Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 30 (2004) 219–230

www.elsevier.com/locate/pecs

Combustion characteristics of different biomass fuels

Ayhan Demirbas*
Department of Chemical Engineering, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey

Received 15 March 2003; accepted 31 October 2003

Abstract
Biomass energy is one of humanity’s earliest sources of energy particularly in rural areas where it is often the only accessible
and affordable source of energy. Worldwide biomass ranks fourth as an energy resource, providing approximately 14% of the
world’s energy needs all human and industrial processes produce wastes, that is, normally unused and undesirable products of a
specific process. Generation and recovery of solid wastes varies dramatically from country to country and deserves special
mention. The burning velocity of pulverized biomass fuels is considerably higher than that of coals. The use of biomass fuels
provides substantial benefits as far as the environment is concerned. Biomass absorbs carbon dioxide during growth, and emits
it during combustion. Utilization of biomass as fuel for power production offers the advantage of a renewable and CO2-neutral
fuel. Although the structural, proximate and ultimate analyses results of biomass and wastes differ considerably, some
properties of the biomass samples such as the hydrogen content, the sulfur content and the ignition temperatures changed in a
narrow interval.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Biomass; Combustion; Fuel properties; Cofiring

Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
1.1. Biomass sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
1.2. Current biomass conversion technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
2. Solid wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
3. Gasification of biomass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
3.1. Steam reforming of biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
3.2. Gasification systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
4. Pyrolysis of biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
5. Fuel properties of biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
6. Combustion properties of biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
6.1. The chemistry of biomass combustion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
6.2. Some combustion properties of selected biomass samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
6.3. Calculation of higher heating value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
7. Cofiring of biomass and coal blends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
7.1. Co-pyrolysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
7.2. Mechanism of biomass cofiring with coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ90-462-230-7831; fax: þ 90-462-

248-8508.
E-mail address: ayhandemirbas@hotmail.com (A. Demirbas).

0360-1285/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2003.10.004
220 A. Demirbas / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 30 (2004) 219–230
1. Introduction
Biomass can be converted into liquid, solid and gaseous
fuels with the help of some physical, chemical and
biological conversion processes [1,2]. The conversion of
biomass materials has a precise objective to transform a
carbonaceous solid material which is originally difficult to
handle, bulky and of low energy concentration, into the fuels
having physico – chemical characteristics which permit
economic storage and transferability through pumping
systems.
Worldwide biomass ranks fourth as an energy resource,
providing approximately 14% of the world’s energy needs;
biomass is the most important source of energy in
developing nations, providing; 235% of their energy [3,4].
The use of biomass fuels provides substantial benefits as
far as the environment is concerned. Biomass absorbs
carbon dioxide during growth, and emits it during combus-
tion. Therefore, biomass helps the atmospheric carbon
dioxide recycling and does not contribute to the greenhouse
effect. Biomass consumes the same amount of CO2 from the
atmosphere during growth as is released during combustion.
1.1. Biomass sources
Biomass fuels potential includes wood, short-rotation
woody crops, agricultural wastes, short-rotation herbaceous
species, wood wastes, bagasse, industrial residues, waste
paper, municipal solid waste, sawdust, bio-solids, grass,
waste from food processing, aquatic plants and algae animal
wastes, and a host of other materials. Animal wastes are
another significant potential biomass resource for electricity
generation, and like crop residues, have many applications,
especially in developing countries. Biomass is only organic
petroleum substitute which is renewable.
Biomass offers important advantages as a combustion
feedstock due to the high volatility of the fuel and the high
reactivity of both the fuel and the resulting char. However, it
should be noticed that in comparison with solid fossil fuels,
biomass contains much less carbon and more oxygen and
has a low heating value.
The burning velocity of pulverized biomass fuels is
considerably higher than that of coals. The pulverized
biomass fuels can be burned in a flame in the same way as
oil or gas fuels and at the same high power output [5].
1.2. Current biomass conversion technologies
Direct combustion is the old way of using biomass.
Biomass thermo-chemical conversion technologies such as
pyrolysis and gasification are certainly not the most
important options at present; combustion is responsible for
over 97% of the world’s bio-energy production.
Some processes such as pyrolysis, gasification,
anaerobic digestion and alcohol production have widely
been applied to biomass in order to obtain its energy
content. Biomass can be directly fired in dedicated
boilers. However, cofiring biomass and coal has techni-
cal, economical, and environmental advantages over the
other options. Cofiring biomass with coal, in comparison
with single coal firing, helps reduce the total emissions
per unit energy produced. The oldest of all fuels, wood
(or biomass), and the old original fuel of the industrial
revolution, coal, are key to this move to a new mission.
Technical issues that can lead to doubt about of biomass
cofiring with coal are being resolved through testing and
experience [6].
Main current biomass technologies are [7]:
1. Destructive carbonization of woody biomass to
charcoal
2. Gasification of biomass to gaseous products
3. Pyrolysis of biomass and solid wastes to liquid, solid
and gaseous products
4. Supercritical fluid extractions of biomass to liquid
products
5. Liquefaction of biomass to liquid products
6. Hydrolysis of biomass to sugars and ethanol
7. Aneorobic digestion of biomass to gaseous products
8. Biomass power for generating electricity by direct
combustion or gasification and
9. pyrolysis
10. Cofiring of biomass with coal
11. Biological conversion of biomass and waste (biogas
production, wastewater treatment)
12. Biomass densification (briquetting, pelleting)
13. Domestic cookstoves and heating appliances of
fuelwood
14. Biomass energy conservation in households and
industry
15. Solar photovoltaic and biomass based rural
electrification
16. Conversion of biomass to a pyrolytic oil (biofuel) for
vehicle fuel
17. Conversion of biomass to methanol and ethanol for
internal combustion engines
In earlier work [8], ground biomass samples have been
converted completely into water insoluble and soluble
chemicals in the presence of anhydrous glycerin with alkali
such as Na2CO3 or KOH. The acetone solubles from
acidification of the liquefaction products was called biofuel
in this study. The solubility of the biofuel in gasoline was
tested as 1.96% by weight. In another work [9], the acetone
solubles of the pyrolysis products from the biomass samples
were added to gasoline.
2. Solid wastes
The waste products of a home include paper, containers,
tin cans, aluminium cans, and food scraps, as well as sewage.
 A. Demirbas / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 30 (2004) 219–230 221

Table 1 Table 2
Contents of domestic solid waste (Percentage of total) Generation and recovery of MSW in the US, 1993 (million tons)

Component Lower limit Upper limit Material Generation Recovered Discarded Projected
generated
Paper waste 33.2 50.7 2000
Food waste 18.3 21.2
Plastic matter 7.8 11.2 Paper 70.5 24.0 46.6 81.0
Metal 7.3 10.5 Glass 12.4 2.7 9.7 12.7
Glass 8.6 10.2 Metals 15.5 4.7 10.8 17.2
Textile 2.0 2.8 Plastics 17.5 0.6 16.9 20.4
Wood 1.8 2.9 Rubber/leather 5.6 0.4 5.4 6.9
Leather and rubber 0.6 1.0 Textiles 5.5 0.6 4.9 5.6
Miscellaneous 1.2 1.8 Wood 12.4 1.2 11.2 14.5
Food 12.5 0 12.5 12.7
Source: Ref. [48]. Yard trimmings 29.8 5.9 23.9 20.1
Misc. organic 2.8 0 2.8 3.0
The waste products of industry and commerce include Others 3.0 0.6 2.4 3.2
paper, wood, and metal scraps, as well as agricultural waste Total 187.5 40.7 147.1 197.3
products [10,11]. Biodegradable wastes, such as paper fines
and industrial biosludge, into mixed alcohol fuels (e.g. Source: Ref. [49].
isopropanol, isobutanol, isopentanol). The wastes are first
country and deserves special mention. For example, recent
treated with lime to enhance reactivity; then they are
estimates indicate MSW generation in the UK of about 30
converted to volatile fatty acids (VFAs) such as acetic acid,
million tons of which 90% is landfilled. In comparison,
propionic acid, and butyric acid—using a mixed culture of
Sweden landfilled only 34% of their MSW generation [14].
microorganisms derived from cattle rumen or anaerobic
waste treatment facilities. Pulp and paper wastes may also
be treated to produce methane. The contents of domestic
solid waste are given in Table 1. 3. Gasification of biomass
There are four major methods for conversion of organic
wastes to synthetic fuels: (1) hydrogenation; (2) pyrolysis; Gasification is a form of pyrolysis, carried out at high
(3) gasification: and (4) bioconversion [12]. The first three temperatures in order to optimize the gas production. The
have been advanced to the pilot-plant stage, while the fourth resulting gas, known as producer gas, is a mixture of carbon
has been the subject of only minor research effort, but is a monoxide, hydrogen and methane, together with carbon
long term possibility. Typical solid wastes include wood dioxide and nitrogen.
material, pulp and paper industry residues, agricultural Biomass gasification technologies have historically been
residues, organic municipal material, sewage, manure, and based upon partial oxidation or partial combustion prin-
food processing by-products. Biomass is considered one of ciples, resulting in the production of a hot, dirty, low
the main renewable energy resources of the future due to its calorific value gas that must be directly ducted into boilers
large potential, economic viability and various social and or dryers. In addition to limiting applications and often
environmental benefits. It was estimated that by 2050 compounding environmental problems, these technologies
biomass could provide nearly 38% of the world’s direct fuel are an inefficient source of usable energy.
use and 17% of the world’s electricity [13]. If biomass is Biomass gasification is the latest generation of biomass
produced more efficiently and used with modern conversion energy conversion processes, and is being used to improve
technologies, it can supply a considerable range and the efficiency, and to reduce the investment costs of biomass
diversity of fuels at small and large scales. Municipal electricity generation through the use gas turbine technol-
solid waste (MSW) is defined as waste durable goods, ogy. High efficiencies (up to about 50%) are achievable
nondurable goods, containers and packaging, food scraps, using combined-cycle gas turbine systems, where waste
yard trimmings, and miscellaneous inorganic wastes from gases from the gas turbine are recovered to produce steam
residential, commercial, and industrial sources. for use in a steam turbine. Economic studies show that
Generation refers to the amount of material that enters biomass suffocation plants can be as economical as
the waste stream before recovery, composting, or combus- conventional coal-fired plants.
tion. Recovery refers to materials removed from the waste
stream for the purpose of recycling and/or composting. 3.1. Steam reforming of biomass
Table 2 shows the generation and recovery of MSW in the
US in 1993. The energy content of MSW in the US is Most biomass gasification systems utilize air or oxygen
typically from 10.5 to 11.5 MJ/kg. The generation and in partial oxidation or combustion processes These pro-
recovery of MSW varies dramatically from country to cesses suffer from low thermal efficiencies and low calorific
222 A. Demirbas / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 30 (2004) 219–230
gas because of the energy required to evaporate the moisture
typically inherent in the biomass and the oxidation of a
portion of the feedstock to produce this energy.
The prosess of synfuels from biomass will lower the
energy cost, improve the waste management and reduce
harmfull emissions. This triple assault on plant operating
challenges is a proprietary technology that gasifies biomass
by reacting it with steam at high temperatures to form a
clean burning synthesis gas (called as the syngas, hydrogen
and carbon monoxide in a 2 to 1 ratio). The molecules in the
biomass (primarily carbon, hydrogen and oxygen) and the
molecules in the steam (hydrogen and oxygen) reorganize to
form this syngas [7].
3.2. Gasification systems
Gasification for power production involves the
devolatilization and conversion of biomass in an
atmosphere of steam and/or air to produce a medium
or low calorific value gas. If air is present, the ratio of
oxygen to biomass is typically around 0.3. A large
number of variables affect gasification based process
design. Gasification medium is an important variable. Air
blown or directly heated gasifiers, use the exothermic
reaction between oxygen and organics to provide the heat
necessary to devolatilize biomass and to convert residual
carbon-rich chars.
Commercial gasifiers are available in a range of size and
types, and run on a variety of fuels, including wood,
charcoal, coconut shells and rice husks. Power output is
determined by the economic supply of biomass, which is
limited to 80 MW in most regions.
The biomass gasification process is similar to processes
used for many years by chemical and petrochemical
manufacturers, including methanol, ammonia and ethylene
producers. In these chemical processes, natural gas or
another hydrocarbon is ‘reformed’ into a more desirable
gaseous chemical feedstock by reacting it with steam at
elevated temperatures. The hydrogen and oxygen molecules
in the steam are liberated and a series of reactions result in a
reorganization of the compounds to form synthesis gas
(primarily H2, CO and CO2). This synthesis gas is then
catalytically converted into methanol, ammonia or another
product.
4. Pyrolysis of biomass
Pyrolysis is defined as the thermal destruction of organic
materials in the absence of oxygen. Pyrolysis is the basic
thermochemical process for converting biomass to a more
useful fuel [15]. Biomass is heated in the absence of oxygen,
or partially combusted in a limited oxygen supply, to
produce a hydrocarbon rich gas mixture, an oil-like liquid
and a carbon rich solid residue.
In pyrolysis process, biomass converts into liquid (bio-
oil or bio-crude), charcoal and non-condensable gasses,
acetic acid, acetone, and methanol by heating the biomass to
about 750 K in the absence of air. The process can be
adjusted to favor charcoal, pyrolytic oil, gas, or methanol
production with a 95.5% fuel-to-feed efficiency. Pyrolysis
can be used for the production of bio-oil if flash pyrolysis
processes are used and are currently at pilot stage [16].
Some problems in the conversion process and use of the oil
need to be overcome; these include poor thermal stability
and corrosivity of the oil. Upgrading by lowering the oxygen
content and removing alkalis by means of hydrogenation
and catalytic cracking of the oil may be required for certain
applications [12].
Pyrolysis of wood has been studied as a zonal process
[17]. Thermal degradation properties of hemicelluloses,
celluloses and lignin can be summarized as follows [18]:
Thermal degradation of hemicelluloses . of cellulose .
of lignin
Pyrolysis of biomass is thermal decomposition of the
fuel. As with coal, pyrolysis is a relatively slow chemical
reaction occurring at low temperatures. The reaction
mechanisms of biomass pyrolysis are complex but can be
defined in five stages for wood [19]:
1. Moisture and some volatile loss.
2. Breakdown of hemicellulose; emission of CO and CO2.
3. Exothermic reaction causing the woody biomass
temperature to rise from 525 to 625 K; emission of
methane, hydrogen and ethane.
4. External energy is now required to continue the
process.
5. Complete decomposition occurs.
5. Fuel properties of biomass
The limitations were primarily due to relying on biomass
as the sole source of fuel, despite the highly variable
properties of biomass. The high moisture and ash contents in
biomass fuels can cause ignition and combustion problems.
The melting point of the dissolved ash can also be low which
causes fouling and slagging problems. Because of the lower
heating values of biomass accompanied by flame stability
problems. It is anticipated that blending biomass with higher
quality coal will reduce flame stability problems, as well as
minimize corrosion effects.
The methods of biomass fuel analyses are given in
Table 3. Biomass offers important advantages as a
combustion feedstock due to the high volatility of the fuel
and the high reactivity of both the fuel and the resulting
char. However, it should be noticed that in comparison with
solid fossil fuels, biomass contains much less carbon and
more oxygen and has a low heating value. Also, chlorine
contents of certain biofuels, like straw can exceed the level
 A. Demirbas / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 30 (2004) 219–230 223

Table 3 Table 5
Methods of biomass fuel analyses Structural analyses of selected biomass samples (wt. % daf)

Property Analytical method Fuel sample Hemicelluloses Cellulose Lignin Extractive

matter a
Heating value ASTM D 2015, E 711
Particle size distribution ASTM E828 Hazelnut shell 30.4 26.8 42.9 3.3
Wheat straw 39.4 28.8 18.6 –
Proximate composition Olive husk 23.6 24.0 48.4 9.4
Moisture ASTM E871 Beech wood 31.2 45.3 21.9 1.6
Ash ASTM D1102 (873 K), Spruce wood 20.7 49.8 27.0 2.5
ASTM E830 (848 K) Corncob 31.0 50.5 15.0 3.5
Volatile matter ASTM E 872, ASTM E 897 Tea waste 19.9 30.2 40.0 9.9
Fixed carbon by difference Walnut shell 22.7 25.6 52.3 2.8
Almond shell 28.9 50.7 20.4 2.5
Ultimate elemental
Sunflower shell 34.6 48.4 17.0 2.7
Carbon, hydrogen ASTM E 777
Nitrogen ASTM E 778 Source: Ref. [32].
Sulfur ASTM E 775 a
Alcohol/benzene (1/1, v/v) extractives.
Chlorine ASTM E776
Oxygen By difference
temperature’. The burning profile peak temperature is
Ash elemental ASTM D3682, ASTM D2795, usually taken as a measure of the reactivity of the sample.
ASTM D4278, AOAC 14.7
The peak temperatures for biomass samples generally vary
from 560 to 575 K.
of coal. In the combustion applications, biomass has been The structural analyses of selected biomass samples are
fired directly either alone or along with a primary fuel. given in Table 5. The ultimate analyses of typical fuel
Chlorine, which is found in certain biomass types, such as samples given in the literature and determined are shown in
straw, may affect operation by corrosion. The high chlorine Tables 6 and 7, respectively. It is difficult to establish a
and alkali content of some biomass fuels raise concerns representative biomass due to large property variations, but
regarding corrosion. The greatest concern focuses on high- two examples are included here for comparison. The
temperature corrosion of super-heater tubes induced by composition variations among biomass fuels are larger
chlorine on the surface. than among coals, but as a class biomass has substantially
Biomass differs from coal in many important ways, more oxygen and less carbon than coal. Less obviously,
including the organic, inorganic, energy content, and nitrogen, chlorine, and ash vary significantly among
physical properties. Relative to coal, biomass generally biomass fuels. These components are directly related to
has less carbon, more oxygen, more silica and potassium, NOx emissions, corrosion, and ash deposition. Biomass
less aluminum and iron, lower heating value, higher generally has relatively low sulfur compared to coal.
moisture content, and lower density and friability (Table 4). The proximate analyses of selected biomass samples
The point on the burning profile at which the rate of given in the literature and determined as defined by ASTM
weight loss due to combustion is a maximum called as ‘peak are shown in Tables 8 and 9, respectively. The inorganic
properties of selected fuel samples are given in Table 10.
Table 4 Inorganic components in coal vary by rank and geographic
Physical, chemical and fuel properties of biomass and coal fuels
Table 6
Property Biomass Coal Ultimate analyses of typical fuel samples given in the literature (wt
% of dry fuel with ash)
Fuel density (kg/m3) ,500 ,1300
Particle size ,3 mm ,100 mm Fuel sample C H N S O (diff.) Reference
C content (wt% of dry fuel) 42 –54 65–85
O content (wt% of dry fuel) 35 –45 2–15 Hazelnut shell 52.8 5.6 1.4 0.04 42.6 [32,57]
S content (wt% of dry fuel) Max 0.5 0.5–7.5 Sawdust 46.9 5.2 0.1 0.04 37.8 [50]
SiO2 content (wt% of dry ash) 23 –49 40–60 Corn stover 42.5 5.0 0.8 0.2 42.6 [51]
K2O content (wt% of dry ash) 4– 48 2–6 Poplar 48.4 5.9 0.4 0.01 39.6 [52]
Al2O3 content (wt% of dry ash) 2.4 –9.5 15–25 Rice husk 47.8 5.1 0.1 – 38.9 [53]
Fe2O3 content (wt% of dry ash) 1.5 –8.5 8–18 Cotton gin 42.8 5.4 1.4 0.5 35.0 [54]
Ignation temperature (K) 418 –426 490–595 Sugarcane bagasse 44.8 5.4 0.4 0.01 39.6 [52]
Peak temperature (K) 560 –575 – Peach pit 53.0 5.9 0.3 0.05 39.1 [52]
Friability Low High Alfafa stalk 45.4 5.8 2.1 0.09 36.5 [55]
Dry heating value (MJ/kg) 14 –21 23–28 Switchgrass 46.7 5.9 0.8 0.19 37.4 [55]
224 A. Demirbas / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 30 (2004) 219–230

Table 7 Table 9
Ultimate analyses of typical fuel samples (wt % of dry fuel with ash) Proximate analyses of selected biomass samples (wt % of dry fuel)

Ful sample C H N S Cl O (diff.) Fuel sample Ash Volatile matter Fixed carbon

Coal type 1 81.5 4.0 1.2 3.0 – 3.3 Beech wood bark 5.7 65.0 29.3
Red oak wood 50.0 6.0 0.3 – – 42.4 Oak wood 0.5 77.6 21.9
Wheat straw 41.8 5.5 0.7 – 1.5 35.5 Wheat straw 13.7 66.3 21.4
Olive husk 49.9 6.2 1.6 0.05 0.2 42.0 Olive husk 4.1 77.5 18.4
Beech wood 49.5 6.2 0.4 – – 41.2 Beech wood 0.5 82.5 17.0
Spruce wood 51.9 6.1 0.3 – – 40.9 Spruce wood 1.7 80.2 18.1
Corncob 49.0 5.4 0.5 0.2 – 44.5 Corncob 1.1 87.4 11.5
Tea waste 48.0 5.5 0.5 0.06 0.1 44.0 Tea waste 1.5 85.5 13.0
Walnut shell 53.5 6.6 1.5 0.1 0.1 45.4 Walnut shell 2.8 59.3 37.9
Almond shell 47.8 6.0 1.1 0.06 0.1 41.5 Almond shell 3.3 74.0 22.7
Sunflower shell 47.4 5.8 1.4 0.05 0.1 41.3 Sunflower shell 4.0 76.2 19.8
Colza seed 6.5 78.1 15.4
Source: Refs. [32,34]. Pine one 1.0 7.3 21.7
Cotton refuse 6.6 81.0 12.4
region. As a class, coal has more aluminum, iron, and
Olive refuse 9.2 66.1 24.7
titanium than biomass. Biomass has more silica, potassium,
and some times calcium than coal. The wood and woody Source: Refs. [30,32,34].
materials tend to be low in nitrogen and ash content while
6. Combustion properties of biomass
the agricultural materials can have high nitrogen (Tables 6
and 7) and ash contents (Tables 8 and 9).
Straw may have a high content of chlorine and In general combustion models of biomass can be
potassium, elements which are very undesirable in classified as macroscopic or microscopic. The macro-
power plant fuels. Levels of K2O and Cl were found as scopic properties of biomass are given with for
20.0 and 3.6% in ash, respectively, in wheat straws macroscopic analysis, such as ultimate analysis, heating
(Table 10). A pretreatment process to remove potassium value, moisture content, particle size, bulk density, and
from straw fuel may be based on pyrolysis followed by ash fusion temperature. Properties for microscopic
char wash. The straw is pyrolyzed at moderate tempera- analysis include thermal, chemical kinetic, and mineral
tures at which the potassium is retained in the char. data [22]. Fuel characteristics such as ultimate analysis,
Potassium and residual chlorine are extracted from the heating value, moisture content, particle size, bulk
residual char by water [20]. Char and pyrolysis gases may density, and ash fusion temperature of biomass have
then be used in a conventional boiler without problems been reviewed [23]. Fuel properties for the combustion
due to the high straw potassium content. To evaluate this analysis of biomass can be conveniently grouped into
pretreatment process knowledge about the char wash physical, chemical, thermal, and mineral properties.
process is needed. Alkalis, when reacted with sulfates and Physical property values vary greatly and properties
chlorine, may harm thermochemical conversion systems, such as density, porosity, and internal surface area are
fouling heat exchange surfaces, gas-turbine blades, and related to biomass species whereas bulk density, particle
other power system components [21]. size, and shape distribution are related to fuel preparation
methods.
Table 8 Important chemical properties for combustion are the
Proximate analyses of selected biomass given in the literature (wt % ultimate analysis, proximate analysis, analysis of pyrolysis
of dry fuel) products, higher heating value, heat of pyrolysis, heating
value of the volatiles, and heating value of the char.
Fuel sample Ash Volatile Fixed carbon Reference
matter Thermal property values such as specific heat, thermal
conductivity, and emissivity vary with moisture content,
Hazelnut shell 1.5 76.3 21.2 [32] temperature, and degree of thermal degradation by one order
Sawdust 2.8 82.2 15.0 [50] of magnitude. Thermal degradation products of biomass
Corn stover 5.1 84.0 10.9 [51] consist of moisture, volatiles, char and ash. Volatiles are
Poplar 1.3 – 16.4 [52] further subdivided into gases such as light hydrocarbons,
Sugarcane bagasse 11.3 – 15.0 [52] carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen and moisture,
Peach pit 1.0 – 19.9 [52] and tars. The yields depend on the temperature and heating
Rice husk 22.6 61.0 16.7 [53]
rate of pyrolysis. Some properties vary with species,
Alfafa stalk 6.5 76.1 17.4 [55]
location within the biomass, and growth conditions. Other
Switchgrass 8.9 76.7 14.4 [55]
properties depend on the combustion environment. Where
 A. Demirbas / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 30 (2004) 219–230 225

Table 10
Inorganic properties of typical fuel samples (wt% of ash)

Fuel sample Si2O Al2O2 TiO2 Fe2O3 CaO MgO Na2O K2O SO3 P2O5 Cl

Coal type 1 42.0 20.0 1.2 17.0 5.5 2.1 1.4 5.8 5.0 – –
Coal type 2 59.7 19.8 2.1 8.3 2.1 1.8 0.8 2.1 2.0 0.2 –
Coal type 3 51.5 22.6 2.0 14.9 3.3 0.9 1.0 2.0 3.5 0.2 –
Red oak wood 49.0 9.5 – 8.5 17.5 1.1 0.5 9.5 2.6 1.8 0.8
Wheat straw 48.0 3.5 – 0.5 3.7 1.8 14.5 20.0 1.9 3.5 3.6
Walnut shell 23.1 2.4 0.1 1.5 16.6 13.4 1.0 32.8 2.2 6.2 0.1
Almond shell 23.5 2.7 0.1 2.8 10.5 5.2 1.6 48.5 0.8 4.5 0.2
Sunflower shell 29.3 2.9 0.1 2.1 15.8 6.1 1.5 35.6 1.3 4.8 0.2
Olive husk 32.7 8.4 0.3 6.3 14.5 4.2 26.2 4.3 0.6 2.5 0.2
Hazelnut shell 33.7 3.1 0.1 3.8 15.4 7.9 1.3 30.4 1.1 3.2 0.1

Source: Ref. [56].

the properties are highly variable, the likely range of the
property is given [22].
6.1. The chemistry of biomass combustion
Combustion is a series of chemical reactions by which
carbon is oxidized to carbon dioxide, and hydrogen is
oxidized to water.
In order to understand wood combustion, it is important
to understand the properties of wood which determine its
behavior as a fuel for combustion. Influencing properties
include anatomical structure and pathways for movement of
moisture, moisture content, specific gravity, and holocellu-
lose and lignin.
Main combustion reactions are:
Non-reacting solid ! Heat; drying ! PyrolysisðVolatiles;
SteamÞ ! Precombustion reactions ! Primary gas phase
combustion ! Secondary combustion ! Effluent stack gas
6.2. Some combustion properties of selected biomass
samples
rate apparently decreased and consequently some small losses
in the mass of the sample continuously went on as long as
temperature was increased up to 1273 K, indicating the slow
burning of the partly carbonized residue. At the end of hold
time at 1273 K, samples reached to the constant weight after
given periods [30].
The most important characteristic temperatures of a
burning profile are ignition temperature and peak tempera-
ture [31]. The ignition temperature corresponds to the point
at which the burning profile underwent a sudden rise. The
ignition temperatures of samples were determined from
their burning profiles. As seen Table 11, the temperatures
were determined as 475 K for sunflower shell, 463 K for
colza seed, 475 K for pine cone, 467 K for cotton refuse and
473 K for olive refuse [30]. The point on the burning profile
at which is the rate of weight loss due to combustion is
maximum known as peak temperature. The burning profile
peak temperature is usually taken as a measure of the
reactivity of the sample. These temperatures were found as
573 K for sunflower shell, as 535 K for colza seed, as 565 K

Non-isothermal and isothermal thermogravimetric tech-

niques have commonly been used to investigate the
reactivities of carbonaceous materials [24 – 28]. A plot of
the rate of weight loss against temperature while burning a
sample under oxidizing atmosphere is referred to as burning
profile [29]. The burning profiles of sunflower shell and pine
cone samples are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The first peak,
observed on the burning profiles of the biomass samples
corresponds to their moisture release. After releasing the
moisture, some small losses in the mass of the sample occurred
due to the desorption of the adsorbed gases. A sudden loss in
the mass of the samples started at the temperatures between
450– 500 K, representing the release of some volatiles and
their ignition. In the rapid burning region, the rate of mass loss
proceeded so rapidly that it reached to its maximum value.
Rapid loss of mass immediately slowed down at the
temperatures between 600 and 700 K. After then, burning Fig. 1. Burning profile of sunflower shell (source: Ref. [30]).
226 A. Demirbas / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 30 (2004) 219–230

products of combustion because the water vapor was

allowed to condense to liquid water. The HHV (in MJ/kg)
of the biomass fuels as a function of fixed carbon (FC, wt %)
was calculated from Eq. (1) [32]:

HHV ¼ 0:196ðFCÞ þ 14:119 ð1Þ

In earlier works [33,34], formulae were also devel-

oped for estimating the HHVs of fuels from different
lignocellulosic materials, vegetable oils and diesel fuels
using their chemical analysis data. For biomass
fuels such as coal, the HHV was calculated using the
modified Dulong’s formula [33,35] as a function of the
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen contents from
Eq. (2):

HHV ¼{33:5½CC þ 142:3½HC 2 15:4½OC

Fig. 2. Burning profile of pine cone (source: Ref. [30]). 2 14:5½NC} £ 1022 ð2Þ

for pine cone, as 598 K for cotton refuses and as 537 K for where (CC) was carbon content (wt %), (HC), hydrogen
olive refuse (Table 11). The rate of weight loss at the content (wt %), (OC) oxygen content (wt %) and (NC),
burning profile peak temperature is called the maximum nitrogen content (wt %)
combustion rate. The maximum combustion rates of the The heat content is related to the oxidation state of the
sunflower shell, colza seed, pinecone, cotton refuse and natural fuels in which carbon atoms generally dominate and
olive refuse was calculated as 5.5, 2.8, 5.2, 3.7 and 3.4 mg/ overshadow small variations of hydrogen content. On the
min, respectively [30]. basis of literature values for different species of wood,
The weight loss percentages of five different biomass Tillman [36] also found a linear relationship between HHV
samples versus temperature are illustrated in Fig. 3. From and carbon content.
the Fig. 3, the weight losses of the samples increased sharply The HHVs of extractive-free samples reflect the HHV
above 500 K. The weight loss differences between olive of lignin relative to cellulose and hemicelluloses. It was
refuse and other samples started to increase above reported that [37], cellulose and hemicelluloses (holocel-
620 K. Olive refuse has the lowest volatile matter content lulose) have a HHV of 18.60 kJ g21, whereas lignin has
and the highest ash content; in other words, olive refuse has a HHV of 23.26 to 26.58 kJ g21. As discussed by Baker
the lowest combustible part. The weight loss percentages of [38], HHVs reported for a given species reflect only the
the sunflower shell, colza seed, pinecone, cotton refuse and samples tested and not the entire population of the
olive refuse at 1273 K were % 95.07, 91.05, 84.80, 86.74 species. The HHV of a lignocellulosic fuel is a function
and 78.69, respectively [30]. of its lignin content. In general, the HHVs of
lignocellulosic fuels increase with increase of their lignin
contents and the HHV is highly correlated with lignin
6.3. Calculation of higher heating value
content. For the model including the lignin content, the
regression equation was
The higher heating values (HHVs) or gross heat of
combustion include the latent heat of the water vapor HHV ¼ 0:0889ðLCÞ þ 16:8218 ð3Þ
Table 11
Some combustion properties of selected biomass samples where LC was the lignin content (wt % daf and
extractive-free basis).
Sample Ignition Maximum Peak Again the heat content, which is a very important
temperature combustion temperature factor affecting utilization of any material as a fuel, is
(K) rate (mg/min) (K) affected by the proportion of combustible organic
components (called as extractives) present in it [39].
Sunflower shell 417 5.50 573 The HHVs of the extractive-free plant parts were found to
Colza seed 423 2.80 535 be lower than those of the unextracted parts which
Pine cone 463 5.20 565
indicate a likely positive contribution of extractives
Cotton refuse 423 3.70 598
Olive refuse 438 3.40 537
towards the increase of HHV. The Differential higher
heating value (DHHV in MJ/kg) of the biomass samples
Source: Ref. [30]. as a function of extractive content (EC, wt %) can be
 A. Demirbas / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 30 (2004) 219–230 227

Table 12
Physical properties and dry heating values of biomass and coal fuels

Property Biomass Coal

Fuel density (kg/m3) ,500 ,1300

Particle size ,3 mm ,100 mm
Dry heating value (MJ/kg) 16 25

Source: Ref. [56].

Biomass is much less dense and has significantly higher

Fig. 3. Weight loss percentages of different biomass samples versus
temperature Symbols for the biomass samples: B: Sunflower shell,
K: Colza seed, X: Pine cone, W: Cotton refuse, S: Olive refuse
(Source: Ref: [30]).
calculated from Eq. (4):
DHHV ¼ 0:383ðECÞ 2 0:0387 ð4Þ
7. Cofiring of biomass and coal blends
Cofiring refers to the combustion of biomass and coal for
power production. Cofiring biomass with coal, in compari-
son with single coal firing, helps reduce the total emissions
per unit energy produced. Coal and biomass fuels are quite
different in composition. Cofiring biomass with coal has the
capability to reduce both NOx and SOx levels from existing
pulverized-coal fired power plants. Cofiring may also reduce
fuel costs, minimize waste and reduce soil and water
pollution depending upon the chemical composition of the
biomass used. The oldest of all fuels, wood (or biomass),
and the old original fuel of the industrial revolution, coal,
are key to this move to a new mission. Technical issues that
can lead to doubt about of wood (or biomass) cofiring with
coal are being resolved through testing and experience [6].
As such, the air pollution emissions accompanying the
coal combustion are significant. Among these pollutants are
oxides of sulfur (SOx) and nitrogen (NOx), which lead to
acid rain and ozone depletion. In addition, greenhouse gas
emissions (CO2, CH4, etc.) have become a global concern
[32]. Numerous methods have been proposed for reducing
gaseous emissions of SO2, NOx and CO2 from fossil fuel
combustion and for reducing costs associated with these
mitigation techniques. Recent studies have shown that
burning biomass with fossil fuels has a positive impact both
on the environment and the economics of power generation
[40 – 47]. The emissions of SO2 and NOx were reduced in
most cofiring of biomass and coal techniques.
aspect ratios than coal. It is also much more difficult to
reduce to small sizes. Biomass that is cofired with coal can
be as much as 1/4 inch, sometimes more. These physical
properties give rise to several interesting combustion issues
(Table 12).
The elemental composition differences between coal and
biomass are indicated by the ultimate analyses (Table 13).
Coal compositions vary with coal rank and geographic
region, with two representative examples of a high-rank
eastern coal and a low-rank western coal indicated here. It is
difficult to establish a representative biomass due to large
property variations, but two examples are included here for
comparison. The composition variations among biomass
fuels are larger than among coals, but as a class biomass has
substantially more oxygen and less carbon than coal. Less
obviously, nitrogen, chlorine, and ash vary significantly
among biomass fuels. These components are directly related
to NOx emissions, corrosion, and ash deposition. Biomass
generally has relatively low sulfur compared to coal.
The inorganic properties of coal also differ significantly
from biomass (Table 14). Inorganic components in coal vary
by rank and geographic region. As a class, coal has more
aluminum, iron, and titanium than biomass. Biomass has
more silica, potassium, and some times calcium than coal. A
proximate analysis (Table 15), as defined by ASTM, is the
determination by prescribed methods of moisture, volatile
matter, fixed carbon (by difference) and ash.
7.1. Co-pyrolysis
Co-pyrolysis of carbonaceous material are complex
function of the experimental conditions, under which the
pyrolysis process proceeds. The most important factors,
which affect the yield and composition of the volatile
fraction liberated, are: coal rank or biomass type,
maceral composition, particle size, temperature
Table 13
Ultimate analyses of typical fuel samples
C H N S Cl Ash O (diff.)
Coal 81.5 4.0 1.2 3.0 – 7.0 3.3
Red oak wood 50.0 6.0 0.3 – – 1.3 42.4
Wheat straw 41.8 5.5 0.7 – 1.5 15.0 35.5
Source: Ref. [56].
228 A. Demirbas / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 30 (2004) 219–230

Table 14
Inorganic properties of typical fuel samples

Si2O Al2O2 TiO2 Fe2O3 CaO MgO Na2O K2O SO3 P2O5 Cl

Coal 42.0 20.0 1.2 17.0 5.5 2.1 1.4 5.8 5.0 – –
Red oak wood 49.0 9.5 – 8.5 17.5 1.1 0.5 9.5 2.6 1.8 0.8
Wheat straw 48.0 3.5 – 0.5 3.7 1.8 14.5 20.0 1.9 3.5 3.6

Source: Ref. [56].

Table 15
Proximate analyses of typical fuel samples

Moisture (% of fuel) Ash (% of dry fuel) Volatile matter (% of dry fuel) Fixed carbon (% of dry fuel)

Coal 4.8 ^ 2.6 8.3 ^ 1.5 2.4 ^ 5.9 43.6 ^ 3.8

Oak wood 6.5 ^ 0.8 0.5 ^ 0.1 78.6 ^ 3.8 21.5 ^ 2.1
Wheat straw 7.3 ^ 1. 12.7 ^ 3.6 64.0 ^ 5.1 23.4 ^ 2.5

Source: Ref. [56].

(i.e. temperature-time history), heating rate, atmosphere,
pressure and reactor configuration. Co-pyrolysis of car-
bonaceous material divided into a hydrogen-rich volatile
fraction, consisting of gases, vapors, and tar-components,
and a carbon-rich solid residue. The pyrolysis process
consists of a very complex set of reactions involving the
formation of radicals. The radicals are very reactive and
can undergo secondary reactions like cracking and carbon
deposition, both inside and outside the particle. Stabiliz-
ation of a radical, primarily via hydrogen addition, leads to
a volatile component. The evolution of tar is controlled by
mass transport in which the tar molecules evaporate into
the light gas species and are carried out the particle at rates
proportional to their vapor pressure and the volume of light
gas. High pressure reduces the volume of light gases and
hence reduces the yield of heavy molecules with low vapor
pressure. Polymerization and condensation reactions,
occurring via recombination of both volatile and non-
volatile radical components, result in the formation of the
solid char particle. High pyrolysis heating rates produced
chars with large macroporosites, more open pore structures,
and larger macropore surface areas. Tar formation
increases with increasing heating rate. The co-pyrolysis
of the lignite sample and the biomass sample was resulted
that the addition of lignite gave a slight synergistic effect in
terms of increasing the oil yield from the hazelnut shell and
also reduced the molecular weights of the resultant oil
considerably.
7.2. Mechanism of biomass cofiring with coal
A comparison of pyrolysis, ignition and combustion of
coal and biomass particles reveals the following:
1. Pyrolysis starts earlier for biomass fuels compared to
coal fuels.
2. The volatile material (VM) content of biomass
(, 40%) is higher compared to that of coal
(, 2 80%).
3. The fractional heat contribution by VM in biomass is of
the order of, 70% compared to, 36% for coal.
4. Biomass char has more oxygen compared to coal.
5. The heating value of volatiles is lower for biomass
fuels compared to those from coal fuel.
6. Pyrolysis of biomass chars mostly releases CO, CO2
and H2O.
7. Biomass fuels have ash that is more alkaline in nature,
which may aggravate the foulin problems.
8. Conclusion
Biomass has a significantly lower heating value than
most coal. This is in part due to the generally higher
moisture content and in part due to the high oxygen content.
It was observed that the investigated biomass materials
showed different combustion characteristics. The structural,
proximate and ultimate analyses results of biomass and
wastes differ considerably.
Cofiring biomass with coal, in comparison with single
coal firing, helps reduce the total emissions per unit energy
produced. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the pressure
is on conventional coal-fired utilities to burn renewable
fuels such as waste product or energy crop-derived biomass
fuels as a lowest-cost option for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Coal and biomass fuels are quite different in
composition. Cofiring biomass with coal has the capability
to reduce both NOx and SOx levels from existing pulverized-
coal fired power plants. Cofiring may also reduce fuel costs,
minimize waste and reduce soil and water pollution
depending upon the chemical composition of the biomass
 A. Demirbas / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 30 (2004) 219–230
used. Cofiring must be implemented with other approaches
to provide a meaningful, long-term solution.
Pyrolysis produces energy fuels with high fuel-to-feed
ratios, making it the most efficient process for biomass
conversion, and the method most capable of competing and
eventually replacing non-renewable fossil fuel resources.
The conversion of biomass to crude oil can be have an
efficiency of up to 70% for flash pyrolysis processes. The so-
called biocrude can be used in engines and turbines. Its use
as feedstock for refineries is also being considered. Some
interesting trends have been obtained, especially with
respect to the effect of net heating rate and temperature on
the pyrolysis time. The reported literature results indicate a
decrease in Final pyrolysis time as the net heating rate or
temperature is increased [58].
References
[1] Ravindranath NH, Hall DO. Biomass, energy, and environ-
ment—a developing country perspective from India. Oxford:
Oxford University Press; 1995.
[2] Campbell I. Biomass catalysts and liquid fuels. Lancaster:
Technomic Publishing Co. Inc; 1983.
[3] Hall DO, Rosillo-Calle F, de Groot P. Biomass energy lessons
from case studies in developing countries. Energy Policy
1992;62–73.
[4] McGowan F. Controlling the greenhouse effect: the role of
renewables. Energy Policy 1991;111–8.
[5] Marks J. Wood powder: an upgraded wood fuel. Forest Prod J
1992;42:52–6.
[6] Hughes E. Biomass co-firing: economics, policy and oppor-
tunities. Biomass Bioenergy 2000;19:457 –65.
[7] Demirbas A. Recent advances in biomass conversion technol-
ogies. Energy Edu Sci Technol 2000;6:19–41.
[8] Demirbas A. Conversion of biomass using glycerin to liquid
fuel for blending gasoline as alternative engine fuel. Energy
Convers Manage 2000;41:1741 –8.
[9] Demirbas A. Conversion of biomass to a pyrolytic oil for
blending gasoline as an alternative fuel in internal combustion
engines. Energy Sources 2000;23:553–62.
[10] Singh BP, Panigrahi MR, Ray HS. Review of biomass as a
source of energy for India. Energy Sources 2000;22:649–58.
[11] Dorf RC. Energy resources and policy. California: Addison-
Wesley; 1977.
[12] Demirbas A, Gullu D. Acetic acid, methanol and acetone from
lignocellulosics by pyrolysis. Energy Edu Sci Technol 1998;2:
111–5.
[13] Demirbas A. Biomass resources for energy and chemical
industry. Energy Edu Sci Technol 2000;5:21– 45.
[14] Ekmann JM, Winslow JC, Smouse SM, Ramezan M.
International survey of cofiring coal with biomass and other
wastes. Fuel Process Technol 1998;54:171–88.
[15] Demirbas A. Yields of oil products from thermochemical
biomass conversion processes. Energy Convers Manage 1998;
39:685–90.
[16] EUREC Agency. 1996, The future for renewable energy,
prospects and directions. London: James and James Science
Publishers Ltd; 1996.
229
[17] Goldstein IS. Organic chemical from biomass. Boca Raton,
Florida, USA: CRC Press, Inc; 1981. p. 64.
[18] Chum HL. Polymers from biobased materials. New Jersey,
USA: Noyes Data Corporation; 1991.
[19] Demirbas A. Mechanisms of liquefaction and pyrolysis
reactions of biomass. Energy Convers Manage 2000;41:
633–46.
[20] Jensen PA, Sander B, Dam-Johansen K. Pretreatment of straw
for power production by pyrolysis and char wash. Biomass
Bioenergy 2001;20:431 –46.
[21] Richard LB, Overend RP, Craig KR. Biomass-fired power
generation. Biomass-fired power generation. Fuel Process
Technol 1998;54:1– 16.
[22] Ragland KW, Aerts DJ, Baker AJ. Properties of wood
for combustion analysis. Bioresource Technol 1991;37:
161 –8.
[23] Bushnell DJ, Haluzok C, Dadkhah-Nikoo A. Biomass fuel
characterizati testing and evaluating the combustion charac-
teristics of selected biomass fuels. Corvallis, OR: Bonneville
Power Administration; 1989.
[24] Kucukbayrak S. Influence of the mineral matter content on the
combustion characteristics of Turkish lignites. Thermochi-
mica Acta 1993;216:119 –29.
[25] Sentorun C, Kucukbayrak S. Effect of mineral matter on the
burning profile of lignites. Thermochimica Acta 1996;285:
35– 46.
[26] Yaman S, Kucukbayrak S. Effect of oxydesulphurization on
the combustion characteristics of coal. Thermochimica Acta
1997;293:109–15.
[27] Yaman S, Cinpolat E, Karatepe N, Kucukbayrak S. Influence
of oxidative treatments on the thermal reactivity of lignites.
Thermochimica Acta 1999;335:63–8.
[28] Haykırı-Acma H, Yavuz R, Ersoy-Mericboyu A, Kucuk-
bayrak S. Effect of mineral matter on the reactivity of lignite.
Thermochimica Acta 1999;342:79–84.
[29] Wagoner CL, Duzy AF. ASME Paper 67-WA/FU-4 Winter
Annual Meeting N, 12–17 Nov, NY. 1967.
[30] Haykırı-Acma H. Combustion characteristics of different
biomass materials. Energy Convers Manage 2003;44:
155 –62.
[31] Haykırı-Acma H, Ersoy-Mericboyu A, Kucukbayrak S. Effect
of mineral matter on the reactivity of lignite chars. Energy
Convers Manage 2001;42:11–20.
[32] Demirbas A. Calculation of higher heating values of biomass
fuels. Fuel 1997;76:431–4.
[33] Demirbas A, Gullu D, Caglar A, Akdeniz F. Determination of
calorific values of fuel from lignocellulosics. Energy Sources
1997;19:765–70.
[34] Demirbas A. Determination of combustion heat of fuels by
using non-calorimetric experimental data. Energy Edu Sci
Technol 1998;1:7–12.
[35] Perry SW, Chilton CN. Chemical engineers handbook. 5th ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill; 1973.
[36] Tillman DA. Wood as an energy resource. New York:
Academic Press; 1978.
[37] Demirbas A. Relationships between lignin contents and
heating values of biomass. Energy Convers Manage 2001;
42:183–8.
[38] Baker AJ. Wood Fuel Properties and Fuel Products from
Woods. Fuelwood, management and utilisation seminar. East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University; 1982. p. 9–11.
230 A. Demirbas / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 30 (2004) 219–230
[39] Kataki R, Konwer D. Fuelwood characteristics of some
indigenous woody species of north-east India. Biomass
Bioenergy 2001;20:17–23.
[40] Sami M, Annamalai K, Wooldridge M. Co-firing of coal and
biomass fuel blends. Progress Energy Combus Sci 2001;27:
171–214.
[41] Gold BA, Tillman DA. Wood cofiring evaluation at TVA
power plants. Biomass Bioenergy 1996;10:71–8.
[42] Hein KRG, Bemtgen JM. EU clean coal technology—co-
combustion of coal and biomass. Fuel Process Technol 1998;
54:159–69.
[43] Hughes EE, Tillman DA. Biomass cofiring: status and
prospects 1996. Fuel Process Technol 1998;54:127–42.
[44] Harding NS, Adams BR. Biomass as a reburning fuel: a
specialized cofiring application. Biomass Bioenergy 2000;19:
429–45.
[45] Ekmann JM, Winslow JC, Smouse SM, Ramezan M.
International survey of cofiring coal with biomass and other
wastes. Fuel Process Technol 1998;54:171–88.
[46] Hus PJ, Tillman DA. Cofiring multiple opportunity fuels with
coal at Bailly generating station. Biomass Bioenergy 2000;19:
385–94.
[47] Battista JJ, Hughes EE, Tillman DA. Biomass cofiring at
seward station. Biomass Bioenergy 2000;19:419 –27.
[48] Demirbas A. Utilization of urban and pulping wastes to
produce synthetic fuel via pyrolysis. Energy Sources 2002;24:
203–11.
[49] EPA, Characterization, of municipal solid waste in the
United States: 1994 update, EPA Report No. EPA.
530R94042, 1994.
[50] Abbas T, Costen P, Kandamby NH, Lockwood FC, Ou JJ. The
influence of burner injection mode on pulverized coal and
biosolid co-fired flames. Combust Flame 1994;99:617–25.
[51] Paul WC, Buchele WF. Development of a concentric vortex
agri-residue furnace. Agric Energy 1980;2:349–56.
[52] Ebeling JM, Jenkins BM. Physical and chemical properties of
biomass. Trans ASAE 1985;23:898–902.
[53] Hartiniati SA, Youvial M. Performance of a pilot scale flu-
idized bed gasifier fueled by rice husks, pyrolysis and gasifi-
cation. Proceedings of the International Conference in
Luxembourg, 23– 25.; 1989. p. 257 –63.
[54] LePori WA. Fluidized bed combustion and gasification of
biosolid. Agric Energy 1980;2:330–4.
[55] Tillman DA. Biomass Cofiring: the technology, the experi-
ence, the combustion consequences. Biomass Bioenergy 2000;
19:365–84.
[56] Demirbas A. Sustainable cofiring of biomass with coal.
Energy Convers Manage 2003;44:1465 –79.
[57] Demirbas A. Fuel characteristics of olive husk and walnut,
hazelnut, sunflower, and almond shells. Energy Sources 2002;
24:215–21.
[58] Rezzoug SA, Caport R. Assessment of wood liquifaction in
acidified ethylene glycol using experimental design method-
ology. Energy Convers Manage 2003;44:781– 92.