Waste Conversion for Fuel Gas Production

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Pavel Strizhak	+ 2693 word(s)	2693	2022-01-26 03:46:25	\|
2	format correction	Peter Tang	-63 word(s)	2630	2022-02-11 02:08:43	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/app12031039

The problems of the annual formation of industrial waste are common to a wide group of industries, particularly chemical, petrochemical, coal, gas, and wood processing. The most typical wastes of these industries are coal tar, waste oils, oil sludge, filter cakes, coal slime, sawdust, wood shavings, etc. Most of these materials and components pose a significant environmental threat. A successful solution to these problems is possible due to the use of auxiliary fuel; boiler modifications; oxy-fuel combustion; and the preparation of multi-component fuels, including the use of additives.

waste-to-energy industrial and municipal waste slurry combustion pyrolysis gasification

1. Introduction

The problems of the annual formation of industrial waste are common to a wide group of industries, particularly chemical, petrochemical, coal, gas, and wood processing ^[1]^[2]^[3]. The most typical wastes of these industries are coal tar, waste oils, oil sludge, filter cakes, coal slime, sawdust, wood shavings, etc. ^[4]^[5]^[6]. Most of these materials and components pose a significant environmental threat. Waste occupies large areas and penetrates soil and water; gradual thermochemical transformation of waste is accompanied by the release of hazardous substances ^[7]^[8]. The most common methods of industrial waste disposal are the following ^[9]^[10]^[11]: burial, removal of impurities, storage, and reuse for its intended purpose, use as secondary raw material in oil refining and coal preparation, pelletizing, pyrolysis, gasification, and combustion. Most of the treatment and cleaning methods are quite ineffective for large volumes of industrial waste ^[5]^[9]^[10]. At the same time, many enterprises are forced to incur heavy losses due to environmental fines ^[12] associated with ineffective waste disposal or its absence. Disruptive technologies are required for efficient waste disposal. However, their creation and adaptation require significant economic costs at the initial stage.

Municipal waste is no less dangerous for humanity. In terms of component composition, accumulated volumes, and rates of annual formation, they are practically not inferior to industrial ones ^[13]. In countries with undeveloped economies, municipal solid waste is considered even more hazardous than industrial waste. The most typical municipal solid waste includes cardboard, paper, plastic, polyethylene, rubber, food debris, etc. ^[14]^[15]. Landfilling, thermal treatment, and incineration with energy generation are popular disposal methods for such waste ^[16]^[17]^[18]. Holubčík et al. ^[19] used slow pyrolysis of shredded used car tires and plastic packaging. The research ^[19] has confirmed that pyrolysis allows for the production of valuable products with minimal damage to the environment. Bala-Litwiniak and Radomiak ^[20] have shown that waste glycerol can be successfully used as a fuel in combination with wood pellets. Glycerin with a fraction of no more than 4.5% improved the quality of the pellets and the environmental performance ^[20]. Dudyński et al. ^[21] carried out a test gasification of leather waste on a laboratory and industrial scale. As a result, a producer gas was obtained with a heating value of 4.1–6.5 MJ/m³. Dudyński et al. ^[21] concluded that gasification of waste leather may be more promising than incineration, mainly due to greater environmental safety.

However, the rate of the annual increase in municipal waste is so high that the factories for their utilization manage to process no more than 20–30%. The main difficulty lies in the need to sort waste to ensure high economic performance. Unfortunately, in many regions, management mechanisms and regulatory documents have not been formed for the effective separation of waste. As a result, numerous landfills increase in volume every year. Waste disposal technologies without preliminary sorting are important.

Analysis of the current state of utilization of industrial and municipal waste ^[16]^[22] shows that technologies are required that allow for solving a set of problems. In particular, it is necessary, along with waste disposal, to effectively expand the raw material base, reduce the anthropogenic load on the environment, and increase the area for beneficial use. The development of universal technological solutions for preparing waste for incineration or deep conversion, storage, transportation under different climatic conditions, and spraying in combustion chambers is of current interest. To solve this kind of problem, it is important to analyze modern ideas about the relevant processes, including the results of experimental and theoretical studies of the world scientific community. To date, a large experimental base has been obtained ^[23]^[24] and the results of mathematical modeling ^[25]^[26], which develop ideas from reviews ^[27]^[28]^[29] and books ^[30]^[31].

2. Main Types of Combustible Waste

The annual world production of waste is at least 4500 million tons. Among the main sources of waste are the following: (i) energy sector (waste from the production, processing, and combustion of fuels); (ii) industry (waste oils and chemicals, machines and mechanisms) municipal sector (solid waste, sewage sludge, construction waste); woodworking and agricultural sector (sawmill waste, woodworking, agricultural waste, etc.). Each of the listed categories of waste contains wastes that are suitable for the preparation of mixed and slurry fuels (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Calorific value of wastes and their average global generation rate (according to ^[13]^[32]^[33]^[34]^[35]).

Coal of different grade ^[36]^[37] and coal slimes ^[38]^[39] can be used as basic components. The water of different quality (polluted or purified) ^[40], wastewater ^[41], and industrial water ^[36] can be used as a dispersed medium. Additional components (usually in a small amount of 5–20 wt%) can be the following: oil sludge ^[42]^[43], used automotive and industrial oils ^[37]^[44], alcohols ^[45]^[46], and biomass ^[44]^[47]. Such additives are used to improve the ignition and combustion performance of the fuel, increase its calorific value, and reduce emissions. Solid components can be torrefied to improve efficiency. This method is a promising thermochemical technology for converting solid feedstock (most often biomass) into biochar for co-combustion ^[48]^[49] or for pyrolysis or gasification ^[50]^[51]. Torrefaction is defined as thermal treatment in an inert environment at atmospheric pressure and temperatures within the range of 200–300 °C. The main principles of torrefaction are to remove oxygen, reduce moisture content, and produce a solid residue that has a lower O/C ratio than the feedstock. The main purpose of torrefaction is to increase the calorific value. The main product of torrefaction is solid biochar (up to 80 wt% of feedstock) ^[50].

Table 1 provides a list of typical components used to create fuel slurries and blends.

Table 1. Properties of the components used for the preparation of fuel mixtures.

Component	Ultimate Analysis (wt%)					Proximate Analysis (wt%)					Ref.
Component	C	H	O	N	S	Moisture	Volatile Matter	Fixed Carbon	Ash	Calorific Value (MJ/kg)	Ref.
Shenhua coal	69.55	3.74	10.14	0.83	0.25	8.28	29.55	54.96	7.21	27.07	^[36]
Samca coal	75.9	5.3	12.27	0.7	5.8	-	36.9	-	22.8	-	^[37]
Coal gangue	17.5	1.26	-	0.56	1.28	0.75	15.07	16.31	68.62	4.82	^[38]
Coal slime	87.2	5.1	4.5	2.1	1.1	-	23.1	-	26.5	24.83	^[39]
Semicoke powders	69.12	1.35	10.33	0.89	0.71	0.7	15.74	67.36	16.9	-	^[52]
Pyrolytic carbon black	93.5	2.84	<0.01	0.46	3.2	-	-	-	25	26	^[53]
Textile dyeing sludge	15.53	3.44	16.47	2.43	1.38	1.37	36.53	1.35	60.75	5.99	^[54]
Waste soot	74.6	1.6	-	0.2	1.35	68.6	-	-	-	28.1	^[55]
Sewage sludge	24.83	3.31	14.39	4.47	1.13	97.95	42.74	5.39	44.58	0.77	^[56]
Sewage sludge	13.22	2.91	19.7	2.12	0.57	5.29	31.31	2.06	61.34	5.215	^[57]
Coking sludge	24.48	3.15	23.68	2.36	0.94	78.97	45.48	9.14	45.38	8.49	^[58]
Brewery wastewater sludge	17.6	2.93	-	2.41	-	2.33	37.72	0.09	59.86	6.56	^[59]
Waste lubricating oil	83.53	13.32	2.83	0.15	0.17	-	-	-	-	-	^[60]
Mineral waste oil	83.2	13.0	1.2	-	1.2	-	-		-	-	^[37]
Lubricating Oil Wastes	83.2	13	1.2	-	1.2	-	-	-	-	44.33	^[61]
Waste lubricating oil	84.02	13.31	1.92	-	0.75	-	-	-	-	-	^[44]
Waste cooking oil	71.84	10.14	17.71	0.06	0.01	0.08	99.15	0.56	0.24	39.24	^[62]
Oily sludge	63.9	7.3	25.3	1.2	2.3	33.4	69.3	-	21.2	23	^[42]
Bio-oil (from pyrolysis of pine)	41.47	6.37	52.05	0.11	-	24.7	73.1	2.1	0.1	16.9	^[63]
Corn stalk	32.01	3.44	24.0	1.02	0.22	6.77	52.1	8.61	32.52	11.87	^[64]
Coal slime	53.29	3.89	9.41	0.83	0.65	0.95	27.51	36.62	34.92	22.07	^[57]
Bamboo residual	55.51	6.12	42.05	0.21	0.11	-	-	-	-	-	^[44]
Corn silage	43.40	6.17	46.70	1.02	0.93	-	-	-	-	-	^[65]
Clover grass	44.90	6.8	43.30	2.2	0.3	-	-	-	-	-	^[65]
Biochar (from pyrolysis of pine)	86.83	3.34	9.7	0.13	-	2.4	16.4	80.6	3.0	28.3	^[63]

3. Combustion of Non-Conventional Liquid, High-Moisture, and Slurry Fuels

Most studies on the incineration of waste and low calorific fuels involve the use of solid, specially treated, and dehydrated components (for example, ^[6]^[47]^[66]). Co-firing of coal and biomass ^[67], as well as the individual firing of biomass, are most actively studied. This is partly because the energy use of biomass is already reaching an industrial level in many countries and requires large-scale tests ^[67]^[68]. To study the individual and co-combustion of biomass and solid waste, quite a few types of plants are used, including reactors and furnaces of both laboratory ^[69] and pilot scale ^[70]. The number of papers on the regularities of combustion of liquid fuels (oils, slurries, and emulsions based on waste) is much less.

When studying the thermal properties of mixed fuels and individual components, standard methods are widely used (thermogravimetric analysis, calorimetry, spectrometry, etc.). The characteristics of ignition and burnout of fuels, depending on the research objectives, are studied using installations of various types and power (some typical examples are given in Table 2).

Table 2. Experimental plants for the study of ignition and combustion of non-conventional fuels.

Fuel	Installation	Temperature Conditions	Ref.
Stem wood, bark, forest residue, willow, and reed canary grass and pyrolysis oil and solid residue from them	Tube furnace blown by gas mixtures (air, N₂, O₂)	<1400 °C	^[71]
Emulsion based on water and heating oil; slurry based on water and pyrolytic soot	Chamber with industrial burners with a total power of 1.2 MW	Temperature of flue gases > 1100 °C Maximum operating temperature 1430 °C	^[53]
Spherical particles of corn stalk and bituminous coal	Reactor (electrical quartz tube), blown by mixtures of O₂/N₂ and O₂/H₂O	800 °C	^[64]
Sewage sludge with coal–water slurry (CWS)	Large scale fluidized bed incinerator	>1000 °C	^[56]
Wet sewage sludge with wood chips	Grate-fired boiler with a vibrating grate	>1000 °C	^[72]
Pyrolysis oil from sewage sludge, heavy fuel oil	Laboratory setup with heat sources in the form of two plates	Temperature of the plates is 500, 550, 600 °C	^[58]
Slurry based on coal, water and waste soot	Rotary kiln	800 °C	^[55]
Slurries based on coal and liquid waste from petrochemical industry	Pilot-scale combustion system	1100–1300 °C at steady combustion	^[73]

4. Waste Conversion for Fuel Gas Production

Gasification and pyrolysis are environmentally promising waste treatment technologies, as they produce less pollution in comparison with combustion, in particular, by SO_x and NO_x emission ^[74]. Currently, a significant number of studies have been carried out on pyrolysis and gasification of conventional energy sources such as coal ^[75]^[76]^[77] and biomass ^[78]^[79]^[80]. However, the methods of thermal conversion of mixed waste-derived fuels to obtain fuel gas and other valuable pyrolysis products (char, oil) are less studied.

Figure 2 shows typical stages that occur during pyrolysis and gasification of fuels ^[74]^[81]. When a fuel particle is introduced into a heated medium, heating of the particle is observed, which intensifies moisture evaporation (drying stage). First, the external, unbound moisture evaporates, and then the internal one begins to evaporate in a quasi-stationary mode. After reaching the critical moisture content, the drying rate begins to decrease. After drying, the stage of primary pyrolysis follows, which is characterized by the release of volatile pyrolytic substances. Primary volatiles are formed as a result of the thermal rupture of the chemical bonds of individual fuel constituents. These include permanent gas particles (e.g., CO₂, CO, H₂), ambient organic compounds (aliphatic and aromatic), and water. In addition to the listed substances, at this stage, a non-volatile carbon-riched solid residue (char) is formed. The resulting char contains a significant proportion of the minerals of the original fuel. In general, the primary pyrolysis stage is completed at temperatures of about 500 °C. With a subsequent temperature increase, a part of the primary volatiles is involved in a variety of reactions of secondary pyrolysis (500–700 °C) and gasification (700–1000 °C).

Figure 2. Scheme of thermal decomposition of a fuel particle indicating the main stages of pyrolysis and gasification.

However, there are no clear borders between primary and secondary pyrolysis ^[81] since secondary reactions of volatiles can occur simultaneously both in the pores of particles and in the volume of the gas. At high temperatures, sequential and parallel reactions proceed (heterogeneously or homogeneously), for example, cracking, reforming, dehydration, condensation, polymerization, oxidation, and gasification reactions. Under these conditions, char can be converted into gaseous particles during gasification reactions in an H₂O atmosphere (which is especially important when using water-based slurries) and CO₂ ^[81].

Table 3 presents data on studies of thermal decomposition of mixtures carried out in a laboratory and large scale.

Table 3. Studies of pyrolysis and gasification of mixed fuels carried out via pilot, laboratory, and industrial installations.

Fuel	Process	Characteristics of the Plant	Temperature	Key Result	Ref.
Coal–oil–water slurry (COWS) (coal 45–55 wt%, oil 10–20 wt%; water 35 wt%)	Pyrolysis	Laboratory tube furnace. The carrier gas: N₂, flow rate 0.8 L/min. Experiment time: 30 min. Particle size: 75–100 μm.	800, 900 and 1000 °C	An increase in the temperature and the proportion of water in the fuel contributed to an increase in the gas yield up to 2.8 times, while the char yield decreased to 1.4 times. The addition of waste oil resulted in a decrease in CO and CO₂, and an increase in CH₄ and H₂. Pyrolysis gas composition: H₂: 80–270 mL/g; CO: 35–110 mL/g; CO₂: 22–120 mL/g; CH₄: 60–150 mL/g.	^[60]
Coal wastewater slurry (CWWS) (coal 57.2–62 wt%, water 42.8–38 wt%).	Gasification	Industrial CWS gasifier to produce syngas and synthesize ammonia. Syngas output 515,116.8 m³/day. Particle size: 40 μm.	1350–1400 °C	The syngas produced by the CWWS gasification has a higher effective gas component (CO + H₂) than the CWS. In addition, the use of a waste-based slurry increased cold gas efficiency by 1.57% and carbon conversion by 0.45% in industrial processes. Syngas composition: H₂: 30.5%; CO: 48.1%; CO₂: 16.3%; CH₄: 0.9%; N₂: 4.2%.	^[36]
Waste oil/coal slurry (coal 50 wt%, mineral waste oil 50 wt%).	Pyrolysis	Laboratory fluidized bed reactor. Feeding rate 550 g/h. Fuel mass 3 kg.	625 °C	The quality of waste oil/coal slurry pyrolysis products was higher compared to coal pyrolysis products. During the slurry pyrolysis, the gas yield increased from 14.2% to 31.6%, and the liquid yield increased from 17.4 to 29.1% in comparison with coal. At the same time, the concentrations of CH₄, H₂, C₂H₄, and C₂H₆ increased by 3.3, 2.5, 32, and 10 times, respectively. Pyrolysis gas composition: H₂: 0.5 wt%; CO: 1.6 wt%; CO₂: 3.4 wt%; CH₄: 4.9 wt%, C₂H₄, 6.4 wt%; C₂H₆ 3 wt%.	^[37]
Lubricating Oil Wastes (LOW)	Pyrolysis	Laboratory pyrolysis unit. Reactor is heated by an electrical oven. Feeding rate 0.5 g/min. Experiment time 20 min.	600–700 °C	Pyrolysis gas composition: H₂: 0.01–0.02 g/kg; CO: 0.03–0.04 g/kg; CO₂: 0.04–0.08 g/kg; CH₄: 0.35–0.93 g/kg; C₂H₄: 0.5–1 g/kg; C₂H₆: 0.25–0.47 g/kg. Product Yield by Pyrolysis: char: 0.45–0.6 g/kg; liquids: 3.57–6.04 g/kg; gases: 3.46–5.97 g/kg;	^[61]
Bamboo residual (BR) and waste lubricating oil (WLO)	Pyrolysis	Pyrolyzer with dual catalytic beds HZSM-5 and MgO. Fast pyrolysis: heating rate 2000 °C/s. Particle size: 0.15 μm.	500–700 °C	The temperature of 600 °C was optimal due to the relatively high yields of furans and phenols.	^[44]
Coal water ethanol slurry (CWES) (coal 57 wt%, water 36 wt%, ethanol 7 wt%).	Gasification	Pilot-scale entrained flow gasifier. Feeding rate at 20 bar: 96.15 kg/h.	1100 °C	When ethanol was used in the slurry, an increase was recorded in syngas heating value (by 9%), syngas flow rate (by 38%), syngas production per 1 kg of slurry (by 25%), cold gas efficiency (by 39%) and carbon conversion efficiency (by 15%). Syngas composition: H₂: 34.50 vol%; CO: 29.69 vol%; CO₂: 35.33 vol%; CH₄: 0.47 vol%.	^[46]
Textile dyeing sludge (DS) with 20–30 wt% additives (CaO, Ca-bentonite, Kaolin and Fe)	Pyrolysis	Two-mode microwave device with 2.45 GHz frequency and the maximum power of 3 kW. Particle size: <1 mm.	450–750 °C	Addition of CaO and Fe increased the char yield (in 1.2 times) and H₂ contents (in 2.5 times), and decreased CO₂ content in the non-condensable gas. Pyrolysis gas composition: Without additives: H₂: 20–33 vol%; CO: 12–15 vol%; CO₂: 0–65 vol%; CH₄: 0–5 vol%. With additives: H₂: 12–62 vol%; CO: 15–20 vol%; CO₂: 45–65 vol%; CH₄: 4–15 vol%. Product Yield by Pyrolysis: char: 60–80 wt%; liquids: 10–14 wt%; gases: 4–15 wt%	^[54]
Corn starch, clover grass, and corn silage in supercritical water	Gasification in supercritical water	Continuous flow reactor	500–700 °C	Gasification of biomass in supercritical water is highly temperature-dependent. Almost complete conversion of the feed can be achieved at 700 °C. As the temperature rises, the H₂ yield increases, but the CO concentration decreases. Syngas composition: H₂: 29.7–34.4 vol%; CO: 0.62–2.8 vol%; CO₂: 39.7–43.9 vol%; CH₄: 15–20.5 vol%; C₂H₂: 2.6–4.8 vol%.
Water–semicoke slurry (semicoke 10–30 wt%).	Gasification in supercritical water	Supercritical water fluidized bed reactor system. Pressure 23 MPa. Water flow rate 40 g/min, slurry flow rate 20 g/min/ Particle size: <100 μm	540–660 °C	The temperature of 600 °C is the most preferred to provide full gasification of the fixed carbon is realized. The use of K₂CO₃ as a catalyst made it possible to increase the hydrogen yield by 92%. Syngas composition: H₂: 50–55 vol%; CO: 2–3 vol%; CO₂: 35–38 vol%; CH₄: 10–12 vol%.	^[52]

Based on the literature analysis, the main research directions on the pyrolysis and gasification of mixed waste-derived fuels can be identified: (i) pyrolysis and gasification of coal–water slurries with industrial waste additives; (ii) the effect of external conditions on the characteristics of the end products of pyrolysis and gasification; (iii) the use of specialized additives and catalysts to increase the pyrolysis and gasification efficiency.

References

Li, D.; Wu, D.; Xu, F.; Lai, J.; Shao, L. Literature overview of Chinese research in the field of better coal utilization. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 185, 959–980.
Mallakpour, S.; Sirous, F.; Hussain, C.M. Sawdust, a versatile, inexpensive, readily available bio-waste: From mother earth to valuable materials for sustainable remediation technologies. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2021, 295, 102492.
Kazamias, G.; Zorpas, A.A. Drill cuttings waste management from oil & gas exploitation industries through end-of-waste criteria in the framework of circular economy strategy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 322, 129098.
Mishra, A.; Siddiqi, H.; Kumari, U.; Behera, I.D.; Mukherjee, S.; Meikap, B.C. Pyrolysis of waste lubricating oil/waste motor oil to generate high-grade fuel oil: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 150, 111446.
Zhao, R.; Dai, R.; Chen, T.; Qin, J.; Zhang, J.; Wu, J. Investigation on combustion, gaseous pollutants emission and ash characteristics during co-combustion of semicoke and coal slime. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 106249.
Guo, Y.; Guo, F.; Zhou, L.; Guo, Z.; Miao, Z.; Liu, H.; Zhang, X.; Wu, J.; Zhang, Y. Investigation on co-combustion of coal gasification fine slag residual carbon and sawdust char blends: Physiochemical properties, combustion characteristic and kinetic behavior. Fuel 2021, 292, 120387.
Rahman, M.M.; Rahman, S.M.; Rahman, M.S.; Hasan, M.A.; Shoaib, S.A.; Rushd, S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Solid Waste Management in Saudi Arabia—Analysis of Growth Dynamics and Mitigation Opportunities. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1737.
Zhou, Y.; Sun, J.; Wang, L.; Zhu, G.; Li, M.; Liu, J.; Li, Z.; Gong, H.; Wu, C.; Yin, G. Multiple classes of chemical contaminants in soil from an e-waste disposal site in China: Occurrence and spatial distribution. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 752, 141924.
Khan, H.M.; Iqbal, T.; Yasin, S.; Irfan, M.; Kazmi, M.; Fayaz, H.; Mujtaba, M.A.; Ali, C.H.; Kalam, M.A.; Soudagar, M.E.M.; et al. Production and utilization aspects of waste cooking oil based biodiesel in Pakistan. Alexandria Eng. J. 2021, 60, 5831–5849.
Furubayashi, T.; Nakata, T. Analysis of woody biomass utilization for heat, electricity, and CHP in a regional city of Japan. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 290, 125665.
Wang, Y.; Jia, L.; Guo, J.; Wang, B.; Zhang, L.; Xiang, J.; Jin, Y. Thermogravimetric analysis of co-combustion between municipal sewage sludge and coal slime: Combustion characteristics, interaction and kinetics. Thermochim. Acta 2021, 706, 179056.
United Nations. The Paris Agreement, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
Kaza, S.; Yao, L.C.; Bhada-Tata, P.; Van Woerden, F. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; ISBN 978-1-4648-1329-0.
Habib, M.A.; Ahmed, M.M.; Aziz, M.; Beg, M.R.A.; Hoque, M.E. Municipal Solid Waste Management and Waste-to-Energy Potential from Rajshahi City Corporation in Bangladesh. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3744.
Ding, Y.; Zhao, J.; Liu, J.W.; Zhou, J.; Cheng, L.; Zhao, J.; Shao, Z.; Iris, Ç.; Pan, B.; Li, X.; et al. A review of China’s municipal solid waste (MSW) and comparison with international regions: Management and technologies in treatment and resource utilization. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126144.
Sun, Y.; Qin, Z.; Tang, Y.; Huang, T.; Ding, S.; Ma, X. Techno-environmental-economic evaluation on municipal solid waste (MSW) to power/fuel by gasification-based and incineration-based routes. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 106108.
Wei, C.; Yu, Z.; Zhang, X.; Ma, X. Co-combustion behavior of municipal solid waste and food waste anaerobic digestates: Combustion performance, kinetics, optimization, and gaseous products. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 106028.
Yang, W.; Pudasainee, D.; Gupta, R.; Li, W.; Wang, B.; Sun, L. An overview of inorganic particulate matter emission from coal/biomass/MSW combustion: Sampling and measurement, formation, distribution, inorganic composition and influencing factors. Fuel Process. Technol. 2021, 213, 106657.
Holubčík, M.; Klačková, I.; Ďurčanský, P. Pyrolysis Conversion of Polymer Wastes to Noble Fuels in Conditions of the Slovak Republic. Energies 2020, 13, 4849.
Bala-Litwiniak, A.; Radomiak, H. Possibility of the Utilization of Waste Glycerol as an Addition to Wood Pellets. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 2019, 10, 2193–2199.
Dudyński, M.; Dudyński, K.; Kluska, J.; Ochnio, M.; Kazimierski, P.; Kardaś, D. Gasification of leather waste for energy production: Laboratory scale and industrial tests. Int. J. Energy Res. 2021, 45, 18540–18553.
Rueda-Avellaneda, J.F.; Rivas-García, P.; Gomez-Gonzalez, R.; Benitez-Bravo, R.; Botello-Álvarez, J.E.; Tututi-Avila, S. Current and prospective situation of municipal solid waste final disposal in Mexico: A spatio-temporal evaluation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Transit. 2021, 1, 100007.
Tong, C.; Yang, X.; Chen, G.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, L.; Zhou, Y.; He, T.; Jin, B. Experimental investigation for the combustion characteristics of blends of three kinds of coal. Fuel 2021, 300, 120937.
Yang, X.; Luo, Z.; Liu, X.; Yu, C.; Li, Y.; Ma, Y. Experimental and numerical investigation of the combustion characteristics and NO emission behaviour during the co-combustion of biomass and coal. Fuel 2021, 287, 119383.
Paraschiv, L.S.; Serban, A.; Paraschiv, S. Calculation of combustion air required for burning solid fuels (coal/biomass/solid waste) and analysis of flue gas composition. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 36–45.
Quesada, L.; Pérez, A.; Godoy, V.; Peula, F.J.; Calero, M.; Blázquez, G. Optimization of the pyrolysis process of a plastic waste to obtain a liquid fuel using different mathematical models. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 188, 19–26.
Su, G.; Ong, H.C.; Mofijur, M.; Mahlia, T.M.I.; Ok, Y.S. Pyrolysis of waste oils for the production of biofuels: A critical review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 424, 127396.
Ferraz de Campos, V.A.; Silva, V.B.; Cardoso, J.S.; Brito, P.S.; Tuna, C.E.; Silveira, J.L. A review of waste management in Brazil and Portugal: Waste-to-energy as pathway for sustainable development. Renew. Energy 2021, 178, 802–820.
Shahbaz, M.; AlNouss, A.; Ghiat, I.; Mckay, G.; Mackey, H.; Elkhalifa, S.; Al-Ansari, T. A comprehensive review of biomass based thermochemical conversion technologies integrated with CO2 capture and utilisation within BECCS networks. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 173, 105734.
Dufour, A. Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass for Energy and Chemicals Production; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 1–160.
Mammino, L. Biomass Burning in Sub-Saharan Africa: Chemical Issues and Action Outreach; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2020.
International Energy Agency. Key World Energy Statistics (Statistics Report); International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2020.
Junginger, M.; Goh, C.S.; Faaij, A. International Bioenergy Trade: History, Status & Outlook on Securing Sustainable Bioenergy Supply, Demand and Markets; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014.
David, C. Wilson Global Waste Management Outlook 2015; International Solid Waste Association General Secretariat: Vienna, Austria, 2015.
World Energy Council. World Energy Resources; World Energy Council: London, UK, 2016.
Li, D.; Liu, J.; Wang, S.; Cheng, J. Study on coal water slurries prepared from coal chemical wastewater and their industrial application. Appl. Energy 2020, 268, 114976.
Lázaro, M.J.; Moliner, R.; Suelves, I.; Domeo, C.; Nerín, C. Co-pyrolysis of a mineral waste oil/coal slurry in a continuous-mode fluidized bed reactor. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2002, 65, 239–252.
Yang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, L.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Z. Environmental investigation on co-combustion of sewage sludge and coal gangue: SO2, NOx and trace elements emissions. Waste Manag. 2016, 50, 213–221.
Glushkov, D.O.; Paushkina, K.K.; Shabardin, D.P. Co-combustion of coal processing waste, oil refining waste and municipal solid waste: Mechanism, characteristics, emissions. Chemosphere 2020, 240, 124892.
Vershinina, K.Y.; Strizhak, P.A. Ignition of coal suspensions based on water of different quality. Coke Chem. 2016, 59, 437–440.
Zhao, Z.; Wang, R.; Ge, L.; Wu, J.; Yin, Q.; Wang, C. Energy utilization of coal-coking wastes via coal slurry preparation: The characteristics of slurrying, combustion, and pollutant emission. Energy 2019, 168, 609–618.
Lin, B.; Wang, J.; Huang, Q.; Chi, Y. Effects of potassium hydroxide on the catalytic pyrolysis of oily sludge for high-quality oil product. Fuel 2017, 200, 124–133.
Zou, H.; Liu, C.; Evrendilek, F.; He, Y.; Liu, J. Evaluation of reaction mechanisms and emissions of oily sludge and coal co-combustions in O2/CO2 and O2/N2 atmospheres. Renew. Energy 2021, 171, 1327–1343.
Wang, J.; Zhang, B.; Zhong, Z.; Ding, K.; Deng, A.; Min, M.; Chen, P.; Ruan, R. Catalytic fast co-pyrolysis of bamboo residual and waste lubricating oil over an ex-situ dual catalytic beds of MgO and HZSM-5: Analytical PY-GC/MS study. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 139, 222–231.
Staroń, A.; Kowalski, Z.; Staroń, P.; Banach, M. Studies on CWL with glycerol for combustion process. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 2835–2844.
Bae, J.S.; Lee, D.W.; Park, S.J.; Lee, Y.J.; Hong, J.C.; Ra, H.W.; Han, C.; Choi, Y.C. High-pressure gasification of coal water ethanol slurry in an entrained flow gasifier for bioethanol application. Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 6033–6039.
Boumanchar, I.; Chhiti, Y.; M’hamdi Alaoui, F.E.; Elkhouakhi, M.; Sahibed-dine, A.; Bentiss, F.; Jama, C.; Bensitel, M. Investigation of (co)-combustion kinetics of biomass, coal and municipal solid wastes. Waste Manag. 2019, 97, 10–18.
Lam, S.S.; Tsang, Y.F.; Yek, P.N.Y.; Liew, R.K.; Osman, M.S.; Peng, W.; Lee, W.H.; Park, Y.K. Co-processing of oil palm waste and waste oil via microwave co-torrefaction: A waste reduction approach for producing solid fuel product with improved properties. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2019, 128, 30–35.
Sukiran, M.A.; Abnisa, F.; Wan Daud, W.M.A.; Abu Bakar, N.; Loh, S.K. A review of torrefaction of oil palm solid wastes for biofuel production. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 149, 101–120.
Bach, Q.V.; Trinh, T.N.; Tran, K.Q.; Thi, N.B.D. Pyrolysis characteristics and kinetics of biomass torrefied in various atmospheres. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 141, 72–78.
Medic, D.; Darr, M.; Shah, A.; Potter, B.; Zimmerman, J. Effects of torrefaction process parameters on biomass feedstock upgrading. Fuel 2012, 91, 147–154.
Cheng, Z.; Jin, H.; Liu, S.; Guo, L.; Xu, J.; Su, D. Hydrogen production by semicoke gasification with a supercritical water fluidized bed reactor. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 16055–16063.
Gaber, C.; Wachter, P.; Demuth, M.; Hochenauer, C. Experimental investigation and demonstration of pilot-scale combustion of oil-water emulsions and coal-water slurry with pronounced water contents at elevated temperatures with the use of pure oxygen. Fuel 2020, 282, 118692.
Zhang, H.; Gao, Z.; Ao, W.; Li, J.; Liu, G.; Fu, J.; Ran, C.; Mao, X.; Kang, Q.; Liu, Y.; et al. Microwave-assisted pyrolysis of textile dyeing sludge using different additives. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2017, 127, 140–149.
Staroń, A.; Banach, M.; Kowalski, Z.; Staroń, P. Impact of waste soot on properties of coal-water suspensions. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 457–467.
Zhao, X.; Zhu, W.; Huang, J.; Li, M.; Gong, M. Emission characteristics of PCDD/Fs, PAHs and PCBs during the combustion of sludge-coal water slurry. J. Energy Inst. 2015, 88, 105–111.
Fu, B.; Liu, G.; Mian, M.M.; Zhou, C.; Sun, M.; Wu, D.; Liu, Y. Co-combustion of industrial coal slurry and sewage sludge: Thermochemical and emission behavior of heavy metals. Chemosphere 2019, 233, 440–451.
Kuan, Y.H.; Wu, F.H.; Chen, G.B.; Lin, H.T.; Lin, T.H. Study of the combustion characteristics of sewage sludge pyrolysis oil, heavy fuel oil, and their blends. Energy 2020, 201, 117559.
Luo, Z.; Xu, D.; Ma, Y.; Cheng, Q. Experimental Study on Co-Firing of Coal and Brewery Wastewater Sludge. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7589.
Wan, G.; Yu, J.; Wang, X.; Sun, L. Study on the pyrolysis behavior of coal-water slurry and coal-oil-water slurry. J. Energy Inst. 2022, 100, 10–21.
Moliner, R.; Lázaro, M.; Suelves, I. Valorization of Lube Oil Waste by Pyrolysis. Energy Fuels 1997, 11, 1165–1170.
Tamošiūnas, A.; Gimžauskaitė, D.; Aikas, M.; Uscila, R.; Praspaliauskas, M.; Eimontas, J. Gasification of Waste Cooking Oil to Syngas by Thermal Arc Plasma. Energies 2019, 12, 2612.
Feng, C.; Wu, H. Synergy on particulate matter emission during the combustion of bio-oil/biochar slurry (bioslurry). Fuel 2018, 214, 546–553.
Zhou, H.; Li, Y.; Li, N.; Cen, K. Experimental investigation of ignition and combustion characteristics of single coal and biomass particles in O2/N2 and O2/H2O. J. Energy Inst. 2019, 92, 502–511.
D’Jesús, P.; Boukis, N.; Kraushaar-Czarnetzki, B.; Dinjus, E. Gasification of corn and clover grass in supercritical water. Fuel 2006, 85, 1032–1038.
Malika, A.; Mohammed, A.; Guhel, Y. Energetic Combustion Characteristics and Environmental Impact of Moroccan Biomass Wastes and Their Solid Biofuel. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 2019, 10, 1311–1322.
Variny, M.; Varga, A.; Rimár, M.; Janošovský, J.; Kizek, J.; Lukáč, L.; Jablonský, G.; Mierka, O. Advances in Biomass Co-Combustion with Fossil Fuels in the European Context: A Review. Processes 2021, 9, 100.
Khan, A.A.; de Jong, W.; Jansens, P.J.; Spliethoff, H. Biomass combustion in fluidized bed boilers: Potential problems and remedies. Fuel Process. Technol. 2009, 90, 21–50.
Xinjie, L.; Shihong, Z.; Xincheng, W.; Jinai, S.; Xiong, Z.; Xianhua, W.; Haiping, Y.; Hanping, C. Co-combustion of wheat straw and camphor wood with coal slime: Thermal behaviour, kinetics, and gaseous pollutant emission characteristics. Energy 2021, 234, 121292.
Seepana, S.; Arumugam, S.; Sivaramakrishnan, K.; Muthukrishnan, M. Evaluation of feasibility of pelletized wood co-firing with high ash Indian coals. J. Energy Inst. 2018, 91, 1126–1135.
Johansson, A.-C.; Molinder, R.; Vikström, T.; Wiinikka, H. Particle formation during suspension combustion of different biomass powders and their fast pyrolysis bio-oils and biochars. Fuel Process. Technol. 2021, 218, 106868.
Skoglund, N.; Bäfver, L.; Fahlström, J.; Holmén, E.; Renström, C. Fuel design in co-combustion of demolition wood chips and municipal sewage sludge. Fuel Process. Technol. 2016, 141, 196–201.
Jianzhong, L.; Ruikun, W.; Jianfei, X.; Junhu, Z.; Kefa, C. Pilot-scale investigation on slurrying, combustion, and slagging characteristics of coal slurry fuel prepared using industrial wasteliquid. Appl. Energy 2014, 115, 309–319.
Burra, K.G.; Gupta, A.K. Thermochemical Reforming of Wastes to Renewable Fuels. In Energy for Propulsion; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 395–428.
Li, W.; He, S.; Li, S. Experimental Study and Thermodynamic Analysis of Hydrogen Production through a Two-Step Chemical Regenerative Coal Gasification. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3035.
Heinze, C.; Langner, E.; May, J.; Epple, B. Determination of a Complete Conversion Model for Gasification of Lignite Char. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1916.
Ding, L.; Dai, Z.; Guo, Q.; Yu, G. Effects of in-situ interactions between steam and coal on pyrolysis and gasification characteristics of pulverized coals and coal water slurry. Appl. Energy 2017, 187, 627–639.
Efika, C.E.; Onwudili, J.A.; Williams, P.T. Influence of heating rates on the products of high-temperature pyrolysis of waste wood pellets and biomass model compounds. Waste Manag. 2018, 76, 497–506.
Sikarwar, V.S.; Zhao, M.; Clough, P.; Yao, J.; Zhong, X.; Memon, M.Z.; Shah, N.; Anthony, E.J.; Fennell, P.S. An overview of advances in biomass gasification. Energy Environ. Sci. 2016, 9, 2939–2977.
Nguyen, N.M.; Alobaid, F.; Dieringer, P.; Epple, B. Biomass-Based Chemical Looping Gasification: Overview and Recent Developments. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 7069.
Neves, D.; Thunman, H.; Matos, A.; Tarelho, L.; Gómez-Barea, A. Characterization and prediction of biomass pyrolysis products. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2011, 37, 611–630.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Area Studies

Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Pavel Strizhak

View Times: 548

Entry Collection: Environmental Sciences

Update Date: 15 Feb 2022

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm