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

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sudhirtyagi@yahoo.com (S.K. Tyagi).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.038
Received 21 December 2015; Received in revised form 19 December 2016; Accepted 8 January 2017
Available online 17 January 2017
1364-0321/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
S.K. Sansaniwal et al.
Nomenclature
Hi Lower heating value
w Mass fraction for each component
M Molecular mass for each component
a Factor used for the type of oxidant
fuel Biomass fuel used
b Operating mode factor
red Reduction process
gasifier. Hence, it can convert the solid biomass into different fuels
such as liquid and gas which may be further synthesized for various
applications including heating, cooking, power generation, transporta-
tion and so on. The major thermochemical conversion routes of
biomass are shown in Fig. 1.
Among the three thermochemical conversion routes of biomass, the
gasification is a self-sufficient autothermic process in terms of an
energy balance. The energy recovery and heat capacity of biomass
gasification are more than the combustion and pyrolysis which is
attributed towards the optimum utilization of available biomass feed-
stock for heat and power generation since both the carbon and
hydrogen contribute to the calorific value to a great extent. Whereas
the pyrolysis and liquefaction are complex in nature and highly
dependent on operational conditions and the occurrence of a secondary
reaction between the hot solid particles and volatiles. Therefore, the
conversion of CO and H2 is poor in pyrolysis and liquefaction
processes. Further, the conversion processes such as, catalytic hydro-
generation, separation techniques are not cost effective and thus, the
conversion of the bio-oils obtained from these processes to other useful
chemicals is not economical viable. However, the syngas obtained from
gasification is easily convertible to synthetic natural gas through
catalytic methanation of CO and CO2 [7]. Therefore, biomass gasifica-
tion has been considered to be the preferred viable option for
conversion of a variety of biomass feedstocks – ranging from plant
residues to agro-waste, industrial waste, kitchen waste, food waste, and
farm waste – to bioenergy for successful replacement of petrochemical
derived products [8,9].
The present article broadly meant for technicians, academicians,
and other stakeholders working on biomass gasification to catch the
fundamentals, advancements and the barriers for the dissemination of
the technology in the field for commercial applications particularly in
rural and remote areas of the developing world. The main focus of this
article includes a) extraction of valuable aspects from various studies,
including laboratory and field studies, b) summary of the work done so
far including the published literature, c) studies and findings on
different types of gasifiers by earlier researchers, and d) recent
developments including techno-economic evaluation and future direc-
tions.
2. History
The gasification process was discovered in France and England
independently in 1798 but the technology development was come into
the implementations after 60 years when it could be possible to light
much of London using manufacturing gas produced from the coal. First
gasification process was used in the blast furnace over 180 years ago in
France to produce the combustible fuels from organic feeds to drive the
first vehicle designed by J. W. Parker in Scotland in 1901. By 1920,
most of the American towns and cities were connected with town gas
supplied for cooking and lighting applications. The importance of town
gas supply was realized and sooner the crisscross of the first natural gas
pipeline was drawn in 1930 to transport the natural gas from oil fields
of Texas to Denver. Until 1970, England continued using the town gas
but the plants were dismantled following the discovery of North Sea oil
364
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384
c, d and eOperating mode factors
oks oxidant
g Factor used for oxidant
loss Heat loss
warm Preheating
sg syngas
h enthalpy
MATLAB Matrix laboratory
EES Engineering equation solver
which led to the new era of liquid fuels [10]. The French government
contributed significantly to the development of gasification system and
emphasized on its usage for automobile and electricity generation. The
possibility of energy production from these combustible gases was soon
realized by emerging it in Europe producer gas systems and these
systems were run by using charcoal and peat as the feed materials [11].
During World War II, when the shortage supply of petroleum was
realized, the gasification process was re-introduced and the producer
gas system provided the fuels to drive power trucks, buses, street lights,
agricultural and industrial machines and heat for various applications.
Thereafter, the availability of cheap fossil fuels led to the negligence of
producer gas industry. However, the Swedish government continued to
work on the advancements of producer gas technology and got pace
after 1956 Suez Canal crisis. Many new designs for the betterment of
gasification systems were practiced and perceived on later stages. The
research on woody biomass gasifier design is still in progress at the
National Swedish Institute for Agricultural Machinery Testing, Alnarp,
Sweden. Also, the gasification technology is a cheaper method of power
generation in developing countries having sufficient quantity of bio-
mass for small scale industrial as well as power generation applica-
tions.
During 1973 oil crisis, over 12,000 large size gasifiers with an
average capacity of 1 MW were installed by North America in a period
of just 30 years. Some developing countries like India, Brazil,
Philippines and Indonesia are focusing their attention on the imple-
mentation of gasifier programs for green and clean energy production
and utilization based on the available technology and today there are
more than 64 competent manufacturers of gasification equipment's
globally [12]. At present in India, Energy Alternative India (EAI)
estimated the total biomass gasification installation capacity of
140 MW out of about 2600 MW of total biomass-based power genera-
tion. Out of this figure, bagasse based power generation has been
identified with the share of 1400 MW followed by combustion-based
biomass power production of 875 MW [13].
3. Concept and principle
Biomass is a biological material which stores energy through
photosynthesis process in the presence of sunlight. Biomass is basically
derived from living organism like plants, crop residues, animals etc. It
Fig. 1. Main thermochemical conversion routes of biomass [6].
S.K. Sansaniwal et al.
contains some biopolymers such as cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin
in addition to the presence of an average composition of C6H10O5 with
slight variations depending on the physical characteristics of biomass
[14]. Every fuel requires some amount of oxygen to carry out the
process of combustion. The stoichiometric air to fuel ratio required for
the complete combustion of biomass fuel varies from 6:1 to 6.5:1 with
CO2 and H2O as the end products. However, the gasification process
requires less amount of oxygen resulting incomplete biomass combus-
tion at sub-stoichiometric air to fuel ratio varying from 1.5:1 to 1.8:1
[15].
Biomass gasification occurs through a sequence of complex thermo-
chemical reactions and hence, it is unrealistic to split the gasifier into
different zones carrying out many gasification reactions simulta-
neously. The various stages involved in gasification process are
illustrated below [16–20]:
3.1. Drying zone or bunker section
Various physical and chemical characteristics of raw biomass
material play the pivotal role in the biomass gasification process. The
quality of end products of the process is observed to be highly
dependent on the type of biomass undertaken. Different studies of
gasification using various biomass materials have been reported in the
literature and are also summarized in this article. In some studies, the
pre-treatment of raw biomass materials such as, drying, densification,
briquetting etc. has been carried out to improve the end product
quality. However, the drying of biomass material also takes place
within the gasifier reactor itself but more amount of moisture cause
energy loss and degrades the quality of the product. Depending on the
nature of biomass, the presence of the moisture content generally
varies from 5% to 35% which gets converted into steam at a
temperature of around 100 °C. Due to heat transfer from the combus-
tion zone, the drying of biomass takes place in the bunker section.
However, due to low temperature, fuel does not experience any thermal
decomposition of its volatile matters during the drying process which is
shown as below [16–20]:
Moist feedstock + Heat → Dry feedstock + H2 O (1)
3.2. Pyrolysis or thermal decomposition zone
Pyrolysis is a complicated process of thermal decomposition of
biomass fuels in the absence of oxygen/air. Its occurrence releases solid
charcoal, liquid tar, and gases whose proportion depends on the nature
of biomass fuel used and the operating conditions of the process.
During pyrolysis, both the process of drying and reduction of constitute
molecular weight takes place simultaneously, while the moisture gets
removed below 200 °C. When this temperature increases to 300 °C, the
reduction of molecular weight of the biomass constituent's mainly
amorphous cellulose starts with the formation of carbonyl and carboxyl
group radicals. Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide also formed
during the reduction process. As the temperature rises beyond 300 °C,
the resultant crystalline cellulose gets decomposed with the formation
of char, tar, and gaseous products. The hemicellulose gets decomposed
into the soluble polymer with the formation of volatile gases, char, and
tar. The lignin gets decomposed at a higher temperature varying from
300 to 500 °C and forms methanol, acetic acid, water, and acetone.
Overall, the large biomass biopolymers such as, cellulose, hemi-
cellulose, and lignin get converted into the carbon (char) and medium
size molecules (volatiles). Hence, pyrolysis of biomass takes place in
the temperature range of 125–500 °C and condenses the hydrocarbons
in the form of tars. The chemical reactions taking place up to the
temperature of 300 °C are exothermic reactions whereas the chemical
reactions beyond temperature 300 °C are called endothermic reactions.
Therefore, for charcoal making, the temperature of 300 °C is sufficient
and do not require the external heating. But for high temperature
365
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384
pyrolysis process, external heating is required to maximize the gas or
liquid fuel yield, the pyrolysis of biomass is shown below [16–20]:
Dry feedstock + Heat → Char + Volatiles (2)
3.3. Partial oxidation or combustion zone
During the oxidation process, the volatile materials from biomass
get oxide under exothermic chemical reactions and generate the heat
with peak temperature varying from 1100 to 1500 °C with gaseous
fuels like CO, H2, CO2 and H2O. This stage of gasification is very critical
which decides the type and quality of the end products. Some of the key
parameters such as, pressure and the temperature inside the reactor,
type of gasifying agents (oxygen, air, and steam) play an important role
in the yield of producer gas. In recent research activities, steam has
been observed as one of the most relevant gasifying medium which also
helps in the gas reforming process. However, the air causes more
nitrogen oxides which highly affect the heating characteristics of the
final product. Besides, oxygen has also been reported as the ideal
gasifying agent, as far as the producer gas for power generation is
concerned. Meanwhile, the heat produced by exothermic reactions in
the combustion zone is also used in biomass drying as well as for
pyrolysis reactions to bring out the volatile materials and to provide the
heat for reduction reactions. In this zone, heterogeneous reactions take
place between solid carbonized fuel and oxygen present in the air which
produces carbon dioxide and a substantial amount of heat. Hydrogen
also combines with oxygen to produce water vapors [16–20]:
C + O2 → CO2 + 406 kJ/g. mole (Complete oxidation reaction) (3)
2H2 + O2 → 2H2 O + 242 MJ/kg mole (4)
3.4. Reduction zone
Gasification/pyrolysis process not only produces useful gases but
also some undesirable by-products such as NOX, SO2 and tar contents
and tar has been reported the biggest obstacle in the utilization of
producer gas for power generation applications. Several studies have
been carried by many researchers under different operating conditions
as presented in the next section of this article but still the hitching of
tar formation has been identified as the keen interest among the
researchers. Some of the tar reducing methods such as, mechanism
methods, self-modification, thermal decomposition, catalyst cracking
and plasma methods have been practiced and still in the sole interest of
scientists. Too much tar particles in the fuel gas will reduce the biomass
utilization efficiency and have a severe potential of clogging the fuel
lines, filters and engine as well.
So, the formation of tar particles can be controlled by setting up the
adequate temperature conditions capable of required thermal decom-
position in the reduction zone. A temperature of 1000 °C in the
reduction zone has been reported suitable for the requisite reduction
of tar particles. In reduction zone, a number of high temperature
chemical reactions take place under a reducing atmosphere which
yields conversion of sensible heat of the gases and charcoal into the
chemical energy of the producer gas. The reduction process occurs
while executing endothermic reactions to generate combustible pro-
ducts such as, CO, H2, and CH4 such as [16–20]:
C + CO2 → 2 CO–172.6 kJ/g. mole (Boudourd reaction) (5)
C + H2 O → CO + H2 − 131.4 kJ/g. mole (Water gas reaction) (6)
CO + H2 O → CO2 + H2 + 42.3 kJ/g. mole (Water gas shift reaction) (7)
C + 2H2 → CH 4 + 75 kJ/g. mole (Hydrogasification reaction) (8)
S.K. Sansaniwal et al.
4. Types of gasifier
The design of a biomass gasifier depends on the fuel availability,
shape and size, moisture content, ash content and end user applica-
tions. Different types of biomass gasifiers are available in various size
and design depending on the requirements and basically, classified as
fixed and fluidized bed type gasifiers [12]. As gasification systems
involve an interaction of air/oxygen/steam and biomass in the fixed
bed type gasifier hence, they can be classified according to the way of
interaction of either air/oxygen or steam with biomass such as,
downdraft, updraft, and crossdraft gasifier and are shown below in
Fig. 2.
4.1. Fixed bed type gasifier
Fixed bed or moving bed type gasifier are having a bed of solid fuel
particles through which gasifying agents (i.e. air, oxygen, steam) and
gas pass either up or down. They are the simplest type of gasifier
consisting of a cylindrical vessel for fuel and gasifying agents, fuel
feeding unit, ash collection unit and gas exit. These types of gasifiers
are deigned to operate at moderate pressure conditions of 25–30 atm.
The gas cooling and cleaning system associated with fixed bed gasifier
are normally consists of wet scrubbing, cyclone and dry filtration.
During the gasification process, the fixed bed gasifiers move slowly
down the reactor. These gasifiers are simple in construction, made of
concrete or steel and generally operate at low gas velocity, high carbon
conversion and long solid residence time. They are highly affected by
the formation of tar contents, however, recent progress in tar control
methods has given credible options. These gasifier has been reported
suitable for small-scale heat and power generation applications
[10,21,22]. The fixed bed type gasifiers are further classified as down-
draft, updraft and crossdraft gasifiers and discussed in detail as below
[10,12,22–24]:
4.1.1. Downdraft or co-current gasifier
In downdraft gasifier, as clear from the name itself, air interacts
with the solid biomass fuel in the downward direction which results in
the movement of wastes and gases in the co-current direction and
hence, these gasifiers are also called as co-current gasifiers. All the
decomposition products from both pyrolysis as well as drying zones are
forced to pass through the oxidation zone for thermal cracking of
volatile materials and produce less tar content and hence, the better
quality fuel gas. Here, air interacts with the pyrolyzing biomass before
it contacts the char and accelerates the flame which maintains the
process of pyrolysis. At the end of pyrolysis zone, the gases obtained in
the absence of oxygen are CO2, H2O, CO, and H2, called flaming
pyrolysis. In flaming pyrolysis, the gases obtained during downdraft
gasification are due to consumption of 99% of the tar in the process
itself leading to low particulate and tar content in the gas and hence,
suited for small scale power generation applications [10,23].
4.1.2. Updraft or counter-current gasifier
In updraft gasifier, the gasifying agent such as, air, oxygen and
steam are introduced at the bottom to interact with biomass and the
combustible gases in counter current direction and hence, these
gasifiers are also called counter-current gasifier. In addition to the
pyrolysis products and drying zone steam, the gas produced in the
reduction zone with high calorific value leaves the reactor. In some
updraft gasifiers, steam is evaporated into the combustion zone to
obtain quality fuel gas and prevents the gasifier from overheating as
well. This type of gasifier has the highest thermal efficiency as the hot
gas passes through the fuel bed and leaves the gasifier unit at low
temperature whereas some part of the sensible heat of producer gases
is also used within the system for biomass drying and steam generation
[24]. The main advantages of updraft gasifiers are good thermal
efficiency, small pressure drop and the slight tendency to slag forma-
366
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384
tion. These gasifiers are suitable for the applications where the high
flame temperature is required and a moderate amount of dust in the
fuel gas are acceptable. However, some bottlenecks such as, great
sensitivity to tar and moisture content of the fuel, low production of
syngas, long start up time of the engine, and poor reaction capability
are also associated with these systems [12].
4.1.3. Crossdraft gasifier
Although crossdraft gasifiers have certain advantages over updraft
and downdraft gasifier but they are not of ideal type. Crossdraft gasifier
is one of the simplest types of gasifier in which the fuel enters from the
top and the thermochemical reactions occur progressively as the fuel
descends in the reactor. Here, the air will enter into the reactor from
the sides, rather than from the top or the bottom as shown in Fig. 3(c).
Unlike upward and downdraft gasifier, crossdraft gasifier has separate
ash bin, fire and reduction zone and hence, limit the fuel used for
operation with less ash content in the producer gas [25]. The main
advantages of crossdraft gasifiers are the fast response against the load,
flexible gas producer, small start-up time, compatibility with dry air
blast and have short design height. This type of gasifier is not capable of
handling high tar content and very small fuel particles. It also produces
high temperature fuel gases and has the poor reduction of carbon
dioxide gas. These gasifiers are having very few applications due to its
only advantage of the presence of good permeability of the bed and
hence, not much work has been reported in the literature so far [12].
4.2. Fluidized bed type gasifier
Foundation of this type of gasifier is based on the principle of
fluidization in which both the fuel and inert bed material behaves like a
fluid. Such behaviour is observed when the fluidization medium like
air, steam, oxygen, and their mixture is allowed to force through the
solid inventory of the reactor [26,27]. These gasifiers employ back
mixing which leads to the efficient mixing of the feedstock particles
with the particles already undergoing gasification. Silica has been
considered as the most commonly used inert bed material for these
types of gasifiers, however, other bulk solids such as, sand, olivine,
glass beads, dolomite etc. exhibits catalytic features are also in recent
trends to minimize the tar problems. These gasifiers are differing from
the fixed bed gasifier in the sense of design configurations and ash
conditions such as, dry or agglomerated etc. for improving the use of
the char formed during the process.
The basic concept of fluidized bed has been adopted to enhance the
heat transfer between the fuel particles for better gasification process
and therefore, a fluidized bed can operate under nearly isothermal
conditions. Operating temperature of a fluidized bed reactor depends
on the melting point of bed material and generally varies from 800 to
900 °C which is relatively low and hence, gasification reactions do not
reach at chemical equilibrium at such low temperature conditions
unless any catalyst is used. Short gas residence time is also another
cause of not achieving a chemical equilibrium. Due to these factors,
hydrocarbon contents in producer gas in case of the fluidized bed
reactor fall in the range of the fixed bed gasifier. However, the carbon
Fig. 2. Classification of biomass gasifier [12].
S.K. Sansaniwal et al.
Fig. 3. Schematic view of (a) Downdraft (b) Updraft and (c) Crossdraft gasifier [12].
conversion efficiency of these gasifiers is comparatively high and
reported to be up to 95%. These gasifiers are very suitable for scaling
up due to their design and excellent mixing properties and hence, they
are also capable of handling a wider range of fuel particle size [28].
The fluidized bed gasifiers are also having provision for the use of
additives to accelerate the phenomenon of tar conversion. However,
biomass materials having high contents of ash and alkali metals, such
as grasses, canes, almond hull, rice and wheat straws, can also form
eutectics with the presence of silica either in the bed materials or in the
fuel ash itself. This will lead to the stickiness of the particles and
eventually forms bigger lumps which ultimately cause defluidization
and necessary shut down of the reactor is frequently required for
cleaning periodically [29,30]. The development of suitable corrective
measures is needed to fix such problems. For instance, the addition of
calcined limestone in a fluidized bed may increase the melting point of
eutectics and thus allow gasification at high temperature conditions for
larger periods of time. However, this process is not significantly
effective unless the concentration of limestone in the fluidized bed is
maintained for extended periods of time. Moreover, the addition of
calcined limestone may allow gasification at a higher temperature
Fig. 4. Schematic view of (a) Bubbling and (b) Circulating bed type gasifier [28].
367
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384
(above 900 °C) over periods of time to minimize the risk of agglomera-
tion and prevent from the regular replacement of bed. Due to char
sticking and tarring, uncertainties in the collection and measurement
of carbon removed by cyclone and thimble filters have been estimated
to be ± 4% and ± 20%, respectively [31–34].
The fluidized bed gasifiers are having many characteristics such as,
load and fuel flexibility, high heat transfer rates, moderate require-
ments of gasification medium, uniformity of high temperature through
the gasifier and high cold gas efficiency. As stated above, however, these
gasifiers are also affected by tar and dust particles produced due
various biomass feedstocks (grasses, canes, almond hull, rice and
wheat straws), which not only reduced the quality of fuel gas but also
leads to the malfunctioning of some equipments including the prime
mover, in long run [35,36]. Also, depending upon the degree of
fluidization and bed height, fluidization bed reactors have been
categories in two types namely, bubbling and circulating fluidized
bed reactor discussed in detail as below [28]:
4.2.1. Bubbling bed gasifier
Bubbling bed gasifiers are very simple in construction and opera-
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

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

Table 1
The important parameters affecting the gasifier operation.

Parameters Remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4
Summary of review papers on biomass gasifier.

Researchers Year Remarks

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

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

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

370
S.K. Sansaniwal et al.
and then starts decreasing with increasing the equivalence ratio. The
cold gas efficiency and overall efficiency of the biomass electrical power
system were obtained to be 80% and 11%, respectively for the specific
biomass consumption rate of 2 kg/kWh. However, the complete
conversion of carbon to gaseous fuel was not observed even with the
optimum equivalence ratio of 0.38 which may be assumed due to the
bridging of biomass inside the gasifier.
Zainal et al. [67] predicted the gasification process in a downdraft
gasifier using equilibrium modelling and determined the gas charac-
teristics in terms of its compositions and the calorific value. The effect
of moisture content of wood on the calorific value was also investigated
and results were compared with the experimental data. The calorific
value of the fuel gas was reported decreasing with increasing in
moisture content of raw material varying from 0% to 40%, while a
moisture content of 20% was reported to achieve the highest bed
temperature of 800 °C. Bridgwater [68] presented the costs and
technologies involved in the production of electricity from biomass in
general and wood in particular by considering its handling, gasification,
gas quality, gas cleaning and its selection for the gas turbine or engine
as important elements of criteria. Special emphasis was placed on the
technology status and key uncertainties, considered to be crucial for the
success or failure of biomass-based integrated gasification combined
cycle. It was observed that the wood handling, storage, drying and
screening had no uncertainties in the operation and performance.
Surjosatyo and Vidian [69] evaluated the tar content of producer gas in
the downdraft gasifier having air flow rate of 189.6 lpm for 8.5 kg
coconut shell. It was observed that the increase in water flow rate in
venturi scrubber decreases the tar content of producer gas and reported
its variance from 125 to 275 mg/Nm3 with the absorption capacity of
60%.
Tooy et al. [70] studied a downdraft gasifier system using coconut
husks as biomass input material for electric power generation and
reported 62% saving of diesel fuel. The system performance was
evaluated in terms of reactor temperature, tar volume produced,
gasification performance, bioreactor gas produced, and efficiency in
energy production. The coconut husk waste was reported to be a
suitable biomass material for gasification along with the coconut husk
where it is not used in productively for other domestic applications.
Chawdhury and Mahkamov [16] developed a small downdraft gasifier
of 6–7 kW capacity using wood chips and pallets as feed and the
producer gas composition, moisture content, and biomass feedstock
consumption were measured for reactor having inside temperature
ranging from 950 to 1150 °C, air flow rate of 0.0015 m3/s, and
producer gas exit temperature ranging from 180 to 220 °C. The main
constituents of syngas obtained were nitrogen (50–56%), carbon
monoxide (19–22%), hydrogen (12–19%), carbon dioxide (10–12%),
and methane (1–2%). The data obtained using engineering equation
solver software was reported closed to the calculated values and the
thermal efficiency of 92.4% was also obtained. Melgar et al. [71]
presented a real-time diagnosis model to perform the real time
calculation, monitoring and recording of physical variables of gasifica-
tion from the gas composition analysis and other measurements like
temperature and gas flow rate for a downdraft fixed bed gasifier. The
main gasification parameters such as, biomass consumption, air/fuel
ratio, thermal efficiency, and thermal power generation etc. were
calculated by assuming some simplifying hypothesis. Using this
technique, the strong dependency of thermal efficiency on equivalence
ratio was observed and the increase in the equivalence ratio was also
reported with a higher methane concentration and a lower hydrogen
concentration. However, for no change in the thermal efficiency and
equivalence ratio, the water decomposition was observed to have
different values which may be assumed due to the non-uniform
distribution of temperature inside the reactor.
Jain et al. [72] processed biogas and producer gas under air and
oxygen medium in a fuel processor LDU-1 comprised of a ZnO reactor,
steam reformer, an HT shift reactor, and an LT shift reactor and the
371
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384
complete conversion of methane and carbon monoxide into hydrogen
from biogas was observed whereas it was 95% from producer gas under
oxygen medium. Also, the producer gas under air medium yielded 40%
hydrogen production on processing, while higher carbon dioxide was
reported for higher water flow rates and lower gas flow rates besides
the effect of biogas/water flow ratio on CO2 percentage in water was
also studied. Pruksakit et al. [19] presented a thermochemical equili-
brium model to simulate the biomass gasification process and pre-
dicted the producer gas composition. The results obtained were
reported to be well suited with the experimental results. A correlation
between biomass composition and gas product was also reported using
thermochemical equilibrium models. Furthermore, these models were
also suggested a good tool for design and optimization of a biomass
downdraft gasifier.
Gautam et al. [23] studied tar formation based on biomass flow rate
in a stratified downdraft gasifier using wood pallets. Also, various tar
compounds such as toluene, o/p-xylene, naphthalene, phenol, styrene,
and indane were observed in significant amounts. The syngas tar
concentration was reported to be in the range of 340–680 mg/Nm3
which was observed to be higher when compared with similar gasifier
using woodchips. Mamphweli and Meyer [73] investigated the conver-
sion efficiency of an 180 Nm3/h Johansson biomass gasifier using gas
profiles obtained at custom build gas and temperature measurement
system. The non-dispersive infrared (NDI) gas detection technique was
used to monitor the volume and quality of producer gas. The hydrogen
content of producer gas was monitored using Palladium/Nickel gas
sensor. Evaluation of the said gasifier was done before installation of a
300 Nm3/h at a rural village. Finally, the conversion efficiency of 75%
with an average gas heating value of 6 MJ/Nm3 was reported for the
Johansson biomass gasifier. Shelke et al. [74] investigated the thermal
behaviour of a downdraft gasifier using karanj wood (25 mm thickness,
20 mm length) for various equivalence ratios ranging from 0.19 to
0.32. With the increase in the value of equivalence ratio, the producer
gas yield and the tar formation were observed to be increasing and
decreasing respectively. An optimum equivalence ratio of 0.32 was also
suggested for good thermal efficiency and quality producer gas. Vakalis
et al. [75] developed a thermodynamic model of downdraft biomass
gasifier in Matlab-Cantera environment using element potential mini-
mization and Villars-Cruise-Smith algorithm methods to assess the
performance of gasifier by inserting real operating data such as
biomass composition, equivalence ratio, and operation temperature.
Also, the theoretical values obtained from this model were compared
with the actual values and the two were found in good agreement with
each other.
Kumar and Kumar [76] evaluated the performance of a downdraft
gasifier using wood chips for power generation using spark ignition
engine. The system performance was tested under varying load
conditions ranging 20–100% with cold and hot gasification efficiencies
of 75.41% and 80.85% respectively, while for air and gas flow rate of
20.79 m3/h and 79 m3/h, the biomass consumption was reported to be
27 kg/h. The tar level of 9 mg/Nm3 was also observed after gas cooling
and cleaning which seems to be compatible with engine power
generation applications. Jain [20] experimentally studied the down-
draft gasification of charcoal and fuel wood (Leucaena leucocephala)
under air and oxygen gasification medium. The producer gas obtained
under oxygen medium was found to be rich in CO and H2 with no
nitrogen having the lower heating value of 10–11 MJ/Nm3 against the
air medium where the lower heating value 4–6.5 MJ/Nm3 was
obtained. Under oxygen medium, the producer gas with 48% CO,
29% H2 and 48% CH4 with no nitrogen was reported, while the tar
content under oxygen medium was observed to be higher which could
due to the fact that the gasifier was designed only for operation with
blowing air. Dutsadee et al. [77] demonstrated the performance
analysis of the power generation from the refuse derived fuel (RDF-
5) and for different oxygen-fuel ratio, the producer gas was analyzed in
terms of its compositions, heat capacity, fuel consumption, system
S.K. Sansaniwal et al.
efficiency and the quality of ash. The performance of RDF-5 and diesel
RDF-5 were also compared in terms of specific factors such as, power,
specific fuel consumption rate, carbon dioxide, sound level, fuel feeding
and observed better in the case of RDF-5 as an alternative clean fuel.
Jayah et al. [78] developed a computer model for downdraft wood
gasifier to investigate the effects of various operational and design
parameters such as, moisture content, feed rate, particle size, reactor
load and capacity. The model developed was also validated theoretically
using available data in the literature and the hot gas efficiency of the
model was reported to be 86%.
Mohanraj et al. [79] studied performance analysis of a 30 kW
downdraft thermo gasifier in terms of optimum value of porosity of
woodchips and oxidizer velocity using CFD simulation through species
transport phenomena. The values of porosity ranging from 0.439 to
0.525 were chosen and reported the highest burning temperature of the
gas with even distribution at 0.525. More combustion stability with
higher temperature and very less unburnt fuel was observed at
velocities 4 m/s and 5 m/s. While the combustion instability was
observed beyond 9 m/s along with the amount of unburnt fuel inside
the gasifier. Volpe et al. [80] developed a downdraft gasifier using
lingo-cellulosic olive waste and assessed its thermochemical behaviour
during pyrolysis and torrefaction experiments. Olive tree trimming and
olive pulp samples were pyrolysed and torrefied under corresponding
helium and nitrogen blanket at peak temperature varying from 400 to
650 °C and 200–325 °C, respectively. The linear increase and decrease
of carbon and oxygen were reported to be 75% and 10%, respectively
under char experimental analyses. Shankar et al. [81] investigated the
hurdles in the use of producer gas as the prime fuel in internal
combustion engines using wood as the feedstock. The maximum
content of CO in producer was obtained to be 19% which was reported
to be sufficient for the operation of the internal combustion engine. The
other constituents of the producer gas were found to be 5% of CO2, 12%
of H2 and 1% of CH4 with the highest calorific value of 1170 kcal/m3.
Kumar et al. [82] investigated the performance of a direct injection
diesel engine with the dual fuel mixture of diesel and gas. In dual fuel
mode, the decrease in brake thermal efficiency was observed to be 45%,
while the diesel fuel consumption rate was observed to be decreasing
from 0.85 to 0.3 kg/h at 10 kg load. However, the gaseous fuel
consumption was reported to be exactly reversed of diesel fuel
consumption with both loads as well as rpm. As compared to the dual
fuel mode, a sharp decrease in the brake specific fuel consumption for
diesel only was observed with the increase in the load. Nisamaneenate
et al. [83] investigated cassava rhizome gasification using modular
downdraft gasifier in terms of biomass particle size, inlet air flow rate,
and usage of Ni/char catalyst. In this system, the higher air flow rate
resulted in higher gas yield with lesser tar and char formation whereas
the conversion of H2, CO and CH4, CO2 were observed to be higher and
found to be decreased with increase in the particle size. However,
without catalyst, the optimum operating condition was reported with
air flow rate of 2.5 m3/h and 10 mm particle size and resulted in
carbon and hydrogen conversion of 94.02% and 65.92%, respectively.
On the other hand, using catalyst with air flow rate of 1.98 m3/h and
10 mm of particle size, the carbon and hydrogen conversion were
observed to be of 92.87% and 55.69%, respectively and hence, reduced
CO2 yield with increased CO concentration. Also, the gas heating value
of 4.47 MJ/m3 and H2/CO ratio of 1.22 were reported with increased
in cold gas efficiency.
Ong et al. [84] experimentally studied co-gasification of woody
biomass and sewage sludge in a fixed bed downdraft gasifier. In this
study, the sewage sludge composition of 20 wt% was reported to be an
effective to generate the producer gas comprising over 30% of syngas
with a lower heating value of 4.5 MJ/Nm3. The numerical models were
also developed for simulation of reactions taking place in different
zones of the gasifier and the sewage sludge content of 33 wt% was
reported to be the optimum to avoid blockage of the gasifier. The
simulated and experimental results were found to be in good agree-
372
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384
ment with a deviation of less than 10% between theoretical and
experimental results.
6.2. Previous studies on fixed bed updraft gasifiers
As mentioned in the earlier Section 4.1.2, the updraft gasifier has
some advantages over downdraft gasifiers such as, good thermal
efficiency, flexible with moisture content, small pressure drop across
the reactor, low tendency of slag formation etc. and has been studied by
number of researchers [85–101] for the last several decades and is
summarized here. Raja et al. [85] developed a pilot model updraft
gasifier using wood chips, coconut husk, coconut shell, and bagasse as
feedstocks and evaluated the performance of it in terms of mechanical
and thermal efficiency. Type of coal used and the amount of methane
formed in the gasifier were the two main aspects observed affecting the
thermal efficiency of the gasification process. Besides that, the major
factors influencing the performance of a gasifier were identified to be
dry flue gas, moisture of biomass, latent heat, and unburned fuel.
Nsamba et al. [86] designed an updraft Belonio rice husk gasifier
(0.6 m height, 0.15 m diameter, and 0.025 m thickness) for testing of
biochar production for original and fine rice husk using air as
gasification agent. The gasifier design was also scaled up to the height
of 1.65 m, diameter of 0.85, and thickness of 0.16 m, operated with
centrifugal blower of 155 W power input for regulation of air flow rate
with maximum value of 1450 m3/h. The scaling of reactor design
reported an increase in the equivalence ratio by 320% to attain the
similar gas yield of 30% as in the small size reactor.
James et al. [87] evaluated the performance of an in-chamber tar
cracking and syngas reforming unit using char supported by NiO as
catalysts in an updraft biomass gasifier and a tar removal rate of 95%
was achieved at a residence time of 0.35 s and 10% Nickel loading. An
increment of 36% in the heating value was observed using Ni- based
catalyst. Also, the gas residence time of 0.2–0.3 s and the Ni loading of
5–10% was reported to be suitable for producing the cleaner syngas
with low tar content, however, the process economy analysis was found
to be absent from the study. Beohor et al. [88] developed a CFD model
using ANSYS FLUENT software to study the effect of various operating
parameters on the performance of updraft gasifiers like air velocity, fuel
feeding rate, and moisture content. They observed that with the
increase of both air velocity and moisture content, the value of
hydrogen content was observed to be increasing and then decreasing
while it was found to be reversed in the case of carbon monoxide. On
the other hand, the value of carbon dioxide was found to be increasing
gradually whereas with increase in fuel rate, the value of hydrogen and
carbon dioxide were observed to be decreasing initially and then
increasing while it was found to be reversed for carbon monoxide.
Also, the optimum value of air velocity, fuel feeding rate, and moisture
content were obtained to be 5.4 m/s, 6.8 kg/h, and 25%, respectively.
Seggiani et al. [89] presented one-dimensional unsteady state
mathematical model to simulate the behaviour of sewage sludge with
20% moisture in a small scale fixed bed updraft gasifier (2 m height,
0.165 m internal diameter), operated at the atmosphere pressure. The
model was based on the set of differential equation coupling heat and
mass transport in the solid and liquid phases of sewage sludge drying
and devolatilization, char gasification, and combustion of both char
and gaseous species. The results obtained for dynamic axial tempera-
ture profiles and the steady state composition of the producer gas were
suited well with the experimental measurements. Mandl et al. [90]
presented one-dimensional steady state mathematical model for the
simulation of laboratory scale fixed bed updraft gasifier using a set of
differential equations coupled with homogenous and heterogeneous
combustion and gasification reactions. The results obtained for dy-
namic axial temperature profiles and the steady state composition of
the producer gas were found in good agreement with the experimental
results. The improvements in the gasification process were observed
with increasing gasification the power input and the decrease in
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

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

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

Country Gasifier Types Fuel used Capacity Organization/Project

USA Downdraft Hogged wood, stumps 1 MW CLEW

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

373
S.K. Sansaniwal et al.
biomass amount ranging from 1 to 4 kg. Ernie et al. [101] evaluated the
combustion process of an updraft gasifier by varying the moisture
content of wood from 17% to 40% and observed the slower gasification
process with increasing fuel moisture content. Also, the concentration
of NO was found to be decreasing while it is observed to be reversed for
CO concentration with increasing the moisture content of the fuel. The
moisture content of 16–17% was also reported to be best for giving
outlet operating temperature of 500 °C and the exhaust gas concentra-
tions of 1500 ppm of CO, 2.8% of CO2, 30 ppm of NO and 17.6% of O2,
respectively in addition to the highest gasification efficiency of 92.7%.
Many countries have developed the technology of fixed bed biomass
gasification at industrial scale and commercializing the same with great
success. Some of the commercially available fixed bed gasifiers are
listed in Table 5 [22,102,103].
6.3. Previous studies on fluidized bed type gasifiers
These gasifiers are the new invention in the evaluation of gasifica-
tion after facing some critical problems in the fixed bed gasifiers as
demonstrated in brief in the earlier sections. Due to several advantages
over fixed bed gasifiers such as high gas yield with considerable low tar
content, high flow rate, multiple applications etc., these gasifiers have
been under the keen research interest among the researchers for the
last several decades and is summarized here. Research work carried out
in the direction of fluidized bed reactor gasifier is stated as [104–138]:
Wilk et al. [104] tested a dual fluidized bed gasifier for different
feedstocks such as, waste wood, bark, reed, wood pellets, and wood
chips. The waste wood and bark were reported to be suitable feedstock
for the dual fluidized bed gasifier as they yielded the producer gas with
less pollutant as compared to the conventional feedstock like wood
pellets and wood chips. Also due to good ash melting behaviour, reed
was also observed to be a suitable feedstock for the fluidized bed
gasifier. Beheshti et al. [105] developed a process model for simulation
of air steam biomass gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed for syngas
production by coupling ASPEN plus simulator and FORTRAN sub-
routines.
The effect of various process parameters such as the gasification
temperature, steam/biomass ratio, equivalence ratio, and biomass
particle size on composition of the syngas was observed and reported
favourability of high temperature for syngas and hydrogen production.
Also, the higher carbon conversion, tar reforming, and gas yield were
observed with increase in equivalence ratio however, this reduced the
gas calorific value and cold gas efficiency as well. The steam injection
was reported as the key factor for producing more hydrogen rich gas.
Finally, the developed model was validated with the experimental
results and found to be in good agreement with the theoretical
predictions for the same set of operating parameters. Nagaraja and
Sundaresan [106] experimentally studied the gasification of Juliflora
chips in a circulating fluidized bed gasifier by maintaining the
gasification temperature and equivalence ratio in the range of 700–
900 °C and 0.2–0.3, respectively. Considering the equivalence ratio and
gasification temperature, variations in producer gas yield composi-
tions, lower heating value, and gasification temperature etc. were also
investigated. The increase in heating value, gas yield, and gasification
efficiency was observed with increase in the gasification temperature.
However, with increase in the equivalence ratio, the gas heating value
was found to be decreasing while the gas temperature was found to be
increasing. With reference to the experimental data, fuel characteristics
of different feedstock were also represented. The effect of temperature
and moisture content on gasification efficiency has also been studied by
[107] and illustrated as given in Fig. 5.
Chatterjee et al. [108] studied a laboratory scale fluidized bed
gasifier using steam and air as the fluidizing media. One-dimensional
analysis of the gasification process incorporating two-phase theory of
fluidization, char gasification, volatile release, and an overall system
energy balance was also presented. The results of the process were
374
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384
calculated in terms of variation of product gas composition, bed
temperature, calorific value, and carbon conversion with different feed
of oxygen and steam. Ruoppola et al. [109] studied the fluidized bed
gasification of biomass slurries prepared by biomass residue,
Indonesian coal, rapeseed oil, and water content of around 45% by
mass at 800 °C and produce a gas with moderate content of H2, CH4
and CO. However, the improvement in the conversion of slurry was
also observed by the optimization of the operating conditions such as,
reducing water content of slurries at minimum levels, increasing
reactor temperature, and improving reaction kinetics. Rehmat and
Goyal [110] evaluated the fuel characteristics such as, physical and
chemical properties, thermobalance and agglomeration bench scale
tests of a U-gas fluidized bed gasification process. The additional
information regarding gasifier design was also promised to obtain by
testing the feedstock in the U-gas process development unit. Basu et al.
[111] presented various designs of fluidized beds for gasification and
different versions of fixed bed gasifier and entrained bed reactors were
described for small and large capacity units, respectively. Many issues
related to the scaling up of fluidized bed gasifier were also examined.
Suda et al. [112] studied 5 kg/h dual bubbling fluidized bed gasifier
coupled to a pneumatic transported riser char combustor using dried
coffee grounds. The gasification process was simulated using software
package ASPEN to monitor heat and mass balances and the cold gas
efficiency of 75% was also reported. The increase of carbon conversion
of the fuel was also observed by simple mixing of fuel and Ca catalysts.
However, this study was also unable to reveal the techno-economic
analysis of the system similar to other studies reported so far. Li et al.
[113] experimentally studied biomass gasification process in an air
blown circulating fluidized bed gasifier by maintaining the operating
temperature of 700–850 °C and the sawdust feed material at the rate
varying from 16 to 45 kg/h. The tar yield from the process was
observed to be decreased exponentially with increasing the operating
temperature. Also, various process parameters such as, temperature,
air ratio, suspension density, fly air re-injection, and steam injection
were reported to affect the composition and heating value of the
product gas. A non-stoichiometric equilibrium model with better
experimental data suitability was also developed to predict the gasifier
performance. Miao et al. [114] performed the sensitive analysis of
biomass gasification in a circulating fluidized bed using one-dimen-
sional model. Several process parameters such as, equivalence ratio,
bed temperature, fluidization velocity, biomass feed rate, and moisture
content were considered to evaluate the effects on the performance of
the gasifier. The developed model was also observed to be more
sensitive to the variations in bed temperature and equivalence ratio.
Kaushal et al. [115] developed the one-dimensional steady state
model for woody dual fluidized bed gasification reactor comprised of
two zones, namely, dense zone and freeboard zone. The dense zone was
Fig. 5. Effect of gasification temperature and biomass moisture on gasification efficiency
[107].
S.K. Sansaniwal et al.
modelled as the bubbling bed reactor with modified two phase theory
whereas the freeboard was modelled as the plug flow reactor. Both the
gas composition and the temperature profile, observed by the model
were reported in good agreement with the values measured of 8 MW
plant in Austria. Engelbrecht et al. [116] studied the bubbling fluidized
bed coal gasification at atmosphere pressure with oxygen and air as the
gasifying media at gasification temperature and char residence time
varying from 875 to 975 °C and 15–55 min, respectively. The fixed
carbon conversion was observed to be increasing with both the
temperature and the residence time of char particles in the gasifier.
The experimental results obtained were calibrated with the commer-
cially available fluidized bed gasifier simulation model and a scale up
model of a 15 MW gasifier with the significant improvement was also
recommended. Depending upon the operating conditions and the end
user applications, different types of gasifying agent has been identified
with their unique advantages and are shown in Table 6 [22,117].
Dayananda and Sreepathi [118] designed a fluidized bed gasifier
using chicken litter, sawdust, and rice husk as the feedstock at pilot
scale and investigated the performance of the system in terms of feed
characteristics (viz. particle size, apparent density, porosity, and
sphericity), operating parameters (viz. fluidization velocity, reactor
height, air flow rate, equivalence ratio, energy and feed consumption
rate) and producer gas composition. The equivalence ratio varying
from 0.2 to 0.3 was reported to obtain the satisfactory performance of
the system. The results obtained during testing were adequate with the
design procedure adopted and found well suited with the data available
in the literature. Kern et al. [119] developed the dual fluidized bed
steam gasification especially, for the wood chips, however; the analysis
was carried out by using the wood pellets blended with hard coal as the
designated feedstock. The feed flow rate was reported to be decreasing
from 17.5 to 9.6 kg/h for the coal ratio varying from 0% to 100%. For
higher coal ratios, H2 yield was observed to be increasing with
decreasing in CO yield. The main aspects considered while designing
the gasifier were identified to be the longer residence time, blending
rate, and higher superficial velocities.
Ammendola and Scala [120] investigated the fragmentation and
attrition process during fluidized bed gasification in terms of bed
temperature, fluidized velocity, and inlet CO2 concentration etc. and
observed the secondary fragmentation and attrition by abrasion of char
particles due to gasification assisted attrition enhancement effect.
During this effect, carbon loss by elutriation was observed to be
increasing with the increased fluidization velocity and with decreased
bed temperature and CO2 concentration both. Ramzan et al. [121]
developed a process model for turbulent pressurized circulating
fluidized bed coal gasifier for the characteristic study of a Pakistani
coal using ASPEN plus software. The concentration of producer gas
components such as, H2, CO, CO2, and CH4 get reduced with the
increase in the air flow rate and hence reduced the lower heating value
of syngas by 29.3% as well. Also with the increase in steam flow rate, a
minute increase of 8% in syngas heating value was reported, while the
increase of steam to coal ratio resulted in the increase in H2 and CO
concentration but decreased in the concentration of CO2 and conver-
sion efficiency of carbon were also reported. The high gasifying agent
temperature was reported to be desirable because it led to the higher
concentration of H2 and CO, increasing in the lower heating value and
the carbon conversion to make the gasifier more effective for such
applications.
Ghaly et al. [122] designed a straw chopping system for fluidized
bed gasifier and determined the performance characteristics in terms of
rotational speed, feed rate, depth of cut, length of cut, and the energy
required for straw chopping. The increase in straw feed rate was
reported due to decrease in depth of cut and increase in cutting speed.
On the other hand, the decrease in straw length as feedstock was also
observed with increasing both depth of cut and cutting speed.
Depending upon the depth of cut and cutting speed; feed rate, power
consumption, and straw length for chopping straw were reported to
375
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384
vary from 1.48 to 10.52 kg/min, 1.76–7.76 horsepower, and 14.49–
18.85 mm respectively. Calvo et al. [123] carried out sewage sludge
gasification in a fluidized bed reactor and determined the fuel
characterization, mass and power balances, produced gas composition,
gas phases, tar concentration, agglomeration tendencies, and gas
efficiency by adjusting flow and fuel feed rates at different air to fuel
ratio varying from 0.2 to 0.4. The problem of material accumulation
inside the reactor was eliminated by using bed media during gasifica-
tion and ultimately improved the gasification efficiency. The producer
gas heating value, hot gas efficiency, and cold gas efficiency were
reported to be 8.4 MJ/Nm3, 70%, and 57% respectively. Wu et al. [124]
experimentally studied the fluidized bed gasification of dairy manure in
Box-Behnken Design in terms of the process parameters, namely
temperature, steam to biomass ratio, and equivalence ratio. They
observed that the increase in the temperature favoured the formation
of all three combustible gases viz. CH4, CO, and H2 but each gas
behaved differently according to the changing parameters. With the
increase in steam to biomass ratio from 0 to 0.8, the decrease in CH4
concentration was observed, while the H2 concentration was increased.
On the other hand, the reduction in equivalence ratio from 2 to 0,
reported rise in the concentration of CO. The lower heating value of
syngas was also obtained and found to vary from 2 to 4.7 MJ/m3.
Pletka et al. [125] studied the indirect heating fluidized bed
biomass gasification based on the latent heat ballasting having
suspended lithium fluoride salt tubes in the reactors. With the ballast,
energy storage and release occurred during the combustion and
pyrolysis phase, respectively. Reactor cooling from 1172 to 922 K
was observed during the pyrolysis phase which eventually enhanced the
biomass gasification by 33% in addition to an increase of total fuel
fraction from 74% to 80% during a cycle. The higher heating values
ranging from 14.2 to 16.6 MJ/Nm3 on dry basis were also reported
from the ballasted gasifier. Kore et al. [126] investigated the steam
gasification of coffee husk in a bubbling fluidized bed gasifier by
considering the tar content and gas composition as the important
performance parameters. The effect of tar content on the process was
found negligible while the gas composition obtained in this system was
found to be better as compared to the wood pellets. The study shows
that the coffee husk can be considered as an effective feedstock capable
of producing the syngas with high constituents such as, 40% of H2, 21%
of CO, 20% of CO2 and 6% of CH4 with considerable low tar particles.
The lower heating value of syngas was also calculated and reported to
be 17.2 MJ/kg.
Tome et al. [127] investigated the bubbling fluidized bed gasifica-
tion of char particles of wood species Afzelia Quazensis and
Pterocarpus Angolensis having particle size in the range of 9–13 mm
at 850 °C in a nitrogen flow. The performance of the system was
analyzed in terms of char fragmentation and the char particles
temperature which was reported to be same as obtained by means of
energy balance carried out at the particle surface. For char particles of
Pterocarpus Angolensis, the discrepancy was also observed at 900 °C as
the calculated experimental error was more than acceptable and hence,
suggested more work to be done in this direction. Kalaivani and
Table 6
Advantages of various gasifying agents [22,117].
Gasifying agents Advantages
Air • Partial combustion for heat supply of gasification
• Moderate
char and tar content
Oxygen • producer
Minimize tar contents and enrich H , CO and CH
gas
2 4 in
• Improve carbon conversion characteristics
Steam • High 3
heating value producer gas (10–15 MJ/m )
• HHighrichheating
producer gas (e.g., 450% by volume)
• High H and CO
2
Carbon dioxide value producer gas
• 2 and low CO in producer gas
2
S.K. Sansaniwal et al.
Saravanan [128] designed a bio semi-fluidized by mixing a fluidized
and a fixed bed with single contacting vessel to improve the overall
efficiency of the system. They conducted the experiments in a 0.1 m
internal diameter bio semi-fluidized bed to study the hydrodynamic
behaviour of the system and derived a correction for pressure friction
factor based on the experimental results. Through mixing of fluidized
and fixed bed in series, the friction factor was reported to increase by
3.9% and hence, the formation of packing inside the designed fluidized
bed reactor was also increased. The study was observed to be helpful in
designing the reactor of a fluidized bed reactor.
Sciazko and Stepien [129] presented an equilibrium modelling of
the coal gasification using thermodynamic analysis of various chemical
reactions inside a circulating fluid bed reactor. The formation of
different eight key gaseous species like CO, CO2, H2O, H2, H2S, N2,
COS, and CH4 was reported and observed the presence of volatile
hydrocarbons in the form of propane and benzene, while the tar
content was existing in the aromatic form of naphthalene, and the
presence of char in the form of C, H, O, N, S in addition to the other
inorganic matter was also identified. Xu et al. [130] experimentally
studied the two stage dual fluidized bed gasification having fuel in the
lower stage for product gas up gradation and simultaneously occur-
rence of elutriation of fuel particles similarly as in normally encoun-
tered dual fluidized bed gasification. In this system, the heat carrier
particles got upgraded and attained the endothermic heat for pyrolysis
and gasification reactions in upper and lower stages, respectively. They
observed an increase of 7% in cold gas efficiency while a decrease of
25% tar content in the produced gas which seems to be contradicted
and encountered the dual fluidized bed gasification reported in the
literature. Schmid et al. [131] designed a dual fluidized bed gasifier by
combining air/combustion and a fuel/gasification reactor to generate a
nitrogen free product gas with low tar content. The global circulation
rate was driven by the gas velocity in air/combustion reactor whereas
the gas velocity in fuel/gasification reactor was chosen to minimize the
coarse particle entrainment at the top to enhance the gas phase
conversion and reduces the tar formation.
Abdollahi-Neisiani et al. [132] developed a steady state mathema-
tical model for a rotating fluidized bed gasifier considering the reactor
hydrodynamic with devolatilization kinetics, char gasification, and
combustion of both char and gas species. The outputs of the model
were compared with the experimental and simulation results to check
the system suitability and the improvement in the gasification process
was also observed for the same equivalence ratio which is due to the
improved heat and mass transfer and gas-solid contact. Petersen and
Werther [133] developed a three-dimensional modelling for sewage
sludge gasification in a circulating fluidized bed considering the radial
profiles of velocities and fluid mechanics and examined the influence of
axial location and the number of feeding points required for different
scales. In the sewage sludge, the fast volatiles decomposition and high
volatile content were reported and observed incomplete mixing of gas
around the feeding port and formation of plumes with high pyrolysis
gas concentrations. Thus, in the case of high volatile fuels, a large
number of fuel feeding ports were highly recommended for better
mixing of gas to improve the overall performance of the system.
Ruoppolo et al. [134] experimentally studied the gasification of wood
and olive husk/coal pellets using oxygen and steam as the gasification
medium in a pre-pilot scale bubbling fluidized bed reactor having two-
bed materials, namely, inert quartzite and Ni-alumina catalyst. The
influence of various process parameters such as, equivalent ratio,
steam-oxygen ratio, and bed temperature on the gas concentration,
tar conversion efficiency, and syngas heating value were also evaluated
in detail. They reported the highest char carbon conversion and a
limited amount of N2 in oxygen enrichment of gasification while the tar
content and CO2 level were also found to be higher in contrast with the
air-steam gasification arrangement.
Doherty et al. [135] developed a simulation and equilibrium model
based on Gibbs free energy minimization for a circulating fluidized bed
376
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384
gasifier. The effects of various operating parameters such as, the
equivalence ratio, temperature, and air preheating were studied and
their influence on syngas composition, heating value, and conversion
efficiency was also examined. Both gas heating value and effectiveness
of air preheating were observed to be decreasing function of the
equivalence ratio which seems to be an effective approach in this
system. Sarker et al. [136] experimentally studied the pilot scale
bubbling fluidized bed gasification of alfalfa pellets at two different
equivalence ratios of 0.25 and 0.30, respectively while keeping the
feeding rate to be constant at 4.7 kg/h with increase in air flow ranging
from 4.16 to 4.99 Nm3/h. They reported that there is an increase in the
lower heating value and gas yield of 4.2 MJ/Nm3 and 1.5 Nm3/kg
respectively, in addition to the higher concentration of CO without
affecting the rest of the combustible components. Also, the total char
and tar yields were obtained to be 282 g/kg and 1.1 g/Nm3 respec-
tively, for the gasification temperature of 800 °C. Fremaux et al. [137]
investigated the effect of various process parameters such as, steam/
biomass ratio, time duration, reactor temperature, and biomass
particle size on hydrogen yield in a fluidized bed reactor using wood
residue as the feeding material. They carried out a number of
experiments considering the particle size varying from 0.5 to 5 mm
at the reactor temperatures varying from 700 to 900 °C and observed a
significant increase in the hydrogen output with decreased particle size
and increased reactor temperature. The increase in hydrogen yield was
also reported with increasing the time duration of the experiments
which found in good agreement with the results available in the
literature.
Simanjuntak and Zainal [138] studied sawdust gasification in a
cylindrical fluidized bed gasifier comprised of two zones, namely,
gasification zone in the annulus and combustion zone in the draft
tube. They also studied the effects of equivalence ratio varying from
0.148 to 0.203 on the system stabilization temperature, composition,
heating value of producer gas, and gasifier performance. It is also
observed that at an equivalence ratio of 0.185, the composition of gas
was found to be 3.13% of H2, 2.28% of O2, 25.8% of CO, 8.2% of CH4,
and 22.48% of CO2 with heating value of 6.96 MJm−3. The fraction of
CO and CH4 were observed to be higher as compared to the previous air
blown fluidized bed gasifier studied by earlier workers in this section.
Banerjee et al. [139] developed a kinetic model for various feedstocks
including the pine, maple-oak mixture, seed corn, corn stoner, and
switchgrass under enriched air with oxygen varying from 21% to 45%
and steam conditions. The model was observed to be sensitive to the
variation in oxygen level, steam flow rate, and biomass composition
and an increase in the concentrations of hydrogen, carbon monoxide,
and methane were identified with the increase in the oxygen level and
steam gasification. However, the results were not compared with the
experimental observations.
Thakkar et al. [140] experimentally studied the fluidized bed
gasification of rice husk in terms of extraction of silica, energy and
cost analysis. Two catalysts, namely dolomite and olivine, were used in
an optimum combination with the sand bed for equivalence ratios (ER)
varying from 0.28 to 0.35. At ERs of 0.3 and 0.33, the tar and
suspended particulate matter obtained for dolomite were reported to
be 45% and 50%, whereas for olivine these quantities were reported to
be 41% and 44%, respectively. However, olivine consumed 66% less
energy for bed heating and generated less fine particles than dolomite.
Further, the silica extraction of 60% was also reported with significant
improvement in thermal efficiency (5–7%) via the use of catalysts.
Makwana et al. [141] carried out the gasification of rice husk in a
bubbling fluidized bed reactor for numerous values of process para-
meters such as bed temperature (750–850 °C), feeding rate (25–
31.3 kg/h) and equivalence ratio (0.3–0.38). The bed heating with
charcoal significantly reduced the energy required for the gasification
process. The carbon conversion efficiency, cold gas efficiency and
thermal efficiency were obtained to be approximately 91%, 68% and
70%, respectively. This study also reported the same values of ER (0.3
S.K. Sansaniwal et al.
and 0.33) to obtain the better carbon conversion efficiency, as well as
cold and hot gas efficiency. Loha et al. [142] thermodynamically
analyzed the hydrogen-rich syngas obtained from the fluidized bed
gasification of rice husk. The energy and exergy efficiencies were
observed to be maximums at the carbon boundary point and were
determined to be 94% and 82%, respectively. The higher calorific value
was reported to rise with increasing steam to biomass ratio and to
decrease with increasing gasification temperature and energy input.
Based on equilibrium constants, an equilibrium model was also
developed and the results obtained were also found to be good
agreement with the experimental data available in the literature.
In another study [143], the same author also suggested the use of
silica sand to improve the fluidization characteristics of rice husk,
which is non-granular in nature. The effects of various operation
parameters, such as reactor temperature, equivalence ratio and steam
to biomass ratio, on the heating value and composition of the product
gas were investigated. An increase in gasification temperature and
steam to biomass ratio resulted in an increase in the heating value and
hydrogen percentage of the product gas. However, the reverse was true
with increasing equivalence ratio. At a gasification temperature of
850 °C and a steam to biomass ratio of 0.8, the maximum heating value
of 4.26 MJ/Nm3 and hydrogen percentage of 13.1% were obtained in
the product gas. Kook et al. [144] investigated the effect of gasification
temperature, equivalence ratio (ER) and the addition of a catalyst on
the gasification of rice husk in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor.
Decreases in the concentrations of CO and CO2 were observed with
increasing ER, although the concentrations of CH4 and H2 were
reported to rise with increasing gasification temperature. However,
increasing the value of ER was also found to lead to a lower product gas
heating value and cold gas efficiency. Moreover, increases in gasifica-
tion temperature and ER values resulted in reducing the tar content of
the product gas.
Manatura et al. [145] carried out an exergy analysis of a bubbling
fluidized bed gasification of torrefied rice husk pellets and studied the
influence of equivalence ratio and torrefaction temperature on the
exergetic performance of the system. The overall energy efficiency of
the combined torrefaction-gasification process was observed to be
affected mainly due to two factors i.e. the energy loss in the volatile
gas and the electric energy input to the process. For torrefaction
temperatures of 250 and 350 °C, the overall exergy efficiencies were
obtained to be 30% and 21%, respectively. Singh et al. [146] reviewed
the gasification of rice husk and rice straw in a fluidized bed reactor
and concluded that the operation results of pure rice straw based
gasifer is scant as there are number of problems associated with the
rice husk due to high content of silica, low density, etc. Further, the
fluidized bed gasification of rice husk and rice straw was reported to be
the most advantageous option for eliminating waste disposal problems
and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural based
countries, globally. Ghani et al. [147] examined a fluidized bed
gasification of rice husk for several operating parameters such as,
gasification temperature (750–1100 °C), equivalence ratio (0.22–
0.27), particle size (0.2–1 mm) and a constant feed rate (13 g/min).
The increase in gasification temperature resulted in an increase in the
gas yield and hydrogen production. The maximum volume percentages
of H2, CO and CH4 were obtained to be 27, 7.4 and 10.8, respectively.
7. Syngas conditioning
The gas produced during a biomass gasification process consists of
a mixture of various gases such as carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen
(H2), carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrogen (N2), water
vapors (H2O) etc. and other undesirable impurities such as tar, solid
particulates, ammonia, hydrochloric acid, sulfur compounds and alkali
metal species. The gas cannot be used as such in the end use
applications. Thus, it must be cooled and cleaned properly for smooth
and efficient operations viz. engine application and biofuel production.
377
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384
However, the gas composition and impurities concentration depends
on the gasifier design, feedstock type, gasifying agent and other process
parameters. The producer gas at gasifier outlet must be cooled before
the end use which otherwise lowers the process efficiency particularly
in the downstream applications. Also, there are different types of
cooling devices available such as, gas coolers and water coolers to cool
down the heated air to the ambient temperature conditions while
cleaning it up to some extent. In gas cooling arrangements, the natural
and forced gas coolers are available in which the former, transfer the
heat along the length of pipe and does not require additional energy
source for its functioning and simple in construction but they are bulky
in size. In the later, an addition electrical device such as, fun is required
for fast heat transfer through the pipe and hence, required an
additional energy source for operation.
On the other hand, water cooler has been observed an efficient
method of gas cooling, while scrubber and heat exchanger are the two
kind of water coolers in which the condensed tar contents made a direct
contact with the circulated water and hence get it contaminated which
is very difficult to maintain. On the other hand, in water cooled heat
exchanger, the cleanliness of the circulated water can be restored and
the power required for water circulation can also be justified. In the gas
cleaning, generally, the impurity concentrations particularly tar and
solid particulates remains above the range as enumerated in previous
sections than the pragmatic due to process complexity and the
handling limitations. However, a requisite amount of such particles is
acceptable in some of the downstream applications such as internal
combustion engines, turbines and fuel cells, as presented in Table 7.
Therefore, the cleaning of producer gas is very important for
various heat and power generation applications and there are two
major cleaning options viz. physical and chemical processes to clean up
the producer gas and are given in detail as below [69,150–178]:
7.1. Physical gas cleaning processes
Physical gas cleaning is one of the simplest cleaning methods
comprised of either filtration or wet scrubbing of contaminated product
gas through gas to solid or gas to liquid interactions. The gas cleaning
using simple filtration may be carried out at high or low-temperature
conditions, however, the wet scrubbing usually carried out at low or
ambient temperature conditions. Also, the filter hauling high tempera-
ture must have temperature tolerable materials such as, ceramics,
composites, sand and fiberglass whereas the low-temperature filters
can have charcoal, cotton fibers etc. as the heat resistant material.
However, the fouling of tar or solid particulates is the major problem in
both states of the filtration as it creates a huge pressure drop due to
enormous clogging of filter pores. This problem can also be shorted out
using the wet scrubbing which scavenges the matter particles but the
handling of the large volume of contaminated wet effluent is not eco-
friendly and it pollutes the environment. Many experts are working in
the direction of producer gas cleaning using physical filtration methods
however, the problem of clogging and deposition of gas particles is still
unresolved. Also, the quality of gas cleaning highly depends on the
process parameters such as, water flow rate and there is a need to work
more in this direction.
The effect of water flow rate on tar content of producer gas was
observed and reported a decrease in the tar content with increase in
Table 7
Acceptable range of tar and other particles for various applications [148,149].
Constitutes IC engine Gas turbine Fuel cell
Particles (mg/Nm3) < 50 < 30 –
Particulate matter (μm) < 100 <5 <1
Tar (mg/Nm3) < 10 <5 <1
Alkali metals (mg/Nm) – < 0.24 –
S.K. Sansaniwal et al.
water flow rate [69]. A high-temperature granular bed filtration was
also fabricated and investigated under several field conditioning at
550 °C. Moreover, the designed filtration was reported to be better than
the bed filtration method [150]. The wet scrubber using liquid other
than water was also designed to remove the tar components through
condensation above 25 °C [151]. In another research, the vegetable oil
and char based filters were used to clean the gas from heavy and light
tar particles. The oil turbulence was reported as the main factor helping
in absorption of heavy tar particles [152]. However, the pre-treatment
of vegetable oil and char was absent from the study. A venture
scrubbing system capable of cleaning the gas with the tar concentration
below 20–40 mg/Nm3 was also reported. Moreover, the use of barrier
filters and cyclone were not observed to be effective due to small size of
the tar particles [153]. In recent research activities, the ceramic filters
have been developed to haul the high range of temperature varying
from 600 to 800 °C during the cleaning of gas produced from steam-O2
biomass gasification [154]. Also, the different types of filters have been
developed since so far but the bottleneck of pressure drop across the
filtration is still rigid due to particle deposition.
7.2. Thermal decomposition
The high-temperature filtration and particle deposition related
problems can also be controlled through thermal degradation of heavy
aromatic tar compounds into the small or lighter species such as
methane, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide at a higher temperature
around 1000 °C [155]. As the heavy tar compounds may cause serious
limitations such as, engine wears including high maintenance cost in
the power generation application [156]. Some of the tar compounds
such as, heterocyclic aromatic and heavy polyaromatic which dominat-
ing the tar composition and are difficult to decompose can be
condensed to a low concentration of 0.1 mg/Nm3 [157]. The thermal
decomposition of wood and sawdust using intra-particles was obtained
at 400–500 °C and lower temperature of 380 °C was observed to be
insufficient to control the amount of volatile matter in the pyrolysis
process [158]. The tar yield in a gasification process has been reported
to increase with increasing the gasification temperature up to certain
limit viz. 600 °C and then started decreasing due to formation of
secondary tar cracking reactions. The equivalence ratio was also
observed to be affecting the tar formation however; it resulted in
reduction of the heating value of end product [159]. A tar limit above
50–100 mg/Nm3 was reported critical for the end use applications and
suggested the producer gas conditioning using thermal, catalytic
cracking and physical tar removing techniques to obtain the clean
gas. The catalytic cracking was observed to be more effective among the
rest but not found to be economical for the small-scale applications
[148]. A tar cracking efficiency of 28.66% was reported in the rice hull
gasification for power generation. However, the aromatic and carbon
extent of un-cracked tar were observed to be high. Moreover, the
pressure drop across the cracking reactor resulted in acceleration of tar
cracking at high-temperature conditions [160].
7.3. Catalytic conversion
As mentioned in the previous investigations, the downstream
applications such as, gas turbines and internal combustion engines
require very less tar concentration of 50–100 mg/Nm3 which is not
possible to achieve using thermal tar cracking. So, in such cases, the
catalytic conversion method has been reported suitable to meet the
stringent requirement of less tar and ammonia contents. In contrast
with physical and thermal cracking method of gas cleaning, the
catalytic process operates at the same temperature as existing gas
having without further heat up or cools down. But in the case of
physical cleaning system, the end product gas is required to cool down
before the end use application and hence, decrease the thermal
efficiency of the system. The catalytic process is also capable in
378
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384
trapping the particulate matter and ammonia contents in the end
product and thus observed to be suitable for downstream applications
[161,162]. A comprehensive research has been carried out in past years
in the direction of catalytic cracking and the developments of various
catalysts. Also, different types of catalysts such as dolomites, olivine
and FCC have been investigated to find to be the best solutions of tar
cracking. The optimum process conditions with certain pre-treatment
methods were also suggested to prolong the catalyst life [163].
In another research, three catalysts, namely, alumina extrudes,
dolomite and olivine were tested at 300–500 °C and 800 °C each with
gas flow rate of 0.5–2.4 L/min, respectively. The tar cracking efficiency
of 71%, 92% and 89% was obtained for alumina extrude, dolomite and
olivine, respectively. However, the tar cracking efficiency of alumina
extrude obtained was lower and at the same time, the temperature of
the end product was also reported lower [164]. Zeolite based catalysts
produced less carbon depositions as compared to metal oxide produ-
cing dark colored tar and the tar deposition has been observed
decreasing with increasing the gasification temperature on catalyst
use [165]. The hydrogen yield has been reported increasing due to tar
destruction at higher temperature and catalyst cracking having reform-
ing and shift reactions [166]. In these studies, the deactivation of
catalyst due to ash fouling and carbon deposition on catalyst surface
has been observed which resulted in longer catalyst activity in the
gasification bed and hence, identified as the severe problem in catalytic
decomposition. In a novel investigation, rhodium (Rh) has been
reported to be very fast for catalytic activity in primary and secondary
gasification bed at lower tar cracking temperature varying from 500 to
700 °C. However, the sintering of catalyst through scanning electron
imaging has been observed and later it was overcome with the addition
of SiO2 in CeO2 and Rh as Rh/CeO2/SiO2 [167–177]. But, the use of
such catalysts for long run experiments has to be investigated
thoroughly.
From the literature, iron and nickel based catalysts were found to
be widely investigated due to their economic viability. However, these
catalysts are highly recommended for short run experiments only and
the temperature requirement for tar destruction has been observed to
be varying from 500 to 900 °C with significant increase in the calorific
value of the end product gas but the tar destruction at higher
temperature has to be evaluated thoroughly in terms of the cost
benefits because it is assumed that it might not be the very economic
process due to the presence of many complications and material
degradation in it.
8. Technological and commercial barriers in biomass
gasification
Since many decades, biomass gasification has been recognized as a
well-established technology however, some technological and commer-
cial barriers still exist in its implementation at higher scale and hence,
limits the commercial development of the technology. Asadullah [178]
investigated the barriers in the process of biomass gasification used for
electricity generation in terms of supply chain management, gas
cleaning, biomass conversion and its pre-treatment for power genera-
tion. Even having different types of gasifier and catalytic tar separation
methods, the need for an efficient method has been observed for
successive commercialization of the technology. Zhang et al. [179]
studied the barriers in the commercialization of crop straw gasification
in terms of low price of fuel gas, high initial investment, few technology
users, underdeveloped crop straw gasification technology, improper
process testing for standardization and the lack of infrastructure and
government policies for the promotion of the technology. In a study
[180], the technical barriers in the hydrogen production for the fuel
cells were also identified in the form of feedstock cost and availability.
Besides, the commercial barriers associated with the biomass gasifica-
tion, pyrolysis, and reforming technology, particularly in the efficiency
throughput were also highlighted in the study. The hydrogen separa-
S.K. Sansaniwal et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384

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

Table 8
Techno-economic study of biomass gasification.

Authors Year Remarks

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

379
S.K. Sansaniwal et al.
tedious technology has become very attractive with more flexibility,
large in scale and finds its place in many new applications such as
fertilizers, chemical, hydrogen, substitute natural gas etc. to gain
prominence than ever before. Now a day, liquid fuels through the
gasification process, become the sole purpose of industries due to more
viability and economic growth. About 25% of world's ammonia and
over 30% of world's methanol is being produced using gasification
through the fermentation process. The large spread of gasification
technology can ensure socioeconomic development, energy security
and emissions-free atmosphere. In addition, more variations in the
present technology can be foreseen in terms of cost reduction through
integration with other energy systems and hybrid design of the
hardware. Even though biomass gasification provides the benefits of
a well-proven technology but still it faces challenges, however, in the
recent upswing, particularly china has demonstrated the technology
advantages by utilizing it in the domestic energy sector for the
manufacturing of commercial products. Besides, the carbon-based
feedstock gasification can be designed to operate under different raw
materials such as coal, natural gas, wastes, biomass and blends of
various feedstock elements. Having such diversity in gasification
process would address the energy security concerns in a better way.
Coal has been reported to be widely used in the modern gasification
technology. Countries like China have started to reserve their coal
basket for future gasification projects. The Gasification Technologies
Council is continuously monitoring the database of gasification at
worldwide.
In 2014, a total of 747 gasification projects having 1741 gasifier are
planned to carry out. Out of this figure, 234 projects with 618 gasifiers
are successfully commercialized. In the year 2013, 61 projects with 202
gasifiers were under construction mode whereas 98 facilities with 550
gasifiers are in planning phase. So, the data figure shows a significant
growth in this sector and thus the gasification technology is being
reintroduced at large scale worldwide. Some of the major institutes
across the world working on the biomass-based gasification systems
has been identified as Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand;
Austria and Zaragoza University, Spain; Aston University, UK; VIT
Gasification Centre, Finland; Battle Columbus Laboratories, USA;
National Renewable Energy Laboratories, USA; Biomass Energy
Foundation, USA; Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden; Delft
University of Technology, Netherlands; Kansas State University, USA;
Chinese Academy of Agricultural and Mechanical Systems, China;
International Energy Agency (IEA) Bioenergy, USA; The Energy &
Resources Institute (TERI), India; Indian Institute of Technology (IIT),
Mumbai, India; Indian Institute of Sciences (IISc), India; Ministry of
New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), India; Danish Technical
University (DTU), Denmark; IOWA State University, USA; European
Commission Directorate General for Energy, Belgium [21,189,190].
11. Discussion of results
So far different types of gasifiers under different feedstocks and
operating conditions have been explained with their merits and
demerits. However, each type of gasifier has its own importance and
significance depending upon the type of application, operating condi-
tion and the economic viability. From the various studies [58–84], it
has been concluded that the fixed bed downdraft gasifiers are more
practical for the production of clean gas with a considerable high
average calorific value of 6.5 MJ/Nm3 to be used in the various thermal
and engine applications at small scale power generation. The highest
conversion efficiency and hot gas efficiency of the downdraft gasifier are
reported to be 75% and 86%, respectively. Besides, the optimum value
of the equivalence ratio has been observed to vary from 0.19 to 0.32
depending on the types of feedstock and the quality of the producer gas
to be obtained. The downdraft gasifiers with throat are identified to be
more suitable for the production of syngas with less tar content
however, the syngas with maximum tar content up to 45 mg/Nm3
380
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384
can be obtained in the downdraft gasifier without throat.
The high tar content in the producer gas restricts the use of gasifier
to some applications only such as, furnaces, oven heating and other
direct heating applications. The amount of tar in the producer gas is
reported to be highly dependent on the operating temperature condi-
tions, kind of feedstock and the reactor design. Overall, the downdraft
gasifiers are capable of producing the good gas quality with short
starting time for the engine and variable moisture content of the
biomass. The gas yield obtained from the downdraft gasifier is more
due to consumption of tar content and hence, they are among the best
suited for the number of applications where clean gas with control
temperature is required. The main applications of these gasifiers are in
internal combustion engines, backing ovens, boilers, dryers, direct fired
rotary kilns etc. The lower conversion efficiency and difficulties in
handling higher moisture content of fuel are the limitations in these
gasifiers.
On the other hand [85–101], the updraft gasifier are not so popular
and almost obsoleted due to their critical drawbacks such as, great tar
sensitiveness and moisture content of the feedstock, the low production
of syngas, long start up time of engine, and the poor reaction capability.
The average equivalence ratio and the moisture handling capacity of
these gasifiers are reported to vary from 0.24 to 0.27 and 20–45%,
respectively. The updraft gasifiers are comparatively very good in the
thermal efficiency (93–97%) as compared to the downdraft gasifier but
the tar content in fuel gas obtained is reported to be very high ( >
100 mg/Nm3) due to incomplete reduction and thermal cracking of
volatile materials and hence, they are suited for the applications where
moderate amounts of dust in fuel gas are acceptable with high flame
temperature. The main applications of these gasifiers are in thermal
fluid heaters, rotary type roasters, packaged boilers, fryers, and
annealing furnace.
The fluidized bed type gasifiers [104–147] are reported process
effective due to their various unique characteristics such as, uniform
particle mixing which results in more thermal cracking of volatile
materials because of better heat transfer among the particles, uniform
temperature gradient, and are capable to operate in continuous state
while withdrawing and introducing new reactants into the reaction
vessel. These gasifiers are basically designed to operate at the tem-
perature range varying from 800 to 900 °C to avail both the features of
thermal reduction at high temperature and prevention of the bed
material from melting. The equivalence ratio is lying in the same range
of fixed bed gasifier, however, the conversion efficiency of these
gasifiers is far better than the fixed bed gasifiers and reported to be
up to 98% if the process is designed to operate at optimum operating
conditions. Also in some cases, the conversion efficiency is reported to
be lower (70%) due to the stickiness of the biomass particles with each
other.
As compared to the bubbling fluidized bed, circulating fluidized bed
reactor can achieve better solid conversion, fuel size flexibility, and
high velocities. The circulating fluidized bed reactors are also observed
to be easily scalable and are reliable over a wide range of feedstocks.
However, these gasifiers are also affected by the tar and dust problems
which reported to be up to 50 mg/Nm3, depending upon the type of
feedstock and operating conditions. The acceptable tar level from
different gasifier namely, downdraft, updraft, and fluidized bed type
gasifiers is usually in the range of 0.01–6 g/Nm3, 50 g/Nm3, and 6–
12 g/Nm3 respectively [21,23]. In the present scenario of the fluidiza-
tion bed gasifier, the research focus is to quantify and explain the phase
interaction behaviour in the bed which includes particle size distribu-
tions, phase interactions, particles stickiness, various transfer coeffi-
cient, pressure velocity effects, and computational modelling.
Among all, the downdraft gasifiers with throat are in recent trends
and under the keen attention of researchers worldwide because they
have the capacity to produce mechanical and electrical power from
different biomass feedstock in small scale at affordable price. Due to
the high potential of tar cracking and conversion efficiency, tar
S.K. Sansaniwal et al.
production in downdraft gasifiers is also much lower as compared to
those of the updraft and fluidized bed type gasifiers. Although, the
downdraft gasifier with throat are very much popular for the quality gas
production from the high-density raw biomass but they are not
reported suitable for the low-density biomass fuels due to bridging
and channeling of biomass in the flow lines. Thus, the selection of a
particular gasifier is to be made depending on the quality of the gas,
requirement of the end-user and the availability and characteristics of
the feedstock at a particular location, as their performance depends on
many numbers of factors as described in this article. In addition, the
biomass gasification systems are observed to be facing the economic
and non-technical barriers in their progress and so it is also suggested
that the economic development of biomass gasification system can be
achieved through the integration of biomass system with other renew-
able energy systems.
12. Conclusions
The biomass has been observed as a potential source of energy and
hence, capable of maintaining the balance between energy supply and
energy demand of the modern society, worldwide. In biomass energy
generation, thermochemical processing among rest of the technologies
available has attracted particular attention for converting biomass into
more value-added products. The biomass gasification has been con-
sidered as one of the most promising renewable energy conversion
route particularly, for engine and thermal applications. In this review
article, the followings have been illustrated:
• The present status of biomass gasifier with respect to the developing
countries is reviewed.
• A comprehensive review on the design, development, and perfor-
mance evaluation of various types of biomass gasifiers has been
presented.
• Technological and commercial barriers in biomass gasification have
been depicted.
• Techno-economic study of various types of biomass gasifiers has
been demonstrated.
• Global scenario and future directions on biomass gasification have
been illustrated.
Fixed and fluidized bed reactor gasifiers are the most practical
option for the production of combustible gases at small or medium
scale power generation schemes or thermal applications. However, the
choice of gasification system depends on many factors such as biomass
characterization, gasifier capacity, end use applications etc. In com-
prehensive review, updraft gasifier has been reported suitable essen-
tially for thermal applications because the tar and particulates level is
considerably high and observed to vary from 50 to 100 g/Nm3 and
above. On contrary, downdraft gasifiers are found prominent for both
engine and thermal applications as the tar and particulates content
present in the producer gas is acceptable for these applications and
reported to vary from 10 to 50 g/Nm3.
The crossdraft gasifier has been reported obsolete from the picture
because of their infeasibility with the energy market standards. In the
case of fluidized bed reactors, this figure varies in between the range
mentioned above but the syngas yield is very high due to better heat
transfer conditions and hence these reactors are used in medium or
large scale decentralized thermal and power applications. However, the
tar content is considerably high which can be minimized using two-
stage gasification process. Although gasification technologies have been
well demonstrated and established by the researchers and the incessant
progress in this direction is also going on but still, it is facing economic
and other non-technical barriers as and when it competes with the
global energy markets. It is also assumed that with the time bound,
implementation of this technology can be achieved via economic
development through biomass system integration.
381
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384
13. Future directions
Among the various types of biomass gasifier, downdraft gasifiers
with throat have been reported superior in quality syngas production.
Due to the sustainable production of combustible fuels and energy
effectiveness, they have been observed suitable for various engine and
thermal applications at higher scale. Since the gasifier reactor, gas
cooling and cleaning system is the most important part of downdraft
gasifier and hence, a significant improvement in it could lead to the
better energy efficient system. Therefore, in recent trends, some
investigations in this direction have been made and still of considerable
interest such as incorporation of heat recovery devices, improved tar
cracking methods, reuse of biochar as feedstock, the transformation of
ash and tar contents into the value-added products, steam gasification
for hydrogen yield, pre-treatment of raw feedstock etc. However, the
catalyst used in catalytic conversion should be investigated thoroughly
in terms of their chemical stability and compatibility with the existing
system to ensure the constant temperature of the process.
Furthermore, the pre-treatment of raw biomass can be carried out
using the heat recovery devices incorporated with the system, itself. It
is also suggested to optimize each step involved in the process for better
techno-economic feasibility of these systems. Besides, the computer
technology may further to be exploited to design the better simulation
and evaluation tools to investigate the process characteristics before
fabrication of the final product. Also before the system scaling, it is
highly recommended to analyze the simulation model and forecasts the
system for short and long terms performance parameter, which
ultimately may help in the investigation of the techno-economic
viability and benefits in long term. In addition, the government policies
should be highly inclined towards the promotion of these cleaner
technologies for futuristic orientations, in this regard, so that such
practices would help in rectifying the technological and commercial
barriers for a wide range of dissemination in the field.
Acknowledgements
The fruitful suggestions and friendly comments made by the
anonymous Reviewers of this manuscript are highly appreciated. A
thorough editing of the manuscript was done which has now improved
the outlook of the entire manuscript and we express our gratefulness to
the reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief for the same.
References
[1] Overend RP . Direct combustion of biomass. Renewable Energy sources charged
with energy from the sun and originated from earth-moon interaction. 〈http://
www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c08/e3-08-01-04.pdf〉
[2] Kucuk MM, Demirbas A. Biomass conversion processes. Energy Conversat Mgmt
1997;38:151–65.
[3] Pathak B, Chaudhari S, Fulekar MH. Biomass - resource for sustainable devel-
opment. Int J Adv Res Technol 2013;2(6):271–87.
[4] Sims REH. Energy and fuel wood. New Zealand: Centre for Energy Research,
Massey University; 2003.
[5] Bhavanam A, Sastry RC. Biomass gasification processes in downdraft fixed bed
reactors: a review. Int J Chem Eng Appl 2011;2(6):425–33.
[6] Zhang L, Champagne P. Overview of recent advances in thermochemical conver-
sion of biomass. Energy Convers Manag 2010;51:969–82.
[7] Pandey A, Bhaskar T, Stocker M, Sukumaran RK. Recent advances in thermo-
chemical conversion of biomass. In: Pandey A, Bhaskar T, Stocker M, Sukumaran
RK, editors. . Elsevier; 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63289-
0.10000-6.
[8] Mukunda HS, Dasappa S, Paul PJ, Rajan NKS, Shrinivasa U. Gasifiers and
combustors for biomass - technology and field studies. Energy Sustain Dev
1994;1:27–38.
[9] Jain AK, Sharma SK, Singh D. Availability and characteristics of paddy husk as a
renewable energy source. J Agric Eng 1997;34(1):10–4.
[10] Reed TB. Handbook of biomass downdraft gasifier engine systems. Solar Technical
Information Program. Golden, CO: Solar Energy Research Institute; 1988.
[11] Turare C Biomass Gasification Technology and Utilization. 〈www11zetatalk.com/
docs/Biogas/BiomassGasificationTechnologyUtilization02.pdf〉.
[12] Rajvanshi AK. Biomass gasification. Boca Raton, Florida, United States: CRC
Press; 1986. p. 83–102.
S.K. Sansaniwal et al.
[13] Annual report . Ministry of new and renewable energy. New Delhi, India:
Government of India; 2011.
[14] Verna R, Singh M. Symmetrical analysis of biomass gasification techniques. MR
Int J Eng Technol 2013;5(1):17–24.
[15] Verma R. An analysis of biomass technology and its impact on multi-fuel fired
biomass boiler. Int J Sci Eng Technol 2014;3(2):198–202.
[16] Chawdhury MA, Mahkamov K. Development of a small downdraft biomass gasifier
for developing countries. J Sci Res 2013;3(1):51–64.
[17] Kumar A, Jones DD, Hanna MA. Thermochemical biomass gasification: a review
of the current status of the technology. Energies 2009;2:556–81.
[18] Srivastava T. Renewable energy (gasification). Adv Electron Electr Eng
2013;3(9):1243–50.
[19] Pruksakit W, Dejterakulwong C, Patumsawad S. Performance prediction of a
downdraft gasifier using equilibrium model: effect of different biomass. In:
Proceedings of the 5th international conference on sustainable energy and
environment (SEE: Science, Technology and Innovation for ASEAN Green
Growth, Bangkok, Thailand, 19-21; 2014.
[20] Jain AK. Biomass gasification under oxygen medium. J Agric Eng
1999;36(3):27–31.
[21] Chopra S, Jain AK. A review of fixed bed gasification systems for biomass. Agric
Eng Int: CIGR E-J 2007;9, [ISSN:1682-1130].
[22] Beohar H, Gupta B, Sethi VK, Pandey M. Parametric study of fixed bed biomass
gasifier: a review. Int J Therm Technol 2012;2(1):134–40.
[23] Gautam G, Adhikari S, Gopalkumar ST, Brodbeck C, Bhavnani S, Taylor S. Tar
analysis in syngas derived from pelletized biomass in a commercial stratified
biomass in a commercial stratified downdraft gasifier. Bioresources
2011;6(4):4652–61.
[24] Malik A, Mohapatra SK. Biomass-based gasifiers for internal combustion (IC)
engines—A review. Indian Acad Sci 2013;38(3):461–76.
[25] Srivastava T. Renewable energy (gasification). Adv Electron Electr Eng
2013;3(9):1243–50.
[26] Kunii D, Levenspiel O. Fluidization engineering. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-
Heinemann; 1991.
[27] Basu P. Combustion and gasification in fluidized beds. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC
Press; 2006.
[28] Siedlecki M, Jong WD, Verkooijen AHM. Fluidized bed gasification as a mature
and reliable technology for the production of. Energies 2011;4:389–434.
[29] Melissari B. Ash related problems with high alkali biomass and its mitigation
experimental evaluation. Mem Invest En Ing 2014;12:31–44.
[30] Miles PETR, Miles JTR, Baxter LL, Bryers RW, Jenkins BM, Oden LL. Alkali
deposits found in biomass power plants – a preliminary investigation of their
extent and nature. Cole, Boulevard, Golden, CO: Summary report for National
Renewable Energy Laboratory; 1995.
[31] Beenackers AACM, Van Swaaij WPM. Gasification of biomass, a state of the art
review (keynote paper). In: Bridgwater AV, editor. Thermochemical Processing of
Biomass. London, UK: Butterworth's; 1984. p. 91–136.
[32] Timmer KJ. Carbon conversion during bubbling fluidized bed gasification [Ph.D.
thesis]. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University; 2008.
[33] Olivares A, Aznar MP, Caballero MA, Gil J, Frances E, Corella J. Biomass
gasification: Produced gas upgrading by in-bed use of dolomite. Ind Eng Chem Res
1997;36:5220–6.
[34] Turn SQ, Kinoshita CM, Ishimura DM, Zhou J. The fate of inorganic constitutes of
biomass in fluidized bed gasification. Fuel 1998;77:135–46.
[35] Proll T, Rauch R, Aichernig C. Fluidized bed steam gasification of solid biomass
performance characteristics of an 8 MWth combined heat and power plant. Int J
Chem React Eng 2007;5(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1542-6580.1398.
[36] Ordys AW, Grimble MJ, Kocaarslan I. Combined cycle and combined heat and
power processes. Control Syst, Robot Autom 2004;18 〈https:/www.eolss.net/
Sample-Chapters/C18/E6-43-33-06.pdf〉.
[37] Latif A. A study of the design of fluidized bed reactors for biomass
gasification[Ph.D. thesis]. London: University of London; 1999.
[38] Wang W, Olofsson G . Reduction of ammonia and tar in pressurized biomass
gasification. 〈http://netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Events/2002/gas%20cleaning
%20at%20high%20temperature/5-01paper.pdf〉
[39] Narvaez I, Orío A, Aznar MP, Corella J. Biomass gasification with air in an
atmospheric bubbling fluidized bed. Effect of six operational variables on the
quality of the produced raw gas. Ind Eng Chem Res 1996;35:2110–20.
[40] Beohar H, Gupta B, Sethi VK, Pandey M, Parmar H. Effect of air velocity, fuel rate
and moisture content on the performance of updraft biomass gasifier using fluent
tool. Int J Mod Eng Res 2012;2(5):3622–7.
[41] Pérez JF, Tinaut FV, Melgar A, Horrillo A. Effect of biomass particle size and air
superficial velocity on the gasification process in a downdraft fixed bed gasifier. An
experimental and modelling study. Fuel Process Technol 2008;89:1076–89.
[42] Hanping C, Bin L, Haiping Y, Guolai Y, Shihong Z. Experimental investigation of
biomass gasification in a fluidized bed reactor. Energy Fuels 2008;22:3493–8.
[43] Gil J, Corella J, Aznar MP, Caballero MP. Biomass gasification in atmospheric and
bubbling fluidized bed: effect of the type of gasifying agent on the product
distribution. Biomass- Bioenergy 1999;17:389–403.
[44] Mathieu P, Dubuisson R. Performance analysis of a biomass gasifier. Energy
Convers Manag 2002;43:1291–9.
[45] Kinoshita CM, Wang Y, Zhou J. Tar formation under different biomass gasification
conditions. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 1994;19:169–81.
[46] Brencic J, Lazarini F. General and inorganic chemistry. In Slovenian: DZS,
Ljubljana; 1996.
[47] Atkins PW, Frazer MJ, Clugston MJ, Jones RAY. Chemistry principles and
applications. In Slovenian: TZS, Ljubljana; 1997.
382
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384
[48] Pirc A, Sekavcnik M, Mori M. Universal model of a biomass gasifier for different
syngas compositions. J Mech Eng 2012;58(5):291–9.
[49] Samiran NA, Jaafar MNM, Chong CT, Jo-Han N. A review of palm oil biomass as
feedstock for syngas fuel technology. J Teknol (Sci Eng) 2014;72(5):13–8.
[50] Chhiti Y, Kemiha M. Thermal conversion of biomass, pyrolysis and gasification: a
review. Int J Eng Sci 2013;2(3):75–85.
[51] Kureshi NA, Modi VH, Rajkotia SD. Performance and development of downdraft
gasifier: a review. Int J Sci Res 2003;2(5):139–41.
[52] Jankes GG, Trninic MR, Stamenic MS, Simonovic TS, Tanasic ND, Labus JM.
Biomass gasification with CHP production. Therm Sci 2012;16(1):115–30.
[53] Pipatmanomai S. Overview and experiences of biomass fluidized bed gasification
in Thailand. J Sustain Energy Environ Spec Issue 2011:29–33.
[54] Upadhyay AD, Patel BRN, Shah CNK. Review on 10 KWe downdraft gasifier with
different feedstocks. International Conference on Current Trends in Technology,
NIRMA University, Ahmedabad – 382481; 2011.
[55] Surjosatyo A, Vidian F, Nugroho YS. A review on gasifier modification for tar
reduction in biomass gasification. J Mek 2010;31:62–77.
[56] Arnavat MP, Bruno JC, Coronas A. Review and analysis of biomass gasification
models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:2841–51.
[57] Wang L, Weller CL, Jones DD, Hanna MA. Contemporary issues in thermal
gasification of biomass and its application to electricity and fuel production.
Biomass- Bioenergy 2008;32:573–81.
[58] Kuo P, Wu W. Design, optimization and energetic efficiency of producing
hydrogen-rich gas from biomass steam gasification. Energies 2015;8:94–110.
[59] Dutta PP, Pandey V, Das AR, Sen S, Baruah DC. Downdraft gasification modelling
and experimentation of some indigenous biomass for thermal application. 4th
ICASER, Energy Procedia, 54; 2014. p. 21-34
[60] Jaojaruek K, Jarungthammachote S, Gratuito MKB, Wongsuwan H, Homhual S.
Experimental study of wood downdraft gasification for an improved producer gas
quality through an innovative two-stage air and premixed air/gas supply
approach. Bioresour Technol 2011.
[61] Ambani J, Dafda J. Design and development of open core down draft gasifier.
Junagadh, Gujrat, India: College of agricultural Engineering and Technology,
Junagadh Agricultural University; 2010.
[62] Sharma AK. Experimental study on 75 KWth downdraft (biomass) gasifier system.
Renew Energy 2009;34:1726–33.
[63] Sheth PN, Babu BV. Experimental studies on producer gas generation from wood
waste in a downdraft biomass gasifier. Bioresour Technol 2009;100(12):3127–33.
[64] Black , Veatch . Advanced biopower technology assessment, assessment report
prepared for the Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources & Massachusetts.
Lamar Avenue, Overland Park, KS, United States of America: Department of
Conservation & Recreation; 2008.
[65] Jain AK. Design parameters for a rice husk Throatless gasifier. Agric Eng Int:
CIGR Ejournal 2006;3:1–13.
[66] Zainal ZA, Ali R, Quadir G, Seetharamu KN. Experimental investigations of a
downdraft biomass gasifier. Biomass- Bioenergy 2002;23:283–9.
[67] Zainal ZA, Ali R, Lean CH, Seetharamu KN. Prediction of performance of a
downdraft gasifier using equilibrium modeling for different biomass materials.
Energy Convers Manag 2001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(00)00078-
9.
[68] Bridgwater AV. The technical and economic feasibility of biomass gasification for
power generation. Fuel 1995;74:631.
[69] Surjosatyo A, Vidian F. Tar content evaluation of produced gas in downdraft
biomass gasifier. Iran J Energy Environ 2012;3(3):210–2.
[70] Tooy D, Nelwan L, Pangkerego F. Evaluation of biomass gasification using coconut
husks in producing energy to generate small-scale electricity. Lumpur (Malaysia):
International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Energy and Manufacturing
Engineering; 2014.
[71] Melgar A, Perez J, Horrillo A. Biomass gasification process in a downdraft fixed
bed gasifier: a real time diagnosis model based on gas composition analysis; 2009.
p. 9–18
[72] Jain AK, Jindal SL, Panesar BS. Hydrogen generation from biomass. In:
Proceedings of the aslan seminar on fuel cell technology for rural electrification;
1996. p. 15–30
[73] Mamphweli NS, Meyer EL. Evaluation of the conversion efficiency of the
180 Nm3/h Johansson biomass gasifier. Int J Energy Environ 2010;1(1):113–20.
[74] Shelke GN, Mahanta P, Patil RS. Experimental studies on thermal behaviour of
downdraft gasifier. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, Vol. II;
2014
[75] Vakalis S, Prando D, Patuzzi F, Baratieri M. Thermodynamic modelling of biomass
downdraft gasifier: Introduction to the ‘multi box’ concept. In: Proceedings of the
22nd European biomass conference and exhibition; 2014. p. 637–40
[76] Kumar A, Kumar R. Performance evaluation of downdraft gasifier for generation
of engine quality gas. Nat Resour Conserv 2013;1(2):50–4.
[77] Dutsadee N, Homdoung N, Ramaraj R, Santisouk K, Inthavideth S. Performance
analysis of power generation by producer gas from refuse derived fuel (RDF-5). Int
J Sustain Green Energy 2015;1(1):44–9.
[78] Jayah TH, Aye L, Fuller RJ, Stewart DF Simulation study of a downdraft wood
gasifier used to produce thermal energy for tea drying. Renewable energy
transforming business.
[79] Mohanraj C, Srividhya . CFD simulation of 20 KW downdraft gasifier. Int J Curr
Eng Technol 2013:209–14.
[80] Volpe R, Messineo A, Millan M, Volpe M, Kandiyoti R. Assessment of olive wastes
as energy source: pyrolysis, torrefaction and the key role of H loss in thermal
breakdown. Energy 2015;82:119–27.
[81] Shankar C, Rajakumaran V, Kamaleswaran K, Harinath P, Prabhakaran S,
S.K. Sansaniwal et al.
Kirubakaran V. A feasibility study on producer gas operation IC engines. J Chem
Pharm Sci 2015;6:339–42.
[82] Kumar P, Garg L, Kumar R, Mohapatra SK. Performance parameters of dual fuel
diesel engine using eucalyptus-producer gas as secondary fuel. Int J Eng Technol
Sci Res 2015;2:15–22.
[83] Nisamaneenate J, Sornkade P, Atong D, Sricharoenchaikul V. Advanced reforming
of agro-waste by modular gasifier for fuel generation. Chem Eng J 2015.
[84] Ong Z, Cheng Y, Maneerung T, Yao Z, Tong YW, Wang CH, Dai Y. Co-gasification
of woody biomass and sewage sludge in a fixed bed downdraft gasifier. Am Inst
Chem Eng J 2015.
[85] Raja RC, Sankarabharathi S, Sankar RR, Chandraseka M. Performance of the pilot
model updraft gasifier. J Chem Pharm Sci 2015;6:177–82.
[86] Nsamba HK, Hale SE, Cornelissen G, Bachmann RT. Designing and performance
evaluation of biochar production in a top-lit updraft upscaled gasifier. J Sustain
Bioenergy Syst 2015;5:41–55.
[87] James A, Yuan W, Boyette M, Wang D, Kumar A. In-chamber thermocatalytic tar
cracking in an updraft biomass gasifier. Int J Agric Biol Eng 2014, [in press].
[88] Beohar H, Gupta B, Sethi VK, Pandey M, Parmar H. Effect of air velocity, fuel rate
and moisture content on the performance of updraft biomass gasifier using fluent
tool. Int J Mod Eng Res 2012;2(5):3622–7.
[89] Seggiani M, Puccini M, Vitolo S. Gasification of sewage sludge: mathematical
modelling of an updraft gasfier. Chem Eng Trans 2013;32:895–900.
[90] Mandl C, Obernberger I, Biedermann F. Modelling of an updraft fixed bed gasifier
operated with softwood pellets. Fuel 2010;89:3795–806.
[91] Yadav P, Dutta A, Gupta B, Pandey M. Performance analysis of the constructed
updraft biomass gasifier for three different biomass fuels. Int J Mod Eng Res
2013;3(4):2056–61.
[92] Raibhole VN, Phadke AD, Patil SL, Ghadge AG, Deshpande DS Syngas production
by updraft biomass gasifier and its parameteric analysis. IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering, ISSN(e): 2278–1684, pp. 56–62.
[93] Ismail TM, El-Salam MA. A numerical model simulation for an updraft gasifier
using high temperature steam. Int J Mech, Aerosp, Ind Mechatron Eng
2014;8(5):831–7.
[94] Rahardjo BS. Effect of gasifying agent (air+steam) injection towards syngas quality
from rice husk gasification. Int J Eng Appl Sci 2013;4(2):74–86.
[95] Olwa J, Ohman M, Esbjorn P, Bostrom D, Okure M, Kjellstrom B. Potassium
retention in updraft gasification of wood. Energy Fuels 2013;27(11):6718–24.
[96] Ojolo SJ, Abolarin SM, Adegbenro O. Development of a laboratory scale updraft
gasifier. Int J Manuf Syst 2012;2(2):21–42.
[97] Tarhan S. Airflow channeling through fixed wheat straw bed in an updraft gasifier
before the initiation of gasification. Energy Sources 2003;25(12):1183–91.
[98] Borthakur G, Mahanta DK. Development of a fuel flexible updraft thermal biomass
gasifier. Int J Sci Res 2013;2(6):276–8.
[99] Pedroso DT, Machin EB, Silveira JL, Nemoto Y. Experimental study of bottom
feed gasifier. Renew Energy 2013;57:311–6.
[100] Grimm A, Bjornbom E, Zanzi R. Fixed (Slow-Moving) bed updraft gasification of
agricultural residues. In: Proceedings of the Conference: 15th European Biomass
Conference and Exhibition; 2014.
[101] Ernie M, Azhar AA, Normah MG. The moisture effect on wood combustion in an
updraft gasifier. J Mech Eng Technol 2010;2(2):101–12, [ISSN:2180-1053].
[102] Zhou Z, Yin X, Xu J, Ma L. The development situation of biomass gasification
power generation in china. Energy Policy 2012;51:52–7.
[103] Study of Available Business Models of Biomass Gasification Power Projects in
India prepared by TERI, New Delhi and UPES, Dehradun 2013.
[104] Wilk V, Kitzler H, Koppatz S, Pfeifer C, Hofbaucer H. Gasification of waste wood
and bark in a dual fluidized bed steam gasifier. Biomass- Convers Biorefinery
2011;1(2):91–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13399-011-0009-z.
[105] Beheshti SM, Ghassemi H, Shahsavan-Markadeh . Process simulation of biomass
gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor. Energy Convers Manag
2015;94:345–52.
[106] Nagaraja M, Sundaresan R. Gasification of juliflora chips in a circulating fluidized
bed gasifier. Int J Energy Sci 2013;3(2):91–8.
[107] Prins MJ. Thermodynamics analysis of biomass gasification and torrefaction.
Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven; 2005, [Proefschrift – ISBN 90-
386-2886-2].
[108] Chatterjee PK, Datta AB, Kundu KM. Fluidized bed gasification of coal. Can J
Chem Eng 1995;73(2):204–10.
[109] Ruoppolo G, Cante A, Chirone R, Miccio F, Stanzione V Fluidized bed gasification
of coal/biomass slurries. Istituto di Ricerche sulla Combustione – CNR, Napoli,
Italy.
[110] Rehmat A, Goyal A Fuel evaluation for the U-gas fluidized bed gasification
process. Clean Energy from Waste and Coal, Chapter 5, p. 58–71, Institute of Gas
Technology, Chicago, Illinois. Doi: 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/bk-1992-0515.
ch005〉.
[111] Basu P, Acharya B, Dutra A. Gasification in fluidized beds-Present status &
design. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Fluidized Bed
Combustion; 97-103; 2010.
[112] Suda T, Murakami T, Aoki S, Matsuzawa Y, Xu G, Tani H. Biomass gasification in
dual fluidized bed gasifier. Chall Power Eng Environ 2007:1213–7.
[113] Li XT, Grace JR, Lim CJ, Watkinson AP, Chen HP, Kim JR. Biomass gasification
in a circulating fluidized bed. Biomass- Bioenergy 2004;26(2):171–93.
[114] Miao Q, Zhu J, Barghi S, Wu C, Yin X, Zhou Z. Modeling biomass gasification in
circulating fluidized beds: model sensitivity analysis. Int J Energy Power
2013;2(3):57–63.
[115] Kaushal P, Proll T, Hofbauer H. Modelling and simulation of the biomass fired
dual fluidized bed gasifier at Guessing/Austria. International Conference on
383
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384
Renewable Energies and Power Quality. Sevilla; 2007.
[116] Engelbrecht AD, North BC, Oboirien BO, Everson RC. Neomagus HWPJ. fluidized
bed gasification of high ash South African coals: an experimental and modelling
study. Ind Fluid South Afr 2011:145–59.
[117] Zhou J, Chen Q, Zhao H, Cao X, Mei Q, Luo Z, Cen K. Biomass–oxygen
gasification in a high-temperature entrained-flow gasifier. Biotechnol Adv
2009;27:606–11.
[118] Dayananda BS, Sreepathi LK. Design and analysis of fluidized bed gasifier for
chicken litter along with agro wastes. Int Res J Environ Sci 2012;1(3):11–6.
[119] Kern S, Pfeifer, Hofbaucer H Dual fluidized-bed system gasification of solid
feedstock: Matching syngas requirements with fuel mixtures. Vienna University of
Technology, Institute of Chemical Engineering, Vienna, Austria.
[120] Ammendola P, Scala F. Attrition of lignite char during fluidized bed gasification.
Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2012;43:9–12.
[121] Ramzan N, Athar M, Begum S, Ahmad SW, Naveed S. Simulation of circulating
fluidized bed gasification for characteristic study of pakistani coal. Pol J Chem
Technol 2015;17(1):66–78.
[122] Ghaly AE, Ergudenler A, Al Suhaibani S, Ramakrishnan VV. Development and
evaluation of straw chopping system for fluidized bed gasifiers. Int J Eng Sci
2013;2(10):97–110.
[123] Calvo LF, Garcia AI, Otero M. An experimental investigation of sewage sludge
gasification in a fluidized bed reactor. Hindawi Publishing Corporation; 2013. p.
1–8
[124] Wu H, Hanna MA, Jones DD. Fluidized bed gasification of dairy manure by Box-
Behnken design. Waste Manag Res 2012;30(5):506–11.
[125] Pletka R, Brown R, Smeenk J. Indirectly heated fluidized bed biomass gasification
using latent heat ballast. Conference: BioEnergy, 98 conference, Madison, WI
(United States), 4–9 Oct; 1998.
[126] Kore S, Assefa A, Matthias M, Spliethoff H. Steam gasification of coffee husk in
bubbling fluidized bed gasifier. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Internation
Conference on Bioenvironment, Biodiversity and Renewable energies; ISBN: 978-
1-61208-261-5; 2013.
[127] Tome N, Rangel N, Pinho C. Temperature of wood char particles burning in a
fluidized bed reactor. In: Proceedings of the international conference on renew-
able energies and power quality, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; 2012.
[128] Kalaivani K, Saravanan K. Studies on design of bio semi fluidized bed reactor. Int
J ChemTech Res 2014;6(10):4480–3.
[129] Sciazko M, Stepien L. A modified Gibbs free energy minimization model for fluid
bed coal gasification. Chem Process Eng 2015;36(1):73–87.
[130] Xu G, Murakami T, Suda T, Matsuzaw , Tani H. Two stage dual fluidized bed
gasification: its conception and application to biomass. Fuel Process Technol
2009;90:137–44.
[131] Schmid JC, Pfeifer C, Kitzler H, Proll T, Hofbaucer H. A new dual fluidized bed
gasifier design for improved in situ conversion of hydrocarbons. In: Proceedings of
the international conference on polygeneration strategies; 2011
[132] Abdollahi M, Guy C, Chaouki J. Biomass gasification in rotating fluidized bed. In:
Proceedings of the 13th international conference on fluidization-new paradigm in
fluidization engineering; 2010.
[133] Petersen I, Werther . Three dimensional modelling of a circulating fluidized bed
gasifier for sewage sludge. Chem Eng Sci 2005;60:4469–84.
[134] Ruoppolo G, Miccio F, Brachi P, Picarelli A, Chirone R. Fluidized bed gasification
of biomass and biomass/coal pellets in oxygen and steam atmosphere. Chem Eng
Trans 2013;32:595–600.
[135] Doherty W, Reynolds A, Kennedy D. Simulation of a circulating fluidized bed
biomass gasifier using ASPEN plus - A performance analysis. In: Proceedings of
the 21st international conference on efficiency, cost, optimization, simulation and
environmental impact of energy systems. Krakow, Poland; 2008. p. 1241-1248.
[136] Sarker S, Bimbela F, Sanchez JL, Nielsen HK. Characterization and pilot scale
fluidized bed gasification of herbaceous biomass: a case study on alfalfa pellets.
Energy Convers Manag 2015;91:451–8.
[137] Fremaux S, Beheshti SM, Ghassemi H, Shahsavan-Markadeh R. An experimental
study on hydrogen rich gas production via steam gasification of biomass in a
research scale fluidized bed. Energy Convers Manag 2015;91:427–32.
[138] Simanjuntak JP, Zainal ZA. Experimental study and characterization of a two
compartment cylindrical internally circulating fluidized bed gasifier. Biomass-
Bioenergy 2015;77:147–54.
[139] Banerjee S, Tiarks JA, Kong SC. Modeling biomass gasification system using
multistep kinetics under various oxygen steam conditions. Environ Prog Sustain
Energy 2015.
[140] Thakkar M, Makwana JP, Mohanty P, Shah M, Singh V. In bed catalytic tar
reduction in the autothermal fluidized bed gasification of rice husk: extraction of
silica, energy and cost analysis. Ind Crops Prod 2016;87:324–32.
[141] Makwana JP, Joshi AK, Athawale G, Singh D, Mohanty P. Air gasification of rice
husk in bubbling fluidized bed reactor with bed heating by conventional charcoal.
Bioresour Technol 2015;178:45–52.
[142] Loha C, Chattopadhyay H, Chatterjee PK. Thermodynamic analysis of hydrogen
rich synthetic gas generation from fluidized bed gasification of rice husk. Energy
2011;36:4063–71.
[143] Loha C, Chattopadhyay H, Chatterjee PK. Energy generation from fluidized bed
gasification of rice husk. J Renew Sustain Energy 2013;5(4). http://dx.doi.org/
10.1063/1.4816496.
[144] Kook JW, Choi HM, Kim BH, Ra HW, Yoon SJ, Mun TY, Kim JH, Kim YK, Lee JG,
Seo MW. Gasification and tar removal characteristics of rice husk in a bubbling
fluidized bed reactor. Fuel 2016;181:942–50.
[145] Manatura K, Lu JH, Wu KT, Hsu HT. Exergy analysis on torrefied rice husk pellet
in fluidized bed gasification. Appl Therm Eng 2017;111:1016–24.
S.K. Sansaniwal et al.
[146] Singh RI, Mohapatra SK, Dasaroju G. Fluidized bed combustion and gasification
of rice husk and rice straw- a state of art review. Int J Renew Energy Technol
2011;2(4):345–72.
[147] Ghani WAWK, Moghadam RA, Salleh MAM, Tavasoli A. Gasification performance
of rice husk in fluidized bed reactor: a hydrogen-rich production. J Energy
Environ 2012;4(1):7–11.
[148] Singh RN, Singh SP, Balwanshi JB. Tar removal from producer gas: a review. Res
J Eng Sci 2014;3(10):16–22.
[149] Hasler P, Nussbaumer T. Gas cleaning for IC engine applications from fixed bed
biomass gasification. Biomass- Bioenergy 1999;16(6):385–95.
[150] Stanghelle D, Slungaard T, Sønju OK. Granular bed filtration of high temperature
biomass gasification gas. J Hazard Mater 2007;144:668–72.
[151] Bergman PCA, Boerrigter H, Paasen SVB, Koneman JW. Report on ECN-C-05-
009, 〈www.olgatechnology.com〉; 2005.
[152] Paethanom A, Nakahara S, Kobayashi M, Prawisudha P, Yoshikawa K.
Performance of tar removal by absorption and adsorption for biomass gasification.
Fuel Process Technol 2012;104:144–54.
[153] Baker EG, Mudge LK, Brown MD. Methanol and ammonia from biomass. Chem
Eng Prog 1984;809120(43):6.
[154] Simeone E, Nacken M, Haag W, Heidenreich S, Jong WD. Filtration performance
at high temperatures and analysis of ceramic filter elements during biomass
gasification. Biomass- Bioenergy 2011;35:S87–104.
[155] Christopher OA. Quantification of tars and particulates from a pilot scale,
downdraft biomass gasifier. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master of science in biological and
agricultural engineering in the department of biological and agricultural engi-
neering; May, 2008.
[156] Chiranjeevaraoseela , VinodbabuCh , VykuntaRao M. Techniques of Tar removal
from producer gas – A review. Int J Innov Res Sci, Eng Technol
2015;4(2):258–66.
[157] Andrea CJ, Akay G. Occurrence, composition and dew point of tars produced
during gasification of fuel cane bagasse in a downdraft gasifier. Biomass-
Bioenergy 2012;42:51–8.
[158] Teeranai P, Hirotatsu W, Okazaki K. Experimental investigation of intraparticle
secondary reactions of tar during wood pyrolysis. Fuel 2013;104:468–75.
[159] Fagbemi L, Khezami L, Caprat R. Pyrolysis product from different biomass
application to the thermal cracking of tar. Appl Energy 2001;69:293–306.
[160] Wu ZS, Mi T, We QX, Chen YF, Li XH The Thermal Cracking Experiment
Research of Tar from Rice Hull Gasification for Power Generation. In: Proceedings
of the 20th international conference on fluidized bed combustion. pp. 642–7.
[161] Mojtahedi W, Abbasian J. Catalytic decomposition of ammonia in a fuel gas at
high temperature and pressure. Fuel 1995;74:1698–703.
[162] Milne TA, Abatzoglou N, Evans RJ. Biomass gasifier tar: their nature, formation,
and conversion. NREL/TP-570-25357; 1998.
[163] Sundac N Catalytic cracking of tar from biomass gasification. Department of
Chemical Engineering, Lund University, Sweden. 〈http://www.chemeng.lth.se/
exjobb/E452.pdf〉
[164] Dassey A, Mukherjee B, Sheffield R, Theegala C Catalytic cracking of tars from
biomass gasification. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery. 3(2). p. 69–77.
[165] Inaba M, Murata K, Saito M, Takahara I. Hydrogen production by gasification of
cellulose over Ni-catalysts support on zeolites. Energy Fuels 2006;20:432–8.
[166] Aznar MP, Cabaltero MA, Gil J, Martin JA, Corell J. Commercial steam reforming
catalyst to improve biomass gasification with steam-oxygen mixture to catalytic
tar removal. Ind Eng Chem Res 1998;37:2668–80.
[167] Manuel de Andrés J, Narros A, Rodríguez ME. Behaviour of dolomite, olivine and
alumina as primary catalysts in air–steam gasification of sewage sludge. Fuel
2011;90:521–7.
[168] Barisano D, Freda C, Nanna F, Fanelli E, Villone A. Biomass gasification and in-
bed contaminants removal: performance of iron enriched Olivine and bauxite in a
process of steam/O2 gasification. Bioresour Technol 2012;118:187–94.
[169] Miccio F, Piriou B, Ruoppolo G, Chirone R. Biomass gasification in a catalytic
384
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 363–384
fluidized reactor with beds of different materials. Chem Eng J 2009;154:369–74.
[170] Asadullah M, Tomishige K, Fujimoto K. A novel catalytic process for cellulose
gasification to synthesis gas. Catal Commun 2001;2:63–8.
[171] Asadullah M, Fujimoto K, Tomishige K. Catalytic performance of Rh/CeO2 in the
gasification of cellulose to synthesis gas at low temperature. Ind Eng Chem
2011;40:5894–900.
[172] Asadullah M, Miyazawa T, Ito S, Kunimori K, Tomishige K. Demonstration of real
biomass gasification drastically promoted by effective catalyst. Appl Catal A: Gen
2003;246:103–16.
[173] Asadullah M, Ito S, Kunimori K, Yamada M, Tomishige K. Biomass gasification to
hydrogen and syngas at low temperature: novel catalytic system using fluidized-
bed reactor. J Catal 2002;208:255–9.
[174] Asadullah M, Ito S, Kunimori K, Yamada M, Tomishige K. Energy efficient
production of hydrogen and syngas from biomass: development to flow- tem-
perature catalytic process for cellulose gasification. Environ Sci Technol
2002;36:4476–81.
[175] Asadullah M, Miyazawa T, Ito S, Kunimori K, Yamada M, Tomishige K. Catalyst
development for the gasification of biomass in the dual-bed gasifier. Appl Catal A:
Gen 2003;255:169–80.
[176] Asadullah M, Miyazawa T, Ito S, Kunimori K, Yamada M, Tomishige K.
Gasification of different biomasses in a dual-bed gasifier system combined with
novel catalysts with high energy efficiency. Appl Catal A: Gen 2004;267:95–102.
[177] Asadullah M, Miyazawa T, Ito S, Kunimori K, Koyama S, Tomishige K. A
comparison of Rh/CeO2/SiO2 catalysts with steam reforming catalysts, dolomite
and inert materials as bed materials in low throughput fluidized bed gasification
systems. Biomass- Bioenergy 2004;26:269–79.
[178] Asadullah M. Barriers of commercial power generation using biomass gasification
gas: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:201–15.
[179] Zhang Z, Chen B, Chen A, Zhao W. Barriers to commercialization development of
crop straw gasification technology in china and promoting policy design. Energy
Sources, Part B: Econ, Plan, Policy 2013;8(3):279–89.
[180] Bowen DA, Lau F, Zabransky R, Remick R, Slimane R, Doong S. Techno-economic
analysis of hydrogen production by gasification of biomass. hydrogen, fuel cells,
and infrastructure technologies, progress report. Illinois: Gas Technology Institute
(GTI); 2013. p. 60018.
[181] Dalili S. Biomass gasification and pyrolysis: opportunities and barriers for
efficiency and sustainability. Book: Bio-carbon opportunities in Eastern and
Southern Africa: harnessing carbon finance to promote sustainable forestry, agro-
forestry and bio-energy; 2009. p. 233–66
[182] Ruiz JA, Juarez MC, Morales MP, Munoz P, Mendivil MA. Biomass gasification for
electricity generation: review of current technology barriers. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2013;18:174–83.
[183] Simone M, Guerrazzi E, Biagini E, Nicolella C, Tognotti L. Technological barriers
of biomass gasification. Int J Heat Technol 2009.
[184] Parajuli PB, Deng Y, Kim H, Yu F. Cost analysis model for syngas production cost
evaluation using the graphical user interface. Energy Power 2014;4(2):35–40.
[185] Antonia DD, Cividino SRS, Malev O, Pergher G, Gubiani R. A techno-economic
Feasibility assessment on small-scale forest biomass gasification at a regional
level. Appl Math Sci 2014;8(131):6565–76.
[186] Andersson J, Lundgren J. Techno-economic analysis of ammonia production via
integrated biomass gasification. Appl Energy 2014;130:484–90.
[187] Muresan M, Cormos CC, Agachi PS. Techno-economical assessment of coal and
biomass gasification-based hydrogen production supply chain system. Chem Eng
Res Des 2013;91:1527–41.
[188] Rodrigues M, Faaij APC, Walter A. Techno-economic analysis of co-fired biomass
integrated gasification/combined cycle systems with inclusion of economies of
scale. Energy 2003;28:1229–58.
[189] Fischer G, Schrattenholzer L. Global bioenergy potentials through 2050. Biomass-
Bioenergy 2001;20:151–9.
[190] Kerester A Gasification can help meet the world’s growing demand for cleaner
energy and products. Gasification Technology Council. 2(3).