Applications in Energy and Combustion Science 9 (2022) 100051

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applications in Energy and Combustion Science

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/applications-in-energy-and-combustion-science

Comparative study of electric-heating torrefaction and solar-driven

torrefaction of biomass: Characterization of property variation and energy
usage with torrefaction severity
Dengyu Chen a, b, *, Kehui Cen b, Ziyu Gan b, Xiaozhuang Zhuang b, Yuping Ba b
a
Co-Innovation Center of Efficient Processing and Utilization of Forest Resources, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China
b
College of Materials Science and Engineering, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Torrefaction is a promising pretreatment for upgrading biomass raw materials, which is traditionally performed
Biomass using electric heating. In this study, torrefaction of three biomass materials (peanut shell, soybean straw, and
Torrefaction pine wood) was performed using a new solar-driven torrefaction (Solar-T) in a temperature range of 200–300 ◦ C
Temperature
for 15–45 min. Property variation and energy usage required for electric-heating torrefaction (Electric-T) of
Deoxygenation
Solar energy
biomass was also analyzed for comparison. Results showed that the properties of torrefied biomass were greatly
affected by both biomass species and torrefaction methods. Among the three biomass materials, soybean straw
had the lowest solid yield (43.2% in Electric-T, 42.9% in Solar-T) and energy yield (50.8% in Electric-T, 51.3% in
Solar-T) under the most severe torrefaction condition (300 ◦ C, 45 min). A linear correlation with a high cor­
relation coefficient was obtained between the biomass conversion (decarbonization, dehydrogenation, deoxy­
genation) and the torrefaction severity index. The deoxygenation efficiency of peanut shell, soybean straw, and
pine wood in Solar-T (300 ◦ C, 45 min) was 2.0%, 1.6%, and 1.2% higher than the corresponding value in
Electric-T, respectively. Energy usage results showed that electrical energy consumed during Electric-T increased
with increasing torrefaction severity, but the energy efficiency decreased. The remarkable advantage of Solar-T
was energy savings, because no electrical energy was required for Solar-T. Considering the energy-mass co-
benefit index, solar-torrefied biomass samples were more transportable than the samples torrefied using Electric-
T. Therefore, Solar-T has the potential to replace Electric-T and improve the competitiveness of biomass-derived
products.

XX-YY-ZZ biomass - temperature - duration

List of abbreviations 1. Introduction

Solar-T solar-driven torrefaction
Electric-T electric-heating torrefaction Biomass is an ideal alternative to fossil sources for environmentally-
HHV high heating value, MJ/kg friendly energy production. Nevertheless, biomass raw materials also
TSI torrefaction severity index have disadvantages, such as non-uniformity, low energy density, and
DC decarbonization, % strong hydrophilicity, resulting in high biomass conversion and trans­
DH dehydrogenation, % portation costs. Thus, biomass pretreatment is essential for improving its
DO deoxygenation, % quality and competitiveness.
1
UEI upgrading energy index, kWh− Torrefaction is a promising biomass pretreatment that involves the
EMCI energy-mass co-benefit index slow pyrolysis of biomass at 200–300 ◦ C [1]. This process partially de­
PS peanut shell grades hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin while releasing water and
SS soybean straw certain volatile organic compounds, leading to significant improvements
PW pine wood

* Corresponding author at: Co-Innovation Center of Efficient Processing and Utilization of Forest Resources, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China.
E-mail address: chendy@njfu.edu.cn (D. Chen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaecs.2021.100051
Received 18 September 2021; Received in revised form 24 November 2021; Accepted 5 December 2021
Available online 22 December 2021
2666-352X/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
D. Chen et al.
Fig. 1. Electric-heating torrefaction system (a) and solar-driven torrefaction system (b) used for biomass torrefaction.
in biomass quality and more uniform properties of biomass [2,3].
Recently, the influence of torrefaction on the fuel quality of biomass has
received extensive attention [4,5]. There have been many previous
studies that have involved the following aspects: (i) upgrading biomass
with different torrefaction severity [6,7], (ii) torrefaction process
modeling and kinetics analysis [8,9], (iii) economic and technological
feasibility [10,11], (iv) combining torrefaction and leaching process
[12,13], and (v) applying biomass pellets in fuel [14,15] or thermo­
chemical conversion of pyrolysis [16], gasification [17], and combus­
tion [18], etc. The benefits of biomass torrefaction have been reported,
and one of the biggest benefits is deoxygenation [19]. The removal of
oxygen greatly increases the hydrophobicity and energy density of
biomass [20], and this destroys biomass fiber structure and improves the
grinding performance [21]. Meanwhile, utilization costs of torrefied
samples would also be greatly reduced. On the basis of this, torrefaction
is recognized as a promising method for producing alternatives to coal
[22].
Biomass torrefaction is a heat treatment and requires external heat
sources [23,24]. The common device used in biomass torrefaction
studies is a tube furnace that uses electric heating as a heat source. Tube
furnace torrefaction is also considered to be conventional torrefaction
[25]. By consuming electricity, the temperature can be increased to
promote the pyrolysis reactions that are involved in the thermal
decomposition of biomass [26,27]. Apparently, the electric-heating
torrefaction consumes a lot of electric energy and can lead to
increased costs of torrefaction.
Solar energy is a clean and renewable energy which has been widely
used in power generation and heating [28]. At present, solar collector
tubes and solar stoves are widely used, and solar concentrators of
trough, dish and linear Fresnel are comparatively mature forms of
technology [29]. The use of a reflector to concentrate solar radiation is
sufficient for providing a high enough temperature for pyrolysis of
biomass [30,31], such as beech wood (600–2000 ◦ C) [32], jatropha
seeds (203–508 ◦ C) [33], rice husk (500–800 ◦ C) [34], and chicken-litter
waste (500–800 ◦ C) [35]. If solar energy is used for torrefaction, it can
reduce or eliminate the use of electrical energy.
A review of the literature shows only a few studies of solar-driven
biomass torrefaction. Cellatoğlu and Ilkan [36] performed the torre­
faction of solid olive mill residue at 250 ◦ C for 10 min using concen­
trated solar energy from a parabolic dish concentrator, and found that
the solar torrefaction products have similar properties to those obtained
using conventional torrefaction. Tregambi et al. [37] performed the
solar-driven torrefaction of a lignin-rich residue. The results showed that
the torrefaction severity was more evident using direct solar irradiation
compared to non-solar heating. These previous studies pioneered the
solar-driven torrefaction of biomass. However, given the many factors
2
Applications in Energy and Combustion Science 9 (2022) 100051
affecting the quality of biomass torrefaction, such as the temperature,
biomass species, and treatment duration, further in-depth studies of
solar-driven torrefaction are required. For example, the relationship
between the biomass conversion (decarbonization, dehydrogenation,
and deoxygenation) and the torrefaction severity index using solar en­
ergy has not been determined.
Peanut shell, soybean straw, and pine wood are the typical agricul­
tural and forestry biomass materials. In this study, the three species of
biomass were selected as materials and were torrefied at different
temperatures (200–300 ◦ C) and duration (15–45 min) using a trough
solar torrefaction reactor. The relationship between torrefaction per­
formance and torrefaction severity index was investigated. Moreover,
the property variation and energy usage of biomass during electric-
heating torrefaction were also analyzed for comparison. The parame­
ters that are termed upgrading energy index (UEI) and energy-mass co-
benefit index (EMCI) are used to evaluate energy efficiency, trans­
portation, and storage. Thus, the purpose of this study is to provide
useful and comprehensive insights into different characteristics of solar-
driven torrefaction and electric-heating torrefaction.
2. Methodology
2.1. Materials
Three biomass samples, namely pine wood, soybean straw, and
peanut shell, were selected as the biomass raw feedstocks. All biomasses
were pulverized and dried (105 ◦ C, 6 h) to obtain powders with 40 - 80
mesh particle sizes which were used for torrefaction.
2.2. Electric-heating torrefaction (Electric-T) experiments
The electric-heating torrefaction (Electric-T) experiments were per­
formed using an electric heating tube furnace (TL1200, Nanjing BYT,
China), as shown in Fig. 1(a). Biomass samples (~3 g) were placed in the
quartz tube (Φ 60 mm × 1500 mm), and then they were heated by the
tube furnace under automatic control. High purity N2 was used as Car­
rier gas (300 mL/min). When the biomass sample was heated to the
required temperature (200, 250, or 300 ◦ C), a timer was started and the
heating was maintained for 15, 30, or 45 min. Afterwards, the sample
was moved away from the heating zone, and the cooled sample was
collected for subsequent analysis.
The electricity input was recorded using a watt-hour meter. A par­
allel experiment was also performed under the same torrefaction con­
ditions but with no biomass sample. The difference between the
electricity recorded by the watt-hour meter in these two experiments is
the energy consumed by the biomass sample during Electric-T.
D. Chen et al. Applications in Energy and Combustion Science 9 (2022) 100051

Table 1 2.4. Sample labeling and property analysis

Results of fuel properties of the three biomass materials.
Biomass Peanut shell Soybean straw Pine wood Peanut shell, soybean straw, and pine wood were labeled PS, SS, and
PW, respectively, and their solid torrefaction products were labeled “XX-
Proximate analysis (%, db)
Volatiles 73.8 85.5 88.3 YY-ZZ”, where XX, YY, and ZZ represent the biomass sample, tempera­
Fixed carbon 19.5 10.6 9.8 ture, and torrefaction duration, respectively. For example, PS-200–15
Ash 6.7 3.9 1.9 denotes the torrefied peanut shell obtained from torrefaction (Solar-T or
Elemental analysis (%, db) Electric-T) at 200 ◦ C for 15 min.
C 46.4 44.3 50.3
H 5.7 5.8 6.9
Proximate analysis, elemental analysis (oxygen was estimated by
O 38.5 45.2 40.8 difference), component analysis, and high heating value (HHV) analysis
N 1.8 0.7 0.1 of biomass were performed using an automatic proximate analyzer
S 0.9 0.1 0 (KDGF-8000A, Hebi Keda, China), an elemental analyzer (Vario EL III,
Component analysis (%, db)
Elementar, Germany), the modified Van Soest method, and a bomb
Cellulose 36.3 37.6 49.1
Hemicellulose 25.9 27.8 13.7 calorimeter (ZDHW-300A, Hebi Keda, China), respectively.
Lignin 23.5 15.2 26.3
Extractives 7.6 15.5 9.0 3. Results and discussion
HHV (MJ/kg) 16.9 16.1 18.5
Chemical formula CH1.47O0.62N0.03S0.01 CH1.57O0.76N0.01 CH1.65O0.61
3.1. Properties of raw biomass materials

2.3. Solar-driven torrefaction (Solar-T) experiments
The solar-driven torrefaction system use for the biomass torrefaction
is shown in Fig. 1(b). The torrefaction reaction device in Fig. 1(b) is
same as that in Fig. (a). But instead of using electricity, the heating
source uses solar energy. The Fresnel lens concentrates sunlight on the
sample. For each experiment, first the air in the quartz tube was
removed using a carrier gas (high purity N2, 300 mL/min). Then the
concentrated sunlight heated the quartz boat which contained biomass
sample (3 g).
Torrefaction temperature and duration of torrefaction were varied to
evaluate their effect on the torrefaction performance. 200, 250, and
300 ◦ C were used to perform light, mild, and severe torrefaction,
respectively. When the biomass was heated to required temperature, a
timer was started and the biomass torrefaction was performed for du­
rations of 15, 30, or 45 min. Afterwards, the torrefied biomass was
cooled, and then removed for analysis.
Table 1 lists the basic properties of biomass samples. The proximate
analysis showed that volatiles were the largest component of biomass,
followed by fixed carbon. The volatile contents of the peanut shell,
soybean straw, and pine wood samples were 73.8 wt.%, 85.5 wt.%, and
88.3 wt.%, respectively. When biomass is decomposed by heat, a large
amount of volatile substances is released, leading to a rapid decline in
the solid yield. Ash is the component with the smallest proportion in the
proximate analysis. Generally, the ash content of forestry biomass like
pine wood is lower than that of agricultural biomass like soybean straw.
The ash contents of the peanut shell, soybean straw, and pine wood
samples were 6.7 wt.%, 3.9 wt.%, and 1.9 wt.%, respectively. The ash
content of pine wood was significantly lower than that of the other two
biomass sources. Therefore, the HHV of pine wood (18.5 MJ/kg) is
higher than that of peanut shell (16.9 MJ/kg) and soybean straw (16.1
MJ/kg). Biomass with low ash content is more suitable for use as a solid
fuel.
Among the elements of biomass, carbon was the element with the
highest content, followed by oxygen. The carbon contents of peanut

Table 2
Basic properties of biomass samples after electric-heating torrefaction.
Biomass sample Proximate analysis (wt.%, db) Elemental analysis (wt.%, db) HHV (MJ/kg)

Volatiles Fixed carbon Ash C H O N S

PS-200–15 73.6 18.9 7.5 46.6 5.6 37.6 1.8 0.8 17.1
PS-200–30 73.0 19.0 8.0 47.2 5.5 36.2 2.2 0.9 17.2
PS-200–45 72.2 19.3 8.5 47.9 5.3 35.1 2.6 0.6 17.4
PS-250–15 70.2 20.9 8.9 52.7 5.1 30.0 2.7 0.5 18.4
PS-250–30 67.9 23.0 9.1 53.5 5.1 29.0 2.9 0.3 18.8
PS-250–45 66.8 23.9 9.3 55.1 5.0 27.6 2.8 0.3 19.0
PS-300–15 52.8 36.8 10.4 56.9 4.5 24.1 3.6 0.5 20.0
PS-300–30 49.9 38.2 11.9 58.7 4.3 21.5 3.2 0.4 20.2
PS-300–45 47.0 39.1 14.0 61.2 4.2 16.9 3.3 0.5 20.4
SS-200–15 85.6 10.5 4.0 44.9 5.7 44.5 0.8 0.1 16.2
SS-200–30 83.3 12.6 4.1 45.2 5.6 44.2 0.8 0.1 16.3
SS-200–45 82.4 13.4 4.2 46.0 5.4 43.5 0.8 0.1 16.6
SS-250–15 76.9 18.4 4.7 46.8 5.2 42.2 0.9 0.1 16.9
SS-250–30 74.4 20.4 5.2 48.5 4.9 40.4 0.8 0.1 17.3
SS-250–45 73.0 21.6 5.4 50.2 4.6 38.8 0.9 0.1 17.6
SS-300–15 47.5 46.8 5.7 53.5 4.6 35.3 0.8 0.1 18.2
SS-300–30 45.9 47.8 6.4 55.6 4.5 32.5 0.9 0.1 18.5
SS-300–45 43.3 49.8 6.9 57.0 4.3 30.7 0.9 0.1 19.0
PW-200–15 86.4 11.6 2.0 50.4 6.8 40.7 0.1 0.0 18.5
PW-200–30 82.8 15.1 2.0 50.7 6.7 40.5 0.1 0.0 18.6
PW-200–45 81.4 16.4 2.2 51.3 6.7 39.7 0.1 0.0 18.8
PW-250–15 78.7 18.7 2.6 52.6 6.5 38.2 0.0 0.0 19.2
PW-250–30 76.4 20.3 3.3 54.5 6.3 35.8 0.0 0.0 19.8
PW-250–45 74.7 20.9 4.4 55.7 6.1 33.8 0.0 0.0 20.1
PW-300–15 58.4 37.0 4.7 56.6 5.7 33.0 0.0 0.0 20.5
PW-300–30 54.7 39.7 5.6 58.1 5.6 30.7 0.0 0.0 21.2
PW-300–45 52.9 41.3 5.9 59.5 5.4 29.3 0.0 0.0 21.5

3
D. Chen et al. Applications in Energy and Combustion Science 9 (2022) 100051

Fig. 2. Difference values between electric-heating torrefaction (Electric-T) and solar-driven torrefaction (Solar-T): proximate analysis (a) and elemental analysis (b).

shell, soybean straw, and pine wood were 46.4 wt.%, 44.3 wt.%, and The difference in the components will affect torrefaction performance of
50.3 wt.%, respectively. The carbon content of pine wood was the biomass.
largest among the three biomass materials. Biomass is the only renew­
able carbon source in nature. Biomass with high carbon content is more
3.2. Property variation of biomass after torrefaction with different
applicable for chemicals preparation via thermochemical conversion. A
severities
large amount of oxygen is present in biomass, and the oxygen content in
the three biomass samples was between 38.5% and 45.2%. A high ox­
3.2.1. Effect of electric-heating torrefaction
ygen content is very unfavorable for the fuel quality of biomass. For
The results of the basic properties of the samples after electric-
example, a high oxygen content decreases the HHV of biomass, results in
heating torrefaction are listed in Table 2. Temperature is the key
strong water absorption by the biomass, and limits the production of
parameter that affects biomass torrefaction. The volatile content of all
high-quality hydrocarbon chemicals via the thermochemical conversion
three biomass samples declined with increasing temperature, while
of biomass. This is a key reason for the pretreatment of biomass using
fixed carbon content increased. This is mainly due to decarboxylation,
torrefaction or other deoxygenation methods. In addition to carbon,
dehydroxylation, and other reactions that occur in the biomass during
hydrogen, and oxygen, biomass may also contain sulfur and nitrogen.
the torrefaction process, leading to the release of CO2, CO, H2O, etc. The
The peanut shell sample contained 1.8% nitrogen and 0.9% sulfur, while
volatile content of the three biomass samples decreased with increasing
the pine wood sample contained only 0.1% nitrogen and sulfur could not
pretreatment duration, while the fixed carbon content gradually
be detected. The chemical formulas of the three biomass materials were
increased.
CH1.47O0.62N0.03S0.01, CH1.57O0.76N0.01, and CH1.65O0.61, respectively.
The presence of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen controls the burning
The thermal decomposition characteristics have been reported in
of the fuel and the amount of heat generated. Oxygen is an incombus­
previous studies for cellulose [38], hemicellulose [39], and lignin [40].
tible element. High oxygen content leads to low levels of other elements,
Their order of thermal stability is lignin > cellulose > hemicellulose.
thus reducing the HHV of biomass. During torrefaction, oxygen in
This is mainly caused by the chemical structures of the three compo­
biomass was mainly lost as H2O, CO2, CO, and organic acids, leading to
nents, which has been discussed in detail in previous studies [41,42].
increased carbon content with increasing torrefaction severity. There­
The composition of the different biomass sources varies greatly [43].
fore, reducing the mass fraction of oxygen in biomass is an effective way
Among the three biomass samples, soybean straw had the highest
to upgrade biomass. Moreover, compared to torrefaction temperature,
hemicellulose content, while pine wood had the highest lignin content.
the duration of torrefaction treatment had less influence on the basic

4
D. Chen et al. Applications in Energy and Combustion Science 9 (2022) 100051

Table 3
The three indicators of biomass after electric-heating torrefaction.
Biomass sample Solid yield (%) Energy yield (%) Enhancement factor

PS-200–15 96.2 97.1 1.009

PS-200–30 94.9 96.4 1.016
PS-200–45 92.7 95.3 1.029
PS-250–15 82.1 89.2 1.086
PS-250–30 80.2 89.0 1.110
PS-250–45 79.0 88.6 1.122
PS-300–15 65.3 76.9 1.178
PS-300–30 63.2 75.3 1.192
PS-300–45 61.9 74.5 1.205
SS-200–15 92.0 92.4 1.004
SS-200–30 89.1 90.1 1.010
SS-200–45 86.8 89.3 1.029
SS-250–15 74.9 78.4 1.046
SS-250–30 73.0 78.1 1.070
SS-250–45 71.7 78.3 1.091
SS-300–15 51.5 58.1 1.128
SS-300–30 46.0 52.7 1.147
SS-300–45 43.2 50.8 1.178
PW-200–15 97.8 98.1 1.003
PW-200–30 97.1 97.8 1.007
Fig. 3. Cross-plots of the H/C ratio as a function of the O/C ratio of PW-200–45 95.0 96.6 1.018
biomass samples. PW-250–15 84.5 87.7 1.038
PW-250–30 82.2 88.0 1.071
PW-250–45 80.7 87.7 1.087
properties of biomass.
PW-300–15 58.1 64.5 1.110
PW-300–30 55.7 63.9 1.147
3.2.2. Comparison with solar-driven torrefaction PW-300–45 53.4 62.2 1.164
Fig. 2(a) shows the difference values of proximate analysis between
Electric-T and Solar-T. For example, the volatile contents of PS-200–15
obtained from Electric-T and Solar-T were 73.6% and 72.9%, respec­ element contents after the two torrefaction methods tended to decrease
tively; thus, the difference of volatile contents between the two torre­ with increasing torrefaction temperature. In contrast, it tended to in­
faction methods is 0.007 (0.736–0.729 = 0.007). Four key aspects can be crease with increasing torrefaction duration. Among the three biomass
observed from the results in Fig. 2(a). First, regardless of the species of samples, the element content difference between Electric-T and Solar-T
biomass raw materials used, the volatile content of the biomass after was largest for soybean straw and smallest for peanut shell. Thus,
Electric-T was greater than that after Solar-T, while the fixed carbon and different species of biomass can be torrefied using different torrefaction
ash contents were less than those obtained after Solar-T. This means that methods and conditions.
fewer volatile substances were released during Electric-T than during In general, compared to Electric-T, Solar-T leads to greater release of
Solar-T. Second, the biomass species affected the different values ob­ pyrolytic volatiles, greater thermal decomposition, and a lower oxygen
tained in the proximate analysis. The difference between the proximate content in torrefied biomass. Therefore, Solar-T has a greater impact on
analysis values obtained after Electric-T and Solar-T of biomass followed the fuel characteristics of the biomass. This may be due to the different
the order: soybean straw > pine wood > peanut shell. For example, the heating rates during torrefaction. It took 5–8 min for the temperature to
difference values for the volatile contents after Electric-T and Solar-T of reach and stabilize at the desired torrefaction temperature during Solar-
SS-250–30, PW-250–30, and PS-250–30 were 0.672, 2.860, and 1.129, T. Whereas it took more than 15 min during Electric-T under the control
respectively. This may be related to the density of the fiber structures in of the heating program of tube furnace. Solar-T has a higher heating rate
the different biomass samples. Compared to peanut shell and pine wood, than Electric-T, leading to more thermal decomposition of the biomass
soybean straw is looser and thus is probably sensitive to different tor­
refaction methods. Third, the torrefaction temperature also had an 3.2.3. van Krevelen diagram
impact on the difference values obtained from the proximate analyses The atomic H/C and O/C ratios are key indicators of energy density
after Electric-T and Solar-T. In general, as the torrefaction temperature of biomass. The cross-plots of the H/C ratio with O/C ratio (van Krevelen
raized, the absolute difference value obtained from the proximate diagram) of raw and torrefied biomass samples are shown in Fig. 3. The
analysis declined. For example, the difference value of the volatile obtained results reveal that atomic H/C and O/C ratios declined
contents obtained from Electric-T and Solar-T were 3.204, 2.860, and significantly as the torrefaction severity increased. Fig. 3 also shows that
1.764, respectively, for SS-200–30, SS-250–30, and SS-300–30. This the O/C ratios of biomass samples after Electric-T are higher than those
indicates that the difference of effects of two torrefaction methods on of the biomass samples after Solar-T, indicating that Solar-T removes
biomass fuel quality decreased with increasing torrefaction severity. more oxygen from biomass. This is consistent with the elemental anal­
Fourth, the difference value obtained from the proximate analysis after ysis discussed previously.
Electric-T and Solar-T increased with increasing torrefaction duration.
Nevertheless, compared to the torrefaction temperature, the torrefaction
3.3. Torrefaction performance with torrefaction severity index
duration had a smaller impact on the difference value.
Fig. 2(b) shows the difference values obtained from elemental
3.3.1. Solid yield and energy yield
analysis after Electric-T and Solar-T. Regardless of the species of
Effect of electric-heating torrefaction: The solid yield, energy yield, and
biomass, the oxygen contents of biomass after Electric-T were higher
HHV enhancement factor are important indicators of torrefaction per­
than that of biomass after Solar-T, while the carbon and hydrogen
formance. These three indicators can be defined as follows:
contents were lower. This indicates that Solar-T leads to more deoxy­
genation than Electric-T. Moreover, the torrefaction temperature, Mtorrefied
Solid yield = × 100% (1)
duration, and biomass species also had some influence on the difference Mraw
values obtained from the elemental analysis. The difference between the

5
D. Chen et al.
Fig. 4. Difference values of the HHV, solid yield, and energy yield after electric-heating torrefaction and solar-driven torrefaction.
HHVtorrefied
Enhancement factor =
HHVraw
Energy yield =
Mtorrefied × HHVtorrefied
Mraw × HHVraw
= Solid yield × Enhancement factor
where the subscripts “raw” and “torrefied” indicate the raw and torre­
fied biomass samples, respectively.
The three indicators of biomass obtained after Electric-T are pre­
sented in Table 3. The solid yield of biomass declined with increasing
torrefaction severity. Hemicelluloses have the lowest thermal stability
and can produce small molecular gases at low temperatures. As soybean
straw has the highest hemicellulose content among the biomass samples
used, the solid yield of soybean straw clearly decreased at lower torre­
faction temperatures. The solid yields of biomasses were the lowest
under the most severe torrefaction condition (300 ◦ C, 45 min).
At the lowest torrefaction temperature (200 ◦ C), solid yield of
biomass was not obviously affected by the treatment duration. However,
at a higher temperature, the effect of the duration on the solid yield
increased, with longer torrefaction durations leading to lower solid
yields. With increasing temperature and duration of treatment, energy
yield of the three biomasses gradually decreased. In particular, the en­
ergy yield of soybean straw was only 50.8% under the most severe
Fig. 5. Enhancement factor and energy yield of the samples versus the torrefaction severity index.
Applications in Energy and Combustion Science 9 (2022) 100051
torrefaction condition (300 ◦ C, 45 min). Therefore, selecting the
(2)
appropriate temperature and duration for the torrefaction pretreatment
of a particular biomass is necessary to improve the fuel characteristics of
the obtained biomass-derived products.
Comparison with solar-driven torrefaction: The difference values ob­
(3) tained from the HHV, solid yield, and energy yield after Electric-T and
Solar-T are depicted in Fig. 4. For all the samples, solid yield obtained
after Electric-T was slightly greater than that obtained after Solar-T,
whereas the HHV was slightly smaller after Electric-T than after Solar-
T. This demonstrates that Solar-T is a more effective thermal decom­
position method for biomass than Electric-T, resulting in torrefied
biomass with a greater energy density. Compared to Electric-T, the en­
ergy yields of the torrefied biomass obtained from Solar-T were higher,
except for PW-200–15, PW-200–30, and PW-200–45. Thus, in general,
biomass obtained after Solar-T is more appropriate for use as fuel.
3.3.2. Torrefaction severity index
The torrefaction severity index (TSI) was used to explain the biomass
weight loss under different conditions. The TSI is defined as:
WLT, τ 100 − SYT, τ
TSI = = (4)
WL300∘ C, 45min 100 − SY300∘ C, 45min
where WL and SY refer to the weight loss and solid yield of the biomass,
6
D. Chen et al. Applications in Energy and Combustion Science 9 (2022) 100051

Table 4 factor versus TSI) obtained from Electric-T and Solar-T do not overlap.
Decarbonization, dehydrogenation, and deoxygenation of torrefied biomass. The slopes obtained from Solar-T of the three biomass samples were
Biomass sample Solar-driven torrefaction Electric-heating torrefaction higher than those obtained by Electric-T. This also confirms that Solar-T
has a greater impact on the HHV enhancement factor. However, the
DC (%) DH (%) DO (%) DC (%) DH (%) DO (%)
slope of the regression lines (energy yield versus TSI) obtained using
PS-200–15 2.5 4.4 8.6 3.4 4.8 6.0 different torrefaction methods depended on the biomass species. A
PS-200–30 2.7 7.4 13.5 3.5 7.7 10.9
PS-200–45 3.5 12.7 18.2 4.4 13.1 15.6
negative slope of the regression line indicates that not only the solid
PS-250–15 5.9 25.6 38.3 6.8 25.9 36.0 yield declines as the enhancement factor increases, but also the degree of
PS-250–30 6.7 27.3 41.8 7.6 27.6 39.5 solid yield reduction is greater than that of enhancement factor increase
PS-250–45 5.4 31.1 45.8 6.3 31.4 43.4 [44,45].
PS-300–15 19.2 48.8 61.1 19.9 49.0 59.1
PS-300–30 19.3 52.6 66.6 20.1 52.8 64.6
PS-300–45 17.7 54.7 74.8 18.4 54.9 72.8 3.3.3. Decarbonization, dehydrogenation, and deoxygenation
SS-200–15 6.2 10.1 10.9 6.7 10.0 9.3 To evaluate the loss of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen from biomass
SS-200–30 7.8 14.5 15.5 9.1 14.4 12.8 during torrefaction, three indexes were analyzed that describe decar­
SS-200–45 8.6 19.7 19.2 9.9 19.6 16.4 bonization (DC), dehydrogenation (DH), and deoxygenation (DO) [46,
SS-250–15 19.6 33.2 32.4 20.7 33.1 30.0
SS-250–30 18.9 38.7 37.0 20.0 38.6 34.6
47]. The solid yield and elemental analysis give the original and the
SS-250–45 17.6 43.5 40.8 18.8 43.4 38.4 residual carbon content. Thus, the decarbonization of biomass, DC, can
SS-300–15 36.9 59.4 61.6 37.8 59.4 59.8 be calculated using Eq. (5):
SS-300–30 41.5 64.5 68.5 42.3 64.5 66.9 ( )
SS-300–45 43.6 68.2 72.3 44.4 68.2 70.7 M0 × SY × Yc, t
Dc = 1 − × 100% (5)
PW-200–15 2.4 4.2 3.4 2.0 4.1 2.4 M0 × Yc, 0
PW-200–30 2.5 6.3 4.7 2.1 6.0 3.7
PW-200–45 3.3 8.3 8.8 3.1 8.2 7.6
where M, Yc, and SY represent the dry sample mass, the mass fraction of
PW-250–15 11.8 21.0 22.1 11.6 20.6 20.8
PW-250–30 10.5 25.4 29.5 10.9 25.1 27.8 carbon, and the solid yield, respectively. The subscripts 0 and t stand for
PW-250–45 10.2 29.1 34.9 10.6 28.8 33.2 the raw and torrefied biomass, respectively. DH and DO can be calculated
PW-300–15 34.3 52.3 54.2 34.5 52.1 53.0 using the same approach.
PW-300–30 35.3 55.0 59.3 35.6 54.9 58.0 The calculated results of DC, DH, and DO are listed in Table 4. The DC,
PW-300–45 36.6 58.4 62.9 36.8 58.3 61.7
DH, and DO increased slightly with increasing treatment duration, but
increased significantly with increasing temperature. The high oxygen
respectively, and T and t refer to the temperature (T) and duration (τ), content of biomass explains both the low HHV of biomass raw materials
respectively. WL300◦ C, 45 min and SY300◦ C, 45 min refer to the weight and their poor fuel quality compared to coal. Therefore, deoxygenation
loss and solid yield, respectively, of biomass torrefied at 300 ◦ C for 45 is the key to preparing high quality treated biomass. Among the three
min. biomasses, PS-300–45 had the largest Do, suggesting that peanut shell is
The dependence of energy yield and enhancement factor on the TSI relatively easy to convert to high quality biomass material for various
are depicted in Fig. 5. The good fitting results obtained (R2 > 0.96) applications.
indicate that the regression lines appropriately describe their relation­ The relationship between DC, DH, and DO and the TSI is shown in
ship. For all the samples, the enhancement factor increased linearly with Fig. 6. Linear correlations with coefficients of determination (R2) above
the TSI, while the energy yield decreased linearly with the TSI. A high 0.95 are obtained, which indicate that the TSI can also be used to predict
slope indicates a high dependence of the physical quantity on the TSI the element removal indexes. During the Electric-T of biomass, slopes of
[44]. As shown in Fig. 5, the absolute value of the regression line slope 19.3–44.2 53.8–65.4, and 59.8–70.8 were obtained for DC versus TSI, DH
(enhancement factor versus TSI, and energy yield versus TSI) for soy­ versus TSI, and DO versus TSI, respectively. During Solar-T of biomass,
bean straw was the largest among the three biomass samples. Thus, the the slopes were 19.7–44.9, 54.8–66.0, and 60.8–70.7 for DC versus TSI,
TSI had the most effect on the enhancement factor and energy yield of DH versus TSI, and DO versus TSI, respectively. Thus, element removal
soybean straw, followed by peanut shell and pine wood. follows the order DO > DH > DC regardless of the biomass species and the
It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the regression lines (enhancement torrefaction method. This also suggests torrefaction has a much greater

Fig. 6. Dependence of decarbonization (DC), dehydrogenation (DH), and deoxygenation (DO) and the torrefaction severity index.

7
D. Chen et al. Applications in Energy and Combustion Science 9 (2022) 100051

Fig. 8. UEI versus TSI for the three biomass samples.

3.4. Energy analysis of biomass torrefaction

3.4.1. Energy consumption of electric-heating torrefaction

The energy utilization evaluation of torrefaction processes is signif­
icant for applications. Solar-driven torrefaction does not consume
electricity, but electric-heating torrefaction does. Therefore, this section
focused on the energy consumption of electric-heating torrefaction of
biomass.
Assessing the torrefaction of biomass requires not only considering
the energy output (energy yield), but also the required energy input.
Fig. 7 shows the contours of the electricity input of biomass samples
during Electric-T. It is apparent that the electricity consumed increased
significantly with increasing torrefaction severity. In general, the elec­
tricity consumed during Electric-T of the three biomass samples fol­
lowed the order: pine wood > soybean straw > peanut shell. This may be
related to the specific heat capacity and the degree of thermal decom­
position of the biomass.
Compared to Electric-T, no electrical energy is required for Solar-T.
This leads to clear advantages in energy savings and environmental
protection, and shows that Solar-T could reduce the heating cost of the
torrefaction process.

3.4.2. Energy efficiency (upgrading energy index) of electric-heating

torrefaction
Previous studies have shown that, at a given energy yield, higher
energy efficiency and lower energy density fuels can be obtained using a
combination of higher temperatures and shorter torrefaction durations
[26,50]. The amount of electricity needed to upgrade biomass was
recorded during Electric-T. In this study, upgrading energy index (UEI)
is considered and defined as Eq. (6). Increasing in the UEI indicates
increased efficiency of torrefaction.
( ) Energy yield
UEI kWh− 1 = (6)
Electricity input
The dependence of the UEI on the TSI is shown in Fig. 8 for the three
Fig. 7. Contours of the electricity input for the Electric-T of biomass: peanut
biomass samples. Overall, two important results can be obtained from
shell (a), soybean straw (b), and pine wood (c).
the UEI profiles. First, regardless of the species of biomass, the UEI
decreased as TSI increased. This means that energy efficiency of biomass
effect on oxygen than on carbon. The components in biomass, especially
torrefaction decreased with increasing torrefaction severity. Second, the
hemicellulose, undergo dehydration, dehydroxylation, and decarbox­
energy efficiency was lower at high TSI, but the fuel quality of the tor­
ylation [48,49]. Thus, a large amount of the oxygen in biomass is
refied biomass was higher, with higher HHV and lower oxygen contents
removed during torrefaction process.
(Table 2 and Fig. 2). Thus, the production of torrefied biomass with low
HHV requires less electricity input and can be performed with higher
energy efficiency, whereas torrefied biomass production with high HHV

8
D. Chen et al.
Fig. 9. EMCI contour maps of three biomass samples after electric-heating torrefaction and solar-driven torrefaction.
needs more electricity input and lower energy efficiency. Therefore,
balancing the energy efficiency and the fuel quality is an important thing
for biomass torrefaction technologies and applications. These results
provide a practical basis for optimizing torrefaction methods and for
rational energy utilization in torrefaction.
3.4.3. Energy-mass co-benefit index of torrefaction
Increasing the torrefaction severity decreases the solid and energy
yields, but increases the HHV of biomass. For solid fuels, it is preferable
to have a high energy yield and low solid yield, because these fuels tend
to have high energy retention from untreated biomass, but smaller
volumes are beneficial for fuel transportation and use. The difference
between energy yield and solid yield is defined as the energy-mass co-
benefit index (EMCI). Thus, a higher EMCI means a higher energy
density and a lower solid volume [51]. The EMCI contour maps of the
three biomass samples after Electric-T and Solar-T are shown in Fig. 9.
The EMCI versus TSI of the three biomass samples are also presented in
Fig. 9, in order to visually show how the EMCI varied with torrefaction
severity. Moreover, it can also be found that the TSI is an appropriate
indicator of torrefaction performance that can be combined with other
parameters to account for the property variation in biomass.
Two important results can be obtained from Fig. 9. First, with
increasing torrefaction severity, the EMCI showed an upward trend,
regardless of the species of biomass and the torrefaction method. Among
the biomass samples, the EMCI of peanut shell was highest at 300 ◦ C,
suggesting that torrefied peanut shell was most suitable for
9
Applications in Energy and Combustion Science 9 (2022) 100051
transportation and storage. Secondly, Solar-T had slightly greater EMCI
values than Electric-T at the same torrefaction temperature. This in­
dicates that solar-torrefied biomass is more transportable. The use of
solar energy could reduce the heating cost of the biomass torrefaction
pretreatment; thus Solar-T has the potential to replace Electric-T and
improve the competitiveness of biomass-derived products.
4. Conclusions
Torrefaction is an effective way for upgrading biomass. Conventional
torrefaction uses electric heating, which increases the energy input cost
of biomass pretreatment. Solar energy can be used to produce the
required torrefaction conditions, such as the correct temperature, which
is the key parameter affecting this process. Regardless of biomass ma­
terials, the duration had a smaller influence on the fuel quality than the
torrefaction temperature. The torrefaction performance of biomass can
be predicted based on the TSI. Element removal from biomass during
torrefaction follows the order DO > DH > DC, regardless of the biomass
species or the torrefaction method. These results demonstrate that solar-
driven torrefaction improves the fuel quality of biomass. An energy
analysis of biomass torrefaction was performed based on the energy
consumption, UEI, and EMCI. The electrical energy consumed during
electric-heating torrefaction increased with increasing torrefaction
severity. The use of clean and renewable solar energy has the potential
to replace conventional biomass torrefaction using electric heating.
D. Chen et al.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (52076112), Six Talent Peaks Project of Jiangsu Province of
China (XNY-027), Qinglan Project of Jiangsu Province of China, 333
Project of Jiangsu Province of China, Youth Top Talent Project of Na­
tional Forestry and Grassland Administration of China (2020132612),
and Outstanding Youth Foundation of Nanjing Forestry University
(JC2019001). The authors also acknowledge the Advanced Analysis &
Testing Center of Nanjing Forestry University for testing service.
References
[1] Li RX, Wu CL, Zhu L, Hu ZY, Xu JL, Yang YY, et al. Regulation of the elemental
distribution in biomass by the torrefaction pretreatment using different
atmospheres and its influence on the subsequent pyrolysis behaviors. Fuel Process
Technol 2021;222:106983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2021.106983.
[2] Chew JJ, Doshi V. Recent advances in biomass pretreatment – torrefaction
fundamentals and technology. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:4212–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.017.
[3] Zheng AQ, Jiang LQ, Zhao ZL, Huang Z, Zhao K, Wei GQ, et al. Impact of
torrefaction on the chemical structure and catalytic fast pyrolysis behavior of
hemicellulose, lignin, and cellulose. Energy Fuels 2015;29:8027–34. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b01765.
[4] Chen WH, Peng J, Bi XT. A state-of-the-art review of biomass torrefaction,
densification and applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;44:847–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.12.039.
[5] Sukiran MA, Abnisa F, Daud WMAW, Abu Bakar N, Loh SK. A review of
torrefaction of oil palm solid wastes for biofuel production. Energy Convers Manag
2017;149:101–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.07.011.
[6] Chen WH, Cheng CL, Show PL, Ong HC. Torrefaction performance prediction
approached by torrefaction severity factor. Fuel 2019;251:126–35. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.04.047.
[7] Chen DY, Chen F, Cen KH, Cao XB, Zhang J, Zhou JB. Upgrading rice husk via
oxidative torrefaction: characterization of solid, liquid, gaseous products and a
comparison with non-oxidative torrefaction. Fuel 2020;275:117936. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117936.
[8] Brighenti M, Grigiante M, Antolini D, Di Maggio R. An innovative kinetic model
dedicated to mild degradation (torrefaction) of biomasses. Appl Energy 2017;206:
475–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.122.
[9] Grigiante M, Brighenti M. An improved predictive model to determine the thermal
degradation of lignocellulosic materials at low temperature (torrefaction) ranges.
Bioresour Technol 2018;256:431–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2018.01.065.
[10] Batidzirai B, Mignot APR, Schakel WB, Junginger HM, Faaij APC. Biomass
torrefaction technology: techno-economic status and future prospects. Energy
2013;62:196–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.09.035.
[11] Svanberg M, Olofsson I, Floden J, Nordin A. Analysing biomass torrefaction supply
chain costs. Bioresour Technol 2013;142:287–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2013.05.048.
[12] Chen DY, Cen KH, Chen F, Ma ZQ, Zhou JB, Li M. Are the typical organic
components in biomass pyrolyzed bio-oil available for leaching of alkali and
alkaline earth metallic species (AAEMs) from biomass? Fuel 2020;260:116347.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116347.
[13] Zhang SP, Zhu SG, Zhang HL, Liu XZ, Zhang HY. Evaluation of pyrolysis behavior
and products properties of rice husk after combined pretreatment of washing and
torrefaction. Biomass Bioenergy 2019;127:105293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2019.105293.
[14] Wang L, Riva L, Skreiberg Ø, Khalil R, Bartocci P, Yang Q, et al. Effect of
torrefaction on properties of pellets produced from woody biomass. Energy Fuels
2020;34:15343–54. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c02671.
[15] Kumar L, Koukoulas AA, Mani S, Satyavolu J. Integrating torrefaction in the wood
pellet industry: a critical review. Energy Fuels 2017;31:37–54. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b02803.
[16] Cen KH, Zhuang XZ, Gan ZY, Ma ZQ, Li M, Chen DY. Effect of the combined
pretreatment of leaching and torrefaction on the production of bio-aromatics from
rice straw via the shape selective catalytic fast pyrolysis. Energy Rep 2021;7:
732–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.01.031.
[17] Fan Y, Tippayawong N, Wei G, Huang Z, Zhao K, Jiang L, et al. Minimizing tar
formation whilst enhancing syngas production by integrating biomass torrefaction
pretreatment with chemical looping gasification. Appl Energy 2020;260. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114315.
10
Applications in Energy and Combustion Science 9 (2022) 100051
[18] Starfelt F, Aparicio ET, Li HL, Dotzauer E. Integration of torrefaction in CHP plants
- a case study. Energy Convers Manag 2015;90:427–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2014.11.019.
[19] Ma ZQ, Zhang Y, Shen YF, Wang JH, Yang YY, Zhang WB, et al. Oxygen migration
characteristics during bamboo torrefaction process based on the properties of
torrefied solid, gaseous, and liquid products. Biomass Bioenergy 2019;128:105300.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105300.
[20] Liu M, Zhu X, Chen R, Liao Q, Xia A, Huang Y. Influence of torrefaction,
hydrothermal carbonization and degradative solvent extraction pretreatments on
moisture absorption and self-ignition characteristics of biomass. Fuel 2020;282:
118843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118843.
[21] Wang L, Barta-Rajnai E, Skreiberg Ø, Khalil R, Czégény Z, Jakab E, et al. Effect of
torrefaction on physiochemical characteristics and grindability of stem wood,
stump and bark. Appl Energy 2018;227:137–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2017.07.024.
[22] Bach QV, Chen WH, Chu YS, Skreiberg O. Predictions of biochar yield and
elemental composition during torrefaction of forest residues. Bioresour Technol
2016;215:239–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.04.009.
[23] Barskov S, Zappi M, Buchireddy P, Dufreche S, Guillory J, Gang D, et al.
Torrefaction of biomass: a review of production methods for biocoal from cultured
and waste lignocellulosic feedstocks. Renew Energy 2019;142:624–42. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.068.
[24] Yang Y, Brammer JG, Wright DG, Scott JA, Serrano C, Bridgwater AV. Combined
heat and power from the intermediate pyrolysis of biomass materials: performance,
economics and environmental impact. Appl Energy 2017;191:639–52. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.02.004.
[25] Ho SH, Zhang C, Chen WH, Shen Y, Chang JS. Characterization of biomass waste
torrefaction under conventional and microwave heating. Bioresour Technol 2018;
264:7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.05.047.
[26] Chen WH, Huang MY, Chang JS, Chen CY, Lee WJ. An energy analysis of
torrefaction for upgrading microalga residue as a solid fuel. Bioresour Technol
2015;185:285–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.02.095.
[27] Huang Y, Li B, Liu D, Xie X, Zhang H, Sun H, et al. Fundamental advances in
biomass autothermal/oxidative pyrolysis: a Review. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2020;
8:11888–905. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c04196.
[28] Weldekidan H, Strezov V, Town G. Review of solar energy for biofuel extraction.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;88:184–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2018.02.027.
[29] Kasaeian A, Bellos E, Shamaeizadeh A, Tzivanidis C. Solar-driven polygeneration
systems: recent progress and outlook. Appl Energy 2020;264:114764. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114764.
[30] Chintala V. Production, upgradation and utilization of solar assisted pyrolysis fuels
from biomass - a technical review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;90:120–30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.066.
[31] Chen DY, Cen KH, Cao XB, Zhang J, Chen F, Zhou JB. Upgrading of bio-oil via solar
pyrolysis of the biomass pretreated with aqueous phase bio-oil washing, solar
drying, and solar torrefaction. Bioresour Technol 2020;305:123130. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123130.
[32] Zeng K, Gauthier D, Li R, Flamant G. Solar pyrolysis of beech wood: effects of
pyrolysis parameters on the product distribution and gas product composition.
Energy 2015;93:1648–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.10.008.
[33] Chintala V, Kumar S, Pandey JK, Sharma AK, Kumar S. Solar thermal pyrolysis of
non-edible seeds to biofuels and their feasibility assessment. Energy Convers
Manag 2017;153:482–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.10.029.
[34] Weldekidan H, Strezov V, Town G, Kan T. Production and analysis of fuels and
chemicals obtained from rice husk pyrolysis with concentrated solar radiation. Fuel
2018;233:396–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.06.061.
[35] Weldekidan H, Strezov V, Kan T, Kumar R, He J, Town G. Solar assisted catalytic
pyrolysis of chicken-litter waste with in-situ and ex-situ loading of CaO and char.
Fuel 2019;246:408–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.02.135.
[36] Cellatoglu N, Ilkan M. Solar torrefaction of solid olive mill residue. Bioresources
2016;11:10087–98. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.11.4.10087-10098.
[37] Tregambi C, Montagnaro F, Salatino P, Solimene R. Solar-driven torrefaction of a
lignin-rich biomass residue in a directly irradiated fluidized bed reactor. Combust
Sci Technol 2019;191:1609–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00102202.2019.1607847.
[38] Wang SR, Dai GX, Ru B, Zhao Y, Wang XL, Xiao G, et al. Influence of torrefaction on
the characteristics and pyrolysis behavior of cellulose. Energy 2017;120:864–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.135.
[39] Wang SR, Dai GX, Ru B, Zhao Y, Wang XL, Zhou JS, et al. Effects of torrefaction on
hemicellulose structural characteristics and pyrolysis behaviors. Bioresour Technol
2016;218:1106–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.07.075.
[40] Ma ZQ, Wang JH, Li C, Yang YY, Liu XH, Zhao C, et al. New sight on the lignin
torrefaction pretreatment: relevance between the evolution of chemical structure
and the properties of torrefied gaseous, liquid, and solid products. Bioresour
Technol 2019;288:121528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121528.
[41] Wang SR, Dai GX, Yang HP, Luo ZY. Lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis mechanism:
a state-of-the-art review. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2017;62:33–86. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.pecs.2017.05.004.
[42] Zheng AQ, Zhao ZL, Chang S, Huang Z, Zhao K, Wei GQ, et al. Comparison of the
effect of wet and dry torrefaction on chemical structure and pyrolysis behavior of
corncobs. Bioresour Technol 2015;176:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2014.10.157.
[43] Kan T, Strezov V, Evans TJ. Lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis: a review of product
properties and effects of pyrolysis parameters. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;57:
1126–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.185.
D. Chen et al.
[44] Zhang CY, Ho SH, Chen WH, Xie YP, Liu ZQ, Chang JS. Torrefaction performance
and energy usage of biomass wastes and their correlations with torrefaction
severity index. Appl Energy 2018;220:598–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2018.03.129.
[45] Chen WH, Cheng WY, Lu KM, Huang YP. An evaluation on improvement of
pulverized biomass property for solid fuel through torrefaction. Appl Energy 2011;
88:3636–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.03.040.
[46] Chen WH, Lin BJ, Colin B, Chang JS, Petrissans A, Bi X, et al. Hygroscopic
transformation of woody biomass torrefaction for carbon storage. Appl Energy
2018;231:768–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.135.
[47] Chen YC, Chen WH, Lin BJ, Chang JS, Ong HC. Impact of torrefaction on the
composition, structure and reactivity of a microalga residue. Appl Energy 2016;
181:110–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.130.
[48] Chen DY, Gao AJ, Cen KH, Zhang J, Cao XB, Ma ZQ. Investigation of biomass
torrefaction based on three major components: hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin.
11
Applications in Energy and Combustion Science 9 (2022) 100051
Energy Convers Manag 2018;169:228–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2018.05.063.
[49] Chen DY, Cen KH, Cao XB, Chen F, Zhang J, Zhou JB. Insight into a new phenolic-
leaching pretreatment on bamboo pyrolysis: release characteristics of pyrolytic
volatiles, upgradation of three phase products, migration of elements, and energy
yield. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;136:110444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2020.110444.
[50] Zhang C, Wang C, Cao G, Chen WH, Ho SH. Comparison and characterization of
property variation of microalgal biomass with non-oxidative and oxidative
torrefaction. Fuel 2019;246:375–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.02.139.
[51] Lu KM, Lee WJ, Chen W, Liu SH, Lin TC. Torrefaction and low temperature
carbonization of oil palm fiber and eucalyptus in nitrogen and air atmospheres.
Bioresour Technol 2012;123:98–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2012.07.096.