Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Auger reactors for pyrolysis of biomass and wastes T

a b a,⁎
Felipe Campuzano , Robert C. Brown , Juan Daniel Martínez
a
Grupo de Investigaciones Ambientales, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Circular 1ra N°74-50, Medellín, Colombia
b
Bioeconomy Institute, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Pyrolysis is one of the most efficient and environmentally attractive thermochemical processes for conversion of
Auger reactor both biomass and wastes to energy products. This review focuses on the use of auger reactors, also known as
Biomass screw reactors, for the pyrolysis of carbonaceous solids into liquid, gaseous and solid products that can be used in
Pyrolysis the production of fuels and other valued-added products. The auger reactor is attractive for its versatility in
Solid waste
transforming a wide range of feedstocks, and has been recognized as one of the technologies with better
strengths not only for fast pyrolysis, but also for slow or intermediate pyrolysis. Auger pyrolyzers are of relatively
simple design and overcome some of the problems of conveying heat for pyrolyzing biomass or wastes. The
mechanical forces associated with auger reactors enhance particle mixing and heat transfer, which are key to
successful pyrolysis. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the advantages and challenges of this
technology and identify the main characteristics of both single- and twin-screw auger technology. The effect of
operating conditions on yield and some properties of pyrolysis products are also provided. The review includes
examples of commercial/demonstration-scale auger pyrolysis plants operated around the world.

1. Introduction
The use of renewable resources and waste streams as energy are
increasing because of several issues including society's dependence on
fossil fuels and concerns about global warming [1]. The world con-
tinues to rely heavily on fossil fuels to meet increasing energy demand.
Indeed, in 2015 the share of these fuels (coal, natural gas and oil) as
primary energy was around 86% [2]. However, the reserves/production
ratios for natural gas and oil are estimated to be less than 60 years.
Likewise, it is well-known that the use of fossil fuels are closely linked
to environmental degradation that threats human health, not only
through greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions that lead to the climate
change, but also to several gaseous and particulate pollutants released
during fossil fuel combustion [3].
Moreover, economic growth, urbanization, industrialization, and
the increase of vehicles, have led to considerable volumes of solid and
hazardous wastes that in turn have produced negative effects on health,
as well as increased both air and water pollution. According to the
World Bank, the municipal waste generation worldwide is expected to
rise to 2.2 billion tons per year by 2025 [4]. Reducing the environ-
mental and social problems associated with these waste streams are
among the most important challenges of the 21th century.
A number of studies have reported that power generation from
residual biomass and waste can offer new sources of income to devel-
oping countries by creating employment opportunities in bioenergy. It
could reduce rural poverty, one of the Millennium Development Goals
[5]. Bioenergy is an important option for replacement of fossil fuels and
the mitigation of GHG emissions.
Biomass and wastes represent around 10% of the total primary
energy supply in the world, estimated to be about 13,647 Mtoe for 2015
[6]. These feedstocks have increased their importance as renewable
source not only for their potential to produce heat and power, but also
for their ability to be transformed into more versatile fuel forms or
commodity chemicals [7]. Indeed, the International Renewable Energy
Agency (IRENA) has developed a Global Renewable Energy Roadmap
(Remap 2030) that calls for doubling the share of renewables in the
global energy mix by 2030. This ambitious target is derived from the
Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All) initiative. The REmap 2030 aims for
biomass to become the most important renewable resource by 2030
with biomass accounting for 60% of global renewable energy use and
dominating end-use sectors. This goal would represent 20% of global
primary energy supply, doubling its current share [8].
Biofuels can be integrated into existing fuel transport and use in-
frastructure as stand-alone or in blends with petroleum based fuels [9].
However, it still faces several challenges, especially in developing
countries and emerging economies, due to the lack of industrial

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: juand.martinez@upb.edu.co (J.D. Martínez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.014
Received 12 April 2018; Received in revised form 1 October 2018; Accepted 9 December 2018
1364-0321/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Campuzano et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

Table 1
Overview of fast pyrolysis reactor characteristics (adapted from [30]).
Reactor type Status (kg/h) Liquid fraction yield1 (wt%) Complexity Feed size specification Inert gas requirements Specific reactor size Scale up

BFB Commercial (2,000–20,000) 75 Medium High High Medium Easy

CFB Commercial (2,000–20,000) 75 High High High Medium Easy
Rotating cone Demonstration (200–2000) 70 High High Low Low Medium
Entrained flow Laboratory (1–20) 60 Medium High High Medium Easy
Ablative Laboratory (1–20) 75 High Low Low Low Difficult
Auger Pilot (20–700)2 60 Medium Medium Low Low Medium

1: on dry biomass basis.

2: Nowadays, there are auger plants able to process up to 700 kg/h, although Ref. [30] indicates up to 200 kg/h.

experience at high industrial scale, the absence of support policies,
market barriers and the limited investment in research and develop-
ment activities [10].
Pyrolysis, the thermal decomposition of organic materials in the
absence of oxygen, is a promising technology for converting biomass
and wastes into energy products. Employed for thousands of years to
produce charcoal, more recent interest focuses on the ability of pyr-
olysis to produce liquid fuels and/or value-added products from bio-
mass and wastes [11–16]
Several kinds of reactors can be used for pyrolysis including those
involving high heat and mass transfer rates such as spouted, and flui-
dized beds, both bubbling beds (BFB) and circulating beds (CFB). Other
reactors comprise autoclaves, melting vessels, plasma reactors and
particular arrangements to enable vacuum pyrolysis [12]. Similarly, it
is also possible to find rotary kilns [17], rotating cone [18], cyclonic
reactors [19], and the ablative process [20], among others. Table 1
characterizes several of the more commonly employed reactors for fast
pyrolysis of biomass. All these reactors/configurations have advantages
and disadvantages in terms of technical and economic parameters. They
are also used for different energy applications depending on the feed-
stock characteristics and the final target (heat, electricity, liquid or
gaseous products and/or carbonaceous materials), which finally de-
termine the type of pyrolysis (slow, intermediate, fast). The literature
contains many reports on the operation and performance of these var-
ious kinds of reactors [17,21–28].
Table 1 also shows a summary of some key features of fast pyrolysis
reactor systems, highlighting their relative merits. Fluidized beds (both
BFB and the CFB) and the rotating cone have received special interest
and they are available at large-scale plants. Particularly, BFB and CFB
are considered as robust and scalable reactors and are widely employed
in demonstration and commercial pyrolysis plants. Nevertheless, they
are among the more complex reactors to operate and require large
quantities of inert gas to fluidize the bed media [29]. In addition,
providing the enthalpy for pyrolysis through heat transfer becomes
increasingly difficult as the reactors are scaled up.
Moreover, these technologies (BFB, CFB) present an important
problem related to the solid fraction attrition [30]. These reactors use
hot solid media in order to achieve high heat transfer coefficients
through solid/solid collisions leading to attrition phenomena and pro-
ducing fine particles in the resulting pyrolytic solid fraction [31]. These
small particles, which are the result of the shrinking/attrition phe-
nomena, hinder the separation process and hence, the liquid fraction
contains higher solid concentrations, promoting aging, erosion,
blockage and combustion problems [22]. Particulate-free liquid is de-
sirable both in direct-fired applications and for refining to transporta-
tion fuels.
The biomass Pyrolysis Network (PyNe) published a chart that
compares the relative technology and market attractiveness of several
pyrolysis technologies (Fig. 1). This analysis indicated that BFB, CFB
and auger reactors are the strongest contenders for commercial devel-
opment. Reactors with moving mechanical components and high par-
ticle velocities throughout the length of the reactor, such as ablative
and rotating cone configurations, are more compact and use relative
small amounts of inert gas. However, they are difficult to scale and
moving parts expose to both high velocities and temperatures are
subjected to corrosion and metal fatigue [30].
Auger reactors, which use a screw to convey a single feedstock or a
blend with solid heat carriers down the length of a tube, are gaining

Fig. 1. Strength and attractiveness of some pyrolysis technologies (adapted from [32]).

373
F. Campuzano et al.
attention not only for fast pyrolysis, but also for slow or intermediate
pyrolysis. They are of relatively simple design and overcome some of
the problems of conveying heat for pyrolyzing biomass or wastes. They
also have prospects for small scale, distributed processing of different
kinds of feedstocks.
Brassard et al. [29] recently reviewed auger reactor designs and the
effect of various operational parameters on their performance. This
paper offers a more comprehensive review of auger pyrolyzers in-
cluding pyrolysis fundamentals, modes of heat transfer, mechanical
design of conveyance screws, and detailed description of various auger
reactor systems being investigated around the world as well as the ef-
fect of operating conditions on yield and quality of pyrolysis products.
Advantages and challenges of this technology are also identified, and
the main characteristics of both single-screw and twin-screw auger
configurations are outlined.
2. Auger reactors for pyrolysis
2.1. Pyrolysis fundamentals
Pyrolysis is an endothermic process performed in an oxygen-free
atmosphere between 250 and 600 °C depending on the feedstock
characteristics and the objective to be achieved: to maximize the solid,
the liquid or the gaseous fraction. As described by Neves et al. [33],
pyrolysis requires heat to be transported into the reactor to drive the
thermal decomposition of the feedstock into products, as illustrated in
Fig. 2. Pyrolysis is the first step in gasification or combustion processes,
which is followed by cracking and/or oxidation of gaseous products and
oxidation of char.
Pyrolysis is mainly classified according to the temperature, heating
rate, feedstock residence time, and vapor residence time, as shown in
Table 2. Usually, pyrolysis is conducted in an inert gas environment at
atmospheric or slightly high pressure, although vacuum conditions [34]
or pressurized hydrogen (hydropyrolysis) are sometimes employed
[35]. As observed in Table 2, auger reactors can be used under different
pyrolysis conditions to accomplish slow pyrolysis (char production),
intermediate pyrolysis (production of liquid, solid and gaseous frac-
tions), and fast pyrolysis (where the liquid fraction is maximized) which
is not possible with other technologies.
Thermal degradation of solid carbonaceous feedstock under non-
oxidizing atmosphere occurs as three distinct steps: drying of the solid,
primary reactions that release volatile products and secondary reactions
that decompose the products of primary reactions [33]. Products from
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of pyrolysis.
374
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
primary reactions are produced from the thermal scission of chemical
bonds in the individual constituents of feedstock and comprise per-
manent gas species and condensable species at ambient conditions
(several organic compounds and water). The primary pyrolysis stage
starts at temperatures as low as 250 °C and continues to temperatures as
high as 500 °C. These products can participate in secondary reactions
unless they are rapidly removed from the reactor and cooled. Secondary
reactions include cracking, reforming, dehydration, condensation,
polymerization, charring, oxidation and gasification. Details on pyr-
olysis chemistry can be find elsewhere [36–38].
Pyrolysis under slow conditions (low heating rates, and relatively
long residence time for both vapors and solids) is known as carboni-
zation and has been used for thousands of years to produce charcoal
from biomass [11]. In contrast, intermediate pyrolysis, involves much
higher heating rates than slow pyrolysis, on the order of 100 °C/min,
while the vapor residence time is between 10 and 30 s [39,40]. Fast
pyrolysis occurs at higher heating rates than intermediate pyrolysis, on
the order of 1000 °C/min, and the vapor residence time must be less
than 2 s [23]. Fast pyrolysis requires feedstock with small particle sizes
and provisions for quickly removing and cooling pyrolysis products,
which favors the formation of liquid products. The size and shape of the
feedstock particles are less critical in intermediate pyrolysis than in fast
pyrolysis, which allows a wider variety of feedstock [41]. In addition,
intermediate pyrolysis liquids from biomass and waste have showed
improved properties which are, to a certain degree, more comparable to
those from biodiesel and diesel fuels [42,43]. Ultra-fast or flash pyr-
olysis is an extremely rapid thermal decomposition pyrolysis with a
very high heating rate, which can vary from 1000 to 10,000 °C/min.
The ablative process is a good example of flash pyrolysis.
When liquids are the desired product, volatiles released in the
pyrolysis process should be condensed before further reactions break
down the higher molecular weight species transforming them into
lighter gaseous products [11]. This liquid, often known as bio-oil when
lignocellulosic biomass is used as feedstock, has been recently defined
as represented in CAS Registry Number 1207435-39-9: “Liquid con-
densate recovered by thermal treatment of lignocellulosic biomass at short
hot vapor residence time (typically less than about 5 s) typically at between
450 and 600 °C, at near atmospheric pressure or below, in the absence of
oxygen, and using small (typically less than 5 mm) dry (typically less than
10% water) biomass particles” [44]. The ASTM D7544-12 standard
specifies some properties for two grades of bio-oil (grade G and grade
D) intended for use in various types of fuel-burning equipment under
various climatic and operating conditions [45].
F. Campuzano et al.
Table 2
Types of pyrolysis, process conditions, technology and main yields.
Type of pyrolysis Pyrolysis conditions
Volatiles residence time Solid residence time
Fast Up to 2 s Short
Intermediate Between 10 and 30 s From seconds to min
Slow – Torrefaction From min to h From min to h
Slow – Carbonization Long From h to days
The liquid fraction produced in biomass pyrolysis process at fast
conditions is a complex mixture of water and organic compounds with
water content typically in the range of 20–30 wt% [46]. Organic com-
pounds consist of acids, alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, esters, phenols,
guaiacols, syringols, sugars, furans, alkene, aromatics, and nitrogen
compounds and miscellaneous oxygenates [47]. Bio-oil from biomass is
highly polar and hence, immiscible with petroleum-based hydro-
carbons. Bio-oil often requires further upgrading in order to decrease its
high oxygen content and improve its physical-chemical properties
(specifically heating value, acidity and viscosity) when intended for use
as liquid fuel. These processes are currently studied all over the world
through techniques such as catalytic cracking, distillation (fractional
and reactive), and hydroprocessing [22,48–53]. Bio-oil requires further
development before it finds wide-scale commercial application [54].
Between 10 and 20 wt% of the biomass is converted to char, a
mixture of carbonaceous residue from the organic content of the bio-
mass and ash derived from minerals in the biomass. When derived from
biomass, this material is commonly referred to as biochar to distinguish
it from fossil-derived char. Biochar has a number of potential applica-
tions including catalyst supports, activated carbon and precursor for
carbon nanotubes, among others [55,56] Biochar can also be used as
soil amendment with several benefits including increasing soil carbon
content; increasing water retention; and reducing nutrient leaching
[57]. In addition to condensable vapors and biochar, pyrolysis yields
non-condensable gases including CO, CO2 and light hydrocarbon gases.
The distribution and physical-chemical characteristics of pyrolysis
products depend on feedstock composition and pyrolysis conditions
Fig. 3. Pyrolysis process scheme in a single-auger reactor.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
Technology (commonly used reactors) Main products
Heat transfer (°C/min) Temp. (°C)
High 400–600 BFB, CFB, spouted bed, entrained flow, auger. Liquid
Medium 400–600 Auger, rotary kiln, fixed bed Liquid, solid and gas
Low 250–350 Auger, rotary kiln, fixed bed Solid
Very low 300–500 Auger, rotary kiln, fixed bed Solid
including temperature, pressure, and residence time of pyrolysis pro-
ducts [16]. High temperatures and long residence times promote sec-
ondary reactions, which increase overall yields of solid and non-con-
densable gases at the expense of liquids. Under fast pyrolysis conditions
of moderate temperature and short residence times, liquid yields, in-
cluding both organic compounds and water, can be as high as 75 wt%
[1,12], while intermediate pyrolysis produces up to 55 wt% liquid
[39,40,42,43]..
Several authors argue that pyrolysis, particularly the fast one, is
more attractive than combustion and gasification since the product is
mainly liquid with prospects as fuel oil, transportation fuel, or source of
organic chemicals [58–60]. The liquid produced can reach an energy
density that is 3–5 times higher than the original feedstock.
2.2. General characteristics of auger pyrolyzers
The use of augers to convey and process solid materials is widely
used in industry. The typical auger conveyor consists of a helical screw
rotating in an enclosed shell. Auger conveyors are an integral part of
many granular conveyance systems [61,62]. The endless screw has
been used not only to convey the feedstock into the reaction vessel, but
also to evacuate the residual solid fraction. In addition to conveyance,
properly designed augers can enhance particle mixing and heat transfer
between solid heat carriers and reactants. Auger reactors enable good
axial dispersion and hence, the feedstock particles are exposed to a
higher uniformity in the length of time when thermal conditions are
applied [63].
375
F. Campuzano et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

The feedstock is fed into the reactor and conveyed by rotation of an

endless screw. To provide energy for pyrolysis in single-auger reactors,
the wall is heated to temperatures above the desired pyrolysis tem-
perature (see Fig. 3). The screw provides some mixing of the feedstock
particles, improving contact between the particles and the heated wall
to promote pyrolysis [64]. In principle, the feedstock is totally volati-
lized after it passes through the reactor. Solids and gas residence times
inside the reactor are controlled by means of auger speed and the inert
gas (usually N2) flowrate, respectively.
The main advantages and disadvantages of this technology are listed
in Table 3. These advantages make this kind of reactor one of the most
attractive and promising technologies for pyrolysis nowadays.
Auger reactors can also be configured with two intermeshing screws
encased in a reactor receiving the name of twin-screw. Intermeshing
screws (Fig. 4) promote a constant waving/shaking of the feedstock Fig. 4. Intermeshing screws in a twin-auger reactor.
instead of simple conveyance, because one screw's flights interfere with
the material movement within the other screw's flights [65]. Ad-
ditionally, the flights of the two screws wipe the spaces between the Table 4
other screw's flights as they rotate, resulting in a cleaning of material Main advantages of twin-auger configuration.
accumulations or plugs that may form on an individual screw flight Advantages
[65].
In contrast to single-auger configuration, the twin-screw or double To reduce both adhesion and clogging of feedstock given the cleaning tend during
their rotation between the screws and the inner reactor walls.
screw pyrolyzer leads to a best mixing effectiveness between the feed-
To ensure sufficient mixing conditions when heat carriers/catalysts and/or two or
stock and granular solids that work as heat carrier media. The use of more different feedstock are used.
steel balls, silicon carbide, fine or coarse sand and ceramic pellets To avoid prolonged residence times of the feedstock inside the reactor and hence, the
among others, enables direct heating of feedstock. These heat carriers occurrence of secondary reactions is minimized.
provide higher heat transfer rates as compared to the single-auger
configuration, where the heat transfer is often by indirect heating, as
mentioned above. Likewise, the twin-auger configuration promotes not
only a reduction of the power needed to drive the augers, but also best
Table 3 possibilities for a more complete feedstock devolatilization. Therefore,
Main advantages and disadvantages of auger pyrolyzers. fast pyrolysis conditions are more likely achieved in twin-augers than in
single-augers and hence, more liquids are produced, even achieving
Advantages
Suitable to use heat carriers (steel shot, ceramic balls, sand, etc.) and/or catalysts to
similar yields to those reported by BFB [66–68]. Some advantages of
ensure a complete and uniform heat transfer, with an excellent control of the twin-auger, besides to the aforementioned ones are listed in Table 4.
catalyst-to-feedstock ratio.
Excellent control of both: mass flow rate and feedstock residence time and hence, it
can be used for both fast and slow pyrolysis.
2.3. Heat supply methods in auger pyrolyzers
No sensitive to hydrodynamic bed conditions.
Simpler separation of the solid fraction (avoiding special separation devices) since it Determining the heat required for pyrolysis is an essential task in
leaves the reactor falling down by gravity into a vessel for solids collection. designing reactor systems [69]. Pyrolysis is an endothermic process
Less solid fraction attrition.
requiring the addition of heat not only to raise the temperature of re-
The same auger reactor works as a mixer promoting co-processing of different
feedstock/materials (for example co-pyrolysis) actants to pyrolysis temperature, but to drive the chemical reactions of
The pyrolysis gas produced is less diluted favoring its further utilization. pyrolysis, a quantity referred to as the enthalpy for pyrolysis [70]. Thus,
Versatility to be employed in horizontal, inclined and/or vertical installations. Some without proper provision for supplying energy to the feedstock, heat
arrangements, particularly those composed by an inclined and a vertical transfer can become rate limiting, especially as the reactor is scaled up.
disposition seems to offer a smoother and steadier flow.
Suitable for mobile applications or locations with limited infrastructure or
Daugaard and Brown [70] and Martínez et al. [71] showed mass
accessibility. and energy balances by using experimental facilities in order to de-
Suitable to be transported to the feedstock generation place (where it is abundantly termine the enthalpy for pyrolysis. The first ones used a fluidized bed
available) instead of bringing the biomass to the plant. On-site conversion of reactor at 500 °C and concluded that the average value of enthalpy for
biomass/waste reduces operation costs.
pyrolysis for different kinds of biomasses (oak, oat hulls, pine, corn
Low specific reactor size, which leads to less energy demand for conducting the
pyrolysis reactions (making the auger technology to be highly efficient from the stover) was in a range from 0.8 ± 0.2 to 1.6 ± 0.3 MJ/kg-dry. The
energy point of view) and reducing the capital cost of the pyrolysis plant. second ones operated a continuous single-auger reactor at 550 °C and
Flexibility to operate with raw materials of different typology and particle sizes. determined that the enthalpy for pyrolysis of waste tires was around 1.9
Simplicity to be designed, operated and maintained. MJ/kg. Similarly, Yang et al. [69] predicted the enthalpy for pyrolysis
Less consumption of inert gas that leads to less operating costs.
at 550 °C of five different types of dry biomass (cedar pine, willow,
Avoids that particles with low density leave the heating zone before their complete
conversion bamboo and sasa bamboo) using a single-auger reactor. The authors
Suitable conditions to be scalable at demonstration or even commercial capacities. reported that this energy is in the range of 1.1–1.6 MJ/kg. Bridgwater
Disadvantages [72], stated that the energy for pyrolysis of different kinds of biomasses
Higher residence time for the vapors released as compared to BFB, CFB and ablative
varies between 0.8 and 3.5 MJ/kg. This wide variation is attributable to
configuration, which favors the occurrence of secondary reactions.
Plugging risk and mechanical wear and tears as consequence of moving parts at high the range of temperatures, heating rates, system pressure, residence
temperatures. time (both vapors and solids), carrier gas mass flow and even reactor
Possible heat transfer difficulties at large scales. malfunctions (heat losses) etc. employed in pyrolysis systems, which
Specific operating conditions and feedstock characteristics can also lead to flow- can promote different reaction pathways (repolymerization, dehydra-
induced segregation phenomena and reduce the mixing effectiveness.
tion, and cracking, for example).
Poor mixing at radial direction.
Special flighting is required to achieve good mixing behavior. As earlier stated, the energy demanded by pyrolysis can be achieved
by either indirect heating through the reactor walls or direct heating via

376
F. Campuzano et al.
Fig. 5. Heat transfer methods for auger pyrolyzers.
heat carrier materials, as shown in Fig. 5. The first approach, more
common in intermediate and slow pyrolysis, consists in using electrical
resistances (laboratory facilities) or by burning the gas fraction released
in the pyrolysis process or an auxiliary fuel (demonstration/industrial
plants). For instance, Ferreira et al. [73] detailed a semi-continuous
pilot single-auger reactor where hot combustion gases from LPG burner
were used to carry out the pyrolysis of medium density fiberboard
(MDF) wastes. The combustion gases heated the wall of the reactor,
achieving reaction temperatures of 600 °C. Martínez et al. [71], ana-
lyzed the gas fraction released from the waste tire pyrolysis using a
single-auger reactor. They concluded that burning the gas fraction
provides enough energy not only for supplying the energy necessary for
the pyrolysis process, but also for power generation and/or other
thermal applications.
Although the second approach can also lead to intermediate pyr-
olysis, it offers excellent conditions and possibilities for fast pyrolysis.
As example of intermediate pyrolysis, the plant developed by re-
searchers of the European Bioenergy Research Institute (EBRI) at Aston
University (called Pyroformer™) uses hot recycled char, as heat carrier.
Therein, secondary reactions occur and hence, higher gas fraction,
lower molecular weight condensable compounds and less heavy tars are
produced [42,74,75].
In contrast, inert solid heat carriers (sand, steel shots, ceramic balls,
silicon carbide, etc.) are recognized as important method not only for
fast pyrolysis conditions, but also for moving sufficient heat into auger
reactors when they are scaled up [66,76,77]. This heating method ex-
hibits heat transfer conditions to perform fast pyrolysis, enabling to
heat the feedstock not only from the hot reactor wall, but also and in
major extent, through the direct contact with the preheated heat car-
rier. According to Funke et al. [78] the heat transfer coefficient in auger
reactors can be as high to 350–400 W/m2 K, i.e. above those of rotary
kilns and very similar to fluidized bed reactors. Among others, this is
attributable to the dense packing of particles that is kept by mechanical
agitation. As stated by the authors, an important condition to be ensure
is an optimum ratio of heat carrier to feedstock. In this sense, Brown
and Brown [66], conducted several biomass (red oak) pyrolysis ex-
periments by using a twin-auger reactor. Among others, the authors
studied the effect of the mass flow rate of heat carrier (steel shots), from
9 to 21 kg/h, in order to maximize the liquid fraction. They found that
bio-oil yields higher than 73.0 wt% at: 3.5 standard L/min of sweep gas
(N2), 600 °C for the heat carrier, 63 rpm for the auger speeds and 18 kg/
h for mass flow rate of heat carrier, while the mass flow rate of biomass
was 1 kg/h. Henrich et al. [76] also used a twin-auger reactor to pyr-
olyze hardwood, softwood, wheat straw and wheat bran by using
377
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
stainless steel balls. The bio-oil yields were about 65 ± 10 wt% for
wood and about 50 ± 10 wt% for cereal straw, with feeds of ap-
proximately 10 kg/h raw biomass and 1150 kg/h heat transfer media.
Depending on the thermo-physical properties of the solid feedstock
(specific heat capacity and thermal conductivity), the heat carrier is
expected to have an important effect on both pyrolysis product yield
and characteristics, and also in the reactor performance. Daugaard et al.
[77] did not find major differences in the yield of organic fraction and
composition of the bio-oil when pyrolyzing red oak in a twin-auger
reactor when using heat carriers with variations in thermal diffusivities
(stainless steel shot, fine sand, coarse sand and silicon carbide). The
only significant difference was observed in yields of reaction water,
char and non-condensable gases. Stainless steel shot appeared to have
superior performance in both low attrition and low residual carbon
yield. On the other hand, coarse sand leads to high attrition of this heat
carrier, which not only presents potential for particle entrainment in
the vapor stream but increases costs for replacing lost heat carrier. As
an alternative to heat transfer to supply the enthalpy for pyrolysis,
partially oxidizing some of the products of pyrolysis can provide this
energy. The notion of balancing the endothermic reactions of pyrolysis
with exothermic reactions of combustion is known as autothermal
pyrolysis [79]. Once the reactor has been preheated to the target
temperature, energy produced from the pyrolysis process is able to
maintain the reactor at the desired temperature. As expected, the ad-
dition of oxygen increases the production of CO and CO2 and also
modifies pyrolysis product yields and composition [80]. The impact of
oxygen addition to bio-oil yield and quality appears to depend on re-
actor design and operation. Using a bench-scale conical spouted bed for
autothermal biomass pyrolysis at 500 °C, Amutio et al. [81] reported
gas and water yields to increase, while biochar and organic compounds
in the bio-oil decreased. Polin et al. [82] used air at low equivalence
ratios in a fluidized bed pyrolyzer and found most of the energy for
pyrolysis came from oxidation of char. Although with little loss in or-
ganic content of the bio-oil.
Clearly, the elimination of separate combustors and heat transfer
equipment is an important simplification of the pyrolysis system.
Furthermore, it is much easier to provide energy by the volumetric
process of combustion compared to the surface area phenomenon of
heat transfer, especially as the reactor is scaled up and the surface area-
to-volume ratio of the reactor decreases [83]. In fact, the capacity of an
autothermal pyrolyzer scales as the cube of reactor diameter compared
to the square of reactor diameter for a conventional, heat-transfer
limited pyrolyzer. This also has important capital cost advantages in
scaling to commercial-scale reactors. Autothermal pyrolysis has been
F. Campuzano et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

demonstrated in fluidized bed reactors [79,84–86] and in conical

spouted bed reactors [81]. Whether it could also be accomplished in an
auger pyrolyzer is not clear, although good mixing will likely be re-
quired to prevent hot spots from occurring.

3. Best practices in auger reactor design

Augers were originally designed simply to convey, not to mix. They

have been used in a number of industrial applications, especially for
feeding/extraction processes. These devices have been widely used for
elevating, transporting and/or mixing solid particles at controlled and
steady rates in different industries including mining, agriculture,
building, construction, chemicals and food [87], and more recently in
energy systems. They can also be designed to either heat or cool while Fig. 7. Bearing mechanism in long augers (adapted from [91]).
performing the conveying/mixing process [88]. Some of the main
physical characteristics of a screw conveyor are: i) the outside and in-
3.1. Pitch-to-diameter ratio
side (shaft) diameter, ii) the pitch (distance between adjacent flights),
iii) the clearance, and iv) the length, as shown in Fig. 6.
Some manufactures have stated that augers with large diameters are
The improper design can lead to: i) unsteady flow rate, ii) inaccurate
relatively more efficient in transport applications than small ones [91].
metering and dosing, iii) inhomogeneity of the product, iv) deformation
It has been also found that short pitch augers deliver only a small vo-
or melting of the granules, v) product degradation, vi) excessive power
lume or material per revolution, while long pitch augers tend to rotate
draw, vii) high start-up torque, viii) high equipment wear, ix) variable
the material rather than convey it axially [92]. Bortolamasi and Fottner
residence time and segregation, and x) high energy consumption,
[89] reported that the minimum pitch in single-augers must be no less
among others [87,89]. The length of the auger is also important for
than one-half the screw diameter while the maximum pitch must be the
designers due to the shaft deformation. For long augers, additional
same screw diameter. Likewise, Evstratov et al. [93], stated that pitch
supports are suggested between the initial and final bearing case as
must not be less than 0.9 and not more than 1.5 times the outside
shown in Fig. 7. Similarly, hollow shafts are recommended to decrease
diameter. A pitch-to-diameter ratio equal to one (known as standard
the weight of the auger.
flight) has been also highlighted as one of the simplest and optimums in
Although the auger design seems to be apparently simple, the
single-augers and hence, it is the most common in industrial practice
physics of the particle transport is not trivial and for this reason de-
[92,94].
signers usually have to rely on data obtained from empirical correla-
Moreover, Camp et al. [95] noticed in a twin-auger coal pyrolyzer
tions [87]. Granular materials have a very complex rheology, behaving
that radial mixing can be improved by a non-standard pitch of
like both a solid and a liquid. Hence, the mixing mechanisms that
0.25–0.5 times the auger diameter. Furthermore, Henrich et al. [76]
govern their behavior are complicated and not well understood [90].
showed a twin-auger reactor where both screws are divided into two
There are many operating parameters involved for an auger reactor.
sections, each one with different pitch-to-diameter ratio (Fig. 8). The
For instance, the feedstock flow rate depends on a number of inter-
first section is linked to the transportation zone (590 mm) with a pitch-
linked factors such as: i) geometry of the screw, ii) rotational speed, iii)
to-diameter relation of 1.5, while the second section is associated with
load factor, iv) inclination, v) geometry of the feed hopper and tube,
the mixing and reaction zone (915 mm) with a pitch-to-diameter rela-
and vi) feedstock flowability, among others [89]. Some results reported
tion of 5. According to the authors, this pitch-to-diameter ratio leads to
in literature regarding the effect of some aforementioned parameters,
a proper balance between radial mixing and axial transport. Kingston
including mixing and scaling up considerations, are discussed below.
and Heindel [96] using a laboratory-scale twin-auger at cold conditions
observed a minimal influence of the pitch-to-diameter ratio (0.75, 1.25

Fig. 6. Auger dimensional characteristics.

378
F. Campuzano et al.
and 1.75) on the composition variance (linked to the mixing effec-
tiveness). They performed several trials at different auger rotation
speeds (20, 40 and 60 rpm) and observed a slight reduction in the
composition variance for a pitch-to-diameter of 1.75, at 60 rpm.
3.2. Load factor
The load factor, also known as the degree of filling or volumetric fill
level, is defined as the ratio between the volumes occupied by the solids
to that of the screw pitch [97]. Auger conveyors are commonly oper-
ated with a load factor between 15% and 45% to protect the auger shaft
from high torsional stresses and because the power consumption can
increase sharply at higher load factors [92]. In this sense, the first step
for designing an auger conveyor is to have a clear idea of the feedstock
characteristics. For instance, cohesive materials show serious compli-
cations because their lower flowability and their tendency to arch and
jam [98]. Rackl and Günthner [62] studied the influence of three dif-
ferent grades of wood chips on a typical screw conveyor. The mean
particle size of the wood chips had a strong influence on the driving
torque, as larger particles may get tangled with each other and cause an
increased driving power demand or even blockage.
Also, abrasive feedstock can affect the useful life of the auger.
Likewise, sticky materials tend to remain on the conveyor instead of
going across the reactor increasing torque requirements. Moreover,
feedstock that generates dust can lead to potential problems at both
loading and discharge points. Table 5 shows the recommended load
factors depending on the feedstock abrasiveness. Dai et al. [99] shows a
comprehensive review of biomass feeding for thermochemical reactors.
They highlight some main problems and solutions, working principles
and design guidelines of screw conveyors. More details on theoretical
and designing auger conveyor can be found elsewhere [89,94,100,101]
as well as scale-up laws for granular mixers [90].
Table 5
Suggested auger capacities according to the material (adapted from [88]).
Auger capacities
Load factor Load Feedstock characteristics
15% Abrasive
30% Moderately abrasive
45% Non-abrasive
379
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
Fig. 8. Twin-auger reactor with different pitch/diameter
ratios (adapted from [76]).
3.3. Auger flighting characteristics
A typical auger conveyor has a continuous helix wrapped around a
central shaft. The auger flight geometry is one of the major features that
is modified depending on the application (transportation, feeding,
mixing or combination of them) and process requirements. The first
characteristic in describing an auger is the direction of the auger flight
which could be right hand or left hand depending on the thread form. It
determines the course in which the material is moved according to the
rotation orientation. The direction of the screw flights is clearly dis-
tinguished by looking at the axial end of the screw. The auger is left
hand, when the flight is wrapped around the shaft in a counter-clock-
wise direction, or right hand, when the flight is wrapped around the
shaft in clockwise direction.
Apart from the rotation direction, the flights themselves have un-
ique geometries and features. They can be [65,102]: i) cut flights,
which not only convey the material but also improve the mixing rate in
the reactor; ii) cut and folded flights, which act as lifting vanes to
produce a cascading effect and results in agitation and aeration; iii)
flight with peddles, which are spaced at intervals and are typically set
to partly oppose the forward flow material resulting in moderate
mixing. Other flight geometries can also include iv) cut flight with
peddles, which combines the partly opposing peddles with the cut
flights to considerably increase mixing; v) short pitch flights, commonly
used in devices inclined by more than 20° or even in a vertical auger
conveyors; vi) tapered flights, which gradually increase the auger dia-
meter and are commonly used in auger feeders to draw the material
uniformly from the entire length of the feed opening; vii) long pitch
flights, used as agitators and increase the mixing rate of granular ma-
terials; viii) double flights of regular pitch for promote a smooth flow
and discharge of materials; among others.
Table 6 shows some of the mentioned flight geometries and char-
acteristics. For auger pyrolyzers there is no much information on de-
scribing the influence of flight geometry on the process efficiency.
Taking into account that biomass and wastes are usually abrasive,
sticky and present poor flowability, a standard flight is usually found in
order to avoid clogging problems during pyrolysis [103]. Flowability is
defined by Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association (CEMA)
[104], as the degree of freedom of individual feedstock particles to
move past each other.
3.4. Mixing
Mixing processes involving granular and/or powder materials, be-
sides to seek a high degree of homogeneity, can also positively affect
simultaneous processing such as chemical reactions and heat and/or
mass transfer [107]. Ideally, the purpose of a mixing operation is that
the distribution of each particle of a constituent is close to a particle of
another constituent [108]. The most common measure used to define
the mixing quality is composition or concentration [109]. Particularly,
a high degree of homogeneity is crucial in twin-augers, where the use of
heat carriers intensifies the granular mixing process to prompt the heat
and mass transfer phenomena. Another important factor linked to
mixing grade is the mixing time, which gives an indication of how long
two materials are mixed in the screw. The mixing time determines
whether feedstock particles reside long enough in the equipment to
allow desired processes to occur, such as particle heating and chemical
F. Campuzano et al.
Table 6
Flight and pitch types (adapted from [105]).
Standard flight: Augers with a pitch-
to-diameter ratio equal to 1. It has been
widely used to convey a wide variety of
feedstock.
Ribbon flight: It is used for conveying
sticky, gummy or viscous substances,
or where the material tends to stick to
the flight at the shaft.
Cut flight: It is used for conveying
light, fine, granular or flaky materials.
This kind of flight offers an efficient
mixing action of dry material
especially at high speeds.
Cut and folded flight: It is used to
create a lifting motion in the feedstock
that helps to promote agitation and
aeration while mixing.
Sectional flight with paddles: It is
used to mix material while being
conveyed. Peddles can be fixed
(welded in place) or adjustable to
provide different degrees of mixing.
Shaftless: Similar to ribbon augers, it
used to convey sticky, gummy or
viscous substances. It is also used with
stringy products that would typically
wrap around the auger shaft. This type
of flight has been implemented in the
Spirajoule designed by Biogreen [106].
Paddle: It is used for improving mixing
or stirring. Paddles could be fixed or
adjustable to provide different degrees
of radial and axial mixing patterns.
Interrupted flight: It is also used for
conveying sticky, gummy or viscous
substances, or when the material tends
to stick to the flight at the shaft. It is
similar to ribbon flight but offers better
throughput and flow consistency than
ribbon auger.
Short pitch: It has a pitch-to-diameter
radio less than 1 and is meanly used in
incline or feeding applications.
reactions [110].
However, a perfect mixture is not usually achieved in practice but a
random mixture, or in some cases particle segregating. Random mixture
is defined as a mixture whose probability of finding a particle of any
constituent is the same at all locations and equal to the proportion of
that constituent in the mixture as a whole [111]. A particle of one
constituent should be statistically independent of the nature of its
neighbors [109]. Granular mixing processes with some degree of het-
erogeneity among the particles of each constituent leads to incomplete
380
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
mixing, agglomeration, and/or segregation (which is the opposite
process of particle mixing) [102]. Segregation is linked to many particle
or mixer properties/conditions (differences in the particle size, shape,
density, among others) and is commonly found in real world mixing
processes [65]. This condition must be avoided in auger pyrolyzers
since it does not favor the yield and the characteristics of the desired
product. For all these reasons, quantitative assessing the mixing per-
formance of the auger screw is necessary for successful equipment de-
sign or scale-up [110].
Kingston and Heindel [96] using a laboratory-scale twin-auger at
cold conditions studied the effects of different operating parameters on
the mixing effectiveness (defined as the degree of heterogeneity from
the four spatially divided exit samples collected) of a binary mixture
composed by red oak chips and glass beads. The authors provided a
thorough mixing assessment of the mixing dynamics inside the system
by means of a qualitative optical visualization combined with quanti-
tative composition and statistical analysis. They investigated the in-
fluence of four different parameters: i) auger rotation speed (20, 40 and
60 rpm); ii) dimensionless auger pitch-to-diameter ratio (0.75, 1.25 and
1.75); iii) auger rotation orientation (co-rotating, counter-rotating up-
pumping, and counter-rotating down pumping, as shown in Fig. 9), and
iv) feeding system configuration. After combining all the possible op-
erating conditions, it was concluded that the best mixing performance
(which is related to the degree of the sample homogeneity inside the
reactor) took place when the rotation speed was 60 rpm, the pitch-to-
diameter ratio was 1.75 and the auger rotation orientation was counter-
rotating down pumping. This rotation orientation led to a more uniform
distribution throughout the screw and minimized periodic fluctuations
in the mixing process. Besides to offer a dramatic reduction in the
segregation of the granular materials, i.e. minimal agglomerations
throughout the entire screw, caused an increase on the biomass con-
centration in the bottom projection. This pattern suggested that this
configuration pushes the biomass from the top surface down through
the granular mixture. Finally, it is worth to highlight the mixing ef-
fectiveness at relatively short mixing lengths, as compared to others
screw rotation orientations. A statistical analysis indicated that the
screw rotation orientation is the key parameter influencing the mixing
effectiveness.
Furthermore, Qi et al. [110] studied the mixing performance of a
lab-scale twin-screw transporter/mixer by using the discrete element
method (DEM) to simulate particulate flow composed by polydispersed
biomass (red oak) and glass bead particles. The screws rotate in the
opposite directions pumping the particle down towards the trough wall
(counter-rotating down pumping). Screw rotation speed, screw pitch
length and biomass feed rate were assessed on the mixing performance
in terms of the mean particle mixing time and the mixing index (this
last one defined as showed in [112]). The authors observed that the
mixing index profile in the axial direction showed a mixing-demixing-
mixing oscillation pattern. The screw rotation speed had negligible
impact on the mixing degree when the load factor and screw pitch re-
mained constant. However, increasing screw pitch length or the screw
rotation (from 20 to 60 rpm) did not favor the mixing performance
because the average particle mixing time is increased as well as the
particle axial segregation. Likewise, decreasing the biomass feed rate
increased the mean mixing time due to the influence of gap between the
screw flight and trough wall. Moreover, increasing the biomass size to
the glass bead size ratio decreased mixing performance. The authors
also highlighted the benefits of the counter-rotating down-pumping
configuration for twin-auger screws. This rotation orientation gener-
ated a slope in the bed from the trough wall to the screw center at the
transverse section. Hence, some particles slide down the slope and were
later pushed up the slope forming a recirculation in the transverse
section promoting particle mixing.
In spite of the works discussed before, research efforts featuring
auger pyrolysis reactors have not paid enough attention to the influence
of the auger flighting geometry and/or the mixing conditions on both
F. Campuzano et al.
Fig. 9. Different auger rotation orientations (adapted from [96]).
yield and quality of the products. The pyrolysis process in auger re-
actors is a reactive granular flow system which involves particle flow
while heat transfer and feedstock devolatilization reactions take place
at the same time. Efforts are strongly needed to elucidate the funda-
mental physical phenomena and the interaction between the physical
transport phenomena and chemical reactions [113].
3.5. Visualizing granular flow in auger reactors
Minimal efforts have been directed toward understanding the
granular flow and mixing process inside auger pyrolyzers mainly due to
the challenges associated with visualizing and quantifying the granular
flow [114]. By using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations,
Aramideh et al. modelled the materials of all phases as interpenetrating
continua of a biomass fast pyrolysis process in a single-auger reactor, as
showed in Fig. 10. [64]. They reported that biomass is rapidly de-
composed after injection and the solid volume fraction decreased gra-
dually as the particles moved toward the reactor exit. Likewise, non-
reacted biomass and biochar tended to stay at the bottom of the reactor
given the gravity effect. The rotation of the screw made the biomass
particles to swirl and hence, the contact between them and the heated
walls increased [64].
On the other hand, a general picture of granular flow in twin-augers
is showed by Kingston et al. [114]. They used X-ray particle tracking
velocimetry (XPTV) to qualitatively and quantitatively characterize the
three-dimensional (3D) granular flow structures for this technology. At
60 rpm, 1.75 pitch-to-diameter ratio and counter-rotating down-
pumping direction, the authors observed that tracer particles were
moved between screw one and screw two several times promoting
convective mixing by utilizing the entire mixing region, inducing bulk
granular flow throughout the twin-auger. Similarly, the tracer particles
showed periodic fluctuations in the vertical direction as they move
through the twin-auger. Some peaks appeared in this direction sug-
gesting locations where the tracer particles were lifted up toward the
top surface of the granular mixture. Regarding horizontal orientation,
the tracer particles were translated toward the middle of the twin-auger
Fig. 10. Spatial distributions of solid volume fraction (depicted by color) and velocity (depicted by length of vector) in the auger reactor (extracted from [64]).
381
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
as result of the counter-rotating down-pumping orientation. Similarly,
the axial speed of the tracer particles remained almost constant, al-
though as particles reached the end of the twin-auger, both axial and
transverse speed dramatically increased given the discharge of the
granular material to the outlet ports which caused a more free-flowing
mixture. More work on detailing the granular mixing dynamics and
flow structures inside a twin-screw reactor along with valuable insights
into the optimization can be found elsewhere [65,96,115,116].
3.6. Scaling up considerations
The scaling up procedure represents the understanding of how
various phases of the process change from laboratory experiments to
fluid dynamic experiments, mathematical modeling, design and op-
eration of a pilot and industrial plant [117]. For pyrolysis processes,
there is no much engineering criteria to both design and operate an
industrial plant. Rules to scale up well-running pyrolysis reactors are
missing in literature, and several times companies use their own em-
pirical experience to build a pyrolysis plant rather than scientific
standards [118].
Heat transfer is the bottleneck to pyrolysis and is exacerbated as the
reactor is scaled up. Heat transfer in conventional pyrolysis (either
external heating or using solid heat carriers) commonly scales as square
of reactor diameter. This is because the rate of particle heating is
usually the rate-limiting step at fast pyrolysis and possibly at inter-
mediate pyrolysis, where high feedstock heating rates are needed.
Although autothermal pyrolysis reactors are more challenging to de-
sign, the heat transfer scales as the cube of reactor diameter since
chemical reaction is the rate-limiting step [83]. Thus, the potential
maximum size of reactor or throughput depends on the auger config-
uration. For a fixed reactor diameter, the feedstock throughput is much
higher for autothermal pyrolysis than for conventional and hence, the
relative cost of pyrolyzer is less (Fig. 11).
On the other hand, there are some techniques such as dimensional
analysis that are considered powerful tools to both scale up and de-
scribe complex physical-chemical processes using a minimum set of
F. Campuzano et al.
Fig. 11. Comparison between conventional and autothermal pyrolysis (adapted from [83]).
parameters. In this sense, Funke et al. [118] defined scaling principles
for auger reactors to describe how the geometry of such a reactor needs
to be changed. In that work, 35 dimensionless numbers were defined to
describe the fast pyrolysis process in an auger reactor. These di-
mensionless numbers were used to evaluate the change of scale based
on the increase of the mass flow rate. However, this procedure was not
successfully completed since it was not possible to change this para-
meter without changing at least five dimensionless numbers. Some di-
mensionless numbers violate a certain similarity conditions due to the
obtained mathematical correlations. According to the theory of simili-
tude, successful scale up can be performed by scaling the geometry
and/or parameters, while keeping all the dimensionless numbers con-
stant. Even though the dimensional analysis was not successfully
achieved, it is considered an introductory method to accomplish a sci-
entific procedure to both design and develop auger reactors at higher
scale.
4. History on the use of auger for pyrolysis
Brown and Brown [66], as part of a brief review of auger pyrolyzers,
noted that the use of auger reactors for thermochemical processing
dates back to 1927 when Laucks [119] used one for production of
smokeless fuel from coal. This semi-commercial plant consisted of a
vertically-oriented, 152.4 mm diameter tube of 3.66 m long heated
along its length. The coal was fed in from the top and augered down-
ward by an endless screw with vapors drawn off by a vacuum pump.
Laucks [119] also described a failed attempt to operate a larger system.
In diagnosing problems with the larger unit, the author noted the
Fig. 12. Scheme of the Hayes reactor (adapted from [120]).
382
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
importance of avoiding cold spots in the reactor to prevent clogging and
adhesion, and the importance of steady conversion of feedstock to
products through the reactor.
Woody [120] described another early auger reactor system known
as the Hayes process for carbonizing coal at low temperatures. The first
commercial plant using the Hayes process operated from1928 to 1936
at Moundsville, West Virginia. A steel tube (or retort) of 43.2 cm in-
ternal diameter and 6.1 m long was supported on rollers and enclosed
within a brick furnace as showed in Fig. 12. The reactor tube rotated at
1.5 rpm leading to 20 min of residence time for the smokeless coal
production. The heat demanded by the process was supplied through a
gas burner provided with automatic temperature control to ensure
temperatures inside the reactor between 593 °C and 704 °C.
The Lurgi-Ruhrgas (LR) process developed in Germany during the
1950s by Lurgi Co. was an endless screw that was both mixer and re-
actor (Fig. 13). The process produced gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons
from coal, oil shale, oil sands or vacuum residues [76,121–124]. This
process was also referred as the “sand-cracker” since often, sand was
used as heat carrier. It consisted of two intermeshing screws (twin
screw) where the feedstock was quickly heated, mixed and transformed.
The released vapors left the reactor quickly (as fast as 0.3 s of residence
time) passing to cyclones and then to an oil recovery section. This early
work pioneered the development of auger technology for fast or flash
pyrolysis [125]. The technology was deployed at commercial scale in
several countries, including Germany, the United Kingdom, the former
Yugoslavia and Japan [76,122,123].
During 1990, a dual-screw feeder reactor was designed and con-
structed in the University of Cincinnati to remove the sulfur contained
F. Campuzano et al.
Fig. 13. The LR-process flow diagram (adapted from [121,123]).
in coal ahead of combustion (Fig. 14) [126]. Two basic concepts were
involved in the development of this reactor: i) coal desulfurization by
mild pyrolysis, during which the heating value of the coal did not sig-
nificantly decrease, and ii) subsequent reaction and separation of H2S
from the devolatilized gases with a calcium-based sorbent as limestone
or other suitable sorbent [126]. The screw reactor consisted of two
concentric screws which are driven by two motors operating in-
dependently. The inner screw was used to drive coal particles through
the inner tube where pyrolysis took place, while the outer screw drove
the calcined limestone through the outer tube where it reacts with the
H2S component produced from the coal pyrolysis process. The particle
residence time was controlled by adjusting motor speeds. The inside
diameter of the inner and outer tubes, respectively were 25.4 mm and
50.8 mm, while the length of the heated zone was 0.521 m.
Another important initiative is the HaloClean® process. This tech-
nology was developed in the late 1990s at the Forschungszentrum
Karlsruhe, nowadays Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) in
Germany, to treat plastic components from electrical and electronic
equipment waste to obtain halogen free fuels. However, it was also
proved for biomass processing [127–129]. This system consists of a
rotary kiln with a rotating internal screw where metal spheres are used
as internal heat carrier. The residence time of solids in the reactor can
be controlled between 1 and 10 min. The Haloclean process is described
as intermediate pyrolysis.
Fig. 14. Scheme of the dual-screw feeder reactor (adapted from [126]).
383
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
Camp [130] and Camp et al. [95] discuss various aspects in the
development of screw reactors for coal pyrolysis. The process, termed
mild gasification or low temperature carbonization, was based on slow
pyrolysis that yielded small amounts of liquid (20 wt%) and gas (10 wt
%), but large amounts of char (70 wt%). A small-scale process em-
ployed a single-screw in an externally-heated tube of 38 mm outer
diameter. However, clogging was evident, attributed to the coal be-
coming sticky as it crossed into the heating zone. Coal adhered to the
auger surface without moving forward when torque was increased. In
addition, other frequently recurring operational problems in the single-
screw reactor included plugging of vapor removal ports, pipes and
pressure taps by plastic coal, char fines, coke and tar. Moreover, the
single-auger reactor had an undesirably high power and torque re-
quirements, and the coal throughput was unacceptable low and did not
increase with the auger speed. Based on the above, the authors con-
cluded that a single-screw pyrolyzer was unlikely to provide reliable
operation.
Although important conclusions were obtained from the single-
auger arrangement, the authors suggested a twin-screw configuration to
avoid adhering deposits as well as to encourage mixing and heat
transfer within the system. Recommendations for the screw design in-
cluded a hollow shaft to introduce a heat transfer fluid, as well as
modification of screw flight profile to increase the intermeshing effect.
Design criteria and scale-up equations were also derived, and a 500 kg/
h continuous plant was designed, constructed and operated. The system
was based on a twin-screw pyrolyzer of 40.64 mm of internal diameter
and 5.48 m long with radiant gas heaters below the trough and electric
radiant heaters in the screw shafts. Table 7 summarizes, besides the
above mentioned historical issues, other important works found in lit-
erature. As observed, some important characteristics of the auger
technology until the late 90's are highlighted.
5. Recent developments in auger pyrolyzers
As shown in Fig. 15a, auger reactors have received increasing at-
tention in the scientific literature. This includes pyrolysis of a wide
range of feedstocks including coal, heavy petroleum fractions, crop
residues (wood, rice husk, corns stalk, etc.) and miscellaneous wastes
including sewage sludge, de-inking sludge, aseptic packages, waste
food, medium density fiberboard (MDF), waste tires and plastic wastes,
among others.
F. Campuzano et al.
Table 7
Historical issues in the development of auger technology.
Date Plant features
1927 A system called the carbonizing machine was developed for coal processing using
slow pyrolysis conditions. It consisted of a cylindrical tube with a close-fitting auger.
The tube was 15.24 cm diameter and 3.66 m long, standing in a vertical position.
1928 A plant with seven retorts was built for coal carbonization. Each retort was 43.18 cm
internal diameter and 6.09 m long, placed inside a furnace. Within the retorts, screw
conveyors of 406.4 mm outside diameter and 304.8 mm pitch, were used to transport
the feedstock along the conversion zone.
1950 A pyrolysis reactor with intermeshing augers was constructed. The screws mixed the
feedstock with different heat carriers. This process, known as the Lurhi-Ruhrgas
(LR), was also referred as the sand-cracker since sand was often used as a heat
carrier. However, other materials such as coke particles were also used.
1969 A pyrolysis plant was built for the treatment of carbohydrates. It consisted of a screw
of 25.4 mm diameter and 38.1 cm long. The reactor was rotated by hand through a
simple handle mechanism. Two electrical heaters were used to transform the
feedstock.
1990–1991 Mild coal gasification (slow pyrolysis or low-temperature carbonization) was
assessed from three different types of externally heated auger configurations: i)
single-auger (diameter = pitch = 380 mm, length = 89 cm), ii) twin-auger-weld
fabricated, and iii) twin-auger machined.
1997 The system was composed by two concentric augers driven independently. The inner
auger (tube diameter of 25.4 mm) was used for pyrolysis, whilst the outer auger
(tube diameter of 50.8 mm) was used to neutralize the H2S contained in the pyrolysis
vapors using calcined lime.
Most of these studies were performed by universities around the
world (see Fig. 15b). In the U.S., this includes Mississippi State Uni-
versity (MSU), and Iowa State University (ISU). These universities have
notably contributed to the research of biomass pyrolysis using auger
reactor to produce different added-value products from both the liquid
(bio-oil) and the solid fractions (biochar). In Europe, it is important to
highlight the works developed by the Instituto de Carboquímica (ICB-
CSIC) in Spain, as well as the Institute of Catalysis Research and
Technology (IKFT) and the Institute for Technical Chemistry (ITC), both
from KIT in Germany. These institutes have been focused not only on
lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis but also on other kind of feedstocks
such as waste tires and plastics.
5.1. Descriptions of auger pyrolysis research facilities
Thirty auger research facilities have been identified around the
world. A description of each of these plants is found in Table 8. Despite
a wide range of designs, most of them are based on single-auger con-
figuration, likely due to their ease of design and operation. Feedstocks
and operating conditions explored in these facilities are summarized in
Table 9. This Table attempts to show the moisture content of the
feedstock pyrolyzed in order to facilitate the comparison of the pyr-
olysis product yields. Preferably, these yields should be reported on dry
basis.
384
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
Process description Ref.
Initially, the pyrolysis process was operated at 500 °C and coal was [84]
fed at the top of the plant. However, it was noticed that coal became
plastic and led to clogging problems. As solution, the feeding
position was changed (from the bottom to the top) and a new auger
was designed with hollow shaft in which hot gases were used to heat.
The experience gathered in this system led to the construction of a
bigger plant with a capacity of 1 t/h.
This plant had a capacity of 50 t/day and produced between 35 and [120]
40 t of smokeless fuel. The retort tube rotated at 1.5 rpm for
residence times of 20 min to complete the carbonization process.
Each retort was heated externally by a gas burner to keep the
temperature between 593 and 704 °C approx. When starting
operation, the cold furnace needed 36–48 h to reach the required
temperature for carbonization.
This process was developed to produce gaseous and liquid [121]
compounds from oil shale. The feedstock was preheated between
346 and 400 °C and later mixed with hot solid particles reaching
temperatures about 704 and 843 °C. The released vapors had a short
residence time (0.3 s). A commercial plant was built in 1958 in
Germany to process naphtha for ethylene production. Another LR
plant was built in 1963 in the former Yugoslavia to process lignite.
This process produced levoglucosan from starch and cellulose. The [131]
feeding rate was around 0.2 kg/h and the reactions were carried out
at temperatures ranging from 340 to 500 °C. The production of
levoglucosan around 400 °C was about 30%.
Coal was submitted to 400–700 °C. Liquid (20%), gas (10%) and [130]
solid (70%) were produced. The power and torque requirements of
the single-auger pyrolyzer was undesirably high, and the coal
throughput was unacceptably low. It was concluded that
intermeshing screws can overcome these issues.
The system was used for decreasing the sulfur content in coal prior to [126]
combustion. Up to 33.2% of the total sulfur, which includes almost
all the organic sulfur, was removed at 475 °C and 6 min of residence
time.
5.2. Summary of operational experience at auger pyrolysis research
facilities
Table 10 shows some of the main results obtained with auger pyr-
olyzers at the research facilities detailed in Section 5.1. Product dis-
tribution among liquid, gas and char is a strong function of auger speed
(which determines feedstock residence time), carrier gas flowrate
(which regulates vapor residence time), and reactor temperature. In
some cases, the pyrolysis products obtained from auger reactors are
comparable to those found in BFB reactors either in mass yields and/or
in chemical composition, as is evident from several studies [66–68]. A
description of different auger pyrolyzers including operating para-
meters together with some experimental results (product yields) were
also presented recently by Brassard et al. [29].
5.3. Demonstration/commercial status of auger pyrolyzers
Although auger reactors are an emerging pyrolysis technology, they
are among the most popular pyrolysis systems being explored for
commercial applications. Examples of companies developing auger
pyrolyzers include: i) ABRI-TECH Inc. in Canada; ii) PYREG GmbH in
Germany; and iii) BIOGREEN-ETIA in France. Several research centers
are participating in development of this technology even transferring
patents, such as: iv) EBRI at Aston University, v) IKFT-KIT in Germany,
F. Campuzano et al.
Fig. 15. a) Scientific publications about pyrolysis using auger technology b) Institutions with more publications using auger technology (lifted up by using the key
words: “auger reactor” OR “screw reactor” OR “screw convey” AND pyrolysis, in Scopus).
and vi) ICB-CSIC in Spain.
ABRI-TECH Inc. has developed a single-auger reactor for fast pyr-
olysis using a high temperature, high-density heat carrier, as re-
presented in Fig. 16. ABRI TECH Inc., has focused on modular small and
medium-sized heated augers pyrolyzers. The units have a capacity from
20 kg/day (laboratory scale apparatus) to 50 t/day [184–186]. The
company has also installed and tested a fast pyrolysis unit at Canme-
tENERGY's laboratories in Ottawa, able to process 25 kg/h of biomass
[12]. All units are skid mounted for rapid installation [186].
PYREG focuses on biochar production as a soil amendment. The
process is continuous slow pyrolysis, conducted in a twin-auger reactor
at temperatures above 700 °C [188]. The gas products is used in a fla-
meless oxidation burner (FLOX®) operated at temperatures around
1250 °C, providing heat for pyrolysis as well as other applications
(Fig. 17) [187,188]. The first full-scale plant started operation in No-
vember 2009 in Switzerland. The PYREC® 500 plant has been designed
for small-scale applications and is able to process 1500 t/year of dry
solids [187].
BIOGREEN®, a division of the French engineering company ETIA has
developed the Spirajoule® process, consisting of a shaftless auger heated
electrically by the Joule effect. Fig. 18 is an overview of the process.
The technology can be used for carbonization, pyrolysis, or gasification.
The company claims it can process any kind of waste including forest
385
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
and crop residues, plastic (from MSW), rubber (from waste tires) and
industrial sludge into energy or products. As a conventional auger re-
actor, the solid residence time is regulated by setting the screw rotation
speed. The process capacity goes from 6 to 3500 L/h able to operate at
temperatures as high as 800 °C [106].
Another mobile pyrolyzer based on an auger reactor is Pyroformer™.
It uses intermediate pyrolysis patented by Hornung and Apfelbacher
from EBRI at Aston University, as discussed in Table 8. The reaction
temperature for this process is around 400–500 °C. The process involves
controlled thermal treatment and chemical reforming to produce a
vapor stream free from both particulates and tars [189]. The pyr-
oformer exists in sizes of up to 100 kg/h and can be scaled up to
2500 kg/h [127]. Pearwalk Engineering is a UK company working on
the first commercial Pyroformer. The technology offers the potential of
using multiple waste feedstock to generate cost effective heat, power
and other marketable products (Fig. 19) [190].
The KIT has developed a two-stage process for biomass conversion
known as Bioliq® in Karlsruhe, Germany [148,191,192]. Synthetic fuels
and chemicals are produced from residual biomass based on different
stages including pyrolysis and gasification process. Firstly, the biomass
is transformed by fast pyrolysis. The resulting biochar and bio-oil are
mixed, termed bio-slurry or bio-syncrude, presents high energy density
allowing a more convenient condition for handling, storage and
F. Campuzano et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

Table 8
Different auger reactor configurations from different institutions.
1. Mahasarakham University (Maha Sarakham Province, Thailand)

The plant is equipped with two independent feed systems, one for the feedstock and the other one for sand. The counter-rotating twin-screw auger reactor is 450 mm long and has an
omega-shaped vessel made from two 304 stainless steel pipes of 44 mm internal diameter (ID). This unit has been used specially for fast pyrolysis of biomass [132].

2. European Bioenergy Research Institute–EBRI (Birmingham, UK)

The Pyroformer lab-scale intermediate pyrolysis reactor was patented by Hornung and Apfelbacher [133], and was originally manufactured in Germany before being installed and
commissioned at the European Bioenergy Research Institute (EBRI) at Aston University [74]. It involves two co-axial rotating screws and it is able to process up to 20 kg/h of
feedstock. The unit is 1.80 m in length and has a diameter of 200 mm. The novel feature of this reactor is the use of internal char recycling. This char acts both as heat carrier and
as catalytic cracking medium to keep the desired temperature for pyrolysis. This unit has been used for digestates, agricultural wastes, industry wastes, slurry, etc. [42,75].

3. Michigan State University (East Lansing, USA)

The reactor is able to process between 1 and 6 kg/h of biomass. It has six electrical heaters which are divided into three heating zones. The first two heating zones are kept at
temperatures between 200 and 350 °C, whilst the third one is varied from 450 to 550 °C. During operation, the screw rotation speed can be modified between 45 and 75 rpm by
means of a speed variator. This speed range also controls the residence time of the feedstock which is estimated to be about 23–42 s. The condensers are kept at temperatures
ranging from 25 to −7 °C, where most of the bio-oil is often condensed in the first one. This pyrolysis unit has been used for processing food waste such as spent coffee grounds
[134–136].
(continued on next page)

386
F. Campuzano et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

Table 8 (continued)

4. University of Leeds (Leeds, UK)

The plant is divided into two main stages: i) a screw pyrolysis reactor heated by an electrical furnace, and ii) a fixed bed reactor where vapors pass through a catalytic steam
reforming. In the latter stage, catalysts such as NiO/Al2O3, NiO/CeO2/Al2O3, NiO/SiO2 have been used to both maximize and improve the gas fraction. The screw reactor is 54 cm
long with a diameter of 62 mm, whilst the fixed bed catalytic reformer is 26 cm high and 25 mm of diameter, both in stainless steel. This unit has been used for processing waste
wood in the form of pellets [137].

5. Slovak University of Technology (Bratislava, Slovak Republic)

The pyrolysis plant consists of two main sections: i) a primary screw reactor placed into an electrically heated tube furnace, and ii) a secondary reactor where thermal and catalytic
decomposition of vapors takes place. Both reactors have a diameter of 25 mm and length of 30 cm. This plant has been assessed for pyrolysis of shredder tires, biomass (wood
pellets), and tetrapak packages. Likewise, different mineral catalyst have been tested, including calcined dolomite and red clay [138–140].

6. Washington State University (Pullman, USA)

The system is able to pyrolyze between 0.06 and 2.4 kg/h of biomass and has been patented by Garcia-Perez et al. [141]. The auger reactor consists of a 58.5 cm long and 100 mm
diameter tube. The reactor is heated externally by a Lindberg/Blue M (model HTF55322A) furnace. The pyrolysis vapors were condensed in three condensation units. The first
condenser uses a coolant substance (no miscible with the pyrolysis liquids). A second train uses cold water to condensate the remaining vapors. Finally, four ice-cooled traps
connected in series are set to condensed those vapors that survived to the previous cooling units [67,142]. The unit has been used mainly for pyrolysis of biomass such as Douglas
Fir wood.
(continued on next page)

387
F. Campuzano et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

Table 8 (continued)

7. University of Caxias do Sul (Caxias do Sul, Brazil)

The plant consists of a 2 m long single-auger reactor with diameter and pitch of 195 mm (standard flight). The mass flow rate is between 1.4 and 1.9 kg/h and the heat for pyrolysis is
obtained from the combustion of LPG. The auger reactor is driven by a 2.2 kW A variable frequency drive controls the speed between 1 and 14 rpm. The pyrolysis vapors are
conducted to a bio-oil separator that has externally cooling belts and internally a coil-type heat exchanger where water circulates at ambient temperature. The pyrolysis is carried
out under slightly negative pressure caused by a centrifugal fan. This unit has been mainly used for wood waste pyrolysis [73].

8. Iowa State University (Ames, USA)

This pyrolyzer is a twin-auger reactor (intermeshing screws with outer diameter of 25.4 mm placed into a 55.9 cm long omega shape case) able to process between 0.5 and 2 kg/h.
Different heat carriers such as sand and steel shot have been assessed in order to evaluate their effects on the final products. It also comprises a recovery system including an
electrostatic precipitator. Along the reactor, different outlet ports are installed to remove the pyrolysis vapors as soon as possible allowing short residence times. Pyrolysis of
wood waste (red oak) has been studied [64,143].

9. Instituto de Carboquímica (Zaragoza, Spain)

(continued on next page)

388
F. Campuzano et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

Table 8 (continued)

This single-auger plant is able to process up to 15 kg/h of waste tires. The auger reactor consists of stainless-steel shaft of 45 mm diameter and 87 cm long. Outer diameter and pitch
are 75 and 37 mm, respectively. An external electrical furnace divided into three sections (13 kW) provides the heat for pyrolysis. This unit has been assessed for pyrolysis and co-
pyrolysis of biomasses and waste tires, etc. [71,144,145]. Moreover, catalytic pyrolysis has been performed using calcined limestone [146,147].

10. Institute for Catalysis Research and Technology (IKTF), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) (Karlsruhe, Germany)

The 10 kg/h facility is based on a twin-auger pyrolysis reactor which is coupled to a heat carrier loop with stainless steel spheres transported by a bucket elevator. The process
development unit has been called “Python”. The heat carrier is supplied with a mass rate of 1000 kg/h (mass ratio of 100:1) at typically 20–30 °C above the desired mixing
temperature. The main characteristics of the reactor are shown in the figure bellow [76]. This unit has been used especially for lignocellulosic biomass fast pyrolysis [39,148].

11. Institute for Technical Chemistry (ITC), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) (Karlsruhe, Germany)

The plant operates using intermediate pyrolysis able to work up to 15 kg/h. This plant is called the “STYX” reactor and uses a single-auger. Eight independent electrical heaters, each
one of 5 kW, provide the heat for pyrolysis. The reactor can lead to feedstock residence times between 5 and 25 min, and has been used to process wood chips and sewage sludge
[97,149].
(continued on next page)

389
F. Campuzano et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

Table 8 (continued)

12. Chosun University (Gwangju, South Korea)

The plant combines and screw/rotary kiln-pyrolysis/gasifier reactor, with carbonization and activations steps. The reactor consists a single-auger and a rotary activator where
carbonization and steam activation processes take place. High-pressure steam is injected radially into the auger, while the rotary kiln is indirect heated by combustion gases. This
plant has been mainly used for the pyrolysis/gasification of sewage sludge [150].

13. University of Tennessee (Tennessee, USA)

The pyrolysis plant works at feeding rates between 3 and 20 kg/h. The reactor features a rectangular reactor (10 W × 10 H × 250 L cm) with twin-augers. The residence time of the
feedstock inside the reactor ranges from 15 s to hours. The reactor is heated by two electrical resistances. A particle precipitator system, placed between the auger reactor and the
condensation columns, removes fine particles from the pyrolysis vapors. The condensation section consists of three condensers (100 mm in diameter and 200 cm long) in series.
This plant has been used for wood pine pyrolysis [151,152].

14. Dave C. Swalm School of Chemical Engineering, Mississippi State University (Mississippi, USA)

The plant has four temperature stages: i) preheating zone (~200–220 °C), ii) pyrolysis zone (450 °C), final zone (150–175 °C). Pyrolysis vapors pass through a long catalytic packed
bed reactor (PBR), placed inside of a three-sections furnace. Pyrolysis vapors go through the cooling and condensation system for liquids recovery. This unit has been mainly used
for biomass pyrolysis [153].
(continued on next page)
390
F. Campuzano et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

Table 8 (continued)

15. Mississippi State University (Mississippi, USA)

The pyrolysis reactor has been used for processing untreated and treated pinewood at a feeding rate of 7 kg/h [154]. The reactor design was based on an all auger reactors developed
at MSU [155–157]. This design gives more efficient heating and condensation compared to the previous plant. The pyrolysis reaction occurs in a reactor pipe of 76.2 mm
diameter and 1.14 m long. The heat for pyrolysis is provided by multiple heaters along the reactor pipe. Just prior to the condensers, injection nozzles spray fine ambient water
droplets (25 °C) into the hot pyrolytic vapor stream. MSU has also patented an auger pyrolysis plant where heat carriers are used [158].

16. Delian University of Technology (Delian, China)

The reactor has a diameter of 40 mm and length of 1.2 m. A stirrer placed into the feeding hopper ensures continuous flow of the feedstock. The heating system consist of a tubular
heater, a temperature controller and K-type thermocouples. The cooling device is a spiral glass condenser cooled by water. The solid fraction is directly dropped in an ash bucket,
while the liquid fraction is saved in a liquid container after the cooling unit. This unit has been used to assess the pyrolysis of different wastes such as pine sawdust and sewage
sludge [159,160].

17. Beijing University of Chemical Technology (Beijing, China)

The pyrolysis reactor (40 mm internal diameter and 40 cm long) consists in a microwave-assisted auger pyrolyzer. A K-type thermocouple is located at the meddle-top of the quartz
tube to measure the surface temperature. An infrared pyrometer is placed at the meddle-lateral side of the quartz tube to control and measure the temperature of the sample
inside the reactor. This unit has been implemented specially for textile dyeing sludge pyrolysis [161–163].
(continued on next page)
391
F. Campuzano et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

Table 8 (continued)

18. University of Basque Country (Basque Country, Spain)

The pyrolysis plant consists of two independent reactors connected in series: i) auger pyrolysis reactor which works at feed rate of 3.9 kg/h, and ii) tubular reactor where vapors are
treated at 900 °C to enhance gas yields and quality. The pyrolysis reactor consists of an externally heated tubular reactor divided into four individual heating zones. This unit has
been used for waste biomass pyrolysis to charcoal production [164].

19. University of Seoul (Seoul, Republic of Korea)

The pyrolysis plant consists in a single-auger reactor and a BFB reactor. The auger reactor is used for a partial decomposition, whilst the BFB reactor is where the main pyrolysis
process occurs. The auger reactor has a length of 70 cm, an inner diameter of 28 mm, and thickness of 3 mm. The BFB reactor has a height of 38 cm, inner diameter of 110 mm and
thickness of 3 mm. The product recovery system of the reactor consists of a water-cooled steel condenser operated at 20 °C, an impact separator, and an electrostatic precipitator.
Part of the non-condensable gases leaving the auger reactor are burnt in a flare stack [165,166].

20. Research and Development Institute for the Agri-Environment–IRDA (Quebec, Canada)

Two electrical resistances of 1.5 kW heat a vertical auger (3.8 cm pitch and 25.4 cm long). The feedstock is fed by a horizontal and vertical feed screw in a 2.54 cm diameter steel tube.
Fine particles are separated from the pyrolysis vapors by an inner baffle placed at the exit of the vertical screw. The vertical reactor has been tested for biochar production from
different types of biomasses such as wood pellets, the solid fraction of pig manure and switchgrass [167–169].
(continued on next page)

392
F. Campuzano et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

Table 8 (continued)

21. Laval University (Quebec, Canada)

The lab-scale single-auger reactor uses two external heaters and two condensers. The first one uses water and the second one is a chiller (−10 °C). The pyrolysis temperature is
measured along the reactor by means of six thermocouples. This plant has been used for testing fast pyrolysis processes of wood chips which are pre-treated in order to improve
the quality of pyrolysis bio-oil [170].

22. Memorial University of Newfoundland (Newfoundland, Canada)

The pyrolysis plant mixes biomass and steel shots (used as heat carrier) in a single-auger reactor. The biomass is rapidly converted into bio-oil, non-condensable gases, and biochar.
Pyrolysis vapors leave the reactor and go into a cyclone to remove the fine char contained in the gas stream. The solid particles drop to the bottom, while vapors and gases leave
the cyclone at the top and go through two condensation units. An electrostatic precipitator is located after the condenser to collect the remaining liquid fraction which is not
condensed in the first condensation units. The steel shots also serve as mill balls to reduce the particle size biochar [9,171].

23. Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion (Guangdong, China)

The pyrolysis plant combines a single-auger reactor and a fixed bed catalytic reactor. The auger reactor (capacity of 20 kg/h) consists of a tube (150 mm internal diameter and 3 long)
heated by the hot gases obtained from the combustion of diesel in a hot blast stove. Pyrolysis vapors are conducted into a heated fixed-bed catalytic reactor (78 mm diameter and
130 cm long). Herein, materials such as pine wood and corncob hydrolysis residues have been processed [172,173].
(continued on next page)

393
F. Campuzano et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

Table 8 (continued)

24. Institute Branch Sulzbach-Rosenberg (Sulzbach-Rosenberg, Germany)

The thermos-catalytic reforming reactor (TCR) unit, developed by Fraunhofer UMSICHT [174], is essentially divided into two major units: i) an auger pyrolysis unit and ii) a post-
reforming reactor. In this plant, the pyrolysis vapors are converted into a hydrogen-rich syngas and an organic biphasic liquid fraction (bio-oil and aqueous phase) with improved
physical and chemical properties for fuel applications. The TCR technology can be applied to all kinds of residues with a higher heating value greater than 8 MJ/kg in order to
have a profitable process [175,176].

25. University of Idaho (Moscow, USA)

The pyrolysis unit is based on a single-auger reactor with 5 cm diameter and 90 cm long and operates at 0.5 kg/h. An external electric system heats the reactor at 450 °C. Pyrolysis
vapors are condensed in a two-stage ice-water-cooled tube and shell condensing system for bio-oil recovery. This unit has been mainly used for potato peel waste pyrolysis [177].

26. University of Leoben (Leoben, Austria)

The system consists of a twin-auger (2.3 m long) for biomass pyrolysis of 1–10 kg/h. An external electrical heating system is divided into three individual heating zones where the
temperature is adjusted separately. This guarantees a continuous increase in the temperature in the whole reactor length reaching a maximum temperature of more than 900 °C.
This pyrolysis plant has been used to pyrolyze agricultural residues [178].
(continued on next page)

394
F. Campuzano et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

Table 8 (continued)

27. Texas A&M University (Texas, USA)

The pyrolysis plant is able to work at feeding rates of 6 kg/h. The single-auger reactor is 10.2 cm diameter and 150 cm long with an auger flight connected to the feed hopper. Glycol
water at −4 °C is used to condense the bio-oil in an indirect heat exchanger condenser. Four stages solvent condenser is placed to capture the remaining condensable fraction
contained in the volatile matter. This facility has been used mainly for rice straw slow and intermediate pyrolysis [179].

28. Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Shanghai, China)

A single-auger reactor able to process 0.35 kg/h of biomass is 2.6 cm diameter and 50 cm long. A Carbolite VST 12/400 2 kW electric furnace is used to provide the heat required by
pyrolysis. The product collection subsystem consists of one cool water condenser, two dry ice condensers, and a cotton filter. This pyrolysis unit has been used to process rice husk
and corn stalks [68].

29. Vellore Institute of Technology (Vellore, India)

(continued on next page)

395
F. Campuzano et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

Table 8 (continued)

The single-auger reactor is 30 cm radius and 1.2 m long and is able to pyrolyze up to 10 kg/h of biomass. Sand is preheated to reaction temperature and mixed with biomass in
predetermined ratio (1:1, 2:1 or 3:1) in the heated reactor. The condensable compounds contained in the volatile matter are recovered in a three-stage chiller. This unit has been
mainly used for pyrolysis of Mesquite sawdust [7].

30. Auburn University (Auburn, USA)

The pyrolysis unit consists of a single-auger reactor which is fed with 0.5 kg in total during each experiment. Two condensers are used to recover the liquid fraction from the volatile
matter released during pyrolysis. The second condenser, maintained at 0 °C is used to condense those vapors that scape from the first condensation unit. Information related to the
dimensional characteristics of reactor has not been reported. This unit has been used mainly for pyrolysis of pine wood chips [180].

transportation compared to the original biomass. Secondly, the bio-
syncrude is converted into synthesis gas by using a high pressure en-
trained flow gasifier in a BTL (biomass to liquids) process [76,125,193].
This process comprises decentralized energy densification of bio-
mass via pyrolysis, followed by centralized gasification. The process is
based on the Lurgi-Ruhrgas (LR) process. The pyrolyzer is a twin-auger
reactor with nominal throughout of 500 kg/h (Fig. 20) and was erected
in 2008, while the Bioliq® process has been operated since 2014. It
utilizes sand as heat carrier (up to 5000 kg/h), which is used to keep the
process at 500 °C.
The environmental research group from “Instituto de
Carboquimica” (ICB) an institute with scientific activity in the area of
chemical science and technology from Spanish Research Council (CSIC
in Spanish) has licensed a single-auger technology for waste tire pyr-
olysis to Sisener Ingenieros, a private engineering firm. The general
overview of the process is depicted in Fig. 21. The process is able to
process 6000 t/year of waste tires and produces an alternative carbon
black and a tire pyrolytic liquid both with a well-stablish market. The
gas fraction combustion provides enough energy not only for supplying
the energy for driving the pyrolysis process, but also for power gen-
eration and/or thermal applications.
agglomeration causes adherence between char and heat carrier.
Although characterizing pyrolysis as fast implies rapid consumption
of feedstock and conversion to gaseous products, few studies have ad-
dressed how much time is required to fully devolatilize feedstock. This
question is particularly important in auger reactors, which convey
feedstock in roughly plug flow, compared to fluidized beds, which have
relatively long residence times for carbonaceous solids. One recent
paper suggests that residence times exceeding 40 s may be required to
fully pyrolyze lignocellulosic biomass [195] while residence times in
laboratory auger reactors may be only 20% of this devolatilization time
[66].
Vapors released from pyrolyzing biomass or wastes in auger reactors
often are transported the length of the reactor over or even through hot
char, which can catalytically crack vapors to less valuable light gases.
The impact of this interaction has received little attention in auger re-
actors and may require new reactor designs to minimize its impact on
bio-oil yields. Auger reactors are often lauded for the potential to scale
them up to commercially significant sizes, but this has not been quan-
tified by the research community.
6. Conclusions

5.4. Future perspectives
Further research is needed to move auger reactors toward com-
mercialization. Practical implementation of the process of heating the
solid heat carrier before it is conveyed into the pyrolyzer has received
relatively little attention. Ideally, the feedstock or char will be used to
provide this energy, which raises questions of furnace and high tem-
perature heat exchanger design. Separating char from heat carrier ex-
iting the pyrolyzer is not a trivial operation especially if char
Given their versatility, auger pyrolyzers are attractive for pyrolyzing
a wide range of feedstocks, including biomass and wastes. They are able
to produce liquid, gaseous and solid products at slow, intermediate and
fast conditions, which is not possible with other technologies.
Auger reactors are of relatively simple design and overcome some of
the problems of conveying heat for pyrolyzing biomass or wastes.
Particularly for the twin configuration, the use of solid heat carriers
enhances biomass mixing and heat transfer. The use of steel balls, si-
licon carbide, fine or coarse sand and ceramic pellets, among others,

396
 Table 9
Pyrolysis conditions for biomasses and wastes using auger reactors.
No. Feedstock Particle size Moisture Reactor Pyrolysis conditions Heating Relevant remarks Ref.
(mm) (wt%) characteristics medium
N2 (Nl/ Temp. Press. Feed rate rpm Residence
F. Campuzano et al.

min) (°C) (atm.) (kg/h) time solids

(s)

1 Cassava 0.3–0.4 0.0 Twin-auger; 4.0–7.0 500–700 0.9–2.9 0.38–0.4 n.r. n.r. Sand at 500 °C The pyrolysis process was carried out using a heat [132]
rhizome L: 45 cm; and pre-heated carrier (sand) at a feeding rate of 2 kg/h. The
Ø: 2.5 cm, with inlet N2 at 400 °C operating conditions selected for this work led to
omega-shape case lower water content but higher solid particles in
the bio-oil, in contrast to other pyrolysis
technologies.
2 Pellets of wood L: 15.0–25.0; Wood: 7.7; Twin co-axial auger; n.r. 450 n.r. 5.0 and 6.0 1 and 7 90 Five electric During the experimental campaign, both the [42]
and barley Ø: 6.0 Straw: L: 180 cm; heating jackets reactor and the hot gases filter were gradually
straw 11.9 Ø: 20 cm (power not heated at 450 °C, and held at that temperature for
reported) 30 min. On the other hand, the obtained char was
recycled acting not only as a heat carrier but also
as a catalytic cracking medium. The char/biomass
ratio was around 1.4.
Pellets of de- L:15.0; 3.0 n.r. 450 n.r. 15.0 n.r. n.r. Based on the obtained results, an implementation [74]
inking sludge Ø: 6.0 study was carried out to analyze how this pathway
would integrate into a typical mill and its
associated economic impact. This process showed
positive results for its further scaled up.
3 Spent coffee 0.1–2.0 3.0 Single-auger n.r. 429, 450, n.r. 1.0–1.5 45–75 23–42 Six electrical Herein, a two factor, five level, central composite [134]
grounds (characteristics not 500, 550, band heaters response surface experiment was proposed in
specified) and 571 (power not order to formulate a statistical model which

397
reported) associated the reactor temperature and residence
time to bio-oil yield and quality when using auger
reactor technology.
4 Pellets of waste L:14.0; 7.8 Single-auger; n.r. 500 n.r. 0.24 n.r. 40 Electrical Several laboratory prepared nickel catalysts were [137]
wood Ø: 6.0 L: 54 cm; furnace (power assessed for performing steam catalytic reforming
Ø: 6.2 cm not reported) of the pyrolysis gases. Previous thermogravimetric
analyses of feedstock with and without catalyst
were conducted to evaluate its thermal
degradation characteristics.
5 Packages Sheet pieces 2.9–3.3 Single-auger; n.r. 650 and n.r. 0.1 kg each n.r. 150 Electric furnace The pyrolysis experiments were carried out aiming [138]
(tetrapak) 5.0 × 5.0 L: 30 cm; 850 run (power not the maximum gas yield. In this sense, a secondary
Ø: 2.5 cm. reported) reactor was considered for thermal and catalytic
decomposition of tars using dolomite and red clay
as catalyst. Both types of catalysts showed
significantly effect on the content of tar and other
components in pyrolytic gases, specially at 750 °C.
Softwood, 2.0–5.0 n.r. 0.1 500 and 1 0.024 n.r. 120 The pyrolysis unit was equipped with a secondary [139]
spruce (Picea 800 vertical catalytic reactor which had a 20 cm fixed
abies) bed of catalyst (i.e. dolomite or red clay) for
pyrolysis vapor treatment. The residence time of
vapors in the secondary reactor was 21 s
approximately. After all experiments, catalysts
were regenerated in a flow of air at 900 °C.
Automobile 3.0–5.0 0.50 n.r. 550, 600, n.r. n.r. n.r. 100 Previous thermogravimetric experiments were [140]
shredder 700, 750, performed to determine the thermal
residue and 800 decomposition behavior of the feedstock. In this
sense, 550 °C was considered as enough to
complete the thermal degradation of this material.
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
 Table 9 (continued)

No. Feedstock Particle size Moisture Reactor Pyrolysis conditions Heating Relevant remarks Ref.
(mm) (wt%) characteristics medium
N2 (Nl/ Temp. Press. Feed rate rpm Residence
F. Campuzano et al.

min) (°C) (atm.) (kg/h) time solids

(s)

6 Douglas Fir 2.0 0 Single-auger; 20.0 120–420 Vacuum = 2 0.6–0.72 13 60 Electric furnace The Douglas Fir wood samples were soaked with [67]
wood L: 58.5 cm, mm H2O Ref. Lindberg/ deionized water (250 g sample/3000 ml DI water)
Ø: 10 cm Blue M (model and autoclaved at 121 °C and 15 psi for 30 min for
HTF55322A) reduction of alkali and alkaline earth metal
content. Pyrolysis tests in a fluidized bed reactor at
500 °C using Douglas Fir with a reduced content of
alkalines were also conducted for comparison
purposes.
Pine pellets L:12.8; Ø: 7.7 3.0 550 ~1 1.5 2.2 354 This study aimed the production of pine bio-oil in [181]
6.46 an auger reactor, its preparation and the
characterization of the bio-oil/biodiesel blends.
7 Medium < 0.21 mm 7.3 Single-auger; n.r. 400 and n.r. 1.4–1.9 1 540, 900, and Combustion LPG combustion gases were used to obtain the [73]
density L: 200 cm; 600 2040 gases from LPG heat of pyrolysis needed to transform the
fiberboard Ø: 19.5 cm; burner feedstock. These gases flow throughout a
p: 19.5 cm cylindrical annular combustion chamber (Øin:
20 cm; Øout: 30 cm) at the opposite side of the
feeding unit (counter-current). For this pyrolysis
unit, thermal efficiencies of char, bio-oil and fuel-
gas were 35.5, 29.2 and 41.4, respectively.
8 Red oak < 0.75 5.84 Twin-auger reactor; 2.5 425–625 n.r. 1.0 45–63 7–15 Heat carrier: Response surface methodology was employed to [66]
L: 55.9 cm; steel shot optimize the system. The main conditions that
Ø: 2.54 cm maximize the bio-oil fraction were high sweep gas

398
flow (3.5 standard l/min), high heat carrier
temperature (600 °C), high ager speed (63 RPM)
and high heat carrier mass flow (18 kg/h).
9 Scots pine 20.0 6.21 Single-auger; 5.0 500–900 1 3.9, 4.8 and ~4.7–15.7 90, 120, 180, Electric furnaces The obtained results showed that the auger reactor [145]
(Pinus sylvestris) L: 87 cm; 6.9 and 300 (13 kW) used in this work was a plausible option for
and Black pine Øshaft: 4.5 cm; justifying the future scaling up of the plant, not
(Pinus nigra) Øauger: 7.5 cm; only due to the good yields to liquid product and
p: 3.7 cm its properties, but also considering the less pre-
treatment applied to the biomass and the
simplicity of the facility.
Waste tires 2.0–4.0 0.8 5 550 1 6.7 ± 0.1 7.8 180 Considering the excellent reproducibility and [71]
stability of the process a plant for 15,000 metric
tons/y of waste tires was proposed. The
combustion of non-condensable gas is able to
obtain the required heat to conduct the pyrolysis
process, as well as for power and thermal
applications.
Wood-chips ≤15.0 2.0 5 450 1 2–6 3 420 Auger reactor was assessed for biomass pyrolysis [182]
(Pinus using catalyst such as CaO and CaOMgO for in situ
halepensis) bio-oil upgrading. An additional simulation of the
pyrolysis process demonstrated that the addition
of these catalysts, especially CaO, could favor the
energetic integration when using char and gases in
a secondary combustor to obtain the energy
required for pyrolysis.
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
 Table 9 (continued)

No. Feedstock Particle size Moisture Reactor Pyrolysis conditions Heating Relevant remarks Ref.
(mm) (wt%) characteristics medium
N2 (Nl/ Temp. Press. Feed rate rpm Residence
F. Campuzano et al.

min) (°C) (atm.) (kg/h) time solids

(s)

Wood-chips ≤15.0 4.0 5 450–500 1 2–6 3 420 Pyrolysis of biomass was studied in auger reactor [147]
(Pinus using low cost materials as catalysts, including
halepensis) sepiolite, bentonite, attapulgite, and an industrial
waste from alumina production, known as red
mud. Catalyst to biomass ratios from 3:1 to 1:6
were analyzed. A temperature of 450 °C and the
lowest catalyst proportion (1:6, in weight) were
selected as the
most appropriate to obtain the highest bio-oil
production.
10 Hardwood/ < 0.5 < 10.0 Twin-auger with n.r. 500 n.r. 10 n.r. 10–15 Heat carrier: The unit was integrated into a heat carrier loop. [76]
softwood/ two zones: stainless steel The heat carrier was fed at a rate of 1.6 t/h and
wheat straw/ i) transportation (L: balls heated at previously heated with an electrical heater of
wheat bran 59 cm; p: 4.6 cm), 550 °C 8 kW. Herein, a heat carrier-biomass volume ratio
ii) mixing and of 1 was considered to ensure efficient surface
reaction zone (L: contact. It resulted in a heat carrier to biomass
91.5 cm; p: 20 cm). bulk mass ratio between 30 and 100. The
Øshaft: 2 cm; temperature drop of the heat carrier between inlet
Øauger: 4 cm. and outlet of the pyrolysis reactor was around
10–100 °C.
Hybrid poplar, 0.5–1.0 5.7–9.0 8.3 500 Vacuum 10 n.r. Vapors: Heat carrier: Spherical steel particles (Ø: 1.0 mm) were supplied [39]
wheat straw, a < 0.0049 <4 stainless steel with a feeding rate of 1000 kg/h, with a particle to

399
blend and balls biomass mass ratio of 100:1, and at a temperature
beech wood from 20 to 30 °C above the desired mixing
temperature. This work aimed to compare two
bench scale units for fast and intermediate
pyrolysis using the same feedstock, as well as
reactor temperatures.
11 Sewage sludge 4.0–8.0 10.0 Single-auger; 10.0 350, 400, n.r. 4 n.r. 600 Electrically The reactor combines the advantages of screw [149]
L: 200 cm; 450, and heated (8 reactor with high temperature filtration in order to
Ø: 15 cm 500 independent produce particles and ash free vapors and
heaters of 5 kW condensates. Based on the promising results, an
each) integrated pyrolysis process with an externally fire
micro-gas turbine was proposed.
Beech wood 2.0–4.5 8.8 14.0 350, 400, n.r. 2–4 n.r. 600 The configuration of the reactor allowed the [97]
chips 450, and sequential filtration and extraction of vapors, as
500 well as the direct access to the partially pyrolyzed
char. This sequential extraction appeared as a
promising route to concentrate valuable products.
12 Dried sludge 5.0–10.0 5.6 Single auger with a n.r. 385–500 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. LPG combustion This process aimed the production of a pyrolysis [150]
co-axial double gases gas fuel and activated char. In this sense, steam
pipeline was injected in the screw carbonizer reactor at a
(characteristics not rate of 10 ml/min. The steam acted as an
specified) activation agent to create micropores in the char.
13 Pine wood < 4.0 8.0 Twin-auger: 20.0 500, 525, n.r. 10 n.r. 72 Electrical This process was conducted to study the [152]
the reactor features and 550 resistance characteristics of the bio-oil condensed by three
a rectangular reactor furnace systems different temperature-profiled condensers.
(10 W × 10 H × (power not However, it is important to highlight that this
250 L cm) reported) condensation system could not completely recover
the compounds in the vapor at their specific dew
points and densities.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

(continued on next page)

 Table 9 (continued)

No. Feedstock Particle size Moisture Reactor Pyrolysis conditions Heating Relevant remarks Ref.
(mm) (wt%) characteristics medium
N2 (Nl/ Temp. Press. Feed rate rpm Residence
F. Campuzano et al.

min) (°C) (atm.) (kg/h) time solids

(s)

14 Pine wood 2.5 8–10 Single-auger: 1.0 450 n.r. n.r. 11–12 n.r. Electric furnace Pyrolysis vapors were catalytically treated using [153]
L: 101.6 cm; (power not zeolite catalyst including ZSM-5, mordenite,
Ø: 7.62 cm reported) ferrierite, zeolite-Y, and zeolite-beta (all in H
form), in the packed bed reactor.
15 Pine wood with Wood: Wood: Single-auger; n.r. 450 and 1 1 12 Pre-heating Electric furnace The feedstock passed through four heating zones. [183]
PS, PP and 2.0–3.0; 8.0–10.0 L: 101.6 cm; 525 zone (~6–7 (power not First the feed passed through a pre-heating zone
HDPE (50/50) Plastics: 2.0 Ø: 7.6 cm; s), pyrolysis reported) (10.2 cm) at 130 °C. Then, it went to two pyrolytic
Pine wood, pine 2.0–4.0 Wood: p: 7.6 cm; standard n.r. 450 1 1 12 zone (~30 s), zones (25.4 and 20.3 cm long) held at either 450 or [155]
bark, oak wood, 6.0–8.0; flight construction. low 525 °C. Afterwards, the pyrolyzed feed passed
oak bar. Barks: temperature through a lower temperature zone (20.3 cm) at
8.0–10.0 zone 100 °C. Finally, char went to a cooling zone (7.6 cm)
(~13–14 s), where temperature was dropped. Pyrolysis vapor
and cooling residence time was around 1.5 s. The obtained results
zone (~5 s). suggested the suitability of portable auger reactors for
on-site bio-oil production at remote areas.
16 Pine sawdust 1.0–2.0 3.9 Single-auger; 0.05 600, 700, n.r. 1.47 n.r. 180–420 Electric tubular When the pyrolysis process reached a steady state [160]
L: 120 cm; 750, 800, heater (power after 30–40 min, gas samples were collected every
Ø: 4 cm and 900 not reported) 5 min in each run. Combustion kinetics of the
obtained bio-char was studied by means of
thermogravimetric analysis.
Sewage sludge n.r. 6.3 n.r. 400, 500, n.r. 0.26, 0.78, n.r. 360, 1080, Before each experiment, N2 was used to purge the [159]
600, 700, 1.41, and 6 1388, and reactor as long as the system reached the desirable

400
and 800 2760 temperature. When the influence of residence time
was assessed, the temperature was kept at 700 °C.
17 Textile dyeing < 1.0 1.4 Single-auger; 2 (N2), 450, 550, n.r. 1–2.5 3–7 115–260 Two-mode Catalysts such as CaO and Fe (which can absorb [161]
sludge L: 40 cm; 0.66 (Ar) 650, and microwave microwaves) were added during the process. Ar
Ø: 4 cm 750 devices was used as a tracer gas to assist in calculating the
(2.45 GHz and flow rate of non-condensable gases. The gas
3 kW) residence time was between 2 and 3 s,
approximately.
18 Woody biomass 0.5–2.0 10.8 Single-auger; n.r. 900 n.r. 0.039 n.r. 1920 and Electrical After pyrolysis, vapors were driven to a tubular [164]
waste (Pinus (characteristics not 3840 heating divided reactor where they were further thermally treated
pinaster) specified) in four zones at 900 °C in order to enhance gas yields and
quality. It allowed diminishing liquid formation to
obtain added value gases.
19 Scrap tire 1.0–2.0 0.4 Single-auger 1.5 338 n.r. 0.3 n.r. 180–270 Electric heaters Natural dolomite and olivine and calcined [165]
rubber L: 70 cm; of 4 kW. dolomite and olivine were
Ø: 2.8 cm; used in the second stage of the facility as fluidized
bed materials to evaluate their effects on reducing
the sulfur content of pyrolysis oil. The fluidized
bed material particle size was between 0.150 and
0.425 mm.
20 Wood pellets, 1.0–3.8 6.5–13.0 Vertical single- 1.0–5.0 450–600 n.r. Wood: n.r. 60–120 Two electric The objective of this study was to identify the [167]
pig manure, auger; 0.61–1.08 heaters of optimal pyrolysis operating parameters in order to
switchgrass L: 25.4 cm; Manure: 1.5 kW produce biochar for carbon sequestration. To this
Ø: 2.54 cm; 0.42–0.80 end, response surface methodology for
p: 3.8 cm. Switchgrass: experimental design was considered.
0.57
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
 Table 9 (continued)

No. Feedstock Particle size Moisture Reactor Pyrolysis conditions Heating Relevant remarks Ref.
(mm) (wt%) characteristics medium
N2 (Nl/ Temp. Press. Feed rate rpm Residence
F. Campuzano et al.

min) (°C) (atm.) (kg/h) time solids

(s)

21 Aspen wood < 2.0 8.0 Single-auger 3.6 450 n.r. 0.47 18 Solids: 210 Two external Pressurized Hot Water Treatment (PHWT) was [170]
(characteristics not Vapors: 6 electric furnaces applied on trembling aspen whole wood chips
specified) (power not prior to fast pyrolysis process. PHWT was applied
reported) in order to assess its effect on yields, physical-
chemical properties and composition of bio-oil.
This pre-treatment did not improved bio-oil yields
but reduced its water content.
22 Softwood 2.0 0.1–2.2 Single-auger 0.0 400, 450, Vacuum 1–7.5 n.r. n.r. Heat carrier: In this process, biomass was mixed with steel shot [9]
shaving, (characteristics not 475, and -0.0012, steel shot, and rapidly transformed into pyrolysis products.
hardwood specified) 500 -0.0020, heated by two Inert gas was not used; instead, a fan maintained a
sawdust, -0.0024 electric elements slight vacuum pressure inside the reactor and
softwood bark assisted the gas flow from the reactor through the
fan discharge to the atmosphere.
23 Pine wood < 1.0 6.0–8.0 Single-auger; Helium: 400, 500, n.r. 25 5 480 Hot wind Samples were oven-dried overnight at 105 °C [172]
L: 300 cm; 0.025 and 600 produced in a before tests. A fixed-bed catalytic reactor was
Ø: 16 cm blast stove considered to achieve catalytic upgrading of
pyrolysis vapors. The fixed bed reactor was heated
between 450 and 650 °C before experiments.
Moreover, HZSM-5 (Si/Al = 38) was considered.
24 Digestate Pellets: Ø: 15.0 Single-auger; n.r. 450 n.r. 1.6 n.r. 300 External heating The hydrogen rich gases obtained in the auger [176]
6.0 L: 100 cm; sleeves reactor were maximized in a post reforming stage
Ø: 8 cm operated at elevated temperature (500–750 °C).

401
25 Potato < 1.0 4.3–5.5 Single-auger; 6.0 450 n.r. 0.5 1 8 External heating Feedstock samples were dried for 48 h at 50 °C [177]
peel waste L:90 cm; bands (power before the tests. Previous thermogravimetric
Ø: 5 cm not specified) analyses were performed in order to defined
proper pyrolysis conditions, especially reaction
temperatures.
26 Fruit cuttings < 8.0 6.8–11.0 Twin-auger; n.r. 900 n.r. 1.33–4.0 n.r. 3600–7200 External electric The main objective of this study was charcoal [178]
L: 230 cm. heating (three production to be used as a reducing agent in
heating zones) metallurgical processes.
27 Rice straw 2.0 9.2 Single-auger; 10.0 500 n.r. 0.6 1.03 1200–1500 Three sections Herein, auger reactor was considered for either [179]
L: 150 cm; electric furnace slow or intermediate pyrolysis. The results
Ø: 10.2 cm (Ref. Linberg/ obtained in the auger type reactor were compared
Blue M) with those found in a fluidized bed reactor and a
batch reactor.
28 Rice husk and < 10.0 16.7–17.6 Single-auger; n.r. 350, 400, n.r. 0.35 12 Solids: 60 Carbolite VST This work aimed to study the effect of temperature [68]
corn stalks L: 50 cm; 450, 500, Vapors: 5 12/400, 2 kW on the physical-chemical properties of the
Ø: 2.56 cm 550, and electric furnace pyrolysis products, giving especially attention to
600 char and gases.
29 Mesquite 2.0 8.3–15.3 Single-auger n.r. 475, 500, n.r. 10 10, 30, n.r. Heat carrier: Sand was preheated to reaction temperatures and [7]
sawdust and L: 120 cm; and 525 and 50 sand mixed with biomass in predetermined ratios (1:1,
rice straw Ø: 60 cm 2:1, 3:1) inside the heated reactor.
30 Pine wood 0.60–0.84 5.79 Single-auger n.r. 425, 450, n.r. 500 g each run n.r. n.r. External furnace In this study, the physical properties of the [180]
chips (characteristics not 475, and (power not obtained bi-oil at different pyrolysis conditions
specified) 500 reported) were analyzed and compared with the ASTM
standards.

n.r: not reported; PS: polystyrene, PP: polypropylene, HDPE: high density polyethylene (HDPE), L: length; Ø: diameter; p: pitch.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
 Table 10
Pyrolysis product yields obtained from auger pyrolysis facilities detailed in Section 5.1.
No. Feedstock Auger config. Temp. (°C) Yield (wt%) Heating value (MJ/kg) Water in liquid fraction (wt. %) Ref.

Liquid Solid Gas Liquid Solid Gas

F. Campuzano et al.

a
1 Cassava rhizome Twin 500 40.0 22.0 38.0 28.5 n.r. n.r. 10.3 [132]
550 50.0 23.0 27.0 n.r. n.r.
650 45.0 13.0 42.0 n.r. n.r.
700 34.0 18.0 48.0 n.r. n.r.
d
2 Wood pellets Twin co-axial 450 54.3 28.5 17.7 24.2a 30.1a 7.27a, 15.4 [42]
d
Barley straw pellets auger 450 49.0 30.1 20.9 28.9a 32.9 6.92a, 5.8
3 Spent coffee grounds Single 429 59.6 20.6 22.3 n.r. n.r. n.r. 13.0 [134]
450 57.3–60.7 18.9–19.9 20.2–25.6 n.r. n.r. n.r.
500 54.5–61.7 17.7–18.6 19.7–25.9 n.r. n.r. n.r.
550 60.8 13.6 27.4 n.r. n.r. n.r.
571 57.8 17.3 24.9 n.r. n.r. n.r.
4 Pellets of waste wood Single 500 24.9–38.0 21.1–23.4 40.5–54.0 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. [137]
5 Packages (tetrapak) Single 650 16.0 24.0 60.0 n.r. 15.0b n.r. n.r. [138]
850 5.0 19.0 76.0 n.r. 15.0b n.r. n.r.
Softwood, spruce (Picea abies) 500 22.0–38.0 26.0–40.0 38.0–40.0 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. [139]
800 8.0–14.0 22.0–55.0 56.0–70.0 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r.
Automobile shredder residue 550 30.0 30.0 40.0c n.r. 19.0a n.r. n.r. [140]
600 34.0 18.0 48.0c n.r. 14.0a n.r. n.r.
650 32.0 16.0 52.0c n.r. 16.5a n.r. n.r.
700 30.5 14.0 55.5c n.r. 14.3a n.r. n.r.
750 30.0 13.0 57.0c n.r. 16.7a n.r. n.r.
800 29.0 8.0 63.0c n.r. 17.9a n.r. n.r.
6 Douglas Fir wood Single 200 17.0 80.0 3.0c n.r. n.r. n.r. 6.0 [67]

402
330 59.0 18.0 23.0c n.r. n.r. n.r. 12.0
420 48.0 11.0 41.0c n.r. n.r. n.r. 10.0
Pine pellets 500 57.8 30.0 12.2c 24.8a n.r. n.r. Bottom phase: 13.5 [181]
Upper phase: 14.5
7 Medium density fiberboard Single 450 25.0–27.0 29.9–39.7 34.0–47.5 26.9a 29.9a n.r. 23.0–30.0 [73]
600 23.9–40.0 17.3–25.5 44.0-53.0 26.9a 32.8a 13.3–14.3a
8 Red oak Twin 425 42.2 35.7 22.1 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. [66]
625 73.6 11 12.9 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r.
9 Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and Single 500 56.5 26.4 19.0 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. [145]
Black pine (Pinus nigra) 550 51.4 25.7 22.7c n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r.
600 45.1 23.7 31.2c n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r.
700 37.2 21.3 41.6c n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r.
900 36.6 19.0 44.4c n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r.
Waste tires 550 42.6 40.5 16.9 40.3b 29.9b 36.58b,d 774.5 (ppm) [71]
Wood chips (Pinus halepensis) 450 48.0–50.0 25.0–27.0 26.0–27.0 22.4–30.2b 26.0–28.9b 12.7–13.2b,d Bottom phase: 11.0–13.0 [182]
Upper phase: 50.0–60.0
Wood chips (Pinus halepensis) 400 41.0 36.0 23.0 22–26.8b 28–29b 10.5–12.7b 9.0–13.0 [147]
450 49.0 26.0 25.0
500 50.0 21.0 26.0
10 Hardwood Twin 500 66.5 18.5 15.0 12.6 5.2 0.97 27.3 ± 10.8 [76]
Softwood 500 69.1 14.9 16.0 13.49 4.6 1.4 25.9 ± 5.9
Wheat straw 500 51.4 24.5 24.1 8.3 6.6 1.8 6.5 ± 1.9
Wheat bran 500 60.0 18.2 21.8 13.3 3.8 1.35 12.5 ± 3.3
Hybrid poplar 500 64.0 15.0 21.0 n.r. n.r. 15.6a,d 12.0 [39]
Wheat straw 500 46.0 30.0 24.0 n.r. n.r. 16.0a,d 14.0
Blend 500 56.0 18.0 26.0 n.r. n.r. 15.4,a,d 16.0
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
 Table 10 (continued)

No. Feedstock Auger config. Temp. (°C) Yield (wt%) Heating value (MJ/kg) Water in liquid fraction (wt. %) Ref.

Liquid Solid Gas Liquid Solid Gas

F. Campuzano et al.

Beech wood 500 70.0 10.0 20.0 n.r. n.r. 15.6a,d 15.0
11 Sewage sludge Single 350 27.9 66.7 4.7 28.0b 11.8b 3.0b,d 20.6 [149]
400 33.4 60.9 5.6 28.9b 11.0b n.r. 21.7
450 34.4 54.8 6.4 28.3b 9.0b n.r. 21.4
500 34.9 53.0 7.7 30.2b 8.6b 13.4b,d 21.5
Beech wood chips 350 42.9 31.5 12.5 19.1b 26.5b n.r. 33.8 [97]
400 37.2 24.4 15.7 20.6b 28.8b n.r. 35.8
450 48.8 20.6 23.4 21.0b 29.5b n.r. 35.6
500 39.8 18 31.6 22.4b 31.0b n.r. 28.2
12 Dried sludge Single 350–500 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. [150]
13 Pine wood Twin 500 59.8 22.6 17.6 n.r. n.r. n.r. 37.0–39.0 [152]
525 55.2 23.2 21.5 n.r. n.r. n.r.
550 53.6 17.5 28.9 n.r. n.r. n.r.
14 Pine wood Single 450 33.0–40.0 18.0–19.0 41.0–49.0 n.r. n.r. n.r. 7.4–15.7 [153]
15 Pine wood with PP Single 450 46.0 32.2 21.8 36.9a n.r. n.r. 5.4 [183]
(50/50 wt%) 525 27.4 24.1 48.5 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r.
Pine wood with HDPE 450 38.9 25.9 35.2 27.7a n.r. n.r. 10.7
(50/50 wt%) 525 9.1 11.9 79.0 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r.
Pine wood with PS 450 n.r. n.r. n.r. 28.4a n.r. n.r. 9.5
(50/50 wt%) 525 64.9 12.1 23.0 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r.
Pine wood 450 50.1 19.1 30.8 25.1a n.r. n.r. 13.0
Pine wood Single 450 48.7–55.2 17.5–19.8 n.r. 21.9 a n.r. n.r. 16.0 [155]
Pine bark 450 42.8–44.2 9.7–23.2 n.r. 18.3 a n.r. n.r. 19.8
Oak wood 450 49.6–56.3 17.5–19.9 n.r. 18.7 a n.r. n.r. 22.5

403
Oak bark 450 43.8–49.8 21.3–27.8 n.r. 19.0 a n.r. n.r. 22.0
16 Pine sawdust Single 600 51.7 22.0 23.3 17.9a 27.7a n.r. n.r. [160]
700 38.0 23.0 39.0 18.8a n.r. n.r. n.r.
750 33.0 23.0 44.0 19.9a 27.0a n.r. n.r.
800 28.0 23.0 49.0 17.1a 25.9a n.r. n.r.
900 18.0 25.1 57.0 13.6a 27.5a n.r. n.r.
Sewage sludge 400 11.9 74.9 13.2c n.r. 14.8 n.r. n.r. [159]
500 14.0 74.0 12.0c n.r. 13.2 n.r. n.r.
600 13.0 72.0 15.0c n.r. 11.8 n.r. n.r.
700 16.7 57.0 26.3c n.r. 9.2 n.r. n.r.
800 11.8 56.7 31.5c n.r. 9.0 n.r. n.r.
17 Textile dyeing sludge Single 450 9.0 79.0 3.9 n.r. n.r. n.r. 94.3 [161]
550 12.0 69.0 7.0 n.r. n.r. n.r. 92.3
650 14.0 68.0 9.0 n.r. n.r. n.r. 92.3
750 9.0 64.0 13.0 n.r. n.r. n.r. 92.0
18 Woody biomass waste (Pinus Single 900 5.8–9.7 19.3–21.0 69.3–74.9 n.r. 29.9–31.25a 12–15a,d 12–49 area% (obtained by GC/MS [164]
pinaster) analysis)
19 Scrap tire rubber Single 338 1.4–3.7 2.6–3.0 2.0–2.8 n.r. n.r. 29.3–39.8 n.r. [165]
20 Wood pellets Vertical auger 516 58.2 26.4 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. [167]
644 51.5 18.5 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r.
Pig manure 459 60.2 26.9 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r.
591 49.4 18.9 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r.
Switchgrass 526 37.9 46.4 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r.
630 41.5 39.9 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r.
21 Aspen wood Single 450 56.1 19.8–20.7 23.1–24.1c 13.10–15.33 n.r. n.r. 32.0–41.0 [170]
22 Softwood shaving Single 450 53.0 21.0 n.r. 16.7 n.r. n.r. 26.0 [9]
Hardwood sawdust 450 55.0 22.0 n.r. 17.6 n.r. n.r. 25.0
Softwood bark 450 39.0 30.0 n.r. 15.8 n.r. n.r. 33.0
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
 Table 10 (continued)

No. Feedstock Auger config. Temp. (°C) Yield (wt%) Heating value (MJ/kg) Water in liquid fraction (wt. %) Ref.

Liquid Solid Gas Liquid Solid Gas

F. Campuzano et al.

23 Pine wood Single 400 30.2 45.1 24.7 n.r. n.r. n.r. 40.2 [172]
500 34.0 34 35.7 n.r. n.r. n.r. 45.6–70.8
600 33.1 25.2 41.7 n.r. n.r. n.r. 60.5
24 Digestate Single 450.0 26.0–42.0 34.0–40.0 18.0–36.0 34.4–36.7a 17.6a 9.7–14.4b,d 27.0–30.0 [176]
25 Potato peel waste Single 450 22.7 30.5 n.r. n.r. 20.3–24.2 n.r. n.r. [177]
26 Fruit cuttings Twin 900 n.r. 22.0 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. [178]
27 Rice straw Single 500 25.7 44.9 13.2 29.4a 16.0a 7.0a,d 14.0 [179]
28 Rice husk Single 350 44.0 46.0 10.0 n.r. 16.5a 4.5a,d n.r. [68]
400 46.0 43.0 11.0 n.r. 17.0a 5.5a,d n.r.
450 49.0 39.0 12.0 n.r. 19.5a 7.5a,d n.r.
500 53.0 33.0 14.0 n.r. 19.5a 9.5a,d n.r.
550 50.0 31.0 19.0 n.r. 20.5a 12.8a,d n.r.
600 48.0 30.0 22.0 n.r. 21.5a 14.5a,d n.r.
Corn stalks 350 47.0 38.0 15.0 n.r. 20.0a 3.0a,d n.r.
400 51.0 32.0 17.0 n.r. 23.0a 3.5a,d n.r.
450 53.0 30.0 17.0 n.r. 23.0a 4.5a,d n.r.
500 54.0 28.0 18.0 n.r. 24.0a 8.0a,d n.r.
550 50.0 28.0 22.0 n.r. 24.5a 11.5 a,d n.r.
600 46.0 26.0 28.0 n.r. 26.0a 15.0a,d n.r.
29 Mesquite sawdust Single 475 18.3–35.4 38.4–49.8 14.8–43.3 19.5a n.r. n.r. 9.2 [7]
500 26.4–42.6 28.8–33.5 28.6–40.1 n.r. n.r.
525 24.4–39.7 26.5–33.5 28.9–45.1 n.r. n.r.
Rice straw 475 21.7–34.6 32.7–40.6 32.6–41.6 13.2a n.r. n.r. 8.1
500 20.2–32.4 25.6–39.9 38.3–47.1 n.r. n.r.

404
525 10.8–28.7 22.3–39.4 36.2–66.9 n.r. n.r.
30 Pine wood chips Single 425 45.0 35.0 20.0 18.6 24.4 n.r. 20.8 [180]
450 50.0 26.0 24.0 19.1 26.5 n.r. 21.0
475 45.0 24.0 31.0 18.4 26.8 n.r. 20.3
500 36.0 20.0 44.0 19.7 28.1 n.r. 20.6

n.r: not reported; PS: polystyrene, PP: polypropylene, HDPE: high density polyethylene (HDPE).
a
HHV.
b
LVH.
c
By difference.
d
(MJ/m3).
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
F. Campuzano et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

Fig. 16. ABRI-TECH process scheme (adapted from [187]).

Fig. 17. PYREC® process scheme (adapted from [187]).

Fig. 18. Spirajoule® process scheme (adapted from [106]).

405
F. Campuzano et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

enables direct heating of the process, resulting in higher heat transfer

Fig. 19. Pyroformer® process scheme (adapted from [189]).
rates compared to the indirectly heated single-auger configuration.
Therefore, fast pyrolysis conditions are more likely achieved in twin-
augers than in single-augers.
Research to date on auger pyrolysis reactors have not paid sufficient
attention to the influence of the auger flighting geometry and/or the
mixing conditions on both yield and quality of the products. Efforts are
strongly needed to elucidate the fundamental physical phenomena and
the interaction between the physical transport phenomena and che-
mical reactions.
Auger reactors together with BFB and CFB are the strongest con-
tenders for commercial development of fast pyrolysis. In this sense, the
liquid fraction yield can be quite similar to those reported for fluidized
bed reactors (the most documented and commercially available reactor
type among all fast pyrolysis technologies). Currently, auger pyrolyzers
have been designed and operated for industrial capacities up to 50 t/
day; nevertheless, it seems suitable to be scaled up to capacities as high
as 100 t/day.

Fig. 20. Pyrolysis stage of the Bioliq® process (adapted from [194]).

Fig. 21. General scheme of the waste tire pyrolysis plant developed by ICB-CSIC.

406
F. Campuzano et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409

Acknowledgements [Accessed 5 July 2017].

[31] Guillain M, Fairouz K, Mar SR, Monique F, Jacques L. Attrition-free pyrolysis to
produce bio-oil and char. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:6069–75.
The authors would like to express all their gratitude to COLCIENCIAS for [32] Van de Velden M, Baeyens J, Brems A, Janssens B, Dewil R. Fundamentals, kinetics and
the financial support given by the research project (1210-715-51742). F. endothermicity of the biomass pyrolysis reaction. Renew Energy 2010;35:232–42.
Campuzano is in debt with the Integrated Center for the Development of [33] Neves D, Thunman H, Matos A, Tarelho L, Gómez-Barea A. Characterization and pre-
diction of biomass pyrolysis products. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2011;37:611–30.
Research (CIDI) at Pontificia Bolivariana University (UPB) and its program [34] García-Pérez M, Chaala A, Pakdel H, Kretschmer D, Roy C. Vacuum pyrolysis of
“Formación Investigativa” for the M.Sc. scholarship. Authors also thank to softwood and hardwood biomass. Comparison between product yields and bio-oil
Elsevier for permission granted for using Fig. 10. properties. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2007;78:104–16.
[35] Balagurumurthy B, Bhaskar T. Hydropyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass: state of
the art review. Biomass Convers Biorefinery 2014;4:67–75.
References [36] Anca-Couce A. Reaction mechanisms and multi-scale modelling of lignocellulosic
biomass pyrolysis. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2016;53:41–79.
[37] Wang S, Dai G, Yang H, Luo Z. Lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis mechanism: a
[1] Martínez JD, Puy N, Murillo R, García T, Navarro MV, Mastral AM. Waste tyre
state-of-the-art review. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2017;62:33–86.
pyrolysis – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;23:179–213.
[38] Evans RJ, Milne TA. Molecular characterization of pyrolysis of biomass. 1.
[2] BP. Statistical review of world energy. 2016. p. 1–48 〈https://www.bp.com/
Fundamentals. Energy Fuels 1987;1:123–38.
content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2016/bp-statistical-
[39] Funke A, Tomasi Morgano M, Dahmen N, Leibold H. Experimental comparison of
review-of-world-energy-2016-full-report.pdf〉.
two bench scale units for fast and intermediate pyrolysis. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis
[3] Vamvuka D. Bio-oil, solid and gaseous biofuels from biomass pyrolysis pro-
2017;124:504–14.
cesses—an overview. Int J Energy Res 2011;35:835–62.
[40] Torri IDV, Paasikallio V, Faccini CS, Huff R, Caramão EB, Sacon V, et al. Bio-oil
[4] The World Bank. Solid waste management; 2017. 〈http://www.worldbank.org/en/
production of softwood and hardwood forest industry residues through fast and
topic/urbandevelopment/brief/solid-waste-management〉, [Accessed 18 July 2017].
intermediate pyrolysis and its chromatographic characterization. Bioresour
[5] Sachs JD, McArthur JW. The millennium project: a plan for meeting the millen-
Technol 2016;200:680–90.
nium development goals. Lancet 2005;365:347–53.
[41] Singh R, Krishna BB, Mishra G, Kumar J, Bhaskar T. Strategies for selection of
[6] International Energy Agency. Key world energy statistics; 2017. 〈https://www.iea.
thermo-chemical processes for the valorisation of biomass. Renew Energy
org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf〉, [Accessed 6
2016;98:226–37.
December 2017].
[42] Yang Y, Brammer JG, Mahmood ASN, Hornung A. Intermediate pyrolysis of bio-
[7] Mathew M, Muruganandam L. Pyrolysis of agricultural biomass using an auger
mass energy pellets for producing sustainable liquid, gaseous and solid fuels.
reactor: a parametric optimization. Int J Chem React Eng 2017;15:1–12.
Bioresour Technol 2014;169:794–9.
[8] International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Global bioenerg-Supply and
[43] Yang Y, Brammer JG, Ouadi M, Samanya J, Hornung A, Xu HM, et al.
demand projections; 2014. 〈http://www.globalbioenergy.org/uploads/media/
Characterisation of waste derived intermediate pyrolysis oils for use as diesel
1409_IRENA_-_REmap_2030_Biomass_paper_2014.pdf〉, [Accessed 25 June 2018].
engine fuels. Fuel 2013;103:247–57.
[9] Papari S, Hawboldt K, Helleur R. Production and characterization of pyrolysis oil
[44] Elliott DC, Meier D, Oasmaa A, van de Beld B, Bridgwater AV, Marklund M. Results
from sawmill residues in an auger reactor. Ind Eng Chem Res 2017;56:1920–5.
of the International Energy Agency Round Robin on fast pyrolysis bio-oil pro-
[10] Gonzales-Salazar MA, Morini M, Pinelli M, Spina PR, Venturini M, Finkenrath M,
duction. Energy Fuels 2017;31:5111–9.
et al. Methodology for biomass energy potential estimation: projections of future
[45] ASTM. Standard specification for pyrolysis liquid biofuel (D7544-12). 2017. p. 1–5.
potential in Colombia. Renew Energy 2014;69:488–505.
[46] Lehto J, Oasmaa A, Solantausta Y, Kytö M, Chiaramonti D. Review of fuel oil
[11] Garcia-Nunez JA, Pelaez-Samaniego MR, García-Pérez ME, Fonts I, Abrego J,
quality and combustion of fast pyrolysis bio-oils from lignocellulosic biomass. Appl
Westerhof RJM, et al. Historical developments of pyrolysis reactors: a review.
Energy 2014;116:178–90.
Energy Fuels 2017;31:5751–75.
[47] Ringer M, Putsche V, Scahill J. Large-scale pyrolysis oil production: a technology as-
[12] Meier D, van de Beld B, Bridgwater AV, Elliott DC, Oasmaa A, Preto F. State-of-the-
sessment and economic analysis. Natl Renew Energy Lab 2006;1–93 〈http://citeseerx.
art of fast pyrolysis in IEA bioenergy member countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.114.2661&rep=rep1&type=pdf〉.
2013;20:619–41.
[48] Martínez JD, Veses A, Mastral AM, Murillo R, Navarro MV, Puy N, et al. Co-pyr-
[13] Das O, Sarmah AK. Value added liquid products from waste biomass pyrolysis
olysis of biomass with waste tyres: upgrading of liquid bio-fuel. Fuel Process
using pretreatments. Sci Total Environ 2015;538:145–51.
Technol 2014;119:263–71.
[14] Panda AK, Singh RK, Mishra DK. Thermolysis of waste plastics to liquid fuel. A
[49] Mortensen PM, Grunwaldt JD, Jensen PA, Knudsen KG, Jensen AD. A review of
suitable method for plastic waste management and manufacture of value added
catalytic upgrading of bio-oil to engine fuels. Appl Catal A Gen 2011;407:1–19.
products – a world prospective. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:233–48.
[50] Gollakota ARK, Reddy M, Subramanyam MD, Kishore N. A review on the upgra-
[15] Miandad R, Rehan M, Nizami A-S, Barakat MAE, Ismail IM. The energy and value-
dation techniques of pyrolysis oil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;58:1543–68.
added products from pyrolysis of waste plastics. : Recycl Solid Waste Biofuels Bio-
[51] Kabir G, Hameed BH. Recent progress on catalytic pyrolysis of lignocellulosic
Chem 2016:333–55.
biomass to high-grade bio-oil and bio-chemicals. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
[16] Tripathi M, Sahu JN, Ganesan P. Effect of process parameters on production of
2017;70:945–67.
biochar from biomass waste through pyrolysis: a review. Renew Sustain Energy
[52] Junming X, Jianchun J, Yunjuan S, Yanju L. Bio-oil upgrading by means of ethyl
Rev 2016;55:467–81.
ester production in reactive distillation to remove water and to improve storage
[17] Li S-Q, Yao Q, Chi Y, Yan J-H, Cen K-F. Pilot-scale pyrolysis of scrap tires in a
and fuel characteristics. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:1056–61.
continuous rotary kiln reactor. Ind Eng Chem Res 2004;43:5133–45.
[53] Wang C, Hu Y, Chen Q, Lv C, Jia S. Bio-oil upgrading by reactive distillation using
[18] Wagenaar BM, Prins W, van Swaaij WPM. Pyrolysis of biomass in the rotating cone
p-toluene sulfonic acid catalyst loaded on biomass activated carbon. Biomass
reactor: modelling and experimental justification. Chem Eng Sci 1994;49:5109–26.
Bioenergy 2013;56:405–11.
[19] Lédé J. The cyclone: a multifunctional reactor for the fast pyrolysis of biomass. Ind
[54] Wang H, Male J, Wang Y. Recent advances in hydrotreating of pyrolysis bio-oil and
Eng Chem Res 2000;39:893–903.
its oxygen-containing model compounds. ACS Catal 2013;3:1047–70.
[20] Peacocke GVC, Bridgwater AV. Ablative plate pyrolysis of biomass for liquids.
[55] Liu P, Liu W-J, Jiang H, Chen J-J, Li W-W, Yu H-Q. Modification of bio-char de-
Biomass Bioenergy 1994;7:147–54.
rived from fast pyrolysis of biomass and its application in removal of tetracycline
[21] Chen D, Yin L, Wang H, He P. Pyrolysis technologies for municipal solid waste: a
from aqueous solution. Bioresour Technol 2012;121:235–40.
review. Waste Manag 2014;34:2466–86.
[56] Thangalazhy-Gopakumar S, Mohammed W, Al-nadheri A, Jegarajan D, Sahu JN,
[22] Bridgwater AV. Review of fast pyrolysis of biomass and product upgrading.
Mubarak NM, et al. Utilization of palm oil sludge through pyrolysis for bio-oil and
Biomass Bioenergy 2012;38:68–94.
bio-char production. Bioresour Technol 2015;178:65–9.
[23] Mohan D, Pittman CU, Steele PH. Pyrolysis of wood/biomass for bio-oil: a critical
[57] Li W, Dang Q, Brown RC, Laird D, Wright MM. The impacts of biomass properties
review. Energy Fuels 2006;20:848–89.
on pyrolysis yields, economic and environmental performance of the pyrolysis-
[24] Jahirul MI, Rasul MG, Chowdhury AA, Ashwath N. Biofuels production through
bioenergy-biochar platform to carbon negative energy. Bioresour Technol
biomass pyrolysis: a technological review. Energies 2012;5:4952–5001.
2017;241:959–68.
[25] Malkow T. Novel and innovative pyrolysis and gasification technologies for energy
[58] Williams PT. Pyrolysis of waste tyres: a review. Waste Manag 2013;33:1714–28.
efficient and environmentally sound MSW disposal. Waste Manag 2004;24:53–79.
[59] Aylón E, Fernández-Colino A, Murillo R, Navarro MV, García T, Mastral AM.
[26] Verma M, Godbout S, Brar SK, Solomatnikova O, Lemay SP, Larouche JP. Biofuels
Valorisation of waste tyre by pyrolysis in a moving bed reactor. Waste Manag
production from biomass by thermochemical conversion technologies. Int J Chem Eng
2010;30:1220–4.
2012;2012.
[60] Murillo R, Aylón E, Navarro MV, Callén MS, Aranda A, Mastral AM. The application of
[27] Venderbosch RH, Prins W. Fast pyrolysis technology development. Biofuels
thermal processes to valorise waste tyre. Fuel Process Technol 2006;87:143–7.
Bioprod Bioref 2012;6:246–56.
[61] Zareiforroush H, Komarizadeh MH, Alizadeh MR, Masoomi M. Screw conveyors
[28] Czajczynska D, Anguilano L, Ghazal H, Krzyzynska R, Reynolds AJ, Spencer N,
power and throughput analysis during horizontal handling of paddy grains. J Agric
et al. Potential of pyrolysis processes in the waste management sector. Therm Sci
Sci 2010;2:147–57.
Eng Prog 2017;3:171–97.
[62] Rackl M, Günthner WA. Experimental investigation on the influence of different grades
[29] Brassard P, Godbout S, Raghavan V. Pyrolysis in auger reactors for biochar and
of wood chips on screw feeding performance. Biomass Bioenergy 2016;88:106–15.
bio-oil production: a review. Biosyst Eng 2017;161:80–92.
[63] Nachenius RW, Van De Wardt TA, Ronsse F, Prins W. Residence time distributions
[30] Intermational Energy Agency/Task 34. Pyrolysis reactors, Direct Thermochem.
of coarse biomass particles in a screw conveyor reactor. Fuel Process Technol
Liquifaction; 2017. 〈http://task34.ieabioenergy.com/pyrolysis-reactors/〉,
2015;130:87–95.

407
F. Campuzano et al.
[64] Aramideh S, Xiong Q, Kong SC, Brown RC. Numerical simulation of biomass fast
pyrolysis in an auger reactor. Fuel 2015;156:234–42.
[65] Marmur BL. The effects of scale on granular mixing in a double screw pyrolyzer
[Master Thesis]. Iowa State University; 2015.
[66] Brown JN, Brown RC. Process optimization of an auger pyrolyzer with heat carrier
using response surface methodology. Bioresour Technol 2012;103:405–14.
[67] Liaw SS, Zhou S, Wu H, Garcia-Perez M. Effect of pretreatment temperature on the
yield and properties of bio-oils obtained from the auger pyrolysis of Douglas fir
wood. Fuel 2013;103:672–82.
[68] Yu Y, Yang Y, Cheng Z, Blanco PH, Liu R, Bridgwater AV, et al. Pyrolysis of rice
husk and corn stalk in auger reactor. 1. Characterization of char and gas at various
temperatures. Energy Fuels 2016;30:10568–74.
[69] Yang H, Kudo S, Kuo H-P, Norinaga K, Mori A, Masek O, et al. Estimation of enthalpy of
bio-oil vapor and heat required for pyrolysis of biomass. Energy Fuels
2013;27:2675–86.
[70] Daugaard DE, Brown RC. Enthalpy for pyrolysis for several types of biomass.
Energy Fuels 2003;17:934–9.
[71] Martínez JD, Murillo R, García T, Veses A. Demonstration of the waste tire pyrolysis
process on pilot scale in a continuous auger reactor. J Hazard Mater 2013;261:637–45.
[72] Bridgwater A, Czernik S, Diebold J, Meier D, Oasmaa A, Peacocke C, et al. Fast
pyrolysis of biomass: a handbook. UK: CPL-Press; 1999.
[73] Ferreira SD, Altafini CR, Perondi D, Godinho M. Pyrolysis of medium density fi-
berboard (MDF) wastes in a screw reactor. Energy Convers Manag
2015;92:223–33.
[74] Ouadi M, Brammer JG, Yang Y, Hornung A, Kay M. The intermediate pyrolysis of
de-inking sludge to produce a sustainable liquid fuel. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis
2013;102:24–32.
[75] Yang Y. Energy production from biomass and waste derived intermediate pyrolysis
oils [Ph.D. Thesis]. Aston University; 2014.
[76] Henrich E, Dahmen N, Weirich F, Reimert R, Kornmayer C. Fast pyrolysis of lig-
nocellulosics in a twin screw mixer reactor. Fuel Process Technol
2016;143:151–61.
[77] Daugaard TJ, Dalluge DL, Brown RC, Wright MM. Effect of thermophysical
properties of heat carriers on performance of a laboratory-scale auger pyrolyzer.
Fuel Process Technol 2018;176:182–9.
[78] Funke A, Grandl R, Ernst M, Dahmen N. Modelling and improvement of heat
transfer coefficient in auger type reactors for fast pyrolysis application. Chem Eng
Process Process Intensif 2018;130:67–75.
[79] Li D, Berruti F, Briens C. Autothermal fast pyrolysis of birch bark with partial
oxidation in a fluidized bed reactor. Fuel 2014;121:27–38.
[80] Wey MY, Liou BH, Wu SY, Zhang CH. The autothermal pyrolysis of waste tires. J
Air Waste Manag Assoc 2014;45:855–63.
[81] Amutio M, Lopez G, Aguado R, Bilbao J, Olazar M. Biomass oxidative flash pyr-
olysis: autothermal operation, yields and product properties. Energy Fuels
2012;26:1353–62.
[82] Polin JP , Whitmer LE , Smith RG , Brown RC . Process intensification of a fluidized
bed pyrolyzer via autothermal operation. In: Proceedings of the Symp. Therm.
Catal. Sci. biofuels biobased Prod. North Carolina; 2016.
[83] Brown R. Autothermal pyrolysis of lignocellulose wastes to sugars and other bio-
based products. In: RAPID Inst. Updat. AIChE Annu. Meet. Minneapolis, MN; 2017.
[84] Kim KH, Brown RC, Bai X. Partial oxidative pyrolysis of acid infused red oak using
a fluidized bed reactor to produce sugar rich bio-oil. Fuel 2014;130:135–41.
[85] Kim KH, Bai X, Rover M, Brown RC. The effect of low-concentration oxygen in
sweep gas during pyrolysis of red oak using a fluidized bed reactor. Fuel
2014;124:49–56.
[86] Chen X, Zhang H, Xiao R. Mobile autothermal pyrolysis system for local biomass
conversion: process simulation and techno-economic analysis. Energy Fuels
2018;32:4178–88.
[87] Owen PJ, Cleary PW. Screw conveyor performance: comparison of discrete ele-
ment modelling with laboratory experiments. In: Proceedings of the seventh in-
ternational conference CFD Miner. Process Ind.;: 2009, p. 1–7.
[88] Screw Conveyor Corporation. Screw conveyor catalog and engineering manual
[Cat. No. 787E]. 2010. p. 1–68〈http://www.magnetomechanical.com/resources/
screw_conveyor_design_guide.pdf〉.
[89] Bortolamasi M, Fottner J. Design and sizing of screw feeders. In: Proceedings of the
Int. Congr. Part. Technol. Nuremberg, Germany; 2001, p. 27–9.
[90] Marmur BL, Heindel TJ. Scale effects on double-screw granular mixing. Powder
Technol 2017;321:74–88.
[91] Henan Pingyuan Mining Machinary Co. Ltd.. What factors that affect the screw con-
veyor conveying efficiency?; 2015. 〈http://www.pkmachinery.com/faq/factors–affect–
screw-conveyor-conveying-efficiency.html〉, [Accessed 20 August 2016].
[92] Carleton AJ, Miles JEP, Valentin FHH. A study of factors affecting the performance
of screw conveyers and feeders. J Eng Ind 1969;91:329.
[93] Evstratov VA, Rud AV, Belousov KY. Process modelling vertical screw transport of
bulk material flow. Procedia Eng 2015;129:397–402.
[94] Martelli FG. Twin-screw extruders: a basic understanding. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co; 1983.
[95] Camp DW, Coburn TT, Wallman PH. Mild coal gasification – product separation,
support, twin screw heat transfer, and H2S evolution. In: Proceedings of the Elev.
Annu. Gasif. Gas Stream Contract. Meet. Morgantown, West Virginia; 1991.
[96] Kingston TA, Heindel TJ. Granular mixing optimization and the influence of op-
erating conditions in a double screw mixer. Powder Technol 2014;266:144–55.
[97] Morgano MT, Leibold H, Richter F, Seifert H. Screw pyrolysis with integrated se-
quential hot gas filtration. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2015;113:216–24.
[98] Orefice L, Khinast JG. DEM study of granular transport in partially filled horizontal
screw conveyors. Powder Technol 2017;305:347–56.
408
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
[99] Dai J, Cui H, Grace JR. Biomass feeding for thermochemical reactors. Prog Energy
Combust Sci 2012;38:716–36.
[100] Roberts AW. The influence of granular vortex motion on the volumetric perfor-
mance of enclosed screw conveyors. Powder Technol 1999;104:56–67.
[101] Yu Y, Arnold PC. Theoretical modelling of torque requirements for single screw
feeders. Powder Technol 1997;93:151–62.
[102] Kingston TA. Granular mixing visualization and quantification in a double screw
mixer [Master Thesis]. Iowa State University; 2013.
[103] Brown JN. Development of a lab-scale auger reactor for biomass fast pyrolysis and
process optimization using response surface methodology [Master Thesis]. Iowa
State University; 2009.
[104] The Conveyor Equipment Manufactures Association. Belt conveyors for bulk ma-
terials. 5th ed. CEMA; 2002.
[105] Conveyor Engineering and Manufacturing Co.. Screw conveyor components and
design: manual. 2012 [Accessed 25 November 2016]. 〈https://www.conveyoreng.
com/conveyor-design-manual/?v=42983b05e2f2〉.
[106] Biogreen, The pyrolyzer Spirajoule®; 2016. 〈http://www.biogreen-energy.com/
biogreen/spirajoule/〉 , [accessed 7 February 2016].
[107] Bridgwater J. Mixing of powders and granular materials by mechanical means – a
perspective. Particuology 2012;10:397–427.
[108] Poux M, Fayolle P, Bertrand J, Brioux D, Bousquet J. Powder mixing: some
practical rules applied to agitated systems. Powder Technol 1991;68:213–34.
[109] Paul EL, Atiemo-Obeng V, Kresta SM. Handbook of industrial mixing: science and
industrial practice. Wiley; 2004.
[110] Qi F, Heindel TJ, Wright MM. Numerical study of particle mixing in a lab-scale screw
mixer using the discrete element method. Powder Technol 2017;308:334–45.
[111] Rhodes M. Introduction to particle technology. Wiley; 2008.
[112] Fan LT, Too JR, Rubison RM, Lai FS. Studies on multicomponent solids mixing and
mixtures part III. Mixing indices. Powder Technol 1979;24:73–89.
[113] Qi F, Wright MM, A DEM modeling of biomass fast pyrolysis in a double screw
reactor. In: Proceedings of the AIChE Annu. Meet. Minneapolis, MN; 2017.
[114] Kingston TA, Geick TA, Robinson TR, Heindel TJ. Characterizing 3D granular flow
structures in a double screw mixer using X-ray particle tracking velocimetry.
Powder Technol 2015;278:211–22.
[115] Marmur BL, Heindel TJ. Effect of particle size, density, and concentration on
granular mixing in a double screw pyrolyzer. Powder Technol 2016;302:222–35.
[116] Kingston TA, Heindel TJ. Optical visualization and composition analysis to
quantify continuous granular mixing processes. Powder Technol
2014;262:257–64.
[117] Donati G, Paludetto R. Scale up of chemical reactors. Catal Today
1997;34:483–533.
[118] Funke A, Henrich E, Dahmen N, Sauer J. Dimensional analysis of auger-type fast
pyrolysis reactors. Energy Technol 2017;5:119–29.
[119] Laucks IF. The screw as a carbonizing machine. Ind Eng Chem 1927;19:9–11.
[120] Woody GV. Production of coke as a domestic fuel – the Hayes process for carbo-
nizing coal at low temperature. Ind Eng Chem 1941;33:841–6.
[121] Hulet C, Briens C, Berruti F, Chan EW. A review of short residence time cracking
processes. Int J Chem React Eng 2005;3:1–32.
[122] Lee S. Oil shale retorting and extraction process. In: Lee S, editor. Oil Shale
Technology. CRC Press Inc.; 2000. p. 109–34 [Chapter 6].
[123] Speight JG. Mining and retorting. In: Speight JG, editor. Shale Oil Production
Processes. Elsevier Inc.; 2012. p. 93–122 [Chapter 4].
[124] Schmalfeld J. The Lurgi-Ruhrgas (LR) process applied to tar sands and other bi-
tuminous materials. In: Proceedings of the 17th Intersoc. energy Convers. en-
gineeirng conference. Los Angeles; 1982.
[125] Raffelt K, Henrich E, Koegel A, Stahl R, Steinhardt J, Weirich F. The BTL2 process
of biomass utilization entrained-flow gasification of pyrolyzed biomass slurries.
Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2006;129:153–64.
[126] Lin L, Khang SJ, Keener TC. Coal desulfurization by mild pyrolysis in a dual-auger
coal feeder. Fuel Process Technol 1997;53:15–29.
[127] Hornung A. Intermediate pyrolysis of biomass. In: Rosendahl L, editor. Biomass
combustion science, technology and engineering. Woodhead Publishing Limited;
2013. p. 172–84 [Chapter 8].
[128] Hornung A. Integrated processes including intermediate pyrolysis. In: Hornung A,
editor. Transformation of biomass: theory to practice. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.;
2014. p. 209–16 [Chapter 11].
[129] Roggero CM, Tumiatti V, Scova A, De Leo C, Binello A, Cravotto G.
Characterization of oils from Haloclean® pyrolysis of biomasses. Energy Sources
Part A Recov Util Environ Eff 2011;33:467–76.
[130] Camp DW. Mild coal gasification-screw pyrolysis development and design,. In:
Proceedings of the Tenth Annu. Gasif. gas stream cleanup Syst. contrator’s Rev.
Meet. Morgantown, West Virginia; 1990.
[131] Lakshmanan CM, Benjamin Gal-Or, Hoelscher HE. Production of levoglucosan by
pyrolysis of carbohydrates pyrolysis in hot inert gas stream. Ind Eng Chem Prod
Res Dev 1969;8:261–7.
[132] Sirijanusorn S, Sriprateep K, Pattiya A. Pyrolysis of cassava rhizome in a counter-
rotating twin screw reactor unit. Bioresour Technol 2013;139:343–8.
[133] Hornung A, Apfelbacher A. Thermal treatment of biomass, US 8,835,704 B2.
Birminghan: Aston University; 2014.
[134] Kelkar S, Saffron CM, Chai L, Bovee J, Stuecken TR, Garedew M, et al. Pyrolysis of spent
coffee grounds using a screw-conveyor reactor. Fuel Process Technol 2015;137:170–8.
[135] Okoroigwe EC, Li Z, Kelkar S, Saffron C, Onyegegbu S. Bio-oil yield potential of
some tropical woody biomass. J Energy South Afr 2015;26:33–41.
[136] Okoroigwe EC, Li Z, Unachukwu G, Stuecken T, Saffron C. Thermochemical con-
version of palm kernel shell (PKS) to bio-energy. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2011
5th international conference energy sustain. Washington, DC, USA; 2011.
F. Campuzano et al.
[137] Efika CE, Wu C, Williams PT. Syngas production from pyrolysis-catalytic steam re-
forming of waste biomass in a continuous screw kiln reactor. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis
2012;95:87–94.
[138] Haydary J, Susa D, DudአJ. Pyrolysis of aseptic packages (tetrapak) in a la-
boratory screw type reactor and secondary thermal/catalytic tar decomposition.
Waste Manag 2013;33:1136–41.
[139] Susa D, Haydary J. Pyrolysis of biomass in a laboratory pyrolysis unit with a screw type
reactor and a secondary decomposition reactor. Sustain Environ Res 2015;25:261–6.
[140] Haydary J, Susa D, Gelinger V, Čacho F. Pyrolysis of automobile shredder residue
in a laboratory scale screw type reactor. J Environ Chem Eng 2016;4:965–72.
[141] Garcia-Perez M, Johnson RL, Liaw SS, Chen S, Lian J, Zhou S, et al. Systems and
processes for producing bio-fuels from Lignocellulosic materials, US2010/
0223839 A1. Pullman, WA (US): Washington State University; 2010.
[142] Liaw SS, Wang Z, Ndegwa P, Frear C, Ha S, Li CZ, et al. Effect of pretreatment
temperature on the yield and properties of bio-oils obtained from the auger pyr-
olysis of Douglas fir wood. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2012;93:52–62.
[143] Dalluge DL, Daugaard T, Johnston P, Kuzhiyil N, Wright MM, Brown RC.
Continuous production of sugars from pyrolysis of acid-infused lignocellulosic
biomass. Green Chem 2014:4144–55.
[144] Martínez JD, Murillo R, García T, Arauzo I. Thermodynamic analysis for syngas
production from volatiles released in waste tire pyrolysis. Energy Convers Manag
2014;81:338–53.
[145] Puy N, Murillo R, Navarro MV, López JM, Rieradevall J, Fowler G, et al.
Valorisation of forestry waste by pyrolysis in an auger reactor. Waste Manag
2011;31:1339–49.
[146] Veses A, Aznar M, Callén MS, Murillo R, García T. An integrated process for the
production of lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis oils using calcined limestone as a
heat carrier with catalytic properties. Fuel 2016;181:430–7.
[147] Veses A, Aznar M, López JM, Callén MS, Murillo R, García T. Production of up-
graded bio-oils by biomass catalytic pyrolysis in an auger reactor using low cost
materials. Fuel 2015;141:17–22.
[148] Funke A, Richter D, Niebel A, Dahmen N, Sauer J. Fast pyrolysis of biomass re-
sidues in a twin-screw mixing reactor. J Vis Exp 2016;115:1–8.
[149] Morgano MT, Leibold H, Richter F, Stapf D, Seifert H. Screw pyrolysis technology
for sewage sludge treatment. Waste Manag 2017.
[150] Chun YN, Kim SC, Yoshikawa K. Pyrolysis gasification of dried sewage sludge in a
combined screw and rotary kiln gasifier. Appl Energy 2011;88:1105–12.
[151] Kim P, Weaver S, Labbé N. Effect of sweeping gas flow rates on temperature-
controlled multistage condensation of pyrolysis vapors in an auger intermediate
pyrolysis system. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2016;118:325–34.
[152] Kim P, Weaver S, Noh K, Labbé N. Characteristics of bio-oils produced by an in-
termediate semipilot scale pyrolysis auger reactor equipped with multistage con-
densers. Energy Fuels 2014;28:6966–73.
[153] Guda VK, Toghiani H. Altering bio-oil composition by catalytic treatment of
pinewood pyrolysis vapors over zeolites using an auger–packed bed integrated
reactor system. Biofuel Res J 2016;3:448–57.
[154] Li Q, Steele PH, Yu F, Mitchell B, Hassan EBM. Pyrolytic spray increases levoglucosan
production during fast pyrolysis. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2013;100:33–40.
[155] Ingram L, Mohan D, Bricka M, Steele P, Strobel D, Crocker D, et al. Pyrolysis of
wood and bark in an auger reactor: physical properties and chemical analysis of
the produced bio-oils. Energy Fuels 2008;22:614–25.
[156] Pittman CU, Mohan D, Eseyin A, Li Q, Ingram L, Hassan E-BM, et al.
Characterization of bio-oils produced from fast pyrolysis of corn stalks in an auger
reactor. Energy Fuels 2012;26:3816–25.
[157] Mohan D, Pittman CU, Bricka M, Smith F, Yancey B, Mohammad J, et al. Sorption
of arsenic, cadmium, and lead by chars produced from fast pyrolysis of wood and
bark during bio-oil production. J Colloid Interface Sci 2007;310:57–73.
[158] Steele PH, Mitchell B. Thermal transfer mechanims for an auger pyrolysis reactor,
US2012/0228112 A1. Mississippi State (US): Mississippi State University; 2012.
[159] Ningbo G, Baoling L, Zongyang L, Chunfei W, Aimin L. Continuous pyrolysis of
sewage sludge in a screw-feeding reactor: products characterization and ecological
risk assessment of heavy metals. Energy Fuels 2017;31:5063–72.
[160] Ningbo G, Baoling L, Aimin L, Juanjuan L. Continuous pyrolysis of pine sawdust at
different pyrolysis temperatures and solid residence times. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis
2015;114:155–62.
[161] Zhang H, Gao Z, Ao W, Li J, Liu G, Ran C, et al. Microwave pyrolysis of textile
dyeing sludge in a continuously operated auger reactor. Fuel Process Technol
2017;166:174–85.
[162] Zhang H, Gao Z, Ao W, Li j, Liu G, Fu J, et al. , Microwave pyrolysis of textile
dyeing sludge in a continuously operated auger reactor: char characterization and
analysis. J Hazard Mater 2017;334:112–20.
[163] Zhang H, Gao Z, Ao W, Li J, Liu G, Fu J, et al. Microwave-assisted pyrolysis of textile
dyeing sludge using different additives. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2017;127:140–9.
[164] Solar J, de Marco I, Caballero BM, Lopez-Urionabarrenechea A, Rodriguez N,
Agurre I, et al. Influence of temperature and residence time in the pyrolysis of
woody biomass waste in a continuous screw reactor. Biomass Bioenergy
2016;95:416–23.
[165] Choi GG, Oh SJ, Kim JS. Scrap tire pyrolysis using a new type two-stage pyrolyzer:
effects of dolomite and olivine on producing a low-sulfur pyrolysis oil. Energy
2016;114:457–64.
[166] Choi GG, Oh SJ, Kim JS. Non-catalytic pyrolysis of scrap tires using a newly de-
veloped two-stage pyrolyzer for the production of a pyrolysis oil with a low sulfur
content. Appl Energy 2016;170:140–7.
409
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 372–409
[167] Brassard P, Godbout S, Raghavan V, Palacios JH, Grenier M, Zegan D. The pro-
duction of engineered biochars in a vertical auger pyrolysis reactor for carbon
sequestration. Energies 2017;10:1–15.
[168] Brassard P, Palacios J, Godbout S, Larouche JP, Grenier M, Zegan D, et al. Optimal
pyrolysis operational parameters for the production of high quality bio-oil from agri-
cultural and forest residues in a vertical auger reactor. In: Proceedings of the Annu.
conference halifax world trade Conv. Cent./Can. Soc. Bioeng. Canada; 2016.
[169] Brassard P, Godbout S, Raghavan V, Palacios J, Grenier M, Zegan D, et al. Pyrolysis
of agricultural and forest biomasses in a vertical auger reactor: optimal opera-
tional parameters for biochar production. In: Proceedings of the northeast Agric.
Biol. Eng. conference Orono, Maine, USA; 2016.
[170] Le Roux É, Chaouch M, Diouf PN, Stevanovic T. Impact of a pressurized hot water
treatment on the quality of bio-oil produced from aspen. Biomass Bioenergy
2015;81:202–9.
[171] Bamdad H, Hawboldt K. Comparative study between physicochemical character-
ization of biochar and metal organic frameworks (MOFs) as gas adsorbents. Can J
Chem Eng 2016;94:2114–20.
[172] Bosong L, Wei L, Qui Z, Tiejun W, Longlong M. Pyrolysis and catalytic upgrading
of pine wood in a combination of auger reactor and fixed bed. Fuel
2014;129:61–7.
[173] Yuping L, Bosong L, Xinghua Z, Lunggang C, Qui Z, Tiejun W, et al. Continuous
pyrolysis and catalytic upgrading of corncob hydrolysis residue in the combined
system of auger reactor and downstream fixed-bed reactor. Energy Convers Manag
2016;122:1–9.
[174] Jäger N, Conti R, Neumann J, Apfelbacher A, Dascher R, Binder S, et al. Thermo-
catalytic reforming of woody biomass. Energy Fuels 2016;30:7923–9.
[175] Conti R, Jäger N, Neumann J, Apfelbacher A, Daschner R, Hornung A.
Thermocatalytic reforming of biomass waste streams. Energy Technol
2017;5:104–10.
[176] Neumann J, Meyer J, Ouadi M, Apfelbacher A, Binder S, Hornung A. The con-
version of anaerobic digestion waste into biofuels via a novel thermo-catalytic
reforming process. Waste Manag 2016;47:141–8.
[177] Liang S, Han Y, Wei L, McDonald AG. Production and characterization of bio-oil
and bio-char from pyrolysis of potato peel wastes. Biomass Convers Biorefinery
2014;5:237–46.
[178] Agirre I, Griessacher T, Rösler G, Antrekowitsch J. Production of charcoal as an
alternative reducing agent from agricultural residues using a semi-continuous
semi-pilot scale pyrolysis screw reactor. Fuel Process Technol 2013;106:114–21.
[179] Nam H, Capareda SC, Ashwath N, Kongkasawan J. Experimental investigation of
pyrolysis of rice straw using bench-scale auger, batch and fluidized bed reactors.
Energy 2015;93:2384–94.
[180] Thangalazhy-Gopakumar S, Adhikari S, Revindran H, Gupta RB, Fasina O, Tu M,
et al. Physiochemical properties of bio-oil produced at various temperatures from
pine wood using an auger reactor. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:8389–95.
[181] Garcia-Perez M, Adams TT, Goodrum JW, Geller D, Das KC. Production and fuel
properties of pine chip bio-oil/biodiesel blends. Energy Fuels 2007;21:2363–72.
[182] Veses A, Aznar M, Martínez I, Martínez JD, López JM, Navarro MV, et al. Catalytic
pyrolysis of wood biomass in an auger reactor using calcium-based catalysts.
Bioresour Technol 2014;162:250–8.
[183] Bhattacharya P, Steele PH, Hassan EBM, Mitchell B, Ingram L, Pittman CU. Wood/
plastic copyrolysis in an auger reactor: chemical and physical analysis of the
products. Fuel 2009;88:1251–60.
[184] Fransham P. Advances in dry distillation technology. Therm Newsl
2006;1〈https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee-projects/files/
projects/documents/thermalnet_issue_1.pdf〉.
[185] (Sandy) Marshall AJ. Commercial application of pyrolysis technology in agriculture.
2013〈https://ofa.on.ca/uploads/userfiles/files/PyrolysisReportFinal.pdf〉.
[186] Pattiya A. Fast pyrolysis. In: Rosendahl L, editor. Direct thermochemical lique-
faction for energy applications. Woodhead Publishing; 2017. p. 3–28 [Chapter 1].
[187] IEA Bioenergy. Thermal pre-treatment of biomass for large-scale applications: Summary
and conclusions from the IEA Bioenergy ExCo66 Workshop; 2011. 〈http://www.
ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ExCo66-Thermal-pre-treatment-of-
biomass-for-large-scale-applications-summary-and-conclusions1.pdf〉.
[188] PYREG. Sewage sludge/Pyreg process; 2016. 〈http://www.pyreg.de/wp-content/
uploads/04_sewage_sludge_pyreg_process.pdf〉.
[189] Aston university. About the Pyroformer; 2017. 〈http://www.aston.ac.uk/eas/research/
groups/ebri/projects/energy-harvest/pyroformer/〉, [Accessed 29 November 2017].
[190] Pearwalk Engineering. Proud to be working on the firts commercial Pyroformer; 2016.
〈http://pearwalkengineering.com/latestdevelopments.html〉, [Accessed 31 October
2016].
[191] Dahmen N, Henrich E, Dinjus E, Weirich F. The Bioliq® bioslurry gasification
process for the production of biosynfuels, organic chemicals, and energy. Energy
Sustain Soc 2012;2:1–44.
[192] Dahmen N, Dinjus E, Kolb T, Arnold U, Leibold H, Stahl R. State of the art of the
Bioliq® process for synthetic biofuels production. Environ Prog Sustain Energy
2012;31:176–81.
[193] Tröger N, Richter D, Stahl R. Effect of feedstock composition on product yields and
energy recovery rates of fast pyrolysis products from different straw types. J Anal
Appl Pyrolysis 2013;100:158–65.
[194] Pfitzer C, Dahmen N, Troger N, Weirich F, Sauer J, Gunther A, et al. Fast pyrolysis
of wheat straw in the Bioliq pilot plant. Energy Fuels 2016;30:8047–54.
[195] Gable P, Brown RC. Effect of biomass heating time on bio-oil yields in a free fall
fast pyrolysis reactor. Fuel 2016;166:361–6.