4.7 Article

Study on pyrolysis products characteristics of medical waste and fractional condensation of the pyrolysis oil

期刊

ENERGY
卷 195, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.116969

关键词

Medical solid waste; Characteristics; Pyrolysis; Fractional condensation

资金

  1. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2018M632800]
  2. Henan Provincial Key R&D and Promotion Project [192102210080]
  3. Key Research Projects of Henan Colleges and Universities [19A470009]
  4. Program of Henan Center for Outstanding Overseas Scientists [GZS2018004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dried and pulverized medical solid waste was pyrolyzed at 500 degrees C, and the components and characteristics were analyzed after the solid, liquid and gas products were collected respectively. Experimental results showed that the combustible component in the obtained gas product accounted for 83.22% and the heat value was 10,995.02kcal/Nm(3). The liquid product obtained was black viscous tar with a heat value of 8972.82 kcal/kg, GC/MS analysis indicated that hydrocarbons and lipids accounted for about 60% of liquid product, and the carbon chain length of the products is C-6-C-28. The carbon content of solid product after purification was up to 63.13%, and the heat value was 5454.54 kcal/kg. Furthermore, in order to make the most of the pyrolysis oil, the liquid product was separated and purified by fractional condensation under the condition of decompression. The effect of process parameters such as vacuum degree and condensing temperature was emphasized, and the optimum technological condition was obtained as follows: vacuum degree 0.04 MPa, heating temperature 140 degrees C and the first stage condensing temperature was 70 degrees C. Finally, the viscosity measurement of the residual high-viscosity components was intended to provide data support for the solution of tar plugging equipment and piping problems in practical applications. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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