Classification and comparison of municipal solid waste based on thermochemical characteristics

Figures & data

Figure 1. The mean physical compositions of MSW in China.

Table 1. Chemical characteristics of food residue

		Proximate analysis (wt%)			Ultimate analysis (wt%)
Food residue subgroup and variety		A^d	V^d	FC^d	C^daf	H^daf	O^daf	N^daf	S^daf	Cl^daf	HHV^d (kJ/kg)	Reference used
Vegetable
1.	Chinese cabbage	20.01	71.76	8.23	49.68	5.08	40.51	4.07	0.66		15784	Zhang, 2005
2.	Potato				42.09	6.50	49.06	2.12	0.23		16912	Liu et al., 1999
3.	Pea				42.13	5.88	48.62	3.14	0.22		16533	Liu et al., 1999
4.	Scallion				48.12	6.27	41.74	3.09	0.78		18042	Liu et al., 1999
5.	Lettuce	17.19	80.45	2.36								Zhang et al., 2008a
6.	Vegetable	19.10	65.45	15.45	41.30	3.10	49.58	5.36	0.66			Li et al., 1999b
7.	Vegetable	19.96	65.06	14.99	41.14	4.85	48.46	4.39	1.16			Dai, 2007
8.	Vegetable				50.31	6.71	39.83	2.73	0.42			Zhao et al., 2011
Mean		19.07	70.68	10.25	44.97	5.49	45.40	3.56	0.59		16818
Minimum		17.19	65.06	2.36	41.14	3.10	39.83	2.12	0.22		15784
Maximum		20.01	80.45	15.45	50.31	6.71	49.58	5.36	1.16		18042
Fruit peel
9.	Orange peel	2.44	76.27	21.29	43.93	5.64	48.93	1.34	0.07	0.08	18097	Zhang et al., 2011b
10.	Orange peel	2.76	82.51	14.73	52.94	7.42	38.19	1.38	0.08		18231	Li et al., 1999b
11.	Orange peel	2.91	76.49	20.60	48.74	5.92	43.72	1.43	0.19		18470	Zhou et al., 2013
12.	Banana peel	8.81	75.37	15.82								Zhang et al., 2008a
13.	Fruit peel	3.13	77.68	19.20	50.15	5.82	42.69	1.14	0.20			Li et al., 2005
14.	Fruit peel	3.29	77.93	18.78	48.50	6.20	39.50	1.30	0.20		18638	Nie, 2000
15.	Fruit peel				47.58	6.17	45.47	0.78				Zhao et al., 2006
16.	Fruit peel										16887	Zou et al., 2006
Mean		3.89	77.71	18.40	48.64	6.19	43.08	1.23	0.15	0.08	18065
Minimum		2.44	75.37	14.73	43.93	5.64	38.19	0.78	0.07	0.08	16887
Maximum		8.81	82.51	21.29	52.94	7.42	48.93	1.43	0.20	0.08	18638
Bone
17.	Rib				55.92	8.83	25.63	9.29	0.32		17277	Liu et al., 1999
18.	Rib	38.22	61.56	0.23	51.61	6.38	31.91	9.48	0.62		14034	Li et al., 2001b
19.	Fish bone	39.82	56.25	3.93	63.87	8.01	19.08	8.39	0.64		15794	Shen et al., 2006
20.	Meat and bone	30.87	59.90	9.23	60.7	5.5	24.9	7.5	1.4			Ren et al., 2011
Mean		36.30	59.23	4.46	58.02	7.18	25.38	8.67	0.74		15701
Minimum		30.87	56.25	0.23	51.61	5.50	19.08	7.50	0.32		14034
Maximum		39.82	61.56	9.23	63.87	8.83	31.91	9.48	1.40		17277
Starch food
21.	Flour				42.78	6.19	48.39	2.48	0.15		18157	Liu et al., 1999
22.	Flour	0.62	90.59	8.79	43.47	6.74	46.76	2.93	0.1			Zhang et al., 2008b
23.	Rice	0.40	84.42	15.18	45.97	6.35	45.74	1.69	0.25		18140	*
24.	Rice	0.42	87.74	11.84	44.20	5.73	48.75	1.20	0.10	0.02	17972	Zhang et al., 2007a
25.	Rice				40.64	6.59	50.96	1.68	0.14		17802	Liu et al., 1999
26.	Rice	1.11	86.45	12.45	43.41	6.29	48.44	1.72	0.13		18095	Zhang, 2005
Mean		0.64	87.30	12.07	43.41	6.32	48.17	1.95	0.14	0.02	18033
Minimum		0.40	84.42	8.79	40.64	5.73	45.74	1.20	0.10	0.02	17802
Maximum		1.11	90.59	15.18	45.97	6.74	50.96	2.93	0.25	0.02	18157
Nutshell
27.	Chestnut shell	2.79	73.99	23.22							17785	Wang, 2007
28.	Peanut shell	1.82	73.88	24.31								Hu, 2010
29.	Peanut shell	2.10	74.34	23.57	51.98	6.88	40.10	0.83	0.21			Fang et al., 2010
30.	Peanut shell				53.60	6.70	38.30	1.20	0.20		20598	Zhang et al., 2011a
31.	Walnut shell	1.45	74.73	23.81	52.55	6.42	39.48	1.55				Wang and Li, 2008
Mean		2.04	74.23	23.73	52.71	6.67	39.29	1.19	0.20		19192
Minimum		1.45	73.88	23.22	51.98	6.42	38.30	0.83	0.20		17785
Maximum		2.79	74.73	24.31	53.60	6.88	40.10	1.55	0.21		20598

Notes: C: carbon content; H: hydrogen content; O: oxygen content; N: nitrogen content; S: sulfur content; Cl: chlorine content; A: ash content; V: volatile content; FC: fixed carbon content; daf: dry ash free basis; d: dry basis; *: the data without a reference were from our own research.

Figure 2. Chemical compositions of food residue specific components: (a) proximate analysis; (b) ultimate analysis.

Table 2. ANOVA of thermochemical properties in food residue subgroups

		Sum of squares	Degree of freedom	Mean square	F	Significance (P)
A	Between groups	2935.220	3	978.407	116.644	0.000
	Within groups	134.208	16	8.388
V	Between groups	1295.676	3	431.892	16.536	0.000
	Within groups	417.901	16	26.119
FC	Between groups	432.929	3	144.310	8.988	0.001
	Within groups	256.884	16	16.055
C + H	Between groups	597.594	3	199.198	8.813	0.000
	Within groups	542.456	24	22.602
O	Between groups	1324.556	3	441.519	22.209	0.000
	Within groups	477.131	24	19.880
N + S + Cl	Between groups	212.084	3	70.695	90.147	0.000
	Within groups	18.821	24	0.784
HHV	Between groups	2.147E7	3	7157786.070	4.409	0.021
	Within groups	2.435E7	15	1623398.498

Table 3. Chemical characteristics of wood waste subgroups and varieties.

Wood waste subgroup and variety		Proximate analysis (wt%)			Ultimate analysis (wt%)						HHV^d (kJ/kg)	Reference used
		A^d	V^d	FC^d	C^daf	H^daf	O^daf	N^daf	S^daf	Cl^daf
Wood
1.	China fir	3.53	82.04	14.44	51.47	6.89	41.08	0.40	0.16		20007	Song et al., 2005
2.	Dry wood	2.38	81.86	15.76	48.37	6.17	45.01	0.42	0.03			Li et al., 2002
3.	Pine	0.35	85.64	14.01	46.06	5.97	47.84	0.10	0.03			Wang et al., 2008
4.	Pine wood	0.95	83.50	15.54	50.51	5.95	43.39	0.11	0.03		19646	Tang et al., 2003b
5.	Poplar scraps	0.95	86.38	12.67	49.06	6.53	42.95	1.45	0.01			Wang and Li, 2008
6.	Sawdust	0.42	81.00	18.58	49.42	7.26	42.92	0.39	0.01		21178	Hu and Huang, 2009
7.	Sawdust	0.18	80.93	18.89	54.35	5.99	39.40	0.26	0.00			Li et al., 1996
8.	Sawdust	1.14	87.26	11.60	54.86	6.31	38.53	0.28	0.02			Zhou et al., 2001
9.	Sawdust	1.70	80.70	17.60	52.70	6.30	40.70	0.20	0.10			Zhou et al., 2007
10.	Sawdust	0.61	84.24	15.15	50.40	5.49	44.08	0.02	0.01			Jin et al., 2007
11.	Sawdust				51.63	4.62	42.66	0.83	0.17	0.09		Qing et al., 2005
12.	Spurce chips	0.36	85.00	14.64	47.40	6.10	46.40	0.10	0.10			Fang et al., 2010
13.	Tree branches	0.81	84.10	15.09	51.41	6.25	42.14	0.10	0.10			Li et al., 2005
14.	Wood	3.70	79.45	16.85	50.61	7.45	41.86	0.08	0.00		18126	Chen et al., 2012
15.	Wood	0.82	81.64	17.54	48.35	6.62	44.70	0.04	0.29		20697	Wu et al., 2009
16.	Wood				54.64	6.54	37.08	0.96	0.69	0.08		Jiang et al., 2004
17.	Wood				50.53	5.80	42.32	0.41	0.05	0.89		Liu, 2007
18.	Wood	4.20	80.50	15.30	46.49	6.56	45.67	1.00	0.29			Guo et al., 2001
19.	Wood chips	1.95	82.66	15.40	49.54	6.21	44.06	0.12	0.04	0.03	19163	Zhang et al., 2011b
20.	Wood chips	1.49	87.07	11.45	51.73	4.54	43.50	0.16	0.08		20186	Zheng et al., 2009
21.	Wood chips	3.45	81.50	15.05	49.03	5.69	44.98	0.22	0.07		18591	Li et al., 1999b
22.	Wooden chopsticks	2.18	83.45	14.37	48.79	5.16	45.70	0.30	0.04		18933	Xiao et al., 2009
Mean		1.64	83.10	15.26	50.33	6.11	43.04	0.36	0.11	0.27	19614
Minimum		0.18	79.45	11.45	46.06	4.54	37.08	0.02	0.00	0.03	18126
Maximum		4.20	87.26	18.89	54.86	7.45	47.84	1.45	0.69	0.89	21178
Bamboo
23.	Bamboo				47.81	5.55	45.89	0.70	0.06		19868	Liu et al., 1999
24.	Bamboo				46.88	6.11	46.73	0.28				Shao et al., 2006
25.	Bamboo	1.79	81.36	16.84	51.42	6.01	41.92	0.36	0.29		19616	Xiao et al., 2007
26.	Bamboo	0.69	81.03	18.27	50.46	6.32	42.73	0.22	0.10	0.16	19580	Liang et al., 2012
27.	Bamboo	1.96	80.56	17.48	50.76	5.91	42.98	0.28	0.07		19339	Yan et al., 2005
28.	Moso bamboo				48.89	5.98	44.86	0.27				Shao et al., 2006
Mean		1.48	80.99	17.53	49.37	5.98	44.18	0.35	0.13	0.16	19601
Minimum		0.69	80.56	16.84	46.88	5.55	41.92	0.22	0.06	0.16	19339
Maximum		1.96	81.36	18.27	51.42	6.32	46.73	0.70	0.29	0.16	19868
Leaves
29.	Chinar leaves				52.95	4.88	40.83	1.01	0.33		19120	Zhou et al., 2013
30.	Chinar leaves	7.78	75.35	16.87								Dong et al., 2002
31.	Fallen leaves	6.63	74.48	18.90								Li et al., 1998
32.	Leaves	9.43	74.32	16.25	47.18	5.61	46.35	0.18	0.68		18366	Luo, 2010
33.	Leaves	8.92	73.70	17.38	47.25	5.57	46.26	0.19	0.73		17198	Zhu, 2011
34.	Leaves	7.09	76.52	16.38							22599	Zhang, 2002
35.	Leaves	7.19	75.55	17.26								Zhang et al., 2008a
36.	Pine needles				52.57	6.30	40.44	0.54	0.16		20843	Xiao et al., 2005
37.	Poplar leaves				49.54	5.24	43.59	1.32	0.31		16850	Zhou et al., 2013
Mean		7.84	74.99	17.17	49.90	5.52	43.49	0.65	0.44		19163
Minimum		6.63	73.70	16.25	47.18	4.88	40.44	0.18	0.16		16850
Maximum		9.43	76.52	18.90	52.95	6.30	46.35	1.32	0.73		22599
Weeds
38.	King grass				48.37	6.30	44.58	0.49	0.25		22127	Pu et al., 2006
39.	King grass	7.44	74.12	18.43	46.91	5.89	46.30	0.70	0.21		17983	Teng et al., 2011
40.	Miscanthus	4.52	78.79	16.69	56.41	7.27	35.58	0.75				Fu et al., 2009
41.	Pennisetum	6.05	78.00	15.95	52.59	7.08	39.22	1.11				Fu et al., 2009
42.	Pennisetum				47.81	6.32	45.36	0.40	0.11			Liu et al., 2012
Mean		6.00	76.97	17.03	50.42	6.57	42.21	0.69	0.19		20055
Minimum		4.52	74.12	15.95	46.91	5.89	35.58	0.40	0.11		17983
Maximum		7.44	78.79	18.43	56.41	7.27	46.30	1.11	0.25		22127

Figure 3. Chemical composition of wood waste specific components: (a) proximate analysis; (b) ultimate analysis.

Table 4. ANOVA of thermochemical properties in wood waste subgroups

		Sum of squares	Degree of freedom	Mean square	F	Significance (P)
A	Between groups	183.676	3	61.225	24.942	0.000
	Within groups	73.641	30	2.455
V	Between groups	303.329	3	101.110	15.635	0.000
	Within groups	194.001	30	6.467
FC	Between groups	21.227	3	7.076	1.286	0.297
	Within groups	165.027	30	5.501
C + H	Between groups	11.665	3	3.888	0.535	0.661
	Within groups	269.046	37	7.272
O	Between groups	11.457	3	3.819	0.478	0.699
	Within groups	295.492	37	7.986
N + S + Cl	Between groups	5.681	3	1.894	5.409	0.003
	Within groups	12.953	37	0.350
HHV	Between groups	1443928.171	3	481309.390	0.198	0.896
	Within groups	4.123E7	17	2425481.822

Table 5. Chemical characteristics of paper subgroups and varieties

Paper subgroup and variety		Proximate analysis (wt%)			Ultimate analysis (wt%)						HHV^d (kJ/kg)	Reference used
		A^d	V^d	FC^d	C^daf	H^daf	O^daf	N^daf	S^daf	Cl^daf
Printing paper
1.	Blank A4 paper	10.69	79.33	9.98	45.12	5.31	48.91	0.38	0.28		13510
2.	Magazine	23.32	68.81	7.88							12742	Nie, 2000
3.	Magazine	29.49	62.44	8.07	41.04	8.99	49.15	0.42	0.40		11825	Zhang, 2002
4.	Magazine				46.44	6.54	46.33	0.16	0.30	0.23		Hu et al., 2011
5.	Newspaper	1.38	86.37	12.25	49.10	6.10	43.00	0.10	0.20		19734	Nie, 2000
6.	Newspaper	2.66	82.62	14.72	41.35	6.15	52.21	0.10	0.19			Li et al., 2002
7.	Newspaper	5.43	85.04	9.53	45.24	7.17	47.10	0.25	0.23		16270	Zhang, 2002
8.	Newspaper	8.07	79.54	12.39	48.01	5.71	45.82	0.33	0.13		17160
9.	Newspaper	9.47	78.19	12.33	46.66	6.25	46.86	0.13	0.09		15341	Shen, 2005
10.	Newspaper				49.86	6.34	43.24	0.15	0.26	0.15		Hu et al., 2011
11.	Printing paper	12.30	87.65	0.04	44.93	4.55	50.43	0.09	0.00		14236	Shen et al., 2006
12.	Printing paper				44.59	6.03	49.20	0.10	0.08		16146	Liu et al., 1999
13.	Writing paper				43.66	5.84	50.16	0.16	0.18		13690	Liu et al., 1999
Mean		11.42	78.89	9.69	45.50	6.25	47.70	0.20	0.20	0.19	15065
Minimum		29.49	87.65	14.72	49.86	8.99	52.21	0.42	0.40	0.23	19734
Maximum		1.38	62.44	0.04	41.04	4.55	43.00	0.09	0.00	0.15	11825
Cardboard
14.	Cardboard	10.77	78.70	10.53	47.09	6.00	46.63	0.18	0.11			Dai, 2007
15.	Cardboard	9.09	78.80	12.12	49.33	7.94	41.99	0.49	0.25		15992
16.	Cardboard	5.27	81.75	12.97	46.09	5.36	48.02	0.32	0.21		17278	Nie, 2000
17.	Cardboard				46.71	5.31	47.35	0.32	0.32		18367	Mi et al., 1993
18.	Cardboard	3.25	83.47	13.29							16002	Ke et al., 2006
19.	Carton	7.22	83.95	8.82	48.97	6.14	44.52	0.21	0.16		17099	Xiao et al., 2009
20.	Carton				47.32	6.53	45.55	0.14	0.30	0.15		Hu et al., 2011
21.	Paper board	14.07	72.27	13.67	49.51	6.29	43.71	0.27	0.22		15481	Li et al., 1999b
Mean		8.28	79.82	11.90	47.86	6.22	45.40	0.28	0.22	0.15	16703	Shen, 2005
Minimum		14.07	83.95	13.67	49.51	7.94	48.02	0.49	0.32	0.15	18367
Maximum		3.25	72.27	8.82	46.09	5.31	41.99	0.14	0.11	0.15	15481
Toilet paper
22.	Tissue paper	0.04	95.36	4.60	44.31	6.06	49.43	0.13	0.06		16855	Bai et al., 2007
23.	Toilet paper	0.52	90.47	9.01	45.18	6.13	48.32	0.25	0.11		17250
24.	Toilet paper				41.63	5.71	52.35	0.00	0.31			Na et al., 2008
Mean		0.28	92.91	6.81	43.71	5.97	50.03	0.13	0.16		17053
Minimum		0.04	90.47	4.60	41.63	5.71	48.32	0.00	0.06		16855
Maximum		0.52	95.36	9.01	45.18	6.13	52.35	0.25	0.31		17250

Figure 4. Chemical composition of paper specific components: (a) proximate analysis; (b) ultimate analysis.

Table 6. ANOVA of thermochemical properties in paper subgroups

		Sum of squares	Degree of freedom	Mean square	F	Significance (P)
A	Between groups	208.054	2	104.027	1.882	0.189
	Within groups	773.866	14	55.276
V	Between groups	332.100	2	166.050	3.506	0.058
	Within groups	663.096	14	47.364
FC	Between groups	42.669	2	21.334	1.731	0.213
	Within groups	172.592	14	12.328
C + H	Between groups	46.370	2	23.185	4.068	0.034
	Within groups	108.279	19	5.699
O	Between groups	49.721	2	24.860	3.802	0.041
	Within groups	124.247	19	6.539
N + S + Cl	Between groups	.116	2	0.058	1.554	0.237
	Within groups	0.710	19	0.037
HHV	Between groups	1.341E7	2	6704792.022	1.809	0.198
	Within groups	5.560E7	15	3706648.116

Table 7. Chemical characteristics of textiles subgroups and varieties

Textiles subgroup and variety		Proximate analysis (wt%)			Ultimate analysis (wt%)
		A^d	V^d	FC^d	C^daf	H^daf	O^daf	N^daf	S^daf	Cl^daf	HHV^d (kJ/kg)	Reference used
Cotton
1.	Cotton	0.41	92.25	7.34	54.20	5.83	39.59	0.29	0.09		21374	Zhang, 2002
2.	Cotton	0.68	78.27	21.05	49.91	6.00	43.68	0.26	0.15		17532	Miao, 2006
3.	Cotton	0.20	96.20	3.59	44.92	9.00	45.86	0.19	0.03		15789	Yan et al., 2009
4.	Cotton	1.45	86.70	11.85	46.19	6.12	47.07	0.54	0.08		17246	Yan et al., 2005
5.	Cotton				43.18	6.10	50.04	0.52	0.16		16830	Liu et al., 1999
6.	Cotton	0.41	90.61	8.98								Li et al., 1998
7.	Cotton	1.06	81.42	17.51								Li and Zhang, 2004
8.	Cotton cloth	3.09	78.71	18.21	56.49	5.87	33.30	3.52	0.18	0.65	14211	Qing et al., 2005
9.	Cotton cloth	1.52	84.53	13.95	46.51	5.80	46.98	0.43	0.28		17430
10.	Cotton cloth	0.83	91.65	7.52	45.18	5.66	48.81	0.21	0.14		16251	Li et al., 1999b
11.	Cotton cloth	0.88	98.99	0.13	41.34	6.28	50.88	1.47	0.03			Zhang et al., 2008b
Mean		1.05	87.93	11.01	47.55	6.30	45.14	0.82	0.13	0.65	17083
Minimum		0.20	78.27	0.13	41.34	5.66	33.30	0.19	0.03	0.65	14211
Maximum		3.09	98.99	21.05	56.49	9.00	50.88	3.52	0.28	0.65	21374
Wool
12.	Wool				58.53	6.48	18.23	15.12	1.65		23632	Liu et al., 1999
13.	Wool	1.24	84.76	14.00	60.07	4.24	31.48	2.65	1.55		20920
Mean		1.24	84.76	14.00	59.30	5.36	24.85	8.89	1.60		22276
Minimum		1.24	84.76	14.00	58.53	4.24	18.23	2.65	1.55		20920
Maximum		1.24	84.76	14.00	60.07	6.48	31.48	15.12	1.65		23632
Chemical fibers
14.	Acrylic fiber	0.14	75.25	24.61	66.78	5.20	7.31	20.26	0.45		29770
15.	Chemical fiber				48.09	7.16	34.06	9.43	1.26		21959	Liu et al., 1999
16.	Chemical fiber	8.20	91.18	0.61								Zhang et al., 2008a
17.	Chemical fiber	1.48	89.78	8.75								Li et al., 1998
18.	Polyester taffeta	0.44	90.63	8.93	60.10	4.50	35.11	0.28	0.01		22080	Miao, 2006
19.	Terylene	0.49	88.60	10.91	62.16	4.14	33.12	0.29	0.28		20860
Mean		2.15	87.09	10.76	59.28	5.25	27.40	7.56	0.50		23667
Minimum		0.14	75.25	0.61	48.09	4.14	7.31	0.28	0.01		20860
Maximum		8.20	91.18	24.61	66.78	7.16	35.11	20.26	1.26		29770

Figure 5. Chemical composition of textiles specific components: (a) proximate analysis; (b) ultimate analysis.

Table 8. ANOVA of thermochemical properties in textiles subgroups

		Sum of squares	Degree of freedom	Mean square	F	Significance (P)
A	Between groups	4.041	2	2.021	0.495	0.621
	Within groups	53.070	13	4.082
V	Between groups	10.217	2	5.109	0.103	0.903
	Within groups	643.138	13	49.472
FC	Between groups	9.050	2	4.525	0.083	0.921
	Within groups	709.698	13	54.592
C + H	Between groups	414.587	2	207.293	7.460	0.008
	Within groups	333.452	12	27.788
O	Between groups	1251.787	2	625.893	8.544	0.005
	Within groups	879.082	12	73.257
N + S + Cl	Between groups	229.477	2	114.739	3.663	0.057
	Within groups	375.857	12	31.321
HHV	Between groups	1.310E8	2	6.551E7	8.612	0.006
	Within groups	8.368E7	11	7607225.057

Table 9. Chemical characteristics of plastics subgroups and varieties

Plastics subgroup and variety		Proximate analysis (wt%)			Ultimate analysis (wt%)
		A^d	V^d	FC^d	C^daf	H^daf	O^daf	N^daf	S^daf	Cl^daf	HHV^d (kJ/kg)	Reference used
PE
1.	PE	0.06	99.94	0.00	86.66	13.26	0.00	0.06	0.02	0.00	37600	Li et al., 1999b
2.	PE	0.15	99.85	0.00	85.94	13.88	0.00	0.12	0.06		40983	He et al., 2009
3.	PE	0.15	99.85	0.00	85.45	14.32	0.00	0.16	0.07	0.00	46318	Zheng et al., 2009
4.	PE	0.30	99.70	0.00	84.97	14.30	0.00	0.70	0.02	0.00	46479	Chi et al., 2008
5.	PE	0.56	98.96	0.48	85.34	14.57	0.09	0.00	0.00			Zhang et al., 2008b
6.	HDPE	0.60	99.40	0.00	85.50	14.20	0.00	0.00	0.30	0.00		Zhou et al., 2009
7.	HDPE	0.58	99.42	0.00	85.44	14.24	0.32	0.00	0.00	0.00		Li et al., 2001a
8.	LDPE	0.30	99.70	0.00	85.50	14.30	0.00	0.00	0.20	0.00		Zhou et al., 2009
9.	LDPE	0.31	99.69	0.00	85.51	14.30	0.19	0.00	0.00	0.00		Li et al., 2001a
Mean		0.33	99.61	0.05	85.59	14.15	0.07	0.12	0.07	0.00	42845
Minimum		0.06	98.96	0.00	84.97	13.26	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	37600
Maximum		0.60	99.94	0.48	86.66	14.57	0.32	0.70	0.30	0.00	46479
PP
10.	PP	0.82	99.18	0.00	83.75	13.98	2.27	0.00	0.00	0.00		Li et al., 2001a
11.	PP	0.16	99.84	0.00	84.30	14.44	1.05	0.18	0.03		45769	Yan et al., 2005
12.	PP	0.08	99.79	0.13	84.62	15.23	0.00	0.14	0.01	0.00		Tang et al., 2003a
13.	PP				85.10	14.40	0.50	0.00	0.00			Zhao et al., 2012
14.	PP				85.22	13.70	1.08	0.00	0.00	0.00		Lan et al., 2012
15.	PP	0.02	99.97	0.01	85.41	12.51	1.85	0.23	0.00		46239	Bai et al., 2007
16.	PP				86.72	13.28	0.00	0.00	0.00			Feng et al., 2006
17.	PP	1.10	98.90	0.00								Zhou et al., 2009
Mean		0.44	99.54	0.03	85.02	13.93	0.96	0.08	0.01	0.00	46004
Minimum		0.02	98.90	0.00	83.75	12.51	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	45769
Maximum		1.10	99.97	0.13	86.72	15.23	2.27	0.23	0.03	0.00	46239
PS
18.	PS	0.04	99.57	0.39							38930
19.	PS	0.51	99.49	0.00	91.08	7.68	1.24	0.00	0.00	0.00		Li et al., 2001a
20.	PS	0.01	99.39	0.60							40116	Zhang et al., 2011b
21.	PS				89.20	9.00	1.80	0.00	0.00			Zhao et al., 2012
22.	PS				89.06	10.02	0.55	0.00	0.37			Feng et al., 2006
23.	PS				92.14	7.86	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		Miao, 2005
Mean		0.19	99.48	0.33	90.37	8.64	0.90	0.00	0.09	0.00	39523
Minimum		0.01	99.39	0.00	89.06	7.68	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	38930
Maximum		0.51	99.57	0.60	92.14	10.02	1.80	0.00	0.37	0.00	40116
PVC
24.	PVC	8.74	79.81	11.45	37.81	4.25	0.00	0.09	0.19	57.66		Jin et al., 2001
25.	PVC	14.36	65.17	20.47	38.82	5.10	0.00	0.06	0.30	55.72		Zhou et al., 2001
26.	PVC	14.99	65.06	19.95	40.39	4.54	0.21	0.20	0.09	54.56	15876	Li et al., 1999b
27.	PVC	0.32	91.25	8.43	41.79	4.84	0.00	0.09	0.02	53.26	21732	Zhu et al., 2008
28.	PVC	0.04	95.16	4.80	38.75	5.21	0.00	0.22	0.00	55.82	22566	Zhao et al., 2007
29.	PVC	0.00	94.93	5.07	38.34	4.47	0.00	0.23	0.61	56.35	20830
30.	PVC	0.08	93.96	5.96	40.38	5.83	0.00	0.07	1.25	52.46	22405	Jin, 2002
31.	PVC	0.10	94.50	5.40	38.83	4.57	0.00	0.01	0.00	56.60	21682	Zhang et al., 2011b
32.	PVC	14.12	71.39	14.49	40.91	4.80	0.00	0.06	0.01	54.23		Li et al., 2002
Mean		5.86	83.47	10.67	39.56	4.85	0.02	0.11	0.28	55.18	20848
Minimum		0.00	65.06	4.80	37.81	4.25	0.00	0.01	0.00	52.46	15876
Maximum		14.99	95.16	20.47	41.79	5.83	0.21	0.23	1.25	57.66	22566
PET
33.	PET				62.00	5.20	32.80	0.00	0.00			Lian et al., 2011
34.	PET				62.02	4.19	33.40	0.32	0.07			Feng et al., 2006
35.	PET	0.09	90.44	9.47	62.93	4.26	32.64	0.04	0.13		23090
36.	PET	0.31	94.09	5.60	62.26	4.06	33.69	0.00	0.00			Zhang et al., 2012
Mean		0.20	92.27	7.53	62.30	4.43	33.13	0.09	0.05		23090
Minimum		0.09	90.44	5.60	62.00	4.06	32.64	0.00	0.00		23090
Maximum		0.31	94.09	9.47	62.93	5.20	33.69	0.32	0.13		23090

Figure 6. Chemical composition of plastics specific components: (a) proximate analysis; (b) ultimate analysis.

Table 10. ANOVA of thermochemical properties in plastics subgroups

		Sum of squares	Degree of freedom	Mean square	F	Significance (P)
A	Between groups	187.415	4	46.854	2.700	0.056
	Within groups	399.092	23	17.352
V	Between groups	1530.396	4	382.599	6.278	0.001
	Within groups	1401.661	23	60.942
FC	Between groups	684.718	4	171.179	12.076	0.000
	Within groups	326.042	23	14.176
C + H	Between groups	19572.205	4	4893.051	5017.243	0.000
	Within groups	27.307	28	0.975
O	Between groups	3775.252	4	943.813	3607.887	0.000
	Within groups	7.325	28	0.262
N + S + Cl	Between groups	20117.213	4	5029.303	6840.447	0.000
	Within groups	20.586	28	0.735
HHV	Between groups	1.794E9	4	4.485E8	50.599	0.000
	Within groups	8.863E7	10	8863239.350

Table 11. Chemical characteristics of rubber varieties

Rubber variety		Proximate analysis (wt%)			Ultimate analysis (wt%)							Reference used
		A^d	V^d	FC^d	C^daf	H^daf	O^daf	N^daf	S^daf	Cl^daf	HHV^d (kJ/kg)
1.	Rubber				80.05	7.99	6.00	1.79	4.17		21812	Chi et al., 2008
2.	Rubber	15.38	65.26	19.36	89.18	8.54	0.00	1.23	1.05		33402	Zhang, 2002
3.	Rubber	13.98	67.20	18.83	88.82	8.83	0.00	1.27	1.08			Zhang et al., 2003
4.	Rubber	13.50	58.80	27.70	85.75	11.49	0.55	0.55	1.66			Zhang et al., 2007b
5.	Rubber	8.36	84.77	6.86	77.72	10.12	7.42	0.00	2.66	2.08	25177	Qing et al., 2005
6.	Rubber	6.14	66.12	27.73	85.98	11.50	0.79	0.64	1.10			Liu, 2008
7.	Rubber	5.00	74.55	20.44	86.70	7.28	2.14	2.42	1.47		37299	Miao, 2006
8.	Tire	3.33	69.25	27.42	85.63	7.86	4.65	0.52	1.34		36757	Dai et al., 2001
9.	Tire	25.70	68.05	6.25	79.19	8.45	11.38	0.69	0.28		26491	Li et al., 2004
10.	Tire	19.27	63.11	17.61	88.56	8.52	0.88	0.75	1.29		30164	Li et al., 1999a
11.	Tire	16.02	59.92	24.06	84.21	7.73	5.29	0.61	2.16			Zhou et al., 2001
12.	Tire	14.56	80.70	4.74	86.13	6.94	3.47	0.58	1.73	1.16		Wang et al., 2003
13.	Tire	7.47	65.16	27.37	86.03	7.23	4.56	0.40	1.78			Su et al., 2008
14.	Tire	7.11	63.00	29.89	81.66	7.23	9.54	0.65	0.92			Deng et al., 2010
15.	Tire	4.89	68.13	26.99	82.65	7.55	7.45	1.67	0.67			Jin et al., 2007
16.	Tire	4.39	62.96	32.65	89.24	7.12	1.52	0.41	1.70			Ma et al., 2007
17.	Tire	4.19	65.44	30.37	83.92	6.83	7.55	0.78	0.92		38868	Zhang et al., 2005
18.	Tire	3.90	63.13	32.97	88.84	7.74	0.94	0.32	2.16		37929	Chen et al., 2012
Mean		10.19	67.39	22.43	85.01	8.27	4.12	0.85	1.56	1.62	31989
Minimum		3.33	58.80	4.74	77.72	6.83	0.00	0.00	0.28	1.16	21812
Maximum		25.70	84.77	32.97	89.24	11.50	11.38	2.42	4.17	2.08	38868

Figure 7. Chemical composition of rubber specific components (a) proximate analysis; (b) ultimate analysis.

Table 12. The comparison of the characteristics of MSW specific components

Factors	Content listed in decreasing sequence
A	bones > vegetables > printing paper > rubber > cardboard > leaves > weeds > PVC > fruit peel > chemical fiber > nutshells > wood > bamboo > wool > cotton > starch food > PP > PE > toilet paper > PET > PS
V	PE > PP > PS > toilet paper > PET > cotton > starch food > chemical fiber > wool > PVC > wood > bamboo > cardboard > printing paper > fruit peel > weeds > leaves > nutshells > vegetables > rubber > bones
FC	nutshells > rubber > fruit peel > bamboo > leaves > weeds > wood > wool > starch food > cardboard > cotton > chemical fiber > PVC > vegetables > printing paper > PET > toilet paper > bones > PS > PE > PP
C	PS > PE > PP > rubber > PET > wool > chemical fiber > bones > nutshells > weeds > wood > leaves > bamboo > fruit peel > cardboard > cotton > printing paper > vegetables > toilet paper > starch food > PVC
H	PE > PP > PS > rubber > bones > nutshells > weeds > starch food > cotton > printing paper > cardboard > fruit peel > wood > bamboo > toilet paper > leaves > vegetables > wool > chemical fiber > PVC > PET
O	toilet paper > starch food > printing paper > vegetables > cardboard > cotton > bamboo > leaves > fruit peel > wood > weeds > nutshells > PET > chemical fiber > bones > wool > rubber > PP > PS > PE > PVC
N	wool > bones > chemical fiber > vegetables > starch food > fruit peel > nutshells > rubber > cotton > weeds > leaves > wood > bamboo > cardboard > printing paper > PET > toilet paper > PE > PVC > PP > PS
S	wool > rubber > bones > vegetables > chemical fiber > leaves > PVC > cardboard > nutshells > printing paper > weeds > toilet paper > fruit peel > starch food > bamboo > cotton > wood > PS > PE > PET > PP
Cl	PVC > rubber > cotton > wood > printing paper > bamboo > cardboard > fruit peel > starch food > PE = PP = PS
Q	PP > PE > PS > rubber > chemical fiber > PET > wool > PVC > weeds > wood > bamboo > nutshells > leaves > fruit peel > starch food > cotton > toilet paper > vegetables > cardboard > bones > printing paper

Figure 8. The cluster analysis of MSW specific components based on proximate and ultimate analysis and HHV.

Zhang, J. 2005. Research on pyrolysis & gasification characteristics of typical MSW components in fluidized beds. Hangzhou, China: Zhejiang University (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Liu, H., M. Wang, M. Gao, Y. Li, and G. Lin. 1999. Study on approaches for estimation heat value of municipal solid waste. Environ. Sanit. Eng. 7: 100–6 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Zhang, Y., Y. Chen, A. Meng, Q. Li, and H. Cheng. 2008. Experimental and thermodynamic investigation on transfer of cadmium influenced by sulfur and chlorine during municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration. J. Hazard. Mater. 153 (1–2): 309–19. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.08.054

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Li, A.M., X.D. Li, S.Q. Li, Y. Ren, N. Shang, Y. Chi, J.H. Yan, and K.F. Cen. 1999b. Experimental studies on municipal solid waste pyrolysis in a laboratory-scale rotary kiln. Energy 24 (3): 209–18. doi:10.1016/S0360-5442(98)00095-4

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dai, K. 2007. Experimental study on compositions variation on waste combustion of a fixed bed. Harbin, China: Harbin Institute of Technology (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Zhao, Y., T.H. Christensen, W.J. Lu, H.Y. Wu, and H.T. Wang. 2011. Environmental impact assessment of solid waste management in Beijing City, China. Waste Manage. 31 (4): 793–99. doi:10.1016%2Fj.wasman.2010.11.007

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, Y.G., Q.H. Li, A.H. Meng, and C.H. Chen. 2011b. Carbon monoxide formation and emissions during waste incineration in a grate-circulating fluidized bed incinerator. Waste Manage. Res. 29 (3): 294–308. doi:10.1177/0734242X10368581

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhou, H., Y. Long, A. Meng, Q. Li, and Y. Zhang. 2013. The pyrolysis simulation of five biomass species by hemi-cellulose, cellulose and lignin based on thermogravimetric curves. Thermochim. Acta 566:36–43. doi:10.1016/j.tca.2013.04.040

 Google Scholar

Li, Y.J., A.M. Li, R.D. Li, Z. Wang, L.H. Wei, and S.Q. Qin. 2005. Experimental study of solid waste gasification with oxygen-rich and analysis of grey relation gradient. Acta Energy Sol. Sin. 26: 543–48 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Nie, Y. 2000. Waste Treatment Engineering Manual. Beijing, China: Chemical Industry Press (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Zhao, Y., D. Niu, and X. Chai. 2006. Treatment and recycling of solid wastes. Beijing, China: Chemical Industry Press (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Zou, Y., G. Wang, C. Zou, and C. Lai. 2006. Confirm thermal value of domestic refuse by revised physical analogy. China Environ. Prot. Ind. : 43–45 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Li, M., J. Chen, X. Sun, and X. Yu. 2001b. Macroscopical reaction mechanism of combustibles in municipal solid waste. J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technol. 29:97–99 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Shen, X., J. Yan, C. Bai, X. Li, Y. Chi, M. Ni, and K. Cen. 2006. Optmization and comparison of pyrolysis kinetic model for typical MSW components. J. Chem. Ind. Eng. (China) 57: 2433–38 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Ren, H., Y. Zhang, Y. Fang, and Y. Wang. 2011. Co-gasification behavior of meat and bone meal char and coal char. Fuel Process. Technol. 92 (3): 298–307. doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2010.09.013

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, Y., L. Wang, Z. Wang, and Q. Li. 2007a. Study on combustion property of typical compositions for MSW by using TG-FTIR method. Thermal Power Gener. 6: 23–28 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Wang, M. 2007. Research on the carbonization pyrolysis characteristic of chestnut shell and sawdust. Harbin, China: Northeast Agricultural University (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Hu, X. 2010. Research on biomass flash pyorlysis producing bio-oil. Qingdao, China: Shandong University of Science and Technology (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Fang, C., H. Fan, and J. Wang. 2010. Study on release characteristics of gaseous products during biomass pyrolysis process. Boiler Technol. 41: 71–75 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Zhang, C.S., R.Q. Zhang, X.P. Li, Y.W. Li, W. Shi, X.T. Ren, and X.M. Xu. 2011a. Bench-scale fluidized-bed fast pyrolysis of peanut shell for bio-oil production. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 30 (1): 11–18. doi:10.1002/ep.10530

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wang, G., and A. Li. 2008. Thermal decomposition and kinetics of mixtures of polylactic acid and biomass during copyrolysis. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 16 (6):929–33. doi:10.1016/S1004-9541(09)60018-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Song, C., M. Fang, C. Yu, Z. Luo, and K. Cen. 2005. Study on the characteristics of fir pyrolysis and combustion in thermal balance for simulating typical fire condition. J. Fuel Chem. Technol. 33:68–73 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Li, A., Z. Wang, S. Li, and J. Yan. 2002. A study of the pyrolytic semicoke characteristics of solid waste. J. Eng. Thermal Energy Power 17:132–39 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Wang, Q., Q. Liu, B. He, S. Wang, Z. Luo, and K. Cen. 2008. Experimental research on biomass flash pyrolysis for bio-oil in a fluidized bed reactor. J. Eng. Thermophys. 29:885–88 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Tang, S., D. Li, Z. Lv, and Y. Shen. 2003b. Simulation of biomass pyrolysis with chaotic neural network model. J. Chem. Ind. Eng. (China) 54: 783–789 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Hu, G.X., and H. Huang. 2009. Hydrogen rich fuel gas production by gasification of wet biomass using a CO2 sorbent. Biomass Bioenergy 33 (5): 899–906. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.02.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Li, W., B. Li, C. Sun, W. Yuchi, and B. Cao. 1996. Study on pyrolysis and hydropyrolysis of biomass and copyrolysis between biomass and coal. J. Fuel Chem. Technol. 24: 341–47 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Zhou, S., Z. Liu, and G. Zhang. 2001. Study on co-pyrolosis of strongly caking coal with solid organic waste. Coal Conversion 24: 70–73 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Zhou, L., Y. Wang, Q. Huang, and J. Cai. 2007. TG analysis and kinetics of biomass/plastics co-pyrolysis. Acta Energ Sol Sin.. 28: 979–83 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Jin, L., Y. Gao, W. Bao, and Q. Cao. 2007. Influence of co-pyrolysis for the mixture of biomass and waste tires on pyrolytic liquid property. Mod. Chem. Ind. 27:34–38 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Qing, S., H. Wang, Z. Wu, and S. Wang. 2005. Study on characteristics of combustion of municipal solid waste with thermal analyzers. Environ. Pollut. Control 27: 24–28 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Chen, H., H. Sui, X. Wang, X. Dai, and H. Yang. 2012. Effects of temperature on the product property during multi-cogeneration based on waste tyre pyrolysis. P. CSEE 32:119–25 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Wu, H., H. Li, and Z. Zhao. 2009. Thermogravimetric analysis and pyrolytic kinetic study on coal/biomass blends. J. Fuel Chem. Technol. 37:538–45 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Jiang, X., X. Li, Y. Chi, and J. Yan. 2004. Experimental study of emission of HCl on incinerating of typical MSW components and coal in fluidized bed. P. CSEE 24:213–17 (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Liu, P. 2007. Study on the gasification-incineration of municipal solid wastes in circulating fluidized bed. Beijing, China: Chinese Academy of Sciences (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Guo, X.F., Z.Q. Wang, H.B. Li, H.T. Huang, C.Z. Wu, Y. Chen, and B.Q. Li. 2001. A study on combustion characteristics and kinetic model of municipal solid wastes. Energy Fuel 15 (6): 1441–46. doi:10.1021/ef010068f

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zheng, J., Y.Q. Jin, Y. Chi, J.M. Wen, X.G. Jiang, and M.J. Ni. 2009. Pyrolysis characteristics of organic components of municipal solid waste at high heating rates. Waste Manage. 29 (3): 1089–94. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.034

 Google Scholar

Xiao, G., M.J. Ni, Y. Chi, B.S. Jin, R. Xiao, Z.P. Zhong, and Y.J. Huang. 2009. Gasification characteristics of MSW and an ANN prediction model. Waste Manage. 29 (1):240–44. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2008.02.022

 Google Scholar

Shao, Q., J. Peng, Q. Xu, J. Huang, and W. Li. 2006. Study on pyrolysis characteristics and kinetics of bamboo under liner heating temperature. Acta Energ. Sol. Sin. 27:671–76 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Xiao, G., M. Ni, H. Huang, Y. Chi, R. Xiao, Z. Zhong, and K. Cen. 2007. Fluidized-bed pyrolysis of waste bamboo. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A 8: 1495–99. doi:10.1631%2Fjzus.2007.A1495

 Google Scholar

Liang, J., X. Li, M. Yan, S. Lu, and J. Yan. 2012. Inorganic chlorine released from typical components of medical waste in pyrolysis/incineration. Chem. Ind. Eng. Prog. 31:927–32 (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Yan, J., X. Shen, X. Jiang, P. Su, J. Li, Y. Chi, and K. Cen. 2005. Study on pyrolysis-gasification of typical medical waste components in rotary kiln under batch feeding. Acta Sci. Circumst. 25: 1211–18 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Dong, C. Q., B.S. Jin, Z.P. Zhong, and J.X. Lan. 2002. Tests on co-firing of municipal solid waste and coal in a circulating fluidized bed. Energ. Conversion Manage. 43 (16): 2189–99. doi:10.1016/S0196-8904(01)00157-1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Li, B., J. Yan, N. Shang, Y. Chi, and X. Jiang. 1998. Study on combustion characteristics of municipal solid waste (MSW). J. Fuel Chem. Technol. 26: 85–89 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Luo, S. 2010. Research on municipal solid waste shredder and effect of particle size on pyrolysis & gasification performance. Wuhan, China: Huazhong University of Science and Technology (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Zhu, S. 2011. An experimental research on the impact of particle size on pyrolysis performance of MSW. Wuhan, China: Huazhong University of Science and Technology (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Zhang, R. 2002. Research on heavy metal distribution from municipal solid waste incineration. Hangzhou, China: Zhejiang University (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Xiao, J., L. Shen, Z. Wang, and X. Zhong. 2005. Pressurized thermogravimetric analysis of pyrolysis of biomass. J. Combust. Sci. Technol. 11: 31–36 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Pu, K., L. Zhang, and M. Xin. 2006. Experimental study on pyrolysis and combustion characteristic of King grass. P. CSEE 26:65–69 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Teng, H., S. Li, and Q. Lv. 2011. Experimental study on agglomeration characteristics of king-grass combustion in fluidized bed. Renew. Energy Resources 29: 121–24 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Fu, X., Z. Zhong, G. Xiao, and R. Li. 2009. Comparative study on characteristics and dynamics of pyrolysis process of grass biomass. Boiler Technol. 40: 66–70 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Liu, X., Y. Zhang, J. Sun, T. Ding, and Y. Cao. 2012. Analysis of Pennisetum americanum pyrolysis process based on the technique of thermo-gravimetric analysis coupled with infrared spectroscopy. J. Nanjing For. Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 36: 120–24 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Hu, G., X. Zhu, and X. Zhou. 2011. Waste incineration power generation and secondary pollution control technology. Chongqing, China: Chongqing University Press (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Shen, X. 2005. Studies on pyrolysis and incineration of medical waste in rotary kiln. Hangzhou, China: Zhejiang University (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Mi, Z., Z. Gao, and M. Qi. 1993. Treatment and Disposal of Solid Waste. Beijing, China: Higher Education Press (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Ke, W., W. Xiong, J. Liu, L. Wei, L. Zhou, X. Bao, J. Xiang, and J. Guo. 2006. Thermogravimetric analysis and pyrolytic kinetic study on municipal solid wastes (MSW). Renew. Energy 129: 53–56 (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Bai, G., Y. Wang, Q. Bai, and X. Chu. 2007. Pyrolysis characteristics study of simulative medical waste on cannular electric furnace. Chinese J. Environ. Eng. 1: 128–32 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Na, D., Z. Yu-Feng, and W. Yan. 2008. Thermogravimetric analysis and kinetic study on pyrolysis of representative medical waste composition. Waste Manage. 28 (9): 1572–80. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2007.05.024

 Google Scholar

Miao, Q. 2006. Experimental research on gasification characteristics of filtrated MSW in fluidized beds. Hangzhou, China: Zhejiang University (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Yan, J.H., H.M. Zhu, X.G. Jiang, Y. Chi, and K.F. Cen. 2009. Analysis of volatile species kinetics during typical medical waste materials pyrolysis using a distributed activation energy model. J. Hazard. Mater. 162 (2–3): 646–51. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.05.077

 Google Scholar

Li, L., and H. Zhang. 2004. Study on production of levoglucosan from organic solid wastes by pyrolysis. Tech. Eq. Environ. Pollut. Control 5:21–23 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

He, M.Y., B. Xiao, Z.Q. Hu, S.M. Liu, X.J. Guo, and S.Y. Luo. 2009. Syngas production from catalytic gasification of waste polyethylene: Influence of temperature on gas yield and composition. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34 (3): 1342–48. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.12.023

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chi, Y., J. Zheng, Y. Jin, H. Mi, X. Jiang, and M. Ni. 2008. Experimental study on fluidized-bed gasification of simulated MSW. P. CSEE 28: 59–63 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Zhou, L., T. Luo, and Q. Huang. 2009. Co-pyrolysis characteristics and kinetics of coal and plastic blends. Energ. Convers. Manage. 50 (3): 705–10. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2008.10.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Li, D., W. Li, and B. Li. 2001a. Co-carbonization of coking coal with different waste plastics. J. Fuel Chem. Technol. 29: 19–23 ( in Chinese).

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tang, L., H. Huang, Z. Zhao, and C. Wu. 2003a. Pyrolysis of waste polypropylene in a nitrogen plasma reactor—effect of steam injection on improving gas quality. J. Fuel Chem. Technol. 31:476–79 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Zhao, L., Z. Wang, D. Chen, X. Ma, and J. Luan. 2012. Influence of impurities on waste plastics pyrolysis: products and emissions. Environ. Sci. 33:329–36 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Lan, X., Q. Liu, and Y. Song. 2012. Study on co-pyrolysis of low rank coal and plastic with microwave. Coal Conversion 35: 16–19 (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Feng, X., S. Long, L. Zhang, Y. Chen, and J. Hua. 2006. Pyrolysis characteristics and kinetics of waste plastics and coal powder. J. Iron Steel Res. 18: 11–14 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Miao, C. 2005. The experimental study on co-pyrolysis of coal and plastic. Nanjing, China: Nanjing University of Technology (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Jin, Y., J. Yan, Y. Chi, X. Li, and K. Cen. 2001. Study on kinetics of pyrolysis of PVC. J. Fuel Chem. Technol. 29:381–84 (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Zhu, H.M., X.G. Jiang, J.H. Yan, Y. Chi, and K.F. Cen. 2008. TG-FTIR analysis of PVC thermal degradation and HCl removal. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 82 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.jaap.2007.11.011

 Google Scholar

Zhao, Y., J. Liu, R. Li, and Y. Nie. 2007. De-volatilization kinetics of the combustible components in municipal solid waste. J. Tsinghua Univ. (Sci. Technol.) 47:842–46 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Jin, Y. 2002. Study on MSW combustion characteristics and a new CFB incineration technology. Hangzhou, China: Zhejiang University (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Lian, F., B.S. Xing, and L.Y. Zhu. 2011. Comparative study on composition, structure, and adsorption behavior of activated carbons derived from different synthetic waste polymers. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 360 (2): 725–30. doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2011.04.103

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, J., W. Liu, S. Ren, J. Song, and Y. Wen. 2012. Effect of waste plastics addition ratio on combustion of pulverized coal. Chinese J. Process Eng. 12:810–15 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Zhang, D., X. Li, J. Yan, Y. Chi, and K. Cen. 2003. No emission characteristics in fluidized bed combustion of waste. J. Fuel Chem. Technol. 31:322–27 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Zhang, Z., H. Wang, Y. Chen, and P. Xu. 2007b. Pyrolysis products of six organic solid wastes. Environ. Pollut. Control 29: 816–19 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Liu, H. 2008. Experimental study of the characteristics of municipal solid waste gasification. Kunming, China: Kunming University of Science and Technology (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Dai, X. W., X.L. Yin, C.Z. Wu, W.N. Zhang, and Y. Chen. 2001. Pyrolysis of waste tires in a circulating fluidized-bed reactor. Energy 26 (4): 385–99. doi:10.1016/S0360-5442(01)00003-2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Li, X., J. Yan, Y. Cao, Y. Chi, J. Gu, Z. Ma, and K. Cen. 2004. Emission characteristics of typical gas pollutants during pyrolysis of waste tires in fluidized bed reactor. J. Zhejiang Univ. (Eng. Sci.) 38: 888–92 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Li, A.M., X.D. Li, S.Q. Li, Y. Ren, Y. Chi, J.H. Yan, and K.F. Cen. 1999a. Pyrolysis of solid waste in a rotary kiln: influence of final pyrolysis temperature on the pyrolysis products. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 50 (2):149–62. doi:10.1016/S0165-2370(99)00025-X

 Google Scholar

Wang, S., F. Liang, and J. Wang. 2003. Recycling Technology and Application of Solid Waste. Beijing, China: Metallurgical Industry Press (in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Su, Y., X. Zhang, and B. Zhao. 2008. Pyrolysis of waste tire powder and its dynamic model. J. Donghua Univ. (Nat. Sci.) 34: 740–43 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Deng, D., X. Liu, and H. Liao. 2010. Thermogravimetric characteristic of waste tyre in co-pyrolysis with coal. Environ. Prot. Chem. Ind. 30: 117–20 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Ma, G., G. Liu, Q. Cao, and W. Bao. 2007. Influence of co-pyrolysis of different species biomass with waste tires on oil properties. Mod. Chem. Ind. 27: 249–52 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Zhang, X., J. Chang, T. Wang, Q. Zhang, and L. Ma. 2005. Vacuum pyrolysis of waste tires with basic additives. J. Fuel Chem. Technol. 33:713–16 ( in Chinese).

 Google Scholar