FirePhysChem 3 (2023) 106–120

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

FirePhysChem
journal homepage: http://www.keaipublishing.com/cn/journals/firephyschem/

Low rank coal for fuel production via microwave-assisted pyrolysis: A

review
Bambang Sardi a,∗, Irianto Uno b, Felix Pasila c, Ali Altway d, Mahfud Mahfud d
a
Departement of Environmental Engineering, Tadulako University, Palu 94118, Indonesia
b
Departement of Geological Engineering, Tadulako University, Palu 94118, Indonesia
c
Department of Electrical Engineering, Petra Christian University, Surabaya 60236, Indonesia
d
Departement of Chemical Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya 60111, Indonesia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Not only its abundant resources, but also low rank coal (LRC) can be transformed into different valuable chemical
Liquid fuel products via syngas. This review focuses on technology of microwave-assisted pyrolysis (MAP) applied on LRC as
Low rank coal a promising technique of thermochemical conversion that can transform LRC into high quality syngas. A confined
Microwave technology
number of reviews has been selected and evaluated to observe current status and challenges of the technology,
Pyrolysis
including essential production factors, pretreatment of LRC, and heating characteristics of MAP. Experimental
Syngas
research on catalytic and non-catalytic of the technology focusing on the product distribution resulting from
conventional pyrolysis (CP) are also discussed. The best yields of char, tar, and syngas from CP at 900 °C were
2%, 41%, and 58%, respectively. Meanwhile, the best yields of char, oil and syngas from MAP at 620 °C were
32%, 15% and 53%, respectively. Finally, this review evaluates the advantages and challenges of the technology
and the milestones to be achieved in near future.

1. Introduction
The need for fuel oil, gas and coal is increasing from year to year.
This increase in demand is not matched by an increase in the avail-
ability of these fossil fuels [1]. Of the various fuels, given its abundant
reserves, coal is still considered the main fuel in the future as it can be
transformed into clean energy (i.e., syngas) that can be converted into
various valuable products. At the end of 2021, the total proven coal re-
serves worldwide were 1161000 million tonnes. Global coal utilization
in power plants shows dominance compared to other fuels as presented
in Table 1 [2]. Most of the coal quality around the world are classi-
fied as bituminous coal (i.e., accounting about 52% of total proven coal
reserves). However, low rank coal (LRC), which includes lignite and sub-
bituminous coals are also significant (i.e., accounting for 47% of total
proven coal reserves). LRC and high rank coal (HRC) are typically clas-
sified based on their calorific value, volatile matter, and fixed carbon
as presented in Table 2 [3]. HRCs such as anthracites are indicated by
their high calorific value and fixed carbon, while LRC is characterized
by its low calorific value, high volatile matters, and low fixed carbon.
To utilize LRC in industrial practice while maintaining environmen-
tal concerns, an increase in added value is required. One of the methods
that can provide added values to LRC is coal to liquids (CTL) technol-
ogy [4]. CTL refers to the conversion of compact LRCs into dilute fu-
els and chemicals via an alternative to the bi-directional principle. The
method used to convert LRC into liquid fuel is direct coal liquefaction
(DCL), which generally requires maximum temperature, pressure, and
use of catalysts and solvents [5]. Coal can be converted into liquid hy-
drocarbons through indirect coal liquefaction (ICL) through gasification
to syngas and the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process [6–8]. Nevertheless, the
primary barrier of this technological route, apart from concerns of envi-
ronmental, is still high energy intensive and capital investment normally
needed for the economical and efficient conversion of coal to chemicals
[4,9]. Detailed comparison between DCL and ICL is presented in Fig. 1.
In conventional pyrolysis (CP) of coal, rapid heating rates are in-
formed to assist reduce reactions of secondary, including condensation
and reactions of retrogressive [10]. CP of coal usually stands challenges
of process, including corrosive because of a compound of sulfur causing
reactor clog due to the accumulating of large tar [11,12]. Cracking cat-
alysts often utilized to assisting convert this heavy tar into syngas and
hydrocarbons, but their low tolerance of sulfur, rapid deactivation, and
problem to reuse are still an issue [13]. These heavy hydrocarbons can
later be upgraded to transport fuels, including jet, diesel, and gasoline
fuels [9].
Microwave technology has been utilized recently as an energy re-
source of non-conventional method for the pyrolysis of coal [14],
biomass [5,15], or a mixture thereof [16]. In addition, microwave-

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bambang.teknikkimia@gmail.com (B. Sardi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpc.2023.02.002
Received 1 November 2022; Received in revised form 27 January 2023; Accepted 10 February 2023
Available online 12 February 2023
2667-1344/© 2023 Xi’an Modern Chemistry Research Institute. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
B. Sardi, I. Uno, F. Pasila et al. FirePhysChem 3 (2023) 106–120

Table 1
Consumption of fuel and total proven coal reserves end 2021 [2].

World consumption Exajoule Percentage Total world proved Million tonnes Percentage
reserves of coal

Oil 184.2 31.0 High-rank coal

Natural gas 145.4 24.4 Anthracite 11610.0 1.0
Coal 160.1 26.9 Bituminous 603720.0 52.0
Nuclear energy 25.3 4.3 Low-rank coal
Hydro-electricity 40.3 6.8 Sub-bituminous 348300.0 30.0
Renewable 39.9 6.7 Lignite 197370.0 17.0

Table 2
Classification of coals based on key physical properties [3].

carbon

x and y are
italic

In the figure, only the

Fig. 1. Comparison between direct coal liquefaction (DCL) and indirect coal liquefaction (ICL) technologies letter
assisted coal processing has the ability to assist crushing, cleaning, and
upgrading of coal; thereby, it can increase efficiency while reducing
harmful emissions [17]. Comprehension of the interaction between ra-
diation of electromagnetic and coal is an important foundation in the
development of technology of microwave coal [18]. This interacts rely
on many factors, including the amount of raw material, microwave fre-
quency and power, temperature, and the shape and size of the particles,
along with the density and porosity of the material [19].
Microwave-assisted pyrolysis (MAP) of LRC is a highly flexible pro-
cess due to the condition of operation, including residence time, temper-
first[4–9]
. is
capitalized, except for
DCL,LPG CH,S,N,CO,CO2,H2,
ature, heating rate, etc. The conditions of operation may stand optimal
to increase yield of gas, oil, and charH2O.....
depending on the desired products
[20]. This technique is a prospective procedure for boosting low-grade
fuels as well as could offer a potential saving for converting solid fu-
els into valuable organic chemicals [21]. With the increasing search for
clean technology and high process efficiency, LRC pyrolysis tends to be
combined with other technologies to form a series of polygenerative
processes.
Although the development of coal pyrolysis has been existing since
the early nineteenth century, studies of LRC pyrolysis under microwave

107
B. Sardi, I. Uno, F. Pasila et al.
has not widely been available in literature especially in terms of de-
tailed difference between CP and MAP with the presence and absence
of catalyst. Mo et al. [22] reviewed the fundamental aspects of CTL tech-
nology for CTL system planning and policymaking. The CTL system was
studied for integration into global energy and fuel utilization systems
[23]. The conversion rates for CTL were found to be between 1 and 2
barrels per ton of coal. Zhang et al. [24] reviewed the in-situ catalytic up-
grading of coal pyrolysis volatile using metal-loaded HZSM-5 catalysts
in a fluidized bed reactor. The results showed that pyrolysis effectively
formed light aromatic and clarified the catalytic mechanism of pyrolysis
volatile over metal/HZSM-5 catalysts. Sun et al. [26] conducted a retro-
spective study on several aspects of LRC, including the properties of LRC,
chemical reactions, and product formation processes during a pyrolysis.
Factors affecting pyrolysis such as heating rate, reaction temperature,
particle size, and minerals in coal were discussed. Reddy et al. [27] re-
viewed the three coking coals and non-coking Indian LRC through CP
and MAP, as well as the effect of coal type, heating mechanism, tar com-
position, and heating rate. The tar yield of the MAP on coking coals was
similar (∼7 wt.%), while it was slightly lower than that of non-coking
Indian LRC (∼11 wt.%). The char yields of MAP and CP were similar (78
± 1.5 wt.%). Tar from the MAP is rich in naphthalene and polyaromatic
derivatives with a selectivity of more than 45%, while tar from CP is
rich in monoaromatic (> 30%). The higher heating value (HHV) of tar
from CP is higher (35–36 MJ/kg), while the tar from MAP is (32–33
MJ/kg) which is associated with the presence of more monoaromatic
in the letter. Sardi et al. [28] reviewed the LRC MAP using catalysts
and receptors. This was in accordance with the study of Mushtaq et al.
[16] on coal MAP of using absorbers. Microwave absorbers was able to
indirectly heat carbon particles that were relatively transparent to mi-
crowaves, affecting the quantity and quality of the product by acting as
a catalytic precursor. Microwave heating of elemental carbon through
microwave absorbers demonstrated efficient heating and adequate ex-
posure to volatile particles in the gaseous phase. Thus, upgrading fuel
quality would be easily conducted using multiple microwave absorbers.
Thus, this review mainly focuses on performance of the MAP as com-
pared to CP (i.e., with and without a catalyst). However, reviews that
focus on the various important factors of MAP related to LRC pretreat-
ment and heating mechanisms are lacking. This review aims to describe
and compare between catalytic and non-catalytic microwave pyroly-
sis. Products from this technology in terms of composition and yield
are further explored. Thus, it can become the basis for developing mi-
crowave technology in the future in converting LRC into various valu-
able products, including syngas and chemicals. Graphical table of con-
tents chart/research methods for use in different pyrolysis study systems
in shown in Fig. 2.
2. Low-rank coal processing technology through pyrolysis
An important component in coal classification and pyrolysis is
volatile matter. The structure of LRC is complex, with functional groups
such as free hydroxyl, phenolic, carboxyl, carbonyl, and ether [70].
Gases produced by LRC combustion and pyrolysis include CO, CO2 , SO2 ,
and N2 [37]. In addition, LRC produces a variety of other pollutants
(char and syngas) containing functional groups such as free hydroxyl,
phenolic, carboxyl, carbonyl, and ether [77]. The mechanism of the re-
action describes the oxygen consumers and the formation of gas and
solid phase oxidation products [44]. The solid oxidation products are
typically phenolic compounds extracted from coal tar. When heated,
LRCs with a higher oxygen content are expected to be more reactive
to oxygen gas and to produce a large amount of CO2 and CO [68]. The
rate of coal heating is determined by the rank of the coal with the lowest
calorific value for LRC. Furthermore, the gas yields of hydrogen (H2 ),
methane (C1 ), ethane (C2 ), and propane (C3 ), and n-butane (CH4 ) for
LRC were higher than for HRC [63]. For HRC, regardless of temperature,
the ratio of CO formation to CO2 formation decreases rapidly [29] . LRC
oxidizes at high temperatures, and the behavior of CO and CO2 forma-
108
FirePhysChem 3 (2023) 106–120
tion was found to vary with temperature. High hydrogen production
rate for LRC, resulting in lower heating value due to volatile compo-
nent loss. A large number of gaseous products and intermediates are
produced during the pyrolysis process. The main components obtained
in the combustion process are gas products such as CO2 [75]. However,
valuable products like H2 , C1 , C2 , C3 , and C4 are produced during the py-
rolysis process, which is consistent with the experimental results [107].
At 620 °C, the percentages of LRC gas products such as H2 , C1 , C2 , C3 ,
and C4 formed during pyrolysis analysis are 0.6%, 23.0%, 58.5%, and
3.7%, respectively [28].
LRC processing technology through pyrolysis, mainly consist of DCL
and ICL processing. DCL requires the large use of catalysts and solvents,
high pressures and temperatures [29,30], while ICL includes gasification
to syngas (carbon monoxide and hydrogen) followed by the FT process
[6]. However, the primary barrier of this technology, apart from en-
vironmental concerns, is energy intensive and high capital investment
normally necessary for the economical and efficient conversion of coal
to chemicals [9]. In general, pyrolysis conditions can greatly affect the
reactivity-structure relationship of the resulting charcoal [31], impact-
ing the overall coal conversion process. Conventional coal pyrolysis usu-
ally presents process challenges such as corrosion due to sulfur com-
pounds or blockage of the reactor line due to heavy accumulation [15].
Cracking catalysts are often used to help decompose this heavy tar into
lighter hydrocarbons and gases, but their rapid deactivation, low sulfur
tolerance, and difficulty to separate or recycle are still an issue [32,33].
As previously mentioned, comprehension of the interaction between
radiation of electromagnetic and coal in microwave technology is an
important foundation. For instance, the permittivity (or dielectric) of
a material is complex entity (E = E′ + iE″) with real and natural com-
ponents. The real component (E′) is the ability of the material to store
electrical energy, whereas the imaginary component (E″) is the loss of
electrical energy in the material. The ratio between these components,
described as tangent loss (tan 𝛿 = E″/E′), is the ability of the material
to convert microwave electrical energy into heat energy. The basic dif-
ference between conventional heating and microwave heating is shown
in Fig. 3 [34,35]. Conventional heating occurs due to conduction and
convection, which causes molecular collisions. Meanwhile, microwave
heating occurs due to microwave radiation, which causes the rotation of
the water dipole causing homogeneous and rapid heating (deep internal
heating), spectacular accelerations in reactions as a result of the heating
rate (which frequently cannot be reproduced by conventional heating)
and selective heating. Also, it produces high yields and lower quantities
of side-products and purification of products is easier [34–36].
Microwave technology has been used in various research of coal.
However, very few have reported the mechanism of the increase in mi-
crowave rates. Zhang et al. [37] found that the microwave could re-
duce SO2 emission from methane over MoS2 catalyst. The researchers
compared the results with the conventional methods, including the for-
mation of hot spots in the catalyst. Hot spots generally occur during
microwave irradiation when the material absorbs more energy than re-
leasing the heat. Stiegman and colleagues pointed out the study by Hunt,
et al. [38] that microwaves can increase the Boudouard reaction and
lower the corresponding activation energy between carbon and CO2 .
Researchers proposed that CO2 may interact differently on the carbon
surface where there is steady state concentration of electron hole pairs
produced by the heating mechanism of the charge space over microwave
irradiation.
2.1. Conventional pyrolysis of low-rank coal
CP is devolatilization of coal occuring at low temperature (< 400 °C)
in the absence of oxygen [9,39–41]. Devolatilization produces a mixture
of gases (syngas containing mainly CO and H2 ), tar, and char [40,42].
The composition of the pyrolysis liquid (called pyro-oil) usually depends
on coal composition, temperature, heating rate, and pressure [43]. For
instance, low temperature pyrolysis is generally associated with high
 B. Sardi, I. Uno, F. Pasila et al. FirePhysChem 3 (2023) 106–120

In the figure,
Except for LRC,
only the first
letter is
capitalized

Fig. 2. Graphical table of contents chart/research methods for use in different pyrolysis study systems.

Fig. 3. Fundamental difference between conventional and microwave heating [34,35].

tar formation, whereas pyrolysis with high and middle temperature are
commonly related to the formation of char and coke.
During LRC pyrolysis, the chemical reaction is considered a sequence
of equivalent and consecutive free radical reactions [44]. Reaction pro-
duces fragments of radical as an end result of thermal decomposition of
organic macromolecules, as properly as volatiles and residues (coke or
char) as a result of reactions between radical fragments [45]. The CP
reaction on the LRC is shown in Fig. 4(a), where primary devolatiliza-
tion is a rapid reaction, which includes a polymerization-condensation
reaction and a radical-combination formation reaction [25,46]. The re-
actions that show up at some points of pyrolysis of hydrocarbons are in-
duced through the structure’s thermal instability with the following or-
der: condensed aromatics >> cyclic hydrocarbons >> olefins >> alkanes
[47]. Aromatic heteroatoms (such as sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen) are
additionally a great deal more thermostable than aliphatic heteroatoms
due to their conjugated form. It is additionally been documented that
LRC fragmentation is progressing faster than HRC [48,49].
2.2. Microwave-assisted pyrolysis of low-rank coal
MAP is a promising technology that can be used to produce synthetic
oil for replacing traditional fossil fuels. This process is very flexible be-
cause the operating conditions (i.e., residence time, heating rate, and
temperature) can be optimized for the production of syngas, char, and

109
B. Sardi, I. Uno, F. Pasila et al.
Fig. 4. The mechanistic model of pyrolysis. (a) Conventional pyrolysis. (b) Microwave assisted pyrolysis [25,46,50].
oil depending to the desired products. The MAP process is very impor-
tant because it can convert solid fuels (including LRC) into a variety of
organic chemicals. The detailed characteristics of MAP on LRC are still
few reported in literature.
In overall, heating in microwave presents multiple advantages over
heating of CP, including non-contact, selective, and rapid heating of
matter [14]. The internal heating of microwave increases the heating
rate of LRC particles over CP [19]. Microwaves allow for a fast transfer
of energy, with materials being heated from the inside out. The fast se-
lective cooling and heating rates provided by the MAP can increase the
gas yield and counteract secondary reactions, which are typical conse-
quences for the formation of heavy and stable carbon or tar. MAP has
been used in various studies of LRC, including the effects of various ad-
ditives, such as methane over coal pyrolysis [9,51]; sodium chloride to
increase the permittivity of coal and accelerate the drying rate of lig-
nite coal [52]; metal oxides as microwave receptors to help reduce heat
transfer restrictions during coal pyrolysis [14,53]; and improves coal
drying, milling [54,55], and desulphurisation [56].
Coal shows significant differences in absorption capacity of MAP and
dielectric properties depending on factors, such as moisture content,
mineral composition, rank of coal, radiation frequency of microwave,
and temperature [57,58]. The dielectric constant of coal (typically be-
tween 4.7 and 5.3) affects the absorption capacity of microwave. For
example, some inorganic mixtures (i.e., V2 O5 , CuO, Fe3 O4 ) and carbon
can warm up rapidly and reach temperature of 700 °C within one minute
[59,60].
Microwave penetration into theSpace should
coal sample be heating
causes internal
added
that consequently increases the heating between
rate of of the MAP.
the LRC during
andmatter
The rapid exit velocity of the volatile 700from the LRC particles
reduces the secondary reaction of the volatile matter, increasing the oil
product [19]. The MAP reaction on the LRC is shown in Fig. 4(b), where
the presence of chemical radicals in particular hydrogen (H∗ ) in the
110
FirePhysChem 3 (2023) 106–120
In the figure, the first letter
is capitalized, such as Volatile
,Formation,Microwave.....
presence of a microwave can behave differently. Radical recombination
under the microwave can result in a change in the condensation pathway
and therefore the product is distributed, so that less carbon is trapped
under the MAP. Also, a more uniform distribution of temperature results
in a better process control and more desirable product [61]. Another
advantage of MAP is that large particle sized materials can directly be
treated as heat is transferred directly to the feedstock by microwave
penetration, avoiding the cost for reducing the size of the materials [57].
3. Fuel production from LRC using microwave-assisted pyrolysis
method
Pyrolysis is a mechanism of thermal degradation (commonly occur-
ring at 500–600 °C) in a non-oxygen condition that causes a production
of syngas (esp. at temperature of > 600 °C), liquid hydrocarbon or oil,
and tar [39,62]. Typically, the two steps in a pyrolysis include as follows:
(i) primary pyrolysis, devolatilization of the materials by thermal break-
down; (ii) secondary pyrolysis, secondary breakdown reactions by re-
leasing volatiles (homogeneous reactions) and residues containing car-
bon (heterogeneous reactions) [63]. The primary pyrolysis involves the
process of dehydrogenation, decarbonylation or decarboxylation, dehy-
dration, while the secondary pyrolysis involves cracking (catalytic or
thermal) of heavy materials into syngas, oil and charcoal with the pres-
ence of gasification medium (air, steam, oxygen, etc.).
Pyrolysis is very complex because many operational parameters have
to be considered, including the composition of the feedstock, heating
rate, temperature, and residence time of the steam (if used as the gasi-
fication medium) in the reactor [62]. To optimize product quality and
quantity, critical variables must be considered in the process including:
(i) particle size; (ii) minerals in coal; (iii) atmosphere; (iv) solvent; (v)
type, size, and concentration of receptor; (vi) type of catalyst; (vii) type
of reactor; (viii) microwave power; (ix) temperature; (x) heating rate;
B. Sardi, I. Uno, F. Pasila et al.
Replace"Basic
Properties" with
"basic
properties"
Fig. 5. Characterization of char based LRCs for different applications [70,71].
(xi) residence time ; (xii) type and flow rate of the gasification medium.
Among these, temperature plays an important role in the whole pyrol-
ysis process. Also, a primary advantage of microwave is the ability to
produce hydrocarbons that can be used as liquid and gaseous fuels for
diverse chemical production. The product resulting from the pyrolysis
of LRC is not only derived from the volatile matter composition, but
also from the Boudouard reaction and the decrease in activation energy
between carbon and carbon dioxide [38]. Other advantages of MAP in-
clude energy efficiency, prospects for selective heating, relatively low
capital cost and bulk effect (i.e., MAP can generate volumetric heating)
[64].
3.1. Pyrolysis of microwave for the carbonaceous product formation
Pyrolysis is a stage of all coal conversion processes, including com-
bustion, liquefaction, gasification, carbonization, and others, at temper-
atures above 400 °C [65,66]. Pyrolysis converts coal into syngas and tar
along with hydrogen-deficient char or coke with minimal energy use.
Conditions of pyrolysis significantly affect product quality and subse-
quent use [16,67,68]. The main roles that determine the product qual-
ity of each type of pyrolysis are reaction temperature, residence time,
and steam heating rate. Increasing temperature causes slow pyrolysis at
high temperature to produce more syngas and less char, but vice versa
with fast pyrolysis low temperatures. This is caused by the production of
hydrogen (syngas) which is more dominant at high temperatures, while
at low temperatures it is dominated by methane and a slight portion of
hydrogen.
However, charcoal is a carbon-containing residue consisting mainly
of the natural organic compounds that have not been converted. Con-
ditions of pyrolysis can directly impact the relationship of structure-
reactivity of the charcoal [31,69]. The product yield (Y) is calculated
using the Eq. (1):
wt. of char
𝑌char = 100 ×
initial wt. of coal
Char characterization can be viewed from several aspects, namely
aromatic stacking structure of chars, properties of char surface, mor-
phology of surface, functionality of char surface, and reactivity of chars
FirePhysChem 3 (2023) 106–120
Replace"
Structure" with
"structure"
Replace"
Structural" with
"structural"
combustion [70,71]. Fig. 5 shows characterization of char based LRCs
for different applications.
3.1.1. Aromatic stacking structure of chars
Microcrystalline carbon in the char and coal was approximate by
determining the aromatic mean amount array structures (Nav ), which
can be calculated using Eq. (2) introduced by Takagi et al. [72] as below:
𝐿c
𝑁av = (2)
𝑑002
wherein Lc is the size of average crystal or the stacked height of the
layer of carbon. The determination of Lc uses Scherrer equation that is
calculated at the maximum half-peak width [002], where d002 is the
distance among the scores of carbon calculated using Bragg’s equation.
Law of Bragg’s is utilized to explain patterns of interference of X-rays
disseminated through crystals as described by Eq. (3) below:
𝑛𝜆 = 2𝑑hkl sin𝜃 (3)
wherein n is a whole number; 𝜆 is the X-ray wavelength of the occur-
rence; and dhkl is the inter of planar distance. When the temperature of
pyrolysis rises, the charcoal will be devolatilized and the interaction of
molecules occures through the reactions of decarboxylation and dehy-
dration. The presence of carbon in graphite of char and coal can be in-
dicated by the responding peaks [73]. Due to its heating characteristics,
at low temperatures, microwave can optimize the complete removal of
polar functional groups of hydrocarbon and increase the degree of cross-
linking and ring condensation of the hydrocarbon [47]. Thus, MAP at
low temperatures may produce high-grade coke.
The higher the fixed carbon value in char, the higher the calorific
value contained in the carbon. The devolatilized of carbon through CP
requires high temperatures at 550-1600 °C [28,70,74]. In terms of the
aromatic stacking structure, the char characteristics of CP at 400-1600
(1) °C are presented in Table 3 [70,76,83]. The high content of fixed carbon
in char causes the high dielectric properties (absorption and heating) of
MAP [50,77,78]. The char characteristics of MAP at 550-900 °C from
the buildup of aromatic structures are presented in Table 4 [28,50,77].
Raising the CP temperature above 600 °C will increase the amount of
111

Table 3
Carbonaceous residue product characterization by conventional pyrolysis.
Temp.(°C) Chars aromatic stacking structure (XRD)
400-550 Shows low LRC aromatic ring condensate
levels and low carbon system lamella
level orientation. Meanwhile, space
structure of the LRC molecule was a block
consisting of seven.
400-750 Carbonation at high temperature
increases the stability of the polyaromatic
elements of the carbon structure as a
result of the break-down of aromatic CH
elements and C−O types.
570-650 Most char crystal peaks of
112
CP + 1%AC + 24.6%Fe2 (SO4 )3 and
CP + 1%HZSM-5 + 24.6% Fe2 (SO4 )3 were
SiO2 and Ca4 (Al8 Si8 O32 ).
850-1600 The mineral phase was at the diffraction
peak of SiO2 at lower temperatures and
the peak of SiC at higher temperatures.
850-1600 The unit of diffraction intensity from the
main peak of graphite experiences an
increase in temperature from coal char
where there was a conversion of the
structure of amorphous carbon.
Surface properties of chars
(BET-BJH)
Demonstrates a loose regulatory
model of the LRC
macro-mole-cular structure based
on atomic force microscopy
(ATM).
The revealed BET surface area
analysis for char at high
temperature has a much higher
surface area.
The presence of graphite causes
the structures chart to dis-play a
slightly lower carbon peak at 2Ɵ
between 20 and 30°.
The char of a coal decreases with
tempe-rature and undergoes a
structural ordering process.
Shows that most of the carbon in
chars was amorphous at low
temperatures.
Surface morphology (SEM-EDS)
Demonstrates high reso-lution
morphology of the LRC surface
which includes pores and cracks
of various sizes.
Shows coal from a raw
appearance of particles having a
rough surface.
The surface of char
CP + AC + Fe2 (SO4 )3 and
CP + HZSM-5 + Fe2 (SO4 )3 was
looser.
A reasonable degree of internal
structure uni-formity increases
with increasing char forming
temperature and results in a
characteristic di-electric
behavior.
Demonstrates a carbon lattice
crystal presenting a high degree
of turbostratic regulation at
lower temperatures.
Surface of char functionality (FTIR)
Shows that the elephant’s chain in the
molecular structure of LRC was ethyl-ene
and methane, including oxygen,
especially –O– and –C=O.
Showed that the aliphatic structure and
oxygen-containing functional bands
decreased with increasing pyrolysis
temperature.
Ash content of CP + 1.0%AC + 24.6%
Fe2 (SO4 )3 and
CP + HZSM-5 + 24.6%Fe2 (SO4 )3
increased because ash content
(%) = 100% – [fixed carbon
(%) + moisture (%) + volatile matter
(%)].
Shows the structure of coal char: aliphatic
CH stretching region (3000-2700 cm−1 ),
oxygen-containing functional group
region (1800-1000 cm−1 ) and aromatic
CH stretching region (900-700 cm−1 ).
Shows the physicochemical composition
was an ideal graphite lattice (1580 cm−1 ),
irregular graphite (1350 and 1620 cm−1 ),
and amorphous carbon (1530 cm−1 ).
B. Sardi, I. Uno, F. Pasila et al.
Combustion of char reactivity Main authors
(TGA)
Showed that the shape of the Wu et al. [70]
aromatic carbon atom were
primary naphthalene, aromatic
rings of heteroatoms, and
benzene rings.
The higher reactivity of the low Meng et al. [76]
temperature char was associated
with a higher concen-tration of
active sites.
The reaction peak observed for Sardi et al. [28]
the char of
CP + 1%AC + 24.6%Fe2 (SO4 )3
was similar to the char of
CP + 1%HZSM-
5 + 24.6%Fe2 (SO4 )3 .
The evolut-ion of aromatic and Liu et al. [74]
aliphatic skeletons in-dicates
more ordered char structure after
heat treatment.
The results show that the char at Xu et al. [83]
lower temperatures exper-ienced
a slight dec-rease.
FirePhysChem 3 (2023) 106–120
B. Sardi, I. Uno, F. Pasila et al. FirePhysChem 3 (2023) 106–120

aromatic carbon in the char due to condensation reaction [28,76]. With

increasing MAP temperature, the crystal peak of char microwave contin-

Abdel-sayed et al. [50]

Abdel-sayed et al. [75]

ues to increase [28,75]. At a temperature above 550 °C, the microcrys-
talline carbon is found in the resulting char similar to that of the raw coal

Sardi et al. [28]

Zhou et al. [77]

Zhou et al. [78]

[70,76]. However, this microcrystalline carbon increase in the pyrolysis
Main authors

temperature for the char produced above 550 °C. This shows that most
of the volatiles at temperatures above 550 °C cause more cross-reactions
between coal molecules. Microwave char shows higher microcrystalline
at high temperatures ( > 550 °C), compared to the raw coal [50,75].
structure and increase its thermal
increase cross-linking in the char

The absorption peak of the FTIR

Shows that microwave heat can

ordered poly-crystalline carbon

The reaction peak observed for

Shows the volatile content was

Combustion of char reactivity

the char of MP + 1%AC was

strain on the C–H vibration.

properties was the aromatic
in the graphite layer as the

3.1.2. Surface properties of chars

Raman spectrum of highly

The properties of char are generally characterized using different

similar to the char of techniques. For example, area of surface can be measured using the
material mentions.

increasing rapidly.
MP + 1%HZSM-5. Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller (BET) model into N2 isotherm data [79].
Micro pore area and volume can be quantified utilizing t-plot analysis
stability.

[80]. Pore size distribution can be measured with the Barrett, Joyner,
(TGA)

and Halenda (BJH) model of desorption isotherm. Meanwhile, the vol-

ume of char pore and the surface area increase with increased temper-
ature of pyrolysis. Zhou et al. [52] used microwaves to dry coal and
Indicates that the addition of CH3

Showing the absorption peak was

acts as an aid to ordering char or
aliphatic C-H (3000-2700 cm−1 ).

hydro-gen bonds –NH, –OH, and

showed that microwaves can interact with coal moisture. In a short time,
oxygen (1800-1000 cm−1 ); and

The increase in fixed carbon in

aromatic C-H (900-700 cm−1 );

Shows peak characteristics of

Surface of char functionality

it heats up to hot steam, which develops different pressures on the coal

improves the proper-ties of

HZSM-5 was caused by the

char supply from MAP and

MP + 1%AC and MP + 1%

the stretching vibration of

covering four main areas:
Shows the FTIR spectrum

heterogeneous gas phase

pore network and changes its surface properties.

without FeS2 catalyst.

Surface properties of char at the pyrolysis temperature can be char-

acterized by the accumulated volume of char pore, specific surface area
(SSA), and average pore size [81]. The surface area of char produced un-
der catalyst treatment is much smaller than that of without the catalyst
graphite.

reaction.

phenol.
(FTIR)

because the macroporous proportion of char produced under catalyst

treatment is very high. Using catalyst, the SSA of char is very small,
but the average pore diameter is very large as compared with the pore
and the nonuniform particle area.
Showed that char pre-pared by a

Shows that mass heating in MAP

seemed to disap-pear with much
limited distribution of the mean

morphology of the char product

structure of char produced without catalyst. Under MAP, the addition

Surface morphology (SEM-EDS)

with char had a regular heating

microwave has a surface with a

larger hole’s later irradiation of

speck size of all temperatures.

aggregate particles with low

of a catalyst is conducive to the formation of a more developed pore

Displays the irregular micro
The structure of char space

structure and an increase in the surface area of the char. At the same
Shows a large cluster of

time, the addition of catalyst is more conducive to the production of

and heating voltage.
porosity for char.

larger pores in the char. Loop hysteresis is caused by the concentration

the microwave.

of capillary N2 adsorbed in the meso and macropore char structures.

With increasing temperature, the hysteresis loop will become wider as
there is an increase in mesoporous formation because water vapor and
volatile coal are sequentially removed with increasing temperature [52].
Although the cost of H-coal is currently unattractive, two develop-
microwave had an improved area

ments promise cost reductions. First, a new catalyst with a bimodal pore
Shows a free char structure with
Shows a layer of char about 1 m

much larger punctures and part

graphite was infor-med by the
surface zone and pore volume

look of the peaks of reaction.

The presence of the expected

size distribution was developed to increase the yield of the distillate liq-
Microwave char has a better

The char produced from the

of surface and pore volume.

Carbonaceous residue product characterization by microwave-assisted pyrolysis.

Surface properties of chars

of the structure collapses.

uid, particularly with LRC. Second, the use of hydrogen could be reduced
than conventional char.

by using a two reactors in series [47]. In the case of catalysts, critical

factors need to be considered in order to increase the performance and
lifetime of the catalyst. These are composition, pore structure, surface
(BET-BJH)

properties, promoter and type of support. The pore structure of the cat-
alyst determines how easily the reactants can reach the interior surface
thick.

of the catalyst. In general, the hydroprocessor catalyst is carried out by

the impregnation method, and the pore structure of the catalyst is deter-
reflections (002) and (100) were observed

mined essentially by its support. The first LRC liquefaction catalyst was
Shows the diffraction pattern of char and
carbon with the properties of amorphous

The XRD spectrum shows that two broad

char yield from MAP was better than the

carbon LRC decreas-ing according to the
Chars aromatic stacking structure (XRD)

composition of coal and the only sharp

lattice peak was the SiO2 crystal stage.

Shows the diffracttion pattern that the

prepared to hydrate the petroleum distillate. However, it is not effective

SiO2 was still in the form of charcoal
Shows the aromatic ring structure of

coal, but does not show the carbon

for liquid coal with large molecular weight because the pores are gener-
carbon peaks corres-ponding to

ally thin and easily clogged. Catalyst activity will be increased with the
presence of large pores.
pyrolysis temperature.

3.1.3. Surface morphology of chars

at 2Ɵ (40°- 50°)

catalyzed MAP.

Determination of surface morphology can be done through scanning

electron microscope (SEM) and energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS)
analysis [75]. The effect of the heating can influence the surface mor-
phase.

phology of char [82]. The results of the surface morphology analysis for
raw coal, conventional char and microwave char have differences. The
Temp. (°C)

surface morphology of the coal is smooth, compact with a number of

550-900

550-900

570-650
Table 4

mineral grains found on the surface. In CP of char, there was no signif-

800

900

icant difference in morphology at a temperature variant of 500-900 °C.

Conventional char exhibits large elemental composites similar to LRC

113
B. Sardi, I. Uno, F. Pasila et al.
with less porosity. Similar characteristics were also found under N2 at-
mosphere treatment [83].
The char morphology is determined by the inorganic elements of the
composition of ash oxide and organic polar groups. The analysis results
of the oxide ash composition are SiO2 , Al2 O3 , CaO, MgO, SO2 , Fe2 O3 ,
and K2 O. Under microwave irradiation, inorganic elements have mo-
ments of good dipole and can efficiently interact as fields of microwave
electrifying. Meanwhile, the polar-group attendance of natural includ-
ing carboxyl, carbonyl, and hydroxyl are heated selectively with a dipole
loss mechanism [73,84]. Most of the char morphology produced by the
microwave resembles with the morphology of fly ash with microspheres
of aluminum silica [85].
3.1.4. Char surface functionality
The char surface is essentially a manifestation of the resulting char
reactivity. Char reactivity is a degree of interaction between coal and
microwave which is influenced by the density, dipole moment, and sur-
face type. The MAP is completed by two-pole polarizers with permittiv-
ity units. When a material is microwaved, the dipoles of polar molecules
tend to align with the oscillating electromagnetic field. Consequently,
molecular reorientation will occur, causing friction and consequent heat
loss [86], showing that the LRC matrix presents low permittivity. As
comparison, polar molecules, including water vapor and pyrite, have a
higher permittivity and can be easily heated by microwave [87].
The combination of functional group dipoles with microwave electric
fields generates heat selectively and releases gases, volatiles, and tars.
Functional groups in LRC can play a critical role during the MAP. The
functional groups as well as the density on the surface of the charcoal
are generally dependent on temperature [76,88,89]. The targets of mi-
crowave reactions at low temperatures are condensation and decarboxy-
lation reactions. When the condensation reaction leads to cross-linking,
the decarboxylation reaction releases CO2 from the carboxylate group.
Selective heating of functional-groups on the char surface, density, and
distribution of these groups offered by microwaves differs from that of
CP. Thus, at low temperatures, microwaves can produce high-grade coke
as compared to CP [75].
3.1.5. Char combustion reactivity
Microwave selective heating can increase cross-linking in the carbon
structure of char, increase its thermal stability and decrease its com-
bustion reactivity [75]. The reactivity of char typically decreases with
increased temperature [33]. An increase in temperature will lower the
content of volatile matter and increase the cross-linking in the structure
of charcoal, thereby increasing the aromaticity and density of the micro
crystalites. Under the microwave, the cross-linking will increase electri-
cal conductivity of the char, resulting in an efficient conversion from
electrical energy into heat.
Reactivity index (R) represents the amount of carbon in coal poten-
tially converted into a char. A typical value of this from 0 to 50% [76];
it can be described using Eq. (4) below:
0.5
𝑅= (4)
𝑡0.5
with 𝑡0.5 is the period taken for achieving a conversion of fixed char-
coal 50% by weight. A microwave effects in the preparation of fast coke
from coal was reported in Ref. [90], with the burning responsiveness of
refined coke decreased sharply for irradiation period of the microwave.
Under microwave treatment, a lower weight loss of raw coals has
been observed as compared to conventional char preparation. This
weight loss, which usually occurs at temperatures of more than 400 °C
due to the presence of various carbons at variable combustion rates, can
affect combustion reactivity of char. For raw coal, the maximum rate of
weight loss (i.e., measured by maximum differential thermal gravimetric
(DTGmax)) was observed at 400 °C due to devolatilization and volatile
combustion. DTGmax decreases and shifts to a higher combustion tem-
perature with increasing temperature of char preparation, indicating a
114
FirePhysChem 3 (2023) 106–120
decrease in char reactivity and a greater temperature is required for
carbon combustion [69,91].
3.2. Pyrolysis of microwave for the gaseous product formation
Coal pyrolysis using microwave has been studied since decades. Da
Costa Labanca [92] produced syngas containing H2 , CO2 , and C2 H2 as
the main hydrocarbon. Pyrolysis typically occurs in three stages: (i) par-
tial carbonization to produce tar; (ii) rapid gasification to produce syn-
gas; (iii) slow degassing to produce residual charcoal [92–94]. As over-
all, formation of CO is generally associated with the presence of various
group functions, including ketone, ether, and heterocyclic, whereas CO2
can be created by groups of carboxylate and aliphatic and aromatic car-
boxyl [32]. Similarly, in another study [95], higher amounts of CO and
less amounts of CO2 was observed as compared to the conventional heat-
ing under the same experimental conditions when biomass was treated
under microwave condition. This could occur because carbon dioxide,
which is a product of pyrolysis, can react simultaneously in the presence
of carbon by the opposite Boudouard reaction (CO2 + C = 2CO) [38].
Therefore, syngas with lower CO2 concentrations is one of the main
products of the MAP. Meanwhile, the H2 /CO ratio under microwave
condition is almost constant and does not depend on bulk temperature,
whereas it increases in the CP.
Likewise, the ratio of H2 /CH4 produced by MAP is higher than that
of the CP, possibly due to decomposition of methane into hydrogen and
light hydrocarbons or the preferred dehydrogenation reaction under the
mechanism of microwave heating [96]. Under microwave condition, as
compared to the CP, hydrogen formation increases while methane for-
mation decreases slightly. Also, a lower ratio of aromatic-to-almatic was
observed, indicating a higher ratio of aromatic-to-aliphatic especially at
high temperatures ( > 900 °C). Thus, coal treated under MAP produces
more syngas with less tar as compared to the conventional process (non
microwave) [50].
3.3. Pyrolysis of microwave for the liquid product formation
Coal can be converted into liquid fuel (with low fraction of syngas)
through pyrolysis [97]. However, the pyrolysis process generally de-
mands high pressure, temperatures, and extensive use of catalysts and
solvents [29,98]. Coal can also be converted into syngas through gasi-
fication followed by the FT synthesis process that converts syngas into
liquid fuel [6,8]. However, the main drawback on this route is the en-
ergy and capital intensive [4,9]. Although direct coal pyrolysis is slightly
exothermic, the overall efficiency of the process decreases because hy-
drogen must be produced following the reaction below Eq. (5).
CH0.8 S0.2 O0.1 N0.01 +xH2 →CH2 +CO2 , H2 S, NH3 , H2 O (5)
Some of the liquid products in the LRC processing technology
through pyrolysis are tar, liquor, and light oils [99,100]. Where the coal
tar product must be refined by fractional distillation to obtain a commer-
cial product. Five fractions of tar processing based on boiling-point ele-
vation are light-oil, naphthalene-oil, creosote, anthracene-oil and pitch
[99,100]. However, the main problem with pyrolysis with conventional
heating is that the liquid product is dominated by tar which cannot be
used directly. So we need an alternative process, namely MAP with the
presence of catalyst or without catalyst. Various studies have been con-
ducted regarding the advantages and challenges of MAP in coal.
Improving the efficiency of MAP can be done by adding a catalyst
or a receptor. Reports related to studies of MAP on LRC with the help
of catalysts or receptors are quite numerous. Zhou et al. [77] conducted
a study on product optimization from LRC through MAP with the addi-
tion of FeS2 catalyst. The results show that the FeS2 catalyst could lead
to an increase of final temperature and temperature rate, changing the
product distribution. With the addition of 12.0% FeS2, the liquid prod-
uct of MAP was 27.2%, increasing by 6.4% when compared to without
B. Sardi, I. Uno, F. Pasila et al. FirePhysChem 3 (2023) 106–120

Table 5
Microwave-assisted pyrolysis of LRC.

LRC (e.g., moisture content) and Experimental parameters Type of Max. temp. Char yield Liquid (oil/tar) Gas yield Main authors
pretreatment procedure (e.g., use catalyst (°C) (wt.%) yield (wt.%) (wt.%)
of catalysts/additives/microwave
receptor)

Indonesian lignite, size (63-125 LRC (5 g), N2 rate (400 Fe3 O4 890 31.5 15.0 53.5 Wang et al. [11]
μm), and dried at 105 °C for 4 h. mL/min), power (380-700
W), Fe3 O4 /LRC ratio (2:5),
and time (10 min).
Shaanxi lignite, moisture LRC (50 g), FeS2 (0-12%), FeS2 800 62.7 32.2 4.1 Zhou et al. [77]
<0.05%, and size of 76-150 μm. and reaction (0.4 L/min, 800
W, 40 min).
Indian LRC, size (350-500 μm) LRC/Fe ratio (10:5 and Fe 450 71.0 14.0 15.0 Reddy et al. [81]
and dried at 105 °C for 12 h. 20:10), N2 rate (1 L/min),
and reaction (10 min, 800°C).
Sarawak lignite, size (300 μm), Heating (450W), N2 rate (4 CAC 326 61.9 18.6 19.4 Mushtaq et al. [102]
moisture (11.5%), dried at 105 °C L/min), Layer CAC (1-3), and
for 24 h. 35% CAC.
Shanxi lignite (50 g), size <75 Microwave (1600 W) and Fe 850 62.5 9.8 26.5 Wang et al. [103]
μm and dried at 378 K for 12 h. frequency 2450 ± 50 MHz.

the addition of the catalyst. The addition of FeS2 catalyst caused the
tar to become lighter, so that the mass fraction of light oil increased
significantly.
4. Comparative between pyrolysis of microwave and pyrolysis of
conventional
The physical properties, chemical composition and structures of LRC
can affect the yield of pyrolysis under microwave treatment. The yields
of syngas, liquid and char resulted from catalytic MAP is presented in
Table 5 [11,76,80,101,102]. The presence of a catalyst is closely related
to the microwave pyrolysis temperature, which affects the quality and
quantity of the product. Where metal catalysts (Ca, K, Fe, FeS2 , and
Fe3 O4 ) and pyrolysis temperature (700-900 °C) produce gas products
that are greater than liquid products. Meanwhile, activated carbon cat-
alyst and pyrolysis temperature (< 550 °C) produced gas products as
large as liquid products.
Heating characteristics, reactor configurations and the addition of
carbon-based materials of LRC samples to act as receptors can also affect
product yields [105,108]. The product yield of the CP varies in terms of
temperature, reactor type, carrier gas, and particle size. Table 6 presents
the CP description of LRC carried out at variable temperatures (550–900
°C). As shown, the non-microwave pyrolysis generally produces syngas
with lower hydrogen content as compared to the microwave technique
as shown in Tables 5 and 6. The main factors determining the distri-
bution of pyrolysis products are differences in temperature and pyroly-
sis type. This figure describes the many products produced by various
methods of pyrolysis as stated in Tables 3–6.
5. Discussion
Evaluation of the quality and quantity of CP and MAP products which
include liquid (aqueous and oil), gas, and char products are possible to
discuss. However, differences such as LRC quality, reactor type and py-
rolysis reaction conditions, and yield and product composition reported
in the literature vary between studies. It is known that MAP can be per-
formed with or without a catalyst + receptor. However, there are still
weaknesses associated with the MAP + catalyst + receptor of the LRC
compared to the number of CP studies. Fig. 6 shows the variations in tar,
oil, char, and gas products produced by conventional and microwave
pyrolysis with various treatments such as the presence of a catalyst, the
absence of a catalyst, and the addition of a receptor, while Fig. 7 further
compares the yields and main principle of heating MAP + catalyst + re-
ceptor and CP + catalyst + receptor. In almost all experiments with
similar operating conditions, the presence of a catalyst + receptor had
an impact on decreasing liquid and gas yields but improving the quality
of the oil produced [97]. The addition of catalyst + receptor to MAP
has an impact on increasing yield and quality of liquid and gas prod-
ucts and decreasing char [27]. The use of catalyst + receptor in various
pyrolysis methods focuses on product characteristics. It is still limited:
(1) to overcome the problem of increasing heavy tar; (2) to further in-
vestigate the direct conversion of LRC to liquid fuel and gas with high
efficiency.
One more benefit of using catalyst and receptor simultaneously can
change the behavior and quality of the pyrolysis product. Catalysts
can transform larger polycyclic aromatic compounds into lighter tars
[91]. Metal as a catalyst can effectively increase the distribution of gas
(H2 + CO) and reduce the asphaltene content in tar [104]. Tar, char, and
gas yields are generally influenced by coal type. The resulting tar con-
tains mainly aromatic compounds and the gas contains mostly methane,
carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Significant increases in tar and gas
were found when using coal with high ash content. Iqbal et al. [6] con-
ducted a study of MP + catalyst + receptor and the results were able
to reduce the concentration of CO2 from the gas and increase the cata-
lyst activity and selectivity of C2 + hydrocarbons. The results shown in
Fig. 6 show that CP produces char, tar, oil, and gas products at pyrolysis
temperatures of 550-900 °C with yields of 2%-81%, 0%-41%, 0%-6%,
and 6%-58%, respectively. Meanwhile, MAP at a temperature of 326-
900°C produces char, tar, oil, and gas products with yields of 32%-79%,
0%-20%, 0%-45%, and 4%-53%, respectively.
The liquid product phase is a mixture of water and an organic com-
pound called oil [38]. Based on Fig. 6, some authors have defined liq-
uids as products of tar and oil [97], while others have calculated these
as two distinct products [99]. The highest temperature at CP favors the
production of gases and a lower amount of liquid [9]. Correspondingly,
the experimental results of CP directed under the same conditions in the
presence of a catalyst and a receptor have also been added to Fig. 7 for
comparison purposes. The results show that under the same conditions
(i.e., temperature and input power) oil yield is slightly increased in the
presence of a catalyst and receptor. This is probably due to thermal
cracking of covalent bonds in the LRC and is mainly determined by
temperature. However, volatile reactions involve several steps and can
be affected by many factors, especially in the gas phase temperature,
which is generally higher than that of the LRC [87]. Generally, with-
out effective organic cracking at temperatures higher than 400 °C, the
desired product yields (especially for liquids) cannot be achieved. How-
ever, a higher temperature cans not only increase in the depolymeriza-
tion of LRC macro-molecules, but also volatile secondary reactions. Due
to competitive primary and secondary reactions at temperature, there
is a maximum yield of liquid product at a certain temperature (usually
450-650 °C) which is consistent with the results of most experiments
[18].

115
B. Sardi, I. Uno, F. Pasila et al. FirePhysChem 3 (2023) 106–120

Table 6
Non-catalytic microwave-assisted pyrolysis of LRC.

LRC (e.g., moisture content) and Experimental parameters Micro-wave Max. Char yield Liquid yield Gas yield Main authors
pretreatment procedure receptor temp.(°C) (wt.%) (wt.%) (wt.%)

Shaanxi LRC. Pre-treatment: size LRC <5 mm (50 g) was placed in Char 800 71.8 12.4 15.8 Song et al. [104]
5 mm dan moisture content a 100 mL (Φ50 mm) reactor. The
1.20%. reactor was filled with LRC in an
oven and simulated microwave
440-800 W for 30 min.
Pittsburgh-8 and Black Thunder The oven (2.45 GHz) and CH4 780 60.0 13.0 27.0 Singh et al. [9]
LRCS (30 g). magnetron (6 kW) was used with
WR340 waveguides.
Mississippi LRC and size Reactor operated at 1.0 kW Char 980 39.0 18.0 43.0 Abdel-sayed et al. [75]
(300-600 𝜇m). power, temperature 980±25 °C,
and ID 1.0 inch.
Mississippi LRC and size Reactor operated at 500 W Char 900 40.5 2.0 57.5 Abdel-sayed et al. [50]
(300-600 𝜇m). power, temperature 980±25 °C,
and ID 1.0 inch.
Kentucky Sub-bituminous and Microwave (2.54 GHz , 650 W) at Char 760 69.0 14.0 17.0 Gasner et al. [39]
sizes (6-12 mm). 27 °C, 0 °C, and -18 °C.
Shaanxi LRC, size (200 𝜇m), and The LRC was dry in vacuum oven Graphite 900 73.7 20.5 5.8 Zhou et al. [78]
dried at 105 °C for 5 h. at 60 °C (24 h).
Indian LRC (10 mg), size (0.7-1.5 Power (800 W) and reaction (900 Char 900 77.1 7.6 15.3 Reddy et al. [27]
mm) and dried at 105 °C for 5 h. °C, 10 °C/min).
Huayin lignite and particle size < 99.7% N2 , power (800 W), and Char 800 64.5 15.5 20.0 Zhang et al. [105]
6 mm. the period is set to 30 min.
Shanxi lignite, dry at 378 K (12 Microwave of power 1600 W and Char 730 68.2 14.8 17.3 Wang et al. [103]
h) and size <75 μm.. 2450 ± 50 MHz frequency.
Indian and Indonesian LRCs and H2 rate (0.8 mL/min), heating Indian 800 63.7 16.0 20.3 Reddy et al. [106]
size (0.3-3.5 mm). (300 °C, 5°C/min, and 2 min). Graphite
Indonesian 800 43.7 25.2 31.1
Graphite
Shaanxi LRC and size (5-10 mm). Coal (50 g), power (800 W), time CH4 900 64.9 15.0 20.1 Wu et al. [107]
(40 min), and gas rate (0.4
L/min).

Fig. 6. Differences in temperature and pyrolysis type result in a distribution of pyrolysis products [9,77,109].

116
B. Sardi, I. Uno, F. Pasila et al. FirePhysChem 3 (2023) 106–120

In the figure,
only the first
letter is
capitalized

Fig. 7. Comparison of yield and main heating principle between the MAP+ catalyst + receptor and CP + catalyst + receptor [28,50,110].

The temperature rise rates and the final temperature of the gen content. In terms of gas production, syngas is obtained in higher
MAP + catalyst + receptor is very important in determining the dis- quantities in the MAP than in CP, establishing a greater potential for
tribution of high oil and gas products [74,99]. Thus, the selection of LRC to serve as the preferred energy source due to its higher heating
catalyst and receptor is very important in the application of MAP tech- value [11]. In summary, the appropriate MAP + catalyst + receptor has
nology. Zeolite-based, AC catalysts and metal-based receptors are at- greater potential for bio-energy and green material production from LRC
tractive because of their high reactivity, abundant reserves, and offer than CP + catalyst + receptor.
high economic returns [111]. The use of zeolite catalyst and metal re-
ceptor simultaneously can change the surface properties of the zeolite
[104]. Metal receptors cause low temperature acid sites and increase
6. Conclusion Conclusions
zeolite catalytic activity. The use of zeolites showed good performance
Many literatures have discussed the comparison of MAP and CP both
for the formation of hydrogen, phenol, and methane. The MAP has a
catalyst and non-catalyst in the LRC. However, reviews that focus on the
number of heating advantages over CP, including non-contact, bulk,
various important factors of MAP related to LRC pre-treatment and heat-
fast, inside out, and selective heating [16,100]. The use of AC catalysts
ing mechanisms are lacking. This review aims to describe and compare
and metal receptors of MAP has been reported in the open literature.
between catalytic and non-catalytic microwave pyrolysis. MAP with cat-
Reddy et al. [81] conducted research on two types of coal (HRC and
alysts and non-catalysts have advantages in the economy and environ-
LRC) + metal + MAP to convert char into good quality carbon nanos-
mental standpoint of the resulting product because MAP uses efficient
tructures. They found that the addition of metal receptors produced
energy and effective pyrolysis time. Also, MAP produces improved prod-
nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes in a relatively short time due to
uct quality and quantity including liquid, gas, and char with all other
the MAP. Sardi et al. [28] compared MAP with CP using a HZSM-5 cat-
variables. MAP using catalysts and receptors can increase the pyrolysis
alyst and metal receptor. The addition of HZSM-5 + Fe2 (SO4 )3 was able
temperature and heating rate. High temperature and heating rate im-
to increase oil production, including gas. At a temperature of 620 °C, an
prove catalytic cracking of the primary reaction to the secondary reac-
input power of 525 W, and a reaction time of 105 minutes, the oil and
tion, increasing the quantity and quality of the product. Elements such
gas yields are 42.2% and 24.3%, respectively. HZSM-5 + Fe2 (SO4 )3 in
as the type of the LRC and the catalyst (receptor) are determinants that
the reactor reduce oxygenated and aliphatic compounds while increas-
directly impacts on the quantity and quality of the product. In addi-
ing light aromatics.
tion, heating rate, process temperature, microwave power, residence
In general, direct evaluation of data between the CP + catalyst + re-
time and catalyst (receptor) ratios are also critical factors of MAP on
ceptor and MAP + catalyst + receptor is difficult (i.e., reactor sizes and
LRC. Further research and process optimization are needed to charac-
configurations differ), but comparative analyzes can be made. With re-
terize of these factors in increasing the product’s quality and quantity.
spect to the yield distribution, the MAP yield differs from the CP, which
As MAP will perform better if metal receptors are used, the use of metal
is due to the different heating mechanism and the special characteris-
receptors should also be further investigated in future studies.
tics of the microwave technology. From Fig. 7, it can be seen that MAP
gives higher yield of liquid and gas products and fewer char than CP.
Along with the quantity and quality of the products are also different. Declaration of Competing Interest
Char produced from MAP has a higher pore volume and surface area
when compared to CP [49]. Oil from CP has a substantial level of envi- The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
ronmental and toxicological impact [45]. In contrast, oil derived from interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
MAP has a higher heating value, higher carbon content and lower oxy- the work reported in this paper.

117
B. Sardi, I. Uno, F. Pasila et al.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Bambang Sardi: Data curation, Methodology, Visualization, Writ-
ing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Irianto Uno: Visualiza-
tion, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Felix Pasila:
Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administra-
tion, Resources. Ali Altway: Software, Supervision, Validation. Mahfud
Mahfud: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, In-
vestigation, Project administration, Resources.
Acknowledgements
Authors acknowledge Yayasan Toyota-Astra (YTA) No. YTA-001/XII
/2019, PT. Astra International Tbk for the support of the study.
References
[1] S. Mohr, Projecting the global impact of fossil fuel production from the
Former Soviet Union, Int. J. Coal Sci. Technol. 8 (2021) 1208–1226,
doi:10.1007/s40789-021-00449-x.
[2] BP Energy, Statistical Review of World Energy, 70th ed., BP Statistical Review of
World Energy, London, 2021.
[3] ASTM, Standard classification of coals by Rank, June 1998 ed., West Con-
shohocken, United States, 2002. doi:10.1520/D0121-15.2.
[4] M. Höök, K. Aleklett, A review on coal-to-liquid fuels and its coal consumption, Int.
J. Energy Res. 34 (2010) 848–864, doi:10.1002/er.1596.
[5] M. Miura, H. Kaga, S. Tanaka, K. Takahashi, K. Ando, Rapid microwave pyrolysis
of wood, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 33 (2000) 299–302, doi:10.1252/jcej.33.299.
[6] S. Iqbal, T.E. Davies, J.S. Hayward, D.J. Morgan, K. Karim, J.K. Bartley, S.H. Taylor,
G.J. Hutchings, Fischer tropsch synthesis using promoted cobalt-based catalysts,
Catal. Today. 272 (2016) 74–79, doi:10.1016/j.cattod.2016.04.012.
[7] H. Atashi, Green fuel from coal via fischer – tropsch process : scenario of optimal
condition of process and modelling, Int. J. Coal Sci. Technol. 5 (2018) 230–243,
doi:10.1007/s40789-018-0204-7.
[8] E. Jin, Y. Zhang, L. He, H.G. Harris, B. Teng, M. Fan, Indirect coal to liquid technolo-
gies, Appl. Catal. A Gen. 476 (2014) 158–174, doi:10.1016/j.apcata.2014.02.035.
[9] S. Singh, V.B. Neculaes, V. Lissianski, G. Rizeq, S.B. Bulumulla, R. Subia,
J. Manke, Microwave assisted coal conversion, FUEL 140 (2015) 495–501,
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2014.09.108.
[10] A. Cappiello, F. Mangani, F. Bruner, L. Bonfanti, New approach to the character-
ization of pyrolysis coal products by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, J.
Chromatogr. A. 736 (1996) 185–194, doi:10.1016/0021-9673(95)01318-0.
[11] N. Wang, J. Yu, A. Tahmasebi, Y. Han, J. Lucas, T. Wall, Y. Jiang, Experimental
study on microwave pyrolysis of an Indonesian low-rank coal, Energy Fuels 28
(2014) 254–263, doi:10.1021/ef401424p.
[12] D.O. Patrick, M. Shahbaz, Thermogravimetric kinetics of catalytic and non-catalytic
pyrolytic conversion of palm kernel shell with acid-treated coal bottom ash, BioEn-
ergy Res. 13 (2020) 452–462, doi:10.1007/s12155-020-10101-2.
[13] N. Sonoyama, K. Nobuta, T. Kimura, S. Hosokai, J.I. Hayashi, T. Tago, T. Masuda,
Production of chemicals by cracking pyrolytic tar from Loy Yang coal over iron
oxide catalysts in a steam atmosphere, Fuel Process. Technol. 92 (2011) 771–775,
doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2010.09.036.
[14] P. Monsef-Mirzai, M. Ravindran, W.R. McWhinnie, P. Burchill, Rapid microwave
pyrolysis of coal methodology and examination of the residual and volatile phases,
Fuel 74 (1995) 20–27, doi:10.1016/0016-2361(94)P4325-V.
[15] B. Sardi, R.F. Ningrum, V.A. Ardiansyah, L. Qadariyah, M. Mahfud, Production of
liquid biofuels from microalgae Chlorella sp . via catalytic slow pyrolysis, Int. J.
Technol. 13 (2022) 147–156, doi:10.14716/ijtech.v13i1.4358.
[16] F. Mushtaq, R. Mat, F.N. Ani, A review on microwave assisted pyrolysis of coal
and biomass for fuel production, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 39 (2014) 555–574,
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.073.
[17] E. Binner, E. Lester, S. Kingman, C. Dodds, J. Robinson, T. Wu, P. Wardle, J.P. Math-
ews, A review of microwave coal processing, J. Microw. Power Electromagn. En-
ergy. 48 (2014) 35–60, doi:10.1080/08327823.2014.11689870.
[18] X. Zhang, B. Lin, Y. Li, Experimental study on the effects of elec-
trode materials on coal breaking by plasma, Fuel 270 (2020) 117085,
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117085.
[19] J. Wang, Q. Yan, J. Zhao, Z. Wang, J. Huang, S. Gao, S. Song, Y. Fang, Fast co-
pyrolysis of coal and biomass in a fluidized-bed reactor, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim.
118 (2014) 1663–1673, doi:10.1007/s10973-014-4043-5.
[20] A. Domínguez, J.A. Menéndez, Y. Fernández, J.J. Pis, J.M.V. Nabais, P.J.M. Carrott,
M.M.L.R. Carrott, Conventional and microwave induced pyrolysis of coffee hulls
for the production of a hydrogen rich fuel gas, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 79 (2007)
128–135, doi:10.1016/j.jaap.2006.08.003.
[21] N. Hossain, N.A.H. Morni, Co-pelletization of microalgae-sewage sludge blend with
sub-bituminous coal as solid fuel feedstock, Biochem. Pharmacol. 13 (2020) 618–
629, doi:10.1007/s12155-019-10061-2.
[22] W. Mo, Y. Wang, Y. Ma, Y. Peng, X. Fan, Y. Wu, X. Wei, Direct liquefaction per-
formance of sub-bituminous coal from Hefeng by solid super acids and pyrolysis
kinetic analysis of the corresponding residue, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 159 (2021)
105181, doi:10.1016/j.jaap.2021.105181.
118
FirePhysChem 3 (2023) 106–120
[23] S.M. Gouws, M. Carrier, J.R. Bunt, H.W.J.P. Neomagus, Co-pyrolysis of torrefied
biomass and coal: effect of pressure on synergistic reactions, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis
161 (2022) 105363, doi:10.1016/j.jaap.2021.105363.
[24] Z. Zhang, H. Chang, T. Gao, T. Lan, J. Zhang, M. Sun, L. Xu, X. Ma, Cat-
alytic upgrading of coal pyrolysis volatiles over metal-loaded HZSM-5 cata-
lysts in a fluidized bed reactor, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 139 (2019) 31–39,
doi:10.1016/j.jaap.2019.01.005.
[25] Y. Zhu, K. Li, Q. Wang, J. Cen, M. Fang, Z. Luo, Low-rank coal pyrolysis poly-
generation technology with semi-coke heat carrier based on the dual-fluidized
bed to co-produce electricity, oil and chemical products: process simulation
and techno-economic evaluation, Fuel Process. Technol. 230 (2022) 107217,
doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2022.107217.
[26] S. Sun, D. Xu, Y. Wei, Y. Zhi, G. Jiang, Y. Guo, Influence laws of operating param-
eters on coal pyrolysis characteristics, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 167 (2022) 105684,
doi:10.1016/j.jaap.2022.105684.
[27] B.R. Reddy, B. Shravani, B. Das, P.S. Dash, R. Vinu, Microwave-assisted and analyt-
ical pyrolysis of coking and non-coking coals: comparison of tar and char composi-
tions, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 142 (2019) 104614, doi:10.1016/j.jaap.2019.05.003.
[28] B. Sardi, A. Altway, M. Mahfud, Bio-oil production from low-rank coal via novel
catalytic microwave pyrolysis using activated carbon + Fe2 (SO4 )3 and HZSM-
5 + Fe2 (SO4 )3 , Fuel 324 (2022) 124509, doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124509.
[29] J. Liu, H. Hu, L. Jin, P. Wang, S. Zhu, Integrated coal pyrolysis with CO2 reforming
of methane over Ni/MgO catalyst for improving tar yield, Fuel Process. Technol.
91 (2010) 419–423, doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2009.05.003.
[30] W. Li, Z. Bai, J. Bai, X. Li, Transformation and roles of inherent mineral
matter in direct coal liquefaction : a mini-review, Fuel 197 (2017) 209–216,
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2017.02.024.
[31] P.R. Solomon, M.A. Serio, E.M. Suuberg, Coal pyrolysis: experiments, ki-
netic rates and mechanisms, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 18 (1992) 133–220,
doi:10.1016/0360-1285(92)90021-R.
[32] L. Ding, Z. Zhou, Q. Guo, W. Huo, G. Yu, Catalytic effects of Na2 CO3
additive on coal pyrolysis and gasification, Fuel 142 (2015) 134–144,
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2014.11.010.
[33] L. Yan, X. Kong, R. Zhao, F. Li, K. Xie, Catalytic upgrading of gaseous tars over
zeolite catalysts during coal pyrolysis, Fuel Process. Technol. 138 (2015) 424–429,
doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.05.030.
[34] N. Sweygers, M. Kamali, T.M. Aminabhavi, R. Dewil, L. Appels, Effi-
cient microwave-assisted production of furanics and hydrochar from bam-
boo (Phyllostachys nigra “Boryana”) in a biphasic reaction system: ef-
fect of inorganic salts, Biomass Convers. Biorefinery. 12 (2022) 173–181,
doi:10.1007/s13399-021-01372-6.
[35] C. Yin, Microwave-assisted pyrolysis of biomass for liquid biofuels production,
Bioresour. Technol. 120 (2012) 273–284, doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.06.016.
[36] X. Tao, N. Xu, M. Xie, L. Tang, Progress of the technique of coal
microwave desulfurization, Int. J. Coal Sci. Technol. 1 (2014) 113–128,
doi:10.1007/s40789-014-0006-5.
[37] X. Zhang, D.O. Hayward, C. Lee, D.M.P. Mingos, Microwave assisted catalytic re-
duction of sulfur dioxide with methane over MoS2 catalysts, Appl. Catal. B Environ.
33 (2001) 137–148, doi:10.1016/S0926-3373(01)00171-0.
[38] J. Hunt, A. Ferrari, A. Lita, M. Crosswhite, B. Ashley, A.E. Stiegman, Microwave-
specific enhancement of the carbon-carbon dioxide (boudouard) reaction, J. Phys.
Chem. C 117 (2013) 26871–26880, doi:10.1021/jp4076965.
[39] L.L. Gasner, A.O. Denloye, T.M. Regan, Microwave and conventional py-
rolysis of a bituminous coal, Chem. Eng. Commun. 48 (1986) 349–354,
doi:10.1080/00986448608910023.
[40] T. Aysu, H. Durak, Pyrolysis of giant mullein (Verbascum thapsus L.) in a
fixed-bed reactor: effects of pyrolysis parameters on product yields and char-
acter, Energy Sources, Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 38 (2016) 661–669,
doi:10.1080/15567036.2013.819049.
[41] W. Li, Y. Lu, Y. Zhu, X. Li, J. Wang, S. Li, Y. Zheng, Z. Zheng, Cat-
alytic pyrolysis vapor upgrading of corncob into furans over pyrolysis-
comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography/mass spectrometry: sig-
nificance of catalyst and temperature, Bioenergy Res. 13 (2020) 1180–1193,
doi:10.1007/s12155-020-10146-3.
[42] Ş. Alayont, D.B. Kayan, H. Durak, E.K. Alayont, S. Genel, The role of acidic, alkaline
and hydrothermal pretreatment on pyrolysis of wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis) on
the properties of bio-oil and bio-char, Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 17 (2022) 1–27,
doi:10.1016/j.biteb.2022.100980.
[43] M.N. Amin, A. Ahmed, Y. Li, C. Li, S. Zhang, M. Ammar, Y.K. Park, Ex-situ catalytic
fast pyrolysis of low-rank coal over HZSM-5 and modified Mg/HZSM-5 catalysts,
Int. J. Energy Res. 46 (2022) 891–899, doi:10.1002/er.7211.
[44] R.M. Carr, H. Kumagai, B.M. Peake, B.H. Robinson, A.H. Clemens, T.W. Matheson,
Formation of free radicals during drying and oxidation of a lignite and a bituminous
coal, Fuel 74 (1995) 389–394, doi:10.1016/0016-2361(95)93472-P.
[45] K. Miura, Mild conversion of coal for producing valuable chemicals, Fuel Process.
Technol. 62 (2000) 119–135, doi:10.1016/S0378-3820(99)00123-X.
[46] L. Wu, J. Liu, B.R. Reddy, J. Zhou, Preparation of coal-based carbon nanotubes us-
ing catalytical pyrolysis: a brief review, Fuel Process. Technol. 229 (2022) 107171,
doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2022.107171.
[47] S. Vasireddy, B. Morreale, A. Cugini, C. Song, J.J. Spivey, Clean liquid fuels from
direct coal liquefaction: chemistry, catalysis, technological status and challenges,
Energy Environ. Sci. 4 (2011) 311–345, doi:10.1039/c0ee00097c.
[48] T. Cui, Z. Zhou, Z. Dai, C. Li, G. Yu, F. Wang, Primary fragmentation characteristics
of coal particles during rapid pyrolysis, Energy and Fuels 29 (2015) 6231–6241,
doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b01289.
[49] T. Cui, W. Fan, Z. Dai, Q. Guo, G. Yu, F. Wang, Variation of the coal chemical struc-
B. Sardi, I. Uno, F. Pasila et al.
ture and determination of the char molecular size at the early stage of rapid pyrol-
ysis, Appl. Energy 179 (2016) 650–659, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.143.
[50] V. Abdelsayed, D. Shekhawat, M.W. Smith, D. Link, A.E. Stiegman, Microwave-
assisted pyrolysis of Mississippi coal : a comparative study with conventional py-
rolysis, Fuel 217 (2018) 656–667, doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2017.12.099.
[51] O. Kamei, K. Onoe, W. Marushima, T. Yamaguchi, Brown coal conversion by mi-
crowave plasma reactions under successive supply of methane, Fuel 77 (1998)
1503–1506, doi:10.1016/S0016-2361(98)00055-6.
[52] F. Zhou, J. Cheng, J. Liu, Z. Wang, J. Zhou, K. Cen, Improving the per-
mittivity of Indonesian lignite with NaCl for the microwave dewatering en-
hancement of lignite with reduced fractal dimensions, Fuel 162 (2015) 8–15,
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2015.09.007.
[53] F.J. Wang, S. Zhang, Z.D. Chen, C. Liu, Y.G. Wang, Tar reforming using char as
catalyst during pyrolysis and gasification of Shengli brown coal, J. Anal. Appl.
Pyrolysis 105 (2014) 269–275, doi:10.1016/j.jaap.2013.11.013.
[54] S. Marland, B. Han, A. Merchant, N. Rowson, Effect of microwave radiation on coal
grindability, Fuel 79 (2000) 1283–1288, doi:10.1016/S0016-2361(99)00285-9.
[55] C.A. Pickles, F. Gao, S. Kelebek, Microwave drying of a low-rank sub-bituminous
coal, Miner. Eng. 62 (2014) 31–42, doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2013.10.011.
[56] T. Uslu, Ü. Atalay, Microwave heating of coal for enhanced mag-
netic removal of pyrite, Fuel Process. Technol. 85 (2004) 21–29,
doi:10.1016/S0378-3820(03)00094-8.
[57] A. Tahmasebi, J. Yu, X. Li, C. Meesri, Experimental study on microwave drying of
Chinese and Indonesian low-rank coals, Fuel Process. Technol. 92 (2011) 1821–
1829, doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2011.04.004.
[58] S. Marland, A. Merchant, N. Rowson, Dielectric properties of coal, Fuel 80 (2001)
1839–1849, doi:10.1016/S0016-2361(01)00050-3.
[59] P. Monsef-Mirzai, M. Ravindran, W.R. McWhinnie, P. Burchil, The use of mi-
crowave heating for the pyrolysis of coal via inorganic receptors of microwave
energy, Fuel 71 (1992) 716–717, doi:10.1016/0016-2361(92)90180-V.
[60] E. Yagmur, E.H. Simsek, Z. Aktas, T. Togrul, Effect of CuO receptor
on the liquid yield and composition of oils derived from liquefaction of
coals by microwave energy, Energy Convers. Manag. 49 (2008) 3043–3050,
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2008.06.021.
[61] X. Zhao, J. Zhang, Z. Song, H. Liu, L. Li, C. Ma, Microwave pyrolysis of straw
bale and energy balance analysis, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis. 92 (2011) 43–49,
doi:10.1016/j.jaap.2011.04.004.
[62] Y. Zhang, S. Fan, T. Liu, W. Fu, B. Li, A review of biochar prepared by microwave-
assisted pyrolysis of organic wastes, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 50 (2022)
101873, doi:10.1016/j.seta.2021.101873.
[63] J.A. Conesa, A. Marcilla, R. Moral, J. Moreno-Caselles, A. Perez-Espinosa, Evolution
of gases in the primary pyrolysis of different sewage sludges, Thermochim. Acta
313 (1998) 63–73, doi:10.1016/S0040-6031(97)00474-7.
[64] J.M. Osepchuk, Microwave power applications, IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech.
50 (2002) 975–985, doi:10.1109/22.989980.
[65] J. Yu, K. Maliutina, A. Tahmasebi, A review on the production of nitrogen-
containing compounds from microalgal biomass via pyrolysis, Bioresour. Technol.
270 (2018) 689–701, doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2018.08.127.
[66] G. Fynes, R.G.. James, W.R. Ladner, J.O.H. Newman, Structural differences in the
tars and chars from the pyrolysis of coals of different rank in hydrogen and in
nitrogen, Fuel 63 (1984) 897–903, doi:10.1016/0016-2361(84)90306-5.
[67] A. Mianowski, T. Radko, Thermokinetic analysis of coal pyrolysis process, J. Therm.
Anal. 43 (1995) 247–259, doi:10.1007/BF02635992.
[68] S. Zellagui, C. Schönnenbeck, N. Zouaoui-Mahzoul, G. Leyssens, O. Authier,
E. Thunin, L. Porcheron, J.F. Brilhac, Pyrolysis of coal and woody biomass
under N2 and CO2 atmospheres using a drop tube furnace - experimen-
tal study and kinetic modeling, Fuel Process. Technol. 148 (2016) 99–109,
doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2016.02.007.
[69] X. Jing, Z. Wang, Q. Zhang, Z. Yu, C. Li, J. Huang, Y. Fang, Evaluation of CO2
gasification reactivity of different coal rank chars by physicochemical properties,
Energy Fuels 27 (2013) 7287–7293, doi:10.1021/ef401639v.
[70] D. Wu, H. Zhang, G. Hu, W. Zhang, Fine characterization of the macromolecular
structure of Huainan coal using XRD, FTIR, 13 C-CP/MAS NMR, SEM, and AFM
techniques, Molecules 25 (2020) 1–19, doi:10.3390/molecules25112661.
[71] X. Wang, Y. Ma, R. Niu, Q. Wang, X. Wang, Pyrolysis behaviour and kinetic of coal
tar pitch modified with paraformaldehyde, Waste Biomass Valorization 8 (2017)
209–216, doi:10.1007/s12649-016-9568-3.
[72] H. Takagi, K. Maruyama, N. Yoshizawa, Y. Yamada, Y. Sato, XRD analysis of car-
bon stacking structure in coal during heat treatment, Fuel 83 (2004) 2427–2433,
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2004.06.019.
[73] Y. Jiao, J. Zhao, W. An, L. Zhang, Y. Sha, G. Yang, Z. Shao, Z. Zhu, S.D. Li,
Structurally modified coal char as a fuel for solid oxide-based carbon fuel
cells with improved performance, J. Power Sources 288 (2015) 106–114,
doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.04.121.
[74] H. Liu, L. Xu, Y. Jin, B. Fan, X. Qiao, Y. Yang, Effect of coal rank
on structure and dielectric properties of chars, Fuel 153 (2015) 249–256,
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2015.03.008.
[75] V. Abdelsayed, D. Shekhawat, M. Smith, S. Hammache, Microwave-assisted conver-
sion of low rank coal under methane environment, Energy Fuels 33 (2019) 905–
915, doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b03805.
[76] F. Meng, J. Yu, A. Tahmasebi, Y. Han, H. Zhao, J. Lucas, T. Wall, Characteristics of
chars from low-temperature pyrolysis of lignite, Energy Fuels 28 (2014) 275–284,
doi:10.1021/ef401423s.
[77] J. Zhou, L. Wu, J. Zhou, K. Liang, Y. Song, Y. Tian, Q. Zhang, X. Lan, Products opti-
mization by FeS2 catalyst for low-rank coal microwave pyrolysis, Fuel 255 (2019)
115759, doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2019.115759.
119
FirePhysChem 3 (2023) 106–120
[78] J. Zhou, L. Wu, K. Liang, Q. Zhang, Y. Song, Y. Tian, X. Lan, The synergistic mecha-
nism on microwave and MoS2 in coal pyrolysis, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 134 (2018)
580–589, doi:10.1016/j.jaap.2018.08.007.
[79] S.. Brunauer, P.H.. Emmett, E. Teller, Adsorption of gases in multimolecular layers,
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 60 (1938) 309–319, doi:10.1021/ja01269a023.
[80] B.C. Lippens, B.G. Linsen, J.H.D.E. Boer, Studies on pore systems in catalysts I.
The adsorption of nitrogen; apparatus and calculation, J. Catal. 3 (1964) 32–37,
doi:10.1016/0021-9517(64)90089-2.
[81] B.R. Reddy, I. Ashok, R. Vinu, Preparation of carbon nanostructures from medium
and high ash Indian coals via microwave-assisted pyrolysis, Adv. Powder Technol.
31 (2020) 1229–1240, doi:10.1016/j.apt.2019.12.017.
[82] C.O. Ania, J.B. Parra, J.A. Menéndez, J.J. Pis, Effect of microwave and conventional
regeneration on the microporous and mesoporous network and on the adsorptive
capacity of activated carbons, Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 85 (2005) 7–15,
doi:10.1016/j.micromeso.2005.06.013.
[83] L. Xu, H. Liu, Y. Jin, B. Fan, X. Qiao, B. Jing, Structural order and dielectric prop-
erties of coal chars, FUEL 137 (2014) 164–171, doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2014.08.002.
[84] M.R. Rosana, J. Hunt, A. Ferrari, T.A. Southworth, Y. Tao, A.E. Stiegman, G.B. Dud-
ley, Microwave-specific acceleration of a friedel-crafts reaction: evidence for se-
lective heating in homogeneous solution, J. Org. Chem. 79 (2014) 7437–7450,
doi:10.1021/jo501153r.
[85] A.R.K. Gollakota, V. Volli, C.M. Shu, Progressive utilisation prospects
of coal fly ash: a review, Sci. Total Environ. 672 (2019) 951–989,
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.337.
[86] W. Wang, C. Zhao, J. Sun, X. Wang, X. Zhao, Y. Mao, X. Li, Z. Song,
Quantitative measurement of energy utilization efficiency and study of influ-
ence factors in typical microwave heating process, Energy 87 (2015) 678–685,
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.036.
[87] M.S. Seehra, A. Kalra, A. Manivannan, Dewatering of fine coal slur-
ries by selective heating with microwaves, Fuel 86 (2007) 829–834,
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.08.015.
[88] J.V. Ibarra, E. Muñoz, R. Moliner, FTIR study of the evolution of coal struc-
ture during the coalification process, Org. Geochem. 24 (1996) 725–735,
doi:10.1016/0146-6380(96)00063-0.
[89] Z. Liu, X. Guo, L. Shi, W. He, J. Wu, Q. Liu, J. Liu, Reaction of
volatiles - a crucial step in pyrolysis of coals, Fuel 154 (2015) 361–369,
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2015.04.006.
[90] E. Lester, S. Kingman, C. Dodds, J. Patrick, The potential for rapid
coke making using microwave energy, Fuel 85 (2006) 2057–2063,
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.04.012.
[91] Y. Xu, G. Zhang, L. Chen, X. Ding, Y. Zhang, Pyrolysis products properties from
lignite, Asian J. Chem. 25 (2013) 4828–4832, doi:10.14233/ajchem.2013.14116.
[92] A.R. da Costa Labanca, Carbon black and hydrogen production process analysis, Int.
J. Hydrog. Energy. 45 (2020) 25698–25707, doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.03.081.
[93] S. Liu, K. Tuo, L. Wang, G. Chen, W. Ma, M. Fang, Microwave-assisted
metal-catalyzed pyrolysis of low-rank coal: promising option towards
obtaining high-quality products, J. Energy Inst. 93 (2020) 1602–1614,
doi:10.1016/j.joei.2020.01.022.
[94] A.C. Gamboa, M. Martínez, G. Garbán, I. Esteves, M. Escobar, K. Quin-
tero, É. Lorenzo, Effect of solvent structure and amine addition on the de-
polymerization of a bituminous Venezuelan coal, Fuel 235 (2019) 908–912,
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2018.08.095.
[95] J.A. Menéndez, A. Domínguez, Y. Fernández, J.J. Pis, Evidence of self-gasification
during the microwave-induced pyrolysis of coffee hulls, Energy Fuels 21 (2007)
373–378, doi:10.1021/ef060331i.
[96] B. Fidalgo, Y. Fernández, L. Zubizarreta, A. Arenillas, A. Domínguez, J.J. Pis,
J.A. Menéndez, Growth of nanofilaments on carbon-based materials from
microwave-assisted decomposition of CH4 , Appl. Surf. Sci. 254 (2008) 3553–3557,
doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2007.11.037.
[97] A.M.S. Abdelhamid, H.A.-A. Mustafa, Study of kerosene caustic wash
process for jet fuel production, J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 68 (2021) 1–11,
doi:10.1186/s44147-021-00029-5.
[98] Y. Li, Y. Cao, D. Jia, Direct coal liquefaction with Fe3 O4 nanocatalysts prepared by
a simple solid-state method, Energies 10 (2017) 1–7, doi:10.3390/en10070886.
[99] G. Kwon, Y. Park, Y.S. Ok, E.E. Kwon, H. Song, Catalytic pyrolysis of low-rank coal
using Fe-carbon composite as a catalyst, Energy Convers. Manag. 199 (2019) 1–7,
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111978.
[100] Z.H. Ma, X.Y. Wei, G.H. Liu, F.J. Liu, Z.M. Zong, Value-added utiliza-
tion of high-temperature coal tar: a review, Fuel 292 (2021) 119954,
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119954.
[101] C. Liu, C. Yue, Metal sulfide assisted coal catalytic hydrogenated
microwave pyrolysis, Mater. Sci. Forum. 999 (2020) 178–190,
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.999.178.
[102] F. Mushtaq, R. Mat, F.N. Ani, Fuel production from microwave assisted pyroly-
sis of coal with carbon surfaces, Energy Convers. Manag. 110 (2016) 142–153,
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2015.12.008.
[103] Y. Wang, W. Wang, J. Sun, C. Sun, Y. Feng, Z. Li, Microwave-based preparation
and characterization of Fe-cored carbon nanocapsules with novel stability and su-
per electromagnetic wave absorption performance, Carbon N. Y. 135 (2018) 1–11,
doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2018.04.026.
[104] Y. Song, J. Shi, J. Fu, X. Lan, Q. Zhang, J. Zhou, Analysis of products by con-
ventional and microwave induced pyrolysis for low rank coal, Adv. Mater. Res.
524–527 (2012) 871–875, doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.524-527.871.
[105] Y. Zhang, G. Chen, L. Wang, K. Tuo, S. Liu, Microwave-assisted pyrolysis of low-
rank coal with K2 CO3 , CaCl2 , and FeSO4 catalysts, ACS Omega 28 (2020) A-J,
doi:10.1021/acsomega.0c01400.
B. Sardi, I. Uno, F. Pasila et al.
[106] B.R. Reddy, R. Vinu, Microwave assisted pyrolysis of Indian and Indonesian
coals and product characterization, Fuel Process. Technol. 154 (2016) 96–103,
doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2016.08.016.
[107] L. Wu, J. Zhou, J. Zhou, K. Liang, Y. Song, Q. Zhang, Y. Tian, Temperature-
rising characteristics and product analysis of low-rank coal microwave pyrol-
ysis under CH4 atmosphere, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 259 (2019) 461–464,
doi:10.1016/j.jaap.2019.104632.
[108] A.A. Salema, M.T. Afzal, L. Bennamoun, Pyrolysis of corn stalk biomass briquettes
in a scaled-up microwave technology, Bioresour. Technol. 233 (2017) 353–362,
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2017.02.113.
120
FirePhysChem 3 (2023) 106–120
[109] Q. Zhang, Q. Li, L. Zhang, Y. Fang, Z. Wang, Experimental and kinetic investigation
of the pyrolysis, combustion, and gasification of deoiled asphalt, J. Therm. Anal.
Calorim. 115 (2014) 1929–1938, doi:10.1007/s10973-013-3370-2.
[110] A. Zaker, Z. Chen, X. Wang, Q. Zhang, Microwave-assisted pyrolysis of
sewage sludge: a review, Fuel Process. Technol. 187 (2019) 84–104,
doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.12.011.
[111] M.N. Amin, Y. Li, X. Lu, In situ catalytic pyrolysis of low-rank coal for the con-
version of heavy oils into light oils, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017 (2017) 1–8,
doi:10.1155/2017/5612852.