Fuel 82 (2003) 1139–1147

www.fuelfirst.com

Pyrolysis of Miscanthus Giganteus and wood pellets: TG-FTIR

analysis and reaction kineticsq
W. de Jonga,*, A. Pironea, M.A. Wójtowiczb
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Marine Technology Section Thermal Power Engineering, Delft University of Technology,
Mekelweg 2, NL-2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands
b
Advanced Fuel Research, Inc., 87 Church Street, East Hartford, CT 06108-3728, USA
Received 15 January 2002; revised 17 October 2002; accepted 11 December 2002; available online 15 January 2003

Abstract
Characterisation of two biomass fuels (pelletised Miscanthus Giganteus and wood) was performed using thermogravimetric analysis with
measurement of products by means of Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (TG-FTIR). Three heating rate profiles were applied (10, 30
and 100 8C/min), with a final temperature of 900 8C. HCN and HNCO were found to be the major N-products, while the NH3 fraction was
detected to a minor extent. Kinetic parameters were obtained from the TG-FTIR results using a model based on parallel first-order reactions
with a Gaussian distribution of activation energies. On the basis of the above kinetic analysis and product yields, input files for the functional
group – devolatilisation, vaporisation, cross-linking biomass-pyrolysis model were prepared. The fit of model parameters to TG-FTIR
product-evolution data was found to be generally good, but the model-predicted yields for some species did not fit experimental data at all
heating rates. Further improvements in the model are needed to resolve above difficulty.
q 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Biomass pyrolysis; TG-FTIR characterisation; Kinetic analysis; Functional group–devolatilisation, vaporisation, cross-linking model

1. Introduction nitrogen oxides [11]. The reduction of such harmful

Both the growing awareness of the decreasing avail-
ability of fossil fuels and the increasing pressure on the
environment from production and combustion of fossil
fuels, have nowadays led to a deeper interest in sustainable
heat and power generation using biomass [1]. In particular,
biomass gasification can form a solid basis of new
promising energy conversion technologies such as fuel
cells and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC)
installations. However, the produced gas from biofuel-fed
gasifiers often includes significant amounts of fixed nitrogen
species, mainly ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen cyanide
(HCN), which are released from biomass-bound nitrogen
(fuel-N) during biomass devolatilisation, occurring at the
initial pyrolysis stage [2 – 17]. These gas-phase species pass
through end-use systems of the product gas, where they can
poison catalysts, fuel cell internals or may undergo further
oxidation and be emitted as pollutant species, mainly
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 31-15-2789476; fax: þ 31-15-2782460.
E-mail address: w.dejong@wbmt.tudelft.nl (W. de Jong).
q
Published first on the web via Fuelfirst.com –http://www.fuelfirst.com
0016-2361/03/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0016-2361(02)00419-2
emissions significantly relies on the knowledge of early
nitrogen evolution from biomass pyrolysis, which is found
to be the primary stage for both gasification and combustion
processes involving coal or biomass-type fuels. However, to
date, few detailed kinetic data are available in the accessible
literature on the evolution of individual products during
flash pyrolysis of biomass. Even in the case of low heating
rate pyrolysis, such data are limited. The lack of data,
combined with the large variety and diversity of biomass
feedstocks, is one of the main sources of inaccuracies and
difficulties experienced when modelling emission behaviour
of biomass thermal conversion processes.
In the present research study pyrolysis experiments for
two different types of biomass (pelletised Dutch Miscanthus
Giganteus and wood) were performed. Pelletised fuels were
chosen for this study as a result of their main advantage of
high energy density on a volumetric basis, which makes
transport costs and investment costs for fuel storage and
process feeding smaller than in the case of non-pelletised
fuels [18].
The pyrolysis analysis was performed by means of a TG-
FTIR instrument, which combines thermogravimetric
1140 W. de Jong et al. / Fuel 82 (2003) 1139–1147
analysis (TGA) with evolved product analysis by Fourier
transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. The use of low
heating rate experiments for the study of pyrolysis kinetics
in general, and TGA in particular, is well established with a
number of papers and books having been published on the
subject (see for example Refs. [19 – 43] and references
quoted therein). The advantages and drawbacks of the
technique are discussed in an extensive review by Solomon
et al. [39]. In general, successful extrapolations of kinetic
expressions to high heating rates are expected.
Employing the TG-FTIR system, kinetic rates for species
evolution were obtained under low heating rate conditions.
In particular, kinetic rate parameters and pool sizes of
species precursors were fitted into experimental data in
order to convert the TG-FTIR results into input files to be
used within the functional group – devolatilisation, vapor-
isation, cross-linking (FG –DVC) biomass pyrolysis model
[44]. It is worth to emphasise that these rates, after being
extrapolated, can be used to predict via the FG –DVC
model, the conversion behaviour of main compounds at
higher heating rates and temperatures in practical conver-
sion processes.
2. Experimental section
2.1. TG-FTIR experiments
The TG-FTIR system used in this study consists of a
sample suspended from a balance in a helium gas stream
within a furnace. As the sample is heated, the evolving
volatile products are carried out of the furnace directly into a
5.1 cm diameter gas cell (heated to 155 8C), where the
volatiles are analysed by FTIR spectroscopy. The system
continuously monitors: (1) the time dependent evolution of
the gases; and (2) weight of the non-volatile material
(residue). The apparatus and its functional principles have
been described elsewhere [45,50]. A detailed description of
the TG-FTIR technique and some of the applications can be
found in Refs. [45 – 49,51]. The instrument and the
measurements were designed in such a way so that
secondary reactions are minimised. This is accomplished
through the use of small sample and particle sizes as well as
Table 1
Elemental analysis for the two different biomass types applied in this study. Data for WP (‘A-quality’ purchased from Labee company, The Netherlands) were
obtained from experiments performed at IVD, University of Stuttgart (Germany). Data for pelletised Dutch MG are averaged values from analyses carried out
at IVD, at KTH University (Sweden) and at the Energy Research Centre of The Netherlands (ECN)
Sample Moisturea Asha Cb
Wood pellets 8.2 0.26 52.1
Miscanthus 8.7 ^ 1.47 2.5 ^ 0.44 49.4 ^ 1.07
a
As-received basis.
b
Dry and ash free basis.
c
Determined by difference.
relatively fast carrier-gas flow rates so that the volatile
products of pyrolysis are swept into the gas cell immediately
after they are formed. It is presumed, therefore, that the
gases quantified by the FTIR analyser are essentially
products of primary pyrolysis. Specifically, for the analysis
reported in this study, approximately 13 – 16 mg of the
biomass sample (particle size , 500 mm) was heated in
helium at 10 8C/min, first to 80 8C to dry the sample for
20 min, and then to 900 8C for pyrolysis. Upon reaching
900 8C and holding the temperature for 3 min, the sample
was immediately cooled to 250 8C over a 20 min period.
After cooling, a small flow of oxygen was added to the
helium sweep gas and the temperature was ramped to
900 8C at 30 8C/min to combust the remaining char. This
profile was repeated at pyrolysis heating rates of 30 and
100 8C/min for the samples, the elemental analysis of which
is reported in Table 1. In all experiments, FTIR absorbance
spectra were obtained every 30 s. Concentrations of all the
volatiles species, except for tar, showing absorption in the
infrared spectrum were obtained using quantification
routines based on calibration runs performed with pure
compounds. Tar evolution patterns and yields were
determined by difference using the sum of gases quantified
by FTIR and the balance curve obtained thermogravime-
trically. The instrument, however, can quantify tars, but this
has so far only been worked out for coal samples. As the
infrared spectra of biomass tars differ significantly from coal
tars, a generic reference spectrum for biomass tars has not
been implemented yet.
2.2. Experimental results and discussion
A summary of the TG-FTIR experiments for wood
pellets (WP) and Miscanthus Giganteus (MG) is presented
in Table 2. Observations resulting from the analysis of TG-
FTIR data for the biomass samples are discussed here.
The practically constant char yields at different heating
rates could imply that cross-linking reactions are relatively
unimportant, at least under the conditions used in this study.
It could also mean that the major factors determining char
formation, i.e. bond breaking and cross-linking, are in
balance with each other. Tar yields increase as the heating
rate increases. This happens at the expense of decreasing
Hb Nb Sb Ob,c
5.2 0.33 0.11 42.2
5.5 ^ 0.37 0.64 ^ 0.14 0.16 ^ 0.06 44.0 ^ 0.77
 W. de Jong et al. / Fuel 82 (2003) 1139–1147 1141

Table 2 Bagasse and straw, while a value of 21 wt% for Miscanthus

Summary of TG-FTIR experiments for WP and pelletised Dutch MG. All straw.1 However, precise data for MG have not been
yields are expressed in weight percent of the original biomass on a dry, ash-
determined, thus making it unsure whether or not the
free basis
differences in char yields can be related unequivocally to the
Sample WP WP WP MG MG MG diverse lignin content of the biomass types.
Comparable fractions of HCN, HNCO and NH3 are
Heating rate (8C/min) 10 30 100 10 30 100 observed, although the comparison of the data in Table 2
Volatile matter (from TGA) 86.2 86.2 86.2 80.2 79.4 81.9
does not reveal a consistent pattern. Studies accomplished
Char 13.8 13.8 13.8 19.8 20.6 18.1
Tar 37.2 38.8 48.4 18.1 21.9 28.3 for biomass conversion are presented in Refs. [11,13,54],
Methane (CH4) 1.27 1.30 1.15 1.18 1.14 1.16 showing that at low heating rates NH3 is generally the
Water (pyr.) (H2O) 10.6 16.0 13.6 17.7 18.5 20.6 dominant N-product. The pyrolysis experiments considered
Carbon monoxide (CO) 7.48 6.77 5.10 8.55 7.15 5.65 in this study were performed indeed at low heating rates,
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 5.90 5.08 4.88 10.4 9.43 9.11
obtaining results in disagreement with the mentioned
Ethylene (C2H4) 0.15 0.23 0.09 0.52 0.27 0.13
Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.22 0.14 0.11 references as HCN yields were found to be mostly higher
Ammonia (NH3) 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.13 0.10 0.11 than those of NH3 (Table 2). According to Ref. [13], HCN
Isocyanic acid (HNCO) 0.11 0.02 0.05 0.20 0.11 0.07 formation may go to completion much more rapidly than
Carbonyl sulphide (COS) 0.18 0.11 0.00 0.31 0.16 0.11 that of NH3, which is found to be the main N-product when
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) 0.17 0.12 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00
secondary reactions are considered in conversion processes
Formaldehyde (CH2O) 3.66 2.93 3.15 1.12 1.12 1.16
Acetaldehyde (CH3CHO) 9.28 8.11 3.97 10.2 9.02 7.70 characterised by longer residence times. This could partly
Methanol (CH3OH) 0.98 0.74 0.64 1.42 1.13 1.07 explain the high concentrations of HCN found in this study.
Formic acid (HCOOH) 2.68 1.73 0.82 2.12 1.66 0.37 In fact, TG-FTIR experiments were designed to minimise
Acetic acid (CH3COOH) 2.78 2.37 2.28 4.24 3.59 3.35 secondary reactions.
Phenol (C6H5OH) 1.46 0.65 0.73 2.31 1.83 1.99
Acetone (CH3OCH3) 2.05 2.15 1.63 1.80 1.86 2.10

yields of lighter gaseous species (mostly CO, CO2 and
acetaldehyde). This can be explained by differences in
kinetic effects associated with the release of tar and light
species. Apparently, at higher heating rates, there is not
enough time allowed for the evolution of light species and
thus, tar fragments leaving the biomass carry with them
precursor material that could potentially result in light gas
compound formation. The heating rate does not have a
significant effect on the yields of the following species:
methane, formaldehyde and acetone. This behaviour
suggests that the above species may have different
precursors than CO, CO2 and acetaldehyde.
Furthermore, a potential relation between char formation
and CH4, CH2O and CH3OCH3 release could be advanced
since their relatively constant yields when varying the
heating rates. However, these suppositions have to be
further investigated. The effect of the heating rate is more
complex (e.g. a maximum or a minimum is observed) in the
case of the following species: ethylene (WP), phenol and
water (WP).
Pyrolysis of Miscanthus produces higher yields of char
and lower yields of volatile matter as compared to wood.
This different behaviour may be explained in terms of
different biochemical composition between the two differ-
ent biomass types. Generally, in biomass, lignin shows a
relatively large contribution to the production of fixed
carbon than other main constituents such as cellulose or
hemi-cellulose. The lignin content in WP (pine wood) is
about 23 wt% [52]. In Ref. [53], values between 10 and
40 wt% are presented for various herbaceous species such as
3. Modelling section
3.1. Kinetic analysis
A reasonable starting assumption is that the reaction rates
to be determined follow first-order kinetics with distributed
activation energy of width s (Gaussian distribution is
assumed). In particular the rate constant ki for release of the
ith functional group (also called: pool) is given by an
Arrhenius expression of the form [55]
ki ¼ Ai expðð2Ei ^ si Þ=RTÞ ð1Þ
where Ai is the pre-exponential factor, Ei is the activation
energy and si the width of distribution in activation
energies.
The technique usually employed at AFR to process TG-
FTIR data for determining kinetic parameters, is the non-
isothermal method based on the temperature at which the
rate of volatile evolution is maximum (Tmax) [56,57].
Typically, Tmax is measured at several heating rates (in our
case at 10, 30 and 100 8C/min) and the activation energy E
and the pre-exponential factor A can be extracted from the
following equation [56]
2
lnðM=Tmax Þ ¼ lnðAR=EÞ 2 E=ðRTmax Þ ð2Þ
where M represents the varying heating rate.
While the value of E is accurately determined even for
wide distributions, the value of A usually requires a slight
adjustment (typically within a factor of two) [56]. The width
of the distribution, s, can then be determined from the width
1
http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis
1142 W. de Jong et al. / Fuel 82 (2003) 1139–1147

Table 3 of the peak representing the rate of weight loss. In the Tmax
Kinetic parameters and precursor pool size (yields) for main and N-species method, some difficulties can be encountered when peaks
determined for WP and pelletised Dutch MG. Numbers before species
are not well resolved; in such cases, substantial shift in Tmax
names indicate precursor-material sources (pools). Some species evolve as
a single peak (one source), the evolution of other species is bimodal or can occur. Another limitation is associated with the
trimodal (two or three sources) presence of small, multiple maxima superimposed on a
broader peak, i.e. when the assumption of the first order
Sample Precursor pool A (s21) E/R (K) s/R Yield per
kinetics is not fully supported. In this case, the applicability
identifier per (K) precursor
evolved pool of the Tmax method is reduced. Once A, E and s values are
species (wt% daf) determined, the sizes of precursor pools (i.e. the concen-
trations of the precursor species) for individual species are
Wood pellets 1-CO2 5.20 £ 1011 18,300 900 0.95 determined by adjusting the simulated peak heights so that
2-CO2 5.20 £ 1011 20,500 500 3.10 they best fit the TG-FTIR data. If necessary, minor
3-CO2 2.80 £ 1012 24,830 900 0.90
adjustments to A, E and s are made to improve the fit to
1-CO 5.20 £ 1011 20,300 500 1.90
2-CO 6.50 £ 1012 26,300 3200 3.05 the data. In the present study, an attempt was made to
3-CO 2.80 £ 1012 35,930 3300 1.80 employ the Tmax method, but limited data resolution,
1-H2O 5.20 £ 1011 19,900 1200 11.94 especially at 100 8C/min, caused significant uncertainties
2-H2O 4.40 £ 1012 26,000 2500 3.00 in Tmax determination. For this reason, A, E and s values
1-CH4 6.50 £ 1011 19,200 800 0.05
were fitted into experimental data using a trial-and-error
2-CH4 6.50 £ 1011 22,500 800 0.60
3-CH4 3.10 £ 1012 27,700 2100 0.60 approach. Care was taken to ensure that pre-exponential
1-Tars 5.20 £ 1011 20,500 500 38.00 factors were generally consistent with the transition-state
1-HCN 2.80 £ 1012 21,230 1900 0.05 theory ðA < 1011 – 1016 s21 Þ: The results from the kinetic
2-HCN 2.80 £ 1012 27,000 2500 0.04 analysis for the biomass samples considered in this study are
1-HNCO 2.80 £ 1012 17,930 900 0.02
given in Table 3. In addition to the kinetic parameters
2-HNCO 2.80 £ 1012 28,930 3800 0.02
1-C2H4 2.80 £ 1012 25,930 800 0.20 explained in Eq. (1), Table 3 contains estimated sizes of
1-CH3OH 5.20 £ 1011 17,800 800 0.40 precursor pools (sources of the precursor material) for each
2-CH3OH 2.30 £ 1011 21,030 700 0.39 major peak and shoulder observed in TG-FTIR data. A more
1-CH2O 5.20 £ 1011 18,400 500 1.20 detailed discussion of that concept is given in Section 3.2. In
2-CH2O 5.20 £ 1011 20,500 200 2.10
the case of WP, no kinetic data for ammonia release were
1-CH3CHO 5.20 £ 1011 20,400 500 7.00
1-HCOOH 5.20 £ 1012 20,800 800 1.70 determined as the concentrations of this component were
1-CH3COOH 5.20 £ 1011 19,300 900 2.30 found to be rather low and noisy.
1-C6H5OH 7.40 £ 1018 32,500 2500 0.75
1-CH3OCH3 5.20 £ 1012 20,900 800 1.90 3.2. FG –DVC model results and discussion
Miscanthus 1-CO2 5.20 £ 1011 16,300 900 0.98
2-CO2 5.20 £ 1011 19,500 500 7.50 A general description of the FG – DVC model for coal-
3-CO2 2.80 £ 1012 24,830 900 0.93 pyrolysis can be found in Refs. [44,55,58]. The FG – DVC
1-CO 5.20 £ 1011 19,550 400 3.90
model was originally developed by AFR to describe coal
2-CO 6.50 £ 1012 26,300 3200 1.85
3-CO 2.80 £ 1012 35,930 3300 1.40 thermal decomposition, by predicting product distribution,
1-H2O 5.20 £ 1011 19,100 400 14.14 extract yields, cross-link density, molecular weight distri-
2-H2O 4.40 £ 1012 24,000 2500 4.50 bution and fluidity as a function of coal rank, heating rate
1-CH4 6.50 £ 1011 19,500 600 0.15 and pressure. The FG – DVC code combines a FG model for
2-CH4 6.50 £ 1011 22,300 500 0.23
gas evolution and a statistical depolymerisation, vaporisa-
3-CH4 3.10 £ 1012 26,900 1600 0.76
1-Tars 5.20 £ 1011 19,700 500 21.34 tion and cross-linking (DVC) model for tar and char
1-HCN 2.80 £ 1012 20,530 1900 0.07 formation. The FG subroutine is used to describe the gas
2-HCN 2.80 £ 1012 28,000 3100 0.07 evolution and the elemental and functional group compo-
1-HNCO 2.80 £ 1012 16,930 900 0.02 sitions. The DVC subroutine is employed to determine the
2-HNCO 2.80 £ 1012 25,930 2800 0.09
amount and molecular weight of macromolecular frag-
1-NH3 5.20 £ 1011 18,600 800 0.07
2-NH3 5.20 £ 1011 25,000 2500 0.03 ments. The lightest of these fragments evolve as tar.
1-C2H4 2.80 £ 1012 24,930 800 0.21 The model was later extended to biomass feedstock [44].
1-CH3OH 5.20 £ 1011 17,500 500 0.20 There are two major differences between the coal and
2-CH3OH 2.30 £ 1011 19,930 400 0.95 biomass version of the model. First, the DVC part of the
1-CH2O 5.20 £ 1011 17,100 500 0.33
model is de-emphasised in the biomass version in favour of
2-CH2O 5.20 £ 1011 19,500 200 0.82
1-CH3CHO 5.20 £ 1011 19,500 300 9.02 the FG description of gas and tar evolution. Secondly,
1-HCOOH 5.20 £ 1012 20,500 500 1.66 unlike in the coal version, where tar competes for the
1-CH3COOH 5.20 £ 1011 18,700 900 3.59 precursor material with gaseous species, tar is treated just
1-C6H5OH 7.40 £ 1018 29,100 2100 2.03 like any other volatile species in the biomass model. The
1-CH3OCH3 5.20 £ 1012 20,500 800 1.86
evolution of each species is associated with the peak found
 W. de Jong et al. / Fuel 82 (2003) 1139–1147 1143

Fig. 1. Comparison between TG-FTIR measurements and FG–DVC modelling results for rates and yields obtained for the pyrolysis of WP. Heating rate was
30 8C/min. Lines without markers: FG–DVC model predictions for yields (secondary axis) and rates (primary axis). Lines with B markers: experimental TG-
FTIR measurements for yields (secondary axis) and rates (primary axis).
1144 W. de Jong et al. / Fuel 82 (2003) 1139–1147

Fig. 2. Comparison between TG-FTIR measurements and FG– DVC modelling results for rates and yields obtained for the pyrolysis of MG. Heating rate was
30 8C/min. Lines without markers: FG –DVC model predictions for yields (secondary axis) and rates (primary axis). Lines with B markers: experimental TG-
FTIR measurements for yields (secondary axis) and rates (primary axis).
 W. de Jong et al. / Fuel 82 (2003) 1139–1147
in the TG-FTIR measurement. For some compounds, fitting
the wide pyrolysis peaks by the FG-submodel required more
than one single source (or pool). For instance, for CO three
precursor pools were used (Table 3).
Each source evolves according to
dWi =dt ¼ ki Wi ðcharÞ ð3Þ
where Wi is the gas species, Wi(char) is the amount of the
functional group source remaining in the char and ki is the
rate constant given by Eq. (1).
Input files for the FG – DVC biomass model for the two
different biomass samples involved in this work were
developed by AFR according to the TG-FTIR experiments
and kinetic analysis described above. A set of TG-FTIR data
as well as FG – DVC model fits to these data using the input
files mentioned are presented in Figs. 1 and 2. For all the
experiments, the balance curve is plotted as a function of
time, with a thermocouple measured temperature given on
the primary axis. Evolution and weight curves are presented
for main and N-gas species evolving from the samples. The
evolution curves are given in ‘weight percent per minute’
(primary axis), while product yield curves, which are the
integral of the evolution curves and show the total amount
of the species evolved, are presented in the units ‘weight
percent’ (secondary axis).
In general, the model correctly simulates the locations of
peak pyrolysis rates for individual species (CO, CO2, etc.).
For several species, however, it was difficult to fit model-
predicted yields to experimental data at all heating rates. In
these cases, a compromise had to be made by having the fits
underpredict experimental data at one heating rate and
overpredict at other. We believe that above difficulty was
caused by the inability of the biomass model to account for
the competition between gas and tar for the available
precursor pools. It was noted that at high heating rates there
was not enough time allowed, within specific temperature
windows, for the evolution of light species. As a
consequence, tar fragments leaving the biomass carried
with them precursor material that could potentially result in
light-gas formation.
In particular, N-species evolutions for Miscanthus
obtained from the FG –DVC model are in rather good
agreement with TG-FTIR measurements. On the other hand,
there are some discrepancies for the fixed nitrogen
compounds evolution for WP pyrolysis, probably due to
the TG-FTIR limits of detectability for such low
concentrations.
4. Conclusions
Biomass pyrolysis kinetics of wood and Dutch MG
pellets were studied using TG-FTIR analysis. Tar release
appeared to increase with increasing heating rate. On the
other hand, light gaseous species (mostly CO, CO2 and
CH3CHO) showed an adverse dependence on the heating
1145
rate. Yields of char, CH4, CH2O and CH3OCH3 were
independent of the heating rates applied. N-species release
generally showed a higher HCN yield compared to NH3.
Also, significant amounts of HNCO were detected.
However, regarding nitrogen species, the difficulty of
measuring low concentrations should be underlined:
relatively high noise levels might affect the significance of
these values.
Kinetic and composition (pool size) parameters were
obtained for each volatile species and used to simulate TG-
FTIR results by means of the biomass version of the FG –
DVC model. N-species evolutions for Miscanthus were
predicted in better agreement than for wood, due to the low
N-content in the wood and related detectability of the FTIR.
The locations of the peak for the pyrolysis rates for main
species (CO, CO2, H2O, CH4) were correctly simulated by
the model, although it was difficult to fit model-predicted
yields to experimental data at all heating rates. It is expected
that a new version of the FG – DVC biomass model, to be
available in 2002, will include the mechanism for the
competition between gas and tar, improving the predictive
capabilities of the model. Furthermore, in order to validate
the rate parameters and pool sizes presented in this study, it
is recommended to carry out a comparison between model
predictions and experimental results under different pyrol-
ysis conditions, especially at higher heating rates. For this
purpose, e.g. a drop tube furnace or a heated grid reactor can
be applied.
Acknowledgements
The Dutch Agency for Energy and Environment,
NOVEM, is acknowledged for funding the research in the
framework of biomass gasification modelling via the project
‘Biomassa vergassing-CFB-STEG’ (contract EWAB
355298/2010). Mr Drenth of Agromiscanthus (The Nether-
lands) is thanked for supply of the Miscanthus Giganteus
pellets. Finally, Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Bernd Janisch at I.V.D.
(University of Stuttgart) is acknowledged for performing
proximate and ultimate analyses of the fuels.
References
[1] Johansson TB, Kelly H, Reddy AKN, Williams RH. Renewable
energy: sources for fuel and electricity. California: Island Press; 1993.
ISBN 1-55963-138-4.
[2] Björkman E, Larsson C. The formation of nitrogen compounds
at gasification conditions, with and without internal catalysts.
TPS-report 96/48 Termiska Processer AB, Studsvik, Sweden; 1996.
[3] de Jong W, Ünal Ö, Andries J, Hein KRG, Spliethoff
H. Pressurised gasification experiments and modelling of biomass
and fossil fuels in fluidised bed gasifiers with hot gas ceramic
filters. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of
1146 W. de Jong et al. / Fuel 82 (2003) 1139–1147
Technologies and Combustion for a Clean Environment, vol. 3,
Porto, Portugal; 2001. p. 1327–37.
[4] El Asri R, Komonov AA, De Ruyck J. Fluidized bed flash pyrolysis of
biomass. Proceedings of the Second Olle Lindström Symposium on
Renewable Energy–Bioenergy, Stockholm, Sweden; 1999. p. 121– 7.
[5] Glarborg P, Alzueta MU, Dam-Johansen K. Kinetic modelling of
hydrocarbon/nitric oxide interactions in a flow reactor. Combust
Flame 1998;115:1–27.
[6] Hämäläinen JP, Aho MJ, Tummavuori JL. Formation of nitrogen
oxides from fuel-N through HCN and NH3: a model compound study.
Fuel 1994;73:1894 –8.
[7] Hämäläinen JP, Aho MJ. Conversion of fuel nitrogen through HCN
and NH3 to nitrogen oxides at elevated pressure. Fuel 1996;75:
1377–86.
[8] Kilpinen PT, Leppälahti JK, Coda Zabetta EG, Hupa M. Gas-phase
conversion of NH3 to N2 in gasification. Part I: a kinetic modelling
study on the potential of the method. IFRF Combust J 1999; Article
Number 199901, ISSN 1562-479X.
[9] Kilpinen PT, Coda Zabetta EG, Hupa M. A kinetic modelling study on
the potential staged combustion in gas turbines for the reduction of
nitrogen oxide emission from biomass IGCC plants. Energy Fuels
2000;14:751 –61.
[10] Kilpinen PT, Coda Zabetta EG. Gas-phase conversion of NH3 to N2
in gasification. Part II: testing the kinetic model. IFRF Combust J
2001; Article Number 200104, ISSN 1562-479X.
[11] Leppälahti J, Koljonen T. Nitrogen evolution from coal, peat and
wood during gasification: literature review. Espoo, Finland: VTT
technical research centre of Finland; 1994.
[12] Leppälahti J. Behaviour of fuel-bound nitrogen in gasification and in
high temperature NH3 removal processes. Espoo, Finland: VTT
technical research centre of Finland; 1998.
[13] Li C-Z, Tan LL. Formation of NOx and SOx precursors during the
pyrolysis of coal and biomass. Part I. Effects of reactor configuration
on the determined yields of HCN and NH3 during pyrolysis. Fuel
2000;79:1883 –9.
[14] Li C-Z, Tan LL. Formation of NOx and SOx precursors during the
pyrolysis of coal and biomass. Part III. Further discussion on the
formation of HCN and NH3 during pyrolysis. Fuel 2000;79:
1899–906.
[15] Padban N. PFB air gasification of biomass, investigation of product
formation and problematic issues related to ammonia, tar and alkali.
Doctoral dissertation. Department of Chemical Engineering II, Lund
University, Sweden; 2000.
[16] Vriesman P, Heginuz E, Sjöström K. Biomass gasification in a
laboratory-scale AFBG; influence of the location of the feeding point
on the fuel-N conversion. Fuel 2000;79:1371 –8.
[17] Zhou J, Masutani SM, Ishimura DM, Turn SQ, Kinoshita CM. Release
of fuel-bound nitrogen during biomass gasification. Ind Engng Chem
Res 2000;39:626–34.
[18] Reed TB, Bryant B. Densified biomass a new form of solid fuel with a
forward for the 21st century. Golden, Colorado, USA: The Biomass
Energy Foundation (BEF); 1978.
[19] van Krevelen DW, van Heerden C, Huntjens FJ. Physicochemical
aspects of the pyrolysis of coal and related organic compounds. Fuel
1951;30:253 –9.
[20] Jüntgen H, van Heek KH. Progress made in the research of bituminous
coal. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the DGMK, Salzburg;
1968 (translated by Belov and Associates, Denver, CO, APTIC-TR-
0779 (1970)).
[21] Burnham AK, Oh MS, Crawford RW, Samoun AM. Pyrolysis
of argonne premium coals: activation energy distributions and
related chemistry. Energy Fuels 1989;3:42–55.
[22] Jüntgen H. Review of the kinetics of pyrolysis and hydropyrolysis in
relation to the chemical constitution of coal. Fuel 1984;63:731–7.
[23] Weimer RF, Ngan DY. Rates of light gas production by devolatilisa-
tion of coals and lignite. ACS Div Fuel Chem Prepr 1979;24(3):
129–40.
[24] Ciuryla VT, Weimer RF, Bivans DA, Motika SA. Ambient-pressure
thermogravimetric characterization of four different coals and their
chars. Fuel 1979;58:749– 54.
[25] Gaur S, Reed TB. Thermal data for natural and synthetic fuels. New
York, USA: Marcel Dekker; 1998.
[26] Coats AW, Redfern JP. Kinetic parameters from thermogravimetric
data. Nature 1964;201:68–9.
[27] Gyulai G, Greenhow EJ. A new integral method for the kinetic
analysis of thermogravimetric data. J Therm Anal 1974;6:279– 91.
[28] Doyle J. Kinetic analysis of thermogravimetric data. J Appl Polym Sci
1961;5(15):285– 92.
[29] Zsako J. Kinetic analysis of thermogravimetric data. III. Improvement
of Doyle’s isothermal method. J Therm Anal 1970;2:145– 9.
[30] Zsako J. Kinetic analysis of thermogravimetric data. VI. Some
problems of deriving kinetic parameters from TG curves. J Therm
Anal 1973;5:239–51.
[31] Satava V, Skvara F. Mechanism and kinetics of the decomposition of
solids by a thermogravimetric method. J Am Ceram Soc 1969;52(11):
591 –5.
[32] Freeman ES, Carroll B. The application of thermoanalytical
techniques to reaction kinetics. The thermogravimetric evaluation
of the kinetics of the decomposition of calcium oxalate monohydrate.
J Phys Chem 1958;62:394 –7.
[33] Varhegyi G. Integration of the rate constant and linearization of the
kinetic equations in non-isothermal reaction kinetics. Thermochim
Acta 1978;25:201–7.
[34] Antal MJ, Friedman HL, Rogers FE. Kinetics of cellulose pyrolysis in
nitrogen and steam. Combust Sci Technol 1980;21:141–52.
[35] Arseneau DF. Competitive reactions in the thermal decomposition of
cellulose. Can J Chem 1971;49:632 –8.
[36] Domburgs G, Rossinskaya G, Sergeeva V. Study of thermal stability
of b-ether bonds in lignin and its models. Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Thermal Analysis, Budapest, Hungary,
vol. 2; 1974. p. 211–19.
[37] Klein MT, Virk PS. Modelling of lignin thermolysis. ACS Div Fuel
Chem Prepr 1981;26(3):77–88.
[38] Friedman HL. Kinetics of thermal degradation of char-forming
plastics from thermogravimetry. Application to a phenolic plastic.
J Polym Sci, Part C 1964;6:183–95.
[39] Solomon PR, Serio MA, Suuberg EM. Coal pyrolysis: experiments,
kinetic rates and mechanisms. Prog Energy Combust Sci 1992;18:
133 –220.
[40] Miura K. A new and simple method to estimate f ðEÞ and k0 ðEÞ in the
distributed activation energy model from three sets of experimental
data. Energy Fuels 1995;9:302–7.
[41] Miura K, Maki T. A simple method for estimating f ðEÞ and k0 ðEÞ in
the distributed activation energy model. Energy Fuels 1998;12:
864 –9.
[42] Miura K, Maki T. Simplified method to estimate f ðEÞ in the
distributed activation energy model for analyzing coal pyrolysis
reaction. J Chem Engng Jpn 1998;31(2):228–35.
[43] Maki T, Miura K. Analysis of pyrolysis reactions of various coals
including argonne premium coals using a new distributed activation
energy model. Energy Fuels 1997;11:972–7.
[44] Chen Y, Charpenay S, Jensen A, Wójtowicz MA, Serio MA.
Modeling of biomass pyrolysis. 27th Symposium (International) on
Combustion, Pittsburgh, PA: The combustion Institute; 1998. p.
1327–34.
[45] Carangelo RM, Solomon PR, Gerson DJ. Application of TG-FTIR to
study hydrocarbon structure and kinetics. Fuel 1987;66:960.
[46] Whelan JK, Solomon PR, Deshpande GV, Carangelo RM.
Thermogravimetric Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (TG-
FTIR) of petroleum source rock—initial results. Energy Fuels
1988;2:65.
[47] Bassilakis R, Zhao Y, Solomon PR, Serio MA. Sulphur and nitrogen
evolution in the argonne coals: experiment and modeling. Energy
Fuels 1993;7:710–20.
 W. de Jong et al. / Fuel 82 (2003) 1139–1147
[48] Carangelo RM, Serio MA, Solomon PR, Charpenay S, Yu ZZ,
Bassilakis R. Coal pyrolysis: measurements and modeling of product
evolution kinetics and char properties. ACS Div Fuel Chem Prepr
1991;36(2):796.
[49] Solomon PR, Hamblen DG, Serio MA, Yu ZZ, Charpenay S. A
characterisation method and model for predicting coal conversion
behaviour. Fuel 1993;72(4):469–88.
[50] Bassilakis R, Carangelo RM, Wójtowicz MA. TG-FTIR analysis of
biomass pyrolysis. Fuel 2001;80:1765 –86.
[51] Solomon PR, Serio MA, Carangelo RM, Bassilakis R, Yu ZZ,
Charpenay S, Whelan J. Analysis of coal by thermogravimetry–
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and pyrolysis modeling.
J Anal Appl Pyrol 1991;19:1–14.
[52] Miller RS, Bellan J. A generalised biomass pyrolysis model based on
superimposed cellulose, hemi-cellulose and lignin kinetics. Combust
Sci Technol 1997;126:97–137.
[53] Klass DL. Biomass for renewable energy, fuels, and chemicals.
London, UK: Academic Press; 1998.
1147
[54] Glarborg P, Jensen DA, Johnsson JE. Some aspects of fuel
nitrogen conversion in solid fuel fired systems. Proceedings of the
Sixth International Conference of Technologies and Combustion
for a Clean Environment, invited lecture num. 3, Porto, Portugal;
2001.
[55] Solomon PR, Hamblen DG, Serio MA, Yu ZZ, Charpenay S.
Can coal science be predictive. ACS Div Fuel Chem Prepr 1991;
36(1):211– 67.
[56] Braun RL, Burnham AK. Analysis of chemical reaction kinetics using
a distribution of activation energies and simpler models. Energy Fuels
1987;1:153 –61.
[57] Teng H, Serio MA, Wójtowicz MA, Bassilakis R, Solomon PR.
Reprocessing of used tires into activated carbon and other products.
Ind Engng Chem Res 1995;34:3102–11.
[58] Solomon PR, Hamblen DG, Carangelo RM, Serio MA, Deshpande
GV. A general model of coal devolatilisation. ACS Div Fuel Chem
Prepr 1987;32(3):83.