Discernment of synergism in pyrolysis of biomass blends using thermogravimetric analysis.

This study reports pyrolysis kinetics of biomass blends using isoconversional methods, viz. Friedman, FWO and KAS. Blends of three biomasses, viz. saw dust, bamboo dust and rice husk, were used. Extractives and volatiles in biomass and minerals in ash had marked influence on enhancement of reaction kinetics during co-pyrolysis, as indicated by reduction in activation energy and increase in decomposition intensity. Pyrolysis kinetics of saw dust and rice husk accelerated (positive synergy), while that of bamboo dust decelerated after blending (negative synergy). Predominant reaction mechanism of all biomass blends was 3-D diffusion in lower conversion range (α ≤ 0.5), while for α ≥ 0.5 pyrolysis followed random nucleation (or nucleation and growth mechanism). Higher reaction order for pyrolysis of blends of rice husk with saw dust and bamboo dust was attributed to catalytic effect of minerals in ash. Positive ΔH and ΔG was obtained for pyrolysis of all biomass blends.

Silk-fiber immobilized lipase-catalyzed hydrolysis of emulsified sunflower oil.

Lipase was immobilized in silk fibers through glutaraldehyde cross-linking to a maximum loading of 59 U/g silk-fiber and the immobilized lipase was utilized for the hydrolysis of sunflower oil (Helianthus annuus). The hydrolytic activity of the lipase, which was poor in biphasic oil in water system, was increased significantly when the sunflower oil was emulsified in aqueous medium. The hydrolytic activities of the immobilized lipase were 48.73 +/- 1.26 U, 36.11 +/- 0.96 U, and nil when the substrate sunflower oil was used as emulsion created by a rhamnolipid biosurfactant, Triton X100, and ultrasonication, respectively. Although the efficiency of the immobilized lipase was less than 12% than the corresponding free lipase, the immobilized lipase could be reused for the biosurfactant-mediated hydrolysis of sunflower oil up to third cycle of the reaction. The yield of the fatty acids in the second, third, and fourth cycles were 49.45%, 22.91%, and 5.09%, respectively, of the yield obtained in the first cycle.