Energy 284 (2023) 129327

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Performance assessment of a demonstration-scale biomass gasification

power plant using material and energy flow analyses
Fabio Montagnaro a, Lucio Zaccariello b, *
a
Department of Chemical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Complesso Universitario di Monte Sant’Angelo, 80126, Napoli, Italy
b
Department of Environmental, Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences and Technologies, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Via Vivaldi 43, 81100, Caserta,
Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Krzysztof (K.J.) Ptasinski In this study, biomass gasification was investigated in a 1.5 MWth bubbling fluidized bed demonstration plant
using air or an air/steam mixture as gasifying agent, and olivine as bed material. The gasification tests were
Keywords: performed in autothermal conditions and keeping constant the equivalence ratio at 0.30. The gasification
Gasification products, such as producer gas, elutriated particles, tar, and contaminant gases were comprehensively charac­
Fluidized bed
terized. Moreover, the performance of the whole gasification plant and that of its specific process units were
Biomass
quantitatively assessed by employing material and energy flow analyses. The results indicated that steam
Steam
Producer gas addition improved the producer gas quality by promoting tar and char conversion into permanent gases, thus
Char increasing the producer gas specific yield, even if the lower heating value of the producer gas and cold gas ef­
Tar ficiency slightly decreased. Material flow analysis highlighted that the carbon conversion efficiency was mainly
affected by the carbon loss due to the solid particles collected by the cyclone, while energy flow analysis revealed
that the cold gas efficiency was significantly influenced by the energy the system used to convert the starting
biomass into producer gas. The biomass conversion efficiency into electrical energy was about 24 %.

contains unacceptable amounts of by-products such as inorganic

1. Introduction gaseous compounds (ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen sulphide,
hydrogen chloride, etc.), char, and tar, which can cause operational
In the last decades, the utilization of renewable resources is receiving problems and efficiency losses. Tar can be removed from the producer
greater attention due to the increasing energy demand, depletion of gas by two approaches identified as primary and secondary methods
fossil fuels, and concerns over environmental pollution [1]. In this [20–23]. Primary methods consist in the optimization of the gasifier
context, biomass is considered a potential feedstock for sustainable en­ operation to produce a gas with low tar concentration. The main pri­
ergy production because of its large reserves and environmentally mary methods are an accurate selection of operating parameters such as
friendly nature [2]. Nowadays, biomass utilization is increasing and is equivalence ratio, reaction temperature, residence time, process pres­
expected as the main substitute for fossil fuels [3]. Several thermo­ sure, use of a specific gasifying agent, use of catalyst or additives as bed
chemical processes have been developed (e.g., hydrothermal carbon­ material, and gasifier design modifications. Secondary methods involve
ization/liquefaction, torrefaction, pyrolysis, gasification, and gas cleaning downstream the gasifier. The most common are thermal or
combustion) to convert biomass into bioenergy, energy carriers, and catalytic cracking, and the use of cyclone, ceramic/fabric filter, elec­
green chemicals [4–9]. Among these, the gasification process is one of trostatic precipitator, and scrubber.
the most attractive considering its flexibility in accepting different Downstream gas cleaning methods are reported to be very efficient
feedstocks and its capacity to produce a wide range of valuable products even though, when the producer gas contains considerable levels of
[10–13]. In particular, fluidized bed gasifiers offer the possibility to contaminants, they may be not economically viable. Treatments inside
operate the process with different gasifying agents and reactor temper­ the gasifier are gaining great attention as these are not very expensive
atures, to add reactant gases along the reactor freeboard, and to operate and may restrict or eliminate the use of process units for downstream
with specific catalysts or additives as bed material [14–19]. clean-up [24]. In most cases, a proper combination of primary and
Generally, the raw gas generated during the gasification process secondary methods could allow the optimization of the gasifier

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Zaccariello).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.129327
Received 6 March 2023; Received in revised form 7 August 2023; Accepted 8 October 2023
Available online 11 October 2023
0360-5442/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
F. Montagnaro and L. Zaccariello Energy 284 (2023) 129327

Nomenclature S/B Steam/biomass mass ratio (at the gasifier inlet) [− ]

TBed Fluidized bed temperature [◦ C]
A/B Air/biomass mass ratio (at the gasifier inlet) [− ] TFree Freeboard temperature [◦ C]
CCE Carbon conversion efficiency [− ] Ug Superficial gas velocity (at the gasifier inlet) [m/s]
CE Chemical energy rate [MJ/h] Umf Minimum fluidization velocity [m/s]
CGE Cold gas efficiency [− ] W Mass flow rate [kg/h]
ER Air-to-fuel equivalence ratio [− ] WA Mass flow rate of air (at the gasifier inlet) [kg/h]
f Mass percentage [%] WF Mass flow rate of fuel (at the gasifier inlet) [kg/h]
GSY Gas specific yield [Nm3/kg] WS Mass flow rate of steam (at the gasifier inlet) [kg/h]
HHV Higher heating value [MJ/Nm3 or MJ/kg] ΔĤv Latent heat of H2O vaporization [MJ/kmol]
LHV Lower heating value [MJ/Nm3 or MJ/kg] ηGE Conversion efficiency of the gas engine [− ]
n Moles of H2O released per mass of solid [kmol/kg] ηGP Conversion efficiency of the gasification process [− ]
Pel Electric power generated by the gas engine [kWh] ηiy Separation efficiency of process unit i for contaminant y
Q Volumetric flow rate of the producer gas on dry basis [− ]
[Nm3/h]

performance and then the production of gas with low concentrations of and secondary methods. In Bubbling Fluidized Bed Gasifiers (BFBG), the
contaminants, able to meet the specifications of the end-use use of catalysts or additives as bed material, steam (alone or mixed with
applications. air/oxygen) as a gasifying agent, and an optimized Equivalence Ratio
The inorganic gaseous contaminants that may form during the (ER) value are the most effective solutions among primary methods
gasification process are, e.g., nitrogen oxides, hydrogen cyanide, [31]. Instead, the most used gas cleaning methods for tar reduction
ammonia, carbonyl sulphide, hydrogen sulphide, hydrogen chloride, downstream of the gasifier are thermal or catalytic cracking, and wet
hydrogen bromide, and hydrogen fluoride. These compounds generate scrubbing [32,33].
from nitrogen, sulphur, and halogens (chlorine, bromine, and fluorine) In the literature, several studies regarding the effect of operating
elements of the starting feedstock; consequently, their concentrations in parameters and the use of catalytic reactors and gas scrubbing systems
the raw gas depend on the amounts of these elements contained in the on the performance of the gasification process can be found [34–36].
fuel, and on what remains embedded in unreacted solid char. In woody However, most of these studies used laboratory-scale reactors operated
biomass, among all these elements, nitrogen is the most representative under isothermal conditions, and referred to synthetic gases and con­
(usually with a content below 0.5 %), and the main nitrogen-containing taminants to simulate the producer gas generated from an operating
inorganic compound formed in the gasification environment is NH3 gasifier [37–39]. Moreover, often, these experimental apparatuses do
[25]. This contaminant is undesirable in downstream applications, and not include a full gas cleaning section. These studies provide useful in­
thus must be removed. When the producer gas is burned in boilers, gas formation on the effect of operating parameters and the effectiveness of
engines, and gas turbines, NH3 is the main precursor of nitrogen oxides. some gas cleaning units. On the other hand, experimental works on the
Furthermore, ammonia is a poison for the catalysts used in the gasifi­ effect of operating parameters and the performance of gasification
cation process. The NH3 removal from the raw gas can be carried out by process units on the quality of the producer gas from biomass gasifiers at
cold or hot gas cleaning processes. In cold gas cleaning, a wet scrubber a larger scale are rather limited [40]. Nevertheless, data from higher
with water or acid solutions is effectively used to capture ammonia. throughput systems are crucial for defining design criteria for
Instead, in hot gas cleaning, NH3 is removed by decomposition reactions small/medium-scale biomass gasifiers, which are more suitable as
over different kinds of catalysts [26]. power generation systems [41].
Char is a solid carbon-based material with a porous structure that The utilization of steam as gasifying agent can generate a valuable
forms during the pyrolysis step of biomass gasification. Char production producer gas from biomass gasification. However, steam reforming re­
generally accounts for 2–10 % of the feedstock input, and lignin fibres actions are endothermic, and thus steam gasification requires more
are its main precursor [27–29]. Char fines can be effectively removed complex design solutions for heat supply [42]. A possible alternative is
from the raw gas by means of fabric filters, venturi scrubber, and cy­ the addition of some oxygen in the gasifying gas that promotes oxidation
clones. However, the critical aspects of char management in large-scale reactions which, in turn, release heat to lead the process in autothermal
gasification plants are the significant chemical energy loss of the process conditions.
associated with char removal, and the disposal costs of remarkable The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of steam
amounts of this by-product. addition as gasifying agent on producer gas quality by using a
Tar formation is one of the major problems associated with biomass demonstration-scale biomass gasification facility. Apart from the nov­
gasification. Tar is undesirable because of various problems related to its elty represented by the use of a large-scale fluidized bed gasifier fed with
condensation at reduced temperature, which can cause operational an actual biomass (most of the literature studies are based on laboratory-
troubles by clogging valves, pipes, filter elements, and heat exchangers, scale reactors, operated with synthetic gaseous species), the whole
and damage devices for end-use application of the producer gas. Tar is a gasification process performance and those of the specific process units,
complex mixture of condensable hydrocarbons including single-ring to i.e., reactor, cyclone, wet scrubber, and wood chip filter, are assessed by
multiple-ring aromatic compounds that can contain heteroatoms such as employing material and energy flow analyses. This is relevant for
oxygen and nitrogen. Tar, more than other contaminants, determines defining correct design criteria for biomass gasifiers suitable as power
the specific utilization of the producer gas because of operational and generation systems.
economic difficulties that meet in its removal. Low tar contents, from 0.1
to 100 mg/Nm3, allow the utilization of the producer gas in high- 2. Materials, equipment, and experimental procedures
efficiency conversion devices or as raw material to produce chemicals.
On the other hand, high concentrations of tar, higher than 100 mg/Nm3, 2.1. Biomass feedstock and bed material
impose the use of low-efficiency conversion devices such as gas boilers
[30]. Usually, effective tar removal is performed by combining primary The lignocellulosic biomass used as fuel is red Spruce Wood Chips

2
F. Montagnaro and L. Zaccariello Energy 284 (2023) 129327

Table 1
Main properties of spruce wood chips used for the gasification tests.
Proximate analysis wt.% Ultimate analysis wt.% Energy content MJ/kg
a a
VM FC M Ash C H N O HHVb LHVc
81.87 8.66 9.32 0.15 43.67 5.79 0.18 40.89 19.67 15.08

VM=Volatile Matter; FC=Fixed Carbon; M = Moisture; wt. = weight basis; HHV=Higher Heating Value; LHV = Lower Heating Value.
a
Estimated by difference.
b
Evaluated according to Ref. [43].
c
Calculated considering the latent heat of vaporization of the moisture and reaction water.

2.2. Gasification facility and testing procedure

Table 2
Main physical and hydrodynamic properties of the bed material.
The experimental runs were carried out using a demonstration-scale
Bed material Olivine BFBG with maximum thermal input of 1.5 MWth, located in Emilia-
Size range, μm 200–400 Romagna region, Italy (Fig. 1).
Sauter mean diameter, μm 280 The gasification facility consists of three main sections: the BFB
Particle density, kg/m3 2600 reactor, the producer gas treatment section, and the energy generation
Minimum fluidization velocitya, m/s 0.025
unit. The BFBG has a total height of 5.40 m and internal diameter of
a
Calculated in air at 850 ◦ C. 1.20 m. During the start-up phase, the BFBG is heated-up to 300 ◦ C
thanks to the sensible heat of exhaust gases generated by a 250 kW
(SWC), coming from the Tuscan-Emilian Apennines (Italy), collected in methane burner. Then, the gasification starting bed temperature of
the surroundings of the gasification facility. The red spruce logs are 800 ◦ C (measured with three K-type thermocouples positioned at 120◦ in
processed in a drum chipper and then sieved, in order to obtain SWC the splashing zone of the bed) is reached operating the BFBG in com­
with particle size distribution P45A, according to the technical specifi­ bustion mode, using air as comburent and wood chips as fuel. A blower,
cation EN 14961–1 (namely, with main fraction between 8 and 45 mm with maximum flow rate of 1000 kg/h, provides air supply to the
accounting for >75 wt%). SWC was characterized by elemental and reactor. During the gasification process, the burner is turned-off and the
proximate analyses (LECO CHN628 analyzer with ASTM D5373 stan­ gasifying agent (air or air/steam mixture) is pre-heated at about
dard procedure for C, H, N determination; LECO SC-144DR analyzer 450–550 ◦ C (at steady state conditions) by a shell-and-tube heat
with UNI 7584 standard procedure for S determination; TGA701 LECO exchanger (gasifying agent flows through the shell, while producer gas
thermobalance, UNI 9903/ASTM D5142 standard procedures for prox­ flows through the tubes; nominal effectiveness = 0.59 as calculated with
imate analysis). Results of elemental and proximate analyses, and the NTU-ε method). When the air/steam mixture is used as gasifying
heating values are reported in Table 1. agent, steam at 350 ◦ C is produced by a superheated steam generator.
The proximate analysis shows that SWC has a high volatile matter The pre-heated gasifying agent enters the plenum of the reactor from the
(VM) content of about 82 wt% and a low ash fraction of about 0.2 wt%. bottom, and then into the bed through nozzles specifically designed to
The contents of C (44 wt%), H (6 wt%), O (41 wt%), and N (0.2 wt%) are ensure a homogeneous distribution of the fluidizing/gasifying gas in the
consistent with typical ranges for such kinds of lignocellulosic bed cross-section.
biomasses. SWC coming from the storage shed is dried in a belt dryer, and then
Olivine was chosen as bed material for its ability to act as catalyst for sent to a wood chip hopper. From the hopper, through a screw-feeder,
in situ tar decomposition and to favourably adjust the producer gas SWC is continuously over-bed fed to the reactor. An air flow of 10
composition [44–46]. For each experimental run, an inventory of 1000 Nm3/h is used to help the fuel feeding and to avoid the back flow of the
kg of olivine was used. The olivine employed in this work was provided hot gas to the feedstock hopper. The SWC and the air flow rates are
by Magnolithe GmbH (Austria), and was mainly composed of MgO (49 mutually adjusted so that the desired air/fuel ER (defined, as usual, as
%), SiO2 (40 %), and Fe2O3 (10 %) oxides, while traces of Al2O3, CaO the ratio between the actual flow rate of oxygen in air supply and that
and Cr2O3 were present. The main properties of the olivine used for the theoretically required for the stoichiometric combustion of the fuel fed
experimental runs are reported in Table 2. to the reactor) is obtained.
The gas generated in the reactor is sent to the gas treatment section
composed of a high efficiency cyclone, a wet scrubber, a Wood Chip

Fig. 1. Scheme of the 1.5 MWth biomass gasification facility, based on a bubbling fluidized bed gasifier.

3
F. Montagnaro and L. Zaccariello Energy 284 (2023) 129327

Table 3 equipped with a CP-Sil 5 CB column, which detected hydrocarbons such

Main operating conditions of the gasification tests (for both tests: bed material = as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and o,m,p-xylenes. Argon was the
olivine; ER = 0.30; A/B = 1.56). carrier gas of the Molsieve 5A column, while helium was used for the
Test ID Gasifying TBed TFree Ug WF WA WS S/ other columns. The flow rate of producer gas was measured by using a
agent B Pitot tube flowmeter and calculated by applying the tie component
– – ◦
C ◦
C m/s kg/ kg/ kg/ – method to the nitrogen content in the dry gas, as obtained by on-line
h h h micro-GC measurements.
SWC-30- Air 942 936 0.43 320 500 – –
A
2.4.2. Gasification by-products sampling and characterization
SWC-30- Air/Steam 896 874 0.63 320 500 160 0.5
AS Ammonia sampling is based on an impinger bottle method. The
sampling system is composed of a heated probe, a heated particle filter,
four impinger bottles connected in series, a sampling pump with con­
(WC) filter, and a gas flare. The cyclone removes most of the solid stant flow control, and a flowmeter. The sampling flow rate of the
particles contained in the gas. At the exit of the cyclone, there is the heat producer gas was set at 0.10 Nm3/h. The first three bottles contain 50
exchanger and then the water scrubber, which provides for the removal mL of 0.5 M sulfuric acid solution to trap the ammonia as ammonium
of almost all the remaining solid particles, inorganic gaseous compounds ion, while the fourth bottle is filled with 200 g of indicating silica gel.
(such as NH3, HCl, H2S), and tar. Then, the gas is sent to the WC filter, After the ammonia sampling, the acid solution of the impinger vessels
which eliminates moisture and tar residues from the gas. Finally, the was recovered and stored in clean HDPE bottles. Then, the impinger
producer gas is converted to electric power by a GUASCOR 500 kWel gas bottles and the sampling line were rinsed with deionized water to collect
engine generator. Instead, when the producer gas is not used for electric residual droplets of the acid solution. Both liquid fractions were mixed,
power generation, it is burned in the gas flare. filtered, and stored at 4 ◦ C. Subsequently, the ammonium ion is quan­
Each gasification test lasted circa 24 h. About 7–8 h were necessary tified by a Dionex DX-120 ion chromatograph.
to reach the thermochemical equilibrium and about 16–17 h were of The fine solid particles, referred to as Elutriated Fines (EF), are
steady state condition, during which the producer gas, elutriated fines, mainly composed of biomass carbonized particles (char) and fragmented
tar, and ammonia were sampled. bed material. The solid particles entrained from the gasifier are collected
by the cyclone and characterized by performing elemental analysis using
2.3. Operating conditions of gasification tests the same analytical instruments as previously reported for biomass
characterization. The solid particles still present in the producer gas
The operating conditions of the experimental runs are summarized in downstream of the cyclone are sampled with a particulate filter and then
Table 3. The demonstration-scale BFBG was fed with SWC and air (test determined by applying the weighing by difference method.
termed as SWC-30-A) or a mixture air/steam (test termed as SWC-30-AS) Tar measurement is based on an impinger bottle method similar to
as gasifying agent, and using olivine as bed material. the conventional tar protocol [48]. The system used for tar sampling is
ER was kept fixed at 0.30 for both gasification tests, while the re­ composed of a heated probe, a heated particle filter, a series of five
action temperature was autogenous, i.e., the gasifier was exercised in impinger bottles containing 50 mL of 2-propanol to dissolve tars, a
autothermal conditions. The mass flow rate of air (WA) was 500 kg/h, sampling pump with constant flow control, and a flowmeter. The pro­
while the mass flow rate of steam (WS), when present, was 160 kg/h. ducer gas sampling flow rate was set at 0.10 Nm3/h. The tar sampler
Thus, the bed was fluidized at two superficial gas velocity (Ug) values of probe was located downstream of the heat exchanger where the tem­
about 0.4 and 0.6 m/s (calculated at process conditions), so to operate perature of the producer gas was 450–500 ◦ C. The first two bottles were
the gasifier under a bubbling regime with Ug/Umf ratio of 17 and 25, placed in a water bath at 20 ◦ C, while the last three bottles were placed
respectively, as verified by preliminary fluidization tests (Ug < 0.4 m/s in a salt and ice bath at -4 ◦ C, so that the sampled gas is cooled in two
resulted in poor fluidization quality, while Ug > 0.6 m/s in excessive steps. After the tar sampling, the content of the bottles was recovered
particles carryover). The fuel biomass mass flow rate, WF, was fixed at and stored. Then, the bottles and the sampling line were rinsed three
320 kg/h for both tests. These values resulted in an Air/Biomass ratio times with 500 mL of 2-propanol. Both liquid fractions were mixed and
(A/B) of 1.56 for both tests and a Steam/Biomass ratio (S/B) of 0.5 for filtered. The filters containing the solid particles were washed three
the test conducted with the air/steam mixture. The test SWC-30-A (bed times with 50 mL of 2-propanol. This liquid fraction was added to the
temperature TBed = 942 ◦ C) was chosen as the base case, for evaluating previous liquid sample to obtain a solution containing all the tar pro­
the effect of steam addition employed in the test SWC-30-AS (TBed = duced during the gasification test. The volume of the total tar sample is
896 ◦ C). The temperature of the reactor freeboard resulted TFree = 936 ◦ C measured and stored in dark bottles at 4 ◦ C. The solid particles are
for the test without steam, and 874 ◦ C for the test with steam. As the oven-dried at 105 ◦ C for 6 h, and then weighed. Then, 200 mL of the
typical melting temperature for SWC ash is higher than 1200 ◦ C [47], no total tar sample are introduced in a rotary evaporator to determine the
agglomeration of bed material was expected to occur, as experimentally gravimetric tar production. Finally, 1 mL of the tar sample was micro­
verified by checking the discharged material at the end of the tests. filtered and analyzed in an Agilent 7890A GC with MSD5975C Mass
Spectrometric (MS) detector. The oven temperature program starts at an
2.4. Gasification products characterization initial temperature of 45 ◦ C and ends at 320 ◦ C, with various tempera­
ture ramps and heating rates in between. The GC column is an Agilent
2.4.1. Producer gas characterization DB-17MS with a total length of 30 m, an inner diameter of 250 μm and a
The producer gas generated during the gasification process was film thickness of 5 μm.
analyzed by using a four-channel Agilent 490 Micro Gas Chromatograph Ammonia, EF, and tar were simultaneously sampled at three
(micro-GC) located downstream of the cleaning section. Each channel different Sampling Points (SP) located downstream of the heat
consists of a gas regulator, an injector, a column, and a Thermal Con­ exchanger (SP1), downstream of the scrubber (SP2), and downstream of
ductivity Detector (TCD). Channel 1 was equipped with a Molsieve 5A the wood chip filter (SP3), as indicated in Fig. 1. Instead, the producer
column, which provided the gas composition in terms of H2, O2, N2, CH4, gas was sampled at the end of the gas cleaning section (SP3).
and CO. Channel 2 was equipped with a PoraPlot Q column, which
detected compounds such as CO2, ethylene, ethane, propylene, propane. 2.5. Material and energy flow analyses application procedure
Channel 3 was equipped with an Al2O3/KCl column, which was used to
detect acetylene, 1,3-butadiene, and isobutylene. Finally, Channel 4 was A Material Flow Analysis (MFA) method was applied to evaluate the

4
F. Montagnaro and L. Zaccariello Energy 284 (2023) 129327

Table 4
Qproducer gas,dry
Main results obtained from the gasification tests. Data are on dry basis; in GSY = (Eq. 1)
parenthesis, corresponding data on N2-free and dry basis are reported for con­ WSWC
centration of species in gas, gas specific yield and heating value.
in which Qproducer gas,dry is producer gas volumetric flow rate on dry basis
SWC-30-A SWC-30-AS
and WSWC is the mass flow rate of SWC.
Producer gas flow rate, Nm3/h 574.30 (267.34) 604.34 (297.34) The LHV of the producer gas was calculated from its chemical
N2, vol% 53.45 (− ) 50.80 (− ) composition and resulted 5.80 MJ/Nm3. As regards the by-products
CO2, vol% 14.51 (31.17) 17.23 (35.02)
issuing from the air gasification test, the concentration of EF and tar
CO, vol% 16.17 (34.74) 14.72 (29.92)
H2, vol% 10.44 (22.43)a 12.51 (25.43)b resulted 35.24 g/Nm3 and 2.64 g/Nm3, respectively, while that of NH3
CH4, vol% 3.76 (8.08) 3.43 (6.97) was 0.27 g/Nm3.
C8Hm, vol% 1.67 (3.59) 1.31 (2.66) The results obtained from the test with the air/steam mixture, SWC-
Gas specific yield, Nm3/kg 1.79 (0.83) 1.89 (0.93)
30-AS, indicated that steam addition determined a reduction of reaction
Lower heating value, MJ/Nm3 5.80 (12.46) 5.41 (11.00)
Tar, g/Nm3 2.64 (5.67) 1.07 (2.18)
temperature from 942 ◦ C to 896 ◦ C (Table 3) because of the additional
Elutriated fines, g/Nm3 35.24 (75.70) 25.16 (51.14) sensible heat required by steam and the development of the endothermic
Ammonia, g/Nm3 0.27 (0.58) 0.17 (0.35) steam reforming reactions. Table 4 reveals that steam addition increased
Carbon conversion efficiency, – 0.8625 0.9026 H2 and CO2 (12.51 vol% and 17.23 vol%, respectively), and decreased
Cold gas efficiency, – 0.6901 0.6781
CO, CH4, and C8Hm concentrations (14.72 vol%, 3.43 vol%, and 1.31 vol
a
Corresponding to 1.67 g H2/100 g of biomass. %, respectively). Results in terms of producer gas composition are in line
b
Corresponding to 2.11 g H2/100 g of biomass. with those reported in literature when fluidized bed reactors are used for
biomass (white oak, wood pellets/chips, straw, sawdust, rice husk,
efficiencies of the individual process units and that of the whole gasifi­ sugarcane bagasse, almond shells) steam gasification [12,13,19,23,40,
cation facility. The MFA was conducted using the software STAN, which 50]. The obtained results are consistent with the following steam gasi­
supports performing MFA according to the Austrian standard ÖNORM S fication reactions:
2096 (MFA-Application in waste management) [49]. MFA is named
CH4 + H2 O⇄CO + 3H2 ΔH = +206 kJ/mol (R1)
Substance Flow Analysis (SFA) when it is referred to a specific chemical
species, and Energy Flow Analysis (EFA) when it is referred to the ( m)
chemical energy content of process streams. The procedure to apply C8 Hm + 8H2 O⇄8CO + 8 + H2 ΔH > 0 (R2)
2
MFA to the BFBG facility consists in building a graphical model with the
main components of the gasification facility (process units, subsystems, C + H2 O⇄CO + H2 ΔH = +131 kJ/mol (R3)
and flows). Then, experimental data (mass flows, stocks, concentrations, ( y)
and transfer coefficients) of corresponding physical units are either Cx Hy (tar) + xH2 O⇄xCO + x + H2 ΔH > 0 (R4)
2
entered or imported for different hierarchical layers (total mass, sub­
stance, and energy). Once sufficient data are given, calculation algo­ CO + H2 O⇄CO2 + H2 ΔH = − 41 kJ/mol (R5)
rithms compute the unknown variables. At the end of the calculation,
the graph of the model is displayed as Sankey arrows, i.e., the width of a Steam addition enhanced the conversion of light hydrocarbons (R1,
flow is proportional to its value. R2), carbon contained into EF (R3), and tar (R4), which led to the for­
The layer of total mass is the quantified flow diagram of the main mation of more CO and H2. On the other hand, CO is consumed by the
process units of the gasification facility, such as gasifier, cyclone, wet water-gas shift (WGS) reaction (R5), determining a net decrease of CO
scrubber, and WC filter. MFA was not applied to the gas engine because concentration in the producer gas. Despite the addition of steam, a
the STAN software supports only chemical energy balances. The gas moderate increase in H2 content (about 2 vol%) was observed. This ef­
engine efficiency was evaluated considering the chemical energy of the fect can be qualitatively explained by considering the high reaction
entering producer gas and the electric power generated, as described in temperature and the low S/B ratio used. The equilibrium of the WGS
the subsequent paragraphs. reaction has a significant temperature dependence. The WGS reaction is
The flows in input to or in output from a specific process unit are moderately exothermic and the equilibrium constant decreases with a
marked with a black arrow if the specific data were experimentally temperature increase, i.e., the formation of products is favoured at lower
determined or measured, or with a blue arrow if the data were obtained temperatures. At the actual operating conditions, the WGS reaction is
by the material or energy balances of the MFA. close to equilibrium with the reverse WGS reaction, i.e., the reaction is
In this study, MFA was applied to define the performance of the partially shifted back to the H2O and CO side. Furthermore, the addition
process units and assess the main gasification efficiencies parameters, of a small amount of steam only partially shifted the reaction to the
such as the Carbon Conversion Efficiency (CCE) and the Cold Gas Effi­ product side and thus led to a limited formation of CO2 and H2.
ciency (CGE). Another important effect of steam addition is the conversion of EF
carbonaceous particles and tar into permanent gases. From Tables 4 and
3. Results and discussion it can be deduced that the EF concentration decreased by 28.60 %, and
that tar was reduced by 59.47 % (tar concentration of about 1 g/Nm3
3.1. Producer gas composition was detected, i.e., at the lower limit of the interval commonly reported
in literature for steam gasification of biomass, 1–15 g/Nm3 [19,40]), as a
The gasification test conducted using air (test SWC-30-A) produced a direct consequence of the course of steam reactions (R3, R4). This led to
gas with H2 and CO content of 10.44 vol% and 16.17 vol%, respectively an increase of GSY (+5.59 %) and a reduction of LHV (-6.72 %). The
(Table 4; data on dry basis). Methane concentration was 3.76 vol%, decrease of producer gas LHV was due to the conversion of CO, CH4, and
while the content of C8Hm was 1.67 vol%. Finally, the amounts of CO2 C8Hm into compounds with lower chemical energy content. Anyway, the
and N2 were 14.51 vol% and 53.45 vol%, respectively. LHV was in line with references in literature for fluidized bed steam
The Gas Specific Yield (GSY), obtained as the ratio between the dry gasification of biomass [19,40].
producer gas volumetric flow rate and the SWC mass flow rate (Eq. (1)), Similar results were obtained by Arena et al. [51] during the gasifi­
was 1.79 Nm3/kg. cation of natural biomass in a pilot-scale BFBG. The authors found that
steam addition favoured the formation of further H2 and CO2 together

5
F. Montagnaro and L. Zaccariello Energy 284 (2023) 129327

Table 5
Main properties of elutriated fines and tar obtained from the gasification tests.
Material SWC-30-A SWC-30-AS

C H N Ash LHV C H N Ash LHV

wt.% MJ/kg wt.% MJ/kg

Elutriated fines 66.78 2.10 0.44 30.68 24.21 55.36 1.79 0.57 42.28 19.75
Tar 92.84 6.19 – – 36.90 93.41 6.24 – – 37.20

Table 6
Chemical speciation of detected tar produced during fluidized bed gasification of
spruce wood chips with air or an air/steam mixture as sampled downstream the
heat exchanger (SP1). List of substances investigated but not retrieved in tar
samples: Indane; Biphenylene; Cyclopenta[c,d]pyrene; Perylene; Coronene;
Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene.
Groups Components Formula SWC-30- SWC-30-
A AS

Phenols Phenol C6H6O 4.19 % 1.61 %

3-Methylphenol C7H8O 0.16 % 0.07 %
4-Methylphenol C7H8O 0.31 % 0.13 %
Aromatics Toluene C7H8 0.19 % 0.00 %
Benzonitrile C7H5N 0.08 % 0.00 %
Phenylacetylene C8H6 0.24 % 0.00 %
Styrene C8H8 2.69 % 1.53 %
Furans Benzofuran C8H6O 1.14 % 0.29 %
Dibenzofuran C12H8O 0.25 % 0.10 %
Naphthalenes Naphthalene C10H8 55.40 % 68.92 %
1-Methylnaphthalene C11H10 0.17 % 0.00 %
2-Methylnaphthalene C11H10 0.39 % 0.14 %
PAH Indene C9H10 8.49 % 7.75 %
Acenaphthylene C12H8 2.78 % 2.47 %
Biphenyl C12H10 0.29 % 1.02 %
Acenaphthene C12H10 1.02 % 0.97 %
Fluorene C13H10 2.09 % 1.54 %
Phenanthrene C14H10 2.44 % 2.40 % Fig. 2. Speciation of tar produced during fluidized bed gasification of spruce
Anthracene C14H10 11.86 % 7.45 %
wood chip with air and an air/steam mixture as sampled just downstream the
Cyclopenta[d,e,f] C15H10 0.07 % 0.67 %
heat exchanger.
phenanthrene
Acephenantrylene C16H10 0.08 % 0.00 %
Fluoranthene C16H10 1.59 % 1.16 % as a result of a better conversion of C and H of EF into gaseous com­
Pyrene C16H10 1.75 % 1.14 %
pounds (i.e., in presence of steam, EF are richer in inorganic ash whose
2-Phenylnaphthalene C16H12 0.00 % 0.64 %
Benzo[g,h,i]fluoranthene C18H10 0.20 % 0.00 % amount, as a matter of fact, increased from 30.68 wt% to 42.28 wt%).
Benzo[a]anthracene C18H12 0.46 % 0.00 % The H/C molar ratio in elutriated fines was about 0.38 for both cases
Chrysene C18H12 0.41 % 0.00 % [56].
Benzo[c]phenanthrene C18H12 0.03 % 0.00 % As far as tar is concerned, no significant variations in its C (about 93
Benzo[b]fluoranthene C20H12 0.18 % 0.00 %
wt%) and H (about 6 wt%) content were observed when using or not
Benzo[j]fluoranthene C20H12 0.01 % 0.00 %
Benzo[k]fluoranthene C20H12 0.05 % 0.00 % steam as gasifying agent. Nevertheless, differences can be highlighted
Benzo[a]pyrene C20H12 0.12 % 0.00 % from data in Table 6, which report the chemical composition of tar as
Benzo[e]pyrene C20H12 0.05 % 0.00 % specified by GC-MS analysis. For an easier interpretation of the results,
Indeno[c,d,e]pyrene C22H12 0.23 % 0.00 %
the detected tar components were combined in substance groups,
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene C22H12 0.45 % 0.00 %
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene C22H14 0.14 % 0.00 %
considering their chemical structure and properties according to
Ref. [57], and adding GC undetectable tar as reported (Fig. 2). For the
air gasification test, naphthalenes group, 2-rings aromatic hydrocarbons
with a decrease of CO content. In addition, they reported an increase of constituted mainly by naphthalene along with small amounts of 1- and
GSY and a reduction of producer gas LHV in presence of steam. Pio et al. 2-methylnaphthalene, accounted for the most relevant tar fraction, i.e.,
[52] conducted gasification experiments using an autothermal 55.96 %. The second most representative tar group consists of the
pilot-scale BFBG with natural biomasses as feedstock, and air or air/­ Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), which amounted to 34.79 %.
steam mixtures as gasifying agent. The authors, during the experiments The main representative tar components of this group (2–5 rings PAH),
with pine pellets, found that the concentration of hydrogen in the dry in descending order, were anthracene, indene, acenaphthylene, phen­
producer gas increased from about 7 vol% to 11 vol% as the S/B ratio anthrene, fluorene, pyrene, and fluoranthene. Phenols, aromatics, and
moved from 0 to 0.6. Analogous results were reported by other re­ furans groups accounted for lower fractions, i.e., 4.66 %, 3.20 %, and
searchers [53–55]. 1.39 %, respectively. When the mixture air/steam was used, a significant
variation in the relative proportion of tar groups was observed. It is
3.2. Elutriated fines and tar composition worth highlighting that, on the one hand, naphthalenes group increased
from 55.96 % to 69.06 %; on the other hand, PAH, phenols, aromatics,
Another significant consequence of steam utilization is the variation and furans groups decreased from 34.76 % to 27.21 %, from 4.66 % to
in EF and tar composition. Table 5 displays that the carbon and 1.81 %, from 3.20 % to 1.53 %, and from 1.39 % to 0.39 %, respectively.
hydrogen contents of EF reduced from 66.78 wt% to 55.36 wt%, and These results indicate that the higher reaction temperature
from 2.10 wt% to 1.79 wt%, respectively, when steam was added to air,

6
F. Montagnaro and L. Zaccariello Energy 284 (2023) 129327

Fig. 3. Material and energy flow analyses applied to the test with air as gasifying agent. (A) Total mass layer (kg/h); (B) Carbon layer (kg/h); (C) Energy layer
(MJ/h).

established during the test with air oriented the kinetic patterns toward production of hydrogen and polycondensed aromatic molecules unde­
the production of tar with 2–5 rings (PAH) which, probably, originated tectable by GC-MS analysis [58].
by condensation reactions between lighter tar with 1-aromatic ring
(phenols, aromatics, and furans groups). The enhancement of steam
3.3. Material and energy flow analyses
reforming reactions with the addition of steam determined the reduction
of lighter tar, i.e., the precursors of PAH. As a consequence, PAH
Fig. 3 displays the result of MFA applied to the gasification plant
decreased; conversely, naphthalenes increased, because naphthalene,
under the operating conditions of the run using air as gasifying agent.
the main representative of tar, proved to be the most stable compound
Fig. 3A represents total mass flow rates: 320 kg/h of SWC (F1) and
[27,53]. These experimental findings are further supported by the
500 kg/h of preheated air (F3) were fed to the gasifier and transformed
higher concentration of GC undetectable tar in the test with air (Fig. 2).
into 813.69 kg/h of raw producer gas (F4), that includes 20.24 kg/h of
The higher reaction temperature in the test with air supports the thermal
EF, 1.51 kg/h of tar, 0.15 kg/h of ammonia (as obtainable from Table 4),
dehydrogenation and polymerization of lighter tar leading to the
and 91.10 kg/h of Process Water (PW). Then, the raw producer gas

7
F. Montagnaro and L. Zaccariello Energy 284 (2023) 129327

Table 7 generated during the gasification process and that entering to the system
Separation efficiencies of process units, as obtained from MFA in Fig. 3A (SWC- through the fuel:
30-A) and Fig. 4A (SWC-30-AS), and conversion efficiencies of the process
(values for CCE and CGE from Table 4 are here repeated for convenience of (Q • LHV)producer gas
CGE = (Eq. 4)
reading). (W • LHV)SWC
SWC-30-A/SWC- Cyclone Wet WC filter Whole
30-AS scrubber system where Q indicates a volumetric flow rate. It resulted CGE = 69.01 %
(Tables 4 and 7). LHV for SWC, EF, and tar, was estimated from HHV, by
Elutriated fines 69.61 98.21 81.82 99.90
captured in … %/67.89 % %/97.54 % %/91.67 % %/99.93 % considering the latent heat of vaporization of H2O (Δ H
̂ v ) and n, the kmol
Tar captured in … – 75.50 70.27 92.72 of H2O released (as moisture/product of H2 combustion) per kg of solid
%/75.10 % %/50.04 % %/87.50 % stream:
NH3 captured in – 86.67 – 86.67
… %/90.71 % %/90.71 % ̂v
LHV = HHV − n • Δ H (Eq. 5)
SWC-30-A SWC-30-AS
In turn, HHV was evaluated from the elemental composition and the ash
Carbon conversion efficiency 86.25 % 90.26 %
(CCE) content of the specific materials, using the correlation proposed by
Cold gas efficiency (CGE) 69.01 % 67.81 % Channiwala and Parikh [33]:
Conversion efficiency of the gas 34.76 % 35.22 %
engine (ηGE ) HHV = 0.3491fC + 1.1783fH + 0.1005fS − 0.1034fO − 0.0151fN − 0.0211fash
Conversion efficiency of the 23.99 % 23.88 % (Eq. 6)
gasification process (ηGP )
where f denotes mass percentages on dry basis, and HHV is expressed in
[MJ/kg].
reached the cyclone which removed 14.09 kg/h of EF (F5). Subse­
The chemical energy rate of SWC, EF, and tar was determined by:
quently, the raw producer gas passed through the heat exchanger and
entered the wet scrubber, where 6.04 kg/h of EF (F8), 1.14 kg/h of tar CEi = (W • LHV)i (Eq. 7)
(F9), almost all ammonia (F10) and PW (F11) were removed. After­
EFA layer shows that CGE was mainly influenced by the energy used
wards, the pseudo-clean producer gas coming from the wet scrubber
by the system to convert SWC into producer gas, which amounted to
(F12) entered the WC filter where a part of remaining fines (F13) and tar
19.77 % (953.87 MJ/h) of the energy input. Another remarkable energy
(F14) were collected (0.09 kg/h and 0.26 kg/h, respectively). Finally, a
loss was associated with EF discharged by the cyclone and wet scrubber,
stream of 700.83 kg/h of conditioned producer gas (F15), with small
which accounted for 7.07 % and 3.03 %, respectively. Instead, the en­
quantities of EF (0.02 kg/h) and tar (0.11 kg/h), is sent to the gas engine.
ergy loss due to tar separation by wet scrubber and WC filter was 0.87 %
The MFA outcomes make possible to define the separation effi­
and 0.20 %, respectively, much lower than that related to fines
ciencies of process units. The efficiency η of cyclone, wet scrubber, and
separation.
WC filter were evaluated via:
( ) At the end of the process, the producer gas was sent to the gas engine
WyOUT,i which generated 321.51 kW of electric power Pel The resulting conver­
i
ηy = 1 − (Eq. 2) sion efficiency of the gas engine was calculated as:
WyIN,i
Pel • 3.6
where W is a mass flow rate, i is the process unit (cyclone, wet scrubber, ηGE = (Eq. 8)
CESWC • CGE
or WC filter) and y is the contaminant (elutriated fines, tar, or ammonia).
It resulted ηEF
cyclone
= 69.61 %, ηscrubber = 98.21 %, ηscrubber = 75.50 %, and resulted equal to 34.76 % (Table 7). The conversion efficiency of the
EF tar
whole gasification process into electricity was calculated as:
ηscrubber
NH3 = 86.67 %, ηWC filter
= 81.82 %,
EF ηWC filter
= 70.27 %. The overall
tar
performance of the gas cleaning section was 99.90 % for EF, 92.72 % for CEproducer gas
ηGP = • ηGE (Eq. 9)
tar, and 86.67 % for ammonia (Table 7). CESWC
The chemical characterization of SWC, producer gas, EF, and tar
streams allowed to perform the mass balance applied to the carbon and was equal to 23.99 %, which is in the practical range of similar
element, i.e., the carbon layer in Fig. 3B (SFA) and the energy balance, i. valuable applications [59].
e., the energy layer in Fig. 3C (EFA). Results of SFA allowed to calculate The utilization of steam is one of the most effective solutions for
CCE, defined as the ratio between the mass flow rate of carbon contained generating a high-quality producer gas. To overcome the difficulty due
in the final producer gas (sum of C contained in CO2, CO, CH4, and C8Hm, to the endothermic nature of the steam gasification process, a mixture of
and equal to 120.53 kg/h) and the mass flow rate of carbon fed to the air/steam was used to lead the process in autothermal conditions. Fig. 4
reactor through the feedstock (139.74 kg/h) as reported in Eq. (3): displays material and energy balances applied to the gasification plant
under the operating conditions of the run SWC-30-AS. Comparing
CCE =
WC,CO2 + WC,CO + WC,CH4 + WC,C8 Hm
(Eq. 3) Figs. 3A and 4A, it can be noted that the addition of steam significantly
Ẇ C,SWC reduced the concentration of contaminants in the producer gas and,
consequently, the cyclone, scrubber, and WC filter collected lower
where WC is the carbon mass flow rate of CO2, CO, CH4, C8Hm and SWC. amounts of EF, tar, and NH3. Moreover, the separation efficiencies of the
It resulted CCE = 86.25 % (Tables 4 and 7). CCE was mainly affected gas cleaning units remained substantially unchanged, despite the vari­
by the carbon losses related to the solid particles collected by the cyclone ation of the by-product streams entering them (Table 7).
(9.41 kg/h) and wet scrubber (4.03 kg/h). The major C loss due to the Comparing data from the carbon layers (Figs. 3B and 4B), it resulted
separation of tar from the producer gas was detected in the purge ma­ that CCE increased by 4.65 % (Tables 4 and 7). The increase of CCE was
terial from the wet scrubber (1.06 kg/h). In addition, the C layer displays promoted by the extension of the steam reforming reaction which led to
a carbon stock inside the gasifier which accounted for 3.16 % of C input. the conversion of char, light hydrocarbons, and tar into permanent
This can be attributed, to a great extent, to carbon accumulation as char gases. Fig. 4B displays that CCE was mainly affected by the carbon losses
into the bed of the gasifier. related to the EF collected by the cyclone (5.71 kg/h) and wet scrubber
Data displayed by the energy layer (Fig. 3C) allowed to calculate the (2.63 kg/h), while the carbon stock inside the gasifier was 4.69 kg/h.
CGE, defined as the ratio between the chemical energy of the gas

8
F. Montagnaro and L. Zaccariello Energy 284 (2023) 129327

Fig. 4. Material and energy flow analyses applied to the test with the air/steam mixture as gasifying agent. (A) Total mass layer (kg/h); (B) Carbon layer (kg/h); (C)
Energy layer (MJ/h).

Less significant losses were due to the separation of tar by the wet the cleaning process, the producer gas held 67.81 % of the input
scrubber (0.45 kg/h). chemical energy.
In the test with steam addition, CGE decreased by 1.74 % (Figs. 3C Finally, the gas engine converted the chemical energy of the pro­
and 4C, Tables 4 and 7), caused by the decrease of the LHV of the pro­ ducer gas into 320.09 kW of electric power. The conversion efficiency of
ducer gas that, as mentioned above, was the result of CO, CH4, and C8Hm the gas engine was 35.22 % (Eq. (8)), while the electric conversion ef­
conversion into gases with a lower chemical energy content. Also in this ficiency of the whole gasification process resulted 23.88 % (Eq. (9)).
case, CGE was mainly influenced by the energy the system used to
convert the biomass into gas, which accounted for 1232.49 MJ/h 4. Conclusions
(Fig. 4C). This energy amounted to 25.52 % of the total energy input,
and it was 29.21 % higher than that used to convert the biomass in the Results indicated that steam addition to the air stream improved the
test with only air (Fig. 3C). The surplus of energy was necessary to hold producer gas quality by converting char and tar into permanent gases.
the steam gasification process in autothermal conditions. At the end of Elutriated fines and tar were reduced by about 29 % and 60 %, when an

9
F. Montagnaro and L. Zaccariello Energy 284 (2023) 129327

air/steam mixture, instead of only air, was used as gasifying agent. [10] Wu R, Beutler J, Baxter LL. Biomass char gasification kinetic rates compared to
data, including ash effects. Energy 2023;266:126392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Therefore, this led to an increase in gas yield and carbon conversion
energy.2022.126392.
efficiency of ca. 5 %. The extension of steam reforming reactions [11] Shahabuddin M, Alam T. Gasification of solid fuels (coal, biomass and MSW):
increased the concentrations of H2 and CO2 and reduced those of CO and overview, challenges and mitigation strategies. Energies 2022;15:4444. https://
light hydrocarbons in the producer gas, leading to a reduction of lower doi.org/10.3390/en15124444.
[12] Hoang AT, Huang ZH, Nižetić S, Pandey A, Nguyen XP, Luque R, et al.
heating value and cold gas efficiency by about 7 % and 2 %, respectively. Characteristics of hydrogen production from steam gasification of plant-originated
Material flow analysis showed that the gas cleaning section has a mean lignocellulosic biomass and its prospects in Vietnam. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2022;
removal efficiency, considering both gasification tests, of 99.92 % for 47:4394–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.11.091.
[13] Thomson R, Kwong P, Ahmad E, Nigam KDP. Clean syngas from small commercial
elutriated fines, 90.11 % for tar, and 88.69 % for ammonia. The carbon biomass gasifiers; a review of gasifier development, recent advances and
conversion efficiency was mainly affected by the carbon loss due to the performance evaluation. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;45:21087–111. https://doi.
elutriated fines collected by the cyclone. The energy flow analysis org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.05.160.
[14] Higman C, van der Burgt M. Gasification. second ed. Gulf Professional Publishing;
revealed that the cold gas efficiency was significantly influenced by the 2008.
energy the system used to convert the starting biomass into producer [15] Zaccariello L, Mastellone ML. Gasification of sewage sludge in a bench-scale
gas. This value was found to be higher in the presence of steam. The reactor. Chem Eng Trans 2020;80:175–80. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2080030.
[16] Coppola A, Sattari A, Montagnaro F, Scala F, Salatino P. Performance of limestone-
overall conversion efficiency of the gasification process to produce based sorbent for sorption-enhanced gasification in dual interconnected fluidized
electric energy was about 24 % for both tests. bed reactors. AIChE J 2023;69:e17588. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.17588.
[17] Mastellone ML, Zaccariello L. Gasification of polyethylene in a bubbling fluidized
bed operated with the air staging. Fuel 2013;106:226–33. https://doi.org/
Credit author statement 10.1016/j.fuel.2012.12.049.
[18] Di Lauro F, Migliaccio R, Ruoppolo G, Balsamo M, Montagnaro F, Imperiale E,
Fabio Montagnaro: conceptualization, methodology, formal anal­ Caracciolo D, Urciuolo M. Tannery sludge gasification in a fluidized bed for its
energetic valorization. Ind Eng Chem Res 2022;61:16972–9. https://doi.org/
ysis, data curation, writing - original draft, writing - review & editing, 10.1021/acs.iecr.2c03214.
visualization. Lucio Zaccariello: conceptualization, methodology, [19] Zaccariello L, Montagnaro F. Fluidised bed gasification of biomasses and wastes to
investigation, formal analysis, data curation, writing - original draft, produce hydrogen-rich syn-gas – a review. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.7393.
writing - review & editing, visualization, funding acquisition. [20] Ren J, Liu YL, Zhao XY, Cao JP. Biomass thermochemical conver- sion: a review on
tar elimination from biomass catalytic gasification. J Energy Inst 2020;93:
1083–98.
Declaration of competing interest [21] Duong VM, Seiber M, Hofbauer H. Tar content and composition during a low-
temperature steam gasification of rice husks. Chem Papers 2020;74:1123–31.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11696-019-00952-1.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
[22] Narnaware SL, Panwar NL. Catalysts and their role in biomass gasification and tar
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence abatement: a review. Biomass Convers Biorefin 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/
the work reported in this paper. s13399-021-01981-1.
[23] Ramadhani B, Kivevele T, Kihedu JH, Jande YAC. Catalytic tar conversion and the
prospective use of iron-based catalyst in the future development of biomass
Data availability gasification: a review. Biomass Convers Biorefin 2022;12:1369–92. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13399-020-00814-x.
Data will be made available on request. [24] Cortazar M, Santamaria L, Lopez G, Alvarez J, Zhang L, Wang R, Bi X, Olazar M.
A comprehensive review of primary strategies for tar removal in biomass
gasification. Energy Convers Manag 2023;276:116496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Acknowledgments enconman.2022.116496.
[25] Hongrapipat J, Saw WL, Pang S. Removal of ammonia from producer gas in
biomass gasification: integration of gasification optimisation and hot catalytic gas
The Authors are indebted to E-Vento Acqua S. r.l., which financially cleaning. Biomass Convers Biorefin 2012;2:327–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/
supported the characterization of the materials in input to and the s13399-012-0047-1.
[26] Hongrapipat J, Yip ACK, Marshall AT, Saw WL, Pang S. Investigation of
products in output from the gasification facility.
simultaneous removal of ammonia and hydrogen sulphide from producer gas in
biomass gasification by titanomagnetite. Fuel 2014;135:235–42. https://doi.org/
References 10.1016/j.fuel.2014.06.037.
[27] Montagnaro F, Zaccariello L. Gasification of spruce wood chips in a 1.5 MWth
fluidised bed reactor. Energies 2022;15:5883. https://doi.org/10.3390/
[1] Balsamo M, Montagnaro F, Anthony EJ. Socio-economic parameters affect CO2
en15165883.
emissions and energy consumptions – an analysis over the United Nations
[28] Benedetti V, Patuzzi F, Baratieri M. Characterization of char from biomass
Countries. Curr Opin Green Sustainable Chem 2023;40:100740. https://doi.org/
gasification and its similarities with activated carbon in adsorption applications.
10.1016/j.cogsc.2022.100740.
Appl Energy 2018;227:92–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.076.
[2] Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-
[29] Brewer CE, Schmidt-Rohr K, Satrio JA, Brown RC. Characterization of biochar from
diversity grassland biomass. Science 2006;314:1598–600. https://doi.org/
fast pyrolysis and gasification systems. AIChE J 2009;28:386–96. https://doi.org/
10.1126/science.1133306.
10.1002/ep.10378.
[3] Chang ACC, Chang HF, Lin FJ, Lin KH, Chen CH. Biomass gasification for hydrogen
[30] Rios MLV, González AM, Lora EES, del Olmo OAA. Reduction of tar generated
production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011;36:14252–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
during biomass gasification: a review. Biomass Bioenergy 2018;108:345–70.
ijhydene.2011.05.105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.12.002.
[4] Nam H, Capareda S. Experimental investigation of torrefaction of two agricultural
[31] Devi L, Ptasinski KJ, Janssen FJJG. A review of the primary measures for tar
wastes of different composition using RSM (response surface methodology). Energy
elimination in biomass gasification processes. Biomass Bioenergy 2003;24:125–40.
2015;91:507–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.08.064.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00102-2.
[5] Balat M, Balat M, Kirtay E, Balat H. Main routes for the thermo-conversion of
[32] Anis S, Zainal ZA. Tar reduction in biomass producer gas via mechanical, catalytic
biomass into fuels and chemicals. Part 1: pyrolysis systems. Energy Convers Manag
and thermal methods: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:2355–77.
2009;50:3147–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2009.08.014.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.02.018.
[6] Zaccariello L, Mastellone ML, D’Amelia LI, Catauro M, Morrone B. Assessment of
[33] Surjosatyo A, Anggriawan MB, Hermawan AA, Dafiqurrohman H. Comparison
integration between lactic acid, biogas and hydrochar production in ofmsw plants.
between secondary thermal cracking methods and venturi scrubber filtering in
Energies 2020;13:6593. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13246593.
order to reduce tar in biomass gasification. In: Energy procedia. Elsevier Ltd; 2019.
[7] Migliaccio R, Brachi P, Montagnaro F, Papa S, Tavano A, Montesarchio P,
p. 749–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.200.
Ruoppolo G, Urciuolo M. Sewage sludge gasification in a fluidized bed:
[34] Narváez I, Orío A, Aznar MP, Corella J. Biomass gasification with air in an
experimental investigation and modeling. Ind Eng Chem Res 2021;60:5034–47.
atmospheric bubbling fluidized bed. Effect of six operational variables on the
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c00084.
quality of produced raw gas. Ind Eng Chem Res 1996;35:2110–20. https://doi.org/
[8] Basu P. Gasification, pyrolysis and torrefaction: practical design and theory. second
10.1021/ie9507540.
ed. San Diego: Academic Press; 2013.
[35] Ruiz M, Schnitzer A, Courson C, Mauviel G. Fe-doped olivine and char for in-bed
[9] Di Lauro F, Balsamo M, Solimene R, Salatino P, Montagnaro F. Hydrothermal
elimination of gasification tars in an air-blown fluidised bed reactor coupled with
liquefaction process to obtain sludge-derived bio-fuels: setup of the experimental
oxidative hot gas filtration. Carbon Resour Convers 2022;5:271–88. https://doi.
apparatus and preliminary tests. Chem Eng Trans 2022;92:475–80. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.crcon.2022.07.004.
org/10.3303/CET2292080.

10
F. Montagnaro and L. Zaccariello Energy 284 (2023) 129327

[36] Nakamura S, Kitano S, Yoshikawa K. Biomass gasification process with the tar [49] Brunner PH, Rechberger H. Practical handbook of material flow analysis. Boca
removal technologies utilizing bio-oil scrubber and char bed. Appl Energy 2016; Raton: CRC Press; 2004.
170:186–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.113. [50] Parvez AM, Hafner S, Hornberger M, Schmid M, Scheffknecht G. Sorption
[37] Zhu HL, Chen Z, Pastor-Perez L, Long X, Millan M. How syngas composition affects enhanced gasification (SEG) of biomass for tailored syngas production with in-situ
catalytic steam reforming of tars: an analysis using toluene as model compound. Int CO2 capture: current status, process scale-up experiences and outlook. Renew
J Hydrogen Energy 2023;48:1290–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Sustain Energy Rev 2021;141:110756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2022.10.045. rser.2021.110756.
[38] Li B, Magoua Mbeugang CF, Xie X, Wei J, Zhang S, Zhang L, et al. Catalysis/CO2 [51] Arena U, Zaccariello L, Mastellone ML. Gasification of natural and waste biomass
sorption enhanced pyrolysis-gasification of biomass for H2-rich gas production: in a pilot scale fluidized bed reactor. Combust Sci Technol 2010;182:625–39.
effects of activated carbon, NiO active component and calcined dolomite. Fuel https://doi.org/10.1080/00102200903467689.
2023;334:126842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126842. [52] Pio DT, Gomes HGMF, Tarelho LAC, Vilas-Boas ACM, Matos MAA, Lemos FMS.
[39] Fu W, Zhang Y, Cui L, Liu H, Maqsood T. Experimental microwave-assisted air Superheated steam injection as primary measure to improve producer gas quality
gasification of biomass in fluidized bed reactor. Bioresour Technol 2023;369: from biomass air gasification in an autothermal pilot-scale gasifier. Renew Energy
128378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.128378. 2022;181:1223–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.09.083.
[40] Pio DT, Tarelho LAC. Industrial gasification systems (>3 MWth) for bioenergy in [53] Nam H, Wang S, Sanjeev KC, Seo MW, Adhikari S, Shakya R, et al. Enriched
Europe: current status and future perspectives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021; hydrogen production over air and air-steam fluidized bed gasification in a bubbling
145:111108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111108. fluidized bed reactor with CaO: effects of biomass and bed material catalyst.
[41] Situmorang YA, Zhao Z, Yoshida A, Abudula A, Guan G. Small-scale biomass Energy Convers Manag 2020;225:113408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gasification systems for power generation (<200 kW class): a review. Renew enconman.2020.113408.
Sustain Energy Rev 2020;117:109486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [54] Roche E, de Andrés JM, Narros A, Rodríguez ME. Air and air-steam gasification of
rser.2019.109486. sewage sludge. The influence of dolomite and throughput in tar production and
[42] Karl J, Pröll T. Steam gasification of biomass in dual fluidized bed gasifiers: a composition. Fuel 2014;115:54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.07.003.
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;98:64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [55] Galvagno A, Prestipino M, Chiodo V, Maisano S, Brusca S, Lanzafame R. Energy
rser.2018.09.010. performance of CHP system integrated with citrus peel air-steam gasification: a
[43] Channiwala SA, Parikh PP. A unified correlation for estimating HHV of solid, liquid comparative study. In: Energy procedia. Elsevier Ltd; 2017. p. 485–92. https://doi.
and gaseous fuels. Fuel 2002;81:1051–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-2361 org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.233.
(01)00131-4. [56] Nam H, Capareda SC, Ashwath N, Kongkasawan J. Experimental investigation of
[44] Rapagnà S, Jand N, Kiennemann A, Foscolo PU. Steam-gasification of biomass in a pyrolysis of rice straw using bench-scale auger, batch and fluidized bed reactors.
fluidised-bed of olivine particles. Biomass Bioenergy 2000;19:187–97. https://doi. Energy 2015;93:2384–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.10.028.
org/10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00031-3. [57] Wilk V, Hofbauer H. Co-gasification of plastics and biomass in a dual fluidized-bed
[45] Corella J, Toledo JM, Padilla R. Olivine or dolomite as in-bed additive in biomass steam gasifier: possible interactions of fuels. Energy Fuel 2013;27:3261–73.
gasification with air in a fluidized bed: which is better? Energy Fuel 2004;18: https://doi.org/10.1021/ef400349k.
713–20. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef0340918. [58] Zaccariello L, Mastellone ML. Fuel gas production from the Co-gasification of coal,
[46] Hu G, Xu S, Li S, Xiao C, Liu S. Steam gasification of apricot stones with olivine and plastic waste, and wood in a fluidized bed reactor: effect of gasifying agent and bed
dolomite as downstream catalysts. Fuel Process Technol 2006;87:375–82. https:// material. Sustainability 2023;15:7547. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097547.
doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2005.07.008. [59] Raheem DG, Erdem K, Koten H. Techno-environmental studies on a reciprocating
[47] Radačovská L, Holubčík M, Nosek R, Jandačka J. Influence of bark content on ash internal combustion engine fired with syngas produced by gasifying different types
melting temperature. Procedia Eng 2017;192:759–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. of Turkish lignites. Int J Automot Technol 2018;2:137–42. https://doi.org/
proeng.2017.06.131. 10.15659/ijaat.18.09.981.
[48] CEN/TS 15439. Biomass gasification tar and particles in product gases sampling
and analysis. European Committee for Standardization; 2005.

11