BioEnergy Research

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 184–196 | Cite as

Optimization of Carbonization Process for the Production of Solid Biofuel from Corn Stalk Using Response Surface Methodology

  • Yajun Wang
  • Ling QiuEmail author
  • Tianle Zhang
  • Xuanmin Yang
  • Kang KangEmail author


Corn stalk is not suitable for direct combustion due to poor grindability, high moisture content, and insufficient heating value. The aim of this study was to optimize reaction conditions to improve the quality of corn stalk char, and to investigate the effects of carbonization on the physicochemical and combustion characteristics of corn stalks and chars. Optimal conditions for the carbonization of corn stalk were investigated with regard to temperature, holding time, and particle size. Response surface methodology (RSM) provided satisfactory models of responses, and the optimal conditions for higher heating values were obtained as follows: temperature of 551 °C, holding time of 150 min, and particle size range of 0.8–1.0 mm. In addition, after carbonization, changes in surface morphology, functional groups, and organic elements were clearly observed on the chars. The optimal point char experienced fairly complete carbonization, and holds promise for use as a solid biofuel.


Char Response surface methodology Physicochemical properties Combustion characteristic 



This work was supported by the Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest [No. 201503135] and the Special Rural Energy Science and Technology Project of the Ministry of Agriculture [No. 091721301262491003].


  1. 1.
    Kang K, Qiu L, Zhu M, Sun G, Wang Y, Sun R (2018) Codensification of agroforestry residue with bio-oil for improved fuel pellets. Energy Fuel 32(1):598–606. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guo J, Cui X, Sun H, Zhao Q, Wen X, Pang C, Dong R (2018) Effect of glucose and cellulase addition on wet-storage of excessively wilted maize Stover and biogas production. Bioresour Technol 259:198–206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biswas B, Pandey N, Bisht Y, Singh R, Kumar J, Bhaskar T (2017) Pyrolysis of agricultural biomass residues: comparative study of corn cob, wheat straw, rice straw and rice husk. Bioresour Technol 237:57–63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Salema AA, Afzal MT, Bennamoun L (2017) Pyrolysis of corn stalk biomass briquettes in a scaled-up microwave technology. Bioresour Technol 233:353–362. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bera T, Purakayastha TJ, Patra AK, Datta SC (2018) Comparative analysis of physicochemical, nutrient, and spectral properties of agricultural residue biochars as influenced by pyrolysis temperatures. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 20(2):1115–1127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Soufizadeh M, Pirmohammadi R, Alijoo Y, Behroozyar HK (2018) Indigestible neutral detergent fibers: relationship between forage fragility and neutral detergent fibers digestibility in total mixed ration and some feedstuffs in dairy cattle. Vet Res Forum 9(1):49–57Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    He X, Zhang K, Wang W, Li H, Yin Q (2018) Thermal stability and bonding mechanisms of corn stalk rind. Bioresources 13(2):2748–2758. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang Q, Han K, Wang J, Gao J, Lu C (2017) Influence of phosphorous based additives on ash melting characteristics during combustion of biomass briquette fuel. Renew Energy 113:428–437. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu Z, Han G (2015) Production of solid fuel biochar from waste biomass by low temperature pyrolysis. Fuel 158:159–165. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang X, Zhai M, Wang Z, Dong P, Lv W, Liu R (2018) Carbonization and combustion characteristics of palm fiber. Fuel 227:21–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abas FZ, Ani FN, Zakaria ZA (2018) Microwave-assisted production of optimized pyrolysis liquid oil from oil palm fiber. J Clean Prod 182:404–413. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li F, Hu Z, Xiao B (2017) Bio-oil production by thermochemical catalytic liquefaction of bloom-forming cyanobacteria: optimization using response surface methodology (RSM). Energy Fuel 31(12):13733–13742. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hu G, Li J, Zhang X, Li Y (2017) Investigation of waste biomass co-pyrolysis with petroleum sludge using a response surface methodology. J Environ Manag 192:234–242. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nam H, Capareda S (2015) Experimental investigation of torrefaction of two agricultural wastes of different composition using RSM (response surface methodology). Energy 91:507–516. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li K, Zhu C, Zhang L, Zhu X (2016) Study on pyrolysis characteristics of lignocellulosic biomass impregnated with ammonia source. Bioresour Technol 209:142–147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Park Y-K, Yoo ML, Lee HW, Park SH, Jung S-C, Park S-S, Kim S-C (2012) Effects of operation conditions on pyrolysis characteristics of agricultural residues. Renew Energy 42:125–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim D, Lee K, Park KY (2014) Hydrothermal carbonization of anaerobically digested sludge for solid fuel production and energy recovery. Fuel 130:120–125. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pinkowska H, Wolak P (2013) Hydrothermal decomposition of rapeseed straw in subcritical water. Proposal of three-step treatment. Fuel 113:340–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peng WM, Wu QY, Tu PG (2000) Effects of temperature and holding time on production of renewable fuels from pyrolysis of Chlorella protothecoides. J Appl Phycol 12(2):147–152. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suriapparao DV, Vinu R (2018) Effects of biomass particle size on slow pyrolysis kinetics and fast pyrolysis product distribution. Waste Biomass Valoriz 9(3):465–477. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Park J, Lee Y, Ryu C, Park Y-K (2014) Slow pyrolysis of rice straw: analysis of products properties, carbon and energy yields. Bioresour Technol 155:63–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ronsse F, van Hecke S, Dickinson D, Prins W (2013) Production and characterization of slow pyrolysis biochar: influence of feedstock type and pyrolysis conditions. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 5(2):104–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chin KL, H’ng PS, Go WZ, Wong WZ, Lim TW, Maminski M, Paridah MT, Luqman AC (2013) Optimization of torrefaction conditions for high energy density solid biofuel from oil palm biomass and fast growing species available in Malaysia. Ind Crop Prod 49:768–774. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ianez-Rodriguez I, Angeles Martin-Lara M, Blazquez G, Perez A, Calero M (2017) Effect of torrefaction conditions on greenhouse crop residue: optimization of conditions to upgrade solid characteristics. Bioresour Technol 244:741–749. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Khanna R, Ikram-Ul-Haq M, Rajarao R, Cayumil R, Rawal A, Sahajwalla V, Mukherjee PS (2017) Novel multidimensional carbons from structural transformations of waste lignin: a low temperature pyrolysis investigation. Fuel Process Technol 166:312–321. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McNamee P, Darvell LI, Jones JM, Williams A (2015) The combustion characteristics of high-heating-rate chars from untreated and torrefied biomass fuels. Biomass Bioenergy 82:63–72. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pehlivan E, Ozbay N, Yargic AS, Sahin RZ (2017) Production and characterization of chars from cherry pulp via pyrolysis. J Environ Manag 203:1017–1025. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peng C, Zhai Y, Zhu Y, Xu B, Wang T, Li C, Zeng G (2016) Production of char from sewage sludge employing hydrothermal carbonization: char properties, combustion behavior and thermal characteristics. Fuel 176:110–118. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Anupam K, Sharma AK, Lal PS, Dutta S, Maity S (2016) Preparation, characterization and optimization for upgrading Leucaena leucocephala bark to biochar fuel with high energy yielding. Energy 106:743–756. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pala M, Kantarli IC, Buyukisik HB, Yanik J (2014) Hydrothermal carbonization and torrefaction of grape pomace: a comparative evaluation. Bioresour Technol 161:255–262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilk M, Magdziarz A, Kalemba I, Gara P (2016) Carbonisation of wood residue into charcoal during low temperature process. Renew Energy 85:507–513. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Naik S, Goud VV, Rout PK, Jacobson K, Dalai AK (2010) Characterization of Canadian biomass for alternative renewable biofuel. Renew Energy 35(8):1624–1631. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liu Z, Balasubramanian R (2014) Upgrading of waste biomass by hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) and low temperature pyrolysis (LTP): a comparative evaluation. Appl Energy 114:857–864. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhao P, Ge S, Yoshikawa K (2013) An orthogonal experimental study on solid fuel production from sewage sludge by employing steam explosion. Appl Energy 112:1213–1221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Liu Z, Quek A, Balasubramanian R (2014) Preparation and characterization of fuel pellets from woody biomass, agro-residues and their corresponding hydrochars. Appl Energy 113:1315–1322. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Obernberger I, Thek G (2004) Physical characterisation and chemical composition of densified biomass fuels with regard to their combustion behaviour. Biomass Bioenergy 27(6):653–669. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Mechanical and Electronic EngineeringNorthwest A&F UniversityYanglingChina
  2. 2.Northwest Research Center of Rural Renewable Energy Exploitation and Utilization, Ministry of AgricultureYanglingChina

Personalised recommendations