Slow Pyrolysis as a Method of Treating Household Biowaste for Biochar Production

The amount of waste generated by society is constantly increasing. Consequently, there is a need to develop new and better methods of treating it. A significant part of municipal waste is biowaste, which can be treated as a source of valuable resources such as nutrients, organic matter, and energy. The present work aims to determine the properties of the tested household biowaste and the possibility of using it as feedstock in slow pyrolysis to obtain biochar. The slow pyrolysis process of the biowaste was carried out in an electrically heated Horizontal Tube Furnace (HTF) at temperatures of 400 °C, 500 °C, and 600 °C in a nitrogen atmosphere. The analysis showed that depending on the type and composition of the biowaste, its properties are different. All the biowaste tested has a high moisture content (between 63.51% and 81.53%), which means that the biowaste needs to be dried before the slow pyrolysis process. The characteristics of kitchen biowaste are similar to those of food waste studied by other researchers in different regions of the world. In addition, the properties of kitchen biowaste are similar to those of the typical biomasses used to produce biochar via slow pyrolysis, such as wood, almond shells, and rice husks. Both kinds of garden biowaste tested may have been contaminated (soil, rocks) during collection, which affected the high ash content of spring (17.75%) and autumn (43.83%) biowaste. This, in turn, affected all the properties of the garden biowaste, which differed significantly from both the literature data of other garden wastes and from the properties of typical biomass feedstocks used to produce biochar in slow pyrolysis. For all biowaste tested, it was shown that as the pyrolysis temperature increases, the yield of biochar decreases. The maximum mass yield of biochar for kitchen, spring garden, and autumn garden biowaste was 36.64%, 66.53%, and 66.99%, respectively. Comparing the characteristics of biowaste before slow pyrolysis, biochar obtained from kitchen biowaste had a high carbon content, fixed carbon, and a higher HHV. In contrast, biochar obtained from garden biowaste had a lower carbon content and a lower HHV.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Sciences
Published
2025-07-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/app15147858
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Thermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.02

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Slow Pyrolysis as a Method of Treating Household Biowaste for Biochar Production

Krzysztof Pikoń, Ana F. Ferreira, Marcin Landrat, Abel Rodrigues et al.
3 citations
Applied Sciences
Thermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
2.02
article

Slow Pyrolysis as a Method of Treating Household Biowaste for Biochar Production

Krzysztof Pikoń, Ana F. Ferreira, Marcin Landrat, Abel Rodrigues, Agnieszka Bezuszko, Gabor Olejarz, Max Lewandowski
article en
3 citations

Abstract

The amount of waste generated by society is constantly increasing. Consequently, there is a need to develop new and better methods of treating it. A significant part of municipal waste is biowaste, which can be treated as a source of valuable resources such as nutrients, organic matter, and energy. The present work aims to determine the properties of the tested household biowaste and the possibility of using it as feedstock in slow pyrolysis to obtain biochar. The slow pyrolysis process of the biowaste was carried out in an electrically heated Horizontal Tube Furnace (HTF) at temperatures of 400 °C, 500 °C, and 600 °C in a nitrogen atmosphere. The analysis showed that depending on the type and composition of the biowaste, its properties are different. All the biowaste tested has a high moisture content (between 63.51% and 81.53%), which means that the biowaste needs to be dried before the slow pyrolysis process. The characteristics of kitchen biowaste are similar to those of food waste studied by other researchers in different regions of the world. In addition, the properties of kitchen biowaste are similar to those of the typical biomasses used to produce biochar via slow pyrolysis, such as wood, almond shells, and rice husks. Both kinds of garden biowaste tested may have been contaminated (soil, rocks) during collection, which affected the high ash content of spring (17.75%) and autumn (43.83%) biowaste. This, in turn, affected all the properties of the garden biowaste, which differed significantly from both the literature data of other garden wastes and from the properties of typical biomass feedstocks used to produce biochar in slow pyrolysis. For all biowaste tested, it was shown that as the pyrolysis temperature increases, the yield of biochar decreases. The maximum mass yield of biochar for kitchen, spring garden, and autumn garden biowaste was 36.64%, 66.53%, and 66.99%, respectively. Comparing the characteristics of biowaste before slow pyrolysis, biochar obtained from kitchen biowaste had a high carbon content, fixed carbon, and a higher HHV. In contrast, biochar obtained from garden biowaste had a lower carbon content and a lower HHV.

Applied SciencesVol. 15(14)
Silesian University of Technology (PL), Instituto de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computadores Investigação e Desenvolvimento (PT), University of Lisbon (PT), Universidade Politécnica de Lisboa (PT), Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e Veterinária (PT)
Silesian University of Technology, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
Responsible consumption and production
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Thermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
2.02
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.