4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Hot-water extraction and its effect on soda pulping of aspen woodchips

期刊

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
卷 39, 期 -, 页码 5-13

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.01.054

关键词

Hemicellulose; Hot-water extraction; Soda pulping; Kappa number; Viscosity; Yield

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hot-water extraction of industrial aspen woodchips (mainly Populus tremuloides) and subsequent soda pulping were carried out in an M/K(R) digester. It was found that mass removal of woodchips was 4.74% at 160 degrees C for 15 min with a water-to-wood ratio of 4:1, and that mass removal increased with extraction time and temperature. The mass removal reached 21.38% at 160 degrees C for 210 min. Less than 6% lignin (on total wood mass) from virgin woodchips was dissolved in the extraction liquor. The concentrations of xylose, acetic acid, formic acid and furfural in the extraction liquor were measured by H-1 NMR, which were found to increase with extraction time and temperature. Furfural increased sharply beyond 150 min of extraction at 160 degrees C. The residual woodchips were subjected to soda pulping at 150 degrees C for 3 h with 20% effective alkali and a liquor-to-wood ratio of 4.5:1. Compared with the control sample, the overall pulp yield for extracted woodchips decreased little while rejects decreased sharply. Kappa number of the pulps decreased with increasing extraction time and temperature. Viscosity of the pulp increased with increasing extraction temperature and duration for the first 90 min. Beyond 90 min of extraction, the resulting pulp viscosity decreased with increasing duration of extraction. The water-to-wood ratio had little effect on the entire process. Considering bioconversion of extracted hemicellulose to fuel/chemicals and the resultant pulping characteristics, hot-water extraction at 165 degrees C for 90 min with a water-to-water ratio of 5:1 for aspen woodchips seems to be optimum. (C) 2011 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