CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

The Philippines is one of the top coconut-producing country, thanks to the

abundance of coconuts in the country. Coconut is popular for its various uses,

including culinary, commercial, industrial, household, and medical purposes, known

as "bunot" in the Philippines. Coconut has also been used to make a composite

material out of coconut husk to create automotive trunk liners, living wall planters,

and electric car battery pack covers. This material is stronger and stiffer than

synthetic plastic fibers, lighter, and offers better performance, leading to cost savings

for companies. Both consumers and businesses are drawn to materials that

repurpose or incorporate waste, which represents a business opportunity moving

forward. However, many farmers in rural areas are not aware of the importance of

the coconut husk. They often consider it as a waste product after harvesting the

coconut and send it to the market without realizing its potential contribution to

improving their lives and the competitiveness of micro-scale coconut industries,

especially in rural areas.

Coconut husks (Cocos nucifera L.) are found between the hard internal shell

and the outer coat of a coconut (Tun, Sah, Win, & Shrestha, 2019). In the research of

Nurhidayati, Yuniarti, Pratiwi, Wulandari, and Hernovianty (2022), they stated that the

flesh of the fruit are processed as copra and the other parts such as coconut shell or

coconut husk are just thrown away, piled up and not used. While the study of Taylor,

Appiah-Effah, Akodwaa-Boadi, Obeng, and Ofei-Quartey (2023), explored the

potential of coconut husk biomass, a common waste material in Ghana, as a

valuable low-cost resource for greywater treatment. Furthermore, Amoako and

Mensah-Amoah (2019) convey in their research study, the calorific values of coconut
 2

shells and husks have been estimated to be approximately 17.40 MJ/kg and 10.01

MJ/kg respectively. This suggests that coconut shells can be used in place of

firewood for energy generation and crop drying. The value for the husks is lower but

could be used as fuel for less energy intensive purposes. This will go a long way to

ease pressure on traditional energy sources like wood, thereby preventing

deforestation, and harmful emission into the environment as seen in the research

findings of (Akolgo, et al., 2021). Coconut coir waste, which has a high calorific value,

can still be used as fuel by way of briquettes (Hilmiyati, Husraini, & Zamhuri, 2018).

With this, coconut wastes, particularly coconut husks, which are a biomass of

coconut, can be converted to potential energy via gasification (Longdong & Tooy,

2014).

Charcoal has been considered as a source of fuel for many Filipino people

specially in the rural areas. According to a survey by the Central Echo (2011), more

than 90% of Filipinos are dependent on charcoal for cooking. While only 1-2% used

liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) or kerosene due to the high cost of living. However,

making charcoal means cutting trees. As a result, only species of trees that do not

burn well are left in our forest. The addition of coconut husk ash also increases the

plastic limit and increases the plasticity index. Therefore, this study shows that

coconut husk ash can be effectively used to improve lateritic soils with low CBR

values but not suitable for improving soil with high liquid. With the researcher’s

interest they come up with some solution where in to investigate the effectiveness of

coconut husk in producing charcoal briquettes.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of coconut husks

(Cocos nucifera L.) in producing charcoal briquettes.

Specifically, this study ought to answer the following questions:

 3

1. What are the combustion characteristics of charcoal briquettes made

from coconut husks with different binder concentrations and coconut

charcoal, in terms of:

1.1 maximum temperature release

1.2 burn rate

1.3 burn time

2. What are the combustion characteristics between different

concentrations of the binding agent used on the charcoal briquettes

made from coconut husks, in terms of the following binder

concentration percentage:

2.1 10%

2.2 14%

2.3 20%

Hypotheses

This study will focus on determining the difference between charcoal

briquettes made from coconut husks and coconut shell charcoal. Thus, the

hypotheses will be:

H0: There is no significant difference between the combustion characteristics

of charcoal briquettes made from coconut husks with different binder concentrations

and coconut shell charcoal:

H0: There is no significant difference in the combustion characteristics

between different concentrations of the binding agent used on the charcoal briquettes

made from coconut husks.

Significance of the Study

 4

This study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of coconut husk in

producing charcoal briquettes. Specifically, the outcome of this study will be

beneficial

the following entities:

Farmers. The results of this scientific endeavor will be vital in implementing

solutions that will enable farmers to maximize the production of charcoal with the use

of agricultural wastes, the coconut husks (Cocos nucifera L.), in the form of

briquettes and optimize results where they become innovative and resourceful to

sustain and transform the product. Moreover, this research will heighten their

knowledge of their own profession and expertise regarding the utilization of

agricultural waste and may serve as a guide for future farmers.

Consumers. The conclusion of this research will aid and be of benefit to their

current knowledge on how to utilize coconut husks (Cocos nucifera L.) in producing

effective charcoal briquettes. Furthermore, it may improve their insight on the use of

other agricultural wastes as an alternative in producing a product for fuel and may

hone their agricultural practices such as the accumulation, proper disposal, or

preferably the optimization of agricultural wastes.

Students. Most importantly, the results of this research will aid and be of

benefit to the foundation of their skills and insight on the proper utilization and

disposal of agricultural wastes. It will also help them optimize the use of agricultural

wastes, such as coconut husks (Cocos nucifera L.), in producing certain products

that may be proven useful for them in the future. In addition, this study will enlighten

their knowledge and drive on how to handle similar issues and might pique their

interest in professions that concern the environment.

Parents. The findings of this study will be of great help in dealing with and

understanding the importance of utilizing and optimizing agricultural wastes that are

most often set aside by most manufacturers. It will also raise their awareness on the

increasing issue on the environmental pollution of agricultural waste and may push
 5

them to participate in future endeavors that involves the ethical practice in handling

the environment, most specifically, the agricultural wastes which involves the coconut

husks (Cocos nucifera L.).

Teachers/Educators. The results of this research endeavor will aid them to

devise suitable activities that involve students to practice and hone their skills and

insight on the utilization and optimization of agricultural wastes in their environment.

It will also help them in providing advice that will help improve the implementation of

such alternatives that tackle the use of environmental or agricultural waste.

Future researchers. This study will provide a path for future researchers and

will pose a great factor in the help of the making of future research for those who

would embark on a similar or an in-depth study on the use of coconut husks in

producing charcoal briquettes.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This study aims to provide knowledge on the effectiveness of coconut husks

(Cocos nucifera L.) in producing charcoal briquettes. Due to the lack of resources,

this study used a handmade molder and manually pressed the charcoal briquettes

made from coconut husks. With this, the study is delimited to determining the

combustion characteristics of the charcoal briquettes made from coconut husks with

different binder concentrations. It also aims to find the significant difference between

coconut shell charcoal and charcoal briquettes made from coconut husks.

This research was conducted from the month of March to May, 2023, at

Llorente, Eastern Samar.

Definition of Terms

For clarification, the important terms used in this study have been defined.

The following terms are:

 6

Charcoal. It is an odorless, tasteless, fine black powder, of black porous solid

consisting of carbon, and any remaining ash. In this study, it is the expected outcome

after the carbonization of the coconut husks and was also used to compare the

effectiveness of the product.

Briquettes. It is a drunk of combustion material that is commonly used

igniting and maintaining a fire, either in a boiler, grill or in an open space such as a

fire pit. It is commonly in the shape of a square or rectangle but can also be found in

a lump form or molded shapes. In this study, the size and shape of the briquette is

based on how it will be used as an alternative fuel.

Coconut Husk. It is also called coconut fiber, is a natural fiber extracted from

the outer husk of coconut and used in products such as floor mats, doormats,

brushes, and mattresses. Coir is the fibrous material found between the hard, internal

shell and the outer coat of a coconut. In this study, it is used as a product that was

carbonized to form into charcoal briquettes.

Effectiveness. The ability to be successful and produce the intended results.

In this study, focus on the effectiveness of coconut husk to form charcoal briquettes

and its feasibility and cost saving of the product. It also aims to find the significant

difference between coconut shell charcoal and charcoal briquettes made from

coconut husk.
 7

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

As the energy demand increases, the present power supply in some countries

becomes insufficient and are unable to meet the growing demand (Raju, Satya,

Praveena, & Ramya Jyothi, 2014). Most developing countries, like India and Nigeria,

benefit from the agricultural wastes from their own abundant natural resources

through the production of briquettes (Raju, et al., 2014; Tokan, Sambo, Jatau, &

Kyauta, 2014). The use of biomass as a substitute for traditional fossil fuels in the

energy sector and other sectors is urgently needed due to the skyrocketing costs of

oil and coal (Rath, Rao, Tripathy, & Biswal, 2017). By implementing alternative

energy technologies for decentralized energy sources, the negative effects on the

environment and the issues with energy supply might be reduced (Oladeji, 2015).

However, a similar study conducted by Li, et al. (2019) examined and produced solid

fuels from biomass differ in the treatment and process used in terms of it being either

carbonized or not. Specifically, the study evaluated the difference between the raw

and carbonized biomass in producing clean and effective solid fuels. The results from

Li, et al.’s investigation suggests that carbonized solid fuels exhibit a better

performance in reducing pollutants due to it containing much lower content of volatile

matter, compared to raw fuels which showed higher thermal efficiencies and lower

pollutant emission factors (2019).

Some studies explored the use of briquetting as an alternative source of

energy and as a renewable source of energy (Pandey & Dhakal, 2013; Widjaya,

Sinatrya, Kusumandaru, Jupriyanto, & Trinity, 2022). Similarly, a scholarly article by

 8

Oladeji (2015) entitled as “Theoretical Aspects of Biomass Briquetting: A Review

Study”, which reviewed the technology and fundamental principles of biomass

briquetting, they concluded that briquetting is a practical way to turn biomass wastes

into renewable energy. Compared to other forms of renewable energy, biomass is

comparatively simple to transport and store (Hu, et al., 2014). Some other examples

of the biomass used in briquetting includes durian peels (Nuriana, Anisa, & Martana,

2014), wood wastes (Kumar, Kumar, Petchimuthu, Iyahraja, & Kumar, 2020),

soybean crop residues (Gangil, 2015), corn stalks (Hu, et al., 2014), teak leaves and

sugarcane wastes (Raju, et al., 2014), waste coffee grounds (Dahlia, Fadila,

Budiyono, & Handoko, 2023), coconut dregs (Chusniyah, Pratiwi, Benyamin, &

Suliestiyah, 2022), coconut husks (Akolgo, et al., 2021), etc.

Charcoal briquettes are solid fuel made from carbonized biomass, or

densified biomass that is subsequently carbonized (Mwampamba, Owen, & Pigaht,

2013). In line with this context, the biomass (rice husk) charcoal produced from the

research of (Homchat & Ramphueiphad, 2022) was proven suitable for use as a

material in the production of charcoal briquettes. Similarly, Pandey and Dhakal

(2013) investigated on the properties of pine needle in the preparation of biomass

briquettes and found that it was a good source for briquetting due to the low ash

content, low moisture content and relatively high carbon content of the briquettes.

According to the combustion tests done by Pandey and Dhakal (2013) in their study,

it showed that briquettes made from the charred biomass from pine needles have

better combustion and fuel characteristics with higher combustion gas temperature

and lower amount of smoke emissions compared to fuelwood.

In addition, an experimentation conducted by Kumar, et al., the charcoal and

wood waste of a Karuvelam tree was used and compared, the results of the

experimentation found that the briquettes made from pure charcoal possess higher

calorific value than the ones made from biomass (2020). However, the biomass

obtained from the wood waste was only crushed into powder and was neither
 9

charred nor carbonized. Comparably, the briquettes produced from sawdust,

corncobs, and Proposopis africana in the research study of Tokan, et al. (2014) also

did not go through a carbonization process, but instead, the biomass used to produce

briquettes were grounded and sieved. In complete contrast, a scientific study done by

Ward, Yacob, and Montoya (2014) did not make use of any biomass but considered

the use of human wastes in producing solid fuel briquettes. The results from Ward, et

al.’s study found the use of human feces, which were charred and produced into

briquettes, to also have potential as a renewable energy source (2014).

On the other hand, the scientific study of Widjaya, et al. (2022) provided an

overview of the best combination to create briquettes from agricultural waste.

Specifically, a scientific investigation done by Jain, Vijayalakshmi, and Neeraja

produced a total of fifteen varieties of briquettes with different biomass materials,

namely: charcoal dust, saw dust, rice husks, dry leaves, wood chips, groundnut

shells, and with two different binders used (2015). The results of Jain, et al.’s study,

with the use of two different binding agents, starch, and cow dung, proved to be

effective in the production of briquettes despite its differences in overall quality

(2015). Furthermore, Widjaya, et al.’s results showed that the use of tobacco stems,

rice husks, and coconut shells combined proved to be a viable biomass for effective

briquetting in the production of renewable energy (2022).

Numerous in-depth research studies either focused on or used coconut as a

biomass for briquetting. The study of Arellano, Kato, and Bacani (2015) evaluated the

fuel properties of charcoal briquettes made from combinations of coconut shell, corn

cob and sugarcane bagasse at specified ratios. Among the multiple constituent

briquettes of Arellano, et al.’s experimentation, the coconut shell, corn cob, and

sugarcane bagasse combination yielded the highest calorific value which was

comparable to coconut shell charcoal having the highest calorific value among all

charcoal (2015). The research of Yirijor, Adazabra, and McBagonluri (2023) aimed to

characterize and produce briquette fuel from the combination of coconut husk and
 10

corncob using starch as a binder. From the results of Yirijor, et al.’s research, it was

obvious that briquettes can be satisfactorily produced from a blend of coconut husk

and corncob (2023). Thus, the usage of briquettes should be encouraged especially

in developing countries to minimize pressure on fuel wood for energy generation. The

study conducted by Wasfy and Awny (2020), in addition, also aimed to produce high-

quality charcoal briquettes from three biomass residues: rice straw, cotton stems,

and corn stalks. However, the briquettes produced from this study did not compose a

combination of the different biomass residues. Instead, the biomass residues, with

the use of two binder materials, were produced into three different briquettes

separately. The results from Wasfy and Awny’s study showed that the cotton

briquette charcoal is found to be a better fuel compared to the other briquettes from

rice straw and corn stalks due to it having the highest fixed carbon, low moisture

content, high bulk density, and calorific heating value with the least ash and volatile

matter (2020).

Multiple academic articles also highlighted the use of briquettes as a

renewable fuel (Dahlia, et al., 2023) and as an alternative source of fuel (Gladstone,

Tersigni, Kennedy, & Haldeman, 2014; Suryaningsih, Nurhilal, Yuliah, & Mulyana,

2017). Production of charred briquettes from waste is a sustainable method of

producing cooking fuel (Akolgo, et al., 2021). According to Gladstone, et al. (2014),

many underdeveloped nations use firewood and charcoal as the main types of fuel

for cooking. Thus, the study of Gladstone, et al. targeted briquetting as an alternative

fuel source in Tanzania (2014). In Nuriana, et al.’s study, they tested the

characteristics of durian peels briquettes as a fuel material and was also found to be

an effective renewable alternative fuel (2014). Correspondingly, the results from the

study of Dahlia, et al. (2023) entitled as “Effect of Torrefaction Temperature and

Adhesive Amount on the Characteristics of Waste Briquettes Coffee Grounds as an

Alternative Renewable Fuel” stated that briquettes made from waste coffee grounds
 11

have the potential to be used as a household fuel and as a renewable alternative

energy due to its high calorific value.

The production of briquettes depends heavily on the briquette binder as the

quality and performance of briquettes also depends on the quality of briquette binder

(Zhang, Suna, & Xua, 2018). Some studies made use of different binding agents

such as starch (Kumar, Kumar, Petchimuthu, Iyahraja, & Kumar, 2020; Jain, et al.,

2015), carton paper (Wasfy & Awny, 2020), cow dung (Jain, et al., 2015), clay

(Pandey & Dhakal, 2013), and tapioca flour (Chusniyah, et al., 2022) to produce

briquettes. However, some did not (Gangil, 2015). In the research study of Zhang, et

al. (2018), the process of non-binder briquetting mechanism and briquetting

mechanism with binder was reviewed. The briquettes from Pandey and Dhakal’s

experimentation were prepared using the piston press mold with clay as binder in the

ratio of 80:20 (2013). However, the binding agent did not pose much of an impact on

the briquettes’ overall quality as a renewable fuel. As well as the study of Chusniyah,

et al. (2022), the binding agent, flour, did not also affect the briquettes’ overall quality

as the results show a very low average moisture content. Similarly, the amount of

adhesive in the briquettes produced by Dahlia, et al. in their experimentation did not

significantly affect the testing characteristics of the briquettes (2023). In contrast, the

use of cow dung as highest agent in Jain, et al.’s investigation was found to have the

highest in calorific value compared to the briquettes with starch as a binding agent

(2015). The briquettes with the starch combinations, however, were also found to

have the best physical characteristics with the highest scores. From the in-depth

study of Kumar, et al. (2020), on the other hand, it was found that the addition of

binder in charcoal as well as hollow shape briquettes can reduce ash content,

moisture content and volatile matter which may lead to the benefits of reduced

corrosion effect.

Our dependence on fossil fuels is curbed by the briquetting of biomass, which

also improves the biomass density, burn time, and the calorific value (Kpalo,
 12

Zainuddin, Manaf, & Roslan, 2020). The results shown in Nasution, Amalia,

Nurkhoiry, Oktarina, and Nasution’s study considered an option where charcoal

briquettes produced a potential alternative source of income for smallholders that will

have a positive impact on rural development (2021). According to Kpalo, et al.

(2020), briquettes can be used in both rural and urban areas for domestic heating

applications. The results achieved in Sánchez, Pasache, and Garcia’s study showed

that sawdust briquettes are a perfect substitute for the fuels coming from illegal

logging of the dry forest reserve in Piura that are currently used in domestic stoves

(2014). In the in-depth study of Mwampamba, et al. (2013), the results stated that

much more effort is needed to put into place pilot studies that explore strategic entry

points for briquettes, despite it being relatively cheap. Since, according to

Mwampamba, et al. (2013), briquetting is largely unregulated and the environmental

consciousness among potential consumers is low.

With all the scientific research studies considered, including its environmental

benefits and its potential in the production of an alternative fuel, the use of coconut

husk biomass may prove to be a feasible material in the production of charcoal

briquettes.

Conceptual Framework

The figure below illustrates the comparison of characteristics in producing

charcoal briquettes from coconut husks and coconut charcoal. To determine the

difference, it will undergo several set-ups according to its combustion characteristics.

Charcoal

Charcoal Briquettes made

Coconut Shell Charcoal
from Coconut Husk

Combustion Characteristics: Combustion Characteristics:

 maximum temperature release  maximum temperature release
 burn rate  burn rate
 burn time  burn time
 13

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the effectiveness of coconut husks in producing

charcoal briquettes.

The figure below illustrates the comparison of combustion characteristics in

producing charcoal briquettes from coconut husks with different binder

concentrations. To determine the difference, it will undergo several sets-ups.

Charcoal Briquettes
made from Coconut
Husks

Combustion
Characteristics

Binder
Concentration

10% 14% 20%

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the difference in combustion characteristics of the

charcoal briquettes made from coconut husks with different binder concentrations.

Theoretical Framework

This study is guided by a theoretical framework based on the principles of

sustainable development, biomass energy, pyrolysis, charcoal briquettes, and waste

management. The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of coconut husk as a raw

material for charcoal briquettes production, which contributes to sustainable

development by reducing waste and providing an alternative source of fuel for

cooking and heating. The process of producing charcoal briquettes from coconut

husk involves pyrolysis, which is the thermal decomposition of organic material in the

absence of oxygen, leading to the production of charcoal, pyrolysis oil, and pyrolysis
 14

gas. The effectiveness of coconut husk in producing charcoal briquettes will be

assessed based on its calorific value, ash content, and burn time, which are

important factors in determining the quality and efficiency of the fuel.

The study aims to contribute to the development of a more efficient and

sustainable approach to biomass energy production and waste management.

Choudburl (1983) stated that in an attempt to produce a better and more efficient

briquettes to reduce gases that contributes to greenhouse effect, briquetting process

has more focused more on the production of smokeless solid fuels from coal and

agricultural waste to use of organic briquettes (biomass).

 15

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter explains various methodologies that were used in gathering data

and analysis which are relevant to the research. The methodologies will include

areas such as the research design, location of the study, data collection procedure,

analysis and interpretation and its ethical considerations.

Research Design

In this study, the experimental design was used to conduct the study. This

design allows researchers to utilize the method that is relevant to the study.

According to Creswell (2012), experimental design is the traditional approach to

conduct quantitative research. Thus, this method is convenient to use by the

researcher to determine the effect of coconut (Cocos nucifera) husks in producing

charcoal briquettes.

Furthermore, true experimental design was utilized in the study. This design,

subjects are assigned to two groups which are the Control Group and the Treatment

Group. By using post-test only group, the experimental group is treated. Therefore,

this design is significant to use by the proponents to analyze the initial difference

between the charcoal briquettes made from coconut husks and coconut charcoal.

Locale of the Study

This study took place at Llorente, Eastern Samar for the purpose that it will

utilize the coconut husk wastes in the surrounding area and form it into charcoal

briquettes. It will also minimize the workload and lessen the expenses of the
 16

researchers due to the distance from each of the proponents’ households. Therefore,

the researchers decided that this place is appropriate to conduct the study due to its

availability and convenience.

Data Gathering Procedure

Experimental Set Ups. The research study was conducted in Llorente,

Eastern Samar. The subject for this study focuses on coconut husks. Coconut husks

(Cocos nucifera L.) are found between the hard internal shell and the outer coat of a

coconut (Tun, Sah, Win, & Shrestha, 2019). Coconut husks are usually discarded

after harvesting the shells of the coconuts.

The researcher analyzed the statistical concept and equation for the two-

factor experimental design. Now we illustrate these concepts with a simple statistical

design of experiments.

Hypothetically the researcher will be conducting a series of experimental set

ups to study the effectiveness of a Coconut Husk in producing charcoal briquettes in

terms of the difference of the two independent variables: coconut husk charcoal

briquettes and coconut charcoal. There are two set ups to be observed by the

research. The one experimental set up would be coconut husk made of charcoal

briquettes will be the experimental group which receive the treatment while coconut

charcoal will be the control group. The result will prove how coconut husk charcoal

briquettes differ with the coconut charcoal in terms of duration of carbonization,

combustion characteristics, and its economic feasibility and environmental beneits

with the same series of experimental set ups. With a minimum sample size equation,

n>2 x a x b.

Materials and Equipment. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of

coconut husks in producing charcoal briquettes. Thus, the material that was used in

this study was the coconut husks obtained from coconut sellers and dump sites for
 17

agricultural wastes in Llorente, Eastern Samar. The equipment used were a metal

container for the carbonization of the coconut husks, basins for each mixture of the

binder and carbonized husks combined, a measuring cup to measure the amount of

liquid water used in the binder, a digital weighing scale for measuring the amount of

carbonized coconut husk needed and the concentration of binder used, and a molder

to form the desired charcoal briquettes made from coconut husks.

General Procedures

Preparation of the Coconut Husks. Coconut husks, which are traditionally

considered as wastes, were collected from coconut charcoal sellers and the

surrounding areas within Llorente, Eastern Samar. The acquired coconut husks were

sun-dried from the span of 3 to 7 days to reduce the moisture content for effective

carbonization. The outer skin and fiber of the dried coconut husks were separated by

hand for use and the fibers were also partially separated to provide more surface

area during the carbonization. The coconut husks were kept in large plastic bags that

were sealed in order to prevent moisture from accumulating on the coconut husks

before carbonization. The outer skin and fiber were also separated and filled into

different plastic bags to prevent confusion.

Carbonization of the Coconut Husks. The coconut husks were carbonized

inside a metal container with a simple rectangular design to provide a means of

creating a low oxygen environment. The metal container had an opening at the top

for loading the coconut fibers. A suitable metal plate was used as a cover for the top

opening of the drum during firing.

The coconut husks were fed to the metal container at a manageable batch of

100 grams. A fire port was provided at the bottom of the metal container and was lit

through dry branches and leaves.

 18

At the start of the carbonization process, the lid was left open for

approximately 5 to 10 minutes. The lid was then closed and properly sealed to

prevent air from entering. The coconut husks were left to carbonize for 55 to 75

minutes. The fully carbonized material was then collected for further processing.

Preparation of the Binding Agent/Binder. To produce a suitable binding

agent for the charcoal briquettes, starch was used as a binder. The proponents

measured specific ratios of the starch and water mixed to produce a paste-like

substance. The total amount of water used was half of the total amount of carbonized

coconut husks to be used. The starch was mixed with cold water at first, which was

20% of the total liquid, and the rest of the water was put to boil. As the water boiled,

the starch and cold-water mixture was then slowly added and mixed until it produced

a paste-like substance. The amount of the binder will vary depending on the binder

concentration and amount of charcoal in the mixture.

Mixing of the Binding Agent/Binder and the Carbonized Coconut Husks.

The carbonized husks were crushed and sifted beforehand to prevent clumps from

the mixture. It was, then, instantly added and thoroughly mixed into the freshly

prepared binder as soon as the binder was formed into the desired paste-like

substance. It was mixed until the binder was distributed evenly among the

carbonized coconut husks. The mixture was transferred equally to the molder

provided by the proponents.

Production of Charcoal Briquettes. The starch mixed carbonized material

was loaded and pressed in a manual cubical mold made from wood. The side-by-

side-by-side length of the mold was 5 centimeters. The material was, then, pushed

out manually out of the molder by a square-shaped cut-out wood after 10-15 minutes

of pressing. The molded briquettes were then placed outside to sun and air-dry for 1

to 3 days. The molds are expected to be the produced charcoal briquettes.

 19

Data Analysis

Statistical Tool for Data Analysis. This study aims to evaluate the

effectiveness of coconut husk in producing charcoal briquettes by monitoring the

combustion characteristics of different concentration of binding agents used. The

observation method will be utilized to compare these factors among different

experimental setups. To determine the combustion characteristics of different

concentration of binding agents, the values will be added and divided by the sample

size of three.

One-way ANOVA will also be used to analyze and compare the effectiveness

of coconut husk in producing charcoal briquettes with different binder concentrations.

This statistical tool is used to determine whether there are any statistically significant

differences between the means of three or more groups.

Data Interpretation. In interpreting the results, a statistical basis will be used,

particularly comparing the p-value to an alpha significance level of 0.05. This alpha

level represents the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true. If the p-

value of the analysis of variance is less than the given alpha level of 5%, then the p-

value is statistically significant. This indicates strong evidence against the null

hypothesis, as there is less than a 5% probability that the null hypothesis is correct

(i.e., the results are random), and thus the null hypothesis will be rejected.

Ethical Consideration

This study will prioritize ethical principles and prevent any potential harm to

human participants, animals, or the environment. The researcher will ensure that all

equipment used in the study is in good condition and meets safety standards. In

conducting experiments, safety protocols will be followed to prevent accidents or any

potential harm to individuals or the environment. The researcher will take the

necessary precautions in producing the charcoal briquettes to ensure that the

 20

process is done safely and avoid any potential harm. Any potential risks or concerns

that arise during the study will be addressed promptly, and appropriate measures will

be taken to ensure the safety of all involved parties.

CHAPTER IV

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the data gathered that was analyzed and interpreted to

better understand the research study. The results will be presented in relation to the

statement of the problem and hypotheses. This part of the study shows the data in

figures and tabular form which has gone through statistical analysis for interpretation.

The method used to analyze the data is already discussed in the previous chapter.

Charcoal Briquettes with Different Binder Concentrations

The figure below shows the charcoal briquettes with different binder

concentrations. The proponents followed the measurements of 10%, 14%, and 20%

of starch binder concentration in producing the binding agent for the charcoal

briquettes, which were eventually molded and manually pressed into a 5 by 5 by 5

centimeters cubical shaped molder. Each charcoal briquette with the different binder

concentrations weighs an average of 100 grams per mold after the drying process,

regardless of the binder concentration. However, the charcoal briquettes made with

20% starch only weighed 95 grams per mold.

 21

Figure 3.

Charcoal Briquettes with Different Binder Concentrations

Figure 3a presents the first binder concentration placed on the left, which had

10% starch, tested by the proponents. The concentration was measured following the

total weight of the carbonized coconut husks that was used. This binder

concentration produced an easy-to-mix solution that was easily distributed among the

added carbonized coconut husks. The freshly molded charcoal briquettes with the

binder concentration of 10% starch weighed an average of 25% more than the weight

of the charcoal briquette that underwent the drying process.

Figure 3b presents the second binder concentration placed in the middle,

which had 14% starch, tested by the proponents. The concentration was measured

following the total weight of the carbonized coconut husks that was used. This binder

concentration produced a slightly thick solution that was evenly distributed among the

added carbonized coconut husks. The freshly molded charcoal briquettes with the

binder concentration of 14% starch weighed an average of 30% more than the final

weight of the charcoal briquette that underwent the drying process.

Figure 3c presents the final binder concentration placed on the right, which

had 20% starch, tested by the proponents. The concentration was measured

following the total weight of the carbonized coconut husks that was used. This binder

concentration produced a hard-to-mix, powdery solution that was hardly distributed

among the added carbonized coconut husks. With this concentration, only a

manageable amount of coconut husk and starch binder mixture can be made.

Otherwise, the binder will fail to produce the desired product, which is the charcoal

briquette. The freshly molded charcoal briquettes with the binder concentration of

20% starch weighed an average of 20% more than the final weight of the charcoal

briquette that underwent the drying process.

Combustion Characteristics of Charcoal Briquettes with Different Binder

Concentration
 22

Table 1.1 shows the average mean of maximum temperature release

between charcoal briquettes with different binder concentrations and coconut shell

charcoal. It was examined by the proponents after the drying process. In each

binding concentration, there were 3 briquettes that were observed. The coconut shell

charcoal showed the least mean average of maximum temperature release among

the charcoal briquettes with three different binder concentrations. On the other hand,

the binder concentration of 14% had the highest mean of maximum temperature

release. Based on the results from the data gathered, the higher the maximum

temperature release, the more likely is the product to be effective as fuel. This shows

that the charcoal briquette with the binder concentration of 14% can achieve higher

temperatures than the rest of the fuels, surpassing the coconut shell charcoal. With

this, the charcoal briquette with the binder concentration of 14% produced the best

results for the maximum temperature release.

Table 1.1

Average Mean of Maximum Temperature Release Between Charcoal Briquettes with

Different Binder Concentrations and Coconut Shell Charcoal

Coconut Shell
Trial 10% (°C) 14% (°C) 20% (°C)
Charcoal (°C)
1 1308 1356 1196 1192
2 1356 1344 1175 1152
3 1321 1324 1151 1137
Average 1328.33 1341.33 1174 1160.33

Table 1.2 shows the average mean of burn rate between charcoal briquettes

with different binder concentrations and coconut shell charcoal. It was examined by

the proponents after the drying process. In each binding concentration, there were 3

briquettes that were observed. The binder concentration of 14% showed the least

mean average burn rate among the three binding concentrations and coconut shell

charcoal. The coconut shell charcoal, on the other hand, showed the highest mean

average burn rate. Based on the results from the data gathered, this indicates that
 23

the higher the burn rate, the faster the fuel dies down. Basically, the data gathered

determines the lifespan for each fuel. This shows that the coconut shell charcoal

burned the fastest than the charcoal briquettes with different binder concentrations,

with the binder concentration of 14% being the slowest among the other fuels.

Table 1.2

Average Mean of Burn Rate Between Charcoal Briquettes with Different Binder

Concentrations and Coconut Shell Charcoal

Coconut Shell
10% 14% 20%
Trial Charcoal
(grams/minute) (grams/minute) (grams/minute)
(grams/minute)
1 1.48 1.4 2.08 2.75
2 1.4 1.38 2.04 2.48
3 1.42 1.35 2.17 2.61
Average 1.433 1.376 2.096 2.613

Table 1.3 shows the average mean of burn time in different binder

concentrations. It was examined by the proponents after the drying process. In each

binding concentration, there were 3 briquettes that were observed. The coconut shell

charcoal showed the least mean average of burn time among the fuels. On the other

hand, binding concentration of 14% showed the highest average burn time. Based on

the results from the data gathered, this indicates that the longer the burn time

achieved, the longer the fuel’s lifespan will be. This determines the amount of time a

predetermined amount of the chosen fuel would last. With this, the binder

concentration of 14% would last longer than the rest of the charcoal briquettes with a

different binder concentration and the coconut shell charcoal.

Table 1.3

Average Mean of Burn Time Between Charcoal Briquettes with Different Binder

Concentrations and Coconut Shell Charcoal

Coconut Shell
Trial 10% (minutes) 14% (minutes) 20% (minutes) Charcoal
(minutes)
1 203 215 144 109
 24

2 215 217 147 121

3 211 222 138 115
Average 209.66 218 143 115

Table 2.1 shows the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the maximum

temperature release between charcoal briquettes with different binder concentrations

and coconut shell charcoal, which had been used to determine the degree of

significance. The differences that were determined were statistically significant

because of the calculated p-value of 0.0214 which is less than the given alpha of 5%

or 0.05, p-value > 0.05. Based on the results, there is a 2.14% chance that the

results suggest that an effect exists between the maximum temperature release of

charcoal briquettes with different binder concentrations. This shows that the charcoal

briquettes made from coconut husks is feasible for use as an alternative fuel, due to

its maximum temperature release achieved.

Table 2.1

ANOVA of the Maximum Temperature Release Between Charcoal Briquettes with

Different Binder Concentrations and Coconut Shell Charcoal

p-
Source of Variation SS df MS F value F crit
Between Groups 90910.25 3 30303.42 46.15319 0.0214 4.066181
Within Groups 5252.667 8 656.5833

Total 96162.92 11
*0.05 level of significance

Table 2.2 shows the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the burn rate

between charcoal briquettes with different binder concentrations and coconut shell

charcoal, that had been used to determine the degree of significance. The

differences that were determined were statistically significant because of the

calculated p-value of 0.0154, which is less than the given alpha of 5% or 0.05, p-

value > 0.05. Based on the results, there is a 1.54% chance that the results suggest

that an effect exists between the burn rate of charcoal briquettes with different
 25

binding concentrations. This shows that the charcoal briquettes made from coconut

husks is feasible for use as an alternative fuel, due to its burn rate achieved.

Table 2.2

ANOVA of the Burn Rate Between Charcoal Briquettes with Different Binder

Concentrations and Coconut Shell Charcoal

P-
Source of Variation SS df MS F value F crit
Between Groups 3.112733 3 1.037578 165.7914 0.0154 4.066181
Within Groups 0.050067 8 0.006258

Total 3.1628 11
*0.05 level of significance

Table 2.3 shows the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the burn time between

charcoal briquettes with different binder concentrations and coconut shell charcoal,

that had been used to determine the degree of significance. The differences that

were determined were statistically significant because of the calculated p-value of

0.0183, which is less than the given alpha of 5% or 0.05, p-value > 0.05. Based on

the results, there is a 1.83% chance that the results suggest that an effect exists

between the burn time of the charcoal briquettes with different binding

concentrations. This shows that the charcoal briquettes made from coconut husks is

feasible for use as an alternative fuel, due to its total burn time achieved.

Table 2.3

ANOVA of the Burn Time Between Charcoal Briquettes with Different Binder

Concentrations and Coconut Shell Charcoal

P-
Source of Variation SS df MS F value F crit
Between Groups 22870.25 3 7623.417 284.1025 0.0183 4.066181
Within Groups 214.6667 8 26.83333

Total 23084.92 11
*0.05 level of significance

CHAPTER V
 26

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION

The following chapter concludes this report. This chapter presents the

summary, conclusion, and recommendations of the study.

Summary

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of

coconut husk in producing charcoal briquettes. The feasibility of coconut husks in

producing charcoal briquettes was determined based on its combustion

characteristics, which were compared to the coconut shell charcoal for analyzation.

The design utilized in this study was a true experimental design. The

proponents also utilized T-test and One-Way ANOVA to analyze the gathered data

and determine the degree of significance of the data. The findings of the study

showed that the charcoal briquettes made with 10% and 14% starch binder

concentration produced the most effective charcoal briquettes for consumption. The

findings also showed that the produced charcoal briquettes were proven to be more

effective than coconut shell charcoal with the same amount used during the testing

for its combustion characteristics, according to its maximum temperature release,

burn time, and burn rate. Therefore, based on the results indicated, it can be

concluded that coconut husk (Cocos nucifera L.) is feasible in producing charcoal

briquettes.

Conclusion

Based on the indicated results of the study, the following conclusions were

drawn:

1. Coconut husks (Cocos nucifera L.) can produce charcoal briquettes with
 27

different binder concentrations.

2. Charcoal briquettes made from coconut husks (Cocos nucifera L.) last longer

than the same amount of coconut shell charcoal used.

3. The binder concentration affects the combustion characteristics of the

produced charcoal briquettes made from coconut husks (Cocos nucifera L.).

4. The binder concentration 14% had the best results compared to the 20% and

has little difference with the 10% according to its combustion characteristics.

Recommendation

The study revealed the results of the effectiveness of coconut husks (Cocos

nucifera L.) in producing charcoal briquettes. Thus, the following recommendation is

presented:

1. Using a calorimeter to have a better and more accurate measurement of the

combustion characteristics of the charcoal briquettes made from coconut

husks (Cocos nucifera L.).

2. Adding a certain amount of coconut shell charcoal to the carbonized husks to

test whether it affects its durability and combustion characteristics of the

charcoal briquettes.

3. Using a hydraulic press for better compression of the mold will produce better

results compared to the manually compressed charcoal briquettes made from

coconut husks.

4. Spray or dump the charcoal briquettes with water to test whether it will

reignite and can be reused right after.

5. Make a different size or shaped molder to test whether its combustion

characteristics will be affected or changed.

 28

REFERENCES

Akolgo, G. A., Awafo, E. A., Essandoh, E. O., Owusu, P. A., Uba, F., & Adu-Poku, K.

A. (2021). Assessment of the potential of charred briquettes of sawdust, rice

and coconut husks: Using water boiling and user acceptability tests. Scientific

African, 12, 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00789

Amoako, G., & Mensah-Amoah, P. (2019). Determination of Calorific Values of

Coconut Shells and Coconut Husks. Journal of Materials Science Research

and Reviews, 2(2), 1-7. doi:10.9734/JMSRR/2019/45639

Arellano, G. T., Kato, Y. S., & Bacani, F. T. (2015). Evaluation of Fuel Properties of

Charcoal Briquettes Derived From Combinations of Coconut Shell, Corn Cob

and Sugarcane Bagasse. Proceedings of the DLSU Research Congress, 3, 1-

6.

Chusniyah, D. A., Pratiwi, R., Benyamin, & Suliestiyah. (2022). The Development of

Sustainable Energy Briquettes Using Coconut Dregs Charcoal and Tapioca

Flour as Adhesives. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental

Science, 1104, 1-7. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1104/1/012034

Dahlia, N. A., Fadila, N., Budiyono, & Handoko, S. (2023). Effect of Torrefaction

Temperature and Adhesive Amount on the Characteristics of Waste Briquettes

Coffee Grounds as an Alternative Renewable Fuel. Proceedings of The 3rd

International Conference on Chemical Engineering and Applied Sciences.

Gangil, S. (2015). Benefits of weakening in thermogravimetric signals of

hemicellulose and lignin for producing briquettes from soybean crop residue.

Energy, 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.018

Gladstone, S., Tersigni, V., Kennedy, J., & Haldeman, J. (2014). Targeting briquetting

as an alternative fuel source in Tanzania. Procedia Engineering, 78, 287-291.

doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.07.069

Hilmiyati, H., Husraini, L., & Zamhuri, A. (2018). Densification of Product Torrefaction

from Coconut Coir to Bio-briquette as Renewable Energy that

 29

Environmentally. International Journal of Environmental Research & Clean

Energy, 12(1), 13-16.

Hirunpraditkoon, S., Intharit, S., Srisumran, S., & Wongvirojtana, P. (2014).

Combustion Properties of Briquette Charcoal from Durian Peel. Applied

Mechanics and Materials, 666, 41-45.

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.666.41

Homchat, K., & Ramphueiphad, S. (2022). The continuous carbonisation of rice husk

on the gasifier for high yield charcoal production. Results in Engineering, 15,

1-6. doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100495

Hu, J., Lei, T., Wang, Z., Yan, X., Shi, X., Li, Z., . . . Zhang, Q. (2014). Economic,

environmental and social assessment of briquette fuel from agricultural

residues in China: A study on flat die briquetting using corn stalk. Energy, 64,

557-566. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.10.028

Jain, H., Vijayalakshmi, Y., & Neeraja, T. (2015). Preparation of Briquettes Using

Biomass Combinations and Estimation of Its Calorific Value. International

Journal of Science and Research, 4(3), 322-324.

Kpalo, S. Y., Zainuddin, M. F., Manaf, L. A., & Roslan, A. M. (2020). A Review of

Technical and Economic Aspects of Biomass Briquetting. Sustainability, 12, 1-

30. doi:10.3390/su12114609

Kumar, J. A., Kumar, K. V., Petchimuthu, M., Iyahraja, S., & Kumar, D. V. (2020).

Comparative analysis of briquettes obtained from biomass and charcoal.

Materials Today: Proceedings, 1-5. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.918

Li, Q., Qi, J., Jiang, J., Wu, J., Duan, L., Wang, S., & Hao, J. (2019). Significant

reduction in air pollutant emissions from household cooking stoves by

replacing raw solid fuels with their carbonized products. Science of the Total

Environment, 653–660. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.020

Longdong, I. A., & Tooy, D. (2014). Technical Study of a Downdraft Reactor In the

Gasification Process of Coconut Husks. International Conference on Food,

 30

Agriculture and Biology.

Mwampamba, T. H., Owen, M., & Pigaht, M. (2013). Opportunities, challenges and

way forward for the charcoal briquette industry in Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy

for Sustainable Development, 17, 158–170. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2012.10.006

Nasution, Z., Amalia, R., Nurkhoiry, R., Oktarina, S. D., & Nasution, M. A. (2021).

Assessing the Appropriate Technology Options on Utilizing Oil Palm Biomass

for Rural Development in Riau Province. Advances in Economics, Business

and Management Research, 199, 70-75.

Nurhidayati, E., Yuniarti, E., Pratiwi, N. N., Wulandari, A., & Hernovianty, F. R. (2022).

Utilization of coconut shell waste into charcoal briquettes in Sungai Kupah

Village, Kubu Raya Regency. Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat Universitas

Merdeka Malang, 7(2), 197-206. doi:10.26905/abdimas.v7i2.6783

Nuriana, W., Anisa, N., & Martana. (2014). Synthesis Preliminary Studies Durian Peel

Bio Briquettes as an Alternative Fuels. Energy Procedia, 47, 295-302.

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.01.228

Oladeji, J. T. (2015). Theoretical Aspects of Biomass Briquetting: A Review Study.

Journal of Energy Technologies and Policy, 5(3), 72-81.

Pandey, S., & Dhakal, R. (2013). Pine Needle Briquettes: A Renewable Source of

Energy. International Journal of Energy Science, 3(3), 254-260.

Raju, A., Satya, M., Praveena, U., & Ramya Jyothi, K. (2014). Studies On

Development Of Fuel Briquettes Using Locally Avaliable Waste. 4(3), 553-

559.

Rath, S., Rao, D., Tripathy, A., & Biswal, S. (2017). Biomass briquette as an

alternative reductant for low grade iron ore. Biomass and Bioenergy, 1-8.

Sánchez, E. A., Pasache, M. B., & Garcia, M. E. (2014). Development of Briquettes

from Waste Wood (Sawdust) for Use in Low-income Households in Piura,

Peru. Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, 2.

 31

Suryaningsih, S., Nurhilal, O., Yuliah, Y., & Mulyana, C. (2017). Combustion quality

analysis of briquettes from variety of agricultural waste as source of

alternative fuels. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 65, 1-7.

doi:10.1088/1755-1315/65/1/012012

Taylor, T., Appiah-Effah, E., Akodwaa-Boadi, K., Obeng, E., & Ofei-Quartey, M. L.

(2023). Engineered column treatment of greywater using raw and pyrolyzed

coconut husk powder. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 1-10.

doi:10.3389/fenvs.2023.1077379

Tokan, A., Sambo, A., Jatau, J., & Kyauta, E. (2014). Effects of Particle Size on the

Thermal Properties of Sawdust, Corncobs and Prosopis Africana Charcoal

Briquettes. American Journal of Engineering Research, 3(8), 369-374.

Tun, P. P., Sah, C. B., Win, S. S., & Shrestha, K. (2019). The Preparation and

Characteristics of Briquettes FromCoconut Husks as Renewable Source of

Energy. North american Academic Research, 2(3), 58-71.

Ward, B. J., Yacob, T. W., & Montoya, L. D. (2014). Evaluation of Solid Fuel Char

Briquettes from Human Waste. Environmental Science & Technology, 48,

9852−9858. doi:10.1021/es500197h

Wasfy, K. I., & Awny, A. (2020). Production of High-Quality Charcoal Briquettes from

Recycled Biomass Residues. Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural

Engineering, 11(12), 779-785. doi:10.21608/jssae.2020.160916

Widjaya, D., Sinatrya, A., Kusumandaru, W., Jupriyanto, A., & Trinity, R. (2022).

Utilization of Several Agricultural Wastes Into Briquette as Renewable Energy

Source. Planta Tropika: Jurnal Agrosains (Journal of Agro Science), 10(2),

170-176. doi:10.18196/pt.v10i2.13773

Yirijor, J., Adazabra, A. N., & McBagonluri, F. (2023). Fabrication and

Characterization of Charcoal Briquettes Fuel from a Blend of Coconut Husk

and Corncob. Journal of Energy Research and Reviews, 13(1), 14-24.

doi:10.9734/JENRR/2023/v13i1254
 32

Zhang, G., Suna, Y., & Xua, Y. (2018). Review of briquette binders and briquetting

mechanism. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 477–487.

doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.072
 33

Appendix A

RESEARCH PLAN

Research Title: The Effectiveness of Coconut Husks (Cocos nucifera L.) in

Producing Charcoal Briquettes

Researchers: Jasmine Flora G. Alota, Jolina G. Autor, Euri Samantha B.

Bormate, San Chai Rammy B. Guitoria, Cyrelle Nicole Nebio

Strand & Section: STEM_MANGO

RESOURC EXPECTE
ACTIVITIES/
TIME ES AND D
OBJECTIVES STRATEGIE REMARKS
FRAME PERSONS OUTCOME
S
INVOLVED S
PREPARATORY PHASE

Brainstorm
on research
problems.

Write the
rationale for
February
Conceptualize the selected
13-15, Research
a research research Students Completed
2023 Title
title title.
(3 days)
Create a
PowerPoint
presentation
for the title
defense.

Present and
defend the
research
title.
February
Render a Teachers Successful
20-24,
successful Incorporate and Pre-oral Completed
2023
title defense comments Students Defense
(1 week)
and
suggestions
to the
chosen
research
title.
 34

Present the
research title
during the
title defense.
February
Develop a Teachers
16-17, Research
research plan and Completed
2023 Plan
Write the Students
(2 days)
research
plan for the
study.

EXECUTION PHASE

Assign
specific
sections of
the Chapter I
to the
researchers.
(Background
of the Study,
Statement of
the Problem,
Hypothesis,
Scope and
Delimitation,
Significance
of the Study,
February
and
27-March
Write the Definition of
3, Students Chapter I Completed
Chapter I of Terms)
2023
the study
(1 week)
Do online
and offline
research for
related
literature and
studies that
will be used
in writing the
background
of the study
and the
definition of
terms.
 35

Assign
specific
sections of
the Chapter
II to the
researchers.
(Foreign and
Local
Literature,
Conceptual
Framework,
and March
Write the
Theoretical 6-10,
Chapter II of Students Chapter II Completed
Framework) 2023
the study
(1 week)

Do online
and offline
research for
related
literature and
studies that
will be used
in writing the
Chapter II.

Students Chapter III Completed

Write the March
Chapter III of Assign 13-17,
the study specific 2023
sections of (1 week)
the Chapter
III to the
researchers.
(Research
Design,
Study Site,
Experimental
Set-Ups,
Materials
and
Equipment,
General
Procedures,
and Data
Analysis and
Data
Interpretation
)
 36

Do online
and offline
research for
related
literature and
studies that
will be used
in writing the
Chapter III.

Provide the
panelist hard
copies of the
manuscript.

Present and
Render a March
defend the Teachers Successful
successful 20-24,
research and Pre-oral Completed
pre-oral 2023
proposal. Students Defense
defense (1 week)

Incorporate
comments
and
suggestions
to the study.

Construct a
letter of
Gain Principal,
consent. March
permission to SHS Permission
27-31,
conduct the Coordinator, to conduct Completed
2023
research Teachers, the study
Submit the (1 week)
study and
letter of
Students
consent.

March Students, Charcoal Completed

27-April Coconut Briquettes,
Design the Gather the 21, 2023 Husk, and and the
experiment necessary (1 month) Traditional Results
and gather materials for Wood
necessary the study. Charcoal.
data to
answer the Perform
 37

experimentat
ion to
achieve the
research
objectives.

Record
observations
research
and data.
objectives
Adjust and
modify
methodologi
es when
necessity
arise.

Utilize
appropriate
Analyze the April
statistical
data gathered 24-28,
analysis for Students Results Completed
from the 2023
treating the
experimentati (1 week)
raw data
on
gathered.

Relate
April
Write the research
24-28,
Chapter IV of findings with Students Chapter IV Completed
2023
the study preview
(1 week)
studies.

Draw
appropriate
April
conclusions
Write the 24-28,
and propose Students Chapter V Completed
Chapter V of 2023
necessary
the study (1 week)
recommenda
tions.

REPORTING AND SUBMISSION PHASE

 38

Make and
include
preliminary
pages,
appendices,
and May
Complete the Completed
references in 1-5, 2023 Students Ongoing
manuscript Manuscript
the (1 week)
manuscript.

Print and
submit the
manuscript.

Make a
comprehensi
ve and
appealing
PowerPoint
presentation
for the Final
PowerPoint
Prepare a Defense.
presentatio
PowerPoint
May n and a
presentation Teachers
8-12, Commend-
for the final Provide the and Ongoing
2023 able final
defense panelist hard Students
(1 week) defense
presentation copies of the
performanc
of the study manuscript.
e

Present the
research
study in front
of a panel of
critics.

Submit the May Teachers Final Copy Ongoing

final copy of Incorporate 15-19, and of the
the the 2023 Students Manuscript
manuscript comments (1 week)
and
suggestions
given during
the research
congress
 39

Bind the
manuscript
and submit
final copy.

*FEBRUARY 24, 2023 is the date of submission for this plan.