energies

Review
Biomass Gasification in Downdraft Gasifiers: A Technical
Review on Production, Up-Gradation and Application of
Synthesis Gas
Pulla Rose Havilah 1 , Amit Kumar Sharma 2 , Gopalakrishnan Govindasamy 1 , Leonidas Matsakas 3
and Alok Patel 3, *

1 Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies,
Energy Acres Building, Bidholi, Dehradun 248007, India; rosehavilah@ddn.upes.ac.in (P.R.H.);
gopalakrishnan@ddn.upes.ac.in (G.G.)
2 Department of Chemistry, Centre for Alternate and Renewable Energy Research, R & D,
University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (UPES), Energy Acres Building, Bidholi, Dehradun 248007,
India; amit.orgchemistry@gmail.com
3 Biochemical Process Engineering, Division of Chemical Engineering, Department of Civil, Environmental and
Natural Resources Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, 971 87 Luleå, Sweden;
leonidas.matsakas@ltu.se
* Correspondence: alok.kumar.patel@ltu.se; Tel.: +46-(0)920-491570

Abstract: Rapid climate change and forecasted damage from fossil fuel combustion, forced researchers
to investigate renewable and clean energy sources for the sustainable development of societies
throughout the world. Biomass-based energy is one of the most important renewable energy sources
for meeting daily energy needs, which are gaining in popularity daily. Gasification-based bioenergy
production is an effective way to replace fossil fuels and reduce CO2 emissions. Even though biomass
gasification has been studied extensively, there is still much opportunity for improvement in terms
Citation: Havilah, P.R.; Sharma, A.K.; of high-quality syngas generation (high H2 /CO ratio) and reduced tar formation. Furthermore, the
Govindasamy, G.; Matsakas, L.; Patel, presence of tar has a considerable impact on syngas quality. Downdraft gasifiers have recently shown
A. Biomass Gasification in a significant potential for producing high-quality syngas with lower tar concentrations. This article
Downdraft Gasifiers: A Technical presents a comprehensive review on the advancement in biomass downdraft gasification technologies
Review on Production, Up-Gradation for high-quality synthesis gas. In addition, factors affecting syngas production and composition e.g.,
and Application of Synthesis Gas. equivalency ratio, temperature, particle size, and gasification medium on synthesis gas generation
Energies 2022, 15, 3938. https:// are also comprehensively studied. The up-gradation and various applications of synthesis gas are
doi.org/10.3390/en15113938
also discussed in brief in this review article.
Academic Editor: Javier Fermoso
Keywords: downdraft gasification; biomass; synthesis gas; biochar
Received: 3 May 2022
Accepted: 24 May 2022
Published: 26 May 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral 1. Introduction

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
Global energy demand has been growing steadily for several decades as a result of
published maps and institutional affil-
rapid industrialisation and improved living standards around the world [1]. Extensive
iations.
use of fossil fuels results in serious problems of ozone depletion, and global warming
by emitting poisonous pollutants and greenhouse gases into the environment, especially
CO2 [2,3]. To bridge the gap of growing demand for energy, maintain supply security,
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
and address the problems of adverse environmental consequences caused by fossil fuels,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. researchers are diverting focus to clean and renewable energy sources. Renewable energy
This article is an open access article is energy that can be naturally renewed and is derived from natural resources. Solar,
distributed under the terms and wind, marine energy, bioenergy and geothermal energy are the most common renewable
conditions of the Creative Commons energy technologies [4–7]. Among them, biomass is getting more attention as a clean and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// renewable energy source with more potential.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Biomass has been the primary source of energy for humans since the discovery of fire
4.0/). thousands of years ago, and it continues to contribute more than 10% of the global energy

Energies 2022, 15, 3938. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15113938 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2022, 15, 3938 2 of 19

Energies 2022, 15, 3938 2 of 19

Biomass has been the primary source of energy for humans since the discovery of fire
thousands of years ago, and it continues to contribute more than 10% of the global energy
supply and stands as the world’s fourth-largest source of energy today [8]. Furthermore,
supply and stands as the world’s fourth-largest source of energy today [8]. Furthermore,
biomass is still the main source of energy for heating and cooking in rural agricultural
biomass is still the main source of energy for heating and cooking in rural agricultural areas
areas as it is easily available everywhere. Currently, bioenergy contributes to 14% of the
as it is easily available everywhere. Currently, bioenergy contributes to 14% of the total
total energy supply, which is the largest renewable energy source [1].
energy supply, which is the largest renewable energy source [1].
As
As illustrated
illustrated inin Figure
Figure 11 [9],
[9], biomass
biomass can
can be
be classified
classified according
according to to the
the biological
biological
matter
matter from which it is derived. It is divided into three main categories: naturalbiomass,
from which it is derived. It is divided into three main categories: natural biomass,
waste bio-mass, and energetic crops. The residual biomass comprises agricultural,
waste bio-mass, and energetic crops. The residual biomass comprises agricultural, forestry, for-
estry, industrial
industrial and urban
and urban solid wastes.
solid wastes. Bagasse,Bagasse, cottonrice
cotton stalks, stalks, ricesoya
husks, husks, soyasawdust,
husks, husks,
sawdust,
de-oiled cakes, coconut shells, coffee waste, groundnut shells, neem, and jute wastejute
de-oiled cakes, coconut shells, coffee waste, groundnut shells, neem, and are
waste
some are some
of the mainof the main materials
biomass biomass materials utilized
utilized for power forgeneration
power generation [10]. Ligno-
[10]. Lignocellulose
cellulose
biomass is biomass is an abundant
an abundant non-edible non-edible
substancesubstance
consistingconsisting
mostly of mostly of agricultural
agricultural and forest
and forest waste such as wood chips and rice straw. It is mainly
waste such as wood chips and rice straw. It is mainly composed of cellulose composed of cellulose (9–
(9–80%),
80%), hemicellulose
hemicellulose (10–50%),
(10–50%), and and
ligninlignin (5–35%)
(5–35%) with
with trace
trace amountsofoflipid,
amounts lipid, protein
protein and
and
ash [11].
ash [11].

Figure 1.
Figure Classification of
1. Classification of biomass-based
biomass-based on
on feedstock
feedstock origin
origin for
for mixed
mixed biomass
biomass pelleting.
pelleting. Adapted
with permission
Adapted from [9]. from
with permission Copyright 2020, Elsevier.
[9]. Copyright 2020, Elsevier.

Thermochemical and
Thermochemical andbiochemical
biochemicalconversions
conversions are thethe
are most
mostcommon
commonmethods
methodswhich can
which
be employed to convert biomass into transportation fuels, and high-value compounds
can be employed to convert biomass into transportation fuels, and high-value compounds [8,12–14]
as shownasinshown
[8,12–14] Figurein2.Figure
Biochemical techniques,
2. Biochemical primary
techniques, fermentation,
primary aerobicaerobic
fermentation, and anaer-
and
obic digestion, and enzymatic processes, including a wide range of chemical
anaerobic digestion, and enzymatic processes, including a wide range of chemical reac- reactions
catalysed
tions inside
catalysed microorganisms
inside as whole-cell
microorganisms biocatalysts
as whole-cell and/or
biocatalysts enzymes
and/or enzymescancan
convert
con-
fermentable material to products. On the other hand, thermochemical methods involve
vert fermentable material to products. On the other hand, thermochemical methods in-
direct combustion, gasification, pyrolysis and liquefaction, where biomass is converted into
volve direct combustion, gasification, pyrolysis and liquefaction, where biomass is con-
gas, liquid or solid fuels depending upon the oxygen supply and temperature [12,13,15,16].
verted into gas, liquid or solid fuels depending upon the oxygen supply and temperature
Thermochemical conversion is considered more efficient than biochemical due to its high
[12,13,15,16]. Thermochemical conversion is considered more efficient than biochemical
conversion efficiency and short residence time [17]. Pyrolysis is the thermal decomposition
due to its high conversion efficiency and short residence time [17]. Pyrolysis is the thermal
of biomass into non-condensable gases, condensable liquids (bio-oil) and a solid residual
decomposition of biomass into non-condensable gases, condensable liquids (bio-oil) and
coproduct, biochar in an inert environment i.e., in the absence of oxygen at temperatures,
a solid residual coproduct, biochar in an inert environment i.e., in the absence of oxygen
350–600 ◦ C [12]. The problem with this method is that substantial upgrading is required
at temperatures, 350–600 °C [12]. The problem with this method is that substantial up-
for the use of bio-oils as transportation fuels [18]. Liquefaction is a thermal process that
grading is required for the use of bio-oils as transportation fuels [18]. Liquefaction is a
transforms biomass into liquid fuels at low temperatures between 250 and 350 ◦ C and high
thermal process that transforms biomass into liquid fuels at low temperatures between
pressures between 10 and 20 MPa. The disadvantages of this approach include its complex
250 andsystem
reactor 350 °Candandeconomic
high pressures between
feasibility [19]. 10 and 20 MPa. The disadvantages of this
approach include its complex reactor system and economic feasibility [19].
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 3 of 19
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 3 of 19

Figure2.2.Thermochemical
Figure Thermochemicaland
andbiochemical
biochemicalmethods
methodsfor
forbiomass
biomassconversion
conversion[8,20].
[8,20].

Gasification
Gasificationisisa ahighly
highlydeveloped
developedtechnique
techniquethat
thatoperates
operatesatattemperatures
temperaturesranging ranging
from 600 to 1500 ◦ C and pressures ranging from atmospheric pressure to 80 bar in the
from 600 to 1500 °C and pressures ranging from atmospheric pressure to 80 bar in the
presence
presenceofofaagasification
gasification agent
agent (air, steam, O
(air, steam, O22ororCO
CO2).2 ).It is
It the
is the most
most efficient
efficient wayway to
to pro-
produce synthesis gas (CO
duce synthesis gas (CO + H2), with + H 2 ), with additional components such as CH
additional components such as CH4 and4 CO2. Light and CO 2.
Light hydrocarbons
hydrocarbons like ethane
like ethane and and propane,
propane, as well
as well as heavier
as heavier hydrocarbons
hydrocarbons likelike
tar, tar,
are are
also
also present in the gas produced [21]. Synthesis gas is further used
present in the gas produced [21]. Synthesis gas is further used to make diesel and gasoline to make diesel and
gasoline grade hydrocarbons,
grade hydrocarbons, methanol,methanol, and ammonia,
and ammonia, as well as asto well as to generate
generate power and powerheatand
[22].
heat [22]. The gasification process is also a good source of green hydrogen production since
The gasification process is also a good source of green hydrogen production since it offers
it offers high overall system efficiency, a quick process, and more choices of integration
high overall system efficiency, a quick process, and more choices of integration with other
with other power generation systems. The high hydrogen output, cheap feedstock cost, and
power generation systems. The high hydrogen output, cheap feedstock cost, and environ-
environmentally beneficial products also draw attention [23]. A developing country like
mentally beneficial products also draw attention [23]. A developing country like India
India also started to focus on the implementation of programmes for biomass gasification
also started to focus on the implementation of programmes for biomass gasification for
for green and clean energy production. According to the Ministry of New and Renewable
green and clean energy production. According to the Ministry of New and Renewable
Energy (MNRE) annual report, as of October 2018, the country has an estimated total
Energy (MNRE) annual report, as of October 2018, the country has an estimated total bi-
biomass gasification installation capacity of 9.54 GW off grid connected bio-power, with a
omass gasification installation capacity of 9.54 GW off grid connected bio-power, with a
target of 10 GW bio-power by 2022 [24].
target of 10 GW bio-power by 2022 [24].
Fixed bed gasifiers are the most studied and suitable reactors for biomass gasification
Fixed bed gasifiers are the most studied and suitable reactors for biomass gasification
due to their simple operation and easy construction. These reactors can be classified into
due to their simple
three categories operation
i.e., updraft, and easyand
downdraft, construction.
cross draftThese
gasifiers.reactors
Among canthem,
be classified
downdraft into
three categories
gasifiers are gettingi.e.,
moreupdraft,
popular downdraft, and cross
due to their lower draft and
tar content gasifiers. Among
high-quality them,
syngas.
downdraft gasifiers are getting more popular due to their lower tar
Chaves et al., [25] built a prototype power plant utilizing a downdraft gasifier and observed content and high-
quality 3 syngas.
− 1 Chaves et al., [25] built a prototype power plant
2.5 Nm kg gas output with a consumption of 5.6 kg/h wood. Ariffin et al. [26] performed utilizing a downdraft
gasifier andofobserved
gasification oil palm 2.5 Nm3shells
kernel kg−1 gas output
using with a consumption
a medium-scale downdraftof 5.6 kg/h wood.
gasifier havingAr- a
iffin et al. [26] performed gasification of oil palm kernel shells
capacity of 500 kg and a feed consumption rate of 177 kg/h. The experimental results using a medium-scale
downdraft
showed that gasifier
the coldhaving a capacity
gas efficiency of 500
of the kg and
process wasa feed
found consumption
to be 51% atrate 681of◦ C177 kg/h.
with a
The experimental
calorific results
value (4.45–4.89 showed
MJ/Nm that the
3 ) ideal forcold gas efficiency
gas engine of the They
applications. process was found
examined howto
be 51% at 681 °C with a calorific value (4.45–4.89 MJ/Nm3) ideal for gas engine
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 4 of 19

temperature played a key role to improve gasification efficiency. Christus et al. [27] carried
out experiments with blends of rubber seed shell and coconut shell on a 50 kWth downdraft
gasifier, available in rural parts of South India. They obtained the best performance of
the reactor at an equivalence ratio of 0.2. Kallis et al. [28] investigated a 50-kWh pilot
downdraft gasifier with an equivalence ratio variation of 0.2–0.3 and found that the heat
distribution and resulting temperature distributions had a significant impact on the quality
and quantity of the generated gas. According to the study, higher temperatures combined
with better heat dispersion resulted in an increase in syngas quantity. Bridge and fuel
channelling are common problems in gasifiers. The development of topless or open-top
gasifiers has allowed for more efficient fuel feeding. There have only been limited review
studies on stratified gasifiers published [29,30]. Mukunda et al. [31] devised a vertical
tubular reactor with an open top and a water seal at the bottom for an open-top core gasifier.
The reactor’s upper portion was made of stainless steel, and it was encircled by an annular
jacket. Similarly, an open core, throatless downdraft gasifier reactor with two concentric
cylinders was also designed by Ambani and Dafda [31]. The outside cylinder serves as a
heat exchanger, while the inner cylinder serves as a reactor. Dasappa et al. [31] developed
a mild steel open top downdraft reburn reactor with a ceramic inner liner. Air nozzles
were installed throughout the combustion zone, distributing air uniformly over the section
by positioning the nozzles at varying heights, promoting high residence time for gases
and therefore reducing tar. Wander et al. [32] developed an open-top stratified gasifier
with internal gas circulation where a portion of the gas generated was burnt to boost the
temperature of the gasification process. The gasifier was used in sawdust gasification of
12 kg/h with a moisture content of 9–11%. They found that the circulation of the internal
gases resulted in improved gasification efficiency. Barrio et al. [33] gasified wood pellets
at a feed rate of 5 kg/h using a 30 kW stratified downdraft gasifier. The equivalence ratio
varied from 0.3–0.45 depending on the air intake. The gasifier generated 12 Nm3 /h of
gas with a calorific value of 5 MJ/Nm3 and a CO and H2 concentration of 20%. However,
many studies were carried out on downdraft gasification with wood [34], corn straw [35],
coconut shell [27], sawdust and wood chips [36], cashew nutshell [37], agricultural and
forest residues [38], coir pith [39] and date palm [40] etc., via downdraft gasification of
biomass. There is lack of literature reviews on advanced gasification technologies.
Ma et al. 2012 provided an overview of the thermochemical transformation of biomass
to produce biofuels, as well as recent breakthroughs and enhancements enabled by tai-
loring toward the synthesis of gas components. They also discussed the impact of the
integration of hydrolysis and gasification for the complete transformation of lignocellulosic
biomass [41].
Martínez et al., 2012 reviewed different biomass downdraft reactors for small-scale
heat and power generation. They also reviewed the impacts of molecule size, the concentra-
tion of biomass feedstock, and the equivalence ratio on the nature of the synthetic gas [42].
Buragohain et al., 2010, mentioned the technical and economic problems related to decen-
tralized power generation utilizing biomass gasification from an Indian perspective [43].
Shahabuddin et al. discussed the benefits and drawbacks of hydrogen production from
biomass and municipal solid waste by gasification [44].
The majority of the investigations in the aforementioned review papers were mainly
focused on synthesis gas production and characterization. However, there is limited
research on improvements to the complete spectrum of production technology, as well as the
enrichment and utilization of synthesis gas via biomass downdraft gasification. Therefore,
the present review focuses on examining the advancement in production technology,
upgrading, and usage of synthesis gas generated from biomass downdraft gasification.

2. Production Aspects of Downdraft Gasification of Biomass

As the name implies, in a downdraft gasifier, air interacts with solid biomass fuel in a
downward direction, causing wastes and gases to flow in a co-current direction, therefore
these gasifiers are also known as co-current gasifiers. The products obtained from both the
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 5 of 19

pyrolysis and drying zones due to decomposition are forced to travel through the oxidation
zone where thermal cracking of volatile components takes place and results in lower tar
content and improved fuel gas quality. Before it reaches the char, air interacts with the
pyrolyzing biomass, speeding up the flame and keeping the pyrolysis process going. The
gases obtained in the absence of oxygen after the pyrolysis zone are CO2 , H2 O, CO, and H2 ,
which are referred to as flaming gases. The gases obtained during downdraft gasification
in flame pyrolysis are owing to the process itself consuming 99% of the tar, resulting in
low particle and tar concentration in the gas, making it suitable for small-scale power
generation applications [45].

2.1. Recent Advances and Limitations in Downdraft Biomass Gasification

A typical gasification process consists of four stages: (1) Drying, (2) Pyrolysis, (3) Par-
tial combustion of gases, vapours and char and (4) Reduction of the combustion prod-
ucts [46] which involves a large number of complex chemical reactions namely pyrolysis,
partial oxidation, gasification of char, conversion of tars/hydrocarbons and water gas shift
reactions. The chemical reactions of biomass gasification are shown below in Table 1. These
reactions are strongly influenced by fuel characteristics and process variables such as gasi-
fying agent, gasification temperature and pressure, bed material, and biomass feedstock, all
of which are critical for the selection, design, and operation of a given gasifier system [8,47].
Gasifiers are grouped into three categories based on the gas-solid contacting method:
fixed bed (updraft and downdraft), fluidized bed, entrained flow, rotary kiln, and plasma
gasification [48]. Dense phase reactors comprise fixed bed gasifiers, though lean phase
reactors include fluidized bed gasifiers of two kinds: bubbling fluidized bed gasifiers and
circulating bed gasifiers and entrained flow gasifiers. Fixed bed gasifiers are a simple
and well-proven reactor with a low expenditure cost, but fluidized bed reactors have a
high capital expenditure and have only been demonstrated with coal. Furthermore, the
entrained flow gasifier is difficult to manufacture [15]. The schematic of various gasifiers is
shown in Figure 3. Downdraft gasifiers are primarily divided into two types: (i) Imbert
gasifiers (throated or closed-top gasifiers) and (ii) Stratified gasifiers (throatless or open-core
gasifiers). Because of the complexity of the Imbert design, the downdraft gasifier models
are mostly defined as stratified. The throated gasifiers do not allow for uniform dispersion
of flow and temperature in the restricted area, hence are not ideal for scaling up to greater
quantities [49].

Table 1. Chemical Reactions occurring during gasification [50,51].

Reaction Type Reaction Reaction Heat kJ/mol Equation Number

Drying : Moist feedstock + Heat → Dry feedstock + H2 O (1)
Pyrolysis : Carbon + Heat → Volatiles + char (2)
Solid-gas reactions (Heterogeneous Reactions)
Combustion C + O2 → CO2 −394 (3)
Water-gas C + H2 O → CO + H2 131 (4)
Boudouard C + CO2 → 2CO 173 (5)
Hydrogasification C + 2H2 → CH4 −75 (6)
Gas-gas reactions (Homogeneous Reactions)
Water gas shift reaction CO + H2 O → CO2 + H2 −41 (7)
Methanation reactions CH4 + H2 O → CO + 3H2 206 (8)

Wander et al. [32], for example, demonstrated the design of a 12 kg/h downdraft
gasifier for sawmill dust gasification. Susastriawan et al. [52] did a comparative study of
the gasification performance of rice husk, sawdust, and their combination in a downdraft
fixed-bed gasifier. They investigated the gasification features (reactor temperature profile,
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 6 of 19

fuel consumption rate, producer gas composition, and gasifier efficiency). Singla et al. [53]
gasified rice straw briquettes at four diverse air flow rates and discovered that the heating
value of producer gas was decreased at higher airflow rates. Pal [54] investigated the
gasification behaviour of cotton stalk biomass in a downdraft gasifier and discovered that
with raising the gas flow rate the gasifier efficiency increased. To improve the utilisation
of biomass gasification, advanced technologies that optimise syngas yield, improve gas
quality, raise gas purity, improve overall process efficiency, and increase economic suitability
by lowering total production costs are needed. The UNIQUE gasifier idea demonstrates
process integration by combining catalytic filtration, biomass gasification, gas cleaning, and
conditioning in a single reactor unit. As a result, the simplified system minimizes thermal
losses, equipment, and plant space while attaining excellent thermal efficiency throughout
the conversion process. This system allows for the conversion of tar, the removal of trace
components, and the provision of high purity syngas appropriate for power production
on a small to medium scale, hence increasing overall economic income [51]. Pyrolysis and
gasification are separated and integrated into single controlled phases in new enhanced
multi-stage gasification ideas. As a consequence, high process efficiencies and low tar
content syngas may be obtained. Combining numerous reactors expands the intricacy of
the cycle [55]. Multistage necessitates a larger scale and economic feasibility [56]. On the
other hand, concepts that combine gasification with a combustion stage aim to improve
the overall process capability by combining unconverted char burning for more heat
production, or converting tar by partial combustion to generate a product gas with a lower
tar concentration [51]. New gasification techniques, such as plasma and supercritical water
gasification, provide interesting benefits for specific types of biomasses [8]. For the small-
scale industry, there has been more of an era of consolidation, as business administrators
have adopted some gasifier advancements and internally developed approaches to improve
product quality, reliability, and expense. More importantly, small-scale gasifiers have gained
attraction due to steady operations and excellent performance [56].

Bottlenecks in Downdraft Gasification of Biomass

Regardless of broad study, researchers have sought to find the cause of the absence
of improvement of biomass gasification for syngas production. Biomass gasification has
not yet reached maturity, posing considerable financial risks, and development has been
hampered due to the complicated technology [57].
The following are some of the major scientific issues connected with downdraft gasifi-
cation for biomass thermochemical conversion:
 Expense of collecting and delivering biomass to an energy conversion facility.
 Removal of the impurities such as tar in the gas stream.
 Bridging and scaling of ash in the reactor reduces the gasifier’s efficiency and damages
the reactor’s components.
 High cost of optional, or assistant, hardware to produce clean, generally toxin-free gas.
 Economic and other non-technical hurdles like social inadaptability, inadequate gov-
ernment policies and lack of market float when competing with global energy markets.
 Conversion of biomass into fuel gas of suitable product composition.
 Handling other streams generated in gasification.
 Reactor design for effective gasification of biomass.
A small-scale (1–10 MW) power plant can help to solve technological issues [58].
SCWG (supercritical water gasification) of biomass, according to Hosseini and Wahid [59],
is a cost-effective thermochemical technique for hydrogen generation which promotes
lower char and tar formation. Meng et al. [60] looked at a pilot size fixed bed gasifier and
discovered that a low ER (0.30) caused inefficient combustion, which resulted in more tar
being produced. Higher ER, on the other hand, helps to lower tar content and enhance
carbon conversion efficiency. The application of magnesite as bed material, according to
Siedlecki and de Jong [61], enhanced H2 concentration in the produced gas. It also decreases
the amount of tar in the produced gas to under 2 gm−3 . Anis et al. [62] discovered that
 lower char and tar formation. Meng et al. [60] looked at a pilot size fixed bed gasifier and
discovered that a low ER (0.30) caused inefficient combustion, which resulted in more tar
being produced. Higher ER, on the other hand, helps to lower tar content and enhance
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 carbon conversion efficiency. The application of magnesite as bed material, according 7 of 19
to
Siedlecki and de Jong [61], enhanced H2 concentration in the produced gas. It also de-
creases the amount of tar in the produced gas to under 2 gm−3. Anis et al. [62] discovered
burning biomass
that burning at high
biomass temperatures
at high temperatureslowers the quantity
lowers of tarofintar
the quantity theinresulting gas. The
the resulting gas.
primary
The primary barriers to cost-effective
barriers and practical
to cost-effective applications
and practical are ash-related
applications issuesissues
are ash-related such
as sintering,
such agglomeration,
as sintering, agglomeration, deposition, erosion,
deposition, andand
erosion, corrosion.
corrosion.To To
generate
generateelectricity
electric-
commercially,
ity commercially, gasification technology
gasification technologycombined
combined withwith
a catalytic resulted
a catalytic in tar
resulted in reduction
tar reduc-
and
tionleads to lower
and leads ash pollution
to lower [63]. The
ash pollution [63].twoTheprimary pretreatments
two primary utilizedutilized
pretreatments to lessen to
ash-related issues are leaching and fractionation. The effectiveness
lessen ash-related issues are leaching and fractionation. The effectiveness of water leach- of water leaching in
removing inorganic
ing in removing elements
inorganic was determined
elements by the biomass
was determined feedstocks
by the biomass used. Mechanical
feedstocks used. Me-
fractionation can reduce
chanical fractionation canash in biomass
reduce by up to by
ash in biomass 50%,up but the left-over
to 50%, ash still ash
but the left-over creates
still
ash-related problemsproblems
creates ash-related at high temperatures [64,65]. Cummer
at high temperatures [64,65].and Brownand
Cummer [66] Brown
worked[66] on
auxiliary systems, on both the upstream and downstream sides
worked on auxiliary systems, on both the upstream and downstream sides of the entire of the entire gasification
process. As per
gasification previous
process. As perstudy [57], innovation
previous study [57], designers
innovation anddesigners
government andlaws assume
government
alaws
basicassume
part inathe marketing and commercialization of technologies
basic part in the marketing and commercialization of technologies for thefor the substitution
of limited energy
substitution supplies.
of limited energySomesupplies.
techniques Some from technology
techniques developers,
from technology suchdevelopers,
as overall
cost
suchminimization,
as overall costprocess ease, automation,
minimization, process ease, andautomation,
so on, can be andused to commercialize
so on, can be used to
the technology. Furthermore, policymakers and governmental
commercialize the technology. Furthermore, policymakers and governmental organiza- organizations can take
beneficial actions such as giving subsidies for technology implementation,
tions can take beneficial actions such as giving subsidies for technology implementation, credit facilities,
and infrastructure to users [67]. Local governments must provide efficient
credit facilities, and infrastructure to users [67]. Local governments must provide efficient administration
and rigorous monitoring
administration and rigorous in order to improve
monitoring in order anytocountry’s
improve bioenergy
any country’sindustry.
bioenergyEfforts
in-
to educate technology partners and stakeholders on the uses, applications, and overall
dustry. Efforts to educate technology partners and stakeholders on the uses, applications,
expected benefits of gasifiers are also insignificant. To minimize such failures, a sample
and overall expected benefits of gasifiers are also insignificant. To minimize such failures,
plan for monitoring biogas consumption in diverse locations on a regular basis might
a sample plan for monitoring biogas consumption in diverse locations on a regular basis
be developed.
might be developed.

Figure3.
Figure 3. Schematic
Schematic Diagram
Diagram of of (a)
(a) Updraft
Updraft gasifier
gasifier (b)
(b) Downdraft
Downdraft gasifier
gasifier(c)
(c) Bubbling
Bubblingbed
bed gasifier
gasifier
(d) Circulating bed gasifier (e) Entrained flow gasifier, (f) Plasma Gasifier [46,48,49]. Images
(d) Circulating bed gasifier (e) Entrained flow gasifier, (f) Plasma Gasifier [46,48,49]. Images were were
drawn with permission from sources [48]. Copyright 2021,
drawn with permission from sources [48]. Copyright 2021, Elsevier. Elsevier.

2.2.
2.2. Influencing
Influencing Parameters
Parameters on
on Production
ProductionYield
YieldofofGasification
GasificationProducts
Products
The
Thethermochemical
thermochemicaldecomposition
decompositionof ofbiomass
biomassininthetheclimate
climateofofair/oxygen
air/oxygen depends
depends
on
on different parameters
parametersfor
forexample,
example,reactor
reactor configuration,
configuration, feedstock
feedstock type,
type, operating
operating con-
conditions like equivalence ratio, temperature and pressure, which finally affect
ditions like equivalence ratio, temperature and pressure, which finally affect the product the prod-
uct gas quality. The impact of all of the aforementioned factors on production yield is
explained below.
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 8 of 19

2.2.1. Effect of Biomass Characteristics

Biomass is a heterogeneous combination of organic and inorganic materials comprising
multiple solid and liquid phases with varying concentrations. Because of the wide variety
of biomass fuels (agricultural wastes, energy crops, forestry wastes, industrial wastes, and
so on), it is critical to properly characterize them, as this will affect the design plan of
the plant converting them to electricity. In different biomass types, cellulose (about 50%
on a dry basis), hemicelluloses (10–30% in woods and 20–40% in herbaceous biomass),
lignin (20–40% in woods and 10–40% in herbaceous biomass), and extractives are accessible
in varying degrees, and these degrees influence item dispersion [68]. The cellulose and
lignin contents of biomass are two significant parameters to evaluate the pyrolysis and
gasification characteristics. Lv et al. investigated the influence of cellulose and lignin on
biomass gasification using six different kinds of biomass with cellulose contents ranging
from 55% to 85% and lignin contents ranging from 10% to 35% [69]. The higher the cellulose
content, the faster the pyrolysis rate of biomass, which slows as the lignin percentage
increases. Furthermore, the gasification process was heavily influenced by char structure
and the interaction of cellulose and lignin. Increasing the cellulose content increased the
gasification’s peak temperature and lengthened the gasification period. High content
syngas is made with high (cellulose + hemicellulose)/lignin ratios. Lignin produced
more tar than cellulose and hemicellulose. Blasi and Branca et al. [70] observed that
holocellulose (cellulose and hemicellulose) transforms mostly into liquids (tars), whereas
lignin degradation produces char and gas. A direct relationship exists between the chemical
composition of biomass and gas produced from gasification. In a study of gasification,
Hanaoka et al. [71] revealed that cellulose created high measures of CO2 and CH4 in the
product gas whereas Yang et al. [72] reported that lignin contributed to high H2 yields
in the gasification process. Herbaceous plants have loosely bound fibres with a smaller
amount of lignin, whereas woody plant species have sluggish growth and are formed
of tightly bonded fibres with a hard outer surface. The two most important definitive
variables in determining the suitability of plant species for further processing as energy
crops are the proportional quantities of cellulose and lignin. The biomass should be
prepared in accordance with the gasifier in which it will be treated. The pre-treatment
of biomass has a significant influence on gasification results. Pre-treatment is a required
step in the thermochemical conversion of biomass that involves structural modification
to overcome the recalcitrant character of biomass. Improving biomass characteristics is
essential to increase the energy use efficiency of biomass. Physical, chemical, and biological
pre-treatment procedures are used, with physical treatment being the most common for
thermochemical conversion routes. Physical treatment methods for biomass intended as
feedstock for thermochemical conversion processes include milling, chipping, briquetting,
pelleting, and torrefaction. The drawback of utilizing pre-treatment technologies are high
costs to obtain a pre-treated product with minimum degradation of vital components [73].

2.2.2. Effect of Moisture Content

The moisture content of the feedstock is also an important factor that affects syngas
composition and gasification efficiency. In biomass, moisture may exist in two states: free
and equilibrium. As the moisture content of the feedstock rises, it makes a bothersome
effect on the conversion as additional energy is required for water evaporation. With
moisture content below 15%, bed temperatures stay more or less constant [74]. Feed stocks
such as municipal sewage sludge, and black liquor have a high moisture content of about
60% to 80% whereas wood has less moisture content [75]. A thorough understanding of the
relationship between calorific value and moisture content in biomass and municipal waste
was presented by Themelis et al. [76]. They suggested that feedstocks with higher moisture
content have a lower relative heating value, necessitating the drying of these materials
prior to the gasification stage. McKendry recommended that the biomass’ moisture content
should be under 10–15% for a better gasification reaction [77]. To overcome the difficulty
of ash fusion in a downdraft gasifier there is a necessity for the feedstock to have a water
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 9 of 19

content of less than 25% [78]. Chopra et al. [79] and Beohar et al. [80] reported that
equilibrium moisture content relies upon relative humidity and air temperature. As the
moisture content of the biomass increases, so does the rate of biomass consumption,
lowering reaction zone temperatures owing to the energy required to evaporate the fuel
and, as a result, affecting gasifier performance and end-product quality. Martinez et al. [42]
focused on the impact of molecule size and moisture content of the biomass feedstocks and
the air/fuel proportion on the gasification cycle as far as gas quality goes. The influence
of moisture content on the gasification process in a downdraft gasifier using air as the
gasifying medium has been studied by various approaches. High moisture content reduces
the net calorific value of the producing gas, lowering its heating value and lowering
gasification productivity. Likewise, the tar part of the producer gas increments with an
increment in the moisture in the biomass. With high moisture content, more air is needed
to combust the biomass and therefore the amount of CO2 goes up and CO decreases. CO2
content at low moisture varies between 5% to 10% due to lower availability of carbon levels
and at the higher moisture content of 40%, the content may increase to 15% and higher [81].

2.2.3. Effect of Equivalence Ratio

Equivalence ratio (ER) is the most powerful factor in fixed/moving and fluidized bed
reactors [82] that significantly impacts on the composition of producer gas. It is calculated
by the ratio of the actual air-fuel ratio to the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. ER fixes the
measure of air provided for gasification. In air gasification, increasing the equivalence ratio
increases the rate of gas production. As the ER increased, the gasification temperature
increased due to the increase in exothermic processes. Low equivalence ratios, on the other
hand, lead to lower bed temperature, which favours lower gas production and higher tar
formation. The ER value for effective gasification is found to be between 0.19 to 0.43. A
value of 0.3 is considered to be a theoretical optimum and all the gasifier designs were
based on the same [83]. The volumetric rate of air can be calculated from the ER value
for a given biomass consumption rate. In agreement with many studies conducted by
Garcia et al. [84] and Tinaut et al. [85], the amount of air supplied to downdraft moving
bed gasifiers controls the biomass consumption rate. The increase in ER increases the
nitrogen content sharply in producer gas due to the availability of more nitrogen in the
gasifying medium. On the other hand, when steam was utilized as a gasification medium,
then the syngas would not have nitrogen. Xue et al. [86] and Gai et al. [87] used torrefied
miscanthus and corn straw with a comparably higher concentration of nitrogen in feedstock
and showed a good percentage of nitrogen content in the gas. Therefore, the value of ER
must be optimized as the high N2 content is undesirable and can decrease the heating value
of the gas. The ER has a comparative impact on the H2 and CO content. The majority of
researchers find that the CO and H2 content decreases with ER. Skoulou et al. [88] studied
the effect of ER on the H2 and CO content. The effect of ER on CO2 changes with different
studies in the literature. However, it can be concluded that the ER and the amount of air
don’t have any impact on the water gas shift reaction. The content of CH4 decreases as
the ER increases and the majority of studies affirm this. Therefore, high ER values are
not recommended for gasification. Generally, CH4 content may vary from 1% to 3% for
air gasification.

2.2.4. Effect of Temperature

Temperature is also the key factor that affects the gasification rate and overall per-
formance of the gasifier as shown in Table 2. Since all homogeneous and heterogeneous
reactions are reversible in general, the equilibrium of any reaction may be shifted by vary-
ing the temperature. Among different operating conditions, the most extreme temperature
of the reaction zone is crucial in deciding carbon conversion all through the oxidation and
gasification reactions, gas yield, calorific value, cold gas efficiency, gas composition, tars and
char content in the gasification cycle]. The temperature variation among different gasifiers
can lead to different compositions of syngas. From the literature, it can be found that there
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 10 of 19

is a dominant impact of temperature in gasifiers on the composition of the gas [89]. The
higher the temperature, the better the cracking and lower the tar content. Higher tempera-
tures, i.e., 700 to 900 ◦ C, increase the reaction rates of the oxidation and reduction zones,
resulting in improved gasification, which creates H2 , CO, and eliminates hydrocarbon.
To produce syngas of high calorific value and low tar content the oxidation temperature
should be between 800–950 ◦ C and the reduction zone should lie between 650–900 ◦ C in a
downdraft gasifier [89]. As the bed temperature rises, it favours endothermic gasification
reactions (water gas reactions, secondary cracking, and reforming of heavy hydrocarbons).
These endothermic reactions favour the production of H2 . The content of hydrogen in
the fuel also has a significant influence, which was observed by Ramanan et al. [81] using
charred cashew nut shells as fuel. Hence, hydrogen content in the syngas was about 10–15%
using this fuel. Most of the studies show that CO2 content reduces as the temperature
increases since Boudouard reactions (C( s) + CO2  2CO) dominate at a temperature above
850–900 ◦ C, consuming CO2 , and increasing CO content. High temperature also favours
destruction and reforming of tar leading to a decrease in tar content and an increase in
gas yield [90]. The oxidation reactions and water gas shift reactions take place at low
temperatures below 250 ◦ C which produce CO2 . The decrease in the maximum reaction
zone temperature affects the gas composition. Either gasification medium, steam or air
affects practically all reactions occurring in the gasifier. Steam generally favours the amount
of CO2 instead of air as the gasifying specialist. The higher the hydrogen content in the
fuel, the higher the measure of CO2 can be obtained. CO concentration increases with
ascent in temperature because of heterogeneous and endothermic reactions like water, gas
and boudouard responses. The temperature in the gasifier bed does not influence the CH4
concentration in the syngas. Thus, the amount of CH4 remains practically consistent at high
as at low temperatures in all studies. Kumar et al. [91] also declare that the equivalence
ratio does not have a strong impact on methane. The amount of CH4 is higher in a fluidized
bed gasifier as compared to a downdraft gasifier, which varies between 2–4% using air as
gasification medium. Most of the studies show the abatement of N2 in the syngas with
the expansion in temperature. N2 can be in the syngas if air is utilized as a gasification
medium. The amount of nitrogen content varies between 30–60% in the syngas. At the
higher temperatures, low amounts of particulate matter and tar content were observed,
which reduces the cost of cleaning producer gas. Fuel moisture absorbs its latent heat
of vaporization and subsequently, high moisture content in the fuel can lessen reaction
temperature, resulting in incomplete gasification, thus degrading the gas quality.

2.2.5. Effect of Particle Size

The particle size of the feed essentially influences the final results. The fuel particle
size impacts the time fundamental for the gasification cycle to occur just as a satisfactory
reactor size. The rate of thermal diffusion inside the particles diminishes with an increase
in particle size, subsequently bringing about a lower heating rate. The fuel to be gasified
requires an average particle size to keep a specific biomass consumption rate just to keep a
suitable pressure drop inside the reactor without the improvement of particular channels. A
smaller particle size empowers a higher producer gas quality and a decrease in the reactor
size. For a fixed bed gasifier, particle size ranges from 20–80 mm, while for a fluidized bed
gasifier it is still lower, in the order of ~1 mm or smaller. Edrich et al. [92] have shown
that the gasification rate is highly influenced by the particle size. The gasification rate
increased from 0.1 to 1.0 min−1 when the particle was decreased from 19.05 mm to 5.00 mm
during the gasification of wood in a fixed bed gasifier. The speed at which fuel particles
heat up decreases as particle size increases, resulting in the production of more char and
less tar. Kumabe et al. [93] used particle size in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 mm for both coal
and biomass in the gasification of woody biomass and Li et al. [94] took the particle size of
0.42 mm for biomass in a fluidized bed gasifier. The suggested maximum particle size for a
downdraft gasifier should be less than 5 cm [42]. Perez et al. [95] conducted a downdraft
reactor experiment and discovered that biomass (pine bark) reacts differently depending on
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 11 of 19

its size. They discovered that as the particle size is increased, biomass consumption rates,
fuel/air equivalent ratios, maximum process temperatures, and, as a result, flame front
velocity decreased. They discovered that the ideal biomass particle size is 2–6 mm. Reed
and Das [96] in their study on downdraft fixed bed gasifiers expressed that the feedstock
size decides the trouble of fuel feeding and its conduct in the reactor. Large particles contain
greater heat transfer resistance and hence the actual temperature inside the particle is lower,
which leads to the occurrence of the devolatilization process [97].

Table 2. Impact of various factors on the gasification process.

Experimental Conditions
Reactor Moisture
Feed Stock Type Equivalence Gasification Results Outcome References
Temperature Content Particle Size
Ratio (% wt) Medium

Palm Kernel H2 /CO

Shell and ratio—0.57–0.59,
Top lift 4.9–2.3 mm 0.49–0.51 and
high volatile 600–800 ◦ C 0.26–0.34 6 and 2 Air 4.7–9.5 mm [98]
updraft 0.42–0.46 at 70, 85
bituminous and 100 vol%
coal biomass blends
CO—15%,
CO2 —30%,
Soybean Batch tank 500 ◦ C - 5.33 Air 80–100 mesh CH4 —37% and [99]
H2 —18% at
80%. Co-gasification
Wood chips Fixed Bed 847 ◦ C 0.335 13.2 Air - results in the [100]
downdraft formation of
bio-methane.
H2 —11.89%,
Quartz CO—12.38%,
Rice husk Fluidized 700 ◦C 8.67 Air 0.15 mm CH4 —4.58% [101]
bed C2 H4 —1.19% and
C2 H6 —0.98%
Heating value of the
gas increased from
Garden Autothermal 3.5 MJ/Nm3 to
waste and 700–900 ◦ C 0.3 13.57 Air 4.7 MJ/Nm3 . [102]
LDPE Downdraft
Cold gas efficiency
increased from 43.8%
to 61.8%.
Blending of
biomasses
Rice Husk, significantly
Rice Husk + Circulating improves the
Sawdust, Fluidized- 750–900 ◦ C 0.19–0.35 8.7–9.33 Air [103]
Rice Husk + producer gas in terms
bed
Bamboo dust of H2 production and
energy output as well
as gas yield.
Producer gas
obtained with high
Eucalyptus Open top- calorific value of
800–1000 ◦ C 0.3–0.4 9.2 Air [104]
wood downdraft 3.709 MJ/Nm3.
CO and H2 of 13%
and 10% at ER i0.309.
Cold gas
Biomass Moving efficiency—64.79%,
waste Grate 200–800 ◦ C 0.28 Air 5 × 20 mm CO2 —9.94%, [105]
H2 —15.03% and
CO—22.72%

2.2.6. Effect of Gasification Medium

Air, CO2 , steam, oxygen, nitrogen or mixtures are the gasifying mediums used in
biomass gasification [106]. Execution of processes with air, unadulterated steam, and
steam oxygen blends on the gasification of biomass were examined and it was determined
that unadulterated steam had a superior performance as far as functional conditions
(taking into consideration lower response temperatures) and producer gas structure (giving
unrivalled H2 yields and LHV esteems) [107]. Overall diverse gasifying mediums produce
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 12 of 19

gas with varied calorific worth. Air is regularly utilized as a gasification medium as it
offers simplicity in operations and doesn’t rely upon complex modern foundations and
utilities. The only limitation with the technology is the production of gas with low heating
value, i.e., 4–7 MJ/Nm3 due to the syngas dilution by the nitrogen present in the air and
H2 contents for electricity production and heat generation [67]. If steam or a combination
of steam and oxygen is used for gasification, it produces average heating value gas, i.e.,
10–18 MJ/Nm3 and higher hydrogen content [108]. Oxygen enriched air is very expensive
which makes it less competitive and provides synthesis gas with a medium heating value
of 9–15 MJ/Nm3 [109].

3. Upgradation of Biomass-Derived Synthesis Gas

Syngas is the significant result of the gasification of renewable and non-renewable
sources like coal and lignocellulosic biomass. CO, hydrogen, CH4 , and a low quantity
of light hydrocarbons, nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide, are also present [110]. This
combination of gases might be used for an assortment of uses, including power generation
and chemical manufacturing [111]. According to the literature, synthesis gas has the
following undesirable characteristics for fuel applications:
• Particulate matter, slag resulting in emission problems
• High condensable tar leading to fouling
• Trace metals, H2 S and NH3 causing environmental problems
• High ash content
The above mentioned undesirable characteristics make the synthesis gas useful in heat-
ing applications, but their direct use in internal combustion engines is not yet possible [112].
Particulate matter and tar removal could be achieved either by treatment during gasification
or by cleaning the syngas after gasification. During gasification, modifications of the gasifier,
better-operating parameters and use of additives or catalysts reduce the particulate matter
and tar [43,113]. To take out particulate dust and tar from syngas following gasification, a
variety of mechanical techniques have been employed, including cyclones, bag filters, baffle
filters, ceramic filters, fabric filters, rotating particle separators, wet electrostatic precipita-
tors, and water scrubbers [114]. Hasler and Nussbaumer et al. [114] found that utilizing
mechanical techniques, accomplishing a 90% particle removal was more straightforward
than accomplishing a 90% tar evacuation. Through the steam reforming process, tar may be
further transformed into gas. Catalysts are required to speed up the process, which might
be a low-temperature reforming reaction (350–600 ◦ C) or a high-temperature reforming
reaction (500–800 ◦ C). Naturally occurring catalysts like dolomite [115], and stable metals
like nickel or alkalis such as KOH [116] are used to efficiently reform tar. Spray and wash
towers are suitable for removing nitrogen-containing contaminants in synthesis gas. The
methods have a practical advantage as absorbent can be regenerated as an ammonium
salt [117]. Sulphur impurities in syngas are typically found as hydrogen sulphide (H2 S)
or carbonyl sulphide (COS), and they can be eliminated independently or in combination
with other acid gases like CO2 . After being burned in a cogeneration system, the H2 S and
NH3 can create SO2 and NOx emissions. Furthermore, H2 S and NH3 can cause corrosion
issues in equipment. The sulphur-containing compounds in synthesis gas can be removed
using wet or dry cleaning processes [118]. For acid gas removal, several methods employ
physical or chemical adsorption or a mix of both. Removing acid gases with physical and
chemical adsorption will be the most probable solution for mass CO2 removal from syngas
in commercial applications. Solvent, sorbent, and membranes are the most common CO2
collection and separation methods. As CO2 sorbents, several materials such as activated
carbon, zeolites, lime, alkali oxides, silver oxides, silica gel, alumina, and metal-organic
framework have been utilized [119]. In addition to the above-mentioned pollutants, the
syngas consists of a variety of additional contaminants like mineral and metallic trace
elements. The concentration of these trace pollutants, on the other hand, is quite low. Trace
pollutants like Hg, As, Se, and Zn should be kept to a minimum in the Fischer-Tropsch
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 13 of 19

Energies 2022, 15, 3938 13 of 19

process, preferably in the ppb range. Lime, activated carbon, zeolite, and silica, to name a
few [120].

4.4.Utilization
Utilizationof
ofBiomass-Derived
Biomass-DerivedSynthesis
SynthesisGasGas
4.1.
4.1. Evaluation of Gasification Products as a PotentialFuel
Evaluation of Gasification Products as a Potential FuelSource
Source
Gasification
Gasification of
of biomass
biomass yields
yields the
the valuable product synthesis
valuable product synthesis gas
gas (CO
(CO ++HH2),
2 ),and
anda
aby-product
by-productofof biochar [121]. These products have ideal properties for use as fuel
biochar [121]. These products have ideal properties for use as fuel in differ-in
different heat and power production systems or can be modified to diesel and gasoline
ent heat and power production systems or can be modified to diesel and gasoline grade
grade hydrocarbons
hydrocarbons as presented
as presented in Figure
in Figure 4 [122].
4 [122].
4.2. Use of Synthesis Gas
4.2. Use of Synthesis Gas
The utilization of synthetic gas is recorded as follows:
The utilization of synthetic gas is recorded as follows:
1. As a fuel in biomass integrated gasification heat and power cycle (BIGCC) for electrical
1. As a fuel in biomass integrated gasification heat and power cycle (BIGCC) for elec-
power generation and heating [123].
trical power generation and heating [123].
2. Used as fuel in boilers, heaters, and heat exchangers for the generation of steam or
2. Used as fuel in boilers, heaters, and heat exchangers for the generation of steam or
heating applications [124].
3. heating
For applicationsof[124].
the production methanol used as a fuel or used as a precursor for chemicals
3. like
For the production
acetic acid, methyl of methanol used as a fuel or
acetate, formaldehyde, used as propylene,
ethylene, a precursorand
for dimethyl
chemicals
like acetic
ether [125]. acid, methyl acetate, formaldehyde, ethylene, propylene, and dimethyl
4. ether [125].
For the production of bio-based hydrogen which can be used in fuel cells and to
4. manufacture
For the production of bio-based
fertilizers hydrogen which can be used in fuel cells and to man-
and for hydrotreating.
5. ufacture fertilizers and for hydrotreating.
Using Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, transportation fuels like gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel,
5. diesel
Using and
Fischer-Tropsch
heavy products synthesis, transportation
like wax fuels[126].
can be produced like gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel,
6. diesel and heavy products like wax can be produced [126].
For ethanol production by synthesis gas fermentation using microorganisms [127].
6. For ethanol production by synthesis gas fermentation using microorganisms [127].

Figure 4. Applications of synthesis gas [128].

Figure 4. Applications of synthesis gas [128].

CombustionBehaviour
Combustion Behaviourof ofSynthesis
SynthesisGasGas
Many authors
Many authors have
have studied
studiedthetheflame
flameproperties
propertiesof of
purepuremethane
methane andand
air-blown gas-
air-blown
ification syngas fuels made from bituminous coal, wood residue, maize
gasification syngas fuels made from bituminous coal, wood residue, maize core, and wheat core, and wheat
straw[129].
straw [129].
Whenever circulated power
Whenever circulated power isis under
under 100100 kW,
kW, internal
internal combustion
combustion engines
engines (ICEs)
(ICEs)
powered by syngas generated from the gasification of biomass, specific
powered by syngas generated from the gasification of biomass, specific fuel consumption fuel consumption
valuesfor
values forbiomass
biomassand andsolid
solidwaste
wasterange
rangefrom
from0.5
0.5toto5.8
5.8kg/kWh.
kg/kWh. Nonetheless,
Nonetheless, aahugehuge
restriction of
restriction of ICEs
ICEsworking
workingon onSyngas
Syngasisispower
powerderating
derating[130].
[130]. Spark
Spark ignition
ignition engines
engines
(SIEs)are
(SIEs) arefrequently
frequentlyemployed
employedin insyngas
syngasapplications
applicationsbecause
becauseof oftheir
their ease
ease of
of adjustment,
adjustment,
particularly in the air/fuel intake system [131]. Outflows of CO and SO
particularly in the air/fuel intake system [131]. Outflows of CO2 and SO2 reciprocals from
2 2 reciprocals from
biomass power were likewise found to be 67 and 18 times lower, individually,
biomass power were likewise found to be 67 and 18 times lower, individually, than those than those
fromfuel
from fueloil
oil[132].
[132].

4.3. Use of Biochar

Gasification of solid biomass contains char, a carbonaceous substance with a distinc-
tive graphitic microstructure, or ashes, which are the unstable inorganic species in bio-
mass. Lignin and, less significantly, hemicellulose are the essential sources of char
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 14 of 19

4.3. Use of Biochar

Gasification of solid biomass contains char, a carbonaceous substance with a distinctive
graphitic microstructure, or ashes, which are the unstable inorganic species in biomass.
Lignin and, less significantly, hemicellulose are the essential sources of char delivered
by biomass gasification. The solid’s carbon part is nebulous and untidy, with elemental
carbon (50–80% weight), trace inorganics, and heavy molecules, for example, polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) [133]. Char’s aromatic hydrocarbons and functional groups have
continuous development in the formation process; therefore, it lacks a definite chemical
structure [134]. Generally, char is taken for secondary gasification for further gasification.
Char can be used as a predecessor of activated char (AC), manures or impetuses for the
breakdown of NOx (nitrogen oxides) forerunners, the age of producer gas utilizing CO2
and tar changing, etc. [135]. When employed for tar reformation, char can outperform
commercial and costly catalysts [136]. Biochar may also be utilized as a soil conditioner
and as a catalyst for biodiesel synthesis via hydrolysis, dehydration, and transesterification.
Another biochar application is as an adsorbent and addition to building materials [137].

5. Conclusions
The gasification process is best suited to produce synthesis gas by thermochemical
methods. Downdraft gasifiers are preferred over entrained flow gasifiers and fluidized
bed gasifiers. Gasification reaction temperature, biomass characteristics, moisture content,
equivalence ratio, particle size and gasification medium are the variables that have the
most impact on the gasification process. Controlling these factors promises better-quality
syngas with a suitable level of tars and particulate matter. Synthesis gas of high calorific
value and low tar content is obtained at higher temperatures (800–950 ◦ C). Advanced
methods like the UNIQUE gasifier concept, combining the gasifier reactor, conditioning in
a single reactor, multistage and plasma gasification give advantages to expand the yield,
streamline the cost and work on the effectiveness. In addition, technical challenges like tar
formation, ash, and particulate matter should be addressed through the proper design of
the downdraft gasifier.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.K.S. and P.R.H.; Resources, A.P.; Writing—Original

Draft Preparation, A.K.S. and P.R.H.; Writing—Review and Editing, A.P., A.K.S. and L.M.; Supervi-
sion, A.P. and L.M.; Project Administration, G.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Dudley, B. BP Statistical Review of World Energy; British Petrol: London, UK, 2020; pp. 1–56.
2. Forsberg, C.W.; Dale, B.E.; Jones, D.S.; Hossain, T.; Morais, A.R.C.; Wendt, L.M. Replacing Liquid Fossil Fuels and Hydrocarbon
Chemical Feedstocks with Liquid Biofuels from Large-Scale Nuclear Biorefineries. Appl. Energy 2021, 298, 117225. [CrossRef]
3. Sharma, A.K.; Sharma, P.K.; Chintala, V.; Khatri, N.; Patel, A. Environment-Friendly Biodiesel/Diesel Blends for Improving the
Exhaust Emission and Engine Performance to Reduce the Pollutants Emitted from Transportation Fleets. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2020, 17, 3896. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Chintala, V.; Kumar, S.S.; Pandey, J.K.J.K.; Sharma, A.K.A.K.; Kumar, S.S. Solar Thermal Pyrolysis of Non-Edible Seeds to Biofuels
and Their Feasibility Assessment. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 153, 482–492. [CrossRef]
5. Londoño-Pulgarin, D.; Cardona-Montoya, G.; Restrepo, J.C.; Muñoz-Leiva, F. Fossil or Bioenergy? Global Fuel Market Trends.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 143, 110905. [CrossRef]
6. Sharma, A.K.; Sahoo, P.K.; Singhal, S. Comparative Evolution of Biomass Production and Lipid Accumulation Potential of
Chlorella Species Grown in a Bubble Column Photobioreactor. Biofuels 2016, 7, 389–399. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 15 of 19

7. Sharma, A.K.; Sahoo, P.K.; Singhal, S.; Joshi, G. Exploration of Upstream and Downstream Process for Microwave Assisted
Sustainable Biodiesel Production from Microalgae Chlorella Vulgaris. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 216, 793–800. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Sikarwar, V.S.; Zhao, M.; Fennell, P.S.; Shah, N.; Anthony, E.J. Progress in Biofuel Production from Gasification. Prog. Energy
Combust. Sci. 2017, 61, 189–248. [CrossRef]
9. Sirous, R.; da Silva, F.J.N.; da Cruz Tarelho, L.A.; Martins, N.A.D. Mixed Biomass Pelleting Potential for Portugal, Step Forward
to Circular Use of Biomass Residues. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 940–945. [CrossRef]
10. Murugan, S.; Gu, S. Research and Development Activities in Pyrolysis—Contributions from Indian Scientific Community—A
Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 46, 282–295. [CrossRef]
11. Ocreto, J.B.; Chen, W.; Ubando, A.T.; Park, Y.; Kumar, A.; Ashokkumar, V.; Sik, Y.; Kwon, E.E.; Rollon, A.P.; Daniel, M.; et al. A Crit-
ical Review on Second- and Third-Generation Bioethanol Production Using Microwaved-Assisted Heating (MAH) Pretreatment.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 152, 111679. [CrossRef]
12. Chen, W.H.; Cheng, C.L.; Lee, K.T.; Lam, S.S.; Ong, H.C.; Ok, Y.S.; Saeidi, S.; Sharma, A.K.; Hsieh, T.H. Catalytic Level
Identification of ZSM-5 on Biomass Pyrolysis and Aromatic Hydrocarbon Formation. Chemosphere 2021, 271, 129510. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
13. Ghodke, P.K.; Sharma, A.K.; Pandey, J.K.; Chen, W.-H.; Patel, A.; Ashokkumar, V. Pyrolysis of Sewage Sludge for Sustainable
Biofuels and Value-Added Biochar Production. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 298, 113450. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Chintala, V.; Sharma, A.K.; Karn, A.; Vardhan, H.; Pandey, J.K. Utilization of Biomass-Derived Pyro-Oils in Compression Ignition
(CI) Engines–Recent Developments. Energy Sources Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 2019, 1–15. [CrossRef]
15. Salam, M.A.; Ahmed, K.; Akter, N.; Hossain, T.; Abdullah, B. A Review of Hydrogen Production via Biomass Gasification and Its
Prospect in Bangladesh. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 14944–14973. [CrossRef]
16. Havilah, P.R.; Sharma, P.K.; Sharma, A.K. Characterization, Thermal and Kinetic Analysis of Pinusroxburghii. Environ. Dev.
Sustain. 2020, 23, 8872–8894. [CrossRef]
17. Situmorang, Y.A.; Zhao, Z.; Yoshida, A.; Abudula, A.; Guan, G. Small-Scale Biomass Gasification Systems for Power Generation
(<200 kW Class): A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 117, 109486. [CrossRef]
18. Dhyani, V.; Bhaskar, T. A Comprehensive Review on the Pyrolysis of Lignocellulosic Biomass. Renew. Energy 2017, 129, 695–716.
[CrossRef]
19. Gollakota, A.R.K.; Kishore, N.; Gu, S. A Review on Hydrothermal Liquefaction of Biomass. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81,
1378–1392. [CrossRef]
20. Ong, H.C.; Chen, W.H.; Farooq, A.; Gan, Y.Y.; Lee, K.T.; Ashokkumar, V. Catalytic Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass for
Biofuel Production: A Comprehensive Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 113, 109266. [CrossRef]
21. Soares, R.B.; Martins, M.F.; Gonçalves, R.F. A Conceptual Scenario for the Use of Microalgae Biomass for Microgeneration in
Wastewater Treatment Plants. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 252, 109639. [CrossRef]
22. Yadav, D.; Banerjee, R. A Review of Solar Thermochemical Processes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 497–532. [CrossRef]
23. Karmakar, M.K.; Datta, A.B. Generation of Hydrogen Rich Gas through Fluidized Bed Gasification of Biomass. Bioresour. Technol.
2011, 102, 1907–1913. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Ministry of New and Renewable Energy Government of India. MNRE Annual Report 2019; Ministry of New and Renewable
Energy Government of India: New Delhi, India, 2019.
25. Chaves, L.I.; Da Silva, M.J.; De Souza, S.N.M.; Secco, D.; Rosa, H.A.; Nogueira, C.E.C.; Frigo, E.P. Small-Scale Power Generation
Analysis: Downdraft Gasifier Coupled to Engine Generator Set. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 58, 491–498. [CrossRef]
26. Ariffin, M.A.; Wan Mahmood, W.M.F.; Mohamed, R.; Mohd Nor, M.T. Performance of Oil Palm Kernel Shell Gasification Using a
Medium-Scale Downdraft Gasifier. Int. J. Green Energy 2016, 13, 513–520. [CrossRef]
27. Jeya Singh, V.C.; Sekhar, S.J. Performance Studies on a Downdraft Biomass Gasifier with Blends of Coconut Shell and Rubber
Seed Shell as Feedstock. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 97, 22–27. [CrossRef]
28. Kallis, K.X.; Pellegrini Susini, G.A.; Oakey, J.E. A Comparison between Miscanthus and Bioethanol Waste Pellets and Their
Performance in a Downdraft Gasifier. Appl. Energy 2013, 101, 333–340. [CrossRef]
29. Allesina, G.; Pedrazzi, S.; Tartarini, P. Modeling and Investigation of the Channeling Phenomenon in Downdraft Stratified
Gasifers. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 146, 704–712. [CrossRef]
30. Zachl, A.; Buchmayr, M.; Gruber, J.; Anca-Couce, A.; Scharler, R.; Hochenauer, C. Air Preheating and Exhaust Gas Recirculation as
Keys to Achieving an Enhanced Fuel Water Content Range in Stratified Downdraft Gasification. Fuel 2022, 323, 124429. [CrossRef]
31. Dasappa, S.; Paul, P.J.; Mukunda, H.S.; Rajan, N.K.S.; Sridhar, G.; Sridhar, H.V. Biomass Gasification Technology—A Route to
Meet Energy Needs. Curr. Sci. 2004, 87, 908–916.
32. Wander, P.R.; Altafini, C.R.; Barreto, R.M. Assessment of a Small Sawdust Gasification Unit. Biomass Bioenergy 2004, 27, 467–476.
[CrossRef]
33. Barrio, M.; Fossum, M.; Hustad, J.E. A Small-Scale Stratified Downdraft Gasifier Coupled to a Gas Engine for Combined Heat
and Power Production. In Progress in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion; Blackwell Science Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2008; pp. 426–440.
ISBN 9780470694954.
34. Janajreh, I.; Shrah, M. Al Numerical and Experimental Investigation of Downdraft Gasification of Wood Chips. Energy Convers.
Manag. 2013, 65, 783–792. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 16 of 19

35. Gai, C.; Dong, Y.; Zhang, T. Downdraft Gasification of Corn Straw as a Non-Woody Biomass: Effects of Operating Conditions on
Chlorides Distribution. Energy 2014, 71, 638–644. [CrossRef]
36. Lenis, Y.A.; Pérez, J.F. Gasification of Sawdust and Wood Chips in a Fixed Bed under Autothermal and Stable Conditions. Energy
Sources Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 2014, 36, 2555–2565. [CrossRef]
37. Tippayawong, N.; Chaichana, C.; Promwangkwa, A.; Rerkkriangkrai, P. Gasification of Cashew Nut Shells for Thermal Applica-
tion in Local Food Processing Factory. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2011, 15, 69–72. [CrossRef]
38. Biagini, E.; Barontini, F.; Tognotti, L. Gasification of Agricultural Residues in a Demonstrative Plant: Vine Pruning and Rice
Husks. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 194, 36–42. [CrossRef]
39. Ramadhas, a.S.; Jayaraj, S.; Muraleedharan, C. Power Generation Using Coir-Pith and Wood Derived Producer Gas in Diesel
Engines. Fuel Process. Technol. 2006, 87, 849–853. [CrossRef]
40. Bassyouni, M.; Waheed, S.; Abdel-aziz, M.H.; Abdel-hamid, S.M.; Naveed, S.; Hussain, A.; Nasir, F. Date Palm Waste Gasification
in Downdraft Gasifier and Simulation Using ASPEN HYSYS. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 88, 693–699. [CrossRef]
41. Ma, L.; Wang, T.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, X.; Ma, W.; Zhang, Q. A Review of Thermal-Chemical Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass in
China. Biotechnol. Adv. 2012, 30, 859–873. [CrossRef]
42. Martínez, J.D.; Mahkamov, K.; Andrade, R.V.; Lora, E.E.S. Syngas Production in Downdraft Biomass Gasifiers and Its Application
Using Internal Combustion Engines. Renew. Energy 2012, 38, 1–9. [CrossRef]
43. Buragohain, B.; Mahanta, P.; Moholkar, V.S. Biomass Gasification for Decentralized Power Generation: The Indian Perspective.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 73–92. [CrossRef]
44. Shahabuddin, M.; Alam, M.T.; Krishna, B.B.; Bhaskar, T.; Perkins, G. A Review on the Production of Renewable Aviation Fuels
from the Gasification of Biomass and Residual Wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 312, 123596. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Jahromi, R.; Rezaei, M.; Hashem, S.; Jahromi, H. Biomass Gasification in a Downdraft Fixed-Bed Gasifier: Optimization of
Operating Conditions. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2021, 231, 116249. [CrossRef]
46. Samiran, N.A.; Mohd Jaafar, M.N.; Chong, C.T.; Jo-Han, N. A Review of Palm Oil Biomass as a Feedstock for Syngas Fuel
Technology. J. Teknol. 2015, 72, 13–18. [CrossRef]
47. Basu, P. Biomass Gasification and Pyrolysis; Elsevier: London, UK, 2010; ISBN 9780123749888.
48. Chanthakett, A.; Arif, M.T.; Khan, M.M.K.; Oo, A.M.T. Performance Assessment of Gasification Reactors for Sustainable
Management of Municipal Solid Waste. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 291, 112661. [CrossRef]
49. Jankes, G.G.; Trninić, M.R.; Stamenić, M.S.; Simonović, T.S.; Tanasić, N.D.; Labus, J.M. Biomass Gasification with CHP Production:
A Review of the State-of-the-Art Technology and near Future Perspectives. Therm. Sci. 2012, 16, 115–130. [CrossRef]
50. González-Vázquez, M.P.; Rubiera, F.; Pevida, C.; Pio, D.T.; Tarelho, L.A.C. Thermodynamic analysis of biomass gasification using
aspen plus: Comparison of stoichiometric and non-stoichiometric models. Energies 2021, 14, 189. [CrossRef]
51. Heidenreich, S.; Foscolo, P.U. New Concepts in Biomass Gasification. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2015, 46, 72–95. [CrossRef]
52. Susastriwan, A.A.P.; Purnomo Saptoadi, H. Comparision of the Gasification Performance in the Downdraft Fixed-Bed Gasiferfed
by Different Feedstocks: Rice Husk, Sawdust, and Their Mixture. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2019, 34, 27–34. [CrossRef]
53. Singla, M.; Singh, M.; Dogra, R. Experimental Investigation of Imbert Downdraft Gasifier Using Rice Straw Briquettes. Energy
Sources Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 2020, 1–11. [CrossRef]
54. Pal, R.K. Gasification of Cotton Stalk in a Downdraft Gasifier. Energy Sources Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 2019, 1–13.
[CrossRef]
55. Leijenhorst, E.J.; Wolters, W.; Van De Beld, B.; Prins, W. Staged Biomass Gasification by Autothermal Catalytic Reforming of Fast
Pyrolysis Vapors. Energy Fuels 2015, 29, 7395–7407. [CrossRef]
56. Vakalis, S.; Baratieri, M. Technological Advancements in Small Scale Biomass Gasification Case Study of South Tyrol; University of
Bolzano, Faculty of Science and Technology: Bolzano, Italy, 2014; pp. 1–14.
57. Ruiz, J.A.; Juárez, M.C.; Morales, M.P.; Muñoz, P.; Mendívil, M.A. Biomass Gasification for Electricity Generation: Review of
Current Technology Barriers. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 18, 174–183. [CrossRef]
58. Asadullah, M. Barriers of Commercial Power Generation Using Biomass Gasification Gas: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2014, 29, 201–215. [CrossRef]
59. Hosseini, S.E.; Wahid, M.A. Hydrogen Production from Renewable and Sustainable Energy Resources: Promising Green Energy
Carrier for Clean Development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 57, 850–866. [CrossRef]
60. Meng, F.; Meng, J.; Zhang, D. Influence of Higher Equivalence Ratio on the Biomass Oxygen Gasification in a Pilot Scale Fixed
Bed Gasifier. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2018, 10, 053101. [CrossRef]
61. Siedlecki, M.; de Jong, W. Biomass Gasification as the First Hot Step in Clean Syngas Production Process—Gas Quality Optimiza-
tion and Primary Tar Reduction Measures in a 100 KW Thermal Input Steam-Oxygen Blown CFB Gasifier. Biomass Bioenergy 2011,
35, S40–S62. [CrossRef]
62. Anis, S.; Zainal, Z.A. Tar Reduction in Biomass Producer Gas via Mechanical, Catalytic and Thermal Methods: A Review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2355–2377. [CrossRef]
63. Mustafa, A.; Calay, R.K.; Mustafa, M.Y. A Techno-Economic Study of a Biomass Gasification Plant for the Production of Transport
Biofuel for Small Communities. Energy Procedia 2017, 112, 529–536. [CrossRef]
64. Arvelakis, S.; Koukios, E.G. Physicochemical Upgrading of Agroresidues as Feedstocks for Energy Production via Thermochemical
Conversion Methods. Biomass Bioenergy 2002, 22, 331–348. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 17 of 19

65. Arvelakis, S.; Vourliotis, P.; Kakaras, E.; Koukios, E.G. Effect of Leaching on the Ash Behavior of Wheat Straw and Olive Residue
during Fluidized Bed Combustion. Biomass Bioenergy 2001, 20, 459–470. [CrossRef]
66. Cummer, K.R.; Brown, R.C. Ancillary Equipment for Biomass Gasiÿcation. Biomass 2002, 23, 113–128. [CrossRef]
67. Sansaniwal, S.K.; Pal, K.; Rosen, M.A.; Tyagi, S.K. Recent Advances in the Development of Biomass Gasification Technology: A
Comprehensive Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 72, 363–384. [CrossRef]
68. Sharma, A.; Pareek, V.; Zhang, D. Biomass Pyrolysis—A Review of Modelling, Process Parameters and Catalytic Studies. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 50, 1081–1096. [CrossRef]
69. Lv, D.; Xu, M.; Liu, X.; Zhan, Z.; Li, Z.; Yao, H. Effect of Cellulose, Lignin, Alkali and Alkaline Earth Metallic Species on Biomass
Pyrolysis and Gasification. Fuel Process. Technol. 2010, 91, 903–909. [CrossRef]
70. Blasi, C.D.; Branca, C. Kinetics of Primary Product Formation from Wood Pyrolysis. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2001, 40, 5547–5556.
[CrossRef]
71. Hanaoka, T.; Inoue, S.; Uno, S.; Ogi, T.; Minowa, T. Effect of Woody Biomass Components on Air-Steam Gasification. Biomass
Bioenergy 2005, 28, 69–76. [CrossRef]
72. Yang, H.; Yan, R.; Chen, H.; Lee, D.H.; Zheng, C. Characteristics of Hemicellulose, Cellulose and Lignin Pyrolysis. Fuel 2007, 86,
1781–1788. [CrossRef]
73. Anukam, A.; Berghel, J. Biomass Pretreatment and Characterization: A Review. Biotechnol. Appl. Biomass 2021. [CrossRef]
74. Wu, C.Z.; Yin, X.L.; Ma, L.L.; Zhou, Z.Q.; Chen, H.P. Operational Characteristics of a 1.2-MW Biomass Gasification and Power
Generation Plant. Biotechnol. Adv. 2009, 27, 588–592. [CrossRef]
75. Xie, L.P.; Li, T.; Gao, J.D.; Fei, X.N.; Wu, X.; Jiang, Y.G. Effect of Moisture Content in Sewage Sludge on Air Gasification. Ranliao
Huaxue Xuebao J. Fuel Chem. Technol. 2010, 38, 615–620. [CrossRef]
76. Thermelis, N.J.; Kim, Y.H.; Brady, M.H. Energy Recovery from New York City Municipal Solid Wastes. Waste Manag. Res. 2002,
20, 223–233. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
77. Mckendry, P. Energy Production from Biomass (Part 3): Gasification Technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 83, 55–63. [CrossRef]
78. Dogru, M.; Howarth, C.R.; Akay, G.; Keskinler, B.; Malik, A.A. Gasification of Hazelnut Shells in a Downdraft Gasifier. Energy
2002, 27, 415–427. [CrossRef]
79. Chopra, S.; Jain, A.K. A Review of Fixed Bed Gasification Systems for Biomass. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR E J. 2007, 9, 1–23.
80. Beohar, H.; Gupta, B.; Sethi, V.K.; Pandey, M. Effect of Air Velocity, Fuel Rate and Moisture Content on the Performance of Updraft
Biomass Gasifier Using Fluent Tool. Semant. Sch. 2012, 2, 3622–3627.
81. Ramanan, M.V.; Lakshmanan, E.; Sethumadhavan, R.; Renganarayanan, S. Modeling and Experimental Validation of Cashew Nut
Shell Char Gasification Adopting Chemical Equilibrium Approach. Energy Fuels 2008, 22, 2070–2078. [CrossRef]
82. Narváez, I.; Orío, A.; Aznar, M.P.; Corella, J. Biomass Gasification with Air in an Atmospheric Bubbling Fluidized Bed. Effect of
Six Operational Variables on the Quality of the Produced Raw Gas. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1996, 35, 2110–2120. [CrossRef]
83. Zainal, Z.A.; Rifau, A.; Quadir, G.A.; Seetharamu, K.N. Experimental Investigation of a Downdraft Biomass Gasiÿer. Biomass
Bioenergy 2002, 23, 283–289. [CrossRef]
84. García-Bacaicoa, P.; Mastral, J.F.; Ceamanos, J.; Berrueco, C.; Serrano, S. Gasification of Biomass/High Density Polyethylene
Mixtures in a Downdraft Gasifier. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 5485–5491. [CrossRef]
85. Tinaut, F.V.; Melgar, A.; Pérez, J.F.; Horrillo, A. Effect of Biomass Particle Size and Air Superficial Velocity on the Gasification
Process in a Downdraft Fixed Bed Gasifier. An Experimental and Modelling Study. Fuel Process. Technol. 2008, 89, 1076–1089.
[CrossRef]
86. Xue, G.; Kwapinska, M.; Horvat, A.; Kwapinski, W.; Rabou, L.P.L.M.; Dooley, S.; Czajka, K.M.; Leahy, J.J. Gasification of Torrefied
Miscanthus×giganteus in an Air-Blown Bubbling Fluidized Bed Gasifier. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 159, 397–403. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
87. Gai, C.; Dong, Y. Experimental Study on Non-Woody Biomass Gasification in a Downdraft Gasifier. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2012,
37, 4935–4944. [CrossRef]
88. Skoulou, V.; Zabaniotou, A.; Stavropoulos, G.; Sakelaropoulos, G. Syngas Production from Olive Tree Cuttings and Olive Kernels
in a Downdraft Fixed-Bed Gasifier. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2008, 33, 1185–1194. [CrossRef]
89. Rong, L.; Maneerung, T.; Charmaine, J.; Gee, K.; Huat, B.; Wah, Y.; Dai, Y.; Wang, C. Co-Gasification of Sewage Sludge and Woody
Biomass in a Fixed-Bed Downdraft Gasifier: Toxicity Assessment of Solid Residues. Waste Manag. 2015, 36, 241–255. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
90. González, J.F.; Román, S.; Bragado, D.; Calderón, M. Investigation on the Reactions Influencing Biomass Air and Air/Steam
Gasification for Hydrogen Production. Fuel Process. Technol. 2008, 89, 764–772. [CrossRef]
91. Kumar, A.; Eskridge, K.; Jones, D.D.; Hanna, M.A. Steam-Air Fluidized Bed Gasification of Distillers Grains: Effects of Steam to
Biomass Ratio, Equivalence Ratio and Gasification Temperature. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 2062–2068. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
92. Edrich, R.; Bradley, T.; Graboski, M.S. The gasification of ponderosa pine charcoal. In Fundamentals of Thermochemical Biomass
Conversion; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1985; pp. 557–566. [CrossRef]
93. Kumabe, K.; Hanaoka, T.; Fujimoto, S.; Minowa, T.; Sakanishi, K. Co-Gasification of Woody Biomass and Coal with Air and
Steam. Fuel 2007, 86, 684–689. [CrossRef]
94. Li, K.; Zhang, R.; Bi, J. Experimental Study on Syngas Production by Co-Gasification of Coal and Biomass in a Fluidized Bed. Int.
J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 2722–2726. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 18 of 19

95. Pérez, J.F.; Melgar, A.; Benjumea, P.N. Effect of Operating and Design Parameters on the Gasification/Combustion Process of
Waste Biomass in Fixed Bed Downdraft Reactors: An Experimental Study. Fuel 2012, 96, 487–496. [CrossRef]
96. Reed, T.B.; Das, A. Downdraft Gasifier Engine Systems. In Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine System; Solar Energy
Research Institute: Golden, CO, USA, 1988.
97. Luo, S.; Xiao, B.; Hu, Z.; Liu, S.; Guan, Y.; Cai, L. Influence of Particle Size on Pyrolysis and Gasification Performance of Municipal
Solid Waste in a Fixed Bed Reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 6517–6520. [CrossRef]
98. Quintero-coronel, D.A.; Lenis-rodas, Y.A.; Corredor, L.; Perreault, P.; Bula, A. Co-Gasification of Biomass and Coal in a Top-Lit
Updraft Fixed Bed Gasifier: Syngas Composition and Its Interchangeability with Natural Gas for Combustion Applications. Fuel
2022, 316, 123394. [CrossRef]
99. Wang, C.; Du, M.; Feng, H.; Jin, H. Experimental Investigation on Biomass Gasification Mechanism in Supercritical Water for
Poly-Generation of Hydrogen-Rich Gas and Biochar. Fuel 2022, 319, 123809. [CrossRef]
100. Gabbrielli, R.; Barontini, F.; Frigo, S.; Bressan, L. Numerical Analysis of Bio-Methane Production from Biomass-Sewage Sludge
Oxy-Steam Gasification and Methanation Process. Appl. Energy 2022, 307, 118292. [CrossRef]
101. Ke, C.; Shi, C.; Zhang, Y.; Guang, M.; Li, B. Energy Conversion Performances during Biomass Air Gasification Process under
Microwave Irradiation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022. [CrossRef]
102. Fazil, A.; Kumar, S.; Mahajani, S.M. Downdraft Co-Gasification of High Ash Biomass and Plastics. Energy 2022, 243, 123055.
[CrossRef]
103. Cao, Y.; Bai, Y.; Du, J. Co-Gasi Fi Cation of Rice Husk and Woody Biomass Blends in a CFB System: A Modeling Approach. Renew.
Energy 2022, 188, 849–858. [CrossRef]
104. Kumar, P.; Subbarao, P.M.V.; Kala, L.D.; Vijay, V.K. Real-Time Performance Assessment of Open-Top Downdraft Biomass Gasifier
System. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2022, 7, 100448. [CrossRef]
105. Cai, J.; Zheng, W.; Luo, M.; Tang, X. Gasification of Biomass Waste in the Moving-Grate Gasifier with the Addition of All Air into
the Oxidizing Stage: Experimental and Numerical Investigation. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 147, 985–992. [CrossRef]
106. Matas, B.; Sruin, L. Gasifícation of Biomass to Second Generation Biofuels: A Review. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2013, 135, 014001.
[CrossRef]
107. Gil, J.; Corella, J.; Aznar, M.P.; Caballero, M.A. Biomass Gasification in Atmospheric and Bubbling Fluidized Bed: Effect of the
Type of Gasifying Agent on the Product Distribution. Biomass Bioenergy 1999, 17, 389–403. [CrossRef]
108. Kuo, P.C.; Wu, W. Design, Optimization and Energetic Efficiency of Producing Hydrogen-Rich Gas from Biomass Steam
Gasification. Energies 2015, 8, 94–110. [CrossRef]
109. Niu, M.; Huang, Y.; Jin, B.; Wang, X. Oxygen Gasification of Municipal Solid Waste in a Fixed-Bed Gasifier. Chin. J. Chem. Eng.
2014, 22, 1021–1026. [CrossRef]
110. Rabea, K.; Bakry, A.I.; Khalil, A.; El-Fakharany, M.K.; Kadous, M. Real-Time Performance Investigation of a Downdraft Gasifier
Fueled by Cotton Stalks in a Batch-Mode Operation. Fuel 2021, 300, 120976. [CrossRef]
111. Cardona Alzate, C.A.; Solarte Toro, J.C.; Peña, Á.G. Fermentation, Thermochemical and Catalytic Processes in the Transformation
of Biomass through Efficient Biorefineries. Catal. Today 2018, 302, 61–72. [CrossRef]
112. Wang, L.; Weller, C.L.; Jones, D.D.; Hanna, M.a. Contemporary Issues in Thermal Gasification of Biomass and Its Application to
Electricity and Fuel Production. Biomass Bioenergy 2008, 32, 573–581. [CrossRef]
113. Rapagnâ, S. Steam-Gasiÿcation of Biomass in a Uidised-Bed of Olivine Particles. Biomass Bioenergy 2000, 19, 187–197. [CrossRef]
114. Hasler, P.; Nussbaumer, T. Gas Cleaning for IC Engine Applications from ® Xed Bed Biomass Gasi ® Cation. Biomass Bioenergy
1999, 16, 385–395. [CrossRef]
115. Myrén, C.; Hörnell, C.; Björnbom, E.; Sjöström, K. Catalytic Tar Decomposition of Biomass Pyrolysis Gas with a Combination of
Dolomite and Silica. Biomass Bioenergy 2002, 23, 217–227. [CrossRef]
116. Sutton, D.; Kelleher, B.; Ross, J.R.H. Review of literature on catalysts for biomass gasification. Fuel Process. Technol. 2001, 73,
155–173. [CrossRef]
117. Abdoulmoumine, N.; Adhikari, S.; Kulkarni, A.; Chattanathan, S. A Review on Biomass Gasification Syngas Cleanup. Appl.
Energy 2015, 155, 294–307. [CrossRef]
118. Qian, Y.; Sun, S.; Ju, D.; Shan, X.; Lu, X. Review of the State-of-the-Art of Biogas Combustion Mechanisms and Applications in
Internal Combustion Engines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 50–58. [CrossRef]
119. Dayton, D.C.; Turk, B.; Gupta, R. Syngas Cleanup, Conditioning, and Utilization; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019;
pp. 125–174. [CrossRef]
120. Shahabuddin, M.; Krishna, B.B.; Bhaskar, T.; Perkins, G. Advances in the Thermo-Chemical Production of Hydrogen from
Biomass and Residual Wastes: Summary of Recent Techno-Economic Analyses. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 299, 122557. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
121. Parvez, A.M.; Afzal, M.T.; Victor Hebb, T.G.; Schmid, M. Utilization of CO2 in Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass for
Enhanced Product Properties: A Review. J. CO2 Util. 2020, 40, 101217. [CrossRef]
122. Williams, C.L.; Dahiya, A.; Porter, P. Introduction to Bioenergy; Dahiya, A., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015;
ISBN 9780124079090.
123. Casella, F.; Colonna, P. Dynamic Modeling of IGCC Power Plants. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2012, 35, 91–111. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 3938 19 of 19

124. Zheng, Y.; Zhao, J.; Xu, F.; Li, Y. Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass for Enhanced Biogas Production. Prog. Energy Combust.
Sci. 2014, 42, 35–53. [CrossRef]
125. Pontzen, F.; Liebner, W.; Gronemann, V.; Rothaemel, M.; Ahlers, B. CO2 -Based Methanol and DME—Efficient Technologies for
Industrial Scale Production. Catal. Today 2011, 171, 242–250. [CrossRef]
126. Atsonios, K.; Nesiadis, A.; Detsios, N.; Koutita, K.; Nikolopoulos, N.; Grammelis, P. Review on Dynamic Process Modeling of
Gasification Based Biorefineries and Bio-Based Heat & Power Plants. Fuel Process. Technol. 2020, 197, 106188. [CrossRef]
127. Ferreira, L.C.; Donoso-Bravo, A.; Nilsen, P.J.; Fdz-Polanco, F.; Pérez-Elvira, S.I. Influence of Thermal Pretreatment on the
Biochemical Methane Potential of Wheat Straw. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 143, 251–257. [CrossRef]
128. Spath, P.L.; Dayton, D.C. Preliminary Screening—Technical and Economic Assessment of Synthesis Gas to Fuels and Chemicals with
Emphasis on the Potential for Biomass-Derived Syngas; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2003; pp. 1–160.
[CrossRef]
129. Yang, L.; Wang, Z.H.; Zhu, Y.Q.; Li, Z.S.; Zhou, J.H.; Huang, Z.Y.; Cen, K.F. Premixed Jet Flame Characteristics of Syngas Using
OH Planar Laser Induced Fluorescence. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2011, 56, 2862–2868. [CrossRef]
130. Henriksen, U.; Ahrenfeldt, J.; Jensen, T.K.; Gøbel, B.; Bentzen, J.D.; Hindsgaul, C.; Sørensen, L.H. The Design, Construction and
Operation of a 75kW Two-Stage Gasifier. Energy 2006, 31, 1542–1553. [CrossRef]
131. Indrawan, N.; Thapa, S.; Bhoi, P.R.; Huhnke, R.L.; Kumar, A. Engine Power Generation and Emission Performance of Syngas
Generated from Low-Density Biomass. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 148, 593–603. [CrossRef]
132. Edenhofer, O.; Madruga, R.P.; Sokona, Y.; Seyboth, K.; Matschoss, P.; Kadner, S.; Zwickel, T.; Eickemeier, P.; Hansen, G.; Schlömer,
S.; et al. Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011; ISBN 9781139151153.
133. Hernández, J.J.; Lapuerta, M.; Monedero, E. Characterisation of Residual Char from Biomass Gasification: Effect of the Gasifier
Operating Conditions. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 138, 83–93. [CrossRef]
134. Chen, Y.; Zhang, X.; Chen, W.; Yang, H.; Chen, H. The Structure Evolution of Biochar from Biomass Pyrolysis and Its Correlation
with Gas Pollutant Adsorption Performance. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 246, 101–109. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
135. Fuentes-Cano, D.; Gómez-Barea, A.; Nilsson, S.; Ollero, P. Decomposition Kinetics of Model Tar Compounds over Chars with
Different Internal Structure to Model Hot Tar Removal in Biomass Gasification. Chem. Eng. J. 2013, 228, 1223–1233. [CrossRef]
136. Abu El-Rub, Z.; Bramer, E.a.; Brem, G. Experimental Comparison of Biomass Chars with Other Catalysts for Tar Reduction. Fuel
2008, 87, 2243–2252. [CrossRef]
137. Konwar, L.J.; Boro, J.; Deka, D. Review on Latest Developments in Biodiesel Production Using Carbon-Based Catalysts. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 546–564. [CrossRef]