| Literature DB >> 35518585 |
Rui Wang1,2, Ying Luo1,2, Hang Jia1,2, Jack R Ferrell3, Haoxi Ben1,2.
Abstract
Bio-oil is a valuable liquid product obtained from pyrolysis of biomass and it contains tens of hundreds of compounds, which brings about difficulties for characterization with various analytical methods. 13C NMR has advantages over other detection methods as it can characterize the entire composition of bio-oil and distinguish different types of carbon. But various shortcomings limit the application of 13C NMR. This study was carried out to develop a quantitative 13C NMR method to determine different functional groups in pyrolysis bio-oils with short NMR time and good accuracy, and propose a simulation of C, H, and O content for pyrolysis oils based on 13C NMR analysis. In order to solve long-term NMR problems, relax reagent has been added and the results show that it is an effective way to shorten the NMR time. Moreover, the aging problem is not obvious in the short-term NMR test, so the effect of aging on the test results can be neglected. Three types of substances with different oxygen content have been employed to verify the feasibility of the C, H, and O calculation methods and the result errors of all elements are small, which shows it is reliable for the simulation data of C, H and O content. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 35518585 PMCID: PMC9055335 DOI: 10.1039/d0ra02376k
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Quantitative 13C NMR for bio-oil samples produced from oak wood with 0, 1, 5 mg ml−1 relax reagent and different pulse delay (d1), the results shown as carbon mol%
| Functional groups | Integration | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 mg ml−1, | 1 mg ml−1, | 5 mg ml−1, | 5 mg ml−1, | 5 mg ml−1, | 5 mg ml−1, | 5 mg ml−1, | |
|
| 16.2 | 14.7 | 14.0 | 14.8 | 15.6 | 15.3 | 13.8 |
|
| 7.7 | 7.0 | 9.3 | 9.2 | 8.6 | 9.5 | 10.2 |
|
| 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 3.9 |
|
| 12.6 | 12.8 | 13.1 | 13.4 | 13.1 | 10.9 | 13.3 |
|
| 30.4 | 28.8 | 28.8 | 30.9 | 27.0 | 31.0 | 28.8 |
|
| 40.0 | 45.5 | 40.7 | 44.6 | 44.6 | 45.9 | 43.8 |
|
| 3.3 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.6 | 4.0 |
|
| 17.2 | 13.7 | 16.7 | 12.8 | 12.6 | 12.9 | 11.0 |
|
| 7.3 | 6.3 | 6.6 | 6.9 | 5.1 | 6.5 | 5.1 |
|
| 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.5 |
This experiment used 8k scans and other experiments used 1k scan.
Fig. 1Comparison of changes in contents of different functional groups during 48 hour aging process for bio-oil sample produced from oak wood with 5 mg ml−1 relax reagent.
Fig. 2Comparison of changes in contents of different functional groups during 48 hour aging process for bio-oil sample produced from cottonwood with 5 mg ml−1 relax reagent.
Fig. 3Comparison of changes in contents of different functional groups during 48 hour aging process for bio-oil sample produced from the mixture of cottonwood and coal with 5 mg ml−1 relax reagent.
Quantitative 13C NMR results for oxygen-deficient products
| Sample | Different types of carbons (carbon mol%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aliphatic carbons | Aromatic carbons (overlap with some double bond carbons) | Terminal double bond carbons | C | |||||
| C | CH | CH2 | CH3 | C | CH |
| ||
| KO105 | 0.0 | 7.3 | 52.8 | 26.0 | 5.2 | 8.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| VO105 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 29.6 | 30.8 | 13.4 | 24.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| KO110 | 0.0 | 7.0 | 50.9 | 26.5 | 5.3 | 10.2 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
| VO110 | 0.0 | 3.9 | 34.3 | 28.4 | 10.2 | 22.5 | 0.1 | 0.6 |
| KO205 | 0.0 | 6.7 | 49.5 | 25.2 | 6.6 | 11.9 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
| VO205 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 26.6 | 32.0 | 13.3 | 25.9 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
| KO210 | 0.0 | 7.8 | 44.3 | 28.8 | 6.9 | 12.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
| VO210 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 29.9 | 29.7 | 11.4 | 25.9 | 0.1 | 0.0 |
Comparison of simulated C, H, O contents based on NMR and based on C, H, N test
| Sample | C (wt%) | H (wt%) | O (wt%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| By NMR | By CHN | By NMR | By CHN | By NMR | By CHN | |
| KO105 | 85.7 | 85.4 | 14.3 | 14.5 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
| VO105 | 87.0 | 86.6 | 12.9 | 13.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| KO110 | 85.7 | 86.5 | 14.2 | 13.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| VO110 | 86.3 | 87.4 | 13.0 | 12.1 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
| KO205 | 86.0 | 86.6 | 13.9 | 13.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| VO205 | 87.1 | 87.7 | 12.9 | 12.2 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
| KO210 | 85.9 | 86.4 | 14.0 | 13.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| VO210 | 87.1 | 87.4 | 12.9 | 12.5 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
Quantitative 13C NMR for the samples of pyrolysis oil, the results shown as carbon mol%a
| Functional groups | NSC(N2) | NSC(CO2) | PS(N2) | PS(CO2) | OW1 | OW2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3.5 | 8.7 | 2.4 | 6.3 | 9.2 | 6.9 | |
|
| 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 5.0 | 16.2 | 20.7 | |
|
| 6.0 | 14.2 | 27.9 | 17.9 | 10.7 | 11.8 | |
|
| 17.6 | 12.4 | 17.3 | 9.8 | 24.1 | 28.2 | |
|
|
| 4.0 | 3.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 7.0 | 6.7 |
| General (including levoglucosan) | 28.5 | 28.8 | 3.3 | 4.0 | 8.7 | 7.5 | |
|
| 11.6 | 12.5 | 14.7 | 16.5 | 2.0 | 2.8 | |
|
| General (including two methyl-Ar) | 32.0 | 22.1 | 32.7 | 40.6 | 29.2 | 22.0 |
|
| 3.1 | 3.0 | 4.3 | 2.3 | 7.9 | 6.6 | |
|
| 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 4.4 | 3.9 | |
The first four columns of data are from the article.[41]
Detailed analysis for the pyrolysis oil samples, the results shown as carbon mol%a
| Functional groups | NSC(N2) | NSC(CO2) | PS(N2) | PS(CO2) | OW1 | OW2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| R or R′ | 3.1 | 7.7 | 2.3 | 5.2 | 9.0 | 6.9 |
| R or R′ | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
|
| Ar–O–R | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.7 | 4.1 | 16.2 | 20.7 |
| Possible overlap with aromatic C–H | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
|
| Ar–C–R | 5.3 | 12.2 | 20.2 | 13.2 | 6.9 | 7.5 |
| Possible overlap with aromatic C–H | 0.6 | 2.1 | 7.8 | 4.8 | 3.8 | 4.3 | |
|
| 17.6 | 12.4 | 17.3 | 9.8 | 24.1 | 28.2 | |
|
| H = 1 | 20.7 | 23.9 | 2.3 | 3.4 | 5.1 | 5.4 |
| H = 2 | 7.8 | 4.8 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 3.6 | 2.1 | |
|
| 11.6 | 12.5 | 14.7 | 16.5 | 2.0 | 2.8 | |
|
| H = 1 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 5.7 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| H = 2 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 7.8 | 10.5 | 9.8 | 6.3 | |
| H = 3 | 28.1 | 19.4 | 19.2 | 23.3 | 19.4 | 15.7 | |
The first four columns of data are from the ref. 41.
Proposed tentative C, H and O contents for each functional group in the pyrolysis oils
| Functional groups | C | H | O | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| R or R′ | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| R or R′ | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
|
| Ar–O–R | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Possible overlap with aromatic C–H | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
|
| Ar–C–R | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Possible overlap with aromatic C–H | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | |
|
| H = 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| H = 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
|
| 1 | 3 | 1 | |
|
| H = 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| H = 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |
| H = 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | |
Comparison of simulated C, H, O contents based on NMR and based on C, H, N testa
| Sample | C (wt%) | H (wt%) | O (wt%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| By NMR | By CHN | By NMR | By CHN | By NMR | By CHN | |
| NSC(N2) | 57.8 | 55.8 | 8.7 | 8.5 | 33.5 | 35.4 |
| NSC(CO2) | 55.9 | 58.4 | 7.0 | 7.2 | 37.2 | 34.0 |
| PS(N2) | 71.5 | 71.1 | 9.1 | 9.3 | 19.4 | 18.0 |
| PS(CO2) | 66.8 | 67.0 | 9.4 | 9.0 | 23.9 | 22.6 |
| OW1 | 73.1 | 69.8 | 7.6 | 7.3 | 19.4 | 21.1 |
| OW2 | 75.5 | 71.9 | 6.9 | 7.4 | 17.5 | 19.2 |
The first four columns of data are from the ref. 41.
| Calculation methods | Different types of carbons (carbon mol%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | CH | CH2 | CH3 | |
| Based on the concentrations listed in Table S1 | 0 | 0 | 82.35 | 17.65 |
| Based on NMR data | 0 | 0 | 82.79 | 17.21 |
| Calculation methods | C, H, O contents (wt%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| C | H | O | |
| Based on the concentrations listed in Table S1 | 84.7 | 15.3 | 0.0 |
| Based on NMR data | 84.6 | 15.4 | 0.0 |
| Calculation methods | Functional groups (carbon mol%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Aliphatic carbons | Aromatic carbons | Double bonds | |
| Based on the concentrations listed in Table S2 | 73.0 | 26.3 | 0.7 |
| Based on NMR data | 71.2 | 28.0 | 0.8 |
| Calculation methods | Different types of carbons (carbon mol%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | CH | CH2 | CH3 | |
| Based on the concentrations listed in Table S2 | 9.7 | 20.0 | 41.3 | 29.0 |
| Based on NMR data | 9.2 | 18.7 | 41.8 | 30.3 |
| Calculation methods | C, H, O contents (wt%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| C | H | O | |
| Based on the concentrations listed in Table S2 | 86.9 | 13.1 | 0.0 |
| Based on NMR data | 86.7 | 13.3 | 0.0 |