Review demonstrates secondary recycling pathways for rubber-based waste briquettes, indicating that briquetting improves feedstock handling and resource recovery.
Rubber‐based wastes, particularly end‐of‐life tires (ELTs) and industrial rubber products, represent a growing environmental challenge due to their large volumes, crosslinked polymer structure, and long persistence in natural environments. This review systematically examines the sustainable transformation of rubber‐based waste briquettes through secondary recycling pathways. Unlike conventional reviews that primarily summarize individual recycling technologies, this review evaluates briquetting as an enabling pre‐processing strategy that improves feedstock quality, handling, transportation, and downstream recycling performance. Mechanical, chemical, and thermochemical recovery routes—including mechanical recycling, devulcanization, pyrolysis, gasification, and hydrothermal processing—are critically compared in terms of technological maturity, environmental sustainability, and economic feasibility. Furthermore, the review presents an integrated perspective linking briquetting parameters, bonding mechanisms, briquette characteristics, downstream recycling performance, and sustainability assessment within a circular economy framework. Comparative evaluation indicates that mechanical recycling generally provides the most favourable environmental and economic performance, whereas thermochemical routes offer higher resource recovery potential at the expense of increased energy demand and capital investment. Current technical challenges, research gaps, and future priorities, including process standardization, industrial‐scale implementation, life cycle assessment, and techno‐economic analysis, are also critically discussed. Overall, the review demonstrates that briquetting should be regarded not merely as a densification process but as a strategic intermediate technology that facilitates sustainable secondary recycling and supports circular utilization of rubber‐based wastes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Taşar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: