Final Report - Ohio Department of Transportation

Sample
Table 9 – Preliminary Chemical Characterization of Yard Waste Carbonization
COD
(mg/L) pH
Off Gas Condensate
Specific
Conductance
(mMhos)
40
Total
Solids
(g/L)
Total
Volatile
Solids(g/L)
Volatile
Solids
(%)
Blue Spruce
Branches 256,000 2.43 1.41 72.26 69.24 95.8
Blue Spruce
Leaves/Needles 140,000 3.38 2.18 31.65 30.75 97.2
Conifer
Branches 145,000 2.58 1.21 32.97 30.91 93.8
Conifer
Leaves/Needles 78,000 3.85 3.85 19.40 18.52 95.5
Norwegian Pine
Branches 140,000 2.62 1.29 30.59 30.06 98.3
Norwegian Pine
Leaves/Needles 91,000 3.85 3.22 23.56 23.20 98.5
Average 142,000 3.1 2.2 35.1 33.8 96.5
One task of the research was to identify other organizations that may be interested in, and
have resources useful to research in the area of this project. Tables 10 through 15 present lists of
such organizations. Table 10-13 list organizations, institutes and manufacturers with obvious
interests in asphalt technology. Table 14 lists tree care companies that, although not directly
involved in the asphalt business, are responsible for generating a great deal of wood waste that
could serve as a feed stock to the process. These companies might also be interested in
implementing carbonization at their facilities for the purposes of generating both bitumen and
soil-amendment carbon. Table 15 lists composting facilities and organizations. All of these are in
the business of collecting what could be a viable feed stock for the carbonization process
investigated here and might be interested in diversifying their businesses to include this process.
Table 16 lists communities with explicit yard waste collection programs. Again, these are
organizations that generate a potential feed stock for carbonization, and public programs might
find additional motivation in the carbon sequestering aspect of the technology.