Advertisement

Tunisian tomato waste pyrolysis: thermogravimetry analysis and kinetic study

  • Besma Khiari
  • Marwa Massoudi
  • Mejdi JeguirimEmail author
Advances & Prospects in the field of Waste Management
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

This paper aims to set up viable units of thermal processing of numerous agricultural wastes in a sustainable development and eco-friendly approach that could create new economic profitable circuits in an increasingly competitive context. One of the most problematic food wastes are tomato processing by-products; concentrating and canning industrial activities generate important amounts of them, particularly in the Tunisian context. As no reference was found in literature dealing with these last residues, this work intended to explore their potential as biomass fuels. Pyrolysis is then applied in thermogravimetric conditions for different heating rates (5, 10, 20, and 30 °C/min) in order to recover energy on one hand and to extract the corresponding kinetic parameters for an accurate design of reactors on the other hand. Main results include suitability of the tomato residues to a thermal valorization thanks to high contents of volatiles and fixed carbon and low ash percentage as well as an interesting heating value comparable to lignocellulosic biomass. Mass loss profiles indicate consecutive and overlapping stages of drying, active pyrolysis, and passive pyrolysis. The experimental profiles of conversion rate were well fitted by the three isoconversional methods; the best fitting is recorded by the Flynn-Wall-Ozawa associated with a first-order model for the intermediate pyrolysis and with a contracted sphere (n = 1/3) for the slowest studied pyrolysis.

Keywords

Tomato waste Kinetics Thermogravimetric analysis Pyrolysis 

Notes

References

  1. Almeida J, Achten WMJ, Verbist B, Heuts RF, Schrevens E, Muys B (2014) Carbon and water footprints and energy use of greenhouse tomato production in Northern Italy. J Ind Ecol 18(6):898–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antal MJ, Friedman HL, Rogers FE (1980) Kinetics of cellulose pyrolysis in nitrogen and steam. Combust Sci Technol 21(3–4):141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chouchene A, Jeguirim M, Khiari B, Zagrouba F, Trouvé G (2010) Thermal degradation of olive solid waste: influence of particle size and oxygen concentration. Resour Conserv Recycl 54(5):271–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crews C, Hough P, Godward J, Brereton P, Lees M, Guiet S, Winkelmann W (2006) Quantitation of the main constituents of some authentic grape-seed oils of different origin. J Agric Food Chem 54(17):6261–6265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Encinar JM, González JF, Martínez G (2008) Energetic use of the tomato plant waste. Fuel Process Technol 89(11):1193–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flynn JH, Wall LA (1966) General treatment of thermogravimetry of polymers. J Res Nat Stan Sec A 70(A):487–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Font R, Moltó J, Gálvez A, Rey MD (2009) Kinetic study of the pyrolysis and combustion of tomato plant. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 85(1):268–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Friedman HL (1964) Kinetics of thermal degradation of char-forming plastics from thermogravimetry. Application to a phenolic plastic. Journal of Polymer Science Part C: Polymer Symposia 6(1):183–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. González JF, González-Garcı́a CM, Ramiro A, González J, Sabio E, Gañán J, Rodrı́guez MA (2004) Combustion optimisation of biomass residue pellets for domestic heating with a mural boiler. Biomass Bioenergy 27(2):145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jeguirim M, Elmay Y, Limousy L, Lajili M, Said R (2014) Devolatilization behavior and pyrolysis kinetics of potential Tunisian biomass fuels. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 33(4):1452–1458Google Scholar
  11. Jeguirim M, Kraiem N, Lajili M, Guizani C, Zorpas A, Leva Y, Michelin L, Josien L, Limousy L (2017) The relationship between mineral contents, particle matter and bottom ash distribution during pellet combustion: molar balance and chemometric analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(11):9927–9939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Khiari B, Jeguirim M (2018) Pyrolysis of grape marc from Tunisian wine industry: feedstock characterization, thermal degradation and kinetic analysis. Energies 11(4):730–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Khiari B, Marias F, Vaxelaire J, Zagrouba F (2007) Incineration of a small particle of wet sewage sludge: a numerical comparison between two states of the surrounding atmosphere. J Hazard Mater 147(3):871–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Khiari B, Marias F, Zagrouba F, Vaxelaire J (2008) Transient mathematical modelling of a fluidized bed incinerator for sewage sludge. J Clean Prod 16(2):178–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Khiari B, Moussaoui M, Jeguirim M (2019) Tomato processing by-products combustion: thermal and kinetic analyses. Materials 12(4):553–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kissinger HE (1956) Variation of peak temperature with heating rate in differential thermal analysis. J Res Natl Bur Stand 57(4):217–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kordoghli S, Parashiv M, Tazerout M, Khiari B, Zagrouba F (2017a) Novel catalytic systems for waste tires pyrolysis: optimization of gas fraction. J Energy Resour Technol 139(3):032203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kordoghli S, Khiari B, Paraschiv M, Zagrouba F, Tazerout M (2017b) Impact of different catalysis supported by oyster shells on the pyrolysis of tyre wastes in a single and a double fixed bed reactor. Waste Manag 67:288–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kraiem N, Lajili M, Limousy L, Said R, Jeguirim M (2016) Energy recovery from Tunisian agri-food wastes: evaluation of combustion performance and emissions characteristics of green pellets prepared from tomato residues and grape marc. Energy 107:409–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mangut V, Sabio E, Gañán J, González JF, Ramiro A, González CM, Román S, Al-Kassir A (2006) Thermogravimetric study of the pyrolysis of biomass residues from tomato processing industry. Fuel Process Technol 87(2):109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rossini G, Toscano G, Duca D, Corinaldesi F, Foppa Pedretti E, Riva G (2013) Analysis of the characteristics of the tomato manufacturing residues finalized to the energy recovery. Biomass Bioenergy 51:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ruiz Celma A, Cuadros F, López-Rodríguez F (2012) Characterization of pellets from industrial tomato residues. Food Bioprod Process 90(4):700–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Souilem S, El-Abbassi A, Kiai H, Hafidi A, Sayadi S, Galanakis CM (2017) Chapter 1—olive oil production sector: environmental effects and sustainability challenges. In: Galanakis CM (ed) Olive Mill Waste. Academic Press, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  24. Tillman DA (2000) Biomass cofiring: the technology, the experience, the combustion consequences. Biomass Bioenergy 19(6):365–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yan B-H, Cao C-X, Cheng Y, Jin Y, Cheng Y (2014) Experimental investigation on coal devolatilization at high temperatures with different heating rates. Fuel 117:1215–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yargıç AŞ, Yarbay Şahin RZ, Özbay N, Önal E (2015) Assessment of toxic copper(II) biosorption from aqueous solution by chemically-treated tomato waste. J Clean Prod 88:152–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National School of Engineering of CarthageTunisTunisia
  2. 2.Institut de Sciences des Matériaux de MulhouseMulhouseFrance

Personalised recommendations