4.7 Article

Furniture wood waste as a potential renewable energy source A thermogravimetric and kinetic analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF THERMAL ANALYSIS AND CALORIMETRY
卷 125, 期 3, 页码 1357-1371

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10973-016-5611-7

关键词

Furniture wood waste; Torrefaction; TG; FTIR; Consecutive first-order reactions

资金

  1. National Centre of Research and Development [SP/E/1/ 67484/10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the combustion behavior of raw waste wood from furniture and samples torrefied at temperatures of 473, 513, 553 and 593 K was investigated. TG-DTG analysis showed that the mass loss in the first stage of the process decreased with the temperature of torrefaction, whereas the temperature in the second stage increased. The influence of torrefaction and combustion parameters on greenhouse gas emissions were investigated by the FTIR technique. The characteristic combustion parameters were also determined. The ignition temperatures for the furniture wood waste and samples torrefied at 473, 513 and 553 K from 549 to 559 K, whereas that of the sample torrefied at 593 K was significantly higher (600 K). All samples were completely burnt at 813-843 K, after 29-35 min, depending on the torrefaction temperature. Kinetic parameters are determined using a two-step first-order reaction. The activation energy value for the first stage increased with the increasing temperature of torrefaction, from 68 to 125 kJ mol(-1), whereas the temperature in the second stage decreased from 108 to 47 kJ mol(-1). A similar correlation was observed for the pre-exponential value A. In the case of the torrefied furniture wood waste at 593 K, the combustion process runs as a single first-order reaction. The calculated data were fitted to the experimental data very accurately (R-2 > 0.9992 and standard deviation <6.7 %), and the kinetic model was correctly founded. The linear relationship between logA and E-a provides a way to predict the kinetic parameters of the combustion 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

4.7
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