4.5 Article

Thermal degradation of corn starch based biodegradable plastic plates and determination of kinetic parameters by isoconversional methods using thermogravimetric analyzer

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ENERGY INSTITUTE
卷 93, 期 4, 页码 1449-1459

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.joei.2020.01.007

关键词

Corn starch; Biodegradable plastics; Pyrolysis; Kinetics; GC-MS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oil shortage and awareness of environment pollution leads to the extensive use of biodegradable starch-based materials against synthetic plastics. The accumulated wastes of these plastics takes more time for natural recycling and the process is complex. Therefore the best option of recycling would be to convert these polymers into a source of energy by pyrolysis. So to understand the pyrolytic behaviour, kinetics of such waste plastics is studied by using thermogravimetric analysis at different heating rates of 10 degrees C, 20 degrees C, 40 degrees C, 60 degrees C, 80 degrees C and 100 degrees C in nitrogen atmosphere followed by characterization of the pyrolysis products. The kinetic parameters are obtained for two major stages of decomposition in two different temperature ranges 250-620 degrees C and 620-855 degrees C by iso-conversional methods such as Friedman, Coats-Redfern, PWO and Kissinger methods. The regression coefficient data (>0.9) of kinetic plots obtained for different methods best fits to the kinetic equation. Empirical formula of the compound is determined by ultimate analysis is CH2.214S0.0018O0.6910. Proximate analysis gives the idea of volatile component which is74.33%. The range of average value of activation energy is 120.7013 kJ/mol to 140.7707 kJ/mol for the biodegradable plastic plate with different conversion (0.1-0.6) and (0.1-0.3) respectively at two different temperatures. The pyrolysis products obtained using a semi-batch reactor are characterized to know their composition and other properties. (C) 2020 Energy Institute. Published by 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

4.5
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