J. Anal. Appl.

Pyrolysis 78 (2007) 445451

www.elsevier.com/locate/jaap

Systematics of renewable olefins from thermal cracking of canola oil

S.M. Sadrameli a,1,*, Alex E.S. Green b,2
a

Research Associate of Chemical Engineering, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202, United States
b
Clean Combustion Technology Laboratory, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, United States
Received 3 June 2006; accepted 9 December 2006
Available online 16 December 2006

Abstract
Olefins are the most important industrially produced organic chemicals with world annual production of over 300 billion pounds (lbs) per year.
The conventional feedstock for the olefin plants ranges from light gaseous ethane/propane to heavy naphtha and vacuum gas oils. Thermal cracking
of vegetable oils could convert them into valuable raw materials, which can be used in the chemical and petrochemical industry. This paper focuses
on the systematics of a large number of experimental yields data obtained for the thermal cracking of canola oil and measured with a Carl 500 GC at
University of Saskatchewan, Canada. The products were solid coke, liquid oil and light hydrocarbon rich gases. This large body of data is organized
using an analytical semi-empirical model (ASEM) developed at the University of Florida that provides a reasonable account using only a small
number of adjusted parameters. The model fits very well with the experimental data in the temperature range of 200800 8C. The results suggest
that the analytical methodology should be useful for organizing pyrolysis yields of other materials containing carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.
Published by Elsevier B.V.
Keywords: Vegetable oil; Canola; Cracking; Pyrolysis; Renewable; Olefins; Systematics

1. Introduction
Olefins, the raw materials for the most of the polymers and
plastics are produced from thermal cracking of petroleum
derived feedstock from ethane to gas oil. They are one of the
largest volume chemical intermediates produced in the
chemical industry with annual production of over 300 billion
pounds per year [1]. The consumption of crude oil for the
production of olefins and related chemicals are approximately
10%. On the other hand, thermal cracking of hydrocarbons is
carried out in tabular reactors hang in the firebox of furnaces at
800850 8C and residence time of milliseconds.
It has been predicted that 30% of the pollution from the
industrial plants produced from thermal cracking furnaces. This
is due to the NOx emissions at very high flame temperature and
CO2 production from the combustion of the fuel inside the
furnace. Therefore with the sharp increase of oil prices and
environmental concerns of NOx and other emissions from the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 701 777 4456; fax: +1 701 777 3773.
E-mail addresses: ameli@und.edu (S.M. Sadrameli), aesgreen@ufl.edu
(A.E.S. Green).
1
On his leave from Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran.
2
Tel.: +1 352 392 2002; fax: +1 352 392 2002.
0165-2370/$ see front matter. Published by Elsevier B.V.
doi:10.1016/j.jaap.2006.12.010

cracking furnaces, it would be desirable and cost effective to

produce olefins from renewable fuels that are CO2 neutral and
has no effect on the global warming. The lower cracking
temperature also results lower flame temperature that causes the
NOx emissions to be eliminated. Production of hydrocarbons
from vegetable oils and animal fats has been studied in the
recent years mainly by catalytic cracking [28]. There are also a
few studies involving the thermal cracking of plant oils and
animal fats that have been reported in the literature with the
major goal of producing an alternative source for conventional
fuels and chemicals [911]. The main products of their studies
were aromatics, aliphatics and C2C4 olefins.
Since in most of the previous studies, batch processing
involving the destructive distillation of the oil was employed,
they required cleanup and changing of feed after each run that
makes interruptions and frequent shut down of the plant. The use
of tubular reactors in continuous operation for thermal cracking
of canola oil has been studied extensively by Idem et al. at
University of Saskatchewan, Canada [12] which is the main
source and basis for our modeling studies. This paper discusses
systematics of the production yields of hydrocarbons and fatty
acid methyl esters versus temperature for thermal cracking of
canola oil. The main objective of the cracking process is the
maximum production of renewable olefins from vegetable oils.

446

S.M. Sadrameli, A.E.S. Green / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 78 (2007) 445451

Nomenclature
D
F(T)
L(T)
p
q
t
T
w
yi
Y

parameter of logistic function, Eq. (1)

forgetting function, Eq. (3)
learning function, Eq. (2)
constant in Eq. (1)
constant in Eq. (1)
time (s)
temperature (K)
parameter of logistic function, Eq. (1)
individual yields (wt.%)
total yield (wt.%)

Fig. 1. Block flow diagram of the vegetable oil cracking for olefin production.

3. Experimental data
2. Thermal cracking of vegetable oils
In thermal cracking, energy is used in order to break carbon
carbon bonds. Each carbon atom ends up with a single electron
and free radicals are formed. Therefore the kinetics of thermal
cracking includes radical mechanisms. Reactions of hundreds
free radicals lead to the various products. Breaking up large
organic molecules into smaller, and more useful molecules is
achieved by using high temperatures without catalyst. The
cracking technology, either thermal or catalytic, is a very well
known process in petroleum industry [13,14].
Previous researchers [15,16] have shown that vegetable
oils and biodiesels are very amenable to cracking processes,
either thermal or catalytic and these techniques have been
used in previous inventions and studies to modify the
chemical composition of crop oils or biodiesels. Thermal
cracking of crop oils in presence of hydrogen has been carried
out for the production of a diesel fuel additive with favorable
combustion properties that is measured by the cetane number
[17]. In another application, catalytic cracking of biodiesel
has been performed and the resulted liquid fuel blended with
diesel fuel as an additive to improve the fuel properties [18].
However, none of the previous inventions and developments
utilizing cracking processes has applied these techniques for
the purposes of achieving renewable olefins that are the main
raw materials for the petrochemical industry. The process
used here as a basis for the modeling uses thermal cracking to
specifically convert canola oil to produce chemical components that can be used as raw materials for the chemical and
petrochemical industry [12]. The block flow diagram of the
process is shown in Fig. 1. Vegetable oil is preheated in a heat
exchanger by steam and is sent to the reactor with or without
dilution steam. Steam is used as a heat media and also to
dilute the cracking feedstock. In some cracking processes
hydrogen is used instead to prohibit the polymer production
during the cracking reactions. The effluents leaving the
reactor have to be cooled down to freeze the undesired
reactions. This is done indirectly or directly using water or oil
as a cooling media. The gases are separated from the liquids
and are sent to the gas separation unit while the liquids are
directed to the distillation column for the light fuel recovery
from the residuals that will be recycled to the reactor for
further cracking.

The experimental data which are the basis for our modeling
has been produced by Idem et al. at the university of
Saskatchewan, Canada [12].
3.1. Feedstock-canola oil
From the vegetable oils, degummed and refined canola oil
has been used for the thermal cracking studies. The main
components of the oil are saturated and unsaturated triglycerides having an average molecular formula of C59H94O5. The
fatty acids present in canola oil and their distributions are as
follows: 60 wt.% oleic acid (C18:1:C18H34O2), 20 wt.%
linoleic acid (C18:2:C18H32O2), 10 wt % linolenic acid
(C18:3:C18H30O2), 2 wt.% stearic acid (C18:0:C18H36O2),
4 wt.% palmitic acid (C16:0:C16H32O2) and remaining small
quantities of eicosenoic (C20:0:C20H38O2) and erucic
(C22:1:C22H32O2) acids. The first and second numbers in
parentheses refer to the number of carbon atoms and double
bonds between the carbon atoms per molecule of the acid,
respectively.
3.2. Experimental set up
Thermal cracking of canola oil has been carried out at
atmospheric pressure and temperature range of 300500 8C.
The reactor is made of stainless steel (SS-316) with 10 mm i.d.
and 508 mm overall length heated by a furnace with
temperature controlled by a series of SR22 microprocessorbased PID temperature controllers using a K-type thermocouple. The residence time of the reactor is controlled by the
flow rate and length of the reactor. Reaction runs were carried
out with canola oil feed rate of 5.1124.2 g/h. The cracking
Table 1
Canola oil cracking conditions
Cracking conditions
Reactor material
Reactor length (mm)
Reactor i.d. (mm)
Feedstock
Flow rate (g/h)
Temperature (8C)
Pressure

Stainless steel, 316

508
10
Canola oil
5.1124.2
300500
Atmosphere

S.M. Sadrameli, A.E.S. Green / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 78 (2007) 445451

conditions are listed in Table 1. The reactor effluents were

condensed in the water cooled heat exchanger, followed by an
ice-cooled condenser to separate the gases from the liquids. The
gas product was collected over saturated brine while the liquid
product was collected in a glass trap after the condenser. The
gas products were analyzed with a Carl 500 GC using a
combination of packed and capillary columns. The organic
liquid product (OLP) was also analyzed with the same system
equipped with a bonded non-polar capillary column and a FID.
The residual oil from the cracking was also analyzed using both
GCMS techniques. For each run, the individual components in
gas, liquids and residual identified were placed under similar
groups. The main chemical groups included light paraffin
gases, C2C4 olefins, C4C5 gases, alcohols, ketons, aldehydes,
aromatics and coke. The unidentified and unaccounted parts of
the products have been considered as fatty acid methyl esters
(FAMEs) and polynuclear aromatics (PNA). The products
from the thermal cracking of canola oil are listed in Table 2.

447

4. The analytical semi-empirical model (ASEM) of

pyrolysis yields
Thermo-gravimetric analysis that provides useful information on total volatile release versus temperature and measurements are available for many feedstocks [19]. However,
detailed molecular identification of pyrolysis products is still
not yet extensively available for many feedstocks involved in
applications of pyrolysis. The Clean Combustion Technology
Laboratory (CCTL) of the University Florida in organizing its
own experimental data on pyrolysis products [20] as well as
data in the literature has developed an analytical semi-empirical
model (ASEM) that can serve as a simple and robust alternative
to kinetic modeling [21]. Some success has been achieved in
including the time dimension [22,23] but much more work
remains. When the time dimension is not a factor as in the case
of the asymptotic yields of slow pyrolysis or fast pyolysis yields
at a fixed time the CCTL has successfully represented pyrolysis
product yields by the robust function [2124]:
yT wLT : T o ; D p FT : T o ; Dq

Table 2
Yields (wt.%) of Products as a function of temperature [12]

(1)

where

Temperature (8C)
500
Mass balance
Gas
Liquids
Coke
Residual oil
Unaccounted
Total
Gas composition (formula)
Methane (CH4)
Ethylene (C2H4)
Ethane (C2H6)
Propylene (C3H6)
Propane (C3H8)
iso-Butane (C4H10)
n-Butane (C4H10)
iso-Butylene (C4H6)
1-Butene (C4H8)
C5 + gases (C5H12)
DME (C2H6O)
COx (CO + CO2)
Hydrogen (H2)
Total gas (wt.%)
Liquids (formula)
Alcohols (CH3OH)
Acetone (C3H6O)
Ketones (C3H6O)
Benzene (C6H6)
Toluene (C7H8)
Xylenes (C8H10)
Ethylbenzene (C8H10)
C9 + aromatics (C9+)
Aliphatics (CnH2n, CnH2n+2)
Unidentified
Total aromatic
Total liquids (wt.%)

75.0
14.8
3.9
0
6.3
100

450
71.7
17.2
3.9
1.2
6.0
100

400
55.8
34.4
3.9
1.6
4.3
100

370
38.0
45.9
3.9
6.1
6.1
100

300
15.0
38.1
0
41.9
5.0
100

10.6
23.68
7
13.6
1.15
0.02
6.67
1
0.58
4
0.17
3.87
1.66

9.95
22.15
6.74
12.25
1.14
0.01
6.35
1
0.64
5.55
0.1
3.75
1.37

7.1
17
5.39
10.3
0.9
0.01
5.5
0.8
0.4
4.5
0.1
2.9
0.9

4.1
10.77
4.06
7
1
0.01
4.06
0.6
0.2
3.7
0
2
0.5

1.4
4.14
1.7
2.73
0.5
0
1.6
0.3
0.1
1.62
0
0.81
0.1

75

71

55.8

38

15

0.9
0.1
0.0
4.0
2.8
0.6
0.4
1.2
0.6
4.3

1.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
2.8
0.7
0.5
1.4
0.7
6.6

1.2
0.0
0.0
5.0
3.9
1.1
0.8
2.7
1.5
18.1

1.9
0.2
0.1
4.6
3.5
1.2
0.9
3.4
1.9
28.1

1.9
1.5
0.1
2.5
1.6
0.5
0.4
2.7
1.0
25.7

9.0

9.5

13.5

13.6

7.7

14.8

17.2

34.3

45.9

38.1

LT : T o ; D

1
1 expT o  T=D

(2)

and
FT : T o ; D 1  LT

1
1 expT  T o =D

(3)

Here L(T), is the well known logistic function that is often called
the learning curve. Its complement F(T) = 1  L(T) thus has
been called the forgetting curve. In effect each product is
assigned 5 parameters (w, To, Do, p, q) to represent its yield versus
temperature profile. The CCTL original objective was to find
how these parameters depend upon the [H] and [O] of the
feedstock and a, b, c of the CaHbOc product using available
data from various types of pyrolyzers. When data taken with the
same apparatus using many feedstock some successes were
achieved in representing trends of the product yields parameters
with analytical functions of [O] and [H] [2124].
When the ASEM methodology is applied to organize
pyrolysis yields versus temperatures for a specific feedstock
when many products are measured it was found that very
reasonable fits to experimental data can be obtained with the
above analytical relationships using only a modest number of
adjustable parameters [24,25]. The results could be useful in
interpolating and extrapolating the useful information that these
measurements imply and in communicating the essence of the
experimental data. The model has recently served to represent
the thermo-chemical response to temperature of corn cob and
corn stover over a wide range of heating rates [26,27]. The
measurements were made with a mini pyrolysis reactor that can
be used with small samples.
Since hundreds even thousands of organic products of
pyrolysis have been identified in the literature the CCTL goal
was to find some reasonable comprehensive representation of

448

S.M. Sadrameli, A.E.S. Green / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 78 (2007) 445451

Table 3
Functional group of CaHbOc
j=1

Aliphatics
Paraffins
Olefins
Acetylenes
Aldehydes
Alcohols

j
j+1
j+1
j+1
j

2a + 2
2a
2a  2
2a
2a + 2

0
0
0
1
1

Aromatics
Aromatics
Polynuclear aromatics

5+j
6 + 4j

4 + 2j
6 + 2j

0
0

Some misc.
Furan
2-Methylfuran
Furanone
Furfural
Furfural alcohol
Hydro methyl furaldehyde
Methyl furfural
Glyoxal
Hydroxy ethanal
Ethylene glycol
Propanal 2-one
Acetol
Methanolacetaldehyde
2,3-Butanedione
2,3-Pentenediione
Catechol
Resorcinol
Hyroquinone
Vanillin

4
5
4
5
5
6
6
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
5
6
6
6
8

4
6
4
4
6
6
6
2
4
6
4
6
6
6
8
6
6
6
8

0
0
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3

the patterns in the organization of these products. Towards this

goal the CCTL has grouped products into the family groups
shown in Table 3 along with the a,b,c rules that connect these
groups [2124]. These can be subdivided into pure hydrocarbons, i.e. (CaHb), and the oxygenates (CaHbO, CaHbO2,
CaHbO3, . . ., etc.). Isomers (groups with identical a, b and c)
can differ in detailed pyrolysis properties and hence
parameters. We have used j = 1, 2, 3, etc., . . ., to denote the
first, second, third, etc., members of each group or the carbon
number (C).
In CCTLs most recent studies on specific feedstock [24,25],
formulas have been proposed and tested for the dependence of
the To, D, w, p, q parameters upon the carbon number of the
product within each group. This has made it possible to
compact large bodies of data into simple formulas and a small
table of parameters. It has made it possible to use experience
drawn from one data analysis to guide the adjustment of
parameters to fit or extrapolate another data set. One can
usually chose To and D by fitting the total pyrolysis yield versus
temperature or the Y(T) of a dominant product with the
parameters p = 1 and q = 0. Having gotten the dominant
product well represented one can usually fit the data for other
products with minor variations of these two parameters or in
most cases, to a good enough accuracy, by simply adjusting p,
q, and w. In this Canola oil analysis we will use To and D as two
universal learning parameters and adjust p, q and w for other
individual yields when measurements are available and provide

formulas based upon the carbon number of the family member

for the remaining family members. Several CCTL studies
indicate that p must decrease with carbon number of the family
member and q must increase with carbon number. When yields
of many family members were available we have found
reasonable correlations using the power law [24,25] in
equivalent forms

a
p
Cp
(4)
p a1
C
C
q q1 Cb

C
Cq

b
(5)

From our polyethylene and naphtha analyses it has appeared

that p and a and q and b can usually be extrapolated from the fits
to the data of the lowest C members of families. On the other
hand the w values of the lowest members sometimes follow
irregular patterns but w values for higher members decline in a
manner that can be represented by


Cr  C
w wr exp
(6)
Cw
Table 4
ASME parameters: To = 375, D = 40, a = 1, b = 1
Olefins

w
p
q

C5+

C2H4

C3H6

isoC4H8

C4H8

wr

25.0
1.0
0.0

15.5
1.0
0.03

1.2
0.9
0.04

0.8
1.5
0.04

1
2.6
100

Cw
Cp
Cq

Paraffins

w
p
q

C5+

CH4

C2H6

C3H8

C4H10

wr

11.6
1
0.01

8
0.8
0.02

1.33
0.6
0.03

8.1
0.9
0.04

1
2.6
100

Cw
Cp
Cq

Aromatics

w
p
q

EBa

C9+

C6H6

C7H8

C8H10

wr

C8H10

10
0.92
0.3

6.5
0.79
0.35

3.5
0.69
0.4

2
5.5
20

Cw
Cp
Cq

1.9
0.6
0.5

Oxygenates

w
p
q

CH4O

C3H6O

Ketones

DMEb

FAMEsc

3.7
0.3
0.7

6.7
0.45
4

0.4
0.2
2

0.2
2.4
0.01

75
0.45
1
PNAd C10

Others

w
p
q
a
b
c
d

H2

CO

CO2

Coke

2.8

wr

1.3
1.4
0.1

3
2
0.1

1.5
0.2
0.2

4.2
2
0.1

2
5
1000

Cw
Cp
Cq

Ethyl benzene.
Di-methyl ether.
Fatty acid methyl esters.
Polynuclear aromatic.

S.M. Sadrameli, A.E.S. Green / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 78 (2007) 445451

where Cr is a reference member of the family and wr is the value

that gives the best fit for that member with the To, D, p and q
already assigned. Then the magnitude parameters for all higher
members are given when one assigns the parameter Cw. Admittedly in many cases these formulas provide speculative way of
guesstimating pyrolyis yields of higher family members based
upon patterns seen in a few previous analyses. However, by
giving yield formulas for all products these rules provides a way
of constraining projected yields to some total measurement that
might be available or to provide means to subject the results to
approximate mass, carbon, hydrogen and oxygen balance tests.
In the case of our studies of the pure hydrocarbons
polyethylene and naphtha [24,25] only CaHb families are
among the products which are very limited as compared to the
families resulting from the pyrolysis of oxygenated feedstock.

449

Furthermore yields of higher members of these families were

available that enabled us to estimate some family parameters
that can be used as guides.
The initial concentration was on natural feedstock lying
along natures coalification path. Here CCTL first followed the
traditional rule of characterizing a feedstock by its atomic ratios
H/C and O/C and some progress was made in finding patterns of
slow pyrolysis product yields versus these feedstock coordinates. However, as data of molecular yields became available in
the form of weight percentages (wt.%) the CCTL found it more
useful to characterize a feedstock by the oxygen wt.% [O] and
the hydrogen wt.% [H] after correcting its ultimate analysis
data to dry ash, sulfur and nitrogen free (DASNF) condition.
For DASNF materials [C] = 100  [O]  [H]) so that [H], [O],
the temperature (T) and time (t) of exposure and the parameters

Fig. 2. Yields (wt.%) of olefins, paraffins and aromatics vs. temperature.

450

S.M. Sadrameli, A.E.S. Green / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 78 (2007) 445451

Fig. 3. Yields (wt.%) of alcohol, ketone and acetone (AKA), polynuclear aromatic (PNA), total gases, total liquids and conversion vs. temperature.

a, b and c that characterize the product become the independent

variables of the overall systematics of pyrolysis.

The Canola oil used by the University of Saskatchewan

group (to be identified as IKB) consisted mainly of unsaturated
triglycerides having an average molecular formula of
C59H94O5. Thus the weight percentages of the feedstock
are [C] = 80.3%, [H] = 10.7% and [O] = 9.1%. This is very
far from typical biomass such as wood with [C], [H], [O] = 49,
7, 44. Indeed it is much closer to hydrocarbons such
as polyethylene with 86, 14, 0 coordinates. Accordingly

one would not expect higher oxygenates to be among

the pyrolysis products. Table 3 shows the family groups
identified in the Table 4 of IKB. The ASEM is applied to this
data.
After a preliminary survey of the To and D useful in fitting
most of the major products in the Canola oil case we settled on
the To = 375 8C and D = 40 8C as suitable for all products. For
ethylene, the dominant pyrolysis product, a good fit is obtained
using the parameters p = 1, q = 0 and w = 25. All other products
can be represented quite well with appropriate individual
choices of p and q or in families using Eqs. (4)(6). Table 4 lists
the parameters including the parameters of the few families for
which sum constraints were available in the IKB data. Since the

Fig. 4. Yields of COx, polynuclear aromatic (PNA), hydrogen, acetylene and

alcohol, ketone, and acetone (AKA) vs. temperature.

Fig. 5. Yields of olefins, paraffins, aromatics, fatty acid methyl esters

(FAMEs), and coke vs. temperature.

5. Results and discussions

S.M. Sadrameli, A.E.S. Green / J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 78 (2007) 445451

detailed constraints were limited we have used a = b = 1 as

default assignments.
The main group distribution profiles, i.e. olefins, paraffins,
and aromatics are plotted in Fig. 2. While the light olefins yields
increase with temperature, reach to the maximum at 450500 8C
and then level off at higher temperature regions, the higher olefins
have the maximum near 450 8C. The same trends are shown for
the paraffins and aromatics profiles but for the light paraffins and
aromatics the maximum approaches 400 8C. As can be seen from
the figures the agreements between the ASEM representations
and experimental data are very good. Fig. 3 illustrates the yields
of oxygenated components acetone, ketone and alcohol (AKA)
versus temperature. PNA yields which have been substituted by
the unaccounted components are also shown in the figure. The
total gases and liquids yields show the best fit with the
experimental points. Figs. 4 and 5 show the variation of yields
versus temperature for olefins, paraffins, aromatics, PNA,
FAMEs, and coke. In the case of IKBs COx we use simple
separate representation of CO and CO2 yields to reflect CCTL
[28] and other experiments that show that CO2 comes in a lower
temperature but declines a higher temperature. On the other hand
CO comes in at higher temperatures and increases further at
higher temperatures. In part these trends are enhanced by the
Boudouard reaction C + CO2 ! 2CO. Hydrogen and acetylene
are also included in the figure.
6. Conclusions
It appears that the ASEM pyrolysis methodology as
developed for coal, biomass and alternative fuel (CBAF)
systems is also useful for organizing the products of vegetable
oil thermal cracking. The analytical representations nicely
summarize the experimental results of University of Saskatchewan and provide means of interpolating and extrapolating
them for engineering applications.
In final conclusion, this additional analysis indicates that the
ASEM methodology could be useful for organizing pyrolysis
yields of many hydrocarbons and CaHbOc components. It
should facilitate the development of improved models of solid
and even liquid feedstock pyrolysis that are required for many
thermo-chemical engineering applications.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the dependence of this work on the
pain staking measurements of Professor N.N. Bakhshi and his

451

colleagues in the Catalysis and Chemical Reaction Engineering

Laboratory of University of Saskatchewan, Canada.
References
[1] R. Deng, F. Wei, Y. Jin, Q. Zhang, Chem. Technol. Eng. 25 (2002) 711
716.
[2] P.B. Weisz, W.O. Haag, P.G. Rodewald, Science 206 (1979) 5758.
[3] E. Soltes, T. Milne (Eds.), Pyrolysis Oils From BiomassProducing,
Analyzing and Upgrading. ACS Symposium Series 376, in: A.V. Bridgwater, J. Kuester (Eds.), Research in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, Elsevier Applied Science, London, 1988, pp. 910926.
[4] I. Cambell, Biomass Catalysis and Liquid Fuels, Holt, Rienhart and
Winston, London, 1983.
[5] E.G. Baker, D.C. Elliot, in: A.V. Bridgwater (Ed.), Research in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, Elsevier Applied Science, London, 1999,
pp. 883895.
[6] W. Craig, E. Coxworth, J. Saddler, in: S. Hagnain (Ed.), Proceedings of the
Fifth Canadian Biomass R&D Seminar, Elsevier Applied Science, London, (1984), pp. 143146.
[7] D.G.B. Boocock, S. Konar, K. Mackay, A. Cheung, P.T.C. Liu, J. Fuel 71
(1992) 12911297.
[8] Y.S. Prasad, N.N. Bakhshi, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 64 (1986) 278284.
[9] C.C. Chang, S.W. Wan, Ind. Eng. Chem. 39 (1947) 15431548.
[10] G. Egloff, J.C. Morrell, Ind. Eng. Chem. 24 (1932) 14261427.
[11] G. Egloff, E.F. Nelson, Ind. Eng. Chem. 25 (1932) 386387.
[12] R.O. Idem, S.P.R. Katikaneni, N.N. Bakhshi, Energy & Fuels 10 (1996)
11501162.
[13] M.E. Masoomi, M. Shahrokhi, M. Sadrameli, J. Towfighi, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 45 (2006) 35743582.
[14] M.E. Masoomi, S.M. Sadrameli, J. Towfighi, A. Niaei, Energy 31 (2006)
516527.
[15] F. Billaud, Y. Guitard, A.K. Tran Minh, O. Zahraa, P. Lozano, D. Pioch, J.
Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 192 (2003) 281288.
[16] M. Fangrui, M. Hanna, Biores. Technol. 70 (1999) 115.
[17] D. Altiparmak, K. Ali, A. Koca, M. Guru, Biores. Technol. 98 (2007) 241
246.
[18] R.O. Dunn, M.W. Shockley, M.O. Bagby, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 73 (12)
(1996) 17191728.
[19] S. Gaur, T. Reed, Thermal Data for Natural and Sysnthetic Fuels, M.
Dekker Inc., NY, New York, 1998.
[20] A. Green, J. Mullin, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 121 (1999) 17.
[21] A. Green, P. Venkatachalam, M.S. Sankar, Feedstock Blending of domestic Fuels in Gasifier/Liquifiers, TURBO EXPO, Amsterdam, GT, 2002
(2002-30009), pp. 110.
[22] A. Green, R. Chaube, Pyrolysis Systematics for Co-Utilization Applications, TURBO EXPO, Atlanta, GA, GT, 2003 (2003-38229), pp. 110.
[23] A.R. Green, A. Chaube, Int. J. Power Energy Syst. 24 (2004) 215223.
[24] A. Green, S.M. Sadrameli, JAAP 72 (2) (2004) 329335.
[25] S.M. Sadrameli, A. Green, JAAP 73 (2005) 305313.
[26] A. Green, J. Feng, JAAP 76 (2006) 6069.
[27] J. Feng, Q. Yu Hong, A. Green, J. Biomass Bioenergy 30 (2006) 486
492.
[28] S. Perez, Green A S, Catalytic Indirectly Heated Gasifcation of Bagasse
Proc. Turbo Expo TE CBAF 0206, Stockholm, 1998.