Waste and Biomass Valorization

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 1433–1442 | Cite as

Thermal Behaviour and Reactivity of Swine Sludge and Olive By-Products During Co-pyrolysis and Co-combustion

  • Despina VamvukaEmail author
  • Stelios Sfakiotakis
Original Paper


The thermal behaviour of swine sludge/olive by-product blends was studied during pyrolysis and combustion processes and the compatibility of each component in the blend was evaluated. The experiments were conducted in a thermogravimetric analysis system, up to 900 °C. A modified independent parallel reactions model and a power law model were developed for pyrolysis and combustion, respectively and their validity was assessed against experimental data. The effect of inorganic constituents of the fuels on slagging and fouling propensities and environmental pollution was examined, through mineralogical, physico-chemical and fusibility analyses. The swine sludge decomposed over a broader temperature range than the woody residues and its combustibility was lower. Olive kernel and swine sludge showed an additive behaviour upon blending, for both pyrolysis and combustion processes. Olive pruning and swine sludge mixtures presented additivity during pyrolysis, while synergy during combustion. The kinetic models fitted the experimental results with great accuracy. The slagging/fouling potential of swine sludge was significant, while toxic metals in ashes were below legislative limits.


Swine sludge Olive by-products Co-pyrolysis Co-firing Kinetics Ash 



The authors kindly thank the laboratories of Applied Mineralogy for the XRD and fusibility analyses and the laboratories of Hydrogeochemical Engineering and Soil Remediation and Inorganic and Organic Geochemistry for the chemical analysis of the ashes.


  1. 1.
    Van Caneghem, J., Brems, A., Lievens, P., Block, C., Billen, P., Vermeulen, I., Dewil, R., Baeyens, J., Vandecasteele, C.: Fluidized bed waste incinerators: design, operational and environmental issues. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 38, 551–582 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vamvuka, D., Sfakiotakis, S., Panopoulos, K.: An experimental study on the thermal valorization of municipal and animal wastes. Int. J. Energy Environ. 4, 191–198 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vamvuka, D., Papas, M., Galetakis, M., Sfakiotakis, S.: Thermal valorization of an animal sludge for energy recovery via co-combustion with olive kernel in a fluidized bed unit: optimization of emissions. Energy Fuels. 30, 5825–5834 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vamvuka, D., Salpigidou, N., Kastanaki, E., Sfakiotakis, S.: Possibility of using paper sludge in co-firing applications. Fuel. 88, 637–643 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wu, T., Gong, M., Lester, E., Hall, P.: Characteristics and synergistic effects of co-firing of coal and carbonaceous wastes. Fuel. 104, 194–200 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hagman, H., Backman, R., Bostrom, D.: Co-combustion of animal waste, peat, waste wood, forest residues and industrial sludge in a 50MWth circulating fluidized bed boiler: ash transformation, ash/deposit characteristics and boiler failures. Energy Fuels. 27, 5617–5627 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Varol, M., Atimtay, A.T., Bay, B., Olgun, H.: Investigation of co-combustion characteristics of low quality lignite coals and biomass with thermogravimetric analysis. Thermochim. Acta. 510, 195–201 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Seo, M.W., Kim, S.D., Lee, S.H., Lee, J.G.: Pyrolysis characteristics of coaland RDF blends in non-isothermal and isothermal conditions. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 88, 160–167 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vamvuka, D., Kakaras, E., Kastanaki, E., Grammelis, P.: Pyrolysis characteristics and kinetics of biomass residuals mixtures with lignite. Fuel. 82, 1949–1960 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barneto, A.G., Carmona, J.A., Alfonso, J.E.M., Serrano, R.S.: Simulation of the thermogravimetry analysis of three non-wood pulps. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 3220–3229 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Várhegyi, G., Bobály, B., Jakab, E., Chen, H.: Thermogravimetric study of biomass pyrolysis kinetics, a distributed activation energy model with prediction tests. Energy Fuels. 25(1), 24–32 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fernandez-Lopez, M., Pedrosa-Castro, G.J., Valverde, J.L., Sanchez-Silva, L.: Kinetic analysis of manure pyrolysis and combustion processes. Waste Manag. 58, 230–240 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sfakiotakis, S., Vamvuka, D.: Development of a modified independent parallel reactions kinetic model and comparison with the distributed activation energy model for the pyrolysis of a wide variety of biomass fuels. Bioresour. Technol. 197, 434–442 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muthuraman, M., Namioka, T., Yoshikawa, K.: A comparison of co-combustion characteristics of coal with wood and hydrothermally treated municipal solid waste. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 2477–2482 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xanmin, X., Xiaoqian, M., Kai, L.: Co-combustion kinetics of sewage sludge with coal and coal gangue under different atmospheres. Energy Convers. Manag. 51(10), 1976–1980 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moon, C., Sung, Y., Ahn, S., Kim, T., Choi, G., Kim, D.: Effect of blending ratio on combustion performance in blends of biomass and coals of different ranks. Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 47, 232–240 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    CEN/TS 15370-1:2006: Solid biofuels- method for the determination of ash melting behaviour- Part 1: characteristic temperatures method in CEN. (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anca-Couce, A.: Reaction mechanisms and multi-scale modelling of lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 53, 41–79 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guo, X., Wang, S., Wang, K., Liu, Q., Luo, Z.: Influence of extractives on mechanism of biomass pyrolysis. J. Fuel Chem Technol. 38, 42–46 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    White, J.E., Catallo, W.J., Legendre, B.L.: Biomass pyrolysis kinetics: a comparative critical review with relevant agricultural residue case studies. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 91(1), 1–33 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Amutio, M., Lopez, G., Alvarez, J., Moreira, R., Duarte, G., Nunes, J., Olazar, M., Bilbao, J.: Pyrolysis kinetics of forestry residues from the Portuguese Central Inland Region. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 91, 2682–2690 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Di Blasi, C., Buonanno, F., Branca, C.: Reactivities of some biomass chars in air. Carbon. 37, 1227–1238 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vamvuka, D., Trikouvertis, M., Alevizos, G., Pentari, D.: Evaluation of ashes of orange tree residues burned in a fluidized bed. Renew. Energy. 72, 336–343 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huang, Y., Dong, H., Shang, B., Xin, H., Zhu, Z.: Characterization of animal manure and cornstalk ashes as affected by incineration temperature. Appl. Energy. 88, 947–952 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Singh, S., Ram, L.C., Masto, R.E., Verma, S.K.: A comparative evaluation of minerals and trace elements in the ashes from lignite, coal refuse and biomass fired power plants. Int. J. Coal Geol. 87, 112–120 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    EU Directive 86/278/EEC.: Protection of the environment and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture. Off. J. Eur. Comm. 181:0006–0012 (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mineral Resources EngineeringTechnical University of CreteChaniaGreece

Personalised recommendations