Waste Management 174 (2024) 153–163

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Research Paper

Municipal solid waste gasification by hot recycling blast furnace gas

coupled with in-situ decarburization to prepare blast furnace injection of
hydrogen-rich gas
Linbo Qin a, b, Jiyuan Fang a, Shiquan Zhu a, Bo Zhao a, Jun Han a, b, *
a
College of Resources and Environment Engineering, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430081, PR China
b
Hubei Provincial Industrial Safety Engineering Technology Research Center, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430081, PR China

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

Keywords: Waste-to-energy is one of the most effective methods to save energy and reduce carbon emissions. This paper
H2-rich syngas proposes a novel process of municipal solid waste (MSW) gasification by hot recycling blast furnace gas (BFG)
MSW gasification coupled with in-situ decarburization to prepare blast furnace injection of hydrogen-rich gas. MSW gasification by
Recycling blast furnace gas
the hot BFG is conducted by using Aspen Plus software coupled with equilibrium model or kinetic model.
Carbon reduction
Compared to the equilibrium model, kinetic simulation results exhibit good agreement with the experimental
results. Moreover, the technological analysis is also performed to investigate the coupled effects of gasification
temperature, MSW/BFG ratio, and steam/MSW ratio on the H2-rich syngas generated from MSW gasification.
The results reveal that all the investigated influencing factors have been found with a significant effect on the H2-
rich syngas formation. The 25.95 vol% of H2 and 37.20 vol% of CO during MSW gasification by the hot BFG are
achieved at a gasification temperature of 900 ◦ C, steam/MSW ratio of 0.46 kg/kg, and MSW/BFG ratio of 0.34
kg/Nm3.

1. Introduction
China has promised to peak its carbon emissions by 2030 and achieve
carbon neutrality by 2060 (Shen et al., 2021). The iron and steel in­
dustry is regarded as one of the most carbon-emitting and energy-
intensive processes in China. Blast furnace (BF) plays a significant role
in iron-making, accounting for approximately 48 % of the total energy
consumption while contributing to about 70 % of CO2 emissions from
the iron and steel industry in China (Wang et al., 2022; Zaini et al.,
2023). The steel industry also proposed to achieve its carbon emissions
peak before 2025 and further reduce carbon emissions by 30 % from
their peak in 2030. Coke derived from coking coal is an essential raw
material in BF, which is used as a reducing agent, a fuel, and an indis­
pensable support (Qin et al., 2020). However, the use of coke released
lots of CO2 in blast furnace gas (BFG). Therefore, coke conservation and
decarburization of BFG will be the main focus areas for achieving carbon
peak and carbon neutrality in the BF ironmaking process (Zhang et al.,
2022).
With the development of BF smelting technology, traditional energy-
saving technologies such as high-temperature hot air, oxygen-rich coal
injection, and top-pressure operation in BF ironmaking have extremely
limited to carbon reduction effects (Liu and Shen, 2021; Wang et al.,
2023). Hydrogen-rich smelting is considered to be one of the effective
approaches for low-carbon ironmaking in BF. The hydrogen-rich
smelting is to inject hydrogen-rich gases in BF such as hydrogen, natu­
ral gas, and coke oven gas (Li et al., 2022; Liu and Shen, 2021). It is
reported that the reduction ability of H2 is stronger than that of CO,
which resulted in the H2 concentration required for iron reduction is
lower than that of CO at the same temperature (Jiao et al., 2023).
Meanwhile, the thermal conductivity of H2 is also much higher than that
of CO. The use of H2 for iron reduction has a faster heat transfer rate
compared with CO, which is conducive to enhancing the reduction re­
action rate (Bailera, 2023). H2 promotes the indirect reduction reaction
of iron and reduces the direct reduction of iron by coke, thereby

Abbreviations: MSW, Municipal solid waste; BFG, Blast furnace gas; BF, Blast furnace; LHV, Lower heating value; CGE, Cold gas efficiency; RMS, Root mean
square.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: qinlinbo@wust.edu.cn (L. Qin), 1277305191@qq.com (J. Fang), zhushiquan666@163.com (S. Zhu), zhaobo87@wust.edu.cn (B. Zhao),
hanjun@wust.edu.cn (J. Han).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2023.12.002
Received 21 August 2023; Received in revised form 8 November 2023; Accepted 1 December 2023
Available online 5 December 2023
0956-053X/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Qin et al.
reducing the coke consumption (Li et al., 2023). However, there is an
appropriate amount for injecting hydrogen-rich gas since coke is an
indispensable support in the blast furnace (Zhao et al., 2023). Mean­
while, a large amount of injecting hydrogen-rich gas reduces the race­
way adiabatic flame temperature in BF, which limited the coke
replacement by sole injecting hydrogen-rich gas (Perpiñán et al.,
2023a). In order to reach carbon emission reduction and carbon
neutrality, it is necessary to design mutual coupling technologies for
carbon reduction such as renewable energy utilization, hydrogen-rich
gas injection, recycling of BFG and CO2 reforming of BFG (Perpiñán
et al., 2023b).
Municipal solid waste (MSW) is recognized as one of the renewable
energy source with the capability to facilitate the energy cycle and
expedite the achievement of the “carbon neutrality” objective (Ferreira
et al., 2021; Han et al., 2021). In China, MSW production was about 240
million tons in 2022 (Tezer et al., 2023). Waste-to-energy is regarded as
one of the most effective methods to save energy and reduce carbon
emissions (Qin et al., 2023b; Singh et al., 2022). At present, waste-to-
energy technologies for MSW disposal mainly include incineration and
pyrolysis/gasification (Han et al., 2017; Hercog et al., 2023; Song et al.,
2023; Song et al., 2021). In order to reduce the potential emission of
dioxin and heavy metals, incineration is gradually limited (Zhang et al.,
2023; Zhao et al., 2010). Pyrolysis/gasification technology is considered
to be one of the most promising technologies for the production of
hydrogen-rich syngas due to its less pollution emissions and a higher
energy conversion efficiency (de Oliveira Brotto et al., 2023; Kombe
et al., 2022; Sajid et al., 2022; Song et al., 2023). However, MSW gasi­
fication is an endothermic process, and high-temperature heat sources
has to be continuously supplied for the reactor during MSW gasification
process, which resulted in energy consumption as well as CO2 emissions
(Luo et al., 2017; Qin et al., 2023a).
To overcome the above problems, a novel process of municipal solid
waste (MSW) gasification by hot recycling blast furnace gas coupled
Fig. 1. A process of MSW gasification by recycling hot BFG.
154
Waste Management 174 (2024) 153–163
with in-situ decarburization to prepare blast furnace injection of
hydrogen-rich gas is proposed, as shown in Fig. 1. In brifely, the MSW
gasification is conducted in a updraft gasifier, which is used to produce
H2-rich syngas. Recycling hot BFG extracted from BF is used as the
gasification agent for the MSW gasification that can provide a high-
temperature heat sources since the temperature of the recycling hot
BFG is as high as 1000–––1100 ◦ C. Meanwhile, the produced H2-rich
syngas can be injected into the BF. The proposed process offers several
advantages. (1) it is regarded as a feasible and low-cost method,
requiring only minor modifications to the BF operation. Additionally,
MSW is a solid waste with abundant and cheap, and waste-to-energy is
one of the most effective methods to save fossil fuels with the capability
to facilitate the energy cycle, which can be used as an alternative energy
for generating hydrogen-rich gas and reducing the CO2 emission
compared with fossil fuels utilization (Tezer et al., 2023; Zhang et al.,
2023); (2) CO2 in the recycling of hot BFG is served as a gasification
agent for MSW gasification, which facilitates the conversion of CO2 in
BFG into CO with achieving in-situ decarbonization (Qin et al., 2023b);
(3) the heat from the recycling hot BFG can be used to provide energy for
MSW gasification, eliminating the need for additional fuel consumption
(Song et al., 2023; Song et al., 2020); (4) the process can be used to
remove ash from MSW outside the BF, which can avoid the ash in MSW
entering into BF; (5) the H2-rich syngas produced from MSW gasification
by hot BFG has a temperature of 500–––600 ◦ C, which should not
significantly impact on the raceway adiabatic flame temperature in BF
during H2-rich syngas injection (Liu et al., 2023). However, the process
parameters and technological impact of the proposed process are
unknown.
At present, two major approaches including Aspen Plus software
coupled with equilibrium model and Aspen Plus software coupled with
kinetic model can be used for simulating the process of MSW gasification
by various gasification agent (Ahmed et al., 2015). Equilibrium model is
constructed based on thermodynamic analysis, which does not require
L. Qin et al.
information of the gasifier and therefore is suitable for preliminary
design and process optimization (Han et al., 2017). Kinetic model is built
on the basis of chemical reaction kinetic parameters and information
about the gasifier, which gives a better interpretation of the proposed
process (HajiHashemi et al., 2023). The aim of the present study is to
evaluate the technological impact of municipal solid waste (MSW)
gasification by recycling hot blast furnace gas (BFG) coupled with in-situ
decarburization to prepare blast furnace injection of hydrogen-rich gas.
On the basis of experimental results from a laboratory scale gasifier,
MSW gasification by the hot BFG in a updraft gasifier was conducted
using Aspen Plus software coupled with equilibrium or kinetic model,
and then the technological analysis regarding the coupled effects of
gasification temperature, MSW/BFG ratios, and steam/MSW ratios on
the H2-rich syngas generated from MSW gasification by the hot BFG are
evaluated.
2. Materials and method
2.1. Gasification experiment
In this study, MSW gasification by the simulated BFG is conducted in
a laboratory scale updraft gasification system (Fig.S1). The experimental
device and the properties of the MSW are described in our previous
study (Qin et al., 2023b). In briefly, the gasification system is consisted
of a simulated BFG supply system, BFG heating system, a MSW feeding
system, a quartz reactor, and a gas analysis system. The simulated BFG is
composed of CO, CO2 and N2, and the volume ratios (CO/CO2/N2) of 20/
20/60, 30/20/50, 40/20,40 and 50/20/30 are used. The quartz reactor
is a 50 mm internal diameter and 1200 mm length tube, the reactor is
electricity heated to 900–––1000 ◦ C, and then the simulated BFG with
0.0225 g/L is introduced into the reactor with a flow rate of 1.0 L/min.
After the temperature in the reactor is stable, particulate polypropylene
is used as the simulated MSW, and about 0.225 g/min is injected into the
reactor. Meanwhile, CO, O2, CO2, H2 and CH4 at the outlet of the reactor
are online measured by a gas analyzer (Gasboard-3100p, China).
2.2. Model development
In this study, Aspen Plus software coupled with equilibrium model
and Aspen Plus software coupled with kinetic model are used to stim­
ulate MSW gasification by the hot recycling BFG.
2.2.1. Equilibrium model
The MSW gasification by the hot recycling BFG coupled with in-situ
decarburization to prepare BF injection of hydrogen-rich gas is devel­
oped by Aspen Plus software with equilibrium model, as shown in Fig.
S1. Detailed simulation specification of the equilibrium model model is
listed in Tab.S1. The model description and assumptions has been
widely reported in previous investigations (Fatema et al., 2022; Han
et al., 2017; Qin et al., 2023a; Qin et al., 2023b). It is well known that
MSW is a non-conventional component due to its complex composition.
The density and enthalpy of non-conventional components are calcu­
lated based on HCOALGEN and DCOALIGT models. MSW should be
transferred into conventional components such as C, H2, O2, N2, and
H2O in the ‘DECOMP’ reactor. The Peng-Robinson function is used to
estimate the thermodynamic properties of the syngas generated from the
pyrolysis/gasification process. The MSW gasification by the recycling
hot blast furnace gas ‘BFG’ and steam is simulated in the ‘GASIFIER’
reactor, and syngas including CO, CO2, H2, and CH4 are produced ac­
cording to the chemical reaction. Finally, the obtained syngas enters the
gas–solid separator ‘SEP’ to simulate the complete separation of syngas
from solid residues. It is worth noting that the heat requirement for
maintaining the gasification reaction is provided by the energy flow
obtained by the complete combustion of the recycling syngas ‘GAS-5′
and excess air ‘AIRHOT’.
155
Waste Management 174 (2024) 153–163
2.2.2. Kinetic model
The MSW gasification by the hot recycling BFG coupled with in-situ
decarburization to prepare BF injection of hydrogen-rich gas is con­
structed by Aspen Plus software coupled with kinetic model, as given in
Fig. 2. Detailed simulation specification of the kinetic model is listed in
Tab.S2. The main assumptions considered in the kinetic model are as
follows (Ahmed et al., 2015; Dang et al., 2021; HajiHashemi et al., 2023;
Vikram et al., 2023): 1) Ash is assumed to be inert; 2) Process is
isothermal and steady-state; 3) Pressure is uniform inside the reactor; 4)
Heat loss in the gasifier is considered to be negligible; 5) All gaseous
compounds have ideal gas behaviour; 6) Tar is assumed to be benzene
(C6H6), toluene (C7H8) and naphthalene (C10H8); 7) Arrhenius kinetics
are considering for each reaction.
MSW and its ash are defined as unconventional components due to
their excessively complex composition. The density enthalpy of MSW
and ash are calculated by HCOALGEN and DCOALIGT models. Mean­
while, the Peng-Robinson function is used to estimate the thermody­
namic properties of conversational composition. When the MSW is
injected into the gasifier, various sequential processes take place
including drying, pyrolysis, tar cracking, char combustion and gasifi­
cation. The drying step involves the removal of moisture in MSW when
the temperature is increased to 100–––150 ◦ C. The drying step is rep­
resented by the stoichiometric RStoic reactor in the Aspen Plus. After
being separated from the moisture by the ‘SEP1′, the dry MSW named as
‘HOTMSW’ is decomposed to volatile components including C, H2, O2,
N2, H2O, C6H6, C7H8 and C10H8. The Aspen Plus yield reactor, RYield, is
used to simulate the decomposition of the dried MSW. In ‘DECOMP’
process, C6H6, C7H8 and C10H8 are considered as the main components
of the tar. Once the volatile components are formed, ‘SEP2′ is used to
separate the volatile materials and char. In order to perform the volatile
reactions, ‘RGIBBS’ reactor is used to simulate the volatile reactions
based on the Gibbs equilibrium. Tar and char gasification reactions are
sequentially simulated in the ‘RCSTR-1′ and ‘RCSTR-2′ reactor. The re­
action kinetics are written in an external FORTRAN code and are
coupled to the RCSTR reactor. The kinetic parameters of the chemical
reactions involved in Aspen Plus software are shown in Tab.S3. The
product syngas enters the ‘SEP’ to simulate gas–solid separation. Sub­
sequently, a part of the syngas ‘GAS-8′ is refluxed to the burner through
the ‘FSPLIT’, and the combustion reactions occur in the excess air at­
mosphere to provide heat for the gasification reaction. Another part of
the syngas ‘GAS-7′ can enter the blast furnace to replace part of the coke
consumption.
To evaluate the technological analysis of the proposed process, the
coupled impact of gasification temperature, MSW/BFG ratio, and
steam/MSW ratio on syngas formation are investigated. The composi­
tions and lower heating value (LHV) of the syngas and cold gas effi­
ciency (CGE) are used to evaluate the technological analysis of MSW
gasification by the the recycling BFG.
LHV is calculated as Eq.(1) (Qin et al., 2023b):
( )
( )
KJ
LHV syngas 3
= 10.79[H2 ] + 12.64[CO] + 35.88[CH4 ] *1000 (1)
Nm
Where [H2], [CO], and [CH4] refer to the volume fraction of H2, CO,
and CH4 in the syngas, respectively.
CGE can be calculated from Eq.(2) (Fatema et al., 2022):
( )
LHV syngas × Vsyngas
CGE = *100% (2)
LHV MSW × MMSW + LHV BFG ×VBFG(1100o C)
Where LHV syngas is the lower heating value of syngas, kJ/Nm3; Vsyngas
is the volume of syngas at normal condition (T0 = 25 ◦ C, P0 = 1 atm),
Nm3/h; LHVMSW is the lower heating value of MSW, kJ/kg; MMSW is the
MSW input mass feeding rate, kg/h; LHVBFG is the lower heating value of
BFG; VBFG is the volume of BFG used as the gasification agent, Nm3/h.
In order to evaluate the accuracy of the equilibrium model and ki­
netic model, the root mean square (RMS) is used to evaluate the error
L. Qin et al. Waste Management 174 (2024) 153–163

Fig. 2. The model of MSW gasification by recycling hot BFG in Aspen Plus with kinetic model.

between experimental and calculation value from the two models, experiment. The probable reason for deviation is that chemical or
which is expressed as Eq.(3) (Loha et al., 2011): thermodynamic equilibrium is not reached within the gasifier (Han
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ et al., 2017).
∑
(XE − XS )2 Therefore, to introduce the kinetic effect on the process, the kinetic
RMS = (3)
N parameters of the reactions are involved in Aspen Plus software. The
calculation values from kinetic model is also compared with the
Where XE and XS are the experimental values and simulated results;
experimental values, as also shown in Table 1. It is observed that the
N means the number of gas species in the syngas.
RMS between experimental and calculation value from the kinetic
model is range of 0.61–––1.90 with average RMS of 1.28. Meanwhile,
3. Results and discussions
the RMS between experimental and calculation value from the kinetic
model for H2, CO, CO2 and CH4 are in sequence as 0.65, 1.39, 0.38 and
3.1. Model validation
0.018, indicating that the kinetic model predicts the gas composition
much closer to the experimental value. Therefore, the calibrated accu­
A proper validation of the simulation results from the equilibrium
racy of the kinetic model can be considered to be acceptable for further
model and kinetic model is an important part in Aspen Plus calculation.
prediction.
Six sets of data from the present experimental investigation are used to
In order to check the robustness of the two used models, the exper­
validate the two used models. Therefore, the simulation results from the
imental data from four references are used, which are related to the solid
two used model are compared with the experimental data, as shown in
fuel gasification in a updraft fluidized bed and downdraft gasifier, as
Table 1. Table 1 indicates that the RMS between experimental and
indicated in Table 2. For the first Ref. (Loha et al., 2011), the steam-
calculation value from equibrium model is range of 1.44–––2.27 with
gasification of biomass was carried out in a fluidized bed gasifier (50
average RMS of 1.80. Meanwhile, the RMS between experimental and
mm internal diameter and 1200 mm length) at 650–––800 ◦ C. Table 2
calculation value from equibrium model for H2, CO, CO2 and CH4 are in
indicates that the RMS between experimental and calculation value from
sequence as 0.92, 3.96, 6.13 and 3.04. It is also found that the calcula­
equibrium model is range of 4.20–––5.52 with average RMS of 4.84. The
tion values of H2 from the equilibrium model is consistent with the
reason for deviation is may be that the equibrium model is mostly
experimental value. However, the calculation values of CO, CO2 and
applicable when the operating temperature is higher than 900 ◦ C and
CH4 from the equilibrium model are lower than that obtained from the
the retention time is longer than the time required for complete

Table 1
Comparison between the simulated results and the present experimental results.
No. Operation parameters Experimental values Equibrium model RMS Kinetic model RMS

CO/CO2/N2 Temp. H2 CO CO2 CH4 H2 CO CO2 CH4 H2 CO CO2 CH4

(vol.%/vol.%/vol.%) (oC) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

1 40/20/40 900 16.53 29.05 16.37 1.20 16.72 26.58 17.63 0.48 1.68 15.81 31.34 16.21 2.33 1.20
2 40/20/40 950 16.99 31.62 15.27 0.61 16.85 29.76 15.89 0.46 1.32 16.77 32.61 15.95 2.32 0.61
3 40/20/40 1000 17.29 32.67 14.4 0.80 16.97 30.93 15.16 0.43 1.26 17.72 33.98 15.19 2.31 0.80
4 30/20/50 1000 16.52 26.03 17.79 1.80 16.04 24.43 14.56 0.49 2.02 14.22 25.45 15.07 2.22 1.80
5 20/20/60 1000 15.42 17.77 17.52 1.38 15.39 17.92 13.31 0.59 2.23 14.19 17.52 15.05 2.24 1.38
6 50/20/30 1000 17.42 41.05 17.25 1.90 17.02 38.24 16.097 0.36 1.81 14.27 41.30 15.12 2.24 1.90

156
L. Qin et al. Waste Management 174 (2024) 153–163

Table 2
Comparison between the simulated results and the experimental from references.
No. Operation parameters Experiment (Loha et al., 2011) Equibrium model RMS Kinetic model RMS

Temp. Steam/Fuel H2 CO CO2 CH4 H2 CO CO2 CH4 H2 CO CO2 CH4

(oC) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

1 690 1.32 50.50 14.30 26.60 8.60 57.63 15.18 26.71 0.21 5.52 54.10 13.22 29.42 2.73 3.76
2 730 1.32 52.20 16.40 23.50 7.90 57.26 16.76 25.64 0.07 4.79 53.94 17.28 25.93 2.39 3.16
3 750 1.32 52.30 17.75 22.25 7.40 57.03 17.50 25.16 0.04 4.61 53.61 19.73 23.97 2.29 2.95
4 770 1.32 54.40 18.50 19.40 7.70 56.79 18.22 24.69 0.03 4.81 53.08 22.41 21.90 2.25 3.64
5 750 1.00 49.50 23.70 21.20 5.60 55.40 21.78 22.45 0.09 4.20 52.82 21.21 23.09 2.46 2.77
6 750 1.32 52.30 17.75 22.25 7.40 57.03 17.50 25.16 0.04 4.61 53.61 19.73 23.97 2.29 2.95
7 750 1.70 52.90 16.40 22.90 7.80 58.28 14.16 27.28 0.02 5.33 54.08 18.77 24.56 2.19 3.21
No. Operation parameters Experiment (Jayah et al., 2003) Equibrium model RMS Kinetic model RMS
Moisture Air/Fuel H2 CO CO2 CH4 H2 CO CO2 CH4 H2 CO CO2 CH4
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
8 18.5 2.03 17.20 19.60 9.90 1.40 19.71 20.77 9.60 0.70 1.44 12.40 20.11 9.21 1.51 2.44
9 16.0 2.20 18.30 20.20 9.70 1.10 19.28 22.56 8.36 0.25 1.50 11.52 19.71 9.40 1.56 3.41
10 14.7 2.37 17.20 19.40 9.70 1.10 17.36 22.03 7.94 0.87 1.59 10.78 19.31 9.61 1.54 3.22
11 16.0 1.96 17.00 18.40 10.60 1.30 20.23 21.37 9.32 0.71 2.30 12.66 20.34 9.07 1.70 2.51
12 14.0 2.29 12.50 18.90 8.50 1.20 18.27 22.54 7.91 1.26 3.42 11.07 19.53 9.49 1.62 0.95
13 12.5 2.36 13.00 19.10 10.70 1.20 17.20 22.38 7.65 0.44 3.09 10.73 19.38 9.56 1.67 1.30
No. Operation parameters Experiment(Vikram et al., 2023) Equibrium model RMS Kinetic model RMS
Temp. Equivalence ratio H2 CO CO2 CH4 H2 CO CO2 CH4 H2 CO CO2 CH4
(oC) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
14 560 0.25 12.72 17.03 10.62 2.33 21.35 25.40 8.53 3.21 6.12 15.75 16.72 11.29 2.61 1.56
15 690 0.29 13.41 18.43 11.49 1.75 22.41 24.91 7.65 0.70 5.89 13.91 15.93 11.71 2.30 1.31
16 760 0.32 13.89 18.55 11.67 1.64 21.67 24.41 7.39 0.12 5.37 13.15 15.55 11.90 2.17 1.57
17 800 0.35 13.12 16.95 13.96 1.37 18.08 22.87 7.22 0.10 5.17 11.85 14.87 12.27 1.95 1.51
18 830 0.39 12.46 15.32 14.25 1.35 14.81 21.23 7.28 0.45 4.76 10.78 14.24 12.61 1.77 1.31

gasification (Loha et al., 2011). When the gasification temperature is
range of 650–––800 ◦ C, the chemical or thermodynamic equilibrium is
not reached within the gasifier (Han et al., 2017). Therefore, the model
may not provide accurate results at 650–––800 ◦ C. Compared with
equibrium model, the average RMS between experimental and calcula­
tion value from kinetic model is decreased from 4.84 to 3.20, indicating
that the kinetic model predictions are in better agreement with the
experimental values. The deviation is likely that the simplification of
reactor developed herein is the not consideration of hydrodynamics
(Loha et al., 2011; Mirmoshtaghi et al., 2016). As for the autothermal
downdraft wood gasification reported by Jayah et al. (Jayah et al.,
2003), the experiments are carried out in a 80 kWth gasification reactor
with 0.92 m inner diameter and 1.15 m long at gasification zone tem­
perature of about 1000 ◦ C. Table 2 (No. 8–13) demonstrates that
modeling errors for the equilibrium and kinetic model are 2.22 and 2.30,
respectively, indicating that both equilibrium and kinetic model are in
good agreement with the experimental values. Vikram et al. (Vikram
et al., 2023) also experimentally studied air gasification of high-ash solid
waste in a pilot-scale downdraft gasifier. The experiments were per­
formed on a 40 kg feed capacity batch downdraft gasifier. Table 2 (No.
14–18) indicates that modeling errors for the equilibrium and kinetic
model are in sequence as 5.46 and 1.45, inferring that the kinetic
simulation results is much closer to the experimental results. The de­
viations for the equilibrium model may be caused by the two main
reasons: one is that the catalytic effect of ash in the high-ash solid waste
is not considered (Luo et al., 2012a; Luo et al., 2012b); another is that
the gasification temperature of batch downdraft gasifier is
600–––850 ◦ C, which results in the chemical or thermodynamic equi­
librium is not reached within the gasifier (Mirmoshtaghi et al., 2016).
Based on the above analysis, the kinetic model predictions are in
better agreement with the experimental values compared with the
equilibrium model constructed in the present study. Therefore, the ki­
netic model is used to evaluate the technological analysis of the pro­
posed process.
3.2. Technological analysis
To evaluate the effects of gasification conditions on syngas forma­
tion, the coupled impact of gasification temperature, MSW/BFG ratio,
and steam/MSW ratio on syngas formation are investigated by using
Aspen Plus software coupled with kinetic model.
3.2.1. Coupled effect of gasification temperature and MSW/BFG ratio
Fig. 3 demonstrates the coupled effect of gasification temperature
and the MSW/BFG ratio on the syngas formation under the steam/MSW
ratio of 0.46 kg/kg. It can be seen that the MSW/BFG ratio has a more
significant effect on the syngas formation compared to the gasification
temperature under the gasification temperature range of 780–––970 ◦ C
and MSW/BFG ratio of 0.30–––0.50 kg/m3. Meanwhile, increasing
gasification temperature (780–––970 ◦ C) slightly increases H2 formation
and suppresses the CH4 formation, while the gasification temperature
has a greatly effect on CO and CO2 formation. The contents of CO and H2
under the MSW/BFG ratio of 0.30–––0.50 kg/m3 are increased, while
the contents of CO2 and CH4 under the MSW/BFG ratio of 0.30–––0.50
kg/m3 are decreased as the gasification temperature increases from 780
to 970 ◦ C. Vikram et al. (Vikram et al., 2023; Vikram et al., 2022) also
reported that an increase in the reaction temperature facilitates H2 and
CO formation while there is inhibition in the concentrations of CO2 and
CH4. There are two reasons caused the above results: one is that
increasing gasification temperature promotes char and tar gasification,
producing more volatiles (Singh et al., 2022). Another is that gasifica­
tion temperature also causes significant variations in gas composition by
affecting the chemical reactions according to Le Chatelier’s principle
(Ma et al., 2023). Increasing temperature promotes Boudouard reaction,
water gas-shift reaction, steam gasification reaction and methane
reforming reaction, which enhances H2 and CO concentrations at the
expense of CO2 and CH4 (Ahmed et al., 2015). The decrease of CH4
content also originates from the methanation reaction, which is hin­
dering CH4 formation at higher temperatures due to its exothermic
(Ajorloo et al., 2022). The decrease of CO2 content results from the
Boudouard and water–gas shift reactions. The increase of H2 is caused by
the tar cracking reactions due to its endothermic at higher temperature
(Fatema et al., 2022).
Fig. 3 also indicates that the MSW/BFG ratio has a significantly effect
on H2 formation, while the MSW/BFG ratio exhibits a slightly effect on
CO, CH4 and CO2 formation. A higher MSW/BFG ratio leads to a higher
content of H2 at a certain temperatures (780–––970 ◦ C). The highest
contents of H2 (about 31.79 vol%) under different gasification

157
L. Qin et al.
Fig. 3. The effect of gasification temperature and MSW/BFG ratio on the syngas production.
temperatures are obtained at the MSW/BFG ratio of 0.50 kg/m3. The H2
contents dramatically increase from 24.10 vol% to 31.79 vol%, and the
CH4 content slightly rises from 1.84 vol% to 2.29 vol% as the MSW/BFG
ratio enhances from 0.30 to 0.50 kg/m3 under the gasification temper­
ature of 900 ◦ C and steam/MSW ratio of 0.46 kg/kg. However, the CO
content is slightly decreased as the MSW/BFG ratio increases from 0.30
to 0.50 kg/m3. For example, the CO generated from MSW gasification at
900 ◦ C slightly decreases from 37.78 vol% to 35.29 vol% as the MSW/
BFG ratio rises from 0.30 to 0.50 kg/m3. Similarly, the CO2 content
slightly decreases from 3.24 vol% to 2.67 vol% when the MSW/BFG
158
Waste Management 174 (2024) 153–163
ratio rises from 0.30 to 0.50 kg/m3. As reported (Loha et al., 2011; Qin
et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2020), the MSW gasification undergoes a series
of reactions to form hydrocarbons in an inert atmosphere, and then the
hydrocarbons suffer from a cracking reaction to form H2 and CO. The H2,
CH4, CO, CO2, and H2O are produced via different chemical reaction
routes during the MSW gasification (Zhang et al., 2023). H2 is mainly
formed by radical polycondensation and dehydrogenation reaction at
higher temperatures (Song et al., 2021). Increasing MSW/BFG ratio may
promotes tar cracking reaction and methane cracking reaction due to
more tar released from MSW pyrolysis, which results in more amount of
L. Qin et al.
H2 formation (Kombe et al., 2022). Meanwhile, the Boudouard reaction
and CO2 reforming reaction contribute to the increase of the CO and the
decrease of the CO2 and Csoot (Pinto et al., 2016). Moreover, water gas-
shift reaction may also increase the CO2 content at the expense of CO
and H2O at higher MSW/BFG ratio since more H2O is introduced into the
gasifier (Liu et al., 2023).
Fig. 3 also represents the coupled effect of gasification temperature
and the MSW/BFG ratio on the CGE and LHV of the syngas when the
MSW is gasified by the BFG under the steam/MSW ratio of 0.46 kg/kg. It
also can be seen that the increase of the gasification temperature is
beneficial for the enhancement of the CGE and LHV. The CGE and LHV
are respectively enhanced from 72.73 % and 7.58 MJ/Nm3 to 86.28 %
and 8.45 MJ/Nm3 as the gasification temperature increases from 780 ◦ C
to 970 ◦ C under the MSW/BFG ratio of 0.34 kg/m3 and the steam/MSW
ratio of 0.46 kg/kg. Meanwhile, MSW/BFG ratio has a significant effect
Fig. 4. Effect of MSW/BFG ratio and Steam/MSW ratio on the syngas production.
159
Waste Management 174 (2024) 153–163
on the CGE and LHV. The LHV is dramatically increased, while the CGE
is decreased as the MSW/BFG ratio increases from 0.30 to 0.50 kg/m3 at
a gasification temperature range of 780–––970 ◦ C. The maximum value
of 87.88 % for CGE is obtained at the MSW/BFG ratio of 0.30 kg/m3 and
the gasification temperature of 970 ◦ C. Wang et al. (Wang et al., 2020)
found the CGE during CO2 gasification of pine bark in a downdraft fixed-
bed reactor is only 56.6 % at 1000 ◦ C. Liu et al. (Liu et al., 2022) also
reported that the highest CGE of 37.9 % is achieved during biomass
downdraft gasification at 850 ◦ C. The above results indicate that the
CGE obtained from updraft gasifiers is higher than that obtained from
the downdraft reactor. There are several reasons caused the above
phenomenon. One is that the syngas production of MSW gasification in
updraft gasifiers is much higher compared to the downdraft gasifiers.
Tezer et al. (Tezer et al., 2023; Tezer et al., 2022) also reported that the
maximum H2 production of 51 vol% was obtained in the updraft reactor
L. Qin et al.
while it only produced the maximum H2 with 45 vol% in the downdraft
reactor. However, CH4 production with the maximum value of 9 vol%
was obtained in a downdraft reactor, while it was 13 vol% of CH4 pro­
duction in an updraft reactor. Another one is likely that the CGE of MSW
gasified by the hot BFG is higher than that of CO2-assisted gasification
due to the synergetic of steam and CO2 during gasification (Ma et al.,
2023).
3.2.2. Coupled effect of MSW/BFG ratio and steam/MSW ratio
It is reported that the coexistence of steam and CO2 is helpful to
increase the yield of syngas and improve the quality of syngas during
MSW gasification (Tezer et al., 2022). The coupled effect of the MSW/
BFG ratio and steam/MSW ratio on the syngas production during MSW
gasification is carried out at the gasification temperature of 900 ◦ C, as
shown in Fig. 4. It can be seen that a higher steam/MSW ratio results in a
higher H2 content, while it has no significant effect on the contents of
CO, CO2 and CH4 at a certain MSW/BFG ratio. The H2 content
dramatically increases as the steam/MSW ratio is increased from 0.30 to
0.46 kg/kg, while the H2 content slightly increases as the steam/MSW
ratio is further increased from 0.46 to 0.55 kg/kg. The above result in­
dicates that steam plays an important role as a gasification agent during
MSW gasification. Lin et al. (Lin et al., 2022) proved that the intro­
duction of steam in the CO2 gasification process could help reduce en­
ergy consumption and promote the decomposition of acid substances to
form H2. Zhao et al. (Zhao et al., 2010) reported that the 12 vol% of H2
and 24 vol% of CO are obtained at 900 ◦ C in the absence of steam.
However, the contents of H2 and CO are respectively increased to 27.50
vol% and 31.70 vol% with the presence of steam at 900 ◦ C. The above
results indicate that the introduction of steam in the MSW CO2 gasifi­
cation is beneficial for forming CO and H2. The reasons are that there are
several chemical reactions including steam gasification reaction,
methane reforming reaction and steam reforming reaction contributed
to the H2 and CO (Ngamsidhiphongsa et al., 2023). Steam gasification
reaction and steam reforming reaction inhibited the CnHm formation and
favored for the H2 and CO formation during the MSW steam gasification
(Dang et al., 2021). Methane reforming reaction was also benefited for
the H2 and CO formation and reduced the CH4 content. Meanwhile, CO
shift reaction may also promote the H2 and CO2 formation (Ajorloo
et al., 2022).
From Fig. 4, it also can be found that increasing MSW/BFG ratio
significantly increases the H2 content and LHV at a certain steam/MSW
ratio. However, the increasing MSW/BFG ratio decreases the CO content
and CGE, while it has no significantly effect on CO2 formation. Fig. 4 also
indicates that the H2 content dramatically increases from 24.10 vol% to
31.79 vol%, while the CO content decreases from 37.88 vol% to 34.99
vol% as the MSW/BFG ratio is enhanced from 0.30 to 0.50 kg/Nm3
under the gasification temperature of 900 ◦ C and steam/MSW ratio of
0.46 kg/kg. Nevertheless, the content of CH4 in the syngas is slightly
increased as the MSW/BFG ratio is increased. The dramatically increase
of H2 may be also caused by the synergetic of steam and CO2. Hu et al.
(Hu et al., 2024) claimed that the H2 formation at different atmospheres
increases in the order CO2 < steam < CO2 + steam. The synergistic
mechanism of steam and CO2 on H2 formation can be explained by the
following reasons (Lin et al., 2022; Pandey et al., 2022; Vikram et al.,
2022): 1) Both CO2 and steam are contributed to the decomposition of
organics and the reforming of tar to form H2 and CO; 2) Steam gasifi­
cation of carbon and hydrocarbons (CnHm) increase the contents of H2
and CO; 3) Steam is beneficial to the formation of carboxylic acid, which
are easily decomposed into H2 and CO through oxidation by CO2 at high
temperature; 4) CO produced from steam gasification and Boudouard
reaction is involved as the reaction substrate in the water–gas reaction to
promote H2 production. Fig. 4 also demonstrate that the CGE decreases
from 83.97 % to 77.85 %, while the LHV increased from 8.04 MJ/Nm3 to
8.74 MJ/Nm3 as the MSW/BFG ratio is enhanced from 0.30 to 0.50 kg/
Nm3 under the gasification temperature of 900 ◦ C and steam/MSW ratio
of 0.46 kg/kg. Kombe et al. (Kombe et al., 2022) also obtained a similar
160
Waste Management 174 (2024) 153–163
result for H2, CO, and CO2. Increasing MSW/BFG ratio resulted in a
decrease in CO2 and an increase in H2, while increasing MSW/BFG ratio
decreases the CGE. Meanwhile, a lower MSW/BFG ratio may result in
lower LHV due to the syngas dilution by excessive BFG. Singh et al.
(Singh et al., 2022) found the increase of CO2 content in the gasification
agent leads to a decrease of 45 % in tar content, which causes an increase
in the CGE. Therefore, a proper MSW/BFG ratio is one of the key pa­
rameters for syngas production during MSW gasification by the recy­
cling hot BFG. Considering the best energy conversion and gas
composition, 0.34 kg/kg MSW/BFG and 0.46 kg/Nm3 steam/MSW are
the optimum operating parameters for the MSW gasification by the
recycling BFG.
3.2.3. Coupled effect of gasification temperature and steam/MSW ratio
In this study, the coupled effect of gasification temperature and
steam/MSW ratio on the syngas formation is also investigated under the
MSW/BFG ratio of 0.34 kg/Nm3, as indicated in Fig. 5. The results
indicate that increasing steam/MSW ratio is increased the contents of
CO and H2, while it is slightly decreased the contents of CO2 and CH4 at a
certain gasification temperature. Regarding the gasification tempera­
ture, the content of CO at a certain steam/MSW ratio shows a substantial
increase, while the H2 at a certain steam/MSW ratio exhibits no obvi­
ously variation when the gasification temperature rises from 780 ◦ C to
970 ◦ C. When the gasification temperature is 900 ◦ C and the steam/
MSW ratio is 0.46 kg/kg, the content of the H2 slightly increases from
24.42 vol% to 27.54 vol%, while the content of the CO also increases
from 35.37 vol% to 38.33 vol% as the steam/MSW ratio increases from
0.30 to 0.55 kg/kg. It is also found that the CO2 and CH4 slightly
decrease at a steam/MSW ratio of 0.30–––0.55 kg/kg. As above stated,
steam gasification reaction, steam reforming reaction and methane
reforming reaction are beneficial for the formation of the H2 and CO at
higher temperature (Sajid et al., 2022). Steam gasification reaction and
steam reforming reaction inhibit the formation of soot and aromatic
compound during the MSW gasification, and favor the H2 and CO for­
mation. Methane reforming reaction is beneficial to the H2 and CO
formation and reduces the CH4 content (Tokmurzin et al., 2022).
Meanwhile, CO shift reaction may also promote the H2 and CO2 for­
mation (Pinto et al., 2016). Fig. 5 also demonstrates that the CGE and
LHV firstly increase as the steam/MSW ratio is increased from 0.30 to
0.46 kg/kg, and then decrease as the steam/MSW ratio is further
increased from 0.46 to 0.55 kg/kg. This indicates that introducing steam
favors for the syngas formation during MSW gasification by the hot BFG.
The main drawback of using steam and CO2 as gasification agents is the
need to supply the energy for endothermic reactions (Wang et al., 2020).
Based on the above analysis, the optimum performance for MSW
gasification by hot recycling BFG coupled with in-situ decarburization to
prepare BF injection of hydrogen-rich gas is observed at a temperature of
900 ◦ C, steam/MSW ratio of 0.46 kg/kg, and MSW/BFG ratio of 0.34 kg/
Nm3. The optimum operation data of H2-rich syngas generation are
summarized in Tab.S4. Simulation results indicate that the H2-rich
syngas with H2 25.97 vol%, CO 37.20 vol% and LHV 8.21 MJ/m3 is
obtained with the producing rate of 3.81 Nm3/kg MSW at optimal
operation condition.
3.3. Energy analysis
In this study, MSW is injected into a updraft gasifier for generating
H2-rich syngas. Meanwhile, BFG extracted from BF is used as the gasi­
fication agent that can provide heat for gasification, and the heat source
from H2-rich syngas combustion is also supplemented into the gasifi­
cation system. Then the additional H2-rich syngas from MSW gasifica­
tion is injected into the BF through the tuyere injection, which can be
used to replace part of coke consumption in BF. The energy flow of MSW
gasification by the BFG in a updraft gasifier is analyzed, as shown in
Fig. 6 and Tab.S5. The unit of energy flow is defined as MJ energy per
kilogram of MSW treated. The MSW gasification process consists of a
L. Qin et al.
Fig. 5. Effect of the steam/MSW ratio and gasification temperature on the syngas production.
heat supplement unit, and a gasification unit, and the total energy ef­
ficiency of the MSW gasification by the recycling BFG process is 81.29
%, assuming that the LHV of MSW and H2-rich syngas are 22.90 MJ/kg
and 8.21 MJ/Nm3, respectively. In the heat supplement unit, 14.70 MJ/
kg of the hot H2-rich syngas from the gasifier is first mixed with 0.39 MJ/
kg air, and then the gas mixture is entered into the burner. The energy
efficiency of the hot BFG combustion process is 73.23 % with an energy
loss of 1.09 MJ/kg. Fig. 6 indicates that there are four flows of energy
entered into the gasification unit. One is that 11.05 MJ/kg of supple­
mentary energy from the energy supplement unit is provided into the
gasification unit. The second is that the MSW with the energy of 27.75
MJ/kg is used as the raw materials that are injected into the gasification
system. The third is 13.98 MJ/kg hot BFG is also passed into the
161
Waste Management 174 (2024) 153–163
gasification system that is used as the gasification agent. The fourth is
the supplementary water with an energy of 0.46 MJ/kg is also used as
the gasification agent with the aim of producing more H2. It is also found
that the total energy of 53.24 MJ/kg is entered into the gasification unit,
and about 50.74 MJ/kg of H2-rich syngas is generated from the gasifier
that is passed into the BF, in which the gasification system has an energy
efficiency of 92.04 % with energy loss of 4.20 MJ/kg. Therefore, around
34.3 MJ/kg of H2-rich syngas can be injected into the BF. The above
results demonstrate that H2-rich syngas generated from MSW gasifica­
tion by the recycling hot BFG has a comparable replacement for coke by
tuyere injection.
L. Qin et al.
Fig. 6. Energy flow of MSW gasification by the BFG in entrained-flow gasifier.
4. Conclusion
In this study, H2-rich syngas generated from municipal solid waste
(MSW) gasification by the recycling hot blast-furnace gas (BFG) is pro­
posed, MSW gasification by the simulated BFG is conducted in a labo­
ratory scale updraft gasification system. On the basis of experimental
results from a laboratory scale gasifier, MSW gasification by the hot BFG
in a updraft gasifier is conducted using Aspen Plus software coupled
with equilibrium or kinetic model, and then the technological analysis
regarding the coupled effects of gasification temperature, MSW/BFG
ratios, and steam/MSW ratios on the H2-rich syngas generated from
MSW gasification by the hot BFG are evaluated. Compared to the
equilibrium models, kinetic simulation results exhibit good agreement
with the experimental results. The technological analysis revealed that
all the investigated influencing factors have been found with a signifi­
cant effect on H2-rich syngas formation. The optimal performance for
producing H2-rich gas during MSW gasification with a total energy ef­
ficiency of 81.29 % is achieved at a gasification temperature of 900 ◦ C, a
steam/MSW ratio of 0.46 kg/kg, and a MSW/BFG ratio of 0.34 kg/Nm3.
The H2-rich syngas with H2 25.95 vol%, CO 37.20 vol%, and LHV 8.21
MJ/Nm3 are obtained with the producing rate of 3.81 Nm3/kg MSW at
the optimal operation condition.
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.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgements
The present work was supported by Hubei Technological Innovation
Special Fund (Grant Nos. 2023AFA004, 2023BCB106, 2022BCA085,
2022BEC004 & 2021BCA131), National Foreign Experts Project (Grant
Nos. G2023027001L) and the “14th five-year plan’’ Hubei provincial
advantaged characteristic disciplines project of Wuhan University of
Science and Technology (2023C0108). We would like to thank the
Analytical & Testing Center of Wuhan University of Science and Tech­
nology for the help on elemental analysis.
162
Waste Management 174 (2024) 153–163
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2023.12.002.
References
Ahmed, A.M.A., Salmiaton, A., Choong, T.S.Y., Wan Azlina, W.A.K.G., 2015. Review of
kinetic and equilibrium concepts for biomass tar modeling by using Aspen Plus.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 52, 1623–1644.
Ajorloo, M., Ghodrat, M., Scott, J., Strezov, V., 2022. Modelling and statistical analysis of
plastic biomass mixture co-gasification. Energy 256, 124638.
Bailera, M., 2023. Comparing different syngas for blast furnace ironmaking by using the
extended operating line methodology. Fuel 333, 126533.
Dang, Q., Zhang, X., Zhou, Y., Jia, X., 2021. Prediction and optimization of syngas
production from a kinetic-based biomass gasification process model. Fuel Process.
Technol. 212, 106604.
de Oliveira Brotto, J., Cruz, T.A., de Oliveira Pereira, I., Ienczak, J.L., Peralta, R.A.,
Lázaro-Martínez, J.M., José, H.J., Rodríguez-Castellón, E., Moreira, R.d.F.P.M.,
2023. Mechanistic insights and kinetics of torrefaction of pine wood biomasses using
solid-state NMR. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 172.
Fatema, J., Ahmed, T., Islam, M.M., Sakib, M.N., Chowdhury, A.M.S., Haque, P., 2022.
Gasification of kitchen wastes in an updraft fluidized bed gasifier and simulation of
the process with Aspen Plus. J. Clean. Prod. 371, 133670.
Ferreira, C.R.N., Infiesta, L.R., Monteiro, V.A.L., Starling, M.C.V.M., da Silva Júnior, W.
M., Borges, V.L., Carvalho, S.R., Trovó, A.G., 2021. Gasification of municipal refuse-
derived fuel as an alternative to waste disposal: Process efficiency and
thermochemical analysis. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 149, 885–893.
HajiHashemi, M., Mazhkoo, S., Dadfar, H., Livani, E., Naseri Varnosefaderani, A.,
Pourali, O., Najafi Nobar, S., Dutta, A., 2023. Combined heat and power production
in a pilot-scale biomass gasification system: Experimental study and kinetic
simulation using ASPEN Plus. Energy 276, 127506.
Han, J., Liang, Y., Hu, J., Qin, L., Street, J., Lu, Y., Yu, F., 2017. Modeling downdraft
biomass gasification process by restricting chemical reaction equilibrium with Aspen
Plus. Energ. Conver. Manage. 153, 641–648.
Han, J., Huang, Z., Qin, L., Chen, W., Zhao, B., Xing, F., 2021. Refused derived fuel from
municipal solid waste used as an alternative fuel during the iron ore sinter process.
J. Clean. Prod. 278, 123594.
Hercog, J., Lewtak, R., Glot, B., Jóźwiak, P., Nehring, G., Tavares, V.D., Nunes, A.M.,
Gaspar, D., 2023. Pilot testing and numerical simulations of the multifuel burner for
the cement kiln. Fuel 342, 127801.
Hu, M., Deng, W., Su, Y., Wang, L., Chen, G., 2024. Production of hydrogen-rich syngas
through microwave-assisted gasification of sewage sludge in steam-CO2 atmosphere.
Fuel 357, 129855.
Jayah, T.H., Aye, L., Fuller, R.J., Stewart, D.F., 2003. Computer simulation of a
downdraft wood gasifier for tea drying. Biomass Bioenergy 25, 459–469.
Jiao, K., Feng, G., Zhang, J., Wang, C., Zhang, L., 2023. Effect of multi-component gases
on the behavior and mechanism of carbon deposition in hydrogen-rich blast
furnaces. Energy 263, 125518.
Kombe, E.Y., Lang’at, N., Njogu, P., Malessa, R., Weber, C.-T., Njoka, F., Krause, U.,
2022. Process modeling and evaluation of optimal operating conditions for
production of hydrogen-rich syngas from air gasification of rice husks using aspen
plus and response surface methodology. Bioresour. Technol. 361, 127734.
Li, J., Kuang, S., Jiao, L., Liu, L., Zou, R., Yu, A., 2022. Numerical modeling and analysis
of hydrogen blast furnace ironmaking process. Fuel 323, 124368.
Li, Z., Qi, Z., Zhang, L., Guo, M., Liang, D., Dong, Q., 2023. Numerical simulation of H2-
intensive shaft furnace direct reduction process. J. Clean. Prod. 409, 137059.
L. Qin et al.
Lin, J., Cui, C., Sun, S., Xu, D., Ma, R., Wang, M., Fang, L., Dong, B., 2022. Enhanced
combined H2O/CO2 reforming of sludge to produce high-quality syngas via spiral
continuous microwave pyrolysis technology: CO2 reforming mechanism and H2/CO
directional regulation. Chem. Eng. J. 434, 134628.
Liu, Z., Lu, S., Wang, Y., Zhang, J., Cheng, Q., Ma, Y., 2023. Study on optimization of
reduction temperature of hydrogen-based Shaft Furnace—Numerical simulation and
multi-criteria evaluation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 48, 16132–16142.
Liu, Y., Shen, Y., 2021. Modelling and optimisation of biomass injection in ironmaking
blast furnaces. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 87, 100952.
Liu, Z., Zhao, C., Cai, L., Long, X., 2022. Steady state modelling of steam-gasification of
biomass for H2-rich syngas production. Energy 238, 121616.
Loha, C., Chatterjee, P.K., Chattopadhyay, H., 2011. Performance of fluidized bed steam
gasification of biomass – Modeling and experiment. Energ. Conver. Manage. 52,
1583–1588.
Luo, S., Zhou, Y., Yi, C., 2012a. Hydrogen-rich gas production from biomass catalytic
gasification using hot blast furnace slag as heat carrier and catalyst in moving-bed
reactor. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37, 15081–15085.
Luo, S., Zhou, Y., Yi, C., 2012b. Syngas production by catalytic steam gasification of
municipal solid waste in fixed-bed reactor. Energy 44, 391–395.
Luo, S., Fu, J., Zhou, Y., Yi, C., 2017. The production of hydrogen-rich gas by catalytic
pyrolysis of biomass using waste heat from blast-furnace slag. Renew. Energy 101,
1030–1036.
Ma, Y., Zha, Z., Huang, C., Ge, Z., Zeng, M., Zhang, H., 2023. Gasification characteristics
and synergistic effects of typical organic solid wastes under CO2/steam atmospheres.
Waste Manag. 168, 35–44.
Mirmoshtaghi, G., Li, H., Thorin, E., Dahlquist, E., 2016. Evaluation of different biomass
gasification modeling approaches for fluidized bed gasifiers. Biomass Bioenergy 91,
69–82.
Ngamsidhiphongsa, N., Limleamthong, P., Chalermsinsuwan, B., Prasertcharoensuk, P.,
Wiyaratn, W., Arpornwichanop, A., 2023. Application of computational fluid
dynamics and response surface methodology in downdraft gasification using
multiple biomass pellets. J. Clean. Prod. 417, 137923.
Pandey, B., Sheth, P.N., Prajapati, Y.K., 2022. Air-CO2 and oxygen-enriched air-CO2
biomass gasification in an autothermal downdraft gasifier: Experimental studies.
Energ. Conver. Manage. 270, 116216.
Perpiñán, J., Bailera, M., Peña, B., Romeo, L.M., Eveloy, V., 2023a. High oxygen and SNG
injection in blast furnace ironmaking with Power to Gas integration and CO2
recycling. J. Clean. Prod. 405, 137001.
Perpiñán, J., Peña, B., Bailera, M., Eveloy, V., Kannan, P., Raj, A., Lisbona, P., Romeo, L.
M., 2023b. Integration of carbon capture technologies in blast furnace based steel
making: A comprehensive and systematic review. Fuel 336, 127074.
Pinto, F., André, R., Miranda, M., Neves, D., Varela, F., Santos, J., 2016. Effect of
gasification agent on co-gasification of rice production wastes mixtures. Fuel 180,
407–416.
Qin, L., Han, J., Zhao, B., Wang, Y., Chen, W., Xing, F., 2018. Thermal degradation of
medical plastic waste by in-situ FTIR, TG-MS and TG-GC/MS coupled analyses.
J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 136, 132–145.
Qin, L., Han, J., Zhao, B., Chen, W., Wan, Y., 2020. Synergistic effect for co-coking of
sawdust and coal blending based on the chemical structure transformation. J. Energy
Inst. 93, 2215–2227.
Qin, L., Zhu, S., Qin, P., Duan, L., Chen, W., Asamoah, E.N., Han, J., 2023a. A novel
process of CO2 reduction coupled with municipal solid waste gasification by
recycling flue gas during co-disposal in cement kilns. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 48,
33827–33838.
Qin, L., Zhu, S., Xu, Z., Zhao, B., Chen, W., Zhang, Q., Han, J., 2023b. Technical
feasibility and sensitivity analysis of medical waste gasification by the converter gas.
Energy 275, 127379.
163
Waste Management 174 (2024) 153–163
Sajid, M., Raheem, A., Ullah, N., Asim, M., Ur Rehman, M.S., Ali, N., 2022. Gasification
of municipal solid waste: Progress, challenges, and prospects. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 168, 112815.
Shen, J., Zhang, Q., Xu, L., Tian, S., Wang, P., 2021. Future CO2 emission trends and
radical decarbonization path of iron and steel industry in China. J. Clean. Prod. 326,
129354.
Singh, M., Salaudeen, S.A., Gilroyed, B.H., Dutta, A., 2022. Simulation of biomass-plastic
co-gasification in a fluidized bed reactor using Aspen plus. Fuel 319, 123708.
Song, W., Zhou, J., Li, Y., Yang, J., Zhang, X., Li, S., 2020. Production of high-quality
combustible gas: The green and efficient utilization of inferior dust removal ash and
high-temperature flue gas in converters. J. Clean. Prod. 269, 122265.
Song, W., Zhou, J., Li, Y., Li, S., Yang, J., 2021. Utilization of waste tire powder for
gaseous fuel generation via CO2 gasification using waste heat in converter
vaporization cooling flue. Renew. Energy 173, 283–296.
Song, W., Chen, X., Huang, Y., Jiang, R., Zhou, J., 2023. Thermal analysis technology to
utilize waste biomass and waste heat to produce high-quality combustible gas
through simulations and experiments. Sci. Total Environ. 892, 163970.
Tezer, O., Karabag, N., Ozturk, M.U., Ongen, A., Ayol, A., 2022. Comparison of green
waste gasification performance in updraft and downdraft fixed bed gasifiers. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 47, 31864–31876.
Tezer, Ö., Karabağ, N., Öngen, A., Ayol, A., 2023. Syngas production from municipal
sewage sludge by gasification Process: Effects of fixed bed reactor types and
gasification agents on syngas quality. Sustainable Energy Technol. Assess. 56,
103042.
Tokmurzin, D., Nam, J.Y., Park, S.J., Yoon, S.J., Mun, T.-Y., Yoon, S.M., Moon, J.H.,
Lee, J.G., Lee, D.H., Ra, H.W., Seo, M.W., 2022. Three-Dimensional CFD simulation
of waste plastic (SRF) gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed with detailed kinetic
chemical model. Energ. Conver. Manage. 267, 115925.
Vikram, S., Rosha, P., Kumar, S., Mahajani, S., 2022. Thermodynamic analysis and
parametric optimization of steam-CO2 based biomass gasification system using
Aspen PLUS. Energy 241, 122854.
Vikram, S., Deore, S.P., De Blasio, C., Mahajani, S.M., Kumar, S., 2023. Air gasification of
high-ash solid waste in a pilot-scale downdraft gasifier: Experimental and numerical
analysis. Energy 270, 126912.
Wang, Z., Burra, K.G., Zhang, M., Li, X., He, X., Lei, T., Gupta, A.K., 2020. Syngas
evolution and energy efficiency in CO2-assisted gasification of pine bark. Appl.
Energy 269, 114996.
Wang, Q., Wang, E., An, Q., Chionoso, O.P., 2023. CFD study of bio-syngas and coal co-
injection in a blast furnace with double lance. Energy 263, 125906.
Wang, X., Yu, B., An, R., Sun, F., Xu, S., 2022. An integrated analysis of China’s iron and
steel industry towards carbon neutrality. Appl. Energy 322, 119453.
Zaini, I.N., Nurdiawati, A., Gustavsson, J., Wei, W., Thunman, H., Gyllenram, R.,
Samuelsson, P., Yang, W., 2023. Decarbonising the iron and steel industries:
Production of carbon-negative direct reduced iron by using biosyngas. Energ.
Conver. Manage. 281, 116806.
Zhang, H., Okuyama, K., Higuchi, S., Soon, G., Lisak, G., Law, A.-W.-K., 2023. CFD-DEM
simulations of municipal solid waste gasification in a pilot-scale direct-melting
furnace. Waste Manag. 162, 43–54.
Zhang, S., Yi, B., Guo, F., Zhu, P., 2022. Exploring selected pathways to low and zero CO2
emissions in China’s iron and steel industry and their impacts on resources and
energy. J. Clean. Prod. 340, 130813.
Zhao, L., Wang, H., Qing, S., Liu, H., 2010. Characteristics of gaseous product from
municipal solid waste gasification with hot blast furnace slag. J. Nat. Gas Chem. 19,
403–408.
Zhao, Z., Yu, X., Li, Y., Zhu, J., Shen, Y., 2023. CFD study of hydrogen co-injection
through tuyere and shaft of an ironmaking blast furnace. Fuel 348, 128641.