and biomass, their
blending ratios also influence the composition and yield of pyrolytic
products. (i) Biomass: Biomass is any biologically derived organic or
non-organic material. Animal manure, sludge, wastepaper, agricultural
residues, and other industrial wastes that are a blend of organic and
inorganic compounds are considered biomass [194]. Woody biomass
consists of residues from the forestry industry and trees. On the other
hand, crop residues, other agriculture and animal wastes, and industrial
and urban solid wastes are considered non-woody biomass [39]. Woody
biomass is primarily composed of lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose,
with varying trace amounts of minerals and other components, and the
varying proportions of each component define the final yield of biochar
[40,62]. Woody biomass is characterized by high bulk density and
calorific value and low moisture, ash content and voidage. Non-woody
biomass is characterized by high levels of moisture and ash, low bulk
density, low calorific value, and the presence of voidage [39].
The production of char from woody biomass depends on its source, as
feedstock from coniferous trees is reported to produce a greater yield of
biochar than feedstock from deciduous trees. Overall, higher pro­
portions of cellulose and hemicellulose support the production of liquids
and gases, whereas higher proportions of lignin are better suited for
biochar production [195]. The content of lignin in feedstock was
directly associated with biochar yield obtained [196] and the char ob­
tained from higher lignin woody biomass is better suited for soil appli­
cation by reducing the wind-based loss and soil hydrophobicity, the
latter of which could cause increased retention of herbicides and other
industrial products in soils, thus reducing the quality of the soil [197].
However, woody biochar is acidic compared to non-woody biochar
because of its composition and salts in the latter [42,198,199]. In
addition, the proportion of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin of feed­
stock also influences the specific surface area and porosity of biochar,
with lignin content being directly related to specific surface area and
porosity [200]. Whereas biochar derived from non-woody biomass dis­
played greater CEC and reduced surface acidity relative to biochar
derived from woody biomass [131,201]. Biochar generated from
non-woody biomass and plastic was alkaline (pH value of 10), had
higher ash content (44%), high water holding capacity (41%) and cation
exchange capacity (CEC) 37 cmolc per kg [43]. Moisture content also
plays a significant role in the yield and composition of pyrolysis products
and the low level of moisture is favourable to produce biochar while
moister biomass is better suited for bio-oil production [202]. This is
because higher moisture content hinders char formation and also
increased the amount of energy required to achieve pyrolysis
A. Al-Rumaihi et al.
temperature [37].(ii) Plastic: The most used plastics in co-pyrolysis are
polyethylene-terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polystyrene (PS),
and polypropylene (PP), with PE being the most used plastic and PET
being the most-recycled type of plastic. PE can be either low density
(LDPE) or high density (HDPE) [34]. With a melting point of about
105–115 ◦ C, the pyrolysis of PE usually results in about 1.34% of biochar
by weight, with the remaining being composed of 69.82% liquid and
28.84% gas [203]. On the other hand, plastic have very low moisture
content (0.00–0.80%) compared to the woody and non-woody biomass
but still yielded the lower char by wt% due to lower fixed carbon
(0.00–13.1%) and higher volatile content (86.83–99.88%) in all type of
plastic waste [34]. Similarly, the pyrolysis of PP usually results in about
8.4% of biochar by weight, with the remaining being composed of
59.7% liquid and 31.9% gas [50]. Additionally, all plastics are primarily
composed of volatile matter with very little moisture, making them an
efficient feedstock for co-pyrolysis with biomass [138]. The lower ash
content in plastics ranges from (0.00–3.55%) also made an interesting
feedstock for pyrolysis [34]. (iii) Blending Ratio: Blending of different
feedstock could be a good option to use an optimum feedstock compo­
sition to determine the yield and physicochemical properties for any
targeted application. Higher ratios of plastic are suited to the production
of oil [204]. It was founded that LDPE content in feedstock was inversely
related to biochar yield as well as the agricultural applicability of bio­
char [42]. The decrease in char production from 30 to 20% with the
increased the plastic content from 0 to 100% in biomass blend [205].
The pre-treatment of feedstock before pyrolysis can influence the
characteristics of biochar. Pre-treatment methods include reducing
particle size and the immersion, soaking or steaming of raw feedstock in
solution. (iv)Particle Size: Biomass is a bad conductor of heat, its pres­
ence during co-pyrolysis can retard the rate heat rates is conducted
throughout the feedstock. Thus, particle size is particularly important
given the variations in reactor requirements and its effect on biochar
yield. An increase in the particle size, implies a greater distance for the
heat to travel from the surface to the core end of the biomass feedstock,
thus retarding the rate of heat flow and increasing the yield of solid
biochar. Additionally, larger biomass particles enhance the secondary
reactions, resulting in a greater yield of biochar and lesser yields of oil
and other products [206]. Larger particles are also associated with
increased moisture and reduced carbon content [167]. However, some
researchers have found that Yaashikaa et al. [38] state that particle size
is inversely related to biochar yield or no effect [38,188]. Moreover,
studies have also evaluated the effect of particle shape on biochar yield,
with cylindrical or slab-shaped biomass particles resulting in better
biochar yields than spherical biomass particles [159]. Moreover, the
alignment of biochar particles also aids or retards heat transfer, and as a
result biochar yield also varies. Heat permeation along the particles is
about 10,000 times as compared to heat permeation across the particles,
even though thermal conductivity was greater in the latter as compared
to the former. Additionally, char particles arranged in a perpendicular
manner showed a greater biochar yield [38]. (iv) Immersion, Soaking or
Steaming: Pre-treatment process such as: immersing, soaking, or steam­
ing raw biomass particles in dilute acidic solutions can influence the
yield, elemental composition, and physicochemical properties of bio­
char. Doping with nitrogen, mineral or metal solutions can increase the
concentration of carbon within the biochar while reducing its oxygen
and moisture content. While components such as hydrogen, oxygen,
sulfur, and nitrogen turn into volatile particles during pyrolysis, other
components such as calcium, potassium, phosphorous, silicon, and
magnesium will increment into the biochar, thus affecting its physico­
chemical properties and elemental composition [38,207].
5. Technology readiness level (TRL)
The technical maturity of any process or technique is assessed
through the technology readiness level (TRL), a point-based framework
system from concept to commercial use [5]. This point base system span
11
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 167 (2022) 112715
from 1 to 9 and is divided into three phases as follows: (i) lab-scale (1–3),
(ii) pilot-scale (4–6), (iii) commercial scale [208]. TRL is a vital tool or
parameter which attracts the policymaker, researcher, investor and
commercial enterprisers to further action and work packages [53]. This
section briefly discusses the TRL of biomass, plastic, and their blend with
respect to the different products. The pyrolysis technology is well
matured for bio-oil production from biomass. Many pilot and commer­
cial plants of various types of reactors are operating in the world in the
range of 200–8000 kg/hr of feed using [53]. There are many pilot scale
and commercial units for research and industrial purpose are in opera­
tion across Canada, USA, Australia, Finland developed in universities
and many commercial entities such as Cirad (France), RTI (Canada),
ECN (NL), CPERI (Greece), Guangzhou Inst. Energy Conversion (China)
and Auburn U. USA [209]. Incidentally, all these units are based on fast
pyrolysis. In the case of gaseous products, there is no pilot or commercial
scale unit reported for the biomass pyrolysis and it is considered a
byproduct of the pyrolysis process. Biochar production from pyrolysis is
also solidly established on a pilot scale, and many plants are operating at
an industrial scale. According to the report, the biochar production is in
the range of 15000–20000 ton/year and a recent survey shows that it
was 35000–70000 ton/year consuming the 125,000 to 250,000 ton/­
year feedstock, in which more 5 plants are producing the 5000 ton/year
biochar [210,211]. In addition, some plants are operating in Germany
and Canada, which are producing more than 50 ton/year biochar using
biomass feedstocks [211].
The utilization of plastic waste for pyrolysis is also very established
for liquid fuel productions in the range of TRL 6–9. Agile Process
Chemicals is processing 75,000 kg/day plastic waste (PET, PETE) using
30 pyrolytic reactors with the support of Shell. The plants are operating
with the capacity of 50, 5, and 9 tons/day with TRL of 7, 9, and 5
respectively [34,212]. Solis et al. [213] have reviewed the pyrolysis of
plastic industrial and pilot-scale facilities worldwide and concluded that
many industrial plants in operation with the TRL of 6–9 produce liquid
fuel from the various types of plastic using manty pyrolysis techniques
[213,214]. The production of oil from plastic waste is up to 60–95% and
the gas production is 5–20% of gas in pyrolysis products [213,215].
Solid crude (biochar) was collected as a by-product in the range of
3–10%, but it was also a mixture of char and ash as many plants oper­
ating around the world listed [216]. It can be deduced that the char
production from plastic as a major product was still on the lab-scale
having TRL 1–3. Co pyrolysis of plastic waste with various types of
biomass is extensively studied at the lab scale for liquid oil production.
Some studies are reported for pilot-scale plants up to 25 kg/hr flow rate
[217–219]. This shows that the TRL level of 1–4 for co-pyrolysis of
plastic and biomass is established and 4–5 are under investigation. It can
be concluded, plastic pyrolysis and co-pyrolysis with biomass have been
well place up to pilot scale for oil production but for biochar production
is still on lab-scale. The TRL level of biomass, plastic and (bio­
mass-plastic) for bio oil, biochar, and gas are presented in Fig. 6.
6. Challenges and opportunities
This section highlights the challenges co-pyrolysis faces and the
areas that need more research and exploration for its commercialization.
Technical challenges: The co-pyrolysis of plastic and biomass has not
been focused on bio char production. It is clear from previous research
that the yield of biochar needs to be increased. Biochar science is chal­
lenged with ensuring and assuring the quality and efficiency of biochar
produced from any combination of feedstock and process to ensure
maximum benefits of biochar production to agriculture, environment
and economy [41]. The physicochemical properties of biochar should be
improved for a targeted application by altering the reactor configura­
tion, process parameters, catalysts, and feedstock composition by
blending various biomass and plastic wastes. In addition, the pyrolysis of
plastic has some issue, such as: the formation of the corrosive layer at the
bottom, which increase the heating load, difficulty in yield control due
A. Al-Rumaihi et al.
Fig. 6. TRL level of biomass, plastic and (biomass-plastic) for bio oil, biochar.
to the difference in melting points of plastics, release of toxic chemicals,
and reduction in the reactor life due to sickness of plastics [138]. This
review identified the biochar yield can be increased by mixing the
plastic and biomass, but extensive research is needed to find the opti­
mum process parameters and suitable reactor configurations.
Economic Viability & Global Acceptance of Biochar: The production
and utilization of biochar is in line with the sustainable development
goals for CO2 reduction and thus climate change mitigation [220]. The
conversion of biomass and plastic waste into value-added products like
biochar can bring many economic benefits due to its many applications
as an adsorbent, soil enhancer, fertilizer, energy storage, and helpful for
fixing CO2 in the form of char [12,221]. According to Matovic et al.
[222] a 10% conversion of the world’s biomass into char with a 50%
yield has the carbon sequencing potential of 4.8 GtC/annum. Inciden­
tally, the pyrolysis of solid waste to biochar is one of the most sustain­
able waste management techniques, in which the conversion of biomass
and plastic waste into value-added products such as biochar can result in
economic benefits due to its many applications as an adsorbent, soil
enhancer, fertilizer, energy storage, and CO2 sequestration [12,221]. In
addition, the economic value of other pyrolysis products such as bio-oil
[223], and pyrolysis gas can enhance the commercial value of the bio­
char from pyrolysis technology [123]. The positive economic benefits of
biochar can be further enhanced when the cost of carbon is factored in as
it a means for CO2 sequestration. In addition, if the cost for water saving
is considered, then the application of biochar to soil will become more
attractive. Furthermore, if the improvement on soils from the addition of
biochar is quantified from a monetary perspective, then the value of
biochar becomes more apparent, and may thus compete with chemical
fertilizers for market share. Similarly, replacing charcoal with biochar
use in the steel and power industry will also bring biochar economic and
social value. However, the complexity of biomass and the plastic supply
chain can be one of the barriers to the adoption of this technology.
Hence, the development of a holistic and national supply chain strategy
is needed to ensure the availability of biomass and plastic wastes.
Furthermore, it is necessary to consider public and environmental
awareness as a key driver [224]. However, the public might express
positive acceptance of biochar from pyrolysis technology. In this
context, more investigation and communication is needed to describe
the impact of biochar on the environment, soil and human health [225].
Techno-economic and environmental analysis: Most importantly, pro­
cess simulation models should be developed for the co-pyrolysis of
biomass and plastic for optimization of the process, techno-economic
analysis life cycle assessment, and environmental parameters prior to
the experimenting to save the cost and time. In techno-economic anal­
ysis, cost of plastic and biomass wastes, collection and storage cost,
selling price of product and comparison with available market product
12
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 167 (2022) 112715
towards a commercial application [53,62]. In addition, the
socio-economic studies supported by evidence from exper­
imental/modelling studies with the survey results from the end-users
will provide helpful information for commercial enterprises to invest
in this sector [53].
Social awareness and polices making: It is an important aspect to raise
awareness among the people for the disposal of plastic waste in a proper
way as well as to use the biochar and other products obtained from
biomass and plastic even at a little high price to save the environment
through a meaningful advertisement. In this context, the government
should introduce policies such as carbon tax redemption and subsidies to
promote biofuel.
7. Conclusion
This review article provides a detailed and critical insight of co-
pyrolysis of biomass and plastic for biochar production. This includes
a discussion on pyrolysis techniques, reactor types, and pyrolysis pa­
rameters to identify the optimised process parameters that could
enhance biochar production from co-pyrolysis of plastic and biomass
feedstock. Understanding these parameters will enable the creation of
biochar to specific requirements. Additionally, knowledge pertaining to
biomass and plastic feedstock and blending ratios will ensure the pro­
duction of quality biochar that can be used for soil amendment, water
treatment, carbon sequestration, and emission reduction. From the
above discussion, some important points are concluded. (i) Slow py­
rolysis is a preferred technique compared fast and flash pyrolysis for
biochar production is due to the longer residence time. The longer
residence time enhances the primary mechanism, which results in the
conversion of feedstock into solid product char. (ii) Batch reactor is
found to be economical at smaller scale for biochar production from
biomass, plastic and the blend of biomass and plastics, whereas the
larger scale operation prefers continuous reactors for the production of
biochar from biomass and plastic pyrolysis. (iii) Pyrolysis of various
plastics has yielded less biochar production in the range of 8–33%,
whereas bio-oil production was up to 80% due to less moisture and
oxygen. On the other hand, biomass shows higher biochar yield under
the appropriate condition due to feedstock’s stable C and O content. (iv)
Co-pyrolysis of plastic and biomass helps to attain the desired yield of
biochar up to 60%, which shows the importance of co-pyrolysis. (v)
Temperature, residence time, heating rate, pressure, reactor bed height
and type, blending ratio, and type of feedstock were identified as the
most influential factors that affect the biochar yield, stability, and
physicochemical properties. (vi) The optimisation and tailoring of the
above-mentioned process parameter help to get the desired yield of
biochar and the augmented properties for a particular application. (vi)
A. Al-Rumaihi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 167 (2022) 112715

The blending of plastic and biomass will be the key to addressing the [19] Mahdi Z, Hanandeh AE, Yu Q. Influence of pyrolysis conditions on surface
characteristics and methylene blue adsorption of biochar derived from date seed
yield of biochar and providing the desired properties by offering the
biomass. Waste and Biomass Valorization 2017;8:2061–73.
composition such composition of feedstock set all the process parame­ [20] Lehmann J, Rillig MC, Thies J, Masiello CA, Hockaday WC, Crowley D. Biochar
ters in a smooth way. The technical readiness level for co-pyrolysis for effects on soil biota–a review. Soil Biol Biochem 2011;43:1812–36.
biochar production on still lab-scale and many challenges associated [21] Hassan M, Liu Y, Naidu R, Parikh SJ, Du J, Qi F, et al. Influences of feedstock
sources and pyrolysis temperature on the properties of biochar and functionality
with the co-pyrolysis should be addressed for the up-scaling of the py­ as adsorbents: a meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ 2020;744:140714.
rolysis process. Further research is required to test these parameters in [22] Filiberto DM, Gaunt JL. Practicality of biochar additions to enhance soil and crop
terms of maximising biochar production. productivity. Agriculture 2013;3:715–25.
[23] Ippolito JA, Cui L, Kammann C, Wrage-Mönnig N, Estavillo JM, Fuertes-
Mendizabal T, et al. Feedstock choice, pyrolysis temperature and type influence
biochar characteristics: a comprehensive meta-data analysis review. Biochar
Declaration of competing interest 2020;2:421–38.
[24] Lefebvre D, Williams A, Meersmans J, Kirk GJD, Sohi S, Goglio P, et al. Modelling
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial the potential for soil carbon sequestration using biochar from sugarcane residues
in Brazil. Sci Rep 2020;10:1–11.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence [25] Alotaibi DM, Akrami M, Dibaj M, Javadi AA. Smart energy solution for an
the work reported in this paper. optimised sustainable hospital in the green city of NEOM. Sustain Energy Technol
Assessments 2019;35:32–40.
[26] Uzoma KC, Inoue M, Andry H, Fujimaki H, Zahoor A, Nishihara E. Effect of cow
Acknowledgments manure biochar on maize productivity under sandy soil condition. Soil Use
Manag 2011;27:205–12.
[27] Mostafazadeh AK, Solomatnikova O, Drogui P, Tyagi RD. A review of recent
This publication was made possible by GSRA grants no. GSRA7-1-
research and developments in fast pyrolysis and bio-oil upgrading. Biomass
0407-20016 from Qatar National Research Fund (a member of Qatar Conversion Biorefinery 2018;8:739–73.
Foundation). The contents herein are solely the responsibility of the [28] Papari S, Hawboldt K. A review on the pyrolysis of woody biomass to bio-oil:
focus on kinetic models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:1580–95.
authors.
[29] Mariyam S, Shahbaz M, Al-Ansari T, Mackey HR, McKay G. A critical review on
co-gasification and co-pyrolysis for gas production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
References 2022;161:112349.
[30] Varma AK, Shankar R, Mondal P. A review on pyrolysis of biomass and the
impacts of operating conditions on product yield, quality, and upgradation. In:
[1] Shahbaz M, AlNouss A, Ghiat I, McKay G, Mackey H, Elkhalifa S, et al.
Sarangi PK, Nanda S, Mohanty P, editors. Recent advancements in biofuels and
A comprehensive review of biomass based thermochemical conversion
bioenergy utilization. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2018. p. 227–59.
technologies integrated with CO2 capture and utilisation within BECCS networks.
[31] Suresh A, Alagusundaram A, Kumar PS, Vo D-VN, Christopher FC, Balaji B, et al.
Resour Conserv Recycl 2021;173:105734.
Microwave pyrolysis of coal, biomass and plastic waste: a review. Environ Chem
[2] Sultan U, Zhang Y, Farooq M, Imran M, Akhtar Khan A, Zhuge W, et al.
Lett 2021;19:3609–29.
Qualitative assessment and global mapping of supercritical CO2 power cycle
[32] Wang Z, Burra KG, Lei T, Gupta AK. Co-pyrolysis of waste plastic and solid
technology. Sustain Energy Technol Assessments 2021;43:100978.
biomass for synergistic production of biofuels and chemicals-A review. Prog
[3] Saeed MA, Farooq M, Anwar A, Abbas MM, Soudagar MEM, Siddiqui FA, et al.
Energy Combust Sci 2021;84:100899.
Flame propagation and burning characteristics of pulverized biomass for
[33] Radlein D, Quignard A. A short historical review of fast pyrolysis of biomass. Oil
sustainable biofuel. Biomass Conversion Biorefinery 2021;11:409–17.
& Gas Science and Technology–Revue d’IFP Energies nouvelles 2013;68:765–83.
[4] Hossain MK, Strezov V, Chan KY, Ziolkowski A, Nelson PF. Influence of pyrolysis
[34] Anuar Sharuddin SD, Abnisa F, Wan Daud WMA, Aroua MK. A review on
temperature on production and nutrient properties of wastewater sludge biochar.
pyrolysis of plastic wastes. Energy Convers Manag 2016;115:308–26.
J Environ Manag 2011;92:223–8.
[35] Laird DA, Brown RC, Amonette JE, Lehmann J. Review of the pyrolysis platform
[5] Shahbaz M, Al-Ansari T, Inayat A, Inayat M. Chapter 15 - technical readiness level
for coproducing bio-oil and biochar. Biofuels Bioproducts Biorefining 2009;3:
of biohydrogen production process and its value chain. In: Yusup S, Rashidi NA,
547–62.
editors. Value-chain of biofuels. Elsevier; 2022. p. 335–55.
[36] Elkhalifa S, Al-Ansari T, Mackey HR, McKay G. Food waste to biochars through
[6] Naqvi SR, Tariq R, Shahbaz M, Naqvi M, Aslam M, Khan Z, et al. Recent
pyrolysis: a review. Resour Conserv Recycl 2019;144:310–20.
developments on sewage sludge pyrolysis and its kinetics: resources recovery,
[37] Tripathi M, Sahu JN, Ganesan P. Effect of process parameters on production of
thermogravimetric platforms, and innovative prospects. Comput Chem Eng 2021;
biochar from biomass waste through pyrolysis: a review. Renew Sustain Energy
150:107325.
Rev 2016;55:467–81.
[7] Mohan D, Pittman Jr CU, Steele PH. Pyrolysis of wood/biomass for bio-oil: a
[38] Yaashikaa PR, Kumar PS, Varjani S, Saravanan A. A critical review on the biochar
critical review. Energy Fuels 2006;20:848–89.
production techniques, characterization, stability and applications for circular
[8] Panwar NL, Pawar A, Salvi BL. Comprehensive review on production and
bioeconomy. Biotechnol. Rep. 2020;28:e00570.
utilization of biochar. SN Appl Sci 2019;1:1–19.
[39] Jafri N, Wong WY, Doshi V, Yoon LW, Cheah KH. A review on production and
[9] Tomczyk A, Sokołowska Z, Boguta P. Biochar physicochemical properties:
characterization of biochars for application in direct carbon fuel cells. Process Saf
pyrolysis temperature and feedstock kind effects. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol
Environ Protect 2018;118:152–66.
2020;19:191–215.
[40] Antal MJ, Grønli M. The art, science, and technology of charcoal production. Ind
[10] Yadav K, Jagadevan S. Influence of process parameters on synthesis of biochar by
Eng Chem Res 2003;42:1619–40.
pyrolysis of biomass: an alternative source of energy. Recent advances in
[41] Mašek O, Brownsort P, Cross A, Sohi S. Influence of production conditions on the
pyrolysis. IntechOpen; 2019.
yield and environmental stability of biochar. Fuel 2013;103:151–5.
[11] Collard F-X, Blin J. A review on pyrolysis of biomass constituents: mechanisms
[42] Rathnayake D, Ehidiamhen PO, Egene CE, Stevens CV, Meers E, Mašek O, et al.
and composition of the products obtained from the conversion of cellulose,
Investigation of biomass and agricultural plastic co-pyrolysis: effect on biochar
hemicelluloses and lignin. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;38:594–608.
yield and properties. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2021;155:105029.
[12] Ahmad J, Patuzzi F, Rashid U, Shahabz M, Ngamcharussrivichai C, Baratieri M.
[43] Rodriguez JA, Lustosa Filho JF, Melo LCA, de Assis IR, de Oliveira TS. Co-
Exploring untapped effect of process conditions on biochar characteristics and
pyrolysis of agricultural and industrial wastes changes the composition and
applications. Environmental Technology & Innovation; 2020, 101310.
stability of biochars and can improve their agricultural and environmental
[13] Al-Salem SM. Feedstock and optimal operation for plastics to fuel conversion in
benefits. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2021;155:105036.
pyrolysis. Plastics Energy 2019:117–46.
[44] Bridgwater AV. The production of biofuels and renewable chemicals by fast
[14] Mohanty P, Nanda S, Pant KK, Naik S, Kozinski JA, Dalai AK. Evaluation of the
pyrolysis of biomass. Int J Global Energy Issues 2007;27:160–203.
physiochemical development of biochars obtained from pyrolysis of wheat straw,
[45] DeSisto WJ, Hill N, Beis SH, Mukkamala S, Joseph J, Baker C, et al. Fast pyrolysis
timothy grass and pinewood: effects of heating rate. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2013;104:
of pine sawdust in a fluidized-bed reactor. Energy Fuels 2010;24:2642–51.
485–93.
[46] Abam FI, Diemuodeke OE, Ekwe EB, Alghassab M, Samuel OD, Khan ZA, et al.
[15] Farooq M, Almustapha MN, Imran M, Saeed MA, Andresen JM. In-situ
Exergoeconomic and environmental modeling of integrated polygeneration
regeneration of activated carbon with electric potential swing desorption (EPSD)
power plant with biomass-based syngas supplemental firing. Energies 2020;13.
for the H2S removal from biogas. Bioresour Technol 2018;249:125–31.
[47] Zaman CZ, Pal K, Yehye WA, Sagadevan S, Shah ST, Adebisi GA, et al. Pyrolysis: a
[16] Kuppusamy V, Ashokkumar T. Characterization and evaluation of reactive dye
sustainable way to generate energy from waste. Croatia: IntechOpen Rijeka;
adsorption onto Biochar Derived from Turbinaria conoides Biomass.
2017.
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy; 2019.
[48] Pei-dong Z, Guomei J, Gang W. Contribution to emission reduction of CO2 and
[17] Wu L, Wei C, Zhang S, Wang Y, Kuzyakov Y, Ding X. MgO-modified biochar
SO2 by household biogas construction in rural China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
increases phosphate retention and rice yields in saline-alkaline soil. J Clean Prod
2007;11:1903–12.
2019;235:901–9.
[49] Thornley P, Upham P, Huang Y, Rezvani S, Brammer J, Rogers J. Integrated
[18] Major J, Rondon M, Molina D, Riha SJ, Lehmann J. Maize yield and nutrition
assessment of bioelectricity technology options. Energy Pol 2009;37:890–903.
during 4 years after biochar application to a Colombian savanna oxisol. Plant Soil
2010;333:117–28.

13
A. Al-Rumaihi et al.
[50] Aboulkas A, El Harfi K, El Bouadili A. Non-isothermal kinetic studies on co-
processing of olive residue and polypropylene. Energy Convers Manag 2008;49:
3666–71.
[51] Abnisa F, Daud WMAW, Sahu JN. Optimization and characterization studies on
bio-oil production from palm shell by pyrolysis using response surface
methodology. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:3604–16.
[52] Grønli MG, Várhegyi G, Di Blasi C. Thermogravimetric analysis and
devolatilization kinetics of wood. Ind Eng Chem Res 2002;41:4201–8.
[53] Chen W-H, Farooq W, Shahbaz M, Naqvi SR, Ali I, Al-Ansari T, et al. Current
status of biohydrogen production from lignocellulosic biomass, technical
challenges and commercial potential through pyrolysis process. Energy 2021;226:
120433.
[54] Uddin MN, Techato K, Taweekun J, Rahman MM, Rasul MG, Mahlia TMI, et al.
An overview of recent developments in biomass pyrolysis technologies. Energies
2018;11:3115.
[55] Van de Velden M, Baeyens J, Brems A, Janssens B, Dewil R. Fundamentals,
kinetics and endothermicity of the biomass pyrolysis reaction. Renew Energy
2010;35:232–42.
[56] McGrath TE, Chan WG, Hajaligol MR. Low temperature mechanism for the
formation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from the pyrolysis of cellulose.
J Anal Appl Pyrol 2003;66:51–70.
[57] Lanzetta M, Di Blasi C. Pyrolysis kinetics of wheat and corn straw. J Anal Appl
Pyrol 1998;44:181–92.
[58] Hosoya T, Kawamoto H, Saka S. Pyrolysis behaviors of wood and its constituent
polymers at gasification temperature. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2007;78:328–36.
[59] Neves D, Thunman H, Matos A, Tarelho L, Gómez-Barea A. Characterization and
prediction of biomass pyrolysis products. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2011;37:
611–30.
[60] Bridgwater AV, Meier D, Radlein D. An overview of fast pyrolysis of biomass. Org
Geochem 1999;30:1479–93.
[61] Venderbosch RH, Prins W. Fast pyrolysis technology development. Biofuels
Bioproducts Biorefining 2010;4:178–208.
[62] Shahbaz M, AlNouss A, Parthasarathy P, Abdelaal AH, Mackey H, McKay G, et al.
Investigation of biomass components on the slow pyrolysis products yield using
Aspen Plus for techno-economic analysis. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery;
2020.
[63] Karlen DL, Huggins DR. Crop residues. 2014.
[64] Goyal HB, Seal D, Saxena RC. Bio-fuels from thermochemical conversion of
renewable resources: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008;12:504–17.
[65] Bertero M, Sedran U. Coprocessing of bio-oil in fluid catalytic cracking. Recent
advances in thermo-chemical conversion of biomass. Elsevier; 2015. p. 355–81.
[66] Strahan GD, Mullen CA, Boateng AA. Characterizing biomass fast pyrolysis oils by
13C NMR and chemometric analysis. Energy Fuels 2011;25:5452–61.
[67] Amenaghawon AN, Anyalewechi CL, Okieimen CO, Kusuma HS. Biomass
pyrolysis technologies for value-added products: a state-of-the-art review.
Environ Dev Sustain 2021;23:14324–78.
[68] Demirbas A, Arin G. An overview of biomass pyrolysis. Energy Sources 2002;24:
471–82.
[69] Kan T, Strezov V, Evans T, He J, Kumar R, Lu Q. Catalytic pyrolysis of
lignocellulosic biomass: a review of variations in process factors and system
structure. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;134:110305.
[70] Samolada MC, Papafotica A, Vasalos IA. Catalyst evaluation for catalytic biomass
pyrolysis. Energy Fuels 2000;14:1161–7.
[71] Naqvi SR, Uemura Y, Yusup S, Sugiura Y, Nishiyama N. In situ catalytic fast
pyrolysis of paddy husk pyrolysis vapors over MCM-22 and ITQ-2 zeolites. J Anal
Appl Pyrol 2015;114:32–9.
[72] Marker TL, Felix LG, Linck MB, Roberts MJ. Integrated hydropyrolysis and
hydroconversion (IH2) for the direct production of gasoline and diesel fuels or
blending components from biomass, part 1: proof of principle testing. Environ
Prog Sustain Energy 2012;31:191–9.
[73] Kambo HS, Dutta A. A comparative review of biochar and hydrochar in terms of
production, physico-chemical properties and applications. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2015;45:359–78.
[74] Pradhan S, Shahbaz M, Abdelaal A, Al-Ansari T, Mackey HR, McKay G.
Optimization of process and properties of biochar from cabbage waste by
response surface methodology. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery; 2020.
[75] Cai W, Luo Z, Zhou J, Wang Q. A review on the selection of raw materials and
reactors for biomass fast pyrolysis in China. Fuel Process Technol 2021;221:
106919.
[76] Fogler HS. Essentials of chemical reaction engineering: Essenti Chemica Reactio
Engi. Pearson Education; 2010.
[77] Lewandowski WM, Januszewicz K, Kosakowski W. Efficiency and proportions of
waste tyre pyrolysis products depending on the reactor type—a review. J Anal
Appl Pyrol 2019;140:25–53.
[78] Abbas-Abadi MS, Haghighi MN, Yeganeh H. Evaluation of pyrolysis product of
virgin high density polyethylene degradation using different process parameters
in a stirred reactor. Fuel Process Technol 2013;109:90–5.
[79] Baena-González J, Santamaria-Echart A, Aguirre JL, González S. Chemical
recycling of plastic waste: Bitumen, solvents, and polystyrene from pyrolysis oil.
Waste Manag 2020;118:139–49.
[80] Inayat A, Tariq R, Khan Z, Ghenai C, Kamil M, Jamil F, et al. A comprehensive
review on advanced thermochemical processes for bio-hydrogen production via
microwave and plasma technologies. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery; 2020.
p. 1–10.
14
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 167 (2022) 112715
[81] Ballice L. A kinetic approach to the temperature-programmed pyrolysis of low-
and high-density polyethylene in a fixed bed reactor: determination of kinetic
parameters for the evolution of n-paraffins and 1-olefins. Fuel 2001;80:1923–35.
[82] Saad JM, Nahil MA, Williams PT. Influence of process conditions on syngas
production from the thermal processing of waste high density polyethylene.
J Anal Appl Pyrol 2015;113:35–40.
[83] Renzini MS, Lerici LC, Sedran U, Pierella LB. Stability of ZSM-11 and BETA
zeolites during the catalytic cracking of low-density polyethylene. J Anal Appl
Pyrol 2011;92:450–5.
[84] Rao MS, Singh SP, Sodha MS, Dubey AK, Shyam M. Stoichiometric, mass, energy
and exergy balance analysis of countercurrent fixed-bed gasification of post-
consumer residues. Biomass Bioenergy 2004;27:155–71.
[85] Wang K, Peng N, Lu G, Dang Z. Effects of pyrolysis temperature and holding time
on physicochemical properties of swine-manure-derived biochar. Waste and
Biomass Valorization 2020;11:613–24.
[86] Hu X, Gholizadeh M. Biomass pyrolysis: a review of the process development and
challenges from initial researches up to the commercialisation stage. J Energy
Chem 2019;39:109–43.
[87] Radmanesh R, Chaouki J, Guy C. Biomass gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed
reactor: experiments and modeling. AIChE J 2006;52:4258–72.
[88] Li XT, Grace JR, Lim CJ, Watkinson AP, Chen HP, Kim JR. Biomass gasification in
a circulating fluidized bed. Biomass Bioenergy 2004;26:171–93.
[89] Helleur R, Popovic N, Ikura M, Stanciulescu M, Liu D. Characterization and
potential applications of pyrolytic char from ablative pyrolysis of used tires.
J Anal Appl Pyrol 2001;58:813–24.
[90] Roy C, Yang J, Blanchette D, Korving L, Caumia BD. Development of a novel
vacuum pyrolysis reactor with improved heat transfer potential. Developments in
thermochemical biomass conversion. Springer; 1997. p. 351–67.
[91] Barbarias I, Artetxe M, Lopez G, Arregi A, Santamaria L, Bilbao J, et al. Catalyst
performance in the HDPE pyrolysis-reforming under reaction-regeneration cycles.
Catalysts 2019;9:414.
[92] Olazar M, Lopez G, Amutio M, Elordi G, Aguado R, Bilbao J. Influence of FCC
catalyst steaming on HDPE pyrolysis product distribution. J Anal Appl Pyrol
2009;85:359–65.
[93] Jahirul M, Rasul M, Chowdhury A, Ashwath N. Biofuels production through
biomass pyrolysis—a technological review. Energies 2012;5:4952–5001.
[94] Pattiya A, Titiloye JO, Bridgwater AV. Fast pyrolysis of cassava rhizome in the
presence of catalysts. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2008;81:72–9.
[95] Verma M, Godbout S, Brar SK, Solomatnikova O, Lemay SP, Larouche J-P.
Biofuels production from biomass by thermochemical conversion technologies.
Int J Chem Eng 2012;2012.
[96] Tang L, Huang H. Plasma pyrolysis of biomass for production of syngas and
carbon adsorbent. Energy Fuels 2005;19:1174–8.
[97] Yaman S. Pyrolysis of biomass to produce fuels and chemical feedstocks. Energy
Convers Manag 2004;45:651–71.
[98] Fernández Y, Menéndez JA. Influence of feed characteristics on the microwave-
assisted pyrolysis used to produce syngas from biomass wastes. J Anal Appl Pyrol
2011;91:316–22.
[99] Boutin O, Ferrer M, Lédé J. Flash pyrolysis of cellulose pellets submitted to a
concentrated radiation: experiments and modelling. Chem Eng Sci 2002;57:
15–25.
[100] Shakya BD. Pyrolysis of waste plastics to generate useful fuel containing hydrogen
using a solar thermochemical process. 2007.
[101] Cepeliogullar OPA. Utilization of two different types of plastic wastes from daily
and industrial life. ICOEST Cappadocia 2013;75:263–70.
[102] Diaz-Silvarrey LS, McMahon A, Phan AN. Benzoic acid recovery via waste poly
(ethylene terephthalate)(PET) catalytic pyrolysis using sulphated zirconia
catalyst. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2018;134:621–31.
[103] Chattopadhyay J, Pathak T, Srivastava R, Singh A. Catalytic co-pyrolysis of paper
biomass and plastic mixtures (HDPE (high density polyethylene), PP
(polypropylene) and PET (polyethylene terephthalate)) and product analysis.
Energy 2016;103:513–21.
[104] Hassan H, Lim J, Hameed B. Catalytic co-pyrolysis of sugarcane bagasse and
waste high-density polyethylene over faujasite-type zeolite. Bioresour Technol
2019;284:406–14.
[105] Lin X, Kong L, Cai H, Zhang Q, Bi D, Yi W. Effects of alkali and alkaline earth
metals on the co-pyrolysis of cellulose and high density polyethylene using TGA
and Py-GC/MS. Fuel Process Technol 2019;191:71–8.
[106] Ahmad I, Khan MI, Khan H, Ishaq M, Tariq R, Gul K, et al. Pyrolysis study of
polypropylene and polyethylene into premium oil products. Int J Green Energy
2015;12:663–71.
[107] Zhang Q, Khan MU, Lin X, Cai H, Lei H. Temperature varied biochar as a
reinforcing filler for high-density polyethylene composites. Compos B Eng 2019;
175:107151.
[108] Dewangan A, Pradhan D, Singh RK. Co-pyrolysis of sugarcane bagasse and low-
density polyethylene: influence of plastic on pyrolysis product yield. Fuel 2016;
185:508–16.
[109] Zattini G, Leonardi C, Mazzocchetti L, Cavazzoni M, Montanari I, Tosi C, et al.
Pyrolysis of low-density polyethylene. Springer. p. 480-490.
[110] Akancha Kumari N, Singh RK. Co-pyrolysis of waste polypropylene and rice bran
wax‒ production of biofuel and its characterization. J Energy Inst 2019;92:
933–46.
[111] FakhrHoseini SM, Dastanian M. Predicting pyrolysis products of PE, PP, and PET
using NRTL activity coefficient model. J Chem 2013;2013.
[112] Demirbaş A. Recovery of chemicals and gasoline-range fuels from plastic wastes
via pyrolysis. Energy Sources 2005;27:1313–9.
A. Al-Rumaihi et al.
[113] Iftikhar H, Zeeshan M, Iqbal S, Muneer B, Razzaq M. Co-pyrolysis of sugarcane
bagasse and polystyrene with ex-situ catalytic bed of metal oxides/HZSM-5 with
focus on liquid yield. Bioresour Technol 2019;289:121647.
[114] Miandad R, Barakat MA, Rehan M, Aburiazaiza AS, Ismail IMI, Nizami AS. Plastic
waste to liquid oil through catalytic pyrolysis using natural and synthetic zeolite
catalysts. Waste Manag 2017;69:66–78.
[115] Erdogan S. Recycling of waste plastics into pyrolytic fuels and their use in IC
engines. UK: Sustainable Mobility: IntechOpen London; 2020.
[116] de Souza MJB, Silva THA, Ribeiro TRS, da Silva AOS, Pedrosa AMG. Thermal and
catalytic pyrolysis of polyvinyl chloride using micro/mesoporous ZSM-35/MCM-
41 catalysts. J Therm Anal Calorim 2020;140:167–75.
[117] Al-Harahsheh M, Al-Otoom A, Al-Makhadmah L, Hamilton IE, Kingman S, Al-
Asheh S, et al. Pyrolysis of poly(vinyl chloride) and—electric arc furnacedust
mixtures. J Hazard Mater 2015;299:425–36.
[118] Platonov V, Rumyantseva M, Shatalova T, Baranchikov A, Gas’kov A. Nanofibers
of semiconductor oxides as sensitive materials for detection of gaseous products
formed in low-temperature pyrolysis of polyvinyl chloride. Russ J Appl Chem
2018;91:447–53.
[119] Dai M, Xu H, Yu Z, Fang S, Chen L, Gu W, et al. Microwave-assisted fast co-
pyrolysis behaviors and products between microalgae and polyvinyl chloride.
Appl Therm Eng 2018;136:9–15.
[120] Elnour AY, Alghyamah AA, Shaikh HM, Poulose AM, Al-Zahrani SM, Anis A, et al.
Effect of pyrolysis temperature on biochar microstructural evolution,
physicochemical characteristics, and its influence on biochar/polypropylene
composites. Appl Sci 2019;9:1149.
[121] Xu G, Song J, Zhang Y, Lv Y. Effects of biochar application on soil organic carbon
mineralization during drying and rewetting cycles. 2019.
[122] Ravindran B, Nguyen DD, Chaudhary DK, Chang SW, Kim J, Lee SR, et al.
Influence of biochar on physico-chemical and microbial community during swine
manure composting process. J Environ Manag 2019;232:592–9.
[123] Umar HA, Sulaiman SA, Meor Said MA, Gungor A, Shahbaz M, Inayat M, et al.
Assessing the implementation levels of oil palm waste conversion methods in
Malaysia and the challenges of commercialisation: towards sustainable energy
production. Biomass Bioenergy 2021;151:106179.
[124] Keiluweit M, Nico PS, Johnson MG, Kleber M. Dynamic molecular structure of
plant biomass-derived black carbon (biochar). Environ Sci Technol 2010;44:
1247–53.
[125] Sohi SP, Krull E, Lopez-Capel E, Bol R. A review of biochar and its use and
function in soil. Adv Agron 2010;105:47–82.
[126] Sparkes J, Stoutjesdijk P. Biochar: implications for agricultural productivity.
ABARES; 2011.
[127] Chang Y-M, Tsai W-T, Li M-H. Chemical characterization of char derived from
slow pyrolysis of microalgal residue. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2015;111:88–93.
[128] Tong W, Cai Z, Liu Q, Ren S, Kong M. Effect of pyrolysis temperature on bamboo
char combustion: reactivity, kinetics and thermodynamics. Energy 2020;211:
118736.
[129] Zhou Y, Chen Z, Gong H, Wang X, Yu H. A strategy of using recycled char as a co-
catalyst in cyclic in-situ catalytic cattle manure pyrolysis for increasing gas
production. Waste Manag 2020;107:74–81.
[130] Zhao X, Wang W, Liu H, Ma C, Song Z. Microwave pyrolysis of wheat straw:
product distribution and generation mechanism. Bioresour Technol 2014;158:
278–85.
[131] Mukome FND, Zhang X, Silva LCR, Six J, Parikh SJ. Use of chemical and physical
characteristics to investigate trends in biochar feedstocks. J Agric Food Chem
2013;61:2196–204.
[132] Kuan W-H, Huang Y-F, Chang C-C, Lo S-L. Catalytic pyrolysis of sugarcane
bagasse by using microwave heating. Bioresour Technol 2013;146:324–9.
[133] Kameyama K, Miyamoto T, Iwata Y, Shiono T. Influences of feedstock and
pyrolysis temperature on the nitrate adsorption of biochar. Soil Sci Plant Nutr
2016;62:180–4.
[134] Liew JX, Loy ACM, Chin BLF, AlNouss A, Shahbaz M, Al-Ansari T, et al.
Synergistic effects of catalytic co-pyrolysis of corn cob and HDPE waste mixtures
using weight average global process model. Renew Energy 2021;170:948–63.
[135] Garforth AA, Ali S, Hernández-Martínez J, Akah A. Feedstock recycling of
polymer wastes. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci 2004;8:419–25.
[136] Zanella E, Della Zassa M, Navarini L, Canu P. Low-temperature co-pyrolysis of
polypropylene and coffee wastes to fuels. Energy Fuels 2013;27:1357–64.
[137] Johannes I, Tiikma L, Luik H. Synergy in co-pyrolysis of oil shale and pine
sawdust in autoclaves. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2013;104:341–52.
[138] Uzoejinwa BB, He X, Wang S, Abomohra AE-F, Hu Y, Wang Q. Co-pyrolysis of
biomass and waste plastics as a thermochemical conversion technology for high-
grade biofuel production: recent progress and future directions elsewhere
worldwide. Energy Convers Manag 2018;163:468–92.
[139] Guillain M, Fairouz K, Mar SR, Monique F, Jacques L. Attrition-free pyrolysis to
produce bio-oil and char. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:6069–75.
[140] Kositkanawuth K, Sattler ML, Dennis B. Pyrolysis of macroalgae and polysytrene:
a review. Curr Sustain Renew Energy Rep 2014;1:121–8.
[141] Kuppens T, Van Dael M, Vanreppelen K, Thewys T, Yperman J, Carleer R, et al.
Techno-economic assessment of fast pyrolysis for the valorization of short
rotation coppice cultivated for phytoextraction. J Clean Prod 2015;88:336–44.
[142] Martínez JD, Veses A, Mastral AM, Murillo R, Navarro MV, Puy N, et al. Co-
pyrolysis of biomass with waste tyres: upgrading of liquid bio-fuel. Fuel Process
Technol 2014;119:263–71.
[143] Crombie K, Mašek O. Investigating the potential for a self-sustaining slow
pyrolysis system under varying operating conditions. Bioresour Technol 2014;
162:148–56.
15
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 167 (2022) 112715
[144] Yoder J, Galinato S, Granatstein D, Garcia-Pérez M. Economic tradeoff between
biochar and bio-oil production via pyrolysis. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:
1851–62.
[145] Marshall ASJ, Wu PF, Mun SH, Lalonde C. Commercial application of pyrolysis
technology in agriculture. American Society of Agricultural and Biological
Engineers. p. 1.
[146] Damartzis T, Vamvuka D, Sfakiotakis S, Zabaniotou A. Thermal degradation
studies and kinetic modeling of cardoon (Cynara cardunculus) pyrolysis using
thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Bioresour Technol 2011;102:6230–8.
[147] Abnisa F, Arami-Niya A, Daud WMAW, Sahu JN, Noor IM. Utilization of oil palm
tree residues to produce bio-oil and bio-char via pyrolysis. Energy Convers Manag
2013;76:1073–82.
[148] Paradela F, Pinto F, Gulyurtlu I, Cabrita I, Lapa N. Study of the co-pyrolysis of
biomass and plastic wastes. Clean Technol Environ Policy 2009;11:115–22.
[149] Shadangi KP, Mohanty K. Co-pyrolysis of Karanja and Niger seeds with waste
polystyrene to produce liquid fuel. Fuel 2015;153:492–8.
[150] Hua D, Wu Y, Chen Y, Li J, Yang M, Lu X. Co-pyrolysis behaviors of the cotton
straw/PP mixtures and catalysis hydrodeoxygenation of co-pyrolysis products
over Ni-Mo/Al2O3 catalyst. Catalysts 2015;5:2085–97.
[151] Brebu M, Ucar S, Vasile C, Yanik J. Co-pyrolysis of pine cone with synthetic
polymers. Fuel 2010;89:1911–8.
[152] Jeon M-J, Choi SJ, Yoo K-S, Ryu C, Park SH, Lee JM, et al. Copyrolysis of block
polypropylene with waste wood chip. Kor J Chem Eng 2011;28:497–501.
[153] Yang J, Rizkiana J, Widayatno WB, Karnjanakom S, Kaewpanha M, Hao X, et al.
Fast co-pyrolysis of low density polyethylene and biomass residue for oil
production. Energy Convers Manag 2016;120:422–9.
[154] Rutkowski P, Kubacki A. Influence of polystyrene addition to cellulose on
chemical structure and properties of bio-oil obtained during pyrolysis. Energy
Convers Manag 2006;47:716–31.
[155] Önal E, Uzun BB, Pütün AE. An experimental study on bio-oil production from co-
pyrolysis with potato skin and high-density polyethylene (HDPE). Fuel Process
Technol 2012;104:365–70.
[156] Lehmann J, Joseph S. Biochar for environmental management: science,
technology and implementation. Routledge; 2015.
[157] Dhyani V, Bhaskar T. A comprehensive review on the pyrolysis of lignocellulosic
biomass. Renew Energy 2018;129:695–716.
[158] Choi HS, Choi YS, Park HC. Fast pyrolysis characteristics of lignocellulosic
biomass with varying reaction conditions. Renew Energy 2012;42:131–5.
[159] Park WC, Atreya A, Baum HR. Experimental and theoretical investigation of heat
and mass transfer processes during wood pyrolysis. Combust Flame 2010;157:
481–94.
[160] Bonelli PR, Buonomo EL, Cukierman AL. Pyrolysis of sugarcane bagasse and co-
pyrolysis with an Argentinean subbituminous coal. Energy Sources, Part A 2007;
29:731–40.
[161] Chen B, Chen Z. Sorption of naphthalene and 1-naphthol by biochars of orange
peels with different pyrolytic temperatures. Chemosphere 2009;76:127–33.
[162] Shaaban A, Se S-M, Dimin MF, Juoi JM, Husin MHM, Mitan NMM. Influence of
heating temperature and holding time on biochars derived from rubber wood
sawdust via slow pyrolysis. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2014;107:31–9.
[163] Ghani WAWAK, Mohd A, da Silva G, Bachmann RT, Taufiq-Yap YH, Rashid U,
et al. Biochar production from waste rubber-wood-sawdust and its potential use in
C sequestration: chemical and physical characterization. Ind Crop Prod 2013;44:
18–24.
[164] Uchimiya M, Wartelle LH, Lima IM, Klasson KT. Sorption of deisopropylatrazine
on broiler litter biochars. J Agric Food Chem 2010;58:12350–6.
[165] Chen B, Yuan M. Enhanced sorption of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by soil
amended with biochar. J Soils Sediments 2011;11:62–71.
[166] Angın D, Şensöz S. Effect of pyrolysis temperature on chemical and surface
properties of biochar of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Int J Phytoremediation
2014;16:684–93.
[167] Wang X, Kersten SRA, Prins W, van Swaaij WPM. Biomass pyrolysis in a fluidized
bed reactor. Part 2: experimental validation of model results. Ind Eng Chem Res
2005;44:8786–95.
[168] Onay O, Kockar OM. Slow, fast and flash pyrolysis of rapeseed. Renew Energy
2003;28:2417–33.
[169] Aysu T, Durak H, Güner S, Bengü AŞ, Esim N. Bio-oil production via catalytic
pyrolysis of Anchusa azurea: effects of operating conditions on product yields and
chromatographic characterization. Bioresour Technol 2016;205:7–14.
[170] Chen D, Li Y, Cen K, Luo M, Li H, Lu B. Pyrolysis polygeneration of poplar wood:
effect of heating rate and pyrolysis temperature. Bioresour Technol 2016;218:
780–8.
[171] Akhtar J, Amin NS. A review on operating parameters for optimum liquid oil yield
in biomass pyrolysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:5101–9.
[172] Meesuk S, Cao J-P, Sato K, Ogawa Y, Takarada T. The effects of temperature on
product yields and composition of bio-oils in hydropyrolysis of rice husk using
nickel-loaded brown coal char catalyst. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2012;94:238–45.
[173] Zhang H, Xiao R, Huang H, Xiao G. Comparison of non-catalytic and catalytic fast
pyrolysis of corncob in a fluidized bed reactor. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:
1428–34.
[174] Antal Jr MJ, Mok WSL, Varhegyi G, Szekely T. Review of methods for improving
the yield of charcoal from biomass. Energy Fuels 1990;4:221–5.
[175] Antal MJ, Allen SG, Schulman D, Xu X, Divilio RJ. Biomass gasification in
supercritical water. Ind Eng Chem Res 2000;39:4040–53.
[176] Manyà JJ. Pyrolysis for biochar purposes: a review to establish current knowledge
gaps and research needs. Environ Sci Technol 2012;46:7939–54.
A. Al-Rumaihi et al.
[177] Manyà JJ, Ortigosa MA, Laguarta S, Manso JA. Experimental study on the effect
of pyrolysis pressure, peak temperature, and particle size on the potential stability
of vine shoots-derived biochar. Fuel 2014;133:163–72.
[178] Ferreira SD, Manera C, Silvestre WP, Pauletti GF, Altafini CR, Godinho M. Use of
biochar produced from elephant grass by pyrolysis in a screw reactor as a soil
amendment. Waste and Biomass Valorization 2019;10:3089–100.
[179] Scott DS, Majerski P, Piskorz J, Radlein D. A second look at fast pyrolysis of
biomass—the RTI process. J Anal Appl Pyrol 1999;51:23–37.
[180] Kim KH, Eom IY, Lee SM, Choi D, Yeo H, Choi I-G, et al. Investigation of
physicochemical properties of biooils produced from yellow poplar wood
(Liriodendron tulipifera) at various temperatures and residence times. J Anal
Appl Pyrol 2011;92:2–9.
[181] Sun J, He F, Pan Y, Zhang Z. Effects of pyrolysis temperature and residence time
on physicochemical properties of different biochar types. Acta Agric Scand Sect B
Soil Plant Sci 2017;67:12–22.
[182] Solar J, De Marco I, Caballero BM, Lopez-Urionabarrenechea A, Rodriguez N,
Agirre I, et al. Influence of temperature and residence time in the pyrolysis of
woody biomass waste in a continuous screw reactor. Biomass Bioenergy 2016;95:
416–23.
[183] Fassinou WF, Van de Steene L, Toure S, Volle G, Girard P. Pyrolysis of Pinus
pinaster in a two-stage gasifier: influence of processing parameters and thermal
cracking of tar. Fuel Process Technol 2009;90:75–90.
[184] Liang C, Gascó G, Fu S, Méndez A, Paz-Ferreiro J. Biochar from pruning residues
as a soil amendment: effects of pyrolysis temperature and particle size. Soil
Tillage Res 2016;164:3–10.
[185] Gu C, Wang X, Song Q, Li H, Qiao Y. Prediction of gas-liquid-solid product
distribution after solid waste pyrolysis process based on artificial neural network
model. Int J Energy Res 2021;45:13786–800.
[186] Crombie K, Mašek O. Pyrolysis biochar systems, balance between bioenergy and
carbon sequestration. GCB Bioenergy 2015;7:349–61.
[187] Araki Y, Matsukawa Y, Saito Y, Matsushita Y, Aoki H, Era K, et al. Effects of
carrier gas on the properties of soot produced by ethylene pyrolysis. Fuel Process
Technol 2021;213:106673.
[188] Ertaş M, Alma MH. Pyrolysis of laurel (Laurus nobilis L.) extraction residues in a
fixed-bed reactor: characterization of bio-oil and bio-char. J Anal Appl Pyrol
2010;88:22–9.
[189] Miandad R, Barakat MA, Aburiazaiza AS, Rehan M, Nizami AS. Catalytic pyrolysis
of plastic waste: a review. Process Saf Environ Protect 2016;102:822–38.
[190] Al-Salem SM, Antelava A, Constantinou A, Manos G, Dutta A. A review on thermal
and catalytic pyrolysis of plastic solid waste (PSW). J Environ Manag 2017;197:
177–98.
[191] Encinar JM, Beltran FJ, Ramiro A, Gonzalez JF. Catalyzed pyrolysis of grape and
olive bagasse. Influence of catalyst type and chemical treatment. Ind Eng Chem
Res 1997;36:4176–83.
[192] Smets K, Roukaerts A, Czech J, Reggers G, Schreurs S, Carleer R, et al. Slow
catalytic pyrolysis of rapeseed cake: product yield and characterization of the
pyrolysis liquid. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;57:180–90.
[193] Stefanidis SD, Kalogiannis KG, Iliopoulou EF, Michailof CM, Pilavachi PA,
Lappas AA. A study of lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis via the pyrolysis of
cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2014;105:143–50.
[194] Mohan D, Rajput S, Singh VK, Steele PH, Pittman Jr CU. Modeling and evaluation
of chromium remediation from water using low cost bio-char, a green adsorbent.
J Hazard Mater 2011;188:319–33.
[195] Brebu M, Vasile C. Thermal degradation of lignin—a review. Cellul Chem Technol
2010;44:353.
[196] Demirbaş A. Relationship between initial moisture content and the liquid yield
from pyrolysis of sawdust. Energy Sources 2005;27:823–30.
[197] Sopeña F, Semple K, Sohi S, Bending G. Assessing the chemical and biological
accessibility of the herbicide isoproturon in soil amended with biochar.
Chemosphere 2012;88:77–83.
[198] Ronsse F, Van Hecke S, Dickinson D, Prins W. Production and characterization of
slow pyrolysis biochar: influence of feedstock type and pyrolysis conditions. Gcb
Bioenergy 2013;5:104–15.
[199] Tag AT, Duman G, Ucar S, Yanik J. Effects of feedstock type and pyrolysis
temperature on potential applications of biochar. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2016;120:
200–6.
[200] Apaydın-Varol E, Pütün AE. Preparation and characterization of pyrolytic chars
from different biomass samples. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2012;98:29–36.
16
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 167 (2022) 112715
[201] Gaskin JW, Steiner C, Harris K, Das KC, Bibens B. Effect of low-temperature
pyrolysis conditions on biochar for agricultural use. Trans ASABE 2008;51:
2061–9.
[202] Huang YF, Kuan WH, Chiueh PT, Lo SL. Pyrolysis of biomass by thermal
analysis–mass spectrometry (TA–MS). Bioresour Technol 2011;102:3527–34.
[203] Wang S, Wang Q, Hu YM, Xu SN, He ZX, Ji HS. Study on the synergistic co-
pyrolysis behaviors of mixed rice husk and two types of seaweed by a combined
TG-FTIR technique. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2015;114:109–18.
[204] Chen W, Shi S, Chen M, Zhou X. Fast co-pyrolysis of waste newspaper with high-
density polyethylene for high yields of alcohols and hydrocarbons. Waste Manag
2017;67:155–62.
[205] Jin Q, Wang X, Li S, Mikulčić H, Bešenić T, Deng S, et al. Synergistic effects during
co-pyrolysis of biomass and plastic: gas, tar, soot, char products and
thermogravimetric study. J Energy Inst 2019;92:108–17.
[206] Branca C, Di Blasi C. Parallel-and series-reaction mechanisms of wood and char
combustion. Therm Sci 2004;8:51–64.
[207] You S, Ok YS, Tsang DCW, Kwon EE, Wang C-H. Towards practical application of
gasification: a critical review from syngas and biochar perspectives. Crit Rev
Environ Sci Technol 2018;48:1165–213.
[208] Harmsen J. Industrial process scale-up: a practical innovation guide from idea to
commercial implementation. Elsevier; 2019.
[209] Bridgwater AV. Review of fast pyrolysis of biomass and product upgrading.
Biomass Bioenergy 2012;38:68–94.
[210] Shyam S, Arun J, Gopinath KP, Ribhu G, Ashish M, Ajay S. Biomass as source for
hydrochar and biochar production to recover phosphates from wastewater: a
review on challenges, commercialization, and future perspectives. Chemosphere
2022;286:131490.
[211] Initiative UB. Survey and analysis of the US biochar industry preliminary report
draft; . USA2018.
[212] APchemi. Plastic pyrolysis Apchemi. Europr: Agile process chemicals LLP. 2022.
[213] Solis M, Silveira S. Technologies for chemical recycling of household plastics – a
technical review and TRL assessment. Waste Manag 2020;105:128–38.
[214] Samperio JAS. Alternative catalytic processes for the valorization of plastic
wastes to fuels. 2016.
[215] Fukushima M, Shioya M, Wakai K, Ibe H. Toward maximizing the recycling rate in
a Sapporo waste plastics liquefaction plant. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 2009;11:
11–8.
[216] Butler E, Devlin G, McDonnell K. Waste polyolefins to liquid fuels via pyrolysis:
review of commercial state-of-the-art and recent laboratory research. Waste
Biomass Valorization 2011;2:227–55.
[217] Abnisa F, Daud WMAW. A review on co-pyrolysis of biomass: an optional
technique to obtain a high-grade pyrolysis oil. Energy Convers Manag 2014;87:
71–85.
[218] Ahmed MHM, Batalha N, Mahmudul HMD, Perkins G, Konarova M. A review on
advanced catalytic co-pyrolysis of biomass and hydrogen-rich feedstock: insights
into synergistic effect, catalyst development and reaction mechanism. Bioresour
Technol 2020;310:123457.
[219] Fernandez-Akarregi AR, Makibar J, Lopez G, Amutio M, Olazar M. Design and
operation of a conical spouted bed reactor pilot plant (25 kg/h) for biomass fast
pyrolysis. Fuel Process Technol 2013;112:48–56.
[220] Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, Lehmann J, Joseph S. Sustainable
biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat Commun 2010;1:56.
[221] Naqvi SR, Tariq R, Shahbaz M, Naqvi M, Aslam M, Khan Z, et al. Recent
developments on sewage sludge pyrolysis and its kinetics: resources recovery,
thermogravimetric platforms, and innovative prospects. Comput Chem Eng 2021;
150:107325.
[222] Matovic D. Biochar as a viable carbon sequestration option: global and Canadian
perspective. Energy 2011;36:2011–6.
[223] Younis MR, Farooq M, Imran M, Kazim AH, Shabbir A. Characterization of the
viscosity of bio-oil produced by fast pyrolysis of the wheat straw. Energy Sources,
Part A Recovery, Util Environ Eff 2021;43:1853–68.
[224] Chmutina K, Wiersma B, Goodier CI, Devine-Wright P. Concern or compliance?
Drivers of urban decentralised energy initiatives. Sustain Cities Soc 2014;10:
122–9.
[225] Fytili D, Zabaniotou A. Circular economy synergistic opportunities of
decentralized thermochemical systems for bioenergy and biochar production
fueled with agro-industrial wastes with environmental sustainability and social
acceptance: a review. Curr Sustain Renew Energy Rep 2018;5:150–5.