| Literature DB >> 31245637 |
Zhan Sheng Lee1, Sim Yee Chin1, Chin Kui Cheng1.
Abstract
This study evaluates the effects of subcritical hydrothermal treatment on palm oil mill effluent (POME) and its concomitant formations of solid hydrochar, liquid product and gaseous product. The reactions were carried out at temperatures ranged 493 K-533 K for 2 h. The highest reduction of chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) were 58.8% and 62.5%, respectively, at 533 K. In addition, the removal of total suspended solids (TSS) achieved up to 99%, with the pH of POME reaching 6 from the initial pH 4. The gas chromatography coupled with mass spectroscopy (GC-MS) analysis showed that the fresh POME contained n-Hexadecanoic acid as the dominant component, which gradually reduced in the liquid product in the reaction with increased temperature, in addition to the attenuation of carboxyl compounds and elevation of phenolic components. The gaseous products contained CO2, CO, H2, and C3 - C6 hydrocarbons. Traces of CH4 were only found at 533 K. CO2 is the dominant species, where the highest of 3.99 vol% per 500 mL working volume of POME recorded at 533 K. The solid hydrochars showed negligible morphological changes across the reaction temperature. The O/C atomic ratio of the hydrochar range from 0.157 to 0.379, while the H/C atomic ratio was in the range from 0.930 to 1.506. With the increase of treatment temperature, the higher heating value (HHV) of the hydrochar improved from 24.624 to 27.513 MJ kg-1. The characteristics of hydrochar make it a fuel source with immense potential. POME decomposed into water-soluble compounds, followed by deoxygenation (dehydration and decarboxylation) in producing hydrochar with lower oxygen content and higher aromatic compounds in the liquid product. Little gaseous hydrocarbons were produced due to subcritical hydrothermal gasification at low temperature.Entities:
Keywords: Chemical engineering; Environmental science
Year: 2019 PMID: 31245637 PMCID: PMC6581881 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01792
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Comparison of fresh POME properties.
| Properties | General Range ( | Present study |
|---|---|---|
| pH | 3.6–4.3 | 4.0 |
| COD | 25,000–75,000 | 52,200 |
| BOD5 | 15,600–27,000 | 19,920 |
| TSS | 20,000–50,000 | 34,800 |
| Temperature (K) | 353–363 | 360 |
The units are in mg/L, except for pH and temperature.
Fig. 1pH value of the liquid output.
Qualitative analysis of major organic compounds via GC-MS.
| Organic components | Area (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh POME | 493 K | 503 K | 513 K | 523 K | 533 K | |
| Methylamine, N,N-dimethyl- | 0.64 | 0.71 | 1.18 | 0.56 | 0.53 | – |
| 1,3-Propanediamine, N,N-dimethyl- | – | 1.34 | – | – | – | – |
| Hydrazine, ethyl- | – | 6.62 | – | – | – | – |
| Butanoic acid, 3-methyl- | – | – | – | 0.74 | – | – |
| Hydrazine, 1,1-dimethyl- | 6.54 | 0.93 | 0.62 | – | – | – |
| Hydrazine, 1,2-dimethyl- | – | – | 0.74 | – | – | – |
| Pentanoic acid | – | 0.97 | – | 1.13 | 1.98 | – |
| Butanoic acid, 3-methyl- | – | 2.13 | – | – | – | – |
| L-Serine, ethyl ester | – | – | 3.97 | – | – | – |
| 1,2-Ethanediol, diformate | – | – | – | – | 2.35 | – |
| Allyl ethyl ether | 6.44 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Silacyclopentane | – | 0.64 | – | – | – | – |
| Hexanoic acid | – | – | – | – | – | 5.43 |
| Butanal, 2-methyl- | – | 0.71 | – | – | – | – |
| Pyrrolidine, 1-methyl- | – | – | – | – | 0.58 | 0.84 |
| Pyrrolidin-2-one, 5-[2-butyrylethyl]- | – | – | – | – | 3.51 | – |
| 2-Hexanone, 4-methyl- | – | 0.6 | – | – | – | |
| Piperidine, 1-methyl- | – | – | – | – | – | 1.01 |
| Thiophene | – | – | – | – | 0.63 | – |
| Azetidine, 2,2,3,3-tetramethyl- | – | – | – | – | 0.9 | – |
| Aziridine, 2,2,3,3-tetramethyl- | – | – | – | – | – | 3.85 |
| 1-Buten-3-yne, 2-methyl- | 2.35 | |||||
| N-Ethyl-2-methylallylamine | – | – | – | – | – | 0.82 |
| 2,2,4,7-Tetramethyl-3,6,9-trioxa-2-silatridecane | – | – | 1.34 | – | – | – |
| 2-Mercaptothiazole | – | 0.75 | – | – | – | – |
| N-t-Butyl-N′-2-[2-thiophosphatoethyl] | – | – | – | – | – | 5.84 |
| 2-Octanone | – | – | 2.29 | – | – | – |
| 5,6-Diamino-1,3-dimethyluracil | – | – | – | 0.82 | 0.6 | – |
| Phenol | – | 3.26 | – | 5.07 | 3.94 | 9.01 |
| 1,6-Dideoxy-l-mannitol | – | – | – | – | 1.97 | 0.98 |
| 1,6-Anhydro-2,4-dideoxy-.beta.-D-ribo-hexopyranose | – | – | – | – | – | 1.01 |
| Ethanone, 1-(1H-pyrrol-2-yl)- | – | – | – | – | 6.98 | 3.43 |
| m-Guaiacol | – | – | – | 0.78 | – | |
| Methanamine, N-methoxy- | 1.81 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 1,1-Dimethylbutyl (prop-2-enyl)sulfide | – | – | – | – | 1.17 | – |
| 1-Pentanol, 2,2-dimethyl- | – | – | – | – | – | 1.47 |
| O-Methoxy-.alpha.-methylbenzyl alcohol | – | – | – | – | – | 1.15 |
| (Z)-4-Methyl-5-(2-oxopropylidene)- 5H-furan-2-one | – | 0.52 | – | – | – | – |
| 4-Isopropylthiophenol | – | – | – | 0.81 | – | – |
| Phenol, 2-(dimethylamino)- | – | – | – | – | – | 0.82 |
| Silane, diethoxymethyl- | – | 0.92 | – | – | – | – |
| 4-Hydroxy-2-methylacetophenone | 2.15 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Benzene, 1-isocyano-3-methoxy- | – | 2.12 | – | – | – | – |
| Oxime-, methoxy-phenyl- | – | 3.29 | – | – | – | – |
| 2,3-Dimethylbenzaldoxime | – | 21.52 | – | – | – | – |
| 4-Ethylbenzoic acid, 2-butyl ester | – | 21.36 | – | – | – | – |
| Phenol, 2,6-dimethoxy- | – | – | 21.26 | 23.39 | 23.93 | 16.13 |
| 1,4-Pentadiene, 2,3,4-trimethyl- | – | 1.03 | – | – | – | – |
| 6-Acetamido-1,4-benzodioxane | – | 3.43 | – | – | – | – |
| Ethanol, 2,2-diethoxy- | – | – | 10.21 | – | – | – |
| 2,4-Hexadienoyl chloride | – | 1.6 | – | – | – | – |
| Cyclohexene, 1-chloro-6-methyl- | – | – | 6.43 | – | – | – |
| 1H-Indole, 2-methyl- | – | – | – | – | 15.95 | – |
| 2-Isopropylimidazole | – | – | – | – | 13.34 | – |
| 1-(1-Propynyl)cyclohexanol | – | – | – | 35.89 | 17.17 | 40.42 |
| 2′,4′-Dihydroxyacetophenone oxime | – | – | 0.84 | – | – | – |
| 5-tert-Butylpyrogallol | – | – | – | – | 1.05 | – |
| 1-Methyl-1,6-diazaplenalene | – | – | – | – | – | 4.09 |
| Phenol, 2-(dimethylamino)- | 1.44 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Hexadecane | – | 6.13 | – | – | – | – |
| Phenol, 4-amino- | – | – | – | – | – | 1.96 |
| Hexadecanoic acid, methyl ester | – | 4.28 | 23.18 | 14.38 | – | – |
| Hexadecanoic acid, ethyl ester | – | 1.23 | – | – | – | – |
| Heptadecanoic acid, ethyl ester | – | – | – | 0.93 | – | – |
| E-11-Tetradecenoic acid | – | – | – | 0.55 | – | – |
| n-Hexadecanoic acid | 72.58 | – | 5.14 | – | – | – |
| 5-Octadecene, (E)- | 1.37 | |||||
| 10-Octadecenoic acid, methyl ester | – | 2.23 | – | – | – | – |
| Octadecanoic acid | – | – | – | 0.77 | – | – |
| 1H-Tetrazol-5-amine | 0.92 | |||||
| cis-13-Octadecenoic acid, methyl ester | – | – | 11.36 | 8.53 | – | – |
| Tetradecanoic acid, 12-methyl-, methyl ester | – | – | 0.84 | – | – | – |
| Oleic Acid | – | 0.6 | – | – | – | – |
| n-Propyl 9-octadecenoate | – | – | – | 1.03 | – | – |
| 10-Octadecenoic acid, methyl ester | – | – | 1.65 | – | – | – |
| N-[Dimethylaminomethyl]aziridine | – | – | 0.56 | – | – | – |
| 9-Octadecenamide, (Z)- | – | – | 0.63 | 1.03 | – | – |
| Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate | – | 0.79 | – | – | – | – |
| Oxazole | 1.2 | – | – | – | – | – |
Fig. 2BOD₅, COD and TSS reduction from 493 K to 533 K.
Fig. 3(a): GC-MS result for freeze-dried fresh POME feed. (b): GC-MS result for freeze-dried liquid product at 493 K. (c): GC-MS result for freeze-dried liquid product at 503 K. (d): GC-MS result for freeze-dried liquid product at 513 K. (e): GC-MS result for freeze-dried liquid product at 523 K. (f): GC-MS result for freeze-dried liquid product at 533 K.
Fig. 4The variation of phenolic and carboxyl components of fresh POME and liquid products after hydrothermal treatment from 493 K to 533 K.
Fig. 5Composition of gaseous products (vol%/mL POME) in the range of 493 K–533 K.
Fig. 6(a): TGA for freeze-dried fresh POME. (b): TGA for hydrochar at 493 K. (c): TGA for hydrochar at 513 K. (d): TGA for hydrochar at 533 K.
Proximate analysis on a dry weight basis of the freeze-dried fresh POME and hydrochar produced at different reaction temperatures.
| Sample | VM (%) | FC (%) | Ash Content (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Raw POME | 46.99 | 41.47 | 11.54 |
| 493 K | 36.10 | 56.69 | 7.21 |
| 503 K | 33.70 | 57.36 | 8.94 |
| 513 K | 30.90 | 58.60 | 10.50 |
| 523 K | 27.40 | 60.90 | 11.70 |
| 533 K | 24.30 | 63.65 | 12.05 |
Elemental analysis of freeze-dried fresh POME and hydrochar.
| Sample | C (%) | H (%) | N (%) | S (%) | O (%) | HHV (MJ/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh POME | 37.358 | 7.135 | 2.375 | 0.979 | 40.613 | 17.070 |
| 493 K | 55.469 | 6.954 | 1.143 | 1.256 | 27.968 | 24.624 |
| 503 K | 58.728 | 6.552 | 1.023 | 1.051 | 23.706 | 25.673 |
| 513 K | 62.474 | 5.565 | 1.725 | 1.700 | 18.036 | 26.426 |
| 523 K | 65.041 | 5.233 | 1.946 | 0.674 | 15.406 | 27.072 |
| 533 K | 66.225 | 5.128 | 2.070 | 0.675 | 13.852 | 27.513 |
Fig. 7SEM images of the hydrochar produced at the reaction temperature of (a) 493 K, (b) 503 K, (c) 513 K, (d) 523 K and (e) 533 K.
Organic and inorganic composition of hydrochar obtained at various reaction temperature.
| Elements | C (%) | O (%) | Mg (%) | P (%) | K (%) | Ca (%) | Fe (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 493 K | 81.656 | 17.667 | 0.273 | 0.039 | 0.129 | 0.134 | 0.102 |
| 503 K | 82.323 | 16.712 | 0.323 | 0.132 | 0.218 | 0.161 | 0.132 |
| 513 K | 83.010 | 15.580 | 0.299 | 0.358 | 0.226 | 0.336 | 0.196 |
| 523 K | 83.430 | 15.184 | 0.395 | 0.373 | 0.197 | 0.293 | 0.123 |
| 533 K | 84.233 | 14.541 | 0.653 | 0.069 | 0.196 | 0.115 | 0.192 |
Fig. 8The atomic H/C and O/C ratios of hydrochar from 493 K to 533 K.
Fig. 9Van Krevelen diagram.
Fig. 10Plausible reaction pathways of hydrothermal treatment of POME.