International Journal of Green Energy

ISSN: 1543-5075 (Print) 1543-5083 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ljge20

Evaluating removal of tar contents in syngas

produced from downdraft biomass gasification
system

Muhammad Awais, Wei Li, Arfan Arshad, Zeeshan Haydar, Nauman Yaqoob
& Sajjad Hussain

To cite this article: Muhammad Awais, Wei Li, Arfan Arshad, Zeeshan Haydar, Nauman Yaqoob
& Sajjad Hussain (2018) Evaluating removal of tar contents in syngas produced from downdraft
biomass gasification system, International Journal of Green Energy, 15:12, 724-731, DOI:
10.1080/15435075.2018.1525557

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2018.1525557

Published online: 02 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 554

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ljge20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY
2018, VOL. 15, NO. 12, 724–731
https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2018.1525557

Evaluating removal of tar contents in syngas produced from downdraft biomass

gasification system
Muhammad Awaisa,b,c, Wei Lib, Arfan Arshadd, Zeeshan Haydara, Nauman Yaqoobd, and Sajjad Hussaind
a
Department of Farm Machinery and Power, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Faisalabad, Pakistan; bNational Research Center of Pumps, Jiangsu
University, Zhenjiang, China; cDepartment of Energy Systems Engineering, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Faisalabad, Pakistan; dDepartment
of Irrigation and Drainage, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Faisalabad, Pakistan

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Biomass gasification is a process of converting solid biomass ingredients into a combustible gas which Biomass; biomass filter;
can be used in electricity generation. Regardless of their applications in many fields, biomass gasification cleaning system;
technology is still facing many cleaning issues of syngas. Tar production in biomass gasification process gasification; tar
is one of the biggest challenges for this technology. The aimed of this study is to evaluate the tar
contents in syngas produced from wood chips and corn cobs as a biomass fuel and tar removal
efficiency of different cleaning units integrated with gassifier. Performance of different cleaning units,
i.e., cyclone separator, wet scrubber, biomass filter, and auxiliary filter was tested with two biomass fuels.
Results of this study reported that wood chips produced less tar 6,600 mg/Nm3 as compared to corn
cobs 7,500 mg/Nm3 in biomass reactor stage before cleaning. After passing through the whole cleaning
system, the tar concentration in case wood chip reduced from 6,600 to 112 mg/Nm3, while in case of
corn cob from 7,500 to 220 mg/Nm3. Overall tar removal efficiencies of cyclone separator, wet scrubber,
biomass filter and auxiliary filter was noted as 72%, 63%, 74%, 35 %, respectively.

Introduction including electricity generation using gas turbines and inter-

nal combustion (IC) engines. Regardless of its many applica-
Use of conventional fuels like oil, coal, and natural gas have
tions and advantages, it is still facing many issues and
significant adverse impacts on ecosystem and cannot be used
challenges in acceptability on a commercial scale due to
on a sustainable basis. These concerns have compelled the
trouble in cleaning the producer gas (Huang, Schmidt, and
scientists to derive energy from renewable and environmen-
Bian 2011). During the gasification process, a large quantity of
tally-friendly techniques like biomass-derived energy
condensable organic matter is also produced which is known
(Demirbas 2004; Srirangan et al. 2012). Biomass materials
as tar. Tars are the complex organic gasification secondary
could be used to produce energy either by burning them
products and largely aromatic hydrocarbons in nature
directly or conversion into liquid or gaseous fuels for numer-
(Hirohata et al. 2008; Meng et al. 2010; Michel et al. 2011;
ous practical applications (Azri et al. 2018). Nowadays,
Rönkkönen et al. 2010). Tar contents generate in producer gas
numerous technologies are being used to convert biomass
as a result of condensation, and they are typically classified as
material into gas including pyrolysis, gasification, fermenta-
primary, secondary and tertiary tar. Primary tars produce
tion, combustion, and hydrothermal liquefaction (Demirbas
during pyrolysis step when the temperature of gas is below
2004). Among these technologies, gasification offers flexibility
500°C, while in the oxidation step, when temperature
in selection of biomass fuel (e.g., forests residues, organic
increased above 500°C, the primary tar transforms into sec-
municipal wastes, agricultural waste, and biorefineries), and
ondary tar. Further increase in temperature (above 800°C)
producer gas in this method can be used as fuel in electrical
results in the formation of tertiary tar (Molino, Chianese,
generation (Kate and Chaurasia 2018). Hence, the gasification
and Musmarra 2016).
is considered one of the most promising and environmen-
Formation of tar during the production of gas is a major
tally-friendly technology (Devi, Ptasinski, and Janssen 2003;
problem as the presence of such substances can block the gas
Heidenreich and Foscolo 2015) that utilizes biomass materials
engine valves (Asadullah 2014a; Devi, Ptasinski, and Janssen 2003;
for energy production (Balat 2009).
Manyà et al. 2006; Singh, Mandovra, and Balwanshi 2013). They
Biomass gasification is a process of converting solid bio- may also clog fuel pipes and injectors in IC engines. Tar manifes-
mass ingredients into a combustible gas, which comprises of a tation during gasification also leads toward its restricted use
valuable amount of carbon monoxide, methane, carbon diox- because of engine damage and high maintenance costs
ide, hydrogen, nitrogen, and water vapors. Gas produced after (Asadullah 2014b; Pereira et al. 2012; Ruiz et al. 2013). Thus, the
gasification process could be used for numerous applications removal of tar in gasification is a major challenge for an engineer

CONTACT Muhammad Awais engrawais6061@yahoo.com Farm Machinery and PowerUniversity of Agriculture Fasialabad, Faisalabad, Pakistan, 38000
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ljge.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 725

to improve the quality of fuel. So before the direct use of combus-

tible gas obtained after gasification process, there is a need to clean
it to improve its quality. The acceptable limit of tar contents in fuel
depends on its downstream application like whether it is used for
IC engine or turbine. IC engines have more capability to tolerate
tar contents as compared to the gas turbine. The acceptable limit
of tar for IC engine is 100 mg Nm −3, while in case of gas turbine
its value is 5 mg N m−3 (Milne, Evans, and Abatzaglou 1998;
Spliethoff 2001).
Numerous physical and chemical methods have been used
to remove tar including catalytic, thermal cracking, wet scrub-
ber, and water spray (Anis and Zainal 2011; Chianese et al.
2016, 2015; Pathak et al. 2007; Rameshkumar and Mayilsamy
2012), but most of them are expensive and require large
Figure 1. Block diagram of apilotscale gasification system.
maintenance. Besides this major drawback of these methods
is that they decrease the heating value of producer syngas and
also declined net energy efficiency. Therefore, development of upper side of the reactor to remove the toxic gasses during the
tar removal technology with low cost and high efficiency is a shutdown mechanism. Seven air nozzles were attached to supply
major challenge for researchers (Anis and Zainal 2011). the air in combustion zone under limited condition. Four different
Biomass-based dry filters could be an economical and envir- cleaning units, i.e., scrubber cyclone separator, wet scrubber, bio-
onmentally-friendly option (Pareek et al. 2012; Rameshkumar mass, and auxiliary filter were integrated with the gasifier in to
and Mayilsamy 2012). Although tar removal efficiency of bio- remove tar contents in syngas (Figure 2). The cyclone separator
based filters is less but when they equipped wet with scrubber, used in this research was made with MS sheet having a thickness
oil-based scrubber and other filters, they performed efficiently of 3 mm. The diameter and height of cyclone separator was 137
in removal of tar contents (Pareek et al. 2012; Rameshkumar and 1,168 mm, respectively. Wet scrubber was provided to remove
and Mayilsamy 2012; Thapa et al. 2017). Thapa et al. (2017) the tar, and other toxic substances from producer gas. The wet
reported that wood shaving filters could remove tar contents scrubber was made up of MS sheet having thickness of 3 mm,
only up to 10%, and if they equipped with oil-based filter and height of 900 mm, and diameter of 225 mm. Four nozzles were
wet scrubber they could remove 97% tar contents from pro- attached at the top side of the scrubber which sprays water on
ducer gas. Cleaning systems can effectively decrease the con- coming gas. Biomass filter and auxiliary filter were developed and
centration of secondary products and enhance the quality of attached with the gasifier to remove the remaining fine dust
syngas produce from gasifier (Chiang et al. 2015). particles from producer gas. The biomass filter was filled with
This research has made an attempt to develop a cleaning zero size gravel and producer gas was allowed to pass through it.
system with a series of cleaner equipped with drawdown gasifier Auxiliary filters fabricated in this research was 30 cm in height and
to remove tan contents from the producer gas. The present its diameter was 10 cm, and crush cobs were provided inside the
research is related to the performance evaluation of different filter to remove the tar particles.
cleaning units, i.e., cyclone separator, wet scrubber, biomass
filter, and auxiliary filter attached with downdraft gasifier for
the enhancement of producer gas quality. The tar removal effi- Methods
ciencies of four cleaning filters were analyzed with two different
Biomass fuel preparation
treatments, namely wood chips and corn cobs. The objectives of
The biomass material used for gasification were wood chips and
this study were (1) to analyze the tar contents in syngas produced
corn cobs, fairly uniform in shape and size. The length and width
from different biomass and (2) to evaluate the efficiency of
of wood chip and corn cobs vary from 2.6 to 3.5, 7.0 to 8.0 cm and
different cleaning units of downdraft biomass gasifier.
thickness from 1.6 to 2.6, 3.6 to 5 cm, respectively. Fuel chips were
prepared by cutting them using an electrically operated circular
saw and dried by using the oven dry method. Table 1 shows the
Material and methods
properties of biomass fuel used for the production of syngas.
Pilot-scale gasification system
Pilot-scale gassifier used in this research is shown in Figure 1. The Biomass conversion rate
reactor of downdraft gasifier is made of mild steel (MS) sheet The consumption rate of two biomass material, i.e., wood chip
having thickness of 10 mm, and height of the gasifier reactor is and corn cobs was measured by dividing the total volume of
2,438 mm. Other components of reactor are feed hoper, vacuum syngas for each biomass poured in the gasifier with the total
valve, air inlet nozzles, spring ignition system, grate, and throat, for weight of biomass consumed.
collecting ash. Four thermocouples were installed inside the gasi-
fier to classify the reaction zone. Feed hopper of gasifier was Gas analysis
attached at the upper side of the rector for a smooth gasifica- The producer gas generated from gasifier was collected in the
tion process. A blower fan was attached to create the negative gas samplers and analyzed using the gas analyzer. IMR 2800 P
pressure insider the gasifier. A vacuum valve was provided at the Gas Analyzer model which equipped with five electrochemical
726 M. AWAIS ET AL.

Figure 2. Cleaning units of gasification system, i.e., (a) cyclone scrubber, (b) wet scrubber, (c) biomass filter, and (d) auxiliary filter.

Tar sampling and analysis

Table 1. Proximate, ultimate, and higher heating value analysis.
The sticky tar impurities were collected first from the biomass
reactor using both types of fuel, i.e., wood chips and corn cobs.
Proximate analysis
After passing out the syngas exit from gasifier to series of clean-
Material Wood chip Corn cobs
Moisture (wt %) 8 13 ing units, cyclone separator, wet scrubber, biomass filter, and
Volatile (wt %) 62 68 auxiliary filter, tar contents were collected at the inlet and outlet
Fixed carbon (wt %) 14.15 16.98
Ash (wt %) 3.5 2.6 of each cleaning unit. Solvent evaporation method was used to
Ultimate analysis measure the gravimetric tar content after operation of one hour.
C 48.1 44.7 Results were determined with the help of following formula.
H 5.99 6.3
O2 45.74 38.6245.2
N2 0.08 1.2 Ct ¼ Wt V g (2)
S 0 0.09
where
Ct = attentiveness of tar in syngas (mg/m3)
Wt = tar weight (g)
sensors was used to analyze the quantity each content of Vg = amount of gas (m3)
producer gas. Following formula was used to calculate the tar absorption
of total system and units of system separately:
Experimental method Tinlet  Toutlet
Tar Absorption ¼  100 (3)
Batch of 15 kg biomass fuel were loaded into the gasifier Tinlet
reactor. Anemometer and U- tube manometer were used to
where
measure the velocity and pressure of the producer gas, respec-
Tinlet = Amount of tar at inlet of filter, mg/m3
tively. The flowing rate of gas was further used to calculate the
Toutlet = Amount of tar at outlet of filter, mg/m3
amount of tar in the producer gas. The following relation was
used to calculate the flow rate.
Determination of pressure drop
Q¼V AT (1) Pressure drop is an essential parameter, which affects the
performance of cleaning units. Value of pressure drop
where depends on the amount of tor absorbed by the filter. A
Q = flow rate of gas, m3/hr graduated U-tube manometer was used to measure the pres-
V = gas velocity, m/hr and sure drop across the cleaning unit. Cleaning system was
A = cross-sectional area of pipe, m2 divided into four units, i.e., unit 1, unit 2, unit 3, unit 4,
T = running time of gasifier (sec) and pressure drop in each cleaning unit was measured sepa-
Syngas generated from the reactor was passed through a rately. Cleaning unit 1 includes only cyclone separator; clean-
series of cleaners and subjected to two different treatments as ing unit 2 contains cyclone separator and wet scrubber;
cleaning unit 3 contains cyclone separator, wet scrubber,
and biomass filter; and cleaning unit 4 contains cyclone
(1) To when wood chips used as a fuel separator, wet scrubber, biomass filter, and auxiliary filter.
(2) 2. T1 when corn cobs used as fuel Change in pressure drop was measured in each unit.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 727

Data analysis downstream power generation unit (Raman, Ram, and

Gupta 2013). The average concentrations of the combustible
After sampling of tar and producer gas, data were compiled
gases, namely carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen (H2), and
and tabulated. PROG GLM (General Linear Model) and
methane (CH4) obtained were within the limits as reported in
Microsoft Office Excel software were used for analysis and
the previous work.
presentation of data in a comprehensive way. Statistical ana-
lysis of data was carried out using ANOVA with two treat-
ments with three replications and significance difference was Tar contents in producer gas from gasifier
found between both treatments. Different charts, tables, Fifteen kilograms of both wood chips and corn cobs were
graphs, etc. were prepared for the presentation of results. burnt as a fuel to measure the tar from the reactor. The tar
contents were collected from the reactor before the gas was
cleaned and then the collected data was analyzed. It was
observed that corn cobs produced more tar in the reactor
Results and discussion
than wood chips, because tar production is related to the
Biomass gasification moisture content and the corn cobs have high moisture con-
tent than the wood chips. It was observed that wood chips
Wood chips and corn cobs were used as a biomass fuel to
produced almost 6,600 mg/m3 tar concentration from the
carry out the gasification process in the gasifier. Moisture
biomass reactor and when using corncobs as a fuel it was
contents present in corn cobs were 13% and its size was
7,500 mg/m3 (Table 3).
3.05 cm. The moisture content of wood chips was 8% and
size was 7.5 cm. It was observed that the amount of gas
produced from the corn cobs was high (40.6 m3) as compared Tar reduction by cleaning system
to wood chips which produced 38.33 m3 of gas. The analysis
for biomass conversion rate was determined from the amount The efficient working of the gasifier depends upon the tar
of syngas yield per unit weight of biomass and their results are removal techniques. For cleaning of tar impurities from syn-
presented in Table 2. Biomass conservation rate of corn cob gas, different cleaning units, i.e. scrubber cyclone separator,
was 2.6 Nm3/kg, which is relatively high as compared to the wet scrubber, biomass filter, and auxiliary filter were attached
woodchips having biomass conservation rate of 2.5 Nm3/kg. with the biomass gasifier. Performances of these cleaning
Figure 3 illustrated the average amounts of syngas compo- systems for removal of tar impurities from producer gas
nents produced from woodchips and corn cobs. The heating were experimentally evaluated. Biomass gasification tests
values results of wood chips were seems to be more as com- were performed using two different feedstocks, i.e., wood
pared to corn cobs expect values of carbon dioxide. Heating chips and cone cobs. For every test in the gasification system
value of producer gas can affect the performance of the like total amount gas produced from the same amount of fuel
used; total amount of tar from reactor, cyclone separator, wet
scrubber, and biomass filter in the same amount of the fuel;
Table 2. Biomass conversion rate of wood chips and corn cobs. and operating time for the burning of the fuel and the com-
Volume Volume position of gas were analyzed. Gas and tars were collected at
of of Biomass
Biomass syngas syngas Conversion rate conversion inlet and outlet of each filter to evaluate their cleaning effi-
weight (Nm3) (Nm3) of biomass rate (Nm3/ ciency. Figures 4 and 5 illustrated the tar removal efficiency of
consumed Wood Corn (Nm3/kg) kg) different cleaning units when wood chips and corn cobs were
Trial (kg) chips cob Wood chips Corn cob
used as a fuel, respectively.
1 15 40 45 2.66 3
2 15 37 37 2.4 2.4
3 15 38 40 2.5 2.6 Tar removal efficiency of cyclone separator
Average 15 38.5 38 2.5 2.6
STD 0 1.24 3.29 0.10 0.24 Exit producer gas from the reactor was used as input to
cyclone separator, and final tar at the outlet of separator was
collected by using plastic bags and measured. It was observed
70 that initial tar in producer gas was 6,600 mg/m3 when wood
60.57

59.2

Wood Chips Corn cobs

60 chips were used as feedstock and after passing through from
cyclone filter its value reduced to 1,827 mg/m3. In case of corn
VALUE ( %V/V)

50
cobs, initial tar contents were 7,500 mg/m3 and reduced to
38.62

40
2,582 mg/m3 when passed through cyclone separator. Tar
30
14.25

12.32

11.99
11.94

11.63

20
Table 3. Tar contents in producer gas from two different feedstocks.
10 Wood chips Corn cobs
1.46

2.5

0 Total tar Total gas Tar content Total tar Total gas Tar content
Carbon Carbon
Methane
monoxide
Hydrogen
dioxide
Nitrogen Run (g) (m3) (mg/m3) (g) (m3) (mg/m3)
Wood Chips 1.46 11.94 12.32 11.99 60.57 `1 260 40 6,500 320 42 7,600
Corn cobs 2.5 14.25 11.63 38.62 59.2 2 253 37 6,830 300 37 8,100
3 257 38 6,760 295 40 7,300
Figure 3. Heating values and composition of producer gas from wood chips and Average 256 38.5 6,600 305 40.66 7,666
corn cobs. STD 2.86 1.24 142 10.80 2.05 329
728 M. AWAIS ET AL.

mg/m3 with percentage reduction in 27 %. previous have shown that water-based scrubber could remove
7000 80 tar contents up to 62%, and if these are equipped with oil-
3, 74
6000
1, 72 70 based scrubber they could remove tar contents up to 99%
2, 63
60 (Rameshkumar and Mayilsamy 2012; Zwart 2009). Wet scrub-
5000
50
ber can also remove the metals and dust particles which

Perccentage(%)
mg/m^3

4000 remains in the gas phase (Stevens 2001).

40
3000 4, 35
30
Tar removal efficiency of biomass filter
2000
20 The exit producer gas from the wet scrubber was passed out
1000 10 in the inlet of biomass filter, and the final value of tar was
0 0 measured at the exit point of biomass filter. Results show that
Cyclone
Wet scrubber Biomass filter Axillary filter
separator the inlet and outlet syngas tar contents of the filter system
Initial tar content (mg/m3) 6600 1827 676 174
equipped with a wood chip were 676, 174 mg/m3, respectively,
Final tar in syngas (mg/m3) 1827 676 174 112
Efficency (%) 72 63 74 35
while in case of corn cobs they were 1,048 and 302 mg/m3,
respectively. The efficiency of biomass filter in case of wood
Figure 4. Tor removal efficiency of different cleaning units when woodchips chips was 74%, and when we used corn cobs it was 71%. The
used as feedstock. results reveal that wet scrubber remove a large amount of tar
when wood chips were used as fuel compared to corn cobs.
8000 80 Previous researches have indicated that bio-based filters are
7000 3, 71 70 more effective in the removal of tar from producer gas
1, 66
6000 2, 59 60
(Pareek et al. 2012; Rameshkumar and Mayilsamy 2012;
5000 50
Thapa et al. 2017). Wood shaving filters could remove tar
Perccentage(%)

contents only up to 10%, and if they equipped with oil-based

mg/m^3

4000 40
filter and water scrubber they could remove 97% tar contents
3000 30
4, 27 (Thapa et al. 2017). Wood shaving filter had less tar removal
2000 20
efficiency because Thapa et al. (2017) passes produced gas
1000 10
directly from it. In this study, tar removal efficiency of bio-
0 0
Cyclone
Wet scrubber Biomass filter Axillary filter
mass filter was found to be 74% when it was equipped with
separator
Initial tar content (mg/m3) 7500 2582 1048 302 cyclone separator and wet scrubbers.
Final tar in syngas (mg/m3) 2582 1048 302 220
Efficency (%) 66 59 71 27
Tar removal efficiency of auxiliary filter
Figure 5. Tor removal efficiency of different cleaning units when corn cob used
Final tar remained after passing through biomass filter was
as feedstock. 174 mg/m3, and literature stated that the acceptable range for
tar in IC engine is 50–100 mg/Nm3, so in order to achieve this
acceptable range, an auxillary filter was provided at the end
removal efficiency of cyclone separator was 72% when wood stage of cleaning system. It was seen that tar in syngas pro-
chips used as fuel, while in case of corn cob its value was 66%. duced by wood chip was reduced to 112 mg/m3 after passing
Previous studies have also reported that high tar removal through the axillary filter. In case of corn cobs, tar contents
efficiency was found in cleaning systems when integrated were reduced from 302 to 220 mg/m3 with a percentage
with oil scrubber cyclone separator (97%), which indicates it reduction of 27%.
is effectiveness for removal of tar (Ahmad and Zainal 2016;
Bhoi et al. 2015; Paethanom et al. 2013). The ability of oil-
Overall performance of cleaning units
based cleaning system to remove tar from producer gas is due
to their lipophilicity characteristics. Lipophilicity is the ability Overall performance in removal of tar from producer gas was
of the oil-based filters to dissolve nonpolar hydrocarbons. Tar analyzed for both feedstock, i.e., wood chips and corn cob. It
compounds have lipophilic characteristics and can dissolve was observed that when wood chips were used as a fuel syngas
well with oily things (Ahmad et al., 2016). tar contents were reduced from 6,600 to 112 mg/Nm3, while
in case of corn cob they were reduced from 7,500 to 220 mg/
Tar removal efficiency of wet scrubber Nm3. Percentage reduction in tar contents was 98.3% when
Producer gas released from the outlet of cyclone separator was wood chips were used as fuel, while in case if corn cob it was
used as input in wet scrubber to reduce further tar in gas. The 97.3%. The results obtained after the performance evaluation
final value of tar was measured at the outlet of wet scrubber. It of downdraft biomass gasifier described that the wood chips
was seen that average value of tar content was reduced from produced low quantity of tar as compared to corn cobs.
1,827 to 676 mg/m3 when wood chip was used as feedstock, Figure 6 Illustrates overall tar removal efficiency of different
while in case of corn cubs its value was reduced to 2,582 to cleaning units integrated with a gasifier. It was observed that
1,048 mg/m3. Percentage reduction of tar contents for wood when exit syngas produced from wood chips and corn cobs
chips and corn cobs was 63% and 59%, respectively. The was passed through unit 1 which include only cyclone separa-
results revealed that wet scrubber removes a large amount of tor, tar contents were reduced by 72%, 65%, respectively.
tar when we used wood chips as fuel than corn cobs. Some When producer syngas in the gasifier with wood chips and
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 729

120 wood chips corn cobs Table 4. ANOVA for different performance parameters tested under two types of
fuels.
100 Parameters Source DF SS MSS F P
Operating time Treatment 1 6,936,600 693,600 25.7 0.0072
Tar removal %

80
Error 4 108,133 27,033
60
total 5 801,733
Tar produced Treatment 1 1,938,017 1,938,017 18.4 0.0127
from reactor Error 4 420,467 105,117
40 Total 5 2,358,483
Tar produced Treatment 1 855,793 855,793 22.0 0.0093
20 from cyclone Error 4 155,283 38,821
Total 5 1,011,075
0 Tar produced Treatment 1 225,428 225,428 28.4 0.0060
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 from wet scrubber Error 4 31,737 7,934
Cleaning Units Total 5 257,165
Tar produced Treatment 1 25,090.7 25,090.7 9.29 0.0381
from biomass filter Error 4 10,807.3 27,01.8
Figure 6. Overall tar removal efficiency of different cleaning units. Total 5 35,898.0
Tar produced Treatment 1 29,749.5 4,579.7 7.45 0.0056
from auxiliary filter Error 4 79,074.3 2,348.8
corn cobs was passed through unit 2 which include cyclone total 5 45,690.0
Volume of gas produce Treatment 1 2.6667 2.66667 0.62 0.4766
separator and wet scrubber, tar contents were removed up to Error 4 17.333 4.33333
89% and 86%, respectively. Treatment efficiency of unit 2 was Total 5 20.000
increased due to combined working of two filters. Similarly, in
the last two units, removal of tar contents was increased
further due to the addition of extra cleaning unit in cleaning the burning of the fuel, and pressure drop were statistically
system. analyzed for two types of treatment, i.e., wood chips and
corn cob in order to evaluate their treatment difference.
The data recorded were then statistically analyzed by using
Pressure drop across various cleaning units PROG GLM procedures of the SAS system (1989). Table 4
Pressure drop across filters depends on the amount of tar illustrates the analysis of variance for various parameters
accumulated by filters, and pressure drop increase with an tested under two types of treatment. ANOVA test was per-
increase in tar accumulated in. Figure 7 shows that pressure formed at 5% level of significance interval. The operating
drop across the filter increased with tar absorbed by four time of the gasifier was noted in seconds. The weight of fuel
filters in two treatments, i.e., wood chips and corn cobs. (corn cobs and wood chips) used for gasification was 15 kg
However, more pressure drop was found when wood chips each. Table 4 shows that the operating time of corn and
were used as a bio-fuel. The trend of pressure drop indicated wood chips are statistically different from each other. The
tar absorbed by all five cleaning units was more for wood observation reveals that the running time of gasifier with
chips as compared to corn cobs. The pressure drop across wood chips as fuel is 8126.7 sec, while with corn cobs used
auxiliary filter for two treatments (0.2–0.5 in of H2O) was as fuel is 7446.7.0 sec. The operating time of wood chips is
lower compared to other filters and the results of other studies very high as compared to the corn cobs. The ANOVA test
(0.5–2 in of H2O) (Pathak et al. 2007; Rameshkumar and for amount of gas produced with two different treatments is
Mayilsamy 2012) due to low condensation of tar in it. presented in Table 4. Higher value of F indicates that both
treatments are different from each other. The data showed
that T1 (wood chips) produces less amount of gas as com-
Statical analysis pared to T2 (corn cobs). Treatment T1 produces 38.33 m3 of
gas. Treatment T2 produces 39.667 m3 of gas. The recorded
Different parameters like total amount of gas produced from
reading of tar produced from cyclone was statically analyzed
the same amount of the fuel used, total amount of tar clean-
to check the treatment different for both types of fuels. Data
ing units in the same amount of the fuel, operating time for
analysis shows that both treatments differ from each other,
and the F value was found to be 22 which is higher than the
90 wood chips corn cobs P value. The data showed that T1 (wood chips) produces less
80
y = 1.7227x - 91.969 amount of tar as compared to T2 (corn cobs). Treatment T1
70 R² = 0.9849 produces 1,826.7 mg/Nm3 of tar, while Treatment T2 pro-
Pressure drop (%)

60 duces 2,582.27 mg/Nm3 of tar. Similarly, all other parameters

50 were found to be significantly different from each other for
40 y = 1.8065x - 106.27 both treatments, presented in Table 4.
R² = 0.9974
30
20
10 Conclusions
0 The performance of four different cleaning units using wood chips
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Tar absorption (%)
and corn cobs was evaluated. Results of this study indicate that
wood chips produced less tar of 1,826 mg/Nm3 as compared to
Figure 7. Variation in pressure drop versus tar accumulation in the filter. corn cobs which produced tar 2,582 mg/Nm3. It was observed that
730 M. AWAIS ET AL.

when wood chips were used as a fuel syngas, tar contents were References
reduced from 6,600 to 112 mg/Nm3, while in case of corn cobs,
Ahmad, A. A., N. A. Zawawi, F. H. Kasim, A. Inayat, and A. Khasri.
they were reduced from 7,500 to 220 mg/Nm3. Tar removal 2016. Assessing the gasification performance of biomass: A review on
efficiencies of the cleaning units were auxiliary filter (35%) < wet biomass gasification process conditions, optimization and economic
scrubber (63%) < cyclone separator (72%) < biomass filter (74%) evaluation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53:1333–47.
when wood chips were used as a biomass fuel. Tar removal doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.030.
efficiencies of the cleaning units were auxiliary filter (27%) < wet Ahmad, N. A., and Z. Zainal. 2016. Performance and chemical composi-
tion of waste palm cooking oil as scrubbing medium for tar removal
scrubber (59%) < cyclone separator (66%) < biomass filter (71%) from biomass producer gas. Journal of Natural Gas Science and
when corn cobs were used as a biomass fuel. Overall tar removal Engineering 32:256–61. doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2016.03.015.
efficiencies of cyclone separator, wet scrubber, biomass filter, and Anis, S., and Z. Zainal. 2011. Tar reduction in biomass producer gas via
auxiliary were 72%, 63%, 74%, 35%, respectively. Following con- mechanical, catalytic and thermal methods: A review. Renewable and
clusions were drawn on the basis of the experimental study Sustainable Energy Reviews 15:2355–77. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.02.018.
conducted. Asadullah, M. 2014a. Barriers of commercial power generation using
biomass gasification gas: A review. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 29:201–15. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.074.
(1) Wood chip is an efficient fuel for production of Asadullah, M. 2014b. Biomass gasification gas cleaning for downstream
syngas. applications: A comparative critical review. Renewable and Sustainable
(2) Wood chips produce less tar as compared to corn Energy Reviews 40:118–32. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.132.
cobs. Azri, Y. M., I. Tou, M. Sadi, and L. Benhabyles. 2018. Bioelectricity
(3) Tar removal efficiency of biomass filter increased generation from three ornamental plants: Chlorophytum comosum,
Chasmanthe floribunda and Papyrus diffusus. International Journal of
when equipped with wet scrubber and cyclone Green Energy 15:254–63. doi:10.1080/15435075.2018.1432487.
separator. Balat, M. 2009. Global status of biomass energy use. Energy Sources, Part
(4) Biomass filter is more efficient as tar removed by this A 31:1160–73. doi:10.1080/15567030801952201.
filter was 74% and 71%, respectively for wood chips Bhoi, P. R., R. L. Huhnke, A. Kumar, M. E. Payton, K. N. Patil, and J. R.
and corn cobs. Whiteley. 2015. Vegetable oil as a solvent for removing producer gas
tar compounds. Fuel Processing Technology 133:97–104. doi:10.1016/j.
(5) Biomass gasification system can be used as a small fuproc.2014.12.046.
power station to fulfil the thermal and electrical Chianese, S., J. Loipersböck, M. Malits, R. Rauch, H. Hofbauer, A.
energy requirement. Molino, and D. Musmarra. 2015. Hydrogen from the high tempera-
(6) Auxiliary filter was developed to remove the remain- ture water gas shift reaction with an industrial Fe/Cr catalyst using
ing fine dust particles from the gas in order meet the biomass gasification tar rich synthesis gas. Fuel Processing Technology
132:39–48. doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.12.034.
acceptable range of fuel quality for IC engine. Chianese, S., S. Fail, M. Binder, R. Rauch, H. Hofbauer, A. Molino, A.
Blasi, and D. Musmarra. 2016. Experimental investigations of hydro-
The performance of the gasifier coupled with different clean- gen production from CO catalytic conversion of tar rich syngas by
ing systems demonstrated that producer gas after removal of biomass gasification. Catalysis Today 277:182–91. doi:10.1016/j.
tar could be used for running of the engine as it fulfills the cattod.2016.04.005.
Chiang, K.-Y., M.-H. Lin, C.-H. Lu, K.-L. Chien, and Y.-H. Lin. 2015.
requirement of engine producer gas quality. Improving the synthesis gas quality in catalytic gasification of rice
straw by an integrated hot-gas cleaning system. International Journal
of Green Energy 12:1005–11. doi:10.1080/15435075.2013.871635.
Demirbas, A. 2004. Bioenergy, global warming, and environmental
Acknowledgments impacts. Energy Sources 26:225–36. doi:10.1080/00908310490256581.
Devi, L., K. J. Ptasinski, and F. J. Janssen. 2003. A review of the primary
The authors would like to acknowledge the University of Agriculture measures for tar elimination in biomass gasification processes. Biomass
Faisalabad for their support in providing experiment station in workshop. and Bioenergy 24:125–40. doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00102-2.
Heidenreich, S., and P. U. Foscolo. 2015. New concepts in biomass
gasification. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 46:72–95.
doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2014.06.002.
Author contributions Hirohata, O., T. Wakabayashi, K. Tasaka, C. Fushimi, T. Furusawa, P.
Kuchonthara, and A. Tsutsumi. 2008. Release behavior of tar and
All authors significantly contributed to the scientific study and writing.
alkali and alkaline earth metals during biomass steam gasification.
Muhammad Awais collected the experimental data after running the
Energy & Fuels 22:4235–39. doi:10.1021/ef800390n.
project where Zeeshan Hayder and Arfan Arshad contributed to writing
Huang, J., K. G. Schmidt, and Z. Bian. 2011. Removal and conversion of tar
the manuscript.
in syngas from woody biomass gasification for power utilization using
catalytic hydrocracking. Energies 4:1163–77. doi:10.3390/en4081163.
Kate, G., and A Chaurasia. 2018. Gasification of rice husk in two-stage
gasifier to produce syngas, silica and activated carbon. 40 (4):466-471.
Declaration of interest doi:10.1080/15567036.2017.1423418.
The authors declare no conflict of interest. Manyà, J. J., J. L. Sánchez, J. Abrego, A. Gonzalo, and J. Arauzo. 2006.
Influence of gas residence time and air ratio on the air gasification of
dried sewage sludge in a bubbling fluidised bed. Fuel 85:2027–33.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.04.008.
Meng, X., W. De Jong, R. Pal, and A. H. Verkooijen. 2010. In bed and
Funding downstream hot gas desulphurization during solid fuel gasification: A
This work was supported by the Endowment Fund Secretariat (EFS) review. Fuel Processing Technology 91:964–81. doi:10.1016/j.
UAF http://www.efsuaf.org/ fuproc.2010.02.005.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 731

Michel, R., S. Rapagna, P. Burg, G. M. Di Celso, C. Courson, T. Zimny, Rameshkumar, R., and K. Mayilsamy. 2012. A novel compact bio-filter
and R. Gruber. 2011. Steam gasification of Miscanthus X Giganteus system for a down-draft gasifier: An experimental study. AASRI
with olivine as catalyst production of syngas and analysis of tars (IR, Procedia 3:700–06. doi:10.1016/j.aasri.2012.11.111.
NMR and GC/MS). Biomass and Bioenergy 35:2650–58. doi:10.1016/j. Rönkkönen, H., P. Simell, M. Reinikainen, O. Krause, and M. V.
biombioe.2011.02.054. Niemelä. 2010. Catalytic clean-up of gasification gas with precious
Milne, T. A., R. J. Evans, and N. Abatzaglou. 1998. Biomass metal catalysts–A novel catalytic reformer development. Fuel
gasifier”Tars”: Their nature, formation, and conversion. Golden, CO 89:3272–77. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2010.04.007.
(US): National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Ruiz, J., M. Juárez, M. Morales, P. Muñoz, and M. Mendívil. 2013.
Molino, A., S. Chianese, and D. Musmarra. 2016. Biomass gasification Biomass gasification for electricity generation: Review of current
technology: The state of the art overview. Journal of Energy Chemistry technology barriers. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
25:10–25. doi:10.1016/j.jechem.2015.11.005. 18:174–83. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.021.
Paethanom, A., P. Bartocci, B. D’alessandro, M. D’Amico, F. Testarmata, N. Singh, R., S. Mandovra, and J. Balwanshi. 2013. Performance of evalua-
Moriconi, K. Slopiecka, K. Yoshikawa, and F. Fantozzi. 2013. A low-cost tion of “jacketed cyclone” for reduction of tar from producer gas.
pyrogas cleaning system for power generation: Scaling up from lab to International Agricultural Engineering Journal 22:1–5.
pilot. Applied Energy 111:1080–88. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.06.044. Spliethoff, H. 2001. Status of biomass gasification for power production.
Pareek, D., A. Joshi, S. Narnaware, and V. K. Verma. 2012. Operational IFRF-Combustion Journal? 1999-2001:1–25.
experience of agro-residue briquettes based power generation system of Srirangan, K., L. Akawi, M. Moo-Young, and C. P. Chou. 2012. Towards
100 kW capacity. International Journal of Renewable Energy Research sustainable production of clean energy carriers from biomass
(IJRER) 2:477–85. resources. Applied Energy 100:172–86. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.
Pathak, B., D. Kapatel, P. Bhoi, A Sharma, and D. Vyas. 2007. Design and 2012.05.012.
development of sand bed filter for upgrading producer gas to ic Stevens, D. J. 2001. Hot gas conditioning: Recent progress with larger-scale
engine quality fuel. International Energy Journal 8:1. biomass gasification systems; update and summary of recent progress.
Pereira, E. G., J. N. Da Silva, J. L. de Oliveira, and C. S. Machado. 2012. Golden, CO (US): National Renewable Energy Lab.
Sustainable energy: A review of gasification technologies. Renewable and Thapa, S., P. R. Bhoi, A. Kumar, and R. L. Huhnke. 2017. Effects of
Sustainable Energy Reviews 16:4753–62. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.023. syngas cooling and biomass filter medium on tar removal. Energies
Raman, P., N. Ram, and R. Gupta. 2013. A dual fired downdraft gasifier 10:349. doi:10.3390/en10030349.
system to produce cleaner gas for power generation: Design, develop-
ment and performance analysis. Energy 54:302–14. doi:10.1016/j. Zwart, R. (2009). “Gas cleaning: Downstream biomass gasification: Status
energy.2013.03.019. Report 2009,” ECN.