Advertisement

Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp 1271–1280 | Cite as

Physicochemical properties evolution of chars from palm kernel shell pyrolysis

  • Peng Wang
  • Jianliang Zhang
  • Qiujun Shao
  • Guangwei Wang
Article

Abstract

To clarify the effect of the pyrolysis operating conditions of the biomass on the physicochemical properties of the char and its combustion reactivity, palm kernel shell was pyrolyzed at different temperatures (400–700 °C). Analyses such as proximate and ultimate analysis, XRD, FTIR, N2 adsorption, and SEM were used to investigate the physicochemical properties of biochar samples. The results show that an increase in pyrolysis temperature led to a development of pore structure and specific surface area of the produced biochar, which was beneficial for improving the biochar combustion reactivity. Besides, with increase in pyrolysis temperature, the carbon content exhibits a raise trend, but the oxygen and hydrogen contents exhibit the opposite behavior, and the aromaticity and graphitization degree of biochar produced at high temperature also increase. The combustion reactivity of biochar was found to be highly dependent on the pyrolysis temperature, and the aromatic structure and graphitization degree have greater effects on biochar combustion reactivity than those of the specific surface area and pore structure.

Keywords

Biomass Pyrolysis Characterization Biochar 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the 111 Project of China (B13004).

References

  1. 1.
    Hu ZW, Zhang JL, Zuo HB, Liu ZJ, Yang TJ. Preparation and properties of biomass char for ironmaking. J Univ Sci Technol Beijing. 2012;34:998–1004.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kan T, Strezov V, Evans TJ. Lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis: a review of product properties and effects of pyrolysis parameters. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2016;57:1126–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu ZG, Han GH. Production of solid fuel biochar from waste biomass by low temperature pyrolysis. Fuel. 2015;158:159–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shin S, Im SI, Nho NS, et al. Kinetic analysis using thermogravimetric analysis for nonisothermal pyrolysis of vacuum residue. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2016;126:933–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Du SW, Chen WH, Lucas JA. Pretreatment of biomass by torrefaction and carbonization for coal blend used in pulverized coal injection. Bioresour Technol. 2014;161:333–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass. Bioresour Technol. 2002;83:37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Santos LB, Striebeck MV, Crespi MS, et al. Energy evaluation of biochar obtained from the pyrolysis of pine pellets. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2016;126:1879–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tripathi M, Sahu JN, Ganesan P. Effect of process parameters on production of biochar from biomass waste through pyrolysis: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2016;55:467–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aysu T, Küçük MM. Biomass pyrolysis in a fixed-bed reactor: effects of pyrolysis parameters on product yields and characterization of products. Energy. 2014;64:1002–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williams PT, Besler S. The influence of temperature and heating rate on the slow pyrolysis of biomass. Renew Energy. 1996;7:233–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fu P, Hu S, Xiang J, Sun LS, Su S, Wang J. Evaluation of the porous structure development of chars from pyrolysis of rice straw: effects of pyrolysis temperature and heating rate. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 2012;98:177–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Azargohar R, Nanda S, Kozinski JA, Dalai AK, Sutarto R. Effects of temperature on the physicochemical characteristics of fast pyrolysis bio-chars derived from Canadian waste biomass. Fuel. 2014;125:90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morin M, Pécate S, Hémati M, Kara Y. Pyrolysis of biomass in a batch fluidized bed reactor: effect of the pyrolysis conditions and the nature of the biomass on the physicochemical properties and the reactivity of char. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 2016;122:511–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumar M, Gupta RC. Influence of carbonization conditions and wood species on carbon dioxide reactivity of resultant wood char powder. Fuel Process Technol. 1994;38:223–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Awalludin MF, Sulaiman O, Hashim R, et al. An overview of the oil palm industry in Malaysia and its waste utilization through thermochemical conversion, specifically via liquefaction. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;57:1469–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kong SH, Loh SK, Bachmann RT, et al. Biochar from oil palm biomass: a review of its potential and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2014;39:729–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oh SJ, Choi GG, Kim JS. Characteristics of bio-oil from the pyrolysis of palm kernel shell in a newly developed two-stage pyrolyzer. Energy. 2016;113:108–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xu RS, Zhang JL, Wang GW, Zuo HB, Zhang PC, Shao JG. Gasification behaviors and kinetic study on biomass chars in CO2 condition. Chem Eng Res Des. 2016;107:34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee XJ, Lee LY, Gan S, et al. Biochar potential evaluation of palm oil wastes through slow pyrolysis: thermochemical characterization and pyrolytic kinetic studies. Bioresour Technol. 2017;236:155–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Varma AK, Mondal P. Physicochemical characterization and kinetic study of pine needle for pyrolysis process. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2016;124:487–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ma ZQ, Chen DY, Gu J, Bao BF, Zhang QS. Determination of pyrolysis characteristics and kinetics of palm kernel shell using TGA–FTIR and model-free integral methods. Energy Convers Manag. 2015;89:251–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee Y, Park J, Ryu C, Gang KS, Yang W, Park YK, Jung J, Hyun S. Comparison of biochar properties from biomass residues produced by slow pyrolysis at 500 °C. Bioresour Technol. 2013;148:196–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yang HP, Yan R, Chin T, Liang DT, Chen HP, Zheng CG. Thermogravimetric analysis-Fourier transform infrared analysis of palm oil waste pyrolysis. Energy Fuel. 2004;18:1814–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cagnon B, Py X, Guillot A, Stoeckli F, Chambat G. Contributions of hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin to the mass and the porous properties of chars and steam activated carbons from various lignocellulosic precursors. Bioresour Technol. 2009;100:292–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huang YW, Chen MQ, Luo HF. Nonisothermal torrefaction kinetics of sewage sludge using the simplified distributed activation energy model. Chem Eng J. 2016;298:154–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fan C, Zan C, Zhang Q, et al. The oxidation of heavy oil: thermogravimetric analysis and non-isothermal kinetics using the distributed activation energy model. Fuel Process Technol. 2014;119:146–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ceylan S, Topcu Y. Pyrolysis kinetics of hazelnut husk using thermogravimetric analysis. Bioresour Technol. 2014;156:182–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chun Y, Sheng GY, Chiou CT, Xing BS. Compositions and sorptive properties of crop residue-derived chars. Environ Sci Technol. 2004;38:4649–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guerrero M, Ruiz MP, Millera Á, et al. Characterization of biomass chars formed under different devolatilization conditions: differences between rice husk and eucalyptus. Energy Fuel. 2008;22:1275–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang GW, Zhang JL, Shao JG, et al. Experimental and modeling studies on CO2 gasification of biomass chars. Energy. 2016;114:143–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang H, Guo S, Yang L, Guo YJ, Jiang XM, Wu SH. Surface morphology and porosity evolution of CWS spheres from a bench-scale fluidized bed. Energy Fuel. 2015;29:3428–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yang H, Huan B, Chen Y, et al. Biomass-based pyrolytic polygeneration system for bamboo industry waste: evolution of the char structure and the pyrolysis mechanism. Energy Fuel. 2016;30:6430–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Angın D. Effect of pyrolysis temperature and heating rate on biochar obtained from pyrolysis of safflower seed press cake. Bioresour Technol. 2013;128:593–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Song W, Guo M. Quality variations of poultry litter biochar generated at different pyrolysis temperatures. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 2012;94:138–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ahmedna M, Marshall WE, Rao RM. Production of granular activated carbons from select agricultural by-products and evaluation of their physical, chemical and adsorption properties. Bioresour Technol. 2000;71:113–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yuan JH, Xu RK, Zhang H. The forms of alkalis in the biochar produced from crop residues at different temperatures. Bioresour Technol. 2011;102:3488–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Paiva MC, Ammar I, Campos AR, Cheikh RB, Cunha AM. Alfa fibres: mechanical, morphological and interfacial characterization. Compos Sci Technol. 2007;67:1132–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Huang L, Chen YC, Liu G, Li SN, Liu Y, Gao X. Non-isothermal pyrolysis characteristics of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) using thermogravimetric analysis. Energy. 2015;87:31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sharma RK, Wooten JB, Baliga VL, Hajaligol MR. Characterization of chars from biomass-derived materials: pectin chars. Fuel. 2001;80:1825–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chen YQ, Yang HP, Wang XH, Zhang SH, Chen HP. Biomass-based pyrolytic polygeneration system on cotton stalk pyrolysis: influence of temperature. Bioresour Technol. 2017;107:411–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cetin E, Moghtaderi B, Gupta R, Wall TF. Influence of pyrolysis conditions on the structure and gasification reactivity of biomass chars. Fuel. 2004;83:2139–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lu L, Sahajwalla V, Kong C, Harris D. Quantitative X-ray diffraction analysis and its application to various coals. Carbon. 2001;39:1821–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kevin AD. Evolution of char chemistry, crystallinity, and ultrafine structure during pulverized-coal combustion. Combust Flame. 1995;100:31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhang K, Zhang K, Cao Y, et al. Co-combustion characteristics and blending optimization of tobacco stem and high-sulfur bituminous coal based on thermogravimetric and mass spectrometry analyses. Bioresour Technol. 2013;131:325–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Niu S, Chen M, Li Y, et al. Evaluation on the oxy-fuel combustion behavior of dried sewage sludge. Fuel. 2016;178:129–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Laurendeau NM. Heterogeneous kinetics of coal char gasification and combustion. Prog Energy Combust. 1978;4:221–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peng Wang
    • 1
  • Jianliang Zhang
    • 1
  • Qiujun Shao
    • 1
  • Guangwei Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Metallurgical and Ecological EngineeringUniversity of Science and Technology BeijingBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations