4,200

Open access books available

116,000
International authors and editors
125M
Downloads

Our authors are among the

154
Countries delivered to
TOP 1%
most cited scientists
12.2%
Contributors from top 500 universities

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index

in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)

Interested in publishing with us?

Contact [email protected]
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Chapter

Development of the Conical

Spouted Bed Technology for
Biomass and Waste Plastic
Gasification
Jon Alvarez, Gartzen Lopez, María Cortazar,
Laura Santamaria, Enara Fernandez and Martin Olazar

Abstract

Gasification is one of the most effective methods for upgrading different wastes,
such as plastics and biomass, because the gas produced can be used directly as a fuel
or as a renewable raw material for the production of chemicals and fuels. The coni-
cal spouted bed reactor (CSBR) has demonstrated to perform well in gasification
process due to its specific features, such as (i) the cyclic and vigorous particle move-
ment that avoids bed defluidization (a limitation in fluidized beds), (ii) capability
for handling irregular or sticky solids, (iii) high heat transfer rates between phases,
and (iv) bed stability in a wide range of gas flow rates. However, the conventional
CSBR is characterized by its short residence time, which involves serious problems
for minimizing tar formation. The incorporation of a fountain confiner in the CSBR
is key to increasing the gas residence time and improving the contact between the
gas and heat carrier particles, thereby promoting tar cracking reactions and so
enhancing carbon conversion efficiency from 81.5% (without confiner) to 86.1%
under fountain enhanced regime. The quality of the syngas is clearly improved
as the H2 concentration increases from 36 to 42% with and without the fountain
confiner, whereas that of CO decreases from 34 to 29%, respectively.

Keywords: gasification, conical spouted bed, fountain confinement, syngas,

biomass, plastic waste

1. Introduction

Gasification is a thermochemical process that transforms carbonaceous mate-

rials (coal, oil and its derivatives, biomass, post-consumer and industrial solid
wastes) into syngas, with CO and H2 being its major components. The gasification
process takes place at high temperatures (generally in the 600–900°C range or even
higher) in the presence of a gasifying agent (air, oxygen, steam, CO2, or mixtures
of these components) at a lower ratio than that stoichiometrically required for
combustion. Syngas production is essential due to the increasing interest in gas to
liquid (GTL) processes through the synthesis of methanol, dimethyl ether, and
Fischer-Tropsch. In addition, the valorization of syngas can be integrated with

1
Sustainable Alternative Syngas Fuel

energy recovery systems, by means of turbines, combined cycle units, or fuel cells.
The gasification technology has been extensively developed for coal and oil prod-
ucts and is gaining increasing interest for biomass [1, 2] in which catalysts play an
essential role [3]. Furthermore, the upgrading of post-consumer solid wastes by
gasification is becoming a short-term promising strategy [4].
Gasification involves several steps and complex chemical reactions, which may
be grouped as follows: drying, pyrolysis, cracking and reforming reactions in the
gas phase, and heterogeneous char gasification. The significance of these steps on
the process performance and their kinetics depends on the feedstock characteristics
and gasification conditions. The pyrolysis step involves a series of complex chemical
reactions of endothermic nature and leads to volatiles (gases and tars) and a solid
residue or char. The homogeneous gasification reactions include a wide variety of
reactions, with the balance and the extent of these reactions depending mainly
on the gasifying agent used, its ratio with respect to the feed (S/feed ratio), and
temperature. These reactions are as follows:

Steam reforming of hydrocarbons :

C n H m + nH 2 O → (n + m / 2) H 2 + nCO ΔH >0 (1)

Methane reforming : CH 4 + H 2 O ⇔ 3H 2 + CO ΔH = 206 kJ mol −1 (2)

Char steam gasification : C + H 2 O → H 2 + CO ΔH = 131 kJ mol –1 (3)

Dry reforming of hydrocarbons :

C n H m + nCO 2 → (m / 2) H 2 + 2nCO ΔH > 0 (4)

Boudouard reaction : C + CO 2 ⇔ 2CO ΔH = 172 kJ mol −1 (5)

Water − gas shift reaction : H 2 O + CO ⇔ H 2 + CO 2 ΔH = − 41 kJ mol −1 (6)

It should be noted that gasification reactions are only those involving H2O
and CO2, because O2 only promotes combustion and partial oxidation reactions
that produce CO, CO2, and H2O. In addition, the exothermic nature of oxidation
reactions provides the energy required for the highly endothermic steam and CO2
reforming (Eqs. (1)–(4)) and Boudouard (Eq. (5)) reactions. Steam improves H2
production by means of steam reforming reactions (Eqs. (1) and (2)) and also
by enhancing the water-gas shift (Eq. (6)) equilibrium. High temperatures are
required for promoting char gasification, especially CO2 gasification, whose kinet-
ics is between 2 and 5 times slower than under steam atmosphere and does not occur
below 730°C [5].
The main drawback of the syngas produced is the presence of certain impurities,
such as fine particles, organic tars, NOx, and SO2, which need to be removed before
its application in subsequent processes [6]. In particular, tar is the main contami-
nant in the gas produced, and its content ranges from 5 to 100 g Nm−3, depending
on the type of gasifier. However, its maximum allowable content is 5 mg Nm−3 in gas
turbines and 100 mg Nm−3 in internal combustion engines [7, 8]. Tar is described
as a complex mixture of condensable hydrocarbons, ranging from single-ring to

2
Development of the Conical Spouted Bed Technology for Biomass and Waste Plastic Gasification
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86761

five-ring aromatic compounds along with other oxygen-containing hydrocarbons

and complex polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) [9]. These compounds may
cause several operational problems, such as condensation and the subsequent plug-
ging of downstream equipment, clogging filters, and metal corrosion, which lead to
unacceptable levels of maintenance for engines and turbines.
All the methods available for tar reduction may be classified into two groups,
depending on where tar is removed: in situ (or primary) methods and post-
gasification (or secondary) methods. Regardless of the strategy followed, the
optimum operating conditions, appropriate additives or catalysts, and a suitable
reactor configuration should be established in order to obtain a gas stream with a
maximum tar content of 2 g Nm−3 and a low content of PAH compounds [10, 11]. It
should be noted that tar formation depends on the gasification conditions, particu-
larly on temperature, so preventive treatments are recommended to operate above
1000°C. Aznar et al. [12] suggest injecting a secondary air stream into the freeboard
to reduce the content of tar.
In situ catalytic cracking is one of the most promising techniques, as it allows
reducing the need for expensive downstream operations [3, 13]. Natural minerals,
such as olivine [14, 15] and dolomite [16], have been widely used in steam gasifica-
tion because, apart from being active for the cracking and reforming of heavy
aromatic compounds, they are inexpensive and abundant. In addition, Ni catalysts
have received great attention in gasification due to their higher effectiveness for
converting tar into H2-rich gas [17, 18].
Moreover, apart from temperature and catalysts, reactor design also plays a
critical role in gasification. Different reactor configurations are commonly used for
the steam gasification process, which according to their hydrodynamic behavior
can be classified as follows: fixed bed, fluidized bed, entrained flow, and rotary kiln
reactors, among others [4]. Fluidized beds are the most commonly used due to their
advantages, such as versatility for using different types of wastes (agroforestry,
post-consumer, and industrial), high heat and mass transfer rates between phases,
and bed isothermicity, which allow the scaling-up of the process to the industrial
level [19–21]. Nevertheless, biomass or waste particles of irregular texture require a
large amount of inert solid (sand) to promote their fluidization. In addition, small
particle sizes (Geldart A and B) are the best for fluidization, and therefore high
amounts of energy are required to grind and sieve the feedstock. Nevertheless,
there is an alternative to conventional fluidized beds, namely, the conical spouted
bed reactor (CSBR), which may handle residues of different densities and sizes
without significant segregation in the bed. This technology allows handling larger
particles than those in fluidized beds, including those with an irregular texture, fine
materials, and sticky solids, with no agglomeration or segregation problems [22].
Moreover, the highly vigorous movements of the solids lead to high heat and mass
transfer rates between phases [23]. Other advantages of the CSBR over the fluid-
ized bed are its simpler design (no distributor plate) and the lower sand/feed ratio
required for the same capacity.
The main drawback of this technology for gasification is the short gas residence
time, which hinders tar cracking reactions. Accordingly, certain modifications
have been developed in order improve its performance in the gasification process
by changing reactor hydrodynamics, which are as follows: the confinement of the
fountain and the use of draft tubes. The fountain confinement device is a tube
welded to the lid of the reactor that allows operating under stable conditions with
fine particles and increasing the gas residence time by lengthening the path fol-
lowed by the gas [24]. Therefore, gas-solid (catalyst) contact in the fountain is
greatly improved, and tar cracking and reforming reactions are therefore promoted.
Moreover, the draft tube also enables to widen the operation range and improve

3
Sustainable Alternative Syngas Fuel

the reactor’s hydrodynamic behavior [24]. Thus, this chapter summarizes the main
results obtained in the application of the conical spouted bed reactor in the steam
gasification of biomass and waste plastics. Moreover, the influence of different pri-
mary catalysts and the incorporation of novel modifications in the reactor design,
such as fountain confiner and draft tube, are also discussed.

2. Material and methods

2.1 Feedstock characterization

The HDPE was supplied by Dow Chemical (Tarragona, Spain) in the form
of chippings (4 mm), with the following properties: average molecular weight,
46.2 kg mol−1; polydispersity, 2.89; and density, 940 kg m−3.
The biomass used in this study is forest pinewood waste (Pinus insignis). The
sawdust has been sieved to obtain a particle size between 1 and 2 mm. This material
has been dried at room temperature to a moisture content below 10 wt%. Ultimate
and proximate analyses have been carried out in a LECO CHNS-932 elemental
analyzer and in a TGA Q500IR thermogravimetric analyzer, respectively. The high
heating value (HHV) for both biomass and HDPE was measured in a Parr 1356
isoperibolic bomb calorimeter. The main features of both the raw biomass and the
HDPE are summarized in Table 1.

2.2 Equipment

Steam gasification runs have been carried out in a bench-scale plant, whose
scheme is shown in Figure 1. The main element of the plant is the conical spouted
bed reactor (CSBR), whose design is based on previous hydrodynamic studies [25]
and on the application of this technology to the pyrolysis of different solid wastes,
such as biomass [26–28], plastics [29], and waste tires [30].
The plant is provided with a system for continuous feeding of the biomass or
plastic. The system for solid feeding consists of a vessel equipped with a vertical
shaft connected to a piston placed below the material bed. The plastic/sawdust is

Biomass HDPE
Ultimate analysis (wt%)

Carbon 49.33 85.71

Hydrogen 6.06 14.29

Nitrogen 0.04 —
Oxygen 44.57 —

Proximate analysis (wt%)

Volatile matter 73.4 99.7

Fixed carbon 16.7 0.3

Ash 0.5 —

Moisture 9.4 —
HHV (MJ kg−1) 19.8 43.1

Table 1.
Characterization of the biomass and HDPE used in this study.

4
Development of the Conical Spouted Bed Technology for Biomass and Waste Plastic Gasification
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86761

fed into the reactor by raising the piston at the same time as the whole system is
vibrated by an electric engine.
Water has been fed by means of a Gibson 307 pump that allows a precise mea-
suring of the flow rate. The water stream has been vaporized by means of an electric
cartridge placed inside the forced convection oven and prior to the entrance of the
reactor.
The reactor is located within an oven, which is in turn placed in a forced convec-
tion oven maintained at 270°C to avoid the condensation of steam and tars before
the condensation system. A high-efficiency cyclone and a sintered steel filter (5 μm)
are also placed inside this oven in order to retain the fine sand particles entrained
from the bed and the soot or char particles formed in the gasification process.
The gases leaving the forced convection oven circulate through a volatile
condensation system consisting of a condenser, a Peltier cooler, and a coalescence
filter. The Peltier cooler consists of a 150 mL tank and a refrigerator that lowers the
temperature to around 2°C, thereby efficiently condensing the volatile products.
The condenser is a double-shell tube cooled by tap water.

Figure 1.
Scheme of the bench-scale biomass gasification plant equipped with a conical spouted bed reactor.

5
Sustainable Alternative Syngas Fuel

2.2.1 Conventional spouted bed reactor

The spouted bed reactor is the core of the gasification plant. The total height
of the reactor is 298 mm, with that of the conical section (angle of 30°) being
73 mm. The diameters of the cone base and cylindrical section are 12.5 and 60.3 mm,
respectively. The gas inlet diameter is 7.6 mm. Despite the endothermic nature of the
steam gasification process, bed isothermicity is ensured by the vigorous solid circula-
tion of the sand in this reactor, which also promotes high heat transfer rates [23]. The
CSBR is placed inside a 1250 W radiant oven. Two K-type thermocouples are located
inside the reactor, one in the bed annulus and the other one close to the wall.

2.2.2 Fountain-enhanced spouted bed reactor

This reactor is an improved version of that described in Section 2.2.1, which has
been specifically designed for gasification process. Thus, a fountain confiner was
welded to the lid in order to increase the residence time, narrow its distribution,
and improve the gas-solid contact in the fountain region (Figure 2). Thus, several

Figure 2.
Main dimensions (in mm) of the spouted bed gasifier, fountain confiner, and draft tube.

6
Development of the Conical Spouted Bed Technology for Biomass and Waste Plastic Gasification
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86761

modifications were introduced in order to optimize its performance. For example,

the height of the reactor was increased in order to increase the residence time of
the gas and promote tar cracking. This reactor may also operate in the conventional
spouting regime by using a lid without confiner. It is noteworthy that its design
allows using draft tubes to widen the application range of the spouting regime and
improve bed stability [31, 32]. In fact, the nonporous draft tube promotes high
fountains [32] by diverting most of the inlet gas stream through the draft tube,
which also enhances solid cross-flow from the annulus into the spout and therefore
leads to additional gas-solid contact in the fountain.
The main dimensions of this spouted bed reactor, the fountain confiner, and the
draft tube used are depicted in Figure 2. According to a previous hydrodynamic
study conducted under gasification conditions [33], a draft tube with 8 mm in
external diameter (5.5 mm in internal diameter) and 15 mm entrainment zone
height was determined as the optimum one. Thus, these geometric factors allow
operating under enhanced fountain regime, with low steam flow rates ensuring
great turbulence and a well-developed fountain region with a great hydrodynamic
stability.

2.3 Primary catalysts

γ-Al2O3 has been provided by Alfa Aesar and olivine by Minelco. Olivine has
been calcined at 900°C for 10 h prior to use in the gasification reaction to enhance
its reactivity for tar cracking. The conditions mentioned for olivine calcination have
been determined as optimum by Devi et al. [14] in order to maximize tar cracking
activity. The BET surface area has been measured by N2 adsorption-desorption
(Micromeritics ASAP 2010). Calcined olivine has a limited porosity, with a surface
area of only 0.18 m2 g−1. However, γ-Al2O3 has a much higher porous development,
with a surface area of 159 m2 g−1.

2.4 Product analysis

The volatile stream leaving the gasification reactor has been analyzed online by
means of a GC Agilent 6890 provided with a HP-PONA column and a flame ionization
detector (FID). The sample has been injected into the GC by means of a line thermo-
stated at 280°C, once the reactor outlet stream has been diluted with an inert gas. The
purpose of this system is to avoid the condensation of tars in the transfer line. The tars
collected in the condensation system have been identified in a gas chromatograph/
mass spectrometer (GC/MS, Shimadzu UP-2010S provided with a HP-PONA column).
The non-condensable gases have been injected into a micro-GC (Varian 4900).

2.5 Experimental procedure

Temperature and steam/biomass ratio are the operating parameters studied

in the gasification of biomass and plastics in this reactor. Additionally, biomass
gasification was also performed with different primary catalysts (in situ), and the
influence of using the fountain confiner was evaluated. In all runs, water flow rate
was 1.5 mL min−1, corresponding to a steam flow rate of 1.86 L min−1, which is
approximately 1.5 times that corresponding to the minimum spouting velocity in
order to ensure bed stability.
The effect of temperature has been studied at 800, 850, and 900°C by feeding a
mass flow rate of 1.5 g min−1 of biomass or HDPE and using a steam/feed ratio of 1.
The effect of the steam/feed ratio has been studied between 0 and 2 (in mass),
and the temperature has been maintained at 900°C. For a ratio of 2, the biomass or

7
Sustainable Alternative Syngas Fuel

plastic feed rate was reduced to 0.75 g min−1 in order to maintain the same steam
flow rate (1.5 g min−1). The reactor contains 70 g of sand in the bed in all runs, and
therefore the residence time of the products in the reactor and the hydrodynamic
behavior are similar. In order to study the steam/feed ratio of 0, the steam was
replaced with a N2 flow rate of 2 L min−1.
In the experiments to assess the effect of the primary catalyst on product
distribution, the bed contains 70 g of sand or olivine (with particle diameter in the
0.35–0.4 mm range). However, given that γ-Al2O3 has a much lower density, the bed
of this material contained 25 g with a particle size greater than that of sand, in the
0.4–0.8 mm range, in order to attain a similar hydrodynamic behavior in all cases.
The experiments were carried out at 900°C, with a feed rate of 1.5 g min−1 of HDPE
or sawdust and with a steam/feed ratio of 1.
In the experiments performed with the fountain-confined spouted bed, the
biomass feed rate was 0.75 g min−1, with a steam/biomass ratio of 2. The bed
contained 100 g of olivine, and two particles sizes have been used, i.e., 90–150 and
250–355 μm. These olivine particle size ranges are those corresponding to the opti-
mum hydrodynamic performance of the reactor, as the minimum spouting veloc-
ity depends strongly on particle size [33]. Thus, the gas velocity in the runs with
the coarse olivine fraction corresponds to approximately 1.5 times the minimum
spouting velocity (so the reactor operated under conventional spouting regime),
whereas in the experiments performed with the fine olivine, the gas velocity used is
approximately four times higher than the minimum spouting velocity (4 ums), and
the fountain-enhanced regime was therefore attained.
Furthermore, operation was carried out in two regimes in the same reactor in
order to ascertain the influence the confinement system (in the standard spout-
ing regime) has on the biomass gasification process. Thus, experiments with and
without the fountain confiner were carried out at 850°C and S/B of 2, using coarse
olivine (250–355 μm), with gas velocity corresponding in both cases to approxi-
mately 1.5 times ums (conventional spouting regime). The results obtained with the
confiner under conventional spouting regime were compared with those obtained
with this device but operating in the enhance fountain spouting regime under
the same conditions and replacing the coarse olivine with the fine one in the bed.
Therefore, the role of the vigorous gas-catalyst contact in the fountain-enhanced
regime was assessed.
All the runs were performed in continuous mode for 20 min in order to ensure
a steady-state process. The char yield was determined by weighing the mass in the
reactor, as well as those retained in the cyclone and in the sintered steel filter. The
char yield is given by mass unit of the whole amount of solid fed into the reactor
(approximately 30 g). All the runs have been repeated several times (at least three)
under the same conditions in order to guarantee reproducible results.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 HDPE gasification

In this work, steam gasification of HDPE has been studied in the conventional
conical spouted bed pilot plant described in Section 2.2. The effect of temperature
(in the 800–900°C range) and steam/plastic (S/P) ratio (between 0 and 2) on the
gas yield, tar content, carbon conversion efficiency, and H2 production is shown
in Table 2. The reaction indices have been defined as follows: (i) gas yield as the
volumetric gas production (on a dry basis) per kg of biomass in the feed (on a wet

8
Development of the Conical Spouted Bed Technology for Biomass and Waste Plastic Gasification
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86761

basis), (ii) tar yield expressed as the tar mass per syngas m3 (on a dry basis),
(iii) carbon conversion efficiency as the ratio between the carbon units contained in
the syngas and those contained in the biomass in the feed, and (iv) H2 production as
the mass percentage of the H2 produced per biomass mass unit.
The gaseous fraction is composed of H2, CO, and CO2, together with C2−C5
hydrocarbons (mainly C3−). The tar is defined as the amount of organic compounds
with a molecular weight and boiling point higher than that of benzene, a criterion
that is commonly used by most authors [11, 14, 34]. The char is a carbonaceous
product collected after the reaction in the reactor, sintered steel filter, and cyclone.
The mass balance closure in all the experiments was above 95%.
As observed in Table 2, an increase in temperature leads to higher gas yields and
lower tar and char yields, thus improving the efficiency of the whole process. The
gas yield increases from 2.5 m3 kg−1 of HDPE at 800°C to 3.4 m3 kg−1 of HDPE at
900°C. Furthermore, the carbon conversion efficiency at 800°C is 86%, increases to
91% at 850°C, and then remains constant with further increases in temperature to
900°C.
Tar content decreases from 29.5 g Nm−3 at 800°C to 16.7 g Nm−3 at 900°C due to
the enhancement of thermal cracking. Other authors have also observed a positive
effect of temperature on the tar cracking in the gasification of waste plastics by
using both steam [35] and air [36] as gasifying agents. In fact, according to certain
authors, the destruction of tar aromatic hydrocarbons only occurs at temperatures
above 850°C [13].
The influence of temperature on product yields has also been studied with dif-
ferent gasification technologies, and most of the authors agree that higher tempera-
tures enhance syngas yield and decrease that of tar and char [37–39]. Higher char
yields than those shown in Table 2 have been reported in the literature [35, 40],
which may be attributed to the characteristics of the gas-solid contact in the conical
spouted bed reactor, which mitigate the limitations in the physical steps prior to
gasification, which are as follows: (i) plastic melting, (ii) coating of sand particles,
and (iii) pyrolysis.
Table 2 also displays the reaction indices for different S/P values. As observed,
as S/P ratio is increased from 1 to 2, the carbon conversion increases from 91.0 to
93.6%. Note that the performance is poor when operating with a S/P = 0 (pyroly-
sis), given that carbon conversion efficiency is as low as 68.6% due to the high tar
and char yields. The lack of steam in the reactor at high temperatures promotes the
formation of aromatic compounds, leading to a tar content as high as 29.5 g Nm−3.
The presence of steam in the reaction medium increases the gas yield and decreases
that of tar. When operating only with N2 as a fluidizing agent, the tar concentration

Temperature S/P Tar content Carbon Gas yield H2 Char

(°C) ratio (g Nm−3) conversion (m3 kg−1) production yield
(%) (wt%) (wt%)

800 1 29.5 86.1 2.5 12.7 1.4

850 1 13.8 91.1 3.2 17.0 0.6

900 1 16.7 91.1 3.4 18.4 0.5

900 2 9.6 93.6 3.6 19.9 0.4

900 0 207.8 68.6 0.9 2.7 5.6

Table 2.
Effect of gasification temperature and S/P ratio on the gas yield, tar content, carbon conversion efficiency, and
H2 production.

9
Sustainable Alternative Syngas Fuel

is 207.8 g Nm−3, but this concentration is drastically reduced to 16.7 g Nm−3and

9.6 g Nm−3 when operating with S/P ratios of 1 and 2, respectively. These results
suggest that an increase in S/P ratio enhances the cracking of tar compounds, as
reported by Herguido et al. [41] in the steam gasification of biomass.
The presence of steam in the reaction environment also improves H2 production,
increasing significantly from 2.7 to 18.4 wt% when the S/P ratio is increased from
0 to 1. However, the increase in H2 production (19.9 wt%) is moderate when a S/P
value of 2 is used. Similarly, gas yield increases slightly from 3.4 m3 kg−1 HDPE to
3.6 m3 kg−1 HDPE when the S/P ratio is raised from 1 to 2. The following aspects can
explain these results: (i) promotion of hydrocarbon reforming reactions (Eq. (1)) as
steam concentration is higher and (ii) low tar and char formation rate, although this
effect is of lower significance. A similar trend has been reported in the literature,
although some authors attain a saturating trend, i.e., a higher steam/tire ratio than
the optimum one does not increase the gas yield [42, 43].
Moreover, Figure 3 displays the composition of the gases formed at different
temperatures (Figure 3a) and S/P ratios (Figure 3b). As observed in Figure 3a,
an increase in temperature leads to an increase in the concentrations of H2, CO,
and CH4 in the gaseous stream, which are 60.3, 28.2, and 7.2% vol., respectively, at
900°C. Temperature has an opposite effect on C2–C5 hydrocarbons (made up mainly
of olefins, with ethylene being the major one), whereas that on CO2 was almost
negligible (the concentration is almost steady).
The higher concentration of H2 and CO can be explained by the endothermic
nature of steam and dry reforming reactions (Eqs. (1) and (4)), which are pro-
moted at higher temperatures, whereas that of CH4 is due to the endothermicity
of HDPE cracking reactions. On the contrary, the C2–C5 hydrocarbons formed are
probably reformed, and therefore their yield decreases as temperature is higher.
It should be noted that the water-gas shift reaction (Eq. (6)) is exothermic, and
therefore thermodynamic equilibrium shifts toward the formation of CO at high
temperatures.
Regarding the gas composition (Figure 3b), an increase in S/P ratio from 1 to
2 does not lead to a significant change, but the composition of the gas when only
pyrolysis is performed (S/P = 0) is very different. As observed, the presence of steam
favors H2 and CO2 formation but reduces that of CO and CH4 because the higher
concentration of steam in the reactor enhances both water-gas shift and methane
reforming reactions. Other authors have observed a similar effect of S/P ratio on the
gas composition in the gasification of different polymeric materials [42, 43].

Figure 3.
Effect of gasification temperature (a) and S/P ratio (b) on the gaseous fraction composition.

10
Development of the Conical Spouted Bed Technology for Biomass and Waste Plastic Gasification
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86761

3.2 Biomass gasification

3.2.1 Effect of temperature and S/B ratio

The same reaction indices in plastic gasification, i.e., the gas yield, tar content,
carbon conversion efficiency, and H2 production, have been analyzed in this section
(Table 3). Temperature is one of the more influential variables in steam gasifica-
tion, and its effect has been studied in the 800–900°C range for a steam/biomass
ratio of 1. Moreover, the effect of steam/biomass ratio has been studied in the 0–2
range at 900°C. Note that no steam was fed into the reactor in the runs carried out
with a S/B ratio of 0, but the sawdust contained a moisture content of approxi-
mately 10%, and water is formed during the thermal degradation of biomass.
Therefore, some steam reforming will occur even in the runs without water in the
feed (runs with S/B = 0).
As observed in Table 3, the temperature plays a crucial role in the efficiency of
the gasification process. An increase in the gasification temperature reduces the
tar content in the gaseous product from 364.4 g Nm−3 at 800°C to 142.5 g Nm−3
at 900°C. The gas yield also increases from 0.7 m3 kg−1 of biomass at 800°C to
1 m3 kg−1 of biomass at 900°C, whereas that of char decreases from 8.9% at 800°C
to 4.5% at 900°C. In the same line, the carbon conversion efficiency in the process
is considerably higher as temperature is increased, and char yield is therefore lower.
In fact, char gasification kinetics is enhanced by temperature due to the highly
endothermic nature of char steam gasification (Eq. (3)) and Boudouard (Eq. (4))
reactions. The increase in char conversion with temperature is related to the shift
in equilibrium in both reactions [44]. However, this result depends on the char
residence time in the reactor. Thus, char gasification reaction kinetics is slow, even
above 800°C.
Although the content of tar is reduced to 142.5 g Nm−3 operating at 900°C due
to the positive effect of temperature on tar cracking and reforming reactions, this
value is still high for syngas applications. It should be noted that no defluidization
problems are observed in the steam gasification, which is due to the vigorous solid
cyclic movement in the conical spouted bed. However, the conventional spouted
bed regime leads to short residence times (below 0.5 s), which are beneficial to
increase the yield of bio-oil in pyrolysis processes, but in gasification they are
responsible for the limited tar cracking, whose concentration in the gaseous stream
is rather high, as observed in Table 3.
Given that the tar yield is highly dependent on several parameters, such as
residence time, temperature, and S/B ratio, the results showed in the literature vary
greatly depending on the technology used, but all of them evidence a significant
decrease in tar content in the gaseous product stream with temperature [45–47].
With respect to the experiments carried out with different S/B ratios (Table 3),
an increase in this parameter improves the gasification performance by increasing
the gas yield and carbon efficiency and lowering that of tar. For example, tar con-
centration has been reduced from 154 g Nm−3 with a S/B = 0 to 142.5 g Nm−3 with a
S/B = 1, given that an increase in the S/B ratio promotes tar cracking and reforming
reactions (Eq. (1)). However, a further increase in the S/B ratio from 1 to 2 only
reduces slightly the tar content of the gaseous product. Likewise, the gas yield
increases from S/B 0 to 1 (from 0.9 to 1 m3 kg−1 of biomass) but hardly changes as
S/B is increased from 1 to 2.
The reduction in the tar and char content leads to an increase in the carbon con-
version efficiency, attaining the maximum value of 70% with a S/B = 2. Although
gasification efficiency is improved in terms of biomass conversion, the energy effi-
ciency of the process is lower when high S/B ratios are used, given that more water

11
Sustainable Alternative Syngas Fuel

Temperature S/P Tar Carbon Gas yield H2 Char

(°C) ratio content conversion (m3 kg−1) production yield
(g Nm−3) (%) (wt%) (wt%)
800 1 364.2 50.4 0.7 1.9 8.9

850 1 243.1 59.1 0.8 2.5 6.3

900 1 142.5 69.8 1.0 3.2 4.5

900 2 142.0 70.0 1.0 3.6 3.6

900 0 154.0 50.4 0.9 2.3 10.7

Table 3.
Effect of gasification temperature and S/B ratio on product fraction yields, carbon conversion efficiency, and
tar concentration, at 900°C.

need to be vaporized and the unreacted steam needs to be recovered after being
condensed. Kaushal and Tyagi [48] suggest optimum S/B ratios between 0.6 and
0.85, which guarantee the thermal efficiency of the process and, at the same time,
the presence of enough steam in the gasifier to promote steam reforming reactions.
The composition of the gases (on a dry basis) formed at different temperatures
and different S/B ratios is displayed in Figure 4. As observed in Figure 4a, an
increase in temperature enhances H2 formation due to the endothermic nature
of the reactions involved (Eqs. (1)–(5)). Moreover, the inorganic species of the
biomass retained in the char have a positive effect on the water-gas shift reaction
(Eq. (6)) at higher temperatures [46]. Accordingly, H2 concentration increases
from 28% at 800°C to 38% at 900°C, whereas that of CO decreases from 41.5 to
32.5% in the same range of temperature. Besides, concentration of methane and
the other gaseous hydrocarbons (C2 to C4) decreases as temperature is raised due to
the enhancement of hydrocarbon reforming reactions. As in HDPE gasification, the
effect of temperature on CO2 is not of significance, as its concentration increases
slightly between 800 and 900°C.
Figure 4b shows the composition of the gaseous stream for different S/B ratios.
Given that the WGS reaction and methane and hydrocarbon reforming reactions
(Eqs. (1) and (2)) are promoted at high S/B ratios, the formation of H2 and CO2 is
enhanced, whereas that of CO and hydrocarbons is hindered. It is to note that this
effect is more remarkable when the S/B ratio is increased from 0 to 1.

Figure 4.
Gas composition (on a dry basis) for the steam gasification at different temperatures (a) and S/B ratios (b).

12
Development of the Conical Spouted Bed Technology for Biomass and Waste Plastic Gasification
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86761

3.2.2 Effect of primary catalyst

The experiments with different bed materials have been carried out at a tem-
perature of 900°C and a S/B ratio of 1. Table 4 shows the effect of the primary
catalysts used (olivine and γ-alumina) on reaction indices (gas yield, tar content, H2
production, and carbon conversion) and compares the results with those obtained
using inert sand as bed material. As observed, both olivine and γ-alumina cause
a great decrease in tar content (30.1 and 22.4 g Nm−3, respectively) compared to
the runs carried out with inert sand (142.5 g Nm−3). Accordingly, both catalysts
improve the gasification performance, with tar reduction being slightly higher for
γ-alumina (84%) than that for olivine (79%). Moreover, the carbon conversion
efficiency has a drastic increase when a primary catalyst is used, attaining a value
of 86.8% for olivine and 87.6% for γ-alumina. It is noteworthy that H2 production
peaks at 4.5 wt% when the γ-alumina is used.
As mentioned above, tar formation leads to operational problems in the gasifica-
tion and subsequent units for syngas processing; thus, the use of a catalyst, such
as olivine and γ-alumina, improves process efficiency, especially the latter, which
significantly reduces tar content. Nevertheless, olivine is cheaper and more available
because it is a natural material [49]. Other papers in the literature also report consid-
erable improvements in gasification efficiency by using primary catalysts [45, 50].
The effect primary catalysts have on gas composition is displayed in Figure 5.
As observed, γ-alumina has a greater influence on gas composition than olivine.
The presence of catalysts leads to an increase in H2 and CO2 concentrations and a

Sand Olivine γ-Alumina

−3
Tar content (g Nm ) 142.5 30.2 22.4

Carbon conversion (%) 69.7 86.8 87.6

3 −1
Gas yield (m kg ) 1.0 1.1 1.2
H2 production (wt%) 3.2 3.7 4.5
−3
Char yield (g Nm ) 4.5 4.3 4.3

Table 4.
Effect of the primary catalysts on reaction indices.

Figure 5.
Effect of primary catalysts on the composition of the gaseous fraction.

13
Sustainable Alternative Syngas Fuel

reduction in that of CO due to the promotion of the water-gas shift reaction (Eq. (6)).
In addition, the higher concentration of H2 by the presence of this type of catalyst is
also related to the enhancement of tar cracking and reforming reactions (Eq. (1)).
Moreover, γ-alumina also seems to promote methane and light hydrocarbon reform-
ing (Eq. (3)), which can be deduced from their lower concentration in the presence
of this catalyst.

3.2.3 Effect of fountain confinement on biomass gasification

Runs have been carried out with a S/B ratio of 2 and at a temperature of 850°C
with different spouting regimes and gas flow patterns developed in conical spouted
beds, such as (i) standard spouting regime without fountain confiner, (ii) standard
spouting regime with fountain confiner, and (iii) enhanced fountain regime with
fountain confiner. Table 5 compares the gas yield, tar content, carbon conversion
efficiency, char yield, and H2 production results obtained for the three configura-
tions mentioned.
As observed in Table 5, the incorporation of the fountain confiner leads to a
decrease in tar content in the syngas from 49.2 g Nm−3 without fountain confiner to
34.6 g Nm−3 when this device is inserted. The volatiles in the conventional spouted
bed gasifier leave quickly from the reaction zone through the outlet located in the
gasifier upper section. Thus, the short residence time of the volatiles limits the
contact of tars and other gaseous products with the catalyst, which hinders crack-
ing and reforming reactions and therefore lowers conversion efficiency. On the
contrary, the fountain confiner prevents the premature leaving of the gases at an
initial stage in the biomass gasification and causes a downward gas flow inside the
confiner, which favors the contact between the volatile stream and the catalyst.
Furthermore, the confined fountain and the use of draft tubes lead to a highly
stable hydrodynamic regime, which allows operating with finer materials (lower
particle sizes of olivine) and higher fountain heights [24].
In order to analyze the influence on the gasification performance by changing
the gas-catalyst contact in the reactor, especially in the fountain region, runs with
the fountain confiner were performed under similar residence times (same reactor
geometry and gas flow rate) as in conventional conical spouted beds. As observed
in Table 5, the promotion of steam reforming of tars and gaseous hydrocarbons
using the confinement system improved the gas yield and H2 production from 1.1 to
1.2 m3 kg−1 and from 3.5 to 4.6 wt%, respectively. In the same line, the carbon con-
version efficiency also increased when the confinement system was used, given that
a value of 83.6% was obtained instead of 81.5% without this system. It should be
remarked that these values are slightly higher than those reported by other authors
in fluidized bed reactors under similar conditions [51, 52].

Without With confiner (standard With confiner (enhanced

confiner spouting) fountain)

Tar content (g Nm−3) 49.2 34.6 20.6

Carbon conversion (%) 81.5 83.6 86.1
3 −1
Gas yield (m kg ) 1.1 1.2 1.3

H2 production (wt%) 3.5 4.6 5.0

−3
Char yield (g Nm ) 6.5 6.2 6.0

Table 5.
Influence of the confinement system and spouting regime on the reaction indices.

14
Development of the Conical Spouted Bed Technology for Biomass and Waste Plastic Gasification
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86761

Figure 6.
Influence of the confinement system and spouting regime on gas composition.

Table 5 also shows that the results are greatly improved under fountain-
enhanced regime by decreasing olivine particle size and increasing the fountain
height. In fact, the tar content in the gas is reduced from 34.6 g Nm−3 under con-
ventional spouting regime up to 20.6 g Nm−3 under enhanced fountain regime. This
improvement is associated with the better gas-catalyst contact and heat transfer
rates in the fountain region due to the higher fountain height. Furthermore, the
smaller particle size of olivine increased the catalyst surface area available for crack-
ing and reforming reactions [14]. Moreover, gas composition with and without
confiner (under conventional and fountain-enhanced regime) is shown in Figure 6.
As observed in Figure 6, H2 concentration increases from 36 to 42% with and
without the fountain confiner, whereas that of CO decreases. The effect on CO2
is not so remarkable, but its concentration is slightly higher when the fountain
confiner is introduced. Furthermore, the concentration of methane and the other
gaseous hydrocarbons decreased due to the higher extent of steam reforming
reactions involving methane (Eq. (2)) and tar (Eq. (1)), as well as of water-gas
shift (Eq. (6)) reactions when the fountain confiner was used. This improvement
is related to the increase in the gas residence time and the better contact of the gas
with the catalyst attained when the fountain confiner is used. It is noteworthy that
effect of the fountain-enhanced regime on the gas composition is rather limited.
The most significant change is that regarding H2 concentration, whose value
increases to 43.2%.

4. Conclusions

The conical spouted bed reactor is an interesting technology for the continuous
steam gasification of biomass and waste plastics due to the high heat transfer rates
for a highly endothermic process (as is gasification) as well as to the absence of
defluidization problems. An increase in gasification temperature improves process
efficiency in terms of conversion to gases, with the maximum carbon conversion
being of 70 and 91.1% at 900°C for biomass and HDPE, respectively. Furthermore,
steam/feed ratio has a positive effect on the composition of the gas by increasing the
H2 concentration from 32 to 61% in the HDPE gasification and from 28 to 42% in
that of biomass when steam/feed ratio is increased from 0 to 2. In fact, higher steam
concentrations in the reaction environment enhance both tar cracking and char

15
Sustainable Alternative Syngas Fuel

gasification and so increase carbon conversion efficiency. Nevertheless, the concen-

tration of the tars attained is still high for its direct application. The use of primary
catalysts, such as olivine and γ-alumina, has shown an excellent performance for
tar elimination as their content is being reduced by up to 30.1 and 22.4 g Nm−3 with
olivine and γ-alumina, respectively.
The incorporation of a fountain confiner in the CSBR allows modifying bed
hydrodynamics, i.e., increase the residence time of the volatiles and improve their
contact with the catalyst in order to promote gasification performance and favor tar
cracking. Hence, H2 productions and carbon conversion efficiencies increase when
the fountain confiner is introduced from 3.5 to 4.6 wt% and from 81.5 to 83.6%,
respectively. Moreover, the H2 concentration increases from 36 to 42%, whereas
that of CO decreases from 34 to 29% with and without the fountain confiner.
This device allows operating under enhanced fountain regime by reducing olivine
particle size, which leads to a better contact between olivine and the gases, and
therefore tar content is further reduced, and the carbon conversion efficiency
increases up to 86.1%.

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out with financial support from the Ministry of Economy
and Competitiveness of the Spanish Government (CTQ2016-75535-R (AEI/
FEDER, UE) and CTQ-2015-69436-R (MINECO/FEDER, UE)), the European
Regional Development Funds (ERDF), the Basque Government (IT748-13), and the
University of the Basque Country (UFI 11/39).

Author details

Jon Alvarez1, Gartzen Lopez2*, María Cortazar2, Laura Santamaria2,

Enara Fernandez2 and Martin Olazar2

1 Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of the

Basque Country UPV/EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

2 Department of Chemical Engineering, University of the Basque Country UPV/

EHU, Bilbao, Spain

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.

16
Development of the Conical Spouted Bed Technology for Biomass and Waste Plastic Gasification
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86761

References

[1] Damartzis T, Zabaniotou A. performance and tar composition in a

Thermochemical conversion of biomass fountain enhanced conical spouted bed.
to second generation biofuels through Energy Conversion and Management.
integrated process design—A review. 2018;171:1589-1597
Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews. 2011;15:366-378 [10] Rios MLV, Gonzalez AM, Lora
EES, Almazan O. Reduction of tar
[2] Segurado R, Pereira S, Correia D, generated during biomass gasification:
Costa M. Techno-economic analysis of a A review. Biomass and Bioenergy.
trigeneration system based on biomass 2018;108:345-370
gasification. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews. 2019;103:501-514 [11] Karl J, Pröll T. Steam gasification
of biomass in dual fluidized bed
[3] Shahbaz M, Yusup S, Inayat A, gasifiers: A review. Renewable
Patrick DO, Ammar M. The influence of and Sustainable Energy Reviews.
catalysts in biomass steam gasification 2018;98:64-78
and catalytic potential of coal bottom
ash in biomass steam gasification: A [12] Aznar MP, Caballero MA, Sancho
review. Renewable and Sustainable JA, Francés E. Plastic waste elimination
Energy Reviews. 2017;73:468-476 by co-gasification with coal and
biomass in fluidized bed with air in
[4] Arena U. Process and technological pilot plant. Fuel Processing Technology.
aspects of municipal solid waste 2006;87:409-420
gasification. A review. Waste
Management. 2012;32:625-639 [13] Devi L, Ptasinski KJ, Janssen FJJG. A
review of the primary measures for
[5] Di Blasi C. Combustion and tar elimination in biomass gasification
gasification rates of lignocellulosic processes. Biomass and Bioenergy.
chars. Progress in Energy and 2003;24:125-140
Combustion Science. 2009;35:121-140
[14] Devi L, Craje M, Thune P, Ptasinski
[6] Font Palma C. Modelling of tar KJ, Janssen F. Olivine as tar removal
formation and evolution for biomass catalyst for biomass gasifiers: Catalyst
gasification: A review. Applied Energy. characterization. Applied Catalysis,
2013;111:129-141 A: General. 2005;294:68-79

[7] Zhou B, Dichiara A, Zhang Y, [15] Tian Y, Zhou X, Lin S, Ji X, Bai J,

Zhang Q , Zhou J. Tar formation and Xu M. Syngas production from air-
evolution during biomass gasification: steam gasification of biomass with
An experimental and theoretical study. natural catalysts. Science of the Total
Fuel. 2018;234:944-953 Environment. 2018;645:518-523

[8] Anis S, Zainal ZA. Tar reduction in [16] Gusta E, Dalai AK, Uddin MA,
biomass producer gas via mechanical, Sasaoka E. Catalytic decomposition of
catalytic and thermal methods: A biomass tars with dolomites. Energy and
review. Renewable and Sustainable Fuels. 2009;23:2264-2272
Energy Reviews. 2011;15:2355-2377
[17] Artetxe M, Alvarez J, Nahil
[9] Cortazar M, Alvarez J, Lopez G, MA, Olazar M, Williams PT. Steam
Amutio M, Santamaria L, Bilbao J, et al. reforming of different biomass tar
Role of temperature on gasification model compounds over Ni/Al2O3

17
Sustainable Alternative Syngas Fuel

catalysts. Energy Conversion and [25] Olazar M, San José MJ, Aguayo AT,
Management. 2017;136:119-126 Arandes JM, Bilbao J. Design factors of
conical spouted beds and jet spouted
[18] Caballero MA, Aznar MP, Gil beds. Industrial and Engineering
J, Martín JA, Francés E, Corella Chemistry Research. 1993;32:1245-1250
J. Commercial steam reforming catalysts
to improve biomass gasification with [26] Alvarez J, Hooshdaran B, Cortazar
steam-oxygen mixtures. 1. Hot gas M, Amutio M, Lopez G, Freire FB,
upgrading by the catalytic reactor. et al. Valorization of citrus wastes by
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry fast pyrolysis in a conical spouted bed
Research. 1997;36:5227-5239 reactor. Fuel. 2018;224:111-120

[19] Xiong Q , Yeganeh MM, Yaghoubi [27] Alvarez J, Lopez G, Amutio M,

E, Asadi A, Doranehgard MH, Hong Bilbao J, Olazar M. Bio-oil production
K. Parametric investigation on biomass from rice husk fast pyrolysis in a
gasification in a fluidized bed gasifier conical spouted bed reactor. Fuel.
and conceptual design of gasifier. 2014;128:162-169
Chemical Engineering and Processing.
2018;127:271-291 [28] Alvarez J, Amutio M, Lopez G,
Barbarias I, Bilbao J, Olazar M. Sewage
[20] Molino A, Chianese S, Musmarra sludge valorization by flash pyrolysis in
D. Biomass gasification technology: a conical spouted bed reactor. Chemical
The state of the art overview. Journal of Engineering Journal. 2015;273:173-183
Energy Chemistry. 2016;25:10-25
[29] Artetxe M, Lopez G, Elordi
[21] Sansaniwal SK, Pal K, Rosen MA, G, Amutio M, Bilbao J, Olazar
Tyagi SK. Recent advances in the M. Production of light olefins from
development of biomass gasification polyethylene in a two-step process:
technology: A comprehensive Pyrolysis in a conical spouted bed
review. Renewable and Sustainable and downstream high-temperature
Energy Reviews. 2017;72:363-384 thermal cracking. Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry Research.
[22] Aguado R, Alvarez S, San José MJ, 2012;51:13915-13923
Olazar M, Bilbao J. Gas flow distribution
modelling in conical spouted beds. [30] Alvarez J, Lopez G, Amutio M,
Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. Mkhize NM, Danon B, van der Gryp
2005;20:613-618 P, et al. Evaluation of the properties
of tyre pyrolysis oils obtained in a
[23] Makibar J, Fernandez-Akarregi conical spouted bed reactor. Energy.
AR, Alava I, Cueva F, Lopez G, Olazar 2017;128:463-474
M. Investigations on heat transfer
and hydrodynamics under pyrolysis [31] Altzibar H, Lopez G, Bilbao J,
conditions of a pilot-plant draft Olazar M. Minimum spouting velocity
tube conical spouted bed reactor. of conical spouted beds equipped with
Chemical Engineering and Processing. draft tubes of different configuration.
2011;50:790-798 Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Research. 2013;52:2995-3006
[24] Altzibar H, Estiati I, Lopez G,
Saldarriaga JF, Aguado R, Bilbao [32] Makibar J, Fernandez-Akarregi AR,
J, et al. Fountain confined conical Díaz L, Lopez G, Olazar M. Pilot scale
spouted beds. Powder Technology. conical spouted bed pyrolysis reactor:
2017;312:334-346 Draft tube selection and hydrodynamic

18
Development of the Conical Spouted Bed Technology for Biomass and Waste Plastic Gasification
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86761

performance. Powder Technology. Influence of temperature on gas yield

2012;219:49-58 and composition. International Journal
of Hydrogen Energy. 2009;34:1342-1348
[33] Lopez G, Cortazar M, Alvarez J,
Amutio M, Bilbao J, Olazar M. [41] Herguido J, Corella J, González-
Assessment of a conical spouted with Saiz J. Steam gasification of
an enhanced fountain bed for biomass lignocellulosic residues in a fluidized
gasification. Fuel. 2017;203:825-831 bed at a small pilot scale. Effect of
the type of feedstock. Industrial and
[34] Schmid JC, Wolfesberger U, Engineering Chemistry Research.
Koppatz S, Pfeifer C, Hofbauer 1992;31:1274-1282
H. Variation of feedstock in a dual
fluidized bed steam gasifier-influence [42] Donatelli A, Iovane P, Molino
on product gas, tar content, and A. High energy syngas production
composition. Environmental Progress & by waste tyres steam gasification in a
Sustainable Energy. 2012;31:205-215 rotary kiln pilot plant. Experimental
and numerical investigations. Fuel.
[35] Wu C, Williams PT. Pyrolysis- 2010;89:2721-2728
gasification of plastics, mixed plastics
and real-world plastic waste with [43] Wu C, Williams PT. Hydrogen
and without Ni-Mg-Al catalyst. Fuel. production from the pyrolysis-
2010;89:3022-3032 gasification of polypropylene: Influence
of steam flow rate, carrier gas flow rate
[36] Arena U, Zaccariello L, Mastellone and gasification temperature. Energy
ML. Fluidized bed gasification of waste- and Fuels. 2009;23:5055-5061
derived fuels. Waste Management.
2010;30:1212-1219 [44] Baratieri M, Baggio P, Fiori L,
Grigiante M. Biomass as an energy
[37] Niu Y, Han F, Chen Y, Lyu Y, source: Thermodynamic constraints
Wang L. Experimental study on on the performance of the conversion
steam gasification of pine particles for process. Bioresource Technology.
hydrogen-rich gas. Journal of the Energy 2008;99:7063-7073
Institute. 2017;90:715-724
[45] Rapagna S, Jand N, Kiennemann
[38] Michel R, Rapagna S, Di Marcello A, Foscolo PU. Steam-gasification of
M, Burg P, Matt M, Courson C, biomass in a fluidised-bed of olivine
et al. Catalytic steam gasification of particles. Biomass and Bioenergy.
Miscanthus X giganteus in fluidised 2000;19:187-197
bed reactor on olivine based catalysts.
Fuel Processing Technology. [46] Wei L, Xu S, Zhang L, Liu C, Zhu H,
2011;92:1169-1177 Liu S. Steam gasification of biomass for
hydrogen-rich gas in a free-fall reactor.
[39] Barisano D, Canneto G, Nanna International Journal of Hydrogen
F, Alvino E, Pinto G, Villone A, et al. Energy. 2007;32:24-31
Steam/oxygen biomass gasification at
pilot scale in an internally circulating [47] Umeki K, Yamamoto K, Namioka T,
bubbling fluidized bed reactor. Fuel Yoshikawa K. High temperature steam-
Processing Technology. 2016;141:74-81 only gasification of woody biomass.
Applied Energy. 2010;87:791-798
[40] He M, Xiao B, Hu Z, Liu S, Guo X,
Luo S. Syngas production from catalytic [48] Kaushal P, Tyagi R. Steam assisted
gasification of waste polyethylene: biomass gasification-an overview.

19
Sustainable Alternative Syngas Fuel

Canadian Journal of Chemical

Engineering. 2012;90:1043-1058

[49] Erkiaga A, Lopez G, Amutio M,

Bilbao J, Olazar M. Steam gasification of
biomass in a conical spouted bed reactor
with olivine and γ-alumina as primary
catalysts. Fuel Processing Technology.
2013;116:292-299

[50] Koppatz S, Pfeifer C, Hofbauer

H. Comparison of the performance
behaviour of silica sand and olivine in
a dual fluidised bed reactor system for
steam gasification of biomass at pilot
plant scale. Chemical Engineering
Journal. 2011;175:468-483

[51] Franco C, Pinto F, Gulyurtlu

I, Cabrita I. The study of reactions
influencing the biomass steam
gasification process. Fuel.
2003;82:835-842

[52] Carpenter DL, Bain RL, Davis RE,

Dutta A, Feik CJ, Gaston KR, et al.
Pilot-scale gasification of corn stover,
switchgrass, wheat straw, and wood: 1.
Parametric study and comparison with
literature. Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry Research. 2010;49:1859-1871

20