Cited by 48Subcritical and Supercritical Water ProcessesThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesHeat transfer and supercritical fluids

Co-Hydrothermal Liquefaction of Lignocellulosic Biomass in Supercritical Water

Open access
Sharma, Kamaldeep, Shah, Ayaz A., Toor, Saqib S., Seehar, Tahir H., Pedersen, Thomas H., Rosendahl, Lasse A.·2021·Energies

Abstract

Hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) is an effective technology for bio-crude production. To date, various co-liquefaction studies were performed with contrasted (different composition) biomasses in subcritical water. Therefore, the present study investigated co-hydrothermal liquefaction of similar kinds of lignocellulosic biomasses (wheat straw, eucalyptus, and pinewood) in supercritical water under equal ratios at 400 °C with catalytic medium (K2CO3). The lower bio-crude and higher solid yields were obtained in co-liquefaction experiments, as compared to liquefaction of individual feedstocks. On the other hand, higher carbon recovery and higher HHVs were noticed in co-liquefaction-derived bio-crudes. Gas chromatography with mass spectrometry (GC-MS) results showed that organic compounds were detected in all bio-crudes in the order of phenol derivatives > ketones/aldehydes > aromatics > carboxylic acids/esters. The aqueous phase from all samples contained higher TOC in the range of 19 to 33 g/L, with alkaline pH. In short, the co-liquefaction slightly improved the bio-crude quality with a significant reduction in bio-crude energy recovery. This reflects that co-liquefaction of lignocellulosic feedstock is not favorable for enhancing bio-crude yield and improving the overall process economics of HTL.

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 · 10.3390/en14061708

Cites

41 of 41 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sharma, K., Shah, A. A., Toor, S. S., Seehar, T. H., Pedersen, T. H., & Rosendahl, L. A.
Affiliations
  • Aalborg University (DK)
  • Dawood University of Engineering and Technology (PK)
Corresponding author
Toor, Saqib S.
Venue
Energies
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-03-19
Volume
14
Issue
6
Pages
1708
ISSN
1996-1073 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3136192914
Cited by
48
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Energies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
European Commission (727531)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Subcritical and Supercritical Water Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Thermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Heat transfer and supercritical fluids
Keywords
lignocellulosic biomass, supercritical water, biocrude, wheat straw, Eucalyptus, pine forest, potassium carbonate catalyst, energy recovery, aqueous phase, phenol derivatives, process economics

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