J Therm Anal Calorim (2015) 122:1213–1220
DOI 10.1007/s10973-015-5134-7
A technique proximate and ultimate analysis of solid fuels
and coal tar
Alexander Kozlov1 • Denis Svishchev1,2 • Igor Donskoy1,2 • Vitaly Shamansky1
Alexander Ryzhkov2
Received: 5 December 2014 / Accepted: 25 October 2015 / Published online: 5 November 2015
 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015
Abstract The paper presents a technique for proximate
and ultimate analyses of solid fuels and coal tars by inte-
grating the simultaneous thermal analysis and mass spec-
trometry. The technique for the ultimate analysis is based
on the analysis of components of the gas phase that is
formed during combustion of the studied samples in oxy-
gen. In the analysis of coal tars, the inert filler is used for
their uniform evaporation and oxidation. The developed
technique was tested on the black coal sample. The
obtained results are consistent with the standard technique
for ultimate analysis based on ASTM 3172-76. The paper
shows a good agreement of the results of analysis by these
two techniques. The paper also illustrates the applicability
of the developed technique to studies on a wide range of
solid fuels.
Keywords TG-MS  Proximate and ultimate analysis of
solid fuels  Coal tar
Introduction
One of the efficient methods of studying the processes of
thermochemical solid fuel conversion is the simultaneous
thermal analysis, which has already become a traditional
research method [1]. Within one facility, the simultaneous
thermal analysis combines thermal gravimetric analysis,
& Alexander Kozlov
kozlov@isem.irk.ru
1
Melentiev Energy Systems Institute (ESI) SB RAS,
Lermontov st. 130, Irkutsk, Russian Federation 664033
2
Ural Federal University (UrFU), Mira st. 19, Yekaterinburg,
Russian Federation 620002
•
differential thermal analysis, or differential scanning
calorimetry. Moreover, the facility can be supplemented
with physicochemical methods of analysis obtained as a
result of the decomposition of the samples of gaseous
compounds. These are, for example, Fourier transform
infrared spectroscopy [2], chromatographic methods of
analysis [3], optical spectroscopy [4], and mass spectrom-
etry [5]. Such a combination of methods of thermal anal-
ysis and physicochemical methods for determining the gas
composition makes it possible to conduct the proximate
and ultimate analysis, which provides information
about the ash content, moisture content, volatile release,
lower calorific value, and data about the elemental
composition [6].
Fuel characteristics are the essential initial data for the
calculation of energy equipment parameters and the energy
survey on the operating conditions of plants and enter-
prises. Reference values of technical characteristics are
available for many fuels. At the same time, the natural
changeability of fuel properties within the limits of a cer-
tain coal deposit and the development of new deposits
make the list of reference values suitable for rough design
calculations. The reference material does not contain any
information about the technical characteristics of low-
grade and composite solid fuels obtained from biomass,
blends of coal, peat, and shale, or from industrial waste,
including municipal solid waste. Presently, the proximate
analysis is regulated by the national standards organiza-
tions [e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM)] according to the special standards. ASTM D
3172-76 (Standard Practice for Proximate Analysis of Coal
and Coke) is used for the proximate and ultimate analysis
of different coals, ASTM E 780 (Standard Methods for
Analysis of Wood Fuels)—for wood biomass, ASTM E
830 (Standard Methods for Analysis of refuse-derived
123
1214
fuel)—for waste-derived fuels. As a rule, the standards
define what methods of classic chemistry should be used to
determine the required values. For instance, the fuel
moisture content is determined according to the mass loss
after drying the sample in the dryer at a temperature of
105 C; ash content of fuel is determined according to the
mineral residue after complete combustion of the sample in
the muffle furnace; volatile yield is also determined using
the muffle furnace. The lower calorific value of fuel is
determined by the classical method of oxygen-blown
sample combustion in the bomb calorimeter (ASTM D
3174-84). The ultimate analysis of fuel is determined using
elemental analyzers in accordance with the standard ASTM
D 3176-84. These standards are applied independently of
one another and do not envisage an integrated research into
fuels. In this connection, it is common practice among
researchers worldwide to send their fuel samples to the
specialized centers—USA National Energy Technology
Laboratory, Wyoming Analytical Laboratories [7].
This makes it topical to search for a universal express
method. One of such methods can be a complex thermal
analysis which allows us to make a proximate and ultimate
analysis in one experiment.
Complex thermal analysis of solid fuel implies the use of
simultaneous thermal analyzer and mass spectrometry gas
analyzer in a single unit, which makes it possible to obtain
not only the total characteristics of the process of heating a
weighed amount of fuel (mass loss, heating values), but also
the dynamics of release of the gaseous products (CO, CO2,
CH4, NO2, H2O, etc.). However, the use of thermal analysis
to conduct the proximate and ultimate analysis is advisory
rather than binding due to a great variety of fuels under
research, which should be studied individually [8].
The aim of the present paper is to develop a technique
proximate and ultimate analysis of solid fuel using the
methods of thermal analysis and mass spectrometry.
A technique proximate and ultimate analysis
of solid fuels
The experimental studies were carried out using a simulta-
neous thermal analysis instrument manufactured by the
company NETZSCH. The facility includes thermal analyzer
STA 449 C Jupiter, quadrupole mass spectrometer QMS 403
C Aeolos, and a unit for pulse thermal analysis PulseTA.
To determine the amount of produced gaseous products,
we use pulse thermal analysis (PulseTA), which allows the
calibration of the mass spectrometer signal. The procedure
and the factors influencing the calibration process are
studied and described in paper [9]. Based on this paper, we
can conclude that accurate calibration of the mass spec-
trometer signal in accordance with the corresponding mass
123
A. Kozlov et al.
number is enough to determine the individual components
of the gas mixture. By virtue of the fact that solid fuel has a
complex structure, it is hard to interpret the mass spectrum
during the thermochemical fuel conversion, especially
when the amount of oxidizer is insufficient, since the mass
numbers of some components of the gas mixture and the
mass numbers of their fragments are the same. In this
connection, the researchers determine the qualitative
composition of the gas mixture in the course of fuel
combustion [10].
Due to the fact that mass numbers of some components of
the gas mixture and the mass numbers of their fragments are
the same, a special procedure for mass spectrum interpretation
has been developed. This procedure is based on the fact that
molecules are ionized by electron impact constantly equal to
70 eV, and therefore, the molecules of gaseous products are
always proportionally divided in accordance with the mass
numbers. Thus, it is possible to take into account the contri-
bution of each gas to the value of a certain mass number, which
will make it possible to differentiate between the gases with
the same mass numbers and determine their amount. Table 1
presents the relationships between mass numbers in the mass
spectrum for the main components of the gas mixture. The
relationships given in the table are obtained by experiment and
correlate with the data presented in the databases of mass
spectrometers [11, 12]. Slight deviations are connected to
external conditions of gas supply during the calibration, and
therefore, the mass spectrometer signal calibration should take
into account the inlet temperature and pressure at the unit of
pulse thermal analysis.
The developed technique is based on the following
equations of physical chemistry and mass spectrometry:
1. The Mendeleev–Clapeyron equation:
PV ¼ nRT ð1Þ
2. The relationship between the peak area and the ion
current values:
Zs1
S¼ Ids ð2Þ
s2
where P—total pressure of the jth gas mixture com-
ponent; R—universal gas constant; V—gas volume, l;
T—temperature, K; S—peak area, A*sec; I—ion
current, A, s—time, sec.
The following two assumptions are made:
• It is regarded that all of the fuel nitrogen produced as a
result of coal combustion is in the form of NO [13].
A technique proximate and ultimate analysis of solid fuels and coal tar 1215

Table 1 Correlation between signals in terms of mass numbers for the main gas mixture components

м. ч. 2 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 28 29 30 32 33 34 44 45 46

H2 100
CH4 2.4 7.7 15.6 85.8 100 1.2
CO 4.5 0.6 0.9 100 1.1 0.2
CO2 6 0.1 8.5 11.4 0.1 100 1.3 0.4
H2O 1.1 23 100
O2 11.4 100 0.1 0.4


• The access of oxygen to all the particles of the sample T~ —inlet temperature at PulseTA, K; nj —amount in the
is the same due to the special shape of the crucible calibration gas, mole.
representing a flat platform. Calibration factor is calculated from Eqs. (3) and (4):

The elemental composition of fuel was calculated on the  Sj  108  R  T~
basis of the compositional analysis of combustion products kj ¼   ð5Þ
P~  V  x j j
in the course of the fuel sample combustion. Gas products
consist of the following main components: combustion— Values P~ , T~ are taken in accordance with the indoor
CO, CH4, and H2; non-combustibles—CO2, SO2, and H2O conditions.
(steam); components of air and gas carrier—N2, O2, and The sought values at the stage of calibration are the
Ar. The technique for the ultimate analysis of a sample 
factors kj .
includes the following stages: calibration of a mass spec-
trometer signal using calibration gases and a block of pulse Consideration of a pressure rise in thermal analysis
gas supply; thermoanalytic combustion of a sample with furnace
recorded mass spectra of the reaction products; the stage of
data processing which supposes consideration of a pressure In the measurement stage, at the time of intensive gas
rise in the thermal analysis furnace, the determination of production from the sample, the pressure in furnace
quantities of gas component substances, and the ultimate increases, and this leads to a rise in the ion currents for the
analysis of a dry ash-free fuel. The proximate analysis mass numbers to be determined.
(including the determination of ash content, moisture To take this effect into account, we introduce the
content, and calorific values) is made by the data on a adjustment factor Z, which is calculated using Eq. (6):
change in the sample mass and ultimate analysis.
IiAr
Z¼ ð6Þ
Calibration stage I0Ar

In the stage of mass spectrometer signal calibration, the where IiAr , ion current for the ith measurement, A; I0Ar , ion
following relationships are met: current of argon for measurements in the unperturbed
system, A.
Sj
kj ¼ ð3Þ The chosen method of determining the adjustment
nj factor is convenient because the quantity of chemically
inert argon is constant during the whole experiment. The
where j—index of a component from the set (CO, CH4, H2,
 imaginary increase in argon concentration during the
CO2, SO2, H2O (steam), O2, NO2); kj —calibration factor;

experiment is explained by a pressure rise in the furnace
Sj —peak area, A*sec. Index indicates the values deter- of the device, which causes an increase in the partial
mined at the calibration stage pressure of the gas phase components. This fact is
Quantity of the jth component substance is calculated confirmed by the special experiment, in the course of
from Eq. (1): which we could follow the changes in the partial pres-
 
P~  Vj  xj sure in the mass spectrometer. Figure 1 shows the

nj ¼ ð4Þ increase in the partial pressure, which is practically of
108  R  T~
 
the same form as the ion current for argon. The peak of
where Vj —volume of calibration gas, l; xj —concentration the pressure is at the stage of intensive combustion of
in calibration gas, %; P~ —inlet pressure at PulseTA, Pa; the studied sample.

123
1216 A. Kozlov et al.
X
Ion Current*10–7/A DTG/% min–1 nN ¼ nNO NO ð12Þ
9.5 [1]
0 7.5 X
nS ¼ nSO2 SO2 ð13Þ

Pressure e–06, mbar

9.0 7.45
–2
8.5
DTG
7.4 It is noteworthy that CO and N2 have the same mass
Ion Current
Pressure –4 number 28, and since the experiment takes place in an air
8.0 7.35
atmosphere, the signal of the ion current N2 overlaps a
7.5 –6 7.3 signal of the ion current of CO, and then, according to the
7.0 –8
7.25 relationship of the mass numbers listed in Table 1, we can
[2]

7.2
calculate the amount of CO at 12 mass number according
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 to formula (14):
Temperature/°C
I12 CO ¼ I12 All  0:6I12 CO2  0:024I12 CH4 ð14Þ
Fig. 1 Changes in the pressure depending on temperature
where I12CO, the value of the ion current 12 mass number
corresponding to CO, I12All, the total ion current signal for
The peak areas found at the stage of measurements are the mass number 12, I12CO2, the contribution of CO2 to the
adjusted for the magnitude of the pressure rise according to value of the ion current 12 mass number, and I12CH4, the
Eq. (7). contribution of CH4 to the value of the ion current at mass
Sj number 12.
Sj ¼ ð7Þ Next, we determine the amount of substance of CO
Z
necessary to carry out calculations according to the equa-
where Sj —peak area adjusted for the value of the pressure tions that have been wrote previously.
rise, A*sec; Sj —peak area measured during the experi- The indices in the formula of the dry ash-free fuel are
ment, A*sec. calculated by the relationships:
nH nO nS nN
Determination of the quantity of gas phase H¼ ;O ¼ ;S ¼ ;N ¼ ð15Þ
nC nC nC nC
components
The amount of oxygen is determined by the balance
After the adjustment of the value of the ion current, we find according to Eq. (16):
the amount of substance nj formed as a result of the sample mðOÞ ¼ mðCHx Oy Nz Sv Þ  mðWÞ  mðAÞ  mðCÞ  mðHÞ
combustion:  mðNÞ  mðSÞ
Sj ð16Þ
nj ¼  ð8Þ
kj
where m(CHxOyNzSv)—initial sample mass, mg; m(W)—
moisture content in the sample, mg; m(A)—mass of sample
Calculation of elemental composition of the organic residue after thermal analysis, mg; and m(C), m(H), m(N),
matter m(S)—mass of elements in a sample, mg.

Decomposition of solid fuel in the air flow occurs Proximate analysis

according to the equation:
The fuel moisture content (W) is determined based on the
CHx Oy Nz Sv þ mðO2 þ 3:76N2 Þ ¼ nH2 H2 þ nCO CO mass loss of the sample before its oxidation, which can be
þ nCO2 CO2 þ nH2 O H2 O þ nCH4 CH4 seen in the mass curve.
z  The ash content of fuel (A) is determined as the mass of
þ þ 3:76 þ m N2 þ nNO NO þ nSO2 SO2 ð9Þ
2 the weighted amount after the combustion of the organic
matter of fuel divided by the mass of the initial weighted
The amount of each element constituting the dry ash-
amount.
free fuel is calculated by the balance (Eqs. 10–13).
The lower heating value of fuel LHV is calculated using
X the formula according to standard ISO 1928:2009 (Solid
nc ¼ nCO CO þ nCO2 CO2 þ nCH4 CH4 ð10Þ
X mineral fuel—determination of gross calorific value and
nH ¼ nH2 H2 þ nCH4 CH4 þ nH2 O H2 O ð11Þ calculation of net calorific value):

123
A technique proximate and ultimate analysis of solid fuels and coal tar
LHV ¼ 339Cdaf þ 1255:8Hdaf  108:8ðOdaf  Sdaf Þ ð17Þ
where C, H, O, S—percentage of an element in the organic
matter of coal (daf—dry ash-free basis).
This formula makes it possible to find value LHV with
the accuracy acceptable for engineering calculations.
Results and discussion
Testing the developed technique
The technique for proximate and ultimate analyses was
tested using thermal analysis based on the example of run-
of-mine black coal [rank D (long-flame coal)], Cher-
emkhovo deposit in Irkutsk region (Russia). To this end,
the selected coal sample was divided into two parts, one of
which was analyzed by the standard combustion method,
according to ASTM 3172-76, and the other—by the sug-
gested technique.
The case of thermal analysis included three parallel
measurements. With the standard combustion method, two
parallel samples were made.
Sample preparation was performed by the standard
quartering method. Representative samples of 20–30 mg
were placed in an alumina crucible intended for thermo-
gravimetry measurements. The flat shape of the crucible
facilitated the uniform access of oxidizer to fuel particles.
The samples were heated from 35 to 1000 C at a speed
of 10 C min-1 in the air flow. The air flow rate
was 30 mL min-1, and the flow rate of argon was
10 mL min-1. Argon served as the protective gas that
prevented gases and vapors from settling on the thermal
analysis balance. The obtained combustion products were
recorded in the range of mass numbers 1–200 with
electron impact ionization (70 eV). The mass spectrome-
ter signal was calibrated by pulse supply of the corre-
sponding calibration gases.
Figure 2a, b shows ion current for mass number 40
(argon). Its increase in the temperature range 400–600 C
is related to a change in the gas pressure in the furnace.
The increase in the ion current at the time of intensive gas
production is observed not only with argon but also with
the other substances in the mass spectrum as well. The
analysis of curves and mass spectra shows that the
moisture exudes from coal at a temperature of 35–180 C,
which is confirmed by an increase in the mass spec-
trometer signal for mass number 18. At a temperature
from 360 to 600 C, organic mass of the studied sample
burns out and the gases H2O, CH4, H2, CO2, CO, NO, and
SO2 are formed
The weak polar bonds with the formation of mainly
hydrogen-containing compounds (H2O, CH4, and H2)
1217
break first, and then, the bonds of the carbon skeleton with
predominant production of CO2 break.
The developed technique was used for proximate and
ultimate analyses of the studied coal. The results of the
analyses are presented in Table 2.
The comparison of the data presented in Table 2 allows
us to draw some conclusions:
• The results of the ultimate analysis based on the
developed technique are in good agreement with the
results based on the standard technique ASTM
3172-76. The difference between the parallel experi-
ments is explained by the non-uniformity of coal
samples.
• The used reference values should be considered less
accurate, since they are obtained for the average coal
composition for the whole deposit, while the calculated
values characterize the properties of the initial research
material.
• Sulfur content in the studied sample is at the detection
limit of the combustion method, and therefore, the
accuracy of this method for sulfur content determina-
tion is obviously insufficient.
In this experiment, the amount of nitrogen was not
determined.
Application of the developed technique to study
some solid fuels
Applicability of the developed technique to the proximate
and ultimate analyses was shown for brown and black
coals, different wood species, charcoal, lignite coke, and
also straw and lignin.
Brown and black coals were taken from different
deposits of the Irkutsk region (Russia). The coals from
different deposits differ in their properties—coking char-
acteristics, ash content, volatile content, reactivity, and coal
rank.
The samples of coals and other fuels were prepared by
the standard method of quartering. The particle size of all
samples was B0.2 mm.
Table 3 presents the results of the study on solid fuels.
The tabulated values are in good agreement with published
data [15–17].
Tables 2 and 3 show the values for black coal from a
coal deposit. However, the samples were taken with a
difference of 1 year, and this explains the difference in
values.
Ultimate analysis of coal tars
The principles underlying the developed technique allowed
its use not only for the ultimate analysis of solid fuels, but
123
1218 A. Kozlov et al.

(a)
TG/% Ion Current*10–9/A

100 6
90 Moisture content
Pressure rise 5
80
4
70
40 m.n. - Ar
60 3
50
2
40 32 m.n. - O2

44 m.n. - CO2 1
30

20 18 m.n. - H2O 0
Ash content
100 200 300 400 500 600
Temperature/°C
(b)
TG/% Ion Current*10–11/A

100 3.5

90 Moisture content
3.0
80 15 m.n. - CH4
2.5
70
2.0
60
1.5
50
1.0
40
64 m.n. - SO2
30 0.5

20 2 m.n. - H2 0
Ash content
100 200 300 400 500 600
Temperature/°C

Fig. 2 a, b Curve of the black coal combustion and values the ion current of gas phase components (solid line—TG curve; dot line—ion current
curve)

Table 2 Results of proximate and ultimate analyses of black coal

Formula Measurement method W/% A/% C/% H/% O/% S/% LHV/MJ/kg

CH0.73O0.25S0.0048 STA 3.38 15.24 71.07 4.32 23.69 0.91 27.05

CH0.81O0.25S0.0061 STA 2.98 19.71 70.57 4.76 23.52 1.15 27.48
CH0.70O0.28S0.0045 STA 3.47 15.55 69.03 4.37 25.77 0.83 26.19
CH0.95O0.24S0.01 ASTM 3172-76 – – 68.79 5.45 22.43 1.48 27.90
CH0.90O0.31S0.01 ASTM 3172-76 – – 64.84 4.86 26.52 1.74 25.40
CH0.87O0.31S0.0078 Ref. [14] 15.00 34.00 77.00 5.60 14.20 1.60 29.93

also for the ultimate analysis of coal tar obtained as a result
of solid fuel gasification. This possibility is conditioned by
the fact that, as a result of tar combustion of such liquid
substances, the gas phase produces the same macro-com-
ponents as the solid fuel combustion. The technique
underwent a number of changes connected to non-uniform
burning of the liquid sample. For instance, the analysis of
coal tar is now carried out using a heat-treated inert filler
support. The filler is represented by fine silica sand.
The technique was applied to make an ultimate analysis
of coal tar obtained as a result of the Azeya brown coal
gasification. The brown coal tar consists of two fractions
partially dissolved in each other—low-molecular one
(water is the main component) and high-molecular one

123
A technique proximate and ultimate analysis of solid fuels and coal tar 1219

Table 3 Results of the proximate and ultimate analyses of various solid fuels
Sample W/% A/% C/% H/% O/% S/% N/% LHV/MJ/kg

Lignite coke 0 33.09 88.45 0.38 10.24 0.45 0.45 29.40

Charcoal 1.26 2.97 80.33 1.44 17.94 0 0.23 27.09
Brown coal (Azeya) 12.20 7.60 77.64 4.53 16.97 0.14 0.72 30.18
Brown coal (Mugunsky) 5.90 13.70 76.28 3.45 19.45 0.04 0.78 28.08
Brown coal (Haranutsky) 2.67 26.46 74.97 8.33 15.66 1.05 n.d. 34.29
Black coal (Cheremhovsky) 4.04 14.72 73.70 3.11 21.85 0.46 0.89 26.56
Brown coal (Glinka) 4.34 10.10 78.28 6.70 14.11 0.30 0.61 33.45
Straw 2.53 6.12 56.35 15.1 26.85 0.19 0.004 35.16
Lignin 72.00 19.5 54.2 4.50 39.70 0.12 1.4 19.72
Sawdust pine 3.47 1.12 54.28 5.20 40.53 0 n.d. 20.52
Sawdust beech 3.10 1.40 46.61 6.17 47.23 0 n.d. 18.41
Sawdust aspen 2.00 1.68 47.77 7.35 43.52 0 1.4 20.69
n.d. not determined

Temp./°C
TG/% DTA/µV mg–1
Exo [1]
100
0.8 800
0.6 700
80
0.4
600
0.2
60
500
[1]
0.0
400
40 –0.2

–0.4 300

20 TG –0.6 200
DTA
Temperature –0.8 100
[1]
0 –1.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time/min

Fig. 3 Curve obtained for the brown coal tar

Table 4 Results of thermal analysis of brown coal tar

Low-molecular fraction High-molecular fraction
H2O/% Organic compound/% C/% H/% O/% N/% S/%

78.4 21.6 58.77 8.65 32.45 0.02 0.11

74.3 25.7 60.27 7.16 31.78 0.01 0.18
91.9 8.1 58.58 6.35 35.03 0.01 0.03
94.5 5.5 48.59 12.93 38.40 0.02 0.06
94.1 5.9 50.52 9.01 40.40 0.02 0.07
94.4 5.6 45.25 9.88 54.70 0.03 0.02
74.6 25.4 49.61 5.50 44.20 0.01 0.65

123
1220
(‘‘heavy’’ aromatic compounds). In this case, the water
content in the sample can reach 95 %. The solid residue of
brown coal tar remains after evaporation of water and light
organic compounds, such as low-molecular phenols and
alcohols, and acetaldehyde. It is used as a feedstock in
chemistry and construction.
To determine the composition of the low-molecular
fraction, the tar sample mixed with the inert filler is placed
in the crucible for differential scanning calorimetry or
differential thermal analysis of measurements, heated to
110 C (the heating rate is 10 C min-1) in the flow of
inert gas (argon), and then kept for 60 min. This time is
enough to let the water and the low-molecular organic
compounds dissolved in it evaporate. The water content is
determined by the corresponding calibration peak. The
organic compounds are found in total based on the residue
after the subtraction of water. Then, we heat the sample in
the air flow, which results in complete combustion of the
high-molecular tar fraction, and determine the content of
macro-components produced in the gas phase, using the
corresponding calibration. Figure 3 presents an example of
a curve of studying the brown coal tar, which shows that
the evaporation of the low-molecular fraction is an
endothermic process and the share of the fraction amounts
to 85 % of the mass of the studied sample. The process of
combustion of the high-molecular fraction is exothermic
and similar to that of other solid fuels.
The ratio of the low-molecular fraction to the high-
molecular fraction depends on the conditions of the gasi-
fication process and the type of solid fuel. Table 4 presents
the compositions of the low-molecular and high-molecular
fractions of tar obtained for different operating parameters
of brown coal gasification (different oxygen concentration
in the air gasification agent during gasification).
Conclusions
The developed technique makes it possible to carry out
proximate and ultimate analyses of solid fuels in one
measurement.
Its applicability to a wide range of solid fuels is demon-
strated. From the measurement, we can determine fuel
moisture by mass loss of a sample as the temperature varies
from the initial temperature to the oxidation temperature, and
ash content—by the mass of residue after calcination. The
calorific value is calculated after the ultimate analysis.
Using the inert filler for uniform evaporation and
decomposition, it is possible to conduct the ultimate and
compositional analyses of coal tars by the suggested
technique.
The paper confirms that in the case of exothermic pro-
cess, the partial pressure of the gas phase components
123
A. Kozlov et al.
increases, which leads to an imaginary increase in the ion
current for the studied mass numbers. The mass spec-
trometer signal should be adjusted according to the level of
the signal for argon, since its concentration is constant
during the whole experiment.
Acknowledgements Results of the study were obtained using the
material and technical base of the Baikal Analytical Center for col-
lective use of SB RAS. This work was supported by Russian Foun-
dation for Basic Research (Grant No. 13-08-00281). Optimal
parameters selection for the STA instrument was carried out at UrFU
and supported by the Russian Science Foundation via grant 14-19-
00524 (to Svishchev D., Donskoy I., and Ryzhkov A.).
References
1. Moilanen A. Thermogravimetric characterisations of biomass and
waste for gasification processes. VTT Technical Research Centre
of Finland; 2006.
2. Mothe CG, De Castro BC, Mothe MG. Characterization by TG/
DTG/DSC and FTIR of frying and fish oil residues to obtain
biodiesel. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2011;106(3):811–7.
3. Ischia M, Perazzolli C, Dal Maschio R, Campostrini R. Pyrolysis
study of sewage sludge by TG–MS and TG–GG–MS coupled
analyses. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2007;87(2):567–74.
4. Slough C, Aubuchon S. The integration of optical spectroscopy
with thermal analysis techniques. In: Proceedings of 39-th annual
conference of the North American Thermal Analysis Society
(NATAS-39); 2011.
5. May JC, DelCrosso AV, Wheeler RM, Etz NM. TG/MS capillary
interface. J Therm Anal Calorim. 1997;49(2):929–36.
6. Brown ME. Principles and practice, vol 1. In: Gallagher PK,
editor. Handbook of thermal analysis and calorimetry. Elsevier;
2011.
7. Mullen GA, Boateng AA, Godberg NM, Lima IM, Laird DA,
Hicks KB. Bio-oil and bio-char production from corn cobs and
stover by fast pyrolysis. Biomass Bioenergy. 2010;34:67–74.
8. Garcia R, Rizaro G, Lavin AG, Bueno JL. Biomass proximate
analysis using thermogravimetry. Bioresour Technol. 2013;139:1–4.
9. Maciejewsky M, Müller CA, Tschan R, Emmerich WD, Baiker A.
Novel pulse thermal analysis method and its potential for inves-
tigating gas-solid reactions. Thermochim Acta. 1997;295:167–82.
10. Magdziarz A, Werle S. Analysis of the combustion and pyrolysis
of dried sewage sludge by TGA and MS. Waste Manag.
2014;34:174–9.
11. http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry.
12. McLafferty FW, Tureček F. Interpretation of mass spectra. 4th
ed. Mill Vallay, CA: University Science Books; 1993.
13. Hobbs ML, Radulovic PT, Smoot LO. Combustion and gasifi-
cation of coal in fixed-beds. Prog Energy Combust Sci.
1993;19:505–86.
14. Vdovchenko VS. Energy fuel USSR (fossil coal, oil shale, peat,
oil and combustible gas): reference. Moscow: Energoatomizdat;
1991 (in Russian).
15. Garcia R, Pizaro C, Lavin AG, Bueno JL. Spanish biofuels
heating value estimation. Part I: Ultimate analysis data. Fuel.
2014;117:1130–8.
16. Garcia R, Pizaro C, Lavin AG, Bueno JL. Spanish biofuels
heating value estimation. Part II: Proximate analysis data. Fuel.
2014;117:1139–47.
17. Lipovich VG, Kalinin JV. Chemistry and processing of coal.
Moscow: Chemistry; 1988 (in Russian).