Energy 244 (2022) 123103

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Energetic and environmental assessment of oil sludge use in a gasifier/

gas microturbine system
York Castillo Santiago a, *, Aldemar Martínez Gonza

lez b, Osvaldo J. Venturini c,
Leandro A. Sphaier a, Eric A. Ocampo Batlle d
a
Laboratory of Thermal Sciences (LATERMO), Department of Mechanical Engineering (TEM/PGMEC), Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), Rua Passo da
Pa
tria 156, Nitero

i, RJ, Brazil
b
Centro de Innovacio
n y Tecnología e Instituto Colombiano del Petro

leo (ICP - Ecopetrol S.A). Gerencia de Desarrollo y Transferencia Tecnolo

gica Km 7, vía
Piedecuesta, Santander, Colombia
c
Núcleo de Excel^encia em Geraça ~o Termel
etrica e Distribuída (NEST), Instituto de Engenharia Meca ^nica, Universidade Federal de Itajuba
, Av. BPS 1303,
Itajuba
, MG, Brazil
d
Centro de Excel^encia em Efici^ encia Energ
etica (EXCEN), Universidade Federal, Av. BPS 1303, Itajuba
, MG, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An energetic and environmental assessment of producer gas production from oil sludge (OS) gasification
Received 9 September 2021 and an analysis of its potential use for electricity generation has been performed. A computational model
Received in revised form of OS gasification was developed and two gasification agent (oxygen and air/steam mixture) cases were
26 December 2021
analyzed. To determine the energy recovery potential of OS, a computational model involving a gas
Accepted 2 January 2022
Available online 5 January 2022
microturbine powered with the producer gas from OS gasification was developed. Results showed that
oxygen gasification produced a gas LHV (11.1e7.2 MJ/Nm3) higher than air/steam gasification (9.9e3.8
MJ/Nm3). These differences influenced the microturbine electricity generation index values, which
Keywords:
Oil sludge
ranged from 0.423 to 0.407 kWh/kg-OS with oxygen, and from 0.42 to 0.393 kWh/kg-OS, using air/steam
Gasification mixtures. For environmental impacts estimation of gasification/gas-microturbine integration, eight
Life cycle assessment environmental impact categories were assessed by using the Life Cycle Assessment methodology. Among
Gas microturbine these, oxygen gasification showed higher reductions in comparison to air/steam gasification, in the non-
Electricity generation renewable energy (77%), respiratory organics (85%), and carcinogens (85%) categories. When energy
recovery from syngas was considered, both cases have a lower carbon footprint (379e569 kg CO2-eq/ton
OS) than incineration process (1045 kg CO2-eq/ton OS), which indicates that gasification system is an
environmentally attractive option for OS treatment.
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction centrifugation, solvent extraction, pyrolysis, and biodegradation

The refining and petrochemical industry uses huge amounts of
raw materials and non-renewable resources, which leads to sig-
nificant energy and water consumption with large amounts of solid
waste and liquid effluents generation [1]. One of the hazardous
solid wastes generated in oil and gas industries correspond to oil
sludge (OS), which should be properly managed to avoid environ-
mental and human health damages. In recent years, different al-
ternatives have been proposed for OS processing, such as
landfarming, incineration, solidification/stabilization,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yorkcastillo@id.uff.br (Y. Castillo Santiago).
[2]. However, there are some uncertainties related to the sustain-
ability of these technological alternatives, since none of them was
evaluated in terms of their potential environmental impact asso-
ciated with the operating process. On the other hand, recovering
useful by-products of the OS treatment process could be an option
for reducing the solid waste amounts that will require final disposal
[3]. Oil fractions recovery from oily waste is one of the primary
methods for OS treatment, which leads to value-added by-product
generation. Furthermore, this option enhances refined production
without additional requirements of crude oil, mitigating the fossil
resources demand [4].
Despite the importance of solid waste management from oil and
gas industries, a common problem is that some treatment options
can involve environmentally harmful chemicals, as well as being

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123103
0360-5442/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
CGE Cold gas efficiency
ER Equivalence ratio
GA Gasification agent
LCA Life cycle assessment
LCI Life cycle inventory
LHV Lower heating value
OS Oil sludge
SOR Steam to oil sludge ratio
Symbols
m_ Mass Flow (kg/h)
n Mole (kmol)
Gt Total Gibbs free energy (kJ)
V_ Volumetric flow (m3/h)
R Gas constant (8.314 kJ/kmol K)
T Temperature (K)
y Volume fraction (%)


DGf Gibbs free energy (kJ/mol)
relatively expensive [5]. Therefore, there is a clear need to imple-
ment alternative methods for OS treatment based on thermal
processes, such as combustion, pyrolysis, and gasification. In these
processes, a significant production of gaseous and liquid fuels with
a considerable hydrocarbon content are expected [6]. Gasification
comprises a thermochemical process that modifies the fuel chem-
ical structures at high temperatures (over 700
C) by using gasifi-
cation agents (GA) such as air, oxygen, steam, carbon dioxide, or
mixtures between them, producing a rich syngas in hydrogen,
carbon monoxide and methane [7]. As syngas (commonly known as
producer gas) is produced, it could be directly used as a raw ma-
terial in refineries or other chemical processes. Other advantages,
that should be highlighted are the low operating costs of gasifica-
tion process and the energy recovery from its products, such as
electricity generation and liquid fuel production through Fischer-
Tropsch synthesis [8,9].
A recent study regarding OS gasification was conducted by Chu
et al. [10], who experimentally investigated the gasification process
at different temperatures (between 600
C and 900
C) with steam/
oil sludge (SOS) ratios of 0.1:1, 0.3:1, and 0.5:1. The results indicated
that the maximum H2 yield was 48.50 mL min1 g1 at 800
C and
SOS ¼ 0.3:1, while the range of particle size of the produced char
was 85e120 mm. In another investigation, Sun et al. [11] studied the
temperature effect on gasification process of petrochemical sludge.
The authors considered temperature range from 1100 to 1400
C
and different atmospheres (N2, CO2, and steam) for gasification
process. The results showed that CO and H2 yield decreased when
the gasification temperature was higher than 1200
C. However, for
values close to 1400
C a high-density slag was obtained and FeO
formation in the slag under atmospheric conditions of 40 vol% N2
and 60 vol% CO2 was observed.
Computational modeling of gasification processes can provide
useful guidance for the operational parameters' influence over the
producer gas quality and its energy recovery potential. In addition,
computational models could also contribute to the gasifier design
improvement by providing information at extreme operational
conditions, for which experimental tests are usually difficult to
perform [12]. Vaezi et al. [13] studied heavy oil gasification with O2
as GA by using an equilibrium model. The authors showed that it is
2
Energy 244 (2022) 123103
possible to obtain a producer gas with a lower heating value (LHV)
of about 5 MJ/m3 and H2 content of 42.5% (%vol.), considering a H2/
CO and ER ratio of 0.76 and 0.37, respectively. Furthermore, dif-
ferences in gasification temperature (varying from 1250 to 1400 K)
were observed, mainly when gasification pressure was increased
from 10 to 80 atm, due to the endothermic reactions reversibility at
higher pressures, which is in accordance with Le Chatelier's prin-
ciple. Similarly, Beheshti et al. [14] evaluated the extra-heavy oil
gasification process using a kinetic model. The results indicated
that an ER ratio increasing can lead to a reduction in the syngas
LHV, as well as, a cold-gas efficiency reduction.
Gas microturbines are small-scale electricity generators based
on the classical Brayton cycle with regeneration. To reduce oper-
ating costs, these devices employ centrifugal compressors and
radial turbines with higher rotational speed [15]. While today's
microturbines have the operation flexibility with gas and liquids as
fuels, strict requirements concerning to gases quality that flows
through the components are needed, including solid particles or
water droplets [16]. It is important to note that gas microturbines
can also use producer gas (from previous gasification processes) for
their operation, where the hydrogen content leads to higher flame
velocities and flammability limits in contrast with conventional
fuels [17]. Additionally, recent efforts to design gas microturbines
that can operate with hydrogen contents up to 70% have been
carried out [18].
Herazo et al. [19] performed a thermodynamic analysis of a
microturbine using producer gas with LHV of 4.69 MJ/Nm3. The
results showed that by increasing the compression ratio, the ther-
modynamic performance of the power generation system can be
improved, while the largest portion of exergy destruction occurs in
the combustion chamber. The employment of different blends of
producer gas and natural gas in microturbine was investigated by
Corre^a et al. [20]. The outcome indicated that the efficiency de-
creases by 13% when the fuel changes from pure natural gas (LHV of
41.1 MJ/Nm3) to natural gas and producer gas (LHV of 26.82 MJ/
Nm3) blending of 1:1. On the other hand, despite the fuel compo-
sition changes, significant variations in the turbine outlet temper-
ature there were not observed. Amaro et al. [21] conducted an
energy analysis of the producer gas usage in microturbines with
regenerators, which are built with different matrix materials. The
authors concluded that gas microturbines with ceramic re-
generators can lead to higher combustion temperatures, resulting
in better energy performance.
A standardized methodology like Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
for evaluating the potential environmental impacts of thermo-
chemical conversion processes of solid waste and power generation
systems could be used [22]. The LCA is described as a methodology
for the estimation of the environmental performance associated
with all stages in the product life cycle, including the extraction of
raw materials through production, distribution, use, preservation,
final disposal, or materials recycling [23]. Therefore, the LCA is a
decision-support method for environmental management of
different productive chains, as well as oil and gas industries, being
especially useful for assessing both direct and indirect greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions linked to the products, byproducts, and pro-
cesses [24]. According to the ISO 14040/44, the LCA methodology is
carried out through four stages: i) purpose and scope definition, ii)
life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis, iii) life cycle impact assessment
(LCIA), and iv) interpretation of results [25]. The LCA methodology
has been used for the environmental performance assessment of
the thermochemical conversion process of biomass and several
residual materials (municipal solid wastes, petroleum wastes, in-
dustrial wastes, among others), especially for first-generation liquid
and gaseous biofuels [26,27].
Therefore, this paper aims to analyze OS gasification as a

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza
technological alternative for the management of oily waste pro-
duced in petroleum refineries, with the simultaneous generation of
value-added by-products like power electricity. For sustainability
evaluation of OS gasification process, environmental aspects were
considered and compared with the current practices of OS treat-
ment and final disposals, such as landfill and incineration. In this
work, the OS gasification process was approached through a
simulation model developed on Aspen Plus™ software, where two
distinct GA were used (oxygen and air/steam mixtures). After
validating the simulation method, different OS gasification pa-
rameters (producer gas yield, cold gas efficiency, gasification tem-
perature, producer gas composition, and LHV) were assessed. In
order to determine the energy recovery potential from OS ther-
mochemical conversion, an analysis of producer gas usage in a gas
microturbine through GateCycle™ computational tool was per-
formed, including an evaluation of the electricity generation index
and the microturbine components performance. Finally, potential
environmental impacts from the integrated gasification-power
generation systems were estimated. Some impact categories
related to human health and ecosystem quality, climate change,
carbon footprint, and energy indicators were calculated by using
the LCA methodology through SimaPro™ software. In a general
way, this work provides an energy performance study, a holistic
inventory, and a life cycle analysis of OS thermochemical conver-
sion and power generation. It is important to point out that, from
the reviewed literature, there are no available studies associated
with energy recovery and its environmental performance from OS
residues treatment, thus emphasizing the novelty of the current
contribution.
2. OS gasification and gas microturbine
2.1. Description of gasification model
For the development of the gasification model, the software
Aspen Plus™ v.11.0 was selected. This tool consists of a process
simulator that offers a comprehensive thermodynamic database for
the calculation of physical properties for oil, gas, and the petro-
chemical industry in general [28]. This software allows the use of
models that include reactors, distillation columns, rotating equip-
ment, and controllers, both in steady-state and transient regimes
[29]. It is possible to define chemical and physical properties,
chemical compounds, non-conventional (hypothetical) com-
pounds, interaction parameters, reactions, and tabulated data
within a file [30]. Since oil sludge is a non-conventional compound,
its physicochemical characterization becomes necessary. This
characterization procedure was performed at the laboratories of
the Federal University of Itajuba
(UNIFEI), and their results are
shown in Table 1.
Considering the OS properties and the type of process involved
in the simulations (gasification), the Peng-Robinson equation of
state was chosen for calculating the thermodynamic properties of
the streams, as it can deal with pseudo-components and hydro-
carbons with high molecular weight [31].
2.1.1. Assumptions in gasification model
The first step for developing the gasification model involves
defining the parameters related to the inlet streams, comprising the
oil sludge and the gasification agent. Subsequently, process condi-
tions, such as chemical compounds, equipment, flows, and pa-
rameters required for each of the subsystems involved in the
gasification process are defined. This is accomplished by consid-
ering the following assumptions while developing the equilibrium
model:
3
Energy 244 (2022) 123103
 The process regime is steady state.
 Pressure and temperature are uniform throughout the reactors.
 Pyrolysis occurs instantaneously.
 All reactions reach chemical equilibrium.
 Ash is an inert compound and char is treated as graphitic carbon.
 The formation of tar and heavy hydrocarbons is negligible.
 The process is adiabatic (negligible heat losses).
 The gasifier operating pressure is 1.0 atm.
 OS is collected at the bottom of the fuel tank bottom.
 Gasification agents (O2 and air/steam) are produced at crude oil
refinery facilities, where OS residues are being generated.
 Energy requirements for the OS gasification process are pro-
vided from crude oil refinery facilities. Eventually, the energy
demand of the gasification system and gasifying agents is sup-
plied by the energy recovered from producer gas.
The OS gasification process is modeled using four subsystems:
(i) pyrolysis, (ii) oxidation, (iii) reduction, and (iv) treatment of the
produced gas. In the process flow diagram shown in Fig. 1, the oil
sludge stream (OILSLU) initially enters the pyrolysis or devolatili-
zation subsystem (composed by the R1 reactor), where it is con-
verted into small molecules and char. The R1 step simulates the
devolatilization of the OILSLU stream, through a routine developed
in Fortran, which is based on ultimate and proximate analysis of the
fuel [32]. This step produces the PYROL stream, which is composed
of ash, moisture, and elements, such as C, H2, O2, N2, and S.
Subsequently, the PYROL stream is separated in the S1 separator,
where the VOLAT stream contains the volatiles produced, as well as
the CHAR stream, which is composed of the non-reacting char
fraction. In the oxidation subsystem, the constituents of the VOLAT
stream (composed of volatiles and a fraction of char) and that
corresponding to the gasification agents (AGENT) are fed to reactor
R2 e a Gibbs reactor used to establish the composition of chemical
balance between reagents and products.
The oxidation products (OXIDA) and the non-converted char
from the pyrolysis (CHAR) enter the R3 reactor located in the
reduction subsystem, which, by minimizing Gibbs free energy,
adjusts the composition of the producer gas (REDUC). The REDUC
stream then enters cyclone S2, which has the function of separating
the solid and ash fractions (ASHES) present in the gas, producing
the HOTGAS stream, which is subsequently cooled to 25
C in the
HE1 cooler. Finally, the moisture and undesirable chemical com-
pounds (RESID) present in the COLDGAS stream are separated in
the component S3, yielding the producer gas (SYNGAS stream). The
reactions considered for the OS gasification process are presented
in Table 2.
The operation of reactors R2 and R3 is based on the method of
Gibbs free energy minimization, which means that the total Gibbs
free energy of the system is minimum when the thermodynamic
equilibrium is reached [33], as indicated by the objective function
(Gt ) in the following equation:
Table 1
Oil sludge characterization.
Parameter Composition Standard
Low heating value 17.50 MJ/kg ASTM D5865-13
Ash 43.22% ASTM D5865-13
Volatiles 48.22%
Moisture 6.34%
Fixed carbon 8.56%
C 20.67% ASTM D5373-08
H 2.16%
O 32.25%
N 0.01%
S 1.69%

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza Energy 244 (2022) 123103

Fig. 1. OS gasification process.

Alternatively, when steam is used as the GA, the parameter known

X
N X
N   as steam/oil sludge ratio (SOR) is used to characterize the process.

ni
t
G ¼ ni DGf ;i þ ni RT ln (1) The SOR is defined as the ratio between the mass flow rates of
i¼1 i¼1
n tot
steam and OS. Thus, the amount of steam to be used in the process

is calculated by
where, DGf ;i corresponds to standard Gibbs free energy of forma-
tion for each chemical species, is the molar number of each m_ steam ¼ ðm_ OS $SORÞ  moisture (4)
different species, ntot is the total molar amount, R and T represent
the ideal gas constant and system temperature, respectively. As the where m_ steam represents the steam flow rate supplied to the gasi-
objective function Gt is minimized, the molar number of the gas fication process. The recommended values for the SOR range from
components (ni ), at thermodynamic equilibrium, are calculated. 0.2 to 1.0 kg steam/kg OS to favor the reactions of steam-methane
Consequently, the gas chemical composition, including the CO, H2, reforming and water-gas shift [34].
and CH4 content can be determined. The producer gas composition
is then used to calculate its LHV through the relation:
2.1.2. Model validation
Due to the limited amount of technical information from
LHVsyn ¼ yH2 LHVH2 þ yCO LHVCO þ yCH4 LHVCH4 (2) experimental work on oil sludge gasification (especially that
generated at the bottom of fuel oil tanks), it was necessary to adjust
in which LHVsyn and LHVi correspond to the lower heating value of
the proposed gasification model to verify the current methodology
the producer gas and the heating value of each fuel in the gas
and computational implementation. The model was adapted to the
mixture, respectively. Similarly, yi represents the volumetric frac-
thermochemical conversion of extra-heavy oils, such as Ori-
tion of each producer gas component.
mulsion™. Table 3 presents the gasifier operating conditions and
For a more comprehensive analysis of the gasification process,
the characterization of the feedstock used for model verification.
two different gasification agents (O2 and air/steam mixture) were
Table 4 presents a comparison of the results obtained by the
used. When using air or O2 as the GA, it is necessary to consider
simulation model employed in this study and the work developed
different values for ER, which is defined as the ratio between mass
by Ashizawa et al. [35]. The main parameter of the gasification
flow of OS and GA at actual conditions, divided by the same ratio at
performance compared is the volumetric composition of the pro-
stoichiometric conditions:
ducer gas in terms of CO, CO2, H2, CH4, and H2/CO molar ratio in the
    producer gas.

m_ A=m_ m_ O2 m_ As can be seen, the results show no significant differences be-
OS OS
ER ¼   ¼  (3) tween the volumetric fractions of the producer gas obtained in the

m_ A=m_ m_ O2 m_ model and those reported in the experimental work of Ashizawa
OS st OS st et al. [35], resulting in an RMS error of 0.0146, which can be
considered as a validation of the current gasification model.
where m_ A , m_ OS , and m_ O2 are the mass flowrates of air, oil sludge,
and O2, respectively, while suffix st (stoichiometric) indicates the
amount of air or O2 required for the complete combustion of OS. 2.2. Gas microturbine model

Gas microturbine model was developed with the GateCycle™

Table 2 software v6.1.2. The hypotheses used for its development [36] are
Chemical reactions.
stated as:
Stoichiometric chemical reaction Enthalpy (kJ/mol)

RXN1 OS / volatiles þ char e  Steady-state regime.

RXN2 H2þ 1/2O2 / H2O 242  LHV and H2 content on producer gas are greater than 8 MJ/Nm3
RXN3 CO þ 1/2O2 / CO2 238 and lower than 30%, respectively.
RXN4 C þ 1/2O2 / CO 111
 For the combustion chamber products, the maximum temper-
RXN5 C þ O2 / CO2 394
RXN6 C þ CO2 )/ 2CO þ172 ature is 951.2
C.
RXN7 CO þ H2O )/ CO2 þ H2 41  Off-design conditions are contemplated by using the
RXN8 C þ H2O )/ CO þ H2 þ131 compressor map developed in Ref. [37].
RXN9 C þ 2H2 )/ CH4 75  Pressure losses are constant on the cold and hot sides of the
RXN10 CH4 þ H2O )/ CO þ 3H2 þ206
regenerator.
4

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza Energy 244 (2022) 123103

Table 3
Orimulsion™ characterization and operating conditions for model
verification. Source: [35].

Operational parameter Value

ER 0.4
Gasifying agent Oxygen
Oxygen and fuel temperature 298.15 K
Reactor pressure 1.9 MPa
Proximate and ultimate analysis (% w.t dry basis)
Ash 0.25%
C 84.28%
H 10.33%
O 0.55%
N 0.64%
S 3.95%
Ash 0.25%
Volatiles 81.71
Fixed carbon 18.04%
Moisture 28.80%
Fig. 2. Gas microturbine schematic.

Table 4
Comparison between the results obtained in the model and the experimental work.

Parameter Ashizawa et al. This work

H2 39.40% 37.21%
CO 38.70% 40.80%
CO2 8.67% 7.47%
H2O 11.85% 13.32%
CH4 0.08% 0.03%
Other 1.30% 1.03%
H2/CO ratio 1.02 0.91
RMS e 0.0146

A schematic representation of the modeled gas microturbine

cycle is shown in Fig. 2, which includes a compressor (Comp), a
regenerator (Reg), a combustion chamber (Chamb), turbine (Turb),
and an electric generator (Gen).
The gas microturbine considered is a Capstone microturbine
model C200, which at ISO conditions (15
C, sea level, and 60% RH)
produces 200 kW with an efficiency of 33%. This gas microturbine
was chosen because it can be operated with gaseous fuels with both
high and low energy densities, such as landfill gas, producer gas, Fig. 3. Life cycle boundaries of OS conversion cases evaluated.
natural gas, propane, and liquefied petroleum gas. The parameters
used for simulating the gas microturbine components at design
Table 5
conditions are presented in Table 5. Microturbine design parameters.
For simulating the microturbine at off-design conditions, the
Parameter Value
compatibility between mass flowrates, pressure ratios, and
compressor and turbine RPM were taken into consideration. The Pressure ratio on compressor 4.0
non-dimensional map proposed by Zhu and Saravanamuttoo [37] Compressor efficiency 79%
Regenerator effectiveness 85%
was used for determining compressor behavior. The turbine Outlet temperature of gases 280
C
modeling assumes that the turbine nozzle is choked over the en- Chamber combustion efficiency 98%
gine operating range, such that the compressor discharge pressure Turbine efficiency 82.5%
becomes dependent only on the flow characteristics of the turbine Generator efficiency 93.8%
nozzle. Following a directive established by the microturbine
manufacturer (Capstone Turbine) regarding the use of gaseous
fuels different from natural gas (off-design conditions), a maximum effect on global warming and climate change. In this way, potential
fuel flow rate of 230.4 kg/h was employed [36]. environmental impacts for four OS treatment cases were evaluated
and compared.
2.3. Life Cycle Assessment of the integrated gasification/gas The first case corresponds to OS gasification process by using
microturbine system air/steam mixtures as GA. For this case, two scenarios were
considered, simulating the OS gasification process with and
Petrochemical residues generated in the oil refining processes without energy recovery through power generation. Both cases
could be more properly managed, if their energy content were consider similar configurations, but the OS gasification process was
recovered, for example, using a thermochemical conversion pro- carried out with O2 as GA for the case with energy recovery. Finally,
cess. In this sense, electricity generation from an integrated OS for comparison purposes, two different cases of conventional waste
gasification and power generation system, as proposed in this treatment (incineration and landfill) were taken into account [38].
work, could lead to a reduction of GHG emissions, having a positive Incineration is a complete combustion process usually used for

5

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza
OS treatment, which is performed with excess air and using
auxiliary fuels [39]. Usually, rotary kiln incinerators are used, where
the combustion temperature may vary from 1250 to 1470 K and the
residence time is close to 30 min [40]. According to Nabavi-
Pelesaraei et al. [41], incineration has been widely used for waste
disposal, as a technological alternative for volume reduction of
solid waste to final disposal, with prior energy recovery. On the
other hand, landfill treatment is a biochemical degradation of OS
through its disposal in soil. Due to its low energy consumption and
associated costs, landfill treatment has the potential to treat large
volumes of OS. However, it requires a very large land area, it may be
ineffective in cold regions, and the degradation times for hydro-
carbons and other heavy organic fractions are prolonged, with low
operating yields [42].
The methodology employed for evaluating the environmental
performance of the OS conversion for the mentioned cases was
based on LCA methodology, and the calculations were accom-
plished by the SimaPro™ v8.0.3 software. A comparative analysis
for the four previously described cases was performed considering
the following assumptions:
 Scope: an estimation of potential environmental impacts asso-
ciated with the OS treatment through a gasification process,
with the possibility of using the producer gas to generate elec-
tricity in a gas microturbine.
 Purpose: a comparison of the environmental performance of the
integrated gasification and power generation system, consid-
ering two gasification cases based on different gasification
agents.
 Functional unit: 1.0 ton of oil sludge treated.
 Impact categories: carcinogens, respiratory inorganic and
organic compounds, aquatic eutrophication, aquatic and
terrestrial acidification, global warming, and non-renewable
energy consumption as impact categories were evaluated.
Allocation of environmental burdens based on system bound-
aries expansion and consequential approaches were also
considered.
 System limits: For this study, the OS gasification process, pro-
ducer gas obtention, cleaning system, and power generation
cycle were considered. The Life Cycle boundaries of the evalu-
ated OS conversion cases are shown in Fig. 3.
2.3.1. Environmental impact evaluation
Life Cycle Assessment allows evaluating the environmental
impacts resulting from system operation (raw materials conversion
and natural resources consumption) and its interaction with the
environment through the release of environmentally harmful
products. In this work, the IMPACT 2002þ V2.11 was assumed as
the evaluation method for Life Cycle Inventory Analysis (LCIA),
which allows assessing the environmental emissions based on four
endpoints categories: ecosystem quality, climate change, human
health, and resources [43]. General parameters and information
about Life Cycle Inventory of 1 ton oil sludge treated by O2 and air/
steam gasification process with energy recovery are presented in
Table 6. Electricity consumption, raw materials, and the main
pollutant emissions from integrated gasification-power generation
systems are considered in the inventory. Additionally, Tables 7 and
8 show the main parameters and life cycle inventory for landfill and
incineration as technological alternatives of OS management,
respectively.
On the other hand, a Life Cycle Energy Efficiency (LCEE) and
Fossil Energy Ratio (FER) were calculated according to Refs. [45,46].
LCEE is defined as the ratio of total energy output to total energy
input. The total energy output comprises useful energy (electrical
6
Energy 244 (2022) 123103
power) and energy contribution from byproducts, while the total
energy input contains both non-renewable and renewable energy
sources used in the whole process, such as fossil fuels, biomass,
wind, among others. The parameter FER is defined as the fuel en-
ergy output per unit of fossil energy used in the overall production
process.
3. Results and discussion
The influence of the different gasification agents (O2 and air/
steam mixture) on the producer gas composition, producer gas
yield and LHV, as well as on the gasification temperature were
analyzed. Although authors like Basu [47] recommend ER values
greater than 0.2, other experimental works on gasification, e.g. the
developed by Zheng et al. [48], show satisfactory results for ER
values close to 0.1. Therefore, in this study, an ER range between 0.1
and 0.5 was adopted. For the air/steam mixture case, a SOR value of
1.0 was considered, favoring the production of hydrogen-rich pro-
ducer gas as reported by Martínez Gonza
lez et al. [34]. Additionally,
the potential use of producer gas in a gas microturbine was
analyzed and the environmental impacts of the gasifier/gas-
microturbine integrated system were quantified through the LCA
methodology.
3.1. Gasification temperature
Fig. 4 presents the gasification temperature variation with ER for
different gasification agents. As one can observe, there is an
increasing trend in the gasification temperature as ER increases, as
previously described by Ref. [49]. According to the results, the
highest temperatures occur for ER ¼ 0.5, corresponding to 750
C
for the O2 gasification case and 693
C for the air/steam mixture
gasification case, while for ER ¼ 0.1, the same temperatures were
495
C and 356
C, respectively. This happens because a greater
amount of GA causes the combustion of a larger portion of the fuel,
leading to higher gasification temperatures [50].
With regards to the air/steam mixture gasification case, the flow
of superheated steam leads to lower internal temperatures of the
process when compared to the O2 gasification case, due to the
presence of an excess of steam that does not participate in the re-
actions. Thus, the balance of endothermic reform reactions is
modified, promoting the formation of reagents in steam methane
reforming and char gasification reactions [51].
3.2. Producer gas chemical composition
The ER effect on producer gas composition for O2 and the air/
steam mixture gasification cases are shown in Figs. 5 and 6,
respectively. Fig. 5 shows that the volumetric fraction of H2 in-
creases and reaches a maximum value of 32.9% at an ER of 0.35, and
then it decreases. This behavior is associated with the shift (RXN7,
Table 2) and char hydrogenation reactions (RXN9), which are
exothermic, such that temperatures above 600
C (which corre-
spond to ER greater than 0.25 in Fig. 4) favor the formation of the
reagents of these equilibrium reactions according to the Le Cha ^te-
lier Principle, and therefore, smaller amounts of H2 will be
produced.
Fig. 5 also shows that the CO fraction has an increasing trend
[52], rising to a value of 28.4% for an ER of 0.4. The CH4 fraction
decreases as ER increases, dropping from 23.1% to 0.3% in the RE
range between 0.1 and 0.4, and remaining near zero for ER greater
than 0.4. This trend agrees with the results reported by Bizkarra
et al. [53]. For temperatures below 600
C, the presence of CH4 is
favored because the cracking of this light hydrocarbon does not
occur and pyrolysis reactions are favored.

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza Energy 244 (2022) 123103

Table 6
Life cycle inventory of 1 ton oil sludge treated by oxygen and air/steam gasification process with energy recovery.

OS Gasification Oxygen e Operation Air/steam e Operation Units Ref.

Product
Oil Sludge Treated 1.0 1.0 Ton This work
Electricity 401.1 406.7 kWh/ton OS
Material/Electricity
Oxygen 65.0 e kg/ton OS This work
Air to Gasification e 126.08 kg/ton OS
Superheated steam e 936.61 kg/ton OS
Air to Gas Microturbine 11.2 10.9 ton/ton OS
Electricity 38.50 38.50 kWh/ton OS [44]
Emissions to air
SO2 11.89 9.18 kg/ton OS This work
H2O 209.58 121.85 kg/ton OS
CO2 778.10 363.66 kg/ton OS
N2 9997.04 9240.82 kg/ton OS
O2 1984.93 2108.91 kg/ton OS
Emissions to water
Effluent 83.37 852.58 kg/ton OS This work
Emissions to soil
Ash 404.78 404.78 kg/ton OS This work

Table 7
Life cycle inventory of 1 ton oil sludge treated by landfill method.

Description Value Units

Oil sludge, treated 1.0 ton OS

Material
Iron (III) chloride 0.103 kg/ton OS
Quicklime, milled 1.75  105 kg/ton OS
Aluminum sulfate 0.0206 kg/ton OS
Sodium hydroxide 9.66  105 kg/ton OS
Electricity/Fuels
Electricity 4.19 kWh/ton OS
Thermal energy (heat) 1.87 MJ/ton OS
Emissions to air
Carbon dioxide, fossil 134.34 kg/ton OS
Carbon monoxide, fossil 0.01025 kg/ton OS
Dinitrogen monoxide 0.0025 kg/ton OS
Methane, biogenic 0.0133 kg/ton OS
Methane, fossil 0.0199 kg/ton OS
Nitrogen oxides 0.03507 kg/ton OS
Sulfur oxides 0.0398 kg/ton OS Fig. 4. Gasification temperature for different ER values and gasification agents.
Non-methane volatile organic compound (VOC) 0.0039 kg/ton OS

Source: database from Ecoinvent available in SimaPro™ V8.0.3.

The effect of ER and the SOR value of 1.0 is shown in Fig. 6. When
compared with O2 gasification (Fig. 5), the main change due to the
addition of steam to the gasification process is the drop in the CO
Table 8 fraction and the increase in the H2 fraction. These trends were also
Life cycle inventory of 1 ton oil sludge treated by incineration method. observed in the theoretical-experimental work carried out by
Description Value Units Sharma et al. [54]. In Fig. 6, the maximum H2 fraction was 38.2% for
an ER of 0.2, influenced by reactions RXN7 and RXN8, while the
Oil Sludge treated 1.0 ton
Material
maximum CO fraction was 3.8% at an ER of 0.35.
Calcium chloride 1.66 kg/ton OS
Iron (III) chloride 1.02 kg/ton OS
Quicklime, milled 0.337 kg/ton OS 3.3. Producer gas lower heating value
Sodium hydroxide 2.46 kg/ton OS
Electricity/Fuels Fig. 7 presents the LHV variation with ER for the different
Electricity 7.79 kWh/ton OS
Thermal energy (heat from natural gas) 19.3 GJ/ton OS
gasifying agents employed. As can be seen, an increase in ER will
Emissions to air result in a decrease in producer gas LHV, following the similar
Carbon dioxide, fossil 114.62 kg/ton OS behavior reported by Kumar et al. [55]. This tendency occurs
Carbon monoxide, fossil 0.0121 kg/ton OS because higher ER values lead to an increase in the formation of
Dinitrogen monoxide 0.0036 kg/ton OS
CO2, since the reactions are closer to the condition of complete
Methane, biogenic 0.264 kg/ton OS
Methane, fossil 4.95 kg/ton OS combustion, resulting in decreasing trends for the formation of CH4
Nitrogen oxides 0.026 kg/ton OS and H2, as reported by Ref. [56].
Sulfur oxides 0.00061 kg/ton OS In the case where O2 is used as gasifying agent, the decrease
Water as steam 0.895 m3/ton OS from 11.2 to 6.4 MJ/Nm3 (at an ER range between 0.1 and 0.5) occurs
Source: database from Ecoinvent available in SimaPro™ V8.0.3. due to the increase in oxidant, which contributes to the decom-
position and partial oxidation of OS and subsequent intermediate
products such as CH4. These values are in agreement with the
7

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza
Fig. 5. Effect of ER on the composition of producer gas obtained using oxygen.
Fig. 6. Effect of ER on the composition of producer gas obtained using air/steam
mixture.
results reported by Vaezi et al. [13] (between 6 and 14 MJ/Nm3),
where a similar feedstock based on heavy hydrocarbon was treated.
For the case with air/steam as the GA, a decrease in producer gas
LHV was also observed as ER increases, reaching values that are in
the range of 8.1 and 2.7 MJ/Nm3. As mentioned, the supply of steam
to the gasification process increases the fraction of H2 in the pro-
ducer gas (thermal cracking and reform reactions are favored), but
the producer gas LHV is reduced when compared to O2 gasification
due to the dilution of other gases such as CO and CH4.
3.4. Producer gas yield
Fig. 8 displays the producer gas yield at different ER values. As
one can observe, the producer gas yield has a growing tendency
with ER for both gasification cases. The main reason for this
behavior is that increases in ER lead to increases in gasification
temperature, which favors the decomposition and reform of the
compounds present in the OS and, therefore, a greater amount of
producer gas per fuel mass unit is produced [57,58].
The producer gas yield for the O2 gasification case ranged from
0.5 to 0.7 Nm3/kg of OS for ER values between 0.1 and 0.5. For the
gasification case with the air/steam mixture as gasifying agent, the
values of producer gas yield were higher (varying from 0.7 to 1.3
Nm3/kg of OS), because of the steam addition, which favors the
decomposition of the heavier compounds present in the OS [59].
8
Energy 244 (2022) 123103
Fig. 7. Producer gas LHV at different ER values.
Fig. 8. Producer gas yield at different ER values.
3.5. Cold gas efficiency
The cold-gas efficiency (CGE) of the gasification process was
calculated considering the values obtained from LHV and producer
gas yield, as presented in In Fig. 9. As can be observed, a decrease in
CGE as ER increases follows, varying from 31.2% to 26.3%, for the O2
gasification case. This effect occurs because higher supplies of ox-
idants favor the production of CO2, contributing to a decrease in the
content of combustible gases in the producer gas.
For the air/steam mixture gasification case, a decreasing trend of
CGE as ER increases was also observed, where the presence of ox-
ygen and nitrogen in the air favors oxidation reactions (formation
of CO2, CO, and steam) and the effect of dilution, respectively. For an
ER range between 0.15 and 0.25, the air/steam gasification case
reached the highest cold-gas efficiency value (31%). The values
obtained of CGE for the two cases are similar to those presented by
Koo et al. [60].
3.6. Electricity generation using a gas microturbine
Fig. 10 shows the electricity generation and microturbine effi-
ciency, for different cases. As seen, feeding the gas microturbine
with the producer gas from the O2 gasification case, results in an
electricity generation index in the range of 0.42 and 0.37 kWh/kg of
OS, whereas operating with the producer gas from the air/steam
gasification case, the electricity generation index ranged from 0.42

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza
Fig. 9. Cold gas efficiency at different ER values.
Fig. 10. Electricity generation and microturbine efficiency.
to 0.39 kWh/kg of OS. For the operation of the microturbine with
producer gas, the constraints described in section 2.2 ought to be
considered. It was not possible to use the producer gas obtained
under certain gasification conditions (for ER values greater than
0.25) since in these conditions the producer gas has an LHV <8 MJ/
Nm3, which can lead to unstable operation of the gas microturbine
[61]. As also seen in as seen in Fig. 10, the efficiencies of the gas
microturbine running with producer gas obtained in the two cases
are very close. This behavior is mainly caused by the similarity in
the producer gas chemical energy, such that the use of producer gas
in the air/steam mixture cases leads to microturbine efficiency
values close to each other for the analyzed ER ranges, between
31.3% and 30.8%.
Fig. 11 presents the obtained pressure ratios for the different
gasification processes. As can be seen, by using producer gas from
the O2 gasification case, the turbine expansion ratio varied from
2.83 to 2.64, while for the producer gas obtained in the gasification
with the air/steam mixture, the equivalent variation was from 2.79
to 2.7. As stated in section 2.2, in the developed model, it was
considered that the microturbine always operates at a condition of
nozzle choke-flow, which means there is sonic flow in the nozzle of
the turbine (expander) [62]. Therefore, the compressor discharge
pressure becomes dependent on the flow characteristics at the
9
Energy 244 (2022) 123103
Fig. 11. Compressor pressure ratio and turbine expansion ratio.
turbine nozzle. Since the turbine expansion ratios obtained were
very close (between 2.83 and 2.64) when considering the producer
gas of the two cases, a small variation in the compressor pressure
ratio was obtained, which changes from 2.94 to 2.75 and 2.91 to
2.81, for producer gas from the O2 and air/steam mixtures gasifi-
cation cases, respectively.
In order to satisfy decreases in pressure ratios, the compressor
must operate at lower RPMs. Thus, when the microturbine was
operated using the producer gas obtained in the O2 gasification
case, the compressor speed varied from 51,656 to 49,909 rpm, as
shown in Fig. 12. On other hand, by using the producer gas from air/
steam mixtures gasification case, the compressor speed lies be-
tween 51,214 and 50,249 rpm. Although the presented RPM values
were close, it is important to mention that these values represent a
considerable drop when compared to the 60,000 rpm of the speed
at the design point.
It is also possible to observe that the use of the producer gas
obtained in the two gasification cases leads to values very close to
speed and pressure ratio in the compressor. Therefore, the isen-
tropic efficiency of the compressor also varied similarly for the two
cases as also shown in Fig. 12, decreasing from 79.0 to 77.4% and
from 78.5 to 77.7% for the O2 and air/steam cases, respectively.
Next, Fig. 13 presents the calculated derating due to the change
of conventional fuel (natural gas) to producer gas, which was
quantified through the approach developed by Efendy and Nurhadi
[63]. For the sake of determining the microturbine derating, a
baseline case was established, corresponding to the gas micro-
turbine operating at the design point and using natural gas as fuel
(Table 5). The power produced in the baseline case (198 kW) was
compared with the power generated in the two considered cases,
for two values of ER, as presented in Fig. 13, which shows a derating
variation from 35.9 to 38.4% and from 36.4 to 40.9%, for O2 gasifi-
cation and air/steam mixtures gasification cases, respectively. Air/
steam gasification showed a greater derating, which is associated
with the lowest electricity generation indexes in the ER range be-
tween 0.1 and 0.15 (Fig. 10).
3.7. Results of comparative life cycle analysis
As stated in section 2.3, eight impact categories were assessed
for OS treatment with energy recovery, considering 1 ton of OS
treated as a functional unit. For impact categories analysis, in both

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza
Fig. 12. Compressor efficiency and microturbine rpm.
Fig. 13. Gas microturbine derating.
cases, a value of 100% was allocated for the gasification case (O2 and
air/steam) with the highest environmental impact. In this context,
Fig. 14 shows the impact categories evaluated for the different OS
gasification cases. As one can observe, the air/steam case achieved a
reduction close to 22%, 17%, and 16% compared to O2 case in the
impact category of global warming, aquatic acidification, and res-
piratory inorganics, respectively. This could be explained by GHG
emissions, NOx, SOx compounds, and particle matter release to air
and water, during oxygen production to gasification process, and
producer gas combustion in an integrated gasification-power plant.
The opposite case was observed in other impact categories like
non-renewable energy, respiratory organics, and carcinogens. In
this case, O2 gasification case showed a reduction of 77%, 85%, and
85% in comparison with the air/steam gasification case, respec-
tively. This reduction is probably associated with the fossil fuel-
based pollutants released to the environment during superheated
steam production, which is used as a raw material in OS thermo-
chemical conversion.
Fig. 15 shows the carbon footprint for the four OS conversion
cases, which are compared with OS conventional treatments such
as landfill and incineration processes. As demonstrated, the air/
steam gasification case reached a lower carbon footprint per ton of
10
Energy 244 (2022) 123103
Fig. 14. Impact categories evaluated for OS gasification cases.
Fig. 15. Carbon footprint for conversion cases.
OS treated (663 kg CO2-eq) when compared to the O2 gasification
case (849 kg CO2-eq). Nevertheless, as energy is recovered in the
form of electricity, the carbon footprint could be reduced to 379 and
569 kg CO2-eq/ton of OS treated for air/steam and O2 gasification
case, respectively, as shown in Figs. 16 and 17. In this way, energy
recovery through an integrated gasification-power plant could
contribute to a reduction close to 43% and 33% in the carbon foot-
print for air/steam and O2 gasification case, respectively.
Finally, LCEE and FER for both gasification cases were estimated
and results are shown in Fig. 18, which displays the energy in-
dicators for both gasification cases. As seen, a total FER of 0.4 and
1.7 MJ output/MJ input were calculated for both air/steam and O2
gasification cases, respectively. These considerable differences be-
tween the two cases could be explained by the higher non-
renewable energy consumption for superheated steam produc-
tion in air/steam gasification compared to that of the O2 gasification
case. Similar behavior was observed when the LCEE indicator was
considered, where values of about 0.3 and 1.2 MJ output/MJ were
estimated for air/steam and O2 gasification cases, respectively.
4. Summary and conclusions
This paper presented an energetic and environmental assess-
ment of producer gas production from oily sludge gasification and

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza
Fig. 16. Specific emissions of CO2-eq for air/steam gasification case with energy recovery.
its potential use for electricity generation in gas microturbines.
Operational parameters and environmental impacts associated
with gasification of residues produced in the oil industry and the
potential use of the producer gas generated in a gas microturbine
were analyzed. In order to assess the OS gasification, a simulation
was implemented in Aspen Plus™. The developed method was
validated by comparing the obtained results with data available in
the literature. The results showed that the producer gas composi-
tion has similar behavior in the analyzed cases due to the combined
effect of the oxidation and reduction reactions that occur in the
gasification process. It was also observed that the molar fraction of
H2 increased with the augmentation of ER until reaching a
maximum value (32.9 vol% for O2 gasification and 38.2% for air/
steam gasification) and subsequently decreased because shift and
char hydrogenation reactions are limited for larger ER values. The
air/steam gasification case presented the lowest values of producer
gas LHV, varying from 9.9 to 3.0 MJ/Nm3 in the considered ER range.
This behavior is associated with the addition of steam, which favors
reform and thermal cracking reactions, obtaining producer gas
with a lower CO content, while higher ER leads to an increase of N2
content in the producer gas, which also contributes to the reduction
of LHV since it is an inert gas.
11
Energy 244 (2022) 123103
The producer gas use in the microturbine indicated that the O2
gasification case can lead to higher electricity generation indexes
(from 0.423 to 0.407 kW/kg-OS) when compared to the air/steam
gasification case (from 0.42 to 0.393 kW/kg-OS), mainly due to
higher producer gas chemical energy. Since the producer gas has a
lower energy density when compared to natural gas, both cases
presented considerable derating values (between 35.9% and 40.9%),
where the highest derating (40.9%) corresponds to the air/steam
gasification case, associated with lower electricity generation in-
dexes. However, the gasification/gas microturbine process is an
attractive option for the treatment and energy recovery of OS
because it has fewer environmental impacts.
The oxygen gasification case presented lower impacts in some
categories (non-renewable energy, respiratory organics, and car-
cinogens), while the air/steam gasification case was favorable in
other categories (global warming, aquatic acidification, and respi-
ratory inorganics). However, both cases reached a lower carbon
footprint per ton of OS treated (663 kg CO2-eq and 849 kg CO2-eq
for air/steam and O2 case, respectively) than other OS treatments
such as incineration (1044 kg CO2-eq). It is important to mention
that electricity generation could reduce the carbon footprint to 379
and 569 kg CO2-eq/ton OS treated for air/steam and O2 gasification,

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza Energy 244 (2022) 123103

Fig. 17. Specific emissions of CO2-eq for O2 gasification case with energy recovery.

respectively. Therefore, it could be concluded that gasification

represents a promising technological alternative for the manage-
ment and treatment of oil sludge since it is possible to produce
producer gas, which could be used to generate electricity and at the
same time considerably reduces the environmental impact
compared to other traditional methods of treatment such as
incineration.

Credit author statement

York Castillo Santiago: Writing-Original draft preparation,

Software, Validation. Aldemar Martínez Gonza
lez: Investigation,
Methodology, Formal analysis. Osvaldo J. Venturini: Writing -
Fig. 18. Energy indicators for both OS conversion cases.
Review & Editing, Resources, Project administration. Leandro A.
Sphaier: Visualization, Supervision. Eric A. Ocampo Batlle:
Conceptualization, Data curation.
12

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the financial
support provided by ANEEL (project: PD-00553-0048/2017), PET-
ROBRAS, CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and to the Human Resources Pro-
gram of the ANP (PRH-ANP n
51.1 and 46.1).
References
[1] Han Y, Wu H, Geng Z, Zhu Q, Gu X, Yu B. Review: energy efficiency evaluation
of complex petrochemical industries. Energy 2020;203:117893. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117893.
[2] Hu G, Feng H, He P, Li J, Hewage K, Sadiq R. Comparative life-cycle assessment
of traditional and emerging oily sludge treatment approaches. J Clean Prod
2020;251:119594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119594.
[3] Chu Z, Gong Z, Wang Z, Zhang H, Wu J, Wang Z, et al. Experimental study on
kinetic characteristics of oil sludge gasification. Asia Pac J Chem Eng 2021;16:
1e11. https://doi.org/10.1002/apj.2616.
[4] Hu G, Li J, Hou H. A combination of solvent extraction and freeze thaw for oil
recovery from petroleum refinery wastewater treatment pond sludge.
J Hazard Mater 2015;283:832e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhazmat.2014.10.028.
[5] Chen G, Cheng C, Zhang J, Sun Y, Hu Q, Qu C, et al. Synergistic effect of sur-
factant and alkali on the treatment of oil sludge. J Petrol Sci Eng 2019;183:
106420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106420.
[6] Zhao C, Li Y, Gan Z, Nie M. Method of smoldering combustion for refinery oil
sludge treatment. J Hazard Mater 2021;409:124995. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhazmat.2020.124995.
[7] Hanchate N, Ramani S, Mathpati CS, Dalvi VH. Biomass gasification using dual
fluidized bed gasification systems: a review. J Clean Prod 2021;280:123148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123148.
[8] Widjaya ER, Chen G, Bowtell L, Hills C. Gasification of non-woody biomass: a
literature review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;89:184e93. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.023.
[9] Watson J, Zhang Y, Si B, Chen W-T, de Souza R. Gasification of biowaste: a
critical review and outlooks. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;83:1e17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.003.
[10] Chu Z, Gong Z, Wang Z, Zhang H, Liu L, Wu J, et al. Experimental study on
gasification of oil sludge with steam and its char characteristic. J Hazard Mater
2021;416:125713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125713.
[11] Sun J, Xing X, He Y, Wang Y, Chen J, Zhu Y. Experimental study on high-
temperature gasification and melting characteristics of the pyrolysis residue
from petrochemical sludge. Fuel 2021;296:120680. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.fuel.2021.120680.
[12] Sharma P, Gupta B, Pandey M, Singh Bisen K, Baredar P. Downdraft biomass
gasification: a review on concepts, designs analysis, modelling and recent
advances. Mater Today Proc 2021;46:5333e41. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.matpr.2020.08.789.
[13] Vaezi M, Passandideh-Fard M, Moghiman M, Charmchi M. Gasification of
heavy fuel oils: a thermochemical equilibrium approach. Fuel 2011;90:
878e85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2010.10.011.
[14] Beheshti SM, Ghassemi H, Shahsavan-Markadeh R. A comprehensive study on
gasification of petroleum wastes based on a mathematical model. Petrol Sci
Technol 2014;32:2674e81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2014.923455.
[15] Fershalov AY, Fershalov YY, Fershalov MY. Principles of designing gas
microturbine stages. Energy 2021;218:119488. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2020.119488.
[16] Kone cn
a E, Teng SY, M
asa V. New insights into the potential of the gas
microturbine in microgrids and industrial applications. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2020;134:110078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110078.
[17] Fareeza N, Tan ES, Kumaran P, Indra TM, Fadzilah N, Yoshikawa K. Evaluating
the effect of syngas composition on micro gas turbine performance. IOP Conf
Ser Earth Environ Sci 2016;32:12042. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/32/
1/012042.
[18] Capstone Turbine Corporation. Capstone turbine corporation announces sig-
nificant progress in microturbine hydrogen testing3. Capstone Green Energy;
2020. June 25, 2021, https://www.capstonegreenenergy.com/info/news/
press-releases/detail/3799/.
[19] Diaz Herazo RE, Valencia Ochoa GE, Ruiz YP. Exergoeconomic analysis of a
syngas micro turbine cogeneration system. Chem Eng Trans 2018;65:655e60.
https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1865110.
[20] Corre^a PSP, Zhang J, Lora EES, Andrade RV, de Mello e Pinto LR, Ratner A.
Experimental study on applying biomass-derived syngas in a microturbine.
Appl Therm Eng 2019;146:328e37. https://doi.org/10.1016/
13
Energy 244 (2022) 123103
j.applthermaleng.2018.09.123.
[21] Amaro J, Mendiburu AZ, de Carvalho JA. Thermodynamic study of syngas
combustion in gas microturbines with regeneration composed with metallic
and ceramic materials. Appl Therm Eng 2019;157:113285. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.01.105.
[22] Ocampo Batlle EA, Castillo Santiago Y, Venturini OJ, Escobar Palacio JC, Silva
Lora EE, Yepes Maya DM, et al. Thermodynamic and environmental assess-
ment of different scenarios for the insertion of pyrolysis technology in palm
oil biorefineries. J Clean Prod 2020;250:119544. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.119544.
[23] Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Kaab A, Hosseini-Fashami F, Mostashari-Rad F, Chau K-
W. Life cycle assessment (LCA) approach to evaluate different waste man-
agement opportunities. In: Singh RP, Prasad V, Barkha V, editors. Adv. Waste-
to-Energy technol. first ed. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press; 2019. p. 195e216.
[24] Mostashari-Rad F, Ghasemi-Mobtaker H, Taki M, Ghahderijani M, Kaab A,
Chau K wing, et al. Exergoenvironmental damages assessment of horticultural
crops using ReCiPe2016 and cumulative exergy demand frameworks. J Clean
Prod 2021;278:123788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123788.
[25] Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Azadi H, Van Passel S, Saber Z, Hosseini-Fashami F,
Mostashari-Rad F, et al. Prospects of solar systems in production chain of
sunflower oil using cold press method with concentrating energy and life
cycle assessment. Energy 2021;223:120117. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2021.120117.
[26] Dovichi Filho FB, Castillo Santiago Y, Silva Lora EE, Escobar Palacio JC, Almazan
del Olmo OA. Evaluation of the maturity level of biomass electricity genera-
tion technologies using the technology readiness level criteria. J Clean Prod
2021;295:126426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126426.
[27] Venturini OJ, Corre ^a Furtado Júnior J, Escobar Palacio JC, Ocampo Batlle EA,
Carvalho M, Silva Lora EE. Indicators for sustainability assessment of biofuel:
economic, environmental, social and technological dimensions. In: Ren J,
Scipioni A, Manzardo A, Liang H, editors. Biofuels a more sustain. Futur. first
ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2019. p. 550.
[28] AspenTech. Aspen - process simulation for chemicals. 2018.
[29] Lan W, Chen G, Zhu X, Wang X, Liu C, Xu B. Biomass gasification-gas turbine
combustion for power generation system model based on ASPEN PLUS. Sci
Total Environ 2018;628e629:1278e86. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2018.02.159.
[30] Al-malah K. Aspen Plus: chemical engineering applications. first ed. New
Jersey: Wiley Online Library; 2016.
[31] Haydary J. Chemical process design and simulation: aspen Plus and aspen
hysys applications. first ed. Wiley; 2019.
[32] Tungalag A, Lee B, Yadav M, Akande O. Yield prediction of MSW gasification
including minor species through ASPEN plus simulation. Energy 2020;198:
117296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117296.
[33] Rupesh S, Muraleedharan C, Arun P. ASPEN plus modelling of airesteam
gasification of biomass with sorbent enabled CO2 capture. Resour Technol
2016;2:94e103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reffit.2016.07.002.
[34] Martínez Gonza
lez A, Silva Lora EE, Escobar Palacio JC, Almaza
n del Olmo OA.
Hydrogen production from oil sludge gasification/biomass mixtures and po-
tential use in hydrotreatment processes. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43:
7808e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.025.
[35] Ashizawa M, Hara S, Kidoguchi K, Inumaru J. Gasification characteristics of
extra-heavy oil in a research-scale gasifier. Energy 2005;30:2194e205.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2004.08.023.
[36] Castillo Santiago Y, Martínez Gonza
lez A, Venturini OJ, Yepes Maya DM.
Assessment of the energy recovery potential of oil sludge through gasification
aiming electricity generation. Energy 2021;215:119210. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2020.119210.
[37] Zhu P, Saravanamuttoo HIH. Simulation of an advanced twin-spool industrial
gas turbine. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 1992;114:180e5. https://doi.org/
10.1115/1.2906568.
[38] Cherubini F, Bargigli S, Ulgiati S. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste man-
agement strategies: landfilling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy
2009;34:2116e23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.08.023.
[39] Johnson OA, Affam AC. Petroleum sludge treatment and disposal: a review.
Environ Eng Res 2019;24:191e201. https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2018.134.
[40] Zhou L, Jiang X, Liu J. Characteristics of oily sludge combustion in circulating
fluidized beds. J Hazard Mater 2009;170:175e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhazmat.2009.04.109.
[41] Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Bayat R, Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Afrasyabi H, Chau K
wing. Modeling of energy consumption and environmental life cycle assess-
ment for incineration and landfill systems of municipal solid waste man-
agement - a case study in Tehran Metropolis of Iran. J Clean Prod 2017;148:
427e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.172.
[42] Aguelmous A, El Fels L, Souabi S, Zamama M, Yasri A, Lebrihi A, et al. Petro-
leum sludge bioremediation and its toxicity removal by landfill in gunder
semi-arid conditions. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2018;166:482e7. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.09.106.
[43] Khanali M, Akram A, Behzadi J, Mostashari-Rad F, Saber Z, Chau K wing, et al.
Multi-objective optimization of energy use and environmental emissions for
walnut production using imperialist competitive algorithm. Appl Energy
2021;284:116342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116342.
[44] Martínez Gonz
alez A, Silva Lora EE, Escobar Palacio JC. Syngas production
from oil sludge gasification and its potential use in power generation systems:
an energy and exergy analysis. Energy 2019;169:1175e90. https://doi.org/

lez, O.J. Venturini et al.
Y. Castillo Santiago, A. Martínez Gonza
10.1016/j.energy.2018.11.087.
[45] Va
squez MC, Martínez A, Castillo EF, Silva EE. Holistic approach for sustain-
ability enhancing of hydrotreated aviation biofuels, through life cycle
assessment: a Brazilian case study. J Clean Prod 2019;237:117796. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117796.
[46] Malça J, Freire F. Renewability and life-cycle energy efficiency of bioethanol
and bio-ethyl tertiary butyl ether (bioETBE): assessing the implications of
allocation. Energy 2006;31:3362e80. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2006.03.013.
[47] Basu P. Gasification theory and modeling of gasifiers. In: Basu P, editor.
Biomass gasif. Pyrolysis pract. Des. first ed. Boston: Academic Press; 2010.
p. 117e65. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374988-8.00005-2.
[48] Zheng J-L, Zhu M-Q, Wen J-L, Sun R. Gasification of bio-oil: effects of equiv-
alence ratio and gasifying agents on product distribution and gasification
efficiency. Bioresour Technol 2016;211:164e72. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2016.03.088.
[49] Ma Z, Ye J, Zhao C, Zhang Q. Gasification of rice husk in a downdraft gasifier:
the effect of equivalence ratio on the gasification performance, properties, and
utilization analysis of byproducts of char and tar. Bioresources 2015;10:
2888e902. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.10.2.2888-2902.
[50] Singh DK, Tirkey JV. Modeling and multi-objective optimization of variable air
gasification performance parameters using Syzygium cumini biomass by
integrating ASPEN Plus with Response surface methodology (RSM). Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2021;46:18816e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2021.03.054.
[51] Herna
ndez JJ, Aranda G, Barba J, Mendoza JM. Effect of steam content in the
airesteam flow on biomass entrained flow gasification. Fuel Process Technol
2012;99:43e55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2012.01.030.
[52] Mazzoni L, Janajreh I, Elagroudy S, Ghenai C. Modeling of plasma and
entrained flow co-gasification of MSW and petroleum sludge. Energy
2020;196:117001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117001.
[53] Bizkarra K, Barrio VL, Arias PL, Cambra JF. Biomass fast pyrolysis for hydrogen
production from bio-oil. In: Sankir M, Sankiri ND, editors. Hydrog. Prod.
Technol. first ed. Wiley Online Library; 2017. p. 305e62. https://doi.org/
10.1002/9781119283676.
[54] Sharma T, Maya DMY, Nascimento FRM, Shi Y, Ratner A, Silva Lora EE, et al. An
14
Energy 244 (2022) 123103
experimental and theoretical study of the gasification of miscanthus bri-
quettes in a double-stage downdraft gasifier: syngas, tar, and biochar char-
acterization. Energies 2018;11:3225. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11113225.
[55] Kumar A, Jones DD, Hanna MA. Thermochemical biomass gasification: a re-
view of the current status of the technology. Energies 2009;2:556e81. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en20300556.
[56] Khosasaeng T, Suntivarakorn R. Effect of equivalence ratio on an efficiency of
single throat downdraft gasifier using RDF from municipal solid waste. Energy
Proc 2017;138:784e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.10.066.
[57] Richardson Y, Drobek M, Julbe A, Blin J, Pinta F. Biomass gasification to pro-
€ cker M, Sukumaran R, editors. Recent
duce syngas. In: Pandey A, Bhaskar T, Sto
adv. Thermo-chemical convers. Biomass. first ed. Boston: Elsevier; 2015.
p. 213e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63289-0.00008-9.
[58] Upadhyay DS, Sakhiya AK, Panchal K, Patel AH, Patel RN. Effect of equivalence
ratio on the performance of the downdraft gasifier e an experimental and
modelling approach. Energy 2019;168:833e46. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2018.11.133.
[59] Mohd Salleh MA, Nsamba HK, Yusuf HM, Idris A, Karim WAWA, Salleh MAM,
et al. Effect of equivalence ratio and particle size on EFB char gasification.
Energy Sources, Part A Recover Util Environ Eff 2015;37:1647e62. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2011.555440.
[60] Kook JW, Choi HM, Kim BH, Ra HW, Yoon SJ, Mun TY, et al. Gasification and tar
removal characteristics of rice husk in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor. Fuel
2016;181:942e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.05.027.
[61] Castillo Santiago Y, Yepes Maya DM, Venturini OJ. Evaluacio
n del apro-
vechamiento energe
tico de la borra de Petro
leo a trave

s de un conjunto
gasificador/microturbina a gas. Ingenio Magno 2021;11:78e92.
[62] Wang P, Liu Y. Unsteady flow behavior of a steam turbine control valve in the
choked condition: field measurement, detached eddy simulation and acoustic
modal analysis. Appl Therm Eng 2017;117:725e39. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.applthermaleng.2017.02.087.
[63] Efendi MAA, Nurhadi N. Comparison of an internal combustion engine
derating operated on producer gas from coal and biomass gasification. Int J
Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol 2016;6:385e9. https://doi.org/10.18517/
ijaseit.6.3.809.