Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

, Volume 117, Issue 1, pp 489–497 | Cite as

Thermogravimetric analysis of peat decomposition under different oxygen concentrations

  • Weitao Zhao
  • Haixiang Chen
  • Naian Liu
  • Jianjun Zhou
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Smoldering combustion of peat is of global concern as a natural hazard to consume sequestered carbon and form wide-area haze. It is affected by thermal decomposition kinetics of peat and the diffusion and availability of oxygen. In this work, thermal decomposition behavior of peat was investigated using thermogravimetric analysis under the atmosphere with different oxygen concentrations. The results showed that thermal decomposition process of peat could be divided into three stages: dehydration, oxidative pyrolysis of organic matters into volatiles and char, and oxidation of the generated char. The apparent activation energies of peat decomposition under different oxygen concentrations were calculated by model-free methods of Kissinger, FWO, Starink, Gyulai, and Friedman. A two-step reaction model was proposed to describe thermal decomposition kinetics of peat (excluding dehydration stage) and the effect of oxygen concentration on the kinetic parameters was discussed. These results provide basic data for smoldering modeling of peat.

Keywords

Peat Thermal decomposition Thermogravimetric analysis Smoldering 

Notation

TG

Thermogravimetry

DTG

Derivative thermogravimetry (K−1)

E, E1, E2

Apparent activation energy (kJ mol−1)

R

Ideal gas constant, 8.314 J K−1 mol−1)

A, A1, A2

Arrhenius frequency factor

T

Absolute temperature (K)

β

Heating rate of decomposition (K min−1)

k1, k2

Reaction rate coefficients

P

The initial mass of the peat removed moisture and mineral content

D, V1, V2

Product of reaction

V1, V2

The mass loss (gas mass) of two-step reaction, respectively

m0, m∞

The mass of beginning and end of peat decomposition (g)

r1, r2

Dimensionless parameter defined by Eq. (5)

n1, n2

Reaction order

OF

Objective function

RSQ

R-Squared

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51176179 and 51120165001) and the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program, No. 2012CB719702). Chen was supported by Fundamental Research Funds for the Central University (WK2320000020).

References

  1. 1.
    Johnson EA, Miyanishi K. Forest fires: behavior and ecological effects. 1st ed. Elsevier: Academic Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huang XY, Rein G. Smouldering combustion of peat: Inverse modelling of the thermal and oxidative degradation kinetics. Combust Flame. 2013; Accepted.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Page SE, Siegert F, Rieley JO, Boehm HD, Jaya A, Limin S. The amount of carbon released from peat and forest fires in Indonesia during 1997. Nature. 2002;420(6911):61–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rein G, Cleaver N, Ashton C, Pironi P, Torero JL. The severity of smouldering peat fires and damage to the forest soil. Catena. 2008;74(3):304–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rein G. Smouldering combustion phenomena in science and technology. Int Rev Chem Eng. 2009;1:3–18.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rein G. Smouldering fires and natural fuels. In: Belcher CM, editor. Fire phenomena and the earth system: an interdisciplinary guide to fire science. Oxford: Wiley Online Library; 2013.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Petkova V, Serafimova E, Kaljuvee T, Pelovsky Y. Thermochemical characterization of chicken litter and peat as a source for energy recovery. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2012;113:683–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Watts AC, Kobziar LN. Smoldering combustion and ground fires: ecological effects and multi-scale significance. Fire Ecol. 2013;9(1):124–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rein G. Smouldering fires in the earth system. EGU General Assembly Conference. 2012.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rein G, Cohen S, Simeoni A. Carbon emissions from smouldering peat in shallow and strong fronts. Proc Combust Inst. 2009;32(2):2489–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davies GM, Gray A, Rein G, Legg CJ. Peat consumption and carbon loss due to smouldering wildfire in a temperate peatland. For Ecol Manage. 2013;308:169–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hadden RM, Rein G, Belcher CM. Study of the competing chemical reactions in the initiation and spread of smouldering combustion in peat. Proc Combust Inst. 2013;34(2):2547–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martinka J, Kačíková D, Hroncová E, Ladomerský J. Experimental determination of the effect of temperature and oxygen concentration on the production of birch wood main fire emissions. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2012;110(1):193–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reardon J, Hungerford R, Ryan K. Factors affecting sustained smouldering in organic soils from pocosin and pond pine woodland wetlands. Int J Wildland Fire. 2007;16(1):107–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frandsen WH. Ignition probability of organic soils. Can J For Res. 1997;27:1471–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garlough EC, Keyes CR. Influences of moisture content, mineral content and bulk density on smouldering combustion of ponderosa pine duff mounds. Int J Wildland Fire. 2011;20:589–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Benscoter BW, Thompson DK, Waddington JM, Flannigan MD, Wotton BM, De Groot WJ, et al. Interactive effects of vegetation, soil moisture and bulk density on depth of burning of thick organic soils. Int J Wildland Fire. 2011;20(3):418–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frandsen WH, Hartford RA. Smoldering duff limits, heat evolved, and burn rate smoldering combustion limits in peat as influenced by moisture, mineral content, and organic bulk density. Proceedings of the Conference on Fire and Forest M: University of Montana; 1989.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grishin AM, Yakimov AS. Mathematical simulation of the process of peat ignition. J Eng Phys Thermophys. 2008;81(1):204–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Belcher CM, Yearsley JM, Hadden RM, Mcelwain JC, Rein G. Baseline intrinsic flammability of earth’s ecosystems estimated from paleoatmospheric oxygen over the past 350 million years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; 2010.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen HX, Zhao WT, Liu NA. Thermal analysis and decomposition kinetics of chinese forest peat under nitrogen and air atmospheres. Energy Fuel. 2011;25(2):797–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cancellieri D, Leroy-Cancellieri V, Leoni E, Simeoni A, Kuzin AY, Filkov AI, et al. Kinetic investigation on the smouldering combustion of boreal peat. Fuel. 2012;93:479–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen HX, Liu NA, Shu LF, Zong RW. Smoothing and differentiation of thermogravimetric data of biomass materials. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2004;78(3):1029–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moghtaderi B. The state-of-the-art in pyrolysis modelling of lignocellulosic solid fuels. Fire Mater. 2006;30(1):1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barneto AG, Carmona JA, Martin JE, Blanco JD. Kinetic models based in biomass components for the combustion and pyrolysis of sewage sludge and its compost. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 2009;86(1):108–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Font R, Fullana A, Conesa JA, Llavador F. Analysis of the pyrolysis and combustion of different sewage sludges by tg. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 2001;58:927–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barneto A, Carmona J, Alfonso JE, Alcaide L. Use of autocatalytic kinetics to obtain composition of lignocellulosic materials. Bioresour Technol. 2009;100(17):3963–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chen HX, Liu NA, Fan WC. Two-step consecutive reaction model of biomass thermal decomposition by dsc. Acta Phys Chim Sin. 2006;22(7):786–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chen HX, Liu NA, Fan WC. Two-step consecutive reaction model and kinetic parameters relevant to the decomposition of chinese forest fuels. J Appl Polym Sci. 2006;102(1):571–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Leoni E, Cancellieri D, Balbi N, Tomi P, Bernardini AF, Kaloustian J, et al. Thermal degradation of pinus pinaster needles by dsc, part 2: Kinetics of exothermic phenomena. J Fire Sci. 2003;21(2):117–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fang MX, Shen DK, Li YX, Yu CJ, Luo ZY, Cen KF. Kinetic study on pyrolysis and combustion of wood under different oxygen concentrations by using tg-ftir analysis. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 2006;77(1):22–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Amutio M, Lopez G, Aguado R, Artetxe M, Bilbao J, Olazar M. Kinetic study of lignocellulosic biomass oxidative pyrolysis. Fuel. 2012;95(1):305–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liu QQ, Han XX, Li QY, Huang YR, Jiang XM. TG–DSC analysis of pyrolysis process of two Chinese oil shales. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2013. doi: 10.1007/s10973-013-3524-2.
  34. 34.
    Meriste T, Yörük CR, Trikkel A, Kaljuvee T, Kuusik R. TG–FTIR analysis of oxidation kinetics of some solid fuels under oxy-fuel conditions. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2013;114(2):483–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vyazovkin S. Model-free kinetics—staying free of multiplying entities without necessity. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2006;83(1):45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Laarhoven PJV, Aarts EH. Simulated annealing. Amsterdam: Springer; 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Audet C, Dennis JE. Analysis of generalized pattern searches. SIAM J Optim. 2003;13(3):889–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rein G, Lautenberger C, Fernandez-Pello AC, Torero JL, Urban DL. Application of genetic algorithms and thermogravimetry to determine the kinetics of polyurethane foam in smoldering combustion. Combust Flame. 2006;146(1–2):95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
    Shen DK. Kinetic study on thermal decomposition of woods in oxidative environment. Fuel. 2012;88(6):1024–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chen CX, Ma XQ, Liu K. Thermogravimetric analysis of microalgae combustion under different oxygen supply concentrations. Appl Energy. 2011;88(9):3189–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Flynn JH, Wall LA. General treatment of the thermogravimetry of polymers. J Res Nat Bur Stand. 1966;70(6):487–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Starink MJ. A new method for the derivation of activation energies from experiments performed at constant heating rate. Thermochim Acta. 1996;288(1–2):97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kissinger HE. Reaction kinetics in differential thermal analysis. Anal Chem. 1957;29(11):1702–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Friedman HL. New methods for evaluating kinetic parameters from thermal analysis data. J Polym Sci Part B-Polym Lett. 1969;7(1 PB):41–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gyulai G, Greenhow EJ. A new integral method for the kinetic analysis of thermogravimetric data. J Therm Anal Calorim. 1974;6(3):279–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Weitao Zhao
    • 1
  • Haixiang Chen
    • 1
  • Naian Liu
    • 1
  • Jianjun Zhou
    • 1
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Fire ScienceUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaHefeiChina

Personalised recommendations