Fuel 220 (2018) 210–219

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

Development of an ultra-small biomass gasification and power generation T

system: Part 2. Gasification characteristics of carbonized pellets/briquettes
in a pilot-scale updraft fixed bed gasifier
⁎
Lu Ding , Kunio Yoshikawa, Minoru Fukuhara, Yuto Kowata, Shunsuke Nakamura, Dai Xin,
Li Muhan
School of Environment and Society, Tokyo Institute of Technology G5-8, 4259 Nagatsuta, Midori-Ku, Yokohama 226-8502, Japan

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

Keywords: Ultra-small biomass gasification and power generation systems are a promising technology for disaster areas in
Carbonized pellets developed countries and non-electrified rural areas of developing countries. The gasification characteristics of
Carbonized briquettes carbonized wood pellets and carbonized wood briquettes without or with 1 wt% sea salt were tested in a pilot-
Updraft fixed bed gasifiers scale updraft fixed-bed gasifier. The results showed that the carbon balance during gasification was easily
Tar removal
achieved, and most of the chlorine in the carbonized briquettes with sea salt remained in the residual char and
Gas engine
fly ash after gasification. Inorganic chlorine in the solid fuel was transformed into organic chlorine combined
with carbon matrix after heat treatment in the gasifier. Syngas with a low heating value higher than 4 MJ·m−3
could be continuously obtained when the system reached a stable condition, which enabled power generation
using a gas engine. A combination of several secondary tar removal processes was adopted for the syngas
purification. The tar content in the syngas after the gas cleaning for 425 °C-carbonized pellet, 425 °C-carbonized
briquette, 475 °C-carbonized briquette, and 475 °C-carbonized briquette with sea salt was 0.98, 0.26, 1.4, and
0.2 g·Nm−3, respectively. During the stable stage, 425 °C-carbonized pellet showed the highest cold gas effi-
ciency (CGE) of 45.6% and carbon conversion efficiency (CCE) of 57.8%, respectively, with an equivalence ratio
(ER) of 0.24. A lower carbonization temperature showed a higher CGE and CCE. The residual char and fly ash
after gasification could be considered for reuse as feedstock to further improve the overall process efficiency. The
maximum output power was 23 kW at an air flow rate of 40 Nm3/h during the gasification of carbonized pellets,
and the corresponding overall power generation efficiency of the engine using the syngas was about 27.8%. For
475 °C carbonized briquette, the maximum output power was 18 kW at an air flow rate of 40 Nm3/h, and the
corresponding overall power generation efficiency of the engine using the syngas was about 25.5%.

1. Introduction juniper wood samples in an updraft fixed-bed gasifier. They concluded

With the dramatic increase in the consumption of fossil fuels and
growing serious environmental issues, ultra-small and distributed
power generation technologies based on biomass gasification may be
paid increased attention and extensive application in disaster areas in
developed countries and the non-electrified rural areas of developing
countries.
Updraft/downdraft fixed-bed gasifiers will be the most appropriate
technology for realizing portable and distributed gasification and power
generation. Many researchers have been engaged in studying the gasi-
fication characteristics of various kinds of biomass and the corre-
sponding pellets/briquettes after densification using these two kinds of
gasifiers [1–10]. Chen et al. tested the gasification of mesquite and
that there was an optimal particle size range of 4–6 mm for both raw
wood materials in order to obtain the high carbon conversion efficiency
(CCE) and low energy consumption required for grinding wood chips
[1]. Galindo et al. proposed a downdraft gasifier with a two-stage air
supply for raw wood gasification, and their gasifier could significantly
decrease the tar content in the syngas owing to a temperatures increase
in the pyrolysis and combustion regions [2]. Wood chip gasification in
an air-blown downdraft gasifier was explored by Romar et al. [3]. The
tar concentration levels were in the range of 200–400 mg·Nm−3, which
was similar to the data in Ref. [4]. Besides the cold gas efficiency (CGE)
and carbon conversion efficiency (CCE), the compositions and heating
values of the syngas and the temperature distributions inside the gasi-
fier were also discussed in depth by some other researchers [5–10].

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dinglu101@163.com (L. Ding).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.01.080
Received 20 October 2017; Received in revised form 18 January 2018; Accepted 22 January 2018
0016-2361/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Ding et al.
Fig. 1. The photo and schematic diagram for different reaction zones in the updraft gasifier.
Raw biomass always contains a high water content (20–60 wt%)
and will produce syngas with high tar concentrations when directly
applied in gasification. It is reported that the tar content in syngas
should be lower than 0.1 g·Nm−3 for the safe operation of internal
combustion engines [11,12]. Using fresh biomass as gasification feed-
stock increases the load on a syngas purification system. In order to
overcome unfavorable factors caused by water and tar issues, some
researchers have explored the gasification application using torrefied or
carbonized biomass [13–16]. Kuo et al. simulated the gasification
performances of raw and torrefied bamboo in a downdraft fixed-bed
gasifier. The effects of the equivalence ratio (ER) and steam supply ratio
on the syngas yield and quality, CGE, and CCE were evaluated, and the
optimal feed conditions for gasification were predicted [13]. Deng et al.
torrefied rice straw and rape stalks for their co-gasification of coal. They
mention that the properties of the torrefied agricultural residues are
closer to those of coal, so torrefaction is a promising method for co-
gasification [14]. Actually, the hydrophobicity and uniform characters
of the biomass can also be significantly improved after the torrefaction
or carbonization pretreatments [17–19]. These two processes reduce
the O/C ratio and improve the energy density of the biomass, which is
favorable for the thermal application of the solid fuels [20]. Compared
with carbonization at temperatures higher than 400 °C, biomass torre-
faction always finishes within the lower temperature range of
200–350 °C [21,22]. Therefore, more volatile matter remained in the
torrefaction char than in the carbonization char. This led to a higher
syngas production rate by using the torrefaction char as gasification
feedstock, whereas the corresponding tar content in the syngas would
also increase by using torrefaction char produced at a lower thermal
treatment temperature.
So far, most of the devices for torrefaction or carbonization are
mainly based on electrical heating [23,24,19]. In a commercial che-
mical plant, there is a great amount of hot exhaust gas, which can be
utilized to reduce the energy consumed in torrefaction or carbonization.
However, electrical heating or the utilization of waste heat from a big
factory is very difficult to achieve in a power-starved disaster zone or
remote area. In our system, the carbonization furnace was based on
non-electric heating, wherein the entire system was heated using the
combustion heat from volatile matter in the waste wood, which might
be the most appropriate way to achieve portability in the open field
211
Fuel 220 (2018) 210–219
[25]. The one-batch capacity of the carbonization system was about
80–100 kg of dry wood, and the size of wood block used was usually
about 15 cm × 8 cm × 5 cm. It was noted that most of the wood block
remained uncarbonized over the torrefaction temperature range. The
uncarbonized wood and half-carbonized wood char were very difficult
to crush when the carbonization temperature was lower than 400 °C;
therefore, the wood block was carbonized within 400–500 °C to enable
crushing and densification.
As the carbonized wood char was in a low energy density and loose
state, unfavorable situations such as hot-points or channeling occurred
easily when fresh char was fed directly into the gasifier as bed material.
Therefore, high-strength carbonized pellets or carbonized briquettes
were prepared as gasification feedstock using a pelletizer or briquetter
so as to ensure stable operation of the gasifier. An updraft fixed-bed
gasifier may be the most appropriate fixed-bed type to realize the de-
sired portability and distributed character. This is because the tem-
perature of syngas from the outlet of an updraft fixed-bed gasifier is
much lower than that of the downdraft type [26], which could sig-
nificantly reduce the size of the cooling system. Also, the operation of
an updraft fixed-bed gasifier is much easier than other types of gasifiers.
So far, most small-scale and distributed biomass gasification power
generation systems are based on the utilization of raw biomass or
charcoal [27–32]. To the best of our knowledge, there are no published
papers on pilot-scale gasification based on carbonized biomass pellets/
briquettes. In our study, biomass was first carbonized and then densi-
fied into carbonized pellets/briquettes for the corresponding gasifica-
tion process. In certain areas of Japan, waste wood resources are
sometimes soaked in seawater after a tsunami, so it is necessary to
explore the effects of the salt from seawater on biomass gasification
performance. Moreover, the release characteristic of chlorine is also a
key point, considering the associated erosion issues during gasification.
Therefore, besides carbonized pellets/briquettes, carbonized briquettes
mixed with 1 wt% sea salt were also investigated for gasification. The
cold gas efficiency, carbon conversion and balance, and residual char
characteristics were evaluated. Also, the tar removal efficiency using
several physical separation devices was also discussed considering the
requirements of the gas engine. Finally, the performance of the gas
engine was reported.
L. Ding et al. Fuel 220 (2018) 210–219

Table 1 2.2. Gasification of carbonized pellets/briquettes in the updraft fixed-bed

The detail conditions for making carbonized pellet/briquette.
Sample Briquette Binder solution Optimal mass
making method concentration/wt.% ratio
Carbonized pellet char: poval 9.1 10:1:2.5
solution: water
Carbonized char: corn starch 9.1 10:3.5:1
briquette solution: bio-oil
Carbonized char:corn starch 9.1 10:3.5:1:0.15
briquette with solution: bio-oil:
sea salt salt
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Carbonized pellet/briquette preparation
Waste cedar wood was chosen as the raw material for this study.
First, the wood was carbonized in the temperature range of 400–500 °C
using a novel carbonization system, which consisted of a carbonization
chamber and combustion chamber, as shown in Fig. 1. The capacity of
wood was 80–100 kg for each batch. There were three stages during the
carbonization: 1) In the ignition stage, around 10 kg of fresh wood was
initially supplied to the combustion chamber, and 500 mL of kerosene
was used for ignition; 2) In the wood combustion stage, several batches
of wood still needed to be supplied to the combustion chamber so as to
remove water and contribute to the release of volatile matter from the
wood to be carbonized. The total amount of wood supplied to the
combustion chamber was around 22 kg on a dry basis; 3) In the volatile
matter combustion stage, when the wood in the carbonization chamber
started to significantly release volatile matter (usually around
200–300 °C), these combustible gas components were transferred into
the combustion chamber to produce heat by burning. The entire system
could achieve self-heating, which meant that no additional wood was
needed for further heating.
Biomass char was crushed in a hammer crusher and then mixed with
binders and water in a mixer before being made into pellets/briquettes.
For pelletizing, a POVAL™ solution (9.1 wt%) was used as the binder in
a pelletizer fixed with a pair of revolving rollers (F-5/11-175, Japan).
For briquetting, a cornstarch solution (9.1 wt%) was adopted as the
binder in a ball press machine (240-type, China). Woody char obtained
at different carbonization temperatures (425 °C and 475 °C) was sam-
pled to investigate the effects of the carbonization temperature on ga-
sification performance. Moreover, 475 °C-carbonized briquette with sea
salt were prepared by adding 1 wt% of sea salt (NaCl concentration >
95%) to the mixture for densification. The detailed conditions for
making pellets/briquettes are summarized in Table 1. Meanwhile,
Table 2 shows the characteristic data of raw wood and carbonized
pellets/briquettes.
gasifier
Updraft fixed-bed gasifiers were adopted for the gasification tests in
this study. Fig. 1 shows a photo and schematic diagram of the gasifier,
whose size for carbonized pellets and carbonized briquettes is as fol-
lows: inner diameter = 549.2 mm, height = 1838 mm. Carbonized
pellets/briquettes were supplied from the top hopper of the gasifier.
There was a sensor for determining the height of solid materials in the
gasifier. Once the level of the carbonized pellets/briquettes dropped
below the sensor, the screw feeder would automatically feed fuel into
the gasifier. The reaction zones from the top to the bottom of the ga-
sifier were drying, pyrolysis, reduction, and combustion. The gasifier
was operated at a small negative pressure (around −10 Pa). The syngas
was sucked out by a blower after the gasifier. Besides the operating
pressure, the temperature distributions in the gasifier, syngas compo-
sitions, and CCE were also key factors for evaluating the reaction
conditions inside the gasifier.
2.3. Syngas purification system
After gasification, the syngas went through a cyclone separator,
water scrubber, condenser, bio-oil separator centrifuge/vegetable oil
scrubber, char filter, and cloth filter for removing particles and tar
components from the syngas. Meanwhile, the temperature of the syngas
could be cooled below 100 °C before it entered the engine.
2.4. Gas engine
A KLD-6110 type gas engine with a maximum power generation
capacity of 30 kW was adopted for this study. A resistive load was
connected after the gas engine to indicate the output power efficiency
achieved by the syngas. The flow rates of air and syngas had to be
properly adjusted to reach the maximum power output capacity of the
gas engine.
2.5. Evaluation of the reactivity of carbonaceous materials using TGA
In order to evaluate the reactivity of carbonized briquettes and the
corresponding residual char and fly ash, isothermal gasification tests of
solid samples were performed using a thermogravimetric analyzer
(TGA) (DTG-50, Shimadzu Inc.). The reproducibility of data was thor-
oughly checked through a preliminary test. All of the solid samples
were crushed and sieved in the size range of 75–150 μm. In each ex-
periment, typical 10-mg samples were heated to the target temperature
(900 °C) with a heating rate of 25 °C·min−1 in a N2 atmosphere and held
for another 30 min. Air was then admitted into the reaction chamber of
the TGA to start the gasification test. The flow rates of N2 and air were
kept at 150 mL·min−1.

2.6. Analysis of mass balance and chemical forms of chlorine

The chlorine content in solid and tar samples was measured using an

Table 2
The characteristic data of cedar wood and the corresponding carbonized pellet/briquette.

Sample Proximate analysis/d, wt.% Ultimate analysis/d, wt.% LHV/MJ·kg−1 Chemical formula

VM FC Ash C H N O

Cedar wood 72.95 26.83 0.21 36.02 4.41 0.10 59.18 18.8 CH1.469O1.232N0.002
425 °C-Carbonized pellet 36.68 62.93 0.39 79.05 3.70 0.27 16.59 32.7 CH0.562O0.157N0.003
425 °C-Carbonized briquette 34.03 65.54 0.43 79.06 3.61 0.30 16.60 30.6 CH0.548O0.157N0.003
475 °C-Carbonized briquette 27.13 70.37 2.50 82.81 2.74 0.35 11.51 34.3 CH0.397O0.104N0.004
475 °C-carbonized briquette with salt 23.38 73.05 3.56 85.56 2.88 0.30 7.61 29.0 CH0.404O0.067N0.003

Note: VM-volatile matter; FC-fixed carbon; d-dry basis; LHV denotes the low heating value of wood.

212
L. Ding et al. Fuel 220 (2018) 210–219

Table 3
The summarization of gasification data of carbonized pellets/briquettes.

Material balance 425 °C-carbonized briquette 475 °C-carbonized briquette 475 °C-carbonized briquette with sea salt 425 °C-Carbonized pellet

Inlet air 241.5 m3 392.0 m3 389.0 m3 141.8 m3

Inlet briquettes/pellets 232.0 kg 257.3 kg 293.5 kg 254.7 kg
Water content in briquettes/pellets 3.0 wt% 6.0 wt% 5.0 wt% 6.0 wt%
Outlet syngas 263.1 m3 513.2 m3 463.9 m3 192.7 m3
Total carbon in briquettes/pellets 177.9 kg 200.3 kg 238.6 kg 189.3 kg
Consumed carbon in briquettes/pellets 37.0 kg 76.9 kg 69.6 kg 33.3 kg
Outlet carbon in syngas 38.7 kg 74.1 kg 66.9 kg 29.6 kg

Note: The consumed carbon = Total carbon in the feedstock-the residual carbon remained in the residual char and fly ash after gasification.

Table 4 photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) (ESCALAB 250Xi, Thermo Scientific)

Chlorine balance in the gasification test of 475 °C-carbonized briquette with sea salt. using an Al Ka X-ray source. The setup for the XPS measurements and
curve-fitting of the Cl 2p spectra are also described elsewhere [34].
Total Cl in briquettes with sea salt 1585.0 g
Cl in the residual briquettes from gasifier 795.7 g
Cl in fly ash from the cyclone separator 703.0 g 3. Results and discussion
Cl in tar 18.9 g
*
Cl in syngas 67.4 g
3.1. Material balance analysis
Note: Cl in syngas was calculated by difference.
Carbon, including CO, CO2, CH4, and tar in the carbonized pellets/
elemental analyzer; the detailed method is described elsewhere [33]. briquettes was transferred into the syngas compositions. As the carbo-
The chemical forms of Cl in the carbonized briquettes with salt and the nized materials were adopted, the tar amounts during three gasification
corresponding residual char and fly ash were also studied by X-ray tests were low in the syngas from the outlet of the gasifier
(< 5 g·Nm−3), which will be further explained later in this paper.

Peak Bingding energy/eV Compounds Mole fraction/%

Cl 2p 198.5 NaCl, KCl 92.77
Peak Bingding energ Compounds Mole fraction/%
Cl 2p 200.5 C-Cl 7.23 Cl 2p 199.2 NaCl,KCl 91.56
Cl 2p 200.5 C-Cl 8.44

observed
curved-fitted
2p3/2
XPS intensity

Fly ash of salt-briquette 2p3/2

observed
curved-fitted
Salt-briquette 2p1/2
2p1/2

2p1/2 2p3/2
2p1/2 2p3/2

204 202 200 198 196 204 200 196 192

Binding energy/eV Binding energy/eV

Peak Bingding energy/eV Compounds Mole fraction/% Peak Bingding energy/eV Compounds Mole fraction/%
C l 2p 198.6 NaCl,KCl 74.74 Cl 2p 198.5 NaCl,KCl 69.28
C l 2p 200.8 C-Cl 25.26 Cl 2p 200 C-Cl 30.72

observed
curved-fitted
Bottom residual char observed
XPS intensity

of salt-briquette curved-fitted
2p3/2
XPS intensity

Top residual char of

salt-briquette
2p3/2 2p1/2

2p1/2
2p3/2
2p3/2

2p1/2 2p1/2

202 200 198 196

204 201 198 195
Binding energy/eV Binding energy/eV
Fig. 2. The XPS spectra results of different samples from carbonized briquette with sea salt.

213
L. Ding et al. Fuel 220 (2018) 210–219

70 5.5

Low heating value of syngas/MJ/m3

5.30 5.36
5.24
5.22
60

Gas compositions/vol.%
50 5.0
H2
O2
40 N2
CH4
CO 4.5
30
CO2
20
4.0
10
3.57
0
3.5
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Reaction time/h Reaction time/h
o
(a) 425 C-carbonized pellet

3
Low heating value of syngas/MJ/m
70 5.5

60
H2 5.04
Gas compositions/vol.%

O2 5.0 4.90
50 N2
CH4 4.69
40 CO 4.54 4.54
CO2 4.54
4.5
30 4.25 4.50

20 3.97
4.0
3.77
10

0 3.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Reaction time/h Reaction time/h

(b) 425oC- carbonized briquette

70 5.5
5.21
3
Low heating value of syngas/MJ/m

4.95 4.94
60 5.0
H2
Gas compositions/vol.%

O2
50 4.5 4.30
N2
CH4 4.19 4.33 4.02
40 4.0 3.84
CO
CO2
30 3.5

20 3.0 3.02

10 2.5 2.31
2.06
0 2.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reaction time/h Reaction time/h
o
(c) 475 C- carbonized briquette
70 5.5
3
Low heating value of syngas/MJ/m

60 5.0
H2
Gas compositions/vol.%

O2 4.5 4.35 4.33

50 4.25
N2 4.15 4.15
CH4 3.84
40 CO 4.0 3.89
CO2
30 3.5

20 3.0

10 2.5
2.21
0 2.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reaction time/h Reaction time/h
(d) 475oC- carbonized briquette with sea salt
Fig. 3. Variation of compositions and low heating value of syngas with time.

Therefore, the total amount of carbon consumed in the carbonized was well demonstrated.
pellets/briquettes should have been close to the total carbon in the For the gasification of carbonized briquettes with sea salt, the
syngas. Table 3 indicates that the carbon balance during the three tests chlorine balance was also analyzed. Table 4 indicates that after

214
L. Ding et al. Fuel 220 (2018) 210–219

Table 5 gasification, most of Cl still remained in the solid residual char and fly
Typical gas composition data from commercial wood and charcoal gasification in fixed ash. Some researchers found that inorganic Cl in the carbonaceous
bed gasifiers (moisture content: wood 20%, charcoal 7%) [36].
materials would change to organic Cl, which was bonded to carbon
Component H2 (%) N2 (%) CH4 (%) CO (%) CO2 (%) Heating value matrix during the heat treatment [33,35]. In order to further analyze
(MJ·m−3) the distributed forms of Cl in the solid samples, an XPS method was
adopted to evaluate the inorganic and organic Cl content; the resulting
Wood gas 12–20 50–54 2–3 17–22 9–15 5–5.9
XPS spectra are shown in Fig. 2. It was found that the mass percentages
Charcoal gas 4–10 55–65 0–2 28–32 1–3 4.5–5.6
of organic Cl in the residual char from the bottom and top layers of the
gasifier were 25.26% and 30.72%, respectively, which were much
higher than those in the carbonized briquette with sea salt (7.23%). The
inorganic chlorine released from the high-temperature combustion

(a) 425oC-carbonized pellet

(b) 425oC- carbonized briquette

(c) 475oC- carbonized briquette

(d) 475oC- carbonized briquette with sea salt

Fig. 4. The tar removal system during the gasification process of carbonized pellet/briquette.

215
L. Ding et al.
Table 6
The characteristics data of Nisshin salad oil.
Material Viscosity (20 °C)
Nisshin salad oil 63 mpa
60
nd
2 test
st
1 test
50
Tar remove efficiency of oil-scrubber/%
40
30
20
10
0 removal efficiencies of 425 °C-carbonized briquette and carbonized
4 8 12
Continuous operation time/h
Fig. 5. Tar remove efficiency of the oil scrubber with reaction time.
zones might have been absorbed by the relatively low-temperature
carbon matrix in the upper layer of the gasifier and changed to organic
chlorine bonded with carbon matrix (C-Cl). It was noted that the con-
tent of the organic Cl in the fly ash collected by a cyclone separator was
not significantly increased (8.44%). The reason might be that most of
the fly ash was formed as carbonized briquettes were continuously
supplied to the gasifier during the gasification process. A fine powder of
sea salt mixed into the briquettes or produced by briquette breakage
during the crash and carbon conversion was rapidly carried out of the
gasifier by the syngas and collected by the subsequent cyclone se-
parator. The fly ash did not stay a significant time in the moderate-
temperature zone of the gasifier, which led to lower conversion of in-
organic Cl to organic Cl. In general, the Cl content of the syngas was
very low, only 0.145 g·Nm−3, which means that even with seawater-
soaked waste wood from a disaster area, the erosion issues on the de-
vice caused by volatilization, and the deposition of Cl might not be
significant.
3.2. Syngas quality and tar removal efficiency analysis
Fig. 3 shows the compositions and corresponding low heating values
of the syngas during the three tests. It was found that the concentrations
of CO and H2 were kept almost constant after the system reached a
stable state, and the syngas compositions and low heating values of the
carbonized pellets/briquettes were similar to the results from charcoal
gasification, as shown in Table 5 [36]. Compared with 475 °C-carbo-
nized briquette, 425 °C-carbonized briquette presents a higher H2
Table 7
Variations of ER, CCE, and CGE with different solid fuels.
Material balance
Carbon conversion efficiency during stable
stage
Cold gas efficiency during stable stage
ER during stable stage
Fuel 220 (2018) 210–219
production during gasification and syngas with a higher heating value
at the very beginning stage. The hydrogen content of the carbonized
materials was significantly lower when compared with that of raw
Specific gravity Water content
biomass during gasification owing to the low volatile matter content
0.919 g·cm−3 0.02 wt% remaining in the carbonized pellets/briquettes. In any case, the low
heating value of the syngas was higher than 4 MJ·m−3 after operating
for several hours and could be continuously obtained, which enabled
rd
power generation using the gas engine. Compared with carbonized
3 test briquettes, carbonized pellets presented a stable and high-quality
syngas composition at an earlier stage.
Secondary tar removal systems were adopted in our study for syngas
th
5 test purification. The detailed methods for tar collection and analysis are
reported in a previous study [37]. Fig. 4(a)–(c) shows that the tar
content in the syngas from both carbonized pellets/briquettes was
much lower than the conventional value (10–150 g·Nm−3) from an
updraft fixed-bed gasifier. The corresponding tar removal efficiency of
475 °C-carbonized briquette was 46.2%. As the tar content in the syngas
after purification (1.4 g·Nm−3) of 475 °C-carbonized briquette was still
much higher than the upper limit (< 0.1 g·Nm−3) for the stable op-
th eration of internal combustion engines [37], Nisshin salad oil (a vege-
4 test table oil made in Japan) was supplied to the oil scrubber of the tar
cleaning system during the gasification of other feedstock. The detailed
characteristics of this oil are shown in Table 6. The corresponding tar
16 20 24
pellet were 94.0% and 78.6%, respectively. It was noted that the tar
removal efficiency decreased significantly from 425 °C-carbonized bri-
quette to carbonized pellet. Actually, the tar removal efficiency of the
purification system decreased with an increase in the operating time of
the gasification tests, if the secondary tar removal system was not re-
generated after a one-batch gasification test. The tar removal efficiency
of the oil scrubber as a function of operating time after several gasifi-
cation tests is shown in Fig. 5. For the first three gasification tests, the
tar removal efficiency of the oil scrubber stayed at about 50%, which
means that the oil scrubber reached the saturation point (the point at
which the tar removal efficiency changes little with time) after four
hours of operation. For the fourth test, the oil scrubber was stopped
when we measured the outlet tar content. This was because of a high-
pressure loss in the whole system, which led to syngas leakage from the
gasifier; therefore, the tar removal efficiency was much lower. For the
fifth gasification test, the tar removal efficiency decreased to about
40%, which meant that degradation had occurred in the performance of
the oil scrubber. The breakpoint (the point at which deterioration of the
oil starts and new oil or regeneration of oil is required) may have oc-
curred after 20 h of operation. Therefore, part of the used oil must be
replaced by new oil or regenerated periodically for continuous gasifi-
cation operation [38].
We failed to analyze the tar content in the syngas after the cyclone
separator because the syngas sampling pipe was blocked during the
gasification of briquettes with sea salt. However, it was noted that the
tar concentrations in the syngas from briquettes with sea salt before the
oil scrubber and after the char bed were really much lower than those
from carbonized briquettes without sea salt: only 0.4 g·Nm−3 and
0.2 g·Nm−3, respectively. The reason for this might be that sea salt in
the briquette contributed to the catalytic cracking of tar inside the
gasifier. In a recent study, Umeki et al. found that alkali metal salts
425 °C-carbonized briquette 475 °C-carbonized briquette 475 °C-carbonized briquette with sea 425 °C-Carbonized pellet
salt
50.2% 45.1% 52.0% 57.8%
38.6% 37.1% 41.3% 45.6%
0.24 0.24 0.26 0.24
216
L. Ding et al. Fuel 220 (2018) 210–219

1.0 1.0
o Residual char of
475 C-carbonized briquette o
o 475 C-carbonized briquette
475 C-carbonized briquette
0.8 0.8 Residual char of
with sea salt o
475 C-carbonized
briquette with sea salt
0.6 0.6
Conversion X

Conversion X
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Time (min) Time (min)

1.0
o
Fly ash of 475 C-carbonized
briquette
o
0.8 Fly ash of 475 C-carbonized
briquette with sea salt
Conversion X

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 2 4 6 8
Time (min)
Fig. 6. The reactivity of char and gasification residues from carbonized briquette.

Table 8 applications. It is calculated as follows:

Reaction index (R0.5) of different samples.
(Airkg /Dry woody pellet or briquettekg )actual
Samples R0.5/min−1 ER =
(Airkg /Dry woody pellet or briquettekg )stoichiometric (1)
475 °C-carbonized briquette 0.106
475 °C-carbonized briquette with sea salt 0.116 The CGE and CCE during the stable stage were evaluated according
Residual char of 475 °C-carbonized briquette 0.091 to the following equations [40]:
Residual char of 475 °C-carbonized briquette with sea salt 0.094
Fly ash of 475 °C-carbonized briquette 0.099 LHVgas × Qgas
CGE = × 100%
Fly ash of 475 °C-carbonized briquette with sea salt 0.103 LHVfuel × Qfuel (2)

Cgas
contribute to tar reduction during biomass gasification [39]. CCE = × 100%
Cfuel (3)
−3
3.3. CCE and CGE analysis Note: LHVgas-The average low heating value of syngas, (MJ·Nm );
Qgas-The average flow rate of syngas, (Nm3·h−1); LHVfuel-The average
Usually, the ER is the key operating parameter for air gasification low heating value of solid fuel, (MJ·kg−1); Qfuel-The average feed rate

Table 9
The proximate and ultimate analysis of residual char and fly ash after gasification.

Sample Proximate analysis/d, wt.% Ultimate analysis/d, wt.%

VM FC Ash C H N O

Residual char of 475 °C-carbonized briquette 20.21 78.60 1.21 85.34 3.33 0.21 9.89
Residual char of 475 °C-carbonized briquette with sea salt 12.18 86.07 1.75 88.19 1.94 0.40 7.66
Fly ash of 475 °C-carbonized briquette 16.26 74.43 9.31 79.65 1.00 0.42 9.42
Fly ash of 475 °C-carbonized briquette with sea salt 16.62 78.68 4.70 85.20 1.03 0.53 8.33

217
L. Ding et al.
9
Fly ash of
o 6
475 C-carbonized briquette
3
0 0
1 10 100 1000
Fig. 7. The particle size distribution of fly ash from carbonized briquette with or without sea salt.
of solid fuel, (kg·h−1); Cgas-Total carbon amount in the syngas, (kg);
Cfuel-Total carbon amount in solid fuel, (kg).
Although there were some differences in the volatile matter and
carbon contents for the three gasification feedstocks, Table 7 indicates
that the CGE had a positive correlation with the CCE. It is interesting to
find that the carbonized briquettes produced at a lower temperature
displayed a higher CCE and CGE. Also, carbonized pellets displayed a
higher CCE and CGE compared with carbonized briquettes owing to the
high reactivity of carbonized pellets. The cylindrical pellets had the
diameter of 3 mm and length of 1–2 cm, and the spheroidal briquette
had an equatorial radius of 1.5 cm and polar radius of 1 cm. Therefore,
the carbonized pellets would have experienced a much lower diffusion
effect during the gasification process. However, the CGE and CCE in our
study were lower than those in the gasification of raw wood. Gunar-
athne et al. found that the CGE at ER = 0.2 was 75.9% during wood
pellet gasification in a pilot-scale updraft gasifier [41]. Pedroso et al.
also obtained a relatively high CGE (67%) during wood chip gasifica-
tion in a bottom-feed updraft gasifier [42]. The relatively low CGE in
this study was due to the utilization of carbonized pellets/briquettes
with a much lower volatile content. Moreover, a proper increase of ER
was favorable for increasing the CGE and CCE on the premise that the
syngas quality was not affected and the operating temperature was
lower than the upper limit value of the gasifier. Therefore, we will
continuously operate the whole system at different ER values in the
future to determine the best conditions for improving the utilization
efficiency of carbonized pellets/briquettes. In addition, the discharged
residual char and fly ash could be reused as gasification feedstock (char
recycling) so as to further improve the overall process efficiency.
3.4. Characteristics of residual char and fly ash
The reactivity of char and gasification residues from carbonized
briquettes with and without sea salt were compared to consider the
reuse of residual char and fly ash. The reactivity index [43] of solid fuel
was taken as the quantitative index system of the reactivity.
R 0.5 = 0.5/ t0.5
where R0.5 is the reactivity index of residual coke (min−1), t0.5 is the
time required to reach a fixed carbon conversion of 50 wt% (min).
Fig. 6 and Table 8 indicate that the reactivity of carbonized bri-
quette with sea salt was somewhat higher than that of carbonized bri-
quette without salt due to the latent catalytic effects of NaCl. Mean-
while, the reactivities of the residual char or fly ash of carbonized
briquette with and without sea salt were very similar and still high.
Moreover, Table 9 shows that the ash content of the residual char and
Fuel 220 (2018) 210–219
o
Fly ash of 475 C-carbonized
briquette with sea salt
2
1 10 100 1000
fly ash was lower than 10%, which would not significantly decrease the
gasification efficiency when they were reused as fuels. It was noted that
the pelletizing/briquetting processes would be optimized by adding a
certain amount of fly ash into the new char for densification. This was
because the particles of fly ash were in the small size range, as shown in
Fig. 7 (analyzed using a Hydro 2000-MU particle size analyzer);
therefore, the contact area of char particles from fly ash was large,
which was favorable for homogenous mixing with binders and bio-oil.
3.5. Analysis of power generation
The overall efficiency of the gas engine during the stable operation
stage was evaluated according to the following equations:
Qgas
SGC =
(Vout ) × I (5)
3.6
ηE = ⎛ ⎜
⎞·100[%] ⎟
⎝ (LHVG ) × SGC ⎠ (6)
Note: Vout-output voltage of electric generator (V); I-output current
of electric generator (A); Qgas-gas average flow (Nm3 h−1); LHVG-
heating value of the producer gas (MJ Nm−3); SGC- specific gas con-
sumption (Nm3·kW−1·h−1); ηE -Overall efficiency of engine.
After calculation, the average low heating value of the syngas
during the stable power generation stage was 5.32 MJ/m3. In addition,
the maximum output power was 23 kW at an air flow rate of 40Nm3/h
during the gasification of carbonized pellets, and the corresponding
overall efficiency of the gas engine using the syngas was about 27.8%.
For 475 °C-carbonized briquette, the average low heating value of the
syngas during the stable stage was 4.33 MJ/m3, the maximum output
power was 18 kW at an air flow rate of 40 Nm3/h, and the corre-
sponding overall efficiency of the gas engine using the syngas was about
25.5%. Therefore, carbonized pellets presented a higher overall effi-
ciency of the gas engine than carbonized briquettes owing to the higher
average low heating value of the syngas obtained from the gasification
process.
(4)
4. Conclusion
The gasification characteristics of carbonized pellets/briquettes
were studied using a pilot-scale updraft fixed-bed gasifier. The gasifi-
cation system reached a stable state after several hours of operation,
and almost constant CO and H2 contents could be supplied in the syngas
for power generation. Meanwhile, the tar concentration in the syngas
was lower than 5 g·Nm−3 at the outlet of the gasifier. Several
218
L. Ding et al.
combinations of secondary tar removal systems were tested for syngas
purification. An oil scrubber showed good performance for tar removal.
However, regeneration of the purification system was necessary for
long periods of continuous operation. For the gasification of carbonized
briquettes with sea salt, most of the chlorine remained in the solid re-
sidue char and fly ash after high-temperature treatment in the fixed-bed
gasifier. Moreover, the salt displayed a catalytic effect on the reduction
of tar produced during gasification. Carbonized briquettes produced at
a lower temperature showed a higher CCE and CGE as well as a rela-
tively high initial tar production amount. Carbonized pellets showed
the highest CCE and CGE values because of their high reactivity. The
residual char and fly ash after gasification could be considered for reuse
so as to further increase the overall gasification process efficiency.
Carbonized pellets also produced a higher overall efficiency of the gas
engine than carbonized briquettes under similar reaction conditions.
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by Innovative Science and
Technology Initiative for Security (Ministry of Defence, Japan).
References
[1] Chen W, Annamalai K, Ansley RJ, Mirik M. Updraft fixed bed gasification of mes-
quite and juniper wood samples. Energy 2012;41:454–61.
[2] Galindo AL, Lora ES, Andrade RV, Giraldo SY, Jaén RL, Cobas VM. Biomass gasi-
fication in a downdraft gasifier with a two-stage air supply: effect of operating
conditions on gas quality. Biomass Bioenergy 2014;61:236–44.
[3] Romar H, Pekka T, Lassi U. Biomass gasification in an air-blown down-draft gasifier:
determination of tar compounds from producer gas. BioResources 2013;8:3620–9.
[4] Xu C, Donald J, Byambajav E, Ohtsuka Y. Recent advances in catalysts for hot-gas
removal of tar and NH3 from biomass gasification. Fuel 2010;89:1784–95.
[5] Simone M, Barontini F, Nicolella C, Tognotti L. Gasification of pelletized biomass in
a pilot scale downdraft gasifier. Bioresour Technol 2012;116:403–12.
[6] Seggiani M, Vitolo S, Puccini M, Bellini A. Cogasification of sewage sludge in an
updraft gasifier. Fuel 2012;93:486–91.
[7] Di Blasi C, Signorelli G, Portoricco G. Countercurrent fixed-bed gasification of
biomass at laboratory scale. Ind Eng Chem Res 1999;38:2571–81.
[8] Son YI, Yoon SJ, Kim YK, Lee JG. Gasification and power generation characteristics
of woody biomass utilizing a downdraft gasifier. Biomass Bioenergy
2011;35:4215–20.
[9] Sikarwar VS, Zhao M, Clough P, Yao J, Zhong X, Memon MZ, et al. An overview of
advances in biomass gasification. Energy Environ Sci 2016;9:2939–77.
[10] Ismail TM, El-Salam MA. Parametric studies on biomass gasification process on
updraft gasifier high temperature air gasification. Appl Therm Eng
2017;112:1460–73.
[11] Woodcock PJ, Brown RC. A review of cleaning technologies for biomass-derived
syngas. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;52:54–84.
[12] Pedroso DT, Machin EB, Silveira JL, Nemoto Y. Experimental study of bottom feed
updraft gasifier. Renew Energy 2013;57:311–6.
[13] 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):1231–41.
[14] Deng J, Wang G-J, Kuang J-H, Zhang Y-L, Luo Y-H. Pretreatment of agricultural
residues for co-gasification via torrefaction. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2009;86:331–7.
[15] Wei J, Guo Q, Ding L, Yoshikawa K, Yu G. Synergy mechanism analysis of petro-
leum coke and municipal solid waste (MSW)-derived hydrochar co-gasification.
Appl Energy 2017.
[16] Ding L, Gong Y, Wang Y, Wang F, Yu G. Characterisation of the morphological
changes and interactions in char, slag and ash during CO2 gasification of rice straw
and lignite. Appl Energy 2017;195:713–24.
[17] Dudyński M, van Dyk JC, Kwiatkowski K, Sosnowska M. Biomass gasification:
Influence of torrefaction on syngas production and tar formation. Fuel Process
219
Fuel 220 (2018) 210–219
Technol 2015;131:203–12.
[18] Colin B, Dirion JL, Arlabosse P, Salvador S. Quantification of the torrefaction effects
on the grindability and the hygroscopicity of wood chips. Fuel 2017;197:232–9.
[19] Nassini D, Fouga GG, Nassini HE, Bohé AE. Effects of pyrolysis conditions on the
structure of chars prepared from an Argentine asphaltite. Fuel 2016;182:623–31.
[20] Tripathi M, Sahu JN, Ganesan P. Effect of process parameters on production of
biochar from biomass waste through pyrolysis: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;55:467–81.
[21] Chen W-H, Lu K-M, Liu S-H, Tsai C-M, Lee W-J, Lin T-C. Biomass torrefaction
characteristics in inert and oxidative atmospheres at various superficial velocities.
Bioresour Technol 2013;146:152–60.
[22] Li M-F, Chen L-X, Li X, Chen C-Z, Lai Y-C, Xiao X, et al. Evaluation of the structure
and fuel properties of lignocelluloses through carbon dioxide torrefaction. Energy
Convers Manage 2016;119:463–72.
[23] Rudolfsson M, Borén E, Pommer L, Nordin A, Lestander TA. Combined effects of
torrefaction and pelletization parameters on the quality of pellets produced from
torrefied biomass. Appl Energy 2017;191:414–24.
[24] Chen YQ, Yang HP, Wang XH, Zhang SH, Chen HP. Biomass-based pyrolytic poly-
generation system on cotton stalk pyrolysis: influence of temperature. Bioresour
Technol 2012;107:411–8.
[25] Ding L, Yoshikawa K, Fukuhara M, Xin D, Muhan L. Development of an ultra-small
biomass gasification and power generation system: Part 1. A novel carbonization
process and optimization of pelletization of carbonized wood char. Fuel
2017;210:674–83.
[26] Sansaniwal SK, Pal K, Rosen MA, Tyagi SK. Recent advances in the development of
biomass gasification technology: a comprehensive review. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2017;72:363–84.
[27] Yoon SJ, Son Y-I, Kim Y-K, Lee J-G. Gasification and power generation character-
istics of rice husk and rice husk pellet using a downdraft fixed-bed gasifier. Renew
Energy 2012;42:163–7.
[28] Zainal ZA, Rifau A, Quadir GA, Seetharamu KN. Experimental investigation of a
downdraft biomass gasiÿer, 23(May), 2002, 283–289.
[29] Son Y, Yoon SJ, Kim YK, Lee J. Gasification and power generation characteristics of
woody biomass utilizing a downdraft gasifier. Biomass Bioenergy
2011;35(10):4215–20.
[30] Susastriawan AAP, Saptoadi H, Purnomo. Small-scale downdraft gasifiers for bio-
mass gasification: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;76:989–1003.
[31] Lee U, Balu E, Chung JN. An experimental evaluation of an integrated biomass
gasification and power generation system for distributed power applications. Appl
Energy 2013;101:699–708.
[32] Lin JM. Combination of a biomass fired updraft gasifier and a stirling engine for
power production. J Energy Resour Technol – Trans ASME 2007;129:66–70.
[33] Chen H, Chen X, Qiao Z, Liu H. Release and transformation behavior of Cl during
pyrolysis of torrefied rice straw. Fuel 2016;183:145–54.
[34] Chen HD, Chen XL, Qiao Z, Liu HF. Release and transformation characteristics of K
and Cl during straw torrefaction and mild pyrolysis. Fuel 2016;167:31–9.
[35] Rahim MU, Gao XP, Wu HW. Release of chlorine from the slow pyrolysis of NaCl
loaded cellulose at low temperatures. Proc Combust Inst 2015;35:2891–6.
[36] Stassen HEM, Knoef HAM. Small scale gasification systems Biomass Technology
Group The Netherlands: University of Twente; 1993.
[37] Nakamura S, Kitano S, Yoshikawa K. Biomass gasification process with the tar re-
moval technologies utilizing bio-oil scrubber and char bed. Appl Energy
2016;170:186–92.
[38] Thanyawan Tarnpradab, Siriwat Unyaphan, Fumitake Takahashi, Kunio Yoshikawa,
Improvement of the Biomass Tar Removal Capacity of Scrubbing Oil Regenerated
by Mechanical Solid−Liquid Separation, Energy Fuels, 2017, 31, 1564–1573.
[39] Umeki K, Häggström G, Bach-Oller A, Kirtania K, Furusjö E. Reduction of tar and
soot formation from entrained-flow gasification of woody biomass by alkali im-
pregnation. Energy Fuels 2017;31:5104–10.
[40] La Villetta M, Costa M, Massarotti N. Modelling approaches to biomass gasification:
a review with emphasis on the stoichiometric method. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;74:71–88.
[41] Gunarathne DS, Mueller A, Fleck S, Kolb T, Chmielewski JK, Yang W, et al.
Gasification characteristics of steam exploded biomass in an updraft pilot scale
gasifier. Energy 2014;71:496–506.
[42] Pedroso DT, Machín EB, Silveira JL, Nemoto Y. Experimental study of bottom feed
updraft gasifier. Renewable Energy 2013;57:311–6.
[43] Ding L, Zhou Z, Guo Q, Huo W, Yu G. Catalytic effects of Na2CO3 additive on coal
pyrolysis and gasification. Fuel 2015;142:134–44.