4.8 Article

Comparison of biochar properties from biomass residues produced by slow pyrolysis at 500 °C

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 148, 期 -, 页码 196-201

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.08.135

关键词

Agricultural residues; Biomass; Biochar; Forestry residues; Slow pyrolysis

资金

  1. Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development, Rural Development Administration (RDA), Republic of Korea [PJ0079662011]
  2. R&D program of the Korea Institute of Industrial Technology [EO-13-0010]
  3. National Research Council of Science & Technology (NST), Republic of Korea [EO130010] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  4. Rural Development Administration (RDA), Republic of Korea [PJ007966012013] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Application of biochar from biomass pyrolysis to soil is gaining greater interest; this can ameliorate the soil quality, reduce fertilizer consumption, and sequestrate carbon. This study compares the characteristics of biochar produced by slow pyrolysis at 500 degrees C for agricultural residues: sugarcane bagasse, cocopeat, paddy straw, palm kernel shell (PKS) and umbrella tree. In the biochar yield, the influence of the inert and lignin contents was significant. The wood stem, bagasse and paddy straw had biochar yields of 24-28 wt.% from the organic fraction while cocopeat had 46 wt.%. The carbon content of biochar ranged from 84 wt.% to 89 wt.%, which corresponded to 43-63% of carbon in the biomass. The biochar from wood stem and bagasse had well-developed pores of various sizes with large surface areas. Although the surface area was significant, PKS biochar had dense matrix with few large pores. The elemental composition and pH of biochars were also compared. (C) 2013 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

4.8
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