کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
6631767 | 1424944 | 2018 | 15 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله ISI
An alternative method to determine the share of fossil carbon in solid refuse-derived fuels - Validation and comparison with three standardized methods
ترجمه فارسی عنوان
یک روش جایگزین برای تعیین سهم کربن فسیلی در سوخت های مشتق شده از سوخت جامد - اعتبار سنجی و مقایسه با سه روش استاندارد
دانلود مقاله + سفارش ترجمه
دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی
رایگان برای ایرانیان
کلمات کلیدی
RDFTOCABMMSWC&IWAFSRFBalance methodTOSwt% - wt٪standard deviation - انحراف معیارNumber of samples - تعداد نمونه هاTON - تنTOH - توMunicipal solid waste - زباله جامد شهریSolid recovered fuel - سوخت جامد را بازیافتRefuse-derived fuel - سوخت مشتق شدهCorrelation coefficient - ضریب همبستگیash content - محتوای خاکسترSDM - منابع انسانیFossil carbon - کربن فسیلیTotal organic carbon - کل کربن آلی
موضوعات مرتبط
مهندسی و علوم پایه
مهندسی شیمی
مهندسی شیمی (عمومی)
چکیده انگلیسی
Today different types of wastes are used as refuse-derived fuels (RDF) either in waste-to-energy plants or as fuel substitutes in energy-intensive industrial processes. In order to quantify their greenhouse-gas relevance (fossil carbon content), reliable and practical analytical methods are required, which allow differentiation between biogenic and fossil organic carbon. In the present paper, an alternative method to determine the fossil share in RDFs is examined and validated. The so-called “adapted Balance Method” (aBM) is applied to three different RDFs and the results are compared to three standardized methods, namely the Radiocarbon Method (14C-Method), the Selective Dissolution Method (SDM), and the Manual Sorting Method (MS). The aBM is based on the distinctly different elemental composition of water-and-ash-free biogenic and of fossil matter (TOXBIO and TOXFOS). Within the study, these compositional data are derived by manual sorting of the RDFs. The results show that the values obtained by the aBM are in excellent agreement with the results of the 14C-Method (considered as reference method). Mean deviations between the two methods of â0.9 to +1.9% absolute for the share of fossil carbon are found which are statistically insignificant. High trueness and reliability of the aBM can be expected, independent of the RDF type. In contrast, the reliability of the other standardized methods (SDM and MS) appears to strongly depend on the type and composition of the RDF. The results further indicate that the generation of RDF-specific data on TOXFOS is important for the aBM if significant shares of polymers with comparably high oxygen content might be present in the RDF and if low uncertainties of the results (<3% relative) are required. The findings demonstrate that the alternative method has advantages compared to standardized methods with respect to reliability and/or costs.
ناشر
Database: Elsevier - ScienceDirect (ساینس دایرکت)
Journal: Fuel - Volume 220, 15 May 2018, Pages 916-930
Journal: Fuel - Volume 220, 15 May 2018, Pages 916-930
نویسندگان
Therese Schwarzböck, Philipp Aschenbrenner, Stefan Spacek, Sönke Szidat, Helmut Rechberger, Johann Fellner,