4.7 Article

Co-hydrothermal carbonization of food waste with yard waste for solid biofuel production: Hydrochar characterization and its pelletization

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT
卷 118, 期 -, 页码 521-533

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2020.09.009

关键词

Food waste; Co-hydrothermal carbonization; Biofuel pellets; Coal replacement; Pelletization

资金

  1. Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, Co-HTC of food waste with yard waste was conducted for biofuel pellets production, and also to understand any possible synergy between two feedstock types. The calorific value of blended raw feedstock was 13.5 MJ/kg which increased to 27.6 MJ/kg after Co-HTC at 220 degrees C for 1 h. Energy yield and fuel ratio calculated was 45% and 0.65 respectively. Hydrochar produced demonstrated a stable combustion profile as compared to reactive combustion profile for raw samples. The blend of food and yard waste hydrochar was easily pelletized, and its pellets showed improvement in mechanical properties as compared to pellets made from mono-substrate((food waste) hydrochar. Pellets produced from the blend of food and yard waste hydrochar showed higher energy (46.4 MJ/m(3)) and mass density (1679 kg/m(3)) as compare to the pellet produced from food waste hydrochar alone. Tensile strength obtained for the blended hydrochar pellet was 2.64 MPa while same for the pellets produced from food waste hydrochar alone was 1.30 MPa. In addition to improving hydrophobicity, soften lignin from yard waste also helped in binding the food waste hydrochar particles together within the pellets matrix during heated pelletization. The results presented in the study indicated that in the presence of all favorable conditions, there is a potential that approximately 11% of the global coal consumption could be replaced by the combustion of hydrochar produced from food and yard waste globally. (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