STUDY OF SOME PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF BRIQUETTES FROM
DIFFERENT FOREST WOODY BIOMASS COLLECTIONS IN KURDISTAN REGION OF IRAQ
Dilgash Fayeq Yaseen1 ,
Aree Adel Abdulqader2, Ahmed Saieed Abdulla3
1 Department
of Forestry, College of Agricultural Engineering Sciences, University of Duhok, Kurdistan
region- Iraq.
2 Duhok Polytechnic University, Kurdistan region- Iraq.
3 Department of Forestry, College
of Agriculture and Forestry, University of
Mosul, Iraq.
*Corresponding author email: dilgash.yaseen@uod.ac
ABSTRACT:
By
using forest waste, energy sustainability can be improved, and biomass
briquettes offer a sustainable and eco-friendly substitute for fossil fuels.
This study examines the physical characteristics of briquettes made from
various woody biomass species, as a result of assessing factors including the
amount of moisture, density, shatter resistance, tumble resistance, and
resistance to water penetration. Also, to identify ideal production
circumstances, in both tree species (Quercus infectoria and Pinus
brutia). Factors were particle size (2 and 4 mm), moisture levels (6, 9,
and 12%), and briquetting temperature (330 and 350 °C). According to the
results, Quercus infectoria briquettes processed at 350 °C, with
particle sizes of 2 mm and moisture levels of 6%, showed enhanced physical
characteristics and combustion efficiency. Longer burning times were caused by
higher compactness, and storage stability was improved by resistance to water
penetration. These results offer insightful information for the biofuel sector,
assisting producers in improving their methods of production to produce
premium, environmentally friendly biomass briquettes. The study advances the
larger objective of lowering reliance on energy sources that are not renewable
and advancing sustainable energy solutions by enhancing the durability and
efficiency of biomass fuels. The findings support more investigation into
improving biomass briquetting procedures for increasing environmental and
financial advantages.
KEYWORDS: Forest
Woody Biomass, Briquettes, Physical Properties, Density, Water, And Tumbling
Resistance
1. INTRODUCTION
With enormous potential for energy
production, biomass has become an energy source that is both renewable and
sustainable. Utilizing forest wastes, such as sawdust, branches and twigs,
provides an eco-friendly way to manage waste and produce bioenergy. The
selection of raw materials, moisture level, size of particle, and briquetting
temperature are the main elements affecting the manufacture of biomass
briquettes, they are the topic of this review. Sawdust, branches, and twigs are
examples of forest leftovers that are readily available and can be effectively
used to produce bioenergy. One proven method for turning these leftovers into
compact, high-energy-density fuel is biomass briquetting. The main benefits of
employing biomass briquettes are their capacity to improve waste management
procedures, lower carbon emissions, and replace fossil fuels (Demirbas, 2001;
Kaliyan & Morey, 2009).
The physical combustion characteristics of biomass briquettes are greatly
influenced by the choice of raw ingredients. The oak species (Quercus
infectoria spp). and the pine species (Pinus brutia spp)
are taken into consideration in this study. The high lignin concentration of Quercus
infectoria is well-known for improving durability and briquette binding
(Sokhansanj et al., 2005; Shahbaz et al., 2015). Due to its good
calorific value and combustion characteristics, Pinus brutia is commonly
available in Mediterranean regions (Garcia et al., 2014; Ismail, S. M.,
& Ahmed, S. M., 2023).
The
performance and quality of briquetting are significantly influenced by the
moisture content. According to studies, compaction and mechanical qualities are
enhanced by an ideal moisture range of (6–12) % (Grover & Mishra, 1996).
Levels of moisture: 6% moisture: Creates strong, high-density briquettes.
However, processing can require more energy. 9% moisture: Offers the best
possible balance between energy use and compaction efficiency. 12% moisture:
Could cause too much steam to develop, which would weaken the briquettes and
make them more prone to cracking (Mani et al., 2006).
The
density, resilience, and combustion characteristics of biomass briquettes are
influenced by the distribution of particle sizes. The (2 and 4) mm particle
sizes used for this investigation are based on earlier research findings:
Better compaction, higher density, and enhanced combustion efficiency are
guaranteed with 2 mm particles (Tumuluru et al., 2011). 4 mm particles:
Increase briquette airflow, which speeds up ignition and burning, but they may
also weaken the briquette's mechanical integrity (Pérez et al., 2019).
On the
other hand, the briquetting temperature is another important factor, which is
influencing the mechanical characteristics and combustion efficiency of biomass
briquettes. Research shows that briquettes made at temperatures ranging from
330°C to 350°C, are robust and long-lasting (Arias et al., 2008): A
sufficient amount of lignin activation is provided for binding at 330°C,
resulting in moderate strength and stability. 350°C: Promotes thermal breakdown
and increases the durability of briquettes, but it may also cause excessive
volatile loss and reduce combustion efficiency.
Briquette
performance depends heavily on physical characteristics such as density,
moisture content, tumbling resistance, water penetration resistance, and
shatter resistance. Greater density guarantees longer combustion times and
improved energy efficiency. Ineffective burning may result from air pockets
caused by porosity, which is minimized by proper compaction (Sokhansanj et
al., 2005).
The
aim of this study was to assist charcoal producers in determining which species
have the highest quality and may also cause to ensure the correct way of
biomass briquettes quality before sending them to the market and sellers.
Additionally, it was to study of some physical properties such as the
percentages of moisture content, density, tumbling resistance, resistance to
water penetration, and shatter resistance of commonly selected species that are
responsible for better burning and calorific value. Finally, the study will
help buyers and consumers choose high-quality wood charcoal with ease.
2.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Raw Material Collection & Sample Preparation:
The biomass used in this study was available in Zawita and Hojava in Duhok
province, (forest residues of Hardwood and Softwood trees: sawdust - branches, twigs).
The production process involved optimizing factors such as raw material (wood
chips types) from (Quercus infectoria and Pinus brutia), moisture content (6,
9 and 12) %, particle size (2 and 4) mm, and the temperature of the briquetting
machine (330°C and 350°C), without any binder agents to achieve briquettes with
desirable physical properties. The production of the briquette was done at the
bery-mazi factory in kashi- sub district- industrial area by the extrusion
process through the use of a screw press briquetting machine (model – ZZXM-4)
and compact drum chipper (model – INTIMIDATOR 15XPC).
Physical Properties of Biomass Briquette:
The physical
characteristics of biomass charcoal briquettes were assessed, including their density,
overall length and diameter, moisture content, resistance to water penetration,
shattering, and tumbling. A scale and a vernier caliper were used to measure
the briquettes' total length and diameter.
Moisture Content:
The oven-dry method was used to determine the biomass's moisture content. The
specimen with the estimated weight was first stored for 24 hours at 105 ºC
in the oven. The sample was then dried in the oven and weighed (ASTM D3173-03.
2003). The following formula was used to determine the sample's moisture
content:
M.C.
(%) = 
*100 (1)
where:
MC = Moisture content (%)
W1 = Initial weight of the sample before drying (g)
W2 = Final weight of the sample after drying (g)
Density:
The volume of each individual briquette was measured using the water
displacement method. Wax was applied to the briquettes to stop any water from being
absorbed during the merging process. After being weighed, each briquette was
covered with wax. After weighing the wax-coated briquettes, they were suspended
in water, and the weight of the water that was displaced was calculated and
recorded as the wax briquettes' volume (Birwatkar et al. 2014).
Volume of sample
=Volume of waxed sample–Volume of wax (2)
Sample. of Volume
= 
(3)
Where, V = Volume
of the water displaced
W2 =
Weight of sample + string, g
W3 =
Weight of waxed sample + string, g
Tumbling
Resistance:
Briquetted fuel's durability was assessed using
this test. The test was conducted using a metal boox. A known-weight briquette
sample was placed inside the box and sealed with a lid. For fifteen minutes,
the package was shaken vigorously. The briquettes' weight loss was then
recorded, and the following equation was used to determine the tumbling resistance
(Tayade et al., 2010).
Percent weight loss (%) = 
*100 (4)
Tumbling resistance (%) =100 - Percent weight loss
(5)
Where, W1 = Weight of briquette before tumbling, gm
W2 = Weight of briquette after tumbling, gm
Resistance to Water Penetration:
It measures
the proportion of water that a briquette absorbs while submerged in water. For
30 seconds, each briquette was submerged in a 150 mm water column at 27°C. The
following formula was used to determine and record the % water gain (Khalil, H.
P. S. A., & Sulaiman, F., 2012).
(%)
briquettes by gain Water = 
* 100 (6)
Where, W1 =
Initial weight of briquette, g
W2 =
Weight of wet briquette, g
Resistance to
water penetration (%) = 100 - % water gain (7)
Shatter Resistance Test:
The
purpose of this test was to ascertain the briquettes' hardness. On the concrete
floor, a briquette with known weight and length was dropped ten times from a
height of one meter. The size and weight of the broken briquette were recorded.
The material loss as a percentage was computed. The following formula was used
to determine the briquette's shatter resistances (Madhava et al., 2012).
Percent weight
loss (%) = 
*100 (8)
shatter
resistance % = 100- % weight loss (9)
Where: - w1
= weight of briquette before shattering, g
w2 = weight of briquette after shattering, g
3.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Physical Properties:
Moisture Content (M.C. %):
Results
of the analysis of variance revealed that all four factors together with their
interactions had a significant effect on moisture content (MC) (Table 1). It
can be observed that the lowest value of MC (1.97 %) was obtained in briquettes
made of (Quercus infectoria) (Figure 1), Softwoods like Pinus brutia
typically have higher moisture retention due to their porous structure (Siau,
1984). Similarly, higher initial moisture content 12% results in higher
retained moisture, consistent with prior studies on wood pyrolysis (Prins et
al., 2006). Also, it was noticed that the lower MC value (2.32%) was
attained in briquettes manufactured of (2mm), particle size with larger
particles retaining more moisture due to reduced heat transfer efficiency (Shen
et al., 2009). Furthermore, the higher pyrolysis temperatures (350
℃) cause greater moisture loss (White & Dietenberger, 2010).
Table (1): Effect of studied factors on the Moisture
Content of the produced Biomass Briquettes.
|
Moisture Content (%)
|
|
Species
|
Particle
size
|
Moisture
content %
|
Temperature
330 ℃
|
Temperature
350 ℃
|
Species *
Particle size
|
Species *
Moisture
content
|
Particle size *
Moisture
content
|
Species *
Particle size *
Moisture Content
|
Species
|
|
Quercus
infectoria
|
2 mm
|
6%
|
1.69 m
|
1.63 n
|
1.93 d
|
1.76 f
|
2.11 f
|
1.66 j
|
1.97 b
|
|
9%
|
1.96 kl
|
1.92 l
|
1.94 h
|
|
12%
|
2.21 i
|
2.14 i
|
1.98 e
|
2.32 e
|
2.17 f
|
|
4 mm
|
6%
|
2.04 j
|
1.66 nm
|
2.01 c
|
1.85
|
|
9%
|
2.03 j
|
1.99 kj
|
2.17 d
|
2.54 d
|
2.01 g
|
|
12%
|
2.20 i
|
2.14 i
|
2.17 f
|
|
Pinus
brutia
|
2 mm
|
6%
|
2.59 g
|
2.50 h
|
2.72 b
|
2.62 c
|
2.27 c
|
2.55 e
|
2.89 a
|
|
9%
|
2.77 e
|
2.63 gf
|
2.70 d
|
|
12%
|
2.93 c
|
2.88 c
|
2.75 b
|
2.40 b
|
2.91 b
|
|
4 mm
|
6%
|
2.73 e
|
2.66 f
|
3.07 a
|
2.70 d
|
|
9%
|
2.85 d
|
2.75 e
|
3.31 a
|
2.94 a
|
2.80 c
|
|
12%
|
3.80 a
|
3.64 b
|
3.72 a
|
|
Temperature
|
2.48 a
|
2.38 b
|
Particle
size
|
Moisture
content
|
|
|
Species *
Temperature
|
Quercus
infectoria
|
2.02 c
|
1.92 d
|
|
|
Pinus
brutia
|
2.94 a
|
2.84 b
|
|
|
Particle size *
Temperature
|
2 mm
|
2.36 c
|
2.28 d
|
2 mm
|
2.32 b
|
6%
|
2.19 c
|
|
|
4 mm
|
2.61 a
|
2.47 b
|
4 mm
|
2.54 a
|
9%
|
2.36 b
|
|
|
Moisture content *
Temperature
|
6%
|
2.26 e
|
2.11 f
|
|
|
12%
|
2.74 a
|
|
|
9%
|
2.40 c
|
2.32 d
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12%
|
2.78 a
|
2.70 b
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Figure 1: Effect of wood species on Moisture Content
Density:
Results
of the analysis of variance for density (Table 2) indicate which there is a
significant effect (5 %) for the three main factors, together with their
interactions of the main factors. It can be observed
that the panels
with species of (Quercus
infectoria) observed a higher value (1300.32 kg/cm3) as shown in
(Figure 2). This result corresponds with other workers (Bowyer et al.,
2007; Forest Products Laboratory, 2010).
On the effects of particle size levels on density (Table 2), It appears that
the higher density (1180.32 kg/cm3) achieved in all treatment
combinations manufactured at 2mm particle size. The impact of particle size on density is consistent with
studies showing that smaller particles retain more structural integrity during
pyrolysis, while larger particle develop more void spaces, reducing density
(Schellenberger et al., 2019) The reduction in density with increasing
temperature confirms findings that thermal decomposition reduces mass while
increasing porosity (Ronsse et al., 2013). Similarly, the influence of
initial moisture content on density reduction aligns with research indicating
that higher moisture accelerates thermal degradation and results in lower final
density (Babu, 2008).
Table (2): Effect of studied factors on the Density of the produced Biomass Briquettes.
|
Density (kg/m3)
|
|
Species
|
Particle
size
|
Moisture
content %
|
Temperature
330 ℃
|
Temperature
350 ℃
|
Species *
Particle size
|
Species *
Moisture
content
|
Particle size *
Moisture
content
|
Species *
Particle size *
Moisture Content
|
Species
|
|
Quercus
infectoria
|
2 mm
|
6%
|
1340.21 b
|
1358.37 a
|
1313.23 a
|
1327.74 a
|
1249.86 a
|
1349.29 a
|
1300.32 a
|
|
9%
|
1298.16 d
|
1310.62 c
|
1304.39 b
|
|
12%
|
1282.79 f
|
1289.23 e
|
1297.65 b
|
1223.41 b
|
1286.01 d
|
|
4 mm
|
6%
|
1297.70 d
|
1314.67 c
|
1287.41 b
|
1306.18 b
|
|
9%
|
1284.11 f
|
1297.70 d
|
1275.57 c
|
1210.36 c
|
1290.91 c
|
|
12%
|
1261.33 h
|
1268.93 g
|
1265.13 e
|
|
Pinus
brutia
|
2 mm
|
6%
|
1146.60 j
|
1154.25 j
|
1142.52 c
|
1145.70 d
|
1223.58 b
|
1150.42 f
|
1135.66 b
|
|
9%
|
1138.38 kl
|
1146.47 j
|
1142.42 g
|
|
12%
|
1135.70 ml
|
1133.72 m
|
1135.69 e
|
1209.93 c
|
1134.71 h
|
|
4 mm
|
6%
|
1139.06 kl
|
1142.90 kj
|
1128.79 d
|
1140.98 g
|
|
9%
|
1124.73 n
|
1133.19 m
|
1125.58 f
|
1190.79 d
|
1128.96 i
|
|
12%
|
1112.54 o
|
1120.36 n
|
1116.45 j
|
|
Temperature
|
1213.44 b
|
1222.53 a
|
Particle
size
|
Moisture
content
|
|
|
Species *
Temperature
|
Quercus
infectoria
|
1294.05 b
|
1306.59 a
|
|
|
Pinus
brutia
|
1132.83 d
|
1138.48 c
|
|
|
Particle size *
Temperature
|
2 mm
|
1223.64 b
|
1232.11 a
|
2 mm
|
1227.88 a
|
6%
|
1236.72 a
|
|
|
4 mm
|
1203.24 d
|
1212.96 c
|
4 mm
|
1180.32 b
|
9%
|
1216.67 b
|
|
|
Moisture content *
Temperature
|
6%
|
1230.89 b
|
1242.55 a
|
|
|
12%
|
1200.58 c
|
|
|
9%
|
1211.35 d
|
1222.00 c
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12%
|
1198.09 f
|
1203.06 e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Figure
2: Effect of wood species on Density.
Tumbling Resistance (Tr):
With the
exception of the effect of species and particle size, their interactions with
moisture content and temperature were significant (5%) as shown in Table 3. It
was shown that the greatest rate of TR was achieved in briquettes made at 6%
moisture content manufactured from either particle size 2 mm and temperature at
350 ℃ in both species (Quercus infectoria) and (Pinus brutia)
the proportion of such samples were 99.04 and 98.57 kg/cm3
respectively (Figure 3). Aligns with its denser structure, as hardwoods
generally produce more durable biochar than softwoods (Demirbas, 2004; Antal,
M. J., & Grønli, M. 2003). The increase in resistance at 350°C,
lowering MC and smaller particle size suggests enhanced particle bonding
through carbonization,, which improves mechanical stability (Antal &
Gronli, 2003; Sohi et al., 2010; Bridgwater, 2012).
Table (3): Effect of studied factors on the Tumbling Resistance of the produced Biomass
Briquettes.
|
Tumbling Resistance (%)
|
|
Species
|
Particle
size
|
Moisture
content %
|
Temperature
330 ℃
|
Temperature
350 ℃
|
Species *
Particle size
|
Species *
Moisture
content
|
Particle size *
Moisture
content
|
Species *
Particle size *
Moisture Content
|
Species
|
|
Quercus
infectoria
|
2 mm
|
6%
|
98.39 b
|
99.04 a
|
97.51 a
|
98.31 a
|
98.46 a
|
98.71 a
|
96.90 a
|
|
9%
|
96.94 e
|
97.81 c
|
97.37 d
|
|
12%
|
95.92 h
|
96.95 e
|
96.70 c
|
96.76 c
|
96.44 f
|
|
4 mm
|
6%
|
97.78 dc
|
98.03 c
|
96.30 b
|
97.91 c
|
|
9%
|
95.63 ih
|
96.42 fg
|
95.70 d
|
95.32 e
|
96.02 g
|
|
12%
|
94.67 k
|
95.25 j
|
94.96 h
|
|
Pinus
brutia
|
2 mm
|
6%
|
97.83 c
|
98.57 b
|
96.18 b
|
97.65 b
|
97.50 b
|
98.20 b
|
95.66 b
|
|
9%
|
95.92 h
|
96.39 g
|
96.15 g
|
|
12%
|
93.82 l
|
94.57 k
|
95.63 d
|
95.57 d
|
94.20 i
|
|
4 mm
|
6%
|
96.76 fe
|
97.44 d
|
95.15 c
|
97.10 e
|
|
9%
|
94.79 k
|
95.44 ij
|
93.71 e
|
94.09 f
|
95.11 h
|
|
12%
|
92.49 m
|
93.95 l
|
93.22 j
|
|
Temperature
|
95.91 b
|
96.65 a
|
Particle
size
|
Moisture
content
|
|
|
Species *
Temperature
|
Quercus
infectoria
|
96.55 b
|
97.25 a
|
|
|
Pinus
brutia
|
95.27 d
|
96.06 c
|
|
|
Particle size *
Temperature
|
2 mm
|
96.47 b
|
97.22 a
|
2 mm
|
96.84 a
|
6%
|
97.98 a
|
|
|
4 mm
|
95.35 d
|
96.09 c
|
4 mm
|
95.72 b
|
9%
|
96.17 b
|
|
|
Moisture content *
Temperature
|
6%
|
97.69 b
|
98.27 a
|
|
|
12%
|
94.70 c
|
|
|
9%
|
95.82 d
|
96.51 c
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12%
|
94.23 f
|
95.18 e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Figure 3: Effect of wood species on Tumbling Resistance.
Resistance to Water Penetration (RWP):
In the
current work, results of Duncan’s multiple range test (Table 4) revealed that
the affecting studied factors along with their interaction had a significant
effect (p < 0.05) on RWP. The results (Figure 4) revealed that the highest
value of RWP was observed in samples manufactured of species (Quercus
infectoria) (96.54 %) aligns with its higher density, as denser woods
generally produce more compact and hydrophobic biomass briquettes
(Bhattacharya, S. C., & Sarker, S. C. 1999; Liu et al., 2013). And
the maximum value of RWP was (97.98 %) noticed in samples made at 6% moisture
content, and particle size 2 mm exhibit better water resistance, which is
consistent with findings that finer biochar particles have higher carbon
content and lower porosity, improving hydrophobicity (Ahmad et al.,
2014; Mohan et al., 2014). The increase in water resistance at 350°C
supports previous studies showing that higher pyrolysis temperatures promote
the formation of non-polar carbon structures, reducing water absorption (Lua et
al., 2004).
Table (4): Effect of
studied factors on the Resistance to Water
Penetration of the produced Biomass Briquettes.
|
Resistance to Water Penetration (%)
|
|
Species
|
Particle
size
|
Moisture
content %
|
Temperature
330 ℃
|
Temperature
350 ℃
|
Species *
Particle size
|
Species *
Moisture
content
|
Particle size *
Moisture
content
|
Species *
Particle size *
Moisture Content
|
Species
|
|
Quercus
infectoria
|
2 mm
|
6%
|
98.36 ba
|
98.74 a
|
96.95 a
|
98.24 a
|
97.98 a
|
98.55 a
|
96.54 a
|
|
9%
|
96.76 fe
|
97.05 e
|
96.90 d
|
|
12%
|
94.94 i
|
95.86 hg
|
96.50 b
|
96.60 c
|
95.40 f
|
|
4 mm
|
6%
|
97.90 bc
|
97.96 bc
|
96.14 b
|
97.93 b
|
|
9%
|
95.76 h
|
96.44 f
|
94.89 c
|
94.40 e
|
96.10 e
|
|
12%
|
93.92 j
|
94.84 i
|
94.38 g
|
|
Pinus
brutia
|
2 mm
|
6%
|
97.20 df
|
97.63 dc
|
95.70 c
|
96.75 b
|
97.01 b
|
97.41 c
|
94.51 b
|
|
9%
|
95.86 hg
|
96.73 fe
|
96.30 e
|
|
12%
|
92.81 k
|
93.97 j
|
94.77 c
|
94.67 d
|
93.39 h
|
|
4 mm
|
6%
|
95.80 h
|
96.39 fg
|
93.32 d
|
96.09 e
|
|
9%
|
92.86 k
|
93.61 j
|
92.02 d
|
92.51 f
|
93.23 h
|
|
12%
|
90.06 m
|
91.22 l
|
90.64 i
|
|
Temperature
|
95.19 b
|
95.87 a
|
Particle
size
|
Moisture
content
|
|
|
Species *
Temperature
|
Quercus
infectoria
|
96.27 b
|
96.82 a
|
|
|
Pinus
brutia
|
94.10 d
|
94.92 c
|
|
|
Particle size *
Temperature
|
2 mm
|
95.99 b
|
96.66 a
|
2 mm
|
96.33 a
|
6%
|
97.50 a
|
|
|
4 mm
|
94.38 d
|
95.08 c
|
4 mm
|
94.73 b
|
9%
|
95.63 b
|
|
|
Moisture content *
Temperature
|
6%
|
97.31 b
|
97.68 a
|
|
|
12%
|
93.45 c
|
|
|
9%
|
95.31 d
|
95.96 c
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12%
|
92.93 f
|
93.97 e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Figure 4 Effect of wood species on Resistance to Water
Penetration
Shatter Resistance (Sr):
It has
been shown from (Table 5) and (Figure 5) that the maximum value (99.64 %) was
recorded in briquettes manufactured from (Quercus infectoria) with
particle size 2mm, temperature at 350 ℃ and at 6 % moisture content which
enhances mechanical durability after pyrolysis (Gil et al., 2010).
Although, the (Pinus brutia) had a high value (99.06 %) with the same
level of particle size 2mm, temperature at 350 ℃ and at 6 % moisture
content. Studies shows that increased pyrolysis temperatures promote
carbonization, leading to a more resilient briquettes structure (Pelaez et
al., 2014). Also, findings indicate that finer particles experience less
internal stress during impact, making them more durable (Downie et al.,
2009). Additionally, the negative effect of higher moisture content on shatter
resistance is in line with studies indicating that increased moisture
contributes to greater mass loss and internal void formation, weakening the
final product (Carrier et al., 2011).
Table (5): Effect of studied factors on the Shatter Resistance of the produced Biomass
Briquettes.
|
Shatter Resistance (%)
|
|
Species
|
Particle
size
|
Moisture
content
%
|
Temperature
330 ℃
|
Temperature
350 ℃
|
Species *
Particle size
|
Species *
Moisture
content
|
Particle size *
Moisture
content
|
Species *
Particle size *
Moisture Content
|
Species
|
|
Quercus
infectoria
|
2 mm
|
6%
|
99.12 bac
|
99.64 a
|
97.88 a
|
99.28 a
|
99.17 a
|
99.38 a
|
97.49 a
|
|
9%
|
97.88 d
|
98.60 c
|
98.24 c
|
|
12%
|
95.92 g
|
96.10 g
|
97.68 c
|
97.45 c
|
96.01 f
|
|
4 mm
|
6%
|
98.91 c
|
99.47 ba
|
97.11 b
|
99.19 ba
|
|
9%
|
96.89 f
|
97.35 edf
|
95.51 e
|
95.05 e
|
97.12 d
|
|
12%
|
94.94 h
|
95.10 h
|
95.02 g
|
|
Pinus
brutia
|
2 mm
|
6%
|
98.86 c
|
99.06 bc
|
96.57 c
|
98.53 b
|
98.65 b
|
98.96 b
|
95.92 b
|
|
9%
|
96.11 g
|
97.21 ef
|
96.66 f
|
|
12%
|
93.77 j
|
94.41 i
|
96.28 d
|
96.51 d
|
94.09 h
|
|
4 mm
|
6%
|
97.64 ed
|
98.56 c
|
95.28 d
|
98.10 c
|
|
9%
|
95.69 g
|
96.11 g
|
92.96 f
|
93.42 f
|
95.90 f
|
|
12%
|
91.24 l
|
92.41 k
|
91.83 i
|
|
Temperature
|
96.41 b
|
97.00 a
|
Particle
size
|
Moisture
content
|
|
|
Species *
Temperature
|
Quercus
infectoria
|
97.28 b
|
97.71 a
|
|
|
Pinus
brutia
|
95.55 d
|
96.29 c
|
|
|
Particle size *
Temperature
|
2 mm
|
96.94 b
|
97.50 a
|
2 mm
|
97.22 a
|
6%
|
98.91 a
|
|
|
4 mm
|
95.88 d
|
96.50 c
|
4 mm
|
96.19 b
|
9%
|
96.98 b
|
|
|
Moisture content *
Temperature
|
6%
|
98.63 b
|
99.18 a
|
|
|
12%
|
94.24 c
|
|
|
9%
|
96.64 d
|
97.32 c
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12%
|
93.97 f
|
94.50 e
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure
5: Effect of wood species on Shatter Resistance.
CONCLUSION
The study
highlights the impact of raw material selection and processing conditions on
the physical properties of biomass briquettes. Quercus infectoria
outperformed Pinus brutia in density, mechanical strength, and water
resistance, making it a preferable choice for high-quality briquette
production. Optimal briquetting conditions were achieved with 6% moisture
content, 2 mm particle size, and a temperature of 350°C, which enhanced
durability and combustion efficiency. These findings can assist industries in
selecting suitable biomass resources and refining production techniques to
develop eco-friendly and efficient fuel alternatives. The results also
emphasize the potential for biomass briquettes in sustainable energy
applications, encouraging further research on improving production methods and
expanding biomass utilization for environmental and economic benefits.
Funding for the
Study:
This
research did not receive any specific funding from public, commercial, or
non-profit organizations.
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
Author's Contribution Details:
All
authors provided critical feedback and helped shape the research, analysis, and
manuscript.
Declaration Statement:
We, as authors,
state that all information in this article is accurate to the best of our
knowledge, and we take full responsibility for its correctness.
Acknowledgment :
We owe a
deep debt of gratitude to the University of Duhok and Faculty of Agricultural
Engineering Sciences for giving us an opportunity to complete this work. We
express gratitude to all of the Forestry Department members for their help and
support.
REFERENCES
Ahmad, M., Rajapaksha, A. U., Lim, J. E., Zhang, M., Bolan, N., Mohan,
D., ... & Ok, Y. S. (2014). Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant management
in soil and water: a review. Chemosphere, 99, 19-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.10.071
Antal, M. J., & Grønli, M. (2003). The Art, Science, and
Technology of Charcoal Production. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research, 42(8), 1619-1640. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie0207919
Arias, B., Pevida, C., Fermoso, J., Plaza, M. G., Rubiera, F., & Pis,
J. J. (2008). Influence of torrefaction on the grindability and reactivity of
woody biomass. Fuel processing technology, 89(2),
169-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2007.09.002
ASTM International. (2003). ASTM D3173-03: Standard Test Method for
Moisture in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International. https://doi.org/10.1520/D3173-03
Babu, B. V. (2008). "Biomass pyrolysis: A state-of-the-art
review." Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 2(2), 101-117. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.65
Bhattacharya, S. C., & Sarker, S. C. (1999). Physical Properties and
Quality of Briquettes Made from Biomass and Charcoal. Renewable Energy, 7(2),
219-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(97)10032-5
Birwatkar, V. R., Khandetod Y. P, Mohod A. G, and Dhande
K. G.(2014). PHYSICAL AND THERMAL PROPERTIES OF BIOMASS BRIQUETTED FUEL, Ind.
J. Sci. Res. and Tech. 2(4),pp:55-62. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2014/v2i4.12
Bowyer, J. L., Shmulsky, R., & Haygreen, J. G. (2007). Forest
Products and Wood Science: An Introduction (5th ed.). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756379
Bridgwater, A. V. (2012). "Review of fast pyrolysis of biomass and
product upgrading." Biomass and Bioenergy, 38, 68-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.01.048
Carrier, M., Loppinet-Serani, A., Denux, D., Lasnier, J. M.,
Ham-Pichavant, F., Cansell, F., & Aymonier, C. (2011). Thermogravimetric
Analysis as a New Methodology for Determining the Lignocellulosic Composition
of Biomass. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(1), 298-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.08.067
Demirbas, A. (2001). Biomass resource facilities and biomass conversion
processing for fuels and chemicals. Energy Conversion and Management,
42(11), 1357-1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(00)00137-0
Demirbas, A. (2004). "Effects of temperature and particle size on
biochar yield from biomass." Energy Sources, 26(4), 331-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908310490429728
Downie, A., Crosky, A., & Munroe, P. (2009). Physical Properties of
Biochar. In J. Lehmann & S. Joseph (Eds.), Biochar for Environmental
Management: Science and Technology (pp. 13-32). Earthscan. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849770552
Forest Products Laboratory. (2010). Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering
Material. USDA. https://doi.org/10.2737/FPL-GTR-190
Garcia, R., Pizarro, C., Lavin, A. G., & Bueno, J. L. (2014). Biomass
proximate analysis: Interpretation and comparison of data. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 36, 158-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.081
Gil, M. V., Oulego, P., Casal, M. D., Pevida, C., Pis, J. J., &
Rubiera, F. (2010). Mechanical Durability and Decomposition of Biomass Pellets
During Long Term Storage. Bioresource Technology, 101(3), 939-947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.062
Grover, P. D., & Mishra, S. K. (1996). Biomass briquetting:
Technology and practices. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. https://www.fao.org/4/AD579E/AD579E00.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Ismail, S. M., & Ahmed, S. M. (2023). The effect of calcination
temperatures on the properties of ZnO nanoparticles synthesized by using leaves
extracts of pinus brutia tree. Science Journal of University of Zakho, 11(2),
286-297. https://doi.org/10.25271/sjuoz.2023.11.2.1087
Kaliyan, N., & Morey, R. V. (2009). Densification characteristics of
corn stover and switchgrass. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(8), 1145-1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.05.004
Khalil, H. P. S. A., & Sulaiman, F. (2012). Physical and thermal
properties of biomass briquettes from oil palm and rice husk. Bioresource
Technology, 109, 295-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.10.030
Liu, Z., Quek, A., Hoekman, S. K., & Balasubramanian, R. (2013).
Production of Solid Biochar Fuel from Waste Biomass by Hydrothermal
Carbonization. Fuel, 103, 943-949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.08.056
Lua, A. C., Yang, T., & Guo, J. (2004). "Effects of pyrolysis
conditions on the properties of activated carbons prepared from pistachio-nut
shells." Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 72(2), 279-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2004.08.001
Madhava M, Prasad BV, Koushik Y, Rameshbabu KR &
Srihari R (2012). Performance evaluation of a hand operated compression type
briquetting machine. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 49(2) 46-49. https://ebook.icar.gov.in/index.php/JAE/article/view/24263
Mani, S., Tabil, L. G., & Sokhansanj, S. (2006). Effects of
compressive force, particle size and moisture content on mechanical properties
of biomass pellets. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30(7), 648-654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.01.004
Mohan, D., Sarswat, A., Ok, Y. S., & Pittman, C. U. (2014).
"Organic and inorganic contaminants removal from water with biochar, a
renewable material: A critical review." Bioresource Technology, 160,
191-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.120
Pelaez-Samaniego, M. R., Smith, A. R., Kashaninejad, N., & Steele, P.
H. (2014). Mechanical Properties of Biochar Pellets. Biomass and Bioenergy, 62,
1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.01.024
Pérez, J. M., Melgar, M., Benjumea, P., & Ramos, C. (2019). Effect of
particle size on bio-briquettes properties. Fuel, 256, 115924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.115924
Prins, M. J., Ptasinski, K. J., & Janssen, F. J. (2006). "More
efficient biomass gasification via torrefaction." Energy, 31(15),
3458–3470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.03.008
Ronsse, F., Van Hecke, S., Dickinson, D., & Prins, W. (2013).
Production and Characterization of Slow Pyrolysis Biochar: Influence of
Feedstock Type and Pyrolysis Conditions. Biomass and Bioenergy, 48, 43-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.10.007
Schellenberger, S., Schmiedl, D., & Kruse, A. (2019). "Thermal
degradation of wood particles: Influence of size and temperature." Journal
of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 137, 166-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2018.11.017
Shahbaz, S. E., Abdulrahman, S. S., & Abdulrahman, H. A. (2015). Use
of Leaf Anatomy for Identification of Quercus L. Species Native to
Kurdistan-Iraq. Science Journal of University of Zakho, 3(2),
222-232. https://sjuoz.uoz.edu.krd/index.php/sjuoz/article/view/146?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Shen, D. K., Gu, S., Luo, K. H., Wang, S. R., & Fang, M. X. (2009).
"The pyrolytic degradation of wood-derived lignin from pulping
process." Bioresource Technology, 100(3), 649–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.07.033
Siau, J. F. (1984). Transport Processes in Wood. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69213-0
Sohi, S. P., Krull, E., Lopez-Capel, E., & Bol, R. (2010). "A
review of biochar and its use and function in soil." Advances in Agronomy,
105, 47-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(10)05002-9
Sokhansanj, S., Mani, S., Bi, X., et al. (2005). Binderless pelletization
of biomass. ASABE Annual Meeting Paper. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.19922
Tumuluru, J. S., Wright, C. T., Hess, J. R., & Kenney, K. L. (2011).
A review of biomass densification systems to develop uniform feedstock
commodities for bioenergy applications. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining,
5(6), 683-707. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.324
White, R. H., & Dietenberger, M. A. (2010). Wood Handbook: Wood as an
Engineering Material. USDA Forest Service. https://doi.org/10.2737/FPL-GTR-190