Research Article

Comparison of Ca-Based Commercial and Natural Catalysts Performance on Olive Pomace Pyrolysis Process

Volume: 13 Number: 4 December 1, 2023
EN

Comparison of Ca-Based Commercial and Natural Catalysts Performance on Olive Pomace Pyrolysis Process

Abstract

Physicochemical treatment was applied with 20 mg/L alum to the marble processing effluents as 5 minutes 200 rpm mixing, 25 minutes 15 rpm mixing and 60 minutes settling and marble sludge (MS) was produced. Catalytic performance of MS in olive pomace (OP) pyrolysis process was evaluated and compared to commercial Ca(OH)2 since it mainly comprises of different AAEMs (especially Ca and its forms such as CaCO3, CaO) functioned as catalyst. Catalytic pyrolysis was conducted at 600°C and 5°C/min heating rate with 5% and 10% catalyst (MS or Ca(OH)2) dosages. Although both catalysts had important effect on pyrolysis product yields, Ca(OH)2 was found as good alternative for higher gas production and MS was introduced as better option for the higher char production comparing to the conventional OP pyrolysis. Pyrolysis biochars produced with MS were in higher thermal strength than the biochars generated with Ca(OH)2. Moreover, biooils of OP+MS include different organic compounds, such as 9 heptadecanol, 1-eicosanol, ethyl linoleate, ethyl oleate, addition to the compounds observed in pyrolysis liquids of OP and OP+ Ca(OH)2. All detected organic components have diverse usage areas. Ca(OH)2 provided more decrement in the percentages of oxygenated compounds as compared to the MS. Consequently, it can be stated that MS can be used successfully as an alternative to Ca-based commercial catalyst in OP pyrolysis.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

TUBITAK

Project Number

TUBITAK-CAYDAG-118Y475

Thanks

This study was financially supported by Bilateral Joint Research Project The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey–TUBITAK with the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) under Grant Code in Turkish side: CAYDAG-118Y475

References

  1. Ayadi, M., Awad, S., Villot, A., Abderrabba, M., & Tazerout, M. (2021). Heterogeneous acid catalyst preparation from olive pomace and its use for olive pomace oil esterification. Renewable Energy, 165, 1-13. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.11.031.
  2. Aysu, T., Durak, H., Güner, S., Bengü, A. Ş., & Esim, N. (2016). Bio-oil production via catalytic pyrolysis of Anchusa azurea: Effects of operating conditions on product yields and chromatographic characterization. Bioresource technology, 205, 7-14. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.01.015.
  3. Ban, Y., Jin, L., Liu, F., Zhu, J., Li, Y., Yang, H., & Hu, H. (2022). Pyrolysis behaviors of model compounds with representative oxygen-containing functional groups in coal over calcium. Fuel, 310, 122247.
  4. Çaglar, A., & Demirbaş, A. (2002). Hydrogen rich gas mixture from olive husk via pyrolysis. Energy Conversion and Management, 43(1), 109-117. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(01)00012-7.
  5. Dinc, G., & Yel, E. (2018). Self-catalyzing pyrolysis of olive pomace. Journal of analytical and applied pyrolysis, 134, 641-646. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2018.08.018.
  6. Edeh, I., Overton, T., & Bowra, S. (2019). Catalytic hydrothermal deoxygenation of fatty acids over palladium on activated carbon catalyst (Pd/C) for renewable diesel production. Biofuels,12(9),1075-1082.
  7. Encinar, J., Gonzalez, J., Martínez, G., Roman, S. (2009). Catalytic pyrolysis of exhausted olive oil waste. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 85 (1), 197-203.
  8. Goktepeli, G. (2023). Upcycling approaches with olive and marble processing wastes symbiosis. PhD Thesis, Konya Technical University, Institute of Graduate Studies, Department of Environmental Engineering.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Environmental Engineering

Journal Section

Research Article

Early Pub Date

November 30, 2023

Publication Date

December 1, 2023

Submission Date

March 16, 2023

Acceptance Date

August 1, 2023

Published in Issue

Year 2023 Volume: 13 Number: 4

APA
Göktepeli, G., & Yel, E. (2023). Comparison of Ca-Based Commercial and Natural Catalysts Performance on Olive Pomace Pyrolysis Process. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 13(4), 2555-2564. https://doi.org/10.21597/jist.1266636
AMA
1.Göktepeli G, Yel E. Comparison of Ca-Based Commercial and Natural Catalysts Performance on Olive Pomace Pyrolysis Process. J. Inst. Sci. and Tech. 2023;13(4):2555-2564. doi:10.21597/jist.1266636
Chicago
Göktepeli, Gamze, and Esra Yel. 2023. “Comparison of Ca-Based Commercial and Natural Catalysts Performance on Olive Pomace Pyrolysis Process”. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology 13 (4): 2555-64. https://doi.org/10.21597/jist.1266636.
EndNote
Göktepeli G, Yel E (December 1, 2023) Comparison of Ca-Based Commercial and Natural Catalysts Performance on Olive Pomace Pyrolysis Process. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology 13 4 2555–2564.
IEEE
[1]G. Göktepeli and E. Yel, “Comparison of Ca-Based Commercial and Natural Catalysts Performance on Olive Pomace Pyrolysis Process”, J. Inst. Sci. and Tech., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 2555–2564, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.21597/jist.1266636.
ISNAD
Göktepeli, Gamze - Yel, Esra. “Comparison of Ca-Based Commercial and Natural Catalysts Performance on Olive Pomace Pyrolysis Process”. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology 13/4 (December 1, 2023): 2555-2564. https://doi.org/10.21597/jist.1266636.
JAMA
1.Göktepeli G, Yel E. Comparison of Ca-Based Commercial and Natural Catalysts Performance on Olive Pomace Pyrolysis Process. J. Inst. Sci. and Tech. 2023;13:2555–2564.
MLA
Göktepeli, Gamze, and Esra Yel. “Comparison of Ca-Based Commercial and Natural Catalysts Performance on Olive Pomace Pyrolysis Process”. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 4, Dec. 2023, pp. 2555-64, doi:10.21597/jist.1266636.
Vancouver
1.Gamze Göktepeli, Esra Yel. Comparison of Ca-Based Commercial and Natural Catalysts Performance on Olive Pomace Pyrolysis Process. J. Inst. Sci. and Tech. 2023 Dec. 1;13(4):2555-64. doi:10.21597/jist.1266636