4.5 Article

Catalytic co-pyrolysis of cellulosic ethanol-processing residue with high-density polyethylene over biomass bottom ash catalyst

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13399-023-03915-5

关键词

Ethanol process residual; Bottom ash; Plastic; Co-pyrolysis; Biorefinery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, bagasse ash (BA) recovered from the biorefinery process was used as a catalyst in the co-pyrolysis of solid residue from a second-generation bioethanol plant with high-density polyethylene (HDPE). The co-pyrolytic behaviors and kinetics were investigated using thermogravimetric analyzer and model-free methods. The addition of BA increased the production yield and the average apparent active energy of co-pyrolysis was lower than that for catalyst-free pyrolysis. This novel co-pyrolysis process has great potential in improving the economic and environmental aspects of second-generation biorefineries.
In this study, the bagasse ash (BA) from biorefinery process was recovered and used as a catalyst in the co-pyrolysis of solid residue from second-generation bioethanol plant with high-density polyethylene (HDPE). The co-pyrolytic behaviors were studied using thermogravimetric analyzer at three heating rates of 10, 20, and 40 K min(-1). The synergistic effects between BA and HDPE and their co-pyrolysis kinetics were investigated using two model-free methods: Kissinger-Akahira-Sunose (KAS) and Flynn-Wall-Ozawa (FWO). The pyrolysis products were determined by pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (Py-GC/MS) as well. The results indicated that the addition of BA could increase the production yield. The average apparent active energy (Ea) of co-pyrolysis was 171.3 kJ mol(-1) from KAS and 174 kJ mol(-1) from FWO, which were lower than that for catalyst-free pyrolysis (174.8 kJ mol(-1) from KAS and 177.3 kJ mol(-1) from FWO). The novel co-pyrolysis process showed great potential in improving both the economic and environment sides of the second-generation biorefineries.

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