| Literature DB >> 34855872 |
Yang Shu1,2, Jinqi Zhang1, Wei Li1, Pengwu Zhao1,2, Qiyue Zhang1, Mei Zhou1,2.
Abstract
In boreal regions, the frequency of forest fires is increasing. In this study, thermogravimetric analysis was used to analyze the pyrolysis kinetics of dead surface combustibles in different forest types within the Daxing'an Mountains, China. The results show that the combustible material load of forest types, the Larix forest (LG) is relatively high. Base on the E of kinetic parameters, the LG, and Quercus forest (QM) forest types had relatively high combustibility values and comprehensive combustibility values for 1-, 10-, and 100-h time lags. According to the obtained P values, the pyrolysis of dead surface fuels with 1-, 10-, and 100-h time lags is relatively difficult in the Larix / Betula mixed forest (L-B) and QM forest types. Therefore, mixed forests of the LG, L-B, and QM tree species can be established as fire-resistant forests to establish a fire barrier, reduce the combustibility of forest stands, and reduce the possibility of forest fires.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34855872 PMCID: PMC8638970 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260790
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Basic information of the study area.
Fig 2Experimental plot configuration.
Instrument information.
| Instrument | Producer | Andorigin | Measurement index |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Android | Japan | Moisture content |
|
| IKA | Germany | Calorific value |
|
| PerkinElme | America | Thermogravimetric analysis |
Physical and chemical properties of dead combustibles.
| Forest type | Moisture content (%) | Ash content (%) | Calorific value (kJ∙g−1) | Ignition point (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 10.36±0.0096 | 3.01±0.0913 | 17.25±1.18 | 278.91±9.35 |
|
| 7.10±0.0087 | 3.88±0.0764 | 17.55±1.83 | 283.22±12.25 |
|
| 15.26±0.0700 | 2.94±0.0360 | 16.19±1.72 | 277.08±6.70 |
|
| 7.57±0.0800 | 3.17±0.0423 | 18.09±0.75 | 281.05±14.38 |
|
| 8.03±0.0270 | 4.11±0.0347 | 17.58±0.83 | 275.25±8.93 |
Fig 3Correlation analysis of each attribute.
Fig 4Principal component analysis of each attribute.
Comparison of comprehensive flammability indicators.
| Type | 1 h | 10 h | 100 h | Comprehensive Combustibility | Rank | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flammability | Rank | Flammability | Rank | Flammability | Rank | |||
|
| −4.60 | 4 | 1.51 | 4 | 1.76 | 4 | −1.33 | 4 |
|
| −3.37 | 3 | 2.73 | 1 | 3.57 | 2 | 2.93 | 2 |
|
| −6.87 | 5 | 0.76 | 5 | −1.15 | 5 | −7.26 | 5 |
|
| −1.89 | 1 | 1.97 | 2 | 4.63 | 1 | 4.71 | 1 |
|
| −2.96 | 2 | 1.60 | 3 | 2.3 | 3 | 0.94 | 3 |
Dead fuel load on the forest surface (kg·m−2).
| Type | 1-h time-lag combustibles | 10-h time-lag combustibles | 100-h time-lag combustibles | Total combustibles |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 46.941±0.312 | 0.947±0.011 | 0.747±0.010 | 48.635±0.314 |
|
| 48.188±0.364 | 0.722±0.009 | 0.488±0.007 | 49.399±0.369 |
|
| 53.922±0.349 | 1.122±0.012 | 0.582±0.008 | 55.626±0.349 |
|
| 52.908±0.444 | 0.906±0.008 | 0.467±0.005 | 54.281±0.443 |
|
| 37.099±0.210 | 1.430±0.018 | 0.625±0.008 | 39.155±0.212 |
|
| 239.059±0.362 | 5.129±0.013 | 2.908±0.008 | 247.096±0.362 |
Fig 5TG and DTG curves of combustibles with 1, 10, 100h time lag in different forest types.
Ignition and burnout temperatures (°C) of combustible samples with different time lags.
| Type | 1 h | 10 h | 100 h | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ignition temperature | Burnout temperature | Ignition temperature | Burnout temperature | Ignition temperature | Burnout temperature | |
|
| 263.3±4.48 | 369.4±8.56 | 287.1±6.04 | 344.8±5.32 | 276.5±7.45 | 350.5±6.56 |
|
| 265.8±3.38 | 355.6±6.33 | 281.0±4.70 | 339.3±4.90 | 295.5±12.47 | 336.3±8.72 |
|
| 265.9±5.63 | 341.4±6.28 | 282.7±5.52 | 350.2±7.82 | 278.1±2.56 | 348.5±7.88 |
|
| 269.5±3.92 | 356.5±4.56 | 283.7±3.91 | 353.2±7.56 | 296.6±4.37 | 338.0±5.36 |
|
| 263.0±4.86 | 361.8±7.52 | 288.9±5.90 | 346.0±9.22 | 275.0±7.35 | 364.4±7.80 |
Pyrolysis parameters and pyrolysis characteristic indices of fuel samples with different time lags.
| Type | Time lag | Temperature range (°C) | Fitting equation |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 h | 283.1~369.4 | 22.76 | 8.87×1017 | 0.86 | 4.86 | 4.62 | |
| 10 h | 287.1~344.8 | 71.92 | 1.33×10−60 | 0.95 | 3.21 | 4.86 | ||
| 100h | 276.5~350.5 | 58.76 | 8.07×10−40 | 0.93 | 6.21 | 4.87 | ||
|
| 1 h | 265.8~355.6 | 37.28 | 5.78×10−6 | 0.92 | 5.54 | 5.50 | |
| 10 h | 281.0~339.3 | 71.69 | 1.82×10−61 | 0.95 | 4.92 | 4.97 | ||
| 100h | 295.5~336.3 | 9.06 | 7.85×10−91 | 0.93 | 7.12 | 4.44 | ||
|
| 1 h | 265.9~341.4 | 42.97 | 4.51×10−17 | 0.94 | 6.66 | 5.20 | |
| 10 h | 282.7~350.2 | 58.26 | 1.13×10−37 | 0.95 | 6.33 | 5.00 | ||
| 100h | 278.1~348.5 | 59.15 | 2.15×10−40 | 0.94 | 7.00 | 4.85 | ||
|
| 1 h | 269.5~356.5 | 40.90 | 3.46×10−11 | 0.94 | 7.80 | 5.34 | |
| 10 h | 283.7~353.2 | 61.86 | 1.06×10−43 | 0.95 | 6.19 | 4.85 | ||
| 100h | 296.6~338.0 | 8.93 | 5.20×10−88 | 0.95 | 7.62 | 4.49 | ||
|
| 1 h | 263.0~361.8 | 35.08 | 0.03×104 | 0.91 | 6.29 | 4.74 | |
| 10 h | 288.9~346.0 | 72.33 | 2.94×10−60 | 0.96 | 7.40 | 4.65 | ||
| 100h | 275.0~364.4 | 47.40 | 2.23×10−20 | 0.90 | 5.13 | 4.54 |