Biomass Pyrolysis Kinetics - A Comparative Critical Review With Relevant Agricultural Residue Case Studies

Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 91 (2011) 133
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ j aap
Review
Biomass pyrolysis kinetics: A comparative critical review with relevant
agricultural residue case studies
John E. White
a,
, W. James Catallo
b,1
, Benjamin L. Legendre
a
a
Audubon Sugar Institute, Louisiana State University AgCenter, 3845 Hwy 75, St. Gabriel, LA 70776, USA
b
Laboratory for Ecological Chemistry, Comparative Biomedical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 21 March 2009
Accepted 8 January 2011
Available online 14 January 2011
Keywords:
Agricultural residues
Biomass
Kinetic models
Kinetic triplet
Nutshells
Pyrolysis kinetics
Sugarcane bagasse
Thermal decomposition
a b s t r a c t
Biomass pyrolysis is a fundamental thermochemical conversionprocess that is of bothindustrial and eco-
logical importance. Fromdesigning andoperating industrial biomass conversionsystems to modeling the
spread of wildres, an understanding of solid state pyrolysis kinetics is imperative. A critical review of
kinetic models and mathematical approximations currently employed in solid state thermal analysis is
provided. Isoconversional and model-tting methods for estimating kinetic parameters are compara-
tively evaluated. The thermal decomposition of biomass proceeds via a very complex set of competitive
and concurrent reactions and thus the exact mechanism for biomass pyrolysis remains a mystery. The
pernicious persistence of substantial variations in kinetic rate data for solids irrespective of the kinetic
model employed has exposed serious divisions within the thermal analysis community and also caused
the broader scientic and industrial community to question the relevancy and applicability of all kinetic
data obtained from heterogeneous reactions. Many factors can inuence the kinetic parameters, includ-
ing process conditions, heat and mass transfer limitations, physical and chemical heterogeneity of the
sample, and systematic errors. An analysis of thermal decomposition data obtained fromtwo agricultural
residues, nutshells and sugarcane bagasse, reveals the inherent difculty and risks involved in modeling
heterogeneous reaction systems.
2011 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Contents
1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Fundamentals of thermal analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Concise history of thermal analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Experimental kinetic analysis techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Arrhenius rate expression and the signicance of the kinetic parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Biomass pyrolysis kinetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Kinetic expressions for biomass thermal decomposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Biomass pyrolysis kinetic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Multiple-step models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Isoconversional techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Comparative evaluation of integral and differential isoconversional techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6. Other kinetic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Analysis of kinetic data obtained from various nutshells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Biomass thermal decomposition mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Inuence of experimental conditions on biomass reaction kinetics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Heat and mass transport models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. Heating rate and particle size effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Corresponding author. Present address: USDA, ARS, Pacic Basin Agricultural Research Center, 64 Nowelo St., Hilo, HI 96720, USA. Tel.: +1 808 932 2177;
fax: +1 808 959 5470.
E-mail address: John.White2@ars.usda.gov (J.E. White).
1
Deceased.
0165-2370/$ see front matter. 2011 Published by Elsevier B.V.
doi:10.1016/j.jaap.2011.01.004
2 J.E. White et al. / Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 91 (2011) 133
6.3. Signicance of surrounding atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.4. Catalytic effect of inorganic material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Variations in kinetic data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Systematic errors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. Temperature gradients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.3. Temperature lag. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.4. Kinetic compensation effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Sugarcane bagasse case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. Sugarcane bagasse background and properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. Review of sugarcane bagasse pyrolysis studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.3. Analysis of published kinetic data for sugarcane bagasse pyrolysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.4. Suggestions for mitigating inconsistencies in kinetic triplet data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.5. Evaluation of kinetic compensation effect for sugarcane bagasse data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Introduction
Increased volatility in traditional fossil fuel markets has revived
interest intheproductionof alternativefuels frombiomass. Renew-
able energy derived from biomass reduces reliance on fossil fuels
and it does not add new carbon dioxide to the atmosphere [1].
Pyrolysis is a fundamental thermochemical conversionprocess that
can be used to transform biomass directly into gaseous and liquid
fuels. Pyrolysis is alsoanimportant stepincombustionandgasica-
tionprocesses. Inthis regard, athoroughunderstandingof pyrolysis
kinetics is vital to the assessment of items including the feasibility,
design, and scaling of industrial biomass conversion applications
[2,3]. An awareness of pyrolysis kinetics can also be useful in mod-
eling the propagation of wildres [4], which ravage 550 million ha
worldwide annually [5].
Vegetative biomass, also known as phytomass, is comprised
primarily of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin along with lesser
amounts of extractives (e.g., terpenes, tannins, fatty acids, oils, and
resins), moisture, and mineral matter [6]. Cellulose is the most
abundant organic compound in nature, comprising up to 50wt%
of dry biomass [7,8]. It is a linear polysaccharide formed from
repetitive -(1,4)-glycosidic linkage of d-glucopyranose units. Cel-
lulose fromdifferent biomass types is chemically indistinguishable
except for its degree of polymerization (DP), which can range
from 500 to 10,000 depending on the type of biomass [9]. Strong
hydrogen bonding between the straight chains imparts a crys-
talline structure to the cellulose, making it highly impervious
to dissolution and hydrolysis using common chemical reagents
[9,10]. Unlike cellulose, the composition of hemicelluloses and
lignin is heterogeneous and can vary greatly even within a given
biomass species. Hemicelluloses have an amorphous structure
and display branching in their polymer chains. Several sugar
monomers are contained in hemicellulose, including xylose, man-
nose, galactose, and arabinose. Lignin accounts for almost 30%
of terrestrial organic carbon and provides the rigidity and struc-
tural framework for plants [11]. The lignin biopolymer consists
of a complex network of cross-linked aromatic molecules, which
serves to inhibit the absorption of water through cell walls. The
structure and chemical composition of lignin are determined by
the type and age of the plant from which the lignin is isolated
[12]. Studies addressing the transformation kinetics of biomass
must account for the intrinsically heterogeneous nature of the sub-
strate. In this regard, the frequent practice of typifying the overall
kinetic behavior of a particular biomass substrate based on the
kinetic results from just a single benchmark component is trou-
blesome.
Pyrolysis of solid state materials, such as biomass, can be classi-
ed as a heterogeneous chemical reaction. The reaction dynamics
and chemical kinetics of heterogeneous processes can be affected
by three key elements [13], i.e., the breakage and redistribution of
chemical bonds, changing reaction geometry, and the interfacial
diffusion of reactants and products. Unlike homogeneous reac-
tions, concentration is an inconsequential parameter that cannot
be used to monitor the progress of heterogeneous reaction kinet-
ics because it can vary spatially [1316]. Heterogeneous reactions
usually involve a superposition of several elementary processes
such as nucleation, adsorption, desorption, interfacial reaction, and
surface/bulk diffusion, each of which may become rate-limiting
depending on the experimental conditions. The initiation step in
solid state decomposition reactions frequently involves a random
walk of defects andvacancies withinthe crystal lattice whichgives
rise to nucleation growth [17]. Equally signicant is the concept
of a reaction interface, which is dened as the boundary sur-
face between the reactant and the product. This representation has
been used extensively to model the kinetics of solid state reactions
[18].
The only extant review of sugarcane pyrolysis was published
more than thirty years ago [19]. Solid state kinetic theory was in
a state of considerable disarray during this era and decomposition
mechanisms for cellulose pyrolysis were in their formative stages.
Understanding of the reaction dynamics involved in pyrolytic pro-
cesses has evolved substantially since then, and the corresponding
kinetic schemes have been rened to encompass the entire ligno-
cellulosic substrate. In light of this, the original intent of this paper
was to provide a succinct overview of modern biomass pyrolysis
kinetics supported by an analytical survey of rate data obtained
from a particular biomass species (i.e., sugarcane bagasse). How-
ever, considering the uncertainty and ux that continue to envelop
the eld of thermal analysis, it was decided that an experimental
case study isolated froma contextual discourse on the current state
of affairs in heterogeneous kinetics might only add to the existing
turmoil. Therefore, the objective of this critical reviewis to not only
expose the nature andoriginof the rampant inconsistencies inpub-
lished biomass kinetic data but also emphasize the urgent need to
dispense with the . . .hundreds of cute and clever mathematical
manipulations [that] were performed on variations of three (highly
stylized) equations [i.e., the degree of conversion rate equation
(Eq. (2)), the Arrhenius expression (Eq. (1)), and the temperature
integral (Eq. (11))], and instead focus on the reexamination of fun-
damental solid state reaction kinetic theory as it applies to biomass
pyrolysis. After a prcis of experimental kinetic techniques andfun-
damental rate equations, various biomass degradation models and
process parameters that impact rates of biomass degradation are
examined. This treatment is then followed by an analytical evalu-
ation of experimental studies on the kinetics of sugarcane bagasse
pyrolysis.
J.E. White et al. / Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 91 (2011) 133 3
Nomenclature
A frequency factor (s
1
)
a,b correlation parameters in the linear compensation
effect relation
C constant of integration
E
a
apparent activation energy (kJ mol
1
)
f() reaction model (function expressing the depen-
dence of the reaction rate on the conversion)
g() integrated reaction model
I(E
a
,T
) equivalent function for p(x)

k reaction rate constant (s
1
)
k(T) temperature-dependent rate constant (s
1
)
n reaction order
p(x) temperature integral
r reaction initiation parameter
R universal gas constant (8.314410
3
kJ mol
1
K
1
)
t time (s)
T absolute temperature (K)
V
i
cumulativemass of releasedvolatiles corresponding
to fraction i through time t
V
i
* effective volatile content for fraction i
v volatile mass at time t
w substrate mass at time t
x equivalent to E
a
/RT
y unreacted fraction of substrate
z activity of solid
Greek letters
extent of reaction (degree of conversion)
heating rate (
Cs
1
)
minimization function
deactivation rate constant
Superscripts
c, d, e adjustable reaction exponents in the SB equation
n reaction order
q number of experiments
s adjustable nucleation parameter used in the modi-
ed ProutTompkins model
Subscripts
0 initial
a apparent
f nal
iso isokinetic
i volatile fraction
j ordinal number of experiment
k ordinal number of experiment
m maximum
2. Fundamentals of thermal analysis
2.1. Concise history of thermal analysis
The storied eld of thermal analysis is no stranger to disagree-
ment and uncertainty. Thus it should come as no surprise that
even the origins of modern thermal analysis remain blurred in
controversy. Although Le Chatelier is frequently credited with hav-
ing initiated thermal analysis in 1887 [2023], Jakob Rudberg had
alreadyemployedacrudeformof thermal analysis in1829toobtain
rate data for various metals and their alloys [22], and as early as
1780, Bryan Higgins had observed the effect of heating chalk and
limestone at various temperatures [24]. Likewise, dissent has pre-
ventedthe adoptionof a mutually acceptable denitionfor thermal
analysis methods. Thermal analysis has been formally dened by
theInternational Confederationfor Thermal Analysis andCalorime-
try (ICTAC) as a group of techniques in which a property of the
sample is monitored against time or temperature while the tem-
perature of the sample, in a specied atmosphere, is programmed
[25]. The ICTAC denition has been criticized [26] for being too
constrictive (i.e., monitoring does not adequately reect the ele-
ments of evaluation and experimental investigation that comprise
thermal analysis) or immaterial (i.e., a specied atmosphere is
a unique, local operational factor that is inappropriate for a global
denition). It has been proposed that the essence of thermal analy-
sis canbe summarizedas the measurement of a change ina sample
property, which is the result of an imposed temperature alteration
[26].
2.2. Experimental kinetic analysis techniques
Kinetic data from solid state pyrolysis reactions has tradi-
tionally been obtained using discrete isothermal methods of
analysis. Isothermal kinetic data usually is acquired by perform-
ing several experiments under isothermal conditions at different
temperatures. Additionally, isothermal experiments still possess an
element of non-isothermal behavior duringthe initial heatingramp
to the desired temperature. Interest in isothermal methods, how-
ever, has gradually waned because they are considered toilsome
[27]. Conversely, dynamic methods, which are performed under
non-isothermal conditions, have attracted much appeal given their
ability to investigate a range of temperatures expeditiously [27,28].
Non-isothermal analytical techniques use modern thermobalances
that subject samples to a programmed continuous temperature
rise, which ensures that no temperature regions are omitted, as
can occur during a sequence of discrete isothermal measurements.
Despite their touted convenience [29,30], non-isothermal tech-
niques have received pointed criticism [3135] and, sometimes,
outright rejection [36] because of their perceived inability to reli-
ably assess kinetic parameters, besides their increased sensitivity
to experimental noise as compared to isothermal methods [37,38].
Benoit et al. [39] advised against the use of non-isothermal tech-
niques for solid state decomposition processes where there is a
change in the reaction kinetics over the temperature range or
degree of conversion. Studies have shown that there are wide dis-
parities among values obtained from dynamic techniques that use
only a single heating rate. A consensus emerged that the accuracy
of these methods could be improved using multiple sets of ther-
mal data collected by performing experiments at multiple heating
rates [33,40]; it is a perspective shared by participants in a recent
kinetics project commissionedby ICTAC[4145]. Paradoxically, the
inherent efciency with which dynamic methods collect kinetic
data is partially negated in that reasonably resolved data typically
is obtained using low heating rates [46].
Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) is the most commonly
applied thermoanalytical technique in solid-phase thermal degra-
dation studies [47], and it has gained widespread currency in
thermal studies of biomass pyrolysis [4854]. TGA measures the
decrease in substrate mass caused by the release of volatiles, or
devolatilization, during thermal decomposition [55]. In TGA, the
mass of a substrate being heated or cooled at a specic rate is
monitored as a function of temperature or time. Taking the rst
derivative of such thermogravimetric curves (i.e., dm/dt) curves,
known as derivative thermogravimetry (DTG), provides the maxi-
mumreactionrate [56]. The development of a systemin1899 by Sir
William Roberts-Austen [57] that uses thermocouples to measure
the temperature difference betweena sample and anadjacent inert
reference material subjected to an identical temperature alteration
was the naissance of differential thermal analysis (DTA) [58]. By
Table 1
Classication scheme of thermoanalytical techniques.
Property Technique Parameter measured Abbreviation
Mass Thermogravimetric analysis Sample mass TGA
Derivative thermogravimetry First derivative of mass DTG
Temperature Differential thermal analysis Temperature difference between sample and inert reference material DTA
Derivative differential thermal analysis First derivative of DTA curve
Heat Differential scanning calorimetry Heat supplied to sample or reference DSC
Pressure Thermomanometry Pressure
Dimensions Thermodilatometry Coefcient of linear or volumetric expansion
Mechanical properties Thermomechanical analysis TMA
Electrical properties Thermoelectrical analysis Electrical resistance TEA
Magnetic properties Thermomagnetic analysis
Acoustic properties Thermoacoustic analysis Acoustic waves TAA
Optical properties Thermoptical analysis TOA
plotting the time (t) versus temperature difference (T) a DTA
curve can be generated from which the reaction rate can be cal-
culated in terms of the slope (dT/dt) and height (T) of the curve
at any temperature [59]. Another commonmethodof thermal anal-
ysis is differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). In DSC, heat ux into
or out of a sample is compared against an inert reference material,
usually alumina, as the two specimens are simultaneously heated
or cooled at a constant rate. The integral (or area) of the DSC peak is
directly proportional to the heat of transition for a particular reac-
tion and the change in heat capacity can readily be correlated to
the enthalpy change of the reaction. DTA is similar to DSC, except
that the conditions in DTA are adiabatic causing a temperature dif-
ference between the sample and the reference material. Table 1
provides a listing of thermoanalytical techniques classied accord-
ing to the physical properties that are measured.
Thermal analysis provides an excellent tool that may provide
insight regarding the kinetic workings of heterogeneous reactions.
However, it cannot be overstressed that the kinetic data obtained
from a single thermoanalytical technique, in and of itself, does not
provide the necessary and sufcient evidence to draw mechanistic
conclusions about a solid state decomposition process [60]. The
kinetic behavior of a given heterogeneous reaction system may
change during the process and so it is possible that the complete
reactionmechanismcannot be representedsuitablybya single spe-
cic kinetic model [61]. Various other analytical techniques (e.g.,
electrical, nuclear, optical, and X-ray) must be employed to detect
and analyze changes that occur in the chemical composition and/or
structure of the sample. One such specialized method, evolved gas
analysis (EGA), involves a qualitative and quantitative assessment
of the gases that are evolved during thermal analysis. EGA can
be performed using a variety of analytical tools, including Fourier
transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), gas chromatography (GC),
high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), mass spectrom-
etry (MS), and GCMS. The use of these species-specic techniques
in consort with thermal analysis can help facilitate the elucidation
of anappropriate kinetic scheme and, hopefully, bring investigators
one step closer to understanding the actual reaction mechanism.
2.3. Arrhenius rate expression and the signicance of the kinetic
parameters
Virtually every kinetic model proposed employs a rate law that
obeys the fundamental Arrhenius rate expression:
k(T) = Aexp
_
E
a
RT
_
(1)
where T is the absolute temperature in K, R is the universal gas
constant, k(T) is the temperature-dependent reaction rate con-
stant, A is the frequency factor, or pre-exponential, and E
a
is the
activation energy of the reaction. The main temperature depen-
dence in the Arrhenius equation arises from the exponential term,
although the frequency factor, A, does exhibit a slight temperature
dependency [17,62]. For homogeneous reactions involving gases,
the physical signicance of the Arrhenius parameters (i.e., E
a
and
A) can be interpreted in terms of molecular collision theory. The
activation energy, E
a
, can be regarded as the energy threshold that
must be overcome before molecules can get close enough to react
and form products. Only those molecules with adequate kinetic
energy to surmount this energy barrier will react. Alternatively,
transition state theory describes the activation energy as the differ-
ence betweenthe average energy of molecules undergoing reaction
and average energy of all reactant molecules [63]. The frequency
factor provides a measure of the frequency at which all molecular
collisions occur regardless of their energy level [64]. The exponen-
tial term in Eq. (1) can be thought of as the fraction of collisions
having sufcient kinetic energy to induce a reaction [65]. Thus,
the rate constant, k(T), being the product of A and the exponen-
tial term, exp
Ea/RT
, yields the frequency of successful collisions
[65].
Vociferous debate continues to swirl about the relevancy of
kinetic parameters obtained from solid state reactions. The crux
of the controversy stems from the indiscriminate adoption of
homogeneous reaction kinetic theory to describe heterogeneous
processes [6668]. Indeed, it is plausible that much of the incon-
sistency arising in biomass kinetic data is ascribable to the use of
kinetic expressions that are merely adaptations of those used in
homogeneous reactions and that do not incorporate terms that
depend upon the solid state nature of biomass. Over thirty years
ago, Garn [69] contended that the discrepancies observed in cal-
culated activation energies for solid phase decomposition are a
reminder that the concept of a symmetric distribution of energy
states as impliedby the Arrhenius equationdoes not apply tosolids.
The fact that the most commonly occurring and minimum pos-
sible energy state in solids is that of the perfect crystal obviates
the use of a statistical treatment for solids [70]. Garn advised [69]
that if the calculated activation energy varies with experimental
conditions then it is necessarily true that: (1) there is no uniquely
describable activated state and consequently the Arrhenius equa-
tion has no application to solid reactions; or (2) the assumption
that the rate is a function only of temperature and the [mass] frac-
tionremaining is incorrect; or (3) both. Consequently, the physical
connotationof the Arrhenius parameters inheterogeneous kinetics
is opaque and . . .they do not characterize the chemical reaction
itself, but only the whole complexity of processes occurring dur-
ing the pyrolysis under the given experimental conditions [71].
Hence, experimentally determined kinetic parameters from ther-
mally activated, solid state transformations can only be expected
to provide a rough approximation for the overall rate of a com-
plex process that typically entails numerous steps, each having
distinct activation energies [40,72]. Garn [66] also raised salient
concerns about other weaknesses associated with the transfer of
homogeneous kinetic principles to heterogeneous processes.
Table 2
Unconventional phenomena represented by the Arrhenius rate law.
Temperature-dependent phenomenon
(applicable temperature range)
Ea (kJ mol
1
)
Rate of counting 100.4
Rate of forgetfulness 100.4
Frequency of the heart beat of a terrapin
(1834
C)
76.6
Creeping velocity of the millipede (Parajulus
pennsylvanicus) (630
C)
51.2
Creeping velocity of the ant (Liometopum
apiculatum) (1638.5
C)
51.0
Frequency of ashing of reies 51.0
Rate of chirping of common tree crickets
(Oecanthus)
51.0
Velocity of amoeboid progression in human
neutrophilic leucocytes (2740
C)
45.2
Creeping velocity of the spotted leopard slug
(Limax maximus) (1128
C)
44.8
Rate of lament movements in the blue-green
algae (Oscillatoria) (636
C)
38.7
Human alpha brain-wave rhythm 29.3
Although alternative expressions (e.g., linear relationships
betweenlnkandT, andbetweenlnkandlnT) doexist for describing
the inuence of temperature onthe rates of chemical reactions, Lai-
dler [73] emphasized that none of these other relationships enjoys
the universal acceptance bestowed upon the Arrhenius equation
because of their theoretical sterility. The additional parameters
that are included in these surrogate rate expressions presum-
ably would permit better tting of experimental data, but there
is no theoretical rationale for their existence, thereby, depriving
them of any physico-chemical signicance [62]. Were the ther-
mal analysis community to approve an alternative expression for
the temperature dependence of reaction rates, it would neces-
sitate the recalculation of all previous E
a
and A values so that
kinetic parameters dating back to 1899 could be compared against
those generated by the new rate law [62]. An undertaking of this
magnitude would be incredibly laborious and seems improbable.
Moreover, rejection of the Arrhenius expression would, as

Sestk
[74] said, certainly deny the fty [i.e., now eighty] years work
of famous scientists in the eld of heterogeneous kinetics. For all
the barbed accusations that have been hurled against the Arrhe-
nius rate law, it remains the only such kinetic expression that can
satisfactorily account for the temperature-dependent behavior of
even the most unconventional processes, as shown in Table 2 and
notedoriginallyinaseries of reviewpapers byCrozier et al. [7577],
and subsequently expanded by Laidler [78] and then tabulated by
Brown [68]. Laidlers purpose for revisiting these intriguing pro-
cesses was to underscore that relatively complex reaction systems
can be represented by the Arrhenius law and also that above a cer-
tain energy threshold (i.e., about 21kJ mol
1
) many phenomena
are likely to proceed via chemical reactions rather than by phys-
ical processes. The prominent role of the Arrhenius expression in
heterogeneous reaction systems is undeniable and was acknowl-
edged by Agrawal [28], who stated, . . .it is perhaps the most
widely used equation and is satisfactory in explaining the temper-
ature dependence of the rate constant in solid-state decomposition
kinetics.
3. Biomass pyrolysis kinetics
3.1. Kinetic expressions for biomass thermal decomposition
The kinetics of biomass decomposition are routinely predicated
on a single reaction [79,80] and can be expressed under isothermal
conditions by the following canonical equation:
d
dt
= k(T)f () = Aexp
_
E
a
RT
_
f () (2)
where t denotes time, signies the degree of conversion, or extent
of reaction, d/dt is the rate of the isothermal process, and f() is
a conversion function that represents the reaction model used and
depends on the controlling mechanism. The extent of reaction, ,
can be dened either as the mass fraction of biomass substrate that
has decomposed or as the mass fraction of volatiles evolved and
can be expressed as shown below:
=
w
0
w
w
0
w
f
=
v
v
f
(3)
where w is the mass of substrate present at any time t, w
0
is the
initial substrate mass, w
f
is the nal mass of solids (i.e., residue and
unreacted substrate) remaining after the reaction, v is the mass of
volatiles present at any time t, and v
f
is the total mass of volatiles
evolved during the reaction. The combination of A, E
a
, and f() is
often designated as the kinetic triplet, which is used to characterize
biomass pyrolysis reactions [81,82]. Non-isothermal rate expres-
sions, which represent reaction rates as a function of temperature
at a linear heating rate, , can be expressed through an ostensibly
supercial transformation [81,83] of Eq. (2):
d
dT
=
d
dt
dt
dT
(4)
where dt/dT describes the inverse of the heating rate, 1/, d/dt
represents theisothermal reactionrate, andd/dTdenotes thenon-
isothermal reaction rate. An expression of the rate law for non-
isothermal conditions can be obtained by substituting Eq. (2) into
Eq. (4):
d
dT
=
k(T)
f () =
A
exp
_
E
a
RT
_
f () (5)
The use of reaction-order models is ubiquitous in the thermal
analysis of biomass because of their simplicity and propinquity to
relations used in homogeneous kinetics [28,83]. In these order-
based models, the reaction rate is proportional to the fraction of
unreacted substrate raised to a specic exponent, known as the
reaction order:
d
dT
= k(T)(1 )
n
(6)
where (1) is the remaining fraction of volatile material in the
sample and n represents the reaction order. The devolatilization
dynamics of biomass pyrolysis are frequently expressed as a rst
order decomposition process that results in the formation of dis-
crete volatile fractions [49,8491]:
dV
i
dt
= k
i
(T)(V
i
V
i
) (7)
where k
i
(T) is the rate constant for an evolved volatile fraction
i, V
i
is the cumulative mass of released volatiles correspond-
ing to fraction i through time t, and V
i
* is the effective volatile
content for fraction i. In most devolatilization schemes, the
separate volatilized fractions are classied in terms of three prin-
cipal biomass pseudo-components (i.e., hemicellulose, cellulose,
and lignin) and, sometimes, moisture [49,88,89,92,93]. The total
devolatilization rate for a particular system is given by linear sum-
mationof the individual volatilizationrates for eachfraction, which
are weighted according to the percentage of respective pseudo-
component initially present in the unreacted solid substrate. The
release of biomass volatiles has also been hypothesized to involve
several independent concurrent reactions that produce a set of
lumped volatile products [94,95]. This alternative kinetic represen-
tation uses Eq. (7) as a template but the rate of devolatilization is
Table 3
Expressions for the most common reaction mechanisms in solid state reactions.
Reaction model f() =(1/k)(d/dt) g() =kt
Reaction order
Zero order (1)
n
First order (1)

n
ln(1)
nth order (1)
n
(n1)
1
(1)
(1n)
Nucleation
Power law n()
(11/n)
; n=2/3, 1, 2, 3, 4
n
; n=3/2, 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4
Exponential law ln
AvramiErofeev (AE) n(1) [ln(1)]
(11/n)
; n=1, 2, 3, 4 [ln(1)]
1/n
; n=1, 2, 3, 4
ProutTompkins (PT) (1) ln[(1)
1
] +C
a
Diffusional
1-D 1/2
2
2-D [ln(1)]
1
(1)ln(1) +
3-D (Jander) 3/2(1)
2/3
[1(1)
1/3
]
1
[1(1)
1/3
]
2
3-D (GinstlingBrounshtein) 3/2[(1)
1/3
1]
1
12/3(1)
2/3
Contracting geometry
Contracting area (1)
(11/n)
; n=2 1(1)
1/n
; n=2
Contracting volume (1)
(11/n)
; n=3 1(1)
1/n
; n=3
a
Integration constant.
measured with respect to individual reactions rather than volatile
fractions. Integration of the preceding kinetic equations is often
performed using a fourth order RungeKutta method [39,96,97]
andthe methodof least squares using nonlinear regressionanalysis
[39,98100] is regularly employed to t the experimental data and
evaluate the Arrhenius parameters as predictedby the kinetic mod-
els. Some of the more important rate equations used to describe
the kinetic behavior of solid state reactions are listed in Table 3,
or simply The Table. Other than for didactic purposes or reviews,
authors should assume that their audience is acquainted with the
relevant background information and refrain from the repetitive
inclusion of The Table each time a new thermal analysis paper
is published. Furthermore, the argument that reference texts con-
taining a comprehensive listing of reaction models are not readily
available is no longer valid. Elsevier Science Publishers [101] has
recently republished Vol. 22 of the Comprehensive Chemical Kinet-
ics series entitled: Reactions in the Solid State by C.H. Bamford and
C.F.H. Tipper, Eds. [18], which includes a complete set of solid state
reaction models. Another ne thermal analysis reference book con-
taining The Table that is accessible at most academic libraries is
the Handbook of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, Vol. 1: Prin-
ciples and Practice by M.E. Brown, Ed. (P.K. Gallagher, Series Ed.)
[13].
It should be noted that the application of rst order reaction
models in biomass pyrolysis kinetics has become almost formulaic
and their indiscriminate acceptance has occurred without rigorous
verication or sufcient awareness of their fundamental limita-
tions [82,102]. The imposition of an order-based model on a solid
state reaction system can cause a substantial divergence in the
Arrhenius parameters (i.e., A and E
a
) [82]. This discrepancy arises
when an inappropriate reaction order is afxed to the last term
in Eq. (6). The strongly correlated Arrhenius parameters in the
rate constant, k(T), are then forcibly adjusted to accommodate the
chosen reaction order. Accordingly, any reaction model, not only
order-based models, can suitably t kinetic data because of the
corresponding kinetic compensation effect among the Arrhenius
parameters [103]. The manifestationof this compensationrelation-
ship is common to both isothermal and non-isothermal kinetic
models, yet the increasing popularity of non-isothermal single
heating rate techniques in preceding decades necessarily gave rise
to a surge of unreliable and erratic results [28,104,105]. Much sus-
picion was cast upon the validity of non-isothermal model-tting
methods, although isothermal methods are just as culpable in that
they are also susceptible to a similar vacillation in the Arrhenius
parameters [106]. To quote Ninan [47], As far as the values of
the kinetic parameters are concerned, there is no signicant differ-
ence between isothermal and non-isothermal methods or between
mechanistic and non-mechanistic approaches, in the sense that
they showthe same degree of uctuation or trend, as the case may
be.
Garn [66] underscored several critical assumptions included in
the generalized rate expression (Eq. (2)), which is often used to
describe solid state decomposition kinetics. A violation of any of
these assumptions in a particular system will invalidate the use of
the rate equation. The use of the mathematical terms, f() and k(T),
explicitly afrms that the reaction rate is exclusively a function
of the degree of conversion, , and the temperature, T. Changes in
other process parameters (e.g., heatingrate, residencetime, particle
size, sample quantity, reaction interface, atmosphere, and pres-
sure) theoretically should have no effect on the reaction rate. If
changes in reaction rate are found to result from variation in these
other parameters, the conventional rate equation has failed. In
other words, the rate of reaction may be inuenced by parameters
besides the concentration that are not incorporated in the gener-
alized reaction statement. A logical explanation for this can be
deduced by recognizing that the rate constant for a given reaction
is clearly an intensive property [34], like temperature or density,
because it is measured from changes in an extensive property
of the system such as mass, enthalpy, and volume [17]. Hence,
the rate constant has important merit because it is specic to a
particular substance and process and it can potentially be used to
discriminate amongst various reaction systems.
3.2. Biomass pyrolysis kinetic models
A comprehensive review of the myriad models available for
analyzing the kinetics of biomass pyrolysis reactions is beyond
the scope of this communication. Instead pertinent kinetic mod-
els used in biomass pyrolysis studies will be presented along
with selected additional models that are noteworthy for their
innovative efforts to achieve improved predictive success by bet-
ter reecting the heterogeneous character of biomass thermal
decomposition. The numerous pyrolysis models can be divided
into three principal categories: single-step global reaction mod-
els, multiple-step models, and semi-global models [107110]. The
processes comprising pyrolysis frequently are described as pro-
ceeding along (a) concurrent (i.e., competitive and independent
parallel) routes [6,53,91,107110], (b) consecutive (or sequential)
routes [111115], or (c) combinations thereof [116121]. Single
reactionglobal schemes describe the overall rate of devolatilization
from the biomass substrate. Single-step global models have pro-
vided reasonable agreement with experimentally observed kinetic
behavior [84,122124]. One frequently cited study [125] revealed
that the pyrolysis of many different cellulosic substrates can be
adequately described by an irreversible, single-step endothermic
reaction that follows a rst order rate law with a global apparent
activation energy of ca. 238kJ mol
1
. The usefulness of single-step
global models, however, is limited by the assumption of a xed
mass ratio between pyrolysis products (i.e., volatiles and chars),
which prevents the forecasting of product yields based on pro-
cess conditions [126]. Furthermore, in most pyrolysis systems the
kinetic pathways are simply too complex to yield a meaningful
global apparent activation energy [127].
Much related work has examined the use of semi-global mod-
els, all of which assume that biomass pyrolysis products can
be aggregated into three distinct fractions: volatiles, tars, and
char. Semi-global models are able to facilitate a simpler lumped
kinetic analysis [53,89,107,126,128,129]. This analysis is used
widely because its depiction of biomass devolatilization in terms
of three concurrent rst order reactions is intuitive [90]. This
technique is a suitable tool for correlating and evaluating kinetic
data from different biomass types under similar reaction condi-
tions, but it is ill-suited for comparisons of thermal decomposition
data obtained fromdissimilar reaction conditions [84]. Semi-global
models also allow coupling of transport phenomena parameters
with the secondary devolatilization reactions. This procedure has
been demonstrated to correctly predict trends in product yield as
a function of volatiles residence time [130].
3.3. Multiple-step models
The inability to predict the kinetic behavior of biomass under
different process conditions has vexed researchers and encour-
agedthe development of complex multiple-stepmodels. Arigorous
kinetic treatment of pyrolysis data must account for the forma-
tion rates of all the individual product species [88,108], along
with any potential heat and mass transfer limitations. Alves and
Figueiredo [113] concluded that the pyrolysis of cellulose could
be successfully modeled using three consecutive rst order reac-
tions. The rst reaction represents approximately 30% of the total
devolatilization, while the third reaction releases the remaining
70% of the volatile matter [131]. The second reaction released no
volatile matter and is theorized to involve rearrangement of the
solid. Alternative reaction schemes, while possible, were deemed
impractical because they would require either more than three
reactions or three reactions of order other than unity to describe
the complex devolatilization process. A study by Diebold [132]
provided an elegant seven-step global kinetic model for cellulose
pyrolysis that achieved accurate predictions using published rate
constants for both fast and slowpyrolysis. The model accounted for
interactions between heating rate, residence time, pressure, and
temperature. It was demonstrated by Vargas and Perlmutter [112]
that the reactionkinetics of coal subjectedtonon-isothermal pyrol-
ysis can be understood to proceed via a series of ten consecutive
isothermal steps, each associated with the degradation of a specic
pseudo-component of the coal. Not to be outdone, Mangut et al.
[133] revealed that kinetic data obtained fromthe pyrolysis of food
industry wastes related to tomato juice production (i.e., peels and
seeds) could be satisfactorily modeled using twelve consecutive
pyrolytic reactions that were identied fromDTGcurves. Although
useful in some applications, multi-step reaction models are limited
by their incorporation of several interdependent serial reactions,
wherein subtle inaccuracies in the kinetic parameters obtained
for the rst rate equation can be greatly magnied in successive
reactions [134]. Except for a few extremely simple cases, compre-
hensive kinetic approaches are intractable because of the sheer
number of reactions that would need to be considered. Further-
more, the identication of constituents in pyrogenic tar mixtures
remains incomplete and the intermediate pyrogenic species have
scarcely been characterized. Consequently, these elegant models
can sometimes be of limited practical use.
3.4. Isoconversional techniques
Historically, model-tting methods were thought to satisfac-
torily predict reaction kinetics in solid state processes. Arrhenius
parameters obtained from model-tted isothermal data are often
nearly independent of the kinetic models employed [40]. Iterative
approaches to model-tting empirical endpoints from isothermal
data may provide consistent values for the Arrhenius parameters,
but only a single global kinetic triplet is obtained for each set of
data. As stated previously, solid state processes, such as biomass
pyrolysis, frequently proceed via a complex suite of concurrent and
consecutive reactions. Each step likely has its own unique apparent
activation energy, and thus the use of an average, global apparent
activation energy to describe the kinetics of such processes could
be construed as an inadequate oversimplication at best [135] and,
more alarmingly, the DTG curves from these models may conceal
the true multistage character of pyrolytic reactions under a sin-
gle peak [136]. Conversely, force tting models to non-isothermal
data obtained from a single heating rate can generate very incon-
sistent Arrhenius parameters that display a strong dependence on
the selected kinetic model [40]. Non-isothermal methods that use
multiple heating rates can provide more reliable estimates of the
kinetic parameters as mentioned earlier, but various decomposi-
tion processes can exhibit different dependencies on heating rate,
which may lead to overlapping reactions in the DTGcurves that are
difcult to separate [137].
The consternation in the scientic community [68,138] over
the wide variation in Arrhenius parameters for similar reaction
conditions and biomass species using different reaction models
served as a lightning rod that precipitated additional research and
development [29,40,139143]. Innovative methods for determin-
ing Arrhenius parameters based on a single parameter began to
emerge in the 1960s. These so-called model-free methods are
founded on an isoconversional basis, wherein the degree of con-
version, , for a reaction is assumed to be constant and therefore
the reaction rate, k, depends exclusively on the reaction temper-
ature, T. By allowing E
a
to be calculated a priori, isoconversional
approaches eliminate the need to initially hypothesize a form and
rate order for the kinetic equation. Hence, isoconversional meth-
ods do not require previous knowledge of the reaction mechanism
for biomass thermal degradation. Another advantage of isoconver-
sional approaches is that the systematic error resulting from the
kinetic analysis during the estimation of the Arrhenius parameters
is eliminated [41].
Isoconversional models can follow either a differential or an
integral approach to the treatment of TGA data. The Friedman
method [144] is a differential isoconversional technique that can
be expressed in general terms as written below:
d
dt
=
_
d
dT
_
= Aexp
_
E
a
RT
_
f () (8)
Taking natural logarithms of each side from Eq. (8) yields:
ln
_
d
dt
_
= ln
_
_
d
dT
__
= ln[Af ()]
E
a
RT
(9)
It is assumed that the conversion function f() remains constant,
which implies that biomass degradation is independent of temper-
ature and depends only on the rate of mass loss. A plot of ln[d/dt]
versus 1/T yields a straight line, the slope of which corresponds to
E
a
/R.
The FlynnWallOzawa (FWO) method [62,145150] is an
integral isoconversional technique that assumes the apparent acti-
vation energy remains constant throughout the duration of the
reaction (i.e., from t =0 to t
, where t
is the time at conversion

). Integrating Eq. (9) with respect to variables and T:
g() =
_

0
d
f ()
=
A
_
T
0
exp
_
E
a
RT
_
dT (10)
where T
is equal to the temperature at conversion . If we dene

x E
a
/RT, Eq. (10) becomes:
g() =
AE
a
R
_

exp
x
x
2
=
AE
a
R
p(x) (11)
where p(x) representing the rightmost integrand in Eq. (10) is
known as the temperature integral. The temperature integral does
not have an exact analytical solution in closed form[29] but can be
approximated via an empirical interpolation formula proposed by
Doyle [62,149,151,152]:
logp(x)
= 2.315 0.4567x, for 20 x 60 (12)

Using Doyles approximation for the temperature integral and tak-
ing logarithms of both sides of Eq. (11) one obtains:
log = log
_
A
E
a
Rg()
_
2.315 0.4567
E
a
RT
(13)
In the FWO method, plots of log versus 1/T for different heating
rates produce parallel lines for a xed degree of conversion. The
slope (0.4567E
a
/R) of these lines is proportional to the apparent
activation energy. The value of logA is given by the intercept of this
line with the y-axis, log.
Another widely utilized integral isoconversional method
is known as the KissingerAkahiraSunose (KAS) method
[56,104,105,153,154]. The KAS method employs another empirical
approximation derived by Doyle [62,149,151,152]:
logp(x)
=
exp
x
x
2
, for 20 x 50 (14)
Substitution of Eq. (14) into Eq. (11) and taking the ln of both
sides leads to the expression for the KAS integral isoconversional
method:
ln
_

T
2
m
_
=
E
a
R
_
1
T
m
_
ln
_
_
E
a
AR
_
_

0
d
f ()
_
(15)
where T
m
is the temperature at the maximumreactionrate. Assum-
ing has a xed value, E
a
can be determined from the slope of the
straight line obtained by plotting ln(/T
m
2
) versus 1/T
m
.
The integral method based on the Coats and Redfern (CR) equa-
tion [155,156] is a popular non-isothermal model-tting method
that requires an assumption be made regarding the value of the
reaction order for g(). The method approximates p(x) in Eq. (11)
using a Taylor series expansion to yield the following expression:
ln
_
ln(1 )
T
2
_
= ln
_
AR
E
a
_
1
2RT
E
a
__
E
a
RT
(16)
Eq. (16) can be simplied by recognizing that for customary values
of E
a
(e.g., 80260kJ mol
1
), the term 2RT/E
a
1:
ln
_
g()
T
2
_
= ln
_
AR
E
a
_
E
a
RT
(17)
A straight line can be obtained from single heating rate data by
plotting ln[g()/T
2
] versus T
1
. From the slope of the line, E
a
/R,
and its intercept ln(AR/E
a
), E
a
and A can be derived. The attrac-
tiveness of the CR method resides in its ability to directly furnish
A and E
a
for single heating rate. The criticism of the CR approach
follows the same general arguments presented against all of the
model-tting methods, namely, that the kinetic triplet resulting
fromevaluation of a single DTGcurve may be non-unique, or indis-
tinguishable, because of the high degree of correlation between
andd/dt (or dT/d) [28,157160]. Amulti-heatingrateapplication
of the original Coats and Redfern equation, known as the modied
CoatsRedfern (CR*) method [41,161], has been advanced that pro-
vides an integral isoconversional technique equivalent to those of
FWOandKAS. The CR* methodrearranges terms inEq. (16) toyield:
ln
_

T
2
(1 2RT/E
a
)
_
=
E
a
RT
+ln
_
AR
g()E
a
_
(18)
Given a xed degree of conversion, the left-hand term is plotted
versus T
1
for each heating rate, generating a set of straight lines,
each having slope E
a
/R. The frequency factor, A, is calculated by
inserting E
a
/R into the intercept. Because the left-hand side of Eq.
(18) is weakly dependent on E
a
, an iterative process must be used
by assuming an initial value for E
a
and then re-evaluating the left-
hand side until the desired level of convergence [161]. It should be
noted as a point of clarity that there are other so-called modied
CoatsRedfern methods in the literature, but they cannot be con-
sidered isoconversional because they still require the selection of
a reaction order. These alternative modied CoatsRedfern for-
mulations often involve a regression analysis of one or more of the
kinetic triplet parameters [162,163]. One such modied method
[163] reported errors for E
a
estimates that are an order of magni-
tude lower than those obtained from isoconversional techniques.
3.5. Comparative evaluation of integral and differential
isoconversional techniques
The advantages of the integral isoconversional methods are
tempered by several weaknesses not present in the differential
methods [164], viz.,
(1) Picard iteration [165] of the temperature integral is needed.
(2) Integral methods are prone to error accretion during such suc-
cessive approximations.
(3) The temperature integral requires boundary conditions which
are frequently ill-dened.
Flynn [62] remarked that use of . . .the mathematically
intractable temperature integral has often become a necessary evil
in the analysis of thermal analysis kinetics. To circumvent the
hazards posed by these oversimplied approximations, Vyazovkin
and Dollimore [166] introduced a non-linear isoconversional tech-
nique, known as the Vyazovkin (V) method, which uses a revised
expression for the temperature integral, p(x):
I(E
a
, T
) =
_
T
0
exp
_
E
a
RT
_
dT = p(x) (19)
The V method evaluates E
a
for a set of q experiments conducted
at different heating rates,
j
and
k
, where the subscripts j and k
denote the ordinal number of the experiment:
q
j=1
q
k / = j
k
I(E
a
, T
,j
)
j
I(E
a
, T
,k
)
= (E
a
) (20)
where I(E
a
,T
,j
) and I(E
a
,T
,k
) represent the temperature integral
p(x) corresponding to the heating rates
j
and
k
, respectively.
The apparent activation energy is given by the value that mini-
mizes . Values of I(E
a
,T
) can be determined via either numerical

integration or the SenumYang [167] approximation:
p(x) =
_
exp
x
x
__
(x
3
+18x
2
+88x +96)
(x
4
+20x
3
+120x
2
+240x +120)
_
(21)
Unfortunately, the constraints imposed by the mathematical con-
structs used in the standard integral isoconversional methods
(CR, FWO, and KAS) prevent a straightforward determination of
the remaining kinetic parameters, A and f() [40,105]. The fre-
quency factor obtained from standard isoconversional techniques
is tainted by association with the reaction model that must be
assumed to permit its calculation [40]. Flynn [164] developed a
general differential isoconversional method that allows A and f()
to be disconnected and evaluated independently. Another proce-
dure to unambiguously evaluate A was proposed by Vyazovkin and
Lesnikovich[168], whereina linear relationthat exists betweenthe
Arrhenius parameters is used to extract the frequency factor for a
given isoconversional value of E
a
:
lnA = aE
a
+b (22)
where a and b are correlation parameters that are evaluated using
linear regression. The use of this procedure, however, is not entirely
faultless because the linear correlation, known as the apparent
compensation effect, has been the recipient of rigorous criticism
as noted later in this paper.
All of the integral isoconversional methods (viz., CR, FWO,
KAS, and V) assume that the values of E
a
and A remain constant
throughout the reaction until the desired level of conversion, ,
is reached, making these techniques somewhat analogous to the
inexible global one-step models, which also assume an unchang-
ing E
a
for pyrolysis processes [105]. The supposition of constant
E
a
and A values is only possible when the Arrhenius parameters
are independent of the extent of reaction [140]. When E
a
depends
on , however, it was found that the use of integral isoconver-
sional methods can lead to systematic errors [139,140,169,170].
Li et al. [139,171] found that values of E
a
are consistently over-
estimated using integral isoconversional methods versus those
evaluated using Friedmans differential isoconversional method
because of error introduced by the truncation of the additional
higher-order terms in Doyles approximations, given by Eqs. (11)
and (13). Data provided by Budrugeac et al. [169] for the dehy-
dration of calcium oxalate indicates that E
a
values obtained from
integral methods can deviate by up to 21% fromvalues determined
by differential methods. In response, Vyazovkin [103] provided
a modication for the V isoconversional method that accounts
for the variation in apparent activation energy with increasing .
Instead of evaluating the temperature integral over the complete
boundary conditions (i.e., 0t
), the integration is now performed

numerically over small time increments using the trapezoidal rule,
which requires considerable more computational effort than the
SenumYang approximation [168]. In a rebuttal, Budrugeac and
Segal [172] remarked that the modication proposed by Vyazovkin
[103] using low ranges of variables is an artifact that in reality
conceals the true differential character of the method.
Differential isoconversional methods are not encumbered with
a temperature integral and thus kinetic parameters can be directly
calculated. Numerical differentiationof experimental data is highly
susceptive to data noise [43,173] and can result in signicant scat-
ter inthe resulting derivative curves. Widespreaduse of differential
techniques has also been inhibited because of the daunting cal-
culations involved [164]. The advent of powerful computational
tools [164,174176] coupled with the development of sophis-
ticated smoothing and tting functions [137,173,177180] has
helped to curtail some of these objections, although some resis-
tance yet remains among those who insist that integral methods
are a safer alternative [43] because differential methods still suf-
fer fromexcessive randomerrors [139], especially inthe vicinity of
the reaction onset and endpoint, where d/dt is often small [170].
Nonetheless, Burnhamand Dinh [105] recently indicated that if the
rate of data collection is sufciently high then the raw data can be
smoothed appreciably such that the vulnerabilities of the Fried-
man method to experimental noise can be effectively mitigated.
An examination by Burnham et al. of the predictive performance
of several isoconversional and model-tting techniques applied on
data sets fromthe ICTACkinetics project andother lifetime projects
revealed that the Friedman differential method was the most reli-
able and accurate method in all cases.
There are also some disadvantages that are common to all
model-free techniques. The use of the descriptor, model-free, is
deceptive [181] because it insinuates that awareness of the kinetic
model and, in particular, the conversion function f(), is superu-
ous information not needed in the kinetic analysis. An accurate
descriptionof kinetic behavior is not possible whenmembers of the
kinetic triplet are interpreted independently of one another [182].
Model-free methods simply postpone the consideration of an
appropriate conversion function until an estimate of the kinetic
parameters (i.e., E
a
and A) is calculated [181]. Furthermore, iso-
conversional methods are unsuitable for those reaction schemes
containing competing reactions, where the net rate of reaction
depends on changes in temperature, or concurrent reactions that
switch which reaction is rate-limiting over the experimental tem-
perature range [105].
It has also been cautioned that the selection of kinetic expres-
sions wherein f() is assumed to be a function of mass can be a
very poor choice because these models presume that the activ-
ity of every reactant particle is identical regardless of its location
in the substrate matrix (i.e., in the bulk or on the surface) [17].
In heterogeneous reactions this is seldom the case because sub-
stratereactivitycanvarydependingonthelocationof activesurface
sites, the partial pressure of the surrounding atmosphere, and
physical changes in the specimen that are temperature-dependent
phenomena (e.g., sintering, melting, and vitrication) [17,70,138].
According to Flynn [17], it is possible in certain solid state reactions
that the . . .crucial, rate-controlling event may be the occurrence of
the temperature-dependent physical transformation which is not
mass dependent.

Sestk and Berggren [15] succinctly conveyed
these concerns regarding proper selection of when he stated,
[DTA] is still of questionable validity, because a representative
value whichwould unambiguously dene the change inthe system
from the initial or from the nal state is not yet available. . ..
3.6. Other kinetic models
Kinetic models other than traditional reaction order models
have been proposed that ostensibly afford improved predictions
for biomass pyrolysis data. For example, an interesting deactiva-
tion theory was proposed by Balci et al. [183] that is based on
kinetic models typicallyappliedtowardcatalyst deactivation. Inthe
biomass deactivation model (DM), the rst order rate constant was
assumed to vary with the degree of decomposition due to changes
that occur inthechemical compositionandphysical structureof the
substrates during the pyrolysis process. Individual biomass com-
ponents degrade at different temperatures, demonstrating that the
compositionof thereactiveportionof thesubstrateis modieddur-
ing the reaction. Acombinationof alteredsolidgeometry, shrinking
volume, and changing pore structure during pyrolysis results in a
depletion of the active surface area. The deactivation of the solid
during pyrolysis by the aforementioned changes inuences the
apparent rate constant as shown below:
k
app
= zk = z()
_
A
i
exp
_
E
i
RT
__
(23)
where z is the activity of the solid substrate expressed as a func-
tion of a deactivation rate constant, , and k
app
is the apparent rate
constant.
Reynolds et al. [161,184,185] developed a generalized
nucleation-growth model, which is essentially a modication
of the ProutTompkins rate equation [186], rst used to describe
the thermal decomposition kinetics of potassium permanganate
[187]:
d
dt
= ky
n
(1 ry)
s
(24)
where y designates the remaining fraction of substrate, n is still the
reaction order, r is an initiation parameter frequently set to 0.99, s
is used as an adjustable nucleation parameter that can reduce Eq.
(24) toarst order reaction, andthequantityinparentheses (1ry)
replaces (1y) toprevent theinitial ratefrombeingzero[188]. This
model demonstrated a better t with experimental data than con-
ventional rst order models, yielding a much tighter degradation
curve [184].
The distributed activation energy model (DAEM) has been
successfully applied to both plant [91,117,189196] and fossil
[95,190,197202] biomass pyrolysis. The DAEM assumes that sev-
eral irreversible rst order parallel reactions having unique kinetic
parameters take place concurrently [202]. A continuous distribu-
tion function, f(E
a
), is used to represent the activation energies
from the various reactions. The distribution function is approx-
imated by a Gaussian distribution that yields a mean value and
standarddeviationof E
a
. Vrhegyi et al. [189] have assertedthat the
DAEMis thebest methodavailablefor mathematicallyrepresenting
the physical and chemical heterogeneity of substances. Miura and
Maki [203] proposed a revised distributed activation energy model
(DAEM) that provides a method for estimating the frequency factor
and f(E
a
) without requiring a priori assumptions of either kinetic
parameter. This method was used to successfully predict weight
loss curves from the pyrolysis of coal at different heating rates. Cai
and Liu [204] advocated the use of a Weibull distribution model
to t non-isothermal kinetic data. Under this approach, the kinetic
degradation for each biomass component is represented by one or
more Weibull distribution functions. This procedure allows over-
lapping processes in the TGA curve to be deconvoluted. The use of
this model requires estimation of the scale and shape parameters
that are unique to the Weibull distribution function.
The cacophonous debate over the relative merits of isothermal,
non-isothermal, andisoconversional methods cansometimes over-
arch the common thread among all these methods: the use of a
kinetic model that has been preordained by the scientic commu-
nity. A signicant liability can be incurred by simply consulting the
Table for the best model and expecting that it indeed is the
correct model. Galwey and Brown [13] commented that the for-
mal models in the accepted set [i.e., the Table] are far too simple
to account for all the features of real processes. Using a gener-
alized description of the kinetics involved in solid state reaction
systems offers thefreedomandexibilitytochoosethemost appro-
priate elements from the set of existing formal models in order to
best characterize the various aspects of the true process [13]. The
SestkBerggren (SB) equation [15], as shown below, was the rst

such generalized description:
d
dt
= k
c
(1 )
d
(ln(1 ))
e
(25)
where c, d, and e are adjustable exponent factors that can be used to
model the different aspects of solidstate reactions. The SBapproach
offers two distinct theoretical advantages [205]: (1) no implicit
assumptions are made concerning the mechanism governing the
solid state reaction and (2) no approximations or heavy-handed
mathematical intricacies are involved as the values of c, d, and e
canbe calculateddirectly using a matrix systemof linear equations.
Vyazovkin and Lesnikovich [206] acknowledged the importance of
the generalized description afforded by the SB equation, remark-
ing that . . .a comprehensive comparison of the [SB] approach
with other methods based on model discrimination has demon-
stratedits preferability. Other functions (e.g., polynomials, splines,
fractals, etc.) canalso be usedto provide a generalizedphenomeno-
logical description of the reaction, though incorporation of too
many adjustable parameters can be rather unwieldy and cause the
parameters to lose their physical connotation and become strictly
procedural factors [13,80].
4. Analysis of kinetic data obtained from various nutshells
The validity of kinetic parameters derived from thermo-
gravimetric data has become a topic fraught with controversy.
The substantial variation in apparent activation energies (i.e.,
11.2262kJ mol
1
) among different nutshells listed in Table 4
is representative of the differences found across the entire
biomass spectrum. Even narrowing the type of biomass to a
specic species does not necessarily correlate to a satisfactory
contraction in the range of E
a
values, as demonstrated by the val-
ues of E
a
for hazelnut shells (e.g., 40.3144.9kJ mol
1
), almond
shells (e.g., 11.2254.4kJ mol
1
), and cashew nut shells (e.g.,
130.2293.5kJ mol
1
) in Table 4. Accordingly, Wilson et al. [207]
aptly note in their recent publication about the thermal character-
ization of tropical biomass feedstocks that the marked variability
observed in the kinetic parameters of cashew nut shells is simply
a consequence of the geographical origin and specic nature of
given biomass materials. Besides the lack of parity in the kinetic
results, few trends are evident from Table 4 regarding the heat-
ing rate, the sample mass, or the kinetic model used. However, a
comparative plot of E
a
values for nutshells using various rst order,
single-step kinetic models, as shown in Fig. 1, does reveal that use
of the DM model generally results in lower apparent activation
energies than those obtained using the corresponding standard
Arrhenius kinetic model (SM). Specically the DM model yields
values of E
a
that are approximately 56% lower than those of the
SM model, with respect to almond [183,208] and hazelnut shells
[183,209,210], and about 31% lower than those given by the rst
order Friedman method in the case of peanut shells [52,183,211].
The E
a
values (78.9131.1kJ mol
1
) obtained by Bonelli et al. [211]
for hazelnut shells using the DM would appear to contradict the
previous ndings, yet the E
a
values reported by Demirbas s group
[209,210] for hazelnut shells may be uncharacteristically low as a
result of the probable heat and mass transfer limitations incurred
by the use of large sample sizes (2501000mg), which has been
observed to correspond with pronounced decreases in apparent
activation energy [212].
A conspicuous feature that is exposed by Table 4 concerns the
lower E
a
values obtained under isothermal, or static, conditions
for both almond and coconut shells. Closer examination of the
isothermal experiment [208] that recorded an overall E
a
value of
99.7kJ mol
1
for almondshells reveals that thereactionmodel used
in the kinetic analysis was a rst order, single-step SM. The E
a
value derived from this static experiment is 27% lower than the
average minimum E
a
value computed for almond shells whose
non-isothermal, or dynamic, reactions were modeled using an nth
order, parallel reaction SM [213,214], but this difference decreases
to just 6% when the latter group is replaced with almond shells
whose dynamic reactions were modeled using a rst order, paral-
lel reaction SM [216], which compares well with the 7% difference
obtained between the static and dynamic almond shell pyrolysis
experiments that were both evaluated using a rst order, single-
step SM [183,208]. In the case of coconut shells, there is a 67%
decrease in the E
a
values calculated for a non-isothermal study and
those for an isothermal study. Both studies were modeled using
parallel reactions with the salient exception that the dynamic test
employed the CR method, while the static test used the standard
SMmethod. Although some of the differences within the activation
energies reported for both almond and coconut shells in Table 4
J
.
E
.
W
h
i
t
e
e
t
a
l
.
/
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
P
y
r
o
l
y
s
i
s
9
1
(
2
0
1
1
)
1
3
3
1
1
Table 4
Kinetic parameters for thermal decomposition of various nutshell types.
Nutshell type Heating prole, rate (
Cmin
1
) Temp. range (
C) Sample mass (mg) Reaction scheme,

order and model
Ea (kJ mol
1
) Equipment Refs.
Almond shell Dynamic, 5100 RT850 NA
a
Single step
1st order DM
42.4 Netzch STA 429 [183]
Almond shell Dynamic, 5100 RT850 NA
a
Single step
1st order SM
92.9 Netzch STA 429 [183]
Almond shell Dynamic, 525 100550
b
5 2 parallel reactions
nth order SM
123.6199.6 Perkin-Elmer TGA7 [213]
Almond shell Dynamic, 2 100700 34 2 parallel reactions
nth order SM
nth order SM
nth order SM
nth order SM
nth order SM
Almond shell Static, 1.210
6
RT900
b
0.71 Serial dual step
1st order SM
11.270.1 Pyroprobe 100 [215]
Almond shell Static, 1.210
6
RT900
b
0.71 Single step
1st order SM
99.7 Pyroprobe 100 [208]
Almond shell Dynamic, 545 100800 <2
b
2 parallel reactions
1st order SM
112.0242.1 Mettler TG50 [216]
b
1st order SM
107.8243.3 Mettler TG50 [216]
b
1st order SM
106.2225.3 Mettler TG50 [216]
b
1st order SM
108.3229.1 Mettler TG50 [216]
b
1st order SM
104.5215.3 Mettler TG50 [216]
b
1st order SM
100.3203.6 Mettler TG50 [216]
Brazil nut shell Dynamic, 10100 RT900 10 Single step
1st order DM
47.282.0 Netzch STA 409 [217]
Cashew shell Dynamic, 550
c
RT110
110900
<15 2 parallel reactions
1st order CR
130.2174.4 Setaram 92 [110]
Cashew shell Dynamic, 10 RT1200 NA
a
Single step
1st order CR
293.5 Netzch STA 409
PC Luxx
[207]
Coconut shell Static, 13 250750 1000 2 parallel reactions
1st order SM
58.9114.8 Tube furnace [218]
Coconut shell Dynamic, 550
c
RT110
110900
<15 2 parallel reactions
1st order CR
179.6216.0 Setaram 92 [110]
1
2
J
.
E
.
W
h
i
t
e
e
t
a
l
.
/
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
P
y
r
o
l
y
s
i
s
9
1
(
2
0
1
1
)
1
3
3
Table 4 (Continued)
Nutshell type Heating prole, rate (
Cmin
1
) Temp. range (
C) Sample mass (mg) Reaction scheme,

order and model
Ea (kJ mol
1
) Equipment Refs.
Hazelnut shell Dynamic, 20 RT800 NA
a
Single step
1st order DM
40.3 Netzch STA 429 [183]
Hazelnut shell Dynamic, 20 RT800 NA
a
Single step
1st order SM
92.4 Netzch STA 429 [183]
Hazelnut shell Dynamic, 15 RT900 10 Single step
1st order DM
78.9131.1 Netzch STA 409 [211]
Hazelnut shell Dynamic, 10 RT500
b
1000 Single step
1st order SM
77.6123.3 Netzch 429/409 [209]
Hazelnut shell Dynamic, 120 150625 250 Single step
1st order SM
89.8128.6 Netzch 429/409 [210]
Hazelnut shell Dynamic, NA
a
RT475
b
1000 Single step
1st order SM
97.1144.9 Tube furnace [209]
Peanut shell Dynamic, 5100 RT400
b
NA
a
Single step
1st order Friedman
84.5 Seiko TG-DTA6200 [52]
Peanut shell Dynamic, 15 RT900 10 Single step
1st order DM
44.371.5 Netzch STA 409 [211]
Peanut shell Dynamic, 10 RT550 NA
a
Complex multi-step
nth order DAEM
150.0183.3 NA
a
[219]
Pistachio shell Dynamic, 520 RT800 20 Serial dual step
1st order CR
124149 Shimadzu TGA-50 [8]
1st order FWO
3/2 order CR
3/2 order FWO
Walnut shell Dynamic, 540 RT550 2 Serial dual step
1st order SM
120.2154.4 Perkin-Elmer Pyris 1 [220]
a
NA, data not available.
b
Estimated or inferred value.
c
10
Cmin
1
to 110
C, isothermal hold 110
C for 10min; non-isothermal to 900
C, isothermal hold 900
C for 10min.
Fig. 1. Comparison of apparent activation energies for nutshells evaluated using various 1st order, single-step kinetic models, including the biomass deactivation model
(DM), the standard kinetic model (SM), and the Friedman model.
may be attributable to dissimilarities in the thermal characteris-
tics of the experiments themselves (i.e., static versus dynamic), it
would appear from the preceding analysis that the nature of the
kinetic approach used to model the reactions also has a substantive
impact on the activation energy and should, therefore, not be dis-
counted. This latter observationis further borne out if the results for
cashewnut shells in Table 4 are evaluated [110,207]. In both cases,
the experiments were conducted under non-isothermal conditions
andmodeledusing rst order CRkinetics. The onlymajor difference
is that one labgroupuseda parallel reactionscheme [110], whereas
the other scientic team used a single-step format [207]. Accord-
ingly, the minimumE
a
value obtainedusing the single-stepmethod
is 56% lower than the E
a
value realized using the parallel reaction
scheme.
The effect of heating rate on E
a
for non-isothermal almond
shell pyrolysis [214,216] modeledusingtwoconcurrent reactions is
depictedinFig. 2. ThemaximumE
a
valuefor therst order reactions
declines 16% when the heating rate is increased from5
Cmin
1
to
40
Cmin
1
, while the minimum E
a
value for rst order reactions
decreases 10% over the same heating rate increase. Interestingly,
the minimum E
a
value for nth order reactions rises 21% when the
heating rate is increased from 2
Cmin
1
to 25
Cmin
1
. A his-
togram illustrating the effects of particle size on E
a
is presented
in Fig. 3. A reduction in the particle size range of pistachio shells
[8] from 0.2500.600mm to 0.0710.125mm decreases the aver-
Fig. 2. Comparison of apparent activation energies for almond shells at different
heating rates using parallel reaction models of either 1st order or nth order.
Fig. 3. Comparisonof apparent activationenergyvalues obtainedfor pistachioshells
for various particle sizes using two-step sequential CR and FWO models.
age value of E
a
by 10% and 20% for the CR and the FWO models,
respectively. This result serves to reafrm the theory that larger
particles require a higher level of energy to react because they are
more prone to transport limitations. Fig. 3 also depicts that the CR
model consistently returns higher E
a
values than the FWO model.
Taken collectively, the data from Figs. 13 indicate that there is
a strong correlation between the kinetic model that is chosen to
evaluate E
a
and the resulting value. Another probable source of
variance in the presented nutshell data might be a result of changes
in major reaction mechanisms occurring at different temperatures.
The differences in lignocellulosic composition of the various nut-
shell types, as shown in Table 5, are also a possible factor behind
the inconsistent E
a
values. In the case of heterogeneous thermal
reactions, the measured kinetic data are . . .primarily inuenced
by the experimental conditions and not the reaction itself. There-
fore, a change in experimental factors makes the interpretation of
the estimated parameters impossible [221]. In light of this, the
unpredictability of the results provided in Table 4 illustrates the
frustrating inability to use kinetic parameters for anything other
than providing local comparisons of the thermal stability of iden-
tical processes.
5. Biomass thermal decomposition mechanisms
In addition to the large assortment of kinetic models available
for biomass pyrolysis, the literature contains a diverse set of possi-
ble decomposition pathways. It is generally accepted that biomass
Table 5
Lignocellulosic composition of various nutshell types (dry wt% basis).
Nutshell type Cellulose Hemicelluloses Lignin
Almond shell
a
[214] 31.1 38.0 27.7
Almond shell
a
[222] 37.4 31.2 27.5
Almond shell
a
[223] 50.7 28.9 20.4
Almond shell
b
[224] 24.7 27.0 27.2
Brazil nut shell
a
[217] 48.5
c
59.4
Coconut shell [225] 35.0 29.0 28.0
Coconut shell
b
[224] 24.2 24.7 34.9
Hazelnut shell
a
[209] 25.9 28.7 44.4
Hazelnut shell
a
[223] 26.8 30.4 42.9
Macadamia nut shell
b
[224] 26.9 17.8 40.1
Peanut shell [226] 36.6 19.4 33.4
Peanut shell [52] 35.7 18.7 30.2
Pecan shell
b
[224] 5.6 3.8 70.0
Pistachio shell [227] 60.6 NA 20.8
Walnut shell
a
[223] 25.6 22.1 52.3
Walnut shell
b
[224] 21.0 18.8 32.7
a
Dry ash free basis.
b
Calculated using the following formulas: % cellulose =0.9 (% glucose) and % hemicellulose =0.9 (% galactose +% mannose) +0.88 (% xylose +% arabinose).
c
Value reported is for holocellulose which is the term used to indicate the total fraction of plant material left after removal of lignin.
pyrolysis proceeds via the following primary transformations: ini-
tiallyfree moisture inthe solidevaporates, followedbydegradation
of the more unstable polymers, and, nally, with increasing tem-
perature the more refractory components begin to decompose and
volatiles are released from the substrate matrix [228,229]. Solid
char residue that is formed during the primary decomposition
phase, i.e., 200400
C, slowly undergoes aromatization in a sec-

ondary pyrolysis stage that takes place at temperatures in excess of
400
C [229]. Apart from the broad scheme presented above, there

is little consensus on the mechanisms behind the pyrolysis process.
Perhaps this is in no small part because there has been little real
progress towards understanding the chemistry of these solid state
reactions [230]. Incidentally, it is appropriate to comment here
regarding the agrant misuse of the term mechanism in biomass
pyrolysis literature. Frequently, mechanism is used interchange-
ably with model to denote the characterization of the kinetic
rate equation for a given decomposition reaction [230]. It would be
advisable to reserve the use of mechanism for its traditional pur-
pose of describing the detailed sequence of physicochemical steps
involved in the process of transforming reactants into products.
Cellulosic decomposition is believed to proceed primarily by
two separate routes that are dependent on the reaction tem-
perature [9,231,232]. The rst route predominates at lower
temperatures (<280
C) and involves reactions that lower the DP

via bond scission, dehydration, free radical formation, creation
of oxygenated moieties (e.g., carbonyls, carboxyls, and perox-
ides), evolution of CO and CO
2
, and ultimately the production of
carbonaceous residues. At higher temperatures (280500
C) cellu-
lose degradation follows a different pathway. In this temperature
region, depolymerization reactions associated with the cleavage
of glycosidic bonds prevail and yield a tarry pyrolyzate contain-
ing levoglucosan, other anhydrosugars, oligosaccharides, and some
glucose decomposition products [9,233]. A possible third route
employing ash pyrolysis at even higher temperatures (>500
C)
could involve the direct conversion of cellulose to low molecular
weight gases and volatiles via ssion, disproportionation, dehydra-
tion, and decarboxylation reactions [9]. The DP, crystallinity, and
crystallite orientationof cellulose bers inlignocellulosic materials
have been proposed as fundamental factors that regulate thermal
decomposition behavior [234,235].
The seminal predictive mechanismfor cellulose pyrolysis kinet-
ics, which was developed during the mid 1960s to mid 1970s by
Broido and his colleagues [231,236238], involved a competitive,
multi-step reaction sequence, as shown in Scheme 1. In Scheme 1,
a stable form of cellulose is converted to a more reactive cellulose
Cellulose Active Cellulose
C
A
+vols. C
B
+vols. C
C
+vols.
Volatile tars
k
i
k
v
k
cA
k
cB
k
cC
Scheme 1. Broido mechanism, where C
A
, CB, and C
C
denote successive fractions of
chars A, B, and C, respectively, that are produced along with accompanying volatiles
formation.
(i.e., labeled active cellulose) at elevated temperatures, with rate
constant k
i
. The active cellulose can then degrade thermally by
two parallel routes, forming either volatiles with no char, or pro-
ceeding via a sequence of serial reactions to form chars C
A
, C
B
, and
C
C
and accompanying volatiles.
In 1979, Shazadeh [239] modied the Broido model slightly by
neglecting the secondary reactions inthe char andgas product. This
proposed model, nowknown as the BroidoShazadeh (BS) model
(Scheme 2), has become widely cited in biomass pyrolysis and gasi-
cation literature [92,134,174,240246]. Although the validity of
this model has also been frequently assailed [6,92,241,247249],
there appears to be consensus that the main features of the BS
model are serviceable. Specically, it is widely acknowledged that
pyrolysis consists of primaryinitiationandfragmentationreactions
followed by secondary cracking reactions of volatiles [250]. Con-
versely, the chief criticism regards the inclusion of the zero-order
initiation step at low temperatures (<300
C) to convert cellulose
from an inactive to an active stage. Once cellulose is converted
from an inactive to an active state, pyrolysis is then able to
proceed at higher temperatures. It is likely that this initiation step
was included because several cellulose pyrolysis studies produced
results suggesting the initial stage of pyrolysis did not followa rst
order reaction law. The initiation step is sometimes described as
a depolymerization process because the DP of the starting, native
cellulose typically has a value of around 2500, whereas the DP for
active cellulose is generally below 200 [251,252]. According to
the BS model the initiation step requires a high apparent activa-
tion energy (242.7kJ mol
1
), yet only a 36% mass loss is observed
during this period [251,252]. It has been shown that the rate of cel-
Scheme 2. BroidoShazadeh mechanism.
lulose pyrolysis can be inuenced by several structural elements,
including the DP, crystallinity, orientation, and accessibility of the
sample [234,251,253].
The thermal decomposition behavior of plant biomass fre-
quently is assumed to be approximated by the sum of the
contributions of the respective components [2,6,92,119,254258].
Thermogravimetric (TG) curves for biomass pyrolysis data conrm
that the pyrolysis rate is related to the biomass composition. The
pyrolysis curves of biomass species closely trace the decomposi-
tion curves of their dominant lignocellulosic constituents; hence,
the curves of primarily cellulosic biomass share resemble those
of pure cellulose, while degradation curves for biomass with high
lignin contents are similar to those of lignin standards [118]. The
order of decomposition of the biomass components is a function
of their intrinsic reactivity [259]; hence, the typical sequence in
which biomass degrades is given here: extractives, hemicellulose,
cellulose, and nally, ash. Notably, lignin was excluded from the
preceding sequence because lignin begins to decompose beginning
at temperatures that are equivalent to those seen for hemicellulose
degradation and continues to degrade slowly over a very broad
temperature range [260]. Typically, the rate of biomass pyrolysis
is controlled by the rate of cellulose degradation which is subject
to autocatalytic effects [19].
The composition of lignin varies intrinsically according to its
source and the manner in which it is extracted [261]. The complex
hydrogen-bonding network present within lignin [262] serves as
a rigid structural lattice that is resistant to thermal decomposition
(i.e., tends to char more than less stable cellulose or hemicellu-
lose) [263265]. Although there typically is no discernible peak
assignable to lignin degradation because of its slow decomposi-
tion over a broad temperature span [241,257], the wide, oblique
tailing that follows the cellulose peak in DTG diagrams is sugges-
tive of lignindegradation[49,266]. It has beennoted that this broad
tailing baseline appears to be a prolongation of the rst peak corre-
sponding to hemicellulose degradation [214], suggesting that the
thermal decomposition of lignin may occur simultaneously with
that of hemicellulose. Some researchers have been able to over-
come the challenges of delineating the boundaries of this poorly
dened lignin degradation zone, or fourth lump, by deconvolut-
ing the TG curve through second-order differentiation techniques.
Using real-time molecular-beam, mass spectrometry (MS) Evans
and Milne [267] were able to monitor the chronological evolution
of primary pyrolysis oils from different biomass substrates under
both slow and rapid heating settings. Primary pyrolysis oils are
those that have not been subjected to temperatures (>600
C) and
residence times (>1s) that would promote secondary gas-phase
cracking reactions. Mass spectra revealed that primary pyrolysis
oil composition was not signicantly affected by changes in the
heating rate of the wood substrate. The mass spectra from sweet
gumrevealedthat products containing hardwoodligninmonomers
were generated early and in high abundance. The earliest pyrolysis
product toformwas coniferyl alcohol at a mass tocharge (m/z) peak
of 180amu. This was followed by a derivative of hemicellulose (3-
hydroxy-2-penteno-1,5-lactone) at m/z 114amu. Aspecies derived
from cellulose (CH
3
O
+
) evolved next at m/z 43amu and a lignin-
derived product (methylguaiacol) at m/z 138amu eluted last [266].
Lignin peaks were observed to evolve sequentially over the dura-
tionof the pyrolysis suggesting that lignindecompositioncoincides
not only with the degradation of hemicellulose, but also cellulose.
A separate study [268] has found substantial interactions between
cellulose and lignin during pyrolysis at high temperatures (800
C).
The presence of cellulose promoted the formation of guaiacol, 4-
methylguaiacol, and 4-vinylguaiacol but curtailed char production
fromsecondary cracking reactions. The presence of ligninwas asso-
ciated with increased production of levoglucosan, glycoaldehyde,
and hydroxyacetone from cellulose and reduced char formation.
These ndings would appear to contradict the earlier postulate
[2,6,92,119,254258] that suggests the pyrolysis of lignocellulosic
materials consists of three independent decomposition reactions,
each involving a major pseudo-component: cellulose, hemicellu-
lose, and lignin.
The temperature regime giving the most rapid decomposition
rates is aptly designated the active pyrolysis zone, or sometimes,
primary pyrolysis region [269]. The active pyrolysis zone can vary
depending upon the heating rate applied in the thermal analy-
sis and the type of biomass being investigated. Though there is
disagreement on the exact temperature boundaries of the active
pyrolysis zone, it is generally accepted to be in the range of
200400
C for lignocellulosic biomass substrates [229]: 95% of the

weight loss from devolatilization occurs in this temperature band.
Lignocellulosic biomass is thought to be stable until 200
C, with
minor mass losses associated with the removal of moisture and the
hydrolysis of some extractives [54]. TGA data has revealed that the
degradation of the principal lignocellulosic components can be cat-
egorized into discrete temperature ranges [191,254]. This indicates
that a key step in the reaction mechanism of the primary biomass
components occurs at some critical transition temperature, T
c
, dur-
ing thermal decomposition.
6. Inuence of experimental conditions on biomass
reaction kinetics
Seemingly slight differences in certain process variables along
with heat and mass transport limitations can have signicant
impacts on the nature and rates of lignocellulosic decomposi-
tion reactions [259]. Experimentally derived kinetic parameters
are affected by reaction conditions, including temperature, heat-
ing rate, residence time (i.e., for solids and volatiles), particle
size, pressure, gaseous atmosphere, and the presence of inorganic
mineral content within the biomass material [85,229]. From the
observation that the amount of char produced in cellulose pyroly-
sis varies proportionally with sample size and reaction pressure,
it was inferred that the residence time of the volatiles in the
biomass matrix during pyrolysis is instrumental in determining
the extent of char formation [239,270]. Extended residence times
for the volatile components can promote secondary reactions (e.g.,
cracking, cross-linking, and repolymerization) that lead to more
char formation. Conversely, the yield of volatiles can be adversely
impacted if the residence time of various autocatalytic volatile
species in the biomass substrate is too brief. Lewellen et al. [270]
demonstrated that char formation can be nearly eliminated at very
short residence times (i.e., 0.230s) given appropriate selection of
the operational temperature and heating rate. Cognizance of the
prominent role played by the residence time of volatiles within the
pyrolyzing biomass matrix foreshadowed the importance of dif-
fusional constraints upon biomass kinetics because the residence
time of volatile vapors inthe biomass matrix depends onthe nature
of heat and mass transfer through the substrate.
6.1. Heat and mass transport models
Internal and external heat and mass transport limitations often
play a pivotal role in inuencing biomass pyrolysis kinetics and
yields. Bamford et al. [271] developed the rst kinetic model to
account for heat conduction and generation in pyrolytic reactions.
Kung [272] explored the dependence of weight loss rates on the
thermal conductivity of char. Through the use of dimensionless
groups, Pyle and Zaror [273] were able to validate whether pyroly-
sis reactions arecontrolledbykinetic processes or heat transfer (i.e.,
either external or internal). Chanet al. [130] extendedthe function-
ality of heat and mass transport models by considering a lumped
scheme and also by avoiding the necessity of having to assume nal
char values. Alves and Figueiredo [274] provided a useful mathe-
matical model for the pyrolysis of wet wood. These earlier models
provided satisfactory assessments of the heat and mass transfer
limitations in pyrolytic reactions and the hallmark common to all
was their pragmatic approach, which lends itself well for possible
implementation in an industrial environment. Since then, many
studies [275289] have developed sophisticated kinetic models for
biomass pyrolysis that incorporate various elements of transport
phenomena. Generally these increasingly complex kinetics mod-
els are used to describe the pyrolysis of a single biomass particle
and are contingent upon several assumptions. Although some of
these transport models have been validated using simulated or
empirical data, it is unlikely that such complicated models will be
of practical use in industrial applications [290]. The environment in
actual pyrolytic systems is far from any normative standard used
in such models and the conditions experienced by one particle
may be wildly different than those experienced by an adjacent
particle, let alone the substrate bulk. Furthermore, in real ther-
mal decomposition processes there are numerous factors that may
inuence the rate of reactionthat are oftenomittedfromsuchmod-
els (i.e., lattice defects, impurities, melting, sintering, weak bonds,
mechanical strain, catalytic effects from metal reaction vessels,
and ambient or evolved gases that may interact with the reactant
or product) [13,291]. The validity of these models can also suf-
fer from the erroneous assumption that the particles in the bulk
are entirely uniform and thus neglect the inuence of particle-size
effects [13]. This is impracticable when dealing with lignocellu-
losic matter, whose constituent particles can have not only a range
of sizes and shapes but also different chemical compositions and
reactivities. Aconclusion drawn by Garn [70] is apropos here, Lim-
itingthediffusionmodels tocollections withuniformgeometryand
size is not productive: it divorces the computation from reality.
Simple or uniform geometries are seldom encountered in prac-
tice, and should not be accepted even as approximations without
experimental evidence.
6.2. Heating rate and particle size effects
The dependence of biomass pyrolysis kinetics on heating rate is
still unresolved, withsome evidence supporting the notionthat the
use of different heating rates during biomass pyrolysis has minimal
impact onthe frequency factor [191], and other data indicating that
biomass conversion reactions are kinetically slower at higher heat-
ingrates [134,241,292]. Suuberget al. [293] hypothesizedthat mass
transport limitations become increasingly inuential as the heat-
ing rate increases during rapid cellulose pyrolysis. The evaporative
escape of tars from the substrate matrix via diffusive processes or
convective ow was proposed as the primary weight loss route.
This result has been corroborated by recent research at Philip
Morris that employed EGA-FTIR [233,294]. Milosavljevic and Suu-
berg [292] observed that a shift in the mechanism of cellulose
pyrolysis occurs at 327
C when heating rates above 10
Cmin
1
are used, such that a relatively low apparent activation energies
(140155kJ mol
1
) are obtained above this temperature. Below
this temperature threshold at lower heating rates, Milosavljevic
et al. reported that the pyrolytic weight loss of cellulose was char-
acterized by a high apparent activation energy (218kJ mol
1
).
It has been established that high heating rates signicantly
lower char yields when compared with slower heating rates
[108,295]. A study involving rapeseed revealed that the total quan-
tity of substrate that was decomposed decreased when the heating
rate was increased, but the loss was more pronounced when the
heating rate was changed from 25 to 50
Cmin
1
(4.8wt%) than it
was changed from 50 to 100
Cmin
1
(1.9wt%). It was speculated
that the increased heating rate allowed ample time for the comple-
tion of thermal degradation reactions. Grnli et al. [296] observed
that the apparent activation energy of cellulose (242kJ mol
1
at
5
Cmin
1
) decreased with increased heating rate (222kJ mol
1
at
40
Cmin
1
). It has beensuggestedthat inter-particlediffusionlim-
itations are accentuated at increased heating rates, thereby leading
to reduced kinetic rates [293]. Studies of cellulose pyrolyzed at
15
Cmin
1
and 60
Cmin
1
yielded an apparent activation energy
of 140kJ mol
1
, a value which is similar to the latent heat of
vaporization of fresh cellulose tar (141kJ mol
1
) [293]. Pyrolysis of
mustard straw and stalk under a nitrogen atmosphere at different
heating rates gave further evidence that the heating rate can inu-
ence reaction kinetics [297]. The reaction order was observed to
be higher at lower heating rates, which may imply the occurrence
of complex, concurrent reactions. Nassar [298] noticed the exis-
tence of a transition temperature corresponding to 360
C, based
on changes measured in the apparent activation energy of sugar-
cane bagasse pyrolyzed in air. Bagasse in the slow decomposition
regime below this temperature had an E
a
value of 139.7kJ mol
1
,
while in the exothermic zone above this temperature bagasse had
an E
a
value of 76.6kJ mol
1
.
In general, the solid-state kinetic theory involves the assump-
tion that solid materials are at uniform temperatures during
pyrolytic decomposition. However, the poor thermal conductiv-
ity exhibited by lignocellulosic substances impedes heat transfer
within biomass particles and can result in a particle tempera-
ture gradient. As heating rates increase, the temperature gradient
within the biomass particle increases, elevating the minimumtem-
perature by which the pyrolysis process may progress [52]. The
kinetic rate of biomass decomposition eventually surpasses the
associated heat transfer rate as the reaction temperature rises.
At some point the biomass degradation kinetics will be restricted
by heat transfer limitations and kinetic analysis then requires a
transport model for the system [299]. The regime in which this
crossover occurs (i.e., between kinetically driven rates and heat
transfer regulated rates) is dependent upon the biomass particle
dimension, making the use of relatively small particles absolutely
imperative for the validity of the aforesaid uniform biomass tem-
perature assumption. It has been reported [299] that the thermal
decomposition of biomass materials with particle thicknesses up
to 0.2mm may be kinetically evaluated up to about 450500
C
without accounting for internal heat transport restrictions. Lower
temperature thresholds, however, apply if the rate of external heat
transfer to the particle surface is sufciently slow. Coincidentally,
most of the biomass pyrolysis conversion is completed in this
temperature range, which implies that conclusions derived from
previous kinetic studies conducted at or below this temperature
zone are not affected by transport limitation inaccuracies. Detailed
mathematical kinetic models have been developed to describe
larger biomass particles up to 2cm in dimension [279,300,301].
6.3. Signicance of surrounding atmosphere
The ambient gas atmosphere in the reaction system can have
a substantial impact on the behavior of biomass thermal decom-
position. It has long been known that the thermal degradation of
wood is greater in the presence of air than in a vacuum [302].
Thermal degradation in air has been shown to lower the active
pyrolysis temperature and boost the combustion of chars at higher
temperatures [4]. Roque-Diaz et al. [303] noticed that the ther-
mal decomposition of sugarcane bagasse was more active in an
oxidative environment than in an inert atmosphere. In this study,
the activation energy of bagasse in air between 170 and 250
C
was 1429% higher than it was in helium for the corresponding
temperature region (see Tables 8 and 9). The greater produc-
tion of char in the presence of air supports the observation of
Mamleev et al. [244] that oxygen interacts vigorously with the
products derived from the thermal depolymerization of cellulose.
Reduced tar production from biomass pyrolyzed in air can be
explained by returning to the reaction interface of the biomass
substrate. It is conceivable that the cellulose structure, which is
chemically resilient to the penetration of even the most aggressive
chemical agents (e.g., H
2
SO
4
), is equally inaccessible for oxygen
diffusion; hence, only the surface of the cellulose is available for
oxidation.
6.4. Catalytic effect of inorganic material
The inorganic mineral matter present in biomass has previously
been found to catalytically promote char-forming secondary tar-
cracking reactions while concomitantly suppressing additional tar
formation [304]. Mller-Hagedorn et al. [305] found that alkaline
metal chlorides can substantially lower the pyrolysis temperature
of biomass. Anion type was also observed to affect the pyroly-
sis temperature, as given in order of decreasing inuence by the
following list: chlorides >sulfates >bicarbonates. The presence of
even trace levels (e.g., 0.1wt% NaCl) of mineral matter in biomass
can alter pyrolysis behavior appreciably [92,306]. The pyrolysis
rate, tar yield, and initial degradation temperature are all observed
to increase with decreasing mineral content [306]. For instance,
wood (e.g., 1wt% [average] ash) undergoes more rapid thermal
degradation than bagasse (e.g., 4wt% ash) because of the lower
mineral content in wood [307]. Broido [308] discovered that cel-
lulose pyrolysis was affected by the addition of as little as 0.15wt%
potassium carbonate. Tang [309] detected that the reaction rate
for wood pyrolysis jumped by two orders of magnitude when
2wt% monobasic ammonium phosphate was added. Exceptions
to this rule include species that have high lignin contents cou-
pled with high potassium levels (e.g., rice husks, ground nutshells,
and coir pith). Lignin is known to be intractable in pyrolytic
processes [309,310] and potassium strongly promotes char gasi-
cation [306]. Nassar [298] concluded that the presence of alkaline
salts in biomass (i.e., rice straw and bagasse), whether added
or innate, acts to lower the apparent activation energy of ther-
mal reactions and promote the formation of char. Vrhegyi et al.
[311] treated sugarcane bagasse samples with dilute inorganic
salt solutions (i.e., MgCl
2
, NaCl, FeSO
4
, and ZnCl
2
). Treated and
untreated samples were then thermally decomposed and the evo-
lution of low molecular weight products was evaluated using MS.
The treated samples had higher char yields than the untreated
samples, except in the case of MgCl
2
for which there was no sig-
nicant difference. The increased char production was attributed
to the alteration of reaction pathways by the salts. The MS inten-
sities of all the catalytically treated samples were lower than
those of the untreated samples, suggesting that the presence of
inorganic additives suppresses the secondary cracking of high
molecular weight primary products. It was speculated that inor-
ganic salts cause the brous structure of the bagasse to expand,
thereby assisting the release of vapors fromthe solidmatrix. Wash-
ing experimental samples with water before has been shown to
eliminate much of the mineral salt content present in the native
biomass [305]. Removal of the catalytically active mineral mat-
ter via washing has been linked with a corresponding increase in
the apparent activation energy of biomass. Teng and Wei [312]
compared the kinetic data from pyrolysis experiments that uti-
lized both water-washed rice hulls (i.e., 80
C water for 2h) and

unwashed rice hulls. The main lignocellulosic components in the
washed rice hulls displayed higher peak pyrolysis temperatures
and activation energies than the untreated rice hulls. Further-
more, the washed rice hulls also had higher volatile and lower
char yields, which were ascribed to the loss of hydrocarbon moi-
eties capable of promoting cross-linking reactions that foster char
production.
7. Variations in kinetic data
7.1. Systematic errors
Systematic errors are presumed responsible for much of the
scatter present in published values of the kinetic triplet. The pres-
ence of unrecognized secondary reactions coupled with the highly
disparate chemical composition of biomass materials immediately
draws attentionto mechanistic inadequacies, whichare usually the
chief source of systematic errors [63]. Lack of a standard procedure
that establishes rigid criteria for evaluating the endpoint of pyrol-
ysis reactions has introduced further discrepancy into the derived
kinetic parameters. Some laboratories take the nal substrate mass,
w
f
, to be the remaining ash content after the entire reaction, while
other laboratories deem the nal substrate mass to be the mass
remaining after the rapid pyrolysis zone. Inconsistencies in the
denition of w
f
have doubtlessly introduced further scatter in the
published kinetic data. There is also a fundamental awinherent to
the differential isoconversional methods that have been customar-
ily used to evaluate kinetic data collected by non-isothermal TGA.
Temperature values for given degrees of conversion are necessar-
ily obtained by nonlinear interpolation of the conversion data and
conversion rates must be extracted via numerical differentiation of
the experimental results. Both of these techniques are extremely
sensitive to experimental noise and slight systematic inaccuracies
in this data can be grossly amplied in the corresponding differen-
tial conversion rates [173]. One approach to solve the systematic
errors related to noise in the data is to apply generalized functions
that will provide a better t to the experimental conversion data
than the traditional Arrhenius rate expression.
7.2. Temperature gradients
In thermal kinetic measurements, systematic errors may arise
not only from methodological errors or mechanistic inaccuracies
but also from fundamental instrumental shortcomings. Flynn [17]
commentedthat temperature imprecisionis probably the greatest
sourceof error inthermal analysis experiments. It has beenposited
that the reduction in apparent activation energy and frequency fac-
tor values that occurs during rapid pyrolysis may be the result of
unfullled heat requirements [313]. During the highly endother-
mic cellulosic devolatilization, the demandfor heat by the chemical
reaction and the endothermic pyrolysis reaction overwhelms the
nite heat supply which results in a phenomenon wherein the pro-
cess temperatureremains almost constant throughout thereaction.
Consequently, thermal equilibriumbetween the biomass substrate
and the heating apparatus may not be realized at all experimen-
tal conditions, especially if heat transfer characteristics between
them are poor, in which case there will be a large temperature
gradient between the sample and the thermobalance. In turn, this
thermal lag can cause substantial errors if the researcher simply
assumes that the sample realized the same temperature as the
thermobalance furnace. Indeed, Sharp [27] remarked that tem-
perature gradients of 5
C are unavoidable, 10
C are common, and

20
C, or even more, not unknown. Samples that have a variable

temperature distribution will not react uniformly and the kinetic
data generated from such processes may not only be meaningless
but also can be misleading [27].
7.3. Temperature lag
Because the size of the sample had long ago been implicated as
a crucial factor in determining the magnitude of the temperature
gradient, it was recommended that sample size be kept as small
as possible [212]. The use of small sample sizes in thermoanalyt-
ical studies, however, prevents the placement of thermocouples
in direct contact with samples, effectively requiring thermocouple
tips to be positioned proximally to the sample in order to estimate
sample temperature [313]. This inability to accurately measure the
sample temperature results in conventional thermocouple thermal
lag, which is the difference between the true sample tempera-
ture and an externally measured sample temperature. Thermal lag
was identied by Antal et al. [125] as an insidious agent persis-
tently lurking within thermogravimetric studies [86]. Antal et al.
[314] discovered as much as a 25
C temperature difference when

thermocouple position in the thermal analyzer was switched from
an upstream to a downstream position relative to the sample.
Variations in the temperature measurements among the different
thermobalances utilized by laboratory researchers were isolated in
a round-robin study as a likely source of the signicant variation in
biomass kinetic data [296]. The threat of instrumental error arising
from thermal lag is so acute that the architect of the round-robin
study advised that the resulting paper [296] was the single most
important paper ever written on thermogravimetry as applied to
biomass and that it is due to these instrumental limitations that
researchers now favor model-free approaches [315].
Although it is common for small samples to be employed in
TGA, their use can give rise to the aforementioned thermal lag
effect and its deleterious consequences. Milligram-size samples
are commonly used in thermogravimetry to combat the inuence
of transport phenomena, yet experimental results have shown
that even very small samples (e.g., less than 1mg) still experi-
ence diffusional effects [316]. Additionally, the surface to bulk
ratio increases with decreasing sample size so that the impor-
tance of surface reactions in small sample sizes is often magnied
at the expense of underlying rate-controlling processes. Thus, the
kinetic data obtained from thermal studies involving small sam-
ple sizes often provides an unsatisfactory correlation with large
industrial processes [316]. The needs of both the scientic and
industrial community would be better served if the thermogravi-
metric characterization of biomass substrates were performed
across a continuum of sample sizes, ranging from a single-crystal
layer to large gram-size samples.
7.4. Kinetic compensation effect
In biomass pyrolysis the apparent activation energy has fre-
quently been observed to increase with the frequency factor. As
early as 1980, Chornet and Roy [317] commented that a kinetic
compensationeffect (KCE) exists inthe pyrolysis of various biomass
materials such that there is a denite linear correlation between
the variables lnA and E
a
. According to the (KCE), any alteration in
experimental conditions that impels E
a
to change will also prompt
a complementary compensating response in A. A group of reac-
tions that demonstrates a linear t of lnA and E
a
values is known as
compensation set. It is claimed that reactions within a given com-
pensation set exhibit unique properties, including shared chemical
characteristics and the existence of an isokinetic temperature, T
i
,
at which all reactions advance at the same rate, k
i
[318]. The linear
relationbetweenlnAandE
a
is derivedfromthe Arrhenius equation
and is provided below:
lnA = lnk
iso
+
E
a
RT
iso
(26)
Although several theories have been expounded that impart
either a mathematical or physicochemical explanation for the
appearance of such compensating behavior [319323], the valid-
ity and physical relevance of the KCE are a source of contentious
debate amongst the scientic community [318,324]. Much of the
skepticism regarding the KCE has arisen because a satisfactory
mechanistic interpretation of such compensation behavior has not
yet beenestablished[325,326]. Indeed, it has beenassertedthat the
presence of a KCE when studying identical specimens under the
same conditions must be a false effect and either the result of scat-
ter of the experimental data, misapplication of kinetics equations,
or errors in the experimental procedures [17].
A possible explanation for the KCE arises from the inevitable
scatter of lnAandE
a
/Rvalues, whichoccurs whenthermoanalytical
data is collected over narrow bands of rate and temperature [17].
Agrawal [28] concluded that the compensation behavior for the
pyrolysis of cellulosic materials reported by Chornet and Roy [317]
is primarily due to inaccurate temperature measurement and large
temperature gradients within the sample. Further experimental
work by Narayan and Antal [313] revealed that values of E
a
and
logA monotonically decrease with increasing thermal lag in such a
fashion that the ratio E
a
/logA remains nearly unchanged. Besides
the existence of experimental inaccuracies, computational errors
andinappropriateconversionfunctionselectionarealsocommonly
cited as important causal factors behind the KCE [327].
Garn [328] submitted another viable justication for the occur-
rence of the KCE in solid state reactions explaining that the KCE
is mathematically inevitable because of the reciprocal relation-
ship between A and exp(E
a
/RT) in the Arrhenius expression. Any
change in one of these calculated quantities necessarily demands
a compensatory change in the other. Given that the temperature
range over which most reactions are studied is so narrow that T
maybeconsideredessentiallyconstant andthat measuredratecon-
stants generally remain within two to three orders of magnitude in
contrast to calculated pre-exponential terms which vary by twenty
or more orders of magnitude, Garn contends that the ensuing lin-
ear relationshipbetweenlnAandE
a
is but a foregone mathematical
conclusion.
Reports abound in thermal analysis literature regarding obser-
vations of an experimental KCE, whose existence is often
substantiated solely by correlating lnA with E
a
. Unfortunately, the
veracity of an experimental KCE is rarely transparent from plots of
lnA versus E
a
because, as Agrawal [329] remarked, the occurrence
of a linear relation between lnA and E
a
does not imply the occur-
rence of a true compensation effect. Agrawal declared that the
thermal analysis community would be better served if the validity
of potential compensation effects were conrmed using Arrhe-
nius plots of lnk versus the inverse temperature. Reaction systems
whose Arrhenius plots do not contain a single point of concurrence
are devoid of a KCE. A compensation set that behaves linearly in a
plot of lnA versus E
a
but does not display a unique isokinetic point
in the Arrhenius plot may be described as having a pseudo KCE.
Although some researchers [330,331] questioned Agrawals pro-
cedures to distinguish between a true and a pseudo KCE, Agrawal
[332,333] rejoined that these criticisms were unfounded and the
Arrhenius plot has since become the critical test for validating
the KCE [318,324].
8. Sugarcane bagasse case study
8.1. Sugarcane bagasse background and properties
Agricultural residues and food processing wastes from agro-
industry represent an important source of biomass having
widespread availability. Sugarcane is an important agricultural
commodity that is cultivated in over 100 countries with an annual
worldwide production in 2008 of 1.74 billion metric tons [334].
It is grown commercially in a broad swath that extends roughly
from 13.5
latitude north of the Tropic of Cancer (i.e., Salobre na,

Spain) [335,336] to 8
latitude south of the Tropic of Capricorn

(Salto, Uruguay) [336]. Sugarcane is a perennial C
4
grass whose
photosynthetic efciency is virtually nonpareil in the plant king-
dom[337]; only the giant sequoia tree (Sequoia gigantea) is capable
of producing more biomass [338]. Despite the current excite-
ment surrounding the efcacy of microalgal carbondioxide xation
[339345], sugarcane still appears superior to microalgae at con-
verting incident solar radiation into carbohydrates (maximum
recorded solar energy capture efciency of 5.0% for sugarcane
in Hawaii [346] and 5.1% for sugarcane in S. Africa [347] versus
4.9% for green algae in Thailand [348]) [346351]. Interestingly,
the debate regarding whether microalgae or sugarcane is the bet-
ter synthesizer of sunlight is not new and dates back at least
60years, when Ledn and Gonzlez [352] determined that sug-
arcane had a higher photosynthesis conversion efciency (3.4%)
than the microalgae Chlorella pyrenoidsa. It is germane to point out
that microalgae grown outdoors under full sunlight experiences a
substantially lower rate of photosynthesis than microalgae that is
cultivatedinapreciselycontrolledlaboratoryenvironment because
of the light saturation effect. Productivity of microalgae grown
under full sunlight is at least 75% lower than that of microalgae
grown under low level lighting [353]. Alexander [354] deter-
mined that the average annual energy output for a rst-generation
energy cane grown in Puerto Rico was 1138GJ ha
1
year
1
, while
Huber et al. [355] reported a maximum annual energy produc-
tivity of 1460GJ ha
1
year
1
for sugarcane. These values are 23%
and 57% greater than the net annual energy yield for microalgae
(928GJ ha
1
year
1
), respectively, as calculated by Christi [356].
The predominant components in sugarcane are water, soluble
solids, of which sucrose is foremost, and lignocellulosic ber, of
which cellulose is the main constituent. The composition of sug-
arcane is inuenced by numerous environmental determinants
and cultural practices, including climatic factors, weather haz-
ards, topography, soil type, sugarcane variety, planting practices,
drainage, irrigation, diseases, pests, fertilization, and harvesting
methods [336359]. Contemporary harvesting of sugarcane is per-
formed with mechanical combines that cut whole cane stalk into
sections called billets. The billeted sugarcane is then processed
in a sugar mill where it is macerated and shredded using swing-
hammer crushers. After this stage, the crushed cane is conveyed to
a train of multiple-roller mills to be pressed. During this step, imbi-
bition water is introduced to the system so as to increase the juice
extraction efciency at each successive mill. The shredded brous
residue that exits the last mill is called bagasse.
Given its provenance from sugarcane, it is natural that bagasse
also exhibits great compositional and morphological heterogene-
ity. On average, fresh bagasse consists of 4456wt% moisture,
4352wt% lignocellulosic ber, and 26wt% soluble solids, and
15wt% inorganic matter [360362]. The amount of ash in bagasse
is largely dependent on the amount of dirt brought in from the
elds with the sugarcane [307]. The stem structure of sugarcane
is akin to that of other monocotyledons (grasses) with the excep-
tion that the sugarcane stalk is not hollow as are most grass stems
[363]. Sugarcane bagasse contains four major structural compo-
nents [361,362,364], viz.,
(1) Long, hard-walled cylindrical cells that compose the rind are
designated as the true ber.
(2) Fibrous vascular bundles, also called sclerenchyma bundles,
comprised of large exterior xylem vessels and separate group-
ings of small phloem vessels and thick-walled, lignied
sclerenchyma cells, respectively, in the interior.
(3) Soft, thin-walled parenchyma cells fromthe inner stalk that are
known as pith.
(4) A dense, non-brous epidermis commonly referred to as wax.
Dry bagasse typically contains about 50wt% true ber, 15wt%
brovascular bundles, 30wt% pith, and 5wt% wax [338,361,362].
Theproportionof themajor components inbagassedepends largely
on the aforementioned environmental factors that inuence sug-
arcane, the variety of cane, its maturity at harvest, harvesting
practices, and the milling efciency [361]. Table 6 provides a
compositional analysis of bagasse cultivated in various countries.
Multiple listings for a single country indicate that the analyzed
bagasse came from samples collected at different locations within
the country, in different years, or possibly both. An indication of the
compositional variation that arises because of varietal differences
in sugarcane is given in Table 7. The danger of falsely assuming
that bagasse samples collected froma sugar mill pile are uniformly
homogeneous is clearly illustrated in Table 7 by examining the
compositional differences that occur between average samples
1 and 2. The chemical composition of bagasse varies between 27
and 50% cellulose, 20 and 35% hemicellulose, 10 and 25% lignins,
and 1 and 6% ash on a dry weight basis. A nominal composition of
40% cellulose, 32% hemicellulose, 20% lignin, 6% extractives, and 2%
ash for dry bagasse is sometimes reported [365,366].
The caloric values of most biomass materials and fossil fuels
are commonly reported in terms of the gross caloric value (GCV)
Table 6
Composition of whole bagasse from various origins (dry wt% basis).
Origin Cellulose Hemicellulose Lignin Ash Extractives
Australia [367] 41.3 30.3 10.0 6.1 12.3
China [368] 43.6 33.5 18.1 2.3 0.8
a
Egypt [369] 41.8 27.5 17.9 2.0 NA
b
Guadeloupe [307] 41.7 28.0 21.8 3.5 4.0
Mauritius [361] 26.6 29.7 14.3 2.4 NA
b
Mexico [361] 34.9 31.8 22.3 2.3 2.8
c
Mexico [361] 37.6 31.1 19.4 3.2 2.2
c
Mexico [370] 40.0 32.0 20.0 2.0 6.0
Philippines [364] 34.9 31.8 22.3 2.3 NA
b
South Africa [371] 38.5 31.4 22.2 3.1 NA
b
Hawaii [361] 38.1 23.7 20.5 2.4 2.5
c
Hawaii [372] 36.5
d
25.0
d
25.5 3.7 1.8
e
Louisiana [361] 36.8 29.4 21.3 2.9 4.0
c
Louisiana [373] 36.3 28.2 20.2 2.3 12.8
Louisiana [374] 50.4 28.5 14.9 2.0 4.2
Louisiana [375] 36.7
f
24.7
f
24.5 4.4 NA
b
Puerto Rico [364] 30.1 29.6 18.1 3.9 NA
b
a
Alcohol, toluene extractives; represents wax fraction.
b
NA, data not available.
c
Hot water extractives.
d
Calculated using the following formulas: % cellulose =0.9 (% glucose) and % hemicellulose =0.9 (% galactose +% mannose) +0.88 (% xylose +% arabinose +% uronic acids).
e
Alcohol extractives.
f
An amount equivalent to the detected level of arabinose (2.4wt%) was deducted from the total glucan content (39.1wt%) and attributed to the hemicellulose complex.
Table 7
Composition of whole bagasse from different sugarcane varieties (dry wt% basis).
Origin Variety Cellulose Hemicellulose Lignin Ash Extractives
Australia [376] Badilla 28.2 22.2 24.4 4.1 3.0
a
Australia [376] 1900 30.6 23.9 24.4 2.6 1.9
a
Australia [376] Mixed sample 1
b
32.5 24.3 21.7 2.5 3.2
a
Australia [376] Mixed sample 2
b
28.0 21.8 21.7 2.5 4.4
a
Cuba [361] Mecladas P. Noriega 46.6 25.2 20.7 2.6 4.1
c
Mauritius [361] M 134.32 40.6 28.4 19.6 6.3 3.1
c
South Africa [361] PO3 2878 45.3 24.1 22.1 1.6 4.7
c
Florida [361] CL-41-233 30.6 26.6 18.2 1.0 15.1
c
Hawaii [361] 44-3098 38.7 27.1 21.6 4.6 2.6
c
Hawaii [361] 37-1933 38.3 27.3 19.4 1.3 2.2
c
Hawaii
d
[377] H65-7052 36.2
e
22.5
e
24.2 4.0 4.4
f
a
Alcohol, benzene extractives.
b
Samples were collected from a bagasse pile containing different varieties and thus represent an average variety.
c
Hot water extractives.
d
NIST reference material 8491.
e
Calculated using the following formulas: % cellulose =0.9 (% glucose) and % hemicellulose =0.9 (% galactose +% mannose) +0.88 (% xylose +% arabinose +% uronic acids).
f
Alcohol extractives.
and the net caloric value (NCV). The GCV is the amount of heat
released froma specic quantity of fuel (initially at 20
C) after it is
combusted and the products cool back to 20
C. The latent heat of

vaporizationof water is includedinthe GCV. The NCVis equal tothe
GCV less the latent heat of the vapor, and it is often used to denote
the true caloric value of moist biomass. Hugot [378] reported the
averageGCVof drybagassetobe19.25MJ kg
1
andtheaverageNCV
of dry bagasse to be 17.78MJ kg
1
. Hugot also reported the average
GCV and average NCV of wet bagasse (i.e., 50wt% moisture) to be
9.62MJ kg
1
and 7.64MJ kg
1
, respectively. Behne [379] analyzed
eleven varieties of dry, ash-free bagasse and found the average GCV
to be 19.52MJ kg
1
. Nicolai [380] disclosedthat the GCVof dry, ash-
free bagasse obtained from sugarcane in six countries ranged from
19.13 to 23.97MJ kg
1
with a mean value of 20.42MJ kg
1
.
There are nearly 1200 sugar mills in 80 nations that process
almost 1.2Gt of sugarcane annually [381]. About 280kg of wet
bagasse (i.e., 50wt% moisture) is generated per metric ton of milled
sugarcane. Up to 90% of this quantity is combusted in furnaces to
supply the heat and steam requirements for the sugar mill, while
the remainder is simply discarded by burning, composting, stock-
piling, or landllingit [382]. Bagasseis oftenintentionallyburnedat
low efciencies to avoid the preceding disposal issues. The extrav-
agant intake of raw bagasse as a principal fuel source at sugar
mills could be deemed wasteful, considering its low NCV [383].
Upgrades to aging sugar mill boiler units and ancillary infrastruc-
ture could decrease overall sugar mill energy demand to 50% of
the bagasse generated [384]. Naturally, the thermochemical con-
version of sugarcane bagasse into a gaseous or liquid fuel would
enhance the overall energy value of this residue and solve a sub-
stantial biomass disposal dilemma.
8.2. Review of sugarcane bagasse pyrolysis studies
As expected, thermoanalytical investigations of sugarcane
bagasse pyrolysis have revealed that there are essentially three
distinct zones of degradation, corresponding with the main ligno-
cellulosic fractions in bagasse (hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin)
[366,385,386]. Althoughbagassepyrolysis has beendetectedas low
as 150
C [386], it is generally agreed that active pyrolysis occurs

above 200
C [135,385,386] and below450
C [387]. Bagasse pyrol-

ysis experiences its maximum decomposition rate between 250
and 400
C [135,307,386388]. These results are in good agree-

ment with a Cuban study [389] on the kinetics of the thermal
decomposition of sugarcane bagasse, which indicated that volatile
organics were evolved beginning at 205
C, while the maximum

degradation rate of hemicellulose and cellulose occurred at 305
and 350
C, respectively. Antals group [366] pyrolyzed bagasse

and obtained two peaks for hemicellulose degradation: a small,
poorly dened peak at 240
C and a larger peak at 310
C; the
largest peak observed was at 370
C which was attributed to cel-

lulose decomposition. Nassar [385] obtained a robust, bifurcated
exothermic peak between 280 and 520
C. An endothermic peak
attributed to the vaporization of volatile products interposed itself
intheexothermic peakat about 420
C. Therst exothermic spikeat

350
C was credited to oxidation of the products, while the second

exothermic spike at 460
C was reasoned to denote the oxidation of

char. Researchers have observed inection points in the TG curves
for bagasse at 325350
C indicating a transition in the pyrolysis

decomposition mechanism [303,385,390]. At temperatures above
325350
C bagasse pyrolysis is primarily a result of lignin and

cellulosedevolatilization, whilebelow325350
Cligninandhemi-
cellulose degradation control the rate of bagasse decomposition
[307,385].
Similar to most other biomass types, pyrolysis of sugarcane
bagasse under an oxidative environment inuences the reaction
dynamics by lowering the pyrolytic reaction temperature and sub-
stantially increasing the rate of bagasse volatilization[307,385]. For
instance, it was foundthat 5wt%of bagasse is vaporizedat 262
Cin
N
2
, 240
Cindryair, and228
CinO
2
[307]. Arecent investigationof
bagasse pyrolysis by Munir et al. [387] foundthat peak devolatiliza-
tion under an oxidative (air) environment occurred between 304
and 312
C, while rate of weight loss under inert (N

2
) conditions
reached its apex between 346 and 355
C. The average devolatiliza-

tion rate for oxidative degradation was calculated to be twice that
for devolatilization in an inert atmosphere. Besides lowering the
peak pyrolysis temperature and active pyrolysis zone, the presence
of oxygen was associated with an increase in overall apparent acti-
vation energy. It has also been observed that the elevated levels of
moisture present in raw bagasse can retard the onset of primary
pyrolysis by requiring additional time for drying, thereby affect-
ing the overall pyrolysis rate and product yields [388,391]. The
apparent activation energies of bagasse are in the vicinity of those
reported for hardwoods [385], which is presumably because the
chemical constitutions of sugarcane bagasse (i.e., 32% hemicellu-
lose, 40% cellulose, and 20% lignin) [365] and hardwoods (i.e., 35%
hemicellulose, 39% cellulose, and 19.5% lignin) [9] are similar.
8.3. Analysis of published kinetic data for sugarcane bagasse
pyrolysis
Extensive data on the thermal decomposition of sugarcane
bagasse under different reaction environments is provided in
Tables 810. Parenthetical number ranges following certain E
a
values demarcate the temperature regions in which the given
activation energy values are valid. Despite the good agreement
among intra-laboratory results, there is a frustrating lack of con-
sistency when results are compared amongst groups. As illustrated
in Table 8, the sheer breadth of E
a
values, irrespective of pseudo-
component fractions, obtained from slow bagasse pyrolysis under
an inert atmosphere (N
2
, He, or Ar) is simply egregious (i.e.,
14kJ mol
1
[assumed hemicellulose fraction] to 460.6kJ mol
1
[assumed cellulose fraction]). A sizeable gulf in E
a
values remains
even after the comparison is restricted to just hemicellulose
degradation (e.g., 14kJ mol
1
[assumed hemicellulose fraction] to
250kJ mol
1
[hemicellulose fraction]). A comparison of apparent
activation energy values for rapid pyrolysis under nitrogen pro-
vides more consistent results, as shown in Table 10, wherein a
16% difference was observed between two independent studies
[383,391] conductedinfurnaces at aheatingrateof 60,000
Cmin
1
and with a residence time of 30s. The choice of kinetic model sur-
faced as a parameter that had a crucial impact on the evaluated
apparent activation energy. An average total E
a
value was calcu-
lated for every pyrolytic process in Table 8 that incorporated a
sequential reaction model (N.B., all of the experiments employing
a sequential model used unwashed bagasse). The mean value of
E
a
for the ve sets of sequential processes is 72.3kJ mol
1
, with a
standard deviation of 13.1kJ mol
1
.
In Table 8, fourteen sets of kinetic data evaluated using a par-
allel reaction model are presented, of which three utilized washed
bagasse and the remainder used unwashed bagasse. It should be
noted that the four sets of data for the unwashed bagasse that
were obtained by Garcia-Perez et al. [382] at various heating rates
all have identical E
a
values resulting from the use of a compen-
satory shift in the logA values and can, thus, be considered as a
single set of unique E
a
values. The apparent activation energies
for each of the resulting eight unique sets of data for unwashed
bagasse pyrolysis were separated into three fractions according
to the respective contributions from each lignocellulosic compo-
nent. An overall average E
a
value was obtained by normalizing the
pseudo-component fractions according to a nominal average ligno-
cellulosic composition of sugarcane bagasse [361] taken on a dry
ash- and extractive-free basis (i.e., 24% lignin, 32% hemicellulose,
and 44% cellulose). The mean value of E
a
obtained for the eight
parallel processes was determinedtobe159.6kJ mol
1
, withastan-
darddeviationof 40.5kJ mol
1
. The121%averageincreaseinE
a
that
occurs when the kinetic model is amended from a consecutive to
a concurrent reaction scheme is a stark reminder that inappropri-
ate model selection can have dire implications on the validity of
the generated kinetic parameters. The four isoconversional tech-
niques (Friedman, CR, FWO, and KAS) used by Yao et al. [245] to
analyze bagasse pyrolyzed under inert conditions (N
2
) had a mean
E
a
1
, which is only 5% higher than the mean
value for the concurrent model but also 131% higher than the mean
value for the consecutive model. Miranda et al. [370] evaluated
kinetic data from bagasse pyrolyzed under a nitrogen atmosphere
using the Friedmandifferential isoconversional method, along with
serial and parallel methods, and obtained an overall E
a
value of
154.4kJ mol
1
, which was calculated based on their reported com-
positionof bagasse(i.e., 40wt%cellulose, 32wt%hemicellulose, and
20wt% lignin). This value compares reasonably well with the E
a
1
reported by Yao et al. using the Friedman
isoconversional method.
The impact of an oxidative environment versus that of an inert
atmosphere upon bagasse pyrolysis was investigated by several
research groups [303,387,392,393]. In each case, there was an
increase in apparent activation energy when the inert (N
2
) atmo-
sphere was replaced with an oxidative environment. Excluding
the extraordinary 1429% increase in E given by Roque-Diaz et al.
[303], the average increase in E
a
on the basis of ve studies by
these four groups was 47% with a standard deviation of 17%. Nassar
[298,385,392] conducted his bagasse pyrolysis experiments under
two different types of inert atmosphere (N
2
and He). The E
a
val-
ues recorded for pyrolysis under nitrogen were 87.9kJ mol
1
and
46.7kJ mol
1
for the low and high temperature regions, respec-
tively, while the corresponding E
a
values obtained for pyrolysis
under helium were 118.1kJ mol
1
and 69.1kJ mol
1
, respectively.
These results suggest that the type of inert atmosphere also has
an impact on the apparent activation energy of sugarcane bagasse.
This is consistent withndings inliterature that report a shift inthe
DTA and DTG peaks toward higher temperatures as the molecular
weight of the inert gas increases [138,398].
The last set of kinetic data given for oxidative pyrolysis in
Table 9 was obtained from non-isothermal thermogravimetric
experiments run at different heating rates using unwashed bagasse
and then estimated as a function of temperature using the V iso-
conversional technique [135]. The rst E
a
value (76.1kJ mol
1
)
reported occurs in the region of 25% bagasse conversion (i.e.,
T <200
C) and corresponds with the dehydration of the bagasse

sample. The highest E
a
value (333.3kJ mol
1
) is associated with
the primary pyrolytic combustion zone (i.e., 200
CT 350
C),
where there is 1560% bagasse conversion. The nal step involves
the secondary combustion of the initial pyrolysis products (i.e.,
400
CT 600
C); this stage attains 7095% bagasse conversion

and has an E
a
1
. Interestingly, the aforemen-
tioned highest E
a
value (333.3kJ mol
1
) that was obtained using
the V isoconversional approach in Table 9 is still 27.6% lower
than the maximum E
a
value (460.6kJ mol
1
) [citation here] pro-
vided in Table 8 for milled bagasse pyrolyzed under nitrogen,
yet it is 35% greater than the next highest value (246.5kJ mol
1
[cellulose fraction]) [97] given in Table 8 for unwashed bagasse
pyrolyzed in nitrogen, 47% greater than the value (226kJ mol
1
[cellulose fraction]) [241] reportedinTable 8for unwashedbagasse
pyrolyzed in nitrogen that had previously been the highest and
most oft-cited for bagasse [97], and 56% greater than the next high-
est value (214kJ mol
1
[likely hemicellulose fraction]) [303,396]
for unwashed bagasse pyrolyzed in an oxidative environment, as
shown in Table 9. It is also observed that inter-laboratory values
of E
a
obtained via isoconversional techniques do not correlate well
with each other. The E
a
1
that was obtained
by Ramajo-Escalera et al. [135] (Table 9) for the bagasse conver-
sionrange of =0.150.6was comparedagainst the global E
a
value,
169.5kJ mol
1
, recorded by Yao et al. [245] (Table 8) over the range
of =0.10.6, using a similar integral isoconversional approach
(FWO). Although Ramajo-Escalera et al. performed the bagasse
pyrolysis under an oxidative (O
2
) environment and Yao et al. uti-
lized an inert (N
2
) atmosphere, it is dubious that the 97% increase
in the value of E
a
in the presence of oxygen can be justied on
the mere basis of converting from anoxic to oxidative conditions,
given that the average increase in E
a
by switching to an oxidative
atmosphere is 39%, as mentioned earlier.
An estimation of a theoretical rate constant at 800K using
the reported kinetic parameters for ultrafast bagasse pyrolysis
(Table 10) with a heated screen assembly at a heating rate of
up to 600,000
Cmin
1
(E
a
=59.5kJ mol
1
, A=1.1010
4
s
1
) [391]
and for a slow pyrolysis (Table 8) at 10
Cmin
1
(E
a
=215kJ mol
1
,
A=2.5110
15
s
1
) [125] returns values of 1.4s
1
and 23s
1
,
respectively, which is a factor of almost 16. Although it could
ordinarily be surmised from the above result that rapid pyroly-
sis processes have much lower rate constants than slow pyrolysis
reactions, the capriciousness of the data indicates otherwise. The
above conjecture is proven to be incorrect when the theoretical
rate constant at 800K calculated for ultrafast bagasse pyroly-
sis (Table 10) at heating rates between 60,000 and 600,000
C
min
1
(E
a
=54.0kJ mol
1
, A=3.3110
3
s
1
) [391] and that for a
moderately slow pyrolysis (Table 8) conducted at 50
Cmin
1
(E
a
=52kJ mol
1
, A=5.5010
2
s
1
) [386] are compared, providing
2
2
J
.
E
.
W
h
i
t
e
e
t
a
l
.
/
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
P
y
r
o
l
y
s
i
s
9
1
(
2
0
1
1
)
1
3
3
Table 8
Kinetic parameters for slow pyrolysis of sugarcane bagasse under an inert atmosphere.
Cmin
1
)
Sample mass
(mg)
Particle size
(mm)
Temp. range
(
C)
Reaction
model
n Ea
(kJ mol
1
)
logA
(s
1
)
Apparatus Region Refs.
Nitrogen atmosphere
5 18 0.8411.00 RT800 Sequential
(dual-step)
1 87.9 (225350)
a
46.7 (380560)
b
4.60
a,c
0.22
b,c
CST Stona Premco
Model 202 DTA
Model 1050 TGA
Egypt [392]
5 10 0.251.2 RT900 Parallel
(3 reactions)
1
1
3
194.0 hemicellulose
243.3 cellulose
53.6 lignin
15.7
18.0
1.9
Cahn TG-151
Tucumn,
Argentina [97]
5
d
10 0.251.2 RT900 Parallel
(3 reactions)
1
1
3
200.0 hemicellulose
249.6 cellulose
58.2 lignin
15.7
18.0
2.3
Cahn TG-151
Tucumn,
Argentina [97]
10 RT1500 Single-step 1 460.6 2.58 Netzsch STA 409
PC Luxx
Tanzania [207]
10
e
2 <0.2 RT500 Initial rate
(single-step)
1 63 (220260) 2.70
c
Mettler-Toledo
TGA/SDTA 851e
Hawaii [393]
10/20
f
57 <0.3 RT105950 Sequential
(triple-step)
0.5 58 (216445) Shimadzu TGA-50 C Punjab,
Pakistan
[387]
10/20
f
57 <0.3 RT105950 Sequential
(triple-step)
0.5 71 (214424) Shimadzu TGA-50 S Punjab,
Pakistan
[387]
20 10 0.251.0 RT900 Parallel
(3 reactions)
1
1
3
198.0 hemicellulose
246.5 cellulose
57.3 lignin
15.67
18.00
2.58
Cahn TG-151 Tucumn,
Argentina
[394]
20
d
10 0.251.0 RT900 Parallel
(3 reactions)
1
1
3
202.4 hemicellulose
253.5 cellulose
52.3 lignin
15.43
18.09
2.28
Cahn TG-151
Tucumn,
Argentina
[394]
50 10 0.0370.044 25450 Single-step 1 49
g
2.75 Netzsch STA 409 Tucuman,
Argentina
[395]
50 10 0.0370.044 25900 Singlestep 1 52
h
2.74 Netzsch STA 409 Tucuman,
Argentina
[395]
215
i
810 0.5950.841 25800 Model-free
j
168.5 Friedman
169.5 FWO
168.7 CR*
161.1 KAS
TA Instrument
TGA Q50
Louisiana [245]
140
k
10 0.450 201000 Differential
l
Parallel/Serial
(3 reactions)
1 250 hemicellulose
125 cellulose
60 lignin
TA Instrument
TG/DTG Q500
Tamaulipas,
Mexico
[370]
550
m
4.37.5 0.0640.076 RT800 Single-step 1 93.2 (195395) 5.64 DuPont 951 TGA/
Dupont Series 99
Thermal Analyzer
Queensland,
Australia
[390]
10 4 0.4501.00 RT600 Parallel
(3 reactions)
1 235 hemicellulose
105 cellulose
26 lignin
17.71
7.43
0.78
Seiko SSC/5200
TG/DTA 220
Clewiston,
Florida
[382]
20 4 0.4501.00 RT600 Parallel
(3 reactions)
1 235 hemicellulose
105 cellulose
26 lignin
17.62
7.52
0.42
Seiko SSC/5200
TG/DTA 220
Clewiston,
Florida
[382]
40 4 0.4501.00 RT600 Parallel
(3 reactions)
1 235 hemicellulose
105 cellulose
26 lignin
17.48
7.58
0.18
Seiko SSC/5200
TG/DTA 220
Clewiston,
Florida
[382]
60 4 0.4501.00 RT600 Parallel
(3 reactions)
1 235 hemicellulose
105 cellulose
26 lignin
17.50
7.67
0.08
Seiko SSC/5200
TG/DTA 220
Clewiston,
Florida
[382]
Helium atmosphere
5 18 0.8411.00 RT800 Sequential
(dual-step)
1 118.0 (RT350)
69.0 (350800)
CST Stona Premco
Model 202 DTA
Model 1050 TGA
Egypt [298]
10 RT800 Sequential
(multi-step)
0.1
1
0.4
1
21.0 (110170)
14.0 (170250)
64.0 (250310)
188.0 (310380)
DuPont 1090
Thermal Analyzer/
MOM OD-130
Cuba
[303]
[396]
Argon atmosphere
10 12 RT450
n
Parallel
(3 reactions)
(1)
o
215
p
15.4 Perkin Elmer TGS-2 Hawaii [241]
1
0
q
1
R
T
4
5
0
n
P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
(
3
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
(
1
)
o
2
1
0
p
1
4
.
9
P
e
r
k
i
n
E
l
m
e
r
T
G
S
-
2
H
a
w
a
i
i
[
2
4
1
]
2
0
1
R
T
4
5
0
n
P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
(
3
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
(
1
)
o
2
2
6
p
1
6
.
2
P
e
r
k
i
n
E
l
m
e
r
T
G
S
-
2
H
a
w
a
i
i
r
[
2
4
1
]
2
0
d
1
R
T
4
5
0
n
P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
(
3
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
(
1
)
o
2
3
3
p
1
6
.
6
P
e
r
k
i
n
E
l
m
e
r
T
G
S
-
2
H
a
w
a
i
i
r
[
2
4
1
]
1
0
1
R
T
4
5
0
n
P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
(
3
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
(
1
)
o
1
8
7
h
e
m
i
(
2
0
0
2
6
0
)
1
1
1
h
e
m
i
(
2
1
0
3
6
0
)
2
1
3
c
e
l
l
(
2
9
0
4
0
0
)
1
7
7
.
7
1
5
.
3
P
e
r
k
i
n
E
l
m
e
r
T
G
S
-
2
H
a
w
a
i
i
[
3
6
6
]
8
0
1
R
T
4
5
0
n
P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
(
3
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
(
1
)
o
1
4
8
h
e
m
i
(
2
0
0
2
6
0
)
1
0
5
h
e
m
i
(
2
1
0
3
6
0
)
1
9
5
c
e
l
l
(
2
9
0
4
0
0
)
1
3
7
.
5
1
3
.
7
P
e
r
k
i
n
E
l
m
e
r
T
G
S
-
2
H
a
w
a
i
i
[
3
6
6
]
a
V
o
l
a
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
g
e
.
b
D
e
c
a
r
b
o
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
g
e
.
c
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
r
a
t
e
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
d
a
t
a
.
d
B
a
g
a
s
s
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
l
y
w
a
s
h
e
d
w
i
t
h
8
0
C
w
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
2
h
.
e
I
s
o
t
h
e
r
m
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
h
e
a
t
i
n
g
r
a
t
e
s
h
o
w
n
u
s
e
d
t
o
r
e
a
c
h
d
e
s
i
r
e
d
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
s
)
.
f
1
0
C
m
i
n
1
r
a
m
p
f
r
o
m
R
T
t
o
1
0
5
C
f
o
l
l
o
w
e
d
b
y
1
0
m
i
n
h
o
l
d
;
2
0
C
m
i
n
1
r
a
m
p
f
r
o
m
1
0
5
C
t
o
9
5
0
C
f
o
l
l
o
w
e
d
b
y
4
0
m
i
n
h
o
l
d
.
g
K
i
n
e
t
i
c
m
o
d
e
l
u
s
e
s
a
c
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
A
r
r
h
e
n
i
u
s
r
a
t
e
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
.
h
K
i
n
e
t
i
c
s
a
r
e
m
o
d
e
l
e
d
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
D
M
.
i
K
i
n
e
t
i
c
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
s
i
x
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
h
e
a
t
i
n
g
r
a
t
e
s
:
2
,
3
.
5
,
5
,
7
.
5
,
1
0
,
a
n
d
1
5
C
m
i
n
1
;
k
i
n
e
t
i
c
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
t
h
e
m
e
a
n
v
a
l
u
e
s
f
o
r
a
l
l
h
e
a
t
i
n
g
r
a
t
e
s
.
j
I
s
o
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
a
l
k
i
n
e
t
i
c
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
;
a
l
l
=
0
.
1
0
.
6
.
k
K
i
n
e
t
i
c
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
v
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
h
e
a
t
i
n
g
r
a
t
e
s
:
1
,
5
,
1
0
,
2
0
,
a
n
d
4
0
C
m
i
n
1
;
k
i
n
e
t
i
c
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
t
o
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
a
l
l
h
e
a
t
i
n
g
r
a
t
e
s
.
l
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
m
o
d
e
l
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
F
r
i
e
d
m
a
n
m
e
t
h
o
d
a
n
d
t
w
o
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
s
e
r
i
a
l
a
n
d
p
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
)
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
m
e
s
;
r
o
u
g
h
l
y
i
d
e
n
t
i
c
a
l
k
i
n
e
t
i
c
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
.
m
K
i
n
e
t
i
c
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
f
o
u
r
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
h
e
a
t
i
n
g
r
a
t
e
s
:
5
,
1
0
,
2
0
,
a
n
d
5
0
C
m
i
n
1
;
k
i
n
e
t
i
c
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
t
h
e
o
p
t
i
m
u
m
t
f
o
r
a
l
l
h
e
a
t
i
n
g
r
a
t
e
s
.
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
D
T
G
c
u
r
v
e
p
l
o
t
s
.
o
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
p
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
p
r
e
s
u
m
a
b
l
y
a
l
l
r
s
t
o
r
d
e
r
.
p
V
a
l
u
e
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
a
r
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
e
l
l
u
l
o
s
i
c
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
b
a
g
a
s
s
e
.
q
B
a
g
a
s
s
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
r
m
a
l
p
r
e
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
a
t
2
6
0
C
f
o
r
2
h
.
r
I
E
A
-
N
I
S
T
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
b
a
g
a
s
s
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
d
f
r
o
m
s
u
g
a
r
c
a
n
e
h
y
b
r
i
d
H
P
6
5
-
7
0
5
2
p
l
a
n
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
o
f
O
a
h
u
,
H
a
w
a
i
i
.
values of 0.99s
1
and 0.22s
1
, respectively. Not only are the rate
constants much closer but this comparison would lead to the spu-
rious conclusion that rate constants obtained from fast pyrolysis
are larger than those from slow pyrolysis; exactly contrary to the
earlier hypothesis.
8.4. Suggestions for mitigating inconsistencies in kinetic triplet
data
Irrespective of the multiple causes, the incongruence among the
kinetic parameters clearly reects the need for a more uniform
approach toward the kinetic analysis of biomass pyrolysis, espe-
cially one that minimizes the substantial impact that experimental
conditions can have upon the process chemistry, physical proper-
ties of the biomass substrate, and systematic experimental errors.
Vrhegyi [80] has recently proffered a list of suggestions to cir-
cumvent the evaluative quandary posed by changing experimental
conditions, viz.,
(1) The experiments can be evaluated simultaneously by the
method of least squares and using exactly the same kinetic
parameters [49,87,189,214,257].
(2) Additional terms can be included in the kinetic model (i.e., sim-
ilar to the general description approach used in the SB model)
to describe the systematic experimental errors [51]. Again, the
inclusion of too many terms may lead to strong interdepen-
dencies among the kinetic parameters that can obscure their
physical signicance and also complicate the numerical solu-
tion of the model.
(3) A few parameters can be allowed to oat, while the remain-
ing parameter(s) is/are held constant [249,312]. This technique
can help assess model validity over a specied range of exper-
imental conditions.
(4) Each experiment can be evaluated individually so that com-
parisons can be made among the resulting kinetic parameters
[214,248,249,399]. This procedure requires a comprehensive
experimental design that will permit collection of sufcient
data to determine the unknown parameters.
Aiman and Stubington [390] emphasized that the derived
kinetic parameters arehighlysensitivetothevalueof w
f
that is used
calculate the degree of conversion. Drummond and Drummond
[383] concludedthat the use of different heating rates canaffect the
kinetic parameters obtained for the pyrolysis of sugarcane bagasse.
These conclusions might now be amended to accurately reect
the kinetic triplets dependence on differences in the chemical and
physical properties of thepyrolyzedbagasse(e.g., moisture, particle
size, sugarcane variety, and lignocellulosic composition), different
operating conditions (e.g., heating rate, temperature range, process
atmosphere, sample size, and isothermal or non-isothermal oper-
ational mode), experimental systematic errors (e.g., thermocouple
and reaction thermal lag), the kinetic model selected, the mathe-
matical approximations employed in these models, and the criteria
used to evaluate the endpoint (i.e., w
f
) of pyrolytic reactions.
8.5. Evaluation of kinetic compensation effect for sugarcane
bagasse data
Acomprehensive survey of the published kinetic data for sugar-
cane bagasse pyrolysis would be incomplete without ascertaining
the existence of a KCE between the variables lnA and E. The
data used to construct the KCE plot in Fig. 4 was obtained from
Tables 810 using only those investigations whose activation ener-
gies and frequency factors were evaluated using rst order models.
A few important caveats are specied forthwith regarding the
2
4
J
.
E
.
W
h
i
t
e
e
t
a
l
.
/
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
P
y
r
o
l
y
s
i
s
9
1
(
2
0
1
1
)
1
3
3
Table 9
Kinetic parameters for slow pyrolysis of sugarcane bagasse under an oxidative atmosphere.
Cmin
1
)
Sample mass
(mg)
Particle size
(mm)
Temp. range
(
C)
Reaction
model
n Ea
(kJ mol
1
)
logA
(s
1
)
Apparatus Region Refs.
Air atmosphere
5 18 0.8411.00 RT800 Sequential
(dual-step)
1 139.7 (RT360)
76.6 (360800)
CST Stona Premco
Model 202 DTA
Model 1050 TGA
Egypt [298]
5
a
0.2500.420 RT480
b
Sequential
(multi-step)
1 53.6 (212380) 2.90 Netzch 348472c Egypt [397]
5
c
0.2500.420 RT480
b
Sequential
(multi-step)
1 38.5 (220430) 1.54 Netzch 348472c Egypt [397]
10 RT800 Sequential
(multi-step)
0.84
0.36
0.90
1.00
0.62
34.0 (20110)
46.5 (110170)
214.0 (170245)
74.8 (245380)
33.2 (380600)
DuPont 1090
Thermal Analyzer/
MOM OD-130
Cuba [303]
[396]
10/20
d
57 < 0.3 RT105950 Sequential
(triple-step)
0.5 75 (226350) Shimadzu TGA-50 C Punjab,
Pakistan
[387]
10/20
d
57 < 0.3 RT105950 Sequential
(triple-step)
0.5 116 (247357) Shimadzu TGA-50 S Punjab,
Pakistan
[387]
Oxygen atmosphere
10
e
2 <0.200 RT500 Initial rate
(single-step)
1 78 (220260) 2.95
f
Mettler-Toledo
TGA/SDTA 851e
Hawaii [393]
520 12 251000 Model-free
g
76.1 (25100)
333.3 (200350)
220.1 (400600)
Mettler-Toledo
TGA/SDTA 851e
DSC 822e
Olimpia,
SP, Brazil
[135]
a
Values reported are for bagasse holocellulose.
b
Estimated from DTG curve plots.
c
Values reported are for bagasse hemicellulose.
d
10
Cmin
1
ramp from RT to 105
C followed by 10min hold; 20
Cmin
1
ramp from 105
C to 950
C followed by 40min hold.

e
Isothermal conditions (heating rate to desired temperature).
f
Calculated from available rate constant data.
g
Isoconversional kinetic analysis; =0.020.05, 0.150.60, 0.700.95, in order of increasing temperature ranges.
T
a
b
l
e
1
0
K
i
n
e
t
i
c
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
f
o
r
r
a
p
i
d
p
y
r
o
l
y
s
i
s
o
f
s
u
g
a
r
c
a
n
e
b
a
g
a
s
s
e
u
n
d
e
r
a
n
i
n
e
r
t
a
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
e
.
C
m
i
n
1
)
R
e
s
t
i
m
e
(
s
)
S
a
m
p
l
e
m
a
s
s
(
m
g
)
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
T
e
m
p
.
r
a
n
g
e
(
C
)
R
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
l
n
E
a
(
k
J
m
o
l
1
)
l
o
g
A
(
s
1
)
A
p
p
a
r
a
t
u
s
R
e
g
i
o
n
R
e
f
s
.
N
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
a
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
e
1
.
2
6
0
1
0
4
0
1
2
0
3
5
0
.
0
6
4
0
.
4
2
2
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
S
i
n
g
l
e
-
s
t
e
p
1
5
9
.
5
4
.
0
4
D
C
g
r
i
d
f
u
r
n
a
c
e
Q
u
e
e
n
s
l
a
n
d
,
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
[
3
9
1
]
6
0
,
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
3
5
0
.
0
6
4
0
.
0
7
6
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
S
i
n
g
l
e
-
s
t
e
p
1
6
0
.
3
3
.
7
4
D
C
g
r
i
d
f
u
r
n
a
c
e
Q
u
e
e
n
s
l
a
n
d
,
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
[
3
9
1
]
6
0
,
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
3
5
0
.
0
6
4
0
.
0
7
6
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
S
i
n
g
l
e
-
s
t
e
p
1
7
7
.
9
4
.
7
8
D
C
g
r
i
d
f
u
r
n
a
c
e
Q
u
e
e
n
s
l
a
n
d
,
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
[
3
9
1
]
6
.
0
6
0
1
0
4
1
2
0
3
5
0
.
0
6
4
0
.
0
7
6
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
S
i
n
g
l
e
-
s
t
e
p
1
5
4
.
0
3
.
5
2
D
C
g
r
i
d
f
u
r
n
a
c
e
Q
u
e
e
n
s
l
a
n
d
,
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
[
3
9
1
]
1
2
,
0
0
0
a
1
2
0
3
5
0
.
0
6
4
0
.
0
7
6
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
S
i
n
g
l
e
-
s
t
e
p
1
6
6
.
1
4
.
4
2
D
C
g
r
i
d
f
u
r
n
a
c
e
Q
u
e
e
n
s
l
a
n
d
,
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
[
3
9
1
]
6
0
,
0
0
0
3
0
7
0
.
1
0
0
.
1
5
3
0
0
9
0
0
S
i
n
g
l
e
-
s
t
e
p
1
9
2
.
6
6
.
3
3
W
i
r
e
m
e
s
h
r
e
a
c
t
o
r
P
e
r
n
a
m
b
u
c
o
,
B
r
a
z
i
l
[
3
8
3
]
a
P
r
i
m
a
r
y
t
a
r
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
k
i
n
e
t
i
c
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
.
Fig. 4. Compensation plot for Arrhenius parameters obtained from sugarcane
bagasse pyrolysis data listed in Tables 79.
treatment of the data. A single set of averaged lnA values was
used for the data supplied by Garcia-Perez et al. [382]; the datum
point from Wilson et al. [207] was rejected from the analysis
because of its anomalously high E
a
value (460.6kJ mol
1
) at a
relatively low lnA value (5.94s
1
). The remarkably linear relation-
ship between lnA and E in Fig. 4 (i.e., coefcient of determination
equal to 0.972) would seem to imply the existence of a KCE. How-
ever, the plot in Fig. 4 contains several important assumptions
regarding the data used therein. Namely, it is assumed that a
valid kinetic conversion function was chosen and that the data
is free of computational, experimental, and instrumental errors.
If none of these assumptions is violated, then the only possi-
ble conclusion that can be drawn from Fig. 4 is that there is an
apparent KCE.
However, an Arrrhenius plot, as shown in Fig. 5, is required to
establish whether the necessary criterion met by the data in Fig. 4
is indeed sufcient to conrm an actual KCE in the pyrolysis of
sugarcane bagasse. The Arrhenius plot in Fig. 5 consists of a sub-
set of data from Fig. 4 because valid temperature ranges were not
available for all of the calculated activation energies. The lack of a
common isokinetic point in the Arrhenius plot indicates that the
linear relation between lnA and E
a
in Fig. 4 is spurious and repre-
sentative of a pseudoKCE. This reviewer does not ndthe preceding
result entirely unexpected given the tremendously diverse testing
conditions employed in the sugarcane pyrolysis reactions surveyed
in this paper.
9. Recommendations
The gross disparities evidenced in the kinetic data fromthe nut-
shells and sugarcane bagasse are representative of the ambiguous
kinetic results that have paralyzed the broader biomass pyrolysis
community. In the rush to identify the culprits behind this shifty
data, another skulking variable is frequently forgotten: the het-
erogeneity of the biomass itself. Such inconsistencies demonstrate
the need to reassess the fundamental principles and phenomena
underlying biomass thermal degradation. In particular, the identi-
cation and improved control of all possible experimental factors
(seen and unseen) that may regulate the behavior of solid state
reactions is imperative. Moreover, elucidation of reaction mecha-
nisms for solidstate thermal processes cannot occur unless thermal
analysis is used in tandem with an ancillary analytical tool that
can evaluate the chemical composition and structure of evolved
products, suchas FTIR[12,233,400,401], GC[84,108,402,403], HPLC
Fig. 5. Arrhenius plot for a subset of data shown in Fig. 4 illustrating the absence of a true compensation effect for sugarcane bagasse pyrolysis. The labels for the individual
lines refer to the references cited in Tables 79. Lines from reference sources containing more than one data pair are labeled in order of appearance from Tables 79 (e.g.,
[399-2] refers to the second set of data from Ref. [399]). Lines from reference sources containing Arrhenius parameters for multiple reactions or lignocellulosic components
are also listed in order of appearance of the respective reactions or components (e.g., [366-2c] refers to the third component from the second set of data for Ref. [366]).
[12], MS [311,401,404,405], GCMS [305], and scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) [53,211].
Extravagant mathematical manipulations of kinetic data will
do nothing to further the understanding of the fundamental
physicochemical mechanisms that govern the thermal decompo-
sition of biomass. Elaborate models that integrate reaction kinetics
with transport phenomena are often developed in a theoreti-
cal vacuum that fails to properly account for the myriad factors
involved in actual pyrolysis reactions. Application of these intrin-
sically incomplete models to industrial processes is constrained
by idealized assumptions that are not valid under a bona de
pyrolytic environment. Furthermore, the use of numerous input
variables that cannot be measured accurately presents an engi-
neering nightmare. Antal and Vrhegyi [241] commented that
the best approach to modeling the kinetic behavior of single,
macroscopic biomass particles may involve statistical methods
developedbyKrieger-Brocketts laboratory[406,407] that correlate
kinetic data fromjudiciouslydesignedexperiments using empirical
methods.
It has been suggested that the existing body of heterogeneous
kinetic data is so hopelessly awed that much of it should simply
be relegated to a circular le [182]. The current authors strenu-
ously oppose the notion that previously collected data should be
dismissed as rubbish. Although it is possible that the analytical
treatment of such data was unsound, the data itself should be pre-
served. Discarding old empirical data to make roomin the kinetics
cupboard is not a viable solution, and it disregards the possibil-
ity of future advances in heterogeneous kinetics theory that may
afford the opportunity to accurately interpret the kinetic behavior
of re-examined data. Nevertheless, the current authors can appre-
ciate the paucity of reliable kinetic data in the current literature;
it is true that kinetic parameters drawn from the raw data may
indeed be unsalvageable. Still, it would be premature to discard
these awed kinetic triplets before agreement can be achieved
regarding which mathematical methods are truly inappropriate
and, ergo, which kinetic results are also incorrect.
Although integral isoconversional techniques (i.e., CR*, FWO,
KAS, and V) appear to provide reasonably consistent results for the
kinetic triplet in certain controlled situations, it remains unclear
whether these isoconversional methods can be used reliably to
compare kinetic data obtained from identical biomass species
tested under similar, yet not identical, conditions. Regrettably,
there appears to be a perception that the current concepts used
to describe biomass pyrolysis kinetics are satisfactory. Perhaps the
eld of solid state kinetics has become somewhat jaded after all the
years of acrimonious and incisive debate regarding the competi-
tion between isothermal and non-isothermal kinetic techniques.
Nevertheless, there is also a growing undercurrent of exasperation
in the biofuels community regarding the failure of modern kinetic
theory to accurately predict the pyrolytic behavior of biomass.
A literature survey [38] of the apparent activation energies for
wood and cellulose pyrolysis reactions reveals an E
a
range of
15217kJ mol
1
for woodand109251kJ mol
1
for cellulose; a sit-
uation which is described as very unsatisfactory and that needs
to be claried. This annoyance is further compounded by the
inability to use the resulting kinetic data for comparative evalu-
ations between different biomass feedstocks under similar process
conditions or identical biomass species under different operating
conditions. Maciejewski and Reller [106] recognized that interest
in the course of solid state thermal decomposition processes is
spurred in part by the desire to obtain . . .kinetic and mechanistic
data [that] could be of great help in accurate process control. . . A
subsequent paper by Maciejewski [138], however, concludes that
if . . .for whatever reason, the quantitative characterization of the
process is required, it is necessary to treat the kinetic parame-
ters as mathematical numbers only, which describe the course of
the reaction under particular conditions, but which do not have
particular signicance and are not intrinsic to the investigated
compound. Obviously, this paradoxical disconnect between the
needs of industry and the exclusivity of the kinetic data obtained
fromsolid state reactions is problematic. Thermochemical biomass
conversion facilities often operate using variable feedstocks under
different operatingconditions. It is naivetoassumethat suchindus-
trial systems can be optimized without the use of generalized
correlations to predict the kinetic behavior of different biomass
materials under various processing environments. Font et al. [408]
recognized the industrial importance of being able to compare
kinetic rate constants and devised a convenient, yet seldom used
[409], comparison factor to relate rate constants having similar
activation energy and reaction order.
Underlying principles in solid state reaction theory need to be
thoroughly re-evaluated and those that are unsound should be dis-
carded. The venerability and prior adequacy of certain constructs,
including the Arrhenius rate law, should not be used as justica-
tionfor their continuedpresenceinkinetic expressions. At thesame
time, it may be appropriate to revisit generalized kinetic equations
that permit additional process factors to be introducedinto the the-
oretical model. In addition, the use of novel kinetic approaches that
t data according to semi-empirical and logistic models may help
identify phenomenological regularities and patterns present in the
measurements [173,400,410].
10. Conclusion
The chaos insolidstate reactionkinetics has spilledover intothe
biomass pyrolysis community and continuation of the status quo
is utterly unacceptable. Ultimately, the thermal analysis commu-
nity may have to further probe troublesome reaction systems on
an individual basis to develop rate equations specic to each one
[102]. It was the long-suffering work of Bodenstein on the gaseous
reaction between bromine and hydrogen that led to his discovery
of the unique rate equation for hydrogen bromide formation [411].
In conclusion, a few memorable quotations found in Churchills
engrossing book, The Interpretation and Use of Rate Data: The Rate
Concept [412] are betting of the quandaries confronting the eldof
solid state reaction kinetics: It is a condition that confronts us not
a theory President Grover Cleveland; No satisfactory justication
has ever been given for connecting in any way the consequences of
mathematical reasoning with the physical world Bell; Life is the
art of drawing sufcient conclusions from insufcient premises
Samuel Butler; Close to the western summit there is the dried and
frozen carcass of a leopard. No one has explained what the leop-
ard was seeking at that altitude Ernest Hemingway in The Snows of
Kilimanjaro.
References
[1] P. McKendry, Energy production frombiomass (part 1): overviewof biomass,
Bioresource Technology 83 (2002) 3746.
[2] K. Raveendran, A. Ganesh, K.C. Khilar, Pyrolysis characteristics of biomass and
biomass components, Fuel 75 (1996) 987998.
[3] S. S ensz, M. Can, Pyrolysis of pine (Pinus Brutia Ten.) chips: 1. Effect of pyrol-
ysis temperatures andheating rate onthe product yields, Energy Sources, Part
A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 24 (2002) 347355.
[4] H.X. Chen, N.A. Liu, W.C. Fan, Two-stepconsecutivereactionmodel andkinetic
parameters relevant to the decomposition of Chinese forest fuels, Journal of
Applied Polymer Science 102 (2006) 571576.
[5] J.A. Gonzlez-Prez, F.J. Gonzlez-Vila, G. Almendros, H. Knicker, The effect
of re on soil organic mattera review, Environment International 30 (2004)
855870.
[6] J.J.M. rfo, F.J.A. Antunes, J.L. Figueiredo, Pyrolysis kinetics of lignocellulosic
materialsthree independent reactions model, Fuel 78 (1999) 349358.
[7] D.L. Klass, G.H. Emert (Eds.), Fuels from Biomass and Wastes, Ann Arbor Sci-
ence Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI, 1981.
[8] Y. Tonbul, Pyrolysis of pistachioshell as a biomass, Journal of Thermal Analysis
and Calorimetry 91 (2008) 641647.
[9] F. Shazadeh, Introduction to pyrolysis of biomass, Journal of Analytical and
Applied Pyrolysis 3 (1982) 283305.
[10] Cellulose, in: FiberSource, American Fiber Manufacturers Associa-
tion/Fiber Economics Bureau, Arlington, VA. Available from: http://www.
bersource.com/F-TUTOR/cellulose.htm (accessed 02.03.09).
[11] J. Ralph, G. Brunow, W. Boerjan, Lignins, Encyclopedia of Life Sci-
ences, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2007, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
9780470015902.a0020104.
[12] R. Singh, S. Singh, K.D. Trimukhe, K.V. Pandare, K.B. Bastawade, D.V. Gokhale,
A.J. Varma, Lignincarbohydrate complexes from sugarcane bagasse: prepa-
ration, purication, and characterization, Carbohydrate Polymers 62 (2005)
5766.
[13] A.K. Galwey, M.E. Brown, Kinetic background to thermal analysis and
calorimetry, in: M.E. Brown (Ed.), Handbook of Thermal Analysis and
Calorimetry, Vol. 1: Principles and Practice, 1st ed., Elsevier Science, Ams-
terdam, The Netherlands, 1998, pp. 147224.
[14] W. Gomes, Denition of rate constant and activation energy in solid state
reactions, Nature 192 (1961) 865866.
[15] J.

Sestk, G. Berggren, Study of the kinetics of the mechanism of solid-state
reactions at increasing temperatures, Thermochimica Acta 3 (1971) 112.
[16] L. Helsen, E. van den Bulck, Kinetics of the low-temperature pyrolysis of
chromated copper arsenate-treated wood, Journal of Analytical and Applied
Pyrolysis 53 (2000) 5179.
[17] J.H. Flynn, Temperature dependence of the rate of reaction in thermal analy-
sis: the Arrhenius equation in condensed phase kinetics, Journal of Thermal
Analysis 36 (1990) 15791593.
[18] M.E. Brown, D. Dollimore, A.K. Galwey (Eds.), Reactions in the Solid State,
Elsevier Scientic Publishing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1980.
[19] B.W. Lamb, R.W. Bilger, Combustion of bagasse: literature reviews, Sugar
Technology Reviews 4 (1976/1977) 89130.
[20] H.L. Le Chatelier, De lAction de la chaleur sur les argiles, Bulletin de la Societe
Francaise de Mineralogie et de Cristallographie 10 (1887) 204207.
[21] M.J. Vold, Differential thermal analysis, Analytical Chemistry 21 (1949)
683688.
[22] R.C. MacKenzie, De calore: prelude to thermal analysis, Thermochimica Acta
73 (1984) 251306.
[23] J. Tamminen, Thermal analysis for investigation of solidication mechanism
in metals and alloys, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Structural Chemistry,
Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, 1988.
[24] C.J. Keattch, D. Dollimore, Studies in the history and development of ther-
mogravimetry. I. Early development, Journal of Thermal Analysis 37 (1991)
20892102.
[25] J.O. Hill (Ed.), For Better Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 3rd ed., Interna-
tional Confederation for Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry (ICTAC), London,
UK, 1991.
[26] W. Hemminger, S.M. Sarge, Denitions, nomenclature, terms and literature,
in: M.E. Brown (Ed.), Handbook of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, Vol. 1:
Principles andPractice, 1st ed., Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, TheNetherlands,
1998, pp. 173.
[27] J.H. Sharp, Reaction kinetics, in: R.C. MacKenzie (Ed.), Differential Ther-
mal Analysis, Vol 2: Applications, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1972,
pp. 4777.
[28] R.K. Agrawal, Analysis of non-isothermal reaction kinetics: Part 1. Simple
reactions, Thermochimica Acta 203 (1992) 93110.
[29] T.B. Tang, M.M. Chaudhri, Analysis of dynamic kinetic data from solid-state
reactions, Journal of Thermal Analysis 18 (1980) 247261.
[30] S. Gaur, T.B. Reed, Prediction of cellulose decomposition rates from thermo-
gravimetric data, Biomass & Bioenergy 7 (1994) 6167.
[31] R.M. Felder, E.P. Stahel, Nonisothermal chemical kinetics, Nature 228 (1970)
10851086.
[32] J. Norwisz, Thekinetic equationunder linear temperatureincreaseconditions,
Thermochimica Acta 25 (1978) 123125.
[33] J.D. Cooney, M. Day, D.M. Wiles, Thermal degradationof poly(ethylenetereph-
thalate): a kinetic analysis of thermogravimetric data, Journal of Applied
Polymer Science 28 (1983) 28872902.
[34] P.D. Garn, Introductionand critique of non-isothermal kinetics, Thermochim-
ica Acta 110 (1987) 141144.
[35] B.A. Howell, J.A. Ray, Comparison of isothermal and dynamic methods for the
determination of activation energy by thermogravimetry, Journal of Thermal
Analysis and Calorimetry 83 (2006) 6366.
[36] E.V. Boldyreva, Problems of the reliability of kinetic data evaluatedby thermal
analysis, Thermochimica Acta 110 (1987) 107109.
[37] J.M. Criado, J. Mlek, J.

Sestk, 40 years of the Van Krevelen, Van Heerden, and
Hutjens non-isothermal kinetic evaluation method, Thermochimica Acta 175
(1991) 299303.
[38] T. Willner, G. Brunner, Pyrolysis kinetics of wood and wood components,
Chemical Engineering & Technology 28 (2005) 12121225.
[39] P.M.D. Benoit, R.G. Ferrillo, A.H. Granzow, Kinetic applications of thermal anal-
ysis: a comparison of dynamic and isothermal methods, Journal of Thermal
Analysis 30 (1985) 869877.
[40] S. Vyazovkin, C.A. Wight, Isothermal andnon-isothermal kinetics of thermally
stimulatedreactions of solids, International Reviews inPhysical Chemistry 17
(1998) 407433.
[41] M.E. Brown, M. Maciejewski, S. Vyazovkin, R. Nomen, J. Sempere, A. Burnham,
J. Opfermann, R. Strey, H.L. Anderson, A. Kemmler, R. Keuleers, J. Janssens, H.O.
Desseyn, C.-R. Li, T.B. Tang, B. Roduit, J. Malek, T. Mitsuhashi, Computational
aspects of kinetic analysis. Part A: the ICTAC kinetics projectdata, methods,
and results, Thermochimica Acta 355 (2000) 125143.
[42] M. Maciejewski, Computational aspects of kinetic analysis. Part B: the ICTAC
kinetics projectthe decomposition kinetics of calcium carbonate revisited,
or some tips on survival in the kinetic mineeld, Thermochimica Acta 355
(2000) 145154.
[43] S. Vyazovkin, Computational aspects of kinetic analysis. Part C. The ICTAC
kinetics projectthe light at the end of the tunnel? Thermochimica Acta 355
(2000) 155163.
[44] A.K. Burnham, Computational aspects of kinetic analysis. Part D: the
ICTAC kinetics projectmulti-thermal-history model-tting methods and
their relation to isoconversional methods, Thermochimica Acta 355 (2000)
165170.
[45] B. Roduit, Computational aspects of kinetic analysis. Part E: the ICTAC kinetics
projectnumerical techniques and kinetics of solid state processes, Ther-
mochimica Acta 355 (2000) 171180.
[46] I.M. Salin, J.C. Seferis, Kinetic analysis of high-resolution TGA variable heating
rate data, Journal of Applied Polymer Science 47 (1993) 847856.
[47] K.N. Ninan, Kinetics of solid-state thermal decomposition reactions, Journal
of Thermal Analysis 35 (1989) 12671278.
[48] M. Momoh, A.N. Eboatu, E.G. Kolawole, A.R. Horrocks, Thermogravimetric
studies of the pyrolytic behaviour in air of selected tropical timbers, Fire and
Materials 20 (1996) 173181.
[49] H. Teng, H.-C. Lin, J.-A. Ho, Thermogravimetric analysis on global mass loss
kinetics of rice hull pyrolysis, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
36 (1997) 39743977.
[50] M. Stenseng, A. Jensen, K. Dam-Johansen, Investigation of biomass pyrolysis
by thermogravimetric analysis and differential scanning calorimetry, Journal
of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 5859 (2001) 765780.
[51] E. Mszros, G. Vrhegyi, E. Jakab, B. Marosvlgyi, Thermogravimetric and
reaction kinetic analysis of biomass samples from an energy plantation,
Energy & Fuels 18 (2004) 497507.
[52] X. Zhang, M. Xu, R. Sun, L. Sun, Study on biomass pyrolysis kinetics, Journal
of Engineering for Gas Turbines and PowerTransactions of the ASME 128
(2006) 493496.
[53] C. Branca, A. Iannace, C. Di Blasi, Devolatilization and combustion kinetics of
Quercus cerris bark, Energy & Fuels 21 (2007) 10781084.
[54] A.L.F.S. dAlmeida, D.W. Barreto, V. Calado, J.R.M. dAlmeida, Thermal anal-
ysis of less common lignocellulosic bers, Journal of Thermal Analysis and
Calorimetry 91 (2008) 405408.
[55] P.L. Waters, Fractional thermogravimetric analysis, Analytical Chemistry 32
(1960) 852858.
[56] H.E. Kissinger, Reaction kinetics in differential thermal analysis, Analytical
Chemistry 29 (1957) 17021706.
[57] R.C. MacKenzie, Origin and development of differential thermal analysis,
[58] B.D. Mitchell, A.H. Knight, The application of differential thermal analysis to
plant materials, Journal of Experimental Botany 16 (1965) 115.
[59] H.J. Borchardt, F. Daniels, The application of differential thermal analysis to
the study of reaction kinetics, Journal of the American Chemical Society 79
(1957) 4146.
[60] B.A. Howell, Utility of kinetic analysis in the determination of reaction mech-
anism, Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 85 (2006) 165167.
[61] M.E. Brown, A.K. Galwey, The distinguishability of selected kinetic models for
isothermal solid-state reactions, Thermochimica Acta 29 (1979) 129146.
[62] J.H. Flynn, The temperature integralits use and abuse, Thermochimica Acta
300 (1997) 8392.
[63] J.I. Steinfeld, J.S. Francisco, W.L. Hase, Chemical Kinetics and Dynamics, 2nd
ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999.
[64] A.K. Galwey, M.E. Brown, Application of the Arrhenius equation to solid state
kinetics: can this be justied? Thermochimica Acta 386 (2002) 9198.
[65] P.W. Atkins, Physical Chemistry, 5th ed., W.H. Freeman, New York, NY, 1994.
[66] P.D. Garn, Kinetics of decomposition of the solid state: is there really a
dichotomy? Thermochimica Acta 135 (1988) 7177.
[67] A.K. Galwey, M.E. Brown, A theoretical justication for the application of the
Arrhenius equation to kinetics of solid state reactions (mainly ionic crystals),
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 450 (1995) 501512.
[68] M.E. Brown, Steps in a mineeld: some kinetic aspects of thermal analysis,
Journal of Thermal Analysis 49 (1997) 1732.
[69] P.D. Garn, Kinetic parameters, Journal of Thermal Analysis 13(1978) 581593.
[70] P.D. Garn, Kinetics of thermal decomposition of the solid state: II. Delimiting
the homogeneous-reaction model, Thermochimica Acta 160 (1990) 135145.
[71] J. Zsak, Kinetic analyses of thermogravimetric data. XXIX. Remarks on the
many curves methods, Journal of Thermal Analysis 46 (1996) 18451864.
[72] S. Vyazovkin, C.A. Wight, Isothermal and nonisothermal reaction kinetics in
solids: in search of ways toward consensus, Journal of Physical Chemistry A
101 (1997) 82798284.
[73] K.J. Laidler, The development of the Arrhenius equation, Journal of Chemical
Education 61 (1984) 494498.
[74] J.

Sestk, Philosophy of non-isothermal kinetics, Journal of Thermal Analysis
16 (1979) 503520.
[75] W.J. Crozier, G.F. Pilz, The locomotion of Limax: I. Temperature coefcient of
pedal activity, Journal of General Physiology 6 (1924) 711721.
[76] W.J. Crozier, On the critical thermal increment for the locomotion of a diplo-
pod, Journal of General Physiology 7 (1924) 123136.
[77] W.J. Crozier, H. Federighi, Critical thermal increment for the movement of
Oscillatoria, Journal of General Physiology 7 (1924) 137150.
[78] K.J. Laidler, Unconventional applications of the Arrhenius law, Journal of
Chemical Education 49 (1972) 343344.
[79] R. Capart, L. Khezami, A.K. Burnham, Assessment of various kinetic models for
the pyrolysis of a microgranular cellulose, Thermochimica Acta 417 (2004)
7989.
[80] G. Vrhegyi, Aims and methods in non-isothermal reaction kinetics, Journal
[81] S. Vyazovkin, C.A. Wight, Model-free and model-tting approaches to kinetic
analysis of isothermal andnonisothermal data, Thermochimica Acta 340341
(1999) 5368.
[82] S. Kim, Y. Eom, Estimation of kinetic triplet of cellulose pyrolysis reaction
from isothermal kinetic results, Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering 23
(2006) 409414.
[83] A. Khawam, D.R. Flanagan, Solid-state kinetic models: basics and mathemat-
ical fundamentals, Journal of Physical Chemistry B 110 (2006) 1731517328.
[84] T.R. Nunn, J.B. Howard, J.P. Longwell, W.A. Peters, Product compositions and
kinetics in the rapid pyrolysis of sweet gumhardwood, Industrial &Engineer-
ing Chemistry Process Design and Development 24 (1985) 836844.
[85] R. Bilbao, J. Arauzo, M.L. Salvador, Kinetics and modeling of gas formation in
the thermal decompositionof powdery cellulose andpine sawdust, Industrial
& Engineering Chemistry Research 34 (1995) 786793.
[86] J.L. Valverde, C. Curbelo, O. Mayo, C.B. Molina, Pyrolysis kinetics of tobacco
dust, Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers Part A 78 (2000)
921924.
[87] M.G. Grnli, G. Vrhegyi, C. Di Blasi, Thermogravimetric analysis and
devolatilization kinetics of wood, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research 41 (2002) 42014208.
[88] C. Branca, A. Albano, C. Di Blasi, Critical evaluation of global mechanisms of
wood devolatilization, Thermochimica Acta 429 (2005) 133141.
[89] R. Radmanesh, Y. Courbariaux, J. Chaouki, C. Guy, A unied lumped approach
in kinetic modeling of biomass pyrolysis, Fuel 85 (2006) 12111220.
[90] M. Lapuerta, J.J. Hernndez, J. Rodrguez, Comparison between the kinetics
of devolatilisation of forestry and agricultural wastes from the middle-south
regions of Spain, Biomass & Bioenergy 31 (2007) 1319.
[91] A.J. Tsamba, W. Yang, W. Blasiak, M.A. Wjtowicz, Cashew nut shells pyrol-
ysis: individual gas evolution rates and yields, Energy & Fuels 21 (2007)
23572362.
[92] G. Vrhegyi, M.J. Antal Jr., E. Jakab, P. Szab, Kinetic modeling of biomass
pyrolysis, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 42 (1997) 7387.
[93] C. Branca, C. Di Blasi, Kinetics of the isothermal degradation of wood in the
temperature range 528708K, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 76
(2003) 207219.
[94] D.B. Anthony, J.B. Howard, H.C. Hottel, H.P. Meissner, Rapid devolatilization
and hydrogasication of bituminous coal, Fuel 55 (1976) 121128.
[95] D.B. Anthony, J.B. Howard, Coal devolatilization and hydrogasication, AIChE
Journal 22 (1976) 625656.
[96] J.A. Conesa, J.A. Caballero, A. Marcilla, R. Font, Analysis of different kinetic
models in the dynamic pyrolysis of cellulose, Thermochimica Acta 254 (1995)
175192.
[97] J.J. Many, E. Velo, L. Puigjaner, Kinetics of biomass pyrolysis: a reformulated
three-parallel-reactions model, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
42 (2003) 434441.
[98] J. Mlek, A computer programfor kinetic analysis of non-isothermal thermo-
analytical data, Thermochimica Acta 138 (1989) 337346.
[99] O. Senneca, Kinetics of pyrolysis, combustion and gasication of three
biomass fuels, Fuel Processing Technology 88 (2007) 8797.
[100] S. Hu, A. Jess, M. Xu, Kinetic study of Chinese biomass slow pyrolysis: com-
parison of different kinetic models, Fuel 86 (2007) 27782788.
[101] Science: Technology e-book Store, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands. Available from: http://elsevier.insidethecover.com/
searchbook.jsp?isbn=9780444418074 (accessed 16.03.09).
[102] J.H. Flynn, Thermal analysis kineticspast, present, and future, Thermochim-
ica Acta 203 (1992) 519526.
[103] S. Vyazovkin, Modication of the integral isoconversional method to account
for variation in the activation energy, Journal of Computational Chemistry 22
(2001) 178183.
[104] M.J. Starink, The determination of activation energy from linear heating rate
experiments: a comparison of the accuracy of isoconversion methods, Ther-
mochimica Acta 404 (2003) 163176.
[105] A.K. Burnham, L.N. Dinh, A comparison of isoconversional and model-tting
approaches tokinetic parameter estimationandapplicationpredictions, Jour-
nal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 89 (2007) 479490.
[106] M. Maciejewski, A. Reller, How(un)reliablearekinetic data of reversiblesolid-
state decomposition processes? Thermochimica Acta 110 (1987) 145152.
[107] F. Thurner, U. Mann, Kinetic investigation of wood pyrolysis, Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development 20 (1981) 482488.
[108] M.R. Hajaligol, J.B. Howard, J.P. Longwell, W.A. Peters, Product compositions
and kinetics for rapid pyrolysis of cellulose, Industrial & Engineering Chem-
istry Process Design and Development 21 (1982) 457465.
[109] R.K. Agrawal, Kinetics of reactions involved in pyrolysis of cellulose I. The
three reaction model, Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 66 (1988)
403412.
[110] A.J. Tsamba, W. Yang, W. Blasiak, Pyrolysis characteristics and global kinet-
ics of coconut and cashew nut shells, Fuel Processing Technology 87 (2006)
523530.
[111] S.M. Ward, J. Braslaw, Experimental weight loss kinetics of wood pyrolysis
under vacuum, Combustion and Flame 61 (1985) 261269.
[112] J.M. Vargas, D.D. Perlmutter, Interpretation of coal pyrolysis kinetics, Indus-
trial & Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development 25 (1986)
4954.
[113] S.S. Alves, J.L. Figueiredo, Kinetics of cellulose pyrolysis modelled by three
consecutive rst-order reactions, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis
17 (1989) 3746.
[114] M. Lanzetta, C. Di Blasi, Pyrolysis kinetics of wheat and corn straw, Journal of
Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 44 (1998) 181192.
[115] A.N. Garca, R. Font, Thermogravimetric kinetic model of the pyrolysis and
combustion of an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer refuse, Fuel 83 (2004)
11651173.
[116] R.K. Agrawal, Kinetics of reactions involved in pyrolysis of cellulose. Part II.
The modiedKilzerBroido model, CanadianJournal of Chemical Engineering
66 (1988) 413418.
[117] M.L. Boroson, J.B. Howard, J.P. Longwell, W.A. Peters, Product yields andkinet-
ics from the vapor phase cracking of wood pyrolysis tars, AIChE Journal 35
(1989) 120128.
[118] C.A. Koufopanos, G. Maschio, A. Lucchesi, Kinetic modelling of the pyrolysis of
biomass and biomass components, Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering
67 (1989) 7584.
[119] R.S. Miller, J. Bellan, A generalized biomass pyrolysis model based on super-
imposedcellulose, hemicellulose andligninkinetics, CombustionScience and
Technology 126 (1997) 97137.
[120] P. Lv, J. Chang, T. Wang, C. Wu, N. Tsubaki, A kinetic study on biomass fast
catalytic pyrolysis, Energy & Fuels 18 (2004) 18651869.
[121] O. Senneca, R. Chirone, P. Salatino, L. Nappi, Patterns and kinetics of pyrolysis
of tobacco under inert and oxidative conditions, Journal of Analytical and
[122] T.R. Nunn, J.B. Howard, J.P. Longwell, W.A. Peters, Product compositions and
kinetics in the rapid pyrolysis of milled wood lignin, Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Process Design and Development 24 (1985) 844852.
[123] J. Villermaux, B. Antoine, J. Lede, F. Soulignac, A new model for thermal
volatilization of solid particles undergoing fast pyrolysis, Chemical Engineer-
ing Science 41 (1986) 151157.
[124] T. Cordero, F. Garca, J.J. Rodrguez, A kinetic study of holm oak wood pyroly-
sis from dynamic and isothermal TG experiments, Thermochimica Acta 149
(1989) 225237.
[125] M.J. Antal Jr., G. Varhegyi, E. Jakab, Cellulose pyrolysis kinetics: revisited,
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 37 (1998) 12671275.
[126] C. Di Blasi, Comparison of semi-global mechanisms for primary pyrolysis of
lignocellulosic fuels, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 47 (1998)
4364.
[127] J.H. Flynn, Thermal analysis kineticsproblems, pitfalls and howto deal with
them, Journal of Thermal Analysis 34 (1988) 367381.
[128] F. Shazadeh, P.P.S. Chin, Thermal deterioration of wood, in: I.S. Goldstein
(Ed.), Wood Technology: Chemical Aspects, vol. 43, American Chemical Soci-
ety, Washington, DC, 1977, pp. 5781.
[129] C. Di Blasi, Kinetic and heat transfer control in the slow and ash pyrolysis of
solids, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 35 (1996) 3746.
[130] W.-C.R. Chan, M. Kelbon, B.B. Krieger, Modelling and experimental verica-
tion of physical and chemical processes during pyrolysis of a large biomass
particle, Fuel 64 (1985) 15051513.
[131] S.S. Alves, J.L. Figueiredo, Interpreting isothermal thermogravimetric data of
complex reactions: application to cellulose pyrolysis at low temperatures,
Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 15 (1989) 347355.
[132] J.P. Diebold, A unied, global model for the pyrolysis of cellulose, Biomass &
Bioenergy 7 (1994) 7585.
[133] V. Mangut, E. Sabio, J. Ga nn, J.F. Gonzlez, A. Ramiro, C.M. Gonzlez, S.
Romn, A. Al-Kassir, Thermogravimetric study of the pyrolysis of biomass
residues from tomato processing industry, Fuel Processing Technology 87
(2006) 109115.
[134] A.L. Brown, D.C. Dayton, J.W. Daily, A study of cellulose pyrolysis chemistry
andglobal kinetics at highheating rates, Energy &Fuels 15(2001) 12861294.
[135] B. Ramajo-Escalera, A. Espina, J.R. Garca, J.H. Sosa-Arnao, S.A. Nebra, Model-
free kinetics applied to sugarcane bagasse combustion, Thermochimica Acta
448 (2006) 111116.
[136] V. Mamleev, S. Bourbigot, Calculation of activation energies using the sinu-
soidallymodulatedtemperature, Journal of Thermal Analysis andCalorimetry
70 (2002) 565579.
[137] R. Cao, S. Naya, R. Artiaga, A. Garca, A. Varela, Logistic approach to polymer
degradation in dynamic TGA, Polymer Degradation and Stability 85 (2004)
667674.
[138] M. Maciejewski, Somewhere between ction and reality: the usefulness of
kinetic data of solid-state reactions, Journal of Thermal Analysis 38 (1992)
5170.
[139] C.-R. Li, T.B. Tang, Isoconversion method for kinetic analysis of solid-state
reactions from dynamic thermoanalytical data, Journal of Materials Science
34 (1999) 34673470.
[140] P. Budrugeac, Differential non-linear isoconversional procedure for evalu-
ating the activation energy of non-isothermal reactions, Journal of Thermal
[141] T. Wanjun, C. Donghua, An integral method to determine variation in acti-
vation energy with extent of conversion, Thermochimica Acta 433 (2005)
7276.
[142] A. Ortega, A simple and precise linear integral method for isoconversional
data, Thermochimica Acta 474 (2008) 8186.
[143] Y. Han, H. Chen, N. Liu, New incremental isoconversional method for kinetic
analysis of solid thermal decomposition, Journal of Thermal Analysis and
Calorimetry, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10973-010-1029-9, in press.
[144] H.L. Friedman, Kinetics of thermal degradation of char-forming plastics from
thermogravimetry. Application to a phenolic plastic, Journal of Polymer Sci-
ence Part C: Polymer Symposia 6 (1964) 183195.
[145] T. Ozawa, A newmethod of analyzing thermogravimetric data, Bulletin of the
Chemical Society of Japan 38 (1965) 18811886.
[146] J.H. Flynn, L.A. Wall, A quick, direct method for the determination of activa-
tion energy from thermogravimetric data, Journal of Polymer Science Part B:
Polymer Letters 4 (1966) 323328.
[147] J.H. Flynn, L.A. Wall, General treatment of the thermogravimetry of poly-
mers, Journal of Research of the National Bureau of StandardsA. Physics
and Chemistry 70A (1966) 487523.
[148] T. Ozawa, Kinetic analysis of derivative curves in thermal analysis, Journal of
Thermal Analysis 2 (1970) 301324.
[149] J.H. Flynn, The isoconversional method for determination of energy of acti-
vation at constant heating rates. Corrections for the Doyle approximation,
[150] T. Ozawa, Estimation of activation energy by isoconversion methods, Ther-
mochimica Acta 203 (1992) 159165.
[151] C.D. Doyle, Kinetic analysis of thermogravimetric data, Journal of Applied
Polymer Science 5 (1961) 285292.
[152] C.D. Doyle, Estimating isothermal life from thermogravimetric data, Journal
of Applied Polymer Science 6 (1962) 639642.
[153] T. Akahira, T. Sunose, Method of determining activation deterioration con-
stant of electrical insulating materials, Research Report of Chiba Institute of
Technology 16 (1971) 2231.
[154] G. Chunxiu, S. Yufang, C. Donghua, Comparative method to evaluate reli-
able kinetic triplets of thermal decomposition reactions, Journal of Thermal
[155] A.W. Coats, J.P. Redfern, Kinetic parameters from thermogravimetric data,
Nature 201 (1964) 6869.
[156] A.W. Coats, J.P. Redfern, Kinetic parameters from thermogravimetric data. II,
Journal of Polymer Science Part B: Polymer Letters 3 (1965) 917920.
[157] J.M. Criado, A. Ortega, F. Gotor, Correlation between the shape of controlled-
rate thermal analysis curves and the kinetics of solid-state reactions,
[158] J. Mlek, The kinetic analysis of non-isothermal data, Thermochimica Acta
200 (1992) 257269.
[159] F.J. Gotor, J.M. Criado, J. Mlek, N. Koga, Kinetic analysis of solid-state
reactions: the universality of master plots for analyzing isothermal and
nonisothermal experiments, Journal of Physical Chemistry A 104 (2000)
1077710782.
[160] A.K. Galwey, Perennial problems and promising prospects in the kinetic anal-
ysis of nonisothermal rate data, Thermochimica Acta 407 (2003) 93103.
[161] A.K. Burnham, R.L. Braun, Global kinetic analysis of complex materials, Energy
& Fuels 13 (1999) 122.
[162] P.E. Fischer, C.S. Jou, S.S. Gokalgandhi, Obtaining the kinetic param-
eters from thermogravimetry using a modied coats and redfern
technique, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 26 (1987)
10371040.
[163] E. Sima-Ella, T.J. Mays, Analysis of the oxidation reactivity of carbonaceous
materials using thermogravimetric analysis, Journal of Thermal Analysis and
Calorimetry 80 (2005) 109113.
[164] J.H. Flynn, A general differential technique for the determination of parame-
ters for d()/dt =f()Aexp(E/RT): energy of activation, preexponential factor
andorder of reaction(whenapplicable), Journal of Thermal Analysis 37(1991)
293305.
[165] R.J. Lopez, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA,
2001.
[166] S. Vyazovkin, D. Dollimore, Linear and nonlinear procedures in isoconver-
sional computations of the activation energy of nonisothermal reactions in
solids, Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 36 (1996)
4245.
[167] G.I. Senum, R.T. Yang, Rational approximations of the integral of the Arrhenius
function, Journal of Thermal Analysis 11 (1977) 445447.
[168] S.V. Vyazovkin, A.I. Lesnikovich, Estimation of the pre-exponential factor in
the isoconversional calculation of effective kinetic parameters, Thermochim-
ica Acta 128 (1988) 297300.
[169] P. Budrugeac, A.L. Petre, E. Segal, Some problems concerning the eval-
uation of non-isothermal kinetic parameters: solidgas decompositions
from thermogravimetric data, Journal of Thermal Analysis 47 (1996)
123134.
[170] C.-R. Li, T. Tang, Dynamic thermal analysis of solid-state reactions: the ulti-
mate method for data analysis? Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry
49 (1997) 12431248.
[171] C.-R. Li, T.B. Tang, Anewmethod for analysing non-isothermal thermoanalyt-
ical data from solid-state reactions, Thermochimica Acta 325 (1999) 4346.
[172] P. Budrugeac, E. Segal, Where is the confusion? ICTAC News 36 (2003) 6364.
[173] J. Cai, R. Liu, C. Sun, Logistic regression model for isoconversional kinetic
analysis of cellulose pyrolysis, Energy & Fuels 22 (2008) 867870.
[174] G. Vrhegyi, M.J. Antal Jr., P. Szab, E. Jakab, F. Till, Application of complex
reaction kinetic models in thermal analysisthe least squares evaluation of
series of experiments, Journal of Thermal Analysis 47 (1996) 535542.
[175] G.A. Carrillo Le Roux, I. Bergault, H. Delmas, X. Joulia, Development of a com-
putational tool for the transient kinetics of complex chemical heterogeneous
reaction systems, Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis Volume 109 (1997)
571576.
[176] F. Aluf-Pentini, V. De Fonzo, V. Parisi, A novel algorithm for the numerical
integration of systems of ordinary differential equations arising in chemical
problems, Journal of Mathematical Chemistry 33 (2003) 115.
[177] R.N. Whittem, W.I. Stuart, J.H. Levy, Smoothing and differentiation of thermo-
gravimetric data by digital lters, Thermochimica Acta 57 (1982) 235239.
[178] G. Vrhegyi, F. Till, Computer processing of thermogravimetric-mass spec-
trometric and high pressure thermogravimetric data. Part 1. Smoothing and
differentiation, Thermochimica Acta 329 (1999) 141145.
[179] S. Naya, R. Cao, R. Artiaga, Local polynomial estimation of TGA derivatives
using logistic regression for pilot bandwidth selection, Thermochimica Acta
406 (2003) 177183.
[180] N. Liu, H. Chen, L. Shu, R. Zong, B. Yao, M. Statheropoulos, Gaussian
smoothing strategy of thermogravimetric data of biomass materials in an
air atmosphere, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 43 (2004)
40874096.
[181] J.D. Sewry, M.E. Brown, Model-free kinetic analysis? Thermochimica Acta
390 (2002) 217225.
[182] M.E. Brown, Stocktaking in the kinetics cupboard, Journal of Thermal Analysis
[183] S. Balci, T. Dogu, H. Yucel, Pyrolysis kinetics of lignocellulosic materials, Indus-
trial & Engineering Chemistry Research 32 (1993) 25732579.
[184] J.G. Reynolds, A.K. Burnham, Pyrolysis decomposition kinetics of cellulose-
based materials by constant heating rate micropyrolysis, Energy & Fuels 11
(1997) 8897.
[185] J.G. Reynolds, A.K. Burnham, P.H. Wallman, Reactivity of paper residues pro-
duced by a hydrothermal pretreatment process for municipal solid wastes,
Energy & Fuels 11 (1997) 98106.
[186] E.G. Prout, F.C. Tompkins, The thermal decomposition of potassium perman-
ganate, Transactions of the Faraday Society 40 (1944) 488498.
[187] M.E. Brown, The ProutTompkins rate equation in solid-state kinetics, Ther-
mochimica Acta 300 (1997) 93106.
[188] A.K. Burnham, R.L. Braun, T.T. Coburn, E.I. Sandvik, D.J. Curry, B.J. Schmidt,
R.A. Noble, An appropriate kinetic model for well-preserved algal kerogens,
Energy & Fuels 10 (1996) 4959.
[189] G. Vrhegyi, P. Szab, M.J. Antal Jr., Kinetics of charcoal devolatilization,
Energy & Fuels 16 (2002) 724731.
[190] E. Biagini, F. Lippi, L. Petarca, L. Tognotti, Devolatilization rate of biomasses
and coal-biomass blends: an experimental investigation, Fuel 81 (2002)
10411050.
[191] D. Ferdous, A.K. Dalai, S.K. Bej, R.W. Thring, Pyrolysis of lignins: experimental
and kinetic studies, Energy & Fuels 16 (2002) 14051412.
[192] M. Becidan, G. Vrhegyi, J.E. Hustad, . Skreiberg, Thermal decomposition of
biomass wastes. Akinetic study, Industrial &Engineering Chemistry Research
46 (2007) 24282437.
[193] T. Sonobe, N. Worasuwannarak, Kinetic analyses of biomass pyrolysis using
the distributed activation energy model, Fuel 87 (2008) 414421.
[194] G. Wang, W. Li, B. Li, H. Chen, TG study on pyrolysis of biomass and its three
components under syngas, Fuel 87 (2008) 552558.
[195] G. Vrhegyi, Z. Czgny, E. Jakab, K. McAdam, C. Liu, Tobacco pyrolysis. kinetic
evaluationof thermogravimetric-mass spectrometric experiments, Journal of
[196] G. Vrhegyi, H. Chen, S. Godoy, Thermal decomposition of wheat, oat, bar-
ley, and Brassica carinata straws. A kinetic study, Energy & Fuels 23 (2009)
646652.
[197] D.B. Anthony, J.B. Howard, H.C. Hottel, H.P. Meissner, Rapid devolatiliza-
tion of coal, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 15 (1975)
13031317.
[198] J.B. Howard, Fundamentals of coal pyrolysis andhydropyrolysis, in: M.A. Elliot
(Ed.), Chemistry of Coal Utilization: Second Supplementary Volume, Wiley
Interscience, New York, NY, 1981, pp. 665784.
[199] P.K. Agarwal, Distributed kinetic parameters for methane evolution during
coal pyrolysis, Fuel 64 (1985) 870872.
[200] R.L. Braun, A.K. Burnham, Analysis of chemical reaction kinetics using a dis-
tribution of activation energies and simpler models, Energy & Fuels 1 (1987)
153161.
[201] P.K. Agarwal, J.B. Agnew, N. Ravindran, R. Weimann, Distributed kinetic
parameters for the evolution of gas species in the pyrolysis of coal, Fuel 66
(1987) 10971106.
[202] G.J. Pitt, The kinetics of the evolution of volatile products from coal, Fuel 41
(1962) 267274.
[203] K. Miura, T. Maki, A simple method for estimating f(E) and k
0
(E) in the dis-
tributed activation energy model, Energy & Fuels 12 (1998) 864869.
[204] J. Cai, R. Liu, Weibull mixture model for modeling nonisothermal kinetics
of thermally stimulated solid-state reactions: application to simulated and
real kinetic conversion data, Journal of Physical Chemistry B 111 (2007)
1068110686.
[205] C.M. Wyandt, D.R. Flanagan, A critical evaluation of three non-isothermal
kinetic techniques, Thermochimica Acta 197 (1992) 239248.
[206] S.V. Vyazovkin, A.I. Lesnikovich, Onthe methodof solvingthe inverse problem
of solid-phase reaction kinetics. II. Methods based on generalized descrip-
tions, Journal of Thermal Analysis 36 (1990) 599615.
[207] L. Wilson, W. Yang, W. Blasiak, G.R. John, C.F. Mhilu, Thermal characteriza-
tion of tropical biomass feedstocks, Energy Conversion and Management,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.06.058, in press.
[208] R. Font, A. Marcilla, A.N. Garca, J.A. Caballero, J.A. Conesa, Kinetic models for
thethermal degradationof heterogeneous materials, Journal of Analytical and
[209] A. Demirbas , F. Akdeniz, Y. Erdo gan, V. Pamuk, Kinetics for fast pyrolysis of
hazelnut shell, Fuel Science andTechnology International 14 (1996) 405415.
[210] A. Demirbas , Kinetics for non-isothermal ash pyrolysis of hazelnut shell,
Bioresource Technology 66 (1998) 247252.
[211] P.R. Bonelli, E.G. Cerrella, A.L. Cukierman, Slow pyrolysis of nutshells: char-
acterization of derived chars and of process kinetics, Energy Sources, Part A:
Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 25 (2003) 767778.
[212] P.K. Gallagher, D.W. Johnson Jr., The effects of small sample size and heating
rate on the kinetics of the thermal decomposition of CaCO
3
, Thermochimica
Acta 6 (1973) 6783.
[213] J.A. Caballero, R. Font, A. Marcilla, Comparative study of the pyrolysis of
almond shells and their fractions, holocellulose and lignin. Product yields and
kinetics, Thermochimica Acta 276 (1996) 5777.
[214] J.A. Caballero, J.A. Conesa, R. Font, A. Marcilla, Pyrolysis kinetics of almond
shells and olive stones considering their organic fractions, Journal of Analyt-
ical and Applied Pyrolysis 42 (1997) 159175.
[215] R. Font, A. Marcilla, J. Devesa, E. Verd, Kinetic study of the ash pyrolysis
of almond shells in a uidized bed reactor at high temperatures, Journal of
[216] R. Font, A. Marcilla, E. Verd, J. Devesa, Thermogravimetric kinetic
study of the pyrolysis of almond shells and almond shells impreg-
nated with CoCl
2
, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 21 (1991)
249264.
[217] P.R. Bonelli, P.A. Della Rocca, E.G. Cerrella, A.L. Cukierman, Effect of pyroly-
sis temperature on composition, surface properties and thermal degradation
rates of Brazil nut shells, Bioresource Technology 76 (2001) 1522.
[218] S. Bandyopadhyay, R. Chowdhury, G.K. Biswas, Thermal deactivation stud-
ies of coconut shell pyrolysis, Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 77
(1999) 10281036.
[219] J. Cai, L. Ji, Pattern search method for determination of DAEM kinetic param-
eters from nonisothermal TGA data of biomass, Journal of Mathematical
Chemistry 42 (2007) 547553.
[220] H.R. Yuan, R.H. Liu, Study on pyrolysis kinetics of walnut shell, Journal of
Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 89 (2007) 983986.
[221] M. Arnold, G.E. Veress, J. Paulik, F. Paulik, A critical reection upon the appli-
cation of the Arrhenius model to non-isothermal thermogravimetric curves,
[222] J.F. Gonzlez, A. Ramiro, C.M. Gonzlez-Garca, J. Ga nn, J.M. Encinar, E. Sabio,
J. Rubiales, Pyrolysis of almond shells. Energy applications of fractions, Indus-
trial & Engineering Chemistry Research 44 (2005) 30033012.
[223] A. Demirbas , Fuel characteristics of olive husk and walnut, hazelnut, sun-
ower, and almond shells, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and
Environmental Effects 24 (2002) 215221.
[224] M.J. Antal Jr., S.G. Allen, X. Dai, B. Shimizu, M.S. Tam, M. Grnli, Attainment
of the theoretical yield of carbon from biomass, Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 39 (2000) 40244031.
[225] B. Bhushan, Agricultural residues and their utilization in some coun-
tries of south and south East Asia, in: FAO/UNEP Seminar on Residue
UtilizationManagement of Agricultural and Agro-Industrial Wastes, Rome,
Italy, 18 January, 1977.
[226] R.S. Govil, Chemical pulp fromgroundnut shells, Tappi 43 (1960) 215A216A.
[227] E. Apaydin-Varol, E. Ptn, A.E. Ptn, Slow pyrolysis of pistachio shell, Fuel
86 (2007) 18921899.
[228] D.F. Arseneau, Competitive reactions in the thermal decomposition of cellu-
lose, Canadian Journal of Chemistry 49 (1971) 632638.
[229] T. Fisher, M. Hajaligol, B. Waymack, D. Kellogg, Pyrolysis behavior andkinetics
of biomass derived materials, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 62
(2002) 331349.
[230] A.K. Galwey, Is the science of thermal analysis kinetics based on solid foun-
dations?: a literature appraisal, Thermochimica Acta 413 (2004) 139183.
[231] F.J. Kilzer, A. Broido, Speculation on the nature of cellulose pyrolysis, Pyrody-
namics 2 (1965) 151163.
[232] P.T. Williams, S. Besler, The inuence of temperature and heating rate on the
slow pyrolysis of biomass, Renewable Energy 7 (1996) 223250.
[233] J.L. Banyasz, S. Li, J.L. Lyons-Hart, K.H. Shafer, Cellulose pyrolysis: the kinetics
of hydroxyacetaldehydeevolution, Journal of Analytical andAppliedPyrolysis
57 (2001) 223248.
[234] A. Basch, M. Lewin, The inuence of ne structure onthe pyrolysis of cellulose.
I. Vacuum pyrolysis, Journal of Polymer Science: Polymer Chemistry Edition
11 (1973) 30713093.
[235] K.E. Cabradilla, S.H. Zeronian, Inuence of crystallinity onthe thermal proper-
ties of cellulose, in: F. Shazadeh, K.V. Sarkanen, D.A. Tillman (Eds.), Thermal
Uses and Properties of Carbohydrates and Lignin, Academic Press, New York,
NY, 1976, pp. 7396.
[236] A. Broido, M. Weinstein, Kinetics of solid-phase cellulose pyrolysis, in: Pro-
ceedings of the Third International Conference on Thermal Analysis, Davos,
Switzerland, August 1971, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland, 1972, pp.
285296.
[237] A. Broido, M.A. Nelson, Char yield on pyrolysis of cellulose, Combustion and
Flame 24 (1975) 263268.
[238] A. Broido, Kinetics of solid-phase cellulose pyrolysis, in: F. Shazadeh, K.
Sarkanen, D.A. Tillman (Eds.), Thermal Uses and Properties of Carbohydrates
and Lignins, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1976, pp. 1936.
[239] A.G.W. Bradbury, Y. Sakai, F. Shazadeh, A kinetic model for pyrolysis of
cellulose, Journal of Applied Polymer Science 23 (1979) 32713280.
[240] J. Piskorz, D. Radlein, D.S. Scott, On the mechanism of the rapid pyrol-
ysis of cellulose, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 9 (1986)
121137.
[241] M.J. Antal Jr., G. Vrhegyi, Cellulose pyrolysis kinetics: the current state of
knowledge, Industrial &Engineering Chemistry Research 34 (1995) 703717.
[242] S. Vlker, T. Rieckmann, Thermokinetic investigation of cellulose
pyrolysisimpact of initial and nal mass on kinetic results, Journal of
[243] V. Mamleev, S. Bourbigot, J. Yvon, Kinetic analysis of the thermal decomposi-
tion of cellulose: the change of the rate limitation, Journal of Analytical and
[244] V. Mamleev, S. Bourbigot, J. Yvon, Kinetic analysis of the thermal decomposi-
tion of cellulose: the main step of mass loss, Journal of Analytical and Applied
Pyrolysis 80 (2007) 151165.
[245] F. Yao, Q. Wu, Y. Lei, W. Guo, Y. Xu, Thermal decomposition kinetics of natural
bers: activation energy with dynamic thermogravimetric analysis, Polymer
Degradation and Stability 93 (2008) 9098.
[246] A. Aho, N. Kumar, K. Ernen, B. Holmbom, M. Hupa, T. Salmi, D.Y. Murzin,
Pyrolysis of softwood carbohydrates in a uidized bed reactor, International
Journal of Molecular Sciences 9 (2008) 16651675.
[247] J. Piskorz, D.S.A.G. Radlein, D.S. Scott, S. Czernik, Pretreatment of wood and
cellulose for production of sugars by fast pyrolysis, Journal of Analytical and
[248] G. Vrhegyi, P. Szab, W.S.-L. Mok, M.J. Antal Jr., Kinetics of the thermal
decomposition of cellulose in sealed vessels at elevated pressures. Effects of
the presence of water on the reaction mechanism, Journal of Analytical and
[249] G. Vrhegyi, E. Jakab, M.J. Antal Jr., Is the BroidoShazadeh model for cellu-
lose pyrolysis true? Energy & Fuels 8 (1994) 13451352.
[250] R.G. Graham, M.A. Bergougnou, B.A. Freel, Kinetics of vapour-phase cellulose
fast pyrolysis reactions, Biomass & Bioenergy 7 (1994) 3347.
[251] A. Basch, M. Lewin, The inuence of ne structure onthe pyrolysis of cellulose.
II. Pyrolysis in air, Journal of Polymer Science: Polymer Chemistry Edition 11
(1973) 30953101.
[252] C. Fairbridge, R.A. Ross, S.P. Sood, A kinetic and surface study of the ther-
mal decomposition of cellulose powder in inert and oxidizing atmospheres,
Journal of Applied Polymer Science 22 (1978) 497510.
[253] A. Basch, M. Lewin, Inuence of ne structure on the pyrolysis of cellulose. III.
The inuence of orientation, Journal of Polymer Science: Polymer Chemistry
Edition 12 (1974) 20532063.
[254] T.R. Rao, A. Sharma, Pyrolysis rates of biomass materials, Energy 23 (1998)
973978.
[255] C.J. Gmez, J.J. Many, E. Velo, L. Puigjaner, Further applications of a revisited
summative model for kinetics of biomass pyrolysis, Industrial & Engineering
[256] J.M. Heikkinen, J.C. Hordijk, W. de Jong, H. Spliethoff, Thermogravimetry as a
tool to classify waste components to be used for energy generation, Journal
[257] C.J. Gmez, G. Vrhegyi, L. Puigjaner, Slowpyrolysis of woody residues and an
herbaceous biomass crop: a kinetic study, Industrial &Engineering Chemistry
Research 44 (2005) 66506660.
[258] R. Miranda, C. Sosa-Blanco, D. Bustos-Martnez, C. Vasile, Pyrolysis of textile
wastes. I. Kinetics and yields, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 80
(2007) 489495.
[259] A.F. Roberts, A review of kinetics data for the pyrolysis of wood and related
substances, Combustion and Flame 14 (1970) 261272.
[260] F.C. Beall, H.W. Eickner, Thermal degradation of wood components: a review
of the literature, in: USDAForest Service Research Paper FPL 130, Forest Prod-
ucts Laboratory, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Madison,
WI, 1970.
[261] D. Montan, V. Torn-Fernndez, V. Fierro, Activated carbons from lignin:
kinetic modeling of the pyrolysis of kraft lignin activated with phosphoric
acid, Chemical Engineering Journal 106 (2005) 112.
[262] S. Kubo, J.F. Kadla, Hydrogen bonding in lignin: a Fourier transform infrared
model compound study, Biomacromolecules 6 (2005) 28152821.
[263] M.J. Antal Jr., Biomass pyrolysis: a review of the literature. Part
1carbohydrate pyrolysis, in: K.W. Ber, J.A. Dufe (Eds.), Advances in
Solar Energy, vol. 1, American Solar Energy Society, Newark, DE, 1982,
pp. 61111.
[264] M.J. Antal Jr., Biomass pyrolysis. a review of the literature. Part
2Lignocellulose pyrolysis, in: K.W. Ber, J.A. Dufe (Eds.), Advances in Solar
Energy, vol. 2, Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1985, pp. 175255.
[265] F. Shazadeh, Pyrolytic reactions and products of biomass, in: R.P. Overend,
T.A. Milne, L.K. Mudge (Eds.), Fundamentals of Thermochemical Conver-
sion of Biomass, Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London, UK, 1985,
pp. 183217.
[266] R.J. Evans, T.A. Milne, Molecular characterization of the pyrolysis of biomass.
1. Fundamentals, Energy & Fuels 1 (1987) 123137.
[267] R.J. Evans, T.A. Milne, Molecular characterization of the pyrolysis of biomass.
2. Applications, Energy & Fuels 1 (1987) 311319.
[268] T. Hosoya, H. Kawamoto, S. Saka, Cellulosehemicellulose and
celluloselignin interactions in wood pyrolysis at gasication temperature,
Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 80 (2007) 118125.
[269] F. Karaosmano glu, B.D. Cift, A. Isi gigr-Ergdenler, Determination of reac-
tion kinetics of strawand stalk of rapeseed using thermogravimetric analysis,
Energy Sources 23 (2001) 767774.
[270] P.C. Lewellen, W.A. Peters, J.B. Howard, Cellulose pyrolysis kinetics and char
formation mechanism, Symposium (International) on Combustion 16 (1977)
14711480.
[271] C.H. Bamford, J. Crank, D.H. Malan, The combustion of wood, Part I Mathemat-
ical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 42 (1946) 166182.
[272] H.-C. Kung, A mathematical model of wood pyrolysis, Combustion and Flame
18 (1972) 185195.
[273] D.L. Pyle, C.A. Zaror, Heat transfer and kinetics in the low temperature pyrol-
ysis of solids, Chemical Engineering Science 39 (1984) 147158.
[274] S.S. Alves, J.L. Figueiredo, A model for pyrolysis of wet wood, Chemical Engi-
neering Science 44 (1989) 28612869.
[275] C.A. Koufopanos, N. Papayannakos, G. Maschio, A. Lucchesi, Modelling of the
pyrolysis of biomass particles. Studies on kinetics, thermal and heat transfer
effects, Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 69 (1991) 907915.
[276] J. Saastamoinen, J.-R. Richard, Simultaneous drying and pyrolysis of solid fuel
particles, Combustion and Flame 106 (1996) 288300.
[277] A.M.C. Janse, R.W.J. Westerhout, W. Prins, Modelling of ashpyrolysis of a sin-
gle wood particle, Chemical Engineering and Processing 39 (2000) 239252.
[278] J. Larfeldt, B. Leckner, M.C. Melaaen, Modelling and measurements of the
pyrolysis of large wood particles, Fuel 79 (2000) 16371643.
[279] M.J. Hagge, K.M. Bryden, Modeling the impact of shrinkage on the pyrolysis
of dry biomass, Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 28112823.
[280] K.M. Bryden, M.J. Hagge, Modeling the combined impact of moisture and char
shrinkage on the pyrolysis of a biomass particle, Fuel 82 (2003) 16331644.
[281] B. Peters, C. Bruch, Drying and pyrolysis of wood particles: experiments and
simulation, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 70 (2003) 233250.
[282] B.V. Babu, A.S. Chaurasia, Dominant design variables in pyrolysis of biomass
particles of different geometries in thermally thick regime, Chemical Engi-
neering Science 59 (2004) 611622.
[283] B.V. Babu, A.S. Chaurasia, Heat transfer and kinetics in the pyrolysis of shrink-
ing biomass particle, Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 19992012.
[284] B.V. Babu, A.S. Chaurasia, Pyrolysis of biomass: improved models for simul-
taneous kinetics and transport of heat, mass and momentum, Energy
Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 12971327.
[285] A. Galgano, C. Di Blasi, Modelling the propagation of drying and decomposi-
tion fronts in wood, Combustion and Flame 139 (2004) 1627.
[286] N. Jand, P.U. Foscolo, Decomposition of wood particles in uidized beds,
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 44 (2005) 50795089.
[287] A.S. Chaurasia, B.D. Kulkarni, Most sensitive parameters inpyrolysis of shrink-
ingbiomass particle, EnergyConversionandManagement 48(2007) 836849.
[288] B. Benkoussas, J.-L. Consalvi, B. Porterie, N. Sardoy, J.-C. Loraud, Modelling
thermal degradation of woody fuel particles, International Journal of Thermal
Sciences 46 (2007) 319327.
[289] S.R. Wasan, P. Rauwoens, J. Vierendeels, B. Merci, Numerical simulations of
pyrolysis of wet charring materials using a one-dimensional enthalpy based
model, in: 4th European Combustion Meeting, Vienna, Austria, 2009.
[290] A.K. Sadhukhan, P. Gupta, R.K. Saha, Modelling and experimental studies on
pyrolysis of biomass particles, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 81
(2008) 183192.
[291] G. Vrhegyi, Reaction kinetics in thermal analysis: a brief survey of funda-
mental research problems, Thermochimica Acta 110 (1987) 9599.
[292] I. Milosavljevic, E.M. Suuberg, Cellulose thermal decomposition kinetics:
global mass loss kinetics, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 34
(1995) 10811091.
[293] E.M. Suuberg, I. Milosavljevic, V. Oja, Two-regime global kinetics of cellulose
pyrolysis: the role of tar evaporation, Symposium(International) on Combus-
tion 26 (1996) 15151521.
[294] J.L. Banyasz, S. Li, J.L. Lyons-Hart, K.H. Shafer, Gas evolution and the mecha-
nism of cellulose pyrolysis, Fuel 80 (2001) 17571763.
[295] R. Zanzi, K. Sjstrm, E. Bjrnbom, Rapid pyrolysis of agricultural residues at
high temperature, Biomass & Bioenergy 23 (2002) 357366.
[296] M.G. Grnli, M.J. Antal Jr., G. Vrhegyi, A round-robin study of cellulose
pyrolysis kinetics by thermogravimetry, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research 38 (1999) 22382244.
[297] S. Maiti, S. Purakayastha, B. Ghosh, Thermal characterization of mustard
straw and stalk in nitrogen at different heating rates, Fuel 86 (2007)
15131518.
[298] M.M. Nassar, Thermal analysis kinetics of bagasse and rice straw, Energy
Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 20 (1998)
831837.
[299] G.M. Simmons, M. Gentry, Particle size limitations due to heat transfer in
determining pyrolysis kinetics of biomass, Journal of Analytical and Applied
Pyrolysis 10 (1986) 117127.
[300] K.M. Bryden, K.W. Ragland, C.J. Rutland, Modeling thermally thick pyrolysis
of wood, Biomass & Bioenergy 22 (2002) 4153.
[301] J. Porteiro, E. Granada, J. Collazo, D. Pati no, J.C. Morn, Amodel for the combus-
tionof large particles of densiedwood, Energy &Fuels 21(2007) 31513159.
[302] A.J. Stamm, Thermal degradation of wood and cellulose, Industrial & Engi-
neering Chemistry 48 (1956) 413417.
[303] P. Roque-Diaz, V.Z. Shemet, V.A. Lavrenko, V.A. Khristich, Studies on thermal
decompositionandcombustionmechanismof bagasse under non-isothermal
conditions, Thermochimica Acta 93 (1985) 349352.
[304] F. Shazadeh, Pyrolysis and combustion of cellulosic materials, Advances in
Carbohydrate Chemistry 23 (1968) 419474.
[305] M. Mller-Hagedorn, H. Bockhorn, L. Krebs, U. Mller, A comparative kinetic
study on the pyrolysis of three different wood species, Journal of Analytical
and Applied Pyrolysis 6869 (2003) 231249.
[306] K. Raveendran, A. Ganesh, K.C. Khilar, Inuence of mineral matter on biomass
pyrolysis characteristics, Fuel 74 (1995) 18121822.
[307] A. Ouensanga, C. Picard, Thermal degradation of sugar cane bagasse, Ther-
mochimica Acta 125 (1988) 8997.
[308] A. Broido, Thermogravimetric and differential thermal analysis of potassium
bicarbonate contaminated cellulose, Pyrodynamics 4 (1966) 243251.
[309] W.K. Tang, Effect of inorganic salts on pyrolysis of wood, alpha-cellulose,
and lignin: determined by dynamic thermogravimetry, in: U.S. Forest Ser-
vice Research Paper FPL 71, Forest Products Laboratory, U.S. Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Madison, WI, 1967.
[310] M.M. Nassar, G.D.M. MacKay, Mechanismof Thermal Decompositionof Lignin,
Wood and Fiber Science 16 (1984) 441453.
[311] G. Vrhegyi, M.J. Antal Jr., T. Szekely, F. Till, E. Jakab, P. Szab, Simultaneous
thermogravimetric-mass spectrometric studies of the thermal decomposi-
tion of biopolymers. 2. Sugar cane bagasse in the presence and absence of
catalysts, Energy & Fuels 2 (1988) 273277.
[312] H. Teng, Y.-C. Wei, Thermogravimetric studies on the kinetics of rice hull
pyrolysis and the inuence of water treatment, Industrial & Engineering
[313] R. Narayan, M.J. Antal Jr., Thermal lag, fusion, and the compensation effect
during biomass pyrolysis, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 35
(1996) 17111721.
[314] M.J. Antal Jr., H.L. Friedman, F.E. Rogers, Kinetics of cellulose pyrolysis in
nitrogen and steam, Combustion Science and Technology 21 (1980) 141152.
[315] M.J. Antal Jr., Personal communication, 2008.
[316] J. Czarnecki, J.

Sestk, Practical thermogravimetry, Journal of Thermal Analysis
[317] E. Chornet, C. Roy, Compensation effect in the thermal decomposition of cel-
lulosic materials, Thermochimica Acta 35 (1980) 389393.
[318] A.K. Galwey, M.E. Brown, Arrhenius parameters and compensation behaviour
in solid-state decompositions, Thermochimica Acta 300 (1997) 107115.
[319] W.C. Conner Jr., A general explanation for the compensation effect: the rela-
tionship between S
and activation energy, Journal of Catalysis 78 (1982)

238246.
[320] A. Lesnikovich, S. Levchik, Isoparametric kinetic relations for chemical
transformations in condensed substances (analytical survey). I. Theoreti-
cal fundamentals, Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 30 (1985)
237262.
[321] A.I. Lesnikovich, S.V. Levchik, Isoparametric kinetic relations for chemical
transformations in condensed substances (analytical survey). II. Reactions
involving the participation of solid substances, Journal of Thermal Analysis
30 (1985) 677702.
[322] J. Pysiak, B. Sabalski, Compensation effect and isokinetic temperature in ther-
mal dissociation reactions of the type A
solid
B
solid
+Cgas, Journal of Thermal
Analysis 17 (1979) 287303.
[323] N. Koga, J.

Sestk, Kinetic compensationeffect as a mathematical consequence
of the exponential rate constant, Thermochimica Acta 182 (1991) 201208.
[324] M. Surez, A. Palermo, C. Aldao, The compensation effect revisited, Journal of
Thermal Analysis 41 (1994) 807816.
[325] A.K. Galwey, Compensation effect in heterogenous catalysis, Advances in
Catalysis 26 (1977) 247322.
[326] M.E. Brown, A.K. Galwey, The signicance of compensation effects appear-
ing in data published in computational aspects of kinetic analysis: ICTAC
project, 2000, Thermochimica Acta 387 (2002) 173183.
[327] N. Koga, H. Tanaka, A kinetic compensation effect established for the
thermal decomposition of a solid, Journal of Thermal Analysis 37 (1991)
347363.
[328] P.D. Garn, The kinetic compensation effect, Journal of Thermal Analysis 10
(1976) 99102.
[329] R.K. Agrawal, On the compensation effect, Journal of Thermal Analysis 31
(1986) 7386.
[330] J.

Sestk, Remark onthe kinetic compensationeffect, Journal of Thermal Anal-
ysis and Calorimetry 32 (1987) 325327.
[331] J. Zsak, K.N. Somasekharan, Critical remarks ononthe compensationeffect,
[332] R.K. Agrawal, The Compensation Effect: AReply to Zsak and Somasekharans
remarks, Journal of Thermal Analysis 34 (1988) 11411149.
[333] R.K. Agrawal, The compensation effect: a fact or a ction, Journal of Thermal
Analysis 35 (1989) 909917.
[334] FAOSTAT, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, Italy. Available from: http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.
aspx?PageID=567#ancor (accessed 18.10.10).
[335] Azucarera del GuadalfeoCane Sugar Azucarera del Guadalfeo S.A., La
Caleta, Spain. Available from: http://www.az-guadalfeo.com/en/sugar.html
(accessed 28.02.09).
[336] H. Blume, Geography of Sugar Cane, Verlag Dr. Albert Bartens, Berlin,
Germany, 1985.
[337] G.O. Burr, C.E. Hartt, H.W. Brodie, T. Tanimoto, H.P. Kortschak, D. Takahashi,
F.M. Ashton, R.E. Coleman, The sugarcane plant, Annual Reviewof Plant Phys-
iology 8 (1957) 275308.
[338] G. Hunsigi, Production of Sugarcane: Theory and Practice, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, Germany, 1993.
[339] K. Miyamoto (Ed.), Renewable Biological Systems for Alternative Sustainable
Energy Production, FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin No. 128, FAO, Rome,
Italy, 1997.
[340] S.R. Chae, E.J. Hwang, H.S. Shin, Single cell protein production of Euglena
gracilis and carbon dioxide xation in an innovative photo-bioreactor, Biore-
source Technology 97 (2006) 322329.
[341] Y. Chisti, Biodiesel frommicroalgae beats bioethanol, Trends inBiotechnology
26 (2008) 126131.
[342] M. Gross, Algal biofuel hopes, Current Biology 18 (2008) R46R47.
[343] G.C. Dismukes, D. Carrieri, N. Bennette, G.M. Ananyev, M.C. Posewitz, Aquatic
phototrophs: efcient alternatives to land-based crops for biofuels, Current
Opinion in Biotechnology 19 (2008) 235240.
[344] Y. Li, M. Horsman, N. Wu, C.Q. Lan, N. Dubois-Calero, Biofuels frommicroalgae,
Biotechnology Progress 24 (2008) 815820.
[345] A. Kumar, S. Ergas, X. Yuan, A. Sahu, Q. Zhang, J. Dewulf, F.X. Malcata, H.
van Langenhove, Enhanced CO
2
xation and biofuel production via microal-
gae: recent developments and future directions, Trends in Biotechnology 28
(2010) 371380.
[346] G.D. Thompson, Production of biomass by sugarcane, Proceedings of the Aus-
tralian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 52 (1978) 180187.
[347] G.D. Thompson, Comparisons of the growth of plant and rst ratoon crops at
Pongola, Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists
62 (1988) 180184.
[348] Biomass for renewable energy and fuels, in: D.L. Klass, C. Cleveland (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Energy, vol. 1, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 2004, pp. 193212.
[349] J.A. Polack, M. West, Bioconversions of sugar cane products, in: U.S.-Republic
of China Symposium, Philadelphia, PA, 1978.
[350] L. Reijnders, Microalgal and terrestrial transport biofuels to displace fossil
fuels, Energies 2 (2009) 4856.
[351] H.R. Bungay, Energy, The Biomass Options, Wiley Interscience, NewYork, NY,
1981.
[352] A.C. Ledn, F.A.Z. Gonzlez, Industrializacion de la Fotosintesis Mediante
la Ca na de Azucar, Asociacin de Tcnicos Azucareros de Cuba 24 (1950)
581590.
[353] J.B. van Beilen, Why microalgal biofuels wont save the internal combustion
engine, Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorening 4 (2009) 4152.
[354] A.G. Alexander, The Energy Cane Alternative, Elsevier Science Publishers,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1985.
[355] G.W. Huber, S. Iborra, A. Corma, Synthesis of transportation fuels from
biomass: chemistry, catalysts, andengineering, Chemical Reviews 106 (2006)
40444098.
[356] Y. Chisti, Response to reijnders: do biofuels from microalgae beat biofuels
from terrestrial plants? Trends in Biotechnology 26 (2008) 351352.
[357] B.C. Biswas, Agroclimatology of the Sugar-Cane Crop, Technical Note No. 193,
WMONo. 703, WorldMeterological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1988.
[358] C.N. Babu, Sugarcane, 2nd ed., Allied Publishers, New Delhi, India, 1990.
[359] G.L. James, Sugarcane, 2nd ed., Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, 2004.
[360] T.F. Dixon, Spontaneous combustion in bagasse stockpiles, Proceedings of the
Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 10 (1988) 5361.
[361] J.M. Paturau (Ed.), By-Products of the Cane Sugar Industry: An Introduction
to Their Industrial Utilization, 3rd, completely revised ed., Elsevier Science
Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1989.
[362] P.W. van der Poel, H. Schiweck, T.K. Schwartz, Sugar Technology: Beet and
Cane Sugar Manufacture, Dr. Albert Bartens KGVerlag, Berlin, Germany, 1998.
[363] J. Lacey, The microbiology of the bagasse of sugarcane, Proceedings of the
ISSCT 3 (1980) 24422461.
[364] P.J.M. Rao, Industrial Utilization of Sugar Cane and its Co-Products, ISPCK
Publishers, New Delhi, India, 1997.
[365] E.S. Lipinsky, Perspectives on preparation of cellulose for hydrolysis, in: R.D.
Brown Jr., L. Jarasek (Eds.), Hydrolysis of Cellulose: Mechanisms of Enzymatic
and Acid Catalysis, vol. 181, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC,
1979, pp. 123.
[366] G. Vrhegyi, M.J. Antal Jr., T. Szekely, P. Szab, Kinetics of the thermal decom-
position of cellulose, hemicellulose, and sugar cane bagasse, Energy & Fuels
3 (1989) 329335.
[367] M.J. Playne, Increased digestibility of bagasses by pretreatment with alka-
lis and steam explosion, Biotechnology and Bioengineering 26 (1984)
426433.
[368] J.-X. Sun, F. Xu, X.-F. Sun, R.-C. Sun, S.-B. Wu, Comparative studyof lignins from
ultrasonic irradiated sugar-cane bagasse, Polymer International 53 (2004)
17111721.
[369] A.E. El-Ashmawy, S. El-Kalyoubi, Y. Fahmy, Hemicelluloses of bagasse andrice
straw, Egyptian Journal of Chemistry 18 (1975) 149156.
[370] R. Miranda, C.S. Blanco, F. Tristn, E. Ramrez, Pyrolysis of sugarcane bagasse:
kinetics studies, in: 98th Air & Waste Management Association Annual Con-
ference and Exhibition, Minneapolis, MN, 2124 June, 2005.
[371] R.C. Trickett, F.G. Neytzell-de Wilde, Dilute acid hydrolysis of bagasse hemi-
cellulose, CHEMSA 8 (1982) 1115.
[372] K.L. Kadam, Environmental benets on a life cycle basis of using bagasse-
derived ethanol as a gasoline oxygenate in India, Energy Policy 30 (2002)
371384.
[373] J.E. Irvine, G.T.A. Benda, Genetic potential and restraints in saccharum as
energy source, in: Symposiumon Alternative Uses of Sugarcane for Develop-
ment in Puerto Rico, Caribe Hilton Hotel, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 2627 March,
1979.
[374] Y.W. Han, E.A. Catalano, A. Ciegler, Chemical and physical properties of
sugarcane bagasse irradiated with rays, Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry 31 (1983) 3438.
[375] M. Saska, E. Ozer, Aqueous extraction of sugarcane bagasse hemicellulose
and production of xylose syrup, Biotechnology and Bioengineering 45 (1995)
517523.
[376] R.W.G. Hessey, Bagassea chemurgic rawmaterial, South African Sugar Jour-
nal 26 (1942) 329337.
[377] J. Rumble Jr., Reference Materials 8491, 8492, 8493, and 8494, National Insti-
tute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2001.
[378] E. Hugot, Handbook of Cane Sugar Engineering, 3rd ed., Elsevier Science Pub-
lishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1986.
[379] E.R. Behne, Thermal value of bagasse, Proceedings of the Queensland Society
of Sugar Cane Technologists 5 (1934) 175177.
[380] A.L. Nicolai, Combustion calculations by graphical methodswood and
bagasse, Combustion 14 (1942) 4044.
[381] M. Morris, L. Waldheim, F.A.B. Linero, H.M. Lamnica, Increased power gen-
eration from sugar cane biomassthe results of a technical and economic
evaluation of the benets of using advanced gasication technology in a typ-
ical Brazilian sugar mill, International Sugar Journal 104 (2002), 243244,
247248, 267.
[382] M. Garcia-Perez, A. Chaala, J. Yang, C. Roy, Co-pyrolysis of sugarcane bagasse
with petroleum residue. Part I: thermogravimetric analysis, Fuel 80 (2001)
12451258.
[383] A.-R.F. Drummond, I.W. Drummond, Pyrolysis of sugar cane bagasse in a
wire-mesh reactor, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 35 (1996)
12631268.
[384] B. Edwards, Energy use in cane and beet factories, Proceedings of Australian
Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 13 (1991) 227229.
[385] M.M. Nassar, Kinetic studies on thermal degradation of nonwood plants,
Wood and Fiber Science 17 (1985) 266273.
[386] P.R. Bonelli, E.L. Buonomo, A.L. Cukierman, Pyrolysis of sugarcane bagasse and
co-pyrolysis with an argentinean subbituminous coal, Energy Sources, Part A:
Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 29 (2007) 731740.
[387] S. Munir, S.S. Daood, W. Nimmo, A.M. Cunliffe, B.M. Gibbs, Thermal analy-
sis and devolatilization kinetics of cotton stalk, sugar cane bagasse and shea
meal under nitrogenandair atmospheres, BioresourceTechnology100(2009)
14131418.
[388] K.S. Shanmukharadhya, K.G. Sudhakar, Investigations of effect of bagasse
pyrolysis kinetics on combustion and boiler performance, Journal of the
Energy Institute 80 (2007) 4045.
[389] E.E.S. Lora, P.B. Soler, Determination of kinetic parameters governing the pro-
cess of bagasse thermal decomposition and combustion, Ingeniera Energetica
9 (1988) 146148.
[390] S. Aiman, J.F. Stubington, Thepyrolysis kinetics of bagasseat lowheatingrates,
Biomass & Bioenergy 5 (1993) 113120.
[391] J.F. Stubington, S. Aiman, Pyrolysis kinetics of bagasse at high heating rates,
Energy & Fuels 8 (1994) 194203.
[392] M.M. Nassar, E.A. Ashour, S.S. Wahid, Thermal characteristics of bagasse, Jour-
nal of Applied Polymer Science 61 (1996) 885890.
[393] I.

Simkovic, K. Csomorov, Thermogravimetric analysis of agricultural
residues: oxygen effect and environmental effect, Journal of Applied Polymer
Science 100 (2006) 13181322.
[394] J.J. Many, J. Arauzo, An alternative kinetic approach to describe the isother-
mal pyrolysis of micro-particles of sugar cane bagasse, Chemical Engineering
Journal 139 (2008) 549561.
[395] P.R. Bonelli, E.L. Buonomo, Pyrolysis of sugarcane bagasse and co-pyrolysis
with an Argentinean subbituminous coal, Energy Sources 29 (2007) 731740.
[396] A.D. Rodriguez, P. Roquet, V.A. Khristich, Combustion of pulverized biomass
(bagasse) in a new rotary burner, Heat Transfer Research 25 (1993) 7381.
[397] M.Z. Sefain, S.F. El-Kalyoubi, N. Shukry, Thermal behavior of holo- and hemi-
cellulose obtained from rice straw and bagasse, Journal of Polymer Science:
Polymer Chemistry Edition 23 (1985) 15691577.
[398] J.M. Criado, J.M. Trillo, Effect of diluent and atmosphere on DTA peaks of
decomposition reactions, Journal of Thermal Analysis 9 (1976) 37.
[399] G. Vrhegyi, P. Szab, E. Jakab, F. Till, Least squares criteria for the kinetic
evaluation of thermoanalytical experiments. Examples froma char reactivity
study, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 57 (2001) 203222.
[400] A.E.S. Green, J. Feng, Systematics of corn stover pyrolysis yields and com-
parisons of analytical and kinetic representations, Journal of Analytical and
[401] F.A. Lpez, A.L.R. Merc, F.J. Alguacil, A. Lpez-Delgado, A kinetic study on the
thermal behaviour of chitosan, Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry
91 (2008) 633639.
[402] H.E. Jegers, M.T. Klein, Primary and secondary lignin pyrolysis reaction path-
ways, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Process Design & Development 24
(1985) 173183.
[403] J.M. Encinar, F.J. Beltrn, A. Bernalte, A. Ramiro, J.F. Gonzlez, Pyrolysis of two
agricultural residues: olive and grape bagasse. Inuence of particle size and
temperature, Biomass & Bioenergy 11 (1996) 397409.
[404] G. Vrhegyi, E. Jakab, F. Till, T. Szekely, Thermogravimetric-mass spectromet-
ric characterization of the thermal decomposition of sunower stem, Energy
& Fuels 3 (1989) 755760.
[405] E. Bonnet, R.L. White, Series-specic isoconversion effective activation ener-
gies derived by thermogravimetry-mass spectrometry, Thermochimica Acta
311 (1998) 8186.
[406] W.-C.R. Chan, M. Kelbon, B. Krieger-Brockett, Single-particle biomass pyrol-
ysis: correlations of reaction products with process conditions, Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research 27 (1988) 22612275.
[407] W.-C. Lai, B. Krieger-Brockett, Single particle refuse-derived fuel devolatiliza-
tion: experimental measurements of reaction products, Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research 32 (1993) 29152929.
[408] R. Font, I. Martn-Gulln, M. Esperanza, A. Fullana, Kinetic law for
solids decomposition. Application to thermal degradation of heteroge-
neous materials, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 5859 (2001)
703731.
[409] M.A. Olivella, F.X.C. de las Heras, Kinetic analysis in the maximum tempera-
ture of oil generation by thermogravimetry in spanish fossil fuels, Energy &
Fuels 16 (2002) 14441449.
[410] A.E.S. Green, M.A. Zanardi, J.P. Mullin, Phenomenological models of cellulose
pyrolysis, Biomass & Bioenergy 13 (1997) 1524.
[411] M. Bodenstein, S.C. Lind, Geschwindigkeit der Bildung des Bromwasserstoffs
aus seinen Elementen, Zeitschrift fr Physikalische Chemie-Leipzig 57 (1906)
168192.
[412] S.W. Churchill, The Interpretation and Use of Rate Data: The Rate Concept,
Revised ed., Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, DC, 1979.

Biomass Pyrolysis Kinetics - A Comparative Critical Review With Relevant Agricultural Residue Case Studies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biomass Pyrolysis Kinetics - A Comparative Critical Review With Relevant Agricultural Residue Case Studies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 91 (2011) 133

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

) equivalent function for p(x)

First order (1)

is the time at conversion

is equal to the temperature at conversion . If we dene

= 2.315 0.4567x, for 20 x 60 (12)

) can be determined via either numerical

), the integration is now performed

SestkBerggren (SB) equation [15], as shown below, was the rst

C) Sample mass (mg) Reaction scheme,

C) Sample mass (mg) Reaction scheme,

C, isothermal hold 110

C for 10min; non-isothermal to 900

C, isothermal hold 900

C, slowly undergoes aromatization in a sec-

C [229]. Apart from the broad scheme presented above, there

C) and involves reactions that lower the DP

C for lignocellulosic biomass substrates [229]: 95% of the

C when heating rates above 10

C water for 2h) and

C are common, and

C, or even more, not unknown. Samples that have a variable

C temperature difference when

latitude north of the Tropic of Cancer (i.e., Salobre na,

latitude south of the Tropic of Capricorn

C. The latent heat of

C [386], it is generally agreed that active pyrolysis occurs

C [135,385,386] and below450

C [387]. Bagasse pyrol-

C [135,307,386388]. These results are in good agree-

C, while the maximum

C, respectively. Antals group [366] pyrolyzed bagasse

C and a larger peak at 310

C which was attributed to cel-

C. Therst exothermic spikeat

C was credited to oxidation of the products, while the second

C was reasoned to denote the oxidation of

C indicating a transition in the pyrolysis

C bagasse pyrolysis is primarily a result of lignin and

C, while rate of weight loss under inert (N

C. The average devolatiliza-

C) and corresponds with the dehydration of the bagasse

C); this stage attains 7095% bagasse conversion

C followed by 10min hold; 20

C followed by 40min hold.

and activation energy, Journal of Catalysis 78 (1982)

You might also like