4.8 Article

Microwave-assisted catalytic pyrolysis of apple wood to produce biochar: Co-pyrolysis behavior, pyrolysis kinetics analysis and evaluation of microbial carriers

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 320, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124345

关键词

Apple wood; Microwave catalytic pyrolysis; Coats-Redfern method; Bacillus subtilis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1803332]
  2. Shaanxi Provincial Key Research and Development Program [2020NY-132]
  3. Scientific Research Plan for Local Special Service of Shaanxi Provincial Education Department [20JC014]
  4. Shaanxi Natural Science Basic Research Program [2019JQ-523]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study showed that using H3PO4 or K3PO4 as catalysts can improve the efficiency of co-pyrolysis of apple wood, reducing the activation energy and enhancing biochar characteristics. The highest biochar yield was 58.6% when the ratio of H3PO4 to apple wood was 0.5, and the biochar was effective in adsorbing bacteria according to Langmuir model.
This study investigated the behavior and kinetics of co-pyrolysis of apple wood (AW) with H3PO4 and K3PO4 as catalysts under microwave to prepare biochar as microbial absorbent. The kinetic studies indicate that the co-pyrolysis of AW with H3PO4 or K3PO4 can effectively improve the pyrolysis efficiency and enhance the bio char characteristics by reducing of the activation energy of the pyrolysis reaction. The kinetic parameters indicate that the activation energy of the mixtures in the main pyrolysis stage is lower than that of a single AW, which mean that the co-pyrolysis of AW with H3PO4 or K3PO4 shows excellent synergy. Biochar characterization showed that the yield of biochar reached the highest 58.6% when the ratio (H3PO4/AW) is 0.5. The adsorption results show that the bacteria SL-44 can be effectively loaded on the surface of the biochar, and the adsorption process is combined with Langmuir model and process can proceed spontaneously.

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

4.8
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