Arab Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tabs20

Biomass for dual-fuel syngas diesel power plants.

Part I: The effect of preheating on characteristics
of the syngas gasification of municipal solid waste
and wood pellets

Prayudi Suparmin, Roswati Nurhasanah, Hendri Hendri & Muhammad

Ridwan

To cite this article: Prayudi Suparmin, Roswati Nurhasanah, Hendri Hendri & Muhammad
Ridwan (2023) Biomass for dual-fuel syngas diesel power plants. Part I: The effect
of preheating on characteristics of the syngas gasification of municipal solid waste
and wood pellets, Arab Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 30:1, 378-392, DOI:
10.1080/25765299.2023.2223027

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/25765299.2023.2223027

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa Published online: 28 Jun 2023.

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group on behalf of the University of
Bahrain.

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 628

View related articles View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tabs20
ARAB JOURNAL OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCES University of Bahrain
2023, VOL. 30, NO. 1, 378–392
https://doi.org/10.1080/25765299.2023.2223027

Biomass for dual-fuel syngas diesel power plants. Part I: The effect of
preheating on characteristics of the syngas gasification of municipal solid
waste and wood pellets
Prayudi Suparmin , Roswati Nurhasanah, Hendri Hendri and Muhammad Ridwan
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institut Teknologi PLN, Jakarta, Indonesia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Indonesia has the potential to develop biomass, such as MSW and wood pellets, as a source Received 14 November 2022
of energy. Syngas from biomass gasification can be used as fuel for dual-fuel diesel engines Revised 18 May 2023
in order to transition energy. We investigated the gasification of MSW and wood pellets Accepted 5 June 2023
using a downdraft reactor with a capacity of 130–144 kg in order to determine the proper-
KEYWORDS
ties of the produced syngas for use in dual-fuel syngas diesel engines. Four days are dedi- Biomass gasification; carbon
cated to the process of preheating biomass with sunlight. The experiment was designed conversion efficiency; cold
with an equivalent ratio of 0.22 and an oxidation zone temperature between 700 and 900 gas efficiency; MSW;
degrees Celsius. According to the experimental results, the average lower heating value of sunlight heated; wood
syngas produced by the air gasification of MSW biomass was 5.85 MJ/Nm3, the cold gas effi- pellets
ciency was 56.6%, and the carbon conversion efficiency was 94.77%. The average lower
heating value from wood pellet biomass air gasification was 5.95 MJ/Nm3, the cold gas effi-
ciency was 67.7%, and the carbon conversion efficiency was 94.28%. Solar heating of bio-
mass has been shown to increase the calorific value of biomass gasification to syngas.

1. Introduction technology and 5% is gasification (Primadita,

Immediate energy requirements are satisfied by fossil
fuels, particularly coal, petroleum, and natural gas.
Increasing demand for fossil energy, diminishing fos-
sil energy reserves, environmental concerns, and
reduction objectives for carbon emissions. The
Indonesian government’s participation in the Paris
Agreement has facilitated the shift to new and
renewable energy (BPPT, 2021). Solar, wind, geother-
mal, and biomass are some of the new and renew-
able energy sources that are being developed
extensively for the energy transition (Situmorang,
Zhao, Yoshida, Abudula, & Guan, 2020). In Indonesia,
the government encourages the use of a new
renewable energy mix to reach 23% of total usage
by 2025 and 31% of primary energy requirements by
2050 (DEN, 2019). According to Ariffin et al. (2017),
biomass is the only renewable energy source cap-
able of meeting about 9% of the world’s primary
energy demand (Sharma, Sharma, Pulla, & Sahoo,
2020). Oil palm kernel (33%), MSW (32%), agricultural
waste (24%), and wood (11%) are examples of bio-
mass that have the potential to be utilized as a
source of electrical energy. In the meantime, 82% of
the most widely utilized technology is co-firing
Kumara, & Ariastina, 2020). Biomass gasification gen-
erates syngas, which can be utilized as a fuel for gas
turbines and combined cycles. Dual-fuel diesel
engines can decrease diesel consumption by 44–
60% (Sudarmanta, 2010). Consequently, further
exploration of the use of gasified syngas as a sec-
ondary fuel for diesel engines is warranted.
Gases such carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide
(CO2), hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), unburned car-
bon (unburned C), and light hydrocarbons (LHC) are
produced during the thermal decomposition of solid
biomass in the process of biomass gasification (Puig-
Arnavat, Bruno, & Coronas, 2010). The syngas com-
position is highly sensitive to the kind of feedstock
(biomass), gasification technology, and operating
parameters (Molino, Larocca, Chianese, & Musmarra,
2018). Updraft gasifiers, downdraft gasifiers, and flu-
idized bed gasifiers are the three most popular types
of gasification reactors (Susastriawan, Purwanto, &
Purnomo, 2021). The commercial gasification process
utilizes 75% downdraft gasifiers, 20% fluidized beds,
2.5% updraft, and 2.5% alternative variants (Ruiz,
Ju
arez, Morales, Mun ~oz, & Mend
ıvil, 2013). Because
of its low tar content and ease of operation, down-
draft gasifier reactor technology is frequently utilized

CONTACT Prayudi Suparmin prayudi@itpln.ac.id Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institut Teknologi PLN Jakarta, 11750, Indonesia.
ß 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of the University of Bahrain.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow
the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.

for heating and small to medium-scale thermal gen-
eration (Saleh, Sudarmanta, Fansuri, & Muraza, 2020).
Low efficiency is a disadvantage of using a down-
draft reactor, and it is difficult to produce syngas
when the moisture and ash level are high (Patra &
Sheth, 2015). Adding heated air is a great technique
to improve gasifier performance (Susastriawan,
Saptoadi, & Purnomo, 2017), furthermore, a tar-clean-
ing reactor can advantage from integrated gasifica-
tion, cooling, and cleaning operations (Heidenreich &
Foscolo, 2015). The reactor gasifier, cyclone, water
scrubber (refinery and cooling unit), and dry filter
can all be combined into a single gasification reactor
unit to accomplish this. Small and medium-sized
thermal power plants can benefit from throatless
downdraft gasifier technology since it is simple in
concept, production, and evaluation (Susastriawan
et al., 2017).
In accordance with the National Energy General
Plan (RUEN), one of the energy transition program
implementations in Indonesia is the conversion of
diesel power plants to dual-fuel diesel-syngas power
plants. Some study indicates that diesel engines can
use gasified syngas with a downdraft reactor as a
dual-fuel fuel. Have demonstrated a downdraft
reactor gasification efficiency of around 80% and a
gas producer calorific value of 4.5 MJ/kg. In addition,
syngas can lower fuel consumption by 75% and can
be used to measure the program’s potential for suc-
cess (Susastriawan et al., 2017). According to the
results of reactor downdraft gasification, pine wood
pellets contain more carbon monoxide (CO), hydro-
gen (H2), and methane (CH4) than pine chips do. The
cold gas efficiency (CGE) of pine wood pellets was
90% at an ER of 0.27 at a temperature of 850-950
C.
Pinecone gasification at an ER of 0.28 and tempera-
ture of 900–950
C resulted in a CGE of 78% (Aydin,
Yucel, & Sadikoglu, 2019). Using various ER and hot
air temperatures, the best parameters for the gasifi-
cation of MSW pellets in downdraft gasifier reactors
were obtained by through experimentation. Thus, a
syngas with a lower heating value (LHV) of 5254 to
5976 MJ/kg was produced (Saleh, Sudarmanta,
Fansuri, & Muraza, 2019).
Biomass gasification of switchgrass with a feed-
stock LHV of 16.49 MJ/kg, ER of 0.2, and temperature
of 800–900
C produced syngas with a high heating
value (HHV) of 6.47 MJ/Nm3, with a maximum syngas
output of 5 kW from a 10-kW power plant (Indrawan,
Thapa, Bhoi, Huhnke, & Kumar, 2017). The gasifica-
tion of MSW feedstock pellets with an HHV of
13.84 MJ/kg at an ER of 0.20 can replace 44% of
diesel consumption (Sudarmanta, Sampurno,
Dwiyantoro, Gemilang, & Putra, 2019). Wood pellet
gasification with a downdraft gasifier and a syngas
LHV of 4.76 MJ/Nm3 can reduce diesel consumption
ARAB JOURNAL OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCES 379
by 23% (Patra & Sheth, 2015). Downdraft gasification
of walnut shells with HHV feedstock of 16.72 MJ/kg,
calorific value of syngas of 7.30 MJ/Nm3, maximum
diesel consumption of 58.18% with a 3.46 kW diesel
engine (Sharma & Kaushal, 2020). The calorific con-
tent of the producing gas effects the diesel power
plant’s specific fuel consumption (SFC), according to
the review article above. Depending on the type of
biomass, diesel consumption can be reduced by 44–
60% with an HHV feedstock value of 4–7.30 MJ/kg.
Biomass is characterized by its low density and
calorific value, as well as its high proportions of fixed
carbon, volatile matter, and low ash content. Around
75–85% of the stuff produced by biomass is volatile,
whereas the rest consists of fixed carbon and ash. At
least 16% of the fixed carbon in biomass is utilized
as an energy source (Basu, 2013). Carbon (C), oxygen
(O), hydrogen (H), sulfur (S), nitrogen (N), and ash all
influence the calorific value of feedstock. The greater
the amounts of C, H, and S and the lower the levels
of O and ash, the higher the calorific value of the
feedstock (Channiwala & Parikh, 2002). Torrefaction,
carbonization, and densification are all ways to
increase the density and calorific value of feedstock.
High-quality biomass solid fuel can be made through
densification and torrefaction at temperatures
between 200 and 300
C. The process leads to a
decrease in moisture levels, an increase in O/C and a
decrease in H/C ratios, and a rise in fixed carbon
content. When carbon is present, the oxygen con-
sumption drops, leading to higher rates of cold gas
efficiency (CGE) and carbon conversion efficiency
(CCE) during gasification (Chen et al., 2018; Chen,
Peng, & Bi, 2015; Ding et al., 2018; Umeda,
Nakamura, Lu, & Yoshikawa, 2019). Valuable gases
with a CGE of 72–77% and a calorific value of 4.8–
5.8 MJ/kg are produced during the gasification and
torrefaction of wood pellets (Dudyn
ski, Van Dyk,
Kwiatkowski, & Sosnowska, 2015).
The majority of processed wood and municipal
solid waste (MSW) biomass still has a substantial
amount of moisture. Thus, biomass must be dried
before being gasified (Nyakuma et al., 2023). By
decreasing the oxygen to carbon (O/C) and hydro-
gen to carbon (H/C) ratios and raising the calorific
value of feedstock through carbonization at temper-
atures between 200 and 300
C, the HHV of syngas,
CGE, and CCE are increased (Chen et al., 2015, 2018;
Ding et al., 2018; Dudyn
ski et al., 2015; Umeda et al.,
2019). Indonesia is not a suitable option for carbon-
ization due to its tropical location, abundant sun-
light, and vast number of rural areas. It is possible to
boost the physical, chemical, thermal, and calorific
value of biomass by preheating it. Sunshine can be
used as a source of preheating. To reduce or elimin-
ate the moisture content of biomass, a pre-treatment
380 P. SUPARMIN ET AL.
Figure 1. The manufacturing process of MSW pellets (a) MSW sorting, waste selection to the type of organic waste and non-
organic waste (b) bio-drying by utilizing microorganisms in the bio-activator, (c) chopping process with cutting machine, (d)
making MSW pellets.
method was developed (Nyakuma et al., 2023).
According to the existing review literature, there is
no pretreatment process for drying biomass using
sunlight. Using a solar shell, sunlight is commonly
utilized in the pyrolysis process (Rahman, Parvej, &
Aziz, 2021; Rajendran et al., 2021). As an alternative
to carbonization, solar pretreatment can minimize
moisture and volatile matter while enhancing fixed
carbon.
This is the first of two research investigated the
use of biomass pellets made from wood and MSW
to generate syngas for remote dual-fuel power
plants. Here, we report the potential features of syn-
gas produced by the gasification of wood and MSW
pellets carbonized in sunlight for four days at tem-
peratures above 60
C in a 145-kg gasifier downdraft
reactor. This reactor was created as a prototype for a
program to convert diesel power plants to dual-fuel
power plants with a capacity of 20 kW or more. The
purpose of this section is to evaluate whether the
produced syngas, CGE, and CCE have a calorific
value that might be used to replace solar energy in
diesel engines.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Characterization of biomass
The biomass materials used in this study were wood
pellets and MSW. One of the characteristics consid-
ered when choosing pellets was their high density,
which can reduce health hazards for operators.
Wood pellets are constructed from sawdust and
woodchips. Hardwood and softwood are the primary
materials utilized to manufacture wood pellets. Teak
(Tectona grandis), mahogany (Ssietenia mahagony),
and acacia are examples of hardwoods (Acacia auric-
uliformis). The species of softwood used for sengon
(Paraserianthes falcataria). Teak sawdust (T. grandis)
has a density of 0.72 to 0.82 (g/cm)3 and a calorific
value of 4,888.81 cal/g, while acacia wood (A. auricu-
liformis) has a density of 0.71 to 0.79 (g/cm)3, sengon
wood (paraserianthes falcataria) density 0.58  0.66
(g/cm)3 with calorific value (3726.08–4003.84) cal/g.
The raw material for MSW pellets was urban
waste collected from the Institut Teknologi PLN cam-
pus. MSW pellets were made in four stages, as
shown in Figure 1. In Figure 1(a), the first stage of
waste selection, urban waste was separated accord-
ing to the type of organic waste (food waste, leaves,
and wooden branches) and non-organic waste
(paper and plastic). The second process is bio-drying
by utilizing micro-organisms in the bio-activator.
EM4 or eco enzyme is the bio-activator liquid used.
This concentrate is thawed at a 1:20 ratio. Organic
matter decomposition will be carried out aerobically
by microbes. After mixing bio-enzymes, the biomass
is covered in plastic as part of the bio-drying proced-
ure. This activity generates heat, which reduces the
water content of the material. This process involved
pouring a bio-activator (bacterial) liquid that soft-
ened and shrunk the litter to 50%. All the organic
and inorganic garbage was put into an open-topped
bamboo cage and dried using the bio-drying
method. The bio-drying method was performed by
placing the entire organic and inorganic waste into a
bamboo cage whose top was exposed and flushed
with a bio-activator. After 5–10 days, the litter was
completely dry (Figure 1(b)). As a third step, we tal-
lied all of the pieces by hand and with a cutting
machine. The standard size according to SNI
 ARAB JOURNAL OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCES 381

Figure 2. This experimental biomass sample (a) wood pellets, (b) municipal solid waste (MSW).

Table 1. Proximate and ultimate biomass test results and reference.

Wood MSW Ref MSW Torrefaction Wood pellets Ref Wood pellets torrefaction
pellet MSW (Saleh et al., 2020) Ref (Chen et al., 2020)
ski et al., 2015)
(Dudyn
ski et al., 2015)
Ref (Dudyn
Proximate analysis (%wt)
Volatile matter (VM) 67.95 63.04 65.78 60.28 70 60
Fixed Carbon (FC) 24.54 18.81 20.19 8.50 19.5 34.5
Moisture 5.36 4.10 9.82 4.69 10 4.5
Ash 2.25 14.05 4.21 26.53 0.50 1.0
Ultimate analysis (% wt)
C 54.07 53.96 47.26 57.60 52.6 56.0
H 5.91 6.05 6.70 6.70 5.9 5.0
O 39.46 35.40 45.54 33.62 41.3 38.6
N 1.17 0.94 0.49 0.81 0.3 0.4
S 0.06 0.61 0.01 1.01 0.00 0.00
HHV (MJ/kg) 19.91 18.06 17.16 23.34 17.0 20.0

8961:2021 is 3–4 cm in length and 10 mm in diam-
eter (Figure 1(c)). In the fourth stage, the waste was
mixed with an adhesive or aggregate and then
formed into pellets or briquettes. (Figure 1(d)).
Figure 2 shows a representative sample of wood
pellets and MSW. The average length and diameter
of wood pellets were 32 mm and 9 mm, but they
were 35 mm and 10 mm for MSW. The biomass was
sun-dried for 25 h prior to the proximal and ultimate
testing. Using the ASTM D 5376-16 infrared and ther-
mal conductivity detector method, the ASTM D.4239-
14 sulfur content standard, and the D.3176-15
oxygen content standard, the C, H, and N contents
were examined. Proximate analysis helps detect
moisture using ASTM D.3302-17, ash, volatile matter,
and fixed carbon levels using ASTM D.7581-15 a
thermal gravimetric analyzer (TGA), sulfur analysis
with high-temperature combustion, and infrared
conversion analysis. Both proximal and ultimate anal-
yses were conducted in the laboratory of PT PLN
Pusertif; the results are shown in Table 1.
The results of the proximate and ultimate tests, as
well as the calorific value of the biomass, are pre-
sented in Table 1 alongside previously published bio-
mass test results. This study compared the biomass
characteristics of proximate and final test results to
previously published research. The characteristics of
MSW test results will be compared to those of MSW
that was not initially treated (Saleh et al., 2020) and
MSW that was torrefied (Chen et al., 2020). The charac-
teristics of wood pellets test results will be compared
to those of wood pellets without initial treatment and
with torrefaction (Dudyn
ski et al., 2015). Before bio-
mass was subjected to both proximate and ultimate
tests, it was sun-dried for 24 h or 4 days at 60
C to
reduce moisture and volatile matter and enhance lev-
els of fixed carbon. Table 1 shows that the moisture
content of MSW and wood pellets that have been pre-
heated is lower than that of MSW and wood pellets
that have not been preheated. In the meantime, the
ash content of MSW biomass reached above 10%,
which is one of MSW biomass’s downsides. The effect
of sunshine on the levels of moisture and volatile mat-
ter was greater than that of biomass that underwent
torrefaction or carbonization, and the levels of fixed
carbon were lower, but the ash content rose.
2.2. Gasification unit set-up
In this experiment, a downdraft gasifier was used as
the reactor. The downdraft reactor was selected for
this gasification process due to its suitability for
small-scale plants, its simple design, high carbon
conversion, low tar content, and comparatively low
tar cleaning complexity requirements. Among the
disadvantages that must be overcome during the
gasification process are low efficiency and accept-
able feedstock, the need for biomass with a low
moisture content, a rather complicated starting pro-
cedure, and temperature control (Molino, Chianese,
& Musmarra, 2016). Figure 3 depicts the facilities of
Institut Teknologi PLN of Technology’s Biomass and
382 P. SUPARMIN ET AL.
Figure 3. Sketch of biomass gasification reactor facility at the gasification Laboratory and MSW Faculty of Energy Technology
and Business, Institut Teknologi PLN, Jakarta.
Table 2. Summary of gasification operating parameters.
Operating parameters
Air flow rate (Nm3/h) 180–220
Temperature T1 (
C) 144–167
Temperature T2 (
C) 389–416
Temperature T3 (
C) 629–920
Temperature T4 (
C) 391–427
Hot syngas temperature (
C) 206–240
Cold syngas temperature (
C) 51–52
Duration of gasification process (h) 10–13
Waste Gasification Laboratory, Faculty of Energy
Technology and Business.
Figure 3 is a schematic depicting the major com-
ponent of this research test equipment, which is a
downdraft reactor with visible dimensions. There is a
diagram with four thermocouples of type K. The gas-
ifier was equipped with a cleaning aid for syngas
consisting of a cyclone, water scrubber, filter, and
storage reservoir for syngas. Moreover, thermocou-
ples were inserted after the reactor, cyclone, water
scrubber, and filter. In the water scrubber, water was
utilized as the cooling medium, while activated car-
bon and wood charcoal were used as the filter’s
media. The capacity of the reactor was 150 kg, which
was anticipated to burn out in 12 h. In the reactor, a
1.5 kW, 230 VAC, 50 Hz, 6.5 A compressor with a cap-
acity of 220 liters per minute was installed. The
water scrubber was supplied with a pump that
loaded water at a rate of 50 revolutions per minute.
To suction the syngas in the reactor, a suction
blower pump with 0.25 kW of suction pump power
and 1000 CMH of airflow was added.
2.3. Experimental methods
The biomass was dried and stored after the humidity
was measured using an Aory Moisture Meter of type
YBG LM15, following a four-day solar heating process
that brought the material to an internal temperature
of 60
C. In the second phase, we made sure that
everything was running smoothly by double-checking
the temperature gauge, compressor, filter, water
scrubber, and pump. For preheating, as much as 10 kg
of charcoal was burned on the outskirts of the reactor.
After 15–30 min, coal containing charcoal was intro-
duced to the reactor. As the oxidation zone tempera-
ture hit 300
C, the biomass was fed into the reactor
progressively until its volume reached the maximum
allowed above the drying zone’s observation point, or
about 134 kg. Compressed air was fed into the reactor
at a rate of 180–220 liters per minute to maintain a
constant combustion process in the oxidation zone.
Table 2 summarizes the gasification process’s oper-
ational parameters. At 700, 750, 800, 850, and 900
C,
we took samples of syngas at various pressures and
temperatures. The number of trials in this study was
one for each sample because it was difficult to repli-
cate the same temperature conditions. One of the
major issues and problem combustion in gasification
research is that it is difficult to control the tempera-
ture and produce the same conditions every time. The
temperature of gasification is highly dependent on
the combustion process in the gasifier reactor. If the
temperature is stable, the sampling method is used,
and data collection is completed without repetition.
The gas analyzer’s performance was measured using a
time series of test data. We utilize the highest possible
reading from the gas analyzer’s tests as our data. For
this analysis, we used a Cubic Ruiyi G-3100P Gas
Analyzer on the gas samples.
The gas analyzer tool outputs time series data
from syngas composition testing results. Six data
points are obtained from the gas analyzer output
data at each sampling, and the average value and
standard deviation are calculated to display the opti-
mal generated gas. Validation of measurement data
was performed at ER 0.22 under five distinct tem-
perature conditions. The five measurement data
points are used to determine the mean and standard
deviation. The validation of the average results of
syngas composition measurements at a specific ER
(ER ¼ 0.22) is compared to the results of previous
published research with an ER close to 0.22. The
root mean squared error (RMSE) method is used to
validate measurement data.

2.4. Data processing methods
The ER value is defined as the ratio of the total
amount of oxygen used to the amount of stoichio-
metric oxygen (Basu, 2013):
AFRact
ER ¼
AFRstoich
where AFRact (kg/kg) is the actual amount of air
used in the gasification process and AFRstoich (kg/kg)
is calculated by using Eq. (2) (Basu, 2013):
AFRstoich ¼ 0:1153 C þ 0:3434ðH–0:125 OÞ þ 0:0434 S
The percentages of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and
sulfur determined from the ultimate analysis are C, H,
O, and S, respectively. Using the method outlined by
Homdoung, Dussadee, Sasujit, Kiatsiriroat, and
Tippayawong (2019), the gas producer rate (Nm3/h)
can be estimated from the nitrogen balance.
0:79  Qa
Qg ¼
mf  N2 %
where Qg is the yield gas rate of the producer
(Nm3/kg), Qa is the air flow rate (Nm3/h), mf is the
biomass flow rate (kg/h), and N2% is the volume
fraction of nitrogen in the dry gas products. Carbon
conversion efficiency (gC) is computed as the total of
the percentage of carbon transformed into syngas
using the following formula (Erlich & Fransson,
2011):
(
12
_g
m 28 CO% þ 12
44 CO2 % þ 16 CH4 %
12
gCCE ¼ 1
m_ f C%
where CO%, CO2%, and CH4% are the percentages
of gas volume in syngas and C% is the percentage
of carbon from the ultimate test.
Cold gasification efficiency is defined as the ratio
of the total amount of low calorific value of syngas
to the low calorific value of biomass feedstock. The
efficiency of cold gaseous gasification (gCGE) was cal-
culated using the following formula
The efficiency of cold gasification is measured as
the ratio of the total amount of low calorific value
syngas to the low calorific value of biomass fuel. The
following formula was used to determine the effi-
ciency of cold gaseous gasification (gCGE ) (Umar
et al., 2021):
Qg  LHVg
gCGE ¼  100
LHVf
where Qg represents the producer yield gas rate
(Nm3/kg), LHVg represents the low calorific value of
the gas (MJ/Nm3), and LHVf represents the low calor-
ific value of biomass (MJ/kg). Both the HHVf and the
LHVf were determined by applying the formula and
ARAB JOURNAL OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCES 383
then recalculating it while taking into account the
correlation that Channiwala and Parikh (2002)
(MJ/kg):
HHVf ¼ 0:3491mC þ 1:1783mH þ 0:1005mS
 0:1034mO  0:0151mN  0:0211mAC (6)
(1)
where mC, mH, mS, mO, mN, and mAC are the mass
percentages of carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, oxygen,
nitrogen, and ash from the ultimate and proximate
analyses. The LHVf value of the feedstock was calcu-
lated using the following equation shown below
(Basu, 2013):
(2)  
9mH mC
LHVf ¼ HHVf  hg þ (7)
100 100
where hg is the steam’s latent heat (2.26 MJ/kg). The
lower calorific value of LHV syngas was calculated
using Equation for LHVg (MJ/Nm3) (8) (Kurkela,
Kurkela, & Ilkka, 2014):
LHVg ¼ 0:12622 CO þ 0:10788 H2 þ 0:35814CH4
(3)
þ 0:665Cn Hm
(8)
CO, H2, CH4, and CnHm are the percentages of the
volume fractions of hydrogen, carbon monoxide,
methane, and light hydrocarbons, respectively.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effect of preheating on biomass
) characteristics
 100% The type of biomass, particle size, moisture and ash
contents, and the resulting syngas from biomass gas-
(4) ification are all factors. Pollutants like nitrogen oxide
and sulfur oxide are known to be produced from the
sulfur and nitrogen levels in biomass (Molino et al.,
2018). The chemical composition of the outline bio-
mass consists of 40–58% cellulose (C6H10O4), 10–40%
hemicellulose (C5H8O5), and the rest is lignin–(27–
28%). Lignin consists of lignin-C (C15H14O4), lignin-O
(C20H22O10), and lignin-H (C22H28O9) (Lee, Alam, Han,
Choi, & Park, 2020). Approximately four days of heat-
ing influenced the properties of a sample of
biomass.
As can be seen in Figure 4, preheating results in
lower oxygen-to-carbon (O/C) and hydrogen-to-car-
bon (H/C) ratios than does not preheating. Low-tem-
perature carbonization, as indicated, decreases the
O/C and H/C ratios, as reported by according Ding
(5) et al. (2018), Dudyn
ski et al. (2015), and Umeda et al.
(2019). As a result of solar preheating, the O/C and
H/C ratios decreased, indicating a decrease in mois-
ture, oxygen, and hydrogen levels in the biomass of
MSW and wood pellets while an increase in fixed
and molar carbon. The O/C and H/C ratios were
found to be in the middle ground between
384 P. SUPARMIN ET AL.
Figure 4. Van Krevelen diagram of MSW, wood pellets, and reference biomass.
Figure 5. Effect of O/C ratio to higher heating value feedstock (HHVof MSW, wood pellets, and reference biomass.
untreated and treated biomass after heat treatment
with sunshine. After being heated, the oxygen to
carbon ratio in biomass wood pellets was 0.54:1, but
in MSW biomass it was 0.5:1, indicating a significant
difference in the composition of the two biomasses.
Research from Trinh and Uemura (2019), demon-
strates that this location of the O/C and H/C ratios
indicates that biomass includes a relatively high ratio
of cellulose and hemicellulose to lignite, and that
this ratio contributes to the efficient generation of
syngas (Molino et al., 2018). After heating the two
biomasses with sunlight, the ratio of O/C ¼ 0.54,
H/C ¼ 1.32 for biomass wood pellets and O/C ¼ 0.50,
H/C ¼ 1.35 for MSW biomass was determined.
However, the cellulose and hemicellulose to lignite
ratios were relatively high, indicating that the O/C
and H/C ratios were still in the interval between the
cellulose and hemicellulose categories. As a result,
heating with sunlight has no effect on the cellulose
and hemicellulose content of MSW and wood
pellets.
Figure 5 shows the effect of the O/C ratio to the
HHV of biomass feedstock; the higher the O/C per-
centage is, the lower the HHV of the feedstock is,
and vice versa (Chen et al., 2020; Dudyn
ski et al.,
2015; Saleh et al., 2020). The O/C ratio of wood pel-
lets was more than that of MSW biomass; the calor-
ific value of HHV biomass from MSW was greater
than that of wood pellets and was greater than the
calorific value of biomass without preheating (Lee
et al., 2020; Saleh et al., 2020; Sharma & Kaushal,
2020). This higher HHV value was confirmed by the
results of previous studies (Dudyn
ski et al., 2015;
Umeda et al., 2019). Preheating with sunlight has an
effect on the low O/C ratio, which raises the HHV
value of the biomass feedstock without significantly
decreasing the quantities of cellulose and
hemicellulose.
According to Eq. (6), solar preheating decreases the
mole fractions of oxygen and hydrogen, moisture con-
tent, and volatile matter while increasing the carbon
mole fraction and ash content, resulting in a rise in
the calorific value of the HHV feedstock. In this study,
the O/C and H/C ratios were lower than those of
Dudyn
ski et al. (2015) and Saleh et al. (2020), in which
the biomass used in the gasification process was not
preheated, but higher than those of Chen et al. (2020)
and Dudyn
ski et al. (2015), in which the preheating
requirement for the used biomass was up to 300
C.
This study demonstrates that solar preheating is highly

Table 3. Reactions and their types in gasification processes (Basu, 2013).
Stage Reaction
Oxidation C þ O2 ! CO2
Reduction C þ CO2 !2CO
C þ H2 O !CO þ H2
CO þ H2 O !CO2 þ H2
CH4 þ CO2 !2CO þ 2H2
CH4 þ H2 O !CO þ 3H2
C þ 2H2 !CH4
Figure 6. The effect of reactor gasifier temperature on gas
composition results in air gasification with biomass from (a)
MSW and (b) wood pellets at ER ¼ 0.22.
effective at reducing the O/C and H/C ratios, moisture
content, volatile matter, and increasing the value of
fixed carbon. Biomass gasification has the ability to
raise the calorific value of syngas by increasing the cal-
orific value of the feedstock. This occurs as a result of
alterations in the composition of CO, CH4, and H2
gases, those characteristics of biomass (Table 1) influ-
ence the calorific value and yield of syngas. These
results are relevant to the correlation founded by Chen
et al. (2020), Nimmanterdwong, Chalermsinsuwan, and
Piumsomboon (2020) and Subramanian, Sampathrajan,
and Venkatachalam (2011). Finally, it has the potential
to be used as a diesel fuel substitute in dual-fuel syn-
gas diesel engines substitution.
3.2. Effect of temperature on the composition of
gasification results
Gasifier temperature is a crucial variable in the air-
based gasification process (Sidek, Abdul Samad, &
Saleh, 2020). The temperature of the oxidation zone
has an effect on the concentrations of CO, CO2, CH4,
and H2 produced by gasification. If the temperature
ARAB JOURNAL OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCES 385
Type reaction DH (kJ/mol)
Combustion þ394
Boudouard þ172
Water gas þ131
Water gas shift 41
Methane dry reforming þ247
Methane steam formation þ206
Methane formation 75
increases, the concentration of CO gas increases, the
concentration of CO2 tends to decrease, and H2 and
CH4 reach their maximum concentrations at a given
temperature (Atnaw, Sulaiman, & Yusup, 2013). As
indicated in Table 3, the gasification gas formation
complex can normally be characterized as a succes-
sion of processes (Chen et al., 2015; Saleh et al.,
2020). CO2 gas formation occurs in the combustion
and reduction zones of the water gas reaction shift,
which happens between 700 and 900
C, whereas
CO, H2, and CH4 formation occurs in the reduction
zone, when temperatures rise over 850
C.
According to Table 3, if the temperature in the
gasification reactor rises, the interaction between
carbon and oxygen in the oxidation zone, the reac-
tion between carbon and carbon dioxide gas, and
the interaction between carbon and water vapor in
the reduction process will increase hydrogen gas
and carbon monoxide production. In a similar man-
ner, in the reduction zone, the reactions between
methane and carbon dioxide and methane and
water vapor create CO and H2 gases. At tempera-
tures above 850
C, hydrogen and carbon dioxide
gas formation predominated, whereas carbon diox-
ide formation predominated at lower temperatures.
As the gasifier temperature grew between 700 and
950
C, the volume of carbon dioxide generation
tended to decrease. At increasing temperatures,
methane gas production reduces (Aydin et al., 2019).
These combustible gases are advantageous as dual
fuels in diesel engines or engine gases (Chen et al.,
2020; Sudarmanta, 2010; Sudarmanta et al., 2019).
Figure 6 shows the characteristics of biomass gas-
ification gas consisting of CO, CO2, CH4, and H2
gases without N2 content and water vapor at tem-
peratures of 700
C, 750
C, 800
C, 850
C, and
900
C at ER ¼ 0.22 using biomass as (a) MSW and
(b) wood pellets. The composition of gases resulting
from air gasification was very different, and the char-
acteristics of the feedstock strongly influenced the
composition of H2 and CO2 gases. The gas compos-
ition obtained from the gasification of MSW biomass
varied from 24.15–27.57%, 15.79–8.89%, 3.35–3.97%,
and 9.98–13.10% for CO, CO2, CH4, and H2, respect-
ively. The gas composition obtained from wood pel-
let biomass was 20.89–24.98%, 16.74–18.43%, 3.61–
3.89%, and 14.30–16.91% for CO, CO2, CH4, and H2,
respectively. In the gases resulting from biomass
386 P. SUPARMIN ET AL.
gasification for both feedstocks, when the tempera-
ture rose, the gas composition of CO and H2 rose,
CO2 tended to decrease, and CH4 was relatively con-
stant. This increase in the gas compositions of CO
and H2 jika temperature naik ini was consistent with
the results of previous studies (Atnaw, Kueh, &
Sulaiman, 2014; Calı et al., 2020; Ependi, Saleh, &
Sudarmanta, 2019; Pio & Tarelho, 2020; Rupesh,
Muraleedharan, & Arun, 2015; Umar et al., 2021). The
oxidation and reduction zone reactions explain the
increase in CO and H2 gases and the reduction in
CO2 concentrations owing to the temperature
increase.
If the temperature rises, the volume of CO2 and
CH4 gases will decrease, while the volume of CO and
H2 gases will increase. This statement can be justi-
fied from the correlation developed by Pio and
Tarelho (2020):
CO ¼ 6:7089 þ 0:0808T  47:7011 ER, R2 ¼ 0:79
(9)
CH4 ¼ 5:6700  0:0056T  2:9181 ER, R ¼ 0:81
2
(10)
H2 ¼ 30:2562 þ 0:0082 T  49:5471 ER, R ¼ 0:93
2
(11)
Another justification can be using developed cor-
relations by Rupesh et al. (2015):
H2 ¼ 5:7990 þ 0:0163 T  39:1000 ER
(12)
þ 1:7577 SBR, R2 ¼ 0:86
CO ¼ 0:5334 þ 0:0272 T  39:5014 ER
(13)
 3:8870 SBR, R ¼ 0:91
2 6
CH4 ¼ 17:8320  0:0088 T  13:9551 ER
(14)
 0:2912 SBR, R2 ¼ 0:79
CO2 ¼ 37:4687  0:0216 T þ 7:6406 ER
(15)
þ 2:7377 SBR, R2 ¼ 0:87
According to Eqs. (9)–(15), under constant T con-
ditions, as the amount of air injected into the reactor
increases, perfect combustion occurs. The volume of
CO2 gas increases while the volume of H2, CO, and
CH4 gases decreases. If the ER is kept constant less
than one, there is no combustion of the sprinkle dur-
ing the gasification process. As the temperature
rises, the oxidation process produces a large amount
of carbon, resulting in more CO and H2 gas being
formed during the reduction process than CO2 and
CH4 gases.
According to Figure 6 and the correlation of Eqs.
(9)–(15), the ER temperature effects the composition
of the syngas yield in addition to the ER tempera-
ture. Table 4 compares the mean and standard devi-
ation of measurement results at ER ¼ 0.22 to
published results from the study. The standard
deviation of gasification measurement resulted in
the highest MSW biomass in carbon dioxide gas
composition and the highest wood pellet biomass in
nitrogen gas. The average gasification gas produc-
tion composition for MSW syngas biomass is similar
to the research results of Saleh et al. (2020). The
average deviation is RMSE 4240, which is less than
10%. When compared to the results of Dudyn
ski
et al. (2015), gasification with wood pellet biomass
yields syngas that is close to biomass with pre-treat-
ment. The average deviation error (RMSE 7053) is
less than 10%.
Based on an average of the gas composition, the
MSW biomass gasification product contained more
carbon monoxide gas than wood pellets. Wood pel-
let biomass gasification produced significantly more
CO2, CH4, and H2 with a lower MSW gas percentage.
MSW biomass had lower O/C and H/C ratios than
wood pellets. The effect of O/C and H/C on the
increase in gas composition H2 can be justified from
the correlation of Nimmanterdwong et al. (2020)
H2 ¼ 0:118 þ 0:117 FC þ 0:117 VM
 0:001 Ash  0:119 C  0:104 H
    (16)
H O
 0:12 N þ 0:009 þ 0:029
C C
While the effect of H/C on the concentration of
CO and CO2 gas volumes can be justified using the
correlation of Buragohain, Mahanta, and Moholkar
(2012)
CO ¼ 1:56  103 T 0:636 ðERÞ
0:768
ðH=CÞ0:611 (17)
CO2 ¼ 1:917  10 T þ 0:316ER þ 0:0137ðH=C Þ
(18)
According to Eq. (16), the H2 concentration of
wood pellets is greater than MSW because the ratio
of O/C and H/C of wood pellets biomass is greater
than MSW. Meanwhile, a high H/C ratio will increase
the concentration of lower CO volume and higher
CO2 concentration, according to Eqs. (17) and (18).
Results of MSW gasification at 700
C and 900
C
showed considerable differences from the norms for
CO, CO2, and CH4 gases, whereas variances for CH4
gases were minimal. Gasification results using MSW
biomass indicated only significant variations in CO
gas, suggesting that this was the only gas that was
significantly affected by the increase in gasification
temperature (Table 3). Understanding how syngas is
created during biomass gasification relies heavily on
this interaction. As CO and H2 gas generation are
more prominent at temperatures above 850
C, the
concentration of these gases tends to increase, while
the concentration of CO2 tends to decrease. The
gases produced from biomass gasification are influ-
enced by the gasifier’s temperature because of the
 ARAB JOURNAL OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCES 387

Table 4. Comparison of experimental (ER ¼ 0.22) and published (ER ¼ 0.20) results from other studies.
Biomass MSW Wood pellets MSW ref. Wood pellets ref.
standard standard Saleh Chen Dudyn
ski Dudyn
ski
Component average deviation average deviation et al. (2020) et al. (2020) et al. (2015) et al. (2015)
CO (%) 25.764 1.288 22.954 1.876 19.5 32 29.9 29
CO2 (%) 12.156 2.733 17.416 0.710 14.5 32.5 4.7 6.7
CH4 (%) 3.656 0.231 3.738 0.136 2.1 4 1.9 2.4
H2 (%) 11.982 1.302 15.910 1.034 11 23 7.8 10.8
N2 (%) 46.436 0.378 39.966 2.133 52.9 8.5 53.2 48.3
RMSE 4.240 20.067 9.531 7.053

3.3. Effect of temperature on LHV and

Figure 7. Effect of reactor temperature on LHV and gas out-
put (Qg) using biomass from (a) MSW and (b) wood pellets
at ER ¼ 0.22.
carbon processes that take place in the oxidation
and reduction zones.
This study’s results for CO, H2, and CH4 gas gen-
eration were higher than those of prior research
that did not involve preheating of biomass (Ependi
et al., 2019), but lower than those of Chen et al.
(2020) due to the influence of preheating.
Gasification of biomass wood pellets, however,
yielded various outcomes. Research into gasification
with wood pellets and torrefaction treatment
reportedly did not yield noticeably different gas
producers (Dudyn
ski et al., 2015). While the H2 and
CH4 concentrations in the syngas were higher than
in Dudyn
ski et al. (2015), the CO concentrations
were lower in this study due to preheating. These
results suggest that preheating with sunlight is
more efficient in increasing the composition of syn-
gas when using MSW biomass as opposed to wood
pellets. Previous research have shown that as tem-
perature increases and the H/C ratio drops, CO gas
increases and CO2 declines (Erlich & Fransson, 2011;
Saleh et al., 2020), and this conclusion is supported
by these results.
production rate of syngas
Biomass conversion is a significant parameter in the
gasification process; it is defined by the proportion of
feedstock converted to gas producer. The LHV and
yield of the gas production might be utilized as an
indicator. As volatile matter increases, volatile matter
and carbon are essential in producing gas output.
The gas yield increases according to the gasification
temperature (Umar et al., 2021). The calorific LHV of
syngas is determined by the concentration of gases
produced from biomass gasification, particularly CO,
H2, and CH4. The airflow rate simultaneously impacts
the yield rate of producing gases, the feedstock flow
rate, and the nitrogen mass balance. The value of the
yield gas is determined by the homogeneous, hetero-
geneous, exothermic, and endothermic chemical
reactions that occur in the gasification zone. Hence,
the rate of producer gas production is indirectly
dependent on the gas concentration produced by
biomass gasification. Gasification cannot be central-
ized since gas output is dependent on various diffi-
cult-to-control characteristics, including as the ER,
temperature, pressure, reactor design, and gasifica-
tion process duration.
Figure 7 shows the impact of gasifier temperature
on syngas calorific LHV and producer gas yield rate
for the gasification process with biomass from (a)
MSW and (b) wood pellets. The LHV of syngas gasi-
fied from MSW increased from 5.32 MJ/Nm3 at
700
C to 6.18 MJ/Nm3 at 900
C, with an average of
5.85 MJ/Nm3. It increased from 5.47 MJ/Nm3 at
700
C to 6.26 MJ/Nm3 at 900
C for wood pellets,
with an average of 5.95 MJ/Nm3. The LHV of syngas
from wood pellets increased significantly from
700
C to 850
C, which can be attributed to a
decrease in CO2 concentration and an increase in
CO and CH4 concentrations, whereas the efficacy of
syngas from MSW was not significant. The tempera-
ture effect on LHV can be justified by the correlation
of research results from Ariffin, Wan Mahmood,
Mohamed, and Mohd Nor (2016), Pio and Tarelho
(2020) and Rupesh, Muraleedharan, and Arun (2020),
are:
LHV ¼ 0:0014T þ 0:9495, R2 ¼ 0:9202 (19)
388 P. SUPARMIN ET AL.
LHV ¼ 0:006549T  12:4161ER þ 4:339622,
(20)
R2 ¼ 0:85
LHV ¼ 5:09 þ 0:00574T  11:1ER  0:600 SBR,
R2 ¼ 0:92
(21)
According to Eqs. (19)–(21) with constant ER, if
the temperature increases, so LHV will also increase.
LHV is affected by factors than temperature and ER.
There are other correlations that can be explored;
examples from Buragohain et al. (2012) are:
LHV ¼ 0:936T 0:114  ER0:796  ðH=CÞ0:142 (22)
The average LHV of syngas from wood pellets
was higher than that of MSW, which can be
explained by the wood pellets’ H2/CO ratio of 0.48,
which was higher than that of MSW at 0.46.
According to the research results of Hu et al. (2019),
the effect of the H2/CO ratio can be justified because
the higher the H2/CO ratio, the higher the LHV value.
The average concentration of CH4 is the second
influencing factor, as the gasification of wood pellets
was greater than that of MSW. According to the
feedstock characteristics of the proximate test
results, the percentage of volatile matter and fixed
carbon in wood pellets was higher than in MSW,
and the content of CH4 and H2 in wood pellets was
higher than in MSW. These two factors explain why
syngas from wood pellets had a higher average LHV
than MSW. According to Eq. (22), the factor that
causes LHV wood pellets to be higher than MSW is a
lower H/C ratio of wood pellets than MSW (Figure 4),
indicating that the impact of LHV is greater. In com-
parison to previous studies, the average LHV of syn-
gas from MSW was higher than that reported by
Noma et al. (2012), and comparable to the results of
Saleh et al. (2019). At ER ¼ 0.3, the LHV of syngas
from wood pellets was similar to that obtained by
Erlich and Fransson (2011), Dudyn
ski et al. (2015),
and Umeda et al. (2019) at 300
C. Furthermore, at
ER 0.2, the average gas yield of MSW and wood pel-
lets was similar to that reported by Lee et al. (2020).
According to Figure 7, the gas yield from gasification
of MSW biomass increased from 1.91 Nm3/kg to
1.94 Nm3/kg before falling to 1.91 Nm3/kg at 900
C,
with an average of 1.92 Nm3/kg. Yield gas gasification
with wood pellet biomass increased from 1.92 Nm3/kg
to 2.16 Nm3/kg, with an average of 2.05 Nm3/kg. LHV of
syngas was used for gasification with MSW feedstock
and wood pellets as the temperature rose. Meanwhile,
at 750–800
C, gas yield producers have a maximum
MSW for gasification. As the temperature increased, so
did the producer’s yield gas for gasification with wood
pellets. The average gas yield from biomass wood pellet
gasification is higher than the average gas yield from
MSW gasification. This gas yield is higher than that
reported by Sharma et al. (2020) at ER ¼ 0.2, but lower
when gasified at ER ¼ 0.34. Thus, in addition to tem-
perature, the ER factor influences the amount of gas
yield. The influence of ER and temperature on character-
istics on gas yield can be justified by Pio & Tarelho,
2020):
Qa ¼ 0:001246T þ 3:400375 ER þ 0:31634, R2 ¼ 0:62
(23)
At constant ER, the gas yield increases as the tem-
perature rises, according to Eq. (23). This is the case
with biomass wood pellet gasification (Figure 7(b)).
Such cases do not occur in MSW gasification. This is
possible because of the particle size factor men-
tioned by Kumari and Mohanty (2022).
When comparing the influence of heating with sun-
shine, the LHV of syngas with MSW biomass without
pretreatment was 3.96–4.6 MJ/kg (Lee et al., 2020; Saleh
et al., 2020), but the LHV in this study was between
5.32–6.18 MJ/Nm3 due to the impact of preheating with
sunlight. Similarly, the LHV of syngas gasification from
wood pellets biomass without torrefaction treatment
obtained by Chen et al. (2020) was 5.60 MJ/Nm3, which
is lower than the 5.79 MJ/Nm3 obtained when using a
torrefaction treatment, whereas the LHV obtained in this
study ranged from 5.47 to 6.26 MJ/Nm3. The LHV of syn-
gas increased as a result of the rise in gasifier tempera-
ture and the initial computation of the warming of
potential solar radiation. Solar heating improved the
LHV of syngas gasification relative to no preheating,
which is consistent with the findings of prior research
by Lee et al. (2020) and Saleh et al. (2020). Hence, the
amount of LHV in syngas grew as a result of the
increasing temperature of the gasifier and the early esti-
mation of the warming of the sun’s influencing rays.
Solar preheating of biomass has the potential to be
used in Indonesia, particularly in the most distant,
remote, and isolated regions of the gasification process.
A possible increase in the LHV of syngas gasification
may already be able to replace diesel fuel. Thus, we
propose that this technique can be utilized to feed a
dual-fuel diesel engine that utilizes syngas. The lower
average gas production of MSW biomass gasification
producers compared to wood pellets can be explained
by the lower sodium content of wood pellets (39.97%
vol) compared to MSW gasification gas (46.44% vol) on
average (39.97% vol).
3.4. Effect of temperature on cold gas efficiency
and carbon conversion
In addition to the LHV and gas yield, CGE and CCE
are essential parameters for gasification. CGE refers
to the first law of thermodynamics as the ratio of
energy output to input energy. The CGE can be cal-
culated from the ratio of the mass rate of the syngas

product and the lower heating value of the gas to
the feedstock’s mass rate and lower heating value,
as shown in Equation (5). Therefore, CGE is deter-
mined by the energy conversion performance during
the gasification process. The CCE is also one of the
measuring tools for the success of the mass conver-
sion process in biomass gasification, which converts
solid fuels into fuel-capable gases, as shown in
Equation (4). The CCE measures and identifies the
amount of unburned carbon and tar as part of
the gasification product. It can be determined from
the amount of carbon in the feedstock that can be
converted into a gas scanned from carbon monox-
ide, carbon dioxide, and methane gas volume.
According to the research results of Lee et al. (2020),
CGE is greater than 80% and CCE ranges from 60-
84%. According to the research results of Atnaw
et al. (2013), when ER rises, CGE decreases and CCE
rises. The following correlations show the effect of
temperature and ER on CGE and CCE: Ariffin et al.
(2016), Pio and Tarelho (2020), and Nemmour, Inayat,
Janajreh, and Ghenai (2022), each of them is:
CGE ¼ 0:1214T  28:566, R2 ¼ 0:8856 (24)
CGE ¼ 0:12096T  59:3921 ER þ 0:916735, R ¼ 0:71
2
(25)
CCE ¼ 0:093148T þ 52:28168 ER þ 5:5825185, R2
¼ 0:70
(26)
CCE ¼ 89:33 þ 9:62T þ 15:75ER  8:62 T  ER
 7:55T 2  8:09ðERÞ2 (27)
Figure 8 shows the impact of gasifier reactor oxi-
dation zone temperature on CGE and CCE with bio-
mass from (a) MSW and (b) wood pellets at an ER of
0.22. Figure 8(a) shows that as the temperature
increased, the CGE gasification for MSW biomass
increased from 51.15% at 700
C to 59.23% at 900
C,
yielding an average CGE of 56.60%. Meanwhile, the
CCE dropped from 94.78% at 700
C to 94.68% at
750
C, then increased to 84.87% at 900
C, with the
average CCE remaining at 94.77%. Figure 8(b) shows
that the CGE and CCE of wood pellets increased
with increasing temperature, from 58.05% at 700
C
to 75.00% at 900
C. Wood pellets, on the other
hand, had an average CGE of 67.90%. At 900
C, the
CCE of wood pellet gasification decreased from
94.88% to 93.77%, while the average CCE was
94.27%. This demonstrates that as the temperature
of the gasification process with MSW biomass
increased, the amount of feedstock converted into
combustion-capable gas increased. In contrast, when
wood pellets were used, the amount of feedstock
converted to gas decreased. Based on this phenom-
enon, whenever the gasification process uses wood
ARAB JOURNAL OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCES 389
Figure 8. The effect of reactor temperature on cold gas effi-
ciency (CGE) and carbon conversion efficiency (CCE) with
biomass from (a) municipal solid waste (MSW), (b) wood pel-
lets at ER ¼ 0.22.
pellets, the oxidation zone should be controlled to
keep the temperature below 1000
C.
This result with MSW biomass is confirmed by the
results of Ariffin et al. (2016) and Pio and Tarelho
(2020), which indicate that as the temperature rises,
CCE and CGE similarly increase. The results of CCE gas-
ification with biomass wood pellets differ from those
presented by Pio and Tarelho (2020), but CCE wood
pellets can be justified by research results from
(Nemmour et al., 2022). T ¼ 838
C, ER ¼ 0.45 is the
optimization point of Eq. (27). If the temperature rises
above 838
C at constant conditions ER ¼ 0.22, the CCE
tends to fall. The average CGE of MSW was 56.6%, and
the CGE of wood pellets was 67.9%, yielding results
that were similar to those of Atnaw et al. (2013); Erlich
and Fransson (2011) at ER ¼ 0.36. The CGE results of
this study are also similar to those of Lee et al. (2020),
specifically at ER ¼ 0.2. This study’s CGE will be higher
than that of (Ding et al., 2018; Umeda et al., 2019), but
lower than that of Aydin et al. (2019); Calı et al. (2020),
where CGE reached 80%. When compared to published
research results, the results of this study were relatively
similar to the results of Atnaw et al. (2013); Dudyn
ski
et al. (2015) at ER ¼ 0.36, where the carbon conversion
was above 90.0%.
The pre-gasification heating of biomass with sun-
light affects the gasification efficiency, specifically CGE
and CCE. Compared to the results of this research, the
CGE gasification of MSW without initial treatment per-
formed significantly better than the CCE, and the CCE
performed significantly better than the early treat-
ment (Ependi et al., 2019; Saleh et al., 2020). It
390 P. SUPARMIN ET AL.
significantly increased CGE and decreased CCE com-
pared to torrefaction pretreatment of MSW (Umeda
et al., 2019). Compared to prior research by Chen et al.
(2020), the effect of preheating with sunshine on
wood pellet gasification resulted in decreased CGE
without initial behavior, but was greater than torrefac-
tion as the initial treatment. However, the CCE in this
investigation was greater than that of pellets treated
with torrefaction prior to gasification and less than
that of pellets gasified with tapa pretreatment.
Consequently, even though the CCE was lower than
that of untreated biomass, the CGE was higher after
the initial heating with sun energy.
4. Conclusions
Preheating in the sun for four days can reduce the
oxygen, hydrogen, moisture, and volatile matter con-
tent, increase the molar and fixed carbon contents,
and raise the HHV value of the feedstock. The gasifi-
cation process utilises a downdraft reactor with a
biomass capacity of 135–144 kg and an air rate of
180–220 L/min at an equivalent ratio of 0.22 at tem-
peratures ranging from 700 to 900
C. The gasifica-
tion process with MSW biomass yielded gas
concentrations of 25.76% CO, 12.16% CO2, 3.66%
CH4, and 11.98% H2 at a feedstock mass rate of
11.67 kg/h. Syngas had an LHV of 5.85 MJ/Nm3, a
cold gas efficiency of 56.5%, and a carbon conver-
sion efficiency of 94.77%. The gasification process
using biomass wood pellets with a feedstock mass
rate of 12.73 kg/h resulted in gas concentrations of
22.96% CO, 17.42% CO2, 3.74% CH4, and 15.91% H2.
Syngas had an LHV of 5.95 MJ/Nm3, a cold gas effi-
ciency of 67.90%, and a carbon conversion efficiency
of 94.27%. According to the findings of this study,
using a downdraft reactor for gasification is sufficient
to convert biomass into syngas. The method of solar
preheating has been shown to increase the calorific
value of feedstock and gas yield. The calorific value
of yield gas indicates that it could be used as fuel in
dual-fuel diesel engines.
Nomenclature
ER equivalent ratio
O/C oxygen to carbon ratio
H/C hydrogen to carbon ratio
LHV lower heating value
HHV height heating value
MSW municipal solid waste
CGE cold gases efficiency
CCE carbon conversion efficiency
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CH4 methane
H2 hydrogen
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our gratitude to the Director
General of Higher Education of the Ministry of Education
and Culture, the LL3 Coordinator of the Ministry of
Education and Culture, and Institut Teknologi PLN for the
trust given so that this research was conducted properly.
Author contributions
All authors contributed substantially to the manuscript.
Conceptualization, P.S. and H.H; methodology, P.S and
R.N.; data curation, P.S, H.H., and M.R.; writing—original
draft preparation, P.S. and H.H; writing—review and edit-
ing, P.S., R.N., and H.H.; software, P.S.; validation, P.S., H.H,
and M.R.; formal analysis, P.S., R.N., and H.H.; supervision,
R.N. and M.R. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by Institut Teknologi PLN and
the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and
Technology (Kemendikbudristek) in the 2022 fiscal year
with the PDUPT scheme (parent contract number:
155/ES/PG.02.00/PT/2022 and derivative contract No:
385/LL3/Ak.04/2022).
ORCID
Prayudi Suparmin http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0950-8209
Data availability statement
Data are not publicly available; the data may be made
available upon request from the corresponding author.
References
Ariffin, M. A., Wan Mahmood, W. M. F., Mohamed, R., &
Mohd Nor, M. T. (2016). Performance of oil palm kernel
shell gasification using a medium-scale downdraft gasif-
ier. International Journal of Green Energy, 13(5), 513–520.
doi:10.1080/15435075.2014.966266
Muhammad Afif Ariffin, Wan Mohd Faizal Wan Mahmood,
Ramizi Mohamed, Mohd Tusirin Mohd Nor. (2017).
Performance of oil palm frond gasification using
medium-scale downdraft gasification for electricity gen-
eration. IET Renewable Power Generation, 9 (3), 228–235.
doi:10.1049/iet-rpg.2014.0133
Atnaw, S. M., Sulaiman, S. A., & Yusup, S. (2013). Syngas
production from downdraft gasification of oil palm
fronds. Energy, 61, 491–501. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.
09.039
Aydin, E. S., Yucel, O., & Sadikoglu, H. (2019). Experimental
study on hydrogen-rich syngas production via gasifica-
tion of pine cone particles and wood pellets in a fixed
bed downdraft gasifier. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy, 44(32), 17389–17396. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.
02.175
Basu, P. (2013). Biomass Gasification, Pyrolysis and
Torrefaction: Practical Design and Theory. London:
Academic Press. ISBN:978-0-12-396488-5.

BPPT. (2021). Outlook Engergi Indonesia 2021, Perspektif
Teknologi Energi Indonesia. PPIPE BPPT. https://www.
bppt.go.id/dokumen/outlook-energi
Buragohain, B., Mahanta, P., & Moholkar, V. S. (2012).
Performance correlations for biomass gasifiers using
semi-equilibirium non-stoichiometric thermodynamic
models. International Journal of Energy Research, 36(5),
590–618. doi:10.1002/er
Calı, G., Deiana, P., Bassano, C., Meloni, S., Maggio, E.,
Mascia, M., & Pettinau, A. (2020). Syngas production,
clean-up and wastewater management in a demo-scale
fixed-bed updraft biomass gasification unit. Energies,
13(10), 2594. doi:10.3390/en13102594
Channiwala, S. A., & Parikh, P. P. (2002). A unified correl-
ation for estimating HHV of solid, liquid and gaseous
fuels. Fuel, 81(8), 1051–1063. doi:10.1016/S0016-
2361(01)00131-4
Chen, D., Gao, A., Cen, K., Zhang, J., Cao, X., & Ma, Z.
(2018). Investigation of biomass torrefaction based on
three major components: Hemicellulose, cellulose, and
lignin. Energy Conversion and Management, 169(May),
228–237. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2018.05.063
Chen, G., Jamro, I. A., Samo, S. R., Wenga, T., Baloch, H. A.,
Yan, B., & Ma, W. (2020). Hydrogen-rich syngas produc-
tion from municipal solid waste gasification through the
application of central composite design: An optimization
study. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 45(58),
33260–33273. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.09.118
Chen, W. H., Peng, J., & Bi, X. T. (2015). A state-of-the-art
review of biomass torrefaction, densification and appli-
cations. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 44,
847–866. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.12.039
DEN. (2019). Outlook Energi Indonesia 2019. In S.
Abdurrahman, M. Pertiwi, & Walujanto (Eds.), Sekretariat
Jenderal Dewan Eenergi Nasional (DEN). DEN, Dewan
Energi Nasional. https://www.esdm.go.id/assets/media/
content/content-outlook-energi-indonesia-2019-bahasa-
indonesia.pdf.
Ding, L., Yoshikawa, K., Fukuhara, M., Kowata, Y.,
Nakamura, S., Xin, D., & Muhan, L. (2018). Development
of an ultra-small biomass gasification and power gener-
ation system: Part 2. Gasification characteristics of car-
bonized pellets/briquettes in a pilot-scale updraft fixed
bed gasifier. Fuel, 220(January), 210–219. doi:10.1016/j.
fuel.2018.01.080
Dudyn
ski, M., Van Dyk, J. C., Kwiatkowski, K., & Sosnowska,
M. (2015). Biomass gasification: Influence of torrefaction
on syngas production and tar formation. Fuel Processing
Technology, 131, 203–212. doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.11.
018
Ependi, D. R., Saleh, A. R., & Sudarmanta, B. (2019). The
experimental study of the effect of air preheating in
MSW pellet multi-stage downdraft gasifier. IPTEK the
Journal for Technology and Science, 30(2), 36–40. doi:10.
12962/j20882033.v30i2.5005
Erlich, C., & Fransson, T. H. (2011). Downdraft gasification
of pellets made of wood, palm-oil residues respective
bagasse: Experimental study. Applied Energy, 88(3), 899–
908. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.08.028
Heidenreich, S., & Foscolo, P. U. (2015). New concepts in
biomass gasification. Progress in Energy and Combustion
Science, 46, 72–95. doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2014.06.002
Homdoung, N., Dussadee, N., Sasujit, K., Kiatsiriroat, T., &
Tippayawong, N. (2019). Performance investigation of a
gasifier and gas engine system operated on municipal
solid waste briquettes. International Journal of
ARAB JOURNAL OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCES 391
Renewable Energy Development, 8(2), 179–184. doi:10.
14710/ijred.8.2.179-184
Hu, J., Li, C., Lee, D. J., Guo, Q., Zhao, S., Zhang, Q., & Li, D.
(2019). Syngas production from biomass using Fe-based
oxygen carrier: Optimization. Bioresource Technology,
280, 183–187. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2019.02.012
Indrawan, N., Thapa, S., Bhoi, P. R., Huhnke, R. L., & Kumar,
A. (2017). Engine power generation and emission per-
formance of syngas generated from low-density bio-
mass. Energy Conversion and Management, 148, 593–603.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2017.05.066
Kumari, P., & Mohanty, B. (2022). Maximization of hydrogen
production from pine needles steam gasification based
on response surface methodology. Biomass Conversion
and Biorefinery, 12(7), 2335–2348. doi:10.1007/s13399-
020-00761-7
Kurkela, E., Kurkela, M., & Ilkka, H. (2014). Effect of wood
particle size and different process variables on the per-
formance of steam-oxygen blown circulating fluidized
bed gasifier. Environmental Progress & Sustainable
Energy, 33(3), 681–687. doi:10.1002/ep
Lee, S. Y., Alam, M. T., Han, G. H., Choi, D. H., & Park, S. W.
(2020). Gasification applicability of Korean municipal
waste derived solid fuel: A comparative study. Processes,
8(11), 1375. doi:10.3390/pr8111375
Molino, A., Chianese, S., & Musmarra, D. (2016). Biomass
gasification technology: The state of the art overview.
Journal of Energy Chemistry, 25(1), 10–25. doi:10.1016/j.
jechem.2015.11.005
Molino, A., Larocca, V., Chianese, S., & Musmarra, D. (2018).
Biofuels production by biomass gasification: A review.
Energies, 11(4), 811. doi:10.3390/en11040811
Nemmour, A., Inayat, A., Janajreh, I., & Ghenai, C. (2022).
New performance correlations of municipal solid waste
gasification for sustainable syngas fuel production.
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 12(10), 4271–4289.
doi:10.1007/s13399-021-02237-8
Nimmanterdwong, P., Chalermsinsuwan, B., &
Piumsomboon, P. (2020). Simplified empirical model to
predict biomass thermal conversion products. Energy
Reports, 6(April), 286–292. doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2020.08.051
Noma, T., Ide, K., Yoshikawa, J., Kojo, K., Matsui, H.,
Nakajima, R., & Imai, K. (2012). Development of waste
gasification and gas reforming system for municipal
solid waste (MSW). Journal of Material Cycles and Waste
Management, 14(3), 153–161. doi:10.1007/s10163-012-
0051-3
Nyakuma, B. B., Wong, S. L., Oladokun, O., Bello, A. A.,
Hambali, H. U., Abdullah, T. A. T., & Wong, K. Y. (2023).
Review of the fuel properties, characterisation techni-
ques, and pre-treatment technologies for oil palm
empty fruit bunches. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery,
13(1), 471–497. doi:10.1007/s13399-020-01133-x
Patra, T. K., & Sheth, P. N. (2015). Biomass gasification mod-
els for downdraft gasifier: A state-of-the-art review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 50, 583–593.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.012
Pio, D. T., & Tarelho, L. A. C. (2020). Empirical and chemical
equilibrium modelling for prediction of biomass gasifica-
tion products in bubbling fluidized beds. Energy, 202,
117654. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.117654
Primadita, D. S., Kumara, I. N. S., & Ariastina, W. (2020). A
review on biomass for electricity generation in
Indonesia. Journal of Electrical, Electronics and
Informatics, 4(1), 1–9. doi:10.24843/JEEI.2020.v04.i01.p01
392 P. SUPARMIN ET AL.
Puig-Arnavat, M., Bruno, J. C., & Coronas, A. (2010). Review
and analysis of biomass gasification models. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(9), 2841–2851. doi:10.
1016/j.rser.2010.07.030
Rahman, M. A., Parvej, A. M., & Aziz, M. A. (2021).
Concentrating technologies with reactor integration and
effect of process variables on solar assisted pyrolysis: A
critical review. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress,
25(April), 100957. doi:10.1016/j.tsep.2021.100957
Rajendran, N., Gurunathan, B., Han, J., Krishna, S., Ananth,
A., Venugopal, K., & Sherly Priyanka, R. B. (2021). Recent
advances in valorization of organic municipal waste into
energy using biorefinery approach, environment and
economic analysis. Bioresource Technology, 337(May),
125498. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125498
Ruiz, J. A., Ju
arez, M. C., Morales, M. P., Mun ~oz, P., &
Mend
ıvil, M. A. (2013). Biomass gasification for electricity
generation: Review of current technology barriers.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 18, 174–183.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.021
Rupesh, S., Muraleedharan, C., & Arun, P. (2015). A com-
parative study on gaseous fuel generation capability of
biomass materials by thermo-chemical gasification using
stoichiometric quasi-steady-state model. International
Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, 6(4),
375–384. doi:10.1007/s40095-015-0182-0
Rupesh, S., Muraleedharan, C., & Arun, P. (2020). Energy
and exergy analysis of syngas production from different
biomasses through air-steam gasification. Frontiers in
Energy, 14(3), 607–619. doi:10.1007/s11708-016-0439-1
Saleh, A. R., Sudarmanta, B., Fansuri, H., & Muraza, O.
(2019). Improved municipal solid waste gasification effi-
ciency using a modified downdraft gasifier with varia-
tions of air input and preheated air temperature. Energy
& Fuels, 33(11), 11049–11056. doi:10.1021/acs.energy-
fuels.9b02486
Saleh, A. R., Sudarmanta, B., Fansuri, H., & Muraza, O.
(2020). Syngas production from municipal solid waste
with a reduced tar yield by three-stages of air inlet to a
downdraft gasifier. Fuel, 263(September), 116509. doi:10.
1016/j.fuel.2019.116509
Sharma, M., & Kaushal, R. (2020). Performance and emis-
sion analysis of a dual fuel variable compression ratio
(VCR) CI engine utilizing producer gas derived from wal-
nut shells. Energy, 192, 116725. doi:10.1016/j.energy.
2019.116725
Sharma, P. K., Sharma, A. K., Pulla, R. H., & Sahoo, P. K.
(2020). Performance analysis of a medium-scale down-
draft gasifier using Lantana camera biomass as feeding
material. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization and
Environmental Effects, . doi:10.1080/15567036.2020.
1809565
Sidek, F. N., Abdul Samad, N. A. F., & Saleh, S. (2020).
Review on effects of gasifying agents, temperature and
equivalence ratio in biomass gasification process. IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering,
863(1), 012028. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/863/1/012028
Situmorang, Y. A., Zhao, Z., Yoshida, A., Abudula, A., &
Guan, G. (2020). Small-scale biomass gasification systems
for power generation (<200 kW class): A review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 117(January),
109486. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109486
Subramanian, P., Sampathrajan, A., & Venkatachalam, P.
(2011). Fluidized bed gasification of select granular bio-
materials. Bioresource Technology, 102(2), 1914–1920.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.022
Sudarmanta, B. (2010). Dual fuel engine performance using
biodiesel and syngas from rice husk downdraft gasifier
for power generation. In International Seminar on
Sustainable Biomass Production and Utilization:
Challenges and Opportunities, pp. 1–8.
Sudarmanta, B., Sampurno, Dwiyantoro, B. A., Gemilang,
S. E., & Putra, A. B. K. (2019). Performance characteriza-
tion of waste to electric prototype uses a dual fuel die-
sel engine and a multi-stage downdraft gasification
reactor. Materials Science Forum, 964, 80–87. doi:10.
4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.964.80
Susastriawan, A. A. P., Purwanto, Y., & Purnomo. (2021).
Biomass gasifier–internal combustion engine system:
Review of literature. International Journal of Sustainable
Engineering, 14(5), 1090–1100. doi:10.1080/19397038.
2020.1821404
Susastriawan, A. A. P., Saptoadi, H., Purnomo. (2017). Small-
scale downdraft gasifiers for biomass gasification: A
review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
76(February), 989–1003. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.112
Trinh, T. H., & Uemura, Y. (2019). A theoretical equation
presenting slope in van Krevelen diagram for biomass
pyrolysis. Platform - A Journal of Engineering, 3(April),
56–64.
Umar, H. A., Sulaiman, S. A., Said, M. A., Gungor, A.,
Ahmad, R. K., & Inayat, M. (2021). Syngas production
from gasification and co-gasification of oil palm trunk
and frond using a down-draft gasifier. International
Journal of Energy Research, 45(5), 8103–8115. doi:10.
1002/er.6345
Umeda, K., Nakamura, S., Lu, D., & Yoshikawa, K. (2019).
Biomass gasification employing low-temperature car-
bonization pretreatment for tar reduction. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 126(April), 142–149. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.
2019.05.002