4.7 Article

Study of the pyrolysis of biomass using thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA) and concentration measurements of the evolved species

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaap.2010.05.008

关键词

Biomass pyrolysis; Non-isothermal; Thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA); Gas analysis (GA); Cold gas efficiency (CGE); Activation energy (E); Pre-exponential factor (A); Single model; Parallel model

资金

  1. Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Republic of Korea [2008-N-WA02-P-01]
  2. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [2008-N-WA02-P-01] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mass losses of biomass and the mole fractions of evolved species during biomass pyrolysis were measured using a thermo-gravimetric analyzer and a real-time gas analyzer, respectively. Each biomass sample (sawdust) was pyrolyzed in a lab-scale furnace, in a nitrogen atmosphere under non-isothermal conditions at heating rates of 5, 10, 20, and 30 degrees C/min until the furnace wall temperature reached 900 degrees C. Using a non-isothermal kinetic method based on a first-order model, the experimental data from the thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA) and real-time gas analysis (GA) were interpreted using a single model and a parallel model, respectively. Using the TGA data, the activation energy (E) and pre-exponential factor (A) were 145 kJ/mol and 2.67E+111/min, respectively. Utilizing both the TGA and GA data, the calculated activation energies for CO, H-2(1), H2(2), THC, and the liquids (tar+water) were 41.7, 39.6, 51.1, 37.6, and 128.4 kJ/mol, respectively. By subtracting the total gaseous mass from the DTG (derived thermo-gravimetric) data, the yield of the liquids was obtained and was found to be higher (58-64%) than the yields of the pyrolyzed gas (20-25%) or of the char (10-12%). The cold gas efficiency (CGE) ranged from 0.38 to 0.47. (c) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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