Interaction of Potassium and Calcium in the Catalytic Gasification of

Subscriber access provided by University of Florida | Smathers Libraries

Article

Interaction of Potassium and Calcium in the Catalytic Gasification of Biosolids and Switchgrass Ross Alexander Arnold, Rozita Habibi, Jan Kopyscinski, and Josephine M. Hill Energy Fuels, Just Accepted Manuscript • Publication Date (Web): 20 Apr 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on April 23, 2017

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Energy & Fuels is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

1

Interaction of Potassium and Calcium in the

2

Catalytic Gasification of Biosolids and Switchgrass

3

Ross A. Arnold‡, Rozita Habibi‡, Jan Kopyscinski†, Josephine M. Hill*‡

4

‡Department of Chemical & Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr.

5

N.W., Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada

6

†Department of Chemical Engineering, McGill University, 3160 University St., Montreal, QC,

7

H3A 0C5, Canada

8

9

ABSTRACT

10

Catalytic gasification is a method of converting biosolids, the solids created during wastewater

11

treatment, into a valuable gaseous stream. One of the challenges with this process is that the

12

components in the ash of the biosolids can interact with the gasification catalyst(s) – in

13

particular, calcium and potassium. In this study, the behaviors of different combinations of

14

switchgrass (the source of potassium), biosolids, ash-free carbon black, and mixtures of each

15

feed with added calcium and/or potassium were observed with a thermogravimetric analysis unit.

16

The results were consistent with calcium preferentially reacting with components in the ash,

17

preventing the deactivation of potassium. Any additional calcium available may form bimetallic

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

1

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

1

compounds with the potassium, but this interaction did not increase the rate of reaction.

2

Modeling was performed using the random pore model and extended random pore model, with

3

the appropriate model chosen for each mixture. The extended random pore model was better

4

suited for the data with the highest reaction rates.

Page 2 of 30

5 6

1. INTRODUCTION

7

As urbanization continues worldwide, the ability to efficiently treat water becomes more of a

8

concern. While sufficient purification of municipal drinking water is of high importance, the

9

treatment and disposal of wastewater is also a key consideration. Separation and disposal of

10

biosolids, the solids obtained from wastewater treatment, can represent more than 50% of the

11

total cost of wastewater treatment1. In the past, biosolids have been disposed as a fertilizer,

12

through incineration, through landfilling2, 3, and via anaerobic digestion4, but there are issues

13

with each of these processes. Notably, spreading biosolids on land as fertilizer has been

14

controversial5, emissions from incineration are becoming more heavily regulated6, anaerobic

15

digestion is slow7 and cannot reach complete conversion8, and landfills pose long-term problems,

16

especially for regions where land is at a premium9. As such, thermal conversion methods such as

17

gasification have been proposed as an alternative to disposal for biosolids10. For example, British

18

Columbia-based company Nexterra has developed a commercial-scale gasifier that can process

19

12 tonnes/day of biosolids and other biomass feedstocks11.

20

Gasification is a partial oxidation of a carbon-based feed12 to produce syngas13, a mixture of

21

primarily hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide14. Gasification of biosolids has been shown to

22

produce syngas of a high quality15 (less than 10% gas-phase impurities). Gasification can take

23

place in the presence of a catalyst, as this lowers the necessary temperature16 and can reduce the


2

Page 3 of 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

1

tar content17 of the product gas. Alkali metals have been observed to be effective gasification

2

catalysts, with their activity increasing with increasing molecular weight18. Potassium in

3

particular has been studied due to its availability and high mobility19-21. Potassium has been

4

added to biomass for gasification through mixing with a precursor22 (and references therein) or through

5

doping into the biomass matrix23. Biomass-based sources of potassium are attractive in terms of

6

reducing costs and increasing the sustainability of gasification24. Switchgrass, which is a prairie

7

grass native to North America and a commonly-used energy crop due to its low-demand and

8

fast-growing nature25, 26, is an effective source of potassium27, 28. Although active for gasification

9

reactions, potassium can be deactivated if the feed contains aluminum and silicon because stable

10

potassium aluminosilicate compounds are formed29.

11

The composition of biosolids varies but generally comprises ~50% carbon with various other

12

species including nitrogen, phosphorus, and calcium. The presence of calcium during potassium-

13

catalyzed gasification reactions has been observed to keep potassium in a catalytically active

14

form30-33. The mechanism by which calcium is able to promote the catalytic activity of potassium

15

is not well understood but Wang et al.30, 34, 35 have proposed two theories: (1) calcium is able to

16

react with kaolinite, a model aluminosilicate compound, suggesting that calcium is able to

17

promote the catalytic activity of potassium by limiting the sites through which potassium can

18

deactivate34; (2) calcium and potassium can form a bimetallic compound that may possess

19

superior catalytic properties, which would lead to the promoting activity of calcium being

20

unrelated to the presence of mineral matter30, 35. Gasifier design can be optimized according to

21

the interaction mechanism.

22

Thus, in this paper, the interaction between potassium and calcium has been studied by using

23

biosolids and switchgrass, biomass-based sources of calcium and potassium, respectively.


3

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

1

Gasification experiments were also performed with ash-free carbon black, to observe the

2

interaction between calcium and potassium in the absence of aluminosilicates.

Page 4 of 30

3 4 5

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1 Sample Preparation. Switchgrass (Manitoba, Canada) and Class A primary

6

biosolids (provided by Nexterra Systems Corp., British Columbia, Canada) were the studied

7

biomass samples. Proximate, ultimate, and ash analyses of the samples were performed by

8

Loring Laboratories, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Experiments were also done with an essentially

9

pure carbon: carbon black (CB, Monarch 120, Cabot Corp., Georgia, USA).

10

Both the biomass samples were converted to char at 850 °C under N2 flow for 2 h, then sieved to

11

obtain particle sizes below 90 μm. The CB was used as received, with a particle size of 1), the K/C ratio is

7

the more important parameter (0.02 for SG, 0.04 for BC/KOH and 0.12 for BC/SG ash).

8

As shown in Figure 2, the addition of Ca(OH)2 to SG increased the reaction rate. The increase

9

was small when the Ca/C ratio was increased from 0.004 (SG without additives) to 0.008. The

10

improvement in reaction rate was up to 0.0017 min-1, which was more than the maximum

11

variation of 0.0010 min-1 observed between triplicate runs of the same mixture. When the Ca/C

12

ratio was increased further to 0.04, there was a threefold - 0.015 min-1 to 0.045 min-1 - increase in

13

the maximum rate of reaction and the shape of the curve changed. For SG alone, the maximum

14

rate of reaction occurred at ~25% conversion, while for SG with a Ca/C ratio of 0.04, the

15

maximum rate of reaction was the initial rate of reaction. Ca had a clear promoting effect on the

16

catalytic behavior of K during gasification. These experiments, however, do not resolve the

17

literature dispute over the nature of the promoting effect of Ca.

18

3.3 Carbon black. As mentioned, CB contains essentially no ash (Table 1). The rates of

19

gasification for CB with calcium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, and/or kaolinite are shown as

20

a function of conversion in Figure 3. CB on its own had a negligible rate of gasification, with a

21

maximum rate of 0.0006 min-1, which is less than the variation observed between triplicate runs

22

of the other mixtures. Ash typically contains compounds that can promote gasification, so a low

23

reaction rate for the ash-free CB was expected. Ca addition (Ca/C = 0.1) increased the maximum


10

Page 11 of 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

1

rate by an order of magnitude from 0.0006 min-1 to 0.007 min-1, while K addition (K/C = 0.1)

2

increased the maximum rate of reaction by two orders of magnitude to 0.091 min-1 (Figure 3a).

3

Thus, at the same catalyst/carbon molar ratio (0.1), K was a much more effective catalyst than

4

Ca, consistent with the results of other studies52 (and references therein). The maximum gasification rates

5

occurred at 30% conversion for the CB/KOH mixture and as the initial rate of reaction for the

6

CB/Ca(OH)2 mixture. Adding Ca to the CB/KOH sample (CB/KOH/Ca(OH)2) resulted again in

7

a promoting effect as stated previously. The effect, however, was only observed at the onset of

8

the gasification. The initial gasification rate of CB/KOH/Ca(OH)2 was higher than that for

9

CB/KOH (i.e., 0.1 min-1 versus 0.078 min-1) but from ~30% conversion onwards, the rates were

10

similar.

11

To obtain additional evidence, kaolinite, a representative aluminosilicate compound, was added

12

to CB and catalyzed CB samples. Adding kaolinite to both CB and CB/Ca(OH)2 did not

13

significantly change the gasification rates of either sample (not shown), confirming that kaolinite

14

had no catalytic ability, and suggesting that Ca might not react with kaolinite to form calcium

15

aluminosilicates. The addition of kaolinite to the CB/KOH mixture resulted in a significant

16

decrease in the reaction rate at all conversions (Figure 3b). The maximum reaction rate was

17

reduced by ~40% from 0.087 min-1 to 0.053 min-1, consistent with K deactivation through

18

combination with aluminosilicate compounds. In the presence of Ca, the effect of kaolinite was

19

greatly reduced (curve labeled CB/KOH/Ca(OH)2/kaolinite), and the maximum rate of reaction

20

was increased again. It appears that Ca was able to mitigate the deactivation effect of

21

aluminosilicates, consistent with results found in previous work53. Besides the increased rate, the

22

curve shape changed and the maximum gasification rate occurred at lower conversion values.


11

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 12 of 30

1

XRD was used to analyze samples before and after gasification. For the CB/Ca(OH)2/kaolinite

2

mixture, the XRD peaks matched that of Ca(OH)2 before gasification, and that of CaCO3 after

3

gasification (Figure 4). The presence of CaCO3 suggests that the Ca was not reacting to form

4

calcium aluminosilicates, in agreement with literature results in which Ca did not react with

5

kaolinite to form calcium aluminosilicates at temperatures below 850 °C34, 54. Any peaks

6

associated with kaolinite or Ca(OH)2 from the initial mixture were not seen in the post-

7

gasification mixture. The XRD pattern for CB/KOH/kaolinite before gasification had some peaks

8

matching KOH∙H2O (Figure 5), but the signal was not as well-defined as Ca(OH)2 in

9

CB/Ca(OH)2/kaolinite pre-gasification (Figure 4). KOH combines with water to form a hydrate,

10

which would result in two weaker KOH-based signals. There were, however, no obvious non-

11

hydrate KOH peaks in the pre-gasification mixture. Similar peaks for kaolinite were seen in both

12

CB/Ca(OH)2/kaolinite and CB/KOH/kaolinite pre-gasification mixtures, with the set of four

13

peaks in the 19.9° to 22.0° range noticeably absent. The most prevalent species for the

14

CB/KOH/kaolinite mixture after gasification was KAlSiO4 (Figure 5), confirming the suggestion

15

based on the TGA results that K reacted with the added aluminosilicates to lower its catalytic

16

activity. The pre-gasification XRD pattern for the CB/KOH/Ca(OH)2/kaolinite mixture (Figure

17

6) was similar to that of CB/Ca(OH)2/kaolinite (Figure 4), in that Ca(OH)2 was the main species

18

present. No peaks matching kaolinite, KOH, or KOH∙H2O were seen, so the file patterns for

19

these species were not included in Figure 6. In the post-gasification XRD of

20

CB/KOH/Ca(OH)2/kaolinite, neither CaCO3 nor KAlSiO4 were present in notable amounts,

21

suggesting an interaction between Ca and K. There were peaks that corresponded to two calcium

22

aluminosilicates: Ca2Al2SiO7 and Ca3Al2(SiO4)3. There was not evidence of the bimetallic

23

compound K2Ca(CO3)2, since no peaks at 2θ = 31.2°, 54.2°, or 56.0° were not seen in the XRD


12

Page 13 of 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

1

profile of the ash. The largest peaks for K2Ca(CO3)2 and Ca2Al2SiO7 both occur near 2θ = 31°,

2

which may explain why both species have been reported in the literature34, 35. No calcium

3

aluminosilicates were observed without K present (Figure 4), which suggests that K assists

4

calcium aluminosilicate formation.

5

The gasification curve changed shape when Ca was added, both when Ca(OH)2 was added to SG

6

char until the Ca/C ratio passed 0.04 (Figure 2), and when Ca was added to the CB/KOH mixture

7

(Figure 3a). In both cases, addition of Ca moved the maximum rate of reaction from 20-30%

8

conversion to the initial rate of reaction, implying a direct interaction between K and Ca. A

9

bimetallic Ca-K compound may form, as observed via XRD by Wang et al30, 35, but the results in

10

the current study (Figure 3a) demonstrate that this compound does not possess superior catalytic

11

properties to K on its own.

12

3.4 Modeling. The single feeds SG, BC, and CB, as well as the mixtures of BC/SG and

13

CB/Ca(OH)2 showed good agreement when modeled with the random pore model (RPM)

14

(Figures 1 to 3). The kinetic parameters of these samples with a 95% confidence interval are

15

shown in Table 3.

16

The reaction rate constants follow tedhe order of the observed gasification rate for the single

17

feedstocks (SG > BC > CB); SG had the highest reaction constant of kSG = 1.4·10-2 min-1,

18

whereas the rate constant for BC was ~half (kBC = 6.4·10-3 min-1) and for CB was two orders of

19

magnitude smaller (kCB = 1.4·10-4 min-1). The rate constant for the mixture of BC/SG was

20

slightly smaller than the rate constant for the BC sample, which was in agreement with the

21

experimental data (Figure 1). The structural factors for SG, BC and BC/SG were in the same


13

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 14 of 30

1

order of magnitude, ranging from 2 to 5. Carbon black had a structural factor of ~50, which is

2

consistent with its low initial surface area with respect to the biomass chars.

3

Catalyzed gasification of BC and CB samples could not be fitted with the RPM. In order to

4

investigate and understand the influence of the catalyst and kaolinite on the gasification, the

5

intrinsic rate constant kj for the pure BC and CB samples was used for the catalyzed mixtures

6

when fitted by the extended random pore model (eRPM). Thus one out of four parameters was

7

fixed, and the other three (structural factor ψ and the semi-empirical parameters c and p) were

8

estimated from the experimental data to describe the deviation from the intrinsic gasification of

9

BC and CB. The results for the eRPM are summarized in Table 4 and illustrated in Figures 1 to 3

10

as solid lines. For the catalyzed BC sample, the kinetic parameter c increased with increasing

11

K/C ratio and gasification rate (i.e., BC/KOH: c = 2.6 with K/C = 0.04; BC/SG ash: c = 5.3 with

12

K/C = 0.12), confirming a previous study43 which correlated the parameter c with the K/C ratio

13

and value of the maximum gasification rate. The structural factor (ψ) increased from 1.6 for BC

14

to 6.7 for BC/KOH and to 8.9 for BC/SG ash, confirming that the catalyst promoted surface area

15

development, resulting in a higher ratio of maximum to initial surface area.

16

The addition of K and Ca catalysts as well as kaolinite influenced the observed gasification rate

17

of carbon black CB significantly. In term of kinetic modeling, the eRPM fit well with the CO2

18

gasification behavior (Figure 3). The kinetic parameter c showed that adding alkali catalyst

19

increased the maximum gasification rate, with a higher value of c for CB/KOH/Ca(OH)2 (379)

20

than for CB/KOH (334) and for CB/Ca(OH)2 (18), shown in Table 4. The eRPM fit was not

21

good for the initial 25% conversion of the CB/KOH/Ca(OH)2 sample (Figure 3a). Nevertheless,

22

the larger value for parameter p (0.94 for CB/KOH/Ca(OH)2, and 0.60 for CB/KOH) indicated


14

Page 15 of 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

1

that the maximum gasification rate occurred at a lower conversion43, which is why the eRPM

2

with the inclusion of parameter p is a better representation of the data than the RPM. Adding

3

kaolinite to CB/KOH reduced the observed rate and thus parameter c (233 for

4

CB/KOH/kaolinite, and 334 for CB/KOH), while adding kaolinite to CB/Ca(OH)2 had little

5

influence on the gasification rate and parameter c (19.7 for CB/Ca(OH)2/kaolinite and 18.2 for

6

CB/Ca(OH)2). Furthermore, the deactivation of the K from kaolinite can be reduced by adding

7

Ca(OH)2, as shown by a larger value for parameter c: 359 for CB/KOH/Ca(OH)2/kaolinite

8

compared to 233 for CB/KOH/kaolinite.

9 10

4. CONCLUSIONS

11

A series of gasification experiments with mixtures of biomass chars and additives with various

12

carbon, potassium, calcium, and/or kaolinite ratios were performed in a thermogravimetric

13

analyzer to elucidate the interactions between these species. The results of these experiments

14

were consistent with Ca promoting the activity of K by preferentially combining with the

15

aluminosilicate compounds in the ash. A Ca-K compound could also have formed, which

16

resulted in the maximum rate being the initial rate of reaction but did not improve the overall

17

gasification rate. Modeling using the random pore model was a good fit for the mixtures with

18

lower rates of gasification. The extended random pore model was a better fit for catalyzed

19

mixtures of biosolids and of carbon black because the presence of catalysts affects surface area

20

development during gasification.


15

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

1

Page 16 of 30

FIGURES

2 3 4 5 6

Figure 1. CO2 gasification rate as a function of char conversion for (a) switchgrass (SG), biosolids (BC) and their mixture (BC/SG); and for (b) BC without and with various amount of potassium (KOH and SG ash). Symbols represent experimental data points; solid lines represent best fitted model and dotted line refers to non-interacting BC/SG mixture. (Note: Figure a) and b) have a different y-scale.)


16

Page 17 of 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

1

2 3 4

Figure 2. Effect of calcium hydroxide addition on CO2 gasification rate of SG char as a function of conversion. Symbols represent experimental data points; solid lines represent best fitted model.


17

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 18 of 30

1 2 3 4

Figure 3. Effect of addition of (a) calcium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, and (b) kaolinite on the CO2 gasification rate as a function of char conversion of carbon black (CB). Symbols represent experimental data points; solid lines represent best fitted model.

5


18

Page 19 of 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3

Figure 4. XRD patterns for the post-gasification mixture of carbon black, Ca(OH)2, and kaolinite compared to various known compounds.


19

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 20 of 30

1 2 3

Figure 5. XRD patterns for the post-gasification mixture of carbon black, KOH, and kaolinite compared to various known compounds.

4


20

Page 21 of 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

1

2 3 4

Figure 6. XRD patterns for post-gasification mixture of carbon black, Ca(OH)2, KOH, and kaolinite compared to various known compounds.

5


21

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 22 of 30

1

TABLES

2

Table 1. Proximate, ultimate, and ash analyses of samples as received. Biosolids

Switchgrass

Carbon Black

Moisture

9.9

6.0

-

Ash (dry basis)

26.4

6.3

0.64

Volatile (dry basis)

60.2

76.9

0.20

Fixed carbon (dry basis)

13.4

16.8

99.2

Proximate analysis (wt%)

Ultimate analysis (wt%), ash free Carbon, C

52.8

47.9

99.4

Hydrogen, H

8.8

6.2

-

Nitrogen, N

8.2

0.8

-

Sulfur, S

1.3

0.1

-

Oxygen, O (by difference)

28.9

45.0

Si

8.8

24.6

-

Al

3.3

1.1

-

Ti

1.1

0.01

-

Fe

2.3

0.2

-

Ca

11.2

4.6

-

Mg

7.3

3.9

-

Na

0.2

1.2

-

K

1.1

16.8

-

P

17.3

2.2

-

S

n.a.

1.0

-

Balance

47.5

44.4

-

Ash Analysis (wt%)

3 4


22

Page 23 of 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

1 2 3

Energy & Fuels

Table 2. Molar ratios between select elements and gasification times of studied carbon mixtures.

Mixture

Molar ratios K/C

Ca/C

K/Al

Ca/Al

Time to 50% conversion (min)

SG

0.02

0.004

11

2.2

34

BC

0.0001

0.06

0.004

2.0

120

BC/SG

0.01

0.02

1.0

2.0

125

BC/SG ash

0.12

0.09

2.8

2.0

11

SG/Ca(OH)2 Ca/C=0.04

0.02

0.04

11

22

18

SG/Ca(OH)2 Ca/C=0.008

0.02

0.008

11

4.4

30

BC/KOH

0.04

0.06

1.3

2.0

21

CB

0

0

N/A

N/A

1100

CB/KOH

0.1

0

N/A

N/A

6

CB/Ca(OH)2

0

0.1

N/A

N/A

86

CB/KOH/Ca(OH)2

0.1

0.1

N/A

N/A

7

CB/kaolinite

0

0

N/A

N/A

>9000

CB/KOH/kaolinite

0.1

0

2

0

10

CB/Ca(OH)2/kaolinite

0

0.1

0

2

75

CB/KOH/Ca(OH)2/kaolinite

0.1

0.1

2

2

7

4 5


23

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

1 2

Page 24 of 30

Table 3. Rate constant (kj), structural parameter (ψ) and R-square value for studied gasification mixtures that follow the random pore model (RPM) with 95% confidence interval.

3 ψ

kj (min-1)

Sample

R-square

SG

1.44×10-2

±

8.06×10-5

3.36

±

0.07

0.9975

BC

6.44×10-3

±

8.40×10-5

1.65

±

0.10

0.9975

CB

1.84×10-4

±

3.38×10-6

49.50

±

2.15

0.9991

BC/SG

5.06×10-3

±

2.04×10-5

2.24

±

0.04

0.9998

SG/Ca(OH)2 [Ca/C = 0.008]

1.42×10-2

±

1.74×10-4

5.54

±

0.21

0.9979

SG/Ca(OH)2 [Ca/C = 0.04]

2.67×10-2

±

3.95×10-4

2.94

±

0.16

0.9979

4 5 6

Table 4. Structural (ψ) and empirical (c, p) parameters for the catalyzed gasification mixtures using the extended random pore model (eRPM) with 95% confidence interval.

7 Sample

ψ

c

p

R-square

BC/KOH

6.88 ± 0.50

2.6 ± 0.0

0.41 ± 0.03

0.9993

BC/SG ash

8.87 ± 0.70

5.3 ± 0.1

0.51 ± 0.02

0.9999

CB/KOH

14.73 ± 0.56

333.9 ± 4.2

0.60 ± 0.00

0.9999

CB/Ca(OH)2

17.73 ± 0.50

18.2 ± 0.2

0.027 ± 0.004

0.9986

CB/KOH/Ca(OH)2

19.40 ± 8.89

378.9 ± 57.6

0.94 ± 0.07

0.9986

CB/KOH/kaolinite

11.45 ± 0.94

233.4 ± 6.1

0.66 ± 0.01

0.9997

CB/Ca(OH)2/kaolinite

26.84 ± 1.94

19.7 ± 0.5

0.48 ± 0.01

0.9994

359.0 ± 13.9

0.64 ± 0.02

0.9994

CB/KOH/Ca(OH)2/kaolinite 9.05 ± 1.19

Note: The intrinsic reaction rate constant kj for the BC/KOH and BC/SG ash samples is assumed to be the same as for single BC sample. The intrinsic reaction rate constant kj for the catalyzed CB samples are assumed to be the same as for the single CB sample. The deviation of the gasification rate of the catalyzed samples from the single sample is expressed with empirical parameters c and p (see text).

8


24

Page 25 of 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

1

AUTHOR INFORMATION

2

Corresponding Author

3

*Phone: (403) 210-9488. Fax: (403) 284-4852. E-mail: [email protected]

4

Author Contributions

5

The manuscript was written through contributions of all authors. RAA completed the gasification

6

experiments, mixed the feeds, and prepared the manuscript. RH obtained the analysis of the

7

feeds and did some preliminary experiments with Biosolids and/or SG. JK set up the equipment,

8

consulted on experimental design, and performed the modeling as well as the analysis of the

9

modeling results. The original project idea came from JMH who obtained all the equipment for

10

the experiments and supervised the other authors. All authors have reviewed and provided input

11

for the manuscript, and given approval to the final version of the manuscript.

12

Funding Sources

13

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada (STPGP 380927).

14

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

15

The authors would like to recognize funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering

16

Research Council (NSERC) of Canada through a Strategic grant.

17


25

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

1

ABBREVIATIONS

2

BC

biosolid char

3

CB

carbon black

4

eRPM

extended random pore model

5

RPM

randpm pore model

6

SG

switchgrass char

7

TGA

thermogravimetric analysis

8

XRD

x-ray diffraction

9

c

-

10

kj

min-1 reaction rate constant

11

m

mg

mass

12

p

-

semi-empirical parameter, RPM (eq. 3)

13

T

°C

temperature

14

t

min

time

15

X

-

char conversion

16

β

-

weight fraction (eq. 4)

17

ψ

-

structural factor, RPM (eqs. 2 and 3)

Page 26 of 30

semi-empirical parameter, eRPM (eq. 3)


26

Page 27 of 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Energy & Fuels

REFERENCES 1. Rulkens, W., Sewage sludge as a biomass resource for the production of energy: overview and assessment of the various options. Energy & Fuels 2007, 22, (1), 9-15. 2. Yu, M. M.; Masnadi, M. S.; Grace, J. R.; Bi, X. T.; Lim, C. J.; Li, Y., Co-gasification of biosolids with biomass: Thermogravimetric analysis and pilot scale study in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor. Bioresource Technology 2015, 175, (0), 51-58. 3. USEPA Biosolids generation, use and disposal in the United States; EPA530: 1999. 4. De los Cobos-Vasconcelos, D.; Villalba-Pastrana, M. E.; Noyola, A., Effective pathogen removal by low temperature thermal pre-treatment and anaerobic digestion for Class A biosolids production from sewage sludge. Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 2015, 5, (1), 56-63. 5. Shober, A. L.; Stehouwer, R. C.; Macneal, K. E., On-farm assessment of biosolids effects on soil and crop tissue quality. Journal of environmental quality 2003, 32, (5), 1873-1880. 6. Dangtran, K.; Mullen, J. F.; Mayrose, D. T., A comparison of fluid bed and multiple hearth biosolids incineration. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 2000, 2000, (1), 368-384. 7. Appels, L.; Lauwers, J.; Degrève, J.; Helsen, L.; Lievens, B.; Willems, K.; Van Impe, J.; Dewil, R., Anaerobic digestion in global bio-energy production: Potential and research challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2011, 15, (9), 4295-4301. 8. Gikas, P., Ultra high temperature gasification of municipal wastewater primary biosolids in a rotary kiln reactor for the production of synthesis gas. Journal of Environmental Management. 9. Girovich, M. J., Biosolids treatment and management: Processes for beneficial use. crc Press: 1996. 10. Seggiani, M.; Vitolo, S.; Puccini, M.; Bellini, A., Cogasification of sewage sludge in an updraft gasifier. Fuel 2012, 93, 486-491. 11. Nexterra Technology: Waste Feedstocks. http://www.nexterra.ca/files/biomassfeedstocks.php (June 14, 2016), 12. Furimsky, E., Gasification of oil sand coke: Review. Fuel Processing Technology 1998, 56, (3), 263-290. 13. Gikas, P., Electrical energy production from biosolids: a comparative study between anaerobic digestion and ultra-high-temperature gasification. Environ Technol 2014, 35, (17-20), 2140-6. 14. Broer, K. M.; Woolcock, P. J.; Johnston, P. A.; Brown, R. C., Steam/oxygen gasification system for the production of clean syngas from switchgrass. Fuel 2015, 140, (0), 282-292. 15. Gikas, P., Ultra high temperature gasification of municipal wastewater primary biosolids in a rotary kiln reactor for the production of synthesis gas. Journal of Environmental Management 2016. 16. McKee, D. W., Mechanisms of the alkali metal catalysed gasification of carbon. Fuel 1983, 62, (2), 170-175. 17. Sueyasu, T.; Oike, T.; Mori, A.; Kudo, S.; Norinaga, K.; Hayashi, J.-i., Simultaneous Steam Reforming of Tar and Steam Gasification of Char from the Pyrolysis of PotassiumLoaded Woody Biomass. Energy & Fuels 2012, 26, (1), 199-208. 18. Wood, B. J.; Sancier, K. M., The Mechanism of the Catalytic Gasification of Coal Char: A Critical Review. Catalysis Reviews 1984, 26, (2), 233-279.


27

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Page 28 of 30

19. Karimi, A.; Gray, M. R., Effectiveness and mobility of catalysts for gasification of bitumen coke. Fuel 2011, 90, (1), 120-125. 20. Kopyscinski, J.; Rahman, M.; Gupta, R.; Mims, C. A.; Hill, J. M., K2CO3 catalyzed CO2 gasification of ash-free coal. Interactions of the catalyst with carbon in N2 and CO2 atmosphere. Fuel 2014, 117, Part B, (0), 1181-1189. 21. Wen, W.-Y., Mechanisms of Alkali Metal Catalysis in the Gasification of Coal, Char, or Graphite. Catalysis Reviews 1980, 22, (1), 1-28. 22. Irfan, M. F.; Usman, M. R.; Kusakabe, K., Coal gasification in CO2 atmosphere and its kinetics since 1948: A brief review. Energy 2011, 36, (1), 12-40. 23. Kramb, J.; Gómez-Barea, A.; DeMartini, N.; Romar, H.; Doddapaneni, T. R. K. C.; Konttinen, J., The effects of calcium and potassium on CO2 gasification of birch wood in a fluidized bed. Fuel 2017, 196, 398-407. 24. Brown, R. C.; Liu, Q.; Norton, G., Catalytic effects observed during the co-gasification of coal and switchgrass. Biomass and Bioenergy 2000, 18, (6), 499-506. 25. McLaughlin, S.; Bouton, J.; Bransby, D.; Conger, B.; Ocumpaugh, W.; Parrish, D.; Taliaferro, C.; Vogel, K.; Wullschleger, S., Developing switchgrass as a bioenergy crop. Perspectives on new crops and new uses 1999, 282. 26. Wright, L., Historical Perspective on How and Why Switchgrass was Selected as a "Model" High-Potential Energy Crop. In Energy, D. o., Ed. Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, TN, 2007. 27. Masnadi, M. S.; Grace, J. R.; Bi, X. T.; Lim, C. J.; Ellis, N.; Li, Y. H.; Watkinson, A. P., Single-fuel steam gasification of switchgrass and coal in a bubbling fluidized bed: A comprehensive parametric reference for co-gasification study. Energy 2015, 80, (0), 133-147. 28. Habibi, R.; Kopyscinski, J.; Masnadi, M. S.; Lam, J.; Grace, J. R.; Mims, C. A.; Hill, J. M., Co-gasification of Biomass and Non-biomass Feedstocks: Synergistic and Inhibition Effects of Switchgrass Mixed with Sub-bituminous Coal and Fluid Coke During CO2 Gasification. Energy & Fuels 2012, 27, (1), 494-500. 29. Bruno, G.; Buroni, M.; Carvani, L.; Piero, G. D.; Passoni, G., Water-insoluble compounds formed by reaction between potassium and mineral matter in catalytic coal gasification. Fuel 1988, 67, (1), 67-72. 30. Hu, J.; Liu, L.; Cui, M.; Wang, J., Calcium-promoted catalytic activity of potassium carbonate for gasification of coal char: The synergistic effect unrelated to mineral matter in coal. Fuel 2013, 111, 628-635. 31. Liu, L.; Liu, H.; Cui, M.; Hu, Y.; Wang, J., Calcium-promoted catalytic activity of potassium carbonate for steam gasification of coal char: Transformations of sulfur. Fuel 2013, 112, 687-694. 32. Perander, M.; DeMartini, N.; Brink, A.; Kramb, J.; Karlström, O.; Hemming, J.; Moilanen, A.; Konttinen, J.; Hupa, M., Catalytic effect of Ca and K on CO2 gasification of spruce wood char. Fuel 2015, 150, 464-472. 33. Ramsurn, H.; Kumar, S.; Gupta, R. B., Enhancement of Biochar Gasification in Alkali Hydrothermal Medium by Passivation of Inorganic Components Using Ca(OH)2. Energy & Fuels 2011, 25, (5), 2389-2398. 34. Tang, J.; Guo, R.; Wang, J., Inhibition of interaction between kaolinite and K2CO3 by pretreatment using calcium additive. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 2013, 114, (1), 153-160.


28

Page 29 of 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Energy & Fuels

35. Jiang, M.-Q.; Zhou, R.; Hu, J.; Wang, F.-C.; Wang, J., Calcium-promoted catalytic activity of potassium carbonate for steam gasification of coal char: Influences of calcium species. Fuel 2012, 99, 64-71. 36. Masnadi, M. S.; Grace, J. R.; Bi, X. T.; Lim, C. J.; Ellis, N., From fossil fuels towards renewables: Inhibitory and catalytic effects on carbon thermochemical conversion during cogasification of biomass with fossil fuels. Applied Energy 2015, 140, (0), 196-209. 37. Emami Taba, L.; Irfan, M. F.; Wan Daud, W. A. M.; Chakrabarti, M. H., The effect of temperature on various parameters in coal, biomass and CO-gasification: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2012, 16, (8), 5584-5596. 38. Franco, C.; Pinto, F.; Gulyurtlu, I.; Cabrita, I., The study of reactions influencing the biomass steam gasification process☆. Fuel 2003, 82, (7), 835-842. 39. Hirano, A.; Hon-Nami, K.; Kunito, S.; Hada, M.; Ogushi, Y., Temperature effect on continuous gasification of microalgal biomass: theoretical yield of methanol production and its energy balance. Catalysis Today 1998, 45, (1–4), 399-404. 40. Wu, C.; Williams, P. T., Effects of gasification temperature and catalyst ratio on hydrogen production from catalytic steam pyrolysis-gasification of polypropylene. Energy & Fuels 2008, 22, (6), 4125-4132. 41. Devi, T. G.; Kannan, M. P., Gasification of Biomass Chars in Air − Effect of Heat Treatment Temperature. Energy & Fuels 2000, 14, (1), 127-130. 42. Hanping, C.; Bin, L.; Haiping, Y.; Guolai, Y.; Shihong, Z., Experimental investigation of biomass gasification in a fluidized bed reactor. Energy & Fuels 2008, 22, (5), 3493-3498. 43. Kopyscinski, J.; Habibi, R.; Mims, C. A.; Hill, J. M., K2CO3-Catalyzed CO2 Gasification of Ash-Free Coal: Kinetic Study. Energy & Fuels 2013, 27, (8), 4875-4883. 44. Bhatia, S. K.; Perlmutter, D. D., A random pore model for fluid-solid reactions: I. Isothermal, kinetic control. AIChE Journal 1980, 26, (3), 379-386. 45. Zhang, Y.; Ashizawa, M.; Kajitani, S.; Miura, K., Proposal of a semi-empirical kinetic model to reconcile with gasification reactivity profiles of biomass chars. Fuel 2008, 87, (4–5), 475-481. 46. Powers, S. M.; Bruulsema, T. W.; Burt, T. P.; Chan, N. I.; Elser, J. J.; Haygarth, P. M.; Howden, N. J. K.; Jarvie, H. P.; Lyu, Y.; Peterson, H. M.; Sharpley, A. N.; Shen, J.; Worrall, F.; Zhang, F., Long-term accumulation and transport of anthropogenic phosphorus in three river basins. Nature Geosci 2016, 9, (5), 353-356. 47. Zhang, Q.; Liu, H.; Li, W.; Xu, J.; Liang, Q., Behavior of Phosphorus during Cogasification of Sewage Sludge and Coal. Energy & Fuels 2012, 26, (5), 2830-2836. 48. Matinde, E.; Sasaki, Y.; Hino, M., Phosphorus Gasification from Sewage Sludge during Carbothermic Reduction. ISIJ International 2008, 48, (7), 912-917. 49. Fernandes, R.; Hill, J. M.; Kopyscinski, J., Determination of the Synergism/Antagonism Parameters during Co-gasification of Potassium-Rich Biomass with Non-biomass Feedstock. Energy & Fuels 2017. 50. Mims, C. A.; Krajewski, J. J., Mechanism of methane formation in potassium catalyzed carbon gasification. Journal of Catalysis 1986, 102, (1), 140-150. 51. Kopyscinski, J.; Mims, C. A.; Hill, J. M., Formation of CH4 during K2CO3-Catalyzed Steam Gasification of Ash-Free Coal: Influence of Catalyst Loading, H2O/H2 Ratio, and Heating Protocol. Energy & Fuels 2015, 29, (11), 6970-6977. 52. Nzihou, A.; Stanmore, B.; Sharrock, P., A review of catalysts for the gasification of biomass char, with some reference to coal. Energy 2013, 58, 305-317.


29

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

1 2 3 4

Page 30 of 30

53. Habibi, R. Co-Gasification of Biomass and Non-Biomass Feedstocks, Thesis. University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, 2013. 54. Shelby, J. E., Formation and Properties of Calcium Aluminosilicate Glasses. Journal of the American Ceramic Society 1985, 68, (3), 155-158.

5


30

Interaction of Potassium and Calcium in the Catalytic Gasification of

Recommend Documents