4.7 Article

Comparative pyrolysis behaviors and reaction mechanisms of hardwood and softwood

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 132, 期 -, 页码 102-109

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2016.11.016

关键词

Wood biomass; Pyrolysis; Thermogravimetry; Kinetics; Mechanism

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program [2012CB719704]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [WK2320000034]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Comparative pyrolysis behaviors of typical hardwood (Fagus sylvatica) and softwood (Cunninghamia lanceolata) were investigated based on thermograyimetric analysis over a wide heating rate range from 5 K/min to 60 K/min. The Flynn-Wall-Ozawa model-free method was applied to estimate the various activation energy values at different conversion rates, and the Coats-Redfern model-fitting method was used to predict the possible reaction mechanism. Two pyrolysis regions were established by the trend of activation energy, divided by the threshold of conversion rate (0.4 for hardwood and 0.2 for softwood) but with the same distinguished temperature at about 580 K. For the region under the conversion rate threshold, the activation energy of hardwood increased gradually while softwood decreased. Furthermore, the activation energy remained the same fbr both hardwood and softwood in the region over the conversion rate threshold. However, softwood behaved greater activation energy than hardwood during the whole pyrolysis process. The pyrolysis differences of hardwood and softwood could be attributed to the chemical component, molecular structure, component proportion and various extractives. The same reaction mechanism of hardwood and softwood was verified by applying the Coats-Redfern approach. By checking activation energies obtained according to different models with those obtained through the Flynn-Wall-Ozawa method, the best model was based on diffusion mechanism when the conversion rate was less than its threshold, otherwise based on reaction order (2nd to 3rd). (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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