4.8 Article

Non-catalytic pyrolysis of scrap tires using a newly developed two-stage pyrolyzer for the production of a pyrolysis oil with a low sulfur content

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 170, 期 -, 页码 140-147

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.119

关键词

Scrap tire; One-stage pyrolysis; Two-stage pyrolysis; Pyrolysis oil; Sulfur; Limonene

资金

  1. Architecture & Urban Development Research Program (AUDP) - Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Affairs of Korean government [14CHUD-C060573-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this work was to reduce the sulfur content of pyrolysis oil derived from the scrap tire pyrolysis. In this respect, a series of pyrolysis experiments was conducted in both a fluidized bed reactor (one-stage pyrolysis) and a newly developed two-stage pyrolyzer consisting of an auger reactor and a fluidized bed reactor in series (two-stage pyrolysis). The one-stage pyrolysis was carried out at similar to 500 and similar to 600 degrees C with different fluidizing gases (N-2 and product gas). In the experiments, the pyrolysis oil obtained at similar to 500 degrees C had a lower sulfur content than that produced at similar to 600 degrees C. N-2 was better at producing a low-sulfur pyrolysis oil than product gas. The sulfur contents of the oils obtained from the one-stage pyrolysis ranged from 0.75 to 0.92 wt.%. The two-stage pyrolysis was conducted using product gas as the fluidizing medium at different auger reactor temperatures (similar to 230-450 degrees C) and at a constant fluidized bed reactor temperature (similar to 510 degrees C). A pyrolysis oil containing only 0.55 wt.% of sulfur could be produced at the temperatures of the auger reactor of similar to 330 degrees C and fluidized bed reactor of similar to 510 degrees C. Moreover, the two-stage pyrolysis could produce an oil with a low nitrogen content (0.28 wt.%). A pyrolysis oil obtained from the auger reactor contained DL-limonene up to 50 wt.%. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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