| Literature DB >> 24350245 |
Lili Li1, Xiaoning Wang2, Jinsheng Sun3, Yichen Zhang4, Song Qin1.
Abstract
The large amount of coastal plant species available makes them ideal candidates for energy production. In this study, thermogravimetric analysis was used to evaluate the fuel properties of two coastal plant species, and the distributed activation energy model (DAEM) was employed in kinetic analysis. The major mass loss due to devolatilization started at 154 and 162°C at the heating rate of 10°C min(-1) for Artemisia annua and Chenopodium glaucum, respectively. The results showed that the average activation energies of Artemisia annua and Chenopodium glaucum were 169.69 and 170.48 kJ mol(-1), respectively. Furthermore, the activation energy changed while the conversion rate increased, and the frequency factor k 0 decreased greatly while the activation energy decreased. The results also indicated that the devolatilization of the two coastal plant species underwent a set of first-order reactions and could be expressed by the DAEM. Additionally, a simplified mathematical model was proposed to facilitate the prediction of devolatilization curves.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24350245 PMCID: PMC3852807 DOI: 10.1155/2013/162907
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Proximate and ultimate analysis of Artemisia annua and Chenopodium glaucum.
| Analysis | Properties/% |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Proximate | Water content | 2.97 ± 0.036 | 3.10 ± 0.090 |
| Volatile | 81.32 ± 3.520 | 79.95 ± 1.728 | |
| Ash | 4.41 ± 0.038 | 5.10 ± 0.115 | |
| Fixed carbon | 11.30 | 11.85 | |
|
| |||
| Ultimate | C | 44.45 ± 0.005 | 42.77 ± 0.021 |
| H | 6.26 ± 0.001 | 6.03 ± 0.035 | |
| N | 0.76 ± 0.004 | 0.86 ± 0.036 | |
| S | Not Detected | Not Detected | |
| O | 31.31 ± 0.007 | 35.45 ± 0.014 | |
Figure 1TG curves for Artemisia annua (a) and Chenopodium glaucum (b).
Characteristics of pyrolysis for Artemisia annua and Chenopodium glaucum.
| Species | Heating rate/°C min−1 |
|
|
| (−d | (−d | Mass loss/%d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 5 | 140 | 396 | 318 | 0.0070 | 0.0672 | 73.35 |
| 10 | 154 | 410 | 333 | 0.0135 | 0.1247 | 65.41 | |
| 20 | 167 | 433 | 344 | 0.0252 | 0.2566 | 66.18 | |
| 30 | 173 | 448 | 351 | 0.0363 | 0.3794 | 63.65 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| 5 | 148 | 391 | 330 | 0.0065 | 0.0568 | 68.47 |
| 10 | 162 | 401 | 337 | 0.0128 | 0.1049 | 67.67 | |
| 20 | 172 | 420 | 353 | 0.0238 | 0.2054 | 63.10 | |
| 30 | 179 | 465 | 360 | 0.0358 | 0.2742 | 63.91 | |
a T was the initial temperature of the major mass loss stage.
b T was the final temperature of the major mass loss stage.
c T 1 was the temperature corresponding to the larger peak of the DTG curve.
dMass loss = (Initial mass − Residue mass)/Initial mass × 100%.
Figure 2DTG curves for Artemisia annua (a) and Chenopodium glaucum (b).
Figure 3Determination of the temperature at which devolatilization occurred for Artemisia annua (a) and Chenopodium glaucum (b). The dotted lines of 1, 2, 3, and 4 were at the heating rates of 5, 10, 20, and 30°C min−1, respectively.
Kinetic parameters analyzed by DAEM for Artemisia annua and Chenopodium glaucum.
| Convertion rate |
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 0.1 | 180.03 | 2.82 × 1012 | 1.00 | 185.84 | 1.03 × 1013 | 0.99 |
| 0.2 | 173.17 | 1.44 × 1011 | 1.00 | 178.55 | 4.20 × 1011 | 0.99 |
| 0.3 | 173.72 | 5.81 × 1010 | 1.00 | 176.15 | 8.19 × 1010 | 0.99 |
| 0.4 | 171.54 | 1.54 × 1010 | 1.00 | 175.49 | 2.91 × 1010 | 1.00 |
| 0.5 | 169.66 | 5.30 × 109 | 1.00 | 171.24 | 5.73 × 109 | 1.00 |
| 0.6 | 166.57 | 1.67 × 109 | 1.00 | 169.97 | 2.44 × 109 | 1.00 |
| 0.7 | 164.73 | 7.48 × 108 | 1.00 | 167.81 | 9.65 × 108 | 1.00 |
| 0.8 | 166.29 | 6.53 × 108 | 1.00 | 162.11 | 1.94 × 108 | 1.00 |
| 0.9 | 161.45 | 1.12 × 108 | 1.00 | 147.17 | 5.71 × 106 | 0.98 |
|
| ||||||
| Average | 169.69 | 170.48 | ||||
Derivation of prediction equation.
| Line | Equation: |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| 1193.22 | −14.78 |
| 2 |
| 1178.49 | −14.76 |
| 3 |
| 1158.18 | −14.73 |
| 4 |
| 1136.31 | −14.69 |
|
| |||
| Average | 1166.55 | −14.74 | |
Figure 4Prediction of the TG curves for Artemisia annua (a) and Chenopodium glaucum (b).
Figure 5Difference between experimental temperature and predicted temperature for Artemisia annua (a) and Chenopodium glaucum (b).