Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

, Volume 138, Issue 5, pp 3587–3601 | Cite as

A study of coke and char formation during pyrolysis of rice husk

  • Mariana Santos LemosEmail author
  • Lidia Yokoyama
  • Marcelo Mendes Viana
  • Jo Dweck


The present study about pyrolysis of the rice husk (RH) was carried out to evaluate indicated operating conditions to obtain chars with adsorbent properties. Initially, thermogravimetry (TG), derivative thermogravimetry (DTG) and differential thermal analysis (DTA) were performed in order to obtain the TG and DTA RH coke formation curves and to evaluate the formed products (chars) at different selected pyrolysis temperatures. For the thermal analyses, 10 mg samples were used at a heating rate of 10 °C min−1, from ambient temperature to 1000 °C, in alumina crucibles, under air and N2 atmosphere. The coke formation curves, which were obtained subtracting RH TG and DTA curves in air from respective curves in N2, show that there are two types of coke formation, being the second the most stable and more suitable for adsorption, with maximum formation at 500 °C. Then, pyrolysis products obtained at selected temperatures of 400, 500 and 600 °C, respectively, named RHC400, RHC500 and RHC600, were characterized by thermal analysis in air and by other instrumental analyses in order to evaluate their chemical composition and adsorbing properties. The results of char TG and DTG curves, based on the original rice husk initial mass, allow to estimate and to compare contents of residual organic components during pyrolysis. The characterization by XRF, SEM and BET showed that RH and RHCs have silica in greater quantity in their chemical composition, with mainly carbon, silicon, calcium and oxygen distributed on their surfaces, which present a low surface area (16–26 m2 g−1). The analyzed chars show, by proximate analysis, a progressive concentration of fixed carbon from 400 to 600 °C. BET data show that they are mesoporous and potential adsorbents for large molecules as dyes, being RHC600 the most suitable for this purpose, as shown by preliminary results of blue methylene adsorption.


Pyrolysis Rice husk Thermal analysis Adsorbents Methylene blue 



  1. 1.
    Wang S, Dai G, Yang H, Luo Z. Lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis mechanism: a state-of-the-art review. Prog Energy Combust Sci [Internet]. 2017;62:33–86. Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Yaman S. Pyrolysis of biomass to produce fuels and chemical feedstocks. Energy Convers Manag. 2004;45:651–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goyal RB, Diptendu Seal R, Saxena C. Bio-fuels from thermochemical conversion of renewable resources: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2008;12:504–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stevens CV. Thermochemical processing of biomass: conversion into fuels. Brown RC, editor. New York: Wiley; 2011.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Neves D, Thunman H, Matos A, Tarelho L, Gómez-Barea A. Characterization and prediction of biomass pyrolysis products. Prog Energy Combust Sci [Internet]. 2011;37:611–30. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mohan D, Pittman CU, Steele PH. Pyrolysis of wood/biomass for bio-oil: a critical review. Energy Fuels. 2006;20:848–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Di Blasi C. Modeling chemical and physical processes of wood and biomass pyrolysis. Prog Energy Combust Sci. 2008;34:47–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klass DL. Biomass for renewable energy, fuels, and chemicals. London: Academic Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meier D, Faix O. State of the art of applied fast pyrolysis of lignocellulosic materials—a review. Bioresour Technol. 1999;68:71–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jayaraman K, Kok MV, Gokalp I. Combustion properties and kinetics of different biomass samples using TG–MS technique. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2017;127:1361–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Braga RM, Melo DMA, Aquino FM, Freitas JCO, Melo MAF, Barros JMF, et al. Characterization and comparative study of pyrolysis kinetics of the rice husk and the elephant grass. J Therm Anal Calorim [Internet]. 2014;115:1915–20. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang S, Hu Y, Wang Q, Xu S, Lin X, Ji H, et al. TG–FTIR–MS analysis of the pyrolysis of blended seaweed and rice husk. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2016;126:1689–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim H, Yang H, Park H. Thermogravimetric analysis of rice husk filled thermoplastic polymer composites. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2004;76:395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Genieva SD, Turmanova SC, Dimitrova AS, Vlaev LT. Characterization of rice husk and the products of its thermal degradation in air or nitrogen atmosphere. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2008;93:387–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kalderis D, Bethanis S, Paraskeva P, Diamadopoulos E. Production of activated carbon from bagasse and rice husk by a single-stage chemical activation method at low retention times. Bioresour Technol. 2008;99:6809–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paethanom A, Yoshikawa K. Influence of pyrolysis temperature on rice husk char characteristics and its tar adsorption capability. Energies. 2012;5:4941–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Melo Azevedo É, Pinto MF, De Castilho Pickler A, Dweck J. Evaluation of the pyrolysis of biodiesel filtration residue containing diatomite by thermal analysis. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2016;123:1743–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Viana MM, Melchert MBM, De Morais LC, Buchler PM, Dweck J. Sewage sludge coke estimation using thermal analysis. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2011;106:437–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vesilind PA, Worrell WA, Reinhart DR. Solid waste engineering. Salt Lake City: Bill Stenquist; 2002.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ASTM D 3860 – 98. Standard practice for determination of adsorptive capacity of activated carbon by aqueous phase isotherm technique. i:1–4.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yang H, Yan R, Chen H, Lee DH, Zheng C. Characteristics of hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin pyrolysis. Fuel. 2007;86:1781–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dweck J, Cherem Da Cunha AL, Pinto CA, Pereira Gonçalves J, Büchler PM. Thermogravimetry on calcined mass basis—Hydrated cement phases and pozzolanic activity quantitative analysis. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2009;97:85–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ouverney CV. Estudo do Potencial Energético de Misturas de Cascas de Arroz E Carvão Brasileiro. Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ; 2016.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Patel M, Karera A, Prasanna P. Effect of thermal and chemical treatments on carbon and silica contents in rice husk. J Mater Sci. 1987;22:2457–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fu P, Hu S, Xinag J, Sun L, Yang T, Zhang A, Wang Y, Chen G. Effects of pyrolysis temperature on characteristics of porosity in biomass chars. In: 2009 International Conference on Energy and Environment Technology. 2009.
  27. 27.
    Guerrero M, Ruiz MP, Millera Á, Alzueta MU, Bilbao R. Characterization of biomass chars formed under different devolatilization conditions: differences between rice husk and Eucalyptus. Energy Fuels. 2008;22:1275–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sharma RK, Wooten JB, Baliga VL, Hajaligol MR. Characterization of chars from biomass-derived materials: pectin chars. Fuel. 2001;80:1825–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huang Y, Jin B, Zhong Z, Zhong W, Xiao R. Characteristic and mercury adsorption of activated carbon produced by CO2 of chicken waste. J Environ Sci. 2008;20:291–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Crittenden B, Thomas WJ. Adsorption technology and design. 1st ed. Butterworth-Heinemann; 1998.
  31. 31.
    Gregg SJ, Sing KSW. Adsorption, surface area and porosity. London: Academic Press; 1982.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ChemistryRio de Janeiro Federal UniversityRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations