PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.

com

Optimization of Operating Conditions of a Household

Up-draft Biomass Gasification Stove
Shuanghui Deng, Xuebin Wang, Houzhang Tan,* Yan Li, Zhongfa Hu, and Ben Niu
Experiments were carried out with a household up-draft biomass
gasification stove to investigate effects of the air distribution method on
the performance of the stove. The temperature distribution along the
gasifier, the producer gas composition, the stove power, and the thermal
efficiency were investigated. Results showed that in the temperature
distribution along the gasifier height, the highest temperature was at the
bottom oxidation layer of the gasifier, in the range of 950 to 1050 °C.
With increasing air quantity through the burner, the time required to boil
the water first decreased and then increased, whereas the stove power
and thermal efficiency increased and then decreased. The best stove
performance was obtained at an optimum air distribution ratio of 0.333
between burner and gasifier air (0.794×10-3 m3/s·kg). When the burner
air increased, the flame length above the burner was remarkably
reduced and the flame color gradually changed from yellow-red to blue.
At the optimum air distribution ratio of 0.333, the flame was blue and
stable. The present study provides references for developing a more
efficient biomass gasification stove.

Keywords: Biomass; Stove; Air distribution; Gasification stove; Optimization; Efficiency

Contact information: MOE Key Laboratory of Thermo-Fluid Science and Engineering, School of Energy
and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China;
* Corresponding author: tanhz@mail.xjtu.edu.cn

INTRODUCTION

Biomass is widely regarded as a potential renewable, carbon-neutral energy

source and is especially important in developing countries. Biomass accounts for more
than 90% of the total rural energy supplies in underdeveloped countries, and 10% to 15%
of the world’s primary energy consumption (Qiu et al. 1996; Bhattacharya and Salam
2002). Increasing research attention has been focused on biomass use, with concerns of
global warming and energy shortage growing. Currently, over two billion people use
biomass-derived energy to cook every day (MacCarty et al. 2008). Even though the
traditional, small-scale stove degrades air quality and is thermally inefficient, biomass is
still commonly used in small-scale stoves for household cooking or warming because it is
simple and cheap (Panwar 2009).
Many studies have been conducted to characterize small cookstove performance
(Ballard-Tremeer and Jawurek 1996; McCracken and Smith 1998; Boy et al. 2000; Bailis
et al. 2007; Jetter et al. 2012). These studies indicate that the efficiency of biomass
utilization for cooking could be enhanced by two to three times and that the efficiency of
traditional biomass-fired cooking stoves is in the range of 5% to 20%. However, recent,
more advanced types of stoves can be more than 30% efficient (Bhattacharya et al. 2002;
Yuntenwi et al. 2008; Panwar 2010; Li et al. 2011; Huangfu et al. 2014).

Deng et al. (2015). “Gasifier stove optimization,” BioResources 10(3), 4178-4190. 4178
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Recent works on biomass stoves have focused primarily on pollutant emissions
(Brauer et al. 1995; Smith et al. 2000; Ezzati and Kammen 2001; Reddy and
Venkataraman 2002; Koyuncu and Pinar 2007; Johnson et al. 2011). Comparisons of
different kinds of stoves indicate that the fan stove and the gasifier stove emit relatively
few particulates and greenhouse gases (Smith et al. 1993; MacCarty et al. 2008). The
gasifier stove has the potential for higher-efficiency, lower-emission, small-scale biomass
utilization. However, there are many problems with the application of biomass gasifier
stoves, including the low gas heat value, poor fuel adaptability, and high tar content.
Many previous studies have focused on the final efficiency and emissions.
Research on the reaction process in the stove has been insufficient, although very
important for building a theoretical basis for emission control and efficiency
improvement in stoves. In the present study, the effect of the air distribution method
(including the overall air quantity into the stove system and the ratio of air supplied
between the gasifier and burner) on the performance of a household up-draft biomass
gasification stove was investigated. The temperature distribution and gas composition
along the gasifier were determined, and the gasified gas heat value and thermal efficiency
of the stove were calculated.

EXPERIMENTAL

Gasification Stove
The tested gasification stove system is shown in Fig. 1. It consisted of gasifier, air
supplying and distribution, burner, gas sampling, and temperature measurement sections.
The gasifier was made of a refractory steel tube with an inside diameter of 290 mm and a
heating-length of 330 mm. The outside diameter of the gasifier was 385 mm. Along the
height of the gasifier, six sampling holes were fixed into one side of the gasifier to
measure the gas composition at heights of 50, 125, 200, 275, 350, and 425 mm. On the
other side of the gasifier, four K-type thermocouples accurate to within 1 °C were
installed to measure the central temperatures at heights of 90, 215, 335, and 455 mm. The
distributed air blown into the gasifier or burner could be adjusted using the valves on the
branch pipes.

Fig. 1. Experimental gasification stove system: 01 - temperature recorder; 02 - thermocouple; 03

- ash outlet; 04 - gasifier; 05 - gas sampling; 06 - tar collector; 07 - air distribution valve; 08 - gas
burner, and 09 - air blower

Deng et al. (2015). “Gasifier stove optimization,” BioResources 10(3), 4178-4190. 4179
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Fuel Properties
Previous studies (Wang et al. 2012, 2014) have shown that the differences
between different kinds of agricultural biomass are relatively minor. Straw, the most
common crop waste in China, was used in the present investigation. It was acquired from
the city of Baoji in western China. The fuel properties are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Proximate and Ultimate Analyses of Straw Used in Gasification Stove

Qnet,al Proximate Analysis Ultimate Analysis
Fuel (MJ/kg) (wt. %) (wt. %)
Qnet,d Mad Aad Vad FCad Cad Had Nad Oad St,ad Clad
Straw 14.77 3.88 6.01 72.1 18.01 43.92 4.47 0.44 40.98 0.3 0.486

Measurement and Calculation Methods

The entire 8 kg of biomass was loaded into the gasifier in one batch. The gasifier
was preheated to the desired temperature through the external heater strip at the bottom
until some fuel gas was produced at the top of the gasifier. Next, the top half of gasifier
was covered with a lid, and the external heater was closed. The air from the air blower
was fed into the gasifier. The test began. The temperature and gas distribution in the
gasifier stove reached a steady state after a period of time. The temperature values were
obtained by the temperature recorders. During the test, a small amount of tar from the
gasifier appeared in the tar collector. The fuel gas was ignited by an open flame on the
top of the gas burner. A kettle filled with water was placed above the burner. The
producer gas was sampled at the outlet of the gasifier and analyzed using a gas
chromatograph-mass spectrometer (GC-MS, GCMS-QP2010 Ultra, Shimadzu, Japan)
and a flue gas analyzer (Gasmet DX-400, Gasmet Technologies, Finland). The heating
value (MJ/m3) of the gasified gas was calculated according to the mole fractions of the
constituent gas species. The water temperature was measured by a kerosene thermometer.
The water boiling method (Li et al. 2011) was used to determine the output power
(kW) and thermal efficiency (%) according to the time from ambient temperature to
95 °C after boiling temperature. The output power of the stove is defined as,
Es  EL
Pstove  (1)
t1  t 2
where Pstove is the stove power (kW), ES is the sensible heat required to raise the water
from room temperature to boiling temperature (kJ), EL is the latent heat (kJ), t1 is the time
when the water temperature was 95 °C after boiling (s), and t2 is the time when water
heating began (s).
The stove thermal efficiency (Li et al. 2011) is defined as,
ES  E L
ηstove  100 (2)
M WLQnet
where ηstove is the thermal efficiency (%), MWL is the mass of fuel burned (kg), and Qnet is
the lower heating value of the fuel (kJ/kg).
Gasification efficiency and carbon conversion also describe the performance of
the gasifier and are defined as,
Gas heating value (kJ  m -3 )  gas production rate (m 3  kg 1 ) (3)
ηgas  1
Heating value of biomass fuel (kJ  kg )

Deng et al. (2015). “Gasifier stove optimization,” BioResources 10(3), 4178-4190. 4180
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
12  (CVCO2  CVCO  CVCH4 )
η carbon   GV
298 (4)
22.4  ( )  Ccarbon
273
where CV is the species volume content in the gas produced (%), GV is the production
rate of gasified gas (m3/kg), and Ccarbon is the carbon content in the biomass fuel used.
Gas heating value is the lower heating value in this work, and its calculation
formula is as follows,

Q  12.64 VCO  18.79 VH 2  35.88 VCH4  64.35 VC2 H 6  59.44 VC2 H 4 (5)

where Q is the gas heating value (MJ/m3), and VCO, VH2, VCH4, VC2H6, and VC2H4 (vol%) are
the volumes of the respective gas components of the producer gas.

Test Conditions
Two groups of tests were conducted in this study. In the first, all air was supplied
to the gasifier and there was no air supplied to the burner. These tests were done to
investigate the effect of the air quantity supplied on the gasifier. Under these conditions,
the flame on the burner was a diffusion flame. The air quantities into the gasifier tested
were 0.265×10-3, 0.529×10-3, 0.794×10-3, and 1.058×10-3 m3/s·kg. The unit of air quantity
is m3/s·kg, the air quantity per unit mass biomass fuel. In each test, 8 kg of biomass was
loaded into the gasifier.
In the second group of tests, the air quantity into the gasifier was held constant at
the optimum value from the first group of tests, and the air quantity into the burner was
either 0, 1.27×10-3, 2.117×10-3, or 2.717×10-3 m3/s, corresponding to gasifier-to-burner
air ratios of 0, 0.2, 0.333, and 0.428.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Temperature and Gas Distribution in the Gasifier

Layer analysis in the up-draft gasifier

Fig. 2. Layered reaction structure in an up-draft gasifier

Deng et al. (2015). “Gasifier stove optimization,” BioResources 10(3), 4178-4190. 4181
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
The gasification process in an up-draft gasifier can be divided into four layers:
drying, pyrolysis, reduction, and oxidation, from top to bottom, as shown in Fig. 2. In the
present gasifier, these layers corresponded to heights of 455, 335, 215, and 90 mm,
respectively.
In the drying layer, the water in the biomass was removed in the following
reaction,
CaHbOc•n H2O→CaHbOc + n H2O, ΔH > 0 (R1)

In the pyrolysis layer, the volatiles in the biomass decomposed into gas and tar,
producing char as follows,

CaHbOc → Gas + Tars + Char, ΔH > 0 (R2)

Tars → Light and heavy hydrocarbons + CO + CO2 + H2,ΔH > 0 (R3)

In the reducing layer, both CO2 and H2O can be reduced to CO, H2, and CH4 by
char at high temperatures as described by the following reactions,

C + CO2 ↔ 2 CO, ΔH = 172.4 kJ/mol (R4)

C + 2 H2O ↔ CO2 + 2H2 , ΔH = 90.2 kJ/mol (R5)
C + H2O ↔ CO + H2 , ΔH = 131.3 kJ/mol (R6)
C + 2 H2 ↔ CH4, ΔH = - 74.8 kJ/mol (R7)
CO + 3 H2 ↔ CH4 + H2O , ΔH = - 206.1 kJ/mol (R8)
2 CO + 2 H2 ↔ CH4 + CO2 , ΔH = -247.3 kJ/mol (R9)
CO2 + 4 H2 ↔ CH4 + 2H2O, ΔH = - 165.0 kJ/mol (R10)
CO + H2O ↔ CO2 + H2 , ΔH = - 41.1 kJ/mol (R11)

In the oxidation layer at the bottom of the gasifier, biomass is oxidized in the
presence of air as described by the reactions,

C + O2 ↔ CO2 , ΔH = - 393.5 kJ/mol (R12)

2 C + O2 ↔ 2 CO, ΔH = - 233 kJ/mol (R13)
2 H2 + O2 ↔ 2 H2O, ΔH = - 483.6 kJ/mol (R14)
2 CO + O2 ↔ 2 CO2 , ΔH = - 221 kJ/mol (R15)
CH4 + 2 O2 ↔ CO2 + 2 H2O, ΔH = - 889.5 kJ/mol (R16)

The four layers of reaction structure were set up and will be used further in data
analysis. Most importantly, the temperature distribution was in a dynamic relation with
the tests. Along with the going of reaction in the gasifier, the general temperature
increased, ash was produced and stacked at the bottom, consequently, these four reaction
layers moved upwards.

Deng et al. (2015). “Gasifier stove optimization,” BioResources 10(3), 4178-4190. 4182
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Temperature
The temperature distribution along the gasifier height at different times is shown
in Fig. 3. Measuring the temperature at different heights is important, especially in
building the layered reaction structure model of the gasifier. The results obtained in the
experiment can be used to verify the model. In addition, according to the temperature
distribution at different heights and the reaction model, the gas distribution at different
heights could be obtained. Under these conditions, all air passed through the gasifier
(0.794×10-3 m3/s·kg) and there was no air routed to the burner. At the beginning of
gasification, the outlet temperature at 450 mm was very low, at room temperature,
because the hot flue gas had not had time to have a great influence. With increasing
operating time, the high temperature zone moved upwards and the outlet temperature
increased to 267 °C after 30 min.
1200
5min
10min
1000
15min
20min
800 25min
Temperature ( C)

30min
o

600

400

200

0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Height in gasifier (mm)

Fig. 3. Temperature distribution in gasifier (0.794×10-3 m3/s·kg)

As shown in Fig. 4, the outlet gas composition stabilized approximately 20 min

after ignition.

H2
40
CO
CH4
CO2
30
Gas composition (%)

O2

20

10

5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (min)

Fig. 4. Outlet gas composition change with time (0.794×10-3 m3/s·kg)

Deng et al. (2015). “Gasifier stove optimization,” BioResources 10(3), 4178-4190. 4183
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
In the first 20 min, the temperature decreased along the gasifier height from the
bottom to the top, and the highest temperature was always at the bottom oxidation layer.
However, after 20 min, when the gasification stove system reached stable conditions, the
highest temperature moved upwards, to about 220 mm. Under stable operation, the
highest temperature was mostly in the range of 950 to 1050 °C. Such a layered
temperature distribution was useful and can be used for modeling and analysis of the
reaction process inside the gasifier.

Gas composition
After ignition, the outlet gas was sampled and analyzed using GC every 5 min; the
gas composition over time is shown in Fig. 4. In the first 5 min, the CO2 content was very
high because biomass combustion had begun in the oxygen layer but the reaction in the
pyrolysis and reducing layers was slight. With increasing operating time, the content of
CO and H2 increased because the high-temperature zone moved upwards, as shown in Fig.
3. The operating condition tended toward stability; after 20 min, the gas composition
remained unchanged. Under stable conditions, CO was most abundant at approximately
25%, the contents of CO2 and H2 were approximately 10%, and CH4 accounted for
approximately 4% of the gas produced. There was a small amount of O2 at the outlet
from unreacted air.

28
26
24
22 H2
20 CO
Gas composition (%)

18 CH4
16
CO2
14
O2
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Height (mm)

Fig. 5. Gas composition distribution in gasifier (0.794×10-3 m3/s·kg)

Under stable operating conditions, the gas distribution at six positions along the
gasifier height was measured, as shown in Fig. 5. The O2 concentration was notably high
at 50 mm, but it dropped to almost zero at 150 mm. This was because the ash zone was
below 50 mm and no oxidation reaction occurred in this zone. In the oxidation layer from
50 to 100 mm, O2 was quickly consumed and the CO2 content rose rapidly. In this
oxidation layer, the CO content rose very slowly because of the excess air used.
In the layer from 125 to 200 mm, the CO2 content dropped rapidly and the CO
content rose rapidly, indicating this was the reducing layer in which CO2 was reduced to
CO by char according to reaction R4. In this layer, the H2 content also increased as
reactions R5 and R6, while the increase in CH4 content was very slow, indicating that
reactions R7 through R11 occurred at slow rates. In the layer from 200 to 300 mm, the
CH4 and H2 contents continued to rise, but the CO content was almost stable, indicating
that this was the pyrolysis layer and that the hydrocarbons were mostly from the pyrolysis

Deng et al. (2015). “Gasifier stove optimization,” BioResources 10(3), 4178-4190. 4184
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
reaction. In the layer above 300 mm, all gas concentrations were stable, indicating that
this was the drying layer, inside of which no remarkable reactions took place.

Effect of Air Quantity into Gasifier

Temperature
In this group of tests, all air passed through the gasifier and there was no air fed to
the burner. The effect of the quantity of air into the gasifier on the temperature
distribution is shown in Fig. 6. Figure 6(a) shows that changing the air quantity in the
range tested did not affect the overall trend of the temperature distribution. However, the
data in Fig. 6(b) suggest that the effect of air quantity was greater. With increasing air
quantity, the temperatures in the oxidation and reducing layers increased, reaching
maxima at 0.794×10-3 m3/s·kg. With further increase in the air quantity, the temperatures
decreased, meaning that there was an optimum quantity of air to achieve the highest stove
temperature and enhance the reactions in the stove.
1200 1200
-3 3
0.265×10 m /s·kg
-3 3
1000 0.529×10 m /s·kg 1000
-3 3
0.794×10 m /s·kg
-3 3
1.058×10 m /s·kg
800 800
Temperature ( C)

Temperature(℃)
o

600 600

400 400 Oxidation

Reduction
Pyrolysis
200 200
Drying

0 0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
-3 3
Height in gasifier (mm) Air quantity (10 m /s·kg)
(a) (b)
Fig. 6. Effect of air quantity on temperature distributions

Gas composition
The effect of air quantity into the gasifier on gas composition is shown in Fig. 7.
Increasing the air quantity increased the H2 content from 7% to 11% and the O2 content
from 2.12% to 2.96% but decreased the CH4 content from 9.33% to 6.30%. The changes
in CO and CO2 contents were inversely related.
25

H2
20
CO
CO2
Gas composition (%)

15 CH4
O2

10

0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
-3 3
Air quantity into gasifier (10 m /s·kg)

Fig. 7. Effect of air quantity on gas composition

Deng et al. (2015). “Gasifier stove optimization,” BioResources 10(3), 4178-4190. 4185
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
The changed amounts of CO and CO2 were almost equal, indicating the
transformation between CO2 and CO. Because reaction R4 was endothermic, the equation
R4 went in the direction of producing CO. So, an increase of air flow rate increases the
amount of CO but reduces the amount of CO2 produced. CO accounted for most of the
produced gases, and it was found that the content of CO reached a maximum at
0.794×10-3 m3/s·kg, which also yielded the maximum reaction temperature in oxidation
and reducing layers. This further demonstrated the existence of an optimum air quantity
into the gasifier and that higher reaction temperatures enhanced endothermic reducing
reactions such as R4, R5, and R6.

Gasifier and stove performances

The effects of the air quantity into the gasifier on the stove performance are listed
in Table 2. With increasing air quantity from 0.265 to 1.058 m3/s·kg, the gas yield
increased from 1.43 to 1.59 m3/kg. The gas heating value reached a maximum at the air
quantity of 0.794×10-3 m3/s·kg. This was due to the gas composition, as can be seen in
Fig. 7. At the optimum air quantity, a large amount of CO2 was transformed into
combustible CO, yielding the highest gasification efficiency of 33.59%. The carbon
conversion efficiency reached a maximum of 63.83% at 0.529×10-3 m3/s·kg during the
texts examined.

Table 2. Stove Performance with Various Air Quantities Introduced into the
Gasifier
Condition Condition Condition Condition
- Name
1 2 3 4
Air Air quantity (10-3 m3/s·kg) 0.265 0.529 0.794 1.058
Water Initial Temperature (°C) 11 11 9 10
Water After Boiling (°C) 99.5 99.8 100.5 100
Water Water Initial Mass (kg) 2 2 2 2
Water Final Mass (kg) 1.896 1.74 1.72 1.761
Time for Water Boiling Test (s) 2100 960 840 870
Gas Yield (m3/kg) 1.43 1.47 1.53 1.59
Gas Heating Value (MJ/m3) 5.90 6.24 6.48 6.08
Gasifier Carbon Conversion Efficiency
61.84 63.81 60.20 57.22
(%)
Gasification Efficiency (%) 31.47 32.82 33.59 31.96
Stove Power (kW) 0.464 1.385 1.664 1.286
Stove
Stove Thermal Efficiency (%) 22.001 30.015 32.632 31.253

Because there was no air passing through the burner in this group of tests, the gas
combustion on the burner should be via typical diffusion combustion. Under these
conditions, the stove performance should be determined primarily by the performances of
the gasifier. Consequently, at the optimum air quantity of 0.794×10-3 m3/s·kg, both the
output power and the thermal efficiency reached their maximum values, of 1.664 kW and
32.632%, respectively.

Effect of Air Distribution (Air Quantity through Burner) on Stove Efficiency

Air passing through the burner is also very important for stove efficiency. To
determine the effect of the air quantity passed through the burner, the air quantity through
the gasification stove was kept constant at the optimum value of 0.794×10-3 m3/s·kg and

Deng et al. (2015). “Gasifier stove optimization,” BioResources 10(3), 4178-4190. 4186
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
the air quantity through the burner was varied. The three tested conditions were air ratios
of 0.2, 0.333, and 0.428, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Stove Performance When Changing the Air Quantity through Burner
- Name Condition 4 Condition 5 Condition 6 Condition 7
Ratio of Air Quantity of Burner
Air 0.000 0.200 0.333 0.428
and Gasifier (1)
Water Initial Temperature (°C) 9 11 10 10
Water After Boiling (°C) 100.5 99.5 100 99
Water Water Initial Mass (kg) 2 2 2 2
Water Final Mass (kg) 1.72 1.762 1.76 1.773
Time for Water Boiling Test (s) 840 750 720 840
Stove Power (kW) 1.664 1.734 1.798 1.697
Stove
Stove Thermal Efficiency (%) 32.632 34.873 36.527 33.122
The air quantity through the gasifier was constant at 0.794×10-3 m3/s·kg.

With increasing air quantity through the burner, the time required to boil the water
first decreased and then increased, whereas the stove power and thermal efficiency
increased and then decreased. The optimum air distribution was a ratio of 0.333 between
the air to the burner and gasifier. Under the optimum conditions, the stove power
increased from 1.664 (diffusion flame with no air through the burner) to 1.798 kW
(partial premixed flame with optimum air though the burner) and the thermal efficiency
increased from 32.632% to 36.527%. The best operating condition for a partial premixed
flame yielded an additional 0.134 kW of power and 3.895% thermal efficiency as
compared with the diffusion flame.

(a) burner (b) flame with no air through the burner

(c) flame with optimum air through the burner (d) flame with too much air through the burner

Fig. 8. Flames with various air quantities through the burner

Deng et al. (2015). “Gasifier stove optimization,” BioResources 10(3), 4178-4190. 4187
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
The flame appearance with various burner air quantities is shown in Fig. 8. Three
kinds of flames were observed. Figure 8(a) shows the burner employed in this study, in
which the gasified gas flowed through the central, circular holes and air passed through
the swirling, inclined channels around these holes.
When no air passed though the burner and all the air went directly into the stove,
the flame on the burner was a typical diffusion flame, as shown in Fig. 8(b). Under these
conditions, there was no air from the swirling channels available to be mixed with the
gasified gas from the central holes; consequently, the flame was very long, unstable, and
had a yellow-red color.
With increasing air quantity passing through the burner, the flame length was
remarkably reduced because the injection of supplementary air from the swirling,
inclined channels mixed rapidly with the gasified gas. The flame color gradually changed
from yellow-red to blue, as shown in Fig. 8(c). A blue flame produces much higher
temperatures than a yellow-red flame and the blue flame exhibits much higher thermal
efficiency. This is why, under these conditions, the stove power and efficiency were the
highest, as shown in Table 3.
When the burner air was increased even further, the swirling air quantity was
excessive and led to a normal flame submerged by such high-speed air coming from the
swirling, inclined channels. Moreover, because the tangential momentum of the swirling
flow was too large, the energy loss in the tangential direction increased and the flame
area touching the bottom of the water pot was reduced. This is why the power and
thermal efficiency decreased when burner air was further increased.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The producer gas composition and energy output stabilized 15 min after ignition, and
the highest temperature was at the bottom oxidation layer of the gasifier, in the range
of 950 to 1050 °C. Along the gasifier height from bottom to top, the contents of H2,
CO, and CH4 increased until 250 mm and the content of CO2 reached a peak value at
approximately 150 mm.
2. There was an optimum air quantity at approximately 0.794×10-3 m3/s·kg that yielded
the best gasifier performance. With increasing air quantity into the gasifier, the stove
temperature, contents of CO and H2 in the producer gas, gas heating value, and
gasification efficiency first increased and then decreased. The highest gas heating
value and gasification efficiency were 6.48 MJ/m3 and 33.59%, respectively.
3. The best stove performance was obtained at an optimum air distribution ratio of 0.333
between the burner and gasifier air (0.794×10-3 m3/s·kg). Under these conditions, the
stove power and thermal efficiency reached 1.798 kW and 36.527%, respectively.
4. With increasing air quantity passing through the burner, the flame length above the
burner was remarkably reduced and the flame color gradually changed from yellow-
red to blue. At the optimum air distribution ratio of 0.333, the flame color showed
blue and stable.

Deng et al. (2015). “Gasifier stove optimization,” BioResources 10(3), 4178-4190. 4188
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Nos. 51306142 and 51376147) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities.

REFERENCES CITED

Bailis, R., Berrueta, V., Chengappa, C., Dutta, K., Edwards, R., Masera, O., and Smith,
K. R. (2007). “Performance testing for monitoring improved biomass stove
interventions: Experiences of the Household Energy and Health Project,” Energy for
Sustainable Development 11(2), 57-70. DOI: 10.1016/S0973-0826(08)60400-7
Ballard-Tremeer, G., and Jawurek, H. H. (1996). “Comparison of five rural, wood-
burning cooking devices: Efficiencies and emissions,” Biomass & Bioenergy 11(5),
419-430. DOI: 10.1016/S0961-9534(96)00040-2
Bhattacharya, S. C., and Salam, P. A. (2002). “Low greenhouse gas biomass options for
cooking in the developing countries,” Biomass & Bioenergy 22(4), 305-317. DOI:
10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00008-9
Boy, E., Bruce, N., Smith, K. R., and Hernandez, R. (2000). “Fuel efficiency of an
improved wood-burning stove in rural Guatemala: Implications for health,
environment and development,” Energy for Sustainable Development 4(2), 23-31.
DOI: 10.1016/S0973-0826(08)60239-2
Brauer, M., Bartlett, K., Regalado-Pineda, J., and Perez-Padilla, R. (1995). “Assessment
of particulate concentrations from domestic biomass combustion in rural Mexico,”
Environmental Science & Technology 30(1), 104-109. DOI: 10.1021/es9501272
Ezzati, M., and Kammen, D. M. (2001). “Indoor air pollution from biomass combustion
and acute respiratory infections in Kenya: an exposure-response study,” The Lancet
358(9282), 619-624. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05777-4
Huangfu, Y., Li, H., Chen, X., Xue, C., Chen, C., and Liu, G. (2014). “Effects of
moisture content in fuel on thermal performance and emission of biomass semi-
gasified cookstove,” Energy for Sustainable Development 21, 60-65. DOI:
10.1016/j.esd.2014.05.007
Jetter, J., Zhao, Y., Smith, K. R., Khan, B., Yelverton, T., DeCarlo, P., and Hays, M. D.
(2012). “Pollutant emissions and energy efficiency under controlled conditions for
household biomass cookstoves and implications for metrics useful in setting
international test standards,” Environmental Science & Technology 46(19), 10827-
10834. DOI: 10.1021/es301693f
Johnson, M., Lam, N., Brant, S., Gray, C., and Pennise, D. (2011). “Modeling indoor air
pollution from cookstove emissions in developing countries using a Monte Carlo
single-box,” Atmospheric Environment 45(19), 3237-3243. DOI:
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.03.044
Koyuncu, T., and Pinar, Y. (2007). “The emissions from a space-heating biomass stove,”
Biomass & Bioenergy 31(1), 73-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.06.014
Li, B., Chen, H., Yang, H., Wang, X., and Zhang, S. (2011). “Development and
improvement of household updraft biomass gasifier,” Transactions of the Chinese
Society of Agricultural Engineering 27(S1), 205-209 (in Chinese)

Deng et al. (2015). “Gasifier stove optimization,” BioResources 10(3), 4178-4190. 4189
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Li, Y., Wu, J., and Yang, Y. (2011). “Design and performance test of civil biomass stover
combined gasifier-burner,” Renewable Energy Resources 29(6), 153-159 (in Chinese)
MacCarty, N., Ogle, D., Still, D., Bond, T., and Roden, C. (2008). “A laboratory
comparison of the global warming impact of five major types of biomass cooking
stoves,” Energy for Sustainable Development 12(2), 56-65. DOI: 10.1016/S0973-
0826(08)60429-9
McCracken, J. P., and Smith, K. R. (1998). “Emissions and efficiency of improved
woodburning cookstoves in Highland Guatemala,” Environment International 24(7),
739-747. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-4120(98)00062-2
Panwar, N. L. (2009). “Design and performance evaluation of energy efficient biomass
gasifier based cookstove on multi fuels,” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change 14(7), 627-633. DOI: 10.1007/s11027-009-9187-4
Panwar, N. L. (2010). “Performance evaluation of developed domestic cook stove with
Jatropha shell,” Waste and Biomass Valorization 1(3), 309-314. DOI:
10.1007/s12649-010-9040-8
Qiu, D., Gu, S., Catania, P., and Huang, K. (1996). “Diffusion of improved biomass
stoves in China,” Energy Policy 24(5), 463-469. DOI: 10.1016/0301-4215(96)00004-
3
Reddy, M. S., and Venkataraman, C. (2002). “Inventory of aerosol and sulphur dioxide
emissions from India. Part II—Biomass combustion,” Atmospheric Environment
36(4), 699-712. DOI: 10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00464-2
Smith, K. R., Khalil, M. A. K., Rasmussen, R. A., Thorneloe, S. A., Manegdeg, F., and
Apte, M. (1993). “Greenhouse gases from biomass and fossil fuel stoves in
developing countries: A Manila pilot study,” Chemosphere 26(1), 479-505. DOI:
10.1016/0045-6535(93)90440-G
Smith, K. R., Uma, R., Kishore, V. V. N., Zhang, J., Joshi, V., and Khalil, M. A. K.
(2000). “Greenhouse implications of household stoves: An analysis for India,”
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 25(1), 741-763. DOI:
10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.741
Wang, X., Hu, Z., Deng, S., Wang, Y., Wei, B., and Tan, H. (2014). “Investigation on the
synergetic effect of biomass co-firing in the atmosphere of O2/CO2,” Journal of
Biobased Materials and Bioenergy 8(5), 481-488.
Wang, X., Si, J., Tan, H., Niu, Y., Xu, C., and Xu, T. (2012). “Kinetics investigation on
the combustion of waste capsicum stalks in Western China using thermogravimetric
analysis,” Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 109(1), 403-412.
Yuntenwi, E. A., MacCarty, N., Still, D., and Ertel, J. (2008). “Laboratory study of the
effects of moisture content on heat transfer and combustion efficiency of three
biomass cook stoves,” Energy for Sustainable Development 12(2), 66-77.
DOI:10.1016/S0973-0826(08)60430-5

Article submitted: February 6, 2015; Peer review completed: April 26, 2015; Revisions
received and accepted: May 18, 2015; Published: May 22, 2015.
DOI: 10.15376/biores.10.3.4178-4190

Deng et al. (2015). “Gasifier stove optimization,” BioResources 10(3), 4178-4190. 4190