4.7 Article

Temperature dependence of aspen torrefaction kinetics

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL AND APPLIED PYROLYSIS
Volume 110, Issue -, Pages 424-429

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaap.2014.10.008

Keywords

Torrefaction; Kinetic model; Temperature dependence; Arrhenius behavior

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation through a Sustainable Energy Pathways grant [MPS/CHE-ENG/ECCS-1230803]
  2. Richard and Bonnie Robbins Endowment
  3. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  4. Directorate For Engineering [1230803] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Torrefied biomass provides opportunities for an alternative, renewable fuel in the energy market. Much work on torrefaction is based on weight loss transients without much insight into the evolution of volatile species. A previous model from our group has been developed that predicts the degradation of raw biomass into specific chemical species during torrefaction (water, acetic acid, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, formic acid and furfural) in three consecutive reaction steps. The goal of this work is to understand how the kinetics of torrefaction change with temperature. Kinetic parameters for aspen wood were obtained for the first 90min of 260-300 degrees C (1000 degrees C/s) torrefaction. The pre-exponential factors were 3.32E9, 1.43E11, and 2.08E14 min(-1), and the activation energies 1.05E2, 1.27E2, and 1.72E2 kjimol for the three reactions. Kinetic parameters found correspond well to similar values from global weight loss studies, and suggest that increased torrefaction severity leads to progressively more recalcitrant forms of torrefied biomass. These continuous production traces for the volatile organic species yield insight into torrefaction, and require careful consideration of torrefaction time and temperature to design the desired solid fuel product. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available