Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Valorization of Tunisian olive pomace by steam gasification: thermodynamic study using Mathematica© and Aspen-plus®

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biomass steam gasification is a promising technique for generating hydrogen-rich gas. This paper reports on and discusses the results of a thermodynamic analysis of Tunisian olive pomace steam gasification intended to produce hydrogen-rich syngas and/or syngas with predefined H2/CO molar ratios. A non-stoichiometric approach is applied using Mathematica© and/or alternatively the process simulator Aspen-Plus®. For high-pressure cases, where deviation from ideal-gas behavior becomes significant, the Soave–Redlich–Kwong equation of state (SRK EoS) is selected for the calculation of the residual Gibbs’ free energy and the compressibility factor (\(Z\)) of the gas mixture. Developed thermodynamic models are validated against experimental data from literature. Gas-phase equilibrium composition and syngas quality (H2/CO ratio) are evaluated for a large range of the operating parameters temperature (\(T\)), pressure (\(P\)), and steam/biomass molar ratio (\(r=S/B\) ratio). Results indicate that at \(1000\) K, syngas production (H2 + CO) decreases from 80 to 30% as pressure is increased from 1 to 250 bars. At atmospheric pressure and for temperatures increasing from 800 to 2000 K, this behavior is inversed. Concurrently, carbon conversion is promoted. A higher \(S/B\) ratio (e.g., between 0.3 and 3.5) results in increased hydrogen production and carbon conversion, while the CO production is decreasing. Furthermore, by atmospheric pressure and for temperatures between 500 and 1000 K, carbon conversion reaches 100% for a \(S/B\) ratio varying between 0.5 and 1.5. These findings underline the particular role of the \(S/B\) ratio as a key parameter for the quality of producer syngas. To reach a target syngas quality however (e.g., 2 or 3: 2 for the Fischer–Tropsch process, fuel cell applications and methanol synthesis, and 3 for SNG production), one has to find a compromise between conflicting effects of the \(S/B\) ratio. On the one hand, larger values of this parameter lead to a decrease of the energy efficiency of the process. Lower values on the other hand may result in incomplete char conversion. As illustration of such a compromise we found, for the optimal conditions for a H2/CO ratio of 2, \(P=1\) bar, \(T= 1000\) K, and \(S/B\) ratio, \(r = 0.5\).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The computer notebooks are available upon request from the corresponding author.

References

  1. Saxena RC, Adhikari DK, Goyal HB (2009) Biomass-based energy fuel through biochemical routes: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13:167–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kheshgi HS, Prince RC, Marland G (2000) The potential of biomass fuels in the context of global climate change: focus on transportation fuels. Annu Rev Energy Environ 25:199–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kumar A, Jones DD, Hanna MA (2009) Thermochemical biomass gasification: a review of the current status of the technology. Energies 2:556–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lin Y, Tanaka S (2006) Ethanol fermentation from biomass resources: current state and prospects. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 69:627–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Arnavat MP, Bruno JC, Coronas A (2010) Review and analysis of biomass gasification models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 14:2841–2851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Luo X, Wu T, Shi K, Song M, Rao Y (2018) Biomass gasification: an overview of technological barriers and socio-environmental impact. Chapter 1 In book: Gasification for low-grade feedstock, Ed. Yongseung Yun, Intechopen, 3–17

  7. Gan M, Fan X, Chen X, Ji Z, Lv W, Wang Y, Yu Z, Jiang T (2012) Reduction of pollutant emission in iron ore sintering process by applying biomass fuels. ISIJ Int 52:1574–1578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Martínez JFG, Gómez LMT, Guzmán MFS, Vanegas NCS, Ruí DDP (2020) Energy from biomass: alternative for the reduction of atmospheric emissions. Lámpsakos, Universidad Católica Luis Amigó 23:70–78

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dong J, Nzihou A, Chi Y, Weiss-Hortala E, Ni M, Lyczko N, Tang Y, Ducousso M (2017) Hydrogen-rich gas production from steam gasification of bio-char in the presence of CaO. Waste and Biomass Valorization 8:2735–2746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Adnan MA, Susanto H, Binous H, Muraza O, Hossain MM (2017) Feed composition and gasification potential of several biomasses including microalgae: a thermodynamic modelling approach. Int J Hydrogen Energy 42:17009–17019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Freitas ACD, Guirardello R (2012) Supercritical water gasification of glucose and cellulose for hydrogen and syngas production. Chem Eng Trans 27:361–366. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1227061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Binous H, Bellagi A (2022) Calculations of complex chemical reaction equilibria using stoichiometric and non-stoichiometric approaches in combination with arc-length continuation. Engineering Reports Wiley 4:1–32

    Google Scholar 

  13. Adamu S, Binous H, Razzak SA, Hossain MM (2017) Enhancement of glucose gasification by Ni/La2O3-Al2O3 towards the thermodynamic extremum at supercritical water conditions. Renewable Energy 111:399–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Voll FAP, Rossi CCRS, Silva C, Guirardello R, Souza ROMA, Cabral VF, Cardozo-Filho L (2009) Thermodynamic analysis of supercritical water gasification of methanol, ethanol, lycerol, glucose and cellulose. Int J Hydrogen Energy 34:9737–9744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nikoo MB, Mahinpey N (2008) Simulation of biomass gasification in fluidized bed reactor using Aspen Plus. Biomass Bioenerg 32:1245–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Huang F, Jin S (2019) Investigation of biomass (pine wood) gasification: experiments and Aspen Plus simulation. Energy Science & Engineering 7:1178–1187

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chittaranjan Panda (2012) Aspen Plus simulation and experimental studies on biomass gasification, Thesis submitted in the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of bachelor of technology in chemical engineering. National Institute of Technology, Rourkela

  18. Acar MC, Böke YE (2018) Simulation of biomass gasification process using Aspen Plus, 14th International Combustion Symposium (INCOS2018), Karabük, Turkey, April 25–27 134–137

  19. Eikeland MS, Thapa RK, Halvorsen BM (2015) Aspen Plus simulation of biomass gasification with known reaction kinetic, Proceedings of the 56th SIMS, Linköping, Sweden, October 07–09: 149–156

  20. Simone Naidoo (2018) Feasibility study for maize as a feedstock for liquid fuels production based on a simulation developed in Aspen Plus®. MSc Research Dissertation Submitted to School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, January 2018

  21. González-Vázquez MP, Rubiera F, Pevida C, Pio DT, Tarelho LAC (2021) Thermodynamic analysis of biomass gasification using Aspen Plus: comparison of stoichiometric and non-stoichiometric models. Energies 14:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mutlu ÖÇ, Zeng T (2020) Challenges and opportunities of modeling biomass gasification in Aspen Plus : a review. Chem Eng Technol 43:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Inayat A, Ahmad MM, Abdul Mutalib MI, Yusup S (2010) Effect of process parameters on hydrogen production and efficiency in biomass gasification using modeling approach. J Appl Sci 10:3183–3190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Elias A, Boumeddane B, Vera D, Jurado F (2021) Gasification of olive mill solid wastes for cogeneration applications in Tizi Ouzou region: thermo-economic assessment. Int J Sustain Energ 40:1002–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Aguado R, Vera D, López-García DA, Torreglosa JP, Jurado F (2021) Techno-economic assessment of a gasification plant for distributed cogeneration in the agrifood sector. Appl Sci 11:660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Borello D, De Caprariis B, De Filippis P, Di Carlo A, Marchegiani A, Pantaleo AM, Shah N, Venturini P (2015) Thermo-economic assessment of a olive pomace gasifier for cogeneration applications. Energy Procedia 75:252–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dogru M, Erdem A (2020) Autothermal fixed bed updraft gasification of olive pomace biomass and renewable energy generation via organic Rankine cycle turbine. Johnson Matthey Technology Review 64:119–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Puig-Gamero M, Lara-Díaz J, Valverde JL, Sánchez P, Sanchez-Silva L (2018) Synergestic effect in the steam co-gasification of olive pomace, coal and petcoke: thermogravimetric-mass spectrometric analysis. Energy Convers Manage 159:140–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tamošiunas A, Chouchène A, Valatkevicius A, Gimžauskait D, Aikas M, Uscila R, Ghorbel M, Jeguirim M (2017) The potential of thermal plasma gasification of olive pomace charcoal. Energies 10:710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. https://lapresse.tn/110929/240-mille-tonnes-de-production-de-lhuile-dolive-attendues-pendant-la-saison-2021-2022. Published on Monday, October 04, 2021 and accessed on Saturday, March 11, 2023

  31. Ducom G, Gautier M, Pietraccini M, Tagutchou JP, Lebouil D, Gourdon R (2020) Comparative analyses of three olive mill solid residues from different countries and processes for energy recovery by gasification. Renewable Energy 145:180–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wolfram S, Mathematica, (1991) A system for doing mathematics by computer, 2nd edn. Addisson-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  33. Al-Malah KIM, Aspen Plus®, (2016) Chemical engineering applications. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bennini MA, Koukouch MA, Bakhtari I, asbik M, Cagnon B, Bonnamy S, (2019) Characterization and combustion of olive pomace in a fixed bed boiler: effect of particle size. Int J Heat Technol 37:229–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Koukouch A, Idlimam A, Asbik M, Sarh B, Izrar B, Bostyn S, Bah A, Ansari O, Zegaoui O, Amine A (2017) Experimental determination of the effective moisture diffusivity and activation energy during convective solar drying of olive pomace waste. Renewable Energy 101:565–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Koukouch A, Idlimam A, Asbik M, Sarh B, Izrar B, Bostyn S, Bah A, Ansari O (2017) Thermophysical characterization and mathematical modeling of convective solar drying of raw olive pomace. Energy Conversion and Management 221–230

  37. Hatem Dhaouadi (2011) Habilitation : Les procédés de gazéification. Mounastir science Faculty, pp 20–27, Juillet 2011

  38. Jahirul MI, Rasul MG, Chowdhury AA, Ashwath N (2012) Biofuels production through biomass pyrolysis —a technological review. Energies 5:4952–5001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kastanaki E, Vamvuka D (2006) A comparative reactivity and kinetic study on the combustion of coal-biomass char blends. Fuel 85:1186–1193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Safarian S, Unnthorsson R, Richter C (2020) The equivalence of stoichiometric and non-stoichiometric methods for modeling gasification and other reaction equilibria. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 131:109982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hussain M, Tufa LD, Yusup S, Zabiri H, Taqvi SA (2017) Aspen Plus® simulation studies of steam gasification in fluidized bed reactor for hydrogen production using palm kernel shell. Modeling, Design and Simulation of Systems,17th Asia Simulation Conference, AsiaSim 2017 Melaka, Malaysia, August 27–29

  42. Fremaux S, Beheshti SM, Ghassemi H, Markadeh RS (2015) An experimental study on hydrogen-rich gas production via steam gasification of biomass in a research-scale fluidized bed. Energy Convers Manage 9:427–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pala LPR, Wang Q, Kolb G, Hessel V (2017) Steam gasification of biomass with subsequent syngas adjustment using shift reaction for syngas production: an Aspen Plus model. Renewable Energy 101:484–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Garma R, Binous H, Bellagi A (2022) Supercritical water gasification of Tunisian agricultural waste for energy recovery: comparative thermodynamic study of sustainable H2 rich syngas production using Aspen Plus. The 13th International Renewable Energy Congress (IREC 2022)

  45. Liao C, Summers M, Seiser R, Cattolica R, Herz R (2014) Simulation of a pilot-scale dual-fluidized-bed gasifier for biomass. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 33:732–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Byrd AJ, Pant KK, Gupta RB (2008) Hydrogen production from glycerol by reforming in supercritical water over Ru/Al2O3 catalyst. Fuel 87:2956–2960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Yaghoubi E, Xiong Q, Doranehgard MH, Yeganeh MM, Shahriari G, Bidabadi M (2018) The effect of different operational parameters on Hydrogen rich syngas production from biomass gasification in a dual fluidized bed gasifier. Chemical Engineering and Processing - Process Intensification 126:210–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. González-Vázquez MP, García R, Gil MV, Pevida C, Rubiera F (2013) Comparison of the gasification performance of multiple biomass types in a bubbling fluidized bed. Energy Convers Manage 176:309–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Dang D, Zhang X, Zhou Y, Jia X (2021) Prediction and optimization of syngas production from a kinetic-based biomass gasification process model. Fuel Process Technol 212:106604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Miaomiao N, Yaji H, Baosheng J, Xinye W (2013) Simulation of syngas production from municipal solid waste gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed using Aspen Plus. Ind Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 52:14768–14775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Binous H, Aheed A, Hossain MM (2016) Haber process and steam coal gasification: two standard thermodynamic problems elucidated using two distinct approaches. Comput Appl Eng Educ 24:58–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tilouche R, Garma R, Binous H, Bellagi A (2023) Tunisian olive pomace steam gasification for production of syngas: a thermodynamic study using MATHEMATICA© and ASPEN-PLUS®. Design and Modeling of Mechanical Systems - V. CMSM 2021. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Cham

  53. Sikarwar V, Zhao M (2017) Biomass gasification. Encyclopedia of Sustainable Technologies 3:1–14

  54. Zeng J, Xiao R, Zeng R, Zhao Y, Zhang H, Shen D (2016) High H2/CO ratio syngas production from chemical looping gasification of sawdust in a dual fluidized bed gasifier. Energy Fuels 30:1764–1770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ravaghi-Ardebili Z, Manenti F, Pirola C, Soares F, Corbetta M, Pierucci S, Ranzi E (2014) Influence of the effective parameters on H2:CO ratio of syngas at low-temperature gasification. Chem Eng Trans 37:253–258. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1437043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hashmi S, Taqvi SAAA, Abideen Z, Ahmed JP, Talha M, Bhatti MA, Shahid H, Naqvi SR, Almomani F (2022) Simulation of steam gasifcation of halophyte biomass for syngas production using Aspen Plus®. Biomass Conversion and Biorefnery. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02429-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Siddiqui MZ, Sheraz M, Toor UA, Anus A, Mahmood A, Haseeb M, Ibrahim M, Khoo KS, Devadas VV, Mubashir M, Ullah S, Show PL (2022) Recent approaches on the optimization of biomass gasifcation process parameters for product H2 and syngas ratio: a review. Environment, Development and Sustainability.

  58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02279-6

  59. Sarafraz MM, Safaei MR, Jafarian M, Goodarzi M, Arjomandi M (2019) High quality syngas production with supercritical biomass gasification integrated with a water–gas shift reactor. Energies 12:2591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Ostadi M, Rytter E, Hillestad M (2019) Boosting carbon efficiency of the biomass to liquid process with hydrogen from power: the effect of H2/CO ratio to the Fischer-Tropsch reactors on the production and power consumption. Biomass Bioenerg 127:105282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ciferno JP, Marano JJ (2002) Benchmarking biomass gasification technologies for fuels, chemicals and hydrogen production. U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory, June 2002.

  62. Babatabar MA, Saidi M (2021) Hydrogen production via integrated configuration of steam gasification process of biomass and water-gas shift reaction: process simulation and optimization. Int J Energy Res 14:19378–19394

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Energy Engineering Department, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Monastir - ENIM, University of Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia

    Rim Tilouche & Ahmed Bellagi

  2. Physics Department, Higher School of Science and Technology of Hammam Sousse, University of Sousse, Sousse, Tunisia

    Raoudha Garma

  3. Chemical Engineering Department, National Institute of Applied Sciences & Technology, University of Carthage, Tunis, Tunisia

    Housam Binous

Authors
  1. Rim Tilouche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raoudha Garma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Housam Binous
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmed Bellagi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raoudha Garma.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

We confirm that this manuscript has not covered any aspect of the work involving either laboratory animals or human patients. We further confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of intellectual property associated with this work and that there are no impediments to publication, including the timing of publication, with respect to intellectual property. In so doing, we confirm that we have followed the regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual property.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Highlights

• A non-stoichiometric equilibrium model for biomass gasification process is developed.

• Model results using Mathematica© and Aspen-Plus® process simulator are compared with experimental and numerical data from literature for validation purposes.

• Sensitivity analysis of Tunisian olive pomace gasification studying the effect of temperature, pressure, and steam to biomass ratio on the hydrogen/syngas production and composition is conducted.

• At a temperature of 1000 K, steam/biomass molar ratio \(r\) of 0.5, and \(P =1\) bar, a syngas with a (H2 + CO) molar fraction of 81% is obtained at equilibrium.

Appendix. Mathematica © calculation procedure

Appendix. Mathematica © calculation procedure

The solution steps involved in the proposed Mathematica© approach are listed below:

  • Define the ultimate analysis (in mol%) of the biomass.

  • Declare SRK EoS interaction parameters for biomass gasification products.

  • Choose the operating conditions \((P,T)\).

  • Define the ideal gas contribution to the Gibbs free energy, the cubic equation for the compressibility factor, \({Z}_{v}\), the residual Gibbs free energy, and the Gibbs free energy for solids. Sum all contributions to get the overall Gibbs free energy, \({G}_{tot}\).

  • Minimize the total Gibbs free energy with respect to the mole numbers of the equilibrium species using the Mathematica© build-in function, FindMinimum.

Temperature effect (for \(T\) between 800 and 2000 K) by fixed pressure.

figure a

Pressure effect (for \(P\) between \(1\) and \(240\) bars) by fixed temperature.

figure b

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tilouche, R., Garma, R., Binous, H. et al. Valorization of Tunisian olive pomace by steam gasification: thermodynamic study using Mathematica© and Aspen-plus®. Biomass Conv. Bioref. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-023-04167-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-023-04167-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation