4.7 Article

Pyrolysis chars and physically activated carbons prepared from buckwheat husks for catalytic purification of syngas

Journal

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
Volume 132, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105435

Keywords

Activated carbon; Chars; Physical activation; Pyrolysis; Tar cracking

Funding

  1. L'Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maitrise de l'Energie (ADEME)
  2. Region Pays de la Loire

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper investigates the impact of the oxidizing agent used in the physical activation of pyrolysis chars on activated carbons (AC), and their efficiency in tar cracking. The materials are produced from buckwheat husk, which is a French local biomass. Slow pyrolysis was chosen to favor the production of raw chars. Activated chars were then prepared by physical activation under steam or CO2. The materials produced were physically and chemically characterized before being implemented in a fixed bed. The efficiency of materials in removing tar from syngas was studied, and ethylbenzene (EB) was chosen as the tar surrogate. The purification efficiency of the chars and AC was deduced from the EB conversion profiles in comparison with thermal cracking. The nature of the oxidizing agent impacted the porosity and mineral composition of the AC produced: CO2 activation produced ACs with more carbon and less ash content. This is because the reduction of carbon with carbon dioxide presents a kinetic between 2 and 5 times slower than that conducted in the presence of steam. CO2 activation also resulted in a higher relative micropomsity (89%) than steam activation (61%), which itself gives a higher surface area. Pyrolysis char did not generate any interest for EB catalytic cracking, whereas ACs demonstrated higher performances. This is due to their higher level of porosity and higher ash content. BH-H2O, which presents higher porosity, produced a better catalytic effect and was more resistant to deactivation.

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