Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of thermokinetics methodology, parameters, and coke characterization of co-pyrolysis of bituminous coal with herbaceous and agricultural biomass

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, conventional thermogravimetric analysis and a new congruent–mass thermogravimetric analysis were used to study the reaction mechanism of the co-pyrolysis process of coal and biomass in the thermogravimetric analyzer, the effects of heating rate and carrier gas flow rate on co-pyrolysis were investigated, and kinetic analysis was conducted for the major pyrolysis stages to explore whether there was a synergistic effect in the co-pyrolysis process. The surface morphology of pyrolytic coke was evaluated by the fractal dimension method. The results show that congruent–mass thermogravimetric analysis can compare the interactions in the co-pyrolysis process more intuitively and reduce the influence of initial mass on the determination of interaction relationship. Synergistic effect appears in co-pyrolysis of coal and biomass. With the increase of heating rate, the thermogravimetric hysteresis appeared and the thermogravimetric curve gradually moved to the high temperature region. With the increase of carrier gas flow rate, the synergistic effect weakens. The kinetics of different reaction stages was analyzed by Coats–Redfern method; the results show that the activation energy required in the main co-pyrolysis stage of the mixture is lower than that in the pyrolysis stage alone. The micromorphology shows that biomass coke has a more developed pore structure than coal, and the box dimension indicates that co-pyrolysis increases the surface irregularity of coke. It is of great significance to judge the interaction mechanism of two or even multiple mixed samples in the process of co-pyrolysis.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wang K, Tong Y, Yue T, Gao J, Wang C, Zuo P, Liu J (2021) Measure–specific environmental benefits of air pollution control for coal–fired industrial boilers in China from 2015 to 2017. Environ Pollut 273:116470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mohsin M, Kamran HW, Atif Nawaz M, Sajjad Hussain M, Dahri AS (2021) Assessing the impact of transition from nonrenewable to renewable energy consumption on economic growth–environmental nexus from developing Asian economies. J Environ Manag 284:111999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.111999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Muigai HH, Choudhury BJ, Kalita P, Moholkar VS (2020) Co–pyrolysis of biomass blends: characterization, kinetic and thermodynamic analysis. Biomass Bioenergy 143:105839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Vassilev SV, Baxter D, Andersen LK, Vassileva CG (2010) An overview of the chemical composition of biomass. Fuel 89(5):913–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2009.10.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rusch F, Wastowski AD, de Lira TS, Moreira KCCS, de Moraes LD (2021) Description of the component properties of species of bamboo: a review. Biomass Convers Bior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01359-3

  6. Yang Z, Wu Y, Zhang Z, Li H, Li X, Egorov RI, Strizhak PA, Gao X (2019) Recent advances in co–thermochemical conversions of biomass with fossil fuels focusing on the synergistic effects. Renew Sust Energ Rev 103:384–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Agarwal G, Lattimer B (2014) Physicochemical, kinetic and energetic investigation of coal–biomass mixture pyrolysis. Fuel Process Technol 124:174–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Khan SR, Zeeshan M, Khokhar MF, Zeshan AI (2021) A comprehensive study on upgradation of pyrolysis products through co–feeding of waste tire into rice straw under broad range of co–feed ratios in a bench–scale fixed bed reactor. Biomass Convers Bior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01434-9

  9. Mu L, Chen J, Yao P, Zhou D, Zhao L, Yin H (2016) Evaluation of co–pyrolysis petrochemical wastewater sludge with lignite in a thermogravimetric analyzer and a packed–bed reactor: pyrolysis characteristics, kinetics, and products analysis. Bioresour Technol 221:147–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.09.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Muthuraman M, Namioka T, Yoshikawa K (2010) A comparative study on co–combustion performance of municipal solid waste and Indonesian coal with high ash Indian coal: a thermogravimetric analysis. Fuel Process Technol 91(5):550–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2009.12.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen C, Ma X, He Y (2012) Co–pyrolysis characteristics of microalgae Chlorella vulgaris and coal through TGA. Bioresour Technol 117:264–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.04.077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen J, Wang Y, Lang X, Ren X, Fan S (2017) Evaluation of agricultural residues pyrolysis under non–isothermal conditions: thermal behaviors, kinetics, and thermodynamics. Bioresour Technol 241:340–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.05.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cordero T, Rodriguez Mirasol J, Pastrana J, Rodriguez JJ (2004) Improved solid fuels from co–pyrolysis of a high–sulphur content coal and different lignocellulosic wastes. Fuel 83(11–12):1585–1590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2004.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hu Z, Ma X, Li L (2016) The synergistic effect of co–pyrolysis of oil shale and microalgae to produce syngas. J Energy Inst 89(3):447–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2015.02.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kumar M, Srivastava N, Upadhyay SN, Mishra PK (2021) Thermal degradation of dry kitchen waste: kinetics and pyrolysis products. Biomass Convers Bior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01309-z

  16. Masnadi MS, Habibi R, Kopyscinski J, Hill JM, Bi X, Lim CJ, Ellis N, Grace JR (2014) Fuel characterization and co–pyrolysis kinetics of biomass and fossil fuels. Fuel 117:1204–1214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mu L, Zhao C, Zhao L, Chen B, Xu Z, Yang Z, Shang Y, Yin H (2018) Mineralogical composition evolution and thermogravimetric characteristics of sewage sludge ash at different ashing temperatures. Energy Fuel 32(12):12617–12629. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b03384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sadhukhan AK, Gupta P, Goyal T, Saha RK (2008) Modelling of pyrolysis of coal–biomass blends using thermogravimetric analysis. Bioresour Technol 99(17):8022–8026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.03.047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Park DK, Kim SD, Lee SH, Lee JG (2010) Co–pyrolysis characteristics of sawdust and coal blend in TGA and a fixed bed reactor. Bioresour Technol 101(15):6151–6156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.02.087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Aboyade AO, Görgens JF, Carrier M, Meyer EL, Knoetze JH (2013) Thermogravimetric study of the pyrolysis characteristics and kinetics of coal blends with corn and sugarcane residues. Fuel Process Technol 106:310–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2012.08.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wen S, Zou H, Liu J, Evrendilek DE, Yan Y, Liang G (2021) Multi–response optimization toward efficient and clean (co–)combustions of textile dyeing sludge and second–generation feedstock. J Hazard Mater 408:124824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Idris SS, Rahman NA, Ismail K, Alias AB, Rashid ZA, Aris MJ (2010) Investigation on thermochemical behaviour of low rank Malaysian coal, oil palm biomass and their blends during pyrolysis via thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Bioresour Technol 101(12):4584–4592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Vhathvarothai N, Ness J, Yu QJ (2014) An investigation of thermal behaviour of biomass and coal during copyrolysis using thermogravimetric analysis. Int J Energy Res 38(9):1145–1154. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.3120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang Y, Fan D, Zheng Y (2016) Comparative study on combined co–pyrolysis/gasification of walnut shell and bituminous coal by conventional and congruent–mass thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) methods. Bioresour Technol 199:382–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.07.120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Du Y, Jiang X, Lv G, Ma X, Jin Y, Wang F, Chi Y, Yan J (2014) Thermal behavior and kinetics of bio–ferment residue/coal blends during co–pyrolysis. Energ Convers Manage 88:459–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.08.068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sonobe T, Worasuwannarak N, Pipatmanomai S (2008) Synergies in co–pyrolysis of Thai lignite and corncob. Fuel Process Technol 89(12):1371–1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2008.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wu Z, Wang S, Zhao J, Chen L, Meng H (2016) Thermochemical behavior and char morphology analysis of blended bituminous coal and lignocellulosic biomass model compound co–pyrolysis: effects of cellulose and carboxymethylcellulose sodium. Fuel 171:65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.12.057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rathore NS, Pawar A, Panwar NL (2021) Kinetic analysis and thermal degradation study on wheat straw and its biochar from vacuum pyrolysis under non–isothermal condition. Biomass Convers Bior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01360-w

  29. Tong W, Cai Z, Liu Q, Ren S, Kong M (2020) Effect of pyrolysis temperature on bamboo char combustion: reactivity, kinetics and thermodynamics. Energy 211:118736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Meng H, Wang S, Chen L, Wu Z, Zhao J (2015) Thermal behavior and the evolution of char structure during co–pyrolysis of platanus wood blends with different rank coals from northern China. Fuel 158:602–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.06.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bhardwaj G, Kumar M, Mishra PK, Upadhyay SN (2021) Kinetic analysis of the slow pyrolysis of paper wastes. Biomass Convers Bior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01363-7

  32. Chen J, Wang Y, Lang X, Ren X, Fan S (2017) Comparative evaluation of thermal oxidative decomposition for oil–plant residues via thermogravimetric analysis: thermal conversion characteristics, kinetics, and thermodynamics. Bioresour Technol 243:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Song Y, Hu J, Liu J, Evrendilek F, Buyukada M (2020) Catalytic effects of CaO, Al2O3, Fe2O3, and red mud on Pteris vittata combustion: emission, kinetic and ash conversion patterns. J Clean Prod 252:119646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Xia B, Liu X, Song D, He X, Yang T, Wang L (2021) Evaluation of liquid CO2 phase change fracturing effect on coal using fractal theory. Fuel 287:119569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Li J, Du Q, Sun C (2009) An improved box–counting method for image fractal dimension estimation. Pattern Recogn 42(11):2460–2469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2009.03.001

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Boundzanga HM, Cagnon B, Roulet M, de Persis S, Vautrin ul C, Bonnamy S (2020) Contributions of hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin to the mass and the porous characteristics of activated carbons produced from biomass residues by phosphoric acid activation. Biomass Convers Bior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00816-9

  37. Shen DK, Gu S, Bridgwater AV (2010) Study on the pyrolytic behaviour of xylan–based hemicellulose using TG–FTIR and Py–GC–FTIR. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 87(2):199–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2009.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Song Y, Li Q, Li F, Wang L, Hu C, Feng J, Li W (2019) Pathway of biomass–potassium migration in co–gasification of coal and biomass. Fuel 239:365–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.11.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Liu H, Xu L, Zhao D, Cao Q, Gao J, Wu S (2018) Effects of alkali and alkaline–earth metals and retention time on the generation of tar during coal pyrolysis in a horizontal fixed–bed reactor. Fuel Process Technol 179:399–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.07.032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Chen J, Zhang J, Liu J, He Y, Evrendilek F, Buyukada M, Xie W, Sun S (2020) Co–pyrolytic mechanisms, kinetics, emissions and products of biomass and sewage sludge in N2, CO2 and mixed atmospheres. Chem Eng J 397:125372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.125372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Huang H, Liu J, Liu H, Evrendilek F, Buyukada M (2020) Pyrolysis of water hyacinth biomass parts: bioenergy, gas emissions, and by–products using TG–FTIR and Py–GC/MS analyses. Energ Convers Manage 207:112552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Protsenko VS, Danilov FI (2011) Activation energy of electrochemical reaction measured at a constant value of electrode potential. J Electroanal Chem 651(2):105–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelechem.2010.12.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sarkheil H, Rahbari S (2019) Fractal geometry analysis of chemical structure of natural starch modification as a green biopolymeric product. Arab J Chem 12(8):2430–2438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2015.03.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wu Z, Yang W, Yang B (2018) Thermal characteristics and surface morphology of char during co–pyrolysis of low–rank coal blended with microalgal biomass: effects of Nannochloropsis and Chlorella. Bioresour Technol 249:501–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Zhang J, Zou H, Liu J, Evrendilek F, Xie W, He Y, Buyukada M (2021) Comparative (co–)pyrolytic performances and by–products of textile dyeing sludge and cattle manure: deeper insights from Py–GC/MS, TG–FTIR, 2D–COS and PCA analyses. J Hazard Mater 401:123276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123276

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was financially supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (DUT20LAB134).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Energy and Power Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116024, China

    Lin Mu, Ranyu Wang, Zhende Zhai, Bin Zhang, Yan Shang & Hongchao Yin

  2. Key Laboratory of Complex Energy Conversion and Utilization, Dalian, 116024, Liaoning Province, China

    Lin Mu, Ranyu Wang, Zhende Zhai, Bin Zhang, Yan Shang & Hongchao Yin

Authors
  1. Lin Mu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ranyu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhende Zhai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yan Shang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hongchao Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lin Mu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(DOCX 1708 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mu, L., Wang, R., Zhai, Z. et al. Evaluation of thermokinetics methodology, parameters, and coke characterization of co-pyrolysis of bituminous coal with herbaceous and agricultural biomass. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 13, 5957–5972 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01502-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01502-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation