Loading…

Standardization of chemical analytical techniques for pyrolysis bio-oil: history, challenges, and current status of methods

In this perspective, we discuss the standardization of analytical techniques for pyrolysis bio‐oils, including the current status of methods, and our opinions on future directions. First, the history of past standardization efforts is summarized, and both successful and unsuccessful validation of an...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining bioproducts and biorefining, 2016-09, Vol.10 (5), p.496-507
Main Authors: Ferrell III, Jack R., Olarte, Mariefel V., Christensen, Earl D., Padmaperuma, Asanga B., Connatser, Raynella M., Stankovikj, Filip, Meier, Dietrich, Paasikallio, Ville
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4671-afb3a199e03031a422a2d386b59e81b6566e092ccd19a68e67bd229ebe535e1a3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4671-afb3a199e03031a422a2d386b59e81b6566e092ccd19a68e67bd229ebe535e1a3
container_end_page 507
container_issue 5
container_start_page 496
container_title Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining
container_volume 10
creator Ferrell III, Jack R.
Olarte, Mariefel V.
Christensen, Earl D.
Padmaperuma, Asanga B.
Connatser, Raynella M.
Stankovikj, Filip
Meier, Dietrich
Paasikallio, Ville
description In this perspective, we discuss the standardization of analytical techniques for pyrolysis bio‐oils, including the current status of methods, and our opinions on future directions. First, the history of past standardization efforts is summarized, and both successful and unsuccessful validation of analytical techniques highlighted. The majority of analytical standardization studies to‐date has tested only physical characterization techniques. Here, we present results from an international round robin on the validation of chemical characterization techniques for bio‐oils. Techniques tested included acid number, carbonyl titrations using two different methods (one at room temperature and one at 80 °C), 31P NMR for determination of hydroxyl groups, and a quantitative gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC‐MS) method. Both carbonyl titration and acid number methods have yielded acceptable inter‐laboratory variabilities. 31P NMR produced acceptable results for aliphatic and phenolic hydroxyl groups, but not for carboxylic hydroxyl groups. As shown in previous round robins, GC‐MS results were more variable. Reliable chemical characterization of bio‐oils will enable upgrading research and allow for detailed comparisons of bio‐oils produced at different facilities. Reliable analytics are also needed to enable an emerging bioenergy industry, as processing facilities often have different analytical needs and capabilities than research facilities. We feel that correlations in reliable characterizations of bio‐oils will help strike a balance between research and industry, and will ultimately help to ‐determine metrics for bio‐oil quality. Finally, the standardization of additional analytical methods is needed, particularly for upgraded bio‐oils. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
doi_str_mv 10.1002/bbb.1661
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_osti_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_osti_scitechconnect_1319212</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1819138330</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4671-afb3a199e03031a422a2d386b59e81b6566e092ccd19a68e67bd229ebe535e1a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU9v1DAQxSMEEqUg8REsThya4rHXTsyNraBFqqiqLSo3y3YmrMEbL7ZXEPjyTVi0EodKPc07_ObPm1dVL4GeAqXsjbX2FKSER9URKM5qoBweH_Tiy9PqWc7fKBVSLMRR9WdVzNCZ1Pnfpvg4kNgTt8aNdyYQM5gwlr-yoFsP_scOM-ljItsxxTBmn4n1sY4-vCVrn0tM48nUbkLA4Svmk2lCR9wuJRwKycWUXZ4XbLCsY5efV096EzK--FePq88f3t-cXdSXV-cfz95d1m4hG6hNb7kBpZDyyYtZMGZYx1tphcIWrBRSIlXMuQ6UkS3KxnaMKbQouEAw_Lh6tZ8bc_E6Oz-bcXEY0BUNHBQDNkGv99A2xdlm0RufHYZgBoy7rKHlQijWNvwBKCjgLZ_OPaAuxZwT9nqb_MakUQPVc156ykvPeU1ovUd_-oDjvZxeLpf_89Pf8deBN-m7lg1vhL79dK6vVze3sr1Y6Wt-B7tJpq0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1819138330</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Standardization of chemical analytical techniques for pyrolysis bio-oil: history, challenges, and current status of methods</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><creator>Ferrell III, Jack R. ; Olarte, Mariefel V. ; Christensen, Earl D. ; Padmaperuma, Asanga B. ; Connatser, Raynella M. ; Stankovikj, Filip ; Meier, Dietrich ; Paasikallio, Ville</creator><creatorcontrib>Ferrell III, Jack R. ; Olarte, Mariefel V. ; Christensen, Earl D. ; Padmaperuma, Asanga B. ; Connatser, Raynella M. ; Stankovikj, Filip ; Meier, Dietrich ; Paasikallio, Ville ; National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States) ; Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)</creatorcontrib><description>In this perspective, we discuss the standardization of analytical techniques for pyrolysis bio‐oils, including the current status of methods, and our opinions on future directions. First, the history of past standardization efforts is summarized, and both successful and unsuccessful validation of analytical techniques highlighted. The majority of analytical standardization studies to‐date has tested only physical characterization techniques. Here, we present results from an international round robin on the validation of chemical characterization techniques for bio‐oils. Techniques tested included acid number, carbonyl titrations using two different methods (one at room temperature and one at 80 °C), 31P NMR for determination of hydroxyl groups, and a quantitative gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC‐MS) method. Both carbonyl titration and acid number methods have yielded acceptable inter‐laboratory variabilities. 31P NMR produced acceptable results for aliphatic and phenolic hydroxyl groups, but not for carboxylic hydroxyl groups. As shown in previous round robins, GC‐MS results were more variable. Reliable chemical characterization of bio‐oils will enable upgrading research and allow for detailed comparisons of bio‐oils produced at different facilities. Reliable analytics are also needed to enable an emerging bioenergy industry, as processing facilities often have different analytical needs and capabilities than research facilities. We feel that correlations in reliable characterizations of bio‐oils will help strike a balance between research and industry, and will ultimately help to ‐determine metrics for bio‐oil quality. Finally, the standardization of additional analytical methods is needed, particularly for upgraded bio‐oils. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-104X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-1031</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1661</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester, UK: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</publisher><subject>09 BIOMASS FUELS ; analysis ; analytical ; bio-oil ; Biomass ; Design of experiments ; Gas chromatography ; Hydroxyl groups ; INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY ; Mass spectrometry ; Mathematical analysis ; Pyrolysis ; round robin ; Standardization ; titration</subject><ispartof>Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining, 2016-09, Vol.10 (5), p.496-507</ispartof><rights>2016 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4671-afb3a199e03031a422a2d386b59e81b6566e092ccd19a68e67bd229ebe535e1a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4671-afb3a199e03031a422a2d386b59e81b6566e092ccd19a68e67bd229ebe535e1a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1319212$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ferrell III, Jack R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olarte, Mariefel V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Christensen, Earl D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Padmaperuma, Asanga B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Connatser, Raynella M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stankovikj, Filip</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meier, Dietrich</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paasikallio, Ville</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)</creatorcontrib><title>Standardization of chemical analytical techniques for pyrolysis bio-oil: history, challenges, and current status of methods</title><title>Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining</title><addtitle>Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref</addtitle><description>In this perspective, we discuss the standardization of analytical techniques for pyrolysis bio‐oils, including the current status of methods, and our opinions on future directions. First, the history of past standardization efforts is summarized, and both successful and unsuccessful validation of analytical techniques highlighted. The majority of analytical standardization studies to‐date has tested only physical characterization techniques. Here, we present results from an international round robin on the validation of chemical characterization techniques for bio‐oils. Techniques tested included acid number, carbonyl titrations using two different methods (one at room temperature and one at 80 °C), 31P NMR for determination of hydroxyl groups, and a quantitative gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC‐MS) method. Both carbonyl titration and acid number methods have yielded acceptable inter‐laboratory variabilities. 31P NMR produced acceptable results for aliphatic and phenolic hydroxyl groups, but not for carboxylic hydroxyl groups. As shown in previous round robins, GC‐MS results were more variable. Reliable chemical characterization of bio‐oils will enable upgrading research and allow for detailed comparisons of bio‐oils produced at different facilities. Reliable analytics are also needed to enable an emerging bioenergy industry, as processing facilities often have different analytical needs and capabilities than research facilities. We feel that correlations in reliable characterizations of bio‐oils will help strike a balance between research and industry, and will ultimately help to ‐determine metrics for bio‐oil quality. Finally, the standardization of additional analytical methods is needed, particularly for upgraded bio‐oils. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</description><subject>09 BIOMASS FUELS</subject><subject>analysis</subject><subject>analytical</subject><subject>bio-oil</subject><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>Design of experiments</subject><subject>Gas chromatography</subject><subject>Hydroxyl groups</subject><subject>INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY</subject><subject>Mass spectrometry</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Pyrolysis</subject><subject>round robin</subject><subject>Standardization</subject><subject>titration</subject><issn>1932-104X</issn><issn>1932-1031</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkU9v1DAQxSMEEqUg8REsThya4rHXTsyNraBFqqiqLSo3y3YmrMEbL7ZXEPjyTVi0EodKPc07_ObPm1dVL4GeAqXsjbX2FKSER9URKM5qoBweH_Tiy9PqWc7fKBVSLMRR9WdVzNCZ1Pnfpvg4kNgTt8aNdyYQM5gwlr-yoFsP_scOM-ljItsxxTBmn4n1sY4-vCVrn0tM48nUbkLA4Svmk2lCR9wuJRwKycWUXZ4XbLCsY5efV096EzK--FePq88f3t-cXdSXV-cfz95d1m4hG6hNb7kBpZDyyYtZMGZYx1tphcIWrBRSIlXMuQ6UkS3KxnaMKbQouEAw_Lh6tZ8bc_E6Oz-bcXEY0BUNHBQDNkGv99A2xdlm0RufHYZgBoy7rKHlQijWNvwBKCjgLZ_OPaAuxZwT9nqb_MakUQPVc156ykvPeU1ovUd_-oDjvZxeLpf_89Pf8deBN-m7lg1vhL79dK6vVze3sr1Y6Wt-B7tJpq0</recordid><startdate>201609</startdate><enddate>201609</enddate><creator>Ferrell III, Jack R.</creator><creator>Olarte, Mariefel V.</creator><creator>Christensen, Earl D.</creator><creator>Padmaperuma, Asanga B.</creator><creator>Connatser, Raynella M.</creator><creator>Stankovikj, Filip</creator><creator>Meier, Dietrich</creator><creator>Paasikallio, Ville</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>OIOZB</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201609</creationdate><title>Standardization of chemical analytical techniques for pyrolysis bio-oil: history, challenges, and current status of methods</title><author>Ferrell III, Jack R. ; Olarte, Mariefel V. ; Christensen, Earl D. ; Padmaperuma, Asanga B. ; Connatser, Raynella M. ; Stankovikj, Filip ; Meier, Dietrich ; Paasikallio, Ville</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4671-afb3a199e03031a422a2d386b59e81b6566e092ccd19a68e67bd229ebe535e1a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>09 BIOMASS FUELS</topic><topic>analysis</topic><topic>analytical</topic><topic>bio-oil</topic><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>Design of experiments</topic><topic>Gas chromatography</topic><topic>Hydroxyl groups</topic><topic>INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY</topic><topic>Mass spectrometry</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Pyrolysis</topic><topic>round robin</topic><topic>Standardization</topic><topic>titration</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ferrell III, Jack R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olarte, Mariefel V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Christensen, Earl D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Padmaperuma, Asanga B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Connatser, Raynella M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stankovikj, Filip</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meier, Dietrich</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paasikallio, Ville</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV - Hybrid</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><jtitle>Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ferrell III, Jack R.</au><au>Olarte, Mariefel V.</au><au>Christensen, Earl D.</au><au>Padmaperuma, Asanga B.</au><au>Connatser, Raynella M.</au><au>Stankovikj, Filip</au><au>Meier, Dietrich</au><au>Paasikallio, Ville</au><aucorp>National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)</aucorp><aucorp>Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Standardization of chemical analytical techniques for pyrolysis bio-oil: history, challenges, and current status of methods</atitle><jtitle>Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining</jtitle><addtitle>Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref</addtitle><date>2016-09</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>496</spage><epage>507</epage><pages>496-507</pages><issn>1932-104X</issn><eissn>1932-1031</eissn><abstract>In this perspective, we discuss the standardization of analytical techniques for pyrolysis bio‐oils, including the current status of methods, and our opinions on future directions. First, the history of past standardization efforts is summarized, and both successful and unsuccessful validation of analytical techniques highlighted. The majority of analytical standardization studies to‐date has tested only physical characterization techniques. Here, we present results from an international round robin on the validation of chemical characterization techniques for bio‐oils. Techniques tested included acid number, carbonyl titrations using two different methods (one at room temperature and one at 80 °C), 31P NMR for determination of hydroxyl groups, and a quantitative gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC‐MS) method. Both carbonyl titration and acid number methods have yielded acceptable inter‐laboratory variabilities. 31P NMR produced acceptable results for aliphatic and phenolic hydroxyl groups, but not for carboxylic hydroxyl groups. As shown in previous round robins, GC‐MS results were more variable. Reliable chemical characterization of bio‐oils will enable upgrading research and allow for detailed comparisons of bio‐oils produced at different facilities. Reliable analytics are also needed to enable an emerging bioenergy industry, as processing facilities often have different analytical needs and capabilities than research facilities. We feel that correlations in reliable characterizations of bio‐oils will help strike a balance between research and industry, and will ultimately help to ‐determine metrics for bio‐oil quality. Finally, the standardization of additional analytical methods is needed, particularly for upgraded bio‐oils. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</abstract><cop>Chichester, UK</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/bbb.1661</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-104X
ispartof Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining, 2016-09, Vol.10 (5), p.496-507
issn 1932-104X
1932-1031
language eng
recordid cdi_osti_scitechconnect_1319212
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection
subjects 09 BIOMASS FUELS
analysis
analytical
bio-oil
Biomass
Design of experiments
Gas chromatography
Hydroxyl groups
INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Mass spectrometry
Mathematical analysis
Pyrolysis
round robin
Standardization
titration
title Standardization of chemical analytical techniques for pyrolysis bio-oil: history, challenges, and current status of methods
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T09%3A37%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_osti_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Standardization%20of%20chemical%20analytical%20techniques%20for%20pyrolysis%20bio-oil:%20history,%20challenges,%20and%20current%20status%20of%20methods&rft.jtitle=Biofuels,%20bioproducts%20and%20biorefining&rft.au=Ferrell%20III,%20Jack%20R.&rft.aucorp=National%20Renewable%20Energy%20Lab.%20(NREL),%20Golden,%20CO%20(United%20States)&rft.date=2016-09&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=496&rft.epage=507&rft.pages=496-507&rft.issn=1932-104X&rft.eissn=1932-1031&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/bbb.1661&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_osti_%3E1819138330%3C/proquest_osti_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4671-afb3a199e03031a422a2d386b59e81b6566e092ccd19a68e67bd229ebe535e1a3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1819138330&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true