Cited by 100Thermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesMining and Gasification TechnologiesBiofuel production and bioconversion

Studies on Characterization of Corn Cob for Application in a Gasification Process for Energy Production

Open access
Anukam, Anthony I., Goso, Boniswa P., Okoh, Omobola O., Mamphweli, Sampson N.·2017·Journal of Chemistry

Abstract

Quintessential characteristics of corn cob were investigated in this study in order to determine its gasification potential. Results were interpreted in relation to gasification with reference to existing data from the literature. The results showed that the gasification of corn cob may experience some challenges related to ash fouling, slagging, and sintering effects that may be orchestrated by high ash content recorded for corn cob, which may contribute to increasing concentration of inorganic elements under high temperature gasification conditions, even though EDX analysis showed reduced concentration of these elements. The study also found that the weight percentages of other properties such as moisture, volatile matter, and fixed carbon contents of corn cob as well as its three major elemental components (C, H, and O) including its clearly exhibited fiber cells make corn cob a suitable feedstock for gasification. FTIR analysis revealed the existence of –OH, C–O, C–H, and C=C as the major functional group of atoms in the structure of corn cob that may facilitate formation of condensable and noncondensable liquid and gaseous products during gasification. TGA results indicated that complete thermal decomposition of corn cob occurs at temperatures close to 1000°C at a heating rate of 20°C/min.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1155/2017/6478389

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The lowest biochar yield obtained in Region 2 (34.24% daf) compared to the typical fixed carbon content of corn cob of 11.31-24.6% daf supports the idea of secondary reactions.

    “The lowest biochar yield obtained in this region (34.24% daf) compared to the typical fixed carbon content of corn cob of 11.31–24.6% daf (Anukam et al., 2017; Demiral et al., 2012; Demirbas, 2004; Shariff et al., 2016) supports this idea.”

    From Optimization of process parameters of self-purging microwave pyrolysis of corn cob for biochar production (2021) · cites this paper as Anukam et al., 2017

    Section 3.1 and Table 4 report a corn-cob fixed-carbon content of about 21% (21.3 wt.%), supporting the comparison in general. The paper does not give the stated 11.31–24.6% dry, ash-free range. The 34.24% biochar yield and inference about secondary reactions are the citing authors’ comparison, not findings attributed to Anukam et al. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • High carbonization temperatures (700-900 °C) promote thermal decomposition of organic biomass structures, resulting in biochar with increased carbon content, greater aromaticity, and improved stability.

    “High carbonization temperatures (700–900 °C) promote thermal decomposition of the organic biomass structures, resulting in biochar with increased carbon content, greater aromaticity, and improved stability.”

    From Metals incorporated agricultural waste corn Cob-based biochar used as an adsorbent for CO2 capturing (2025) · cites this paper as [47]

    Section 3.6 (page unavailable) reports that heating decomposes corn cob’s organic components and that degradation at higher temperatures produces carbonized biomass. It does not establish the specified 700–900 °C range or show that the resulting biochar has increased carbon content, greater aromaticity, or improved stability. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • At 800 °C, biochar typically develops a higher surface area and porosity compared to lower temperatures, which is critical to adsorption applications.

    “At 800 °C, biochar typically develops a higher surface area and porosity compared to lower temperatures, which is critical to adsorption applications.”

    From Metals incorporated agricultural waste corn Cob-based biochar used as an adsorbent for CO2 capturing (2025) · cites this paper as [47]

    Section 2.5 describes heating corn cob for thermogravimetric analysis, and Section 3.7 discusses the microstructure of untreated corn cob for gasification; neither reports biochar surface area or adsorption performance. Searches for 800 °C, porosity, surface area, and adsorption found no comparison of biochar produced at different temperatures. Page numbers were not available in the indexed copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Sulfuric acid impregnation preceding carbonization facilitates dehydration and charring reactions, improving the formation of porous carbon structures under high temperatures.

    “The sulfuric acid impregnation preceding carbonization facilitates dehydration and charring reactions, improving the formation of porous carbon structures under these high temperatures47,48.”

    From Metals incorporated agricultural waste corn Cob-based biochar used as an adsorbent for CO2 capturing (2025) · cites this paper as [47]

    Section 3.1 discusses char formation during corn-cob gasification, and Section 3.4 discusses reactions caused by rising temperature. Neither addresses sulfuric acid impregnation, acid-facilitated dehydration or charring, or the formation of porous carbon structures. Searches for those terms and for acid activation before carbonization found no supporting passage in our copy; page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. D. Gunarathne, Optimization of the performance of downdraft biomass gasifier installed at national engineering research and development (NERD) Centre of Sri Lanka [Msc thesis], KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management, Sweden, 2012.
  2. J. T. Oladeji and C. C. Enweremadu, "A predictive model for the determination of some densification characteristics of corncob briquettes, " in Materials and Processes for Energy: Communicat- ing Current Research and Technological Developments, pp. 169- 177, 2013.
  3. K. Arun and M. V. Ramanan, "Experimental studies on gasifi- cation of corn cob in a fixed bed system, " Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 8, pp. 667-676, 2016.
  4. S. Danje, Fast pyrolysis of corn residues for energy production [dissertation, thesis], Stellenbosch University, 2011.
  5. J. Wannapeera, N. Worasuwannarak, and S. Pipatmanomoi, "Product yields and characteristics of rice husk, rice straw and corncob during fast pyrolysis in a drop-tube/fixed-bed reactor, " Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 393-404, 2008.
  6. ASTM Standards, ASTM D 5142-04: Standard Test Method for Proximate Analysis of the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke by Instrumental Procedures, vol. 5, ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2008.
  7. D. A. Skoog and J. J. Leary, Principles of Instrumental Analysis, Chapter 12, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Philadelphia, Philadel- phia, PA, USA, 1992.
  8. A. Anukam, S. Mamphweli, P. Reddy, and O. Okoh, "Character- ization and the effect of lignocellulosic biomass value addition on gasification efficiency, " Energy Exploration and Exploitation, pp. 1-16, 2016.
  9. E. Gustafsson, Characterization of Particulate Matter from Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Biomass Gasifiers [PhD. thesis], Linnaeus University, 2011.
  10. J. S. Brar, K. Singh, J. Wang, and S. Kumar, "Co-gasification of coal biomass. A review, " International Journal of Forestry Research, pp. 1-10, 2012.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anukam, A. I., Goso, B. P., Okoh, O. O., & Mamphweli, S. N.
Affiliations
University of Fort Hare (ZA)
Corresponding author
Anukam, Anthony I.
Venue
Journal of Chemistry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017
Volume
2017
Pages
1-9
ISSN
  • 2090-9063 (ISSN-L)
  • 2090-9071
OpenAlex
W2623590893
Cited by
100
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Chemistry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Digitala vetenskapliga arkivet (Diva) (Karlstad University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Research Foundation
  • Govan Mbeki Research and Development Center
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Thermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Mining and Gasification Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biofuel production and bioconversion
Keywords
corn cob, biomass gasification, ash fouling, slagging, sintering, ash content, volatile matter, fixed carbon, moisture content, elemental composition, functional groups, thermal decomposition, biomass feedstock

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review