FUPROC-04576; No of Pages 8

Fuel Processing Technology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel Processing Technology

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

Steam/oxygen biomass gasification at pilot scale in an internally circulating bubbling

fluidized bed reactor
D. Barisano ⁎, G. Canneto ⁎, F. Nanna, E. Alvino, G. Pinto, A. Villone, M. Carnevale, V. Valerio,
A. Battafarano, G. Braccio
ENEA, Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy, and the Sustainable Development, Trisaia Research Center, S.S. 106 Jonica km 419 + 500, 75026, Rotondella, Matera, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An innovative 1000 kWth pilot plant based on a bubbling fluidized bed gasifier with internal recirculation was op-
Received 18 February 2015 erated in experimental campaigns of biomass gasification. The evaluations were focused on the gasifier perfor-
Received in revised form 25 May 2015 mances and quality of the product gas. To this aim, tests were carried out at atmospheric pressure using
Accepted 1 June 2015
almond shells as a feedstock and three defined gasification mediums (i.e. steam/O2 mixture, 35wt.% and
Available online xxxx
50wt.% O2 enriched air); process temperature was in the range 820–880 °C.
Keywords:
The result assessment allowed to evaluate the system flexibility to the gasifying agent and acquire data on the gas
Biomass gasification producible with this specific configuration. Based on the dry compositions, LHVs in the range 5.9–6.7 MJ/Nm3dry,
Internally circulating bubbling fluidized bed 6.3–8.4 MJ/Nm3dry and 10.9–11.7 MJ/Nm3dry were respectively calculated for the three product gases. Corre-
reactor spondingly, an increase in the cold gas efficiency from 0.5 up to 0.7 was also estimated. Concerning the contam-
Steam/oxygen inant loads, in the case of the tests related to steam/O2 biomass gasification, particle and tar contents were found
Enriched air in the range 6–10 g/Nm3dry and 12–18 g/Nm3dry, respectively, while H2S, HCl and NH3 were at concentrations
below 100 ppms (v).
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Lignocellulosic biomass is considered as an important source for the
achievement of the goals the European Union has defined on energy,
environment and sustainable development issues. As known in relation
to these themes, two deadlines have been set for the year 2020 and
2050. The first one concerns the known “20–20–20” targets contained
in the climate and energy package, which aims to ensure that the
European Union meets by 2020 the three key objectives of a 20% reduc-
tion in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels, raising the share of
energy consumption produced from renewable resources to 20%, and
finally a 20% improvement in the energy efficiency [1]. The second one
instead concerns the roadmap the EU has set out in order to reach the
objective of reducing Europe's greenhouse gas emissions by 80–95%
compared to the 1990 levels and thus moving to a competitive low-
carbon economy in 2050 [2]. Though very ambitious, the achievement
of such goals will represent the EU successful contribution to the
emission reductions of GHG to hold the global warming below 2 °C,
compared to the temperature in pre-industrial times.
Many processes can be considered for the production of energy from
biomass [3–12], among these, the thermochemical process of gasifica-
tion is one of the most interesting due to the versatility of uses that
⁎ Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: donatella.barisano@enea.it (D. Barisano), giuseppe.canneto@enea.it
(G. Canneto).
the product gas can be addressed. Starting from a solid fuel, the gasifica-
tion process allows to produce a very flexible gaseous energy carrier
that can be used for combined heat and power (CHP) production by
using the product gas in internal combustion engine (ICE), gas turbine
(GT) and fuel cell (FC), or as intermediate and further conversion for
production of derived energy carrier such as H2, SNG and biofuels
[13–25]. In the short to medium terms, the technology of biomass
gasification in fluidized bed reactors, compared to others, appears to
be the most promising for many of the above-mentioned applications
as it is suitable for continuous operation and process scalability.
Bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) reactors have characteristics that make
them advantageous with respect to fixed bed gasifiers. Such reactors
have in fact larger tolerance to the particle sizes of the supplied
feedstock, good control of the process temperature, uniformity of the
reaction environment, and scalability at larger sizes. At the same time,
higher simplicity in construction and operation, longer residence time
of the fuel particles under the process condition and reduced particle
entrainment, are some of the main aspects that can also give BFB
gasifiers a certain advantage compared to reactors of fast circulating
fluidized design. However when biomass is the considered feedstock,
in the BFB reactors a certain tendency of the fuel to remain at the surface
of the bed inventory can occur.
Such tendency is strictly correlated to the particle density of the sup-
plied feedstock, and it clearly represents a disadvantage as it can bring a
lower conversion efficiency of the fuel in gaseous products and a higher
entrainment in the product gas of particles from the feedstock and the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.06.008
0378-3820/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: D. Barisano, et al., Steam/oxygen biomass gasification at pilot scale in an internally circulating bubbling fluidized bed
reactor, Fuel Processing Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.06.008
2 D. Barisano et al. / Fuel Processing Technology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
generated char. The difficulty in maintaining the biomass particles in-
side the bed affects the performance of gasification. Process conditions
at the surface of the bed (i.e. temperature, heat transfer and solid–gas
contact) are less favorable to the reaction kinetics of char gasification
and tar conversion than those inside the bed. The use of a reactor with
interconnected chambers can overcome such disadvantages allowing
for movement of the solid particles inside the bed, counteracting their
tendency to segregate the bed surface and, at the same time, reducing
the phenomenon of elutriation.
Kuramoto et al. in their works [26,27] used an interconnected fluid-
ized bed having the aim to improve the movement of the solid particles
inside the bed, Snieders et al. [28] used similar devices to test the circu-
lation of pellets and Abellon et al. [29] to determine the residence times
of glass beads in a four-compartment interconnected fluidized bed.
Foscolo et al. [30] in their tests with a cold model rig proved that a suf-
ficient circulation of the bed inventory allows for a prolonged residence
time of light fuel particles within the bed and avoids segregation to the
bed surface.
Experimental tests were conducted by Freda et al. [31] to study the
fluidization and to measure the recirculation of glass spheres inside
the solid material of the bed in a cold model apparatus. In a recent
work numerical simulations were implemented by Canneto et al. [32]
to study the fluidization quality and the circulation of the solid between
the two chambers of a cold model reactor.
Zhou et al. [33] studied the effect of different fluidization velocities
on rice husk circulation rate. Zhi [34] reported good temperature
homogeneity throughout the top and bottom zones of each bed of an
interconnected fluidized reactor during sawdust gasification tests in a
pilot plant. Xiao et al. [35], using animal-waste-derived, conducted
experimental tests in an internally circulating fluidized-bed, with
separated gasification and combustion reaction zones. A recent review
[36] provides a comprehensive and up-to-date survey of the state of
the art of the fluidized bed reactors, including the gasifiers with internal
(and external) circulation of the solid material.
Based on such concept, at Enea-Trisaia Research Centre (Italy) a gas-
ification pilot plant of 1000 kWth rated power was built. In this paper
the activity carried out at this pilot plant and the preliminary results
achieved during the early experimental campaigns of biomass gasifica-
tion are presented. These tests were aimed at evaluating the operability
of the pilot reactor and the performance of the biomass gasification
process.
For the mentioned process, steam/oxygen is the gasification medi-
um of reference, however during this experimental campaigns, tests
with enriched air were also included. Such tests were considered in
order to evaluate the flexibility of the process to gasification agents,
collect data on the gas composition obtainable at the specific plant
and operating conditions, and at the same time assess the beneficial
effect of using steam/oxygen as gasification medium. Moreover, the
use of oxygen-enriched air as gasifying agent may have some advan-
tages compared to the gasification carried out with air. Keeping
constant the thermal input of the gasification plant, the reduced amount
of nitrogen in the gasifying agent, can in fact allow operating the gasifi-
cation process with a reactor, and related equipment for full plant
operation, of reduced sizes with consequent decrease in the required
capital investment costs. The production of a gas with a higher LHV
can also have an effect on the internal combustion engine. In fact, the
availability of such a fuel gas can enable the use of smaller and cheaper
internal combustion engines. Moreover, the availability of a technology
based on enriched-air gasification can make it suitable for RDF gasifica-
tion [37,38], thus expanding the fields of its applicability. Studies on low
cost technology for oxygen-enriched air production are giving an
important sustenance to the feasibility of such applications [39–42].
Soon after completing the stage of process evaluation in the above-
described configuration, the pilot plant will be implemented with an in-
novative cleaning system that will integrate the steps of gas filtration
and conditioning directly into the reactor vessel. The ultimate result
Please cite this article as: D. Barisano, et al., Steam/oxygen biomass gasification at pilot scale in an internally circulating bubbling fluidized bed
reactor, Fuel Processing Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.06.008
will be a more compact and effective technology that will enable the
achievement of better process performances and reductions of invest-
ment costs.
2. Experimental set-up
2.1. The 1000 kWth gasification pilot plant
The working principle of this reactor is based on the concept
developed by Kuramoto et al. [26,27] in relation to circulating fluidized
particles within a single vessel. At each chamber, the gasifying agent is
provided at different fluidizing velocities and this allows the particles
of the bed material to move from one sector to the other, and recirculate
around the baffle plate throughout the interconnecting orifice. The
circulation of the bed particles is then sustained over time as long as
the difference in the gas velocity of the fluidization medium at the
two chambers is maintained [30]. A sketch of the gasifier design is
presented in Fig. 1.
Compared to a conventional bubbling fluidized bed configuration,
the gasifier with internal recirculation (ICBFB) can favor the process of
gasification in terms of the yield and quality of the product gas (e.g. re-
duced tar load). Experimental tests and numerical simulations of fluid
dynamics made with a cold model have in fact shown that different ra-
tios of fluidization velocity between the up-flowing and down-flowing
chambers result in different circulation rates of the bed material
between the two chambers. A higher circulation rate can give rise to a
deeper and more effective sinking of the biomass particles in the bed
material, as well as to a more uniform temperature of the bed itself
[31,32]. Therefore, when in operation, the mechanism of internal recir-
culation is expected to counteract the tendency of the fed biomass to
segregate over the surface of the bed. In the same way, also the elutria-
tion of the produced fine carbon particles is reduced. These factors all
favor the yield and quality of the product gas by providing a high tem-
perature environment, a higher residence time of the fuel particles
under the reaction conditions and therefore an overall improvement
of the thermo-chemical reactions involved. Tests of steam/oxygen gasi-
fication were preliminarily carried out at a 10 kWth ICBFB bench scale
facility and provided very promising results [43].
Thereafter, based on the same concept, a 1000 kWth ICBFB gasifica-
tion pilot plant was also built. The facility is intended to demonstrate
and validate the gasification process at a significant scale, thus collecting
data useful for the further steps of scale-up and industrialization. In such
perspective, the plant is fully equipped for on-line acquisition and
monitoring of key process parameters, such as temperatures, pressures
and flow rates. In Fig. 2 a sketch of the whole plant is shown.
According to the figure, the plant was designed to maximize the
efficiency of the process through integrated energy recovery, and to
produce a cleaned gaseous stream ready to be used in CHP production.
To this aim, downstream of the gasifier, the plant also consists of
sections for heat recovery and gas cleaning where the product gas is
treated to pre-heat the gasifying agent and to remove entrained parti-
cles and tar contaminants, respectively.
For the process under development, the steam/oxygen mixture was
selected as the gasifying agent of reference in order to have a product
gas with a near-zero nitrogen content. Therefore, in addition to the
cogeneration applications, after proper adjustment of the final composi-
tion and compression, the gas producible at such plant could also
be considered for conversion into gaseous or liquid secondary energy
carriers, such as H2, SNG, Fischer–Tropsch biofuels, methanol, and DME.
2.2. Gasification test campaigns
As indicated above, the 1000 kWth pilot plant is designed to operate
with steam/oxygen as the main gasifying agent, however the use of
oxygen-enriched air is also possible. In order to evaluate the flexibility
of the system to the gasification medium and acquire data on the gas
 D. Barisano et al. / Fuel Processing Technology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 3

Fig. 1. A) Sketch of the internally circulating bubbling fluidized bed (ICBFB) gasifier; B) operation principle of the internal circulation of the bed inventory (UUFC: gas velocity at the up-
flowing chamber, UDFC: gas velocity at the down-flowing chamber).

composition producible from this specific configuration, besides tests
with steam/oxygen mixture, gasification tests with enriched air were
also carried out. In particular, taking into account the need to ensure
the condition of bed fluidization and recirculation, oxygen enrichment
up to a total content of 35wt.% and 50.% was considered.
Table 1 presents a summary of the specific biomass gasification tests
carried out and the corresponding operating conditions.
In relation to the experimental set-up adopted, it has to be spec-
ified that the activity herein presented was also connected to the EU
project named UNIfHY [44]. This project is aimed at the development
of a new gas cleaning approach by integrating the steps of gas filtra-
tion and tar and light hydrocarbons reforming directly into the reac-
tor vessel. As to assess the efficacy of the mentioned approach only
the characterization of the product gas at the exit of the gasifier is rele-
vant, the decision to operate the plant in a simplified configuration by
excluding the plant sections not strictly needed for the proper operation
of the gasifier was taken. In accordance with this choice, during the gas-
ification test campaigns the plant was operated including only the unit
for heat recovery (EX-1), since it is relevant to the superheating of the
gasifying agent, while the units for gas cooling (EX-2) and wet scrub-
bing (SCR-1) were by-passed. From the exit of the EX-1 unit, the prod-
uct gas was then directly forwarded to the flare. In order to have
indications about the yield of gas produced in each gasification test
campaign, measurements of gas flow were made at the plant by
means of a flow measuring calibrated flange inserted in the gas piping
downstream of the heat exchanger EX-1.

Fig. 2. Sketch of the 1000 kWth ICBFB pilot plant.

Please cite this article as: D. Barisano, et al., Steam/oxygen biomass gasification at pilot scale in an internally circulating bubbling fluidized bed
reactor, Fuel Processing Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.06.008
4 D. Barisano et al. / Fuel Processing Technology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 1 Table 3
Gasification operating conditions. General characteristics of the commercial olivine Magnolithe GmbH.

Test 35wt.% O2 50wt.% O2 Steam/O2 Olivine

Biomass feeding rate (kgdry/h) 130 130 125 Origin: Austria

Steam feeding rate (kg/h) – – 55 Density 3400–3500 kg/m3
O2 feeding rate (kg/h) 42 44 39 Bulk density 1900–2050 kg/m3
O2 enrichment (%wt) 36 48 100 Mean diametera 344 μm
Steam/biomass – – 0.4 Fusion point 1750°C
ER 0.22 0.23 0.21 Thermal expansion 1.3% (@ 1100°C)
Gasification T (°C) 850–880 850–870 820–830 Mohs hardness 6.5–7.0
Pressure (bara) 1.0–1.1 1.0–1.1 1.0–1.1 Specific heat 0.95–1.05 kJ/(kg °C)

Composition (wt.%)

2.3. Materials
All gasification tests were carried out by using almond shells as bio-
mass feedstock and an unmodified olivine commercially available
(Magnolithe GmbH) for the fluidized-bed inventory. A summary of
the main physical and chemical characteristics of the two materials is
reported in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
In all gasification campaigns, a total amount of 500 kg of olivine was
used. Based on the operating conditions adopted for biomass gasifica-
tion tests (Table 1) and the characteristics of the selected olivine sand
(Table 3), the conditions for internal recirculation of the bed material
were obtained by supplying the gasification medium at the two reactor
chambers, up-flowing and down-flowing, in accordance with the gas
velocities (U) summarized in Table 4. In order to overcome the pressure
drop exerted by the distributor plate and the bed material, the gasifying
agent was supplied with an overpressure in the range 200–300 mbarg.
2.4. Sampling and analysis
Several samplings were carried out at the plant in order to character-
ize the product gas and the process conversion efficiencies. Specifically,
after reaching the steady-state conditions, measurements and sam-
plings on the gaseous stream were carried out in order to acquire infor-
mation on gas yield, dry gas composition, organic and inorganic
contaminant loads, and particulate and humidity contents. Finally, in
order to have an estimation of the carbon conversion efficiency, an eval-
uation on the amount of char residue was also carried out at the end of
the test.
2.4.1. Gas analysis
The dry gas composition was measured by sampling and cleaning
the product gas throughout a train of steps constituted by a water
condenser, a condensation separator and a final drying step obtained
Table 2
Biomass feedstock.
Almond shells
Bulk density (kg/m3) Humidity (wt.%, wet basis)
410 10
Proximate analysis (wt.%, dry basis)
Ash Volatile matter Fixed carbona
1.2 80.6 18.2
SiO2 41.9
MgO 49.5
Fe2O3 7.1
Al2O3 1
% H2O + % CO2b 0.5
Mineralogy (wt.%)
Forsterite (Mg2SiO4) 94
Fayalite (Fe2SiO4) 6
a
This value is obtained as a weighted arithmetic mean from a sieve analysis.
b
Total percentage of H2O and CO2 included in the natural mineral during its formation.
with silica gel. The analyses were carried out on-line via a gas-
chromatography system Agilent Technologies (HP 6890 Series) equipped
with a TCD detector. For the permanent gas analysis, the GC system
was configured with chromatographic columns Molecular Sieve 5A
and Poraplot Q, from Restek and Agilent respectively; an argon of
99.9995%v purity degree was used as gas carrier. In the course of the
gasification tests, the gas composition was analyzed every 15 min. The
identification and quantification of each component were based on
retention time and multilevel external calibration.
2.4.2. Tar, water and particulate contents
The tar load in the product gas was measured according to the
CEN/TS 15439 procedure. In short, the product gas was sampled
isokinetically using a glass fiber thimble (86R, Advantec) to collect the
entrained particulates and 2-propanol as a tar absorbing solvent. After
having sampled the gas for no less than 200 NL (dry basis) the sampling
was stopped and the 2-propanol solutions contained in the six impinger
bottles were all mixed in a single Erlenmeyer flask. To withdraw the
sampled gas stream a Zambelli ZB1 volumetric pump was used.
To recover the possible tar condensed on the particulate filter, the
thimble was extracted with fresh solvent according to the standard
procedure. The thimble was then dried and weighted for gravimetric
particulate determination, while the extraction solution was mixed
with that in the Erlenmeyer flask and properly treated for gas chroma-
tography mass spectrometry (GCMS) analysis and gravimetric quantifi-
cation. Chromatographic analyses were carried out with a GCMS system
Agilent Technology-Mod. 5975 B equipped with an HP-5MS cross-linked
5% PhMe-siloxane 30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm film thickness column.
Helium 99.9999%v was used as gas carrier. For tar molecule quantifica-
tion and identification, a 6-level calibration curve and multi standard
solutions containing up to 24 molecules were used.

Ultimate analysis (wt.%, dry basis) Table 4

C H N Ob Cl S Gas velocity and overpressure of the fluidization medium at the gasifier.
47.9 6.3 0.32 44.27 0.012 0.015
Test campaign Umfa (cm/s @ 800 °C) Udfcb/Umf Uufcc/Umf
Heating values (MJ/kgdry)
35wt.% O2 6.1 2.6 10.4
HHV LHVc 50wt.% O2 6.0 1.9 7.3
19.5 18.0 Steam/O2 6.3 2.6 9.9
a a
% FC = 100 − (% VM + % Ash). Umf: gas velocity of minimum fluidization.
b b
%O = 100 − (%C + %H + %N + %Cl + %S + %Ash). Udfc: gas velocity at the down-flowing reactor chamber.
c c
LHV (kJ/kg) = HHV (kJ/kg) − (24.43 × 8.936 × H(wt.%)) (kJ/kg). Uufc: gas velocity at the up-flowing reactor chamber.

Please cite this article as: D. Barisano, et al., Steam/oxygen biomass gasification at pilot scale in an internally circulating bubbling fluidized bed
reactor, Fuel Processing Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.06.008
 D. Barisano et al. / Fuel Processing Technology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 5

The gravimetric tar load was instead determined by complete

removal of solvent with a rotary evaporator IKA Labortechnik RV06-LM.
Finally, the water content in the wet product gas was measured
on amounts of the 2-propanol tar sampling solution by Karl Fischer
titration.

2.4.3. Inorganic contaminants: H2S, HCl and NH3

All gaseous contaminants were determined by absorption in a prop-
er water solution. Specifically, H2S and HCl were absorbed in a solution
of NaOH 2wt.% while NH3 by using an HCl 2wt.% solution. In each deter-
mination, the product gas was sampled, for no less than 200 NL, through
a train of three impinger bottles, each containing 150 mL of absorbing
solution and kept at 0 °C in a thermostatic bath, and a fourth one at
room temperature filled with silica gel to preserve the gas sampling
pump from humidity. For gas withdrawal, a volumetric pump Zambelli
ZB1 was used.
After proper dilution, the alkaline solution was analyzed for H2S and
HCl determinations via High-Pressure Ion Chromatography (HPIC) at a
Dionex DX 500 chromatographic system equipped with an electrochem-
ical detector ED40. For H2S, the HPIC system was equipped with an
Ionpac As7 column and the detector was operated in DC/0 V mode.
16 mM of Na2C2O4/400 mM of NaOH water solution was used as
eluent. For HCl, the HPIC system was instead equipped with an Ionpac
As12 column and the detector was operated in conductivity mode.
2.7 mM of Na2CO3/0.6 mM of NaHCO3 water solution was used as elu-
ent. In both cases the contaminant quantification was obtained based
on a 4-level calibration curve.
Concerning the acid solution, ammonia was measured with a S47-K
SevenMulti™ dual meter pH/conductivity (Mettler Toledo) equipped
with an ion selective electrode DX218-NH4 Ammonium half-cell. The
contaminant quantification was based on a 3-level calibration curve.
2.4.4. Char residue
The char amount produced at the end of the gasification tests was
evaluated by combustion of representative samples of the solid residue
collected at the cyclone and from the bed inventory. Moreover, based on
elemental analyses carried out at the analytical laboratory of the authors
on gasification char residues from several biomass feedstocks, the
average empirical formula CH0.64O0.12 was considered and used in the
calculation of carbon conversion efficiency.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Process performances at different gasification conditions
Each gasification test campaign was started with the plant at room
temperature; therefore, in order to bring the reactor at temperatures
adequate for starting the process of biomass gasification, the reactor
was preliminarily heated-up to about 600 °C by burning LPG at the reac-
Fig. 3. Trends in the dry composition during the start-up stage moving from air feeding to
biomass gasification with 50wt.% of O2 enriched air.
observed in the case of gasification carried out using enriched air with
35wt.% oxygen and steam/oxygen.
In Table 5 a summary of the main process parameters and dry gas
compositions reached at the steady state for the three gasification
conditions is presented.
By changing from enriched air to steam/oxygen mixture, the data
confirmed the expected beneficial effect on the heating value of the
product gas. The LHV was found to increase as a clear consequence of
the reduction of the N2 content. However, the improvement in the gas
quality was not only an effect of the decreased amount of the inert
gas, but also a consequence of the gas upgrading due to the addition
of steam.
According to literature in fact, the use of steam in processes of bio-
mass gasification, pure [45–51] or in combination with air, enriched
air or oxygen [52–55] allows to foster the chemical reactions promoted
by the H2O reactant, such as water gas shift, char gasification and hydro-
carbon reforming, in which the ultimate effect is the enrichment of the
product gas in its H2 content. Such effect is shown more clearly in Fig. 4
where a comparison among the compositions of the three product gases
is presented by taking into account the mean value of each permanent
gas component at the steady state, and calculated on dry and N2-free
basis. The graph shows the significant increase of the H2 content
achieved in the product gas when the biomass feedstock is gasified
with steam/oxygen.
The water mass balance further supports the effect of using steam in
the gasifying agent on the H2 enrichment of the product gas. Based on
the measurement of the water content in the product gas and the
total amount of water supplied to the reactor as steam and humidity
of the biomass feedstock, an average water conversion of 10–15wt.%
can be estimated. Such result appears to be consistent with data of
water conversion estimated by other authors. From the data presented
by Gil et al. [56] in relation to tests of steam-oxygen biomass
Table 5
Summary of the gasification tests results.

tor burner. The reactor heating was then completed by burning some Test 35%-wt O2 50%-wt O2 Steam/O2
biomass until the temperature of the reactor bed reached a value in
Gas yield (Nm3/kgBiomass, dry) 1.46 1.31 1.04
the range 800–850 °C. The whole heating-up stage lasted from 5 to Char residue (g/kgBiomass, dry) n.a. n.a. 80-100
6 h. After reaching the temperature, the operating conditions were Test duration (min) 230 280 310
changed from combustion to the specific gasification conditions, with Gas components (%v, Dry gas)
enriched air or steam/oxygen, in accordance with the value reported
CO 18-23 20-25 28-32
in Table 1. H2 7-9 11-13 30-33
In Fig. 3 the dry composition of the product gas obtained in the ex- CH4 6-7 6-9 9-11
periment carried out with enriched air, 50wt.% oxygen, is presented. CO2 17-24 19-25 22-27
The graph shows, by way of example, the gas trends recorded during Light hydrocarbons b1 b1 1-2
N2 41-45 30-37 2-5a
the experimental transient stage, when moving from the conditions of
O2 b1 b0,5 b1
feeding air only to those for biomass gasification.
H2O (% v, wet gas) na na 40-50
The trend of the permanent gases showed that the steady state
conditions were achieved within 60 min. After that, the content of LHV (MJ/Nm3) 5.9-6.7 6.3-8.4 10.9-11.7
each gas component remained rather stable, showing restricted fluctu- a
Some N2 was provided to the biomass feeding system in order to avoid leakage of
ation around the corresponding average values. Similar trends were also syngas throughout the augers.

Please cite this article as: D. Barisano, et al., Steam/oxygen biomass gasification at pilot scale in an internally circulating bubbling fluidized bed
reactor, Fuel Processing Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.06.008
6 D. Barisano et al. / Fuel Processing Technology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 4. Dry and N2-free product gas composition at the three operating conditions.
gasification, a water conversion slightly higher than 10% can be calculat-
ed. Hofbauer and Rauch [57] in their study on the effect of steam-fuel
ratio on the product gas composition, the tar content and the water
conversion, showed that for S/B value from 0.3 to 0.5 water conversion
from 20 to 15% was found. Finally, in their overview on variables
effecting biomass gasification, Corella et al. [47] summarized that in
gasification processes using steam, values of water conversion in the
range 7–10% were often reported.
The comparison among the gasification tests at the three operating
conditions also allows an estimation of the cold gas efficiency (CGE)
reached at the three different operating conditions. CGE is defined as
the chemical energy of the gas at room temperature divided by the
chemical energy of the biomass input.
   
Product gas flow rate Nm3dry =h  LHVgas MJ=Nm3dry
CGE ¼      100
Biomass feeding rate kgdry =h  LHVBiom MJ=kgdry
ð1Þ
By using Eq. (1), a CGE increasing from 0.5, when 35wt.% oxygen
enriched air is used, up to 0.7, when using steam/oxygen gasification
condition, is thus calculated.
According to the stated aim of the work, being the ultimate scope of
the experimental activity at the 1000 kWth pilot plant the development
of a steam/oxygen gasification process, to characterize the performance
of the gasifier, char residues from the bottom of the reactor were collect-
ed at the end of the run and characterized with respect to the carbon
content.
From the data reported in Table 4, taking into account the carbon
content in the biomass feedstock and in the char residue, accounting
to 48.5wt.% (daf) and up to 85.wt.% respectively, for the steam/oxygen
gasification process a carbon conversion up to 86wt.% was estimated.
In previous tests of steam/oxygen biomass gasification carried out at
a 10 kWth ICBFB bench scale facility, a CGE of about 75% and a char
residue of 40–50 g/kgBiomass were estimated [43]. Compared to these
former results, the performances of the process carried out at pilot
scale appear to be somehow lower than expected. However, taking
into account that the results herein presented are referred to prelimi-
nary gasification campaigns, the authors believe that the estimated
figures can be considered in good agreement with those obtained at
bench scale and well promising toward the ultimate values, expected
to be achieved at the optimized final conditions.
3.2. Gas contaminants
In order to fully characterize the process under development, the
product gas from the tests carried out with steam/oxygen gasifying mix-
ture was also characterized with respect to the different contaminant
Please cite this article as: D. Barisano, et al., Steam/oxygen biomass gasification at pilot scale in an internally circulating bubbling fluidized bed
reactor, Fuel Processing Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.06.008
Table 6
Contaminant contents in the gasification tests with steam/oxygen as gasifying
agent.
Contaminants Steam/O2
Particles (g/Nm3dry) 6–10
H2S (ppmv) 40–50
HCl (ppmv) 40–50
NH3 (ppmv) 70–80
Gravimetric tar (g/Nm3dry) 7–10
Tot chromatographic tar (g/Nm3dry) 12–18
loads. A summary about the range values observed for each of the
main gas contaminants is presented in Table 6.
The measurements indicated that in the raw gas the most abundant
contamination were particles and tar, while the inorganic gaseous con-
taminants (i.e. HCl, H2S and NH3) were relatively limited being each at a
concentration lower than 100 ppmv. The particle content was found to
be in the range 6–10 g/Nm3 and was mainly due to entrainment of
fine particles from the fluidized-bed inventory. Confirmation on that
was provided by the proximate analysis carried out on the residue
collected at the cyclone, at the end of the gasification run. Such residue
in fact presented an inorganic content higher than 90wt.%
Concerning tar, the GCMS analysis indicated the presence of many
aromatic compounds, among which the most abundant were those
with low molecular weight, such as benzene, toluene, phenol, indene
and naphthalene. In Fig. 5 the chromatographic distribution of the
main tar components identified and quantified is presented. The figure
shows as the variety of molecules ranges over from aromatic com-
pounds with single ring to polycyclic hydrocarbons with up to four
condensed rings.
The total amount of the compounds with low molecular weight ac-
counts for 16 g/Nm3dry, corresponding to about 88wt.% of the total.
The relative abundance of low molecular tar compounds is also con-
firmed by the gravimetric determination. In this measurement, in fact
the tar content is found to be in the range 7–10 g/Nm3dry, thus lower
than the total content quantified by GC–MS chromatography. The two
results, gravimetric and chromatographic, are indeed consistent be-
cause in the procedure of reference (i.e. CEN/TS 15439), the gravimetric
value is obtained by evaporating the solvent via heating and reduced
pressure. Clearly, during such operation, compounds with high vapor
pressure, such as benzene, toluene, naphthalene and phenol, to mention
a few, are partially removed together with the solvent.
Though analytically accurate, the results about tar were actually not
completely expected, in terms of both total amount and distribution of
tar molecules. In tests carried out at the 10 kWth ICBFB facility in fact,
at comparable operating conditions and using same feedstock and
olivine as bed material, the total chromatographic tar amount was
found to be roughly 10 g/Nm3dry and naphthalene the major tar mole-
cule, with a content amounting to 50wt.% of the total. In the case of
steam/oxygen gasification carried out at the 1000 kWth pilot plant, on
average naphthalene was only about 1.2 g/Nm3dry, while the most
abundant molecules resulted to be single ring aromatic compounds.
Benzene, toluene and phenol were found to reach concentrations of
3.8, 4.2 and 5.0 g/Nm3dry, respectively. Hence, the relative abundances
for tar compounds appeared not very representative of a gasification
process carried out at 820–830 °C; the distribution found seemed to
be rather more distinctive of a process of lower temperature.
The effect of temperature on content and distribution of tars is a
well-known and consolidated correlation. In a process of biomass gasi-
fication, among other process variables, the tar product distribution is
deeply influenced by temperature. On this latter aspect, it is well
known that an increase in temperature produces a reduction of the
total load in the product gas, as well as a conversion of the so-called
primary tar, produced in the first gasification stages, to aromatic hydro-
carbons [58–61]. More recently, Van der Meijden [62] reported an
 D. Barisano et al. / Fuel Processing Technology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 5. Chromatographic tar distribution in the experimental campaign of steam/oxygen biomass gasification.
increase in toluene yield with decreasing temperature in the range
770–880 °C, Wolfesberger et al. [63] studying the effect of temperature
on tar distribution in the range 798–850 °C found a significant reduction
of phenol and increase in naphthalene.
According to the above reported references and results therein pre-
sented, the difference observed in tar content between tests carried out
at the ICBFB bench scale facility and at the pilot plant can be explained
by taking into account the process gasification temperature and the
way the biomass feedstock is fed to the reactor. The bench scale and
pilot scale gasification test campaigns were in fact carried out at average
temperature of the bed inventory very close to each other, 855 °C and
825 °C respectively; on the other hand, it has to be specified that in
the two reactors the biomass feeding occurred with a certain difference.
At the 10 kWth reactor in fact, the biomass was introduced in the reactor
through a vertical feeding piping which brought the biomass feedstock
directly in the circulating bed material. In the case of the pilot plant, the
biomass was actually fed somewhat above the bed surface. Due to this
fact, though the temperature measured inside the bed was in the
range 820–830 °C, the biomass most probably started to decompose
before being taken up by the recirculating bed material and thus the
collected tars were produced in an area of the reactor close to the bed
inventory but at a temperature lower than the inside.
4. Conclusions
Biomass gasification campaigns were carried out in order to test the
performance of a 1000 kWth pilot plant based on a bubbling fluidized
bed (BFB) reactor with internal recirculation (ICBFB). Such gasifier
was designed to operate with steam/oxygen mixture as a gasifying
agent of reference; however, in order to evaluate the process flexibility
to other gasifying agents, tests with enriched air were also carried out.
Taking into account the need to ensure both the fluidization and the
recirculation of the bed, 35wt.% and 50wt.% oxygen enrichments were
ultimately adopted.
The collected experimental results provided positive answers to the
reliability of the plant at the three selected conditions, and in particular
about the possibility of producing a suitable product gas also when gas-
ifying with enriched air at the lowest enrichment ratio (35wt.% O2).
In relation to the steam/oxygen biomass gasification, though the test
campaign was preliminary, the obtained product gas showed a dry com-
position that makes it of interest for many possible applications. Based
on the heating value for instance (i.e. 10.9–11.7 MJ/Nm3dry) the gas
appears useful for CHP application in conventional or advanced config-
urations (i.e. gas turbine and high temperature fuel cell). Meanwhile,
thanks to the very low content of nitrogen (i.e. 2–5%v), the product
gas also appears of interest as a starting stream that, after proper adjust-
ment of the gas composition, can also be considered for conversion into
advanced energy carriers, such as H2, SNG, FT biofuels, MeOH, DME, or
chemicals.
Please cite this article as: D. Barisano, et al., Steam/oxygen biomass gasification at pilot scale in an internally circulating bubbling fluidized bed
reactor, Fuel Processing Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.06.008
7
However, the samplings carried out to evaluate the contaminant
contents indicated that the product gas is not ready for immediate
use. Particles and tar were found to be the most abundant, with values
in the range 6–10 g/Nm3dry and 12–18 g/Nm3dry, respectively, while
H2S, HCl and NH3 were all present at concentrations below the hundred
ppms (v). On the other hand, though present at relevant concentrations,
none of these contaminants can be considered a significant limitation to
a further exploitation of the gas. Depending on the specific application
of interest, there are technologies already at state of art that can be con-
sidered for proper gas cleaning, as well as also innovative solutions, pos-
sibly more effective and efficient.
As a whole, the assessment of the results presented in this paper
allowed to gain strong evidence about the reliability of the biomass
gasification technology under development and on the ultimate goals
that it should be possible to achieve at optimized operating conditions.
Of course in that sense additional information still need to be collected
in order to have a full characterization of the process, as for instance
suggested by the results concerning the tar distribution observed in
the preliminary test campaign. These results in fact provided indications
on the fact that the combination between biomass feeding and internal
recirculation of the bed material was not as well-matched as expected.
Further experimental campaigns are already under preparation at the
time of writing this paper. The next planned gasification tests will be
devoted to the identification of the process parameter values at which
the steam/oxygen biomass gasification will reach the best perfor-
mances. On that occasion, higher attention will definitely be dedicated
also to the phase of biomass feeding to the bed inventory, in order to
gather additional insights on the subject and, if needed, take into
account possible improvements of the system.
Acknowledgments
The activity described in the present work has received funding from
the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–
2013). The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support
provided by the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Technology Initiative
under the grant agreement no. 299732 (UNIfHY Project).
References
[1] The 2020 Climate and Energy PackageRetrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/
policies/package/index_en.htm May 8 2015.
[2] Roadmap for Moving to a Low-carbon Economy in 2050Retrieved from: http://ec.
europa.eu/clima/policies/roadmap/index_en.htm May 8 2015.
[3] K. Srirangan, L. Akawi, M. Moo-Young, C.P. Chou, Towards sustainable production of
clean energy carriers from biomass resources, Appl. Energy 100 (2012) 172–186.
[4] S. Cornelissen, M. Koper, Y. Y. Deng, The role of bioenergy in a fully sustainable glob-
al energy system Biomass and Bioenergy 41 (2012) 21–33.
[5] J.S. Lim, Z.A. Manan, S.R.W. Alwi, H. Hashim, A review on utilization of biomass from
rice industry as a source of renewable energy, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 16 (2012)
3084–3094.
[6] A.V. Bridgwater, Review of fast pyrolysis of biomass and product upgrading, Biomass
Bioenergy 38 (2012) 68–94.
8 D. Barisano et al. / Fuel Processing Technology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
[7] T. Abbasi, S.A. Abbasi, Biomass energy and the environmental impacts associated
with its production and utilization, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 14 (2010) 919–937.
[8] J. Heinimö, M. Junginger, Production and trading of biomass for energy — an over-
view of the global status, Biomass Bioenergy 33 (2009) 1310–1320.
[9] S. Czernik, A.V. Bridgwater, Overview of applications of biomass fast pyrolysis oil,
Energy Fuels 18 (2004) 590–598.
[10] P. McKendry, Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass,
Bioresour. Technol. 83 (2002) 37–46.
[11] D.L. Klass, Biomass for Renewable Energy, Fuels, and Chemicals, Academic Press,
1998, ISBN 0-12-410950-0.
[12] L.R. Lynd, Overview and evaluation of fuel ethanol from cellulosic biomass: technol-
ogy, economics, the environment, and policy, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 21 (1996)
403–465.
[13] J. Ahrenfeldt, T.P. Thomsen, U. Henriksen, L.R. Clausen, Biomass gasification cogene-
ration — a review of state of the art technology and near future perspectives, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 50 (2013) 1407–1417.
[14] E.G. Pereira, J.N. da Silva, J.L. de Oliveira, C.S. Machado, Sustainable energy: a review
of gasification technologies, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 16 (2012) 4753–4762.
[15] M. Worley, J. Yale, Biomass Gasification Technology Assessment, NREL/SR-5100-
57085, November 2012.
[16] D.A. Bulusheva, J.R.H. Ross, Catalysis for conversion of biomass to fuels via pyrolysis
and gasification: a review, Catal. Today 171 (2011) 1–13.
[17] P. Mondal, G.S. Dang, M.O. Garg, Syngas production through gasification and clean-
up for downstream applications — recent developments, Fuel Process. Technol. 92
(2011) 1395–1410.
[18] P. Kaushal, R. Tyagi, Steam assisted biomass gasification—an overview, Can. J. Chem.
Eng. 90 (2012) 1043–1058.
[19] L. Zhang, C.C. Xu, P. Champagne, Overview of recent advances in thermo-chemical
conversion of biomass, Energy Convers. Manag. 51 (2010) 969–982.
[20] R. Taylor, J. Howes, A. Bauen, Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and
Wastes, Final Report, NNFCC Project 09/008Available at: http://www.ecolateral.org/
gasificationnnfc090609.pdf 2009.
[21] R.C. Saxena, D. Seal, S. Kumar, H.B. Goyal, Thermo-chemical routes for hydrogen rich
gas from biomass: a review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 12 (2008) 1909–1927.
[22] A.V. Bridgwater, Thermo-chemical routes for hydrogen rich gas from biomass: a
review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 12 (2008) 1909–1927.
[23] M. Ni, Dennis Y.C. Leung, M.K.H. Leung, K. Sumathy, An overview of hydrogen
production from biomass, Fuel Process. Technol. 87 (2006) 461–472.
[24] P. McKendry, Energy production from biomass (part 2): conversion technologies,
Bioresour. Technol. 83 (2002) 47–54.
[25] K. Maniatis, Progress in Biomass Gasification: An OverviewAvailable at: http://ec.eu-
ropa.eu/energy/renewables/bioenergy/doc/2001_biomass_gasification_km_tyrol_
tony.pdf 2001.
[26] M. Kuramoto, D. Kunii, T. Furusawa, Development of a new system for circulating
fluidized particles within a single vessel, Powder Technol. 44 (1985) 77–84.
[27] M. Kuramoto, D. Kunii, T. Furusawa, Flow of dense fluidized particles through an
opening in a circulation system, Powder Technol. 47 (1986) 141–149.
[28] F.F. Snieders, A.C. Hoffmann, D. Cheesman, J.G. Yates, M. Stein, J.P.K. Seville, The
dynamics of large particles in a four-compartment interconnected fluidized bed,
Powder Technol. 101 (1999) 229–239.
[29] R.D. Abellon, Z.I. Kolar, W. den Hollander, J.J.M. de Goeij, J.C. Schouten, C.M. van
den Bleek, A single radiotracer particle method for the determination of solids
circulation rate in interconnected fluidized beds, Powder Technol. 92 (1997)
53–60.
[30] P.U. Foscolo, A. Germanà, N. Jand, S. Rapagnà, Design and cold model testing of a
biomass gasifier consisting of two interconnected fluidized beds, Powder Technol.
173 (2007) 179–188.
[31] C. Freda, G. Canneto, P. Mariotti, G. Braccio, E. Fanelli, V.K. Sharma, Fluid dynamic in-
vestigation of an internal circulating fluidized bed gasifier by cold model, Int. Energy
J. 12 (2011) 87–94.
[32] G. Canneto, C. Freda, G. Braccio, Numerical simulation of gas–solid flow in an inter-
connected fluidized bed, Therm. Sci. 19 (2015) 317–328.
[33] Z. Zhou, L. Ma, X. Yin, C. Wu, L. Huang, C. Wang, Study on biomass circulation and
gasification performance in a clapboard-type internal circulating fluidized bed
gasifier, Biotechnol. Adv. 27 (2009) 612–615.
[34] R. Yong Zhi, Preliminary Results of Fluidized Bed Gasification Tests at LIER,
Research Report, in: Liaoning Institute for Energy Resources (Ed.), 2006
(Yingkou, China).
[35] X. Xiao, D. Dung Le, K. Morishita, S. Zhang, L. Li, T. Takarada, Multi-stage biomass
gasification in Internally circulating fluidized-bed gasifier (ICFG): test operation of
animal-waste-derived biomass and parametric investigation at low temperature,
Fuel Process. Technol. 91 (2010) 895–902.
[36] U. Arena, Fluidized bed gasification, in: F. Scala (Ed.), Fluidized Bed Technologies for
Near-zero Emission Combustion and Gasification, Woodhead Publishing Limited,
Cambridge 2013, pp. 765–806.
Please cite this article as: D. Barisano, et al., Steam/oxygen biomass gasification at pilot scale in an internally circulating bubbling fluidized bed
reactor, Fuel Processing Technology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.06.008
[37] M. Niu, Y. Huang, B. Jin, Y. Sun, X. Wang, Enriched-air gasification of refuse-derived
fuel in a fluidized bed: effect of gasifying conditions and bed materials, Chem. Eng.
Technol. 37 (2014) 1787–1796.
[38] M.L. Mastellone, L. Zaccariello, D. Santoro, U. Arena, The O2-enriched air gasification
of coal, plastics and wood in a fluidized bed reactor, Waste Manag. 32 (2012)
733–742.
[39] H. Lin, M. Zhou, J. Ly, J. Vu, J.G. Wijmans, T.C. Merkel, J. Jin, A. Haldeman, E.H.
Wagener, D. Rue, Membrane-based oxygen-enriched combustion, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 52 (2013) 10820–10834.
[40] S.S. Hashim, A.R. Mohamed, S. Bhatia, Oxygen separation from air using ceramic-
based membrane technology for sustainable fuel production and power generation,
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15 (2011) 1284–1293.
[41] B. Belaissaoui, Y. Le Moullec, H. Hagi, E. Favre, Energy Efficiency of Oxygen Enriched
Air Production Technologies: Cryogeny vs Membranes, Energy Procedia 63 (2014)
497–503.
[42] A.R. Smith, J. Klosek, A review of air separation technologies and their integration
with energy conversion processes, Fuel Process. Technol. 70 (2001) 115–134.
[43] D. Barisano, C. Freda, F. Nanna, E. Fanelli, A. Villone, Biomass gasification and in-bed
contaminants removal: performance of iron enriched olivine and bauxite in a pro-
cess of steam/O2 gasification, Bioresour. Technol. 118 (2012) 187–194.
[44] Project UNIfHY — UNIQUE Gasifier for Hydrogen Production — Grant Agreement No.
299732. Descriptionavailable at: www.unifhy.eu/.
[45] W. Zou, C. Song, S. Xu, C. Lu, Y. Tursun, Biomass gasification in an external circulating
countercurrent moving bed gasifier, Fuel 112 (2013) 635–640.
[46] C. Pfeifer, S. Koppatz, H. Hofbauer, Steam gasification of various feedstocks at a dual
fluidised bed gasifier: impacts of operation conditions and bed materials, Biomass
Convers. Biorefin. 1 (2011) 39–53.
[47] J. Corella, J.M. Toledo, G. Molina, Biomass gasification with pure steam in fluidised
bed: 12 variables that affect the effectiveness of the biomass gasifier, Int. J. Oil Gas
Coal Technol. 1 (2008) 194–207.
[48] L. Wei, S. Xu, L. Zhang, C. Liu, H. Zhu, S. Liu, Steam gasification of biomass for
hydrogen-rich gas in a free-fall reactor, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 32 (2007) 24–31.
[49] S.T. Chaudhari, A.K. Dalai, N.N. Bakhshi, Production of hydrogen and/or syngas
(H2 + CO) via steam gasification of biomass-derived chars, Energy Fuels 17
(2003) 1062–1067.
[50] C. Franco, F. Pinto, I. Gulyurtlu, I. Cabrita, The study of reactions influencing the
biomass steam gasification process, Fuel 82 (2003) 835–842.
[51] S. Rapagnà, N. Jand, A. Kiennemann, P.U. Foscolo, Steam gasification of biomass in a
fluidised-bed of olivine particles, Biomass Bioenergy 19 (2000) 187–197.
[52] K.M. Broer, P.J. Woolcock, P.A. Johnston, R.C. Brown, Steam/oxygen gasification sys-
tem for the production of clean syngas from switchgrass, Fuel 140 (2015) 282–292.
[53] X. Meng, W. de Jong, N. Fu, A.H.M. Verkooijen, Biomass gasification in a 100 kWth
steam-oxygen blown circulating fluidized bed gasifier: effects of operational condi-
tions on product gas distribution and tar formation, Biomass Bioenergy 35 (2011)
2910–2924.
[54] M. Campoy, A. Gómez-Barea, F.B. Vidal, P. Ollero, Air–steam gasification of biomass
in a fluidised bed: process optimisation by enriched air, Fuel Process. Technol. 90
(2009) 677–685.
[55] J. Gil, J. Corella, M.P. Aznara, M.A. Caballero, Biomass gasification in atmospheric and
bubbling fluidized bed: effect of the type of gasifying agent on the product distribu-
tion, Biomass Bioenergy 17 (1999) 389–403.
[56] J. Gil, J. Corella, M.P. Aznara, M.A. Caballero, E. Frances, J. Corella, Biomass gasification
in fluidized bed at pilot scale with steam-oxygen mixtures, product distribution for
very different operating conditions, Energy Fuels 11 (1997) 1109–1118.
[57] H. Hofbauer, R. Rauch, Stoichiometric Water Consumption of Steam Gasification by
the FICFB-gasification Process, Progress in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion,
InnsbruckRetrieved from: http://www.ficfb.at/pub.htm September 2000.
[58] T.A. Milne, R. Evans, N. Abatzoglou, Biomass Gasifier “Tars”: Their Nature, Formation,
and Conversion, NREL/TP-570-25357, 1998.
[59] D.C. Elliott, Relation of reaction time and temperature to chemical composition of
pyrolysis oils, in: E.J. Soltes, T.A. Milne (Eds.), Pyrolysis Oils from Biomass,
American Chemical Society, Washington 1988, pp. 55–65.
[60] E.G. Baker, M.D. Brown, D.C. Elliott, L.K. Mudge, Characterization and Treatment of
Tars and Biomass Gasifiers, PNL-SA-16148; CONF-880850-19, August 1988.
[61] J. Fjellerup, J. Ahrenfeldt, U. Henriksen, B. Gøbel, Formation, Decomposition and
Cracking of Biomass Tars in Gasification, MEK-ET-2005-05, 2005.
[62] C.M. van der Meijden, Development of the MILENA Gasification Technology for the
Production of Bio-SNG, ECN-B-10-016, December 2010.
[63] U. Wolfesberger, I. Aigner, H. Hofbauer, Tar content and composition in producer gas
of fluidized bed gasification of wood — influence of temperature and pressure,
Environ. Prog. Sust. Energy 28 (2009) 372–379.