Effectiveness of briquettes as an alternative cooking fuel for households in

Uganda.

Richard Sseruwagi1, Henry Bukenya2

1
Project Engineer, Renewable Energy Business Incubator, Makerere University Kampala
richard@energyincubator.org / arise1000@gmail.com
2
Student, Makerere University Kampala
henrybukenya@yahoo.com

Abstract
To cater for the increased needs of humans, energy being crucial, especially fuel for household use, has left no
choice but to continually depend on firewood and charcoal leading to intensive deforestation. Despite of the
rate at which the deforestation is occurring, the population is still increasing. Hence an attempt is made to
prepare fuel briquettes from locally available biomass waste materials as alternative sources of energy
production.
Key words: Briquettes, calorific value, ash content, moisture content, crushing strength and volatile matter

1. Introduction
The Biomass energy sources consist of any organic material that can be used as fuel; including firewood, forest
waste, dung, vegetable matter and agricultural residues. Energy from biomass accounts for 15% of global
e erg o su ptio et i Uga da it supplies ore tha 9 % of the ou tr ’s e erg eeds. Ferguso et al.,
. Bio ass has histori all ee a heap a d a essi le sour e of fuel for Uga da’s populatio ut this is
unlikely to continue as high dependency is raising concerns for the sustainability of the resources as human
populations and associated demands increase.

Kamese et al., esti ated Uga da’s e erg o su ptio atri at a out 9 % io ass, % petroleu
products and 2% electricity. The total generation capacity of electricity was at 326MW. However, only 6% of
the total population was estimated to have access to electricity of which only 1% comprises the rural
populatio . Further ore, the stud also fou d out that over 9 % of Uga da’s populatio depe ds o io ass
for their energy yet the cost of improved household and institutional stoves remain higher than many
communities can afford.

Fuel briquettes made from agricultural and commercial residues such as saw dust, weeds, leaves, rice husks,
carton board and scrap paper are a unique, yet well proven technology for an alternative energy source. United
State Department of Agriculture (USDA, 2013) noted that briquetting helps increase the value of charcoal and
at the same assessment its price.

In many parts of the world, people are making this new and modern fuel, saving time, energy, and environment
and creating more income. Fuel briquettes are unique because they provide a fuel wood alternative from
resources that are right under your feet or in your waste bucket! Fuel briquettes can be made relatively quickly
at a low cost to the manufacturer or consumer and can be adapted and applied in a wide variety of settings,
making the briquettes appropriate, sustainable and renewable.

Deforestation and rising oil prices have been a major challenge for the growing energy needs in developing
countries. The development of renewable energy sources in the global South has the potential to decrease the
dependence on increasingly scarce energy sources and contribute to the protection of vital ecosystems.
Renewable energy offers possibilities to both reduce poverty and to allow sustainable development
(Goldemberg and Coelho, 2004).

According to the Uganda Demographic Health Survey (2006), cooking fuel generally affects the quality of air for
the members of a household. Most households use solid fuels cooking such as charcoal, wood and other
biomass fuels which are usually a major cause of respiratory infections given that they emit a lot of smoke.
During the Uganda National Household Survey(UNHS, 2010), information on the type of fuel that a household
most often used for cooking was collected and the report revealed that wood fuels are the most common
source of fuel for cooking in Uganda.

The majority of the households (95%) still use wood fuels (wood and charcoal) as a main source of energy for
cooking. Firewood was most commonly used by the rural household (86%) while charcoal is commonly used by
urban households (70%) (UNHS, 2010). Regional variations reveal that 88 percent of households in the
Northern region mainly used firewood while 75 percent of households in Kampala used charcoal as the main
source of fuel for cooking. It is worth noting that the proportions of households that used electricity for cooking
was still very low which could be due to the high tariffs charged per unit (UBOS, 2010).

2. Methods
The main objective was to assess the effectiveness of briquettes as an alternative source of fuel for household
use.

The specific objectives were to evaluate the volatile matter content, ash content and calorific value for briquettes
made from different proportions of wood shavings and papyrus, to determine the moisture content and crushing
strength of briquettes made from different proportions of wood shavings and papyrus and to compare the values
obtained in objectives (i) and (ii) from the briquettes made from wood shavings and papyrus with those of selected
briquette samples obtained from the local market.

Five samples A, B, C, D and E of briquettes comprising of wood shavings or papyrus were produced

Sample Kilograms of Kilograms of Papyrus

Wood shavings

100 % Wood shavings (Sample A) 10 0

50% Wood shavings + 50% Papyrus (Sample B) 5 5
25% Wood shavings + 75% Papyrus (Sample C) 7.5 2.5
75% Wood shavings + 25% Papyrus (Sample D) 7.5 2.5
100% Papyrus (Sample E) 0 10
Figure 1 Composition of sample carbonised briquettes

Briquettes were procured from the local market from Energy Fundi ltd (ECO-MWOTO), KEEP and Best of Waste
ltd (BOW).

The briquettes were evaluated for the following properties: moisture content, ash, volatile matter content,
calorific value and crushing strength. The experimental results indicated that calorific value of the solid fuel
briquettes was more in Sample D.
The results also indicated that Sample C briquettes had less volatiles, Sample D briquettes had less ash and
moisture content and Sample E briquettes had more crushing strength.
From the analysis, the results for moisture content (%), volatiles (%), ash (%), crushing strength (x10 3Pa) and
calorific value (kcal/kg) was found to be (6.66,64.87,28.48,4583 and 111), (7.6,65.57,26.84,4379 and 146),
(7.32,64.84,27.84,4456 and 115), (6.6,65.64,27.76,4666 and 109) and (7.6,68.7,23.7,4606 and 102) for Sample
A, Sample E, Sample C, Sample B and Sample D respectively.

For the briquettes obtained from the market, ECO-MOTO had the highest calorific value of 5,105kcal/kg with
5.32% moisture, 63.01% volatiles, 31.67% ash with a crushing strength of 120x103Pa, followed by BOW with a
calorific value of 4,830 kcal/kg with 6.82% moisture, 67.76% volatiles, 25.41% ash with a crushing strength of
184x103Pa and finally KEEP with the least calorific value of 4,532 kcal/kg having a 8.24% moisture, 63.32%
volatiles, 28.45% ash with a crushing strength of 140x103Pa.

3. Results and discussion

The results and discussion of the work should be explicitly described and illustrated. Supporting figures, tables
and images of the results (no more than two figures and two tables) may be included in the extended abstract.
Figures, images and tables must be numbered (see Figure 1 and table 2 as examples); figure headers should be
placed under the figure or image; table header should be placed at the top. References (if any) of the tables,
figures and images should be presented right under the tables, figures and images in the form of author surname
and publication date.
70
69
% of voltatile matter

68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
Sample A Sample B Sample C Sample D Sample E KEEP ECO-MOTO BOW
Samples

Figure 2 the percentage of volatile matter for the various briquettes

For experimental briquettes: The highest (mean ± SD) volatile matter content was witnessed in Sample D i.e.
68.7% followed by Sample B (65.64%), Sample E (65.57%), Sample A (64.87%) and finally Sample C (64.84%).

For the control samples: the highest (mean ± SD) volatile matter content was witnessed in BOW (67.76%)
followed by KEEP (63.32%) and finally ECO-MOTO (63.01%).

35
30
25
% Ash

20
15
10
5
0
Sample A Sample B Sample C Sample D Sample E KEEP ECO-MOTO BOW
Sample

Figure 3 The percentage of ash content for the various briquettes

For the experimental samples: the lowest (mean ± SD) ash content obtained from Sample D (23.7%) followed by Sample E
(26.84%), Sample B (27.76%), Sample C (27.84%) and Sample A(28.48%).

For the control samples: the lowest (mean ± SD) ash content obtained from BOW (25.41%) followed by KEEP, 28.45% and
finally ECO-MOTO, 31.67%

5,200
5,000
Calorific Value

4,800
4,600
4,400
4,200
4,000
Sample A Sample B Sample C Sample D Sample E KEEP ECO-MOTO BOW
Sample

Figure 4 The calorific value for the various briquettes

The calorific value of Sample B briquettes was 4,666 Kcal/kg, Sample D briquettes was 4,606 Kcal/kg, Sample A
briquettes was 4,583kcal/kg, Sample C briquettes was 4,456kcal/kg and Sample E was 4,379 Kcal/kg.
From the control briquettes obtained from the market, I found that ECO-MOTO briquette had more calorific
value (5,105kcal/kg) followed by BOW briquette (4,830Kcal/kg) and KEEP briquettes (4,532Kcal/kg). The
computed calorific values for the experimental briquettes from wood shavings and papyrus compare well with
those obtained from the market, indicating that the new material can perform equally well as those already on
market

9
8
% moisture content

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Sample A Sample B Sample C Sample D Sample E KEEP ECO-MOTO BOW
Sample

Figure 5 the percentage of moisture content for the various briquettes

For experimental briquettes: The highest (mean ± SD) moisture content was witnessed in Sample A (28.48%)
followed by Sample C (27.84%), Sample B (27.76%), Sample E (26.84%) and Sample D (23.7%).

For the control samples: The highest (mean ± SD) moisture content was witnessed in ECO-MOTO briquette
(31.67%) followed by KEEP briquette (28.45%) and finally BOW briquette (25.41%). These results also compare
well with those of experimental briquettes.
 Scatterplot of Calorific value vs %MC
5200

5000
Calorific v alue

4800

4600

4400

4200

3 4 5 6 7 8 9
%MC

Figure 6 Effect of moisture content on calorific value

Increasing biomass materials moisture content causes a decrease in the calorific value

200

150

100

50

0
Sample A Sample B Sample C Sample D Sample E KEEP ECO-MOTO BOW

Figure 7 The Crushing strength for the various briquettes

From the experimental briquettes, Sample E had the highest (mean ± SD) Crushing strength (146x103 Pa)
followed by Sample C (115x103 Pa), Sample A(111x103 Pa), Sample B (109x103 Pa) and finally Sample D (102x103
Pa).
From the control briquettes, BOW had the highest (mean ± SD) Crushing strength (184x103 Pa) followed by KEEP
(140x103 Pa), and finally ECO-MOTO (140x103 Pa)..

CALORIFIC CRUSHING
SAMPLE %ASH %VOLATILE %MOISTURE VALUE STRENGTH
SOURCE CODE CONTENT MATTER CONTENT (kcal/kg) (X103 Pa)
Sample A 28.48 64.87 6.66 4,583 111
Sample B 27.76 65.64 6.60 4,666 109
Sample C 27.84 64.84 7.32 4,456 115

Experimental Sample D 23.70 68.70 7.60 4,606 102

Briquettes Sample E 26.84 65.57 7.60 4,379 146
KEEP 28.45 63.32 8.24 4,532 140

Obtained from ECO-

market MOTO 31.67 63.01 5.32 5,105 120
(Entrepreneurs) BOW 25.41 67.76 6.82 4,830 184
Figure 8 A summary of the properties
 Briquettes N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Minimum Maximum
Experimental
Briquettes 9 4,576 101.48 33.83 4,437 4,720
On market 9 4,822 251.90 83.97 4,489 5,159
Total 18 4,699 225.34 53.11 4,437 5,159

There was a significant difference in contents which significantly affected their gross energy (Kcal/kg) (one way
ANOVA) f 7.409, p=0.015 between briquettes on market and the experimented briquettes. This meant that the
experimental briquettes had higher moisture

4. Conclusions
Since the quality of any fuel briquette depends on its ability to provide sufficient heat at the necessary time, to
ignite easily without any danger, generate less ash as this will constitute nuisance during cooking. Recycling
biomass can be significantly alternative fuels. The research results can be applied to develop alternative fuels
from various unexploited biomass materials.
Briquettes have a great potential to be used to replace or supplement the current energy sources being used for
household energy especially for cooking. This can be noticed from the higher calorific energy values for the
different samples.
It is evident that the moisture content of the feed greatly affects the moisture of the feed which in turn affects
the calorific value of the briquettes.

5. References

[1.] Aina, O. A. (2009). Heat Energy from Value-dded Sawdust Briquettes of Albiziazygia. Ethiopian Journal
of Environmental Studies and management.
[2.] Arvelakis, S, & Koukios, E.G. (2002). Physicochemical Upgrading 9of Agro-residues as Feedstocks for
Energy Production via Thermochemical Conversion Methods. pp. 22: 331-348.
[3.] B.M. Jenkins, L. L. Baxter, T. R. M. Jr, & T. R. Miles. (1998). Combustion Properties of Biomass. Fuel
Processing Technologies, Vol 54, pp 17-46.
[4.] Baxter, L. L. (1993). Ash Deposition During Biomass and Coal Combustion, A Mechanistic Approach
Biom and Bioe. 4(2): 85-102.
[5.] Ch. A. I. Raju, K. Ramya Jyothi, M. Satya, & U. Praveena. (2014). Studies on Development of Fuel
Briquettes for Household and Industrial Purpose. International Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology.
[6.] Ch. A. I. Raju, U. Praveena, M.Satya, K. Ramya Jyothi, & Prof. S. Sarveswara Rao. (2014). Studies on
Development of Fuel Briquettes using Biodegradble Waste Materials. Journal of Bioprocessing and
Chemical Engineering.
[7.] D. Vamvuka, N. E. Chatible & S. Stakiotakis, (28 June- 1 July, 2011). Proceedings from the European
Combustion Meeting, Cardiff.
[8.] International, A. (2012). Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of Refuse Derived Fuel by the
Bomb Calorimeter. ASTM Standard E711-87.
[9.] Joseph, O. A., Francis, K., & Stephen, M. J. (2012). Physico-chemical characteristics and market
potential of sawdust charcoal briquettes. International Journal of Energy and Environmental
Engineering.
[10.] Kamese, G. (2004). Renewable Energy Technologies in Uganda: The Potential for Geothermal
Energy Development. A Country Study Report under the AFREPREN/HBF study
http://www.afrepren.org/draftrpt/hbf/geo/ug.pdf.
[11.] Kavuma Chrish, & Makumbi Thomas. (2008). Assessment of Calorific value and Ash content of
Agricultural Waste based Energy Briquettes. Unpublished final year project dessertation.
[12.] Loo, S., & Koppejan, J. (2008). The Handbook of Biomass Combustion and Co-firing. London:
Earthscan.
[13.] Makumbi, T. (2008). Assessment of Calorific Value and Ash Content of Agricultural Waste
Based Energy Briquettes. Final Year Project Report, Makerere University, Kampala (Not published).
[14.] Mitchual, S., Frimpong-Mensah, K., & Darkwa, N.A. (2013). Effect of Species, Particle Size and
Compacting Pressure on Relaxed Density and Compressive Strength of Fuel. International Jornal of
Energy and Enviromental Engineering, 4, 6p.
[15.] Oladeji, J. T. (2010). Fuel Characterisisation of Briquettes Produced from Corncob and Rice
Husks Residues. The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology, 11, 101-106.
[16.] Stephen J. Mitchual, Kwasi Frimpong-Mensah, & Nicholas A. Darkwa. (2014). Evaluation of
Fuel Properties of Six Tropical hardwood Timber Species for Briquettes. Systems.