Sustainability 14 16340

sustainability
Review
Recycling of Plastic Waste: A Systematic Review Using
Bibliometric Analysis
Ichiro Tsuchimoto 1, * and Yuya Kajikawa 1,2
1 Graduate School of Innovation Management, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 3-3-6 Shibaura, Minato-ku,
Tokyo 108-0023, Japan
2 School of Environment and Society, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 3-3-6 Shibaura, Minato-ku,
Tokyo 108-0023, Japan
* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]; Tel.: +81-90-2158-7111
Abstract: Research into plastic recycling is rapidly increasing as ocean and land pollution and
ecosystem degradation from plastic waste is becoming a serious concern. In this study, we conducted
a systematic review on emerging research topics, which were selected from 35,519 studies on plastic
recycling by bibliometrics analysis. Our results show that research on the biodegradability of plastics,
bioplastics, life cycle assessment, recycling of electrical and electronic equipment waste, and the
use of recycled plastics in construction has increased rapidly in recent years, particularly since 2016.
Especially, biodegradability is the most emerging topic with the average year of publication being
2018. Our key finding is that many research area is led by developed countries, while the use of
recycled plastics in the construction sector is being actively explored in developing countries. Based
on our results, we discuss two types of recycling systems: responsible recycling in the country
where plastic waste is generated and promoting recycling through the international division of labor
between developed and developing countries. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of
both approaches and propose necessary measures for sustainable and responsible production and
Citation: Tsuchimoto, I.; Kajikawa, Y.
consumption of plastics such as waste traceability system and technology transfer between developed
Recycling of Plastic Waste: A
and developing countries.
Systematic Review Using
Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability
Keywords: plastic recycling; plastic waste; circular economy; plastic pollution; mechanical recycling;
2022, 14, 16340. https://doi.org/
chemical recycling; biodegradation; bioplastics; e-waste; plastics in construction
10.3390/su142416340
Academic Editors: Simone

Domenico Scagnelli and
Meisam Ranjbari 1. Introduction
Received: 19 November 2022 Plastics are a lightweight, durable, and inexpensive material that can be easily pro-
Accepted: 5 December 2022 cessed into a wide range of products to be used in a variety of applications. Given the
Published: 7 December 2022 ubiquity of food packaging and daily necessities that surround us, plastics have become
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
an indispensable material in many industries such as construction, engineering, medical,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
automotive, and aerospace. Economic development and growth have increased the de-
published maps and institutional affil- mand for and dependence on plastics, and global production and consumption of plastics
iations. has increased dramatically over the past decades. Most of the plastics produced each year
are used in short-lived products that are discarded within a year of manufacture, such as
food packaging disposables. Much of this plastic waste is sent to landfills or dumped on to
natural habitats, where it accumulates substantially due to its high durability. As a result,
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. it causes serious environmental pollution problems such as groundwater contamination
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. and hygiene-related problems and poses great risks to human health and ecosystems. In
This article is an open access article addition, due to inappropriate waste disposal, a large amount of plastic waste flows into
distributed under the terms and the ocean, causing a serious marine plastic litter problem [1].
conditions of the Creative Commons Sustainable and efficient treatment of plastic waste is essential to solve such problems,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
and interest in recycling plastic waste has been rapidly increasing worldwide. Based
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
on the idea of using plastics in a cyclical manner, the EU has proposed the concept of a
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16340. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416340 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 16340 2 of 39
circular economy, and there are active movements outside the European Union (EU) to
pursue circular economies. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is
formulating international standards for the circular economy with the participation of
many countries [2].
Under these circumstances, many papers on plastic recycling have been published,
though researchers have differing classifications of plastic recycling methods. Some papers
classify recycling into four categories: primary recycling (re-extrusion), secondary recycling
(mechanical), tertiary recycling (chemical), and quaternary recycling (energy recovery) [3].
The difference between primary and secondary recycling is largely due to the degree of
contamination of the plastic waste used, though there are many studies that collectively
refer to these as mechanical recycling. Energy recovery does not reproduce new materials
or raw materials, but the extraction of energy in the form of heat, so it is usually regarded
as recovery rather than recycling. The ISO has created international standards for plastic
waste disposal methods, in which plastic recycling is classified into three types: mechanical,
chemical, and biological recycling [4]. In this study, we classify and review recycling
methods according to this ISO classification.
Mechanical recycling is desirable in that it enables the recycling of plastic waste
into plastics, but recycled plastics have weaknesses such as inferior quality and reduced
strength compared to virgin plastics [5]. Especially in developed countries, it is necessary to
promote consumer understanding of the environmental value of recycled plastics in order
to promote the replacement of virgin plastics with recycled ones. Chemical recycling is an
effective means of complementing mechanical recycling, but it mainly produces industrial
products such as fuel and ammonia, and it is generally difficult to produce recycled plastics
with this process. However, some developed countries have recently developed technology
that can regenerate plastics from olefin plastic waste, and its implementation is desired in
the near future [6].
Landfilling is the least desirable form of plastics processing in terms of the circular
economy, and the high landfilling ratio in the United States and Europe (especially Eastern
and Southern European countries) is a major issue [7,8]. Landfilling is also a source of
secondary damage such as groundwater pollution and ecosystem destruction. In developed
countries, it is strongly desired to replace landfilling with recycling. In Japan and some
European countries, the percentage of energy recovery is high. Energy recovery is used
for power generation and alternatives to fossil resources in industry and is highly effective
in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, making it a useful method for processing plastics.
However, if producing recycled plastics is prioritized, mechanical and chemical recycling
are more desirable processing methods as compared to energy recovery. By improving
recycling capacity in developed countries, it is possible to reduce environmental costs by
an estimated 3.2 billion euros annually [9].
There is no universal solution to plastic waste recycling because each method has
advantages and disadvantages. While mechanical recycling methods using unused plastics,
post-consumer plastic waste or post-industry plastic waste is ideal, it has many problems.
The disadvantage of mechanical recycling is that the recycled plastics is inferior to virgin
plastics in terms of material properties such as strength, smell, purity, and color [10]. The
difficulty in recycling dirty plastic waste and composite materials necessitates pre-sorting
of waste [11], which increases costs.
Chemical recycling routes involving pyrolysis [12] and gasification [13] are highly
applicable to recycling dirty waste and composite materials, which are difficult to mechani-
cally recycle. However, it has the disadvantage of generally requiring a large amount of
energy, resulting in higher carbon dioxide emissions than mechanical recycling.
In addition to the approaches mentioned above, there is an increasing interest in
biological recycling. One method is to biologically decompose petroleum-derived plastics
using microorganisms [14]. Another is a method of spontaneous decomposition under
specific natural conditions as some plastics are biodegradable [15]. Since biological recycling
does not use a large amount of energy, depending on the decomposing conditions, it has
the advantage that the environmental burden is small. As a representative example of

the former, research on the biodegradation of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is being
enthusiastically conducted, but it has not yet reached the stage of industrialization. As for
the latter, there is a method for degrading bioplastics and another for degrading petroleum
resources, and some methods are being industrialized.
It is not a rudimental task to synthesize research trends in plastic recycling. However,
with the rapid increase in plastic consumption and application every year, establishing
appropriate recycling system of plastic waste is an urgent task, and considerable research
efforts are being made to achieve this. When we retrieved papers on plastic with the query
of (plastic* OR chemical*) AND (recycl* OR “circular economy”) in Web of Science, we
approximately have 56,000 papers as of 2021 and approximately 7700 new papers in a year.
The bibliometric method is effective for synthesizing a comprehensive overview of
a wide research area. This is a method developed to analyze research areas based on
published data [16]. Bibliometrics is the analytics of bibliographic records of documents
like papers, patents, newspapers, web pages, etc. Bibliometric methods include statistics,
supervised learning, natural language processing, and citation analysis. They analyzed
bibliographic records like information on the authors, publication date, keywords, abstract,
and references.
Some previous studies have used bibliometric methods related to plastic waste. de
Sousa (2021) conducted a bibliometric analysis using the keywords (waste management
AND plastic*) and reported that the pollution of water bodies by plastic waste, especially
microplastics, is a serious problem. He also points out that resolving this pollution is a
major challenge in realizing a circular economy [17]. However, this study did not analyze
research areas or review emerging topics on plastic recycling methods. Tsai et al. (2020)
analyzed municipal solid waste management using a bibliometric method, and identified
five themes for future research: incineration, life cycle assessment, plastic waste, sorting
solid waste, and sustainability [18]. There is no analysis of research trends in plastics
recycling in this study. Armenise et al. (2021) analyzed plastic pyrolysis research using a
bibliometric method, and pointed out that important research issues include improving
the performance of catalysts, pyrolyzing mixtures of plastics and biomass, and designing
reaction paths [19]. However, there is no analysis of plastic recycling methods other than
pyrolysis research. Wang et al. (2022) conducted a bibliometric analysis of the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on plastic pollution, pointing out that plastic pollution has become
more serious since the pandemic and that research on plastic pollution in developing
countries has become active [20]. They have not done any research on plastic recycling
other than the impact of the pandemic. Sandanayake et al. (2020) analyzed the five
categories of recycled waste (plastics, glass, fly ash, slag, and construction waste) using
the bibliometric method. They reported that such recycled waste is effective as part of
the raw material for concrete, but they have not studied how to use recycled plastic for
purposes other than concrete [21]. In this way, few publications have attempted to analyze
the overall picture of plastic recycling. This study systematically analyzes and clarify the
overview of research on plastic recycling, and reviews the latest research trend, which has
not been the subject of previous studies.
The research objectives of this review are to comprehensively ascertain the following
aspects of plastic recycling research using bibliometric methods: (1) the research areas that
exist, (2) the emerging research topics, (3) and the way in which global researchers studying
plastic recycling can cooperate to resolve the issues relating plastic waste.
2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection
We collected bibliographic data from academic publications related to plastic recycle.
We used data collected with the query (plastic* OR chemical*) AND (recycl* OR “circular
economy”). The asterisk allows us to look for terms that begin with “plastic,” “chemical,”
or “recycl” (e.g., recycle, recycles, recycled, recycling) in either the title, abstract, keywords
2.1. Data Collection
We collected bibliographic data from academic publications related to plastic recycle.
We used data collected with the query (plastic* OR chemical*) AND (recycl* OR “circular
economy”). The asterisk allows us to look for terms that begin with “plastic,” “chemical,”
or “recycl” (e.g., recycle, recycles, recycled, recycling) in either the title, abstract, keywords
or all fields. We retrieved bibliographic data with the above query from the Science Cita-
tion Index Expanded, the Social Sciences Citation Index, the Conference Proceedings Ci-
tation Index, and the Book Citation Index by using Web of Science. Data collection was
or all fields.
carried WeFebruary
out in retrieved2022.
bibliographic data with
The number the above query
of publications fromfor
collected thethis
Science Citation
review was
Index
56,408. Expanded, the Social Sciences Citation Index, the Conference Proceedings Citation
Index, and the Book Citation Index by using Web of Science. Data collection was carried
out in
2.2. February 2022. The number of publications collected for this review was 56,408.
Methods
We schematically show our methods in Figure 1. After acquiring relevant publica-
2.2. Methods
tions (Figure 1a), we created citation networks by treating the papers as nodes and the
We schematically show our methods in Figure 1. After acquiring relevant publications
citations as links (Figure 1b). According to a 2009 study by Shibata et al., direct citation is
(Figure 1a), we created citation networks by treating the papers as nodes and the citations
the best approach for finding emerging trends [22]. Therefore, we also used the direct
as links (Figure 1b). According to a 2009 study by Shibata et al., direct citation is the best ap-
citation method. We removed irrelevant papers that were not connected to other papers
proach for finding emerging trends [22]. Therefore, we also used the direct citation method.
in the largest component of the citation network. (Figure 1c). The component includes
We removed irrelevant papers that were not connected to other papers in the largest com-
35,519 papers (63.0%). We divided the network into clusters using the Newman’s algo-
ponent of the citation network. (Figure 1c). The component includes 35,519 papers (63.0%).
rithm
We topological
divided clustering
the network intomethod
clusters after
usingobtaining the largest
the Newman’s connected
algorithm component
topological (Fig-
clustering
ure 1d) [23]. Using this algorithm, we divided clusters into subclusters according
method after obtaining the largest connected component (Figure 1d) [23]. Using this algo- to the
rule of we
rithm, maximizing modularity,
divided clusters which has according
into subclusters been used toin the
previous
rule ofbibliometric
maximizingstudies [24–
modularity,
28].
which has been used in previous bibliometric studies [24–28].
Figure
Figure 1.
1. Methodology
Methodology overview.
overview. (a)
(a) Data
Data acquisition
acquisition from
from Web
Web ofof science;
science; (b)
(b) Creation of aa citation
Creation of citation
network based on the citation relationships of papers; (c) Extraction of largest connected compo-
network based on the citation relationships of papers; (c) Extraction of largest connected components;
nents; (d) Division of citation networks into clusters. In (b–d), each circle and line between circles
(d) Division of citation networks into clusters. In (b–d), each circle and line between circles represent
represent a paper and a citation, respectively.
a paper and a citation, respectively.
Modularity representsthe
Modularity represents thestrength
strengthof ofconnections
connectionswithin withina acluster.
cluster.AAhigh
highmodularity
modular-
ity
means that the connections within a cluster are dense and the connections betweenbetween
means that the connections within a cluster are dense and the connections clusters
clusters areItsparse.
are sparse. worksItwell
works
for well for clusters
citation citation whose
clusterssizes
whosearesizes
moreare more
than than hundreds
hundreds [29]. We
[29]. We characterized
characterized each clustereachbycluster
analyzingby analyzing the term frequency-inverse
the term frequency-inverse document document
frequency
frequency (tf-idf) [30,31]. However, a text-based approach is inferior to
(tf-idf) [30,31]. However, a text-based approach is inferior to the citation-based approach tothe citation-based
approach to analyze corresponding
analyze corresponding relationshipsrelationships
between papers between papers [25].
[25]. Therefore, weTherefore, we used
used a text-based
aapproach
text-based approach to complement the citation-based approach. We
to complement the citation-based approach. We also calculated the ratio of the also calculated the
ratio of the number of citations to those of papers in each cluster to
number of citations to those of papers in each cluster to assess relative importance among assess relative im-
portance among
clusters. After theclusters.
clusters After the clusters
were created, were created,
we named we named
each cluster eachtocluster
according accord-
the content of
ing to thecited
the most content of the
papers mostthe
within cited papers within the cluster.
cluster.
Plastic recycling
recycling research
researchwas wasdivided
dividedinto intoclusters
clusters that depend
that depend on on
their citation
their to-
citation
pology. We analyzed 21 clusters with more than 500 papers (total
topology. We analyzed 21 clusters with more than 500 papers (total number of papers number of papers was
32,962,
was 92.8%),
32,962, and we
92.8%), andfocused on sixon
we focused clusters related
six clusters to plastic
related recycling.
to plastic Since the
recycling. Sincequery
the
is veryiswide,
query very21 clusters
wide, contained
21 clusters those that
contained are that
those not related
are notto plastictorecycling
related (e.g., re-
plastic recycling
cycling
(e.g., of catalyst,
recycling chemical
of catalyst, conversion
chemical of carbon
conversion dioxide,
of carbon recycling
dioxide, of steelofslag,
recycling steelcrust,
slag,
crust, and mantle). The number of papers in the six remaining clusters related to plastic
recycling was 13,248.
3. Results
3.1. Overview of Plastic Recycling Research
Table 1 summarizes the six clusters of plastic recycling. Cluster 1 is the largest cluster,
and it is on plastic recycling in general. Cluster 2 is on waste electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE) and sorting of plastic waste. Cluster 2 has the second largest number of
papers, but the number of papers has been increasing moderately in recent years. Cluster 1
and cluster 2 have relatively high citation per paper which implied significant scientific
work and good knowledge sharing in these fields. Cluster 3 is on the use of plastic waste in
the construction sector. Cluster 3 is an emerging cluster, which shows a younger average
publication year (2016.8). Cluster 3 has the third largest number of papers, but the citation
per paper ratio is relatively low (3.5), which implies less advanced knowledge sharing
where the topic of research is quite specific. Cluster 4 focuses on chemical recycling of
polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Cluster 4 has the highest citation per paper ratio (5.4)
and is assumed to have good knowledge sharing because the average publication year is
oldest (2013.9), and the research topic is more matured. Cluster 5, uses for wood-plastic
composites, is tied with the oldest cluster (2013.9), and the citation/paper ratio is the lowest
(2.7). Cluster 6 is on the recycling of fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) and is the youngest among
the clusters (2017.0). Average publication years for those six clusters are approximately
2015, and most clusters have seen a significant increase in the number of papers since
around 2015. The EU announced their Circular Economy Action Plan in December 2015,
which may have triggered an increase in the number of papers. The increase in the number
of papers in cluster 1, cluster 3, and cluster 6 are particularly remarkable.
Table 1. Information summary of six clusters. Tf-idf is a keyword that characterizes each cluster. “#”
represents a number.
Average Citation/Paper
Cluster # Cluster Name # Papers # Citation Keywords
Publication Year Ratio
Plastic, pyrolysis, packaging,
1 Plastic recycling 2015.2 4442 20,342 4.6
polyethylene, PET
Waste electrical and electronic
PBDEs, plastic, WEEE,
2 equipment (WEEE) and sorting of 2014.6 2287 10,771 4.7
electronic, polybrominated
plastic waste
Use of plastic waste in the concrete, asphalt, aggregate,
3 2016.8 2023 7075 3.5
construction sector mortar, cement
PET, terephthalate, ethylene
Chemical recycling of
4 2013.9 1393 7455 5.4 terephthalate, glycolysis,
polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
depolymerization
composite, wood, fiber,
5 Use for wood-plastic composites 2013.9 1266 3458 2.7 plastic composite, wood
plastic composite
Recycling of fiber reinforced vitrimers, epoxy, carbon
6 2017.0 1072 5627 5.2
plastic (FRP) fiber, CFRP, fiber
In the following sections, we conducted a detailed survey of each cluster. For this
review, clusters with 2000 or more papers (cluster 1–3) were divided into subclusters, and
clusters 4–6 were reviewed as they are.
3.2. Cluster 1: Plastic Recycling

Cluster 1 was classified into six subclusters. A summary of the six subclusters is
shown in Table 2. Subcluster 1-1, recycling by pyrolysis, has the largest number of papers
and the citation per paper ratio is also the largest (4.8), which makes this subcluster the
central theme in cluster 1. Subcluster 1-2 which is on life cycle assessment (LCA) of plastic
recycling is relatively young (2015.7). In recent years, in response to the growing social
interest in recycling plastic waste, LCA research has been vigorously conducted to quantify
the environmental impact of each recycling method from various angles. Subcluster 1-3,
mechanical recycling, ranks third in number of papers but has only increased moderately
in recent years. Subcluster 1-4, biodegradation of plastics, is the youngest among the six
subclusters (2018.7). The citation per paper ratio is also high (3.9) and has shown increasing
publication activity. Subclusters 1-5, bioplastics, is the second youngest of cluster 1 (2017.9).
Subcluster 1-6 is on the recycling of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and is rather old (2012.3).
Table 2. Summary of six subclusters in cluster 1. “#” represents a number.
Cluster # Research Topic # Papers # Citation
1-1 Recycling by pyrolysis 2013.5 772 3736 4.8
1-2 life cycle assessment (LCA) of plastic recycling 2015.7 568 1839 3.2
1-3 Mechanical recycling 2009.9 547 1593 2.9
1-4 Biodegradation of plastics 2018.7 521 2028 3.9
1-5 Bioplastics 2017.9 396 885 2.2
1-6 Recycling of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 2012.3 190 501 2.6
3.2.1. Subcluster 1-1: Recycling by Pyrolysis

The first subcluster is recycling by pyrolysis and thermochemical recycling. Plastics are
polymers—repeating structures of carbon and hydrogen that can be broken down into either
hydrocarbons such as fuels, monomers, or intermediate products in the chemical industry.
This process is known as thermochemical recycling and is broadly classified into pyrolysis,
gasification, depolymerization and upcycling [11]. Hereinafter, thermochemical recycling
is referred to as pyrolysis in a broad sense. Mechanical recycling is an ideal recycling
method in that it recycles plastics from plastic waste. However, it has the disadvantage
that it is difficult to apply to the recycling of dirty plastic waste used for food containers
and packaging, and plastic waste made of composite materials [3,32]. Thorough cleaning,
separation, and sorting of plastic waste is required for mechanical recycling [11]. Pyrolysis
has the advantage of being highly tolerant of dirty waste and composite materials. An
inclusive approach of integrating mechanical recycling and recycling by pyrolysis may
be the most effective approach to addressing plastic recycling challenges [11]. The global
market size of pyrolysis technology was approximately 972.8 million USD in 2019, which is
estimated to grow by 8.2% compound annual growth rate between 2020 and 2027 [33].
One of the most prominent research trends in pyrolysis worldwide is the production of
fuel from plastic waste, with many commercialized plants already utilizing this method [34].
Considerable research has been conducted to optimize reaction conditions (e.g., tempera-
ture, residence time, pressure, equipment, process) and appropriate catalysts (e.g., cobalt,
platinum, zeolite, aluminum chloride, organic matter) for producing fuel, depending on
the type of plastic such as polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), and
PET [3,12,35–38]. There is also research on recycling oils such as lubricants as products
other than fuel [32]. Recently, research on upcycling to produce raw chemical materials
other than fuel is increasing [36,39,40], and a commercial plant that produces ammonia
and carbon monoxide by gasification is also emerging [41]. PS and PET are relatively easy
to monomerize, and research is being conducted to regenerate PS and PET from these
wastes [11,42,43]. There are commercialized plants for PET [43]. Olefin plastics waste such
as PE and PP are difficult to monomerize, and there are not many publications on this
subject. However, a pilot project has recently begun mixing oil produced from olefin waste
plastic with fossil resources and introducing them into the petroleum refining process,
regenerating them into plastics instead of processing them for fuel [6].
The major challenge of pyrolysis is its high energy consumption [36,44], which can
be an obstacle to achieving carbon neutrality. To mitigate this, it is important to develop
a highly efficient and inexpensive catalyst to realize thermal decomposition at lower
temperatures [11]. To develop new catalysts and design highly efficient reaction systems,
detailed research on the conversion mechanism of plastic waste is required [45]. In addition,
recycled raw chemical materials and recycled plastics generated from plastic waste are often
more expensive than virgin materials produced from fossil fuels and other raw materials,
which constitutes a major research challenge [11,46].
3.2.2. Subcluster 1-2: LCA of Plastic Recycling

The second subcluster is LCA of plastic recycling. Plastic waste treatment methods are
broadly divided into mechanical recycling, chemical recycling (which includes feedstock
recycling), biological recycling, energy recovery, and landfill. There are several previ-
ous studies of LCA on these treatment methods from various viewpoints such as global
warming potential, acidification potential, rich nutrition potential, energy consumption
efficiency, and ecosystem impact potential [47–51]. The specifics of waste and treatment
processes differ depending on each country and region, such as collection, transportation,
and sorting methods, and the LCA of each previous study also reflects these regional
characteristics [48,52]. In addition, the method of setting system boundaries also differs
with study, and for these reasons it is difficult to compare and summarize the results of
each study in a strict sense [52].
Regardless of the limitations, there are trends commonly observed in the literature.
Energy recovery is mainly used as a benchmark in analysis, and the differences from
other treatment methods are overviewed as global warming potential (GWP), energy use
(EN), residual solid waste for landfill (SW), acidification potential (AP), and eutrophication
potential (EP). Comparing mechanical recycling and energy recovery, mechanical recycling
has less impact on the environment in GWP, EN, SW, AP, and EP [47,50]. Comparing
chemical recycle and energy recovery, chemical recycle has a smaller environmental impact
from the viewpoint of AP, EP, and EN, but energy recovery has a smaller environmental
impact for GWP and SW [47]; though the impact in GWP has been found to be smaller for
chemical recycling in some studies [53,54]. Comparing mechanical and chemical recycling,
mechanical recycling has lesser impact on the environment in GWP, AP, EP, and EN,
but a higher impact in SW [47]. Comparing energy recovery and landfilling, energy
recovery has a smaller environmental impact in AP, EP, and EN, but a larger impact
in GWP [47,50,55]. Mechanical recycling is considered the most desirable option when
considering only LCA [47,48,50–53,55], but chemical recycling is considered the second
most desirable when considering the other analyses mentioned [52], except for SW [51,55].
Mechanical recycling also has the disadvantage that it cannot recycle dirty plastic waste and
composite waste. In addition, mechanical recycling always generates residue which usually
cannot be recycled. Therefore, mechanical and chemical recycling should not be compared
using LCA alone, and using these two recycling methods in a complementary manner is
most desirable [55,56]. Energy recovery is considered the desirable option for treating waste
for which mechanical and chemical recycling are not suitable. Despite their disadvantages,
these processing methods have less environmental impact than non-recycling [51,52,57].
Deterioration of plastic waste in landfills is approximately 1–5% over 100 years, leading to
potential air and groundwater emissions [52,58]. Over longer time periods, landfilling is
likely to have a greater environmental impact and is considered to be the least desirable
processing option [47,55].
Improvements in recycling technology may change these outcomes. For example,
if automatic waste sorting methods become more sophisticated, mechanical recycling
will be more advantageous. Similarly, technological progress into chemical recycling is
increasing, for example there is rapid development in using pyrolysis at lower temperatures.
Depending on the outcome of this work, the environmental impact of chemical recycling
will be small. Therefore, it is necessary to promote the development of such techniques [55]
and to continue research into LCA to monitor its progress [56]. In order to be able to
compare and summarize LCA research results across methods, the system boundary
conditions should be standardized as much as possible [56]. Furthermore, there are many
LCA studies on post-consumer waste, but there are few LCA studies on post-industry
waste, and further investigation is necessary.
3.2.3. Subcluster 1-3: Mechanical Recycling

The third subcluster is mechanical recycling. Mechanical recycling is the reprocessing
of plastic waste into raw materials and products using physical methods [59]. Mechanical
recycling requires a series of processing and preparation steps [60]. The first stages of the
recycling process are collecting, sorting, shredding, milling, washing and drying. The waste
is then shaped into recycled plastic pellets, powder, or flakes [3,59]. In the second step, the
plastic pellets, powders, or flakes are melted and processed into the final product by resin
molding. Resin molding methods are extrusion molding, injection molding, blow molding,
vacuum molding, inflation molding, and melt spinning [59].
The advantage of mechanical recycling is that it is suitable for decentralized installa-
tions. Mechanical recycling plants are simple, inexpensive, and require less energy and
resources to operate as compared to chemical recycling [10]. However, reprocessed plastics
are inferior to virgin plastics in terms of material properties such as strength, smell, purity,
and color [10].
Compared to virgin plastics, mechanically recycled plastics are divided into three
groups based on the quality and price [10]. The first group is recycled material of the lowest
quality. In this group, waste disposal is more important than maintaining the quality of
recycled materials. Recycling businesses can earn money both by taking orders for recycling
processes and by selling recycled products. Recycled products of this group are used for
non-functional applications such as simple fillers. The second group consists of recycled
products whose quality is not so low, but whose price is lower than that of virgin plastic in
relation to its performance. There is a limit to how much the quality of recycled products
can be improved while maintaining price competitiveness. Lower prices for virgin plastics
will also constrain the price competitiveness of the recycled products in this group. The
third group is recycled products that have the same high performance as virgin plastics but
are priced higher than virgin plastics. These are used in high-performance fields such as
food packaging [10]. Recycled bottles from discarded PET bottles are a typical example. If
“Design for Recycling” (designing virgin plastics to be easy to recycle) is steadily introduced
into the plastics industry and sorting technologies of plastic waste mixtures become more
sophisticated, several problems in groups 2 and 3 can be considerably improved, reducing
the cost of processing recycled products [61].
Among the disadvantages of mechanical recycling, the deterioration of strength is
significant. These limitations are caused by degradation of the polymer’s molecular struc-
ture due to shear during the extrusion process at high temperatures and pressures [59].
Degradation mechanisms vary by polymer type, but changes in polymer chain length and
mechanical properties are common challenges [5]. The term “downcycling” is used as a
comprehensive term to describe the deterioration of material quality after recycling [62].
Antioxidants, chain extenders, blending technologies, fillers, and polymerizers are used
to prevent deterioration in mechanical recycling [5,10,59,63]. For example, stabilizers are
frequently used to control thermo-oxidative degradation during the melting process of
PE and to maintain the quality of recycled products [64]. Stabilizers are also used in PP
to prevent aggressive degradation of the polymer chains during the extrusion process.
These suppression mechanisms are common [5,65]. Stabilizers are commonly used in PVC
to neutralize the generated hydrogen chloride and prevent degradation of the polymer
chains [5,66,67]. PS is susceptible to produce harmful substances to human health and the
quality of the product. Unlike other packaging polymers, the use of fillers can strengthen
the polymer structure of PS [68]. Deterioration of strength in mechanical recycling is a
major problem, and additional work to develop novel low-cost and effective additives is
required [5,63].
3.2.4. Subcluster 1-4: Biodegradation of Plastics

The fourth subcluster is the biodegradation of plastics. Biodegradation is the bio-
logical breakdown of materials with the help of microorganisms [69]. This process is an
environmentally friendly cycle that converts materials into carbon dioxide, methane, and
salts through microbial metabolism [70]. Because plastics are solid polymers linked by
covalent bonds, they degrade slowly in the natural world and have a long lifespan [71].
In recent years, research on biodegradation has been vigorously pursued, but a practical
system capable of biodegrading existing plastics produced from fossil resources has not yet
been developed [71].
Existing fossil-based plastics can be divided into the following three categories based
on biodegradation mechanism [72]. The first is the category of polymers with a carbon skele-
ton such as PE, PS, PP, and PVC. The second is the category of polymers such as PET with
ester-bonded backbones and side chains. The third is a polymer with a hetero/carbonate
(urethane) bond such as polyurethane (PU).
Using PE as an example of the first category, PE is biodegraded in four stages: carbonyl
group formation [72], conversion to carboxylic acid [73], hydrolysis or fragmentation [74],
and microbial metabolism [75], though the detailed biodegradation flow is still unclear [72].
Although many studies have reported that carbon-skeletal plastics are degraded by various
microorganisms, investigations should be conducted to identify the depolymerizing en-
zymes that are key to the biodegradation process. Once identified, biodegradation research
results can be applied industrially [76].
As an example of the second category, studies on the biodegradation mechanism of
PET have mainly focused on bacteria that can digest PET and their functional enzymes. In
2016, Yoshida et al. reported the discovery of a bacterial strain called Ideonella sakaiensis
201-F6 that secretes two enzymes that hydrolyze PET (PETase and MHETase) [77]. This
finding has stimulated researchers in generating significant progress and resulting in the
rapid evolution of structural, kinetics, engineering, and evolution studies [71]. For example,
a thermophilic hydrolase has been identified that is thermally stable at 70 degrees Celsius
(◦ C) [78]. This temperature is close to the glass transition temperature of PET, which is
advantageous for PET decomposition. The bacterium Pseudomonas putida has been shown
to enzymatically hydrolyze PET to produce polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), a raw material
for surfactants [72]. An enzyme produced by the strain HR29 has recently been shown to be
the most robust method for hydrolyzing PET waste due to its excellent activity and thermal
stability [79]. Proposals have also been made for a biodegradation system for PET waste in
a saltwater-based environment by using eukaryotic microalgae instead of bacteria [80].
In the third category, the urethane bond of PU is hydrolyzed during biodegradation [81].
It has been reported that fungi and bacteria can break down polyester-PU blends with the
help of enzymes that can hydrolyze ester bonds [82].
While biodegradation systems for existing fossil resource-derived plastics have not
been put to practical use, biodegradable plastics made from fossil resources have been put
to practical use. These are mainly used in combination with starch and other bioplastics.
The biodegradability and mechanical properties of the combined compounds improve the
performance of starch and other bioplastics [69].
Biodegradable polymers from bioplastics are also being industrialized. Polylactic
acid (PLA), a biodegradable bioplastic, has inferior mechanical/barrier properties when
compared to the existing petroleum-derived plastics. This limits the applications of PLA.
Blending with tough polymers or plasticizing block copolymerization improves the vul-
nerability of PLA [83]. This increases strain at break but decreases tensile strength [84].
Despite these restrictions, PLA remains a promising biodegradable plastic. The mechanical
properties of PLA are similar to those of PS, making it a potentially more sustainable
alternative [83].
Biodegradable PHAs have better mechanical/barrier properties than PLA, but only
account for 1.4% of the bioplastics market. [85]. However, its production level is projected
to quadruple by 2023 [86]. The disadvantage of PHA is its high production cost [87]. PHA
has the potential to substitute PET in bottle applications due to its biodegradability and
outstanding barrier properties [88].
By further improving the applicability of microorganisms, it is possible to develop
microbial cell factories that artificially control the biodegradation of plastic waste. This
will require research to elucidate the biodegradation mechanisms of various types of plas-
tic waste and to identify and manipulate the optimal microbes [72]. A groundbreaking
biodegradation project is about to be put to practical use. This project will gasify municipal
waste including plastic waste, remove impurities, and then biodegrade with microor-
ganisms to produce ethyl alcohol [89], and finally produce plastics by processing ethyl
alcohol [90]. We expect that plastic waste treatment will advance considerably if innovative
efforts are made using new biodegradation technologies.
3.2.5. Subcluster 1-5: Bioplastics

The fifth subcluster is bioplastics. Research on bioplastics has increased rapidly in
recent years due to the serious problems of plastic pollution and to move away from
fossil resources. However, the definition of bioplastics varies from study to study [69,83].
There are three dominant definitions. The first is that bioplastics are polymers derived
from renewable resources and materials or synthesized by microbial metabolism [72].
Simply stated, these are produced from biomass, and hereinafter will be referred to as bio-
based. The second definition is that in addition to bio-based polymers, all biodegradable
polymers are called bioplastics, including polymers derived from fossil resources [91].
The third definition is that only polymers that are bio-based and biodegradable are called
bioplastic [69,83]. This excludes bio-based non-biodegradable polymers and biodegradable
polymers derived from petroleum resources. Disagreement among researchers may have
resulted in consumer confusion. A survey in Australia reported that consumers wanted
many of the products they consume to be biodegradable, and 62% of the people surveyed
dumped bioplastics in miscellaneous waste bins [92]. Australian consumers mistakenly
believe that all bioplastics are biodegradable. In this study, we adopt the first definition
and divide bio-based plastics into non-biodegradable and biodegradable polymers. We
review them mainly in terms of recyclability.
Since bioplastics are derived from non-fossil resources such as plants that absorb
carbon dioxide, they have the advantage of being generally carbon-neutral even if bioplas-
tic waste is energy recovered or incinerated [83,93]. However, energy recovery is not a
desirable treatment because it does not take advantage of the biodegradability of many
types of bioplastics [83].
Examples of non-biodegradable bioplastics are bio-PET and bio-PE. Some beverage
companies, such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Nestle, already sell some beverages partially
(30%) in bio-PET bottles [94]. As a method of producing bio-PET, its precursor, terephthalic
acid (TA), is derived from fossil resources, but since the monomers necessary for production
can be obtained from renewable resources, they can be called bio-based PET [95]. In most
of the bio-PET currently produced, only one of its monomers, ethylene glycol (EG), is
obtained from biomass, and bio-PET is partially bio-based in that respect. Due to technical
problems, TA can only be produced from fossil resources [96]. Extracting lignocellulosic
biomass from forest residues to produce bio-TA could be a solution for manufacturing
100% bio-based PET [97,98].
Theoretically, bio-PE can be produced utilizing the existing petrochemical-based PE
plants [99]. Bio-PET waste with low organic waste contamination should preferably be me-
chanically recycled. It is appropriate to recover low-grade waste through chemical recycling.
Due to the strong interaction between cellulose and PE, mixing PE with lignocellulosic
waste prior to pyrolysis results in an efficient reaction [100].
Bio-PET and bio-PE have the same properties and characteristics as PET and PE
derived from fossil resources, and the same recycling method and equipment can be
utilized [93]. Therefore, it is not necessary to separate bioplastic waste and fossil resource-
derived PET waste for recycling, which is a great practical advantage. Conversely, there
are challenges when attempting to recycle biodegradable bioplastics with other plastic
wastes. Especially in the case of mechanical recycling, it is necessary to sort and separate
only biodegradable bioplastics from other wastes [93].
PLA, a biodegradable bioplastic, is suitable for food packaging because it is permeable
to water, but it is also used to some extent for bottles. Trying to separate PLA bottles from
PET bottles is difficult because both materials are transparent and similar in appearance [93].
In order to properly recycle PET, it is important to separate PLA from PET [93]. When
PLA is mixed in PET at a concentration of 2–5%, the PET clumps and sticks to the walls
inside the apparatus. As little as 0.1% PLA will make recycled PET opaque, and if the PLA
content exceeds 0.3%, the recycled PET will turn yellow [101].
In principle, PLA and PHA waste can be mechanically and chemically recycled when
they are sorted from other wastes, but it is questionable to what extent such sorting can be
achieved at the site of waste collection. If these wastes are separated, they can be composted
at the household or industrial level [93]. However, in household-level composting, care
must be taken that if the composting system is not well managed, it becomes anaerobic
and generates methane, which is harmful to the environment. It should also be noted that
biodegradability and compostability are not always the same. A biodegradable polymer
is one that can be biodegraded, but without a time limit. Compostable means that the
polymer is degraded within the composting time limit and mineralization is initiated in
time for food waste decomposition. Only compostable polymers do not produce materials
with unknown environmental impacts [93]. From a waste management perspective, a
reasonably short time required for biodegradation of the waste is a prerequisite for proper
treatment [102].
Global bioplastics production in 2018 was 2.11 million tons (MT) and is projected to
reach 2.62 MT by 2023 [85]. Despite this rapid market growth, bioplastics still account for
less than 1% of the total plastic production [103]. While bioplastics are environmentally
friendly, they are more expensive to manufacture and have inferior mechanical properties
compared to existing plastics. Biodegradable plastics also have problems such as being
decomposable by a limited number of microorganisms and the inability to control the
environmental conditions and speed of biodegradation. Further research is required to
resolve these issues [104,105].
3.2.6. Subcluster 1-6: Recycling of PVC

The sixth subcluster is PVC recycling. PVC is one of the most used thermoplastics
materials [106]. The unique properties of PVC, high performance, low cost, and combined
with a wide range of applications by a variety of processing conditions and methdologies,
have made PVC a universal polymer [107–109]. PVC is used in a variety of short-life
products such as packaging materials used in foods, cleansing materials, beverage pack-
aging bottles, textiles, medical devices, etc. In addition, PVC is also used in long-life
products such as pipes, flooring, window frames, wallpaper, cable insulation, and roofing
sheets [110]. In recent years, PVC waste has rapidly increased; therefore, effective treatment
has become more and more important [66,107]. Long-life PVC products have a long-time
lag between use and waste discharge, but eventually become waste [54,108,111,112]. As a
result, it should be noted that the amount of waste will increase rapidly in the future as the
end of the life expectancy of long-life PVC products approaches [113].
The presence of chlorine is what characterizes the structure and predominant proper-
ties of PVC, but the inclusion of chlorine is what makes PVC processing difficult. There are
difficult challenges to overcome, such as hydrogen chloride generation in the process of
PVC treatment, which damages the equipment, and generation of harmful substances in
the energy recovery and landfill processes [107,114,115]. Currently, the realistic recycling
method for PVC is limited to mechanical recycling, and only a small percentage of PVC
waste is recycled worldwide [110].
Post-consumer PVC waste is mixed with other plastic waste, and there remains the
challenge of sorting; therefore, it is difficult to establish economical and efficient mechanical
recycling [114]. In fact, products mechanically recycled from mixed waste materials have
low mechanical properties and little applicability [116]. Additionally, when waste plastic
mixtures with PVC are chemically recycled, chlorine must be removed as much as possible
in the recycling process [110]. To avoid such restrictions on mechanical recycling, research
on techniques for chemical recycling of PVC and research on chlorine removal methods
has vigorously pursued in recent years [117,118].
Techniques for separating with different polymer densities have also been studied [110].
One example is a method using a liquid cyclone based on the principle of sorting by cen-
trifugal force. The problem is that the specific gravities of PVC and PET are very similar, so
they cannot be separated solely by density. For automatic separation of PVC and PET, it is
necessary to add a melt filtration system. PVC and PET can be separated at a temperature
of 204 ◦ C, which is below the melting point of PET. Higher temperatures are unsuitable, as
PVC deteriorates at the melting temperature of PET [116,119].
Another method of physical separation is based on various spectroscopies [66,120–122].
For example, X-ray fluorescence can be used to detect characteristic backscattering from
chlorine atoms in PVC. However, since X-rays reflected from chlorine atoms are low in
energy and cannot pass through paper labels often present on PVC waste, alternative meth-
ods, such as laser-induced plasma spectroscopy, have recently been proposed. Laser-based
spectroscopy, however, has the disadvantage of being costly.
Electrostatic separation has been identified recently as a potential alternative to spec-
troscopic detection, which allows the separation of mixed plastics using a friction electro-
static process [123–125]. Different plastics can be either positively or negatively charged
due to different work functions, and and electric fields can be used to separate these
charged plastics.
By adopting both low-temperature dechlorination and mechanochemical treatment
in base hydrolysis of PVC, a product with a low chlorinated compound content can be
obtained. The resultant product does not form toxic chlorination-inducing compounds.
Replacing the water-soluble medium with an organic solvent and chlorine can significantly
reduce the temperature and time of the process [126–130].
The main advantage of hydrothermal treatment of PVC in subcritical water is that no
chlorination-inducing compounds are produced. This is because the chlorine released from
the PVC is converted into fully water-soluble hydrogen chloride. Research into this field is
ongoing [131–138].
Dechlorination by catalytic hydrogenation is an environmentally friendly approach
for the removal of organochlorines from chlorinated compounds. The main advantage of
hydrodechlorination is that the presence of hydrogen effectively removes organic chlorines,
greatly improving the product quality [139–142].
Gasification is the conversion of solid or liquid organic compounds into flammable
gases by heating to high temperatures (1000–2000 ◦ C) in the presence of oxidizing agents.
Gasification of PVC waste in air, steam, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen
make it possible to prepare hydrogen-rich gas with low organic chlorine content that can
be used for power generation [111,143–157].
Practical recycling methods for PVC are currently limited to mechanical recycling;
however, effective and economical pre-sorting is a challenge. Many chemical recycling
methods have been proposed for the recycling and detoxification of PVC, but they have
not reached the level of industrialization. Future research must focus on PVC preselection
and chemical recycling to solve these problems.
3.3. Cluster 2: WEEE and Sorting of Plastic Waste

Cluster 2 was classified into four subclusters. A summary of the four subclusters is
shown in Table 3. Subcluster 2-1, recycling of WEEE, includes general topics in the cluster
and has the largest number of papers. WEEE is rapidly increasing in both developed and
developing countries, and its proper disposal has become a major social problem. As will
be discussed later, pre-sorting methods for plastics containing brominated flame retardants
and safe treatment methods for chemical recycling are key issues in the recycling of plastics
from WEEE. The presence of such challenging research issues and the high level of public
interest are thought to be the factors behind the rapid increase in the number of papers
published in this field.
Table 3. Summary of four subclusters in cluster 2. “#” represents a number.
2-1 Recycling of WEEE 2014.8 340 1283 3.8
2-2 Spectroscopy sorting 2014.1 260 977 3.8
2-3 Flotation separation 2014.3 187 1292 6.9
2-4 Electrostatic separation 2011.2 141 546 3.9
Subclusters 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 are research topics on pre-sorting methods required
before recycling plastic waste, which are important in both mechanical, chemical, and
electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) waste recycling. Subcluster 2-2, spectroscopy
sorting, has the second largest number of papers. Various methods have been proposed for
spectroscopy sorting. Spectroscopy can handle many kinds of plastic waste, which may
help explain the increase of recent publications. Subcluster 2-3, flotation separation, has
the highest citation per paper ratio (6.9). Flotation separation is a technology that uses the
hydrophobicity and wettability of plastics to separate them, and the principle is relatively
simple. Subclusters 2-4 focus on electrostatic separation, which is an economically efficient
way to separate plastic waste due to the relatively simple equipment required. Additionally,
unlike flotation separation, there is no issue of wastewater treatment. However, subcluster
2-4 is a mature research field (2011.2), which seems to indicate that the flotation separation
technology has reached the stage of practical application. The subclusters of cluster 2
generally have older average years of publication and a higher citation per paper ratio than
the subclusters of cluster 1, suggesting that cluster 2 is a research topic that has attracted
attention for a long time relative to cluster 1.
3.3.1. Subcluster 2-1: Recycling of WEEE

The first subcluster is the recycling of WEEE. Plastic from WEEE is increasing rapidly,
including in developing countries, and potential treatment of WEEE is being heavily
studied. WEEE is made up of a variety of recyclable components such as iron and non-iron
materials, glass, and plastics. Plastic parts make up 10–30% by weight of WEEE and are
the second largest component after iron [158]. A variety of plastics are used for EEE, of
which acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS), high impact polystyrene (HIPS), and PS are
the most commonly used polymers. Flame retardants (FR) are used in EEE plastics to meet
fire regulations. FR are chemicals added to the polymer structure to suppress ignition
and reduce flammability of products [159]. FR pose a major challenge in the treatment of
EEE plastic waste. A wide variety of chemicals are used as FR, including nonorganic and
organic compounds. There are two types of organic FR: phosphorus-based FR and halogen-
based FR. Halogen-based FR includes brominated FR (BFR) and chlorinated FR [160].
Approximately 30% of the plastics used for EEE contain FR [161]. The term BFR is a generic
term meaning bromine-loaded FR. BFR include compounds such as aliphatic and aromatic
compounds There are more than 75 types of BFR, and the main difference between them is
the position of the bromine atom in the chemical structure [162].
Halogen-based FR are known to be problematic, and BFR is especially widely used. In
particular, BFR have been found to be harmful to ecosystems and humans, accumulating in
the body [162]. For this reason, some chemical substances in BFR are prohibited from being
manufactured or used by international treaties [162–164]. These banned BFR (hereinafter
referred to as legacy additives) are no longer used in new EEE; however, older EEE still
contain legacy additives [164]. Due to the unregulated recycling of old EEE, BFR degrade
into hazardous low-molecular-weight compounds in landfills. This can be a source of BFR
leaking into the environment [165]. Hazardous BFR waste is transported both legally and
illegally to areas where labor costs are low. Although cross-border movement of plastics
containing legacy additives to developing countries is prohibited, due to changes in export
declarations and inadequate cross-border management, these hazardous substances are
still being carried to areas where waste management systems are less developed [164]. As
much as 1818 kg of harmful brominated low-molecular-weight compounds are released
into the environment every year around the world, especially in disposal sites in Asia [166].
In EEE, the utmost care must be taken when processing BFR-containing plastics [164,167].
Mechanical recycling is the most desirable method for treating EEE plastic waste,
and most of the recycling currently performed is mechanical recycling [167,168]. Prior
separation of BRF-containing plastics is required for mechanical recycling, which increases
the processing cost. The most common automated sorting method is sorting by specific
gravity [169].
A sorting method using infrared rays or X-rays has been extensively studied in recent
years [170–174]. For mechanical recycling, it is also necessary to presort by type of plastic
such as ABS, HIPS, and PS, which increases the processing cost. For this reason, there are
many studies that mechanically recycle the blended plastics, which are often used in EEE,
without sorting them [171,172,175–177].
Research on BFR chemical recycling can be broadly divided into three methods [178]. One
is a method of dehalogenating plastics before pyrolyzing. The method of first dehalogenating
and then decomposing the plastics is called the two-stage pyrolysis method [178–180]. The
second is a method of simultaneously performing dehalogenation and thermal decomposi-
tion [178,181,182]. The third method is to first pyrolyze the plastics and then decontaminate
the pyrolysized oil [178,183,184].
A phosphorus-based FR is used as a non-halogen-based FR; however, it has been
pointed out that phosphorus-based FR is also harmful to the human body, and no safe and
versatile FR has thus far been found. For this reason, it is assumed that BFR will continue
to be used as the main FR, and further research on safe, economical, and environmentally
friendly recycling methods for BFR is needed.
3.3.2. Subcluster 2-2: Spectroscopy Sorting

The second subcluster is spectroscopy sorting (SS). SS utilizes sensors to detect the
presence and location of recyclable plastics within the waste and sorts the detected recy-
clables using automated machinery or robots [185]. SS can be broadly classified into three
types. The first is spectral imaging-based sorting, the second is X-ray based sorting, and
the third is laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) [185].
Spectral imaging consists of image processing technologies and spectral reflectance
measurement [186]. There is considerable research in this area on near infrared radiation
(NIR), visual image spectroscopy (VIS), and hyperspectral imaging (HSI). In spectroscopy-
based techniques, light of a given frequency is projected onto the plastic waste. Due
to the interaction between light and plastics, different types of plastics reflect different
wavelengths of light. Various sensors, such as NIR sensors, read the reflected light to
identify the type of plastics, which is then sorted [185]. A technique was developed to
identify PP in mixed waste using VIS [187]. HSI-based approaches aim to recover high-
purity PP and PE in the NIR range (1000–1700 nm) [188]. A method for rapid classification of
PET, PE, PP, PS, and PLA was developed by combining NIR spectroscopy and independent
component analysis [189]. However, this technique cannot effectively detect black polymer
materials due to its high absorption.
As X-ray images can be captured within milliseconds, X-ray based sorting is fast [185].
A high intensity X-ray beam is used in the imaging module. X-rays penetrate the material
and hit the bottom detector after being absorbed by the material. Information about the
atomic density of materials is obtained by analysis of the detected radiation. In the sorting
of plastic waste, X-ray fluorescence (XRF) type detectors are used. In XRF, an external laser
source excites individual atoms, emitting X-ray photons. Although it has been pointed
out that this technology can only be applied when recovering PVC from plastics such
as PET and PP [190], it is an extremely important technology for recycling PVC. Energy
dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF) has been proposed as an innovative technology that
can improve the accuracy of PP sorting. EDXRF can recognize black polymer and surface
contamination [191].
LIBS is considered to be the most promising novel elemental analysis method [192–194].
LIBS typically consists of an intense pulsed laser to generate plasma, an optical system to
focus and collect the light, and a spectrometer [192]. It is reported that LIBS can distinguish
various plastics such as PE, PP, PS, PET, and even PVC [195]. In addition, it has been
reported that bromine can be detected [193], and attention is focused on its application to
the separation and recycling of WEEE.
SS is one of the most widely used sorting methods at recycling sites; however, there
are several types of plastics, and the shapes and characteristics of plastic waste are diverse.
SS is a technology that has the potential to further improve the accuracy and economic
efficiency of sorting a wide variety of plastic wastes.
3.3.3. Subcluster 2-3: Flotation Separation

The third subcluster is flotation separation. Flotation separation is a technology that
uses the hydrophobicity of plastics to sort plastics based on the difference in their ability to
float on water. The principle is to selectively hydrophobize the plastic surface to control
its contact with air bubbles. The wettability between different plastics must be sufficiently
different for selective contact with air bubbles [196]. There are two main approaches to
flotation separation [197]. One is to selectively convert hydrophobic plastics to be wettable.
Alternatively, wettable plastics can be selectively converted to be hydrophobic [196]. The
main difficulty in plastic flotation is finding an effective way to selectively wet the plastics.
For example, there are methods of reducing liquid-vapor surface tension (referred to as
gamma flotation), methods of changing chemical conditions, and methods of surface
treatment [198]. Flotation separation is categorized into four groups: gamma flotation,
adsorption of reagents, surface modification, and physical regulation [196].
The first category, gamma flotation, can be achieved by lowering the liquid surface
tension to some value between the two plastics [196]. With the help of plasticizers, PVC
can be rendered hydrophobic and successfully separated from PET [199]. Various wetting
agents such as sodium dodecyl sulfate have been investigated for the flotation separation
of PET, PVC, polycarbonate (PC), and PS [200]. Gamma flotation often does not work well
for sorting two or more plastics [196].
The second category, adsorption of hydrophilic reagents, is a promising option to
selectively reduce the hydrophobicity of plastics. Flotation reagents are used to selec-
tively wet plastics surfaces and are called wetting agents. Suitable wetting agents are
molecular groups that have the ability to adsorb to plastics surfaces and make them
hydrophobic [196]. Studies on wetting agents suitable for plastic flotation include tannic
acid [201], methylcellulose [202] and lignosulfonates [196].
The third category, physical techniques, can change the wettability of plastics surfaces,
and this method is called surface modification or surface treatment. There are many
studies on physical methods to increase the hydrophobicity of plastics surfaces, such as
flame treatment [203], wet oxidation [196], ozonation [204], and plasma treatment [197].
Separation of PET from other plastics has been achieved on the bench scale by involving
an alkaline treatment [205]. By administering an ammonia treatment, ABS and PC could
be separated by flotation separation, and the maximum purities of ABS and PC using this
method were 99.72% and 99.23%, respectively [206].
The fourth category is physical regulation. Unlike surface modification, physical
regulation is based on essential physical properties and does not involve chemical reactions.
Boiling treatment can effectively change the surface of ABS to be hydrophobic [207]. There
are studies on the feasibility of separating chlorinated plastics from other plastic waste by
selectively twisting PVC or PVC films [208].
A major challenge with flotation separation studies is that much of the work has been
done on virgin plastics rather than plastic waste [196]. Compared to virgin plastics, plastic
waste has differing properties, and the behavior of the flotation mechanism also differs. A
better understanding of these differences is necessary.
3.3.4. Subcluster 2-4: Electrostatic Separation

The fourth subcluster is electrostatic separation. It is well known that two ma-
terials with different surface properties become charged when they come into contact.
This is the tribocharging phenomenon, also known as contact electrification or frictional
electrification [209]. Electrostatic separation is a method of separating two different plastics
by charging them positively and negatively using the principle of tribocharging. Since
plastics usually have different surface properties (i.e., effective surface work functions),
electrostatic separation can ensure sorting of plastic waste [210]. Although it is difficult to
accurately measure the work function of all plastic wastes with rough surfaces, electrostatic
separation can be used to determine positive and negative charging only due to the relative
work function differences between different plastic wastes [211].
PVC can be hazardous depending on how it is processed, making its sorting and
recycling an important challenge. PVC, on the other hand, is the most highly negatively
charged except for polytetrafluoroethylene and can be easily separated by electrostatic
separation [212]. One of the advantages is that there is no need to worry about pollution
from wastewater treatment, as water is not used for flotation separation. In addition,
electrostatic separation requires a relatively simple apparatus; therefore, it is economical
and can separate efficiently [210].
Plastic waste is usually pulverized to a suitable size, sieved, and the mixed particles
are charged by a triboelectric charger. An electric field is then applied for deflection, and
particles are then collected. In the device, there are mainly three types of collisions that
affect the charge of the particles—contact between particles of different plastics, contact
between particles of the same plastics, and contact between particles and the wall material
of the device [213]. The polarity and magnitude of charge on plastic surfaces are affected
by a combination of these three mechanisms, the most significant being contact between
different types of plastics. In fact, tribocharging occurs only at a depth of as little as 30 nm
on the plastics surface [214].
Humidity control is one challenge with electrostatic separation. In most cases, low
humidity leads to high efficiency [210]. However, the performance of dehumidifiers in
factories is generally limited, and it is difficult to maintain humidity below 20% [215]. In
electrostatic separation, it is difficult to separate three or more types of plastics at once. A
series of two or more repeated electrostatic separations can be a solution [211].
The mechanism of particle collision in the charging step still needs to be better un-
derstood. The ability to build a micro-level collision model to better understand the
charging behavior of plastics particles will help control triboelectric charging efficiency.
Several numerical models have been proposed, but there is much more that still needs to
be investigated.
3.4. Cluster 3: Use of Plastic Waste in the Construction Sector

Cluster 3 is divided into two subclusters and both of them are relatively young. A
summary of the two subclusters is shown in Table 4. Subcluster 3-1 is on the use of recycled
plastics in concrete, and its citation per paper ratio (6.4) is higher than that of subcluster
3-2 (3.1). The advantage of this method is that a large amount of plastic waste can be
treated when recycled plastics are available as aggregates for concrete, which may explain
why research in this field is so vigorous. However, compared to the existing aggregates,
mixing plastics into concrete deteriorates mechanical properties such as strength. It also
reduces fluidity, making it difficult to handle at construction sites. There are several studies
proposing solutions to these problems. Subcluster 3-2 is on use of recycled plastics in as-
phalt. Incorporation of recycled plastics into asphalt tends to improve the performance and
durability of asphalt pavements and is being intensively researched for wider application
on roads. Regarding the use of plastics in the construction sector, the use for asphalt is
seemed to be a more feasible method than the use for concrete. It is thought that more
researchers are interested in the use for concrete as it is a challenging topic that is difficult
to apply to the real world.
Table 4. Summary of two subclusters in cluster 3. “#” represents a number.
Cluster # Name of Cluster # Papers # Citation
3-1 Use of recycled plastics in concrete 2017.1 316 2028 6.4
3-2 Use of recycled plastics in asphalt 2017.5 236 734 3.1
3.4.1. Subcluster 3-1: Use of Recycled Plastics in Concrete

The first subcluster is the use of recycled plastics as raw material for concrete. Gen-
erally, concrete is mixed with aggregate (usually sand or gravel is used). By substituting
plastics for a portion of sand and gravel, the plastics can be mixed into concrete as an aggre-
gate at the concrete casting site. Mixing plastics into concrete as an aggregate suppresses
heat generation and shrinkage when the concrete hardens, and helps prevent cracks. In
addition, since cement paste and mortar, which are the main raw materials of concrete,
are expensive, the amount of these expensive raw materials used can be reduced, and
the construction cost can be suppressed by mixing plastics. Although much research has
been done on the use of recycled plastics in concrete, there are few papers on their field
applications. Demand for concrete is high around the world, and if recycled plastics can be
used as aggregate, a large amount of plastic waste can be processed. For this reason, the
existing body of research is large, and it is currently an active field of study [216–218]. As
the proportion of plastics in concrete increases, mechanical properties such as compressive
strength, flexural strength, tensile strength, and elastic modulus decrease [216]. Replacing
20% of the existing aggregate with plastics reduces compressive strength by 72%. However,
a 5% replacement results in only a 23% decrease in compressive strength [219]. Substi-
tuting with PET at a rate of 15% decreased flexural strength by 16% for pellet-type PET
and by 60% for thin-form PET [220]. When fine aggregate is replaced by 10%, the tensile
strength decreases by 8.7%, and when it is replaced by 20%, the tensile strength decreases
by 54% [221]. Several studies have reported that as the content of plastics increases, the
ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV), which reflects the quality of concrete, also decreases [216].
The value of UPV decreases with increasing content of PVC in concrete. However, the
reduction is less than 16% if the PVC replacement rate is up to 45%. Replacing up to 85%
reduces the UPV value by 30% [222]. Utilizing plastics as aggregate reduces concrete slump
(i.e., reduces flowability) and results in concrete that is difficult to handle on construction
sites. Replacing 20% of the fine aggregate with plastics has been reported to reduce slump
values by up to 50% [223]. These characteristics are thought to be due to the low density
of plastics, irregular shapes and sizes, and sharp corners of recycled plastic fragments.
Plastics do not mix well with the existing aggregates, and water absorption, permeability,
and carbonation of concrete enhance with increasing plastic content, adversely affecting
the concrete durability [216].
Concrete made with recycled plastics is inferior to existing concrete in many respects.
However, it is expected that concrete containing plastics will be used for non-structural
materials that do not require high strength and applications that do not require high
durability. Possible applications include highway median strips, temporary structures, and
general-purpose bricks and blocks (for example, riverbanks) [216,217]. Applications in
concrete pavement and sports courts are also mentioned. Concrete with plastic aggregate
has a high water absorption rate, which helps with the proper drainage of rainwater. The
use of additives such as superplasticizers can increase the flexibility of plastic-containing
concrete and potentially improve the workability of concrete, thus reducing the challenges
at construction sites. Plastic-containing concrete has a lower density, but lighter concrete
could open up new uses. Furthermore, the possibility of applying new additives may
complement the mechanical properties of plastic-containing concrete [216].
In solving the plastic waste problem, the use of recycled plastics as aggregate for
concrete has great potential. Several issues remain, including the improvement of me-
chanical properties, long-term behavior change of mechanical properties, improvement of
durability, development of additives to compensate for these shortcomings, elucidation
of the optimal shape and size of plastics to mitigate performance degradation, and heat
insulation and sound insulation properties [216–218] There are many themes in this field,
which will require extensive research to resolve the numerous problems identified.
3.4.2. Subcluster 3-2: Use of Recycled Plastics in Asphalt

The second subcluster is the utilization of recycled plastics in asphalt. Asphalt is
a hydrocarbon containing material with chemical similarities to plastics. There is a con-
sensus among researchers that recycled plastics, when properly blended with asphalt
under optimal conditions, significantly improves the performance and longevity of as-
phalt pavements [224]. For example, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) is a class of polymers
that modifies asphalt by forming a tough, rigid, three-dimensional network that resists
deformation, and virgin EVA has been used in road construction for many years [225]. The
use of recycled plastics for asphalt provides a solution to the problem of waste treatment,
improves the performance and economic efficiency of asphalt pavement, and may lead to
cost reduction in the long term [226]. For example, it has been reported that approximately
1 ton of asphalt can be saved by constructing a 1 km long road (3.75 m wide) with asphalt
using recycled plastics [227]. For these reasons, there has been increasing research into the
utilization of recycled plastics in asphalt.
There are two methods of paving with asphalt-containing plastics [228]. One is the
dry method, in which plastics are incorporated into hot aggregates prior to the addition of
binders. This method applies in most cases to hard plastic types with high melting points
such as high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and PET. The hardness and stiffness of recycled
plastics particles play a role similar to the fine aggregate that is the skeleton of the asphalt
mixture and contributes to its integrity [228]. Another method is the wet method, which
involves adding plastics directly to the asphalt binder as a modifier before mixing it with
aggregate. Low melting point plastics such as low density PE (LDPE) and PP are suitable
for this method.
Since the effects and characteristics of asphalt mixtures differ depending on the type
of plastics used, research has been conducted according to the type of plastic. PET is mainly
used in dry processes, and when used as an aggregate substitute for asphalt mixtures,
it increases stiffness and improves both rutting and fatigue resistance [229]. Conversely,
it has been reported that thermal cracking and moisture resistance are impaired [230].
PET-modified asphalt can weaken the bond between aggregates and asphalt in asphalt
mixtures [231]. This is due to the high stability and inert nature of plastics, and it is
recommended to add an oxidizing agent to activate the plastic surface [232]. HDPE is
mainly used in dry processes due to its high density and high rigidity. PS is mainly used
in dry process. PS increases asphalt hardness and improves rutting resistance [233]. The
addition of PS hardens the asphalt mix and improves its resistance to moisture damage,
although its impact on resistance to rutting and fatigue cracking is inconclusive.
LDPE is mainly used in wet processes, which require high shear rates and high
temperatures to fully dissolve the LDPE into the asphalt. Although it is generally accepted
that the addition of LDPE to asphalt improves rutting, fatigue, and moisture resistance,
the results of thermal cracking resistance differ from study to study [228]. PP is mainly
used in wet processes, and when added to asphalt, it increases hardness and contributes
to improving rutting resistance. On the other hand, PP reduces the ductility of asphalt,
resulting in more air voids. One study demonstrated that increased air voids resulted in
impaired rutting resistance [234].
As experimental levels of research, asphalt mixed with recycled plastics are likely to
be stiffer, resulting in overall improvements in viscosity, strength, rutting resistance, and
fatigue resistance. However, verification of the performance of asphalt mixed with recy-
cled plastics ultimately needs to be confirmed by field projects that use it for road paving.
Several field projects have so far been carried out in India, South Africa, New Zealand,
Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, and other countries, with posi-
tive performance results in terms of workability, constructability, and sustainability [228].
However, few field projects have studied long-term performance, and it is not clear whether
the performance of asphalt mixed with recycled plastics will be sustained over longer time
periods. Further research into the long-term viability of plastic-containing asphalt, as well
as the effects of asphalt mixtures on parameters such as fatigue resistance, thermal crack
resistance, and moisture resistance is needed.
3.5. Cluster 4: Chemical Recycling of PET

In cluster 4, recycling methods (chemical, mechanical, etc.) are being studied for
various plastics such as PET, PLA, PU, and PC. Among these, the number of studies on
chemical recycling of PET is the largest, and the number of studies has been increasing in
recent years. Therefore, here we focus on the chemical recycling of PET. Chemical recycling
methods for PET are roughly divided into pyrolysis, hydrolysis, methanolysis, glycolysis,
and aminolysis [235,236].
Hydrolysis converts PET chains into value-added products, especially TA and EG.
There are three types of hydrolysis: neutral hydrolysis, oxidative hydrolysis, and alkaline
hydrolysis [237]. A significant disadvantage of the hydrolysis process is the need for high
temperatures of 200–250 and high pressures of up to 1.4–2 MPa. Acid hydrolysis also has
the drawback of being corrosive and contaminating [235].
PET is also decomposed by high-temperature, high-pressure methanolysis, and EG
and dimethyl terephthalate are obtained as main products [238]. A disadvantage of this
process is that the reaction products such as alcohols, glycols and terephthalate derivatives
have to be separated and purified, which is very expensive [238].
Glycolysis is considered to be the best recycling method for PET due to its short
reaction time and wide temperature range. However, glycolysis produces undesirable
products such as diethylene glycol and dimers of EG, which pose challenges in terms of
separation and purification [236].
Aminolysis of PET produces diamides of TA and EG. The reaction is carried out
in the temperature range of 20–100 ◦ C by methods using amines and water, including
methylamine, ethylamine, and ethanolamine [239]. Aminolysis has the advantage of being
carried out under mild conditions, but the decomposition rate needs to be accelerated to
reach the optimum reaction time [240].
Each chemical recycling method has advantages and disadvantages. Various research
strategies should be pursued to develop more moderate reaction conditions for chemical
recycling of PET and make the recycling method more feasible [235].
3.6. Cluster 5: Use for Wood-Plastics Composites

The fifth cluster is the use of plastic waste for wood-plastic composites (WPC). WPC
is used for applications such as floor carpets, vases, waste baskets, lecture benches, and
picnic tables. In recent years, the quantity of recycled plastics used for WPC has in-
creased significantly in developed and developing countries [241]. WPC using recycled
plastics have comparable or sometimes better flexural and tensile strengths than WPC
using virgin plastics [242]. The absorption of water by WPC and the resulting thickness
expansion are the most important properties when considering its end use in the natural
environment [241]. In comparing the water absorption of WPC using recycled plastics with
WPC using virgin plastics, studies have yielded mixed results. There are reports that the
two are equivalent [243]. However, there are also contradicting reports that WPC using
virgin plastics is superior [244] or that recycled plastic-based is superior [245].
In contrast to flexural strength, tensile strength, and hygroscopic properties, almost

all studies show lower impact strength values for WPC made from recycled plastics than
that made from virgin plastics [242]. Recycled plastics are available from various sources.
Since the storage period and reprocessing conditions of recycled plastics also vary, different
materials may exhibit different performance. Research on WPC using recycled plastics is
still insufficient.
3.7. Cluster 6: Recycling of FRP

The sixth cluster is recycling of FRP. The plastics used in FRP are classified into
thermoplastic resins (such as PE, PU, and PP) and thermosetting resins (epoxy, vinyl, etc.).
Thermoplastic resins have a branched grain structure, soft properties, and the ability to
retain their basic shape. Conversely, thermosetting resins are difficult to reshape or convert
back to their monomers due to their tightly bound and crosslinked structures [241].
There are two methods of recycling FRP: mechanical and chemical [241]. In mechanical
recycling, after sorting, cutting, shredding, and crushing, it is reduced in size in high-speed
mills or rotary cutter sections into particles ranging from less than 50 µm to 10 mm. It is
then separated into coarse (fibrous) and fine (powder) products using cyclones and sieves
or by electrostatic separators. Coarse particles, which are usually mostly fibrous, can be
reused in bulk molding compound composites. Microparticles, mostly powders, can be
reused in bulk molding compound and sheet molding compound composites [246]. There
are many studies attempting to determine the viability of using crushed FRP waste as
concrete aggregate. Compressive strength, impact resistance, and bending strength are
increased by mixing FRP waste into concrete. Increasing the ratio of mixed FRP waste to
concrete enhances these properties.
Chemical recycling includes methods such as low temperature solvolysis, sub-supercritical
solvolysis, glycolysis, and hydrolysis [247]. The primary purpose of chemical recycling of
FRP is the collection and recycling of fibers rather than plastics, and several studies have
been conducted on this process. Conversely, some studies report that plastics can also be
decomposed and recovered in the process of chemical recycling. For example, ethylene
oligomers depolymerized from thermosetting FRP can be reused as reactive components to
produce advanced epoxy materials with high strength and elastic modulus [248]. Chemical
recycling using zinc chloride and ethanol as catalysts yields decomposed matrix polymer
(DMP) as an oligomer. With DMP as a reactive component, when 15% DMP by weight is
added for FRP regeneration, the resulting crosslinked polymer maintains high strength and
elastic modulus compared to the virgin polymer without DMP [249]. Glycolysis can break
down epoxy resin into monomers, which can potentially be used to create chemicals [250].
Recycled FRP is beginning to be used in applications such as aircraft, automobiles,
wind turbines, construction, household goods and sporting goods. Further research is
needed to expand its application range and develop safe and economical recycling methods
for various FRP wastes.
4. Discussion
In the earlier section, we have systematically reviewed the major fields and trends
in plastic recycling research. In the following, the discussion is broadly divided into
three perspectives. First, we discuss the characteristics and research trends of emerging
clusters. Second, representative recycling methods are discussed from the perspective of
sustainability and processing costs. Third, we discuss plastic recycling from a national and
global perspective.
As a first perspective, we discuss the emerging research areas of plastic recycling.
Table 5 lists the younger subcluster with an average publication year of 2017 and beyond.
There are two points common to each subcluster in Table 5. The first is that the research
pursues a third recycling method that is neither mechanical nor chemical recycling, which
are currently mainstream recycling methods. The average publication year for mechanical
recycling is 2009.9, and the average publication year for chemical recycling (pyrolysis)
is 2013.5, both of which are older than clusters listed in Table 5. The second is that the
recycling methods studied in Table 5 emit little carbon dioxide. When biodegradable
plastics are degraded by the action of microorganisms, the amount of carbon dioxide
emitted is far less than mechanical or chemical recycling. Bioplastics are produced by
renewable resources such as plants and by the action of microorganisms, and are naturally
carbon-neutral materials [83,93]. Mixing recycled plastic into concrete or asphalt essentially
emit less additional carbon dioxide.
Table 5. Summary of emerging research subcluster. “#” represents a number.
1-4 Biodegradation of plastics 2018.7 521 2028 3.9
1-5 Bioplastics 2017.9 396 885 2.2
3-1 Use of recycled plastics in concrete 2017.1 316 2028 6.4
3-2 Use of recycled plastics in asphalt 2017.5 236 734 3.1
There are remaining issues for these emerging research. For subcluster 1-4, “biodegra-
dation of plastics,” it will be necessary to elucidate the biodegradation mechanism according
to the type of plastic, search for optimal microorganisms and operating conditions. For
subcluster 1-5, “bioplastics,” it is needed to develop less expensive production methods
and bioplastics having improved mechanical properties. Regarding subcluster 3-1, “use of
recycled plastics in concrete,” improvement of strength and durability and development of
additives to compensate for deterioration in properties are crucial issues. For subcluster
3-2, “use of recycled plastics in asphalt,” it is important to demonstrate durability in actual
use cases.
As a second perspective, we will discuss plastic methods from the view of sustain-
ability and processing costs. Mechanical recycling is an ideal recycling method in that
plastics can be recycled from plastics. However, mechanically recycled plastics generally
deteriorate in quality and strength, and it is difficult to mechanically recycle the recycled
plastics once again after use [10]. In particular, when post-consumer plastics are mechani-
cally recycled, deterioration in quality and strength is remarkable. Mechanical recycling
remains a challenge in terms of sustainability in that the plastics cannot be recycled over
and over again. Since mechanical recycling can be produced in a relatively small-scale plant,
the burden of equipment investment is light, and the amount of energy used is relatively
small, the processing cost is lower than that of chemical and biological recycling [10]. User
companies of recycled plastic are demanding lower prices than virgin plastic, and in this
respect mechanical recycling is fully on a commercial basis.
Chemical recycling, such as pyrolysis, is more sustainable in that the same material
can be recycled over and over again with little deterioration in quality or strength of the
recycled plastics. However, with current technology, chemical recycling is more energy
intensive [36,44] and emits more carbon dioxide than mechanical or biological recycling,
which poses sustainability challenges in this regard. Chemical recycling requires the
construction of a chemical plant, and the processing cost is generally high unless the plant
is of a large production scale [11,46]. At present, there are many relatively small-scale
chemical recycling plants, and processing cost tends to be higher than mechanical recycling.
Biological recycling can be broadly classified into two types. One method is to bi-
ologically decompose petroleum-derived plastics using microorganisms. Another is a
method of spontaneous decomposition under specific natural conditions as some plastics
are biodegradable. Both methods are superior from a sustainability point of view because
they do not require a large amount of energy to decompose plastics [70]. The former is
still at the stage of research on the optimum microorganisms and decomposition mecha-
nism, and the processing cost is unknown because it has not been industrialized. As for
the latter, since the recycling method for biodegradable plastics such as PLA is different
from that for other plastics, it is premised on sorting by consumers, but it is difficult to
distinguish the type of plastics just by looking at the appearance [93]. Therefore, there is
a challenge from the viewpoint of sustainability in that recycling methods have not been
established. Although biodegradable plastics have been industrialized, the market scale
is still small [103], and processing cost remains at an extensively high level compared to
general virgin plastics [87].
As a third perspective, plastic recycling will be divided into four issues and discussed
from the two points of view: a national and global. The first issue is the discussion of
countries with a large number of papers, comparing them with the plastic waste disposal
situation, such as the recycling rate and landfill rate.
We collected data on current and past plastic waste and recycling research and ana-
lyzed the relationships amoung them, as well as quantified the number of papers by each
country. Table 6 lists the countries in cluster 1 in descending order of the number of publi-
cations focused on each country, and describes the post-consumer waste amount, recycling
rate, energy recovery rate, incineration rate, landfilling rate, environmental awareness, and
population of each country.
Table 6. Various statistics on plastic waste management, relative publication frequency, and environ-
mental awareness by country in Cluster 1. “#” represents a number.
Share of Waste Energy Environmental Population

Rank Country Year Recycling Incineration Landfill Untreated
Papers Amount (mt) Recovery Awareness (m person)
1 China 12.4% 2020 130.30 28.0% N.A. 32.0% 34.0% 6.0% 92% 1410.9
2 USA 11.1% 2018 35.68 8.7% 15.8% 0.0% 75.6% <1.0% 71% 331.5
3 Italy 7.5% 2018 3.64 31.4% 32.8% 0.0% 35.8% <1.0% 86% 59.4
4 Germany 6.9% 2018 5.32 38.6% 60.7% 0.0% 0.7% <1.0% 81% 83.2
5 England 6.7% 2018 3.95 32.0% 45.7% 0.0% 22.4% <1.0% 86% 67.2
6 Spain 6.2% 2018 2.57 41.9% 19.3% 0.0% 38.8% <1.0% 85% 47.4
7 India 5.9% 2016 8.54 5–25% N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 82% 1380.0
8 Japan 5.2% 2020 4.10 23.2% 62.2% 12.0% 2.9% <1.0% 56% 125.8
9 Brazil 4.7% 2018 7.90 2.2% N.A. N.A. 59.5% 24.4% 86% 212.6
10 Netherlands 3.2% 2018 0.94 33.7% 65.8% 0.0% 0.4% <1.0% 73% 17.4
Data source: Data for the United States are taken from the US Environmental Protection Agency [7]. Data for
European countries are taken from Plastics Europe [8]. The Japanese data quotes the research results of the Plastic
Waste Management Institute [251]. Data for China are taken from a paper by Luan et al. [252]. Data for India are
taken from Liang et al. [253] and Siddiqui et al. [254]. Data for Brazil are taken from a paper by Sandro et al. [255].
The Year column lists the year for which the data were obtained at these references. Environmental awareness
indicates the percentage of people who want to buy products with as little plastic packaging as possible [256].
China, which ranks first in the number of publications, has a lower recycling rate than
European countries listed and a higher landfill rate than the average of the top 10 countries.
Six percent of China’s plastic waste is not properly disposed and may have been released
into the environment. The amount of post-consumer plastic waste per capita is second only
to the United States. In these respects, China faces major challenges in realizing a circular
economy. On the other hand, the public’s environmental awareness is extremely high. To
meet these challenges, in recent years, the Chinese government has tightened regulations
on plastic waste and increased funding for research on how to deal with plastic waste,
according to the head of a Chinese plastics industry association: ”China Plastics Processing
Industry Association”. Such initiatives by the Chinese government are also thought to be a
factor in boosting the number of papers published.
The United States, which ranks second in number of publications, has the highest
landfill rate among the top 10 countries. Despite its high ranking in number of publications,
such a high research capability seems not to be utilized for increasing their plastic recycling
rate. Since the United States has a large land area, landfilling is considered to be the most
economical disposal method. Per capita post-consumer plastic waste is the highest of the
top 10 countries. Landfilling is the least favorable handling method in the circular economy,
and in order to solve this problem the United States should be more enthusiastic about
researching plastic recycling (e.g., researching into improving the economics of recycling
to make it more economical than landfilling) than it is now. In addition, the results of
advanced recycling research in the United States should be vigorously put to practical use,
and the recycling rate and landfill rate should be improved. Until economically viable
options are researched, the United States should intensively implement already existing
technology through policy to mitigate the accumulation and environmental impacts of
landfill waste.
The four European countries on this list (Italy, Germany, England, and Spain), which
rank in the middle in terms of number of publications, have higher recycling rates than the
Asian countries in the top 10 and the United States. The amount of post-consumer plastic
waste per capita is close to the average of the top 10 countries. Environmental awareness is
generally high, and these factors are thought to be increasing publication numbers.
India, which ranks seventh in number of publications, has a low recycling rate, al-
though there is a wide range. The amount of post-consumer plastic waste per capita is
the lowest among the top 10 countries. India has the lowest per capita Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) among the countries listed, and it can be said that India is doing well in
producing publications given its economic size. In India, there are many unknown figures
such as the landfill rate, energy recovery, and untreated waste rate, and it is necessary for
the government to collate data for the necessary statistics. The Indian government has
recently announced a ban on single-use plastics and may be encouraging research into
plastic recycling.
Japan, which ranks eighth in the number of papers published, has a lower recycling
rate than the four European countries and China. It is characterized by a high percentage
of energy recovery and a low landfill rate. The amount of post-consumer plastic waste per
capita is the second lowest of the ten countries. Japan’s environmental awareness is the
lowest among the top 10 countries, and it is possible that the nation’s low interest in the
environment is related to its low number of publications.
Brazil, which ranks ninth in the number of papers, has the lowest recycling rate
of the top 10 countries and the second highest landfill rate after the United States. As
much as 24.4% of plastic waste may have been released into the environment without
proper treatment, which constitutes a significant issue for environment and human health.
Brazil has major challenges in developing a circular economy. Despite the country’s small
economic power, having the second smallest GDP per capita of countries on this list, its
ranking in the top 10 in number of publications may suggest that researchers want to solve
these problems.
The Netherlands, ranked 10th in number of publications, has a high recycling rate
and the lowest landfill rate among the top 10 countries. Among European countries, the
progression of their circular economy is comparable to Germany. The reason the number
of publications ranks 10th could be that it has the smallest population among the top
10 countries.
The second issue is whether plastic waste should be treated nationally or globally.
A fundamental question is whether the current trends in research can resolve the issues
regarding plastic waste not only in individual countries but also globally. In Table 6, we
only focus on the domestic waste treatment, but we must note that international trade has
affected the burden of waste for many countries.
The burden by plastic waste has not been distributed equally, but mainly in China.
Until the mid-2010s, China imported 40 to 50% of the world’s plastics exports, and as a
result, plastic waste from developed countries such as the United States, Europe, and Japan
has been stably managed [257]. It is speculated that the recycling rate figures reported for
developed countries included the amount of waste that was recycled after being exported
abroad. Since 2017, China has gradually tightened import restrictions on waste such as
plastic waste, and in 2018 the amount of plastic waste imported was almost zero [253].
As a result, the plastic recycling rate in the United States decreased from 9.1% in 2015 to
4.4% in 2018 after China’s plastic waste import ban [258]. Developed countries that have
depended on exports to China have fallen into a serious shortage of processing capacity for
plastic waste, and the price of plastic waste, which is used as a raw material for recycling,
has plummeted [259,260]. Developing countries such as those in Southeast Asia have
become importers of plastic waste as there is no single country that can replace China’s
former import volume [261]. The top exporting countries in 2019 are, in descending order,
Germany, Japan, and the United States [262]. These countries are now increasing their
exports to countries with relatively small economic margins within their respective regions
(Germany to Eastern Europe, Japan to Southeast Asia, and the United States to Mexico and
Asia) instead of exporting to China [262].
To combat this, governments in Southeast Asian countries are making efforts to restrict
imports due to concerns of polluting the environment within their own countries, and
exporting to these developing countries is becoming more difficult year by year [253]. In
2021, an international treaty called the Basel Convention has been implemented, requiring
the consent of the importing country when exporting dirty plastic waste. This is a further
headwind for the export of plastic waste from developed to developing countries [258].
An ideal solution for plastic waste is to be recycled and consumed as recycled plastics
in their country of origin. In this review, we refer to this way of thinking as the principle
of local waste treatment. In the principle of local waste treatment, the country where the
plastic is consumed and discarded should be responsible for processing the waste. The
advantage of this principle is a normative one. Developed countries have more consumed
and wasted plastics than developing countries. The former should not impose their waste
and the associated environmental and social burdens to the latter. The disadvantage of
this principle is economic feasibility. Recycled plastics are often inferior to virgin plastics
in terms of strength and quality, making it difficult to stimulate domestic demand for
recycled plastics and tending to limit the amount of recycled plastic waste. Furthermore,
the demand for recycled plastics is higher in developing countries, which emphasizes
lower-priced plastic materials. In addition, the cost of handling plastic waste is generally
higher in developed countries. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the processing capacity
of plastic waste in developed countries, which will reduce the cost of handling [263]. In this
situation, plastic waste is likely to be exported if waste disposal and processing companies
in exporting countries only pursue economic rationality. However, local waste treatment
is not always economically infeasible. Some plastic waste still has economic value as
resources. Additionally, the (mainly developed) countries that generate waste often have
nearly sufficient capabilities to appropriately treat their waste.
Another principle is global waste treatment. According to this principle, countries
generating plastic waste do not have a responsibility to treat it within the country but
should seek the most economically efficient way. This can include international trade of
wastes. Some previous studies suggest that developed and developing countries should
work together to build a global circular economy system in which high-quality waste
is exported to developing countries for recycling [260,261]. If the principle of global
waste treatment is implemented, it has the advantage of being able to minimize the total
processing cost for both the exporting and importing country. Economic cooperation and
business matching from developed to developing countries may improve the accuracy
and capacity of recycling systems in the latter. Inhibiting international trade will shift
economic equilibrium in an undesirable direction. For example, mechanically recycled
plastics are economic and popular in China; thus, there is a large demand for plastic waste
as a raw material. At present, when plastic waste cannot be imported, increasing the
supply of plastic waste by improving the recovery rate (recycling rate) is an urgent issue
in China [263]. Recently, Chinese mechanical recycling companies have expanded into
Japan to obtain plastic waste. They process Japanese plastic waste into recycled plastic
raw materials, such as pellets or flakes, in Japan and export them to China [264]. Because
recycled raw materials are no longer considered waste, China can import them. Such efforts
have increased in recent years. Disadvantages of the principle of global waste treatment are
that many of the importing countries are developing countries, and they sometimes tend to
lack the legal systems, infrastructure, financial capacity, expertise, and human resources
needed to ensure proper treatment of plastic waste. There is a risk that this will lead to the
release of waste into the environment in inappropriate way that will degrade human and
ecosystem health.
In order for the principle of global waste treatment to function, the exporting country
should have the responsibility in capability development of waste treatment rather than (or
in addition to) waste treatment itself. In addition, it is important to ensure the traceability
of the flow of waste and waste treatment. At present, developed countries do not know
how the waste exported to developing countries is recycled and how the residue generated
as a result of recycling is treated. Several other issues are concerns to be resolved by the
developing countries. There is a concern that even the governments of developing countries
are not aware of the actual state of plastic waste recycling within their territory. In order
to ensure that importing companies treat plastic waste properly, it is important to make
the actual state of treatment transparent. Therefore, it is necessary for both exporters and
importers to take responsibility and build a traceability system for handling plastic waste.
For example, an international manifesto system that tracks the movement of plastic waste
in importing countries would be effective. The exporter issues a control sheet called a
manifesto together with the waste to the importer (transporter). The importer describes in
the manifesto when, by whom, and how the waste was transported and processed. The
importer must return the manifesto to the exporter within a certain period of time. In order
to ensure the accuracy of the contents of the manifesto, export companies or third-party
organizations should conduct regular audits. Governments of exporting and importing
countries should be involved in the establishment of this system, otherwise, international
NGOs should be responsible for the system’s operation. Such a manifesto system will
greatly help ensure international traceability of plastic waste.
As a third issue, we focus on the ranking of the number of papers in each subcluster
by country, and discuss the characteristics of each subcluster and trends by country. Table 7
shows the number of publications by each country in clusters and subclusters.
Table 7. Ranking by country and share of number of papers in cluster 1, 2 and 3. “#” represents
a number.
Rank
Cluster # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Research Topic
China USA Italy Germany UK Spain India Japan Brazil Netherlands
1 Plastic recycling
12.4% 11.1% 7.5% 6.9% 6.7% 6.2% 5.9% 5.2% 4.7% 3.2%
China Spain India USA UK Japan Italy Porland Germany Malaysia

1-1 Recycling by pyrolysis
11.0% 10.0% 9.5% 8.0% 6.0% 5.3% 4.1% 3.8% 3.5% 3.5%
USA China Italy Germany UK Spain Japan Netherlands Denmark Switzerland

1-2 LCA of plastic recycling
16.4% 14.6% 9.0% 7.0% 6.5% 6.5% 6.3% 4.4% 3.7% 3.3%
Brazil USA China Italy Spain Germany India France Japan Sweden
1-3 Mechanical recycling
9.7% 8.2% 8.0% 6.9% 5.7% 4.6% 4.2% 4.2% 4.0% 3.7%
USA China Germany India UK Italy Brazil Japan Sweden Canada

1-4 Biodegradation of plastic
17.7% 17.1% 13.8% 6.7% 6.5% 4.6% 4.4% 3.8% 3.6% 3.6%
USA Italy UK Spain China Germany Netherlands Poland India Portugal

1-5 Bioplastic
13.6% 12.4% 9.3% 8.3% 8.1% 7.8% 5.8% 5.6% 5.1% 3.8%
Japan China India Korea USA Jordan Germany Russia Australia Italy
1-6 Recycling of PVC
29.5% 17.9% 8.4% 5.3% 4.2% 3.2% 3.2% 2.6% 2.1% 2.1%
WEEE and sorting of plastic China USA Germany India Japan France Italy Korea UK Australia
2
waste 25.8% 11.0% 6.5% 6.4% 6.4% 6.2% 6.1% 4.5% 4.2% 3.7%
China Germany UK USA Belgium France India Italy Switzerland Brazil

2-1 Recycling of WEEE
13.2% 12.6% 9.4% 7.9% 7.4% 7.4% 6.8% 6.5% 5.0% 4.7%
Italy Germany France China USA Spain Brazil Malaysia Korea Japan
2-2 Spectroscopy sorting
17.3% 13.8% 10.4% 10.0% 9.6% 5.0% 4.6% 4.6% 3.8% 3.8%
China Japan Korea Italy Australia USA Portugal UK Turkey Spain

2-3 Flotation separation
31.0% 15.0% 7.5% 6.4% 4.8% 4.8% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 3.2%
France Algeria USA Romania China Korea Poland Japan Italy Canada
2-4 Electrostatic separation
39.0% 26.2% 15.6% 15.6% 9.2% 6.4% 4.3% 3.5% 2.8% 2.8%
Use of plastic waste in the China USA Australia India Spain Italy Brazil Malaysia UK Portugal
3
construction sector 17.5% 13.1% 8.4% 7.2% 7.0% 6.0% 4.7% 4.0% 4.0% 3.3%
Saudi
Use of recycled plastics in India USA IRAQ China Malaysia UK Italy Australia Algeria
3-1 Arabia
concrete 12.7% 7.0% 6.3% 5.7% 5.4% 5.4% 5.1% 4.7% 4.7% 4.4%
Saudi
Use of recycled plastics in China USA Spain Australia India Italy Malaysia Turkey Portugal
3-2 Arabia
asphalt
14.0% 11.4% 10.6% 10.6% 8.1% 7.6% 5.9% 4.2% 4.2% 3.8%
The United States, which ranks second in number of papers in cluster 1 as a whole,
ranks first in several subclusters, with a young average age of publication and a rapid
increase in the number of papers in recent years. The subclusters in which the United States
ranks first and the associated average age of publication are: subcluster 1-4, biodegradation
of plastics (2018.7), subcluster 1-5, bioplastics (2017.9) and subcluster 1-2, LCA of plastic
recycling (2015.7). In contrast, China, which ranks first in the number of papers overall,
ranks first in only one subcluster with a relatively old average publication year: subcluster
1-1, recycling by pyrolysis (2013.5). The United States is considered to be more advanced
than China in research into new academic fields. Given the high landfilling rate in the
United States, it is possible that there is intense research into the biodegradation of plastics
and bioplastics aimed at the environmentally friendly disposal of landfilled plastics.
India and Brazil are not included in the top 10 countries of subcluster 1-2, LCA
of plastic recycling, and it is possible that countries with low GDP per capita are not
enthusiastically conducting research on the LCA of plastic recycling. Brazil has the highest
number of papers in subcluster 1-3 mechanical recycling, indicating that the promotion
of mechanical recycling is a major issue in Brazil, where the recycling rate is low, and the
landfilling rate is high. In subcluster 1-6, recycling of PVC, countries other than the United
States and those in Europe occupy the top positions, and the trend is very different from
other clusters. In order of number of publications, Japan, China, India, Korea, Jordan, and
Russia all make the top 10 in subcluster 1-6. In particular, the number of publications from
Japan is the highest, and due to the number of papers in this subcluster, Japan ranks eighth
in cluster 1. In Japan, it is thought that the processing of PVC is recognized as a major issue
in promoting recycling. By contrast, in Europe and the United States, contamination with
PVC may not be regarded as a major hindrance to recycling.
In subcluster 2-1, recycling of EEE waste, China ranked first, followed by several
European countries, and India and Brazil ranked within the top 10. Subcluster 2-1 is similar
to cluster 1 in this respect. Countries where plastic recycling has become a social issue may
indicate that EEE waste is also of high social concern. Subcluster 2-2, spectroscopy sorting,
is characterized by the fact that European countries, specifically Italy, Germany, and France,
occupy the top three positions, while China and the United States are at the fourth and
fifth place, respectively. Spectroscopy sorting is being intensively studied in Europe. Asian
countries such as Malaysia, South Korea, and Japan are also well represented. Subcluster
2-3, flotation separation, is characterized by the fact that Japan (2nd), South Korea (3rd),
and Turkey (9th) are taking vigorous efforts. Subcluster 2-4, electrostatic separation, is
characterized by European countries such as France, Romania, Poland, and Italy being
prominent. We need to improve the recycling capacity to realize a circular economy and to
shift the scope of circulation from local to global, and then to planetary scales. As reviewed
in this paper, there a variety of both established and emerging recycling technologies,
including mechanical, chemical, and biological recycling. In addition, recent subclusters
within cluster 1 on plastic recycling focus on the circular economy at the planetary scale.
As already seen, emerging subclusters in cluster 1 are subcluster 1-4 biodegradation of
plastic (2018.7), and subcluster 1-5, bioplastics (2017.9); which are younger than the other
subclusters such as subcluster 1-1, recycling by pyrolysis (2013.5).
As the fourth issue, we will discuss the necessity of global technology transfer of the
research results of plastic recycling. Another point clarified through our analysis is the
necessity of international technological cooperations. We need global technology transfer
for efficient and effective waste treatment, as capability of recycling and waste treatment
are not equally distributed.
It became clear that research on plastic recycling (cluster 1) is actively being carried
out in developed countries such as China and the United States. Of course, it is desirable
that such research results be put to practical use in China and the United States, particularly
in the latter, where the recycling rate is low and landfilling rate is high. However, in order
to promote the international division of labor, it is critical that these research results be
transferred to developing countries that import waste. Expected methods of technology
transfer include the dispatch of experts from developed to developing countries, capacity
building by inviting human resources from developing to developed countries, and inter-
national technology conferences. We hope that researchers and companies with recycling
technology in developed countries, such as China and the United States, will actively
engage in technology transfer to developing countries. Furthermore, in order to solve the
problem of lack of funds in developing countries, we expect for companies from developed
countries to enter developing countries and establish plastic recycling businesses.
In contrast, countries other than Europe, the United States, and China (mostly develop-
ing countries) are in the top 10 of cluster 3, a notable divergence from clusters 1 and 2. For
example, in subcluster 3-1, “Use of recycled plastics in concrete,” India ranks first, followed
by Iraq (2nd), Malaysia (5th), Saudi Arabia (6th), and Algeria (10th). In subcluster 3-2, “Use
of recycled plastics in asphalt,” India ranks fifth, followed by Malaysia (7th), Saudi Arabia
(8th), and Turkey (9th). Recycling methods for utilizing plastics in the construction sector
tend to be vigorously researched in the developing and emerging countries. Recycling
methods that mix plastic waste into building materials are characterized by relatively low
processing costs and the ability to process a large amount of plastic waste. It appears
that countries with low economic capacity have high expectations for these technologies.
According to the head of India’s plastic industry association: ”Plastindia Foundation”, the
government policy in India is to actively use plastic waste in road construction (up to 20%
of all plastic waste produced in India shall be used in road construction by regulation). In
addition, the average publication year of these subclusters is relatively young (subcluster
3-1: 2017.1, subcluster 3-2: 2017.5) and these topics are areas of active research and attention.
There is a possibility that these topics will result in reverse innovation where these
technologies are transferred from developing to developed countries. Concerning the
use of recycled plastics in concrete, there are still remaining issues regarding strength
and handling at construction sites. However, there are high expectations for its use in
structures that do not require high strength and for new applications that take advantage of
its lightweight concrete properties. Numerous studies have reported that the use of plastics
in asphalt improves strength and durability, and there are even examples of its real-world
application in road construction. In addition, studies have reported that the use of recycled
plastics for asphalt reduces road construction costs and improves the economic efficiency
of road construction [226,227]. Another study reported that mixing recycled plastics into
asphalt improves the strength and durability of the asphalt mixture, extends the life of
roads, and reduces the environmental impact of road construction [228].
We must also note that because the use of plastics in the construction sector is one-way
use and not circular, if we prefer circularity in developed countries, it is preferable to
recycle mechanically or chemically as much as possible, and to utilize only waste that is
not suitable for recycling using other methods in the construction sector. However, from
the point of view of reusing plastic waste at the lowest possible cost without releasing it
into the environment (including landfilling), using plastics in the construction sector is a
promising option, and there are high expectations for it in developing countries.
5. Conclusions
Using bibliometrics analysis, we synthesized an overview of 35,519 publications on
plastic recycling, identified emerging topics, and conducted a comprehensive review to
elucidate research trends and key issues. We collected bibliographic data from academic
publications related to plastic recycle. We used data collected with the query (plastic* OR
chemical*) AND (recycl* OR “circular economy”) by using academic database “Web of
Science”. After acquiring relevant publications, we created citation networks by treating the
papers as nodes and the citations as links. We used the direct citation method. We removed
irrelevant papers that were not connected to other papers in the largest component of the
citation network. We divided the network into clusters using the Newman’s algorithm
topological clustering method after obtaining the largest connected component. Using
this algorithm, we divided clusters into subclusters according to the rule of maximizing
modularity, which has been used in previous bibliometric studies.
We found that research topics on plastic recycling can be broadly classified into the
following six clusters: general issues of plastic recycling; waste electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE); use of plastic waste in the construction sector; chemical recycling
of polyethylene terephthalate; use for wood-plastic composites; and recycling of fiber
reinforced polymers. After extracting the above clusters, we conducted a comprehensive
review on each cluster as well as subclusters of the larger three clusters.
The largest cluster (cluster 1) is on general issues of plastic recycling and includes
subclusters such as the biodegradability of plastics, bioplastics, pyrolysis, and life cycle
assessment (LCA). Among them, the biodegradability of plastics is the youngest subcluster
(average publication year, 2018.7) and the most active topic. Many studies on biodegrada-
tion of plastics derived from fossil resources are being conducted, and at the same time,
research on biodegradable plastics is also attracting attention. The former is still in the
research stage and has not been industrialized, while the latter, such as PLA, PHA, has
been industrialized, but the production cost is extensively high. Consequently, the market
share is low. In general, biodegradable plastics need to be sorted by consumers because
the recycling method differs from that of other plastics. We pointed out the problem that
it is difficult to distinguish the type of plastics just by the appearance, and that recycling
methods have not been established. Bioplastics is the second youngest subcluster (average
publication years, 2017.9), with a rapidly increasing number of papers. Definitions of
bioplastics differ among papers, and we clarified that three different definitions were used.
In this study, we defined bioplastics as polymers derived from renewable resources and
materials or synthesized by microbial metabolism. Pyrolysis is a relatively old subcluster
(average publication year, 2013.5), but has the largest number of papers in cluster 1 (number
of papers, 772). The citation per paper ratio is also the largest (4.8), which makes this
subcluster the central theme in cluster 1. LCA is a relatively young subcluster (average
publication years, 2015.7) with the second largest number of papers in cluster 1 (number of
papers, 568). The combined results of many studies on LCA reveal that mechanical recy-
cling is superior to chemical recycling in terms of global warming potential, but inferior in
terms of residual solid waste for landfill. We proposed that mechanical recycling and chem-
ical recycling should not compete with each other, but should be used in a complementary
manner depending on the type and condition of plastic waste.
In the second largest cluster (cluster 2), research regarding WEEE recycling is increas-
ing rapidly (average publication years, 2014.8). The brominated flame retardants (BFR)
used in WEEE plastics is hazardous to human health and ecosystems. Hazardous BFR
waste is transported both legally and illegally to areas where labor costs are low. As much
as 1818 kg of harmful brominated low-molecular-weight compounds are released into
the environment every year around the world, especially in disposal sites in Asia. The
treatment of BFR make recycling difficult, and considerable effort is being taken to address
this. Mechanical recycling is the most desirable method for treating WEEE plastic, and
most of the recycling currently performed is mechanical recycling. The separation of BFR
from WEEE by chemical recycling has been intensively researched but not industrialized.
In the third largest cluster (cluster 3), there is increasing research into the use of
recycled plastic waste in the construction sector. Cluster 3 consists of two subclusters, “Use
of recycled plastics in concrete” (average publication year, 2017.1) and “Use of recycled
plastics in asphalt” (average publication year, 2017.5). Both are young research fields.
The number of papers on the use of recycled plastics in concrete (2028) is higher than the
number of papers on their use in asphalt (734). Citation/paper ratio of concrete is 6.4,
which is higher than 3.1 of asphalt. Concrete applications are a more intensely studied
research topic than asphalt applications. On the other hand, the use of recycled plastic
mixed with concrete results in inferior strength and durability, and there are few reports
of actual field applications. In the case of asphalt use, many studies have reported that
strength, durability, and economic efficiency are improved, and there are practical examples
in actual road construction.
By country, we found that China and the United States had the highest number of
papers. Specifically, in cluster 1, China ranked first with a share of 12.4% of the total
number of papers, and the United States ranked second with a share of 11.1%. In cluster
2, China ranked first (25.8% share of papers) and the United States second (11.0% share
of papers). Our first key finding is that China and the United States are global leaders
in many research fields. In contrast, countries other than Europe, the United States, and
China (mostly developing countries) are in the top 10 of cluster 3, a notable divergence
from clusters 1 and 2. For example, in subcluster 3-1, “Use of recycled plastics in concrete,”
India ranks first, followed by Iraq (2nd), Malaysia (5th), Saudi Arabia (6th), and Algeria
(10th). In subcluster 3-2, “Use of recycled plastics in asphalt,” India ranks fifth, followed
by Malaysia (7th), Saudi Arabia (8th), and Turkey (9th). These studies are being actively
carried out in developing countries, and it is thought that they are attracting attention
due to their high economic efficiency as a recycling method. These are reverse innovation
that should be considered as methods of using waste that are not suitable for recycling
using other methods, even in developed countries. Our second key finding is that research
on the use of recycled plastics in the construction sector is actively being conducted in
developing countries.
In order to realize a global circular economy, we proposed and discussed the principle
of local waste treatment, the principle of global waste treatment, and global technology
transfer. In the principle of local waste treatment, plastic waste should be handled respon-
sibly and appropriately in the country where it is generated. According to this principle,
the environmental burden associated with waste treatment may be minimized, but the
economic rationality is questionable. In the principle of global waste treatment, the in-
ternational trade of waste resources is allowed and requires a division of labor between
developed and developing countries. Although the principle of global waste treatment has
the advantage of minimizing the cost of processing plastic waste globally, there remain
concerns that it may promote environmental pollution associated with improper waste
processing in importing countries. We also highlighted the necessary measures to promote
both principles, such as building a traceability system and transferring technology in both
directions between the developed and developing countries.
We proposed that an international manifesto system which tracks the movement of
plastic waste in importing countries is an effective way for buiding a traceability system
and ensuring appropriate plastics waste reatment. The exporter issues a control sheet called
a manifesto together with the waste to the importer (transporter). The importer describes
in the manifesto when, by whom, and how the waste was transported and processed. The
importer must return the manifesto to the exporter within a certain period of time. In order
to ensure the accuracy of the contents of the manifesto, export companies or third-party
organizations should conduct regular audits. Such manifesto system will greatly help
ensure international traceability of plastic waste. The international manifesto system is our
research contribution for global plastic waste treatment. Further research is required to
identify the means to realistically advance in both principles.
In addition, we discussed the necessity of global technology transfer. Especially
research on the use of plastics in the field of construction that is actively being conducted
in developing countries. Although there are criticisms that the use of plastic waste in the
construction sector is not circular, considering the economic efficiency and environmental
improvement effects associated with using recycled plastics in the construction sector,
plastic waste that is not suitable for recycling can be used in construction. Even in developed
countries, the use of such plastics in the construction sector has a certain rationality. For this
reason, the technology transfer (reverse innovation) of research in this field from developing
to developed countries should also be actively promoted. In the theory of international
cooperation, technology transfer in both directions between developed and developing
countries is essential for realizing proper plastic waste treatment and recycling systems as
well as to promote a circular economy.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.T. and Y.K.; Methodology, I.T.; Validation, Y.K.; For-
mal Analysis, I.T.; Investigation, I.T.; Data Curation, I.T.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, I.T.;
Writing—Review and Editing. Y.K.; Supervision, Y.K. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Hopewell, J.; Dvorak, R.; Kosior, E. Plastics recycling: Challenges and opportunities. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364,
2115–2126. [CrossRef]
2. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/TC 323; Circular Economy. Available online: https://www.iso.org/
committee/7203984.html (accessed on 24 August 2022).
3. Al-Salem, S.M.; Lettieri, P.; Baeyens, J. Recycling and recovery routes of plastic solid waste (PSW): A review. Waste Manag. 2009,
29, 2625–2643. [CrossRef]
4. ISO 15270:2008; Plastics-Guidelines for the Recovery and Recycling of Plastics Waste. International Organization for Stan-
dardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/45089.html (accessed on 24 August
2022).
5. Schyns, Z.O.G.; Shaver, M.P. Mechanical Recycling of Packaging Plastics: A Review. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2021, 42, e2000415.
[CrossRef]
6. Idemitsu Kosan Co., L. Started Japan’s First Demonstration Study of Waste Plastic Recycling including Mixed waste Plastics at
Chiba Complex—Construct a Waste Plastics Recycling System by New Liquefaction Technology and Our Petroleum Refining &
Petrochemical Plants. Available online: https://www.idemitsu.com/en/news/2021/0507.html (accessed on 24 August 2022).
7. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Plastics: Material-Specific Data. Available online: https://www.
epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/plastics-material-specific-data#PlasticsTableandGraph
(accessed on 24 August 2022).
8. Plastics Europe. Plastics—The Facts 2020: An Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data. Available
online: Chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://plasticseurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2021
/09/Plastics_the_facts-WEB-2020_versionJun21_final.pdf (accessed on 24 August 2022).
9. Wen, Z.G.; Xie, Y.L.; Chen, M.H.; Dinga, C.D. China’s plastic import ban increases prospects of environmental impact mitigation
of plastic waste trade flow worldwide. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 425.
10. Shamsuyeva, M.; Endres, H.J. Plastics in the context of the circular economy and sustainable plastics recycling: Comprehensive
review on research development, standardization and market. Compos. Part C Open Access 2021, 6, 100168. [CrossRef]
11. Soni, V.K.; Singh, G.; Vijayan, B.K.; Chopra, A.; Kapur, G.S.; Ramakumar, S.S.V. Thermochemical Recycling of Waste Plastics by
Pyrolysis: A Review. Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 12763–12808. [CrossRef]
12. Sharuddin, S.D.A.; Abnisa, F.; Daud, W.; Aroua, M.K. A review on pyrolysis of plastic wastes. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 115,
308–326. [CrossRef]
13. Lopez, G.; Artetxe, M.; Amutio, M.; Alvarez, J.; Bilbao, J.; Olazar, M. Recent advances in the gasification of waste plastics. A
critical overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 576–596. [CrossRef]
14. Moharir, R.V.; Kumar, S. Challenges associated with plastic waste disposal and allied microbial routes for its effective degradation:
A comprehensive review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 65–76. [CrossRef]
15. Hatti-Kaul, R.; Nilsson, L.J.; Zhang, B.Z.; Rehnberg, N.; Lundmark, S. Designing Biobased Recyclable Polymers for Plastics. Trends
Biotechnol. 2020, 38, 50–67. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Rodriguez, A.; Laio, A. Clustering by fast search and find of density peaks. Science 2014, 344, 1492–1496. [CrossRef]
17. de Sousa, F.D.B. Management of plastic waste: A bibliometric mapping and analysis. Waste Manag. Res. 2021, 39, 664–678.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Tsai, F.M.; Bui, T.D.; Tseng, M.L.; Lim, M.K.; Hu, J.Y. Municipal solid waste management in a circular economy: A data-driven
bibliometric analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 124132. [CrossRef]
19. Armenise, S.; SyieLuing, W.; Ramirez-Velasquez, J.M.; Launay, F.; Wuebben, D.; Ngadi, N.; Rams, J.; Munoz, M. Plastic waste
recycling via pyrolysis: A bibliometric survey and literature review. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2021, 158, 105265. [CrossRef]
20. Wang, Q.; Zhang, M.; Li, R.R. The COVID-19 pandemic reshapes the plastic pollution research—A comparative analysis of plastic
pollution research before and during the pandemic. Environ. Res. 2022, 208, 112634. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Sandanayake, M.; Bouras, Y.; Haigh, R.; Vrcelj, Z. Current Sustainable Trends of Using Waste Materials in Concrete-A Decade
Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9622. [CrossRef]
22. Shibata, N.; Kajikawa, Y.; Takeda, Y.; Matsushima, K. Comparative Study on Methods of Detecting Research Fronts Using
Different Types of Citation. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2009, 60, 571–580. [CrossRef]
23. Newman, M.E.J. Fast algorithm for detecting community structure in networks. Phys. Rev. E 2004, 69, 066133. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
24. Kajikawa, Y.; Yoshikawa, J.; Takeda, Y.; Matsushima, K. Tracking emerging technologies in energy research: Toward a roadmap
for sustainable energy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2008, 75, 771–782. [CrossRef]
25. Shibata, N.; Kajikawa, A.; Sakata, I. Measuring Relatedness Between Communities in a Citation Network. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.
Technol. 2011, 62, 1360–1369. [CrossRef]
26. Kajikawa, Y.; Takeda, Y. Structure of research on biomass and bio-fuels: A citation-based approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
2008, 75, 1349–1359. [CrossRef]
27. Ittipanuvat, V.; Fujita, K.; Sakata, I.; Kajikawa, Y. Finding linkage between technology and social issue: A Literature Based
Discovery approach. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2014, 32, 160–184. [CrossRef]
28. Naoki Shibata, Y.K.; Ichiro Sakata. Detecting potential technological fronts by comparing scientific papers and patents. Foresight
2011, 13, 51–60. [CrossRef]
29. Takeda, Y.; Kajikawa, Y. Tracking modularity in citation networks. Scientometrics 2010, 83, 783–792. [CrossRef]
30. Salton, G.; Buckley, C. Term-Weighting Approaches in Automatic Text Retrieval. Inf. Process. Manag. 1988, 24, 513–523. [CrossRef]
31. Singhal, A. Modern Information Retrieval: A Brief Overview. Bull. IEEE Comput. Soc. Technol. Comm. Data Eng. 2001, 24, 35–43.
32. Al-Salem, S.M.; Lettieri, P.; Baeyens, J. The valorization of plastic solid waste (PSW) by primary to quaternary routes: From re-use
to energy and chemicals. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2010, 36, 103–129. [CrossRef]
33. Grand View Research Inc. Plastic to Fuel Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report by Technology (Pyrolysis, Gasification,
Depolymerization), by End-Fuel (Sulfur, Hydrogen, Crude Oil), by Region, and Segment Forcasts, 2021–2028. Available online:
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/plastic-to-fuel-market (accessed on 24 August 2022).
34. Kumar, S.; Singh, E.; Mishra, R.; Kumar, A.; Caucci, S. Utilization of Plastic Wastes for Sustainable Environmental Management:
A Review. Chemsuschem 2021, 14, 3985–4006. [CrossRef]
35. Kumagai, S.; Yoshioka, T. Chemical Feedstock Recovery from Hard-to-Recycle Plastics through Pyrolysis-Based Approaches and
Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography. Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 2021, 94, 2370–2380. [CrossRef]
36. Kosloski-Oh, S.C.; Wood, Z.A.; Manjarrez, Y.; de los Rios, J.P.; Fieser, M.E. Catalytic methods for chemical recycling or upcycling
of commercial polymers. Mater. Horiz. 2021, 8, 1084–1129. [CrossRef]
37. Al-Salem, S.M.; Antelava, A.; Constantinou, A.; Manos, G.; Dutta, A. A review on thermal and catalytic pyrolysis of plastic solid
waste (PSW). J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 197, 177–198. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Kunwar, B.; Cheng, H.N.; Chandrashekaran, S.R.; Sharma, B.K. Plastics to fuel: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54,
39. Prajapati, R.; Kohli, K.; Maity, S.K.; Sharma, B.K. Potential Chemicals from Plastic Wastes. Molecules 2021, 26, 3175. [CrossRef]
40. Chen, H.; Wan, K.; Zhang, Y.Y.; Wang, Y.Q. Waste to Wealth: Chemical Recycling and Chemical Upcycling of Waste Plastics for a
Great Future. Chemsuschem 2021, 14, 4123–4136. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Showa Denko, K.K. Showa Denko Got a License to Process Industrial Waste, Aiming to Promote Plastic Chemical Recycling.
Available online: https://www.sdk.co.jp/english/news/2020/38930.html (accessed on 24 August 2022).
42. Caputto, M.D.D.; Navarro, R.; Valentin, J.L.; Marcos-Fernandez, A. Chemical upcycling of poly(ethylene terephthalate) waste:
Moving to a circular model. J. Polym. Sci. 2022. [CrossRef]
43. Thiyagarajan, S.; Maaskant-Reilink, E.; Ewing, T.A.; Julsing, M.K.; van Haveren, J. Back-to-monomer recycling of polycondensation
polymers: Opportunities for chemicals and enzymes. Rsc Adv. 2021, 12, 947–970. [CrossRef]
44. Zhuo, C.W.; Levendis, Y.A. Upcycling Waste Plastics into Carbon Nanomaterials: A Review. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2014, 131.
[CrossRef]
45. Jiang, J.; Shi, K.; Zhang, X.N.; Yu, K.; Zhang, H.; He, J.; Ju, Y.; Liu, J.L. From plastic waste to wealth using chemical recycling: A
review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 106867. [CrossRef]
46. Quicker, P.; Seitz, M.; Vogel, J. Chemical recycling: A critical assessment of potential process approaches. Waste Manag. Res. 2022,
40, 1494–1504. [CrossRef]
47. Lazarevic, D.; Aoustin, E.; Buclet, N.; Brandt, N. Plastic waste management in the context of a European recycling society:
Comparing results and uncertainties in a life cycle perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 55, 246–259. [CrossRef]
48. Antelava, A.; Damilos, S.; Hafeez, S.; Manos, G.; Al-Salem, S.M.; Sharma, B.K.; Kohli, K.; Constantinou, A. Plastic Solid Waste
(PSW) in the Context of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Sustainable Management. Environ. Manag. 2019, 64, 230–244. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
49. Gu, F.; Guo, J.F.; Zhang, W.J.; Summers, P.A.; Hall, P. From waste plastics to industrial raw materials: A life cycle assessment
of mechanical plastic recycling practice based on a real-world case study. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 601, 1192–1207. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
50. Chen, Y.D.; Cui, Z.J.; Cui, X.W.; Liu, W.; Wang, X.L.; Li, X.X.; Li, S.X. Life cycle assessment of end-of-life treatments of waste
plastics in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 348–357. [CrossRef]
51. Faraca, G.; Martinez-Sanchez, V.; Astrup, T.F. Environmental life cycle cost assessment: Recycling of hard plastic waste collected
at Danish recycling centres. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 143, 299–309. [CrossRef]
52. Alhazmi, H.; Almansour, F.H.; Aldhafeeri, Z. Plastic Waste Management: A Review of Existing Life Cycle Assessment Studies.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5340. [CrossRef]
53. Meys, R.; Frick, F.; Westhues, S.; Sternberg, A.; Klankermayer, J.; Bardow, A. Towards a circular economy for plastic packaging
wastes—The environmental potential of chemical recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 162, 105010. [CrossRef]
54. Patel, M.; von Thienen, N.; Jochem, E.; Worrell, E. Recycling of plastics in Germany. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2000, 29, 65–90.
[CrossRef]
55. Davidson, M.G.; Furlong, R.A.; McManus, M.C. Developments in the life cycle assessment of chemical recycling of plastic waste e
A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126163. [CrossRef]
56. Chaudhari, U.S.; Lin, Y.Q.; Thompson, V.S.; Handler, R.M.; Pearce, J.M.; Caneba, G.; Muhuri, P.; Watkins, D.; Shonnard, D.R.
Systems Analysis Approach to Polyethylene Terephthalate and Olefin Plastics Supply Chains in the Circular Economy: A Review
of Data Sets and Models. Acs Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 7403–7421. [CrossRef]
57. Bernardo, C.A.; Simoes, C.L.; Pinto, L.M.C. Environmental and Economic Life Cycle Analysis of Plastic Waste Management
Options. A Review. In Proceedings of the Regional Conference of the Polymer-Processing-Society (PPS), Graz, Austria, 21–25
September 2015.
58. Finnveden, G.; Ekvall, T. Life-cycle assessment as a decision-support tool—The case of recycling versus incineration of paper.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1998, 24, 235–256. [CrossRef]
59. Yin, S.; Tuladhar, R.; Shi, F.; Shanks, R.A.; Combe, M.; Collister, T. Mechanical Reprocessing of Polyolefin Waste: A Review. Polym.
Eng. Sci. 2015, 55, 2899–2909. [CrossRef]
60. Yin, S.; Tuladhar, R.; Shi, F.; Combe, M.; Collister, T.; Sivakugan, N. Use of macro plastic fibres in concrete: A review. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2015, 93, 180–188. [CrossRef]
61. Endres, H.-J. Recycling Ist Nicht Gleich Recycling. pp. 34–39. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3496
94539_Recycling_ist_nicht_gleich_Recycling (accessed on 24 August 2022).
62. McDonough, W.; Braungart, M. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, 1st ed.; North Point Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2002.
63. Maris, J.; Bourdon, S.; Brossard, J.M.; Cauret, L.; Fontaine, L.; Montembault, V. Mechanical recycling: Compatibilization of mixed
thermoplastic wastes. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2018, 147, 245–266. [CrossRef]
64. Schwetlick, K.; Habicher, W.D. Antioxidant action mechanisms of hindered amine stabilisers. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2002, 78, 35–40.
[CrossRef]
65. Maringer, L.; Grabmann, M.; Muik, M.; Nitsche, D.; Romanin, C.; Wallner, G.; Buchberger, W. Investigations on the distribution
of polymer additives in polypropylene using confocal fluorescence microscopy. Int. J. Polym. Anal. Charact. 2017, 22, 692–698.
[CrossRef]
66. Braun, D. Recycling of PVC. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2002, 27, 2171–2195. [CrossRef]
67. Everard, M. Twenty Years of the Polyvinyl Chloride Sustainability Challenges. J. Vinyl Addit. Technol. 2020, 26, 390–402. [CrossRef]
68. Remili, C.; Kaci, M.; Benhamida, A.; Bruzaud, S.; Grohens, Y. The effects of reprocessing cycles on the structure and properties of
polystyrene/Cloisite 15A nanocomposites. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2011, 96, 1489–1496. [CrossRef]
69. Rujnic-Sokele, M.; Pilipovic, A. Challenges and opportunities of biodegradable plastics: A mini review. Waste Manag. Res. 2017,
35, 132–140. [CrossRef]
70. Weber, M.; Makarow, D.; Unger, B.; Mortier, N.; De Wilde, B.; van Eekert, M.; Schuman, E.; Tosin, M.; Pognani, M.;
Innocenti, F.D.; et al. Assessing Marine Biodegradability of Plastic-Towards an Environmentally Relevant International Standard
Test Scheme. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Microplastic Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea, Capri, Italy,
26–29 September 2017.
71. Ellis, L.D.; Rorrer, N.A.; Sullivan, K.P.; Otto, M.; McGeehan, J.E.; Roman-Leshkov, Y.; Wierckx, N.; Beckham, G.T. Chemical and
biological catalysis for plastics recycling and upcycling. Nat. Catal. 2021, 4, 539–556. [CrossRef]
72. Qin, Z.H.; Mou, J.H.; Chao, C.Y.H.; Chopra, S.S.; Daoud, W.; Leu, S.Y.; Ning, Z.; Tso, C.Y.; Chan, C.K.; Tang, S.X.; et al. Biotechnol-
ogy of Plastic Waste Degradation, Recycling, and Valorization: Current Advances and Future Perspectives. Chemsuschem 2021, 14,
4103–4114. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
73. Albertsson, A.C.; Karlsson, S. The Influence of Biotic and Abiotic Environments on the Degradation of Polyethylene. Prog. Polym.
Sci. 1990, 15, 177–192. [CrossRef]
74. Ammala, A.; Bateman, S.; Dean, K.; Petinakis, E.; Sangwan, P.; Wong, S.; Yuan, Q.; Yu, L.; Patrick, C.; Leong, K.H. An overview of
degradable and biodegradable polyolefins. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2011, 36, 1015–1049. [CrossRef]
75. Montazer, Z.; Najafi, M.B.H.; Levin, D.B. Microbial degradation of low-density polyethylene and synthesis of polyhydroxyalka-
noate polymers. Can. J. Microbiol. 2019, 65, 224–234. [CrossRef]
76. Ru, J.K.; Huo, Y.X.; Yang, Y. Microbial Degradation and Valorization of Plastic Wastes. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 442. [CrossRef]
77. Yoshida, S.; Hiraga, K.; Takehana, T.; Taniguchi, I.; Yamaji, H.; Maeda, Y.; Toyohara, K.; Miyamoto, K.; Kimura, Y.; Oda, K. A
bacterium that degrades and assimilates poly(ethylene terephthalate). Science 2016, 351, 1196–1199. [CrossRef]
78. Bollinger, A.; Thies, S.; Knieps-Grunhagen, E.; Gertzen, C.; Kobus, S.; Hoppner, A.; Ferrer, M.; Gohlke, H.; Smits, S.H.J.; Jaeger,
K.E. A Novel Polyester Hydrolase From the Marine Bacterium Pseudomonas aestusnigri—Structural and Functional Insights.
Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
79. Xi, X.X.; Ni, K.F.; Hao, H.L.; Shang, Y.P.; Zhao, B.; Qian, Z. Secretory expression in Bacillus subtilis and biochemical characterization
of a highly thermostable polyethylene terephthalate hydrolase from bacterium HR29. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2021, 143, 109715.
[CrossRef]
80. Moog, D.; Schmitt, J.; Senger, J.; Zarzycki, J.; Rexer, K.H.; Linne, U.; Erb, T.J.; Maier, U.G. Using a marine microalga as a chassis for
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) degradation (vol 18, 171, 2019). Microb. Cell Factories 2020, 19, 1. [CrossRef]
81. Nakajima-Kambe, T.; Shigeno-Akutsu, Y.; Nomura, N.; Onuma, F.; Nakahara, T. Microbial degradation of polyurethane, polyester
polyurethanes and polyether polyurethanes. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1999, 51, 134–140. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Howard, G.T. Biodegradation of polyurethane: A review. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2002, 49, 245–252. [CrossRef]
83. Lamberti, F.M.; Roman-Ramirez, L.A.; Wood, J. Recycling of Bioplastics: Routes and Benefits. J. Polym. Environ. 2020, 28,
2551–2571. [CrossRef]
84. Lemmouchi, Y.; Murariu, M.; Dos Santos, A.M.; Amass, A.J.; Schacht, E.; Dubois, P. Plasticization of poly(lactide) with blends of
tributyl citrate and low molecular weight poly(D,L-lactide)-b-poly(ethylene glycol) copolymers. Eur. Polym. J. 2009, 45, 2839–2848.
[CrossRef]
85. European Bioplastics Association. Bioplastics Facts and Figures; European Bioplastics Association: Berlin, Germany, 2019.
86. Scaffaro, R.; Dintcheva, N.T.; Marino, R.; La Mantia, F.P. Processing and Properties of Biopolymer/Polyhydroxyalkanoates Blends.
J. Polym. Environ. 2012, 20, 267–272. [CrossRef]
87. Luef, K.P.; Stelzer, F.; Wiesbrock, F. Poly(hydroxy alkanoate)s in Medical Applications. Chem. Biochem. Eng. Q. 2015, 29, 287–297.
[CrossRef]
88. Bugnicourt, E.; Cinelli, P.; Lazzeri, A.; Alvarez, V. Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA): Review of synthesis, characteristics, processing
and potential applications in packaging. Express Polym. Lett. 2014, 8, 791–808. [CrossRef]
89. Sekisui Chemical Co. Ltd.; LanzaTech Inc. Turning “Garbage” into Ethanol Establishing a First-in-the-World Innovative
Production Technology. Available online: https://www.sekisuichemical.com/news/2017/1363956_38399.html (accessed on
24 August 2022).
90. Sekisui Chemical Co. Ltd.; Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd. Sekisui Chemical and Sumitomo Chemical to Cooperate on Circular
Economy Initiative Manufacturing Polyolefin Using Waste as Raw Material. Available online: https://www.sumitomo-chem.co.
jp/english/news/detail/20200227e.html (accessed on 24 August 2022).
91. RameshKumar, S.; Shaiju, P.; O’Connor, K.E.; Babu, P.R. Bio-based and biodegradable polymers—State-of-the-art, challenges and
emerging trends. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2020, 21, 75–81. [CrossRef]
92. Dilkes-Hoffman, L.; Ashworth, P.; Laycock, B.; Pratt, S.; Lant, P. Public attitudes towards bioplastics—Knowledge, perception and
end-of-life management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 151, 104479. [CrossRef]
93. Wojnowska-Baryla, I.; Kulikowska, D.; Bernat, K. Effect of Bio-Based Products on Waste Management. Sustainability 2020, 12,
2088. [CrossRef]
94. Barrett, A. PepsiCo Goes for Bioplastic Bottles. Available online: https://bioplasticsnews.com/2018/09/10/pepsico-goes-for-
bioplastic-bottles/ (accessed on 24 August 2022).
95. Shen, L.; Worrell, E.; Patel, M.K. Comparing life cycle energy and GHG emissions of bio-based PET, recycled PET, PLA, and
man-made cellulosics. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining-Biofpr 2012, 6, 625–639. [CrossRef]
96. Tabone, M.D.; Cregg, J.J.; Beckman, E.J.; Landis, A.E. Sustainability Metrics: Life Cycle Assessment and Green Design in Polymers.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 8264–8269. [CrossRef]
97. Repo, A.; Kankanen, R.; Tuovinen, J.P.; Antikainen, R.; Tuomi, M.; Vanhala, P.; Liski, J. Forest bioenergy climate impact can be
improved by allocating forest residue removal. Glob. Chang. Biol. Bioenergy 2012, 4, 202–212. [CrossRef]
98. Peters, M.; Taylor, J.D.; Jenni, M.; Manzer, L.E.; Henton, D.E. Integrated Process to Selectively Convert Renewable Isobutanol to
p-Xylene. WO2011044243A1, 14 April 2011.
99. Morschbacker, A.; Campos, C.E.S.; Cassiano, L.C.; Roza, L.; Almada, F.; do Carmo, R.W. Bio-polyethylene. In Handbook of Green
Materials, Vol 4: Biobased Composite Materials, Their Processing Properties and Industrial Applications; Oksman, K., Mathew, A.P.,
Bismarck, A., Rojas, O., Sain, M., Qvintus, P., Eds.; Materials and Energy; World Scientific: Singapore, 2014; Volume 5, pp. 89–104.
100. Wang, Z.H.; Shen, D.K.; Wu, C.F.; Gu, S. Thermal behavior and kinetics of co-pyrolysis of cellulose and polyethylene with the
addition of transition metals. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 172, 32–38. [CrossRef]
101. Eco Entreprises Québec. Fact Sheet Impact of Packaging on Curbside Recycling Collection and Recycling System: PLA Bottle.
Available online: http://www.eeq.ca/wp-content/uploads/PLA-bottles.pdf (accessed on 24 August 2022).
102. Kržan, A. Biodegradable polymers and plastics. Innov. Value Chain Dev. Sustain. Plast. Cent. Eur. 2012, 12, 12–29.
103. Niaounakis, M. Recycling of biopolymers—The patent perspective. Eur. Polym. J. 2019, 114, 464–475. [CrossRef]
104. Dilkes-Hoffman, L.S.; Pratt, S.; Lant, P.A.; Laycock, B. The Role of Biodegradable Plastic in Solving Plastic Solid Waste Accumulation;
William Andrew Publishing: Norwich, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 469–505.
105. Niaounakis, M.; Niaounakis, M. Biopolymers: Processing and Products Introduction; Elisver: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015;
pp. 1–77.
106. Our World in Data. Primary Plastic Production by Polymer Type, 2015. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/
plastic-production-polymer (accessed on 24 August 2022).
107. Garcia, D.; Balart, R.; Crespo, J.E.; Lopez, J. Mechanical properties of recycled PVC blends with styrenic polymers. J. Appl. Polym.
Sci. 2006, 101, 2464–2471. [CrossRef]
108. Yarahmadi, N.; Jakubowicz, I.; Martinsson, L. PVC floorings as post-consumer products for mechanical recycling and energy
recovery. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2003, 79, 439–448. [CrossRef]
109. Braun, D. PVC—Origin, growth, and future. J. Vinyl Addit. Technol. 2001, 7, 168–176. [CrossRef]
110. Sadat-Shojai, M.; Bakhshandeh, G.R. Recycling of PVC wastes. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2011, 96, 404–415. [CrossRef]
111. Slapak, M.J.P.; van Kasteren, J.M.N.; Drinkenburg, B. Hydrothermal recycling of PVC in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor: The
influence of bed material and temperature. Polym. Adv. Technol. 1999, 10, 596–602. [CrossRef]
112. Patel, M.K.; Jochem, E.; Radgen, P.; Worrell, E. Plastics streams in Germany—An analysis of production, consumption and waste
generation. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1998, 24, 191–215. [CrossRef]
113. Kou, S.C.; Lee, G.; Poon, C.S.; Lai, W.L. Properties of lightweight aggregate concrete prepared with PVC granules derived from
scraped PVC pipes. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 621–628. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
114. Ditta, A.S.; Wilkinson, A.J.; McNally, G.M.; Murphy, W.R. A study of the processing characteristics and mechanical properties of
multiple recycled rigid PVC. J. Vinyl Addit. Technol. 2004, 10, 174–178. [CrossRef]
115. Lisk, D.J. Environmental-Effects of Landfills. Sci. Total Environ. 1991, 100, 415–468. [CrossRef]
116. Garcia, D.; Balart, R.; Sanchez, L.; Lopez, J. Compatibility of recycled PVC/ABS blends. Effect of previous degradation. Polym.
Eng. Sci. 2007, 47, 789–796. [CrossRef]
117. Zakharyan, E.M.; Petrukhina, N.N.; Maksimov, A.L. Pathways of Chemical Recycling of Polyvinyl Chloride: Part 1. Russ. J. Appl.
Chem. 2020, 93, 1271–1313. [CrossRef]
118. Zakharyan, E.M.; Petrukhina, N.N.; Dzhabarov, E.G.; Maksimov, A.L. Pathways of Chemical Recycling of Polyvinyl Chloride.
Part 2. Russ. J. Appl. Chem. 2020, 93, 1445–1490. [CrossRef]
119. Caparanga, A.R.; Basilia, B.A.; Dagbay, K.B.; Salvacion, J.W.L. Factors affecting degradation of polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
during pre-flotation conditioning. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 2425–2428. [CrossRef]
120. Lusinchi, J.M.; Pietrasanta, Y.; Robin, J.J.; Boutevin, B. Recycling of PET and PVC wastes. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1998, 69, 657–665.
[CrossRef]
121. Anzano, J.; Lasheras, R.J.; Bonilla, B.; Casas, J. Classification of polymers by determining of C-1: C-2: CN: H: N: O ratios by
laser-induced plasma spectroscopy (LIPS). Polym. Test. 2008, 27, 705–710. [CrossRef]
122. Gondal, M.A.; Siddiqu, M.N. Identification of different kinds of plastics using laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy for waste
management. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A-Toxic/Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng. 2007, 42, 1989–1997. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
123. Park, C.H.; Jeon, H.S.; Park, J.K. PVC removal from mixed plastics by triboelectrostatic Separation. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007, 144,
124. Dodbiba, G.; Sadaki, J.; Okaya, K.; Shibayama, A.; Fujita, T. The use of air tabling and triboelectric Separation for Separating a
mixture of three plastics. Miner. Eng. 2005, 18, 1350–1360. [CrossRef]
125. Hearn, G.L.; Ballard, J.R. The use of electrostatic techniques for the identification and sorting of waste packaging materials. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 2005, 44, 91–98. [CrossRef]
126. Singh, R.; Pant, D. Bio-inspired dechlorination of poly vinyl chloride. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2018, 132, 505–517. [CrossRef]
127. Yoshioka, T.; Kameda, T.; Grause, G.; Imai, S.; Okuwaki, A. Effect of compatibility between solvent and poly(vinyl chloride) on
dechlorination of poly(vinyl chloride). J. Polym. Res. 2010, 17, 489–493. [CrossRef]
128. Guo, L.; Shi, G.Q.; Liang, Y.Q. High-quality polyene films prepared by poly (ethylene glycol)s catalyzed dehydrochlorination of
poly (vinyl chloride) with potassium hydroxide. Eur. Polym. J. 1999, 35, 215–220. [CrossRef]
129. Wu, Y.H.; Zhou, Q.; Zhao, T.; Deng, M.L.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Y.Z. Poly(ethylene glycol) enhanced dehydrochlorination of poly(vinyl
chloride). J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 163, 1408–1411. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
130. Ghaemy, M.; Gharaebi, I. Study of dehydrochlorination of poly(vinyl chloride) in solution and the effect of synthesis conditions
on graft copolymerization with styrene. Eur. Polym. J. 2000, 36, 1967–1979. [CrossRef]
131. Shen, Y.F. A review on hydrothermal carbonization of biomass and plastic wastes to energy products. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 134,
105479. [CrossRef]
132. Nagai, Y.; Smith, R.L.; Inomata, H.; Arai, K. Direct observation of polyvinylchloride degradation in water at temperatures up to
500 degrees C and at pressures up to 700 MPa. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2007, 106, 1075–1086. [CrossRef]
133. Poerschmann, J.; Weiner, B.; Koehler, R.; Kopinke, F.D. Organic breakdown products resulting from hydrothermal carbonization
of brewer’s spent grain. Chemosphere 2015, 131, 71–77. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
134. Soler, A.; Conesa, J.A.; Ortuno, N. Emissions of brominated compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons during pyrolysis
of E-waste debrominated in subcritical water. Chemosphere 2017, 186, 167–176. [CrossRef]
135. Kubatova, A.; Lagadec, A.J.M.; Hawthorne, S.B. Dechlorination of lindane, dieldrin, tetrachloroethane, trichloroethene, and PVC
in subcritical water. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 1337–1343. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
136. Yao, Z.L.; Ma, X.Q. A new approach to transforming PVC waste into energy via combined hydrothermal carbonization and fast
pyrolysis. Energy 2017, 141, 1156–1165. [CrossRef]
137. Ning, X.J.; Teng, H.P.; Wang, G.W.; Zhang, J.L.; Zhang, N.; Huang, C.C.; Wang, C. Physiochemical, structural and combustion
properties of hydrochar obtained by hydrothermal carbonization of waste polyvinyl chloride. Fuel 2020, 270, 117526. [CrossRef]
138. Takeshita, Y.; Kato, K.; Takahashi, K.; Sato, Y.; Nishi, S. Basic study on treatment of waste polyvinyl chloride plastics by
hydrothermal decomposition in subcritical and supercritical regions. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2004, 31, 185–193. [CrossRef]
139. Keane, M.A. Catalytic conversion of waste plastics: Focus on waste PVC. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2007, 82, 787–795. [CrossRef]
140. Ali, M.F.; Siddiqui, M.N. Thermal and catalytic decomposition behavior of PVC mixed plastic waste with petroleum residue. J.
Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2005, 74, 282–289. [CrossRef]
141. Karayildirim, T.; Yanik, J.; Ucar, S.; Saglam, M.; Yuksel, M. Conversion of plastics/HVGO mixtures to fuels by two-step processing.
Fuel Process. Technol. 2001, 73, 23–35. [CrossRef]
142. Karagoz, S.; Karayildirim, T.; Ucar, S.; Yuksel, M.; Yanik, J. Liquefaction of municipal waste plastics in VGO over acidic and
non-acidic catalysts. Fuel 2003, 82, 415–423. [CrossRef]
143. Borgianni, C.; De Filippis, P.; Pochetti, F.; Paolucci, M. Gasification process of wastes containing PVC. Fuel 2002, 81, 1827–1833.
[CrossRef]
144. Kamo, T.; Takaoka, K.; Otomo, J.; Takahashi, H. Effect of steam and sodium hydroxide for the production of hydrogen on
gasification of dehydrochlorinated poly(vinyl chloride). Fuel 2006, 85, 1052–1059. [CrossRef]
145. Lin, S.Y.; Suzuki, Y.; Hatano, H.; Harada, M. Hydrogen production from hydrocarbon by integration of water-carbon reaction and
carbon dioxide removal (HyPr-RING method). Energy Fuels 2001, 15, 339–343. [CrossRef]
146. Sivakumar, P.; Jung, H.; Tierney, J.W.; Wender, I. Liquefaction of lignocellulosic and plastic wastes with coal using carbon
monoxide and aqueous alkali. Fuel Process. Technol. 1996, 49, 219–232. [CrossRef]
147. Zhang, S.Z.; Yu, Y. Dechlorination behavior on the recovery of useful resources from WEEE by the steam gasification in the molten
carbonates. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Waste Management and Technology (ICWMT), Mianyang,
China, 28–30 October 2015; pp. 903–910.
148. Chen, S.; Meng, A.H.; Long, Y.Q.; Zhou, H.; Li, Q.H.; Zhang, Y.G. TGA pyrolysis and gasification of combustible municipal solid
waste. J. Energy Inst. 2015, 88, 332–343. [CrossRef]
149. Cho, M.H.; Choi, Y.K.; Kim, J.S. Air gasification of PVC (polyvinyl chloride)-containing plastic waste in a two-stage gasifier using
Ca-based additives and Ni-loaded activated carbon for the production of clean and hydrogen-rich producer gas. Energy 2015, 87,
150. Kim, J.W.; Mun, T.Y.; Kim, J.O.; Kim, J.S. Air gasification of mixed plastic wastes using a two-stage gasifier for the production of
producer gas with low tar and a high caloric value. Fuel 2011, 90, 2266–2272. [CrossRef]
151. Cho, M.H.; Mun, T.Y.; Kim, J.S. Air gasification of mixed plastic wastes using calcined dolomite and activated carbon in a
two-stage gasifier to reduce tar. Energy 2013, 53, 299–305. [CrossRef]
152. Cho, M.H.; Mun, T.Y.; Kim, J.S. Production of low-tar producer gas from air gasification of mixed plastic waste in a two-stage
gasifier using olivine combined with activated carbon. Energy 2013, 58, 688–694. [CrossRef]
153. Cho, M.H.; Mun, T.Y.; Choi, Y.K.; Kim, J.S. Two-stage air gasification of mixed plastic waste: Olivine as the bed material and
effects of various additives and a nickel-plated distributor on the tar removal. Energy 2014, 70, 128–134. [CrossRef]
154. Zhou, C.G.; Stuermer, T.; Gunarathne, R.; Yang, W.H.; Blasiak, W. Effect of calcium oxide on high-temperature steam gasification
of municipal solid waste. Fuel 2014, 122, 36–46. [CrossRef]
155. Baloch, H.A.; Yang, T.H.; Li, R.D.; Nizamuddin, S.; Kai, X.P.; Bhutto, A.W. Parametric study of co-gasification of ternary blends of
rice straw, polyethylene and polyvinylchloride. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2016, 18, 1031–1042. [CrossRef]
156. Wilk, V.; Hofbauer, H. Co-gasification of Plastics and Biomass in a Dual Fluidized-Bed Steam Gasifier: Possible Interactions of
Fuels. Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 3261–3273. [CrossRef]
157. Lee, J.W.; Yu, T.U.; Lee, J.W.; Moon, J.H.; Jeong, H.J.; Park, S.S.; Yang, W.; Do Lee, U. Gasification of Mixed Plastic Wastes in a
Moving-Grate Gasifier and Application of the Producer Gas to a Power Generation Engine. Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 2092–2098.
[CrossRef]
158. da Silva Müller Teixeira, F.; de Carvalho Peres, A.C.; Gomes, T.S.; Visconte, L.L.Y.; Pacheco, E.B.A.V. A Review on the Applicability
of Life Cycle Assessment to Evaluate the Technical and Environmental Properties of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. J.
Polym. Environ. 2020, 29, 1333–1349. [CrossRef]
159. Covaci, A.; Harrad, S.; Abdallah, M.A.E.; Ali, N.; Law, R.J.; Herzke, D.; de Wit, C.A. Novel brominated flame retardants: A review
of their analysis, environmental fate and behaviour. Environ. Int. 2011, 37, 532–556. [CrossRef]
160. Schreder, E.D.; Uding, N.; La Guardia, M.J. Inhalation a significant exposure route for chlorinated organophosphate flame
retardants. Chemosphere 2016, 150, 499–504. [CrossRef]
161. Peeters, J.R.; Vanegas, P.; Tange, L.; Van Houwelingen, J.; Duflou, J.R. Closed loop recycling of plastics containing Flame
Retardants. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 84, 35–43. [CrossRef]
162. Suresh, S.S.; Bonda, S.; Mohanty, S.; Nayak, S.K. A review on computer waste with its special insight to toxic elements, segregation
and recycling techniques. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 116, 477–493. [CrossRef]
163. Buekens, A.; Yang, J. Recycling of WEEE plastics: A review. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2014, 16, 415–434. [CrossRef]
164. Wagner, S.; Schlummer, M. Legacy additives in a circular economy of plastics: Current dilemma, policy analysis, and emerging
countermeasures. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 158, 104800. [CrossRef]
165. UNEP. Guidance for the Inventory of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (Pbdes) Listed under the Stockholm Conven-
tion on Persistent Organic Pollutants; 2017. Available online: http://chm.pops.int/Implementation/NIPs/Guidance/
GuidancefortheinventoryofPBDEs/tabid/3171/Default.aspx (accessed on 24 August 2022).
166. Sun, B.B.; Hu, Y.N.; Cheng, H.F.; Tao, S. Kinetics of Brominated Flame Retardant (BFR) Releases from Granules of Waste Plastics.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 13419–13427. [CrossRef]
167. Jaidev, K.; Biswal, M.; Mohanty, S.; Nayak, S.K. Sustainable Waste Management of Engineering Plastics Generated from E-Waste:
A Critical Evaluation of Mechanical, Thermal and Morphological Properties. J. Polym. Environ. 2021, 29, 1763–1776. [CrossRef]
168. Turner, A.; Filella, M. Bromine in plastic consumer products—Evidence for the widespread recycling of electronic waste. Sci. Total
Environ. 2017, 601, 374–379. [CrossRef]
169. The International Bromine Council. Impact of BrominatedFlame Retardants on theRecycling of WEEE Plastics. Available online:
https://www.bsef.com/ (accessed on 24 August 2022).
170. Taurino, R.; Pozzi, P.; Zanasi, T. Facile characterization of polymer fractions from waste electrical and electronic equipment
(WEEE) for mechanical recycling. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2601–2607. [CrossRef]
171. de Souza, A.M.C.; Cucchiara, M.G.; Ereio, A.V. ABS/HIPS blends obtained from WEEE: Influence of processing conditions and
composition. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2016, 133. [CrossRef]
172. Hirayama, D.; Saron, C. Characterisation of recycled acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene and high-impact polystyrene from waste
computer equipment in Brazil. Waste Manag. Res. 2015, 33, 543–549. [CrossRef]
173. Menad, N.; Guignot, S.; van Houwelingen, J.A. New characterisation method of electrical and electronic equipment wastes
(WEEE). Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 706–713. [CrossRef]
174. Arends, D.; Schlummer, M.; Maurer, A.; Markowski, J.; Wagenknecht, U. Characterisation and materials flow management
for waste electrical and electronic equipment plastics from German dismantling centres. Waste Manag. Res. 2015, 33, 775–784.
[CrossRef]
175. Brennan, L.B.; Isaac, D.H.; Arnold, J.C. Recycling of acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene and high-impact polystyrene from waste
computer equipment. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2002, 86, 572–578. [CrossRef]
176. Hirayama, D.; Saron, C. Morphologic and mechanical properties of blends from recycled acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene and
high-impact polystyrene. Polymer 2018, 135, 271–278. [CrossRef]
177. Vazquez, Y.V.; Barbosa, S.E. Process Window for Direct Recycling of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene and High-Impact Polystyrene
from Electrical and Electronic Equipment Waste. Waste Manag. 2017, 59, 403–408. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
178. Yang, X.N.; Sun, L.S.; Xiang, J.; Hu, S.; Su, S. Pyrolysis and dehalogenation of plastics from waste electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE): A review. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 462–473. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
179. Bockhorn, H.; Hornung, A.; Hornung, U.; Jakobstroer, P. New mechanistic aspects of the dehydrochlorination of PVC—
Application of dehydrochlorination to plastic mixtures and electronic scrap. Combust. Sci. Technol. 1998, 134, 7–30. [CrossRef]
180. Bhaskar, T.; Hall, W.J.; Mitan, N.M.M.; Muto, A.; Williams, P.T.; Sakata, Y. Controlled pyrolysis of polyethylene/polypropylene/
polystyrene mixed plastics with high impact polystyrene containing flame retardant: Effect of decabromo diphenylethane (DDE).
Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2007, 92, 211–221. [CrossRef]
181. Miskolczi, N.; Hall, W.J.; Angyal, A.; Bartha, L.; Williams, P.T. Production of oil with low organobromine content from the
pyrolysis of flame retarded HIPS and ABS plastics. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2008, 83, 115–123. [CrossRef]
182. Hall, W.J.; Williams, P.T. Removal of organobromine compounds from the pyrolysis oils of flame retarded plastics using zeolite
catalysts. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2008, 81, 139–147. [CrossRef]
183. Shen, M.; Sun, W.H. Hydrodebromination of bromoarenes using Grignard reagents catalyzed by metal ions. Appl. Organomet.
Chem. 2009, 23, 51–54. [CrossRef]
184. Wu, W.H.; Xu, J.; Ohnishi, R. Complete hydrodechlorination of chlorobenzene and its derivatives over supported nickel catalysts
under liquid phase conditions (vol 60, pg 131, 2005). Appl. Catal. B-Environ. 2005, 61, 352. [CrossRef]
185. Gundupalli, S.P.; Hait, S.; Thakur, A. A review on automated sorting of source-Separated municipal solid waste for recycling.
Waste Manag. 2017, 60, 56–74. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
186. Picon, A.; Ghita, O.; Whelan, P.F.; Iriondo, P.M. Fuzzy Spectral and Spatial Feature Integration for Classification of Nonferrous
Materials in Hyperspectral Data. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2009, 5, 483–494. [CrossRef]
187. Safavi, S.M.; Masoumi, H.; Mirian, S.; Tabrizchi, M. Sorting of polypropylene resins by color in MSW using visible reflectance
spectroscopy. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2216–2222. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
188. Serranti, S.; Gargiulo, A.; Bonifazi, G. Characterization of post-consumer polyolefin wastes by hyperspectral imaging for quality
control in recycling processes. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 2217–2227. [CrossRef]
189. Kassouf, A.; Maalouly, J.; Rutledge, D.N.; Chebib, H.; Ducruet, V. Rapid discrimination of plastic packaging materials using MIR
spectroscopy coupled with independent components analysis (ICA). Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 2131–2138. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
190. Brunner, S.; Fomin, P.; Kargel, C. Automated sorting of polymer flakes: Fluorescence labeling and development of a measurement
system prototype. Waste Manag. 2015, 38, 49–60. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
191. Bezati, F.; Froelich, D.; Massardier, V.; Maris, E. Addition of tracers into the polypropylene in view of automatic sorting of plastic
wastes using X-ray fluorescence spectrometry. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 591–596. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
192. Liu, K.; Tian, D.; Li, C.; Li, Y.C.; Yang, G.; Ding, Y. A review of laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy for plastic analysis.
Trac-Trends Anal. Chem. 2019, 110, 327–334. [CrossRef]
193. Zeng, Q.; Sirven, J.B.; Gabriel, J.C.P.; Tay, C.Y.; Lee, J.M. Laser induced breakdown spectroscopy for plastic analysis. Trac-Trends
Anal. Chem. 2021, 140, 116280. [CrossRef]
194. Adarsh, U.K.; Kartha, V.B.; Santhosh, C.; Unnikrishnan, V.K. Spectroscopy: A promising tool for plastic waste management.
Trac-Trends Anal. Chem. 2022, 149, 116534. [CrossRef]
195. Anzano, J.; Casanova, M.E.; Bermudez, M.S.; Lasheras, R.J. Rapid characterization of plastics using laser-induced plasma
spectroscopy (LIPS). Polym. Test. 2006, 25, 623–627. [CrossRef]
196. Wang, C.Q.; Wang, H.; Fu, J.G.; Liu, Y.N. Flotation Separation of waste plastics for recycling-A review. Waste Manag. 2015, 41,
28–38. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
197. Fraunholcz, N. Separation of waste plastics by froth flotation—A review, part I. Miner. Eng. 2004, 17, 261–268. [CrossRef]
198. Alter, H. The recovery of plastics from waste with reference to froth flotation. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2005, 43, 119–132. [CrossRef]
199. Wang, H.; Zhang, Y.S.; Wang, C.Q. Surface modification and selective flotation of waste plastics for effective recycling-a review.
Sept. Purif. Technol. 2019, 226, 75–94. [CrossRef]
200. Guo, J.; Li, X.; Guo, Y.W.; Ruan, J.L.; Qiao, Q.; Zhang, J.Q.; Bi, Y.Y.; Li, F. Research on Flotation Technique of Separating PET from
plastic packaging wastes. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Waste Management and Technology (ICWMT),
Mianyang, China, 28–30 October 2015; pp. 178–184.
201. Abbasi, M.; Salarirad, M.M.; Ghasemi, I. Selective Separation of PVC from PET/PVC Mixture Using Floatation by Tannic Acid
Depressant. Iran. Polym. J. 2010, 19, 483–489.
202. Shen, H.T.; Forssberg, E.; Pugh, R.J. Selective flotation Separation of plastics by chemical conditioning with methyl cellulose.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2002, 35, 229–241. [CrossRef]
203. Pascoe, R.D.; O’Connell, B. Development of a method for Separation of PVC and PET using flame treatment and flotation. Miner.
Eng. 2003, 16, 1205–1212. [CrossRef]
204. Reddy, M.S.; Kurose, K.; Okuda, T.; Nishijima, W.; Okada, M. Selective recovery of PVC-free polymers from ASR polymers by
ozonation and froth flotation. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2008, 52, 941–946. [CrossRef]
205. Okuda, T.; Kurose, K.; Nishijima, W.; Okada, M. Separation of polyvinyl chloride from plastic mixture by froth flotation after
surface modification with ozone. Ozone-Sci. Eng. 2007, 29, 373–377. [CrossRef]
206. Wang, C.Q.; Wang, H.; Liu, Q.; Fu, J.G.; Liu, Y.N. Separation of polycarbonate and acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene waste plastics
by froth flotation combined with ammonia pretreatment. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 2656–2661. [CrossRef]
207. Wang, C.Q.; Wang, H.; Wu, B.X.; Liu, Q. Boiling treatment of ABS and PS plastics for flotation Separation. Waste Manag. 2014, 34,
1206–1210. [CrossRef]
208. Reddy, M.S.; Yamaguchi, T.; Okuda, T.; Tsai, T.Y.; Nakai, S.; Nishijima, W.; Okada, M. Feasibility study of the Separation of
chlorinated films from plastic packaging wastes. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 597–601. [CrossRef]
209. Lowell, J.; Roseinnes, A.C. Contact Electrification. Adv. Phys. 1980, 29, 947–1023. [CrossRef]
210. Wu, G.Q.; Li, J.; Xu, Z.M. Triboelectrostatic Separation for granular plastic waste recycling: A review. Waste Manag. 2013, 33,
211. Park, C.H.; Park, J.K.; Jeon, H.S.; Chun, B.C. Triboelectric series and charging properties of plastics using the designed vertical-
reciprocation charger. J. Electrost. 2008, 66, 578–583. [CrossRef]
212. Jeon, H.S.; Park, C.H.; Cho, B.G.; Park, J.K. Separation of PVC and Rubber from Covering Plastics in Communication Cable Scrap
by Tribo-Charging. Sept. Sci. Technol. 2009, 44, 190–202. [CrossRef]
213. Calin, L.; Caliap, L.; Neamtu, V.; Morar, R.; Iuga, A.; Samuila, A.; Dascalescu, L. Tribocharging of granular plastic mixtures in
view of electrostatic Separation. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2008, 44, 1045–1051. [CrossRef]
214. Watson, P.K.; Yu, Z.Z. The contact electrification of polymers and the depth of charge penetration. J. Electrost. 1997, 40–41, 67–72.
[CrossRef]
215. Park, C.H.; Jeon, H.S.; Cho, B.G.; Park, J.K. Triboelectrostatic Separation of covering plastics in chopped waste electric wire. Polym.
Eng. Sci. 2007, 47, 1975–1982. [CrossRef]
216. Almeshal, I.; Tayeh, B.A.; Alyousef, R.; Alabduljabbar, H.; Mohamed, A.M.; Alaskar, A. Use of recycled plastic as fine aggregate
in cementitious composites: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 253, 119146. [CrossRef]
217. Babafemi, A.J.; Savija, B.; Paul, S.C.; Anggraini, V. Engineering Properties of Concrete with Waste Recycled Plastic: A Review.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3875. [CrossRef]
218. Faraj, R.H.; Ali, H.F.H.; Sherwani, A.F.H.; Hassan, B.R.; Karim, H. Use of recycled plastic in self-compacting concrete: A
comprehensive review on fresh and mechanical properties. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 30, 101283. [CrossRef]
219. Batayneh, M.; Marie, I.; Asi, I. Use of selected waste materials in concrete mixes. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 1870–1876. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
220. Saikia, N.; de Brito, J. Mechanical properties and abrasion behaviour of concrete containing shredded PET bottle waste as a partial
substitution of natural aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 52, 236–244. [CrossRef]
221. Akinyele, J.O.; Ajede, A. The use of granulated plastic waste in structural concrete. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 2018, 10,
222. Mohammed, A.A.; Mohammed, I.I.; Mohammed, S.A. Some properties of concrete with plastic aggregate derived from shredded
PVC sheets. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 201, 232–245. [CrossRef]
223. Mustafa, M.A.T.; Hanafi, I.; Mahmoud, R.; Tayeh, B.A. Effect of partial replacement of sand by plastic waste on impact resistance
of concrete: Experiment and simulation. Structures 2019, 20, 519–526. [CrossRef]
224. Kalantar, Z.N.; Karim, M.R.; Mahrez, A. A review of using waste and virgin polymer in pavement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 33,
55–62. [CrossRef]
225. Ameri, M.; Mansourian, A.; Sheikhmotevali, A.H. Laboratory evaluation of ethylene vinyl acetate modified bitumens and
mixtures based upon performance related parameters. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 40, 438–447. [CrossRef]
226. Li, J.; Xiao, F.P.; Zhang, L.F.; Amirkhanian, S.N. Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis of recycled solid waste materials
in highway pavement: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 1182–1206. [CrossRef]
227. Vasudevan, R.; Sekar, A.R.C.; Sundarakannan, B.; Velkennedy, R. A technique to dispose waste plastics in an ecofriendly
way—Application in construction of flexible pavements. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 28, 311–320. [CrossRef]
228. Wu, S.H.; Montalvo, L. Repurposing waste plastics into cleaner asphalt pavement materials: A critical literature review. J. Clean.
Prod. 2021, 280, 124355. [CrossRef]
229. Moghaddam, T.B.; Soltani, M.; Karim, M.R. Stiffness modulus of Polyethylene Terephthalate modified asphalt mixture: A
statistical analysis of the laboratory testing results. Mater. Des. 2015, 68, 88–96. [CrossRef]
230. Movilla-Quesada, D.; Raposeiras, A.C.; Silva-Klein, L.T.; Lastra-Gonzalez, P.; Castro-Fresno, D. Use of plastic scrap in asphalt
mixtures added by dry method as a partial substitute for bitumen. Waste Manag. 2019, 87, 751–760. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
231. Chin, C.; Damen, P. Viability of Using Recycled Plastics in Asphalt and Sprayed Sealing Applications; Austroads Publication: Sydney,
Australia, 2019.
232. Jafar, J.J. Utilisation of waste plastic in bituminous mix for improved performance of roads. Ksce J. Civ. Eng. 2016, 20, 243–249.
[CrossRef]
233. Fang, C.Q.; Jiao, L.N.; Hu, J.B.; Yu, Q.; Guo, D.G.; Zhou, X.; Yu, R.E. Viscoelasticity of Asphalt Modified With Packaging Waste
Expended Polystyrene. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2014, 30, 939–943. [CrossRef]
234. Otuoze, H.S.; Ejeh, S.P.; Amartey, Y.D.; Joel, M.; Shuaibu, A.A.; Yusuf, K.O. Rheology and Simple Performance Test (SPT)
Evaluation of High-Density Polypropylene (HDPP) Waste-Modified Bituminous Mix. Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 12, 35–44.
235. Shojaei, B.; Abtahi, M.; Najafi, M. Chemical recycling ofPET: A stepping-stone toward sustainability. Polym. Adv. Technol. 2020, 31,
2912–2938. [CrossRef]
236. Damayanti; Wu, H.S. Strategic Possibility Routes of Recycled PET. Polymers 2021, 13, 1475. [CrossRef]
237. Stanica-Ezeanu, D.; Matei, D. Natural depolymerization of waste poly(ethylene terephthalate) by neutral hydrolysis in marine
water. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 4431. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
238. Sinha, V.; Patel, M.R.; Patel, J.V. Pet Waste Management by Chemical Recycling: A Review. J. Polym. Environ. 2010, 18, 8–25.
[CrossRef]
239. Paszun, D.; Spychaj, T. Chemical recycling of poly(ethylene terephthalate). Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1997, 36, 1373–1383. [CrossRef]
240. Ubeda, S.; Aznar, M.; Nerin, C. Determination of oligomers in virgin and recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) samples by
UPLC-MS-QTOF. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2018, 410, 2377–2384. [CrossRef]
241. Najafi, S.K. Use of recycled plastics in wood plastic composites—A review. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 1898–1905. [CrossRef]
242. Ghahri, S.; Najafi, S.K.; Mohebby, B.; Tajvidi, M. Impact strength improvement of wood flour-recycled polypropylene composites.
J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2012, 124, 1074–1080. [CrossRef]
243. Adhikary, K.B.; Pang, S.S.; Staiger, M.P. Long-term moisture absorption and thickness swelling behaviour of recycled thermoplas-
tics reinforced with Pinus radiata sawdust. Chem. Eng. J. 2008, 142, 190–198. [CrossRef]
244. Najafi, S.K.; Tajvidi, M.; Hamidina, E. Effect of temperature, plastic type and virginity on the water uptake of sawdust/plastic
composites. Holz Als Roh-Und Werkst. 2007, 65, 377–382. [CrossRef]
245. Adhikary, K.B.; Pang, S.S.; Staiger, M.P. Dimensional stability and mechanical behaviour of wood-plastic composites based on
recycled and virgin high-density polyethylene (HDPE). Compos. Part B-Eng. 2008, 39, 807–815. [CrossRef]
246. Morin, C.; Loppinet-Serani, A.; Cansell, F.; Aymonier, C. Near- and supercritical solvolysis of carbon fibre reinforced polymers
(CFRPs) for recycling carbon fibers as a valuable resource: State of the art. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2012, 66, 232–240. [CrossRef]
247. Gharde, S.; Kandasubramanian, B. Mechanothermal and chemical recycling methodologies for the Fibre Reinforced Plastic (FRP).
Environ. Technol. Innov. 2019, 14, 100311. [CrossRef]
248. Kumar, S.; Krishnan, S. Recycling of carbon fiber with epoxy composites by chemical recycling for future perspective: A review.
Chem. Pap. 2020, 74, 3785–3807. [CrossRef]
249. Liu, T.; Zhang, M.; Guo, X.L.; Liu, C.Y.; Liu, T.; Xin, J.N.; Zhang, J.W. Mild chemical recycling of aerospace fiber/epoxy composite
wastes and utilization of the decomposed resin. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2017, 139, 20–27. [CrossRef]
250. Dang, W.R.; Kubouchi, M.; Yamamoto, S.; Sembokuya, H.; Tsuda, K. An approach to chemical recycling of epoxy resin cured with
amine using nitric acid. Polymer 2002, 43, 2953–2958. [CrossRef]
251. Plastic Waste Management Institute (PWMI). PWMI Newsletter: Plastic Products, Plastic Waste and Resource Recovery [2020].
Available online: Chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://www.pwmi.or.jp/ei/siryo/ei/ei_pdf/
ei51.pdf (accessed on 24 August 2022).
252. Luan, X.Y.; Cui, X.W.; Zhang, L.; Chen, X.Y.; Li, X.X.; Feng, X.W.; Chen, L.; Liu, W.; Cui, Z.J. Dynamic material flow analysis of
plastics in China from 1950 to 2050. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 327, 129492. [CrossRef]
253. Liang, Y.Y.; Tan, Q.Y.; Song, Q.B.; Li, J.H. An analysis of the plastic waste trade and management in Asia. Waste Manag. 2021, 119,
254. Siddiqui, J.; Pandey, G. A Review of Plastic Waste Management Strategies. Int. Res. J. Environ. Sci. 2013, 2, 84–88.
255. Mancini, S.D.; de Medeiros, G.A.; Paes, M.X.; de Oliveira, B.O.S.; Antunes, M.L.P.; de Souza, R.G.; Ferraz, J.L.; Bortoleto, A.P.; de
Oliveira, J.A.P. Circular Economy and Solid Waste Management: Challenges and Opportunities in Brazil. Circ. Econ. Sustain.
2021, 1, 261–282. [CrossRef]
256. IPSOS. Attitudes towards Single-Use Plastics. Available online: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/
documents/2022-02/Attitudes-towards-single-use-plastics-Feb-2022.pdf (accessed on 24 August 2022).
257. Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO). Yunyukisei ha Genkakumo, Kokunaikisei no Unyou Niha Kadai. Available
online: https://www.jetro.go.jp/biz/areareports/special/2019/0101/4e336b896cde689c.html (accessed on 24 August 2022). (In
Japanese).
258. Shi, J.J.; Zhang, C.; Chen, W.Q. The expansion and shrinkage of the international trade network of plastic wastes affected by
China’s waste management policies. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 25, 187–197. [CrossRef]
259. Kumamaru, H.; Takeuchi, K. The impact of China’s import ban: An economic surplus analysis of markets for recyclable plastics.
Waste Manag. 2021, 126, 360–366. [CrossRef]
260. Li, C.; Wang, L.; Zhao, J.S.; Deng, L.C.; Yu, S.X.; Shi, Z.H.; Wang, Z. The collapse of global plastic waste trade: Structural change,
cascading failure process and potential solutions. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 314, 127935. [CrossRef]
261. Xu, W.; Chen, W.Q.; Jiang, D.Q.; Zhang, C.; Ma, Z.J.; Ren, Y.; Shi, L. Evolution of the global polyethylene waste trade system.
Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2020, 6. [CrossRef]
262. Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO). Haipurasutikku no Bouekifuro ni Henka (Japanese). Available online: https:
//www.jetro.go.jp/biz/areareports/2020/2a54b9255db84d8d.html (accessed on 24 August 2022).
263. Huang, Q.; Chen, G.W.; Wang, Y.F.; Chen, S.Q.; Xu, L.X.; Wang, R. Modelling the global impact of China’s ban on plastic waste
imports. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 154, 104607. [CrossRef]
264. Jun, T. Umino Pulasutikku Gomi Mondai. Available online: https://jsil.jp/archives/expert/2020-4 (accessed on 20 October 2022).

Sustainability 14 16340

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationSustainability

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 14 16340

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 14 16340

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Academic Editors: Simone

Sustainability 2022, 14, 16340. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416340 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

the advantage that the environmental burden is small. As a representative example of

2. Materials and Methods

3.2. Cluster 1: Plastic Recycling

Table 2. Summary of six subclusters in cluster 1. “#” represents a number.

3.2.1. Subcluster 1-1: Recycling by Pyrolysis

3.2.2. Subcluster 1-2: LCA of Plastic Recycling

3.2.3. Subcluster 1-3: Mechanical Recycling

3.2.4. Subcluster 1-4: Biodegradation of Plastics

3.2.5. Subcluster 1-5: Bioplastics

3.2.6. Subcluster 1-6: Recycling of PVC

3.3. Cluster 2: WEEE and Sorting of Plastic Waste

Table 3. Summary of four subclusters in cluster 2. “#” represents a number.

3.3.1. Subcluster 2-1: Recycling of WEEE

3.3.2. Subcluster 2-2: Spectroscopy Sorting

3.3.3. Subcluster 2-3: Flotation Separation

3.3.4. Subcluster 2-4: Electrostatic Separation

3.4. Cluster 3: Use of Plastic Waste in the Construction Sector

Table 4. Summary of two subclusters in cluster 3. “#” represents a number.

3.4.1. Subcluster 3-1: Use of Recycled Plastics in Concrete

3.4.2. Subcluster 3-2: Use of Recycled Plastics in Asphalt

3.5. Cluster 4: Chemical Recycling of PET

3.6. Cluster 5: Use for Wood-Plastics Composites

In contrast to flexural strength, tensile strength, and hygroscopic properties, almost

3.7. Cluster 6: Recycling of FRP

Table 5. Summary of emerging research subcluster. “#” represents a number.

Share of Waste Energy Environmental Population

China Spain India USA UK Japan Italy Porland Germany Malaysia

USA China Italy Germany UK Spain Japan Netherlands Denmark Switzerland

USA China Germany India UK Italy Brazil Japan Sweden Canada

USA Italy UK Spain China Germany Netherlands Poland India Portugal

China Germany UK USA Belgium France India Italy Switzerland Brazil

China Japan Korea Italy Australia USA Portugal UK Turkey Spain

Funding: This research received no external funding.

You might also like