Energy 173 (2019) 1130e1140

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Process simulation of hydrogen rich gas production from producer gas

using HTS catalysis
Tapas Kumar Patra, Sudeep Mukherjee, Pratik N. Sheth*
Chemical Engineering Department, Birla Institute of Technology and Science-Pilani, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the present article, ASPEN Plus is used to develop a process model of the hydrogen-rich gas production
Received 2 January 2019 through cleaning and catalytic conditioning of producer gas. The process includes producer gas cleaning
Received in revised form using venturi scrubber and sand bed filter followed by compression of the gas to 0.6 MPa using
16 February 2019
compressor. The clean producer gas along with steam undergoes high temperature water gas shift re-
Accepted 18 February 2019
action to produce hydrogen-rich gas. The power law kinetic model for commercial HTS catalysts reported
Available online 19 February 2019
in the literature is used in the model. Experimental results from our previous study and those reported in
the literature are used to validate the developed model for the compositions of CO & H2 in the product
Keywords:
Producer gas
gas. The validated model is further simulated to study the effects of parameters such as reactor tem-
Water gas shift reaction perature, catalyst bed length and steam to CO ratio on the product gas composition. The optimum
Hydrogen operating conditions for maximizing CO conversion are found and reported. The maximum H2
Process model composition and CO conversion predicted by the model are 27.029% 97.5479% respectively and the
ASPEN corresponding operating conditions are reactor; temperature of 350
C, S/CO of 8 and GHSV 1000 h1.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction were able achieve continuous high purity hydrogen production by

Many industrial processes require hydrogen as a prime raw
material or as a utility. In recent years, hydrogen has also been used
for the electricity generation using fuel cells [1]. Currently, up to
96% of the hydrogen production processes are based on non
renewable sources like natural gas and oil reforming and coal
gasification followed by water gas shift reaction [2]. Several new
technologies like electrolysis of water, biomass thermochemical
conversion, biological methods and solar photochemical conver-
sion methods are being adopted for renewable hydrogen produc-
tion. Thermochemical conversion of biomass is one of the most
preferred methods for clean, efficient hydrogen production.
Recently, Dou et al. [3] reported a detailed review on issues, chal-
lenges and advances in biomass thermochemical hydrogen pro-
duction methods. The authors recommended chemical looping
technologies for sustainable hydrogen production. Dou et al. [4,5]
reported the process of chemical looping steam reforming of
ethanol with in-situ CO2 removal for hydrogen production. CaO was
used as sorbent and NiO as oxygen carrier for the study. The authors
* Corresponding author. Pilani Campus, Pilani, 333 031, Rajasthan, India.
E-mail address: pratik@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in (P.N. Sheth).
integrating oxidation, steam reforming, water gas shift and in-situ
CO2 capture in an alternating fixed bed reactor. Biomass gasifica-
tion is the process to convert of solid biomass into a combustible
gaseous mixture via partial oxidation known as producer gas. The
composition of the gas mixture depends on the composition of
biomass, type of gasifier, gasifying agent used and temperature
profile inside the gasifier. In general, the raw producer gas consists
of hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), nitrogen (N2), moisture (H2O), tar and suspended
particles [6e10]. In order to utilize the raw producer gas for further
downstream processes, it needs proper cleaning [11]. The presence
of impurities such as tar and suspended particulate matter (SPM) in
the producer gas may lead to practical problems such as coking,
catalyst poisoning, tar deposition etc. The quality of the producer
gas in terms of tar and SPM content present in it needs to be kept as
low as possible in order to meet the industry standards [12]. Hence,
in general the gasifier is coupled with a gas cleaning system, which
reduces the tar and suspended particulate matter (SPM) contents
present in it [13]. There are different techniques available for
cleaning syngas generated from biomass gasification. The processes
broadly classified into hot gas clean up and cold gas clean up
technologies. Hot gases clean up techniques include cyclones,
barrier filters and electrostatic precipitators. In case of cold gas

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.02.136
0360-5442/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 T.K. Patra et al. / Energy 173 (2019) 1130e1140
clean up, water or liquid absorbents are use to remove contami-
nants. Wet scrubbers such as spray scrubbers, wet dynamic
scrubbers, cyclonic spray scrubbers, impactor scrubbers, venturi
scrubbers, and electrostatic scrubbers are the most common and
effective method to remove both particulate matter and tar from
the contaminated gas stream [14]. This clean producer gas can be
directly used in gas engines, turbines and as a feedstock to produce
liquid fuels and electricity. Apart from the quality of the gas in
terms of tar and SPM content, the composition of the producer gas
mixture also plays a vital role in deciding its application in various
processes [15]. The producer gas generated from the biomass
gasification process is a potential source of hydrogen-rich gas
production provided a proper quality and composition are main-
tained. In this process, the raw producer gas generated undergoes
water gas shift reaction for hydrogen enrichment. It is a highly
economical and efficient process which uses one of the most
important reactions in the process industry. The reaction equilib-
rium depends significantly on the temperature and also requires
the presence of the catalyst [16]. The Arrhenius law states that the
rate of reaction increases with the increase in temperature, at the
same time according to Le Chatelier's principle, the equilibrium
moves in a forward direction with a decrease in temperature, for an
exothermic reaction and vice versa for endothermic reaction [17].
Thus, operating condition for the reaction under consideration is
decided by the trade-off between the kinetics and the thermody-
namics of this reaction. In an industry, the water gas shift reaction is
carried out at two different temperature ranges, low temperature
shift (LTS) from 150
C to 250
C and high temperature shift (HTS)
from 350
C to 500
C [17,18]. A numerous studies are reported for
the kinetic simulation of downdraft biomass gasification [19e23]
however, a few researches have used Aspen Plus to develop a model
for the downdraft gasification process. Ramzan et al. [24] devel-
oped a steady state simulation model for a hybrid biomass gasifier.
The model developed was based on Gibbs free energy minimization
method and chemical equilibrium in the reactions. The authors also
carried out a sensitivity analysis of the gasification process and
reported the effects of gasifier temperature, Equivalence ratio (ER),
moisture content and steam/biomass on syngas composition, HHV
of the syngas, Cold gas efficiency (CGE) and hydrogen production.
Begum et al. [25] developed a model for fixed bed gasification of
Municipal solid waste (MSW) using Aspen Plus. The model calcu-
lations were based on Gibbs free energy minimization method to
predict the product gas composition, was validated with experi-
mental data reported in literature. Kuo et al. [26] carried out a
comparative thermodynamic analysis for gasification of raw and
torrified bamboo in a downdraft gasifier using Aspen Plus. The
authors used two operating parameters modified equivalence ratio
and steam supply ratio to study the gasification performance by
cold gas efficiency and carbon conversion. Formica et al. [27] re-
ported a zero dimensional steady state model for a downdraft
biomass gasification plant. The model also included all the plant
equipments such as gasifier, cyclone, heat exchangers and piping
and validated with the experimental results. The authors have
carried out simulations using various operating parameters such as
equivalence ratio, biomass moisture content and gasifying air
temperature. Tapasvi et al. [28] proposed a two stage gasification
model for comparing torrified and non torrified biomass gasifica-
tion. The authors reported a better model predictions by incorpo-
rating tar, biomass decomposition products and char composition
data in the model. Three process parameters i.e. steam to biomass
ratio, Gibbs reactor temperature and equivalence ratio were varied
and the model was validated with CeHeO ternary diagrams and
other reported experimental results. Recently Gagliano et al. [29]
proposed an equilibrium based model for co-current gasification of
agricultural residues. The model incorporates mass and energy
1131
balance, water gas shift reaction and the methanation reaction. The
model predicts the syngas composition and its heating value, char
and tar yield during the process. The developed model was vali-
dated with experimental results of two different agricultural resi-
dues at different moisture contents and process operating
conditions.
The prime objective of the present study is to model and study
the downstream section of the H2 rich gas production unit, which
comprises of the gas cleaning system and the fixed bed water gas
shift reactor. The study also aimed at finding the optimum oper-
ating conditions for maximization of H2 composition in the product
gas. The model development and simulation have been carried out
using ASPEN Plus software. The simulated model predictions are
validated for CO conversion and H2 composition with experimental
data from the previous experimental study and also the experi-
mental results reported by Marono et al. [30]. Apart from this,
various parameters affecting the composition of the final product
gas are also studied using the sensitivity analysis tool. Various
operating parameters such as the steam/CO ratio (S/CO) and gas
hourly space velocity (GHSV) are incorporated in the model using
the design specification tool. Power law kinetic model is chosen
and the reaction kinetics of commercial high temperature shift
catalyst reported in literature is used for the simulation. An opti-
mization study is also carried out to find out the optimum oper-
ating conditions for the hydrogen production process. The results of
the present study can be used for process design and scale up of
various syngas to methanol and hydrogen production processes. It
will also help is deciding the optimum range for variation of
operating parameters to get maximum conversion.
2. Process description
The raw producer gas from the gasification process contains
impurities such as tar, SPM, soot and dust particles which need to
be removed from it for its utilization in different industrial appli-
cations such as power production, production of fuels and chem-
icals. Cleaning is necessary as because these impurities cause
various problems in further downstream processes such as clog-
ging of the engine, corrosion, environmental pollution etc. The
experimental setup used for model development is shown in Fig. 1.
The producer gas cleaning unit basically consists of two equip-
ments: venturi scrubber and sand bed filter. Venturi scrubber
effectively eliminates the impurities comprising of tar and SPM. The
solvent passes through the venturi scrubber in a co-current fashion
and impurities from the gas phase get transferred to the liquid
phase. Water is used as a solvent in the present system. The venturi
scrubber consists of a converging section, throat, diverging section
and a cyclonic chamber. Water and gas enter separately from the
top of the converging section and their velocity increases. The high
velocity liquid gets atomized upon discharge into the throat section
and comes in contact with gas phase. When the fluid passes
through the diverging section, its velocity decreases and the tiny
liquid droplets get mixed with the gas stream. The increased sur-
face area of the solvent molecules enhances the mass transfer and
thus the separation of impurities takes place efficiently [31]. In the
cyclonic chamber, the clean gas goes out of the top and the dirty
water gets collected from the bottom. A sand bed filter is used to
remove the moisture and remaining impurities in the product gas.
In the sand bed filter, the gas passes through a bed of thin wood
shavings followed by of coarse and fine sands. The wood shavings
and sand bed collectively remove the moisture and remaining tar
particles. The outlet gas from the cleaning system is compressed
and sent to the fixed bed catalytic reactor. In this reactor water gas
shift reaction is carried out to enhance the hydrogen content in the
producer gas. The water gas shift reaction involves the reaction of
1132 T.K. Patra et al. / Energy 173 (2019) 1130e1140
LEGEND:
1. r 9. Gas cylinder
2. Rotameter 10. Mass flow controller
n 11. Water tank
n 12. HPLC Pump
5. Pump 13. Temperature controller
6. Cyclone separator 14. Pre-heater
7. Sand bed filter 15. HTS reactor
8. Compressor 16. Condenser
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.
steam with carbon monoxide. The heating coils are wrapped over a
stainless steel pipe and temperature is controlled by using PID
controller (Make: Selec, Model: TC 513). The water is pumped
through stainless steel pipe using HPLC pump (Make: Lab Alliance,
Model: series II) which gets converted to steam at saturated con-
ditions. The flow rate of the gas is based on S/CO ratio. The steam
generated is mixed with the feed gas in a mixer to preheat the
reactants. The mixed gas is then passed to a preheater, where the
feed mixture is further heated to 200
C. The preheated feed gas is
then passed through a catalyst bed in a tubular reactor. The outlet
gas from the reactor is at a high temperature ranging from 300
C to
450
C. This gas passes through a condenser to cool down the hot
hydrogen-rich gas. When the hot outlet gas is passed through the
condenser, the excess steam gets condensed and gets separated
from the product gas in a gas-liquid separator.
3. Model development
3.1. Assumptions
Tar is a mixture of various hydrocarbons and represented as a
mixture of four different chemicals, i.e. 25% Toluene, 58% Phenol,
15% Naphthalene and 2% Pyrene [32,33]. SPM is generally
comprised of unconverted carbon and ash. In the present simula-
tion study, SPM is assumed to contain 100% of Ash [34].The system
is assumed to be ideal and at steady state without any disturbances.
The loss of material from the system is negligible. Pressure and heat
loss have been incorporated in the model. The shift reactor is
assumed to remain at a constant temperature.
3.2. Model description
Fig. 2 describes the complete process flow diagram of the pro-
posed system developed using ASPEN Plus. Table 1 lists all the
streams and blocks used in the ASPEN PLUS simulation. In order to
17. Gas liquid separator
Water
Steam
Compressed air
Syngas
represent raw syngas, which is an impure producer gas; four
streams are mixed viz. GASIFIED, TAR, CSPM and FINESPM in a
mixer block (MIXER). The enthalpy of mixing is considered to be
zero as in reality, only one producer gas stream exists. The
PRODGAS (impure producer gas leaving the mixer) enters the
venturi scrubber (VSCRUB). Another stream which is entering in the
venturi scrubber is the WATER. The outlet streams are DIRWATER
(water þ impurities) and GAS þ SPM. VScrub is a solid separator
block used for cleaning impurities from gaseous streams. Many
theoretical models are available to predict the particle collection
efficiency of venturi scrubber such as Calvert, Yung, Boll etc. For the
present study, CALVERT calculation method is chosen and the grade
efficiency parameter (f) is chosen as 0.31. For predicting particle
collection efficiency Calvert assumed that venturi scrubber consists
entirely a throat and the gas droplets accelerates in the throat to
achieve highest gas velocity. f is a correlative parameter used to
calculate the penetration and its value lies in the range between 0.2
and 0.7 [35]. GAS þ SPM stream goes into the solid separator, where
most of the SPM is separated on the basis of the parametric values.
It is a cyclone type solid separator block. The solid fraction of solid
outlet is chosen as 1 and the separation sharpness as 0.85. The
classification characteristic for the separation is based on particle
size. The GAS stream from the solid separator goes into the
SNDBFLT (sand bed filter), where further separation is done. A Sep2
block is used to model the sand bed filter unit. The efficiency of
separation for the sand bed filter is taken from literature as 97%
[36]. So the sand bed filter removes the remaining tar and the
moisture present in the product gas with an outlet gas split fraction
of 0.03 for tar components and H2O. The pure gas, represented by
CLEANGAS is compressed in COMPRSOR. A compressor model
which is available in the ASPEN Plus simulator was used. In order to
incorporate the heat loss during the compression process, a heat
exchanger (Heater model) denoted by HEATLOSS is used. The heat
exchanger block is used to reduce the temperature of compressed
product gas stream from 294.308 C to 40 C. The pressure of the inlet
 T.K. Patra et al. / Energy 173 (2019) 1130e1140
Fig. 2. Process flow sheet diagram (PFD) in ASPEN PLUS.
and outlet streams remains constant at 6 bars, the vapour fraction is
taken as 1 and the net het duty for the heat exchanger is 363.513
Cal/sec. The outlet gas of the cleaning system going into the tank is
represented by COMPGAS stream. A Splitter model (SPLITTER) is
used which splits the COMPGAS stream into two fractions, one that
goes into the shift reactor system (CLNGASIN) and the other that
remains in the tank. The amount of the gas going into the reactor
system is decided by split fraction. The Split fraction is the fraction
of inlet stream going into the outlet stream.. The split fraction for
the CLNGAS stream is set as 0.1 i.e. only a small fraction of the clean
producer gas has been fed into the water gas shift reactor. In our
case, this split fraction is based on the steam/CO ratio. This is ach-
ieved by using the design specification tool. A small FORTRAN code
is written, the ratio variable was defined as:
R ¼ H2 O=CO (1)
Where, H2O and CO are variables representing the mole flow
rates of H2O and CO in the FEED stream respectively. Here, the split
fraction parameter of SPLITTER block is varied to achieve the
desired value of R.
Before developing the model of the shift reactor system, the
reactions scheme and kinetic model are defined. A kinetic scheme
is defined for the water gas shift reaction. The reaction model
chosen is the reversible general type and the reaction class selected
is power law. The pre-exponential factor, activation energy and the
exponent values reported by Hla et al. [37] are used. One of the raw
materials of the shift process is water (H2O stream). This goes into
the steam generator (STEAMGEN) which is modeled using the
heater block. STEAM is then mixed with the CLNGASIN stream in
MIXER2 (mixer block), the MIXED stream is then preheated by a
preheater (PREHEAT). The preheated stream (FEED) goes into the
REACTOR which is a Rplug reactor. The dimensions and other
specifications such as the reactor temperature and catalyst loading
are entered. For a particular simulation, the reaction kinetic model
has been chosen accordingly. The outlet of the reactor (H2RICH) is
then condensed in a condenser (CONDENS) which is modeled using
a HeatX block. The minimum temperature approach is set at 10
F
and the hot stream outlet temperature is 40
C. The condensed
1133
stream (COLD) goes into the gas liquid separator (GLS), a Flash2
block is chosen.
To model it. The final outlet stream coming out from GLS is
represented as FINALGAS. Table 2 describes the various model pa-
rameters used for different blocks in the process flow diagram.
An optimization study for the water gas shift reactor has been
carried out. The operating parameters such as reactor temperature,
steam to CO ratio and GHSV are considered for the study and the
output parameter chosen is CO conversion. Three different levels
for all the input parameters are taken and a full factorial design
method is adopted to consider all possible combination of the
operating conditions.
3.3. Model parameters
A bimodal particle size distribution (PSD) of the particulate
matter with a peak diameter of 0.155 mm reported by Jimenez and
Ballester [38] is used in this model. According to Laurence and
Ashenafi [39] sand bed filter has a particle removal efficiency from
70% to 99%, while the tar removal efficiency is about 50%e97%.
Pathak et al. [36] reported the cleaning efficiency of the filter in the
range of 83%e97%. In the present ASPEN model, the parametric
values of separation efficiencies of the sand bed filter have been
considered to be 97%. Laurence and Ashenafi [39] reported the
separation efficiency in the range of 85%e90%. In the present
model, the parametric value of separation sharpness of solid
separator has been considered to be 85%. The kinetic model for the
commercial water gas shift catalysts i.e. High Temperature Catalyst
(HTC) represented by equations (2) and (3) are reported in Hla et al.
[37] is chosen in the present study. The equilibrium constant is
calculated using the correlation given in equation (5).
 
88±2:18 0:9±0:041 0:31±0:056
r ¼ 100:659±0:0125 exp P CO P H2 O
RT (2)
P 0:156±0:078
CO2 P 0:05±0:006
H2 ð1  bÞ
where b is the approach to equilibrium and is defined as:
1134 T.K. Patra et al. / Energy 173 (2019) 1130e1140

Table 1 Table 2
Description of steams and blocks in the ASPEN model. Various model input parameters used for simulation.

S Stream/Block Description Component Parameter value

No. name
Producer gas Flow rate (m3/sec) 0.0005
1 CLEANGAS Clean gas exiting the sand bed filter Temperature(C) 500
2 COLD Cooled hydrogen rich gas Pressure (Pa) 130,000
3 COMPRSOR Compressor block Composition (%), dry basis
4 CONDENS Condenser block CO 15
5 CSPM Supermicron mode of SPM H2 15
6 DIRWATER Dirty water collected from the venturi scrubber CO2 13
7 FEED Preheated producer gas and steam mixture CH4 2
8 FINALGAS Final dry hydrogen rich gas N2 55
9 FINESPM Fine mode of SPM Venturi Scrubber Throat diameter (m) 0.025
10 GAS Clean gas exiting the solid separator Water
11 GAS þ SPM Mixture of producer gas and SPM coming out from Flow rate (m3/sec) 1.96e-5
venturi scrubber Temperature (C) 25
12 GASIFIED Producer gas without impurities Pressure (Pa) 150,000
13 GLS Gas- liquid separator block Compressor Discharge pressure (Pa) 600,000
14 H2O Water supplied to the steam generator Steam generator Water
15 H2RICH Hydrogen rich producer gas mixture Flow rate (mL/min) 1
16 HEATLOSS Heat exchanger for cooling the high pressure producer Temperature (C) 25
gas Pressure(bar) 500,000
17 HOTWAT Hot water from the condenser Pre heater Outlet temperature (C) 200
18 HPPROGAS High pressure producer gas Reactor Internal diameter (m) 0.01575
19 LIQUID Excess water drained out Length (m) 0.4
20 MIXED Mixture of producer gas and steam Temperature (C) 350
21 MIXER Mixture block Catalyst loading (kg) 0.00774
22 MIXER2 Mixing of producer gas with steam Catalyst bed length (m) 0.040
23 PREHEAT Preheater block Porosity ̊ 0.565
24 PRODGAS Mixture of producer gas with tar and SPM Catalyst pellet Diameter (m) 0.006
25 REACTOR Water gas shift catalytic reactor block Length (m) 0.006
26 SAND þ DIR Dirty sand collected from the sand bed filter after Condenser Gas outlet temperature (C) 40
cleaning Water
27 SNDBFILT Sand bed filter block Inlet temperature (C) 25
28 SOLID SPM collected from solid separator Pressure (Pa) 100,000
29 SOLIDSEP Solid separator block Heat exchanger Outlet temperature(C) 40
30 STEAM Steam produced from steam generator Net heat duty (cal/sec) 363.514
31 STEAMGEN Steam generator block Vapour fraction 1
32 TANKGAS Part of producer gas that remains in the storage tank Splitter CLNGAS split fraction 0.1
33 COMPGAS Compressed and Cooled producer gas ̊
34 SPLITTER Storage tank block for high pressure producer gas
35 CLNGASIN Part of producer gas that is supplied to the water gas shift
reactor Table 3
36 TAPWAT Cold water for cooling Rplug Reactor and reaction kinetics Parameters.
37 TAR Tar ̊
Catalyst loading (gram) 7.74
38 VSCRUB Venturi scrubber block
Bed voidage 0.565̊
39 WATER Water circulated through the venturi scrubber
Reactor temperature (C) 300e500
Reactor length (cm) 2e10
Reactor diameter (mm) ̊ 15.75
Pre exponential factor (1/s) 4.56
Activation energy (kJ/mol) 88
PCO2 PH2 Concentration exponents (forward reaction) CO: 0.9, H2O: 0.31, CO2: -0.156,
b¼ (3) H2: -0.05
KPCO PH2 O Concentration exponents (backward CO: -0.1, H2O: -0.69, CO2: 0.844,
reaction) H2: 0.95 ̊
K is the equilibrium constant. Co-efficient for driving force constants A: 0, B: 0, C: 0, D: 0
Callaghan [40] reported the following correlation: (forward reaction) ̊
Co-efficient for driving force constants A: 5.5728, B: -5021.92, C: 0, D:-
2180:6 (backward reaction) 0.00088,780
̊
log10 K ¼ 2:1498 þ 0:0003855T þ (4)
T
The RPlug reactor in the model uses catalyst loading with
amount of catalyst, porosity of catalyst bed and temperature of the
4. Results and discussion
reactor for simulation. In the reaction section the power law kinetic
model is chosen. In this model the pre-exponential factor, activa-
4.1. Model validation
tion energy, exponent and the coefficients for the reactants and
products for forward and reverse reactions are entered. The details
In this section, the simulation results of the developed Aspen
of the data used are gin in Table 3.
Plus model is validated with the experimental results obtained
Power law kinetic expression: ̊
using the model producer gas mixture and also the experimental
results reported by Marono et al. [30]. The composition of model
R ¼ ½kinetic factor ½driving force
product gas, GHSV, steam to CO ratio, catalyst weight and the
catalyst composition data from the previous experimental study
Kinetic factor ¼ k eE=RT are used as the input parameters to the model. Details of the model
input parameters used from the model gas mixture experimental
 T.K. Patra et al. / Energy 173 (2019) 1130e1140 1135

study are given in Table 4. The model is validated by comparing the 50

Hydrogen
CO and H2 composition in the product gas mixture obtained at Model Prediction
different reactor temperature for three different GHSV values of Experimental
1356, 2712 and 5425 h1 with the corresponding experimental 40 Carbon Monoxide

Product gas Composition(%)

results. Model Prediction
Figs. 3e5 shows the comparison of model predicted H2 and CO Experimemtal
30
composition with the respective experimental results obtained for
GHSV of 1356, 2712 and 5425 h1 respectively. Form the results
shown in Fig. 3 it is observed that, for GHSV of 1356 h1 the model
20
predicted H2 and CO composition of the product gas matches well
with the experimental results. Moreover, for the GHSVs of 2712 h1
and 5425 h1 as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, the model predicted CO and 10
H2 compositions values matches exactly with that of the corre-
sponding experimental results. The H2 composition for GHSV 2712
h1 and 5425 h1 matches exactly with the experimental data for 0
all reactor temperatures. In case of the CO composition in the
product gas for the GHSV of 1356 h1, the model predicted CO
300 325 350 375 400

composition value is less than that of the results obtained from the Reactor Temperature(deg C)
experimental study. However, at higher GHSVs of 2712 h1 and Fig. 4. Comparison of experimental data of the present study with the model pre-
5425 h1, the model predicted CO composition values and the dicted H2 and CO compositions in the product gas for GHSV 2712 h1..
corresponding experimental values matches well. In fact for lower
reactor temperatures it exactly matches with the experimental CO
composition for all GHSVs. 50
Hydrogen
The developed model is also validated with experimental results Model Prediction
reported by Marono et al. [30] for CO and H2 composition in the Experimental
40 Carbon Monoxide
product gas at different reactor temperatures. The composition of
Product gas Composition(%)

product gas, space velocity, steam to CO ratio, catalyst weight and Model Prediction
Experimemtal
catalyst composition reported by Marono et al. [30] are used as
30

Table 4 20
Experimental data from present study used for simulation.

Feed gas composition Component Composition (%

10
v/v)
CO 15.95
H2 15.74
CO2 12.41 0
CH4 5.00
N2 50.90 300 325 350 375 400
Space velocity (h1) 1356, 2712 & 5425 Reactor Temperature(deg C)
Steam/CO ratio 8
Catalyst weight (gm) 6 Fig. 5. Comparison of experimental data of the present study with the model pre-
Catalyst Composition (wt %) Fe2O3 Cr2O3 dicted H2 and CO compositions in the product gas for GHSV 5425 h1..
92 8

model input parameters and the values are given in Table 5.

50 Fig. 6 shows the comparison of model predicted CO and H2
Hydrogen
Model Prediction
compositions with the experimental values as reported by Marono
Experimental et al. [30] at different reactor temperatures for GHSV 2885 h1. The
40 Carbon Monoxide model predicted CO and H2 composition values match closely with
Product gas Composition(%)

Model Prediction the experimental values. The CO composition decreases rapidly

Experimemtal with the increase in reactor temperature up to 370
C and beyond
30 that the CO composition increases slightly with the increase in
reactor temperature up to 430
C, which is clearly captured by the
simulated model. At lower and higher reactor temperatures i.e.
20
300
C and 430
C, the model predicted CO composition values
matches closely with the experimental data. However, for inter-
mediate reactor temperatures i.e. 350
C and 380
C, the model
10
slightly over predicts the CO conversion and consequently, lower
values of CO composition is predicted in comparison to experi-
mental data. The model predicted CO compositions varies from
0
23.54% to a minimum value of 6.60%, which is achieved at a reactor
300 325 350 375 400 temperature of 370
C. From Fig. 6, it is also seen that the H2 pro-
Reactor Temperature(deg C) duction increases with the increase of reactor temperature. For all
reactor temperature values, i.e. from 300
C to 470
C, the model
Fig. 3. Comparison of experimental data of the present study with the model pre-
dicted H2 and CO compositions in the product gas for GHSV 1356 h1.. predicted values matches closely with the experimental results.
1136 T.K. Patra et al. / Energy 173 (2019) 1130e1140

Table 5 100
Experimental data reported by Marono et al. [30] used for simulation. Hydrogen
90 Model Prediction
Feed gas composition Component Composition (%
Experimental
v/v, dry basis) 80

Product gas composition (%)

Carbon Monoxide
CO 44
70 Experimental
H2 40
CO2 15
Model Prediction
CH4 1 60
Space velocity (h1) 2885 & 10,000
50
Steam/CO ratio 2
Catalyst weight (gm) 5 40
Catalyst Composition (wt %) Fe2O3 Cr2O3
92 8 30

20

100 10
Hydrogen
90 Model Prediction 0
Experimental 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440
80
Product gas composition (%)

Carbon Monoxide o
Reactor Temperature ( C)
70
Experimental
Model Prediction Fig. 7. Comparison of experimental data of Marono et al. [30] with the model pre-
60 dicted H2 and CO compositions in the product gas for GHSV 10,000 h1.

50

40 CO increases in the reactor outlet stream. This is justified by the

30
20
10
0 From the results, it is inferred that GHSV of 1000 h1 is the opti-
280 300 320 340 360 380
Reactor Temperature ( C)
Fig. 6. Comparison of experimental data of Marono et al. [30] with the model pre-
dicted H2 and CO compositions in the product gas for GHSV 2885 h1.
Beyond 415
C, H2 production almost starts to decrease slowly with
the further rise in reactor temperature, which is in line with the
experimental trend. The H2 composition value predicted by the
model varies from 44.08% at 300
C to a maximum of 56.13% at
415
C. In Fig. 7, the model predicted CO and H2 composition values
are compared with the experimentally obtained values reported by
Marono et al. [30] for GHSV 10,000 h1. The results are matching
very well with the experimental data for GHSV of 10,000 h1 as
well. The CO composition predicted by the model varies from
35.01% at 300
C to a minimum value of 5.91% at 415
C. The H2
composition value predicted by the model varies from 48.83% at
300
C to a maximum of 55.85% at 370
C.
4.2. Simulation results
simple fact that an increase in the GHSV decreases the residence
time of the reactants, leading to reduced conversion. The maximum
amount of H2 and CO2 produced at a GHSV of 1000 h1 are 27.02%
and 21.81%. On the other side, the CO concentration at the reactor
outlet reaches a much lower value of 0.31% for a GHSV of 1000 h1.
400 420 440 460 480 mum value for the maximum H2 and CO2 production. It can be seen
o in Fig. 8 that, at lower GHSV values the CO conversion is very high
and at higher values it is a much lower value. This may be due to the
decrease in residence time of producer gas mixture in the catalyst
bed at higher GHSV values. The maximum CO conversion achieved
at a GHSV of 1000 h1 for is 97.54%.The CO conversion varies from
97.54% at 1000 h1 to a Minimum of 81.78% at 20,000 h1 GHSV.
4.2.2. Effect of catalyst bed length
The catalyst bed length defines the amount of the catalyst used
in the reactor. This parameter affects the residence time of the re-
actants. For a given mass of catalyst, the bed length can be calcu-
lated using the porosity, which in our case is 0.565. In this study, the
bed length has been varied from 2 cm to 10 cm at reactor
40 100
CO
CO2
H2
CO conversion
80
30
Product gas composition(%)

CO conversion (%)

4.2.1. Effects of GHSV 60

20
The GHSV is defined as the ratio of total flow rate of reactants
into the reactor to the catalyst bed volume used in the reactor. This
parameter affects the residence time of the reactants. In the present 40

study, the GHSV is varied from 1000 h1 to 20,000 h1 at reactor 10

temperature of 350
C and S/CO ratio of 8. The GHSV is varied over

20
this wide range by changing the flow rate of the reactants and by
keeping the catalyst length constant at 4 cm. The volumetric flow 0
rate of the water in the pre-heater is kept constant at 1 ml/min. The
0
compositions of CO, CO2 and H2 (dry basis) is studied along with the -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
CO conversion (XCO) for various GHSVs. -1
GHSV (h )
Fig. 8 the effects of GHSV on the product gas composition and CO
conversion at S/CO ratio of 8. It has been observed that as the GHSV Fig. 8. Variation of product gas composition (CO, CO2 and H2) and CO conversion with
increases, the amount of H2 and CO2 decreases, while the amount of GHSV.
 T.K. Patra et al. / Energy 173 (2019) 1130e1140 1137

temperature of 350
C, S/CO ratio of 8. The volumetric flow rate of 40 100

CO
the water in the pre-heater is kept constant at 1 ml/min. The CO2
H2
compositions of CO, CO2 and H2 (dry basis) have been studied along COconversion

with the CO conversion (XCO) for various catalyst bed lengths. A 80

30

Product gas composition (%)

FORTRAN script is used to define the conversion and the compo-
sition variables.

CO conversion (%)
60
20
L ¼ 4*W/7.74
V ¼ L*194.729*10
40
VFLOW ¼ MFLOW/DENSITY
10
VFLOW ¼ VFLOW*(P*273.15/T)
SPACEV ¼ VFLOW*1000/V
20
X ¼ (COIN-COOUT)*100/COIN
0
CO ¼ CO*100/ (1-H2O)
CO2 ¼ CO2*100/ (1-H2O) 0
H2 ¼ H2*100/ (1-H2O) 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
o
Reactor temperature ( C)
Fig. 9 shows the effect of catalyst bed length on the product gas
composition and CO conversion at S/CO ratio of 8. It is observed that Fig. 10. Variation of product gas composition (CO, CO2, and H2) with reactor
with the increase in catalyst bed length H2 and CO2 composition temperature.

increases and that of CO decreases in the reactor outlet stream. This

is justified by the simple fact that an increase in the catalyst amount
increases the residence time of the reactants, thus a better con-
version. The values of zero catalyst bed length show the inlet
producer gas composition. The maximum amount of H2 and CO2
produced at a catalyst bed length of 10 cm are 25.98% and 20.69%.
On the other side, the CO concentration at the reactor outlet rea-
ches a much lower value of 2.58 for a catalyst bed length of 8 cm.
From the results, it is inferred that catalyst bed length of 8 cm is the
optimum value for the maximum H2 and CO2 production, beyond
this further rise in length, has a negligible effect on product gas
composition. It can be seen in Fig. 9 that, with the increase in
catalyst bed length up to 8 cm the CO conversion increases sharply
and after that the conversion rate is steep. The maximum CO con-
version achieved at a catalyst bed length of 10 cm is 86.51%.The CO
conversion varies from 34.43% at 2 cm bed length to a maximum of
86.51% at 10 cm bed length.
4.2.3. Effect of reactor temperature
Fig. 10 shows the effect of reactor temperature on the outlet gas
composition and CO conversion at an S/CO ratio of 8. As the tem-
perature of the reactor was increased, the concentration of CO
decreases while the CO2 and H2 concentration increases. It can be
40
35
30
Product gas composition (%)
observed that a major change in the concentration of the compo-
nents occurs in the temperature range of 300
Ce400
C. The
concentrations of CO2, H2 increases with reactor temperature and
reached the maximum value at 400
C however, beyond this
temperature further increase in temperature results in decrease of
H2 and CO2 compositions. This may be due to the reaction achieves
equilibrium conversion. Hence in case of high temperature shift
the reaction favors backward reaction with increase in reactor
temperature. The maximum concentration of H2 and CO2 pre-
dicted at reactor temperatures of 450
C and 500
C are 26.64% &
21.40%. The outlet gas CO composition reaches the lowest value of
0.83% at 450
C and that of 1.21% at 500
C. Despite the fact that
water gas shift reaction is an exothermic reaction, at high tem-
peratures, a high conversion of CO and concentrations of the
products were observed. Thus, the high temperature shift reaction
(HTS) is highly sensitive towards the reaction temperature and is
controlled by chemical kinetics rather than its thermodynamics.
With the increase in reactor temperature, the CO conversion in-
creases exponentially up to 400
C. There is no substantial varia-
tion in CO conversion with the further increase in reactor
temperature. The maximum CO conversion of 93.48% is predicted
at reactor temperatures of 450
C. At lower values of reactor
temperature of 300
C the CO conversions reduced to the lowest
100
CO value of 17.75%.
CO2
H2
COconversion
80 4.2.4. Effect of steam to CO ratio
Fig. 11 shows the effect of S/CO ratio on the reactor outlet gas

composition of CO, CO2 and H2. From the figure it is seen that with
CO conversion (%)

25
60 the increase in S/CO ratio the composition H2 and CO2 increases and
that of CO decreases. At S/CO ratio of 8 the maximum amount of H2
20
and CO2 obtained in the product gas stream are 26.64% and 21.40%
40 respectively. The maximum amount of H2 and CO2 produced at S/
15
CO of 8 are 26.64% and 21.40%. Fig. 12 shows the effect of S/CO on CO
10 conversion at different reactor temperatures. It can be seen that
20 higher S/CO gives higher CO conversion. While increasing the S/CO
5 from 2 to 4, the CO conversion value goes up from 69.27% to 86.13%
and the further rise in S/CO to 8 results in increase in CO conversion
0 0
to a maximum value of 93.48%. By analyzing the outlet gas
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
composition profiles, the S/CO ratio of 8 is found to be the optimum
catalyst bed length (cm)
at all reactor temperatures for maximum CO conversion and H2
Fig. 9. Variation of product gas composition (CO, CO2 and H2) and CO conversion with production since there is no significant variation is observed in the
catalyst bed length. product gas composition beyond this value.
1138 T.K. Patra et al. / Energy 173 (2019) 1130e1140

Table 6
S/CO=2 List of different factors with their levels.
25 CO
Factor Level-1 Level-2 Level-3
CO2
H2 GHSV (h1) 1000 1500 2000
Product gas composition (%)

20 S/CO=4 S/CO 2 4 8
CO Reactor temperature (C) 300 350 400
CO2
15 H2
S/CO=6 has 3 levels. So, accordingly, the total number of experiments which
CO
is given by (level) factor becomes 27. The results of all the 27 ex-
10 CO2
H2
periments are shown in the following Table 7. The response variable
S/CO=8 considered in the experiment is the product gas composition and
5 CO CO conversion.
CO2 On examining the above results, it is observed that highest CO
H2 conversion of about 97.55% and H2 composition of 27.026% are
0 achieved for GHSV 1000 h1, S/CO ratio of 8 and temperature
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 350
C. The GHSV 2000 h1, S/CO ratio of 2 and the reactor tem-
Reactor temperature ( C)
0
perature of 300
C corresponds to the lowest CO conversion of
63.35% and the lowest H2 composition of 23.687%. Unlike the
Fig. 11. Effect of steam to CO ratio on outlet gas composition.
temperature dependence trend observed before, the conversion of
CO is not higher at temperatures as high as 400
C. For instance, the
100
conversion at a specific GHSV and S/CO ratio is higher at 350
C
S/CO 2 than at 400
C. From this it can be inferred that at low GHSVs,
S/CO 4 unlike in the previous study, the optimum temperature for the shift
80
S/CO 6 reaction is 350
C. ̊Note that the temperature dependence is still
S/CO 8
followed as the conversion at 300
C is lower than that at 400
C
and 350
C. The conversion of CO also increases with the S/CO ratio.
CO conversion (%)

60 The majority of CO gets converted when the S/CO ratio is 8. At

40
20
0 reactor and thus, the residence time is higher. So, we observe a very
250 300 350 400 450 500
0
Reactor temprature ( C)
Fig. 12. Effect of steam to CO ratio on CO conversion.
4.3. Optimization study
As seen earlier, the shift reaction process is affected by various
operating parameters such as catalyst bed length, reactor temper-
ature, Steam to CO ratio and GHSV. Thus, there is a need for opti-
mization of these parameters to find optimum operating
conditions. Out of various experimental design methods available
full factorial design method is chosen in the present study. This
method taken into account all the possible combinations of
different operating parameters considered for the optimization
study. The Factorial experiment is an experiment which contains
two or more parameters affecting it. It helps to study the effect of
the factors on a particular variable. The values of the factors are
discretized called ‘levels’. The total number of combinations equals
to (level) factor. Hence, the number of factorial designs is defined.
In the present study, a large number of levels are present, which
increases the number of factorial designs. It is difficult to perform so
many experiments and hence full factorial design of experiments is
used in the present study for simulation. The number of factors is
three with three levels for each. The levels are chosen based on the
experimental constraints of the present experimental set up. The
factors considered and their levels are given in Table 6. Every factor
300
C, and GHSVs 1500 h1 and 2000 h1, the conversion at S/CO
ratio of 8 is even lower than that for S/CO ratio of 4. Thus, if the
reaction temperature reaches up to 300
C, the trend of higher CO
conversion for high S/CO ratio may not fit well(except for those
with GHSV at 1000 h1).With respect to GHSV, the lower the value
of the GHSV, higher is the conversion. This can be explained by the
fact that GHSV is inversely related to the residence time of the
reactant. Lower is the GHSV, the more time the reactant spends in a
550 600 high conversion at GHSV 1000 h1 followed by 1500 h1 and 2000
h1. As discussed before, the minimum residence time for the re-
actants must be 0.09 s. In this simulation study, it varies from
around 2.23 se4.45 s which much more than the minimum
requirement. Therefore, using the results obtained in this simula-
tion, the experiments can be performed accordingly and be used to
verify your findings.
5. Conclusions
In the present study, a steady state model was developed for
biomass gasification based producer gas cleaning unit and water
gas shift catalytic reactor unit using ASPEN Plus. The gas coming out
from the gasifier was represented as a mixture of producer gas, tar,
CSPM and SPM. Two cleaning units used to clean the gas mixture
were venturi scrubber and sand bed filter. The clean gas was then
fed to a water gas shift catalytic reactor for hydrogen-rich enrich-
ment. A RPlug reactor was used to model the water gas shift cat-
alytic reactor unit. The reaction scheme of the catalytic reactor was
defined by a power law kinetic model for commercial higher
temperature shift catalyst. The model was validated with the
experimental data of our previous study and with the literature
data reported by Marono et al. [30] for CO conversion and H2
composition at different GHSVs. The model predictions were found
to be matching well with the experimental results. A parametric
analysis was also carried out to study the effect of various operating
parameters such as GHSV, catalyst bed length, water gas shift
 T.K. Patra et al. / Energy 173 (2019) 1130e1140 1139

Table 7
Experimental matrix for factorial design study.

Run No. GHSV (h1) S/CO T (
C) CO conversion(%) H2 composition(vol %)

1 2000 2 300 63.35,134 23.68,704

2 2000 2 350 86.20,049 25.95,071
3 2000 2 400 79.59,864 25.31,058
4 1500 2 300 72.42,476 24.60,231
5 1500 2 350 86.47,895 25.97,746
6 1500 2 400 79.59,809 25.31,052
7 1000 2 300 82.99,626 25.64,132
8 1000 2 350 86.52,842 25.98,214
9 1000 2 400 79.59,936 25.31,054
10 2000 4 300 72.99,816 24.65,938
11 2000 4 350 94.41,920 26.73,243
12 2000 4 400 90.95,737 26.40,516
13 1500 4 300 82.01373 25.54,581
14 1500 4 350 94.52,343 26.74,213
15 1500 4 400 90.95,870 26.40,512
16 1000 4 300 91.39,887 26.44,708
17 1000 4 350 94.53,463 26.74,330
18 1000 4 400 90.95,726 26.40,517
19 2000 8 300 81.20,366 25.46,710
20 2000 8 350 97.52,744 27.02378
21 2000 8 400 95.81,570 26.86,359
22 1500 8 300 89.14,455 26.23,270
23 1500 8 350 97.54,345 27.02532
24 1500 8 400 95.81,739 26.86,382
25 1000 8 300 96.10,031 26.89,028
26 1000 8 350 97.54,790 27.02570
27 1000 8 400 95.81,789 26.86,381

reactor temperature, and steam to CO ratio on the product gas Funding

composition and CO conversion. The model performance evalua-
tion is reported in terms of CO conversion and H2 composition in This work was financially supported by Department of Science
the product gas. The maximum CO conversion and H2 production and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi, under the fast-
were achieved at GHSV of 1000 h1, catalyst bed length of 10 cm, track scheme for young scientists (Grant no.SB/FTP/ETA 213/2012).
the reactor temperature of 350
C and S/CO ratio value of 8. An
optimization study was also carried out using the factorial design References
method to find the optimum operating condition for maximum H2
production. It was found that the reactor temperature of 350
C, S/ [1] Balat H, Kırtay E. Hydrogen from biomass e present scenario and future
CO of 8 and GHSV 1000 h1 was the optimum set of parameters for prospects. Int J Hydrog Energy 2010;35(14):7416e26.
[2] Arregi A, Amutio M, Lopez G, Bilbao J, Olazar M. Evaluation of thermochemical
a maximum H2 composition of 27.026% and the corresponding CO routes for hydrogen production from biomass: a review. Energy Convers
conversion of 97.5479%. Manag 2018;165:696e719.
[3] Dou B, Zhang H, Song Y, Zhao L, Jiang B, He M, et al. Hydrogen production from
the thermochemical conversion of biomass: issues and challenges. Sustainable
Energy & Fuels 2019;3(2):314e42.
List of abbreviations and symbols [4] Dou B, Zhang H, Cui G, Wang Z, Jiang B, Wang K, et al. Hydrogen production by
sorption-enhanced chemical looping steam reforming of ethanol in an alter-
nating fixed-bed reactor: sorbent to catalyst ratio dependencies. Energy
SPM Suspended Particulate Matter Convers Manag 2018;155:243e52.
LTS Low Temperature Shift [5] Dou B, Zhang H, Cui G, Wang Z, Jiang B, Wang K, et al. Hydrogen production
HTS High Temperature Shift and reduction of Ni-based oxygen carriers during chemical looping steam
reforming of ethanol in a fixed-bed reactor. Int J Hydrog Energy 2017;42(42):
GLS Gas Liquid Separator 26217e30.
PSD Particle Size Distribution [6] Sheth PN, Babu BV. Production of hydrogen energy through biomass (waste
HTC High Temperature Catalyst wood) gasification. Int J Hydrog Energy 2010;35(19):10803e10.
[7] Zainal ZA, Ali R, Lean CH, Seetharamu KN. Prediction of performance of a
S/CO Steam to CO ratio downdraft gasifier using equilibrium modeling for different biomass mate-
GHSV Gas Hourly Space Velocity rials. Energy Convers Manag 2001;42(12):1499e515.
IGT Institue of Gas Technology [8] Sheth PN, Babu BV. Experimental studies on producer gas generation from
wood waste in a downdraft biomass gasifier. Bioresour Technol 2009;100(12):
CI Conventional Inert 3127e33.
NC Non Conventional [9] Ingle NA, Lakade SS. Design and development of downdraft gasifier to
K Equilibrium constant generate producer gas. Energy Procedia 2016;90(Supplement C):423e31.
[10] Sharma S, Sheth PN. Airesteam biomass gasification: experiments, modeling
Xco CO conversion(%) and simulation. Energy Convers Manag 2016;110(Supplement C):307e18.
DH Enthalpy change [11] Patra TK, Sheth PN. Biomass gasification models for downdraft gasifier: a
b Approach to equilibrium state-of-the-art review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:583e93.
g Activity coefficient [12] Asadullah M. Biomass gasification gas cleaning for downstream applications:
a comparative critical review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;40:118e32.
4 Fugacity coefficient [13] Bosmans A, Wasan S, Helsen L. Waste to clean syngas: avoiding tar problems.
f Fugacity In: Conference waste to clean syngas: avoiding tar problems. Houthalen-
p Total pressure of system Helchteren; 2008.
[14] Woolcock PJ, Brown RC. A review of cleaning technologies for biomass-
Pi Partial pressure of component i derived syngas. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;52(Supplement C):54e84.
T Temperature [15] Press RJ, Santhanam KSV, Miri MJ, Bailey AV, Takacs GA. Introduction to
1140 T.K. Patra et al. / Energy 173 (2019) 1130e1140
hydrogen Technology. Wiley; 2008.
[16] Smith RJB, Muruganandam L, Shekhar SM. A review of the water gas shift
reaction kinetics. Int J Chem React Eng 2010;8(1).
[17] Chen W-H, Lin M-R, Jiang TL, Chen M-H. Modeling and simulation of hydrogen
generation from high-temperature and low-temperature water gas shift re-
actions. Int J Hydrog Energy 2008;33(22):6644e56.
[18] Batista MS, Assaf EM, Assaf JM, Ticianelli EA. Double bed reactor for the
simultaneous steam reforming of ethanol and water gas shift reactions. Int J
Hydrog Energy 2006;31(9):1204e9.
[19] Di Blasi C, Branca C. Modeling a stratified downdraft wood gasifier with pri-
mary and secondary air entry. Fuel 2013;104(0):847e60.
[20] Tinaut FV, Melgar A, Pe
rez JF, 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(11):1076e89.
[21] Babu BV, Sheth PN. Modeling and simulation of reduction zone of downdraft
biomass gasifier: effect of char reactivity factor. Energy Convers Manag
2006;47(15e16):2602e11.
[22] Sharma AK. Modeling and simulation of a downdraft biomass gasifier 1.
Model development and validation. Energy Convers Manag 2011;52(2):
1386e96.
[23] Patra TK, Nimisha KR, Sheth PN. A comprehensive dynamic model for
downdraft gasifier using heat and mass transport coupled with reaction ki-
netics. Energy 2016;116(Part 1):1230e42.
[24] Ramzan N, Ashraf A, Naveed S, Malik A. Simulation of hybrid biomass gasi-
fication using Aspen plus: a comparative performance analysis for food,
municipal solid and poultry waste. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35(9):3962e9.
[25] Begum S, Rasul MG, Akbar D. A numerical investigation of municipal solid
waste gasification using aspen plus. Procedia Engineering 2014;90:710e7.
[26] Kuo P-C, Wu W, Chen W-H. Gasification performances of raw and torrefied
biomass in a downdraft fixed bed gasifier using thermodynamic analysis. Fuel
2014;117(Part B):1231e41. 0.
[27] Formica M, Frigo S, Gabbrielli R. Development of a new steady state zero-
dimensional simulation model for woody biomass gasification in a full scale
plant. Energy Convers Manag 2016;120:358e69.
[28] Tapasvi D, Kempegowda RS, Tran K-Q, Skreiberg Ø, Grønli M. A simulation
study on the torrefied biomass gasification. Energy Convers Manag 2015;90:
446e57.
[29] Gagliano A, Nocera F, Bruno M, Cardillo G. Development of an equilibrium-
based model of gasification of biomass by aspen plus. Energy Procedia
2017;111(Supplement C):1010e9.
[30] Maron ~ o M, S

anchez JM, Ruiz E. Hydrogen-rich gas production from oxygen
pressurized gasification of biomass using a FeeCr Water Gas Shift catalyst. Int
J Hydrog Energy 2010;35(1):37e45.
[31] Robert AC. Particulate controls. In: Standard handbook of environmental
Engineering. second ed. McGraw Hill Professional; 1999. Access Engineering.
[32] Vivanpatarakij SRD, Assabumrungrat S. Removal of tar from biomass gasifi-
cation process by steam reforming over nickel catalysts. Chemical Engineering
Transactions 2014;37:205e10.
[33] Srinivas S, Field RP, Herzog HJ. Modeling tar handling options in biomass
gasification. Energy Fuels 2013;27(6):2859e73.
[34] Doherty W, Reynolds A, Kennedy D. Aspen plus simulation of biomass gasi-
fication in a steam blown dual fluidised bed. Formatex Research Centre; 2013.
[35] Rudnick SN, Koehler J, Martin KP, Leith D, Cooper DW. Particle collection ef-
ficiency in a venturi scrubber: comparison of experiments with theory. En-
viron Sci Technol 1986;20(3):237e42.
[36] Pathak BS, Kapatel DV, Bhoi PR, Sharma AM, Vyas DK. Design and develop-
ment of sand bed filter for upgrading producer gas to IC engine quality fuel.
Int Energy J 2007;8:15e20.
[37] Hla SS, Park D, Duffy GJ, Edwards JH, Roberts DG, Ilyushechkin A, et al. Kinetics
of high-temperature water-gas shift reaction over two iron-based commercial
catalysts using simulated coal-derived syngases. Chem Eng J 2009;146(1):
148e54.
[38] Jime
nez S, Ballester J. Formation and emission of submicron particles in
pulverized olive residue (orujillo) combustion. Aerosol Sci Technol
2004;38(7):707e23.
[39] Laurence LC, Ashenafi D. Syngas treatment unit for small scale gasification
application to IC engine gas quality requirement. J Appl Fluid Mech 2012;5(1):
95e103.
[40] Callaghan CA. Kinetics and catalysis of the water-gas-shift reaction: a
microkinetic and graph theoretic approach. Worcester, Massachusetts:
Worcester Polytechnic Institute; 2006.