4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Characterization and pelletization of cotton stalk hydrochar from HTC and combustion kinetics of hydrochar pellets by TGA

期刊

FUEL
卷 244, 期 -, 页码 479-491

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.02.039

关键词

Hydrothermal carbonization; Pelletization; Hydrochar pellets; Combustion characteristics; Combustion kinetic parameters

资金

  1. Natural science Foundation of Jiangsu higher education institutions [18KJB480005]
  2. National Nature Science Foundation of China [51406063, 51676096]
  3. Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Process Enhancement and New Energy Equipment Technology
  4. Top-notch Academic Programs Project of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The characteristics of hydrochars of cotton stalk (CS) and hydrochar pellets were investigated in this paper to obtain high quality biomass fuel. The differences between the characteristics of hydrochars at different temperatures (180-300 degrees C) and reaction times (1-8 h) were analysed by mass yield, energy yield, proximate analysis, element analysis and higher heating value (HHV). The content of carbon and HHV of the hydrocars reached 51.18-73.94 wt% and 19.66-25.68 MJ/kg. FTIR and XPS indicated dehydration and condensation exist in HTC. SEM showed the generation of carbon microspheres. There was a higher energy consumption of hydrochars during pelletization, but the pellets formed from hydrochar had a higher relaxation density (1.06-1.21 g/cm(3)) and compressive strength (6.84-8.90 Mpa) than the CS pellets. The integrated combustion characteristics index (Sn) of 180-4 hydrochar pellets were better due to the higher (dm/dt)(max) value. The combustion kinetic parameters were determined by the Kissenger-Akahira-Sunose (KAS) and Flynn-Wall-Ozawa (FWO) methods. The results showed that the change tendency of the Ea values was consistent, the average activation energy (Ea) was very similar, and the average correlation coefficient (R-2) was higher than 0.9 in all samples.

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