4.6 Article

Carbon emissions from smouldering peat in shallow and strong fronts

Journal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMBUSTION INSTITUTE
Volume 32, Issue -, Pages 2489-2496

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.proci.2008.07.008

Keywords

Biomass burning; Carbon monoxide; Carbon dioxides; Emission factor; Smoldering

Funding

  1. Met Office and Natural England

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A series of experiments of shallow and strong Smouldering fronts in boreal peat have been conducted under laboratory conditions to study the CO and CO2 emissions. Peat samples of 100 mill by 100 mill in cross section and 50 mill in depth were smouldered in the cone calorimeter apparatus. Two laboratory variables. moisture content and the external heat flux, are varied over a wide range of values to establish different burning rates and front thicknesses. This provides a novel framework to Study smouldering dynamics by varying the controlling mechanisms and providing burning conditions that otherwise cannot be obtained. Measurements of the burning rate and gas flow, yields and ratio for CO and CO2 are reported 2 at Steady state burning conditions. Average mass flow rates per area of smouldering front are reported here For the first time to be 0.27 g/s/m(2) for CO and 0.65 g/s/m(2) for CO,. This CO2 mass flux is about 3000 times larger that the natural decomposition flux from peatlands. The CO yield in dry base is 17%, g/g and the CO2 yield 42% g/g. The CO and CO2 total yield is of 59%, g/g, and the CO to CO2 ratio was oil average 0.43. The results indicate that peat with high Moisture Content smoulders producing larger CO2 yield but the same CO yield compared to dryer peat. This suggests that smouldering of biomass at lower moisture contents develops wider pyrolysis fronts that release a larger fraction of other carbon-containing gas species. (c) 2009 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available