2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2010.10.024
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thermogravimetric analysis and the optimisation of bio-oil yield from fixed-bed pyrolysis of rice husk using response surface methodology (RSM)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
42
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 103 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
42
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although there are not many studies regarding the optimization of such parameters, the ideal process would be determined by their combination, while trying to maximize the quality of the torrefied biomass production, depending on the type of biomass in use [38,39].…”
Section: Parameters That Influence the Torrefaction Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although there are not many studies regarding the optimization of such parameters, the ideal process would be determined by their combination, while trying to maximize the quality of the torrefied biomass production, depending on the type of biomass in use [38,39].…”
Section: Parameters That Influence the Torrefaction Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous work on pyrolysis of rice husk has been carried out using either analytical [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] bench scale [15][16][17][18][19] or pilot scale method [20][21][22]. Lu et.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The linear terms (X 1 , X 2 ) of Y 1 , Y 2 , and Y 3 were significant (P = 0.015, P = 0.001, and P = 0.002, respectively), whereas their interaction terms (X 1 X 2 ), except for Y 2 , were not significant at the 95% probability level (P > 0.05). The results of the lackof-fit test, which indicates the fitness of the model (Isa et al, 2011), showed that the P-values of Y 1 (oxidation induction time) and Y 2 (sensory score) were not significant (0.103 and 0.374, respectively) at the 95% probability level. The P-value of Y 3 (unit cost) was not calculated because the pure error value of Y 3 mean square was zero (Santos and Boaventura, 2008).…”
Section: Analysis Of Variancementioning
confidence: 96%