4.7 Article

Evaluation of zeolite catalysts on product distribution during sweet sorghum bagasse catalytic pyrolysis

期刊

ENERGY
卷 214, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.118799

关键词

Sweet sorghum bagasse; Zeolite; Pyrolysis temperature; Product distribution

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51806129]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the catalytic fast pyrolysis of sweet sorghum bagasse using different zeolite catalysts and pyrolysis temperatures to determine their effects on product distribution of bio-oil, providing valuable insights for the high-value utilization of sweet sorghum wastes.
The catalytic fast pyrolysis (CFP) of sweet sorghum bagasse was carried out in a three-stage tube furnace to achieve high value utilization of sweet sorghum bagasse. The effects of zeolite catalysts (hierarchical HZSM-5, HBeta, HY and HUSY) and pyrolysis temperature (450 degrees C, 500 degrees C, 550 degrees C and 600 degrees C) were investigated to obtain the relationship between the product distribution of bio-oil and the zeolite properties. The results showed that the relative contents of monocyclic aromatics followed the order: hierarchical HZSM-5 (DS-HZSM-5) HBeta > HUSY > HY, and the relative contents of polycyclic aromatics followed the order DS-HZSM-5 < HY < HUSY < HBeta. DS-HZSM-5 contributed to the formation of benzenes, obtaining the highest relative content (80.8%), whereas HUSY and HBeta facilitated the formation of naphthalenes with relative contents of 7.4% and 11.2%, respectively. Furthermore, 550 degrees C was the optimum pyrolysis temperature for the catalysis of DS-HZSM-5, and 450 degrees C was the most suitable pyrolysis temperature for the catalysis of HBeta, HY and HUSY. The results of this research are important for the utilization of sweet sorghum wastes in view of obtaining high-value chemicals. (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