4.7 Article

Experimental study on co-combustion of low rank coal semicoke and oil sludge by TG-FTIR

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT
卷 116, 期 -, 页码 91-99

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2020.08.007

关键词

Low rank coal semicoke; Oil sludge; Co-combustion; TG-FTIR; Gaseous pollutants

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFB0602003]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1610254]
  3. Young Scientist Partnership Project of Shenyang branch of Chinese Academy of Sciences
  4. Young Scientist Partnership Project of Shenyang branch of Shandong Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Co-combustion was proposed as an effective and complementary means for the co-treatment of low rank coal semicoke (LRCS) and oil sludge. The combustion, kinetics and gaseous pollutants emission characteristics during co-combustion of LRCS and oil sludge were investigated by thermogravimetric analyzer coupled with Fourier transform infrared spectrometer (TG-FTIR). Results showed oil sludge had more complex weight loss characteristics than LRCS. Proper addition of oil sludge could effectively improve the ignition, burnout and comprehensive combustion performance of blends and 60% was a recommended oil sludge blend ratio. High heating rates could also enhance the combustion performance of blends. The activation energy determined by Coats-Redfern method gradually decreased with the increase of oil sludge blend ratio. DAEM kinetic analysis results showed the maximum activation energy of 113.4 kJ/mol was obtained when conversion rate was 0.4 due to the poor ignition performance of LRCS. All of the CO, CO2, NOx and SO2 emission gradually decreased with the increasing oil sludge blend ratio. LRCS had suppression effect on NOx emission during co-combustion while oil sludge was just the opposite. The low sulfur release rate of oil sludge resulted in the decreasing SO2 emission of blends although oil sludge had promotion effect on SO2 emission. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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