Energy 116 (2016) 1e7

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Co-torrefaction of sewage sludge and leucaena by using microwave

heating
Yu-Fong Huang, Hsuan-Te Sung, Pei-Te Chiueh*, Shang-Lien Lo
Graduate Institute of Environmental Engineering, National Taiwan University, 71, Chou-Shan Rd., Taipei 106, Taiwan, ROC

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Microwave co-torrefaction of sewage sludge and leucaena can be a workable technique, because it not
Received 3 June 2016 only produces biofuels but also solves the problems in waste treatment. When the sewage sludge
Received in revised form blending ratio was 25e50 wt% and the microwave power level was 100 W, a synergistic effect was found
20 August 2016
to influence the mass and energy yields as well as product properties. The relatively small amount of
Accepted 17 September 2016
sewage sludge could play a role as a catalyst, since the synergistic effect was hard to be identified at
Available online 24 September 2016
higher sewage sludge blending ratios. Besides, it was difficult to find out the synergistic effect at higher
microwave power levels. This could be attributable to the effect of microwave heating which increases
Keywords:
Co-torrefaction
with its power level. The elemental compositions of biochar were close to those of anthracite and
Sewage sludge bituminous coal. The energy return on investment (EROI) of microwave co-torrefaction of the 25/75 (w/
Leucaena w) sewage sludge/leucaena blend at a microwave power level of 100 W in a processing time of 30 min
Microwave heating can be approximately 10.1 or 4.7, when the gaseous and liquid products are utilized or not. Therefore, the
Synergistic effect technique should be energetically and economically feasible.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction waste treatment and disposal.

Because of heavy dependence on fossil fuels that are non-
renewable and cause a great deal of carbon emissions, the use of
nuclear energy that may lead to radioactive pollution for hundreds
years, and global climate change that is leading to more and more
unexpected disasters, the research and development of clean, safe,
abundant, and low-cost renewable energy has been so important
and urgent. Biomass, one of renewable energy sources, provides
various advantages. Biomass is the only source of renewable liquid,
gaseous, and solid fuels [1]. The growth of plant biomass removes
atmospheric carbon dioxide, which can offset the carbon dioxide
emitted by the combustion of biofuels [2]. Biomass is an abundant,
carbon-neutral, and renewable resource for the production of
biofuels and biomaterials [3], and thus there has been increasing
interest in producing biofuels from a range of biomass feedstocks in
recent years [4]. Furthermore, most of the municipal and industrial
wastes can be regarded as biomass feedstocks. In addition to the
advantage of biofuel production, the utilization of the organic
wastes can also reduce the cost and environmental impacts from
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ptchueh@ntu.edu.tw (P.-T. Chiueh).
Microwaves are located between infrared and radio waves in the
electromagnetic spectrum, and they have wavelengths from 1 mm
to 1 m, corresponding to frequencies between 300 MHz and
300 GHz [5]. In order to avoid interference with telecommunica-
tions and radar transmissions, domestic and industrial microwave
ovens generally operate at either 900 MHz or 2.45 GHz [5,6]. Mi-
crowave technology has been used in various applications,
including organic synthesis [5e8], digestion [9,10], and food heat-
ing [11,12]. Microwave heating provides a number of advantages
over conventional heating, including higher heating efficiency and
power density, better heat transfer and process control, more uni-
form heat distribution, and faster internal heating [13e16]. Mi-
crowave heating can reach high temperatures in a fraction of the
time required for conventional heating, and the unique features of
microwave heating can be used to improve processes, to modify
selectivity, and to perform reactions that do not occur by conven-
tional heating [17,18]. Microwave heating has been used for
biomass pyrolysis and torrefaction in several studies [19e29]. The
dominant product of microwave pyrolysis can be liquid [20], solid
[27], or gases [28], depending on operational parameters such as
microwave power level, processing time, biomass characteristics,
and the presence of catalysts or microwave absorbers [29].
Raw biomass feedstocks have high moisture content, low energy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.09.102
0360-5442/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 Y.-F. Huang et al. / Energy 116 (2016) 1e7
densities, and hydrophilic nature, and they are bulkier with poorer
handling and transportation characteristics and is more tenacious
to make it difficult to comminute into small homogeneous parti-
cles, resulting in complicated and expensive storage and trans-
portation [30e33]. In addition, the high oxygen content of biomass
would result in a large amount of smoke formation during com-
bustion [33]. All of the drawbacks have given rise to the research
and development of new technologies for biomass modification in
order to ensure that its utilization as an energy source is environ-
mentally friendly and economically efficient [31,34]. One poten-
tially feasible way is a thermal processing step known as
torrefaction [30,34,35]. Torrefaction is a low-temperature
(200e300
C) thermal pretreatment of biomass operated at at-
mospheric pressure in the absence of oxygen [35e37], so it is also
known as mild pyrolysis [30,31,33,38]. In addition to increasing
energy density and decreasing moisture and oxygen content, tor-
refaction offers a great effect on the grindability and reactivity of
biomass [31]. Furthermore, biomass becomes hydrophobic after
torrefaction, which could be attributable to the formation of non-
polar unsaturated structures [35].
In this study, the co-torrefaction of sewage sludge and leucaena
was carried out by using microwave heating. The disposal of
sewage sludge would be one of the most complex environmental
problems [39,40], whereas the organic fraction of sewage sludge
can be regarded as a resource of bioenergy [41,42]. Leucaena is a
fast growing plant with high biomass production rate, so it has a
high potential for bioenergy production and can be a satisfactory
alternative to the use of traditional biomass feedstocks [43,44]. The
purpose of this study was to investigate the biochar produced by
microwave co-torrefaction of sewage sludge and leucaena. This
study also evaluated the energy usage of the technique. The origi-
nality of this study was that a synergistic effect between the two
very different biomass feedstocks was found to influence the
properties of the biochar and the mass and energy yields of mi-
crowave co-torrefaction. Consequently, even at relatively low mi-
crowave power levels, the performance of microwave co-
torrefaction was satisfactory. Besides, it was found that the en-
ergy usage benefit of microwave co-torrefaction was high, no
matter gas and liquid products were recovered or not.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Materials
Sewage sludge was obtained from the Dihua Sewage Treatment
Plant, Taipei, Taiwan. The moisture content of the as-received
sewage sludge was approximately 85 wt%. To remove the mois-
ture, the raw sewage sludge was air dried for several months and
then dried in an oven (95
C) for three days. Leucaena wood was
provided by the Kenting National Park, Pingtung, Taiwan. Before
applying to microwave torrefaction and relevant experiments,
sewage sludge and leucaena was dried, shredded, and ground into
powder, and then it was sieved by using a 50-mesh screen
(0.297 mm opening). The blended samples were obtained by
mixing sewage sludge and leucaena at the ratios of 25:75, 50:50,
and 75:25, named as SS25%, SS50%, and SS75%, respectively.
2.2. Experimental apparatus
A single-mode (focused) microwave oven was used in this study.
This microwave oven operates at a frequency of 2.45 GHz, and its
maximum output power is 2000 W. A schematic diagram of the
overall microwave heating system can be found elsewhere [45].
Both reaction tube (40 cm length, 5 cm outer diameter) and sample
crucible (3 cm height, 4 cm outer diameter) are made of quartz.
There was a three-stub tuner in charge of regulating the incident
angle of microwaves to make sure that microwave peak is located at
the center of reaction zone. At the end of microwave propagation
pathway, a short-circuit plunger was set to adjust the wavelength
phase of microwaves. During the experiment induced by micro-
wave heating, both three-stub tuner and short-circuit plunger were
adjusted to minimize reflected microwave power. The heat caused
by the reflected microwave power was absorbed by a water load
that was cooled down by a refrigerated circulator. Incident and
reflected microwave power was measured by a power meter. The
temperature of the biomass sample was measured by a thermo-
couple and an infrared thermometer. After passing through a
condenser, the vapor produced during the experiment was divided
into condensable (tar) and non-condensable (gas) parts, and the
flow rate of the gaseous product was measured by a digital flow
meter.
2.3. Experimental details
In this study, individual and blended biomass samples were
heated at microwave power levels of 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, and
350 W. The reaction cavity was purged with pure nitrogen gas at a
flow rate of 25 mL/min to maintain its inert atmosphere. After
sufficient purging, the power supply of the microwave heating
system was turned on and switched to the prescribed microwave
power level for 30 min. reflected microwave power was controlled
to be as low as possible during the entire experimental period by
adjusting the three-stub tuner and the short-circuit plunger. The
actual working microwave power level was determined by sub-
tracting the reflected microwave power level from the incident
level. At microwave power levels of 100, 200, and 300 W, sewage
sludge was heated to approximately 170, 280, and 350
C, and
leucaena was heated to approximately 230, 340, and 390
C,
respectively. When the prescribed processing time was reached,
the power supply was turned off, the gas purging was stopped, and
the tar and gas collectors were removed and sealed. After self-
cooled down to the room temperature, solid residues (biochar)
remained in the crucible were removed and then placed in a
desiccator for hours. All of the experiments were performed in
triplicate at least to obtain average values for the results.
2.4. Analytical methods
Proximate analyses of biomass samples and torrefied products
were performed according to the standards D7582-12 and D3172-
07a of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Ul-
timate analyses were carried out by using a PerkineElmer 2400 II
CHNS/O elemental analyzer. Higher heating values (HHV) were
measured in a Parr 1341 adiabatic oxygen bomb calorimeter. Each
sample (approximately 1 g) was dried at 105
C in an oven for 24 h
prior to heating value analysis. All of the samples were tested in
triplicate at least to obtain average values for the results. Ther-
mogravimetric analyses (TGA) were carried out by using a TA In-
struments SDT Q600 thermogravimetric analyzer with a nitrogen
flow rate of 100 ml/min, and each sample (approximately 10 mg)
was heated to 900
C at a rate of 10
C/min.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characteristics of biomass feedstocks
The general characteristics of air-dried sewage sludge and leu-
caena samples are listed in Table 1. As can be seen, the moisture
contents of the two biomass feedstocks were approximately 9.0
and 10.5 wt%, respectively. The volatile matter content of leucaena
 Y.-F. Huang et al. / Energy 116 (2016) 1e7
Table 1
Characteristics of air-dried sewage sludge and leucaena.
Sewage sludge
Moisture (wt%) 8.98
Proximate analysis (wt%)a
Volatile matter 52.31
Fixed carbon 18.51
Ash 29.18
Ultimate analysis (wt%)b
Carbon 51.58
Hydrogen 8.23
Oxygenc 31.40
Nitrogen 8.79
HHV (MJ/kg)a 15.04
a
Dry basis.
b
Dry ash-free basis.
c finding implies that there could be a synergistic effect between
Determined by difference.
was up to 79 wt%, much higher than that of sewage sludge. On the
contrary, the ash content of sewage sludge was much higher than
that of leucaena. The ash content of leucaena was only approxi-
mately 2.5 wt%. Coincidentally, the fixed carbon contents of the two
biomass feedstocks were almost the same (approximately 19 wt%).
The combustible fractions of sewage sludge and leucaena were
approximately 71 and 98 wt%, respectively. The sewage sludge
sample had higher carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen contents,
whereas the leucaena sample had higher oxygen content. The HHVs
of the sewage sludge and leucaena samples were approximately 15
and 19 MJ/kg, respectively. The relatively low HHV of the sewage
sludge sample is attributable to its high ash content.
The thermogravimetric (TG) profiles of sewage sludge, leucaena,
and their 1:1 blend are shown in Fig. 1. All the profiles can be
divided into three stages. Firstly, the weight loss occurred mainly
attributable to the removal of moisture. Secondly, the weight
largely and quickly decreased because of the devolatilization of
highly volatile components. Lastly, the weight slowly decreased
until the end of experiment. For sewage sludge and leucaena, the
boundaries between stages 1 and 2 were almost the same
(approximately 200
C). However, the stage 2 of leucaena profile
ended much earlier than that of sewage sludge profile. The
boundaries between stages 2 and 3 of leucaena and sewage sludge
were located at approximately 370 and 500
C, respectively. This
should be attributable to their difference in chemical compositions.
The volatile content of leucaena was much higher than that of
sewage sludge, whereas the ash content of sewage sludge was
much higher than that of leucaena. Besides, the ultimate compo-
sitions of the two biomass feedstocks were different. Moreover, the
TG profile of the blend was very similar to that of leucaena,
although its final residual weight percent was nearly the average of
sewage sludge and leucaena values.
Fig. 1. TG curves of sewage sludge, leucaena, and a 1:1 blend.
3
3.2. Proximate analysis
Leucaena The proximate compositions of biochar produced at different
10.50
biomass blending ratios and at microwave power levels of
100e350 W are shown in Fig. 2. At higher microwave power levels
78.80 (250e350 W), both volatile matter and fixed carbon contents
18.72 decreased whereas ash content increased with increasing sewage
2.48
sludge blending ratio. This phenomenon can be attributable to the
47.93 relatively high ash content of raw sewage sludge (Table 1). How-
6.59 ever, this trend did not exist at lower microwave power levels
38.27 (100e200 W). When the sewage sludge blending ratio was 50 wt%,
7.21
the biochar produced at microwave power levels of 100e200 W
19.27
had the lowest volatile matter content and the biochar produced at
a microwave power level of 100 W had the highest ash content. This
sewage sludge and leucaena occurred during their co-torrefaction,
which might improve the reactivity of microwave torrefaction at
lower microwave power levels and thus enhance the economic
viability of the technique due to lower energy consumption. On the
other hand, the trends in proximate compositions may imply that
the synergistic effect would be less substantial than the effect of
microwave power at higher power levels. Besides, volatile matter
content decreased whereas ash content increased with increasing
microwave power level. However, there was no substantial rela-
tionship between fixed carbon content and microwave power level.
The fuel ratios of different biochar products are listed in Table 2.
Fuel ratio is the ratio of fixed carbon content to volatile matter
content. The typical fuel ratio of bituminous coal is approximately
1.0e2.5 [46,47]. The fuel ratios of raw sewage sludge and leucaena
were 0.35 and 0.24, respectively. After microwave torrefaction, the
fuel ratio can be highly increased due to the removal of volatile
components. Generally, the fuel ratio increased with increasing
microwave power level, whereas the relationship between fuel
ratio and biomass blending ratio was difficult to define. Neverthe-
less, when the sewage sludge blending ratio was 25 wt% and mi-
crowave power levels were 250e350 W, the fuel ratio of biochar
was relatively high. At a microwave power level of 300 W, the
biochar produced by microwave torrefaction of SS25% sample had a
fuel ratio of approximately 11. Besides, when the pure sewage
sludge was torrefied at a microwave power level of 350 W, the fuel
ratio of biochar was up to 14.
3.3. Ultimate analysis
The ultimate compositions of biochar are illustrated in Fig. 3. As
can be seen, when the biochar was produced at higher microwave
power levels, it generally had higher carbon content but lower
hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen contents. This should be attribut-
able to that oxygen- and nitrogen-contained hydrocarbons were
removed more at higher reaction temperatures. Therefore, the ra-
tios of hydrogen to carbon (H/C) and oxygen to carbon (O/C) were
substantially reduced. In general, the carbon content of biochar
increased with increasing microwave power level, but decreased
with increasing sewage sludge blending ratio. However, at a mi-
crowave power level of 100 W, the carbon contents of the biochar
produced from SS25% and SS50% were approximately 73 and 66 wt
%, much higher than that from SS0% (approximately 59 wt%). Once
again, an unexpected result happened when the sewage sludge
blending ratios were 25 and 50 wt% and the power level was 100 W.
Therefore, there could be a synergistic effect between sewage
sludge and leucaena to let microwave torrefaction severer at such
low microwave power level. Besides, the highest carbon content of
the biochar produced from blends was approximately 77 wt%,
which produced from SS25% at a microwave power level of 150 W.
The aforementioned H/C and O/C ratios are important
4 Y.-F. Huang et al. / Energy 116 (2016) 1e7

Fig. 2. Proximate compositions of biochar produced at different biomass blending ratios and different microwave power levels.

Table 2
Fuel ratios of biochar.

Microwave power level (W) Sewage sludge blending ratio (wt%)

0 25 50 75 100

100 0.57 ± 0.07 0.70 ± 0.18 2.16 ± 0.34 2.44 ± 0.25 1.06 ± 0.08
150 4.03 ± 1.39 2.02 ± 0.48 4.32 ± 0.83 5.06 ± 0.38 2.88 ± 0.44
200 4.94 ± 1.86 2.03 ± 0.09 3.99 ± 0.75 3.64 ± 1.04 3.36 ± 0.67
250 5.92 ± 1.73 6.42 ± 0.75 5.35 ± 1.30 5.00 ± 0.52 6.74 ± 1.25
300 5.97 ± 0.96 11.18 ± 1.97 3.62 ± 1.03 5.59 ± 1.43 5.78 ± 0.88
350 7.30 ± 0.51 9.38 ± 0.74 7.60 ± 1.71 8.79 ± 0.21 13.84 ± 2.21

indicators, because the combustion or gasification of biomass
feedstocks with higher hydrogen and oxygen contents would lead
to more formation of smoke [48]. The elemental composition of
biochar can be observed and discussed by using the van Krevelen
diagram, which is a plot of atomic H/C ratio versus atomic O/C ratio.
The atomic ratios of raw sewage sludge and leucaena and biochar
produced from different biomass blending ratios and at different
microwave power levels were compared with those of different
ranks of coal [49], as illustrated in Fig. 4. It can be seen that both H/C
and O/C ratios were substantially reduced after microwave torre-
faction. Besides, the ratios increased with increasing microwave
power level, but decreased with increasing sewage sludge blending
ratio. The biochar produced from pure leucaena feedstock had
relatively low atomic H/C and O/C ratios (approximately 0.40 and
0.14). Besides, the atomic H/C ratio of the biochar produced at
350 W was approximately 0.34, which could be attributable to the
severe microwave torrefaction carried out by the high microwave
power level to sufficiently remove the hydrogen content of
biomass. In general, the atomic H/C ratio of biochar can be reduced
to even lower than that of anthracite, but the lowest atomic O/C
ratio was still higher than that of bituminous coal. Therefore, to
produce biochar with elemental composition similar to that of
anthracite, it would be necessary to further reduce the oxygen
content of biochar by modifying microwave torrefaction or adding
another process, such as feedstock pretreatment and biochar
refinement.
3.4. Heating value
The heating values of the biochar produced at different biomass
 Y.-F. Huang et al. / Energy 116 (2016) 1e7 5

Fig. 3. Ultimate compositions of biochar produced at different biomass blending ratios and different microwave power levels.

Table 3
Higher heating values of biochar.

Microwave power level (W) Sewage sludge blending ratio (wt%)

0 25 50 75 100

100 23.50 23.23 18.92 17.87 16.16

150 29.18 24.88 20.28 16.66 13.07
200 29.19 24.43 18.50 16.46 12.67
250 29.72 21.01 17.34 15.13 12.23
300 29.83 23.37 18.87 13.80 10.30
350 30.27 24.41 15.60 13.39 10.32

* Unit: MJ/kg.

Fig. 4. Van Krevelen diagram for raw sewage sludge and leucaena, biochar, and coal.
The data for the coal are taken from Ref. [49].
blending ratios and different microwave power levels are listed in
Table 3. As can be seen, the HHV of SS0% biochar was much higher
than that of raw leucaena (approximately 19 MJ/kg). At microwave
power levels of 150e350 W, the HHVs of SS0% biochar were as high
as 29e30 MJ/kg. A power level of 100 W seems to be insufficient for
leucaena torrefaction. Besides, microwave torrefaction lowered the
heating value of sewage sludge. The HHVs of SS100% biochar pro-
duced at microwave power levels of 300e350 W were only
approximately 10 MJ/kg. This is because that the ash content of the
biochar was approximately 68 wt%. The heating values of the
blends decreased with increasing sewage sludge blending ratio.
Higher microwave power level also led to lower heating value.
However, there were some exceptions.
The experimental and theoretical heating values of biochar are
shown in Fig. 5. The theoretical values were calculated according to
biomass blending ratios:
Vtheoretical ¼ rS  VS þ ð1  rS Þ  VL (1)
where rs is the sewage sludge blending ratio, Vs and VL are exper-
imental values from individual torrefaction of sewage sludge and
leucaena, respectively. When the sewage sludge blending ratio was
25 wt%, the experimental HHV was higher than the theoretical HHV
at a microwave power level of 100 W. This could be attributable to a
synergistic effect as aforementioned to let microwave torrefaction
6 Y.-F. Huang et al. / Energy 116 (2016) 1e7
Fig. 5. Heating values of biochar (exp: experimental; the: theoretical).
severer. Otherwise, the experimental HHV of SS25% biochar was
lower than the theoretical HHV at 100 W. This should be because
that, at this time, the effect of microwave power level was more
substantial. When the sewage sludge blending ratio increased to 50
and 75 wt%, the synergistic effect was hard to be identified.
Therefore, the relatively small amount of sewage sludge could play
a role as a catalyst.
3.5. Mass and energy yields
The mass and energy yields of sewage sludge and leucaena co-
torrefaction are listed in Fig. 6. The mass and energy yields can be
calculated by the equations as follows [50]:
Mass of torrefied biomass
Mass yield ð%Þ ¼  100
Mass of raw biomass
HHV of torrefied biomass
Energy yield ð%Þ ¼ Mass yield 
HHV of raw biomass
In general, both mass and energy yields increased with
increasing sewage sludge blending ratio, but decreased with mi-
crowave power level. However, at a microwave power level of
Fig. 6. Mass and energy yields of sewage sludge and leucaena co-torrefaction.
100 W, the mass yields of SS25% and SS50% were approximately
36% and 44%, and the energy yields were approximately 46% and
48%, all much lower than those of SS0% and SS75%. The results
should be attributable to the synergistic effect as aforementioned to
let microwave torrefaction severer at the low power level. This
phenomenon did not exist at higher microwave power levels,
which could be attributable to that the effect of microwave power
level was stronger than the synergistic effect. Furthermore, the
mass and energy yields of SS25% at 250e350 W were only 18% and
23%, respectively. The low yields represent that approximately
80 wt% of biomass feedstock was converted into gaseous and liquid
products via severer torrefaction (i.e., pyrolysis). In conclusion,
when the sewage sludge blending ratio was not over 50 wt%, a
synergistic effect could occurred to enhance the performance of
microwave torrefaction at low microwave power levels. Thus, en-
ergy requirement for microwave torrefaction can be lowered.
3.6. Energy return on investment
To evaluate the energy usage benefit of microwave co-
torrefaction, an indicator called energy return on investment
(EROI) was calculated. EROI is a ratio between the energy delivered
to society and the energy required to deliver that energy [51]:
Energy delivered
EROI ¼ (4)
Energy required
EROI is an important indicator of potential energy benefit to
society [52]. The calculation details for the EROI of microwave co-
torrefaction are listed in Table 4. It should be noted that the
maximum processing capacity of the microwave heating system
(2) can be approximately 200 g, and the conversion efficiency from
electrical energy to microwave energy can be 50% [53]. The EROI of
microwave co-torrefaction of SS25% at a microwave power level of
100 W in a processing time of 30 min can be approximately 4.7,
without the recovery of gaseous and liquid products. Since the
(3)
minimum EROI for a sustainable society is 3 [54], the technique
under the conditions should be energetically and economically
feasible. Besides, if all the byproducts of microwave torrefaction
(condensable liquids and non-condensable gases) can be totally
recovered (i.e., the chemical energy of the blend is completely
utilized), the EROI will be as high as approximately 10.1. Further-
more, when the treatment cost of sewage sludge and the carbon
absorption by leucaena growth are considered, the economic and
environmental benefits of the technique can be even higher.
4. Conclusions
In this study, the co-torrefaction of sewage sludge and leucaena
was carried out by using microwave heating. The power level of
100 W was not high enough for microwave torrefaction. However,
with the addition of sewage sludge not over 50 wt%, the reaction
performance would be satisfactory possibly attributable to the ex-
istence of a synergistic effect. The relatively small amount of
Table 4
Calculation details for the EROI of microwave co-torrefaction.
Energy required Energy delivered
 Microwave power level: 100 W  Sewage sludge
blending ratio: 25 wt%
 Processing time: 30 min  Feedstock weight:
200 g (maximum capacity)
 Conversion efficiency from  Energy yield: 46%
electrical energy to
microwave energy: 50%
 Y.-F. Huang et al. / Energy 116 (2016) 1e7
sewage sludge could play a role as a catalyst, since the synergistic
effect was hard to be identified at higher sewage sludge blending
ratios. Besides, the synergistic effect could be neglected at higher
microwave power levels, possibly attributable to the effect of mi-
crowave heating which increased with its power level. The
elemental compositions of biochar were close to those of anthracite
and bituminous coal, although additional processes would be
necessary to further reduce the oxygen content. The EROI of mi-
crowave co-torrefaction of the SS25% blend at a microwave power
level of 100 W in a processing time of 30 min can be approximately
10.1 or 4.7, when the gaseous and liquid products are utilized or not.
Therefore, the technique should be energetically and economically
feasible, and its economic and environmental benefits could be
even higher when taking the treatment cost of sewage sludge and
the carbon absorption during the lifecycle of leucaena into
consideration.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from
the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, ROC (104-2221-E-
002-029-MY3).
References
[1] Bridgwater AV, Meier D, Radlein D. An overview of fast pyrolysis of biomass.
Org Geochem 1999;30:1479e93.
[2] Mohan D, Pittman CU, Steele PH. Pyrolysis of wood/biomass for bio-oil: a
critical review. Energy Fuels 2006;20:848e89.
[3] Ragauskas AJ, Williams CK, Davison BH, Britovsek G, Cairney J, Eckert CA, et al.
The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials. Science 2006;311:484e9.
[4] Peterson AA, Vogel F, Lachance RP, Fro €ling M, Antal Jr MJ, Tester JW. Ther-
mochemical biofuel production in hydrothermal media: a review of sub- and
supercritical water technologies. Energy Environ Sci 2008;1:32e65.
[5] Lidstro€m P, Tierney J, Wathey B, Westman J. Microwave assisted organic
synthesisda review. Tetrahedron 2001;57:9225e983.
[6] Mingos DMP, Baghurst DR. Applications of microwave dielectric heating ef-
fects to synthetic problems in chemistry. Chem Soc Rev 1991;20:1e47.
[7] de la Hoz A, Diaz-Ortiz A, Moreno A. Microwaves in organic synthesis. Ther-
mal and non-thermal microwave effects. Chem Soc Rev 2005;34:164e78.
[8] Kappe CO, Dallinger D. The impact of microwave synthesis on drug discovery.
Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006;5:51e63.
[9] Afridi HI, Kazi TG, Jamali MK, Kazi GH, Arain MB, Jalbani N, et al. Analysis of
heavy metals in scalp hair samples of hypertensive patients by conventional
and microwave digestion methods. Spectr Lett 2006;39:203e14.
[10] Nobrega JA, Nascentes CC, Labuto Araujo GC, Araujo Nogueira AR, Pirola C.
High-throughput microwave-assisted digestion and extraction procedures for
agricultural materials. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 2007;38:2333e45.
[11] Venkatesh MS, Raghavan GSV. An overview of microwave processing and
dielectric properties of agri-food materials. Biosyst Eng 2004;88:1e18.
[12] Wang J, Xi YS. Drying characteristics and drying quality of carrot using a two-
stage microwave process. J Food Eng 2005;68:505e11.
[13] Jones DA, Lelyveld TP, Mavrofidis SD, Kingman SW, Miles NJ. Microwave
heating applications in environmental engineeringea review. Resour Conserv
Recycl 2002;34:75e90.
[14] Ludlow-Palafox C, Chase HA. Microwave-induced pyrolysis of plastic wastes.
Ind Eng Chem Res 2001;40:4749e56.
[15] Lei H, Ren S, Julson J. The effects of reaction temperature and time and particle
size of corn stover on microwave pyrolysis. Energy Fuels 2009;23:3254e61.
[16] Lam SS, Chase HA. A review on waste to energy processes using microwave
pyrolysis. Energies 2012;5:4209e32.
[17] Lam SS, Chase HA. A review on waste to energy processes using microwave
pyrolysis. Energies 2012;5:4209e32.
[18] Appleton TJ, Colder RI, Kingman SW, Lowndes IS, Read AG. Microwave tech-
nology for energy-efficient processing of waste. Appl Energy 2005;81:
85e113.
[19] Masek O, Budarin V, Gronnow M, Crombie K, Brownsort P, Fitzpatrick E, et al.
Microwave and slow pyrolysis biochardComparison of physical and func-
tional properties. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2013;100:41e8.
[20] Yin C. Microwave-assisted pyrolysis of biomass for liquid biofuels production.
Bioresour Technol 2012;120:273e84.
[21] Salema AA, Ani FN. Microwave induced pyrolysis of oil palm biomass. Bio-
resour Technol 2011;102:3388e95.
[22] Wang X, Morrison W, Du Z, Wan Y, Lin X, Chen P, et al. Biomass temperature
profile development and its implications under the microwave-assisted
7
pyrolysis condition. Appl Energy 2012;99:386e92.
[23] Chen WH, Ye SC, Sheen HK. Hydrothermal carbonization of sugarcane bagasse
via wet torrefaction in association with microwave heating. Bioresour Technol
2012;118:195e203.
[24] Aziz SMA, Wahi R, Ngaini Z, Hamdan S. Bio-oils from microwave pyrolysis of
agricultural wastes. Fuel Process Technol 2013;106:744e50.
[25] Zhou R, Lei H, Julson J. The effects of pyrolytic conditions on microwave py-
rolysis of prairie cordgrass and kinetics. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2013;101:
172e6.
[26] Lin YC, Wu TY, Liu WY, Hsiao YH. Production of hydrogen from rice straw
using microwave-induced pyrolysis. Fuel 2014;119:21e6.
[27] Wang MJ, Huang YF, Chiueh PT, Kuan WH, Lo SL. Microwave-induced torre-
faction of rice husk and sugarcane residues. Energy 2010;37:177e84.
[28] Huang YF, Kuan WH, Chang CC, Tzou YM. Catalytic and atmospheric effects on
microwave pyrolysis of corn stover. Bioresour Technol 2013;131:274e80.
[29] Menendez JA, Arenillas A, Fidalgo B, Fernandez Y, Zubizarreta L, Calvo EG,
et al. Microwave heating processes involving carbon materials. Fuel Process
Technol 2010;91:1e8.
[30] Prins MJ, Ptasinski KJ, Janssen FJJG. Torrefaction of wood. Part 2. Analysis of
products. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2006;77:35e40.
[31] Arias B, Pevida C, Fermoso J, Plaza MG, Rubiera F, Pis JJ. Influence of torre-
faction on the grindability and reactivity of woody biomass. Fuel Process
Technol 2008;89:169e75.
[32] Bridgeman TG, Jones JM, Shield I, Williams PT. Torrefaction of reed canary
grass, wheat straw and willow to enhance solid fuel qualities and combustion
properties. Fuel 2008;87:844e56.
[33] van der Stelt MJC, Gerhauser H, Kiel JHA, Ptasinski KJ. Biomass upgrading by
torrefaction for the production of biofuels: a review. Biomass Bioenerg
2011;35:3748e62.
[34] Almeida G, Brito JO, Perre P. Alterations in energy properties of eucalyptus
wood and bark subjected to torrefaction: the potential of mass loss as a
synthetic indicator. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:9778e84.
[35] Bergman PCA, Boersma AR, Zwart RWR, Kiel JHA. Torrefaction for biomass co-
firing in existing coal-fired power stations. ECN report, ECN-C-05e013. 2005.
http://www.ecn.nl/biomass/.
[36] Uslu A, Faaij APC, Bergman PCA. Pre-treatment technologies, and their effect
on international bioenergy supply chain logistics. Techno-economic evalua-
tion of torrefaction, fast pyrolysis and pelletisation. Energy 2008;33:1206e23.
[37] Bates RB, Ghoniem AF. Biomass torrefaction: modeling of volatile and solid
product evolution kinetics. Bioresour Technol 2012;124:460e9.
[38] Atienza-Martinez M, Fonts I, Abrego J, Ceamanos J, Gea G. Sewage sludge
torrefaction in a fluidized bed reactor. Chem Eng J 2013;222:534e45.
[39] Werther J, Ogada T. Sewage sludge combustion. Prog Energy Combust Sci
1999;25:55e116.
[40] Dominguez A, Menendez JA, Inguanzo M, Bernad PL, Pis JJ. Gas chromatog-
raphicemass spectrometric study of the oil fractions produced by microwave-
assisted pyrolysis of different sewage sludges. J Chromatogr A 2003;1012:
193e206.
[41] Manara P, Zabaniotou A. Towards sewage sludge based biofuels via thermo-
chemical conversion e a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2012;16:2566e82.
[42] Tyagi VK, Lo SL. Microwave irradiation: a sustainable way for sludge treat-
ment. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2013;18:288e305.
[43] Singh V, Toky OP. Biomass and net primary productivity in Leucaena, Acacia
and Eucalyptus, short rotation, high density (‘energy’) plantation in arid India.
J Arid Environ 1995;31:301e9.
[44] Barneto AG, Carmona JA, Alfonso JEM, Ferrer JAC. Use of thermogravimetry/
mass spectrometry analysis to explain the origin of volatiles produced during
biomass pyrolysis. Ind Eng Chem Res 2009;48:7430e6.
[45] Huang YF, Chiueh PT, Kuan WH, Lo SL. Effects of lignocellulosic composition
and microwave power level on the gaseous product of microwave pyrolysis.
Energy 2015;89:974e81.
[46] Kurose R, Ikeda M, Makino H, Kimoto M, Miyazaki T. Pulverized coal com-
bustion characteristics of high-fuel-ratio coals. Fuel 2004;83:1777e85.
[47] Park SW, Jang CH. Characteristics of carbonized sludge for co-combustion in
pulverized coal power plants. Waste Manag 2011;31:523e9.
[48] Tumuluru JS, Sokhansanj S, Hess JR, Wright CT, Boardman RD. A review on
biomass torrefaction process and product properties for energy applications.
Ind Biotechnol 2011;7:384e401.
[49] Ullmann F. Ullmann's encyclopedia of industrial chemistry. sixth ed. Wein-
heim, Germany: Wiley-VCH; 2003.
[50] Yan W, Acharjee TC, Coronella CJ, Vasquez VR. Thermal pretreatment of
lignocellulosic biomass. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 2009;28:435e40.
[51] Hall CAS, Lambert JG, Balogh SB. EROI of different fuels and the implications
for society. Energy Policy 2014;64:141e52.
[52] Shie JL, Chang CY, Chen CS, Shaw DG, Chen YH, Kuan WH, et al. Energy life
cycle assessment of rice straw bio-energy derived from potential gasification
technologies. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:6735e41.
[53] Haque KE. Microwave energy for mineral treatment processesea brief review.
Int J Min Process 1999;57:1e24.
[54] Hall CAS, Balogh S, Murphy DJR. What is the minimum EROI that a sustainable
society must have? Energies 2009;2:25e47.