NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 19, NO.

4, DECEMBER 2022 409

Valorization of Sugarcane Bagasse for Hydrogen-

Rich Gas Production using Thermodynamic
Modeling Approach
S. I. Mustapha, I. A. Mohammed, F. A. Aderibigbe, T. L. Adewoye, F. O. Omoarukhe,
A. O. Sowole
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Ilorin, PMB 1515, Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria

ABSTRACT: Hydrothermal gasification also known as supercritical water gasification (SWG) has been considered a
promising approach for converting wet biomass such as sugarcane bagasse into high-quality syngas. This study
presents the thermodynamic modeling of the hydrothermal gasification of sugarcane bagasse using Aspen Plus. The
effects of process parameters on the composition and yield of product gases were also investigated. It was found that
the effect of temperature and biomass concentration were significant in the production of hydrogen-rich gas, while
less impact was observed with pressure. The hydrogen gas (H2) produced with the highest mole fraction (56.70 mol%)
and yield (103.26 kmol/kg) was obtained at 750°C and low biomass concentration of 10 wt%, while the lowest yield
(1.52 kmol/kg) and mole fraction (2.45 mol%) of H2 were obtained at 450°C and high biomass concentration of 50
wt%. Findings from this study also showed that the highest net calorific value (17.55MJ/kg) was reached at 450˚C and
50 wt% of biomass concentration. This study would help to consolidate research on hydrothermal gasification of
sugarcane bagasse and optimization of experimental processes and also serve as an important benchmark in the
utilization of biomass as a clean energy source for future projects.

KEYWORDS: Hydrothermal gasification, Thermodynamic modelling, Aspen Plus, Hydrogen gas, Sugarcane bagasse

[Received Jul. 17, 2022; Revised Sep. 16, 2022; Accepted Oct. 2, 2022] Print ISSN: 0189-9546 | Online ISSN: 2437-2110

I. INTRODUCTION hygroscopic characteristic left after crushing sugar cane with a

moisture level of 45-50% (Kumar et al, 2021). Rashidi and
The concentration of greenhouse gases in the earth's Tavasoli (2015), estimated that annually, 1.6 billion tons of
atmosphere has risen dramatically as a result of human activity sugarcane are processed, which generates approximately 279
such as the burning of fossil fuels as energy sources, fuel and million metric tons of biomass residues (leaves and bagasse).
chemicals for power generation, heating and transportation. These biomass residues, which are always dumped on open
This has led to the amplification of the natural greenhouse land, affect every area of our lives, from making water unsafe
effect and further warming of the earth’s surface and to drink through run-off or being burnt by farmers as a way to
atmosphere (Caney, 2015; Tavares et al, 2020). As a result, the clear land or fertilize the soil. Converting this abundant but
search for the utilization of pollution-free “green” energy underutilized biomass into useful products is worth
sources such as hydropower, wind, solar, geothermal, and investigating. Over the years, several conversion technologies
biomass to help solve environmental problems posed by the such as fermentation (Chen et al, 2015), anaerobic digestion
burning of fossil fuels is receiving much attention in the (Ahmad et al, 2016), combustion (Sikarwar et al, 2017),
scientific community (Tavasoli et al, 2016). Biomass is one of pyrolysis (Fremaux et al, 2015), and gasification (Watson et
the most abundant resources on earth with a vast potential to al, 2018) have been employed for converting sugarcane
produce value-added chemicals and sustainable biofuels bagasse into value-added products including bioethanol,
(Sattar et al, 2014). Evidence has shown that the use of biomass methane, bio-oil, and hydrogen (Cao et al, 2018). However,
can contribute to about 10-14% of the global energy supply gasification has been considered the most promising
(Okolie et al, 2019). In recent years, the use of biomass as an technology due to its auto-thermal ability, high carbon
alternative source of energy has emerged to complement fossil- conversion, flexibility of raw materials, and higher calorific
based resources. Owing to its steady feedstock supply and value of syngas (Gökkaya et al, 2019).
cleaner nature than most traditional sources as it contains an Supercritical water gasification (SWG), also known as
infinitesimal amount of sulphur and nitrogen, less tar hydrothermal gasification (HTG), is an iteration of the
formation, or ash, resulting in lower sulphur dioxide, nitrogen traditional gasification process that uses water as the gasifying
oxides, and soot emissions than conventional fossil fuels (Im- medium at supercritical conditions (Pc > 22.1 MPa, Tc > 374
orb et al, 2018; Yaghoubi et al, 2018). ºC) to convert biomass into hydrogen-rich gases (Okolie et al,
Sugarcane bagasse is biomass made up of a mixture of hard 2020). These conditions, which are above the critical pressure
fibres, soft and smooth parenchymal tissue (pith) with a high and temperature of water, change its thermo-physical
*Corresponding author: [email protected] doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/njtd.v19i4.14
410 NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 19, NO.4, DECEMBER 2022

properties ( i.e dielectric constant, density, ionic product, and Plus or any other simulation software. Experimental processes
viscosity), allowing water to behave as a catalyst, green involving biomass gasification are generally expensive and
solvent, and reaction medium, that improves mass transfer and laborious, especially on larger scales; hence, modelling and
reaction rates (Okolie et al, 2021). Hydrothermal gasification, simulation are necessary to save time and money while also
which occurs at a temperature range of 400°C - 750°C and assisting in the planning and optimization of experiments to be
pressure range of 24 MPa - 36 MPa, has been deemed a conducted in real systems. Aspen plus thermodynamic
potential approach for the production of high-quality synthesis modelling and simulation of SWG of sugarcane bagasse can be
gas from biomass containing appreciable quantities of effectively used to examine the technical difficulties of
moisture, paving the way for the majority of its advantages overcoming the high cost of hydrogen production to increase
over the traditional gasification process, as wet biomass can be the commercial market for advanced gasification technology.
used directly without the need for drying (Mustapha et al, Hence, this research aimed to evaluate the production of
2021). hydrogen-rich gas from the gasification of sugarcane bagasse
Hydrogen gas is considered a cleaner energy carrier with under SWG conditions. The process of SWG of sugarcane
the highest energy density compared to other gases and energy bagasse was modelled using Aspen plus. The effects of process
efficiency of 122 KJ/kg, which is 2.75 times that of a typical variables such as biomass concentration, temperature, and
hydrocarbon fuel. Thus, the present research focussed on pressure on hydrogen gas production were studied, and
determining the feasibility of meeting the global energy needs validation of the Aspen plus model results with experimental
(Lamb and Pollet, 2020). This energy carrier is ideal because work was also carried out. This study would serve as an
it produces water as the byproduct of combustion, so it emits important benchmark in the utilization of biomass as a clean
no emissions despite its high energy density. Hydrogen can be energy source for future projects.
utilized directly or as an intermediate storage fuel for
manufacturing gasoline, methanol, ethanol, and other useful II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
compounds. Hydrogen can be used as a gas or a liquid,
depending on the application, making it a versatile fuel A. Feedstock Characterization
(Parthasarathy and Narayanan, 2014).
Numerous experimental investigations have been The proximate and ultimate values of sugarcane bagasse
conducted on the SWG of sugarcane bagasse with the use of used in this study were obtained from Cao et al (2018) as
different catalysts to increase the rate of reaction as well as presented in Table 1.
enhance gas yield and selectivity. For example, Rashidi and Table 1: Feedstock composition of sugarcane bagasse
Tavasoli (2015) performed the SWG of sugarcane bagasse in
Proximate Analysis (%)
the presence of unpromoted and copper-promoted carbon Moisture 4.46
nanotubes supported nickel. The results showed that the Volatile matter 83.32
promotion of Ni/CNTs catalysts with copper increased the total Fixed carbon 14.03
gas and hydrogen yield by 14.4% and 14.7%, respectively Ash (dry basis) 2.65
Ultimate Analysis (%)
while the yield of methane decreased by 25.9%. Safari et al C 47.09
(2016) developed a novel process for the gasification of H 6.16
sugarcane bagasse under supercritical water conditions for the N 0.52
co-production of hydrogen and power. The result revealed that O 42.50
S 1.08
hydrogen production of 8.55 kg/h and electrical power Cl 0.00
generation of 56 kW were obtained for the 20 wt% mixture of
bagasse with a mass flow rate of 1000 kg/h, reactor pressure of B. Modelling Hydrothermal Gasification under Aspen Plus
300 bars and temperature of 700ºC. Sheikhdavoodi et al (2015) V.10
studied the SWG of sugarcane bagasse in a batch reactor and
1) Lists of components
evaluated the effects of catalyst and process parameters on
hydrogen production. They observed that an increase in The components utilized in the hydrothermal gasification
model are shown in Table 2. The lists of the components are
reaction temperature to 800ºC favored hydrogen yield with the
grouped into nonconventional, conventional and solids.
presence of KOH as catalyst. Zhang et al (2019) reviewed the
SWG of sugarcane bagasse for hydrogen production from the 2) Physical property method
exergy aspect. The results showed that exergy efficiencies of This simulation used a combination of the Peng–
hydrogen production were mainly in the range of 0.04% - Robinson and Boston–Mathias function (PR-BM) property
42.05%. So far, only a few studies have been reported on the approach, which estimates every physical characteristic of the
thermodynamic modelling of the SWG process. Okolie et al typical components in the gasification process. This property
(2020) employed an experimental and thermodynamic package's alpha parameter is a temperature-dependent
modelling approach to study the hydrothermal gasification of variable. When the temperature is very high, this parameter
soybean straw and flax straw for hydrogen rich-gas production. increases the pure component vapour pressure (Mustapha et al,
Recently, Mustapha et al (2021) reported the hydrothermal 2021). The major reason this property package was selected for
gasification of Scenedesmus obliquus microalgae using Aspen the gasification process is that the temperature used was fairly
plus. However, there is a scarcity of modeling work on high. The HCOALGEN and DCOALIGT were the enthalpy
hydrothermal gasification of sugarcane bagasse using Aspen
 MUSTAPHA et al: VALORIZATION OF SUGARCANE BAGASSE FOR HYDROGEN-RICH GAS PRODUCTION 411

and density models used for both biomass and ash, which are H2O = WATER/100
non-conventional components. ASH = ULT (1) / 100 * FACT
C = ULT (2) / 100 * FACT
Table 2: Components utilized in the hydrothermal gasification. H2 = ULT (3) / 100 * FACT
Nonconventional Conventional Solid N2 = ULT (4) / 100 * FACT
Element Element Element O2 = ULT (5) / 100 * FACT
Biomass(Sugarcane Water Carbon- S = ULT (6) / 100 * FACT
bagasse) Graphite
Ash Methane -
The GASIFIER (i.e the principal reaction unit block) was
- Carbon - linked by various streams to the other unit blocks. CYCLONE,
monoxide COOLER, and F-SEP in the simulation with each unit
- Sulfur - performing distinct functions as described in Table 3. The
- Carbon dioxide -
process flow diagram for the hydrothermal gasification process
- Oxygen -
- Nitrogen - is shown in Figure 1.
- Hydrogen -
C. Validation of Model
3) Thermodynamic modeling assumptions The model validation was carried out to verify that the
The following assumptions were developed during the proposed Aspen Plus model in this study was reliable, and the
development of the model: experimental data from Cao et al (2018) on hydrothermal
i. Hydrogen, Methane, Carbon dioxide, Carbon gasification of sugarcane bagasse was utilized. The
monoxide, Water, Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammonia experiments were conducted with a sugarcane bagasse
were the gaseous products from the gasifier; concentration of 6 wt% and a gasifier maintained at (600℃ -
ii. The simulation model operated at a steady state; 750℃, 24 - 30 MPa). Using the vast nature of the Aspen Plus,
iii. Char consisted of solid carbon and ash only; a model was simulated to produce synthesis gas from
iv. The gasifier temperature was uniform throughout the hydrothermal gasification of sugarcane bagasse under similar
process; empirical conditions as reported by Cao et al (2018). The
v. Oxides of nitrogen or sulfur were not formed; Aspen Plus simulation results are in good accord with the
vi. Ash was considered inert. empirical outcome of Cao et al (2018) as the simulation model
produced a similar forecast of the produced gas composition
4) Gasification reactions (in mol.%) that is comparable to that of the experimental result
The chemical reaction steps that make up the as shown in Figure 2.
hydrothermal gasification process are listed using Eqns. 1–10
(Parthasarathy and Narayanan, 2014): III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Biomass Devolatilization: 𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟 + 𝑡𝑎𝑟 + 𝐻2 𝑂 +
𝑙𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑔𝑎𝑠 (𝐶𝑂 + 𝐶𝑂2 + 𝐻2 + 𝑁2 . . . ) (1) A. Influence of Temperature
1 The effect of temperature on produced gas composition
Oxidation of Carbon: 𝐶 + 𝑂2 → 𝐶𝑂 -111 MJ/ kmol. (2)
2 and yield as well as the net calorific was studied by varying the
𝐶 + 𝑂2 → 𝐶𝑂2 -394 MJ/ kmol (3) temperature in the range of 450 to 750℃. (CH4), hydrogen
Char gasification: 𝐶 + 𝐶𝑂2 → 2𝐶𝑂 +172 MJ/ kmol. (4) (H2), and carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen (H2), are the primary
𝐶 + 𝐻2 𝑂 → 𝐶𝑂 + 𝐻2 +131 MJ/ kmol. (5) resulting gases recognized from the hydrothermal gasification
𝐶 + 2𝐻2 → 𝐶𝐻4 -75 MJ/ kmol. (6) with minute amounts of carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen
1
Volatile oxidation:𝐶𝑂 + 𝑂2 → 𝐶𝑂2 -283 MJ/ kmol. (7) sulphide (H2S) and ammonia (NH3). The current research will
2
1 be focused on the major gaseous products of H2, CH4 and CO2
𝐻2 + 𝑂2 → 𝐻2 𝑂 -242 MJ/ kmol. (8)
2 obtained from the SWG process. The main reactions during the
𝐶𝐻4 + 2𝑂2 → 𝐶𝑂2 +2𝐻2 𝑂 +206MJ/ kmol. (9) hydrothermal gasification process are steam reforming
𝐶𝑂 + 𝐻2 𝑂 → 𝐶𝑂2 + 𝐻2 -41 MJ/ kmol. (10) reaction (Equation 5), methanation reaction (Equation 6) and
water-gas shift reaction (Equation 10). Each reaction has a
5) Description of biomass decomposition process significant impact on the outcome of the gasification process.
The biomass was designated as an unconventional The H2 is produced by water-gas shift and steam-reforming
component, and the ultimate and proximate analyses as well as reactions, while the CH4 is produced through methanation
the mass flow were entered. The biomass feedstock used in all reactions (Rashidi and Tavasoli, 2015).
the simulations ran at 10𝑘𝑔ℎ𝑟 −1 . By setting the product Temperature plays a very significant impact in SWG as
distribution based on the ultimate analysis, the RYIELD the gasifier temperature affects the entire end product
reactor was utilized to simulate the decomposition of biomass. composition. This occurs because of some chemical reactions
In this step, biomass was converted into its constituent in the gasifier, such as steam-reforming reactions which are
components, such as carbon (C), hydrogen (H2), oxygen (O2), endothermic. As a result, according to Le Chatelier's principle
nitrogen (N2), sulfur (S), chlorine (Cl), and ash. For the product (Adar et al, 2020), a higher temperature favors the endothermic
distribution, the FORTRAN statement was used, which is as reaction product and suppresses exothermic reactions (Tavares
follows: et al, 2020). Figure 3 illustrates the produced gases H2 ,
FACT = (100-WATER) / 100
412 NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 19, NO.4, DECEMBER 2022

Figure 1: The flow diagram of Aspen Plus model for hydrothermal gasification of sugarcane bagasse.

Table 3: Description of Aspen plus unit operation blocks used in the simulation model.
Aspen plus ID Block ID DESCRIPTION
RYield DECOMP Based on their proximate and ultimate assessment, it converts nonconventional biomass into
conventional components.
RGibbs GASIFIER Simulation of solid-gas reactions based on phase and chemical equilibrium calculations and the
minimization of the system’s Gibbs free energy.
SSplit CYCLONE Separation of solid product from the vapour product.
Heat COOLER Reduction of the vapour stream temperature to induce condensation of liquid products.
Exchanger
Flash2 F-SEP Separation of the non-condensable gaseous product from liquid product
Calculator CONVERT Calculation of mass yields obtained from DECOMP using FORTRAN statement with execution of
the calculator block before DECOMP block.

EXPERIMENT H2 ASPEN
70

60
Composition (mol%)

50

40

30

20

10

0
600°C 650°C 700°C 750°C

Figure 2: Composition of H2 from the hydrothermal gasification of sugarcane bagasse (Temperature: 600 – 750 °C, Pressure: 25MPa, and 6
wt% biomass feed concentration).
MUSTAPHA et al: VALORIZATION OF SUGARCANE BAGASSE FOR HYDROGEN-RICH GAS PRODUCTION 413

CH4 and CO2 molar fraction as a function of the gasification gaseous product relative to the temperature. This slight effect
temperature. on the composition of gaseous products is evidenced by the
The mole fraction of H2 obtained in Figure 3 increased minor increase observed with CH4 mole fraction and a slight
from 6.22 to 42.86 mol% at 26 MPa, whereas the composition decline in H2 mole fraction. The work of Mustapha et al (2021)
of CH4 declined from 44.97 to 15.88 mol% and that of CO2 on hydrothermal gasification of microalgae also revealed H2
from 43.93 to 32.79 mol%. Depicting an opposite trend in their generation declined while the CH4 production was promoted
production as the temperature elevated from 450°C to 750°C. with an increase in reaction pressure.
The decrease in CH4 with temperature is due to exothermic
behaviour exhibited by the methane reaction formation (Eqn. C. Influence of Biomass Concentration
6). In contrast, the increase in H2 was due to the steam- Sugarcane bagasse concentration was varied within the
reforming reactions and water gas shift reactions (Eqns. 5 and range of 10 – 50 wt % attemperatures of 450°C, 550°C, 650°C,
10), favoring the production of more H2 . These findings are and 750°C, respectively. The mole fractions of the gases (i.e.
consistent with the existing literature (Mustapha et al, 2021; H2 , CO2 , CH4 ) and their yield at a range of temperature and
Tavares et al, 2020), which also concluded that lower biomass concentration are depicted in Figure 5. As shown in
temperatures favored CH4 production while H2 production was Figure 5, sugarcane bagasse of 10 wt% at 750°C generated the
favored at higher temperatures. highest H2 mole fraction of 56.70 mol% with a corresponding
yield of 103.26 kmol/kg.
50 H2 mol.%
45
CH4 mol.%
Composition (mol.%)

40
CO2 mol.%
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
450 550 650 750
Temperature (°C)
Figure 3: Effect of varying temperature on gas composition obtained from Hydrothermal Gasification of 20wt% biomass concentration at 26
MPa pressure.

B. Influence of Pressure Moreover, as the biomass concentration increased from 10 to

Figure 4 depicts the effect of changing the pressure from 50 wt%, the H2 mole fraction decreased from 56.70 to 21.00
24 to 30 MPa at 650°C on the gaseous product mole fraction. mol% with the corresponding hydrogen yield also decreasing
Utilization of a pressure range of 24 to 30 MPa resulted in a drastically from 103.26 kmol/kg to 20.14 kmol/kg due to the
reduced hydrogen mole fraction from 56.70 to 54.71 mol%. reduction in the moisture content as biomass concentration
Thermodynamically, it is expected that an increase in increases in the hydrothermal reaction. Water served as a
temperature would favor more H2 production since the steam reactant in the two major reactions (steam reforming and
reforming reaction is endothermic. However, despite operating water-gas shift reactions) occurring in hydrothermal
at a high temperature of 650oC, a decrease in H2 composition gasification. This reactant positively influences the yield of a
was observed when pressure was increased from 24 to 30 MPa lesser biomass concentration because more moisture is
(see Figure 4). This is a suggestion that the effects for the steam accessible for the supercritical gasification process while
reforming reaction as a result of increasing temperature was reduction of water content in the gasifier implies the feedstock,
offset by the significant retardation effect due to increasing sugarcane bagasse, is at a higher concentration. Thus, the
reaction pressure. On the other hand, a methanation reaction is steam-reforming reactions and water-gas shift were hastened
a volume-reducing reaction favored by high pressure. As at a lesser biomass concentration due to sufficient availability
shown in Figure 4, a slight increase was observed with an of more moisture invariably favoring H2 over CH4 generation
increase in pressure for CH4 and CO2 mole fraction via the methanation reaction. Cao et al (2018) reported that
respectively. This is an indication that the effect for the with a lower biomass concentration, hydrogen gasification
methanation reaction as a result of increasing temperature was efficiency is higher and this could be due to the release of
offset by the significant promotion effect due to increasing atoms of hydrogen from excess water to the gaseous product.
reaction pressure. Because of their combinatorial effect, the The maximum CH4 mole fraction of 48.23 mol% in the process
pressure has the slightest effect on the composition of the was attained at 450˚C, 50 wt.% biomass concentration with a
414 NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 19, NO.4, DECEMBER 2022

H2 mol.%
CH4 mol.%
CO2 mol.%
40
Composition (mol%)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
24 26 28 30

Pressure (MPa)
Figure 4: Effect of varying pressure on gas composition obtained from hydrothermal gasification of sugarcane bagasse with 40wt% biomass
concentration.

60 H2 CO2 CH4
Composition (mol%)

50
40
30
20
10
0
10wt%

20wt%

40wt%

50wt%

10wt%

20wt%

40wt%

50wt%

10wt%

20wt%

40wt%

50wt%

10wt%

20wt%

40wt%

50wt%
450˚C 550˚C 650˚C 750˚C

120 H2 CO2 CH4

100

80
Yield (kmol/kg)

60

40

20

0
10wt%
10wt%

20wt%

40wt%

50wt%

10wt%

20wt%

40wt%

50wt%

20wt%

40wt%

50wt%

10wt%

20wt%

40wt%

50wt%

450°C 550°C 650°C 750°C

Figure 5: Effect of biomass concentration at temperatures 450˚C, 550˚C, 650˚C and 750˚C respectively on the yield and composition of 𝑯𝟐 ,
𝑪𝑶𝟐 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑪𝑯𝟒 obtained from hydrothermal gasification of sugarcane bagasse at 28MPa.
 MUSTAPHA et al: VALORIZATION OF SUGARCANE BAGASSE FOR HYDROGEN-RICH GAS PRODUCTION 415

corresponding yield of 29.96 kmol/kg. The mole fraction of product gases with significant attention to the hydrogen gas at
CH4 increased from 42.10 - 48.23 mol% as the biomass varying temperature, pressure, and biomass concentration. In
concentration, increased from 10 - 50 wt.% and the yield comparison to pressure, temperature has the greatest impact on
increased slightly from 35.21 to 36.82 kmol/kg. The hindrance the gasification reaction. High temperature (750oC) and the
in the production of H2 is as a result of the methanation reaction least biomass concentration (i.e. 10 wt%) produced the highest
favoring the CH4 gas production at the expense of H2 gas. H2 yield and mole fraction of H2 gas while low temperature
(450oC) and high biomass concentration (i.e. 50 wt%) yielded
D. Effect of Influencing Parameters on Net Calorific Value the lowest H2 yield and H2 mole fraction. On the contrary, the
The net calorific value for the gas products was calculated maximum CH4 mole fraction with a modest increase in
using the equation reported for lower heating value by produced CO2 was attained at the least temperature (450oC)
Mustapha et al (2021). The resulting composition data for H2 , and highest biomass concentration (50 wt%). The greatest
CH4 and CO with CH4 composition contributing a significant LHV of 17.55 MJ/kg was achieved at 450˚C with a biomass
impact on the end value of lower heating value (LHV). The content of 50 wt%. The results obtained from this study show
effect of biomass concentration on net calorific value at that the resulting CO2 is at significantly elevated mole
varying temperatures is shown in Figure 6. Due to the fractions. Therefore, there is a need to minimize the CO2
considerable effect of lower temperatures on the improved emitted from the process either by the introduction of CO 2-
generation of methane gas; the peak value was attained at absorber that can reduce the CO2 concentration towards
450°C with minimal difference as the biomass content elevated minimization of potential greenhouse effects or CO2 recycling
under this same temperature condition. LHV obtained at 10, option, which can enable the production of minimum CO2
20, 40, and 50 wt% were 16.16, 16.92, 17.39 and 17.55 MJ/kg emission by serving as a gasifying agent in the biomass
respectively, indicating LHV of the produced gas is favored at gasification. This information is essential for the development
increasing biomass concentrations with low temperatures. The of initiatives that use biomass as a renewable energy source.
high hydrogen production of sugarcane bagasse indicates that
hydrothermal gasification is a yardstick in upgrading such low- AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
value biomass waste to high-value energy carriers, and 450°C S. I. Mustapha: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision
may be the most effective temperature for high energy and Methodology.I. A. Mohammed: Visualization, Formal
recovery of sugarcane bagasse. analysis, Methodology. F. A. Aderibigbe: Resources,
Supervision and Methodology.T. L. Adewoye: Resources,
Supervision and Methodology. F. O. Omoarukhe:
IV. CONCLUSION Methodology, Investigation, Validation, Writing - original
The modeling of supercritical water gasification of draft. A. O. Sowole: Methodology, Investigation, Validation,
sugarcane bagasse has been studied using Aspen plus V10 Writing.
simulation environment. The research focused on the
composition, yield, and lower heating value (LHV) of the

20
LHV (MJ/kg )
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
40wt%
10wt%

20wt%

50wt%

10wt%

20wt%

40wt%

50wt%

10wt%

20wt%

40wt%

50wt%

10wt%

20wt%

40wt%

50wt%

450°C 550°C 650°C 750°C

Figure 6: Effect of biomass concentration at temperatures 450˚C, 550˚C, 650˚C and 750˚C respectively on net calorific value obtained from
hydrothermal gasification of sugarcane bagasse at 28MPa.
416 NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 19, NO.4, DECEMBER 2022

REFERENCES biomass: a state-of-the-art review of process parameters,

Adar, E.; M. Ince and M. S. Bilgili. (2020). reaction mechanisms and catalysis. Sustainable energy &
Supercritical water gasification of sewage sludge by fuels, 3(3): 578-598.
continuous flow tubular reactor: A pilot scale study. Chemical Parthasarathy, P. and Narayanan, K. S. (2014).
Engineering Journal, 391, 123499. Hydrogen production from steam gasification of biomass:
Ahmad, A. A.; N. A. Zawawi; F. H. Kasim; A. Inayat influence of process parameters on hydrogen yield–a review.
and A. Khasri. (2016). Assessing the gasification Renewable energy, 66: 570-579.
performance of biomass: A review on biomass gasification Rashidi, M. and Tavasoli, A. (2015). Hydrogen rich gas
process conditions, optimization and economic evaluation. production via supercritical water gasification of sugarcane
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53: 1333-1347. bagasse using unpromoted and copper promoted Ni/CNT
Caney, S. (2015). Climate change The Routledge nanocatalysts. The Journal of Supercritical Fluids, 98: 111-
handbook of global ethics (pp. 384-398): Routledge. 118.
Cao, W.; L. Guo; X. Yan; D. Zhang and X. Yao. Safari, F.; A. Tavasoli and A. Ataei. (2016).
(2018). Assessment of sugarcane bagasse gasification in Gasification of sugarcane bagasse in supercritical water media
supercritical water for hydrogen production. International for combined hydrogen and power production: a novel
Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 43(30): 13711-13719. approach. International journal of environmental science and
Chen, W. H.; B. J. Lin; M. Y. Huang and J. S. Chang. technology, 13(10): 2393-2400.
(2015). Thermochemical conversion of microalgal biomass Sattar, A.; G. A. Leeke; A. Hornung and J. Wood.
into biofuels: a review. Bioresource technology, 184: 314-327. (2014). Steam gasification of rapeseed, wood, sewage sludge
Fremaux, S.; S. M. Beheshti; H. Ghassemi and R. and miscanthus biochars for the production of a hydrogen-rich
Shahsavan-Markadeh. (2015). An experimental study on syngas, Biomass and Bioenergy, 69: 276-286.
hydrogen-rich gas production via steam gasification of Sheikhdavoodi, M. J.; M. Almassi; M. Ebrahimi-Nik;
biomass in a research-scale fluidized bed. Energy Conversion A. Kruse and H. Bahrami. (2015). Gasification of sugarcane
and Management, 91: 427-432. bagasse in supercritical water; evaluation of alkali catalysts for
Gökkaya, D. S.; T. Çokkuvvetli; M. Sağlam; M. maximum hydrogen production. Journal of the Energy
Yüksel and L. Ballice. (2019). Hydrothermal gasification of Institute, 88(4): 450-458.
poplar wood chips with alkali, mineral, and metal impregnated Sikarwar, V. S.; M. Zhao; P. S. Fennell; N. Shah and
activated carbon catalysts. The Journal of Supercritical Fluids, E. J. Anthony. (2017). Progress in biofuel production from
152: 104542. gasification. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 61:
Im-orb, K.; W. Wiyaratn and A. Arpornwichanop. 189-248.
(2018). Technical and economic assessment of the pyrolysis Tavares, R.; E. Monteiro; F. Tabet and A. Rouboa.
and gasification integrated process for biomass conversion. (2020). Numerical investigation of optimum operating
Energy, 153: 592-603. conditions for syngas and hydrogen production from biomass
Kumar, A.; V. Kumar and B. Singh. (2021). Cellulosic gasification using Aspen Plus. Renewable Energy, 146: 1309-
and hemicellulosic fractions of sugarcane bagasse: Potential, 1314.
challenges and future perspective. International Journal of Tavasoli, A.; M. Barati and A. Karimi. (2016).
Biological Macromolecules, 169: 564-582. Sugarcane bagasse supercritical water gasification in presence
Lamb, J. J. and Pollet, B. G. (2020). Future prospects of potassium promoted copper nano-catalysts supported on γ-
of selected hydrogen and biomass energy technologies Al2O3. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 41(1): 174-
Hydrogen, Biomass and Bioenergy, 155-162: Elsevier. 180.
Mustapha, S. I.; U. A. Mohammed; F. Bux and Y. M. Watson, J.; Y. Zhang; B. Si; W. T. Chen and R. de
Isa. (2021). Hydrothermal gasification of Scenedesmus Souza. (2018). Gasification of biowaste: A critical review and
obliquus and its derivatives: a thermodynamic study using outlooks. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 83: 1-
Aspen Plus. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining. 17.
Okolie, J. A.; E. I. Epelle; S. Nanda; D. Castello; A. K. Yaghoubi, E.; Q. Xiong; M. H. Doranehgard; M. M.
Dalai and J. A. Kozinski. (2021). Modeling and process Yeganeh; G. Shahriari and M. Bidabadi. (2018). The effect
optimization of hydrothermal gasification for hydrogen of different operational parameters on hydrogen rich syngas
production: A comprehensive review. The Journal of production from biomass gasification in a dual fluidized bed
Supercritical Fluids, 173: 105199. gasifier. Chemical Engineering and Processing-Process
Okolie, J. A.; S. Nanda; A. K. Dalai and J. A. Intensification, 126: 210-221.
Kozinski. (2020). Hydrothermal gasification of soybean straw Zhang, Y.; L. Li; P. Xu; B. Liu; Y. Shuai and B. Li.
and flax straw for hydrogen-rich syngas production: (2019). Hydrogen production through biomass gasification in
Experimental and thermodynamic modeling. Energy supercritical water: a review from exergy aspect. International
Conversion and Management, 208: 112545. Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 44(30): 15727-15736.
Okolie, J. A.; R. Rana; S. Nanda; A. K. Dalai and J.
A. Kozinski. (2019). Supercritical water gasification of