Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118499

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Production of syngas via gasification using optimum blends of

biomass
Ahmed AlNouss a, b, Gordon McKay b, Tareq Al-Ansari b, *
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
b
Division of Sustainable Development, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar

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

Article history: Considering changes in the global climate, there is an impetus to diversify away from fossil fuels as part
Received 17 September 2018 of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Biomass, as a source of energy, has the potential to
Received in revised form generate sustainable power and fuels and contribute towards a cleaner future. In fact, the utilisation of
30 August 2019
biomass as a carbon dioxide neutral organic source in an integrated system generates valuable products,
Accepted 18 September 2019
Available online 19 September 2019
and reduces waste and the consumption of non-renewable resources. Gasification, the preferred option
for converting biomass to combustible gas, provides higher electrical efficiencies than combustion,
Handling Editor: Prof. S Alwi whereby the syngas generated from the gasification process can be utilised to generate clean energy. In
addition, syngas can be utilised for the production of ammonia and methanol thus reducing their
Keywords: respective dependencies on natural gas. This study will detail an optimised biomass gasification process
Biomass gasification considering multiple parameters, including the thermodynamic operating conditions, the type of gasifier
Simulation (gasifying agent) and feedstock. Fundamentally, this study considers the process pathways for the
Sensitivity analysis recycling of multiple sources of biomass to generate high energy syngas from the available biomass
Optimisation
options when used in combination as blends or individually. To achieve this aim, an Aspen Plus simu-
Biomass blending
lation model is developed for four different biomass agent-based gasification techniques using the
Gasification performance
biomass characteristics of certain Qatar biomass materials, which include date pits, manure and sewage
sludge. Outcomes of the study included an optimisation of the gasification processes to yield different
blending options of the biomass feedstock satisfying the downstream operations of power and fuels
production. The results demonstrate the domination of date pits for two of the considered configurations
with over 99% w/w date pit feed composition. Moreover, the sensitivity analysis conducted on the
different configurations highlighted specific optimum operation points in terms of temperature, pres-
sure, and oxygen and steam feed ratios. The hydrogen content in the generated syngas, considered
important for the downstream production, yields a peak at approximately 850
C and 1 bar with a
modified equivalence ratio of approximately 2.5, and a ratio of oxygen supplied by an air-steam com-
bination of approximately 0.6. The process can be further optimised by considering trade-offs between
product purity or yield, profit, operating efficiency, quality of raw materials blends, and carbon footprint.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The continuous global demand for energy in the light of climate
change has fundamentally influenced energy planning. In this re-
gard, there is a drive for a wider utilisation of renewable energy
sources in order to meet the growing energy demand and to reduce
the reliance on traditional fossil fuels. The combustion of fossil fuels
results in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: talansari@hbku.edu.qa (T. Al-Ansari).
climate change and global warming. These emissions are expected
to increase from the present 160 megatons of carbon (MtC) to
approximately 640 MtC by 2100. As energy security remains a
priority amongst nations, the development of alternative solutions
to conventional fossil-based power generation is of fundamental
importance. Biomass, an energy source has the potential to
generate sustainable power and fuels, while reducing the carbon
emissions by approximately 20% (Daioglou et al., 2014). The effi-
cient utilisation of biomass as a renewable energy source forms a
challenge due to the low combustion efficiency of the traditional
biomass-based combustion technologies (Doherty et al., 2013).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118499
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 A. AlNouss et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118499
However, there have been recent advancements in biomass gasi-
fication, a promising thermochemical conversion technique, which
converts biomass feedstock into a high-energy combustible gas
(Sikarwar et al., 2016). Testament to the importance of biomass
gasification, Fig. 1 illustrates that the number of publications re-
ported in Scopus concerning biomass gasification has increased by
approximately 8 fold between the years 2000 and 2017.
The present study will uniquely consider the potential to blend
various waste streams available in the urban environment, which in
many cases would have be landfilled or incinerated, and to produce
optimum pathways for a continuous stream of syngas. In order to
account for downstream production requirements, the produced
syngas would typically require adjustment through a correction of
carbon and hydrogen for instance. By optimising the biomass
feedstock blends, it is claimed that the subsequent adjustment
requirement would be reduced thus reducing the overall cost of the
process (Pala et al., 2017). In addition, the blending of multiple
biomass feedstock can add a degree of freedom to the syngas
composition and address the challenge of seasonal biomass avail-
ability (Inayat, Muddasser et al., 2019a,b). For a Qatar case, this
study integrates date palm residues (date pits), sewage sludge, and
livestock manure into a process model representing the gasification
process and end product utilisation options which include the
production of power and fuels. Furthermore, considering the pro-
cess design, an in-depth analysis is applied to evaluate the influ-
ence of key gasification parameters such as pressure, temperature,
modified equivalence ratio and ratio of oxygen supplied by air and
steam, on the dry syngas compositions, syngas heating content and
cold gasification efficiency (CGE).
1.1. Biomass gasification
Converting carbon-based biomasses ranging from forestry res-
idues to pet-coke wastes to valuable chemicals and energy through
gasification, has various advantages over conventional processes,
such as the reduction of environmentally harmful emissions and
the ability to produce electricity independently of an external po-
wer source (Mahinpey and Gomez, 2016). Natural energy resources
such as wind, solar, and hydro are abundantly available, never-
theless their conversion processes lack full adoption because of
high capital costs and intermittency (Kumar and Shukla, 2016).
Hence, Biomass gasification (BG) can feature in the global energy
mix and provide an alternative to existing renewable options
Fig. 1. Uptrend number of publications addressing biomass gasification.
because of its high technology readiness and a relatively smaller
capital cost (Ellabban et al., 2014). The BG process can lower the
ratio of carbon to hydrogen in the efflux syngas leading to a more
favourable H2 fraction and a larger calorific value content (Higman
and van der Burgt, 2008). It can result in multiple useful products
such as bio-char, bio-fuels, and syngas for the production of heat,
power, and fertiliser. The produced syngas, which is mainly a
combination of carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2),
hydrogen (H2), and methane (CH4), is a key product of the gasifi-
cation process. It is an essential intermediate for the generation of
power and environmentally-friendly chemicals and fuels
(Parthasarathy and Narayanan, 2014). Nevertheless, it can be
associated with different types of contaminants such as nitrogen
compounds, sulphur compounds, and tars (Abdoulmoumine et al.,
2014). The various feedstock materials, gasifying agents, gasifier
conditions, and sorbent or catalyst present have their influence on
the quality and/or quantity of the different gasification products
and their associated contaminants (Farzad et al., 2016).
Gasification process feedstock are sourced primarily from
lignocellulosic materials, with chemical structures containing
lignin, cellulose, and hemicelluloses. These chemical structures are
inherent in commonly available wastes such as wood, agricultural
waste, municipal solid waste (MSW), sewage treatment waste, and
food waste (Kumar and Shukla, 2016). Food waste for instance, has
a high-energy content that can be extracted through the gasifica-
tion process. There is a dual advantage in the reduction of landfilled
biomass and also the parallel generation of value-added products
from waste derived syngas (Ahmed and Gupta, 2010). Yang et al.
(2016) explored the capability of food waste gasification and co-
gasification with woody biomass in deriving high quality syngas.
The results of the fixed bed downdraft gasifier illustrate that uti-
lising a 40:60 food waste to wood waste mixture for a gasification
process, produced the highest calorific content syngas in terms of
the lower heating value (LHV). Additionally, the study concluded
that gasification could mitigate food waste disposal. Simulation has
been used to confirm experimental gasification studies, which have
considered food waste as a feedstock, such as soya bean, sugarcane,
wheat, rapeseed, etc. Yan et al. (2018) built a one dimensional
model using Aspen Plus to kinetically simulate the co-gasification
of biomass and coal in a DFB. The study examined the effect of
key operating parameters, such as biomass blending ratio, feed-
stock flow rate and initial bed temperature on the produced syngas
compositions. The results indicated an enhancement in the
 A. AlNouss et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118499
gasification process with the increase in blending ratio and initial
bed temperature. Similarly, Peng et al. (2017) studied the co-
gasification of coal and biomass utilising a dual circulating flui-
dised bed (CFB) to experimentally evaluate the catalytic behaviour
of three common alkali catalysts during the co-gasification process.
The results demonstrated a reduction in the CO2 yield and an in-
crease in the H2 yield with each increase of catalyst mass ratio.
Moreover, the addition of coal to biomass improved the overall
conversion of the process and increased the cracking of the tars.
Hern
andez et al. (2017) explored the optimal blend of organic
waste to produce chemicals using biomass wastes mixtures derived
from sludge, manure and food waste digested to generate biogas.
The study included the price of digestate in the optimum formu-
lation. The results of the fixed generated compositions of methane
and carbon dioxide for the different H2 to C ratios, highlighted
sludge feedstock as the only source of biomass if the component's
price of fertiliser was considered. Whereas, a mixture of 65:35
cattle slurry and urban food waste was determined as the optimal
blend if the typical fertiliser composition was applied. Sulaiman
et al. (2018) studied the co-gasification of three biomass types
that include wood chips, coconut fronds and coconut shells. The
study focused on the effect of biomass type, blending ratio, catalyst
type and catalyst to biomass loading on the syngas composition and
higher heating value (HHV). The highest hydrogen content and
HHV approximated at 11.7 vol% and 4.96 MJ/Nm3 was observed at a
blending ratio of 70:30 between wood chips and coconut shells.
Wood chips demonstrate a potential to replace or blend with co-
conut wastes with some major geometry changes in the gasifier. In
a similar study, Inayat, M. et al., 2019a,b investigated the effect of
blending ratio, equivalence ratio (ER), gasification temperature and
catalyst loading on the performance of wood-coconut shells co-
gasification. Among the studied ranges of the different parame-
ters, higher gasification temperature and high presence of coconut
shells in the biomass blend demonstrated better syngas quality
with high HHV and low tar formation. Reduction in hydrogen
content was observed at higher ER with lower tar content, CGE and
gas yield. The study concluded that the co-gasification process can
be improved sufficiently through the different operating parame-
ters with a trade-off between tar reduction, co-gasification per-
formance and syngas quality. Pala et al. (2017) simulated a biomass
gasification model using Aspen Plus based on the minimisation of
the Gibbs free energy with a restricted equilibrium methodology.
The simulation considered various biomass feedstock including
food waste and MSW to examine the changing effect of gasification
temperature, shift reaction temperature, and steam to biomass
ratio on syngas quality and especially the H2/CO ratio. The optimum
ratio was achieved by alternating the hydrogen and CO concen-
trations based on different biomass feedstock. The results demon-
strated that the steam gasification of food waste unlike other
feedstock yielded a 2.15 H2/CO ratio that can be used directly in the
production of liquid fuels without any requirement for syngas
adjustment.
Farmers have traditionally used livestock manure as a source of
valuable and cost-effective fertiliser for their farms. It improves
both soil quality and fertility with the high content of nutrients and
organic matter when applied appropriately. However, there is a
threshold in the quantity of nutrients that can be productively used
on fields. It is essential that alternative uses of manure must be
sustainable from economic and environmental perspective. Com-
bined with the global growing demand for renewable energy, an
attractive opportunity is presented for manure-based energy.
Various technologies; such as gasification, pyrolysis, digestion and
composting, can utilise the animal manure as a feedstock to pro-
duce heat, power and biochar (KCFE, 2012). Esteves et al. (2019)
emphasised the importance of utilising livestock manure to
3
produce biogas as an intermediary for the production of fertilisers
and power. A systematic review of different studies that have
analysed the production cycle of biogas from manure was provided.
The study identified the critical points and environmental impacts
of the life cycle assessment (LCA) for the production of biogas from
manure, and consequently the potential to establish regional sus-
tainability strategies. Naqvi et al. (2016) investigated the off-grid
electricity generation from the gasification of dairy waste
including wheat straw, rice hulls and cow manure. The levelised
cost of electricity (LCOE) indicator was utilised to measure the
competitiveness of off-grid electricity generation. The price of off-
grid electricity was estimated to be greater than the average
governmental electricity tariff. Antoniou et al. (2019) investigated
the enhancement of a digestion model through the use of down-
stream gasification. The digestate, originating from a mixed blend
of agricultural wastes of pig manure, cow manure, maize and trit-
icale silages and cereal bran, was experimentally gasified with air in
a downdraft fixed-bed reactor. The results demonstrated that a
gasification temperature of approximately 850
C increased the
syngas yield.
Sewage sludge waste is an important resource which can also be
utilised as feedstock for gasification. Sewage sludge is essentially
the residue of the industrial and municipal wastewater treatment
process (Werle, 2016). The disposal and storage of sewage sludge is
challenging due to the variety of harmful species such as bacteria,
viruses, and heavy metals. Gasification offers a significant potential
to address such disposal issues. Calvo et al. (2013) experimentally
evaluated the gasification of sewage sludge in a simple fluidised
bed gasifier with the adjustment of flow and fuel feed rate to obtain
an air-fuel mass ratio of 0.2e0.4. The resulting heat content of the
produced gas was approximately 8.4 MJ/m3 at 0
C with a 57% cold
gas efficiency and a 70% hot gas efficiency. Champion et al. (2014)
established a mathematical model to estimate the syngas produc-
tion rate, composition and temperature and calibrated it using
different lab-scale fluidised-bed sewage sludge gasifiers. The re-
sults from the model were in good agreement with the experi-
mental literature data. Ong et al. (2015) conducted an experimental
and numerical study to co-gasify woody biomass and sewage
sludge. A fixed-bed downdraft gasifier was utilised to perform the
experiments and the results demonstrated an average LHV of
4.5 MJ/m3 at 0
C for the syngas using 20 wt% sewage sludge
feedstock. The experimental and numerical results were in close
proximity with a deviation of less than 10%. Werle (2016) experi-
mentally investigated the gasification of sewage sludge using a
fixed bed gasifier. Wide operating ranges were considered where
the results demonstrated that: air ratio, gasification agent pre-
heating, and gasification agent compositions have a significant
impact on determining the LHV of the produced syngas. Similarly,
multiple studies have been developed to examine the effect of
manipulating different operating parameters on the quality of the
produced syngas and other performance indicators and to capture
the different experimental methodologies and their influence on
the efficiency of the gasification process. Choi et al. (2015) studied
the effect of ash and steam to fuel ratio on hydrogen production and
tar removal. Gil-Lalaguna et al. (2014) explored the effect of gasi-
fication temperature and composition of the gasification medium
on solid yield, tar content, gas production, gasification efficiency,
heating value and H2:CO ratio. Nipattummakul et al. (2010)
experimentally evaluated the performance of gasification over py-
rolysis. Documented progress in gasification based literature in-
cludes milestones in the development of gasifier types, gasification
processing steps and the general advantages and disadvantages of
gasification. Heidenreich and Foscolo (2015) reviewed the concepts
in biomass gasification for process integration and combination.
Mahinpey and Gomez (2016) reviewed the recent findings on the
4 A. AlNouss et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118499
effect of experimental gasification procedure on overall reaction,
gasification kinetics and methods of kinetic models evaluation.
Sikarwar et al. (2016) assessed the fundamentals of gasification
such as the effect of different operating parameters, feedstock
types, modelling approaches and tar formation along with the
recent advances in biomass gasification.
According to the World Bank, the State of Qatar on a per capita
basis produces waste at a rate of 1.8 kg per capita per day or 7000
tons per day (Ahmad, 2016). As outlined in the Qatar National
Development Strategy 2011e2016, environmental waste manage-
ment strategies are essential in promoting widespread sustainable
waste utilisation systems. Additionally, the current energy portfolio
of Qatar is almost entirely dependent on hydrocarbons, namely
natural gas, to drive the power generation and petrochemicals in-
dustries. Hence, there is a need to diversify the energy mix through
the incorporation of renewable energy options in order to reduce
the release of GHG emissions and to increase system diversity and
resilience. Fulfilling this objective through biomass has the addi-
tional advantage of eliminating challenges associated with waste
disposal. As such, the aim of this study is two-fold; first, to design a
process system that reduces national waste streams, and secondly,
to do so whilst generating value added products. The proposed
system will utilise waste biomass from the Qatar date palm residues
(date pits) in addition to sewage sludge, and livestock manure to
generate high-energy producer gas/syngas, which contains mainly
H2, CO, CO2 and CH4. The considered biomass sources in this study
predominately originate from urban and agricultural sources. The
availability of manure is expected to increase significantly as part of
the food security programs in Qatar. In addition, with the rapid
increase in industries and dates manufactories, sludge and date pits
quantities are expected to increase. Considering biomass produc-
tion forecasts for Qatar, a computer simulation model utilising the
advanced techniques for biomass gasification is developed using
Aspen Plus. The results of the simulated biomass gasification model
demonstrate agreement with the actual plant data. Moreover,
outputs of the model, i.e. gasifier syngas compositions, heating
value and performance are validated with reported literature. For
this study, the developed model determines the optimum blending
conditions for existing gasification processes using available
biomass resources in Qatar in order to generate high-energy
syngas.
1.2. Potential of syngas
Synthesis gas (syngas) is an important intermediary for the
generation of power, chemicals and fuels. Traditionally, it has been
produced from coal, natural gas, or by-products from refineries. It
consists primarily of CO and H2 with smaller amounts of CH4 and
CO, in some cases. Within the Middle East region and in almost all
global refineries, particularly in the growing economies, the H2 rich
syngas production capacity continues to increase (Iaquaniello et al.,
2012). The choice of a feedstock depends on the availability, the cost
of the raw material, and the use of produced syngas downstream.
Currently, 50% of the syngas produced mainly from natural gas, coal
or refinery by-products, is utilised in the production of ammonia,
25% to hydrogen, and the remainder is converted to methanol,
Fisher-Tropsch (FT) products and others (Rauch et al., 2014).
Approximately 6 Exajoules (EJ) of syngas is produced annually
worldwide, which corresponds to almost 2% of the present
worldwide energy consumption (Van der Drift and Boerrigter,
2006).
Since syngas serves as an intermediate product for several key
processes, its quality and specifically the H2/CO ratios differ
depending on the application. For instance, the synthesis of
methanol requires the use of a unique formula to determine the
two reactants; CO2 and CO, composition. Whereas, syngas com-
positions with a molar H2 to CO ratio of about 2.0 are required in the
Gas-to-Liquid (GTL) applications utilising the Fischer-Tropsch (FT)
technology, where CO2 is not a reaction element. Pure carbon
monoxide is needed for the carboxylation process and the specific
H2/CO molar ratio is lowered to 1.0 for aldehydes generation via
olefins hydro-formylation. However, the two key syngas utilisation
applications that include the production of fertilisers and oil
refining operations require the maximisation of hydrogen content.
Syngas is commonly produced via Auto-thermal Reforming (ATR),
Partial Oxidation (POx), and Steam Reforming (SR). Auto-thermal
Reforming integrates the combustion reactions with the catalytic
reforming reactions to produce a syngas composition that is typi-
cally applied in the production of large-scale methanol and Fischer-
Tropsch liquids. POx technology has a unique possibility of utilising
heavy hydrocarbons in a non-catalytic system to produce a CO-rich
syngas. The SR is the most energy efficient technology amongst
them and it is catalytically utilised with light hydrocarbons to
produce an H2-rich syngas (Iaquaniello et al., 2012). Table 1 illus-
trates a comparison of the three gas reforming technologies (De
Klerk, 2012).
Solid feedstock are typically converted to synthesis gas through
gasification processes that are distinguished by reactor properties
or the effluent gas temperature. Table 2 illustrates the classification
and main attributes of the different gasification technologies (De
Klerk, 2012).
Any source of carbon can potentially be used as a feedstock for
the generation of synthesis gas. Following its production, the syn-
gas is purified and prepared as a raw material to produce valuable
products. In terms of economic feasibility, the cost of the syngas
purification units in the FischereTropsch GTL process is by far the
highest of any feed-to-liquids (XTL) facility. In the case of solid raw
materials such as coal, the cost of the delivery of purified syngas can
reach up to 70% of the total capital cost. Similarly, biomass to syngas
requires a large investment in the syngas process adjustment to the
gasification process and prior to its utilisation in the generation of
value-added products. The technology of converting natural gas to
syngas is less challenging and the relative capital cost for it is
smaller (Pala et al., 2017). The initial syngas adjustment can typi-
cally be achieved through manipulating process conditions or the
gasifying agent quantity, after which the requirement for further
purification is reduced. In this study, the produced syngas from
biomass gasification is initially adjusted through optimising the
biomass feedstock blends. This can lower the required gasifying
agent quantities and operating energy to achieve the same
adjustment, whilst achieving the required syngas quality for
further utilisation in the production of value added products. This
study is part of an integrated project investigation the optimal
utilisation options for syngas. This includes defining potential im-
provements that enable a reduction in capital and energy re-
quirements within the syngas production process.
2. Process description
In order to create value added products from waste streams and
ultimately reduce the environmental burden associated with waste
disposal, this study determines the optimum blending pathways
for gasification processes in order to generate high-energy syngas
using available biomass in Qatar. A novel simulation model, appli-
cable to any mixed biomass feedstock gasification scenario is
developed with Aspen Plus and is demonstrated using both single
and blended component analysis for Qatar specific biomass char-
acteristics. The optimisation nature of the work differs from other
literature biomass utilisation studies as it integrates various
biomass feedstock blends, including date pits, a locally abundant
 A. AlNouss et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118499 5

Table 1
Comparison of gas reforming technologies for syngas production (De Klerk, 2012).

Description Steam Reforming Partial Oxidation Auto-thermal Reforming

Feed H2O:C ratio (mol/mol) 2.5e5.0 0e0.15 1.5e2.5 0.6

Feed O2:C ratio (mol/mol) 0 0.55e0.65 0.55e0.6 0.6
Outlet pressure (MPa) 2.0e2.5 2.5e4.0 ~2.5 2.5e2.9
Outlet temperature (◦C) 820e880 1300e1400 950e1050 1020e1065
Product CO2:CO ratio (mol/mol) 0.5e1 0.05e0.1 0.2e0.3 0.2
Product H2:CO ratio (mol/mol) 4e7 1.6e1.9 2.5e3.5 2.2e2.3
Outlet CH4 content (mol%) 3e5 0.1 0.5e1 0.5e1.2

Table 2
Classification and main attributes of feed-to-syngas gasification conversion technologies (De Klerk, 2012).

Attribute Gasification technology

Reactor technology Low temperature Medium temperature High temperature

Moving bed Fluidised bed Entrained flow

Temperature of syngas (◦C) 425e650 900e1050 1250e1600

H2:CO ratio in syngas > 2:1 to < 1: 1 < 1: 1 ~1:2
Steam demand High Moderate Low
Oxidant demand Low Moderate High
Pyrolysis products in gas Yes Possibly No

waste. Furthermore, multiple end-use options for hydrogen rich
syngas are considered within the optimisation framework. The
description of the base case process has been emphasised in an
earlier study that utilises oxygen and steam as gasifying agents
(AlNouss et al., 2018). The base case has also been utilised to assess
the techno-economic and environmental performance of the
gasification process integrated with a number of downstream ap-
plications (AlNouss et al., 2019b), to study the sustainability of the
system through energy-water-food (EWF) nexus applications
(AlNouss et al., 2019c) and to optimise the superstructure of
biomass gasification and downstream applications (AlNouss et al.,
2019a). The simulated Aspen Plus flowsheet is further enhanced
to capture the different biomass gasification technologies that
include:
1. Oxygen-steam biomass gasification with indirect heating;
2. Oxygen-steam biomass gasification with direct heating;
3. Oxygen biomass gasification with direct heating;
4. Steam biomass gasification with indirect heating.
The Aspen Plus flowsheet illustrated in Fig. 2 of the biomass
gasification process is simulated on the basis of steady state and
isothermal operation, atmospheric pressure, negligible pressure
drop, zero-dimensional simulation, char is considered completely
as a carbon (C), tar formation is not considered, instantaneous
drying and pyrolysis are assumed in the model. All fuel-bound ni-
trogen, fuel-bound sulphur, and fuel-bound chlorine are converted
to ammonia, hydrogen sulphide and hydrogen chloride, respec-
tively. The Peng-Robinson equation of state is used with Boston-
Mathias modifications to model the real and nonpolar compo-
nents presented in the simulation.
The main components of the simulation include a mixer to
blend the various biomass feedstock, a drying and decomposition
reactor to convert the nonconventional content of the blend into
conventional components. The components stream is then fed into
a separator to separate the ash content of the blend, which will be
then sent to the gasifier along with the gasifying agent. The gasi-
fying agents considered are steam and oxygen, where oxygen is
sourced from an air separation unit (ASU). Table 3 summarises the
proximate and ultimate analysis and respective empirical formula
for the three considered biomass feedstock; manure, sewage sludge
and date pits. The empirical formulae characterise the atoms

Fig. 2. Aspen Plus flowsheet illustrating gasification process.

6 A. AlNouss et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118499

Table 3
Properties of the different biomass feedstock (AlNouss et al., 2018).

Biomass Dried Manure Date Pits

Sewage Sludge Waste

Proximate analyses (dry basis, wt %)

Fixed carbon 19.4 13.5 17.2
Volatile matter 8.8 65.0 81.8
Ash 71.8 21.6 1.0
Moisture (wt %) 8.3 27.4 5.0
Ultimate analyses (dry basis, wt %)
C 19.1 37.1 49.8
O 5.7 31.4 37.9
H 2.3 5.1 6.8
N 1.1 3.7 4.5
Cl 0 1.0 0
S 0.1 0.5 0
Ash 71.8 21.4 1.0

Empirical Formula CH1.45N0.049O0.22S0.0018 CH1.63N0.085O0.64S0.005Cl0.0089 CH1.63N0.08O0.57

LHV (dry basis) (MJ/kg) 20.50 19.40 34.07

present in the chemical compound as a simplest positive integer Table 5

ratio. Gasification reactions (AlNouss et al., 2019b).

The ultimate and proximate analysis of the three biomass 0.5N2 þ 1.5H2 4 NH3 [11]
feedstock illustrated in Table 3 have been specified in the simula- H2 þ S 4 H2S [12]
tion model as non-conventional streams with thermodynamic Cl2 þ H2 4 2HCl [13]
C þ 2H2 4 CH4 [14]
conditions at 1 bar and 25
C. C þ CO2 4 2CO [15]
A calculator block is implemented to determine the mass yields C þ H2O 4 CO þ H2 [16]
of the conventional components according to their relation CH4 þ H2O 4 CO þ 3H2 [17]
(Table 4) with non-conventional biomass properties. The main re- CO þ H2O 4 CO2 þ H2 [18]
C þ O2 4 CO2 [19]
actions occurring in the gasification zone are summarised in
2C þ O2 4 2 CO [20]
Table 5, where reactions number 11, 12 and 13 are used to describe
the 100% conversion of the fuel-bound components, which are
removed completely from the process after the reactor. Gasification
than 6.5%.
reactions (14e20) occur inside the gasifier depending on the gasi-
The model is further developed to accommodate other config-
fication configuration, and considering the minimisation of the
urations. Table 7 summarises the main basic input to each of the
Gibbs free energy with a restricted equilibrium method. In the case
studied configurations along with the material and energy flow
of oxygen-based gasification, the air is supplied from an air sepa-
results. Notably, both the indirect and direct air-steam configura-
ration unit (ASU) with a quality of 95% O2, 1.6% N2, and balanced Ar.
tions have the same basic inputs and later in section 4.1, the results
Whereas, in the case of steam-based gasification, the steam flow-
will demonstrate that both configurations yielded the same opti-
rate is estimated based on the biomass and its moisture content.
misation results.
Where, WATER represents the moisture content in the biomass
defined in the proximate analysis of the biomass. PROXANAL rep-
resents the values of proximate analysis of the biomass. FACT rep- 3. Modelling
resents the dried factor of the biomass. CARBON represents the
calculated yield of carbon. ULTANAL represents the values of ulti- The objective of the present study is to determine the optimum
mate analysis of the biomass. In terms of species: O2 represents the blended feedstock for the four technologies that provide the po-
calculated yield of oxygen, H2 represents the calculated yield of tential H2:CO ratios to further utilise the produced bio-syngas in
hydrogen, N2 represents the calculated yield of nitrogen, CL2 rep- aldehydes, liquid fuels and fertilisers applications. Following the
resents the calculated yield of chlorine, SULF represents the development of the different gasification models, the blends of the
calculated yield of sulphur, H2O represents the calculated yield of three biomass feedstock are optimised in order to determine their
water and ASH represents the calculated yield of ash. different contribution towards syngas production. The optimisation
The base model of steam gasification is validated against liter- is conducted using the built-in capabilities of Aspen Plus. Initially,
ature published data considering similar systems. The model input the formulation of the problem using FORTRAN coding in Aspen
data presented in Table 6 is simulated using the steam gasification Plus is performed to maximise the production of syngas resulting
model and the earlier specified process description. The results, from the blending of the different biomass feedstock, and is con-
illustrated in Table 6, demonstrate very good agreement with strained by the application unique H2 to CO ratio. A restriction on
literature values, where the percentage deviation in all cases is less the modelling terms of the maximum amount of any of the feeds

Table 4
Formulations of the calculator block to determine conventional components yield (AlNouss et al., 2018).

WATER ¼ PROXANAL(1) [1] N2 ¼ ULTANAL (4)/100 $ FACT [6]

FACT ¼ (100 - WATER)/100 [2] CL2 ¼ ULTANAL (5)/100 · FACT [7]
CARBON ¼ ULTANAL (2)/100 · FACT [3] SULF ¼ ULTANAL (6)/100 · FACT [8]
O2 ¼ ULTANAL (7)/100 · FACT [4] H2O ¼ WATER/100 [9]
H2 ¼ ULTANAL (3)/100 · FACT [5] ASH ¼ ULTANAL (1)/100 · FACT [10]
 A. AlNouss et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118499 7

Table 6
Base model validation against literature.

Parameter Literature (Doherty et al., 2013) Present Model

Biomass input (kg/h) 1508.64

Proximate analyses (dry basis, wt %)
Volatile matter 80.00
Fixed carbon 18.84
Ash 1.16
Moisture (wt %) 20.00
Ultimate analyses (dry basis, wt %)
C 51.19
H 6.08
O 41.30
N 0.20
S 0.02
Cl 0.05
Ash 1.16
Gasification temperature (oC) 850
Gasification pressure (bar) 1
Gasifier steam to biomass mass ratio 0.75
Gasifier steam temperature (oC) 450
Combustor air to biomass mass ratio 1.12
Combustor air temperature (oC) 450
Combustor air composition (mol%)
O2 21
N2 79
Combustion temperature (oC) 905

Syngas composition (vol%, dry and NH3, H2S, HCl free) Literature (Doherty et al., 2013) Model Relative error %

H2 45.80 45.80 0.00%

CO 21.59 20.79 3.70%
CH4 11.02 11.22 1.79%
CO2 20.19 20.79 2.98%
N2 1.40 1.40 0.00%
Syngas LHV (MJ/m3, dry at 0
C and 1 atm) 11.60 11.60 0.03%
CGE (LHV and mass basis) 76.7% 75.3% 1.81%
Impurities (ppmv, dry basis)
NH3 1514.00 1609.68 6.32%
H2S 66.12 70.31 6.34%
HCl 149.5 158.99 6.35%
Char combusted (mass basis) 12.93% 12.93% 0.00%

Table 7 The ratios studied in this paper are H2:CO ¼ 1 for the production
Basic material and energy flow inputs and results for each studied configuration. of aldehydes, H2:CO ¼ 2 for the production of Fischer-Tropsch liq-
Steam Air Air-Steam uids, and H2:CO ¼ 3 for the production of ammonia/urea which
Gasification Gasification Gasification requires the maximisation of H2. Equations (21)e(25) detail the
Material Flow formulation of the optimisation problem.
Biomass input (kg/h) 3000
Biomass blending Equally X
n
Steam (kg/h) 2209.29 e 2209.29 Maximize xi , Syngas c i 2Biomass Sources
Air (kg/h) e 1800 1800 i¼1
Syngas Flow (kg/h) 2520.09 3183.94 3425.37
Composition (vol%) (21)
N2 2.42 0.85 0.89
CO 14.56 23.51 13.91
CO2 21.63 47.77 62.13
X
n

H2 56.73 26.28 43.62

Subject to xi ¼ 1 (22)
CH4 4.66 1.58 0.32 i¼1
H2:CO ratio 3.90 1.11 3.14
Syngas LHV (MJ/m3, dry at 0
C) 9.87 6.78 5.86
yH2 , Syngas
CGE (LHV and mass basis) 53.14% 26.46% 26.12% ¼ Application unique (23)
Char Combusted 20.17% 0 (direct heat) 0 (direct heat) yCO , Syngas
Energy Flow

Gasification T (oC) 850 kg

mi  2; 000 (24)
Gasifier (MW) 0.93 6.26 5.83 h
Combustor (MW) 0.93 direct heat direct heat
Equation (21) represents the objective function of the optimi-
sation formulation with the aim of maximising the syngas pro-
duction. Equations (22)e(24) represent the constraints of the
used is identified to be 2000 kg/h which is twice the initial feed-
optimisation problem and it aims to ensure the fraction summation
stock. This restriction is implemented to study the contribution of
of biomass contribution is one and below the 2000 kg/h restriction,
each biomass type on the overall blended feed to the gasifier on an
and that the ratio of hydrogen to carbon monoxide in the produced
equal basis.
syngas is achieved at the application requirement value. Where,
8 A. AlNouss et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118499

Syngas is the molar flowrate of the generated H2-rich synthesis gas, biomass LHV calculated as:
yH2 & yCO are molar fractions of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, x
is the blending fraction of each biomass feedstock and m is the m_ syngas , LHVsyngas
CGEð%Þ ¼ (30)
mass flowrate of each biomass feedstock. m_ biomass , LHVbiomass
The constraint in equation (24) is modified to equation (25) for
the case of methanol production to account for the role of H2, CO2, Where m_ syngas is the mass flowrate of syngas, m_ biomass is the mass
and CO presence in syngas. flowrate of biomass, LHVsyngas is lower heating values of syngas and
LHVbiomass is lower heating values of biomass.
yH2  yCO2
Subject to ¼2 (25)
yCO þ yCO2 4. Results and discussion

Where, yCO2 is the molar fraction of carbon dioxide. The results of this study are classified into two parts; (i) the
The results of the optimisation problem are then categorised optimum biomass blends of each configuration for different
and analysed based on the downstream application. The blending application requirements, and (ii) the sensitivity analysis of the key
option is then linked with the proximate and ultimate analysis for gasification performance parameters.
the different biomass through determination of the blended-
biomass attributes and its corresponding empirical formula. The
4.1. Optimum blends
empirical formula is determined through calculating the simplest
positive ratio of each atom from the new blending attribute using
As the objective of the study is to determine the optimum
equations [26e27].
blends of the three biomass feedstock according to the four tech-
X
n nologies, the results will be discussed based on the application
BAi ¼ xi *Ai (26) sinks. First, the H2:CO ¼ 1 for the production of aldehydes, dem-
i¼1 onstrates only one case, where only the oxygen-based gasification
yielded the correct constraints. This demonstrates similar behav-
BAi iour to the POx technology which dominates this field and the re-
MWi
xEF ¼   (27) sults of H2:CO originally presented in Table 7. The result of this
BAi
max MWi
study is summarised in Table 8 and the resulting blending option is
represented in Fig. 3.
The resulting blending option is distributed amongst the three
Where BA is the new blending attribute, x is the blending ratio of
biomass feedstock without any domination. The lower percentage
each biomass, A is the original attribute, xEF is the ratio of each atom
of manure demonstrates its potential to increase the H2:CO ratio,
in the empirical formula and MW is the molecular weight.
where the original 1.11 ratio is lowered by decreasing the manure
The second objective of this paper is to examine the effect of
feedstock flow. Second, the H2:CO ¼ 2 for the production of Fischer-
varying gasification performance parameters on the produced re-
Tropsch liquids, demonstrates that only the oxygen based gasifi-
sults and operating conditions. The main gasification parameters
cation case yielded an incorrect constraint with a ratio of only 1.5.
studied here are:
This illustrates similar behaviour to the SR technology, which
dominates this field and the results of H2:CO originally presented in
1. Gasification Temperature (Tg)
Table 7. The results of this study are summarised in Table 9 and the
2. Gasification Pressure (P)
resulting blending options are illustrated in Fig. 4.
3. Modified Equivalence Ratio (ERM) which is defined according to
The resulting blending options in this case demonstrates a
equation (28).
domination for the date pits for three configurations out of the four.
Stoichiometric Oxygen The oxygen gasification configuration illustrates a different
ERM ¼ (28) blending option distributed between manure (54%) and sludge
Actual Oxygen
(46%). This highlights the potential of date pits specially and food
Where, stoichiometric oxygen represents the required oxygen waste generally in the production of value added products. In
supply as per the reaction mechanism and actual oxygen represent addition, the indirect and direct oxygen-steam configurations
the oxygen supplied to the process by both air and steam. This
definition is the modified ratio for systems that can use both air and Table 8
steam as the gasification agent (Gordillo et al., 2009). Results of biomass feedstock blends optimisation for the case of H2:CO ¼ 1
(ERM ¼ 1.67, ASTR ¼ 1, Tg ¼ 850
C, Pg ¼ 1 bar).
4. Ratio of oxygen supplied by air and steam (ASTR) which is Technology Oxygen Gasification (direct heat)
defined according to equation (29):
Syngas composition (mol%)
N2 0.8
Oxygen by Air
ASTR ¼ (29) CO 26.1
Oxygen by Air þ Oxygen by Steam CO2 44.8
H2 26.1
This definition yields a finite range of ASTR from 0 to 1 where CH4 2.3
0 represents steam gasification and 1 represents oxygen gasifica- Feed Blend (wt%)
tion and in between the oxygen/steam gasification. Manure 16.6
Date Pits 41.7
Sludge 41.7
5. Biomass feedstock moisture content Empirical Formula CH1.60N0.072O0.50S0.0012Cl0.0015
ERM 1.67
The main observation results of the sensitivity analyses include ASTR 1
the dry syngas composition, the dry mass LHV, and the Cold Gas Syngas Yield (kg product/kg Feed) 1.30
LHV (MJ/m3, dry at 0
C) 7.22
Efficiency (CGE) which is a measure of the produced syngas LHV to
 A. AlNouss et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118499 9

yielded the same results demonstrating that there is no split of char

Fig. 3. Biomass feedstock blending option for the case of H2:CO ¼ 1 (ERM ¼ 1.67,
ASTR ¼ 1, Tg ¼ 850
C, Pg ¼ 1 bar).
required to achieve the 850
C gasification temperature. Further-
more, the results indicate that in the case of steam and oxygen-
steam configurations, decreasing the manure and sludge flows
lowers the H2:CO ratio, where the original respective 3.90 and 3.14
ratios (Table 7) decrease to 2. In the case of oxygen gasification, the
original 1.11 H2:CO ratio requires an increase which is achieved by
lowering the date pits mass flow and increasing both the manure
and sludge mass flows.
Third, the H2:CO ¼ 3 for the production of Ammonia/Urea,
demonstrates a difficult convergence step for the oxygen-based
gasification case. For the remaining three cases, the results
demonstrate some distribution of the three-biomass feedstock over
the optimum blends. This illustrates similar behaviour to the ATR
technology that dominates this field and the results of H2:CO
originally presented in Table 7. The result of this study is sum-
marised in Table 10 and the resulting blending options are illus-
trated in Fig. 5.

Table 9
Results of biomass feedstock blends optimisation for the case of H2:CO ¼ 2 (Tg ¼ 850
C, Pg ¼ 1 bar). Note: the oxygen based gasification case yielded an incorrect constraint
with a ratio of only 1.5.

Technology Oxygen Gasification (direct heat) Steam Gasification (indirect heat) Oxygen þ Steam (direct heat) Oxygen þ Steam (indirect heat)

Syngas composition (mol%)

N2 1.3 2.1 0.4 0.4
CO 9.9 22.2 20.2 20.2
CO2 73.9 19.3 35.8 35.8
H2 14.8 44.3 40.4 40.4
CH4 0.0 12.1 3.1 3.1
Feed Blend (wt%)
Manure 54.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
Date Pits 0.0 99.4 99.7 99.7
Sludge 45.7 0.3 0.2 0.2
ERM 1.67 2.67 1.5 1.5
ASTR 1 0 0.5 0.5
Empirical Formula CH1.58N0.074O0.51S0.0037Cl0.0061 CH1.63N0.077O0.57 CH1.63N0.077O0.57 CH1.63N0.077O0.57
Syngas Yield (kg product/kg Feed) 1.2 1.6 2.3 2.3
LHV (MJ/m3, dry at 0
C) 3.75 12.02 8.20 8.20

Fig. 4. Biomass feedstock blending option for the case of H2:CO ¼ 2 (Tg ¼ 850
C, Pg ¼ 1 bar) when gasifying with a) Oxygen (ERM ¼ 1.67, ASTR ¼ 1), b) Steam (ERM ¼ 2.67, ASTR ¼ 0),
c) oxygen and steam with direct heat source (ERM ¼ 1.5, ASTR ¼ 0.5), and d) oxygen and steam with indirect heat source (ERM ¼ 1.5, ASTR ¼ 0.5).*
* Note: Option c) oxygen and steam with direct heat source, and d) oxygen and steam with indirect heat source have exactly the same result as option (b).
10 A. AlNouss et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118499

Table 10
Results of biomass feedstock blends optimisation for the case of H2:CO ¼ 3 (Tg ¼ 850
C, Pg ¼ 1 bar).

Technology Steam Gasification (indirect heat) Oxygen þ Steam (direct heat) Oxygen þ Steam (indirect heat)

Syngas composition (mol%)

N2 2.3 0.7 0.7
CO 17.4 12.6 12.6
CO2 21.4 48.6 48.6
H2 52.1 37.7 37.7
CH4 6.9 0.4 0.4
Feed Blend (wt%)
Manure 41.6 39.2 39.2
Date Pits 58.4 39.2 39.2
Sludge 0.0 21.7 21.7
ERM 2.67 1.5 1.5
ASTR 0 0.5 0.5
Empirical Formula CH1.63N0.079O0.59S0.0015Cl0.0031 CH1.61N0.077O0.56S0.0019Cl0.0033 CH1.61N0.077O0.56S0.0019Cl0.0033
Syngas Yield (kg product/kg Feed) 1.7 2.1 2.1
LHV (MJ/m3, dry at 0
C) 10.50 6.21 6.21

The blending option result in this case illustrates an overall Table 11

distribution for the three feedstock. This highlights the potential of Results of biomass feedstock blends optimisation for the case of special ratio
(ERM ¼ 2.67, ASTR ¼ 0, Tg ¼ 850
C, Pg ¼ 1 bar).
all the biomass options in the production of value-added products.
As observed earlier, the indirect and direct oxygen-steam configu- Technology Steam Gasification (indirect heat)
rations yielded identical results demonstrating that there is no split Syngas composition (mol%)
of char required to achieve the 850
C gasification temperature. The N2 3.2
results also indicate that in the case of steam and oxygen-steam CO 8.0
CO2 19.7
configurations and since the objective of H2:CO is near the orig-
H2 68.0
inal H2:CO; 3.90 and 3.14, respectively, decreasing the sludge flow CH4 1.1
lowered the ratio to 3. Feed Blend (wt%)
Finally, the unique ratio for the production of methanol, dem- Manure 0.1
Date Pits 0.0
onstrates the difficultly in converging for the oxygen based gasifi-
Sludge 99.9
cation cases. For the remaining steam gasification case, the results Empirical Formula CH1.45N0.05O0.22S0.0018Cl0.00001
demonstrate a domination for the sludge biomass over the other ERM 2.67
two-biomass feedstock. This illustrates similar behaviour to the SR ASTR 0
technology that dominates this field and the results of H2:CO Syngas Yield (kg product/kg Feed) 1.0
LHV (MJ/m3, dry at 0
C) 9.18
originally presented in Table 7. The result of this study is sum-
marised in Table 11 and the resulting blending option is illustrated
in Fig. 6.
The result indicates that increasing the flow of sludge has yiel- against the literature values illustrated in Table 12. Evidently, the
ded an increase in hydrogen production compared to CO and CO2. results from the four configurations demonstrate syngas compo-
The resulting syngas compositions from all cases are compared sitions outcomes that are in agreement with published literature.

Fig. 5. Biomass feedstock blending option for the case of H2:CO ¼ 3 (Tg ¼ 850
C, Pg ¼ 1 bar) when gasifying with a) steam (ERM ¼ 2.67, ASTR ¼ 0), b) oxygen and steam with direct
heat source (ERM ¼ 1.5, ASTR ¼ 0.5), and c) oxygen and steam with indirect heat source (ERM ¼ 1.5, ASTR ¼ 0.5).
 A. AlNouss et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118499 11

16 60

14 50
LHV
(A+S)

12 LHV (S) 40

LHV (MJ/kg)
LHV (A)

CGE (%)
10 30
CGE (A+S)

CGE (S)
8 20

CGE (A)

6 10

4 0
Fig. 6. Biomass feedstock blending option for the case of (H2eCO2:CO þ CO2) ¼ 3 when 600 800 1000 1200 1400
gasifying with steam (ERM ¼ 2.67, ASTR ¼ 0, Tg ¼ 850
C, Pg ¼ 1 bar). Tg (oC)

Fig. 8. Effect of changing gasification temperature (Pg ¼ 1 bar, 1000 kg/h of each
4.2. Sensitivity analysis biomass feedstock) on LHV and CGE (for A option, ERM ¼ 1.67 and ASTR ¼ 1, for S
option, ERM ¼ 2.67 and ASTR ¼ 0 and for A þ S option, ERM ¼ 1.5 and ASTR ¼ 0.5).
The results of the second objective, which is concerned with
studying the changing effect of the key gasification's performance
parameters on the produced results and operating conditions,

Table 12
Typical dry gas compositions of different oxygen/steam gasification techniques of biomass (Rauch et al., 2014).

Compound Steam Gasification Oxygen Gasification (Fluidised Bed) Oxygen Gasification (Entrained Flow)

CO (vol %) 20e25 20e30 40e60

H2 (vol %) 30e45 20e30 15e20
CO2 (vol %) 20e25 25e40 10e15
CH4 (vol %) 6e12 5e10 0e1
N2 (vol %) 0e1 0e1 0e1
Tar content at 0
C (g/m3) 1e10 1e20 < 0.1
LHV at 0
C (MJ/m3) 10e14 10e12 10e12

80%

70% CO2 (A+S)

CO (A+S)
Syngas Compositions (vol%, dry)

60% CH4 (A+S)

N2 (A+S)

50% H2 (A+S)
CO2 (S)
CO (S)
40%
CH4 (S)
N2 (S)
30% H2 (S)
CO2 (A)
20% CO (A)
CH4 (A)
10% N2 (A)
H2 (A)

0%
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Tg (oC)
Fig. 7. Effect of changing gasification temperature (Pg ¼ 1 bar, 1000 kg/h of each biomass feedstock) on produced syngas composition (for A option, ERM ¼ 1.67 and ASTR ¼ 1, for S
option, ERM ¼ 2.67 and ASTR ¼ 0 and for A þ S option, ERM ¼ 1.5 and ASTR ¼ 0.5).
12 A. AlNouss et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118499

80% 100%

70% 90% CO2 (A+S)

CO2 (A+S)
CO (A+S) CO (A+S)
80%
Syngas Compositions (vol%, dry)

Syngas Compositions (vol%, dry)

60% CH4 (A+S) CH4 (A+S)

N2 (A+S) 70% N2 (A+S)

50% H2 (A+S) H2 (A+S)

CO2 (S) 60% CO2 (S)
CO (S) CO (S)
40% 50%
CH4 (S) CH4 (S)
N2 (S) N2 (S)
30% 40%
H2 (S) H2 (S)
CO2 (A)
30% CO2 (A)
20% CO (A) CO (A)
CH4 (A) 20% CH4 (A)
10% N2 (A)
N2 (A)
H2 (A) 10%
H2 (A)
0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10
Pg (bar)
ERM
Fig. 9. Effect of changing gasification pressure (Tg ¼ 850
C, 1000 kg/h of each biomass
feedstock) on produced Syngas composition (for A option, ERM ¼ 1.67 and ASTR ¼ 1, for Fig. 11. Effect of changing ERM on produced Syngas composition (Tg ¼ 850
C,
S option, ERM ¼ 2.67 and ASTR ¼ 0 and for A þ S option, ERM ¼ 1.5 and ASTR ¼ 0.5). Pg ¼ 1 bar, 1000 kg/h of each biomass feedstock).

demonstrate some optimum values for the gasification tempera-
ture, pressure and performance ratios. The results of each sensi-
tivity analysis study are presented in the Figures for each category
and the different technologies. The terms ‘A þ S’ stands for Air and
Steam gasification, ‘S’ stands for Steam gasification and ‘A’ stands
for Air gasification.
produced syngas until an optimum peak at around 850
C. The
results of LHV and CGE illustrate similar behaviour where an op-
timum value of 850
C is obtained. Whereas, the carbon content in
the produced syngas demonstrates a different behaviour with a
decrease in the composition of CO2 and CH4 as the temperature
increased.

4.2.1. Gasification temperature (Tg) 4.2.2. Gasification pressure (Pg)

The influence of the gasification temperature on the produced The influence of the gasification pressure on the produced
syngas composition and key performance parameters are plotted in syngas composition and key performance parameters are plotted in
Figs. 7 and 8 for the four different technologies. Figs. 9 and 10 for the four different technologies.
The resulting compositions from changing the gasification The resulting compositions from changing the gasification
temperature demonstrate an increase in the content of H2 in the pressure demonstrate a decrease in the content of H2 in the

16 60

14 50
LHV
(A+S)

12 LHV 40
(S)
LHV (MJ/kg)

CGE (%)

LHV
10 (A) 30
CGE
(A+S)
8 20
CGE (S)

CGE
6 (A)
10

4 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Pg (bar)
Fig. 10. Effect of changing gasification pressure (Tg ¼ 850
C, 1000 kg/h of each biomass feedstock) on LHV and CGE (for A option, ERM ¼ 1.67 and ASTR ¼ 1, for S option, ERM ¼ 2.67
and ASTR ¼ 0 and for A þ S option, ERM ¼ 1.5 and ASTR ¼ 0.5).
 A. AlNouss et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118499 13

18 60 and air to the gasification reactor. Consequently, the carbon re-

actions occur in an oxygen and steam deficient environment, which
16 LHV generates CO-rich syngas and an increased content of CH4 since less
(A+S) 50
14 C is converted to CO and CO2. Moreover, more H atoms are incor-
LHV (S) porated into CH4 formation and less leaves as H2. A modified
12 40 equivalence ratio of around 2.5 gives an optimum value for
LHV (A) lowering the carbon content and increasing the H2 in the produced
LHV (MJ/kg)

10

CGE (%)
syngas. This implies moderate results for LHV and CGE as per
30
8 CGE Fig. 12.
(A+S)

6 20
CGE (S) 4.2.4. Ratio of oxygen supplied by air and steam (ASTR)
4 The influence of the ratio of oxygen, supplied by air only, to the
CGE (A) 10 oxygen supplied by air and steam, on produced syngas composition
2 and key performance parameters are plotted in Figs. 13 and 14.
The effect of changing the ASTR on the produced syngas com-
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10
positions is illustrated in Fig. 14. Increasing the ASTR at constant
ERM temperature implies suppling a higher oxygen mass flow from the
air rather than steam. Consequently, the carbon reactions occur in
Fig. 12. Effect of changing ERM on LHV and CGE (Tg ¼ 850
C, Pg ¼ 1 bar, 1000 kg/h of an oxygen rich environment, which generates a CO2-rich syngas
each biomass feedstock). and a lower H2 content, since less C is converted to CO and more is
available to be coupled with H2 to produce CH4. Since less H atoms
are converted to H2, an optimal point for the oxygen value supplied
produced syngas indicating a low pressure optimum point of
by air and steam of less than 0.6 is highlighted for the production of
approximately 1 bar. The results of LHV and CGE illustrate a con-
H2-rich syngas. These results agree with the values of LHV and CGE
stant behaviour with the increase in gasification pressure. Whereas,
in Fig. 14, where the two parameters increase with lowering the
the carbon content in the produced syngas demonstrates a
ASTR value below 0.6.
different behaviour with a decrease in the composition of CO2 and
CH4 as the pressure increased.
4.2.5. Moisture content
The influence of the moisture content presented in the three
4.2.3. Modified equivalence ratio (ERM) biomass feedstock on the produced syngas composition and key
The influence of the modified Equivalence Ratio (ERM) on the performance parameters are plotted in the following figures for the
produced syngas composition and key performance parameters are different technologies that utilise gasification air or/and steam.
plotted in the following figures for the different technologies that The effect of increasing moisture content in the biomass feed-
utilise gasification air or/and steam. stock on the produced syngas compositions is illustrated in Fig. 15.
The effect of changing the ERM on the produced syngas com- The increasing moisture content demonstrates varying results with
positions is illustrated in Fig. 11. Increasing the ERM at constant the different gasification processes. The steam gasification process
temperature implies suppling a lower oxygen feed in both steam illustrates an increase in the production of H2 with the increase of

100%

90% CO2
CO
CH4
80%
Syngas Compositions (vol%, dry)

N2
H2
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
ASTR
Fig. 13. Effect of changing ASTR on produced syngas composition (Tg ¼ 850
C, Pg ¼ 1 bar, 1000 kg/h of each biomass feedstock).
14 A. AlNouss et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118499

12 60

10 50

8 40
LHV (MJ/kg)

CGE (%)
6 30

4 20

LHV
2 10
CGE

0 0
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
ASTR
Fig. 14. Effect of changing ASTR on LHV and CGE (Tg ¼ 850
C, Pg ¼ 1 bar, 1000 kg/h of each biomass feedstock).

moisture content while the CO presence is lowered. This implies 5. Conclusion and practical implications
that more steam is available to react with carbon to produce H2 and
a smaller amount of carbon is converted to CO2, CO and CH4. For the Biomass resources have demonstrated a potential for the gen-
cases of oxygen gasification and oxygen/steam gasification, the eration of clean energy and environmentally-friendly chemicals
results demonstrate different behaviour for the CO2 production. and fuels. This paper emphasises the importance of optimising the
With the increase of moisture content, more carbon is converted to process of gasifying the different biomass feedstock in terms of raw
CO2 and lower amounts of H2, CO and CH4 are produced. Since the material blending and operating conditions. The importance of
aim is to increase the generation of H2, it is preferred to maintain a optimising the biomass feedstock blending originates from the
high moisture content in the case of steam gasification, whereas large variation in the types and quantities of biomass available, and
drying to lower levels of moisture content is preferred for the cases the need to adapt a gasification system that is capable of intelli-
of oxygen and oxygen/steam gasification. The effect on the LHV is gently blending the feedstock to achieve the desired syngas quality.
presented in Fig. 16 and shows a continual decrease in the LHV with The simulation model considered in this study utilises various
increasing moisture content in all cases. The decrease rate is less biomass feedstock including date pits, manure and sewage sludge
severe in the case of CGE (S).

70% 16 70

60% CO2 (A+S) 14 60

LHV (A+S)
CO (A+S)
Syngas Compositions (vol%, dry)

CH4 (A+S) 12
50% N2 (A+S) LHV (S) 50
H2 (A+S) 10
40% CO2 (S)
LHV (MJ/kg)

LHV (A) 40
CGE (%)

CO (S)
8
CH4 (S)
30% N2 (S) CGE (A+S) 30
H2 (S) 6
20% CO2 (A) CGE (S) 20
CO (A) 4
CH4 (A)
10% N2 (A) CGE (A) 10
2
H2 (A)
0% 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 10 20 30 40
Moisture Content Moisture Content

Fig. 15. Effect of changing biomass feedstock moisture content (Tg ¼ 850
C, Pg ¼ 1 bar, Fig. 16. Effect of changing biomass feedstock moisture content (Tg ¼ 850
C, Pg ¼ 1 bar,
1000 kg/h of each biomass feedstock) on produced syngas composition (for A option, 1000 kg/h of each biomass feedstock) on LHV and CGE (for A option, ERM ¼ 1.67 and
ERM ¼ 1.67 and ASTR ¼ 1, for S option, ERM ¼ 2.67 and ASTR ¼ 0 and for A þ S option, ASTR ¼ 1, for S option, ERM ¼ 2.67 and ASTR ¼ 0 and for A þ S option, ERM ¼ 1.5 and
ERM ¼ 1.5 and ASTR ¼ 0.5). ASTR ¼ 0.5).
 A. AlNouss et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118499
to determine the optimal biomass blending options linked to the
H2/CO ratio of the downstream application. The results can be used
as a base line for the utilisation of any mixed biomass feedstock
gasification scenario to be optimised. Typically, the production of
syngas requires a huge investment in the subsequent adjustment
prior to its utilisation in the production of value-added products.
The initial syngas adjustment can normally be achieved through
manipulating process conditions or the gasifying agent quantity,
upon which the requirement for further purification is reduced.
However, in this paper, the syngas that is produced using biomass
gasification is initially adjusted through the optimisation of
biomass feedstock blending. This can lower the required gasifying
agent quantity and operating energy to achieve the same adjust-
ment whilst maintaining the required quality of syngas to be uti-
lised to produce valuable products. The study further demonstrates
the sensitivity analysis for the changing effect of operating condi-
tions on the key performance parameters in biomass gasification
including, CGE, LHV and produced syngas compositions. The
simulation integrates multiple gasification technologies with the
objective of generating optimal characteristics for the various uti-
lisation techniques considered.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the support of Qatar National
Research Fund (QNRF) (a member of Qatar Foundation, Qatar) by
GSRA grant No GSRA4-1-0518-17082. The statements made herein
are solely the responsibility of the authors.
References
Abdoulmoumine, N., Kulkarni, A., Adhikari, S., 2014. Effects of temperature and
equivalence ratio on pine syngas primary gases and contaminants in a bench-
scale fluidized bed gasifier. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 53 (14), 5767e5777.
Ahmad, F., 2016. Sustainable Solutions for Domestic Solid Waste Management in
Qatar, College of Engineering. Qatar University, p. 128.
Ahmed, I.I., Gupta, A.K., 2010. Pyrolysis and gasification of food waste: syngas
characteristics and char gasification kinetics. Appl. Energy 87 (1), 101e108.
AlNouss, A., McKay, G., Al-Ansari, T., 2018. Optimum utilization of biomass for the
production of power and fuels using gasification. In: Friedl, A., Klemes, J.J.,
Radl, S., Varbanov, P.S., Wallek, T. (Eds.), Computer Aided Chemical Engineering.
Elsevier, pp. 1481e1486.
AlNouss, A., McKay, G., Al-Ansari, T., 2019a. Superstructure optimization for the
production of fuels, fertilizers and power using biomass gasification. In:
€ subsequent syngas adjustment using shift reaction for syngas production: an
Kiss, A.A., Zondervan, E., Lakerveld, R., Ozkan, L. (Eds.), Computer Aided
Chemical Engineering. Elsevier, pp. 301e306.
AlNouss, A., McKay, G., Al-Ansari, T., 2019b. A techno-economic-environmental
study evaluating the potential of oxygen-steam biomass gasification for the
generation of value-added products. Energy Convers. Manag. 196, 664e676.
AlNouss, A., Namany, S., McKay, G., Al-Ansari, T., 2019c. Applying a sustainability
metric in energy, water and food nexus applications; a biomass utilization case
study to improve investment decisions. In: Kiss, A.A., Zondervan, E.,
€ Rauch, R., Hrbek, J., Hofbauer, H., 2014. Biomass gasification for synthesis gas pro-
Lakerveld, R., Ozkan, L. (Eds.), Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. Elsevier,
pp. 205e210.
Antoniou, N., Monlau, F., Sambusiti, C., Ficara, E., Barakat, A., Zabaniotou, A., 2019.
Contribution to Circular Economy options of mixed agricultural wastes man-
agement: coupling anaerobic digestion with gasification for enhanced energy
and material recovery. J. Clean. Prod. 209, 505e514.
Calvo, L.F., García, A.I., Otero, M., 2013. An experimental investigation of sewage
sludge gasification in a fluidized bed reactor. Sci. World J. 2013 (8).
Champion, W.M., Cooper, C.D., Mackie, K.R., Cairney, P., 2014. Development of a
chemical kinetic model for a biosolids fluidized-bed gasifier and the effects of
operating parameters on syngas quality. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 64 (2),
160e174.
Choi, Y.K., Cho, M.H., Kim, J.S., 2015. Steam/oxygen gasification of dried sewage
sludge in a two-stage gasifier: effects of the steam to fuel ratio and ash of the
activated carbon on the production of hydrogen and tar removal. Energy 91,
160e167.
Daioglou, V., Faaij, A.P.C., Saygin, D., Patel, M.K., Wicke, B., van Vuuren, D.P., 2014.
Energy demand and emissions of the non-energy sector. Energy Environ. Sci. 7
(2), 482e498.
De Klerk, A., 2012. Fischer-Tropsch Refining. John Wiley & Sons, Weinheim,
15
Germany.
Doherty, W., Reynolds, A., Kennedy, D., 2013. Aspen Plus simulation of biomass
gasification in a steam blown dual fluidised bed. In: Book Chapter: Materials
and Processes for Energy: Communicating Current Research and Technological
Developments, pp. 212e220.
Ellabban, O., Abu-Rub, H., Blaabjerg, F., 2014. Renewable energy resources: current
status, future prospects and their enabling technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 39, 748e764.
Esteves, E.M.M., Herrera, A.M.N., Esteves, V.P.P., Morgado, C.d.R.V., 2019. Life cycle
assessment of manure biogas production: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 219, 411e423.
Farzad, S., Mandegari, M.A., Go €rgens, J.F., 2016. A critical review on biomass gasi-
fication, co-gasification, and their environmental assessments. Biofuel Res. J. 3
(4), 483e495.
Gil-Lalaguna, N., Sa
nchez, J.L., Murillo, M.B., Rodríguez, E., Gea, G., 2014. Air-steam
gasification of sewage sludge in a fluidized bed. Influence of some operating
conditions. Chem. Eng. J. 248, 373e382.
Gordillo, G., Annamalai, K., Carlin, N., 2009. Adiabatic fixed-bed gasification of coal,
dairy biomass, and feedlot biomass using an airesteam mixture as an oxidizing
agent. Renew. Energy 34 (12), 2789e2797.
Heidenreich, S., Foscolo, P.U., 2015. New concepts in biomass gasification. Prog.
Energy Combust. Sci. 46, 72e95.
Herna
ndez, B., Leo
n, E., Martín, M., 2017. Bio-waste selection and blending for the
optimal production of power and fuels via anaerobic digestion. Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 121, 163e172.
Higman, C., van der Burgt, M., 2008. Chapter 5 - Gasification Processes, Gasification,
second ed. Gulf Professional Publishing, Burlington, pp. 91e191.
Iaquaniello, G., Antonetti, E., Cucchiella, B., Palo, E., Salladini, A., Guarinoni, A.,
Lainati, A., Basini, L., 2012. Natural gas catalytic partial oxidation: a way to
syngas and bulk chemicals production. In: Gupta, S.B. (Ed.), Natural Gas -
Extraction to End Use. InTech, Rijeka p. Ch. 12.
Inayat, M., Sulaiman, S.A., Kurnia, J.C., Naz, M.Y., 2019a. Catalytic and noncatalytic
gasification of woodecoconut shell blend under different operating conditions.
Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 38 (2), 688e698.
Inayat, M., Sulaiman, S.A., Kurnia, J.C., Shahbaz, M., 2019b. Effect of various blended
fuels on syngas quality and performance in catalytic co-gasification: a review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 105, 252e267.
KCFE, 2012. Manure to Energy: Sustainable Solutions for the Chesapeake Bay Re-
gion. Chesapeake Bay Commission. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Maryland
Technology Development Corporation, Farm Pilot Project Coordination, INC.
Kumar, S., Shukla, S., 2016. A Review on recent gasification methods for biomethane
gas production. Int. J. Energy Eng. 6 (1A), 32e43.
Mahinpey, N., Gomez, A., 2016. Review of gasification fundamentals and new
findings: reactors, feedstock, and kinetic studies. Chem. Eng. Sci. 148, 14e31.
Naqvi, M., Yan, J., Dahlquist, E., Naqvi, S.R., 2016. Waste biomass gasification based
off-grid electricity generation: a case study in Pakistan. Energy Procedia 103,
406e412.
Nipattummakul, N., Ahmed, I.I., Kerdsuwan, S., Gupta, A.K., 2010. Hydrogen and
syngas production from sewage sludge via steam gasification. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 35 (21), 11738e11745.
Ong, Z., Cheng, Y., Maneerung, T., Yao, Z., Tong, Y.W., Wang, C.H., Dai, Y., 2015. Co-
gasification of woody biomass and sewage sludge in a fixed-bed downdraft
gasifier. AIChE J. 61 (8), 2508e2521.
Pala, L.P.R., Wang, Q., Kolb, G., Hessel, V., 2017. Steam gasification of biomass with
Aspen Plus model. Renew. Energy 101, 484e492.
Parthasarathy, P., Narayanan, K.S., 2014. Hydrogen production from steam gasifi-
cation of biomass: influence of process parameters on hydrogen yieldeA re-
view. Renew. Energy 66, 570e579.
Peng, W.-X., Ge, S.-B., Ebadi, A.G., Hisoriev, H., Esfahani, M.J., 2017. Syngas pro-
duction by catalytic co-gasification of coal-biomass blends in a circulating flu-
idized bed gasifier. J. Clean. Prod. 168, 1513e1517.
duction and applications of the syngas. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Energy Environ.
3 (4), 343e362.
Sikarwar, V.S., Zhao, M., Clough, P., Yao, J., Zhong, X., Memon, M.Z., Shah, N.,
Anthony, E.J., Fennell, P.S., 2016. An overview of advances in biomass gasifica-
tion. Energy Environ. Sci. 9 (10), 2939e2977.
Sulaiman, S.A., Roslan, R., Inayat, M., Yasin Naz, M., 2018. Effect of blending ratio and
catalyst loading on co-gasification of wood chips and coconut waste. J. Energy
Inst. 91 (5), 779e785.
Van der Drift, A., Boerrigter, H., 2006. Synthesis Gas from Biomass for Fuels and
Chemicals. ECN Biomass, Coal and Environmental Research.
Werle, S., 2016. Sewage sludge gasification process for clean and sustainable
environment. Renew. Energy Environ. Sustain. 1, 35.
Yan, L., Cao, Y., Li, X., He, B., 2018. Characterization of a dual fluidized bed gasifier
with blended biomass/coal as feedstock. Bioresour. Technol. 254, 97e106.
Yang, Z., Koh, S.K., Ng, W.C., Lim, R.C.J., Tan, H.T.W., Tong, Y.W., Dai, Y., Chong, C.,
Wang, C.-H., 2016. Potential application of gasification to recycle food waste and
rehabilitate acidic soil from secondary forests on degraded land in Southeast
Asia. J. Environ. Manag. 172, 40e48.