Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Unified Correlation For Estimating HHV of Solid, Liquid and Gaseous Fuels Channiguala
A Unified Correlation For Estimating HHV of Solid, Liquid and Gaseous Fuels Channiguala
100% 1
Average bias error
1
n
X
n
i1
HHV
c
2HHV
HHV
100% 2
The correlation giving minimum error levels over 225
data points was selected as the best one.
The following is the correlation which turned out to be
the best in this manner with an average absolute error of
1.45% and bias error of 0.00% with respect to measured
values of HHV:
HHV 0:3491C 11:1783H 10:1005S
20:1034O20:0151N 20:0211A MJ=kg 3
0% # C # 92.25%, 0.43% # H # 25.15%, 0.00% #
O # 50.00%,0.00%#N #5.60%, 0.00%#S #94.08%,
0.00%#A #71.4%, 4.745 MJ/kg #HHV #55.345 MJ/
kg where, C, H, O, N, S and A represents carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur and ash contents of material,
respectively, expressed in mass percentages on dry basis.
3. Validation of the unied correlation
Validation of the unied correlation developed under the
S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063 1058
Fig. 1. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (gaseous fuels).
Fig. 2. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (liquid fuels).
Fig. 3. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (coals).
Fig. 4. ComparisonbetweenmeasuredandpredictedHHV(biomass material).
present work has been carried out by comparison of
computed and measured values of HHV over 275 data
points which include 225 data points used for the derivation
and 50 data points, specially used for the validation of the
correlation. The measured and computed values of HHV
data has been presented graphically at Figs. 16 for
gaseous, liquid and solid fuels, the solid fuels being further
sub-divided into coals, biomass, refuse and chars, respec-
tively. Fig. 7 presents this comparison for whole range of
fuels. The error band of ^3% has been also shown on these
gures to indicate the error limits. The study of this compar-
ison indicates that the average absolute deviation a for
gaseous fuels, liquid fuels, coals, biomass, refuse, chars
and entire spectrum of fuels are 0.588, 0.299, 0.295,
0.369, 0.406, 0.241 and 0.337 MJ/kg, respectively, while
bias deviations are of the order of 20.445, 0.00, 0.045,
20.026, 0.164, 0.031 and 0.00 MJ/kg, respectively. Simi-
larly the average absolute error for gaseous fuels, liquid
fuels, coals, biomass, refuse, chars and entire spectrum of
fuels are 1.18, 0.772, 1.04, 1.94, 2.58, 0.951, and 1.45%,
respectively, except for few gaseous fuels like CO, C
2
H
2
and C
2
H
4
. The bias errors for these categories are found
to be 20.92, 0.00, 0.14, 20.17, 1.30, 0.08, 0.00%,
respectively.
It is worth mentioning over here that the ASTM bomb
calorimeter standards [49,50] specify the reproducibility
limit of 240 J/g while the present correlation for the entire
range of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels offers the prediction
within 337 J/g which is quite comparable with the measure-
ment uncertainties if one consider the widely varying nature
of data and the source of its collection.
The validation of present unied correlation has further
been established by comparing its predictions with the
predictions of few widely used correlations. However, it is
to be noted here that the published correlations are valid
only for the fuels for which they are derived. Hence, this
comparison is purely for academic interest. It is observed
that the average absolute error for Dulong's [1], Vondrecek
[4], Grummel and Davis [8,9], Boie [14], IGT [26], Tillman
[17], Jenkins [18,19] and Niesson [24] for the entire
spectrum of fuels considered herein are of the order of
6.94, 1.89, 5.65, 1.93, 2.15, 7.26, 12.34 and 33.6%, respec-
tively, while the bias error for the same correlations are
found to be 24.33, 0.07, 21.47, 0.13, 20.39, 22.95,
210.60 and 233.6%, respectively. The comparison was
also made for different categories of fuels for which above
correlations were derived and it was observed that irre-
spective of the fact whether the fuel falls under the classi-
cation of gaseous, liquid, coal, biomass, refuse or chars,
the values of average absolute and bias error with the
present unied correlation are either minimum or compar-
able to minimum.
It must, however, be emphasised that when taken over the
whole range of fuels, the proposed unied correlations gives
the absolute and bias errors which are the lowest as
compared to any published correlation. With these mini-
mum values of average absolute and bias error as 1.45
and 0.00%, respectively, the validity and merits of the
proposed unied correlation stands established.
The validity of proposed unied correlation is also
examined for the materials like, graphite, mixed garbage,
mixed paper, waste water sludges, plastic, leather, rubber,
polyvinyl chloride, polyurethane, and others as presented in
Table 5 which are not generally classied as recognised
fuels and further that these data points are not used in deri-
vation and validation of present unied correlation. It is
observed that except for few materials where bond energies
and/or ash levels are quite high, the present unied correla-
tion handles the predictions within ^3%. It's validity is
observed even for very high chlorine content materials
like polyvinyl chloride Cl 45:41%:
S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063 1059
Fig. 5. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (residue).
Fig. 6. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (chars).
4. Utility of the proposed unied correlation
Having established the validity and merits of the
proposed unied correlation, few of its applications have
been summarised below:
(i) The correlation can be used for HHV computation of
any solid, liquid and gaseous fuel, from its elemental
composition.
(ii) The correlation can also be used to verify the accuracy
of measured data of HHV and elemental composition.
(iii) In performance modelling exercise of combustion,
gasication and pyrolysis process, the correlation pro-
vides the facility of using HHV as an algebraic expression
in terms of fuel constituents which in turn is useful in
studying the inuence of elemental composition of the
fuel on process performance.
5. Conclusions
The present correlation has been derived based upon a
large number of data points having widely varying elemen-
tal composition and encompassing all categories of solid,
liquid and gaseous fuels. This means in that, within the speci-
ed ranges of C, H, O, N, S and Ash as 0.0092.25, 0.43
25.15, 0.0050.00, 0.005.60, 0.0094.08 and 0.0071.4%,
respectively, and within the stated absolute error limit of
1.45%, the present correlation may be accepted as `unied
correlation' for estimating HHV of solid, liquid and gaseous
fuels from their ultimate analysis, expressed on dry basis.
6. Limitations of the present unied correlation
Though the correlation has been derived over the entire
spectrum of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels, it does suffer
from the following limitations:
(i) Beyond the specied ranges of C, H, O, N, S and Ash,
the predictive accuracy of the correlation does not hold
good. For example HHV of H
2
H 100%; CO C
42:86; O 57:14% and municipal metallic waste A
90:49% as predicted by the present correlation has the
error of the order of 216.59, 210.88 and 2101.41%,
respectively.
(ii) For highly unsaturated hydrocarbon fuels like acetyl-
ene (C
2
H
2
) and ethylene (C
2
H
4
), the correlation is
S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063 1060
Fig. 7. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (whole range of fuels).
S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063 1061
T
a
b
l
e
5
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
U
n
i
e
d
H
H
V
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
S
o
m
e
C
o
m
b
u
s
t
i
b
l
e
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
(
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
F
r
o
m
T
h
o
s
e
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
i
n
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
V
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
)
S
r
.
N
o
.
N
a
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
P
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
%
b
y
m
a
s
s
,
d
r
y
b
a
s
i
s
)
U
l
t
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
%
m
a
s
s
,
d
r
y
b
a
s
i
s
)
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
H
H
V
(
d
r
y
b
a
s
i
s
)
(
M
J
/
k
g
)
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
H
H
V
c
(
d
r
y
b
a
s
i
s
)
(
M
J
/
k
g
)
E
r
r
o
r
E
i
(
%
)
R
e
f
.
F
C
%
V
M
%
A
s
h
%
C
%
H
%
O
%
N
%
S
%
C
l
%
1
G
r
a
p
h
i
t
e
(
g
r
a
p
h
i
t
i
c
c
a
r
b
o
n
)
1
0
0
1
0
0
3
3
.
8
2
3
4
.
9
1
3
.
2
2
[
2
9
]
2
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
r
e
f
u
s
e
2
8
.
9
8
3
5
.
6
6
4
.
8
0
2
9
.
5
2
0
.
8
9
0
.
1
4
1
4
.
4
0
4
1
4
.
4
4
2
0
.
2
6
[
6
5
]
3
M
i
x
e
d
g
a
r
b
a
g
e
-
I
1
1
.
6
4
7
2
.
3
6
1
6
.
0
0
4
4
.
9
9
6
.
4
3
2
8
.
7
6
3
.
3
0
0
.
5
2
1
9
.
7
2
9
1
9
.
9
7
4
1
.
2
4
[
6
6
]
4
V
e
g
e
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
o
d
w
a
s
t
e
1
6
.
3
5
7
8
.
7
7
4
.
8
8
4
9
.
0
6
6
.
6
2
3
7
.
5
5
1
.
6
8
0
.
2
0
1
9
.
2
3
0
2
0
.
9
3
6
8
.
8
7
[
6
6
]
5
M
i
x
e
d
p
a
p
e
r
9
.
4
0
8
4
.
6
0
6
.
0
0
4
3
.
4
1
5
.
8
2
4
4
.
3
2
0
.
2
5
0
.
2
0
1
7
.
6
1
1
1
7
.
3
1
9
2
1
.
6
6
[
6
7
]
6
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
w
a
s
t
e
(
m
e
t
a
l
l
i
c
)
9
0
.
4
9
4
.
5
4
0
.
6
3
4
.
2
8
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
1
1
.
7
2
5
2
0
.
0
2
4
2
1
0
1
.
4
1
[
6
7
]
7
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
d
i
g
e
s
t
e
d
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
a
n
d
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
s
l
u
d
g
e
1
5
.
0
1
5
0
.
9
1
3
4
.
0
8
3
7
.
1
3
4
.
2
8
1
6
.
7
6
6
.
2
5
1
.
5
0
2
.
2
2
1
5
.
6
0
1
1
5
.
6
1
0
.
0
5
[
2
4
]
8
Z
i
m
p
r
o
h
e
a
t
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
s
l
u
d
g
e
2
.
6
7
4
1
.
4
9
5
5
.
8
4
2
6
.
4
2
3
.
6
7
1
1
.
4
1
1
.
8
9
0
.
7
7
0
.
1
2
1
1
.
2
2
3
1
1
.
2
3
8
0
.
1
4
[
2
4
]
9
P
o
l
y
u
r
e
t
h
a
n
e
8
.
3
2
8
7
.
2
9
4
.
3
8
6
3
.
2
7
6
.
2
6
1
7
.
6
5
5
.
9
9
0
.
0
2
2
.
4
2
2
6
.
1
0
4
2
7
.
4
5
8
5
.
1
8
6
[
2
4
,
6
7
]
1
0
P
o
l
y
v
i
n
y
l
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
1
0
.
8
7
8
7
.
0
6
2
.
0
6
4
5
.
1
4
5
.
6
1
1
.
5
6
0
.
0
8
0
.
1
4
4
5
.
4
1
2
2
.
7
3
4
2
2
.
1
7
7
2
2
.
4
5
[
2
4
,
6
7
]
1
1
P
o
l
y
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
0
.
0
7
9
8
.
7
4
1
.
1
9
8
4
.
5
4
1
4
.
1
8
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
3
4
5
.
8
8
3
4
6
.
1
9
8
0
.
6
9
[
2
4
,
6
7
]
1
2
L
e
a
t
h
e
r
s
h
o
e
1
5
.
4
1
6
1
.
7
2
2
2
.
8
7
4
2
.
0
1
5
.
3
2
2
2
.
8
3
5
.
9
8
1
.
0
1
8
.
2
0
1
1
8
.
1
0
1
2
0
.
5
5
[
2
4
,
6
7
]
1
3
R
u
b
b
e
r
5
.
0
8
5
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
7
7
.
6
5
1
0
.
3
5
2
.
0
2
6
.
3
4
7
3
9
.
2
3
9
4
8
.
9
3
[
2
4
,
6
7
]
1
4
O
i
l
p
a
i
n
t
1
6
.
3
0
6
6
.
8
5
9
.
6
3
5
.
2
0
2
.
0
0
3
1
.
1
6
1
3
3
.
7
7
3
8
.
3
8
[
2
4
,
6
7
]
1
5
T
y
r
e
s
2
7
.
7
9
6
5
.
5
9
6
.
6
2
7
9
.
1
0
6
.
8
5
.
9
0
0
.
1
0
1
.
5
0
3
2
.
3
4
1
3
5
.
0
2
6
8
.
3
0
[
2
4
,
6
7
]
1
6
P
l
a
s
t
i
c
l
m
6
.
7
2
6
7
.
2
1
9
.
7
2
1
5
.
8
2
0
.
4
6
0
.
0
7
3
2
.
1
9
9
3
3
.
1
3
9
2
.
9
2
[
2
4
,
6
7
]
observed to be under predicting the HHV by 17.74 and
6.85%, respectively. This is due to their bond energy
levels being less than that of normal fuels.
(iii) For combustible material likes certain category of
leather, plastic, rubber and minerals where oxygen pene-
tration for combustion of C, H, and S is difcult either due
to very strong CH bond or due to very high ash content,
the predictions of present correlation does not hold good.
(iv) In general, for the materials whose bond energy
levels are lower than the normal fuels, the present corre-
lation under predicts the HHV values while for the
materials whose bond energy levels are substantially
higher than the normal fuels, the present unied correla-
tion is found to over predict the HHV values.
Acknowledgements
Authors gratefully acknowledges the physical and moral
support provided by the staff of Biomass Gasication
Project, I.C. Engine laboratory and Chemical Laboratory
of IIT, Mumbai. The nancial support provided by depart-
ment of non-conventional energy sources, Government of
India is also gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Selvig WA, Gibson IH. Caloric value of coal. In: Lowry HH, editor.
Chemistry of coal utilization, vol. 1. New York: Wiley, 1945. p. 139.
[2] Strache H, Lant R. Kohlenchemie. Leipzig: Akademische Verlags-
gesellschaft, 1924. p. 476.
[3] Steuer W. Brennstoff-Chem 1926;7:3447.
[4] Vondracek R. Brennstoff-Chem 1927;8:223.
[5] D'Huart K. Die Warme 1930;53:3137 Chem Abstr 1930;24:5966.
[6] Schuster F. Glukauf 1931;67:2325.
[7] Schuster F. Brennstoff-Chem 1934;25:456.
[8] Grummel ES, Davis IA. Fuel 1933;12:199203.
[9] Grummel ES, Davis IA. Colliery Guradian 1933;146:11545.
[10] Seylor AC. Proc S Wales Inst Engrs 1938;53:254.
[11] Gumz W. Feuerungstech 1938;26:3223 Chem Abstr 1939;33:6556.
[12] Sumegi L. Magyar Mernok Epiteszegylet Kozlonye 1939;73:3456
Chem Abstr 1940;34:1459.
[13] Mott RA, Spooner CE. Fuel 1940:22631, also pages 24251.
[14] Boie W. Energietechnik 1953;3:309.
[15] Grabosky M, Bain R. Properties of biomass relevant to gasication.
In: Reed TB, editor. Biomass gasiaction principles and technol-
ogy. New Jersey: Noyes Data Corporation, 1981. p. 4169.
[16] IGT. Coal Conversion Systems Technical Data Book, DOE Contract
EX 76-C-01-2286. Springeld, VA: NTIS, 1978.
[17] Tillman DA. Wood as an Energy resources. New York: Academic
Press, 1978.
[18] Jenkins BM Downdraft Gasication charcteristics of major california
residue derived fuels. PhD Thesis, University of California, Davis,
1980.
[19] Jenkins B, EbelingJM. Correlation of physical and chemical proper-
ties of terrestrial biomass with conversion: symposium energy from
biomass and waste IX IGT, 1985. p. 371.
[20] Beckman D, Elliot DC, Gevert B, Hornell C, Omtman A, Solantausta
Y, Talenheimo V. Techno-economic assessment of selected biomass
liquefaction process. Report No. 697, VTT, Finlan, ESPOO, 1990.
[21] Wilson DL. Prediction of heat of combustion of solid wastes form
ultimate analysis. Environ Sci Technol 1972;6(13):111921.
[22] Chang YC. Estimating heat of combustion for waste material. Pollut
Engng 1979:29.
[23] Khan MZA, Abu-Gharah ZH. New approach for estimating energy
content of municipal solid waste. J Environ Engng 1991;117(3):376
80.
[24] Niessen WR. Combustion and incineration process application in
environmental engineering. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1995. p. 118,
13747 and 1638.
[25] Himus GW. [FE-1730-21] Elements of fuel technology. London:
Leonard Hill, 1958.
[26] IGT. Chicago, Illinois, Preparation of coal conversion systems tech-
nical data book, Project 8964 nal report, Contact No. E (49-18)-
1730, Available From NTIS, US Department of Commerce, Spring-
eld, Virginia, USA, 1976.
[27] Van Krevelon DW, Schuyer Y. Coal science-aspects of coal consti-
tution. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1957. p. 194.
[28] Buckley TJ, Domalski ES [Discussion by Rigo HG]. Evaluation of
data on higher heating values and elemental analysis for refuse
derived fuels. 13th Biennial ASME Solid Waster Processing Confer-
ence, Philadelphia, PA. p. 1624 of discussion supplement, 14 May
1988.
[29] Stull DR, Prophet H. JANAF thermochemicals tables, NSRDS-NRS-
37 Washington. 2nd ed. 1971.
[30] Rose JW, Cooper JR, editors. British National Committee of The
World Energy Conference, Edinburgh 7th ed. British National
Committee of The World Energy Conference, Edinburgh 1977.
[31] Spiers HM. Technical data on fuel. 6th ed. New York: Wiley, 1962.
[32] Rossi A. Fuel characteristics of wood and non-wood biomass fuels.
In: Tillman DA, Jahn EC, editors. Progress in biomass conversion,
vol. 5. New York: Academic Press, 1984. p. 69.
[33] Anuradha G. Studies on characterisation of biomass for gasicaton.
PhD Thesis, Chemical Engineering Department, IIT-Delhi, 1990.
[34] Grover PD, Anuradha G. Thermochemical characterisation of
biomass for gasication. Report on physico-chemical parameters of
biomass residues, IIT-Delhi 1988.
[35] Boley EC, Landers WS. Enterainment drying and carbonization of
wood waster, Report of investigation 7282, Bureau of Mines,
Washington, 1969.
[36] Pober KW, Bauer HF. The nature of pyrolytic oil from municipal
solid waster. In: Anderson LL, Tillman DA, editors. Fuels from
waste. New York: Academic Press, 1977. p. 7386.
[37] Reed TB. Biomass gasication-principles and technology. New
Jersey: Noyes Data Corporation, 1981.
[38] Domalski ES, Jobe TL, Milne TA. Thermodynamic data for biomass
conversion and waste incineration, SERI/SP-271-2839, A product of
the solar technical information programme. USA: SERI, 1986.
[39] Channiwala SA. On biomass gasication process and technology
developments some analytical and experimental investigations.
PhD Thesis, Mechanical Engineering Department, IIT, Mumbai 1992.
[40] ASTM D 2013-86, Standard method of preparing coal samples for
analysis, in gaseous fuels; coal and Coke, Section 5, vol. 05.05,
Annual book of standards, 1989. p. 226.
[41] ASTM D 3172-73 (84), Standards method for proximate analysis of
coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke section 5, vol. 05-05,
Annual book of ASTM standards, 1989. p. 299.
[42] ASTM D 3173-87, Standards test method for moisture in the analysis
sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke, Section 5,
vol. 05-05, Annual book of ASTM standards, 1989. p. 300.
[43] ASTM D 3175-89, Standards, test method for volatile matter in the
analysis sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke,
Section 5, vol. 05-05, Annual book of ASTM standards, 1989. p. 305.
[44] ASTM D 3174-89, Standards test method for ash in the analysis
sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke, Section 5,
vol. 05-05, Annual book of ASTM standards, 1989. p. 302.
[45] STM D 3176-84, Standards method for ultimate analysis of coal and
S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063 1062
coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke, Section 5, vol. 05-05, Annual
book of ASTM standards, 1989. p. 308.
[46] D 3177-84, Standards test method for total sulfur in the analysis
samples of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke, Section
5, vol.05-05, Annual book of ASTM standards, 1989. p. 311.
[47] ASTM D 3178-84, Standard test method for carobn and hydrogen in
the analysis sample of coals and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke,
Section 5, vol. 05-05, Annual book of ASTM standards, 1989. p. 315.
[48] ASTM D 3179-84, Standard test method for nitrogen in the analysis
samples of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels, coal and coke, Section 5,
vol. 05-05 Annual book of ASTM standards, 1989. p. 519.
[49] ASTM D 2015-85, Standard test method for gross caloric value of
coal and coke by the adiabatic bomb calorimeter, in gaseous fuels;
coal and coke, Section 5, vol. 05-05, Annual book of ASTM stan-
dards, 1989. p. 251.
[50] ASTM, D 3286-85, Standard test method for gross caloric value of
coal and coke by the isoperibol bomb calorimeter, in gaseous fuels;
coal and coke, Section 5, vol. 05-05, Annual book of ASTM stan-
dards, 1989. p. 327.
[51] Denny LC, Luxon LL, Hall BE, l, editors. Handbook of butane
propane gases 4th ed. Los Angeles, California, USA: Chilton, 1962.
[52] Elliot DC. Process development for direct liquefaction of biomass. In:
Klass LD, Evert GH, editors. Fuels From Biomass and Waste, Ann
Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science, 1981. p. 43550.
[53] Suzuki A, Nakamura T, Yokoyama S, Ogi T, Koguchi K. An
advanced treatment of sewage sludge, by direct thermochemicals
liquefaction. In: Bridgwater AV, Kuester JL, editors. Research in
thermichemical biomass conversion. New York: Elsevier, 1985. p.
81626.
[54] CFRI. Indian coals, vols. 18. Dhanbad, Bihar: CFRI, 1979.
[55] Bliek A. Mathematical modelling of a co-current xed bed coal gasi-
er. PhD Thesis, Twente University of Technology, Eindhoven, The
Netherlands, 1984.
[56] Miles TR. Biomass preparation for thermochemical conversion. In:
Bridgwater AV, editor. Thermochemical processing of biomass.
London: Butterworths, 1984.
[57] Risser PG. Agricultural and forestry residues. In: Soffer SS, Zaborsky
OR, editors. Biomass conversion process for energy and fuels. New
York: Plenum Press, 1981. p. 2556.
[58] Maheshwari RC. Utiliization of rice husk as fuel. PhD Thesis, Agri-
cultural Engineering Department, IIT, Khragpur, 1975.
[59] Sanner WS, Ortuglio C, Walters JG, Wolfson DE. Conversion of
municipal and industrial refuse into useful materials by pyrolysis.
Report No. RI 7428, US Bureau of Mines, August 1970.
[60] Klass DL, Ghosh S. Methane production by anaerobic digestion of
water hyacinth. In: Klass LD, Emmert OH, editors. Fuels from
biomass and wastes. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science, 1981. p. 129
49.
[61] Leory DD. Particulate cleanup of low energy gas produced in a
biomass uised bed gasire. PhD Thesis, Texas A and M University,
1983. p. 52.
[62] Chynoweth DP, Klass DL, Ghosh S. Biomethanation of giant brown
kelp Macrocystis pyrigera, Energy from biomass and wastes.
Washington: IGT, 1978. p. 22952.
[63] Probstein RF, Hicks RE. Synthetic fuels. New York: McGraw Hill,
1982. p. 450.
[64] Jasas G, Kasper J. Gas turbine demonstration of pyrolysis-derived
fuels. Proceedings of the 14th Biomass Thermochemicals Conversion
Contractor's Meeting, 1982. p. 487545.
[65] Niessen WR, Chansky SH, Field EL, Dimitriou AN, La Manita CR,
Zinn RE, Lamb TJ, Sarom AS. Systems study of air pollution from
municipal incineration. NAPCA, US DHEW, Contract CPA-22-69-
23, March, 1970.
[66] Niessen WR, Alsobrook AF. Municipal and industrial refuse: compo-
sition and rates. Proceedings of 1972 ASME Incin. Conference,
ASME, New York, 1972. p. 319.
[67] Kaiser ER. Chemical analysis of refuse components. Proceedings of
1966 National Incin. Conference, ASME, New York, 1966. p. 84.
S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063 1063