Inferences from thermogravimetric analysis of pine needles and its chars from a pilot-scale screw reactor

  • Sandip MandalEmail author
  • Juma Haydary
  • Sandip Gangil
  • Jakub Husar
  • P. C. Jena
  • T. K. Bhattacharya
Original Paper


Pine needles are the waste of pine forest and produced in a substantial amount every year during the fall. If not extracted from forest bed, they cause a widespread forest fire. In this study, pine needles were converted to char at different temperatures using a screw type pyrolyzer with an aim to find out the effect of thermal stress on the properties of chars and their intended end uses. The chars were evaluated for intrinsic physico-chemical transformations in comparison with the raw pine needles. Differences between chars produced in three temperatures and the raw biomass were studied by thermogravimetric analysis. It was found that the char produced at higher temperature showed a superior profile of apparent activation energy as compared with the char from low temperature. Coats–Redfern kinetics was used to compare the activation energies of chars and raw biomass, which showed that the char obtained from higher temperature had better thermal stability. From this study it can be concluded that chars produced at low temperatures in the screw reactor are useful as source of fuel, whereas the char of higher temperature is suitable for soil application and preparation of activated char.


Char Charring Pyrolysis Screw pyrolysis Thermogravimetric analysis Coats–Redfern kinetics 



This work was supported by the Grant APVV-15-0148 provided by the Slovak Research and Development Agency. This work was also supported by the OP Research and Development, ITMS 26-240-220-084, co-financed by the Fund of European Regional Development. Funding was provided by Fundo Regional para a Ciência e Tecnologia (PT).


  1. Abdullah SS, Yusup S, Ahmad MM, Ramli A, Ismail L (2010) Thermogravimetry study on pyrolysis of various lignocellulosic biomass for potential hydrogen production. Proc World Acad Sci Eng Technol 72:129–133Google Scholar
  2. Bach QV, Skreiberg Ø (2016) Upgrading biomass fuels via wet torrefaction: a review and comparison with dry torrefaction. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 54:665–677. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown JN, Brown RC (2012) Process optimization of an auger pyrolyzer with heat carrier using response surface methodology. Biores Technol 103:405–414. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burhenne L, Messmer J, Aicher T, Laborie MP (2013) The effect of the biomass components lignin, cellulose and hemicellulose on TGA and fixed bed pyrolysis. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 101:177–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen WH, Peng J, Bi XT (2015) A state-of-the-art review of biomass torrefaction, densification and applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 44:847–866. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chutia RS, Kataki R, Bhaskar T (2013) Thermogravimetric and decomposition kinetic studies of Mesua ferrea L. deoiled cake. Biores Technol 139:66–72. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Damartzis T, Vamvuka D, Sfakiotakis S, Zabaniotou A (2011) Thermal degradation studies and kinetic modeling of cardoon (Cynara cardunculus) pyrolysis using thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Biores Technol 102:6230–6238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dhaundiyal A, Tewari P (2017) Kinetic parameters for the thermal decomposition of forest waste using distributed activation energy model (DAEM). Environ Clim Technol 19(1):15–32. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dwivedi RK, Singh RP, Bhattacharya TK (2016) Studies on bio-pretreatment of pine needles for sustainable energy thereby preventing wild forest fires. Curr Sci 111(2):388–394. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferreira SD, Altafini CR, Perondi D, Godinho M (2015) Pyrolysis of medium density fiberboard (MDF) wastes in a screw reactor. Energy Convers Manag 92:223–233. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher T, Hajaligol M, Waymack B, Kellogg D (2002) Pyrolysis behavior and kinetics of biomass derived materials. J Anal Appl Pyrol 62(2):331–349. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gangil S (2014a) Beneficial transitions in thermogravimetric signals and activation energy levels due to briquetting of raw pigeon pea stalk. Fuel 128:7–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gangil S (2014b) Distinct splitting of polymeric cellulosic signals in cashew shell: a TG-diagnosis. Cellulose 21(4):2913–2924. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gangil S (2014c) Thermogravimetric evidence for better thermal stability in char produced under unconfined conditions. Environ Eng Sci 31:183–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gangil S, Bhargav VK (2018) Influence of torrefaction on intrinsic bioconstituents of cotton stalk: TG-insights. Energy 142:1066–1073. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. González JF, Román S, Encinar JM, Martínez G (2009) Pyrolysis of various biomass residues and char utilization for the production of activated carbons. J Anal Appl Pyrol 85(1–2):134–141. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Granados DA, Vel_asquez HI, Chejne F (2014) Energetic and exergetic evaluation of residual biomass in a torrefaction process. Energy 74:181–189. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haydary J, Jelemensky L, Markos J, Annus J (2009) A laboratory set-up with a flow reactor for waste tire pyrolysis. Kautsch Gummi Kunstst 62:661–665Google Scholar
  19. Jain N, Bhatia A, Pathak H (2014) Emission of air pollutants from crop residue burning in India. Aerosol Air Qual Res 14(1):422–430. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kubo S, Kadla JF (2005) Hydrogen bonding in lignin: a fourier transform infrared model compound study. Biomacromolecules 6:2815–2821. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lehmann J (2007) Bio-energy in the black. Front Ecol Environ 5(7):381–387.;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lehmann J, Gaunt J, Rondon M (2006) Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems—a review. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 11(2):403–427. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lehmann J, Czimczik C, Laird C, Sohi S (2009) Stability of biochar in soil. In: Lehmann J, Josep S (eds) Biochar for environmental management: science and technology. Earthscan, London, pp 183–205Google Scholar
  24. Leifeld J (2007) Thermal stability of black carbon characterised by oxidative differential scanning calorimetry. Org Geochem 38(1):112–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liaw SS, Zhou S, Wu H, Garcia-Perez M (2013) Effect of pretreatment temperature on the yield and properties of bio-oils obtained from the auger pyrolysis of Douglas fir wood. Fuel 103:672–682. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lin L, Yan R, Liu Y, Jiang W (2010) In-depth investigation of enzymatic hydrolysis of biomass wastes based on three major components: cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Biores Technol 101(21):8217–8223. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lu C, Song W, Lin W (2009) Kinetics of biomass catalytic pyrolysis. Biotechnol Adv 27(5):583–587. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mandal S, Ramkrushna GI, Verma BC, Das A (2013) Biochar: an innovative soil ameliorant for climate change mitigation in NE India. Curr Sci 105(5):568–569.
  29. Mandal S, Bhattacharya TK, Verma AK, Haydary J (2018a) Optimization of process parameters for bio-oil synthesis from pine needles (Pinus roxburghii) using response surface methodology. Chem Pap 72(3):603–616. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mandal S, Haydary J, Bhattacharya TK, Tanna HR, Husar J, Haz A (2018b) Valorization of pine needles by thermal conversion to solid, liquid and gaseous fuels in a screw reactor. Waste Biomass Valoriz 10(12):3587–3599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mohan D, Pittman CU, Steele PH (2006) Pyrolysis of wood/biomass for bio-oil: a critical review. Energy Fuels 20(3):848–889. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Puy N, Murillo R, Navarro MV, López JM, Rieradevall J, Fowler G (2011) Valorisation of forestry waste by pyrolysis in an auger reactor. Waste Manag 31:1339–1349. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sait HH, Hussain A, Salema AA, Ani FN (2012) Pyrolysis and combustion kinetics of date palm biomass using thermogravimetric analysis. Biores Technol 118:382–389. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tran KQ, Trinh TN, Bach QV (2016) Development of a biomass torrefaction process integrated with oxy-fuel combustion. Biores Technol 199:408–413. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vasile C, Popescu C, Popescu M, Brebu M, Willfor S (2011) Thermal behaviour/treatment of some vegetable residues. IV. Thermal decomposition of eucalyptus wood. Cellul Chem Technol 45:29.
  36. Wang X, Hu M, Hu W, Chen Z, Liu S, Hu Z, Xiao B (2016) Thermogravimetric kinetic study of agricultural residue biomass pyrolysis based on combined kinetics. Biores Technol 219:510–520. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. White JE, Catallo WJ, Legendre BL (2011) Biomass pyrolysis kinetics: a comparative critical review with relevant agricultural residue case studies. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 91:1–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Xu Y, Chen B (2013) Investigation of thermodynamic parameters in the pyrolysis conversion of biomass and manure to biochars using thermogravimetric analysis. Biores Technol 1(146):485–493. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yang H, Yan R, Chen H, Lee DH, Zheng C (2007) Characteristics of hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin pyrolysis. Fuel 86(12–13):1781–1788. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Chemistry, Slovak Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICAR-Central Institute of Agricultural EngineeringBhopalIndia
  2. 2.Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Institute of Chemical and Environmental EngineeringSlovak University of TechnologyBratislavaSlovak Republic
  3. 3.Department of Farm Machinery and Power, College of TechnologyGobind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and TechnologyPantnagarIndia

Personalised recommendations