i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 2 5 2 e1 4 2 6 0

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

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

Biomass gasification for hydrogen production

Alex C.C. Chang a,b,*, Hsin-Fu Chang a, Fon-Jou Lin a, Kuo-Hsin Lin a, Chi-Hung Chen a
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, Feng Chia University, 100 Wenhwa Rd., Seatwen, Taichung 407, Taiwan
b
Green Energy Development Center, Feng Chia University, 100 Wenhwa Rd., Seatwen, Taichung 407, Taiwan

article info abstract

Article history: The objective of this study is to investigate the biomass gasification to produce the bio-
Received 21 March 2011 hydrogen and syngas in a fluidized bed. a-cellulose and other agriculture waste were
Received in revised form gasified at the temperature of 600e1000
C with respect to different equivalent and steam
13 May 2011 to biomass ratios were studied. The yield of the bio-hydrogen, syngas, and the other
Accepted 15 May 2011 products were analyzed to maximize the yield of bio-hydrogen or the syngas. A kinetic
Available online 20 July 2011 model to determine the order of the reaction and activation energy is also proposed.
Current results suggested that at the equivalent ratio of 0.2 and 1000
C without steam
Keywords: achieved the maximum yield of the bio-hydrogen (29.5%) and CO (23.6%). CO2 concentra-
Biomass gasification tion at this condition is 10.9% only. The yield of the H2 and CO, which is called syngas in the
Hydrogen industrial, can be further used for the liquid fuel production or gas cleanup to produce
Syngas hydrogen.
Agriculture waste Copyright ª 2011, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights
Fluidized bed reserved.

1. Introduction respectively. Nowadays, bio-energy is becoming the most

Recently, the global warming effects and energy supplies
issues have been drawn more and more attentions around
the world. The anomaly climate was related to greenhouse
gas concentration increasing so that how to reduce the
greenhouse gas emissions became the major issue. It has
been one of the most important problems to deal with the
foregoing issue. In recent years, scientists have developed in
many renewable processes (i.e. solar energy, wind energy,
ocean energy, geothermal energy and bio-energy) to resolve
this serious issue. Many scientists indicate that the devel-
opment of renewable energy can effectively alleviate the
current problems. The usage of renewable energy has more
advantages and less impact to environment than fossil
fuels. Moreover, the order of energy consumption around
the world is petroleum, coal, nature gas and bio-energy,
widely used renewable energy. It is considered that the
development of bio-energy is the most likely way to
substitute fossil fuels.
Biomass is a potential energy resource [1,2] and there are
several pathways (e.g. physical, thermal, chemical, and bio-
logical conversion) to generate energy from biomass. By the
preceding methods, biomass could be converted to heat,
electricity, solid fuels (coal), liquid fuels (bio-oil, methanol and
ethanol) and gas fuels (hydrogen and syngas), respectively. In
this study, the discussion of biomass gasification with/
without steam was carried out in a lab-scale reactor. Gasifi-
cation is a thermochemical process for destruction of feed-
stocks (i.e. biomass, lignocellulosic residues, agriculture
waste, refuse derived fuel and organic wastes) to produce
energy carrier. Air has been widely used as the oxygen source
for gasification. There are several researches who discussed

* Corresponding author. Department of Chemical Engineering, Feng Chia University, 100 Wenhwa Rd., Seatwen, Taichung 407, Taiwan.
Tel.: þ886 4 2451 7250x3676/3664, fax: þ886 4 2451 0890.
E-mail address: acchang@fcu.edu.tw (A.C.C. Chang).
0360-3199/$ e see front matter Copyright ª 2011, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.05.105
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 2 5 2 e1 4 2 6 0
the performance of biomass gasification process with/without
air and steam [3e10]. However, this technology with steam
requires additional energy cost for increasing the temperature
of supplementary steam. Due to the economic viewpoint, it
was gained attention on the low temperature biomass gasifi-
cation with air and steam. Since the steam gasification reac-
tion is an endothermic reaction, air is also used to reduce the
energy cost by partial oxidation (exothermic reaction) reaction
of biomass.
Many scientists have discussed the effects of the oper-
ating conditions on the performance of biomass gasifica-
tion. Kumar et al. [3] stated that temperature is the most
influential factor for gasification and with increasing
temperature resulted in increases in hydrogen and methane
contents. Lv et al. [4] also found higher temperature
contribute to more hydrogen production and the low heat-
ing value (LHV) of fuel gas decreased with equivalence ratio
(ER). The influence of biomass particle size on gasification
performance was demonstrated by Luo et al. [11], and it
showed that carbon conversion efficiency and hydrogen
yield increase with decreasing particle size. Moreover, char
and tar was also decreased. Franco et al. [12] suggested that
the optimization of gasification temperature is around
830
C and steam to biomass ratio of 0.6e0.7 (w/w). It also
has been studied in detail at pilot plant scale by Gil et al. and
co-workers [13]. In their well operating conditions results
indicated the outlet gas consisted of 5 g/N m3 tar, 30 vol%
Fig. 1 e Schematic design of the gasifier used for this study.
14253
H2, heating value of 16 MJ/N m3, and gas yield of 1.2 N m3/kg
biomass fed.
The goal of this study is to establish a biomass gasifier for
hydrogen and syngas production. The commercial a-cellulose
was used as the substrate to test the operating parameters.
Gasification temperature, equivalent ratio, and the steam to
the biomass ratio are the key operating parameters. Bagasse
and the mushroom growth bag waste were also used as the
substrate to produce hydrogen and syngas. The composition
and the thermogravimetric properties were also analyzed of
these materials, which are very important to determine the
potential route for the agriculture waste treatment.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. The biomass gasifier
The schematic design of the biomass gasifier for the ligno-
cellulosic materials or the agriculture wastes for this study is
shown in Fig. 1. This gasifier can be divided into feeding,
gasification, and effluent zones.
The feeding zone consisted of the feed of air (supplied by
a compressor and controlled by a flow meter), steam (supplied
and controlled by a steam generator), and the biomass
(supplied by a substrate holder and controlled by a spiral
feeder).
14254 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 2 5 2 e1 4 2 6 0

The gasification zone is consisted of a tubular reactor

Table 2 e The chemical composition analysis of the
(made of 310 stainless steel; with a freeboard zone of 63.9 mm substrates used in this study (proximate and ultimate
I.D. and 450 mm in length at the top and a reaction zone of analysis of biomasses fed to the gasifier).
47.9 mm I.D. and 650 mm in length at the bottom) and tubular
Items a-Cellulose Bagasse Mushroom
heater (Lindberg Blue-M 1200
C, HTF55342C). To ensure the waste
temperature can be evenly controlled, the heater equipped
Proximate analysis (wt%)
with three heating system and can be controlled
Moisture 5.80  0.17 5.16  0.04 3.69  0.07
independently.
Combustible 94.13  0.17 92.18  0.07 86.27  0.29
In this study, it does not employ any additional bed Ash 0.08  0.03 2.70  0.03 10.17  0.24
materials. The feedstocks are used not only as the reactants
Ultimate analysis (wt% dry)
but also the bed materials. The theoretical minimum fluid-
C 44.44 42.80 40.24
ization velocities of a-cellulose, bagasse and mushroom wood
H 6.17 5.61 5.05
are 0.418, 1.02, and 2.81 L/min, respectively. O 49.38 50.55 53.09
The effluent gas from the gasifier passed through N N.A. 0.53 1.43
a condenser to lower the temperature, a cyclone collector was S N.A. 0.51 0.19
Cl N.A. N.A. N.A.

Table 1 e Nomenclatures and the definition of the used to collect the ash after the gasification, another
parameters used in this study. condenser to lower the gas temperature below 100
C,
Symbols Definitions a gaseliquid separator to separate the gas and liquid phase
products, a scrubber (contains acetone and ethanol) to remove
yi Gas phase concentration of the
effluent stream
tar, and a molecular sieve bed to remove the residual organic
DT The combustion peak width (D
C) solvent or moisture. Upon finishing all the cleaning-processes,
DTGmax The maximum weight lost rate the terminal effluent gas was analyzed by a gas chromato-
during the SDT analysis graph (G.C., CHINA Chromatograph, GC-1000, equipped with
Ea Activation energy, kJ/mol a Porapak Q packed column (1/800 ID, 3 m, 80/100 mesh), and
ER Equivalent ratio of the air fed
thermo conductivity detector (TCD current 60 mA,
to the gasifier
Temperature ¼ 40
C), oven temperature ¼ 40
C, and argon as
Hj Burn-out characteristic index
(mg/min
C2) the carrier gas). The compositions and the yield of the gas can
k Reaction rate constant for be then determined.
combustion/gasification
k0 Reaction rate constant at the reference
state for combustion/gasification 2.2. Experimental procedure
LHVH2 The low heating value of the hydrogen
from every kg of the biomass fed
2.2.1. Start up
to the gasifier (MJ/kg Biomass)
To prepare the substrates for the gasification, the feed-
LHVtotal dry gas The low heating value of the effluent
gas at standard state (MJ/N m3) stocks were naturally dried for several days, grounds, dried
LHVðH2 Þ The theoretical low heating value at 65
C, and stored in a sealed container prior the usage.
for hydrogen combustion, 120 (MJ/Kg) The moisture content of the substrate is controlled at
n Order of the reaction (the order of the 2e10% with the particle size less than 0.35 mm. To start
reaction is generally equal to 1.0) the gasification, the oven temperature, air flow rate, and
R Gas constant R ¼ 0.082 (atm  L/mole  K)
steam flow rate were controlled at the designated condi-
S Ignition property index of biomass
(mg/min
C2)
tion prior feeding the biomass to the gasifier by the spiral
SB Steam to biomass ratio feeder. All equipments were carefully calibrated before the
t Time (min) reaction.
T Reaction temperature (T,
C)
Ti Ignition temperature (T,
C) 2.2.2. Experimental run
Tmax The temperature of the maximum
Prior starting gasification, the flow rate of air (controlled by
weight loss rate during the
a rotameter), steam (controlled by a steam generator or
SDT analysis
W Weight of biomass (mg) a micro fluid pump), and temperature were set at the desig-
x The ratio of the weight loss during the nated experimental parameters. Meanwhile, the biomass
SDT analysis to determine the activation was loaded into the biomass holding cup. Whenever the
energy of com of gasification experimental parameters were reached to the steady state,
Ygas The yield of gas production per gram the spiral feeder was started and the biomass was then fed to
of the biomass fed to the gasifier
the gasifier at the designated flow rate. Gas phase sample
(L/g Biomass)
were taken at the effluent every 3 min for composition
rH2 Density of hydrogen, 0.08988 (kg/m3)
u Heating rate (
C/min) analysis by a G.C. Upon the completion of the gasification,
steam was fed to the gasifier to clean the residual material
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 2 5 2 e1 4 2 6 0
inside the tubular reactor and the before cooling down the
oven.
2.3. Analysis of substrates
The chemical properties of the biomasses in this study were
characterized by proximate analysis (by the standard
procedure of NIEA R205.01C, Republic of China) to determine
the ratios of moisture, combustible content, and ash; ulti-
mate analysis (Elementar, EA, Vario E1) to determine the
elemental composition (C, H, O, N, and S) of the biomasses.
The ash obtaining from the ultimate analysis was further
analyzed by EDS (SEM/EDS, HITACHI S3000H) and induc-
tively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometer (ICP-
OES, Perkin Elmer OPTIMA 2000DV) for the composition
analysis.
The basic combustive properties are determined by the
differential scanning calorimetry (DSC, TA Instruments,
SDT2960). The relations of the combustion temperature, energy
change, and weight loss can be determined. The ignition
temperature, the maximum weight loss ratio and the temper-
ature during the heating processes, exothermic band, and the
activation energy of combustion can also be determined.
2.4. Parameters definition and methods of data
processing
The major operation parameters for this study are the gasifi-
cation temperature (Tb,) equivalent ratio (ER), and the steam
to biomass ratio (SB) for the biomass. By adjusting the oper-
ation parameters, the yield of effluent gas and the composi-
tion and the low heating value of the produced gas
ðLHVtotal dry gas Þ can be obtained. In general, 40e50% of the
cellulose is found in the agriculture materials [14]. Thus,
a-cellulose (Sigma CAS 9004-34-6) was used as the feed at the
first phase of this study. The agriculture wastes such as
bagasse and the mushroom growth bag waste (wood waste)
which were also used in this study.
The definition of the operation parameters are listed as [4]:
- The equivalence ratio (ER)
Actual Air Feto the GasifierðLiter of Air=ðmin=g$biomassÞÞ
ER ¼
Theoretical Air for Complete CombustionðLiter of Air=ðmin=g$biomassÞÞ
- Steam to biomass ratio (SB)
The Feed of Steamðg=minÞ
SB ¼
The Feed of Biomassðg=minÞ
- Dry product gas low heating value, LHVtotal dry gas (MJ/N m3)

LHVtotal dry gas ¼ 30:0  yCO þ 25:7  yH2 þ 85:4  yCH4 þ 151:3
 4:2


 yCn Hm MJ=N m3
106
14255
where CO, H2, CH4 and CnHm are the concentrations of the gas
products.
3. Results and discussions
The nomenclatures and definitions of the parameters used in
this study are listed in Table 1.
3.1. Characterization of the substrate
The results of the proximate analysis, ultimate analysis, and
differential scanning calorimetry analysis of the substrates
are shown in Table 2 and the weight loss respect to different
biomass at different heating rate of the SDT analysis are
shown in Fig. 2.
The results from the proximate and the ultimate analysis
provide the chemical properties and the SDT result provides
the thermogravimetric characters of the biomasses used in
this study. Fig. 2 shows the relationship between the weight
loss and the heat flow of the biomass during the course of
heating. It is suggested that the pyrolysis temperature will
shift to a higher temperature regime at a higher heating rate
during the DSC analysis.
The studies of a-cellulose pyrolysis, significant weight
loss was observed at 247e280
C(dehydration), 280e305
C
(first combustive pyrolysis), and 419e452
C (residual
biomass pyrolysis) with respect to different heating rate.
Hanna et al. [15] also studied thermogravimetric analysis
corn stover while using air as the carrier gas; suggested three
stages of the pyrolysis: dehydration (25e135
C), combustive
pyrolysis (220e350
C), and the residual biomass pyrolysis
(400e800
C). Current results also agreed with the literature
report.
The studies of using complex agriculture waste, such as
bagasse or mushroom growth bag waste, they are composed
of the cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, fertilizer, and some
other inorganic components. Thus, the temperature range of
pyrolysis is 225e512
C for the bagasse and 194e530
C for the
mushroom growth bag waste, which is much wider than that
of a-cellulose pyrolysis (for 20
C/min heating rate). Therefore,
(1)
the complexity of the biomass composition may broaden the
peak of the pyrolysis from the SDT analysis. Based on the
results of thermogravimetric analysis, the pyrolysis temper-
ature will shift to the high temperature regime with a fast
(2)
temperature heating rate. With the usage of the complex
biomass, the combustion peak becomes broaden. This is also
agreed with the study by Alvarez et al. [16] and suggested that
the peak of pyrolysis temperature is at 200e500
C, 300
C for
the hemicellulose and 360
C for the pure cellulose.
The combustive property of the biomass can also be
determined by the ignition temperature (Ti), the maximum
(3) weight loss rate during the SDT analysis (DTGmax), the
14256 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 2 5 2 e1 4 2 6 0

min
C2) and burn-out characteristic index (Hj) [17]. They are
defined as:

DTGmax
S¼ (4)
Tmax Ti

DTGmax
Hj ¼ (5)
DTh
Ti  Tmax 
DT

The ignition property index expresses the burning condi-

tions, the greater the value the better the performance of
catching fire and combustion stability. A larger value of the
burn-out characteristic index also shows a better combustion
property for cleaner combustion. The results of the all
biomass at different analysis condition are listed in Table 3.
They show that a-cellulose can be burned much easier than
bagasse and wood waste.
In general, it was believed that the biomass combustion to
be the first order reaction [18] and the activation energies for
the a-cellulose, wood waste, and bagasse at different heating
rates are showed in Table 3 [3,16]. This result is agreed with
the literature results that the activation energy of a-cellulose
pyrolysis is higher than 100 kJ/mol. The higher activation
energy of combustion also shows the higher ignition
temperature; which is agreed with the conclusion of the
ignition temperature.
Although it was believed that the biomass combustion is
the first order reaction, the actual order of the reaction and
the activation energy should be depended on the
biomasses. If the reaction kinetic model of the combustion
is defined as the weight loss ratio during the heat process
and the heating rate in the analysis is also an important
factor to define the activation energy; the reaction rate
constant is expressed by the Arrhenius equation and the
order of the reaction can be determined. Thus, the gov-
erning equations to develop the kinetic model can be
written as:

dx
¼ kð1  xÞn (6)
dt

 
Ea
k ¼ k0 exp (7)
RT

W0  W
x¼ (8)
W0

T ¼ T0 þ u (9)
Fig. 2 e The thermogravimetric analysis of the biomasses.
 
dx dx Ea
¼u ¼ k0 exp ð1  xÞn (10)
dt dT RT
combustion peak width (DT), and the activation energy (Ea).
The temperature of Ti and value of DTGmax are the order of      
dx k0 Ea 1
bagasse < wood waste < a-cellulose from the apparent results. ln ¼ ln þ þ n  ð1  xÞ (11)
dT u R T
Among all three lignocellulosic materials, bagasse contains
less cellulose and easy to be ignited. By Eq. (11), the kinetics parameters: activation energy (Ea),
The combustion performance of the biomass can also be order of the reaction (n), and the pre-exponential factor of
determined by ignition property index of biomass (S, mg/ the reaction rate constant (k0 ), can be determined by the
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 2 5 2 e1 4 2 6 0 14257

Table 3 e The thermogravimetric properties of the biomasses used in this study with different heating rate.
Biomass_ramp DTGmax Ti (
C) Tmax (
C) DTh(
C) DTh/DT Hj (105) S (105) Ea (kJ/mol)
Units Mg/min Mg/min.
C2 Mg/min.
C2

Cellulose_5
C 0.9084 292.63 313.19 26.65 0.305 3.24 0.99 139.61

Cellulose_10
C 2.6237 303.86 329.33 24.53 0.314 8.35 2.62 150.32
Cellulose_20
C 5.1921 330.99 346.27 14.44 0.205 22.10 4.53 138.27
Bagasse_5
C 0.2844 244.91 297.05 122.37 0.501 0.78 0.39 61.67
Bagasse_10
C 0.6312 239.30 305.12 105.14 0.468 1.85 0.86 69.45
Bagasse_20
C 0.3838 258.89 316.42 156.55 0.569 0.82 0.47 56.77
Mushroom_5
C 0.8727 278.60 301.09 347.13 0.806 1.29 1.04 93.46
Mushroom_10
C 0.5607 292.63 316.42 337.42 0.780 0.78 0.61 91.69
Mushroom_20
C 1.5165 298.25 326.10 359.83 0.796 1.96 1.56 93.21

3.2. The results of a-cellulose gasification

Table 4 e The activation energies and reaction kinetics To elucidate the performance of the biomass gasification, dry
parameters of the biomasses for this study.
effluent gas composition (vol%), yield of the syngas, total
Substrate Heating Ea n k0 effluent gas flow rate (L/min), the yield of the gas formation
rate (KJ/mol) (K/min)
(L/g), and the low heating value of the effluent stream
(
C/min)
(MJ/N m3) are considered as the performance index of the
Cellulose 20 157.803 1.115 1.718Eþ13 gasification results. The studies of a-cellulose gasification
10 161.501 1.138 3.418Eþ13 with the equivalent ratio equals 0.2 and no steam are listed in
5 143.873 1.013 9.710Eþ11
Table 5. Current results suggest that the gasification
Bagasse 20 58.031 1.036 3.965Eþ04
10 62.464 0.912 1.007Eþ05
temperature is the most important operating parameter for
5 54.684 0.588 8.181Eþ03 the gasifier. With a higher reaction temperature, the yield of
Mushroom 20 108.396 2.573 1.720Eþ09 the total gas flow rate, desired product, hydrogen, and syngas
wood 10 99.822 1.671 1.752Eþ08 are increased as well as the low heating value of dry product
5 97.791 1.163 9.567Eþ07 gas [9,18].
The equivalent ratio is also another important design
parameter of the gasifier. Table 6 shows the results of
a-cellulose gasification at 800
C with respect to different
experimental data and Least Square Analysis. All the results equivalent ratios and no steam fed to the gasifier. With
are listed in Table 4. A higher heating rate during the SDT a higher equivalent ratio, the yield of the total gas flow rate,
analysis leads to a higher order of the reaction. For the cases desired product, hydrogen, and the syngas, are decreased as
with simple biomass, the order of the reaction is closed to well as the dry product gas low heating value. This apparent
one, which is also agreed with the results from the result is also agreed with the condition that a higher equiva-
literature. lent ratio, the reaction is toward the complete combustion.

Table 5 e Experimental results of the a-cellulose gasification at ER [ 0.2 and SB [ 0 at different temperature.
Parameter Reactor temperature (
C)

600 700 800 900 1000

Dry effluent gas composition (vol%)

H2 5.95  1.97 8.74  1.65 16.08  2.29 24.73  2.40 29.54  1.75
N2 56.97  2.49 48.35  3.67 42.47  4.37 34.30  3.07 33.28  2.91
CO 13.57  2.81 14.58  2.17 12.13  2.04 16.92  2.07 23.60  1.53
CH4 1.87  0.80 4.15  0.78 4.21  1.21 4.84  0.81 2.67  0.77
CO2 21.64  2.81 24.18  1.15 25.12  0.80 19.22  1.94 10.90  0.95
Syngas 19.52 23.32 28.21 41.65 53.15
Effluent gas flow 8.32 9.80 11.16 13.82 14.24
rate (L/min)
Ygas (L/min) 2.32 3.80 5.16 7.82 8.24
Ygas (L/g Biomass) 0.34 0.56 0.77 1.16 1.22
LHVdry product gas 7.02 8.27 8.30 9.95 10.67
(MJ/N m3)
14258 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 2 5 2 e1 4 2 6 0

Table 6 e Experimental results of the a-cellulose gasification at 800
Cand SB [ 0 and different equivalent ratios (ER).
Parameter Equivalence ratio values (ER)

0.20 0.27 0.34

Dry effluent gas composition (vol%)

H2 16.08  2.29 13.50  1.79 10.23  2.96
N2 42.47  4.37 45.42  2.49 51.20  4.45
CO 12.13  2.04 11.21  1.06 8.38  1.68
CH4 4.21  1.21 3.58  0.85 2.21  0.56
CO2 25.12  0.80 26.30  0.98 27.98  0.49
Syngas 28.21 24.71 18.61
Effluent gas flow rate (L/min) 11.16 13.91 15.43
Ygas (L/min) 5.16 5.91 5.43
Ygas (L/g Biomass) 0.77 0.88 0.81
LHVdry product gas (MJ/N m3) 8.30 7.61 6.05

Thus, the yield of the hydrogen and the syngas will be then
decreased.
To discuss the effect of steam onto the gasification, the
results of the a-cellulose gasification at 800
C and equivalent
ratio equals 0.27 with respect to different steam to biomass
ratio fed to the gasifier and the result is shown in Table 7. It is
suggested that with the presence of the steam, the reaction is
toward the reforming and will enhance the yield of hydrogen.
However, with the excess amount of the steam fed to the
reactor, the system loses a lot of energy to heat up the steam,
which is not favored to process of the energy production. This
apparent result is also agreed with the studies by Yan et al. [5]
and Lv et al. [7].
3.3. The effects of using different substrate
Section 3-2 showed the gasification results of using commer-
cial cellulose gasification. Upon having all the valuable design
parameters, the studies of using real biomass, especially the
agriculture waste, were studied. Bagasse and the mushroom
growth bag waste (wood waste, or the mushroom waste) are
used as the material for the gasification.
The gasification results using these materials at different
equivalent ratios, reaction temperature, and steam to biomass
ratios are shown in Fig. 3. The yield of the gas at the effluent
stream and the hydrogen are agreed with the conclusions in the
previous section. The trend of the hydrogen production and the
yield of total gas are also agreed with the composition analysis
of the biomass. Since the concentration of carbon-hydrate in
the commercial cellulose is higher than the other two samples
and lead to a higher yield of hydrogen in the effluent gas.
In the studies of agriculture waste gasification, the ash
content in the biomass becomes another important operating
factor. For the sample with a relatively high ash contents,
such as mushroom waste, the deposition of the ash and char
in the gasifier will lead to blockage in the manifold. With the
presence of the steam, the yield of the hydrogen and the gas
will also be increased. However, for the sample with a rela-
tively high ash contents, deposition of the solid product inside
the manifold is also observed. Additional operation procedure
should also be addressed in the future.

Table 7 e Experimental results of the a-cellulose gasification at 800
Cand ER [ 0.27 at different steam to biomass ratios (SB).
Parameter Steam to biomass ratio (SB)

0 0.5 1 1.5

Dry effluent gas composition (vol%)

H2 13.50  1.79 14.28  1.75 18.56  0.99 15.69  3.59
N2 45.42  2.49 47.77  4.31 42.58  1.19 46.96  5.55
CO 11.21  1.06 6.45  2.08 8.34  1.40 7.82  3.61
CH4 3.58  0.85 3.73  1.11 3.02  0.35 2.21  1.07
CO2 26.30  0.98 27.77  0.71 27.51  1.20 27.32  2.80
Syngas 24.71 20.73 26.89 23.51
Effluent gas flow rate (L/min) 13.91 13.23 14.84 13.46
Ygas (L/min) 5.91 5.23 6.84 5.46
Ygas (L/g Biomass) 0.88 0.78 1.02 0.81
LHVdry product gas (MJ/N m3) 7.61 7.07 7.20 6.55
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 2 5 2 e1 4 2 6 0 14259

Fig. 3 e Experimental results of the a-cellulose, bagasse, and mushroom waste gasification at 700e900
C, ER [ 0.27e0.34,
and SB [ 0e0.5.

4. Conclusions
The establishment of the biomass gasifier to produce bio-
hydrogen and the syngas is studied. The commercial avail-
able, a-cellulose, as well as the agriculture wastes, bagasse
and mushroom growth bag waste, were used as the substrates
for the gasifier. The gasification temperature (T ), the biomass
feeding rate, equivalent ratio (ER), and the steam to the
biomass ratio (SB) are the key operating parameters for the
gasifier. The chemical properties of the biomass can be
determined by the thermogravimetric analysis and the
composition and the yield of the gas phase sample after the
gasification is also determined.
For the studies of using agriculture waste as the feed to the
gasifier, the ash content of the materials is a key factor to
operate the gasifier. For the materials with relatively high ash
contents will lead to blockage of the manifold. Pretreatment of
the substrate to remove the ash, design of the manifold, or the
operation procedure of the gasifier should also be addressed to
use the real biomass to the gasifier for the hydrogen produc-
tion for the future studies.
The gasification of the biomass and/or the agriculture
waste can efficiently generate the hydrogen and the syngas. If
14260 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 4 2 5 2 e1 4 2 6 0
this process can be fully utilized, the gasification of these
materials not only partially solving the problem of landfill,
energy, especially hydrogen, can also be produced during the
waste treatment. In the future, catalyst can also be added into
the gasifier to enhance the yield of hydrogen and reduce the
formation of tar during the gasification.
Acknowledgments
The authors would thank for the financial support for this
study from the Ministry of Education in Taiwan, ROC, and
Feng Chia University (under contract No. FCU-08G27201, FCU-
09G27102) are highly acknowledged.
references
[1] Tanksale A, Beltramini JN, Lu GM. A review of catalytic
hydrogen production processes from biomass. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14(1):166e82.
[2] Wang L, Weller CL, Jones DD, Hanna MA. Contemporary
issues in thermal gasification of biomass and its application
to electricity and fuel production. Biomass Bioenerg 2008;
32(7):573e81.
[3] Kumar A, Eskridge K, Jones DD, Hanna MA. Steam-air
fluidized bed gasification of distillers grains: effects of steam
to biomass ratio, equivalence ratio and gasification
temperature. Bioresour Technol 2009;100(6):2062e8.
[4] 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):95e101.
[5] Li WZ, Yan YJ, Li TC, Ren ZW, Huang M, Wang J, et al.
Preparation of hydrogen via catalytic gasification of residues
from biomass hydrolysis with a novel high strength catalyst.
Energy Fuels 2007;22(2):1233e8.
[6] He M, Hu Z, Xiao B, Li J, Guo X, Luo S, et al. Hydrogen-rich gas
from catalytic steam gasification of municipal solid waste
(MSW): influence of catalyst and temperature on yield and
product composition. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34(1):195e203.
[7] Lv P, Chang J, Xiong Z, Huang H, Wu C, Chen Y, et al. Biomass
air-steam gasification in a fluidized bed to produce
hydrogen-rich gas. Energy Fuels 2003;17(3):677e82.
[8] Radmanesh R, Chaouki J, Guy C. Biomass gasification in
a bubbling fluidized bed reactor: Experiments and modeling.
Aiche J 2006;52(12):4258e72.
[9] Narvaez I, Orio A, Aznar MP, Corella J. Biomass gasification
with air in an atmospheric bubbling fluidized bed. Effect of
six operational variables on the quality of the produced raw
gas. Ind Eng Chem Res 1996;35(7):2110e20.
[10] Olivares A, Aznar MP, Caballero MA, Gil J, Frances E,
Corella J. Biomass gasification: produced gas upgrading by
in-bed use of dolomite. Ind Eng Chem Res 1997;36(12):
5220e6.
[11] 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 Hydrogen Energy 2009;
34(3):1260e4.
[12] Franco C, Pinto F, Gulyurtlu I, Cabrita I. The study of
reactions influencing the biomass steam gasification
process. Fuel 2003;82(7):835e42.
[13] Gil J, Aznar MP, Caballero MA, Frances E, Corella J.
Biomass gasification in fluidized bed at pilot scale with
steameoxygen mixtures. Product distribution for very
different operating conditions. Energy Fuels 1997;11(6):
1109e18.
[14] McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part1):
overview of biomass. Biomass Bioenerg 2002;83:37e46.
[15] Kumar A, Wang L, Dzenis YA, Jones DD, Hanna MA.
Thermogravimetric characterization of corn stover as
gasification and pyrolysis feedstock. Biomass Bioenerg 2008;
32(5):460e7.
[16] Alvarez VA, Vázquez A. Thermal degradation of cellulose
derivatives/starch blends and sisal fibre biocomposites.
Polym Degrad Stabil 2004;84(1):13e21.
[17] Fang LG, Guo ZY, Yang WP. Experiment study on burn out
characteristic of blended coal in power plant by
thermobalance. NCEPU 2001;1(1):7e10 (TK16).
[18] Luo S, Xiao B, Hu Z, Liu S, Guo X, He M. Hydrogen-rich
gas from catalytic steam gasification of biomass in
a fixed bed reactor: influence of temperature and team
on gasification performance. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;
34(5):2191e4.