See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/360242531

Syngas production from fast pyrolysis and steam gasification of mixed food
waste

Article in Waste Management & Research · April 2022

DOI: 10.1177/0734242X221093948

CITATIONS READS

2 94

3 authors:

Dr Dharminder Singh Aayush Raizada

Shiv Nadar University Shiv Nadar University
11 PUBLICATIONS 188 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sanjeev Yadav
Shiv Nadar University
26 PUBLICATIONS 302 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sanjeev Yadav on 26 June 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1093948
research-article2022
WMR0010.1177/0734242X221093948Waste Management & ResearchSingh et al.

Original Article

Waste Management & Research

Syngas production from fast pyrolysis and

1­–7
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
steam gasification of mixed food waste sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X221093948
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X221093948
journals.sagepub.com/home/wmr

Dharminder Singh , Aayush Raizada and Sanjeev Yadav

Abstract
Food waste generation is a worldwide phenomenon and disposing off it in an environmentally benign way has been a challenge.
Thermochemical processes have the potential for not only processing mixed food waste effectively from an environmental point
of view but also producing bioenergy in all three forms: solid (biochar), liquid (bio-oil) and gas (syngas). In this study, two
thermochemical processes – fast pyrolysis and steam gasification – aimed for producing syngas as main product were carried out
at three different temperatures: 600°C, 700°C and 800°C, and resulting syngas was characterised and compared for syngas yield,
syngas composition, hydrogen yield and high heating value (HHV). The steam flow rate (SFR) was maintained at 0.625 mL min−1 for
all gasification experiments. The syngas yield obtained from steam gasification was higher (1.2 m3 kg−1) than the syngas yield from
fast pyrolysis (0.81 m3 kg−1). In addition, the hydrogen fraction was much higher in syngas from steam gasification (63.58%) than
that from fast pyrolysis (45.03%). Furthermore, carbon conversion efficiency (CCE) and apparent thermal efficiency (ATE) were
determined to compare the performance of these two processes. CCE was higher (63.6%) for steam gasification than that for pyrolysis
(52.3%) which suggested that steam gasification was much more effective than fast pyrolysis to produce syngas of higher quality.

Keywords
Thermochemical, pyrolysis, gasification, syngas yield, syngas composition, high heating value

Received 16th September 2021, accepted 1st March 2022 by Associate Editor Rodrigo Navia.

Introduction Thermochemical methods offer all these advantages and,

The generation of food waste is a universal problem and attempts
at reusing and scaling down food waste have been one of the
primary focuses of research in recent times. India is one of the
world’s largest food producers; however, a significant fraction of
that ends up in food waste. According to the United Nations’
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), India wastes food
worth about US$14 billion a year which amounts for approxi-
mately 40% of the total food generated (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2018). Disposing off
such a large amount of food waste in landfills affects the environ-
ment because it causes environmental issues, such as an evolu-
tion of methane and the generation of leachate. Methane
contributes to air pollution and leachate contributes to the con-
tamination of soil and groundwater. Incineration is another
method; however, it generates CO2 in a significant proportion, a
greenhouse gas in itself. Furthermore, composting and anaerobic
digestion are the other alternatives; however, both these methods
are very slow and less efficient. Moreover, they involve more
processing costs as microorganisms needed for carrying out reac-
tions are quite expensive. Therefore, there is a need for a method,
which is fast, efficient and versatile in decomposing all the chem-
ical compounds present in a mixed food waste (MFW) sample.
Versatility is important because there are many compounds in
food waste, which cannot be decomposed by biological methods,
such as lignin and proteins.
additionally, can produce energy in an environmentally benign
way. Energy in all three forms (biochar, bio-oil and syngas) can
be produced from various thermochemical methods; however,
for producing syngas, fast pyrolysis and gasification are pre-
ferred (Nachenius et al., 2013). Fast pyrolysis is a simple heating
of biomass at 600°C or higher temperature in the absence of any
reaction agents, whereas gasification is heating of biomass at or
greater than 600°C temperature in the presence of reaction
agents, such as air, oxygen, steam or a combination of them.
However, in this work, steam was used as gasifying agent. Steam
helps to achieve higher hydrogen fraction in syngas by promot-
ing water gas reaction, water gas shift reaction and reforming
reaction. In addition, temperature influences the production of
syngas and its quality from these processes. It was reported that,
for pyrolysis, the gas yield increased with an increase in tempera-
ture, and for gasification with steam, not only gas yield increased
but also the hydrogen fraction in syngas (Demirbas, 2009; He
et al., 2009). Moreover, the fraction of lighter gases in syngas
Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering, Shiv
Nadar University, Greater Noida, India
Corresponding author:
Sanjeev Yadav, Department of Chemical Engineering, School of
Engineering, Shiv Nadar University, Greater Noida 201314, India.
Email: sy567@snu.edu.in
2 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
was found to be increasing with an increase in temperature (Luo
et al., 2009).
Surprisingly, thermochemical treatment of MFW from the
kitchen was not studied much despite MFW having suitable
physical and chemical properties. Tanaka et al. (2008) proposed
one work that had studied steam gasification of food waste; how-
ever, the food waste used in that work was not real food waste but
a simulated one. In a more recent study (Singh and Yadav, 2020a),
a real food waste sample was used for steam gasification and it
was presented that apart from temperature, SFR had a significant
effect on syngas yield and syngas composition from food waste
gasification. Increasing SFR to an optimal value yielded the
highest syngas yield with the highest hydrogen fraction.
Furthermore, raw food waste has many drawbacks, such as
very high moisture content (> 60%), heterogeneous and hygro-
scopic nature, less mass and energy density, and processing such
wet waste possesses challenges in achieving high conversion and
produces syngas of higher quality. Therefore, researchers have
employed different pretreatment methods for improving the qual-
ity of an MFW sample and then consecutively, achieving more
syngas production with better quality. Duman et al. (2017) used
hydrothermal carbonisation (HTC) as pretreatment, and Singh
and Yadav (2020b) used torrefaction as pretreatment. Both these
works were able to achieve higher syngas yield from steam gasi-
fication than that from untreated food waste. Simple sun drying
can also be used as a pretreatment.
Furthermore, MFW is chemically different from the other bio-
wastes as it contains various other compounds, such as starch,
fats, oils, waxes and so on (Singh and Yadav, 2021), besides
lignin, cellulose and hemicellulose. These additional compounds
may contribute to the production of more syngas of different qual-
ity from fast pyrolysis and steam gasification as compared to syn-
gas from other biowaste. In addition, the characteristics of syngas
from these two processes can also be very different even from the
same MFW sample. However, no study directly compares the
syngas characteristics from these two very common thermochem-
ical processes using the same MFW sample as feedstock.
Therefore, this study conducted fast pyrolysis and steam gasifica-
tion experiments using the same MFW sample and reported a
detailed comparison of syngas characteristics.
Materials and methods
Food waste generated in university dining halls was collected
over 1 week and then sun-dried until moisture content was reduced
to around 11%. The sun-dried food waste was first crushed using
a ball mill and then sieved to maintain the homogeneous particle
size, that is, BBS 8–10 (2–1.70 mm). Nitrogen was used as a car-
rier gas for both pyrolysis and gasification reactions. Steam was
used as a gasification agent for the gasification process.
Physico-chemical analysis of food waste
Physico-chemical analysis of food waste was carried out using
proximate, elemental and compositional analysis. The proximate
analysis determined the moisture, ash and volatile matters con-
tent using standard methods, such as ASTM D-3173-11, ASTM
D-3174-11 and ASTM D3175-11, respectively. Fixed carbon was
calculated by subtracting moisture, ash and volatile matter con-
tent from 100. The elemental analysis included the determining
of C, H, N, S and O content. A Thermo Finnigan Flash 1112
series elemental analyzer was used to do the elemental analysis.
The compositional analysis included the determining of lignin,
hemicellulose and cellulose contents. Lignin content was deter-
mined using Tappi T222 om-02 standard method. Hemicellulose
content was determined using TM I-A11 2001 test method of
Canadian Pulp and Paper Research Institute (CPPRI), and holo-
cellulose content was determined using TM1-A9 2001 method of
CPPRI. Cellulose content was determined by subtracting hemi-
cellulose from hollo-cellulose content. The combined content of
starch, oil, protein and fat was determined by subtracting cellu-
lose, hemicellulose and lignin from 100.
Experimental setup and procedure
Figure 1 shows the laboratory-scale fixed-bed reactor setup that
was used to carry out pyrolysis and gasification reaction. The
whole setup is divided into three units as follows: (1) Feed unit,
(2) Main unit and (3) Gas separation and cleaning unit. Feed
unit: it is the upper part of the setup which consists of two feed
systems; hopper for solid raw material feeding and feeder for
carrier gas (N2) and gasification agent (steam). Steam was gen-
erated by a pre-heater from water fed by a syringe pump at a
desired flow rate. Nitrogen was introduced at a desired flow
rate from the nitrogen cylinder through a pre-heater. Hopper
was provided with a feed valve to control the feeding of food
waste to the reactor. A mesh was placed at the bottom of the
reactor to hold the food waste in the reactor. Main unit: it con-
sists of a furnace and reactor. The reactor with dimensions
410 × 34 × 8 mm3 was placed inside a furnace. Furnace heated
the reactor to the desired temperature and maintained it for the
time needed for pyrolysis and gasification reactions to com-
plete. The furnace has two heaters covering the upper and lower
part of the furnace. Two thermocouples, T1 and T2, were
installed at both heaters. T3 thermocouple was placed in the bed
section and T4 thermocouple was placed in the upper part of the
reactor. Thermocouple T5 was placed in the pre-heater. All the
thermocouples (T1–T5) were the K-type thermocouples, and a
PID temperature control panel was used to control the tempera-
ture at different locations of the setup.
Gas separation and cleaning unit: A liquid–gas separator (GLS)
was connected to the lower part of the reactor to separate the liq-
uid from the syngas. This GLS was connected to a condenser
which was further connected to another GLS. After the second
GLS, syngas passed through a cleaning system that consisted of
an ice tub, two water bottles, one air bottle and a silica gel bottle.
Syngas passed through a ceramic filter before its flow rate was
measured using a gas flow meter. Syngas samples were collected
just before the gas flow meter and sent for analysis in a gas chro-
matography (GC) setup. Food waste pyrolysis (FWP) and food
Singh et al.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.
waste gasification (FWG) were performed at three different tem-
peratures – 600°C, 700°C and 800°C – with a nitrogen flow rate
of 6 L min−1 and SFR (in case of gasification) of 0.625 mL min−1.
Then, 30 g of sun-dried raw food waste sample was taken for
every experiment. The reactor was first purged with nitrogen to
remove any air present in the reactor and then it was heated to the
desired temperature. For pyrolysis, only food waste sample was
fed to the reactor, whereas, for gasification, food waste was fed
simultaneously with steam, and then the reaction mixture was left
to react till the gaseous product kept flowing out. Gases from the
reactor first passed through a GLS to separate gases and moisture
from the liquid product and then through a condenser to remove
condensable gases. After GLS, the gases passed through a gas
3
cleaning system to remove any remaining condensable gases,
moisture and tar. Tar was further collected by a ceramic filter
placed just before the gas flow meter. The gas sample was col-
lected just before the gas flow meter for analysis.
Results and discussion
Table 1 presents the physico-chemical characteristics of sun-
dried food waste. Sun-dried food waste was found to have fixed
carbon around 12%, volatile matters content around 73% and ash
content around 3%. The fixed carbon was less, and ash content
was almost the same as that of typical biomass. The elemental
composition shown in Table 2 exhibited that the food waste
4 Waste Management & Research 00(0)

Table 1. Physical properties. Table 3. Chemical composition analysis.

Physical properties Values (± 7%) Compounds Values

Moisture content (%) 11.31
Ash content, db (%) 3.30
Volatile matter, db (%) 73.26
Fixed carbon, db (%) 12.12
HHV (MJ kg−1) 15.68
Particle size (mm) 2–1.70
Bulk density (kg m−3) 496.64
HHV: high heating value.
Table 2. Elemental composition.
Elementals Values
Carbon (%) 45.23
Hydrogen (%) 6.92
Oxygen (%) 44.96
Nitrogen (%) 2.89
sample had around 45% carbon, quite near to the value of any
biomass.
Compositional analysis showed that food waste had cellulose
around 36%, lignin around 15% and hemicellulose around 1%.
The hemicellulose content was very less as compared to hemicel-
lulose content in typical biomass because it had already under-
gone some thermal treatment during cooking of the food and lost
some of its part there, as it was an easily degradable compound
even at low temperature. Lignin content in food waste was more
or less the same as in other biomass.
Cellulose was relatively strong because of its crystalline
structure and degraded less as compared to hemicellulose at a
low temperature of cooking. However, lignin did not degrade at
all as it had a very complex structure with strong bonds that hold
the lignin units together. Table 3 also shows the presence of some
other organic compounds, such as starch, protein and lipids, in a
significant amount (46.65%) in our food waste sample. Each of
these compounds may contribute to syngas production and affect
the syngas characteristics significantly.
Syngas flow rate analysis
Figure 2 shows the syngas flow rate from FWP and FWG at
600°C, 700°C and 800°C, respectively. It can be noted from this
figure that pyrolysis continued for a longer time at a higher tem-
perature because of more moisture release and devolatilisation at
the higher temperature. Pyrolysis was completed in 8 minutes at
600°C, 10 minutes at 700°C and 12 minutes at 800°C. In addition,
it can be seen that syngas flow rate from pyrolysis was higher and
the height of the peak of the flow rate was higher at the higher
temperature, which can again be attributed to more and faster
devolatilisation at the higher temperature.
Figure 2 also shows the trend for syngas flow rate from FWG.
Syngas flow rate from gasification was less than the syngas flow
Lignin 15.61
Hemicellulose (%) 1.31
Cellulose (%) 36.43
Starch, protein and lipids 12.15
rate from pyrolysis in the beginning, and gasification continued
for a longer time than pyrolysis corroborating that FWG was a
slower process than the pyrolysis. However, on comparing the
gasification time at a higher temperature, it was found that gasi-
fication time reduced on increasing the gasification temperature.
The time taken by steam gasification at 700°C and 800°C was 36
and 27 minutes, respectively. The time taken by gasification at
600°C was very long (more than 1 hour) indicating that gasifica-
tion at 600°C was very slow and not recommended for future
work on FWG. Similar to the gas flow rate curve obtained from
FWP, the flow rate curve from FWG can be characterised by
increasing the height of the peak of syngas flow rate at the higher
temperature.
Furthermore, gasification involves pyrolysis in the beginning
and more pyrolysis at higher temperatures resulted in more syn-
gas flow rate from gasification in the beginning at the higher tem-
perature. Interestingly, the total syngas flow rate from FWG
(which has a contribution from pyrolysis also) in the beginning
was less than the syngas flow rate from FWP. Ideally, this should
have been the opposite, that is, syngas flow rate from FWG
should have been more than the syngas flow from FWP. This
interesting result can be attributed to the interference of gasifica-
tion reactions in pyrolysis reactions and vice versa and thus,
affecting the reactions negatively and reducing the syngas flow
rate.
Syngas yield analysis
Figure 3 shows the syngas yield from FWP and FWG at different
temperatures and it can be noticed that syngas yield from pyroly-
sis is always less than syngas yield from gasification at all tem-
peratures. Syngas from pyrolysis was produced by devolatilisation
occurred due to the decomposition of lingo-cellulosic structure,
lipids, starch and proteins present in food waste, whereas syngas
from steam gasification was produced by devolatilisation and
additional heterogeneous and homogeneous reactions between
char, steam and devolatilisation products. An increase in pyroly-
sis temperature from 600°C to 800°C increased the devolatilisa-
tion rate, which consecutively increased syngas yield from 0.14
to 0.81 m3 kg−1. Similarly, for gasification, syngas yield increased
with an increase in temperature. Syngas yield from FWG was
0.5 m3 kg−1 at 600°C, 0.99 m3 kg−1 at 700°C and 1.2 m3 kg−1 at
800°C. This increase in syngas yield with an increase in tempera-
ture can be attributed to more devolatilisation, which, in turn,
produced more char, and that more charge caused more water gas
reaction to take place between more char and steam.
Singh et al.
Figure 2. Syngas flow rate from FWP and FWG. (a) 600°C. (b) 700°C. (c) 800°C.
Furthermore, syngas yield obtained from the steam gasifica-
tion of MFW was comparable to syngas yield from steam gasifi-
cation of woody biomass; 0.85 m3 kg−1 (Hwang et al., 2014) and
0.75 m3 kg−1 (Schweitzer et al., 2017) at 700°C, and 1.4 m3 kg−1
(Hwang et al., 2014) and 1.0 m3 kg−1 (Schweitzer et al., 2017) at
800°C. Similarly, syngas yield from steam gasification of MFW
was higher than the syngas yield from the steam gasification of
other wastes, such as sewage sludge; 0.57 m3 kg−1 (Sattar et al.,
2014), 0.4 m3 kg−1 (Schweitzer et al., 2017) and 0.66 m3 kg−1
(Nimit et al., 2010)] at 700°C, and 0.9 m3 kg−1 (Sattar et al.,
2014), 0.8 m3 kg−1 (Schweitzer et al., 2017) and 0.99 m3 kg−1
(Nimit et al., 2010) at 800°C.
Syngas composition and HHV analysis
The syngas composition and HHV from FWP and FWG are
shown in Figure 4. It can be observed here that hydrogen fraction
was highest among all gases in syngas. For pyrolysis, hydrogen
percentage increased slightly from 41.72 to 45. 07 on increasing
the temperature from 600°C to 800°C. This value was higher
than the value reported by Ahmed and Gupta (2010) but lower for
other food wastes, such as waste cereal and waste peanuts
(Grycova et al., 2016). CO fraction in syngas also increased with
an increase in pyrolysis temperature. However, the CO2 and CH4
fractions decreased with an increase in temperature.
5
For gasification, H2 content increased from 55.4% to 61.96%
on increasing the temperature from 600°C to 700°C. It further
increased to 63.28 on increasing the temperature to 800°C. This
increase in H2 with temperature can be partially be attributed to
the occurrence of more water gas reactions at higher tempera-
tures due to more char formation. However, the water gas shift
reaction is the main reaction responsible for increasing the H2
fraction at a higher temperature as more CO from devolatilisation
will react with steam and produce H2 and CO2. Moreover, CO2
content decreased significantly from 20.61% to 11.17% with an
increase in temperature, which may be due to absorption of CO2
by CaO in food waste ash and by Boudouard reaction. Boudouard
reaction consumes CO2 to produce CO by reacting with solid car-
bon (C). Furthermore, there was not much variation in CO and
CH4 content with temperature change.
HHVs were also plotted against temperature in Figure 4. HHV
was calculated using the following equation (Waldheim and
Nilsson, 2001)
HHV = ( H 2 % × 12.75 ) + ( CO % × 12.63) + ( CH 4 % × 39.72 )
It can be seen from Figure 4 that there was not much differ-
ence in HHVs of syngas obtained from both the processes at a
particular temperature. However, their values increased on
increasing the temperature. It increased from 11.10 to 12.82 MJ
6 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
Figure 3. Syngas yield from FWP and FWG at different
temperatures.
Figure 4. Change in syngas composition and HHV with
change in temperature.
Nm−3 and it increased from 11.33 to 13.25 MJ Nm−3 for pyrolysis
and gasification, respectively, on increasing the temperature from
600°C to 800°C.
H2 flow rate and yield analysis
Figure 5 shows the H2 yield obtained from pyrolysis and gasifica-
tion at different temperatures. It can be seen that H2 yield
increased with an increase in temperature for both processes. In
addition, it can be noticed that, for all temperatures, H2 yield was
much higher from steam gasification (0.059 m3 kg−1) than that
from pyrolysis (0.30 m3 kg−1). This difference was due to addi-
tional heterogeneous reaction (water gas reaction) and homoge-
neous reactions (water gas shift reaction and reforming reaction)
which caused the generation of more hydrogen from steam gasi-
fication. In addition, the hydrogen yield increased with an
increase in temperature and their difference in the yield.
The highest H2 yields from FWP and FWG were found to be
0.366 and 0.760 m3 kg−1, respectively at 800°C. H2 yield from
Figure 5. H2 yield from FWP and FWG at different
temperatures.
pyrolysis increased due to more hydrogen release during
devolatilisation at a higher temperature, whereas for gasifica-
tion, hydrogen yield increased due to more water gas reaction
(between more char generated at higher temperature and steam)
and from more water gas shift reaction between CO and H2O
(as more and more CO was formed from more water gas reac-
tion; C + H2O–CO + H2).
Carbon conversion and ATE
CCE and ATE were determined to evaluate the performance of
two processes and their values were shown in Figure 6. The CCE
can be calculated using the following equation (Lahijani and
Zainal, 2011)
12Y ( CO% + CH 4 % + CO2 % )
CCE = × 100
22.4 × C %
It is the ratio of volume fraction of carbonaceous elements in
the syngas to solid carbon in biomass. Y is the total syngas yield
from fast pyrolysis and steam gasification. ATE can be calculated
using the following equation (Nimit et al., 2010)
( SyngasYield ) × ( HHVSyngas )
ApparentThermal Efficiency =
( Mass Solid fuel ) × ( HHV Solid Fuel )
It is the ratio of energy from syngas to energy from solid
biomass.
It can be noticed from Figure 6(a) that CCE was less for pyrol-
ysis than gasification at all temperatures. CCE increased with an
increase in temperature for both processes and the highest CCE
values were determined as 52.31% for pyrolysis and 61.03% for
gasification at 800°C. ATE curve is also shown in Figure 6(b)
which indicated that ATE also increased with an increase in tem-
perature for both processes. The highest ATE was found to be
1.32 and 1.96 for pyrolysis and gasification, respectively.
Singh et al.
Figure 6. Change in (a) CCE and (b) ATE with change in
temperature.
Conclusion
In this work, a detailed study on processing food waste using fast
pyrolysis and steam gasification treatment was presented. The
resulting syngas from pyrolysis and gasification was character-
ised for syngas yield, syngas composition, H2 yield and HHV. It
was substantiated that steam gasification produced much more
syngas than fast pyrolysis. Syngas produced from steam gasifica-
tion had a higher hydrogen fraction than syngas from fast pyroly-
sis. It was also substantiated that the syngas and H2 yield from
both processes increased with an increase in temperature. The
highest syngas and H2 yield were found to be 1.2 m3 kg−1 and
63.8% from FWG at 800°C, respectively. HHV for syngas from
gasification was found to be more than the HHV of syngas from
pyrolysis and very close to HHVs from other wastes and bio-
mass. The performance parameters, such as CCE and ATE, were
also determined and their highest values for pyrolysis were found
to be 52.73% and 66.22%, respectively, and for gasification was
47.46.03% and 92.95%, respectively. This work showed that due
to its inherent physical and chemical properties, MFW from the
kitchen could be a potential feedstock for various thermochemi-
cal processes, including fast pyrolysis and steam gasification.
The use of pretreatment enhanced the physico-chemical proper-
ties of MFW and resulted in better performance of fast pyrolysis
and steam gasification.
View publication stats
7
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Dharminder Singh https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2451-3081
Sanjeev Yadav https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4763-1657
References
Ahmed I and Gupta A (2010) Pyrolysis and gasification of food waste:
Syngas characteristics and char gasification kinetics. Applied Energy 87:
101–108.
Demirbas A (2009) Hydrogen rich gases from biomass via pyrolysis and air-
steam gasification. Energy Sources Part A 31: 1728–1736.
Duman G, Akarsu K, Yilmazer A, et al. (2017) Sustainable hydrogen produc-
tion options from food wastes. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
88: 1–10.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2018)
Save Food: Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction 2018.
Available at: https://www.fao.org/save-food/en/ (accessed 15 May 2021).
Grycova B, Koutnik I and Pryszcz A (2016) Pyrolysis process for the treat-
ment of food waste. Bioresource Technology 218: 1203–1207.
He M, Xiao B, Lu S, et al. (2009) Hydrogen rich gas from catalytic steam
gasification of municipal solid waste (MSW): Influence of steam to MSW
ratio and weight hourly space velocity on gas production and combustion.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34: 2174–2183.
Hwang I, Kobayashi J and Kawamoto K (2014) Characterization of products
obtained from pyrolysis and steam gasification of wood waste, RDF, and
RPF. Waste Management 34: 402–410.
Lahijani P and Zainal ZA (2011) Gasification of palm empty fruit bunch
in a bubbling fluidized bed: A Performance and Agglomeration Study.
Bioresource Technology 102: 2068–2076.
Luo S, Xiao B, Guo X, et al. (2009) Hydrogen rich gas from catalytic steam
gasification of biomass in a fixed bed reactor: Influence of particle size
on gasification performance. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
34: 1260–1264.
Nachenius R, Ronsse F, Venderbosch R, et al. (2013) Biomass pyrolysis.
Advanced Chemical Engineering 42: 75–139.
Nimit N, Islam IA, Somrat K, et al. (2010) Hydrogen and syngas produc-
tion from sewage sludge via steam gasification. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 35: 11738–11745.
Sattar A, Leeke GA, Hornung A, et al. (2014) Steam gasification of rape-
seed, wood, sewage sludge, and miscanthus biochars for the production of
hydrogen rich syngas. Biomass and Bioenergy 69: 276–286.
Schweitzer D, Gredinger A, Schmid M, et al. (2017) Steam gasification of
wood pellets, sewage sludge and manure: Gasification performance and
concentration of impurities. Biomass and Bioenergy 111: 308–319.
Singh D and Yadav S (2021) Evaluation of the physico-chemical develop-
ment of kitchen food wastes through torrefaction – A Biodiversity Case
Study. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery 11: 1353–1362.
Singh D and Yadav S (2020a) Low temperature steam gasification to produce
hydrogen rich gas from kitchen food waste: Influence of steam flow rate and
temperature. International Journal of Hydrogen Enery 45: 20843–20850.
Singh D and Yadav S (2020b) Steam gasification with torrefaction as pre-
treatment to enhance syngas production. Journal of Environmental
Chemical Engineering 9: 104722.
Tanaka M, Ozaki H, Ando A, et al. (2008) Basic characteristics of food waste
and food ash on steam gasification. Industrial Engineering Chemistry
Research 47: 2414–2419.
Waldheim L and Nilsson T (2001) Heating value of gases from biomass
gasification (Report prepared for: IEA Bioenergy Agreement, Task, 20).
Available at: https://www.ieatask33.org/app/webroot/files/file/publica-
tions/HeatingValue.pdf