4.7 Article

Inputs of solid-state NMR to evaluate and compare thermal reactivity of pine and beech woods under torrefaction conditions and modified atmosphere

期刊

FUEL
卷 187, 期 -, 页码 250-260

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2016.09.031

关键词

Biomass; Torrefaction; Hardwood; Softwood; CPMAS C-13 NMR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, solid C-13 NMR investigations are carried out to highlight some transformations induced by torrefaction into the wood structure. A first set of experiments is dedicated to a comparative study of the changes into respectively pine and beech wood samples, torrefied under the same conditions at different temperatures ranging from 200 degrees C to 300 degrees C in a lab-scale device. The main transformations which can be put into evidence through NMR investigations are depletion of hemicelluloses, demethoxylation, cleavage of beta-O-4 structures, and formation of new chemical structures correlated with the hemicelluloses depletion. For both type of wood some differences between beech and pine wood are highlighted, mainly attributed to differences in the compositions of their lignin and hemicellulose fractions, which results in a higher reactivity of beech wood. The influence of the presence of steam (20%v) or of oxygen (3%v) into the gas atmosphere in the torrefaction device is studied in a second set of experiments. The gas compositions have been chosen to mimic the conditions of an industrial furnace, where strictly neutral conditions could not be set. 13C NMR characterizations of wood samples torrefied at the same temperatures and under different gas atmospheres are compared. It is concluded that below 280 degrees C, the presence of either steam or oxygen has no effect on the characteristics of torrefied solid. Above 280 degrees C, the presence of H2O promotes hemicellulose de-acetylation and to a lesser extent lignin demethoxylation. Above 290 degrees C, the presence of oxygen promotes cellulose degradation. (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