Skip to main content
ACS Omega logoLink to ACS Omega
. 2022 Jul 12;7(29):24918–24941. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.2c01538

Review on Catalytic Biomass Gasification for Hydrogen Production as a Sustainable Energy Form and Social, Technological, Economic, Environmental, and Political Analysis of Catalysts

Fikret Muge Alptekin †,, Melih Soner Celiktas †,*
PMCID: PMC9330121  PMID: 35910154

Abstract

graphic file with name ao2c01538_0003.jpg

Sustainable energy production is a worldwide concern due to the adverse effects and limited availability of fossil fuels, requiring the development of suitable environmentally friendly alternatives. Hydrogen is considered a sustainable future energy source owing to its unique properties as a clean and nontoxic fuel with high energy yield and abundance. Hydrogen can be produced through renewable and nonrenewable sources where the production method and feedstock used are indicators of whether they are carbon-neutral or not. Biomass is one of the renewable hydrogen sources that is also available in large quantities and can be used in different conversion methods to produce fuel, heat, chemicals, etc. Biomass gasification is a promising technology to generate carbon-neutral hydrogen. However, tar production during this process is the biggest obstacle limiting hydrogen production and commercialization of biomass gasification technology. This review focuses on hydrogen production through catalytic biomass gasification. The effect of different catalysts to enhance hydrogen production is reviewed, and social, technological, economic, environmental, and political (STEEP) analysis of catalysts is carried out to demonstrate challenges in the field and the development of catalysts.

1. Introduction

Anthropogenic climate change, which is caused by production and usage of energy, inevitably affects the world by increasing the average global temperature, reducing biodiversity, harmfully impacting nature, and more.1 Energy development is crucial to hinder climate change and prevent detrimental effects while sustaining both positive social and economic development.2 To decrease the environmental impacts of climate change, a sustainable strategy that includes improved energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainable development is necessary.3 To achieve a sustainable energy future, renewable energy will have an important role in transitioning to a decarbonized energy system.4 However, renewable energy sources such as wind energy and photovoltaics tend to have an intermittent nature, so they need large-scale energy storage for any surplus energy generated.57 According to Dawood et al., the storage of renewable energy in hydrogen can solve the intermittent generation problem of renewables as hydrogen is storable, transportable, and utilizable.8

Due to the accelerating consumption of fossil fuels, increasing energy demand, and environmental problems concerning the use of fossil fuels, hydrogen energy is considered an up and coming pathway to overcome these existing problems.9 Similar to electricity, hydrogen is a secondary form of energy that is not a source.10,11 Even though hydrogen is not freely available in nature, it is a highly abundant element and can be produced via different methods from fossil fuels and renewable sources.1215 Owing to the fact that it does not emit any toxic products or pollutants during its synthesis from renewable resources and working in fuel cells, hydrogen is considered an environmentally friendly resource.16,17 Because of this, hydrogen energy will continue to gain importance in terms of lowering CO2 emissions and combating global warming.18 In addition to the positive environmental factors, another important factor is the high energy density (122 kJ/g) of hydrogen that allows it to be considered as an alternative fuel.19,20 Hydrogen has widespread applications in areas such as stationary electricity, fuel cells for transportation, electronics, heat generation, the chemical industry, synthesis of fuel, and combined heat and power as shown in Figure 1.21

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Applications of hydrogen energy (revised with permission from ref (21)).

Hydrogen is attractive both due to its above-described properties and because it can be generated from both its renewable and nonrenewable resources.22 Notably, most hydrogen production is still carried out using fossil fuels in thermochemical processes.2325 As a secondary energy form, hydrogen is produced through three different energy-supply systems: (i) fossil fuels, (ii) nuclear reactors, and (iii) renewable energy resources.26 Each supply system has its own advantages and disadvantages with respect to hydrogen production. For example, fossil-fuel-based hydrogen production technologies are mature, although they emit CO2 into the atmosphere, which contributes to global warming. In addition, the lifetime of these resources is limited. Alternatively, renewable energy resources have the advantage of being carbon neutral and have the potential to produce hydrogen with appropriate technologies. However, these technologies need to be developed further in terms of efficiency and cost to compete with conventional resources. For example, tar production in biomass gasification is a serious problem that needs to be eliminated to increase H2 yield in the product. The cost of producing hydrogen is also an important factor. Although, the efficiencies of the two processes are very close, production costs differ significantly. Producing hydrogen using electrolysis technology costs $10.30/kg, while the cost of producing hydrogen using partial oxidation is $1.48/kg.27 In Table 1, the various hydrogen production methods and their resources are listed.

Table 1. Various Hydrogen Production Methodsa.

method resource description operation parameters efficiency reference
steam reforming natural gas, methane, and light hydrocarbons (propane, butane, pentane, and light and heavy naphtha) It includes the catalytic conversion of resources, syngas generation, water–gas shift, and methanation and gas cleaning. Endothermic reaction 74%–85% (13, 26, 28, 29)
Catalytic conversion
High temperature, pressures up to 3.5 MPa
Steam/carbon ratio = 3.5
partial oxidation of hydrocarbons hydrocarbons (methane, heavy oil, and coal) Syngas production, ammonia synthesis, etc. can be done by the partial oxidation process. It is carried out at relatively high temperatures and elevated pressures. Exothermic reaction 60%–75% (13, 27, 3032)
–950 °C for the catalytic process
–1150–1315 °C for noncatalytic process
–5.5–6 MPa of pressure
pyrolysis biomass Thermochemical conversion of biomass to bio-oil, biocrude, and noncondensable gases such as CO2, CO, H2, and light hydrocarbon gases. –300–650 °C for catalytic process 35%–50% (27, 28, 33, 34)
Lower heating rate and varied feedstock
gasification carbonaceous resources include coal, biomass, and petroleum At high temperatures in the presence of an oxidizing agent, the carbonaceous precursor is converted to syngas that consists of H2 and CO. Endothermic/exothermic reaction 30%–40% (27, 3539)
Temperature range from 500 to 1300 °C
sub-/supercritical water gasification biomass SCWG converts lignocellulosic biomass into gases above 374 °C and 22.1 MPa. Catalytic SCWG is carried out at 400 °C, while noncatalytic SCWG at 600 °C - (4047)
Subcritical/near-critical water is carried out at a temperature between 150 °C and 374 °C. Both processes are suitable for wet biomass to convert into H2-rich gas products. Varied residence time, feedstock, and biomass-to-water mass ratio
plasma arc decomposition hydrocarbons Thermal plasma and nonthermal (gliding) plasma is used to decompose hydrocarbons to produce hydrogen. According to a variety of different plasmas and operational conditions, products can show a distribution of results. In thermal plasma, the temperature ranges from 10 000 K to 100 000 K, there is high current (30 A–30 KA), and low voltage (10–100 V) - (4852)
In nonthermal plasma, electrons have greater temperatures than the gas components (2200–2500 K)
biophotolysis water Photosynthetic microorganisms (cynobacteria and algae) that enable water splitting are used to reduce protons to hydrogen. Anaerobic conditions 10%–11% (27, 53, 54)
Ferredoxin, reduced ferrodoxin, and reverse hydrogenase are important media
biological water–gas shift reaction CO as a carbon source The process is catalyzed by photoheterotrophic bacteria (Rhodospirillum rubrum, Rubrivivax gelatinosus) and carried out at ambient temperature and pressure. Ambient temperature and pressure 100% (near-stoichiometric amount) (54, 55)
Dark media
fermentation carbohydrate-rich materials (glucose, sucrose, starch, etc.) It is divided into three types as dark fermentation, photofermentation, and a combination of dark and photofermentation. Organic wastes are decomposed and converted to hydrogen via microorganisms with or without light being present. The citric acid cycle for photofermentation –60%–80% for dark fermentation (27, 5660)
Two enzymes, nitrogenase and hydrogenase, are used for the catalytic action in photofermentation –0.1% for photofermentation
In dark fermentation, an acetate-mediated pathway is used for H2 production
solar photovoltaic power sunlight Sunlight is converted to electricity by a combination of an electrolyzer and a photovoltaic cell. Theoretically, a minimum of 1.23 V should be supplied to decompose water to hydrogen 30% (26, 6167)
wind power wind By using wind energy, water can be electrolyzed, and carbon-neutral hydrogen is generated. Conventional electrolysis system (alkaline electrolysis or AES) is used - (20, 6870)
hydropower water To produce hydrogen, hydroelectric energy is used for power. Conventional AES system is used - (20, 26, 71, 72)
electrolysis water Water electrolysis system consisting of movement of electrons. Examples of the technologies are alkaline, polymer membrane, and solid oxide electrolyzers. Conventional AES system is used 60%–80% (20, 27, 7375)
In an AES, 4.49 kWh/m3 of power is required to produce pure hydrogen
a

Abbreviations: Supercritical water gasification (SCWG) and alkaline electrolysis systems (AESs).

It is concluded from Table 1 that steam reforming, electrolysis, and the biological water–gas shift reaction are the best methods with regard to efficiency. Likewise, in every process, the efficiency of biological water shift reactions depends on the bioreactor design, culture media, pH, temperature, etc. Moreover, CO concentration is a limiting parameter for bacterial activity. During consumption of CO as a source, its availability to microorganisms limits the bacterial activity potential. Hence, CO concentration in the feedstock requires optimization. Also, CO toxicity toward bacteria is another inhibiting step of the process. All of these limitations affect the total yield that can be changed from process condition to condition.76 Steam reforming is the most widely applied process to produce hydrogen, although it is not an environmentally friendly method since fossil-based resources are used in the process. Instead of steam reforming fossil-based hydrocarbon, hydrogen is produced through a two-stage pyrolysis catalytic steam reforming process. In the first stage, the pyrolysis stage, biomass is thermally degraded to varying hydrocarbons and carbonaceous species. In the second stage, products including hydrocarbons, oxygenated hydrocarbons, and tar are employed in catalytic steam reforming to produce hydrogen-rich syngas.77

Considering the environmental concerns and process efficiency, electrolysis is found to be more promising compared to steam reforming of fossil-based resources. Currently, the most commonly used electrolysis technology is alkaline water electrolysis.78 In contrast to low efficiency, biomass gasification is considered to be a promising method to obtain hydrogen-rich syngas.79

The potential of the different hydrogen production methods seems to possibly change the future energy source. Will this significantly impact how hydrogen production will shape the future? Will it become a green energy form or not? Currently, a great amount of hydrogen is produced via fossil fuels, though this state of affairs can change. In order to eliminate CO2 emissions, it is necessary that renewable resource-based hydrogen production methods are adopted.

This study evaluates the catalytic gasification of biomass to generate hydrogen. The scope of the study is to review some of the catalysts that are used in biomass gasification. It includes the catalytic precursors and alternative catalytic materials for enhancing hydrogen production and also tar elimination. Additionally, social, technological, economic, environmental, and political (STEEP) analysis was carried out to demonstrate the challenges of catalysts. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: biomass gasification (2), catalyst (3), STEEP analysis of catalysts (4), and conclusions and future work (5).

2. Biomass Gasification

The term biomass includes both raw materials, such as wood, crops, and agricultural residues, and processed (effluents, food processing residue, and green waste) organic matter. Cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, lipids, proteins, simple sugars, and starches are the main components of biomass where compositions of the components rigidly depend on whether the feedstock is of plant or animal origin.80,81

Biomass has a neutral CO2 cycle, meaning it does not emit CO2 to the environment when it is processed.53,56,58,82,83 Because of this, syngas production from biomass is gaining importance instead of using fossil-fuel-based resources.84 There are the two main pathways to produce hydrogen from biomass: thermochemical and biochemical.85 Gasification, pyrolysis, and direct combustion are thermochemical processes where biomass can be utilized as feedstock.86 Due to the possibilities for polygeneration of other products such as heat, electricity, precious products, or biofuels, biomass gasification has gained more attention than the other thermochemical processes for hydrogen generation.87,88

Gasification is one of the thermochemical processes in which fuels or chemicals are obtained by the conversion of carbonaceous materials such as biomass.89,90 Biomass gasification is carried out by applying different gasifying agents such as air, steam, oxygen, or a mixture of them.9193 Generally, biomass gasification can be divided into indirect (allothermal)94 and direct (autothermal) gasification,95 depending on how heat is provided to the systems. Heat that is necessary for gasification reactions is supplied from the outside in indirect gasification, while heat produced directly via partial oxidation of biomass inside the reactor is utilized in direct gasification. Lower heating value (LHV) syngas is obtained in direct gasification by applying air as an oxidizing agent, whereas medium LHV syngas is obtained through indirect gasification.96 Due to production of nitrogen free gas, there is no need for any purification. So, indirect gasification has advantages over direct gasification. On the other hand, more energy-efficient utilization is performed via direct gasification thanks to the direct heating of the reactants.97 Drying, pyrolysis, reduction, and oxidation are the main steps of biomass gasification.98 Very complex reactions including heterogeneous and homogeneous reactions take place during gasification process.99

The gasification process is influenced by multiple parameters that have great effects on the end products. The raw material, gasifying agents, operating variables, type of gasifier, and catalysts all have an effect on the amount and heating value of the product gas.89 Gasification that is performed at a lower temperature may result in product gas which includes H2, CO, CO2, methane, and other contaminants, while gasification that is carried out at higher temperatures produces synthetic gas or syngas.100 Syngas consists of H2, CO, CO2, water, light hydrocarbons, and fewer contaminants than product gas.101106

Chen et al. have evaluated the effect of experimental conditions on the production of optimal H2 and other gases such as CO, CO2, and CH4 through the gasification of municipal solid waste (MSW).107 In the study, temperature, equivalence ratio (ER), and residence time were chosen as the independent variables in the central composite design to investigate the yield of gases, char, and tar. The optimized H2 yield of 41.36 mol % efficiency occurred when experimental conditions were held at 757.65 °C with an ER of 0.241 for 22.36 min. Based on statistical analysis and experimental results, using air as a gasifying agent effectively resulted in both qualitative and quantitative products. For instance, for a steam-to-biomass ratio of 1, mole fractions of CO and H2 are 0.52 and 0.15 at 650 °C, while 0.27 and 0.58 mole fraction of CO and H2 is reached at 900 °C, respectively.108 Singh and Yadav studied steam gasification of mixed food waste at 700 °C.109 They employed torrefaction as a pretreatment method to improve the physicochemical properties of the mixed food waste. In the study, the steam-to-biomass ratio was chosen as 1.25, and the steam ratio was held constant at 0.625. Their results showed that syngas production increased with the increasing temperature of torrefaction. Torrefied food waste at 290 °C gave the highest hydrogen yield with 2.15 m3/kg.

The gasifying agent is one of the parameters that highly influences the syngas composition, yield, and calorific value. Singh et al. investigated different steam flow rate (from 0.125 to 0.75 mL/min) and temperature (700–900 °C) effects on the syngas yield, syngas composition, and hydrogen yield.110 In the study where food waste was used as feedstock, the highest hydrogen yield achieved was 1.23 m3/kg at a 0.5 mL/min steam flow rate and 800 °C temperature.

The biomass feedstock and the characteristics of the biomass are important parameters that seriously affect hydrogen production. The chemical constituent of the biomass (cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin), elemental composition, mineral content of the biomass, amount of volatile matter, moisture content, and physical properties such as particle size, shape, and density all affect gas composition and yield in biomass gasification.111113 According to Tian et al., cellulose and hemicellulose resulted in more CO and CH4 contamination, while biomass with a higher percentage of lignin produced more hydrogen.114 Moreover, increasing the gasification temperature enhances hydrogen production, while increasing the steam-to-biomass ratio influences the yield of hydrogen in syngas111 until the limit of gasification stoichiometry.115 Steam methane reforming and dry reforming reactions are raid reactions that occur at temperatures higher than 700 °C. These lead to increased syngas production through improvement of secondary cracking and shift reactions. Higher S/B ratios in the gasification process cause the gasification temperature to decline, leading to poor syngas quality. Above this limit, a decrease in the gasification temperature and product quality is observed.116Table 2 shows the effect of biomass type, reactor design, operation conditions, and gasification agent on syngas yield, composition, and hydrogen content. It can be seen from Table 2 that gasification parameters have a serious effect on the gaseous products and their composition.

Table 2. Effect of Gasification Parameters on Syngas Yield, Composition, and Hydrogen Contenta.

biomass type reactor type catalyst operation conditions gasification agent syngas yield and composition hydrogen content ref
switchgrass (SG), pine residue (diameter of ≤2 in. and of ≤6 in.) bench-scale fluidized bed catalyst bed material: sand, CaO + sand, Al2O3, and CaO + Al2O3 –780 °C and ER ≈ 0.32 air/steam H2 (32.1%), CO (7.5%), CO2 (21.8%), CH4 (2.5%), C2H2 (0.01%), C2H4 (1.9%) The highest H2 of 32.1 vol % with S/B of 2.34 for Pine6 using the CaO + Al2O3 bed material. (117)
steam-to-biomass ratios (S/B) (0.74, 1.23, 1.85, and 2.34)
cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, poplar leaf, Chinese cabbage, and orange peel updraft fixed-bed reactor no catalyst varied temperature range (920–1220 °C) steam H2 (54%), CO (26.2%), CO2 (18.8%), CH4, C2H4 (−), and C2H2 (−) for lignin at 920 °C The highest H2 yields for cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin were 0.27 N m3/kg (1220 °C), 0.30 N m3/kg (1220 °C), and 0.88 N m3/kg (1020 °C), respectively. (114)
wood pellets bench-scale fixed-bed gasifier no catalyst high temperature (800–1435 °C) steam H2 (60%), CO (≈13%), CO2 (≈18%), CH4 (≈6%), C2H4 (≈1%), and C2H2 (≈1%) The maximum volume percentage of H2 was 60% at 917 °C with 9.0 g/min of steam flow rate. (118)
steam flow rates (3.9, 4.7, 5.5, 6.8, 9.0, 9.8, 11.1, 15.7, and 17.3 g/min)
municipal solid waste tube reactor no catalyst different temperatures (700, 800, 900 °C), ERs (0.1, 0.2, 0.3), and residence times (10, 20, 30 min). air H2 (32 mol %), CO (34.7 mol %), CO2 (28.6 mol %), and CH4 (4 mol %) The highest H2 yield of 32 mol % was achieved at 900 °C with an ER of 0.25 and 20 min of residence time. (107)
citrus peel bench-scale fluidized-bed reactor no catalyst different temperature range (700–850 °C) air-steam H2 (26.5%), CO (≈8%), CO2 (20%), N2 (≈42%), and CH4 (≈3%) at 750 °C and S/B = 1.25 for experimental results The highest H2 yields of 0.65 and 0.69 N m3/kg were achieved at 750 °C and S/B = 1.25 for the experimental and simulated results, respectively. (119)
(S/B) (0.5–1.25)
banana peel fixed-bed gasifier no catalyst different steam-to-carbon ratios (S/C) (0, 0.6, 1.4, 4.3, 7.2, 14.5, 21.7, 28.9, and 36.1) steam CO2 (≈33%), CH4 (≈2%), C2 (≈2%), CO (≈8%), and H2 (≈58%) The maximum value of 76.1 mL/g of H2 yield was achieved at S/C = 21.7 and a temperature of 1023 K. (120)
algal biomass (Nannochloropsis sp) hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) and a laboratory-scale quartz tube reactor no catalyst for HTC (180–220 °C) and reaction time (2, 6, 12 h) steam H2 (≈46%), CO (≈32%), CO2 (≈16%), and CH4 (≈6%) of feedstock of HC-180 °C-12 h at 800 °C with S/B ratio of 3 The maximum H2 concentration of 48.6% was achieved with HC-220 °C-12 h, whereas further gasification optimization was continued with feedstock of HC-180 °C-12 h due its high EREtotal. (121)
gasification temperature (700–900 °C)
S/B ratio (1–3)
a

Abbreviations: equivalence ratio (ER), steam-to-biomass ratios (S/B), steam-to-carbon ratios (S/C), hydrothermal carbonization (HTC), total energy recovery efficiency (EREtotal).

Apart from the advantages of biomass gasification, tar formation is a serious problem that faces the adoption of this process.116,117 Due to the condensation of tar, equipment becomes blocked, and engines and turbines are damaged, resulting in costly maintenance and gas cleaning.122127 Additionally, tar condensation causes cracking in filter pores and adverse effects on the cold gas efficiency and heating value of the produced syngas. Besides tar formation, pollutants such as NH3, H2S, HCl, SO2, dust, ash, etc. can be found in syngas, which might affect the applications of syngas.128 As mentioned before, apart from the quality and quantity of gaseous products, biomass feedstocks, gasifying agents, reactors, and the activity of catalysts also have an enormous effect on tar formation.129131

Complex polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), oxygen-containing hydrocarbons, and monocyclic hydrocarbons generate multiple condensable organic compounds called tar.129 Some of the problems of tar condensation are that it is highly stable, refractory, not easy to crack, and causes coke formation on the surface of catalysts.132 Tar is produced through three stages, and tars formed at each stage are classified as primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary tar formation occurs during the pyrolysis step of gasification. When feeding biomass into a gasifier, pyrolysis first takes place at a low temperature around 200 °C and ends at 500 °C. After 500 °C, primary tar reorganizes into secondary tar that includes lighter noncondensable gases and some heavier molecules. At even higher temperatures, tertiary tar is generated.133 Toluene, naphthalene, other one- and two-ring aromatic hydrocarbons, phenolic compounds, heterocyclic compounds, and polyring and cyclic structures form biomass tar.134 Both reforming and cracking reactions are recognized for biomass tar cracking as shown in eq 17:135

2. 1
2. 2
2. 3
2. 4
2. 5
2. 6
2. 7

In order to enhance gas quality136 and prevent adverse effects of tar compounds on the gasification system and its components,137 effective tar reduction is required. In the next section, a brief description of catalysts, tar reduction methods, and different types of catalysts that are used in hydrogen production is given.

3. Catalyst

A catalyst is a material that, by adding a small amount, accelerates the rate of a chemical reaction without undergoing any chemical change itself. Successful catalysts lower the required activation energy for gasification reactions, decrease both the temperature and time for the process, and yield high carbon conversions that are beneficial for the gasification process.138,139 Catalysts help to decrease the required temperature for the gasification process and tar production.140 Abedi and Dalai examined the steam gasification of oat hull pellets with and without catalysts to produce syngas and reduce tar formation.141 The effect of temperature (650–850 °C) and the steam-to-biomass ratio (0.25–0.50) were evaluated in noncatalytic gasification. Higher temperature and increased steam-to-biomass ratio raised fuel gas production, heating value of the gas, and reduced tar condensation. Synthesized Ni/Al2O3 catalysts with and without Ce were used for catalytic gasification, and all experiments were carried out at 650 °C with a catalyst-to-biomass ratio of 0.5. The lowest tar formation was achieved by 10% Ni loading of the catalysts, while increased metal dispersion, reduced reduction temperature, and lowered coke formation were contributed by a Ce promoter. According to the authors’ results, Ni-based catalysts enhanced the gasification process by increasing syngas production and reducing tar formation.

Tursun et al. studied decoupled triple-bed biomass gasification consisting of a biomass pyrolyzer, a tar reformer, and a char combustor. Olivine and NiO/olivine were used as catalysts for hydrogen-rich gas production. The results show that NiO/olivine was superior with a reduction of tar yield by 94%. When using the NiO/olivine catalyst, syngas with a H2 content of 56.1 vol % was obtained.142

Although catalysts have such desirable effects on gasification, they have a limited lifetime due to the products of side reactions and/or structural changes in the catalyst. Catalyst deactivation is caused by CH4 cracking and Boudouard reactions (the reaction of solid carbon with carbon dioxide to produce carbon monoxide143), causing coke deposition on the catalyst active sites. These detrimental effects lead to the deactivation of the catalyst and require it to be repaired or replaced by a new catalyst.141,144 Elbaba and Williams studied hydrogen production from waste tires through two-stage pyrolysis gasification.145 Ni/Al2O3 and Ni/dolomite were used as catalysts, and their deactivation was investigated over four cycles of use. Between the two catalysts, Ni/dolomite gave a higher experimental hydrogen yield and a higher theoretical hydrogen potential than the Ni/Al2O3 catalyst. Further, the lowest carbon deposition (2.8 wt %) was seen when using Ni/dolomite, but for the Ni/Al2O3 catalyst the carbon deposition was found to be 18.2 wt %. Reacted catalysts were subjected to detailed analysis by transmission electron microscopy to determine the existence of nickel, sulfur, and carbon in the reacted catalysts. According to their findings, the nickel of the Ni/Al2O3 catalysts was deactivated due to reactions with sulfur and carbon deposition.

Tar removal is essential for biomass gasification systems due to tar having hazardous ingredients. Tar removal methods are divided into two categories based on where the tar removal is carried out. These methods are termed in situ and ex situ or inside and outside of the gasifier itself, respectively.146 In ex situ catalysis, the tar is condensed and picked up for catalytic treatment outside of the gasifier when the gaseous tar gets converted. However, the catalyst layer is placed downstream of the reactor in in situ catalysis during conversion of gaseous tar. In situ catalysis is more effective owing to the conducting volatiles of the biomass pyrolysis, so it presents a high degree of tar removal147,148 due to direct interaction with volatiles and their arranged distribution.149,150 This classification of tar removal methods is also termed as primary methods (in situ) and secondary methods (ex situ) by some researchers.151153

If tar elimination occurs outside of the reactor, it is appropriate for treating produced gas and can be categorized into three methods: (1) physical purification, (2) high-temperature thermal cracking, and (3) catalytic cracking.146 Wet and dry purifications are techniques that include filtration, aqueous or organic liquid scrubbing,154 absorbing, cyclone separation, etc. (used in physical purification).155 Even though physical purification methods are simpler, they have some drawbacks. For instance, these techniques require heating and cooling steps; they produce large amounts of liquid waste or wastewater when a scrubber is used; and the tar energy is not utilized.146,156 Thermal cracking is applied to raw gases that are obtained from gasification. When heated to a high temperature (>1000 °C), tar molecules are converted to lighter gases.157,158 In catalytic tar cracking, the tar molecules are cracked into lighter gases and soot when the raw gas is moved through a catalyst.159 To solve the above-mentioned tar problems, catalysts are used for tar cracking in which tar is converted to syngas, and the efficiency of the gasification is increased.160

There are different classifications of catalysts that are used for catalytic cracking purposes.157 Depending on their production method, catalysts can be divided into two groups: mineral and synthetic catalysts. Mineral catalysts include calcinated rocks (calcite, magnesite, and calcinated dolomite), olivine, clay minerals, and ferrous metal oxides, while synthetic catalysts include char catalysts, fluid catalytic cracking (i.e., zeolite) catalysts, alkali-metal-based catalysts, activated Al2O3, and transition-metal-based catalysts (Ni-, Pt-, Zr-, Rh-, Ru-, and Fe-based catalysts).146,161,162 Among these catalysts, natural minerals, alkali metals, transition metals, and noble-metal-based catalysts have been demonstrated to be notably effective for tar conversion and gas generation with good quality at comparatively low temperatures by many authors.163165 Alkali metal (sodium, potassium, and calcium) and alkaline-earth metal catalysts are the most effective, followed by heavy metals.166 The Supporting Information of this study shows selected catalysts (Ce/Ni/Al2O3, Rh/Ce–Zr–O, and Fe/CaxO) used for tar elimination and hydrogen production. In addition to the above, waste byproducts are also good alternatives to commercial or the previously mentioned catalysts. High reactibity, reusability, and cost effectiveness are desired properties of the catalysts. In view of these aspects, waste byproducts need to be considered as a source for catalysts.128 In the next section, apart from the above-mentioned catalysts, waste byproducts will also be considered in this review.

3.1. Alkali and Alkaline-earth Catalysts

Biochar contains naturally occurring alkali and alkaline-earth metals (AAEMs) and oxygen-containing functional groups that lead to the significant reduction or decomposition of tar.167 Inorganic portions of raw biomass or char consist of Ca, K, Mg, Al, P, and Si, and they can differ based on biomass type. Importantly, K, Ca, and Mg exist in high concentrations in biomass, and these inorganic elements affect gasification reactivity.168,169 Considering these points, alkali and alkaline-earth metal ingredients in biomass play an important role in biochar catalytic activity for tar reforming.170 Jiang et al. studied the catalytic effects of inherent AAEM species on biomass gasification.171 In order to evaluate the effect of inherent AAEMs, two different biomass materials (rice steam and rice husk) were demineralized by deionized water and a dilute HCl solution for comparison with untreated biomass feedstock. The experiments were carried out under steam at 900 °C. The results show that AAEMs improved the H2 and CO2 production while preventing the formation of CO, CH4, C2H4, and C2H6. Both heterogeneous and homogeneous hydrocarbons reforming and water-shift reactions were supported by inherent AAEMs. Additionally, AAEMs also had an important role in thermal cracking and tar reforming.

The porosity and surface area of biochar in addition to the inclusion of AAEM elements such as Na, K, and Ca cause biomass char to be reactive. Researchers have carried out CO2 gasification of pistachio nutshell char in a thermogravimetric analyzer (TGA) by applying alkali (Na, K), alkaline-earth (Ca, Mg), and transition metal (Fe) nitrates.172 The results showed that the catalytic effect on the enhancement of carbon conversion was achieved with Na-char and followed by Ca-char, Fe-char, K-char, Mg-char, and then raw char. In contrast to raw char, the existence of Na resulted in enhanced char reactivity by a factor of 2.36. Different Na catalyst loading was also investigated in a range of 3–7 wt %. The required time for carbon conversion is reduced (from 22 to 14 min) with increased loading from 3 to 5 wt %, and increasing the loading further had an adverse effect on catalyst activity.

K is one of the alkali metals that is used as a catalyst in gasification. It is considered the most active catalyst among the alkali metals. K accelerates the diffusion of the gasifying agent into carbon and thus leads to the formation of microstructures and thereby results in an increased reaction rate.166 Zhang et al. studied sorption-enhanced gasification of tobacco stalks by using steam as the gasification agent in a fixed-bed reactor.173 The effects of temperature, catalyst type, and catalyst loading were evaluated for hydrogen production. When using the selected catalysts of K2CO3, CH3COOK, and KCl, increasing the temperature from 600 to 700 °C and the loading of K2CO3 and CH3COOK enhanced the effects of the catalyst on the gasification of biomass for hydrogen production. On the contrary, increasing the loading of KCl resulted in a decrease in hydrogen yield and carbon conversion because of the inhibition of the gasification process. The maximum carbon conversion efficiency of 88.0% and hydrogen yield of 73.0% were achieved by applying 20 wt % of K loading in the K2CO3 precursor at 700 °C.

In order to improve syngas quantity and reduce the tar content, alkali and alkaline-earth catalysts are applied to algal biomass (Cladophora glomerata L.) through the steam gasification process.174 NaOH, KHCO3, Na3PO4, and MgO commercial catalysts were used in the process, of which NaOH was found to be superior for hydrogen production and also contributed to the conversion of char and tar decomposition. Increasing the temperature from 700 to 900 °C resulted in decreasing the tar content in the produced gas and increasing hydrogen yield.

Waste materials such as MSW and agricultural waste possess heavy metals, alkali metals, and alkaline-earth metals. In a study, the effects of constant concentrations (0.7 wt %) of Na, K, and Ca catalysts and S/B ratio on gasification efficiency for syngas production were investigated.175 Artificial waste composed of sawdust and polypropylene (PP) was gasified in a fluidized-bed gasifier with different S/B ratios (1.0–2.0). Increasing the S/B ratio from 1.0 to 1.5 increased the syngas production, while further enhancement to 2.0 caused adverse effects on the gasification process. According to the authors’ findings, either Na or K catalysts led to enhancement in the molar percentages of H2 and CO and decreased CH4 and CO2 content.

In contrast to the positive increase in hydrogen production, the inherent alkali metal content of biomass can be a problem at higher temperatures due to agglomeration of K and Na on bed material, which blocks the gasification process. Depending on biomass type and growth conditions, biomass ash includes inorganic materials such as silicon, calcium, potassium, and relatively small amounts of aluminum. These components can react with bed material, i.e., sand, and create a eutectic mixture through the combustion of biomass at high temperature. A eutectic mixture that has a low melting point of 754 °C covers the sand and forms bridges between sand particles.176 Rasmussen et al. studied the gasification of both straw and wood pellets in an allothermal fluidized-bed gasifier. In the study, different gasification temperatures in the range of 750 °C–950 °C were applied, and the agglomeration problem was observed at 950 °C when using straw as a feedstock. In contrast to straw, the same temperature was applied to the wood pellet feedstock, and no agglomeration was observed.177 Compared to the fixed-bed gasifier, the fluidized-bed gasifier offers great mixing between the biomass, gasifying agent, and gas–solid contact, but agglomeration is a crucial issue for biomass gasification in the fluidized-bed gasifier.178180 The nature of the biomass may have an effect on agglomeration. K, Na, Si, and alkaline-earth metals that are inherently found in herbaceous plants contribute to ash formation. From those, K and Na are major elements that cause agglomeration.181 According to Nuutinen et al., bed materials containing silicon dioxide (SiO2) and K or Na cause the agglomeration.182 However, granule bed materials rich in Mg prevent agglomeration, thanks to minor components of potassium aluminosilicate, magnesium iron silicate, sodium aluminosilicate, sodium calcium aluminosilicate, and SiO2 particles. Thus, granule beds are more favorable for fuels that have a high alkali metal content.

3.2. Transition Metal Catalysts

A transition metal is defined as “a metal that forms one or more stable ions that have not totally used their d orbitals.”.183 Due to not filling of their d orbitals, transition metals are able to switch their oxidation states and give or take electrons from other molecules. Hence, tar decomposition is carried out with greater capacity due to the active element states.184 From the point of view of steam and dry reforming of methane and hydrocarbons, transition metals are considered good candidates for catalysts.161 Iron, cobalt, copper, nickel, and their compounds are widely used catalysts in the gasification process.185 Transition metal catalysts, can be used as hybrid catalysts due to the carrying properties of both heterogeneous and homogeneous catalysts. Transition metal nanoparticles have a high surface area and energy, ensuring they are active catalysts. However, the coking and sintering of relatively big metal particles adversely affects the total surface area and activity of these catalysts.186 On the other hand, Rh, Ru, Pd, Pt, etc. are termed as novel metal catalysts and have been used for reducing tar in the biomass gasification process. Although these catalysts are effective in dissociating tar into fuel gas, compared to nickel and conventional catalysts, their prices are very high.187

A different type of catalyst is used in SCWG to improve that process. For instance, alkali metals, metals, and metal oxides are widely used as catalysts in SCWG. Apart from these, rare metals such as Pt, Pd, and Rd are also employed in SCWG. However, these kinds of catalyst are useful at lower temperature and are not employed at higher temperatures due to decreasing catalytic activity.188 Doped metal oxides are the latest catalytic structure that can be applied for SCWG. Mastuli et al. employed SCWG to produce hydrogen using oil palm fronds as biomass feedstock.189 The authors developed a new catalyst structure that is composed of nanosized Zn-doped MgO catalysts with x values between 0.005 and 0.20 in Mg1–xZnxO. The synthesized catalyst, which uses a self-propagating method, shows a decrease in surface area with increasing amount of Zn doping. However, the observed crystallite size was not more than 50 nm. According to the results, the highest H2 yield of 56.9% and lowest CO yield of 7.2% were achieved at Mg0.80Zn0.20O (x = 0.20). When compared with noncatalytic SCWG, H2 and CO content was increased by 438.1% and decreased by 82.4%, respectively.

Thanks to its high mechanical strength, olivine can be used as a primary catalyst to decrease tar content. Olivine ((Mg, Fe)2SiO4) includes natural iron oxides that strongly influence the olivine catalytic activity. Rapagnà et al. studied catalytic steam gasification of almond shells in a bubbling fluidized-bed gasifier by using 10 wt % of Fe/olivine catalyst synthesized via the impregnation method.190 The experiments were performed at temperatures between 800 and 830 °C, and blank (olivine) was used for comparison of the effect of a catalyst on gas and hydrogen yield. According to the results, a 10 wt % Fe/olivine catalyst exhibited superior stability and increased both gas and hydrogen yield by almost 40% and 88%, respectively. Furthermore, a 16% reduction of CH4 was achieved. Both reforming activity and reduction in tar concentration were realized by the Fe/olivine catalyst. When both economic and environmental causes are considered, the Fe/olivine catalyst is a good option for eliminating tar formation in the gasification process.

The gasification of biomass has sequential reaction stages that can be classified into (1) pyrolysis of biomass to generate char and (2) reaction of biomass char and the gasifier agent to produce a gaseous product. Among them, char gasification is the rate-limiting stage in the process. Jiao et al. studied the CO2 gasification of sawdust char with application of a K-modified transition metal composite.191 In the study, the effects of the gasification temperature, CO2 adsorption, and K-modified Co, Fe, Ni, and Ce metals were evaluated. Based on the results, the temperature is a crucial variable that influences char gasification. When the temperature is increased from 700 to 800 °C, carbon conversion increased 2.55 times in a 40 min reaction. Even at lower temperatures, the composite catalysts (KCo, KNi, KFe, and KCe, listed in order of catalytic performance) showed improvement in the char conversion. The results showed that both adsorbed quantity of CO2 and CO2 decomposition activity on the catalyst surface each affected the catalytic activity of the CO2 gasification.

The gasifier type also strongly affects catalytic performance. Hydrothermal gasification is a promising technology that converts high moisture content biomass to hydrogen-rich gas. Hydrothermal gasification has been applied to the distillery, oil refinery, and petrochemical complex waste streams.192 The catalytic activity of MnO2, CuO, and Co3O4 transition metal catalysts with different amounts of catalyst loading (20, 40, and 60 wt %), temperatures (300–375 °C), and reaction times (15, 30, and 45 min) was studied for hydrogen production. The results showed that distillery wastewater had the highest potential for hydrogen production among the considered waste streams. From the view of gasification efficiency and H2 mole fraction, the amount of catalytic activity of the various catalysts was found to be in the order of Co3O4, CuO, and then MnO2. At the operating conditions of 375 °C and 45 min reaction time, 40 wt % loading of Co3O4 was found to be appropriate for hydrogen production from distillery wastewater. Additionally, char formation was significantly reduced by using the catalyst.

Fe, Mg, Mn, Ce, Pt, Pd, and Ru are also used as dopants in Ni-based catalysts to enhance both the gas composition and the calorific value of the produced gas.115 Ni catalysts are attractive for enhancing hydrogen production. In the next section, Ni-based catalysts are discussed in more detail.

3.2.1. Ni-Based Catalysts

Ni-based catalysts have recently attracted attention due to their unique properties such as supporting hydrogen and water–gas shift reactions,189 high activity, and lower cost.193,194 Nickel catalysts are regarded as the most efficient transition metal catalysts, allowing opportunities for tar cracking and reforming. Additionally, nickel catalysts also enhance the quality of the produced gases obtained from the gasification process.195 Many researchers have evaluated Ni-based catalysts for hydrogen production. However, in addition to the above-mentioned superior properties, coking and sulfur poisoning cause the deactivation of nickel active sites. These issues can be solved by either dispersing Ni nanoparticles on a support doped with an alkali metal or alloying with carbon.196

Peng et al. studied air-steam gasification of the wood residue using a research-scale fluidized bed. Two different types of metal catalysts (Ni/CeO2/Al2O3) at different catalyst loadings (20, 30, and 40%) were examined for catalytic activity. To investigate the effect of process parameters on the catalytic activity, different residence times (20, 40, and 60 min) and gasification temperatures (750, 825, and 900 °C) were examined. In parallel, noncatalytic experiments were also carried out to decide the optimal conditions that increase tar cracking and enriched hydrogen/syngas production. According to their results, the high temperature (900 °C) and high catalyst loading (40%) are suitable for tar cracking and enriching hydrogen/syngas production.197

The high metal surface area and high thermal stability are key features of Ni/Al2O3 catalysts. However, these kinds of catalysts generally face problems such as deactivation by coke deposition on the active sites and sintering. To overcome catalyst deactivation, the process configuration, optimization of process conditions, catalyst enhancement with different Ni loadings, additives, and supports have been investigated.198200 Artetxe et al. studied eliminating the tar derived from biomass gasification via catalytic steam reforming on Ni/Al2O3 catalysts.201 Different Ni loadings (5%–40%) and varied tar model compounds (phenol, toluene, methyl naphthalene, indene, anisole, and furfural) were studied both individually and as a mixture at 700 °C with S/C ratio of 3 and 60 min on a gaseous stream. Based on the results, 20 wt % of Ni loading gave 90% of higher tar conversion and 63% of H2 potential. Among the tar compounds, anisole and furfural gave the highest conversion (75% and 68%, respectively) and H2 potential (45% and 43%, respectively), whereas methyl naphthalene showed the lowest activity.

The implementation of CaO into catalyst structures is good both for reinforcing the catalyst structure and as an in situ CO2 sorbent. For this reason, CaO has been widely applied in thermochemical conversion processes as a catalyst/sorbent and for tar-reforming purposes.202,203 Sisinni et al. investigated converting the topping atmosphere residue (a complex mixture of cyclic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and CH4, to generate pure H2 by applying a CO2 sorbent.204 In the study, a hazelnut shell was used as the biomass material, and experiments were carried out in a fluidized-bed microreactor with steam. Commercial Ni catalysts and calcined dolomite (CaO/MgO) were used as catalyst precursors. The calcined dolomite that is used as a bed material behaves as both a reforming catalyst and CO2 sorbent. They found that both combinations of catalyst and sorbent were superior in moving away the topping atmosphere residue and CH4, and the conversion reached almost 100%. The sorption of CO2 promoted the water–gas shift increase, and H2 content in the syngas reached over 90%.

CaO is one of the tar-reforming agents that it is generally used because of its affordable cost and abundance.205 Calcined dolomite, calcined limestone, and calcined CaCO3 are some examples of materials including CaO.206,207 Li et al. studied corn stalk pyrolysis gasification by employing various calcium-based absorbents and NiO-based catalysts to produce H2.208 Based on the experimental results, calcined CaCO3, calcined limestone, and calcined dolomite were crucial to enhance the produced gas with regard to the concentration and yield of H2. This happened because of in situ CO2 absorption and the used types of CaO. Further enhancement of CO2 absorption and H2 production was achieved by calcined dolomite because of the inherent Mg species inside. Regarding the catalyst’s effect on the process, NiO/CaO bifunctional catalysts/absorbents were found to perform better than the calcined dolomite since its produced gas had lower H2 concentration, and the yields of H2, CO, and CO2 were higher. However, the concentration and yield of H2 were both improved when NiO/γ-Al2O3 catalysts along with calcined dolomite were used. The maximum H2 concentration of 85.1% and very little amount of CO2 were achieved with 15 wt % loading of NiO.

As mentioned earlier, SCWG has advantages when applied to wet or high moisture content biomass feedstock. The SCWG of wheat straw using Ni and other metal catalysts has been evaluated.193 The catalytic activity and the stability of Ni catalysts were evaluated through three stages. Ni, Fe, and Cu catalysts supported on MgO were prepared by the wet impregnation method. The prepared catalysts were used in SCWG inside a batch reactor at 723 K. The experimental results show that the order of the tested catalysts in terms of performance was Ni/MgO, Fe/MgO, and finally Cu/MgO. Then, various catalysts such as MgO, ZnO, Al2O3, and ZrO2 were examined as supports for the Ni. Based on the support materials, the order of catalytic activity of the Ni was Ni/MgO, Ni/ZnO, Ni/Al2O3, and Ni/ZrO2. The last stage included examining the effects of Ni loading and its hydrogen production effectiveness, and also the stability of Ni/MgO catalysts was investigated. The results showed that Ni catalysts exhibited critical deactivation in the SCWG process.

Even if Ni metal precursors are able to be modified by other transition metals (Fe, Co, Mn, and Cu) and noble metals (Pt, Ru, Pd, etc.), promoted with rare earth metals (La, Ce, and Pr), alkali (K, Na, Li, etc.), and alkaline-earth metals (Mg, Ca, Sr, and Ba), preparation methods and the Ni precursor are also highly important to improve the catalytic activity, stability, and resistance to coke formation and sintering.209 Therefore, the selection of an appropriate Ni precursor and preparation method is required to improve the catalytic performance. Recent research has mostly focused on enhancing the stability and activity of Ni catalysts by supporting with other catalysts, metal addition, and investigating the effects of Ni particle size. The impregnation method187 and sol–gel method188 are used for supporting nickel-based catalysts, where coimpregnation189 and coprecipitation190 are used for promoted nickel-based catalysts.

3.3. Carbon-Based Catalysts

Lignocellulosic biomass that consists of cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and lower amounts of inorganic minerals is used to produce biochar by thermochemical processes. Biochar has the potential to be used in various applications thanks to its unique properties such as large specific surface area (SSA), porous structure (micropore, mesopore, and macropore), functional groups, high reliability, low cost, and simple recovery of deactivation.210213 One of the applications is using biochar as a solid catalyst to obtain biofuel and value-added chemicals from biomass.214 Biochar is generated as a byproduct of a gasification system that has important potential to be used in a wide range of applications. For instance, the low-temperature circulating fluidized bed gasifier in Denmark was designed to generate energy from biomass. Annually, this plant produces 64 tons of biochar residues that require use in sustainable applications.215

Not only is the char surface an essential aspect of tar reforming but also the porous structure of char is an important factor. Buentello-Montoya et al. investigated the porous structure of regular char obtained by pyrolysis and activated char that was activated physically using CO2 for tar reforming at temperatures between 650 and 850 °C.216 Their results show that higher tar conversion was achieved using activated char at 650 and 750 °C, while it presented more deactivation than the regular biochar. At a higher temperature (850 °C), two biochar catalysts exhibited the same performance, and tar (mixture of benzene, toluene, and naphthalene) removal efficiency reached 90% within the 3 h experiment duration. In contrast, the mesoporous and microporous chars exhibited higher initial tar conversion, but coking occurred due to rapid deactivation. The study proved that meso- and macroporous biochars are applicable alternatives for tar steam reforming. One of the advantages of char is its good catalytic activity due to its active sites, carbon structure, and alkali and alkaline-earth metal content. Furthermore, when many active metal oxides were loaded on char, it creates char-supported catalysts, and the catalytic activity of char is enhanced.156

Due to the abundance of feedstock, low cost, large surface areas, stability of both the acidic and basic areas, and the physical/chemical properties of biochar and ability to promote metal, biochar has become a widespread topic of study.217220 However, each catalyst precursor has some disadvantages. For instance, Ni-based catalysts are very good at eliminating tar but can be deactivated during coking and tar conversion efficiency decreases. Owing to its unique properties, char and carbon-based catalysts have also attracted attention recently. Hu et al. investigated the catalytic activity of a gasified pine sawdust char promoted Ni catalyst and the effects of operation parameters on the produced gas composition.221 According to the results, among four different Ni loadings (2%, 4%, 6%, and 8%), char-promoted 6% Ni-loaded catalyst, 800 °C temperature, and a 0.5 s gas residence time gave optimal results. If the Ni content increases (0%–8%), the H2 content rises (25%–43%), but the CO content showed a slight decrease as well. It can be concluded from the study that char-promoted Ni catalysts can be used as a cheap catalyst.

The char catalytic performance is determined by factors including biomass precursor and origin, gasification parameters, catalytic condition, type of gasifier, and tar composition.222,223 Furthermore, the surface functional groups, surface area, and porous structure of char are also crucial for catalytic performance.218

Another key point to consider is the inhibiting effect of the inorganic content of char. There is some AAEM content, as the biomass precursor also includes elements such as Si, Al, and P that can have a negative impact on the gasification process and deactivate the char catalyst.168 The inhibiting effects of Al, Si, and P are demonstrated by some authors.224,225 One of the reasons for the inhibition is that melted ash formation covers the remaining char and prevents conversion of char at the next stage.226 Rizkiana et al. investigated the effect of varied biomass ash, namely, brown seaweed/BS, eel grass/EG, and rice straw/RS, as catalysts to enhance the gasification process. To determine the catalytic activity of biomass ash, low rank coal was used as a feedstock. BS and EG ash showed higher catalytic activity due to higher AAEM content. RS ash that contains high silica or silica-containing ashes created aggregation of ash particles on the coal surface, and this led to a decreased total active surface area, which results in the deterioration of its reactivity.227 Hence, it is required to evaluate the inorganic composition of biomass feedstock.

3.4. Natural Mineral Catalysts

Dolomites, CaMg(CO3)2, are natural minerals consisting of magnesium and calcium carbonates that can degrade into oxides at high temperatures. Dolomites and other naturally occurring catalysts may contain trace minerals like SiO2, Fe2O3, and Al2O3, of which iron oxide especially has an important role regarding catalytic activity.228,229 The hydrothermal gasification of walnut shells, hazelnut shells, and almond shells has been studied in a batch reactor using natural mineral salts as catalysts.230 Trona, dolomite, and borax were used as the natural mineral catalyst precursors. In the study, the temperature and pressure were varied across the ranges of 300–600 °C and 88–405 bar, respectively. Based on the results, trona was found to be the most effective catalyst with regard to the H2 yield (mol H2/kg C in the biomass) at 600 °C. The hydrogen yields of the hazelnut, walnut, and almond shells that were catalyzed in the presence of trona increased by 82.4%, 74.1%, and 42.4%, respectively. Additionally, hazelnut shells had a higher lignin content (40.0 wt %) than the other hard-nut shell precursors (walnut 35.4 wt %, almond shell 28.8 wt %) while using natural mineral catalysts, which was effective in degrading the lignin content of such hard-nut shells.

Olivine, (Mg, Fe)2SiO4, is a natural mineral catalyst consisting of magnesium oxide, iron oxide, and silica.229 Olivine can show good catalytic activity after calcination, and loading with active metals (i.e., Fe, Ni, Cu, Ce, etc.) can improve the catalytic performance of olivine. Meng et al. studied the gasification of pine sawdust in a circulating fluidized bed using a Ni–Fe bimetallic olivine-based catalyst. The catalyst was synthesized by the wet impregnation (WI) and thermal fusion (TF) method. Based on the results, tar reduction increased with the process temperature. Compared to a nonactive bed material (silica sand), a 40.6% reduction of tar content was attributed to raw olivine. Calcination of olivine further increases the catalytic activity of olivine catalysts. The presence of Fe2O3, NiO, and NiO-MgO in 1100-WI-olivine catalysts decreased the tar content by 81.5% compared to that obtained from the raw olivine catalyst. For 1400-TF-olivine, 82.9% of tar reduction was achieved as compared to that attained using raw olivine.231 A similar result was determined in the study of Rauch et al.232 They investigated the effects of calcination process on olivine catalyst, by using two different olivine precursors that have different iron contents. The results showed that the calcination process is important for oxidation of Fe ions to enhance tar reduction and increase the catalyst activity.232 Another study was carried out by Christodoulou et al. to exhibit the effect of calcination of olivine on tar reduction. They compared the performance of calcinated and uncalcinated olivine at the same conditions. The results showed that calcinated olivine yielded 5.7 g/Nm3 of tar content, while uncalcinated olivine yielded tar content of 9.5 g/Nm3 at 750 °C. Futhermore, increasing temperature up to 800 °C yielded lower tar content of uncalcinated olivine and calcinated olivine to 2.9 g/Nm3 and 1.9 g/Nm3, respectively.233

Feedstock species and the pretreatment method can also considerably affect tar yields. Torrefaction is one of the thermochemical methods that is carried out at temperatures of 200–320 °C. Torrefaction pretreatment decreases the moisture content, increases the energy density, and enhances the reactivity of the feedstock during gasification and combustion. Berrueco et al. evaluated the operating conditions of temperature and bed material on the yields and composition of gas as well as tar content from gasification.234 Norwegian spruce and Norwegian forest residues were used as the feedstock and were torrefied at 275 °C. Then, experiments were carried out in a fluidized-bed reactor using two different bed materials (sand and dolomite) at 0.5 MPa and at temperatures of 750 and 850 °C. Results showed that the dolomite catalyst increased tar reduction and increased the generation of gas components. Also, the temperature increase contributed to both the cracking reactions and the tar reduction.

Oyster shells can be recovered, recycled, and then used in many applications from acting as an adsorbent material to an antibacterial material. One of the applications of recycled oyster shells is as a catalyst in gasification. Cheng and colleagues investigated the catalytic gasification of automobile shredder residue (ASR) that has trace pollutants including volatile sulfur and chlorine to produce hydrogen gas.235 In this study, oyster shells with high calcium contents were used as catalysts for increasing hydrogen production. The authors applied a 900 °C temperature and varied the catalyst addition (5%–15%) in a fixed-bed and a fluidized-bed gasifier. The results showed that higher ASR decomposition and maximum H2 and CO yields of 12.12% and 10.59%, respectively, were achieved in the fluidized-bed gasifier.

3.5. Catalyst Alternatives to Waste Byproducts

Sustainability is crucial for both the environment and economy, so using waste products is a good method to increase the sustainability of many processes. One application of waste materials is using them as catalysts. Red mud, aluminum dross, fly ash, slag from iron manufacturing, sludge, chicken eggshells, marine shells, snail shells, coconut shells, rice husks, and gold mine waste all have elements that enable their use as catalysts.236 Although this kind of waste material suffers from properties like impurities, lower surface area, etc., it is a good option for minimizing waste and reducing environmental impacts.236 On the contrary, Ni, Pt, Pd, Rh, and Ru possess the highest catalytic activity, long-duration stability, and low carbon deposition through tar cracking, but they are rare in nature and not economically sustainable.237

Eggshell is a good source of CaO due to its high CaCO3 content. The shells decompose under high temperatures and produce CaO.238,239 Raheem et al. studied the catalytic gasification of lipid-extracted microalgae biomass to produce hydrogen-rich syngas.240 Eggshell was used in the catalytic gasification as a source of CaO, and different loadings were applied (10, 30, and 50%). By increasing catalyst loading, the H2 yield was increased, but the CO and CO2 yields decreased. As mentioned previously, CaO can contribute to CO2 capture thanks to the adsorption ability of CaO.

Even though nickel and noble metal catalysts have superior properties in tar cracking, they are expensive and can also produce toxic byproducts. To solve these problems, natural materials must be considered as alternative catalysts. Oyster and mussel waste shells are calcium-rich materials that can be used for tar removal instead of calcined dolomite and olivine, as they do not need to be mined and have less adverse effects on the environment. Oyster and mussel waste shells have been employed to synthesize nanomaterials to produce clean syngas from MSW.237 Both catalysts similarly increased gas yields at 800 °C. The oyster-derived catalysts exhibited a higher tar removal at higher temperature (1000 °C) because of their effect on syngas yield, and they decreased the soot yield by improving the quality of syngas. Additionally, the PAH concentration was decreased by using the oyster-derived catalysts, and the H2/CO ratio was increased by almost 2.8 times. In summary, oyster-derived catalysts perform better than mussel-derived catalysts, as the oyster-derived catalysts have two times higher SSA and bigger crystallite size than the mussel-derived catalysts.

Marble has a calcite nature, and its processing creates a large amount of waste marble powder (WMP) as a byproduct. Irfan et al. carried out a novel study on utilizing WMP as a catalyst in the MSW gasification process.241 The experiments were carried out in a laboratory-scale batch-type fixed-bed reactor to investigate the effect of utilizing WMP on the CO2 sorption, steam-reforming capability, and char gasification while using steam as a gasifying agent. Different temperatures, steam flow rates, and WMP-to-MSW ratios were evaluated from 700 to 900 °C and at 2.5–10 mL/min, and 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 were evaluated, respectively. The results showed that increasing the WMP-to-MSW ratio leads to increased H2 production. However, CO2 adsorption is decreased under the same conditions.

Using wastes as biomass feedstock is a good method to both produce high value-added products and minimize wastes that would otherwise be disposed of in a landfill and create environmental problems. Cement kiln dust is generated from Portland cement processing, and it is generally stored in a landfill to meet environmental regulations. Hamad et al. investigated various gasification parameters on biomass feedstocks (cotton stalks, rice straw, and corn stalks) to produce hydrogen-rich gas.242 The chosen parameters were the oxygen-to-fuel ER (0.12–0.4), reaction temperature (700–850 °C), reaction duration (45–120 min), and catalyst species. The chosen catalysts included marly clay, calcium hydroxide, dolomite, and cement kiln dust. Based on the results, the best performance is achieved for an ER of 0.25 and 90 min reaction duration at 800 °C for calcined cement kiln dust and CaO. Among the catalysts, calcium hydroxide resulted in a higher concentration of H2 (45%) and CO (33%) for the gasification of cotton stalks. Using calcined cement kiln dust for gasification of the same material not only yielded relatively higher concentrations of H2 (39%) and CO (33%) but also gave a higher overall gas yield of 1.5 m3/kg with cement kiln dust compared to other agriculture residues of corn stalks (1.3 m3/kg) and rice straw (1.03 m3/kg).

In Table 3, catalyst type was summarized in the view of their representatives, characteristics, advantages/disadvantages, and target products.

Table 3. Catalysts in the View of Their Representatives, Characteristics, Advantages/Disadvantages, and Target Products.

type representatives characteristics advantages/disadvantages target products ref
AAEMs K (K2CO3 and KOH) increased reaction rate Advantages: hydrogen and syngas (166, 243246)
high mobility
inherently found in biomass creating micropore structure on carbon feed reducing tar and soot ingredients
increased reaction rate  
Disadvantages:  
volatility of potassium species (i.e., KCl)  
deactivation of potassium  
agglomeration at higher temperatures above 800 °C  
difficulty in catalyst recovery  
transition metal catalysts Ni high activity Advantages: reducing tar content (195, 247, 248)
low cost compared to other transition metal precursors
Disadvantages: enhancing the quality of gaseous product
deactivation caused by sintering and carbon formation  
scarce sources such as Pt, Ru, Rh, Ir, and Pd  
carbon-based catalysts biochar, activated char large specific surface area (SSA) Advantages: tar conversion (210, 212, 213, 222, 249)
high reliability
porous structure low cost
simple recovery upon deactivation
functional groups good catalytic activity
good catalytic activity Disadvantages:
requires modification for use as the support
declining active sites over time
natural mineral catalysts dolomite relatively favorable catalytic activity Advantages: increasing the quality of gaseous product (128, 194, 243, 250)
low cost
abundance providing 95% and more tar reduction
Disadvantages:
require further cleaning process for accessing the active component of the material
decrease in the mechanical strength with time
catalyst alternatives to waste byproducts material that has CaCO3 content such as egg shell, oyster shells, etc. abundance Advantages: increasing H2 yield (228, 229, 251)
high CaCO3 content low cost
minimizing waste product promising CO2 absorption
Disadvantages:  
deactivation due to particle agglomeration  
require modification of the active site  

As seen in Table 3, each type of catalyst has advantages and disadvantages. Until now, steps have been taken to eliminate the disadvantages of catalysts, and further research is going on. It is known that catalysts are used in thermochemical systems including gasification for producing biofuels, heat, power, etc. Academic researchers have been developing and finding new catalysts which are active, effective, and cost efficient. However, the other crucial thing is whether they are used in industrial plants or not. Hence, STEEP analysis of catalysts is carried out to achieve future sustainable development with the aid of the past and current situation of catalysts. In the next section, STEEP analysis is deeply evaluated.

4. STEEP Analysis of Catalysts

To enhance global welfare in light of social, environmental, and economic sustainability, sustainable development goals were proposed by the United Nations in 2015.252 Green chemistry and cleaner production methods are concepts that include new techniques and practices to help prevent adverse environmental effects. In order to reduce CO2 emissions and other potential pollution, adopting green chemistry principles is important for sustaining our future. Green chemistry can be defined as preventing waste and pollution through employment of materials, processes, or practices. These processes and practices include preventing pollution, decreasing consumption of chemical products that have negative impacts on both human health and the environment, eliminating hazardous content from existing products and processes, designing chemical products, and processes that have less structural hazards.253 These terms also extend to the reduction and efficient usage of hazardous/nonhazardous materials, energy, water, and other natural resources.254,255 Cleaner production contributes to sustainable development through the effective management of both resources and energy and the improvement of technology, which also helps the political side and all stakeholders in the industry.256 Catalysis is an important area in the chemical sector that plays a crucial role in many fields such as energy conversion, materials synthesis, environmental protection, and human health.257

In this review, STEEP analysis was evaluated for catalysts (shown in Figure 2) with five dimensions that are social, technological, environmental, economic, and political. STEEP analysis is a powerful tool for evaluating all aspects considered in the decision-making process of a system or service, in both academic and industrial fields. It is a decision-making tool for understanding sustainability. The STEEP analysis was used to analyze the past and current state of the catalyst that was applied in gasification. In this regard, technical reports, roadmaps and academic essays were reviewed in the view of all related aspects.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Social, technological, environmental, economic, and political (STEEP) analysis of catalysts (derived with permission from refs (115, 252, and 256270)).

Hydrogen is not just an energy carrier but also a feedstock for many industrial and energy-related applications. The chemical sector is the largest industrial consumer of both oil and gas, and it is responsible for 30% of the energy usage among all industrial sectors.264 Approximately 20%–30% of the world GDP is impacted by catalysis and catalytic processes. At present, 30 of the 50 chemicals with the largest volume are produced using catalysts. Every year, 20 billion tons of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere due to these 50 highest volume processes.261 Catalysts plays a key role in the chemical industry and seriously affect both today’s and future environmental conditions. Catalysts can produce greener products, more sustainably and more efficiently. Hence, they contribute to the reduction of CO2 emissions and prevent future energy difficulties.269

In order to understand catalyst consumption through gasification processes, the IEA Bioenergy database regarding “Gasification of Biomass and Waste” was examined.271 Evaluation was carried out excluding power, heat, combined power, and heat as outputs. Also, nonoperational status plants were excluded. Table 4 shows the projects that were evaluated under these criteria.

Table 4. Biomass and Waste Gasification Projectsa.

owner name technology product TRL catalyst location
Advanced Biofuels Solutions, Ltd. Swindon Advanced Biofuels Plant fuel synthesis SNG, hydrogen 8 N.A.I. Swindon, United Kingdom
Cutec Synthesis Cutec Clausthal-Zellerfeld fuel Synthesis FT liquids 4–5 N.A.I. Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany
bDillinger Saar GmbH Project Selma plasma gasification hydrogen 9 - Premnitz, Germany
ECN MILENA Gasifier indirect gasification (MILENA-technology) clean syngas 4–5 olivine (bed material) Petten, Netherlands
Enerkem Varennes Carbon Recycling fuel synthesis biofuel and renewable chemicals 6–7 N.A.I. Varennes, Canada
Enerkem Synthesis Enerkem Sherbrooke fuel synthesis SNG, cellulosic ethanol, methanol 4–5 N.A.I. Sherbrooke Canada
Enerkem Westbury commercial demonstration facility fuel synthesis chemical-grade syngas, methanol, ethanol, and other chemicals 6–7 N.A.I. Westbury, Canada
Enerkem Alberta Biofuels LP Edmonton Waste-to-Biofuels Projects fuel synthesis chemical-grade syngas, methanol, ethanol, and other chemicals 8 N.A.I. Edmonton, Canada
Neue Energy Premnitz Premnitz Project plasma gasification hydrogen 9 high-temperature and low-temperature pellet catalysts are used at the end of the process in the water-shift reactor Premnitz, Germany
NREL Thermochemical User Facility (TCUF) different technologies including gasification, etc. various chemicals 4–5 no catalyst Golden, United States
RWE Power AG MFC within ITZ-CC other gasification technologies clean syngas 4–5 no Catalyst Bergheim-Niederaussem, Germany
TUBITAK TRIJEN FT liquids biofuel 4–5 N.A.I. Kocaeli, Turkey
Uni Stuttgart Magnus 200 kW pilot plant for SEG fuel synthesis clean syngas 4–5 N.A.I. Stuttgart, Germany
Xylowatt, University Catholic of Louvain-la-Neuve (UCL) Test Gasifier Plant TGP other gasification technologies syngas 4–5 N.A.I. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
a

FT: Fischer–Tropsch. TRL: Technology Readiness Level. SNG: Synthetic natural gas. N.A.I.: No available information.

b

Project Selma is currently planned, so there is information about its operation and operation conditions.

Hydrogen is an enormous fuel for various chemicals and fuels. It can be seen in Table 4 that syngas and hydrogen are output products of some projects, while certain projects aim to produce diversified outputs including biofuels, chemicals, ethanol, methanol, etc. Most of these technologies are in TRL 4–5 and still require reaching the commercialization level (TRL 8–9). Heat, power, combined heat, and power plants have TRL 8–9, which plays an active role in the commercial area. Unfortunately, the projects including fuel synthesis and the production of hydrogen, syngas, methanol, etc. are still at demonstration levels that require scale up in order to be used for commercial purposes.

Biomass gasification enables the production of synthetic gas, and when combined further with FT or the purifying process, biofuel- or hydrogen-rich syngas is produced, respectively.272 Natural mineral catalysts, alkali and alkaline earth metal catalysts, Ni-based catalysts, and zeolites are commonly used catalysts in the gasification process to enhance the H2 content of syngas. However, most projects in Table 4 use another way to reduce tar content. Tar reduction is carried out in the projects either in their reactor with novel reactor design or in the additional gas cleaning and gas upgrading units. Additionally, this kind of unit brings additional cost to the system that is an obstacle to the commercialization of biomass gasification. Instead of this, it is necessary to develop a new catalyst that is more active and stable against carbon formation and sintering.269 Regarding catalyst usage in the systems, not much information from IEA Bioenergy “Gasification of Biomass and Waste” could be attained. Further research was carried out about patents held by companies. Although there is no information on exactly which catalyst is used in the facilities, a zinc oxide bed is used for catalytic reforming purposes to remove residual tar and convert the molecular weight hydrocarbons into H2 and CO in one of the patents of Enerkem Inc.273 Also, Enerhem Inc. holds patents about the catalyst used for producing hydrogen and synthesis gas. To give an illustration, the company developed catalysts consisting of nickel and/or cobalt supported on a support that includes a mixed oxide containing metals, such as aluminum, zirconium, lanthanum, magnesium, cerium, calcium, and yttrium. Developed catalysts are effective to convert carbon dioxide and methane to carbon monoxide and hydrogen, respectively.274 To identify catalysts that are used for producing hydrogen with a gasification process, an extensive patent search was made on the Espacenet database using the terms “catalyst”, “gasification”, and “hydrogen production”. Nickel is a cheap catalyst precursor, although it must be upgraded in view of its catalytic activity, hydrogen selectivity, and deactivation. To overcome its negative aspects, a hydrogen production catalyst and preparation method were developed and patented by Yancheng Fuhua Environmental Prot Industry Development Co. Ltd. The nickel precursor was combined with other elements and components including the zinc ion, magnesium ion, ammonia, ethyl orthosilicate, and manganese ion to improve its catalytic activity.275 JP2006068723A,276 CN103263923A,277 JP2006122841A,278 and FR2809030A1279 are some nickel composite catalysts that are combined with carriers such as porous carbon, zeolite, and other elements. Combining nickel with other catalyst precursors is not a new topic of research, and it has been studied for several years.

Technological development includes many aspects that affect the improvement and promotion of technology. Training qualified researchers has a place in both the social and technological aspects of the STEEP analysis. From the societal perspective, qualified people will change the thought process, while from the technological aspect, a trained and qualified researcher will contribute to the existing technology and knowledge related to their field. Additionally, training qualified researchers will contribute to enhancing R&D activity.267,280 The deactivation of catalysts is one of the major obstacles for this field, and it requires intensive scrutinization and study. Poisoning, fouling, thermal degradation, vapor compound formation, vapor–solid or solid–solid reactions, attrition, and crushing are all reasons for catalyst deactivation.281 Catalysts have a limited lifetime, and used catalysts can be either recycled, downcycled, or discarded. Although disposing of the catalyst is more attractive due to being the most cost-effective option, it can create negative environmental impacts due to its composition.282 Therefore, from a sustainability point of view, practical, efficient, reliable, and economic catalyst regeneration methods need to be developed. For catalysts used in the catalytic conversion of biomass, there are some unique challenges: (i) the requirement of a stable catalyst, (ii) more selective reactions, and (iii) integrating catalysis with separation.283 In order for the research and development activities carried out to be put into action, it is necessary to bring a cost estimate. Hence, the NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) has developed a tool for accelerating catalyst development, which is namely CatCost, that combines cost estimation methods and resources in an intuitive tool suite.284 Reducing the cost of catalysts and the required investments will contribute to wider adoption of the technology and will increase its competitiveness in both the industry and energy sectors. Beyond developing catalysts with desired properties, the catalyst industry will have a positive impact on both social and economic aspects. The social aspect will also be affected in this situation by increased job opportunities and improved living standards and human health. Because of that, the tool of The Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) model has been developed by NREL to forecast the economic impacts of foundation and operation plants for both the local and state levels.285 With the aid of this tool, the number of jobs and economic impacts to a local area can be estimated..

Fossil-fuel-based energy and chemical production are cheaper than renewable resources as they comprise a more mature technology. However, GHG emissions are tightly coupled with what resources are employed for which purpose; i.e., fossil-fuel-based energy and chemical production release more GHG than renewables ones.265 To overcome this problem, economists and policymakers should accelerate the energy transition from fossil fuels to renewable resources for both the energy and chemical transformation industries.268 Biomass can both reduce GHG emissions and meet environmental policies and determined reduction targets, while also improving the chemical production and making use of renewable energy in local carbon resources such as CO2 and waste. Additionally, by increasing the capital investment in R&D of new catalysts, establishing collaborations between industry and academia by policymakers, public–private partnerships will accelerate reaching sustainability goals and transitioning to future energy forms.

Biomass is abundant, cheap, and carbon-neutral, enabling its use in different thermochemical processes to make high-value-added products. Although the gasification of biomass has many advantages as mentioned above, there are some disadvantages with regard to feedstock impurities, seasonal availability, and tar formation. Compared to other hydrogen production methods, the gasification process has a H2 generation efficiency in the range of 30%–40% with relatively lower production costs (1.77–2.05 $/kg) compared to other methods, especially electrolysis (10.30 $/kg).286 However, the efficiency of biomass gasification still needs to be improved to compete with other H2 production methods. To sum up, it can be concluded from STEEP analysis that catalysts have a crucial role in our life and economic development. Thus, specific focus on the development of special and effective catalysts for the gasification process is required.

5. Conclusion and Future Work

This study assessed hydrogen production via catalytic biomass gasification and performed the STEEP analysis of catalysts used in a wide range of vital processes in several industries and a circular economy.

Fuel and chemical industries are the most important sectors that use hydrogen. In both of these sectors, CO2 emissions are quite high due to using fossil-fuel-based sources. Apart from playing a critical role in energy applications, H2 also has an important role in the chemical industry, especially in the production of ammonia and methanol. The use of catalysts in the production of these resources by various thermochemical methods has an essential role as catalysts increase the energy efficiency, the rate of rectification, and the production efficiency. Biomass gasification is one of the thermochemical methods that produces green hydrogen as it utilizes carbon-neutral biomass feedstock. Catalysts are the key player in many processes including biomass gasification, FT synthesis, etc. As a priority in biomass gasification, alkali and alkaline earth metal catalysts, Ni-based catalysts, natural mineral catalysts, and waste byproducts are applied as catalyst precursors. However, each of these catalysts has merit and demerit to be improved to enhance the process and syngas yield. Through STEEP analysis, it was concluded that academic study on catalyst development and commercial applications of them do not progress simultaneously. Correspondingly, the STEEP analysis showed that catalyst development specifically for biomass gasification is required and needs to be applied by industry. In order to achieve a greener and more sustainable future, the currently used catalysts must move toward being more stable, efficient, economic, and reusable and must contribute to less energy-intensive processes.

Acknowledgments

This study is supported by Ege University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit. Project number: FDK-2020-22276. We are grateful to Ege University Planning and Monitoring Coordination of Organizational Development and Directorate of Library and Documentation for their support with editing and proofreading services for this study. Many thanks to BioRender who helped us create the graphical abstract. The authors express their thanks to the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) for the fellowship 2211C and also their thanks to the council of higher education (YOK) for 100/2000 scholarships. The authors would like to thank Dilvin Çebi for her contributions to the study.

Glossary

Abbreviations List

SCWG

Supercritical water gasification

AES

Alkaline electrolysis systems

ER

Equivalence ratio

S/B

Steam-to-biomass ratios

S/C

Steam-to-carbon ratios

HTC

Hydrothermal carbonization

PAHs

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

AAEMs

Alkali and alkaline-earth metals

TGA

Thermogravimetric analyzer

PP

Polypropylene

SSA

Specific surface area

FT

Fischer–Tropsch

TRL

Technology readiness level

SNG

Synthetic natural gas

LCA

Life-cycle assessments

GHG

Greenhouse gases

R&D

Research and development

NREL

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

JEDI

The Jobs and Economic Development Impact

Supporting Information Available

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.2c01538.

  • Metal-based catalyst, Ni, dolamite, Rh, Fe, and H2 yield, and tar yield (PDF)

Author Contributions

All authors conceived and designed the study. All authors contributed to manuscript writing and revision. All authors contributed to the design of the figures. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Editing of the manuscript was done by Melih Soner Çeliktas.

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Supplementary Material

ao2c01538_si_001.pdf (138.8KB, pdf)

References

  1. Verschoor M.; Albers C.; Poortinga W.; Böhm G.; Steg L. Exploring Relationships between Climate Change Beliefs and Energy Preferences: A Network Analysis of the European Social Survey. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 70, 101435. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101435. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Maggio G.; Nicita A.; Squadrito G. How the Hydrogen Production from RES Could Change Energy and Fuel Markets: A Review of Recent Literature. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 11371–11384. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.03.121. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ucal M.; Xydis G. Multidirectional Relationship between Energy Resources, Climate Changes and Sustainable Development: Technoeconomic Analysis. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 60, 102210. 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102210. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gielen D.; Boshell F.; Saygin D.; Bazilian M. D.; Wagner N.; Gorini R. The Role of Renewable Energy in the Global Energy Transformation. Energy Strateg. Rev. 2019, 24, 38–50. 10.1016/j.esr.2019.01.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Pleßmann G.; Erdmann M.; Hlusiak M.; Breyer C. Global Energy Storage Demand for a 100% Renewable Electricity Supply. Energy Procedia 2014, 46, 22–31. 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.01.154. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Colbertaldo P.; Agustin S. B.; Campanari S.; Brouwer J. Impact of Hydrogen Energy Storage on California Electric Power System: Towards 100% Renewable Electricity. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 9558–9576. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.11.062. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Mutlu R. N.; Kucukkara I.; Gizir A. M. Hydrogen Generation by Electrolysis under Subcritical Water Condition and the Effect of Aluminium Anode. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 12641–12652. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.02.223. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Dawood F.; Anda M.; Shafiullah G. M. Hydrogen Production for Energy: An Overview. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 3847–3869. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.059. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Samimi F.; Marzoughi T.; Rahimpour M. R. Energy and Exergy Analysis and Optimization of Biomass Gasification Process for Hydrogen Production (Based on Air, Steam and Air/Steam Gasifying Agents). Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 33185–33197. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.09.131. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Balat H.; Kirtay E. Hydrogen from Biomass - Present Scenario and Future Prospects. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 7416. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.137. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jain I. P. Hydrogen the Fuel for 21st Century. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2009, 34, 7368–7378. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.05.093. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Holladay J. D.; Hu J.; King D. L.; Wang Y. An Overview of Hydrogen Production Technologies. Catal. Today 2009, 139, 244–260. 10.1016/j.cattod.2008.08.039. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Nikolaidis P.; Poullikkas A. A Comparative Overview of Hydrogen Production Processes. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2017, 67, 597–611. 10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.044. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Abdin Z.; Zafaranloo A.; Rafiee A.; Mérida W.; Lipiński W.; Khalilpour K. R. Hydrogen as an Energy Vector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2020, 120, 109620. 10.1016/j.rser.2019.109620. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gnanapragasam N. V.; Rosen M. A. A Review of Hydrogen Production Using Coal, Biomass and Other Solid Fuels. Biofuels 2017, 8, 725–745. 10.1080/17597269.2017.1302662. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kaur M.; Pal K. Review on Hydrogen Storage Materials and Methods from an Electrochemical Viewpoint. Journal of Energy Storage 2019, 23, 234–249. 10.1016/j.est.2019.03.020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Shin J.; Kang M. S.; Hwang J. Effects of Bio-Syngas CO2 Concentration on Water-Gas Shift and Side Reactions with Fe-Cr Based Catalyst. Int. J. Energy Res. 2021, 45, 1857–1866. 10.1002/er.5861. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Eriksson E. L. V.; Gray E. M. A. Optimization and Integration of Hybrid Renewable Energy Hydrogen Fuel Cell Energy Systems – A Critical Review. Applied Energy 2017, 202, 348–364. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.132. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Pinsky R.; Sabharwall P.; Hartvigsen J.; O’Brien J. Comparative Review of Hydrogen Production Technologies for Nuclear Hybrid Energy Systems. Progress in Nuclear Energy 2020, 123, 103317. 10.1016/j.pnucene.2020.103317. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hosseini S. E.; Wahid M. A. Hydrogen Production from Renewable and Sustainable Energy Resources: Promising Green Energy Carrier for Clean Development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2016, 57, 850–866. 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.112. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Singh R.; Singh M.; Gautam S. Hydrogen Economy, Energy, and Liquid Organic Carriers for Its Mobility. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 46, 5420–5427. 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.09.065. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Edwards P. P.; Kuznetsov V. L.; David W. I. F.; Brandon N. P. Hydrogen and Fuel Cells: Towards a Sustainable Energy Future. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 4356–4362. 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ismael M. A Review and Recent Advances in Solar-to-Hydrogen Energy Conversion Based on Photocatalytic Water Splitting over Doped-TiO2 Nanoparticles. Sol. Energy 2020, 211, 522–546. 10.1016/j.solener.2020.09.073. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Salam M. A.; Ahmed K.; Akter N.; Hossain T.; Abdullah B. A Review of Hydrogen Production via Biomass Gasification and Its Prospect in Bangladesh. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 14944–14973. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.06.043. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Zaini I. N.; Gomez-Rueda Y.; García López C.; Ratnasari D. K.; Helsen L.; Pretz T.; Jönsson P. G.; Yang W. Production of H2-Rich Syngas from Excavated Landfill Waste through Steam Co-Gasification with Biochar. Energy 2020, 207, 118208. 10.1016/j.energy.2020.118208. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kothari R.; Buddhi D.; Sawhney R. L. Comparison of Environmental and Economic Aspects of Various Hydrogen Production Methods. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2008, 12, 553–563. 10.1016/j.rser.2006.07.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Shiva Kumar S.; Himabindu V. Hydrogen Production by PEM Water Electrolysis – A Review. Mater. Sci. Energy Technol. 2019, 2, 442–454. 10.1016/j.mset.2019.03.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Foong S. Y.; Chan Y. H.; Cheah W. Y.; Kamaludin N. H.; Tengku Ibrahim T. N. B.; Sonne C.; Peng W.; Show P. L.; Lam S. S. Progress in Waste Valorization Using Advanced Pyrolysis Techniques for Hydrogen and Gaseous Fuel Production. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 320, 124299. 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Bac S.; Keskin S.; Avci A. K. Recent Advances in Materials for High Purity H2 Production by Ethanol and Glycerol Steam Reforming. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 34888–34917. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.11.237. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Keiski R. L.; Ojala S.; Huuhtanen M.; Kolli T.; Leiviskä K.. Partial Oxidation (POX) Processes and Technology for Clean Fuel and Chemical Production. In Advances in Clean Hydrocarbon Fuel Processing: Science and Technology, 1st ed.; Khan R. M., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy: Cambridge, 2011; pp 262–286. 10.1533/9780857093783.3.262. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Chen W. H.; Chen K. H.; Lin B. J.; Guo Y. Z. Catalyst Combination Strategy for Hydrogen Production from Methanol Partial Oxidation. Energy 2020, 206, 118180. 10.1016/j.energy.2020.118180. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Chih Y. K.; Chen W. H.; Tran K. Q. Hydrogen Production from Methanol Partial Oxidation through the Catalyst Prepared Using Torrefaction Liquid Products. Fuel 2020, 279, 118419. 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118419. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Nasir Uddin M.; Daud W. M. A. W.; Abbas H. F. Potential Hydrogen and Non-Condensable Gases Production from Biomass Pyrolysis: Insights into the Process Variables. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2013, 27, 204–224. 10.1016/j.rser.2013.06.031. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Liu Y.; Chen T.; Gao B.; Meng R.; Zhou P.; Chen G.; Zhan Y.; Lu W.; Wang H. Comparison between Hydrogen-Rich Biogas Production from Conventional Pyrolysis and Microwave Pyrolysis of Sewage Sludge: Is Microwave Pyrolysis Always Better in the Whole Temperature Range?. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 23322–23333. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.05.165. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Singh Siwal S.; Zhang Q.; Sun C.; Thakur S.; Kumar Gupta V.; Kumar Thakur V. Energy Production from Steam Gasification Processes and Parameters That Contemplate in Biomass Gasifier – A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 297, 122481. 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. AlNouss A.; McKay G.; Al-Ansari T. Enhancing Waste to Hydrogen Production through Biomass Feedstock Blending: A Techno-Economic-Environmental Evaluation. Appl. Energy 2020, 266, 114885. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114885. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Wang Z.; Burra K. G.; Zhang M.; Li X.; He X.; Lei T.; Gupta A. K. Syngas Evolution and Energy Efficiency in CO2-Assisted Gasification of Pine Bark. Appl. Energy 2020, 269, 114996. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114996. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Cao L.; Yu I. K. M.; Xiong X.; Tsang D. C. W.; Zhang S.; Clark J. H.; Hu C.; Ng Y. H.; Shang J.; Ok Y. S. Biorenewable Hydrogen Production through Biomass Gasification: A Review and Future Prospects. Environ. Res. 2020, 186, 109547. 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109547. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Qazi W. A.; Abushammala M. F. M.; Azam M. H. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of Waste-to-Energy Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste Management in Sultanate of Oman. Waste Manag. Res. 2018, 36, 594–605. 10.1177/0734242X18777800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Nanda S.; Reddy S. N.; Dalai A. K.; Kozinski J. A. Subcritical and Supercritical Water Gasification of Lignocellulosic Biomass Impregnated with Nickel Nanocatalyst for Hydrogen Production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 4907–4921. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.10.060. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Sun J.; Xu L.; Dong G.-h.; Nanda S.; Li H.; Fang Z.; Kozinski J. A.; Dalai A. K. Subcritical Water Gasification of Lignocellulosic Wastes for Hydrogen Production with Co Modified Ni/Al2O3 Catalysts. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2020, 162, 104863. 10.1016/j.supflu.2020.104863. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Ruya P. M.; Lim S. S.; Purwadi R.; Zunita M. Sustainable Hydrogen Production from Oil Palm Derived Wastes through Autothermal Operation of Supercritical Water Gasification System. Energy 2020, 208, 118280. 10.1016/j.energy.2020.118280. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lee C. S.; Conradie A. V.; Lester E. Review of Supercritical Water Gasification with Lignocellulosic Real Biomass as the Feedstocks: Process Parameters, Biomass Composition, Catalyst Development, Reactor Design and Its Challenges. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 415, 128837. 10.1016/j.cej.2021.128837. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Macrì D.; Catizzone E.; Molino A.; Migliori M. Supercritical Water Gasification of Biomass and Agro-Food Residues: Energy Assessment from Modelling Approach. Renew. Energy 2020, 150, 624–636. 10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.147. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Kang K.; Azargohar R.; Dalai A. K.; Wang H. Hydrogen Generation via Supercritical Water Gasification of Lignin Using Ni-Co/Mg-Al Catalysts. Int. J. Energy Res. 2017, 41, 1835–1846. 10.1002/er.3739. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Cheng L.; Ye X. P. Recent Progress in Converting Biomass to Biofuels and Renewable Chemicals in Sub- or Supercritical Water. Biofuels 2010, 1, 109–128. 10.4155/bfs.09.3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Tushar M. S. H. K.; Dimaria P. C.; Al-Salem S. M.; Dutta A.; Xu C. C. Biohydrogen Production by Catalytic Supercritical Water Gasification: A Comparative Study. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 15390–15401. 10.1021/acsomega.9b01782. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Ahmed S.; Aitani A.; Rahman F.; Al-Dawood A.; Al-Muhaish F. Decomposition of Hydrocarbons to Hydrogen and Carbon. Applied Catalysis A: General 2009, 359, 1–24. 10.1016/j.apcata.2009.02.038. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Chen H. L.; Lee H. M.; Chen S. H.; Chao Y.; Chang M. B. Review of Plasma Catalysis on Hydrocarbon Reforming for Hydrogen Production-Interaction, Integration, and Prospects. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 2008, 85, 1–9. 10.1016/j.apcatb.2008.06.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Kheirollahivash M.; Rashidi F.; Moshrefi M. M. Hydrogen Production from Methane Decomposition Using a Mobile and Elongating Arc Plasma Reactor. Plasma Chem. Plasma Process 2019, 39, 445–459. 10.1007/s11090-018-9950-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Gallagher M. J.; Fridman A.. Plasma Reforming for H2-Rich Synthesis Gas. In Fuel Cells: Technologies for Fuel Processing, 1st ed.; Shekhawat D., Berry D. A., Spivey J. J., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, 2011; pp 223–259. 10.1016/B978-0-444-53563-4.10008-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Inayat A.; Tariq R.; Khan Z.; Ghenai C.; Kamil M.; Jamil F.; Shanableh A. A Comprehensive Review on Advanced Thermochemical Processes for Bio-Hydrogen Production via Microwave and Plasma Technologies. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery 2020, 10.1007/s13399-020-01175-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Bičáková O.; Straka P. Production of Hydrogen from Renewable Resources and Its Effectiveness. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2012, 37, 11563–1578. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.05.047. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Akhlaghi N.; Najafpour-Darzi G. A Comprehensive Review on Biological Hydrogen Production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 22492–22512. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.06.182. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Antonopoulou G.; Ntaikou I.; Stamatelatou K.; Lyberatos G.. Biological and Fermentative Production of Hydrogen. Handbook of Biofuels Production. Processes and Technologies, 1st ed.; Luque R., Campelo J., Clark J., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy: Cambridge, 2011; pp 305–346. 10.1533/9780857090492.2.305. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Baeyens J.; Zhang H.; Nie J.; Appels L.; Dewil R.; Ansart R.; Deng Y. Reviewing the Potential of Bio-Hydrogen Production by Fermentation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 131, 110023. 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Azwar M. Y.; Hussain M. A.; Abdul-Wahab A. K. Development of Biohydrogen Production by Photobiological, Fermentation and Electrochemical Processes: A Review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2014, 31, 158–173. 10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Bhatia S. K.; Jagtap S. S.; Bedekar A. A.; Bhatia R. K.; Rajendran K.; Pugazhendhi A.; Rao C. V.; Atabani A. E.; Kumar G.; Yang Y. H. Renewable Biohydrogen Production from Lignocellulosic Biomass Using Fermentation and Integration of Systems with Other Energy Generation Technologies. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 765, 144429. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Acar C.; Dincer I.; Naterer G. F. Review of Photocatalytic Water-Splitting Methods for Sustainable Hydrogen Production. International Journal of Energy Research 2016, 40, 1449–1473. 10.1002/er.3549. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Hallenbeck P. C. Microbial Paths to Renewable Hydrogen Production. Biofuels 2011, 2, 285–302. 10.4155/bfs.11.6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Fereidooni M.; Mostafaeipour A.; Kalantar V.; Goudarzi H. A Comprehensive Evaluation of Hydrogen Production from Photovoltaic Power Station. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018, 82, 415–423. 10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.060. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Liu G.; Sheng Y.; Ager J. W.; Kraft M.; Xu R. Research Advances towards Large-Scale Solar Hydrogen Production from Water. EnergyChem. 2019, 1, 100014. 10.1016/j.enchem.2019.100014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. El-Emam R. S.; Özcan H. Comprehensive Review on the Techno-Economics of Sustainable Large-Scale Clean Hydrogen Production. Journal of Cleaner Production 2019, 220, 593–609. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.309. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Marques F. C.; Silva J. C. M.; Libardi C. P.; de Carvalho R. R.; Sequine G. F.; Valane G. M. Hydrogen Production by Photovoltaic-Electrolysis Using Aqueous Waste from Ornamental Stones Industries. Renew. Energy 2020, 152, 1266–1273. 10.1016/j.renene.2020.01.156. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Rarotra S.; Mandal T. K.; Bandyopadhyay D. Microfluidic Electrolyzers for Production and Separation of Hydrogen from Sea Water Using Naturally Abundant Solar Energy. Energy Technol. 2017, 5, 1208–1217. 10.1002/ente.201600512. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Sui J.; Chen Z.; Wang C.; Wang Y.; Liu J.; Li W. Efficient Hydrogen Production from Solar Energy and Fossil Fuel via Water-Electrolysis and Methane-Steam-Reforming Hybridization. Appl. Energy 2020, 276, 115409. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115409. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Hosseini S. E.; Wahid M. A. Hydrogen from Solar Energy, a Clean Energy Carrier from a Sustainable Source of Energy. International Journal of Energy Research 2020, 44, 4110–4131. 10.1002/er.4930. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Mostafaeipour A.; Khayyami M.; Sedaghat A.; Mohammadi K.; Shamshirband S.; Sehati M. A.; Gorakifard E. Evaluating the Wind Energy Potential for Hydrogen Production: A Case Study. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 6200–6210. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.03.038. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Chi J.; Yu H. Water Electrolysis Based on Renewable Energy for Hydrogen Production. Cuihua Xuebao/Chinese Journal of Catalysis 2018, 39, 390–394. 10.1016/S1872-2067(17)62949-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Saeedmanesh A.; Mac Kinnon M. A.; Brouwer J. Hydrogen Is Essential for Sustainability. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 2018, 12, 166–181. 10.1016/j.coelec.2018.11.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Olateju B.; Kumar A. A Techno-Economic Assessment of Hydrogen Production from Hydropower in Western Canada for the Upgrading of Bitumen from Oil Sands. Energy 2016, 115, 604–614. 10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.101. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Posso F.; Espinoza J. L.; Sánchez J.; Zalamea J. Hydrogen from Hydropower in Ecuador: Use and Impacts in the Transport Sector. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 15432–15447. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.08.109. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Dincer I.; Acar C. Review and Evaluation of Hydrogen Production Methods for Better Sustainability. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 11094–11111. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.12.035. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Che S. C.; Bredehoft R. L.. Hydrogen Production Technologies. In American Chemical Society, Division of Petroleum Chemistry, Preprints; ACS.1995; Vol. 40, pp 713–718. [Google Scholar]
  75. Scheepers F.; Stähler M.; Stähler A.; Rauls E.; Müller M.; Carmo M.; Lehnert W. Temperature Optimization for Improving Polymer Electrolyte Membrane-Water Electrolysis System Efficiency. Appl. Energy 2021, 283, 116270. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116270. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Alfano M.; Cavazza C. The Biologically Mediated Water-Gas Shift Reaction: Structure, Function and Biosynthesis of Monofunctional [NiFe]-Carbon Monoxide Dehydrogenases. Sustainable Energy and Fuels 2018, 2, 1653–1670. 10.1039/C8SE00085A. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Akubo K.; Nahil M. A.; Williams P. T. Pyrolysis-Catalytic Steam Reforming of Agricultural Biomass Wastes and Biomass Components for Production of Hydrogen/Syngas. J. Energy Inst. 2019, 92, 1987–1996. 10.1016/j.joei.2018.10.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Hitam C. N. C.; Jalil A. A. A Review on Biohydrogen Production through Photo-Fermentation of Lignocellulosic Biomass. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery 2020, 10.1007/s13399-020-01140-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Yang L.; Lu C.; Gao Y.; Lin Y.; Xu J.; Xu H.; Zhang X.; Wang M.; Zhao Y.; Yu C.; Si Y. Hydrogen-Rich Gas Production from the Gasification of Biomass and Hydrothermal Carbonization (HTC) Aqueous Phase. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2021, 10.1007/s13399-020-01197-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Claude V.; Courson C.; Köhler M.; Lambert S. D. Overview and Essentials of Biomass Gasification Technologies and Their Catalytic Cleaning Methods. Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 8791–8814. 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01642. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Cerone N.; Zimbardi F.; Contuzzi L.; Celiktas M. S.; Valerio V. Pilot Plant Air-Steam Gasification of Nut Shells for Syngas Production. European Biomass Conference and Exhibition Proceedings 2017, 843–846. [Google Scholar]
  82. Imai A.; Hardi F.; Lundqvist P.; Furusjö E.; Kirtania K.; Karagöz S.; Tekin K.; Yoshikawa K. Alkali-Catalyzed Hydrothermal Treatment of Sawdust for Production of a Potential Feedstock for Catalytic Gasification. Appl. Energy 2018, 231, 594–599. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.150. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Safarian S.; Unnthorsson R.; Richter C. Hydrogen Production via Biomass Gasification: Simulation and Performance Analysis under Different Gasifying Agents. Biofuels 2022, 13, 717–726. 10.1080/17597269.2021.1894781. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Ahmad A. A.; Zawawi N. A.; Kasim F. H.; Inayat A.; Khasri A. Assessing the Gasification Performance of Biomass: A Review on Biomass Gasification Process Conditions, Optimization and Economic Evaluation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2016, 53, 1333–1347. 10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.030. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. Kalinci Y.; Hepbasli A.; Dincer I. Biomass-Based Hydrogen Production: A Review and Analysis. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2009, 34, 8799–8817. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.08.078. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. Pereira E. G.; Da Silva J. N.; De Oliveira J. L.; MacHado C. S. Sustainable Energy: A Review of Gasification Technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2012, 16, 4753–4762. 10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  87. Patuzzi F.; Basso D.; Vakalis S.; Antolini D.; Piazzi S.; Benedetti V.; Cordioli E.; Baratieri M. State-of-the-Art of Small-Scale Biomass Gasification Systems: An Extensive and Unique Monitoring Review. Energy 2021, 223, 120039. 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120039. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  88. He T.; Han D.; Wu J.; Li J.; Wang Z.; Wu J. Simulation of Biomass Gasification and Application in Pilot Plant. Energy Technol. 2015, 3, 162–167. 10.1002/ente.201402134. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  89. Sikarwar V. S.; Zhao M.. Biomass Gasification. Encyclopedia of Sustainable Technologies, 1st ed.; Abraham M. A., Ed.;Elsevier: Oxford, 2017; pp 205–216. 10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10533-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  90. Pala L. P. R.; Wang Q.; Kolb G.; Hessel V. Steam Gasification of Biomass with Subsequent Syngas Adjustment Using Shift Reaction for Syngas Production: An Aspen Plus Model. Renew. Energy 2017, 101, 484–492. 10.1016/j.renene.2016.08.069. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  91. Alauddin Z. A. B. Z.; Lahijani P.; Mohammadi M.; Mohamed A. R. Gasification of Lignocellulosic Biomass in Fluidized Beds for Renewable Energy Development: A Review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2010, 14, 2852–2862. 10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  92. Nzihou A.; Stanmore B.; Sharrock P. A Review of Catalysts for the Gasification of Biomass Char, with Some Reference to Coal. Energy 2013, 58, 305–317. 10.1016/j.energy.2013.05.057. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  93. Shahbaz M.; Yusup S.; Inayat A.; Patrick D. O.; Ammar M.; Pratama A. Cleaner Production of Hydrogen and Syngas from Catalytic Steam Palm Kernel Shell Gasification Using CaO Sorbent and Coal Bottom Ash as a Catalyst. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 13824–13833. 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03237. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Hofbauer H.; Materazzi M.. Waste Gasification Processes for SNG Production. Substit. Nat. Gas from Waste Tech. Assess. Ind. Appl. Biochem. Thermochem. Process, 1st ed.; Materazzi M.; Foscolo P. U., Ed.; Elsevier: London, 2019; pp 105–160. 10.1016/B978-0-12-815554-7.00007-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  95. Bhaskar T.; Balagurumurthy B.; Singh R.; Poddar M. K.. Thermochemical Route for Biohydrogen Production. Biohydrogen, 1st ed.; Pandey A., Chang J.-S., Hallenbeck P. C., Larroche C., Ed.; Elsevier: MA, 2013; pp 285–316. 10.1016/B978-0-444-59555-3.00012-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Kaur R.; Gera P.; Jha M. K.; Bhaskar T.. Thermochemical Route for Biohydrogen Production. In Biohydrogen, 2nd ed.; Pandey A., Chang J.-S., Hallenbeck P. C., Larroche C., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2019; pp 187–218. 10.1016/b978-0-444-64203-5.00008-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  97. Rauch R.; Hrbek J.; Hofbauer H. Biomass Gasification for Synthesis Gas Production and Applications of the Syngas. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ. 2014, 3, 343–362. 10.1002/wene.97. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  98. Cabuk B.; Duman G.; Yanik J.; Olgun H. Effect of Fuel Blend Composition on Hydrogen Yield in Co-Gasification of Coal and Non-Woody Biomass. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 3435–3443. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.02.130. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Zhang Y.; Wan L.; Guan J.; Xiong Q.; Zhang S.; Jin X. A Review on Biomass Gasification: Effect of Main Parameters on Char Generation and Reaction. Energy Fuels 2020, 34, 13438–13455. 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c02900. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  100. Motta I. L.; Miranda N. T.; Maciel Filho R.; Wolf Maciel M. R. Biomass Gasification in Fluidized Beds: A Review of Biomass Moisture Content and Operating Pressure Effects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018, 94, 998–1023. 10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.042. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  101. Parparita E.; Uddin M. A.; Watanabe T.; Kato Y.; Yanik J.; Vasile C. Gas Production by Steam Gasification of Polypropylene/Biomass Waste Composites in a Dual-Bed Reactor. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2015, 17, 756–768. 10.1007/s10163-014-0308-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  102. Anukam A.; Mamphweli S.; Reddy P.; Meyer E.; Okoh O. Pre-Processing of Sugarcane Bagasse for Gasification in a Downdraft Biomass Gasifier System: A Comprehensive Review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2016, 66, 775–801. 10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.046. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  103. Samiran N. A.; Jaafar M. N. M.; Ng J. H.; Lam S. S.; Chong C. T. Progress in Biomass Gasification Technique - With Focus on Malaysian Palm Biomass for Syngas Production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2016, 62, 1047–1062. 10.1016/j.rser.2016.04.049. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  104. Molino A.; Chianese S.; Musmarra D. Biomass Gasification Technology: The State of the Art Overview. J. Energy Chem. 2016, 25, 10–25. 10.1016/j.jechem.2015.11.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  105. Chuang K. H.; Chen B. N.; Wey M. Y. Enrichment of Hydrogen Production from Biomass-Gasification-Derived Syngas over Spinel-Type Aluminate-Supported Nickel Catalysts. Energy Technol. 2018, 6, 318–325. 10.1002/ente.201700473. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  106. Burra K. G.; Gupta A. K. Synergistic Effects in Steam Gasification of Combined Biomass and Plastic Waste Mixtures. Appl. Energy 2018, 211, 230–236. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.10.130. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  107. Chen G.; Jamro I. A.; Samo S. R.; Wenga T.; Baloch H. A.; Yan B.; Ma W. Hydrogen-Rich Syngas Production from Municipal Solid Waste Gasification through the Application of Central Composite Design: An Optimization Study. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 33260–33273. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.09.118. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  108. Bain R. L.; Broer K.. Gasification. In Thermochemical Processing of Biomass: Conversion into Fuels, Chemicals and Power, 1st ed.; Brown R. C., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, 2011; pp 47–77. 10.1002/9781119990840.ch3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  109. Singh D.; Yadav S. Steam Gasification with Torrefaction as Pretreatment to Enhance Syngas Production from Mixed Food Waste. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 104722. 10.1016/j.jece.2020.104722. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  110. Singh D.; Yadav S.; Bharadwaj N.; Verma R. Low Temperature Steam Gasification to Produce Hydrogen Rich Gas from Kitchen Food Waste: Influence of Steam Flow Rate and Temperature. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 20843–20850. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.05.168. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  111. Udomsirichakorn J.; Salam P. A. Review of Hydrogen-Enriched Gas Production from Steam Gasification of Biomass: The Prospect of CaO-Based Chemical Looping Gasification. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2014, 30, 565–579. 10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  112. Chuayboon S.; Abanades S.; Rodat S. Insights into the Influence of Biomass Feedstock Type, Particle Size and Feeding Rate on Thermochemical Performances of a Continuous Solar Gasification Reactor. Renew. Energy 2019, 130, 360–370. 10.1016/j.renene.2018.06.065. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  113. Yu H.; Wu Z.; Chen G. Catalytic Gasification Characteristics of Cellulose, Hemicellulose and Lignin. Renew. Energy 2018, 121, 559–567. 10.1016/j.renene.2018.01.047. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  114. Tian T.; Li Q.; He R.; Tan Z.; Zhang Y. Effects of Biochemical Composition on Hydrogen Production by Biomass Gasification. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 19723–19732. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.06.174. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  115. De Lasa H.; Salaices E.; Mazumder J.; Lucky R. Catalytic Steam Gasification of Biomass: Catalysts, Thermodynamics and Kinetics. Chem. Rev. 2011, 111, 5404–5433. 10.1021/cr200024w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. Moghadam R. A.; Yusup S.; Uemura Y.; Chin B. L. F.; Lam H. L.; Al Shoaibi A. Syngas Production from Palm Kernel Shell and Polyethylene Waste Blend in Fluidized Bed Catalytic Steam Co-Gasification Process. Energy 2014, 75, 40–44. 10.1016/j.energy.2014.04.062. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  117. Nam H.; Wang S.; Sanjeev K. C.; Seo M. W.; Adhikari S.; Shakya R.; Lee D.; Shanmugam S. R. Enriched Hydrogen Production over Air and Air-Steam Fluidized Bed Gasification in a Bubbling Fluidized Bed Reactor with CaO: Effects of Biomass and Bed Material Catalyst. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 225, 113408. 10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113408. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  118. Li W.; Li Q.; Chen R.; Wu Y.; Zhang Y. Investigation of Hydrogen Production Using Wood Pellets Gasification with Steam at High Temperature over 800°c to 1435°c. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 5580–5588. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.01.102. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  119. Prestipino M.; Chiodo V.; Maisano S.; Zafarana G.; Urbani F.; Galvagno A. Hydrogen Rich Syngas Production by Air-Steam Gasification of Citrus Peel Residues from Citrus Juice Manufacturing: Experimental and Simulation Activities. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 26816–26827. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.173. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  120. He J.; Yang Z.; Xiong S.; Guo M.; Yan Y.; Ran J.; Zhang L. Experimental and Thermodynamic Study of Banana Peel Non-Catalytic Gasification Characteristics. Waste Manag. 2020, 113, 369–378. 10.1016/j.wasman.2020.06.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  121. Peng N.; Gai C.; Peng C. Enhancing Hydrogen-Rich Syngas Production and Energy Recovery Efficiency by Integrating Hydrothermal Carbonization Pretreatment with Steam Gasification. Energy 2020, 210, 118655. 10.1016/j.energy.2020.118655. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  122. Font Palma C. Modelling of Tar Formation and Evolution for Biomass Gasification: A Review. Applied Energy 2013, 111, 129–141. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.04.082. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  123. Ravenni G.; Elhami O. H.; Ahrenfeldt J.; Henriksen U. B.; Neubauer Y. Adsorption and Decomposition of Tar Model Compounds over the Surface of Gasification Char and Active Carbon within the Temperature Range 250–800 °C. Appl. Energy 2019, 241, 139–151. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.032. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  124. Zhang G.; Liu H.; Wang J.; Wu B. Catalytic Gasification Characteristics of Rice Husk with Calcined Dolomite. Energy 2018, 165, 1173–1177. 10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.030. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  125. Ahmed T. Y.; Hoadley A. F. A.; Tanksale A. In-Situ Reforming of Biomass Primary Tars via Reactive Flash Volatilization. Renew. Energy 2020, 147, 1180–1187. 10.1016/j.renene.2019.09.051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  126. Magdeldin M.; Kohl T.; Järvinen M. Process Modeling, Synthesis and Thermodynamic Evaluation of Hydrogen Production from Hydrothermal Processing of Lipid Extracted Algae Integrated with a Downstream Reformer Conceptual Plant. Biofuels. 2016, 7, 97–116. 10.1080/17597269.2015.1118785. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  127. Mandal S.; Daggupati S.; Majhi S.; Thakur S.; Bandyopadhyay R.; Das A. K. Catalytic Gasification of Biomass in Dual-Bed Gasifier for Producing Tar-Free Syngas. Energy Fuels 2019, 33, 2453–2466. 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b04305. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  128. Islam M. W. A Review of Dolomite Catalyst for Biomass Gasification Tar Removal. Fuel 2020, 267, 117095. 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117095. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  129. Liu L.; Zhang Z.; Das S.; Kawi S. Reforming of Tar from Biomass Gasification in a Hybrid Catalysis-Plasma System: A Review. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 2019, 250, 250–272. 10.1016/j.apcatb.2019.03.039. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  130. Ren J.; Cao J.-P.; Zhao X.-Y.; Yang F.-L.; Wei X.-Y. Recent Advances in Syngas Production from Biomass Catalytic Gasification: A Critical Review on Reactors, Catalysts, Catalytic Mechanisms and Mathematical Models. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 116, 109426. 10.1016/j.rser.2019.109426. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  131. Gomaa M. R.; Mustafa R. J.; Al-Dmour N. Solar Thermochemical Conversion of Carbonaceous Materials into Syngas by Co-Gasification. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 248, 119185. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119185. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  132. Baldwin R. M.; Magrini-Bair K. A.; Nimlos M. R.; Pepiot P.; Donohoe B. S.; Hensley J. E.; Phillips S. D. Current Research on Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2012, 115–116, 320–329. 10.1016/j.apcatb.2011.10.033. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  133. Basu P. Biomass Gasification, Pyrolysis and Torrefaction: Practical Design and Theory 2018, 1. 10.1016/B978-0-12-812992-0.00001-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  134. Gao X.; Wang Z.; Ashok J.; Kawi S. A Comprehensive Review of Anti-Coking, Anti-Poisoning and Anti-Sintering Catalysts for Biomass Tar Reforming Reaction. Chem. Eng. Sci. X 2020, 7, 100065. 10.1016/j.cesx.2020.100065. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  135. Ren J.; Liu Y.-L. Progress and Prospects of Produced Gas Utilization from Biomass Tar Reforming. J. Hazard. Mater. Lett. 2020, 1, 100008. 10.1016/j.hazl.2020.100008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  136. Zeng X.; Dong Y.; Wang F.; Xu P.; Shao R.; Dong P.; Xu G.; Dong L. Fluidized Bed Two-Stage Gasification Process for Clean Fuel Gas Production from Herb Residue: Fundamentals and Demonstration. Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 7277–7283. 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00765. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  137. Wang Y.; Chen Z.; Xu X.; Zhang S.; Xu D.; Zhang Y. Catalytic Tar Reforming during Brown Coal Pyrolysis: Effects of Heating Rate and Activation Time on Char Catalysts. Energy Fuels 2018, 32, 81–88. 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b02530. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  138. Śpiewak K.; Czerski G.; Porada S. Effect of K, Na and Ca-Based Catalysts on the Steam Gasification Reactions of Coal. Part I: Type and Amount of One-Component Catalysts. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2021, 229, 116024. 10.1016/j.ces.2020.116024. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  139. Kakaei K.; Esrafili M. D.; Ehsani A.. Introduction to Catalysis. In Interface Science and Technology, 1st ed.; Kakaei K., Esrafili M. D., Ehsani A., Ed.; Elsevier: London, 2019; pp 1–21. 10.1016/B978-0-12-814523-4.00001-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  140. Wu C.; Williams P. T. Nickel-Based Catalysts for Tar Reduction in Biomass Gasification. Biofuels 2011, 2, 451–464. 10.4155/bfs.11.113. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  141. Abedi A.; Dalai A. K. Steam Gasification of Oat Hull Pellets over Ni-Based Catalysts: Syngas Yield and Tar Reduction. Fuel 2019, 254, 115585. 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.05.168. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  142. Tursun Y.; Xu S.; Abulikemu A.; Dilinuer T. Biomass Gasification for Hydrogen Rich Gas in a Decoupled Triple Bed Gasifier with Olivine and NiO/Olivine. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 272, 241–248. 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.10.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  143. Wang T.; Stiegel G.. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Technologies, 1st ed.; Wang T., Stiegel G., Ed.; Elsevier: London, 2016; pp 1–80. 10.1016/c2014-0-00849-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  144. Arbag H.; Tasdemir H. M.; Yagizatli Y.; Kucuker M.; Yasyerli S. Effect of Preparation Technique on the Performance of Ni and Ce Incorporated Modified Alumina Catalysts in CO2 Reforming of Methane. Catal. Lett. 2020, 150, 3256–3268. 10.1007/s10562-020-03228-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  145. Elbaba I. F.; Williams P. T. Deactivation of Nickel Catalysts by Sulfur and Carbon for the Pyrolysis-Catalytic Gasification/Reforming of Waste Tires for Hydrogen Production. Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 2104–2113. 10.1021/ef4023477. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  146. Ren J.; Liu Y.-L.; Zhao X.-Y.; Cao J.-P. Biomass Thermochemical Conversion: A Review on Tar Elimination from Biomass Catalytic Gasification. J. Energy Inst. 2020, 93, 1083–1098. 10.1016/j.joei.2019.10.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  147. Xie Y.; Su Y.; Wang P.; Zhang S.; Xiong Y. In-Situ Catalytic Conversion of Tar from Biomass Gasification over Carbon Nanofibers- Supported Fe-Ni Bimetallic Catalysts. Fuel Process. Technol. 2018, 182, 77–87. 10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.10.019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  148. Ashok J.; Dewangan N.; Das S.; Hongmanorom P.; Wai M. H.; Tomishige K.; Kawi S. Recent Progress in the Development of Catalysts for Steam Reforming of Biomass Tar Model Reaction. Fuel Process. Technol. 2020, 199, 106252. 10.1016/j.fuproc.2019.106252. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  149. Huang Z.; Zheng A.; Deng Z.; Wei G.; Zhao K.; Chen D.; He F.; Zhao Z.; Li H.; Li F. In-Situ Removal of Toluene as a Biomass Tar Model Compound Using NiFe2O4 for Application in Chemical Looping Gasification Oxygen Carrier. Energy 2020, 190, 116360. 10.1016/j.energy.2019.116360. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  150. Shen Y.; Fu Y. Advances in: In Situ and Ex Situ Tar Reforming with Biochar Catalysts for Clean Energy Production. Sustainable Energy and Fuels 2018, 2, 326–344. 10.1039/C7SE00553A. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  151. Valderrama Rios M. L.; González A. M.; Lora E. E. S.; Almazán del Olmo O. A. Reduction of Tar Generated during Biomass Gasification: A Review. Biomass and Bioenergy 2018, 108, 345–370. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.12.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  152. Materazzi M.; Lettieri P.; Mazzei L.; Taylor R.; Chapman C. Tar Evolution in a Two Stage Fluid Bed-Plasma Gasification Process for Waste Valorization. Fuel Process. Technol. 2014, 128, 146–157. 10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.06.028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  153. Nakamura S.; Kitano S.; Yoshikawa K. Biomass Gasification Process with the Tar Removal Technologies Utilizing Bio-Oil Scrubber and Char Bed. Appl. Energy 2016, 170, 186–192. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.113. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  154. Yung M. M.; Jablonski W. S.; Magrini-Bair K. A. Review of Catalytic Conditioning of Biomass-Derived Syngas. Energy Fuels 2009, 23, 1874–1887. 10.1021/ef800830n. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  155. Song W.; Deng C.; Guo S. Effect of Steam on the Tar Reforming during Circulating Fluidized Bed Char Gasification. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 11192–11198. 10.1021/acsomega.0c05861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  156. Zeng X.; Ueki Y.; Yoshiie R.; Naruse I.; Wang F.; Han Z.; Xu G. Recent Progress in Tar Removal by Char and the Applications: A Comprehensive Analysis. Carbon Resour. Convers. 2020, 3, 1–18. 10.1016/j.crcon.2019.12.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  157. Han J.; Kim H. The Reduction and Control Technology of Tar during Biomass Gasification/Pyrolysis: An Overview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2008, 12, 397–416. 10.1016/j.rser.2006.07.015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  158. Yang X.; Gu S.; Kheradmand A.; Jiang Y. Syngas Production from Two-Stage Sorption-Enhanced Steam Gasification of Sewage Sludge over Bifunctional Ni-Ca Catalyst. Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 4997–5005. 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c04395. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  159. Fjellerup J.; Ahrenfeldt J.; Henriksen U.; Gøbel B.. Formation, Decomposition and Cracking of Biomass Tars in Gasification; Technical University of Denmark, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 2005; Vol. 30, pp 5–48. [Google Scholar]
  160. Inayat M.; Sulaiman S. A.; Kurnia J. C.; Shahbaz M. Effect of Various Blended Fuels on Syngas Quality and Performance in Catalytic Co-Gasification: A Review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2019, 105, 252–267. 10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.059. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  161. Abu El-Rub Z.; Bramer E. A.; Brem G. Review of Catalysts for Tar Elimination in Biomass Gasification Processes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2004, 43, 6911–6919. 10.1021/ie0498403. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  162. Wu Y.; Pang Y.; Chen Y.; Zhai M.; Zheng M. Study on the Steam Gasification Reaction of Biomass Char under the Synergistic Effect of Ca-Fe: Analysis of Kinetic Characteristics. Int. J. Energy Res. 2021, 45, 7814–7828. 10.1002/er.6366. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  163. Guan G.; Kaewpanha M.; Hao X.; Abudula A. Catalytic Steam Reforming of Biomass Tar: Prospects and Challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2016, 58, 450–461. 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.316. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  164. Ren J.; Liu Y. L.; Zhao X. Y.; Cao J. P. Methanation of Syngas from Biomass Gasification: An Overview. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 4223–4243. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  165. Shen Y.; Yoshikawa K. Recent Progresses in Catalytic Tar Elimination during Biomass Gasification or Pyrolysis - A Review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2013, 21, 371–392. 10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.062. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  166. Arnold R. A.; Hill J. M. Catalysts for Gasification: A Review. Sustainable Energy and Fuels 2019, 3, 656–672. 10.1039/C8SE00614H. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  167. Liu Y.; Paskevicius M.; Wang H.; Parkinson G.; Veder J. P.; Hu X.; Li C. Z. Role of O-Containing Functional Groups in Biochar during the Catalytic Steam Reforming of Tar Using the Biochar as a Catalyst. Fuel 2019, 253, 441–448. 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.05.037. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  168. Dahou T.; Defoort F.; Khiari B.; Labaki M.; Dupont C.; Jeguirim M. Role of Inorganics on the Biomass Char Gasification Reactivity: A Review Involving Reaction Mechanisms and Kinetics Models. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110136. 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110136. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  169. Phounglamcheik A.; Vila R.; Kienzl N.; Wang L.; Hedayati A.; Broström M.; Ramser K.; Engvall K.; Skreiberg Ø.; Robinson R.; Umeki K. CO2Gasification Reactivity of Char from High-Ash Biomass. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 34115–34128. 10.1021/acsomega.1c05728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  170. Feng D.; Zhao Y.; Zhang Y.; Sun S.; Meng S.; Guo Y.; Huang Y. Effects of K and Ca on Reforming of Model Tar Compounds with Pyrolysis Biochars under H2O or CO2. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 306, 422–432. 10.1016/j.cej.2016.07.065. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  171. Jiang L.; Hu S.; Wang Y.; Su S.; Sun L.; Xu B.; He L.; Xiang J. Catalytic Effects of Inherent Alkali and Alkaline Earth Metallic Species on Steam Gasification of Biomass. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 15460–15469. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.08.111. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  172. Lahijani P.; Zainal Z. A.; Mohamed A. R.; Mohammadi M. CO2 Gasification Reactivity of Biomass Char: Catalytic Influence of Alkali, Alkaline Earth and Transition Metal Salts. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 144, 288–295. 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.06.059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  173. Zhang Y.; Gong X.; Zhang B.; Liu W.; Xu M. Potassium Catalytic Hydrogen Production in Sorption Enhanced Gasification of Biomass with Steam. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 4234–4243. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.01.015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  174. Ebadi A. G.; Hisoriev H.; Zarnegar M.; Ahmadi H. Hydrogen and Syngas Production by Catalytic Gasification of Algal Biomass (Cladophora Glomerata L.) Using Alkali and Alkaline-Earth Metals Compounds. Environ. Technol. 2019, 40, 1178–1184. 10.1080/09593330.2017.1417495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  175. Peng T. H.; Lin C. L.; Chen H. Effects of Alkali- and Alkaline-Earth-Metals on Hydrogen Generation during Fluidized Bed Gasification of Artificial Waste. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2014, 31, 248–252. 10.1007/s11814-013-0216-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  176. Mettanant V.; Basu P.; Butler J. Agglomeration of Biomass Fired Fluidized Bed Gasifier and Combustor. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 2009, 87, 656–684. 10.1002/cjce.20211. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  177. Rasmussen N. B. K.; Aryal N. Syngas Production Using Straw Pellet Gasification in Fluidized Bed Allothermal Reactor under Different Temperature Conditions. Fuel 2020, 263, 116706. 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116706. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  178. Lahijani P.; Zainal Z. A. Gasification of Palm Empty Fruit Bunch in a Bubbling Fluidized Bed: A Performance and Agglomeration Study. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 2068–2076. 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.09.101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  179. Fryda L. E.; Panopoulos K. D.; Kakaras E. Agglomeration in Fluidised Bed Gasification of Biomass. Powder Technol. 2008, 181, 307–320. 10.1016/j.powtec.2007.05.022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  180. Warnecke R. Gasification of Biomass: Comparison of Fixed Bed and Fluidized Bed Gasifier. Biomass and Bioenergy 2000, 18, 489–97. 10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00009-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  181. George J.; Arun P.; Muraleedharan C. Experimental Investigation on Co-Gasification of Coffee Husk and Sawdust in a Bubbling Fluidised Bed Gasifier. J. Energy Inst. 2019, 92, 1977–1986. 10.1016/j.joei.2018.10.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  182. Nuutinen L. H.; Tiainen M. S.; Virtanen M. E.; Enestam S. H.; Laitinen R. S. Coating Layers on Bed Particles during Biomass Fuel Combustion in Fluidized-Bed Boilers. Energy Fuels 2004, 18, 127–139. 10.1021/ef0300850. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  183. Sridharan K.The Electromagnetic Spectrum. In Spectral Methods in Transition Metal Complexes; Elsevier, 2016; pp 1–12. 10.1016/b978-0-12-809591-1.00001-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  184. Nordgreen T.; Nemanova V.; Engvall K.; Sjöström K. Iron-Based Materials as Tar Depletion Catalysts in Biomass Gasification: Dependency on Oxygen Potential. Fuel 2012, 95, 71–78. 10.1016/j.fuel.2011.06.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  185. Liu X.; Tu Y.; Xu X.; Liu Z. The Development and Research Prospect on Catalytic Coal Gasification. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2017, 61, 1165–1170. 10.3303/CET1761192. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  186. Sait Izgi M.; Ece M. Ş.; Kazici H. Ç.; Sahi̇n Ö.; Onat E. Hydrogen Production by Using Ru Nanoparticle Decorated with Fe3O4@SiO2–NH2 Core-Shell Microspheres. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 30415–30430. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.08.043. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  187. Saleem F.; Harris J.; Zhang K.; Harvey A. Non-Thermal Plasma as a Promising Route for the Removal of Tar from the Product Gas of Biomass Gasification – A Critical Review. Chemical Engineering Journal 2020, 382, 122761. 10.1016/j.cej.2019.122761. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  188. Cao C.; Zhang Y.; Cao W.; Jin H.; Guo L.; Huo Z. Transition Metal Oxides as Catalysts for Hydrogen Production from Supercritical Water Gasification of Glucose. Catal. Lett. 2017, 147, 828–836. 10.1007/s10562-017-2002-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  189. Mastuli M. S.; Kamarulzaman N.; Kasim M. F.; Mahat A. M.; Matsumura Y.; Taufiq-Yap Y. H. Catalytic Supercritical Water Gasification of Oil Palm Frond Biomass Using Nanosized MgO Doped Zn Catalysts. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2019, 154, 104610. 10.1016/j.supflu.2019.104610. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  190. Rapagnà S.; Virginie M.; Gallucci K.; Courson C.; Di Marcello M.; Kiennemann A.; Foscolo P. U. Fe/Olivine Catalyst for Biomass Steam Gasification: Preparation, Characterization and Testing at Real Process Conditions. Catal. Today 2011, 176, 163–168. 10.1016/j.cattod.2010.11.098. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  191. Jiao W.; Wang Z.; Jiao W.; Li L.; Zuo Z.; Li G.; Hao Z.; Song S.; Huang J.; Fang Y. Influencing Factors and Reaction Mechanism for Catalytic CO2 Gasification of Sawdust Char Using K-Modified Transition Metal Composite Catalysts: Experimental and DFT Studies. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 208, 112522. 10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112522. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  192. Seif S.; Fatemi S.; Tavakoli O.; Bahmanyar H. Hydrogen Production through Hydrothermal Gasification of Industrial Wastewaters Using Transition Metal Oxide Catalysts. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2016, 114, 32–45. 10.1016/j.supflu.2016.03.028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  193. Lu Y.; Jin H.; Zhang R. Evaluation of Stability and Catalytic Activity of Ni Catalysts for Hydrogen Production by Biomass Gasification in Supercritical Water. Carbon Resour. Convers. 2019, 2, 95–101. 10.1016/j.crcon.2019.03.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  194. Ramadhani B.; Kivevele T.; Kihedu J. H.; Jande Y. A. C. Catalytic Tar Conversion and the Prospective Use of Iron-Based Catalyst in the Future Development of Biomass Gasification: A Review. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery 2022, 12, 1369–1392. 10.1007/s13399-020-00814-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  195. Chan F. L.; Tanksale A. Review of Recent Developments in Ni-Based Catalysts for Biomass Gasification. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2014, 38, 428–438. 10.1016/j.rser.2014.06.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  196. Alstrup I.; Tavares M. T.; Bernardo C. A.; Sørensen O.; Rostrup-Nielsen J. R. Carbon Formation on Nickel and Nickel-Copper Alloy Catalysts. Mater. Corros. - Werkstoffe und Korrosion 1998, 49, 367–372. . [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  197. Peng W. X.; Wang L. S.; Mirzaee M.; Ahmadi H.; Esfahani M. J.; Fremaux S. Hydrogen and Syngas Production by Catalytic Biomass Gasification. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 135, 270–273. 10.1016/j.enconman.2016.12.056. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  198. Valle B.; Remiro A.; Aguayo A. T.; Bilbao J.; Gayubo A. G. Catalysts of Ni/α-Al2O3 and Ni/La 2O3-AAl2O3 for Hydrogen Production by Steam Reforming of Bio-Oil Aqueous Fraction with Pyrolytic Lignin Retention. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2013, 38, 1307–1318. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.11.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  199. Artetxe M.; Nahil M. A.; Olazar M.; Williams P. T. Steam Reforming of Phenol as Biomass Tar Model Compound over Ni/Al2O3 Catalyst. Fuel 2016, 184, 629–636. 10.1016/j.fuel.2016.07.036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  200. Li D.; Tamura M.; Nakagawa Y.; Tomishige K. Metal Catalysts for Steam Reforming of Tar Derived from the Gasification of Lignocellulosic Biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 178, 53–64. 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.10.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  201. Artetxe M.; Alvarez J.; Nahil M. A.; Olazar M.; Williams P. T. Steam Reforming of Different Biomass Tar Model Compounds over Ni/Al2O3 Catalysts. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 136, 119–126. 10.1016/j.enconman.2016.12.092. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  202. Irfan M.; Li A.; Zhang L.; Ji G.; Gao Y. Catalytic Gasification of Wet Municipal Solid Waste with HfO2 Promoted Ni-CaO Catalyst for H2-Rich Syngas Production. Fuel 2021, 286, 119408. 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119408. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  203. Shahbaz M.; Yusup S.; Inayat A.; Ammar M.; Patrick D. O.; Pratama A.; Naqvi S. R. Syngas Production from Steam Gasification of Palm Kernel Shell with Subsequent CO2 Capture Using CaO Sorbent: An Aspen Plus Modeling. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 12350–12357. 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b02670. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  204. Sisinni M.; Di Carlo A.; Bocci E.; Micangeli A.; Naso V. Hydrogen-Rich Gas Production by Sorption Enhanced Steam Reforming of Woodgas Containing TAR over a Commercial Ni Catalyst and Calcined Dolomite as CO2 Sorbentx. Energies 2013, 6, 3167–3181. 10.3390/en6073167. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  205. Bunma T.; Kuchonthara P. Synergistic Study between CaO and MgO Sorbents for Hydrogen Rich Gas Production from the Pyrolysis-Gasification of Sugarcane Leaves. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 118, 188–194. 10.1016/j.psep.2018.06.034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  206. Buasri A.; Rochanakit K.; Wongvitvichot W.; Masa-Ard U.; Loryuenyong V. The Application of Calcium Oxide and Magnesium Oxide from Natural Dolomitic Rock for Biodiesel Synthesis. Energy Procedia 2015, 79, 562–566. 10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.534. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  207. Schmid M.; Beirow M.; Schweitzer D.; Waizmann G.; Spörl R.; Scheffknecht G. Product Gas Composition for Steam-Oxygen Fluidized Bed Gasification of Dried Sewage Sludge, Straw Pellets and Wood Pellets and the Influence of Limestone as Bed Material. Biomass and Bioenergy 2018, 117, 71–77. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.07.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  208. Li B.; Yang H.; Wei L.; Shao J.; Wang X.; Chen H. Absorption-Enhanced Steam Gasification of Biomass for Hydrogen Production: Effects of Calcium-Based Absorbents and NiO-Based Catalysts on Corn Stalk Pyrolysis-Gasification. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 5840–5848. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.12.031. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  209. Zhang Z.; Liu L.; Shen B.; Wu C. Preparation, Modification and Development of Ni-Based Catalysts for Catalytic Reforming of Tar Produced from Biomass Gasification. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018, 94, 1086–1109. 10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  210. Pereira Lopes R.; Astruc D. Biochar as a Support for Nanocatalysts and Other Reagents: Recent Advances and Applications. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2021, 426, 213585. 10.1016/j.ccr.2020.213585. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  211. Wang Y. G.; Sun J. L.; Zhang H. Y.; Chen Z. D.; Lin X. C.; Zhang S.; Gong W. B.; Fan M. H. In Situ Catalyzing Gas Conversion Using Char as a Catalyst/Support during Brown Coal Gasification. Energy Fuels 2015, 29, 1590–1596. 10.1021/ef502761d. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  212. Bhandari P. N.; Kumar A.; Bellmer D. D.; Huhnke R. L. Synthesis and Evaluation of Biochar-Derived Catalysts for Removal of Toluene (Model Tar) from Biomass-Generated Producer Gas. Renew. Energy. 2014, 66, 346–353. 10.1016/j.renene.2013.12.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  213. Benedetti V.; Patuzzi F.; Baratieri M. Characterization of Char from Biomass Gasification and Its Similarities with Activated Carbon in Adsorption Applications. Appl. Energy 2018, 227, 92–99. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.076. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  214. Guo F.; Jia X.; Liang S.; Zhou N.; Chen P.; Ruan R. Development of Biochar-Based Nanocatalysts for Tar Cracking/Reforming during Biomass Pyrolysis and Gasification. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 298, 122263. 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  215. Hansen V.; Müller-Stöver D.; Ahrenfeldt J.; Holm J. K.; Henriksen U. B.; Hauggaard-Nielsen H. Gasification Biochar as a Valuable By-Product for Carbon Sequestration and Soil Amendment. Biomass and Bioenergy 2015, 72, 300–308. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.10.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  216. Buentello-Montoya D.; Zhang X.; Li J.; Ranade V.; Marques S.; Geron M. Performance of Biochar as a Catalyst for Tar Steam Reforming: Effect of the Porous Structure. Appl. Energy 2020, 259, 114176. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114176. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  217. Abdullah S. H. Y. S.; Hanapi N. H. M.; Azid A.; Umar R.; Juahir H.; Khatoon H.; Endut A. A Review of Biomass-Derived Heterogeneous Catalyst for a Sustainable Biodiesel Production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2017, 70, 1040–1051. 10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  218. Liu W. J.; Jiang H.; Yu H. Q. Development of Biochar-Based Functional Materials: Toward a Sustainable Platform Carbon Material. Chem. Rev. 2015, 115, 12251–12285. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  219. Sudarsanam P.; Zhong R.; Van Den Bosch S.; Coman S. M.; Parvulescu V. I.; Sels B. F. Functionalised Heterogeneous Catalysts for Sustainable Biomass Valorisation. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018, 47 (22), 8349–8402. 10.1039/C8CS00410B. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  220. Chen T.; Zhang J.; Wang Z.; Zhao R.; He J.; Wu J.; Qin J. Oxygen-Enriched Gasification of Lignocellulosic Biomass: Syngas Analysis, Physicochemical Characteristics of the Carbon-Rich Material and Its Utilization as an Anode in Lithium Ion Battery. Energy 2020, 212, 118771. 10.1016/j.energy.2020.118771. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  221. Hu M.; Laghari M.; Cui B.; Xiao B.; Zhang B.; Guo D. Catalytic Cracking of Biomass Tar over Char Supported Nickel Catalyst. Energy 2018, 145, 228–237. 10.1016/j.energy.2017.12.096. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  222. Shen Y. Chars as Carbonaceous Adsorbents/Catalysts for Tar Elimination during Biomass Pyrolysis or Gasification. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2015, 43, 281–295. 10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.061. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  223. Hernández J. J.; Ballesteros R.; Aranda G. Characterisation of Tars from Biomass Gasification: Effect of the Operating Conditions. Energy 2013, 50, 333–342. 10.1016/j.energy.2012.12.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  224. Dupont C.; Jacob S.; Marrakchy K. O.; Hognon C.; Grateau M.; Labalette F.; Da Silva Perez D. How Inorganic Elements of Biomass Influence Char Steam Gasification Kinetics. Energy 2016, 109, 430–435. 10.1016/j.energy.2016.04.094. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  225. Strandberg A.; Holmgren P.; Wagner D. R.; Molinder R.; Wiinikka H.; Umeki K.; Broström M. Effects of Pyrolysis Conditions and Ash Formation on Gasification Rates of Biomass Char. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 6507–6514. 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b00688. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  226. Yu J.; Xia W.; Areeprasert C.; Ding L.; Umeki K.; Yu G. Catalytic Effects of Inherent AAEM on Char Gasification: A Mechanism Study Using in-Situ Raman. Energy 2022, 238, 122074. 10.1016/j.energy.2021.122074. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  227. Rizkiana J.; Guan G.; Widayatno W. B.; Hao X.; Li X.; Huang W.; Abudula A. Promoting Effect of Various Biomass Ashes on the Steam Gasification of Low-Rank Coal. Appl. Energy 2014, 133, 282–288. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.07.091. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  228. Bulushev D. A.; Ross J. R. H. Catalysis for Conversion of Biomass to Fuels via Pyrolysis and Gasification: A Review. Catal. Today 2011, 171, 1–13. 10.1016/j.cattod.2011.02.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  229. Serrano D.; Coronado J. M.; Melero J. A.. Conversion of Cellulose and Hemicellulose into Platform Molecules: Chemical Routes. In Biorefinery: From Biomass to Chemicals and Fuels, 1st ed.; Aresta M., Dibenedetto A., Dumeignil F., Ed.; De Gruyter: Berlin, 2012; pp 123–140. 10.1515/9783110260281.123. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  230. Gungoren Madenoglu T.; Yıldırır E.; Saglam M.; Yuksel M.; Ballice L. Improvement in Hydrogen Production from Hard-Shell Nut Residues by Catalytic Hydrothermal Gasification. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2014, 95, 339–347. 10.1016/j.supflu.2014.09.033. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  231. Meng J.; Wang X.; Zhao Z.; Zheng A.; Huang Z.; Wei G.; Lv K.; Li H. Highly Abrasion Resistant Thermally Fused Olivine as In-Situ Catalysts for Tar Reduction in a Circulating Fluidized Bed Biomass Gasifier. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 268, 212–220. 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.07.135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  232. Rauch R.; Pfeifer C.; Bosch K.; Hofbauer H.; Swierczynski D.; Courson C.; Kiennemann A.. Comparison of Different Olivines for Biomass Steam Gasification 2004. Proc. Conf. Sci. Therm. Chem. Biomass Convers; Bridgwater A. V., Ed.; CPL Press: Victoria, Canada, 2006; pp 799–809. [Google Scholar]
  233. Christodoulou C.; Grimekis D.; Panopoulos K. D.; Pachatouridou E. P.; Iliopoulou E. F.; Kakaras E. Comparing Calcined and Un-Treated Olivine as Bed Materials for Tar Reduction in Fluidized Bed Gasification. Fuel Process. Technol. 2014, 124, 275–285. 10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.03.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  234. Berrueco C.; Montané D.; Matas Güell B.; del Alamo G. Effect of Temperature and Dolomite on Tar Formation during Gasification of Torrefied Biomass in a Pressurized Fluidized Bed. Energy 2014, 66, 849–859. 10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.035. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  235. Cheng S. Y.; Ngoc Lan Thao N. T.; Chiang K. Y. Hydrogen Gas Yield and Trace Pollutant Emission Evaluation in Automotive Shredder Residue (ASR) Gasification Using Prepared Oyster Shell Catalyst. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 22232–22245. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.01.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  236. Hill J. M. Sustainable and/or Waste Sources for Catalysts: Porous Carbon Development and Gasification. Catal. Today 2017, 285, 204–210. 10.1016/j.cattod.2016.12.033. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  237. Gomez-Rueda Y.; Zaini I. N.; Yang W.; Helsen L. Seashell Waste-Derived Materials for Secondary Catalytic Tar Reduction in Municipal Solid Waste Gasification. Biomass and Bioenergy 2020, 143, 105828. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105828. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  238. Balakrishnan M.; Batra V. S.; Hargreaves J. S. J.; Pulford I. D. Waste Materials – Catalytic Opportunities: An Overview of the Application of Large Scale Waste Materials as Resources for Catalytic Applications. Green Chem. 2011, 13, 16–24. 10.1039/C0GC00685H. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  239. Taufiq-Yap Y. H.; Wong P.; Marliza T. S.; Nurul Suziana N. M.; Tang L. H.; Sivasangar S. Hydrogen Production from Wood Gasification Promoted by Waste Eggshell Catalyst. Int. J. Energy Res. 2013, 37, 1866–1871. 10.1002/er.3003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  240. Raheem A.; Liu H.; Ji G.; Zhao M. Gasification of Lipid-Extracted Microalgae Biomass Promoted by Waste Eggshell as CaO Catalyst. Algal Res. 2019, 42, 101601. 10.1016/j.algal.2019.101601. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  241. Irfan M.; Li A.; Zhang L.; Wang M.; Chen C.; Khushk S. Production of Hydrogen Enriched Syngas from Municipal Solid Waste Gasification with Waste Marble Powder as a Catalyst. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 8051–8061. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.02.048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  242. Hamad M. A.; Radwan A. M.; Heggo D. A.; Moustafa T. Hydrogen Rich Gas Production from Catalytic Gasification of Biomass. Renew. Energy 2016, 85, 1290–1300. 10.1016/j.renene.2015.07.082. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  243. Sutton D.; Kelleher B.; Ross J. R. H. Review of Literature on Catalysts for Biomass Gasification. Fuel Process. Technol. 2001, 73, 155–173. 10.1016/S0378-3820(01)00208-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  244. Yu J.; Guo Q.; Gong Y.; Ding L.; Wang J.; Yu G. A Review of the Effects of Alkali and Alkaline Earth Metal Species on Biomass Gasification. Fuel Process. Technol. 2021, 214, 106723. 10.1016/j.fuproc.2021.106723. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  245. Wan W.; Engvall K.; Yang W. Novel Model for the Release and Condensation of Inorganics for a Pressurized Fluidized-Bed Gasification Process: Effects of Gasification Temperature. ACS Omega 2018, 3, 6321–6329. 10.1021/acsomega.8b00019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  246. Scala F.; Solimene R.; Montagnaro F.. Conversion of solid fuels and sorbents in fluidized bed combustion and gasification. In Fluidized Bed Technologies for Near-Zero Emission Combustion and Gasification, 1st ed.; Scala F., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy: Cambridge, 2013; pp 319–387. 10.1533/9780857098801. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  247. Lu Y.; Jin H.; Zhang R. Evaluation of Stability and Catalytic Activity of Ni Catalysts for Hydrogen Production by Biomass Gasification in Supercritical Water. Carbon Resour. Convers. 2019, 2 (1), 95–101. 10.1016/j.crcon.2019.03.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  248. Irfan M.; Li A.; Zhang L.; Ji G.; Gao Y.; Khushk S. Hydrogen-Rich Syngas from Wet Municipal Solid Waste Gasification Using Ni/Waste Marble Powder Catalyst Promoted by Transition Metals. Waste Manag. 2021, 132, 96–104. 10.1016/j.wasman.2021.07.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  249. Shan R.; Han J.; Gu J.; Yuan H.; Luo B.; Chen Y. A Review of Recent Developments in Catalytic Applications of Biochar-Based Materials. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2020, 162, 105036. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  250. Narnaware S. L.; Panwar N. L. Catalysts and Their Role in Biomass Gasification and Tar Abetment : A Review. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 2021, 10.1007/s13399-021-01981-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  251. Li H.; Wang Y.; Zhou N.; Dai L.; Deng W.; Liu C.; Cheng Y.; Liu Y.; Cobb K.; Chen P.; Ruan R. Applications of Calcium Oxide–Based Catalysts in Biomass Pyrolysis/Gasification – A Review. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021, 291, 125826. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125826. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  252. Chen T. L.; Kim H.; Pan S. Y.; Tseng P. C.; Lin Y. P.; Chiang P. C. Implementation of Green Chemistry Principles in Circular Economy System towards Sustainable Development Goals: Challenges and Perspectives. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 716, 136998. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  253. EPA. Green Chmistry. EPA. https://www.epa.gov/greenchemistry/basics-green-chemistry#:~:text=Greenhttps://www.epa.gov/greenchemistry/basics-green-chemistry#:~:text=Green chemistry is the design,%2C use%2C and ultimate disposal (accessed 2022-03-25). [Google Scholar]
  254. Karpudewan M.; Ismail Z.; Roth W. M. Ensuring Sustainability of Tomorrow through Green Chemistry Integrated with Sustainable Development Concepts (SDCs). Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2012, 13, 120–127. 10.1039/C1RP90066H. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  255. Erythropel H. C.; Zimmerman J. B.; De Winter T. M.; Petitjean L.; Melnikov F.; Lam C. H.; Lounsbury A. W.; Mellor K. E.; Janković N. Z.; Tu Q.; Pincus L. N.; Falinski M. M.; Shi W.; Coish P.; Plata D. L.; Anastas P. T. The Green ChemisTREE: 20 Years after Taking Root with the 12 Principles. Green Chem. 2018, 20, 1929–1961. 10.1039/C8GC00482J. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  256. Giannetti B. F.; Agostinho F.; Eras J. J. C.; Yang Z.; Almeida C. M. V. B. Cleaner Production for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Cleaner Production 2020, 271, 122127. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122127. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  257. Bao X. Preface: Catalysis-Key to a Sustainable Future. National Science Review 2015, 2, 137. 10.1093/nsr/nwv026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  258. Mohan S.V.; Katakojwala R. Circular Chemistry Conceptual Framework: A Way Forward to Sustainability in Industry 4.0. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2021, 28, 100434. 10.1016/j.cogsc.2020.100434. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  259. Jyothi R. K.; Thenepalli T.; Ahn J. W.; Parhi P. K.; Chung K. W.; Lee J. Y. Review of Rare Earth Elements Recovery from Secondary Resources for Clean Energy Technologies: Grand Opportunities to Create Wealth from Waste. Journal of Cleaner Production 2020, 267, 122048. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  260. Omodara L.; Pitkäaho S.; Turpeinen E. M.; Saavalainen P.; Oravisjärvi K.; Keiski R. L. Recycling and Substitution of Light Rare Earth Elements, Cerium, Lanthanum, Neodymium, and Praseodymium from End-of-Life Applications - A Review. Journal of Cleaner Production 2019, 236, 117573. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  261. Perathoner S.; Gross S.; Hensen E. J. M.; Wessel H.; Chraye H.; Centi G. Looking at the Future of Chemical Production through the European Roadmap on Science and Technology of Catalysis the EU Effort for a Long-Term Vision. ChemCatChem. 2017, 9, 904–909. 10.1002/cctc.201601641. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  262. Lozano F. J.; Lozano R.; Freire P.; Jiménez-Gonzalez C.; Sakao T.; Ortiz M. G.; Trianni A.; Carpenter A.; Viveros T. New Perspectives for Green and Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering: Approaches from Sustainable Resource and Energy Use, Management, and Transformation. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 227–232. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.145. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  263. Geiser K.Comprehensive Chemicals Policies for the Future. Lowell Cent. Sustain. Prod. 2009. http://www.chemicalspolicy.net/downloads/ChemicalsPoliciesfortheFuture--Jan09.pdf (accessed 2022-01-17).
  264. Kiss A. A.; Smith R. Rethinking Energy Use in Distillation Processes for a More Sustainable Chemical Industry. Energy 2020, 203, 117788. 10.1016/j.energy.2020.117788. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  265. Cejka J.; Nachtigall P.; Centi G. New Catalytic Materials for Energy and Chemistry in Transition. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018, 47, 8066–8071. 10.1039/C8CS90119H. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  266. Ferella F. A Review on Management and Recycling of Spent Selective Catalytic Reduction Catalysts. Journal of Cleaner Production 2020, 246, 118990. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118990. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  267. Adams C. Applied Catalysis: A Predictive Socioeconomic History. Top. Catal. 2009, 52, 924–934. 10.1007/s11244-009-9251-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  268. Lanzafame P.; Perathoner S.; Centi G.; Gross S.; Hensen E. J. M. Grand Challenges for Catalysis in the Science and Technology Roadmap on Catalysis for Europe: Moving Ahead for a Sustainable Future. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2017, 7, 5182–5194. 10.1039/C7CY01067B. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  269. Perathoner S.; Centi G.. Science and Technology Roadmap on Catalysis for Europe. 2016. http://gecats.org/gecats_media/Science+and+Technology+Roadmap+on+Catalysis+for+Europe+2016.pdf (accessed 2022-01-19).
  270. van der Van M.; Kobayashi Y.; Diercks R.. Technology Roadmap: Energy and GHG Reductions in the Chemical Industry via Catalytic Processes. 2013. https://www.iea.org/reports/technology-roadmap-energy-and-ghg-reductions-in-the-chemical-industry-via-catalytic-processes (accessed 2022-01-19).
  271. IEA Bioenergy Task33 . Gasification of Biomass and Waste; IEA Bioenergy Task33. http://www.ieatask33.org/menus/show_database (accessed 04/01/2022). [Google Scholar]
  272. Ren X. Y.; Feng X. B.; Cao J. P.; Tang W.; Wang Z. H.; Yang Z.; Zhao J. P.; Zhang L. Y.; Wang Y. J.; Zhao X. Y. Catalytic Conversion of Coal and Biomass Volatiles: A Review. Energy Fuels 2020, 34, 10307–10363. 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c01432. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  273. Chornet E.; Valsecchi B.; Drolet G.; Gagnon M.; Nguyen B.. Production and Conditioning of Synthesis Gas Obtained from Biomass. 2012. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100051875A1/en (accessed 2022-02-20).
  274. Kumar P.; Lynch D.. Catalysts For Producing Hydrogen And Synthesis Gas. 2015. https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2008011282A2/en (accessed 2022-02-05).
  275. Yuting A.; Yunji G.; Wei L.; Weichun M.; Qi Y.; Yangyong Z.. Biomass Gasification Hydrogen-Production Catalyst and Preparation Method Thereof. CN106955715A, 2019.
  276. Kazuhiro S.; Kokei D.; Takaaki S.; Fujimoto K.. Gasification Catalyst, Producing Method Therefor And Gasification System. JP2006068723A, 2006.
  277. Xi L.; Yangang W.; Shifei K.; Hengfei Q.; Chengli Z.; Shaolong L.; Wei Y.. Biomass Gasification Tar Cracking Catalyst and Preparation Method Thereof. CN103263923A, 2013.
  278. Inaba H.; Kazuhisa M.; Isao T.; Masahiro S.. Biomass Gasification Catalyst And Hydrogen Production Method From Biomass Using The Catalyst. JP2006122841A, 2006.
  279. Courson C.; Petit C.; Kiennemenn A.; Foscolo P. U.; Rapagna S.. Catalyst for the Fluid Bed Gasification of Biomass Contains a Dispersed Active Metal Phase Containing Nickel on a Support of Magnesium, Iron, Silicon Oxide Compound. FR2809030A1, 2001.
  280. Minister of Economic Affairs . Technology Roadmap Catalysis-Catalysis, Key to Sustainability; Netherlands, 2015. https://viran.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/technology-roadmap-catalysis-report1.pdf (accessed 2022-01-05).
  281. Zhou J.; Zhao J.; Zhang J.; Zhang T.; Ye M.; Liu Z. Regeneration of Catalysts Deactivated by Coke Deposition: A Review. Chinese Journal of Catalysis 2020, 41, 1048–1061. 10.1016/S1872-2067(20)63552-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  282. Monai M.; Melchionna M.; Fornasiero P. From Metal to Metal-Free Catalysts: Routes to Sustainable Chemistry. Adv. Catal. 2018, 63, 1–73. 10.1016/bs.acat.2018.10.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  283. Roadmap, Catalysis – Key To a Sustainable Future . 2015. https://viran.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/catalysis-key-to-a-sustainable-future-web1.pdf (accessed 2022-01-15).
  284. NREL . CatCost; NREL. https://catcost.chemcatbio.org/ (accessed 2022-03-20). [Google Scholar]
  285. NREL . JEDI; NREL. https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi/ (accessed 2022-03-20). [Google Scholar]
  286. Kazi M. K.; Eljack F.; El-Halwagi M. M.; Haouari M. Green Hydrogen for Industrial Sector Decarbonization: Costs and Impacts on Hydrogen Economy in Qatar. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2021, 145, 107144. 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2020.107144. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

ao2c01538_si_001.pdf (138.8KB, pdf)

Articles from ACS Omega are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES