4.7 Article

Pyrolysis-catalytic hydrogenation of cellulose-hemicellulose-lignin and biomass agricultural wastes for synthetic natural gas production

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaap.2019.104753

关键词

Biomass; Pyrolysis; Hydrogenation; Methanation; Methane

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/S017127/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The production of methane from the biopolymers; cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, and also four different agricultural waste biomass samples was investigated using a two-stage pyrolysis-catalytic hydrogenation reactor. The biomass agricultural waste samples were rice straw, willow, sugar cane bagasse and ugu plant. Pyrolysis of the biomass samples was carried out in a lst stage reactor while the catalytic hydrogenation was carried out the 2nd stage reactor using a 10 wt.% Ni/Al2O3 catalyst maintained at 500 degrees C with heating rate of 20 degrees C min(-1) and a H-2 space velocity of 3600 ml h(-1) g(catalyst)(-1). The thermal degradation characteristics of the biomass components, mixtures of the components and the biomass waste samples was also conducted using thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). TGA of the mixtures of the biomass components showed interaction, illustrated by a shift in the thermal degradation temperatures for hemicellulose and lignin. The results from the pyrolysis-catalytic hydrogenation revealed that the methane yield increased in the presence of the catalyst; the methane yield obtained from the hemicellulose (7.9 mmoles g(biomass)(-1)) and cellulose (7.65 mmoles g(biomass)(-1)) was significantly higher than that produced from lignin, (3.7 mmoles g(biomass)(-1)). The pyrolysis-catalytic hydrogenation of the mixtures of the biopolymers showed clear interaction, producing higher total gas yield and methane yield compared to calculated values. Pyrolysis-catalytic hydrogenation of the agricultural biomass wastes suggests that the product methane yield was influenced by the percentage of hemicellulose and cellulose content in the biomass.

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