4.5 Article

A comprehensive characterization of non-edible lignocellulosic biomass to elucidate their biofuel production potential

期刊

BIOMASS CONVERSION AND BIOREFINERY
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 5087-5103

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13399-020-00924-6

关键词

Putranjiva roxburghii; Cassia fistula and Albizia lebbeck; Lignocellulosic biomass; Devolatilization index; FTIR; TGA

资金

  1. Centre of Excellence-Green & Efficient Energy Technology (CoE-GEET), CUJ, Ranchi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The physicochemical and thermochemical characterization of non-edible oil seeds such as Putranjiva, Amaltas, and Siris revealed their potential for renewable fuel and green chemicals production.
It is very requisite to demonstrate the characterization of lignocellulosic biomass for converting into renewable fuels and valuable chemicals. In this work, the physicochemical and thermochemical characterization of some non-edible oil seeds such as Putranjiva (Putranjiva roxburghii), Amaltas (Cassia fistula), and Siris (Albizia lebbeck) were carried out by extractive analysis via Soxhlet solvent extraction, compositional analysis, proximate analysis, elemental (CHNSO) analysis, heating value, bulk density, crystallinity index via XRD, functional groups via FTIR, mineral content via EDX, slagging and fouling indices via XRF, and degradation profile via TGA. It was noticed that all seeds consist of a maximum percentage of extractives such as Putranjiva 50.55%, Amaltas 18.22%, and Siris 22.8%. The results showed that these seeds have a higher cellulose content compared with hemicellulose and lignin. Further, it was confirmed from the Van Krevelen diagram, CHO index, as well as devolatilization index. Also, from the kinetic analysis, the activation energy (E-a) obtained of these seeds was in the order of PR > AL > CF. The chemical features and thermal degradation behaviour reaffirmed that these non-edible oilseeds have good energy potential for reproducibility of biofuel and green chemicals production.

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

4.5
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