Biomass and Bioenergy 193 (2025) 107530

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biomass and Bioenergy

journal homepage: [Link]/locate/biombioe

Gasification of different biomasses in a concurrent fixed bed reactor:

Thermodynamics assessment towards its bioenergy potential
Mateus Alves Magalhães a , Angélica de Cássia Oliveira Carneiro a ,
Dandara Paula da Silva Guimarães a , Gabriel Browne de Deus Ribeiro b,* ,
Marcio Aredes Martins c, Ana Márcia Macedo Ladeira Carvalho a, Fernanda de Jesus Jorge a
a
Department of Forest Engineering, Federal University of Viçosa, UFV, 36570-900, Viçosa, MG, Brazil
b
Department of Forest and Wood Sciences, Federal University of Espírito Santo, UFES, 29550-000, Jerônimo Monteiro, ES, Brazil
c
Department of Agricultural Engineering, Federal University of Viçosa, UFV, 36570-900, Viçosa, MG, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Gasification is considered a promising technique for converting biomass into fuels and chemicals products. Its
Energetic biomass viability must be guaranteed when obtaining great conversion yields, gas with high calorific value and low tar
Biomass gas content. It is also important to develop efficient equipment that work with different biomasses. Aiming to assess
Mass and energy balance
this potential, this paper evaluated the operational performance of a fixed-bed and concurrent flow gasifier as
well as the gas quality by using five different biomasses in gasification process, which were: in natura and
torrefied eucalyptus woodchips, in natura and torrefied pine pellets and eucalyptus charcoal. Gas and biomasses
characterizations were made and some improvements for conversion optimization were discussed. The results
showed that biomasses gasification was technically feasible, reactors’ performance and operation were affected
by biomasses chemical and physical properties. Torrefied biomasses reduced the percentages of CO2 (− 18.4 %)
and H2 (− 12.1 %), while increased the CO (+12.7 %) in the gas, contributing positively to the rise in calorific
value. The highest efficiencies were obtained in eucalyptus woodchips gasification, on average 53.2 % of cold
efficiency, with no differences between in natura and torrefied woodchips. Finally, in order to increase biomass
conversion into gas, modifications in the reactor reduction zone are recommended, such as the creation of a
physical barrier to increase gases residence time. Our study will help encourage bioenergy and gasification
technologies in developing countries.

1. Introduction Combustion is the primary method for converting biomass into

thermal and electrical energy [11,12]. However, this conversion process
In recent decades, there has been an increasing focus on renewable typically occurs under conditions of limited control of the air/fuel ratio
energies that are techno-economically viable, as well as on more effi­ and in non-automated combustion systems, favoring incomplete com­
cient and cleaner energy conversion processes, particularly given the bustion and the formation of toxic compounds such as carbon monoxide,
negative environmental consequences of the use of fossil fuels and the smoke, and soot, which can generate negative environmental external­
uncertainty about their global reserves’ duration [1–4]. ities [8,13]. An alternative conversion process to direct combustion is
Forests, and especially forest residues, are considered relevant the gasification, which is the thermochemical conversion of biomass
sources of renewable energies. And forest biomass emerges as an option, into gas through partial oxidation at temperatures close to 1000 ◦ C [12].
with various studies demonstrating its technical and economic potential Regardless of the scarcity of studies, research has shown that gasifica­
[5–7]. It is also considered carbon-neutral, globally abundant, has low tion has the potential to achieve higher conversion efficiency and
costs compared to non-renewable sources, and has been used in thermal combine various applications, such as the production of liquid and
and electrical generation in Brazil, China, and Europe [8–10]. gaseous fuels, and chemicals [14–16]. The gas obtained from biomass

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mateusmagalhaes91@[Link] (M.A. Magalhães), cassiacarneiro1@[Link] (A.C.O. Carneiro), dandara.guimaraes95@[Link]
(D.P.S. Guimarães), [Link]@[Link] (G.B.D. Ribeiro), aredesufv@[Link] (M.A. Martins), [Link]@[Link] (A.M.M.L. Carvalho), nandajj20@
[Link] (F.J. Jorge).

[Link]
Received 13 June 2024; Received in revised form 30 November 2024; Accepted 2 December 2024
Available online 7 December 2024
0961-9534/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.
M.A. Magalhães et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 193 (2025) 107530

gasification is mainly composed of carbon monoxide (CO), methane 2. Material and methods
(CH4), and hydrogen (H2), in addition to hydrocarbons, tar, and water
vapor, and is suitable to be used in internal combustion engines and 2.1. Samples characterization
turbines [17–19], being employed in industries as well as in supplying
smaller agro-industries energy demand [16]. Five plant-based biomasses were used in gasification as follows: (i)
Some of the key variables in gasification, such as process yield, gas eucalyptus wood chips in natura; (ii) eucalyptus wood chips torrefied at
composition, and the presence of impurities and tar, vary depending on 300 ◦ C for 15 min; (iii) pine pellets in natura; (iv) pine pellets torrefied at
the biomass used and the chosen gasification technology [2,18,20,21]. 300 ◦ C for 25 min; and (v) eucalyptus charcoal (Fig. 1). The torrefactions
For example, some studies indicate a highly efficient process, capable of of biomasses (ii) and (iv) were conducted in a continuous reactor, as
transferring 80–95 % of the energy from raw biomass to the produced described in Magalhães et al. (2018). The selection of these biomasses
gas [16,22]. was based on their high availability and utilization in Brazil, other Latin
Biomass gasification, which is carried out in reactors called gasifiers, American countries, and Asia.
consists of four main stages: (i) drying, to remove biomass moisture; (ii) Before the gasification process, moisture content, bulk density,
oxidation of part of the biomass under controlled oxygen conditions (the proximate analysis, ultimate analysis, extractive content, thermogravi­
only exothermic stage), which provides heat for the other endothermic metric analysis, and higher heating value were determined.
stages; (iii) pyrolysis, in which occurs the biomass thermal decomposi­ Moisture content was determined according to the methodology
tion into different products, including a solid product (charcoal) with described in standard EN 14774–1 [30], in a stabilized oven at 105 ±
high carbon content; a liquid fraction of complex composition contain­ 2 ◦ C.
ing tar; and non-condensable gases; and (iv) reduction, the final stage Bulk density was obtained according to standard EN 15103 [31], and
responsible for gas production [14,19]. the particle size classification was carried out following the procedures
Gasification is generally conducted in different types of reactors, described in standard EN 15149–1 [32].
with fixed-bed and fluidized-bed reactors the most used. Fixed-bed Proximate analysis was obtained according to standard ASTM D-
gasifiers have lower construction costs and are considered easier to 1762 [33], for the determination of volatile matter, ash content, and
operate, requiring less biomass quality and processing. However, they fixed carbon content on a dry basis.
tend to produce lower-quality gas [16,19,23]. In addition, several Ultimate analysis was determined according to standard DIN EN
biomass characteristics affect the gasifier operation and performance 15104:2011–04, by using a universal analyzer from Elementar (model
and the gas quality. High moisture content, heterogeneous form, and Vario Micro Cube).
low density are commonly observed characteristics in biomass but can Extractive content was determined according to standard TAPPI 204
be offset by drying, grinding, and pelletizing, respectively [18,24]. The om-88 [34], substituting the ethanol/benzene solvent mixture with
chemical composition is inherent to each biomass and is difficult to ethanol/toluene. Insoluble lignin content was determined using the
modify. The pyrolysis process partially degrades the hemicelluloses and Klason method [35]. Soluble lignin was determined by spectrometry
cellulose, the less thermally stable components, aiming to preserve most [36]. Total lignin content was obtained by summing the values of sol­
of the lignin, phenolic macromolecules with high thermal stability and uble and insoluble lignin. The cellulose and hemicelluloses contents
low mass loss rates during heat treatment. Its main effects include were obtained by summing the extractive content, total lignin, and ash
increasing the carbon-to-oxygen ratio and the higher heating value, as content, subtracted from 100.
well as reducing the hygroscopic equilibrium moisture of the biomass Thermogravimetric analysis was performed using a Shimadzu DTG-
[25–28]. 60 equipment, conducted under a nitrogen gas atmosphere, with a
In this context, research has shown that the relationship between constant flow rate of 50 ml/min and a heating rate of 10 ◦ C/min.
biomass properties and gas quality and yield is not yet well defined, as Thermograms were obtained from a temperature of 50 ◦ C up to the
there are numerous factors that influence gasification process [19,29]. maximum temperature of 600 ◦ C.
There is also a gap in the literature regarding studies that assess the Higher heating value was obtained according to EN 14918 [37]
effect of different biomasses on quality and yield of gas obtained in the standard, using an adiabatic calorimetric bomb IKA300®.
same gasifier.
Considering the increasing demand and the importance of devel­ 2.2. Fixed bed and concurrent flow pilot-gasifier
oping sustainable energy sources for power generation, as well as more
efficient energy conversion processes, this research aims to fulfill this The five biomasses were gasified in a pilot gasification plant with a
gap by evaluating the performance of biomass gasification (raw, torre­ fixed-bed and concurrent flow configuration, primarily consisting of a
fied, and carbonized) in a pilot fixed-bed and concurrent flow gasifier to gasification reactor, feeding silo, gas cleaning cyclone, and gas burner
produce fuel gas, also highlighting the importance of this conversion (Fig. 2).
technique. The pilot plant was developed by the Wood Panels and Energy
Some energy characteristics of the biomass used were determined in Laboratory at the Federal University of Viçosa, (LAPEM/UFV), Brazil,
order to understand the gasifier operational parameters. The thermal aiming to conduct gasification studies simulating industrial conditions.
performance of the gasifier was evaluated through temperature profiles The construction and operational details of the gasifier are described in
and mass and energy balances, and improvements were proposed to the Supplementary Material.
optimize the conversion of biomass into fuel gas, discussing the results For monitoring the reactor temperatures, the gasifier was equipped
with the literature and with the current biomass scenario. with nine type K thermocouples along the reactor (Fig. 2C, T1 to T9),
This work can be considered pioneer as it presents the use of the responsible for measuring the temperatures of intake air and gases. To
same gasification reactor for different types of biomasses, with versa­ obtain air and gas flow rates, the gasifier has pitot tubes connected to
tility for different geometries and physical-chemical properties of manometers (Figs. 2A–4 and 2A-8). Gas collection for gas composition
biomass, in addition to low cost to serve smaller-scale industries. This analysis was performed at the point indicated in Figs. 2A–9.
differs from the reactors currently existing in the Brazilian market,
especially in the pulp and paper sector, which are large-scale reactors 2.3. Biomass gasification process
and require higher investments.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the method­ Two gasifications per biomass were performed (considered as repli­
ology, including sample experiments and the pilot plant. The results are cates), in which reactor temperatures, flow rates of biomass, air and gas,
discussed in Section 3 and the conclusions are followed in Section 4. composition and lower heating value of gases were measured in each

2
M.A. Magalhães et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 193 (2025) 107530

Fig. 1. Forest biomasses tested.

Source: own elaboration based on real pictures of the tested biomasses.

replicate. Subsequently, the mass and the energy balance of the system determination of the volumetric flow rate under standard temperature
were evaluated. and pressure conditions (Equation (4)).
Gasifier operation started with the biomass supply into the silo,
Q = V × A × 3600 (2)
ignition of the reactor (considered as the initial time for data collection),
and the gasification process itself, with an average duration of two and a Where: Q = volumetric flow rate of the fluid, in m3/h; V = fluid velocity,
half hours until the end of gasification. in m/s; A = cross-sectional area of the pipe, in m2.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
2.3.1. Gases composition and lower heating value 2 × Δp
The collected gases were cleaned using the pre-washing system V= (3)
ρf
consisting of seven Dreschel-type bottles connected in sequence, housed
in a thermal box and submerged in ice. The non-condensable gases, after Where: V = fluid velocity, in m/s; Δp = pressure difference obtained by
pre-cleaning, were directed to the cleaning system of the Gasboard 9030 the manometer (dynamic pressure), in Pascal (Pa); ρf = fluid density, in
Wuhan CUBIC Optoelectronics Co. Ltd., where they were again washed kg/m³.
in distilled water and cooled to 4 ◦ C in a dehumidifier, then passed [ ]
through an activated carbon and cotton filter. Finally, they were cleaned 273.15
Qn = Q (4)
in filters with the capacity to retain impurities of up to 3 μm (filter FT1) (273.15 + T)
and 1 μm (filter FT2).
After the complete cleaning, the gases were directed to the online gas Where: Qn = volumetric flow rate under normal conditions (0 ◦ C and 1
analysis system, Gasboard 3100 Wuhan CUBIC Optoelectronics Co. Ltd., atm), in Nm3/h; Q = volumetric flow rate of the fluid, in m3/h; T = fluid
which provided the percentage composition of CO, CO2, CH4, CnHm, H2, temperature, in K.
and O2. The measurement was continuous and carried out throughout The total energy available in the biomass was calculated by multi­
the gasification process, with data stored every 10 s. plying the mass flow rate of biomass by the useful heating value
Gases lower heating value was estimated by multiplying the average (Equation (5)). For equations (5)–(7), it was considered that 1 kW is
concentration of each gas by its respective lower heating value (Sales equal to 1 J/s.
et al., 2017) (Equation (1)). qT = mb × PCUb (5)
LHVg = (12.696 CO) + (10.768 H2 ) + (35.866 CH4 ) (1)
Where: qT = total available heat rate, in kW; mb = mass flow rate of
Where: LHVg = lower heating value of the gas, in MJ/m³; CO, H2, CH4 = biomass, in kg/h; PCUb = useful calorific value of biomass, in MJ/kg.
average concentration of carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and methane in The available chemical energy in the gas was obtained by multi­
the gas, respectively, in %. plying the gas volumetric flow rate by its lower heating value (Equation
(6)).
2.3.2. Mass and energy balance qg = Qg × LHVg (6)
For mass and energy balances calculations of the gasification, the
reactor was defined as the control volume (Fig. 3), following the Where: qg = available heat rate in the produced gas, in kW; Qg = gas
methodology defined in Andrade [38]. In this volume, biomass con­ volumetric flow rate, in Nm³/h; LHVg = lower heating value of the gas,
sumption was considered as inputs, and chemical and thermal energy of in MJ/Nm³.
the gas as well as heat losses through the reactor walls were considered The heat lost by the gas to the surroundings was estimated according
as outputs. The remaining available energy from biomass was attributed to Equation (7).
to other products. ( )
The mass flow rate of biomass (kg/h) was estimated by multiplying qgpm = mg cpg Tg - Ta (7)
the number of rotations of the screw conveyor per hour (rotations/h) by
the transporting capacity (kg/rotation). For each biomass, the trans­ Where: qgpm = rate of heat loss by the gas to the environment, in kW; mg
porting capacity of the screw conveyor from the silo was determined in = gas mass flow rate, in kg/h; cpg = specific heat of the gas, in KJ/kgK;
kg/turn, and the number of turns of the screw conveyor during each Tg = reactor gas outlet temperature, in K; Ta = ambient temperature, in
gasification was counted. K.
The volumetric flow rate of air for gasification and of the gas was The heat losses by conduction through the reactor walls were esti­
obtained by multiplying the fluid flow velocity by the respective pipe mated according to Equation (8), considering the upper, middle, and
area (Equation (2)). The flow velocity was estimated from the dynamic lower sections as shown in Fig. 3. Each of these sections was constructed
pressure, obtained through pitot tubes connected to a manometer, and with different layers and materials, as depicted in Fig. 4.
the density of the respective fluid (Equation (3)). In both cases, along
with the dynamic pressure, the temperature was also measured for later

3
M.A. Magalhães et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 193 (2025) 107530

Fig. 2. Diagram of the biomass gasification pilot plant (A), longitudinal section (B), and cross section (C).
Source: Own elaboration.

4
M.A. Magalhães et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 193 (2025) 107530

spent on maintaining the reactor temperature, and any other heat losses
that were not identified during the gasification tests.

2.3.3. Reactor efficiency

The cold efficiency was obtained by the ratio of the gas chemical
energy to that of the biomass (Equation (9)). The hot efficiency also
considered the thermal energy released to the environment by the gas
(Equation (10)).
( )
LHVg Qg
ηc = 100 (9)
LHVb mb
( )
LHVg Qg + qgpm
ηh = 100 (10)
LHVb mb

Where: ηc = cold gasification efficiency, in %; ηh = hot gasification

efficiency, in %; LHVg = lower heating value of the gas, in MJ/Nm³; Qg
= gas volumetric flow rate, in Nm³/h; LHVb = lower heating value of the
biomass, in MJ/kg; mb = biomass mass flow rate, in kg/h; qgpm = gas
heat loss rate to the environment, in MJ/h.

2.3.4. Air ratio

Atmospheric air was used as the gasification agent. The air ratio was
calculated by the ratio between the amount consumed during biomass
gasification and the stoichiometric amount required for its complete
Fig. 3. Diagram of the control volume for determining the mass and energy
balances of the reactor.
Source: Own elaboration.

/
(Tint − Text )
qcd = n 1000 (8)
∑ ln(rext /rint )
2 πkL
i=1

Where: qcd = heat loss rate by conduction through the wall, in kW; Tint
= internal temperature of the reactor, in K; Text = external temperature
of the reactor wall, in K; rext = external radius of the i-th component of
the wall, in m; rint = internal radius of the i-th component of the wall, in
m; k = thermal conductivity of the material of the i-th component of the
wall, in W/mK; L = height of the section, in m.
The “other products” considered were unconverted coal, the thermal
energy contained in the ashes, the chemical energy of the tar, the energy Fig. 5. Particle size of the biomass used in gasification Source: Research results.

Fig. 4. Composition of the reactor walls in the upper, middle, and lower sections.
Source: own elaboration.

5
M.A. Magalhães et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 193 (2025) 107530

Fig. 6. TG (A) and DTG (B) curves for the biomass used in gasification.
Source: Research results.

combustion (Equations (11) and (12)), [39]. For the calculations, the interpolation process, using R software. The IDW interpolation function
carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, and oxygen content in the biomass were calculates unknown points based on the weighted average of sampled
considered, as well as its mass on a dry basis, and ash-free. points. The distance between the estimated point and the sampled points
( ) /( ) is used as a weighting factor, giving the highest value to the points
AR = ma / mb gaseif ma / mb comb (11) closest to the estimated point [40,41].

Where: AR = air ratio; (ma/mb)gaseif = ratio between the mass flow rate 3. Results and discussion
of air and biomass for gasification; (ma/mb)comb = ratio between the
mass flow rate of air and biomass for combustion. 3.1. Forest biomasses characterization
( )
( ) 1, 293 C H S O
ma / mb comb = 1, 866 + 5, 55 + 0, 7 - 0, 7 The physical and chemical characterization of the biomasses used in
0, 21 100 100 100 100
gasification are presented in Table 1 and Table 2.
(12) Regarding the moisture content results (MCdb), it was observed that
the biomass with the lowest moisture content were the torrefied pellets
Where: (ma/mb)comb = ratio between the mass flow rate of air and
(2.6 %) and the pellets in natura (3.3 %), while the highest were the
biomass for combustion; C, H, S, O = content of carbon, hydrogen,
wood chips in natura (15.2 %) and the charcoal (10.7 %), with the
sulfur, and oxygen in biomass, respectively, in %.
torrefied wood chips being intermediate (6.8 %). Torrefaction process
reduced the moisture content of torrefied wood chips by 55 % compared
2.3.5. Temperature profile
to wood chips in natura, and torrefied pellets had 21 % lower moisture
The temperature profile of the gasifier was determined for each
content than pellets in natura. The low moisture content of the torrefied
biomass considering the average temperatures obtained in the two
wood chips and the raw pellets is related to the drying process that
gasifications. The graphs were plotted from ignition (zero time) until the
occurred before gasification, aiming to avoid issues caused by excess
time when the temperatures of the reduction zone stabilized for at least
water vapor at the top of the reactor. The moisture content of the
1 h. The graphs show the temperatures obtained in the combustion,
charcoal, at 10.7 %, can be considered relatively high compared to
reduction, and pyrolysis zones, the gas temperature at the reactor outlet,
commercially used charcoal (which is typically around 7 %) [41,42].
and the flame temperature in the combustion chamber.
This can be attributed to its extended storage time, which led to greater
The temperatures were collected by nine thermocouples distributed
moisture absorption from the environment.
along the gasification reactor (T1 to T9, as shown in Fig. 1C of the
The torrefaction process reduced the biomasses moisture content by
Supplementary Material). The temperature profile of the gasification
eliminating structurally fewer stable components (thermally), such as
reactor was constructed using the Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW)

6
M.A. Magalhães et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 193 (2025) 107530

Fig. 7. Temperature profile of gasifications with wood chips in natura (A), torrefied wood chips (B), pellets in natura (C), torrefied pellets (D), and charcoal (E).
Source: Research results

hemicelluloses, which have a hydrophilic nature [43,44]. Torrefaction A positive effect of torrefaction on the HHV of wood chips and pellets
can be considered a valid process, as the biomass high moisture content was observed. Carbonization and torrefaction remove components less
reduces the reactor temperature, requiring more energy in the drying resistant to temperature and preserve more stable ones, such as lignin,
zone to remove the water from biomass, tending to produce wetter gas with higher heating value [43,44]. For the same bulk density, biomass
and lower combustion efficiency [20,24]. However, other factors must with higher heating value has superior energy density [46] and can
be considered for torrefaction, such as the required processing time, generate gases with higher yield and heating value [29]. However, this
equipment, and financial costs. cannot be taken as a rule, as gas parameters depend on the chemical
Bulk density (BD) results showed that the raw and torrefied pellets composition, particle size, and moisture content of the biomass, as well
obtained the highest values, while raw wood chips and charcoal had the as the operational conditions of the reactor.
lowest. Torrefaction process increased the bulk density of wood chips, As expected, charcoal exhibited a higher fixed carbon content
while torrefied pellets had lower density than raw pellets. On average, because it predominantly consists of fixed carbon in its proximate
pellets have three times more mass per unit volume than wood chips and analysis, unlike pellets and wood chips, which have higher percentage of
charcoal, which can decrease their reactivity in gasification due to the volatile materials (VM). It was observed that torrefaction reduced the
reduced devolatilization rate in the pyrolysis zone. However, biomass volatile matter and increased the fixed carbon percentage in wood chips
with higher density contains more energy per volume and requires and pellets compared to the raw material. The higher content of volatile
relatively less storage space, which should make transportation over materials increases the release of gases from biomass during the pyrol­
longer distances feasible [45]. ysis stage in the reactor, and consequently, it can enhance the produc­
Regarding higher heating value (HHV) results, charcoal had the tion, yield, and heating value of the gas [29].
highest value, while the others remained in the range of 21 to 19 MJ/kg. Regarding the ash content, the highest content was found in pellets,

7
M.A. Magalhães et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 193 (2025) 107530

Fig. 8. Average temperatures after reactor stabilization for gasifications with wood chips in natura (A), torrefied wood chips (B), pellets in natura (C), torrefied
pellets (D), and charcoal (E).
Source: Research results

Fig. 9. Volumetric gas and air flow rates and mass flow rate of biomass for gasifications with wood chips in natura (A), torrefied wood chips (B), pellets in natura (C),
torrefied pellets (D), and charcoal (E), residues separated from the gas by the cyclone (F).

8
M.A. Magalhães et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 193 (2025) 107530

Table 1
Physical and chemical characteristics of the gasified biomass.
Biomass MCdb BD VM FC Ash Extractive Lignin Holocellulose HHV

(%) kg/m³ (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) MJ/kg

Wood chips in natura 15.2 184.5 85.7 13.9 0.4 5.0 27.0 67.6 19.4
Torrefied wood chips 6.8 207.7 80.3 19.3 0.4 9.2 34.4 56.0 20.8
Pellets in natura 3.3 621.4 84.6 14.3 1.1 7.0 29.9 62.0 20.7
Torrefied pellets 2.6 585.9 80.8 17.7 1.5 7.1 39.2 52.1 21.7
Charcoal 10.7 201.9 18.1 81.4 0.6 – – – 33.0

MCdb = moisture content in dry basis; BD = bulk density; VM = volatile matter; Holocellulose = hemicelluloses + cellulose; FC = fixed carbon; HHV = high heating
value.
Source: Research results.

reactor were obtained in the gasification of torrefied biomass and

Table 2
charcoal (Fig. 7). There was a greater variation in temperatures in the
Ultimate analysis of biomass.
combustion zone for gasifications with raw and torrefied wood chips
Biomass C H N S O Ash compared to other biomasses. The highest temperature in the combus­
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) tion zone was observed in the gasification of charcoal. For this biomass,
Wood chips in natura 49,6 5,9 0,03 0,14 44,0 0,40 the temperature in the combustion zone was restricted to the measure­
Torrefied wood chips 53,0 5,6 0,04 0,08 40,9 0,42 ment limit of the thermocouples. The temperatures in the reduction zone
Pellets in natura 50,4 6,1 0,12 0,10 42,2 1,10 had less variation, with values between 575 and 697 ◦ C.
Torrefied pellets 54,9 5,8 0,11 0,08 37,7 1,51 The combustion zone was defined as the region near the air inlet in
Charcoal 86,1 2,7 0,10 0,01 10,5 0,57
the reactor, where biomass oxidation reactions occur and usually where
C = Carbon content (%); H = Hydrogen content (%); N = Nitrogen content (%); S the highest temperatures are observed. However, in this study, the
= Sulfur content (%); O = Oxygen content (%). highest temperature in the combustion zone was observed only during
Source: Research results. the gasification of charcoal, due to its lower gas production and conse­
quently slower biomass flow in the reactor, which contributed to tem­
being even higher in the torrefied ones. Deposits formations were perature stabilization and the establishment of reaction zones (Fig. 8E).
observed near the air inlets in the reactor for both types of pellets, In all gasifications, except for the one with charcoal, the zone of
resulting from the fusion of ashes. Biomass, in general, has low ash highest temperature shifted to the lower part of the reactor due to the
content. However, depending on its composition and quantity, fusion greater flow of biomass and gases in the downward direction (Fig. 8).
and deposits formations may occur, affecting the operation and leading For torrefied wood chips, the reaction zones were larger compared to
to unplanned system shutdowns for maintenance [47]. non-torrefied ones. However, the same was not observed for raw pellets
In relation to extractives, lignin and holocellulose contents, torrefied compared to torrefied ones. The lowest average temperatures were
biomasses presented increased extractives and lignin contents and observed in the gasification of torrefied pellets (Fig. 8D).
reduced holocellulose (cellulose and hemicelluloses) content, which can The downward movement of the combustion zone limited the
enhance their energy quality. Hemicelluloses and cellulose are less reduction zone, hindering the reactions that form combustible gases.
thermally stable components in wood and are degraded at lower tem­ This suggests the possibility of inserting a physical barrier at the top of
peratures and responsible for the release of volatile matter [43,44]. The the vertical grid, forcing the gases to pass through the entire reduction
volatile matter in gasification is released during the pyrolysis stage and zone before leaving the reactor.
participate in gas-forming reactions in the reduction zone. For all gasified biomasses, the upper half of the reactor reached
Torrefaction of the wood chips increased the percentage of mass in stable temperatures below 110 ◦ C (Fig. 8), highlighting the potential for
smaller particle size, but this effect was not observed with the pellets reducing the reactor height in future projects. It is important to
(Fig. 5). Charcoal had 79.3 % of the particle size larger than 16 mm, emphasize that this region of the reactor cannot be completely removed
while pellets had on average 99.6 % of the particle size fraction between as it plays the crucial role of biomass drying.
3.35 and 8 mm. The raw wood chips had 48.3 % of their particles larger
than 16 mm, while the torrefied chips had 54.4 % of their particles sized
between 8 and 16 mm. Reduced particle size can promote biomass 3.3. Gas composition
devolatilization and gas production [48], however, very small particles
with low mobility can create blockages in the gasifier and silos, hin­ Gasification performed with torrefied biomasses yielded gas with a
dering the process. higher percentage of CO (+12.7 %) and lower percentages of CO2 (− 8.4
In thermogravimetric curves (TG) (Fig. 6A), charcoal showed greater %) and H2 (− 12.1 %) compared to raw biomasses (Table 3). The lower
thermal stability due to its structure having a higher percentage of fixed percentage of CO2 can be related to the reduction of oxygenated com­
carbon. Torrefied biomass exhibited greater resistance to thermal pounds during the torrefaction of the biomasses. A decrease in the
degradation compared to raw biomass. In the DTG curve (Fig. 6B), the methane percentage was observed only in the gas obtained from torre­
peak of thermal degradation for raw wood chips occurred at tempera­ fied wood chips compared to raw ones. However, the gas obtained from
tures close to 300 ◦ C (arrow 1), indicating their higher presence of the gasification with charcoal showed lower concentrations of CO2, CH4,
hemicelluloses. The torrefied biomass had a reduced thermal degrada­ H2, and heating value. The highest values of LHV of the gas were ob­
tion range, with the maximum mass loss occurring near 350 ◦ C. Charcoal tained from torrefied wood chips and pellets.
showed low mass loss, progressively increasing above 400 ◦ C (arrow 2), The increase in the CO/CO2 ratio should have a positive correlation
which is associated with its production temperature. with gasification efficiency due to the lower percentage of completely
oxidized gases; however, the opposite was observed. It is assumed that
the efficiency is more related to the flow rate than to the gas composi­
3.2. Gasification: reactor temperatures tion. Thus, the presence of more oxygenated components in the raw
biomass would have a greater relation to the percentage of CO2 in the
The most stable temperatures of the flame and gas outlet from the gas as well as to the flow rate, which is not observed in torrefied biomass

9
M.A. Magalhães et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 193 (2025) 107530

Table 3
Properties of gases and reactor parameters per type of biomass gasified.
Biomass CO CO2 CH4 H2 CO/CO2 H2/CO LHV AR ƞcold ƞhot
3
% % % % MJ/Nm – % %

Wood chips in natura 21.4 9.3 1.2 8.5 2.30 0.40 4.07 0.44 53.1 62.7
(1.18) (0.86) (0.01) (0.72) ​ ​ (0.07) (0.06) (0.02) (0.02)
Torrefied wood chips 23.9 7.3 1.1 7.7 3.27 0.32 4.27 0.48 53.3 62.7
(0.57) (0.22) (0.07) (0.54) ​ ​ (0.04) (0.03) (0.05) (0.05)
Pellets in natura 22.8 7.9 1.6 7.1 2.89 0.31 4.21 0.41 47.9 55.7
(2.09) (0.57) (0.16) (0.49) ​ ​ (0.27) (0.16) (0.15) (0.19)
Torrefied pellets 25.9 6.7 1.6 6.1 3.87 0.23 4.50 0.24 30.0 33.9
(0.02) (0.15) (0.07) (0.08) ​ ​ (0.03) (0.003) (0.04) (0.04)
Charcoal 22.5 4.0 0.2 3.8 5.57 0.17 3.34 0.69 20.5 26.8
(0.12) (0.34) (0.04) (0.15) ​ ​ (0.05) (0.12) (0.01) (0.01)

Values in parentheses correspond to the standard deviation. CO = carbon monoxide; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; H2 = hydrogen; CO/CO2 = carbon
monoxide/carbon dioxide ratio; H2/CO = hydrogen/carbon monoxide ratio; LHV = lower heating value; AR = air ratio; ƞcold = cold gasification efficiency ƞhot = hot
gasification efficiency.

and charcoal. the gas flow rate obtained in the torrefied pellets gasification was lower
The air ratio obtained for the gasified biomasses was higher than the than raw pellets gasification, negatively affecting the efficiency
values found in the literature, except for the torrefied pellets. The high (Fig. 10).
value obtained for the charcoal suggests the predominance of partial Due to the reduction in gas flow rate throughout the gasifications of
carbon oxidation reactions compared to reduction reactions [48], wood chips and pellets, raw and torrefied, it is recommended to remove
justifying the high temperatures recorded throughout the reactor and the residual charcoal formed in the reduction zone of the reactor, as it
the high ratio of CO to CO2. produces gas with lower flow rate and quality. This procedure could
The low air ratio observed in the gasification of torrefied pellets increase the efficiency of the gasifier by maintaining a higher gas flow
aligns with the lower temperatures obtained throughout the reactor, rate without altering the supply of air and biomass to the reactor.
which negatively impacted gas flow but positively influenced its It was observed that there was a greater generation of residues in the
composition. gasifications carried out with torrefied pellets (Fig. 9F), followed by raw
Typical air ratio values between 0.2 and 0.4 are mentioned for pellets and torrefied wood chips, highlighting that torrefaction had a
biomass gasification [20]. The low air ratio decreases the reactor tem­ negative effect on gas quality. The generation of residues was more
perature and, consequently, the reaction rate in the reduction zone, intense at the beginning of the gasifications and then reduced along with
which is responsible for gas production [11]. It was not possible to the gas flow rate throughout the process. This phenomenon is attributed
change the air ratio of the gasifier due to the direct effect of air flow on to the formation of charcoal in the reduction zone, which resulted in a
biomass consumption. Therefore, it was not possible to adopt the air smaller quantity of residues.
ratio recommended by the literature. The residues collected in the cyclone from charcoal gasifications
The highest efficiencies were achieved in gasifications with wood were mainly composed of low-sized charcoal particles, with no presence
chips, with no differences between raw wood chips and torrefied wood of tar. However, the residues obtained from other biomasses were liquid
chips. The lowest efficiency was observed in the gasification with in nature, with a high-water content, presence of pyroligneous liquor,
charcoal, due to the effects of larger particle size, lower percentage of and in some cases, composed of a dense fraction that appeared sticky
volatile materials, and higher reactor temperatures. Raw pellets had and immiscible in the aqueous phase.
higher efficiency than torrefied pellets. The lower yields obtained in the A higher heat rate in the produced gas was observed in the gasifi­
gasification of torrefied biomass compared to raw biomass suggest that cations of raw and torrefied wood chips (Fig. 10), due to the higher flow
torrefaction did not significantly promote gas production. rates and gas outlet temperatures from the reactor. Heat losses through
For energy use, a higher calorific value of the gas is desirable. the reactor wall were higher in the gasification of charcoal due to the
However, it is important to consider the efficiency of the gasification elevated temperatures reached. The fraction referred as “other products”
system based on the type of biomass used. When the goal is to transform was higher in the gasifications of raw pellets, torrefied pellets, and
gas into chemical products and liquid or gaseous fuels, it becomes charcoal, due to the lower conversion of these biomasses into gas.
necessary to increase the H2 content at the expense of other gases, such Overall, the gasifier operation was simplified in the gasifications
as in the Fischer-Tropsch reaction which requires an H2/CO ratio equal with wood chips, where the system operated with greater stability and
to or greater than 2:1 [14]. The best ratio obtained in this work was 0.40 independence from the operator. Gasifications with pellets were more
for raw wood chips. Excessive reduction of the H2/CO ratio indicates the labor-intensive, requiring pre-drying due to the moisture effect within
predominance of oxidation reactions, generating less energetic gases. the reactor. In charcoal gasifications, the biggest challenge was con­
trolling the equipment’s temperature so that it did not exceed the
thermocouple limits and affect the reactor’s structure.
3.4. Mass and energy balance The torrefaction of pellets had a negative effect on gas yield. This
result is attributed to the reduction in their reactivity caused by the
A lower gas flow rate was observed in the gasification of charcoal combination of thermal treatment and compaction, which decreases the
compared to other biomass types (Fig. 9E), due to its low reactivity, porosity and devolatilization rate of the biomass.
which is related to larger particle size and lower content of volatile The biomass utilization was most effective in the gasifications of raw
matter. The low charcoal consumption led to greater variations in and torrefied wood chips, where the energy from the biomass inserted
biomass feed. into the reactor was 65.3 and 57.3 kW, respectively. Meanwhile, 34.8
In pellets gasification, raw and torrefied, a more regular feed was and 30.6 kW of energy were produced in the gas, respectively, for raw
observed, possibly due to the consistent size and shape of these bio­ and torrefied wood chips. The highest biomass energy flow was
masses. The gas flow rate for these biomasses, although reduced, was observed in the gasifications with torrefied pellets, at 103.4 kW, but only
more stable compared to gasifications with other biomasses. 31.1 kW was transferred to the produced gas, confirming its low
For the same particle size and similar biomass flow rates (Fig. 9C–D),

10
M.A. Magalhães et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 193 (2025) 107530

Fig. 10. Eb = energy in biomass; Eg = energy in gas; other products = unconverted charcoal in gas, thermal energy contained in ashes, chemical energy of tar,
energy spent to maintain reactor temperature, and other heat losses that were not identified.

efficiency. The lowest energy flows were associated with the gasifica­ Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Funding acquisition,
tions with charcoal, 33.1 kW for biomass and 6.8 kW in the gas, con­ Formal analysis. Dandara Paula da Silva Guimarães: Writing – review
firming its low gas production and efficiency. & editing, Visualization, Validation. Gabriel Browne de Deus Ribeiro:
Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Project administration.
4. Conclusions Marcio Aredes Martins: Validation, Supervision, Project administra­
tion, Formal analysis. Ana Márcia Macedo Ladeira Carvalho: Vali­
This work results showed that the gasification of wood chips, pellets, dation, Supervision, Project administration, Conceptualization.
and charcoal in the concurrent fixed-bed gasifier was technically Fernanda de Jesus Jorge: Validation, Supervision, Methodology.
feasible. The reactors’ performance and operation were affected by
chemical and physical characteristics of each biomass. The gas flow rate Acknowledgments
decreased throughout the gasification process for all evaluated
biomasses. The authors are grateful to the Brazilian National Council for Sci­
In particular, results demonstrated that torrefaction of wood chips entific and Technological Development (CNPq) and to the Brazilian
and pellets reduced the percentages of CO2 (− 18.4 %) and H2 (− 12.1 Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education
%), while increased CO by (+12.7 %) in the gas, positively contributing (CAPES) for the scholarships provided for the senior author.
to the increase of the lower heating value.
Charcoal produced gas with inferior composition compared to the Appendix A. Supplementary data
other biomasses, but with a smaller quantity of residues.
The temperature profiles of gasifications with raw and torrefied Supplementary data to this article can be found online at [Link]
wood chips and pellets revealed the downward movement of the com­ org/10.1016/[Link].2024.107530.
bustion zone, limiting the reduction zone of the reactor.
The highest efficiencies were obtained in wood chips gasifications, Data availability
with an average of 53.2 % of cold efficiency, with no differences be­
tween the raw and torrefied ones. No data was used for the research described in the article.
The energy balance indicated that a significant portion of the
biomass energy was classified as “other products”, averaging 42 %. References
Partially gasified biomass could account for the majority of this portion.
To increase biomass conversion into gas, it is recommended, as im­ [1] O. Ellaban, H. Abu-Hub, F. Blaabjerg, Renewable energy resources: current status,
future prospects and their enabling technology, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 39
provements for the gasifier, to create a physical barrier to rise gas resi­ (2014) 748–764.
dence time in the reduction zone and also to remove accumulated [2] N. Samiran, M. Jaafar, J. Ng, S. Lam, C. Chong, Progress in biomass gasification
charcoal in this zone of the reactor. technique – with focus on Malaysian palm biomass for syngas production, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 62 (2016) 1047–1062.
New studies should be conducted, including new technical variables [3] H. Karunathilake, P. Perera, R. Ruparathna, K. Hewage, R. Sadiq, Renewable
and the economic cost component. energy integration into community energy systems: a case study of new urban
residential development, J. Clean. Prod. 173 (2018) 292–307.
[4] A. Razmjoo, L. Kaigutha, M. Vaziri Rad, M. Marzband, A. Davarpanah, M. Denai,
CRediT authorship contribution statement A Technical analysis investigating energy sustainability utilizing reliable
renewable energy sources to reduce CO2 emissions in a high potential área, Renew.
Mateus Alves Magalhães: Writing – review & editing, Writing – Energy 164 (2021) 46–57.
[5] B. Hoffmann, A. Szklo, R. Schaeffer, An evaluation of the techno-economic
original draft, Software, Resources, Methodology, Investigation, Formal potential of co-firing coal with woody biomass in thermal power plants in the south
analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Angélica de Cássia Oli­ of Brazil, Biomass Bioenergy 45 (2012) 295–302.
veira Carneiro: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision,

11
M.A. Magalhães et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 193 (2025) 107530

[6] V. Uri, J. Aosaar, M. Varik, H. Becker, K. Ligi, A. Padari, A. Kanal, K. Lõhmus, The [26] L. Zhu, Z. Zhong, Effects of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin on biomass pyrolysis
dynamics of biomass production, carbon and nitrogen accumulation in grey alder kinetics, Kor. J. Chem. Eng. 37 (10) (2020) 1660–1668.
(Alnus incana (L.) Moench) chronosequence stands in Estonia, For. Ecol. Manag. [27] D. Lozano, H. Jones, T. Reina, R. Volpe, M. Barrow, Unlocking the potential of
327 (2014) 106–117. biofuels via reaction pathways in van Krevelen diagrams, Green Chem. 23 (2021)
[7] D. Šafarík, P. Hlavácková, J. Michal, Potential of forest biomass resources for 8949–8963.
renewable energy production in the Czech republic, Energies 15 (1) (2021) 47. [28] D. Soratto, C. Silva, B. Vital, A. Carneiro, J. Bianche, W. Boschetti, T. Freitas,
[8] L. Zhang, C. Xu, P. Champagne, Overview of recent advances in thermo-chemical J. Ferreira, Effect of thermal treatment variables on the thermogravimetric
conversion of biomass, Energy Convers. Manag. 51 (5) (2010) 969–982. properties of eucalypt wood, Maderas Cienc. Tecnol. 22 (2020).
[9] N. Panwar, R. Kothari, V. Tyagi, Thermo chemical conversion of biomass – eco [29] M. González-Vázquez, R. García, M. Gil, C. Pevida, F. Rubiera, Comparison of the
friendly energy routes, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (4) (2012) 1801–1816. gasification performance of multiple biomass types in a bubbling fluidized bed,
[10] T. Costa, P. Quinteiro, L. Arroja, A. Dias, Environmental comparison of forest Energy Convers. Manag. 176 (2) (2018) 309–323.
biomass residues application in Portugal: electricity, heat and biofuel, Renew. [30] DIN - Deutsche Institut für Normung, EN 14774-1: determination of moisture
Sustain. Energy Rev. 134 (2020) 110302. content – oven dry method – Part 1: total moisture – reference method. Berlim,
[11] A. Ahmad, N. Zawawi, F. Kasim, A. Inayat, A. Khasri, Assessing the gasification CEN, 2010, p. 10.
performance of biomass: a review on biomass gasification process conditions, [31] DIN - Deutsche Institut für Normung, EN 15103: Solid Biofuels - Determination of
optimization and economic evaluation, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 53 (2016) Bulk Density, Berlim, CEN, 2010, p. 14.
1333–1347. [32] DIN - Deutsche Institut für Normung, EN 15149-1: solid biofuels - determination of
[12] A. Briones-Hidrovo, J. Copa, L. Tarelho, C. Gonçalves, T. Costa, A. Dias, particle size distribution - Part 1: oscillating screen method using sieve apertures of
Environmental and energy performance of residual forest biomass for electricity 1 mm and above. Berlim, CEN, 2011, p. 17.
generation: gasification vs. combustion, J. Clean. Prod. 289 (2021) 125560. [33] D1762-84, A. S. T. M., Standard Test Method for Chemical Analysis of Wood
[13] J. Míguez, J. Porteiro, F. Behrendt, D. Blanco, D. Patiño, A. Dieguez-Alonso, Charcoal, 2013.
Review of the use of additives to mitigate operational problems associated with the [34] TAPPI - Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry, TAPPI Test Methods
combustion of biomass with high content in ash-forming species, Renew. Sustain. T 204 Om-88: Solvent Extractives of Wood and Pulp, 1996. Atlanta, USA.
Energy Rev. 141 (2021) 110502. [35] J. Gomide, B. Demuner, Determinação do teor de lignina em material lenhoso:
[14] A. Molino, S. Chianese, D. Musamarra, Biomass gasification technology: the state of método Klason modificado, O Papel. 47 (8) (1986) 36–38.
the art overview, J. Energy Chem. 25 (1) (2016) 10–25. [36] O. Goldschimid, Ultraviolet spectra, in: K. Sarkanen, C. Ludwig (Eds.), Lignins:
[15] M. Shahabuddin, M. Alam, B. Krishna, T. Bhaskar, G. Perkins, A review on the Occurrence, Formation, Structure and Reactions, J. Wiley, New York, 1971,
production of renewable aviation fuels from the gasification of biomass and pp. 241–266.
residual wastes, Bioresour. Technol. 312 (2020) 123596. [37] DIN - Deutsche Institut für Normung, EN 14918: Determination of Calorific Value,
[16] Ö. Tezer, N. Karabag, A. Öngen, C. Çolpan, A. Ayol, Biomass gasification for Berlim, CEN, 2010, p. 63.
sustainable energy production: a review, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47 (2022) [38] R. Andrade, Gaseificação de Biomassa: Uma Análise Teórica e Experimental, Tese
15419–15433. (Doutorado em Engenharia Mecânica). Universidade Federal de Itajubá, 2007,
[17] Z. Zhang, L. Liu, B. Shen, C. Wu, Preparation, modification and development of Ni- p. 227.
based catalysts for catalytic reforming of tar produced from biomass gasification, [39] F. Guo, Y. Dong, C. Guo, Effect of design and operating parameters on the
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 94 (2018) 1086–1109. gasification process of biomass in a downdraft fixed bed: an experimental study,
[18] S. Suryawansh, V. Shewale, R. Thakare, R. Yarasu, Parametric study of diferent Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39 (11) (2014) 5625–5633.
biomass feedstocks used for gasifcation process of gasifer—a literature review, [40] R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R
Biomass Conver. Bioref. 13 (2023) 7689–7700. Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2017.
[19] S. Mishra, R. Upadhyay, Review on biomass gasification: gasifiers, gasifying [41] D. Dixon, V. Uddameri, Gis and Geocomputation for Water Resource Science and
mediums, and operational parameters, Mater. Sci. Energy Technol. 4 (2021) Engineering, first ed., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, West Sussex, UK, 2016.
329–340. [42] A. Dias Júnior, L. Pirola, S. Takeshita, A. Lana, J. Brito, A. Andrade, Higroscopicity
[20] E. Pereira, J. Silva, J. Oliveira, C. Machado, Sustainable energy: a review of of charcoal produced in different temperatures, Cerne 22 (4) (2016) 423–430.
gasification technologies, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (7) (2012) 4753–4762. [43] L. Costa, Relação água-carvão vegetal de eucalipto produzido em diferentes
[21] M. Hoque, F. Rashid, M. Aziz, Gasification and power generation characteristics of temperaturas, Tese (Doutorado em Ciência Florestal). Universidade Federal de
rice husk, sawdust, and coconut shell using a fixed-bed downdraft gasifier, Viçosa, 2020, p. 105p.
Sustainability 13 (2021) 2027. [44] J. Peng, X. Bi, S. Sokhansanj, C. Lim, Torrefaction ande densification of diferente
[22] J. Ruiz, M. Juárez, M. Morales, P. Muñoz, M. Mendívil, Biomass gasification for species of softwood residues, Fuel 111 (2013) 411–421.
electricity generation: review of current technology barriers, Renew. Sustain. [45] H. Ong, K. Yu, W. Chen, M. Pillejera, X. Bi, K. Tran, A. Pétrissans, M. Pétrissans,
Energy Rev. 18 (2013) 174–183. Variation of lignocellulosic biomass structure from torrefaction: a critical review,
[23] A. Susastriawan, H. Saptoadi, Purnomo, Small-scale downdraft gasifiers for Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 152 (2021) 111698.
biomass gasification: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 76 (2017) 989–1003. [46] R. Muazu, A. Borrion, J. Stegemann, Life cycle assessment of biomass densification
[24] S. Sansaniwal, K. Pal, M. Rosen, S. Tyagi, Recent advances in the development of systems, Biomass Bioenergy 107 (2017) 384–397.
biomass gasification technology: a comprehensive review, Renew. Sustain. Energy [47] M. Magalhães, A. Carneiro, B. Vital, C. Silva, E. Costa, P. Trugilho, Chemical
Rev. 72 (2017) 363–384. properties of pellets of Pinus sp, torrefied in a screw type reactor 48 (4) (2018)
[25] B. Pereira, A. Carneiro, A. Carvalho, J. Colodette, A. Oliveira, M. Fontes, Influence 493–502.
of chemical composition of Eucalyptus wood on gravimetric yield and charcoal [48] L. Nunes, J. Matias, J. Catalão, Biomass combustion systems: a review on the
properties, Bioresources 8 (3) (2013) 4574–4592. physical and chemical properties of the ashes, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 53
(2016) 235–242.

12