Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 4 May 2009
Received in revised form 12 August 2009
Accepted 14 August 2009
Available online 13 September 2009
Keywords:
Food waste gasication
Char gasication kinetics
Catalytic effect of ash
Compensation effect
a b s t r a c t
Characteristics of syngas from the pyrolysis and gasication of food waste has been investigated. Characteristic differences in syngas properties and overall yields from pyrolysis and gasication were determined at two distinct high temperatures of 800 and 900 C. Pyrolysis and gasication behavior were
evaluated in terms of syngas ow rate, hydrogen ow rate, output power, total syngas yield, total hydrogen yield, total energy yield, and apparent thermal efciency. Gasication was more benecial than pyrolysis based on investigated criteria, but longer time was needed to nish the gasication process. Longer
time of gasication is attributed to slow reactions between the residual char and gasifying agent. Consequently, the char gasication kinetics was investigated. Inorganic constituents of food char were found to
have a catalytic effect. Char reactivity increased with increased degree of conversion. In the conversion
range from 0.1 to 0.9 the increase in reactivity was accompanied by an increase in pre-exponential factor,
which suggested an increase in gasifying agent adsorption rate to char surface. However, in the conversion range from 0.93 to 0.98 the increase in reactivity was accompanied by a decrease in activation
energy. A compensation effect was observed in this range of conversion of 0.930.98.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Dumping food waste in a landll causes environmental problems. By volume, the dumped landll waste causes the largest contribution to methane gas production [1]. It causes odor as it
decomposes to cause public annoyance in addition to forming
germs, and attracting ies and vermin. Another serious problem
of food wastes is the generation of landll leachate. Landll leachate is liquid that leaks from the landll and enters the environment. Once it enters the environment the leachate is at risk for
mixing groundwater near the site which then transports to some
distances. Furthermore it has the potential to add biological oxygen demand (BOD) to the groundwater. BOD measures the rate
of oxygen uptake by micro-organisms in a sample of water at a
temperature of 20 C and over an elapsed period of ve days in
the dark.
Food wastes have high energy content. Consequently, it offers a
good potential for feed stock for gasication in power plants. Food
waste gasication helps to solve two major problems at the same
time. Gasication of food waste reduces landll problems and
helps to recover energy at the same time. Characteristics of food
waste gasication and pyrolysis have been investigated in terms
of syngas yield, hydrogen yield, energy yield and apparent thermal
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 301 405 5311.
E-mail address: islam@umd.edu (I.I. Ahmed).
0306-2619/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.08.032
efciency. The results show that food wastes offers a good potential for thermal treatment of the waste with the specic aim of
power generation.
The average proximate analysis of food wastes is 80% volatile
matter, 15% xed carbon, and 5% ash. The volatile matter can be
easily destructed in a relatively short period of time, extending
from 8 to 12 min at reactor temperatures from 700 to 1000 C. Energy recovery from volatile components in food wastes can be
recovered using a simple pyrolysis process. However, in order to
consume the residual xed carbon after the pyrolysis, the sample
must undergo a gasication process. Gasication of a food waste
sample includes a pyrolysis part and a char gasication part. Char
gasication reactions are slower than that of pyrolysis and consequently, is the rate limiting step in the overall gasication process.
The ash present in the sample does not react with the gasifying
agent. The ash can be collected after cooling and cleaning the syngas, and then recycled for its further use in industrial processes.
Since the char gasication process is the rate limiting step, it is
important to quantify the kinetic parameters of char gasication.
Char gasication has been investigated by a large number of
researchers. Some of the important parameters investigated include the origin of the char sample, gasifying agent, total pressure,
variation of partial pressure of gasifying agents, geometric changes
of the sample during gasication, and catalyzed char gasication.
One of the most important parameters which have been investigated is the catalytic effect of ash content on char gasication.
102
103
is detected by the GC and used to determine the ow rate of different syngas species by comparing the species mole fraction to that
of the nitrogen mole fraction.
3.1.1. Experimental conditions for syngas characteristics
104
pressure of CO and CO2 with the partial pressure of Helium. For this
purpose the ow rate of Helium was kept constant at a known ow
rate. From the carbon ow rate-time, relationship one can calculate
the total yield of carbon and instantaneous sample mass inside the
reactor at time (t).
Food waste
(Simulated as dog food)
(~35 grams)
Char + Ash
Ash (~5.75%)
(~20.75%) Char gasification
o
(~35 min @ 900 C)
Pyrolysis
(~15 min @ 900oC)
Gasification
(~38 min @ 900oC)
Fig. 2. Progress of food waste sample through pyrolysis and gasication.
Gasification at 800C
Pyrolysis at 800C
Gasification at 900C
6
g/min
g/min
4
3
Pyrolysis at 900C
5
4
3
0
0
15
30
45
60
75
Time (min)
90
105
10
20
30
Time (min)
Fig. 3. Syngas ow rate from gasication and pyrolysis at 800 C (left) and 900 C (right).
40
50
105
0.08
Gasification at 800C
0.08
0.06
Pyrolysis at 800C
0.06
g/min
g/min
0.04
Gasification at 900C
Pyrolysis at 900C
0.04
0.02
0.02
0
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
10
20
30
40
50
Time (min)
Time (min)
Fig. 4. Hydrogen ow rate with time from gasication and pyrolysis at 800 C (left) and 900 C (right).
140
Output power (kJ/min)
140
120
100
Gasification at 800C
80
pyrolysis at 800C
60
40
20
120
Gasification at 900C
100
Pyrolysis at 900C
80
60
40
20
0
0
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
10
20
30
40
50
Time (min)
Time (min)
Fig. 5. Output power from gasication and pyrolysis at 800 C (left) and 900 C (right).
35
30
Gasification
Pyrolysis
25
20
15
10
5
0
800
900
Temperature (oC)
800 C and 405 and 0.84 at 900 C. On the other hand, energy yield
and apparent thermal efciency from food waste gasication were
425 and 0.8 at 800 C and 468 and 0.9 at 900 C.
106
1.8
H2 yield (g)
1.6
Carbon conversion
Gasification
Pyrolysis
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
900C
850C
800C
750C
0
800
30
60
900
Temperature (oC)
90
120 150
Time (min)
180
210
Fig. 10. Conversion versus time for temperatures 750, 800, 850 and 900 C.
2.50E-01
900C
850C
800C
750C
2.00E-01
-1
400
500
300
1.50E-01
1.00E-01
200
5.00E-02
100
0.00E+00
0
800
900
Fig. 11. Char reactivity versus conversion for temperatures 750, 800, 850 and
900 C.
Temperature (oC)
Fig. 8. Energy yield from food waste during gasication and pyrolysis.
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
X = 0.1
X = 0.3
X = 0.5
X = 0.7
X = 0.9
-1.5
0
800
900
-2
Temperature ( C)
-2.5
X = 0.2
X = 0.4
X = 0.6
X = 0.8
ln (r)
Fig. 9. Apparent thermal efciency of food waste during gasication and pyrolysis.
-3
-3.5
-4
-4.5
-5
0.00085
0.0009
0.00095
0.001
1/T (K-1)
Fig. 12. Arrhenius plot at different degrees of conversion from 0.1 to 0.9.
107
0.1
111.6071
5028.113
0.2
103.9333
2425.76
0.3
102.9772
2431.832
0.4
110.0857
5753.709
0.5
114.3258
10096.05
0.6
112.8958
9838.908
0.7
113.0953
11642.3
0.8
120.5613
30853.33
0.9
125.8158
67778.48
-1
X = 0.93
X = 0.94
-1.5
X = 0.95
X = 0.96
X = 0.97
X = 0.98
X = 0.93
X = 0.94
X = 0.95
X = 0.96
X = 0.97
X = 0.98
0
-1
ln (r)
ln (r)
-2
-2.5
-2
-3
-3
-3.5
-4
0.00085
-4
0.00090
0.00095
0.00100
-1
Fig. 13. Arrhenius plot at different degrees of conversion from 0.93 to 0.98.
tivity increase, since they have a catalytic effect. From the reactivity information, kinetic parameters, activation energy E and preexponential factor A, were calculated. A rst order reaction model
has been used. Fig. 12 shows the Arrhenius plot from which the
activation energies and pre-exponential factors at different degrees
of conversion (X) have been calculated. Results of the linear ttings
of ln(r) versus 1/T, pre-exponential factors and activation energies
for conversion values from 0.1 to 0.9 are shown in Table 1. From
Fig. 12 one can see that the Arrhenius plots show almost parallel
lines with increasing intercept with conversion. Parallel lines indicate constant values of activation energy. Values of activation energies in this range of conversion (0.10.9) were found to uctuate
around an average of 113 kJ/mol. However, values of pre-exponential factor increase with conversion. The trend of activation energies and pre-exponential factors indicates that the increase in
reactivity in this range of conversion is attributed to increase in
pre-exponential factor. In theory, the pre-exponential factor or frequency factor, A, depends on how often molecules collide with
each other and whether the molecules are properly oriented or
not. Although in solid reactions, the pre-exponential factor and
9
1/T (K-1)
1/T (K )
10
-4
x 10
Fig. 14. Arrhenius plot for conversions from 0.93 to 0.98 showing the isokinetic
temperature and isokinetic reactivity.
Table 2
Activation energies and pre-exponential factors at different degrees of conversion from 0.93 to 0.98.
Carbon conversion
0.93
123.0056
54447.92
0.94
121.3844
47145.79
0.95
119.4057
39300.79
0.96
112.3803
19289.19
0.97
106.9264
11692.47
0.98
100.7657
6688.2
ln (A)
108
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1 0
-2
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the ONR and is support is gratefully acknowledged.
25
50
75
E (kJ/kmol)
100
125
Thousands
Fig. 15. ln(A) versus E for the conversion from 0.93 to 0.98.
References
[1] <http://www.landll-gas.com>.
[2] Tancredi N, Cordero T, Mirasol JR, Juan J. CO2 gasication of eucalyptus wood
chars. Fuel 1996;75(13):15058.
[3] Montesinos FM, Cordero T, Mirasol JR, Rodriguez JJ. CO2 and steam gasication
of a grapefruit skin char. Fuel 2002;81:4239.
[4] Marsh H, Taylor DA, Lander JR. Kinetic study of gasication by oxygen and
carbon dioxide of pure and doped graphitizable carbons of increasing heat
treatment temperatures. Carbon 1981;19(5):37581.
[5] Agrawal RK. On the compensation effect. J Therm Anal 1986;31:7386.
[6] Dhupe AP, Gokarn AN, Doraiswamy LK. Investigations into the compensation
effect at catalytic gasication of active charcoal by carbon dioxide. Fuel
1991;70(7):83944.
[7] Feistel PP, Van Heek KH, Juntgen H, Pulsifer AH. The compensation effect in the
steam gasication of coal. Carbon 1976;14(6):3634.
[8] Gokarn AN, Muhlen HJ. Catalysis of char gasication by mixed lignosulfonates:
quantication of role of each component. Fuel 1996;75(1):968.
[9] Li S, Cheng Y. Catalytic gasication of gascoal char in CO2. Fuel
1995;74(3):4568.
[10] Meher LC, Sagar DV, Naik SN. Technical aspects of biodiesel production by
transesterication-a review. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2006;10:24868.
[11] Al-Widyan MI, Al-Shyoukh AO. Experimental evaluation of the
transesterication of waste palm oil into biodiesel. Bioresour Technol
2002;85:2536.
[12] He H, Wang T, Zhu S. Continuous production of biodiesel fuel from vegetable
oil using supercritical methanol process. Fuel 2007;86:4427.
[13] Ahmed I, Gupta AK. Syngas yield during pyrolysis and steam gasication of
paper. Appl Energy 2009;86:181321.
[14] Ahmed I, Gupta AK. Evolution of syngas from cardboard gasication. Appl
Energy 2009;86:173240.
[15] Ahmed I, Gupta AK. Characteristics of cardboard and paper gasication with
CO2. Appl Energy 2009;86:262634.
[16] Gupta AK, Lilley DG. Incineration of plastics and other wastes for efcient
power generation: a review. In: 41st Aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit,
69 January 2003, Reno, Nevada, paper AIAA 2003-0334.