Quantification of VOC Emissions from Carbonized Refuse-Derived Fuel Using Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry
1
Faculty of Life Sciences and Technology, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Wrocław 50-375, Poland
2
Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Science, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Wrocław 50-375, Poland
3
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames IA 50011, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2018, 23(12), 3208; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23123208
Submission received: 14 November 2018
/
Revised: 1 December 2018
/
Accepted: 4 December 2018
/
Published: 5 December 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Solid-Phase Microextraction)
Abstract
:In this work, for the first time, the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from carbonized refuse-derived fuel (CRDF) were quantified on a laboratory scale. The analyzed CRDF was generated from the torrefaction of municipal waste. Headspace solid-phase microextraction (SPME) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) was used to identify 84 VOCs, including many that are toxic, e.g., derivatives of benzene or toluene. The highest emissions were measured for nonanal, octanal, and heptanal. The top 10 most emitted VOCs contributed to almost 65% of the total emissions. The VOC mixture emitted from torrefied CRDF differed from that emitted by other types of pyrolyzed biochars, produced from different types of feedstock, and under different pyrolysis conditions. SPME was a useful technology for surveying VOC emissions. Results provide an initial database of the types and relative quantities of VOCs emitted from CRDF. This data is needed for further development of CRDF technology and comprehensive assessment of environmental impact and practical storage, transport, and potential adoption of CRDF as means of energy and resource recovery from municipal waste.
1. Introduction
Biochar is a fine-grained product characterized by a high content of organic carbon and low susceptibility to decomposition. It is obtained in the process of torrefaction, pyrolysis, or gasification of plant biomass, biodegradable waste, and sewage sludge [1]. The European Biochar Certificate [2] defines the carbon content above 50% of dry matter as the main requirement for biochar classification. Biochar has a wide range of applications with more than 50 already documented [3]. Biochars’ intended use depends on the production process characteristics, primarily calorific value and the specific surface area [3]. The substrates used in the production of biochar include [4]: wood biomass, agricultural biomass (e.g., crop residues), energy crops (e.g., Miscanthus, energetic willow, Virginia mallow), organic waste including: organic fraction of municipal waste [5,6], waste from agro-food processing (e.g., oat fermentation, rice husks, nut shells, pomace), waste from poultry processing, animal manure, biomass from algae, digestate from biogas plants [7] and sewage sludge [8].
Municipal waste is used increasingly as a resource to recover energy and materials via thermal processes. The direction being actively pursued in the field of torrefaction and pyrolysis of municipal waste is the conversion of the fraction of combustible fraction of waste (a.k.a. refuse-derived fuel; RDF) into high-calorific solid fuel (CRDF) as a ‘Waste-To-Carbon’ waste management strategy [5,9].
One of the challenges related to the development of torrefaction and pyrolysis technology for municipal waste is the expected potential environmental impact of biochar through emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The VOCs are defined as any organic compound with an initial boiling point less than or equal to 250 °C measured at a standard pressure of 101.3 kPa [10], i.e., capable of off-gassing potentially hazardous compounds during production, storage, transportation, and use. This working hypothesis is derived by analogy to previous studies on the qualitative and quantitative analysis of VOCs content in biochars from biomass. From the research on other types of (pyrolyzed) biochar conducted so far, the occurrence of up to 140 [11] VOCs was observed, of which 74 were identified. The most frequently observed compounds in biochar from pyrolysis were acetone, benzene, methyl ethyl ketone, toluene, methyl acetate, ethanol, phenol, and cresols. Buss et al. [12] reported elevated levels of aliphatic acids and naphthalene. The ‘Char Team 2015’ reported 26 VOCs [13].
The problem of VOCs emissions from biochar was also reported by Taherymoosavi et al. [14], who analyzed biochar from compost. Particular attention has been paid to the generation of VOCs from the BTEX group in biocarbon as compared to raw materials. The content of VOCs in biochar depends on substrates as well as the process in which the char is produced [15]. Spokas et al. [11] compared the processes of biocarbon formation in terms of VOC content. For this purpose, biochar originating from various substrates, e.g., coconut, hardwood, and pig manure, produced at various process temperatures from 200 °C to 800 °C were subjected to analyses on GC-MS. A relationship was observed that the higher the temperature of the biochar formation process, the smaller the amount of VOCs emitted [11]. The highest number of absorbed VOCs is observed in the biochar derived under hydrothermal carbonization and rapid pyrolysis. These were primarily furans and aldehydes. Similar conclusions came from Wang et al. [15] analyzing the content of PAHs in biocarbon. The lowest concentration of PAH was observed in slow pyrolysis and longer retention (inside reactor) time. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that a torrefied (i.e., low temperature) process used for RDF production will result in greater VOC emissions.
To date, published literature on VOC emissions focuses on biochars produced from biomass, mainly via pyrolysis. However, no VOC emissions have been evaluated from biochars produced from municipal waste, and in particular from torrefied RDF, a new potential future fuel source in a circular economy. For this reason, the main purpose of the work was to identify VOCs emitted from carbonized-RDF (CRDF) biochar produced via torrefaction from RDF and quantify their emissions. Information is needed about the types and quantities of VOCs emitted. This, in turn, can address many practical questions about the potential toxicity; storage, transport, and adoption of CRDF as a future energy source.
2. Results
In this work, for the first time, emissions of VOCs from CRDF was studied qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitative analysis consisted of identifying compounds based on MS spectral database and available literature (Kovats Retention C7-40 Index). Table 1 shows the VOCs emitted from the analyzed CRDF with the GC column retention time and the coefficient both in the literature and with the GC software presented in the database (Kovats Retention C7-40 Index). Also included was the internal standard (2-undecanone) added during analyzes (compound #80).
The 84 VOCs (without internal standard) have been identified. These compounds belong to various groups such as alcohols (e.g., pentanol), aldehydes, (e.g., nonanal, octanal, heptanal, hexanal, furfural), ketones (e.g., heptanone), aromatic compounds (including toluene and benzene derivatives), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs; including naphthalene derivatives considered toxic), acids (e.g., acetic, benzoic), alkenes (e.g., styrene), phenols and a large group of heterocyclic compounds (including pyridine and pyrazine with derivatives).
The largest (by number) group were derivatives of benzene and naphthalene (e.g., tetralin). The highest density of peak elution of VOCs from the chromatographic column occurred between 7 to 12 min (Table 1). Most of the identified compounds had boiling points between 100 and 240 °C; i.e., the typical range of VOCs [16]. One compound was classified as very volatile (VVOCs) and one as a semi-VOC (Table 2). Among the identified compounds, many have been known to have a negative impact on human health and the natural environment, including mutagenic and carcinogenic aromatic compounds, e.g., toluene, benzene, ethylbenzene or cumene, and PAH, e.g., naphthalene.
The total mass of VOCs emitted from CRDF was 16.4 mg/kg (Table 2) based on 7 days of accumulation in the headspace of a sealed storage vessel. The top 10 compounds with the highest emissions were as follows: nonanal, octanal, heptanal, butylbenzene, hexanal, 1-methyl-4-prop-1-en-2-ylcyclohexene, benzaldehyde, decanal, toluene, and hexylbenzene. Among the analyzed compounds, the highest emission (as a group) from the CRDF was determined for aldehydes: nonanal, followed by octanal, and heptanal (Table 2). The top 10 of the most emitted VOCs consisted almost 65% of total emissions.
3. Discussion
The determined composition of the VOCs mixture emitted from CRDF stored in a sealed vessel (this research) is unique because it was likely driven by the type of municipal waste and the process parameters used for its production. However, for illustrative purposes, it is useful to compare with VOCs emitted from other types of biochar. Spokas et al. [11] reported 140 different compounds, 74 were identified in all studied biochars, generated from 77 different materials; but without municipal solid waste and without fuels derived from municipal waste. Spokas et al. [11] have not found clear feedstock dependencies to the adsorbed VOC composition, suggesting a stronger linkage with biochar production conditions coupled with post-production handling and processing. Lower pyrolytic temperatures (≤350 °C) produced biochars with adsorbed VOCs consisting of short carbon chain aldehydes, furans, and ketones; elevated temperature biochars (>350 °C) typically were dominated by adsorbed aromatic compounds and longer carbon chain hydrocarbons.
In the present work, only eight compounds were also reported by Spokas et al. [11] (Table 2). This relatively small number of common VOCs corroborates the unique influence of feedstock type —CRDF (in this research), and torrefaction process (a lower temperature process different to pyrolysis, and gasification) on VOCs formation during waste/biomass thermal treatment. Similarly, to present studies [11] aldehydes were identified in biochars (Table 2).
Buss et al. [12] analyzed VOCs emitted from three algal biochars, including two contaminated by re-condensates during pyrolysis. Buss et al. [12] identified numerous compounds from phenol groups mainly methylated and ethylene (25 compounds, but only phenol was common with present study) and acids such as acetic, formic or propionic. Taherymoosavi et al. [14] used municipal waste (compost) for the production of biochar and thus, was closest (as a source) to this work. Taherymoosavi et al., [14] analyzed biochar formed in the pyrolysis process at temperatures from 105 to 650 °C and reported the presence of alkylbenzenes, methoxy alkylphenols, organic compounds containing nitrogen, furans, and aromatic compounds. However, only phenol was a common compound identified in the present study (Table 2). Compared results show that only two compounds acetic acid and phenol were identified in the present study and [11,12], and [12,14] respectively.
There is little research in literature related to the subject of qualitative and quantitative identification of VOCs emitted from the surface of biochar, especially from biochar produced from municipal solid waste such as CRDF. This is a relatively new topic related to the trend of using torrefaction, and low-temperature pyrolysis of municipal solid waste in recent years. These new trends in municipal solids treatment are being sought as an alternative to both energy production and ‘Waste to Carbon’ utilization (e.g., CRDF). Thus the interest in identifying and mitigating VOC emissions from biochar will likely increase. As biochar VOCs are still not deeply explored, it is required to continue research on the effects of feedstock type and thermal treatment conditions on VOCs formation and emission, especially in the contest on potential harmful effect to workers during biochar storage and transportation and end users.
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. CRDF Used in the Experiment
CRDF was produced in the torrefaction process at 260 °C and a 50 min retention time in a batch reactor, according to the procedure described by [5]. The analyzed CRDF from the torrefaction of municipal waste at 260 °C and 50 min of retention time was characterized by physicochemical properties similar to those described in the literature. CRDF with a lower heating value (LHV) of 25.95 MJ/kg was similar to CRDF obtained in earlier studies [5] and to biochar from grass produced in a similar temperature range (250 to 350 °C) by Weber and Quicker [17], which had a calorific value of 25 to 30 MJ/kg. The higher heating value (HHV) of CRDF used in this experiment (27.315 MJ/kg) could define it as a ‘hard coal’ (HHV > 23.9 MJ/kg), according to the IEA’s classification [18]. The moisture content of the analyzed material (1.54%) was in the 1 to 6% range [19]. The proximate and ultimate properties of the CRDF used were summarized by Białowiec et al. [9].
4.2. Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses of VOC Emitted from CRDF
Measurements of VOCs were made using headspace (HS) solid-phase microextraction (SPME) technology for gas extraction and gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC-MS) (Palo Alto, CA, USA) for analyses. SPME technology combines sampling and sample preparation and is suited for exploratory qualitative and quantitative work on VOC emissions from a wide range of sources such as contaminated soils [20,21], decaying animal carcasses [22,23], fermentation by-products in beverages and aromas in wines [24,25], biological fluids and gases [26,27,28,29,30]. A comprehensive review of SPME applications to food and environmental analysis was published by Merkle et al. [31]. The apparatus and reagents were as follows:
- 1)
- the internal standard—a solution of 2-undecanone at a ratio of 20 μg compound per 20 mL of distilled water;
- 2)
- water bath with a temperature of 40 °C with glycol;
- 3)
- manual holder for SPME;
- 4)
- universal SPME fiber 3-component DVB/CAR/PDMS 50/30 μm coating (Supelco Inc., Bellefonte, PA, USA);
- 5)
- 10 μL syringe for internal standard addition;
- 6)
- a laboratory incubator (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) with a constant temperature of 23 °C.
4.3. Preparation of CRDF Samples
To prepare the samples for VOCs emission analysis, the CRDF was pre-treated and ground in a 2SIEL90L2 grinding mill (Celia Indukta, Bielsko-Biała, Poland) to homogenize the sample to size <0.5 mm. Next, 10 g of bulk 3 subsamples were placed in a sealed 1000 mL glass vessels. An internal standard, 10 µg of 2-undecanone (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA), was added to the vessels to account for the variability in emissions and to aid VOC quantification. Each sealed sample was stored in a laboratory incubator at a constant temperature of 23 °C for 7 days, after which it was removed for sampling. The VOCs extraction was carried out from the headspace of sealed vessel, by the SPME.
4.4. Solid-Phase Microextraction
After placing the sealed vessel with the sample in a water bath with glycol preheated to 40 °C, a 3-component universal fiber coating (DVB/CAR/PDMS 50/30 μm) was introduced into the vessel headspace. The SPME exposure lasted 20 min, similarly to the types of coatings and extraction times used for VOC emissions from solid, porous matter. The DVB/CAR/PDMS 50/30 μm SPME coating is often recommended and used for exploratory work on VOC emissions from unknown sources [25,26,28]. The coating represents a mixture of polymers capable of extracting VOCs with a wide range of properties, i.e., suitable for the work with CRDF. No specific optimization was made on sampling time. However, it was chosen based on practical considerations and preliminary trials aiming at reliably extracting the greatest number of VOCs in a relatively short extraction.
4.5. Gas Chromatography with Mass Spectrometry
The separation, identification and quantification of VOCs adsorbed on the fiber was conducted using a GC coupled to a MS detector (Saturn 2000 MS Varian Chrompack, Palo Alto, CA, USA) with ZB-5 (Phenomenex, Torrance, CA, USA) column (30 m × 0.25 µm film × 0.25 mm i.d.). Chromatographic conditions were performed according to Calin-Sanchez et al. [32]. Scanning (1 scan/s) was performed in the range of 35–400 m/z using electron impact ionization at 70 eV [33]. The analyses were performed using helium as a carrier gas at a flow rate of 1.0 mL/min, in splitless mode in SPME, and with the following program for the oven temperature: 50 °C at the beginning; 4 °C/min to 130 °C; and 10 °C/min to 180 °C and 20 °C/min to 280 °C with a hold for 4 min. The injector was held at 220 °C.
4.6. Data Analysis
The VOCs emitted from CRDF samples were identified using three independent analytical methods: retention indices (RI), GC–MS retention times of authentic chemical standards, mass spectra of compounds [34] and comparison with authentic standards, if possible.
The retention index standards used in this study consisted of a mixture of aliphatic hydrocarbons ranging from C-7 through C-40 dissolved in hexane [34].
The use of internal standard enabled quantitative analysis of VOCs. It was carried out using the Mnova MS 12.0.1 software (Mestrelab Research, S.L., Santiago de Compostela, Spain) based on the retention time of individual compounds, through the integration of the peak area of the chromatogram. The percentage ratio of individual VOC was determined. VOC emissions (on per mass of CRDF basis) were estimated based on the recovered internal standard. All raw data were shown as Supplementary Materials.
5. Conclusions
In the analyzed CRDF (biochar) from municipal waste, 84 VOCs have been identified, including many that are toxic, e.g., derivatives of benzene or toluene. The highest emission was measured for nonanal, octanal, heptanal. The top 10 of the most emitted VOCs consisted almost 65% of total emissions. The mixture of emitted from CRDF VOCs differed from those emitted by other types of biochars, produced from different types of feedstock, and under different pyrolysis conditions. SPME provided a useful tool for characterizing VOC emissions from CRDF, a new potential fuel exemplifying the ‘Waste to Carbon’ concept in a circular, zero-waste economy.
Supplementary Materials
The following files have been submitted as supplementary materials in zipped folder “supplementary materials.zip”: explanatory file “readme.docx”, raw data in files “CRDF MS raw data.jdx; CRDF MS raw data.csv; CRDF peaks raw data.xlsx” and tables (Tables S1 and S2) in the file “Tables.xlsx”.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, A.B., A.S.; methodology, A.B., M.M., A.S., J.Ł.; formal analysis, A.B., M.M., J.Ł; validation, A.B., M.M., A.S., J.K.; investigation, M.M., J.Ł; resources, A.B. A.S.; data curation, M.M., J.Ł, A.S., A.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B., M.M.; writing—review and editing, A.B., J.K., A.S., J.Ł; visualization, A.B., M.M., J.K.; supervision, A.B., A.S., J.K.
Funding
Authors would like to thank the Fulbright Foundation for funding the project titled “Research on pollutants emission from Carbonized Refuse Derived Fuel into the environment”, completed at the Iowa State University. In addition, this project was partially supported by the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa. Project no. IOW05400 (Animal Production Systems: Synthesis of Methods to Determine Triple Bottom Line Sustainability from Findings of Reductionist Research) is sponsored by Hatch Act and State of Iowa funds.”
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
References
- International Biochar Initiative IBI 2015. IBI Biochar Standards—Standardized Product Definition and Product Testing Guidelines for Biochar that is used in Soil. v.2.1. Available online: https://www.biochar-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/IBI_Biochar_Standards_V2.1_Final.pdf (accessed on 28 October 2018).
- EBC (2012). European Biochar Certificate—Guidelines for a Sustainable Production of Biochar. European Biochar Foundation (EBC): Arbaz, Switzerland. Available online: http://www.european-biochar.org/biochar/media/doc/ebc-guidelines.pdf (accessed on 28 October 2018).
- Schmidt, H.P. 55 Uses of Biochar. Ithaka J. 2012, 1, 286–289. [Google Scholar]
- Bird, M.; Wurster, C.; de Paula Silva, P.; Bass, A.; de Nys, R. Algal biochar—Production and properties. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 1886–1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Białowiec, A.; Pulka, J.; Stępień, P.; Manczarski, P.; Gołaszewski, J. The RDF/SRF torrefaction: An effect of temperature on characterization of the product—Carbonized Refuse Derived Fuel. Waste Manag. 2017, 70, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stępień, P.; Białowiec, A. Kinetic parameters of torrefaction process of alternative fuel produced from municipal solid waste and characteristic of carbonized refuse derived fuel. Detritus 2018, 3, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiśniewski, D.; Gołaszewski, J.; Białowiec, A. The pyrolysis and gasification of digestate from agricultural biogas plant. Arch. Environ. Prot. 2015, 41, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pulka, J.; Wiśniewski, D.; Gołaszewski, J.; Białowiec, A. Is the biochar produced from sewage sludge a good quality solid fuel? Arch. Environ. Prot. 2016, 42, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Białowiec, A.; Micuda, M.; Koziel, J.A. Waste to carbon: Densification of torrefied refuse-derived fuels. Energies 2018, 11, 3233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Directive 2004/42/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products and amending Directive 1999/13/EC. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32004L0042 (accessed on 13 November 2018).
- Spokas, K.A.; Novak, J.M.; Stewart, C.E.; Cantrell, K.B.; Uchimiya, M.; Dusaire, M.G.; Ro, K.S. Qualitative analysis of volatile organic compounds on biochar. Chemosphere 2011, 85, 869–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buss, W.; Masek, O.; Graham, M.; Wüst, D. Inherent organic compounds in biochar-Their content, composition and potential toxic effects. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 156, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allaire, S.E.; Lange, S.F.; Auclair, I.K.; Quinche, M.; Greffard, L. Analyses of biochar properties. CRMR-2015-SA-5. Presented at the Char Team (2015) Report, Centre de Recherche sur les Matériaux Renouvelables, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada, 2015; p. 59. [Google Scholar]
- Taherymoosavi, S.; Verheyen, V.; Munroe, P.; Joseph, S.; Reynolds, A. Characterization of organic compounds in biochars derived from municipal solid waste. Waste Manag. 2017, 67, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Wang, Y.; Herath, H.M.S.K. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in biochar—Their formation, occurrence and analysis: A review. Org. Geochem. 2017, 114, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization Report. Indoor air quality, organic pollutants: Report on a WHO meeting. Eur. Rep. Stud. 1989, 111, 1–70. [Google Scholar]
- Weber, K.; Quicker, P. Properties of biochar. Fuel 2018, 217, 240–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD/IEA/EUROSTAT, Energy Statistics Manual. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/statmanuals/files/Energy_statistics_manual_2004_EN.pdf (accessed on 21 September 2018).
- Jakubiak, M.; Kordylewski, W. Biomass torrefaction. Polski Inst. Spal. 2010, 10, 11–25. [Google Scholar]
- Kenessov, B.; Koziel, J.A.; Grotenhuis, T.; Carlsen, L. Screening of transformation products in soils contaminated with unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine using headspace SPME and GC-MS. Anal. Chim. Acta 2010, 674, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orazbayeva, D.; Kenessov, B.; Koziel, J.A.; Nassyrova, D.; Lyabukhova, N.V. Quantification of BTEX in soil by headspace SPME-GC-MS using combined standard addition and internal standard calibration. Chromatographia 2017, 80, 1249–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akdeniz, N.; Koziel, J.A.; Ahn, H.K.; Glanville, T.D.; Crawford, B.; Raman, R.D. Laboratory scale evaluation of VOC emissions as indication of swine carcass degradation inside biosecure composting units. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koziel, J.A.; Nguyen, L.T.; Glanville, T.D.; Ahn, H.K.; Frana, T.S.; van Leeuwen, J.H. Method for sampling and analysis of volatile biomarkers in process gas from aerobic digestion of poultry carcass using time-weighted average SPME and GC-MS. Food Chem. 2017, 232, 799–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Onuki, S.; Koziel, J.A.; Jenks, W.S.; Cai, L.; Rice, S.; van Leeuwen, J.H. Optimization of extraction parameters for quantification of fermentation volatile by-products in industrial ethanol with solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography. J. Inst. Brewing. 2016, 122, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rice, S.; Lutt, N.; Koziel, J.A.; Dharmadhikari, M.; Fennell, A. Determination of selected aromas in Marquette and Frontenac wine using headspace-SPME coupled with GC-MS and simultaneous olfactometry. Separations 2018, 5, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soso, S.B.; Koziel, J.A. Characterizing the scent and chemical composition of Panthera leo marking fluid using solid-phase microextraction and multidimensional gas chromatography-mass spectrometry-olfactometry. Sci. Rep. UK 2017, 7, 5137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Soso, S.B.; Koziel, J.A. Analysis of odorants in marking fluid of Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) using simultaneous sensory and chemical analysis with headspace solid-phase microextraction and multidimensional gas chromatography-mass spectrometry-olfactometry. Molecules 2016, 21, 834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maurer, D.L.; Koziel, J.A.; Engelken, T.J.; Cooper, V.L.; Funk, J.L. Detection of volatile compounds emitted from nasal secretions and serum: Towards non-invasive identification of diseased cattle biomarkers. Separations 2018, 5, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, L.; Koziel, J.A.; Davis, J.; Lo, Y.C.; Xin, H. Characterization of VOCs and odors by in vivo sampling of beef cattle rumen gas using SPME and GC-MS-olfactometry. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2006, 386, 1791–1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, L.; Koziel, J.A.; O’Neal, M.E. Studying plant-insect interactions with solid phase microextraction: Screening for airborne volatile emissions of soybeans to the soybean aphid, Aphis glycines Matsumura (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Chromatography 2015, 2, 265–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merkle, S.; Kleeberg, K.K.; Fritsche, J. Recent developments and applications of solid phase microextraction (SPME) in food and environmental analysis—A review. Chromatography 2015, 2, 293–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calín-Sánchez, Á.; Figiel, A.; Lech, K.; Szumny, A.; Martínez-Tomé, J.; Carbonell-Barrachina, Á.A. Dying methods affect the aroma of Origanum majorana L. analyzed by GC–MS and descriptive sensory analysis. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2015, 74, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nöfer, J.; Lech, K.; Figiel, A.; Szumny, A.; Carbonell-Barrachina, Á.A. The influence of drying method on volatile composition and sensory profile of Boletus edulis. J. Food Qual. 2018, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stein, S.E. “Mass Spectra” by NIST Mass Spec Data Center. Available online: https://webbook.nist.gov (accessed on 13 November 2018).
Sample Availability: Samples of the compounds are available from the authors. |
Table 1.
VOCs emitted from torrefied carbonized refuse-derived fuel (CRDF).
| # | Retention Time (min) | Compound Name, IUPAC | Retention Coefficient, KI Experimental (MS Database) | Retention Coefficient (Kovats C7-40 Index) | CAS Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.87 | acetic acid | - | 593 | 123-72-8 |
| 2 | 2.45 | propanoic acid | 700 | 700 | 79-49-4 |
| 3 | 2.93 | pyrimidine | 740 | 736 | 289-95-2 |
| 4 | 3.10 | pyridine | 753 | 746 | 110-86-1 |
| 5 | 3.29 | pentan-1-ol | 768 | 765 | 71-41-0 |
| 6 | 3.36 | toluene | 774 | 769 | 108-88-3 |
| 7 | 3.45 | 2-methylpropanoic acid | 781 | 775 | 79-31-2 |
| 8 | 3.78 | hexanal | 804 | 800 | 66-25-1 |
| 9 | 4.23 | 2-methylpyrazine | 826 | 831 | 109-08-0 |
| 10 | 4.41 | furan-2-carbaldehyde | 835 | 833 | 98-01-1 |
| 11 | 5.01 | 1,3-xylene | 864 | 866 | 108-38-3 |
| 12 | 5.06 | 2-oxopropyl acetate | 866 | 870 | 592-20-1 |
| 13 | 5.18 | 1,4-xylene | 872 | 866 | 106-42-3 |
| 14 | 5.35 | pentanoic acid | 881 | 902 | 109-52-4 |
| 15 | 5.49 | unknown compound | 887 | - | |
| 16 | 5.63 | heptan-2-one | 893 | 891 | 110-43-0 |
| 17 | 5.68 | styrene | 896 | 893 | 100-42-5 |
| 18 | 5.78 | 1,2-xylene | 900 | 887 | 95-47-6 |
| 19 | 5.88 | heptanal | 904 | 902 | 111-71-7 |
| 20 | 6.03 | hexa-2,4-diene, (E,E)- | 909 | 911 | 592-46-1 |
| 21 | 6.15 | 1-(furan-2-yl)ethanone | 914 | 912 | 1192-62-7 |
| 22 | 6.24 | 2-ethylpyrazine | 917 | 921 | 13925-00-3 |
| 23 | 6.34 | 2,5-dimethylpyrazine | 920 | 925 | 123-32-0 |
| 24 | 6.55 | cumene | 927 | 926 | 98-82-8 |
| 25 | 6.64 | 1,4-dimethylpyridine | 931 | 930 | 108-47-4 |
| 26 | 6.81 | 4,6,6-trimethylbicyclo[3.1.1]hept-3-ene | 936 | 937 | 80-56-8 |
| 27 | 6.97 | 3-methylbutanoic acid | 942 | 947 | 503-74-2 |
| 28 | 7.02 | 4-ethylpyridine | 944 | 956 | 536-75-4 |
| 29 | 7.34 | n-propylbenzene | 955 | 953 | 103-65-1 |
| 30 | 7.53 | benzaldehyde | 962 | 963 | 100-52-7 |
| 31 | 7.59 | 5-methylfuran-2-carbaldehyde | 964 | 965 | 620-02-0 |
| 32 | 7.77 | 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene | 970 | 972 | 108-67-8 |
| 33 | 8.14 | phenol | 980 | 983 | 108-95-2 |
| 34 | 8.47 | 4-methyl-1-propan-2-ylcyclohexene | 993 | 988 | 500-00-5 |
| 35 | 8.53 | 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene | 996 | 993 | 95-63-6 |
| 36 | 8.79 | octanal | 1005 | 1003 | 124-13-0 |
| 37 | 8.87 | dec-3-yn-1-ol | 1007 | 1011 | 51721-39-2 |
| 38 | 9.06 | an unknown isomer of ethyldimethyl benzene | 1013 | - | - |
| 39 | 9.45 | 1,3-diethylbenzene | 1025 | 1025 | 141-93-5 |
| 40 | 9.50 | 1-methyl-4-propan-2-ylbenzene | 1027 | 1026 | 99-87-6 |
| 41 | 9.61 | 1-methyl-4-prop-1-en-2-ylcyclohexene | 1030 | 1031 | 138-86-3 |
| 42 | 9.87 | 2,3-dihydro-1H-indene | 1037 | 1030 | 496-11-7 |
| 43 | 10.32 | 1,2-diethylbenzene | 1051 | 1045 | 135-01-3 |
| 44 | 10.42 | 1-methyl-2-propylbenzene | 1055 | 1047 | 1074-17-5 |
| 45 | 10.53 | butylbenzene | 1058 | 1054 | 104-51-8 |
| 46 | 10.61 | 1-ethyl-3,5-dimethylbenzene | 1060 | 1058 | 934-74-7 |
| 47 | 10.70 | 2-ethyl-1,4-dimethylbenzene | 1063 | 1071 | 1758-88-9 |
| 48 | 10.87 | 1-phenylethanone | 1068 | 1065 | 98-86-2 |
| 49 | 11.23 | 2-ethyl-1,3-dimethylbenzene | 1079 | 1080 | 2870-04-4 |
| 50 | 11.29 | 4-ethyl-1,2-dimethylbenzene | 1081 | 1083 | 499-75-2 |
| 51 | 11.36 | 1-ethenyl-2,4-dimethylbenzene | 1083 | 1084 | 2234-20-0 |
| 52 | 11.54 | 2-ethyl-1,4-dimethylbenzene | 1089 | 1090 | 1758-88-9 |
| 53 | 11.63 | 2-methoxyphenol | 1091 | 1090 | 90-05-1 |
| 54 | 11.70 | 1-undecyne | 1093 | 1095 | 2243-98-3 |
| 55 | 11.84 | methyl benzoate | 1098 | 1095 | 93-58-3 |
| 56 | 12.00 | undecane | 1102 | 1100 | 1120-21-4 |
| 57 | 12.05 | nonanal | 1104 | 1103 | 124-19-6 |
| 58 | 12.25 | 1,2,4,5-tetramethylbenzene | 1110 | 1116 | 95-93-2 |
| 59 | 12.33 | an unknown isomer of diethylmethylbenzene | 1113 | - | - |
| 60 | 12.54 | unknown compound | 1118 | - | - |
| 61 | 12.68 | 1,2,3,5-tetramethylbenzene | 1122 | 1117 | 527-53-7 |
| 62 | 12.94 | 1,3-dimethyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-indene | 1130 | 1135 | 4175-53-5 |
| 63 | 13.33 | 5-methyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-indene | 1142 | 1136 | 874-35-1 |
| 64 | 13.49 | 1,3-diethyl-5-methylbenzene | 1145 | 1147 | 2050-24-0 |
| 65 | 13.70 | 4-methyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-indene | 1152 | 1148 | 824-22-6 |
| 66 | 13.90 | 1-methyl-1H-indene | 1158 | 1157 | 767-59-9 |
| 67 | 13.94 | pentylbenzene | 1160 | 1158 | 538-68-1 |
| 68 | 14.08 | 1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene | 1163 | 1157 | 119-64-2 |
| 69 | 14.14 | 1,4-diethyl-2-methylbenzene | 1165 | 1164 | 13632-94-5 |
| 70 | 14.28 | 2,4-diethyl-1-methylbenzene | 1168 | 1166 | 1758-85-6 |
| 71 | 14.83 | azulene | 1185 | 1182 | 275-51-4 |
| 72 | 14.99 | 1-methyl-4-propan-2-yl-2-[(E)-prop-1-enyl]benzene | 1190 | 1191 | 97664-18-1 |
| 73 | 15.18 | 2-ethyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-indene | 1196 | n.d. | 56147-63-8 |
| 74 | 15.52 | decanal | 1203 | 1206 | 112-31-2 |
| 75 | 15.70 | unknown compound | 1212 | - | - |
| 76 | 17.42 | hexylbenzene | 1253 | 1260 | 1077-16-3 |
| 77 | 17.57 | 6-methyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene | 1266 | 1263 | 1680-51-9 |
| 78 | 17.66 | 5-methyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene | 1269 | 1276 | 2809-64-5 |
| 79 | 18.17 | 4,7-dimethyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-indene | 1284 | 1282 | 6682-71-9 |
| 80 | 18.57 | undecan-2-one (internal standard) | 1296 | 1298 | 112-12-9 |
| 81 | 18.77 | 2-methyl-5-propan-2-ylphenol | 1302 | 1299 | 499-75-2 |
| 82 | 19.11 | 1-methylnaphtalene | 1314 | 1307 | 112-44-7 |
| 83 | 19.43 | 3,3-dimethyl-2H-inden-1-one | 1325 | 1330 | 26465-81-6 |
| 84 | 19.70 | 1,5-dimethyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene | 1334 | 1341 | 21564-91-0 |
| 85 | 20.82 | 5,6-dimethyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene | 1373 | 1381 | 21693-54-9 |
Table 2.
VOCs emissions (accumulated in a headspace of sealed vessel over 7 days of storage) from (torrefied) carbonized refuse-derived fuel ordered from the highest (µg of VOC per kg of CRDF) to lowest; % of total emissions, boiling point, VOC classification, and a comparison with VOCs emitted from other types of (pyrolyzed) biochar (woody biomass, algal biochar, and municipal solid waste (compost), respectively) [11,12,14].
Table 2.
VOCs emissions (accumulated in a headspace of sealed vessel over 7 days of storage) from (torrefied) carbonized refuse-derived fuel ordered from the highest (µg of VOC per kg of CRDF) to lowest; % of total emissions, boiling point, VOC classification, and a comparison with VOCs emitted from other types of (pyrolyzed) biochar (woody biomass, algal biochar, and municipal solid waste (compost), respectively) [11,12,14].
| Compound Name (IUPAC) | Emissions (µg/kg) | % of Total Emissions | Boiling Point (°C) | Type of VOC 1 | Observed in Emissions from Biochar (+, −, =, Yes, No) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [11] | [12] | [14] | |||||
| Nonanal * | 2860.00 | 17.400 | 195 | VOC | − | − | − |
| Octanal * | 1480.00 | 9.010 | 171 | VOC | + | − | − |
| Heptanal * | 1180.00 | 7.150 | 153 | VOC | + | − | − |
| butylbenzene | 1030.00 | 6.290 | 183 | VOC | − | − | − |
| Hexanal * | 843.00 | 5.120 | 130 | VOC | + | − | − |
| 1-methyl-4-prop-1-en-2-ylcyclohexene | 789.00 | 4.800 | 176.5 | VOC | − | − | − |
| Benzaldehyde * | 777.00 | 4.720 | 179 | VOC | + | − | − |
| Decanal * | 554.97 | 3.373 | 208 | VOC | − | − | − |
| Toluene * | 535.78 | 3.257 | 110.6 | VOC | + | − | − |
| hexylbenzene | 521.82 | 3.172 | 228 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 4,6,6-trimethyl-bicyclo[3.1.1]hept-3-ene * | 408.38 | 2.482 | 155.5 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene | 387.43 | 2.355 | 165 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1-undecyne | 373.47 | 2.270 | 195 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 2-ethyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-indene | 342.06 | 2.079 | - | - | − | − | − |
| 1-ethyl-3,5-dimethyl-benzene | 246.07 | 1.496 | 184 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 4,7-dimethyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-indene | 235.60 | 1.432 | 225.9 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1,4-xylene | 225.13 | 1.368 | 138 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1-methyl-1H-indene | 204.19 | 1.241 | 199 | VOC | − | − | − |
| acetic acid * | 197.21 | 1.199 | 118 | VOC | + | + | − |
| heptan-2-one * | 160.56 | 0.976 | 149 | VOC | + | − | − |
| 2-methyl-5-propan-2-ylphenol | 139.62 | 0.849 | 236.5 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 4-methyl-1-propan-2-ylccyclohexene * | 136.13 | 0.827 | 166.8 | VOC | − | − | − |
| Undecane * | 136.13 | 0.827 | 196 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1,3-dimethyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-indene | 122.16 | 0.743 | 208.7 | VOC | − | − | − |
| pyrimidine * | 118.67 | 0.721 | 124 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 2-ethyl-1,4-dimethylbenzene | 115.18 | 0.700 | 187 | VOC | − | − | − |
| furan-2-carbaldehyde | 113.44 | 0.690 | 162 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-naphthalene | 109.95 | 0.668 | 207 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1-ethenyl-2,4-dimethylbenzene | 108.20 | 0.658 | - | - | − | − | − |
| 1,2,3,5-tetramethyl-benzene | 108.20 | 0.658 | 198 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1,2,4,5-tetramethyl-benzene | 104.71 | 0.636 | 196.5 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1,3-xylene | 99.48 | 0.605 | 139 | VOC | − | − | − |
| pentylbenzene | 97.73 | 0.594 | 205 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 2-oxopropyl acetate | 95.99 | 0.583 | 175 | VOC | − | − | − |
| Phenol * | 95.99 | 0.583 | 182 | VOC | − | + | + |
| 1,2-diethylbenzene | 92.50 | 0.562 | 183 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 2-ethyl-1,3-dimethyl-benzene | 87.26 | 0.530 | 190 | VOC | − | − | − |
| unknown isomer of ethyldimethyl benzene | 85.51 | 0.520 | - | - | − | − | − |
| Styrene * | 75.04 | 0.456 | 145.5 | VOC | − | − | − |
| methyl benzoate | 66.32 | 0.403 | 198.5 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 6-methyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene | 62.83 | 0.382 | 226 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 2-ethyl-1,4-dimethylbenzene | 61.08 | 0.371 | 187 | VOC | − | − | − |
| unknown compound | 59.34 | 0.361 | − | − | |||
| 2,3-dihydro-1H-indene | 54.10 | 0.329 | 176 | VOC | − | − | − |
| n-propylbenzene | 52.36 | 0.318 | 159 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1-methyl-4-propan-2-ylbenzene | 50.61 | 0.308 | 177 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1-(furan-2-yl)ethanone | 48.87 | 0.297 | 168 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 2-methylpyrazine | 47.12 | 0.286 | 135 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 4-methyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-indene | 45.38 | 0.276 | 204 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1,3-diethyl-5-methylbenzene | 43.63 | 0.265 | 200.7 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 5-methyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-indene | 41.88 | 0.255 | 204.1 | VOC | − | − | − |
| unknown compound | 41.88 | 0.255 | - | - | − | − | |
| dec-3-yn-1-ol | 36.65 | 0.223 | 130.5 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1,4-dimetylopirydyne | 34.90 | 0.212 | 159 | VOC | − | − | − |
| pentan-1-ol * | 33.16 | 0.202 | 138 | VOC | − | − | − |
| azulene | 24.43 | 0.148 | 242 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1-methyl-4-propan-2-yl-2-[(E)-prop-1-enyl]benzene | 22.69 | 0.138 | - | - | − | − | − |
| propanoic acid * | 22.69 | 0.138 | 141.5 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1,3-diethylbenzene | 20.94 | 0.127 | 182 | VOC | − | − | − |
| unknown isomer of diethyl methylbenzene | 20.94 | 0.127 | - | - | − | − | |
| 2,4-diethyl-1-methylbenzene | 19.20 | 0.117 | 205 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 4-ethylpyridine | 15.71 | 0.095 | 168 | VOC | − | − | − |
| unknown compound | 15.71 | 0.095 | − | − | |||
| 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene | 13.96 | 0.085 | 168 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1,5-dimethyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene | 13.96 | 0.085 | 247.5 | SVOC | − | − | − |
| 5,6-dimethyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene | 13.96 | 0.085 | - | - | − | − | − |
| 2-methylpropanoic acid | 10.47 | 0.064 | 155 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 3,3-dimethyl-2H-inden-1-one | 8.73 | 0.053 | 122 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1-methylnaphtalene | 8.73 | 0.053 | 120 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 5-methylfuran-2-carbaldehyde | 6.98 | 0.042 | 188 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 2-ethylpyrazine | 6.98 | 0.042 | 152.5 | VOC | − | − | − |
| pyridine | 6.98 | 0.042 | 115 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1-methyl-2-propylbenzene | 5.24 | 0.032 | 185 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1,2-xylene | 5.24 | 0.032 | 144 | VOC | − | − | − |
| hexa-2,4-diene, (E,E)- | 5.24 | 0.032 | 82 | VVOC | − | − | − |
| 1-phenylethanone | 1.75 | 0.011 | 202 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 2,5-dimethylpyrazine | 1.75 | 0.011 | 155 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 4-ethyl-1,2-dimethylbenzene | 1.75 | 0.011 | 236.5 | VOC | − | − | − |
| cumene | 1.75 | 0.011 | 153 | VOC | + | − | − |
| pentanoic acid * | 1.75 | 0.011 | 110.5 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 1,4-diethyl-2-methylbenzene | 0.10 | 0.001 | 207 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 2-methoxyphenol * | 0.10 | 0.001 | 205 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 3-methylbutanoic acid | 0.10 | 0.001 | 176 | VOC | − | − | − |
| 5-methyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene | 0.10 | 0.001 | 234 | VOC | − | − | − |
| Total | 16,452.46 | - | - | - | − | − | − |
1 —according to [16], where VVOC—very volatile organic compounds (0–100 °C), VOC—volatile organic compounds (100–240 °C), SVOC—semi-volatile organic compounds (240–400 °C); bold font = common compounds found in at least two other studies; * Identified using analytical standards.
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Białowiec, A.; Micuda, M.; Szumny, A.; Łyczko, J.; Koziel, J.A. Quantification of VOC Emissions from Carbonized Refuse-Derived Fuel Using Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. Molecules 2018, 23, 3208. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23123208
AMA Style
Białowiec A, Micuda M, Szumny A, Łyczko J, Koziel JA. Quantification of VOC Emissions from Carbonized Refuse-Derived Fuel Using Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. Molecules. 2018; 23(12):3208. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23123208
Chicago/Turabian StyleBiałowiec, Andrzej, Monika Micuda, Antoni Szumny, Jacek Łyczko, and Jacek A. Koziel. 2018. "Quantification of VOC Emissions from Carbonized Refuse-Derived Fuel Using Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry" Molecules 23, no. 12: 3208. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23123208
APA StyleBiałowiec, A., Micuda, M., Szumny, A., Łyczko, J., & Koziel, J. A. (2018). Quantification of VOC Emissions from Carbonized Refuse-Derived Fuel Using Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. Molecules, 23(12), 3208. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23123208
