Potential of Jackfruit Waste as Anaerobic Digestion and Slow Pyrolysis Feedstock
Loading...
Date
2021
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Journal of Biosystems Engineering
Abstract
The estimated annual worldwide production of jackfruit peelings (JP) and jackfruit seeds is 2.96 million tonnes. This study assesses the suitability of this jackfruit waste from soft and firm jackfruit varieties as potential feedstocks for anaerobic digestion and slow pyrolysis.Proximate, ultimate, calorific values, thermogravimetric, compositional and lignocellulosic analyses were conducted.The volatile matter, fixed carbon, hydrogen and carbon content of soft and firm jackfruit waste (peelings and seeds) ranged between 76.81 and 78.83%, 18.28 and 19.42%, 5.43 and 7.13% and 43.89 and 48.08%, respectively. The higher heating values (HHV) of soft and firm jackfruit waste ranged between 17.42 and 19.81 MJ/kg. The ash content of jackfruit waste from both varieties varied within the recommended range of less than 8%. The starch content of jackfruit peelings and seeds from both soft and firm varieties ranged between 29.05 and 59.54% while the sugar content of jackfruit peelings and seeds from soft and firm varieties ranged from 2.04 to 68.8%. The maximum weight degradation rate for the jackfruit waste for both jackfruit varieties occurred in the temperature range of 450–550 °C which is within the slow pyrolysis regime. Generally, cellulose formed the biggest proportions of the lignocellulosic composition followed by hemicellulose and lignin.Jackfruit waste from both soft and firm varieties is a potential feed stock for slow pyrolysis while soft variety jackfruit waste is more suitable for biogas production compared to the firm jackfruit wastes.
Description
Keywords
Anaerobic digestion . Characterisation . Jackfruit waste . Peelings . Slow pyrolysis
Citation
Nsubuga, D., Banadda, N., Kabenge, I., & Wydra, K. D. (2021). Potential of Jackfruit Waste as Anaerobic Digestion and Slow Pyrolysis Feedstock. Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 46(2), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42853-021-00096-9