Received: 6 August 2020 Revised: 14 November 2020 Accepted: 10 December 2020

DOI: 10.1002/er.6345

TECHNICAL NOTE

Syngas production from gasification and co-gasification

of oil palm trunk and frond using a down-draft gasifier

Hadiza A. Umar1,2 | Shaharin A. Sulaiman1 | Mior Azman Said1 |

Afsin Gungor3 | Rabi K. Ahmad1,2 | Muddasser Inayat1

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Seri
Summary
Iskandar, Malaysia Disruption in feedstock supply due to seasonal availability, and logistics problem
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, poses a threat to smooth biomass gasification. To mitigate this problem, co-
Bayero University Kano, Kano, Nigeria
gasification of different biomass feedstocks may be a reliable and efficient means
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
of syngas production. Furthermore, the oil palm trunk (OPT) has been neglected
Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey
in conducting thermochemical studies due to its high moisture and nature of
Correspondence availability compared to oil palm frond (OPF), despite its abundance during
Hadiza A. Umar, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Universiti
replanting periods and remarkable thermochemical properties. Hence scarce
Teknologi Petronas, 32610 Bandar Seri information is known on its gasification and co-gasification studies. In this study,
Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia. OPT and OPF were co-gasified using a lab scale downdraft gasifier, to evaluate
Email: hadiza_16000717@utp.edu.my;
ummihadiza@gmail.com the influence of blending ratio on co-gasification performance and syngas quality
at a temperature of 800
C, particle size of 5-10 mm, and an airflow rate of 2.5 L/
min. The blends utilised were OPT/OPF at ratios 30/70, 50/50 and 70/30 for co-
gasification, whereas pure OPT and OPF were used for gasification. The opti-
mum blend was 30OPT/70OPF, as it produced the highest gas constituents of
CO, H2 and CH4, compared to the other blends. It also produced the highest gas
yield and heating value, 1.47 Nm3/kg and 6.85 MJ/Nm3, respectively. Its co-
gasification efficiencies were also higher for both cold gas (56.35%) and carbon
conversion (68.53%). In the gasification study, OPT was 7% higher than OPF in
H2 yield, whereas OPF was higher in CO yield by 20%, and in terms of CH4 both
yielded almost same results. The gas yield and heating values of syngas produced
in OPT and OPF gasification were comparable as the difference in both cases
was not more than 5%. It is deduced that there exists positive synergistic effect in
30 OPT/70 OPF blend as evident from the results obtained, and that OPT is a
capable gasification fuel that can complement OPF in case of supply shortage.

KEYWORDS
blending ratio, co-gasification, gasification, oil palm frond, oil palm trunk, syngas

1 | INTRODUCTION called gasifier, usually at a temperature range of 700
C to

1000
C. The typical gasification process reaction is
Gasification refers to a thermochemical process for the described in Table 1.1,2 The products of gasification are
transformation of carboniferous fuels into syngas in the syngas, char and ash, with the syngas being the major
presence of a gasification medium and within a reactor product consisting of CH4, H2, CO, CO2 and an unwanted

Int J Energy Res. 2021;45:8103–8115. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/er © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 8103
8104 UMAR ET AL.

T A B L E 1 The gasification process

Process reaction Type of reaction
reaction of ordinary biomass1,2
Volatile matter =CH4 + C Partially exothermic Char oxidation
C+ 1
2 O2 ! CO ΔH = − 110.60 kJ/mol
*

CO + O2 ! CO2 ΔH* = − 393.60 kJ/mol

CO + 12 O2 ! CO2 ΔH* = − 283 kJ/mol Oxidation of volatiles
H2 + 1
2 O2 ! H2 O ΔH = − 241.90 kJ/mol
*

C + CO2 ! 2CO ΔH* = 172.50 kJ/mol Boudourd

C + H2O $ CO + H2 ΔH = 131.30 kJ/mol
*
Primary water gas
C + 2H2O $ CO2 + 2H2 ΔH* = 90.20 kJ/mol Secondary water gas
C + 2H2 $ CH4 ΔH = − 74.90 kJ/mol
*
Methane formation
CO2 + 4H2 $ CH4 + 2H2O ΔH = − 165 kJ/mol
*

C + 3H2 $ CH4 + H2O ΔH* = − 206 kJ/mol

CO + H2O $ CO2 + H2 ΔH* = − 41.2 kJ/mol Water gas shift

Note: ΔH*; Quantity of required energy in kJ/mol.

complex hydrocarbon known as tar.3 Co-gasification is a abundant.22-26 However, full reliance on one biomass
term referred to a gasification process in which, two dif- may be a challenge because of various reasons. Shortage
ferent fuels are gasified simultaneously in the same gas- of supply of feedstock due to problems such as climate
ifier. The feedstock may be coal such as lignite and peat,4 change, transportation, and seasonal changes,27,28 may
biomass like coconut shell and palm kernel shell,5 or disrupt the operation of a gasification plant. On the other
organic polymer such as rubber and polythene.6 Instead hand, the availability of certain feedstock, such as oil
of gasifying one fuel at a time, blending the fuels can palm trunk which is intermittent may make it unattrac-
offer numerous opportunities. This includes adding lim- tive to be used as a sole fuel. It is only available during
ited individual fuels to obtain a sufficient amount, like in replanting periods which occurs after life span comple-
the case of seasonal biomass fuels, which are not avail- tion of the palm trees which is about 25 years. In addition
able all year round, utilisation of locally available bio- to that, its high moisture content also renders it unap-
mass, tackling transportation problems, thereby pealing for the gasification process. The feasible solution
enhancing economies of scale.7,8 A blend of biomass and to such a problem is the implementation of the co-
coal helps to reduce the emission of tar and increases gasification of two or more biomass feedstocks. This will
syngas yield blend,9-12 while that of biomass and organic ensure continuity and may even lead to syngas with
polymer enhances syngas, hydrogen and hydrocarbon improved quality as a result of the synergistic effects of
yield.13-16 Broadly, biomass co-gasification is categorised the similar biomass constituents. Ahmed et al29 reported
into three sections17: biomass with coal, biomass with that there could be an interaction between the biomass
polymer, and a combination of different biomass mate- materials amongst their fixed carbon and volatile matter
rials which has not been discussed much in the litera- content of either of the biomass or both. It was likely that
ture.17,18 Co-gasification can be considered as an effective this association happens within common substance like
and cleaner means of generating high quality fuel. The co-gasification of multiple biomass feedstock, a result of
net production of CO2 gas is low owing to the fact that convergence of the volatile matter.
biomass fuels are carbon-neutral. Sulphur oxides and Co-gasification studies involving two or more biomass
nitrogen oxides emissions can be reduced through co- residue have been scarcely reported, as most co-
gasification practice, by implementing suitable biomass gasification studies reported in the literature were con-
fuels and the operating conditions. Moreover carbon ducted using biomass and coal.24,30 Researches like those
credit will be obtained according to the amount of bio- by Kaewpanha et al31 involved co-gasification of forestry
mass used.7 Hence, co-gasification is regarded as the biomass (Japanese cedar and seaweed) in the presence of
most perfect choice for a cleaner ecosystem due to its catalysts; alkaline earth and alkali metals. These catalysts
lowest risk and cheaper approach.19 enhanced the gas yield, especially CO2 and H2 contents.
Researches that focused on the design and In a simulation study that was reported by Buragohain
modelling,16,20,21 pyrolysis, and gasification characteris- et al32 to ascertain the co-gasification of multiple bio-
tics of varieties of individual biomass fuels have been mass, sawdust blend was reported to have high CO
UMAR ET AL. 8105

concentration and lower heating value but, with less gas concentration. The results showed that the catalyst
yield when compared to the other blends. Higher por- improved the hydrogen yield, and was influenced more
tions of saw dust together with elevated temperatures by limestone, followed by cement and dolomite. However
increased the LHV value while the higher air ratio the tar concentration was reduced with the catalyst appli-
reduced the LHV. In a different work, Aigner et al33 con- cation, limestone yielded the least concentration followed
ducted wood chips and wood/straw pellets co-gasification by cement and dolomite.
in order to determine the temperature effect on tar pro- On gasification studies, several researchers studied
duction and quantification. The report showed that the the gasification potential of OPF such as Guangul et al,23
temperature had more effect than the biomass blend. In who studied the influence of preheated and unheated
another study, different combinations of wood, straw and gasifying air in the gasification of OPF. The results
Miscanthus were used for co-gasification. As the amount showed an increase in the combustible gases and higher
of Miscanthus is increased in the blend, the heating value when preheated air was used; H2 from
corresponding values of LHV, H2, CH4, and CO 8.47% to 10.53%, CO from 22.87% to 24.94%, CH4 from
increased. Also, the addition of a catalyst, Ca(OH)2 to the 2.02% to 2.03%, and higher heating value from 4.66 to
biomass blend enhanced the overall syngas quality and 5.31 MJ/Nm3. Atnaw et al,22 studied the effects of reactor
gasification performance.34 temperature and equivalence ratio (ER) on gas composi-
Other researchers focused on the co-gasification of tion, calorific value and gasification efficiency of down-
organic solid waste with plant based biomass. Peng draft gasification of OPF. The results indicated high
et al,35 for example, co-gasified forestry waste (FW) and temperatures above 850
C favour more syngas produc-
wet sewage sludge (WSS) and reported that increasing tion, and at temperatures greater than 1000
C, the aver-
the WSS portion, decreased the gas yield. As the WSS age syngas lower heating value (LHV) of 5.2 MJ/Nm3
content was increased to 50%, the CO and H2 concentra- was obtained. However, at higher temperatures, there
tions reached their peak value. Sewage sludge was co- was no significant increase in heating value. The equiva-
gasified with wood pellets in another study, and it was lence ratio optimum range was found to be from 0.35 to
reported that the efficiency of the process decreased 0.51, with 0.37 being the optimum in terms of cold gas
when the proportion of sewage reached 30 wt%, also slag- efficiency and carbon conversion. An average LHV
ging and clinker formation occurred at high sewage 4.8 MJ/Nm3 and mass conversion efficiency of 92% was
sludge content.36 Xiao et al37 co-gasified pig manure com- also obtained with the optimum ER. In another study,
post and wood chip and reported that the gas quality and Atnaw et al41 studied the evolution of tar from OPF gasi-
tar content were influenced by the reaction temperature, fication, by using a tar sampling train custom built based
catalyst, steam to carbon ratio, and space velocity. Sew- on standard tar sampling protocols. In the OPF sample
age sludge and woody biomass co-gasification was stud- analysed, raw syngas yielded tar concentration of
ied by Ong et al38 and the resulting producer gas was 4.928 g/Nm3 while cleaned one yielded 1.923 g/Nm3. It
found to be composed of more than 30 vol% of syngas was discovered that the tar found in raw gas sample of
with a mean LHV of 4.5 MJ/Nm3. OPF was greater than that found in other biomass as a
Very few investigations were undertaken on co- result of its high volatile matter. Guangul et al42 studied
gasification of oil palm biomass residue. Inayat et al39 co- the combined effects of preheated gasifying air, its flow
gasified coconut shell (CS) and oil palm frond (OPF) to rate and OPF moisture content on generation of syngas.
study the influence of different blends on the gasification The authors concluded that at 500
C, there was a reason-
performance and syngas quality. The blend comprising of able increase in the concentration of combustible gases at
40:60 OPF/CS gave the best syngas quality while the best 10% feedstock moisture, while a decrease was noticed as
performance was obtained with a blend ratio of 60:40 the moisture content was increased to 20%. The airflow
OPF/CS. The most significant finding was that both the rate was also proven to significantly affect the quality of
syngas quality and performance were better than that of the resulting producer gas. However, few studies were
individual biomass gasification. Monir et al40 investigated reported on the gasification of OPT. Nipattummakul
the pressure and temperature effects on the evolution of et al43 gasified OPT in a batch type gasifier, using steam
syngas in co-gasification of charcoal and empty fruit as the medium at a constant temperature of 800
C.
bunch (EFB) at a steady stream flow of 186.37 mol/h. Increasing the steam flow rate resulted in an accelerated
The result yielded higher H2 and CO concentrations com- gasification reaction and hence reduced gasification time.
pared to gasification of EFB alone. Inayat et al18 studied Varying the steam flow rate also affected the thermal effi-
the co-gasification of coconut shells and OPF by utilising ciency slightly. The same authors investigated H2 and
limestone, cement, and dolomite as catalyst to deduce the syngas yield from OPT gasification at varying tempera-
impact of the catalyst on yield of hydrogen and tar tures 600
C to 100
C, constant steam flow rate 3.10 g/
8106 UMAR ET AL.

min. The results showed that syngas yield was slightly analyser.46 The proximate analysis was conducted using a
affected by temperature, whereas the syngas composition, TGA analyser STA 6000 model, as per ASTM E1755-01,47
heating value, and ratio of energy yield to energy con- whereas the calorific value was evaluated by using AC-
sumed were positively influenced by the temperature. 350 bomb calorimeter according to ASTM D4809-18.48
The authors recommended steam gasification of OPT to All analyses, were conducted on dry basis. The ultimate
be conducted at temperatures above 700
C.44 analysis determines the weight percentage of carbon (C),
It is clear that studies on gasification and co- hydrogen (H2), nitrogen (N), sulphur (S) and oxygen (O2)
gasification of the OPT are scarce and among the few co- present in the fuel sample. High H2 and O2 content
gasification studies on different biomass, there exist lim- results to high liquid and volatile yields respectively, and
ited research on the co-gasification of different oil palm subsequently, higher hydrogen to carbon ratio (H/C) and
waste. Therefore, more studies are required with regards oxygen to carbon ratio (O/C) lead to a reduction in HHV
to co-gasification of oil palm biomass waste. More so, and gas yield of the fuel. However, the HHV is influenced
from the few researches conducted on the co-gasification by more carbon content. The proximate analysis gives the
of OPF, it is yet to be co-gasified with OPT despite its fixed carbon (FC), volatile matter (VM), ash and moisture
abundance during replanting periods. The OPT forms a content (MC) of the fuel. More VM is desired for good
major part of the oil palm tree. It is often perceived as not syngas yield, as it is the gaseous phase formed from the
capable of producing good results in terms of thermo- thermal degradation of the fuel, whereas in instances like
chemical processes like gasification due to its high mois- biochar production, higher FC is desired. The results of
ture content compared to other parts like OPF. Despite the analysis are presented on Table 2, while degradation
this perception physicochemical characteristics of the curves (TGA) representing weight loss of the feedstocks
OPT in our previous study,45 have displayed its properties with temperature change are represented on Figure 1.
as a potential fuel capable of delivering syngas. Hence The two biomass depict almost same results in all ana-
this study sets out to conduct an investigation to find out lyses, and this maybe because they are both sourced from
the potential of OPT in gasification study, also to co- same parent material (palm tree). The TGA figure is sec-
gasifying OPT with OPF in order to study the effect of tioned into four to distinguish the different zones rep-
blending ratio on the syngas quality and co-gasification resenting moisture content (MC) loss, fixed carbon (FC),
performance. Hence the research seeks to answer the fol- volatile matter (VM) and ash degradation. The function
lowing questions: of thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) is to classify the
devolatilization properties or weight loss of the feedstock
1. Is OPT capable of producing syngas? sample with temperature. TGA technique is also used for
2. What is the optimum blending ratio when co- characterising proximate analysis in which weight loss is
gasifying OPT and OPF? measured against the increasing temperature. In
Figure 1, the weight loss was initiated at about 100
C,
which corresponds to moisture removal. The preceding
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS phase, which is the largest continuous decreasing
section represents the release of volatile matter
2.1 | Characterisation and preparation of
biomass feedstock
TABLE 2 Characterisation of OPT and OPF

The oil palm residues, OPF and OPT, were taken as Analysis Parameters OPT OPF
potential feedstocks for the current co-gasification study. Ultimate (wt%) Carbon 43.35 45.42
Both feedstocks were obtained from a corporate planta-
Hydrogen 6.26 6.35
tion, in the State of Perak in Malaysia during replanting
Nitrogen 0.76 0.47
activities. Both feedstock were obtained in large sizes, the
fronds were of full length while the trunks were in the Sulphur 0.45 0.13
a
form of logs. The sizes of fresh feedstocks were reduced Oxygen 49.18 47.63
using a power saw to a size range 5-10 mm. It was later Proximate (wt%) Volatile matter 78.6 82.24
dried under the sun for four consecutive sunny days and Fixed carbon 13.11 15.88
later dried again in an oven for 24 hours at 105
C. Sam- Ash 8.29 1.32
ples that were intended for characterisation tests were
Moisture 6.23 4.45
cleaned, ground and sieved to 250 μm particle size. The
Calorific value (MJ/kg) 17.41 17.48
ultimate analysis was conducted according to ASTM
D3176-15 by using Leco CHNS-932 model, CHNS By difference (100 − [C + H + N + S]).
a
UMAR ET AL. 8107

in Figures 2 and 3. The gasifier is a lab scale gasifier and

therefore operates in allothermal mode whereby it gets
extremely heated. Its mode of feeding is batch type such
that after every experiment, the gasifier has to be
cleaned. It is made of a vertical cylindrical casing, 67 mm
internal diameter and 750 mm in height, which is
enclosed within a ceramic electric heater (1.25 kW). The
setup does not include scrubbers for tar cleaning, as tar
collection was not part of the study. The cleaning system
consists of 4.0 μm ceramic filter which filters particulate
matter present in the gas sample prior to its entrance into
the gas analyser. The gasifier was connected to a micro-
F I G U R E 1 Percentage weight loss of OPT and OPF with controller for temperature settings via Type-K thermo-
temperature [Colour figure can be viewed at couple. An air compressor supplied air, which was
wileyonlinelibrary.com] regulated by using a rotameter. The produced syngas
exited at the gasifier bottom, and was flown through a
tube connected to the cooling and filtering unit. The fil-
(decomposition of cellulose and hemicellulose), while the tered and cooled gas got into the X-STREAM X2GP
second to the last section is a sharp decreasing slope that model, online gas analyser, which analysed the gas con-
shows the depletion of fixed carbon. Finally, at the last stituents and displayed it on the computer monitor con-
stage, the curves ended in an almost horizontal manner nected. The combustibility of the syngas was checked at
representing residual ash. Both feedstock exhibited a sim- the gas flaring point to ensure the presence of gas. All
ilar degradation trend, and this may be due to their simi- experimental tests were conducted at a gasifier tempera-
lar molecular make-up. ture of 800
C, atmospheric pressure, airfuel ratio of 0.25
In this study, raw samples of OPT and OPF were each and intake airflow rate of 2.5 L/min. As the power source
gasified separately and then blends of both raw biomass was switched on, the required temperature was set on
were also co-gasified at varying blending ratios in an elec- the microcontroller and once the temperature was
trically heated lab scale downdraft gasifier. Quality of attained, 100 g of the sample is fed into the gasifier ves-
syngas includes syngas heating value and gas composi- sel. The producer gas composition was automatically dis-
tion while co-gasification performance was evaluated in played on the computer system connected to the online
terms of efficiencies (carbon conversion and cold gas) gas analyser.
and gas yield.
The feedstock used for the experiment was grounded
using a lab scale granulator and sieved to about 5-10 mm 2.3 | Data analysis and interpretation
for consistency in size. Particle size reduction was crucial
for a successful co-gasification process as it enhanced 2.3.1 | Syngas heating value
homogeneity and effective heat transfer among particle
mix, thus ensuring high reaction rates.49 The biomass, The syngas heating value, is the quantity of energy
OPT and OPF were mixed at three blending ratios 30:70, dissipated by a given amount of syngas volume that is
50:50 and 70:30 for use in the co-gasification experi- combusted under standard atmospheric conditions. It
ments. Similar blend combinations were used in other is referred to as gross calorific value or the higher
co-gasification studies36,50 and were proved to be efficient heating value HHV (total amount of energy released
in establishing the role of blending ratio. The different by syngas). However, if the heat of vaporisation is
blending ratios were expected to exhibit different gasifica- subtracted from the syngas HHV then it is referred to
tion performance and may likely improve the syngas as lower heating value LHV or net calorific value.
composition.51,52 The higher heating value of syngas is deter-
mined by53:

2.2 | Experimental setup and procedure HHVsyngas

= ðHHVCO × X CO Þ + ðHHVH2 × X H2 Þ + ðHHVCH4 × X CH4 Þ
An electrically heated gasifier with downdraft configura-
ð1Þ
tion was used in the experiments. The setup is illustrated
8108 UMAR ET AL.

FIGURE 2 Representation of the experimental set-up [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

F I G U R E 3 (A) Gasification/co-gasification set-up. (B) Gas analyser, cooling and cleaning system [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

where, the HHV of CO is 12.62 MJ/Nm3, H2 is 12.77 MJ/ (NREL),54 and XCO, X H2 , X CH4 , denotes the volumetric
Nm3 and CH4 is 39.78 MJ/Nm3 are constant values given percentage proportions of CH4, H2 and CO in dry syngas
by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory respectively.
UMAR ET AL. 8109

2.3.2 | Gas yield and Hb (MJ/kg) is HHV of biomass found from calorific
value analysis.
Gas yield (Y), refers to the resulting free inert gas gener-
ated by a given amount of ash free and dry biomass. It is
calculated using the nitrogen balancing method53,55 2.3.5 | Syngas flare duration

Qa × 0:79 The syngas flare duration was determined by the time

Y= ð2Þ
mfeed × V N2 duration in seconds of the ignitability of syngas produced
at the flare point. A butane lighter was introduced at the
where, Y denotes the gas yield (Nm3/kg), mfeed denotes edge of the gas pipe of the flare point, thereby igniting
the biomass mass flow (kg/h), Qa denotes the air flow the gas. A stable flare signifies the richness of the syngas
rate (Nm3/h), and V N2 % denotes the nitrogen volumetric in terms of concentration of combustibles comprising of
percentage in the dry syngas. The constant 0.79 repre- CO, CH4 and H2. The time duration of the flame is
sents the standard percentage of nitrogen in the atmo- important to determine the biomass conversion rate
sphere. The air is assumed to be composed of 21% oxygen within the gasifier. Lasting syngas flare is desired as it
and 79% nitrogen, and that all oxygen components react signifies the consistency of the conversion rate as well as
with the biomass as the gasification process is taking the quality of the combustible components in syngas
place. Furthermore, syngas comprises of only CH4, H2, while short duration flare means a swift conversion rate
N2, CO2, and CO contents, where N2 was obtained by with low quality of combustible gases. Unsteady or fre-
applying difference method. quently dying flare shows the process is not stable which
may be caused by chocking/bridging of feedstock and/or
less concentration of combustible syngas components.
2.3.3 | Carbon conversion efficiency Gas flaring is useful to determine if flammable gas was
obtained, and also to observe the quality of the gas.
Carbon conversion efficiency (ηc), refers to the amount of
carbon contents present in a biomass that were trans-
formed to carbon gases CO, CH4 and CO2. Thus it is 3 | RESULTS A ND DISCUSSION
determined based on volume percentage of CO2, CO and
CH4 present within the syngas, according to156: 3.1 | Effects of blending ratio on gas
composition
Y ðCO% + CO2 % + CH4 %Þ × M c
CCEηc = × 100% ð3Þ
22:4 × C% The CO produced from gasification and co-gasification of
OPT and OPF at different blending ratios is illustrated in
where, C% refers to the carbon proportion in the given Figure 4B. It is shown from the results that, the highest
biomass obtained by ultimate analysis, Y denotes the gas concentration of CO (15.27 vol%) was achieved from gasi-
yield in Nm3/kg, and CO2%, CO% and CH4% represent fication of OPF, which was higher than that for OPT.
volume percentage of these gases in the syngas. Also, MC This could be due to the high moisture content in OPT
is the atomic mass of carbon atom in grams, whereas the thereby causing a low pyrolysis temperature, which led
constant 22.4 represents the molar volume of an ideal gas to poor Boudouard (C + CO2 ! 2CO) and dominated
at standard pressure and temperature. watergas shift reaction (CO + H2O $ CO2 + H2). This
resulted in high CO2 and H2 gases, with low CO contents
in the syngas composition, which was in line with the
2.3.4 | Cold gas efficiency findings of Inayat et al.39 During the co-gasification of
OPT and OPF blended feedstock, the resulting CO varied
Cold gas efficiency (ηth), refers to the ratio of the energy between 10.04% and 13.81% amongst all the blends. As
flow in the gas and the energy contained within the the content of OPF was increased within the blends, CO
fuel56: gradually increased in the same trend. The highest value
of CO (13.81%) was attained during the co-gasification of
H gas × Y 30/70 OPT/OPF blend, and was higher than that
CGEηth = × 100% ð4Þ
Hb obtained with OPT gasification.
The H2 content varies in the gasification results, the
where, Y (Nm3/kg) stands for the gas yield value, Hgas highest H2 content 10.07% obtained for OPT gasification
(MJ/Nm3) stands for the higher heating value of syngas was 7% higher than that of OPF gasification. However,
8110 UMAR ET AL.

F I G U R E 4 Blending ratio effect on (A) H2 (G) composition, (B) CO (g) composition, (C) CH4 (g) composition, (D) CO2 (g) composition
at 800
C temperature and 2.5 L/min airflow rate using OPT-OPF blended feedstock [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

the H2 content ranged from 7.62 to 8.32 vol% for co- for both 100% OPT and 100%OPF gasification, however,
gasification of OPT/OPF blends. The H2 concentration synergistic effect was observed on co-gasifying both as
was highest during gasification runs of OPT and OPF as more CH4 was obtained, indicating influence of blending
compared to co-gasification of their blends, which ratio as co-gasification of the blend of 30/70 OPT/OPF
implies sufficient water gas reaction which favours the yielded the highest value of 10.4 vol%.
production of CH4 and H2. In co-gasification, 30/70 The CO2 being a non-combustible gas, is required to
OPT/OPF blend yielded the maximum H2 content. The be low in the syngas content. The content was found to
concentration of CH4 content is seen to be almost equal be lowest in the gasification of OPT compared to OPF
UMAR ET AL. 8111

gasification, whereas during co-gasification, the blend volatile matter the more the syngas yield at elevated tem-
70/30 OPT/OPF yielded the least amount. Even though peratures. In the case of gasification, OPF gasification
OPT has higher moisture content, low CO2 yield was yielded the highest gas yield 1.53Nm3/kg, which was as a
obtained, indicating that less combustion took place for result of more gas composition with the considerably less
higher moisture content fuel due to a temperature fall as proportion of balance nitrogen present within the syngas.
yield of product gases is a function of reactor temperature In the case of co-gasification, the gas yield values
and moisture content. During gasification of higher mois- obtained from the different blends varied from 1.29 to
ture content fuel, the oxidation zone temperature usually 1.47 Nm3/kg. The highest value of gas yield 1.47 Nm3/kg
decreases, as a result of heat consumption during evapo- obtained from 30 OPT/70 OPF blend was 4% less, with
ration of the moisture in fuel inside the drying zone.57 respect to 100% OPF gasification, while the lowest gas
yield of 1.29 Nm3/kg was obtained from 70 OPT/30 OPF
blend. The values obtained for gas yield from co-
3.2 | Effect of blending ratio on gas yield gasification of OPT and OPF blends at ratios of 30/70 was
and higher heating value similar to that of gasification of OPT alone. The syngas
yield and HHV obtained during gasification of OPF were
The HHV of syngas is obtained from the constituent com- comparable with that obtained in a study by Guangul
bustible gases in syngas and utilising the individual et al23 In the present study, the gas yield and HHV for
heating values of the gases by applying Equation (1). The OPF were obtained to be 1.53 Nm3/kg and 6.62 MJ/Nm3,
HHV and gas yield of the syngas that resulted from the whereas that obtained by Guangul et al were 1.91 Nm3/
gasification and co-gasification of OPT and OPF are pres- kg and 4.66 MJ/Nm3, respectively. Results of OPT gasifi-
ented in Figure 5. The HHV varied from 6.20 to 6.85 MJ/ cation using air as the medium are scarce in the litera-
Nm3, noting that the HHV results obtained at co- ture, however, Nipattummakul et al44 studied OPT
gasification of OPT and OPF were more than that gasification in steam medium and obtained the gas yield
obtained during gasification of OPT and OPF. The and HHV of the syngas at 800
C to be 50 g and 14 500 J/
highest HHV of syngas, 6.85 MJ/Nm3 was obtained from g, respectively. A typical syngas profile of OPT gasifica-
30 OPT/70 OPF blend, which was 3.4% and 7.3% higher tion during the current study is shown in Figure 6.
than pure OPF and OPT gasification, respectively. The
reason for that is due to the high concentration of CH4,
CO and H2 present in the syngas. The 50/50 blend gave a 3.3 | Blending ratio effect on co-
HHV value that was about 3% higher than that of OPT gasification performance
gasification. The gasification of OPF gave a HHV of
6.62 MJ/Nm3 which was the second highest, after that of The performance of any co-gasification procedure may be
blend 30/70 being the highest. The volatile matter plays a determined from basically three parameters, namely; the
vital role in the syngas yield such that the higher the gas yield, carbon conversion efficiency (CCE) and lastly
cold gasification efficiency (CGE). The gas yield was
determined based on Equation (2) and the result was
presented in Figure 5.

F I G U R E 5 Blending ratio effect on HHV and gas yield at

800
C temperature and 2.5 L/min airflow rate using OPT-OPF F I G U R E 6 Typical syngas profile as a function of time for
blended feedstock [Colour figure can be viewed at 100% OPT at 800
C and 2.5 L/min airflow rate [Colour figure can
wileyonlinelibrary.com] be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
8112 UMAR ET AL.

F I G U R E 7 Blending ratio effect on cold gas efficiency and

carbon conversion efficiency at 800
C temperature and 2.5 L/min
airflow rate using OPT/OPF blended feedstock [Colour figure can
be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 7 shows the graphs representing carbon con-

version efficiency (CCE) and cold gas efficiency (CGE)
which were determined based on Equations (3) and (4)
respectively. The gasification efficiency varied from
43.19% to 58.65% for the different blends of OPT and OPF
biomass. CGE showed an increasing trend with an
increase in OPF proportion in the blend. F I G U R E 8 Syngas flare during gasification process [Colour
The highest value of CGE attained during co- figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
gasification was 56.35% with 30 OPT/70 OPF blend
which was as a result of higher gas yield and heating
value, however, in gasification 100%OPF gave the highest lighter to generate the spark needed for the flame to
gasification efficiency of 58.65% which was 18% higher come up. The flame was stable in all instances, and lasted
than of OPT. The lowest CGE values were obtained from for an average of 3–6 minutes indicating the steadiness of
70 OPT/30 OPF as a result of low gas yield and HHV. the combustion process. The flame had a combination of
The CCE is determined using the carbonaceous gas com- orange and yellow colour at its tip signifying presence of
ponents like CO2, CO and CH4 and carbon content of the partially converted hydrocarbons, and blue colour at its
blended fuels. The CCE was relatively high during co- bottom indicating the presence of hydrogen gas. The tem-
gasification of all the blends. It ranges between 49.15% perature of the flame was about 450
C–600
C. As the
and 71.85%, with maximum CCE achieved during the co- conversion process approaches completion, the flame
gasification of 30 OPT/70 OPF blend, whereas 70 OPT/30 gradually becomes thing until it eventually dies off indi-
OPF blend gave the lowest value. However, for 50/50 cating the end of the gasification process. Checking the
OPT/OPF blends, the CGE value was so close to that of flare is very important as it helps in confirming the gen-
OPT gasification alone. The highest CCE was attained eration of gas, diagnosing its quality and stability of the
during gasification of OPF 71.85%, which was likely as a conversion process. Prolonged duration of flare is a sign
result of high contents of CO and CO2, OPT had a CCE of steady conversion while a brief flare is a sign of swift
of 64.07% which is close to that of OPF. All the values of conversion. An image of the flare is shown in Figure 8. A
CGE were quite close which may be corresponding to the frequently dying flare signifies bridging or chocking of
synergy of OPT/OPF blends as both feed stocks are from feedstock.
the same origin. More so, OPT and OPF have excess vola-
tile matter, coupled with moderate ash and fixed carbon.
Also, higher CCE leads to decreased production of char. 4 | CONCLUSION

Gasification and co-gasification of OPT and OPF was

3.4 | Syngas flare duration conducted to evaluate the effect of blending ratio on syn-
gas quality and co-gasification performance. It was con-
The produced gas was constantly checked to confirm its cluded that OPT can be utilised in place of OPF as it has
ignition capability. This was done by introducing a yielded almost similar results about 80% in both quality
UMAR ET AL. 8113

as well as process performance. It yielded higher H2 gas 6. Ramos A, Monteiro E, Silva V, Rouboa A. Co-gasification and
compared to OPF, and in the CH4 yield both gave similar recent developments on waste-to-energy conversion: a review.
results. Furthermore, the co-gasification results indicated Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2018;81:380-398. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2017.07.025.
that with increase in the proportion of OPF in the blends,
7. Vhathavorothia N. Thermochemical Behavior and Syngas Pro-
the gas compositions, heating value gas yield and process duction from Cogasification of Biomass and Coal Blends.
efficiencies increased. Hence the optimum blend was Queensland, Australia: School of Engineering, Griffith Univer-
30 OPT/70 OPF having good syngas quality and gasifica- sity; 2013.
tion performance. Therefore, it is concluded that OPT is 8. Thiagarajan J, Srividhya P, Balasubramanian P. Thermal kinet-
capable of producing quality syngas, and in the case of ics and syngas production on co-gasification of deoiled jatropha
shortage of supply of the OPF and OPT biomass, blend- seed cake residues with wood chips. Int J Renew Energy Res.
2018;8(2):1105-1111.
ing the two biomass in the ratio 30 OPT/70 OPF will
9. Betancur Y, Sánchez A, Bueno-López A, López D. Potassium
yield remarkable results which are even better than gasi-
catalytic effect on gasification reactions of coal and
fying the individual biomass in terms of HHV of the gas, coal/biomass blends under oxy-combustion conditions. An iso-
and CH4 gas yield. Similarly, it produced better results topic study using 13C18O2. Energy Fuel. 2018;32(2):2439-2449.
than OPT gasification in terms CCE and CGE. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03399.
10. Tursun Y, Xu S, Wang C, Xiao Y, Wang G. Steam co-
CONFLICT OF INTEREST gasification of biomass and coal in decoupled reactors. Fuel
The authors declare that they have no competing interest Process Technol. 2016;141:61-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuproc.2015.06.046.
financially or personal relationships that might have
11. Masnadi MS, Grace JR, Bi XT, Ellis N, Lim CJ, Butler JW.
influence the work reported in the paper. Biomass/coal steam co-gasification integrated with in-situ CO2
capture. Energy. 2015;83:326-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
NO MEN CLATU RE energy.2015.02.028.
CCE carbon conversion efficiency 12. Li X, Dong Z, Dou J, Yu J, Tahmasebi A. Catalytic reduction of
CGE cold gas efficiency NO using iron oxide impregnated biomass and lignite char for
EFB empty fruit bunch flue gas treatment. Fuel Process Technol. 2016;148:91-98.
HHV higher heating value https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2016.02.030.
13. Parparita E, Uddin MA, Watanabe T, Kato Y, Yanik J,
LHV lower heating value
Vasile C. Gas production by steam gasification of poly-
OPF oil palm frond propylene/biomass waste composites in a dual-bed reactor.
OPT oil palm trunk J Mater Cycles Waste Manag. 2015;17(4):756-768. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10163-014-0308-0.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 14. Arregi A et al. Hydrogen-rich gas production by continuous
The data that support the findings of this study are avail- pyrolysis and in-line catalytic reforming of pine wood waste
able from the corresponding author upon reasonable and HDPE mixtures. Energy Convers Manage. 2017;136:192-
201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.01.008.
request.
15. Robinson T, Bronson B, Gogolek P, Mehrani P. Comparison of
the air-blown bubbling fluidized bed gasification of wood and
ORCID
wood–PET pellets. Fuel. 2016;178:263-271. https://doi.org/10.
Hadiza A. Umar https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6111-9257 1016/j.fuel.2016.03.038.
16. Yucel O, Aydin ES, Sadikoglu H. Comparison of the different
R EF E RE N C E S artificial neural networks in prediction of biomass gasification
1. Emami-Taba L, Irfan MF, Wan Daud WMA, Chakrabarti MH. products. Int J Energy Res. 2019;43(11):5992-6003.
Fuel blending effects on the co-gasification of coal and biomass 17. Inayat M. Experimental Study to Characterise Co-Gasification
– a review. Biomass Bioenergy. 2013;57:249-263. https://doi.org/ of Different Lignocellulosic Biomass in Downdraft Gasifier for
10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.02.043. Power Generation [master]. Mechanical Engineering, Uni-
2. Sutton D, Kelleher B, Ross JR. Review of literature on catalysts for versiti Teknologi Petronas; 2015.
biomass gasification. J Fuel Process Technol. 2001;73(3):155-173. 18. Inayat M, Sulaiman SA, Kurnia JC. Catalytic co-gasification of
3. Basu P. Biomass Gasification and Pyrolysis: Practical Design coconut shells and oil palm fronds blends in the presence of
and Theory. Burlington, MD: Academic Press; 2010. cement, dolomite, and limestone: parametric optimization via
4. Cabuk B, Duman G, Yanik J, Olgun H. Effect of fuel blend box Behnken design. J Energy Inst. 2018;92:871-882. https://
composition on hydrogen yield in co-gasification of coal doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2018.08.002.
and non-woody biomass. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2020;45(5): 19. Baxter L. Biomass-coal co-combustion: opportunity for afford-
3435-3443. able renewable energy. J Fuel. 2005;84(10):1295-1302.
5. Yahaya AZ, Somalu MR, Muchtar A, Sulaiman SA, 20. Yazdanpanah Jahromi MA, Atashkari K, Kalteh M. Develop-
Daud WRW. Effect of particle size and temperature on gasifica- ment of a high-temperature two-stage entrained flow gasifier
tion performance of coconut and palm kernel shells in down- model for the process of biomass gasification and syngas forma-
draft fixed-bed reactor. J Energy. 2019;175:931-940. tion. Int J Energy Res. 2019;43(11):5864-5878.
8114 UMAR ET AL.

21. Alamia A, Larsson A, Breitholtz C, Thunman H. Performance Bioresour Technol. 2011;102(2):1975-1981. https://doi.org/10.
of large-scale biomass gasifiers in a biorefinery, a state-of-the- 1016/j.biortech.2010.09.016.
art reference. Int J Energy Res. 2017;41(14):2001-2019. 38. Ong Z, Cheng Y, Maneerung T, et al. Co-gasification of woody
22. Atnaw SM, Sulaiman SA, Yusup S. Syngas production from biomass and sewage sludge in a fixed-bed downdraft gasifier.
downdraft gasification of oil palm fronds. J Energy. 2013;61: AIChE J. 2015;61(8):2508-2521.
491-501. 39. Inayat M, Sulaiman SA, Sanaullah K. Effect of blending ratio
23. Guangul FM, Sulaiman SA, Ramli A. Gasifier selection, design on co-gasification performance of tropical plant-based biomass.
and gasification of oil palm fronds with preheated and 4th IET Clean Energy and Technology Conference (CEAT 2016),
unheated gasifying air. Bioresour Technol. 2012;126:224-232. Kuala Lumpur. 2016;74(7):1-7. https://doi.org/10.1049/cp.2016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.018. 1331.
24. Inayat M, Sulaiman SA, Jamil AA, Guangul FM, Atnaw SM. 40. Monir MU, Aziz AA, Kristanti RA, Yousuf A. Co-gasification
The study of temperature profile and syngas flare in co- of empty fruit bunch in a downdraft reactor: a pilot scale
gasification of biomass feedstock in throated downdraft gas- approach. J Bioresour Technol. 2018;1:39-49.
ifier. ICGSCE 2014. Singapore: Springer; 2015:203-210. 41. Atnaw SM, Kueh SC, Sulaiman SA. Study on tar generated from
25. Abedi A, Dalai AK. Steam gasification of oat hull pellets over downdraft gasification of oil palm fronds. Scientific World Jour-
Ni-based catalysts: syngas yield and tar reduction. Fuel. 2019; nal. 2014;2014:497830. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/497830.
254:115585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.05.168. 42. Guangul FM, Sulaiman SA, Ramli A. Study of the effects of
26. Li Z, Xu H, Yang W, Xu M, Zhao F. Numerical investigation operating factors on the resulting producer gas of oil palm
and thermodynamic analysis of syngas production through fronds gasification with a single throat downdraft gasifier.
chemical looping gasification using biomass as fuel. Fuel. 2019; Renew Energy. 2014;72:271-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
246:466-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.03.007. renene.2014.07.022.
27. Krerkkaiwan S, Fushimi C, Tsutsumi A, Kuchonthara P. Syner- 43. Nipattummakul N, Ahmed II, Kerdsuwan S, Gupta AK. Steam
getic effect during co-pyrolysis/gasification of biomass and sub- gasification of oil palm trunk waste for clean syngas produc-
bituminous coal. J Fuel Process Dent Tech. 2013;115:11-18. tion. Appl Energy. 2012;92:778-782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
28. Sulaiman SA, Karim MF, Nazmi M, Moni Z, Atnaw SM. On apenergy.2011.08.026.
gasification of different tropical plant-based biomass materials. 44. Nipattummakul N, Ahmed II, Gupta AK, Kerdsuwan S. Hydro-
Asian J Scientific Res. 2013;6(2):245-253. gen and syngas yield from residual branches of oil palm tree
29. Ahmed I, Nipattummakul N, Gupta A. Characteristics of syn- using steam gasification. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2011;36(6):
gas from co-gasification of polyethylene and woodchips. Energy 3835-3843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.102.
Convers Eng Conf. 2011;88(1):165-174. 45. Umar HA, Sulaiman SA, Ahmad RK, Tamili SN. Characterisa-
30. Chin BLF, Yusup S, Al Shoaibi A, Kannan P, tion of oil palm trunk and frond as fuel for biomass thermo-
Sirinivasakannan C, Sulaiman SA. Kinetic studies of co- chemical. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. 2020;863:012011.
pyrolysis of rubber seed shell with high density polyethylene. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/863/1/012011.
Energy Convers Manage. 2014;87:746-753. 46. Guangul FM. Gasification of OPF with Preheated Inlet Air
31. Kaewpanha M, Guan G, Hao X, et al. Steam co-gasification of [PhD]. Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Petronas;
brown seaweed and land-based biomass. Fuel Process Technol. 2013.
2014;120:106-112. 47. ASTM. Standard E1755-01. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM;
32. Buragohain B, Mahanta P, Moholkar VS. Investigations in gasi- 2015.
fication of biomass mixtures using thermodynamic equilibrium 48. ASTM. Standard D4809-18. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM;
and semi-equilibrium models. Int J Energy Environ. 2011;2(3): 2018.
551-578. 49. Liakakou ET et al. Gasification of lignin-rich residues for the
33. Aigner I, Wolfesberger U, Hofbauer H. Tar content and compo- production of biofuels via syngas fermentation: comparison of
sition in producer gas of fluidized bed gasification and low tem- gasification technologies. Fuel. 2019;251:580-592. https://doi.
perature pyrolysis of straw and wood-influence of temperature. org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.04.081.
na, 2009. 50. Sulaiman S, Inayat M, Basri H, Guangul F, Atnaw S. Effect of
34. He L, Geffers K, Gohla M. An experimental investigation of flu- blending ratio on temperature profile and syngas composition
idized bed gasification of biomass blended from wood, of woody biomass co-gasification. J Mech Eng Sci. 2016;10(2):
Miscanthus, straw and other industrial bioresidues. J Agric Sci 2176-2186.
Technol B. 2012;2(10B):1109. 51. Skoulou V, Zabaniotou A, Stavropoulos G, Sakelaropoulos G.
35. Peng L, Wang Y, Lei Z, Cheng G. Co-gasification of wet sewage Syngas production from olive tree cuttings and olive kernels in
sludge and forestry waste in situ steam agent. Bioresour a downdraft fixed-bed gasifier. J Hydrogen Energy. 2008;33(4):
Technol. 2012;114:698-702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech. 1185-1194.
2012.03.079. 52. McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 3): gasifi-
36. Seggiani M, Puccini M, Raggio G, Vitolo S. Effect of sewage cation technologies. J Bioresour Technol. 2002;83(1):55-63.
sludge content on gas quality and solid residues produced by 53. Emami Taba L, Irfan MF, Wan Daud WAM, Chakrabarti MH.
cogasification in an updraft gasifier. Waste Manag. 2012;32(10): The effect of temperature on various parameters in coal, bio-
1826-1834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.04.018. mass and CO-gasification: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev.
37. Xiao X, Meng X, Le DD, Takarada T. Two-stage steam gasifica- 2012;16(8):5584-5596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.06.015.
tion of waste biomass in fluidized bed at low temperature: 54. Waldheim L, Nilsson T. Heating value of gases from biomass
parametric investigations and performance optimization. gasification. Report prepared for: IEA Bioenergy Agreement,
UMAR ET AL. 8115

Task 20—Thermal Gasification Process. Report no TPS-01/16 resulted from gasification of oil palm fronds. Scientific World J.
TPS Termiska Processer AB, Studsvik, 611 82 Nyköping …; 2014;2014:121908. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/121908.
2001.
55. Lahijani P, Zainal ZA. Gasification of palm empty fruit bunch
in a bubbling fluidized bed: a performance and agglomeration How to cite this article: Umar HA, Sulaiman SA,
study. J Bioresour Technol. 2011;102(2):2068-2076. Said MA, Gungor A, Ahmad RK, Inayat M. Syngas
56. Xiao R, Zhang M, Jin B, Huang Y, Zhou H. High-temperature
production from gasification and co-gasification of
air/steam-blown gasification of coal in a pressurized spout-
fluid bed. Energy Fuel. 2006;20(2):715-720. https://doi.org/10.
oil palm trunk and frond using a down-draft
1021/ef050233h. gasifier. Int J Energy Res. 2021;45:8103–8115.
57. Atnaw SM, Sulaiman SA, Yusup S. Influence of fuel moisture https://doi.org/10.1002/er.6345
content and reactor temperature on the calorific value of syngas