Advertisement

Comprehensive Kinetic Study on the Pyrolysis and Combustion Behaviours of Five Oil Palm Biomass by Thermogravimetric-Mass Spectrometry (TG-MS) Analyses

  • Megan Soh
  • Jiuan Jing ChewEmail author
  • Shaomin Liu
  • Jaka SunarsoEmail author
Article
  • 106 Downloads

Abstract

Thermochemical conversion process is one of the most promising routes to harness the potential of oil palm biomass as renewable energy alternative in Malaysia. Despite this potential, there is a lack of comprehensive study that characterises the complete spectrum of oil palm biomass. In this work, thermogravimetric-mass spectrometry (TG-MS) results of five oil palm biomass, i.e., oil palm trunk (OPT), palm kernel shell (PKS), oil palm frond (OPF), mesocarp fibre (MF) and empty fruit bunch (EFB), in pyrolysis and combustion conditions are presented and analysed. Kinetic studies on the TG data of these biomass were performed using Coats–Redfern integral method and Šesták–Berggren function to determine the activation energy and the reaction mechanism at different thermal decomposition stages. Pyrolysis of hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin occurs at 140–331, 235–435, and 380–600 °C, respectively, while combustion of hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin took place at 140–313, 225–395, and 372–600 °C, respectively. The activation energy was the highest for cellulose decomposition in both pyrolysis and combustion cases. Phase boundary reaction dominated during hemicellulose and cellulose decompositions, while nucleation dominated during lignin decomposition and char oxidation. MS results show that majority of the gases came out between 250 and 600 °C, mainly from CH4 and H2O in pyrolysis case and from CH4, CO2 and H2O in combustion case. Other than these major gases, NO, NO2 and SO2 were also generated although in much lower proportion compared to these gases. Based on TG-MS results, the best potential application for each biomass was also identified where OPT and OPF are suggested for gasification and fermentation, PKS for bio-char production and combustion, MF for bio-oil production, combustion, and bio-char production and EFB for bio-oil and bio-char production.

Keywords

Kinetics Oil palm biomass Pyrolysis Combustion TG-MS 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Jiuan Jing Chew and Jaka Sunarso gratefully acknowledge the Research Micro Fund Internal Grants provided by the Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus (“Characterization of oil palm biomass for thermochemical processing” and “Evaluating the gaseous emission from thermochemical processing of biomass”).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interest.

Supplementary material

12155_2019_9974_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3.5 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 3.54 mb)

References

  1. 1.
    MPOC (2012) The oil palm tree. Malaysia Palm Oil Council (MPOC). http://www.mpoc.org.my/The_Oil_Palm_Tree.aspx. Accessed 20/06/2018
  2. 2.
    Agricultural area in Malaysia (2017) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAOSTAT). http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#country/131. Accessed 07/09/2018
  3. 3.
    Mohammed MAA, Salmiaton A, Wan Azlina WAKG, Mohammad Amran MS, Fakhru’l-Razi A, Taufiq-Yap YH (2011) Hydrogen rich gas from oil palm biomass as a potential source of renewable energy in Malaysia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(2):1258–1270.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.10.003 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aljuboori A (2013) Oil palm biomass residue in Malaysia: availability and sustainability. Int J Biomass Renew 2:13–18Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garcia-Nunez JA, Ramirez-Contreras NE, Rodriguez DT, Silva-Lora E, Frear CS, Stockle C, Garcia-Perez M (2016) Evolution of palm oil mills into bio-refineries: literature review on current and potential uses of residual biomass and effluents. Resour Conserv Recycl 110:99–114.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.03.022 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Palm oil biomass (2013) Sarawak Energy. http://www.sarawakenergy.com.my/index.php/r-d/biomass-energy/palm-oil-biomass. Accessed 09/09/2018
  7. 7.
    Basiron Y, Weng CK (2004) The oil palm and its sustainability. J Oil Palm Res 16(1):1–10Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Demirbaş A (2001) Biomass resource facilities and biomass conversion processing for fuels and chemicals. Energy Conv Manag 42(11):1357–1378.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(00)00137-0 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McKendry P (2002) Energy production from biomass (part 2): conversion technologies. Bioresour Technol 83(1):47–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00119-5 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen W-H, Lin B-J, Huang M-Y, Chang J-S (2015) Thermochemical conversion of microalgal biomass into biofuels: a review. Bioresour Technol 184:314–327.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.11.050 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luangkiattikhun P, Tangsathitkulchai C, Tangsathitkulchai M (2008) Non-isothermal thermogravimetric analysis of oil-palm solid wastes. Bioresour Technol 99(5):986–997.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.03.001 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patel M, Zhang X, Kumar A (2016) Techno-economic and life cycle assessment on lignocellulosic biomass thermochemical conversion technologies: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 53:1486–1499.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.070 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Awalludin MF, Sulaiman O, Hashim R, Nadhari WNAW (2015) An overview of the oil palm industry in Malaysia and its waste utilization through thermochemical conversion, specifically via liquefaction. Renew Sust Energ Rev 50:1469–1484.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.085 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang H, Yan R, Chen H, Zheng C, Lee DH, Liang DT (2006) In-depth investigation of biomass pyrolysis based on three major components: hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin. Energy Fuel 20(1):388–393.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ef0580117 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jahirul IM, Rasul GM, Chowdhury AA, Ashwath N (2012) Biofuels production through biomass pyrolysis—a technological review. Energies 5(12):4952–5001.  https://doi.org/10.3390/en5124952 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guo J, Lua AC (2001) Kinetic study on pyrolytic process of oil-palm solid waste using two-step consecutive reaction model. Biomass Bioenergy 20(3):223–233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00080-5 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vyazovkin S, Burnham AK, Criado JM, Pérez-Maqueda LA, Popescu C, Sbirrazzuoli N (2011) ICTAC Kinetics Committee recommendations for performing kinetic computations on thermal analysis data. Thermochim Acta 520(1):1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2011.03.034 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Šesták J, Berggren G (1971) Study of the kinetics of the mechanism of solid-state reactions at increasing temperatures. Thermochim Acta 3(1):1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-6031(71)85051-7 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Šimon P (2011) Fourty years of the Šesták–Berggren equation. Thermochim Acta 520(1):156–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2011.03.030 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shen DK, Gu S, Luo KH, Bridgwater AV, Fang MX (2009) Kinetic study on thermal decomposition of woods in oxidative environment. Fuel 88(6):1024–1030.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2008.10.034 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee XJ, Lee LY, Gan S, Thangalazhy-Gopakumar S, Ng HK (2017) Biochar potential evaluation of palm oil wastes through slow pyrolysis: thermochemical characterization and pyrolytic kinetic studies. Bioresour Technol 236:155–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.03.105 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McKendry P (2002) Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass. Bioresour Technol 83(1):37–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00118-3 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huang YF, Kuan WH, Chiueh PT, Lo SL (2011) Pyrolysis of biomass by thermal analysis–mass spectrometry (TA–MS). Bioresour Technol 102(3):3527–3534.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.11.049 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sanchez-Silva L, López-González D, Villaseñor J, Sánchez P, Valverde JL (2012) Thermogravimetric–mass spectrometric analysis of lignocellulosic and marine biomass pyrolysis. Bioresour Technol 109:163–172.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.001 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    López-González D, Fernandez-Lopez M, Valverde JL, Sanchez-Silva L (2013) Thermogravimetric-mass spectrometric analysis on combustion of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 143:562–574.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.06.052 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Asadieraghi M, Daud WMAW (2015) In-depth investigation on thermochemical characteristics of palm oil biomasses as potential biofuel sources. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 115:379–391.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2015.08.017 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aghamohammadi N, Nik Sulaiman NM, Aroua MK (2011) Combustion characteristics of biomass in SouthEast Asia. Biomass Bioenergy 35(9):3884–3890.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.022 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bridgwater AV (2012) Review of fast pyrolysis of biomass and product upgrading. Biomass Bioenergy 38:68–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.01.048 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xiong S, Zhuo J, Zhang B, Yao Q (2013) Effect of moisture content on the characterization of products from the pyrolysis of sewage sludge. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 104:632–639.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2013.05.003 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tsai WT, Lee MK, Chang YM (2006) Fast pyrolysis of rice straw, sugarcane bagasse and coconut shell in an induction-heating reactor. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 76(1):230–237.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2005.11.007 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Loh SK (2017) The potential of the Malaysian oil palm biomass as a renewable energy source. Energy Conv Manag 141:285–298.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.08.081 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Idris SS, Rahman NA, Ismail K (2012) Combustion characteristics of Malaysian oil palm biomass, sub-bituminous coal and their respective blends via thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Bioresour Technol 123:581–591.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.07.065 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sami M, Annamalai K, Wooldridge M (2001) Co-firing of coal and biomass fuel blends. Prog Energy Combust Sci 27(2):171–214.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1285(00)00020-4 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cheng K, Winter WT, Stipanovic AJ (2012) A modulated-TGA approach to the kinetics of lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis/combustion. Polym Degrad Stab 97(9):1606–1615.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2012.06.027 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stefanidis SD, Kalogiannis KG, Iliopoulou EF, Michailof CM, Pilavachi PA, Lappas AA (2014) A study of lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis via the pyrolysis of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 105:143–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2013.10.013 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kai X, Yang T, Huang Y, Sun Y, He Y, Li R (2011) The effect of biomass components on the co-combustion characteristics of biomass with coal. In: Second International Conference on Digital Manufacturing & Automation, 2011, pp 1274–1278.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMA.2011.314 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Szabó P, Várhegyi G, Till F, Faix O (1996) Thermogravimetric/mass spectrometric characterization of two energy crops, Arundo donax and Miscanthus sinensis. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 36(2):179–190.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-2370(96)00931-X Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Idris SS, Rahman NA, Ismail K, Alias AB, Rashid ZA, Aris MJ (2010) Investigation on thermochemical behaviour of low rank Malaysian coal, oil palm biomass and their blends during pyrolysis via thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Bioresour Technol 101(12):4584–4592.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.059 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yin CY, Kadir SASA, Lim YP, Syed-Ariffin SN, Zamzuri Z (2008) An investigation into physicochemical characteristics of ash produced from combustion of oil palm biomass waste in a boiler. Fuel Process Technol 89(7):693–696.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2007.12.012 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ang SK, Shaza EM, Adibah Y, Suraini AA, Madihah MS (2013) Production of cellulases and xylanase by Aspergillus fumigatus SK1 using untreated oil palm trunk through solid state fermentation. Process Biochem 48(9):1293–1302.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2013.06.019 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chew J-J, Doshi V, Yong S-T, Bhattacharya S (2016) Kinetic study of torrefaction of oil palm shell, mesocarp and empty fruit bunch. J Therm Anal Calorim 126(2):709–715.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-016-5518-3 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Khalil HPSA, Alwani MS, Ridzuan R, Kamarudin H, Khairul A (2008) Chemical composition, morphological characteristics, and cell wall structure of Malaysian oil palm fibers. Polym Plast Technol Eng 47(3):273–280.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03602550701866840 Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ma Z, Chen D, Gu J, Bao B, Zhang Q (2015) Determination of pyrolysis characteristics and kinetics of palm kernel shell using TGA–FTIR and model-free integral methods. Energy Conv Manag 89:251–259.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.09.074 Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lopez-Velazquez MA, Santes V, Balmaseda J, Torres-Garcia E (2013) Pyrolysis of orange waste: a thermo-kinetic study. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 99:170–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2012.09.016 Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Collard F-X, Blin J (2014) A review on pyrolysis of biomass constituents: mechanisms and composition of the products obtained from the conversion of cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin. Renew Sust Energ Rev 38:594–608.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.06.013 Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Özsin G, Pütün AE (2017) Kinetics and evolved gas analysis for pyrolysis of food processing wastes using TGA/MS/FT-IR. Waste Manag 64:315–326.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.03.020 Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gunasee SD, Carrier M, Gorgens JF, Mohee R (2016) Pyrolysis and combustion of municipal solid wastes: evaluation of synergistic effects using TGA-MS. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 121:50–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2016.07.001 Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yan J, Jiang X, Han X, Liu J (2013) A TG–FTIR investigation to the catalytic effect of mineral matrix in oil shale on the pyrolysis and combustion of kerogen. Fuel 104:307–317.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.10.024 Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    López-González D, Fernandez-Lopez M, Valverde JL, Sanchez-Silva L (2014) Gasification of lignocellulosic biomass char obtained from pyrolysis: kinetic and evolved gas analyses. Energy 71:456–467.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.04.105 Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ren Q, Zhao C (2012) NOx and N2O precursors from biomass pyrolysis: nitrogen transformation from amino acid. Environ Sci Technol 46(7):4236–4240.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es204142e Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Darvell LI, Jones JM, Gudka B, Baxter XC, Saddawi A, Williams A, Malmgren A (2010) Combustion properties of some power station biomass fuels. Fuel 89(10):2881–2890.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2010.03.003 Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Balat M, Balat M, Kırtay E, Balat H (2009) Main routes for the thermo-conversion of biomass into fuels and chemicals. Part 1: pyrolysis systems. Energy Conv Manag 50(12):3147–3157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2009.08.014 Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sun X, Shan R, Li X, Pan J, Liu X, Deng R, Song J (2017) Characterization of 60 types of Chinese biomass waste and resultant biochars in terms of their candidacy for soil application. GCB Bioenergy 9(9):1423–1435.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12435 Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Madhiyanon T, Sathitruangsak P, Sungworagarn S, Fukuda S, Tia S (2013) Ash and deposit characteristics from oil-palm empty-fruit-bunch (EFB) firing with kaolin additive in a pilot-scale grate-fired combustor. Fuel Process Technol 115:182–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2013.05.018 Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Obernberger I (1998) Decentralized biomass combustion: state of the art and future development. Biomass Bioenergy 14(1):33–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(97)00034-2
  56. 56.
    McKendry P (2002) Energy production from biomass (part 3): gasification technologies. Bioresour Technol 83(1):55–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00120-1 Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Nanou P, van Rossum G, van Swaaij WPM, Kersten SRA (2011) Evaluation of catalytic effects in gasification of biomass at intermediate temperature and pressure. Energy Fuel 25(3):1242–1253.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ef101557b Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Nipattummakul N, Ahmed II, Kerdsuwan S, Gupta AK (2012) Steam gasification of oil palm trunk waste for clean syngas production. Appl Energy 92:778–782.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.08.026 Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Atnaw SM, Sulaiman SA, Yusup S (2013) Syngas production from downdraft gasification of oil palm fronds. Energy 61:491–501.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.09.039 Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Guangul FM, Sulaiman SA, Ramli A (2012) Gasifier selection, design and gasification of oil palm fronds with preheated and unheated gasifying air. Bioresour Technol 126:224–232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.018 Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sarkar N, Ghosh SK, Bannerjee S, Aikat K (2012) Bioethanol production from agricultural wastes: an overview. Renew Energy 37(1):19–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.06.045 Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Noparat P, Prasertsan P, O-Thong S, Pan X (2017) Sulfite pretreatment to overcome recalcitrance of lignocellulose for enzymatic hydrolysis of oil palm trunk. Energy Procedia 138:1122–1127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.10.209 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering, Computing and Science, Research Centre for Sustainable TechnologiesSwinburne University of Technology Sarawak CampusKuchingMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Chemical EngineeringCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations