Use of two different adsorbents for sampling tar in gas obtained from peat gasification

Osipovs, Sergejs

doi:10.1080/03067310802592755

Cited by 20 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A stainless steel needle with the plastic cap was attached to one side, and a conical rubber stopper closed the other side of the SPA cartridge. The extraction procedure and chromatographic analysis described by Osipovs has been modified for the purpose of this work. Tar compounds were extracted from the sorbent by addition of 3 × 600 μL of dichloromethane.…”

Section: Experimental Detailsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Poultry Litter Gasification in a Fluidized Bed Reactor: Effects of Gasifying Agent and Limestone Addition

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Air and air-steam gasification of poultry litter was experimentally studied in a laboratory scale bubbling fluidized bed gasifier at atmospheric pressure using silica sand as the bed material. The effects of equivalence ratio (ER), gasifier temperature, steam-to-biomass ratio (SBR), and addition of limestone blended with the poultry litter, on product gas species yields and process efficiency, are discussed. The optimum conditions (maximum carbon conversion, gas yield, heating value, and cold gas efficiency) were achieved at an ER 0.25 and 800°C, using air (SBR = 0) and poultry litter blended with 8% w/w limestone, yielding a product gas with a lower heating value (LHV) of 4.52 MJ/Nm 3 and an average product gas composition (dry basis) of H 2 : 10.78%, CO: 9.38%, CH 4 : 2.61, and CO 2 : 13.13. Under these optimum processing conditions, the cold gas efficiency, carbon conversion efficiency, and hydrogen conversion efficiency were 89, 73, and 43% respectively. The reported NH 3 measurement at an ER of 0.28 and 750°C is 2.7% (equivalent to 19,300 mg/Nm 3) with 14.7 mg/Nm 3 of HCl observed as the dry product gas. High temperature and steam injection favor production of CO and H 2 , while their effect on CH 4 was almost negligible. It is demonstrated that poultry litter can be gasified by blending with limestone, making it possible to overcome the fluidization problems caused by the mineral composition of poultry litter ash (high K and P content), yielding a gas with a similar heating value compared to gasifying without limestone addition, but with a significantly lower tar content.

show abstract

Section: Experimental Detailsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Poultry Litter Gasification in a Fluidized Bed Reactor: Effects of Gasifying Agent and Limestone Addition

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The tar samples were taken by means of SPA according to the method described by Osipovs (2009). The tar compounds were extracted by dichloromethane (DCM) and Phenol-d6 and Naphalene-d8 were added as internal standards.…”

Section: Tar Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Gasification of torrefied Miscanthus×giganteus in an air-blown bubbling fluidized bed gasifier

Xue

Kwapińska

Horvat

et al. 2014

Bioresource Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Torrefaction is suggested to be an effective method to improve the fuel properties of biomass and gasification of torrefied biomass should provide a higher quality product gas than that from unprocessed biomass. In this study, both raw and torrefied Miscanthus × giganteus (M×G) were gasified in an air-blown bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) gasifier using olivine as the bed material. The effects of equivalence ratio (ER) (0.18-0.32) and bed temperature (660-850°C) on the gasification performance were investigated. The results obtained suggest the optimum gasification conditions for the torrefied M × G are ER 0.21 and 800°C. The product gas from these process conditions had a higher heating value (HHV) of 6.70 MJ/m(3), gas yield 2m(3)/kg biomass (H2 8.6%, CO 16.4% and CH4 4.4%) and cold gas efficiency 62.7%. The comparison between raw and torrefied M × G indicates that the torrefied M × G is more suitable BFB gasification.

show abstract

“…With this approach, a detection limit of 2.5 mg Nm –3 has been reported without referring to any specific tar compound or tar group . Osipovs improved the SPA–GC measurement system by adding activated coconut charcoal as a second sorbent, to improve the sampling efficiency for benzene, toluene, and xylene (BTX compounds). , Ortiz Gonzales et al tested four different commercially prepacked cartridges for tar sampling from sewage sludge gasification and found Supelclean ENVICarb/NH 2 to be the most suitable stationary phase for sampling compounds such as naphthalene and benzene. The estimated breakthrough volume and adsorption capacity of the chosen cartridge was found to be higher than that required for real product-gas sampling.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detailed Measurement Uncertainty Analysis of Solid-Phase Adsorption—Total Gas Chromatography (GC)-Detectable Tar from Biomass Gasification

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thermochemical gasification offers an attractive solution for the conversion of low-grade biomass and waste. However, practical experiences of the gasification processes reveal that the formation of tar is troublesome to continuous operation. Therefore, tar measurement protocols and tar reduction systems are priorities in the development of effective biomass gasification. Results of tar measurements often raise questions regarding their reliability and accuracy, because of calibration, sampling, and discrimination issues. The present work evaluates the solid phase adsorption (SPA)−gas chromatography (GC) measurement system for tar in product gas by comparing the mass spectroscopy detector (MSD) and flame ionization detector (FID) and their associated measurement uncertainty. The measurand is defined as the total GC detectable tar in a normal cubic meter of dry product gas when employing the common quantitation method, "quantitation as naphthalene". The GC-FID measurements were significantly higher than the GC-MSD measurements. Their overall uncertainties also vary by a significant margin. The measurement uncertainty analysis shows that this difference is taken into account by the uncertainty induced by the particulars of the GC-MSD and GC-FID measurement systems, where the relative expanded uncertainty is shown to be 109.4% and 35.0%, respectively. While a quantitative method based on a single calibration curve offers significant advantages, in terms of speed and simple quantitation of total GC detectable tar, such an approach introduces greater uncertainty within the reported results.

show abstract

Use of two different adsorbents for sampling tar in gas obtained from peat gasification

Cited by 20 publications

References 18 publications

Poultry Litter Gasification in a Fluidized Bed Reactor: Effects of Gasifying Agent and Limestone Addition

Poultry Litter Gasification in a Fluidized Bed Reactor: Effects of Gasifying Agent and Limestone Addition

Gasification of torrefied Miscanthus×giganteus in an air-blown bubbling fluidized bed gasifier

Detailed Measurement Uncertainty Analysis of Solid-Phase Adsorption—Total Gas Chromatography (GC)-Detectable Tar from Biomass Gasification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About