4.7 Article

A comparison of the torrefaction behavior of wood, miscanthus and palm kernel shells: Measurements on single particles with geometries of technical relevance

期刊

FUEL
卷 224, 期 -, 页码 507-520

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2018.01.095

关键词

Torrefaction; Heat treatment; Single particle; Biomass

资金

  1. project Torrefaction of solid biomass through the Federal state NRW [FKZ EN 2054]
  2. European Union in the context of the Ziel 2 Programme - Regionale Wettbewerbsfahigkeit und Beschaftigung - EFRE- Europaischer Fonds fur Regionale Entwicklung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A torrefaction test rig was designed to investigate large single biomass particles up to characteristic sizes of 25 mm, typical for industrial reactors. Time-resolved mass loss for such particles is measured with a magnetic suspension balance at well-defined torrefaction conditions (temperature, residence time, gas atmosphere). This paper comprises the results of woody and non-woody biomass: pine, a coniferous, and beech, a deciduous, wood, palm kernel shells and miscanthus. Influence of process temperature (240 to 320 degrees C), residence time (up to 1 h) and type of solid biomass on time-resolved mass loss is presented. Additional tests with oxygen in the process gas (0-15 vol%), typical for industrial torrefaction systems, are carried out for selected samples of beech wood. The differences in torrefaction behaviour of bark, sap-and heartwood of pine are evaluated. Finally, it is shown that the torrefaction reactor developed allows to derive kinetic parameters for mass loss. At temperatures up to 300 degrees C the mass loss for palm kern shells is highest followed by miscanthus, and pine. By examining pine, as an example, it is shown that heartwood is significantly more reactive than sapwood and bark. Finally, it is demonstrated, that for the particle sizes considered here heat and mass transfer limitations can be neglected for the determination of torrefaction kinetics. Kinetic data agree well with data from literature.

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