4.8 Article

Selective Chemical Upcycling of Mixed Plastics Guided by a Thermally Stable Organocatalyst

期刊

ANGEWANDTE CHEMIE-INTERNATIONAL EDITION
卷 60, 期 12, 页码 6710-6717

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/anie.202014860

关键词

BPA-PC; organocatalysts; PET; recycling; selective depolymerisation

资金

  1. European fund (ERDF)
  2. European fund (ESF)
  3. EU [642671]
  4. WBI International
  5. Gobierno Vasco/Eusko Jaurlaritza [IT 999-16]
  6. University of Birmingham
  7. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [642671] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chemical recycling of plastic waste offers a greener alternative to landfill and incineration, with the potential for selective and sequential depolymerization of specific plastics to produce high added value molecules. This method showcases the promise of catalytic depolymerization in providing solutions for environmental consequences of increased plastic waste.
Chemical recycling of plastic waste represents a greener alternative to landfill and incineration, and potentially offers a solution to the environmental consequences of increased plastic waste. Most plastics that are widely used today are designed for durability, hence currently available depolymerisation methods typically require harsh conditions and when applied to blended and mixed plastic feeds generate a mixture of products. Herein, we demonstrate that the energetic differences for the glycolysis of BPA-PC and PET in the presence of a protic ionic salt TBD:MSA catalyst enables the selective and sequential depolymerisation of these two commonly employed polymers. Employing the same procedure, functionalised cyclic carbonates can be obtained from both mixed plastic wastes and industrial polymer blend. This methodology demonstrates that the concept of catalytic depolymerisation offers great potential for selective polymer recycling and also presents plastic waste as a greener alternative feedstock for the synthesis of high added value molecules.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据