International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-022-00492-7

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Prediction of species concentration in syngas produced

through gasification of different bamboo biomasses: a numerical
approach
Gokul Gopan1   · Lalhmingsanga Hauchhum1 · Satyajit Pattanayak2 · Pankaj Kalita3 · Renjith Krishnan1

Received: 9 February 2022 / Accepted: 23 March 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Islamic Azad University 2022

Abstract
The present investigation involves the numerical studies on the thermochemical conversion of bamboo biomasses conducted
in a Double Tapered Bubbling Fluidized Bed Reactor. Six different bamboo biomass species suitable for the gasification
process available in Mizoram state, India, are selected for the study. The 0D equilibrium-based model predicts the percentage
composition of syngas constituents viz; ­H2, CO, ­CO2, ­H2O, and C ­ H4 obtained through the gasification process. The global
gasification reaction of biomass is formulated from the chemical reactions at various gasification stages. The composition
of constituents in the syngas obtained is numerically determined at varied temperature ranges (400–1400 K) and Moisture
content (0–40%). The percentage of syngas constituents obtained for Bambusa vulgaris Wamin is outstanding compared
to the other biomass species used in the study. The production of C ­ H4 is found suitable at low temperature (< 1000 K) and
moisture content (< 35%). The result presented over the equivalence ratio range of 0.2–0.5, and gasification temperature of
1073 K, better recognizes the percentage yield of the syngas components. However, the percentage of ­H2 and ­CO2 increases
due to the water gas shift reaction with the temperature rise. The obtained results are suitably compared with the literature
in the same areas.

Keywords  Double tapered bubbling fluidized bed reactor · Equilibrium model · Taper angle · Biomass gasification ·
Bamboo biomass · Syngas generation

Introduction on scaled-up gasification of biomass materials for producing

The escalated issue of the energy crisis due to the reduc-
tion in usage of fossil fuels globally has triggered the need
for alternate energy sources [1, 2]. The requirement of non-
polluting energy sources has become the critical priority
among industrialists to reduce the global temperature rise
caused by industrial emissions [3, 4]. The coal gasification
technique used in earlier days for the energy need focuses
* Gokul Gopan
gokul.mech@nitmz.ac.in
1 for gasification and fetches distinct solutions. However, the
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute
of Technology Mizoram, Mizoram 796012, India
2 turbulence characteristics, and parameter studies are still
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Madanapalle
Institute of Technology and Science, Madanapally,
Andhra Pradesh 517325, India
3
Centre for Energy, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati,
Assam 781039, India
clean energy [5]. The biomass material comprises lignin,
cellulose, and hemicellulose, which undergo thermal con-
version in a gasification reactor to produce synthetic gas/
producer gas and soot [6–9].
The numerical modeling of the gasification process is
significant to predict the quality and quantity of syngas con-
stituents before proceeding to the practicality of the reactor
[10–13]. Hence, mathematical models are used to design
gasification systems that predict the syngas concentrations at
various operating conditions like reactor temperature, size of
biomass samples, and airflow rate [14]. The advents of Com-
putational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) studies have high fidelity
complex situations similar to solid surface reactions, fluid
challenging [15, 16]. With simpler models, the ideal pro-
cess conditions for single and multiple biomasses undergo-
ing gasification are established using the equilibrium model
or Gibbs free energy minimization [17–19]. In addition,

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

specific hypotheses are formulated as the entire system is
considered in a steady state [20–22].
The equilibrium modeling study can theoretically predict
the product gas constituents and calorific value of biomass
materials obtained through gasification. Hence, necessary
equations are solved mathematically for this purpose. Gener-
ally, the chemical equations related to mass and energy bal-
ance added with equilibrium-based expressions are solved
to determine the products of such reactions. The equilib-
rium models assume that all the chemical reactions during
the gasification process are in thermal equilibrium. While
experimentally, the reactions do not reach such conditions.
However, the model can better approximate the reactor per-
formance and operating conditions [23]. The equilibrium
modeling method is more straightforward than the complex
kinetic rate expression models where reaction kinetics and
diffusion parameters are needed. It also requires definite cor-
rection factors to modify the outcome of chemical reactions,
improving model accuracy.
The equilibrium model method has been widely used in
many research works to study the gasification process in
downdraft gasifiers [24–27]. However, the concept of this
model is similar to Gibb's free energy minimization. The
equilibrium model consists of an equilibrium constant,
where the model correction by introducing a correction fac-
tor to obtain concurrence with the physical system is done
[28, 29]. The literature reported by Jarungthammachote et al.
[30] in municipal solid waste (MSW) used correction fac-
tors on equilibrium constants to approximate the producer
gas composition. The coefficients used in the methanation
and water gas (WG) reactions of gasification improved the
accuracy of the modified model. A detailed mathematical
approach using equilibrium modeling is established by
Zainal et al. [31] to predict the producer gas composition
for various biomass materials. The set of equilibrium con-
stants obtained from methanation and WG reaction were
solved numerically to determine the composition of prod-
uct constituents. However, no correction factors are added
to the equilibrium relationship to enhance the composition
of product constituents. However, it is interesting that the
equilibrium modeling method is widely used to predict the
syngas constituents through the gasification process.
Though various types of gasifiers like fixed bed, co-current,
and downdraft gasifiers perform biomass gasification, fluidized
bed gasifier is typical in compactness, feed material flexibility,
and high heat transfer characteristics. In the fluidized bed gasifi-
cation process, various particle size blends can be incorporated,
lifted upwards due to the drag force exerted by the incoming
fluidizing agent, and undergoes combustion to produce syngas
[32, 33]. The biomass particles undergo complete conversion
in the combustion zone due to improved particle suspension
density controlled by the incoming air/fluid. The chemical reac-
tions during the gasification process are similar for all gasifiers.
13
International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering
However, the syngas conversion efficiency is irrespective of
reactor design except for the taper angled one. The tapering
design of the reactor significantly improves the gas–solid mix-
ing and combustion under optimum superficial velocity and
particle sizes. Henceforth, designing the gasifier and predicting
its performance during any operation is paramount before going
into scaled-up activities [34–36].
The feasibility of incorporating a reactor with varied taper
angles for the gasification process is discussed in the works
of literature [37, 38]. Although the chemical reactions hap-
pening during gasification are independent of the reactor
design, the process efficiency and total output yield depend
on the reactor shape [39, 40]. The tapered bubbling fluid-
ized bed reactors have been reported to improve the particle
hydrodynamics due to varying taper angle, stagnant bed
height, and increased inner volume compared to conven-
tional columnar reactors [41, 42]. Previously, the authors
have successfully conducted simulation studies on the varia-
tion of process parameters in a DTBFBR with wood biomass
using preheated/non-preheated air for varying particle sizes
[43]. The bubbling fluidized bed reactor is characterized by
simpler construction, improved heat transfer, heat storage
capabilities, and better temperature control than other con-
ventional costly reactor setups [44].
In the present investigation, the gasification of bamboo
biomasses is mathematically modeled through chemical reac-
tions supported by valid assumptions using the concept of
thermodynamic equilibrium. Although the equilibrium mod-
eling method is not new in the thermochemical conversion
process, literature on the equilibrium model for bamboo bio-
mass in the fluidized bed gasification process is limited. The
equilibrium modeling method can easily predict the maximum
possible output (syngas constituents) of any biomass material
undergoing thermochemical conversion by formulating the
global gasification reaction [45]. Hence, the authors attempt
to numerically predict the outcome of bamboo biomass gasi-
fication in a DTBFBR using the equilibrium model to obtain
convincing results. The mathematical modeling approach is
always encouraging to analyze the feasibility of any biomass
material in thermochemical conversion processes and reactor
scale-up activities. Henceforth, in this current approach, the
bamboo species suitable for gasification are selected, and the
gasification process is modeled. The gasification process is
happening inside a DTBFBR. The concentration of product
gas constituents ­(H2, CO, C­ O2, ­H2O, ­CH4) at various reaction
temperatures and approximate syngas percentage for different
MC are calculated for all the biomass species and compared
with similar works in this ground.
Materials and methods
The bamboo species suitable for the gasification processes,
which are available in the North-East region of India, is
International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering

selected. The six different varieties of bamboo biomass • The inlet air temperature is 298 K, and the pressure value
selected are Bambusa balcooa, Chimonobambusa callosa at the inlet is 101325 Pa.
Munro, Bambusa vulgaris cv. Wamin, Oxytenanthera albo-
ciliata Munro and Dendrocalamus longispathus Kurz. The Analysis
proximate and ultimate analysis values, higher heating value
(HHV) of the above biomasses, are obtained from the lit- The chemical formula is expressed from the proximate
erature [46, 47]. The global chemical reaction, mass, and and ultimate analysis results of various bamboo species in
energy balance equations are formulated for the selected Table 1. The equilibrium modeling and chemical reactions
biomass. A set of linear and nonlinear equations was solved for Bambusa vulgaris cv. Wamin (Brandis) McClure (Local
using the multivariable Newton–Raphson method in MAT- Name: Maurai) undergoing gasification is elucidated here as
LAB to find the approximate percentage of constituents in the HHV (18.54 MJ/kg) is higher compared to other bamboo
the output syngas. varieties.
The gasification reactions are as follows:
Model assumptions
C + CO2 = 2CO (1)
Generally, the equilibrium model consists of stoichiometric
models and non-stoichiometric models. In stoichiometric C + H2 O = CO + H2 (2)
models, the equilibrium constant is calculated for the indi-
vidual reaction involved in gasification. However, the mini- C + 2H2 = CH4 (3)
mization of the Gibbs free energy method is engaged in non-
stoichiometric models [48, 49]. Some of the assumptions Combining Eqs. (1), (2) will give the WG shift reaction.
that correlate with the experimental techniques considered CO + H2 O = CO2 + H2 (4)
for developing the stoichiometric thermodynamic model for
gasification of bamboo biomasses are as follows: The equilibrium constant, K1 for methane formation relat-
ing Eq. (3) gives,
• The biomass materials selected for the study comprise
PCH
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. K1 = ( )4 2 (5)
• The heat loss from the system is not accounted for as the PH2
system is adiabatic.
• All the chemical reactions happening during gasification The equilibrium constant, K2 for WG shift reaction is
achieved equilibrium.
PCO2 PH2
• All the gases produced during the reaction process are K2 = (6)
ideal. PCO PH2 O
• Nitrogen is inactive and does not participate in any reac-
The chemical formula of Bambusa vulgaris Wamin
tion.
(Brandis) McClure (BV) based on a single atom of carbon
• Ash, tar obtained during gasification is considered to be
from the proximate, and the ultimate analysis is:
inert.
• The syngas produced after the gasification process com- CH1.71 O0.78
prises ­H2, CO, ­CO2, ­H2O, ­CH4, and ­N2.

Table 1  Proximate, ultimate, and higher heating values of bamboo varieties suitable for gasification [46, 50]
Scientific name Sample name Proximate analysis Ultimate analysis HHV (MJ/kg)
VM FC M A C H N S O

Bambusa balcooa BB 76.9 2.9 10 10.6 45.5 6.3 0 0.25 47.8 18.21
Chimonobambusa callosa Munro CCM 81 1.3 8 9.6 44 6.3 0 0.29 49 17.76
Bambusa vulgaris cv. Wamin (bran- BV 77.8 2.4 9.8 9.9 46 6.5 0 0.26 47.5 18.54
dis)McClure
Bambusa bambos (Linn.) BBS 80.8 1.7 9 8.5 45.2 6.4 0 0.29 48 18.26
Oxytenanthera albociliata Munro OAM 66.9 13.2 10 9.8 43.5 6.50 0 0.25 49.5 17.67
Dendrocalamus longispathus Kurz DLK 83.7 0.86 10 5.3 44.7 6.28 0 0.27 48.6 17.91

13
 International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering

Since sulfur and nitrogen are less in bamboo as obtained The equilibrium constant K is a function of temperature
after proximate and ultimate analysis, it is not considered written as,
for convenience during the calculations. Hence, the global
gasification reaction is written as: ΔG0T
lnK = − (13)
RT
CH1.71 O0.78 + wH2 O + mO2 + 3.76mN2
= x1 H2 + x2 CO + x3 CO2 + x4 H2 O + x5 CH4 + 3.76mN2 ∑
ΔG0T = viΔG0f ,T,i (14)
(7) i
where w is the amount of water present per kg mol of BV,
m is the amount of oxygen per kg mol of BV, x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ( �)
c
and x5 are the coefficient of corresponding product gas con- ΔG0f ,T,i =h−0
f
− a �
Tln (T) − b � 2
T − T3
2
stituents. However, the MC is the ratio of mass of water ( �) ( �) (15)
present in the biomass to the mass of wet biomass. After the d e
− T4 + + f � + g� T
MC is determined through experiment, w becomes a con- 3 2T
stant. Now the global gasification reaction consists of six where ΔG0T is the standard Gibbs function of reaction, R is
unknowns,x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , x5 and m . Therefore, six equations the Universal Gas constant, 8.314 kJ/(kmol).K, vi is the stoi-
are required to find out these unknown species where three chiometric number and ΔG0f ,T,i is the standard Gibbs func-
are mass balance, two are generated from equilibrium con- tion of formation at given temperature T of gas species. The
stant relationships and the remaining equation is generated standard Gibbs function of formation for various compo-
by enthalpy/energy balance relationship. nents at 298 K is listed in Table 2 and values of coefficients
a − g is listed in Table 3.
� �

Mass balance For calculating K1,K2 the temperature in the gasification

and reduction zone must be known. However, in this study,
The mass balancing of chemical elements produces the first the energy balance method determines the temperature of
three equations. corresponding zones.
Carbon balance:
1 = x2 + x3 + x5 (8) Energy balance

Hydrogen balance: The temperature of the gasification zone is to be known for

calculating the equilibrium constants in Eq. (13). In this con-
1.71 + 2w = 2x1 + 2x4 + 4x5 (9)
text, the energy balance is performed for the gasification
Oxygen balance: process, which is assumed to be adiabatic. If the temperature
in the gasification zone is T and the inlet region is 298 K,
0.78 + w + 2m = x2 + 2x3 + x4 (10) then the energy balance for this process is given by,
∑ ∑ ( )
h−0 = n h −0
+ Δh−0
(16)
Thermodynamic equilibrium f ,j i f ,i T,i
j=react i=prod

Here, the underlying assumption is that all the chemical

reactions in the gasification zone are in thermal equilib-
rium, all the gases are ideal, and reactions are undergoing
an atmospheric pressure of 101,325 Pa. Hence, the equilib-
rium constant for methane formation and shift reaction is Table 2  Gibbs function of formation at 298.15 K (kJ/kmol) [31]
given below. Chemical species Phase ΔG0f ,298
Equilibrium constant from methane formation (Eq. 5)
Water ­(H2O) l −228,572
x ( )2
K1 = ( 5)2 ≫ x5 = K1 . x1 Water vapor (­ H2O) g −237,129
(11)
x1 Carbon dioxide ­(CO2) g −394,359
Carbon monoxide (CO g −137,169
Equilibrium constant from shift reaction (Eq. 5) Methane ­(CH4) g −50,460
x1 x3 Hydrogen ­(H2) g 0
K2 =
x2 x4 (12) Oxygen ­(O2) g 0
Nitrogen ­(N2) g 0

13
International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering

Table 3  Coefficients of Chemi- ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′
a b c d e f g
empirical equation for ΔG0f ,T,i cal
[30, 51] species

CO 5.619E−03 −1.190E−05 6.383E−9 −1.846E−12 −4.891E2 8.684E2 −6.131E−2

CO2 −1.949E−02 3.122E−05 −2.448E−08 6.946E−12 −4.891E2 5.270 −1.207E−1
H2O −8.950E−03 −3.672E−06 5.209E−09 −1.478E−12 0 2.868 −1.722E−2
CH4 −4.620E−2 1.130E−5 1.319E−8 −6.647E−12 4.891E2 1.411E01 −2.234E−1

where h−0 is the enthalpy or heat of formation in kJ/mol. At of formation ( H0f  ) of chemical species at 298 K is given in
f
reference state (298 K, 1 atm), h−0 becomes zero for all Table 4.
The enthalpy difference between the given state and refer-
f
chemical elements. Therefore, Eq. (7) can be written as,
ence state is given by,
( )
Hf0biomass + w Hf0H + H(vap) + mH0f O + 3.76mH0f N T
2 O(l) 2 2

∫
= x1 H0f H + x2 H0f CO + x3 H0f CO + x4 H0f H + x5 Hf0CH Δh−T = Cp− (T)dT (20)
2 2 2 O(vap) 4
(17)
+ ΔT(x1 CpH2 + x2 CpCO + x3 CpCO2 + x4 CpH2 O 298

+ x5 CpCH4 + 3.76mCpN2 where Cp− (T) is the specific heat at constant pressure in kJ/
kmol K and is a function of temperature in K then,
H0f H ,H0f O ,H0f N becomes zero at ambient temperature, so
2 2 2
Eq. (17) is reduced to Cp− (T) = a + bT + cT 2 + dT 3 (21)
( )
H0f biomass + w H0f H O(l) + H(vap) The coefficients of specific heat in the above equation are
2
given in Table 5.
= x2 H0f CO + x3 H0f CO + x4 H0f H Considering the CHa Ob as the model composition of bio-
2 2 O(vap)
(18)
+ x5 H0f CH + ΔT(x1 CpH2 + x2 CpCO + x3 CpCO2 mass, the stoichiometric ratio ( 𝜑 ) of air required for combus-
4
tion becomes,
+ x4 CpH2 O + x5 CpCH4 + 3.76mCpN2
m 𝜑
𝜑= ≫ Equivalent ratio
where Hf0biomass = Heat of formation of bamboo biomass. 1+ a
− b Amount of biomass
4 2
Hf H O(l) = Heat of formation of liquid water.
0
(22)
2
H(vap) = Heat of vaporization of water.
Hf0H O(vap) = Heat of formation of water vapour. Calculation procedure
2
Hf0CO , HfCO
0
 , Hf0CH = The heat of formation of gaseous
2 4
constituents. The flowchart of the calculation procedure is illustrated in
CpH2 , CpCO , CpCO2 , CpH2 O , CpCH4 , CpN2 = The specific heats Fig. 1.The equations from (8)–(10) are linear, and (11)–(12)
of gaseous constituents. are nonlinear. Hence, they should be suitably combined and
ΔT = T2 − T1 Where T2 and T1 are the gasification tem- reduced to get two linear and one nonlinear equation. In
perature in the reduction zone and ambient temperature in order to find the unknown values of and, x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , x5 and
the reduction zone (298 K). The heat of formation of any m.
biomass material can be calculated if the ultimate analysis The initial temperature was assumed and substituted into
and heating value are known. Then HHV is calculated as Eq. (13) to initially calculate K1 and K2 . The equilibrium
[46], constants K1 and K2 are replaced into Eqns. (11) and (12),
respectively. Finally, the five simultaneous equations from
HHV =0.3491C + 1.1783H + 0.1005S
(19)
− 0.0151N − 0.1034O − 0.0211As
Table 4  Heat of formation at Chemical species Hf0(kJ/mol)
The abbreviations, C, H, S, N, O, ash are carbon, hydro- 298 K [31, 51]
gen, sulfur, nitrogen, oxygen, and ash content (wt %). How- CO −110.5
ever, in this current approach, sulfur, nitrogen, and ash are CO2 −393.5
not considered anywhere during the calculation. The heat H 2O −241.8
CH4 −74.8

13
 International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering

Table 5  Coefficients of specific Gas species a b c d Tempera-

heat [30, 51] ture range
(K)

Hydrogen ( H2 ) 29.11 −0.1916E−02 0.4003E−05 −0.8704E−09 273–1800

Carbon monoxide ( CO) 28.16 0.1675 E−02 0.5372 E−05 −2.222 E−09 273–1800
Carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) 22.26 5.981 E−02 −3.501 E−05 −7.469E−09 273–1800
Water vapor ( H2 O) 32.24 0.1923 E−02 1.055 E−05 −3.595 E−09 273–1800
Methane ( CH4 ) 19.89 5.204 E−02 1.269 E−05 −11.01 E−09 273–1500
Nitrogen ( N2) 28.90 −0.1571 E−02 0.8081 E−05 −2.873 E−09 273–1800

Fig. 1  Model algorithm

(8) to (12) were solved numerically through the multivari- Table 6  The percentage composition of syngas constituents at mean
able Newton–Raphson method in MATLAB to get the cor- temperature 800 K
responding coefficients of output syngas. With these values, Gas species Approx. percentage
the final gasification reaction is formulated, and the percent- composition in syngas
age composition of each component is calculated as given in (%)
Table 6. The initial temperature assumed for the numerical H2 20.5
calculation is the mean temperature of 800 K. CO 26
Ref. Temperature(298K) + Maximum Temperature(1302K) CO2 21
= 800K H2 O 6.86
2
(23) CH4 2.10

13
International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering

Table 7  Percentage composition Sample name Chemical formula Percentage composition of syngas constituents
of syngas constituents in
bamboo biomasses at 800 K H2 CO CO2 H2O CH4

BB CH1.84O0.78 24 25.93 20.27 6.88 2.02

CCM CH1.72O0.83 24.8 25.59 19.42 6.73 1.88
BV CH1.71O0.78 25.2 25.98 20.97 6.86 2.80
BBS CH1.72O00.78 24.9 25.93 19.65 6.86 2.07
OAM CH1.89O0.81 24.7 25.72 20.76 6.77 1.81
DLK CH1.70O0.81 24.7 25.88 20.17 6.81 1.92

In multivariable Newton–Raphson method, the initial

point X0 is assumed and corrections are made using,
( )
Xi+1 = Xi + ΔXi , where ΔXi = −D−1 (Xi ) × fXi and (24)

𝜕f1 𝜕f1 𝜕f1

⎡ 𝜕x1 𝜕x2 𝜕x3
⎤
−1 ⎢ 𝜕f2 𝜕f2 𝜕f2 ⎥
D (Xi ) = ⎢ 𝜕x1 𝜕x2 𝜕x3 ⎥
⎢ 𝜕f3 𝜕f3 𝜕f3 ⎥
⎣ 𝜕x1 𝜕x2 𝜕x3 ⎦

Calculation of the above equations gives unknowns

of x1 , x2, x3 , x4 , and x5 , wherew = 0.33 , MC value is adopted
from Zainal et al. [31] and the amount of oxygen, m = 0.25
is Calculated from Eq. 22. Here, the ER (0.35) is taken
constant value throughout the calculation. Substituting the
unknown values will give the global gasification reaction Fig. 2  Syngas composition of BV at different MC (%wet basis)
of BV as:
CH1.71 O0.78 + 0.33H2 O + 0.25O2 + 0.965N2
as shown in Fig. 2. The increase of MC from 0 to 40% is
= 0.839H2 + 0.623CO + 0.320CO2 (25) observed to be favoring the production of ­CH4 up to 33%,
+ 0.256H2 O + 0.046CH4 + 0.965N2 and then it is reduced. C­ H 4 is evolved through devola-
tilization process at higher reaction temperature. Hence,
Similarly, the percentage composition of syngas constitu- increasing ­CH4 concentration with MC and increased tem-
ents is found for all the bamboo biomass samples through perature might indicate good devolatilization behavior and
the above calculations, as shown in Table 7. tar decomposition. Reducing the biomass MC is crucial
in determining the optimum process efficiency and syngas
heating values.
Results and discussion

Moisture content Syngas constituents

The presence of MC is an essential issue in gasification
processes. Too much MC in the biomass affects the calo-
rific value, LHV, and quality of syngas produced. How-
ever, it is observed in the works of literature [35, 52–54]
that the increase in MC reduces the formation of CO due to
the water gas reaction as given in Eq. (1) and (2). The CO
produced through Boudard reaction (1) undergoes further
reaction with ­H2O (Water gas reaction) to produce more
hydrogen and the C ­ O2 as given in (4). Hence, the percent-
age of CO reduces at higher temperature (> 1073 K) with
simultaneous increase in the percentage of H ­ 2 and C­ O2
The numerical study of chemical reactions during the gasi-
fication of various bamboo biomasses at different tempera-
tures predicted the composition of the constituent gases in
the syngas produced. The present study considers only the
major constituents in the syngas like ­H2, CO, C
­ O2, and C
­ H4
due to the complexity in finding the exact solutions. The
percentage variation of syngas constituents with gasification
temperature is plotted in Fig. 3. The concentration of ­H2,
­CH4, and C ­ O2 increases with the gasification temperature,
while the CO exhibits the opposite trend in all the cases.
Hence, it is evident that higher temperature favors the char

13
 International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering

13
 International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering
◂Fig. 3  Plot showing percentage variation of syngas constituents with
reaction temperature for bamboo biomass species. a Bambusa vul-
garis cv. Wamin, b Bambusa balcooa, c Chimonobambusa callosa
Munro, d Bambusa bambos, e Oxytenanthera albociliata Munro, f
Dendrocalamus longispathus Kurz
gasification reaction and complete oxidation [55–57]. The
increase in C­ H4 composition between 873 and 1073 K with
good moisture content in the biomass shows enriched C ­ H4
production through devolatilization. However, at higher tem-
peratures (> 1400 K), the concentration of H ­ 2 increases as
­CO2 is produced through reaction with O ­ 2 rather than water,
as given in Eq. (4). On the other hand, higher temperature
favors the endothermic reactions, whereby the complete oxi-
dation diminishes the concentration of CO and increases
­CO2 production [58]. Since ­H2 and ­CH4 are the unique prod-
ucts to be generated, higher and lower temperature opera-
tions must be considered. On comparing the various plots in
Fig. 3 for all the biomass species, the concentration of ­CH4
obtained for BV is better with 2.80%; yet maintaining the
ER ≤ 0.35 might alter the numerical results as excess air/
oxygen always enhances complete combustion and gasifica-
tion of any biomass material. In addition, better results are
obtained at a mean temperature of 800 K in all the cases.
The presence of MC in the biomass improved the C ­ H4 and
CO concentration at lower temperatures. The percentage
composition of syngas constituents of Bambusa vulgaris cv.
Wamin is outstanding compared to all other species taken
for the study. However, the syngas constituents produced
from each biomass species do not exhibit much variation
from each other. The numerical study of biomass gasifica-
tion with bamboo biomasses is state-of-the-art. Henceforth,
the results obtained might be better comprehended with
the experimental study of biomass gasification where more
operating conditions can be incorporated.
Equivalence ratio
The variation of syngas constituents with ER in the pre-
sent numerical study is compared with the similar work
conducted by Zheng et  al. [59] using bamboo biomass.
Comparing the gasification performance of bamboo bio-
mass (BV) with the bamboo biomass in the literature pre-
sented in Fig. 4, it is observed that the percentage compo-
sition of ­H2, ­CH4, and CO decreases with the increase in
ER. Whereas, ­CO2 shows the reverse trend. The yield of
­H2 and CO decreased from 34 to 11% and 31 to 15%, while
­CO2 increased from 11 to 35%, respectively. This is because
of the increased oxidation reactions at higher temperatures
(> 1000 K) which diminishes syngas quality. The current
study's percentage composition of H ­ 2, ­CH4, and CO shows
an upper hand over the syngas components presented in the
literature, although catalyst CaO is used. It is interesting to
Fig. 4  Plot for the variation of syngas constituents Vs ER at 1073 K
perceive that the rise in ER reduces the energy content of
combustible gases due to partial oxidation [60]. However,
under experimental conditions of biomass gasification, the
suitable ER range for better syngas yield will be 0.2–0.3
[61]. The present study can improve the model accuracy if
necessary correction factors are used. The ER of 0.35 used
for the current calculation shows better results with ­CH4.
The production of ­CH4 is found suitable at low tempera-
tures (< 1000 K) and improved MC (< 35%). The results are
presented over the ER range of 0.21 to 0.5 and gasification
temperature 1073 K, to recognize better the percentage yield
of the syngas components considered for the study.
Model validation
The results predicted using the present model for BV are
compared with the literature [6, 31, 59, 60] in equilibrium
modeling development for the gasification with lignocel-
lulosic biomasses. The equilibrium modeling of bamboo
biomass species in a fluidized bed reactor stands unique as
few works are published in this area. However, the literature
discussed here reports that the chemical reactions occurring
during gasification are independent of the reactor type. How-
ever, the process efficiency can be improved by modifying
the reactor design. The present model qualitatively high-
lights the composition of syngas constituents. Compared
to all other model data from the works of literature given
in Table 8, it is notable that the percentage composition of
various constituents viz; H ­ 2, CO, C
­ O2, and C
­ H4 of BV is
superior.
The present model has been developed under the tem-
perature of 800 K, atm pressure of 101325 Pa, MC of 33%,
and constant ER of 0.35. It is observed from the results that
the MC at a lower temperature enhances the production of
­CH4 and CO. From the ultimate analysis values of BV, the
percentage of carbon and oxygen is higher than the other
biomass types in the literature, improving the HHV and
13

Table 8  Comparison of Syngas compo- Present model
predicted results and data from nents of BV (%) (bamboo)
literature
H2 25.2
CO 25.98
CO2 20.97
CH4 2.80
composition of output constituents. Furthermore, the models
in the literature are either optimized with a correction factor,
carbon conversion factor, and char [3, 25, 54]. However, the
experimental work on gasification of bamboo in the presence
of catalyst presented in [58] shows augmented C ­ O2 composi-
tion as higher gasification temperature favors the Boudard
(Eq. 1) and WG shift reaction (Eq. 4).
The current model is developed without using any cor-
rections. Hence, the higher CO and C ­ O2 values could be
reduced by using the correction factor in methanation or WG
shift reactions. The syngas composition results obtained in
the present study are outstanding compared to the literature
considered for validation. However, these results can be bet-
ter comprehended with appropriate correction factors for all
the study's constituents.
Conclusions
The numerical modeling of biomass gasification with the
selected bamboo biomass species is achieved in a DTBFBR.
The model validation with the literature where similar stud-
ies in varied biomasses are conducted. Certain assumptions
are used for the modeling study. However, no corrections
factors were used to modify the model to retain the purity
of work and understand the variation of constituents. Out
of the six biomass species, the results obtained for BV are
better for all the components except CO and C ­ O2. However,
BB and BBS also show a ­CH4 percentage above 2%. The
ER of 0.35 is better for all the species where maximum syn-
gas constituents are obtained. The MC (< 35%) and lower
temperature (< 1000 K) are found to favor the production of
­CH4 numerically. Under experimental conditions, this might
change to lower values of < 20% and < 900 K. The proxi-
mate and ultimate analysis for any biomass can formulate
the global chemical reaction; possibly predicting the output
syngas constituents makes the numerical modeling notewor-
thy. The current approach exclusively discusses the chemical
reactions involved during gasification. However, the numeri-
cal results can be better comprehended with advanced simu-
lation and experimental results on a fluidized bed reactor
incorporating more input and operational parameters.
13
International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering
Zheng x et al. [58] Ayub et al. [6] Aydin et al. [59] Zainal et al.
(bamboo) (wood) (wood) [30] (wood)
6.44 12.92 10.824 21.06
11.6 19.98 20.576 19.61
81.08 11.36 12.77 12.01
0.81 0.19 0.2 0.64
Acknowledgements  The authors acknowledge the Director, National
Institute of Technology Mizoram, for providing valuable help and sup-
port. The authors are also thankful to Advanced Research Centre for
Bamboo and Rattan, Aizawl, Mizoram, India, for providing the bamboo
samples.
Declarations 
Conflict of interest  The corresponding author states that there is no
conflict of interest on behalf of all authors.
References
1. Kizuka, R., Ishii, K., Sato, M., Fujiyama, A.: Characteristics of
wood pellets mixed with torrefied rice straw as a biomass fuel.
Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 10, 357–365 (2019). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s40095-​019-​0305-0
2. Malik, P., Awasthi, M., Sinha, S.: Techno-economic analysis
of decentralized biomass energy system and CO2 reduction in
the Himalayan region. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 12, 239–249
(2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40095-​020-​00370-0
3. Situmorang, Y.A., Zhao, Z., Yoshida, A., Abudula, A., Guan, G.:
Small-scale biomass gasification systems for power generation
(<200 kW class): A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 117,
109486 (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2019.​109486
4. Nazir, M.S., Ali, Z.M., Bilal, M., et al.: Environmental impacts
and risk factors of renewable energy paradigm—a review. Environ
Sci Pollut Res 27, 33516–33526 (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11356-​020-​09751-8
5. Amani, A., Akhlaghian, F.: Hydrogen production from co-gasifi-
cation of Çan lignite and sorghum biomass in a fixed-bed gasifier:
CFD modeling. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. (2021). https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s40095-​021-​00423-y
6. Ayub, H.M.U., Park, S.J., Binns, M.: Biomass to syngas: Modi-
fied stoichiometric thermodynamic models for downdraft biomass
gasification. Energies. 13, (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​en132​
05383
7. Baruah, D., Baruah, D.C.: Modeling of biomass gasification: A
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 39, 806–815 (2014). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2014.​07.​129
8. Pio, D.T., Gomes, H.G.M.F., Ruivo, L.C.M., Matos, M.A.A.,
Monteiro, J.F., Frade, J.R., Tarelho, L.A.C.: Concrete as low-cost
catalyst to improve gas quality during biomass gasification in a
pilot-scale gasifier. Energy 233, 120931 (2021). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​energy.​2021.​120931
9. He, Q., Guo, Q., Umeki, K., Ding, L., Wang, F., Yu, G.: Soot
formation during biomass gasification: A critical review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 139, 110710 (2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​rser.​2021.​110710
10. Sobhi, M., Botond, A., Pal, S.: Numerical study of mixing
and heat transfer of SRF particles in a bubbling fluidized bed.
International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering
J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. (2019). https:// ​ d oi. ​ o rg/ ​ 1 0. ​ 1 007/​
s10973-​019-​09135-2
11. Philippsen, C.G., Vilela, A.C.F., Zen, L.D.: Fluidized bed mod-
eling applied to the analysis of processes: Review and state of the
art. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 4, 208–216 (2015). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​jmrt.​2014.​10.​018
12. Gupta S., Bhaskaran S., De S.: Numerical Modelling of Fluidized
Bed Gasification: An Overview. In: De S., Agarwal A., Mohol-
kar V., Thallada B. (eds) Coal and Biomass Gasification. Energy,
Environment, and Sustainability. Springer, Singapore (2018).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-​981-​10-​7335-9_​10
13. Ahmed, I.I., Gupta, A.K.: Sugarcane bagasse gasification: Global
reaction mechanism of syngas evolution. Appl. Energy. 91, 75–81
(2012). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apene​rgy.​2011.​07.​001
14. Belhadj, E., Chilton, S., Nimmo, W., Roth, H., Pourkashanian, M.:
Numerical simulation and experimental validation of the hydro-
dynamics in a 350 kW bubbling fluidized bed combustor. Int. J.
Energy Environ. Eng. 7, 27–35 (2016). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s40095-​015-​0199-4
15. Janajreh, I., Adeyemi, I., Raza, S.S., Ghenai, C.: A review of
recent developments and future prospects in gasification systems
and their modeling. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 138, 110505
(2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2020.​110505
16. Klimanek, A., Bigda, J.: CFD modelling of CO 2 enhanced gasi-
fication of coal in a pressurized circulating fluidized bed reactor.
Energy. 160, 710–719 (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​energy.​
2018.​07.​046
17. Pattanayak, S., Hauchhum, L., Loha, C., Sailo, L., Mishra, L.:
Experimental investigation on pyrolysis kinetics, reaction mecha-
nisms and thermodynamic parameters of biomass and tar in N2
atmosphere. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments. 48, 101632
(2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​seta.​2021.​101632
18. Li, X., Grace, J.R., Watkinson, A.P., Lim, C.J., Ergüdenler, A.:
Equilibrium modeling of gasification: A free energy minimiza-
tion approach and its application to a circulating fluidized bed
coal gasifier. Fuel 80, 195–207 (2001). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
S0016-​2361(00)​00074-0
19. Pattanayak, S., Hauchhum, L., Loha, C., et al.: Thermal perfor-
mance and synergetic behaviour of co-pyrolysis of North East
Indian bamboo biomass with coal using thermogravimetric
analysis. Biomass Conv. Bioref. (2022). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s13399-​021-​02196-0
20. Puig-arnavat, M., Bruno, J.C., Coronas, A.: Review and analysis
of biomass gasification models. Renew. Sustain Energy Rev. 14,
2841–2851 (2010). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2010.​07.​030
21. Capata, R., Veroli, M.D.: Mathematical modelling of biomass
gasification in a circulating fluidized bed CFB reactor. J. Sustain.
Bioenergy Syst. 02, 160–169 (2012). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.4​ 236/j​ sbs.​
2012.​24022
22. Sansaniwal, S.K., Pal, K., Rosen, M.A., Tyagi, S.K.: Recent
advances in the development of biomass gasi fi cation technol-
ogy: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 72,
363–384 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2017.​01.​038
23. Gambarotta, A., Morini, M., Zubani, A.: A non-stoichiometric
equilibrium model for the simulation of the biomass gasification
process. Appl. Energy. 227, 119–127 (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​apene​rgy.​2017.​07.​135
24. Anukam, A., Mamphweli, S., Meyer, E., Okoh, O.: Computer
simulation of the mass and energy balance during gasification of
sugarcane Bagasse. J. Energy. 2014, 1–9 (2014). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1155/​2014/​713054
25. Damiani, L., Trucco, A.: Biomass gasification modelling: An
equilibrium model, modified to reproduce the operation of actual
reactors. Proc. ASME Turbo Expo. 1, 493–502 (2009). https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1115/​GT2009-​60323
26. Altafini, C.R., Wander, P.R., Barreto, R.M.: Prediction of the
working parameters of a wood waste gasifier through an equi-
librium model. Energy Convers. Manag. 44, 2763–2777 (2003).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0196-​8904(03)​00025-6
27. Azzone, E., Morini, M., Pinelli, M.: Development of an equilib-
rium model for the simulation of thermochemical gasification and
application to agricultural residues. Renew. Energy. 46, 248–254
(2012). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​renene.​2012.​03.​017
28. George, J., Arun, P., Muraleedharan, C.: Stoichiometric equilib-
rium model based assessment of hydrogen generation through bio-
mass gasification. Procedia Technol. 25, 982–989 (2016). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​protcy.​2016.​08.​194
29. George, J., Arun, P., Muraleedharan, C.: Sustainable Energy Gen-
eration from Agricultural Crop Residues. Springer, Singapore
(2019)
30. Jarungthammachote, S., Dutta, A.: Thermodynamic equilibrium
model and second law analysis of a downdraft waste gasifier.
Energy 32, 1660–1669 (2007). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​energy.​
2007.​01.​010
31. Zainal, Z.A., Ali, R., Lean, C.H., Seetharamu, K.N.: Prediction
of performance of a downdraft gasifier using equilibrium mod-
eling for different biomass materials. Energy Convers. Manag.
42, 1499–1515 (2001). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0196-​8904(00)​
00078-9
32. Fitzgerald, B.W., Zarghami, A., Mahajan, V.V., Sanjeevi, S.K.P.,
Mema, I., Verma, V., El Hasadi, Y.M.F., Padding, J.T.: Multiscale
simulation of elongated particles in fluidised beds. Chem. Eng.
Sci. X. 2, 100019 (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cesx.​2019.​
100019
33. Thakkar, M., Mohanty, P., Shah, M., Singh, V.: An Overview
of Biomass Gasification. In: Sarangi P., Nanda S., Mohanty P.
(eds) Recent Advancements in Biofuels and Bioenergy Utili-
zation. Springer, Singapore (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
978-​981-​13-​1307-3_7
34. Hameed, S., Sharma, A., Pareek, V.: Modelling of particle segre-
gation in fluidized beds. Powder Technol. 353, 202–218 (2019).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​powtec.​2019.​04.​064
35. Siedlecki, M., de Jong, W., Verkooijen, A.H.M.: Fluidized bed
gasification as a mature and reliable technology for the production
of bio-syngas and applied in the production of liquid transporta-
tion fuels-a review. Energies 4, 389–434 (2011). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​3390/​en403​0389
36. Cortazar, M., Alvarez, J., Lopez, G., Amutio, M., Santamaria,
L., Bilbao, J., Olazar, M.: Role of temperature on gasi fi cation
performance and tar composition in a fountain enhanced conical
spouted bed reactor. Energy Convers. Manag. 171, 1589–1597
(2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​encon​man.​2018.​06.​071
37. Khani, M.H.: Models for prediction of hydrodynamic characteris-
tics of gas – solidtapered and mini-tapered fl uidized beds. Powder
Technol. 205, 224–230 (2011). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​powtec.​
2010.​09.​018
38. Askaripour, H., Dehkordi, A.M.: International Journal of Mul-
tiphase Flow Effects of initial static bed height on fractional
conversion and bed pressure drop in tapered-in and tapered-out
fluidized bed reactors. Int. J. Multiphase Flow. 79, 50–61 (2016).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijmul​tipha​seflow.​2015.​08.​006
39. Hervy, M., Remy, D., Dufour, A., Mauviel, G.: Air-blown gasi-
fication of Solid Recovered Fuels ( SRFs ) in lab-scale bubbling
fluidized-bed: Influence of the operating conditions and of the
SRF composition. Energy Convers. Manag. 181, 584–592 (2019).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​encon​man.​2018.​12.​052
40. Arena, U., Di Gregorio, F.: Fluidized bed gasification of industrial
solid recovered fuels. Waste Manag. 50, 86–92 (2016). https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​wasman.​2016.​02.​011
13

41. Rasteh, M., Farhadi, F., Bahramian, A.: Hydrodynamic character-
istics of gas – solid tapered fl uidized beds : Experimental studies
and empirical models. Powder Technol. 283, 355–367 (2015).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​powtec.​2015.​06.​002
42. Gopan, G., Hauchhum, L., Kalita, P., Krishnan R., Pattanayak
S.: Parametric study of tapered fluidized bed reactor under var-
ied taper angle using TFM. AIP Conference Proceedings 2396,
020020 (2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1063/5.​00665​47
43. Gopan, G., Hauchhum, L., Kalita, P., Pattanayak, S.: Biomass
gasification in a double - tapered bubbling fluidized bed reactor
using preheated air. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. (2021). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40095-​021-​00451-8
44. Kundu, K., Chatterjee, A., Bhattacharyya, T., Roy, M., Kaur, A.:
Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass to Bioenergy: A Review.
In: Singh A., Agarwal R., Agarwal A., Dhar A., Shukla M. (eds)
Prospects of Alternative Transportation Fuels. Energy, Environ-
ment, and Sustainability. Springer, Singapore (2018). https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​978-​981-​10-​7518-6_​11
45. Mallick, D., Buragohain, B., Mahanta, P., Moholkar, V.S.: Gasi-
fication of Mixed Biomass: Analysis Using Equilibrium, Semi-
equilibrium, and Kinetic Models. In: De S., Agarwal A., Mohol-
kar V., Thallada B. (eds) Coal and Biomass Gasification. Energy,
Environment, and Sustainability. Springer, Singapore (2018).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-​981-​10-​7335-9_9
46. Pattanayak, S., Hauchhum, L., Loha, C., Sailo, L.: Selection cri-
teria of appropriate bamboo based biomass for thermochemical
conversion process. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery. 10, 401–407
(2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13399-​019-​00421-5
47. Pattanayak, S., Hauchhum, L., Loha, C., Sailo, L.: Feasibility
study of biomass gasification for power generation in Northeast
India. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery. (2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s13399-​021-​01419-8
48. Bhaskaran, S., Gupta, S., De, S.: Dual Fluidized Bed Gasifica-
tion of Solid Fuels. In: De S., Agarwal A., Moholkar V., Thallada
B. (eds) Coal and Biomass Gasification. Energy, Environment,
and Sustainability. Springer, Singapore (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​978-​981-​10-​7335-9_​17
49. Vaezi, M., Passandideh-Fard, M., Moghiman, M., Charmchi, M.:
Gasification of heavy fuel oils: A thermochemical equilibrium
approach. Fuel 90, 878–885 (2011). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.f​ uel.​
2010.​10.​011
50. Pattanayak, S., Loha, C., Hauchhum, L., et al.: Application of
MLP-ANN models for estimating the higher heating value of
bamboo biomass. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 11, 2499–2508 (2021).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13399-​020-​00685-2
51. Don W. Green; Robert H. Perry. Perry's Chemical Engineers'
Handbook, Eighth Edition (McGraw-Hill: New York, Chicago,
San Francisco, Lisbon, London, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, New
Delhi, San Juan, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney, Toronto, 2008, 1997,
1984, 1973, 1963, 1950, 1941, 1934). https://​www.​acces​sengi​
neeri​nglib​rary.​com/​conte​nt/​book/​97800​71422​949
13
International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering
52. Schmid, J.C., Benedikt, F., Fuchs, J., Mauerhofer, A.M., Hofbauer,
H.: Syngas for biorefineries from thermochemical gasification of
lignocellulosic fuels and residues — 5 years ` experience with an
advanced dual fluidized bed gasifier design. Biomass Conversion
and Biorefinery (2019)
53. Campoy, M., Gómez-Barea, A., Ollero, P., Nilsson, S.: Gasifica-
tion of wastes in a pilot fluidized bed gasifier. Fuel Process. Tech-
nol. 121, 63–69 (2014). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​fuproc.​2013.​12.​
019
54. Sikarwar, V.S., Zhao, M., Fennell, P.S., Shah, N., Anthony, E.J.:
Progress in biofuel production from gasification. Prog. Energy
Combust. Sci. 61, 189–248 (2017). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.p​ ecs.​
2017.​04.​001
55. Katsaros, G., Pandey, D.S., Horvat, A., Almansa, G.A., Fryda,
L.E., Leahy, J.J., Tassou, S.A.: Gasification of poultry litter in a
lab-scale bubbling fluidised bed reactor: Impact of process param-
eters on gasifier performance and special focus on tar evolution.
Waste Manag. 100, 336–345 (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
wasman.​2019.​09.​014
56. Nilsson, S., Gómez-Barea, A., Fuentes-Cano, D., Haro, P., Pinna-
Hernández, G.: Gasification of olive tree pruning in fluidized bed:
Experiments in a laboratory-scale plant and scale-up to industrial
operation. Energy Fuels 31, 542–554 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1021/​acs.​energ​yfuels.​6b020​39
57. Taupe, N.C., Lynch, D., Wnetrzak, R., Kwapinska, M., Kwapin-
ski, W., Leahy, J.J.: Updraft gasification of poultry litter at farm-
scale—A case study. Waste Manag. 50, 324–333 (2016). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​wasman.​2016.​02.​036
58. Wongsiriamnuay, T., Kannang, N., Tippayawong, N.: Effect of
operating conditions on catalytic gasification of bamboo in a fluid-
ized bed. Int. J. Chem. Eng. 2013, (2013). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 155/​
2013/​297941
59. Zheng, X., Chen, C., Ying, Z., Wang, B.: Experimental study on
gasification performance of bamboo and PE from municipal solid
waste in a bench-scale fixed bed reactor. Energy Convers. Manag.
117, 393–399 (2016). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​encon​man.​2016.​
03.​044
60. Aydin, E.S., Yucel, O., Sadikoglu, H.: Development of a semi-
empirical equilibrium model for downdraft gasification systems.
Energy 130, 86–98 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​energy.​2017.​
04.​132
61. Puig-Gamero, M., Pio, D.T., Tarelho, L.A.C., Sánchez, P.,
Sanchez-Silva, L.: Simulation of biomass gasification in bubbling
fluidized bed reactor using aspen plus®. Energy Convers. Manag.
235, (2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​encon​man.​2021.​113981
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.