4.7 Article

Results of the IEA Round Robin on Viscosity and Stability of Fast Pyrolysis Bio-oils

Journal

ENERGY & FUELS
Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 3769-3776

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ef300384t

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. IEA Bioenergy Task 34: Natural Resources Canada
  2. U.S. Department of Energy, TEKES Finland, Fachagentur Nachwaachsende Rohstoffe e.V. Germany
  3. Department of Energy and Climate Change, U.K.
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/J017302/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. EPSRC [EP/J017302/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An international round robin study of the stability of fast pyrolysis bio-oil was undertaken. Fifteen laboratories in five different countries contributed. Two bio-oil samples were distributed to the laboratories for stability testing and further analysis. The stability test was defined in a method provided with the bio-oil samples. Viscosity measurement was a key input. The change in viscosity of a sealed sample of bio-oil held for 24 h at 80 degrees C was the defining element of stability. Subsequent analyses included ultimate analysis, density, moisture, ash, filterable solids, and TAN/pH determination, and gel permeation chromatography. The results showed that kinematic viscosity measurement was more generally conducted and more reproducibly performed versus dynamic viscosity measurement. The variation in the results of the stability test was great and a number of reasons for the variation were identified. The subsequent analyses proved to be at the level of reproducibility, as :found in earlier round robins on bio-oil analysis. Clearly, the analyses were more straightforward and reproducible with a bio-oil sample low in filterable solids (0.2%), compared to one with a higher (2%) solids loading. These results can be helpful in setting standards for use of bio-oil, which is just coming into the marketplace.

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