Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

, Volume 105, Issue 1, pp 145–150 | Cite as

Thermogravimetric analysis of walnut shell as pyrolysis feedstock

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Thermal degradation behavior and kinetics of a biomass waste material, namely walnut shell, were investigated by using a thermogravimetric analyzer. The desired final temperature of 800 °C was achieved at three different heating rates (2, 10, and 15 °C min−1) under nitrogen flow (50 mL min−1). The TG and DTG curves exhibited three distinct zones that can mainly be attributed to removal of water, decomposition of hemicellulose + cellulose, and decomposition of lignin, respectively. The kinetic parameters (activation energy, pre-exponential factor, and reaction order) of active pyrolysis zone were determined by applying Arrhenius, Coats–Redfern, and Horowitz–Metzger methods to TG results. The values of activation energies were found to be between 45.6 and 78.4 kJ mol−1. There was a great agreement between the results of Arrhenius and Coats–Redfern methods while Horowitz–Metzger method yielded relatively higher results. The existence of kinetic compensation effect was evident.

Keywords

TG Walnut shell Pyrolysis kinetics Coats–Redfern Horowitz–Metzger 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Işık Yavuz for her valuable help during the analyses. The author would also like to thank Dr. Dilek Duranoğlu and Prof. Dr. Esen Bolat for their continuous support during the studies.

References

  1. 1.
    IEA. World energy outlook. Paris: OECD/IEA; 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bassam NE. Handbook of energy crops: a complete reference to species, development and applications. UK: Earthscan; 2010.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karaca F, Bolat E. Coprocessing of a Turkish lignite with a cellulosic waste material 1. The effect of coprocessing on liquefaction yields at different reaction temperatures. Fuel Process Technol. 2000;64:47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Naik S, Goud VV, Rout PK, Jacobson K, Dalai AK. Characterization of Canadian biomass for alternative renewable fuel. Renew Energy. 2010;35:1624–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bridgwater AV, Peacocke GVC. Fast pyrolysis processes for biomass. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2000;4:1–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Senneca O. Kinetics of pyrolysis, combustion and gasification of three biomass fuels. Fuel Process Technol. 2007;88:87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bahng M-K, Mukarakate C, Robichaud DJ, Nimlos MR. Current technologies for analysis of biomass thermochemical processing: a review. Anal Chim Acta. 2009;651:117–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yaman S. Pyrolysis of biomass to produce fuels and chemical feedstocks. Energy Convers Manag. 2004;45:651–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    García-Ibañez P, Sánchez M, Cabanillas A. Thermogravimetric analysis of olive-oil residue in air atmosphere. Fuel Process Technol. 2006;87(2):103–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sharma A, Rao TR. Kinetics of pyrolysis of rice husk. Bioresour Technol. 1999;67:53–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alvarez VA, Vázquez A. Thermal degradation of cellulose derivatives/starch blends and sisal fibre biocomposites. Polym Degrad Stab. 2004;84:13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Janković B, Adnadević B, Jovanović J. Non-isothermal kinetics of dehydration of equilibrium swollen poly(acrylic acid) hydrogel. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2005;82:7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yang H, Yan R, Chen H, Lee DH, Zheng C. Characteristics of hemicelluloses, cellulose and lignin pyrolysis. Fuel. 2007;86:1781–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Idris SS, Rahman NA, Ismail K, Alias AB, Rashid ZA, Aris MJ. Investigation on thermochemical behaviour of low rank Malaysian coal, oil palm biomass and their blends during pyrolysis via thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Bioresour Technol. 2010;101:4584–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blasi CD. Modeling chemical and physical processes of wood and biomass pyrolysis. Progr Energy Combust. 2008;34:47–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu Y-M, Zhao Z-L, Li H-B, He F. Low temperature pyrolysis characteristics of major components of biomass. J Fuel Chem Technol. 2009;37(4):427–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zapata B, Balmesada J, Fragoso-Israel E, Torres-García E. Thermo-kinetics study of orange peel in air. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2009;98:309–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Souza BS, Moreira APD, Teixeira AMRF. TG-FTIR coupling to monitor the pyrolysis products from agricultural residues. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2009;97:637–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aboulkas A, El Harfi K, El Bouadili A. Pyrolysis of olive residue/low density polyethylene mixture: part I thermogravimetric kinetics. J Fuel Chem Technol. 2008;36(6):672–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lapuerta M, Hernández JJ, Rodríguez J. Kinetics of devolatilisation of forestry wastes from thermogravimetric analysis. Biomass Bioenergy. 2004;27:385–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ebrahimi-Kahrizsangi R, Abbasi MH. Evaluation of reliability of Coats-Redfern method for kinetic analysis of non-isothermal TGA. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China. 2008;18:217–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aly AAM, Osman AH, El-Mottaleb MA, Gouda GAH. Thermal stability and kinetic studies of cobalt (II), nickel (II), copper (II), cadmium (II) and mercury (II) complexes derived from n-salicylidene Schiff bases. J Chil Chem Soc. 2009;54(4):349–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    L’vov BV. Thermal decomposition of solids and melts: new thermochemical approach to the mechanism, kinetics and methodology. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chemical Engineering DepartmentYıldız Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations