Bioresource Technology 95 (2004) 95–101

An experimental study on biomass air–steam gasification

in a fluidized bed
a,*
P.M. Lv , Z.H. Xiong a, J. Chang a, C.Z. Wu a, Y. Chen a, J.X. Zhu b

a
Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion, No. 81 Xianlie Zhong Road, Guangzhou 510070, PR China
b
Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ont., Canada N6A 5B9
Received 24 March 2003
Available online 5 March 2004

Abstract
The characteristics of biomass air–steam gasification in a fluidized bed are studied in this paper. A series of experiments have
been performed to investigate the effects of reactor temperature, steam to biomass ratio (S/B), equivalence ratio (ER) and biomass
particle size on gas composition, gas yield, steam decomposition, low heating value (LHV) and carbon conversion efficiency. Over
the ranges of the experimental conditions used, the fuel gas yield varied between 1.43 and 2.57 N m3 /kg biomass and the LHV of the
fuel gas was between 6741 and 9143 kJ/N m3 . The results showed that higher temperature contributed to more hydrogen production,
but too high a temperature lowered gas heating value. The LHV of fuel gas decreased with ER. Compared with biomass air
gasification, the introduction of steam improved gas quality. However, excessive steam would lower gasification temperature and so
degrade fuel gas quality. It was also shown that a smaller particle was more favorable for higher gas LHV and yield.

2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Biomass; Air–steam; Gasification

1. Introduction popularization. Extensive experimental studies reported

Biomass is potentially an attractive feedstock for
producing transportation fuels as its use contributes
little or no net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Renewable biomass resources include short-rotation
woody crops, herbaceous biomass, and agricultural
residues. Thermochemical gasification of biomass is a
well-known technology that can be classified depending
on the gasifying agent: air, steam, steam–oxygen, air–
steam, O2 -enriched air, etc.
The technology of biomass air gasification seems to
have a feasible application and has been developed ac-
tively for industrial applications. However this tech-
nology produces a gas with a low heating value (4–6 MJ/
m3 ) and an 8–14 vol.% H2 content only (Delgado and
Aznar, 1997). Biomass oxygen-rich air gasification is
one effective way of producing medium heating value
(MHV) gas, but it needs a large investment for oxygen
production equipment and this disadvantage impedes its
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86-20-87787136; fax: +86-20-
87608586.
E-mail address: lvpm@ms.giec.ac.cn (P.M. Lv).
in the literature (Delgado et al., 1996; Aznar et al., 1998;
Gil et al., 1999; Rapagn
a et al., 2000; Courson et al.,
2000; Schuster et al., 2001; Mathieu and Dubuisson,
2002) show that fluidized-bed, steam-gasification pro-
cesses (with or without O2 added) are also capable of
producing a MHV (10–16 MJ/N m3 ) gas with a 30–60
vol.% H2 content. However, this technology requires
that the temperature of steam be over 700 C, which
demands additional cost for steam generator of good
performance (Wu et al., 1995).
Under this background, the technology of biomass
air gasification with low temperature steam was put
forward from the economic point of view. Since the
steam gasification reactions are endothermic as a whole,
the process must be supplied with energy. This can be
done by partial combustion of biomass within the gas-
ifier using a hypostoichiometric amount of air.
Sadaka et al. (2002a,b,c) developed a two-phase dy-
namic finite element model to simulate a self-sustained
biomass air–steam gasification process. They also
performed a sensitivity analysis on this model and
validate the model using the experimental results. A
good agreement between the model predictions and

0960-8524/$ - see front matter
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2004.02.003
96 P.M. Lv et al. / Bioresource Technology 95 (2004) 95–101

experimental data was obtained under their operating

conditions. Although the model given by Sadaka et al. is
valuable, further studies are needed to explore the
mechanism of thermodynamic reactions that occur in
the process and analyze the tests results to supply useful
information for better performance of biomass air–
steam gasification.
In the present work, a small scale fluidized bed was
developed and low temperature steam (154 C) and air
were used as the biomass gasification agent to explore
the effects of some critical parameters on gasification
performance.

2. Methods Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of biomass air–steam gasification in a

2.1. Feed materials
With silica sand (particle size 0.2–0.3 mm) as bed
material, the pine sawdust obtained from a local timber
mill was used as the feedstock. Four size ranges of pine
sawdust (0.6–0.9, 0.45–0.6, 0.3–0.45, and 0.2–0.3 mm,
respectively) were selected for tests. The proximate and
ultimate analyses of the biomass were reported in Table
1. The formula of CH1:7 O0:6 was calculated from the
ultimate analysis of biomass.
2.2. Facility
The experimental set-up, shown in Fig. 1, consists of
six main parts: (i) a fluidized bed reactor of atmospheric
pressure, (ii) biomass feeding section, (iii) steam, air
providing and preheating section, (iv) gas metering,
cleaning and sampling section, (v) temperature control
section, (vi) gas offline analysis section.
The reactor was constructed from 1Cr18Ni9Ti
stainless steel pipe and was surrounded by two individ-
ually controlled electric heaters that supply heat for
startup and counter heat loss during operation. The
total height of the reactor was 1400 mm, with a fluidized
bed diameter of 40 mm and a freeboard diameter of 60
mm. The biomass throughput for this reactor was
Table 1
Proximate and ultimate analysis of pine sawdust
Moisture content (wt.% wet basis) 8
Higher heating value (kJ/kg) 20,540
Proximate analysis (wt.% dry basis)
Volatile matter 82.29
Fixed carbon 17.16
Ash 0.55
Ultimate analysis (wt.% dry basis)
C 50.54
H 7.08
O 41.11
N 0.15
S 0.57
fluidized bed. 1––PID temperature controller; 2––steam generator; 3––
steam flowmeter; 4––air compressor; 5––valve; 6––flowmeter; 7––flu-
idized bed; 8––electric furnaces; 9––air distributor; 10––air preheater;
11––valve; 12––screw feeder; 13––biomass hopper; 14––temperature
control; 15––cyclone; 16––flue gas meter; 17––dry ice trap; 18––cotton
filter; 19––gas sample pump; 20––gas sample bag.
experimentally determined and it ranged between 0.3
and 1.0 kg/h. Two pressure taps were mounted at the
height of 40 and 1060 mm above the distributor to
monitor the fluidizing state in the reactor. One pressure
tap was equipped in the biomass feeder for pressure
control and enabling the discharge of pine sawdust. At
the bottom of the reactor, an air distributor was in-
stalled for better air distribution. The distributor is 3
mm in thickness with 25 holes (i.d. 1 mm) perforated
uniformly on it. The biomass was fed by a variable speed
metering motor. Air was used as the fluidizing agent and
introduced into the reactor below the distributor. It was
supplied by a compressor and was heated to 65 C in a
preheater. The steam of 154 C was produced in a steam
generator and its mass flowrate was measured by a
steam flowmeter. The produced gas flow exited the
reactor at the top and passed through a cyclone, which
was heated to 200 C to prevent tar condensation.
2.3. Experimental procedure
The pine sawdust feedrate of four different particle
sizes was determined over a range of screw speeds prior
to testing. To insure the reliability of tests data, mass
balance calculation was performed for each test.
At the start-up of each experimental run, the pine
sawdust was added to the hopper; the gasifier and fur-
nace heaters for steam generation and air preheating
were turned on and the controllers were set at the se-
lected operating temperatures. At the beginning of the
experiment, the reactor was charged with 30 g silica sand
as bed material, which helped in stable fluidization and
better heat transfer. After the bed temperature reached
the desired level and remained steady, the air compressor
was turned on to force the air through the preheater and
air distributor into the reactor. When the bed tempera-
 P.M. Lv et al. / Bioresource Technology 95 (2004) 95–101
ture became steady, the screw feeder was turned on at the
desired rotate speed and the test began. Typically, it took
15 min for the test to reach a stable state. Three samples
were taken at an interval of 3 min after the test ran in a
stable state. Normally each experiment was repeated two
times and the results had a good agreement.
To assess the process technology, the following vari-
ables were defined and determined:
Equivalence ratio (ER)
weight oxygen ðairÞ=weight dry biomass
ER ¼
stoichiometric oxygen ðairÞ=biomass ratio
Carbon conversion efficiency, gc (%)
Vgs  1000½CH4 % þ CO% þ CO2 % þ 2ðC2 H4 % þ C2 H6 % þ C2 H2 %Þ  12=22:4
gc ¼
W ð1  Xash Þ  C%
where CH4 %, CO% (vol%), etc. are the gas concentra-
tions and Vgs (N m3 /h) is the dry product gas flow rate,
W is the dry biomass feeding rate (g/h), Xash is the ash
content in the feed, and C% is the carbon content in the
ultimate analysis of biomass.
Steam decomposition, SD (%)
Vgs 1000ð2C2 H4 %þH2 %þ2CH4 %Þ18=22:4
SD ¼
W1 þW2
100% ð3Þ
where W1 is steam flowrate and W2 the total moisture
content in the feed.
Dry product gas low heating value, LHV (kJ/ N m3 )
LHV ¼ ð30:0  CO þ 25:7  H2 þ 85:4  CH4
þ 151:3  Cn Hm Þ  4:2 ðkJ=N m3 Þ
where CO, H2 , etc. are the gas concentrations of the
product gas.
2.4. Sampling and gas analysis
After the char carried in the gaseous product was
separated in the cyclone, the gas flow was passed
through an ice trap and a cotton filter for drying and
cleaning. Then the dry and clean gas was sampled using
Table 2
Experimental results of different reactor temperature
Reactor temperature (C) 700
Gas yield (N m3 /kg biomass) 1.43
Gas LHV (kJ/N m3 ) 7945
Carbon conversion efficiency (%) 78.17
Steam decomposition (SD) (%) 16.85
Biomass feed rate: 0.445 kg/h; biomass particle size: 0.3–0.45 mm; air: 0.5 m3 /h; steam rate: 1.2 kg/h; equivalence ratio: 0.22; S/B: 2.7.
97
gas bags and analyzed on a gas chromatograph (Model
GC-2010, SHIMADZU, Japan), which is fitted with a
GS-Carbonplot column (30 m · 0.530 mm · 3.00 lm),
with helium as carrier gas, to detect H2 , O2 , N2 , CH4 ,
CO, CO2 , C2 H2 , C2 H4 and C2 H6 .
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effect of reactor temperature
ð1Þ
Temperature is crucial for the overall biomass gasi-
fication process. In the present work, reactor tempera-
 100% ð2Þ
ture was varied from 700 to 900 C in 50 C increments.
The test results are presented in Table 2 and Fig. 2.
From Fig. 2, it can be seen that H2 concentration
increased with temperature and the content of CH4
showed an opposite trend. According to Le Chatelier’s
principle, higher temperatures favor the reactants in
exothermic reactions and favor the products in endo-
thermic reactions. Therefore the endothermic reactions
(7) and (8) were strengthened with increasing tempera-
ture, which resulted in an increase of H2 concentration
and a decrease of CH4 concentration. The content of
CO was mainly determined by reaction (5) and it is an
exothermic reaction. Higher temperature was not
favorable for CO production, so the content of CO de-
creased with temperature. As shown in Fig. 2, CO
content was higher than H2 content below the temper-
ð4Þ ature of about 830 C and H2 content exceeded CO
content when temperature was higher than about 830
C. As a result, the gas LHV first increased and then
decreased as indicated in Table 2. Therefore it could be
inferred that higher temperature was more favorable for
hydrogen yield. C2 H4 and C2 H6 concentration exhibited
a downward trend with increasing temperature; Turn
et al. (1998) found the same trend, which can be
attributed to higher temperature providing more favor-
able conditions for thermal cracking and steam
reforming. As temperature increased, more carbon and
750 800 850 900
1.51 2.23 2.45 2.53
7651 8560 8223 7362
80.66 85.90 92.35 92.59
18.95 29.08 32.84 33.09
98 P.M. Lv et al. / Bioresource Technology 95 (2004) 95–101

H2 H2
CH4 CH4
CO 40 CO
45
CO2 CO2
40 C 2 H4 35 C 2 H4

Gas composition (vol%)

C 2 H6 C 2 H6
Gas composition (vol%)

35 30 C 2 H2
C 2 H2
30 25

25 20

20 15

15 10

10 5

5 0
0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28
0
ER
700 750 800 850 900
temperature (°C)
Fig. 3. Effect of ER on gas composition biomass feed rate: 0.512 kg/h;
temperature: 800 C; steam rate: 0.8 kg/h.
Fig. 2. Effect of temperature on gas composition biomass feed rate:
0.445 kg/h; air: 0.5 N m3 /h; steam rate: 1.2 kg/h.

content varied little in the range of ER while gas yield

steam can be converted through reaction (9) and (10).
Then carbon conversion efficiency and steam decom-
position increased with temperature as Table 2 reported.
From Fig. 2, it can also be found that the content of
C2 H4 was far more than the content of C2 H6 and C2 H2 .
2C þ O2 ¼ 2CO þ 246:4 kJ
C þ O2 ¼ CO2 þ 408:8 kJ
CH4 þ H2 O ðgÞ ¼ CO þ 3H2  206 kJ
CH4 þ 2H2 O ðgÞ ¼ CO2 þ 4H2  165 kJ
C þ H2 O ðgÞ ¼ CO þ H2  131 kJ
C þ CO2 ¼ 2CO  172 kJ
Table 2 showed that gas yield increased from 1.43 to
2.53 N m3 /kg biomass in the temperature range. The
product gas LHV showed a maximum value, 8560 kJ/
N m3 at the temperature 800 C.
3.2. Effect of equivalence ratio (ER)
ER was varied from 0.19 to 0.27 through changing
the air flowrate and holding the other conditions con-
stant. The tests results of varying ER were reported in
Table 3 and Fig. 3. Fig. 3 indicated that hydrogen
first increased and then decreased as shown in Table 3.
ER not only represents the oxygen quantity intro-
duced into the reactor but also affects the gasification
temperature under the condition of autothermal opera-
tion. On one side, higher ER will cause gas quality to
degrade because of more oxidization reactions. On the
ð5Þ
other side, higher ER means higher gasification tem-
ð6Þ perature, which can accelerate the gasification and im-
ð7Þ prove the product quality to a certain extent. Therefore
the gas composition is affected by the two contradictory
ð8Þ factors of ER.
ð9Þ Table 3 and Fig. 3 suggested that the process could be
divided into two stages to be investigated. In the first
ð10Þ
stage ER varied from 0.19 to 0.23 and in the second
stage ER varied from 0.23 to 0.27. In the first stage, the
positive effect of ER played a more important role, so as
the gas yield increased from 2.13 to 2.37 N m3 /kg bio-
mass and gas LHV increased from 8817 to 8839 kJ/
N m3 .
In the first stage, reaction (5) was more likely to occur
than reaction (6) because of the lack of oxygen. It is
obvious that reaction (5) consumes 1 mol more carbon
than reaction (6). Therefore carbon conversion efficiency
increased with ER in the first stage. Because the gasifi-
cation temperature increased with ER, steam decom-

Table 3
Experimental results of different ER

Air (N m3 /h) 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7

ER 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.27
Gas yield (N m3 /kg biomass) 2.13 2.25 2.37 2.18 1.88
Gas LHV (kJ/N m3 ) 8817 8839 8708 8164 7277
Carbon conversion efficiency (%) 76.26 84.49 90.60 84.00 70.6
Steam decomposition (SD) (%) 48.36 50.66 52.67 47.76 40.41
Biomass feed rate: 0.512 kg/h; biomass particle size: 0.3–0.45 mm; reactor temperature: 800 C; steam rate: 0.8 kg/h; S/B: 1.56.
 P.M. Lv et al. / Bioresource Technology 95 (2004) 95–101 99

position also showed a trend of increase in the first H2

stage. CH4
In the second stage of ER varying from 0.23 to 0.27, 45 CO
CO2
gas LHV decreased because of the strengthened oxidi- C2H4
40
zation reactions of combustible product gases as re- C2H6
ported in Table 3. In the second stage, oxidization 35 C2H2

Gas composition (vol%)

reaction (11) became more important than steam gasi- 30
fication reaction (12) because of increased oxygen
25
quantity. It is obvious that reaction (12) produces 2.25
mol more gases than reaction (11). Therefore gas yield 20
and steam decomposition lowered in the second stage.
15
This can also explain the results that the concentration
of CO, CH4 , C2 H6 and C2 H2 decreased and CO2 con- 10
centration increased in the second stage. 5

CH1:7 O0:6 þ 1:125O2 ¼ CO2 þ 0:85H2 O ð11Þ 0

CH1:7 O0:6 þ 1:4H2 O ¼ CO2 þ 2:25H2
Through the analysis on the experimental data of
varying ER, it can be understood that it is unfeasible to
apply too small or too large ER in biomass air–steam
gasification. Too small ER will lower reaction temper-
ature, which is not favorable for biomass steam gasifi-
cation. Too large ER will consume more H2 and other
combustible gases through oxidization reaction. So
there exists an optimal value for ER, which is different
according to different operating parameters. In the
present study, the optimal value of ER was found to be
0.23 under the conditions listed in Table 3.
3.3. Effect of steam to biomass ratio (S/B)
In these tests, steam rate was varied from 0 to
1.8 kg/h while keeping all other conditions constant. The
tests results were presented in Table 4 and Fig. 4.
It was evident from Table 4 that the introduction of
steam greatly improved gas yield, LHV and carbon
conversion efficiency. Over the S/B range from 1.35 to
4.04, gas yield, LHV and carbon conversion efficiency
exhibited decreasing trends, which can be explained by
that excessive quantity of low temperature steam low-
ered reaction temperature and then caused gas quality to
degrade.
As shown in Fig. 4, in the S/B range from 0 to 1.35,
CO concentration decreased and the content of CH4 ,
CO2 , and C2 H4 increased because of steam introduction.
0 1 2 3 4
ð12Þ Steam to biomass ratio
Fig. 4. Effect of S/B on gas composition biomass feed rate: 0.445 kg/h;
temperature: 800 C; air: 0.5 N m3 /h.
Over the S/B range from 1.35 to 2.70, the content of CO,
CH4 and C2 H4 decreased gradually, whereas CO2 and
H2 concentration showed a moderate increasing trend.
This can be explained by that there were more steam
reforming reactions of CO, CH4 and C2 H4 taking place
because of the increased steam quantity. When S/B was
larger than 2.70, gas composition experienced little
variation as shown in Fig. 4.
3.4. Effect of biomass particle size
In this research, four size ranges of biomass particles
were selected as mentioned above. The test results were
presented in Table 5 and Fig. 5.
It is generally accepted that gas yield and composi-
tion are related to the heating rate of the biomass par-
ticles: high heating rates produce more light gases and
less char and condensate (Di Blasi, 1996). Since smaller
particles have larger surface area and therefore faster
heating rate, it can be expected that the size of biomass
particle will have influence on product gas composition
and yield.
Fig. 5 showed that the smaller particles produced
more CH4 , CO and C2 H4 and less CO2 than the larger

Table 4
Experimental results of different S/B
Steam (kg/h) 0 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.8
S/B 0 1.35 2.02 2.70 4.04
Gas yield (N m3 /kg biomass) 1.46 2.39 2.34 2.23 1.95
Gas LHV (kJ/N m3 ) 6741 9143 8905 8560 8100
Carbon conversion efficiency (%) 68.67 92.09 88.7 85.90 75.10
Steam decomposition (SD) (%) – 63.67 40.89 29.08 16.76
Biomass feed rate: 0.445 kg/h; biomass particle size: 0.3–0.45 mm; reactor temperature: 800 C; air: 0.5 m3 /h; ER: 0.22.
100 P.M. Lv et al. / Bioresource Technology 95 (2004) 95–101

Table 5
Experimental results of different biomass particle sizes

Biomass particle size (mm) 0.6–0.9 0.45–0.6 0.3–0.45 0.2–0.3

Average size (mm) 0.75 0.53 0.38 0.25
Gas yield (N m3 /kg biomass) 1.53 1.93 2.37 2.57
Gas LHV (kJ/N m3 ) 6976 7937 8708 8737
Carbon conversion efficiency (%) 77.62 84.4 90.60 95.10
Steam decomposition (SD) (%) 32.34 42.55 52.67 56.45
Biomass feed rate: 0.512 kg/h; steam rate: 0.8 kg/h; ER: 0.23; reactor temperature: 800 C; air: 0.6 N m3 /h; S/B: 1.56.

efficiency varied from 68.67% to 95.10%; and steam

H2
CH4 decomposition ranged between 16.85% and 63.67%.
CO Temperature was the most important factor in this
CO2 process. Higher temperature favored hydrogen produc-
40 C2 H4
C2 H6
tion and gas yield but did not always favor gas heating
35 C2 H2 value. Too high a temperature lowered gas heating
value. ER had complex effects on tests results and there
Gas composition (vol%)

30 existed an optimal value for ER, which was different

25
according to different operating parameters. In the
present study, the optimal value of ER was found to be
20 0.23. This experimental study has confirmed that the
introduction of steam to biomass gasification is favor-
15
able for improving gas quality. However, excessive
10 steam would lower gasification temperature and so de-
grade product gas quality.
5
Biomass particle size also had influence on gas
0 composition; smaller biomass particles produced more
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 CH4 , CO, C2 H4 and less CO2 . For biomass gasification
Biomass average particle size(mm) smaller particles were more favorable for gas quality
Fig. 5. Effect of biomass particle size on gas composition biomass feed
and yield.
rate: 0.512 kg/h; steam rate: 0.8 kg/h; temperature: 800 C; air: 0.6
N m3 /h.
Acknowledgements

ones. This was the reason that the gas yields, gas LHV, The financial support received from the National
carbon conversion efficiency and steam decomposition Natural Science Foundation of China (project no.
were all improved when biomass particle size decreased 20206031), Guangdong Province Natural Science
as shown in Table 5. For this a possible explanation is Foundation (project no. 010876) and ‘‘One-hundred-
that for small particle sizes the pyrolysis process is scientist Programme’’ of Chinese Academy of Sciences
mainly controlled by reaction kinetics; as the particle (J. Chang) is gratefully appreciated.
size increases, the product gas resultant inside the par-
ticle is more difficult to diffuse out and the process is
mainly controlled by gas diffusion. References

Aznar, M.P., Caballero, M.A., Gil, J., Martin, J.A., Corella, J., 1998.
Commercial steam reforming catalysts to improve biomass gasifi-
4. Conclusions cation with steam–oxygen mixtures. 2. Catalytic tar removal. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 37, 2668–2680.
Courson, C., Makaga, E., Petit, C., Kiennemann, A., 2000. Develop-
Parametric tests, varying the temperature, equiva- ment of Ni catalysts for gas production from biomass gasification.
lence ratio, steam to biomass ratio and biomass particle Reactivity in steam- and dry-reforming. Catal. Today 63, 427–437.
size, have been performed to determine their effects on Delgado, J., Aznar, M.P., Corella, J., 1996. Calcined dolomite,
product gas composition, gas yields, gas LHV, carbon magnesite and calcite for cleaning hot gas from a fluidized bed
biomass gasifier with steam: life and usefulness. Ind. Eng. Chem.
conversion efficiency and steam decomposition. Over
Res. 35, 3637–3643.
the range of operating conditions tested, gas yield varied Delgado, J., Aznar, M.P., 1997. Biomass gasification with steam in
from 1.43 to 2.57 N m3 /kg biomass; gas LHV ranged fluidized bed: effectiveness of CaO, MgO, and CaO–MgO for hot
between 6741 and 9143 kJ/N m3 ; carbon conversion raw gas cleaning. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 36, 1535–1543.
 P.M. Lv et al. / Bioresource Technology 95 (2004) 95–101
Di Blasi, C., 1996. Kinetic and heat transfer control in the slow and
flash pyrolysis of solids. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 35, 37–46.
Gil, J., Corella, J., Aznar, M.P., Caballero, M.A., 1999. Biomass
gasification in atmospheric and bubbling fluidized bed: effect of the
type of gasifying agent on the product distribution. Biomass
Bioenergy 17, 389–403.
Mathieu, P., Dubuisson, R., 2002. Performance analysis of a biomass
gasifier. Energy Conv. Mgmt. 43, 1291–1299.
Rapagn
a, S., Jand, N., Kiennemann, A., Foscolo, P.U., 2000. Steam-
gasification of biomass in a fluidized-bed of olivine particles.
Biomass Bioenergy 19, 187–197.
Schuster, G., L€ offler, G., Weigl, K., Hofbauer, H., 2001. Biomass
steam gasification an extensive parametric modeling study. Bior-
esour. Technol. 77, 71–79.
101
Sadaka, S.S., Ghaly, A.E., Sabbah, M.A., 2002a. Two phase biomass
air–steam gasification model for fluidized bed reactors. Part I:
model development. Biomass Bioenergy 22, 439–462.
Sadaka, S.S., Ghaly, A.E., Sabbah, M.A., 2002b. Two phase biomass
air–steam gasification model for fluidized bed reactors. Part II:
model sensitivity. Biomass Bioenergy 22, 463–477.
Sadaka, S.S., Ghaly, A.E., Sabbah, M.A., 2002c. Two phase biomass
air–steam gasification model for fluidized bed reactors. Part III:
model validation. Biomass Bioenergy 22, 479–487.
Turn, S., Kinoshita, C., Zhang, Z., Ishimura, D., Zhou, J., 1998. An
experimental investigation of hydrogen production from biomass
gasification. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 8, 641–648.
Wu, C.Z., Xu, B.Y., Luo, Z.F., Yin, X.L., 1995. Analysis of biomass
gasification for MHV fuel gas. Gas Heat 2, 8–14 (in Chinese).