4.7 Article

Thermogravimetric analysis of the thermal decomposition of MSW in N2, CO2 and CO2/N2 atmospheres

期刊

FUEL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
卷 102, 期 -, 页码 18-23

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2012.04.019

关键词

MSW; Thermal decomposition; CO2/N-2 atmosphere; Thermogravimetry

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2011CB201501]
  2. Key Laboratory of Efficient and Clean Energy Utilization of Guangdong Higher Education Institutes [KLB10004]
  3. Guangdong Key Laboratory of Clean Energy Technology [2008A060301002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The thermal decomposition of municipal solid waste (MSW) from Huizhou under N-2. CO2 and CO2/N-2 atmospheres was analyzed using a thermogravimetric instrument. The results revealed that the higher the heating rate, the more the residual mass and the higher the weight loss rates of the peaks. Under CO2 atmosphere, the volatile release from 160 degrees C to 650 degrees C, with a pronounced peak and a small shoulder in the DTG curve. The weight loss below 650 degrees C changed with atmosphere indistinctively except in the 80%N-2/20%CO2 atmosphere. Low CO2 concentration influenced the residual mass, while when CO2 concentration was over 60%, the residual mass almost remained the same (32.2%). Replacement of N-2 by CO2 promoted the char gasification in high temperature range. In 100%N-2 atmosphere, the peak above 650 degrees C was only shaped by the degradation of minerals and the residues were char and ash. As the CO2 concentration increased, this peak shifted to a higher temperature range, and char gasification played the principal role. Above 650 degrees C, the DTG curve showed two peaks in 80%N-2/20%CO2 atmosphere obviously, whereas only an obvious peak in other atmospheres. The residues were almost ash in 100%CO2 atmosphere. The nth order reaction model of several independent fractions was applied to evaluate the kinetic parameters and it fitted the weight loss well. (C) 2012 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