Advertisement

Kinetics of thermal pyrolysis of Eucalyptus bark by using thermogravimetric-Fourier transform infrared spectrometry technique

  • Shuo Fu
  • Haixiang ChenEmail author
  • Jiuling Yang
  • Zhuo Yang
Article
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

In Southern China, the bark residues from Eucalyptus trees are collected and burned to generate electricity. They are prone to self-heating and even spontaneous combustion when stored in large-scale stockpiles. Pyrolysis plays an important role in these processes. In this work, the pyrolysis characteristics of Eucalyptus bark were investigated by using thermogravimetric analysis coupled with Fourier transform infrared spectrometry. The mass loss process of Eucalyptus bark pyrolysis consists of three stages: dehydration, decomposition of organic matters and decomposition of oxalate, lignin and other components. Except the decomposition of minerals, Eucalyptus bark pyrolysis was described by a four pseudo-component reaction scheme and the kinetic parameters were obtained by using the genetic algorithm. The major evolved gas species and their generation temperature ranges during Eucalyptus bark pyrolysis were identified by Fourier transform infrared spectrometry. It was found that the temperature ranges of the evolved gases were consistent with the decomposition temperature ranges of pseudo-cellulose and pseudo-hemicellulose, in particular with that of pseudo-cellulose.

Keywords

Eucalyptus bark Pyrolysis TG-FTIR Kinetic model Gas emission 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was sponsored by National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2016YFC0800100) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51576184). HX Chen was supported by Science and Technological Fund of Anhui Province for Outstanding Youth (No. 1808085J21) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central University (WK2320000038).

References

  1. 1.
    Amutio M, Lopez G, Aguado R, Artetxe M, Bilbao J, Olazar M. Kinetic study of lignocellulosic biomass oxidative pyrolysis. Fuel. 2012;95:305–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang Q, Zhou D, Fang X. Analysis on the policies of biomass power generation in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2014;32:926–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van den Broek R, van den Burg T, van Wijk A, Turkenburg W. Electricity generation from eucalyptus and bagasse by sugar mills in Nicaragua: a comparison with fuel oil electricity generation on the basis of costs, macro-economic impacts and environmental emissions. Biomass Bioenerg. 2000;19(5):311–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00034-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhu LW, Zhao P, Wang Q, Ni GY, Niu JF, Zhao XH, et al. Stomatal and hydraulic conductance and water use in a eucalypt plantation in Guangxi, southern China. Agric For Meteorol. 2015;202:61–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hogland W, Marques M. Physical, biological and chemical processes during storage and spontaneous combustion of waste fuel. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2003;40(1):53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li XR, Koseki H, Momota M. Evaluation of danger from fermentation-induced spontaneous ignition of wood chips. J Hazard Mater. 2006;135(1–3):15–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.11.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang H, Yan R, Chen H, Lee DH, Zheng C. Characteristics of hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin pyrolysis. Fuel. 2007;86(12–13):1781–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gao N, Li A, Quan C, Du L, Duan Y. TG-FTIR and Py–GC/MS analysis on pyrolysis and combustion of pine sawdust. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 2013;100:26–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2012.11.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bassilakis R, Carangelo RM, Wójtowicz MA. TG-FTIR analysis of biomass pyrolysis. Fuel. 2001;80(12):1765–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-2361(01)00061-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Jong W, Pirone A, Wójtowicz MA. Pyrolysis of Miscanthus Giganteus and wood pellets: TG-FTIR analysis and reaction kinetics. Fuel. 2003;82(9):1139–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-2361(02)00419-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perdochova M, Derychova K, Veznikova H, Bernatik A, Pitt M. The influence of oxygen concentration on the composition of gaseous products occurring during the self-heating of coal and wood sawdust. Process Saf Environ. 2015;94:463–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2014.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Di Blasi C. Modeling chemical and physical processes of wood and biomass pyrolysis. Prog Energy Combust. 2008;34(1):47–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2006.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ward SM, Braslaw J. Experimental weight loss kinetics of wood pyrolysis under vacuum. Combust Flame. 1985;61(3):261–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-2180(85)90107-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koufopanos C, Maschio G, Lucchesi A. Kinetic modeling of the pyrolysis of biomass and biomass components. Can J Chem Eng. 1989;67:75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller RS, Bellan J. A generalized biomass pyrolysis model based on superimposed cellulose, hemicelluloseand liqnin kinetics. Combust Sci Technol. 1997;126(1–6):97–137.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00102209708935670.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pindoria RV, Megaritis A, Messenböck RC, Dugwell DR, Kandiyoti R. Comparison of the pyrolysis and gasification of biomass: effect of reacting gas atmosphere and pressure on Eucalyptus wood. Fuel. 1998;77(11):1247–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-2361(98)00018-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guerrero M, Ruiz MP, Alzueta MU, Bilbao R, Millera A. Pyrolysis of eucalyptus at different heating rates: studies of char characterization and oxidative reactivity. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 2005;74(1):307–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2004.12.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elyounssi K, Collard FX, Mateke JN, Blin J. Improvement of charcoal yield by two-step pyrolysis on eucalyptus wood: a thermogravimetric study. Fuel. 2012;96:161–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.01.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rocha EPA, Sermyagina E, Vakkilainen E, Colodette JL, de Oliveira IM, Cardoso M. Kinetics of pyrolysis of some biomasses widely available in Brazil. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2017;130(3):1445–54.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-017-6138-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen Z, Zhu Q, Wang X, Xiao B, Liu S. Pyrolysis behaviors and kinetic studies on Eucalyptus residues using thermogravimetric analysis. Energy Convers Manag. 2015;105:251–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.07.077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mészáros E, Jakab E, Várhegyi G, Szepesváry P, Marosvölgyi B. Comparative study of the thermal behavior of wood and bark of young shoots obtained from an energy plantation. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 2004;72(2):317–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2004.07.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Szekely T, Varhegyi G, Till F, Szabo P, Jakab E. The effects of heat and mass transport on the results of thermal decomposition studies. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 1987;11:71–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-2370(87)85020-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yuan JJ, Tu JL, Xu YJ, Qin FGF, Li B, Wang CZ. Thermal stability and products chemical analysis of olive leaf extract after enzymolysis based on TG-FTIR and Py-GC-MS. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2018;132(3):1729–40.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-018-7083-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wójtowicz MA, Bassilakis R, Smith WW, Chen Y, Carangelo RM. Modeling the evolution of volatile species during tobacco pyrolysis. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 2003;66(1–2):235–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-2370(02)00116-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vassilev SV, Baxter D, Andersen LK, Vassileva CG, Morgan TJ. An overview of the organic and inorganic phase composition of biomass. Fuel. 2012;94:1–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.09.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li W, Yang K, Peng J, Zhang L, Guo S, Xia H. Effects of carbonization temperatures on characteristics of porosity in coconut shell chars and activated carbons derived from carbonized coconut shell chars. Ind Crop Prod. 2008;28(2):190–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2008.02.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yang J, Chen H, Zhao W, Zhou J. Combustion kinetics and emission characteristics of peat by using TG-FTIR technique. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2016;124(1):519–28.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-015-5168-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rein G, Lautenberger C, Fernandez-Pello AC, Torero JL, Urban DL. Application of genetic algorithms and thermogravimetry to determine the kinetics of polyurethane foam in smoldering combustion. Combust Flame. 2006;146(1–2):95–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2006.04.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ding Y, Ezekoye OA, Lu S, Wang C. Thermal degradation of beech wood with thermogravimetry/Fourier transform infrared analysis. Energy Convers Manag. 2016;120:370–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.05.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu Q, Wang S, Zheng Y, Luo Z, Cen K. Mechanism study of wood lignin pyrolysis by using TG–FTIR analysis. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 2008;82(1):170–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2008.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yan R, Yang H, Chin T, Liang DT, Chen H, Zheng C. Influence of temperature on the distribution of gaseous products from pyrolyzing palm oil wastes. Combust Flame. 2005;142(1–2):24–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2005.02.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jakab E, Faix O, Till F, Székely T. Thermogravimetry/mass spectrometry study of six lignins within the scope of an international round robin test. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 1995;35(2):167–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-2370(95)00907-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Collard FX, Blin J. A review on pyrolysis of biomass constituents: mechanisms and composition of the products obtained from the conversion of cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2014;38:594–608.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.06.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jiang X, Li C, Wang T, Liu B, Chi Y, Yan J. TG-FTIR study of pyrolysis products evolving from dyestuff production waste. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 2009;84(1):103–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2008.11.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Han L, Wang Q, Ma Q, Yu C, Luo Z, Cen K. Influence of CaO additives on wheat-straw pyrolysis as determined by TG-FTIR analysis. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 2010;88(2):199–206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2010.04.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gu X, Ma X, Li L, Liu C, Cheng K, Li Z. Pyrolysis of poplar wood sawdust by TG-FTIR and Py–GC/MS. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 2013;102:16–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2013.04.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yang J, Chen H, Zhao W, Zhou J. TG–FTIR-MS study of pyrolysis products evolving from peat. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 2016;117:296–309.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2015.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Fire ScienceUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaHefeiChina

Personalised recommendations