Bioresource Technology 361 (2022) 127734

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

Process modeling and evaluation of optimal operating conditions for

production of hydrogen-rich syngas from air gasification of rice husks using
aspen plus and response surface methodology
Emmanuel Yeri Kombe a, b, Nickson Lang’at c, Paul Njogu d, Reiner Malessa e,
Christian-Toralf Weber b, Francis Njoka a, *, Ulrich Krause f
a
Department of Energy Technology, Kenyatta University, P. O. Box 43844 – 00100, Nairobi, Kenya
b
Department of Engineering and Industrial Design, Hochschule Magdeburg-Stendal, Breitscheidstr. 2, 39114 Magdeburg, Germany
c
Department of Agriculture and Biosystems Engineering, Kenyatta University, P. O. Box 43844 – 00100, Nairobi, Kenya
d
Institute of Energy and Environmental Technology, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, P. O. Box 62000 – 00200, Nairobi, Kenya
e
Department of Engineering, Technische Hochschule Brandenburg Fachbereich Technik, University of Applied Sciences, Magdeburger Str. 50, 14770 Brandenburg an der
Havel, Germany
f
Department of Instrumental and Environmental Technology, Otto-von-Guericke-University, Universitätspl. 2, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• A robust three-phase numerical simula­

tion model of a fixed-bed gasifier is
developed.
• The generated regression models have a
high degree of accuracy.
• High temperature favors CO and H2
production, H2 yield, LHVSyngas, CGE,
and PCG.
• Optimal performance is achieved at
temperatures of 820–1090 ◦ C and ER of
0.06–0.10.
• An optimum H2 yield of 46.39 g/kg and
PCG of 75.93% is observed.

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

Keywords: Biomass gasification is recognized as a viable avenue to accelerate the sustainable production of hydrogen. In this
Rice husk gasification work, a numerical simulation model of air gasification of rice husks is developed using the Aspen Plus to investigate
Hydrogen production the feasibility of producing hydrogen-rich syngas. The model is experimentally validated with rice husk gasification
Aspen Plus
results and other published studies. The influence of temperature and equivalence ratio on the syngas composition,
Response surface methodology
Optimization
H2 yield, LHVSyngas, H2/CO ratio, CGE, and PCG was studied. Furthermore, the synchronized effects of temperature
and ER are studied using RSM to determine the operational point of maximizing H2 yield and PCG. The RSM analysis
results show optimum performance at temperatures between 820 ◦ C and 1090 ◦ C and ER in the range of 0.06–0.10.
The findings show that optimal operating conditions of the gasification system can be achieved at a more refined
precision through simulations coupled with advanced optimization techniques.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: njoka.francis@ku.ac.ke (F. Njoka).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127734
Received 23 June 2022; Received in revised form 29 July 2022; Accepted 30 July 2022
Available online 3 August 2022
0960-8524/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E.Y. Kombe et al.
Nomenclatures
Adj SS Adjusted sum of squares
BBD Box-Behnken design
CCD Central composite design
CCRD Central composite rotatable design
CGE Cold gas efficiency
CS50:OPF50 coconut shells and oil palm fronds blending ratio of
50:50
DF Degree of freedom
ER Equivalence ratio
HHV Higher heating value of syngas
LHVbm Lower heating value of biomass feedstock (MJ/kg)
LHVSyngas Lower heating value of syngas (MJ/Nm3)
PCG Percentage of combustible gas
Qyield Syngas yield (Nm3/kg)
RMSE Root mean square error
RSM Response surface methodology
S/B Steam to biomass ratio
SSR Sum of squares of residual
SST Total sum of squares
1. Introduction
A sustainable energy system in the future projects hydrogen as the
most crucial energy carrier (Shen et al., 2008). Biomass, the world’s
primary source of energy after fossil fuels (Tavares et al., 2020), has the
potential to accelerate the acceptance of hydrogen. Its major charac­
teristics are apparent zero net CO2 (Roy et al., 2019) and worldwide
availability (Zaman et al., 2020).
A substantial amount of agro-industrial, municipal, and forestry
waste is discarded each year; instead, it can be recovered and converted
into energy via thermochemical or biological conversion methods (Li
et al., 2019). Annually, the world generates over 120 million tons (Yoon
et al., 2012) of rice husks. Generally, the consistent yearly production of
rice husks makes it possible to secure a sustainable raw material supply
(Yoon et al., 2012). Rice husks do not require a pre-treatment process,
and this reduces the need for pre-treatment costs (Yoon et al., 2012).
Furthermore, rice husks have a uniform particle size and chemical
composition, consequently enabling efficient combustion (Yoon et al.,
2012). A couple of years back, rice husk was regarded to be of no eco­
nomic value to millers (Kate and Chaurasia, 2018) and was often
dumped in the ground or burned in open fields, thus creating land and
air pollution (Bakar et al., 2016). Due to the increase in demand for
waste-to-energy utilization, researchers are actively searching for
alternative avenues of using rice husks as fuel. Gasification of solid fuels
is widely acknowledged as the most efficient method of generating en­
ergy from a variety of wastes (Faraji and Saidi, 2021). It is incredibly
adaptable when it comes to using different types of fresh biomass
feedstocks (Heidenreich and Foscolo, 2015). This technique improves
the efficiency of waste management (Kombe et al., 2022) and offers
excellent potential for producing renewable and low-carbon energy
(Kumar and Samadder, 2017).
From a theoretical point of view, gasification is a thermochemical
process that converts raw biomass materials to a gaseous fuel by
partially oxidizing them with gasifying agents such as oxygen, steam,
air, steam, or their mixtures (Bridgwater, 2003). It is characterized by
drying (100 ◦ C – 200 ◦ C), pyrolysis (200 ◦ C – 500 ◦ C), oxidation, and
reduction stages (Faraji and Saidi, 2021). The key reactions that take
place in a gasifier are reported in a recent publication (Kombe et al.,
2022) and elsewhere (Doherty et al., 2009; Han et al., 2017).
Due to the gasification process’s complexity, gasification models are
required to understand and predict its behavior as well as to study the
2
Bioresource Technology 361 (2022) 127734
impact of various gasification conditions on its performance (Gómez-
Barea and Leckner, 2010). Many commercially available computer-
based modeling and simulation software, such as Chemkin, Fluent,
Aspen Hysys, and Aspen Plus, have been used in biomass gasification
simulation (Singh and Tirkey, 2021). Among those programs, Aspen
Plus is mostly preferred for biomass gasification simulations (Singh and
Tirkey, 2021) because it contains a pre-installed library model for
calculating solid characteristics. It is, therefore, able to determine solid
components better than the other software. Besides this, Aspen Plus is
paired with an imperative programming language referred to as
FORTRAN code for numerical calculations, making it easier to create
customizations and numerical computations.
Several extensive studies have been conducted on modeling the
biomass gasification process for hydrogen production using Aspen Plus
simulator. For instance, Shen et al. (2008) simulated steam gasification
of straw in an interconnected fluidized bed system for hydrogen pro­
duction. They studied how temperature and steam to biomass ratio (S/B)
affected the composition of syngas, hydrogen yield, and carbon con­
version efficiency. Tan and Zhong (2010) too simulated hydrogen pro­
duction from steam gasification of sawdust. The authors investigated the
impact of reactor temperature, S/B, and pressure on CO/CO2 ratio and
syngas composition. Hussain et al. (2021) simulated steam gasification
of palm kernel shells in a fluidized bed gasification plant for hydrogen
production. They investigated how temperature and S/B affected the
syngas composition. Abuadala and Dincer (2010) conducted a compre­
hensive simulation study of steam gasification of wood and sawdust to
predict H2-rich syngas production. The authors studied how tempera­
ture and S/B influence energy and exergy efficiencies of hydrogen
production.
Faraji and Saidi (2021) developed a comprehensive simulation
model that integrates pyrolysis and air gasification process of various
algal biomass materials for hydrogen production. The authors studied
the influence of rector temperature, gasifier pressure, and airflow rate
on syngas composition, hydrogen yield, and H2/CO ratio. Cohce et al.
(2010) simulated air gasification of oil palm shells coupled with steam-
methane reforming and shift reaction to investigate its performance in
hydrogen production. They further evaluated the energy efficiency,
exergy efficiency, and cold gas efficiency (CGE), which are essential in
designing and optimizing hydrogen production.
Favas et al. (2017) simulated air and steam plasma gasification of
forest residue, coffee husks, and vine pruning. The authors investigated
how temperature, equivalence ratio (ER), and S/B affected the compo­
sition of syngas and the syngas lower heating value (LHVSyngas). They
further studied the combined effect of S/B and temperature on hydrogen
production using a 3D diagram. Tavares et al. (2020) simulated air and
steam gasification of Portuguese forest residue in a downdraft gasifier.
The authors investigated the influence of temperature and S/B on syngas
composition and LHVSyngas. Furthermore, they used a 3D diagram to
study the combined effect of temperature and S/B, thereby optimizing it
to magnify hydrogen production. Safarian et al. (2021) simulated air
and a mixture of air–steam gasification of timber and wood waste for
hydrogen production. They considered three zones of the gasification
process: drying, pyrolysis, and gasification coupled with a water gas
reactor and product recovery unit. The authors studied how temperature
and S/B affected the composition of syngas, LHVSyngas, and hydrogen
production efficiency. Doranehgard et al. (2017) described the catalytic
behavior of calcium oxide in air and steam gasification of rice husk
based on a developed semi-kinetic model. The authors investigated how
temperature, S/B, and ER influenced the yield of hydrogen and CO2
absorption ratio.
Response surface methodology (RSM) is a mathematical and statis­
tical tool with a wide range of applications in engineering where
simultaneous optimization of different response variables is required
(Roy et al., 2020). It is a popular method for optimizing new and current
modeled systems or processes (Zaman and Ghosh, 2021). However, very
few studies have reported biomass gasification process optimization
E.Y. Kombe et al. Bioresource Technology 361 (2022) 127734

using RSM for hydrogen production. Seçer and Hasanoğlu (2020) used Table 1
RSM with a Box-Behnken design (BBD) to optimize an experimental Proximate and ultimate analysis of rice husk, rubber wood, and rape straw.
study of co-gasification of Çan lignite and sorghum biomass for Rice husk Rubber wood Rape straw
hydrogen production. Okolie et al. (2020) developed a model and (Jayah et al., 2003) (Striūgas et al., 2014)
optimized hydrothermal gasification of synthetic biomass for the pro­ Ultimate analysis (wt%, dry)
duction of hydrogen based on BBD in RSM. Kang et al. (2015) optimized C 37.42 50.60 39.60
hydrogen production from noncatalytic supercritical water gasification H 5.17 6.50 5.60
of lignin central composite design (CCD) in RSM. Yusup et al. (2014) N 0.13 0.20 0.78
S 0.64 0.0 0.08
optimized hydrogen production from the steam gasification process of O 46.28 42.0 48.54
palm kernel shell with in-situ catalytic adsorption using RSM based on a
central composite rotatable design (CCRD).
Proximate analysis (wt%, dry)
Although there are several studies on the production of hydrogen Moisture content 9.75 14.0–18.5 14.9
from biomass gasification through modeling using Aspen Plus, many of Volatile matter 72.82 80.1 62.50
the simulation studies have focused on the fundamental process of Fixed carbon 16.82 19.2 17.20
hydrogen production and the inclusion of sub-models considering the Ash 10.36 0.7 5.40

gasification process’s specific aspects such as syngas condition through

water–gas-shift reaction to improve its predicting capabilities. To our
knowledge, very limited work has comprehensively considered the in­
clusion of syngas purification coupled with RSM optimization for
hydrogen production. Moreover, it can be observed from the brief
literature review on RSM that no work has been done on a compre­
hensive simulation of air-gasification of rice husk integrated with syngas
purification and RSM. Furthermore, 400 runs of Aspen Plus simulated
results were used to construct an RSM design matrix, offering another
mileage of the present study. This work, therefore, sought to develop a
robust numerical simulation model of a fixed bed gasifier integrated
with syngas purification and RSM with the ability to perform a rigorous
multi-objective optimization (using both contour, overlay contour, 3D
surface, and optimization plots). This was then used to predict the
feasibility of hydrogen production from air-gasification of low-cost
biomass materials such as rice husks, thereby improving the efficiency
of its utilization.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Biomass characteristic
Rice husk was sourced locally from a rice mill factory in Mwea irri­
gation scheme region, Kirinyaga County, Kenya. The sample’s proximate
analysis was determined according to ASTM standards. The biomass
moisture content was determined as per ASTM E 871 using a binder
drying and heating chamber (Model: E 28), ASTM E 872, and ASTM E
1755 for volatile matter and ash content, respectively, using a furnace
(Model: WiseTherm). The sample’s ultimate analysis was then per­
formed using a Leco C–H–N 628 with add-on 628 S modules following
ASTM D 5373-02 for C–H–N and ASTM D 4239-05 for sulfur content.
The proximate and ultimate analysis results of rice husk is shown in
Table 1.
2.2. Model development
Aspen Plus Version 10 was used to model the air gasification of rice
husks. A three-phase numerical simulation model of air gasification of
rice husk was developed. The phases comprised biomass drying, biomass
gasification, and syngas purification. In the biomass drying phase, fresh
biomass moisture content is lowered before it is loaded into the biomass
gasification phase, which comprises decomposition, oxidation, and
reduction reactors. The syngas produced is then purified by passing
through a cyclone, cooler, scrubber, and a separator block in the third
phase.
The Aspen Plus software’s standard component database excludes
biomass feedstock and ash. As a result, the global stream class was
specified as MIXCINC, which contains MIXED, CISOLID, and NC sub-
streams. This global stream class option is advocated for when
modeling non-conventional feed like biomass material and ash (Adeniyi
et al., 2021). The physical properties of non-conventional components of
the simulation were estimated by employing the Peng-Robinson equa­
tion of state with the Boston-Mathias alpha function (PR-MB).
2.3. Aspen plus model flowsheet
The generated flowsheet for the fixed-bed gasifier simulation process
of air gasification of rice husks is shown in Fig. 1. The red dotted line
depicts the energy flow. The Aspen Plus reactor blocks used in devel­
oping the process simulation model are described in Table 2. The default
ID refers to the software developer-defined block name, and the user
creates the assigned ID.
2.4. Simulation procedures
Biomass drying was simulated in the block ’DRIER’ to reduce its
moisture content. This was achieved through a FORTRAN statement
written in a calculator block. Then, the partially evaporated moisture is
separated by a separator block MOISTSEP as EXIT. Thermal decompo­
sition of the pre-dried biomass (DRYBIOM) was subsequently carried out
in the reactor block DECOMP. This reactor simulates biomass decom­
position from a non-conventional component to its conventional com­
ponents by defining the yield distribution in a calculator block using a
FORTRAN command according to its proximate and ultimate analysis,
shown in Table 1. Subsequently, air was used as the gasifying agent in
the RGibbs reactor block OXID to oxidize the disintegrated components
partially. The thermal needs of the reactions were met by supplying the
heat of reaction (Q-COMP). To simulate the gasifier’s reduction zone, a
second RGibbs reactor block REDUC was used. RGibbs reactor is useful
because of its capacity to handle multiphase chemical equilibrium. The
OXID and REDUC reactors calculate the final syngas composition by
Gibbs free energy minimization. Syngas purification and dehumidifica­
tion were simulated using a series of units block consisting of a cyclone,
a cooler, a scrubber, and a separator block. The block ’CYCLONE’ was
used to separate ash and unreacted carbon from the product gas. The hot
’SYNGAS’ was cooled to 25 ◦ C by ’COOLER’ and brought in contact with
water ’FRESH-SO’ in the ’SCRUBBER’ to remove contaminants such as
particulate matter, nitrogen compounds (NH3, HCN), and tars as
described in detail in reference (Woolcock and Brown, 2013). The
moisture in the ’CL-GAS’ stream was then condensed and separated from
dry syngas by a water separator, ’WATERSEP’. The reactor unit oper­
ating and input conditions of the feed stream in the simulator is shown in
Table 3.
2.5. Model assumptions
A number of assumptions were made in developing the numerical
simulation model. The gasification process was considered a steady-
state condition with constant pressure (atmospheric pressure). Char is
assumed to contain only carbon. The time reactants take in the reactor is

3
E.Y. Kombe et al. Bioresource Technology 361 (2022) 127734

Fig. 1. Process simulation flowsheet for air gasification of rice husk in Aspen Plus.

the composition of syngas, H2 yield, LHVSyngas, H2/CO ratio, and PCG

Table 2
were then studied.
Aspen Plus reactor block description used in the simulation.
Block ID Default Description
ID
2.7. Response surface methodology (RSM)
DRIER RStoic Simulate wet biomass drying by specifying the
stoichiometric reaction This study aimed to develop a regression model that would define
MOISTSEP Sep2 Separation of excess moisture from dry biomass
system performance by considering the interactions between the key
DECOMP RYield Decompose biomass material into conventional
components by defined yield distribution based on the factors. The simulated data from Aspen Plus were used to construct a
biomass proximate and ultimate analysis design matrix in Minitab. The objective response regression models were
OXID RGibbs Model oxidation of the disintegrated biomass created by performing an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) at a 95% con­
components
fidence level and thus evaluating the model’s quality. The response-
REDUC RGibbs Simulate biomass gasification
CYCLONE SSplit Simulate solid separation from the hot syngas
variable interaction was established as per the 2nd order quadratic
COOLER Heater Cool hot syngas to 25 ◦ C equation (Mojaver et al., 2019) given in Eq. (1).
SCRUBER RadFrac Remove contaminants such as particulate matter,
nitrogen compounds (NH3, HCN), and tars from the ∑
n ∑
n n− 1 ∑
∑ n

product gas
y = β0 + β i xi + βii x2i + βij xi xj + ∈ (1)
i=1 i=1 i=1 j=1
WATERSEP Sep2 Separate moisture from the purified syngas.
Where y represents the output response; x stands for the decision
parameter; βi are coefficients; n denotes the total sum of factors, and ∈
Table 3 stand for the statistical error.
Reactor unit operating and feed stream input conditions for simulation. The regression coefficient (R2) and the adjusted regression coeffi­
Block information Operating conditions cient (R2adj ) values were used to quantify the accuracy of the developed
Type Name Temperature Pressure regression model. These parameters were determined as follows
(◦ C) (atm) (Mojaver et al., 2019):
RStoic DRIER 109.85 1
⎛ ⎞
( )
RYield DECOMP 499.5 1 ⎜ SSR 2
(n− p) ⎟
⎟ = 1 − 1 − R (n − 1)
RGibbs OXID 800 1 R2adj = 1 − ⎜
⎝ SST ⎠ (2)
RGibbs REDUC 350–1100 1 (n− 1)
1− p

Feed Operating conditions SSR and SST are determined as per Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively.
streams
Temperature Pressure Flow rate (kg/hr) ∑
n
( )2
(◦ C) (atm)
SSR = yi − yj (3)
i=1
WETBIOM 24.85 1 20
( ∑n )
AIR-D 132 1 100 ∑
n 2
i=1 yi
AIR 24.85 1 10 SST = y2i − (4)
FRESH-SO 25 1 150 i=1
n

Where yi and yj represent the observations and fitted observations,

considered sufficiently long for the reactions to attain both chemical and respectively.
thermodynamic equilibrium. Finally, the product gas stream consists The P-value, which is a crucial parameter in the model, is often
mainly of CH4, CO2, CO, H2, N2, and H2O, and all the gases follow the regarded as insignificant if its value exceeds 0.05 (Roy et al., 2020). R2 is
Peng-Robinson equation of state with the Boston-Mathias alpha function a measure of the degree of fit, it was computed as per Eq. (5) (Mojaver
(PR-MB). et al., 2019).
SSR
2.6. Sensitivity analysis procedures R2 = 1 − (5)
SST

The developed simulation model was used to perform sensitivity Both R2 and R2adj values ranged from 0 to 100%. A value greater than
analysis by varying temperature from 350 ◦ C to 1100 ◦ C and ER in the 90% indicated that the model was precise (Mojaver et al., 2019; Zaman
ranges of 0.06 to 0.42. The influence of temperature and ER variation on and Ghosh, 2021). The difference between R2 and R2adj of less than 0.2,

4
E.Y. Kombe et al.
further indicated a suitable model (Zaman and Ghosh, 2021).
2.8. Model validation
A full-scale locally made pilot updraft gasifier at Jomo Kenyatta
University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT) was used to validate
the simulation results. The unit comprises a 400 mm diameter and 2000
mm height reactor coupled with an electric blower (Black and Decker
KTX5000 Blower 220–240 model) to provide the air needed for gasifi­
cation. The gasifier was loaded with 19.6 kg of rice husks at the
beginning of the experiment and manually ignited by dropping a
burning piece of paper into the gasifier through the opening. The gasifier
feeding door was closed after the ignition of biomass. Gasification
temperature was measured and monitored using K-type thermocouples.
The reactor product gas purification was carried out in a series of gas-
cleaning devices, consisting of a wet scrubber, a cyclone, and two fil­
ters arranged in series. A gas chromatography with a thermal conduc­
tivity detector (GC – TCD) model (GC-8A, Shimadzu Corp., Kyoto,
Japan) was used to analyze the collected product gas samples.
The simulated results were further validated using a set of two
published experimental results obtained at similar conditions as the
operation limits of the simulations. The first validation was carried out
with the test results of Jayah et al. (2003). In this validation, nine runs of
test results obtained from air gasification of rubber wood in a downdraft
gasifier at 900 ◦ C and 1 atm were used. Secondly, test results by Striūgas
et al. (2014) were used in the comparison. In this comparison, a single
run of test results obtained from air gasification of rape straw in a
downdraft gasifier operated at 1000 ◦ C was used. The proximate and
ultimate analysis of rubber wood and rape straw is shown in Table 1.
Using the root mean square error (RMSE), the deviation between the
experimental and the simulation results were quantified. This was
determined as per Eq. (6) (Upadhyay et al., 2019).
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
∑
(Xe − Xp )2
RMSE = (6)
N
Where Xe and Xp denote the test and the simulated result, respec­
tively, while N represents the number of data sets.
2.9. Performance parameters
The LHVSyngas, CGE, H2 yield, H2/CO ratio, and the percentage of
combustible gas (PCG) are among the key parameters for assessing the
gasifier’s performance in response to the variation in the gasification
process’s operating conditions.
The lower heating value (LHVSyngas) refers to the quantity of heat
released by completely combusted syngas, excluding the heat of
vaporization of water present in the products of combustion. The
LHVSyngas was determined by the composition of the combustible gases
in the product gas, such as methane, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen
and their respective lower heating values, as expressed in Eq. (7)
(Kaewluan and Pipatmanomai, 2011).
LHVSyngas (MJ/Nm3 ) = 35.81xCH4 + 12.63xCO + 10.79xH2 (7)
Where Xi denotes the fractional volume on a dry basis of each syngas
constituent.
CGE is the ratio of the product gas’ to the feedstock’s lower heating
value, as illustrated in Eq. (8) (Atnaw et al., 2013; Guangul et al., 2014).
Qyield × LHVSyngas
CGE = × 100% (8)
LHVbm
Where Qyield represents the syngas yield in (Nm3/kg), and LHVbm
stands for the biomass’s lower heating value in (MJ/kg).
Hydrogen yield and H2/CO ratio were calculated as per Eq. (9)
(Hussain et al., 2017; Shen et al., 2008) and Eq. (10) (Han et al., 2017),
respectively.
5
Bioresource Technology 361 (2022) 127734
H2 mass flow in gasifier (g/hr)
Hydrogen yield (g/kg of biomass) = (9)
Biomass mass flow rate (kg/hr)
percentage volume of hydrogen (dry basis)
H2 /CO ratio = (10)
percentage volume of carbon monoxide (dry basis)
The percentage of combustible gas (PCG) in the syngas was calcu­
lated as per Eq. (11) (Duan et al., 2015).
nCO + nH2 + nCH4
PCG = × 100 (11)
ntotal
Where ntotal denotes the number of moles of syngas, and nCH4 , nH2 , and
nCO represents the number of moles of CH4, H2, and CO in the syngas,
respectively.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Model validation
The comparison between the simulated and experimental results is
shown in Fig. 2. The average RMSE is found to be 7.73. From the figure,
the RMSE reduces with a rise in temperature. The rates of reactions are
slower at low temperatures, causing the reactions to take longer to attain
a state of equilibrium (Aydin et al., 2017), resulting in a decrease in the
equilibrium models’ performance. Aydin et al. (2017) also observed a
similar trend in their semi-empirical model study of various wood-based
biomass feedstock in a downdraft gasifier. Although the model predicted
CH4, H2, and N2 concentration to a good degree, it underestimated CO
and overestimated CO2 concentration by a large margin. It is reasoned
that the bed temperature was insufficient for achieving the equilibrium
state, leading to underestimating CO and overestimating CO2
concentration.
The second comparison between the simulated results and the test
results of Jayah et al. (2003) and Striūgas et al. (2014) is shown in
Table 4. The observed RMSEs of 2.498 and 2.381 are within the
acceptable range since the simulation model neglects the gasification
systems’ kinetics and fluid dynamics. The numerical simulation model
yielded nearly 100% of CH4, which is an underestimated value
compared to the experimental value. Due to short residence time, actual
gasifiers cannot achieve thermodynamic equilibrium resulting in under-
forecasting CH4 (Zaman et al., 2020). This error analysis indicates a
reliable numerical simulation model in its predictive capacity.
3.2. Sensitivity analysis
3.2.1. Effects of temperature
The effect of reactor temperature on syngas composition, H2 yield,
LHVSyngas, H2/CO ratio, CGE, and PCG is illustrated in Fig. 3. Temper­
ature enhancement favors the production of CO-rich syngas while
reducing the concentration of CO2 and CH4 (Fig. 3 (a)). For temperatures
between 350 ◦ C and 750 ◦ C, the concentration of H2 in the syngas and H2
yield increased with a temperature rise. It then decreased with a further
temperature rise (Fig. 3 (a) and (b)). Similar behavior in H2, CH4, CO2
and CO concentrations was observed through a simulation study by Tan
and Zhong (2010).
As observed from Fig. 3 (c) and (d), LHVSyngas, CGE, and PCG
increased while H2/CO ratio decreased with a temperature rise. Han
et al. (2017) reported similar behavior in LHVSyngas and H2/CO ratio in
their simulation study.
A temperature rise shifts the equilibrium of steam-methane reform­
ing reaction (R5), Boudouard reaction (R1), and water gas reaction (R2)
towards the formation of products resulting in increasing CO and H2
while reducing CO2 and CH4 concentration in the syngas (Shen et al.,
2008). The fluctuation in the concentration of H2 might result from the
mutual effect of the reactions occurring in the gasifier. Water-gas shift
reaction (R4) prevails at lower temperatures, producing H2-rich syngas
E.Y. Kombe et al. Bioresource Technology 361 (2022) 127734

Fig. 2. Comparison between Aspen Plus simulation model and experimental results at, (a) temperature = 398 ◦ C, ER = 0.370; (b) temperature = 449 ◦ C, ER = 0.361;
and (c) temperature = 467 ◦ C, ER = 0.357.

Table 4
Comparison between the experimental and simulated results.
Run No Parameters Experiment (Jayah et al., 2003) Aspen Plus RMSE

MC (%) A/F CO (%) H2 (%) CO2 (%) CH4 (%) N2 (%) CO (%) H2 (%) CO2 (%) CH4 (%) N2 (%)

1 18.5 2.03 19.600 17.200 9.900 1.400 51.900 20.744 18.897 10.199 0.004 50.155 1.362
2 16.0 2.20 20.200 18.300 9.700 1.100 50.700 19.650 17.900 10.709 0.003 51.738 0.867
3 14.7 2.37 19.400 17.200 9.700 1.100 52.600 18.346 16.712 11.317 0.002 53.623 1.097
4 16.0 1.96 18.400 17.000 10.600 1.300 52.700 18.760 17.010 11.130 0.002 53.030 0.664
5 15.2 2.12 19.700 13.200 10.800 1.300 55.000 20.665 18.824 10.236 0.004 50.271 3.374
6 14.0 2.29 18.900 12.500 8.500 1.200 59.100 19.286 17.568 10.879 0.003 52.264 3.991
7 14.7 1.86 19.100 15.500 11.400 1.100 52.900 23.574 21.474 8.881 0.008 46.064 4.690
8 13.8 2.04 22.100 12.700 10.500 1.300 53.400 21.845 19.900 9.686 0.005 48.564 3.940
9 12.5 2.36 19.100 13.000 10.700 1.200 56.00 19.003 17.311 11.011 0.003 52.673 2.498
Average 2.498

MC ER Experiment (Striūgas et al., 2014) Aspen Plus

1 14.9 0.29 14.590 14.430 11.800 4.040 54.960 16.874 13.448 14.186 0.003 55.492 2.381

but is hindered at temperatures above 750 ◦ C. At temperatures beyond
750 ◦ C, a reversed R4 is promoted, resulting in a decrease in H2 pro­
duction (Duan et al., 2015). Temperature enhancement favors H2 and
CO yields, resulting in increased LHVSyngas (Lahijani and Zainal, 2011)
and PCG. CGE depends on the LHVSyngas; an increase in LHVSyngas results
in a corresponding increase in the CGE. Duan et al. (2015) reported a
similar trend in their simulation study.
3.2.2. Effects of equivalence ratio
The effects of ER on the composition of syngas, H2 yield, LHVSyngas,
H2/CO ratio, CGE, and PCG are shown in Fig. 4. With ER enhancement,
the concentration of H2, CO, CH4, and the H2 yield reduced while the

6
E.Y. Kombe et al.
Fig. 3. The effect of gasification temperature on (a) syngas composition, (b) H2 yield, (c) LHVSyngas and H2/CO ratio, and (d) PCG and CGE.
concentration of CO2 increased (Fig. 4(a) and (b)). Fig. 4(c) and (d) show
a decrease in the LHVSyngas, CGE, and PCG and an increase in H2/CO
ratio. Han et al. (2017) reported a similar trend in the behavior of
LHVSyngas and the H2/CO ratio in their simulation study.
Increasing ER shifts the process towards complete combustion,
resulting in an increase in CO2 and a decrease in H2 and CO. Higher
temperatures hinder methanation reaction (R3), lowering the concen­
tration of CH4 in the syngas. Furthermore, R3 requires H2 as a reactant,
and its decrease leads to the production of low CH4-concentrated syngas.
Favas et al. (2017) observed a similar behavior in the concentration of
CO2, CO, and H2, while Lan et al. (2018) and Rupesh et al. (2016)
observed similar trends in CO2, CO, CH4, and H2 concentrations through
their simulation studies. Syngas dilution by nitrogen attributes to the
lowering of LHVSyngas (Lahijani and Zainal, 2011). Similar behavior in
LHVSyngas was observed through a simulation study by Favas et al.
(2017).
3.3. Statistical analysis
3.3.1. Regression models and analysis of variance
The final model regression equations for PCG and H2 yield in terms of
the coded factors with significant variables are depicted in Eqs. (12) and
(13), respectively.
7
Bioresource Technology 361 (2022) 127734
PCG (%) = − 33.44 + 0.21673 Temp − 78.99 ER − 0.00009 Temp
× Temp + 189 ER × ER − 0.19745 Temp × ER (12)
H2 yield (g/kg) = − 69.58 + 0.24644 Temp + 86.33 ER − 0.000125 Temp
× Temp − 44.6 ER × ER − 0.16994 Temp × ER
(13)
The ANOVA results for H2 yield and PCG are shown in Table 5.
The p-values for the overall model are zero with corresponding high
F-values of 1067.28 and 3197.44 for the H2 yield and PCG regression
model, respectively, showing the significance of the models. From the
ANOVA results, the linear, square, and 2-way interaction terms are
significant. R2 values of 93.12% for H2 yield and 97.59% for PCG
regression models were observed. The high R2 values show that the H2
yield and PCG regression models fit with acceptable precision into the
experimental results. Besides, the Adj-R2 values of 93.04% and 97.56%
for H2 yield and PCG, respectively, are satisfactorily close to their cor­
responding R2 values. Those results show a minimal chance of incor­
porating an insignificant term in the model. Therefore, the regression
models can accurately determine the response variables.
3.3.2. Multi-objective optimization
A synchronized effect of the critical parameters is studied to deter­
mine the operational point at which the maximum H2 yield and PCG can
E.Y. Kombe et al. Bioresource Technology 361 (2022) 127734

Fig. 4. The effect of ER on (a) syngas composition, (b) H2 yield, (c) LHVSyngas and H2/CO ratio, and (d) PCG and CGE.

Table 5
ANOVA results for H2 yield and PGE.
H2 Yield PCG

Constant DF Adj SS F-Value P-Value Adj SS F-Value P-Value

Model 5 51014.4 1067.28 0.000 131,513 3197.44 0.000

Linear 2 29349.5 1535.07 0.000 112,086 6812.82 0.000
Temp 1 11784.3 1232.70 0.000 29,566 3594.14 0.000
ER 1 17565.2 1837.43 0.000 82,521 10031.50 0.000
Square 2 13946.3 729.43 0.000 9007 547.44 0.000
Temp*Temp 1 13846.0 1448.38 0.000 7207 876.11 0.000
ER*ER 1 100.3 10.49 0.001 1800 218.77 0.000
2-Way Interaction 1 7718.6 807.41 0.000 10,420 1266.67 0.000
Temp*ER 1 7718.6 807.41 0.000 10,420 1266.67 0.000
Error 394 3766.5 3241
Total 399 54780.9 134,754

Coefficient of determination
R2 93.12% 97.59%
Adj -R2 93.04% 97.56%

simultaneously be attained. The combined effect of reactor temperature
and ER on the H2 yield and PCG is illustrated in Fig. 5. A high value of H2
yield (more than 40 g/kg of biomass) can be observed at high temper­
atures and low ER, as illustrated in Fig. 5 (a). A similar trend in the
behavior of H2 yield with the synchronized effect of gasification
temperature and ER is also observed in Fig. 5 (b). It is evident from Fig. 5
(c) that a PCG of greater than 70% can be attained at high gasification
temperatures and low ER, as also observed in the 3-D surface plot (Fig. 5
(d)).
Fig. 5 (e) shows that the white region represents the optimum zone.

8
E.Y. Kombe et al. Bioresource Technology 361 (2022) 127734

Fig. 5. The synchronized effects of gasification temperature and ER on the H2 yield, PCG, and the graphical representation of the multi-objectively determined
optimal zone.

The optimum working point of the system can be selected from any­ biomass and PCG value of 75.93%, as obtained from Minitab. Consid­
where in the optimum zone. For instance, a point selected at random ering the same conditions, the Aspen Plus run yields 46.90 g/kg of
within the optimum zone and representing operation conditions of biomass and 75.60%% for H2 yield and PCG, respectively. These results
950 ◦ C and 0.06 gives a predicted H2 yield value of 46.39 g/kg of show that Aspen Plus model results agree with the values predicted by

9
E.Y. Kombe et al.
Minitab software, thus validating the developed regression models with
adequate precision.
4. Conclusion
This work developed a robust numerical model of air-gasification of
rice husks integrated with syngas purification and RSM; and successfully
validated with experimental results of rice husks, rubber wood, and rape
straw. ER and temperature were investigated. High temperature and low
ER favored H2 production and PCG. The generated H2 yield and PCG
regression models are found to accurately determine the response var­
iables. Based on RSM analysis results, the optimum performance was
observed at temperatures 820 ◦ C − 1090 ◦ C and ER of 0.06–0.10. In the
future, reaction kinetics and hydrodynamics could be incorporated to
enhance the proposed model’s accuracy.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Emmanuel Yeri Kombe: Conceptualization, Investigation, Meth­
odology, Formal analysis, Validation, Data curation, Writing – original
draft. Nickson Lang’at: Supervision, Methodology, Writing – review &
editing. Paul Njogu: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Reiner
Malessa: Methodology, Data curation, Writing – review & editing,
Project administration. Christian-Toralf Weber: Resources, Supervi­
sion. Francis Njoka: Visualization, Writing – review & editing. Ulrich
Krause: Supervision, Software.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the Federal Ministry for Economic Coop­
eration and Development (BMZ) and accorded to EYK for his doctoral
study (Grant Ref. 91672311). The authors also express gratitude for the
access to computing resources provided by the Otto-von-Guericke-
University, Instrumental and Environmental Technology Department.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127734.
References
Abuadala, A., Dincer, I., 2010. Efficiency evaluation of dry hydrogen production from
biomass gasification. Thermochim Acta 507–508, 127–134. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tca.2010.05.013.
Adeniyi, A.G., Ighalo, J.O., Amosa, M.K., 2021. Modelling and simulation of banana
(Musa spp.) waste pyrolysis for bio-oil production. Biofuels 12, 879–883. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17597269.2018.1554949.
Atnaw, S.M., Sulaiman, S.A., Yusup, S., 2013. Syngas production from downdraft
gasification of oil palm fronds. Energy 61, 491–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2013.09.039.
Aydin, E.S., Yucel, O., Sadikoglu, H., 2017. Development of a semi-empirical equilibrium
model for downdraft gasification systems. Energy 130, 86–98. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.132.
Bakar, R.A., Yahya, R., Gan, S.N., 2016. Production of High Purity Amorphous Silica
from Rice Husk. Procedia Chem. 19, 189–195.
Bridgwater, A.V., 2003. Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal processing of
biomass. Chem. Eng. J. 91, 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1385-8947(02)
00142-0.
10
Bioresource Technology 361 (2022) 127734
Cohce, M.K., Dincer, I., Rosen, M.A., 2010. Thermodynamic analysis of hydrogen
production from biomass gasification. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 35, 4970–4980.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.08.066.
Doherty, W., Reynolds, A., Kennedy, D., 2009. The effect of air preheating in a biomass
CFB gasifier using ASPEN Plus simulation. Biomass Bioenergy 33, 1158–1167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.05.004.
Doranehgard, M.H., Samadyar, H., Mesbah, M., Haratipour, P., Samiezade, S., 2017.
High-purity hydrogen production with in situ CO 2 capture based on biomass
gasification. Fuel 202, 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.04.014.
Duan, W., Yu, Q., Wang, K., Qin, Q., Hou, L., Yao, X., Wu, T., 2015. ASPEN Plus
simulation of coal integrated gasification combined blast furnace slag waste heat
recovery system. Energy Convers. Manage. 100, 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2015.04.066.
Faraji, M., Saidi, M., 2021. Hydrogen-rich syngas production via integrated configuration
of pyrolysis and air gasification processes of various algal biomass: Process
simulation and evaluation using Aspen Plus software. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46,
18844–18856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.03.047.
Favas, J., Monteiro, E., Rouboa, A., 2017. Hydrogen production using plasma gasification
with steam injection. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42, 10997–11005. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.03.109.
Gómez-Barea, A., Leckner, B., 2010. Modeling of biomass gasification in fluidized bed.
Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 36, 444–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pecs.2009.12.002.
Guangul, F.M., Sulaiman, S.A., Ramli, A., 2014. Study of the effects of operating factors
on the resulting producer gas of oil palm fronds gasification with a single throat
downdraft gasifier. Renewable Energy 72, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2014.07.022.
Han, J., Liang, Y., Hu, J., Qin, L., Street, J., Lu, Y., Yu, F., 2017. Modeling downdraft
biomass gasification process by restricting chemical reaction equilibrium with Aspen
Plus. Energy Convers. Manage. 153, 641–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2017.10.030.
Heidenreich, S., Foscolo, P.U., 2015. New concepts in biomass gasification. Prog. Energy
Combust. Sci. 46, 72–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2014.06.002.
Hussain, M., Tufa, L.D., Yusup, S., Zabiri, H., Taqvi, S.A., 2017. Aspen Plus® Simulation
Studies of Steam Gasification in Fluidized Bed Reactor for Hydrogen Production
Using Palm Kernel Shell. In: Mohamed Ali, M.S., Wahid, H., Mohd Subha, N.A.,
Sahlan, S., Md Yunus, M.A., Wahap, A.R. (Eds.), Modeling, Design and Simulation of
Systems, Communications in Computer and Information Science. Springer
Singapore, Singapore, pp. 628–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6463-0_
54.
Hussain, M., Zabiri, H., Uddin, F., Yusup, S., Tufa, L.D., 2021. Pilot-scale biomass
gasification system for hydrogen production from palm kernel shell (part A): steady-
state simulation. Biomass Conv. Bioref. doi: 10.1007/s13399-021-01474-1.
Jayah, T.H., Aye, L., Fuller, R.J., Stewart, D.F., 2003. Computer simulation of a
downdraft wood gasifier for tea drying. Biomass Bioenergy 25, 459–469. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00037-0.
Kaewluan, S., Pipatmanomai, S., 2011. Potential of synthesis gas production from rubber
wood chip gasification in a bubbling fluidised bed gasifier. Energy Convers. Manage.
52, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.06.044.
Kang, K., Azargohar, R., Dalai, A.K., Wang, H., 2015. Noncatalytic Gasification of Lignin
in Supercritical Water Using a Batch Reactor for Hydrogen Production: An
Experimental and Modeling Study. Energy Fuels 29, 1776–1784. https://doi.org/
10.1021/ef5027345.
Kate, G.U., Chaurasia, A.S., 2018. Gasification of rice husk in two-stage gasifier to
produce syngas, silica and activated carbon. Energy Sources Part A 40, 466–471.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2017.1423418.
Kombe, E.Y., Lang’at, N., Njogu, P., Malessa, R., Weber, C.-T., Njoka, F., Krause, U.,
2022. Numerical investigation of sugarcane bagasse gasification using Aspen Plus
and response surface methodology. Energy Convers. Manage. 254, 115198 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.115198.
Kumar, A., Samadder, S.R., 2017. A review on technological options of waste to energy
for effective management of municipal solid waste. Waste Manage. 69, 407–422.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.046.
Lahijani, P., Zainal, Z.A., 2011. Gasification of palm empty fruit bunch in a bubbling
fluidized bed: A performance and agglomeration study. Bioresour. Technol. 102,
2068–2076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.09.101.
Lan, W., Chen, G., Zhu, X., Wang, X., Liu, C., Xu, B., 2018. Biomass gasification-gas
turbine combustion for power generation system model based on ASPEN PLUS. Sci.
Total Environ. 628–629, 1278–1286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.02.159.
Li, S., Zheng, H., Zheng, Y., Tian, J., Jing, T., Chang, J.-S., Ho, S.-H., 2019. Recent
advances in hydrogen production by thermo-catalytic conversion of biomass. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 44, 14266–14278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2019.03.018.
Mojaver, P., Khalilarya, S., Chitsaz, A., 2019. Multi-objective optimization using
response surface methodology and exergy analysis of a novel integrated biomass
gasification, solid oxide fuel cell and high-temperature sodium heat pipe system.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 156, 627–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2019.04.104.
Okolie, J.A., Nanda, S., Dalai, A.K., Kozinski, J.A., 2020. Optimization and modeling of
process parameters during hydrothermal gasification of biomass model compounds
to generate hydrogen-rich gas products. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 45, 18275–18288.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.05.132.
Roy, D., Samanta, S., Ghosh, S., 2019. Techno-economic and environmental analyses of a
biomass based system employing solid oxide fuel cell, externally fired gas turbine
E.Y. Kombe et al.
and organic Rankine cycle. J. Cleaner Prod. 225, 36–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.03.261.
Roy, D., Samanta, S., Ghosh, S., 2020. Performance optimization through response
surface methodology of an integrated biomass gasification based combined heat and
power plant employing solid oxide fuel cell and externally fired gas turbine. Energy
Convers. Manage. 222, 113182 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113182.
Rupesh, S., Muraleedharan, C., Arun, P., 2016. ASPEN plus modelling of air–steam
gasification of biomass with sorbent enabled CO2 capture. Resour.-Effic. Technol. 2,
94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reffit.2016.07.002.
Safarian, S., Unnthorsson, R., Richter, C., 2022. Hydrogen production via biomass
gasification: simulation and performance analysis under different gasifying agents.
Biofuels 13 (6), 717–726.
Seçer, A., Hasanoğlu, A., 2020. Evaluation of the effects of process parameters on
co–gasification of Çan lignite and sorghum biomass with response surface
methodology: An optimization study for high yield hydrogen production. Fuel 259,
116230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116230.
Shen, L., Gao, Y., Xiao, J., 2008. Simulation of hydrogen production from biomass
gasification in interconnected fluidized beds. Biomass Bioenergy 32, 120–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.08.002.
Singh, D.K., Tirkey, J.V., 2021. Modeling and multi-objective optimization of variable air
gasification performance parameters using Syzygium cumini biomass by integrating
ASPEN Plus with Response surface methodology (RSM). Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46,
18816–18831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.03.054.
Striūgas, N., Zakarauskas, K., Džiugys, A., Navakas, R., Paulauskas, R., 2014. An
evaluation of performance of automatically operated multi-fuel downdraft gasifier
for energy production. Appl. Therm. Eng. 73, 1151–1159. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.applthermaleng.2014.09.007.
11
Bioresource Technology 361 (2022) 127734
Tan, W., Zhong, Q., 2010. Simulation of Hydrogen Production in Biomass Gasifier by
ASPEN PLUS. In: 2010 Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference. IEEE,
Chengdu, China, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/APPEEC.2010.5449270.
Tavares, R., Monteiro, E., Tabet, F., Rouboa, A., 2020. Numerical investigation of
optimum operating conditions for syngas and hydrogen production from biomass
gasification using Aspen Plus. Renewable Energy 146, 1309–1314. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.051.
Upadhyay, D.S., Sakhiya, A.K., Panchal, K., Patel, A.H., Patel, R.N., 2019. Effect of
equivalence ratio on the performance of the downdraft gasifier – An experimental
and modelling approach. Energy 168, 833–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2018.11.133.
Woolcock, P.J., Brown, R.C., 2013. A review of cleaning technologies for biomass-
derived syngas. Biomass Bioenergy 52, 54–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2013.02.036.
Yoon, S.J., Son, Y.-I., Kim, Y.-K., Lee, J.-G., 2012. Gasification and power generation
characteristics of rice husk and rice husk pellet using a downdraft fixed-bed gasifier.
Renewable Energy 42, 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.08.028.
Yusup, S., Khan, Z., Ahmad, M.M., Rashidi, N.A., 2014. Optimization of hydrogen
production in in-situ catalytic adsorption (ICA) steam gasification based on Response
Surface Methodology. Biomass Bioenergy 60, 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2013.11.007.
Zaman, S.A., Ghosh, S., 2021. A generic input–output approach in developing and
optimizing an Aspen plus steam-gasification model for biomass. Bioresour. Technol.
337, 125412 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125412.
Zaman, S.A., Roy, D., Ghosh, S., 2020. Process modeling and optimization for biomass
steam-gasification employing response surface methodology. Biomass Bioenergy
143, 105847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105847.