Temperature dependence of aspen torrefaction kinetics

Klinger, Jordan; Klemetsrud, Bethany; Bar‐Ziv, Ezra; Shonnard, David R.

doi:10.1016/j.jaap.2014.10.008

Cited by 20 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The GC was fit with a non-retentive fused silica guard column (Restek, Rxi Guard Column, 10 m). The GC oven was maintained at the same temperature as the system transfer lines (300°C), and transferred the materials from the GC inlet to the MS with minimal interaction as described in previous work [15,17].…”

Section: Pyrolysis Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previously, our group investigated the kinetics of thermal degradation in the range of traditional low-temperature pyrolysis (torrefaction) temperatures up to 300°C [15,17]. In transition into pyrolysis-ranged processing, six temperatures were studied here: 315, 330, 350, 375, 400, and 425°C.…”

Section: Pyrolysis Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previously, a model for low-temperature pyrolysis was proposed to describe the process based on removal of gas-phase species in a three consecutive reaction mechanism [15,17]. The model assumes that the same basic lumped parameter reactions occur at all temperatures, but at different rates as governed by temperature.…”

Section: Modeling Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was found that a minimum of three first order reactions were required to describe the transient characteristics of the formed volatile species: water, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, acetic acid, formic acid, and furfural [17]. Though the degradation process was found to be consistent over the temperature ranges studied (up to 300°C), it was found that mechanistic interpretations through mass loss alone are not sufficient to gain chemical mechanistic insights [16,17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Previously, our group proposed such a lumped consecutive kinetic model to describe the gas-phase evolution of species during torrefaction [15,17]. It was found that a minimum of three first order reactions were required to describe the transient characteristics of the formed volatile species: water, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, acetic acid, formic acid, and furfural [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Unified kinetic model for torrefaction–pyrolysis

Klinger

Bar‐Ziv

Shonnard

2015

Fuel Processing Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thermochemical conversion is a promising pathway to renewable fuels. Torrefaction is the low temperature conversion to a primarily solid fuel, and pyrolysis is a higher temperature process that produces mainly a liquid biooil product. Though these processes are both thermal degradation routes in an inert atmosphere, they are often presented as different processes. A novel six stage consecutive model is proposed to describe a unified view of torrefaction and pyrolysis. The reactions lump chemical species formation in the six reaction stages and represent decomposition of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Activation energies of 104, 129, 154, 217, 256, and 285 kJ/mol were found through modeling of 32 unique gas-phase species fragments and weight loss dynamics for degradation from 260 to 425°C. It is demonstrated that there is a unified process that occurs, and can describe the degradation of the structural components in biomass. These dynamics yield important insight into the thermal degradation mechanism such as the chemical product detachment dynamics, and the influence of process severity.

show abstract

Section: Pyrolysis Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pyrolysis Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modeling Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Unified kinetic model for torrefaction–pyrolysis

Klinger

Bar‐Ziv

Shonnard

2015

Fuel Processing Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparing pelletization and torrefaction depots: Optimization of depot capacity and biomass moisture to determine the minimum production cost

Chai

Saffron

2016

Applied Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, the biomass upgrading depot capacity and biomass feedstock moisture were optimized to obtain the minimum production cost at the depot gate for the production of woody biofuels. Three technology scenarios are considered in this study: 1) conventional pellets (CP), 2) modestly torrefied pellets (TP1) and severely torrefied pellets (TP2). TP1 has the lowest cost of $7.03 /GJ LHV at a moisture of 33 wt.% and a depot size of 84 MW LHV. The effects of climatic conditions and biomass field conditions were also studied for three scenarios. In humid regions of Michigan, TP2 is more economical than other scenarios because of the increased production of combustible gas. The three scenarios have similar sensitivities to biomass field conditions.

show abstract