i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

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

Plasma gasification of the medical waste

Altug Alp Erdogan a, Mustafa Zeki Yilmazoglu b,*

a
Anadolu Plasma Technology Center, Gazi University, Golbasi Campus, Teknoplaza, Block C, 23, Ankara, 06830,
Turkey
b
Gazi University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ankara, Turkey

highlights

Plasma gasification of medical waste is numerically investigated.

Due to Covid-19 pandemic the increased amount of medical waste must be disposed.

Three different medical waste samples are investigated with different ER values.

The results are obtained for the different operating conditions.

Plasma gasification of MW increases the sustainable operation and safe disposal.

article info abstract

Article history: In terms of infection control in hospitals, especially the Covid-19 pandemic that we are
Received 16 September 2020 living in, it has revealed the necessity of proper disposal of medical waste. The increasing
Received in revised form amount of medical waste with the pandemic is straining the capacity of incineration fa-
5 December 2020 cilities or storage areas. Converting this waste to energy with gasification technologies
Accepted 10 December 2020 instead of incineration is also important for sustainability. This study investigates the
Available online 31 December 2020 gasification characteristics of the medical waste in a novel updraft plasma gasifier with
numerical simulations in the presence of the plasma reactions. Three different medical
Keywords: waste samples, chosen according to the carbon content and five different equivalence
Plasma gasification ratios (ER) ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 are considered in the simulations to compare the effects
Medical waste of different chemical compositions and waste feeding rates on hydrogen (H2) content and
Waste-to-energy syngas production. The outlet properties of a 10 kW microwave air plasma generator are
Hydrogen production used to define the plasma inlet in the numerical model and the air flow rate is held con-
Sustainability stant for all cases. Results showed that the maximum H2 production can be obtained with
Covid-19 ER ¼ 0.1 for all waste samples.
© 2020 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

environmental pollution, and sustainability. By the reports of

Introduction the World Health Organization (WHO), International Com-
mittee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and European Council (EC),
With the increase in the number of healthcare facilities and these wastes are classified as hazardous wastes, which mainly
the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic, medical waste include infectious, sharps, pathological, chemical, pharma-
(MW) has become an important issue concerning health risks, ceutical, cytotoxic, heavy-metal containing and radioactive

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zekiyilmazoglu@gazi.edu.tr (M.Z. Yilmazoglu).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.12.069
0360-3199/© 2020 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5 29109

wastes [1e3]. The main sources of the MW production are During the pyrolysis of the feedstock, syngas that contains
hospitals, whereas other sources can be stated as medical considerable amounts of hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide
schools or research centers, veterinary clinics, blood banks, (CO) is produced, which can be later used for electricity pro-
mortuaries, autopsy centers, and biotechnology laboratories duction with the usage of reciprocating engines or fuel cells.
[4]. Hazardous MWs are assumed to form 15% of the total According to the literature, plasma gasification of MSW can
waste production in a hospital and that value can also be as yield electrical, thermal, and cold gas efficiencies up to 32%,
high as 35%, depending on the waste production characteris- 80%, and 95%, respectively, depending on moisture, plasma
tics [5e7]. According to the literature, production rates of MW temperature, plasma working fluid, and so on [41e43]. More-
in hospitals has increased by up to 280 tons/day during the over, valuable materials such as metallic substances (con-
COVID-19 outbreak [8e11]. These wastes require cold and taining iron (Fe), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu),
ventilated storage in a separate area from hospitals until mercury (Hg), etc.), or high-carbon-containing materials like
transported to incineration facilities by MW municipal trucks, graphite are captured in the residual slag, which can be
high disposal costs for hospitals, strict emissions control for collected as molten slag during the gasification process. The
municipalities, and incineration facilities, and detailed con- emissions emitted during the plasma gasification of MSW are
siderations for health risks [12e17]. During the treatment of stated as 18 ppm NOx, 6 ppm SOx, 5 ppm CO, 0.38 ppm HCl, and
MW via conventional incineration processes, high contents of 0.43 mg/m3 dust, which are considerably lower than the limits
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/ of European Standards (159 ppm NOx, 19 ppm SOx, 10 mg/m3
PCDF), which are stated as cancerogenic, polluting the air and CO, 7 ppm HCl, 10 mg/m3 dust) [44,45]. Besides, the total PCDD/
landfills, and reducing the soil quality [18e22], are emitted to PCDFs generation by the plasma gasification of hospital solid
the environment by their exhaust gas (77e894 ng N/m3) and wastes are found to be lower than 0.01 ng toxic equivalent
residual ashes (69e4915 mg/m3), which are not acceptable by (TEQ), which should not exceed 0.1 ng TEQ/m3 according to
the requirements of European Council 2000/76/EC [23]. Espe- the limits of European Commission Directive 2000/76/EC [2],
cially in the case of the COVID-19 outbreak, it should be and the detailed PCDD/PCDFs emissions for the plasma gasi-
considered that the viral activity on surfaces can endure up to fication are given in Table 1. These benefits show that plasma
72 h [1]. WHO recommends on-site high-temperature treat- gasification can be a sustainable and eco-friendly alternative
ment before disposal of these wastes to reduce the risks of for on-site treatment of MW, whereas H2-rich syngas can also
infection during transportation and storage, which brings be obtained during the process.
extra risks of infection and treatment costs [24]. On the other Although its overwhelming advantages compared to con-
hand, MW physically contains up to 54% paper, 20% textile, ventional methods, high specific energy consumption and low
26% organic, 50% plastic, 10% metal-containing, and 15%
glass-containing wastes, while they consist of up to 35% car-
bon (C), 15% hydrogen (H), 16% nitrogen (N), 26% oxygen (O),
1% sulphur (S) and 3% chlorine (Cl) by ultimate analyses, with Table 1 e Comparison of PCDD/PCDFs limits of WHO and
a maximum calorific value of 8820 kcal/kg [25e27]. Therefore, PCDD/PCDFs generation by plasma gasification [46].
the fuel characteristics of MW show many similarities with Chemical PCDD/PCDFs Generation via Plasma
municipal solid waste (MSW), which can be used for energy Structure Gasification (ng TEQ/Nm3)
production. Besides these wastes could be used as refuse- PCDDs
derived fuels if more eco-friendly, healthy, and sustainable 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- <0.00024
disposal options are developed. HpCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8- <0.0024
Plasma gasification is one of the most promising tech-
HxCDD
niques for waste treatment due to its high-temperature
1,2,3,7,8,9- <0.0024
characteristics and lower hazardous emissions. Plasma is HxCDD
defined as the fourth state of matter which consists of radi- 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD <0.024
cals, free electrons, charged particles, and ions. During the 2,3,7,8-TCDD <0.005
transformation of a substance into the plasma phase, there 1,2,3,6,7,8- <0.0024
are various chemical reactions, comprised of ionization, HxCDD
OCDD <0.000015
dissociation, and reassociation chains occurred in the fluid
PCDFs
medium, which causes thermal dissociation of a substance. 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF <0.0072
Through these features, thermal plasma generators are 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- <0.00024
widely used in the energy industry for thermal processes, HpCDF
requiring high temperatures such as burning and pyrolysis 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- <0.00024
[28,29]. Plasma generators commonly used in plasma gasifiers HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8- <0.0024
can be indicated as microwave plasma torches (magnetrons,
HxCDF
klystrons, etc), and transferred/non-transferred arc plasma
1,2,3,6,7,8- <0.0024
torches [30e33]. With the continuous supply of electricity and HxCDF
working fluid into these torches, high-temperature plasma 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF <0.00072
jets up to 10,000 K can be achieved in the gasifier, which 2,3,4,6,7,8- <0.0024
causes pyrolysis of feeding materials such as fuels and wastes HxCDF
[34e36]. In many cases, the plasma medium is air, water, 2,3,7,8-TCDF <0.0005
OCDF <0.000015
steam, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or their mixtures [37e40].
29110 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5

service life are the main technical drawbacks of plasma gen-

erators [47]. Therefore, detailed design and optimization pro-
cedures should be evaluated in order to design a plasma
gasifier. However, a plasma gasifier could not be designed or
optimized easily because of its complexity. Since the charac-
teristics of plasma could not have been fully understood yet,
series of experiments and theoritical studies should be per-
formed to design and optimize a plasma gasifier, which brings
high additional costs. Hence, small-scale applications are not
feasible yet, and the technology requires further studies to
become a commercially widespread [48]. There are various
experimental and numerical studies in the literature about
the treatment of MSW via plasma gasification process and H2
production, while there are limited studies on MW. However,
the studies about MW can also give an insight into the treat-
ment of MW due to the similarities of their fuel characteris-
tics. Nicholas Agon [49] performed a study on the plasma
gasification of MSW, has a lower heating value (LHV) of
22.37 MJ/kg with using a one-stage plasma gasifier, having a
waste gasification capacity of 56.7 kg/h as a maximum. The
Fig. 2 e Numerical model geometry.
gasifier was operated with a plasma torch having a capacity of
120 kW by feeding the system with argon gas to form plasma
having a flow rate of 6 SL/min. The tar formation is found to be
lower than 10 mg/Nm3 the produced syngas can be obtained
with a LHV up to 11 MJ/Sm3 and with a CO and H2 volumetric show that the usage of 100% air as the plasma medium yields
content of 40.6% and 49.5%, respectively. Tavares et al. [50] 32.64% H2 production and 45% process efficiency, while it is
performed an analysis on plasma gasification of MSW by stated that the usage of 60% steam-40% air mixture as the
Aspen Plus and the results showed that up to 64% H2 and 58% plasma medium increases the H2 percentage (by 5.87% with
CO content can be achieved in the syngas, which can yield a 60% steam-40% air mixture) and decreases the CO percentage
LHV up to 13 MJ/Nm3 when ER ¼ 1 with a gasifier temperature (by 7.9%). Messerle et al. [53] performed a study on the plasma
of 1500  C. Indrawan et al. [51] investigated the effects of the gasification of toxic MW-containing carbonaceous waste with
usage of a low-temperature plasma gasifier for MSW. The air-plasma and steam-plasma mediums. According to the
study presented that up to 49.6% gasification efficiency can be results, 50.7% and 60.9% H2 concentrations can be achievable
obtained by the application of plasma with air, forming a with air-plasma and steam-plasma, while the calorific values
syngas LHV up to 6.02 MJ/Nm3 and 29.1% H2 content with an of the syngas were found to be 3410 kcal/kg and 4640 kcal/kg,
energy input range of 2.4e3.2 kW and a temperature range of respectively, with an optimum temperature of 1600 K.
1500e2500  C. Khuriati et al. [52] investigated the effects of the Furthermore, the chemical composition of the slag is found to
plasma working fluid type on process efficiencies and H2 be 63% iron carbide (Fe3C), 21% calcium silicate (CaSiO3), 13%
production for the plasma gasification of MSW. The results silica (SiO2), and 3% iron (Fe), while no harmful impurities

Fig. 1 e Geometry details of the updraft plasma gasifier.

 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5 29111

were detected in the produced gas. Another study [54] showed

the plasma gasification of MSW with a temperature range of Materials and methods
300e3000 K. By using TERRA commercial code for the calcu-
lations, it was found that the maximum syngas production Model geometry
can be achieved at 1600 K, where H2 concentration was 44.6%
and 50.7% according to experimental and numerical results, Detailed design geometry of the updraft plasma gasifier is
respectively, with 16% error as a maximum. Hartati et al. [55] given in Fig. 1. The gasifier capacity is considered to be
investigated the results of the possible utilization of plasma approximately 2 tons/day for PSW, which is close to the daily
gasification technology for various waste types and it was MW load of Gazi University Hospital (Ankara, Turkey) during
found that plasma treatment can reduce the amount of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are two microwave plasma
wastes by greater than 50%, while the H2 production can be as torches having 10 kW input power each. The exhaust pipe is
high as 56.9% for MSW. Bin et al. [56] developed a dual-torch movable along the vertical axis to control the gasification re-
plasma arc furnace for MW treatment with the usage of gion, and the distance between the exhaust pipe and the base
argon (Ar) as the plasma working fluid, and the temperature at of the gasifier is 525 mm and held constant for all cases. The
the center of the furnace is found to be 11,000 K. Sikandar gasifier is insulated with a fire brick layer from the inside of
Mashayak [57] performed a numerical study for the plasma the gasifier and the insulation thickness is 72.5 mm. To
gasification of MW in PTDR-100 model plasma gasifier and simplify the numerical model, only the inside domain of the
39% H2 composition is obtained in syngas, which is validated gasifier is used in simulations as shown in Fig. 2.
by experimental results. Fiedler et al. [58] performed a nu-
merical study to understand the limitations of plasma gasifi-
Mathematical modeling
cation of MW properly, and the results showed that inlet
Navier-Stokes equations are solved for the fluid phase
velocity and direction of oxygen supply are highly effective on
modeling for time-averaged steady-state conditions. Accord-
the process efficiency. Mazzoni and Janajreh [59] thermody-
ingly, governing equations including conservation of mass,
namically analyzed the performance of plasma co-gasification
conservation of momentum, and conservation of energy can
processing of MSW and plastic solid waste (PSW) mixtures
be written as;
with different compositions in Aspen Plus environment. The
study showed that higher overall performances can be ob-   X  
v

aq rq þ V: aq rq !
n
tained with higher oxygen or steam ratios, and higher H2 Continuity: vq ¼ _ pq  m_ qp þ Sq
m
vt p¼1

productions with lower plasma power consumptions can be (1)

achieved by 50% MSW and 50% PSW. Carpinoglu and Sanlisoy
[60] presented a methodology for the performance analyses of    
v
aq rq !v q þ V: aq rq ! v q!
¼
plasma gasification of solid waste, which is based on first and Momentum : v q ¼  aq Vp þ V:tq
vt
second laws of thermodynamics, and introduced practical Xn ! 
scale parameters for such as capacity, power or hydrogen þ aq rq !
gþ p¼1
R pq þ m _ pq !
v _ qp !
pq  m v qp

production. Ismail et al. [61] studied the benefits of using  

! ! !
Euler-Euler multiphase model for plasma gasification of solid þ F q þ F lift;q þ F vm;q (2)
waste inside a fixed bed reactor. The deviation between
experimental and numerical results was not found to be  
v
 vrq ¼
greater than 10% and ER ¼ 0.3 yielded the most suitable con- Energy : aq rq hq þ V: aq rq !
v q h q ¼  aq þ tq
vt vt
ditions for H2 production, as well as tar formation. !
Xn !
The major limitation for plasma gasification alternatives is u q  V:!
: V! q q þ Sq þ p¼1
Q pq þ m_ pq hqp  m_ qp hqp (3)
the difficulty of gasifier design because there are a wide vari-
ety of MW compositions and operational parameters, The standard k-ε model is used to implement the effects of
requiring series of experiments for each specific gasifier turbulence under the assumption that the flow is fully tur-
design. Also, further numerical simulations are needed to bulent. Hence, the effects of viscosity are neglected. As a
understand the benefits of the plasma gasification process, result, the turbulent kinetic energy (k) and its dissipation rate
properly. In this study, the gasification characteristics of three (ε) are obtained from;
different MW compositions in an updraft plasma gasifier are   
compared according to the numerical simulations and v v v m vk
ðrkÞ þ ðrkui Þ ¼ mþ t þ Gk þ Gb  rε  YM þ Sk
hydrogen production capacities are investigated. In each case, vt vxi vxj sk vxj
the effects of five ER values ranging between 0.1 and 0.5 were (4)
also compared. Chemical compositions of each MW sample
  
were defined as calculated in reference studies [62e64], which v v v m vε ε ε2
ðrεÞ þ ðrεui Þ ¼ mþ t þ C1ε ðGk þ C3ε Gb Þ  C2ε r
are chosen to represent the minimum, average, and vt vxi vxj sε vxj k k
maximum carbon and hydrogen contents. The boundary þ Sε
conditions for the plasma inlet are obtained from the outlet of (5)
a 10 kW microwave plasma torch and held constant for all
cases. ANSYS FLUENT code used in the simulations and ki- where Gk is the turbulent kinetic energy generation due to
netic parameters of the plasma reaction mechanism is ob- mean velocity gradients, Gb is the generation due to buoyancy,
tained from TERRA commercial code [65]. YM is the contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in a
29112 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5

Table 2 e Homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions and kinetic parameters.

Reactions Ar Er (J/kgmol) a b
1 Volatile / 1.127CO þ 0.021H2S þ 0.236CH4 þ 0.125H2O þ 0.018N2 1030 100 e 0.2
2 C(s) þ H2O / CO þ H2 4.18  104 1.751  108 e 1
3 C(s) þ CO2 / 2CO 6.27  105 2.83  108 e 1
4 C(s) þ O2 / CO2 1.2333  104 1.59  108 e 1
5 C(s) þ 0.5O2 /CO 8.71  104 1.494  108 e 0.5
6 C(s) þ H2S / CS þ H2 1.0966  103 1.34  108 e e
7 C(s) þ H2 / CH4 1.2 1.49  108 e 2
8 CH4 þ H / CH3 þ H2 6.6171  104 4.97  107 e e
9 CH4 þ OH / CH3 þ H2O 1.72 8.36  106 e e
10 CH4 þ O / CH3 þ OH 2.6903  104 3.85  107 e e
11 CH3 þ H2O / CH4 þ OH 1.877  104 1.04  108 e e
12 CH3 þ H2 / CH4 þ H 1.56  104 4.77  107 e e
13 CH3 þ O2 / CH3O þ O 4.35  104 1.21  108 e e
14 CH3 þ OH / CH2O þ H2 1.48  104 0 e e
15 CH3 þ O / CH2O þ H 6.68  104 8.36  106 e e
16 H þ O2 / O þ OH 7.843  104 7.02 e e
17 H þ H2O / H2 þ OH 5.8689  104 8.49  107 e e
18 H2 þ O / H þ OH 1.42  103 3.72  107 e e
19 H2O þ O / OH þ OH 3.74  104 7.65  107 e e
20 CO þ OH / CO2 þ H 60.95 3.22  106 e e
21 CO þ O2 / CO2 þ O 9.87  104 1.57  108 e e
22 CO2 þ H / CO þ OH 468.72 9.03  107 e e
23 C2H2 þ H / C2H þ H2 8.08  104 7.94  107 e e
24 C2H2 þ OH / CH3 þ CO 8.96  103 2.09  106 e e
25 OH þ OH / H2O þ O 1.34  104 4.6  106 e e
26 H þ OH / H2 þ O 1.877  104 2.94  107 e e
27 H2 þ OH / H2O þ H 8.93  104 4.18  107 e e
28 CO þ H2O / CO2 þ H2 2.34  1010 2.883  108 0.5 1
29 CO þ 0.5O2 / CO2 2.239  1012 1.674  108 1 0.25
30 H2 þ 0.5O2 / H2O 9.87  108 3.1  107 0.25 1.5
31 CO2 þ H2 / CO þ H2O 22 1.9  108 1 0.5
32 CH4 þ 2O2 / CO2 þ 2H2O 2.119  1011 2.0525  108 0.2 1.3
33 CH4 þ H2O / CO þ 3H2 8  107 2.51  108 0.5 1
34 H2O / H2 þ 0.5O2 2.5  1010 3.5  108 1 0
35 H2 þ CO2 / CO þ H2O 2.2  107 1.9  108 0.5 1
36 CH4 þ 0.5O2 / CO þ 2H2 4.4  1011 1.25  108 0.5 1.25
37 CO þ 3H2 / CH4 þ H2O 5.12  1014 2.73  104 1 1

compressible turbulence to the overall dissipation rate, C1ε , To integrate the pressure-velocity coupling scheme, SIM-
C2ε , and C3ε are constants, sk and sε are Prandtl numbers, and PLE algorithm is used in each iteration step. The pressure-
Sk and Sε are source terms. These C constants and s Prandtl based solver is used in the simulations.
numbers are given in Eq. (6). The discrete ordinates (DO) radiation model is used to
model radiation heat transfer through the walls of the gasifier.
C1ε ¼ 1:44; C2ε ¼ 1:92; C3ε ¼ 0:09; sk ¼ 1; sε ¼ 1:3 (6)
The model consists of a radiative transfer equation that is
solved for discrete solid angles associated with positions ! r
and vector directions !
s as;

Z4p
dIð!
r; !
sÞ aT4 ss
þ ða þ ss ÞIð!
r; !
s Þ ¼ an2 þ Ið!
r; !
s Þfð!
s :!
s ÞdU0
ds p 4p
0

(7)

For the direction !s as a field equation, the radiative

transfer equation becomes;

aT 4
V:ðIð!r ;!
s Þ! s Þ þ ða þ ss ÞIð!r ;!
s Þ ¼ an2
p
Z4p
ss
þ Ið!r ;!s Þfð!
s ;! s ÞdU0 (8)
4p
0

Fig. 3 e Simulated geometry for comparison. The Weighted-sum-of-gray-gases model (WSGGM) is used
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5 29113

addition of any user-defined sources. Similarly, species

Table 3 e Proximate and ultimate analyses of the MW
diffusion in the turbulence flow domain is calculated by;
samples.
 
Sample 1 [62] Sample 2 [63] Sample 3 [64] m
Ji  rDi;m þ t VYi (11)
Proximate Analysis Sct
Moisture 0.32% 0.29% 7.04%
Finite-rate and eddy-dissipation models are used together
Ash 0.00% 2.30% 1.89%
for the calculation of the reaction rate of ith species (Ri). The
Volatiles 99.13% 78.52% 82.37%
Fixed Carbon 0.55% 18.89% 8.70% finite-rate model uses Arrhenius expressions for the compu-
Ultimate Analysis tation of chemical source terms, while the effects of turbu-
C 81.81% 65.92% 48.99% lence fluctuations are neglected. The molar rate of creation/
H 12.17% 10.03% 7.2% destruction for ith species in rth reaction is computed from.
O 5.76% 23.09% 43.52%
0 1
N 0.15% 0.74% 0.22%  00 YN YN 00
h0i;r
S 0.11% 0.22% 0.08% b
R i;r ¼ G vi;r  vi;r @kf ;r j¼1 Cj;r
0
 kb;r Cj;r
vi;r
A (12)
j¼1
LHV 42.65 MJ/kg 29.12 MJ/kg 15.57 MJ/kg

where kf ;r and kb;r are forward and backward rate constants,

respectively, for rth reaction. kf ;r is calculated from the
for the absorption coefficient for radiative transfer inside the
Arrhenius expression as in Eq. (13), while kb;r is calculated with
domain during combustion.
kf ;r as in Eq. (14).
MW samples are considered as discrete phase particles,
which are injected inside the reactor with a uniform diameter, kf ;r ¼ Ar Tbr eEr =RT (13)
and modeled using the Lagrangian discrete phase model.
Discrete random walk model is used to include the effects of kf ;r
turbulence inside the reactor on discrete phase movements kb;r ¼ (14)
Kr
and particle flow patterns are predicted from the following
equation; where Ar is the pre-exponential factor, br is temperature
exponent, Er is the activation energy for the reaction (J/kgmol),


dup
 gx rp  p Kr is the equilibrium constant and R is the universal gas con-
¼ FD u  up þ þ Fx (9)
dt rp stant (J/kgmol.K).
Net production rates of the chemical species are calculated
where Fx is the source term, FD ðu up Þ is the drag force, u is the
by Eqs. (15) and Eq. (16) as
fluid phase velocity, r terms are densities for particles and
!
fluid phase and up is the particle velocity. ε YR
Mass fractions of chemical species are calculated from the Ri;r ¼ v0i;r Mw;i Ar min 0 (15)
k vR;r Mw;R
convection-diffusion equation and the general form of con-
servation equation; P
ε YP
Ri;r ¼ v0i;r Mw;i ABr PN P00 (16)
v ! k j vj;r Mw;j
ðrYi Þ þ V:ðr!
v Yi Þ ¼  V: J i þ Ri þ Si (10)
vt
where YP represents the mass fraction of produced species, YR
where Ri is the net rate of production of ith species by the is the mass fraction of reactants, and A and B are empirical
chemical reaction and Si is the net rate of creation by the constants that equal to 4.0 and 0.5, respectively.
Finite-rate/eddy-dissipation model is used for the cal-
culations of Arrhenius and chemical reaction rates in con-
Table 4 e Operational parameters. trol of the large-eddy mixing time scale, k=ε Chemical
reactions and the related kinetic parameters are obtained
MW Case Air Feeding Waste Feeding ER
from the TERRA commercial code, which is commonly used
Sample No No Rate (kg/s) Rate (kg/s) ()
for the 0-D simulation of plasma-chemical processes. Re-
1 1e1 0.1 0.07 0.10
action mechanisms and the kinetic parameters are given in
1e2 0.1 0.035 0.20
Table 2 [65]. Since the major effects of the plasma phase on
1e3 0.1 0.024 0.30
1e4 0.1 0.0176 0.40 gasification are caused by the plasma-related chemical re-
1e5 0.1 0.0141 0.50 actions, the plasma jet is modeled as hot gas entering into
2 2e1 0.1 0.09 0.10 the gasifier, and only the chemical effects of the plasma
2e2 0.1 0.047 0.20 phase are considered in simulations. Chemical reactions for
2e3 0.1 0.031 0.30 the conventional gasification phase are listed in 1e6, 28e30,
2e4 0.1 0.0235 0.40
and 32.
2e5 0.1 0.0188 0.50
Waste feed into the gasifier and the gasifier domain are
3 3e1 0.1 0.15 0.10
3e2 0.1 0.075 0.20 modeled as discrete and gas phases. Interactions between
3e3 0.1 0.05 0.30 these phases are solved according to the Eulerian-Lagrangian
3e4 0.1 0.0375 0.40 approach.
3e5 0.1 0.03 0.50 Since the study mainly focuses on the investigation of
gasification characteristics and hydrogen production
29114 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5

Table 5 e Other boundary conditions.

Boundary Type Mass Flow Rate (kg/s) Inlet Velocity Temp. Insulation Thermal Conductivity
Name (m/s) ( C) Thickness (mm) (W/m.K)
Air Inlet Mass Flow Inlet 0.1 78.8 2500 e e
Waste Surface Particle Injection Set According to Table 4 1 20 e e
Feeding
Insulation Wall e e e 72.5 0.172

Table 6 e Proximate and ultimate analyses of the lignite,

which is used in the compared reference study [66]. other reference studies related to the gasification of hazard-
Composition ous waste, MSW, and MW.
Proximate Analysis Simulated geometry for the comparison is shown in Fig. 3.
Moisture 25.22% This geometry is the inside domain of a downdraft plasma
Ash 18.4% gasifier having two additional steam inlets, which increases
Volatiles 32.83% hydrogen production during the process.
Fixed Carbon 23.55%
Ultimate Analysis
Boundary conditions
C 39.48%
H 2.95%
O 12.83% The proximate and ultimate analysis results of the MW
N 0.59% samples are given in Table 3. Those wastes are chosen ac-
S 0.53% cording to the C content, where Sample 1 and 3 represent
LHV 14.25 MJ/kg the maximum and the minimum amounts, respectively. The
waste feed is modeled as dispersed spherical particles
having a uniform diameter of 100 mm and held constant for
Table 7 e Operational parameters for the comparison of all cases, including the coal gasification scheme. Therefore,
MW gasification and coal gasification schemes. the effects of different particle sizes are not investigated in
Fuel Steam Feeding Air Fuel ER SFR this study.
Feed (kg/s) Feeding Feeding () () To evaluate the best conditions for the operation, simula-
(kg/s) (kg/s) tions are performed for each MW sample with five different ER
MW 0.0029 0.04362 0.029 0.11 0.1 values, ranging between 0.1 and 0.5, with an increment of 0.1.
Sample ER is defined as the ratio of the real and stoichiometric ratios
1 between mass flow rates of oxidizer and fuel feeds. That ratio
Coal 0.0029 0.04362 0.029 0.30 is calculated from Eq. (17) as;
 
m_ oxidizer m_
capabilities, the formation of tar and other harmful sub- fuel
ER ¼   real (17)
stances are not included in the numerical model.
m_ oxidizer m_
fuel
stoic
Model suitability for MW gasification
where m_ oxidizer is the mass flow rate of the oxidizing agent, and
m_ fuel is the mass flow rate of fuel input. Since the air supplied
To evaluate the suitability of the numerical model for MW
gasification, two approaches are followed. Firstly, the reactor
geometry of a previous numerical study carried out by Ibra-
himoglu and Yilmazoglu [66] is simulated for the MW feeding Table 9 e Standard LHVs for H2, CO and CH4.
case. Then the results are compared with the results of the
Component LHV (MJ/kg) LHV (MJ/m3)
reference study for plasma gasification of lignite coal to
observe the differences between MW gasification and coal CO [71] 10.2 12.6
gasification. In the second step, the results are verified by H2 [71] 120.1 10.8
CH4 [71] 49.9 35.9

Table 8 e Other boundary conditions for the compared model geometry.

Boundary Name Type Mass Flow Rate (kg/s) Inlet Velocity (m/s) Temp. ( C)
Air Inlet Mass Flow Inlet 0.029 91.7 1500
Steam Inlet 1 Mass Flow Inlet 0.00145 14.2 400
Steam Inlet 2 Mass Flow Inlet 0.00145 14.2 400
Fuel Feeding Surface Particle Injection 0.029 0.29 20 (for MW)
277 (for Coal)
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5 29115

to the plasma torch is the only oxidizer and MW is the fuel MW gasification scheme to acquire the comparison according
input, ER represents the ratio between air feeding and waste to the same conditions.
feeding rates. The air feeding rate is held constant for all
cases. Accordingly, operational parameters and other Process efficiency
boundary conditions for each case are summarized in Tables 4
and 5, respectively. Inlet boundary conditions for the plasma To evaluate the benefits of the gasification process, LHV of
jet are obtained from a 10 kW AC microwave plasma gener- produced syngas, carbon conversion rate (CCR) and cold gas
ator. Insulation is modeled as a shell conduction layer, which efficiency (CGE) are calculated after the simulations. In order
allows only 1-D heat transfer between the reactor and the to calculate the LHV of syngas, the produced gas has been
environment. The ambient temperature is set to 20  C. considered as a cold and combustible ideal gas mixture.
The compared reference study focused on the gasification Therefore, LHV is calculated with the standard LHVs of H2, CO
of lignite coal, of which properties are listed in Table 6. The and CH4, which are given in Table 9, as follows;
operational parameters and other boundary conditions are
ðLHVÞsyngas ¼ vH2 LHVH2 þ vCO LHVCO þ vCH4 LHVCH4 (18)
summarized in Tables 7 and 8 for the compared geometry
presented in Fig. 3, respectively. The compared gasifier model where vH2 , vCO and vCH4 represents the mole fractions of H2, CO
in the reference study is supplied by two steam inlets with 0.1 and CH4, respectively.
steam to fuel ratio (SFR) and the study has investigated the CCR is the ratio between the amounts of carbon mass in
effects of steam addition on hydrogen production. Therefore, syngas and in the feedstock, which is calculated as given in Eq.
the same amount of steam is supplied into the gasifier for the (19).
 
P
m_ exit i fi MMC
i
CCR ¼
 (19)
m_ in fc þ recycled chars

where i represents each species, m_ exit and m_ in are the mass

flow rates of the gas output and the feedstock, and fi and fc are
the carbon mass fractions in each species and the feedstock,
respectively.
On the other hand, CGE is the ratio of the syngas heating
value to the feedstock heating value for dry and ash-free (DAF)
conditions, which denotes the amount of produced energy
with the consumed energy of feeding fuel. CGE is calculated as;
P
m_ exit i fi ðLHVDAF Þi
CGE ¼ (20)
m_ in ðLHVDAF Þfeedstock

where (LHVDAF)i represents the LHV of each species as MJ per

kg within the produced syngas.

Results and discussion

Verification of numerical model

In the reference study, the effects of three different mesh

numbers were compared and in the simulations, a mesh

Table 10 e Results for the comparison of MW and coal

gasification schemes.
Parameter MW Sample 1 Lignite Coal [66]

Outlet Temperature 1990 C 1560  C (1833 K)
H2 27.96% 10.16%
CO 20.77% 16.76%
CO2 9.04% 6.34%
CH4 0.00% 3.22%
H2O 0.00% 4.63%
N2 42.22% 48.98%
O2 0.00% 9.64%
LHV 5.640 MJ/m3 4.694 MJ/m3
CCR 49.92% 67.80%
Fig. 4 e The mesh structure of the compared model
CGE 34.42% 47.31%
geometry.
29116 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5

Table 11 e Results for the comparison of MW and coal gasification schemes.

Results MW MSW
Current Study Indrawan et al. [51] Khuriati et al. [52] Messerle et al. [54] Zhang et al. [69] Arena et al. [70]
H2 (%) 27.96 24.4e33.8 32.64e38.51 44.6 19.23e26.87 33.32
CO (%) 20.77 22.0e30.9 23.85e31.25 26.5 12.50e15.74 27.47
H2/CO () 1.35 1.09e1.11 1.04e1.61 1.68 1.24e1.70 1.21
LHV (MJ/Nm3) 5.640 5.41e7.56 4.95e5.32 8.16 8.23e8.70 4e7

structure with 720,000 nodes, which had an orthogonal quality

of 0.85 was used. In the current study, the suitable mesh
configuration is obtained for 1,400,000 mesh with 0.82 average
orthogonal quality. An outline view of the mesh structure is
given in Fig. 4.
Since the purpose of that comparison is to check the main
differences between MW and coal gasification processes,
syngas compositions, carbon conversion rates and cold gas
efficiencies are compared. The compared gasification results
of MW gasification and coal gasification schemes are pre-
sented in Table 10. The MW gasification yields higher exhaust
temperature than the coal gasification due to its greater LHV
and surplus amounts of volatile matter. Although the higher
production of H2, CO and the greater LHV of gasification the
MW Sample 1, CCR and CGE values are lower than the coal
gasification case. Following the results, plasma gasification of
the coal scheme yields greater CCR and CGE values and lower
exhaust temperatures than MW gasification according to the
literature [65,67,68]. Hence, it can be said that results are
meaningful compared to coal gasification.
The comparison of the same results with the results of
other reference studies for different waste characteristics are
presented in Table 11. According to the results, plasma gasi-
fication of MSW can yield a LHV range of 4e9 MJ/Nm3 under
conditions of air and steam supply. Also, compositions of

Table 12 e Results for the comparison of MW and coal

gasification schemes.
Mesh Metric Mesh Average Worst Quality &
Quantity Value Percentage Fig. 5 e Sampling line for the velocity profile.
Orthogonal Quality 360,000 0.79 0.15 (0.005%)
482,000 0.80 0.15 (0.006%)
616,000 0.80 0.16 (0.006%)
751,000 0.81 0.19 (0.042%)
883,000 0.81 0.20 (0.022%)
998,000 0.81 0.20 (0.058%)
1,359,000 0.82 0.17 (0.001%)
Skewness 360,000 0.21 0.85 (0.005%)
482,000 0.20 0.84 (0.006%)
616,000 0.20 0.83 (0.006%)
751,000 0.20 0.80 (0.042%)
883,000 0.20 0.80 (0.039%)
998,000 0.19 0.80 (0.058%)
1,359,000 0.21 0.82 (0.001%)
Aspect Ratio (According to 360,000 5.40 22.67 (0.007%)
FLUENT algorithm) 482,000 5.06 20.12 (0.002%)
616,000 4.82 18.65 (0.001%)
751,000 4.54 15.69 (0.001%)
883,000 4.35 14.95 (0.002%)
998,000 4.21 14.46 (0.002%) Fig. 6 e Velocity profile along the centerline for different
1,359,000 4.09 15.56 (0.001%)
mesh configurations.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5 29117

produced syngas from MSW contain up to 28.3% H2 and 18.8%

CO content, in which H2/CO ratios can vary between 1.16 and
2.00 [51,52,54,69,70]. Hence, it is clear that the numerical
model can be used for evaluating the results of MW
gasification.

Mesh independency

For the current geometry, meshing is performed with the

tetrahedral mesh structure. Mesh study is carried out with
seven different mesh structures, having mesh quantities
varying between 360 k to 1359 k, and mesh configurations are
generated according to average values of orthogonal quality,
skewness, and aspect ratio. The obtained mesh qualities of
each case are listed in Table 12. In this table, the percentage
denotes the percent mesh having the worst quality
throughout the whole mesh structure.
To examine the effects of mesh quantity, velocity distri-
bution results inside the gasifier are compared for the results
of cold phase simulations. Results are plotted along the
centerline of the gasifier, which is marked in Fig. 5 with a red
line. 350 sampling points are used for the sampling of velocity
values through the centerline.
Accordingly, centerline velocity profiles for each mesh
configuration are plotted against the distance from the base
surface of the gasifier. As can be seen in Fig. 6, the velocity
profile along the centerline is not affected considerably. Since
there are not any significant changes between the results,
360 k mesh configuration is selected to reduce computational
time during the simulations. The selected mesh structure is
presented in Fig. 7.

Temperature distribution

Since geometric parameters of the model geometry are not

changed and the effects of the geometric configurations are
not investigated in this study, temperature contour plots for
each MW sample are obtained only for ER ¼ 0.1, whereas
temperature profiles along the centerline of the gasifier are
obtained for all ER values.
Fig. 8 presents the temperature contours of each MW
sample for ER ¼ 0.1. Temperature profiles show that some
Fig. 7 e Selected mesh structure. portion of gasification occurs at the bottom region of the

Fig. 8 e Temperature contours for ER ¼ 0.1. (a) Case 1-1, (b) Case 2-1, and (c) Case 3-1.
29118 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5

Fig. 9 e Temperature profiles for all cases. These results represent the temperature distributions of (a) Sample 1, (b) Sample
2, and (c) Sample 3 for all ER values.

Fig. 10 e H2 distribution inside the gasifier for ER values. (a) Sample 1, (b) Sample 2, and (c) Sample 3.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5 29119

Fig. 11 e CO distribution inside the gasifier for ER values. (a) Sample 1, (b) Sample 2, and (c) Sample 3.
29120 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5

Fig. 12 e CH4 distribution inside the gasifier for ER values. (a) Sample 1, (b) Sample 2, and (c) Sample 3.

exhaust pipe. Also, the height of the gasification layer de- region above 0.4 m shows variances, and there are no corre-
creases slightly as LHV of the MW feedstock decreases. That lations found between ER values and temperatures. It can be
shows the position of the temperature transition region is concluded that the gasification process takes place after the
affected by the fuel characteristics of MW and the position of height of 0.4 m, which is near to the exhaust pipe height.
the exhaust pipe. On the other hand, temperatures along the Except for the Case 2e5, temperatures tend to decrease after
exhaust pipe tend to decrease with the decrement of LHV. the distance of 0.8 m. Maximum temperatures are obtained
Temperature profiles along the centerline are plotted with ER ¼ 0.2 for Sample 1 and 2, whereas those are obtained
against the distance from the bottom of the gasifier as pre- with ER ¼ 0.3 and ER ¼ 0.4 for Sample 3. Especially for Case 3-1,
sented in Fig. 9. Temperature distribution behavior after the the temperature profile tends to decrease down to 2200  C,

Fig. 13 e CO2 distribution inside the gasifier for ER values. (a) Sample 1, (b) Sample 2, and (c) Sample 3.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5 29121

Fig. 14 e H2S distribution inside the gasifier for ER values. (a) Sample 1, (b) Sample 2, and (c) Sample 3.

which can be affected by the higher moisture content of tend to decrease with the increment of ER. Despite its lowest C
Sample 3. percentage, maximum CO mole fractions are obtained from
the gasification of Sample 3 for all ER values.
Species distribution Although methane (CH4) production values from MW
gasification are found to be substantially lower than gasifica-
The distribution characteristics of species are found to have tion of fuels, CH4 mole fractions should also be considered in
parallels with the temperature distribution, whereas the var- the gasifier design because of their higher LHV (35.8 MJ/kg).
iances in each species can be examined along the centerline. Therefore, CH4 generation profiles are plotted against the
Therefore, the results are plotted for the centerline as similar distance for all cases, which are presented in Fig. 12. As ex-
to the temperature distribution for the sake of simplicity. pected, there are no CH4 outputs from the system, except for
Distributions of H2 mole fractions along the centerline are Case 3-1, and the mole fractions of generated CH4 can be
given in Fig. 10. Similar to the characteristics of temperature neglected. However, the maximum CH4 mole fraction be-
distribution, H2 content tends to increase after 0.4 m. With the tween 0.6 m and 0.8 m is found to be 2.0% for Sample 3,
increase of ER, the mole fractions of H2 generated along the approximately, which is close to the CH4 production from the
centerline decrease for all MW samples, whereas the tendency gasification of lignite (3.32%) as given in Table 9. Hence, there
of H2 generation profiles shows differences for each case. is a possibility to increase the production of CH4 by controlling
After the height of 0.8 m, H2 generation profiles show an up- the distance between the output and the gasification region.
ward tendency for Case 1e2, 2e3, 2e5, 3-1, 3-3, 3e4, and 3e5, The distribution of CO2 inside the gasifier is given in Fig. 13.
which indicates that H2 production capabilities can be Although the carbon contents are different for each MW
controlled by adjusting the height for some cases. Although sample, CO2 generation does not decrease with the decrement
Sample 1 has the maximum H content, maximum H2 mole of carbon percentage in the feedstock. On the other hand,
fractions are achieved by the gasification of Sample 3 having there are correlations found between the temperature distri-
7.04% moisture. That denotes the benefits of moisture content bution and CO2 mole fractions for Sample 1 and 3, whereas
for H2 production during the plasma gasification of MW. such correlation for Sample 2 is found for up to ER ¼ 0.3. It can
CO distribution profiles along the centerline for all cases be concluded that CO2 mole fractions can be affected by the
are given in Fig. 11. Except for ER ¼ 0.1 cases and Case 3-2 temperature distribution inside the gasifier more than its
(ER ¼ 0.2), peak values of the CO mole fractions are obtained at carbon content.
the height of 0.6 m, approximately. Also, generated CO species H2S mole fractions along the centerline are given in Fig. 14.
cannot reach the output of the gasifier for these cases, which Unlike the previous results, there are no significant variances
shows the importance of the gasifier height as for the results found in the H2S profiles after the gasification region. The H2S
of H2. Similar to the H2 mole fractions, the CO mole fractions mole fraction decreases with the increment of ER values. The
29122 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5

maximum syngas temperatures are found to be 3260  C for

Sample 1 and 3220  C for Sample 2 with ER ¼ 0.2, whereas that
of Sample 3 is 3150  C for ER ¼ 0.3.
Mole fractions of syngas output are presented in Fig. 16.
Despite its lowest carbon and hydrogen contents, maximum
mole fractions of H2 and CO are obtained by the gasification of
Sample 3, which is mainly affected by its higher moisture
content. The maximum H2 mole fractions are found to be
24.43%, 25.48%, and 32.79% for Sample 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Similarly, maximum syngas heating values are obtained by
ER ¼ 0.1. The minimum CO2 mole fractions are found to be
10.78% and 12.45% for Sample 1 and 2 for ER ¼ 0.5, whereas
that of Sample 3 is found 11.75% with ER ¼ 0.1. The mole
Fig. 15 e Syngas temperatures against ER values for each
fractions of H2S by ER ¼ 0.1 for all cases, which has a
sample.
maximum value of 0.6% and can be neglected. Hence, the
results showed that the best syngas properties for all cases are
obtained for ER ¼ 0.1.
maximum H2S generation is found to be 0.6% through all
cases. Process efficiency

Syngas properties The differences between CCR and CGE are plotted against ER
values as given in Fig. 17. The results show that CCR values are
Differences in syngas temperatures with the variance of ER slightly affected by ER, which is negligible. The maximum CCR
values are given in Fig. 15 for each sample. Minimum syngas is obtained with the gasification of Sample 3, which is
temperatures are found for ER ¼ 0.1 for all MW samples. The

Fig. 16 e Syngas compositions against ER values for each sample. Those represent (a) H2, (b) CO, (c) CO2 and (d) H2S contents,
and (e) LHV.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5 29123

Fig. 17 e Process efficiencies. (a) CCR, (b) CGE.

approximately 71%. On the other hand, maximum CGE values the gasifier should be optimized for its utilization in MW
are obtained by ER ¼ 0.1 for all cases, and the highest effi- gasification more efficiently. Although the formation of
ciencies are obtained in Sample 3, in which the maximum CGE harmful substances is generally found below the limits of
is found to be 78.61%. Consequently, ER ¼ 0.1 yields the best many standards and codes according to the literature.
results for the gasification of MW compared to other ER Therefore, further studies are required to evaluate the
values. harmful substance formations inside the gasifier. Also, the
effects of moisture content and ER values lower than 0.1
should be analyzed.
Conclusions

Especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, MW production rates Declaration of competing interest
of all hospitals are increased drastically, and strict manage-
ment strategies should be followed. Due to their high amounts The authors declare that they have no known competing
of toxic and hazardous emissions, high energy consumption financial interests or personal relationships that could have
rates, and constant loss of valuable materials, traditional appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
methods for the disposal of MW are not sustainable.
Compared to conventional systems, plasma gasification yields
promising results for the future.
Acknowledgements
This study investigates the plasma gasification character-
istics and H2 production capabilities of MW samples having
We sincerely thank Prof. Beycan Ibrahimoglu and Anadolu
different carbon and hydrogen contents by performing nu-
Plasma Technology Energy Center for their support.
merical simulations. ANSYS FLUENT code is used for the
simulations and the reaction mechanisms of plasma with its
related kinetic parameters are obtained from TERRA code. references
Results showed that;

- ER ¼ 0.1 provides the best results for the gasification of [1] Twinch E. Medical waste management. Geneva, Switzerland:
MW, which yields up to 32.78% H2 production, 25.37% CO International committee of the Red Cross (ICRC); 2011.
and 78.61% CGE. [2] Consultation, W. H. O.. Assessment of the health risk of
dioxins: re-evaluation of the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI).
- Compared to the effects of C and H in the MW feedstock,
1998. p. 25e9. May, Geneva, Switzerland.
the moisture content is found to be more effective on the
[3] Directive EU. Directive 2000/76/EC of the European
gasification characteristics and H2 production capabilities. parliament and of the Council of 4 december 2000 on the
- A correlation is evaluated between temperature distribu- incineration of waste. Off J Eur Communities - Legis
tion and CO2 distribution. 2000;332:91e111.
- There is a possibility of controlling the gasification char- [4] Mathur P, Patan S, Shobhawat AS. Need of Biomedical Waste
acteristics of MW by the distance between the gasification Management system in hospitals-an emerging issue-a
review. Curr World Environ 2012;7(1):117e24.
region and the syngas output for this gasifier.
[5] Taghipour H, Mosaferi M. Characterization of medical waste
- The maximum H2S mole fraction is found to be 0.6%. from hospitals in Tabriz, Iran. Sci Total Environ
2009;407(5):1527e35. https://doi.org/10.1016/
As can be seen from the results, there is a possibility to j.scitotenv.2008.11.032.
use the plasma gasification technology for both the treat- [6] Deng N, Cui WQ, Wang WW, Zhang Q, Zhang YF, Ma HT.
ment of MW and the production of H2. The gasification Experimental study on co-pyrolysis characteristics of typical
characteristics can be enhanced by controlling the position medical waste compositions. J Cent S Univ
2014;21(12):4613e22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-014-
of syngas output, increasing the moisture content, and
2468-4.
lowering the ER values. Hence, the exhaust pipe height of
29124 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5

[7] Shareefdeen ZM. Medical waste management and control. J [25] Li CS, Jenq FT. Physical and chemical composition of hospital
Environ Protect 2012;3(12):1625e8. https://doi.org/10.4236/ waste. Infect Contr Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14(3):145e50.
jep.2012.312179. https://doi.org/10.1086/646700.
[8] You S, Sonne C, Ok YS. COVID-19’s unsustainable waste [26] Deng N, Zhang YF, Wang Y. Thermogravimetric analysis and
management. Science (New York, NY) 2020;368(6498):1438. kinetic study on pyrolysis of representative medical waste
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc7778. composition. Waste Manag 2008;28(9):1572e80. https://
[9] Ranjan MR, Tripathi A, Sharma G. Medical waste generation doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.05.024.
during COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic and its [27] Komilis D, Katsafaros N, Vassilopoulos P. Hazardous medical
management: an Indian perspective. Asian J Environ & Ecol waste generation in Greece: case studies from medical
2020:10e5. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajee/2020/v13i130171. facilities in Attica and from a small insular hospital. Waste
[10] Kleme s JJ, Fan YV, Tan RR, Jiang P. Minimising the present Manag Res 2011;29(8):807e14. https://doi.org/10.1177/
and future plastic waste, energy and environmental 0734242X10388684.
footprints related to COVID-19. Renew Sustain Energy Rev [28] Smith MD. Plasma technology. Kirk-Othmer Encyclop
2020;127(C). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109883. ChemTechnol 2000. https://doi.org/10.1002/
[11] Kalina M, Tilley E. “This is our next problem”: cleaning up 0471238961.1612011919130920.a0.
from the COVID-19 response. Waste Manag 2020;108:202e5. [29] Bogaerts A, Neyts EC. Plasma technology: an emerging
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.006. technology for energy storage. ACS Energy Lett
[12] Lee BK, Ellenbecker MJ, Moure-Ersaso R. Alternatives for 2018;3(4):1013e27. https://doi.org/10.1021/
treatment and disposal cost reduction of regulated medical acsenergylett.8b00184.
wastes. Waste Manag 2004;24(2):143e51. https://doi.org/ [30] Yun Y. Gasification for practical applications. BoDeBooks on
10.1016/j.wasman.2003.10.008. Demand; 2012.
[13] Diaz LF, Eggerth LL, Enkhtsetseg SH, Savage GM. [31] Snoeckx R, Bogaerts A. Plasma technologyea novel solution
Characteristics of healthcare wastes. Waste Manag for CO 2 conversion? Chem Soc Rev 2017;46(19):5805e63.
2008;28(7):1219e26. https://doi.org/10.1016/ https://doi.org/10.1039/C6CS00066E.
j.wasman.2007.04.010. [32] Kamo M, Sato Y, Matsumoto S, Setaka N. Diamond synthesis
[14] McGain F, Hendel SA, Story DA. An audit of potentially from gas phase in microwave plasma. J Cryst Growth
recyclable waste from anaesthetic practice. Anaesth 1983;62(3):642e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0248(83)90411-
Intensive Care 2009;37(5):820e3. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 6.
0310057X0903700521. [33] Kuo SP, Koretzky E, Orlick L. Design and electrical
[15] Windfield ES, Brooks MS. Medical waste management e a characteristics of a modular plasma torch. IEEE Trans Plasma
review. J Environ Manag 2015;163:98e108. https://doi.org/ Sci 1999;27(3):752e8. https://doi.org/10.1109/27.774679.
10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.08.013. [34] Fabry F, Rehmet C, Rohani V, Fulcheri L. Waste gasification
[16] Rutala WA, Mayhall CG. Medical waste. Infect Contr Hosp by thermal plasma: a review. Waste Biomass Valor
Epidemiol 1992;13(1):38e48. 2013;4(3):421e39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-013-9201-7.
[17] Kuo HW, Shu SL, Wu CC, Lai JS. Characteristics of medical [35] Dave PN, Joshi AK. Plasma pyrolysis and gasification of
waste in Taiwan. Water Air Soil Pollut 1999;114(3e4):413e21. plastics wasteea review. J Sci Ind Res 2010;69:177e9.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005169032759. [36] Huang H, Tang L. Treatment of organic waste using thermal
[18] Go€ ncüog
 lu M, Ayaz ND, Cengiz G, Onaran B, Çufaog  lu G. plasma pyrolysis technology. Energy Convers Manag
Emerging details about COVID-19 and chronology of the 2007;48(4):1331e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/
pandemic in Turkey. Ankara Univ Vet Fak Derg j.enconman.2006.08.013.
2020;67(3):323e32. https://doi.org/10.33988/auvfd.730560. [37] Li H, Li T, Wei X. Main performance analysis of kitchen waste
€
[19] Kılıçarslan MA, S‚enel FÇ, Ozcan M. Assessment of dental gasification in a small-power horizontal plasma jet reactor. J
care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey and future Energy Inst 2020;93(1):367e76. https://doi.org/10.1016/
projections. Brazil Dental Sci 2020;23(2):7. https://doi.org/ j.joei.2019.02.004.
10.14295/bds.2020.v23i2.2260. [38] Surov AV, Popov SD, Popov VE, Subbotin DI, Serba EO,
[20] Gupta N, Desalegn H, Ocama P, Lacombe K, Njouom R, Spodobin VA, Nakonechny GV, Pavlov AV. Multi-gas AC
Afihene M, Cunha L, Spearman CW, Sonderup MW, plasma torches for gasification of organic substances. Fuel
Kateera F. Converging pandemics: implications of COVID-19 2017;203:1007e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.02.104.
for the viral hepatitis response in sub-Saharan Africa. The [39] Agon N, Hrabovský M, Chumak O, Hlı́na M, Kopecký V,
Lancet Gastroenterol & Hepatol 2020;5(7):634e6. https:// Masla  ni A, Bosmans A, Helsen L, Skoblja S, Van Oost G,
doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30155-2. Vierendeels J. Plasma gasification of refuse derived fuel in a
[21] Kuo HW, Shu SL, Wu CC, Lai JS. Characteristics of medical single-stage system using different gasifying agents. Waste
waste in Taiwan. Water Air Soil Pollut 1999;114(3e4):413e21. Manag 2016;47:246e55. https://doi.org/10.1016/
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005169032759. j.wasman.2015.07.014.
[22] Singh S, Prakash V. Toxic environmental releases from [40] Tripathi N, Jawney K. Experimental analysis of thermo
medical waste incineration: a review. Environ Monit Assess chemical properties for domestic waste using microwave
2007;132(1e3):67e81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-006- induced plasma gasification. Doctoral dissertation. Lovely
9503-3. Professional University; 2017.
[23] World Health Organization. Management of solid health- [41] Vecten S, Herbert B, Wilkinson M, Shaw A, Bimbo N,
care waste at primary health-care centres: a decision- Dawson R. Integrated plasma gasification and SOFC system
making guide. Immunization, Vaccines and biologicals (IVB) simulation using Aspen Plus. Switzerland: 13th European
Protection of the human environment water. Sanitation and SOFC & SOE Forum 2018; 2018. 3rd-6th June, Lucerne.
Health (WSH); 2005. [42] Panepinto D, Tedesco V, Brizio E, Genon G. Environmental
[24] World Health Organization. Water, sanitation, hygiene, and performances and energy efficiency for MSW gasification
waste management for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes treatment. Waste Biomass Valor 2015;6(1):123e35. https://
COVID-19: interim guidance. 2020. p. 29. July 2020 (No. WHO/ doi.org/10.1007/s12649-014-9322-7.
COVID-19/IPC_WASH/2020.4). [43] Ismail TM, Monteiro E, Ramos A, Abd El-Salam M, Rouboa A.
An Eulerian model for forest residues gasification in a
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 9 1 0 8 e2 9 1 2 5 29125

plasma gasifier. Energy 2019;182:1069e83. https://doi.org/ [58] Fiedler J, Lietz E, Bendix D, Hebecker D. Experimental and
10.1016/j.energy.2019.06.070. numerical investigations of a plasma reactor for the thermal
[44] Kaur RR. Plasma gasification: an alternative solution for destruction of medical waste using a model substance. J Phys
municipal solid waste disposal. Crime Mapp: A GIS Based Appl Phys 2004;37(7):1031e40. https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-
Spatial Opt Approach 1 Toledo 2016:87e92. Ohio, USA, 3727/37/7/013.
September. [59] Mazzoni L, Janajreh I. Plasma gasification of municipal solid
[45] Directive EU. Directive on the reduction of air pollution from waste with variable content of plastic solid waste for enhanced
existing municipal waste-incineration plants, 89/429/EEC. energy recovery. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(30):19446e57.
Off J Europ Communities 1989:50e4. 21 June. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.06.069.
[46] Byun Y, Namkung W, Cho M, Chung JW, Kim YS, Lee JH, [60] Carpinlioglu MO, Sanlisoy A. Performance assessment of
Lee CR, Hwang SM. Demonstration of thermal plasma plasma gasification for waste to energy conversion: a
gasification/vitrification for municipal solid waste treatment. methodology for thermodynamic analysis. Int J Hydrogen
Environ Sci Technol 2010;44(17):6680e4. https://doi.org/ Energy 2018;43(25):11493e504. https://doi.org/10.1016/
10.1021/es101244u. j.ijhydene.2017.08.147.
[47] Sharina IA, Perepechko LN, Domarov PV. June). Development [61] Ismail TM, Ramos A, Abd El-Salam M, Monteiro E, Rouboa A.
of technology of plasma processing of technogenic wastes Plasma fixed bed gasification using an Eulerian model. Int J
(brief review). In: Journal of physics: conference series, vol. Hydrogen Energy 2019;44(54):28668e84. https://doi.org/
1261. IOP Publishing; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/ 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.08.035.
1261/1/012031. No. 1, p. 012031. [62] Qin L, Han J, Zhao B, Chen W, Xing F. The kinetics of typical
[48] Sanlisoy A, Carpinlioglu MO. A review on plasma gasification medical waste pyrolysis based on gaseous evolution
for solid waste disposal. Int J Hydrogen Energy behaviour in a micro-fluidised bed reactor. Waste Manag Res
2017;42(2):1361e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 2018;36(11):1073e82. https://doi.org/10.1177/
j.ijhydene.2016.06.008. 0734242X18790357.
[49] Agon N. Development and study of different numerical [63] Gerasimova G, Khaskhachikhb V, Kornilievac V, Tarasovc G.
plasma jet models and experimental study of plasma Study of pyrolysis of components and mixture of medical
gasification of waste. Doctoral dissertation. Ghent waste. Chem Eng 2019;76:1423e8. https://doi.org/10.3303/
University; 2015. CET1976238.
[50] Tavares R, Ramos A, Rouboa A. A theoretical study on [64] Zhu HM, Yan JH, Jiang XG, Lai YE, Cen KF. Study on pyrolysis
municipal solid waste plasma gasification. Waste Manag of typical medical waste materials by using TG-FTIR analysis.
2019;90:37e45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.03.051. J Hazard Mater 2008;153(1e2):670e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/
[51] Indrawan N, Mohammad S, Kumar A, Huhnke RL. Modeling j.jhazmat.2007.09.011.
low temperature plasma gasification of municipal solid [65] Messerle VE, Ustimenko AB, Lavrichshev OA. Comparative
waste. Environ Technol & Innov 2019;15:100412. https:// study of coal plasma gasification: simulation and
doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2019.100412. experiment. Fuel 2016;164:172e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
[52] Khuriati A, Purwanto P, Huboyo HS, Suryono S, Putro AB. j.fuel.2015.09.095.
May). Application of aspen plus for municipal solid waste [66] Ibrahimoglu B, Yilmazoglu MZ. Numerical modeling of a
plasma gasification simulation: case study of Jatibarang downdraft plasma coal gasifier with plasma reactions. Int J
Landfill in Semarang Indonesia. In: ISNPINSA-7, journal of Hydrogen Energy 2020;45(5):3532e48. https://doi.org/10.1016/
physics: conference series, vol. 1025. IOP Publishing; 2018. j.ijhydene.2018.12.198.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1025/1/012006. [67] Matveev IB, Messerle VE, Ustimenko AB. Plasma gasification
[53] Messerle VE, Mosse AL, Ustimenko AB. Plasma gasification of of coal in different oxidants. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci
carbonaceous wastes: thermodynamic analysis and 2008;36(6):2947e54. https://doi.org/10.1109/
experiment. Thermophys Aeromechanics 2016;23(4):613e20. TPS.2008.2007643.
https://doi.org/10.1134/S0869864316040144. [68] Yoon SJ, Goo Lee J. Syngas production from coal through
[54] Messerle VE, Mosse AL, Ustimenko AB. Municipal solid waste microwave plasma gasification: influence of oxygen, steam,
plasma processing: thermodynamic computation and and coal particle size. Energy & Fuels 2012;26(1):524e9.
experiment. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci 2016;44(12):3017e22. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef2013584.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS.2016.2601107. [69] Zhang Q, Dor L, Zhang L, Yang W, Blasiak W. Performance
[55] Hartati A, Widiputri DI, Dimyati A. Municipal solid waste analysis of municipal solid waste gasification with steam in a
treatment using plasma gasification with the potential Plasma Gasification Melting reactor. Appl Energy
production of synthesis gas (syngas). Proceed Int Conf Innov, 2012;98:219e29. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Entrepreneur Technol 2018;2(1):8e12. j.apenergy.2012.03.028.
[56] Bin L, Kikuchi M, Heping L, Iwao T, Inaba T. Dual torch [70] Arena U. Process and technological aspects of municipal
plasma arc furnace for medical waste treatment. Plasma Sci solid waste gasification. A Review. Waste Manag
Technol 2007;9(6):709e12. https://doi.org/10.1088/1009-0630/ 2012;32(4):625e39. https://doi.org/10.1016/
9/6/16. j.wasman.2011.09.025.
[57] Mashayak SY. CFD modeling of plasma thermal reactor for [71] Waldheim L, Nilsson T. Heating value of gases from biomass
waste treatment. Master of Science, Mechanical Engineering. gasification. Task: Report prepared for: IEA bioenergy
West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University; 2009. agreement; 2001. p. 20.