Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 27 (2021) 101255

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/csite

Analysis of hydrochar fuel characterization and combustion

behavior derived from aquatic biomass via hydrothermal
carbonization process
Sawat Poomsawat, Wijittra Poomsawat *
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering at Kamphaeng Saen, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Saen Campus, Nakhon Pathom,
Thailand

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Using aquatic biomass as a solid fuel is limited by its low energy density, low lignin content and
Hydrochar high moisture content. This study investigated upgrading aquatic biomass as a solid fuel using
Water hyacinth hydrothermal carbonization with temperatures in the moderate temperatures range for a reaction
Cattail leaves
time of 30 min. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) tests were used to study the combustion
Hydrothermal carbonization
Combustion
behavior of the raw aquatic biomass and its derived hydrochar during the combustion process.
Chemical composition analysis indicated that compared to the raw aquatic biomass, the fuel
quality of the derived hydrochar had been improved by increasing the carbon contents with a
substantial decrease in the volatile matter and ash content. Furthermore, higher fuel quality of the
derived hydrochar was observed with increasing hydrothermal temperature. Similarly, based on
the TGA test, the hydrochars had increased ignition temperatures, higher combustion tempera­
tures and higher burnout temperatures compared to the raw aquatic biomass. The combustion
characteristic index values for all hydrochar samples derived from water hyacinth and cattail
leaves were appropriate for combustion.

1. Introduction

Using renewable energy as a substitute fossil fuels is one alternative solution to reduce global warming from gas emissions. The
mainly source of renewable energy is biomass which presents abundant supplies for the production of biofuel. Currently, due to human
food security risks and environmental problems, many researchers have shifted to using lignocellulosic biomass or waste rather than
carbohydrate-rich material or food crops [1]. Furthermore, a cheap feedstock is preferable from an economic viewpoint. Aquatic plants
have shown high potential as a cheap bioenergy feedstock because they are naturally grown, have a very high production rate and are
not in demand as a current food or feed supply source. Water hyacinth and cattail are two of the most invasive aquatic weeds in tropical
countries. These aquatic weeds could supply biofuel feedstock at higher productivity rates than those of typical lignocellulose biomass
feedstock sources [2]. For example, water hyacinth generally grows at 100 dry tonnes/ha/year while switchgrass with the highest
yields produces 25 dry tonnes/ha/year [3,4]. Cattail grows rapidly in wetlands, fens and on the margins of ponds and lakes [4] from
where it impacts the environment and wastewater, causing several problems due to physical interference. Thus, aquatic weeds need to
be kept under control. The total cost for controlling aquatic weeds in India is about USD 500–910/ha/year [3]. Generally, aquatic

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fengswp@ku.ac.th (S. Poomsawat), fengwth@ku.ac.th (W. Poomsawat).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2021.101255
Received 12 March 2021; Received in revised form 11 June 2021; Accepted 16 July 2021
Available online 2 August 2021
2214-157X/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Poomsawat and W. Poomsawat Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 27 (2021) 101255

biomass has a high moisture content, low heating value and low energy density. Consequently, using wet biomass as a solid fuel may
reduce the overall efficiency of the combustion process, resulting in limited utilization of aquatic biomass as a fuel source. There are
several methods to improve the fuel properties of biomass and to reduce its moisture content, such as the torrefaction process. Hy­
drothermal treatment or wet torrefaction is suitable to address these disadvantageous properties of aquatic biomass. The hydrothermal
carbonization (HTC) process, also known as wet torrefaction, is usually performed in a subcritical water temperature range
(180–250 ◦ C) and at a relevant pressure. Hydrochar is the material produced from the HTC process and resembles brown coal based on
its elemental composition and heating value. A high moisture content in biomass is especially favorable in the HTC process, as there is
no need for a pre-drying process. In addition, some papers suggested char produced using the HTC process had a decreased ash content
[5,6] making it a suitable process for use with aquatic plants. The literature studies were relevant to hydrochar production considering
the HTC process parameters, including the reaction temperature and residence time, however, there are no reports on variation in the
chemical composition of aquatic biomass resources. The objectives of the current study were to investigate the feasibility of using
aquatic biomass as a feedstock for hydrochar production based on the HTC process under moderate conditions and to understand the
combustion behavior of solid fuels from such biomass feedstock. In addition, variation was studied in the chemical composition of the
aquatic plants used in the HTC processes for hydrochar production, such as the lignin and ash contents which are the highlights of this
work. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and cattail leaves (Typha latifolia) were selected as aquatic plants with high potential to
produce char as they are also invasive aquatic weeds that require widespread control.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Materials

Fresh aquatic plants of water hyacinth and cattail were harvested from a basin on the Kasetsart University Kampeang Saen campus
in Nakhon Pathom province, Thailand. Following washing of the aquatic plants, only the stems and leaves of the water hyacinth plants
and only the leaves of the cattail plants were selected for further study. The biomass was dried using a sun-drying process. The dried
biomass samples were cut and ground to form a homogeneous sample that was then passed through a mesh no. 60 sieve and stored in a
closed plastic container until use. For the water hyacinth, the different parts (leaves and stems) were cut, ground and stored separately.

2.2. Experimental procedures

A 1 L stainless steel autoclave reactor was used for the HTC experiments as presented in Fig. 1. The experimental procedure was as
follows. Initially, 50 g of ground aquatic biomass were added to the reactor followed by 500 mL of demineralized water and stirring
using a glass rod until well mixed and the biomass was submerged in the water. For the water hyacinth, 25 g each of leaves and stems
were thoroughly mixed prior to use to ensure that the biomass sample was homogeneous. The mass fraction in the reaction mixture for
biomass was 10 wt%. Subsequently, the reactor vessel was sealed and purged of air using flowing nitrogen gas through the inlet valves
for approximately 5 min to eliminate the oxygen inside. Then, the biomass mixture was heated to the desired reaction temperature
(180 ◦ C, 200 ◦ C, or 220 ◦ C) using an electric furnace surrounding the reactor. The heating rate to reach the desired operating tem­
perature was approximately 10 ◦ C/min. Fig. 2 shows the temperature and pressure values observed during the hydrothermal ex­
periments. All experiments ran for 30 min, after which the reactor was cooled by blowing cool air onto its external walls. Once the
reactor had reached room temperature, the gas produced was allowed to escape by opening the outlet valve. Then, the hydrothermal

Fig. 1. Schematic of experimental setup.

2
S. Poomsawat and W. Poomsawat Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 27 (2021) 101255

Fig. 2. Temperature trends of hydrothermal tests conducted at 180, 200 and 220 ◦ C for resident time of 30 min.

reaction mixture products were removed and separated using filter paper (20 μ m filter size). The HTC liquid sample was measured
using a pH meter (Denver Instrument). The hydrochar as presented in the solid product was dried in a drying oven at 105 ◦ C for 16 h for
further investigations.

2.3. Chemical characterization of aquatic plants

Cell wall carbohydrates have cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin as the major components [7]. Determination of the cellulose,
hemicellulose and lignin contents in triplicate followed the procedures of the AOAC Official Method, consisting of three steps as
described previous studied [8].

2.4. Proximate analysis and elements composition

2.4.1. Proximate analysis

The proximate analysis of dried samples to determine the ash, volatile matter (VM) and fixed carbon (FC) contents was carried out
in triplicate using the methods of the ASTM standard [9]. These analyses were performed in a Thermo Scientific Thermolyne Muffle
Furnace. The moisture content of samples was determined using the methods of ASTM-E871. The ash content in the sample was
determined using the methods of ASTM-E1755. Volatile matter in the sample was determined using the methods of ASTM-E857.
Finally, the fixed carbon content of the sample was determined by subtracting from 100% the values obtained for the volatile mat­
ter, ash and moisture contents.

2.4.2. Elemental composition

The percentages of key elements (C, H, O and N) were calculated using the formula of Nhuchhen [10]. These correlations are widely
used for calculating with high precision the elemental composition of different raw and torrefied biomass samples [11]. The corre­
lations were determined based on Equations 1 to 3:
C = − 35.9972 + 0.7698VM + 1.3269FC + 0.3250ASH (1)

H = 55.3678 − 0.4830VM − 0.5319FC − 0.5600ASH (2)

O = 223.6805 − 1.7226VM − 2.2296FC − 2.2463ASH (3)

The remaining fraction after subtraction of C, H, O and ashes was assumed to be the nitrogen content.

2.4.3. Heating value analysis

The higher heating value (HHV) of the samples was measured using an oxygen bomb calorimeter (Apex). The results were
compared with the theoretical HHVs calculated using an empirical correlation based on the ultimate analysis data as developed by
Sheng and Azevedo [12].

2.4.4. Thermogravimetric analysis

Thermogravimetric analysis was used to study the combustion behavior of the raw aquatic biomass and the derived hydrochars
during combustion. This effective method is a well-known for analyzing the combustion behavior of biomass and hydrochars [13,14].
Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and derivative thermogravimetric (DTG) tests were implemented using a Mettler Toledo instru­
ment. The initial weight of each sample was approximately 10 mg for each test. The furnace for the TGA was heated from room
temperature to 800 ◦ C under atmospheric pressure at an air flow rate of 20 mL min-1 and a heating rate of 20 ◦ C min -1.

3
S. Poomsawat and W. Poomsawat Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 27 (2021) 101255

2.5. Definitions

Once the hydrochar and liquid mixture in the HTC experiment had been separated as described above, the wet hydrochar was dried
in a muffle furnace, with the weights measured as described above. The mass of the raw aquatic biomass and the HHV of the samples
were known, so Equations 4 to 6 were used to calculate the hydrochar yield (%), energy densification ratio (-) and energy yield (%),
respectively:
Mass ​ of ​ dried ​ hydrochar
Hydrochar ​ yield ​ (%) = × 100 (4)
Mass ​ of ​ dried ​ raw ​ biomass

HHV ​ of ​ hydrochar
Energy ​ densification ​ ratio ​ (− ) ​ = (5)
HHV ​ of ​ raw ​ biomass

Energy ​ yield ​ (%) = hydrochar ​ yield × Energy ​ densification ​ ratio (6)

The combustion characteristic index (S) was based on the reactivity of fuel during the entire combustion process, based on the ease
of ignition, the burning velocity and the burnout temperature, and was defined based on Equation (7) [15]:
( ) ( )
dw dw
dt
× dt
S= max mean
(7)
T 2i × Tf
( ) ( )
dw dw
Where dt is the maximum mass loss rate, wt%/min; dt is the average mass loss rate, wt%/min and Ti and Tf represent the
max mean
ignition temperature ( C) and the burnout temperature ( C), respectively.
◦ ◦

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Characterization of raw aquatic biomass

The major components including cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin for aquatic plant biomass are shown in Table 1. Water hya­
cinth has a composition typical of wet aquatic biomass, consisting mainly of holocellulose (cellulose and hemicellulose content)
usually with a low lignin content [16]. In addition, the water hyacinth had a high ash content. The cattail leaves had similar cellulose
and hemicellulose contents to the water hyacinth but higher lignin and lower ash contents. The holocellulose contents, (the combined
cellulose and hemicellulose contents) were 61.18 and 60.43 wt% of water hyacinth and cattail leaves, respectively. These results were
generally in line with the literature where reported values were in the ranges 51.47–66.9 wt% [8,17] for water hyacinth and 45.9–76.1
wt% [18,19] for cattail. The lignin content in the water hyacinth was generally low (7.58 wt%) in line with the reported literature
range of 3.5–10.1 wt% [8,20]. The lignin content in the cattail leaves was 18.5 wt% which was higher than for the water hyacinth; the
current result was slightly higher than the value of 12.8 wt% reported by Ref. [18]. The ash content of 15.13 wt% from the water
hyacinth was similar to the reported literature range of 16.17–17.14 wt% [8,20]. The ash content of the cattail leaves was 6.39 wt%,
which was slightly lower than reported in the literature [18] of 11.1 wt%.

3.2. Proximate and key elements

Proximate analysis moisture content (MC), volatile matter (VM), fixed carbon (FC), ash contents and key elements (C, H, O and N
contents) for all biomass samples and the obtained hydrochars, as well as the mass yield and HHV are shown in Table 2. The key
elements of water hyacinth, calculated using correlation equations based on proximate analysis, were comparable with a previous
study [8] which used an elemental analyzer for measurement. The proximate analysis showed that the fuel quality of the derived
hydrochar had been improved by increasing the carbon contents with a substantial decrease in the volatile matter and ash content
compared to the raw aquatic biomass. In addition, the fixed carbon content and HHV were higher than for the raw material. The
moisture content reduced from approximately 10 % in the raw material to 2–5 % in the hydrochars; this result provided evident that
the hydrochar produced from the HTC process increased the hydrophobic surface [21]. The current results indicated that the ash
content for raw aquatic biomass substantially reduced after the HTC process. The ash content in the raw water hyacinth was 15.13 wt%
while its hydrochar had a lower value in the range 9.19–13.81 % or a decrease of approximately 8–38 % from the ash content of the

Table 1
Chemical composition of dry biomass feedstock.
Feedstock Composition (% dry basis)

Hemicellulose Cellulose Lignin Ash Other

Water hyacinth 18.55 42.63 7.58 15.13 16.11

Cattail leaves 12.66 47.77 18.50 6.39 14.69

4
 S. Poomsawat and W. Poomsawat
Table 2
Fuel properties of raw aquatic biomass and products from HTC reaction.
Aquatic biomass Proximate (% dry basis) Elements composition estimated HHV estimated base on [12] (MJ/kg) HHV measured using an oxygen bomb calorimeter (MJ/kg) MC (%) pH of HTC liquid
base on [10] (% dry basis)

VM FC Ash C H O N

Water hyacinth 81.81 3.06 15.13 35.95 5.76 41.96 1.21 15.77 15.15 10.82 6.5
5

HTC at 180 ◦ C 77.31 8.88 13.81 39.79 5.57 39.69 1.15 16.68 16.51 4.65 4.9
HTC at 200 ◦ C 73.53 17.00 9.48 46.24 5.50 37.82 0.95 18.47 18.81 3.76 5.1
HTC at 220 ◦ C 64.75 26.06 9.19 51.41 5.09 33.40 0.92 19.52 20.09 2.69 5.6
Cattail leaves 83.89 9.72 6.39 43.56 6.10 43.15 0.81 18.31 17.96 10.42 6.5
HTC at 180 ◦ C 70.55 25.05 4.40 52.98 5.50 36.42 0.70 20.40 20.57 1.85 3.6
HTC at 200 ◦ C 68.88 27.23 3.89 54.42 5.44 35.58 0.67 20.75 21.71 1.96 3.7
HTC at 220 ◦ C 67.35 29.25 3.4 55.77 5.38 34.81 0.65 21.07 22.16 2.08 3.7

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 27 (2021) 101255

S. Poomsawat and W. Poomsawat Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 27 (2021) 101255

raw water hyacinth. The ash content in the raw cattail leaves was 6.40 wt% while its hydrochar had a lower value in the range
3.40–4.40 %, a decrease of approximately 31–47 % from the ash content of the raw cattail leaves (Table 2). The ash contents of the two
aquatic plants decreased with increased HTC temperature from 180 to 220 ◦ C. The decreasing ash content at the higher temperature
could have been due to the greater removal of the soluble inorganic fraction. This is an advantage of the HTC process as the ash content
in fuel is undesirable because it causes fouling, slagging and corrosion problems [22] in the combustion process. These problems cause
higher maintenance costs and lower the combustion efficiency of the combustion process. The VM and FC contents were obtained from
the proximate analysis. These are important parameters in the combustion of hydrochar. Both aquatic biomass feedstocks in the
current study contained a high amount of VM (approximately 82–84 %), which is undesirable for use as a fuel for direct combustion
because a high amount of VM is associated with emission problems and leads to low combustion efficiency [23]. The current study
showed that the VM content in the aquatic biomass decreased with an increase in the HTC temperature depending on the raw biomass
material. For the water hyacinth, the VM content was 81.81 wt% while its hydrochar had a lower value in the range 64.75–77.31%. For
the raw cattail leaves, the VM content was 83.89 wt% while its hydrochar had a lower value in the range 67.35–70.55 wt%. The FC
contents from the hydrochars derived from the aquatic plants were higher than for the raw material. For the water hyacinth, the FC
content slightly increased in the hydrochar at 180 ◦ C (8.88 wt%) but there was much greater increases in the hydrochar at 200 ◦ C (17.0
wt%) and 220 ◦ C (26.06 wt%). For the cattail leaves, the FC content was 9.72 wt% while its hydrochar had higher values that increased
slightly with temperature to 25.05, 27.23 and 29.25 wt% at 180, 200 and 220 ◦ C, respectively. Additionally, the pH of a liquid sample
from the HTC process was in the range 3.6–5.6, which was lower than the pH of the water used in the initial reaction. These results
indicated that the liquid sample from the HTC process was slightly acidic. This decrement in the pH could have been related to the
generation of organic acids during the hydrolysis of the biomass, since the initial reaction is the hydrolysis step [24]. Generally, in the
temperature range used in the current study (180–220 ◦ C), sugars are the main product in the liquid of the HTC process [8,24,25].
Similarly, the process reactions produced organic acids by the degradation of cellulose during the hydrothermal process. Therefore, the
lower pH could have been due to the presence of acids such as acetic acid and levulinic acid [25]. However, the water hyacinth had a
substantially higher pH in the liquid sample from the HTC process at all temperatures studied. Some studies have reported that some
fraction of ash was dissolved in the liquid sample from the HTC process at temperatures around 200 ◦ C [26]; presumably the organic
acid as described previously was neutralized by the part of the basic compounds in the (high) ash content [25] (see also Table 1). The
key elemental calculations and proximate analyses of the tested samples and their hydrochars are presented in Table 2. The key el­
ements confirmed that the HHV of the biomass and its hydrochar were related to the increasing carbon content and reducing oxygen
content. The results showed that the carbon content from derived hydrochar increased with an increase in the temperature of the HTC
process; however the oxygen and nitrogen contents decreased.
As shown in Table 2, the carbon content for the aquatic biomass (water hyacinth and cattail leaves) in general increased by
30.2–41.7 % after HTC treatment at 220 ◦ C. The H/C and O/C atomic ratios with HTC temperature change are presented in Fig. 3
where the Van Krevelen diagram shows the improvement in the H/C and O/C atomic ratios of raw biomass and associated hydrochar as
the temperature increased from 180 to 200 to 220 ◦ C, respectively. The H/C and O/C ratios of the feedstocks were higher than those of
the respective hydrochars, which could have been due to the dissociation of the dehydration and decarboxylation reactions occurring
in the HTC process. The H/C and O/C atomic ratios decreased with increasing temperature; the hydrochar sample at 220 ◦ C showed
peat-like characteristics. The lower atomic ratios of H/C and O/C in the hydrochar were expected to improve the fuel due to reductions

Fig. 3. Atomic H/C and O/C ratios of water hyacinth (WH) and cattail leaves (CT) with temperature of HTC process.

6
S. Poomsawat and W. Poomsawat Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 27 (2021) 101255

in the moisture content and energy loss in the combustion process [27]. The aquatic plant feedstocks of the water hyacinth and cattail
leaves had HHV values of 15.2 and 18.0 MJ/kg, respectively, whereas the HHVs of their derived hydrochars were in the ranges
16.5–20.1 MJ/kg and 20.6–22.2 MJ/kg, respectively.
As expected, the HHV increased for all samples with the increased temperature of the process, possibly due to the increase in
temperature improving carbonization. At 220 ◦ C, the HHV increased by 32 % and 24 %, for water hyacinth and cattail leaves,
respectively. For the current study, the mass yield, energy yield and energy densification for all experiments are presented in Fig. 4.
The current mass and energy yields were in line with previous work where the mass yield and energy yield reduced with increased
temperature [28].

3.3. Combustion behavior of raw aquatic biomass and derived hydrochars

3.3.1. Thermogravimetric analysis

The combustion profiles of the raw aquatic biomass samples and their derived hydrochars were determined using TGA and the
results are presented in Fig. 5, indicating that the complete combustion process for the raw biomass and hydrochar could be divided
into three major stages. In the preheating process, the weight loss from water evaporation occurred at 30–150 ◦ C for all samples. The
weight loss in the first stage was mainly associated with the dehydration reaction, occurring at lower than 150 ◦ C. Next, the com­
bustion took place in two stages. The first combustion stage occurred between 200 and 400 ◦ C and is generally associated with the
devolatilization of VM leading to char formation. However, there was a higher weight loss for the raw aquatic biomass than for the
derived hydrochar perhaps because the cellulose and hemicellulose as the main components in the raw biomass decomposed between
200 and 400 ◦ C, as reported previously [29,30]. The second combustion stage, occurring between 400 and 550 ◦ C, for the derived
hydrochar was attributed to the oxidation of the carbonaceous solid material (char), with the raw aquatic biomass being associated
with the residual VM that was oxidized together with any solid residual taking place in the combustion step. The third stage started at
550–600 ◦ C, leading to the complete burnout of solid material.

3.3.2. Combustion behavior and thermal characteristics

Various temperature indices are key to comparing the combustion behavior of raw aquatic biomass and its derived hydrochar at
different temperatures, namely the normalized weight loss (TG) and the weight loss rate (DTG). The ignition temperature (Ti), tem­
perature at the maximum combustion rate (Tm) and burnout temperature (Tb) were calculated using the intersection method according
to Ref. [31]. Ti indicates the temperature at which the raw biomass and derived hydrochar begins to burn. Tm is the temperature at the
maximum combustion rate which is the maximum mass loss rate point in the DTG curves. Tb is defined as the intersection point in the
TG curve of the line tangent to the point where the DTG peak occurs and the line tangent to the point where the weight loss becomes
steady. When the DTG is presented as two major peaks, the burnout temperature is determined using the second peak [32]. The current
results are presented in Fig. 6.
Table 3 summarizes the temperature stages of Ti, Tm and Tb, as well as the combustion characteristic index (S) values for all ex­
periments. The general differences can be quantified through the key combustion parameters. First, the ignition temperature of raw
aquatic biomass was substantially lower than that of its derived hydrochar, indicating that the raw aquatic biomass was easier to ignite
than the derived hydrochar. These results were related to the maximum weigh loss of the raw aquatic biomass which was higher than
for the derived hydrochar.
A low ignition temperature could cause spontaneous ignition which is undesirable for safe fuel storage and transportation [31].
This low temperature was due to the fact that the raw biomass contained higher amounts of organic matter of up to 60.43 and 61.18 wt
% for the water hyacinth and cattail leaves, respectively. Furthermore, the higher ignition temperature of the hydrochar could have
been due to the reduction in VM (see also, Table 2).
These results indicated that as the hydrochar production temperature increased, the ignition temperature increased as the VM
decreased. The ignition temperature of raw aquatic biomass was approximately 250 ◦ C and the derived hydrochar was higher than
250 ◦ C. In addition, the Tm of the hydrochar was slightly higher than for the raw biomass being 320 and 300 ◦ C for the raw cattail leave
and raw water hyacinth, respectively. Furthermore, the Tm values of the hydrochar from cattail leaves and water hyacinth were in the

Fig. 4. Effects of HTC temperature on mass yield, energy densification and energy densification ratio of water hyacinth (a) and cattail leaves (b).

7
S. Poomsawat and W. Poomsawat Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 27 (2021) 101255

Fig. 5. TG and DTG profiles of aquatic biomass and hydrochar of cattail leaves (a) and water hyacinth (b).

ranges 345–347 ◦ C and 335–348 ◦ C, respectively. In addition, a substantial increase in the burnout temperature was observed for the
hydrochar, which for the raw water hyacinth occurred at 525 ◦ C and slightly increased to 545 ◦ C with the HTC process at 180 ◦ C. At
higher temperatures in the HTC process, the Tb values were much higher (750 and 790 ◦ C for 200 and 220 ◦ C, respectively).
For the raw cattail leaves, the Tb was 510 ◦ C and increased considerably up to 650 ◦ C with the HTC process at 180 ◦ C. However, they
were slightly lower and fairly constant at 600 and 595 ◦ C at the higher HTC temperatures of 200 and 220 ◦ C, respectively. These results
were likely related to the FC content in the water hyacinth being slightly increased in its derived hydrochar at 180 ◦ C, while the FC
content had a much higher increase in its hydrochar deriver at 200–220 ◦ C. For the cattail leaves, the FC content was slightly higher, as
discussed earlier in the proximate and ultimate analyses. Fixed carbon is the fraction of the solid in fuel that provides the main thermal
stability with less weight loss of the fuel during combustion [33]. This combustion behavior generally occurred in the second com­
bustion stage and led to the complete burnout of solid material.
The inorganic matter (ash) from burning the raw cattail leaves was higher than that of its hydrochar. In fact, the ash from burning
the hydrochar derived at a higher HTC temperature was substantially lower, as presented in the DTG curve in Fig. 5. For the raw water
hyacinth, there was more ash from burning compared to its hydrochar based on the DTG curve. This value was related to that observed
in the proximate analyses discussed earlier.
The burnout temperature of the hydrochars derived from water hyacinth showed different variations compared to the hydrochars
derived from cattail leaves, as shown in Table 3. The higher burnout temperature for the hydrocharss derived from water hyacinth
indicateds that the burning occurred at relatively lower rates and required longer reaction times for complete combustion compared to
the hydrochars derived from cattail leaves. This was possibly be due to less homogeneity in the hydrochar derived from water hya­
cinth, which could be attributable to the fact that char consists of combustible (VM + FC) material as well as non-combustible matter
(Ash). Therefore, a more homogenous structure in the hydrochar could be achieved by increasing the hydrocarbon content and
decreasing the ash content as reported by Ref. [34]. Supporting results are presented in Table 2 showing that the ratio of combustible
and non-combustible material for the hydrochar derived from water hyacinth had very low (VM + FC)/Ash values of 6.24, 9.55 and
9.88 whereas the hydrochar derived from cattail leave had values of 21.73, 24.71 and 28.41 for temperatures of 180, 200 and 220 ◦ C,
respectively. These observations partly explained the differences in the combustion behavior between these two types of aquatic
biomass. Therefore, a high (VM + FC)/Ash value is preferable for hydrochar production from aquatic plants.
Finally, the S values of the raw aquatic biomass samples and their derived hydrochar were calculated and are shown in Table 3,
where the higher values of (S) suggest better combustion performance. An appropriate S value for the combustion process

8
S. Poomsawat and W. Poomsawat Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 27 (2021) 101255

Fig. 6. The temperature stages of Ti, Tm and Tb of aquatic biomass and hydrochar of cattail leaves (CT) and water hyacinth (WH) at temperature of
HTC process.

9
S. Poomsawat and W. Poomsawat Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 27 (2021) 101255

Table 3
Combustion characterization of aquatic biomass and its derived hydrochar.
( ) ( ) 7
Aquatic biomass Ti (◦ C) Tm (◦ C) Tb (◦ C) dw dw Time during Ti to Tb (min) S × 10− (%2 min-2◦ C-3)
dt max dt min
(%/min) (%/min)

Raw water hyacinth 250 300 525 − 12.31 − 2.4 13 9.0

HTC at 180◦ C 290 335 545 − 11.01 − 2.39 13.1 5.7
HTC at 200 ◦ C 290 340 750 − 11.32 − 2.38 23.1 4.3
HTC at 220 ◦ C 290 348 790 − 8.07 − 2.22 27.1 2.7
Raw cattail leaves 255 320 510 − 12.57 − 2.32 13.4 8.8
HTC at 180◦ C 275 345 650 − 10.54 − 2.5 18.7 5.4
HTC at 200 ◦ C 275 345 600 − 9.81 − 2.5 16.2 5.4
HTC at 220 ◦ C 280 347 595 − 9.16 − 2.56 15.5 5.0

recommended in previous investigations [35] was above 2 × 10-7. In the current study, all the produced hydrochar samples had S
values lower than those for raw aquatic biomass due to the reduction in VM by the HTC processes (Table 2). The increment in the HTC
temperature had a substantial effect on the S value; after the HTC temperature increased, the S index of the derived hydrochar slightly
decreased, with a corresponding reduction in VM, as discussed above. It has been reported that VM would improve the combustion
performance by improving flame burning [36]. These results indicated that increasing the HTC temperature caused a decrease in the
reactivity and consequently, the hydrochar produced at lower HTC temperatures was easier to ignite and had better ignition per­
formance [37]. However, a high volatile matter content in solid fuel burnt with insufficient air available leads to a pollution hazard by
creating dark smoke and low combustion efficiency due to the heat loss. However, the S value for all the hydrochar samples derived
from the water hyacinth and cattail leaves had appropriate S values for combustion of more than 2 × 10-7 as suggested [35].

4. Conclusions

The current work investigated the feasibility of using aquatic biomass (water hyacinth and cattail leaves) as a feedstock for
hydrochar production by applying the HTC process under moderate conditions. The proximate and ultimate analyses showed that the
hydrochars derived from aquatic biomass had an HHV value similar to peat. HTC is preferable as a conversion method for aquatic
biomass since it resulted in a higher HHV, energy yields and a lower ash content. Therefore, hydrochar derived from aquatic biomass
was suitable as wet source of renewable energy to replace coal combustion. Furthermore, the results indicated that the hydrochars
derived from the aquatic biomass had potential to improve the combustion efficiency using an HTC reaction. In addition, a high (VM +
FC)/Ash value was preferable for hydrochar production from aquatic plants.

Authorship contributions

Sawat Poomsawat: Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Data Curation, Writing - Original Draft, Funding acquisition and Project
administration.
Wijittra Poomsawat: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Resources, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization and
Supervision.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by a grant from the Faculty of Engineering at Kamphaeng Saen, Kasetsart University, Thailand. Thank
you to Kasetsart University Research and Development Institute (KURDI) for proofreading the manuscript.

References

[1] D.L. Sutherland, C. Howard-Williams, M.H. Turnbull, P.A. Broady, R.J. Craggs, Enhancing microalgal photosynthesis and productivity in wastewater treatment
high rate algal ponds for biofuel production, Bioresour. Technol. 184 (2015) 222–229.
[2] A.F. Miranda, B. Biswas, N. Ramkumar, R. Singh, J. Kumar, A. James, F. Roddick, B. Lal, S. Subudhi, T. Bhaskar, et al., Aquatic plant azolla as the universal
feedstock for biofuel production, Biotechnol. Biofuels 9 (1) (2016) 1–17.
[3] M. Kaur, M. Kumar, S. Sachdeva, S. Puri, Aquatic weeds as the next generation feedstock for sustainable bioenergy production, Bioresour. Technol. 251 (2018)
390–402.
[4] S.D. Wullschleger, E.B. Davis, M.E. Borsuk, C.A. Gunderson, L. Lynd, Biomass production in switchgrass across the United States: database description and
determinants of yield, Agron. J. 102 (4) (2010) 1158–1168.
[5] B.M. Ghanim, W. Kwapinski, J.J. Leahy, Hydrothermal carbonisation of poultry litter: effects of initial ph on yields and chemical properties of hydrochars,
Bioresour. Technol. 238 (2017) 78–85.

10
S. Poomsawat and W. Poomsawat Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 27 (2021) 101255

[6] M. Mäkelä, V. Benavente, A. Fullana, Hydrothermal carbonization of lignocellulosic biomass: effect of process conditions on hydrochar properties, Appl. Energy
155 (2015) 576–584.
[7] R. M. Rowell, R. Pettersen, J. S. Han, J. S. Rowell, M. A. Tshabalala, Cell Wall Chemistry, Handbook of Wood Chemistry and Wood Composites 2.
[8] W. Poomsawat, G. Tsalidis, C. Tsekos, W. de Jong, Experimental studies of furfural production from water hyacinth (eichhornia crassipes), Energy Science &
Engineering 7 (5) (2019) 2155–2164.
[9] A. D5142-09, Standard Test Methods for Proximate Analysis of the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke by Instrumental, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, USA, 2009.
[10] D.R. Nhuchhen, Prediction of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen compositions of raw and torrefied biomass using proximate analysis, Fuel 180 (2016) 348–356.
[11] M. Siddiqui, S. Nizamuddin, N. Mubarak, K. Shirin, M. Aijaz, M. Hussain, H.A. Baloch, Characterization and process optimization of biochar produced using
novel biomass, waste pomegranate peel: a response surface methodology approach, Waste and biomass valorization 10 (3) (2019) 521–532.
[12] C. Sheng, J. Azevedo, Estimating the higher heating value of biomass fuels from basic analysis data, Biomass Bioenergy 28 (5) (2005) 499–507.
[13] Q. Yi, F. Qi, G. Cheng, Y. Zhang, B. Xiao, Z. Hu, S. Liu, H. Cai, S. Xu, Thermogravimetric analysis of co-combustion of biomass and biochar, J. Therm. Anal.
Calorim. 112 (3) (2013) 1475–1479.
[14] J. Cai, B. Li, C. Chen, J. Wang, M. Zhao, K. Zhang, Hydrothermal carbonization of tobacco stalk for fuel application, Bioresour. Technol. 220 (2016) 305–311.
[15] S. Zhang, T. Chen, W. Li, Q. Dong, Y. Xiong, Physicochemical properties and combustion behavior of duckweed during wet torrefaction, Bioresour. Technol. 218
(2016) 1157–1162.
[16] A. Kruse, P. Maniam, F. Spieler, Influence of proteins on the hydrothermal gasification and liquefaction of biomass. 2. model compounds, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
46 (1) (2007) 87–96.
[17] J. Nigam, Bioconversion of water-hyacinth (eichhornia crassipes) hemicellulose acid hydrolysate to motor fuel ethanol by xylose–fermenting yeast,
J. Biotechnol. 97 (2) (2002) 107–116.
[18] D. Jaruwat, P. Udomsap, N. Chollacoop, M. Fuji, A. Eiad-ua, Effects of hydrothermal temperature and time of hydrochar from cattail leaves, in: AIP Conference
Proceedings, vol. 2010, AIP Publishing LLC, 2018, 020016.
[19] M. Kamali Moghaddam, Typha leaves fiber and its composites: a review, J. Nat. Fibers (2021) 1–15.
[20] H. Rabemanolontsoa, S. Saka, Comparative study on chemical composition of various biomass species, RSC Adv. 3 (12) (2013) 3946–3956.
[21] V. Mau, G. Arye, A. Gross, Wetting properties of poultry litter and derived hydrochar, PloS One 13 (10) (2018), e0206299.
[22] X. Yao, K. Xu, F. Yan, Y. Liang, The influence of ashing temperature on ash fouling and slagging characteristics during combustion of biomass fuels,
BioResources 12 (1) (2017) 1593–1610.
[23] A. Khan, W. de Jong, P. Jansens, H. Spliethoff, Biomass combustion in fluidized bed boilers: potential problems and remedies, Fuel Process. Technol. 90 (1)
(2009) 21–50.
[24] H. Boussarsar, B. Rogé, M. Mathlouthi, Optimization of sugarcane bagasse conversion by hydrothermal treatment for the recovery of xylose, Bioresour. Technol.
100 (24) (2009) 6537–6542.
[25] B. Girisuta, B. Danon, R. Manurung, L. Janssen, H. Heeres, Experimental and kinetic modelling studies on the acid-catalysed hydrolysis of the water hyacinth
plant to levulinic acid, Bioresour. Technol. 99 (17) (2008) 8367–8375.
[26] Z. Liu, A. Quek, S.K. Hoekman, R. Balasubramanian, Production of solid biochar fuel from waste biomass by hydrothermal carbonization, Fuel 103 (2013)
943–949.
[27] B. Zhang, M. Heidari, B. Regmi, S. Salaudeen, P. Arku, M. Thimmannagari, A. Dutta, Hydrothermal carbonization of fruit wastes: a promising technique for
generating hydrochar, Energies 11 (8) (2018) 2022.
[28] Y. Zhai, C. Peng, B. Xu, T. Wang, C. Li, G. Zeng, Y. Zhu, Hydrothermal carbonisation of sewage sludge for char production with different waste biomass: effects
of reaction temperature and energy recycling, Energy 127 (2017) 167–174.
[29] M. Mohammed, A. Salmiaton, W.W. Azlina, M.M. Amran, Gasification of oil palm empty fruit bunches: a characterization and kinetic study, Bioresour. Technol.
110 (2012) 628–636.
[30] M. Lapuerta, J.J. Hernández, J. Rodrıguez, Kinetics of devolatilisation of forestry wastes from thermogravimetric analysis, Biomass Bioenergy 27 (4) (2004)
385–391.
[31] J.-J. Lu, W.-H. Chen, Investigation on the ignition and burnout temperatures of bamboo and sugarcane bagasse by thermogravimetric analysis, Appl. Energy 160
(2015) 49–57.
[32] M. Sami, K. Annamalai, M. Wooldridge, Co-firing of coal and biomass fuel blends, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 27 (2) (2001) 171–214.
[33] T. de Paula Protásio, P.F. Trugilho, A.A. da Silva César, A. Napoli, I.C.N.A. de Melo, M.G. da Silva, Babassu nut residues: potential for bioenergy use in the north
and northeast of Brazil, SpringerPlus 3 (1) (2014) 1–14.
[34] S. Aich, D. Behera, B.K. Nandi, S. Bhattacharya, Relationship between proximate analysis parameters and combustion behaviour of high ash indian coal, Int. J.
Coal Sci. Technol. 7 (4) (2020) 766–777.
[35] Q. Ma, L. Han, G. Huang, Evaluation of different water-washing treatments effects on wheat straw combustion properties, Bioresour. Technol. 245 (2017)
1075–1083.
[36] H.S. Kambo, A. Dutta, A comparative review of biochar and hydrochar in terms of production, physico-chemical properties and applications, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 45 (2015) 359–378.
[37] W. Qian, Q. Xie, Y. Huang, J. Dang, K. Sun, Q. Yang, J. Wang, Combustion characteristics of semicokes derived from pyrolysis of low rank bituminous coal, Int.
J. Min. Sci. Technol. 22 (5) (2012) 645–650.

11