4.7 Article

Biomass torrefaction in a standard retort: A study on oil palm solid residues

期刊

FUEL
卷 244, 期 -, 页码 366-378

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.02.008

关键词

Torrefaction; Biomass; Empty fruit bunches; Mesocarp fiber; Oil palm; Retort

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates the torrefaction of oil palm empty fruit bunches (EFB) and mesocarp fiber in a standard retort at laboratory scale (according to standard ISO 647). The influence of torrefaction temperature (220 degrees C-270 degrees C), residence time (up to 60 min) and reactor heating rate (5 K/min-15 K/min) are determined on solid, liquid and gas yields, as well as their chemical and fuel properties. Torrefaction yielded between 64 wt-% and 92 wt-% solid that exhibited lower heating value increase between 11 % and 28 % compared to the original biomass. The liquid fraction ranges between 6 wt-% and 26 wt-% of the raw biomass, containing 26 wt-%-42-wt% of water and LHV up to 11 MJ/kg. The gas fraction represents 1 wt-%-9 wt-% of the original biomass with LHV between 0,6 MJ/kg-2,4 MJ/kg. Optimum trade-offs for solid yields and lower heating values were obtained for torrefaction with a heating rate of 10 K/min and a residence time of 30 min at 272 degrees C for EFB (62,8 wt-% solid yield and 17,7% increase in the original LHV) and at 282 degrees C for fiber (65,3 wt-% solid yield and 25,8% increase in LHV). A formal reaction kinetic model for pyrolyis coupled to a thermal model of the retort has been tested and used to simulate the solid mass yield and lower heating value during torrefaction and to determine the optimum trade-offs between both parameters. Simulated temperature gradients inside the retort solid bed are as high as 55 degrees C during heating up at a torrefaction temperature of T-torr = 250 degrees C and around 25 degrees C after a residence time of 30 min at this temperature. These results are relevant and decisively influence the solid yield during torrefaction in the retort.

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