Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Recent advances in the development of biomass gasification technology: A MARK

comprehensive review
⁎
S.K. Sansaniwala, K. Pala, M.A. Rosenb, S.K. Tyagia,
a
Sardar Swaran Singh National Institute of Renewable Energy, Kapurthala 144601, Punjab, India
b
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada L4J7S5

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: Due to fast climate change and foreseen damage through global warming, access to clean and green energy has
Biomass gasification become very much essential for the sustainable development of the society, globally. Biomass based energy is
Fixed and fluidized bed reactors one of the important renewable energy resources to meet the day to day energy requirements and is as old as the
Producer gas, Heat and power generation human civilization. Biomass gasification is among few important aspects of bioenergy for producing heat, power
and biofuels for useful applications. Despite, the availability of vast literature, technological and material
advancements, the dissemination of gasification technology could not overcome the critical barriers for the
widespread acceptability over the conventional energy resources. This article presents a comprehensive review
on the technical advancements, developments of biomass gasification technology and the barriers being faced by
different stakeholders in the wide dissemination of the technology for day to day requirements of the society,
followed by recommendations for policy makers to make this technology popular while serving the society.

1. Introduction future as around 90% of the world population is expected to reside in

the developing countries by 2050 [2–4].
The global energy demand has been steady increasing for the last Biomass stores chemical energy in the form of carbohydrates by
several decades due to rapid industrialization and improvement of combining solar energy and carbon dioxide using photosynthesis
living standards of the society, globally. However, it has caused a long process. Biomass has been identified as the potential fuels since the
term and irreversible damage to the environment leading to global carbon dioxide captured during photosynthesis releases while its
warming and climate change often discussed among the scientific combustion. It is available in different forms such as, agricultural
community and policy makers at National and International platforms and forestry residues, biological materials by-products, wood, organic
including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since its parts of municipal and sludge wastes having variable moisture content
establishment in 1988. The world community is more emphasizing on and chemical elements. There are several routes to convert biomass
the clean and green energy for the sustainable development of the into useful products depending on the biomass characteristics and the
society and certain issues and possibilities are being discussed about requirement of the end product and its applications. For woody
switching to renewable energy (solar, biomass, wind etc.) for different biomass, the most common application is thermochemical conversion
but specific applications. Prior to the use of fossil fuel, the biomass was route viz. combustion for the production of heat energy while through
the main source of heating and cooking applications [1]. However, with gasification both heat and power generation requirements can also be
the introduction of fossil fuels such as petroleum products, coal, met more effectively, efficiently and environment-friendly besides the
natural gas, etc. the world becoming dependent on these fuels and biofuels production through pyrolysis for transportation and related
nearly 80% of the total energy requirement is being met by these fuels applications. Among all the three main routes, gasification has been
causing/witnessing severe environmental problems, globally. Also, considered to be a more attractive process to exploit the energy from
biomass is considered to be the prominent form of energy and having certain renewable and non-renewable biomass with better conversion
a significant share (10–14%) in the global energy load, while it has efficiency for various end products such as heat, electricity, transporta-
major share up to 90% of total energy supply in the remote and rural tion fuels etc. [5]. Since gasification is the thermochemical conversion
areas of the developing world. It is also likely to remain the main source of solid biomass into combustible fuel in the presence of oxidant (lower
of primary energy feedstock for the developing countries in the near than the stoichiometric combustion) carried out in a reactor called

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S.K. Tyagi).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.038
Received 21 December 2015; Received in revised form 19 December 2016; Accepted 8 January 2017
Available online 17 January 2017
1364-0321/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

Nomenclature c, d and eOperating mode factors

oks oxidant
Hi Lower heating value g Factor used for oxidant
w Mass fraction for each component loss Heat loss
M Molecular mass for each component warm Preheating
a Factor used for the type of oxidant sg syngas
fuel Biomass fuel used h enthalpy
b Operating mode factor MATLAB Matrix laboratory
red Reduction process EES Engineering equation solver

gasifier. Hence, it can convert the solid biomass into different fuels which led to the new era of liquid fuels [10]. The French government
such as liquid and gas which may be further synthesized for various contributed significantly to the development of gasification system and
applications including heating, cooking, power generation, transporta- emphasized on its usage for automobile and electricity generation. The
tion and so on. The major thermochemical conversion routes of possibility of energy production from these combustible gases was soon
biomass are shown in Fig. 1. realized by emerging it in Europe producer gas systems and these
Among the three thermochemical conversion routes of biomass, the systems were run by using charcoal and peat as the feed materials [11].
gasification is a self-sufficient autothermic process in terms of an During World War II, when the shortage supply of petroleum was
energy balance. The energy recovery and heat capacity of biomass realized, the gasification process was re-introduced and the producer
gasification are more than the combustion and pyrolysis which is gas system provided the fuels to drive power trucks, buses, street lights,
attributed towards the optimum utilization of available biomass feed- agricultural and industrial machines and heat for various applications.
stock for heat and power generation since both the carbon and Thereafter, the availability of cheap fossil fuels led to the negligence of
hydrogen contribute to the calorific value to a great extent. Whereas producer gas industry. However, the Swedish government continued to
the pyrolysis and liquefaction are complex in nature and highly work on the advancements of producer gas technology and got pace
dependent on operational conditions and the occurrence of a secondary after 1956 Suez Canal crisis. Many new designs for the betterment of
reaction between the hot solid particles and volatiles. Therefore, the gasification systems were practiced and perceived on later stages. The
conversion of CO and H2 is poor in pyrolysis and liquefaction research on woody biomass gasifier design is still in progress at the
processes. Further, the conversion processes such as, catalytic hydro- National Swedish Institute for Agricultural Machinery Testing, Alnarp,
generation, separation techniques are not cost effective and thus, the Sweden. Also, the gasification technology is a cheaper method of power
conversion of the bio-oils obtained from these processes to other useful generation in developing countries having sufficient quantity of bio-
chemicals is not economical viable. However, the syngas obtained from mass for small scale industrial as well as power generation applica-
gasification is easily convertible to synthetic natural gas through tions.
catalytic methanation of CO and CO2 [7]. Therefore, biomass gasifica- During 1973 oil crisis, over 12,000 large size gasifiers with an
tion has been considered to be the preferred viable option for average capacity of 1 MW were installed by North America in a period
conversion of a variety of biomass feedstocks – ranging from plant of just 30 years. Some developing countries like India, Brazil,
residues to agro-waste, industrial waste, kitchen waste, food waste, and Philippines and Indonesia are focusing their attention on the imple-
farm waste – to bioenergy for successful replacement of petrochemical mentation of gasifier programs for green and clean energy production
derived products [8,9]. and utilization based on the available technology and today there are
The present article broadly meant for technicians, academicians, more than 64 competent manufacturers of gasification equipment's
and other stakeholders working on biomass gasification to catch the globally [12]. At present in India, Energy Alternative India (EAI)
fundamentals, advancements and the barriers for the dissemination of estimated the total biomass gasification installation capacity of
the technology in the field for commercial applications particularly in 140 MW out of about 2600 MW of total biomass-based power genera-
rural and remote areas of the developing world. The main focus of this tion. Out of this figure, bagasse based power generation has been
article includes a) extraction of valuable aspects from various studies, identified with the share of 1400 MW followed by combustion-based
including laboratory and field studies, b) summary of the work done so biomass power production of 875 MW [13].
far including the published literature, c) studies and findings on
different types of gasifiers by earlier researchers, and d) recent
developments including techno-economic evaluation and future direc- 3. Concept and principle
tions.
Biomass is a biological material which stores energy through
photosynthesis process in the presence of sunlight. Biomass is basically
2. History
derived from living organism like plants, crop residues, animals etc. It

The gasification process was discovered in France and England

independently in 1798 but the technology development was come into
the implementations after 60 years when it could be possible to light
much of London using manufacturing gas produced from the coal. First
gasification process was used in the blast furnace over 180 years ago in
France to produce the combustible fuels from organic feeds to drive the
first vehicle designed by J. W. Parker in Scotland in 1901. By 1920,
most of the American towns and cities were connected with town gas
supplied for cooking and lighting applications. The importance of town
gas supply was realized and sooner the crisscross of the first natural gas
pipeline was drawn in 1930 to transport the natural gas from oil fields
of Texas to Denver. Until 1970, England continued using the town gas
but the plants were dismantled following the discovery of North Sea oil Fig. 1. Main thermochemical conversion routes of biomass [6].

364
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

contains some biopolymers such as cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin pyrolysis process, external heating is required to maximize the gas or
in addition to the presence of an average composition of C6H10O5 with liquid fuel yield, the pyrolysis of biomass is shown below [16–20]:
slight variations depending on the physical characteristics of biomass
Dry feedstock + Heat → Char + Volatiles (2)
[14]. Every fuel requires some amount of oxygen to carry out the
process of combustion. The stoichiometric air to fuel ratio required for
the complete combustion of biomass fuel varies from 6:1 to 6.5:1 with
CO2 and H2O as the end products. However, the gasification process 3.3. Partial oxidation or combustion zone
requires less amount of oxygen resulting incomplete biomass combus-
tion at sub-stoichiometric air to fuel ratio varying from 1.5:1 to 1.8:1 During the oxidation process, the volatile materials from biomass
[15]. get oxide under exothermic chemical reactions and generate the heat
Biomass gasification occurs through a sequence of complex thermo- with peak temperature varying from 1100 to 1500 °C with gaseous
chemical reactions and hence, it is unrealistic to split the gasifier into fuels like CO, H2, CO2 and H2O. This stage of gasification is very critical
different zones carrying out many gasification reactions simulta- which decides the type and quality of the end products. Some of the key
neously. The various stages involved in gasification process are parameters such as, pressure and the temperature inside the reactor,
illustrated below [16–20]: type of gasifying agents (oxygen, air, and steam) play an important role
in the yield of producer gas. In recent research activities, steam has
3.1. Drying zone or bunker section been observed as one of the most relevant gasifying medium which also
helps in the gas reforming process. However, the air causes more
Various physical and chemical characteristics of raw biomass nitrogen oxides which highly affect the heating characteristics of the
material play the pivotal role in the biomass gasification process. The final product. Besides, oxygen has also been reported as the ideal
quality of end products of the process is observed to be highly gasifying agent, as far as the producer gas for power generation is
dependent on the type of biomass undertaken. Different studies of concerned. Meanwhile, the heat produced by exothermic reactions in
gasification using various biomass materials have been reported in the the combustion zone is also used in biomass drying as well as for
literature and are also summarized in this article. In some studies, the pyrolysis reactions to bring out the volatile materials and to provide the
pre-treatment of raw biomass materials such as, drying, densification, heat for reduction reactions. In this zone, heterogeneous reactions take
briquetting etc. has been carried out to improve the end product place between solid carbonized fuel and oxygen present in the air which
quality. However, the drying of biomass material also takes place produces carbon dioxide and a substantial amount of heat. Hydrogen
within the gasifier reactor itself but more amount of moisture cause also combines with oxygen to produce water vapors [16–20]:
energy loss and degrades the quality of the product. Depending on the C + O2 → CO2 + 406 kJ/g. mole (Complete oxidation reaction) (3)
nature of biomass, the presence of the moisture content generally
varies from 5% to 35% which gets converted into steam at a 2H2 + O2 → 2H2 O + 242 MJ/kg mole (4)
temperature of around 100 °C. Due to heat transfer from the combus-
tion zone, the drying of biomass takes place in the bunker section.
However, due to low temperature, fuel does not experience any thermal
3.4. Reduction zone
decomposition of its volatile matters during the drying process which is
shown as below [16–20]:
Gasification/pyrolysis process not only produces useful gases but
Moist feedstock + Heat → Dry feedstock + H2 O (1) also some undesirable by-products such as NOX, SO2 and tar contents
and tar has been reported the biggest obstacle in the utilization of
producer gas for power generation applications. Several studies have
3.2. Pyrolysis or thermal decomposition zone
been carried by many researchers under different operating conditions
as presented in the next section of this article but still the hitching of
Pyrolysis is a complicated process of thermal decomposition of
tar formation has been identified as the keen interest among the
biomass fuels in the absence of oxygen/air. Its occurrence releases solid
researchers. Some of the tar reducing methods such as, mechanism
charcoal, liquid tar, and gases whose proportion depends on the nature
methods, self-modification, thermal decomposition, catalyst cracking
of biomass fuel used and the operating conditions of the process.
and plasma methods have been practiced and still in the sole interest of
During pyrolysis, both the process of drying and reduction of constitute
scientists. Too much tar particles in the fuel gas will reduce the biomass
molecular weight takes place simultaneously, while the moisture gets
utilization efficiency and have a severe potential of clogging the fuel
removed below 200 °C. When this temperature increases to 300 °C, the
lines, filters and engine as well.
reduction of molecular weight of the biomass constituent's mainly
So, the formation of tar particles can be controlled by setting up the
amorphous cellulose starts with the formation of carbonyl and carboxyl
adequate temperature conditions capable of required thermal decom-
group radicals. Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide also formed
position in the reduction zone. A temperature of 1000 °C in the
during the reduction process. As the temperature rises beyond 300 °C,
reduction zone has been reported suitable for the requisite reduction
the resultant crystalline cellulose gets decomposed with the formation
of tar particles. In reduction zone, a number of high temperature
of char, tar, and gaseous products. The hemicellulose gets decomposed
chemical reactions take place under a reducing atmosphere which
into the soluble polymer with the formation of volatile gases, char, and
yields conversion of sensible heat of the gases and charcoal into the
tar. The lignin gets decomposed at a higher temperature varying from
chemical energy of the producer gas. The reduction process occurs
300 to 500 °C and forms methanol, acetic acid, water, and acetone.
while executing endothermic reactions to generate combustible pro-
Overall, the large biomass biopolymers such as, cellulose, hemi-
ducts such as, CO, H2, and CH4 such as [16–20]:
cellulose, and lignin get converted into the carbon (char) and medium
size molecules (volatiles). Hence, pyrolysis of biomass takes place in C + CO2 → 2 CO–172.6 kJ/g. mole (Boudourd reaction) (5)
the temperature range of 125–500 °C and condenses the hydrocarbons
in the form of tars. The chemical reactions taking place up to the C + H2 O → CO + H2 − 131.4 kJ/g. mole (Water gas reaction) (6)
temperature of 300 °C are exothermic reactions whereas the chemical
reactions beyond temperature 300 °C are called endothermic reactions. CO + H2 O → CO2 + H2 + 42.3 kJ/g. mole (Water gas shift reaction) (7)
Therefore, for charcoal making, the temperature of 300 °C is sufficient
and do not require the external heating. But for high temperature C + 2H2 → CH 4 + 75 kJ/g. mole (Hydrogasification reaction) (8)

365
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

4. Types of gasifier tion. These gasifiers are suitable for the applications where the high
flame temperature is required and a moderate amount of dust in the
The design of a biomass gasifier depends on the fuel availability, fuel gas are acceptable. However, some bottlenecks such as, great
shape and size, moisture content, ash content and end user applica- sensitivity to tar and moisture content of the fuel, low production of
tions. Different types of biomass gasifiers are available in various size syngas, long start up time of the engine, and poor reaction capability
and design depending on the requirements and basically, classified as are also associated with these systems [12].
fixed and fluidized bed type gasifiers [12]. As gasification systems
involve an interaction of air/oxygen/steam and biomass in the fixed
4.1.3. Crossdraft gasifier
bed type gasifier hence, they can be classified according to the way of
Although crossdraft gasifiers have certain advantages over updraft
interaction of either air/oxygen or steam with biomass such as,
and downdraft gasifier but they are not of ideal type. Crossdraft gasifier
downdraft, updraft, and crossdraft gasifier and are shown below in
is one of the simplest types of gasifier in which the fuel enters from the
Fig. 2.
top and the thermochemical reactions occur progressively as the fuel
descends in the reactor. Here, the air will enter into the reactor from
4.1. Fixed bed type gasifier
the sides, rather than from the top or the bottom as shown in Fig. 3(c).
Unlike upward and downdraft gasifier, crossdraft gasifier has separate
Fixed bed or moving bed type gasifier are having a bed of solid fuel
ash bin, fire and reduction zone and hence, limit the fuel used for
particles through which gasifying agents (i.e. air, oxygen, steam) and
operation with less ash content in the producer gas [25]. The main
gas pass either up or down. They are the simplest type of gasifier
advantages of crossdraft gasifiers are the fast response against the load,
consisting of a cylindrical vessel for fuel and gasifying agents, fuel
flexible gas producer, small start-up time, compatibility with dry air
feeding unit, ash collection unit and gas exit. These types of gasifiers
blast and have short design height. This type of gasifier is not capable of
are deigned to operate at moderate pressure conditions of 25–30 atm.
handling high tar content and very small fuel particles. It also produces
The gas cooling and cleaning system associated with fixed bed gasifier
high temperature fuel gases and has the poor reduction of carbon
are normally consists of wet scrubbing, cyclone and dry filtration.
dioxide gas. These gasifiers are having very few applications due to its
During the gasification process, the fixed bed gasifiers move slowly
only advantage of the presence of good permeability of the bed and
down the reactor. These gasifiers are simple in construction, made of
hence, not much work has been reported in the literature so far [12].
concrete or steel and generally operate at low gas velocity, high carbon
conversion and long solid residence time. They are highly affected by
the formation of tar contents, however, recent progress in tar control 4.2. Fluidized bed type gasifier
methods has given credible options. These gasifier has been reported
suitable for small-scale heat and power generation applications Foundation of this type of gasifier is based on the principle of
[10,21,22]. The fixed bed type gasifiers are further classified as down- fluidization in which both the fuel and inert bed material behaves like a
draft, updraft and crossdraft gasifiers and discussed in detail as below fluid. Such behaviour is observed when the fluidization medium like
[10,12,22–24]: air, steam, oxygen, and their mixture is allowed to force through the
solid inventory of the reactor [26,27]. These gasifiers employ back
4.1.1. Downdraft or co-current gasifier mixing which leads to the efficient mixing of the feedstock particles
In downdraft gasifier, as clear from the name itself, air interacts with the particles already undergoing gasification. Silica has been
with the solid biomass fuel in the downward direction which results in considered as the most commonly used inert bed material for these
the movement of wastes and gases in the co-current direction and types of gasifiers, however, other bulk solids such as, sand, olivine,
hence, these gasifiers are also called as co-current gasifiers. All the glass beads, dolomite etc. exhibits catalytic features are also in recent
decomposition products from both pyrolysis as well as drying zones are trends to minimize the tar problems. These gasifiers are differing from
forced to pass through the oxidation zone for thermal cracking of the fixed bed gasifier in the sense of design configurations and ash
volatile materials and produce less tar content and hence, the better conditions such as, dry or agglomerated etc. for improving the use of
quality fuel gas. Here, air interacts with the pyrolyzing biomass before the char formed during the process.
it contacts the char and accelerates the flame which maintains the The basic concept of fluidized bed has been adopted to enhance the
process of pyrolysis. At the end of pyrolysis zone, the gases obtained in heat transfer between the fuel particles for better gasification process
the absence of oxygen are CO2, H2O, CO, and H2, called flaming and therefore, a fluidized bed can operate under nearly isothermal
pyrolysis. In flaming pyrolysis, the gases obtained during downdraft conditions. Operating temperature of a fluidized bed reactor depends
gasification are due to consumption of 99% of the tar in the process on the melting point of bed material and generally varies from 800 to
itself leading to low particulate and tar content in the gas and hence, 900 °C which is relatively low and hence, gasification reactions do not
suited for small scale power generation applications [10,23]. reach at chemical equilibrium at such low temperature conditions
unless any catalyst is used. Short gas residence time is also another
4.1.2. Updraft or counter-current gasifier cause of not achieving a chemical equilibrium. Due to these factors,
In updraft gasifier, the gasifying agent such as, air, oxygen and hydrocarbon contents in producer gas in case of the fluidized bed
steam are introduced at the bottom to interact with biomass and the reactor fall in the range of the fixed bed gasifier. However, the carbon
combustible gases in counter current direction and hence, these
gasifiers are also called counter-current gasifier. In addition to the
pyrolysis products and drying zone steam, the gas produced in the
reduction zone with high calorific value leaves the reactor. In some
updraft gasifiers, steam is evaporated into the combustion zone to
obtain quality fuel gas and prevents the gasifier from overheating as
well. This type of gasifier has the highest thermal efficiency as the hot
gas passes through the fuel bed and leaves the gasifier unit at low
temperature whereas some part of the sensible heat of producer gases
is also used within the system for biomass drying and steam generation
[24]. The main advantages of updraft gasifiers are good thermal
efficiency, small pressure drop and the slight tendency to slag forma- Fig. 2. Classification of biomass gasifier [12].

366
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

Fig. 3. Schematic view of (a) Downdraft (b) Updraft and (c) Crossdraft gasifier [12].

conversion efficiency of these gasifiers is comparatively high and (above 900 °C) over periods of time to minimize the risk of agglomera-
reported to be up to 95%. These gasifiers are very suitable for scaling tion and prevent from the regular replacement of bed. Due to char
up due to their design and excellent mixing properties and hence, they sticking and tarring, uncertainties in the collection and measurement
are also capable of handling a wider range of fuel particle size [28]. of carbon removed by cyclone and thimble filters have been estimated
The fluidized bed gasifiers are also having provision for the use of to be ± 4% and ± 20%, respectively [31–34].
additives to accelerate the phenomenon of tar conversion. However, The fluidized bed gasifiers are having many characteristics such as,
biomass materials having high contents of ash and alkali metals, such load and fuel flexibility, high heat transfer rates, moderate require-
as grasses, canes, almond hull, rice and wheat straws, can also form ments of gasification medium, uniformity of high temperature through
eutectics with the presence of silica either in the bed materials or in the the gasifier and high cold gas efficiency. As stated above, however, these
fuel ash itself. This will lead to the stickiness of the particles and gasifiers are also affected by tar and dust particles produced due
eventually forms bigger lumps which ultimately cause defluidization various biomass feedstocks (grasses, canes, almond hull, rice and
and necessary shut down of the reactor is frequently required for wheat straws), which not only reduced the quality of fuel gas but also
cleaning periodically [29,30]. The development of suitable corrective leads to the malfunctioning of some equipments including the prime
measures is needed to fix such problems. For instance, the addition of mover, in long run [35,36]. Also, depending upon the degree of
calcined limestone in a fluidized bed may increase the melting point of fluidization and bed height, fluidization bed reactors have been
eutectics and thus allow gasification at high temperature conditions for categories in two types namely, bubbling and circulating fluidized
larger periods of time. However, this process is not significantly bed reactor discussed in detail as below [28]:
effective unless the concentration of limestone in the fluidized bed is
maintained for extended periods of time. Moreover, the addition of 4.2.1. Bubbling bed gasifier
calcined limestone may allow gasification at a higher temperature Bubbling bed gasifiers are very simple in construction and opera-

Fig. 4. Schematic view of (a) Bubbling and (b) Circulating bed type gasifier [28].

367
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

tion in which the gasification of different kinds of feedstock takes place 5. Kinetics of gasification
under high pressure fluidized medium such as, air, oxygen and steam is
allow to pass through the reactor bed having inert bed materials such Assuming gasification of all the combustible contents including tar
as sand, dolomite etc. as shown in Fig. 4(a). Generally, these gasifiers and char, theoretical modelling of the gasifier is represented by a set of
are designed to operate at a very low gas velocity typically below 1 m/s. the linear mathematical equation. Transformation of solid biomass fuel
The solid particles while moving along the gas flow are separated from is divided into four processes in sequence namely, drying, pyrolysis,
the gas in cyclone and get collected in the bottom of the fluidized bed incomplete combustion, and water reduction. The proportion of the
reactor. Most of the part of conversion process takes place within the product in each process is determined according to the Le Chatelier
bubbling bed region and further extent lesser for tar conversion. They principle considering temperature, pressure, and process time duration
are capable of operating at the high average temperature of 850 °C and as the key parameters [46,47]. The supply of oxygen and steam is
hence, more thermal decomposition of feedstock can be reported. required for partial combustion and complete reduction process,
However, the carbon conversion efficiency of bubbling bed gasifier is respectively. The gasification kinetics presented in this paper are
observed to be lower than those of the circulating fluidized bed gasifier applicable for a universal gasifier using wood as the biomass material
due to stickiness behaviour of feed particle which leads to the reduction and have wide applications, especially as the gaseous fuel for internal
of contact area between the particles [37]. combustion engines. The present universal model is assumed to
operate in three modes with different chemical compositions of the
syngas, as below [48].
4.2.2. Circulating bed gasifier
In circulating bed gasifier, the solids entrained with the high a. Syngas having CO, CH4, H2, and CO2
fluidizing gas velocity are recycled back to the bed reactor as shown b. Syngas consisting of H2 and CO
in Fig. 4(b) to improve the carbon conversion efficiency which was c. Syngas with a mixture of H2 and CO in the ratio of 1:7
observed to be very low in the case of bubbling bed gasifier. These
gasifiers are designed to operate at a higher gas velocity ranging from 3 The gasifier model can operate in different conditions of oxidants
to 10 m/s. As compared to the bubbling fluidized bed reactor, the and operating modes as shown in Tables 2 and 3.
energy throughput per unit of reactor cross-sectional area has been The different factors showing various operating modes and chemi-
reported higher for circulating fluidized bed gasifier. Besides the cal compositions of syngas in one common linear set of equations and
improving carbon conversion efficiency, these types of gasifier are also these factors are set in such a way that all the appropriate terms used in
suffering from high tar and dust related problems as well. But both are Eqs. (11)–(18) are well balanced.
designed to operate under pressurized conditions for further increase In gasification process, pyrolysis occurs after pre-heating of the
in the yield of final product [38]. The main applications of the solid biomass fuel resulting combustion of pyrolysis product due to
circulating bed gasifier are in boiler, paper industry, cement kiln and high reactivity. The quality of combustible product will depend on the
power generation etc. quantity of oxidant and the chemical composition of the solid biomass
Since the process of gasification is comprised of several complex fuel, while the heat flow during burning of pyrolysis product is given as
physiochemical reactions which are very difficult to monitor externally [46–48]:
and hence, has been the keen interest of researchers from the
beginning of this area of research. In gasification, the biological .
(Q̇) = {ṁ H 2 × w (H2 )burn × Hi (H2 ) + mCH 4 × w (CH4 )burn × Hi (CH4 )
chemical reactions are having many inherent properties which highly .
+ mC × w (C )burn × Hi (C )} (9)
affect the process effectiveness and subsequently the end user applica-
tions. Depending upon the operating parameters, gasification process
While the flow of oxidant required is given by Eq. (10) as below
takes place in many phases such as, biomass drying, pyrolysis,
[46–48]:
oxidation and reduction and each process should be carried out under
optimum conditions to obtain the desired quality of the end product.
Also, there are few important process parameters of biomass gasifica-
tion process and some of them are described in Table 1.

Table 1
The important parameters affecting the gasifier operation.

Parameters Remarks

Equivalence ratio It strongly influences the gasification and the end products, besides reducing the tar formation at higher temperature. The higher equivalence ratio also
results in reducing the heating value of syngas. High steam/biomass ratio pursues both higher hydrogen yields and tar cracking as well due to water gas
shift reaction. For effective gasification, equivalence ratio should be in the range of 0.2–0.4 [5,39].
Moisture content Equilibrium moisture content has been observed as strong function of relative humidity and weak function of air temperature. The higher moisture
content decreases the biomass consumption rate and hence reduces the biomass pyrolysis. Overall, it affects both the gasifier performance and the
quality of end product as well. The higher value of 40% moisture content has been reported for the downdraft gasifier, however; this figure can be more
for updraft gasifier [21,40].
Superficial velocity Lower values of superficial velocity result slow pyrolysis process which causes high char yields and unburned tars. On the other hand, the higher
superficial velocity reduces the char yield due to fast pyrolysis process. However, it also significantly decreases the gas residence time leading to lower
efficiency in the tar cracking process. The superficial velocity varying from 0.4 to 0.6 m/s has been reported suitable for IC engine [5,41].
Operating temperature High gasifier operating temperature has been reported suitable for high biomass carbon conversion which ultimately reduces the tar content and
produces more combustible gases. However, in a study [42], hydrogen concentration has been observed to be increased initially and then gradually
decreased with the increase in temperature.
Gasifying agents The end product of a gasifier system highly dependent on the gasifier atmosphere. The air as gasifying agent produces syngas with low heating value
due to dilution by nitrogen while the combination of steam and oxygen yields syngas with medium heating value. However, steam in combined form
with air results higher yield of hydrogen which reduces the energy requirement of a system [43,44]
Residence time The residence time significantly influences the tar formation and its composition. One study exhibited [45], a decrease in oxygen containing
compounds along with one and two aromatic ring compounds has been observed with increase in the residence time. However, three and four ring
compounds were reportedly increased. In another study [33], a decrease in the tar content has been identified due to the augmentation of space time in
biomass gasification having dolomite bed.

368
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

.
Table 2 (Q)red
Factors for the oxidants used.
⎧ m. × (1 − w (C ) ) × (Q. ) (C ) + m. ⎫
⎪ C . burn red CH 4 × (1 − w (CH4 )burn ) × ⎪
Oxidant Oxygen Air ⎪ (Q)red (CH4 ) × ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎛.
a 1 1/0.24
⎪ b − ⎜mC × (1 − w (C )burn ) × M(CO) + mCH 4 × (1 − w (CH4 )burn ) ⎪
.
⎪
g 0 0.76 =⎨ ⎝ M( C ) ⎬
⎪ ⎪
⎪ M(CO ) ⎞ ⎪
⎪ × M(CH4) ⎟⎠ ⎪
Table 3 ⎪ . ⎪
Factors for the operating mode. ⎪ × k × (Q) (CO) ⎪
⎩ red red ⎭
Gas CO, CH4, H2 H2 CO/H2=7 (11)

b 0 1 1 The steam mass flow rate for reduction process can be calculated
kred 0 1 0.31
using the mass balance equation as below [46–48]:
c 1 0 1
d 0 0 1
⎧ m. × (1 − w (C ) ) × M(H2 O) − m. ⎫
e 1 0 0
⎪ C burn M(C ) CH 4 × w (CH4 )burn × ⎪
⎪ 2 × M(H2 O) . M(H O ) ⎪
⎪ M(CH4)
− mH 2 × M(H2 ) ⎪
2
. ⎧. 2 × M(O2 ) . M(O2 ) ⎪ . M(H2 O ) ⎪
(m )oks = ⎨mCH 4 × w (CH4 )burn × + mH × ⎪+ mCH 4 × (1 − w (CH4 )burn ) × M(CH4) × b ⎪
⎩ M(CH4 ) M(H2 ) ṁ H 2O =⎨ ⎬
⎫ ⎪ ⎛. M(CO ) . ⎪
. M(O2 ) . + ⎜
⎪ ⎝ C m × (1 − w ( C ) ) × + m × (1 − w ( CH ) ) × ⎪
+ mC × w (C )burn × − m fuel × w (O2 ) ⎬ burn M(C ) CH 4 4 burn
M(C ) ⎭ (10) ⎪ ⎪
⎪ M(CO) ⎞ M(H2 )
⎪
⎪ M(CH ) ⎟ × k red × ⎪
4 ⎠
Also, the heat flow during reduction can be determined using Eq. ⎩ M(CO )
⎭
(11) as below [46–48]: (12)

However, the flow rate of Hydrogen (H2), Carbon Monoxide (CO),

Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), and Nitrogen (N2) etc. pro-
duced during the reduction process can be determined using Eqs. (13)–
(18) as below [46–48]:

Table 4
Summary of review papers on biomass gasifier.

Researchers Year Remarks

Samiran NA, Jaafar MNM, Chong CT, Jo-Han N [49] 2014 Reviewed palms as the potential biomass feedstock for syngas production. Some forms of palm as biomass
feedstock materials such as oil palm frond (OPF), empty fruit bunch (EFB), and palm kernel shell (PKS) with
high heating value were also identified.
Chhiti Y and Kemiha M [50] 2013 Reviewed the state of the art of thermochemical conversion of biomass and reported catalytic or thermal
cracking conversion of product gas into syngas. Entrained flow gasification was also reported suitable
technology for high temperature gasification.
Kureshi NA, Modi VH, Rajkotia SD [51] 2013 Reviewed performance and development of downdraft gasifier and concluded various difficulties in
optimization of process parameters.
Beohar H, Gupta B, Sethi VK, Pandey M [22] 2012 Evaluated the performance of biomass gasifier in terms of zone temperature, calorific value, equivalence
ratio, producer gas composition, gas production rate, and cold gas efficiency.
Jankes GG, Trninic MR, Stamenic MS, Simonovic TS, 2012 Reviewed the state of the art of biomass gasification with CHP production. An attempt was also made to
Tanasic ND, Labus JM [52] address the economic feasibility of the system.
Pipatmanomai S [53] 2011 Discussed biomass utilization and status of biomass conversion technologies in terms of technical and
economic aspects.
Upadhyay AD, Patel BRN, Shah CNK [54] 2011 Reviewed 10 KWe downdraft gasifiers considering different aspects such as proximate-ultimate analysis,
syngas composition, equivalence ratio, particle size, fuel consumption, heating value of fuel and syngas with
different feedstocks.
Siedlecki M, Jong WD, Verkooijen AHM [28] 2011 Reviewed fluidized technology for biomass gasification aimed at the production of gas for subsequent
synthesis of liquid fuels via Fischer-Tropsch process.
Bhavanam A and Sastry RC [5] 2011 Presented various research and development aspects of downdraft fixed bed reactor in terms of their
technology advancements and effects of various process parameters on the producer gas composition.
Surjosatyo A, Vidian F, Nugroho YS [55] 2010 Reviewed various modifications in gasifier for tar reduction in biomass gasification. Various mechanisms of
tar decompositions were also reviewed.
Arnavat MP, Bruno JC, Coronas A [56] 2010 Analyzed and represented different gasification models based on thermodynamic equilibrium, kinetic, and
artificial neural networks.
Kumar A, Jones DD, Hanna MA [17] 2009 Reviewed uses of thermochemical biomass gasification for producing bio-fuels, bio-power, and chemicals.
Wang L, Weller CL, Jones DD, Hanna MA [57] 2008 Reviewed recent advances in biomass gasification, syngas utilization, and critical technical issues of biomass
gasification.
Chopra S and Jain AK [21] 2007 Presented research and development aspects of fixed bed gasification and their various commercial
applications.

369
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

.
mH 2 gasifier using five different biomass namely, Bamboo (Banbusea tulda),
⎧ m. × (1 − w (C ) ) × M(H2) + m. ⎫ Gulmohar (Delonix regia), Neem (Melia azedarach L), Dimaru (Ficus
⎪ C burn CH 4 × (1 − w (CH4 )burn ) × ⎪
M(C ) lepidosa wall), and Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo). The gas composition of
⎪ M(H2) ⎪
⎪ M(CH4) ⎪ various biomass was studied with moisture content up to 30% at a
⎪ ⎪ gasification temperature of 850 °C. The highest calorific value of
=⎨ ⎛ . . ⎬
⎪ × b + ⎜ m C × (1 − w ( C ) burn ) ×
M(CO )
+ m CH 4 × (1 − w ( CH4 ) burn ) ⎪ 18.40 MJ/kg was obtained from Bamboo chip with fixed carbon
⎝ M(C )
⎪ ⎪ percentage of 48.69 while the maximum hydrogen production of
⎪ M(CO ) ⎞ M(H2) ⎪ 24.50% was obtained from Gulmohar, among all the biomass used.
⎪ × M(CH4) ⎟ × k red × M(CO) ⎪
⎩ ⎠ ⎭ On the other hand, the best quality of producer gas was observed for
Bamboo for the same moisture content which was determined by using
(13)
the gas chromatography. The results obtained from the thermal
. ⎧⎛ . M(CO) . equilibrium modelling were reported in fair agreement with the
mCO = ⎨ ⎜mC × (1 − w (C )burn ) × + mCH 4 × (1 − w (CH4 )burn ) ×
⎩⎝ M(C ) experimental results; however, no techno-economic analysis of the
⎫ system was done.
M(CO) ⎞
× b⎟ × (1 − k red) × d⎬ Jaojaruek et al. [60] experimentally studied three different down-
M(CH4 ) ⎠ ⎭ (14) draft gasifiers, namely, single stage, convectional two stages, and an
⎧⎛ . ⎫ innovative two-stage with air and premixed air approach. As compared
. ⎞
⎪ ⎜mCH 4 × w (CH4 )burn × M(CO2) + mC × w (C )burn × M(CO2) ⎟ ⎪ to convectional two stages, the innovative two stage with air approach
⎪⎝ M(CH4) M(C ) ⎠
⎪ produced better quality gas with higher heating value of 6.5 MJ/Nm3,
⎪
⎪ ⎛. ⎪
⎪
. M(CO ) . tar content of 45 mg/Nm3 with 14% improvement of thermal effi-
mCO2 = ⎨ + ⎜mC × (1 − w (C )burn ) × M(C ) + mCH 4 × (1 − w (CH4 )burn ) × ⎬
⎪ ⎝ ⎪ ciency. Ambani and Dafda [61] developed an open core throatless
⎪ ⎞ ⎪ downdraft biomass gasifier reactor mainly consists of two concentric
⎪ M(CO) × k red⎟ × M(CO2) × b ⎪
⎪ M(CH4) ⎠ ⎪ cylinders. The inner cylinder was designed to work as reactor while the
⎩ M(CO )
⎭
outer cylinder, called containment tube was designed to work as the
(15) heat exchanger. Sharma [62] experimentally studied 75 kWth down-
ṁ CH 4 = ṁ CH 4 × (1 − w (CH4 )burn ) × e (16) draft biomass gasifier systems to obtain the process parameters such as
temperature profile, gas composition, calorific value, pressure drop
ṁ N 2 = ṁ oks × g (17) across the porous bed, and cooling cleaning train in firing and non-
Thus, considering the inlet and outlet energy flows, the overall firing mode. In firing mode, all the parameters were observed to be
energy balance equation can be obtained as below [46–48]: sensitive to the gas flow rate. But in non-firing mode, the extinguished
. . bed showed higher pressure drop as compared to freshly charged
(ṁ f × hf ) + ṁ oks × h( p , T ) + ṁ H 2O × h( p , T ) + Q burn × (1 − ηloss ) − Q red gasifier bed due to high gas flow resistance. The pressure drop across
. .
− Qwarm = msg × h ( p , T) (18) the entire system was observed to be highly dependent on the particle
size and the operating time. However, the higher bed temperature was
In the present communication, a review on various types of biomass reported better for conversion of non-combustible components like
gasifiers along with their applications is presented. Earlier, such studies CO2, H2O into combustible components viz. CO, H2 with an improved
have been carried out by many eminent researchers with different calorific value of product gas in the firing mode.
approaches and are summarized in Table 4. Sheth and Babu [63] evaluated a downdraft gasifier in terms of
equivalence ratio, producer gas composition, calorific value, gas
6. Research progress in biomass gasification production rate, zone temperature, and cold gas efficiency using
sesame or rose wood waste as feedstock. The effect of air flow rate
Biomass gasification is not a new technology; it was originated in and moisture content on biomass consumption rate was studied and
the 1800 s, basically for lighting and cooking purposes. With the time observed decreasing with increasing the moisture content, while the
span and contemplating energy requirement, researchers tried to biomass consumption rate was reported to be increasing with increas-
explore the new possibilities of the advancements in this area, globally. ing the air flow rate. An optimum equivalence ratio of 0.205 was
Certain innovative technologies such as supercritical water gasification, reported to achieve higher calorific value, while the cold gas efficiency
integrated heat and power cycles, and improved gasification reactor was observed to be increasing slightly with increasing the equivalence
have been developed to enhance the end product quality and system ratio. The fraction of CO and N2 in the producer gas showed increasing
effectiveness. In the present research scenario of biomass gasification, and decreasing trends exactly reversed to that of N2 and CO2 at the
various kinds of renewable fuels in different phases such as, liquid, optimum equivalence ratio. The material balance was also carried out
solid, and gases have been developed and are being commercialized at to examine the reliability of the results generated. Black and Veatch
the industrial level. The studies carried out by earlier researchers on [64] carried out detail study on different gasification techniques,
different types of gasifier are given in detail as below [58–147]: considering various process variables such as, reactor type, blow type,
heating method, pressure, and syngas conversion options. The ad-
6.1. Previous studies on the fixed bed downdraft gasifiers vanced emission control and combustion optimization technologies
were found to be capable of producing the better quality fuel gas
Numbers of researchers across the world have been worked in the product. Jain [65] designed and tested five open core throatless rice
development of downdraft gasifiers for several decades and a signifi- husk gasifiers with internal diameters varying from 15.2 to 34.3 cm and
cant advancement has been achieved so far. Kuo and Wu [58] designed the equivalent ratio, gasification efficiency, lower heating value, and
a biomass steam gasification using raw and torrefied oil palm and best specific gasification rate were reported to be 0.40, 65%, 4.5 MJ/
observed an enhancement in hydrogen yield and the system energetic Nm3, and 200 kg/h-m2 respectively. Zainal et al. [66] investigated the
efficiency was reported to be improved significantly by introducing the downdraft gasifier system using furniture wood and wood chips as feed
heat recovery design. The optimum operating conditions were also through experimental study and evaluated the performance of the
validated using simulation techniques which were further suggested to system in terms of equivalence ratio, calorific value and the gas
implement in scaling up of the system. Dutta et al. [59] developed the production rate. The calorific value of the producer gas was observed
thermodynamic equilibrium modelling for 10 kWth throated downdraft to be increased initially with equivalence ratio, attains the peak value

370
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

and then starts decreasing with increasing the equivalence ratio. The complete conversion of methane and carbon monoxide into hydrogen
cold gas efficiency and overall efficiency of the biomass electrical power from biogas was observed whereas it was 95% from producer gas under
system were obtained to be 80% and 11%, respectively for the specific oxygen medium. Also, the producer gas under air medium yielded 40%
biomass consumption rate of 2 kg/kWh. However, the complete hydrogen production on processing, while higher carbon dioxide was
conversion of carbon to gaseous fuel was not observed even with the reported for higher water flow rates and lower gas flow rates besides
optimum equivalence ratio of 0.38 which may be assumed due to the the effect of biogas/water flow ratio on CO2 percentage in water was
bridging of biomass inside the gasifier. also studied. Pruksakit et al. [19] presented a thermochemical equili-
Zainal et al. [67] predicted the gasification process in a downdraft brium model to simulate the biomass gasification process and pre-
gasifier using equilibrium modelling and determined the gas charac- dicted the producer gas composition. The results obtained were
teristics in terms of its compositions and the calorific value. The effect reported to be well suited with the experimental results. A correlation
of moisture content of wood on the calorific value was also investigated between biomass composition and gas product was also reported using
and results were compared with the experimental data. The calorific thermochemical equilibrium models. Furthermore, these models were
value of the fuel gas was reported decreasing with increasing in also suggested a good tool for design and optimization of a biomass
moisture content of raw material varying from 0% to 40%, while a downdraft gasifier.
moisture content of 20% was reported to achieve the highest bed Gautam et al. [23] studied tar formation based on biomass flow rate
temperature of 800 °C. Bridgwater [68] presented the costs and in a stratified downdraft gasifier using wood pallets. Also, various tar
technologies involved in the production of electricity from biomass in compounds such as toluene, o/p-xylene, naphthalene, phenol, styrene,
general and wood in particular by considering its handling, gasification, and indane were observed in significant amounts. The syngas tar
gas quality, gas cleaning and its selection for the gas turbine or engine concentration was reported to be in the range of 340–680 mg/Nm3
as important elements of criteria. Special emphasis was placed on the which was observed to be higher when compared with similar gasifier
technology status and key uncertainties, considered to be crucial for the using woodchips. Mamphweli and Meyer [73] investigated the conver-
success or failure of biomass-based integrated gasification combined sion efficiency of an 180 Nm3/h Johansson biomass gasifier using gas
cycle. It was observed that the wood handling, storage, drying and profiles obtained at custom build gas and temperature measurement
screening had no uncertainties in the operation and performance. system. The non-dispersive infrared (NDI) gas detection technique was
Surjosatyo and Vidian [69] evaluated the tar content of producer gas in used to monitor the volume and quality of producer gas. The hydrogen
the downdraft gasifier having air flow rate of 189.6 lpm for 8.5 kg content of producer gas was monitored using Palladium/Nickel gas
coconut shell. It was observed that the increase in water flow rate in sensor. Evaluation of the said gasifier was done before installation of a
venturi scrubber decreases the tar content of producer gas and reported 300 Nm3/h at a rural village. Finally, the conversion efficiency of 75%
its variance from 125 to 275 mg/Nm3 with the absorption capacity of with an average gas heating value of 6 MJ/Nm3 was reported for the
60%. Johansson biomass gasifier. Shelke et al. [74] investigated the thermal
Tooy et al. [70] studied a downdraft gasifier system using coconut behaviour of a downdraft gasifier using karanj wood (25 mm thickness,
husks as biomass input material for electric power generation and 20 mm length) for various equivalence ratios ranging from 0.19 to
reported 62% saving of diesel fuel. The system performance was 0.32. With the increase in the value of equivalence ratio, the producer
evaluated in terms of reactor temperature, tar volume produced, gas yield and the tar formation were observed to be increasing and
gasification performance, bioreactor gas produced, and efficiency in decreasing respectively. An optimum equivalence ratio of 0.32 was also
energy production. The coconut husk waste was reported to be a suggested for good thermal efficiency and quality producer gas. Vakalis
suitable biomass material for gasification along with the coconut husk et al. [75] developed a thermodynamic model of downdraft biomass
where it is not used in productively for other domestic applications. gasifier in Matlab-Cantera environment using element potential mini-
Chawdhury and Mahkamov [16] developed a small downdraft gasifier mization and Villars-Cruise-Smith algorithm methods to assess the
of 6–7 kW capacity using wood chips and pallets as feed and the performance of gasifier by inserting real operating data such as
producer gas composition, moisture content, and biomass feedstock biomass composition, equivalence ratio, and operation temperature.
consumption were measured for reactor having inside temperature Also, the theoretical values obtained from this model were compared
ranging from 950 to 1150 °C, air flow rate of 0.0015 m3/s, and with the actual values and the two were found in good agreement with
producer gas exit temperature ranging from 180 to 220 °C. The main each other.
constituents of syngas obtained were nitrogen (50–56%), carbon Kumar and Kumar [76] evaluated the performance of a downdraft
monoxide (19–22%), hydrogen (12–19%), carbon dioxide (10–12%), gasifier using wood chips for power generation using spark ignition
and methane (1–2%). The data obtained using engineering equation engine. The system performance was tested under varying load
solver software was reported closed to the calculated values and the conditions ranging 20–100% with cold and hot gasification efficiencies
thermal efficiency of 92.4% was also obtained. Melgar et al. [71] of 75.41% and 80.85% respectively, while for air and gas flow rate of
presented a real-time diagnosis model to perform the real time 20.79 m3/h and 79 m3/h, the biomass consumption was reported to be
calculation, monitoring and recording of physical variables of gasifica- 27 kg/h. The tar level of 9 mg/Nm3 was also observed after gas cooling
tion from the gas composition analysis and other measurements like and cleaning which seems to be compatible with engine power
temperature and gas flow rate for a downdraft fixed bed gasifier. The generation applications. Jain [20] experimentally studied the down-
main gasification parameters such as, biomass consumption, air/fuel draft gasification of charcoal and fuel wood (Leucaena leucocephala)
ratio, thermal efficiency, and thermal power generation etc. were under air and oxygen gasification medium. The producer gas obtained
calculated by assuming some simplifying hypothesis. Using this under oxygen medium was found to be rich in CO and H2 with no
technique, the strong dependency of thermal efficiency on equivalence nitrogen having the lower heating value of 10–11 MJ/Nm3 against the
ratio was observed and the increase in the equivalence ratio was also air medium where the lower heating value 4–6.5 MJ/Nm3 was
reported with a higher methane concentration and a lower hydrogen obtained. Under oxygen medium, the producer gas with 48% CO,
concentration. However, for no change in the thermal efficiency and 29% H2 and 48% CH4 with no nitrogen was reported, while the tar
equivalence ratio, the water decomposition was observed to have content under oxygen medium was observed to be higher which could
different values which may be assumed due to the non-uniform due to the fact that the gasifier was designed only for operation with
distribution of temperature inside the reactor. blowing air. Dutsadee et al. [77] demonstrated the performance
Jain et al. [72] processed biogas and producer gas under air and analysis of the power generation from the refuse derived fuel (RDF-
oxygen medium in a fuel processor LDU-1 comprised of a ZnO reactor, 5) and for different oxygen-fuel ratio, the producer gas was analyzed in
steam reformer, an HT shift reactor, and an LT shift reactor and the terms of its compositions, heat capacity, fuel consumption, system

371
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

efficiency and the quality of ash. The performance of RDF-5 and diesel ment with a deviation of less than 10% between theoretical and
RDF-5 were also compared in terms of specific factors such as, power, experimental results.
specific fuel consumption rate, carbon dioxide, sound level, fuel feeding
and observed better in the case of RDF-5 as an alternative clean fuel. 6.2. Previous studies on fixed bed updraft gasifiers
Jayah et al. [78] developed a computer model for downdraft wood
gasifier to investigate the effects of various operational and design As mentioned in the earlier Section 4.1.2, the updraft gasifier has
parameters such as, moisture content, feed rate, particle size, reactor some advantages over downdraft gasifiers such as, good thermal
load and capacity. The model developed was also validated theoretically efficiency, flexible with moisture content, small pressure drop across
using available data in the literature and the hot gas efficiency of the the reactor, low tendency of slag formation etc. and has been studied by
model was reported to be 86%. number of researchers [85–101] for the last several decades and is
Mohanraj et al. [79] studied performance analysis of a 30 kW summarized here. Raja et al. [85] developed a pilot model updraft
downdraft thermo gasifier in terms of optimum value of porosity of gasifier using wood chips, coconut husk, coconut shell, and bagasse as
woodchips and oxidizer velocity using CFD simulation through species feedstocks and evaluated the performance of it in terms of mechanical
transport phenomena. The values of porosity ranging from 0.439 to and thermal efficiency. Type of coal used and the amount of methane
0.525 were chosen and reported the highest burning temperature of the formed in the gasifier were the two main aspects observed affecting the
gas with even distribution at 0.525. More combustion stability with thermal efficiency of the gasification process. Besides that, the major
higher temperature and very less unburnt fuel was observed at factors influencing the performance of a gasifier were identified to be
velocities 4 m/s and 5 m/s. While the combustion instability was dry flue gas, moisture of biomass, latent heat, and unburned fuel.
observed beyond 9 m/s along with the amount of unburnt fuel inside Nsamba et al. [86] designed an updraft Belonio rice husk gasifier
the gasifier. Volpe et al. [80] developed a downdraft gasifier using (0.6 m height, 0.15 m diameter, and 0.025 m thickness) for testing of
lingo-cellulosic olive waste and assessed its thermochemical behaviour biochar production for original and fine rice husk using air as
during pyrolysis and torrefaction experiments. Olive tree trimming and gasification agent. The gasifier design was also scaled up to the height
olive pulp samples were pyrolysed and torrefied under corresponding of 1.65 m, diameter of 0.85, and thickness of 0.16 m, operated with
helium and nitrogen blanket at peak temperature varying from 400 to centrifugal blower of 155 W power input for regulation of air flow rate
650 °C and 200–325 °C, respectively. The linear increase and decrease with maximum value of 1450 m3/h. The scaling of reactor design
of carbon and oxygen were reported to be 75% and 10%, respectively reported an increase in the equivalence ratio by 320% to attain the
under char experimental analyses. Shankar et al. [81] investigated the similar gas yield of 30% as in the small size reactor.
hurdles in the use of producer gas as the prime fuel in internal James et al. [87] evaluated the performance of an in-chamber tar
combustion engines using wood as the feedstock. The maximum cracking and syngas reforming unit using char supported by NiO as
content of CO in producer was obtained to be 19% which was reported catalysts in an updraft biomass gasifier and a tar removal rate of 95%
to be sufficient for the operation of the internal combustion engine. The was achieved at a residence time of 0.35 s and 10% Nickel loading. An
other constituents of the producer gas were found to be 5% of CO2, 12% increment of 36% in the heating value was observed using Ni- based
of H2 and 1% of CH4 with the highest calorific value of 1170 kcal/m3. catalyst. Also, the gas residence time of 0.2–0.3 s and the Ni loading of
Kumar et al. [82] investigated the performance of a direct injection 5–10% was reported to be suitable for producing the cleaner syngas
diesel engine with the dual fuel mixture of diesel and gas. In dual fuel with low tar content, however, the process economy analysis was found
mode, the decrease in brake thermal efficiency was observed to be 45%, to be absent from the study. Beohor et al. [88] developed a CFD model
while the diesel fuel consumption rate was observed to be decreasing using ANSYS FLUENT software to study the effect of various operating
from 0.85 to 0.3 kg/h at 10 kg load. However, the gaseous fuel parameters on the performance of updraft gasifiers like air velocity, fuel
consumption was reported to be exactly reversed of diesel fuel feeding rate, and moisture content. They observed that with the
consumption with both loads as well as rpm. As compared to the dual increase of both air velocity and moisture content, the value of
fuel mode, a sharp decrease in the brake specific fuel consumption for hydrogen content was observed to be increasing and then decreasing
diesel only was observed with the increase in the load. Nisamaneenate while it was found to be reversed in the case of carbon monoxide. On
et al. [83] investigated cassava rhizome gasification using modular the other hand, the value of carbon dioxide was found to be increasing
downdraft gasifier in terms of biomass particle size, inlet air flow rate, gradually whereas with increase in fuel rate, the value of hydrogen and
and usage of Ni/char catalyst. In this system, the higher air flow rate carbon dioxide were observed to be decreasing initially and then
resulted in higher gas yield with lesser tar and char formation whereas increasing while it was found to be reversed for carbon monoxide.
the conversion of H2, CO and CH4, CO2 were observed to be higher and Also, the optimum value of air velocity, fuel feeding rate, and moisture
found to be decreased with increase in the particle size. However, content were obtained to be 5.4 m/s, 6.8 kg/h, and 25%, respectively.
without catalyst, the optimum operating condition was reported with Seggiani et al. [89] presented one-dimensional unsteady state
air flow rate of 2.5 m3/h and 10 mm particle size and resulted in mathematical model to simulate the behaviour of sewage sludge with
carbon and hydrogen conversion of 94.02% and 65.92%, respectively. 20% moisture in a small scale fixed bed updraft gasifier (2 m height,
On the other hand, using catalyst with air flow rate of 1.98 m3/h and 0.165 m internal diameter), operated at the atmosphere pressure. The
10 mm of particle size, the carbon and hydrogen conversion were model was based on the set of differential equation coupling heat and
observed to be of 92.87% and 55.69%, respectively and hence, reduced mass transport in the solid and liquid phases of sewage sludge drying
CO2 yield with increased CO concentration. Also, the gas heating value and devolatilization, char gasification, and combustion of both char
of 4.47 MJ/m3 and H2/CO ratio of 1.22 were reported with increased and gaseous species. The results obtained for dynamic axial tempera-
in cold gas efficiency. ture profiles and the steady state composition of the producer gas were
Ong et al. [84] experimentally studied co-gasification of woody suited well with the experimental measurements. Mandl et al. [90]
biomass and sewage sludge in a fixed bed downdraft gasifier. In this presented one-dimensional steady state mathematical model for the
study, the sewage sludge composition of 20 wt% was reported to be an simulation of laboratory scale fixed bed updraft gasifier using a set of
effective to generate the producer gas comprising over 30% of syngas differential equations coupled with homogenous and heterogeneous
with a lower heating value of 4.5 MJ/Nm3. The numerical models were combustion and gasification reactions. The results obtained for dy-
also developed for simulation of reactions taking place in different namic axial temperature profiles and the steady state composition of
zones of the gasifier and the sewage sludge content of 33 wt% was the producer gas were found in good agreement with the experimental
reported to be the optimum to avoid blockage of the gasifier. The results. The improvements in the gasification process were observed
simulated and experimental results were found to be in good agree- with increasing gasification the power input and the decrease in

372
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

gasification efficiency were also reported with a higher air to fuel ratio. Olwa et al. [95] determined the potassium retention from wall
Yadav et al. [91] experimentally studied the performance analysis of an deposits and ash residues in an updraft wood gasifier using Teflon
updraft biomass gasifier using different biomass fuels namely, bagasse, filters and gas wash bottles. The analysis of samples was carried out
coconut shells, and wood. In the case of coconut shells, the temperature made using inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry
of the entire gasification zone was found to be increasing function of and X- ray diffraction methods and reported 99% of potassium
the air velocity for the optimum combustion value, while the biomass retention in the form of crystalline phase of K2Ca(CO3)2. However,
consumption rate was observed to be the function of combustion, the resulted material was found to be corrosive and biologically
pyrolysis, and drying rate. On the other hand, the coconut shells were damaging the metal surfaces. Ojolo et al. [96] designed and developed
also reported suitable biomass for the designed gasifier among the rest an 11.19 kW laboratory scale updraft gasifier using sawdust and palm
of the two biomass fuels used in the study viz. bagasse and wood. kernel shell as the feedstocks and the heat energy input, power input,
Raibhole et al. [92] analyzed the effect of various fuels namely, coal, power output, and gasifier efficiency were reported to vary from 28,125
rice husk, and wood pallets on gasification process using MATLAB and to 31,633.06 kJ, 7.812–8.79 kW, 5.17–6.15 kW, and 93–97%, respec-
EES besides an experimental model having the capacity of 30 kg was tively, for both the biomass feedstocks. Tarhan [97] investigated the air
also fabricated for the study of the process. The effect of various process flow channeling in a fixed bed wheat straw updraft gasifier by
parameters such as pressure, air to fuel ratio, and steam to fuel ratio on considering absolute pressure deviations in its central plane before
producer gas composition was also investigated and observed that with the initiation of gasification. The air flow distribution was observed to
increase in the air supply, the percentage of H2, CO and CO2 decreases be affected inversely by the superficial velocity through the straw bed,
while that of N2 increases whereas with the increase in pressure, the while the machine chopped straw and straw bed depth reported
percentage of both CO2 and N2 increases while that of H2 and CO significant improvements in the air flow distribution.
decreases. Ismail and El-Salam [93] developed a 2D computational Borthakur and Mahanta [98] developed a fuel flexible updraft
fluid dynamics model to investigate an updraft gasification process gasifier using different biomass namely, wood, bamboo, and lpomoea
using air and steam as gasifying agent with high temperature of air up for thermal applications. The maximum power delivered by the gasifier
to 1000 °C. The proposed model was found to be an important tool to was found to be 14.84 kW at wood chips fuel consumption of 4 kg/h
study the updraft gasification in addition to the Euler-Euler multiphase and observed the power to be increasing with the increase of calorific
approach, reported to be suitable to investigate the gas and solid value of fuel. The equivalence ratio for the three selected biomass was
phases in terms of momentum, mass and energy. Overall, the model reported in the range of 0.24–0.27 and observed its independency on
was observed to be capable of identifying the effects of various the type of biomass feedstock. Pedroso et al. [99] experimentally
operating parameters such as, moisture content, operating tempera- studied a modified updraft fixed bed gasifier having modified biomass
ture, type of gasifying agent, flow rate etc. on the gasification process. feeding system in order to reduce the tar concentration in the producer
Rahardjo [94] experimentally studied the effect of gasifying agent (air + gas. The calorific value of the syngas obtained was observed lower than
steam) injection in an updraft gasifier using rice husk as feedstock. The the typical value of this type of reactor. The higher and lower tar
gasifying agent combination of steam (50%) and air (7/19) was concentration in the producer gas for initial and stabilized gasification
reported an be the optimum value to attain the gasifier bottom was reported to be 1652.7 and 21 mg/Nm3, respectively and the
temperature of 650 °C at 4.5 bar pressure and the syngas with H2/ highest gasification efficiency of 77% was also obtained for the
CO ratio ranging between 1.26 and 1.71 was observed to be the woodchip. Grimm et al. [100] designed a fixed bed updraft gasifier
sufficient of good quality syngas for Fisher-Tropsch synthetic process. for process modelling and compared the characteristics of different
However, the techno-economic study of the entire system was not biomass. The influence of air flow rates on gasification process was also
discussed in the study. observed and reported to be varying from 1.1 to 2.6 m3/h for the

Table 5
Worldwide commercially available fixed bed gasifiers [22,102,103].

Country Gasifier Types Fuel used Capacity Organization/Project

USA Downdraft Hogged wood, stumps 1 MW CLEW

Downdraft Woodchips, corn cobs 40 kW Stwalley Engg.
Denmark Updraft Hazardous, leather waste 2–15 MW DTI
Updraft Straw, woodchips, bark 1–15 MW VOLUND R & D Center
Downdraft Wood residues 0.5 MW Hollesen Engg.
New Zealand Downdraft Wood blocks, chips, coppice willow chips 30 kW Fluidyne
France Downdraft Wood, agro residue 100–600 MW Martezo
UK Downdraft Wood chips, hazelnut shell, MEW 30 kW Newcastle University of Technology
Downdraft Industrial agricultural wastes 300 kW Shawton Engineering
Switzer-land Stratified Woody and agricultural biomass 50–2500 kW DASAG
India Downdraft Wood chips, rice hulls 100 kg/h Associated Engg. Works
Downdraft Wood stalks, cobs, shells, rice husk – Ankur Scientific Energy Technologies
Belgium Small scale Wood chips 160 kW SRC Gazel
South Africa Downdraft Wood blocks, chips, briquettes 30–500 kW SystBM Johansson gas producers
Finland BIONEER updraft Wood chips, straw, RDF pellets, peat 4–5 MW Ahlstrom Corporation, VTT
Netherlands Downdraft Rice husk 150 kW KARA Energy Systems
China Downdraft Sawdust 200 kW Huairou Wood Equipment
Downdraft Crop residues 300 kW Huantai Integrate Gas supply System
China Downdraft Various agricultural and forestry residues 200 kW Tianyan Ltd.
China Fluidized bed Various agricultural and forestry residues 1000 kW Tianyan Ltd.
China Circulating fluidized bed Various agricultural and forestry residues 200–1200 kW GIEC
China Circulating fluidized bed Rice husk, straw, wood sawdust, peanut hull 5.5 MW GIEC
India Downdraft Rice husk 25–100 kW Husk Power Biomass Gasifier plant
India Downdraft Dhaincha, corn cobs, wood and other local plants 128 kW Saran biomass gasifier power plant
India Downdraft Ipomoea, maize residue, dhaincha 20–120 kW Baharbari Village Power Plant, North Bihar
India Downdraft Pine needle 9 kW AVANI biomass gasifier power plant

373
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

biomass amount ranging from 1 to 4 kg. Ernie et al. [101] evaluated the calculated in terms of variation of product gas composition, bed
combustion process of an updraft gasifier by varying the moisture temperature, calorific value, and carbon conversion with different feed
content of wood from 17% to 40% and observed the slower gasification of oxygen and steam. Ruoppola et al. [109] studied the fluidized bed
process with increasing fuel moisture content. Also, the concentration gasification of biomass slurries prepared by biomass residue,
of NO was found to be decreasing while it is observed to be reversed for Indonesian coal, rapeseed oil, and water content of around 45% by
CO concentration with increasing the moisture content of the fuel. The mass at 800 °C and produce a gas with moderate content of H2, CH4
moisture content of 16–17% was also reported to be best for giving and CO. However, the improvement in the conversion of slurry was
outlet operating temperature of 500 °C and the exhaust gas concentra- also observed by the optimization of the operating conditions such as,
tions of 1500 ppm of CO, 2.8% of CO2, 30 ppm of NO and 17.6% of O2, reducing water content of slurries at minimum levels, increasing
respectively in addition to the highest gasification efficiency of 92.7%. reactor temperature, and improving reaction kinetics. Rehmat and
Many countries have developed the technology of fixed bed biomass Goyal [110] evaluated the fuel characteristics such as, physical and
gasification at industrial scale and commercializing the same with great chemical properties, thermobalance and agglomeration bench scale
success. Some of the commercially available fixed bed gasifiers are tests of a U-gas fluidized bed gasification process. The additional
listed in Table 5 [22,102,103]. information regarding gasifier design was also promised to obtain by
testing the feedstock in the U-gas process development unit. Basu et al.
6.3. Previous studies on fluidized bed type gasifiers [111] presented various designs of fluidized beds for gasification and
different versions of fixed bed gasifier and entrained bed reactors were
These gasifiers are the new invention in the evaluation of gasifica- described for small and large capacity units, respectively. Many issues
tion after facing some critical problems in the fixed bed gasifiers as related to the scaling up of fluidized bed gasifier were also examined.
demonstrated in brief in the earlier sections. Due to several advantages Suda et al. [112] studied 5 kg/h dual bubbling fluidized bed gasifier
over fixed bed gasifiers such as high gas yield with considerable low tar coupled to a pneumatic transported riser char combustor using dried
content, high flow rate, multiple applications etc., these gasifiers have coffee grounds. The gasification process was simulated using software
been under the keen research interest among the researchers for the package ASPEN to monitor heat and mass balances and the cold gas
last several decades and is summarized here. Research work carried out efficiency of 75% was also reported. The increase of carbon conversion
in the direction of fluidized bed reactor gasifier is stated as [104–138]: of the fuel was also observed by simple mixing of fuel and Ca catalysts.
Wilk et al. [104] tested a dual fluidized bed gasifier for different However, this study was also unable to reveal the techno-economic
feedstocks such as, waste wood, bark, reed, wood pellets, and wood analysis of the system similar to other studies reported so far. Li et al.
chips. The waste wood and bark were reported to be suitable feedstock [113] experimentally studied biomass gasification process in an air
for the dual fluidized bed gasifier as they yielded the producer gas with blown circulating fluidized bed gasifier by maintaining the operating
less pollutant as compared to the conventional feedstock like wood temperature of 700–850 °C and the sawdust feed material at the rate
pellets and wood chips. Also due to good ash melting behaviour, reed varying from 16 to 45 kg/h. The tar yield from the process was
was also observed to be a suitable feedstock for the fluidized bed observed to be decreased exponentially with increasing the operating
gasifier. Beheshti et al. [105] developed a process model for simulation temperature. Also, various process parameters such as, temperature,
of air steam biomass gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed for syngas air ratio, suspension density, fly air re-injection, and steam injection
production by coupling ASPEN plus simulator and FORTRAN sub- were reported to affect the composition and heating value of the
routines. product gas. A non-stoichiometric equilibrium model with better
The effect of various process parameters such as the gasification experimental data suitability was also developed to predict the gasifier
temperature, steam/biomass ratio, equivalence ratio, and biomass performance. Miao et al. [114] performed the sensitive analysis of
particle size on composition of the syngas was observed and reported biomass gasification in a circulating fluidized bed using one-dimen-
favourability of high temperature for syngas and hydrogen production. sional model. Several process parameters such as, equivalence ratio,
Also, the higher carbon conversion, tar reforming, and gas yield were bed temperature, fluidization velocity, biomass feed rate, and moisture
observed with increase in equivalence ratio however, this reduced the content were considered to evaluate the effects on the performance of
gas calorific value and cold gas efficiency as well. The steam injection the gasifier. The developed model was also observed to be more
was reported as the key factor for producing more hydrogen rich gas. sensitive to the variations in bed temperature and equivalence ratio.
Finally, the developed model was validated with the experimental Kaushal et al. [115] developed the one-dimensional steady state
results and found to be in good agreement with the theoretical model for woody dual fluidized bed gasification reactor comprised of
predictions for the same set of operating parameters. Nagaraja and two zones, namely, dense zone and freeboard zone. The dense zone was
Sundaresan [106] experimentally studied the gasification of Juliflora
chips in a circulating fluidized bed gasifier by maintaining the
gasification temperature and equivalence ratio in the range of 700–
900 °C and 0.2–0.3, respectively. Considering the equivalence ratio and
gasification temperature, variations in producer gas yield composi-
tions, lower heating value, and gasification temperature etc. were also
investigated. The increase in heating value, gas yield, and gasification
efficiency was observed with increase in the gasification temperature.
However, with increase in the equivalence ratio, the gas heating value
was found to be decreasing while the gas temperature was found to be
increasing. With reference to the experimental data, fuel characteristics
of different feedstock were also represented. The effect of temperature
and moisture content on gasification efficiency has also been studied by
[107] and illustrated as given in Fig. 5.
Chatterjee et al. [108] studied a laboratory scale fluidized bed
gasifier using steam and air as the fluidizing media. One-dimensional
analysis of the gasification process incorporating two-phase theory of
fluidization, char gasification, volatile release, and an overall system Fig. 5. Effect of gasification temperature and biomass moisture on gasification efficiency
energy balance was also presented. The results of the process were [107].

374
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

modelled as the bubbling bed reactor with modified two phase theory vary from 1.48 to 10.52 kg/min, 1.76–7.76 horsepower, and 14.49–
whereas the freeboard was modelled as the plug flow reactor. Both the 18.85 mm respectively. Calvo et al. [123] carried out sewage sludge
gas composition and the temperature profile, observed by the model gasification in a fluidized bed reactor and determined the fuel
were reported in good agreement with the values measured of 8 MW characterization, mass and power balances, produced gas composition,
plant in Austria. Engelbrecht et al. [116] studied the bubbling fluidized gas phases, tar concentration, agglomeration tendencies, and gas
bed coal gasification at atmosphere pressure with oxygen and air as the efficiency by adjusting flow and fuel feed rates at different air to fuel
gasifying media at gasification temperature and char residence time ratio varying from 0.2 to 0.4. The problem of material accumulation
varying from 875 to 975 °C and 15–55 min, respectively. The fixed inside the reactor was eliminated by using bed media during gasifica-
carbon conversion was observed to be increasing with both the tion and ultimately improved the gasification efficiency. The producer
temperature and the residence time of char particles in the gasifier. gas heating value, hot gas efficiency, and cold gas efficiency were
The experimental results obtained were calibrated with the commer- reported to be 8.4 MJ/Nm3, 70%, and 57% respectively. Wu et al. [124]
cially available fluidized bed gasifier simulation model and a scale up experimentally studied the fluidized bed gasification of dairy manure in
model of a 15 MW gasifier with the significant improvement was also Box-Behnken Design in terms of the process parameters, namely
recommended. Depending upon the operating conditions and the end temperature, steam to biomass ratio, and equivalence ratio. They
user applications, different types of gasifying agent has been identified observed that the increase in the temperature favoured the formation
with their unique advantages and are shown in Table 6 [22,117]. of all three combustible gases viz. CH4, CO, and H2 but each gas
Dayananda and Sreepathi [118] designed a fluidized bed gasifier behaved differently according to the changing parameters. With the
using chicken litter, sawdust, and rice husk as the feedstock at pilot increase in steam to biomass ratio from 0 to 0.8, the decrease in CH4
scale and investigated the performance of the system in terms of feed concentration was observed, while the H2 concentration was increased.
characteristics (viz. particle size, apparent density, porosity, and On the other hand, the reduction in equivalence ratio from 2 to 0,
sphericity), operating parameters (viz. fluidization velocity, reactor reported rise in the concentration of CO. The lower heating value of
height, air flow rate, equivalence ratio, energy and feed consumption syngas was also obtained and found to vary from 2 to 4.7 MJ/m3.
rate) and producer gas composition. The equivalence ratio varying Pletka et al. [125] studied the indirect heating fluidized bed
from 0.2 to 0.3 was reported to obtain the satisfactory performance of biomass gasification based on the latent heat ballasting having
the system. The results obtained during testing were adequate with the suspended lithium fluoride salt tubes in the reactors. With the ballast,
design procedure adopted and found well suited with the data available energy storage and release occurred during the combustion and
in the literature. Kern et al. [119] developed the dual fluidized bed pyrolysis phase, respectively. Reactor cooling from 1172 to 922 K
steam gasification especially, for the wood chips, however; the analysis was observed during the pyrolysis phase which eventually enhanced the
was carried out by using the wood pellets blended with hard coal as the biomass gasification by 33% in addition to an increase of total fuel
designated feedstock. The feed flow rate was reported to be decreasing fraction from 74% to 80% during a cycle. The higher heating values
from 17.5 to 9.6 kg/h for the coal ratio varying from 0% to 100%. For ranging from 14.2 to 16.6 MJ/Nm3 on dry basis were also reported
higher coal ratios, H2 yield was observed to be increasing with from the ballasted gasifier. Kore et al. [126] investigated the steam
decreasing in CO yield. The main aspects considered while designing gasification of coffee husk in a bubbling fluidized bed gasifier by
the gasifier were identified to be the longer residence time, blending considering the tar content and gas composition as the important
rate, and higher superficial velocities. performance parameters. The effect of tar content on the process was
Ammendola and Scala [120] investigated the fragmentation and found negligible while the gas composition obtained in this system was
attrition process during fluidized bed gasification in terms of bed found to be better as compared to the wood pellets. The study shows
temperature, fluidized velocity, and inlet CO2 concentration etc. and that the coffee husk can be considered as an effective feedstock capable
observed the secondary fragmentation and attrition by abrasion of char of producing the syngas with high constituents such as, 40% of H2, 21%
particles due to gasification assisted attrition enhancement effect. of CO, 20% of CO2 and 6% of CH4 with considerable low tar particles.
During this effect, carbon loss by elutriation was observed to be The lower heating value of syngas was also calculated and reported to
increasing with the increased fluidization velocity and with decreased be 17.2 MJ/kg.
bed temperature and CO2 concentration both. Ramzan et al. [121] Tome et al. [127] investigated the bubbling fluidized bed gasifica-
developed a process model for turbulent pressurized circulating tion of char particles of wood species Afzelia Quazensis and
fluidized bed coal gasifier for the characteristic study of a Pakistani Pterocarpus Angolensis having particle size in the range of 9–13 mm
coal using ASPEN plus software. The concentration of producer gas at 850 °C in a nitrogen flow. The performance of the system was
components such as, H2, CO, CO2, and CH4 get reduced with the analyzed in terms of char fragmentation and the char particles
increase in the air flow rate and hence reduced the lower heating value temperature which was reported to be same as obtained by means of
of syngas by 29.3% as well. Also with the increase in steam flow rate, a energy balance carried out at the particle surface. For char particles of
minute increase of 8% in syngas heating value was reported, while the Pterocarpus Angolensis, the discrepancy was also observed at 900 °C as
increase of steam to coal ratio resulted in the increase in H2 and CO the calculated experimental error was more than acceptable and hence,
concentration but decreased in the concentration of CO2 and conver- suggested more work to be done in this direction. Kalaivani and
sion efficiency of carbon were also reported. The high gasifying agent
temperature was reported to be desirable because it led to the higher
concentration of H2 and CO, increasing in the lower heating value and Table 6
Advantages of various gasifying agents [22,117].
the carbon conversion to make the gasifier more effective for such
applications. Gasifying agents Advantages
Ghaly et al. [122] designed a straw chopping system for fluidized
Air • Partial combustion for heat supply of gasification
• Moderate
bed gasifier and determined the performance characteristics in terms of
char and tar content
rotational speed, feed rate, depth of cut, length of cut, and the energy
required for straw chopping. The increase in straw feed rate was
Oxygen • producer
Minimize tar contents and enrich H , CO and CH
gas
2 4 in

reported due to decrease in depth of cut and increase in cutting speed. • Improve carbon conversion characteristics
On the other hand, the decrease in straw length as feedstock was also Steam • High 3
heating value producer gas (10–15 MJ/m )
• HHighrichheating
producer gas (e.g., 450% by volume)
observed with increasing both depth of cut and cutting speed.
• High H and CO
2
Carbon dioxide value producer gas
Depending upon the depth of cut and cutting speed; feed rate, power
consumption, and straw length for chopping straw were reported to
• 2 and low CO in producer gas
2

375
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

Saravanan [128] designed a bio semi-fluidized by mixing a fluidized gasifier. The effects of various operating parameters such as, the
and a fixed bed with single contacting vessel to improve the overall equivalence ratio, temperature, and air preheating were studied and
efficiency of the system. They conducted the experiments in a 0.1 m their influence on syngas composition, heating value, and conversion
internal diameter bio semi-fluidized bed to study the hydrodynamic efficiency was also examined. Both gas heating value and effectiveness
behaviour of the system and derived a correction for pressure friction of air preheating were observed to be decreasing function of the
factor based on the experimental results. Through mixing of fluidized equivalence ratio which seems to be an effective approach in this
and fixed bed in series, the friction factor was reported to increase by system. Sarker et al. [136] experimentally studied the pilot scale
3.9% and hence, the formation of packing inside the designed fluidized bubbling fluidized bed gasification of alfalfa pellets at two different
bed reactor was also increased. The study was observed to be helpful in equivalence ratios of 0.25 and 0.30, respectively while keeping the
designing the reactor of a fluidized bed reactor. feeding rate to be constant at 4.7 kg/h with increase in air flow ranging
Sciazko and Stepien [129] presented an equilibrium modelling of from 4.16 to 4.99 Nm3/h. They reported that there is an increase in the
the coal gasification using thermodynamic analysis of various chemical lower heating value and gas yield of 4.2 MJ/Nm3 and 1.5 Nm3/kg
reactions inside a circulating fluid bed reactor. The formation of respectively, in addition to the higher concentration of CO without
different eight key gaseous species like CO, CO2, H2O, H2, H2S, N2, affecting the rest of the combustible components. Also, the total char
COS, and CH4 was reported and observed the presence of volatile and tar yields were obtained to be 282 g/kg and 1.1 g/Nm3 respec-
hydrocarbons in the form of propane and benzene, while the tar tively, for the gasification temperature of 800 °C. Fremaux et al. [137]
content was existing in the aromatic form of naphthalene, and the investigated the effect of various process parameters such as, steam/
presence of char in the form of C, H, O, N, S in addition to the other biomass ratio, time duration, reactor temperature, and biomass
inorganic matter was also identified. Xu et al. [130] experimentally particle size on hydrogen yield in a fluidized bed reactor using wood
studied the two stage dual fluidized bed gasification having fuel in the residue as the feeding material. They carried out a number of
lower stage for product gas up gradation and simultaneously occur- experiments considering the particle size varying from 0.5 to 5 mm
rence of elutriation of fuel particles similarly as in normally encoun- at the reactor temperatures varying from 700 to 900 °C and observed a
tered dual fluidized bed gasification. In this system, the heat carrier significant increase in the hydrogen output with decreased particle size
particles got upgraded and attained the endothermic heat for pyrolysis and increased reactor temperature. The increase in hydrogen yield was
and gasification reactions in upper and lower stages, respectively. They also reported with increasing the time duration of the experiments
observed an increase of 7% in cold gas efficiency while a decrease of which found in good agreement with the results available in the
25% tar content in the produced gas which seems to be contradicted literature.
and encountered the dual fluidized bed gasification reported in the Simanjuntak and Zainal [138] studied sawdust gasification in a
literature. Schmid et al. [131] designed a dual fluidized bed gasifier by cylindrical fluidized bed gasifier comprised of two zones, namely,
combining air/combustion and a fuel/gasification reactor to generate a gasification zone in the annulus and combustion zone in the draft
nitrogen free product gas with low tar content. The global circulation tube. They also studied the effects of equivalence ratio varying from
rate was driven by the gas velocity in air/combustion reactor whereas 0.148 to 0.203 on the system stabilization temperature, composition,
the gas velocity in fuel/gasification reactor was chosen to minimize the heating value of producer gas, and gasifier performance. It is also
coarse particle entrainment at the top to enhance the gas phase observed that at an equivalence ratio of 0.185, the composition of gas
conversion and reduces the tar formation. was found to be 3.13% of H2, 2.28% of O2, 25.8% of CO, 8.2% of CH4,
Abdollahi-Neisiani et al. [132] developed a steady state mathema- and 22.48% of CO2 with heating value of 6.96 MJm−3. The fraction of
tical model for a rotating fluidized bed gasifier considering the reactor CO and CH4 were observed to be higher as compared to the previous air
hydrodynamic with devolatilization kinetics, char gasification, and blown fluidized bed gasifier studied by earlier workers in this section.
combustion of both char and gas species. The outputs of the model Banerjee et al. [139] developed a kinetic model for various feedstocks
were compared with the experimental and simulation results to check including the pine, maple-oak mixture, seed corn, corn stoner, and
the system suitability and the improvement in the gasification process switchgrass under enriched air with oxygen varying from 21% to 45%
was also observed for the same equivalence ratio which is due to the and steam conditions. The model was observed to be sensitive to the
improved heat and mass transfer and gas-solid contact. Petersen and variation in oxygen level, steam flow rate, and biomass composition
Werther [133] developed a three-dimensional modelling for sewage and an increase in the concentrations of hydrogen, carbon monoxide,
sludge gasification in a circulating fluidized bed considering the radial and methane were identified with the increase in the oxygen level and
profiles of velocities and fluid mechanics and examined the influence of steam gasification. However, the results were not compared with the
axial location and the number of feeding points required for different experimental observations.
scales. In the sewage sludge, the fast volatiles decomposition and high Thakkar et al. [140] experimentally studied the fluidized bed
volatile content were reported and observed incomplete mixing of gas gasification of rice husk in terms of extraction of silica, energy and
around the feeding port and formation of plumes with high pyrolysis cost analysis. Two catalysts, namely dolomite and olivine, were used in
gas concentrations. Thus, in the case of high volatile fuels, a large an optimum combination with the sand bed for equivalence ratios (ER)
number of fuel feeding ports were highly recommended for better varying from 0.28 to 0.35. At ERs of 0.3 and 0.33, the tar and
mixing of gas to improve the overall performance of the system. suspended particulate matter obtained for dolomite were reported to
Ruoppolo et al. [134] experimentally studied the gasification of wood be 45% and 50%, whereas for olivine these quantities were reported to
and olive husk/coal pellets using oxygen and steam as the gasification be 41% and 44%, respectively. However, olivine consumed 66% less
medium in a pre-pilot scale bubbling fluidized bed reactor having two- energy for bed heating and generated less fine particles than dolomite.
bed materials, namely, inert quartzite and Ni-alumina catalyst. The Further, the silica extraction of 60% was also reported with significant
influence of various process parameters such as, equivalent ratio, improvement in thermal efficiency (5–7%) via the use of catalysts.
steam-oxygen ratio, and bed temperature on the gas concentration, Makwana et al. [141] carried out the gasification of rice husk in a
tar conversion efficiency, and syngas heating value were also evaluated bubbling fluidized bed reactor for numerous values of process para-
in detail. They reported the highest char carbon conversion and a meters such as bed temperature (750–850 °C), feeding rate (25–
limited amount of N2 in oxygen enrichment of gasification while the tar 31.3 kg/h) and equivalence ratio (0.3–0.38). The bed heating with
content and CO2 level were also found to be higher in contrast with the charcoal significantly reduced the energy required for the gasification
air-steam gasification arrangement. process. The carbon conversion efficiency, cold gas efficiency and
Doherty et al. [135] developed a simulation and equilibrium model thermal efficiency were obtained to be approximately 91%, 68% and
based on Gibbs free energy minimization for a circulating fluidized bed 70%, respectively. This study also reported the same values of ER (0.3

376
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

and 0.33) to obtain the better carbon conversion efficiency, as well as However, the gas composition and impurities concentration depends
cold and hot gas efficiency. Loha et al. [142] thermodynamically on the gasifier design, feedstock type, gasifying agent and other process
analyzed the hydrogen-rich syngas obtained from the fluidized bed parameters. The producer gas at gasifier outlet must be cooled before
gasification of rice husk. The energy and exergy efficiencies were the end use which otherwise lowers the process efficiency particularly
observed to be maximums at the carbon boundary point and were in the downstream applications. Also, there are different types of
determined to be 94% and 82%, respectively. The higher calorific value cooling devices available such as, gas coolers and water coolers to cool
was reported to rise with increasing steam to biomass ratio and to down the heated air to the ambient temperature conditions while
decrease with increasing gasification temperature and energy input. cleaning it up to some extent. In gas cooling arrangements, the natural
Based on equilibrium constants, an equilibrium model was also and forced gas coolers are available in which the former, transfer the
developed and the results obtained were also found to be good heat along the length of pipe and does not require additional energy
agreement with the experimental data available in the literature. source for its functioning and simple in construction but they are bulky
In another study [143], the same author also suggested the use of in size. In the later, an addition electrical device such as, fun is required
silica sand to improve the fluidization characteristics of rice husk, for fast heat transfer through the pipe and hence, required an
which is non-granular in nature. The effects of various operation additional energy source for operation.
parameters, such as reactor temperature, equivalence ratio and steam On the other hand, water cooler has been observed an efficient
to biomass ratio, on the heating value and composition of the product method of gas cooling, while scrubber and heat exchanger are the two
gas were investigated. An increase in gasification temperature and kind of water coolers in which the condensed tar contents made a direct
steam to biomass ratio resulted in an increase in the heating value and contact with the circulated water and hence get it contaminated which
hydrogen percentage of the product gas. However, the reverse was true is very difficult to maintain. On the other hand, in water cooled heat
with increasing equivalence ratio. At a gasification temperature of exchanger, the cleanliness of the circulated water can be restored and
850 °C and a steam to biomass ratio of 0.8, the maximum heating value the power required for water circulation can also be justified. In the gas
of 4.26 MJ/Nm3 and hydrogen percentage of 13.1% were obtained in cleaning, generally, the impurity concentrations particularly tar and
the product gas. Kook et al. [144] investigated the effect of gasification solid particulates remains above the range as enumerated in previous
temperature, equivalence ratio (ER) and the addition of a catalyst on sections than the pragmatic due to process complexity and the
the gasification of rice husk in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor. handling limitations. However, a requisite amount of such particles is
Decreases in the concentrations of CO and CO2 were observed with acceptable in some of the downstream applications such as internal
increasing ER, although the concentrations of CH4 and H2 were combustion engines, turbines and fuel cells, as presented in Table 7.
reported to rise with increasing gasification temperature. However, Therefore, the cleaning of producer gas is very important for
increasing the value of ER was also found to lead to a lower product gas various heat and power generation applications and there are two
heating value and cold gas efficiency. Moreover, increases in gasifica- major cleaning options viz. physical and chemical processes to clean up
tion temperature and ER values resulted in reducing the tar content of the producer gas and are given in detail as below [69,150–178]:
the product gas.
Manatura et al. [145] carried out an exergy analysis of a bubbling
fluidized bed gasification of torrefied rice husk pellets and studied the 7.1. Physical gas cleaning processes
influence of equivalence ratio and torrefaction temperature on the
exergetic performance of the system. The overall energy efficiency of Physical gas cleaning is one of the simplest cleaning methods
the combined torrefaction-gasification process was observed to be comprised of either filtration or wet scrubbing of contaminated product
affected mainly due to two factors i.e. the energy loss in the volatile gas through gas to solid or gas to liquid interactions. The gas cleaning
gas and the electric energy input to the process. For torrefaction using simple filtration may be carried out at high or low-temperature
temperatures of 250 and 350 °C, the overall exergy efficiencies were conditions, however, the wet scrubbing usually carried out at low or
obtained to be 30% and 21%, respectively. Singh et al. [146] reviewed ambient temperature conditions. Also, the filter hauling high tempera-
the gasification of rice husk and rice straw in a fluidized bed reactor ture must have temperature tolerable materials such as, ceramics,
and concluded that the operation results of pure rice straw based composites, sand and fiberglass whereas the low-temperature filters
gasifer is scant as there are number of problems associated with the can have charcoal, cotton fibers etc. as the heat resistant material.
rice husk due to high content of silica, low density, etc. Further, the However, the fouling of tar or solid particulates is the major problem in
fluidized bed gasification of rice husk and rice straw was reported to be both states of the filtration as it creates a huge pressure drop due to
the most advantageous option for eliminating waste disposal problems enormous clogging of filter pores. This problem can also be shorted out
and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural based using the wet scrubbing which scavenges the matter particles but the
countries, globally. Ghani et al. [147] examined a fluidized bed handling of the large volume of contaminated wet effluent is not eco-
gasification of rice husk for several operating parameters such as, friendly and it pollutes the environment. Many experts are working in
gasification temperature (750–1100 °C), equivalence ratio (0.22– the direction of producer gas cleaning using physical filtration methods
0.27), particle size (0.2–1 mm) and a constant feed rate (13 g/min). however, the problem of clogging and deposition of gas particles is still
The increase in gasification temperature resulted in an increase in the unresolved. Also, the quality of gas cleaning highly depends on the
gas yield and hydrogen production. The maximum volume percentages process parameters such as, water flow rate and there is a need to work
of H2, CO and CH4 were obtained to be 27, 7.4 and 10.8, respectively. more in this direction.
The effect of water flow rate on tar content of producer gas was
7. Syngas conditioning observed and reported a decrease in the tar content with increase in

The gas produced during a biomass gasification process consists of Table 7

Acceptable range of tar and other particles for various applications [148,149].
a mixture of various gases such as carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen
(H2), carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrogen (N2), water Constitutes IC engine Gas turbine Fuel cell
vapors (H2O) etc. and other undesirable impurities such as tar, solid
particulates, ammonia, hydrochloric acid, sulfur compounds and alkali Particles (mg/Nm3) < 50 < 30 –
Particulate matter (μm) < 100 <5 <1
metal species. The gas cannot be used as such in the end use
Tar (mg/Nm3) < 10 <5 <1
applications. Thus, it must be cooled and cleaned properly for smooth Alkali metals (mg/Nm) – < 0.24 –
and efficient operations viz. engine application and biofuel production.

377
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

water flow rate [69]. A high-temperature granular bed filtration was trapping the particulate matter and ammonia contents in the end
also fabricated and investigated under several field conditioning at product and thus observed to be suitable for downstream applications
550 °C. Moreover, the designed filtration was reported to be better than [161,162]. A comprehensive research has been carried out in past years
the bed filtration method [150]. The wet scrubber using liquid other in the direction of catalytic cracking and the developments of various
than water was also designed to remove the tar components through catalysts. Also, different types of catalysts such as dolomites, olivine
condensation above 25 °C [151]. In another research, the vegetable oil and FCC have been investigated to find to be the best solutions of tar
and char based filters were used to clean the gas from heavy and light cracking. The optimum process conditions with certain pre-treatment
tar particles. The oil turbulence was reported as the main factor helping methods were also suggested to prolong the catalyst life [163].
in absorption of heavy tar particles [152]. However, the pre-treatment In another research, three catalysts, namely, alumina extrudes,
of vegetable oil and char was absent from the study. A venture dolomite and olivine were tested at 300–500 °C and 800 °C each with
scrubbing system capable of cleaning the gas with the tar concentration gas flow rate of 0.5–2.4 L/min, respectively. The tar cracking efficiency
below 20–40 mg/Nm3 was also reported. Moreover, the use of barrier of 71%, 92% and 89% was obtained for alumina extrude, dolomite and
filters and cyclone were not observed to be effective due to small size of olivine, respectively. However, the tar cracking efficiency of alumina
the tar particles [153]. In recent research activities, the ceramic filters extrude obtained was lower and at the same time, the temperature of
have been developed to haul the high range of temperature varying the end product was also reported lower [164]. Zeolite based catalysts
from 600 to 800 °C during the cleaning of gas produced from steam-O2 produced less carbon depositions as compared to metal oxide produ-
biomass gasification [154]. Also, the different types of filters have been cing dark colored tar and the tar deposition has been observed
developed since so far but the bottleneck of pressure drop across the decreasing with increasing the gasification temperature on catalyst
filtration is still rigid due to particle deposition. use [165]. The hydrogen yield has been reported increasing due to tar
destruction at higher temperature and catalyst cracking having reform-
7.2. Thermal decomposition ing and shift reactions [166]. In these studies, the deactivation of
catalyst due to ash fouling and carbon deposition on catalyst surface
The high-temperature filtration and particle deposition related has been observed which resulted in longer catalyst activity in the
problems can also be controlled through thermal degradation of heavy gasification bed and hence, identified as the severe problem in catalytic
aromatic tar compounds into the small or lighter species such as decomposition. In a novel investigation, rhodium (Rh) has been
methane, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide at a higher temperature reported to be very fast for catalytic activity in primary and secondary
around 1000 °C [155]. As the heavy tar compounds may cause serious gasification bed at lower tar cracking temperature varying from 500 to
limitations such as, engine wears including high maintenance cost in 700 °C. However, the sintering of catalyst through scanning electron
the power generation application [156]. Some of the tar compounds imaging has been observed and later it was overcome with the addition
such as, heterocyclic aromatic and heavy polyaromatic which dominat- of SiO2 in CeO2 and Rh as Rh/CeO2/SiO2 [167–177]. But, the use of
ing the tar composition and are difficult to decompose can be such catalysts for long run experiments has to be investigated
condensed to a low concentration of 0.1 mg/Nm3 [157]. The thermal thoroughly.
decomposition of wood and sawdust using intra-particles was obtained From the literature, iron and nickel based catalysts were found to
at 400–500 °C and lower temperature of 380 °C was observed to be be widely investigated due to their economic viability. However, these
insufficient to control the amount of volatile matter in the pyrolysis catalysts are highly recommended for short run experiments only and
process [158]. The tar yield in a gasification process has been reported the temperature requirement for tar destruction has been observed to
to increase with increasing the gasification temperature up to certain be varying from 500 to 900 °C with significant increase in the calorific
limit viz. 600 °C and then started decreasing due to formation of value of the end product gas but the tar destruction at higher
secondary tar cracking reactions. The equivalence ratio was also temperature has to be evaluated thoroughly in terms of the cost
observed to be affecting the tar formation however; it resulted in benefits because it is assumed that it might not be the very economic
reduction of the heating value of end product [159]. A tar limit above process due to the presence of many complications and material
50–100 mg/Nm3 was reported critical for the end use applications and degradation in it.
suggested the producer gas conditioning using thermal, catalytic
cracking and physical tar removing techniques to obtain the clean 8. Technological and commercial barriers in biomass
gas. The catalytic cracking was observed to be more effective among the gasification
rest but not found to be economical for the small-scale applications
[148]. A tar cracking efficiency of 28.66% was reported in the rice hull Since many decades, biomass gasification has been recognized as a
gasification for power generation. However, the aromatic and carbon well-established technology however, some technological and commer-
extent of un-cracked tar were observed to be high. Moreover, the cial barriers still exist in its implementation at higher scale and hence,
pressure drop across the cracking reactor resulted in acceleration of tar limits the commercial development of the technology. Asadullah [178]
cracking at high-temperature conditions [160]. investigated the barriers in the process of biomass gasification used for
electricity generation in terms of supply chain management, gas
7.3. Catalytic conversion cleaning, biomass conversion and its pre-treatment for power genera-
tion. Even having different types of gasifier and catalytic tar separation
As mentioned in the previous investigations, the downstream methods, the need for an efficient method has been observed for
applications such as, gas turbines and internal combustion engines successive commercialization of the technology. Zhang et al. [179]
require very less tar concentration of 50–100 mg/Nm3 which is not studied the barriers in the commercialization of crop straw gasification
possible to achieve using thermal tar cracking. So, in such cases, the in terms of low price of fuel gas, high initial investment, few technology
catalytic conversion method has been reported suitable to meet the users, underdeveloped crop straw gasification technology, improper
stringent requirement of less tar and ammonia contents. In contrast process testing for standardization and the lack of infrastructure and
with physical and thermal cracking method of gas cleaning, the government policies for the promotion of the technology. In a study
catalytic process operates at the same temperature as existing gas [180], the technical barriers in the hydrogen production for the fuel
having without further heat up or cools down. But in the case of cells were also identified in the form of feedstock cost and availability.
physical cleaning system, the end product gas is required to cool down Besides, the commercial barriers associated with the biomass gasifica-
before the end use application and hence, decrease the thermal tion, pyrolysis, and reforming technology, particularly in the efficiency
efficiency of the system. The catalytic process is also capable in throughput were also highlighted in the study. The hydrogen separa-

378
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

tion and purification were also identified to be the crucial steps in the 9. Techno-economic study of biomass gasification
process economy and hence, the commercialization of the technology
was observed to be depending on the process viability, easiness and the The techno-economic study is the most important analysis of any
site of technology development at a particular region. biomass gasification system to identify its social, economic feasibility
In another study [181], various opportunities and barriers were any large-scale dissemination of any system in the field. Basically, it
evaluated for the biomass pyrolysis and gasification in terms of their includes the performance evaluation of the designed system in terms of
efficiency and socio-economic sustainability. Besides the concept of its efficiency, capital cost, operating and maintenance cost, gas
biorefinery, the various other policy and financial instruments were production rate, payback periods, acceptance of the technology and
also discussed for the promotion of the technology. Ruiz et al. [182] the cost effectiveness of the entire system. Such investigations depend
presented barriers in terms of research conducted in biomass gasifica- on many parameters such as, availability of raw biomass material at the
tion, government support and policies, gasifier design parameters and gasification site, gas production capacity, gas quality required, process
related constraints. However, some of the operating parameters such as effectiveness, design optimization, and the end user applications. Some
gasification reaction temperature, equivalent ratio, and variable bio- of such studies have been summarized and are given in Table 8.
mass moisture content have been observed to be very critical and
reported them as the constraints in the progress of the technology. In
addition to them, some other technological barriers associated with the 10. Global scenario on gasification systems
technology of biomass gasification have been identified as (a) Physical
characteristics of raw biomass material vary at wider range which Finding a way to energy security is the prior concern of nearly every
raises the requirement of gasifier flexibility for processing of different nation. In the present energy scenario, none of the countries has been
kind of feedstock; (b) Biomass handling and management has been identified to be capable of fulfilling the mass-energy requirements
observed another severe problem in the commercial diffusion of the independently. The global energy demand is estimated to rise 56% by
technology; (c) Biomass ash formed during the process has high the end of 2040 with share of the developing world. Of course, this
tendency of polluting the environmental air and (d) The presence of would result in a good cause in terms of individual prosperity,
tar in the end product is highly inclined to the fouling and plugging of infrastructure, national economies and living conditions as well.
the plant pipelines and hence, creates high obstruction in the smooth Besides, we must be careful about the energy resources, fulfilling our
processing of the unit. Since the tar abatement has been observed to be energy requirements which are only available in exhaustible form. This
very serious problem and can only be controlled up to some extent dependency on such energy resources can be reduced or even
using tar catalytic or thermal cracking technology as described in detail eliminated through the use of gasification. On another side, diversifica-
in the previous section [183]. tion of energy resources is also crucial. Recently in 2014, even though
From the various studies carried out by the earlier researchers having the ample of natural gas, United States faced rapid spikes in the
[178–183], it has been observed that the technology developers and the natural gas prices due to extreme cold in the winter season. To avoid
government policies are playing the pivotal role in the dissemination the price uncertainty, many nations came forward with strong strate-
and commercialization of the technology for the replacement of the gies to develop and generate the indigenous energy resources for the
exhaustible energy resources. So, it can be concluded that some sustainable growth of the region. Again, gasification facilities can be
approaches from the technology developers such as, minimization of developed to fulfill the energy demand of different regions. Gasification
the overall cost, easiness of the process, automation etc. can be taken can offer environmental benefits by reducing the emissions which are
up for the commercialization of the technology. Besides, the policy increasing day by day, globally. Other environmental protecting
makers and the governmental bodies can take some useful initiatives techniques can be developed to capture the carbon emissions produc-
such as subsidization in the technology implementation, loan facilities tion of low-sulfur transportation fuels. Gasification is having many
and providing infrastructure to the users. undeniable advantages besides the protection of the environment from
emissions.
In the present context, the continuous advancements in the
gasification technologies made it alive since many years. Now, the

Table 8
Techno-economic study of biomass gasification.

Authors Year Remarks

Parajuli PB, Deng Y, Kim H, Yu F [184] 2014 Developed a cost analysis model to study the cost analysis of syngas production and observed its inclination from
$0.543 Nm−3 to $0.043 Nm−3 for an increase in production capacity from 60 to 1800 Nm3h−1. The higher production
capacity was also suggested to reduce the unit cost of syngas production.
Antonia DD, Cividino SRS, Malev O, Pergher G, 2014 Presented the technical and economic aspects of combined heat and power biomass system with gasification,
Gubiani R [185] combustion, and Stirling engine using Net Present Value methodology to identify the best possible technological
solution for gas plant construction. The gasification plant with Stirling engine was observed more reliable however,
the investment cost associated with it was reported much higher (€ 7429/kWe) as compared to the combustion engine
(€ 4040/kWe) with 4–5 year of remuneration time.
Andersson J, Lundgren J [186] 2014 Evaluated techno-economic analysis of NH3 production via integrated biomass gasification in a pulp and paper mill by
comparing the results with a standalone production case. The process economic and energy performance was reported
to be high in the integrated case as compared to the standalone production case; however, high NH3 selling price was
required for the economic feasibility of both the production cases.
Muresan M, Cormos CC, Agachi PS [187] 2013 Investigated the biomass co-firing on hydrogen production and reported the results in terms of energy efficiency,
syngas composition, hydrogen production rate and cost, CO2 capture rate, gasification plan benefit etc. The highest
capital and operating cost was observed in coal gasification alone and reported to decrease with increase in biomass
quantity. The variable operating cost was also observed high in coal gasification due to increasing in coal
transportation distance.
Rodrigues M, Faaij APC, Walter A [188] 2003 Carried out the techno-economic analysis of a co-fired biomass integrated gasification system using sugar cane residue
as the feedstock. The mixing of low calorific value gas and natural gas resulted in reduction in electricity cost and
reported cost effective up to 50% proportion of natural gas in the mixture. The sensitive analysis of the system was
also carried out in terms of efficiency, combined cycle capital costs, gas clean-up equipment, and biomass fuel costs.

379
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

tedious technology has become very attractive with more flexibility, can be obtained in the downdraft gasifier without throat.
large in scale and finds its place in many new applications such as The high tar content in the producer gas restricts the use of gasifier
fertilizers, chemical, hydrogen, substitute natural gas etc. to gain to some applications only such as, furnaces, oven heating and other
prominence than ever before. Now a day, liquid fuels through the direct heating applications. The amount of tar in the producer gas is
gasification process, become the sole purpose of industries due to more reported to be highly dependent on the operating temperature condi-
viability and economic growth. About 25% of world's ammonia and tions, kind of feedstock and the reactor design. Overall, the downdraft
over 30% of world's methanol is being produced using gasification gasifiers are capable of producing the good gas quality with short
through the fermentation process. The large spread of gasification starting time for the engine and variable moisture content of the
technology can ensure socioeconomic development, energy security biomass. The gas yield obtained from the downdraft gasifier is more
and emissions-free atmosphere. In addition, more variations in the due to consumption of tar content and hence, they are among the best
present technology can be foreseen in terms of cost reduction through suited for the number of applications where clean gas with control
integration with other energy systems and hybrid design of the temperature is required. The main applications of these gasifiers are in
hardware. Even though biomass gasification provides the benefits of internal combustion engines, backing ovens, boilers, dryers, direct fired
a well-proven technology but still it faces challenges, however, in the rotary kilns etc. The lower conversion efficiency and difficulties in
recent upswing, particularly china has demonstrated the technology handling higher moisture content of fuel are the limitations in these
advantages by utilizing it in the domestic energy sector for the gasifiers.
manufacturing of commercial products. Besides, the carbon-based On the other hand [85–101], the updraft gasifier are not so popular
feedstock gasification can be designed to operate under different raw and almost obsoleted due to their critical drawbacks such as, great tar
materials such as coal, natural gas, wastes, biomass and blends of sensitiveness and moisture content of the feedstock, the low production
various feedstock elements. Having such diversity in gasification of syngas, long start up time of engine, and the poor reaction capability.
process would address the energy security concerns in a better way. The average equivalence ratio and the moisture handling capacity of
Coal has been reported to be widely used in the modern gasification these gasifiers are reported to vary from 0.24 to 0.27 and 20–45%,
technology. Countries like China have started to reserve their coal respectively. The updraft gasifiers are comparatively very good in the
basket for future gasification projects. The Gasification Technologies thermal efficiency (93–97%) as compared to the downdraft gasifier but
Council is continuously monitoring the database of gasification at the tar content in fuel gas obtained is reported to be very high ( >
worldwide. 100 mg/Nm3) due to incomplete reduction and thermal cracking of
In 2014, a total of 747 gasification projects having 1741 gasifier are volatile materials and hence, they are suited for the applications where
planned to carry out. Out of this figure, 234 projects with 618 gasifiers moderate amounts of dust in fuel gas are acceptable with high flame
are successfully commercialized. In the year 2013, 61 projects with 202 temperature. The main applications of these gasifiers are in thermal
gasifiers were under construction mode whereas 98 facilities with 550 fluid heaters, rotary type roasters, packaged boilers, fryers, and
gasifiers are in planning phase. So, the data figure shows a significant annealing furnace.
growth in this sector and thus the gasification technology is being The fluidized bed type gasifiers [104–147] are reported process
reintroduced at large scale worldwide. Some of the major institutes effective due to their various unique characteristics such as, uniform
across the world working on the biomass-based gasification systems particle mixing which results in more thermal cracking of volatile
has been identified as Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand; materials because of better heat transfer among the particles, uniform
Austria and Zaragoza University, Spain; Aston University, UK; VIT temperature gradient, and are capable to operate in continuous state
Gasification Centre, Finland; Battle Columbus Laboratories, USA; while withdrawing and introducing new reactants into the reaction
National Renewable Energy Laboratories, USA; Biomass Energy vessel. These gasifiers are basically designed to operate at the tem-
Foundation, USA; Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden; Delft perature range varying from 800 to 900 °C to avail both the features of
University of Technology, Netherlands; Kansas State University, USA; thermal reduction at high temperature and prevention of the bed
Chinese Academy of Agricultural and Mechanical Systems, China; material from melting. The equivalence ratio is lying in the same range
International Energy Agency (IEA) Bioenergy, USA; The Energy & of fixed bed gasifier, however, the conversion efficiency of these
Resources Institute (TERI), India; Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), gasifiers is far better than the fixed bed gasifiers and reported to be
Mumbai, India; Indian Institute of Sciences (IISc), India; Ministry of up to 98% if the process is designed to operate at optimum operating
New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), India; Danish Technical conditions. Also in some cases, the conversion efficiency is reported to
University (DTU), Denmark; IOWA State University, USA; European be lower (70%) due to the stickiness of the biomass particles with each
Commission Directorate General for Energy, Belgium [21,189,190]. other.
As compared to the bubbling fluidized bed, circulating fluidized bed
11. Discussion of results reactor can achieve better solid conversion, fuel size flexibility, and
high velocities. The circulating fluidized bed reactors are also observed
So far different types of gasifiers under different feedstocks and to be easily scalable and are reliable over a wide range of feedstocks.
operating conditions have been explained with their merits and However, these gasifiers are also affected by the tar and dust problems
demerits. However, each type of gasifier has its own importance and which reported to be up to 50 mg/Nm3, depending upon the type of
significance depending upon the type of application, operating condi- feedstock and operating conditions. The acceptable tar level from
tion and the economic viability. From the various studies [58–84], it different gasifier namely, downdraft, updraft, and fluidized bed type
has been concluded that the fixed bed downdraft gasifiers are more gasifiers is usually in the range of 0.01–6 g/Nm3, 50 g/Nm3, and 6–
practical for the production of clean gas with a considerable high 12 g/Nm3 respectively [21,23]. In the present scenario of the fluidiza-
average calorific value of 6.5 MJ/Nm3 to be used in the various thermal tion bed gasifier, the research focus is to quantify and explain the phase
and engine applications at small scale power generation. The highest interaction behaviour in the bed which includes particle size distribu-
conversion efficiency and hot gas efficiency of the downdraft gasifier are tions, phase interactions, particles stickiness, various transfer coeffi-
reported to be 75% and 86%, respectively. Besides, the optimum value cient, pressure velocity effects, and computational modelling.
of the equivalence ratio has been observed to vary from 0.19 to 0.32 Among all, the downdraft gasifiers with throat are in recent trends
depending on the types of feedstock and the quality of the producer gas and under the keen attention of researchers worldwide because they
to be obtained. The downdraft gasifiers with throat are identified to be have the capacity to produce mechanical and electrical power from
more suitable for the production of syngas with less tar content different biomass feedstock in small scale at affordable price. Due to
however, the syngas with maximum tar content up to 45 mg/Nm3 the high potential of tar cracking and conversion efficiency, tar

380
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

production in downdraft gasifiers is also much lower as compared to 13. Future directions
those of the updraft and fluidized bed type gasifiers. Although, the
downdraft gasifier with throat are very much popular for the quality gas Among the various types of biomass gasifier, downdraft gasifiers
production from the high-density raw biomass but they are not with throat have been reported superior in quality syngas production.
reported suitable for the low-density biomass fuels due to bridging Due to the sustainable production of combustible fuels and energy
and channeling of biomass in the flow lines. Thus, the selection of a effectiveness, they have been observed suitable for various engine and
particular gasifier is to be made depending on the quality of the gas, thermal applications at higher scale. Since the gasifier reactor, gas
requirement of the end-user and the availability and characteristics of cooling and cleaning system is the most important part of downdraft
the feedstock at a particular location, as their performance depends on gasifier and hence, a significant improvement in it could lead to the
many numbers of factors as described in this article. In addition, the better energy efficient system. Therefore, in recent trends, some
biomass gasification systems are observed to be facing the economic investigations in this direction have been made and still of considerable
and non-technical barriers in their progress and so it is also suggested interest such as incorporation of heat recovery devices, improved tar
that the economic development of biomass gasification system can be cracking methods, reuse of biochar as feedstock, the transformation of
achieved through the integration of biomass system with other renew- ash and tar contents into the value-added products, steam gasification
able energy systems. for hydrogen yield, pre-treatment of raw feedstock etc. However, the
catalyst used in catalytic conversion should be investigated thoroughly
12. Conclusions in terms of their chemical stability and compatibility with the existing
system to ensure the constant temperature of the process.
The biomass has been observed as a potential source of energy and Furthermore, the pre-treatment of raw biomass can be carried out
hence, capable of maintaining the balance between energy supply and using the heat recovery devices incorporated with the system, itself. It
energy demand of the modern society, worldwide. In biomass energy is also suggested to optimize each step involved in the process for better
generation, thermochemical processing among rest of the technologies techno-economic feasibility of these systems. Besides, the computer
available has attracted particular attention for converting biomass into technology may further to be exploited to design the better simulation
more value-added products. The biomass gasification has been con- and evaluation tools to investigate the process characteristics before
sidered as one of the most promising renewable energy conversion fabrication of the final product. Also before the system scaling, it is
route particularly, for engine and thermal applications. In this review highly recommended to analyze the simulation model and forecasts the
article, the followings have been illustrated: system for short and long terms performance parameter, which
ultimately may help in the investigation of the techno-economic
• The present status of biomass gasifier with respect to the developing viability and benefits in long term. In addition, the government policies
countries is reviewed. should be highly inclined towards the promotion of these cleaner
• A comprehensive review on the design, development, and perfor- technologies for futuristic orientations, in this regard, so that such
mance evaluation of various types of biomass gasifiers has been practices would help in rectifying the technological and commercial
presented. barriers for a wide range of dissemination in the field.
• Technological and commercial barriers in biomass gasification have
been depicted. Acknowledgements
• Techno-economic study of various types of biomass gasifiers has
been demonstrated. The fruitful suggestions and friendly comments made by the
• Global scenario and future directions on biomass gasification have anonymous Reviewers of this manuscript are highly appreciated. A
been illustrated. thorough editing of the manuscript was done which has now improved
the outlook of the entire manuscript and we express our gratefulness to
Fixed and fluidized bed reactor gasifiers are the most practical the reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief for the same.
option for the production of combustible gases at small or medium
scale power generation schemes or thermal applications. However, the References
choice of gasification system depends on many factors such as biomass
characterization, gasifier capacity, end use applications etc. In com- [1] Overend RP . Direct combustion of biomass. Renewable Energy sources charged
prehensive review, updraft gasifier has been reported suitable essen- with energy from the sun and originated from earth-moon interaction. 〈http://
www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c08/e3-08-01-04.pdf〉
tially for thermal applications because the tar and particulates level is [2] Kucuk MM, Demirbas A. Biomass conversion processes. Energy Conversat Mgmt
considerably high and observed to vary from 50 to 100 g/Nm3 and 1997;38:151–65.
above. On contrary, downdraft gasifiers are found prominent for both [3] Pathak B, Chaudhari S, Fulekar MH. Biomass - resource for sustainable devel-
opment. Int J Adv Res Technol 2013;2(6):271–87.
engine and thermal applications as the tar and particulates content [4] Sims REH. Energy and fuel wood. New Zealand: Centre for Energy Research,
present in the producer gas is acceptable for these applications and Massey University; 2003.
reported to vary from 10 to 50 g/Nm3. [5] Bhavanam A, Sastry RC. Biomass gasification processes in downdraft fixed bed
reactors: a review. Int J Chem Eng Appl 2011;2(6):425–33.
The crossdraft gasifier has been reported obsolete from the picture
[6] Zhang L, Champagne P. Overview of recent advances in thermochemical conver-
because of their infeasibility with the energy market standards. In the sion of biomass. Energy Convers Manag 2010;51:969–82.
case of fluidized bed reactors, this figure varies in between the range [7] Pandey A, Bhaskar T, Stocker M, Sukumaran RK. Recent advances in thermo-
chemical conversion of biomass. In: Pandey A, Bhaskar T, Stocker M, Sukumaran
mentioned above but the syngas yield is very high due to better heat
RK, editors. . Elsevier; 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63289-
transfer conditions and hence these reactors are used in medium or 0.10000-6.
large scale decentralized thermal and power applications. However, the [8] Mukunda HS, Dasappa S, Paul PJ, Rajan NKS, Shrinivasa U. Gasifiers and
tar content is considerably high which can be minimized using two- combustors for biomass - technology and field studies. Energy Sustain Dev
1994;1:27–38.
stage gasification process. Although gasification technologies have been [9] Jain AK, Sharma SK, Singh D. Availability and characteristics of paddy husk as a
well demonstrated and established by the researchers and the incessant renewable energy source. J Agric Eng 1997;34(1):10–4.
progress in this direction is also going on but still, it is facing economic [10] Reed TB. Handbook of biomass downdraft gasifier engine systems. Solar Technical
Information Program. Golden, CO: Solar Energy Research Institute; 1988.
and other non-technical barriers as and when it competes with the [11] Turare C Biomass Gasification Technology and Utilization. 〈www11zetatalk.com/
global energy markets. It is also assumed that with the time bound, docs/Biogas/BiomassGasificationTechnologyUtilization02.pdf〉.
implementation of this technology can be achieved via economic [12] Rajvanshi AK. Biomass gasification. Boca Raton, Florida, United States: CRC
Press; 1986. p. 83–102.
development through biomass system integration.

381
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

[13] Annual report . Ministry of new and renewable energy. New Delhi, India: [48] Pirc A, Sekavcnik M, Mori M. Universal model of a biomass gasifier for different
Government of India; 2011. syngas compositions. J Mech Eng 2012;58(5):291–9.
[14] Verna R, Singh M. Symmetrical analysis of biomass gasification techniques. MR [49] Samiran NA, Jaafar MNM, Chong CT, Jo-Han N. A review of palm oil biomass as
Int J Eng Technol 2013;5(1):17–24. feedstock for syngas fuel technology. J Teknol (Sci Eng) 2014;72(5):13–8.
[15] Verma R. An analysis of biomass technology and its impact on multi-fuel fired [50] Chhiti Y, Kemiha M. Thermal conversion of biomass, pyrolysis and gasification: a
biomass boiler. Int J Sci Eng Technol 2014;3(2):198–202. review. Int J Eng Sci 2013;2(3):75–85.
[16] Chawdhury MA, Mahkamov K. Development of a small downdraft biomass gasifier [51] Kureshi NA, Modi VH, Rajkotia SD. Performance and development of downdraft
for developing countries. J Sci Res 2013;3(1):51–64. gasifier: a review. Int J Sci Res 2003;2(5):139–41.
[17] Kumar A, Jones DD, Hanna MA. Thermochemical biomass gasification: a review [52] Jankes GG, Trninic MR, Stamenic MS, Simonovic TS, Tanasic ND, Labus JM.
of the current status of the technology. Energies 2009;2:556–81. Biomass gasification with CHP production. Therm Sci 2012;16(1):115–30.
[18] Srivastava T. Renewable energy (gasification). Adv Electron Electr Eng [53] Pipatmanomai S. Overview and experiences of biomass fluidized bed gasification
2013;3(9):1243–50. in Thailand. J Sustain Energy Environ Spec Issue 2011:29–33.
[19] Pruksakit W, Dejterakulwong C, Patumsawad S. Performance prediction of a [54] Upadhyay AD, Patel BRN, Shah CNK. Review on 10 KWe downdraft gasifier with
downdraft gasifier using equilibrium model: effect of different biomass. In: different feedstocks. International Conference on Current Trends in Technology,
Proceedings of the 5th international conference on sustainable energy and NIRMA University, Ahmedabad – 382481; 2011.
environment (SEE: Science, Technology and Innovation for ASEAN Green [55] Surjosatyo A, Vidian F, Nugroho YS. A review on gasifier modification for tar
Growth, Bangkok, Thailand, 19-21; 2014. reduction in biomass gasification. J Mek 2010;31:62–77.
[20] Jain AK. Biomass gasification under oxygen medium. J Agric Eng [56] Arnavat MP, Bruno JC, Coronas A. Review and analysis of biomass gasification
1999;36(3):27–31. models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:2841–51.
[21] Chopra S, Jain AK. A review of fixed bed gasification systems for biomass. Agric [57] Wang L, Weller CL, Jones DD, Hanna MA. Contemporary issues in thermal
Eng Int: CIGR E-J 2007;9, [ISSN:1682-1130]. gasification of biomass and its application to electricity and fuel production.
[22] Beohar H, Gupta B, Sethi VK, Pandey M. Parametric study of fixed bed biomass Biomass- Bioenergy 2008;32:573–81.
gasifier: a review. Int J Therm Technol 2012;2(1):134–40. [58] Kuo P, Wu W. Design, optimization and energetic efficiency of producing
[23] Gautam G, Adhikari S, Gopalkumar ST, Brodbeck C, Bhavnani S, Taylor S. Tar hydrogen-rich gas from biomass steam gasification. Energies 2015;8:94–110.
analysis in syngas derived from pelletized biomass in a commercial stratified [59] Dutta PP, Pandey V, Das AR, Sen S, Baruah DC. Downdraft gasification modelling
biomass in a commercial stratified downdraft gasifier. Bioresources and experimentation of some indigenous biomass for thermal application. 4th
2011;6(4):4652–61. ICASER, Energy Procedia, 54; 2014. p. 21-34
[24] Malik A, Mohapatra SK. Biomass-based gasifiers for internal combustion (IC) [60] Jaojaruek K, Jarungthammachote S, Gratuito MKB, Wongsuwan H, Homhual S.
engines—A review. Indian Acad Sci 2013;38(3):461–76. Experimental study of wood downdraft gasification for an improved producer gas
[25] Srivastava T. Renewable energy (gasification). Adv Electron Electr Eng quality through an innovative two-stage air and premixed air/gas supply
2013;3(9):1243–50. approach. Bioresour Technol 2011.
[26] Kunii D, Levenspiel O. Fluidization engineering. Oxford, UK: Butterworth- [61] Ambani J, Dafda J. Design and development of open core down draft gasifier.
Heinemann; 1991. Junagadh, Gujrat, India: College of agricultural Engineering and Technology,
[27] Basu P. Combustion and gasification in fluidized beds. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Junagadh Agricultural University; 2010.
Press; 2006. [62] Sharma AK. Experimental study on 75 KWth downdraft (biomass) gasifier system.
[28] Siedlecki M, Jong WD, Verkooijen AHM. Fluidized bed gasification as a mature Renew Energy 2009;34:1726–33.
and reliable technology for the production of. Energies 2011;4:389–434. [63] Sheth PN, Babu BV. Experimental studies on producer gas generation from wood
[29] Melissari B. Ash related problems with high alkali biomass and its mitigation waste in a downdraft biomass gasifier. Bioresour Technol 2009;100(12):3127–33.
experimental evaluation. Mem Invest En Ing 2014;12:31–44. [64] Black , Veatch . Advanced biopower technology assessment, assessment report
[30] Miles PETR, Miles JTR, Baxter LL, Bryers RW, Jenkins BM, Oden LL. Alkali prepared for the Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources & Massachusetts.
deposits found in biomass power plants – a preliminary investigation of their Lamar Avenue, Overland Park, KS, United States of America: Department of
extent and nature. Cole, Boulevard, Golden, CO: Summary report for National Conservation & Recreation; 2008.
Renewable Energy Laboratory; 1995. [65] Jain AK. Design parameters for a rice husk Throatless gasifier. Agric Eng Int:
[31] Beenackers AACM, Van Swaaij WPM. Gasification of biomass, a state of the art CIGR Ejournal 2006;3:1–13.
review (keynote paper). In: Bridgwater AV, editor. Thermochemical Processing of [66] Zainal ZA, Ali R, Quadir G, Seetharamu KN. Experimental investigations of a
Biomass. London, UK: Butterworth's; 1984. p. 91–136. downdraft biomass gasifier. Biomass- Bioenergy 2002;23:283–9.
[32] Timmer KJ. Carbon conversion during bubbling fluidized bed gasification [Ph.D. [67] Zainal ZA, Ali R, Lean CH, Seetharamu KN. Prediction of performance of a
thesis]. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University; 2008. downdraft gasifier using equilibrium modeling for different biomass materials.
[33] Olivares A, Aznar MP, Caballero MA, Gil J, Frances E, Corella J. Biomass Energy Convers Manag 2001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(00)00078-
gasification: Produced gas upgrading by in-bed use of dolomite. Ind Eng Chem Res 9.
1997;36:5220–6. [68] Bridgwater AV. The technical and economic feasibility of biomass gasification for
[34] Turn SQ, Kinoshita CM, Ishimura DM, Zhou J. The fate of inorganic constitutes of power generation. Fuel 1995;74:631.
biomass in fluidized bed gasification. Fuel 1998;77:135–46. [69] Surjosatyo A, Vidian F. Tar content evaluation of produced gas in downdraft
[35] Proll T, Rauch R, Aichernig C. Fluidized bed steam gasification of solid biomass biomass gasifier. Iran J Energy Environ 2012;3(3):210–2.
performance characteristics of an 8 MWth combined heat and power plant. Int J [70] Tooy D, Nelwan L, Pangkerego F. Evaluation of biomass gasification using coconut
Chem React Eng 2007;5(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1542-6580.1398. husks in producing energy to generate small-scale electricity. Lumpur (Malaysia):
[36] Ordys AW, Grimble MJ, Kocaarslan I. Combined cycle and combined heat and International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Energy and Manufacturing
power processes. Control Syst, Robot Autom 2004;18 〈https:/www.eolss.net/ Engineering; 2014.
Sample-Chapters/C18/E6-43-33-06.pdf〉. [71] Melgar A, Perez J, Horrillo A. Biomass gasification process in a downdraft fixed
[37] Latif A. A study of the design of fluidized bed reactors for biomass bed gasifier: a real time diagnosis model based on gas composition analysis; 2009.
gasification[Ph.D. thesis]. London: University of London; 1999. p. 9–18
[38] Wang W, Olofsson G . Reduction of ammonia and tar in pressurized biomass [72] Jain AK, Jindal SL, Panesar BS. Hydrogen generation from biomass. In:
gasification. 〈http://netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Events/2002/gas%20cleaning Proceedings of the aslan seminar on fuel cell technology for rural electrification;
%20at%20high%20temperature/5-01paper.pdf〉 1996. p. 15–30
[39] Narvaez I, Orío A, Aznar MP, Corella J. Biomass gasification with air in an [73] Mamphweli NS, Meyer EL. Evaluation of the conversion efficiency of the
atmospheric bubbling fluidized bed. Effect of six operational variables on the 180 Nm3/h Johansson biomass gasifier. Int J Energy Environ 2010;1(1):113–20.
quality of the produced raw gas. Ind Eng Chem Res 1996;35:2110–20. [74] Shelke GN, Mahanta P, Patil RS. Experimental studies on thermal behaviour of
[40] Beohar H, Gupta B, Sethi VK, Pandey M, Parmar H. Effect of air velocity, fuel rate downdraft gasifier. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, Vol. II;
and moisture content on the performance of updraft biomass gasifier using fluent 2014
tool. Int J Mod Eng Res 2012;2(5):3622–7. [75] Vakalis S, Prando D, Patuzzi F, Baratieri M. Thermodynamic modelling of biomass
[41] Pérez JF, Tinaut FV, Melgar A, Horrillo A. Effect of biomass particle size and air downdraft gasifier: Introduction to the ‘multi box’ concept. In: Proceedings of the
superficial velocity on the gasification process in a downdraft fixed bed gasifier. An 22nd European biomass conference and exhibition; 2014. p. 637–40
experimental and modelling study. Fuel Process Technol 2008;89:1076–89. [76] Kumar A, Kumar R. Performance evaluation of downdraft gasifier for generation
[42] Hanping C, Bin L, Haiping Y, Guolai Y, Shihong Z. Experimental investigation of of engine quality gas. Nat Resour Conserv 2013;1(2):50–4.
biomass gasification in a fluidized bed reactor. Energy Fuels 2008;22:3493–8. [77] Dutsadee N, Homdoung N, Ramaraj R, Santisouk K, Inthavideth S. Performance
[43] Gil J, Corella J, Aznar MP, Caballero MP. Biomass gasification in atmospheric and analysis of power generation by producer gas from refuse derived fuel (RDF-5). Int
bubbling fluidized bed: effect of the type of gasifying agent on the product J Sustain Green Energy 2015;1(1):44–9.
distribution. Biomass- Bioenergy 1999;17:389–403. [78] Jayah TH, Aye L, Fuller RJ, Stewart DF Simulation study of a downdraft wood
[44] Mathieu P, Dubuisson R. Performance analysis of a biomass gasifier. Energy gasifier used to produce thermal energy for tea drying. Renewable energy
Convers Manag 2002;43:1291–9. transforming business.
[45] Kinoshita CM, Wang Y, Zhou J. Tar formation under different biomass gasification [79] Mohanraj C, Srividhya . CFD simulation of 20 KW downdraft gasifier. Int J Curr
conditions. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 1994;19:169–81. Eng Technol 2013:209–14.
[46] Brencic J, Lazarini F. General and inorganic chemistry. In Slovenian: DZS, [80] Volpe R, Messineo A, Millan M, Volpe M, Kandiyoti R. Assessment of olive wastes
Ljubljana; 1996. as energy source: pyrolysis, torrefaction and the key role of H loss in thermal
[47] Atkins PW, Frazer MJ, Clugston MJ, Jones RAY. Chemistry principles and breakdown. Energy 2015;82:119–27.
applications. In Slovenian: TZS, Ljubljana; 1997. [81] Shankar C, Rajakumaran V, Kamaleswaran K, Harinath P, Prabhakaran S,

382
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

Kirubakaran V. A feasibility study on producer gas operation IC engines. J Chem Renewable Energies and Power Quality. Sevilla; 2007.
Pharm Sci 2015;6:339–42. [116] Engelbrecht AD, North BC, Oboirien BO, Everson RC. Neomagus HWPJ. fluidized
[82] Kumar P, Garg L, Kumar R, Mohapatra SK. Performance parameters of dual fuel bed gasification of high ash South African coals: an experimental and modelling
diesel engine using eucalyptus-producer gas as secondary fuel. Int J Eng Technol study. Ind Fluid South Afr 2011:145–59.
Sci Res 2015;2:15–22. [117] Zhou J, Chen Q, Zhao H, Cao X, Mei Q, Luo Z, Cen K. Biomass–oxygen
[83] Nisamaneenate J, Sornkade P, Atong D, Sricharoenchaikul V. Advanced reforming gasification in a high-temperature entrained-flow gasifier. Biotechnol Adv
of agro-waste by modular gasifier for fuel generation. Chem Eng J 2015. 2009;27:606–11.
[84] Ong Z, Cheng Y, Maneerung T, Yao Z, Tong YW, Wang CH, Dai Y. Co-gasification [118] Dayananda BS, Sreepathi LK. Design and analysis of fluidized bed gasifier for
of woody biomass and sewage sludge in a fixed bed downdraft gasifier. Am Inst chicken litter along with agro wastes. Int Res J Environ Sci 2012;1(3):11–6.
Chem Eng J 2015. [119] Kern S, Pfeifer, Hofbaucer H Dual fluidized-bed system gasification of solid
[85] Raja RC, Sankarabharathi S, Sankar RR, Chandraseka M. Performance of the pilot feedstock: Matching syngas requirements with fuel mixtures. Vienna University of
model updraft gasifier. J Chem Pharm Sci 2015;6:177–82. Technology, Institute of Chemical Engineering, Vienna, Austria.
[86] Nsamba HK, Hale SE, Cornelissen G, Bachmann RT. Designing and performance [120] Ammendola P, Scala F. Attrition of lignite char during fluidized bed gasification.
evaluation of biochar production in a top-lit updraft upscaled gasifier. J Sustain Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2012;43:9–12.
Bioenergy Syst 2015;5:41–55. [121] Ramzan N, Athar M, Begum S, Ahmad SW, Naveed S. Simulation of circulating
[87] James A, Yuan W, Boyette M, Wang D, Kumar A. In-chamber thermocatalytic tar fluidized bed gasification for characteristic study of pakistani coal. Pol J Chem
cracking in an updraft biomass gasifier. Int J Agric Biol Eng 2014, [in press]. Technol 2015;17(1):66–78.
[88] Beohar H, Gupta B, Sethi VK, Pandey M, Parmar H. Effect of air velocity, fuel rate [122] Ghaly AE, Ergudenler A, Al Suhaibani S, Ramakrishnan VV. Development and
and moisture content on the performance of updraft biomass gasifier using fluent evaluation of straw chopping system for fluidized bed gasifiers. Int J Eng Sci
tool. Int J Mod Eng Res 2012;2(5):3622–7. 2013;2(10):97–110.
[89] Seggiani M, Puccini M, Vitolo S. Gasification of sewage sludge: mathematical [123] Calvo LF, Garcia AI, Otero M. An experimental investigation of sewage sludge
modelling of an updraft gasfier. Chem Eng Trans 2013;32:895–900. gasification in a fluidized bed reactor. Hindawi Publishing Corporation; 2013. p.
[90] Mandl C, Obernberger I, Biedermann F. Modelling of an updraft fixed bed gasifier 1–8
operated with softwood pellets. Fuel 2010;89:3795–806. [124] Wu H, Hanna MA, Jones DD. Fluidized bed gasification of dairy manure by Box-
[91] Yadav P, Dutta A, Gupta B, Pandey M. Performance analysis of the constructed Behnken design. Waste Manag Res 2012;30(5):506–11.
updraft biomass gasifier for three different biomass fuels. Int J Mod Eng Res [125] Pletka R, Brown R, Smeenk J. Indirectly heated fluidized bed biomass gasification
2013;3(4):2056–61. using latent heat ballast. Conference: BioEnergy, 98 conference, Madison, WI
[92] Raibhole VN, Phadke AD, Patil SL, Ghadge AG, Deshpande DS Syngas production (United States), 4–9 Oct; 1998.
by updraft biomass gasifier and its parameteric analysis. IOSR Journal of [126] Kore S, Assefa A, Matthias M, Spliethoff H. Steam gasification of coffee husk in
Mechanical and Civil Engineering, ISSN(e): 2278–1684, pp. 56–62. bubbling fluidized bed gasifier. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Internation
[93] Ismail TM, El-Salam MA. A numerical model simulation for an updraft gasifier Conference on Bioenvironment, Biodiversity and Renewable energies; ISBN: 978-
using high temperature steam. Int J Mech, Aerosp, Ind Mechatron Eng 1-61208-261-5; 2013.
2014;8(5):831–7. [127] Tome N, Rangel N, Pinho C. Temperature of wood char particles burning in a
[94] Rahardjo BS. Effect of gasifying agent (air+steam) injection towards syngas quality fluidized bed reactor. In: Proceedings of the international conference on renew-
from rice husk gasification. Int J Eng Appl Sci 2013;4(2):74–86. able energies and power quality, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; 2012.
[95] Olwa J, Ohman M, Esbjorn P, Bostrom D, Okure M, Kjellstrom B. Potassium [128] Kalaivani K, Saravanan K. Studies on design of bio semi fluidized bed reactor. Int
retention in updraft gasification of wood. Energy Fuels 2013;27(11):6718–24. J ChemTech Res 2014;6(10):4480–3.
[96] Ojolo SJ, Abolarin SM, Adegbenro O. Development of a laboratory scale updraft [129] Sciazko M, Stepien L. A modified Gibbs free energy minimization model for fluid
gasifier. Int J Manuf Syst 2012;2(2):21–42. bed coal gasification. Chem Process Eng 2015;36(1):73–87.
[97] Tarhan S. Airflow channeling through fixed wheat straw bed in an updraft gasifier [130] Xu G, Murakami T, Suda T, Matsuzaw , Tani H. Two stage dual fluidized bed
before the initiation of gasification. Energy Sources 2003;25(12):1183–91. gasification: its conception and application to biomass. Fuel Process Technol
[98] Borthakur G, Mahanta DK. Development of a fuel flexible updraft thermal biomass 2009;90:137–44.
gasifier. Int J Sci Res 2013;2(6):276–8. [131] Schmid JC, Pfeifer C, Kitzler H, Proll T, Hofbaucer H. A new dual fluidized bed
[99] Pedroso DT, Machin EB, Silveira JL, Nemoto Y. Experimental study of bottom gasifier design for improved in situ conversion of hydrocarbons. In: Proceedings of
feed gasifier. Renew Energy 2013;57:311–6. the international conference on polygeneration strategies; 2011
[100] Grimm A, Bjornbom E, Zanzi R. Fixed (Slow-Moving) bed updraft gasification of [132] Abdollahi M, Guy C, Chaouki J. Biomass gasification in rotating fluidized bed. In:
agricultural residues. In: Proceedings of the Conference: 15th European Biomass Proceedings of the 13th international conference on fluidization-new paradigm in
Conference and Exhibition; 2014. fluidization engineering; 2010.
[101] Ernie M, Azhar AA, Normah MG. The moisture effect on wood combustion in an [133] Petersen I, Werther . Three dimensional modelling of a circulating fluidized bed
updraft gasifier. J Mech Eng Technol 2010;2(2):101–12, [ISSN:2180-1053]. gasifier for sewage sludge. Chem Eng Sci 2005;60:4469–84.
[102] Zhou Z, Yin X, Xu J, Ma L. The development situation of biomass gasification [134] Ruoppolo G, Miccio F, Brachi P, Picarelli A, Chirone R. Fluidized bed gasification
power generation in china. Energy Policy 2012;51:52–7. of biomass and biomass/coal pellets in oxygen and steam atmosphere. Chem Eng
[103] Study of Available Business Models of Biomass Gasification Power Projects in Trans 2013;32:595–600.
India prepared by TERI, New Delhi and UPES, Dehradun 2013. [135] Doherty W, Reynolds A, Kennedy D. Simulation of a circulating fluidized bed
[104] Wilk V, Kitzler H, Koppatz S, Pfeifer C, Hofbaucer H. Gasification of waste wood biomass gasifier using ASPEN plus - A performance analysis. In: Proceedings of
and bark in a dual fluidized bed steam gasifier. Biomass- Convers Biorefinery the 21st international conference on efficiency, cost, optimization, simulation and
2011;1(2):91–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13399-011-0009-z. environmental impact of energy systems. Krakow, Poland; 2008. p. 1241-1248.
[105] Beheshti SM, Ghassemi H, Shahsavan-Markadeh . Process simulation of biomass [136] Sarker S, Bimbela F, Sanchez JL, Nielsen HK. Characterization and pilot scale
gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor. Energy Convers Manag fluidized bed gasification of herbaceous biomass: a case study on alfalfa pellets.
2015;94:345–52. Energy Convers Manag 2015;91:451–8.
[106] Nagaraja M, Sundaresan R. Gasification of juliflora chips in a circulating fluidized [137] Fremaux S, Beheshti SM, Ghassemi H, Shahsavan-Markadeh R. An experimental
bed gasifier. Int J Energy Sci 2013;3(2):91–8. study on hydrogen rich gas production via steam gasification of biomass in a
[107] Prins MJ. Thermodynamics analysis of biomass gasification and torrefaction. research scale fluidized bed. Energy Convers Manag 2015;91:427–32.
Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven; 2005, [Proefschrift – ISBN 90- [138] Simanjuntak JP, Zainal ZA. Experimental study and characterization of a two
386-2886-2]. compartment cylindrical internally circulating fluidized bed gasifier. Biomass-
[108] Chatterjee PK, Datta AB, Kundu KM. Fluidized bed gasification of coal. Can J Bioenergy 2015;77:147–54.
Chem Eng 1995;73(2):204–10. [139] Banerjee S, Tiarks JA, Kong SC. Modeling biomass gasification system using
[109] Ruoppolo G, Cante A, Chirone R, Miccio F, Stanzione V Fluidized bed gasification multistep kinetics under various oxygen steam conditions. Environ Prog Sustain
of coal/biomass slurries. Istituto di Ricerche sulla Combustione – CNR, Napoli, Energy 2015.
Italy. [140] Thakkar M, Makwana JP, Mohanty P, Shah M, Singh V. In bed catalytic tar
[110] Rehmat A, Goyal A Fuel evaluation for the U-gas fluidized bed gasification reduction in the autothermal fluidized bed gasification of rice husk: extraction of
process. Clean Energy from Waste and Coal, Chapter 5, p. 58–71, Institute of Gas silica, energy and cost analysis. Ind Crops Prod 2016;87:324–32.
Technology, Chicago, Illinois. Doi: 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/bk-1992-0515. [141] Makwana JP, Joshi AK, Athawale G, Singh D, Mohanty P. Air gasification of rice
ch005〉. husk in bubbling fluidized bed reactor with bed heating by conventional charcoal.
[111] Basu P, Acharya B, Dutra A. Gasification in fluidized beds-Present status & Bioresour Technol 2015;178:45–52.
design. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Fluidized Bed [142] Loha C, Chattopadhyay H, Chatterjee PK. Thermodynamic analysis of hydrogen
Combustion; 97-103; 2010. rich synthetic gas generation from fluidized bed gasification of rice husk. Energy
[112] Suda T, Murakami T, Aoki S, Matsuzawa Y, Xu G, Tani H. Biomass gasification in 2011;36:4063–71.
dual fluidized bed gasifier. Chall Power Eng Environ 2007:1213–7. [143] Loha C, Chattopadhyay H, Chatterjee PK. Energy generation from fluidized bed
[113] Li XT, Grace JR, Lim CJ, Watkinson AP, Chen HP, Kim JR. Biomass gasification gasification of rice husk. J Renew Sustain Energy 2013;5(4). http://dx.doi.org/
in a circulating fluidized bed. Biomass- Bioenergy 2004;26(2):171–93. 10.1063/1.4816496.
[114] Miao Q, Zhu J, Barghi S, Wu C, Yin X, Zhou Z. Modeling biomass gasification in [144] Kook JW, Choi HM, Kim BH, Ra HW, Yoon SJ, Mun TY, Kim JH, Kim YK, Lee JG,
circulating fluidized beds: model sensitivity analysis. Int J Energy Power Seo MW. Gasification and tar removal characteristics of rice husk in a bubbling
2013;2(3):57–63. fluidized bed reactor. Fuel 2016;181:942–50.
[115] Kaushal P, Proll T, Hofbauer H. Modelling and simulation of the biomass fired [145] Manatura K, Lu JH, Wu KT, Hsu HT. Exergy analysis on torrefied rice husk pellet
dual fluidized bed gasifier at Guessing/Austria. International Conference on in fluidized bed gasification. Appl Therm Eng 2017;111:1016–24.

383
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

[146] Singh RI, Mohapatra SK, Dasaroju G. Fluidized bed combustion and gasification fluidized reactor with beds of different materials. Chem Eng J 2009;154:369–74.
of rice husk and rice straw- a state of art review. Int J Renew Energy Technol [170] Asadullah M, Tomishige K, Fujimoto K. A novel catalytic process for cellulose
2011;2(4):345–72. gasification to synthesis gas. Catal Commun 2001;2:63–8.
[147] Ghani WAWK, Moghadam RA, Salleh MAM, Tavasoli A. Gasification performance [171] Asadullah M, Fujimoto K, Tomishige K. Catalytic performance of Rh/CeO2 in the
of rice husk in fluidized bed reactor: a hydrogen-rich production. J Energy gasification of cellulose to synthesis gas at low temperature. Ind Eng Chem
Environ 2012;4(1):7–11. 2011;40:5894–900.
[148] Singh RN, Singh SP, Balwanshi JB. Tar removal from producer gas: a review. Res [172] Asadullah M, Miyazawa T, Ito S, Kunimori K, Tomishige K. Demonstration of real
J Eng Sci 2014;3(10):16–22. biomass gasification drastically promoted by effective catalyst. Appl Catal A: Gen
[149] Hasler P, Nussbaumer T. Gas cleaning for IC engine applications from fixed bed 2003;246:103–16.
biomass gasification. Biomass- Bioenergy 1999;16(6):385–95. [173] Asadullah M, Ito S, Kunimori K, Yamada M, Tomishige K. Biomass gasification to
[150] Stanghelle D, Slungaard T, Sønju OK. Granular bed filtration of high temperature hydrogen and syngas at low temperature: novel catalytic system using fluidized-
biomass gasification gas. J Hazard Mater 2007;144:668–72. bed reactor. J Catal 2002;208:255–9.
[151] Bergman PCA, Boerrigter H, Paasen SVB, Koneman JW. Report on ECN-C-05- [174] Asadullah M, Ito S, Kunimori K, Yamada M, Tomishige K. Energy efficient
009, 〈www.olgatechnology.com〉; 2005. production of hydrogen and syngas from biomass: development to flow- tem-
[152] Paethanom A, Nakahara S, Kobayashi M, Prawisudha P, Yoshikawa K. perature catalytic process for cellulose gasification. Environ Sci Technol
Performance of tar removal by absorption and adsorption for biomass gasification. 2002;36:4476–81.
Fuel Process Technol 2012;104:144–54. [175] Asadullah M, Miyazawa T, Ito S, Kunimori K, Yamada M, Tomishige K. Catalyst
[153] Baker EG, Mudge LK, Brown MD. Methanol and ammonia from biomass. Chem development for the gasification of biomass in the dual-bed gasifier. Appl Catal A:
Eng Prog 1984;809120(43):6. Gen 2003;255:169–80.
[154] Simeone E, Nacken M, Haag W, Heidenreich S, Jong WD. Filtration performance [176] Asadullah M, Miyazawa T, Ito S, Kunimori K, Yamada M, Tomishige K.
at high temperatures and analysis of ceramic filter elements during biomass Gasification of different biomasses in a dual-bed gasifier system combined with
gasification. Biomass- Bioenergy 2011;35:S87–104. novel catalysts with high energy efficiency. Appl Catal A: Gen 2004;267:95–102.
[155] Christopher OA. Quantification of tars and particulates from a pilot scale, [177] Asadullah M, Miyazawa T, Ito S, Kunimori K, Koyama S, Tomishige K. A
downdraft biomass gasifier. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the comparison of Rh/CeO2/SiO2 catalysts with steam reforming catalysts, dolomite
Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial and inert materials as bed materials in low throughput fluidized bed gasification
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master of science in biological and systems. Biomass- Bioenergy 2004;26:269–79.
agricultural engineering in the department of biological and agricultural engi- [178] Asadullah M. Barriers of commercial power generation using biomass gasification
neering; May, 2008. gas: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:201–15.
[156] Chiranjeevaraoseela , VinodbabuCh , VykuntaRao M. Techniques of Tar removal [179] Zhang Z, Chen B, Chen A, Zhao W. Barriers to commercialization development of
from producer gas – A review. Int J Innov Res Sci, Eng Technol crop straw gasification technology in china and promoting policy design. Energy
2015;4(2):258–66. Sources, Part B: Econ, Plan, Policy 2013;8(3):279–89.
[157] Andrea CJ, Akay G. Occurrence, composition and dew point of tars produced [180] Bowen DA, Lau F, Zabransky R, Remick R, Slimane R, Doong S. Techno-economic
during gasification of fuel cane bagasse in a downdraft gasifier. Biomass- analysis of hydrogen production by gasification of biomass. hydrogen, fuel cells,
Bioenergy 2012;42:51–8. and infrastructure technologies, progress report. Illinois: Gas Technology Institute
[158] Teeranai P, Hirotatsu W, Okazaki K. Experimental investigation of intraparticle (GTI); 2013. p. 60018.
secondary reactions of tar during wood pyrolysis. Fuel 2013;104:468–75. [181] Dalili S. Biomass gasification and pyrolysis: opportunities and barriers for
[159] Fagbemi L, Khezami L, Caprat R. Pyrolysis product from different biomass efficiency and sustainability. Book: Bio-carbon opportunities in Eastern and
application to the thermal cracking of tar. Appl Energy 2001;69:293–306. Southern Africa: harnessing carbon finance to promote sustainable forestry, agro-
[160] Wu ZS, Mi T, We QX, Chen YF, Li XH The Thermal Cracking Experiment forestry and bio-energy; 2009. p. 233–66
Research of Tar from Rice Hull Gasification for Power Generation. In: Proceedings [182] Ruiz JA, Juarez MC, Morales MP, Munoz P, Mendivil MA. Biomass gasification for
of the 20th international conference on fluidized bed combustion. pp. 642–7. electricity generation: review of current technology barriers. Renew Sustain
[161] Mojtahedi W, Abbasian J. Catalytic decomposition of ammonia in a fuel gas at Energy Rev 2013;18:174–83.
high temperature and pressure. Fuel 1995;74:1698–703. [183] Simone M, Guerrazzi E, Biagini E, Nicolella C, Tognotti L. Technological barriers
[162] Milne TA, Abatzoglou N, Evans RJ. Biomass gasifier tar: their nature, formation, of biomass gasification. Int J Heat Technol 2009.
and conversion. NREL/TP-570-25357; 1998. [184] Parajuli PB, Deng Y, Kim H, Yu F. Cost analysis model for syngas production cost
[163] Sundac N Catalytic cracking of tar from biomass gasification. Department of evaluation using the graphical user interface. Energy Power 2014;4(2):35–40.
Chemical Engineering, Lund University, Sweden. 〈http://www.chemeng.lth.se/ [185] Antonia DD, Cividino SRS, Malev O, Pergher G, Gubiani R. A techno-economic
exjobb/E452.pdf〉 Feasibility assessment on small-scale forest biomass gasification at a regional
[164] Dassey A, Mukherjee B, Sheffield R, Theegala C Catalytic cracking of tars from level. Appl Math Sci 2014;8(131):6565–76.
biomass gasification. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery. 3(2). p. 69–77. [186] Andersson J, Lundgren J. Techno-economic analysis of ammonia production via
[165] Inaba M, Murata K, Saito M, Takahara I. Hydrogen production by gasification of integrated biomass gasification. Appl Energy 2014;130:484–90.
cellulose over Ni-catalysts support on zeolites. Energy Fuels 2006;20:432–8. [187] Muresan M, Cormos CC, Agachi PS. Techno-economical assessment of coal and
[166] Aznar MP, Cabaltero MA, Gil J, Martin JA, Corell J. Commercial steam reforming biomass gasification-based hydrogen production supply chain system. Chem Eng
catalyst to improve biomass gasification with steam-oxygen mixture to catalytic Res Des 2013;91:1527–41.
tar removal. Ind Eng Chem Res 1998;37:2668–80. [188] Rodrigues M, Faaij APC, Walter A. Techno-economic analysis of co-fired biomass
[167] Manuel de Andrés J, Narros A, Rodríguez ME. Behaviour of dolomite, olivine and integrated gasification/combined cycle systems with inclusion of economies of
alumina as primary catalysts in air–steam gasification of sewage sludge. Fuel scale. Energy 2003;28:1229–58.
2011;90:521–7. [189] Fischer G, Schrattenholzer L. Global bioenergy potentials through 2050. Biomass-
[168] Barisano D, Freda C, Nanna F, Fanelli E, Villone A. Biomass gasification and in- Bioenergy 2001;20:151–9.
bed contaminants removal: performance of iron enriched Olivine and bauxite in a [190] Kerester A Gasification can help meet the world’s growing demand for cleaner
process of steam/O2 gasification. Bioresour Technol 2012;118:187–94. energy and products. Gasification Technology Council. 2(3).
[169] Miccio F, Piriou B, Ruoppolo G, Chirone R. Biomass gasification in a catalytic

384