4.8 Article

Effect of basic washing parameters on the chemical composition of empty fruit bunches during washing pretreatment: A detailed experimental, pilot, and kinetic study

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 340, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125734

关键词

Biomass pretreatment; Thermochemical Conversion; Leaching; Oil palm; Slagging

资金

  1. Valmet Technologies Oyj, Tampere
  2. Doctoral School of Industrial Innovation (DSII), Tampere University, Finland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the effect of washing parameters on the chemical composition of oil palm empty fruit bunches (EFB) and recommended optimal conditions for large-scale washing pre-treatment. The results showed significant removal rates of elements such as Cl, S, K, ash, and N after washing EFB, with a second-order leaching kinetics observed. Pilot tests confirmed the effectiveness of the pre-treatment, supporting the recommended parameters of 10 minutes washing at 50 degrees C with a 1:15 S:L ratio for large-scale applications.
The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of basic washing parameters on the chemical composition of empty fruit bunches of oil palm (EFB) and to determine the optimal parameters for large-scale applications of washing pre-treatment. Three basic washing parameters were studied in detail: washing duration, temperature, and solid/liquid (S:L) ratio. The leaching kinetics of ash and troubling elements such as K, Cl, N, and S were also evaluated with respect to washing time. About 82-98% Cl, 64-80% S, 38-77% K, 34-67% ash, and 24-63% N removal was noted after washing EFB, which follows a second-order leaching kinetics on increasing washing duration. Two pilot washing tests were also conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the pre-treatment on a large scale, which showed similar trends as the laboratory results. The recommended EFB washing conditions for large-scale applications are 10 min washing with a 1:15 S:L ratio at 50 degrees C.

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