J. Anal. Appl.

Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 1
/17

www.elsevier.com/locate/jaap

Fluidized bed thermal degradation products of

HDPE in an inert atmosphere and in air
nitrogen /

mixtures
F.J. Mastral *, E. Esperanza, C. Berrueco, M. Juste,
J. Ceamanos
Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Centro Politécnico Superior, University of
Zaragoza, C/Marı́a de Luna, 3, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain
Received 25 October 2001; received in revised form 17 January 2002; accepted 7 June 2002

Abstract

Different processes involving thermal decomposition such as incineration, pyrolysis,

gasification or co-combustion are becoming important for energy generation using plastic
wastes as combustible materials. The thermal degradation of the material, the product
distribution and consequently the economics of the process are strongly influenced by the
experimental conditions used. In this work, the thermal degradation of high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) has been carried out using a fluidized bed reactor under different
temperature conditions. Two types of experiments have been performed, pyrolysis experi-
ments, in which nitrogen has been used as inert gas, and gasification experiments, meaning
that the thermal decomposition has been carried out in a nitrogen
/air mixture with low
oxygen concentration. The influence of the operating parameters on the product distribution
and gas composition has been investigated using GC and MS/GC for the analysis of the gas,
wax and oil fractions obtained. The results obtained show a widely differing product yield in
both processes. The main objective of the paper is a comparison of pyrolysis and gasification
in terms of the generation of products of high heating value, and the energy requirements for
the thermal degradation and production of residues and polyaromatic compounds. An
optimum interval of operation temperatures is suggested in order to obtain high yield to gases
of high heating values and low yield to PAHs.
# 2002 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Polyolefins; Pyrolysis; Gasification; Fluidized bed; HDPE; Polyethylene

* Corresponding author. Tel.: /34-976-76-2160; fax: /34-976-76-1879.

E-mail address: ceamanos@posta.unizar.es (F.J. Mastral).

0165-2370/03/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0165-2370(02)00068-2
2 F.J. Mastral et al. / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 1
/17

1. Introduction

The high consumption of polymeric materials means that they are a significant
share of solid waste (either municipal or industrial). The disposal of this waste has
become a technological, business, political and social issue that has attracted the
attention of researchers, businessmen, politicians, environmental activists, and the
general public.
Given their high calorific value, plastics can be recycled for energy recovery. When
mixed and incinerated with municipal solid wastes, plastics contribute to the safe
combustion of the mixture and generate valuable energy. In other thermal
degradation processes, they can replace other fuels in different proportions, saving
primary fossil fuels. Fuels derived from specific, separated plastics and combined
with a lignocellulosic fraction can be an important substitute for coal in cement
manufacture or for electricity generation in a power plant. In pyrolysis processes, the
energy necessary is supplied by partial combustion of the feed material or the gases
produced. In the latter case, it would be very interesting to compare the yields and
the product distributions obtained both in strict pyrolysis conditions, using nitrogen
as fluidizing agent, and in partial combustion conditions, using air and nitrogen as
fluidizing agent.
One of the materials present in significant quantities in municipal solid waste is
polyethylene. The pyrolysis of polyethylene has been the subject of numerous
studies, such as thermal decomposition kinetics [1
/4] or temperature influence on
product yields [5
/8]. These experimental studies have been carried out in fluidized
bed, with an inert gas as fluidizing agent. Other studies using steam or pyrolysis gas
as fluidizing agent have been carried out by Kaminsky et al. [9]. The reaction
mechanisms that generate the different pyrolysis products have been considered by
Bockhorn et al. [2], Ranzi et al. [3], Williams and Williams [8], Poutsma et al. [10],
McCaffrey et al. [11], and Savage et al. [12].
In this work, the results of product yields from the degradation of HDPE obtained
under pyrolysis and gasification conditions are shown. The temperature interval
used ranges from 640 to 850 8C. The main goal is the study of the influence of the
atmosphere in which the thermal decomposition takes place and the temperature on
the product distribution and heating value of the generated gas.

2. Experimental

2.1. Laboratory scale pyrolysis plant

The experimental system used in this work is shown in Fig. 1. The study was
carried out using a stainless steel, fluidized bed reactor 4.8 cm in diameter and 23 cm
in height. The material bed was 0.25
/0.27 mm silica sand with a static bed depth of
80 mm. The reactor was externally heated using an electrical ring furnace. The bed
temperature was measured by a K type thermocouple inside the bed. The HDPE
pyrolysis and gasification runs were carried out at bed temperatures of 640, 700, 730,
 F.J. Mastral et al. / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 1
/17 3

Fig. 1. Experimental system diagram.

780 and 850 8C. HDPE manufactured by HOECHST (HOSTALEN GH 4765),

with a density of 0.958 g cm 3, a softening point of 80 8C and a mean particle
size of 0.225 mm was used in this work. Polyethylene was fed continuously into the
bed at a rate of 3
/4 g min1 using a pneumatic water-cooled feeder in order to avoid
the melting of the material before entering the reactor. In order to obtain a
continuous solid flow into the reactor, an important fraction of the total gas
flow used in the experiments was used in the feeding process, while the rest (either
pure nitrogen in the pyrolysis experiments or a mixture of air and nitrogen
in the gasification experiments) was preheated at the reactor temperature before
entering the lower part of the fluidized bed. Some preliminary experiments were
carried out in order to determine the fraction of the gas flow necessary for the
feeding and the fluidization. For gas velocities three times the minimum fluidization
velocity (Umf), gas flow for feeding amounted to 70% of the total gas flow, whilst for
gas velocities five to seven times the Umf, gas flow for feeding was 50% of the total
gas flow.
Two types of experiments were carried out, designated as pyrolysis and
gasification experiments. A flow of nitrogen was used as carrier gas and fluidizing
agent in the pyrolysis experiments. A flow of either air or air
/nitrogen mixtures was
used as the fluidizing gas in the gasification experiments. Since different gas yields
are obtained depending on the temperature used, the mixtures were used to obtain a
similar residential time and air ratio for all experiments. At low temperatures (640
and 700 8C) mixtures of nitrogen and air were used, whilst air only was used in the
gasification experiments carried out at higher temperatures. The air ratio imposed
for all the experiments was in the range of 6
/7% of the stoichiometric air for HDPE
combustion.
4 F.J. Mastral et al. / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 1
/17

The operation flows used provided a fluidizing gas velocity five to eight times the
Umf. The average Umf of the sand used in the bed was experimentally found to be 2.2
cm s 1. The residence time of the gas in the reactor had values between 0.81 and 1.45
s, calculated in each experiment at the bed temperature, taking into account the total
gas flow produced and considering the internal volume of the reactor (the sand bed
and freeboard), the cyclone and the connections between the reactor and the cyclone
and between the cyclone and the water condenser.
The product stream was passed through the cyclone to remove any particulate
matter. The resulting stream of vapors was passed through a cool water heat
exchanger at 20 8C, where some heavy hydrocarbons were condensed (oil or waxes).
The remaining lighter components were condensed using an ice
/NaCl bath at /
10 8C. The exit flow was divided into two fractions: the largest one being passed
through silica gel in order to retain the wax and oil carried by the gas in the form of
aerosol. The smaller fraction was passed through two ice
/NaCl condensers at /
10 8C. Part of the flow from the condensers was collected online in a nylon bag for
analysis during the experiment. The rest of the flow from the condensers was passed
through a silica gel tube in order to retain the remains of waxes or oils. This flow was
introduced into an online CO
/CO2 detector and exited the system. The experiments
lasted from 20 to 25 min.

2.2. Analysis

The gas fraction was analyzed by gas chromatography using a HP 5890 series II,
with a semi capillary column HPPLOT/Al2O3, 50 m/0.53 mm /15 mm, and a
molecular sieve 0.9 m/3 mm packed with 45/60 mesh, using two detectors
connected in series: a thermal conductivity detector (TCD) and a flame ionization
detector (FID). The concentration of H2, N2, CO and CO2 were determined by the
TCD detector whilst the rest of hydrocarbon components from C1 to C6 were
detected by the FID.
Waxes and oils were collected, weighed and analyzed by GC/MS. For purposes of
analysis, the oil and waxes were first dissolved in tetrahydrophurane (THF). The gas
chromatography mass spectrometry consisted of an HT-5 aluminum clad column, 25
m/0.32 mm /0.1 mm (non polar) with a Tmax 450 8C. Helium was used as carrier
gas with a flow rate of 1 ml min 1. Samples of 1 ml were injected, with a split mode
(20:1).
The high temperature column enabled oven temperatures of 400 8C to be reached
ensuring that hydrocarbons up to C60 could be analyzed. The temperature program
was 40 8C for 2 min followed by a heating rate of 5 8C min 1 up to 180 8C, then an
increase up to 350 8C at a heating rate of 10 8C min 1, and finally 10 min at
350 8C. Since no components were detected at temperatures over 330 8C, the
maximum oven temperature used was 350 8C. The ion trap detector had a mass
range from 32 to 800 amu and was linked to a computer with a Wiley library.
 F.J. Mastral et al. / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 1
/17 5

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Product yields

The pyrolysis and gasification of HDPE were carried out in the experimental
system previously described using different reactor temperatures. Table 1 shows the
yields to the different fractions obtained in the two types of experiments, referring to
the mass of HDPE fed, and for reactor temperatures ranging from 640 to 850 8C.
Table 1 also shows the main experimental conditions used in the experiments
performed: residence time, air ratio and real temperature in the reactor. The carbon
and hydrogen mass balances of the products, quite close to 100%, are also shown in
Table 1. The total yields over 100% observed in the gasification experiments are due
to the fact that the oxygen fed appears as a part of the products obtained. In the case
of the pyrolysis experiments, slight variations from 100% are also observed. They can
be explained taking into account that, since the total gas flow exiting the system is
not measured, the balances are solved using the nitrogen balance and the
composition of the different fractions. These compositions are measured at different
moments during the experiment, so slight variations can be observed.
A high quantity of waxes and oils were found in the pyrolysis and gasification
experiments carried out at 640 and 700 8C (real temperature), this mixture
presenting a higher viscosity at 640 8C than at 700 8C. In the pyrolysis experiments,
the yield was 68.5% at 640 8C and 39.6% at 700 8C. In the gasification experiments,
the wax/oil yield was 51.6% at 645 8C and 35.4% at 700 8C. The variation of
fraction yields (gas, oil and wax) with temperature is shown in Fig. 2. As can be
observed, for low temperatures the yield to gas increases as the temperature increases
in both pyrolysis and gasification experiments. For temperatures in the range of
640
/730 8C, this marked increase of the yield to gas ranges from 33.5 to 91.7 wt.%
in pyrolysis and from 54.2 to 104.6 wt.% in gasification. For higher temperatures, in
the range of 730
/850 8C, the yield to gas reaches an approximately constant value in
both processes. A small amount of char, not quantified, appeared in waxes and oils.
As can be seen when comparing pyrolysis and gasification experiments, the wax/oil
yields are very similar at the different temperatures studied except at 640 8C at
which a higher yield is obtained under pyrolysis conditions. For the rest of the
temperatures studied, yields to wax/oil are slightly higher in pyrolysis. Yields to gas
in gasification are higher than in pyrolysis in all temperature intervals studied.
Fig. 3 shows the variation of the yields to the different fractions (gases except CO
and CO2, CO
/CO2, olefins, oxygenated compounds and aromatics). Different
observations can be noted: CO and CO2 are obviously not observed in the pyrolysis
experiments and the yield to olefins decreases rapidly as the temperature increases,
this fraction being more abundant in the pyrolysis experiments. As can be observed,
the yield to aromatic compounds increases as the temperature increases and similar
values are obtained regardless of which gas is used in the experiments. The
oxygenated fraction, relatively important in gasification experiments carried out at
low temperatures, decreases down to zero over 730 8C.
 6
F.J. Mastral et al. / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 1
/17
Table 1
Product yields (wt.% of feed) and component mass balances for pyrolysis and gasification of HDPE

Temperature (8C) 640 680 730 780 850

Process Pyrolysis Gasification Pyrolysis Gasification Pyrolysis Gasification Pyrolysis Gasification Pyrolysis Gasification
Residence time(s) 1.45 1.4 1.3 0.9 1.3 1.2 0.81 1.0 0.85 1.03
Air factor 0 6.1 0 6.9 0 6.1 0 5.8 0 6.2
Real temperature 640 645 700 700 730 730 780 778 850 852
Gas yield 33.5 54.2 69.4 86.7 91.7 104.6 102.2 104.0 89.1 103.8
Wax/oil yield 68.5 51.6 39.6 35.4 18 14.3 9.6 11.6 16.2 14.6
Aqueous phase 0.0 5.2 0.0 4.2 0.0 3.5 0 2.9 0 2.8
Hydrogen mass balance 102 90 112 103 112 100 111 96 112 106
Carbon mass balance 102 91 109 105 109 102 112 102 104 101
 F.J. Mastral et al. / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 1
/17 7

Fig. 2. Influence of the experiment temperature on fraction yields.

3.2. Gas composition

Table 2 shows the yields to the different gas species obtained in the pyrolysis and
gasification processes. As previously mentioned, the main difference observed
between the gasification and pyrolysis experiments is the production of some gas
species such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and water in gasification, due to
the HDPE partial combustion and reduction reactions. The yield to hydrogen is

Fig. 3. Influence of the experiment temperature on product yields.

 8
Table 2

F.J. Mastral et al. / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 1
/17

Product yields (wt.% of feed) for pyrolysis and gasification of HDPE

Temperature (8C) 640 680 730 780 850

Process Pyrolysis Gasification Pyrolysis Gasification Pyrolysis Gasification Pyrolysis Gasification Pyrolysis Gasification
H2 0.09 0.23 0.60 0.80 0.60 1.41 0.60 1.30 1.50 2.30
O2 0.00 3.40 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.90
CO 0.00 6.65 0.00 11.00 0.00 14.60 0.00 16.00 0.00 20.00
CO2 0.00 11.10 0.00 14.30 0.00 11.30 0.00 7.00 0.00 6.70
CH4 2.20 2.91 4.80 5.60 7.80 6.40 9.70 9.40 15.30 14.70
C2H4 7.60 13.25 17.00 20.00 25.30 24.60 37.00 32.00 40.50 34.10
C2H6 2.10 1.67 3.40 3.10 4.80 3.10 3.80 2.70 2.50 2.30
C3 8.00 8.84 17.40 13.20 23.70 17.50 20.00 11.80 5.40 3.20
C4 9.50 9.00 17.00 12.00 17.00 13.90 13.00 7.70 4.80 2.70
Oxygenated 0.00 14.35 0.00 15.80 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic 1.50 2.28 4.86 8.13 12.62 14.55 21.71 26.08 29.73 31.22
C5
/C8 14.90 4.43 31.10 6.40 13.14 7.30 5.33 1.04 5.60 0.24
C9
/C12 7.70 8.70 4.10 3.80 1.90 2.30 0.70 0.05 0.00 0.00
C13
/C19 14.40 10.30 5.90 5.07 1.70 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C19
/C32 23.00 5.25 2.80 1.55 1.10 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C33
/C60 11.00 3.40 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
 F.J. Mastral et al. / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 1
/17 9

relatively low and increases in both types of experiments as the temperature

increases. Higher values are observed in the presence of oxygen.
The variation of the yields to CO and CO2 obtained in the gasification
experiments and the CO/CO2 ratio with temperature are shown in Fig. 4. As can
be observed, the CO/CO2 ratio increases as the temperature increases, favored by the
Boudouard and water shift reactions, given their endothermicity. At low tempera-
tures, up to 700 8C, the combustion reaction is predominant, resulting in relatively
low yields to CO and high yields to CO2.
The variation of H2 and CH4 yields with temperature for pyrolysis and
gasification experiments is shown in Fig. 5. The endothermic water gas and water
shift reactions can also explain the higher yield to H2 observed at high temperatures
in the gasification experiments. In the pyrolysis experiments carried out, propagation
reactions generate hydrogen at low temperatures whilst the dehydrogenation
reactions to generate aromatic compounds are responsible for H2 formation at
high temperatures [10,13
/15]. When comparing hydrogen production, similar trends
are observed for pyrolysis and gasification experiments although higher values are
observed for gasification experiments at high temperatures, due to the above
mentioned equilibria. As can be observed in Fig. 5, temperature strongly affects the
yields to CH4, obtaining similar values in both processes. Methane is a stable
product of the propagation reactions of the thermal decomposition of polyethylene,
as has been suggested by different authors [15,16].
The yields to ethylene and ethane and their ratio is shown for both types of
experiments and different temperatures in Fig. 6. For reactor temperatures up to
730 8C, the yield to ethylene is higher in the gasification experiments. Under these
experimental conditions a decrease of the yield to heavy hydrocarbons is also
observed. In the temperature interval from 730 to 850 8C, the ethylene yield is higher
in the pyrolysis process. The ethylene/ethane ratio increases in both processes with

Fig. 4. Variation of CO and CO2 production and CO/CO2 ratio with gasification temperature.
10 F.J. Mastral et al. / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 1
/17

Fig. 5. Variation of H2 and CH4 production with pyrolysis and gasification temperature.

temperature, and is always higher in gasification than in pyrolysis. This would be

explained by the more severe cracking conditions in the presence of oxygen. The
difference between gasification and pyrolysis processes is mainly due to the presence
of the hydroxyl and hydroperoxy radicals, playing a relevant role in the formation of
ethylene. In the presence of oxygen, abstraction of H-atoms by OH radicals shows a
lower activation energy than the H and CH3 radicals (3.5 vs. 10
/12 kcal mol 1),
lowering the apparent activation energy of the overall process from 52
/55 to 43
/46
kcal mol 1 and explaining the higher reactivity observed in the gasification
experiments.

Fig. 6. Variation of C2H4 production and C2H4/C2H6 ratio with pyrolysis and gasification temperature.
 F.J. Mastral et al. / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 1
/17 11

The fractions C3 (mainly propylene) and C4 (mainly butadiene) show a maximum

yield at 730 8C. These fractions, produced by the cracking of heavy olefins, also
undergo further cracking leading to gas compounds of lighter molecular weight. For
temperatures above 730 8C, these fractions react to generate aromatic compounds
through Diels Alder reactions, favored under these conditions by condensation and
dehydrogenation reactions. The maximum yields to these fractions are explained by
the combined effect of cracking reactions and aromatic production reactions.
The heating value of gas products in pyrolysis and gasification processes is shown
in Fig. 7. The heating value increases up to approximately 780 8C, whilst decreasing
slightly from 780 to 850 8C, the latter fact coinciding with the increase in aromatic
formation. The heating value is lower for gasification than for pyrolysis due to the
partial combustion of the HDPE fed.

3.3. Liquid composition

An important amount of wax, including hydrocarbons of up to sixty carbon atoms

is produced at low temperatures (645 8C). In the pyrolysis process these hydro-
carbons are mainly olefins and diolefins, paraffins appearing only in minor
proportions. As the temperature increases a more intense cracking of heavy
hydrocarbons occurs to produce gases and light fractions. The yield to the olefinic
fraction decreases as the temperature increases, and falls to negligible values at
temperatures over 780 8C. The yield to aromatic compounds increases as the
temperature increases. Heavier polyaromatic compounds are also generated, their
yield also increasing as the temperature increases.
The influence of the reactor temperature and the experiment type can be observed
in Figs. 8 and 9. The product chromatograms of the product distribution under
different conditions are shown as examples in Fig. 8. In Fig. 9, some products have
been lumped together for the sake of simplicity of data analysis. The most important
difference between the pyrolysis and gasification processes is observed at low
temperatures. In gasification, oxygenated compounds appear, and the olefinic

Fig. 7. Heating value of gas products.

12 F.J. Mastral et al. / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 1
/17

Fig. 8. CG/MS chromatograms of the liquid products of pyrolysis and gasification.

fraction is smaller than that observed in pyrolysis. For temperatures higher than
730 8C the liquid composition is similar in both pyrolysis and gasification
experiments.
In Fig. 10 aromatic compounds are detailed. Benzene and naphthalene production
increases as the temperature increases. At a given temperature, the results show
similar values in pyrolysis and gasification, being slightly higher in the case of
gasification. In all conditions benzene is the most abundant aromatic compound.
The product distributions observed can be explained qualitatively taking into
account the mechanisms of thermal degradation suggested by different authors
[2,3,10
/13,15
/18] and shown in Fig. 11. In general, the polymer cracking reactions
to yield smaller olefinic chains and gases (as experimentally observed in Fig. 3). At
higher temperatures secondary reactions yield aromatic and polyaromatic com-
pounds (also observed in Figs. 3, 8
/10). In gas-phase, where the substrate
concentration is low, and at high temperatures, the Rice
/Kossiakoff mechanism
[17] predicts the formation of mainly alkenes, C2H4, CH4 and H2, with only very
small amounts of alkanes and dialkenes being formed. Similar trends are shown in
the experimental data obtained (Figs. 5 and 6). As temperature is increased, more
scissions in the polymer chain occur leading to a high number of short primary
 F.J. Mastral et al. / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 1
/17 13

Fig. 9. Comparison of product distribution under pyrolysis and gasification conditions. Influence of
temperature.

radicals, which undergo successive b-scission reactions and eliminate small molecules
(this coincides with the results obtained, with the gas yield increasing as the
temperature increases, and the high production of ethylene). Moreover, the higher
radical concentration favors intermolecular hydrogen transfer (the higher concen-
14 F.J. Mastral et al. / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 1
/17

Fig. 10. Comparison of aromatic product distribution under pyrolysis and gasification conditions.
Influence of temperature.

tration increases the bimolecular reaction probability), to generate alkanes (reaction

V in Fig. 11). Different mechanisms have been suggested for explaining the
formation of benzene and other aromatic compounds such as the combination
reactions between conjugated dienes and unsaturated compounds followed by
dehydrogenation [5].

4. Conclusions

The operation temperature has an important influence on the product distribution

and on the gas composition due to the secondary reactions occurring in the
freeboard. As the temperature increases, the gas production increases and the oil and
wax production decreases in both pyrolysis and gasification processes. When
considering the partial oxidation of the HDPE, as carried out in the gasification
experiments, the system becomes more complex and a higher reactivity is observed.
In HDPE fed basis, a higher production of light products (H2, CH4, C2H4) and a
decrease of the yield to heavy fractions is noticed. At low temperatures the presence
of oxygen causes a more intense cracking effect. The relative importance of the
temperature (compared with that of the oxygen concentration) in the severity of the
oxidation increases as the temperature increases, so that the difference observed with
the pyrolysis experiments is more important at low temperatures. A higher
production of ethylene is noticed in the presence of oxygen at temperatures below
730 8C. This fact coincides with a reduction of the average molecular weight of
heavy products. The products present in higher percentages are ethylene in gases and
 F.J. Mastral et al. / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 1
/17 15

Fig. 11. General mechanism of the thermal degradation of polyethylene.

16 F.J. Mastral et al. / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 1
/17

benzene in liquids, the maximum production of these compounds appearing at

850 8C.
The product distribution can be qualitatively explained taking into account the
mechanisms of thermal degradation of PE. Some of the experimental observations
on the variation of the gas yield with the temperature, the significant generation of
ethylene, the formation of alkenes, alkanes and dialkenes in the wax fraction and
their dependence on the temperature variation corroborate the generally accepted
mechanism. The increase in the formation of aromatics as the temperature increases
is also explained. In the presence of oxygen, the thermal decomposition process is
similar to that observed under pyrolysis conditions, although a slight increase in the
reactivity is observed, which favors the decomposition of heavy compounds.
The results obtained show that, by using a correct proportion of air, a self-
sustaining regime could be attained in order to avoid any additional combustible or
external heating as required when the decomposition is carried out under pyrolysis
conditions. If gasification is used, a suitable gas composition could be obtained for
electricity generation at relatively low temperatures, the optimum being between 680
and 730 8C. This temperature range also avoids a high production of heavy
polyaromatic compounds, which can be problematic. The low temperatures would
also result in a reduction of heat losses and would decrease the wax fraction and the
generation of oxygenated compounds (except CO and CO2).

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to CICYT (project QUI 98-0669) for providing
financial support for this work.

References

[1] J.A. Conesa, R. Font, A. Marcilla, Energy Fuels 11 (1997) 126.

[2] H. Bockhorn, A. Hornung, U. Hornung, D. Aschawaller, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 48 (1999) 93.
[3] E. Ranzi, M. Dente, T. Faravelli, G. Bozzano, S. Fabini, R. Nava, V. Cozzani, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol.
40
/41 (1997) 305.
[4] R.W.J. Westerhout, J. Waanders, J.A.M. Kuipers, W.P.M. Van Swaaij, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 36
(1997) 1955.
[5] J.A. Conesa, R. Font, A. Marcilla, N. Garcı́a, Energy Fuels 8 (1994) 1238.
[6] W. Kaminsky, J. Phys. IV 3 (1993) 1543.
[7] D.S. Scott, J. Piskorz, D. Radlein, Ind. Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. Dev. 24 (1995) 581.
[8] P.T. Williams, E.A. Williams, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 51 (1999) 107.
[9] W. Kaminsky, B. Schlesselmann, C. Simon, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 32 (1995) 19.
[10] M.L. Poutsma, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 54 (2000) 5.
[11] W.C. McCaffrey, D.G. Copper, M.R. Kamal, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 62 (1998) 513.
[12] P.E. Savage, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 54 (2000) 109.
[13] H. Bockhorn, A. Hornung, U. Hornung, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 50 (1999) 77.
[14] G. Montaudo, C. Puglisi, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 33 (1991) 229.
[15] E. Ranzi, M. Dente, A. Goldaniga, G. Bozzano, T. Faravelli, Prog. Energy Comb. Sci. 27 (2000) 99.
 F.J. Mastral et al. / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 1
/17 17

[16] T. Faravelli, G. Bozzano, M. Scassa, S. Fabini, E. Ranzi, M. Dente, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 52 (1999)
87.
[17] F.O. Kossiakoff, Rice, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 65 (1943) 590.
[18] R.P. Lattimer, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 31 (1995) 203.