Energy 244 (2022) 123103

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Energetic and environmental assessment of oil sludge use in a gasifier/

gas microturbine system
York Castillo Santiago a, *, Aldemar Martínez Gonza

lez b, Osvaldo J. Venturini c,
Leandro A. Sphaier a, Eric A. Ocampo Batlle d
a
Laboratory of Thermal Sciences (LATERMO), Department of Mechanical Engineering (TEM/PGMEC), Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), Rua Passo da
Pa
tria 156, Nitero

i, RJ, Brazil
b
Centro de Innovacio
n y Tecnología e Instituto Colombiano del Petro

leo (ICP - Ecopetrol S.A). Gerencia de Desarrollo y Transferencia Tecnolo

gica Km 7, vía
Piedecuesta, Santander, Colombia
c
Núcleo de Excel^encia em Geraça ~o Termel
etrica e Distribuída (NEST), Instituto de Engenharia Meca ^nica, Universidade Federal de Itajuba
, Av. BPS 1303,
Itajuba
, MG, Brazil
d
Centro de Excel^encia em Efici^ encia Energ
etica (EXCEN), Universidade Federal, Av. BPS 1303, Itajuba
, MG, Brazil

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

Article history: An energetic and environmental assessment of producer gas production from oil sludge (OS) gasification
Received 9 September 2021 and an analysis of its potential use for electricity generation has been performed. A computational model
Received in revised form of OS gasification was developed and two gasification agent (oxygen and air/steam mixture) cases were
26 December 2021
analyzed. To determine the energy recovery potential of OS, a computational model involving a gas
Accepted 2 January 2022
Available online 5 January 2022
microturbine powered with the producer gas from OS gasification was developed. Results showed that
oxygen gasification produced a gas LHV (11.1e7.2 MJ/Nm3) higher than air/steam gasification (9.9e3.8
MJ/Nm3). These differences influenced the microturbine electricity generation index values, which
Keywords:
Oil sludge
ranged from 0.423 to 0.407 kWh/kg-OS with oxygen, and from 0.42 to 0.393 kWh/kg-OS, using air/steam
Gasification mixtures. For environmental impacts estimation of gasification/gas-microturbine integration, eight
Life cycle assessment environmental impact categories were assessed by using the Life Cycle Assessment methodology. Among
Gas microturbine these, oxygen gasification showed higher reductions in comparison to air/steam gasification, in the non-
Electricity generation renewable energy (77%), respiratory organics (85%), and carcinogens (85%) categories. When energy
recovery from syngas was considered, both cases have a lower carbon footprint (379e569 kg CO2-eq/ton
OS) than incineration process (1045 kg CO2-eq/ton OS), which indicates that gasification system is an
environmentally attractive option for OS treatment.
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction centrifugation, solvent extraction, pyrolysis, and biodegradation

[2]. However, there are some uncertainties related to the sustain-
The refining and petrochemical industry uses huge amounts of ability of these technological alternatives, since none of them was
raw materials and non-renewable resources, which leads to sig- evaluated in terms of their potential environmental impact asso-
nificant energy and water consumption with large amounts of solid ciated with the operating process. On the other hand, recovering
waste and liquid effluents generation [1]. One of the hazardous useful by-products of the OS treatment process could be an option
solid wastes generated in oil and gas industries correspond to oil for reducing the solid waste amounts that will require final disposal
sludge (OS), which should be properly managed to avoid environ- [3]. Oil fractions recovery from oily waste is one of the primary
mental and human health damages. In recent years, different al- methods for OS treatment, which leads to value-added by-product
ternatives have been proposed for OS processing, such as generation. Furthermore, this option enhances refined production
landfarming, incineration, solidification/stabilization, without additional requirements of crude oil, mitigating the fossil
resources demand [4].
Despite the importance of solid waste management from oil and
gas industries, a common problem is that some treatment options
* Corresponding author. can involve environmentally harmful chemicals, as well as being
E-mail address: yorkcastillo@id.uff.br (Y. Castillo Santiago).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123103
0360-5442/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza Energy 244 (2022) 123103

possible to obtain a producer gas with a lower heating value (LHV)

Nomenclature of about 5 MJ/m3 and H2 content of 42.5% (%vol.), considering a H2/
CO and ER ratio of 0.76 and 0.37, respectively. Furthermore, dif-
ferences in gasification temperature (varying from 1250 to 1400 K)
Abbreviations were observed, mainly when gasification pressure was increased
CGE Cold gas efficiency from 10 to 80 atm, due to the endothermic reactions reversibility at
ER Equivalence ratio higher pressures, which is in accordance with Le Chatelier's prin-
GA Gasification agent ciple. Similarly, Beheshti et al. [14] evaluated the extra-heavy oil
LCA Life cycle assessment gasification process using a kinetic model. The results indicated
LCI Life cycle inventory that an ER ratio increasing can lead to a reduction in the syngas
LHV Lower heating value LHV, as well as, a cold-gas efficiency reduction.
OS Oil sludge Gas microturbines are small-scale electricity generators based
SOR Steam to oil sludge ratio on the classical Brayton cycle with regeneration. To reduce oper-
ating costs, these devices employ centrifugal compressors and
Symbols radial turbines with higher rotational speed [15]. While today's
m_ Mass Flow (kg/h) microturbines have the operation flexibility with gas and liquids as
n Mole (kmol) fuels, strict requirements concerning to gases quality that flows
Gt Total Gibbs free energy (kJ) through the components are needed, including solid particles or
V_ Volumetric flow (m3/h) water droplets [16]. It is important to note that gas microturbines
R Gas constant (8.314 kJ/kmol K) can also use producer gas (from previous gasification processes) for
T Temperature (K) their operation, where the hydrogen content leads to higher flame
y Volume fraction (%) velocities and flammability limits in contrast with conventional


fuels [17]. Additionally, recent efforts to design gas microturbines
DGf Gibbs free energy (kJ/mol)
that can operate with hydrogen contents up to 70% have been
carried out [18].
Herazo et al. [19] performed a thermodynamic analysis of a
relatively expensive [5]. Therefore, there is a clear need to imple- microturbine using producer gas with LHV of 4.69 MJ/Nm3. The
ment alternative methods for OS treatment based on thermal results showed that by increasing the compression ratio, the ther-
processes, such as combustion, pyrolysis, and gasification. In these modynamic performance of the power generation system can be
processes, a significant production of gaseous and liquid fuels with improved, while the largest portion of exergy destruction occurs in
a considerable hydrocarbon content are expected [6]. Gasification the combustion chamber. The employment of different blends of
comprises a thermochemical process that modifies the fuel chem- producer gas and natural gas in microturbine was investigated by
ical structures at high temperatures (over 700
C) by using gasifi- Corre^a et al. [20]. The outcome indicated that the efficiency de-
cation agents (GA) such as air, oxygen, steam, carbon dioxide, or creases by 13% when the fuel changes from pure natural gas (LHV of
mixtures between them, producing a rich syngas in hydrogen, 41.1 MJ/Nm3) to natural gas and producer gas (LHV of 26.82 MJ/
carbon monoxide and methane [7]. As syngas (commonly known as Nm3) blending of 1:1. On the other hand, despite the fuel compo-
producer gas) is produced, it could be directly used as a raw ma- sition changes, significant variations in the turbine outlet temper-
terial in refineries or other chemical processes. Other advantages, ature there were not observed. Amaro et al. [21] conducted an
that should be highlighted are the low operating costs of gasifica- energy analysis of the producer gas usage in microturbines with
tion process and the energy recovery from its products, such as regenerators, which are built with different matrix materials. The
electricity generation and liquid fuel production through Fischer- authors concluded that gas microturbines with ceramic re-
Tropsch synthesis [8,9]. generators can lead to higher combustion temperatures, resulting
A recent study regarding OS gasification was conducted by Chu in better energy performance.
et al. [10], who experimentally investigated the gasification process A standardized methodology like Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
at different temperatures (between 600
C and 900
C) with steam/ for evaluating the potential environmental impacts of thermo-
oil sludge (SOS) ratios of 0.1:1, 0.3:1, and 0.5:1. The results indicated chemical conversion processes of solid waste and power generation
that the maximum H2 yield was 48.50 mL min1 g1 at 800
C and systems could be used [22]. The LCA is described as a methodology
SOS ¼ 0.3:1, while the range of particle size of the produced char for the estimation of the environmental performance associated
was 85e120 mm. In another investigation, Sun et al. [11] studied the with all stages in the product life cycle, including the extraction of
temperature effect on gasification process of petrochemical sludge. raw materials through production, distribution, use, preservation,
The authors considered temperature range from 1100 to 1400
C final disposal, or materials recycling [23]. Therefore, the LCA is a
and different atmospheres (N2, CO2, and steam) for gasification decision-support method for environmental management of
process. The results showed that CO and H2 yield decreased when different productive chains, as well as oil and gas industries, being
the gasification temperature was higher than 1200
C. However, for especially useful for assessing both direct and indirect greenhouse
values close to 1400
C a high-density slag was obtained and FeO gas (GHG) emissions linked to the products, byproducts, and pro-
formation in the slag under atmospheric conditions of 40 vol% N2 cesses [24]. According to the ISO 14040/44, the LCA methodology is
and 60 vol% CO2 was observed. carried out through four stages: i) purpose and scope definition, ii)
Computational modeling of gasification processes can provide life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis, iii) life cycle impact assessment
useful guidance for the operational parameters' influence over the (LCIA), and iv) interpretation of results [25]. The LCA methodology
producer gas quality and its energy recovery potential. In addition, has been used for the environmental performance assessment of
computational models could also contribute to the gasifier design the thermochemical conversion process of biomass and several
improvement by providing information at extreme operational residual materials (municipal solid wastes, petroleum wastes, in-
conditions, for which experimental tests are usually difficult to dustrial wastes, among others), especially for first-generation liquid
perform [12]. Vaezi et al. [13] studied heavy oil gasification with O2 and gaseous biofuels [26,27].
as GA by using an equilibrium model. The authors showed that it is Therefore, this paper aims to analyze OS gasification as a
2

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza Energy 244 (2022) 123103

technological alternative for the management of oily waste pro-  The process regime is steady state.
duced in petroleum refineries, with the simultaneous generation of  Pressure and temperature are uniform throughout the reactors.
value-added by-products like power electricity. For sustainability  Pyrolysis occurs instantaneously.
evaluation of OS gasification process, environmental aspects were  All reactions reach chemical equilibrium.
considered and compared with the current practices of OS treat-  Ash is an inert compound and char is treated as graphitic carbon.
ment and final disposals, such as landfill and incineration. In this  The formation of tar and heavy hydrocarbons is negligible.
work, the OS gasification process was approached through a  The process is adiabatic (negligible heat losses).
simulation model developed on Aspen Plus™ software, where two  The gasifier operating pressure is 1.0 atm.
distinct GA were used (oxygen and air/steam mixtures). After  OS is collected at the bottom of the fuel tank bottom.
validating the simulation method, different OS gasification pa-  Gasification agents (O2 and air/steam) are produced at crude oil
rameters (producer gas yield, cold gas efficiency, gasification tem- refinery facilities, where OS residues are being generated.
perature, producer gas composition, and LHV) were assessed. In  Energy requirements for the OS gasification process are pro-
order to determine the energy recovery potential from OS ther- vided from crude oil refinery facilities. Eventually, the energy
mochemical conversion, an analysis of producer gas usage in a gas demand of the gasification system and gasifying agents is sup-
microturbine through GateCycle™ computational tool was per- plied by the energy recovered from producer gas.
formed, including an evaluation of the electricity generation index
and the microturbine components performance. Finally, potential The OS gasification process is modeled using four subsystems:
environmental impacts from the integrated gasification-power (i) pyrolysis, (ii) oxidation, (iii) reduction, and (iv) treatment of the
generation systems were estimated. Some impact categories produced gas. In the process flow diagram shown in Fig. 1, the oil
related to human health and ecosystem quality, climate change, sludge stream (OILSLU) initially enters the pyrolysis or devolatili-
carbon footprint, and energy indicators were calculated by using zation subsystem (composed by the R1 reactor), where it is con-
the LCA methodology through SimaPro™ software. In a general verted into small molecules and char. The R1 step simulates the
way, this work provides an energy performance study, a holistic devolatilization of the OILSLU stream, through a routine developed
inventory, and a life cycle analysis of OS thermochemical conver- in Fortran, which is based on ultimate and proximate analysis of the
sion and power generation. It is important to point out that, from fuel [32]. This step produces the PYROL stream, which is composed
the reviewed literature, there are no available studies associated of ash, moisture, and elements, such as C, H2, O2, N2, and S.
with energy recovery and its environmental performance from OS Subsequently, the PYROL stream is separated in the S1 separator,
residues treatment, thus emphasizing the novelty of the current where the VOLAT stream contains the volatiles produced, as well as
contribution. the CHAR stream, which is composed of the non-reacting char
fraction. In the oxidation subsystem, the constituents of the VOLAT
stream (composed of volatiles and a fraction of char) and that
2. OS gasification and gas microturbine
corresponding to the gasification agents (AGENT) are fed to reactor
R2 e a Gibbs reactor used to establish the composition of chemical
2.1. Description of gasification model
balance between reagents and products.
The oxidation products (OXIDA) and the non-converted char
For the development of the gasification model, the software
from the pyrolysis (CHAR) enter the R3 reactor located in the
Aspen Plus™ v.11.0 was selected. This tool consists of a process
reduction subsystem, which, by minimizing Gibbs free energy,
simulator that offers a comprehensive thermodynamic database for
adjusts the composition of the producer gas (REDUC). The REDUC
the calculation of physical properties for oil, gas, and the petro-
stream then enters cyclone S2, which has the function of separating
chemical industry in general [28]. This software allows the use of
the solid and ash fractions (ASHES) present in the gas, producing
models that include reactors, distillation columns, rotating equip-
the HOTGAS stream, which is subsequently cooled to 25
C in the
ment, and controllers, both in steady-state and transient regimes
HE1 cooler. Finally, the moisture and undesirable chemical com-
[29]. It is possible to define chemical and physical properties,
pounds (RESID) present in the COLDGAS stream are separated in
chemical compounds, non-conventional (hypothetical) com-
the component S3, yielding the producer gas (SYNGAS stream). The
pounds, interaction parameters, reactions, and tabulated data
reactions considered for the OS gasification process are presented
within a file [30]. Since oil sludge is a non-conventional compound,
in Table 2.
its physicochemical characterization becomes necessary. This
The operation of reactors R2 and R3 is based on the method of
characterization procedure was performed at the laboratories of
Gibbs free energy minimization, which means that the total Gibbs
the Federal University of Itajuba
(UNIFEI), and their results are
free energy of the system is minimum when the thermodynamic
shown in Table 1.
equilibrium is reached [33], as indicated by the objective function
Considering the OS properties and the type of process involved
(Gt ) in the following equation:
in the simulations (gasification), the Peng-Robinson equation of
state was chosen for calculating the thermodynamic properties of
the streams, as it can deal with pseudo-components and hydro- Table 1
carbons with high molecular weight [31]. Oil sludge characterization.

Parameter Composition Standard

2.1.1. Assumptions in gasification model Low heating value 17.50 MJ/kg ASTM D5865-13
The first step for developing the gasification model involves Ash 43.22% ASTM D5865-13
defining the parameters related to the inlet streams, comprising the Volatiles 48.22%
Moisture 6.34%
oil sludge and the gasification agent. Subsequently, process condi-
Fixed carbon 8.56%
tions, such as chemical compounds, equipment, flows, and pa- C 20.67% ASTM D5373-08
rameters required for each of the subsystems involved in the H 2.16%
gasification process are defined. This is accomplished by consid- O 32.25%
ering the following assumptions while developing the equilibrium N 0.01%
S 1.69%
model:
3

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza Energy 244 (2022) 123103

Fig. 1. OS gasification process.

Alternatively, when steam is used as the GA, the parameter known

X
N X
N   as steam/oil sludge ratio (SOR) is used to characterize the process.

ni
t
G ¼ ni DGf ;i þ ni RT ln (1) The SOR is defined as the ratio between the mass flow rates of
i¼1 i¼1
n tot
steam and OS. Thus, the amount of steam to be used in the process

is calculated by
where, DGf ;i corresponds to standard Gibbs free energy of forma-
tion for each chemical species, is the molar number of each m_ steam ¼ ðm_ OS $SORÞ  moisture (4)
different species, ntot is the total molar amount, R and T represent
the ideal gas constant and system temperature, respectively. As the where m_ steam represents the steam flow rate supplied to the gasi-
objective function Gt is minimized, the molar number of the gas fication process. The recommended values for the SOR range from
components (ni ), at thermodynamic equilibrium, are calculated. 0.2 to 1.0 kg steam/kg OS to favor the reactions of steam-methane
Consequently, the gas chemical composition, including the CO, H2, reforming and water-gas shift [34].
and CH4 content can be determined. The producer gas composition
is then used to calculate its LHV through the relation:
2.1.2. Model validation
Due to the limited amount of technical information from
LHVsyn ¼ yH2 LHVH2 þ yCO LHVCO þ yCH4 LHVCH4 (2) experimental work on oil sludge gasification (especially that
generated at the bottom of fuel oil tanks), it was necessary to adjust
in which LHVsyn and LHVi correspond to the lower heating value of
the proposed gasification model to verify the current methodology
the producer gas and the heating value of each fuel in the gas
and computational implementation. The model was adapted to the
mixture, respectively. Similarly, yi represents the volumetric frac-
thermochemical conversion of extra-heavy oils, such as Ori-
tion of each producer gas component.
mulsion™. Table 3 presents the gasifier operating conditions and
For a more comprehensive analysis of the gasification process,
the characterization of the feedstock used for model verification.
two different gasification agents (O2 and air/steam mixture) were
Table 4 presents a comparison of the results obtained by the
used. When using air or O2 as the GA, it is necessary to consider
simulation model employed in this study and the work developed
different values for ER, which is defined as the ratio between mass
by Ashizawa et al. [35]. The main parameter of the gasification
flow of OS and GA at actual conditions, divided by the same ratio at
performance compared is the volumetric composition of the pro-
stoichiometric conditions:
ducer gas in terms of CO, CO2, H2, CH4, and H2/CO molar ratio in the
    producer gas.

m_ A=m_ m_ O2 m_ As can be seen, the results show no significant differences be-
OS OS
ER ¼   ¼  (3) tween the volumetric fractions of the producer gas obtained in the

m_ A=m_ m_ O2 m_ model and those reported in the experimental work of Ashizawa
OS st OS st et al. [35], resulting in an RMS error of 0.0146, which can be
considered as a validation of the current gasification model.
where m_ A , m_ OS , and m_ O2 are the mass flowrates of air, oil sludge,
and O2, respectively, while suffix st (stoichiometric) indicates the
amount of air or O2 required for the complete combustion of OS. 2.2. Gas microturbine model

Gas microturbine model was developed with the GateCycle™

Table 2 software v6.1.2. The hypotheses used for its development [36] are
Chemical reactions.
stated as:
Stoichiometric chemical reaction Enthalpy (kJ/mol)

RXN1 OS / volatiles þ char e  Steady-state regime.

RXN2 H2þ 1/2O2 / H2O 242  LHV and H2 content on producer gas are greater than 8 MJ/Nm3
RXN3 CO þ 1/2O2 / CO2 238 and lower than 30%, respectively.
RXN4 C þ 1/2O2 / CO 111
 For the combustion chamber products, the maximum temper-
RXN5 C þ O2 / CO2 394
RXN6 C þ CO2 )/ 2CO þ172 ature is 951.2
C.
RXN7 CO þ H2O )/ CO2 þ H2 41  Off-design conditions are contemplated by using the
RXN8 C þ H2O )/ CO þ H2 þ131 compressor map developed in Ref. [37].
RXN9 C þ 2H2 )/ CH4 75  Pressure losses are constant on the cold and hot sides of the
RXN10 CH4 þ H2O )/ CO þ 3H2 þ206
regenerator.
4

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza Energy 244 (2022) 123103

Table 3
Orimulsion™ characterization and operating conditions for model
verification. Source: [35].

Operational parameter Value

ER 0.4
Gasifying agent Oxygen
Oxygen and fuel temperature 298.15 K
Reactor pressure 1.9 MPa
Proximate and ultimate analysis (% w.t dry basis)
Ash 0.25%
C 84.28%
H 10.33%
O 0.55%
N 0.64%
S 3.95%
Ash 0.25%
Volatiles 81.71
Fixed carbon 18.04%
Moisture 28.80%
Fig. 2. Gas microturbine schematic.

Table 4
Comparison between the results obtained in the model and the experimental work.

Parameter Ashizawa et al. This work

H2 39.40% 37.21%
CO 38.70% 40.80%
CO2 8.67% 7.47%
H2O 11.85% 13.32%
CH4 0.08% 0.03%
Other 1.30% 1.03%
H2/CO ratio 1.02 0.91
RMS e 0.0146

A schematic representation of the modeled gas microturbine

cycle is shown in Fig. 2, which includes a compressor (Comp), a
regenerator (Reg), a combustion chamber (Chamb), turbine (Turb),
and an electric generator (Gen).
The gas microturbine considered is a Capstone microturbine
model C200, which at ISO conditions (15
C, sea level, and 60% RH)
produces 200 kW with an efficiency of 33%. This gas microturbine
was chosen because it can be operated with gaseous fuels with both
high and low energy densities, such as landfill gas, producer gas, Fig. 3. Life cycle boundaries of OS conversion cases evaluated.
natural gas, propane, and liquefied petroleum gas. The parameters
used for simulating the gas microturbine components at design
Table 5
conditions are presented in Table 5. Microturbine design parameters.
For simulating the microturbine at off-design conditions, the
Parameter Value
compatibility between mass flowrates, pressure ratios, and
compressor and turbine RPM were taken into consideration. The Pressure ratio on compressor 4.0
non-dimensional map proposed by Zhu and Saravanamuttoo [37] Compressor efficiency 79%
Regenerator effectiveness 85%
was used for determining compressor behavior. The turbine Outlet temperature of gases 280
C
modeling assumes that the turbine nozzle is choked over the en- Chamber combustion efficiency 98%
gine operating range, such that the compressor discharge pressure Turbine efficiency 82.5%
becomes dependent only on the flow characteristics of the turbine Generator efficiency 93.8%
nozzle. Following a directive established by the microturbine
manufacturer (Capstone Turbine) regarding the use of gaseous
fuels different from natural gas (off-design conditions), a maximum effect on global warming and climate change. In this way, potential
fuel flow rate of 230.4 kg/h was employed [36]. environmental impacts for four OS treatment cases were evaluated
and compared.
2.3. Life Cycle Assessment of the integrated gasification/gas The first case corresponds to OS gasification process by using
microturbine system air/steam mixtures as GA. For this case, two scenarios were
considered, simulating the OS gasification process with and
Petrochemical residues generated in the oil refining processes without energy recovery through power generation. Both cases
could be more properly managed, if their energy content were consider similar configurations, but the OS gasification process was
recovered, for example, using a thermochemical conversion pro- carried out with O2 as GA for the case with energy recovery. Finally,
cess. In this sense, electricity generation from an integrated OS for comparison purposes, two different cases of conventional waste
gasification and power generation system, as proposed in this treatment (incineration and landfill) were taken into account [38].
work, could lead to a reduction of GHG emissions, having a positive Incineration is a complete combustion process usually used for

5

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza Energy 244 (2022) 123103

OS treatment, which is performed with excess air and using power) and energy contribution from byproducts, while the total
auxiliary fuels [39]. Usually, rotary kiln incinerators are used, where energy input contains both non-renewable and renewable energy
the combustion temperature may vary from 1250 to 1470 K and the sources used in the whole process, such as fossil fuels, biomass,
residence time is close to 30 min [40]. According to Nabavi- wind, among others. The parameter FER is defined as the fuel en-
Pelesaraei et al. [41], incineration has been widely used for waste ergy output per unit of fossil energy used in the overall production
disposal, as a technological alternative for volume reduction of process.
solid waste to final disposal, with prior energy recovery. On the
other hand, landfill treatment is a biochemical degradation of OS 3. Results and discussion
through its disposal in soil. Due to its low energy consumption and
associated costs, landfill treatment has the potential to treat large The influence of the different gasification agents (O2 and air/
volumes of OS. However, it requires a very large land area, it may be steam mixture) on the producer gas composition, producer gas
ineffective in cold regions, and the degradation times for hydro- yield and LHV, as well as on the gasification temperature were
carbons and other heavy organic fractions are prolonged, with low analyzed. Although authors like Basu [47] recommend ER values
operating yields [42]. greater than 0.2, other experimental works on gasification, e.g. the
The methodology employed for evaluating the environmental developed by Zheng et al. [48], show satisfactory results for ER
performance of the OS conversion for the mentioned cases was values close to 0.1. Therefore, in this study, an ER range between 0.1
based on LCA methodology, and the calculations were accom- and 0.5 was adopted. For the air/steam mixture case, a SOR value of
plished by the SimaPro™ v8.0.3 software. A comparative analysis 1.0 was considered, favoring the production of hydrogen-rich pro-
for the four previously described cases was performed considering ducer gas as reported by Martínez Gonza
lez et al. [34]. Additionally,
the following assumptions: the potential use of producer gas in a gas microturbine was
analyzed and the environmental impacts of the gasifier/gas-
 Scope: an estimation of potential environmental impacts asso- microturbine integrated system were quantified through the LCA
ciated with the OS treatment through a gasification process, methodology.
with the possibility of using the producer gas to generate elec-
tricity in a gas microturbine. 3.1. Gasification temperature
 Purpose: a comparison of the environmental performance of the
integrated gasification and power generation system, consid- Fig. 4 presents the gasification temperature variation with ER for
ering two gasification cases based on different gasification different gasification agents. As one can observe, there is an
agents. increasing trend in the gasification temperature as ER increases, as
 Functional unit: 1.0 ton of oil sludge treated. previously described by Ref. [49]. According to the results, the
 Impact categories: carcinogens, respiratory inorganic and highest temperatures occur for ER ¼ 0.5, corresponding to 750
C
organic compounds, aquatic eutrophication, aquatic and for the O2 gasification case and 693
C for the air/steam mixture
terrestrial acidification, global warming, and non-renewable gasification case, while for ER ¼ 0.1, the same temperatures were
energy consumption as impact categories were evaluated. 495
C and 356
C, respectively. This happens because a greater
Allocation of environmental burdens based on system bound- amount of GA causes the combustion of a larger portion of the fuel,
aries expansion and consequential approaches were also leading to higher gasification temperatures [50].
considered. With regards to the air/steam mixture gasification case, the flow
 System limits: For this study, the OS gasification process, pro- of superheated steam leads to lower internal temperatures of the
ducer gas obtention, cleaning system, and power generation process when compared to the O2 gasification case, due to the
cycle were considered. The Life Cycle boundaries of the evalu- presence of an excess of steam that does not participate in the re-
ated OS conversion cases are shown in Fig. 3. actions. Thus, the balance of endothermic reform reactions is
modified, promoting the formation of reagents in steam methane
reforming and char gasification reactions [51].
2.3.1. Environmental impact evaluation
Life Cycle Assessment allows evaluating the environmental 3.2. Producer gas chemical composition
impacts resulting from system operation (raw materials conversion
and natural resources consumption) and its interaction with the The ER effect on producer gas composition for O2 and the air/
environment through the release of environmentally harmful steam mixture gasification cases are shown in Figs. 5 and 6,
products. In this work, the IMPACT 2002þ V2.11 was assumed as respectively. Fig. 5 shows that the volumetric fraction of H2 in-
the evaluation method for Life Cycle Inventory Analysis (LCIA), creases and reaches a maximum value of 32.9% at an ER of 0.35, and
which allows assessing the environmental emissions based on four then it decreases. This behavior is associated with the shift (RXN7,
endpoints categories: ecosystem quality, climate change, human Table 2) and char hydrogenation reactions (RXN9), which are
health, and resources [43]. General parameters and information exothermic, such that temperatures above 600
C (which corre-
about Life Cycle Inventory of 1 ton oil sludge treated by O2 and air/ spond to ER greater than 0.25 in Fig. 4) favor the formation of the
steam gasification process with energy recovery are presented in reagents of these equilibrium reactions according to the Le Cha ^te-
Table 6. Electricity consumption, raw materials, and the main lier Principle, and therefore, smaller amounts of H2 will be
pollutant emissions from integrated gasification-power generation produced.
systems are considered in the inventory. Additionally, Tables 7 and Fig. 5 also shows that the CO fraction has an increasing trend
8 show the main parameters and life cycle inventory for landfill and [52], rising to a value of 28.4% for an ER of 0.4. The CH4 fraction
incineration as technological alternatives of OS management, decreases as ER increases, dropping from 23.1% to 0.3% in the RE
respectively. range between 0.1 and 0.4, and remaining near zero for ER greater
On the other hand, a Life Cycle Energy Efficiency (LCEE) and than 0.4. This trend agrees with the results reported by Bizkarra
Fossil Energy Ratio (FER) were calculated according to Refs. [45,46]. et al. [53]. For temperatures below 600
C, the presence of CH4 is
LCEE is defined as the ratio of total energy output to total energy favored because the cracking of this light hydrocarbon does not
input. The total energy output comprises useful energy (electrical occur and pyrolysis reactions are favored.
6

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza Energy 244 (2022) 123103

Table 6
Life cycle inventory of 1 ton oil sludge treated by oxygen and air/steam gasification process with energy recovery.

OS Gasification Oxygen e Operation Air/steam e Operation Units Ref.

Product
Oil Sludge Treated 1.0 1.0 Ton This work
Electricity 401.1 406.7 kWh/ton OS
Material/Electricity
Oxygen 65.0 e kg/ton OS This work
Air to Gasification e 126.08 kg/ton OS
Superheated steam e 936.61 kg/ton OS
Air to Gas Microturbine 11.2 10.9 ton/ton OS
Electricity 38.50 38.50 kWh/ton OS [44]
Emissions to air
SO2 11.89 9.18 kg/ton OS This work
H2O 209.58 121.85 kg/ton OS
CO2 778.10 363.66 kg/ton OS
N2 9997.04 9240.82 kg/ton OS
O2 1984.93 2108.91 kg/ton OS
Emissions to water
Effluent 83.37 852.58 kg/ton OS This work
Emissions to soil
Ash 404.78 404.78 kg/ton OS This work

Table 7
Life cycle inventory of 1 ton oil sludge treated by landfill method.

Description Value Units

Oil sludge, treated 1.0 ton OS

Material
Iron (III) chloride 0.103 kg/ton OS
Quicklime, milled 1.75  105 kg/ton OS
Aluminum sulfate 0.0206 kg/ton OS
Sodium hydroxide 9.66  105 kg/ton OS
Electricity/Fuels
Electricity 4.19 kWh/ton OS
Thermal energy (heat) 1.87 MJ/ton OS
Emissions to air
Carbon dioxide, fossil 134.34 kg/ton OS
Carbon monoxide, fossil 0.01025 kg/ton OS
Dinitrogen monoxide 0.0025 kg/ton OS
Methane, biogenic 0.0133 kg/ton OS
Methane, fossil 0.0199 kg/ton OS
Nitrogen oxides 0.03507 kg/ton OS
Sulfur oxides 0.0398 kg/ton OS Fig. 4. Gasification temperature for different ER values and gasification agents.
Non-methane volatile organic compound (VOC) 0.0039 kg/ton OS

Source: database from Ecoinvent available in SimaPro™ V8.0.3.

The effect of ER and the SOR value of 1.0 is shown in Fig. 6. When
compared with O2 gasification (Fig. 5), the main change due to the
addition of steam to the gasification process is the drop in the CO
Table 8 fraction and the increase in the H2 fraction. These trends were also
Life cycle inventory of 1 ton oil sludge treated by incineration method. observed in the theoretical-experimental work carried out by
Description Value Units Sharma et al. [54]. In Fig. 6, the maximum H2 fraction was 38.2% for
an ER of 0.2, influenced by reactions RXN7 and RXN8, while the
Oil Sludge treated 1.0 ton
Material
maximum CO fraction was 3.8% at an ER of 0.35.
Calcium chloride 1.66 kg/ton OS
Iron (III) chloride 1.02 kg/ton OS
Quicklime, milled 0.337 kg/ton OS 3.3. Producer gas lower heating value
Sodium hydroxide 2.46 kg/ton OS
Electricity/Fuels Fig. 7 presents the LHV variation with ER for the different
Electricity 7.79 kWh/ton OS
Thermal energy (heat from natural gas) 19.3 GJ/ton OS
gasifying agents employed. As can be seen, an increase in ER will
Emissions to air result in a decrease in producer gas LHV, following the similar
Carbon dioxide, fossil 114.62 kg/ton OS behavior reported by Kumar et al. [55]. This tendency occurs
Carbon monoxide, fossil 0.0121 kg/ton OS because higher ER values lead to an increase in the formation of
Dinitrogen monoxide 0.0036 kg/ton OS
CO2, since the reactions are closer to the condition of complete
Methane, biogenic 0.264 kg/ton OS
Methane, fossil 4.95 kg/ton OS combustion, resulting in decreasing trends for the formation of CH4
Nitrogen oxides 0.026 kg/ton OS and H2, as reported by Ref. [56].
Sulfur oxides 0.00061 kg/ton OS In the case where O2 is used as gasifying agent, the decrease
Water as steam 0.895 m3/ton OS from 11.2 to 6.4 MJ/Nm3 (at an ER range between 0.1 and 0.5) occurs
Source: database from Ecoinvent available in SimaPro™ V8.0.3. due to the increase in oxidant, which contributes to the decom-
position and partial oxidation of OS and subsequent intermediate
products such as CH4. These values are in agreement with the
7

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza Energy 244 (2022) 123103

Fig. 5. Effect of ER on the composition of producer gas obtained using oxygen. Fig. 7. Producer gas LHV at different ER values.

Fig. 6. Effect of ER on the composition of producer gas obtained using air/steam Fig. 8. Producer gas yield at different ER values.
mixture.

3.5. Cold gas efficiency

results reported by Vaezi et al. [13] (between 6 and 14 MJ/Nm3),
where a similar feedstock based on heavy hydrocarbon was treated. The cold-gas efficiency (CGE) of the gasification process was
For the case with air/steam as the GA, a decrease in producer gas calculated considering the values obtained from LHV and producer
LHV was also observed as ER increases, reaching values that are in gas yield, as presented in In Fig. 9. As can be observed, a decrease in
the range of 8.1 and 2.7 MJ/Nm3. As mentioned, the supply of steam CGE as ER increases follows, varying from 31.2% to 26.3%, for the O2
to the gasification process increases the fraction of H2 in the pro- gasification case. This effect occurs because higher supplies of ox-
ducer gas (thermal cracking and reform reactions are favored), but idants favor the production of CO2, contributing to a decrease in the
the producer gas LHV is reduced when compared to O2 gasification content of combustible gases in the producer gas.
due to the dilution of other gases such as CO and CH4. For the air/steam mixture gasification case, a decreasing trend of
CGE as ER increases was also observed, where the presence of ox-
ygen and nitrogen in the air favors oxidation reactions (formation
3.4. Producer gas yield of CO2, CO, and steam) and the effect of dilution, respectively. For an
ER range between 0.15 and 0.25, the air/steam gasification case
Fig. 8 displays the producer gas yield at different ER values. As reached the highest cold-gas efficiency value (31%). The values
one can observe, the producer gas yield has a growing tendency obtained of CGE for the two cases are similar to those presented by
with ER for both gasification cases. The main reason for this Koo et al. [60].
behavior is that increases in ER lead to increases in gasification
temperature, which favors the decomposition and reform of the
compounds present in the OS and, therefore, a greater amount of 3.6. Electricity generation using a gas microturbine
producer gas per fuel mass unit is produced [57,58].
The producer gas yield for the O2 gasification case ranged from Fig. 10 shows the electricity generation and microturbine effi-
0.5 to 0.7 Nm3/kg of OS for ER values between 0.1 and 0.5. For the ciency, for different cases. As seen, feeding the gas microturbine
gasification case with the air/steam mixture as gasifying agent, the with the producer gas from the O2 gasification case, results in an
values of producer gas yield were higher (varying from 0.7 to 1.3 electricity generation index in the range of 0.42 and 0.37 kWh/kg of
Nm3/kg of OS), because of the steam addition, which favors the OS, whereas operating with the producer gas from the air/steam
decomposition of the heavier compounds present in the OS [59]. gasification case, the electricity generation index ranged from 0.42
8

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza Energy 244 (2022) 123103

Fig. 9. Cold gas efficiency at different ER values.

Fig. 11. Compressor pressure ratio and turbine expansion ratio.

turbine nozzle. Since the turbine expansion ratios obtained were

very close (between 2.83 and 2.64) when considering the producer
gas of the two cases, a small variation in the compressor pressure
ratio was obtained, which changes from 2.94 to 2.75 and 2.91 to
2.81, for producer gas from the O2 and air/steam mixtures gasifi-
cation cases, respectively.
In order to satisfy decreases in pressure ratios, the compressor
must operate at lower RPMs. Thus, when the microturbine was
operated using the producer gas obtained in the O2 gasification
case, the compressor speed varied from 51,656 to 49,909 rpm, as
shown in Fig. 12. On other hand, by using the producer gas from air/
steam mixtures gasification case, the compressor speed lies be-
tween 51,214 and 50,249 rpm. Although the presented RPM values
were close, it is important to mention that these values represent a
considerable drop when compared to the 60,000 rpm of the speed
at the design point.
Fig. 10. Electricity generation and microturbine efficiency.
It is also possible to observe that the use of the producer gas
obtained in the two gasification cases leads to values very close to
to 0.39 kWh/kg of OS. For the operation of the microturbine with speed and pressure ratio in the compressor. Therefore, the isen-
producer gas, the constraints described in section 2.2 ought to be tropic efficiency of the compressor also varied similarly for the two
considered. It was not possible to use the producer gas obtained cases as also shown in Fig. 12, decreasing from 79.0 to 77.4% and
under certain gasification conditions (for ER values greater than from 78.5 to 77.7% for the O2 and air/steam cases, respectively.
0.25) since in these conditions the producer gas has an LHV <8 MJ/ Next, Fig. 13 presents the calculated derating due to the change
Nm3, which can lead to unstable operation of the gas microturbine of conventional fuel (natural gas) to producer gas, which was
[61]. As also seen in as seen in Fig. 10, the efficiencies of the gas quantified through the approach developed by Efendy and Nurhadi
microturbine running with producer gas obtained in the two cases [63]. For the sake of determining the microturbine derating, a
are very close. This behavior is mainly caused by the similarity in baseline case was established, corresponding to the gas micro-
the producer gas chemical energy, such that the use of producer gas turbine operating at the design point and using natural gas as fuel
in the air/steam mixture cases leads to microturbine efficiency (Table 5). The power produced in the baseline case (198 kW) was
values close to each other for the analyzed ER ranges, between compared with the power generated in the two considered cases,
31.3% and 30.8%. for two values of ER, as presented in Fig. 13, which shows a derating
Fig. 11 presents the obtained pressure ratios for the different variation from 35.9 to 38.4% and from 36.4 to 40.9%, for O2 gasifi-
gasification processes. As can be seen, by using producer gas from cation and air/steam mixtures gasification cases, respectively. Air/
the O2 gasification case, the turbine expansion ratio varied from steam gasification showed a greater derating, which is associated
2.83 to 2.64, while for the producer gas obtained in the gasification with the lowest electricity generation indexes in the ER range be-
with the air/steam mixture, the equivalent variation was from 2.79 tween 0.1 and 0.15 (Fig. 10).
to 2.7. As stated in section 2.2, in the developed model, it was
considered that the microturbine always operates at a condition of 3.7. Results of comparative life cycle analysis
nozzle choke-flow, which means there is sonic flow in the nozzle of
the turbine (expander) [62]. Therefore, the compressor discharge As stated in section 2.3, eight impact categories were assessed
pressure becomes dependent on the flow characteristics at the for OS treatment with energy recovery, considering 1 ton of OS
treated as a functional unit. For impact categories analysis, in both

9

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza Energy 244 (2022) 123103

Fig. 12. Compressor efficiency and microturbine rpm. Fig. 14. Impact categories evaluated for OS gasification cases.

Fig. 15. Carbon footprint for conversion cases.

Fig. 13. Gas microturbine derating.

OS treated (663 kg CO2-eq) when compared to the O2 gasification
case (849 kg CO2-eq). Nevertheless, as energy is recovered in the
cases, a value of 100% was allocated for the gasification case (O2 and form of electricity, the carbon footprint could be reduced to 379 and
air/steam) with the highest environmental impact. In this context, 569 kg CO2-eq/ton of OS treated for air/steam and O2 gasification
Fig. 14 shows the impact categories evaluated for the different OS case, respectively, as shown in Figs. 16 and 17. In this way, energy
gasification cases. As one can observe, the air/steam case achieved a recovery through an integrated gasification-power plant could
reduction close to 22%, 17%, and 16% compared to O2 case in the contribute to a reduction close to 43% and 33% in the carbon foot-
impact category of global warming, aquatic acidification, and res- print for air/steam and O2 gasification case, respectively.
piratory inorganics, respectively. This could be explained by GHG Finally, LCEE and FER for both gasification cases were estimated
emissions, NOx, SOx compounds, and particle matter release to air and results are shown in Fig. 18, which displays the energy in-
and water, during oxygen production to gasification process, and dicators for both gasification cases. As seen, a total FER of 0.4 and
producer gas combustion in an integrated gasification-power plant. 1.7 MJ output/MJ input were calculated for both air/steam and O2
The opposite case was observed in other impact categories like gasification cases, respectively. These considerable differences be-
non-renewable energy, respiratory organics, and carcinogens. In tween the two cases could be explained by the higher non-
this case, O2 gasification case showed a reduction of 77%, 85%, and renewable energy consumption for superheated steam produc-
85% in comparison with the air/steam gasification case, respec- tion in air/steam gasification compared to that of the O2 gasification
tively. This reduction is probably associated with the fossil fuel- case. Similar behavior was observed when the LCEE indicator was
based pollutants released to the environment during superheated considered, where values of about 0.3 and 1.2 MJ output/MJ were
steam production, which is used as a raw material in OS thermo- estimated for air/steam and O2 gasification cases, respectively.
chemical conversion.
Fig. 15 shows the carbon footprint for the four OS conversion
4. Summary and conclusions
cases, which are compared with OS conventional treatments such
as landfill and incineration processes. As demonstrated, the air/
This paper presented an energetic and environmental assess-
steam gasification case reached a lower carbon footprint per ton of
ment of producer gas production from oily sludge gasification and

10

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza Energy 244 (2022) 123103

Fig. 16. Specific emissions of CO2-eq for air/steam gasification case with energy recovery.

its potential use for electricity generation in gas microturbines. The producer gas use in the microturbine indicated that the O2
Operational parameters and environmental impacts associated gasification case can lead to higher electricity generation indexes
with gasification of residues produced in the oil industry and the (from 0.423 to 0.407 kW/kg-OS) when compared to the air/steam
potential use of the producer gas generated in a gas microturbine gasification case (from 0.42 to 0.393 kW/kg-OS), mainly due to
were analyzed. In order to assess the OS gasification, a simulation higher producer gas chemical energy. Since the producer gas has a
was implemented in Aspen Plus™. The developed method was lower energy density when compared to natural gas, both cases
validated by comparing the obtained results with data available in presented considerable derating values (between 35.9% and 40.9%),
the literature. The results showed that the producer gas composi- where the highest derating (40.9%) corresponds to the air/steam
tion has similar behavior in the analyzed cases due to the combined gasification case, associated with lower electricity generation in-
effect of the oxidation and reduction reactions that occur in the dexes. However, the gasification/gas microturbine process is an
gasification process. It was also observed that the molar fraction of attractive option for the treatment and energy recovery of OS
H2 increased with the augmentation of ER until reaching a because it has fewer environmental impacts.
maximum value (32.9 vol% for O2 gasification and 38.2% for air/ The oxygen gasification case presented lower impacts in some
steam gasification) and subsequently decreased because shift and categories (non-renewable energy, respiratory organics, and car-
char hydrogenation reactions are limited for larger ER values. The cinogens), while the air/steam gasification case was favorable in
air/steam gasification case presented the lowest values of producer other categories (global warming, aquatic acidification, and respi-
gas LHV, varying from 9.9 to 3.0 MJ/Nm3 in the considered ER range. ratory inorganics). However, both cases reached a lower carbon
This behavior is associated with the addition of steam, which favors footprint per ton of OS treated (663 kg CO2-eq and 849 kg CO2-eq
reform and thermal cracking reactions, obtaining producer gas for air/steam and O2 case, respectively) than other OS treatments
with a lower CO content, while higher ER leads to an increase of N2 such as incineration (1044 kg CO2-eq). It is important to mention
content in the producer gas, which also contributes to the reduction that electricity generation could reduce the carbon footprint to 379
of LHV since it is an inert gas. and 569 kg CO2-eq/ton OS treated for air/steam and O2 gasification,

11

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza Energy 244 (2022) 123103

Fig. 17. Specific emissions of CO2-eq for O2 gasification case with energy recovery.

respectively. Therefore, it could be concluded that gasification

represents a promising technological alternative for the manage-
ment and treatment of oil sludge since it is possible to produce
producer gas, which could be used to generate electricity and at the
same time considerably reduces the environmental impact
compared to other traditional methods of treatment such as
incineration.

Credit author statement

York Castillo Santiago: Writing-Original draft preparation,

Software, Validation. Aldemar Martínez Gonza
lez: Investigation,
Methodology, Formal analysis. Osvaldo J. Venturini: Writing -
Fig. 18. Energy indicators for both OS conversion cases.
Review & Editing, Resources, Project administration. Leandro A.
Sphaier: Visualization, Supervision. Eric A. Ocampo Batlle:
Conceptualization, Data curation.
12

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza Energy 244 (2022) 123103

Declaration of competing interest j.applthermaleng.2018.09.123.

[21] Amaro J, Mendiburu AZ, de Carvalho JA. Thermodynamic study of syngas
combustion in gas microturbines with regeneration composed with metallic
The authors declare that they have no known competing and ceramic materials. Appl Therm Eng 2019;157:113285. https://doi.org/
financial interests or personal relationships that could have 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.01.105.
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. [22] Ocampo Batlle EA, Castillo Santiago Y, Venturini OJ, Escobar Palacio JC, Silva
Lora EE, Yepes Maya DM, et al. Thermodynamic and environmental assess-
ment of different scenarios for the insertion of pyrolysis technology in palm
Acknowledgments oil biorefineries. J Clean Prod 2020;250:119544. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.119544.
[23] Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Kaab A, Hosseini-Fashami F, Mostashari-Rad F, Chau K-
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the financial W. Life cycle assessment (LCA) approach to evaluate different waste man-
support provided by ANEEL (project: PD-00553-0048/2017), PET- agement opportunities. In: Singh RP, Prasad V, Barkha V, editors. Adv. Waste-
to-Energy technol. first ed. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press; 2019. p. 195e216.
ROBRAS, CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and to the Human Resources Pro- [24] Mostashari-Rad F, Ghasemi-Mobtaker H, Taki M, Ghahderijani M, Kaab A,
gram of the ANP (PRH-ANP n
51.1 and 46.1). Chau K wing, et al. Exergoenvironmental damages assessment of horticultural
crops using ReCiPe2016 and cumulative exergy demand frameworks. J Clean
Prod 2021;278:123788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123788.
References [25] Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Azadi H, Van Passel S, Saber Z, Hosseini-Fashami F,
Mostashari-Rad F, et al. Prospects of solar systems in production chain of
[1] Han Y, Wu H, Geng Z, Zhu Q, Gu X, Yu B. Review: energy efficiency evaluation sunflower oil using cold press method with concentrating energy and life
of complex petrochemical industries. Energy 2020;203:117893. https:// cycle assessment. Energy 2021;223:120117. https://doi.org/10.1016/
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117893. j.energy.2021.120117.
[2] Hu G, Feng H, He P, Li J, Hewage K, Sadiq R. Comparative life-cycle assessment [26] Dovichi Filho FB, Castillo Santiago Y, Silva Lora EE, Escobar Palacio JC, Almazan
of traditional and emerging oily sludge treatment approaches. J Clean Prod del Olmo OA. Evaluation of the maturity level of biomass electricity genera-
2020;251:119594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119594. tion technologies using the technology readiness level criteria. J Clean Prod
[3] Chu Z, Gong Z, Wang Z, Zhang H, Wu J, Wang Z, et al. Experimental study on 2021;295:126426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126426.
kinetic characteristics of oil sludge gasification. Asia Pac J Chem Eng 2021;16: [27] Venturini OJ, Corre ^a Furtado Júnior J, Escobar Palacio JC, Ocampo Batlle EA,
1e11. https://doi.org/10.1002/apj.2616. Carvalho M, Silva Lora EE. Indicators for sustainability assessment of biofuel:
[4] Hu G, Li J, Hou H. A combination of solvent extraction and freeze thaw for oil economic, environmental, social and technological dimensions. In: Ren J,
recovery from petroleum refinery wastewater treatment pond sludge. Scipioni A, Manzardo A, Liang H, editors. Biofuels a more sustain. Futur. first
J Hazard Mater 2015;283:832e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/ ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2019. p. 550.
j.jhazmat.2014.10.028. [28] AspenTech. Aspen - process simulation for chemicals. 2018.
[5] Chen G, Cheng C, Zhang J, Sun Y, Hu Q, Qu C, et al. Synergistic effect of sur- [29] Lan W, Chen G, Zhu X, Wang X, Liu C, Xu B. Biomass gasification-gas turbine
factant and alkali on the treatment of oil sludge. J Petrol Sci Eng 2019;183: combustion for power generation system model based on ASPEN PLUS. Sci
106420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106420. Total Environ 2018;628e629:1278e86. https://doi.org/10.1016/
[6] Zhao C, Li Y, Gan Z, Nie M. Method of smoldering combustion for refinery oil j.scitotenv.2018.02.159.
sludge treatment. J Hazard Mater 2021;409:124995. https://doi.org/10.1016/ [30] Al-malah K. Aspen Plus: chemical engineering applications. first ed. New
j.jhazmat.2020.124995. Jersey: Wiley Online Library; 2016.
[7] Hanchate N, Ramani S, Mathpati CS, Dalvi VH. Biomass gasification using dual [31] Haydary J. Chemical process design and simulation: aspen Plus and aspen
fluidized bed gasification systems: a review. J Clean Prod 2021;280:123148. hysys applications. first ed. Wiley; 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123148. [32] Tungalag A, Lee B, Yadav M, Akande O. Yield prediction of MSW gasification
[8] Widjaya ER, Chen G, Bowtell L, Hills C. Gasification of non-woody biomass: a including minor species through ASPEN plus simulation. Energy 2020;198:
literature review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;89:184e93. https://doi.org/ 117296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117296.
10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.023. [33] Rupesh S, Muraleedharan C, Arun P. ASPEN plus modelling of airesteam
[9] Watson J, Zhang Y, Si B, Chen W-T, de Souza R. Gasification of biowaste: a gasification of biomass with sorbent enabled CO2 capture. Resour Technol
critical review and outlooks. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;83:1e17. 2016;2:94e103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reffit.2016.07.002.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.003. [34] Martínez Gonza
lez A, Silva Lora EE, Escobar Palacio JC, Almaza
n del Olmo OA.
[10] Chu Z, Gong Z, Wang Z, Zhang H, Liu L, Wu J, et al. Experimental study on Hydrogen production from oil sludge gasification/biomass mixtures and po-
gasification of oil sludge with steam and its char characteristic. J Hazard Mater tential use in hydrotreatment processes. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43:
2021;416:125713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125713. 7808e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.025.
[11] Sun J, Xing X, He Y, Wang Y, Chen J, Zhu Y. Experimental study on high- [35] Ashizawa M, Hara S, Kidoguchi K, Inumaru J. Gasification characteristics of
temperature gasification and melting characteristics of the pyrolysis residue extra-heavy oil in a research-scale gasifier. Energy 2005;30:2194e205.
from petrochemical sludge. Fuel 2021;296:120680. https://doi.org/10.1016/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2004.08.023.
j.fuel.2021.120680. [36] Castillo Santiago Y, Martínez Gonza
lez A, Venturini OJ, Yepes Maya DM.
[12] Sharma P, Gupta B, Pandey M, Singh Bisen K, Baredar P. Downdraft biomass Assessment of the energy recovery potential of oil sludge through gasification
gasification: a review on concepts, designs analysis, modelling and recent aiming electricity generation. Energy 2021;215:119210. https://doi.org/
advances. Mater Today Proc 2021;46:5333e41. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 10.1016/j.energy.2020.119210.
j.matpr.2020.08.789. [37] Zhu P, Saravanamuttoo HIH. Simulation of an advanced twin-spool industrial
[13] Vaezi M, Passandideh-Fard M, Moghiman M, Charmchi M. Gasification of gas turbine. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 1992;114:180e5. https://doi.org/
heavy fuel oils: a thermochemical equilibrium approach. Fuel 2011;90: 10.1115/1.2906568.
878e85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2010.10.011. [38] Cherubini F, Bargigli S, Ulgiati S. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste man-
[14] Beheshti SM, Ghassemi H, Shahsavan-Markadeh R. A comprehensive study on agement strategies: landfilling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy
gasification of petroleum wastes based on a mathematical model. Petrol Sci 2009;34:2116e23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.08.023.
Technol 2014;32:2674e81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2014.923455. [39] Johnson OA, Affam AC. Petroleum sludge treatment and disposal: a review.
[15] Fershalov AY, Fershalov YY, Fershalov MY. Principles of designing gas Environ Eng Res 2019;24:191e201. https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2018.134.
microturbine stages. Energy 2021;218:119488. https://doi.org/10.1016/ [40] Zhou L, Jiang X, Liu J. Characteristics of oily sludge combustion in circulating
j.energy.2020.119488. fluidized beds. J Hazard Mater 2009;170:175e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
[16] Kone cn
a E, Teng SY, M
asa V. New insights into the potential of the gas j.jhazmat.2009.04.109.
microturbine in microgrids and industrial applications. Renew Sustain Energy [41] Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Bayat R, Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Afrasyabi H, Chau K
Rev 2020;134:110078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110078. wing. Modeling of energy consumption and environmental life cycle assess-
[17] Fareeza N, Tan ES, Kumaran P, Indra TM, Fadzilah N, Yoshikawa K. Evaluating ment for incineration and landfill systems of municipal solid waste man-
the effect of syngas composition on micro gas turbine performance. IOP Conf agement - a case study in Tehran Metropolis of Iran. J Clean Prod 2017;148:
Ser Earth Environ Sci 2016;32:12042. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/32/ 427e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.172.
1/012042. [42] Aguelmous A, El Fels L, Souabi S, Zamama M, Yasri A, Lebrihi A, et al. Petro-
[18] Capstone Turbine Corporation. Capstone turbine corporation announces sig- leum sludge bioremediation and its toxicity removal by landfill in gunder
nificant progress in microturbine hydrogen testing3. Capstone Green Energy; semi-arid conditions. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2018;166:482e7. https://doi.org/
2020. June 25, 2021, https://www.capstonegreenenergy.com/info/news/ 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.09.106.
press-releases/detail/3799/. [43] Khanali M, Akram A, Behzadi J, Mostashari-Rad F, Saber Z, Chau K wing, et al.
[19] Diaz Herazo RE, Valencia Ochoa GE, Ruiz YP. Exergoeconomic analysis of a Multi-objective optimization of energy use and environmental emissions for
syngas micro turbine cogeneration system. Chem Eng Trans 2018;65:655e60. walnut production using imperialist competitive algorithm. Appl Energy
https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1865110. 2021;284:116342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116342.
[20] Corre^a PSP, Zhang J, Lora EES, Andrade RV, de Mello e Pinto LR, Ratner A. [44] Martínez Gonz
alez A, Silva Lora EE, Escobar Palacio JC. Syngas production
Experimental study on applying biomass-derived syngas in a microturbine. from oil sludge gasification and its potential use in power generation systems:
Appl Therm Eng 2019;146:328e37. https://doi.org/10.1016/ an energy and exergy analysis. Energy 2019;169:1175e90. https://doi.org/

13

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza Energy 244 (2022) 123103

10.1016/j.energy.2018.11.087. experimental and theoretical study of the gasification of miscanthus bri-

[45] Va
squez MC, Martínez A, Castillo EF, Silva EE. Holistic approach for sustain- quettes in a double-stage downdraft gasifier: syngas, tar, and biochar char-
ability enhancing of hydrotreated aviation biofuels, through life cycle acterization. Energies 2018;11:3225. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11113225.
assessment: a Brazilian case study. J Clean Prod 2019;237:117796. https:// [55] Kumar A, Jones DD, Hanna MA. Thermochemical biomass gasification: a re-
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117796. view of the current status of the technology. Energies 2009;2:556e81. https://
[46] Malça J, Freire F. Renewability and life-cycle energy efficiency of bioethanol doi.org/10.3390/en20300556.
and bio-ethyl tertiary butyl ether (bioETBE): assessing the implications of [56] Khosasaeng T, Suntivarakorn R. Effect of equivalence ratio on an efficiency of
allocation. Energy 2006;31:3362e80. https://doi.org/10.1016/ single throat downdraft gasifier using RDF from municipal solid waste. Energy
j.energy.2006.03.013. Proc 2017;138:784e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.10.066.
[47] Basu P. Gasification theory and modeling of gasifiers. In: Basu P, editor. [57] Richardson Y, Drobek M, Julbe A, Blin J, Pinta F. Biomass gasification to pro-
Biomass gasif. Pyrolysis pract. Des. first ed. Boston: Academic Press; 2010. € cker M, Sukumaran R, editors. Recent
duce syngas. In: Pandey A, Bhaskar T, Sto
p. 117e65. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374988-8.00005-2. adv. Thermo-chemical convers. Biomass. first ed. Boston: Elsevier; 2015.
[48] Zheng J-L, Zhu M-Q, Wen J-L, Sun R. Gasification of bio-oil: effects of equiv- p. 213e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63289-0.00008-9.
alence ratio and gasifying agents on product distribution and gasification [58] Upadhyay DS, Sakhiya AK, Panchal K, Patel AH, Patel RN. Effect of equivalence
efficiency. Bioresour Technol 2016;211:164e72. https://doi.org/10.1016/ ratio on the performance of the downdraft gasifier e an experimental and
j.biortech.2016.03.088. modelling approach. Energy 2019;168:833e46. https://doi.org/10.1016/
[49] Ma Z, Ye J, Zhao C, Zhang Q. Gasification of rice husk in a downdraft gasifier: j.energy.2018.11.133.
the effect of equivalence ratio on the gasification performance, properties, and [59] Mohd Salleh MA, Nsamba HK, Yusuf HM, Idris A, Karim WAWA, Salleh MAM,
utilization analysis of byproducts of char and tar. Bioresources 2015;10: et al. Effect of equivalence ratio and particle size on EFB char gasification.
2888e902. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.10.2.2888-2902. Energy Sources, Part A Recover Util Environ Eff 2015;37:1647e62. https://
[50] Singh DK, Tirkey JV. Modeling and multi-objective optimization of variable air doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2011.555440.
gasification performance parameters using Syzygium cumini biomass by [60] Kook JW, Choi HM, Kim BH, Ra HW, Yoon SJ, Mun TY, et al. Gasification and tar
integrating ASPEN Plus with Response surface methodology (RSM). Int J removal characteristics of rice husk in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor. Fuel
Hydrogen Energy 2021;46:18816e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 2016;181:942e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.05.027.
j.ijhydene.2021.03.054. [61] Castillo Santiago Y, Yepes Maya DM, Venturini OJ. Evaluacio
n del apro-
[51] Herna
ndez JJ, Aranda G, Barba J, Mendoza JM. Effect of steam content in the vechamiento energe
tico de la borra de Petro
leo a trave

s de un conjunto
airesteam flow on biomass entrained flow gasification. Fuel Process Technol gasificador/microturbina a gas. Ingenio Magno 2021;11:78e92.
2012;99:43e55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2012.01.030. [62] Wang P, Liu Y. Unsteady flow behavior of a steam turbine control valve in the
[52] Mazzoni L, Janajreh I, Elagroudy S, Ghenai C. Modeling of plasma and choked condition: field measurement, detached eddy simulation and acoustic
entrained flow co-gasification of MSW and petroleum sludge. Energy modal analysis. Appl Therm Eng 2017;117:725e39. https://doi.org/10.1016/
2020;196:117001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117001. j.applthermaleng.2017.02.087.
[53] Bizkarra K, Barrio VL, Arias PL, Cambra JF. Biomass fast pyrolysis for hydrogen [63] Efendi MAA, Nurhadi N. Comparison of an internal combustion engine
production from bio-oil. In: Sankir M, Sankiri ND, editors. Hydrog. Prod. derating operated on producer gas from coal and biomass gasification. Int J
Technol. first ed. Wiley Online Library; 2017. p. 305e62. https://doi.org/ Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol 2016;6:385e9. https://doi.org/10.18517/
10.1002/9781119283676. ijaseit.6.3.809.
[54] Sharma T, Maya DMY, Nascimento FRM, Shi Y, Ratner A, Silva Lora EE, et al. An

14