Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 133 (2018) 246–253

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaap

Thermochemical conversion of sugarcane bagasse by fast pyrolysis: High T

yield of levoglucosan production
⁎
Geraldo F. Davida, Oselys Rodriguez Justob, Victor Haber Pereza, , Manuel Garcia-Perezc
a
Processes Engineering Sector, State University of Northern of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
b
Environmental School, Estácio de Sá University, Campos dos Goytacazes. RJ, Brazil
c
Biological System Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The aim of this paper is to improve the conversion of sugarcane bagasse to pyrolytic sugar levoglucosan through
Levoglucosan its pretreatment with acetic acid (10 wt.%) at 90 °C for 10 min under 200 rpm. Then, acid treated biomass was
1,6-anhydro-Beta-D-glucopyranose rinsed with deionized water to a neutral pH and dried in a vacuum oven at 70 °C up to constant weight. After
Sugarcane bagasse acid treatment, the samples were subjected to fast pyrolysis in a Py-GC/MS. Thus, the impact of the acetic acid
Acetic acid treatment
on the levoglucosan yield as well as other pyrolytic compounds released during pyrolysis process at different
Thermochemical conversion
temperatures (from 350 to 600 °C) is reported. The best results respect to levoglucosan yield were attained when
Fast pyrolysis
pyrolysis was performed at 400 °C resulting in around nine folds levoglucosan production from sugarcane ba-
gasse after biomass treatment with acid compared to the control (untreated biomass samples) while the yield of
some undesirable lignin derived compounds decreases in acid washed samples. The effect observed is due to the
removal of the catalytic activity of alkali and alkaline earth metals. The attained results are very attractive
because this pyrolytic sugar exhibits great potential as renewable feedstock for biofuels production and other
bioproducts.

1. Introduction
Brazil is the world's largest sugarcane producer. In the most recent
harvest (2016–2017) sugarcane production reached around 690 million
tons [1] resulting in around 186 million tons of sugarcane bagasse. In
Brazil; bagasse is commonly used to generate heat and power in su-
garcane mills producing sugar and bioethanol. However; there is an
excess of bagasse that can be used for several other applications such as
feedstock for second generation bioethanol production. Sugarcane ba-
gasse is also a very attractive feedstock for bio-char and bio-oil pro-
duction via fast pyrolysis [2]. Bio-oil contains levoglucosan (1,6-an-
hydro-Beta-D-glicopyranose); an anhydrous pyrolytic sugar that can be
easily fermented [3,4]. Thus; these oils could be valuable intermediates
for bioethanol production [5,6].
Fast pyrolysis of lignocellulosic materials typically results in oils
with around 8 wt% of levoglucosan [7]. This yield can be improved by
acid washing for ash removal or by adding strong acid catalysts to
passivate the catalytic effect of alkalines and alkaline earth metals.
Although there are some papers on softwoods; hardwoods; avisel cel-
lulose and grasses pyrolysis for enhanced levoglucosan production
[2,4,8–18]; there are few studies on bagasse pyrolysis [6,19–23]. A
paper on the use of strong acid additives (HNO3 and H2SO4) to increase
the levoglucosan yield from sugarcane bagasse was recently published
[24]. The increase in levoglucosan yield was around seven folds higher
than to control and this result was supported by the removal or the
passivation of alkalines [8,9,25]. According to Patwardhan et al. [25]
the presence of alkaline and alkaline earth metals (AAEMs) in biomass
catalyzes cellulose fragmentation reactions lowering levoglucosan
production from depolymerization reactions. Kuzhiyil et al.; [26] report
80% levoglucosan yield increases due to AAEMs passivation with strong
acids. Studied on rice husk and white pine washed with HCl and H3PO4
showed changes in their physical structure [27]. In addition to in-
creasing levoglucosan yield biomass acid washing can also be results in
increased oil yield; no minerals in bio-oil; no low temperature melting
ashes in the char; no catalyst poisoning by ashes when applying a
catalyst within the pyrolysis process itself; both inside the reactor or in
the vapor phase between the reactor and condenser [18].
However; the increase in overall costs and some technical chal-
lenges are among the most important hurdles of biomass acid washing
and AAEMs passivation pretreatment [28]. The first technical challenge
is that the biomass should be dried previously to fast pyrolysis. The
second one was that the acid used for biomass washing should be

⁎
Corresponding author at: State University of Northern of Rio de Janeiro (UENF) (CCTA/LTA-Processes Engineering Sector), Av Alberto Lamego 2000, Pq California, Campos dos
Goytacazes-RJ 28013-602, Brazil.
E-mail address: victorhaberperez@gmail.com (V.H. Perez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2018.03.004
Received 8 February 2018; Received in revised form 21 February 2018; Accepted 4 March 2018
Available online 12 March 2018
0165-2370/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
G.F. David et al.
separated and recovered or disposed; which increases the operational
costs of pre-treatment and this process need deionized water to lixiviate
the remaining acid [28]. Any excess of strong acid in the biomass will
catalyze dehydration reactions dramatically decreasing the yield of
anhydrosugars [2]. The use of a weak acid like acetic acid to remove
AAEMs could be a promising way to address the issues mentioned
above since this acid can also be produced from biomass pyrolysis [18].
Thus; our overall goal is to improve the sugarcane bagasse con-
version to levoglucosan with acetic acid washing at fast pyrolysis
temperatures between 350 and 600 °C.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Biomass collection and characterization
Sugarcane bagasse from Brazilian Paraiso’s Sucroalcohol Industry
located at Northern of Rio de Janeiro; Brazil; was used in this study. The
sugarcane bagasse was milled using a Bliss Industries Hammer Mill
resulting in the particles size with 0.420 μm (40 mesh) according to
ASTM (D5644-01). The elemental analysis (CHNeO) of the samples was
determined using a TruSpec CHN analyzer (LECO; USA) calibrated with
EDTA standard [9]. All these tests were carried out in triplicate for the
error determination expressed as Standard deviation.
The contents of alkaline metals in the sugarcane bagasse samples
were quantified by ICP-OES from Shimadzu (model ICPE – 9000) with
an autosampler after digestion of samples with concentrated HNO3 and
H2O in open digestion system. ICP conditions: For plasma generation;
nebulization and auxiliary gas; argon with a purity of 99.996% was
used. Gas plasm flow was 8 L/min; auxiliary gas flow was 0.70 L/min
and carrier gas flow was 0.55 L/min. The calibration curves were pre-
pared and adjusted for R-squared values higher than 0.9999 for all the
elements tested (Ba; Ca; Cu; Fe; K; Mg; Mn; P; S and Zn).
2.2. Experimental methods for biomass acid pretreatments
Firstly; the sugarcane bagasse was milled up to 0.420 mm in a
Hammer mill. Acetic acid was then added in a solution of 10 wt.% at
90 °C for 10 min under agitation (200 rpm). The acid treated biomass
was rinsed with deionized water to a neutral pH and dried in a vacuum
oven (70 °C up to constant weight) followed the procedure described
elsewhere [9]. Finally; the samples were pyrolyzed at 350; 400; 450;
500; 550 and 600 °C in an analytical pyrolyzer and formed products
monitored by GC/MS as describe below. All these tests were carried out
in triplicate for the error determination expressed as Standard devia-
tion.
Fig. 1. TG and DTG analysis for untreated and treated sugarcane bagasse with acetic acid. Symbols:□ untreated; ● acetic acid.
247
Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 133 (2018) 246–253
2.3. Analytical methods
2.3.1. Thermogravimetric analyses (TGA)
TGA tests were carried out in a TA Instruments TGA 5000 to verify
the influence of acetic acid pretreatment and heating rate on the su-
garcane bagasse thermal degradation profile. Briefly; 5.0 mg of samples
were loaded into a crucible; heated from 25 to 600 °C under heating
rate at 10 °C/min under nitrogen (20 mL/min).
2.3.2. Py-GC/MS analyses
The as received and acetic acid treatment of sugarcane bagasse
samples were studied by Py-GC/MS with the aid of a CDS Pyroprobe
5000 (CDS Analytical Inc.; Oxford; PA) connected to a 6890N Network
GC system with a 5975 B mass spectrometer (Agilent Technologies;
Santa Clara; CA). The temperature of the pyro-probe was set up to 350;
400; 450; 500; 550 and 600 °C. The GC column used was an Agilent HP-
5MS; 30 m long; internal diameter 250 μm; thickness 0.25 μm. The GC
injector temperature was set up at 250 °C; initial oven temperature was
set at 40 °C holding for 1 min and heated at a rate of 6 °C/ min to 280 °C
holding for 15 min. Helium was used as carrier gas at a flow rate of
1 mL/ min in a split mode. Then split ratio was 50:1 and gas saver was
turned on at 20 mL/ min at 2 min. Biomass samples were previously
weighed out between 300 and 500 μg and loaded into quartz tubes
(25 mm length and 1.8 mm diameter) held in the center of the tube with
a plug of quartz wool at both edges. For standardization of the formed
compounds; their peak area was divided by the sugarcane bagasse mass
pyrolyzed [9]. Finally; to identify and quantify the formed pyrolytic
compounds from sugarcane bagasse was used the NIST Mass Spectral
Search Program (2.0) coupled with the NIST/EPA/NIH mass spectral
database (V 2.0; 2005).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Physicochemical composition of sugarcane bagasse
The chemical composition of untreated sugarcane bagasse was:
1.0 wt. ash; 3.1 wt.% of extractives; 22.1 wt.% of xylose; 1.7 wt.% of
galactose; 43.4 wt.% of glucose and 2.0 wt.% of arabinose. Similar su-
garcane bagasse composition has been reported [16,29]. The elemental
composition analysis of untreated sugarcane bagasse was: C = 45.8 wt.
%; H = 5.9 wt.%; N = 0.2 wt.%; Ash = 1.0 wt.% and O = 48.1 wt.%
(determined by difference).
3.2. Thermogravimetric analysis
Fig. 1 shows the results of thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) of
G.F. David et al. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 133 (2018) 246–253

Fig. 2. Pyrolysis – GC/MS chromatogram of condensable compounds at 400 °C for: a) untreated sugarcane bagasse (control experiment); b) sugarcane bagasse treated
with acetic acid.

Table 1
Results of alkaline and alkaline earth and other elements for biomass de-
termined by ICP method.
Chemical elements Concentration (μg/g of sugarcane bagasse)

Biomass as received Biomass treated with acetic acid

K (μg/g) 1890 ± 3 620 ± 54

Fe (μg/g) 955 ± 14.14 286.25 ± 1.77
Ca (μg/g) 630 ± 10 920 ± 87
S (μg/g) 620 ± 3.5 141.5 ± 1.6
Mg (μg/g) 510 ± 3.5 13 ± 2.4
P (μg/g) 323 ± 4.5 56.6 ± 34.4
Mn (μg/g) 76 ± 0.00 1.89 ± 0.346
Zn (μg/g) 16.2 ± 0.071 0.997 ± 0.286
Ba (μg/g) 6.82 ± 0.46 3.0 ± 1.48
Cu (μg/g) 4.29 ± 0.18 0.88 ± 0.02
Fig. 3. Yields of Levoglucosan from sugarcane bagasse under previously acid Total 5031.31 ± 39 1987.52 ± 183
treatment condition and after fast pyrolysis at different temperature. Symbols;
sugarcane bagasse: ■ as received; ● acetic acid treatment. Experiments were
carried out in triplicate; thus; error bars represent the Standard deviation. degradation of the bagasse. A decrease in the temperature peak was due
to the removal of alkaline catalyst with acetic acid.
untreated and acetic acid treated bagasse. In all cases; the TGA curves
showed similar profiles with similar thermal events. The untreated
biomass degrades at temperatures lower than the biomass treated with 3.3. Studies of sugarcane bagasse under pyrolysis-GC/MS
acids. DTG curves revealed three main stages. The first one is due to
water losses followed by two stages associated with the degradation of Pyrolysis GC/MS studies were conducted for both sugarcane bagasse
hemicellulose and cellulose [30,31]. Fig. 1 also shows the effect caused untreated and acetic acid treatment at 350; 400; 450; 500; 550 and
by the removal of alkalines by these two acids on the thermal 600 °C. Fig. 2 shows the chromatograms of Py-GC/MS of untreated
sugarcane bagasse and the bagasse submitted to acid treatment. The

248
G.F. David et al.
Fig. 4. Formed pyrolytic products from acid treated sugarcane bagasse by Py-GC/MS studies (carbon dioxide; acetaldehyde; acetic acid; 2-Propanone; 1-hydroxy; 1,2-
Ethanediol; monoacetate). Symbols; sugarcane bagasse: ■ as received; ● acetic acid treatment. Experiments were carried out in triplicate; thus; error bars represent the
Standard deviation.
names of the molecules identified by NBS mass spectra library; the
retention times; chemical formulas and the molecular weights are listed
in Tables A1 and A2; respectively; included in Appendix A. Forty-three
pyrolytic condensable compounds were detected for untreated su-
garcane.
3.3.1. Pyrolytic anhydrosugar (levoglucosan)
Fig. 3 shows that acid treatment favored the formation of levoglu-
cosan. The best results were observed for the treatment with acetic acid
(10 wt.%) at 400 °C. The levoglucosan production was improved 9-folds
comparatively with the control. These results are similar to obtained by
Shafizadeh et al. [32]; that achieve the best levoglucosan production at
the same temperature in the vacuum pyrolysis of cellulose; obtained
39% levoglucosan; the authors also observed that the biomass treat-
ment improve the further levoglucosan yield using the same pyrolysis
temperature.
Pecha et al. [2] achieved an increase of 50% of pyrolytic sugar using
several acids treatments in the Douglas Fir wood. The authors explain
this increase due to the effect of this acids the interactions between
cellulose and other polymers in the lignocellulosic matrix. In addition;
the catalytic effects of the alkali and alkaline earth metals (AAEMs)
such as K; Na and Ca on fragmentation reactions that affect accentually
249
Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 133 (2018) 246–253
the untreated biomass have been reported [2,9,24,25,33].
In this work; the increase in the levoglucosan production can be
explained by alkali and alkaline earth metals removal from the su-
garcane bagasse. The compounds promote the fractionation reactions
(enhances the production of fragmentation products). In agreement
with Mourant et al. [34] the mono-valent alkalines metals are easily
removed from biomass by water washing; other compounds as di-valent
species for example Mg and Ca; require dilute acid for more effective
removal of the same species.
The work performed by Persson et al. [33] showed that the leaching
with acetic acid on the wood was improved with higher acidity of the
solution (5% and 10% of washing acetic acid concentrations). These
authors observed that when 5% of acid was used; the time of leaching
increase; while for 10% of acid concentration no time difference was
observed for the minerals removal. However; at this concentration
(10% of acetic acid) AAEMs were more efficiently removed from bio-
mass. Oudenhoven et al. [18] performed a study with acetic acid pre-
treatment with and without the subsequent rinsing process of the
treated biomass. The authors observed that the levoglucosan yield is
lower for the biomass without rinsing when compared with rinsing
biomass. Also; was observed that the higher mineral content after acetic
acid treatment without rinsing. These results showed the importance of
G.F. David et al. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 133 (2018) 246–253

Fig. 5. Formed pyrolytic products from acid treated sugarcane bagasse by Py-GC/MS studies (2,4(3H,5H)-Furandione; 3-methyl; furfural; 1,2-Cyclopentanedione; 3-
methyl; 2-Cyclopenten-1-one; 2-hydroxy; butanedioic acid; methyl; phenol; 2-methoxy). Symbols; sugarcane bagasse: ■ as received; ● acetic acid treatment.
Experiments were carried out in triplicate; thus; error bars represent the Standard deviation.

the rinsing process to achieve a more efficient removal of the alkaline
compounds present in the biomass treated with acetic acid.
Piskorz et al. [35] presented the thermal decomposition mechanism
of cellulose. In this model; the depolymerizations reactions of cellulose
can take two different pathways; 1) levoglucosan formation; and/or 2)
lower molecular weight compounds. The pathway taken by the reaction
during the fast pyrolysis of the biomass can be strongly influenced by
cellulose morphology; the presence of alkali cations associated with
cellulose and the pyrolysis temperature.
Other authors have also reported that the removal of alkali and
alkaline earth metals prior to pyrolysis; by a pretreatment with in-
organic acids; such as HCl; HNO3; H2SO4 and H3PO4 used as leaching
agents; leads to composition changes in derived bio-oil and in the yields
on the pyrolytic products such as bio-oil; bio-char and syngas
[3,15,25,28].
Mourant et al. [34] considered two possibilities can explain this
behavior when is removed the AAEMs from the biomass. Firstly; AAEMs
species could be bound as carboxylates; joining (acting as crosslinks)
between two parts of biomass structures. The acid-washing; i.e. an ion-
exchanging process to replace these AAEMs species with H+; would
have resulted in the disintegration of these AAEMs-related crosslinks in
the biomass structure. Another hypothesis is that; the AAEMs acts as a
catalyst in the water-forming reactions during pyrolysis. The authors
observed that the water-soluble AAEM species can have different effects
on bio-oil properties from the water-insoluble and acid-soluble AAEMs
species. The remission of AAEMs increase the yield of sugars or other
oligomeric compounds in the produced bio-oil and decrease the chance
of reactions to water formation [34].
Pecha et al. [2] used four different acid treatments in wood; and
conclude that the acetic acid is a more valuable treatment for industrial
application due to concentration and by does not to catalyze dehydra-
tion reaction; which causes a decrease in levoglucosan yields.
Table 1 shows the reduction of several alkalines after the acetic acid
treatment (10 wt.%). These results were confirmed by Persson et al.
when using acetic acid to remove AAEMs. The authors associated the
minerals reduction with the improvement ion-exchange by concentra-
tion of protons using 10% of acetic acid solution. Similar results were
reported for Douglas fir wood (softwood) and hybrid poplar wood
(hardwood); pine wood; cellulose; mallee Eucalyptus loxophleba with
several acid wash strategies (using acetic; nitric; phosphoric and sul-
furic acids) [2,9,34]. According to Pecha et al. [2] the mineral removal
through acid washing appears to decrease the yields of these com-
pounds by about 50%. However; in some biomasses it is not possible to
remove all minerals by washing using acids or alkalines products; due

250
G.F. David et al.
Fig. 6. Formed pyrolytic products from acid treated sugarcane bagasse by Py-GC/MS studies (Benzofuran; 2,3-dihydro; Phenol; 2,6-dimethoxy; Vanillin; 2-Methoxy-
4-vinylphenol; Phenol; 4-ethyl-2-methoxy; phenol; 2-methoxy-4-methyl). Symbols; sugarcane bagasse: ■ as received; ● acetic acid treatment. Experiments were
carried out in triplicate; thus; error bars represent the Standard deviation.
the fact that the alkali and alkaline earth metals are chemically bonded
with the organic matrix of biomass; forming associations with oxygen-
rich functional groups or lignin phenolic groups [36].
These results were consistent with previous studies with sugarcane
bagasse; where the acid treatment improve the pyrolytic sugars pro-
duction through of mitigation of the catalytic effect of alkali and al-
kaline earth metals and consequently contribute to increase in seven
folds the levoglucosan yield [24].
3.3.2. Other pyrolytic chemicals
Figs. 4–7 show the relative yields of formed pyrolytic compounds
for untreated and treated biomass. The compounds formed in the fast
pyrolysis can indicate the reactions structure of biomass (cellulose;
hemicellulose and lignin). Can be occur a reaction of fragmentation
(depolymerization); decarbonylation; decarboxylation and dehydration
of biomass.
Fig. 4 shows the evolution of small molecules containing one to four
carbon atoms; such as; carbon dioxide; acetaldehyde; acetic acid; pro-
panoic acid; 2-oxo; 1,2-ethanediol; monoacetate; 2-propanone; 1-hy-
droxy which are basically products of fragmentation reactions. For in-
stance; the release of CO2 has been well described through
decarboxylation reactions [2,37].
251
Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 133 (2018) 246–253
Fig. 5 shows the profile formation of pyrolytic compounds con-
taining five carbon (2,4(3H,5H)-Furandione; 3-methyl; furfural; 1,2-
Cyclopentanedione; 3-methyl; 2-Cyclopenten-1-one; 2-hydroxy; buta-
nedioic acid; methyl; phenol; 2-methoxy) from biomass samples acetic
acid treated. Furfural; a product of hemicelluloses dehydration reac-
tions; was increased when the biomass was subjected to acid washing
and treated with acetic acid. Similar results were observed when su-
garcane bagasse was treated with sulfur acid [24].
The pyrolysis temperature affected the yield of mono-phenols
(Fig. 6). Higher pyrolysis temperature favored the formation of mono-
phenols compounds. The phenolic compounds (Fig. 7) with largest
chain (ten and eleven carbon atoms); presented different formation
profiles.
4. Conclusions
The effect of acetic acid washing on the sugarcane bagasse was in-
vestigated aiming at increasing levoglucosan production via fast pyr-
olysis. This treatment can remove the alkali and alkaline earth metals of
the biomass and consequently contribute to increase the yield of le-
voglucosan comparatively to the control experiment (untreated bio-
mass). In addition; the use of acetic acid could be a promising way to
G.F. David et al.
Fig. 7. Formed pyrolytic products from acid treated sugarcane bagasse by Py-GC/MS studies (Phenol; 2-methoxy-4-(1-propenyl); 3,5-Dimethoxy-4-hydro-
xycinnamaldehyde; Desaspidinol; Phenol; 2,6-dimethoxy-4-(2-propenyl); 3,5-Dimethoxy-4-hydroxycinnamaldehyde; Ethanone; 1-(4-hydroxy-3,5-dimethox-
yphenyl)). Symbols; sugarcane bagasse: ■ as received; ● acetic acid treatment. Experiments were carried out in triplicate; thus; error bars represent the Standard
deviation.
address the issues mentioned above since it can also be produced from
biomass pyrolysis as byproduct from condensable gases in the aqueous
phase. Thus; these results can be very attractive to improve pyrolytic
sugars production by fast pyrolysis technology as a conversion strategy
to attain substrates for biofuels production.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the Brazilians Scholarship Granted by the
Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Level Personnel (CAPES –
Grant numbers: BEX 6990-12-6 and PDSE-11421/13-4); The National
Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq – Grant
number: 433235/2016-0) and the Biological System Engineering from
Washington State University (WSU) for the opportunity as Visiting
scholar and financial support to this project.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data (Tables A1 and A2) associated with this article
can be found; in the online version at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.
2018.03.004.
252
Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 133 (2018) 246–253
References
[1] CONAB, Companhia Nacional De Abastecimento (CONAB), (2017) http://www.
conab.gov.br/conteudos.php?a=1253.
[2] B. Pecha, P. Arauzo, M. Garcia-Perez, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 114 (2015) 127.
[3] Q. Li, P.H. Steele, F. Yu, B. Mitchell, E.-B.M. Hassan, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 100
(2013) 33.
[4] X. Zhang, W. Yang, C. Dong, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 104 (2013) 19.
[5] M. Garcı ̀a-Pèrez, A. Chaala, C. Roy, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 65 (2002) 111.
[6] A.K. Varma, P. Mondal, Ind. Crops Prod. 95 (2017) 704.
[7] J. Lian, M. Garcia-Perez, S. Chen, Bioresour. Technol. 133 (2013) 183.
[8] S. Zhou, D. Mourant, C. Lievens, Y. Wang, C.-Z. Li, M. Garcia-Perez, Fuel 104 (2013)
536.
[9] S. Zhou, Z. Wang, S.-S. Liaw, C.-Z. Li, M. Garcia-Perez, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 104
(2013) 117.
[10] S.-S. Liaw, V. Haber Perez, S. Zhou, O. Rodriguez-Justo, M. Garcia-Perez, J. Anal.
Appl. Pyrolysis 109 (2014) 140.
[11] Z. Wang, S. Zhou, B. Pecha, R.J.M. Westerhof, M. Garcia-Perez, Energy Fuels 28
(2014) 5167.
[12] B. Zhang, E. Leng, P. Wang, X. Gong, J. Zhang, Y. Zhang, M. Xu, J. Anal. Appl.
Pyrolysis 114 (2015) 119.
[13] Q. Dong, S. Zhang, L. Zhang, K. Ding, Y. Xiong, Bioresour. Technol. 185 (2015) 62.
[14] I.-Y. Eom, J.-Y. Kim, T.-S. Kim, S.-M. Lee, D. Choi, I.-G. Choi, J.-W. Choi, Bioresour.
Technol. 104 (2012) 687.
[15] S.-S. Liaw, S. Zhou, H. Wu, M. Garcia-Perez, Fuel 103 (2013) 672.
[16] Z. Hongdan, X. Shaohua, W. Shubin, Bioresour. Technol. 143 (2013) 391.
[17] P.S. Marathe, S.R.G. Oudenhoven, P.W. Heerspink, S.R.A. Kersten,
R.J.M. Westerhof, Chem. Eng. J. 329 (2017) 187.
[18] S.R.G. Oudenhoven, R.J.M. Westerhof, N. Aldenkamp, D.W.F. Brilman,
G.F. David et al.
S.R.A. Kersten, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 103 (2013) 112.
[19] J.I. Montoya, C. Valdés, F. Chejne, C.A. Gómez, A. Blanco, G. Marrugo, J. Osorio,
E. Castillo, J. Aristóbulo, J. Acero, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 112 (2015) 379.
[20] W.T. Tsai, M.K. Lee, Y.M. Chang, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 76 (2006) 230.
[21] Y. Lee, J. Park, C. Ryu, K.S. Gang, W. Yang, Y.-K. Park, J. Jung, S. Hyun, Bioresour.
Technol. 148 (2013) 196.
[22] M.F. Parihar, M. Kamil, H.B. Goyal, A.K. Gupta, A.K. Bhatnagar, Process Saf.
Environ. Prot. 85 (2007) 458.
[23] S. Vecino Mantilla, P. Gauthier-Maradei, P. Álvarez Gil, S. Tarazona Cárdenas, J.
Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 108 (2014) 284.
[24] G.F. David, V.H. Perez, O. Rodriguez Justo, M. Garcia-Perez, Bioresour. Technol.
223 (2017) 74.
[25] P.R. Patwardhan, J.A. Satrio, R.C. Brown, B.H. Shanks, Bioresour. Technol. 101
(2010) 4646.
[26] N. Kuzhiyil, D. Dalluge, X. Bai, K.H. Kim, R.C. Brown, ChemSusChem 5 (2012)
2228.
[27] H. Tan, S.-R. Wang, J. Fuel Chem. Technol. 37 (2009) 668.
253
Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 133 (2018) 246–253
[28] S.W. Banks, D.J. Nowakowski, A.V. Bridgwater, Fuel Process. Technol. 128
(2014) 94.
[29] L.A.R. Batalha, Q. Han, H. Jameel, H.-M. Chang, J.L. Colodette, F.J. Borges Gomes,
Bioresour. Technol. 180 (2015) 97.
[30] A.O. Aboyade, J.F. Görgens, M. Carrier, E.L. Meyer, J.H. Knoetze, Fuel Process.
Technol. 106 (2013) 310.
[31] T.E. Motaung, R.D. Anandjiwala, Ind. Crops Prod. 74 (2015) 472.
[32] F. Shafizadeh, R.H. Furneaux, T.G. Cochran, J.P. Scholl, Y. Sakai, J. Appl. Polym.
Sci. 23 (1979) 3525.
[33] H. Persson, E. Kantarelis, P. Evangelopoulos, W. Yang, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 127
(2017) 329.
[34] D. Mourant, Z. Wang, M. He, X.S. Wang, M. Garcia-Perez, K. Ling, C.-Z. Li, Fuel 90
(2011) 2915.
[35] J. Piskorz, D.S.A.G. Radlein, D.S. Scott, S. Czernik, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 16
(1989) 127.
[36] J.I. Montoya, F. Chejne-Janna, M. Garcia-Pérez, DYNA 82 (2015).
[37] H. Yang, R. Yan, H. Chen, D.H. Lee, C. Zheng, Fuel 86 (2007) 1781.