4.7 Article

Comparison of Ash Layer Formation Mechanisms on Si-Containing Bed Material during Dual Fluidized Bed Gasification of Woody Biomass

期刊

ENERGY & FUELS
卷 34, 期 7, 页码 8340-8352

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c00509

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Energy Agency [P42034-1]
  2. Swedish Gasification Center
  3. Swedish Energy Agency (SEA) [P42034-1] Funding Source: Swedish Energy Agency (SEA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quartz, feldspar, and olivine are minerals commonly used as bed materials for dual fluidized bed gasification of biomass. During their interaction with biomass ash, the materials develop surface layers rich in ash-derived elements. These layers decrease the concentration of tar which is an unwanted side product of gasification. The interactions of quartz, feldspar, and olivine with woody biomass ash leading to the formation of active layers were studied with X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy- energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, and iime-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry, and the results were compared to calculations done with FactSage. It was found that the interaction causes the formation of three-layered structures for all materials: a Mg-rich surface layer, a Ca-rich intermediate layer, and an inner layer which varies among the three materials. For quartz and feldspar, the integration of Ca and Mg into the structure causes a transition by depolymerizing the tectosilicate structure via an inosilicate intermediate to finally a nesosilicate. As the olivine structure is a nesosilicate from the beginning, no further depolymerization of the silicate structure can occur and a substitution of Mg by Ca occurs, leading to an accumulation of expelled MgO on the surface. The interaction of the materials with K was found to differ, causing melt formation for quartz, a substitution of Na-rich feldspar by K-rich feldspar, and the formation of feldspathoids for alkali feldspar, or retention as a separate phase for olivine.

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