4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Catalytic pyrolysis of tulip tree (Liriodendron) in bubbling fluidized-bed reactor for upgrading bio-oil using dolomite catalyst

期刊

ENERGY
卷 162, 期 -, 页码 564-575

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.001

关键词

Bubbling fluidized-bed; Fractional catalytic pyrolysis; Dolomite catalyst; Tulip tree

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [NRF-2014R1A1A4A01008538]
  2. Engineering Research Center of Excellence Program of the Korea Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (MSIP)/National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) [NRF-2014R1A5A1009799]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2014R1A1A4A01008538, 2014R1A5A1009799] 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

Fractional catalytic pyrolysis is an updated pyrolysis method, in which the biomass can be converted into higher quality bio-oil by upgrading the pyrolysis vapor in fluidized bed. In this study, the fast pyrolysis of tulip tree (Liriodendron) was performed in a bubbling fluidized-bed reactor under various reaction conditions (pyrolysis temperature, flow rate of fluidizing medium, and biomass particle size) to investigate the effects of these parameters on product yield and bio-oil quality. The system used silica sand and dolomite as the fluidizing bed material, and nitrogen as the fluidizing medium. When the pyrolysis temperature increased from 400 degrees C to 550 degrees C, the bio-oil yield was between 40.07 wt% and 49.03 wt% compared to those of 28.38 and 44.83 wt% using dolomite catalyst. Deoxygenation of bio-oil mostly produced water, and produced lower amounts of CO and CO2, but higher amounts of H-2 and hydrocarbons gas. The catalytic process obtaineda high ratio of H-2/CO in the gas product. (C) 2018 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