| Literature DB >> 35847288 |
Xinfu Zhang1, Wenhuan Wang1, Rui-Tang Guo1,2, Wei-Guo Pan1,2, Xiao-Jiang Li3.
Abstract
Pyrolysis polygeneration technology has been widely applied due to its wide adaptability to coal types and mild reaction conditions. In this paper, the in situ process test combining pyrolysis and combustion of Pingshuo coal was carried out using a thermogravimetric analyzer and a fluidized-bed reactor. The influence of pyrolysis conditions on the combustion behavior and char structure was studied. The reduction of the pyrolysis temperature and the increase in pyrolysis residence time resulted in a lower burnout temperature of char, thereby improving the combustion characteristics of char. Furthermore, the maximum CO2 release rate reached 2.8 mg/(g·s) during the combustion process. The decrease in the pyrolysis temperature was conducive to the increase of CO2 release mass, suggesting a more complete burning of char. The char combustion process was mainly controlled by the chemical reaction according to the reaction kinetics study. The apparent rate constant of the combustion process increased gradually with the decrease in the pyrolysis temperature of char, and the rate of the combustion reaction increased, which contributed to the enhancement of the combustion performance of the char within the range of 850-950 °C. Meanwhile, the crystal structure inside the char changed significantly after different pyrolysis conditions. However, it had little influence on the molar content of carbon structure, which suggested that the amount of CO2 released was mainly caused by the different resistances of oxygen diffusion to the reaction interface.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35847288 PMCID: PMC9280964 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.2c02231
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Omega ISSN: 2470-1343
Proximate Analysis, Ultimate Analysis, and Calorific Value of Coal Sample
| proximate analysis (wt/%) | ultimate
analysis (wt/%) | calorific value (kJ/kg) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| coal sample | FCad | |||||||||
| pingshuo | 1.47 | 20.12 | 22.91 | 55.50 | 29.52 | 2.53 | 7.84 | 0.48 | 2.66 | 11 882 |
Figure 1Schematic of pyrolysis and combustion combined test.
Test Conditions
| working conditions | pyrolysis temperature (°C) | pyrolysis residence time (min) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| working condition 1 | 1.1 | 500 | 1 |
| 1.2 | 600 | ||
| 1.3 | 700 | ||
| working condition 2 | 2.1 | 500 | 10 |
| 2.2 | 600 | ||
| 2.3 | 700 |
Proximate Analysis and Ultimate Analysis of Char
| proximate analysis (wt/%) | ultimate analysis (wt/%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| char samples | FCd | |||||||
| 1.1 | 1.61 | 20.12 | 26.35 | 56.44 | 29.52 | 2.53 | 0.48 | 2.66 |
| 1.2 | 0.86 | 39.50 | 27.78 | 60.73 | 31.52 | 2.22 | 0.48 | 2.91 |
| 1.3 | 1.16 | 29.26 | 24.91 | 67.34 | 29.22 | 1.52 | 0.44 | 2.67 |
| 2.1 | 1.54 | 23.73 | 33.34 | 59.12 | 24.23 | 1.32 | 0.30 | 2.49 |
| 2.2 | 1.05 | 17.48 | 29.58 | 65.93 | 33.54 | 1.46 | 0.54 | 2.24 |
| 2.3 | 0.95 | 12.66 | 28.24 | 67.64 | 30.74 | 1.23 | 0.53 | 2.13 |
Figure 2Char combustion thermogravimetry curves of the char sample: (a) TG and (b) DTG.
Combustion Characteristic Parameters of the Sample
| working conditions | (dw/dt)max (%/min) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | 380 | 531 | –6.3 | 402 |
| 1.2 | 384 | 539 | –5.2 | 415 |
| 1.3 | 414 | 543 | –4.8 | 429 |
| 2.1 | 400 | 514 | –9.1 | 439 |
| 2.2 | 421 | 521 | –8.5 | 461 |
| 2.3 | 435 | 540 | –7.1 | 472 |
Figure 3Effect of pyrolysis conditions on the CO2 release rate.
Figure 4CO2 release quality in the combustion process.
Form of Combustion Kinetics Equation
| equation codes | kinetic equations | control of the reaction |
|---|---|---|
| internal diffusion control | ||
| chemical reaction control | ||
| external diffusion control |
Figure 5Relationship between F(x) and reaction time t.
Figure 6Linear analysis result of F2(x) and reaction time.
Linear Correlation Coefficient and the Apparent Rate Constant k
| working conditions | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| linear correlation coefficient | 0.996 | 0.985 | 0.993 | 0.997 | 0.997 | 0.995 |
| k/min–1 | 0.073 | 0.066 | 0.045 | 0.044 | 0.033 | 0.025 |
Figure 7C 1s XPS spectrum of char.
High-Resolution Scanning Measurement Results of the C 1s Key Environment
| molar content of carbon structure under various conditions (%) | C–C, C=C | C–H | C–O | C=O, O–C–O | COO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| raw coal | 63.4 | 20.0 | 9.1 | 1.9 | 5.5 |
| 1.1 | 60.1 | 25.7 | 10.3 | 1.8 | 2.0 |
| 1.2 | 65.2 | 21.8 | 7.5 | 2.3 | 3.2 |
| 1.3 | 64.1 | 22.9 | 7.1 | 2.5 | 3.4 |
| 2.1 | 66.7 | 21.7 | 8.0 | 1.2 | 2.4 |
| 2.2 | 64.5 | 22.0 | 8.0 | 2.4 | 3.0 |
| 2.3 | 61.1 | 23.4 | 10.3 | 2.4 | 2.8 |
Figure 8XRD patterns of char.
Crystalline Structure Parameters of Char by XRD
| sample | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | 4.31 | 30.12 | 3.60 | 16.39 | 10.62 | 89.38 | 3.67 | 17.85 | 4.86 |
| 1.2 | 4.26 | 25.71 | 3.60 | 17.03 | 16.25 | 83.75 | 3.71 | 18.44 | 4.98 |
| 1.3 | 4.24 | 24.45 | 3.58 | 17.05 | 19.28 | 80.72 | 3.70 | 18.48 | 4.99 |
| 2.1 | 4.34 | 37.05 | 3.58 | 14.83 | 22.93 | 77.07 | 3.75 | 19.92 | 5.31 |
| 2.2 | 4.34 | 40.78 | 3.56 | 15.21 | 20.72 | 79.28 | 3.72 | 20.51 | 5.51 |
| 2.3 | 4.30 | 39.97 | 3.55 | 16.81 | 24.47 | 75.53 | 3.73 | 22.48 | 6.02 |