4.7 Article

Fuel production based on catalytic pyrolysis of waste tires as an optimized model

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 87, 期 -, 页码 653-669

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2014.07.033

关键词

Waste tire; Energy; Experimental design; Diesel; MgCl2; Modeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, the pyrolysis of wastes has been considered as a promising alternative for dealing with this issue. In this study, pyrolysis of waste tire was conducted using MgCl2 as catalyst in a batch reactor under atmosphere of argon. The experiments of pyrolysis were designed by response surface modeling of process parameters, including particle size of waste tire slices, flow rate of argon gas, amount of catalyst, and time and temperature of pyrolysis, related to the corresponding yields of oil, gas, and char. As objectives of this work, influences of parameters and their interactions were examined to maximize oil, and minimize gas and char. The oil product was maximized using the conditions, including pyrolysis temperature of 407.3 degrees C, pyrolysis time of 1800s, flow rate of 133.7 mL min(-1), particle size of 12.5 mm, and 11.5 wt% of catalyst. Additionally, the highest gaseous product was also obtained when the temperature of pyrolysis, feed size, flow rate of argon, amount of catalyst, and pyrolysis time were 475.0 degrees C, 5.0 mm, 250.0 mL min(-1), 0.1 wt%, and 5009 s, respectively. Moreover, the pyrolytic char was converted to activated one with the specific surface area and activating yield of 1296 m(2) g(-1) and 16.3 wt%, respectively, using steam activation unit. Furthermore, the physical properties of the final oil product, including cetane number, density, viscosity, and flash point were compared with other commercial diesel fuels. These quality factors were obtained 47, 847 kg m(-3), 2.4 mm(2) s(-1), and 48 degrees C, respectively. At last, using of MgCl2 declined the sulfur content of final oil to 0.38 wt%. (C) 2014 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