4.7 Article

Kinetic study of the pyrolysis of miscanthus and its acid hydrolysis residue by thermogravimetric analysis

Journal

FUEL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
Volume 138, Issue -, Pages 184-193

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.05.013

Keywords

Kinetics; Acid hydrolysis residue; Thermogravimetric analysis; Activation energy; Pre-exponential factor; Isoconversional methods

Funding

  1. European Commission [227248-2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The kinetic parameters of the pyrolysis of miscanthus and its acid hydrolysis residue (AHR) were determined using thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). The AHR was produced at the University of Limerick by treating miscanthus with 5 wt.% sulphuric acid at 175 degrees C as representative of a lignocellulosic acid hydrolysis product. For the TGA experiments, 3 to 6 g of sample, milled and sieved to a particle size below 250 mu m, were placed in the TGA ceramic crucible. The experiments were carried out under non-isothermal conditions heating the samples from 50 to 900 degrees C at heating rates of 2.5, 5, 10, 17 and 25 degrees C/min. The activation energy (E-A) of the decomposition process was determined from the TGA data by differential analysis (Friedman) and three isoconversional methods of integral analysis (Kissinger-Akahira-Sunose, Ozawa-Flynn-Wall, Vyazovkin). The activation energy ranged from 129 to 156 kJ/mol for miscanthus and from 200 to 376 kJ/mol for AHR increasing with increasing conversion. The reaction model was selected using the non-linear least squares method and the pre-exponential factor was calculated from the Arrhenius approximation. The results showed that the best fitting reaction model was the third order reaction for both feedstocks. The pre-exponential factor was in the range of 5.6 x 10(10) to 3.9 x 10(+13) min(-1) for miscanthus and 2.1 x 10(16) to 7.7 x 10(25) min(-1) for AHR. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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