Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery (2024) 14:16189–16197

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-03704-6

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Characterization and value‑added addition of biomass

for the reduction of emissions using coal as co‑feed
Muhammad Azam Usto1 · Zulfiqar Solangi2 · Abdul Kareem Shah1 · Khan Muhammad Qureshi2 ·
Syed Hasseb Sultan3 · Muhammad Irfan Rajput4 · Abdul Sattar Jatoi1 · Ayaz Ali Shah3 · Shahrukh Memon1 ·
Fida Hussain Channa5 · Sajid Hussain Siyal5 · Arshad Iqbal jarwar1

Received: 12 October 2022 / Revised: 16 December 2022 / Accepted: 20 December 2022 / Published online: 3 January 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
The combustion of coal creates many environmental and health problems, apart from it has many problems associated with
the power plant combustor during the use of coal with the impurities. Biomass utilization could be the best option for the
use as co-feed with coal. Coal biomass co-combustion was observed in this work, and different blends of coal and biomass
were prepared. Banana tree waste, cow dung, and tree leaves were selected as biomass fuel for this study. It was observed
that the coal biomass blend has less emission gases as compared to raw coal, and the amount of CO, ­CO2, and ­SO2 was
reduced that was in higher amount in raw coal. At a ratio of 60% of Lakhra coal and 40% of cow dung manure, the lowest of
CO emission was observed, that was 580 ppm, and at the ratio of 60% of Lakhra coal, 40% of tree leaves. The SO2 emission
was reduced from 377 to 170 ppm. Minimum carbon monoxide was observed for the blend of 70% Lakhra coal and 30%
cow dung manure. The calorific value of biomass was increased with coal bland the bland of 70% Lakhra coal and 30% cow
dung has the highest calorific value. Also, the thermogravimetric properties were increased in the coal biomass blend. The
mass reduction was slow at the start while it was suddenly increased in zoon one from temperature 0 to 200 °C. while zoon
two from 200 to 800 °C mass reduction was increased with higher rate and zoon three mass reduction was stopped.

Keywords Lakhra Coal · Biomass · Co-Combustion · Emission gases

1 Introduction impotence due to its naturally carbon-based material and

wide availability and considered as renewable energy source
Co-combustion is a privileged way to utilize the waste bio- [1] that increases the efficiency and utilization of fuel [1,
mass for the replacement of fossil fuel in energy generation. 2]. The coal biomass co-combustion represents not only the
Also, the use of coal biomass co-combustion is the viable reduction of emission of harmful gases but also reduces the
scientific option for reducing the harmful emission. Coal anaerobic release of H ­ 2S, amides, volatile organic acids,
biomass blends are used in power generation gaining great and other chemicals like esters [3]. It has been investigated
that co-firing of coal-biomass within the coal-fired boilers
* Abdul Sattar Jatoi shows the most economical and effective renewable energy
abdul.sattar@duet.edu.pk technique [4].
The agricultural waste generated in Pakistan is mostly
1
Department of Chemical Engineering, Dawood University landfilled and is the source of methane release, that is, a
of Engineering and Technology, Karachi, Pakistan
greenhouse gas that is much more higher global warming
2
Chemical Engineering Department, Mehran University potential than that of C­ O2 [5–7]. In agricultural nations,
of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Pakistan
biomass is in many cases the biggest wellspring of energy
3
Chemical Engineering Department, BUITEMS, Quetta, [8]. Biomass combustion gives essential energy prerequi-
Pakistan
sites to cooking and heating and for handling in an assort-
4
Energy and Environmental Engineering Department, Dawood ment of conventional industries in the emerging nations
University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi, Pakistan
[9]. Biomass Agriculture waste (food crops), produces the
5
Mining Engineering Department, Mehran University carbon dioxide during their combustion, but during growth
of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Pakistan

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
16190 Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery (2024) 14:16189–16197

Research path way

Phase
Coal sample
prepration

Dryer Grinder Screening

Screening
Prepration
Bio mass

Grinder
Dryer Crusher
Combustion

Labe Testing

Mixer
Combustor

Fig. 1  Research pathway for coal biomass co-combustion

Table 1  Particle size with mass Sample no Diameter (mm) Mass fraction (%)
fraction of each biomass
Lignite coal Tree leaves Banana tree waste Cow dung manure

1 4.75 85.19597 0.000345 0.342466 0

2 4.00 3.9473 0.034471 0.684932 0.068446
3 2.80 4.934 1.723538 6.164384 1.026694
4 2.00 1.9736 11.72006 24.65753 4.4490
5 1.00 1.9736 46.53552 36.9863 21.902
6 0.60 0.98683 21.37187 12.32877 22.58727
7 0.30 0.32894 10.68593 8.29178 25.32512
8 0.15 0.00164 6.204736 5.479452 13.004
9 0.075 0.657 1.723538 5.13698 11.63587

as plat, they absorb the ­CO2 from the atmosphere. There- that coal biomass combustion has great effect in the
fore agriculture waste shows the balance of C
­ O2 recycling reduction of Sox and NOx emission levels [12]. As
and does not contribute to the net harmful greenhouse compared to other fossil fuels, biomass fuels have less
effect [6, 10] even woody. ­C O 2 production during combustion [13], and biomass
Coal biomass co-combustion appears as the best production is economical and more effective [14–16].
solution to fulfill the power crisis and also reduc- Mostly, biomass (woody) contains no sulfur; therefore,
tion in pollutant emissions [11]. It has been observed co-firing with biomass causes the reduction in S
­ O 2 and

13
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery (2024) 14:16189–16197 16191

Fig. 2  a Coal lignite particle size with different mass fraction, b tree leaves particle size with different mass fraction, c Banana tree waste parti-
cle size with different mass fraction d coal lignite particle size with different mass fraction

­N O 2 and also results in carbon dioxide reduction per NOx production as in coal; hence, the biomass lowers
unit of energy produced as compared to using coal only the amount of NOx emission level. DC liu [31, 32]
[17–19]. Coal biomass co-combustion is an attractive has performed the coal biomass co-combustion in a
option for energy generation from both environmental fluidized bed combustor and observed that amount of
and economical points of view [1, 20–22]. Coal bio- NOx and Sox and CO is to be reduced as compared to
mass does not require any special type of boiler oil only the combustion of coal. Furthermore, the alkali
furnace design, but a coal-fired boiler is suitable for component present in biomass has an effect of SOx
co-combustion [11, 23, 24]. About 10% of coal biomass removal [33–35]. Even some biomass has a higher level
co-combustion in coal power plants reduce the amount of volatile matter that can be used as NOx reduction
of carbon dioxide emissions from 45 to 450 million agents [36–38]. SS Dawood has observed that biomass
per year by 2035 [25–28]. The use of biomass for elec- has a higher tendency to reduce the NOx level in (pro-
tricity generation results in environmentally friendly duced from coal combustion) [37]. Wojceich Moron has
as compared to coal combustion in power plants [29, observed that co-combustion of biomass and coal under
30]. The nitrogen present in biomass is to be converted oxy-fuel combustion has great effect to reduce the ­CO 2
into the ammonia (­ NH 3 ) during combustion instead to emission into the atmosphere [38].

13
16192 Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery (2024) 14:16189–16197

Table 2  Ultimate analysis for each ratio of biomass and coal bland Coal and biomass were dried crushed screened and mixed
S. No Sample name N C H S and then mixture of coal and biomass was burned in com-
bustor, the combustion was carried out in local combustor
1 LC + BTW 14,042,014 0.138 48.735 4.825 2.764 in which the hand blower was fixed for air supply and com-
2 LC + BTW 41 14,042,014 0.046 52.938 4.710 3.440 bustor has two stages, one for combustion material and the
3 LC + BTW 45 14,042,014 0.023 53.353 4.639 4.185 second lower stage was for ash collection (Fig. 1).
4 LCBTW 3.5 + 1 5 14,042,014 0.000 47.602 4.572 2.850 Coal was mixed with biomass with different ratios and
5 LCCDW 3 + 2 14,042,014 0.226 47.148 4.527 2.380 each blended sample was characterized by emission analysis,
6 LCCDW 3.5 + 1.5 14,042,014 0.237 47.807 1.435 2.886 TGA with help of CHNS analyzer and heating value (80%
7 LCCDW 4 + 1 14,042,014 0.191 53.825 4.709 4.103 lignite coal + 20% banana tree waste).
8 LCCDW 4.5 + 0.5 14,042,014 0.094 51.956 2.621 3.985
9 LC TL 3.5 + 1.5 14,042,014 0.000 52.784 4.999 3.055
10 LC TL 4.5 + 0.5 14,042,014 0.000 55.650 4.912 3.728
11 LC TL 4 + 1 14,042,014 0.000 54.022 4.942 3.332 3 Results and discussion
12 Tree leaves 14,042,014 0.000 45.185 0.000 0.071
13 Lignite coat 14,042,014 0.000 58.662 4.640 5.369 Particle size analysis of coal, biomass and their blends was
14 Cow dungs manure 14,042,014 0.364 37.029 4.681 0.148 carried out to see the effects of coal, biomass, and their
15 Banana tree 14,042,014 0.000 35.953 4.726 0.309 blends on co-firing. Sieve analysis of coal and biomass did
16 LC Tl 3 + 214,042,014 0.000 52.210 5.266 2.234 in the chemical engineering department of DUET Kara-
chi using sieve shaker. The material was first crushed and
then put in the sieve shaker to see the different sizes of the
Table 3  Proximate analysis of samples material. The result of the coal and biomass sieve analysis
is shown in Table 1. The sample contain 0.657% for lig-
Matter Moisture % Volatile Ash % Fixed Calorific
matter carbon value (BTU/ nite coal, 1.723% for tree leaves, 5.13698 for banana tree
% % lb) waste, and for cow dung manure 11.635% is of 0.075 mm
size. The particle size from 0.15 to 1.00 mm contains
Lakhra coal 14.9 35 24 26 6997
about 0.822753% for lignite coal, 21.19951% for tree
Cow dung 18% 28.8 32 21 5002
leaves, 15.77158% for banana tree waste, and 20.7046%
Tree leaves 12 32 37 19 4450
for cow dung manure. The particle size from 2 to 4.75 mm
Banana Tree 19 41 28 12 4980
of different materials was analyzed and gives the result
waste
of 24.01272% for lignite coal, 3.369604% for tree leaves,
7.962328% for banana tree waste, and 1.386035% for cow
The thermogravimetric analysis was performed for the dung manure.
Greek lignite coal with forum biomass materials by chang-
ing the co-firing ratios for coal to biomass. It was observed
that there is no significant interaction between the coal and 3.1 Effect of particle size
biomass blend under the heating rate of 10 °C/min [39].
Coal and olive bagasse was investigated by the tevfik and Different types of material were analyzed to see which
observed that by increasing the ratio of olive bagasse by material has finer properties, like lignite coal, tree leaves,
coal the ignition and peak temperature and calorific value banana tree waste, and cow dung manure. In Fig. 2a, lig-
of coal was decreased [40]. The biomass has higher ther- nite coal was analyzed to see the particle size the max-
mochemical reactivity than coal because of its higher vola- imum amount of lignite obtained was about 85% mass
tile matter substance and molar ratio of hydrogen to carbon fraction of 4.75 mm size, and the minimum size obtained
[41]. was about 0.657%. At 0.075 mm for lignite, it was taken
from Lakhra coal power plant. Figure 2b shows the parti-
cle size analysis of tree leaves which were sieved in sieve
2 Method and material shaker to see the different size ranges, the maximum mass
fraction obtained at 1 mm was about 46.533% mass frac-
The main raw materials used in this research work are lignite tion and the minimum mass fraction at 4.75 mm which is
Lakhra coal and biomass (tree leaves, banana plant waste, about 0.00345%. In Fig. 2c, banana tree waste was ana-
and cow dung manure). Samples of different biomass sam- lyzed in sieve shaker to check the particle size at different
ples were collected and further characterize via different
analysis techniques.

13
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery (2024) 14:16189–16197 16193

Fig. 3  a Effect of material

blending ratios on CO emission,
b effect of material blending
ratios on ­SO2 emission, c effect
of material blending ratios
on NOx emission, d effect of
material blending ratios on ­CO2
emission

13
16194 Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery (2024) 14:16189–16197

Fig. 4  Calorific value of coal

biomasses and blends

Fig. 5  a TGA of sample 1 baggas, b TGA of coal sample 2, c TGA analysis of sample 3 90% C and 10% B, d TGA analysis of sample 4, 80% C
and 20% B, TGA, e analysis of sample 5, 70% C and 30% B, f TGA Analysis of Sample 6, 60% C and 40% B, g

13
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery (2024) 14:16189–16197 16195

Fig. 5  (continued)

openings the maximum size range was obtained at 1 mm CO emission was observed, that was 580 ppm as shown in
of size of about 36.983% mass fraction and minimum size Tables 2 and 3.
at 4.75 mm about 0.345% mass fraction. Figure 2d shows Smiler for S­ O 2, Lakhra coal has the highest amount
cow dung manure being analyzed using sieve shaker dif- of ­S O 2 produced, due to the higher amount of Sulfur
ferent sizes of materials were obtained, the maximum present that was 377 ppm. While for biomass the amount
mass fraction obtained at 0.3 mm about 25.03%, and of sulfur is very less amount. Also with increase in the
the minimum mass fraction obtained at 4.75 mm about biomass ratio in coal, the amount of sulfur was observed
0.001% mass fraction. to be reduced. The lakhra coal was 60%, LT 40% the SO2
emission was 170 ppm. L.S Pedersen has performed the
co-firing of straw and pulverized coal it was observed
4 Emissions analysis coming that an increase in the fraction of straw in the fuel blend
from co‑combustion of coal, biomass, results in reduction in NO and ­S O 2 emission [42]. It
and their blends has been observed that the only raw coal has the maxi-
mum amount of CO emission [43].while the different
During co-firing of coal and biomass, emissions coming values of carbon monoxide emission were observed, the
from that were analyzed using stack gas analyzer. It was maximum carbon monoxide was observed for raw lakhra
observed that lakhra coal has the highest amount of CO, coal and the minimum carbon monoxide was observed
­CO2, and ­SO2, and due to the blend of biomass with coal, for the blend of 70% Lakhra coal and 30% cow dung
these emission gases were reduced in the flue of com- manure. The same effect was observed by l as shown in
bustion. In raw coal amount of CO emission was about Fig. 3a–d, while coal biomass blend tends to reduce the
1700 ppm while due to due the increase in the amount of carbon monoxide emission that was observed by many
biomass incese decreases the emission of CO, at ratio 60% researchers [44, 45].
of Lakhra coal and 40% of Cow dung manure, the lowest of

13
16196 Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery (2024) 14:16189–16197

5 Calorific values 7 Conclusion

The calorific value of the coal biomass and selected Biomass utilization could be the best option for the use
blend ratios were carried out with calorimeter (Par 600). as co-feed with coal. Coal biomass co-combustion was
Calorific value of three ratios was carried out, that is the observed in this work, and different blends of coal and
ratio optimum for CO emission, that is, 60% of Lakhra biomass were prepared. Banana tree waste, cow dung,
coal and 40% of Cow dung manure, the ratio optimum and tree leaves were selected as biomass fuel for this
for ­S O 2 emission that was lakhra coal 60%, tree leaves study. It was observed that the coal biomass blend has
40%, and the ratio optimum for ­CO2 that was 70% Lakhra less emission gases as compared to raw coal, the amount
coal and 30% cow dung manure. It was observed that the of CO, C­ O 2 , and S
­ O 2 was reduced that was in higher
calorific value of biomass was very low as compared amounts in raw coal. Briquettes of coal biomass show
to Lakhra coal, also the blend ratio 70% Lakhra coal environmentally friendly, due to the lowest value of CO,
and 30% cow dung manure has higher value of calorific SOx, and NOx, and also the briquette has higher value
value than that of any other blend. Hence, the calorific of heat flow. This is an efficient way to utilize the low-
value of biomass fuel was increased by blending with grade coal on a commercial basis. Among all biomass,
coal (Fig. 4). the cow dung manure shows good results for calorific
value as well emission gases. The bland of 70% lakhra
coal and 30% cow dung is the optimum bland for higher
6 Thermo‑gravimetric analysis calorific value and lower ­C O 2 and gases emission.

Thermogravimetric properties of combined material

Author contribution All authors do write the manuscript and
have been increased than that of raw coal, weight proofreading.
reduction per unit time is mostly similar, in all sam-
ples but the heat f low is higher in than that of raw Data availability N/A.
coal. TGA graphs are distributed in three zones, zoon
one is from 0 to 200 °C in this zone the mass reduction Declarations
is uniform but slow and heat flow is decreasing for a Ethical approval N/A
while but it increases suddenly to higher values. Zoon
two is from temperature 200 to 800 °C in this zoon the Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
mass is just uniform and then reduced dramatically. In
this zone, the heat flow increase and remains at higher
values for a longer time, it is due to the conversion
of mass to energy. Then in the third zone which is References
from 800 to 1000 °C, the heat flow reduced suddenly
and mass has been converted at 800 °C as shown in 1. Sahu SG, Chakraborty N, Sarkar P (2014) Coal–biomass co-com-
bustion: an overview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 39:575–586
Fig. 5a–e.
2. Baxter L (2005) Biomass-coal co-combustion: opportunity for
Thermogravimetric properties of combined material affordable renewable energy. Fuel 84:1295–1302
have been increased than that of raw coal, weight reduc- 3. Sweeten JM, Annamalai K, Thien B, McDonald LA (2003) Co-
tion per unit time is mostly similar, in all samples but firing of coal and cattle feedlot biomass (FB) fuels. Part I. Feedlot
biomass (cattle manure) fuel quality and characteristics☆. Fuel
the heat flow is higher in than that of raw coal. TGA
82:1167–1182
graphs are distributed in three zones, zoon one is from 4. Cremers M (2009) IEA bioenergy task 32 deliverable 4 technical
0 to 200 °C in this zone the mass reduction is uniform status of biomass co-firing. KEMA, Arnhem, the Netherlands
but slow and heat flow is decreasing for a while but it 5. Munir S (2010) A review on biomass-coal co-combustion: current
state of knowledge. Proc Pakistan Acad Sci 47:265–287
increases suddenly to higher values. Zoon two is from
6. Sami M, Annamalai K, Wooldridge M (2001) Co-firing of coal
temperature 200 to 800 °C in this zoon the mass is just and biomass fuel blends. Prog Energy Combust Sci 27:171–214
uniform and then reduced dramatically. In this zone, 7. Garcia E, Liu H (2022) Ilmenite as alternative bed material for the
the heat flow increase and remains at higher values for combustion of coal and biomass blends in a fluidised bed combus-
tor to improve combustion performance and reduce agglomeration
a longer time, it is due to the conversion of mass to
tendency. Energy 239:121913
energy. Then in the third zone which is from 800 to 8. Adams VM, Asamoah EF, Maina JM, Niu S, Panoutsou C, Wang
1000 °C the heat flow reduced suddenly and mass has Z et al (2022) Priorities for biomass. One Earth 5:3–6
been converted at 800 °C. 9. Mwakitalima IJ, Rizwan M and Kumar N (2022) Potential of
a nonperennial tributary integrated with solar energy for rural

13
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery (2024) 14:16189–16197 16197

electrification: a case study of Ikukwa village in Tanzania. Math 30. Skodras G, Grammelis P, Kakaras E, Sakellaropoulos G (2004)
Probl Eng 2022 Evaluation of the environmental impact of waste wood co-utili-
10. Demirbaş A (2003) Sustainable cofiring of biomass with coal. sation for energy production. Energy 29:2181–2193
Energy Convers Manage 44:1465–1479 31. Liu D, Mi T, Shen B, Feng B, Winter F (2002) Reducing N2O
11. Bhuiyan AA, Blicblau AS, Islam AS, Naser J (2018) A review emission by co-combustion of coal and biomass. Energy Fuels
on thermo-chemical characteristics of coal/biomass co-firing in 16:525–526
industrial furnace. J Energy Inst 91:1–18 32. Yu D, Yu X, Wu J, Han J, Liu F, Pan H (2021) A comprehensive
12. Tabet F, Gökalp I (2015) Review on CFD based models for co-fir- review of ash issues in oxyfuel combustion of coal and biomass:
ing coal and biomass. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 51:1101–1114 mineral matter transformation, ash formation, and deposition.
13. Demirbas A (2004) Combustion characteristics of different bio- Energy Fuels 35:17241–17260
mass fuels. Prog Energy Combust Sci 30:219–230 33. Lee Y-J, Choi J-W, Park J-H, Namkung H, Song G-S, Park S-J
14. Nath K and Das D (2003) Hydrogen from biomass. Curr Sci et al (2018) Techno-economical method for the removal of alkali
265–271 metals from agricultural residue and herbaceous biomass and its
15. Balat M, Balat M (2009) Political, economic and environmen- effect on slagging and fouling behavior. ACS Sustain Chem Eng
tal impacts of biomass-based hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy 6:13056–13065
34:3589–3603 34. Xu X, Huang D, Zhao L, Kan Y, Cao X (2016) Role of inher-
16. Keoleian GA, Volk TA (2005) Renewable energy from willow ent inorganic constituents in SO2 sorption ability of biochars
biomass crops: life cycle energy, environmental and economic derived from three biomass wastes. Environ Sci Technol
performance. BPTS 24:385–406 50:12957–12965
17. Roni MS, Chowdhury S, Mamun S, Marufuzzaman M, Lein W, 35. Nunes L, Matias J, Catalão J (2017) Biomass in the generation
Johnson S (2017) Biomass co-firing technology with policies, of electricity in Portugal: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
challenges, and opportunities: a global review. Renew Sustain 71:373–378
Energy Rev 78:1089–1101 36. Riaza J, Mason P, Jones JM, Gibbins J, Chalmers H (2019) High
18. Ren X, Sun R, Meng X, Vorobiev N, Schiemann M, Levendis YA temperature volatile yield and nitrogen partitioning during pyroly-
(2017) Carbon, sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions from combus- sis of coal and biomass fuels. Fuel 248:215–220
tion of pulverized raw and torrefied biomass. Fuel 188:310–323 37. Daood S, Javed M, Gibbs B, Nimmo W (2013) NOx control in
19. Demirbas A (2005) Potential applications of renewable energy coal combustion by combining biomass co-firing, oxygen enrich-
sources, biomass combustion problems in boiler power systems ment and SNCR. Fuel 105:283–292
and combustion related environmental issues. Prog Energy Com- 38. Moroń W, Rybak W (2015) NOx and SO2 emissions of coals,
bust Sci 31:171–192 biomass and their blends under different oxy-fuel atmospheres.
20. Hroncová E, Ladomerský J, Musil J (2018) Problematic issues of Atmos Environ 116:65–71
air protection during thermal processes related to the energetic 39. Kastanaki E, Vamvuka D, Grammelis P, Kakaras E (2002) Ther-
uses of sewage sludge and other waste. Case study: co-combustion mogravimetric studies of the behavior of lignite–biomass blends
in peaking power plant. Waste Manage 73:574–580 during devolatilization. Fuel Process Technol 77:159–166
21. Sebastián F, Royo J, Gómez M (2011) Cofiring versus biomass- 40. Agacayak T (2022) Investigation of co-combustion characteristics
fired power plants: GHG (Greenhouse Gases) emissions savings of olive bagasse, coal and their respective blends by thermogravi-
comparison by means of LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) methodol- metric analysis (TGA). Int J Coal Prep Util 1–14
ogy. Energy 36:2029–2037 41. Kumar P and Nandi BK (2021) Effect of rice husk blending on
22. Yang X, Luo Z, Yan B, Wang Y, Yu C (2021) Evaluation on combustion characteristics of high ash Indian coal analyzed in
nitrogen conversion during biomass torrefaction and its blend co- TGA. Int J Coal Prep Util 1–14
combustion with coal. Biores Technol 336:125309 42. Pedersen LS, Nielsen HP, Kiil S, Hansen LA, Dam-Johansen K,
23. Mory A, Zotter T (1998) EU-demonstration project BIOCO- Kildsig F et al (1996) Full-scale co-firing of straw and coal. Fuel
COMB for biomass gasification and co-combustion of the prod- 75:1584–1590
uct-gas in a coal-fired power plant in Austria. Biomass Bioenerg 43. Yuan L, Smith AC (2011) CO and CO2 emissions from sponta-
15:239–244 neous heating of coal under different ventilation rates. Int J Coal
24. Nunes L, Matias J, Catalão J (2014) A review on torrefied biomass Geol 88:24–30
pellets as a sustainable alternative to coal in power generation. 44. Howaniec N, Smoliński A (2014) Effect of fuel blend composition
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 40:153–160 on the efficiency of hydrogen-rich gas production in co-gasifica-
25. Li Y-H, Lin H-T, Xiao K-L, Lasek J (2018) Combustion behav- tion of coal and biomass. Fuel 128:442–450
ior of coal pellets blended with Miscanthus biochar. Energy 45. Cabuk B, Duman G, Yanik J, Olgun H (2020) Effect of fuel blend
163:180–190 composition on hydrogen yield in co-gasification of coal and non-
26. Yao X, Zhou H, Xu K, Chen S, Ge J, Xu Q (2020) Systematic woody biomass. Int J Hydrogen Energy 45:3435–3443
study on ash transformation behaviour and thermal kinetic charac-
teristics during co-firing of biomass with high ratios of bituminous Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
coal. Renewable Energy 147:1453–1468 jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
27. B. Erlach, "Biomass upgrading technologies for carbon-neutral
and carbon-negative electricity generation," 2014. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
28. Magalhaes D, Kazanc F (2022) Influence of biomass thermal pre- exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
treatment on the particulate matter formation during pulverized author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
co-combustion with lignite coal. Fuel 308:122027 manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
29. Heller MC, Keoleian GA, Mann MK, Volk TA (2004) Life cycle such publishing agreement and applicable law.
energy and environmental benefits of generating electricity from
willow biomass. Renew Energy 29:1023–1042

13