Applied Thermal Engineering 144 (2018) 242–247

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Research Paper

Hydrogen and syngas production from municipal solid waste (MSW) T

gasification via reusing CO2
⁎
Xiaoyuan Zhenga, Zhi Yinga, , Bo Wanga, Chong Chenb
a
School of Energy and Power Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China
b
Shanghai Urban Construction Design and Research Institute, Shanghai 200125, China

H I GH L IG H T S

• MSW gasification via reusing CO in DTR has been conducted.

2

• The addition of CO enhanced the production of both CO and H .

2 2

• Performance of CO conversion in the MSW gasification process has been detailed.

2

• Boudouard reaction and water gas reaction proceed independently.

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Hydrogen and syngas production from MSW steam gasification with reusing CO2 has been conducted in this
Municipal solid waste study. Two key parameters of gasification temperature and CO2/steam ratio in ranges of 1000–1100 °C and
Steam gasification 0.5–3 are taken into consideration. The experiments reveal that increasing CO2/steam ratio in the range of 0.5
Carbon dioxide reuse and 2.5 increases both H2 and CO molar yield. At the same time, the CO2 conversion efficiency rises. It indicates
Boudouard reaction
that Boudouard reaction and water gas reaction proceed independently in the gasification process. With the
Hydrogen
conditions of CO2/steam ratio = 2.5 and 1000 °C, the CO2 conversion efficiency augments to 50.22% and the
maximum H2 molar yield of 18.82 mol/kg-msw can be observed. Under this condition, the highest values of
63.19% for CGE, 0.95 Nm3/kg-msw for gas yield and 12.41 MJ/Nm3 for LHV are obtained. In the steam-only
atmosphere, there exist maximum values for H2 molar yield and gas yield as well. The values of both CGE and
CCE are lower than those under the steam-CO2 atmosphere. In conclusion, MSW gasification with the addition of
CO2 simultaneously has the advantages of waste-to-energy, reusing CO2 and producing hydrogen and syngas.

1. Introduction gasification is identified as the most efficient and economical way.

Extensive consumption of fossil fuels and subsequent concerning on
environmental pollution as well as climate change make the low-carbon
economy with a crucial hydrogen vector inevitable in the coming years.
Hydrogen with its property of high energy density, rapid burning
speed, high-octane number and zero harming potential is considered as
a first preferred fuel in the near future [1]. By far, the largest source of
hydrogen is fossil fuels, dominating approximately 97% [2]. With the
considerations of limited reserve and high carbon footprint of fossil
fuels, study on renewable alternative source of hydrogen is required
[3,4]. In terms of the performance evaluation on different thermo-
chemical hydrogen production methods containing combustion, gasi-
fication, electrolysis and syngas separation, the gasification/separation
process can maximize the hydrogen production [5]. Therefore,
On the other hand, rapid economy development and subsequent
improvement in living standards in China have brought about an in-
creasing generation of MSW. Its annual production was as high as 191
million tons in 2015 [6]. The representative composition of MSW in
China includes food residue, plastics, textiles, wood waste, rubber and
non-combustibles [7]. Therefore, thermal treatment has been con-
sidered as a promising waste-to-energy approach, which has been
adopted widely [8]. MSW incineration is used to destruct the com-
bustible components, achieving the goals of volume reduction and en-
ergy recovery [9]. However, problems concerning dioxins, heavy me-
tals and so on may occur [10], which have adverse impacts on the
environment and human health.
In recent years, gasifying MSW has emerged as a promising alter-
native to incineration, which is a thermochemical process of converting

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhiying0720@163.com (Z. Ying).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.08.058
Received 12 October 2017; Received in revised form 9 June 2018; Accepted 18 August 2018
Available online 18 August 2018
1359-4311/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Zheng et al.
Nomenclature
MSW municipal solid waste
CGE cold gas efficiency, %
CCE carbon conversion efficiency, %
LHV lower heating value, MJ/Nm3
TGA-GC thermogravimetric analysis-gas chromatography
DTR drop tube reactor
MFC mass flow controller
TCD thermal conductivity detector
SNG synthetic natural gas
FT Fischer Tropch
feedstocks into a mixture of combustible and non-combustible gas or
chemical feedstock streams (e.g., H2, CO, or CH4) in a gasifier [11–13].
Gasification consists of three major steps: drying, devolatilization
(pyrolysis), and gasification. Steam gasification process enables to get
enhanced H2 production in comparison with air gasification. Most of
studies focused on H2 or syngas generation from either MSW or its
components using steam as the gasifying agent [14–20]. Ahmed et al.
investigated syngas production from the gasification of cardboard as
well as the pyrolysis and steam gasification of paper [21,22]. They
found that increasing steam flow rate had a positive influence on hy-
drogen yield and the gasification of paper was mainly attributed to char
gasification process. What’s more, Ahmed et al. determined the syngas
chemical composition and yield from CO2-gasification of cardboard and
paper and concluded that it was important to study CO2 as a gasifying
agent for gasification of wastes [23]. Castaldi et al. assessed the gasi-
fication performance of coal by recycling CO2 into a gasifier and re-
ported that up to 25% of CO2 recycled into the gasifier resulted in 15%
more hydrogen production [24]. However, Butterman et al. in-
vestigated the impacts of CO2 to steam ratio on biomass gasification via
thermogravimetric analysis-gas chromatography (TGA-GC) and ob-
served that addition of CO2 significantly enhanced the CO evolution
above 700 °C and depress the H2 concentration above 600 °C [25,26].
Previous investigations on steam gasification with the addition of CO2
have been conducted using conventional feedstocks, such as coal and
biomass. Due to the heterogenous nature of MSW matrix, less in-
formation on the interaction of MSW, steam and CO2 in the high tem-
perature environment is available even though the gasification process
for MSW or its component under single atmosphere (i.e. steam, air,
CO2) has been extensively investigated.
CO2 is a major constituent of flue gases from many industries. It is a
major cause of global warming. Hence, MSW gasification with reusing
CO2 has dual purpose of converting CO2 and MSW to clean fuel and thus
mitigating the greenhouse effect. In the present study, MSW steam
gasification by reusing CO2 in a drop tube reactor was conducted. The
steam gasification of MSW under different steam/MSW ratios was stu-
died to understand the fundamental basis. Then the injection of CO2
into the steam gasification was performed at different CO2/steam ratios
and gasification temperatures to determine the characteristics of hy-
drogen and syngas formation. Particularly, the performance of CO2
conversion in the steam gasification process was discussed in detail.
2. Experimental section
2.1. Materials
The MSW sample used in this study was collected from a local city in
China. Its physical component included waste paper, plastics, woods,
textiles, rubbers, food residue and so on. Its properties are listed in
Table 1. The sample was dried, crushed, milled and sieved to the size in
the range of less than 0.110 in..
243
Applied Thermal Engineering 144 (2018) 242–247
DME Di-methyl Ether
R reaction
XCO2 CO2 conversion efficiency, %
M moisture, %
V volatile matter, %
FC fixed carbon, %
A ash, %
C carbon, %
H hydrogen, %
O oxygen, %
N nitrogen, %
S sulfur, %
2.2. Experimental apparatus and procedure
As shown in Fig. 1, a drop tube reactor (DTR) was used with quartz
tube, which was made of 1.8 m long, 25.4 mm outer diameter and
19 mm inner diameter. An insulation collar at the top and bottom of the
furnace was assembled in order to block heat transfer from the exposed
end potions and to secure the quartz tube. Experimental temperatures
were achieved using a split-hinged vertical furnace. The MSW sample
was continuously introduced into the DTR using a screw feeder with
feeding rate of 0.78 g/min for all experiments in this study. Due to the
limitation of the screw feeder, the inert quartz sand was added into the
sample at the mass ratio of sample to quartz sand of 1:7 in order to
alleviate the adhesiveness of pure sample and maintain continuous
feeding.
All gases used in this study were of ultrahigh purity and supplied
from the cylinders. Their flow rates were controlled using mass flow
controllers (MFC). The flow rate of steam was set by the syringe pump
based on the saturation value into the steam generator to ensure that
the water entered the line flow as gaseous steam. During the experi-
ments, the flow rate of the produced gas could be controlled through a
set of a flow meter and a vacuum pump. After the system achieved its
stability, the main gas composition (H2, CH4, CO, CO2) was analyzed
online using a micro gas chromatography (micro-GC) which functioned
based on a thermal conductivity detector (TCD) with TDX-01 columns.
The temperatures of the injector, oven, and detector were set at 200 °C,
85 °C and 90 °C, respectively. Argon was used as the carrier gas. The
standard gas mixtures were applied for quantitative calibration. An
analysis was conducted every 2 min. The lower limit of quantification
was 0.01% for each gas. All the experiment conditions were repeated
for three times. The average values of the results were presented. The
error bars in the figures represented standard error.
Table 1
Properties of MSW.
Items Values
Proximate analysis (ad, %)
M 5.06
V 59.34
FC 8.36
A 27.24
Ultimate analysis (ad, %)
C 48.61
H 6.01
O 12.49
N 3.87
S 0.33
Lower heating value/(ad, MJ·kg−1) 18.59
X. Zheng et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 144 (2018) 242–247

while the gas yield firstly increases from 0.61 to 0.74 Nm3/kg-msw and
then decreases from 0.74 to 0.37 Nm3/kg-msw. The changes in the LHV
and the gas yield are related with the change in the syngas composition
and yield. The maximum gas yield of 0.74 Nm3/kg-msw is achieved at
steam/MSW ratio of 0.5.
Three different efficiency indicators are shown in Fig. 4 as the
function of steam/MSW ratio.

(1) The carbon conversion efficiency (CCE) (Eq. (1)) gives an indication
on gasification efficiency.

Carboninsyngas (mol /h)−InputcarboninCO2 (mol/h)

CCE =
InputcarboninMSW (mol/ h) (1)

(2) The H2/CO ratio can be adjusted before the synthesis step, de-
pending on the final product. The target value is about 3 for syn-
thetic natural gas (SNG), 2 for Fischer Tropch (FT) diesel and 1 for
Di-methyl Ether (DME) in case of one-step conversion [34].
(3) The cold gas efficiency (CGE) is calculated here for CO, H2 and CH4
(Eq. (2), in which Vsyngas is the syngas flow rate in Nm3/h, Mmsw is
the MSW mass flow rate in kg/h and LHVsyngas and LHVmsw is the
lower heating value of syngas and MSW in MJ/Nm3 and MJ/kg,
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the gasification system. respectively). The CGE is the ratio between the energy in useful gas
species and energy in MSW.
3. Results and discussion Vsyngas LHVsyngas
CGE =
Mmsw LHVmsw (2)
3.1. Effect of steam/MSW ratio
As shown in Fig. 4, The H2/CO ratio decreases from 1.73 to 1.45 as
Fig. 2 presents the syngas composition under different steam/MSW the steam/MSW ratio increases, which is suitable for FT synthesis. Both
ratios without CO2 injection at 1000 °C. The steam/MSW ratio is de- CCE and CGE show the values as high as 51.56% and 41.57% at the
fined as the steam mass flow rate divided by the MSW mass flow rate in steam/MSW ratio of 0.5. To further increase the CGE, the heat loss
dry basis. It varies by changing the steam mass flow rate from 0.4 g/min should be minimized. The sensible and latent heat of unreacted steam
to 1.0 g/min in 0.2 g/min intervals while keeping the MSW flow rate and unreacted char are the dominant heat loss [31]. Therefore, repla-
constant at 0.78 g/min. cing part of the steam by the injection of CO2 is favorable to increase
MSW gasification is a complex process. The main gasification re- the CGE and CCE via the reactions R1 [27].
actions involved in this process are listed in Table 2 [27,28]. They occur
at the same time and usually compete with each other.
3.2. Effect of CO2 injection under steam atmosphere
Under all the experimental conditions, the H2 fraction of over 45 vol
% is obtained. As the steam/MSW ratio increases from 0.25 to 0.5, the
The effect of CO2 injection on syngas composition at 1000 °C is
molar yields of H2, CO and CO2 initially rise from 13.96 to 16.35 mol/
shown in Fig. 5. N2 and steam flow rates are kept constant at 1 L/min
kg-msw, from 8.09 to 10.14 mol/kg-msw and from 1.29 to 3.1 mol/kg-
and 0.2 g/min, respectively while the flow rate of CO2 varies from
msw, respectively. The molar yield of CH4 hardly changes. These
0.05 L/min to 0.3 L/min in 0.05 L/min intervals to manipulate the CO2/
changes can attribute to the water gas reaction R2. While the R2 pro-
steam ratio by mass.
ceeds, the produced CO may also react with steam to form CO2 and H2
As the CO2/steam ratio rises from 0.5 to 2.5, the molar yield of CO
via the water gas shift reaction R4.
increases significantly from 6.21 to 12.10 mol/kg-msw. At high tem-
When the steam/MSW ratio further augments from 0.5 to 1.25, the
perature above 700 °C, Boudouard reaction (R1) in which CO2 reacts
molar yields of H2, CH4 and CO decline significantly from 16.35 to
7.35 mol/kg-msw, from 3.44 to 1.26 mol/kg-msw, from 10.14 to
5.08 mol/kg-msw, respectively. Yet the molar yield of CO2 hardly
changes. Higher steam/MSW ratio means more heat required to achieve
the gasification temperature for the introduced steam, which will
otherwise be used by the endothermic reactions [29]. It will cause a
decrease in gasifier temperature, which is not conducive to the en-
dothermic reactions such as R2. Bulk et al. observed that the reaction
temperature decreased about 25 °C with the moisture content of bio-
mass increasing by every 10% [30]. As mentioned above, a drop in
molar yields of H2 and CO is observed as steam/MSW ratio increases.
Umeki et al., Luo et al. and Chen et al. have reported a decrease in
hydrogen production during the steam gasification of woody biomass
and MSW components [31–33]. Therefore, there exists an optimum
steam/MSW ratio of 0.5, where the highest molar yield of H2, CH4 and
CO can be obtained.
Fig. 3 shows the lower heating value (LHV) and gas yield as the
function of steam/MSW ratio. Its LHV is more than 10 MJ/Nm3, which
is higher than that of air gasification [20]. The LHV declines slightly
from 13.05 to 11.57 MJ/Nm3 with the increasing steam/MSW ratio, Fig. 2. Effect of steam/MSW ratio on syngas composition.

244
X. Zheng et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 144 (2018) 242–247

Table 2
Main MSW gasification reactions.
Nos. Reaction name Reaction chemistry ΔH (MJ/kmol)

R1 Boudouard C + CO2 ↔ 2CO 172.5

R2 Water gas C + H2 O ↔ CO + H2 131.3
R3 Dry reforming CH4 + CO2 ↔ 2CO + 2H2 247.0
R4 Water gas shift CO + H2 O ↔ H2 + CO2 −41.1
R5 CO methanation CO + 3H2 ↔ CH4 + H2 O −205.8
R6 CO2 methanation CO2 + 4H2 ↔ CH4 + 2H2 O −165.0
R7 Combustion 1
C + O2 → CO −110.5
2

Fig. 5. Effect of CO2/steam ratio on syngas composition.

Fig. 3. Effect of steam/MSW ratio on gas yield and LHV.
Fig. 4. Effect of steam/MSW ratio on CGE, CCE and H2/CO ratio.
with the solid carbon in the char enhances the CO production [25].
During pyrolysis, any available oxygen in the gasifier, from H2O, CO2 or
CO evolving from the MSW structure itself, can be adsorbed by highly
reactive char. These sources of oxygen react with the carbon char at
pyrolytic temperatures to produce surface-bound CO. This char-ad-
sorbed CO is continuously released by subsequent heating, which is
responsible for its increasing yield. In addition, some O2 release from
the decomposition of oxygenated substances in MSW brings about the
oxidation reaction R7. While the CO2/steam ratio further increases to
3.0, its molar yield declines to 9.86 mol/kg-msw. It results from the lack
of carbon to participate in the reaction R1.
The molar yield of H2 shows an increasing tendency with the rising
CO2/steam ratio. Its value ranges from 10.59 to 18.82 mol/kg-msw. The
water gas reaction R2 results in its increasing yield. Additionally, be-
tween 700 and 1100 °C, H radical combination gives rise to the for-
mation of molecular H2. However, as the CO2/steam ratio rises to 3.0,
the molar yield of H2 declines to 14.73 mol/kg-msw. Its drop caused by
high CO2/steam ratio appears to result from a reverse shift in the highly
endothermic steam-gasification reaction. It can be driven by the high
concentrations of CO, which is produced by a cluster of reactions in-
cluding Boudouard reaction R1, char-burnout reaction R7 due to
oxygen evolution from the MSW structure and O adsorption by the
highly reactive char as well as CO desorption from the char at high
gasification temperature [26]. At high temperature, the reverse water
gas shift reaction R4 is favored as well. At the end, a resultant decline in
H2 concentration is observed at higher CO2/steam ratio.
The molar yield of CH4 increases from 1.79 to 4.69 mol/kg-msw
when the CO2/steam ratio increases from 0.5 to 2.5. It indicates that the
methanation reaction occurs as well [28]. Its yield is much lower than
those of CO and H2. The methanation reaction takes place by the re-
action of H2 with CO (R5) and CO2 (R6). But its yield decreases to
3.15 mol/kg-msw when the CO2/steam ratio increase to 3.0. The re-
actions R5 and R6 reflect that the methanation reaction is highly af-
fected by the partial pressure of H2 [35,36]. This is the reason that the
yield of CH4 in Fig. 5 resembles that of H2.
As shown in Fig. 6, When the CO2/steam ratio increases, the gas
yield initially increases from 0.51 to 0.95 Nm3/kg-msw and then de-
creases to 0.77 Nm3/kg-msw. The same tendency is observed for LHV.
Therefore, the maximum gas yield of 0.95 Nm3/kg-msw and LHV of
12.41 MJ/Nm3 are obtained at CO2/steam ratio of 2.5.
Fig. 7 presents the values of CGE and CCE as the function of CO2/
steam ratio. Under the range between 0.5 and 3.0, the highest values of
63.19% and 58.13% are observed at CO2/steam ratio of 2.5. They are
higher than those under steam-only atmosphere, indicating that the
injection of CO2 can enhance the carbon conversion and the production
Fig. 6. Effect of CO2/steam ratio on gas yield and LHV.

245
X. Zheng et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 144 (2018) 242–247

Fig. 9. Effect of temperature on CGE, CCE and LHV.

Fig. 7. Effect of CO2/steam ratio on CGE, CCE and H2/CO ratio.

of CO, H2 and CH4. With the injection of CO2 into steam, the H2/CO
ratio declines. Its value ranges from 1.70 to 1.49, which is suitable for
FT synthesis.

3.3. Effect of temperature with CO2 injection

The effect of temperature on syngas composition at CO2/steam ratio

of 2.0 is presented in Fig. 8. The molar yields of both H2 and CO in-
crease whereas the opposite trend for the molar yields of CH4 and CO2
is observed. The occurrence of endothermic reactions such as R1-R3 are
responsible for these changes of syngas composition, which are favored
by the increasing temperature. In addition, between 700 and 1100 °C,
combination of H radicals leads to molecular H2 formation. The LHV of
syngas hardly changes. It is 11.90 MJ/Nm3 and 11.45 MJ/Nm3 at
1000 °C and 1100 °C.
As shown in Fig. 9, higher temperature increases the CGE and CCE.
It slightly decreases the H2/CO ratio from 1.56 to 1.52. The gas yield
rises slightly from 0.78 to 0.83 Nm3/kg-msw.
3.4. Performance of CO2 conversion
The CO2 conversion efficiency (XCO2) at various temperatures and
CO2/steam ratios is presented in Fig. 10. The CO2 conversion efficiency
is defined as follows.
Fig. 8. Effect of temperature on syngas composition under CO2/steam atmo-
sphere.
Fig. 10. Effect of CO2/steam ratio on CO2 conversion efficiency XCO2 .
molesofCO2 ingasifyingagent −molesofCO2 inproducedgas
XCO2 =
molesofCO2 ingasifyingagent (3)
Negative value of XCO2 implies net production of CO2 in the gasifi-
cation process while positive one means that the CO2 consumed from
the input stream is higher than that generated from the gasification
reactions.
It is noted that the CO2 conversion efficiency constantly increases
from −39.13% to 56.27% at 1000 °C and from −29.11% to 69.44% at
1100 °C with increasing CO2/steam ratio. This indicates that the reac-
tion R2 has no impact on the occurrence of R1. For the case under single
CO2 atmosphere, which is not reported in this study, the CO2 conver-
sion efficiency is 16.85% at 1000 °C and it is 26.28% at 1100 °C. This
implies that 9.43% of CO2 can take part in the reaction once the tem-
perature is as high as 1100 °C. It is worthy to note that the value of CO2
conversion efficiency is negative at CO2/steam ratio of 0.5 and 1000 °C.
It becomes positive as the CO2/steam ratio rises. The molar yield of CO
in Fig. 5 is 6.21 mol/kg-msw. This reveals that the addition of CO2 has
no impact on the reaction R2 and both R1 and R2 can proceed in-
dependently. Previous study has shown that reaction R2 was in-
dependent on reaction R1 while reaction R1 was inhibited by reaction
R2 [37]. H2O could be preferentially adsorbed on the surface of the
char due to the lower active energy of H2O adsorption than CO2 ad-
sorption. Furthermore, these two reactions were not likely to occur at
completely separate active sites, and they should partly occur at the
same sites. In the study of Chen et al., gasification of activated carbon
and steam/CO2 was conducted [28]. The values of CO2 conversion ef-
ficiency at 950 °C with steam/CO2 molar ratio of 1.0 is around 25.00%

246
X. Zheng et al.
to 33.71%. In contrast, the obtained CO2 conversion efficiency in the
present study at 1000 °C with CO2/steam ratio of 2.5, which is equal to
steam/CO2 molar ratio of 1.0, is 50.22%. This is much higher than those
of Chen et al [28], elucidating the potential application of CO2 to
municipal solid waste-to-energy.
4. Conclusions
In the present study, syngas production from the steam gasification
of MSW with reusing CO2 in a drop tube reactor has been conducted
and investigated. In the gasification process, CO2 can be reused and
reacted with char derived from MSW pyrolysis to produce CO via
Boudouard reaction R1, while steam can be reduced by the char to
generate H2 through water gas reaction R2. The experimental results
indicate that the reaction R1 and R2 proceed independently with the
addition of CO2 into the steam stream at both 1000 and 1100 °C. The
CO2 conversion efficiency can reach up to 56.27% at 1000 °C and
69.44% at 1100 °C, which is higher than the values presented in other
literature. It follows that MSW gasification with the addition of CO2 has
the potential of reusing CO2 and enhancing syngas formation.
Particularly, increasing CO2/steam ratio in the range of 0.5 and 2.5 can
facilitate the production of both CO and H2. With appropriate experi-
mental conditions, at 1000 °C and CO2/steam ratio of 2.5, 50.22% of
CO2 conversion efficiency can be achieved and the molar yield of H2 is
around 18.82 mol/kg-msw. The highest CGE of 63.19%, gas yield of
0.95 Nm3/kg-msw and LHV of 12.41 MJ/Nm3 are observed. Under
steam-only atmosphere, there also exist the maximum values of
16.35 mol/kg-msw for H2 molar yield and 0.74 Nm3/kg-msw for gas
yield at steam/MSW ratio of 0.25. Increasing gasification temperature
can facilitate the syngas production at CO2/steam ratio of 2.0.
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate the financial supports from National Natural
Science Foundation of China (nos. 51706144, 51606128), Natural
Science Foundation of Shanghai (nos. 17ZR1419500, 16ZR1422900)
and Shanghai Municipal Education Commission (no. ZZslg16001).
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.08.
058.
References
[1] P. Parthasarathy, K.S. Narayanan, Hydrogen production from steam gasification of
biomass: influence of process parameters on hydrogen yield-A review, Renewable
Energy 66 (2014) 570–579.
[2] C. Koroneos, A. Dompros, G. Roumbas, Hydrogen production via biomass gasifi-
cation – a life cycle assessment approach, Chem. Eng. Process 47 (2008)
1261–1268.
[3] A.C. Caputo, M. Palumbo, P.M. Pelagagge, et al., Ecomomics of biomass energy
utilization in combustion and gasification plants: effects of logistic variables,
Biomass Bioenergy 28 (2005) 35–51.
[4] N.Z. Muradov, T.N. Veziroglu, Green path from fossil-based to hydrogen economy:
an overview of carbon-neutral technology, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 33 (2008)
6804–6839.
[5] E. Biagini, L. Masoni, L. Tognotti, Comparative study of thermochemical processes
for hydrogen production from biomass fuels, Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2010)
6381–6388.
[6] National Bureau of Statistics, China Statistical Yearbook, China Statistics Press,
Beijing, China, 2016.
[7] H. Zhou, A.H. Meng, Y.Q. Long, et al., An overview of characteristics of municipal
247
Applied Thermal Engineering 144 (2018) 242–247
solid waste fuel in China: physical, chemical composition and heating value, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 36 (2014) 107–122.
[8] L. Lombardi, E. Carnevale, A. Corti, A review of technologies of thermal treatment
systems for energy recovery from waste, Waste Mangement 37 (2015) 26–44.
[9] U. Aren, F. Di Gregorio, Element partitioning in combustion and gasification-based
waste-to-energy units, Waste Mangement 33 (5) (2013) 1142–2250.
[10] H. Li, V. Nitivattananon, P. Li, Municipal solid waste management health risk as-
sessment from air emissions for China by applying life cycle analysis, Waste
Manage. Res. 33 (5) (2015) 401–409.
[11] T. Malkow, Novel and innovative pyrolysis and gasification technologies for energy
efficient and environmentally sound MSW disposal, Waste Manage. (Oxford) 24
(2004) 53–79.
[12] U. Arena, Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste gasification: a
review, Waste Manage. (Oxford) 32 (2012) 625–639.
[13] B. Leckner, Process aspects in combustion and gasification Waste-to-Energy (WtE)
units, Waste Manage. (Oxford) 37 (2015) 13–25.
[14] N.D. Cuoto, V.B. Silva, A. Rouboa, et al., Assessment on steam gasification of mu-
nicipal solid waste against biomass substrates, Energy Convers. Manage. 124 (2016)
92–103.
[15] N. Cuoto, E. Monteiro, V. Silva, et al., Hydrogen-rich gas from gasification of
Portuguese municipal solid waste, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41 (2016)
10619–10630.
[16] M. Hu, D.B. Guo, C.F. Ma, et al., Hydrogen-rich gas production by the gasification of
wet MSW (municipal solid waste) coupled with carbon dioxide capture, Energy 90
(2015) 857–863.
[17] U. Lee, J.N. Chung, H.A. Ingley, High temperature steam gasification of municipal
solid waste, rubber, plastic and wood, Energy Fuels 28 (7) (2014) 4573–4587.
[18] M.Y. He, Z.Q. Hu, B. Xiao, et al., Hydrogen-rich gas from catalytic steam gasifica-
tion of municipal solid waste (MSW): influence of catalyst and temperature on yield
and product composition, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34 (1) (2009) 195–203.
[19] M.Y. He, B. Xiao, S.M. Liu, et al., Hydrogen-rich gas from catalytic steam gasifi-
cation of municipal solid waste (MSW): influence of steam to MSW ratios and
weight hourly space velocity on gas production and composition, Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 34 (5) (2009) 2174–2183.
[20] X.Y. Zheng, C. Chen, Z. Ying, et al., Experimental study on gasification performance
of bamboo and PE from municipal solid waste in a bench-scal fixed bed reactor,
Energy Convers. Manage. 117 (2016) 393–399.
[21] I. Ahmed, A.K. Gupta, Evolution of syngas from cardboard gasification, Appl.
Energy 86 (2009) 1732–1740.
[22] I. Ahmed, A.K. Gupta, Syngas yield during pyrolysis and steam gasification of paper,
Appl. Energy 86 (2009) 1813–1821.
[23] I. Ahmed, A.K. Gupta, Characteristics of cardboard and paper gasification with CO2,
Appl. Energy 86 (2009) 2626–2634.
[24] M.J. Castaldi, J.P. Dooher, Investigation into a catalytically controlled reaction
gasifier (CCRG) for coal to hydrogen, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007)
4170–4179.
[25] H.C. Butterman, M.J. Castaldi, Influence of CO2 injection on biomass gasification,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 46 (2007) 8875–8886.
[26] H.C. Butterman, M.J. Castaldi, CO2 as a carbon neutral fuel source via enhanced
biomass gasification, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (2009) 9030–9037.
[27] N. Sadhwani, S. Adhikari, M.R. Eden, Biomass gasification using carbon dioxide:
effect of temperature, CO2/C ratio, and the study of reactions influencing the
process, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 55 (2016) 2882–2891.
[28] W.H. Chen, B.J. Lin, Hydrogen and synthesis gas production from activated carbon
and steam via reusing carbon dioxide, Appl. Energy 101 (2013) 551–559.
[29] H. Morita, F. Yoshiba, N. Woudstra, et al., Feasibility study of wood biomass ga-
sification/molten carbonate fuel cell power system-comparative characterization of
fuel cell and gas turbine systems, J. Power Sources 138 (1–2) (2004) 31–40.
[30] N. Jouret, L. Helsen, E. Van den Bulk, Study of the wood gasifier at the power plant
of Electrabel-Ruien, in: Proceedings of the European Combustion Meeting,
Louvainla Neuve, Belgium, 2005.
[31] K. Umeki, K. Yamamoto, T. Namioka, et al., High temperature steam-only gasifi-
cation of woody biomass, Appl. Energy 87 (2010) 791–798.
[32] S.Y. Luo, B. Xiao, Z.Q. Hu, et al., Hydrogen-rich gas from catalytic steam gasifica-
tion of biomass in a fixed bed reactor: Influence of temperature and steam on ga-
sification performance, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34 (5) (2009) 2191–2194.
[33] C. Chen, Y.Q. Jin, Y. Chi, Effects of moisture content and CaO on municipal solid
waste pyrolysis in a fixed bed reactor, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 110 (2014) 108–112.
[34] R. Rauch, J. Hrbek, H. Hofbauer, Biomass gasification for synthesis gas production
and applications of syngas, Wiley Interdisciplinary Rev.: Energy Environ. 3 (2014)
343–362.
[35] R.S. Polizzotti, J.A. Schwarz, Hydrogenation of CO to methane: kinetic studies on
polycrystalline nickel foils, J. Catal. 77 (1) (1982) 1–15.
[36] Z.A. Ibraeva, N.V. Nekrasov, B.S. Gudkov, et al., Kinetics of methanation of carbon
dioxide on a nickel catalyst, Theor. Exp. Chem. 26 (5) (1991) 584–588.
[37] C. Chen, J. Wang, W. Liu, et al., Effect of pyrolysis conditions on the char gasifi-
cation with mixtures of CO2 and H2O, Proc. Combust. Inst. 34 (2013) 2453–2460.