Advertisement

Evaluation of the physico-chemical development of kitchen food wastes through torrefaction - a biodiversity case study

  • Dharminder Singh
  • Sanjeev YadavEmail author
Original Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

This study evaluated the change in physical and chemical properties of sun-dried food waste, during torrefaction in a fixed bed reactor. Torrefaction was carried out at different temperatures 230 °C, 260 °C, and 290 °C, for different residence times of 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 min in a fixed bed reactor. The solid torrefied products were analyzed by elemental analysis, proximate analysis, compositional analysis, and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), and it was found that most suitable residence time for torrefaction was 60 min as torrefaction beyond 60 min did not yield much improvement in changing the properties of kitchen food waste. Carbon content increased from 46.0 to 58.5%, consecutively increasing higher heating value (HHV) from 16.1 to 21.9%. Compositional analysis demonstrated that there was not much hemicellulose left in the raw food waste after cooking; however, it had cellulose in significant proportion which went through decomposition during torrefaction. Lignin was not affected much. Various process parameters such as mass yield, energy yield, and energy density were also studied, and it was found the mass and energy yield decreased by 65.0% and 47.5%, respectively, and energy density increased by 35%. Van Krevelen indicated clearly that torrefied char had achieved coal characteristics.

Keywords

Torrefaction Food waste Compositional analysis Elemental analysis Higher heating value (HHV) 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    U.S. Energy Information Administration (2017) International Energy Outlook 2017. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32912. Accessed on 15 July 2018
  2. 2.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2018) Save food: global initiative on food loss and waste reduction. http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/ Accessed on 15 July 2018
  3. 3.
    Singh S (2015) Food wastage in India a serious concern. CSR Journal. http://thecsrjournal.in/food-wastage-in-india-a-serious-concern/. Accessed on 20 July 2018
  4. 4.
    Gardiner B (2014) The economic and environmental costs of wasted food. Special Report: Business Of Green. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/business/energy-environment/the-economic-and-environmental-costs-of-wasted-food.html. Accessed on 20 July 2018
  5. 5.
    Poudel J, Ohm T, Oh S (2015) A study on torrefaction of food waste. Fuel 140:275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nam H, Capareda S (2015) Experimental investigation of torrefaction of two agricultural wastes of different composition using RSM (Response Surface Methodology). Energy 91:507–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Svoboda K, Pohorely M, Hartman M, Guyonnet R (2009) Pre-treatment and feeding of biomass for pressurized entrained flow gasification. Fuel Process Technol 90:629–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chew JJ, Doshi V (2011) Recent advances in biomass pre-treatment-torrefaction fundamentals and technology. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:4212–4222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benavente V, Fullana A (2015) Torrefaction of olive mill waste. Biomass Bioenergy 73:186–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim JH, Lee JC, Pak D (2011) Feasibility of producing ethanol from food waste. Waste Manag 31:2121–2125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ahmed I, Gupta AK (2010) Pyrolysis and gasification of food waste: syngas characteristics and char gasification kinetics. Appl Energy 87:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Opatokun SA, Strezov V, Kan T (2015) Product based evaluation of food waste and its digestate. Energy 92(3):349–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parikh J, Channiwala SA, Ghosal GK (2005) A correlation for calculating HHV from proximate analysis of solid fuels. Fuel 84(5):487–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bridgeman T, Jones J, Shield I, Williams P (2008) Torrefaction of reed canary grass wheat straw and willow to enhance solid fuel qualities and combustion properties. Fuel 87(6):844–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wannapeera J, Fungtammasm B, Worasuwannarak N (2011) Effects of temperature and holding time during torrefaction on the pyrolysis behaviour of woody biomass. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 91:99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mansouri NEE, Salvado J (2006) Structural characterization of technical lignins for the production of adhesives: application to lignosulphate, kraft, soda anthraquinone, organosolv and ethanol process lignins. Ind Crop Prod 24(1):8–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rousset P, Aguir C, Labbe N, Commandre JM (2011) Enhancing the combustion properties of bamboo for torrefaction. Bioresour Technol 102:8225–8231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen WH, Kuo PC (2011) Torrefaction and co-torrefaction characterization of hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin as well as torrefaction of some basic constituents in biomass. Energy 36:803–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Young-Hun K, Soo-Min L, Hyoung-woo L, Jae-Won L (2012) Physical and chemical characteristics of products from the torrefaction of yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Bioresour Technol 116:120–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fisher T, Hajaligol M, Waymack B, Kellog D (2002) Pyrolysis behavior and kinetics of biomass derived materials. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 62(2):331–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang C, Ho S, Chen W, Xie Y, Liu Z, Chang J (2018) Torrefaction performance and energy usage of biomass wastes and their correlations with torrefaction severity index. Appl Energy 220:598–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical Engineering, School of EngineeringShiv Nadar UniversityGreater NoidaIndia

Personalised recommendations