| Literature DB >> 32326362 |
Hamid Gilvari1, Luis Cutz2, Urša Tiringer3, Arjan Mol3, Wiebren de Jong2, Dingena L Schott1.
Abstract
Biomass pellets provide a pivotal opportunity in promising energy transition scenarios as a renewable source of energy. A large share of the current utilization of pellets is facilitated by intensive global trade operations. Considering the long distance between the production site and the end-user locations, pellets may face fluctuating storage conditions, resulting in their physical and chemical degradation. We tested the effect of different storage conditions, from freezing temperatures (-19 °C) to high temperature (40 °C) and humidity conditions (85% relative humidity), on the physicochemical properties of untreated and torrefied biomass pellets. Moreover, the effect of sudden changes in the storage conditions on pellet properties was studied by moving the pellets from the freezing to the high temperature and relative humidity conditions and vice versa. The results show that, although storage at one controlled temperature and RH may degrade the pellets, a change in the temperature and relative humidity results in higher degradation in terms of higher moisture uptake and lower mechanical strength.Entities:
Keywords: biomass pellets; equilibrium moisture content; heating value; mechanical durability; storage effects
Year: 2020 PMID: 32326362 PMCID: PMC7240501 DOI: 10.3390/polym12040970
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Literature review of the quality parameters of biomass pellets after storage.
| Ref. | Type of Pellets | Quality Parameter | Assessment Method | Storage Conditions | Storage Time | Key Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Pellets from sawdust, logging residues, | Mechanical durability, Moisture, LHV2 | 6 kg of pellets in an octagonal tumbler, fines were sieved using a 3 mm sieve | 20 °C and RH of 85–90% | 5 months | -11% increase in moisture uptake |
| [ | White and steam exploded pellets made of softwood and hardwood chips | Mechanical durability | 100 g of pellets tumbled in a Dural (II) tester; fines were sieved using a 4.75 mm sieve | Outdoor uncovered or outdoor with covered roof | 20 months | -82% drop in the mechanical durability of steam-exploded pellets stored outdoor and 3% drop for white pellets stored indoor |
| [ | Untreated and thermally treated birch and spruce pellets | Mechanical durability | ISO standard 17831-1 | Outdoor under cover and uncovered | 5 months | -High moisture uptake tendency for pellets stored uncovered |
| [ | Canola pellets | Mechanical durability | ISO standard 17831-1 | Enclosed shed | 48 weeks | -Small changes in the mechanical durability |
| [ | Wood pellets | LHV1 | - | 15–25 °C | 180 days | -Increase in calorific value due to a decreased moisture content |
| [ | Softwood pellets | EMC2 | Weight difference | Up to 93% RH | 10 days | -Linear correlation between the EMC and RH between 15 and 80% |
| [ | Spruce, Pine and mixed biomass pellets | EMC | Weight difference | 20–90% RH | 4–8 days | -Temperature has negligible effect on EMC |
| [ | Biomass, Cotton stalk, and woody saw mill | EMC | Weight difference | 20–80% RH | - | -No difference in EMC of different biomass types at storage up to 70% RH |
| [ | Latin species3 | EMC | Weight difference | 40–85% RH | - | -RH and EMC relationships were similar for all biomass samples |
| [ | Torrefied wood pellets | EMC | Weight difference | 90% RH | 25 h | -The higher the torrefaction degree, the lower the moisture uptake |
| [ | Softwood pellets | Mechanical durability | 100 g of pellets tumbled in a Dural (II) tester, fines were sieved using a 4.75 mm sieve | Various RH and Temperatures | Up to 18 days | -Decreased mechanical durability up to 14% for steam exploded pellets and 70% for white pellets at 90%RH and 30 °C |
| [ | 8 different biomass pellets | Mechanical durability | ISO standard 17831-1 | −28 °C | 5 days | -Change in mechanical durability was negligible for pellets with high durability, while for pellets with lower durability, there was a notable decrease in mechanical durability |
| [ | Cedar wood pellets | Hardness | Meyer hardness | 30–90% RH | 5 days | -Hardness decreased by increasing the RH and temperature |
| [ | Wood and torrefied biomass | Dry matter loss | - | 95% RH | 20 days | -White wood are more prone to biological degradation in compare to torrefied pellets |
| Mechanical durability, EMC | ISO standard 17831-1 | Outdoor | 1 year | -Torrefied pellets show less tendency to uptake moisture than wood pellets | ||
| [ | Pine and recycle wood | Mechanical strength | Three-point bending test | 20–95% RH | 4 days | -Linear relationship between EMC and RH |
| EMC | 10 g of sample heated at 105 °C for 25 min | -Bulk density and flexural stress decreased with an increased RH | ||||
| Bulk density | Using a standard 1 L container |
1 Lower heating value, 2 Equilibrium moisture content, 3 Sorghum stalk, corn stover, wheat straw, and big bluestem.
As-received physicochemical properties of pellets used in this study.
| Pellet Properties | Brown Pellets | White Pellets | Torrefied Pellets |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diameter (mm) | 6.1 ± 0.1 | 6.4 ± 0.1 | 6.0 ± 0.0 |
| Density (kg·m−3) | 1209 ± 60 | 1169 ± 32 | 1304 ± 40 |
| Bulk Density (kg·m−3) | 660 | 600 | 660 |
| HHV (MJ·kg−1) | 21.2 | 20.5 | 17.8 |
| Mechanical durability (%) | 98.6 | 96.9 | 92.7 |
|
| |||
| Moisture content (%) | 7.2 | 8 | 9.3 |
| Ash content (%) | 0.7 | 0.7 | 16.7 |
| Fixed carbon (%) | 17.7 | 17.9 | 16.0 |
| Volatile matters (%) | 74.4 | 73.0 | 58.0 |
Summary of the temperature and relative humidity (RH) of the climate chambers.
| Storage Code | Storage Type | Temperature (°C) | RH (%) | Example Countries |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T−19_RH90 | Freezer | −19 | 90 | Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada |
| T5_RH86 | Climate room | 5 | 86 | The Netherlands, Germany, France |
| T20_RH50 | Climate room | 20 | 50 | Italy, Portugal, Poland, UK |
| T20_RH65 | Climate room | 20 | 65 | |
| T20_RH80 | Climate room | 20 | 80 | |
| T40_RH85 | Climate chamber | 40 | 85 | Spain, USA, Brazil |
Figure 1Pellets on aluminum trays in the climate chamber. This figure is an example showing the pellets on aluminum trays. The same trays were used for the other storage conditions.
Figure 2Equilibrium moisture content (EMC) ratio of pellets after 7 and 30 days of storage for (a) brown, (b) white, and (c) torrefied pellets. The error bars show the standard deviation and the dashed lines show the EMC for as-received pellets.
Figure 3Higher heating values (HHV) of (a) brown, (b) white, and (c) torrefied pellets at different storage conditions after 30 days of storage.
Figure 4HHV versus EMC of pellets after 30 and 60 days of storage at different storage conditions.
Figure 5Mechanical durability values of different pellets after storage for (a) brown, (b) white, and (c) torrefied pellets. The error bars show the standard deviations and the solid lines show the as-received mechanical durability.