Bioresource Technology 337 (2021) 125412

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

A generic input–output approach in developing and optimizing an Aspen

plus steam-gasification model for biomass
Sk Arafat Zaman, Sudip Ghosh *
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, Howrah 711103, West Bengal, India

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Steam-gasification of biomass modeled

in Aspen Plus and validated.
• Statistical analysis and optimization
done for different feeds using RSM.
• Generic input–output relations covering
variety of biomass evolved.
• Product gas with high LHV (greater than
15 MJ/kg) predicted with CGE 70%
• Optimum response observed in
780–790 ◦ C and for S/B ratio of 0.7.

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

Keywords: Steam-gasification is drawing great interests as it yields higher H2 in syngas than any other gasification process.
Steam-gasification In this article, an equilibrium steam-gasification model developed in Aspen plus has been presented. The effect of
Analysis of variance the major input variables along with their synchronized effects on the response variables i.e., cold gas efficiency
Optimization
(CGE) and lower heating value (LHV) have been performed. Steam-gasification process optimization has been
Generic input–output relations
Response surface methodology
carried out employing response surface methodology (RSM) considering wide variety of biomass to get the best
possible outcomes. The generic relations for both CGE and LHV as response variables have also been framed from
obtained individual relations to estimate the response variables for considered biomass feeds at optimum
operating conditions. The analysis reveals that the optimum response is obtained having almost 100% desir­
ability (D) at the optimum operating condition (steam to biomass ratio of 0.7 and gasification temperature
between 780 and 790 ◦ C) of the steam-gasification model.

renewable resources of energy. Biomass nowadays is considered as an

1. Introduction
Rapid global warming and climate change caused by fossil fuel usage
(Ebrahimian and Karimi, 2020) have increasingly attracted researchers
to think about energy generation sources like biomass and some other
alternate source of energy with great importance because of its carbon
neutrality (i.e., the amount of CO2 absorbed by plants during its life span
is equal to the CO2 released when oxidized) characteristics (Roy et al.,
2019). One more major benefit of using biomass is low NOx and SOx
emissions as biomass contains insignificant amount of nitrogen and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ghoshsudip@mech.iiests.ac.in (S. Ghosh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125412
Received 26 April 2021; Received in revised form 9 June 2021; Accepted 10 June 2021
Available online 15 June 2021
0960-8524/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.A. Zaman and S. Ghosh
Nomenclature
Adj MS Adjusted mean of squares
Adj SS Adjusted sum of squares
ANOVA Analysis of variance
CGE Cold gas efficiency (%)
D Desirability
db Dry basis
daf Dry ash free
DF Degrees of freedom
DOE Design of experiments
FC Fixed carbon
Hsteam Enthalpy of steam (MJ/kg)
Sulphur (Sreejith et al., 2014). Biomass usage is a proven way to reduce
GHG emissions significantly, adding 10–15% of total fuel consumption
(Pauls et al., 2016). If harvested properly, biomass can be called a
renewable resource of energy as regrowing time of biomass is quite
short. Biomass can be of waste and non-waste type. Syngas generation
from the waste type of biomass is more attractive because of its cost
implications and saving long-term environmental damage due to land­
filling or incineration. Out of different thermochemical energy conver­
sion techniques (combustion, pyrolysis, and gasification), gasification is
reflected to be the most desirable one when syngas is the required output
since the gasification process yields more amount of useful gas compo­
nents than any other methods.
Biomass gasification is essentially a process of thermochemical trans­
formation of biomass fuel to valuable gas identified as syngas consisting of
H2, CO, CO2, CH4, N2 (present only when air is used as gasifying agent), and
H2O. Biomass gasification can be accomplished by considering air/steam/
CO2 as the gasifying agent. Any one or combination of more than one
gasifying agent reacts with biomass at elevated values of temperature to
yield syngas. Steam-gasification is a popular process that yields H2-rich
syngas, hence high-LHV gas is produced when steam is considered as the
gasifying agent.
Aspen Plus software can be used to model different gasifiers (air-gasi­
fication or steam-gasification) to forecast the syngas composition obtained
after gasification of different kinds of biomass with high accuracy. Li et al.
(2020) developed an Aspen plus model to assess the production of butanol
from lignocellulosic biomass employing chemical looping gasification
technology. 45.33% energy efficiency was observed in the proposed gasi­
fication process. Zhang et al. (2018) have modeled partial gasification of
biomass employing Aspen plus and they carried out different thermody­
namic analyses like exergy, energy, and economic analysis. They also
investigated the effects of key input parameters on the gasification process.
46.08% and 67.97% cold gas efficiency and exergy efficiency were ob­
tained respectively and the net heat efficiency of 44.25% was observed at a
0.7 carbon conversion ratio. Pala et al. (2017) demonstrated a biomass
gasifier with successive syngas tuning through shift reaction to produce
syngas in Aspen plus and they achieved a molar ratio of H2 and CO of about
2.15. Keche et al. (2015) modeled a 35 kVA downdraft biomass gasifier
employing Aspen plus simulating software and, in their work, they
considered different biomass feedstocks and babul wood was found to be
better than other biomass inputs in terms of H2 percentage in the syngas.
Pauls et al. (2016) modeled a bubbling fluidized gasifier using Aspen Plus
for woody biomass considering a combination of air and steam as gasifying
agents and they found their model could predict the results with less error
when compared with experimental results in the temperature range of
700–900 ◦ C. Doherty et al. (2009) modeled a biomass CFB gasifier in Aspen
plus using the restricted equilibrium method and they also studied the ef­
fect of preheating of biomass fuel. They concluded that air preheating
should be used at low equivalence ratios and to obtain H2-rich syngas,
steam injection should be apt.
2
Bioresource Technology 337 (2021) 125412
HHV Higher heating value (MJ/kg)
LHV Lower heating value (MJ/kg)
ṁ Mass flow rate (kg/s)
Q̇in Heat input rate (kW)
R2 Regression co-efficient (%)
RSM Response surface methodology
RMSE Root-mean-square-error
Seq SS Sequential sum of squares
S/B Steam to biomass ratio
T Gasification temperature (◦ C)
VM Volatile matter
Response surface methodology (RSM) is a popular method to optimize
newly developed or existing systems. Apart from RSM, genetic algorithm
(GA) is also a good method to optimize any process or system. But RSM is
an accomplished method of optimizing any process or system with ample
accuracy (almost identical to that of GA). Superior optimization accuracy
by RSM over GA has been reported by researchers in a previous study
(Amiri et al., 2008). Moreover, GA applies a heuristic approach of opti­
mization, which does not guarantee obtaining an optimal solution for any
process. The added benefit of employing RSM is the detailed analysis of the
entire input variables and its interaction term’s effect on the response is
possible, which is very important to identify the input variables which
affect the response variables the most. Ceylan et al. (2008) conducted an
experimental study of catalytic bio-transformation of 1-napthol and they
applied RSM to get the optimum reaction condition. 301 K reaction tem­
perature, pH value of 6, and acetone content of 7% were found to be the
optimum reaction condition to get maximum initial dissolved oxygen.
Mojaver et al. (2019) proposed a biomass-based power production system.
They used RSM to carry out multi-objective optimization of the system and
obtained high accuracy having R2adj value of more than 95%. At optimum
condition, 535 kW power and 44.22% exergy efficiency were obtained
from the proposed system. Ozonoh et al. (2020) worked on process vari­
ables optimization during torrefaction of biomass, coal, and waste mate­
rials. They applied a combination of artificial neural networking and RSM
to perform optimization. 10% more high heating value (HHV) was
observed of the torrefied product than the raw fuel. Inayat et al. (2020)
studied the catalytic co-gasification of palm waste’s optimization employ­
ing RSM. They found gasification temperature to be the most influencing
parameter for syngas production. Catalytic loading and blending ratio were
also found to be effective parameters. At optimum condition, 19.96% CH4
and 38.81% syngas were achieved. Fozer et al. (2019) studied the
improvement in microalgae biomass production and successive biogas
generation of hydrothermal-gasification (HTG) using RSM for optimiza­
tion. It was observed that fermentation of microalgae biomass in optimum
light level resulted in H2-rich gas. H2-rich gas was obtained using HTG
without using any catalyst, indicating improvement in the efficacy of
downstream processing at the farming stage itself. Biosorption as a tech­
nique for the valorization of agriculture sector based biowaste to feed ad­
ditives has been considered and optimization has been performed for the
process using RSM (Kowalczyk et al., 2021). Zhang et al. (2012) carried out
optimization of production of bioelectricity and sulphate removal
employing RSM technique for a microbial fuel cell integrating with up-flow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Uslu (2020) studied the optimization of a
mixture of palm oil and diesel fuel fed diesel engine operating parameters
considering RSM and artificial neural networking (ANN) technique.
Optimization plays a critical role in obtaining high-quality syngas for
any type of gasification process. Although RSM optimization has already
been applied in gasification processes to optimize the developed model
or experimental work to attain optimum operating conditions, but
detailed statistical analysis and optimization considering a wide variety
S.A. Zaman and S. Ghosh Bioresource Technology 337 (2021) 125412

Fig. 1. Block diagram of the developed steam-gasification model.

of biomass feeds for a developed steam-gasification process has not yet
been studied to the best of authors’ knowledge. Therefore, in this study,
an equilibrium gasifier model has been optimized considering multiple
response variables and individual, as well as the synchronized effects of
decision parameters (input variables) on the response variables have
also been carried out for different biomass compositions to get the op­
timum operating conditions for each biomass inlet.
After an extensive literature review, it is observed that no such work
has been done till now in which generic relations were evolved for
response variables considering a wide variety of biomass feeds. So,
another important aspect of this work is to evolve generic relations for
the response variables from obtained individual relations to estimate the
response variables for considered biomass feeds at optimum operating
conditions, resulting in a generic optimization model for considered
biomass compositions, which renders the novelty of this work.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. System modeling and assumptions
2.1.1. Assumptions
Following statements were assumed for developing the model:
• Steady state condition was considered at atmospheric pressure
(Suwatthikul et al., 2017).
• Inside the gasifier, an isothermal situation was assumed (Suwatthi­
kul et al., 2017).
• Both temperature and pressure inside the gasifier were considered to
be uniform (Pala et al., 2017).
• Tar formation was not considered in the gasification process. How­
ever, the formation of char was considered which comprises carbon
and ash (Pala et al., 2017; Suwatthikul et al., 2017).
• All the gas components were considered to be ideal.
Steam-gasification is generally carried out employing a fluidized bed
gasifier. Since good mixing is achieved in a fluidized bed gasifier, so it is
expected that inside the gasifier uniform thermodynamic properties
(pressure and temperature) are obtained. And isothermal condition in­
side the gasifier is also justified for an equilibrium model since all the
reactions occur inside the gasifier at constant thermodynamic properties
i.e., at equilibrium condition.
2.1.2. Modeling
An equilibrium model (implies the developed model to be a type
independent model) has been developed employing Aspen plus software
as shown in Fig. 1. Hence, the model has been validated with experi­
mental published works in which both fluidized and fixed bed gasifiers
were used. However, the assumptions considered and the type of gasi­
fying agent used i.e., steam favors the developed gasifier model to be
called a fluidized bed gasifier.
The Aspen plus gasification model consists of “specification of stream
class” for both conventional and non-conventional components and
“property method selection”. Different streams and blocks from the
Aspen inbuilt database were integrated to complete the flow-sheet for
simulation, specifying the thermodynamic properties to each stream and
block. Sequential modular (SM) technique is used by the program i.e.,
the flowsheet is solved segment-wise, estimating the outlet considering
the inlet properties for each block. Following major input parameters
and blocks have been used to complete the flowsheet for steam-
gasification of biomass-
• Biomass (P = 1 bar, T = 25 ◦ C), Steam (P = 1 bar, T = 150 ◦ C),
RYIELD (P = 1 bar, T = 400 ◦ C) and RGIBBS (P = 1 bar, T =
650–900 ◦ C).
• RYIELD: The yield reactor is used to decompose the biomass into
conventional components and ash.
• RSTOIC: Stoichiometric reactor is used to react S with H2 to form
H2S.

Table 1
Biomass compositions (ultimate and proximate analyses).
Parameters Food waste Wood chips Rice husk Almond shells Bagasse Green waste Saw dust Furniture waste Unit
(Singh and Yadav, (Nguyen et al., (Loha et al., (Rapagnâ, (Miles et al., (Begum et al., (Tillman, (Miles et al.,
2021) 2020) 2011b) 2000) 1995) 2013) 2000) 1995)

Proximate db daf db db db db db db
analysis
FC 13 22.82 14.99 20.08 11.95 19.6 14.34 13.39 %
VM 73.78 70.75 55.54 78.66 85.61 72 84.6 83 %
Moisture 9.6 5.28 9.95 – – – – – %
Ash 3.62 1.15 19.52 1.26 2.44 8.4 1.06 3.61 %
Ultimate db daf db db db db db db
analysis
C 45.71 54.46 38.43 50.65 48.64 46.6 49.27 49.87 %
O 44.66 39.31 36.36 42.06 42.85 38.61 43.29 40.29 %
H 6.72 5.988 2.97 6.03 5.87 5.5 5.96 5.91 %
S – 0.002 0.07 – 0.04 0.18 0.02 0.03 %
N 2.91 0.24 0.49 – 0.16 0.71 0.4 0.29 %
Ash – – 21.68 1.26 2.44 8.4 1.06 3.61 %

3
S.A. Zaman and S. Ghosh
• RGIBBS: Where all possible gasification reactions occur based on
Gibbs free energy minimization.
• CYCLONE: To separate leftover solid impurities with the help of
rotation and gravitational effect.
• SSPLIT: To separate char from the decomposed product produced by
the yield reactor, separate H2S after formation in RSTOIC, separate
H2O from syngas to yield dry syngas.
In the property method section, PENG-ROBINSON equation of state
was used as it yields excellent precision in the case of biomass steam-
gasification process simulation (Adnan and Hossain, 2018; Chen et al.,
2019).
The fuel input i.e., biomass was considered as a non-conventional
component and its proximate and ultimate analyses were entered subse­
quently under “component attributes” of the stream named “Biomass”. And
the gasifying agent i.e., steam has been supplied at a saturated state (1 bar
and 150 ◦ C). The mass flow rate of steam has been varied keeping the
biomass input constant to vary the S/B and the gasification temperature (T)
has also been varied in the Gibbs reactor (RGIBBS). The composition of
different biomass feeds considered in this study are listed in Table 1.
Biomass decomposition into conventional components (H2, O2, C,
N2, H2O, and S) and ash is performed using a yield reactor, RYIELD by
stating yield distribution. Tar formation (heavy H-C molecules) was not
considered in the RYIELD block. However, the formation of char was
considered which comprises carbon and ash. Ash is also stated as a non-
conventional component. H2S (present in syngas after gasification) can
damage any integrated downstream units like a gas turbine and fuel
cells. Conventional techniques of H2S removal are post-processing op­
erations such as absorption into liquid, adsorption on a solid like uti­
lizing activated carbon bed for Sulphur adsorption. However, in this
work, a combination of stoichiometric (RSTOIC) and Gibbs (RGIBBS)
reactors have been considered as the gasifier unit. In the stoichiometric
reactor, full conversion of “S” takes place reacting with H2. H2S is
separated from the stream outlet of the stoichiometric reactor before the
GIBBS reactor so that carbonyl sulphide (OCS) or oxides of Sulphur are
not formed at elevated levels of gasification temperature. Steam at
temperature 150 ◦ C and 1 atm pressure is fed to the RGIBBS reactor,
where gasification is conducted. RGIBBS model performs under chemi­
cal equilibrium and minimization of Gibbs free energy, which is suitable
for multi-phase equilibrium processes. The tactic of minimization of
Gibbs free energy is comprehensively applied to conduct the perfor­
mance investigation in the gasification process (Renganathan et al.,
2012). The products from the gasifier unit go to the CYCLONE separator,
which separates the leftover solid impurities with the help of rotation
and gravitational effect. The gas stream leaving from the CYCLONE
separator is fed to a steam separator (H2Osep), from where we get the
clean and dry H2-rich syngas.
2.2. Thermal modelling
Gibbs reactor is considered as the reactor where all the possible
gasification reactions take place, following the principle of minimization
of Gibbs free energy. This approach is non-stoichiometric in nature as
detailed information about any reaction is not known. To minimize the
Gibbs free energy, the following Lagrange multiplier method is used
(Kartal and Özveren, 2021)-
∂l ∑k
= ΔGo f ,i + RTlnai + αi λij = 0 (R0)
∂xi j=1
Here, l corresponds to the Lagrange function, xi is the number of
moles present in ith species, ΔGo f,i is standard Gibbs free energy of for­
mation of species i, R and T represent universal gas constant and tem­
perature respectively, λij represents the number of atoms present in the
jth element in one mole of ith species, αi is the Lagrange multiplier and ai
is corresponding activity term.
4
Bioresource Technology 337 (2021) 125412
However, commonly used reactions to model a biomass steam-
gasification process are listed below with their respective names and
heat of reactions (Pala et al., 2017; Shahbaz et al., 2017)-
C + 0.5O2 →CO(Carbon Partial oxidation, − 112 kJ/mol) (R1)
C + O2 →CO2 (Carbon Combustion, − 393 kJ/mol) (R2)
C + CO2 →2CO(Boudouard reaction, +172 kJ/mol) (R3)
CO + H2 O→CO2 + H2 (Water-gas shift reaction, − 41 kJ/mol) (R4)
C + H2 O→CO + H2 (Water-gas reaction, +131 kJ/mol) (R5)
H2 + 0.5O2 →H2 O(Partial combustion of H2, − 242 kJ/mol) (R6)
C + 2H2 →CH4 (Carbon-methanation reaction, − 74 kJ/mol) (R7)
CH4 + H2 O→CO + 3H2 (Steam-methane reforming reaction, +206
kJ/mol) (R8)
H2 + S→H2 S(H2S formation, − 20.2 kJ/mol) (R9)
Reactions with positive “heat of reaction” values are endothermic
whereas reactions in which the “heat of reaction” values are negative, are
exothermic in nature. Therefore, reactions R3, R5, R8 are endothermic and
the remaining are exothermic reactions.
The parameter based on which the performance of the modeled
gasifier is arbitrated is cold gas efficiency (CGE). CGE is basically the
energy available in the syngas to the total energy supplied to the gasifier
unit in the form of biomass, steam, and heat as shown below (Loha et al.,
2011b)
ṁsyngas × HHVsyngas
CGE = ( ) ( ) (1)
ṁb × HHVb + ṁsteam × Hsteam + Q̇in
By using property sets in Aspen plus we can get the heating values
(LHV and HHV) of syngas directly and HHV in MJ/kg of biomass can be
estimated as follows (Arteaga-Pérez et al., 2013)
HHVb =(0.3491 × C) + (1.1783 × H) − (0.1034 × O)
(2)
− (0.0151 × N) − (0.0211 × A)
where A, C, H, N, and O are the mass-based percentage of ash, car­
bon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen correspondingly as mentioned in
Table 1.
And LHV of biomass is computed by relation 3 as follows (Nakyai
et al., 2017)
LHVb = HHVb − 21.97[H] (3)
where “H” is the hydrogen mass fraction available from the proxi­
mate analysis.
2.3. Response surface methodology (RSM)
RSM is a popular method to optimize different newly modeled sys­
tems or processes and for existing ones too (Inayat et al., 2020; Mojaver
et al., 2019). Effective design of experiments (DOE) is helpful to opti­
mize the models performing the minimum number of experiments as
RSM works under partial factorial design, saving time and effort and
reducing cost as well.
Model accuracy and degree of importance of any input variable on
the response variable can be estimated by performing the analysis of
variance (ANOVA) (Fozer et al., 2019). Larger F-value and lesser p-value
(≤ 0.05) indicate the significance of any input variable or significance of
the model itself. F-value is the fraction of variation throughout and
within the group itself. The accuracy of a model can be comprehended
from the values of the regression coefficient (R2) and adjusted regression
co-efficient (R2adj), both ranges between 0 and 100%. High values (more
than 90%) of R2 and R2adj imply the model to be precise (Mojaver et al.,
2019). R2 is basically the measurement of the degree of fit and for a good
model, the difference between R2 and R2adj should be less than 0.20
(Celebican et al., 2019).
The response-variable equation can be obtained by the following
quadratic equation of 2nd order (Detchusananard et al., 2020).
S.A. Zaman and S. Ghosh Bioresource Technology 337 (2021) 125412

Fig. 2. Flowchart of thermodynamic investigation and optimization approach.

∑
n ∑
n ∑∑ 3. Results and discussion
r = β0 + βi vi + βii v2i + βij vi vj (4)
i=1 i=1
3.1. Model validation
Here, “r” represents the response variable; “v” represents input var­
iables; “n” denotes the number of variables; β0, βi, βii, βij stand for con­ There are some limitations of the developed model. The process
stant, linear, square, and interaction terms respectively. modeling has been carried out in Aspen Plus software and to do so,
The regression coefficient (R2) is computed employing the relation certain assumptions were considered, which produced some un­
shown below certainties in predicting syngas compositions like under-prediction of
∑k CH4 in syngas. Therefore, reliability inspection of the developed model
(ri,p − rm )2
R2 = ∑i=1 2
(5) is a must before any further investigation.
k
i=1 (ri − rm ) Validation of the developed gasifier model with different experi­
The relation considered to evaluate the adjusted regression coeffi­ mental studies is very important to check the authenticity and precision
cient (R2adj) is as follows (Hou and Zhang, 2017) with which the model can predict the result. Validation for each biomass
feed is performed considering identical thermodynamic properties (such
∑k
(ri,p − rm )2 (k − 1) as gasification temperature) and same material inputs (biomass
R2 adj = 1 − ∑i=1 × (6)
k
i=1 (ri − rm )
2
(k − n − 1) composition and its flow rate, and steam flow rate to have the same S/B)
as reported in published experimental works. In this study, validation is
Here, k represents the number of Aspen Plus experiments; ri, ri,p and performed with four different published experimental works consid­
rmrepresent experimental, predicted, and mean values, respectively. ering different biomass compositions to check the versatility of the
The root-mean-square of error (RMSE) has been computed using the model in terms of handling a wide range of biomass fuels for steam-
following relation gasification.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√∑ Firstly, food waste as fuel input was chosen from a published experi­
√n
√ (Exp. − Model)2 mental work (Singh and Yadav, 2021). In their study, they considered a
√
RMSE = i=1 (7) laboratory size fixed bed gasifier (downdraft) unit and performed gasifi­
n
cation of food waste with steam. The gasifying agent, steam was supplied at
Here, n stands for the no. of gas components in total. superheated condition and the necessary heat for steam generation was
The complete flowchart for the thermodynamic investigation and supplied by a preheater. The comparison of the result obtained by them and
optimization approach of the proposed work is shown in Fig. 2. the present model at a gasification temperature of 700 ◦ C and S/B of 1.25 is
presented in Table 2.

5
S.A. Zaman and S. Ghosh Bioresource Technology 337 (2021) 125412

Table 2 As for steam-gasification, N2 content in the syngas is very small, so

Comparison of simulated result with experimental study considering different N2 free dry syngas was compared for validation.
biomass feeds. As observed from the comparison Table 2, the model can forecast the
Food waste as biomass feed (Singh and Yadav, 2021) syngas composition with adequate accuracy under variable operating
Gas components in % Model Exp.
conditions for different biomass feeds. So, it can be said that the developed
H2 61.82 61.96 model is quite robust and appropriate to carry out steam-gasification of
CO 18.28 21.59 biomass and is suitable for any further analysis.
CO2 19.48 12.51 The average value of root-mean-square errors computed are 4.23,
CH4 0.43 3.93
6.28, 3.5, and 3.79 for food waste, wood chips, rice husk, and almond
Wood chips as biomass feed (Nguyen et al., 2020) shells respectively. The CH4 percentage deviancy between the devel­
Gas components in % Model Exp. oped model and experimental study is noticeable. The reason behind
H2 58.70 49 this is in equilibrium models, complete conversion of CH4 takes place
CO 25.23 24 while gasification. Therefore, under-estimation of CH4 by an equilib­
CO2 15.37 22
rium model is a quite usual experience (Loha et al., 2011a).
CH4 0.7 5

Rice husk as biomass feed (Loha et al., 2011a)

3.2. Statistical analysis
Gas components in % Model Exp.
H2 51.54 48.8
In this work, four different biomass compositions have been considered
CO 31.55 27.5
CO2 16.33 19.5
for the developed steam-gasification model to predict the syngas compo­
CH4 0.3 4.2 sitions at diverse sets of S/B and gasification temperature and to observe
the effect of these input variables on derived gas composition and its
Almond shells as biomass feed (Rapagnâ, 2000)
quality. The main objective is to find the optimum operating condition for
Gas components in % Model Exp.
the developed model considering cold gas efficiency and LHV as the
H2 58.58 55.5
CO 27.11 24 response variables for various fuel inputs and to frame a generic optimi­
CO2 14.12 14.1 zation model from obtained response relations. So, RSM has been employed
CH4 0.19 6.4 for optimization and all the statistical analyses have been performed in
LHV in MJ/kg 11.25 10.94 Minitab software.
As the procedure for all the statistical analyses for considered
Secondly, wood chips as biomass were used from an experimental biomass compositions remains the same, hence the detailed analysis for
published work by Nguyen et al. (2020). In their work, they performed optimization of only one type of biomass (bagasse) is presented in this
steam-gasification of wood chips employing a pilot scale bubbling flu­ paper and key results have been presented for each of the listed biomass
idized bed gasifier, supplying the gasifying agent at the bottom of the in different tables according to respective response variables.
gasifier unit. The comparison of results obtained at a particular set of S/
B and gasification temperature (1.2 and 850 ◦ C respectively) is pre­ 3.2.1. Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
sented in Table 2.
Thirdly, rice husk as biomass was chosen from a published experi­ 3.2.1.1. ANOVA considering CGE as response variable. The model sum­
mental work by Loha et al. (2011a). In their study, they considered a mary considering CGE as response variable are shown below-
laboratory size fluidized bed gasifier unit and performed gasification of rice Bagasse (R2 = 99.98%, R2adj = 99.96%, R2pred = 99.83%);
husk with steam. The gasifying agent, steam was supplied at superheated Green waste (R2 = 99.98%, R2adj = 99.96%, R2pred = 99.83%);
condition and the necessary heat for steam-gasification was supplied by an Sawdust (R2 = 99.98%, R2adj = 99.96%, R2pred = 99.83%);
electric incinerator, which enclosed the gasifier unit inside. The compari­ Furniture waste (R2 = 99.97%, R2adj = 99.95%, R2pred = 99.79%).
son of the result obtained by them and the present model at S/B of 0.6 and It is evident that both R2 and R2adj of the model are more than 99%,
gasification temperature of 750 ◦ C is presented in Table 2. which are well above 90%, so the model considering CGE as response
And finally, almond shells as biomass were used from an experi­ variable is capable of predicting the response with great accuracy.
mental published work (Rapagnâ, 2000). In his work, he performed The ANOVA results for CGE are presented in Table 3. As shown in
steam-gasification of almond shells employing a bubbling fluidized bed Table 3, the CGE model is noteworthy having a high F-value of 6001.83
gasifier with an inside diameter of 60 mm. The comparison of results and a low P-value of 0. Both the linear input variables (S/B and gasifi­
obtained at a particular set of S/B of 1 and gasification temperature of cation temperature) are significant. Out of the two, S/B has the highest
770 ◦ C is presented in Table 2. impact on CGE having F-value of 29267.84 and 0 P-value. One square
term, S/B*S/B also has an impact on the response having F-value of

Table 3
ANOVA results for CGE as response.
Source DF Seq SS Contribution Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Model 5 353.184 99.98% 353.184 70.637 6001.83 0.000

Linear 2 345.865 97.90% 345.865 172.933 14693.65 0.000
S/B 1 344.459 97.51% 344.459 344.459 29267.84 0.000
T(oC) 1 1.406 0.40% 1.406 1.406 119.46 0.000
Square 2 7.318 2.07% 7.318 3.659 310.91 0.000
S/B*S/B 1 7.270 2.06% 6.994 6.994 594.29 0.000
T*T 1 0.048 0.01% 0.048 0.048 4.09 0.083
2-Way Interaction 1 0.000 0.00% 0.000 0.000 0.03 0.863
S/B*T 1 0.000 0.00% 0.000 0.000 0.03 0.863
Error 7 0.082 0.02% 0.082 0.012
Lack-of-Fit 3 0.082 0.02% 0.082 0.027 * *
Pure Error 4 0.000 0.00% 0.000 0.000
Total 12 353.266 100.00%

6
S.A. Zaman and S. Ghosh Bioresource Technology 337 (2021) 125412

Fig. 3. Pareto chart for (3a) cold gas efficiency (CGE) and (3b) lower heating value (LHV).

7
S.A. Zaman and S. Ghosh Bioresource Technology 337 (2021) 125412

Table 4
ANOVA results for LHV as response.
Source DF Seq SS Contribution Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Model 5 7.58216 99.87% 7.58216 1.51643 1068.77 0.000

Linear 2 7.27173 95.78% 7.27173 3.63587 2562.52 0.000
S/B 1 5.78941 76.26% 5.78941 5.78941 4080.32 0.000
T(oC) 1 1.48232 19.52% 1.48232 1.48232 1044.72 0.000
Square 2 0.31040 4.09% 0.31040 0.15520 109.38 0.000
S/B*S/B 1 0.29962 3.95% 0.28000 0.28000 197.34 0.000
T*T 1 0.01079 0.14% 0.01079 0.01079 7.60 0.028
2-Way Interaction 1 0.00002 0.00% 0.00002 0.00002 0.02 0.898
S/B*T 1 0.00002 0.00% 0.00002 0.00002 0.02 0.898
Error 7 0.00993 0.13% 0.00993 0.00142
Lack-of-Fit 3 0.00993 0.13% 0.00993 0.00331 * *
Pure Error 4 0.00000 0.00% 0.00000 0.00000
Total 12 7.59209 100.00%

594.29 and 0 P-value. The impact of the linear, square, and two-way
interaction terms on CGE is presented in a Pareto chart as shown in
Fig. 3a. Each term crossing the baseline of 2.4 is reflected to have a
significant impact on the response variable.
The relations connecting the input variables to CGE as response
variable for considered biomass types are shown below-
For Bagasse,
CGE (%) = 83.66–26.91 S/B + 0.01209 T + 4.747 S/B*S/B
− 0.000011 T*T − 0.00024 S/B*T (8)
For green waste,
CGE (%) = 85.35–28.57 S/B + 0.01054 T + 5.121 S/B*S/B
− 0.000010 T*T − 0.00006 S/B*T (9)
For sawdust,
CGE (%) = 84.49–26.79 S/B + 0.00996 T + 4.713 S/B*S/B
− 0.000009 T*T − 0.00031 S/B*T (10)
For furniture waste,
CGE (%) = 89.19–30.85 S/B + 0.0071 T + 5.577 S/B*S/B
− 0.000008 T*T + 0.00031 S/B*T (11)
Generic relation for all feeds-
CGE (%) = 85.67 – 28.28 S/B + 0.00992 T + 5.0395 S/B*S/B
− 0.0000095 T*T + 0.00023 S/B*T (12)
From the predicted relations to estimate CGE as response for
considered biomass feeds, a generic relation has been framed by taking
the average of coefficients of respective terms as shown in eq. 12.
3.2.1.2. ANOVA considering LHV as response variable. The model sum­
mary considering LHV as response variable are presented below-
Bagasse (R2 = 99.87%, R2adj = 99.78%, R2pred = 99.07%);
Green waste (R2 = 99.86%, R2adj = 99.76%, R2pred = 98.99%);
Sawdust (R2 = 99.87%, R2adj = 99.78%, R2pred = 99.07%);
Furniture waste (R2 = 99.85%, R2adj = 99.74%, R2pred = 99.93%).
Both R2 and R2adj of the model are more than 99%, so the model
considering LHV as response variable is capable of forecasting the
response precisely.
The ANOVA results for LHV are presented in Table 4. As shown in
Table 4, the model is having a high F-value of 1068.77 and a P-value of
0 indicating the significance of the LHV model. Both linear input pa­
rameters S/B and gasification temperature are significant with high F-
values (4080.32 and 1044.72 respectively) and P-values of 0. One of the
square terms i.e., S/B*S/B is also noteworthy with an F-value of 197.34
and a P-value of 0. The significance of the linear, square, and two-way
interaction terms is presented in a Pareto chart as shown in Fig. 3b.
Each term crossing the baseline of 2.36 is considered to have a signifi­
cant impact on the response variable.
The relations connecting the input variables to LHV as response
variable for considered biomass types are shown below-
For bagasse,
LHV (MJ/kg) = 11.06–4.463 S/B + 0.01260 T + 0.9497 S/B*S/B
− 0.000005 T*T + 0.000062 S/B*T (13)
For green waste,
LHV (MJ/kg) = 11.53–4.674 S/B + 0.01179 T + 1.0030 S/B*S/B
− 0.000005 T*T + 0.000123 S/B*T (14)
For sawdust,
LHV (MJ/kg) = 11.06–4.463 S/B + 0.01260 T + 0.9497 S/B*S/B
− 0.000005 T*T + 0.000062 S/B*T (15)
For furniture waste,
LHV (MJ/kg) = 10.86–4.077 S/B + 0.01071 T + 0.9142 S/B*S/B
− 0.000004 T*T − 0.000123 S/B*T (16)
Generic relation for all feeds-
LHV (MJ/kg) = 11.12–4.42 S/B + 0.011925 T + 0.95415 S/B*S/B
− 0.00000475 T*T − 0.0000925 S/B*T (17)
From the relations obtained to estimate LHV as response for
considered biomass feeds, a generic relation has been framed by taking
the average of coefficients of respective terms as shown in eq. 17.
3.2.2. Effect of input variables on the response variables
The variation of CGE with input variables i.e., S/B and gasification
temperature is shown in Fig. 4a. The S/B has been varied from 0.7 to 2
and gasification temperature has been varied from 650 to 900 ◦ C to
observe the variation of the response CGE due to the changes in input
variables.
It was witnessed that with the upsurge in S/B (increase in steam
input, keeping biomass input the same), the CGE decreases. Increasing
S/B favors forward reaction of water–gas and steam-methane reforming
reactions. So, H2 and CO2 increase and the percentage of CO decrease in
the syngas, resulting in low LHV syngas and hence lower CGE is
obtained.
The escalation in gasification temperature also displays in fall in CGE
by some percentage and an increase in LHV. With the rise in gasification
temperature the percentage of CO in the syngas increases, decreasing the
amount of CO2 and CH4 as with the upsurge in gasification temperature
steam-methane reaction, water–gas reaction, and Bouduard reaction
favor in onward direction. As a result, the LHV of the syngas increases.
Though LHV rises with the upsurge in gasification temperature, the heat
required to maintain the constant temperature inside the gasifier also
increases, resulting in a decrease in CGE by a small amount. The vari­
ation of LHV with input variables i.e., S/B and gasification temperature
is shown in Fig. 4b.
3.2.3. Interaction effect of input variables on the response variables
In this section, the interaction effects of the input parameters on the
response have been presented. The interaction effect of S/B and gasifi­
cation temperature on CGE is shown in Fig. 5a. S/B seems to have a
major impact on CGE, gasification temperature doesn’t affect CGE that
much. A high value of CGE (more than 70%) is obtained when the S/B is
about 0.7 and the CGE is considerably low (less than 55%) when the S/B
exceeds 1.7. A similar trend of change in CGE with the combined effect
of S/B and gasification temperature on CGE is also observed in the
surface plot of CGE. The surface plot for CGE is shown in Fig. 5b.
The interaction effect of S/B and gasification temperature on LHV is

8
S.A. Zaman and S. Ghosh Bioresource Technology 337 (2021) 125412

Fig. 4. Effect of input variables on (4a) mean of CGE and (4b) mean of LHV.

9
S.A. Zaman and S. Ghosh Bioresource Technology 337 (2021) 125412

Fig. 5. Interaction effect of input variables on (5a) CGE and (5c) LHV; Surface plot for (5b) CGE and (5d) LHV.

temperature on LHV is observed in the surface plot of LHV i.e., Fig. 5d.
Table 5
Design matrix with Aspen predicted response.
Input parameters CGE (%) LHV (MJ/kg) 3.3. Optimization
S/B T (oC) Model Model

0.890381 863.3883 65.65134 14.96 To carry out the ANOVA and to get the optimized operating condi­
1.35 775 58.70765 13.57 tion, first, the design of experiments (DOE) is formed as shown in
0.890381 686.6117 66.50984 14.12 Table 5.
1.35 775 58.70765 13.57
0.7 775 70.14232 15.23
To form the DOE, the response variables (i.e., CGE and LHV) need to
1.809619 686.6117 53.60385 12.48 be simulated at a different set of input variables. The range for S/B and
1.35 650 59.11549 12.88 gasification temperature have been considered as 0.7–2 and 650–900 ◦ C
1.35 775 58.70765 13.57 respectively.
1.35 775 58.70765 13.57
Optimization has been performed considering both the response
1.35 775 58.70765 13.57
1.35 900 57.9856 14.12 variables targeting maximum values. As shown in Fig. 6, the optimum
2 775 51.30239 12.73 condition is achieved at a S/B of 0.7 and gasification temperature of
1.809619 863.3883 52.7065 13.33 787.3064 ◦ C for bagasse as biomass. And the response obtained at the
optimum condition is 69.94% CGE and 15.23 MJ/kg of LHV.
Desirability test was also performed to verify the model accuracy.
shown in Fig. 5c. LHV is affected by both S/B and gasification temper­
Desirability value of a model or response lies between 0 and 1. Higher
ature. At low S/B (less than 0.8) and high gasification temperature
the desirability value, better is the accuracy. It is observed from Fig. 6
(more than 850 ◦ C), LHV obtained is more than 15.5 MJ/kg. And at a
that the composite desirability of the model (D), as well as the individual
high value of S/B (more than 1.6) and low gasification temperature (less
disabilities (d) of both the response variables, are almost equal to 1,
than 720 ◦ C), LHV obtained is lower than 12.5 MJ/kg. A similar trend of
which indicates the ability of the developed model to predict the
LHV variation with the combined effect of S/B and gasification
response and optimum operating condition with high accuracy.

10
S.A. Zaman and S. Ghosh Bioresource Technology 337 (2021) 125412

at optimum operating conditions as shown in Table 6 and it is observed

that instead of using different equations for each biomass composition,
only two generic relations can be used for considered biomass feeds to
compute respective response variables with adequate accuracy.
Hence, it can be concluded that to obtain the best possible outcome
by the developed model, the operating condition should be maintained
in the range mentioned above.

3.4. Performance comparison

Comparison of performance is important to understand the merit of

the presented work and the contribution it has made in the field of
biomass gasification and its optimization. Comparison has been done
considering the same optimization technique i.e., RSM for various
gasification processes having different response variables and also with
existing Aspen Plus process models. A comparison between the present
study and previously published works is shown in the subsequent points.

• Design of experiments (DOE) and investigation of dual fluidized bed

Fig. 6. Optimizer plot.
The optimum conditions and optimum response of operation for all
considered biomass compositions are shown in Table 6 and the syngas
compositions obtained when the gasification process is carried out under
optimum operating condition are also shown in Table 6.
It is clear from the obtained response variables at optimum operating
conditions for all the biomass compositions considered, that the
maximum values of LHV (more than 15 MJ/kg) and CGE (more than
70%) by the developed steam-gasification model are obtained when the
gasification temperature is 780–790 ◦ C and S/B is about 0.7. The reason
behind obtaining high LHV value is syngas contains about 56% H2 and
32% CO when operated under optimum condition. A model confirma­
tion run has also been performed for each type of biomass composition
to check whether the results obtained by the RSM optimization are also
obtained by the model simulation with adequate accuracy. Table 6 also
shows the model predicted values of the response variables at corre­
sponding set of optimized input variables. It is evident that the differ­
ence between the simulated results and RSM predicted results is
negligible, proving the model’s accuracy. ANOVA also showed the same
about model accuracy as both R2 and R2adj of all the models were turned
out to be more than 99%.
The response variables (LHV and CGE) for considered biomass feeds
have also been estimated by the generic relations of response variables
(DFB) gasification to produce syngas using RSM (Hanchate et al.,
2021): Regression coefficient (R2) obtained was around 97% per­
forming ANOVA. Riser and recycle chamber velocity were found to
be the most effective parameters.
• Energy, exergy analyses of biomass gasification and process opti­
mization employing RSM for H2 production considering different
gasifying agents (Samimi et al., 2020): Steam gasification was found
to be the most efficient among all gasifying agents, producing high
LHV and at optimum operating condition (S/B = 1.1 and gasification
temperature = 1200 ◦ C) 44% of hydrogen exergy efficiency was
observed.
• Performance investigation and process optimization using RSM of a
sorption enhanced chemical looping biomass gasification (Detch­
usananard et al., 2020): 70% CGE and 56% exergy efficacy were
observed at optimal operating condition i.e., steam to carbon ratio of
4.5 and gasification temperature of 700 ◦ C.
• Parametric investigation and process optimization by RSM of palm
kernel shell catalytic air-gasification (Seçer and Hasanoğlu, 2020):
The optimized operating condition of gasification was found to be
890 ◦ C of gasification temperature and 0.0018 m3/s of water flow
rate at which the H2 yield was found to be maximum.
• H2 and syngas production from PKS gasification by means of coal
bottom ash process optimization employing RSM (Shahbaz et al.,
2017): The optimal operating state was found to be 692 ◦ C of tem­
perature, 1.42 CaO/biomass ratio, and 0.07 wt% of coal bottom ash.
About 36% of H2 and 62% syngas was produced at the optimum
operating condition having LHV above 14 MJ/Nm3.
• Torrefaction process optimization by RSM for pigeon pea stalk
(Singh et al., 2020): The optimum state of operation was found at
248.2 ◦ C of temperature, 1 hr of residence time, and 16.03 ◦ C/min of
heating rate. At optimum state, about 21 MJ/kg of HHV and 78% of
energy yield were obtained with a desirability value of 54%.

Table 6
Optimum conditions of operation, optimum response and syngas compositions obtained under optimum operating condition for considered biomass compositions.
Sl no. Biomass type Optimum Response variables Syngas composition at optimum operating
operating condition
condition
RSM Generic relation outputs Model confirmation run
values
o
S/ T ( C) CGE (%) LHV (MJ/kg) CGE (%) LHV (MJ/kg) CGE (%) LHV (MJ/kg) H2 (%) CO (%) CO2 (%) CH4 (%)
B

1 Bagasse 0.7 787.30 69.94 15.23 70.39 14.89 70.04 15.28 56.16 32.92 10.62 0.22
2 Green waste 0.7 788.79 69.96 15.28 70.38 14.90 70.08 15.33 56.60 32.24 10.66 0.21
3 Sawdust 0.7 786.36 69.98 15.22 70.40 14.88 70.13 15.28 56.14 32.88 10.56 0.23
4 Furniture waste 0.7 787.31 70.82 14.49 70.39 14.89 71 14.54 55.78 31.41 12.37 0.16

11
S.A. Zaman and S. Ghosh
• An Aspen Plus steam-gasification process model for coconut coir-pith
biomass (AlNouss et al., 2020): Sensitivity analysis were conducted
for steam-gasification of both coconut coir-pith and its char and (H2,
CO) compositions were found to be (35.24%, 14.86%) and (28.34%,
34.43%) for respective feeds at 850 oC of gasification temperature
and 0.75 of S/B.
• Gasification process simulation of animal wastes, a comparative
analysis considering steam and CO2 as gasifying agent employing
Aspen Plus (Fernandez-Lopez et al., 2017): For gasification temper­
ature of 850 ◦ C and S/B of 0.7, H2 and CO in syngas were found to be
around 40% and 20% respectively and LHV was found to be around
6 MJ/m3 considering steam as the gasifying agent.
• Proposed model optimization: Regression coefficients (R2) for both
response variables were found to be more than 99% performing
ANOVA for all feeds. The optimum response (about 70% CGE and
LHV more than 15 MJ/kg) is obtained at the optimum operating
condition (steam to biomass ratio of 0.7 and gasification temperature
between 780 and 790 ◦ C) by the steam-gasification model. About
56% H2 and 32% CO is obtained in the syngas at the optimum
operating condition.
Above discussion shows promising results and it can be said that the
developed gasifier model can predict the response variables satisfacto­
rily with higher accuracy. The present analysis also shows that it is
possible to generate clean and high-quality hydrogen-rich syngas from
different biomass using steam as a gasifying agent by the developed
model. Therefore the simulated gasification model can provide useful
guidance for the study of gasification technology in addition to the
existing literature.
4. Conclusions
In this study, an Aspen Plus equilibrium gasifier model has been
presented considering steam as the gasifying agent. Statistical analyses
have been performed and from the obtained individual input–output
relations, generic relations have been framed. It is observed that only
two generic relations can be used for considered biomass feeds to
compute respective response variables with adequate accuracy. Opti­
mization has been performed and the optimum response was obtained
when the gasification temperature considered between 780 and 790 ◦ C
and S/B about 0.7. Observed optimum responses were found to be about
70% CGE and more than 15 MJ/kg LHV with almost 100% desirability.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Adnan, M.A., Hossain, M.M., 2018. Gasification performance of various microalgae
biomass – A thermodynamic study by considering tar formation using Aspen plus.
Energy Conversion and Management 165, 783–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2018.03.078.
AlNouss, A., Parthasarathy, P., Shahbaz, M., Al-Ansari, T., Mackey, H., McKay, G., 2020.
Techno-economic and sensitivity analysis of coconut coir pith-biomass gasification
using ASPEN PLUS. Applied Energy 261, 114350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2019.114350.
Arteaga-Pérez, L.E., Casas-Ledón, Y., Pérez-Bermúdez, R., Peralta, L.M., Dewulf, J.o.,
Prins, W., 2013. Energy and exergy analysis of a sugar cane bagasse gasifier
integrated to a solid oxide fuel cell based on a quasi-equilibrium approach. Chemical
Engineering Journal 228, 1121–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.05.077.
Begum, S., Rasul, M.G., Akbar, D., Ramzan, N., 2013. Performance analysis of an
integrated fixed bed gasifier model for different biomass feedstocks. Energies 6,
6508–6524. https://doi.org/10.3390/en6126508.
Celebican, O., Inci, I., Baylan, N., 2019. Modeling and optimization of formic acid
adsorption by multiwall carbon nanotube using response surface methodology.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2019.109009.
12
Bioresource Technology 337 (2021) 125412
Ceylan, H., Kubilay, S., Aktas, N., Sahiner, N., 2008. An approach for prediction of
optimum reaction conditions for laccase-catalyzed bio-transformation of 1-naphthol
by response surface methodology (RSM). Bioresource Technology 99 (6),
2025–2031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.03.018.
Chen, Z., Gao, L., Han, W., Zhang, L., 2019. Energy and exergy analyses of coal
gasification with supercritical water and O2-H2O. Applied Thermal Engineering
148, 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.10.050.
Detchusananard, T., Im-orb, K., Maréchal, F., Arpornwichanop, A., 2020. Analysis of the
sorption-enhanced chemical looping biomass gasification process: Performance
assessment and optimization through design of experiment approach. Energy 207,
118190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118190.
Doherty, W., Reynolds, A., Kennedy, D., 2009. The effect of air preheating in a biomass
CFB gasifier using ASPEN Plus simulation. Biomass and Bioenergy 33 (9),
1158–1167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.05.004.
Ebrahimian, F., Karimi, K., 2020. Efficient biohydrogen and advanced biofuel
coproduction from municipal solid waste through a clean process. Bioresource
Technology 300, 122656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122656.
Fernandez-Lopez, M., Pedroche, J., Valverde, J.L., Sanchez-Silva, L., 2017. Simulation of
the gasification of animal wastes in a dual gasifier using Aspen Plus®. Energy
Conversion and Management 140, 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2017.03.008.
Fozer, D., Kiss, B., Lorincz, L., Szekely, E., Mizsey, P., Nemeth, A., 2019. Improvement of
microalgae biomass productivity and subsequent biogas yield of hydrothermal
gasification via optimization of illumination. Renewable Energy 138, 1262–1272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.12.122.
Hanchate, N., Malhotra, R., Mathpati, C.S., 2021. Design of experiments and analysis of
dual fluidized bed gasifier for syngas production: Cold flow studies. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy 46 (6), 4776–4787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2020.02.114.
Hou, J., Zhang, J., 2017. Robust optimization of the efficient syngas fractions in
entrained flow coal gasification using Taguchi method and response surface
methodology. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 42 (8), 4908–4921. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.01.027.
Inayat, M., Sulaiman, S.A., Shahbaz, M., Bhayo, B.A., 2020. Application of response
surface methodology in catalytic co-gasification of palm wastes for bioenergy
conversion using mineral catalysts. Biomass and Bioenergy 132, 105418. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105418.
Kartal, F., Özveren, U., 2021. A comparative study for biomass gasification in bubbling
bed gasifier using Aspen HYSYS. Bioresource Technology Reports 13, 100615.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2020.100615.
Keche, A.J., Gaddale, A.P.R., Tated, R.G., 2015. Simulation of biomass gasification in
downdraft gasifier for different biomass fuels using ASPEN PLUS. Clean Techn
Environ Policy 17 (2), 465–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-0804-x.
Kowalczyk, P., Ligas, B., Skrzypczak, D., Mikula, K., Izydorczyk, G., Witek-Krowiak, A.,
Moustakas, K., Chojnacka, K., 2021. Biosorption as a method of biowaste
valorization to feed additives: RSM optimization. Environmental Pollution 268,
115937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115937.
Li, G., Chang, Y., Chen, L., Liu, F., Ma, S., Wang, F., Zhang, Y., 2020. Process design and
economic assessment of butanol production from lignocellulosic biomass via
chemical looping gasification. Bioresource Technology 316, 123906. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123906.
Loha, C., Chatterjee, P.K., Chattopadhyay, H., 2011a. Performance of fluidized bed steam
gasification of biomass – Modeling and experiment. Energy Conversion and
Management 52 (3), 1583–1588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2010.11.003.
Loha, C., Chattopadhyay, H., Chatterjee, P.K., 2011b. Thermodynamic analysis of
hydrogen rich synthetic gas generation from fluidized bed gasification of rice husk.
Energy 36 (7), 4063–4071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.04.042.
Amiri, M., Najafi, A.A., Gheshlaghi, K., 2008. Response Surface Methodology and
Genetic Algorithm in Optimization of Cement Clinkering Process. J. of Applied
Sciences 8 (15), 2732–2738. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2008.2732.2738.
Miles, T.R., Miles, J.T.R., Baxter, L.L., Bryers, R.W., Jenkins, B.M., Oden, L.L., 1995.
Alkali deposits found in biomass power plants. A preliminary investigation of their
extent and nature. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2172/251288.
Mojaver, P., Khalilarya, S., Chitsaz, A., 2019. Multi-objective optimization using
response surface methodology and exergy analysis of a novel integrated biomass
gasification, solid oxide fuel cell and high-temperature sodium heat pipe system.
Applied Thermal Engineering 156, 627–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2019.04.104.
Nakyai, T., Authayanun, S., Patcharavorachot, Y., Arpornwichanop, A.,
Assabumrungrat, S., Saebea, D., 2017. Exergoeconomics of hydrogen production
from biomass air-steam gasification with methane co-feeding. Energy Conversion
and Management 140, 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.03.002.
Nguyen, N.M., Alobaid, F., May, J., Peters, J., Epple, B., 2020. Experimental study on
steam gasification of torrefied woodchips in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor. Energy
202, 117744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117744.
Ozonoh, M., Oboirien, B.O., Daramola, M.O., 2020. Optimization of process variables
during torrefaction of coal/biomass/waste tyre blends: Application of artificial
neural network & response surface methodology. Biomass and Bioenergy 143.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105808.
Pala, L.P.R., Wang, Q.i., Kolb, G., Hessel, V., 2017. Steam gasification of biomass with
subsequent syngas adjustment using shift reaction for syngas production: An Aspen
Plus model. Renewable Energy 101, 484–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2016.08.069.
Pauls, J.H., Mahinpey, N., Mostafavi, E., 2016. Simulation of air-steam gasification of
woody biomass in a bubbling fluidized bed using Aspen Plus: A comprehensive
S.A. Zaman and S. Ghosh
model including pyrolysis, hydrodynamics and tar production. Biomass and
Bioenergy 95, 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.10.002.
Rapagnâ, S., 2000. Steam-gasiÿcation of biomass in a uidised-bed of olivine particles 19,
187–197.
Renganathan, T., Yadav, M.V., Pushpavanam, S., Voolapalli, R.K., Cho, Y.S., 2012. CO2
utilization for gasification of carbonaceous feedstocks: A thermodynamic analysis.
Chemical Engineering Science 83, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ces.2012.04.024.
Roy, D., Samanta, S., Ghosh, S., 2019. Techno-economic and environmental analyses of a
biomass based system employing solid oxide fuel cell, externally fired gas turbine
and organic Rankine cycle. Journal of Cleaner Production 225, 36–57. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.261.
Samimi, F., Marzoughi, T., Rahimpour, M.R., 2020. Energy and exergy analysis and
optimization of biomass gasification process for hydrogen production (based on air,
steam and air/steam gasifying agents). International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 45
(58), 33185–33197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.09.131.
Seçer, A., Hasanoğlu, A., 2020. Evaluation of the effects of process parameters on
co–gasification of Çan lignite and sorghum biomass with response surface
methodology: An optimization study for high yield hydrogen production. Fuel 259,
116230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116230.
Shahbaz, M., Yusup, S., Inayat, A., Patrick, D.O., Pratama, A., Ammar, M., 2017.
Optimization of hydrogen and syngas production from PKS gasification by using coal
bottom ash. Bioresource Technology 241, 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2017.05.119.
Singh, D., Yadav, S., 2021. Steam gasification with torrefaction as pretreatment to
enhance syngas production from mixed food waste. Journal of Environmental
Chemical Engineering 9 (1), 104722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece:2020.104722.
13
Bioresource Technology 337 (2021) 125412
Singh, R.K., Chakraborty, J.P., Sarkar, A., 2020. Optimizing the torrefaction of pigeon
pea stalk (cajanus cajan) using response surface methodology (RSM) and
characterization of solid, liquid and gaseous products. Renewable Energy 155,
677–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.03.184.
Sreejith, C.C., Muraleedharan, C., Arun, P., 2014. Performance prediction of steam
gasification of wood using an ASPEN PLUS thermodynamic equilibrium model.
International Journal of Sustainable Energy 33 (2), 416–434. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14786451.2012.755977.
Suwatthikul, A., Limprachaya, S., Kittisupakorn, P., Mujtaba, I.M., 2017. Simulation of
steam gasification in a fluidized bed reactor with energy self-sufficient condition.
Energies 10, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10030314.
Tillman, D.A., 2000. Biomass cofiring: the technology, the experience, the combustion
consequences. Biomass and Bioenergy 19 (6), 365–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0961-9534(00)00049-0.
Uslu, S., 2020. Optimization of diesel engine operating parameters fueled with palm oil-
diesel blend: Comparative evaluation between response surface methodology (RSM)
and artificial neural network (ANN). Fuel 276, 117990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2020.117990.
Zhang, B., Zhang, J., Yang, Q.i., Feng, C., Zhu, Y., Ye, Z., Ni, J., 2012. Investigation and
optimization of the novel UASB–MFC integrated system for sulfate removal and
bioelectricity generation using the response surface methodology (RSM).
Bioresource Technology 124, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.08.045.
Zhang, X., Li, H., Liu, L., Bai, C., Wang, S., Zeng, J., Liu, X., Li, N., Zhang, G., 2018.
Thermodynamic and economic analysis of biomass partial gasification process.
Applied Thermal Engineering 129, 410–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2017.10.069.