Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 1333–1347

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Assessing the gasification performance of biomass: A review

on biomass gasification process conditions, optimization
and economic evaluation
Anis Atikah Ahmad a,n, Norfadhila Abdullah Zawawi a, Farizul Hafiz Kasim a, Abrar Inayat b,
Azduwin Khasri c
a
School of Bioprocess Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, 02600 Jejawi Arau, Perlis, Malaysia
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, 31750 Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia
c
Department of Chemical Engineering Technology, Faculty of Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Kampus Uniciti Sg Chuchuh, 02100 Padang
Besar, Perlis, Malaysia

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Currently, the use of biomass as an energy source has received a tremendous amount of interest from all
Received 17 March 2015 over the world due to its advantage in providing a continuous feedstock supply. Moreover, when com-
Received in revised form pared to fossil fuels, biomass fuels possess negligible sulfur concentrations, produce less ash, and gen-
24 May 2015
erate far less emissions into the air. Biomass has a potential to be a very promising alternative source of
Accepted 17 September 2015
Available online 10 November 2015
raw material for syngas production due to its tremendous availability. Syngas can be produced from the
gasification of a biomass. However, this process requires a significant amount of energy due to the
Keywords: endothermic behavior of the reaction. The energy consumption during the gasification process is a major
Gasification constraint on the thermal efficiency and on the design of the gasifier. Therefore, a substantial
Syngas
improvement and the optimization of the available gasification process are very crucial in developing a
Optimization
sustainable utilization of these renewable natural resources. This review article focuses on highlighting
Simulations
Economic evaluation the characteristics and performances of the different types of gasifiers under variable process parameters
that will affect the yields of the end products as well as the composition of the gas. The various types of
models used in the simulations, the optimization of the gasification conditions and the economic eva-
luation of the gasification process will also be discussed.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1334
2. Biomass gasification for the production of syngas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1334
3. Gasification performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1335
3.1. Effect of the gasifier types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1335
3.2. Effect of the temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1336
3.3. Effect of the biomass particle size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1337
3.4. Effect of the gasification agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1337
3.5. Effect of the bed material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1341
4. Simulation of the gasification process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1343
4.1. Modeling of the biomass gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1344
5. Optimization of the gasification process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1345
6. Economic evaluation of the H2 gas production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1345

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 60 12 5847 688; fax: þ 60 4 979 8755.
E-mail address: anisatikah@unimap.edu.my (A.A. Ahmad).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.030
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1334 A.A. Ahmad et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 1333–1347

7. Conclusions and outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1346

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1346
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1346

1. Introduction
Currently, the use of biomass as an environmentally friendly
renewable energy source has received a tremendous amount of
interest from all over the world, as evidenced by the fact that the
use of biomass has been estimated to contribute approximately
10–14% of the world's power supply [37]. Biomass possesses an
advantage over fossil fuels (natural gas, coal, and petroleum) in
that it provides a continuous feedstock supply. Moreover, the
constant uncertainties of the supply levels and the pricing of fossil
fuels, as well as the greenhouse effect and its consequences on
climate change, are some of the drawbacks resulting from the
extensive use of fossil fuels [43]. Biomass is a CO2 neutral resource
for its life cycle [28,29] and it also possesses a zero CO2 net
emission energy [38]. Compared to biomass, burning fossil fuels
takes carbon that was locked away underground (as crude oil, gas,
and coal) and transfers it into the atmosphere as CO2. However,
biomass combustion, such as wood combustion, only recycles
carbon that was already in the natural carbon cycle, with the net
effect being that no new CO2 was added to the atmosphere as long
as the forests from which the wood came are sustainably managed
[58]. The comparison of the carbon cycles by using a fossil fuel and
a biomass feedstock is illustrated in Fig. 1.
In terms of the environmental effects, biomass fuels possess a
negligible sulfur concentration, produce less ash, and generate far
less air emissions in comparison with fossil fuels. Therefore, the
combustion of a biomass does not contribute to sulfur dioxide
emissions, which is the cause of acid rain, and the produced ash
can be used as a soil additive for select farms. It should also be
noted that through the utilization of biomass as the energy source,
the amount of waste sent to landfills can be reduced, which would
have an impact the significant waste disposal problem, particularly
in municipal areas. The use of biomass as an energy source also
possesses an economical advantage. The use of biomass as an
energy source would not be affected by the world price fluctua-
tions or the uncertainties in the supplies of imported fuels.
Therefore, a reduction on the dependency on fossil fuels, such as
oil, would reduce the economic pressures of importing petroleum
products [13].
Biomass conversion technologies can be categorized into four
basic categories: direct combustion processes, biochemical pro-
cesses, agrochemical processes and thermochemical processes.
Direct combustion is the main process for obtaining energy from
the biomass. The energy produced can be used to provide heat
and/or steam for cooking, space heating, and industrial processes,
as well as for the generation of electricity. Biochemical processes
are processes that are composed of anaerobic digestion and alco-
holic fermentation. Meanwhile, the example of the agrochemical
process is the extraction method, which is mainly mechanical in
nature, such as the extraction of rapeseed oil from rapeseed.
Thermochemical conversion processes can be further subdivided
into gasification, pyrolysis, supercritical fluid extraction and direct
liquefaction. Thermochemical decomposition can be utilized for
the energy conversion of all of the categories of biomass materials,
but low moisture, herbaceous (small grain field residues) and
woody (woody industry wastes and standing vegetation not sui-
table for lumber) materials are the most suitable [13].
By definition, “Bio” means life and biomass is a biological
material with a large volume that was derived from living
organisms, such as plant or animal waste [41]. Generally, biomass
can be categorized into five basic categories. The first category is
the virgin wood that was obtained from forestry or in waste from
forest products. Examples of this include palm kernel shells, wood
pellets, woodchips, and sawdust. The second category can be
classified as the energy crops, which are the high-yield crops
grown specifically for energy applications. Hybrid eucalyptus,
Jatropha, Pongamia, and perennial grasses such as Miscanthus and
Napier grass growing on marginal land that is not fit for agri-
culture are examples of this class. The third category is the agri-
cultural residues, which includes the bagasse from sugarcane, corn
husks, coconut shells, and straw. The fourth category is the food
waste, which includes animal fat, residues from food and drink
manufacturing, etc. The fifth category is the industrial waste from
manufacturing and industrial processes [25]. Wood and wood
wastes are the major sources that contribute to the biomass
energy (64%), followed by MSW (24%), agricultural waste (5%), and
landfill gases (5%) [13].
2. Biomass gasification for the production of syngas
Syngas is a key intermediate in the chemical industry. It is used
in a number of highly selective syntheses of a wide range of che-
micals and fuels, such as Fischer–Tropsch liquids, methanol and
ammonia [35]. It is also used as a source of pure hydrogen and
carbon monoxide [49]. Currently, hydrogen is the most promising

Fig. 1. Comparison of carbon flows for fossil fuel and biomass heating systems [58].
 A.A. Ahmad et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 1333–1347
energy source that can be used in fuel cells and internal com-
bustion engines [5]. Syngas can be produced from biomasses using
thermochemical processes, such as pyrolysis, gasification, and
reforming or combustion processes. Meanwhile, the biological
processes used to produce syngas are direct biophotolysis, indirect
biophotolysis, biological water–gas shift reactions, photo-
fermentation and dark-fermentation [43].
Gasification is the most effective process for the production of
hydrogen from biomasses. Syngas and biomass gasification were
known before World War II, and the first gasification plant was
established in North America in 2001 [54]. Gasification utilizes
various types of carbon-based feedstocks, such as natural gas, coal,
petroleum, petcoke, biomass, and industrial wastes [56]. As illu-
strated in Fig. 2, the chart shows that coal now dominates as the
feedstock in 51% or 36,315 MWth of syngas capacity, representing
53 plants. Petroleum (including fuel oil, refinery residue, and
naphtha) is the second leading feedstock, with 17,938 MWth, or
25% of total gasification capacity, representing 56 plants. Natural
gas provides 22%, petcoke provides approximately 1%, and the
least used feedstock is biomass or waste, which accounts for
0.5% [56].
Biomass gasification is the conversion of carbonaceous material
into a gaseous product or synthesis gas that mainly consists of
hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO), with lower amounts of
carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O), methane (CH4), higher hydro-
carbons (C2 þ), and nitrogen (N2) [56]. The gasification process is
performed in the presence of a gasifying agent (for example air,
pure oxygen, or steam, or mixtures of these components) at ele-
vated temperatures between 500 and 1400 °C and at atmospheric
or elevated pressures up to 33 bar (480 psia) [57]. According to Ref.
[43], the gasification process is applicable for biomasses that
possess a moisture content lower than 35%. For biomass feed-
stocks that possess higher amounts of moisture, in the range of
25–60%, the use of these feedstocks directly in the gasifier will
result in great amounts of energy losses in the overall process. It
was recommended that the biomasses be preheated or dried to
moisture contents between 10% and 20% before they are intro-
duced into the gasifier [40].
The first step in gasification is the devolatilization of the bio-
mass particles, which produces vapors and char, followed by the
cracking and reforming of the volatiles and the gasification of the
char. A steam atmosphere enhances the reforming reactions and
char gasification so that more light gases, such as H2, CO and CO2,
can be produced [31]. The generated gas mixtures are
Fig. 2. World gasification operating capacity by feedstock [56].
1335
intermediate energy carriers that can either be combusted for heat
and power generation or they can further be synthesized into
transportation fuel. The produced gas can also be used as a feed-
stock for the production of high-value chemicals, such as olefins
and formaldehyde [53]. Fig. 3 summarizes the steps involved in
the gasification process.
The production and composition of the production gas varies
widely with the properties of input streams, the employed gasi-
fication reactor type, the operating conditions, and the gas output
conditioning. Input streams are referred to by feedstock materials
(type and components) and the gasifying agent or medium (type
and flow of gasifying agent). Gas output conditioning is composed
of cooling and the disposal of particulate matter and tar in the gas
product [15,62]. The operating conditions are composed of tem-
perature, pressure, and the residence time are used to control the
gasification reactions [62]. Recently, there has been research con-
ducted on biomass gasification utilizing different operating con-
ditions, such as (1) the types of gasifiers, namely, fixed bed, flui-
dized bed, and entrained flow [19]; (2) the gasification agents,
such as air, oxygen, steam, CO2, or mixtures of these components
[43]; and (3) operating conditions that include the temperature,
pressure, catalyst and the equivalent that have an effect on the
yields of the end products and the composition of the gas.
3. Gasification performance
There are a few parameters that have an effect on the perfor-
mance of the syngas production during gasification. The types of
the gasifier and the operating conditions (such as the temperature,
gasification agent, biomass particle size and type of bed materials)
should be thoroughly investigated in order to design the best
gasification system. These factors will be further highlighted in
following sections.
3.1. Effect of the gasifier types
The gasifiers can be divided into different types such as the
fixed bed (updraft and downdraft), moving bed, fluidized bed
(bubbling and circulating), and the entrained flow gasifier. The
gasifiers are categorized into different types based on how the
biomass is supported in the reactor vessel, the direction of flow of
both the biomass and the oxidant, and the way the heat is supplied
to the reactor. In a fixed bed gasifier, the biomass bed is held
1336 A.A. Ahmad et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 1333–1347
Fig. 3. Gasification process flow and its applications.
stationary while the reaction front passes through it, or the bed
can move through the reaction or it can undergo a mechanical
displacement. Fixed bed gasifiers possess two common config-
urations, one of which is a fixed bed updraft or counter current
gasifier and the other is a fixed bed downdraft or cocurrent gasi-
fier. The fixed bed updraft or counter current gasifier configuration
is the oldest and simplest form of a gasifier and is noted to have a
relatively low cost owing to the simple reactor concept. Biomass
feedstock is introduced at the top of the reactor and a gasification
agent is introduced below the gasifier. The produced gas is
extracted at the top of the gasifier. Although the fixed bed
downdraft (cocurrent gasifier) has the same mechanical config-
uration as the updraft gasifier [56], both the oxidant and the
biomass are introduced at the top of these reactors [15].
The fluidized bed gasifiers are categorized based on their fluid
dynamics and modes of heat transfer. There are two common
types of fluidized bed gasifiers, which are the bubbling fluidized
bed and the circulating fluidized bed. A bubbling fluidized bed
usually consists of fine, inert particles of sand or alumina. As the
gasification agent is forced through the inert particles, a point is
reached when the frictional force between the particles and the
gas counterbalances the weight of the solids. At this gas velocity
(minimum fluidization), a bubbling and channeling of the gas
through the media occurs such that the particles remain in the
reactor and appear to be in a “boiling state”. In contrast, circulating
fluidized bed gasifiers operate at gas velocities above the mini-
mum fluidization velocity which results in the entrainment of the
particles in the gas stream. The entrained particles in the gas exit
the top of the gasifier, are separated in a cyclone, and are then
returned back to the gasifier [57]. Normally, smaller bed particles
are used in the circulating fluidized bed [45]. Compared to the
bubbling fluidized bed, the circulating fluidized bed offers higher
conversion rates and efficiencies [15]. Based on a survey of the
present commercial or near-commercial biomass gasification
technologies, directly heated bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) gasifiers
are the most widely used gasifier that are operated with a broad
span of parameters, such as the temperature, pressure and
throughput [56].
There are several studies that compare the advantages and
disadvantages of the fixed bed and the fluidized bed gasifier.
Warnecke [61] compared the fixed bed and fluidized bed using
different criteria, such as the technology, use of material, use of
energy, and the environmental and economic impact. From their
research, Warnecke [61] concluded that the advantages of one of
the reactor types over the other were marginal and that there was
no significant advantage between the fixed bed and the fluidized
bed reactor. Meanwhile, according to Ref. [3], there are several
drawbacks to fixed bed gasifiers. Due to the low and non-uniform
heat and mass transfer between the solid biomass feedstock and
the gasifying medium in the gasifier, large quantities of tar and
char were generated. Conversely, fluidized bed gasifiers allowed
for good mixing and good gas–solid contact, which increased the
reaction rate and the conversion efficiencies. Furthermore, a lower
concentration of tar in the product gas was achieved with the
usage of the bed material as the heat transfer medium and cata-
lyst, and thus improving the quality of the gas. In addition, effi-
cient heat and mass transfer properties in the fluidized bed gasi-
fier enabled the usage of assorted types of biomass wastes with
different compositions and heating values [3,65].
3.2. Effect of the temperature
According to Ref. [57], when temperatures greater than 1200–
1300 °C were utilized, the following results were obtained: little to
no methane, the formation of higher hydrocarbons or tar, and a
maximized production of H2 and CO without the need for further
conversion steps [56]. Rapagnà and Latif [48], who studied the
steam gasification of almond shells in a continuous fluidized bed
reactor, reported that the highest yield of total gas, H2, CO, CH4,
and CO2 obtained were 1.55, 0.7, 0.42, 0.12, and 0.300 m3/kg bio-
mass, respectively. The study indicated that by increasing the
temperature from 600 to 800 °C, the concentration of char and
heavy tars decreased while the overall gas yield increased, and the
yields of H2 and CO also increased. Similarly to the studies of Refs.
[48,38] also performed a gasification in the fluidized bed using
empty fruit bunch (EFB) as the feedstock and air as the gasifier
agent in the temperature range between 700 and 1000 °C. When
the temperature increased from 700 to 1000 °C, the H2 con-
centration increased from 10.27 to 38.02 vol%, the CO2 con-
centration decreased, of the concentration of CO increased, and
the concentration of CH4 increased from 5.84 to 14.72 vol%. By
utilizing a higher temperature, the percentage of char and tar
decreased, the LHV value increased, and the total gas yield
increased then reached a maximum value of  92 wt% when the
temperature was 1000 °C. In other research, Lv et al. [32] varied
the temperature in the fluidized bed reactor from 700 °C to 900 °C
and used sawdust as the feedstock material. The results indicated
that higher temperatures contributed to higher gas yields and
increased hydrogen production, while the concentration of CO,
CH4, and CO2 decreased. The gas yield and hydrogen composition
increased from 1.43 Nm3/kg biomass to 2.53 Nm3/kg biomass and
21 vol% to 39 vol%, respectively, with the increase in temperature.
The carbon conversion efficiency (CCE) also increased with the
temperature increase. When the temperature was increased from
700 to 750 °C, the LHV value first decreased, and increased to its
maximum value of 8.56 MJ/Nm3 when the temperature was fur-
ther increased to 800 °C. The LHV value started to decrease when
the temperature was further increased from 800 to 900 °C, and the
 A.A. Ahmad et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 1333–1347
lowest LHV value was recorded at 900 °C. Li et al. [27] studied the
steam gasification of EFB in a fixed bed reactor using a tri-metallic
catalyst in the temperature range between 750 and 900 °C, and
the results demonstrated that higher temperatures contributed to
increased hydrogen production and total gas yields. The maximum
value of the total gas and hydrogen gas yields were 2.48 m3/kg and
1.481 m3/kg, respectively, which was obtained at temperature of
900 °C. As the temperature increased from 750 to 900 °C, the
concentrations of H2 and CO2 increased, while the concentrations
of CO and CH4 decreased. The LHV of the product gas decreased
from 11.26 to 9.13 MJ/Nm3 when temperature was increased from
750 to 900 °C. However, the gasification process of bamboo in a
fluidized bed reactor using air in a study that was conducted by
Ref. [62] yielded a different trend with regards to the effect of
temperature. With an increase in temperature, the concentration
of H2 and CO decreased, while the concentration of CO2 increased.
When the temperature was increased from 400 °C to 600 °C, the
total gas yield remained constant. The maximum LHV value and
the CCE were recorded when the operating temperature was
500 °C. Table 1, which can be found below, summarizes several of
the investigations on the effect of temperature on the gasification
of various biomasses.
From these studies, it can be concluded that, the higher tem-
peratures contributed to lower concentrations of char and heavy
tars and higher concentrations of H2 gas as well as an increase in
the overall gas yield. Higher temperature contributed to higher gas
yield due to release of more volatiles. The increase in H2 produc-
tion was due to the tar thermal cracking reaction, which also
decrease the tar concentration [51]. According to Le Chatelier's
principle, increased temperature favors the products of endo-
thermic reactions and favors the reactants in exothermic reactions.
Therefore, the endothermic reforming reaction of hydrocarbon
were improved with the increasing temperature (boudouard (R2),
water–gas (R3), and steam-methane reforming (R8) in Table 6).
Increase in water–gas (R3) and steam-methane reforming (R8)
reactions resulted in increased H2 concentration [27]. The increase
activity of steam-methane reforming (R8) also resulted in a
decrease of CH4 concentration and an increase in H2 and CO [32].
CO production was favored with increased temperature due to
boudouard (R2), water–gas (R3), and steam-methane reforming
(R8) [51]. Meanwhile, the exothermic reaction of char partial
combustion (R1) affect the CO composition in the producer gas.
Higher temperature was not favorable for CO production, so the
content of CO decreased with temperature. The increase of CCE
was contributed due to more carbon and steam conversion
through endothermic reaction of boudouard reaction (R2) and
water–gas reaction (R3) [32]. Generally, higher temperature
favored hydrogen production and gas yield but did not always
favor gas heating value as too high a temperature lowered gas
heating value [32].
3.3. Effect of the biomass particle size
In addition to the effect of temperature, some researchers have
also determined that the feedstock particle size has an effect on
the gasification product. From the research conducted by Ref. [38],
a biomass particle size between o0.3 and 1.0 mm was studied,
and it was determined that feedstock particle sizes not in this
range generally caused a blockage in the feeder. In this study, the
total gas yield decreased and the char and tar yields increased
with an increase in the particle size. The highest gas yield that was
obtained was 74.79 wt% using the smallest particle size
(o 0.3 mm), and the lowest gas yield of 72.74 wt% was obtained
using the largest particle size (0.5–1.0 mm). The study also deter-
mined that smaller particle sizes produced more CO and CH4 and
lower amounts of CO2 than the larger particles; the hydrogen
1337
yields remained almost constant (32.99 and 33.93 vol%) for par-
ticles sizes of o0.3 mm and between 0.3 and 0.5 mm, respec-
tively, and then they decreased to 21.57 vol%. For particle sizes
between 0.5 and 1.0 mm. The highest LHV of the product gas and
the optimum product gas composition were achieved when the
feedstock particle size was in the range of 0.3–0.5 mm. Similarly, Li
et al. [27] reported that by using particle sizes between o 0.15 and
5 mm, the total gas yield and H2 yield decreased. The smaller
particles also produced more H2 and CO2 and less CH4, CO and
C2H4 than the larger particles. However, the LHV value increased
with an increase in particle size, and a maximum value of
10.28 MJ/Nm3 was obtained using the largest particle size. In
another research conducted by Ref. [32], the smaller particles
produced more CH4,CO and less CO2. The smallest particles also
produced the highest gas yields, the highest LHV and the highest
carbon conversion efficiency, which were 1.53–2.57 Nm3/kg bio-
mass, 8.7 MJ/Nm3, and 95.10%, respectively. In the research con-
ducted by Ref. [31], the biomass particle sizes between o0.075
and 1.2 mm were used in the steam gasification of pine sawdust at
a temperature of 900 °C. In this study, the total gas yield, H2 gas
yield and carbon conversion efficiency decreased while the con-
centration of char and tar increased when the particle size
increased. The highest overall gas yield and H2 gas yield obtained
were 1.62 m3/kg biomass and 0.8 m3/kg biomass, respectively,
when the smallest particle size was used. The study also deter-
mined that the smaller particles produced more CO and less CO2
than the larger particles. However, a different trend was observed
in the study conducted by Ref. [64] using a biomass feedstock
particle size from o 0.15 mm to 3 mm. At a temperature of 850 °C,
when particle size was increased from o0.15 mm to 0.45–0.9 mm,
the dry gas yield first gradually increased from 1.72 to 1.84 Nm3/
kg, but then it slightly declined to 1.81 Nm3/kg as the particle size
increased. A maximum dry gas yield of 1.84 Nm3/kg was obtained
at a particle size of 0.45–0.9 mm. Meanwhile, the composition of
the product gas remained nearly constant when the particle size
was varied, which demonstrated that the particle size had no
effect on the molar fraction of syngas. Several studies on the effect
of the biomass particle size are summarized in Table 2.
Smaller particle sizes contributed to higher total gas yields,
higher H2 concentrations, and lower char and tar yields. Larger
feedstock particle size increase the temperature gradient inside
the particle, so that at a given time the core of the particle has
lower temperature compared to the particle surface, which
resulted to the increase of the char and liquids yields and decrease
in gases [38]. Smaller particles can obtain faster heating rate due
to larger surface area. High heating rates produce more light gases
and less char and condensate. Besides that, the smaller particle
size has greater contact area of biomass and steam, which resulted
to higher chemical reaction rates and sufficient gasification reac-
tions [27]. Several studies concluded that the effect of particle size
was less important compared to other parameters. Although larger
particle size increased reaction time needed for the completion of
reactions, but at higher temperature, the effect of particle size on
gasification may decreased.
3.4. Effect of the gasification agent
Currently, there are many studies of biomass gasification using
different agents such as air, oxygen, steam, or mixtures of these
components. Several studies on the effect of gasification agent are
summarized in Table 3. Lv et al. [34] made a comparison between
air and steam as a gasification agent and reported that gasification
using steam was more effective in the maximizing the yield of
hydrogen compared to air. 0.49 m3 and 0.33 m3 of hydrogen per kg
of biomass were produced by gasifying pine wood in a downdraft
gasifier (fixed-bed) with steam and air, respectively. It was observed
1338 A.A. Ahmad et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 1333–1347

Table 1
Effect of the temperature.

No. System configuration Gas yield Gas composition Biomass remaining CCE (%) Gas LHV Conditions for the optimum Reference
and operation as char and heavy result
parameters tars

1 GT: continuous flui- Gas yield: (m3/kg na 0–35 na na BT: 800 °C and FS: 0.287 mm [48]
dized bed biomass) (maximum total gas yield and H2
ID: 60 mm Total gas: 0.5– gas yield, and low char and tars)
F: almond shells 1.55
FR: 0.06 kg/h H2: 0.175–0.7
FS: 0.287, 0.533, 0.75,
1.09 mm
BM: fine alumina CO: 0.125–0.42
GA: steam
SB: 0.8
BT: 600, 650, 700, 750, CH4: 0.050–0.12
800 °C CO2: 0.125–0.3
2 GT: fluidized bed Total gas: 62.68– H2: 10.27–38.02 vol% 6–18 wt% na 7.5– BT: 1000 °C (maximum total gas [38]
L: 600 mm 91.7 wt% 15.55 MJ/m3 yield, optimum gas composition,
ID: 40 mm CO: 21.87–36.36 vol highest LHV, and low char and
F: EFB (o 10 wt% % tars)
moisture content) CH4: 5.84–14.72 vol
FR: 0.6 kg/h %
FS: 0.3–1 mm CO2: 10–65 vol%
BM: inert sand
GA: air
ER: 0.15–0.35
BT: 700, 800, 900,
1000 °C
3 GT: fluidized bed Total gas: 1.43– H2: 21–39 vol% na 78.17- 7.362– BT: 900 °C (maximum gas yield, [32]
H: 1400 mm 2.53 Nm3/kg 92.59 8.56 MJ/Nm3 optimum gas composition, and
ID: 40 mm biomass CO: 35–43 vol% highest CCE)
F: pine sawdust CH4: 6–10 vol%
FR: 0.445 kg/h
FS: 0.3–0.45 mm CO2: 18–20 vol% BT: 800 °C (highest LHV)
BM: silica sand
GA: air–steam
SB: 2.7
ER: 0.22
BT: 700, 750, 800,
850, 900 °C
4 GT: fixed bed Total gas: 1.79– H2: 48–60 vol% na na 9.13– BT: 900 °C (maximum total gas [27]
ID: 88 mm (catalytic 2.48 m3/kg CO: 15–25 vol% 11.26 MJ/ yield and H2 gas yield, optimum
reactor) Nm3 gas composition)
H: 1200 mm (catalytic H2: 0.861– CH4: 5–5 vol%
reactor) 1.481 m3/kg
F: palm oil wastes CO2: 20–25 vol%
(shell, fiber, and EFB)
FR: 0.3–1 kg/h C2 hydrocarbons: 1– BT: 750 °C (highest LHV)
FS: 0.15-2 mm 2 vol%
BM: tri-metallic
catalyst
GA: steam
SB: 1.33
BT: 750, 800, 850,
900 °C
5 GT: fluidized bed Total gas: 1.9– H2: 6.6–8.16 mol% na 63.6– 1.6–1.9 MJ/ T: 400 °C (highest H2 content) [62]
H: 2000 mm 2.0 Nm3/kg 67.4 m3
ID: 50 mm biomass CO: 23.5–30.6 mol%
F: bamboo T: 500 °C (highest CCE and LHV)
FR: 0.6 kg/h CH4: 4–5 mol%
FS: 0.10–0.25 mm CO2: 59-63 mol%
BM: silica sand
GA: air, ER: 0.4
BT: 400, 500, 600 °C

GT: gasifier types, L: gasifier length, H: gasifier height, ID: gasifier internal diameter, BM: bed material, GA: gasifying agent, BT: bed temperature, F: feedstock, FR: feed rate,
FS: feedstock size, ER: equivalence ratio, SB: steam to biomass ratio, CCE: carbon conversion efficiency, na: data were not available.
Summary: Higher temperatures contributed to lower concentrations of char and heavy tars and higher concentrations of H2 gas as well as an increase in the overall gas yield.

that the concentration of H2 and CO reached 63.27–72.56% for the
biomass oxygen/steam gasification, while the concentration of H2
and CO only reached 52.19–63.31% for biomass air gasification. The
same trend was observed in the research conducted by Ref. [62]. In
their research, the value of the CCE and the total gas yield increased
when air–steam was used as the medium in the gasification process
instead of using just air. The H2 and CO gas compositions in the
product gas were also higher when an air–steam mixture was used
as the gasifying medium. In contrast, Gil et al. [18] reported that a
gasification with air produced a gas yield of 1:4  2:4 m3n dry basis/
kg biomass daf that was significantly larger than what was pro-
duced in the gasification with steam, which was 0:8 1:1 m3n dry
 A.A. Ahmad et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 1333–1347 1339

Table 2
Effect of biomass particle size.

No. System configuration and Gas yield Gas composition Biomass remain- CCE (%) Gas LHV Conditions for the optimum result Reference
operation parameters ing as char and
heavy tars

1 GT: fluidized bed Total gas: H2: 21.57–33.93 vol% 13–18 wt% na 11.8– FS: o0.3 mm (maximum gas [38]
L: 600 mm 72.74–74.79 wt 15.26 MJ/m3 yield, low char and heavy tar)
ID: 40 mm % CO: 35–42.5 vol%
F: EFB ( o10 wt% moist- CH4: 15–17.5 vol% FS: 0.3–0.5 mm (optimum gas
ure content) composition and highest LHV)
FR: 0.6 kg/h CO2: 7.5–30 vol%
FS: o 0.3,0.3–0.5,0.5–
1.0 mm
BM: inert sand
GA: air,
ER: 0.15–0.35
BT: 850 °C
2 GT: fixed bed Total gas: 2.16– H2: 55–58 vol% na na 8.99– FS: o0.15 (maximum gas yield, [27]
ID: 200 mm; 88 mm (cat- 2.41 m3/kg CO: 14–18 vol% 10.28 MJ/ maximum H2 yield and optimum
alytic reactor) Nm3 gas composition)
H: 400 mm; 1200 mm H2: 1.183– CH4: 3–5 vol%
(catalytic reactor) 1.4 m3/kg
F: palm oil wastes CO2: 20–23 vol%
FR: 0.3–1 kg/h FS: 2–5 mm (Highest LHV value)
FS: o 0.15, 0.15-1, 1–2, C2 hydrocarbons:
and 2–5 mm 1–2 vol%
BM: tri-metallic catalyst
GA: steam,
SB: 1.33
BT: 800 °C; 850 °C (cata-
lytic reactor)
3 GT: fluidized bed Total gas: 1.53- H2: 30–32 vol% na 77.62– 7.0–8.7 MJ/ FS: 0.2–0.3 mm (maximum gas [32]
H: 1400 mm 2.57 Nm3/kg 95.10 Nm3 yield, optimum gas composition,
ID: 40 mm biomass CO: 16–20 vol% highest LHV, highest CCE)
F: pine sawdust
FR: 0.512 kg/h CH4: 6–7 vol%
FS: 0.2–0.3, 0.3–0.45, CO2: 16–20 vol%
0.45–0.6, and 0.6–0.9 mm
BM: silica sand
GA: air–steam
SB: 1.56; ER: 0.23
BT: 800 °C
4 GT: fixed bed Total gas: 1.38- H2: 40–51.2 vol% 0.4–10% 80– na FS: o0.075 (maximum total gas [31]
H: 600 mm 1.62 m3/kg 99.87 and H2 gas yield, optimum gas
OD: 219 mm biomass CO: 15–22.4 vol% composition, highest CCE, and low
F: pine sawdust char and tar)
FR: 0.3 kg/h H2: 0.55-0.8 m3/ CH4: 2–5 vol%
FS: o 0.075, 0.075–0.15, kg biomass CO2: 12–40 vol%
0.15–0.3, 0.3–0.6, 0.6–
1.2 mm
BM: calcined dolomite
GA: steam
ER: 1.2
BT: 900 °C
5 GT: fixed bed 1.72-1.84 Nm3/ H2: 47–49 wt% na na na FS: 0.45–0.9 mm (maximum total [64]
H: 1000 mm kg biomass CO: 14–15 vol% gas yield,)
ID: 50 mm
F: Char derived from CH4: 2 vol%
cyanobacterial blooms CO2: 30–35 vol%
(CDCB)
FS: o 0.15 mm, 0.15–
0.3, 0.3–0.45, 0.45–0.9,
0.9–3 mm
GA: steam
BT: 850 °C

GT: gasifier types, L: gasifier length, H: gasifier height, ID: gasifier internal diameter, BM: bed material, GA: gasifying agent, BT: bed temperature, F: feedstock, FR: feed rate,
FS: feedstock size, ER: equivalence ratio, SB: steam to biomass ratio, CCE: carbon conversion efficiency, na: data were not available.
Summary: Lower particle sizes contributed to higher total gas yields, higher H2 concentrations, and lower char and tar yields.

basis/kg biomass daf. The steam/biomass ratio (SB) also affected the
gasification output. In the research conducted by Ref. [27], the
increase of the SB from 0 to 1.33 resulted in an increase of the total
gas and hydrogen yield to their highest values of 2.48 m3/kg and
1.481 m3/kg, respectively. However, when the SB was increased
from 1.33 to 2.67, the total gas and hydrogen yield started to
decrease. The same trend was observed with the H2 gas composi-
tion in the product gas. The percentage of the H2 gas composition
increased significantly when the SB was increased from 0 to 1.33,
but it slightly decreased when the SB ratio was further increased
from 1.33 to 2.67. These results were in agreement with the results
obtained by Ref. [10], who studied the effects of α-cellulose
1340 A.A. Ahmad et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 1333–1347

Table 3
Effect of the gasification agent.

No. System configuration Gas yield Gas composition Biomass remain- CCE (%) Gas LHV Conditions for the opti- Reference
and operation ing as char and mum result
parameters heavy tars

1 GT: fixed bed Using air; H2 and CO (using na na na GA: oxygen-steam [34]
(downdraft) Total gas: 0.82– air):
ID: 60 mm 0.94 Nm3/kg 52.19–63.31 vol%
H: 350 mm
F: pine wood blocks H2: 0.24–0.33 m3/kg H2 and CO (using
GA: Air, oxygen- Using O2/steam; oxygen/steam):
steam Total gas: 1.24- 63.27–72.56 vol%
1.62 Nm3/kg
H2: 0.36-0.49 m3/kg
2 GT: fluidized bed Total gas (using air): 1.9– H2 (using air): 6.6– na Using air: na GA: air–steam [62]
H: 2000 mm 2.0 Nm3/kg 8.16 mol% 63.6–67.4%
ID: 50 mm SB: & 1:1
F: bamboo CO (using air): 23.5– Using air– ER: 0.4
FS: 0.10–0.25 mm Total gas (using air– 30.6 mol% steam:
FR: 0.6 kg/hr steam): 2.8–2.9 Nm3/ 87.3–98.5%
BM: silica sand kg) H2 (using air–
GA: air & air– steam): 10.9–
steam 16.5 mol%
SB: 0:1 and 1:1 CO (using air–
ER: 0.4 steam): 36.1–
BT: 400, 500, 600 °C 40.3 mol%
3 GT: bubbling flui- Total gas (using air): 1:4 na na na na GA: air [18]
dized bed –2:4 m3n dry basis/kg
GA: air, pure steam biomass daf
Total gas (using
steam): 0:8–1:1 m3n
dry basis/kg biomass
daf.
4 GT: fixed bed Total gas: 1.2–2.48 m3/ H2: 47–58 vol% na na 8.73– SB: 1.33 (maximum gas [27]
ID: 200 mm; 88 mm kg CO: 14–33 vol% 11.98 MJ/ yield, maximum H2 yield,
(catalytic reactor) Nm3 and optimum gas
H: 400 mm; H2: 0.558–1.481 m3/kg CH4: 3–6 vol% composition)
1200 mm (catalytic CO2: 14–26 vol%
reactor)
F: palm oil wastes C2 hydrocarbons: 1– SB: 0 (highest LHV)
(shell, fiber, and EFB) 2 vol%
FR: 0.3 kg/h
FS: 0.15–2 mm
BM: tri-metallic
catalyst
GA: steam
SB: 0, 0.67, 1.33, 2,
2.67
BT: 800 °C
5 GT: fluidized bed Total gas: 0.78–1.02 m3/ H2: 13.5–18.56 vol% na na 6.55–7.61 SB: 1 (maximum gas yield, [10]
ID: 63.9 mm kg (MJ/Nm3) optimum gas composition)
H: 1100 mm CO: 6.45–11.21 vol%
F: α-cellulose CH4: 2.21–3.73 vol SB: 0 (highest LHV)
(moisture content %
2–10%) CO2: 26.3–27.77 vol
FS: o0.35 mm %
GA: air–steam
ER: 0.27
SB: 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5
BT: 800 °C
6 GT: fluidized bed Total gas: 70.75– H2: 18.37–27.42 vol% Char: 2.12– na 12.35– ER: 0.35 (maximum gas [38]
L: 600 mm 86.46 wt% 13.65 wt% 15.38 MJ/ yield)
ID: 40 mm CO: 32–45 vol% Tar:2.82– m3
F: EFB (o 10 wt% CH4: 12–15 vol% 9.83 wt% ER: 0.25 (maximum
moisture content) hydrogen content)
FR: 0.6 kg/h CO2: 16.66–
FS: 0.3–0.5 mm 36.05 vol% ER: 0.15 (highest LHV)
BM: inert sand
GA: air
ER: 0.15, 0.20, 0.25,
0.30, 0.35
BT: 850
7 GT: downdraft fixed Total gas: 0.6–0.8 wt% H2: 20–30 wt% 0.59–0.7 wt% na 8.8–10.4 MJ/ ER: 0.21 (maximum value [52]
bed reactor CO: 15–20 wt% m3 of gas yield, H2 content,
H: 500 mm and LHV)
ID: 12.5 mm CH4: 10–12 wt%
F: olive kernel
GA: air CO2: 40–55 wt%
 A.A. Ahmad et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 1333–1347 1341

Table 3 (continued )

No. System configuration Gas yield Gas composition Biomass remain- CCE (%) Gas LHV Conditions for the opti- Reference
and operation ing as char and mum result
parameters heavy tars

ER: 0.14, 0.21, 0.42

BT: 950

GT: gasifier types, L: gasifier length, H: gasifier height, ID: gasifier internal diameter, BM: bed material, GA: gasifying agent, BT: bed temperature, F: feedstock, FR: feed rate,
FS: feedstock size, ER: equivalence ratio, SB: steam to biomass ratio, CCE: carbon conversion efficiency, na: data were not available.
Summary: The usage of steam as gasification agent was more effective in maximizing the yield of hydrogen when compared to air. The yield of hydrogen can be enhanced
with the presence of steam. Nonetheless, an excess amount of steam present in the gasifier can cause the system to lose a lot of energy in order to heat the steam, which is
not favorable for the production of energy. Too high of value of the ER can cause the gas quality to be less attractive due to an increase in the oxidation reactions that lead to
an increase in the production of CO2 and a decrease in the production of combustible gases.

gasification at 800 °C and an equivalent ratio of 0.27 using SBs of 0,
0.5, 1, and 1.5. The H2 gas composition increased significantly from
13.50 vol% to 18.56 vol% when the SB was increased from 0 to 1.
However, it started to decrease when the SB ratio was further
increased from 1 to 1.5. The SB value of 1 also produced the highest
value of the total gas yield. The lowest LHV value was obtained
using an SB of 1.5. Meanwhile, for an air gasification process, the
equivalence ratio (ER) may affect the quality of the syngas that is
produced. In the research conducted by Ref. [38], the ER was
increased from 0.15 to 0.35, and as a result, the char and tar yields
were reduced from 13.65 to 2.12 wt% and 9.83 to 2.82 wt%,
respectively. The product gas LHV decreased slightly from 15.38 to
12.35 MJ/m3. The total gas yield increased and recorded its highest
value of 86.46 wt% at an ER of 0.35; the H2 concentration increased
to its maximum value of 27.42 vol% at an ER of 0.25 and started to
decrease when the ER was increased from 0.25 to 0.35. For other
gases, the CO2 gas increased significantly while the yields of CH4
and CO gas decreased. In another research conducted by Ref. [51],
when the ER was increased from 0.14 to 0.42, the concentration of
char and tar slightly decreased. Meanwhile, the total gas yield
increased to a maximum value of 0.8 wt% at an ER of 0.21, but it
slightly decreased to 0.79 wt% at an ER of 0.42. Both the highest
value of the LHV and H2 gas composition was recorded at an ER of
0.21, and the lowest values were recorded at an ER of 0.42. With an
increase in the value of the ER, the CH4 and CO gas yields decreased,
but the CO2 gas yield increased and reached a maximum value at an
ER of 0.42.
According to Ref. [10], the yield of hydrogen could be enhanced
with the presence of steam. Based from these studies findings,
higher SB ratio generally contributed to higher total gas yields, H2
yield, and H2 composition. Higher SB ratio enhanced the steam
concentration, thus improve the steam reforming reactions (R3, R7,
and R8), which resulted in the increase of gas yield, hydrogen yield
and H2 and CO2 composition [27], but reduced the CO and CH4
composition [22]. This trend agrees well with Le Chatelier's prin-
ciple, which stated that, the reaction will shift to the side that would
counteract the change. Increasing SB ratio influences the reaction to
favor a direction that reduces the concentration of steam. Thus, the
high steam rate promotes the gasification and methane reforming
forward to produce more H2 and also pushes the water gas shift
reaction forward to give an upward trend of CO2.
Nonetheless, excessive steam quantity in the gasifier can cause
the system to lose a large amount of energy in order to heat up the
steam, which is not favorable for the production of energy [10]. An
excess amount of steam present in the gasifier also may lowered
reaction temperature and then produced the low gas quality [27].
Based from these studies findings, higher ER generally contributed
to lower char and tar yields, lower LHV, lower concentration of CO,
and higher concentration of CO2. According to Ref. [52], the ER
affects the gasification behavior in two opposite trends. As the ER
increases, the gas quality becomes less attractive due to an
increase in the oxidation reactions that lead to an increase in the
CO2 production and decrease in the production of combustible
gases. Too high of an ER can result in lower concentrations of H2
(R6) and CO with an increase in the CO2 concentration in the
output gas (R5) [38]. However, higher equivalence ratios also lead
to exothermic oxidation reactions that, at the same time, offer
more heat to the gasification process, which can optimize the
product quality to some extent (the destruction of tar) [52]. But,
when the ER value is too small, temperature in the gasifier is low,
which is unfavorable for further reactions of biomass gasification
gas [34]. Generally, ER value is an important parameter to deter-
mine the quality of gas produced from biomass gasification [34].
3.5. Effect of the bed material
There are several studies that have used sorbents to absorb the
CO2 gas that was produced from the gasification process. In the
experiment conducted by Ref. [36], the pine bark was gasified
using a calcium oxide to biomass molar ratio (CaO/B) of one, which
was determined theoretically using thermodynamic calculations.
The total gas yield, H2 gas composition, carbon conversion effi-
ciency and CO2 gas composition were 0.87 m3/kg, 60 vol%, 30.3%,
and 27.7 vol%, respectively, in the absence of the sorbent at a
gasification temperature of 600 °C. Using the same parameters but
with the presence of sorbent, the total gas yield, H2 gas compo-
sition, and carbon conversion efficiency increased and the CO2 gas
composition decreased, and the corresponding values were
1.42 m3/kg, 64.5 vol%, 55.6%, and 26.8 vol%, respectively. From
these results, it was concluded that the calcium oxide played a
dual role of the sorbent and the catalyst. In another study,
Hanaoka et al. [20] also used calcium oxide as the CO2 sorbent in
the steam gasification of Japanese oak. However, in contrast with
Ref. [36], Hanaoka et al. [20] studied the effects of the molar ratio
of CaO to the carbon in the biomass, ([Ca]/[C]). In the absence of
CaO, the product gas contained CO2. Conversely, in the presence of
CaO, ([Ca]/[C] ¼1, 2, and 4), no CO2 was detected in the product
gas. The H2 yield obtained using [Ca]/[C] ¼0, 1, 2, and 4 were 0.5,
0.7, 0.8, and 0.55 m3kg, respectively. At a [Ca]/[C] of 2, the max-
imum yield of H2 was obtained. One of the major issues in biomass
gasification is the problem of the formation of tar during the
process. Tar is a complex mixture of condensable hydrogen com-
pounds that are composed of single ring to up to five ring aromatic
compounds along with other oxygen-containing hydrocarbons
and complex poly aromatic hydrocarbons PAH [9]. Several studies
of the gasification also utilized catalyst particles for the purpose of
improving the hydrogen yield and the decomposition of tar [50].
According to Ref. [50], the most popular bed particle is sand, which
performs very well mechanically, as evidenced by its wide
industrial use in bubbling and circulating fluidized bed combus-
tion applications. However, sand does not play any active role in
biomass gasification. Conversely, a Ni catalyst, limestone, an
orthosilicate of iron and magnesium, etc., can meet the require-
ments of the mechanical activity and resistance [50]. According to
1342 A.A. Ahmad et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 1333–1347

Table 4
Effect of the bed material.

No. System configuration and Gas yield Gas composition Biomass remain- CCE (%) Gas LHV Conditions for the optimum Reference
operation parameters ing as char and result
heavy tars (wt%)

1 GT: batch-type reactor Without Without CaO: na Without na Using CaO [36]
CaO: H2, CH4,CO, CO2 (vol CaO: 30.3
F: pine bark Total gas: %): 60, 3.2, 9.1, 27.7 Using
BM: CaO reagent 0.87 m3/kg CaO: 55.6
as CO2sorbent CaO/B:1 Using CaO:
Total gas: Using CaO:
GA: steam 1.42 m3/kg H2, CH4, CO, CO2 (vol
BT: 600 °C %): 64.5, 2.8, 5.9, 26.8
2 GT: batch reactor (autoclave) H2: 0.5– na na na na [Ca]/[C]: 2 (highest H2 yield) [20]
F: Japanese oak 0.8 m3/kg
BM: Ca(OH)2 powder as
CO2sorbent
[Ca]/[C]: 0, 1, 2, 4
GA: steam
BT: 650 °C
3 GT: fixed bed Total gas: H2: 55.4–68.3 mol% Char: 4.4–6.4 na na Catalyst loading: 0.8 wt% [59]
ID: 10.5 mm 0.91–1.3 m3/ (highest H2 content and low-
L: 500 mm kg CO: 20.2–36.9 mol% est char content)
F: glycerol
FS: 0.20–0.35 mm CH4: 2.4–5.9 mol%
BM: silicon carbide and CO2: 1.9–7.7 mol%
Ni/Al2O3catalyst
Catalyst loading: 0–0.8 wt%
GA: steam
BT: 800 °C
4 GT: fluidized bed Total gas: H2: 3.2–9.1 mol% na CCE: 59.5– na C/B: 1.5:1 (maximum H2 con- [62]
H: 2000 mm 1.9–2.1 Nm3/ 80.1 tent, Highest LHV, and highest
ID: 50 mm kg CO: 21.4–31.7 mol% CCE)
F: bamboo
FS: between 0.10 and
0.25 mm
FR: 0.6 kg/h
BM: silica sand and cal-
cined dolomite as catalyst
CB: (0:1, 1:1, and 1.5:1)
GA: air
ER: 0.4
T: 400–600 °C
5 GT: fixed bed Total gas: H2: 36.5–53.6 vol% Tar yield: 0.28– na 10.20– BM: newly developed tri- [27]
ID: 88 mm (catalytic 1.21– CO: 12.7–25.8 vol% 37.8 g/Nm3 12.72 MJ/ metallic catalyst (maximum
reactor) 2.11 m3/kg Nm3 gas yield, maximum H2 yield,
H: 1200 mm (catalytic H2: 0.442– CH4: 4.4–10.2 vol% and optimum gas
reactor) 1.131 m3/kg composition)
F: palm oil wastes (shell, CO2: 20.9–26.6 vol%
fiber, and EFB) C2 hydrocarbons:
FR: 0.3–1 kg/h 0.4–2.4 vol% BM: calcined dolomite
FS: 0.15–2 mm (highest LHV)
BM: no catalyst, calci-
neddolomite,nano-
NiLaFe/γ-Al2O3
GA: steam;
SB: 1.33
BT: 800 °C

GT: gasifier types, L: gasifier length, H: gasifier height, ID: gasifier internal diameter, BM: bed material, GA: gasifying agent, BT: bed temperature, F: feedstock, FR: feed rate,
FS: feedstock size, ER: equivalence ratio, SB: steam to biomass ratio, CCE: carbon conversion efficiency, CB: catalyst to biomass ratio, [Ca]/[C]: CaO to carbon in the biomass
molar ratio, na: data were not available.
Summary: Sand does not play an active role in biomass gasification. Calcium oxide played a dual role of the sorbent and the catalyst,and the total gas yield, H2 gas
composition, and carbon conversion efficiency increased with the presence of calcium oxide. Various catalysts were used as bed materials, such as a Ni-based catalyst and
calcined dolomite, which enhanced the tar reforming reaction and which decreased the tar yield and increased the total gas yield.

Ref. [63], Ni-based catalysts have been reported as one of the most
promising catalysts, and they are effective and comparatively
cheaper compared with other noble metal catalysts. In the
research conducted by Ref. [59], glycerol was gasified in a fixed
bed reactor in the presence of a Ni/Al2O3 catalyst. From their
results, it was determined that by varying the catalyst loading
from 0 to 0.8 wt%, the composition of H2 gas increased steadily
from 55.4 mol% to 68.3 mol%. In another study conducted by Ref.
[62], calcined dolomite was used as the catalyst, and the catalyst to
biomass ratios (CB) of 0:1, 1:1, and 1.5:1 were studied. With an
increase in the temperature and the CB, the yields of H2 and CO
increased while the yields of CH4 and CO2 slightly decreased. The
value of the LHV, the carbon conversion efficiency, and the gas
yield were improved due to the increase in the H2, CO, and CH4
concentrations. The use of a catalyst also enhanced the tar
reforming reaction, which decreased the tar yield. In the research
conducted by Ref. [27], a new type of tri-metallic catalyst (nano-
NiLaFe/γ-Al2O3) was developed. The effects of this new type of
 A.A. Ahmad et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 1333–1347 1343

catalyst were compared with calcined dolomite and not using any
catalyst. As shown in Table 4, the lowest gas yield of 1.21 m3/kg
and the highest tar yield of 37.8 g/Nm3 were achieved in the
absence of a catalyst. However, when a catalyst was used, the gas
yield started to increase and the tar yield decreased. The highest
gas yield of 2.11 m3/kg and the lowest tar yield of 0.28 g/Nm3 were
achieved using the nano-NiLaFe/γ-Al2O3 catalyst. Comparing the
studies with and without catalysts, the concentration of hydrogen
was improved and was able to achieve a value of 53.6 vol% using
the newly developed catalyst. Also with the utilization of a cata-
lyst, the CO2 concentration markedly decreased, and the lowest
concentration of CO2 was recorded in the process with the newly
developed catalyst. In the presence of a catalyst, a decrease in the
concentration of the CO2 was achieved because a majority of the
CH4 and C2 hydrocarbons were converted. Table 4, as shown
below, lists several investigations that utilized different types of
bed materials.
From these findings, it can be concluded that, the presence of
calcium oxide and catalyst in the gasification process can decrease
the tar yield and increase the total gas yield, H2 gas composition,
and carbon conversion efficiency. The absorption of CO2 by cal-
cium oxide is strongly dependent on the partial pressure of CO2 in
the product stream at the specified gasification temperature.
When the equilibrium temperature corresponding to the CO2
partial pressure is higher than the gasification temperature, CO2 is
absorbed and the sorbent gets converted to CaCO3. But when the
equilibrium temperature corresponding to the CO2 partial pressure
is lower than the gasification temperature, CaCO3 desorbs to
produce the original CaO. The water–gas shift reaction (R7) being
driven in favor of hydrogen in presence of CaO, thus increased the
hydrogen yield. Calcium oxide played a dual role of a sorbent and a
catalyst, as the tars and the hydrocarbons are reformed in pre-
sence of CaO, thereby producing additional hydrogen [36]. A cat-
alyst can increase the gas yields due to the secondary cracking of
tar in vapor and of hydrocarbons such as CH4 and CnHm in gaseous
products to generate valuable gases [27]. Besides tar cracking, the
tar reforming reactions also increased with presence of catalyst
which resulted in increased H2 content.
Plus simulation model of the gasification system in bubbling
fluidized bed using air as the fluidization medium and several
different biomasses (olive kernels, corn cobs, and sunflower,
rapeseed, and corn stalks) as the feedstock. According to the stu-
dies conducted by a few different researchers, several assumptions
were considered in the modeling the gasification process, as
follows:
(i) The processes were considered to be steady state and iso-
thermal processes [39].
(ii) Instantaneous biomass devolatilization with the volatile pro-
ducts mainly consisted of H2, CO, CO2, CH4, and H2O [39].
(iii) Within the emulsion phase, all of the of the gases were uni-
formly distributed [39].
(iv) Particles were spherical in nature with a uniform size and that
the average diameter remained constant during the gasification.
This assumption was based on the shrinking core model [39].
(v) Char only consisted of carbon and ash [39].
(vi) Sulfur and nitrogen reactions were not considered [12].
(vii) In the gas cleaning units, suspended solids were separated
from the synthesis gas (syngas). Therefore, no solids were
assumed to be present in any of the downstream units. This
was a simplification of the model because only two fluid
phases, liquid and vapor, were considered [44].
(viii) All of the considered solid species, such as the raw materials,
ashes and char, were treated as Hypo -Components in Aspen
Hysys and were defined using their ultimate analysis and
their heats of formation [44].
Generally, biomass gasification undergoes the following steps
in a fluidized bed: (1) the biomass particle decomposes quickly to
form char, tar and gaseous products; (2) reactions between the
gaseous products; and (3) tar cracking and char gasification [30].
Table 6 indicates the reactions involved during the gasification
process [14].
Normally, four reactors are needed in a typical production of
synthesis gas. In the research conducted by Ref. [60], five reactors
were developed using the simulation model in Hysys; this set-up

Table 6
List of reactions in the gasification process [14].
4. Simulation of the gasification process
Reaction Heat of Reaction name Reaction
Experiments, especially on larger scales, are often expensive reactiona number
and complicated; modeling or simulation can save time and
money and it can support the preparation and optimization of Heterogeneous reactions:
C þ0.5O2 ¼CO  111 MJ/ Char partial R1
experiments to be undertaken in real systems [19]. There has been kmol combustion
some research that has been conducted on developing simulations C þCO222CO þ 172 MJ/ Boudouard R2
for the gasification systems. Table 5, as seen below, lists several kmol
studies that have used different types of simulation programs. For C þH2O2COþ H2 þ 131 MJ/ Water–gas R3
kmol
example, in the research conducted by Ref. [42], the simulation of
C þ2H22CH4  75 MJ/kmol Methanation R4
a fluidized bed gasifier using silica sand as the bed material was
developed using Aspen Plus and rice husk was used as the feed-
Homogenous reactions:
stock. In another study, Damartzis et al. [12] developed an Aspen
COþ 0.5O2 ¼ CO2  283 MJ/ CO partial R5
kmol combustion
Table 5 H2 þ 0.5O2 ¼ H2O  242 MJ/ H2 partial R6
Different types of the simulations used in modeling the gasification process. kmol combustion
CO þ H2O2CO2 þ H2  41 MJ/kmol CO shift R7
Types of gasification system Simulation software Reference CH4 þ H2O2COþ 3H2 þ 206 MJ/ Steam-methane R8
kmol reforming
Fluidized bed gasifier Aspen Plus [42]
Fluidized bed gasifier Aspen Plus [12]
Fluidized bed gasifier Aspen Plus [39] Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and ammonia (NH3) formation reactions:
Pressurized entrained flow gasifier Aspen Hysys and Aspen Plus [44] H2 þ S¼ H2S nrb H2S formation R9
Membrane gasifier Aspen Hysys [16] 0.5N2 þ1.5H22NH3 nr NH3 formation R10
GTI proprietary gasifier model Aspen Hysys [17]
a
Fluidized bed gasifier Aspen Plus [14] Negative sign indicates an exothermic reaction and positive sign indicates an
Fluidized bed gasifier Aspen Plus [40] endothermic reaction.
b
nr ¼ not reported.
1344 A.A. Ahmad et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 1333–1347
was chosen because the conversion and equilibrium reactions
could not be placed in the same reaction chain and therefore could
not be placed in the same reactor. The combustor reactor was
separated into a conversion reactor and an equilibrium reactor
[60]. In the Aspen Plus simulation model developed by Ref. [39],
they considered the different stages to show the overall gasifica-
tion process, which were (i) decomposition of the feed, (ii) volatile
reactions, (iii) char gasification and (iv) gas–solid separation. The
Aspen Plus yield reactor, RYIELD, was used to simulate the
decomposition of the biomass feed into carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
sulfur, nitrogen, and ash according to the biomass ultimate ana-
lysis. For the volatile reaction stage, the Aspen Plus Gibbs reactor,
RGIBBS, was used with the assumption that volatile reactions
followed the Gibbs equilibrium. Meanwhile, the Aspen Plus CSTR
reactor, RCSTR, was used to model the char gasification by using
reaction kinetics [44]. The modeling of the gaseous behavior in
this gasification system was achieved by using the Peng–Robinson
equation of state [12,40]. Meanwhile, Ref. [16] developed an Aspen
Hysys simulation model to study the gasification of three different
biomasses (bagasse, switchgrass, and a nutshell mix). The scaling
factor of 1 was used to determine the hydrogen production from
an increased feed rate (i.e., doubling the feed rate will double the
amount of hydrogen produced) [17]. In the Hysys simulation
model developed by Doong and Lau [16], switchgrass was used as
the feedstock and the gasifier was simulated as a Gibbs reactor by
minimizing the overall free energy of the outlet stream. The
switchgrass ultimate analysis result was used in the simulation
calculation, which involved carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and the
other components were ignored [16].
4.1. Modeling of the biomass gasification
The modeling of the biomass gasification is important in order
to study the influence of process parameters, such as the biomass
particle mean diameter, the air flow velocity, the gasifier geo-
metry, the composition and inlet temperature of the gasifying
agent and the biomass type, on the process propagation velocity
(flame front velocity) and its efficiency [55]. Based on the different
mechanisms, biomass gasification models can be divided mainly
into two types: a kinetic model and an equilibrium model [30].
Some models have utilized the process simulator Aspen Plus and
have combined the thermodynamic and kinetic rate models [46].
Kinetic models are used to predict the progress and the product
compositions at different positions along a reactor. Unlike kinetic
models, the equilibrium models are used to predict the maximum
achievable yield of a desired product from a reacting system. They
can also be utilized as a useful design aid in the determination of
the possible behavior of a complex reacting system that is difficult
or unsafe to reproduce experimentally or in commercial opera-
tions [28,29]. The equilibrium model is known as a zero dimen-
sional model, i.e., a space independent model, and is helpful in
identifying the maximum possible conversion of biomass and the
theoretical efficiency [1]. However, the equilibrium model cannot
be used for reactor analysis and design because it can only predict
the end-reaction product distribution and cannot describe the
instantaneous product distribution along with the geometric
dimensions [30]. Equilibrium modeling consists of two approa-
ches: stoichiometric and non-stoichiometric [1]. The stoichio-
metric model requires a clearly defined reaction mechanism that
incorporates all of the chemical reactions and species involved
[46]. This makes this method unsuitable for complex problems
where the chemical formulas of the feed or the reaction equations
are not well known [1]. In contrast, non-stoichiometric models
require no particular reaction mechanisms or species in the
numerical simulation. To specify the feed, the only input needed is
its elemental composition that can be obtained from the ultimate
Table 7
Types of the model used in the simulation programs.
Simulation program Types of model used References
Aspen Hysys Equilibrium model [6]
Aspen Plus Equilibrium model [14]
Aspen Plus Equilibrium model [47]
Aspen Plus Kinetic model [12]
Aspen Hysys Equilibrium model [4]
Aspen Plus Kinetic model [7]
analysis data [46]. According to Ref. [46], the stoichiometric model
was based on selecting those species that are present in the largest
amounts, i.e., those with the lowest value of the free energy of
formation. Meanwhile, the non-stoichiometric equilibrium model
was based on minimizing Gibbs the free energy in the system wit-
hout specifying the possible reactions taking place.
Table 7 lists several studies using the different model types. Bas-
syouni et al. [6] modeled the date palm waste air–steam gasification in
a downdraft gasification unit using a steady state equilibrium model in
Aspen Hysys. In this model, tars were considered to be non-
equilibrium products in order to simplify the hydrodynamics. The
combustion of char and the volatiles in the combustion zone were
modeled with equilibrium and Gibbs reactor models, respectively. The
gasification zone was modeled with a Gibbs and an equilibrium
reactor. In Aspen Hysys, all of the gasification reactions were modeled
as equilibrium reactions except for the oxidation reactions of carbon,
which were modeled as conversion reactions. Doherty et al. [14]
developed a process model for the biomass gasification in a circulating
fluidized bed gasifier using Aspen Plus. The model was based on the
minimization of Gibbs free energy. RGIBBS reactors allowed restricted
equilibrium specifications for systems that did not reach complete
equilibrium. Ramzan et al. [47] modeled a kinetic free equilibrium
model for the gasification process using Aspen Plus. The partial oxi-
dation and gasification reactions were modeled in an Aspen Plus
Gibbs free energy reactor. The Gibbs reactor calculated the three phase
equilibrium and syngas composition by the minimization of Gibbs free
energy. Tars and other heavy products were assumed to be non-
equilibrium products in order to reduce the complexity of the
hydrodynamics. Damartzis et al. [12] developed a process model for
biomass air gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed using the Aspen
Plus simulator. The model was based on mass and energy balances
and the reaction kinetics. In this model, instantaneous devolatilization
was assumed, which neglected the need for the pyrolysis kinetics. The
tar produced from the pyrolysis process was assumed to be a mixture
of three aromatic components, namely benzene, toluene and naph-
thalene, for the facilitation of the development of the Aspen Plus
simulation model. The tar components were quantitatively deter-
mined by assuming a 20% w/w conversion of the original biomass to
tar and a composition of 60%, 20% and 20% for benzene, toluene and
naphthalene, respectively. The modeling of the formation of the
volatile gases was performed using an A RGIBBS reactor block in the
Aspen Plus by considering the fact that they followed chemical equi-
librium. Alshammari and Hellgardt [4] modeled the gasification of
hexadecane using the Peng Robinson equation of state and the direct
minimization of Gibbs free energy in the Aspen Hysys software. This
Gibbs method determined the equilibrium number of moles of the
reaction components at which the Gibbs free energy of a system was
minimized. Using this method, Aspen Hysys provided two utilities for
modeling the reactions at equilibrium, which are the Gibbs reactor
and the Equilibrium reactor. In contrast with the Gibbs reactor, which
required that the reaction components were specified, the Equilibrium
reactor required the correct stoichiometric data to be specified. These
Equilibrium and Gibbs reactors were referred to as stoichiometric and
non-stoichiometric methods, respectively. Begum et al. [7] developed
a process model for solid waste (wood) gasification in a fluidized bed
 A.A. Ahmad et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 1333–1347
using the Aspen Plus simulator. In this study, both reaction kinetic
parameters and bed hydrodynamic conditions were considered in
modeling the process. The gasification of char was modeled in a
continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) in Aspen Plus. The reaction
kinetics were included in the simulation using FORTRAN and Excel
code in the CALCULATOR block. The gasifier was divided into bed and
freeboard regions using hydrodynamic parameters, where each region
was simulated by one RCSTR reactor. Each RCSTR was then divided
into a series of CSTR reactors with the same volume.
5. Optimization of the gasification process
Optimization can be employed to find the optimal conditions
and/or the geometric parameters that give the extremes of selec-
ted objective functions in the frame of previously defined con-
straints. The objective of an optimization problem can also be the
maximum product yield or purity, maximum profit, minimum
production time, the best process configuration that yields the
maximum operating efficiency, the best combination of raw
materials that generate maximum profit, or the lowest carbon
emission while fulfilling the demand [2].
The literature that focused on the optimization of biomass
gasification for the production of syngas was quite limited. Table 8,
as shown below, lists some of the studies for the optimization of
the gasification. Buragohain et al. [8] reported the optimizations of
the biomass gasification process for the decentralized power
generation and Fischer–Tropsch (FT) synthesis (a process for the
manufacture of synthetic gasoline and diesel) using FACTSAGE
software FACTSAGE. They determined that the optimum range of
the operating conditions for the gasifier for the FT synthesis were:
Air Ratio (AR) ¼0.2–0.4, temperature (T) ¼800–1000 °C, and the
utilization of air as the gasification medium. The optimum ranges
of the operating conditions for the decentralized power generation
were as follows: AR ¼0.3–0.4, temperature¼ 700–800 °C, and the
utilization of air as the gasification medium. Inayat et al. [23]
performed an analysis of the heat integration of the gasification
process for the production of hydrogen from EFB; they also con-
ducted an optimization study for the minimization of the cost of
the production of hydrogen using a MATLAB optimization solver
named fmincon. The minimum production cost of RM of 5.77/kg
H2 was obtained at 1150 K, a steam/biomass ratio of 4 and a sor-
bent/biomass ratio of 0.87. It was also determined that the
hydrogen yield and purity at the optimal condition were
0.0179 kg/h and 79.91 mol%, respectively. Lee et al. [26] used the
LINGOv10 software for the optimization of the gasification process
Table 8
Optimization studies of the gasification.
Optimization software/method
FACTSAGE
MATLAB
LINGOv10
Response surface methodology
Response surface methodology (the expert design-8 software)
AR: Air ratio; T: temperature; SB: steam to biomass ratio.
1345
using waste from the pulp and paper industry. From this research,
they determined that 6700 kg steam/ton pulp was produced with
an energy consumption of 5.5 GJ/ton pulp. Chattanathan et al. [11]
used a response surface methodology as a statistical tool for the
optimization of the conversion of CH4. The maximum CH4 con-
version and the minimum coke formation were achieved at a
temperature of 800 °C, a CO2:CH4 ratio of 1:1 and a CH4:steam
ratio of 1:1. Yusup et al. [66] used The Expert Design-8 software in
the investigation of the optimization of the production of hydro-
gen with in-situ catalytic adsorption (ICA) steam gasification in a
pilot-scale fluidized bed gasifier. The optimization study was
conducted based on the Response Surface Methodology (RSM)
using the Central Composite Rotatable Design (CCRD) approach.
Using this approach, the optimum values (H2 composition and
yield of 82.11% and 80.39 g/kg of biomass, respectively) were
determined to be a temperature 675 °C, a steam to biomass mass
ratio of 2.0, an adsorbent to biomass mass ratio of 1.0, a superficial
velocity of 0.21 m/s which was equivalent to 4 times the minimum
fluidization velocity, and a biomass particle size of 1.0–2.0 mm.
6. Economic evaluation of the H2 gas production
An economic evaluation of the costs and efficiencies is impor-
tant for the implementation of the different scales and technolo-
gies of the various gasification processes [65]. The Gas Technology
Institute [17], who developed the Aspen Hysys simulation model
for the production of hydrogen, used the following rules in the
scaling of costs in order to be able to adjust to desired size: a
power law scaling of 0.7 for the handling of solids, the gasification,
the gas cleaning, the shifting, and the purification systems and
0.8 for the power, steam, the balance of plant, the general facilities,
the and overall combined cycle system scaling. Drying and steam
turbine components were scaled at a 0.6 power law. Table 9 shows
the hydrogen production rates and the resulting economic eva-
luations from their analysis. This H2 production cost includes
feeding, gasifying, cleaning, reforming, shifting, and purifying
using Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) to produce hydrogen gas
with purity higher than 99.9% [17].
Table 10 lists the hydrogen production costs of the previous
studies on the biomass gasification. In the study conducted by Ref.
[38], with regards to the capital cost and operating parameter data,
the H2 gas production from the empty fruit bunch using a fluidized
bed gasifier was calculated to be 2.11 USD/kg. The capital cost in
this research included the furnace, fluidized bed gasifier, and the
construction expenditure. Lv et al. [33] conducted a biomass
Optimum condition Reference
AR: 0.2–0.4, T: 800–1000 °C (for FT synthesis) [8]
AR: 0.3–0.4, T: 700–800 °C (for decentralized power generation)
Minimum production cost: [23]
RM 5.77/kg H2
T: 1150 K
SB: 4
Sorbent/biomass ratio: 0.87
6700 kg steam/ton pulp produced with energy consumption of 5.5 GJ/ton pulp. [26]
Maximum CH4 conversion and minimum coke formation; [11]
T: 800 °C
CO2:CH4 ratio: 1:1
CH4:steam ratio: 1:1
H2 composition and yield of 82.11% and 80.39 g/kg of biomass, respectively T: 675 °C [66]
SB: 2.0
Adsorbent to biomass mass ratio: 1.0 superficial velocity: 0.21 m/s
1346 A.A. Ahmad et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 1333–1347
Table 9
Economic results for the gasification of a biomass feedstock [17].
Feedstock Gasifier feed rate Hydrogen Produced
Dry tonnes/day Tonnes/day
Bagasse 400 13.2
800 62.5
1600 125
Switchgrass 440 37.0
880 74.0
1760 148
Nutshell mix 438 38.7
Table 10
Hydrogen production costs in previous studies.
Process H2 production
cost
Empty fruit bunch gasification in fluidized 2.11 USD/kg
bed
Biomass gasification in a downdraft gasifi- 1.69 USD/kg
cation and a downstream CO-shift reac-
tion in a fixed bed
Biomass steam gasification in fluidized bed 1.91 USD/kg
Supercritical water partial oxidation 0.35 USD/kg
Electrolysed hydrogen 10 USD/kg
gasification in a downdraft gasifier with a downstream CO-shift
reaction in a fixed bed. For this system, the calculated H2 product
cost was 1.69 USD/kg. Inayat et al. [23] designed a heat integrated
flowsheet for the production of hydrogen from oil palm empty
fruit bunch (EFB) via a steam gasification in a fluidized bed with
in-situ CO2 capture. The minimum production cost of 1.91 USD/kg
was obtained at a temperature of 1150 K, a steam/biomass ratio of
4 and a sorbent/biomass ratio of 0.87. Hong and Spritzer [21]
developed a Supercritical Water Partial Oxidation (SWPO), gasifi-
cation process involving oxidative reactions in a supercritical
water environment – akin to high pressure steam – in the pre-
sence of substoichiometric quantities of the oxidant. They esti-
mated the cost of the hydrogen produced by this method to be
approximately 0.35 USD/kg. In another study, according to Ref.
[24], the cost for the production of electrolysed hydrogen,
including the capital and operational costs, was 10 USD/kg.
7. Conclusions and outlook
The production of syngas from the gasification technology
offers an opportunity to convert a renewable biomass feedstock
into a clean fuel gas with a higher yield. Modeling and simulation
of the biomass gasification are the important preliminary studies
to predict the effect of process parameters in biomass gasification.
Aspen Plus and Aspen Hysys are among the tools that can be used
to model the biomass gasification based on the application of
kinetic model or equilibrium model. From the previous simulation
and experimental data, it can be concluded that, reaction tem-
perature, ER value and the presence of catalyst are the most
important parameter in gasification process that significantly
determine the gasification performance and the quality of total gas
produced. Meanwhile, the biomass particle size is found to be the
least significant parameter in gasification.
Since gasification process requires a significant amount of
energy, optimization study can be employed to seek for the opti-
mum conditions of gasification process. Among the useful tools
reported for optimization are FACTSAGE, MATLAB, LINGOv10 and
Design Expert. This paper also discussed and compared the
Feedstock cost Capital cost H2cost (15% IRR)
Nm3/day US $/GJ US$ million US$/GJ
347,000 1.50 37.0 10.23
695,000 1.50 61.1 8.74
1,390,000 1.50 100.9 7.67
412,000 1.50 36.5 8.76
824,000 1.50 60.6 7.54
1,648,000 1.50 100.9 6.67
488,000 1.50 36.3 8.26
production costs of hydrogen from different processes. The
hydrogen production cost from gasification process is dependent
on the gasifier design and the process parameters that were uti-
References
lized. The biomass gasification process for hydrogen production
appears to be among the most economic process after supercritical
[38] water partial oxidation. Thus, the hydrogen production from bio-
mass gasification has a high potential to be further developed as
[33]
an alternative to the current hydrogen production process.
[23]
[21] Acknowledgments
[24]
The financial support from the Exploratory Research Grant
Scheme, Acc no. 9010-00033 from the MOHE (Ministry of Higher
Education) of Malaysia through the School of Bioprocess Engi-
neering, Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP) with the assistance of
the Research Management Centre (RMC) was greatly appreciated.
References
[1] Acharya B, Dutta A, Basu P. An investigation into steam gasification of biomass
for hydrogen enriched gas production in presence of CaO. Int J Hydrog Energy
2010;35(4):1582–9.
[2] Ahmed TY, Ahmad MM, Yusup S, Inayat A, Khan Z. Mathematical and com-
putational approaches for design of biomass gasification for hydrogen pro-
duction: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(4):2304–15.
[3] Alauddin ZABZ, Lahijani P, Mohammadi M, Mohamed AR. Gasification of lig-
nocellulosic biomass in fluidized beds for renewable energy development: a
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14(9):2852–62.
[4] Alshammari YM, Hellgardt K. Thermodynamic analysis of hydrogen produc-
tion via hydrothermal gasification of hexadecane. Int J Hydrog Energy 2012;37
(7):5656–64.
[5] Asadullah M, Ito S, Kunimori K, Yamada M, Tomishige K. Biomass gasification
to hydrogen and syngas at low temperature: novel catalytic system using
fluidized-bed reactor. J Catal 2002;208(2):255–9.
[6] Bassyouni M, ul Hasan SW, Abdel-Aziz MH, Abdel-hamid SM-S, Naveed S,
Hussain A, et al. Date palm waste gasification in downdraft gasifier and
simulation using ASPEN HYSYS. Energy Convers Manag 2014;88:693–9.
[7] Begum S, Rasul M, Akbar D, Cork D. An experimental and numerical investi-
gation of fluidized bed gasification of solid waste. Energies 2013;7(1):43–61.
[8] Buragohain B, Mahanta P, Moholkar VS. Thermodynamic optimization of
biomass gasification for decentralized power generation and Fischer–Tropsch
synthesis. Energy 2010;35(6):2557–79.
[9] Chaiprasert P, Vitidsant T. Effects of promoters on biomass gasification using
nickel/dolomite catalyst. Korean J Chem Eng 2010;26(6):1545–9.
[10] Chang ACC, Chang H-F, Lin F-J, Lin K-H, Chen C-H. Biomass gasification for
hydrogen production. Int J Hydrog Energy 2011;36(21):14252–60.
[11] Chattanathan SA, Adhikari S, Taylor S. Conversion of carbon dioxide and
methane in biomass synthesis gas for liquid fuels production. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2012;37(23):18031–9.
[12] Damartzis TH, Michailos S, Zabaniotou A. Energetic assessment of a combined
heat and power integrated biomass gasification – internal combustion engine
system by using Aspen Plus. Fuel Process Technol 2012;95:37–44.
[13] Demirbaş A. Biomass resource facilities and biomass conversion processing for
fuels and chemicals. Energy Convers Manag 2001;42(11):1357–78.
[14] Doherty W, Reynolds A, Kennedy D. The effect of air preheating in a biomass
CFB gasifier using ASPEN Plus simulation. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33
(9):1158–67.
[15] Erakhrumen AA. Biomass gasification: documented information for adoption/
adaptation and further improvements toward sustainable utilisation of
renewable natural resources. Renew Energy 2012;2012:1–8.
 A.A. Ahmad et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 1333–1347
[16] Doong SJ, Lau F. Novel membrane gasifier for hydrogen production from bio-
mass – Thermodynamic analysis. Gas Technology Institute (Des Plaines).
[17] Bowen DA, Lau F, Zabransky R, Remick R, Slimane R, Doong S. Techno-eco-
nomic analysis of hydrogen production by gasification of biomass. Des Plaines:
Gas Technology Institute; 2003.
[18] Gil J, Corella J, Aznar MP, Caballero MA. Biomass gasification in atmospheric
and bubbling fluidized bed: Effect of the type of gasifying agent on the product
distribution. Biomass Bioenergy 1999;17(5):389–403.
[19] Gómez-Barea A, Leckner B. Modeling of biomass gasification in fluidized bed.
Prog Energy Combust Sci 2010;36(4):444–509.
[20] Hanaoka T, Yoshida T, Fujimoto S, Kamei K, Harada M, Suzuki Y, et al.
Hydrogen production from woody biomass by steam gasification using a CO2
sorbent. Biomass Bioenergy 2005;28(1):63–8.
[21] Hong GT, Spritzer MH. Proceedings of the 2002 US DOE hydrogen program
review NREL/CP-610-32405. Supercrit Water Part Oxid 2002;1:18.
[22] Inayat A, Ahmad MM, Mutalib MIA, Yusup S. Biomass steam gasification with
in-situ CO2 capture for enriched hydrogen gas production: a reaction kinetics
modelling approach. Energies 2010;3:1472–84.
[23] Inayat A, Ahmad MM, Mutalib MIA, Yusup S. Heat integration analysis of
gasification process for hydrogen production from oil palm empty fruit bunch.
Chem Eng Trans 2011;25:971–6.
[24] Iwasaki W. A consideration of the economic efficiency of hydrogen production
from biomass. Int J Hydrog Energy 2003;28(9):939–44.
[25] Jansen RA. Second generation biofuels and biomass: essential guide for
investors, scientists and decision makers. Weinheim: John Wiley & Sons; 2012.
[26] Lee SH, Ng RTL, Ng DKS, Foo DCY, Chew IML. Optimization of a Gasification-
Based Integrated Biorefinery for Pulp and Paper Industry. In: Proceedings from
the 6th international conference on process systems engineering (PSE ASIA).
Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Uni (Kuala Lumpur); 2013.
[27] Li J, Yin Y, Zhang X, Liu J, Yan R. Hydrogen-rich gas production by steam
gasification of palm oil wastes over supported tri-metallic catalyst. Int J
Hydrog Energy 2009;34(22):9108–15.
[28] Li S, Xu S, Liu S, Yang C, Lu Q. Fast pyrolysis of biomass in free-fall reactor for
hydrogen-rich gas. Fuel Process Technol 2004;85(8–10):1201–11.
[29] Li XT, Grace JR, Lim CJ, Watkinson AP, Chen HP, Kim JR. Biomass gasification in
a circulating fluidized bed. Biomass Bioenergy 2004;26(2):171–93.
[30] Lü P, Kong X, Wu C, Yuan Z, Ma L, Chang J. Modeling and simulation of bio-
mass air-steam gasification in a fluidized bed. Front Chem Eng China 2008;2
(2):209–13.
[31] Luo S, Xiao B, Guo X, Hu Z, Liu S, He M. Hydrogen-rich gas from catalytic steam
gasification of biomass in a fixed bed reactor: influence of particle size on
gasification performance. Int J Hydrog Energy 2009;34(3):1260–4.
[32] Lv PM, Xiong ZH, Chang J, Wu CZ, Chen Y, Zhu JX. An experimental study on
biomass air–steam gasification in a fluidized bed. Bioresour Technol 2004;95
(1):95–101.
[33] Lv P, Wu C, Ma L, Yuan Z. A study on the economic efficiency of hydrogen pro-
duction from biomass residues in China. Renew Energy 2008;33(8):1874–9.
[34] Lv P, Yuan Z, Ma L, Wu C, Chen Y, Zhu J. Hydrogen-rich gas production from
biomass air and oxygen/steam gasification in a downdraft gasifier. Renew
Energy 2007;32(13):2173–85.
[35] Lv P, Yuan Z, Wu C, Ma L, Chen Y, Tsubaki N. Bio-syngas production from
biomass catalytic gasification. Energy Convers Manag 2007;48(4):1132–9.
[36] Mahishi MR, Goswami DY. An experimental study of hydrogen production by
gasification of biomass in the presence of a CO2 sorbent. Int J Hydrog Energy
2007;32(14):2803–8.
[37] McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass.
Bioresour Technol 2002;83(1):37–46.
[38] Mohammed MAA, Salmiaton A, Wan Azlina WAKG, Mohammad Amran MS,
Fakhru’l-Razi A. Air gasification of empty fruit bunch for hydrogen-rich gas
production in a fluidized-bed reactor. Energy Convers Manag 2011;52
(2):1555–61.
[39] Nikoo MB, Mahinpey N. Simulation of biomass gasification in fluidized bed
reactor using Aspen Plus. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32(12):1245–54.
[40] Nooruddin O. Simulation and optimization of IGCC technique for power
generation and hydrogen production by using lignite Thar coal and cotton
stalk (Master's thesis). Finland: Lappeenranta University of Technology,
Faculty of Technology; 2011.
[41] Ollhoff J. Geothermal, biomass, and hydrogen. Minnesota: Abdo Publishing
Company; 2010.
[42] Panda C. Aspen Plus simulation and experimental studies on biomass gasifi-
cation (Bachelor's degree thesis). Rourkela, India: National Institute of Tech-
nology, Department of Chemical Engineering; 2012.
1347
[43] Paula A, Peres G, Lunelli BH, Fllho RM. Application of biomass to hydrogen and
syngas production. Ital Assoc Chem Eng 2013;32:589–94.
[44] Pérez-Fortes M, Bojarski A, Ferrer-Nadal S, Kopanos GM, Nougués JM, Velo E,
et al. Enhanced modeling and integrated simulation of gasification and pur-
ification gas units targeted to clean power production. Comput Aided Chem
Eng 2008;25:793–8.
[45] Pfeifer C, Koppatz S, Hofbauer H. Steam gasification of various feedstocks at a
dual fluidised bed gasifier: impacts of operation conditions and bed materials.
Biomass Convers Biorefin 2011;1(1):39–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s13399-011-0007-1.
[46] Puig-Arnavat M, Bruno JC, Coronas A. Review and analysis of biomass gasifi-
cation models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14(9):2841–51.
[47] Ramzan N, Ashraf A, Naveed S, Malik A. Simulation of hybrid biomass gasifi-
cation using Aspen plus: a comparative performance analysis for food,
municipal solid and poultry waste. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35(9):3962–9.
[48] Rapagnà S, Latif A. Steam gasification of almond shells in a fluidised bed
reactor: the influence of temperature and particle size on product yield and
distribution. Biomass Bioenergy 1997;12(4):281–8.
[49] Rostrup-Nielsen J, Christiansen LJ. Concepts of syngas manufacture. Covent
Garden: Imperial College Press; 2011.
[50] Shen L, Gao Y, Xiao J. Simulation of hydrogen production from biomass gasifi-
cation in interconnected fluidized beds. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32(2):120–7.
[51] Skoulou V, Swiderski A, Yang W, Zabaniotou A. Process characteristics and pro-
ducts of olive kernel high temperature steam gasification (HTSG). Bioresour
Technol 2009;100(8):2444–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11.021.
[52] Skoulou V, Zabaniotou A, Stavropoulos G, Sakelaropoulos G. Syngas produc-
tion from olive tree cuttings and olive kernels in a downdraft fixed-bed
gasifier. Int J Hydrog Energy 2008;33(4):1185–94.
[53] Srirangan K, Akawi L, Moo-Young M, Chou CP. Towards sustainable production of
clean energy carriers from biomass resources. Appl Energy 2012;100:172–86.
[54] Tilay A, Azargohar R, Gerspacher R, Dalai A, Kozinski J. Gasification of canola
meal and factors affecting gasification process. BioEnergy Res 2014;7:1131–43.
[55] Tinaut FV, Melgar A, Pérez 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):1076–89.
[56] U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory. Current
worldwide synthesis gas production. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.
gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasification-plant-databases/
current-world.
[57] Ciferno JP, Marano JJ. Benchmarking biomass gasification technologies for
fuels, chemicals and hydrogen production. U.S. Department of Energy National
Energy Technology Laboratory (Washington, DC); 2002.
[58] United States Biomass Energy Resource Centre. Carbon dioxide and biomass
energy. Vermont: United States Biomass Energy Resource Centre; 2007.
[59] Valliyappan T, Ferdous D, Bakhshi NN, Dalai AK. Production of hydrogen and
syngas via steam gasification of glycerol in a fixed-bed reactor. Top Catal
2008;49(1–2):59–67.
[60] Vladan SI, Isopencu G, Jinescu C, Mares MA. Process simulation to obtain a
synthesis gas with high concentration of hydrogen. UPB Sci Bull Ser B 2011;73
(1):29–36.
[61] Warnecke R. Gasification of biomass: comparison of fixed bed and fluidized
bed gasifier. Biomass Bioenergy 2000;18(6):489–97.
[62] Wongsiriamnuay T, Kannang N, Tippayawong N. Effect of operating conditions
on catalytic gasification of bamboo in a fluidized bed. Int J Chem Eng
2013;2013:1–9.
[63] Wu C, Wang Z, Wang L, Huang J, Williams PT. Catalytic steam gasification of
biomass for a sustainable hydrogen future: Influence of catalyst composition.
Waste Biomass Valoriz 2013;5(2):175–80.
[64] Yan F, Zhang L, Hu Z, Cheng G, Jiang C, Zhang Y, et al. Hydrogen-rich gas
production by steam gasification of char derived from cyanobacterial blooms
(CDCB) in a fixed-bed reactor: influence of particle size and residence time on
gas yield and syngas composition. Int J Hydrog Energy 2010;35(19):10212–7.
[65] Yassin L, Lettieri P, Simons SJR, Germanà A. Techno-economic performance of
energy-from-waste fluidized bed combustion and gasification processes in the
UK context. Chem Eng J 2009;146(3):315–27.
[66] Yusup S, Khan Z, Ahmad MM, Rashidi NA. Optimization of hydrogen produc-
tion in in-situ catalytic adsorption (ICA) steam gasification based on Response
Surface Methodology. Biomass Bioenergy 2014;60:98–107.