Analytical Science and Technology (분석과학)

The Korean Society of Analytical Sciences (한국분석과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

  • Bang, YeJin (Department of Chemistry, Seoul Women's University) ;
  • Choi, Minseon (Department of Chemistry, Seoul Women's University) ;
  • Bae, Sunyoung (Department of Chemistry, Seoul Women's University)
  • Received : 2018.04.29
  • Accepted : 2018.06.11
  • Published : 2018.06.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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 $230^{\circ}C$ 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

References

  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). https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b01569
  4. S. Roman, N. Berge, E. Sabio, K. Ro, L. Li, B. Ledesma, A. Alvarez-Murillo, and S. Bae, Energies., 11, 216 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/en11010216
  5. S. Xiu and A. Shahbazi, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 16, 4406-4414 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.028
  6. K. Sipila, E. Kuoppala, L. Fagernas, and A. Oasmaa, Biomass Bioenergy, 14, 103-113 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(97)10024-1
  7. D. Mohan, C. U. Pittman, and P. H. Steele, Energ. Fuels., 20, 848-889 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1021/ef0502397
  8. N. Mahinpey, P. Murugan, T. Mani, and R. Raina, Energ. Fuels., 23, 2736-2742 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1021/ef8010959
  9. A. Oasmaa, E. Kuoppala, and Y. Solantausta, Energ. Fuels., 17, 1-12 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1021/ef020088x
  10. A. Oasmaa, E. Kuoppala, and Y. Solantausta, Energ. Fuels., 17, 433-443 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1021/ef020206g
  11. C. Amen-Chen, H. Pakdel, and C. Roy, Biomass Bioenergy, 13, 25-37 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(97)00021-4
  12. T. C. Ba, Energ. Fuels., 18, 188-20 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1021/ef0301250
  13. P. Das, T. Sreelatha, and A. Ganesh, Biomass Bioenergy, 27, 265-275 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.12.001
  14. B. Donnis, R. G. Egeberg, P. Blom, and K. G. Knudsen, Top. Catal., 52, 229-240 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11244-008-9159-z
  15. Q. Zhang, J. Chang, and Y. Xu, Energ. Fuels., 20, 2717-2720 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1021/ef060224o
  16. M. Ertas and M. H. Alma, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis, 88, 22-29 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2010.02.006
  17. Z. Wang, W. Lin, and W. Song, Appl. Energy, 97, 56-60 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.077