4.5 Article

Solid fuel production from macadamia nut shell: effect of hydrothermal carbonization conditions on fuel characteristics

期刊

BIOMASS CONVERSION AND BIOREFINERY
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 2225-2232

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13399-021-01330-2

关键词

Hydrothermal carbonization; Energy from biomass; Hydrochar

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrothermal carbonization can effectively convert macadamia nut shell into solid fuel with higher heating value. The energy recovery can be improved by adjusting the hydrothermal conditions. Higher temperature during hydrothermal treatment can enhance the coalification and thermal stability of the hydrochar.
Hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) was employed to convert macadamia nut shell (MCNS) into solid fuel. The effect of hydrothermal conditions was examined by varying the reaction temperature (170, 200, and 230 degrees C) and water/biomass ratio (2, 3, and 5). The properties of hydrochar were assessed in term of mass yield, energy recovery, higher heating value (HHV), and atomic H/C and O/C ratios. The results showed that HHV of hydrochar was significantly higher than raw MCNS, and progressively increased with increasing HTC temperature while mass yield showed opposite trend. The solid yield from HTC process varied between 58.38 and 78.43% of the initial dry MCNS with HHV around 22-27 MJ/kg. The energy recovery of hydrochars via HTC was in a range of 82.5-93.2%. Higher HTC temperature also increased the degree of coalification and thermal stability of hydrochar by removing volatile matters from the biomass. The removal of carboxyl and -OH groups reduces the O/C ratio leading to the higher energy densification of hydrochars. Hydrochar produced via HTC at 230 degrees C possessed the highest HHV of 27 MJ/kg, and had the O/C and H/C ratios close to sub-bituminous coal. The findings indicated that hydrothermal carbonization is a potential method to convert agricultural waste such as macadamia nut shell into solid fuel without pre-drying process.

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

4.5
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