Citation: Zainab AL-Kaabi, Ranjan Pradhan, Naresh Thevathasan, Precious Arku, Andrew Gordon, Animesh Dutta. Beneficiation of renewable industrial wastes from paper and pulp processing[J]. AIMS Energy, 2018, 6(5): 880-907. doi: 10.3934/energy.2018.5.880
| [1] | Fenglei Qi, Mark Mba Wright . A novel optimization approach to estimating kinetic parameters of the enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover. AIMS Energy, 2016, 4(1): 52-67. doi: 10.3934/energy.2016.1.52 |
| [2] | Eric Danso-Boateng, Osei-Wusu Achaw . Bioenergy and biofuel production from biomass using thermochemical conversions technologies—a review. AIMS Energy, 2022, 10(4): 585-647. doi: 10.3934/energy.2022030 |
| [3] | B. Onwona-Agyeman, A. Yaya, G. R. A. Kumara, M. Nakao . Light-soaking tests of zinc oxide photoanodes sensitized with an indoline dye on different transparent conductive substrates. AIMS Energy, 2018, 6(6): 949-958. doi: 10.3934/energy.2018.6.949 |
| [4] | Pallav Purohit, Subash Dhar . Lignocellulosic biofuels in India: current perspectives, potential issues and future prospects. AIMS Energy, 2018, 6(3): 453-486. doi: 10.3934/energy.2018.3.453 |
| [5] | Leonel J. R. Nunes . Potential exportation of wood pellets and torrefied biomass pellets logistics cost analysis: A comparative case study from Portugal. AIMS Energy, 2024, 12(1): 45-61. doi: 10.3934/energy.2024003 |
| [6] | Hans Mattila, Dina Kačar, Tuulia Mali, Taina Lundell . Lignocellulose bioconversion to ethanol by a fungal single-step consolidated method tested with waste substrates and co-culture experiments. AIMS Energy, 2018, 6(5): 866-879. doi: 10.3934/energy.2018.5.866 |
| [7] | Debela Tadele, Poritosh Roy, Fantahun Defersha, Manjusri Misra, Amar K. Mohanty . Life Cycle Assessment of renewable filler material (biochar) produced from perennial grass (Miscanthus). AIMS Energy, 2019, 7(4): 430-440. doi: 10.3934/energy.2019.4.430 |
| [8] | Poritosh Roy, Animesh Dutta, Bill Deen . Miscanthus: a promising feedstock for lignocellulosic ethanol industry in Ontario, Canada. AIMS Energy, 2015, 3(4): 562-575. doi: 10.3934/energy.2015.4.562 |
| [9] | Vladimir A. Kaminsky, Nina Yu. Obvintseva, Svetlana A. Epshtein . The estimation of the kinetic parameters of low-temperature coal oxidation. AIMS Energy, 2017, 5(2): 163-172. doi: 10.3934/energy.2017.2.163 |
| [10] | Dengfeng Wang, Xuelan Zhang, Tingting Cheng, Jing Wu, Qijun Xue . Synthesis of propylene carbonate from urea and propylene glycol over zinc oxide: A homogeneous reaction. AIMS Energy, 2014, 2(4): 399-409. doi: 10.3934/energy.2014.4.399 |
Canada, posses one of the largest forest and agricultural biomass resource with 998 million hectares of land, harvests about 143 million tons of carbon per year, which is equivalent to the carbon emissions from the use of fossil fuel locally to the atmosphere [1]. Canada, therefore, has an ample opportunity to become a biofuel production leader in North America. Use of biomass not only benefits the environment, energy security, waste management but also increases the new market, employment, economic opportunities for the local farmers. The technological development in the production of biofuel from biomass has progressed from first generation to the third generation. Adoption of direct feeding of biomass feedstock in a coal fired boiler to produce heat and electricity has a number of limitations such as high moisture contents, huge investment on the transportation, and storage problem due to biological degradation, poor grindability, low energy/bulk density, and lower heating value. To minimize these limitations, a pretreatment method by thermochemical conversion, called torrefaction is used. Torrefaction is a mild pyrolysis at temperature from 200 °C-300 °C with a minimum oxygen environment at a reasonable residence time and atmospheric pressure with heating rate less than 50 °C /min [2,3,4,5]. Main processes of torrefaction are drying, heating/mild pyrolysis and cooling processes. Lignocellulosic biomass consists of hemicellulose, lignin, and cellulose, out of which mostly devolatilisation and carbonization of hemicellulose takes place, whereas lignin and cellulose experiences very little impact [5,6]. After the torrefaction, the product yielded are reported to be of low in moisture contents, hydrophobic, non-biodegradable, higher heating value, higher energy density and improved grindability [7,8].
There are a number of works on torrefaction to investigate the characterizations, pelletization, grindability, gasification etc., which depends upon the torrefaction temperature, residence time, particle size, and biomass constituents [3,5,8,9]. For the establishment of the torrefaction facility at any area, local feedstocks need to be examined. Hence, this study explores the different properties of Miscanthus from energy crop family and wheat straw from an agricultural family from Ontario. There has been very limited existence of literature that made application of DSC-TGA-FTIR for the torrefaction of these types of biomass from Ontario. The mass loss kinetics, derivatives of weight loss, temperature lag, heat flow, heat/mass transfer limitations and the product gas compositions can be precisely monitored by a DSC-TGA-FTIR configured system than a laboratory scale torrefier. We have used both macro and micro TGA for this research.
Samples of energy crop-miscanthus and agricultural residue-wheat straw are collected from the farms in Ontario located near University of Guelph, Willington County. The collected samples were dried using thermo fisher muffle furnace, chopped and grounded in a Retsch PM 100 grinder and were sieved in a sieve AS 200 to prepare sample size of up to 500 microns.
Characterization: ASTM standards ASTM E871, ASTM E872, and ASTM D1102 are used for the identification of moisture contents, volatile matter, and ash contents respectively. The proximate analyses of torrefied biomass were done as per ASTM 1762-84 standard methods. For raw and torrefied biomass, the fixed carbon contents were determined by the difference with 100%, i.e. Carbon contents% = 100 − (ash + VM + MC). The carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur contents were determined by using Organic Elemental Analyzer/CHNS-O Analyzer make—Thermo Scientific, model Flash 2000. The oxygen contents were calculated from the difference from total and verified using the same analyzer. The heating values were determined using IKA C-200 bomb calorimeter. Fiber analysis were performed according to the method explained by Sule (2012) [2,18].
A novel macro-TGA reactor (Figure 1), similar to Quartz Wool matrix (QWM) reactor [7], was designed, developed and fabricated in the machine lab at University of Guelph for the purpose of continuous torrefaction to produce a torrefied product. The stainless steel reactor was heated by four electric heaters of 1.25 KW capacities in close contact with the reactor wall and separately controlled by two PID controllers. The inner diameter of the reactor is 75 mm and height is 600 mm. A gas analyzer (Testo-350) was used to know the gas composition. Experiments were conducted for different samples (10-20 mm size) at various temperatures of 200 °C, 250 °C, 275 °C and 300 °C for a residence time of 40 minutes. The residence time measured from the point at which desired torrefaction temperature was reached. This reactor allows to observe simulation of any gas-solid relative velocity; to monitor gas compositions and gas temperature in a reactor while a precision electronic balance continuously measures the mass change (weight) of a reaction. Such reactor could thus accurately simulate the conditions that would expect in a real fixed, moving or entrained flow reactor. Before starting an experiment, the reactor was heated until an equilibrium temperature or steady state was attained. A stream of inter gas (N2) of flow rate of 1-16 liters per minutes was flushed through a flow meter (FMA 5400/5500, Mass Flow Controller, Omega, USA) to maintain an inert environment inside the reactor. Temperatures are measured at two different locations, one from an upper mid portion of the reactor and another from a lower mid portion of the reactor by two separate thermocouples through the temperature controller (CNi16D, Temperature and Process Controller, Omega, USA). Then the sample of biomass of known mass and moisture content was placed into the reactor. The residence time was recorded from that instant. During torrefaction, temperatures of the gas passing through the biomass are continuously recorded. The electronic balance (Model: MS204S, Mettler Toledo, Switzerland) continuously measures the mass of the biomass. The gas composition is determined by collecting gas in a gas-bag, then the quantity of gas is determined with the help of the gas chromatographic analyzer (GC).
Figure 1. Experimental Setup for Macro-TGA [7].
Percentage of Mass Yield (MY), Percentage of Energy Yield (EY) and Energy Density Radio (EDR) are determined by using the following formula:
| @{\text{MY}} = \frac{{{{\text{M}}_{{\text{tb}}}}}}{{{{\text{M}}_{{\text{rb}}}}}}@ | (1) |
| @{\text{EY}} = \frac{{{{\text{M}}_{{\text{tb}}}}{\text{*HH}}{{\text{V}}_{{\text{tb}}}}}}{{{{\text{M}}_{{\text{rb}}}}{\text{*HH}}{{\text{V}}_{{\text{rb}}}}}}@ | (2) |
| @{\text{EDR}} = \frac{{{\text{HH}}{{\text{V}}_{{\text{tb}}}}}}{{{\text{HH}}{{\text{V}}_{{\text{rb}}}}}}@ | (3) |
Torrefaction was carried out in a micro-TGA SDT Q 600 TA Instruments in order to compare the differences between the macro-TGA and micro-TGA. A sample of up to 500 microns in a powder form of raw lignocellulosic biomass were dried and kept in desiccators, then used for thermal treatment in micro-TGA. Micro-TGA was heated up at the rate of 5 °C/min to the desired torrefaction temperature (200 °C, 250 °C, 275 °C and 300°C). The sample weight of about 10-12mg was placed in a crucible heated for duration of 40 minutes. Nitrogen was supplied inside the reactor at the rate of 30 mL/minutes to create a minimum oxygen environment. The weight loss and heat flow characteristics were monitored and analyzed by using DSC-TGA plots and the gas compositions are identified by FTIR as per the layout shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Experimental Setup Layouts for DSC-TGA.
The degradation of lignocellulosic biomass and cellulose above 300 °C was generally expressed by the Broido-Shafizadeh model [11] based on which Di-Blasi and Lanzetta (1997) [12] developed a kinetic model expressed in two kinetic reactions for the isothermal degradation of xylan in torrefaction. A similar model was used for torrefaction weight loss kinetics for willow, and wheat straw, studied by Prins, et al. (2006) [13], Nocquet, et al. (2011) [14] and Shang, et al. (2013) [15] respectively. In their research, lignocellulosic biomass is torrefied, where A is broken down in V1 volatiles with reaction rate of kv1 with the solid yield of B with reaction rate of k1. In process of thermal treatment, the intermediate solid product breakdown into volatile V2 with reaction rate of kv2 and a solid product C with reaction rate of k2 as shown in the process diagram Figure 3.
Figure 3. Two Step Torrefaction Kinetic Model [12].
Two step torrefaction kinetic parameters are expressed in the differential equations 4-9 [12].
| @\frac{{{\text{dA}}}}{{\partial {\text{t}}}} = - \left( {{{\text{k}}_1} + {{\text{k}}_{{\text{v}}1}}} \right){\text{A}}@ | (4) |
| @\frac{{{\text{dB}}}}{{\partial {\text{t}}}} = {{\text{k}}_1}{\text{A}} - \left( {{{\text{k}}_2} + {{\text{k}}_{{\text{v}}2}}} \right){\text{B}}@ | (5) |
| @\frac{{{\text{dC}}}}{{\partial {\text{t}}}} = {{\text{k}}_2}{\text{B}}@ | (6) |
| @\frac{{{\text{d}}{{\text{V}}_1}}}{{\partial {\text{t}}}} = {{\text{k}}_{{\text{v}}1}}{\text{A}}@ | (7) |
| @\frac{{{\text{d}}{{\text{V}}_2}}}{{\partial {\text{t}}}} = {{\text{k}}_{{\text{v}}2}}{\text{B}}@ | (8) |
| @{{\text{k}}_{\text{i}}} = {{\text{k}}_{0{\text{i}}}}{{\text{e}}^{\frac{{{{\text{E}}_{{\text{Ai}}}}}}{{{\text{RT}}}}}}@ | (9) |
Hence, the torrefied net solid yield will be the addition of A, B and C as expressed by Prins, et al. (2006) [13] in equations 10 and 11.
| @{\text{M}}\left( {\text{t}} \right) = {\text{A}} + {\text{B}} + {\text{C}}@ | (10) |
| @\frac{{{\text{M}}\left( {\text{t}} \right)}}{{{{\text{M}}_{\text{o}}}}} = (1 + \left[{\frac{{{{\text{k}}_1}{{\text{K}}_1} - {{\text{k}}_1}{{\text{K}}_2}}}{{{{\text{K}}_1}\left( {{{\text{K}}_2} - {{\text{K}}_1}} \right)}}{{\text{e}}^{ - {{\text{K}}_1}{\text{t}}}} + } \right[\frac{{ - {{\text{k}}_1}{{\text{K}}_1} + {{\text{k}}_1}{{\text{K}}_2}}}{{{{\text{K}}_2}\left( {{{\text{K}}_2} - {{\text{K}}_1}} \right)}}{{\text{e}}^{ - {{\text{K}}_2}{\text{t}}}} + \frac{{{{\text{k}}_1}{{\text{K}}_2}}}{{{{\text{K}}_1}{{\text{K}}_2}}}@ | (11) |
The result on mass yield, energy yield and resultant energy density for torrefaction at different temperature are presented in the Table 1. While percentage of mass and energy yield decreases with the treatment temperatures, energy density increases.
| Temperature (°C) for 45 minutes | Biomass | Heating Rate °C /min | Environment | Mass Yield (%) | Energy Yield (%) | Energy Density (ratio) |
| Miscanthus | Raw | 10 | Nitrogen | |||
| 200 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 84.13 ± 2.0 | 93.12 ± 1.8 | 1.13 |
| 250 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 73.35 ± 0.8 | 88.45 ± 1.4 | 1.24 |
| 275 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 67.92 ± 1.3 | 74.36 ± 1.5 | 1.31 |
| 300 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 58.44 ± 0.7 | 68.93 ± 1.3 | 1.55 |
| Wheat Straw | Raw | 10 | Nitrogen | |||
| 200 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 82.56 ± 1.8 | 98.56 ± 1.6 | 1.11 |
| 250 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 70.25 ± 1.2 | 87.48 ± 1.5 | 1.20 |
| 275 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 64.56 ± 1.0 | 72.25 ± 1.4 | 1.33 |
| 300 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 54.83 ± 0.9 | 67.59 ± 1.7 | 1.39 |
DownLoad: CSVFor proximity analysis the volatile matter (VM), mass contents (MC), ash contents, and higher heating value (HHV) in triplicate test run within the range of ±2%, ±1%, and ±0.8% respectively were only accepted and recorded. Averages of these values are presented in the Table 2 along with their ultimate analysis values. The heating value of the energy crop (miscanthus) is higher than the heating value of agricultural residue (wheat straw). In both biomass samples, heating value increases with increase in the torrefaction treatment temperatures. Similarly, ash contents of both samples also increase with the temperatures. Carbon contents increases with the increase in the torrefaction temperature, whereas the oxygen concentration decreases with the increase in the treatment temperatures. This shows, the torrefaction improves the fuel quality of biomass by improving C/O ratio.
| Treatment Temperature (°C) 45 min | Biomass Type | Proximate Analysis (%) | Ultimate analyzer (%) | HHV MJ/kg | |||||||
| VM | MC | Ash | FC | C | H | N | S | O | |||
| Miscanthus | Raw | 83.96 | 5.47 | 1.79 | 7.56 | 46.66 | 6.00 | 0.21 | 0.00 | 45.34 | 18.47 |
| 200 °C | Torrefied | 82.21 | 2.01 | 2.01 | 11.64 | 48.16 | 5.81 | 0.15 | 0.00 | 43.87 | 19.82 |
| 250 °C | Torrefied | 80.84 | 1.20 | 3.24 | 12.72 | 49.31 | 5.50 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 41.83 | 20.66 |
| 275 °C | Torrefied | 78.82 | 0.95 | 3.99 | 14.24 | 52.12 | 5.35 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 38.44 | 22.67 |
| 300 °C | Torrefied | 74.17 | 0.73 | 4.58 | 18.52 | 55.33 | 5.22 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 34.77 | 24.86 |
| Wheat Straw | Raw | 77.55 | 5.83 | 5.16 | 11.46 | 45.54 | 5.59 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 43.71 | 17.87 |
| 200 °C | Torrefied | 77.25 | 1.03 | 6.68 | 15.04 | 46.56 | 5.36 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 41.40 | 18.54 |
| 250 °C | Torrefied | 75.29 | 0.82 | 7.84 | 16.05 | 48.72 | 5.22 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 38.22 | 19.81 |
| 275 °C | Torrefied | 64.88 | 0.65 | 8.71 | 25.76 | 50.99 | 5.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 35.29 | 21.78 |
| 300 °C | Torrefied | 52.54 | 0.33 | 9.77 | 37.36 | 55.86 | 4.88 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 29.49 | 22.22 |
DownLoad: CSVThe results of fiber analysis of the raw and torrefied biomass are presented in the Table 3. The hot water extractive in the raw miscanthus is higher than the wheat straw. The major extractives of such herbaceous biomass are known to be monomeric sugars like fructose and glucose, oligomeric sugars, phenolic glycosides, alditols and aliphatic acids [10]. The miscanthus contains 36.3% hemicellulose, 11.5% lignin, and 49.1% cellulose, whereas wheat straw has 26.8% hemicellulose, 10.7% lignin, and 38.8% cellulose, indicating miscanthus have higher contents of each components than wheat straw. This could be due to the presence of higher amount of a polysaccharide of glucose with b-(1-4) glucosidic bonds (Funke and Ziegler, 2010) [16]. The thermal treatment decreases more hemicellulose in the biomass than the cellulose and lignin, which is due to devolatilisation of hemicellulose at lower temperature.
| Feedstock | Lignocellulosic Biomass Composition (%) | Hot Water Extraction | Surface Area (g/m2) | ||
| Hemicellulose | Cellulose | Lignin | |||
| Miscanthus | |||||
| Raw | 36.3 | 38.8 | 11.5 | 12.6 | 11.4 |
| Torrefied at 275 °C 45 min | 14.2 | 35.5 | 41.7 | 6.8 | 14.2 |
| Wheat Straw | |||||
| Raw | 26.8 | 49.1 | 10.7 | 8.8 | 0.3 |
| Torrefied at 275 °C 45 min | 17.7 | 36.6 | 38.2 | 5.1 | 3.2 |
DownLoad: CSVDifferential scanning calorimetry is a method to study thermal transitions of a biomass/polymer, when they are under thermal treatment. The heat absorbed by the biomass or difference in heat output of two heaters against temperature is plotted in DSC. Once the glass transition temperature reached, the biomass needs more heat because the heat capacity of the biomass is increased. This helps to identify the glass transition temperature by DSC. After the glass transition temperature, biomass polymers are free to move and finally attained a systematic arrangement which is called as crystallization temperature. At this temperature, biomass give off heat due to exothermic transition, i.e. heater 1 needs less heat to catch up the reference heater 2 heating rate, which consequently gives bid dip in the plot of heat flow and temperature. The temperature at the lowest dip is the crystallization temperature and the area under dip gives the latent energy of crystallization for the biomass. Once more heat is added above the crystallization temperature, biomass reaches towards melting temperature at which biomass absorbs more heat from heater 1 due to an endothermic transition on melting to keep the same rate as reference pan heating. This gives large peak on the DSC plot.
The percentage weight loss increases with an increase in the treatment residence time as shown in Figure 4a-d. The first loss is due to the loss in the moisture contents of biomass below 150 °C and 15minutes of residence time. Another sharp weight loss of biomass starts after 150 °C and above 15minutes of residence time. This may be due to the rapid devolatilisation of hemicellulose of biomass. Derivative of weight loss shows the rate of change of weight loss is much faster during devolatilisation of biomass. Micro-TGA shows more precise weight loss (%) and derivative weight (%/min) than the macro-TGA. However, the sampling handling capacity of the micro-TGA (5-10 mg) is too small in comparison to the Macro-TGA (1-5 g). Macro-TGA shows a closer pattern with the practical boiler.
Figure 4a. TGA: impact of temperature & residence time during torrefaction: Macro-TGA weight-% & derivative wt-%/min for torrefaction of miscanthus.
Figure 4b. TGA: impact of temperature & residence time during torrefaction: Micro-TGA weight-% & derivative wt-%/min for torrefaction of miscanthus.
Figure 4c. TGA: impact of temperature & residence time during torrefaction: Micro-TGA weight % vs. residence time of miscanthus.
Figure 4d. TGA: impact of temperature & residence time during torrefaction: Micro-TGA weight % vs. residence time of wheat straw.
The weight percentage verses residence time of torrefaction process at three various temperatures (200 °C, 250 °C, and 275 °C) captured from the TGA data for miscanthus and wheat straw are presented in Figure 4c-d. Trends of both plots show that weight % increases with the increase either in temperature or residence time. The slope of TGA curves increases with the increase in temperature from 200 °C to 250/275 °C. This slope signifies the effect of residence time on weight percentage change. Overall, the effect of temperature and residence time on the thermal degradation of wheat straw is higher than on the miscanthus in a similar thermal treatment environment. This may be due to higher contents of volatile matters and hemicellulose in miscanthus than in the wheat straw as shown in Table 2 and 3. This shows wheat straw is more reactive than the miscanthus as a solid fuel.
Table 4 shows the kinetic parameter of miscanthus during torrefaction. The kinetic energy for the miscanthus is higher than the wheat straw, which implies that the miscanthus torrefaction process needs more energy than the torrefaction process for wheat straw. Similarly, higher activation energy (E) implies the smooth reaction, whereas lower activation energy implies the quick reaction. Raw biomass is more reactive than the torrefied biomass [15].
| a) Descriptive statistics for variables | |||||
| Variable | Minimum value | Maximum value | Mean value | Standard dev. | |
| T (K) | 448.15 | 548.15 | 498.15 | 31.02 | |
| Y = Ln (derivative wt%/min/ 100) | -6.69 | -3.79 | -5.48 | 0.93 | |
| X = Weight% /100 | 0.93 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.01 | |
| b) Calculated Parameter values | |||||
| Parameter | Miscanthus | Wheat Straw | |||
| A (min-1) | 8.8 × 103 | 1.2 × 104 | |||
| N | 0.88 | 0.91 | |||
| E (kJ/mol) | 59.95 | 51.72 | |||
| c) Analysis of variance | |||||
| Source | DF | Sum of squares | Mean square | F-vlue | Prob (F) |
| Regression | 2 | 16.25750 | 8.12875 | 161.51 | 0.00001 |
| Error | 18 | 0.90594 | 0.05033 | ||
| Total | 20 | 17.16344 | |||
DownLoad: CSVArrhenius plots for the study of the kinetics of the torrefied miscanthus and wheat straw are presented in Figure 5. It seems that the kinetic rate of thermochemical reaction for torrefied miscanthus is lower than that of torrefied wheat straw. Torrefaction kinetics take two steps: drying of biomass and devolatilisation of hemicellulose.
Figure 5. Arrhenius plot of torrefaction process for biomass: Ln(dw/dt) vs. 1/T(K−1).
TGA is one of a very reliable method for studying the thermo-chemical analysis of wide varieties of biomass samples. When FTIR is cascaded as a complementary method with TGA, it can give valuable information on the constituents of gaseous products as they are released by the thermal treatment of biomass samples. Hence, in this study, TGA is cascaded with FTIR to identify the torrefaction behavior of different biomass samples and measure the main gaseous constituents of the products released during the thermal treatment. The exhaust gas composition during the torrefaction process is monitored by FTIR by directly coupling with TGA. The majority of the exhaust gas contains carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and water vapor. Traces of methane are also observed from the FTIR. The maximum exhaust released can be observed during the maximum weight loss period, which was also observed by Eseltine, et al. (2013) [17]. The output of the torrefaction process captured by the FTIR has been presented in the Figure 6a. The major gaseous components observed during torrefaction were water, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, 1, 2-Dibromethylene, and many other components. Figure 6b shows the gaseous components identified by TGA-FTIR analysis are CO at 2100 cm−1, CO2 at 2350 & 700 cm−1, and H2O at 3500-3700 and 750-1000 cm−1. TGA-FTIR study shows that the emission of gaseous products increases with the increase in the treatment temperature.
Figure 6a. Products Released During Torrefaction: Output of FTIR.
Figure 6b. Products Released During Torrefaction: Output of FTIR(3-D View).
Thermochemical pre-treatment of miscanthus and wheat straw were carried out for assessing their fuel quality in a macro-TGA and a configured DSC-TGA-FTIR system. Both torrefied samples show better solid fuel performance than the raw biomass in terms of moisture contents, energy contents, density, hydrophobicity and ignitibility etc. The torrefied biomass performs similar to coal. However, biomass has many limitations. The torrefaction temperature has more impact on the torrefaction process than the residence time. The higher torrefaction temperature results in the higher hydrophobicity. The gaseous product yields are mainly carbon dioxide and water. The drying process starts at a lower temperature at around 100 °C, whereas the devolatilisation of hemicellulose takes place from 200 °C. From the study on the characterization of torrefied lignocellulosic biomass, it can be concluded that torrefied energy crops and agricultural residues are a good candidate to be used in thermal power plants. The longer durability of the torrefied material also increases the probability for pelletization and exporting local and global markets. The raw biomass shows more reactive property than the torrefied one during the kinetic study, which shows torrefied biomass are more stable in a boiler. The kinetic rate of the thermochemical reaction for torrefied miscanthus is lower than that of torrefied wheat straw. Heating value is increased by 25% after torrefaction.
The authors would like to acknowledge the research grant from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC, Grant no. 400495) for this study.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
| [1] | Thuijl E, Van Roos C, Beurskens L (2003) An overview of biofuel technologiesmarkets and policies in Europe,1–64. |
| [2] | ExxonMobil (2016) The Outlook for energy: a view to 2040, 1–16. |
| [3] |
Naqvi M, Yan J, Dahlquist E (2010) Black liquor gasification integrated in pulp and paper mills: A critical review. Bioresource Technol 101: 8001–8015. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.05.013
|
| [4] | Field CB, Campbell JE, Lobell DB (2008) Biomass energy: The scale of the potential resource. Trends Ecol Evol 27: 761–767. |
| [5] |
Demirbaş A (2005) Estimating of structural composition of wood and non-wood biomass samples. Energ Source 27: 761–767. doi: 10.1080/00908310490450971
|
| [6] | Kappejan J, Loo S, (2008) Biomass fuel properties and basic principles of biomass combustion, In: The Handbook of Biomass Combustion and Co-Firing, 2nd ed., Earthscan: London, UK, 1: 7–34. |
| [7] |
Kang S, Li X, Fan J, et al. (2012) Solid fuel production by hydrothermal carbonization of black liquor. Bioresource Technol 110: 715–718. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.093
|
| [8] |
9. Joelsson JM, Gustavsson L (200 CO2 emission and oil use reduction through black liquor gasification and energy efficiency in pulp and paper industry. Resour Conserv Recycl 52: 747–763. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.11.002
|
| [9] |
10. Marklund M, Tegman R, Gebart R (2007) CFD modelling of black liquor gasification: Identification of important model parameters. Fuel 86: 18–1926. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.015
|
| [10] | 11. Ramesh S, Chaurasia S, Mahalingam H, et al. (2013) Kinetics of Devolatilization of Black Liquor Droplets in Chemical Recovery Boilers-Pyrolysis of Dry Black Liquor Solids. Int J Chem Eng Appl 4: 1–5. |
| [11] |
12. Ksibi M (2003) Photodegradation of lignin from black liquor using a UV/TiO2 system. J Photochem Photobiol A 154: 2218. doi: 10.1016/S1010-6030(02)00316-7
|
| [12] |
13. Huet M, Roubaud A, Chirat C, et al. (2016) Hydrothermal treatment of black liquor for energy and phenolic platform molecules recovery in a pulp mill. Biomass Bioenerg 89: 105–1 doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.03.023
|
| [13] | 14. Adams TN, Frederick WJ, Grace TM, et al. (1997) Kraft Recovery Boilers. Tappi Press, Atlanta. |
| [14] | 15. Area MC, Fernando FE, Venica A, et al. (1998) NSSC Process Optimization: I. Pulps Quality. Pulping Conference, Proceedings of the Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry, 2: 671–81. |
| [15] | 16. Andelin J, Robert W, Niblock JWC (1989) The Pulp and Paper Making Process. Technologies for Reducing Dioxin in the Manufacture of Bleached Wood Pulp. |
| [16] | 17. Bajpai P (2014) Emissions from pulping, In: Biological Odour Treatment, Springer Briefs in Environmental Science, 9–17. |
| [17] |
18. Gierer J (1980) Chemical Aspects of Kraft Pulping. Wood Sci Technol 14: 241–266. doi: 10.1007/BF00383453
|
| [18] | 19. Patt R, Kordsachia O, Süttinger R, et al. (2005) Paper and Pulp. Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH and Co. KGaA. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14356007.a545. |
| [19] | 20. Andelin J, Niblock R, Curlin J (9) The pulp and paper making process, In: Technologies for Reducing Dioxin in the Manufacture of Bleached Wood Pulp. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, USA, 17–25. |
| [20] | 21. Christopher B (1996) Handbook of Pulping and Papermaking. Second. California, United states of America: Academic Press, An imprint of Elsevier. |
| [21] | 22. Lora J (2008) Monomers, Polymers and Composites from Renewable Resources: Industrial Commercial Lignins: Sources, Properties and Application, 225. |
| [22] | 23. Patt R, Kordsachia O, Suttinger R (2011) Pulp, In: Ullmann's Encyclopedia of In-dustrial Chemistry, Wiley-VCH Verlag, 2011, 487–491. |
| [23] | 24. Klett AS (2017) Purification, Fractionation, and Characterization of Lignin from Kraft Black Liquor for Use as a Renewable Biomaterial. Clemson University. |
| [24] |
25. Ninawe S, Kuhad RC (2006) Bleaching of wheat straw-rich soda pulp with xylanase from a thermoalkalophilic Streptomyces cyaneus SN32. Bioresource Technol 97: 2291–2295. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2005.10.035
|
| [25] |
26. González-García S, Moreira MT, Artal G, et al. (2010) Environmental impact assessment of non-wood-based pulp production by soda-anthraquinone pulping process. J Cleaner Prod 18: 137–145. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.10.008
|
| [26] |
27. Gratzl JS, Chen CL (1999) Chemistry of Pulping: Lignin Reactions. ACS Symp 742: 392–421. doi: 10.1021/bk-2000-0742.ch020
|
| [27] | 28. Von Koeppen A (1986) Chemimechanical Pulps from Hardwood Using the NSSC [Neutral Sulfite Semichemical] Process. Paper Trade J 170: 49–51. |
| [28] | 29. Farrington A, Hickey BL (1989) Wood sources for the Port Huon Mill: NSSC pulping of some young eucalypt species. Appita J 42: 419–423. |
| [29] | 30. Phillips FH, Logan AF, Balodis V, et al. (1991) Studies on pulpwood resources in southern tasmania. 2. Kraft-AQ, soda-AQ, and NSSC pulps. Appita J 44: 173–178. |
| [30] |
31. Cardoso M, de Oliveira ÉD, Passos ML (2009) Chemical composition and physical properties of black liquors and their effects on liquor recovery operation in Brazilian pulp mills. Fuel 88: 756–763. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2008.10.016
|
| [31] |
32. Demirbas A (2002) Pyrolysis and steam gasification processes of black liquor. Energ Convers Manage 43: 877–884. doi: 10.1016/S0196-8904(01)00087-5
|
| [32] |
33. Al-Kaabi Z, Pradhan RR, Thevathasan N, et al. (2017) Potential Value Added Applications of Black Liquor Generated at Paper Manufacturing Industry Using Recycled Fibers. J Cleaner Prod 149: 156–163. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.074
|
| [33] | 34. Dickinson JA, Verrill CL, Kitto JB (1998) Development and Evaluation of a Low Temperature Gasification Process for Chemical Recovery from Kraft Black Liquor, In: International Chemical Recovery Conference, 1–17. |
| [34] |
35. Gea G, Murillo MB, Arauzo J (2002) Thermal degradation of alkaline black liquor from straw. Thermogravimetric Study. Ind Eng Chem Res 41: 4714–4721. doi: 10.1021/ie020283z
|
| [35] | 36. Song X, Bie R, Ji X, et al. (2015) Kinetics of reed black liquor (RBL) pyrolysis from thermogravimetric data. Bio-Resources 10: 137–144. |
| [36] |
37. Li J, Heiningen ARPV (1990) Kinetics of carbon dioxide gasification of fast pyrolysis black liquor char. Ind Eng Chem Res 29: 1776–1785. doi: 10.1021/ie00105a007
|
| [37] |
38. Bhattacharya PK, Parthiban V, Kunzru D (1986) Pyrolysis of Black Liquor Solids. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev 25: 420–426. doi: 10.1021/i200033a012
|
| [38] |
39. Cao C, Guo L, Chen Y, et al. (2011) Hydrogen production by supercritical water gasification of alkaline wheat straw pulping black liquor in continuous flow system. Int J Hydrogen Energ 36: 13528–13535. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.07.101
|
| [39] |
40. Peng C, Zhang G, Yue J, et al. (2014) Pyrolysis of black liquor for phenols and impact of its inherent alkali. Fuel Process Technol 127: 149–156. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.06.020
|
| [40] | 41. Lu N, Yang G, Chen J, et al. (2017) Producing Hydrochar from Cotton Linter Black Liquor. Bio-Resources 12: 3666–3676. |
| [41] | 42. Sánchez JL, Gonzalo A, Gea G, et al. (2005) Straw black liquor steam reforming in a fluidized bed reactor. Effect of temperature and bed substitution at pilot scale. Energ Fuel 19: 2140–2147. |
| [42] |
43. Zhao Y, Bie R, Lu J, et al. (2010) Kinetic study of NSSC black liquor combustion using different kinetic models. Energ Source 32: 962–969. doi: 10.1080/15567030802578815
|
| [43] |
44. Sricharoenchaikul V (2009) Assessment of black liquor gasification in supercritical water. Bioresource Technol 100: 638–6 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.07.011
|
| [44] |
45. Arkell A, Olsson J, Wallberg O (2014) Process performance in lignin separation from softwood black liquor by membrane filtration. Chem Eng Res Des 92: 1792–1800. doi: 10.1016/j.cherd.2013.12.018
|
| [45] |
46. Haddad M, Bazinet L, Savadogo O, et al. (2017) A feasibility study of a novel electro-membrane-based process to acidify Kraft black liquor and extract lignin. Process Saf Environ 106: 68–75. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2016.10.003
|
| [46] |
47. Zhao XY, Cao JP, Sato K, et al. (2010) High Surface Area Activated Carbon Prepared from Black Liquor in the Presence of High Alkali Metal Content. J Chem Eng Jap 43: 1029–1034. doi: 10.1252/jcej.10we170
|
| [47] |
48. Cao C, Guo L, Jin H, et al. (2017) System analysis of pulping process coupled with supercritical water gasification of black liquor for combined hydrogen, heat and power production. Energy 132: 238–2 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.104
|
| [48] | 49. Rasanen O, Alajarvi T (1990) Evaporation to ultra- high solids: Benefits and possibilities :1990 Kraft Recovery Operations Short Course Notes. TAPPI Press, Atlanta, 95–104. |
| [49] | 50. Reza Fakhrai (2002) Black Liquor Combustion in Kraft Recovery Boilers-Numerical Modelling. Royal Institute of Technology. |
| [50] | 51. Hupa M, Solin P, Hyoty P (1987) Combustion Behaviour of Black Liquor Droplets. J Pulp Pap Sci 13: 67–72. |
| [51] |
52. Gellerstedt G (2015) Softwood kraft lignin: Raw material for the future. Ind Crop Prod 77: 845–854. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.09.040
|
| [52] | 53. Tran H, Vakkilainnen EK (2012) The Kraft Chemical Recovery Process. TAPPI Kraft Recovery Course. TAPPI Press, 1–8. |
| [53] |
54. Gosselink RJ, Abächerli A, Semke H, et al. (2004) Analytical protocols for characterisation of sulphur-free lignin. Ind Crop Prod 19: 271–281. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2003.10.008
|
| [54] |
55. Santos PSBD, Erdocia X, Gatto DA, et al. (2014) Characterisation of Kraft lignin separated by gradient acid precipitation. Ind Crop Prod 55: 149–1 doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2014.01.023
|
| [55] | 56. Wessel R, Baxter L (2003) Comprehensive model of alkali-salt deposition in recovery boilers. Tappi J 2: 19–24. |
| [56] | 57. Larson ED, Consonni S, Katofsky RE, et al. (2006) A Cost-Benefit Assessment of Gasification-Based Biorefining in the Kraft Pulp and Paper Industry. Oper Res Decisions 1: 17–28. |
| [57] | 58. Nie ANS (2008) Characterization of Recovered Black Liquor and Isolated Lignin from Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunch Soda Pulping. M.S. Thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia. |
| [58] |
59. Yaman S (2004) Pyrolysis of biomass to produce fuels and chemical feedstocks. Energ Convers Manage 45: 651–671. doi: 10.1016/S0196-8904(03)00177-8
|
| [59] |
60. Fletcher TH, Pond HR, Webster J, et al. (2012) Prediction of tar and light gas during pyrolysis of black liquor and biomass. Energ Fuel 26: 3381–3387. doi: 10.1021/ef300574n
|
| [60] | 61. Rojith G, Singh B (2012) Lignin recovery, biochar production and decolourisation of coir pith black liquor. Res J Recent Sci 1: 270–274. |
| [61] |
62. Demirbaş A (2002) Utilization of urban and pulping wastes to produce synthetic fuel via pyrolysis. Energ Source 24: 205–213. doi: 10.1080/009083102317243593
|
| [62] |
63. Song XF, Ji XY, Bie HP, et al. (2015) Characteristics of gas and char generation study from reed black liquor particles (RBLP) pyrolysis in fluidized bed. Fuel 159: 89–97. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2015.06.061
|
| [63] |
64. Kruse A, Funke A, Titirici MM (2013) Hydrothermal conversion of biomass to fuels and energetic materials. Curr Opin Chem Biol 17: 515–521. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2013.05.004
|
| [64] |
65. Falco C, Baccile N, Titirici MM (2011) Morphological and structural differences between glucose, cellulose and lignocellulosic biomass derived hydrothermal carbons. Green Chem 13: 3273–3281. doi: 10.1039/c1gc15742f
|
| [65] |
66. Kruse A, Badoux F, Grandl R, et al. (2012) Hydrothermale Karbonisierung: 2. Kinetik der Biertreber-Umwandlung. Chem-Ing-Tech 84: 509–512. doi: 10.1002/cite.201100168
|
| [66] |
67. Möller M, Nilges P, Harnisch F, et al. (2011) Subcritical water as reaction environment: Fundamentals of hydrothermal biomass transformation. Chemsuschem 4: 5579. doi: 10.1002/cssc.201000341
|
| [67] |
68. Berge ND, Ro KS, Mao J, et al. (2011) Hydrothermal Carbonization of Municipal Waste Streams. Environ Sci Technol 45: 5696–5703. doi: 10.1021/es2004528
|
| [68] | 69. Dinjus E, Kruse A, Tröger N (2011) Hydrothermal carbonization-1. Influence of lignin in lignocelluloses. Chem Eng Technol 34: 2037–2043. |
| [69] |
70. Kambo HS, Dutta A (2015) Comparative evaluation of torrefaction and hydrothermal carbonization of lignocellulosic biomass for the production of solid biofuel. Energ Convers Manage 105: 746–755. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2015.08.031
|
| [70] |
71. Yang G (2015) A Fast Approach for Preparation of Adsorbent from Reed Black Liquor and Its Performance in Equilibrium and Kinetic Gas Separation. Chem Biochem Eng Q 29: 375–383. doi: 10.15255/CABEQ.2013.1856
|
| [71] |
72. Gamgoum R, Dutta A, Santos R, et al. (2016) Hydrothermal Conversion of Neutral Sulfite Semi-Chemical Red Liquor into Hydrochar. Energies 9: 435. doi: 10.3390/en9060435
|
| [72] |
73. Naqvi M, Yan J, Dahlquist E (2012) Bio-refinery system in a pulp mill for methanol production with comparison of pressurized black liquor gasification and dry gasification using direct causticization. Appl Energ 90: 24–31. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.12.074
|
| [73] |
74. Salmenoja K (1993) Black-Liquor Gasification: Theoretical and Experimental Studie. Bioresource Technol 46: 167–171. doi: 10.1016/0960-8524(93)90069-N
|
| [74] |
75. Whitty K, Backman R, Hupa M (2008) Influence of pressure on pyrolysis of black liquor: 1. Swelling. Bioresource Technol 99: 663–670. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.11.065
|
| [75] | 76. Whitty K, Kullberg M, Sorvari V, et al. (2008) Influence of pressure on pyrolysis of black liquor: 2. Char yields and component release. Bioresource Technol 99: 671–679. |
| [76] |
77. Rönnlund I, Myréen L, Lundqvist K, et al. (2011) Waste to energy by industrially integrated supercritical water gasification-effects of alkali salts in residual by-products from the pulp and paper industry. Energy 36: 2151–2163. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2010.03.027
|
| [77] | 78. Boucard H (2014) Contributions to the understanding of hydrothermal processes: Application to black liquor. Tohoku University. |
| [78] | 79. Nong G, Wang S, Mu J, et al. (2012) Kinetics of Reaction between Dimethyl Sulfide and Hydrogen in Black Liquor Gasification Gas with ZnO Catalyst. Asian J Chem 24: 3118–3122. |
| [79] |
80. Naqvi M, Yan J, Dahlquist E (2013) System analysis of dry black liquor gasification based synthetic gas production comparing oxygen and air blown gasification systems. Appl Energ 112: 1275–1282. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.11.065
|
| [80] |
81. Häggström C, Öhrman O, Rownaghi AA, et al (2012) Catalytic methanol synthesis via black liquor gasification. Fuel Process Technol 94: 10–15. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2011.09.019
|
| [81] | 82. Wiinikka H, Carlsson P, Marklund M, et al. (2012) Experimental investigation of an industrial scale black liquor gasifier. Part 2: Influence of quench operation on product gas composition. Fuel 93: 117–129. |
| [82] |
83. Silva EAB, da Zabkova M, Araújo JD, et al. (2009) An integrated process to produce vanillin and lignin-based polyurethanes from Kraft lignin. Chem Eng Res Des 87: 1276–1292. doi: 10.1016/j.cherd.2009.05.008
|
| [83] | 84. Bajpai P (2013) Biorefinery in the Pulp and Paper Industry. 1st Editio. ed. Academic Press, London, UK. |
| [84] | 85. Fatehi P, Chen J (2016) Extraction of Technical Lignins from Pulping Spent Liquors, Challenges and Opportunities, In: Production of Biofuels and Chemicals from Lignin, 35–54. |
| [85] | 86. Lake MA, Blackburn JC (2014) SlrpTM an Innovative Lignin-Recovery Technology. Cellulose Chemistry and Technology. Cellulose Chem Technol 48: 799–804. |
| [86] |
87. Mussatto SI, Fernandes M, Roberto IC (2007) Lignin recovery from brewer's spent grain black liquor. Carbohyd Polym 70: 218–223. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2007.03.021
|
| [87] | 88. Kouisni L, Holt-Hindle P, Maki K (2012) The LignoForce System: A new process for the production of high-quality lignin from black liquor. J Sci Technol Forest Prod Processes 2: 6–10. |
| [88] | 89. Tomani P (2010) The lignoboost process. Cellul Chem Technol 44: 53–58. |
| [89] |
90. Lourençon TV, Hansel FA, Silva TAD, et al. (2015) Hardwood and softwood kraft lignins fractionation by simple sequential acid precipitation. Sep Purif Technol 154: 82–88. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2015.09.015
|
| [90] | 91. Durruty J (2017) On the Local Filtration Properties of LignoBoost Lignin, Studies of the influence of xylan and ionic strength. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden. |
| [91] |
92. Kong F, Wang S, Fatehi, P, et al. (2015) Water soluble kraft lignin-acrylic acid copolymer: Synthesis and characterization. Green Chem 17: 4355–4366. doi: 10.1039/C5GC00228A
|
| [92] | 93. Lake MA, Blackburn JC (2016) Process for recovering lignin. U.S. Patent, 0464. |
| [93] | 94. Velez J, Thies MC (2013) Solvated liquid-lignin fractions from a Kraft black liquor. Bioresource Technol 20: 586. |
| [94] | 95. Smook GA (2002) Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologies, 3rd ed. Angus Wilde Publications, Inc., Vancover, BC. |
| [95] |
96. Koljonen K, Österberg M, Kleen M, et al. (2004) Precipitation of lignin and extractives on kraft pulp: Effect on surface chemistry, surface morphology and paper strength. Cellulose 11: 209–224. doi: 10.1023/B:CELL.0000025424.90845.c3
|
| [96] |
97. Doherty WOS, Mousavioun P, Fellows CM (2011) Value-adding to cellulosic ethanol: Lignin polymers. Ind Crop Prod 33: 259–276. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2010.10.022
|
| [97] |
98. Schorr D, Diouf PN, Stevanovic T (2014) Evaluation of industrial lignins for biocomposites production. Ind Crop Prod 52: 65–73. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.10.014
|
| [98] |
99. EI Mansouri NE, Salvadó J (2006) Structural characterization of technical lignins for the production of adhesives: Application to lignosulfonate, kraft, soda-anthraquinone, organosolv and ethanol process lignins. Ind Crop Prod 24: 8–16. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2005.10.002
|
| [99] |
100. Lange H, Decina S, Crestini C (2013) Oxidative upgrade of lignin-recent routes reviewed. Eur Polym J 49: 1151–1173. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2013.03.002
|
| [100] | 101. Kambo H (2014) Energy Densification of Lignocellulosic Biomass via Hydrothermal Carbonization and Torrefaction. University of Guelph. |
| [101] |
102. Adachi S, Tanimoto M, Tanaka M, et al. (1992) Kinetics of the alkaline nitrobenzene oxidation of lignin in rice straw. Chem Eng J 49: B17–B21. doi: 10.1016/0300-9467(92)80047-E
|
| [102] | 103. Higuchi T, Kirk K, Higuchi T, et al. (1980) Lignin structure and morphological distribution in plant cell wall, In: Lignin Biodegradation: Microbiology, Chemistry, and Potential Applications, (eds) CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1–20. |
| [103] |
104. Cordero T, Rodriguez J (1993) Activated Carbons from CO2 Partial Gasification of Eucalyptus Kraft Lignin. Energ Fuel 7: 133–138. doi: 10.1021/ef00037a021
|
| [104] |
105. Fierro V, Torné-Fernández V, Celzard A (2006) Kraft lignin as a precursor for microporous activated carbons prepared by impregnation with ortho-phosphoric acid: Synthesis and textural characterisation. Micropor Mesopor Mat 92: 243–250. doi: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2006.01.013
|
| [105] |
106. Rodriguez-Mirasol J, Cordero T, Rodriguez J (1993) Preparation and Characterisation of Activated Carbons from Eucalyptus Kraft Lignin. Carbon 31: 87–95. doi: 10.1016/0008-6223(93)90160-C
|
| [106] | 107. Dieste A, Clavijo L, Torres AI, et al. (2016) Lignin from Eucalyptus spp. kraft black liquor as biofuel. Energ Fuel 30: 10494–10498. |
| [107] |
108. Gustafsson Å, Hale S, Cornelissen G, et al. (2017) Activated carbon from kraft lignin: A sorbent for in situ remediation of contaminated sediments. Environ Technol Innovat 7: 160–168. doi: 10.1016/j.eti.2016.11.001
|
| [108] |
109. Jääskeläinen S, Liitiä T, Mikkelson A, et al. (2017) Aqueous organic solvent fractionation as means to improve lignin homogeneity and purity. Ind Crop Prod 103: 51–58. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.03.039
|
| [109] |
110. Laurichesse L, Averous S (2014) Chemical modification of lignins: Towards biobased polymers. Prog Polym Sci 39: 1266–1290. doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2013.11.004
|
| [110] | 111. Hodásová L, Jablonsky M, Skulcova A (2015) Lignin, potential products and their market value. Wood Res 60: 973–986. |
| [111] | 112. Li T, Takkellapati S (2018) The current and emerging sources of technical lignins and their applications. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin, 1–32. |
| [112] |
113. Chen Z, Wan C (2017) Biological valorization strategies for converting lignin into fuels and chemicals. Renew Sust Energ Rev 73: 610–621. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.166
|
| [113] | 114. Jablonsky M, Kočiš J, Haz A, et al. (2014) The approach the isolation of lignins and its characterization. Power Engineering 2014. Renewable Energy Sources 2014, In: Proceedings of 5th International scientific conference OZE 2014, Bratislava, 27–32. |
| [114] |
115. Thielemans W, Wool P (2005) Lignin esters for use in unsaturated thermosets: Lignin modification and solubility modelling. Biomacromolecules 6: 1895–1905. doi: 10.1021/bm0500345
|
| [115] |
116. Ahvazi B, Wojciechowicz O, Ton-That M, et al. (2011) Preparation of lignopolyols from wheat straw soda lignin. J Agric Food Chem 59: 10505–10516. doi: 10.1021/jf202452m
|
| [116] |
117. Bouajila J, Dole P, Joly C, et al. (2006) Some laws of a lignin plasticization. J Appl Polym Sci 102: 1445–1451. doi: 10.1002/app.24299
|
| [117] |
118. Alekhina M, Ershova O, Ebert A, et al. (2015) Softwood kraft lignin for value-added applications: Fractionation and structural characterization. Ind Crop Prod 66: 220–228. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2014.12.021
|
| [118] |
119. Xu C, Arancon D, Labidi J, et al. (2014) Lignin depolymerisation strategies: Towards valuable chemicals and fuels. Chem Soc Rev 43: 7485–7500. doi: 10.1039/C4CS00235K
|
| [119] | 120. Heiningen AV (2006) Converting a kraft pulp mill into an integrated forest biorefinery. Pulp Pap Can 107: 38–43. |
| [120] |
121. Fitzpatrick M, Champagne P, Cunningham M, et al. (2010) A biorefinery processing perspective: Treatment of lignocellulosic materials for the production of value-added products. Bioresource Technol 101: 8915–8922. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.125
|
| [121] |
122. Wahyudiono, Sasaki M, Goto M (2011) Thermal decomposition of guaiacol in sub- and supercritical water and its kinetic analysis. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 13: 68–79. doi: 10.1007/s10163-010-0309-6
|
| [122] | 123 Ragauskas A, Beckham G, Biddy M, et al. (2014) Lignin valorization: Improving lignin processing in the biorefinery. Science 344: 1246843. |
| [123] |
124. Montané D, Torné-Fernández V, Fierro V (2005) Activated carbons from lignin: Kinetic modeling of the pyrolysis of Kraft lignin activated with phosphoric acid. Chem Eng J 106: 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2004.11.001
|
| [124] |
125. Duval A, Lawoko M (2014) A review on lignin-based polymeric, micro- and nano-structured materials. React Funct Polym 85: 78–96. doi: 10.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2014.09.017
|
| [125] |
126. Azadi P, Inderwildi R, Farnood R, et al. (2013) Liquid fuels, hydrogen and chemicals from lignin: A critical review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 21: 506–523. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.022
|
| [126] |
127. Kleinert M, Barth T (2008) Towards a lignincellulosic biorefinery: Direct one-step conversion of lignin to hydrogen-enriched biofuel. Energ Fuel 22: 1371–1379. doi: 10.1021/ef700631w
|
| [127] |
128. Kim D, Lee K, Park Y (2016) Upgrading the characteristics of biochar from cellulose, lignin, and xylan for solid biofuel production from biomass by hydrothermal carbonization. J Ind Eng Chem 42: 95–100. doi: 10.1016/j.jiec.2016.07.037
|
| [128] |
129. Yang H, Yan R, Chen H, et al. (2007) Characteristics of hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin pyrolysis. Fuel 86: 1781–1788. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.013
|
| [129] |
130. Franco MAED, Carvalho CBD, Bonetto MM, et al. (2018) Diclofenac removal from water by adsorption using activated carbon in batch mode and fixed-bed column: Isotherms, thermodynamic study and breakthrough curves modeling. J Cleaner Prod 181: 145–154. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.138
|
| [130] |
131. De Franco E, de Carvalho B, Bonetto M, et al. (2017) Removal of amoxicillin from water by adsorption onto activated carbon in batch process and fixed bed column: Kinetics, isotherms, experimental design and breakthrough curves modelling. J Cleaner Prod 161: 947–956. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.197
|
| [131] |
132. Pollard T, Fowler D, Sollars J, et al. (1992) Low-cost adsorbents for waste and wastewater treatment: A review. Sci Total Environ 116: 31–52. doi: 10.1016/0048-9697(92)90363-W
|
| [132] |
133. Fu K, Yue Q, Gao B, et al. (2013) Preparation, Characterization and Application of lignin-based activated carbon from black liquor lignin by steam activation. Chem Eng J 228: 1074–1082. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2013.05.028
|
| [133] | 134. Ntuli V, Hapazari I (2013) Sustainable waste management by production of activated carbon from agroforestry residues. S Afr J Sci 109: 1–6. |
| [134] |
135. Ahmedna M, Marshall W, Rao R (2000) Production of granular activated carbons from select agricultural by-products and evaluation of their physical, chemical and adsorption properties1Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station manuscript 99-21-0066.1. Bioresource Technol 71: 113–123. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00070-X
|
| [135] |
136. Cotoruelo M, Marqués D, Díaz J, et al. (2012) Adsorbent ability of lignin-based activated carbons for the removal of p-nitrophenol from aqueous solutions. Chem Eng J 184: 176–183. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.01.026
|
| [136] |
137. Gonzalez-Serrano E, Cordero T, Rodriguez-Mirasol J, et al. (1997) Development of porosity upon chemical activation of kraft lignin with ZnCl2. Ind Eng Chem Res 36: 4832–4838. doi: 10.1021/ie970261q
|
| [137] |
138. Gonzalez-Serrano E, Cordero T, Rodriguez-Mirasol J, et al. (2004) Removal of water pollutants with activated carbons prepared from H 3PO4 activation of lignin from kraft black liquors. Water Res 38: 3043–3050. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2004.04.048
|
| [138] | 139. Fierro V, Torne V, Montane´ D, et al. (2003) Activated carbons prepared from kraft lignin by phosphoric acid impregnation. In: Proc. Carbon 2003, Oviedo, Spain. |
| [139] |
140. Rodrı´guez-Miraso J, Cordero T, Rodrı´guez J (1993) Activated carbons from CO2 partial gasification of eucalyptus kraft lignin. Energ Fuel 7: 133–138. doi: 10.1021/ef00037a021
|
| [140] |
141. Gao Y, Yue Q, Gao B, et al. (2013) Preparation of high surface area-activated carbon from lignin of papermaking black liquor by KOH activation for Ni(II) adsorption. Chem Eng J 217: 345–353. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.09.038
|
| [141] | 142. Smolarski N (2012) High-value opportunities for lignin: Unlocking its potential. Frost and Sullivan, Paris, 1–15. |
| [142] |
143. Niemi H, Lahti J, Hatakka H, et al. (2011) Fractionation of organic and inorganic compounds from black liquor by combining membrane separation and crystallization. Chem Eng Technol 34: 593–598. doi: 10.1002/ceat.201000520
|
| [143] |
144. Gosselink A, Snijder B, Kranenbarg A, et al. (2004) Characterisation and application of NovaFiber lignin. Ind Crop Prod 20: 191–203. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2004.04.021
|
| [144] |
145. Zhu Z, Sun M, Su C, et al. (2013) One-pot quantitative hydrolysis of lignocelluloses mediated by black liquor. Bioresource Technol 128: 229–234. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.10.072
|
| [145] | 146. Gosselink RJA, Dam JGEV, Jong ED, et al. (2010) Fractionation, analysis, and PCA modeling of properties of four technical lignins for prediction of their application potential in binders. Holzforschung 64: 193–200. |
| [146] |
147. Nadji H, Diouf N, Benaboura A, et al. (2009) Comparative study of lignins isolated from Alfa grass (Stipa tenacissima L.). Bioresource Technol 100: 3585–3592. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.01.074
|
| [147] |
148. Tejado A, Peña C, Labidi J (2007) Physico-chemical characterization of lignins from different sources for use in phenol-formaldehyde resin synthesis. Bioresource Technol 98: 1655–1663. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.05.042
|
| [148] |
149. Hellstén S, Lahti J, Heinonen J, et al. (2013) Purification process for recovering hydroxy acids from soda black liquor. Chem Eng Res Des 91: 2765–2774. doi: 10.1016/j.cherd.2013.06.001
|
| [149] |
150. Faustino H, Gil N, Baptista C, et al. (2010) Antioxidant activity of lignin phenolic compounds extracted from kraft and sulphite black liquors. Molecules 15: 9308–9322. doi: 10.3390/molecules15129308
|
| [150] |
151. Mänttäri M, Lahti J, Hatakka H, et al. (2015) Separation phenomena in UF and NF in the recovery of organic acids from kraft black liquor. J Membrane Sci 490: 84–91. doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2015.04.048
|
| [151] |
152. Kumar H, Alén R (2015) Recovery of aliphatic low-molecular-mass carboxylic acids from hardwood kraft black liquor. Sep Purif Technol 142: 293–298. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2014.12.038
|
| [152] | 153. Ponomarenko J, Dizhbite T, Lauberts M, et al. (2014) Characterization of Softwood and Hardwood Lignoboost Kraft Lignins with Emphasis on their Antioxidant Activity. Bio-Resources 9: 2051–2068. |
| 1. | 2021, 9781119624547, 213, 10.1002/9781119624547.ch6 | |
| 2. | Meiyun Chai, Li Xie, Xi Yu, Xingguang Zhang, Yang Yang, Md. Maksudur Rahman, Paula H. Blanco, Ronghou Liu, Anthony V. Bridgwater, Junmeng Cai, Poplar wood torrefaction: Kinetics, thermochemistry and implications, 2021, 143, 13640321, 110962, 10.1016/j.rser.2021.110962 | |
| 3. | Ranjan R. Pradhan, Pragyan P. Garnaik, Bharat Regmi, Bandita Dash, Animesh Dutta, Pyrolysis kinetics of Sal (Shorea robusta) seeds, 2017, 7, 2190-6815, 237, 10.1007/s13399-017-0240-3 | |
| 4. | Bilqeesa Bhat, Bijender Kumar Bajaj, Hypocholesterolemic potential and bioactivity spectrum of an exopolysaccharide from a probiotic isolate Lactobacillus paracasei M7, 2019, 19, 22126198, 100191, 10.1016/j.bcdf.2019.100191 | |
| 5. | Q. Balme, M.T. Rozaini, F. Marias, F. Lemont, P. Charvin, J. Sedan, Modeling the Rate of Batch-Mode Thermal Degradation of Polyethylene Suspended in an Oven, 2020, 1877-2641, 10.1007/s12649-020-01304-x | |
| 6. | Adrian Knapczyk, Sławomir Francik, Marcin Jewiarz, Agnieszka Zawiślak, Renata Francik, Thermal Treatment of Biomass: A Bibliometric Analysis—The Torrefaction Case, 2020, 14, 1996-1073, 162, 10.3390/en14010162 | |
| 7. | Q. Balme, F. Lemont, F. Rousset, J. Sedan, P. Charvin, J. Bondroit, F. Marias, Design, calibration and testing of a new macro-thermogravimetric analyzer, 2018, 132, 1388-6150, 1439, 10.1007/s10973-018-7118-x | |
| 8. | Ranjan R. Pradhan, Rati R. Pradhan, Siddhanta Das, Brajesh Dubey, Animesh Dutta, 2017, Chapter 16, 978-981-10-3351-3, 231, 10.1007/978-981-10-3352-0_16 | |
| 9. | Korneliusz Wolski, Stefan Cichosz, Anna Masek, Surface hydrophobisation of lignocellulosic waste for the preparation of biothermoelastoplastic composites, 2019, 118, 00143057, 481, 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2019.06.026 | |
| 10. | Hanqi Duan, Zhiqing Zhang, Md Maksudur Rahman, Xiaojuan Guo, Xingguang Zhang, Junmeng Cai, Insight into torrefaction of woody biomass: Kinetic modeling using pattern search method, 2020, 201, 03605442, 117648, 10.1016/j.energy.2020.117648 | |
| 11. | Yipeng Feng, Keying Qiu, Zhiping Zhang, Chong Li, Md. Maksudur Rahman, Junmeng Cai, Distributed activation energy model for lignocellulosic biomass torrefaction kinetics with combined heating program, 2022, 239, 03605442, 122228, 10.1016/j.energy.2021.122228 | |
| 12. | Udya Madhavi Aravindi Devaraja, Sachini Supunsala Senadheera, Duleeka Sandamali Gunarathne, Torrefaction severity and performance of Rubberwood and Gliricidia, 2022, 195, 09601481, 1341, 10.1016/j.renene.2022.06.109 | |
| 13. | Łukasz Sobol, Jacek Łyczko, Arkadiusz Dyjakon, Ryszard Sroczyński, Relationship between Odor Adsorption Ability and Physical–Hydraulic Properties of Torrefied Biomass: Initial Study, 2023, 16, 1996-1073, 1780, 10.3390/en16041780 | |
| 14. | Fatai Abiola Lateef, Helen Olayinka Ogunsuyi, Jatropha curcas L. biomass transformation via torrefaction: Surface chemical groups and morphological characterization, 2021, 4, 26660865, 100142, 10.1016/j.crgsc.2021.100142 | |
| 15. | Jun Sheng Teh, Yew Heng Teoh, Heoy Geok How, Farooq Sher, Thermal Analysis Technologies for Biomass Feedstocks: A State-of-the-Art Review, 2021, 9, 2227-9717, 1610, 10.3390/pr9091610 | |
| 16. | Adegoke Olaoluwa Adeniyi, Jude A. Okolie, 2025, 9780443138409, 103, 10.1016/B978-0-443-13840-9.00005-6 |
Figures(4) / Tables(7)
Zainab AL-Kaabi, Ranjan Pradhan, Naresh Thevathasan, Precious Arku, Andrew Gordon, Animesh Dutta. Beneficiation of renewable industrial wastes from paper and pulp processing[J]. AIMS Energy, 2018, 6(5): 880-907. doi: 10.3934/energy.2018.5.880
| Temperature (°C) for 45 minutes | Biomass | Heating Rate °C /min | Environment | Mass Yield (%) | Energy Yield (%) | Energy Density (ratio) |
| Miscanthus | Raw | 10 | Nitrogen | |||
| 200 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 84.13 ± 2.0 | 93.12 ± 1.8 | 1.13 |
| 250 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 73.35 ± 0.8 | 88.45 ± 1.4 | 1.24 |
| 275 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 67.92 ± 1.3 | 74.36 ± 1.5 | 1.31 |
| 300 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 58.44 ± 0.7 | 68.93 ± 1.3 | 1.55 |
| Wheat Straw | Raw | 10 | Nitrogen | |||
| 200 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 82.56 ± 1.8 | 98.56 ± 1.6 | 1.11 |
| 250 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 70.25 ± 1.2 | 87.48 ± 1.5 | 1.20 |
| 275 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 64.56 ± 1.0 | 72.25 ± 1.4 | 1.33 |
| 300 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 54.83 ± 0.9 | 67.59 ± 1.7 | 1.39 |
DownLoad: CSV| Treatment Temperature (°C) 45 min | Biomass Type | Proximate Analysis (%) | Ultimate analyzer (%) | HHV MJ/kg | |||||||
| VM | MC | Ash | FC | C | H | N | S | O | |||
| Miscanthus | Raw | 83.96 | 5.47 | 1.79 | 7.56 | 46.66 | 6.00 | 0.21 | 0.00 | 45.34 | 18.47 |
| 200 °C | Torrefied | 82.21 | 2.01 | 2.01 | 11.64 | 48.16 | 5.81 | 0.15 | 0.00 | 43.87 | 19.82 |
| 250 °C | Torrefied | 80.84 | 1.20 | 3.24 | 12.72 | 49.31 | 5.50 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 41.83 | 20.66 |
| 275 °C | Torrefied | 78.82 | 0.95 | 3.99 | 14.24 | 52.12 | 5.35 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 38.44 | 22.67 |
| 300 °C | Torrefied | 74.17 | 0.73 | 4.58 | 18.52 | 55.33 | 5.22 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 34.77 | 24.86 |
| Wheat Straw | Raw | 77.55 | 5.83 | 5.16 | 11.46 | 45.54 | 5.59 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 43.71 | 17.87 |
| 200 °C | Torrefied | 77.25 | 1.03 | 6.68 | 15.04 | 46.56 | 5.36 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 41.40 | 18.54 |
| 250 °C | Torrefied | 75.29 | 0.82 | 7.84 | 16.05 | 48.72 | 5.22 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 38.22 | 19.81 |
| 275 °C | Torrefied | 64.88 | 0.65 | 8.71 | 25.76 | 50.99 | 5.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 35.29 | 21.78 |
| 300 °C | Torrefied | 52.54 | 0.33 | 9.77 | 37.36 | 55.86 | 4.88 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 29.49 | 22.22 |
DownLoad: CSV| Feedstock | Lignocellulosic Biomass Composition (%) | Hot Water Extraction | Surface Area (g/m2) | ||
| Hemicellulose | Cellulose | Lignin | |||
| Miscanthus | |||||
| Raw | 36.3 | 38.8 | 11.5 | 12.6 | 11.4 |
| Torrefied at 275 °C 45 min | 14.2 | 35.5 | 41.7 | 6.8 | 14.2 |
| Wheat Straw | |||||
| Raw | 26.8 | 49.1 | 10.7 | 8.8 | 0.3 |
| Torrefied at 275 °C 45 min | 17.7 | 36.6 | 38.2 | 5.1 | 3.2 |
DownLoad: CSV| a) Descriptive statistics for variables | |||||
| Variable | Minimum value | Maximum value | Mean value | Standard dev. | |
| T (K) | 448.15 | 548.15 | 498.15 | 31.02 | |
| Y = Ln (derivative wt%/min/ 100) | -6.69 | -3.79 | -5.48 | 0.93 | |
| X = Weight% /100 | 0.93 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.01 | |
| b) Calculated Parameter values | |||||
| Parameter | Miscanthus | Wheat Straw | |||
| A (min-1) | 8.8 × 103 | 1.2 × 104 | |||
| N | 0.88 | 0.91 | |||
| E (kJ/mol) | 59.95 | 51.72 | |||
| c) Analysis of variance | |||||
| Source | DF | Sum of squares | Mean square | F-vlue | Prob (F) |
| Regression | 2 | 16.25750 | 8.12875 | 161.51 | 0.00001 |
| Error | 18 | 0.90594 | 0.05033 | ||
| Total | 20 | 17.16344 | |||
DownLoad: CSV| Temperature (°C) for 45 minutes | Biomass | Heating Rate °C /min | Environment | Mass Yield (%) | Energy Yield (%) | Energy Density (ratio) |
| Miscanthus | Raw | 10 | Nitrogen | |||
| 200 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 84.13 ± 2.0 | 93.12 ± 1.8 | 1.13 |
| 250 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 73.35 ± 0.8 | 88.45 ± 1.4 | 1.24 |
| 275 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 67.92 ± 1.3 | 74.36 ± 1.5 | 1.31 |
| 300 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 58.44 ± 0.7 | 68.93 ± 1.3 | 1.55 |
| Wheat Straw | Raw | 10 | Nitrogen | |||
| 200 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 82.56 ± 1.8 | 98.56 ± 1.6 | 1.11 |
| 250 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 70.25 ± 1.2 | 87.48 ± 1.5 | 1.20 |
| 275 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 64.56 ± 1.0 | 72.25 ± 1.4 | 1.33 |
| 300 | Torrefied | 10 | Nitrogen | 54.83 ± 0.9 | 67.59 ± 1.7 | 1.39 |
| Treatment Temperature (°C) 45 min | Biomass Type | Proximate Analysis (%) | Ultimate analyzer (%) | HHV MJ/kg | |||||||
| VM | MC | Ash | FC | C | H | N | S | O | |||
| Miscanthus | Raw | 83.96 | 5.47 | 1.79 | 7.56 | 46.66 | 6.00 | 0.21 | 0.00 | 45.34 | 18.47 |
| 200 °C | Torrefied | 82.21 | 2.01 | 2.01 | 11.64 | 48.16 | 5.81 | 0.15 | 0.00 | 43.87 | 19.82 |
| 250 °C | Torrefied | 80.84 | 1.20 | 3.24 | 12.72 | 49.31 | 5.50 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 41.83 | 20.66 |
| 275 °C | Torrefied | 78.82 | 0.95 | 3.99 | 14.24 | 52.12 | 5.35 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 38.44 | 22.67 |
| 300 °C | Torrefied | 74.17 | 0.73 | 4.58 | 18.52 | 55.33 | 5.22 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 34.77 | 24.86 |
| Wheat Straw | Raw | 77.55 | 5.83 | 5.16 | 11.46 | 45.54 | 5.59 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 43.71 | 17.87 |
| 200 °C | Torrefied | 77.25 | 1.03 | 6.68 | 15.04 | 46.56 | 5.36 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 41.40 | 18.54 |
| 250 °C | Torrefied | 75.29 | 0.82 | 7.84 | 16.05 | 48.72 | 5.22 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 38.22 | 19.81 |
| 275 °C | Torrefied | 64.88 | 0.65 | 8.71 | 25.76 | 50.99 | 5.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 35.29 | 21.78 |
| 300 °C | Torrefied | 52.54 | 0.33 | 9.77 | 37.36 | 55.86 | 4.88 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 29.49 | 22.22 |
| Feedstock | Lignocellulosic Biomass Composition (%) | Hot Water Extraction | Surface Area (g/m2) | ||
| Hemicellulose | Cellulose | Lignin | |||
| Miscanthus | |||||
| Raw | 36.3 | 38.8 | 11.5 | 12.6 | 11.4 |
| Torrefied at 275 °C 45 min | 14.2 | 35.5 | 41.7 | 6.8 | 14.2 |
| Wheat Straw | |||||
| Raw | 26.8 | 49.1 | 10.7 | 8.8 | 0.3 |
| Torrefied at 275 °C 45 min | 17.7 | 36.6 | 38.2 | 5.1 | 3.2 |
| a) Descriptive statistics for variables | |||||
| Variable | Minimum value | Maximum value | Mean value | Standard dev. | |
| T (K) | 448.15 | 548.15 | 498.15 | 31.02 | |
| Y = Ln (derivative wt%/min/ 100) | -6.69 | -3.79 | -5.48 | 0.93 | |
| X = Weight% /100 | 0.93 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.01 | |
| b) Calculated Parameter values | |||||
| Parameter | Miscanthus | Wheat Straw | |||
| A (min-1) | 8.8 × 103 | 1.2 × 104 | |||
| N | 0.88 | 0.91 | |||
| E (kJ/mol) | 59.95 | 51.72 | |||
| c) Analysis of variance | |||||
| Source | DF | Sum of squares | Mean square | F-vlue | Prob (F) |
| Regression | 2 | 16.25750 | 8.12875 | 161.51 | 0.00001 |
| Error | 18 | 0.90594 | 0.05033 | ||
| Total | 20 | 17.16344 | |||
