4.7 Article

Evolution properties of cellulose- and lignin-derived pyrolysis tars after interacting with coal chars

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL AND APPLIED PYROLYSIS
卷 122, 期 -, 页码 332-341

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaap.2016.09.008

关键词

Tar; Coal char; Steam reforming; Cellulose; Lignin

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51406129, 21376158, 21206104]
  2. Program for the Top Young Academic Leaders of Higher Learning Institutions of Shanxi [154010148-s]
  3. Shanxi Scholarship Council of China [2015-046]
  4. Key Laboratory of Renewable Energy, Chinese Academy of Sciences [Y607k31001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The reforming characteristics of biomass volatiles on anthracite chars were investigated by comparing the structural evolution of tars derived from cellulose and lignin as the major biomass components. In a two-stage quartz reactor, the pyrolysis volatiles of cellulose and lignin were produced in the first stage and then reformed in the second stage with or without the presence of anthracite chars between 600 and 900 degrees C. The results show that the presence of anthracite chars enhanced the destruction of volatiles of both feedstocks. Furthermore, the tar yields of lignin showed a slower decreasing trend with temperature than those of cellulose, suggesting that the lignin volatiles were more refractory to be reformed. The lignin tars had higher molecular weights and contained higher percentage of compounds with large aromatic ring systems (>= 3 fused benzene rings) than cellulose tars in the studied temperature range. Compositional analysis revealed that tars of both feedstocks experienced the transition from phenolic compounds to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons with increasing temperature. The surface areas of anthracite chars were reduced because of coke deposition after interacting with the volatiles of both feedstocks below 800 degrees C, above which the net gasification of chars took place. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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