Article Detail

Home > Article Detail
  • P-ISSN 1225-0163
  • E-ISSN 2288-8985

Article Contents

    A comparison study of extraction methods for bio-liquid via hydrothermal carbonization of food waste

    Analytical Science and Technology / Analytical Science and Technology, (P)1225-0163; (E)2288-8985
    2018, v.31 no.3, pp.112-121
    https://doi.org/10.5806/AST.2018.31.3.112



    • Downloaded
    • Viewed

    Abstract

    The hydrothermal carbonization method has received great attention because of the conversion process from biomass. The reaction produces various products in hydrochar, bio-liquid, and gas. Even though its yield cannot be ignored in amount, it is difficult to find research papers on bio-liquid generated from the hydrothermal carbonization reaction of biomass. In particular, the heterogeneity of feedstock composition may make the characterization of bio-liquid different and difficult. In this study, bio-liquid from the hydrothermal carbonization reaction of food wastes at 230 °C for 4 h was investigated. Among various products, fatty acid methyl esters were analyzed using two different extraction methods: liquid-liquid extraction and column chromatography. Different elutions with various solvents enabled us to categorize the various components. The eluents and fractions obtained from two different extraction methods were analyzed by gas chromatography with a mass spectrometer (GC/MS). The composition of the bio-liquid in each fraction was characterized, and seven fatty acid methyl esters were identified using the library installed in GC/MS device.

    keywords
    Bio-liquid, Food waste, GC/MS, Column chromatography, Liquid-liquid extraction, Fatty acid methyl ester


    Reference

    1

    Ministry of Environment, 2012 Statistics of treatment and waste generation in Korea, 2013.

    2

    M. Choi, S. Lee, and S. Bae, Anal. Sci. & Tech., 30, 174-181 (2017).

    3

    K. S. Ro, J. R. V. Flora, S. Bae, J. A. Libra, N. B. Berge, A. Alvarez-Murillo, and L. Li, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng., 5, 7317-7324 (2017).

    4

    S. Roman, N. Berge, E. Sabio, K. Ro, L. Li, B. Ledesma, A. Alvarez-Murillo, and S. Bae, Energies., 11, 216 (2018).

    5

    S. Xiu and A. Shahbazi, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 16, 4406-4414 (2012).

    6

    K. Sipila, E. Kuoppala, L. Fagernas, and A. Oasmaa, Biomass Bioenergy, 14, 103-113 (1998).

    7

    D. Mohan, C. U. Pittman, and P. H. Steele, Energ. Fuels., 20, 848-889 (2006).

    8

    N. Mahinpey, P. Murugan, T. Mani, and R. Raina, Energ. Fuels., 23, 2736-2742 (2009).

    9

    A. Oasmaa, E. Kuoppala, and Y. Solantausta, Energ. Fuels., 17, 1-12 (2003).

    10

    A. Oasmaa, E. Kuoppala, and Y. Solantausta, Energ. Fuels., 17, 433-443 (2003).

    11

    C. Amen-Chen, H. Pakdel, and C. Roy, Biomass Bioenergy, 13, 25-37 (1997).

    12

    T. C. Ba, Energ. Fuels., 18, 188-20 (2004).

    13

    P. Das, T. Sreelatha, and A. Ganesh, Biomass Bioenergy, 27, 265-275 (2004).

    14

    B. Donnis, R. G. Egeberg, P. Blom, and K. G. Knudsen, Top. Catal., 52, 229-240 (2009).

    15

    Q. Zhang, J. Chang, and Y. Xu, Energ. Fuels., 20, 2717-2720 (2006).

    16

    M. Ertas and M. H. Alma, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis, 88, 22-29 (2010).

    17

    Z. Wang, W. Lin, and W. Song, Appl. Energy, 97, 56-60 (2012).

    상단으로 이동

    Analytical Science and Technology