4.6 Article

Sugarcane Bagasse Torrefaction for Fluidized Bed Gasification

Journal

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
Volume 11, Issue 13, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app11136105

Keywords

sugarcane bagasse; torrefaction; biomass; gasification; entrained flow gasifier

Funding

  1. National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research in Chile (CONICYT)
  2. Sao Paulo Research Foundation, FAPESP [FAPESP/CONICYT-2018/08419-4, FONDECYT-11180828, ANID PIA/APOYO CCTE AFB170007]
  3. CAPES-Brazil [88887.512068/2020-00, 88887.467148/2019-00]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study evaluated torrefaction of sugarcane bagasse to propose suitable process conditions balancing fuel properties and energy requirements.
Sugarcane bagasse has a great potential to be used as biofuel; however, its use as feedstock in fluidized bed reactors is hampered due to its fibrous nature, low apparent density, high moisture content, and difficulties with its fluidization. The present study evaluated the torrefaction of sugarcane bagasse to propose suitable process conditions that balance the properties of the fuel obtained in the torrefaction and the process's energy requirements. Based on the thermogravimetric analysis and previous reports, two final process temperatures (230 degrees C and 280 degrees C) and residence times (35 and 45 min) for the same heating rate (5 degrees C/min) and nitrogen flow (1 L/min) were evaluated. Within the experimental conditions evaluated, it can be concluded that for 30 min of residence time, the average target temperature of 230 degrees C should be high enough to produce a stable torrefacted bagasse with a 3.41% reduction in the volatile content and obtain 98.85% of energy yield. Higher temperatures increase the feedstock's carbon content and energy density, but the reduction in energy yield and the fraction of volatiles do not justify higher temperatures or longer residence times for pretreating the sugarcane bagasse.

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