4.5 Article

The ignitability, fuel ratio and ash fusion temperatures of torrefied woody biomass

Journal

HELIYON
Volume 6, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03582

Keywords

Energy; Materials science; Teak wood; Melina wood; Torrefaction; Ignitability index; Fuel ratio; Ash fusion temperatures

Funding

  1. The World Academy of Science (TWAS Award) [FR: 3240287331]
  2. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) [P-81-1-09]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The impact of torrefaction temperature on the ignitability, fuel ratio and ash fusion temperatures of two tropical deciduous woods (Teak and Melina) were investigated in a setup of tubular furnace. The properties considered are calorific value, fuel ratio, ignitability index, ash compositions and ash fusion temperatures of the biomass. Six different temperatures (220, 240, 260, 280, 300 and 320 degrees C) at 60 min reaction time were considered. The results indicated that as torrefaction temperature increased, the calorific value, fuel ratio and ignitability index of the biomass also increased. The ignitability index of biomass (40-63) was better than the value (35) recommended for fuel applicable in thermal plants for power generation. The ash compositional analysis revealed that there was no variation in the quantity of SiO2, Al2O3, CaO along with other minerals for the raw and torrefied biomass. This implied that the temperature up to 320 degrees C has no significant impact on the compositions of biomass ash during torrefaction. The ash fusion temperature test showed that the biomass ash softens at approximate to 1200 degrees C and finally fused at approximate to 1300 degrees C. The study concluded that an increase in torrefaction temperature increases the thermal properties of the torrefied biomass without affecting the compositions of biomass ash or lowering the ash fusion temperatures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available