4.7 Article

Dry fractionation of olive pomace as a sustainable process to produce fillers for biocomposites

期刊

POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 326, 期 -, 页码 44-53

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2017.11.060

关键词

Olive pomace; Dry fractionation; Grinding; Sorting; Characterization

资金

  1. PNE Program of the Algerian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research [396]
  2. European Regional Development Fund (FEDER)
  3. Languedoc-Roussillon region [2015-005910]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Olive pomace (OP) is the agro-industrial residue of olive oil extraction composed of residual pulp and stone. This work aims at exploring the possibility of using dry fractionation (combination of grinding and sorting processes) to produce pulp-rich and stone-rich fractions with the highest purity and yield. The physical-chemical characteristics (composition, thermal stability, color, surface free energy) of the obtained powders were discussed in relation to the applied processes. It was shown that dry fractionation could be successfully used to convert OP into valuable fractions using processes avoiding the consumption of water and the generation of effluents or co-products. Results revealed that the separation of the pulp from the stone using friction solicitations in a ball mill operating in mild conditions (2 min at a frequency of 15 Hz) was as efficient as wet fractionation in terms of powder characteristics, achieving a total yield of 99.4% against only 82.1% in the case of wet fractionation and without using water while a water:biomass ratio of 5:1 was required for wet fractionation. Produced powders exhibited contrasted biochemical composition (either rich in lignin or cellulose) and surface free energy, and were thermally stable up to at least 210 degrees C. It was concluded that they could be interestingly used as raw resources for the production of fillers that will be further incorporated in polymer matrices to produce a range of biocomposites. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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