4.5 Article

Aspen plus simulation of sargassum for quality synthesis gas

Journal

HELIYON
Volume 9, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17731

Keywords

Biomass; Gasification; Aspen plus; Syngas; Sargassum; Simulation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study focuses on the gasification of four biomasses, including pine sawdust, bamboo dust, rice husk, and cane bagasse, using the Aspen Plus software. The simulation results show that rice husk has the lowest error per difference and the gasification of sargassum biomass can produce syngas with a lower heating value.
Biomass is widely considered as a raw material for the production of biochemicals and biofuels and among all the options for its use, the gasification process is the most popular due to its environmental advantages. The great arrival of sargassum to the coasts of the State of Quintana Roo, Mexico, which has taken place for several years, forces us to study its energy use. In this study, the experimental results of the gasification of four biomasses (pine sawdust, bamboo dust, rice husk, and cane bagasse) from three different bibliographical references were simulated and validated, using the Aspen Plus computer software. The simulation model used considers the combustion of 30% of the biomass and therefore an energy balance, in addition to an estimate of the tar generated in the process. Based on the comparison of the percentage molar composition and the heating value of the syngas obtained the performance of the process was evaluated, where the lowest error per difference was for the validation of rice husk (RH) with an ER of 0.35. Subsequently, the sargassum gasification simulation was carried out with information on the properties of this biomass from five bibliographic references, obtaining as a result a syngas with a lower heating value (LHV) that varies between 2.6 and 4.8 MJ/Nm3 for ER of 0.3 and 0.35, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available