English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/103792
logo share SHARE logo core CORE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE

Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL
Exportar a otros formatos:

Kinetic models comparison for non-isothermal steam gasification of coal–biomass blend chars

AuthorsFermoso Domínguez, Javier ; Gil Matellanes, María Victoria ; Pevida García, Covadonga ; Pis Martínez, José Juan ; Rubiera González, Fernando
KeywordsNon-isothermal TG
Char gasification
Kinetic models
Issue DateJul-2010
CitationChemical Engineering Journal 161(1-2): 276-284 (2010)
AbstractThe non-isothermal thermogravimetric method (TGA) was applied to a bituminous coal (PT), two types of biomass, chestnut residues (CH) and olive stones (OS), and coal–biomass blends in order to investigate their thermal reactivity under steam. Fuel chars were obtained by pyrolysis in a fixed-bed reactor at a final temperature of 1373 K for 30 min. The gasification tests were carried out by thermogravimetric analysis from room temperature to 1373 K at heating rates of 5, 10 and 15 K min−1. After blending, no significant interactions were detected between PT and CH during co-gasification, whereas deviations from the additive behaviour were observed in the PT–OS blend. However, for the two coal–biomass blends, the gasification behaviour resembled that of the individual coal, as this component constituted the larger proportion of the blend. The temperature-programmed reaction (TPR) technique was employed at three different heating rates to analyze noncatalytic gas–solid reactions. Three nth-order representative gas–solid models, the volumetric model (VM), the grain model (GM) and the random pore model (RPM) were applied in order to describe the reactive behaviour of the chars during steam gasification. From these models, the kinetic parameters were determined. The best model for describing the reactivity of the PT, PT–CH and PT–OS samples was the RPM model. VM was the model that best fitted the CH sample, whereas none of the models were suitable for the OS sample.
Publisher version (URL)http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2010.04.055
Appears in Collections:(INCAR) Artículos
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Kinetics_models_CEJ_Fermoso.pdf327,57 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
Show full item record

Related articles:

WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.