Fuel 272 (2020) 117632

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

Characteristics of biomass charcoal briquettes and pollutant emission T

reduction for sulfur and nitrogen during combustion
⁎ ⁎
Zhenkun Guoa, Jianjun Wua, , Yixin Zhangb, , Feng Wanga, Yang Guoa, Kening Chena, Hu Liua
a
School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, China University of Mining and Technology, No. 1 Daxue Road, Xuzhou 221116, China
b
National Engineering Research Center of Coal Preparation and Purification, China University of Mining and Technology, No. 1 Daxue Road, Xuzhou 221116, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Typical biomasses (wheat straw, maize straw and rice straw) were used for studying the carbonization of bio-
Biomass mass, preparation and performance characterizations of charcoal briquettes. The combustion with charcoal
Carbonization briquettes was conducted on a self-built platform and the emission characteristics of sulfur and nitrogen pol-
Briquetting lutants were investigated. The results indicated that it is optimal for biochar preparation as a fuel with
Combustion
450–500 °C of carbonization temperature, 180 min of holding time and 5 °C·min−1 of heating rate. Biochar
Pollutant emission
briquettes will have strong mechanical strength at briquetting pressure of 25 MPa, particle size of less than 1 mm
and the ratio of modified corn starch of 4.32 wt%. Compared with biomass burning, biomass charcoal briquettes
had better combustion performance and the emissions of pollutants were reduced.

1. Introduction briquetting fuel (mechanism charcoal) includes four steps, namely,

Biomass energy has always been a significant energy source for
human survival [1,2]. It ranks fourth in the world total energy con-
sumption after coal, oil, and natural gas and occupies a vital position in
entire energy system [3–5]. Because of its advantages of being widely
sourced, renewable, and environmentally friendly [6,7], it has attracted
more and more attention [8].
China’s biomass energy resources are abundant. In 2017, the total
amount of crop straw resources was 884 million tons. These agricultural
and forestry biomass resources provide plentiful raw materials for the
production of biomass charcoal. Biomass carbonization technique has
the advantages of low requirement for raw materials, simplicity, and
low energy consumption [9–11]. Compared with original biomass,
biomass charcoal displays significant superiority not only in energy
density, convenient storage and transportation but also a wide range of
uses [12,13]. Compared with coal, biomass generates less ash, nitrogen,
sulfur and lower emissions of combustion pollutants, which sig-
nificantly reduces CO2 emissions. Therefore, it is a better alternative
fuel.
Being regular in shape, biochar briquetting fuel are featured with
high bulk density and strength, flammability, smokeless nature, non-
pollution, low ash content, as well as high calorific value. Consequently
biochar briquetting fuels are better than natural charcoal at some
properties [14,15]. The preparation process of common charcoal
crushing, drying, high-density briquetting of hot-press and carboniza-
tion of raw materials. Because of high-energy consumption of drying
and high-density briquetting of hot-press, key components of briquet-
ting machine are prone to wear. The fuel rods often distorted after
carbonization and the surface is easy to crack. These obvious defects
restrict its industrialization promotion and application of the tech-
nology. Therefore, to develop a carbonization process before briquet-
ting, a new process with low energy consumption, low cost, better
quality of briquetting charcoal which can satisfy a variety of briquetting
design requirements, has tremendous research significance and appli-
cation prospects [16,17].
The current production of biomass charcoal mainly uses thermal
cracking technology [18]. According to different reaction conditions,
thermal treatment can be divided into two types: one is rapid cracking,
in which the temperature is generally above 600 °C. Bio-oil or pyrolysis
gas is usually prepared by this method. The other is conventional
cracking, which has undergone continual development for thousands of
years. The temperature is generally 300–500 °C. Biochar is mainly
prepared by this method [19]. The specific operation of conventional
pyrolysis is to add various biomasses under anaerobic or anoxic con-
ditions and they are heated to appropriate temperatures (depending on
different materials). Heat and various gaseous compounds were re-
leased during biomass pyrolysis and biochar was formed eventually
[20,21]. In general, slow pyrolysis with low-temperature and long-term

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: jjuw@163.com (J. Wu), zhangyixinchina@126.com (Y. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117632
Received 7 December 2019; Received in revised form 11 March 2020; Accepted 13 March 2020
Available online 02 April 2020
0016-2361/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Guo, et al. Fuel 272 (2020) 117632

retention is mainly used to maximize the production of charcoal, whose Table 2

weight yield and energy yield reach 30 wt% and 50%, respectively The ultimate analyses of biochars.
[22]. The biomass charcoal can be used as a clean fuel after briquetting, Sample Ultimate analyses/wt%
which can effectively reduce emission of pollutant [23–26].
The yield and calorific value of biomass charcoal are different at Cd Hd Nd Sd
diverse temperatures [27,28]. Filiz et al. [29] studied the carbonization
Wheat charcoal 50.37 2.58 1.80 0.52
of rape straw at different temperature conditions. It was found that Maize charcoal 64.92 3.28 1.68 0.54
charcoal yield decreased from 39.4 wt% to 27.8 wt% from 400 to Rice charcoal 49.49 2.62 1.61 0.35
900 °C and charcoal obtained at 500 °C had the highest calorific value
of 27.68 MJ/kg. Stefanie et al. [30] used wheat straw, poplar and fir as
raw materials and the results showed that the highest carbon yield was binder with better performance. Sodium hydroxide can improve the
34 wt%, 32 wt%, and 36 wt% respectively at 400 °C. The higher the binding ability of reactive functional groups of starch molecular
temperature was, the lower the charcoal yield was. Chen et al. [31] structure. The weight fraction of starch was 12.34 wt%. Sodium hy-
studied the charcoal-oil-gas cogeneration system of cotton pyrolysis and droxide can improve the binding ability of reactive functional groups of
selected eight temperature points of 250, 350, 450, 550, 650, 750, 850 starch molecular structure.
and 950 °C to analyze the ratio and characteristics of charcoal-oil-gas
products. It was found that the optimum temperature range was 2.2. Experimental procedure method
550–750 °C and calorific value of charcoal at 550 °C could reach 28 MJ/
kg. From the researches above, we can find that previous studies only 2.2.1. Carbonization experimental procedure
reported the effects of carbonization craftwork on charcoal yield and Maize straw, wheat straw and rice straw were carbonized in muffle
calorific value. However, their comprehensive evaluation about bio- furnace (Nabertherm, N17, in Germany). In this experiment, three
mass charcoal fuel was less. factors of affecting carbonization were tested: carbonization tempera-
Carbonized biomass is a valuable and feasible way to reduce pol- ture, holding time and heating rate.
lutant emission [26,32–34]. In this paper, the integrated research on
carbonization, briquetting and pollutant emission was actualized. The 2.2.2. Briquetting procedure
energy yield was introduced to estimate the carbonization process The addition of binder, briquetting pressure and briquetting gran-
synthetically. The preparation of binder used for briquetting charcoals ularity were investigated. The briquetting procedure is shown in Fig. 1.
in this article was simple, efficient and inexpensive. The emission In thermostatic drying oven at 60 °C for 360 min, biochar briquettes of
characteristics of combustion pollutants between briquetting charcoal a diameter of 40 mm with a length of about 20 mm were made.
and biomass were compared on self-built combustion experimental
platform. 2.3. Analytical methods

2. Materials and methods 2.3.1. Calorific value and energy yield

2.1. Materials and sample preparation
To ensure a good representation of biomass briquette, three kinds of
crop straw were used for this study, which is the byproduct of the main
crops in China according to the 2017 China agricultural development
report [35]. Wheat straws were mature and collected in May 2018. Rice
and maize straws were mature and collected in August 2018. Rice,
maize and wheat straws were collected from rural areas in 2018 in
Xuzhou of Jiangsu province. The characteristics of raw samples are
given in Table 1. According to GB/T 212–2008 and GB/T 19143–2003,
elemental analysis and industrial analysis of samples were carried out
by automatic element analyzer and 5E-MAG6700 automatic industrial
analyzer (German elementar). After natural air-drying, the sample was
cut into 5 cm long segments with a straw chopper (HM-ZD, China)and
crushed to less than 6 mm by a landing continuous feeding crusher(DF-
40,China). Then a small crusher(CS-2000,China) was used to grand it to
below 1 mm. The ultimate analyses of biochars were given in Table 2.
Preparation of modified starch binder: 100 g of corn starch and
some saturated solutions of sodium hydroxide were put into 700 mL of
tap water in order and stirred evenly to obtain the modified starch
Calorific value was measured with a bomb calorimeter (CT-5000A,
China). Energy yield was counted under different carbonization con-
ditions as follow:
Q1 × m1
Energy yield = × 100%
Q 2 × m2 (1)
where: Q1-the calorific value of biomass charcoal, m1-the weight of
biomass charcoal, Q2-the calorific value of biomass, m2-the weight of
biomass. Energy yield reflects the energy loss in biomass carbonization
process.
2.3.2. Mechanical strength of biomass briquette
In this paper, the strength of biochar briquette was assessed by re-
ferring to the mechanical properties of coal briquettes. According to
Chinese coal industry standard MT/T925-2004, the drop strength of
briquette was inspected. (Briquette samples are dropped freely from a
height of 2 m to a steel plate of a specified thickness. The briquette with
particle size greater than 13 mm falls down for three times in total. That
the weight of the briquette with a particle size greater than 13 mm after
the third drop accounts for the weight of the prototype coal sample
means the drop strength of the briquette.) The compressive strength of

Table 1
Proximate and ultimate analyses of raw biomass.
Sample Proximate analyses/wt% Ultimate analyses/wt% Calorific value/MJ/kg

Mad Ad Vd FCd Cd Hd Nd Sd Qgr,d

Wheat straw 7.21 10.21 72.40 17.39 43.13 5.60 1.55 0.36 16.27
Maize straw 8.59 6.89 74.38 18.73 44.91 5.74 1.46 0.41 15.54
Rice straw 9.47 14.83 67.87 17.30 40.69 5.45 1.49 0.31 16.13

Ad = air-dry basis, Q gr,d = gross calorific value on a dry basis.

M = moisture A = ash V = volatile FC = fixed carbon.

2
Z. Guo, et al. Fuel 272 (2020) 117632

Fig. 1. Preparation of biochar briquetting fuel.

briquette was measured according to Chinese coal industry standard
GB/T748-1997(A certain number of briquettes are placed one by one at
the center of the applied surface of the specified testing machine and
applied at a uniform displacement speed of 10–15 mm/min. The value
is recorded when the briquette is cracked. The arithmetic mean of the
measured values of each briquette is used as the cold compressive
strength).
2.3.3. Experimental system and method for sulfur and nitrogen pollutant
emission
Fig. 2 shows a schematic diagram of self-built combustion platform.
The system has an improvement based on the original hood and flue
capacity of the fuel chamber. For consistency, the fuel was ignited with
propane gas in the same fixed flow rate until a stable flame was mon-
itored. The ignition time usually lasted for 2–4 min. A branch pipe was
arranged on the gas outlet pipe to extract the flue gas generated by
combustion process. After drying and filtering, it entered the flue gas
analyzer (recording gas concentration change).
From the concentration curve of NOX and SO2, the total emissions of
NOX and SO2 could be calculated by following formula.
t
MN = ∫t0
CN (t ) V (t ) dt
(2)
t

sampling method, called the box dilution method. The core technology
MN = ∫t0
CS (t ) V (t ) dt
(3)
is to place the civilian stove in a stainless steel box with good sealing. where, MN—the weight of generated NOX; MS—the weight of generated
The high-efficiency filtered air is brought by the induced draft fan to SO2; t0—the start time of experiment; t—the moment at the time of
dilute the flue gas and it enters the dilution pipe through the fume experiment; CN(t)—the concentration corresponding to NOX in the flue
hood. The method can effectively control the entry of external pollu- gas at time t; CS(t)— the concentration of SO2 in flue gas at time t; V(t)
tants into the test system and prevent the error caused by the flue gas —the flue gas flow at time t.
leakage. By collecting the diluted flue gas, the environmental impact of In the experiment, the flow rate of flue gas was stabilized by flow
the flue gas emission can be evaluated scientifically in our lab [32]. The controller, and V(t) was a fixed value. Let V(t) = A, then above formula
system is mainly divided into two parts: combustion system and flue gas could be changed to
analysis. The sampling tube was extended into the dilution pipe parallel
t
to the direction of intake air. The samples are naturally stacked in the MN = A ∫t CN (t ) dt
furnace and kept flat. To ensure the scientificity and repeatability, each 0 (4)
experiment is repeated at least 3 times. t
Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen monoxide were tested with the flue gas MS = A ∫t 0
CS (t ) dt
(5)
analyzers (Thermo Scientific; 43i and 42i for SO2 and NOX; America).
The biomass in combustion furnace was about 500 g due to its bulky In the combustion system, the pumping force of the flue gas ana-
volume and briquetting charcoal fuel (those briquettes that recorded lyzer was taken into consideration and the flow rate of flue gas was kept
the best mechanical and thermal properties) was 2 kg according to the be 1000 m3/h.

3
Z. Guo, et al.
Fig. 2. Simulated and civil system of combustion experiment.
2.3.4. Gaseous pollutant emission factor
Most studies reported emission factor algorithms for various types
of pollution sources, and the emission factors varied according to
emission characteristics. The algorithm for emission factor of this study
was:
Mi
EFi =
Mfuel (6)
where: EFi—the emission factor (ER) of gaseous pollutants i; Mi—the
total amount of emissions of gaseous pollutants i; Mfuel—the total
amount of combustion of straw fuel. Mi could be calculated from the
concentration of gaseous pollutants. Mfuel could be calculated from the
weight of straw before combustion and the unburned straw and ash
weight in post-combustion furnace.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effects of carbonization conditions on the characteristics of biochar
3.1.1. Fixed carbon content analysis
Fig. 3a shows the fixed carbon content at different temperatures.
The fixed carbon content (FCd) increased with increasing carbonization
temperature [18]. When the temperature reached 600 °C, the fixed
carbon content of maize, wheat and rice straw were about 70 wt%,
60 wt%, 50 wt%. The accumulation in fixed carbon content was one of
the reasons for the raise of calorific value. Among three types of bio-
mass charcoals, the growth rate of fixed carbon content of rice straw
before 450 °C was faster and it slowed down after 450 °C. But for both
maize and wheat straw, 500 °C was a cut-off point. The carbonization
reaction rate was swifter in pyrolysis stage and the fixed carbon content
increased rapidly. Fig. 3b shows the change of fixed carbon content at
different holding time. With prolonging holding time, the fixed carbon
content also went up. When the holding time reached 180 min, the
fixed carbon contents of wheat, maize and rice straw reached the
maxima, which were 48.69 wt%, 60.00 wt% and 46.16 wt% respec-
tively, indicating that pyrolysis gas and tar had basically been pre-
cipitated under this holding time. Fig. 3c shows the fixed carbon con-
tent at different heating rates. The fixed carbon content of various
straws increased along with increasing heating rate. However, the
overall change was within 3%, showing that the heating rate was not
the main factor affecting the fixed carbon content of biomass charcoal.
4
Fuel 272 (2020) 117632
3.1.2. Biomass char yield analysis
Fig. 4 demonstrates the variation curve of charcoal yield of bio-
masses. We find that the charcoal yields were above 40 wt% at 350 °C
from Fig. 4a. The char yield decreased rapidly before 500 °C. But the
change rate of charcoal yield was rather small within the range from
500 °C to 600 °C [36]. As carbonization temperature continued to rise,
the degree of biomass carbonization increased and charcoal yield kept
diminishing [31]. From Fig. 4b, when carbonization temperature was
constant, the carbon yielded gradually dropped with increasing holding
time. The volatiles given off extensively was one of the reasons for the
decrease in charcoal yield [37]. The volatile content of wheat and
maize straw was higher, so the charcoal yield was lower. But after
carbonization time reached 180 min, the decreasing trend slowed
down. From Fig. 4c, when both carbonization time and temperature
were constant, the change in heating rate had little effect on charcoal
yield.
3.1.3. Calorific value analysis of biomass charcoal
Fig. 5 displays the change curves of high calorific value of biomass
charcoal under different carbonization conditions. The calorific value of
biomass charcoal generally increased at first and then decreased with
increasing carbonization temperature from Fig. 5a. During the carbo-
nization of biomass, volatile matter precipitated continuously and
biomass weight reduced, resulting in a continuous growth in relative
content of carbon. The energy density of biomass charcoal enhanced
and the calorific value increased. When carbonization temperature was
in a low temperature zone, the rate of rise in calorific value was rela-
tively obvious. When carbonization temperature reached 450–500 °C,
the calorific value started to decrease. It can infer that in the initial
stage of carbonization, the precipitated volatile matter was mainly non-
flammable gas generated by decomposition of cellulose and water
vapor. The fixed carbon content increased. While volatile matter gen-
erated by carbonization in the high temperature zone contained more
heat. At this carbonization temperature, the weight reduced con-
tinuously during biomass carbonization process. Pyrolysis gas and tar
generated in the process would take away some energy, which caused
energy loss. The rate of energy change was faster than the rate of bio-
mass weight loss. At the same time, the ash content increased and the
calorific value reduced.
From Fig. 5b, when carbonization temperature remained the same,
the calorific value generally increased with prolonging holding time.
But after carbonization time reached 180 min, the calorific value began
to level off or even decreased, so carbonization time should be kept at
Z. Guo, et al.
Fig. 3. Fixed carbon content of biochar under different carbonization condi-
tions.
about 180 min. From Fig. 5c, the calorific value of three kinds of bio-
mass charcoals declined with the growth of heating rate. Therefore
lower heating rate was beneficial for preparation of biochar with higher
calorific value [38].
3.1.4. Energy yield analysis of biomass charcoal
The relationship between the energy yields and carbonization con-
ditions is shown in Fig. 6.
5
Fuel 272 (2020) 117632
Fig. 4. Biochar yield under different carbonization conditions.
With increasing carbonization temperature, the energy yields of the
three kinds of biomass charcoals diminished. The wheat straw de-
creased from 62.18 wt% to 46.63 wt%, the maize straw from 63.75 wt%
to 47.13 wt% and the rice straw from 67.14 wt% to 46.30 wt%.
Although the energy yields of the three kinds of biomass charcoals
peaked at carbonization temperature of 350 °C from Fig. 6a, the per-
formance of charcoal obtained at this temperature condition had not
reached the standard for use as a fuel based on the analysis results of
thermochemical characteristics. Considering thermochemical proper-
ties of charcoal and energy yield, it can be concluded that the carbo-
nization temperature of biomasses should be 450 ~ 500 °C, which was
Z. Guo, et al.
Fig. 5. Calorific value of biochar under different carbonization conditions.
more suitable for preparation of biochar as a fuel.
From Fig. 6b, with constant carbonization temperature and heating
rate, the energy yield of biomass charcoal prepared by holding time for
60 min was greater than that of other charcoals, but the calorific value
was lower. In order to obtain a higher calorific value of biomass
charcoal, it was more reasonable to choose a holding time of 180 min.
From Fig. 6c, when carbonization temperature and holding time were
constant, the biomass energy yield of charcoal obtained by heating at a
rate of 5 °C/min was significantly higher than those yields achieved at
other levels, indicating that a slower heating rate would be beneficial to
produce a higher energy yield [39]. The heating rate could affect the
6
Fuel 272 (2020) 117632
Fig. 6. Energy yield of biochar under different carbonization conditions.
activation energy of the reaction pathway.
3.2. Effects of briquetting conditions on mechanical strength of biomass
charcoal fuel
When the biomass was carbonized, the lignin in biomass had been
decomposed. So the binder should be added to ensure higher me-
chanical strength for biomass charcoal briquettes during transportation
and use. In the preparation process of briquetting charcoal, it was
Z. Guo, et al.
Fig. 7. Drop and compressive strength under different adhesive ratio.
utmost necessary to select suitable binder and parameters like particle
size, binder addition and briquetting pressure should also be taken into
consideration.
3.2.1. Effects of binder ratio on charcoal briquetting process
Fig. 7a represents the relationship between binder ratio and drop
strength (DS) of charcoal briquettes. As more binder was added, the DS
of briquetting charcoals were on the rise. When the amount of binder
was between 35 wt% and 40 wt%, the charcoal briquettes remained
intact after falling three times. The DS of briquetting charcoals reached
the optimum conditions.
Fig. 7b reveals the relationship between briquetting charcoal and
compressive strength (CS) under different binder ratios. The CS of
briquetting charcoals climbed up with increasing binder ratio. When
the binder ratio was less than 35 wt%, the enhancement was relatively
larger and the trend was obvious. When the binder ratio maintained
between 35 wt% and 40 wt%, there was little growth in the CS. It
showed that when the amount of the binder was about 35%, the
charcoal powder and the binder of modified starch (4.32 wt%) would
be fully mixed uniformly.
3.2.2. Effects of briquetting pressure on charcoal briquetting process
Fig. 8a illustrates the relationship between briquetting pressure and
DS of briquetting charcoal. Within certain range, the higher the bri-
quetting pressure was, the tighter the accumulation between charcoal
powders was. When charcoal powder was briquetting, there was a gap
among powder. Due to the excessive pressure during briquetting, the
elasticity of charcoal powder can cause the charcoal block to slightly
expand and then crack. The generation of these gaps would affect the
7
Fuel 272 (2020) 117632
Fig. 8. Drop and compressive strength under different briquetting pressure.
mechanical properties of briquetting charcoal. In drop experiments, the
charcoal block was easily broken due to the presence of these gaps.
These charcoal blocks had the maximum DS at briquetting pressure of
25 MPa.
Fig. 8b shows the relationship between briquetting pressure and CS
of briquetting charcoal. The briquetting pressure was greater, the CS of
biomass charcoal would not be higher. This was because of residual air
in the mold. When the pressure exceeded withstanding level for the raw
material, it caused the structure between the charcoal powder to col-
lapse and overall structure of charcoal briquettes to destroy. Although
the volume of briquettes remained the same, the mechanical strength
changed. The CS of three kinds of biomass charcoals demonstrated the
same trend with the increase of briquetting pressure and they reached
the maximum at briquetting pressure of 25 MPa, which was 0.96 MPa,
1.05 MPa and 1.20 MPa respectively. These values for compressive
strength are higher than other paper values [13].
3.2.3. Effects of briquetting particle size on charcoal briquetting process
Fig. 9a displays the relationship between briquetting particle size
and DS of briquetting charcoal. Generally, the smaller the briquetting
particle size was, the stronger the DS became. Because small particle
powders are featured with uniform particle size and larger surface area
and the total surface area of binder contacting charcoal powders ex-
panded accordingly. Under certain briquetting pressure, the particles
were easy to contact closely. The charcoal powder was integrated with
binder by physical bonding force. Therefore, the performance of char-
coal block under the same briquetting conditions was better as the
particle size of charcoal powders became smaller.
Fig. 9b exhibits the relationship between briquetting particle size
Z. Guo, et al. Fuel 272 (2020) 117632

Table 3
The change of calorific and primary properties after briquetting.
Binder Calorific Variation Volatiles Variation Ash Variation
ratio (wt value (wt%) (wt%) (wt%) (wt (wt%)
%) (MJ/kg) %)

Wheat 24.49 / 21.81 / 32.45 /

straw
20 23.98 −2.08 23.75 8.90 32.14 −0.96
25 24.17 −1.31 24.54 12.52 32.01 −1.36
30 24.57 0.33 25.22 15.64 31.66 −2.43
35 24.68 0.78 25.73 17.97 31.12 −4.10
40 24.75 1.06 26.12 19.76 30.43 −6.22
Corn 25.01 / 25.38 / 15.95 /
straw
20 24.89 −0.48 27.85 9.7 15.12 −5.20
25 24.93 −0.32 27.99 10.28 14.56 −8.71
30 24.98 −0.12 28.65 12.88 14.32 −10.22
35 25.12 0.44 29.65 16.82 13.76 −13.73
40 25.23 0.88 30.12 18.68 13.23 −17.05
Rice 22.48 / 21.83 / 32.61 /
straw
20 22.51 0.13 23.65 8.34 32.12 −1.50
25 22.56 0.36 24.21 10.90 31.62 −3.04
30 22.31 −0.76 24.98 14.43 31.55 −3.25
35 22.12 −1.60 25.67 17.59 31.02 −4.88
40 22.61 0.58 26.25 20.25 30.59 −6.19

Fig. 9. Drop and compressive strength under different briquetting granularity.

and CS of briquetting charcoal. There was a significant change between

briquetting charcoal with different particle sizes and CS. As the bri-
quetting particle size enlarged, the CS shrank. So the smaller particle
size was advantageous for preparation of briquetting charcoal with
better mechanical properties.

3.3. Comparison of thermo-chemical characteristics of biochar before and

after briquetting

Table 3 compares biomass briquetting charcoal with different pro-

portions of binder to original charcoal powder. The values are on a dry
basis. The calorific value of briquetting charcoals did not change sig-
nificantly with the increase of binder ratio and the overall change range
was smaller, all within 2.0%. It showed that the addition of binder had
no obvious effect on the calorific value of biomass charcoals. However,
the addition of binder had certain influence on ash and volatile matter
of biomass briquetting charcoal. The volatile content rised significantly
and ash content declined. The variation range expanded as the pro-
portion of adhesive increased.

3.4. Gaseous pollutant emission factor for sulfur and nitrogen

In Fig. 10a, the mean values order of emission factors (EF) of SO2
from straws is: wheat straw > maize straw > rice straw. EF for
burning of straws demonstrated some noticeable differences. Because
the EF of SO2 are not only directly related to the amount of sulfur in the
biomass, but also to the amount of alkali and alkaline earth metals in
the biomass, the combustion characteristics and the state of occurrence
Fig. 10. Comparison of emission factors for sulfur and nitrogen in combustion.
of sulfur [40–42]. The mean values order of NO, NO2 and NOX EF for
biomass is: wheat straw > rice straw > maize straw. Since the EF of
NO, NO2 and NOX depended not only on the amount of nitrogen in the

8
Z. Guo, et al.
biomass, but also on the type of fuel, the state of occurrence of nitrogen,
the combustion state of fuel, the density of fuel and the composition of
fuel [43–46].
In Fig. 10b, the order of SO2 EF for briquetting charcoals is: wheat
straw > maize straw > rice straw. The explanation is the same as the
biomass reason described above. The order of emission factors for NO,
NO2 and NOX is: wheat straw > maize straw > rice straw. After the
three kinds of biomasses were carbonized, the N content of them
changed. The explanation is also similar to the biomass described
above. When different fuels were tested in combustion experiment
system, the EF of gaseous pollutants for briquetting charcoals reduced
compared with biomass. Because briquetting technology is considered
as an effective method which can reduce the emission of pollutants
[47–49]. The results in this paper were low relatively and they are
within the scope of many experiments tested by others [50]. So bri-
quetting charcoals for combustion has certain advantages in terms of
pollutant emissions.
4. Conclusion
It can be concluded that pyrolysis of biomass is a complex process.
Moreover, different processes exert significant impacts on the physical
and chemical properties of biochar. The optimum conditions of carbo-
nization were obtained as follows: 450–500 °C of carbonization tem-
perature, 180 min of holding time and 5 °C·min−1 of heating rate.
Better mechanical strength of briquettes were prepared at briquetting
pressure of 25 MPa, particle size of less than 1 mm and the ratio of
modified corn starch of 4.32 wt%. Our results suggest that this ex-
periment can be used to guide the production of high-quality biochar,
providing a reference for efficient energy use of briquetting charcoal
and reduction of pollutant emissions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Zhenkun Guo: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing - original
draft. Jianjun Wu: Methodology. Yixin Zhang: Investigation. Feng
Wang: Software. Yang Guo: Data curation. Kening Chen: Formal
analysis. Hu Liu: Validation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was jointly supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (51704292 and 51974311), the Key Research and
Development Plan of Shandong Province(2019GGX103002), the
Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Shandong Province (201903073).
References
[1] Sahu M, Peipert J, Singhal V, Yadama GN, Biswas P. Evaluation of mass and surface
area concentration of particle emissions and development of emissions indices for
cookstoves in rural India. Environ Sci Technol 2011;45(6):2428.
[2] Wang S, Luo K, Hu C, Sun L, Fan J. Impact of operating parameters on biomass
gasification in a fluidized bed reactor: an Eulerian-Lagrangian approach. Powder
Technol 2018;333:304–16.
[3] Tan RR, Aviso KB, Barilea IU, Culaba Jr. AB. A fuzzy multi-regional input–output
optimization model for biomass production and trade under resource and footprint
constraints. Appl Energy 2012;90(1):154–60.
[4] Reddy BS. Biomass energy for India: an overview. Energy Convers Manage
1994;35(4):341–61.
[5] Huang H, Liu J, Liu H, Evrendilek F, Buyukada M. Pyrolysis of water hyacinth
biomass parts: bioenergy, gas emissions, and by-products using TG-FTIR and Py-GC/
MS analyses. Energy Convers Manage 2020;207:112552.
[6] Chen T, Liu R, Scott NR. Characterization of energy carriers obtained from the
9
Fuel 272 (2020) 117632
pyrolysis of white ash, switchgrass and corn stover — biochar, syngas and bio-oil.
Fuel Process Technol 2016;142(1):124–34.
[7] Zhang L, Xu C, Champagne P. Overview of recent advances in thermo-chemical
conversion of biomass. Energy Convers Manage 2010;51(5):969–82.
[8] Sakkampang C, Wongwuttanasatian T. Study of ratio of energy consumption and
gained energy during briquetting process for glycerin-biomass briquette fuel. Fuel
2014;115:186–9.
[9] Du Z, Li Y, Wang X, Wan Y, Chen Q, Wang C, et al. Microwave-assisted pyrolysis of
microalgae for biofuel production. Bioresour Technol 2011;102(7):4890–6.
[10] Qiu Y, Zheng Z, Zhou Z, Sheng GD. Effectiveness and mechanisms of dye adsorption
on a straw-based biochar. Bioresour Technol 2009;100(21):5348–51.
[11] Hu W, Fang L, Xiang H, Jian Z, Yang X, Tao Z, et al. Investigating co-firing char-
acteristics of coal and masson pine. Renewable Energy 2018.
[12] Liu Y, Shen Y. Three-dimensional modelling of charcoal combustion in an industrial
scale blast furnace. Fuel 2019;258:116088.
[13] Riva L, Nielsen HK, Skreiberg Ø, Wang L, Bartocci P, Barbanera M, et al. Analysis of
optimal temperature, pressure and binder quantity for the production of biocarbon
pellet to be used as a substitute for coke. Appl Energy 2019;256:113933.
[14] Sotannde OA, Oluyege AO, Abah GB. Physical and combustion properties of char-
coal briquettes from neem wood residues. Int Agrophys 2010;24(1):189–94.
[15] Demirbas A. Sustainable charcoal production charcoal briquetting. Energy Sources
2009;31(19):1694–9.
[16] Demirbaş A. Properties of charcoal derived from hazelnut shell and the production
of briquettes using pyrolytic oil. Energy 1999;24(2):141–50.
[17] Temmerman M, Rabier F, Jensen PD, Hartmann H, Böhm T. Comparative study of
durability test methods for pellets and briquettes. Biomass Bioenergy
2006;30(11):964–72.
[18] Riva L, Surup GR, Buø TV, Nielsen HK. A study of densified biochar as carbon
source in the silicon and ferrosilicon production. Energy 2019;181:985–96.
[19] Bustos-Vanegas JD, Martins MA, Freitas AG, Mellmann J. Experimental character-
ization of self-heating behavior of charcoal from eucalyptus wood. Fuel
2019;244:412–8.
[20] Czernik S, Bridgwater AV. Overview of applications of biomass fast pyrolysis oil.
Energy Fuels 2004;18(2):590–8.
[21] Chen T, Cai J, Liu R. Combustion kinetics of biochar from fast pyrolysis of pine
sawdust: isoconversional analysis. Energy Sources 2015;37(20):2208–17.
[22] Bridgwater AV, Peacocke GVC. Fast pyrolysis processes for biomass. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2000;4(1):1–73.
[23] Wang CA, Zhang X, Liu Y, Che D. Pyrolysis and combustion characteristics of coals
in oxyfuel combustion. Appl Energy 2012;97(3):264–73.
[24] Demirbaş A. Biomass resource facilities and biomass conversion processing for fuels
and chemicals. Energy Convers Manage 2001;42(11):1357–78.
[25] Cherubini F. The biorefinery concept: using biomass instead of oil for producing
energy and chemicals. Energy Convers Manage 2010;51(7):1412–21.
[26] Sun J, Shen Z, Zhang Y, Zhang Q, Wang F, Wang T, et al. Effects of biomass bri-
quetting and carbonization on PM2. 5 emission from residential burning in
Guanzhong Plain. China. Fuel 2019;244:379–87.
[27] Zanzi R, Sjöström K, Björnbom E. Rapid pyrolysis of agricultural residues at high
temperature. Biomass Bioenergy 2002;23(5):357–66.
[28] Encinar JM, Beltrán FJ, Bernalte A, Ramiro A, González JF. Pyrolysis of two agri-
cultural residues: olive and grape bagasse. Influence of particle size and tempera-
ture. Biomass Bioenergy 1996;11(5):397–409.
[29] Karaosmanoǧlu Filiz, Sever A. Biochar from the straw-stalk of rapeseed plant.
Energy Fuels 2012;14(2):336–9.
[30] Kloss S, Zehetner F, Dellantonio A, Hamid R, Ottner F, Liedtke V, et al.
Characterization of slow pyrolysis biochars: effects of feedstocks and pyrolysis
temperature on biochar properties. J Environ Qual 2012;41(4):990–1000.
[31] Chen Y, Yang H, Wang X, Zhang S, Chen H. Biomass-based pyrolytic polygeneration
system on cotton stalk pyrolysis: influence of temperature. Bioresour Technol
2012;107(107):411–8.
[32] Qi J, Li Q, Wu J, Jiang J, Miao Z, Li D. Biocoal briquettes combusted in a household
cooking stove: improved thermal efficiencies and reduced pollutant emissions.
Environ Sci Technol 2017;51(3):1886–92.
[33] Li Q, Qi J, Jiang J, Wu J, Duan L, Wang S, et al. Significant reduction in air pollutant
emissions from household cooking stoves by replacing raw solid fuels with their
carbonized products. Sci Total Environ 2019;650:653–60.
[34] Li Q, Jiang J, Wang S, Rumchev K, Mead-Hunter R, Morawska L, et al. Impacts of
household coal and biomass combustion on indoor and ambient air quality in
China: Current status and implication. Sci Total Environ 2017;576:347–61.
[35] Jakob A, Stucki S, Struis RPWJ. Complete heavy metal removal from fly ash by heat
treatment: influence of chlorides on evaporation rates. J Environ Sci Technol
1996;30(30):3275–83.
[36] Yu F, Steele PH, Ruan R. Microwave pyrolysis of corn cob and characteristics of the
pyrolytic chars. Energy Sources 2010;32(5):475–84.
[37] Brewer CE, Unger R, Schmidtrohr K, Brown RC. Criteria to select biochars for field
studies based on biochar chemical properties. Bioenergy Res 2011;4(4):312–23.
[38] Sait HH, Hussain A, Salema AA, Ani FN. Pyrolysis and combustion kinetics of date
palm biomass using thermogravimetric analysis. Bioresour Technol
2012;118(4):382–9.
[39] Anupam K, Sharma AK, Lal PS, Dutta S, Maity S. Preparation, characterization and
optimization for upgrading Leucaena leucocephala bark to biochar fuel with high
energy yielding. Energy 2016;106:743–56.
[40] Knudsen JN, Jensen PA, Lin W, Frandsen FJ, Dam-Johansen K. Sulfur transforma-
tions during thermal conversion of herbaceous biomass. Energy Fuels
2004;18(3):810–9.
[41] Knudsen JN, Jensen PA, Lin W, Dam-Johansen K. Secondary capture of chlorine and
Z. Guo, et al.
sulfur during thermal conversion of biomass. Energy Fuels 2005;19(2):606–17.
[42] Hindiyarti L, Frandsen F, Livbjerg H, Glarborg P, Marshall P. An exploratory study
of alkali sulfate aerosol formation during biomass combustion. Fuel
2008;87(8–9):1591–600.
[43] Zhang H, Ye X, Cheng T, Chen J, Yang X, Wang L, et al. A laboratory study of
agricultural crop residue combustion in China: emission factors and emission in-
ventory. Atmos Environ 2008;42(36):8432–41.
[44] Giuntoli J, de Jong W, Verkooijen AH, Piotrowska P, Zevenhoven M, Hupa M.
Combustion characteristics of biomass residues and biowastes: fate of fuel nitrogen.
Energy Fuels 2010;24(10):5309–19.
[45] Lyngfelt A, Leckner B. Combustion of wood-chips in circulating fluidized bed
boilers—NO and CO emissions as functions of temperature and air-staging. Fuel
1999;78(9):1065–72.
[46] Chyang C-S, Qian F-P, Lin Y-C, Yang S-H. NO and N2O emission characteristics from
a pilot scale vortexing fluidized bed combustor firing different fuels. Energy Fuels
10
Fuel 272 (2020) 117632
2008;22(2):1004–11.
[47] Chen Y, Tian C, Feng Y, Zhi G, Li J, Zhang G. Measurements of emission factors of
PM2. 5, OC, EC, and BC for household stoves of coal combustion in China. Atmos
Environ 2015;109:190–6.
[48] Shen G, Tao S, Wei S, Zhang Y, Wang R, Wang B, et al. Reductions in emissions of
carbonaceous particulate matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from com-
bustion of biomass pellets in comparison with raw fuel burning. Environ Sci
Technol 2012;46(11):6409–16.
[49] Bond TC, Covert DS, Kramlich JC, Larson TV, Charlson RJ. Primary particle emis-
sions from residential coal burning: optical properties and size distributions. J
Geophys Res: Atmospheres 2002;107(D21). ICC 9-1–ICC 9-14.
[50] Du W, Zhu X, Chen Y, Liu W, Wang W, Shen G, et al. Field-based emission mea-
surements of biomass burning in typical Chinese built-in-place stoves. Environ
Pollut 2018;242:1587–97.