4.4 Article

Effects of Pretreatments of Napier Grass with Deionized Water, Sulfuric Acid and Sodium Hydroxide on Pyrolysis Oil Characteristics

期刊

WASTE AND BIOMASS VALORIZATION
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 755-773

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12649-016-9594-1

关键词

Napier grass; Ash; Pretreatment; Extractives; Pyrolysis; Bio-oil; Characterization

资金

  1. Crops for the Future (CFF)
  2. University of Nottingham [BioP1-005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The depletion of fossil fuel reserves has led to increasing interest in liquid bio-fuel from renewable biomass. Biomass is a complex organic material consisting of different degrees of cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, extractives and minerals. Some of the mineral elements tend to retard conversions, yield and selectivity during pyrolysis processing. This study is focused on the extraction of mineral retardants from Napier grass using deionized water, dilute sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid and subsequent pyrolysis in a fixed bed reactor. The raw biomass was characterized before and after each pretreatment following standard procedure. Pyrolysis study was conducted in a fixed bed reactor at 600 A degrees C, 30 A degrees C/min and 30 mL/min N-2 flow. Pyrolysis oil (bio-oil) collected was analyzed using standard analytic techniques. The bio-oil yield and characteristics from each pretreated sample were compared with oil from the non-pretreated sample. Bio-oil yield from the raw sample was 32.06 wt% compared to 38.71, 33.28 and 29.27 wt% oil yield recorded from the sample pretreated with sulfuric acid, deionized water and sodium hydroxide respectively. GC-MS analysis of the oil samples revealed that the oil from all the pretreated biomass had more value added chemicals and less ketones and aldehydes. Pretreatment with neutral solvent generated valuable leachate, showed significant impact on the ash extraction, pyrolysis oil yield, and its composition and therefore can be regarded as more appropriate for thermochemical conversion of Napier grass.

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

4.4
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