4.7 Article

Comparative study of bio-oil production from sugarcane bagasse and palm empty fruit bunch: Yield optimization and bio-oil characterization

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL AND APPLIED PYROLYSIS
卷 108, 期 -, 页码 284-294

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaap.2014.04.003

关键词

Intermediate pyrolysis; Simplex methodology; Bio-oil maximization

资金

  1. Universidad Industrial de Santander, Vicerrectoria de Investigacion y Extension [5445, 5451]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research focused primarily on the process optimization for bio-oil production in a pilot-scale batch reactor operating in a fixed bed and using two important agricultural residues from Santander Department in Colombia: sugarcane bagasse (SB) and palm empty fruit bunch (EFB). The Simplex method was applied to develop experimental tests in which three main variables were studied: temperature, gas residence time and particle size. The choice of such variables was based on literature review suggesting that they have a major influence on bio-oil yield. The ranges of the operating conditions were: temperature 460-600 degrees C, gas residence time 16-80s and particle size 0.5-1.4mm. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows the temperature being the most influential variable on the bio-oil yield. The other variables were not significant for bio-oil production from intermediate pyrolysis. In the case of SB, the best operating conditions (temperature 560 degrees C, gas residence time 77s and particle size 0.5-0.85 mm) resulted in a bio-oil yield of 53.4 wt%, whereas in the case of EFB, the best operating conditions (temperature 540 degrees C, gas residence time 31 s and particle size <0.5 mm) resulted in a bio-oil yield of 48.4 wt%. However, the physical-chemical properties of bio-oil stemming from the two studied biomasses are completely different, where the bio-oil from EFB presents the best HHV of 34.91 MJ/kg, the highest pH (3.9) and the lowest density (approximately 958 kg/m(3)). (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据