Article

pubs.acs.org/IECR

Simulation of Syngas Production from Municipal Solid Waste

Gasification in a Bubbling Fluidized Bed Using Aspen Plus
Miaomiao Niu, Yaji Huang,* Baosheng Jin, and Xinye Wang
Key Laboratory of Energy Thermal Conversion and Control, Ministry of Education, School of Energy and Environment, Southeast
University, Nanjing 210096, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT: A comprehensive process model is developed to simulate municipal solid waste (MSW) gasification in a bubbling
fluidized bed using an Aspen Plus simulator. The model is based on a combination of modules that the Aspen Plus simulator
provides, representing the three stages of gasification (devolatilization, partial oxidation, and steam reforming). The restricted
equilibrium method is used to correct the deviation caused by uncompleted equilibrium of gasification system. Effects of
operating parameters, including gasification temperature, equivalence ratio (ER), oxygen percentage in the enriched air (OP),
MSW moisture content, and steam/MSW ratio (S/M), on the syngas composition and gasifier efficiency are analyzed. Higher
temperature favors the production of H2 and CO and leads to higher gasification efficiency. Increasing ER improves the CO yield
and the carbon conversion of MSW at lower ERs. The optimal value of ER for air gasification of MSW in this study is found to be
0.35. The use of enriched air elevates syngas heating value and gasification efficiency by increasing the concentration of
combustible components, but shows little improvement at temperatures higher than 900 °C. Higher moisture content degrades
the syngas quality and cold gas efficiency. Steam injection results in higher H2/CO ratio and gasification efficiency. Optimal S/M
value shifts from 0.5 to 1.0 with an increase in OP from 21% to 100%.

1. INTRODUCTION products such as transportation fuels, chemicals, fertilizers, and

In China, MSW generation has been increasing dramatically substitute natural gas.
with rapid economic growth and massive urbanization, reaching In recent years, several studies on MSW gasification have
a point at which changes must be made to implement been published in the scientific literature. The effect of
municipal solid waste (MSW) minimization.1 Discovering operating parameters on the main performance parameters,
environmentally benign and economically feasible methods such as gas composition and calorific value, has been the focus
for the disposal of MSW has become an urgent issue for of most research. He et al.8 built a laboratory-scale continuously
China.2 Within the alternatives for MSW treatment, landfilling feeding fixed-bed reactor and found a strong potential for
is most widely used, because of the lower cost involved, but it producing hydrogen-rich gas from MSW using a simple steam
occupies large amounts of land and gives rise to serious gasification process with dolomite as a catalyst. Ahmed et al.9
environmental problems. In fact, pressure against dumping rises conducted a comparison between gasification and pyrolysis of
so fast that there are scarce landfill sites left in many highly rubber waste at temperatures of 800 and 900 °C. They proved
populated developing cities.3 Incineration has been used that gasification was more beneficial than pyrolysis, since
extensively in developed countries, because of its heavy gasification resulted in a 500% increase in hydrogen yield,
reduction amount and sound resource recovery. However, compared to pyrolysis at 800 °C. Xiao et al.10 studied the effect
because of the high emissions of carcinogens such as dioxins of ER, bed height, and fluidization velocity on the fluidized-bed
and furans, the spread of this technology has encountered gasification of polypropylene plastic waste. They observed that
increasingly hostile resistance from the general public in ER is more important than the effect of bed height and
China.2 Besides, the serious corrosion and low incineration fluidization velocity. However, to date, there is still a lack of
temperature of the incineration system have led to a relatively research and reporting on MSW gasification, since current
low economic and energy efficiency.4,5 Diminishing landfill studies are mainly focused on the gasification of single
volume and public opposition to new incinerators strongly components such as wood, rubber, and plastics in MSW.
increase the interest on the study of MSW gasification. As a
Experiments of the real-world MSW, especially at large scale,
novel waste-to-energy technology, gasification has several
are often expensive and complicated to be done, making it
potential benefits over traditional incineration, mainly related
to lower emissions and more flexible and efficient utilization of difficult for studying the characteristics of gasification. Modeling
MSW energy.6,7 Because of the low levels of oxygen present in can not only save time and money but also support preparation
gasification processes, the formation of dioxins, furans, and and optimization of experiments to be undertaken in a real
NOx is effectively inhibited and most of the heavy and alkali system. In order to design the gasification processes quickly
metals (except mercury and cadmium) are retained in the
bottom ash.8 The product gases mainly contain CO, H2, CO2, Received: January 4, 2013
CH4, and other hydrocarbons (such as C2H2, C2H4, C2H6, Revised: August 25, 2013
C3H8, etc.). They can be used to power gas engines or gas Accepted: September 6, 2013
turbines, or can be converted to higher-value commercial Published: September 6, 2013

© 2013 American Chemical Society 14768 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400026b | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 14768−14775
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

with minimal financial costs, it is indispensable to develop a

practical model for systematically predicting gasification
characteristics.
As a commercial simulator, Aspen Plus can break complex
chemical processes down into small sections and test them as
separate modules before they are integrated. It has a large
property databank containing various stream properties
required to describe the material streams in a process involving
solids in addition to vapor and liquid streams.11 Thus, it is
considered to be an excellent design tool for modeling
gasification system. So far, many investigators have used
Aspen Plus to simulate coal and biomass power generation
systems.12,13 However, relatively few studies have been done on
MSW or combustible waste gasification. Mitta et al.14 modeled
a fluidized-bed tire gasification plant with air and steam using
Aspen Plus, and they validated the simulation results with a
gasification pilot plant. Chen et al.15 compared MSW
gasification characteristics in two types of fixed-bed reactors,
based on Aspen Plus, and found that the introduction of flue
gas improves the syngas quality.
In this work, MSW gasification process with enriched air and
steam in a bubbling fluidized bed was proposed. The primary
objective was to develop a computer simulation model for
predicating thermodynamic performance of MSW gasification
system under various operating conditions. The model is based
on Gibbs free-energy minimization. The restricted equilibrium
method is employed by using a specifying temperature
approach for implemented reactions. The influence of the
gasification temperature, equivalence ratio (ER), oxygen
percentage in the enriched air (OP), MSW moisture content,
and steam/MSW ratio (S/M) on the syngas composition,
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a bubbling fluidized bed municipal
lower heating value (LHV) of syngas, and process efficiency
solid waste (MSW) gasifier.
was investigated. The research provides reference data for the
further study on syngas production from MSW gasification.
simulation is developed under the following assumptions: the
2. TECHNICAL AND MODELING APPROACH process is steady state; both the combustion block and the
2.1. Uncoupling the Gasification Process. The gasification block are isothermal; all considered reactions are at
schematic of a bubbling fluidized bed is shown in Figure 1. equilibrium; and the drying and devolatilization of MSW are
The gasifying agent is blown upward through a distributor plate instantaneous. Char, which contains more than 90% carbon,
to keep the bed particles in a state of suspension.11 MSW with the results of ultimate analysis reported by Antal et al.17 as
introduced at the bottom of the reactor is quickly mixed with reference, is assumed to be 100% carbon (graphite). Ash is
the bed material, followed by an intense exchange of heat and assumed to be inert and does not participate in chemical
mass. The gasification process can be divided into three linked reactions, in view of its physicochemical properties. Also, the
stages: initially, drying and devolatilization; subsequently, presence of tars is not considered to simplify the model.
partial oxidation of volatiles and char; and, finally, char Considering the reducing atmosphere, all sulfur is assumed to
gasification and steam reforming reactions.16 Drying occurs at go to H2S while all chlorine goes to HCl. Only NH3 forms as
∼100−200 °C with the evaporation of moisture in MSW. the N-containing product and no nitrogen oxides are produced.
Pyrolysis involving a series of complex physical and chemical The contents of sulfur, chlorine and nitrogen are so low that
processes starts at ∼230 °C, generating char, tars, H2, CO, CO2, negligible inaccuracies in the simulation results will be caused
CH4, H2O, and other hydrocarbons (such as C2H2, C2H4, by these simplifications.
C2H6, C3H8, etc.) as major species. These products are then Figure 2 depicts the Aspen Plus simulation flowsheet for an
either burnt or gasified. The char, tar as well as some H2 and indirect bubbling fluidized bed gasifier (heat is supplied by an
CO are partially reacted with oxidant and steam in the dense external source via a heat exchanger or an indirect process).
phase zone, releasing large amount of heat that could be used to Five types of unit operation blocks have been used to simulate
sustain the endothermic gasification reactions. Further gas- the gasification process (see Table 1). Since the real-world
ification and steam reforming reactions involving the MSW contains large amounts of moisture, RStoic is introduced
Boudouard reaction, the water-gas reaction, and the water-gas to model the predrying process, where the moisture content of
shift reaction mainly occur in the freeboard region, where MSW is reduced by converting a portion of the fed MSW to
oxygen is insufficient. form water. When the moisture content of the dried MSW is
2.2. Model Description. A gasification model has been specified, the corresponding conversion of MSW to water could
developed according to principles of mass, energy, and chemical be calculated by writing a FORTRAN statement in the
balance using Aspen Plus. Since the simulation is based on the calculator block and then using it in the RStoic block. Since
minimization of the total Gibbs free energy at equilibrium, the the RStoic block has a single outlet stream, a Flash2 block is
14769 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400026b | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 14768−14775
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Figure 2. Aspen Plus simulation flowchart.

Table 1. Description of Aspen Plus Unit Operation Blocks Table 2. Gasification Reactions
Aspen reaction heat of reactiona
Plus number reaction (MJ/kmol) reaction name
block
type block ID description (R1) C + 0.5O2 → CO −111 char partial
combustion
RStoic DRIER stoichiometric reactor − reduces the moisture (R2) CO + 0.5O2 → CO2 −283 CO partial
content of MSW combustion
RYield DECOMP yield reactor − converts nonconventional MSW (R3) H2 + 0.5O2 → H2O −242 H2 partial
into conventional components based on mass combustion
balance
(R4) C + CO2 ↔ 2CO +172 Boudouard
COMBUST Gibbs free-energy reactor − simulates the partial
oxidation (R5) C + H2O ↔ CO + +131 water-gas
H2
RGibbs GASIF Gibbs free-energy reactor − restricts chemical
equilibrium of specified reactions to simulate (R6) CO + H2O ↔ CO2 −41 water-gas shift
the gasification + H2
Flash2 GAS-SEP separator − separates the dried MSW from the (R7) CH4 + H2O ↔ CO +206 steam-methane
moist gas by flashing + 3H2 reforming
Sep ASH-SEP separator − separates gases from ash by (R8) CH4 + 2H2O ↔ +165 steam-methane
specifying split fractions CO2 + 4H2 reforming
a
Heats of reactions at standard temperature (25 °C).

used to model the removal of the gas stream containing water

vapor from the dried MSW. When MSW is fed into gasifier, and external environment is carried out by a heat stream (Q-
RYield is introduced to simulate the drying and devolatilization GASFY) out of the gasification section. Besides, a Sep block is
section. The total yield of volatiles is assumed to equal the used to model the inert ash removal from the product gas.
volatile content of the proximate analysis. MSW is converted to Considering that the system may not strictly reach complete
its constituting components, including carbon, hydrogen, equilibrium, a restricted equilibrium method is employed in the
oxygen, sulfur, nitrogen, and ash, by specifying the yield RGibbs block by specifying the temperature approach for
distribution according to the MSW ultimate analysis (calculated individual reactions. The temperature approach is the number
using the FORTRAN statement). Although several exper- of degrees above the reactor temperature at which chemical
imental studies have been conducted on gasification of MSW equilibrium is determined. The equilibrium constant could be
model compounds and real MSW, by now, there is no accepted calculated depending on the temperature approach. Moreover,
mechanistic reaction path with kinetics constants for the the gas composition could be adjusted to match the published
reaction taking place in a gasifier. When the reaction kinetics is literature reference data in this way. The correction was
not known, a rigorous reactor and multiphase equilibrium introduced by Gumz18 and has been well-established. Kunze et
based on the minimization of the total Gibbs free energy of the al.19 also used restricted equilibrium in a entrained flow gasifier
product mixture (an RGibbs block) is preferred to predict the model. In this way, the deviation from the equilibrium can be
equilibrium composition of the produced syngas.11 Thus, both reflected in the simulation results and the practical gasification
partial oxidation section and gasification section based on the characteristic can be reproduced.
principle of minimization of Gibbs free energy can be modeled 2.3. Model Operating Conditions. In these simulations,
in the RGibbs block. The main reactions of MSW gasification the ambient temperature is 25 °C and system pressure is set at
considered in the gasifier are given in Table 2. atmosphere pressure. Since the fluidized-bed gasifier is usually
There are two ways of supplying heat to the gasifier in the operated below the ash sintering temperature, to prevent the
indirect gasification: by external heat or by internal combustion formation of excessive sintered agglomerates, the temperature
of gas and char.16 In the model, the heat flow among pyrolysis, of gasification section ranges from 500 °C to 1000 °C, while
combustion and gasification reactions is modeled by two heat that of the combustion section is kept at 900 °C. The
streams (Q-DEC and Q-COM) into the oxidation and equivalence ratio (ER) is defined as the ratio between the actual
gasification section, respectively. Heat flow between the gasifier air−fuel ratio and the stoichiometric air−fuel ratio required for
14770 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400026b | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 14768−14775
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

combustion.20 The value of ER varies from 0.2 to 0.8 while the

oxygen percentage of enriched air is set at the range of 21%−
100%. The steam/MSW ratio (S/M) is defined as the flow rate
of steam fed to the gasifier divided by the MSW flow rate (dry
and ash-free).4 S/M varies from 0 to 1 by adjusting steam
injection amount. Saturated steam (500 kPa) and enriched air
are both injected into the gasifier at 150 °C. The heat duty is 0
kJ/kg in the predrying section. The dried MSW temperature is
controlled by the inlet temperature of the drying gas and the
degree of predrying, displaying an increase of ∼20−40 °C after
drying. The MSW used in the study was collected from
Huizhou, Guangdong Province, China, with a feed rate of 1.0
kg/h. The characteristic of the feeding MSW are given in Table
3.

Table 3. Characteristics of MSWa

parameter value
moisture 51.87 Figure 3. Effect of gasification temperature on syngas composition.
Proximate Analysis (dry basis)
volatile matter 57 wt %
fixed carbon 12.19 wt % accordance with Le Chatelier’s principle. The increase of H2
ash 30.81 wt % concentration could be ascribed to endothermic reactions R5,
high heating value 15044.65 kJ/kg dry basis R7, and R8, while enhanced reactions R4 and R5 at higher
average particle size 0.1−1 mm temperature are responsible for the increase in CO.
Ultimate Analysis (dry basis) Simultaneously, by reverse water-gas shift reaction (reaction
C 40.44 wt % R6), H2 is converted to CO and a faster growth rate is observed
H 4.75 wt % in CO than H2. Although endothermic reaction R8 could
O 21.13 wt % release CO2, reactions R4 and R5 would be more favored22 and
N 0.94 wt % lead to the increase in CO and decrease in CO2. Besides, the
S 1.72 wt % strengthened endothermic steam-methane reactions (reactions
Cl 0.21 wt % R7 and R8) result in a decrease in CH4.
a
Data taken from ref 21.
To study the performance of gasification process, dry
product gas lower heating value (LHV), carbon conversion
efficiency (CCE), and cold gas efficiency (CGE) are
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION respectively defined as follows:4
The model is used to perform sensitivity analysis on five LHV (MJ/Nm 3)
parameters, namely, temperature, ER, OP, moisture content, (CO × 126.36 + H 2 × 107.98 + CH4 × 358.18)
and S/M. The baseline case with all input parameters listed is as =
follows: temperature at 800 °C, ER at 0.2, OP at 21%, moisture 1000
content at 5%, and S/M at 0.0. One parameter will be changed where CO, H2, and CH4 are the mole percentages of the syngas
within the range presented in section 2.3, while the other components;
parameters are kept constant. Simulation results for cold gas
efficiency (CGE) versus OP at different temperatures and CGE CCE (%) =
versus S/M at different OPs are also included for a full-scale carbon content in the syngas × syngas flow rate
understanding. × 100
carbon content in the fed MSW × MSW flow rate
3.1. Effect of Gasification Temperature. The gasification
temperature affects all the chemical reactions involved in the LHV of the syngas × syngas flow rate
CGE (%) =
gasification process. Figure 3 shows the variation of syngas LHV of the fed MSW × MSW flow rate
composition as a function of temperature. All gas components
are plotted on a dry basis and the N2 concentration is not × 100
displayed. The H2 concentration increased sharply with the The effect of gasification temperature on the gasification
increasing temperature while the CO2 concentration revealed performance is shown in Figure 4. It is indicated that increasing
an opposite trend. The CO concentration increased remarkably the temperature enhanced the syngas LHV, CCE, and CGE
as the temperature increased and exceeded that of H2 at ∼800 values effectively and led to better gasification performance.
°C. CH4 concentration decreased steadily within the entire This could be explained by the continuous increase of the CO
temperature range. At relatively low temperatures (500−600 and H2 content. In particular, there was a substantial increase in
°C), endothermic char gasification and steam reforming the gasification quality between the temperature range of 650−
reactions (reactions R4, R5, R7, and R8) are limited by the 900 °C, with the CCE increasing from 39.9% to 78.7% and the
lack of energy, making the pyrolysis of MSW play a more CGE increasing from 32.6% to 87.6%. At low temperatures
dominant role. The CH4 obtained in the syngas is mainly (500−650 °C), the system efficiency showed a relatively small
present as a product of pyrolysis.16 As the temperature growth with rising temperature, because of the sustained
increases, the endothermic reactions are strengthened, in decrease in CH4 content.
14771 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400026b | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 14768−14775
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Figure 4. Effect of gasification temperature on syngas LHV, CCE, and Figure 6. Effect of ER on syngas LHV, CCE, and CGE.
CGE.
quality and affected the CGE, the CGE would first rise due to
3.2. Effect of Equivalence Ratio (ER). The equivalence the increasing amount of syngas yield and then decrease with
ratio (ER) is one of the most important operating parameter increasing ER. The optimum ER was found to be 0.35, where
for syngas production.4 Figure 5 presents the variation of the CGE reached a maximum of 86.8%. Recent experimental
studies on ER show similar variation trend with the simulation.
Caballero et al.24 investigated the effect of bed height and air
ER on the air gasification of dried sewage sludge in bubbling
fluidized bed. They found that, with increasing ER, the
concentrations of H2, CO, and CH4 decreased while that of
CO2 increased. Arena et al.25 studied fluidized bed gasification
of five alternative waste-derived fuels obtained from MSW and
also found similar changes in gas composition with increasing
ER.
3.3. Effect of Oxygen Percentage in the Enriched Air.
The use of enriched air is effective for reducing the nitrogen
dilution effect and achieving medium heating value gas.24
Influence of oxygen percentage in the enriched air (OP) on the
syngas composition is given in Figure 7. The H2 concentration

Figure 5. Effect of ER on syngas composition.

syngas composition as a function of ER. The increase of ER

means that the feeding air or oxygen increases. With increasing
ER, more active oxidization reactions (reactions R1−R3) will
occur, normally increasing the CO2 and H2O concentrations at
the expense of CO and H2. For the entire range of ER, the H2
concentration in the obtained gas decreased from 22.7% to
7.9%, while CH4 concentration was very low (max. 3.0%) and
continued to decrease. The concentration of CO initially
increased slightly from 22.3% to 24.8% with ER, because of
increased conversion of MSW, but decreased after a certain
value (∼0.35), because of complete oxidization of the feed.
Meanwhile, CO2 first showed a modest decrease from 6.8% to
5.7% and then increased to 15.4%. Figure 7. Effect of OP on syngas composition.
The influence of ER on gasification performance is illustrated
in Figure 6. The LHV of dry gas diminished with increasing ER increased with rising OP from 22.7% to 37.1%, while CO
because of the enlarging dilution effect of nitrogen.23 concentration showed a greater increment from 22.3% to
Meanwhile, conversion of carbon present in the MSW 48.4%. CO2 concentration first revealed a slight increase from
increased since the amount of oxygen supplied to the gasifier 6.8% to 9.0% and then decreased at higher OPs while CH4
increased. As shown in Figure 6, the CCE increased and kept concentration showed a slight increase trend. With increasing
constant when it reached the maximum value as the ER OP, the amount of nitrogen sent into the gasifier decreases
increased. Although the decline of LHV degraded the syngas gradually, causing changes in the initial concentration of
14772 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400026b | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 14768−14775
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

reactants. The partial combustions (reactions R1−R3) are Particularly, it should be noticed that OP has a significant effect
improved and more CO, CO2, and H2O are produced in the on CGE only up to 900 °C, after which point little effect has
combustion section. A higher concentration of CO2 and H2O been found for CGE increasing. The slight decrease of CGE at
favors the forward Boudouard reaction (reaction R4), the 1000 °C results from the synthetical effect of decreasing syngas
water-gas reaction (reaction R5), and steam-methane reforming yield and increasing LHV with OP. For lower temperatures, the
reaction (reaction R7), eventually leading to the increase of H2 increase of OP could achieve an evident improvement in
and CO concentration. The change of CO2 concentration combustible component, leading to a greater increase in CGE.
could be ascribed to the comprehensive effect of combustion For example, at 500 °C, the CGE increased from 30.4% to
and reforming reactions (reactions R2, R4, R6, and R8). The 65.3% with OP. With regard to temperatures of >900 °C, as
increasing trend of CH4 is mainly related to the decrease of shown in Figure 9, the quality of syngas was already very high
nitrogen in the produced syngas. As shown in Figure 8, the when OP was 21%, leaving little room for improvement.
3.4. Effect of MSW Moisture Content. Figure 10 presents
the dependence of the syngas composition on the varying

Figure 8. Effect of OP on syngas LHV and CCE.

LHV value of syngas and the CCE value both increased greatly
with increasing OP and reached the maximum values (12.2 MJ/
Figure 10. Effect of MSW moisture content on syngas composition.
kg and 81.2%, respectively) when OP = 100%. Yoon et al.26
compared the syngas produced from gasification of biodiesel
byproduct with air and oxygen. They also discovered that the MSW moisture content. The moisture level was varied over a
syngas LHV and carbon conversion using the oxygen agent was realistic range for MSW (5%−50%). It can be seen that rising
higher than using air. Huynh et al. investigated the character- moisture content increased the H2 concentration slightly, from
istics of a biomass gasification system using oxygen-enriched air 22.4% to 26.4%, but decreased the CO concentration sharply,
and steam. The results indicated that oxygen-enriched air from 22.3% to 7.8%. The CO2 concentration increased
gasification favors the production of combustible gas remarkably, from 6.8% to 14.8%, while the CH4 concentration
components, including H2, CO, and CH4.27 decreased slowly at a low level (max. 2.1%). Higher moisture
Figure 9 shows that, consistent with the changes in gas content favors the reactions involving H2O (reactions R5−R8),
composition and LHV, the CGE value increased with OP. especially the water-gas shift reaction.28 CO and CH4 is shifted
and reformed with H2O producing CO2 and H2, causing a
decrease in CO and an increase in CO2. Although CH4 could
be reformed with H2O producing CO in reaction R7, the CH4
concentration is too low to change the decreasing trend of CO.
The effect of MSW moisture content on gasification perform-
ance is shown in Figure 11. The LHV value of syngas decreased
significantly, from 6.0 MJ/m3 to 4.0 MJ/m3, because of the
continuous decline of CO and CH4. The CCE and CGE also
decreased from 61.5% to 41.9% and from 64.2% to 39.5%,
respectively, as the MSW moisture content increased from 5%
to 50%. Meanwhile, more heat input to the gasifier would be
needed for turning liquid water into superheated steam. Since
increasing the moisture content degrades gasifier performance
and causes greater energy consumption, the input MSW should
be predried for optimal use.
3.5. Effect of Steam/MSW Ratio. Influence of S/M on
syngas composition is shown in Figure 12. Compared with the
results in Figure 10, it can be seen that steam injection caused a
greater increase in H2 yield than adding an equal amount of
Figure 9. Effect of OP on CGE for the complete temperature range. bound moisture into MSW directly. Given that H2O enters the
14773 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400026b | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 14768−14775
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

LHV and CCE. The LHV of syngas first increased slightly from
6.0 MJ/m3 to 6.3 MJ/m3 and then decreased with S/M. The
CCE kept increasing until reaching a maximum value of 71.4%
for S/M = 0.5. Steam injection could adjust the H2/CO ratio of
syngas by the combination of the water-gas reaction (reaction
R5) and water-gas shift reaction (reaction R6). Increasing the
amount of steam shifts reactions R5 and R6 toward the right
and results in an increase of H2 and CO2 concentration and a
decrease in CO concentration. The presence of peak values for
LHV and CCE could be attributed to the changes in syngas
composition and syngas yield.
The variation of CGE as a function of S/M with different
OPs is shown in Figure 14. For a specified OP, the CGE value

Figure 11. Effect of MSW moisture content on syngas LHV, CCE, and
CGE.

Figure 14. Effect of S/M on CGE for complete OP range.

would first increase to reach a maximum and then slowly

decrease with increasing amounts of steam. Consistent with the
Figure 12. Effect of S/M on syngas composition. trend shown in Figure 9, higher OP tends to cause higher CGE
for a specified S/M, which is probably related to the removal of
nitrogen. The optimization of steam injection in air gasification
gasifier in the form of steam, the heat input for gasification with
leads to a maximum CGE value of 74.7% for S/M ≈ 0.5.
steam injection will be less than that for wet MSW gasification.
Notably, steam injection had a significant improvement on
With increasing S/M, H2 and CO2 concentrations increased
CGE at lower S/M values and the increasing trend of CGE
remarkably while the CO concentration smoothly decreased.
tends to decrease for higher OPs. Besides, the threshold of S/M
The CH4 concentration increased slightly and was approx-
corresponding to the maximum CGE became larger at higher
imately constant. Figure 13 shows the effect of S/M on syngas
OPs, increasing from 0.5 to 1.0 when the value of OP increased
from 21% to 100%. Campoy et al.29 studied the effect of steam
injection by enriched air-steam biomass gasification tests in a
bubbling fluidized bed gasification plant. They found that the
addition of steam using enriched air of 40% OP leads to a
maximum efficiency of 70% for steam-to-biomass ratio of ∼0.3,
which conformed well to the simulation results in this study.

4. CONCLUSIONS
Simulation of municipal solid waste (MSW) gasification in a
bubbling fluidized bed is performed using Aspen Plus. The
effect of gasification temperature, equivalence ratio (ER),
oxygen percentage in the enriched air (OP), moisture content,
and steam/MSW ratio (S/M) on the composition of syngas,
lower heating value (LHV), carbon conversion efficiency
(CCE), and cold gas efficiency (CGE) has been discussed.
The gasification temperature is found to have a strong influence
on the syngas composition. Increasing the temperature
Figure 13. Effect of S/M on syngas LHV and CCE. improves gasifier performance, enhancing the production of
14774 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400026b | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 14768−14775
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

H2 and CO in syngas, which ultimately leads to higher LHV, (10) Xiao, R.; Jin, B.; Zhou, H.; Zhong, Z.; Zhang, M. Air gasification
CCE, and CGE. ER influences the syngas production by of polypropylene plastic waste in fluidized bed gasifier. Energy Convers.
determining carbon conversion and the oxidation of part of Manage. 2007, 48 (3), 778−786.
syngas. Increasing ER strengthens carbon conversion and (11) Puig-Arnavat, M.; Bruno, J. C.; Coronas, A. Review and analysis
of biomass gasification models. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev.
increases CGE at lower ER values, but causes evident decreases 2010, 14 (9), 2841−2851.
in syngas LHV and CGE at higher ER values. The optimal (12) Kunze, C.; Spliethoff, H. Modelling of an IGCC plant with
value of ER for air gasification of MSW at 800 °C is found to be carbon capture for 2020. Fuel Process. Technol. 2010, 91 (8), 934−941.
0.35. The use of enriched air reduces the nitrogen dilution (13) Nikoo, M. B.; Mahinpey, N. Simulation of biomass gasification
effect, thus increasing the syngas LHV. Higher OP could lead to in fluidized bed reactor using ASPEN PLUS. Biomass Bioenergy 2008,
a significantly increase of CGE at lower temperatures but show 32 (12), 1245−1254.
little improvement for gasification at temperatures higher than (14) Mitta, N. R.; Ferrer-Nadal, S.; Lazovic, A. M.; Parales, J. F.; Velo,
900 °C. Higher moisture content in the MSW increases the E.; Puigjaner, L. Modelling and simulation of a tyre gasification plant
heat input to gasifier, decreases the concentration of the for synthesis gas production. In Computer-Aided Chemical Engineering,
combustible components, and results in lower gasification Vol. 21; Marquardt, W., Pantelides, C., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam,
2006; pp 1771−1776.
efficiency. Steam injection should be employed if a H2-rich gas (15) Chen, C.; Jin, Y.-Q.; Yan, J.-H.; Chi, Y. Simulation of municipal
is desired. With increasing S/M, the CGE shows greater solid waste gasification in two different types of fixed bed reactors. Fuel
increase for lower OPs than for higher OPs. Optimal S/M value 2013, 103 (0), 58−63.
shifts from 0.5 to 1.0 with OP increasing from 21% to 100%. (16) Gomez-Barea, A.; Leckner, B. Modeling of biomass gasification
This study provided some insight to the characteristics of in fluidized bed. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2010, 36 (4), 444−509.
MSW gasification in search of efficient and clean utilization of (17) Antal, M. J.; Allen, S. G.; Dai, X.; Shimizu, B.; Tam, M. S.;
MSW energy. The simulation results can serve as a guideline Grønli, M. Attainment of the Theoretical Yield of Carbon from
for further process optimization studies. Biomass. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2000, 39 (11), 4024−4031.

■
(18) Gumz, W. Gas Producers and Blast Furnaces: Theory and Methods
of Calculation. Wiley: New York, 1950; p xiii, 316 pp.
AUTHOR INFORMATION (19) Kunze, C.; Spliethoff, H. Modelling, comparison and operation
Corresponding Author experiences of entrained flow gasifier. Energy Convers. Manage. 2011,
52 (5), 2135−2141.
*Tel.: +86-25-83794744. Fax: +86-25-83795508. E-mail (20) Lv, P. M.; Xiong, Z. H.; Chang, J.; Wu, C. Z.; Chen, Y.; Zhu, J.
address: heyyj@seu.edu.cn. X. An experimental study on biomass air−steam gasification in a
Notes fluidized bed. Bioresour. Technol. 2004, 95 (1), 95−101.
The authors declare no competing financial interest. (21) Lai, Z.; Ma, X.; Tang, Y.; Lin, H. A study on municipal solid

■
waste (MSW) combustion in N2/O2 and CO2/O2 atm from the
perspective of TGA. Energy 2011, 36 (2), 819−824.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (22) Xiao, J.; Shen, L. H.; Deng, X.; Wang, Z. M.; Zhong, X. L. Study
This work was supported by the National Basic Research on characteristics of pressurized biomass gasification. Proc. Chin. Soc.
Electr. Eng. 2009, 29 (5), 103−108.
Program of China (973 Program, No. 2011CB201505) and the (23) Narvaez, I.; Orio, A.; Aznar, M. P.; Corella, J. Biomass
National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 51006023). gasification with air in an atmospheric bubbling fluidized bed. Effect of

■ REFERENCES
(1) Zhang, D. Q.; Tan, S. K.; Gersberg, R. M. Municipal solid waste
six operational variables on the quality of the produced raw gas. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 1996, 35 (7), 2110−2120.
(24) Caballero, M. A.; Aznar, M. P.; Gil, J.; Martin, J. A.; Frances, E.;
Corella, J. Commercial steam reforming catalysts to improve biomass
management in China: Status, problems and challenges. J. Environ. gasification with steam-oxygen mixtures 0.1. Hot gas upgrading by the
Manage. 2010, 91 (8), 1623−1633. catalytic reactor. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1997, 36 (12), 5227−5239.
(2) Cheng, H.; Hu, Y. Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable (25) Arena, U.; Zaccariello, L.; Mastellone, M. L. Fluidized bed
source of energy: Current and future practices in China. Bioresour. gasification of waste-derived fuels. Waste Manage. 2010, 30 (7), 1212−
Technol. 2010, 101 (11), 3816−3824. 1219.
(3) Chen, X.; Geng, Y.; Fujita, T. An overview of municipal solid (26) Yoon, S. J.; Choi, Y. C.; Son, Y. I.; Lee, S. H.; Lee, J. G.
waste management in China. Waste Manage. 2010, 30 (4), 716−724. Gasification of biodiesel by-product with air or oxygen to make syngas.
(4) Umberto, A. Process and technological aspects of municipal solid Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101 (4), 1227−1232.
waste gasification. A review. Waste Manage. 2012, 32 (4), 625−639. (27) Huynh, C. V.; Kong, S. C. Performance characteristics of a pilot-
(5) Cheng, H.; Hu, Y. Curbing dioxin emissions from municipal solid scale biomass gasifier using oxygen-enriched air and steam. Fuel 2013,
waste incineration in China: Re-thinking about management policies 103 (0), 987−996.
and practices. Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158 (9), 2809−2814. (28) Plis, P.; Wilk, R. K. Theoretical and experimental investigation
(6) Thamavithya, M.; Dutta, A. An investigation of MSW gasification of biomass gasification process in a fixed bed gasifier. Energy 2011, 36
in a spout-fluid bed reactor. Fuel Process. Technol. 2008, 89 (10), 949− (6), 3838−3845.
957. (29) Campoy, M.; Gómez-Barea, A.; Vidal, F. B.; Ollero, P. Air−
(7) Zhang, Y.; Xiao, J.; Shen, L. Simulation of Methanol Production steam gasification of biomass in a fluidised bed: Process optimization
from Biomass Gasification in Interconnected Fluidized Beds. Ind. Eng. by enriched air. Fuel Process. Technol. 2009, 90 (5), 677−685.
Chem. Res. 2009, 48 (11), 5351−5359.
(8) He, M.; Hu, Z.; Xiao, B.; Li, J.; Guo, X.; Luo, S.; Yang, F.; Feng,
Y.; Yang, G.; Liu, S. Hydrogen-rich gas from catalytic steam
gasification of municipal solid waste (MSW): Influence of catalyst
and temperature on yield and product composition. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 2009, 34 (1), 195−203.
(9) Ahmed, I.; Gupta, A. K. Characteristic of hydrogen and syngas
evolution from gasification and pyrolysis of rubber. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 2011, 36 (7), 4340−4347.

14775 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400026b | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 14768−14775