4.7 Article

Investigation of aqueous phase recirculation on co-hydrothermal carbonization of sewage sludge and lignite: Hydrochar properties and heavy metal chemical speciation

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2021.107111

Keywords

Co-hydrothermal carbonization; Sewage sludge; Lignite; Fuel properties; Heavy metal; Aqueous phase recirculation

Funding

  1. Guangzhou Basic Research Program-Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation [202102021071]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explores the feasibility of producing clean solid fuels through co-HTC and aqueous phase recirculation. The results show that co-HTC can reduce the concentration of heavy metals, and aqueous phase recirculation further decreases the risk of Ni. The hydrochar derived from co-HTC exhibits improved coalification degree, higher heating values, and combustion behavior.
Excessive process water remained an important challenge in hydrothermal carbonization (HTC). In this work, co-HTC of sewage sludge (SS) and lignite (LIG) along with the aqueous phase recirculation (APC) was employed to explore the feasibility of producing clean solid fuels at 230 degrees C. Chemical speciation and concentration of heavy metals (HMs) in hydrochars were evaluated, as well as fuel properties. The results showed that the co-HTC with LIG was beneficial for the decline of total concentrations of Cu, Cr, Ni, Mn, and Zn. Furthermore, APC further decreased the risk of Ni without expanding the pollution of HMs. Compared with the hydrochar produced from SS, the coalification degree, higher heating values (5.61-6.19 MJ/kg), and combustion behaviour of the hydrochar derived from co-HTC were upgraded and improved. The yield of hydrochar was enhanced via APC but several fuel properties changed slightly. These findings offered a viable technology that could lower the output of wastewater and realize the energy utilization of SS.

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