4.6 Review

A Mini-Review: Biowaste-Derived Fuel Pellet by Hydrothermal Carbonization Followed by Pelletizing

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 14, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su141912530

关键词

hydrothermal carbonization; pelletizing; biomass; organic waste; hydrochar; fuel pellet

资金

  1. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) [RGPIN-2022-03203]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review article focuses on recent studies using hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) for producing hydrochar and its potential application as a solid fuel pellet. It describes the effects of main HTC reaction parameters on the properties and yield of hydrochar, as well as the influences of various factors on the quality of fuel pellets made from hydrochar.
This review article focuses on recent studies using hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) for producing hydrochar and its potential application as a solid fuel pellet. Due to the depletion of fossil fuels and increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the need for carbon-neutral fuel sources has increased. Another environmental concern relates to the massive amount of industrial processing and municipal solid waste, which are often underutilized and end up in landfills to cause further environmental damage. HTC is an appealing approach to valorizing wet biomass into valuable bioproducts (e.g., hydrochar), with improved properties. In this review, the effects of the main HTC reaction parameters, including reaction temperature, residence time, and feedstock to water ratio on the properties and yield of hydrochar are described. Following this, the pelletizing of hydrochar to prepare fuel pellets is discussed by reviewing the influences of applied pressure, processing time, pellet aspect ratio, moisture content of the hydrochar, and the type and dosage of binder on the quality of the resulting fuel pellet. Overall, this review can provide research updates and useful insights regarding the preparation of biowaste-derived solid fuel pellets.

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

4.6
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