4.3 Article

Comparative investigation of bio-beneficiation of Kasnau-Matasukh lignite using native microorganisms

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/19392699.2020.1822824

关键词

Consortium; gross calorific value; lignite; FTIR; upgradation

资金

  1. Science and Engineering Research Board, New Delhi [PDF/2015/000939]
  2. UGC, New Delhi [F.4-2/2006 (BSR)/ES/18-19/0031]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study attempted to beneficiate lignite using bacterial strains. The results showed that Bacillussp. XQW could effectively remove sulfur and mineral matter from lignite, improving its calorific values. Through various analytical techniques, the researchers gained insights into the changes in lignite after bacterial treatment.
In the present investigation, an attempt has been made to beneficiate lignite usingBurkholderiasp. GR 8-02,Bacillussp. XQW, and mixed consortium. The experiments showed thatBacillussp. XQW could remove 18.18-37.50% of total sulfur followed by mixed consortium (18.18-29.17%) andBurkholdriasp. GR 8-02 (9.09%-29.17%). There was also a concomitant decrease in the content of mineral matter as revealed in decrease of ash yields from 10.02 to 29.12% byBacillussp. XQW followed by 11.74-29.10% byBurkholderiasp. GR8-02 and 9.93-29.30% by mixed consortium. During the biotreatment of lignite, a reduction in the volatile matter and oxygen was also observed. Study through Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy-energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS), petrography, and chemistry of lignite samples provided more insights into the changes in the calorific values as well as the chemical attributes of the lignite after bacterial treatment. The study revealed an increase in the Gross calorific value (6417-7234 cal/g) and Net calorific value (6522-7190 cal/g) of the lignite following the bacterial treatment. Thus, bacterial treatment of the lignite samples proved to be an effective tool for the upgradation of lignite.

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

4.3
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