Fuel 316 (2022) 123317

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

An Overview of Hydrogen Production: Current Status, Potential,

and Challenges
Muhammad Younas, Sumeer Shafique, Ainy Hafeez, Fahad Javed, Fahad Rehman *
Microfluidics Research Group, Department of Chemical Engineering, COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus, Pakistan

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

Keywords: Hydrogen as an energy carrier can provide a long term solution to the problem of sustainable supply of cleaner
Hydrogen energy and environmentally friendly fuel. Hydrogen finds extensive use s in petroleum, chemical synthesis and treated
Green technology as a zero-emission fuel for transportation as well. It could also be used to produce power. Especially, in the
Plasmolysis
remote areas away from main cities where electrification cost would be significantly higher. A hydrogen based
Current status
Potential
decenteralized system could be developed where the “surplus” power generated by a renewable source could be
Challenges stored as chemical energy in the form of hydrogen. 80% of the whole hydrogen produced is by steam methan
reforming at an energy efficiency of 74–85%. However, steam methane reforming and other fossil fuel based
technologies are neither green nor sustainable. Hydrogen, could only be counted as a renewable and clean fuel if
the required power to produce hydrogen comes from a renewable source such as wind or solar power. Using a
renewable source, hydrogen could be produced by electrolysis, biohydrogen, thermochemical cycles, photo­
catalysis, and plasmolysis. Amongst hydrogen production technologies, electrolysis contributes the highest 4% of
the total world’s energy demand. The production cost and energy efficiency estimated for electrolysis are 10.3
$/kg and 52%, respectively. Electrolysis, an energy-intensive process for hydrogen production, is still con­
fronting challenges to manifest itself economically. While, the production rate of 20 g/kWh with predicated cost
and efficiency 0.09 €/kWh or 6.36 $/kg and 79.2%, respectively, has been reported that depicts plasmolysis
competitive on par with electrolysis with the advantage of low power consumption, reduced equipment size and
principle cost. This review highlights the current status, potential, and challenges of both renewable and non-
renewable hydrogen production. A new strategy for simultaneous hydrogen production and separation by
microplasmas and microbubble mediated mass transfer has been proposed. A decenterlaized system for hydrogen
generation by combining the proposed strategy with solar energy has been suggested to reduce the carbon
footprints.

1. Introduction
The continuous urbanization and growth of the world’s population
and economy have led to a considerable increase in energy demand. To
date, around 80% of the global consumption of energy is fulfilled by
fossil fuels, which are being dwindled dramatically [1]. Energy gener­
ation through fossil fuels has a significant increase in greenhouse gases
and CO2 in the environment, causing adverse climate changes [2,3]. The
depletion of non-renewable energy resources and their impacts on the
environment. The researchers have developed their interest in

Abbreviations: AC, Alternating Current; AD, Anaerobic Digestion; AGIG, Australian Gas Infrastructure Group; CCS, CO2 Capturing and Storage; DBD, Dielectric
Barrier Discharge; DC, Direct Current; DF, Dark Fermentation; Et-OH, Ethanol; GHG, Green House Gases; GWP, Global Warming Potential; HC, Hydrocarbon; HV,
High Voltage; IEA, International Energy Agency; INL, Idaho National Laboratory; IR, Infrared; JAEA, Japan Atomic Energy Agency; LCA, Life Cycle Analysis; LCD,
Liquid Crystal Display; LED, Light Emitting Diode; LEL, Lower Explosive Limit; PACT, Plasma and Catalyst integrate Technology; PEM, Proton Exchange Membrane;
PEMFC, Proton-exchange Membrane Fuel Cell; PF, Photo Fermentation; PKR, Pakistan Rupees; PMCR, Plate Micro Channel Reactor; PPM, Parts Per Millions; PSRM,
Photocatalytic Steam Reforming of Methane; PV tech, Photovoltaic Technology; R&D, Research and Development; RF, Radio Frequency; RS, Reducing Sugar; SESR,
Sorption Enhanced Steam Reforming; SMR, Steam Methane Reforming; SOFC, Solid Oxide Fuel Cell; SOSE, Solid Oxide Electrolysis; SS, Stainless Steel; STH, Solar to
Hydrogen; HTE, High-temperature Electrolysis; TOC, Total Organic Contents; USD, United States Dollar; UV, Ultra Violet; VFA, Volatile Fatty Acids; VOC, Volatile
Organic Compounds; WW, Wastewater.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: frehman@cuilahore.edu.pk (F. Rehman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.123317
Received 5 December 2021; Received in revised form 11 January 2022; Accepted 16 January 2022
Available online 11 February 2022
0016-2361/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Younas et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of hydrogen production pathways.
sustainable and green energy systems because fossil fuels dwindled
dramatically and their environmental consequences [4,5].
Researchers have established energy-related networks and can
forecast future patterns and thus represent the energy crises. By 2060, as
per World Energy Council statistics, the leading energy source will be
only renewable source of energy [6]. Current consumption rates are
estimated to keep the world’s oil, gas, and coal reserves going for about
200, 40, and 60 years, respectively. The peak rates of liquid fuel and gas
production appear to occur between 2015 and 2030. After that, the total
resources will be in decline. Due to its depleted nature, conventional
fuel’s sustainability has been a significant concern [7]. Thus, decar­
bonizing energy through alternative sustainable, green and renewable
energy is critical for future energy management and sustainable devel­
opment [8-10].
Currently, around 23.7% of the world’s total energy demand is ful­
filled by renewable sources such as solar, hydropower, wind, and bio­
masses [11]. Hydropower, wind, solar energy is considered intermittent.
Several quality issues will be initiate when the generator is attached to
the grid. These issues include voltage dip during linkage to the gener­
ator, supply unpredictability, unbalanced and distorted power supply.
Humans have used biomass as an energy source for thousands of years. It
is estimated that 80% of the overall renewable fuel supply is provided by
traditional biomass energy [12]. The use of biomass for energy aims
could give humankind a new starting point. However, it requires over­
coming the problems regarding biomass utilization for energy produc­
tion, primarily hydrogen. The main issues are increasing food prices,
especially in developed countries, and a substantial increase in bio-crops
does not entirely solve environmental damage threats [13]. Another
issue about biomass logistics is storage use, especially availability,
which is a characteristic of the feedstock [14].
Power storage is another challenge to increase energy efficiency
control, reliability, and energy quality. A power storage system like
2
Fuel 316 (2022) 123317
batteries could enhance the distribution system’s reliability, energy ef­
ficiency control, and energy quality [16]. However, the battery energy
storage system has its limits and challenges. Batteries’ overall weight
and high initial purchasing cost, driving range, thermal control, and
battery life span are significant issues and challenges [15]. As a result,
the most often used lead-acid batteries have the most significant market
share in sales and MWh generation. Batteries confront lead production
challenges with severe environmental implications, and recycling is
necessary to lessen their impact [16].
The solution may be the exquisite concept of storing renewable en­
ergy in an energy carrier, such as hydrogen, that can be transported,
stored, and used. Fuel cell and other storage systems based on hydrogen
are gaining importance for large-scale export, storage, and transport
[17]. Hydrogen can be derived from different pathways, technologies,
and an immense range of feedstocks, including non-renewable and
renewable resources. Several technologies based on different pathways,
feedstocks, and renewable or non-renewable sources are mentioned in
Fig. 1. section-1. Emerging issues about the emissions of greenhouse
gases (GHGs) have emphasized alternative energy sources for hydrogen
production. Water electrolysis is among the most efficient methods for
producing sustainable hydrogen, accounting for 4–5% of global
hydrogen production [18]. Recently, different research groups have
done work on plasmolysis to produce hydrogen. Rincon used a micro­
wave reactor to produce a 0.3007 g/kWh yield of hydrogen with 0.93%
EtOH and 82.5% hydrogen selectivity with a power consumption of 300
kW power at the frequency of 2.45 GHz with ethanol and argon in feed
[19]. Chehade has used the microwave reactor to create 13.3 g/kWh of
Hydrogen energy with 900 W of water as feed. [20]. Kirkpatrick has also
reported a 0.25 g/kWh yield of hydrogen by using electrical corona
discharges [21]. Rehman et al. [22] reported hydrogen production up to
20 g/kWh using water vapor as a feed using Corona-DBD hybrid
micoreactor. The results demonstrated that the energy yield of hydrogen
M. Younas et al. Fuel 316 (2022) 123317

Fig. 2. Catalytic steam methane reforming for hydrogen production.

categories; Non-renewable energy resources such as steam methane

reforming, gasification, and pyrolysis, and renewable resources sources
such as electrolysis, biohydrogen, photocatalysis, thermochemical cy­
cles, and plasmolysis will be discussed as renewable hydrogen produc­
tion sources. The proposed strategy in this review article is plasmolysis,
which may have several advantages compared with other prescribed
hydrogen production pathways. A schematic representation is illus­
trated in Fig. 1.

2.1. Non-renewable hydrogen production sources

2.1.1. Steam methane reforming

A well-established and commonly used method to produce hydrogen
is steam methane reforming (SMR). >80% of hydrogen is derived by
SMR, which yields higher than electrolysis. [23]. As a preliminary step,
natural gas and other hydrocarbons containing methane are sent to the
steam system to proceed with heating and removing sulfur [24], which
can contaminate and retards hydrogen production and catalysts activity.
Fig. 3. Photocatalytic steam methane reforming for hydrogen production.
Hydrodesulfurization and adsorption techniques using activated carbon
could remove sulfur [25]. Steam and purified methane passed through a
catalyst and converted into hydrogen by the endothermic reaction
production is on par with the electrolysis with additional advanatage of
shown in Fig. 3.
the reduced power consumption and smaller equipment size. Recent
A water gas shift reaction (WGS) is used to increase the efficiency of
advancements in microfluidics in general and micro-plasmas, in
SMR, in which CO reacts with water in the presence of a catalyst. The
particular, have made hydrogen production by water vapor plasmolysis
endothermic process is adjusted in 700–1100 K and 3.5 MPa pressure
more lucrative in terms of energy efficiency (Rehman et al., 2013),
[26] to avoid coke formation [24]. CO2 and other impurities are
making it comparable to electrolysis. Since, its principal cost is lower
removed by the pressure swing adsorption, leaving pure hydrogen
than electrolysis, and water vapor plasmolysis can produce hydrogen at
behind [27]. Steam reforming of ethanol (SRE) placed an immense focus
a lower price than electrolysis.Fig. 2.
on hydrogen (6 mol of H2 per mol of ethanol-feed) because of the
So, in this review, we are going to propose a strategy that is plas­
possible hydrogen yield [28-32]. The ideal SRE reaction is following;
molysis of water/water vapors that’s in R&D however competitive to
electrolysis of water with the advantage of considerably lower power C2 H5 OH + 3H2 O→6H2 + 2CO2 (1)
consumption and small equipment size [22]. Thus, in this review,
The above reaction is carried as an endothermic reaction with
various hydrogen production pathways and technologies based on a
operating temperature (>500◦ C), atmospheric pressure, and excess
wide range of feedstocks, including sustainable, green and non-
water. The efficiency of the ethanol and steam methane reforming can
renewable resources, are discussed from the perspective of hydrogen
be increased simultaneously. However, Decomposition reactions for
economy (status), potential, barrier, and challenges. One of the high­
SMR and water gas shift (WGS) are mentioned below;
lights of the review is the development of the strategy to integrate
microbubbles mediated mass transfer with micrpplasmas to simulta­ C2 H5 OH→CO + CH4 + H2 (H298K = 49.0kJmol− 1 ) (2)
neously produce and separate hydrogen and combining the whole pro­
cess with solar energy to develop a decenteralized system. CH4 + H2 O→CO + 3H2 (H298K = 206.3kJmol− 1 ) (3)

2. Methods of hydrogen production CH4 + 2H2 O→CO2 + 4H2 (H298K = 165.1kJmol− 1 ) (4)

Hydrogen production pathways have been divided into two CO + H2 O→CO2 + H2 (H298K = − 41.2kJmol− 1 ) (5)

3
M. Younas et al.
Fig. 4. Coal gasification for hydrogen production.
Noble metals such as platinum (Pt) and rhodium (Rh) or non-
precious metal catalysts like nickel (Ni) or noble metals such as plat­
inum and rhodium could be used to carry out the reaction. The most
efficient catalysts are nickel-based catalysts, which do not restrict the
process and are less expensive [25]. Above 90% of the hydrogen purity is
obtained using the potassium-doped lithium silicate (K-doped Li4SiO4)
in two parallel reactors, and sorption enhanced steam reforming [33].
Using Ni-Co/CaO–Ca12Al14O33 (SESR), the maximum concentration of
hydrogen is 82.23% and yield 2.31 L/g at 650◦ C [34]. Lithium zirconate
is the catalyst used for CO2 adsorbent at high temperatures, and 97%
product concentration is possible by equilibrium limits and gas–water
shift reaction[35]. It has been reported as 96% purity is achieved by
MgO-modified Ni/CaO with the help of sorption enhanced steam
reforming [36].
The hydrogen production from 1975 to 2018 extended to 115 Mton/
year. Nowadays, Over 90% of the hydrogen produced from fossil fuels is
recovered, and obviously, about 830 million tonnes of carbon dioxide
are released annually [37]. SMR, oil fraction, coal gasification, and
electrolysis could produce 48%, 30%, 18%, and 4% hydrogen, respec­
tively [38]. However, on a commercial scale, hydrogen production by
SMR is still expensive than biomass gasification [39-41].
Steam ethanol reforming (SRE) placed an immense focus on
hydrogen (6 mol of H2 per mole of ethanol feed) because of the possible
hydrogen yield. Making SRE cost-effective is challenging for the
hydrogen production and purification system [36]. The cost of the SRE
in 2013 was calculated as 0.27 US$/kWh for an efficiency of 94.95%
[42,43]. The cost of hydrogen production using SMR in 2008 was
calculated as 1.28 ($/kg) with maintenance and the operational cost 3%.
The total capital cost is 150 million (Rs.) and obtaining the hydrogen
purity 97% and system efficiency is 80% [44]. Currently, hydrogen
produced from SMR has a market value of about 2.9 $/kg [45].
SMR is the big CO2 emitter estimated to be nearly 2% of global CO2
emissions in 2015, based on 65 million tons of H2 production per year. It
has been reported that a strategy to scale up renewable power capacity
from 1.5 GW in 2015 to>15 GW in 2050 [45]. The great challenge of
4
Fuel 316 (2022) 123317
using steam methane reforming for hydrogen production is CO2 emis­
sion [26]. CO2 capturing and Storage (CCS) helps maintain hydrogen
production efficiency, however it can not provide a longterm solution. A
90% conversion peak has been reported using SMR via solar integration.
Wang et al. [46] compared hydrogen production based on fossil fuels
and solar energy and analyzed CO2 mitigation. Hydrogen production
using solar energy from the SMR process could reduce CO2 emission by
0.315 mol, equivalent to a 24% reduction of CO2. However, renewable-
based hydrogen production methods have problems of low efficiency,
intermittence, and output pressure that need to be optimized [47].
Methane and water could be used to produce hydrogen photo-
catalytically by using semiconductor photocatalysts. The photo­
catalytic steam reforming of CH4 (PSRM), as demonstrated in Fig. 3, is
challenging because it requireshigh photocatalytic oxidative activity to
break the CH bond of CH4 and a strong reductive capability to split
water. As a result, wide bandgap semiconductors with high redox po­
tentials should be investigated for PSRM [48–50].
SMR is well developed mature technology for hydrogen production
which produces about 80% of total worldwide hydrogen production.
Due to vast experiences at commercial scale as well as development in
this technology has reduced production cost (2.9 $/kg) and enhanced
yield efficiency (74–85 %) [45]. However, SMR requires complex cat­
alytic processes as well as high temperature (700–1000◦ C). SMR pro­
duces hydrogen by using non-renewable feedstocks such as liquefied
petroleum gas, Methanol, naphtha, jet fuel and biodiesel which are
gradually depleting because world energy demand. SMR produces CO2
which is major cause for global warming potential [51]. An investigation
for hydrogen production into life cycle analysis (LCA) through SMR
found that GWP for fossil fuels was 9.46 kg CO2 / kg H2 [52]. Additional
equipment and energy are required to capture CO2 from exhaust gases
and 100% CO2 can’t be captured [53]. In the present situation, clean and
green energies are getting attention. The green or renewable source will
be a prominent source of electricity by 2060 [6]. SMR is a mature
technology. However, it contributes to global warming and fossil fuel
depletion, because it is neither green nor sustainable. Therefore, world is
M. Younas et al. Fuel 316 (2022) 123317

Table 1 The syngas goes through the water gas shift reaction to increase H2
Coal gasification-based hydrogen production and coal gasification based mul­ yield. The gas product may be washed if it is appropriate to extract
tigeneration system. elemental sulfur or sulfuric acid [61]. There are many studies on
Coal gasification system Energy Exergy References hydrogen-based production on coal gasification and the multi-
efficiency efficiency generative system based on coal gasification, as shown in Table 1.
Trigeneration system 56.7% 45.05% [62] Coal gasification is also a huge source of CO2. Furthermore, Kothari
Combined coal gasification and 58% 55% [63] et al. [68] reported 29.33 kg CO2/kg H2 from a coal gasification system
alkaline water electrolysis system with 75% efficiency. CCS technology is used to capture CO2, but it is not
Integrated underground coal 29.2% 26% [64]
considered an appropriate solution on a large scale [69]. Moreover, the
gasification with SOFC fuel cell
system world’s coal reserves are expected to last for 150 years at current pro­
Coal gasification-based co-generation 38.1% 27% [65] duction rates [70]. The environmental impact and reserve depletion are
system tending attention towards renewable feedstocks to produce hydrogen in
Coal gasification-based cogeneration – 54.3% [66] the future.
system
The integrated coal-based gasification 41% 36.5% [67]
In recent decades, biomass gasification has been widely used to form
system CO2, H2, CH4, CO, and other hydrocarbons as shown in Fig. 5. Biomass
Gasification, thermochemical water 51.3% 47.6% [57] gasification is performed in 700–1200◦ C using steam, oxygen, air, or
decomposition, and hydrogen mixture. Steam processing increases H2 and produces high-value nitro­
compression systems
gen-free gas. [71]. The catalysts play a vital role in biomass gasification
to improve hydrogen yield. The effect of various catalysts on hydrogen
shifting towards renewable production pathways for environmental yield can be seen in Table 2. It has been reported as nickel-based cata­
sustainability as well as alternative for fossil fuel depletion. lysts are considered most favorable. They are inexpensive and widely
used in industries for H2 production in biomass gasification [72]. The
2.1.2. Gasification: summary of different feedstock undergoing gasification with other
Gasification is an old-developed technology for hydrogen produc­ gasifying agents and catalysts for the hydrogen yield is given in Table 2.
tion. A carbonaceous feedstock is transformed into a gaseous product Gasification of biomass is more cost-effective than coal gasification.
with a useful chemical heating value [54]. Usually, three types of re­ It is estimated that 1 MW biomass gasification system costs around 367
actors- entrained flow, a fixed bed, and a fluidized bed- are used to gasify USD/kW, less than 720 USD/kW for a small-scale coal gasification plant.
biomass, among which the fluidized beds are considered the best. Flu­ [78].
idized bed reactors (FBRs) have substantial heat transfer and mas­ The future cost prediction via biomass gasification ranges of 13–17
stransfer capability between solid and liquid phases, better temperature $/GJ in 2030 [79]. The fluidized bed biomass gasification technology
controllability, and high stability [55]. sells hydrogen for 0.3 $/kg H2, less than the entrained flow reactor.
The most commercially viable feedstocks for efficient hydrogen However, coal is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions and
production in gasification processes are coal [56-58] and biomass also causes acid rain. Co-gasification of coal and biomass is considered a
[59,60]. Coal is feasible for large-scale hydrogen production economi­ promising research field. Biomass has a lower energy content than coal
cally and physically through gasification. In gasification, coal is partly and helps to prevent the release of greenhouse gases. When two fuels are
oxidized by steam and O2, producing primarily CO and H2 merged with co-gasified, the overall emissions are reduced without reducing the en­
CO2 and steam (syngas) in the high pressure and temperature reactor, as ergy content of the gas produced [80]. It has been reported that adding a
shown in Fig. 4. minute amount of biomass (up to 10 wt%) in gasification leads to higher

Fig. 5. Biomass gasification for hydrogen production.

5
M. Younas et al. Fuel 316 (2022) 123317

Table 2
Different feedstock with different gasifying agents and catalysts to produce hydrogen yield via biomass gasification.
Feedstock Gasifying agent Catalyst Temperature H2 concentration Reactor References

Wheat straw Supercritical Nickel 500 C

◦
5.78 mol/kg H2 with 45 min residence Tubular batch reactor [73]
water nanocatalyst time
Sewage sludge Supercritical KOH 540 C
◦
9.23 mol/kg H2 with 4 wt% biomass Fluidized bed reactor [74]
water concentrations
Chicken manure Supercritical Activated carbon 580◦ C 20.03 mol/kg H2 with 3 wt% biomass Fluidized bed reactor [75]
water concentrations
Timothy grass Supercritical NaOH 650◦ C 6.64 mol/kg H2 Stainless steel batch tubular reactor [76]
water
Rice husk Superheated CaO 650 C
◦
6.56 mol/kg H2 Two-stage fixed bed pyrolysis- [77]
steam gasification system
Cotton stalk Superheated CaO 650◦ C 8.26 mol/kg H2 Two-stage fixed bed pyrolysis- [77]
steam gasification system
Sawdust Superheated CaO 650◦ C 9.02 mol/kg H2 Two-stage fixed bed pyrolysis- [77]
steam gasification system
Cornstalk Superheated CaO 650◦ C 8.79 mol/kg H2 Two-stage fixed bed pyrolysis- [77]
steam gasification system
Wheat straw Superheated CaO 650 C
◦
8.53 mol/kg H2 Two-stage fixed bed pyrolysis- [77]
steam gasification system
Municipal solid Superheated Cobalt-based 900◦ C 32.94 mol/kg H2 Fluidized bed reactor [55]
waste steam catalyst
Food waste Superheated Cobalt-based 900◦ C 32.20 mol/kg H2 Fluidized bed reactor [55]
steam catalyst
Pine sawdust Superheated Cobalt-based 900 C
◦
28.55 mol/kg H2 Fluidized bed reactor [55]
steam catalyst
Wood residue Superheated Cobalt-based 900◦ C 27.86 mol/kg H2 Fluidized bed reactor [55]
steam catalyst
Wood chip Superheated Cobalt-based 900◦ C 28.30 mol/kg H2 Fluidized bed reactor [55]
steam catalyst
Green wastes Superheated Cobalt-based 900◦ C 30.32 mol/kg H2 Fluidized bed reactor [55]
steam catalyst
Coffee bean husk Superheated Cobalt-based 900 C
◦
34.32 mol/kg H2 Fluidized bed reactor [55]
steam catalyst

H2 and CO production [81]. disruptions [82].

LCA of GHG emissions in entrained flow and fluidized bed reactors
are less than other reactors. LCA shows that entrained flow gives lower
emissions in the case of carbon capture. Current market conditions
reveal that the biomass price must be 60 $/ ton or lower to make the
minimum H2 price. The cost of production of H2 can be decreased by
improving system efficiency, as biomass cost falls due to the efficient use
of biomass [1]. Traditional biomass heating techniques necessitate the
use of energy in all conventional processes. As a result, energy is ob­
tained from non-renewable sources such as oil, coal, and other fossil
fuels, reducing the system’s viability and causes environmental
Solar-driven biomass gasification is considered the most prominent
and beneficial technique for hydrogen production. It has been reported
that by using solar irradiation, the energy contained in biomass was
upgraded by a factor of up to 1.21 for biomass gasification to hydrogen
production. Solar integrated biomass gasification is a complex and
sensitive system. A big challenge with using the green energy source is
the sluggish initialization of the operation, which increases continued
reliability more effectively. Thus, storage strategies need to resolve
variability and the periodic existence of the energy source. For solar
gasification, effective solar collector plates are required [83].

Fig. 6. Pyrolysis-steam reforming integrated system for H2 production.

6
M. Younas et al. Fuel 316 (2022) 123317

Table 3
Summary of investigations on pyrolysis of biomass for hydrogen production.
Biomass Reactor type Catalyst Temperature 0(◦ C) H2 content References

Wet Sludge Packed bed reactor Blast furnace slag 600–1000 1.71Nm3/kg [102]
Sawdust Fixed bed reactor Fe-Al 700 217 mL/g [103]
Rice Husk Fixed bed reactor Ni impregnation on char 500–700 315.3 mL/g [104]
Coconut Shell Fixed bed reactor NiAl2O3 550–750 22.11 mmol/g [105]
Sugar Cane Fixed bed reactor NiAl2O3 550–750 22.96 mmol/g [105]
Palm Kernel Shell Fixed bed reactor NiAl2O3 550–750 25.35 mmol/g [105]
Cotton Stalk Fixed bed reactor NiAl2O3 550–750 20.74 mmol/g [105]
Wheat Straw Fixed bed reactor NiAl2O3 550–750 16.38 mmol/g [105]
Sawdust Batch fixed bed reactor Without catalyst 500–850 45 wt% [93][93]
Cr2O3 48 wt%
MnO 47.6 wt%
FeO 45.8 wt%
Al2O3 45.6 wt%
CaO 46.6 wt%
CuO 45 wt%
Rice Straw Batch Fixed bed reactor No catalyst 500–850 44.2 wt%
Cr2O3 49.3 wt%
MnO 48.5 wt%
FeO 47.3 wt%
Al2O3 45 wt%
Glycerol Fixed bed microreactor No catalyst 650–800 (◦ C) 2.33 vol% [106]

Further, the consistency(quality) and purity of the substance can
differ considerably; thus, a purification unit is also required [84]. The
presence of tar is one of the leading technological hindrances for the
development of gasification. The presence of moisture content in
biomass gasification reduces process efficiency. More research is needed
to improve catalyst utilization and reactor performance to overcome tar
and char disposal problems. Ash-like problems, including erosion, sin­
tering, agglomeration, and corrosion, make the gasification process
economically non-viable [85]. Gasification can be a good solution for
energy production from renewable sources, but there are some chal­
lenges to explore at a large scale. Aggressive conditions in the gasifica­
tion process cause a significant problem in the gasifier. Depending on
how severe conditions are in gasifiers, feed injectors, protective coat­
ings, and tools such as thermocouples involving the gasifier have a short
life span. These problems in the gasifier reduce the average operating
time and demand another gasifier in series for continuous operation.
These issues and hurdles could severely affect the cost of the plant [86].
2.1.3. Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis produces syngas, solid charcoal, and liquid fuel by heating
organic materials in the absence of oxygen [87]. Pyrolysis can be clas­
sified based on operating conditions into slow [88], fast [89], and flash
pyrolysis [90], which vary in heating intensity, reaction temperature,
and time of residence [91]. The high moisture content, a longer resi­
dence time, small particle sizes favor hydrogen production [92].
Hydrogen concentration can be notably increased by peak temperature
or introducing catalyst [93], as shown in Fig. 6. In fast pyrolysis, high
temperatures are suitable for rich-hydrogen production. Therefore, high
heating rates and relatively long residence time are optimal conditions
for synthesizing a high concentration of hydrogen [94]. The addition of
catalysts significantly improves the rate of hydrogen production. Several
researchers illustrated in Table 3 have reported investigations on suit­
able catalysts for hydrogen production. Noble metals such as Rh and Ru
have significant catalytic viability; however, these are rare and expen­
sive enough, making the process uneconomical, Using Ni and zeolite-
based catalysts from biomass maximum gas production can be ach­
ieved [5,92]. It has been reported as Ni-based catalyst has been acquired
for 45.33% conversion efficiency and 850◦ C is required [89].
To use fossil fuel/hydrocarbon for hydrogen production is consid­
ered conventional technique. Natural gas transformation into hydrogen
and basic carbon through direct pyrolysis could be marketable because
natural gas and greenhouse gas-free products are easily available. This
process eliminates the cleaning stage, making it readily useable in
proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells. Carbon byproduct is
helpful for raw or carbon/air fuel cell [95]. The thermal decomposition
of natural gas has great potential in hydrogen production, eliminating
CO2 and CO contaminants. Still, it can’t be easy potentially and
economically viable unless designing an efficient way to dispose of the
carbon by-product production during the reaction [95]. The hydrogen
production capital investment for a large plant is 25–30% less than the
vapor conversion or partial oxidation process [24]. The energy
requirement for natural gas-led hydrogen production is 37.6 kJ/mol,
lower than SMR (63.3 kJ /mol) [96]. Since, fossil fuel reserves are being
depleted, and attention has been given to biomass pyrolysis for renew­
able and sustainable purposes. This renewable source can produce
hydrogen without greenhouse gas emissions [97]. Hence, hydrogen
production from biomass pyrolysis is considered a long-term sustainable
process.
Investigations on reactor types to increase hydrogen production ef­
ficiency have got more attention nowadays. A fluidized bed reactor is
considered the most efficient to produce hydrogen economically. It re­
duces the production of tar and the coke and coal are deposited on the
catalysts, reducing the catalytic efficiency and delaying the production
of hydrogen. The coke and coal are deposited on the catalysts and reduce
the pyrolysis reactor’s steam reforming performance [98]. Yeboah et al.
[99] reported a production rate of 250 kg H2 /day in a fluidized bed
reactor. H2 production values in pyrolytic reforming, in fluidized bed
reactor, of different plastics like polyolefin, polystyrene, and poly­
ethylene terephthalate has been reported 34.8, 37.3, 29.1, and 18.2% by
weight, respectively [100]. The cost through biomass production is ex­
pected to be 8.86–15.52 $/GJ, which highly depends on the type of
biomass [24]. European Commission is paying attention to encourage
and develop lower-level readiness technologies, including pyrolysis, in
the future.
Recent advancements have directed attention towards two-step py­
rolysis of biomass to achieve better efficiency. The first step involves
converting biomass into gas, charcoal and bio-oil via rapid pyrolysis,
followed by steam catalytic reforming of the bio-oil [101]. After CO is
converted into CO2 and H2, hydrogen is purified by pressure swing
adsorption. Furthermore, water gas shift reaction is applied to increase
hydrogen supply [27] as shown in Fig. 6. Some of the current in­
vestigations to make pyrolysis economically viable are summarized in
Table 3.
The hydrogen production from biomass can significantly reduce CO2
emissions compared to the conventional SMR technique. Steam
reforming for hydrogen production was investigated by LCA, in which

7
M. Younas et al.
feedstock was vegetable oil and fossil fuel. The global warming potential
range was from 3.3 kg CO2/kg H2-9.46 kg CO2/kg H2 for fossil fuels
[52]. Pyrolysis is cheaper than SMR. In addition, hydrogen production
costs can be reduced by increasing the system’s efficiency; biomass costs
are lowering due to the efficient use of biomass. [1]. The renewable
sources of energy for the pyrolysis of biomass may be considered cost-
effective and more efficient. Among renewable energy sources, solar-
driven pyrolysis is regarded as the most efficient for biomass pyroly­
sis. Fahmy et al. studied a comparison of conventional pyrolysis with
solar-assisted pyrolysis and reported 25% energy saving in the case of
solar-assisted pyrolysis [94]. Co-pyrolysis is another method to enhance
H2 production efficiency as well. Zhang et al. [107] reported that the co-
pyrolysis of sewage and biomass increases the gas product directly
related to hydrogen production.
Pyrolysis is still in its initial phases of development. A lot of chal­
lenges are to be confronted before its commercialization. The major
limitation of pyrolysis is char and tar deposition on the catalyst surface,
which reduces hydrogen production and causes catalyst deactivation. As
co-feeding of the system could minimize char and tar deposition on the
catalyst surface. Studies done over co-feeding found that carbon depo­
sition could be suppressed. But, hydrogen production is reduced, and
CO2 concentration increases [108]. Limitations of biomass to hydrogen
are its high handling cost as well as seasonal availability. Process limi­
tations of biomass to hydrogen that need to be overcome are pressure
resistance, corrosion, and hydrogen aging [92].
Another major problem is the quality of the end product due to
contaminants. Therefore, the most significant challenge may be
installing auxiliary equipment to make the end product contaminant-
free [109]. The literature review depicts that several barriers and
challenges must surpass to make pyrolysis economically efficient.
However, volatile nature, segregation (due to low partial pressure) and
purification ( high-temperature affect the membrane durability),
manufacturing costs, the selection of desired catalyst, availability of
renewable biomass are all barriers in pyrolysis for hydrogen production
[92].
2.2. Renewable technologies
2.2.1. Electrolysis
Electrolysis is a non-spontaneous chemical decomposition technique
in an electrolyzer (electrolyte, anode–cathode electrodes and separator,)
when an electric current is transmitted to an ion-containing solution
[110]. Alkaline water electrolysis, Solid oxide electrolysis (SOES), PEM
electrolysis, High-temperature water electrolysis are the various
methods that could be used for hydrogen production using electrolysis
[111-116]. The alkaline water and PEM electrolyzers operate at mod­
erate temperatures (373 K), but the SOSE electrolyzer operates at high
temperatures (800–1273 K) [116]. The electrochemical breakdown of
steam at high temperatures has two benefits over the low temperature
electrolysis technique. First, a high temperature electrolysis method is
more efficient than typical room-temperature electrolysis because the
energy provided as heat is less expensive than electrical power. Second,
due of the low theoretical breakdown voltage at high steam tempera­
tures, the expended energy in high temperature electrolysis is minimal
[117]. The main disadvantage of hydrogen generation by electrolysis is
its high cost in comparison to the SMR technique. To deal with the high
SOSE operating temperature and huge thermal energy, a high-cost metal
oxide electrolyte is required [118]. The electrical power consumption of
the process decreases as the SOSE working temperature rises, whereas
the necessary thermal energy rises [119]. Because, SOSEs operate at
high temperatures, costly catalysts are not required; nonetheless, certain
chemical, thermal, and structural conditions must be satisfied [118].
The cost of energy consumption determines the cost of hydrogen gen­
eration. Water electrolysis gives 4% of the world’s hydrogen demand
[68].
The electrolysis of aqueous methanol can produce hydrogen. It has
8
Fuel 316 (2022) 123317
Fig. 7. Alkaline water electrolysis for hydrogen production.
been reported that hydrogen can be produced at low voltage and low
consumption cost by proceeding with the electrolysis of aqueous
methanol, but carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is emitted. The effi­
ciency of H2 production in electrolysis highly depends upon the feed­
stock. [120]. However, since methanol is produced from biomass, this
method is slow and energy-intensive. Water electrolysis is regarded as a
viable method of producing hydrogen. As hydrogen and oxygen evolve
at different electrodes, one of the main advantages of electrolysis is that
there is no need for external separation sources and pure hydrogen can
be obtained. However, drawback of this method is that the energy
consumption is considerably high compared to other electrolysis
methods. It has been reported that commercial water electrolyzer has an
energy consumption of about 4.5–5 kWh/Nm3, which is much greater
than other methods. However, its energy efficiency could be increased if
energy is supplied through renewable sources like wind and light (PV
electrolysis) [68].
Net decomposition reaction of the hydrogen and oxygen conversion
is as follows.
1
H2 O + ElectricalEnergy→H2 + O2 (6)
2
In general, electrolyzers use energy from power grids, which are
primarily powered by coal combustion, which is inefficient and eco-
belligerent [121]. Electrolysis of alkaline water shown in Fig. 7 is
considered to be more advantageous as compared to other methods of
electrolysis.
Alkaline water electrolysis is currently the cheapest way to produce
electrolytic grade hydrogen (~700–800 € / kW). While PEM and SOES
are still expensive (~1000–1500 € / kW) and (~2800–5600 € / kW)
respectively [122]. According to “IEA (2020), HYDROGEN REPORT,”
the number of projects and installed electrolyzers has been increased,
from less than 1 MW in 2010 to 25 MW in 2019. A 10 MW project in
Japan has started operations in 2020, while a 20 MW plant in Canada is
now under construction [123]. There have also been several an­
nouncements for large-scale projects with hundreds of megawatts of
capacity projected to start functioning in the early 2020 s. The cost of
two established technologies for 10 MW systems have been estimated to
be 0.7–1.4 EUR/W for alkaline water electrolysis and 0.8–2.2 EUR/W
for PEM electrolysis, respectively [124]. Idaho National Laboratory
(INL) has developed a 25 kW test facility for high-temperature elec­
trolysis (HTE), intending to advance state-of-the-art HTE technology.
[125].
Before SMR, water electrolysis was used extensively to produce
hydrogen [126]. SMR is a well-known way to produce a large quantity of
M. Younas et al. Fuel 316 (2022) 123317

Fig. 8. German Federal Government Emission Reduction Strategy.

cost is the most considerable factor approaches to about 62% and

Table 4
electricity cost at 20% [130]. An expert estimate that water electrolysis
Parameters for H2 Production cases for PEM electrolysis (costs in 2016).
that increased R&D funding can reduce cost by 0–24% [131]. Future
Parameter Current distributed (1500 Current central (50000 techno-economics of different technologies have been visualized [122]
kg/day) kg/day)
in Fig. 9.
Technology year 2019 2019 According to “Australia’s national hydrogen strategy 2020,”
Total uninstalled capital 599 $/kW 460 $/kW
TOYOTA is building a hydrogen center that will be fully operational by
cost
Total electrical usage 55.8 kWh/kg 55.5 kWh/kg late 2020 as well as Australian gas infrastructure group (AGIG) features
Electrical cost 121 $/kWh 82 $/kWh a 2.5 MW electrolyzer to produce hydrogen using renewable energy
from the grid and solar[132]. The world is switching towards fuel cell
vehicles. It has been estimated that in China, PEMFC and SOFC vehicles
hydrogen, CO and CO2. The CO2 stream remains can be very pure that is will be numbered about 36,000 by the end of 2020 [133].
suitable for carbon capture and storage (CCS). It has been reported that For sustained development, renewable sources of energy must be
if renewable power prices fall, water electrolysis could become cost- used to meet the world’s energy requirements. It has been estimated that
effective soon because it doesn’t require any other feedstock besides 3 GW to over 530 GW of wind electrolysis will be produced onshore and
water. It has been reported that water electrolysis produces 380,000 kg offshore in 2018, with 50–60 GW expected per year over the next four
H2 annually, and a 53.4 kWh/kg H2 is the consumption rate [127]. years. In 2019 integrated wind electrolysis for the hydrogen production
German Federal Government has set a course to reduce emissions turbine was installed in the Netherlands to drive five refueling stations.
compared with 1990 levels as demonstrated in Fig. 8. Some direct wind electrolysis projects have been started in Japan to
To achieve these ambitious goals, researchers switch towards water power fuel cell-powered forklifts in Yokohama and Kawasaki [134].
electrolysis for hydrogen production [128]. Future scenarios offer an excellent opportunity to bring nuclear power to
Electrolyzer’s cost is estimated based on their sizes. SOES electro­ hydrogen production by 2050 and beyond. Increasing the capacity
lyzers are still in the R&D stage, so PEM and Alkaline water electrolyzers by>95%, hydrogen production is viable for coupling a nuclear power
are used on a large scale. PEM Electrolyzer’s parameters with their cost plant [135]. Nuclear power plants have been studied for decades as a
are elaborated [129] in Table 4 for different sizes. mean of producing thermochemical hydrogen.
It is reported that at large and small scale, electricity and capital cost Integrated electrolysis in the photovoltaic field is a fully prepared
significance is reversed. For large scale (1000 kg/day), electricity cost is hydrogen production technology. For photovoltaic electrolysis, effi­
the most significant factor, >62% of the total cost, as capital cost ap­ ciency is calculated from the ratio of the incident solar energy to the
proaches about 30%. However, for small scale (10 kg/day), the capital energy produced by hydrogen. One of the challenges encountered in

3000 1200
Range1 Range2
2500 1000
Long Term (USD/kW)

2000 800
2030 (USD/kW)

1500 600

1000 400

500 200

0 0
Alkaline water PEM SOE
electrolyzer

Fig. 9. Future Techno-Economics of different electrolysis technologies.

9
M. Younas et al. Fuel 316 (2022) 123317

Table 5 to improve their efficiency and longevity [139].

Worldwide crop residue potential via DF.
Crop Worldwide Untreated Pretreated 2.2.2. Bio-Hydrogen
residue production biohydrogen potential biohydrogen Livestock and animal-related activities produce crop residue and
(Ton) (PJ/year) production (PJ/year) animal dung is also used for biohydrogen production [47]. The Bio­
Sugarcane 1.89 × 109 132.6 326.0 hydrogen process is pollution-free and eco-hostile. However, bio­
Corn 1.06 × 109 297.8 621.0 hydrogen production includes pollution-free by-products in the form of
Wheat 749 M 372.3 959.3 vapors. The ability to use a wide variety of raw materials and bacteria
Rice 741 M 622.6 740.6
Soybean 0.33 M 17.27 190.4
can easily be produced at room temperature and pressure conditions
Beet 277 M 10.2 13.1 with a high energy content (120 kJ/g) [140,141]. Several pathways can
Cassava 277 M 53.61 N/A produce biohydrogen; Bio-photolysis (direct/indirect) [142], Microbial
Barley 141 M 71.8 191.2 electrolysis [143], Fermentation (dark (DF)/photo (PF)) [144], and
Sorghum 63.9 M N/A (Lack of study) N/A
Hybrid fermentation [145]. Different feedstock based on livestock and
animal-related activities undergoes biohydrogen production worldwide
renewable water electrolysis is; as they may be built from available [146], as shown in Table 5. The production potential can be enhanced
technologies, but unfortunately, the system cost is not likely to be by pretreatment, as shown in Table 5. The cost of raw materials such as
significantly reduced soon without major productive insight into solar carbohydrate-rich or starch-containing solids is a major constraint for
PV technology [136]. Some other challenges such as electrolyzer effi­ hydrogen production. The use of industrial waste as a source of
ciency, intermittent operation, outlet pressure, oxygen generation, hydrogen is thought to be appealing [147].Table 6.
water consumption, and efficiency are still encountered and need to be Recently R&D in pretreatment, low-cost substrate, reactor design
optimized [137]. configuration, usage of suitable inoculum or nanoparticles, and inte­
Water electrolysis for hydrogen production has some issues that must gration of photo fermentation (PF) and dark fermentation (DF) made
be addressed. Energy consumption in the water electrolysis process is bio-hydrogen production viable for large scale [153].
much greater than other technologies. Water electrolysis faces the crit­ Waste from livestock and animal activates is abundant, as seen from
ical challenge of generating hydrogen cost-effectively, with specific Table 5. Hence, biohydrogen production processes are feasible from
costs (EUR/kW) consistent with demand and tax criteria[122]. Elec­ GHG emissions and net energy. Compared to SMR, GHG emissions in
trolysis methods are considered less attractive when considering the cost bio-hydrogen technology could be reduced by 7.31–9.37 kg of CO2
of production [138]. Lowering the investment and operating cost is the (57–73%), and non-renewable energy use is lowered by 123.2–148.7 MJ
main purpose of commercializing hydrogen production by electrolysis (65–79%) for 1 kg of hydrogen production. When by-products are taken
for both alkaline water electrolysis and PEM. So, in recent years, an into account, biohydrogen efficiency improves because the removal and
innovative principle such as SOES has drawn considerable interest. The usage of the by-products is a significant issue that must be addressed
most expensive part of electrolysis is that the energy required for elec­ [154].
trolysis is provided by heat instead of electricity. SOEs are currently in Chandrasekhar et al [152] estimated biohydrogen cost around 3.2
the research and development stage, and much work remains to be done USD/kg H2 recently, as the selling price is 0.5–3.2 USD/kg H2. The

Table 6
Biohydrogen potential for several industrial wastewaters as potential substrate reported in various studies.
Type of wastewater Reactor type Microbial culture Operating conditions H2 yield References

Brewery WW Batch reactor Klebsiella pneumoniae PH:6T:37 ◦ C 0.70 mol H2/mol glucose [148]
Textile WW Batch reactor Bacteria inoculum PH:7T:37 ◦ C 0.23 L H2/L-d [149]
Sugar beet WW Batch reactor Mixed culture PH:6.8 ± 0.3,T: 37 ◦ C 197.9 mL H2/g TOC [150]
Rice mill WW Glass reactor Enterobacter aerogenes PH:7,T:33 ± 2 ◦ C 1.74 molH2/mol RS [151]
Dairy WW Fluidized bed reactor Fermentation biomass T:24 ~ 30 ◦ C; OLR:28.7 ± 8.9gCOD/L-d 2.56 ± 0.62molH2/mol CH [152]

Fig. 10. Integrated system of dark fermentation with biological processes.

10
M. Younas et al.
Fig. 11. water splitting into H2 and O2.
economic viability via dark fermentation is unfavorable because the
formation of metabolites volatile fatty acids (VFA’s) suppresses H2 yield
and substrate degradation efficiency [155]. Biohydrogen production is
plagued by two major issues: limited substrate conversion and low
productivity [153]. Therefore, researchers are making progress to
overcome these issues by developing validated integrated systems.
Integrating dark fermentation with other biological processes (such as
photo fermentation, MEC, and anaerobic digestion) could be viable for
value-added fermentative biohydrogen production [156]. The dark
fermentation (DF) integrated with biological hydrogen production
processes is considered most prominent because of less energy con­
sumption by dark fermentation [157].
Integrated systems of dark fermentation with biological processes
are represented in Fig. 10.
DF integrated with anaerobic digestion (AD) is efficient for energy
recovery as well as for the CO2 reduction phenomenon. In this tech­
nique, H2/CH4 are produced in separate reactors in two steps. The main
limitation of this process for long-term operation is its monitoring and
maintenance cost. Moreover, nitrogen and ammonia accumulation
of>800 mg/L can be detrimental for both approaches [158]. When the
acid-hydrolysate pretreatment process is used then resulting in a nega­
tive net energy balance [159]. DF integrated with microbial electrolysis
cells (MEC) can increase energy recovery efficiency as well as bio­
hydrogen yield [160]. Therefore, methanogens produced in the second
stage of MEC suppresses biohydrogen yield. However, research is still in
progress to reduce methanogens to make integration viable [161].
DF combined with PF can theoretically produce 12 mol of bio­
hydrogen per mole of hexose [156]. In comparison, dark fermentation
can theoretically produce only 4.2 mol of hydrogen per mole hexose
[162]. Therefore, coupling DF with PF increases biohydrogen efficiency
as VFA’s produced during DF are efficiently converted into further
biohydrogen production [152]. But it confronts difficulty for large-scale
processes due to continuous light source requirements [163].
The two-step processes are considered efficient for biohydrogen
production but encounter high monitoring and maintenance costs
[158]. DF is thought to be more effective for the processing of bio­
hydrogen but needs a constant light source that is energy-intensive on a
commercial scale [163]. The worldwide food shortage is another chal­
lenge to equilibrate between food and bio-energy [164]. Moreover, gas
separation and purification are also required, making the process even
costly. Give higher income due to their application and pure gas value
[165]. Biohydrogen production confronts the main challenges of limited
substrates conversion and low productivity/low rates. Because of the
low production rates of hydrogen, a large volume of reactors is required.
So, the selection of suitable organisms, optimizing environmental con­
ditions, the extraordinary light utilization efficiency, and efficient bio-
11
Fuel 316 (2022) 123317
reactors design may be helpful to overcome the low substrate conver­
sion and low hydrogen yield [166]. Biohydrogen is lab-scale technology,
still in the R&D stage, and additional research and advancements are
needed to introduce it commercially.
2.2.3. Photocatalysis
Hydrogen produced by water using a catalyst and solar irradiation is
the promising method because the energy source is clean and perpetual
(Solar) or photon-based technology. However, mostly water is used as a
renewable source that is environmentally safe without by-products or
emissions, and valuable hydrogen energy production from photochem­
ical conversion [167]. As a clean, safe, and renewable technology,
photocatalysis has been used for selective organic synthesis, CO2
reduction, bacterial disinfection, pollutant degradation, and water
splitting [167,168]. Photocatalytic water splitting to produce hydrogen
is cost-effective and paid great interest in the past few decades
[169,170]. Fig. 11 shows water splitting into H2 and O2. Three main
steps are involved for photocatalysis on semiconductor particles.
1) Photons absorption with energies exceeding the semiconductor’s
bandgap, leading in semiconductor particles to produce electron and
hole pairs in the semiconductor particles.
2) The migration of photogenerated carriers in the semiconductor
particles carries charge separation.
3) Surface chemical reactions with different compounds (e.g., H2O)
between these carriers. Electrons and holes can also be recombined
without any chemical reactions [171].
Photo-induced charge carrier recombination is relatively high in
semiconductors like TiO2, and solar energy efficiency is low [172,173].
Therefore, heterojunction of the semiconductor is made with another
semiconductor with lower bandgap, metals, and electron mediators that
facilitate the reduction in energy barrier for H2 evolution, separation of
photoinduced charges, and inhibit recombination of charges [174].
Noble metals are the most efficient co-catalyst to be used but because of
the tradeoff between high cost and low abundance, non-noble metal co-
catalysts are still in great demand [175].TiO2 has been widely employed
for photocatalytic cleavage of water since it was one of the earliest
semiconductors photocatalysts. UV light irradiation is used due to the
large bandgap of 3.2 eV [176,177]. Different semiconducting materials,
including oxides [178,179], (oxy) sulfide [180] and (oxy) nitrides
[181], etc. have been developed in the last few decades. As, under
visible irradiation due to the low bandgap, CdS is considered more
efficient with negative conduction band edge [176]. Several photo­
catalysts with their co-catalyst are employed widely for the breakdown
of water to produce hydrogen. Several studies with different photo­
catalysts have been reported with their corresponding yield, illustrated
in Table 7.Table 8.Table 9.Table 10.
M. Younas et al. Fuel 316 (2022) 123317

Table 7
Summary of photocatalysts for water splitting:
Feed stock Irradiation Photocatalyst Co- Yield References
catalyst

H2O λ > 400 nm Ni/NiO/KNbO3/CdS Ni 50 μmol/h.g [182]

H2O 300 W Xe Lamp with420 nm < λ less than 800 nm cutoff filter NiS/Zn0.5Cd0.5 S/RGO N/A 375.7 μmol/h.g [183]
composite
Glycerol solution solar light simulating Pt/TiO2 Pt 0.58 μmol/min [184]
H2O λ = 280–320 nm CdS-Graphene-MoS2 N/A 3.07 mL/h [185]
H2O λ > 400 nm B/TiO2 B 21.9 μmol/h [186]
H2O 300 W Xe lamp Hollow C3N4 nanosphere 3 wt% Pt 275 μmol/h. g [187]
H2O 300 W Xe Lamp with > 420 nm cutoff filter g-C3N4/carbon black/NiS NiS 992.7 μmol/h. g [188]
H2O with organic UV (Xe, arc lamp) 450 W Pt/TiO2 Pt 0.358 μmol/min [189]
pollutant
H2O/Ethanol solution visible light(400–500 nm) CdS/Ni/KNbO3 N/A 23.5 μmol/h [190]
H2O UV (λ = 420 nm) CdS/Ni3N CdS 90 μmol/h.mg [191]
H2O visible light (400–500) nm sub-nm Pt/CdS Pt 183 µmol/h [192]
H2O 300 W Xe lamp with > 420 nm cutoff filter Cu1.94S–ZnxCd1-xS Pt 13533 μmol/h. g [193]
H2O UV (320–420 nm) meso-Pt/TiO2 Pt QY 22.6% [194]
H2O visible light (420 nm) Ni/CdS Ni 22.5 mmol/h. g [195]
H2O 300 W Xe Lamp with > 420 nm cutoff filter Polymer P7 Pt 116 μmol/h. g [196]
H2O 300 W Xe lamp mpg-gC3N4/CNT/NiS composites NiS 521 μmol/h. g [197]
H2O 300 W Xe Lamp with > 420 nm cutoff filter 3 wt% P3TH-g-C3N4 composite 1 wt% Pt 560 μmol/h. g [198]
H2O 300 W Xe lamp Hydrogenated ZnO nano-rods Pt 122500 μmol/h. [199]
g
H2O 300 W Xe Lamp with > 420 nm cutoff filter CdS/ZnS core–shell N/A 239 μmol/h. g [200]

Table 8 Table 9
Summary of promising well-known thermochemical hydrogen-producing cycles. Several thermochemical water-splitting cycles with challenges and advantages:
Production routes Energy source H2 cost Overall References Thermochemical Advantages Main challenges References
efficiency cycles

S-I cycle Nuclear 14.62 $/kg 32.76% [217] S-I cycle • High thermal • High SO3 reduction [211,235]
ZnO/Zn cycle Solar 5 $/kg – [218] efficiency temperature
S-I cycle 70% solar/ 7.53 $/kg – [219] • No harm by • Corrosive materials
30% fossil products
S-I cycle Nuclear 4.87–6.09 36% [220] Cu-Cl cycle • Maximum • Recovering heat from [236,237]
(VHTR) $/kg process molten CuCl because
S-I cycle Nuclear 1.93 $/kg 52% [221] temperature of of phase change and
(MHR) 500–550◦ C solidification
S-I cycle Nuclear 1.85 $/kg 52% [221] • All reactions • Corrosive working
(VHTR) have been fluids
S-I cycle Nuclear 2.63 $/kg 38.1% [222] proven in the
(HTGR) laboratory
S-I cycle Nuclear (GT- 2.46 $/kg 11.6% [222] • No significant
HTR) side reactions
S-I cycle Nuclear (HTR- 3.78 $/kg 32.6% [222] ZnO/Zn cycle • Hydrogen • Separation of zinc [196,238]
PM) production in from oxygen
Mg-Cl hybrid Solar – 16.31% [223] two steps • Slow kinetics
cycle(4-step) integrated • No by-products • Back reactions
Mg-Cl hybrid Nuclear 3.67 $/kg 44.30% [224] • High-cost material for
cycle(4-step) (SCWR) high-temperature
HYS Solar thermal 3.19 $/kg 33% [225] solar reactor
Cu-Cl hybrid Nuclear – 45% [226] Mg-Cl cycle • Maximum • Mg compounds react [236,239]
cycle(5-step) process even an impenetrable
Cu-Cl hybrid Nuclear 2.31 $/kg 52% [227] temperature at layer of reaction
cycle(5-step) (SWCR) about 550◦ C products cover the
Cu-Cl hybrid Nuclear 2.02 $/kg 52% [227] surface
cycle(5-step) (VHTR) HYS cycle • Inexpensive • High temperature [211,240]
HYS Nuclear 1.77 $/kg 48.8% [228] material (>800◦ C) H2SO4
(MHR) • SO2 as an only decomposition
Cu-Cl Grid + 3.3 $/kg 40.4% [229] intermediate • Corrosive material
Thermal • Two steps to get
H2

Various photocatalysts are reported via visible light hydrogen pro­

duction through water splitting based on bandgap, quantum yield,
hydrogen rate per unit mass, and unit surface area of the catalyst.
Cadmium sulfide is considered better for all assessments except quan­
tum yield. As far as the quantum yield is concerned, zinc oxide/sulfide
performance is better [201]. Photocatalysis has been described as a low-
efficiency solar-to-hydrogen conversion method. Its solar to hydrogen
(STH) conversion efficiency was recently reported at 0.2 percent,
significantly lower than other solar-driven hydrogen-producing
technologies. [202]. According to reports, hydrogen with 2.9 and 4.0 L/
h productivity might be produced by sacrificial agents on every spring
and summer day in China. The cost of the sacrificial agent will be a
confronting challenge. There is a need to look for a cheap sacrificial
agent. The progress in productivity seems closer to industriousness
[203]. Various strategies have been developed to improve the catalytic
activity of photocatalysts seen in Fig. 12.
Photocatalysis has great potential from an overall environmental
performance perspective. It has been reported that photonic (solar-

12
M. Younas et al. Fuel 316 (2022) 123317

Table 10
Summary of different plasma reactors with potential.
Feedstock T(K) V f(Hz) Power H2 yield Analyzer Reactor type References
(kV) (W)

Ethanol + >4500 – 2.45 GHz 300 0.3007 g/kWh yield of H2 with 0.93% EtOH and mass spectrometer Microwave [19]
Ar 82.5% hydrogen selectivity
H2O 300 – 2.45 GHz 900 The energy yield of H2 is reported 13.3 g/kWh Hydrogen catalytic Microwave [20]
sensor
H2O 573 18 10 kHz 120 Efficiency is reported to 49.32% GC-TCD PMCR [255]
H2O 373 4 36.74 10.5 20 g/kWh yield is predicted with 78.8% energy Indirect method DBD-Corona Hybrid [22]
kHz efficiency
H2O 3 60 Hz 37 0.25 g/kWh yield of H2 is predicted GC-TCD Corona Electrical [21]
discharge
glucose 433 – 29 kHz 150 The highest yield is reported 72% GC-TCD Rf [256]
H2S 430 – 50–150 It is possible to achieve H2 production at 300 kJ/mol GC-TCD DBD-Reactor [257]
Hz H2, which is less than SMR
Natural gas 373 – 1–10 kHz The production of H2 concentrations in natural gas up GC-TCD PDR [258]
to 45 vol% is reported
EtOH+N2 – – 2.45 GHz 2000 14.8 g/kWh H2 production is reported GC-TCD Microwave [259]

co-catalyst
utilisation

hetero nano-
junction structure
formation design
strategies to
enhance
catalytic
activity
doping and
dye defect
sensitisation control

surface
plasmonic
enhancement

Fig. 13. Two-step metal oxide cycle.

Fig. 12. Strategies to enhance the catalytic activity for photocatalytic
hydrogen production.
based catalysis) is the best option for all environmental performance,
ranking on par with biological, thermal, and electrical-based hydrogen
technologies. Therefore, it has the lowest economic ranking since this
technology is new, and some significant advancements are in progress to
reduce initial cost [61].
Significant research has been done for the development of novel
nano photocatalysts. So that efficiency of hydrogen production is
improved to fulfill engineering requirements. So, the development of
new semiconducting material with sufficient stability, low cost, and
abundance are challenges mostly encountered [171]. Energy band gap
configuration, which determines incident photon absorption, is promi­
nent in photocatalysts manufacturing engineering. Advancement in
narrow bandgaps to utilize visible light on a large scale is ongoing
research [204]. Recombination and positions at the edge of the band are
often incompatible with the electrochemical potential required to acti­
vate the redox reaction [171]. The co-catalyst strategy is somewhat
helpful in reducing recombination [174]. Solid solution and doping have
been investigated to modulate band gap and band edge potential
[205,206]. Another issue influencing photocatalytic capability is sur­
face/interfacial chemistry, as it affects the transfer of electrons and
energy at the interface[207]. Research is ongoing to make advance­
ments in semiconductor morphologies to provide significant reactive
facets. The cost of photocatalytic hydrogen production is non-viable. As
this technology is new and further advancement to prepare less expen­
sive and abundant semiconducting materials with the sacrificial agent
are in progress [203].
2.2.4. Thermochemical cycles for water splitting
Thermochemical cycles required a high temperature (500–2000◦ C)
to drive a series of chemical reactions that produced hydrogen. Ther­
mochemical cycles create the closed-loop, reusing the chemicals within
the cycle. Only water produces hydrogen and oxygen [208]. Thermo­
chemical water splitting promises long-term, large-scale and sustainable
technology for hydrogen energy [209]. >200 thermochemical cycles of
water splitting have been reported, a few of which have gone from
theoretical demonstrations to experimental demonstrations and large-
scale hydrogen evaluation [210,211]. Thermochemical cycles have
two steps, multi-steps, and hybrid cycles mechanisms, shown in
Figs. 13–16, respectively. Therefore, two phases (i.e., metal oxide cycle,
seen from Fig. 13) [212], multi-steps (i.e., Cu-Cl cycles [213,214], seen
from Fig. 14 and Fig. 15) and hybrid cycles (i.e., hybrid sulfur cycle, can
be seen from Fig. 16) [215] are more feasible thermochemical water-

13
M. Younas et al. Fuel 316 (2022) 123317

Fig. 14. Multi-step (three-step) Cu-Cl cycle.

Fig. 15. Multi-step (four steps) Cu-Cl cycle.

splitting cycles for H2 production. When thermochemical cycle steps are
increased, the required temperature decreases, and the process becomes
economical [135].
As part of the technically possible thermochemical cycles, sulfur (S-
I), hybrid (HYS), copper chloride, and magnesium chloride are investi­
gated. Specific thermochemical cycles include other types of energy and
thermal and chemical energy, such as photochemical, electrochemical,
or radiochemical cycles. Electrochemical cycles are most developed
among these all. The most advanced electrochemical and medium
temperature cycles are hybrid sulfur (HYS) and Cu-Cl cycles [134,216].
The hydrogen prices and capacity for integration with industrial
waste heat at relatively low temperatures encourage Cu-Cl and Mg-Cl. In
terms of its great ability to integrate hydrogen generation processes with
a high-temperature reactor, thermochemical cycles of the sulfur family
(S-I and HYS). ZnO/Zn is also a viable solution in integrating the solar
reactor at high temperatures for thermochemical hydrogen production
[211]. Thermochemical cycles are not yet seen as competitive compared
to traditional methods, while adequate integration with concentrated
solar or nuclear reactors is required for further improvement [230].
Hybrid cycles can achieve an efficiency of 52%, as shown in
Japan Atomic energy Agency (JAEA) reported hydrogen production
with the rate of 100 NL/h utilizing a test apparatus consisting of glass
and fluorescent material through the sulfur-iodine cycle [231]. JAEA
produced 10 L/h H2 in February 2016 for 8 h with the sulfur

14
M. Younas et al.
Fig. 16. Hybrid sulfur cycle.
iodine thermochemical water splitting [232].
As concerned with potential, thermochemical water splitting cycles
for hydrogen production, using the S-I cycle, are considered cost-
effective with nuclear or solar coupling point of view. It is reported as
the lowest cost is achieved for the S-I cycle on par with PEM electrolysis,
considering the same capacity and capacity factor. On par with other
renewable hydrogen-producing technologies, S-I cycles and electrolysis
are considered cost-effective (10 $/kg H2) using solar irradiation [134].
Thermochemical cycles coupling with nuclear is considered more
environmentally benign than other hydrogen-producing technologies
coupling with nuclear reactors [233]. For sustainable hydrogen pro­
duction, thermochemical water splitting cycles coupling with nuclear
and solar encounter several predominant issues. The nuclear coupling
cycle is still in the R&D stage commercially [234]. Solar coupled cycles
have intermittency as well as low-efficiency issues. So, The capacity
factor of the plant is estimated to be 28%, and the solar to hydrogen
efficiency is estimated to be 20% [134]. However, R&D for thermo­
chemical water splitting is in progress to make it commercially as well as
economically viable. As concerned with challenges, recently verified
well-developed cycles encounter several issues. R&D is in progress to
mitigate these issues.
gives elaboration of several challenges as well advantages.
Thermochemical cycles are cost-effective compared to conventional
methods. Integration with solar and nuclear reactors is necessary for
further improvement, which is still in the R&D stage [241]. One of the
most significant challenges is thermal efficiency, which is directly
related to hydrogen production. [242]. Thermochemical cycles require
high temperatures for hydrogen production to achieve higher effi­
ciencies. These thermochemical cycles require a high-temperature
resistant reactor constructed with chemically inert material. The
economically feasible production of this material is a significant chal­
lenge for thermochemical processes [243]. The reactor design and harsh
conditions (T, P, and corrosion) that have yet to be solved are still in
their research phase.
2.2.5. Plasmolysis
Plasmolysis is carried out when water or its vapors are passed
through the reactor, resulting in plasma formation. Plasmolysis, known
15
Fuel 316 (2022) 123317
as plasma reforming, occurs in particular plasma and catalyst integrated
technology (PACT) [244]. A quartz tube encompasses a tubular PACT
reactor with two electrodes: mostly, the inside of the tube is made of
catalytically active metal such as Ru, Au, Pd, Ni, Rh and the outside is
made of aluminum electrode. Several feed gases could be used to carry
out the plasmolysis process. Hydrogen can be produced by using various
feedstock such as water or its vapors and several hydrocarbons like
methanol [245], ethanol [19], ethylene, acetylene [246] as well as
kerosene oil [247].
Typically, corona discharges that produce radicals with streamers of
high-energy electrons are widely used for chemical synthesis. However,
corona discharges are limited because of low power input feasibility. An
increase in power leads toward arcing. So, dielectric barrier discharges
are considered most prominent to run a reactor at the higher power
input to overcome arcing [22,248]. Hybrid reactor is considered most
efficient for chemical synthesis To make good use of corona and DBD
[248,249].
Recently, it has been reported that Lozano-Parada et.al has shown
production of ozone at 170 V AC using a micro reactor compared to
kilowatts used for a conventional ozone generator. Micro reactor’s other
benefit is that fluid dynamics can be tailored with highly brief gradients
which are especially considered electronically controlled and precise as
well [250]. Miniaturized corona DBD hybrid reactor gives the best op­
portunity for optimized large-scale exposure with less input energy
required [248,250] that could prove itself further as micro-plasma
required less interelectrode distance that leads to less ambipolar diffu­
sion and minimizes energy cost of ozone production to make it
economically viable with reasonable efficiency [251]. Battery sources
can also be used to ignite the plasma microreactor [252]. Hydrogen can
be locally produced by coupling power supplies to distribute to con­
sumers. The hydrogen production and delivery to the fueling cell,
reactor, and combustion plant can be instantaneous. The use of
hydrogen as a transport fuel becomes particularly important. This
advancement could fix the ’hydrogen storage problems,’ one of the main
obstacles to hydrogen consumption, in light and heavy vehicles [253]. A
lot of plasma reactors are available for hydrogen production using
different feedstock and power consumption. Several plasma reactors
with different feedstocks and potential are listed in
M. Younas et al.
Fig. 17. A proposed strategy for hydrogen production by water vapor splitting plasmolysis.
Micro-plasma use is one of the latest developments [254]. Micro-
plasma and low power consumption provide better process control
than traditional plasma reactors [250]. Battery sources can also be used
to ignite the plasma microreactor [252]. Hydrogen can be local­
ly produced by coupling power supplies to distribute to consumers. The
hydrogen production and delivery to the fueling cell, reactor, and
combustion plant can be instantaneous. The use of hydrogen as a
transport fuel becomes particularly important. This advancement could
fix the ’hydrogen storage problems which is considered one of the main
obstacles to hydrogen consumption in light and heavy vehicles [253]. A
lot of plasma reactors are available for hydrogen production using
different feedstock and power consumption. Several are listed in
Hydrogen production through plasmolysis confronts several prob­
lems. Dissolution is one of the major problems affecting hydrogen pro­
duction efficiency [244]. Several kinetic models are developed to
enhance dissolution and hence system efficiency. Chen et al. reported
the conversion of 0.32 mol % of hydrogen. This conversion could obtain
when plasma was ignited at 2.5 kV with 14.2% water concentration in
argon [260]. When methanol concentration in nitrogen was 5% and the
gas temperature was between 27 and 77 ◦ C, a high conversion was
achieved (up to 87.1% methanol) [261]. Separation is another major
problem in hydrogen production by water vapor plasmolysis. H2 is
separated by different techniques like compression, heat exchange,
cryogenic distillation and pressure swing adsorption (PSA) [262].
However, these techniques are cost-intensive and result in high capital
costs of the hydrogen production system [262]. Membrane separation is
another technique used for hydrogen separation, but selectivity,
permeability, and aging problems make separation less efficient [263].
Considering these limitations, membrane exposure for hydrogen sepa­
ration is unreliable for the long term [263]. The separation of H2 could
be made efficient and cost-effective by introducing microbubbles in the
system, which leads to the increased mass transfer co-efficient. As, ox­
ygen is 25 times more soluble in water in comparison to hydrogen.
Therefore, if the product gases could be entered through large reactor
column through the microbubble process, hydrogen-rich gas would
yield from the top side [264]. In general, microbubble generation could
be discussed by three ways. Compression and release of gas by using air
stream compression through a nozzle. The second class uses power
16
Fuel 316 (2022) 123317
ultrasound to induce local cavities in the ultrasonic waves. These tech­
niques require high power densities for microbubble formation [265].
The third-class uses mechanical vibration or fluidic oscillations to
oscillate the fluids [264].
The smallest possible volume of bubbles in the shape of a hemisphere
could be produced by a fluidic oscillator [265]. It is considered the
cheapest and low maintenance is required since there is no moving
component within itself. It could produce microbubble in the range of
80–120 μm with observed about 55% mass transfer co-efficient
compared with the steady flow that produces bubbles approximately
1 mm with the same diffuser [264]. So, increasing mass transfer co-
efficient helps overcome the dissolution problem [266].
Oxygen and hydrogen are produced in plasma reactors and need to
be separated. Therefore, in cold conditions, the separation of outlet
steam dissociation species is made by an ice trap in which frozen liquid
is filled − 1.5 to − 2◦ C [255]. The recombination of H2 and O2 could be
avoided by the condensation of un-condensed water. Then water could
be separated and dry gas could be produced. The dry gases flow through
the condenser outlet to the flow meter and catalytic hydrogen sensor
[20]. Inert argon gas could be recycled as the proposed strategy is shown
in Fig. 17.
The storage of H2 is another obstacle to the economic feasibility of
plasmolysis at a large scale. Several storage methods were presented as
different, safe, effective hydrogen energy carriers, including Porous H2
Storage Materials [267], ammonia liquid carrier, intermetallic hydrides,
quite high entropy alloys, complex metal hydrides and liquid hydrogen
carriers. The international hydrogen energy industry regards the liquid
state as a suitable option for hydrogen transport and storage at large
scale [268]. The latest dramatic decrease in the electricity auction prices
in areas with favorable wind and solar conditions for green energy in­
stallations occurred [269]. The cheap prices advantage highlighted the
possibility of energy supply chains transporting green energy from the
affluent renewable areas through a carrier. Renewable energy con­
version into hydrogen and long-distance transportation of this hydrogen
in the form of liquid is considered a way of transporting energy with an
economical fashion [270]. It could be a viable choice for remote areas
without direct grid links, with a high renewable power generation
capacity.
M. Younas et al.
Table 11
advantages, disadvantages, cost and efficiency for all prescribed hydrogen production technologies.
Hydrogen Advantages
production
methods
Non-Renewable pathways
SMR ▪ Low production cost
▪ High yield efficiency
Gasification ▪ Low production cost
▪ Higher energy and exergy efficiency
▪ Co-gasification yields more hydrogen
production, less carbon footprints
Pyrolysis ▪ Cheaper than SMR
▪ Co-pyrolysis produces more hydrogen yield,
less footprints
▪ Higher energy yield
▪ Char and Tar deposition are less than
gasification
Renewable pathways
Electrolysis ▪ Considered effective method for hydrogen
production from renewables
▪ Produces 4% of total hydrogen produced
worldwide
▪ No auxiliary equipment is required for
separation
▪ Feedstock is cheap and easily available
Bio-hydrogen ▪ Feasible from the perspective of GHG
emissions and net energy
▪ Cheap feedstocks
▪ It converts waste into valuable product,
beneficial for environmental sustainability
▪ Less energy requirement than SMR
Photocatalysis ▪ Low principal cost
▪ Photonic (solar-based catalysis) is the best
option for all environmental performance,
ranking on par with biological, thermal, and
electrical-based hydrogen technologies
Thermochemical ▪ Reuse of chemicals within cycle
cycles ▪ Lowest cost is achieved for the S-I cycle on
par with PEM electrolysis
▪ Cost effective
▪ Energy efficiency is good
Plasmolysis ▪ Separation of hydrogen from oxygen is an
issue
▪ Still R&D stage
It has been reported that electrolysis could produce 4% of globally
produced hydrogen, which is considered green and prevents GHG
emissions [18]. From these mentioned green technologies, electrolysis is
considered an emerging technology on a commercial scale. But the
electrolysis is regarded as an energy-intensive process. On par with
electrolysis, Rehman et al. [271] reported that by using a Corona-DBD
hybrid reactor, having flow channel 2.48 mm and radial gap of 1.24
mm, hydrogen production rate of 20 g/kWh could be achieved with the
predicated cost of 0.09 €/kWh that is competitive to electrolysis and
beneficial because of reduced equipment size, less maintenance cost and
less power consumption [22].
In developing the hydrogen economy, hydrogen production pro­
cesses are critical, producing hydrogen at comparable expenses and
being environmentally friendly to fossil fuels [272]. The chemical
plasma conversion processes are gaining interest due to their inherent
versatility and their direct use of (potentially renewable) electricity
[273]. Together with recent advances in plasma technology, the
Fuel 316 (2022) 123317
Disadvantages Cost Efficiency References
($/kg)
▪ Higher temperature requirements 2.9 74–85% [51,52]
▪ Complex catalytic processes
▪ Fossil fuel depletion
▪ Global warming potential
▪ Higher temperature requirements 1.91 35% [85,277]
▪ Aggressive nature
▪ Tar production
▪ Gasifier short life span
▪ Fossil fuel depletion
▪ Global warming potential
▪ High temperature requirement 1.6 42.5% [92,108,277]
▪ Char deposition on catalyst surface
▪ Still in initial stage
▪ Requirements of auxiliary equipments
for purification
▪ High handling cost of biomass
▪ Seasonal availability
▪ Fossil fuel depletion for coal pyrolysis
▪ Global warming potential
▪ Energy intensive process 10.3 70% [9,61,139,243]
▪ High principal and maintenance cost
▪ Food vs energy problems 2.83 0.1% [164,166,277]
▪ High moisture content
▪ Purity issues
▪ Low hydrogen energy yield
▪ Low substrate conversion
Developing low-cost semiconducting material is 9 0.06% [171,203,277]
hardCatalysts are expensive and regeneration is
difficultHigh energy band gap is a major
issueStill in R&D stage
High temperature requirementLow thermal 2.31 52% [25,138,221,227,278]
efficiencyComplex reactor design
▪ Low principal cost 6.36 79.2% [22]
▪ Low operational cost
▪ Simple reactor design
▪ Less power consumption
▪ High energy yield
▪ High thermal efficiency
▪ High energy efficiency
processing of hydrogen by water vapor plasmolysis is expected to prove
cheaper and more cost-effective [274]. Integrating plasma microreactor
with solar energy may increase the process efficiency to produce steam
and required hydrogen. Secondly the biggest attraction could be the low
capital cost as well as low maintenance cost of miniaturized plasma
reactors [251]. Multiplexing plasma micro rectors will boost the output
of hydrogen that is cheaper in terms of costs than electrolysis for large-
scale hydrogen production [274] . Hydrogen fuel produced from solar
energy would be renewable and green.
3. Comparison of plasmolysis with other methods for hydrogen
production
The production of hydrogen pathways has been divided into two
categories; Non-Renewable and Renewable hydrogen production sour­
ces. Considering Non-Renewable hydrogen production pathways, SMR
is considered a well-established and widely used process that
17
M. Younas et al.
Fig. 18. Comparison of hydrogen production pathways via efficiency and cost.
gives>80% of globally produced hydrogen [275]. Although SMR is a
mature technology, major problems confronting it are global warming
potential and fossil fuel utilization. Additional equipment and energy
are required to capture CO2 from exhaust gases, and that 100% CO2
cannot be captured [53]. Gasification is one of the developed techniques
to produce hydrogen. Co-gasification is much more efficient than indi­
vidually coal or biomass gasification, leading to higher H2 and CO
production [81]. However, tar formation is still a big challenge [72].
Aggressive gasifier conditions cause major problems and demand
another gasifier in series for operation [86]. It also has global warming
potential and fossil fuel depletion problems as well. Pyrolysis is also an
old hydrogen production pathway but is still at early stage of its expo­
sure for large scale. It may confront a lot of problems for its widespread
production, such as low hydrogen yield, separation and purification is­
sues, food vs energy problems, tar deposition, and production cost [92].
Installation of auxiliary equipment to make end product contaminant
free is also another major challenge of this technology [109].
While, considering Renewable pathways, the Biohydrogen process is
pollution-free and eco-hostile and can be easily produced at atmospheric
pressure and temperature with high energy content (120 kJ/g) [140].
DF integrated with PF is considered the most efficient route for bio­
hydrogen production, but it requires a continuous light source, making it
less suitable for large-scale applications [276]. Biohydrogen production
confronts low hydrogen yield [166], high moisture content, separation
and purity issues, and food vs energy issues [164,165]. Biohydrogen is
still in the R&D stage, and additional research and advancements are
needed to introduce it commercially. Photocatalysis is another tech­
nique to produce hydrogen which depends on photons generation, It is
clean and environmentally safe. However, the technology encounters
many challenges, such as developing low-cost semiconducting catalytic
material with high energy bandgap, expensive catalysts, and difficulties
in catalyst regeneration [171,167]. This technology is also still in R&D
to prepare a less expensive and abundant semiconducting material with
the sacrificial agent [203]. Thermochemical cycles are cost-effective
compared to previously discussed techniques. Still, it has high-
temperature requirements, low thermal efficiency and a complex
reactor design [243,241]. Water electrolysis is considered one of the
major renewable hydrogen production pathways. The most significant
advantage of this technology is that it does not require H2 separation.
Water electrolysis gives about 4% of the world’s hydrogen demand [68].
However, electrolysis’s main challenges are producing hydrogen cost-
18
Fuel 316 (2022) 123317
effectively, overcoming the energy-intensive process, and meeting the
compatible capital and maintenance cost. Plasmolysis is another
renewable hydrogen production pathway and proposed strategy of this
review article. The hydrogen production rate of 20 g/kWh with the
predicated cost of 0.09 €/kWh has been reported by [22]. This depicts
plasmolysis competitive on par with electrolysis as reduced equipment
size and low power consumption are the major benefits [22]. Hydrogen
production through plasmolysis could be considered highly efficient in
comparison to other existing technologies. Rehman et al. [22,271] re­
ported 79.2% energy efficiency in comparison to other technology. The
literature depicts that hydrogen production through plasmolysis is more
energy efficient with reasonable cost that makes it competitive to most
appropriate electrolysis pathway.
Hydrogen production by water vapor plasmolysis could potentially
be cheaper and economically viable [274]. While still in the R&D stage,
hydrogen production faces the challenges of separation and storage but
could produce hydrogen efficiently at reasonable cost in comparison to
fossil fuels and would be environmentally viable [272]. Table 11 shows
advantages, disadvantages, cost and efficiency for all prescribed
hydrogen production technologies.
Table 11 depicts that maximum hydrogen energy efficiency,
74–85%, could be obtained from SMR [52]. However, fossil fuel
depletion and global warming potential directed world to pay attention
towards renewable energy resources. From renewable energy resources,
electrolysis yields energy efficiency up to 52% with corresponding cost
10.3 $/kg [9]. However, trailing behind electrolysis, Corona-DBD
hybrid micro reactor was used by Rehman et al. [22] to investigate
hydrogen energy yield, energy efficiency and production cost 20 g/kWh,
79.2% and 6.36 $/kg, respectively. Fig. 18 shows comparison for pre­
scribed hydrogen production technologies regarding their cost and ef­
ficiency. Furthermore, it is envisaged that integration of solar energy to
produce steam and produce the required hydrogen with plasma micro-
reactor technology can increase the efficiency of the process. Secondly
the biggest attraction could be the low capital cost as well as low
maintenance cost of miniaturized plasma reactors [251]. Multiplexing of
plasma micro-reactors could increase hydrogen production, which may
be cheaper than electrolysis in terms of cost for commercial-scale pro­
duction facilities [274].
M. Younas et al.
4. Conclusion
Hydrogen as secondary energy carrier could be seen to play as a
critical role in providing an environmentally friendly option to cover the
growing global demand for energy. Hydrogen production highly de­
pends on fossil fuels which are gradually depleting. Much research is
underway on the development of hydrogen production. Electrolysis is
considered reasonably efficient from renewable and sustainable sources
as it gives 4% of total hydrogen production worldwide. Water electrol­
ysis produces hydrogen with an efficiency of 52% with a corresponding
cost of 10.3 $/kg. Water electrolysis faces the challenges of hydrogen
production in a cost-competitive way, with a specific cost (€/kW)
compatible with market and fiscal requirements. Like electrolysis,
plasmolysis has been reported to produce hydrogen with a production
rate, production cost, and energy efficiency of 20 g/kWh, 6.36 $/kg, and
79.2 %, respectively.
furthermore, it has been investigated that plasmolysis requires less
equipment size and less power consumption. Plasmolysis gives advan­
tages of high energy efficiency, reasonable hydrogen production cost,
and simple reactor design. Consequently, plasmolysis in comparison to
electrolysis is considered more advantageous. In the current study, solar
integrated plasmolysis has been proposed for decentralization/off-grid
hydrogen production from renewable and sustainable sources, which
might be a solution for hydrogen production in a cost-competitive and
environmentally benign way.
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.
Acknowledgments
We would highly acknowledge the Higher Education Commission
(HEC) for financing Project No. 7924/17 under National Research Pro­
gram (NRPU) for universities for this research. We are thankful to
COMSATS university, Islamabad, Lahore, Pakistan.
References
[1] Pandey B, Prajapati YK, Sheth PNJIJoHE. Recent progress in thermochemical
techniques to produce hydrogen gas from biomass: a state of the art review. 2019;
44(47):25384-415.
[2] Larminie J, Dicks A, McDonald MS. Fuel cell systems explained. UK: J. Wiley
Chichester; 2003.
[3] Power-to-Gas BM. Renewable Hydrogen Economy for the Energy Transition.
Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG 2018.
[4] Won W, Kwon H, Han J-H, Kim JJRE. Design and operation of renewable energy
sources based hydrogen supply system: Technology integration and optimization.
2017;103:226-38.
[5] Hosseini SE, Wahid MA, Ganjehkaviri AJEC, Management. An overview of
renewable hydrogen production from thermochemical process of oil palm solid
waste in Malaysia. 2015;94:415-29.
[6] Schiffer H-W, Kober T, Panos EJZfE. World energy council’s global energy
scenarios to 2060. 2018;42(2):91-102.
[7] Baykara SZJIJoHE. Hydrogen: a brief overview on its sources, production and
environmental impact. 2018;43(23):10605-14.
[8] ] Shah SAAJIJoHE. Feasibility study of renewable energy sources for developing
the hydrogen economy in Pakistan. 2020;45(32):15841-54.
[9] Chi J, Yu HJCJoC. Water electrolysis based on renewable energy for hydrogen
production. 2018;39(3):390-4.4.
[10] Mohammadi A, Mehrpooya MJE. A comprehensive review on coupling different
types of electrolyzer to renewable energy sources. 2018;158:632-55.
[11] Hussain A, Arif SM, Aslam MJR, Reviews SE. Emerging renewable and sustainable
energy technologies: State of the art. 2017;71:12-28.
[12] Bhutto AW, Bazmi AA, Zahedi GJR, Reviews SE. Greener energy: Issues and
challenges for Pakistan—Biomass energy prospective. 2011;15(6):3207-19.
[13] Popov RJIiunssBJoAE, Management. Biomass as an energy source: opportunities
and problems. 2020;65(1):78-84.
[14] Nunes L, Causer T, Ciolkosz DJR, Reviews SE. Biomass for energy: A review on
supply chain management models. 2020;120:109658.
19
Fuel 316 (2022) 123317
[15] Siddique ARM, Mahmud S, Van Heyst BJJoPS. A comprehensive review on a
passive (phase change materials) and an active (thermoelectric cooler) battery
thermal management system and their limitations. 2018;401:224-37.
[16] Dehghani-Sanij A, Tharumalingam E, Dusseault M, Fraser RJR, Reviews SE. Study
of energy storage systems and environmental challenges of batteries. 2019;104:
192-208.
[17] Yüksel YEJIJoHE. Elementary science teacher candidates’ views on hydrogen as
future energy carrier. 2019;44(20):9817-22.
[18] Dawood F, Anda M. Shafiullah GJIJoHE. Hydrogen production for energy: An
overview. 2020;45(7):3847–69.
[19] Rincón R, Marinas A, Muñoz J, Melero C, Calzada MD. Experimental research on
ethanol-chemistry decomposition routes in a microwave plasma torch for
hydrogen production. Chem Eng J 2016;284:1117–26.
[20] Chehade G, Lytle S, Ishaq H, Dincer I. Hydrogen production by microwave based
plasma dissociation of water. Fuel 2020;264(August 2019):116831-.
[21] Kirkpatrick MJ, Locke BR. Hydrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen peroxide formation
in aqueous phase pulsed corona electrical discharge. Ind Eng Chem Res 2005;44
(12):4243–8.
[22] Rehman F, Abdul Majeed WS, Zimmerman WB. Hydrogen production from water
vapor plasmolysis using DBD-corona hybrid reactor. Energy Fuels 2013;27(5):
2748–61.
[23] Suleman F, Dincer I, Agelin-Chaab M. Environmental impact assessment and
comparison of some hydrogen production options. International journal of
hydrogen energy 2015;40(21):6976-87 %@ 0360-3199.
[24] Nikolaidis P, Poullikkas AJR, reviews se. A comparative overview of hydrogen
production processes. 2017;67:597-611.
[25] Holladay JD, Hu J, King DL, Wang Y. An overview of hydrogen production
technologies. Catal Today 2009;139(4):244–60.
[26] Kothari R, Buddhi D, Sawhney RL. Sources and technology for hydrogen
production: a review. International journal of global energy issues 2004;21(1-2):
154-78 %@ 0954-7118.
[27] Iribarren D, Susmozas A, Petrakopoulou F, Dufour JJJocp. Environmental and
exergetic evaluation of hydrogen production via lignocellulosic biomass
gasification. 2014;69:165-75.
[28] Chiou JYZ, Siang J-Y, Yang S-Y, Ho K-F, Lee C-L, Yeh C-T, et al. Pathways of
ethanol steam reforming over ceria-supported catalysts. International journal of
hydrogen energy 2012;37(18):13667-73 %@ 0360-3199.
[29] Compagnoni M, Tripodi A, Rossetti I. Parametric study and kinetic testing for
ethanol steam reforming. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 2017;203:899-909
%@ 0926-3373.
[30] Haryanto A, Fernando S, Murali N, Adhikari S. Current status of hydrogen
production techniques by steam reforming of ethanol: a review. Energy & Fuels
2005;19(5):2098-106 %@ 0887-624.
[31] Ni M, Leung DYC, Leung MKH. A review on reforming bio-ethanol for hydrogen
production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2007;32(15):3238-47 %@
0360-3199.
[32] Zhang C, Yue H, Huang Z, Li S, Wu G, Ma X, et al. Hydrogen production via steam
reforming of ethanol on phyllosilicate-derived Ni/SiO2: enhanced metal–support
interaction and catalytic stability. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering
2013;1(1):161-73 %@ 2168-0485.
[33] Gielen D, Boshell F, Saygin D, Bazilian MD, Wagner N, Gorini R. The role of
renewable energy in the global energy transformation. Energy Strategy Reviews
2019;24:38-50 %@ 2211-467X.
[34] Wang X, He Y, Xu T, Xiao B, Liu S, Hu Z, et al. CO2 sorption-enhanced steam
reforming of phenol using Ni− M/CaO− Ca12Al14O33 (M= Cu, Co, and Ce) as
catalytic sorbents. Chemical Engineering Journal 2020:124769 %@ 1385-8947.
[35] Ochoa-Fernández E, Rusten HK, Jakobsen HA, Rønning M, Holmen A, Chen D.
Sorption enhanced hydrogen production by steam methane reforming using
Li2ZrO3 as sorbent: sorption kinetics and reactor simulation. Catalysis today
2005;106(1-4):41-6 %@ 0920-5861.
[36] Sang S, Zhao ZJ, Tian H, Sun Z, Li H, Assabumrungrat S, et al. Promotional role of
MgO on sorption-enhanced steam reforming of ethanol over Ni/CaO catalysts.
AIChE Journal 2020;66(4):e16877 %@ 0001-1541.
[37] J. 2020.
[38] Franchi G, Capocelli M, De Falco M, Piemonte V, Barba D. Hydrogen Production
via Steam Reforming: A Critical Analysis of MR and RMM Technologies.
Membranes 2020;10(1):10.
[39] Bocci E, Di Carlo A, Vecchione L, Villarini M, De Falco M, Dell’Era A. Technical-
economic analysis of an innovative cogenerative small scale biomass gasification
power plant. Springer 2013:256–70.
[40] Kalamaras CM, Efstathiou AM. Hydrogen production technologies: current state
and future developments. 2013 %@ 2356-6108. Hindawi; 2013.
[41] El-Shafie M, Kambara S, Hayakawa Y. Hydrogen production technologies
overview. Journal of Power and Energy Engineering 2019;7(01):107.
[42] Ariunbaatar J, Panico A, Esposito G, Pirozzi F, Lens PN. Pretreatment methods to
enhance anaerobic digestion of organic solid waste. Appl Energy 2014;123:
143–56.
[43] Braga LB, Silveira JL, Da Silva ME, Tuna CE, Machin EB, Pedroso DT. Hydrogen
production by biogas steam reforming: A technical, economic and ecological
analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2013;28:166-73 %@ 1364-
0321.
[44] Kothari R, Buddhi D, Sawhney RL. Comparison of environmental and economic
aspects of various hydrogen production methods. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 2008;12(2):553-63 %@ 1364-0321.
[45] Proost JJIJoHE. Critical assessment of the production scale required for fossil
parity of green electrolytic hydrogen. 2020.
M. Younas et al.
[46] Wang Z, Naterer GFJIjohe. Integrated fossil fuel and solar thermal systems for
hydrogen production and CO2 mitigation. 2014;39(26):14227-33.
[47] Ali S, Fazal T, Javed F, Hafeez A, Akhtar M, Haider B. Investigating biodiesel
production strategies as a sustainable energy resource for Pakistan. J Cleaner
Prod 2020.
[48] Tan B, Ye Y, Huang Z, Ye L, Ma M, Zhou Y. Promotion of photocatalytic steam
reforming of methane over Ag0/Ag+-SrTiO3. Chinese Chemical Letters %@
1001-8417 2019.
[49] Yoshida H, Kato S, Hirao K, Nishimoto J-i, Hattori T. Photocatalytic steam
reforming of methane over platinum-loaded semiconductors for hydrogen
production. Chemistry letters 2007;36(3):430-1 %@ 1348-0715.
[50] Yoshida H, Hirao K, Nishimoto J-i, Shimura K, Kato S, Itoh H, et al. Hydrogen
production from methane and water on platinum loaded titanium oxide
photocatalysts. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2008;112(14):5542-51 %@
1932-7447.
[51] Kannah RY, Kavitha S, Karthikeyan OP, Kumar G, Dai-Viet NV, Banu JRJBT.
Techno-economic assessment of various hydrogen production methods–A review.
2021;319:124175.
[52] Marquevich M, Sonnemann GW, Castells F, Montané DJGC. Life cycle inventory
analysis of hydrogen production by the steam-reforming process: comparison
between vegetable oils and fossil fuels as feedstock. 2002;4(5):414-23.
[53] Luo M, Yi Y, Wang S, Wang Z, Du M, Pan J, et al. Review of hydrogen production
using chemical-looping technology. 2018;81:3186-214.
[54] Gasification Higman C. Combustion engineering issues for solid fuel systems.
Elsevier 2008:423–68.
[55] Pala LPR, Wang Q, Kolb G, Hessel VJRE. Steam gasification of biomass with
subsequent syngas adjustment using shift reaction for syngas production: An
Aspen Plus model. 2017;101:484-92.
[56] Yilmaz F, Ozturk M, Selbas RJEC, Management. Design and thermodynamic
analysis of coal-gasification assisted multigeneration system with hydrogen
production and liquefaction. 2019;186:229-40.
[57] Al-Zareer M, Dincer I, Rosen MAJEc, management. Analysis and assessment of a
hydrogen production plant consisting of coal gasification, thermochemical water
decomposition and hydrogen compression systems. 2018;157:600-18.
[58] Sun Z, Xiang W. Chen SJIJoHE. Sorption enhanced coal gasification for hydrogen
production using a synthesized CaOMgO-molecular sieve sorbent. 2016;41(39):
17323–33.
[59] Shayan E, Zare V, Mirzaee IJEC, management. Hydrogen production from
biomass gasification; a theoretical comparison of using different gasification
agents. 2018;159:30-41.
[60] Zhang Y, Li L, Xu P, Liu B, Shuai Y, Li BJIJoHE. Hydrogen production through
biomass gasification in supercritical water: a review from exergy aspect. 2019;44
(30):15727-36.
[61] Acar C, Dincer I. Review and evaluation of hydrogen production options for better
environment. J Cleaner Prod 2019;218:835–49.
[62] Ozcan H, Dincer IJEc, management. Thermodynamic analysis of a combined
chemical looping-based trigeneration system. 2014;85:477-87.
[63] Herdem MS, Farhad S, Dincer I, Hamdullahpur FJIJoHE. Thermodynamic
modeling and assessment of a combined coal gasification and alkaline water
electrolysis system for hydrogen production. 2014;39(7):3061-71.
[64] Bicer Y, Dincer IJijohe. Energy and exergy analyses of an integrated underground
coal gasification with SOFC fuel cell system for multigeneration including
hydrogen production. 2015;40(39):13323-37.
[65] El-Emam RS, Dincer I. Naterer GFJijohe. Energy and exergy analyses of an
integrated SOFC and coal gasification system. 2012;37(2):1689–97.
[66] Xu Y, Zang G, Chen H, Dou B, Tan CJIjohe. Co-production system of hydrogen and
electricity based on coal partial gasification with CO2 capture. 2012;37(16):
11805-14.
[67] Seyitoglu S, Dincer I. Kilicarslan AJIJoHE. Energy and exergy analyses of
hydrogen production by coal gasification. 2017;42(4):2592–600.
[68] Kothari R, Buddhi D, Sawhney RL. Comparison of environmental and economic
aspects of various hydrogen production methods. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2008;12(2):553–63.
[69] Fuel C, Hydrogen Joint U. Hydrogen Roadmap Europe A Sustainable Pathway for
the European Energy. Transition. 2019.
[70] Hyder Z, Ripepi NS, Karmis MEJM. Change ASfG. A life cycle comparison of
greenhouse emissions for power generation from coal mining and underground
coal gasification. 2016;21(4):515–46.
[71] Arregi A, Amutio M, Lopez G, Bilbao J. Olazar MJEc, management. Evaluation of
thermochemical routes for hydrogen production from biomass: A review. 2018;
165:696–719.
[72] Luo X, Wu T, Shi K, Song M, Rao YJGfL-gF. Biomass gasification: an overview of
technological barriers and socio-environmental impact. 2018:1.
[73] Nanda S, Reddy SN, Dalai AK, Kozinski JAJIJoHE. Subcritical and supercritical
water gasification of lignocellulosic biomass impregnated with nickel
nanocatalyst for hydrogen production. 2016;41(9):4907-21.
[74] Chen Y, Guo L, Cao W, Jin H, Guo S, Zhang XJIjohe. Hydrogen production by
sewage sludge gasification in supercritical water with a fluidized bed reactor.
2013;38(29):12991-9.
[75] Cao W, Cao C, Guo L, Jin H, Dargusch M, Bernhardt D, et al. Hydrogen production
from supercritical water gasification of chicken manure. 2016;41(48):22722-31.
[76] Nanda S, Dalai AK, Kozinski JAJB, Bioenergy. Supercritical water gasification of
timothy grass as an energy crop in the presence of alkali carbonate and hydroxide
catalysts. 2016;95:378-87.
20
Fuel 316 (2022) 123317
[77] Wei L, Yang H, Li B, Wei X, Chen L, Shao J, et al. Absorption-enhanced steam
gasification of biomass for hydrogen production: Effect of calcium oxide addition
on steam gasification of pyrolytic volatiles. 2014;39(28):15416-23.
[78] Jin C-L, Wu Z-M, Wang S-W, Cai Z-Q, Chen T, Farahani MR, et al. Economic
assessment of biomass gasification and pyrolysis: A review. 2017;12(11):1030-5.
[79] Lemus RG, Martínez Duart JM. Updated hydrogen production costs and parities
for conventional and renewable technologies. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35(9):
3929–36.
[80] Ciferno JP, Marano JJJUDoENETL. Benchmarking biomass gasification
technologies for fuels, chemicals and hydrogen production. 2002.
[81] Seçer A, Küçet N, Fakı E, Hasanoğlu AJijohe. Comparison of co–gasification
efficiencies of coal, lignocellulosic biomass and biomass hydrolysate for high
yield hydrogen production. 2018;43(46):21269-78.
[82] Nzihou A, Flamant G, Stanmore BJE. Synthetic fuels from biomass using
concentrated solar energy–a review. 2012;42(1):121-31.
[83] Pandu K. Joseph SJIJoAiE, Technology. Comparisons and limitations of
biohydrogen production processes: a review. 2012;2(1):342.
[84] Guban D, Muritala IK, Roeb M, Sattler CJIJoHE. Assessment of sustainable high
temperature hydrogen production technologies. 2019.
[85] Trninić M, Stojiljković D, Jovović A, Jankes G. Biomass gasification technology:
The state of the art overview. 4th International Symposium on Environmental
Friendly Energies and Applications (EFEA). IEEE 2016;2016:1–8.
[86] Clayton SJ, Stiegel GJ, Wimer JG. Gasification technologies: Gasification markets
and technologies-Present and future: An industry perspective. US Department of.
Energy 2002.
[87] Yang H, Yan R, Chen H, Lee DH, Liang DT. Zheng CJFpt. Pyrolysis of palm oil
wastes for enhanced production of hydrogen rich gases. 2006;87(10):935–42.
[88] Guerrero MB, Gutiérrez JS, Zaragoza MM, Ortiz AL. Collins-Martínez VJIJoHE.
Optimal slow pyrolysis of apple pomace reaction conditions for the generation of
a feedstock gas for hydrogen production. 2016;41(48):23232–7.
[89] Chen T, Wu C, Liu RJBt. Steam reforming of bio-oil from rice husks fast pyrolysis
for hydrogen production. 2011;102(19):9236-40.
[90] Samolada M, Baldauf W, Vasalos IJF. Production of a bio-gasoline by upgrading
biomass flash pyrolysis liquids via hydrogen processing and catalytic cracking.
1998;77(14):1667-75.
[91] Cao L, Iris K, Xiong X, Tsang DC, Zhang S, Clark JH, et al. Biorenewable hydrogen
production through biomass gasification: A review and future prospects. 2020:
109547.
[92] Uddin MN, Daud WW, Abbas HFJR, Reviews SE. Potential hydrogen and non-
condensable gases production from biomass pyrolysis: insights into the process
variables. 2013;27:204–24.
[93] Chen G, Andries J, Spliethoff HJEC. Management. Catalytic pyrolysis of biomass
for hydrogen rich fuel gas production. 2003;44(14):2289–96.
[94] Fahmy TY, Fahmy Y, Mobarak F, El-Sakhawy M, Abou-Zeid REJE. Development,
Sustainability. Biomass pyrolysis: past, present, and future. 2020;22(1):17–32.
[95] Serban M, Lewis MA, Marshall CL, Doctor RD. Hydrogen production by direct
contact pyrolysis of natural gas. Energy fuels 2003;17(3):705–13.
[96] Muradov NJIJoHE.. Hydrogen via methane decomposition: an application for
decarbonization of fossil fuels. 2001;26(11):1165–75.
[97] Bhattacharya A, Bhattacharya A. Datta AJIjohe. Modeling of hydrogen
production process from biomass using oxygen blown gasification. 2012;37(24):
18782–90.
[98] Ferdous D, Dalai A, Bej S, Thring R, Bakhshi NJFPT. Production of H2 and
medium Btu gas via pyrolysis of lignins in a fixed-bed reactor. 2001;70(1):9-26.
[99] Yeboah Y, Bota K, Day D, McGee D, Realff M, Evans R, et al. Hydrogen from
biomass for urban transportation. Proceedings of the US DOE Hydrogen Program
Review. 2002.
[100] Barbarias I, Lopez G, Artetxe M, Arregi A, Bilbao J, Olazar MJEC, et al.
Valorisation of different waste plastics by pyrolysis and in-line catalytic steam
reforming for hydrogen production. 2018;156:575-84.
[101] Soria M, Barros D, Madeira LJF. Hydrogen production through steam reforming of
bio-oils derived from biomass pyrolysis: Thermodynamic analysis including in
situ CO2 and/or H2 separation. 2019;244:184-95.
[102] Luo S, Feng YJE. The production of hydrogen-rich gas by wet sludge pyrolysis
using waste heat from blast-furnace slag. 2016;113:845-51.
[103] Yang S, Zhang X, Chen L, Sun L, Zhao B, Si H, et al. Pyrolysis of sawdust with
various Fe-based catalysts: Influence of support characteristics on hydrogen-rich
gas production. 2019;137:29-36.
[104] Duman G. Yanik JJIJoHE. Two-step steam pyrolysis of biomass for hydrogen
production. 2017;42(27):17000–8.
[105] Akubo K, Nahil MA. Williams PTJJotEI. Pyrolysis-catalytic steam reforming of
agricultural biomass wastes and biomass components for production of
hydrogen/syngas. 2019;92(6):1987–96.
[106] Valliyappan T, Bakhshi N, Dalai AJBT. Pyrolysis of glycerol for the production of
hydrogen or syn gas. 2008;99(10):4476-83.
[107] Zhang B, Zhong Z, Ding K, Song ZJF. Production of aromatic hydrocarbons from
catalytic co-pyrolysis of biomass and high density polyethylene: analytical
Py–GC/MS study. 2015;139:622-8.
[108] Paasikallio V, Azhari A, Kihlman J, Simell P. Lehtonen JJIJoHE. Oxidative steam
reforming of pyrolysis oil aqueous fraction with zirconia pre-conversion catalyst.
2015;40(36):12088–96.
[109] Hu X. Gholizadeh MJJoEC. Biomass pyrolysis: A review of the process
development and challenges from initial researches up to the commercialisation
stage. 2019;39:109–43.
[110] Grimes CA, Varghese OK, Ranjan S. Hydrogen generation by water splitting.
Light, water, hydrogen. Springer 2008:35–113.
M. Younas et al.
[111] Zeng K, Zhang D. Recent progress in alkaline water electrolysis for hydrogen
production and applications. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2010;36(3):307–26.
[112] Marini S, Salvi P, Nelli P, Pesenti R, Villa M, Berrettoni M, et al. Advanced
alkaline water electrolysis. Electrochim Acta 2012;82:384–91.
[113] Marshall A, Børresen B, Hagen G, Tsypkin M, Tunold R. Hydrogen production by
advanced proton exchange membrane (PEM) water electrolysers—Reduced
energy consumption by improved electrocatalysis. Energy 2007;32(4):431–6.
[114] Rashid MM, Al Mesfer MK, Naseem H, Danish M, et al. Hydrogen production by
water electrolysis: a review of alkaline water electrolysis, PEM water electrolysis
and high temperature water electrolysis. Int J Eng Adv Technol 2015;4(3):
2249–8958.
[115] Zahid M, Schefold J, Brisse A. High-temperature water electrolysis using planar
solid oxide fuel cell technology: a review. Hydrogen and Fuel Cells:
Fundamentals, Technologies and Applications, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim; 2010.
p. 227–42.
[116] Hosseini SE. Wahid MAJIJoER. Hydrogen from solar energy, a clean energy
carrier from a sustainable source of energy. 2020;44(6):4110–31.
[117] Deseure J, Aicart J. Solid Oxide Steam Electrolyzer: Gas Diffusion Steers the
Design of Electrodes. IntechOpen: Electrodialysis; 2019.
[118] Hosseini SEJATE. Integrating a gas turbine system and a flameless boiler to make
steam for hydrogen production in a solid oxide steam electrolyzer. 2020;180:
115890.
[119] Ni M, Leung MK. Leung DYJIjohe. Technological development of hydrogen
production by solid oxide electrolyzer cell (SOEC). 2008;33(9):2337–54.
[120] Sasikumar G, Muthumeenal A, Pethaiah SS, Nachiappan N, Balaji R. Aqueous
methanol eletrolysis using proton conducting membrane for hydrogen
production. international journal of hydrogen energy 2008;33(21):5905-10.
[121] Wang M, Wang Z, Gong X, Guo Z. The intensification technologies to water
electrolysis for hydrogen production–A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;
29:573–88.
[122] Grigoriev SA, Fateev VN, Bessarabov DG, Millet P. ScienceDirect Current status ,
research trends , and challenges in water electrolysis science and technology.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2020(xxxx).
[123] van Renssen SJNCC. The hydrogen solution? 2020;10(9):799–801.
[124] Lappeenrantaensis AU. ENERGY EFFICIENT HYDROGEN PRODUCTION BY
WATER ELECTROLYSIS..
[125] Brien JEO, Hartvigsen JL, Boardman RD, Hartvigsen JJ, Larsen D, Elangovan S.
ScienceDirect A 25 kW high temperature electrolysis facility for flexible hydrogen
production and system integration studies. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy;45(32):15796-804.
[126] Basye L, Swaminathan S. Hydrogen production costs–A survey. 1997.
[127] Nikolaidis P, Poullikkas A. A comparative overview of hydrogen production
processes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;67:597–611.
[128] Systems RE. Part III Gas Production Status on Technologies for Hydrogen
Production by Water Electrolysis. 2013.
[129] Cells F, Record P. Analysis Summary. 2020:1–15.
[130] Saur G, Saur G. Wind-To-Hydrogen Project : Electrolyzer Capital Cost Study
Wind-To-Hydrogen Project : Electrolyzer Capital Cost Study. 2008(December).
[131] Saba SM, Mu M, Robinius M, Stolten D. ScienceDirect The investment costs of
electrolysis e A comparison of cost studies from the past 30 years. 2017.
[132] Seib M, Berg K, Zitomer D. Low energy anaerobic membrane bioreactor for
municipal wastewater treatment. J Membr Sci 2016;514:450–7.
[133] Hu M. The Current Status of Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Development in China.
J Electrochem Energy Convers Storage 2020;17(3).
[134] El-Emam RS, Özcan H. Comprehensive review on the techno-economics of
sustainable large-scale clean hydrogen production. J Cleaner Prod 2019;220:
593–609.
[135] Naterer GF, Dincer I, Zamfirescu C. Hydrogen production from nuclear energy.
Springer; 2013.
[136] Wilhelm E, Fowler M. A technical and economic review of solar hydrogen
production technologies. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2006;26(4):278–87.
[137] Barbir F. PEM electrolysis for production of hydrogen from renewable energy
sources. 2005;78:661–9.
[138] Acar C, Dincer I. Comparative assessment of hydrogen production methods from
renewable and non-renewable sources. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39(1):1–12.
[139] Ursua A, Gandia LM. Sanchis PJPotI. Hydrogen production from water
electrolysis: current status and future trends. 2011;100(2):410–26.
[140] Taherdanak M, Zilouei H, Karimi K. Investigating the effects of iron and nickel
nanoparticles on dark hydrogen fermentation from starch using central composite
design. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2015;40(38):12956-63.
[141] Sekoai PT, Ouma CNM, du Preez SP, Modisha P, Engelbrecht N, Bessarabov DG,
et al. Application of nanoparticles in biofuels: An overview. Fuel 2019;237
(September 2018):380-97.
[142] Ashok MI, Kumar M. Anaerobic membrane reactors for biohydrogen production.
Elsevier B.V. 2020.
[143] Ghasemi B, Yaghmaei S, Abdi K, Mardanpour MM, Haddadi SA. Introducing an
affordable catalyst for biohydrogen production in microbial electrolysis cells.
J Biosci Bioeng 2020;129(1):67–76.
[144] Li Y, Zhang Z, Xia C, Jing Y, Zhang Q, Li S, et al. Photo-fermentation biohydrogen
production and electrons distribution from dark fermentation effluents under
batch, semi-continuous and continuous modes. Bioresource Technology 2020
(April):123549-.
[145] Meky N, Ibrahim MG, Fujii M, Elreedy A. Integrated dark-photo fermentative
hydrogen production from synthetic gelatinaceous wastewater via cost-effective
hybrid reactor at ambient temperature. Energy Conversion and Management
2020;203(November):112250-.
21
Fuel 316 (2022) 123317
[146] Bundhoo ZMA. Potential of bio-hydrogen production from dark fermentation of
crop residues: A review. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44(32):17346–62.
[147] Pandu K, Joseph S. Comparisons and Limitations of Biohydrogen Production
Processes: a Review. International Journal of Advances in Engineering &
Technology 2012;2(1):2231–11963.
[148] Arantes MK, Sequinel R, Alves HJ, Machado B, Fiorini A, da Silva EA.
Improvement of biohydrogen production from brewery wastewater: Evaluation of
inocula, support and reactor. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;45(8):5216–26.
[149] Valdez-Vazquez I, Robledo-Rizo JG, Muñoz-Páez KM, Pérez-Rangel M, de la Luz
Ruiz-Aguilar GM. Simultaneous hydrogen production and decolorization of denim
textile wastewater: kinetics of decolorizing of indigo dye by bacterial and fungal
strains. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 2020;51(2):701–9.
[150] Eker S, Erkul B. Biohydrogen production by extracted fermentation from sugar
beet. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(23):10645–54.
[151] Rajesh Banu J, Yukesh Kannah R, Kavitha S, Mohamed Usman TM,
Gunasekaran M, Kumar G, et al. Biohydrogen. Elsevier; 2020.
[152] Chandrasekhar K, Kumar S, Lee BD, Kim SH. Waste based hydrogen production
for circular bioeconomy: Current status and future directions. Bioresource
Technology 2020;302(November 2019):122920-.
[153] Preethi, Usman TMM, Rajesh Banu J, Gunasekaran M, Kumar G. Biohydrogen
production from industrial wastewater: An overview. Bioresource Technology
Reports 2019;7(July):100287-.
[154] Manish S, Banerjee R. Comparison of biohydrogen production processes. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2008;33(1):279–86.
[155] Lee YJ, Miyahara T, Noike T. Effect of pH on microbial hydrogen fermentation.
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2002;77(6):694–8.
[156] Saratale GD, Saratale RG, Banu JR, Chang J-S. Biohydrogen Production From
Renewable Biomass Resources. Elsevier B.V. 2019.
[157] Yun YM, Lee MK, Im SW, Marone A, Trably E, Shin SR, et al. Biohydrogen
production from food waste: Current status, limitations, and future perspectives.
Bioresour Technol 2018;248:79–87.
[158] Tapia-Venegas E, Ramirez-Morales JE, Silva-Illanes F, Toledo-Alarcón J, Paillet F,
Escudie R, et al. Biohydrogen production by dark fermentation: scaling-up and
technologies integration for a sustainable system. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol
2015;14(4):761–85.
[159] Phanduang O, Lunprom S, Salakkam A, Liao Q, Reungsang A. Improvement in
energy recovery from Chlorella sp. biomass by integrated dark-photo
biohydrogen production and dark fermentation-anaerobic digestion processes. Int
J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44(43):23899–911.
[160] Khongkliang P, Kongjan P, Utarapichat B, Reungsang A, O-Thong S.. Continuous
hydrogen production from cassava starch processing wastewater by two-stage
thermophilic dark fermentation and microbial electrolysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42(45):27584–92.
[161] Kadier A, Kalil MS, Chandrasekhar K, Mohanakrishna G, Saratale GD,
Saratale RG, et al. Surpassing the current limitations of high purity H2 production
in microbial electrolysis cell (MECs): Strategies for inhibiting growth of
methanogens. Bioelectrochemistry 2018;119:211–9.
[162] Guo WQ, Ren NQ, Wang XJ, Xiang WS, Meng ZH, Ding J, et al. Biohydrogen
production from ethanol-type fermentation of molasses in an expanded granular
sludge bed (EGSB) reactor. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33(19):4981–8.
[163] Abdalla AM, Hossain S, Nisfindy OB, Azad AT, Dawood M,Azad AKJEc,, et al.
Hydrogen production, storage, transportation and key challenges with
applications: A review. 2018;165:602–27.
[164] Yasin NHM, Mumtaz T. Hassan MAJJoem. Food waste and food processing waste
for biohydrogen production: a review. 2013;130:375–85.
[165] Jarunglumlert T, Prommuak C, Putmai N. Pavasant PJIJoHE. Scaling-up bio-
hydrogen production from food waste: Feasibilities and challenges. 2018;43(2):
634–48.
[166] Yadav VS, Vinoth R, Yadav D. Bio-hydrogen production from waste materials: a
review. MATEC Web of Conferences. 192. EDP Sciences; 2018:02020.
[167] Zhu J, Zäch M. Nanostructured materials for photocatalytic hydrogen production.
Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 2009;14(4):260–9.
[168] Yang Y, Zeng Z, Zeng G, Huang D, Xiao R, Zhang C, et al. Ti3C2 Mxene/porous g-
C3N4 interfacial Schottky junction for boosting spatial charge separation in
photocatalytic H2O2 production. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 2019;258
(April):117956-.
[169] Molinari R, Marino T, Argurio P. Photocatalytic membrane reactors for hydrogen
production from water. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39(14):7247–61.
[170] Zhou Y, Wang W, Zhang C, Huang D, Lai C, Cheng M, et al. Sustainable hydrogen
production by molybdenum carbide-based efficient photocatalysts: From
properties to mechanism. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 2020;279:
102144-.
[171] Tong H, Ouyang S, Bi Y, Umezawa N, Oshikiri M, Ye J. Nano-photocatalytic
materials: Possibilities and challenges. Adv Mater 2012;24(2):229–51.
[172] Ismail AA, Bahnemann DW. Photochemical splitting of water for hydrogen
production by photocatalysis: A review. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2014;128:
85–101.
[173] He D, Zhang C, Zeng G, Yang Y, Huang D, Wang L, et al. A multifunctional
platform by controlling of carbon nitride in the core-shell structure: From design
to construction, and catalysis applications. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental
2019;258(May):117957-.
[174] Bi W, Li X, Zhang L, Jin T, Zhang L, Zhang Q, et al. Molecular co-catalyst
accelerating hole transfer for enhanced photocatalytic H 2 evolution. Nat
Commun 2015;6:1–7.
M. Younas et al.
[175] Tang C, Wang W, Sun A, Qi C, Zhang D, Wu Z, et al. Sulfur-Decorated
Molybdenum Carbide Catalysts for Enhanced Hydrogen Evolution. ACS Catal
2015;5(11):6956–63.
[176] Shen S, Guo L, Chen X, Ren F, Mao SS. Effect of Ag2S on solar-driven
photocatalytic hydrogen evolution of nanostructured CdS. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2010;35(13):7110–5.
[177] Ni M, Leung MKH, Leung DYC, Sumathy K. A review and recent developments in
photocatalytic water-splitting using TiO2 for hydrogen production. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11(3):401–25.
[178] Pnoiocauliysi S, Sayama K, Arakawa H. Photoreaction Control Research Center
(PCRC), National Institute of.4141:625-7.
[179] Anpo M, Takeuchi M. The design and development of highly reactive titanium
oxide photocatalysts operating under visible light irradiation. J Catal 2003;216
(1–2):505–16.
[180] Sun S, Hisatomi T, Wang Q, Chen S, Ma G, Liu J, et al. Efficient Redox-Mediator-
Free Z-Scheme Water Splitting Employing Oxysulfide Photocatalysts under
Visible Light. ACS Catal 2018;8(3):1690–6.
[181] Moriya Y, Takata T, Domen K. Recent progress in the development of (oxy)nitride
photocatalysts for water splitting under visible-light irradiation. Coord Chem Rev
2013;257(13–14):1957–69.
[182] Choi J, Ryu SY, Balcerski W, Lee TK, Hoffmann MR. Photocatalytic production of
hydrogen on Ni/NiO/KNbO3/CdS nanocomposites using visible light. J Mater
Chem 2008;18(20):2371–8.
[183] Zhang J, Qi L, Ran J, Yu J, Qiao SZ. Ternary NiS/ZnxCd1-xS/reduced graphene
oxide nanocomposites for enhanced solar photocatalytic h2-production activity.
Adv Energy Mater 2014;4(10):2–7.
[184] Daskalaki VM, Kondarides DI. Efficient production of hydrogen by photo-induced
reforming of glycerol at ambient conditions. Catal Today 2009;144(1–2):75–80.
[185] Jia T, Kolpin A, Ma C, Chau-Ting Chan R, Kwok WM, Tsang SCE. A graphene
dispersed CdS–MoS2 nanocrystal ensemble for cooperative photocatalytic
hydrogen production from water. Chem Commun 2014;50(10):1185–8.
[186] Moon SC, Mametsuka H, Tabata S, Suzuki E. Photocatalytic production of
hydrogen from water using TiO2 and B/TiO2. Catal Today 2000;58(2):125–32.
[187] Zheng D, Huang C, Wang X. Post-annealing reinforced hollow carbon nitride
nanospheres for hydrogen photosynthesis. Nanoscale 2015;7(2):465–70.
[188] Wen J, Li X, Li H, Ma S, He K, Xu Y, et al. Enhanced visible-light H 2 evolution of
g-C 3 N 4 photocatalysts via the synergetic effect of amorphous NiS and cheap
metal-free carbon black nanoparticles as co-catalysts. Appl Surf Sci 2015;358:
204–12.
[189] Patsoura A, Kondarides DI, Verykios XE. Photocatalytic degradation of organic
pollutants with simultaneous production of hydrogen. Catal Today 2007;124
(3–4):94–102.
[190] Balcerski WC, Ryu SY, Hoffmann MR. Photocatalytic hydrogen production with
visible light using nanocomposites of CdS and Ni on niobium oxide. Sep Purif
Technol 2015;156:915–21.
[191] Sun Z, Chen H, Zhang L, Lu D, Du P. Enhanced photocatalytic H2 production on
cadmium sulfide photocatalysts using nickel nitride as a novel cocatalyst. J Mater
Chem A 2016;4(34):13289–95.
[192] Gomez IJ, Arnaiz B, Cacioppo M, Arcudi F, Prato M. Nitrogen-doped Carbon
Nanodots for bioimaging and delivery of paclitaxel. J Mater Chem B 2018;6(35).
[193] Chen Y, Zhao S, Wang X, Peng Q, Lin R, Wang Y, et al. Synergetic Integration of
Cu1.94S-ZnxCd1-xS Heteronanorods for Enhanced Visible-Light-Driven
Photocatalytic Hydrogen Production. J Am Chem Soc 2016;138(13):4286–9.
[194] Guayaquil-Sosa JF, Serrano-Rosales B, Valadés-Pelayo PJ, de Lasa H.
Photocatalytic hydrogen production using mesoporous TiO2 doped with Pt. Appl
Catal B 2017;211:337–48.
[195] Xu Y, Xu R. Nickel-based cocatalysts for photocatalytic hydrogen production.
Appl Surf Sci 2015;351:779–93.
[196] Sprick RS, Bonillo B, Clowes R, Guiglion P, Brownbill NJ, Slater BJ, et al. Visible-
Light-Driven Hydrogen Evolution Using Planarized Conjugated Polymer
Photocatalysts. Angewandte Chemie - International Edition 2016;55(5):1792–6.
[197] Zhong Y, Yuan J, Wen J, Li X, Xu Y, Liu W, et al. Earth-abundant NiS co-catalyst
modified metal-free mpg-C3N4/CNT nanocomposites for highly efficient visible-
light photocatalytic H2 evolution. Dalton Trans 2015;44(41):18260–9.
[198] Yan H, Huang Y. Polymer composites of carbon nitride and poly(3-
hexylthiophene) to achieve enhanced hydrogen production from water under
visible light. Chem Commun 2011;47(14):4168–70.
[199] Lu X, Wang G, Xie S, Shi J, Li W, Tong Y, et al. Efficient photocatalytic hydrogen
evolution over hydrogenated ZnO nanorod arrays. Chem Commun 2012;48(62):
7717–9.
[200] Jiang D, Sun Z, Jia H, Lu D, Du P. A cocatalyst-free CdS nanorod/ZnS nanoparticle
composite for high-performance visible-light-driven hydrogen production from
water. J Mater Chem A 2015;4(2):675–83.
[201] Razi F, Dincer I. A critical evaluation of potential routes of solar hydrogen
production for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production 2020;264:
121582-.
[202] Tuller HL. Solar to fuels conversion technologies: A perspective. Mater Renewable
Sustainable Energy 2017;6(1):1–16.
[203] Wei Z, Liu J, Shangguan W. A review on photocatalysis in antibiotic wastewater:
Pollutant degradation and hydrogen production. Chin J Catal 2020;41(10):
1440–50.
[204] Mehta A, Mishra A, Basu S, Shetti NP, Reddy KR, Saleh TA, et al. Band gap tuning
and surface modification of carbon dots for sustainable environmental
remediation and photocatalytic hydrogen production – A review. J Environ
Manage 2019;250(August).
22
Fuel 316 (2022) 123317
[205] Li X, Kikugawa N, Ye J. Nitrogen-doped lamellar niobic acid with visible light-
responsive photocatalytic activity. Adv Mater 2008;20(20):3816–9.
[206] Wang D, Kako T, Ye J. New series of solid-solution semiconductors (AgNbO3) 1–x
(SrTiO3)x with modulated band structure and enhanced visible-light
photocatalytic activity. J Phys Chem C 2009;113(9):3785–92.
[207] Thompson TL, Yates JT. Surface science studies of the photoactivation of TIO2 -
New photochemical processes. Chem Rev 2006;106(10):4428–53.
[208] Dincer I, Zamfirescu C. Sustainable hydrogen production options and the role of
IAHE. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37(21):16266–86.
[209] Safari F, Dincer I. A study on the Fe–Cl thermochemical water splitting cycle for
hydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2020(xxxx).
[210] Naterer GF, Gabriel K, Lu L, Wang Z, Zhang Y. Recent advances in nuclear based
hydrogen production with the thermochemical copper-chlorine cycle. J Eng Gas
Turbines Power 2009;131(3).
[211] Safari F, Dincer I. A review and comparative evaluation of thermochemical water
splitting cycles for hydrogen production. Energy Conversion and Management
2020;205(December 2019):112182-.
[212] Agrafiotis C, Roeb M, Konstandopoulos AG, Nalbandian L, Zaspalis VT, Sattler C,
et al. Solar water splitting for hydrogen production with monolithic reactors. Sol
Energy 2005;79(4):409–21.
[213] Wu W, Felicia W. Heat Integration of a Hydrogen Production System With
Simplistic Copper-Chlorine (Cu-Cl) Thermochemical Cycle *.
[214] Ozbilen A, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Development of a four-step Cu-Cl cycle for
hydrogen production - Part I: Exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental
analyses. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41(19):7814–25.
[215] Steimke J, Steeper T, Hobbs D, Colon-mercado H, Herman D. II . H . 2 Hybrid
Sulfur Thermochemical Process Development Technical Targets. 2008:229-33.
[216] Doctor RD, Matonis DT, Wade DC. Hydrogen generation using a calcium-bromine
thermochemical water-splitting cycle. 2004.
[217] Yilmaz F, Selbaş R. Thermodynamic performance assessment of solar based
Sulfur-Iodine thermochemical cycle for hydrogen generation. Energy 2017;140:
520–9.
[218] Steinfeld A. Solar hydrogen production via a two-step water-splitting
thermochemical cycle based on Zn/ZnO redox reactions. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2002;27(6):611–9.
[219] Giaconia A, Grena R, Lanchi M, Liberatore R, Tarquini P. Hydrogen/methanol
production by sulfur-iodine thermochemical cycle powered by combined solar/
fossil energy. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32(4):469–81.
[220] Vitart X, Carles P, Anzieu P. A general survey of the potential and the main issues
associated with the sulfur-iodine thermochemical cycle for hydrogen production
using nuclear heat. Prog Nucl Energy 2008;50(2–6):402–10.
[221] Schultz K. Thermochemical Production of Hydrogen from Solar and Nuclear
Energy. Nuclear Hydrogen 2003(April):1-44.
[222] Khamis I. ScienceDirect International collaboration in the IAEA nuclear hydrogen
production program for benchmarking of HEEP. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016:2–7.
[223] Ozcan H, Dincer I. Energy and exergy analyses of a solar based hydrogen
production and compression system. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(33):
21414–28.
[224] Ozcan H, Dincer I. Exergoeconomic optimization of a new four-step
magnesium–chlorine cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(4):2435–45.
[225] Corgnale C, Summers WA. Solar hydrogen production by the Hybrid Sulfur
process. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011;36(18):11604–19.
[226] Orhan MF, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Efficiency analysis of a hybrid copper-chlorine
(Cu-Cl) cycle for nuclear-based hydrogen production. Chem Eng J 2009;155(1–2):
132–7.
[227] Wang ZL, Naterer GF, Gabriel KS, Gravelsins R, Daggupati VN. Comparison of
sulfur-iodine and copper-chlorine thermochemical hydrogen production cycles.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35(10):4820–30.
[228] Summers WA, Gorensek MB, Buckner MR. The hybrid sulfur cycle for nuclear
hydrogen production. Proceedings of GLOBAL 2005, Tsukuba, Japan, Oct 9-13
2005 2005(97):1-6.
[229] Analysis C, Limiting II. the Hybrid Cu-Cl Thermochemical Cycle . I . Conceptual
Process Design and H2a. 2015(January 2008).
[230] Safari F, Dincer I. A review and comparative evaluation of thermochemical water
splitting cycles for hydrogen production. Energy Conversion and Management
2020;205(August 2019):112182-.
[231] Kamiji Y, Noguchi H, Takegami H, Tanaka N, Iwatsuki J, Kasahara S, et al.
Reliability improvements of corrosion-resistant equipment for thermochemical
water splitting hydrogen production iodine-sulfur process Enlarged view of
sheath top Cross-sectional view. Nuclear Engineering and Design 2020;361(April
2019):110573-.
[232] Kasahara S, Iwatsuki J, Takegami H, Tanaka N, Noguchi H, Kamiji Y, et al.
Current R&D status of thermochemical water splitting iodine-sulfur process in
Japan Atomic Energy Agency. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(19):13477–85.
[233] Ozbilen A, Dincer I, Rosen MA. A comparative life cycle analysis of hydrogen
production via thermochemical water splitting using a Cu-Cl cycle. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2011;36(17):11321–7.
[234] El-Emam RS, Ozcan H, Dincer I. Comparative cost evaluation of nuclear hydrogen
production methods with the Hydrogen Economy Evaluation Program (HEEP). Int
J Hydrogen Energy 2014;40(34):11168–77.
[235] O’Brien JA, Hinkley JT, Donne SW, Lindquist SE. The electrochemical oxidation
of aqueous sulfur dioxide: A critical review of work with respect to the hybrid
sulfur cycle. Electrochim Acta 2010;55(3):573–91.
[236] Balta MT, Dincer I, Hepbasli A. Comparative assessment of various chlorine
family thermochemical cycles for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2016;41(19):7802–13.
M. Younas et al.
[237] Ghandehariun S, Rosen MA, Naterer GF, Wang Z. Comparison of molten salt heat
recovery options in the Cu-Cl cycle of hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2011;36(17):11328–37.
[238] Xiao L, Wu SY, Li YR. Advances in solar hydrogen production via two-step water-
splitting thermochemical cycles based on metal redox reactions. Renewable
Energy 2012;41:1–12.
[239] Balta MT, Dincer I, Hepbasli A. Energy and exergy analyses of magnesium-
chlorine (Mg-Cl) thermochemical cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37(6):
4855–62.
[240] Liberatore R, Bassi A, Turchetti L, Venturin M. Multi-objective optimization of a
hydrogen production through the HyS process powered by solar energy in
different scenarios. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(18):8683–97.
[241] Safari F, Dincer IJEC. Management. A review and comparative evaluation of
thermochemical water splitting cycles for hydrogen production. 2020;205:
112182.
[242] Holladay JD, Hu J, King DL. Wang YJCt. An overview of hydrogen production
technologies. 2009;139(4):244–60.
[243] Acar C. Dincer IJIjohe. Comparative assessment of hydrogen production methods
from renewable and non-renewable sources. 2014;39(1):1–12.
[244] Sołowski G. Biohydrogen Production-Sources and Methods: A Review.
International Journal of Bioprocessing and Biotechniques 2018;2018(01):1–22.
[245] Yan ZC, Li C, Lin WH. Hydrogen generation by glow discharge plasma electrolysis
of methanol solutions. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34(1):48–55.
[246] Canepa P, Castello G, Nicchia M, Munari S. Low p r e s s u r e r.f. p l a s m a
reactions in light h y d r o c a r b o n s. 1984;23(4):449-53.
[247] Babaritskii AI, Baranov IE, Bibikov MB, Demkin SA, Zhivotov VK, Konovalov GM,
et al. Partial hydrocarbon oxidation processes induced by atmospheric-pressure
microwave-discharge plasma. High Energ Chem 2004;38(6):407–11.
[248] Hafeez A, Taqvi SAA, Fazal T, Javed F, Khan Z, Amjad US, et al. Optimization on
cleaner intensification of ozone production using Artificial Neural Network and
Response Surface Methodology: Parametric and comparative study. 2020;252:
119833.
[249] Liang Chen H, Ming Lee H. Been Chang MJOs, engineering. Enhancement of
energy yield for ozone production via packed-bed reactors. 2006;28(2):111–8.
[250] Rehman F, Lozano-Parada JH, Zimmerman WB. A kinetic model for H 2
production by plasmolysis of water vapours at atmospheric pressure in a
dielectric barrier discharge microchannel reactor. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37
(23):17678–90.
[251] Lozano-Parada JH, Zimmerman WBJCES. The role of kinetics in the design of
plasma microreactors. 2010;65(17):4925-30.
[252] Zhu Z, Zhang S, Lv Y, Zhang X. Atomization of hydride with a low-temperature,
atmospheric pressure dielectric barrier discharge and its application to arsenic
speciation with atomic absorption spectrometry. Anal Chem 2006;78(3):865–72.
[253] Ross DK. Hydrogen storage: The major technological barrier to the development
of hydrogen fuel cell cars. Vacuum 2006;80(10):1084–9.
[254] Rehman F, Liu Y, Zimmerman WBJ. The role of chemical kinetics in using O3
generation as proxy for hydrogen production from water vapour plasmolysis. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2016;41(15):6180–92.
[255] El-Shafie M, Kambara S, Hayakawa Y, Miura T. Preliminary results of hydrogen
production from water vapor decomposition using DBD plasma in a PMCR
reactor. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44(36):20239–48.
[256] Syahrial F, Nomura S, Mukasa S, Toyota H, Okamoto K. Synergetic effects of
radio-frequency (RF) in-liquid plasma and ultrasonic vibration on hydrogen
production from glucose. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40(35):11399–405.
[257] Reddy EL, Biju VM, Subrahmanyam C. Production of hydrogen from hydrogen
sulfide assisted by dielectric barrier discharge. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37(3):
2204–9.
23
Fuel 316 (2022) 123317
[258] Boutot T, Buckle K, Collins F, Fletcher D, Frontain E, Kozinski J, et al. High-
Concentration Hydrogen Production from Natural Gas Using a Pulsed Dielectric
Barrier Discharge. Hydrogen and Fuel Cells 2004 2004(December 2014).
[259] Hrycak B, Czylkowski D, Miotk R, Dors M, Jasinski M, Mizeraczyk J. Hydrogen
production from ethanol in nitrogen microwave plasma at atmospheric pressure.
Open Chemistry 2015;13(1):317–24.
[260] Chen X, Suib SL, Hayashi Y, Matsumoto H. H2O splitting in tubular PACT (plasma
and catalyst integrated technologies) reactors. J Catal 2001;201(2):198–205.
[261] Zhang H, Zhu F, Bo Z, Cen K, Li X. Hydrogen production from methanol
decomposition in a gliding arc discharge plasma with high processing capacity.
Chem Lett 2015;44(10):1315–7.
[262] Conde JJ, Maroño M, Sánchez-Hervás JMJS, Reviews P. Pd-based membranes for
hydrogen separation: review of alloying elements and their influence on
membrane properties. 2017;46(2):152-77.
[263] Dong G, Li H. Chen VJJoMCA. Challenges and opportunities for mixed-matrix
membranes for gas separation. 2013;1(15):4610–30.
[264] Rehman F, Medley GJD, Bandulasena H, Zimmerman WBJ. Fluidic oscillator-
mediated microbubble generation to provide cost effective mass transfer and
mixing efficiency to the wastewater treatment plants. Environ Res 2015;137:
32–9.
[265] Zimmerman WB, Tesa V, Butler S, Bandulasena HCH. <0001ENG.pdf>. 2008:1-8.
[266] Hafeez A, Shamair Z, Shezad N, Javed F, Fazal T, ur Rehman S, et al. Solar
powered decentralized water systems: A cleaner solution of the industrial
wastewater treatment and clean drinking water supply challenges. 2020:125717.
[267] Becher M, Haluska M, Hirscher M, Quintel A, Skakalova V, Dettlaff-
Weglikovska U, et al. Hydrogen storage in carbon nanotubes. CR Phys 2003;4(9):
1055–62.
[268] Hirscher M, Yartys VA, Baricco M, Bellosta von Colbe J, Blanchard D,
Bowman RC, et al. Materials for hydrogen-based energy storage – past, recent
progress and future outlook. J Alloy Compd 2020;827.
[269] Mart H, Coronas S, Alonso À, Hoz JD, Matas,. J. Renewable Energy Auction Prices
: Near Subsidy-Free ? 2020.
[270] Palmer G. Australia’s Hydrogen Future A Research Report. 2018(December).
[271] Tran D-T, Chang J-S, Lee D-J. Recent insights into continuous-flow biodiesel
production via catalytic and non-catalytic transesterification processes. Appl
Energy 2017;185:376–409.
[272] Mueller-Langer F, Tzimas E, Kaltschmitt M, Peteves S. Techno-economic
assessment of hydrogen production processes for the hydrogen economy for the
short and medium term. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32(16):3797–810.
[273] Nagassou D, Mohsenian S, Nallar M, Yu P, Wong H-W, Trelles JP. Decomposition
of CO2 in a solar-gliding arc plasma reactor: Effects of water, nitrogen, methane,
and process optimization. Journal of CO2 Utilization 2020;38(August 2019):39-
48.
[274] Rehman F. Simultaneous hydrogen generation and separation by plasmolysis.
University of Sheffield 2015.
[275] Suleman F, Dincer I. Agelin-Chaab MJIjohe. Environmental impact assessment
and comparison of some hydrogen production options. 2015;40(21):6976–87.
[276] Guwy AJ, Dinsdale RM, Kim JR, Massanet-Nicolau J, Premier G. Fermentative
biohydrogen production systems integration. Bioresour Technol 2011;102(18):
8534–42.
[277] Kumar SS, Himabindu VJMSfET. Hydrogen production by PEM water
electrolysis–A review. 2019;2(3):442-54.
[278] Dincer I. Acar CJijohe. Innovation in hydrogen production. 2017;42(22):
14843–64.