Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 152 (2021) 111699

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Microwave co-torrefaction of waste oil and biomass pellets for

simultaneous recovery of waste and co-firing fuel
Peter Nai Yuh Yek a, b, Xiangmeng Chen c, **, Wanxi Peng a, Rock Keey Liew d, Chin Kui Cheng e,
Christian Sonne f, a, How Sing Sii b, Su Shiung Lam g, a, *
a
Henan Province Engineering Research Center for Biomass Value-Added Products, School of Forestry, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou, 450002, China
b
Centre for Research of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Department of Engineering and Technology, University College of Technology Sarawak, 96000, Sibu,
Sarawak, Malaysia
c
College of Science, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou, 450002, China
d
NV WESTERN PLT, No. 208B, Second Floor, Jalan Macalister, Georgetown, 10400, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
e
Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Khalifa University, P. O. Box 127788, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
f
Aarhus University, Department of Bioscience, Arctic Research Centre (ARC), Frederiksborgvej 399, PO Box 358, DK-4000, Roskilde, Denmark
g
Higher Institution Centre of Excellence (HICoE), Institute of Tropical Aquaculture and Fisheries (AKUATROP), Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030, Kuala Nerus,
Terengganu, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The low bulk density and heating value of biomass pellets limit their application as a co-firing fuel and a partial
Microwave substitute fuel for high-efficiency coal boilers. In this study, we develop an innovative microwave co-torrefaction
Torrefaction (MCT) process by combining microwave heating and torrefaction to convert palm waste fruit bunch pellets and
Waste oil
used cooking oil (UCO) into torrefied biomass pellets as an alternative fuel. Microwave heating requires a shorter
Palm waste
Fuel
torrefaction duration of only 6–8 min compared with a conventional furnace (20 min) to attain the desired high
process temperatures ranging from 200 ◦ C to 300 ◦ C. Torrefied biomass pellets produced from MCT yield less
volatile matter (33–49 wt%) and lower oxygen contents (23.1–40.1 wt%) compared with those produced from
conventional torrefaction. By conventional torrefaction at 300 ◦ C, the highest fuel ratio of torrefied biomass
pellets obtained is 2.0. MCT yields the desired energy yield of 98.1% at 250 ◦ C, the highest fuel ratio of 1.9, and a
heating value of 26.4 MJ/kg at 300 ◦ C. MCT exhibits a lower activation energy of 12.0 kJ/mol compared with
that of conventional co-torrefaction (13.6 kJ/mol), indicating that MCT can be performed at a relatively low
operating temperature and with low energy consumption. These results indicate the potential of microwave
heating for performing the co-torrefaction of biomass pellets using UCO as an economical approach to produce
desirable pellet fuel from waste and biomass materials.

contains high contents of moisture and ash, a low carbon content (45.5
wt%), and a low calorific value (17.0 MJ/kg) [6], which limit its
1. Introduction
application and economic feasibility. The torrefaction of EFB pellets is a
promising method for improving the heating value (up to 26.2 MJ/kg)
Biomass is a renewable energy source that supports the increasing
and carbon content (up to 63.5%) [7–9] such that an energy-dense fuel
energy demand and sustains the economic growth of many countries [1,
pellet can be produced to be used as a co-firing fuel with the benefit of
2]. Generally, biomass is carbon neutral with low sulphur content,
reducing slagging and fouling in power generation [10].
thereby affording less air pollution, particularly the emission of green­
The addition of torrefied biomass into existing coal boilers can be
house gases (GHGs) [3,4]. Empty fruit bunch (EFB) is the most abundant
performed using direct, indirect, or parallel co-firing systems [11,12].
biomass waste (7.34 Mt/year) generated from palm oil mills in Malaysia,
For direct co-firing systems, 10%–50% of torrefied biomass is pre-mixed
representing a potential feedstock for conversion into value-added fuel
with coal before being input into a coal burner system. The direct
pellets [5]. However, the conventional fuel pellet derived from EFBs

* Corresponding author. Henan Province Engineering Research Center For Biomass Value-Added Products, School Of Forestry, Henan Agricultural University,
Zhengzhou, 450002, China.
** Corresponding author. College of Science, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou, 450002, China.
E-mail addresses: xmchen0610@163.com (X. Chen), lam@umt.edu.my (S.S. Lam).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111699
Received 26 April 2021; Received in revised form 25 August 2021; Accepted 14 September 2021
Available online 21 September 2021
1364-0321/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P.N.Y. Yek et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 152 (2021) 111699

List of nomenclature EFB Empty fruit bunch

K2O Potassium oxide
Wraw Weight of raw H2 Hydrogen gas
Wtor Weight of torrefied pellet CO Carbon monoxide
HHVraw Higher heating value for raw CO2 Carbon dioxide
HHVtor Higher heating value for torrefied pellet CH4 Methane gas
Ø Diameter HAPs Hazardous air pollutants
Tm Torrefied materials UCO Used cooking oil
V Volatiles MCT Microwave co-torrefaction
dα
dt Rate of conversion CCT-EFB Conventional co-torrefaction of empty fruit bunch
k(T) Kinetic constant MCT-EFB Microwave co-torrefaction of empty fruit bunch
T Variables of temperature CT-EFB Conventional torrefaction of empty fruit bunch
f(α ) Degree of reaction model MT-EFB Microwave torrefaction of empty fruit bunch
α Degree of conversion ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
w0 Initial sample weight HHV Higher heating value
w Sample weight at specific duration TGA Thermogravimetric analysis
w∞ Final weight DTG derivative thermogravimetric
k Overall reaction rate constant T Temperature
kt sum of reaction rate constant for the torrefied material t Time
kv Sum of reaction rate constant for the volatiles MC Moisture content
ATs Total solids in the system after torrefaction for a certain VM Volatile matter
period of time FC Fixed carbon
ATS,∞ Total solids when torrefaction time is sufficiently long A Ash
a Kinetic parameter for a first-order reaction C Carbon
Ea Activation energy H Hydrogen
ko Pre-exponential factor N Nitrogen
R Universal gas constant O Oxygen
R2 Coefficient of determination H/C Molar ratio of hydrogen to carbon
O/C Molar ratio of oxygen to carbon
List of Abbreviations HHV Higher heating value
CO2 Carbon dioxide
GHGs Greenhouse gases

co-firing system is the most popular approach owing to the minimum
capital investment [12] afforded and the similar thermal oxidation
behaviour between torrefied biomass and coal owing to the low H/C
ratio of torrefied biomass [13]. The co-firing of torrefied biochar with
bituminous coal affords high combustibility with high fuel ratios, high
energy efficiency, and environmental sustainability with less GHG
emission [14,15]. The emissions of flue gas and particulate matter were
analysed and compared between a pilot-scale co-firing system and a
pure coal burning system. The results show that the mixing of bitumi­
nous coal with 20%–40% torrefied biomass in the co-firing system
reduced the emission of hazardous air pollutants, CO, sulphur, and CO2
compared with using bituminous coal alone [16,17]. For the indirect
co-firing system, the biomass undergoes gasification to produce syngas
before being input into the coal burner, whereas the parallel co-firing
system burns separated biomass and coal simultaneously. Both indi­
rect and parallel co-firing allow the processing of feedstock with a high

Fig. 1. Publication on torrefaction retrieved from Scopus database.

2
P.N.Y. Yek et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 152 (2021) 111699

ratio of biomass to coal, and an operation with less tar formation and Table 1
greater fuel flexibility [12]. Furthermore, it was reported that the Literature on current studies of co-torrefaction of biomass and waste.
co-firing of coal and torrefied biomass decreased the K2O content and Feedstock type Reactor design & Results outcome Ref
consequently minimised slagging and fouling in the boiler system [16]. parameters
Torrefaction is a promising thermochemical technology for con­ Textile sludge and Microwave wet co- • Fixed carbon [22]
verting biomass into biochar for application as a co-firing fuel or for lignocellulose torrefaction content: 29.8%
environmental remediation. Fig. 1 shows an ascending trend in the biowaste Temperature: • HHV: 19.7 MJ/kg
number of papers published regarding torrefaction (from 22 papers (macadamia husk) 120–180 ◦ C
Time: 10–30 min
published in 2010 to 335 papers in 2020). The development, applica­ Mango seed/passion Microwave wet co- • HHV: 19.0 MJ/kg [14]
tion, and optimisation of torrefaction technology for processing various shell with torrefaction. • Energy yield:
types of biomass under wet and oxidative conditions are garnering optoelectronic Temperature: 92.1%
increasing interest. As revealed from 2247 publications pertaining to sludge 120–180 ◦ C • Fuel ratios of
Time: 10–30 min 1.60–1.82
torrefaction retrieved from the Scopus database, only 18 publications
• Energy return on
were associated with co-torrefaction, indicating the limited attention investment: 14.7
towards this topic. • Greenhouse gas
Table 1 tabulates the recent studies, features, and findings pertaining emissions
to the co-torrefaction of biomass and waste. Recently, microwave wet reduction: 6.6 −
13.2%
co-torrefaction was developed to convert a mixture of biomass with wet
Waste epoxy resins Conventional heating • Enhanced the [23]
sludge (i.e. optoelectronic sludge and textile sludge) into torrefied bio­
and fir batch-type reactor volatile matter
char. However, most of the biomass used as feedstock for co-torrefaction Temperature: emissions
did not indicate a synergistic effect, and the torrefied product showed a 120–180 ◦ C Time: • Exhibited an
slight or insignificant increase in the high heating value (HHV) for use as 10–40 min antagonistic effect
on the solid yield.
a co-firing fuel [18,19]. Moreover, the torrefaction process performed
Food sludge and Microwave wet co- • HHV: 19.6 MJ/kg [18]
on raw biomass within 200 ◦ C-300 ◦ C is typically associated with a lignocellulose torrefaction • Reduced ash
weight loss of 20–30 wt%. Owing to these limitations, densified EFB biowaste Temperature: 150 ◦ C content
pellets were used as feedstock for co-torrefaction to compensate for Time: 20 min • First-order kinetics
weight loss, and used cooking oil (UCO) was used as another feedstock • Biochar exhibited
improved thermal
to improve the calorific value and maximise the economic value of EFB
stability,
pellets. Therefore, we developed an innovative microwave combustion
co-torrefaction (MCT) approach combining microwave heating and efficiency
co-torrefaction to simultaneously convert EFB pellets and UCO into • Energy return on
investment: 7.4
torrefied pellets with high calorific value as a renewable and environ­
• Greenhouse gas
mentally friendly fuel. The MCT was performed and compared with emissions
conventional co-torrefaction based on a furnace to investigate the pro­ reduction: 45.2%
cess features, production, and properties of the torrefied biomass pellets Coal and biomass Vertical tubular furnace • Mass yield: 57.0 − [24]
for waste reduction and energy conversion. To the best of our knowl­ Temperature: 300 ◦ C 63.8%
Time: 60 min • Calorific value
edge, reports regarding MCT are scarce, and our study represents an
56,816,288 kcal/kg
improved torrefaction approach for co-processing two types of waste • Energy yield: 77.0
comprising UCO and an EFB for the production of a desirable co-firing − 89.0%
fuel pellet [20,21]. • CO2 emission
reduction: 18.1 −
Microwave heating has been integrated into the torrefaction process
22.2%
as an alternative technology to overcome the limitations of conventional
Sewage sludge and Microwave co- • CO2 adsorption [25]
heating. Biomass drying in conventional torrefaction consumes a sig­ leucaena wood torrefaction microwave capacity of pure
nificant amount of energy owing to the inferior heat conduction and power: 250 W leucaena wood
convection mechanisms [27]. By contrast, microwave heating using biochar: 53 mg/g
electromagnetic radiation induces molecular dipole rotation at high • Pseudo-second-
order kinetic model
frequencies, which generates dielectric heating with a potentially lower
Empty fruit bunch Microwave co- • Mass yield: 85.5 wt [26]
energy consumption. This unique heating mechanism allows rapid, se­ pellet, used torrefaction %
lective, and volumetric heating for relatively quick biomass drying. In cooking oil, waste Temperature: 200, 250 • Fuel ratio: 1.8
addition, microwave heating minimises undesired secondary cracking engine oil and 300 ◦ C. heating rate: • Carbon content:
(i.e. decarboxylation yielding CO2) and enables the maximum solid yield 50–65 ◦ C/min 68.3 wt%
time: 5–8 min • Fixed carbon
of biochar. Hence, the application of conventional and microwave content: 62 wt%
heating in both torrefaction and co-torrefaction using EFB pellets and • HHV: 28.0 MJ/kg
UCO were systematically demonstrated in this study. Hemicellulose, Conventional heating • The weight losses [19]
cellulose, lignin, Thermogravimetry. of the blend were
xylan, dextran, Temperature: 230, 260 very close to
2. Materials and methods xylose and glucose, and 290 ◦ C. individual samples,
• No synergistic
2.1. Materials preparation effect from the co-
torrefaction.
EFB pellets were obtained from a palm oil mill in Saratok, Sarawak,
Malaysia. The diameter (8.8 mm ± 0.2), length (20 mm ± 10), and bulk
density (400 ± 1.5 kg/m3) of the EFB pellets were determined based on
ISO 17829 (2015) [28] whereas UCO was obtained from a local fast food
restaurant (Sibu, Sarawak, Malaysia) and filtered using a 45 μm filter
paper to remove solid sludge. The EFB pellets were mixed with UCO at a
weight ratio of 2:1 for the subsequent co-torrefaction process at various

3
P.N.Y. Yek et al.
temperatures; this ratio was selected based on a previous study that
presented the optimal heating rate achieved via MCT [26].
2.2. Conventional co-torrefaction
An electrical muffle furnace (Thermolyne™ Benchtop Thermo Sci­
entific) was used to torrefy UCO mixed with the EFB pellet in a closed
graphite crucible comprising a built-in temperature controller, which
allowed the heating rate to be controlled at 10 ◦ C/min. The closed
graphite crucible had an excellent thermal conductivity of 85.0 W/m-K,
which provided even heating to the sample in a limited oxygen envi­
ronment. Conventional co-torrefaction was performed using 50 g of EFB
pellets and 25 g of UCO at three different temperatures (200 ◦ C, 250 ◦ C,
and 300 ◦ C) for 20 min. Subsequently, EFB pellets was torrefied without
UCO as a control for comparison. All torrefaction experiments were
performed in triplicates to ensure consistency.
2.3. Microwave Co-Torrefaction
MCT was conducted in triplicates without a microwave absorbent
using the same ratio of feedstock mixture (50 g of EFB pellet and 25 g of
UCO). The released gaseous products, including CO, CO2, CH4, and H2,
were trapped and maintained in the reactor to prevent oxygen from
entering the reactor and cause combustion, such that a low-oxygen
environment for torrefaction would be realised. Fig. 2 shows the MCT
conducted using 1000 W of microwave power until the sample reached
temperatures of 200 ◦ C, 250 ◦ C, and 300 ◦ C. Subsequently, the torre­
faction process was maintained for 1 min to ensure an even distribution
of microwave radiation among the samples. A K-type thermocouple
(Omega) was inserted directly into the sample through the top opening
of the reactor and connected to a thermometer (Omega) with a data
logger to record the torrefaction temperature. The torrefied biomass
pellets obtained from the conventional co-torrefaction and MCT with
UCO were labelled as CCT-EFB and MCT-EFB, respectively, and those
obtained from torrefaction without UCO were labelled as CT-EFB and
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of microwave torrefaction system.
4
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 152 (2021) 111699
MT-EFB, respectively.
2.4. Material characterisation
The bulk density of the biomass was determined based on ASTM
E873-82. Bulk density refers to the ratio of biomass weight to the total
volume of biomass, and this property is governed by the biomass shape,
size, and moisture content, ultimately affecting the management and
transportation costs. A proximate analysis was performed based on
ASTM D5142-02a [29,30]. The moisture content of the sample was
determined based on the weight loss after heating it to 104 ◦ C-110 ◦ C in
a furnace for 1 h. The volatile matter (VM) was further determined by
the weight loss after the sample was heated in a closed crucible to 950 ◦ C
and maintained for 7 min. Ash was the remaining product after the
sample was heated in an open crucible at temperatures 450 ◦ C-500 ◦ C
for 1 h, followed by at 700 ◦ C-750 ◦ C for 2 h. The fixed carbon (FC)
amount was calculated as follows: FC = 100 wt% – Mc – VM – Ash [31].
An ultimate analysis (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulphur) was
performed using a CHNS elemental analyser (FlashEA 1112) based on
ASTM D5373. An oxygen bomb calorimeter (LECO, AC-350) was used to
determine the calorific value of the sample based on ASTM D5865 [32].
The mass and energy yields of the products were calculated using
Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively, to assess the energy balance of the EFB
pellets after torrefaction [33,34]. Wraw and Wtor denote the weights of
the raw and torrefied biomass pellets, respectively, whereas HHVraw and
HHVtor denote the HHVs for the raw and torrefied biomass pellets,
respectively. The fuel ratios presented in Eq. (3) is the ratio of FC to VM,
and it was used to evaluate the combustibility of the product.
Mass ​ yield(%) = Wtor/W × 100 (1)
raw
Energy yield (%) = [(Wtor )(HHVtor )⁄ (Wraw )(HHVraw ) ] × 100 (2)
Fuel ​ ratio(%) = FC/VM × 100 (3)
P.N.Y. Yek et al.
2.5. Reaction kinetics analysis
Reaction kinetic analysis compares the kinetic parameters of torre­
faction and co-torrefaction of conventional and microwave heating
mechanisms. The conventional torrefaction and co-torrefaction reaction
kinetics were analysed from the results of mass yield based on experi­
ments pertaining to torrefaction and co-torrefaction. By investigating
the thermal decomposition kinetics parameters, the time and tempera­
ture required in the torrefaction process to yield torrefied products with
the desired properties can be determined. The kinetic model predicts the
thermal decomposition of EFB pellets and incorporates first-order ki­
netic models to allow the behaviour of biomass torrefaction to be
investigated [35,36], where the changing mass yield is described as a
function of time and temperature [37]. Eq. (4) presents the overall
torrefaction reaction, whereas the one- and two-step reaction processes
are expressed in Eq. (5) and Eq. (6), respectively.
k
EFB Pellet→ Torrefied materials (Tm) + Volatiles(V) (4)
(5)
kt
EFB Pellet (w)→ Torrefied material (Tm )
(6)
kv
EFB Pellet(w)→Volatiles(V)
The kinetic model of EFB pellet torrefaction is based on the decom­
position rate (ddtα), as shown in Eq. (7). The rate of conversion (ddtα) is
governed by the kinetic constant k(T), temperature (T), and degree of
the reaction model f (α). The degree of conversion (α), shown in Eq. (8),
is associated with the initial sample weight (w0), the sample weight at a
specific duration (w), and the final weight (w∞ ) obtained at the end of
torrefaction [38,39].
dα
= k(T)f (α) (7)
dt
w0 − w
α= (8)
w0 − w∞
Eq. (9) presents the overall reaction rate constant (k) as the sum of
the reaction rate constants for the torrefied material (kt ) and volatiles
(kv ). The elementary reaction rates for the solid EFB pellet (w) and
torrefied biomass pellet (Tm ) decomposition over time can be expressed
using Eq. (10). Eq. (11) expresses the correlation among the fraction of
total solids in the system after torrefaction for a certain duration (ATs ),
the fraction of total solids when the torrefaction time is sufficiently long
(ATS,∞ ), and the dimensionless kinetic parameter for a first-order reac­
tion (a). A graph showing Eq. (12) linearised with the x-axis of
ln(ATS − ATS,∞ ) and y-axis of t (s) was plotted to determine the overall
reaction rate constant from the gradient, and the dimensionless kinetic
parameter (a) from the y-intercept.
d [w]
= − k [w] = − (kt + kv )[w] (9)
dt
d [Tm ]
= − kt [w] (10)
dt
ATS = ATS,∞ + a*exp( − k * t) (11)
( )
ln ATS − ATS,∞ = lna − kt (12)
The reaction rate constant k(T), presented in Eq. (7), is a function of
temperature and can be represented by the Arrhenius equation, as
shown in Eq. (13), where T is the absolute temperature (K), Ea the
activation energy, ko the pre-exponential factor, and R the universal gas
constant (8.314 J mol− 1 K− 1). A graph showing the linearised Arrhenius
equation expressed in Eq. (14) was plotted, where the y-axis represents
ln(k) and the x-axis represents 1/T, to determine the activation energy
from the gradient, and the pre-exponential factor/frequency factor from
the y-intercept.
5
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 152 (2021) 111699
(13)
− Ea
k(T) = k0 e RT
Ea
ln(k) = ln(k0 ) − (14)
RT
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Comparison between conventional and microwave torrefaction
Figs. 3 and 4 show the changes in the physical appearance of the EFB
and torrefied biomass pellets produced via conventional and microwave
torrefaction, respectively. The colour of the conventional torrefied
biomass pellet remained unchanged at 200 ◦ C but changed progressively
from light to dark brown after being torrefied at 250 ◦ C and transformed
into black at 300 ◦ C. The microwave-torrefied biomass pellet showed a
significant colour change from light to dark brown at a lower temper­
ature of 200 ◦ C compared with the pellet from conventional torrefaction,
after which the torrefied biomass pellet appeared black at 250 ◦ C with a
significant pellet size reduction at 300 ◦ C. The size reduction from
conventional heating was more apparent compared with that from mi­
crowave heating, and the progressive change in the colour of the EFB
pellet was likely due to feedstock devolatilisation and the increase in
carbon content with increasing temperature during torrefaction [40].
Furthermore, the torrefied biomass was dry and friable when physically
touched [41].
Table 2 shows the size and bulk density of the torrefied biomass
pellets after torrefaction. The standard diameter and bulk density of the
raw EFB pellets were 88.0 ± 5.5 mm and 400.0 kg/m3, respectively.
Conventional torrefaction resulted in a greater size reduction owing to
the longer torrefaction duration and the higher temperature gradient
required to transfer heat from the pellet surface to the inner region
through conduction. Hence, the majority of the pellet surface had a
higher degree of degradation and resulted in significant size reduction
compared with microwave heating, which exhibited faster heating via
heat generated within the inner region of the pellet. The pellet obtained
from torrefaction using conventional heating had a higher bulk density
(415.9–445.2 kg/m3) compared with that of the microwave torrefied
biomass pellets (400.6–430.8 kg/m3). This is attributable to the higher
decomposition and greater size reduction by Microwave torrefaction,
which afforded lower transportation and storage costs and a higher
economic value for the EFB pellets [42].
3.2. Comparison between conventional co-torrefaction and MCT
All feedstocks were analysed accordingly, and the physicochemical
and energy analyses of products obtained from conventional co-
torrefaction and MCT are compared in this section. The proximate and
elemental compositions of raw EFB pellets, torrefied, and co-torrefied
EFB pellets produced at various temperatures (200 ◦ C, 250 ◦ C, and
300 ◦ C) are presented, discussed, and compared. Furthermore, the mass
yield, energy yield, fuel ratio, and HHV of the products obtained from
conventional co-torrefaction and MCT are discussed extensively.
3.2.1. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA)
Thermogravimetric and derivative thermogravimetric analyses of
the (a) EFB pellets and (b) EFB pellets mixed with UCO are shown in
Fig. 5. The decomposition comprised three stages, as indicated by the
TGA curves of the EFB pellets (Fig. 5a): moisture release (90 ◦ C-150 ◦ C),
further heating from 150 ◦ C to 900 ◦ C during devolatilisation (200 ◦ C-
450 ◦ C), and charring (450 ◦ C-900 ◦ C) [43]. A significant weight loss of
75% was observed during devolatilisation, followed by charring and
moisture release, which resulted in approximately 10% and 5% of
weight loss, respectively. Within the temperature range of torrefaction
from to 200 ◦ C-300 ◦ C, the final weight of the EFB pellet was approxi­
mately 70%, and it reduced to only 10% after the temperature increased
P.N.Y. Yek et al.
Fig. 3. Raw EFB pellet (a) and torrefied biomass pellet produced from conventional torrefaction at (b) 200 ◦ C, (c) 250 ◦ C and (d) 300 ◦ C for 20 min.
to 900 ◦ C. Fig. 5b shows that the initial weight loss reached 10% during
the evaporation of moisture content from the UCO mixed with EFB
pellets at 100 ◦ C, whereas it remained constant at 110 ◦ C-250 ◦ C. The
sample weight began to decrease rapidly after 250 ◦ C because the
hemicellulose degraded into CO, CO2, H2, and hydrocarbon gas (CH4) at
200 ◦ C-280 ◦ C [44]. The degradation of lignin began at 160 ◦ C-900 ◦ C
and became significant at temperatures exceeding 320 ◦ C. The final
yield from the UCO mixed with EFB pellets was 75 wt% at 300 ◦ C and 45
wt% at 900 ◦ C. Based on the TGA analysis, the remaining mass observed
from the co-torrefaction of EFB pellets with and without UCO at 900 ◦ C
was 45 wt% and 10 wt%, respectively.
3.2.2. Proximate and elemental analysis of raw EFB pellet and torrefied
biomass pellet
Table 3 shows a comparison of the proximate and elemental analyses
of raw EFB pellets, torrefied pellets, and co-torrefied biomass pellets
with UCO. Raw EFB pellets containing 15 wt% moisture can cause
fungal growth during transportation and storage [45]. The high volatile,
oxygen, and ash contents prohibited the application of EFB pellets for
co-firing [46]. The raw EFB pellet contained 43.0 wt% carbon, 49.8 wt%
oxygen, and minute amounts of hydrogen (6.0 wt%) and nitrogen (1.2
wt%). Decarboxylation and devolatilisation occurred during torre­
faction or co-torrefaction, thereby reducing the oxygen content to
35.4–47.0 wt% and 28.1–39.1 wt%, respectively [47]. The carbon
content increased to 46.2–59.0 wt% and 55.1–66.3 wt% by conventional
and microwave torrefaction, respectively [2,60].
6
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 152 (2021) 111699
The reduction in the moisture, volatile matter, and ash content in the
pellet after torrefaction increased the heating value of the EFB pellet,
thereby improving flame stability. The devolatilisation of the EFB pellets
by torrefaction is likely to degrade the lignocellulosic composition for
forming condensable bio-oil and incondensable syngas, while simulta­
neously increasing the FC and carbon contents of the resulting torrefied
biomass pellet [48,49]. The higher temperature resulted in a higher
degree of devolatilisation, which resulted in torrefied biomass pellets
with a higher carbon content at 300 ◦ C [50].
The conventional co-torrefaction with UCO yielded torrefied
biomass pellets with lower ash (5–6 wt%) and higher FC (33–63 wt%)
and carbon (47.3–60.5 wt%) contents compared with those produced
from the torrefaction of EFB pellets without UCO. Unlike conventional
co-torrefaction, MCT promoted the partial decomposition of the ligno­
cellulosic EFB pellet and afforded a further reduction in the VM (33–49
wt%). Consequently, the FC (44–63 wt%) and carbon (49.9–68.2 wt%)
contents in the resulting torrefied biomass pellet increased when they
were heated from 200 ◦ C to 300 ◦ C [43]. Moreover, the ash content in
the EFB pellet reduced to 3 wt% after MCT with UCO at 300 ◦ C. Mi­
crowave heating afforded higher torrefaction efficiency, as evident by
the shorter process time (6–8 min) required in MCT compared with that
required by conventional heating in a furnace (20 min); this is attrib­
utable to the volumetric and dielectric heating provided via microwave
radiation. The addition of UCO as co-feedstock increased the hydrogen
content, which consequently increased the heating value of the resulting
torrefied biomass pellet [51].
P.N.Y. Yek et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 152 (2021) 111699

Fig. 4. Raw EFB pellet (a) and torrefied biomass pellet produced from microwave torrefaction at (b) 200 ◦ C, (c) 250 ◦ C and (d) 300 ◦ C.

The energy yield of biomass pellets produced from conventional

Table 2
torrefaction showed a decreasing trend from 85.3% to 68.1% when the
Size and bulk density of the raw and torrefied biomass pellet.
temperature increased from 200 ◦ C to 300 ◦ C. Torrefied biomass pellets
Pellet Diameter (mm) Bulk Density (kg/m3) produced from conventional co-torrefaction showed increasing yield,
Raw EFB biomass pellet 8.8 ± 1.5 400.0 with the highest yield recorded of 97.6% at 250 ◦ C; however, it
Torrefied biomass pellet from conventional torrefaction decreased to 90.2% at 300 ◦ C owing to massive weight loss during tor­
200 ◦ C (20 min) 8.0 ± 2.5 415.9 refaction. The microwave heating of the EFB pellet showed the highest
250 ◦ C (20 min) 7.8 ± 2.5 435.0 energy yields of 75.4% and 96.2%, respectively, during torrefaction and
300 ◦ C (20 min) 7.6 ± 3.5 445.2 co-torrefaction at 250 ◦ C. In general, the addition of UCO increased the
Torrefied biomass pellet from microwave torrefaction energy yield, where the hydrocarbons in the UCO were likely to have
200 ◦ C (20 min) 8.4 ± 3.5 400.6 contributed to the increased energy content of the torrefied biomass
250 ◦ C (20 min) 8.2 ± 4.5 420.7 pellet, whereas the UCO compensated for the weight loss and increased
300 ◦ C (20 min) 8.0 ± 5.5 430.8 the heating value of the torrefied biomass pellet, thereby allowing it to
be used as a solid fuel [52–54].
When the temperature increased from 200 ◦ C to 300 ◦ C, the fuel
3.2.3. Energy analysis
ratios of torrefaction and co-torrefaction indicated an increasing trend
The torrefied biomass pellets showed HHVs after co-torrefaction
from 0.5 to 2.0 and 0.7 to 1.9 via conventional or microwave heating,
based on conventional and microwave heating (Table 4). The co-
respectively. Furthermore, the addition of UCO in MCT enhanced the
torrefaction performance was evaluated based on the mass yield, en­
fuel ratio (0.9) and heating value (21.8 MJ/kg) of the torrefied biomass
ergy yield, and fuel ratio of the torrefied biomass pellet. Torrefaction
pellet at a temperature of 200 ◦ C. The conventional and MCT of EFB
caused a significant weight loss at higher temperatures owing to the
pellets yielded maximum HHVs of 24.4 and 26.4 MJ/kg, respectively, at
higher release of VM. The mass yield of EFB pellet from MCT (85.4–93.2
temperature of 300 ◦ C.
wt%) was higher than that from conventional co-torrefaction
(80.0–91.3 wt%); this is attributable to the use of conduction heating,
which requires higher temperature gradients and durations to transfer 3.3. Reaction kinetics of MCT
heat from the surface to the inner region of the pellet, thereby causing
more degradation and subsequently a higher weight loss. Fig. 6 shows the Arrhenius plots, from which the activation energy of

7
P.N.Y. Yek et al.
Fig. 5. TGA and DTG results of (a) torrefaction EFB pellet and (b) co-torrefaction of EFB pellet mixed with used cooking oil.
torrefaction can be determined. All four types of torrefaction and co-
torrefaction via conventional and microwave heating yielded a satis­
factory fit to the kinetics model, with R2 > 0.90, suggesting that the
analysis of activation energy was reliable. The microwave torrefaction of
the EFB pellets indicated a higher activation energy (21.9 kJ/mol)
compared with that of the torrefaction using conventional furnace
heating; this is attributable to the low dielectric properties of the EFB
pellets, which renders it difficult to convert microwave electromagnetic
energy to heat energy [55,56].
Among the different types of co-torrefaction processes, the conven­
tional co-torrefaction exhibited a lower activation energy (13.6 kJ/mol)
compared with that without UCO (15.0 kJ/mol). The activation energy
of MCT was the lowest (12.0 kJ/mol) compared with those of the others.
This is attributable to the presence of water in the UCO, which
8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 152 (2021) 111699
subsequently improved the microwave absorbency and heat distribution
within the sample. Hence, torrefied biomass pellets were produced at a
lower activation energy [33].
Table 5 shows a comparison of the activation energy obtained in this
study with those reported in literature pertaining to both torrefaction
and co-torrefaction. It was discovered that the fixed-bed reactor for co-
torrefaction used in this study required a higher activation energy
compared with the fluidised reactor (11.9 kJ/mol) [35,57]; this is likely
because the fluidised condition induced a better heat distribution and
mixing of the feedstock [58,59]. However, the use of graphite crucible as
the reactor in this study required a lower activation energy compared
with the use of a rotary kiln reactor (20.4 kJ/mol) or a stainless steel
reactor (30.8 kJ/mol) [60]. Moreover, the use of a higher microwave
power (1000 W) and a higher heating rate in this study resulted in a
P.N.Y. Yek et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 152 (2021) 111699

Table 3
Proximate and elemental analysis of torrefied biomass pellet.
Temperature (◦ C) Raw Conventional heating Microwave heating
a b c d
CT-EFBP CCT-EFBP MT-EFBP MCT-EFBP

200 250 300 200 250 300 200 250 300 200 250 300

Proximate analysis (wt%)

Moisture content 15 3 3 2 3 2 2 4 2 1 2 1 1
Volatile matter 62 59 38 39 58 38 30 52 35 31 49 36 33
Fixed carbon 15 30 51 51 33 55 63 36 55 60 44 60 63
Ash 8 8 8 8 6 5 5 8 8 8 5 3 3
Elemental analysis (wt%)
C 43.0 46.2 55.1 59.0 47.3 55.6 60.5 55.1 59.1 66.2 49.9 63.0 68.2
H 6.0 5.5 5.2 5.1 8.8 8.5 8.3 5.3 5.1 5 8.9 8.8 8.0
N 1.2 1.3 0.5 0.5 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.7
S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 49.8 47.0 39.2 35.4 42.6 34.9 30.4 39.1 35.3 28.1 40.1 27.2 23.1
a
CT-EFBP – conventional torrefaction of EFB pellet.
b
CCT-EFBP – conventional co-torrefaction of EFB pellet with used cooking oil.
c
MT-EFBP – conventional torrefaction of EFB pellet.
d
MCT-EFBP – microwave co-torrefaction of EFB pellet with used cooking oil.

Table 4
Energy analysis of torrefied biomass pellet.
Temperature (◦ C) Raw EFB Conventional heating Microwave heating
a b
CT-EFBP CCT-EFBP MT-EFBPc MCT-EFBPd

200 250 300 200 250 300 200 250 300 200 250 300

Mass yield (wt%) 82.5 69.5 65 91.3 84.2 80.0 87.5 72.0 67.4 93.2 88.7 85.4
Energy yield (%) 85.3 78.1 68.1 89.8 97.6 90.2 74.9 75.4 73.2 83.6 98.1 83.1
Fuel Ratio 0.5 1.3 2.0 0.6 1.3 1.4 0.7 1.6 1.9 0.9 1.7 1.9
HHV (MJ/kg) 17.9 18.5 20.8 21.8 21.0 23.1 24.4 20.9 21.9 23.8 21.8 25.4 26.4
a
CT-EFBP – conventional torrefaction of EFB pellet.
b
CCT-EFBP – conventional co-torrefaction of EFB pellet with used cooking oil.
c
MT-EFBP - conventional torrefaction of EFB pellet.
d
MCT-EFBP - microwave co-torrefaction of EFB pellet with used cooking oil.

Fig. 6. Plot of the arrhenius equation.

lower activation energy (12.0 kJ/mol) compared with other microwave
torrefaction processes performed at a lower microwave power
(100–250 W) [33].
3.4. Mechanism of co-torrefaction
The thermal behaviour of EFB pellets is affected by the
lignocellulosic composition, torrefaction temperature, heating mecha­
nism, and use of UCO as co-feedstock. The co-torrefaction of EFB pellets
with UCO has partially depolymerised hemicellulose, lignin, and cellu­
lose at relatively low temperatures, where microwave heating causes a
more rapid degradation at lower activation energies [68,69]. Hemicel­
lulose is the least stable component that decomposes at temperatures
between 180 ◦ C and 250 ◦ C. At the molecular level, torrefaction

9
P.N.Y. Yek et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 152 (2021) 111699

Table 5 primarily degrades hemicellulose components by removing hydroxyl

Comparison of activation energy of various reactor type for torrefaction and co- groups and forming unsaturated structures [70]. By contrast, cellulose
torrefaction. has a higher degradation temperature of 300 ◦ C, whereas lignin begins
Feedstocks Reactor type & Major variable Activation Ref to degrade at a higher temperature range from 250 ◦ C to 600 ◦ C [69].
parameters energy (kJ/ Co-torrefaction is endothermic at lower temperatures but becomes
setting mol) exothermic when char is formed from cellulose and lignin thermal
EFB pellet Fix bed reactor 200–300 ◦ C 15 This degradation at higher temperatures [69]. Numerous reactions and
with graphite study pathways are involved in the degradation of these components. During
crucible
the drying stage, the temperature is generally set to approximately
EFB pellet mixed Fix bed reactor 200–300 ◦ C 14 This
with aUCO with graphite study 110 ◦ C to remove moisture. The next stage is the post-drying stage,
crucible where the biomass torrefaction temperature is increased to approxi­
EFB pellet Microwave fix 200–300 ◦ C 22 This mately 200 ◦ C to create a fully moisture-free environment. Beyond this
bed reactor with study stage, the torrefaction process begins to produce solid, liquid (water,
quartz crucible
EFB pellet mixed Microwave fix 200–300 ◦ C 12 This
bio-oil, and tar), and gaseous products depending on the operating
with aUCO bed reactor with study temperature, holding time, as well as the different molecular structures
quartz crucible of lignocellulosic biomass.
Red Oak Pilot rotary kiln 250–325 ◦ C 20 [35] The co-torrefaction of EFB pellets with UCO yielded torrefied pellets
Reactor
with improved FC content (30–63 wt%) and HHVs (18.5–26.6 MJ/kg) at
Red Oak Bench-scale 230–330 ◦ C 12 [57]
fluidised a lower activation energy compared with the torrefaction of only EFB
reactor. pellets. Owing to the mixing of UCO with biomass for torrefaction,
EFB Stainless steel 220–300 ◦ C 31 [60] improved convective heat transfer with a higher coefficient of 50–350
vertical tubular W/m2K was achieved compared with convection heat transfer with air
reactor
(5–37 W/m2K) during torrefaction. Hence, the rate of heat transfer be­
Leucaena Single-mode 100–250 W 25 [33]
microwave oven tween the biomass was improved significantly by the addition of UCO.
with quartz Moreover, the use of a graphite reactor would enhance the heat transfer
crucible to the biomass, and the thermal conductivity of graphite (85 W/m∙K)
Cellulose, Conventional Cellulose, 166–260, [61]
was reported to be higher than that of a typically used stainless steel
Hemicellulose, heating Hemicellulose, 48–55,
Lignin TG-FTIR, Lignin 59–70 reactor (15.43–19.8. K) for torrefaction [71,72]. Hence, the use of a
alumina crucible graphite crucible and mixing the biomass with UCO may necessitate a
200, 250, 300 ◦ C relatively lower energy to trigger torrefaction. It is envisaged that the
Heating rate: chemical interactions between biomass and UCO associated with the
20 ◦ C/min
mass/heat transfer mechanism will be investigated using different types
Bamboo Conventional Ratio 232, [62]
Low-density heating 3:1 261, and sizes of feedstock for co-torrefaction.
polyethylene TGA 1:1 247 The degradation of EFB pellets produces condensed liquid products
(30–800 ◦ C) 1:3 composed of water, bio-oil, and minute amounts of tar. Acetic acid and
Heating rate:
furfural are the dominant components in the liquid product, whereas the
5–40 ◦ C/min
b
EFB Conventional EFB 110–138 [63]
incondensable components comprise gaseous products such as CO2 and
c
PKS heating PKS 114–122 CO; additionally, minute amounts of H2 and CH4 are produced during
d
PMF TGA: 30–800 ◦ C PMF 85–92 torrefaction [70]. Deoxygenation transforms lignocellulosic EFB pellets
Raw, 250, into water, CO2, and CO during torrefaction via the dehydration and
300 ◦ C
volatilisation of the oxygenated gaseous product. However, only minute
Heating rate: 5
K/min amounts of carbon are transferred into the tar products, followed by
Pine wood chips Conventional 250 ◦ C-30 min 73 [64] gaseous products [70].
heating 350 ◦ C-15 min 183 Torrefaction is crucial for the enhancement of biomass energy, hy­
TGA: 30–800 ◦ C
drophobicity, and brittleness such that the grindability of biomass is
Heating rate:
10–40 ◦ C/min
improved, thereby rendering it similar to coal and hence affording better
Chinese fir Conventional 240–270 ◦ C 66–117 [65] stability towards microbial and chemical degradation at high humidity
residue heating 0–9% O2 conditions [73]. However, torrefied biomass reduces the binding ability
TGA: 30–800 ◦ C of particles, which renders densification more challenging. The mech­
Heating rate:
anism of MCT with UCO provides useful insights into the control of
10–40 ◦ C/min
Pinewood Conventional 220, 250, 265, 134 [65] torrefaction with lower energy consumption as well as the design of a
heating 280 and 295 ◦ C self-sustainable torrefaction reactor by reusing liquids and gas.
TGA
Heating rate:
4. Conclusions and prospects
20 ◦ C/min
Rice straw Conventional 5 MPa, 250 C ◦
195–198 [66]
heating gas- 10 ◦ C/min The size reduction of pellets by conventional heating is more sig­
pressurized nificant compared with that by microwave heating. Microwave heating
Grass Conventional dry torrefaction, 142 [67] allows torrefaction to be performed at a shorter duration and produces a
heating wet 87
200, 250, 85 ◦ C, torrefaction, 124
higher mass yield of torrefied EFB pellets. Meanwhile, the MCT of EFB
60 min leaching pellets with UCO showed lower activation energy and successfully
torrefaction yielded torrefied biomass pellets with better heating values compared
a
UCO-Used cooking oil.
with conventional co-torrefaction. The addition of UCO for co-
b
EFB- empty fruit bunch. torrefaction significantly reduced the ash content of torrefied biomass
c
PKS- palm kernel shell. pellets, which facilitated co-firing. The highest energy yield for both
d
PMF-palm mesocarp fibre. conventional co-torrefaction and MCT was achieved at 250 ◦ C. The fuel
ratio of the torrefied biomass pellets showed an increasing trend at

10
P.N.Y. Yek et al.
higher temperature, and the highest heating values achieved by the
torrefied biomass pellets were 24.4 and 26.4 MJ/kg, respectively, via
conventional co-torrefaction and MCT at 300 ◦ C. Our findings demon­
strated the viability of using MCT with UCO as an innovative method for
further enhancing the value of torrefied biomass pellets as co-firing fuel
for energy generation.
It is envisaged that more studies will be performed in the future to
facilitate the development of MCT in continuous operations to improve
the scalability of the mass production of carbon-dense fuel pellets for use
as co-firing biofuels. Meanwhile, the modification of the mixer and the
addition of multiple units of magnetron are recommended to overcome
the uneven distribution of microwave heating. The bio-oil and syngas
produced can be used as purging gas to maintain a low-oxygen envi­
ronment or combusted as a heat source to render the torrefaction process
more sustainable and economical. Finally, the MCT of biomass and
waste oil in continuous operations can be optimised to maximise the
production of high-quality torrefied fuel pellets and the energy effi­
ciency by minimising heat loss.
Authors credit
Dr. Peter Nai Yuh Yek: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investiga­
tion, Writing, Review Editing, Dr. Yi Herng Chan: Writing, Review,
Editing, Dr. Xiangmeng Chen: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Writing, Review, Editing, Prof. Wanxi Peng: Writing, Review, Editing,
Dr. Rock Keey Liew: Writing, Review, Editing, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Chin Kui
Cheng: Investigation, Writing, Review, Editing, Prof. Christian Sonne:
Writing, Review, Editing, Ir. Dr. How Sing Sii: Writing, Review, Editing,
Prof. Dr. Su Shiung Lam: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing,
Review, Editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Universiti Malaysia Terengganu for
the financial support under International Partnership Research Grant
(UMT/CRIM/2-2/2/23 (23), Vot 55302), and the Ministry of Higher
Education, Malaysia under the Higher Institution Centre of Excellence
(HICoE), Institute of Tropical Aquaculture and Fisheries (AKUATROP)
program (Vot. No. 63933 & Vot. No. 56051, UMT/CRIM/2-2/5 Jilid 2
(10)), and the University College of Technology Sarawak for the conduct
the research under the University Grant Scheme: UCTS/RESEARCH/
<3/2018/03>(01). The authors thank the technical support provided
by the University College of Technology Sarawak, Universiti Malaysia
Terengganu, Malaysia and Henan Agricultural University, China. The
work is also supported by Program for Innovative Research Team (in
Science and Technology) in University of Henan Province (No.
21IRTSTHN020) and Central Plain Scholar Funding Project of Henan
Province (No. 212101510005).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111699.
References
[1] Ge S, Foong SY, Ma NL, Liew RK, Wan Mahari WA, Xia C, et al. Vacuum pyrolysis
incorporating microwave heating and base mixture modification: an integrated
approach to transform biowaste into eco-friendly bioenergy products. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2020;127:109871.
11
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 152 (2021) 111699
[2] Foong SY, Liew RK, Yang Y, Cheng YW, Yek PNY, Wan Mahari WA, et al.
Valorization of biomass waste to engineered activated biochar by microwave
pyrolysis: progress, challenges, and future directions. Chem Eng J 2020;389:
124401.
[3] Zafar MW, Shahbaz M, Hou F, Sinha A. From nonrenewable to renewable energy
and its impact on economic growth: the role of research & development
expenditures in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. J Clean Prod 2019;
212:1166–78.
[4] da Silva CMS, Carneiro ADCO, Vital BR, Figueiró CG, Fialho LDF, de
Magalhães MA, et al. Biomass torrefaction for energy purposes – definitions and an
overview of challenges and opportunities in Brazil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2018;82:2426–32.
[5] Ghulam Kadir AP. Oil palm economic performance in Malaysia and R&D progress
in 2019. J Oil Palm Res 2020;32(2):159–90.
[6] Sukiran MA, Wan Daud WMA, Abnisa F, Nasrin AB, Astimar AA, Loh SK. Individual
torrefaction parameter enhances characteristics of torrefied empty fruit bunches.
Biomass Convers Biorefin 2021;11:461–72.
[7] Uemura Y, Sellappah V, Trinh TH, Hassan S, Tanoue K-i. Torrefaction of empty
fruit bunches under biomass combustion gas atmosphere. Bioresour Technol 2017;
243:107–17.
[8] Liew RK, Azwar E, Yek PNY, Lim XY, Cheng CK, Ng J-H, et al. Microwave pyrolysis
with KOH/NaOH mixture activation: a new approach to produce micro-
mesoporous activated carbon for textile dye adsorption. Bioresour Technol 2018;
266:1–10.
[9] Wan Mahari WA, Chong CT, Lam WH, Anuar TNST, Ma NL, Ibrahim MD, et al.
Microwave co-pyrolysis of waste polyolefins and waste cooking oil: influence of N2
atmosphere versus vacuum environment. Energy Convers Manag 2018;171:
1292–301.
[10] Basu P, Butler J, Leon MA. Biomass co-firing options on the emission reduction and
electricity generation costs in coal-fired power plants. Renew energ 2011;36:
282–8.
[11] Basu P. Chapter 11 - biomass combustion and cofiring. In: Basu P, editor. Biomass
gasification, pyrolysis and torrefaction. third ed. Academic Press; 2018.
p. 393–413.
[12] Xing Zhang SM. Technology developments in the cofiring of biomass. United
Kingdom: IEA Clean coal centre; 2020.
[13] Xue J, Chellappa T, Ceylan S, Goldfarb JL. Enhancing biomass + coal Co-firing
scenarios via biomass torrefaction and carbonization: case study of avocado pit
biomass and Illinois No. 6 coal. Renew Energy 2018;122:152–62.
[14] Lin Y-L, Zheng N-Y. Biowaste-to-biochar through microwave-assisted wet co-
torrefaction of blending mango seed and passion shell with optoelectronic sludge.
Energy 2021;225:120213.
[15] Zheng N-Y, Lee M, Lin Y-L. Co-processing textile sludge and lignocellulose biowaste
for biofuel production through microwave-assisted wet torrefaction. J Clean Prod
2020;268:122200.
[16] Sher F, Yaqoob A, Saeed F, Zhang S, Jahan Z, Klemeš JJ. Torrefied biomass fuels as
a renewable alternative to coal in co-firing for power generation. Energy 2020;209:
118444.
[17] Yelverton TLB, Brashear AT, Nash DG, Brown JE, Singer CF, Kariher PH, et al.
Characterization of emissions from a pilot-scale combustor operating on coal
blended with woody biomass. Fuel 2020;264:116774.
[18] Zheng N-Y, Lee M, Lin Y-L, Samannan B. Microwave-assisted wet co-torrefaction of
food sludge and lignocellulose biowaste for biochar production and nutrient
recovery. Process Saf Environ 2020;144:273–83.
[19] Chen WH, Kuo PC. Torrefaction and co-torrefaction characterization of
hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin as well as torrefaction of some basic
constituents in biomass. Energy 2011;36:803–11.
[20] Lee HW, Lee H, Kim Y-M, Park R-s, Park Y-K. Recent application of biochar on the
catalytic biorefinery and environmental processes. Chin Chem Lett 2019;30:
2147–50.
[21] Chen YD, Liu F, Ren NQ, Ho SH. Revolutions in algal biochar for different
applications: state-of-the-art techniques and future scenarios. Chin Chem Lett
2020;31:2591–602.
[22] Zheng NY, Lee M, Lin YL. Co-processing textile sludge and lignocellulose biowaste
for biofuel production through microwave-assisted wet torrefaction. J Clean Prod
2020;268.
[23] Chen CY, Chen WH, Lim S, Ong HC, Ubando AT. Synergistic interaction and
biochar improvement over co-torrefaction of intermediate waste epoxy resins and
fir. Environ Technol Innov 2021:21.
[24] Rizkiana J, Zahra ACA, Wulandari W, Saputra WH, Andrayukti R, Sianipar AM,
et al. Effects of coal and biomass types towards the quality of hybrid coal produced
via co-torrefaction. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 2020:823.
[25] Huang Y-F, Chiueh P-T, Lo S-L. CO2 adsorption on biochar from co-torrefaction of
sewage sludge and leucaena wood using microwave heating. Energy Proced 2019;
158:4435–40.
[26] Lam SS, Tsang YF, Yek PNY, Liew RK, Osman MS, Peng W, et al. Co-processing of
oil palm waste and waste oil via microwave co-torrefaction: a waste reduction
approach for producing solid fuel product with improved properties. Process Saf
Environ 2019;128:30–5.
[27] Xin S, Mi T, Liu X, Huang F. Effect of torrefaction on the pyrolysis characteristics of
high moisture herbaceous residues. Energy 2018;152:586–93.
[28] Brunerová A, Müller M, Šleger V, Ambarita H, Valášek P. Bio-pellet fuel from oil
palm empty fruit bunches (EFB): using European standards for quality testing.
Sustainability 2018;10:4443.
[29] García R, Pizarro C, Lavín AG, Bueno JL. Biomass proximate analysis using
thermogravimetry. Bioresour Technol 2013;139:1–4.
P.N.Y. Yek et al.
[30] Lam SS, Liew RK, Wong YM, Azwar E, Jusoh A, Wahi R. Activated carbon for
catalyst support from microwave pyrolysis of orange peel. Waste Biomass Valori
2017;8:2109–19.
[31] Lam SS, Liew RK, Lim XY, Ani FN, Jusoh A. Fruit waste as feedstock for recovery by
pyrolysis technique. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 2016;113:325–33.
[32] Parr IC. Oxygen bomb calorimeter: operating instruction manual. 2010. p. 89.
[33] Huang YF, Cheng PH, Chiueh PT, Lo SL. Leucaena biochar produced by microwave
torrefaction: fuel properties and energy efficiency. Appl Energy 2017;204:
1018–25.
[34] Yan W, Acharjee TC, Coronella CJ, Vásquez VR. Thermal pretreatment of
lignocellulosic biomass. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 2009;28:435.
[35] Carrasco JC, Oporto GS, Zondlo J, Wang J. Observed kinetic parameters during the
torrefaction of red oak (Quercus rubra) in a pilot rotary kiln reactor. Bio 2014;9:
5417–37.
[36] Peng J, Bi X, Lim J, Sokhansanj S. Development of torrefaction kinetics for British
Columbia softwoods. Int J Chem React Eng 2012;10.
[37] Martín-Lara MA, Ronda A, Blázquez G, Pérez A, Calero M. Pyrolysis kinetics of the
lead-impregnated olive stone by non-isothermal thermogravimetry. Process Saf
Environ 2018;113:448–58.
[38] Wilk M, Magdziarz A, Gajek M, Zajemska M, Jayaraman K, Gokalp I. Combustion
and kinetic parameters estimation of torrefied pine, acacia and Miscanthus
giganteus using experimental and modelling techniques. Bioresour Technol 2017;
243:304–14.
[39] Tran KQ, Bui HH. Thermal decomposition of biochar from oxidative spruce
torrefaction - a kinetic study. Chem Eng Trans 2016;50:103–8.
[40] Saadon S, Uemura Y, Mansor N. Torrefaction in the presence of oxygen and carbon
dioxide: the effect on yield of oil palm kernel shell. Procedia Chem 2014;9:
194–201.
[41] Ja’afar MNM, Rahman AA, Shamsuddin AH. Development of a bench scale biomass
torrefier. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 2013;16.
[42] Rentizelas AA, Li J. Techno-economic and carbon emissions analysis of biomass
torrefaction downstream in international bioenergy supply chains for co-firing.
Energy 2016;114:129–42.
[43] Liew RK, Nam WL, Chong MY, Phang XY, Su MH, Yek PNY, et al. Oil palm waste:
an abundant and promising feedstock for microwave pyrolysis conversion into
good quality biochar with potential multi-applications. Process Saf Environ 2018;
115:57–69.
[44] Jayaraman K, Gokalp I, Petrus S, Belandria V, Bostyn S. Energy recovery analysis
from sugar cane bagasse pyrolysis and gasification using thermogravimetry, mass
spectrometry and kinetic models. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2018;132:225–36.
[45] Wu MR, Schott DL, Lodewijks G. Physical properties of solid biomass. Biomass
Bioenergy 2011;35:2093–105.
[46] McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass.
Bioresour Technol 2002;83:37–46.
[47] Liu C, Huang J, Huang X, Li H, Zhang Z. Theoretical studies on formation
mechanisms of CO and CO2 in cellulose pyrolysis. Comput Theor Chem 2011;964:
207–12.
[48] Tihay V, Gillard P. Pyrolysis gases released during the thermal decomposition of
three Mediterranean species 2010.
[49] Lopez-Gonzalez D, Fernandez-Lopez M, Valverde J, Sánchez-Silva L.
Thermogravimetric-mass spectrometric analysis on combustion of lignocellulosic
biomass 2013.
[50] Wang L, Barta-Rajnai E, Ø Skreiberg, Khalil R, Czégény Z, Jakab E, et al. Effect of
torrefaction on physiochemical characteristics and grindability of stem wood,
stump and bark. Appl Energy 2018;227:137–48.
[51] Sheng C, Azevedo JLT. Estimating the higher heating value of biomass fuels from
basic analysis data. Biomass Bioenergy 2005;28:499–507.
12
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 152 (2021) 111699
[52] Lam SS, Liew RK, Cheng CK, Chase HA. Catalytic microwave pyrolysis of waste
engine oil using metallic pyrolysis char. Appl Catal B Environ 2015;176–177:
601–17.
[53] Lam SS, Russell AD, Lee CL, Chase HA. Microwave-heated pyrolysis of waste
automotive engine oil: influence of operation parameters on the yield,
composition, and fuel properties of pyrolysis oil. Fuel 2012;92:327–39.
[54] Tangy A, Pulidindi IN, Perkas N, Gedanken A. Continuous flow through a
microwave oven for the large-scale production of biodiesel from waste cooking oil.
Bioresour Technol 2017;224:333–41.
[55] Salema AA, Afzal MT. Numerical simulation of heating behaviour in biomass bed
and pellets under multimode microwave system. Int J Therm Sci 2015;91:12–24.
[56] Omar R, Idris A, Yunus R, Khalid K, Aida Isma MI. Characterization of empty fruit
bunch for microwave-assisted pyrolysis. Fuel 2011;90:1536–44.
[57] Carrasco JC, Oporto GS, Zondlo J, Wang J. Torrefaction kinetics of red oak
(Quercus rubra) in a fluidized reactor. BioResources 2013;8:5067–82.
[58] Granados DA, Basu P, Chejne F. Biomass torrefaction in a two-stage rotary reactor:
modeling and experimental validation. Energy Fuels 2017;31:5701–9.
[59] Atienza-Martinez M, Fonts I, Abrego J, Ceamanos J, Gea G. Sewage sludge
torrefaction in a fluidized bed reactor. Chem Eng J 2013;222:534.
[60] Sulaiman MH, Uemura Y, Azizan MT. Torrefaction of empty fruit bunches in inert
condition at various temperature and time. Procedia Eng 2016;148:573–9.
[61] Chen WH, Fong Eng C, Lin YY, Bach QV, Ashokkumar V, Show PL. Two-step
thermo degradation kinetics of cellulose, hemicelluloses, and lignin under
isothermal torrefaction analyzed by particle swarm optimization. Energy Convers
Manag 2021:238.
[62] Alam M, Rammohan D, Bhavanam A, Peela NR. Wet torrefaction of bamboo saw
dust and its co-pyrolysis with plastic. Fuel 2021;285:119188.
[63] Castells B, Amez I, Medic L, García-Torrent J. Torrefaction influence on
combustion kinetics of Malaysian oil palm wastes. Fuel Process Technol 2021:218.
[64] Barzegar R, Yozgatligil A, Olgun H, Atimtay AT. TGA and kinetic study of different
torrefaction conditions of wood biomass under air and oxy-fuel combustion
atmospheres. J Energy Inst 2020;93:889–98.
[65] Xi Y, Yuan X, Tan M, Jiang S, Wang Z, Huang Z, et al. Properties of oxidatively
torrefied Chinese fir residue: color dimension, pyrolysis kinetics, and storage
behavior. Fuel Process Technol 2021:213.
[66] Zhang R, Zhang J, Guo W, Wu Z, Wang Z, Yang B. Effect of torrefaction
pretreatment on biomass chemical looping gasification (BCLG) characteristics:
gaseous products distribution and kinetic analysis. Energy Convers Manag 2021:
237.
[67] Sibiya NT, Oboirien B, Lanzini A, Gandiglio M, Ferrero D, Papurello D, et al. Effect
of different pre-treatment methods on gasification properties of grass biomass.
Renew Energy 2021;170:875–83.
[68] Barta RE, Wang L, Sebestyén Z, Barta Z, Khalil R, Ø Skreiberg, et al. Effect of
temperature and duration of torrefaction on the thermal behavior of stem wood,
bark, and stump of spruce. Enrgy Proced 2017;105:551–6.
[69] Chen W-H, Kuo P-C, Liu S-H, Wu W. Thermal characterization of oil palm fiber and
eucalyptus in torrefaction. Energy 2014;71:40–8.
[70] Chen D, Gao A, Cen K, Zhang J, Cao X, Ma Z. Investigation of biomass torrefaction
based on three major components: hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin. Energy
Convers Manag 2018;169:228–37.
[71] Simmons JC, Chen X, Azizi A, Daeumer MA, Zavalij PY, Zhou G, et al. Influence of
processing and microstructure on the local and bulk thermal conductivity of
selective laser melted 316L stainless steel. Addit Manuf 2020;32:100996.
[72] Patidar B, Hussain M M, Jha SK, Sharma A, Tiwari AP. Analytical, numerical and
experimental analysis of induction heating of graphite crucible for melting of non-
magnetic materials. IET Electr Power Appl 2017;11:342–51.
[73] Ciolkosz D, Wallace R. A review of torrefaction for bioenergy feedstock production.
Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 2011;5:317.