KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

KUMASI

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING

ASSESSMENT OF THE PHYSICAL AND COMBUSTION PROPERTIES OF BRIQUETTES

PRODUCED FROM DRIED COCONUT HUSK

THIS DISSERTATION IS BEING SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURAL AND BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING, KNUST IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF BSC. (HONS) DEGREE
IN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING

BY ABOAGYE GLORIA BAABA

MAY, 2017
 DECLARATION
“I hereby declare that I have completely undertaken the study reported herein under the
supervision
of Prof. Ebenezer Mensah and Dr. George Yaw Obeng, and except portions where references
have been duly cited, this dissertation is the outcome of my research”.

ABOAGYE, GLORIA BAABA …………………… …………………

(STUDENT) SIGNATURE DATE

1. PROF. EBENEZER MENSAH …………………… …………………

(SUPERVISOR) SIGNATURE DATE

2. DR. GEORGE YAW OBENG ……………… …………………

(SUPERVISOR) SIGNATURE DATE

i
 ABSTRACT
Ghana has in abundance of biomass resources whose potentials are yet to be fully tapped for
energy generation. The over dependence on these resources, its negative impacts on the
environment and the ever rising prices of energy supply could be curbed by switching to
alternative technologies and one such promising technologies is briquetting. This study was
undertaken to investigate the potentials of briquettes produced from dried coconut husk at 5 %,
10 % and 15 % level of starch binder. The briquettes were produced with the aid of a hand
mould at an average pressure of 344.82 kNm-2. The physical and combustion properties of the
briquettes that were determined included; moisture content, compressed and relaxed densities,
ash content, volatile matter, fixed carbon, water and shatter resistances, water boiling test
(comparison of briquettes with charcoal), calorific value and heat capacity (with the aid of a
bomb calorimeter), gas emission analysis (with the aid of an indoor pollution meter) and
thermal efficiency. The calorific values for charred briquette (P>2 mm) with 5 %, 10 %, 15 %
binding ratios were 23452.51 kJ/kg, 24989.50 kJ/kg, 20758.57 kJ/kg respectively. The calorific
values for (P<2 mm) with 5 %, 10 %, 15 % binding ratios were 8450 kJ/kg, 17895 kJ/kg and
13610 kJ/kg respectively. The calorific values of uncharred briquette with 5 %, 10 % and 15
% binding ratio were 15747 kJ/kg, 16806 kJ/kg and 16075 kJ/kg. Also the calorific value of
charcoal produced from sweet acacia was 19,200 kJ/kg. Thermal efficiency of the briquettes
produced competed favourably with charcoal. Hence, the thermal efficiency of the charred
briquette (92.42%) was the highest followed closely by the uncharred briquette (88.03%) and
charcoal (77.1%). Charcoal emitted the highest carbon monoxide (561.1ppm), followed by the
uncharred briquette (519.7 ppm) and the charred briquette (340.6 ppm).

ii
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this project to my parents, Mr. Frederick Aboagye and Mrs. Mercy Aboagye and to
all my loved ones

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, my profound gratitude goes to the Almighty God for seeing me through this entire
project. I would also like to thank my supervisors Professor Ebenezer Mensah and Dr. Yaw
Obeng for their immense help, guidance and support. I am also grateful for their constructive
criticism and advice throughout the project work.

My sincere gratitude goes to MIT/IDIN program and Technology Consultancy Centre (TCC)
for their financial support in this research work and also to Obed Nenyi-Otoo and Derrick
Amoah Yeboah all of TCC for their unflinching support and help.

Lastly, I would like to thank Mr. Joseph Oppong Akowuah for his advice and help and to my
family for their constant prayers and support, not forgetting my beloved Solomon Joe
Frempong for his love, advice and care.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION................................................................................................................................ i
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION.................................................................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................... iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background Study......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Justification ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Main Objective.............................................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Specific Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER TWO .................................................................................................................................. 5
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Biomass Briquetting: An Alternative Source of Energy ............................................................... 5
2.2 Coconut Production in Ghana ....................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Energy Potential of the Components of Coconut .......................................................................... 7
2.4 Waste Management of Coconut Husk .......................................................................................... 8
2.4.1 Uses of Coconut Husk............................................................................................................ 8
2.5.1 Briquetting Technology ......................................................................................................... 8
2.5.1.1 High and Medium Pressure Compaction ............................................................................ 9
2.5.1.2 Low Pressure Compaction .................................................................................................. 9
2.5.2 Ram/Piston and Screw Press Technologies ......................................................................... 10
2.5.3 Other Briquetting Technologies ........................................................................................... 11
2.5.4 Types of Briquettes .............................................................................................................. 12
2.5.4.1 Charred and Uncharred Processes ..................................................................................... 13
2.5.5 Characteristics of a Good Briquette ..................................................................................... 13
2.5.6 Applications of Briquettes ................................................................................................... 13
2.5.7 Advantages of Briquettes ..................................................................................................... 14
2.5.7.1 Advantages of Using Briquettes Compared to other Solid Fuels...................................... 14
2.5.8 Conventional Fuels that Briquettes Can Replace ................................................................. 15
2.5.9 Limitations of the Briquetting Process ............................................................................... 15
2.6 Factors Affecting Densification/ Briquetting .......................................................................... 15
2.6.1 Quality of Biomass Residues for Briquetting ...................................................................... 16
2.6.2 Physical and Combustion Properties of Briquettes .............................................................. 16
2.6.3 Binding Material for Briquetting ......................................................................................... 17
2.6.4 Qualities desired in Binders ................................................................................................. 17

v
 2.6.5 Analysis made by Emerhi E.A on the Proximate Composition of Briquettes According to
Different Binders .......................................................................................................................... 18
2.6.6 Advantages of Starch as a Binding Material over other Binding Materials ......................... 18
2.6.7 Step By Step Production of Charred and Uncharred Briquettes ......................................... 18
2.6.7.1 Sorting ............................................................................................................................... 18
2.6.7.2 Size Reduction .................................................................................................................. 19
2.6.7.3 Mixing ............................................................................................................................... 19
2.6.7.4 Application of a Binder ..................................................................................................... 19
2.6.7.5 Addition of Water ............................................................................................................. 19
2.6.7.6 Compaction and Drying .................................................................................................... 19
2.6.8 Production of Carbonized Briquettes ................................................................................... 20
2.6.8.1 Carbonisation Process ....................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................................ 21
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................................................................. 21
3.1 Materials/Equipment Used.......................................................................................................... 21
3.2 Collection of Dried Coconut Husk.............................................................................................. 21
3.3 Determination of the Moisture Content ...................................................................................... 21
3.4 Charring of the Dried Coconut Husk .......................................................................................... 21
3.5 Size Reduction of the Charred Coconut Husk ............................................................................ 23
3.6 Size Reduction of the uncharred Dried Coconut Husk ............................................................... 23
3.7 Preparation of a Binding Material ............................................................................................... 24
3.8 Briquette Production ................................................................................................................... 24
3.9 Determination of Physical Properties ......................................................................................... 25
3.9.1 Density ................................................................................................................................. 25
3.9.2 Shatter Resistance Test ........................................................................................................ 25
3.9.3 Water Resistance .................................................................................................................. 26
3.9.4 Percentage Moisture Content ............................................................................................... 26
3.10 Determination of Combustion Properties ................................................................................. 26
3.10.1 Percentage Volatile Matter................................................................................................. 26
3.10.2 Percentage Ash Content ..................................................................................................... 27
3.10.3 Percentage Fixed Carbon ................................................................................................... 27
3.10.4 Energy Content Determination .......................................................................................... 27
3.10.5 Water Boiling Test ............................................................................................................. 28
3.10.6 Gas Emission Analysis....................................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER FOUR............................................................................................................................... 30
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ................................................................................................. 31
4.1 Physical Characteristics of Charred and Uncharred Briquettes .................................................. 31
4.2 Effects of Binder Level on Density of Briquettes ....................................................................... 32

vi
 4.3 Equilibrium Moisture Content .................................................................................................... 34
4.4 Shatter Resistance of Briquettes ................................................................................................. 36
4.4.1 Effects of Binder Level on Weight Loss and Shatter Resistance ......................................... 36
4.5 Briquette Stability (Length Expansion) ...................................................................................... 38
4.6 Water Resistance ......................................................................................................................... 40
4.7 Combustion Properties of Uncharred and Charred Briquettes .................................................... 41
4.7.1 Effects of Binder levels on Combustion Properties of Briquettes ....................................... 41
4.7.2 Effects of Starch on the Calorific Value and the Heat Capacity .......................................... 45
4.7.3 Water Boiling Test Results .................................................................................................. 46
4.7.3.1 Comparison of the Briquettes with Charcoal .................................................................... 46
4.7.4 Emission Analysis of Charcoal, Charred and Uncharred Briquettes ................................... 47
CHAPTER FIVE ................................................................................................................................ 50
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 50
5.1 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 50
5.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 50
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 52
APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................................... 56
Briquette Stability ............................................................................................................................. 56
Decrease In Weight Against Time .................................................................................................... 57
Shatter Resistance ............................................................................................................................. 58
Water Resistance............................................................................................................................... 58
Combustion Properties ...................................................................................................................... 59
Water Boiling Test ............................................................................................................................ 60
Gas Emission Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 62

vii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.4: Energy Values of the various parts of Coconut ..................................................................... 7
Table 2.5 Comparison of a screw extruder and a piston press .............................................................. 11
Table 2.6 indicates the combustion properties of different binders ...................................................... 18
Table 4.1 Physical Characteristics of Uncharred Briquette .................................................................. 31
Table 4.2 Physical Characteristics of Charred Briquette (P<2 mm) ..................................................... 31
Table 4.3 Physical Characteristics of Charred Briquette (P>2 mm) ..................................................... 32
Table 4.4 Results of Densities of Uncharred Briquette......................................................................... 32
Table 4.5 Results of Densities of Charred Briquette (P<2mm) ............................................................ 33
Table 4.6 Comparative Results of Densities of Charred Briquette (P>2 mm) ..................................... 33
Table 4.7: Moisture Content (wet basis) of uncharred briquette at varying binder levels .................... 34
Table 4.8: Moisture Content (wet basis) of charred briquette (P<2mm) at varying binder levels ........ 35
Table 4.9: Moisture Content (wet basis) of charred briquette (P>2mm) at varying binder levels ........ 35
Table 4.10 Weight Loss and Shatter Resistances of the uncharred briquette ....................................... 36
Table 4.11 Weight Loss and Shatter Resistances of charred briquette (P<2 mm) ................................ 37
Table 4.12 Weight Loss and Shatter Resistances of charred briquette (P>2 mm) ................................ 37
Table 4.13: Results of calorific value and heat capacity analysis of raw uncharred coconut husk and
raw charred coconut husk (P<2 mm, P>2 mm) .................................................................................... 46
Table 4.14 Results of length increment against time for uncharred briquette ...................................... 56
Table 4.15 Results of length increment against time for charred briquette(P<2mm) ........................... 56
Table 4.16 Results of length increment against time for charred briquette(P>2mm) ........................... 56
Table 4.17 Water Resistance Test Results of uncharred briquette at varying binder levels ................. 58
Table 4.18 Water Resistance Test Results of charred briquette(P<2mm) at varying binder levels ...... 59
Table 4.19 Water Resistance Test Results of charred briquette(P>2mm) at varying binder levels ...... 59
Table 4.20: Combustion Properties of Uncharred briquettes at Varying Binder Levels ...................... 59
Table 4.21: Combustion Properties of charred briquettes(P<2mm) at Varying Binder Levels ............ 60
Table 4.22: Combustion Properties of charred briquettes(P>2mm) at Varying Binder Levels ............ 60
Table 4.23: Water Boiling Test Results of uncharred briquette............................................................ 60
Table 4.24: Water Boiling Test Results of charred briquette................................................................ 61
Table 4.25: Water Boiling Test Results for charcoal ............................................................................ 61
Table 4.26: Results of Indoor Air Pollution Test of briquettes and charcoal........................................ 62

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Coconut Production (tonnes) ................................................................................................ 1

Figure 2.1: The total energy consumed from 1965-2005 ........................................................................ 5
Figure 4.1: Height stability of uncharred briquette ............................................................................... 38
Figure 4.2: Height stability of Charred Briquette (P <2mm) ................................................................ 39
Figure 4.3: Height stability of Charred Briquette (P >2mm) ................................................................ 39
Figure 4.4: Water Resistance of Briquettes at different binder levels .................................................. 40
Figure 4.5: Ash Content of Briquettes at 5%, 10% and 15% binder levels .......................................... 41
Figure 4.6: Volatile Matter of Briquettes at 5%, 10% and 15% binder levels ...................................... 42
Figure 4.7: Fixed Carbon of Briquettes at different binder levels ........................................................ 43
Figure 4.8: Calorific Values of Briquettes at different binder levels .................................................... 44
Figure 4.9: Heat Capacity of Briquettes at different binder levels ....................................................... 45
Figure 4.10: Thermal Efficiencies of Briquettes and Charcoal ............................................................. 47
Figure 4.11: Graphical Representation of the Particulate Matter (PM) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) of
Uncharred Briquette during Indoor Air Pollution Test. ........................................................................ 48
Figure 4.12: Graphical Representation of Particulate Matter (PM) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) of
charred briquette during Indoor Air Pollution Test............................................................................... 49
Figure 4.13: Graphical Representation of Particulate Matter (PM) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) of
charcoal during Indoor Air Pollution Test ............................................................................................ 49
Figure 4.14: Decrease in Weight of Uncharred Briquette..................................................................... 57
Figure 4.15: Decrease in Weight of Charred Briquette(P<2mm) ......................................................... 57
Figure 4.16: Decrease in Weight of Charred Briquette(P>2mm) ......................................................... 58
Figure 4.17: Shatter Resistance of Briquettes at Varying Binder Levels.............................................. 58

ix
 LIST OF PLATES
Plate 2.1: Burning Of Coconut Waste Causes Eye And Respiratory Diseases ....................................... 6
Plate 2.2: Improper Disposable Of Coconut Waste Leading To Environmental Pollution .................... 6
Plate 2.3: Pollution Of Water Bodies ...................................................................................................... 6
Plate 3.1: Dried Coconut Husk Ready To Undergo Charring ............................................................... 22
Plate 3.2: Set Up For Charring Process................................................................................................. 22
Plate 3.3: The Initial Charring Process ................................................................................................. 22
Plate 3.4: Thick Fumes As Charring Was On Going ............................................................................ 22
Plate 3.5: Burning Rate Of The Husk Being Observed ........................................................................ 22
Plate 3.6 A Sample Of The Charred Coconut Husk.............................................................................. 22
Plate 3.7: Crushing Of The Charred Husk ............................................................................................ 23
Plate 3.8: Sieving Of The Crushed Coconut Husk................................................................................ 23
Plate 3.9: Sample Of The Ground Charred Coconut Husk ................................................................... 23
Plate 3.10: Front View Of Hammer Mill .............................................................................................. 23
Plate 3.11: Chopped Dried Coconut Husk ............................................................................................ 23
Plate 3.12: Feeding Of Chopped Coconut Husk Into Hammer Mill ..................................................... 23
Plate 3.13: Sieving Of The Ground Coconut Husk ............................................................................... 24
Plate 3.14: A Sample Of The Uncharred, Ground Coconut Husk ........................................................ 23
Plate 3.15: Hammering Of The Plunger To Make The Briquette Compact .......................................... 24
Plate 3.16: Samples Of Freshly Produced Charred And Uncharred Briquettes .................................... 24
Plate 3.17: Weighing Of Uncharred Briquette ...................................................................................... 24
Plate 3.18: Drying Of The Briquettes In The Solar Drier ..................................................................... 25
Plate 3.19: Determining The Length Of Uncharred Briquette Using A Digital Vernier Calliper ........ 25
Plate 3.20: Pictorial View Of The Hand Mould.................................................................................... 25
Plate 3.21: Transferring Of Fragmented Briquettes Into The Oven ...................................................... 27
Plate 3.22: Researcher Transferring Samples Into The Furnace ........................................................... 27
Plate 3.23: Samples Of The Fragmented Briquettes After Removal From The Furnace ...................... 27
Plate 3.24: Weighing Of Pulverised Briquettes Using An Analytical Balance .................................... 28
Plate 3.25: Winding Of The Firing Wire On The Electrode Rods ........................................................ 28
Plate 3.26: Calorimeter System At T.C.C, C-Lab ................................................................................. 28
Plate 3.27 Section Of The Laboratory Emission Monitoring System ................................................... 30
Plate 3.28: Samples Of Ignited Uncharred Briquettes .......................................................................... 30
Plate 3.29: Samples Of Ignited Charred Briquettes .............................................................................. 30
Plate 3.30: Ongoing Water Boiling Test ............................................................................................... 30

x
 CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Study

Coconut, scientifically called Cocos nucifera is one of the most important and useful palms in
the world. Coconuts grow abundantly in tropical regions, and they thrive in sandy, saline soil.
Globally, coconut is grown in more than 92 countries all over the world (FAOSTAT, 2008).
Indonesia and Philippines are the major producers of coconut in the world producing
19,500,000 metric tonnes and 18,300,000 metric tonnes respectively. The total world coconut
growing area is estimated at 12 million hectares (Omont, 2001).
Papua New Guinea is the leading producer in the South Pacific. In Africa, Tanzania is the
largest producer while in Latin America Brazil accounts for more than one half of the total
coconut growing area of that region (Punchihewa and Arancon, 1999).
In Africa, the major coconut producing countries include Tanzania (530,000 metric tonnes),
Ivory Coast (195,000 metric tonnes), Mozambique (260,000 metric tonnes), Nigeria (265,000
metric tonnes) and Ghana which produces about 366,183 metric tonnes annually (Muyengi et
al., 2015). Below is a graph indicating the quantity of coconuts produced in Africa, Ghana and
the World at large.

Figure 1.1: Coconut Production (tonnes), source: FAOSTATS 2013

1
According to the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre 2016 (G.I.P.C), coconut is produced on
a very small scale between 0.5-5.0 ha. Small holders produce about eighty percent of the nuts
from an area of 36,000 hectares.
Many Ghanaians have not fully discovered the enormous economic potential and uses of
coconut.
Coconut husk is the rough exterior shells of the coconut. The husks are not edible like the
white meat and liquid found within the exterior shell, but it can be used in several ways
including being used in a biomass convertor to produce combustible gases which in turn can
be used in a gas turbine to produce electricity and heat. It can also be used for fuel as well.
The outer husk of a coconut consists of long, rough fibres which are made into variety of
products such as floor mats and roofing materials. Studies have shown that a healthy coconut
tree will produce approximately one hundred and twenty watermelon sized husks annually
(Bradley et al., 2006).
Briquetting is the process of converting agricultural waste into a uniformly shaped block of
coal that are easy to use, convey and store (Raju et al., 2014).
Coconut husk can be transformed into briquettes an advanced fuel because of its clean burning
nature and long storability without deterioration.
Briquetting can be done with or without a binder (also known as a fastening agent). The binding
material may be an organic material and this material must be decomposed partially so as to
release the fibres necessary to hold the briquette together.
Preparing coconut husk without a binder is more convenient but it requires sophisticated
machines and equipments (Janczak, 1980).
Coconut husk briquette can be made locally and inexpensively and it is very efficient, burns
cleanly reducing exposure to the smoke that causes respiratory diseases. By providing an
alternative to wood burning, coconut husk briquette can help reduce the rate of deforestation.
Globally, more than two billion people utilise wood, charcoal, agricultural residues as the
primary fuel for their cooking and heating needs leading to significant health, economic and
environmental consequences.
In the year 2000, indoor air pollution from solid fuel use was responsible for more than 1.6
million annual deaths and 2.7 % of the global burden of disease (World Health Organization,
2000). About 80 percent of Ghanaian households depend on energy in the form of firewood,
twigs and charcoal and it is used in the domestic sector for cooking and other domestic
activities.

2
1.2 Problem Statement

Conversion of coconut husk into briquette have not been successful in the developing countries
especially Ghana due to lack of awareness of the importance of coconut waste. Coconut farmers
and many individuals have limited knowledge of different ways of utilising coconut products
especially the husk and they all go to waste always making the environment unclean.
It is extremely difficult to control the disposal of coconut husk in Ghana. They are littered
everywhere and sometimes used in filling potholes. They are also burnt in open environments
causing pollution. Coconut sellers cannot afford the huge sums of money to burn the waste in
incinerators so they always plead with food vendors to take the husk and use it as fuel, disposing
off coconut waste improperly causes environmental hazards such as air pollution and it can
also choke gutters creating breeding sites for mosquitoes causing malaria and other diseases.
People who utilise the raw coconut husk as firewood end up inhaling smoke which emanates
from the burning of the husk causing eye and respiratory diseases.
Over exploitation of wood due to high rise in population are the major drivers of deforestation
and environmental pollution.
Coconut waste generated annually in cities and towns of southern Ghana is estimated to be
200,000-300,000 metric tonnes (Greening The Savannah Project, 2012). People who utilise the
raw coconut husk as firewood end up inhaling smoke which emanates from burning of the
husk, which if inhaled continuously can result in eye and respiratory diseases. Therefore, there
is the need to biochar the waste husk and convert to briquettes that burn clean with relatively
less smoke.

1.3 Justification
When coconuts are harvested the husks are removed, and they are considered as waste materials
and are dumped. But these husks have numerous advantages which have not yet been exploited.
Ghana produces 366,183 metric tonnes of coconuts, and if it could be developed both
technically and commercially into high value products, it would help improve the quality of
life of Ghanaians. Coconut husk is of great importance and if serious attention is paid to it, the
problems associated with its waste will be dealt with effectively.
Attention should be focused on converting waste coconut husk into briquette because it
addresses the environmental consequences and health hazards associated with the use of solid
fuels (wood, charcoal). It also gives better combustion properties and helps to reduce gas

3
emissions more as compared to solid fuels. It helps preserve the forest resources by serving as
an alternative to wood and charcoal and thereby slowing the process of deforestation.
Over the years there has been a high demand for fuel wood, which has led to its drastic shortage
and this is due to high population. With successful production of coconut husk briquettes, fuel
wood users especially people in the urban and peri-urban areas can have an alternative to fuel
wood.
In terms of waste management, coconut husk which are basically considered as unwanted by-
product at some parts of the world can be used for so many useful things that can help create
employment.

1.4 Main Objective

To assess the physical and combustion properties of briquette produced from dried coconut
husk.

1.5 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of this study are:
1. To determine the energy content of charred and uncharred briquettes
2. To compare the thermal efficiencies of charcoal, charred and uncharred coconut husk
briquette
3. To compare the emissions of charcoal, charred and uncharred coconut husk briquettes

4
 CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Biomass Briquetting: An Alternative Source of Energy

Globally, energy supply is highly dependent on fossil fuels (crude oil, coal, natural gas). The
highly esteemed fossil fuels resources were formed from decayed plants and animals buried
inside the earth crust.

In these recent times there is rapid depletion rate of fossil fuels and a double up of prices.
About 140 million of biomass is generated annually (Tembe et al., 2014), a huge amount of
energy is derived. Renewable energy sources are being sought after because prices of the non-
renewable energy such as kerosene and LPG are relatively expensive. There is a growing
interest in renewable energy source which will serve as an alternative to fossil fuel sources in
some few years to come.

Figure 2.1: The total energy consumed from 1965-2005

From figure 2.1, it is a clear indication that fossil fuels are overused in the system and it will
get exhausted in some years to come.
Biomass refers to all organic matter derived from living or recently living organisms, plant and
animal-based (Shreya and Sevita, 2015).

5
 Burning raw biomass usually has a high content of volatile matter and ash and lower density
and energy values (source:www.cleancookstoves.org).
Processing the biomass into compact, evenly sized pieces such as briquettes or pellets allows
the biomass to burn more efficiently and evenly, increasing their energy density and
transportability.
In many parts of the world, one basic source of energy for important activities such as cooking
and space heating is burning wood and other agricultural products.

With population on the increase every day, resource of combustible biomass materials is
gradually diminishing and will eventually result in shortage of these materials unless certain
measures are taken to reserve them. One method of making more efficient and effective use of
existing resources is through the use of briquetting. It has been proposed that the conversion of
dried coconut husk through the process of briquetting will go a long way to solve problems of
deforestation and also problems associated with pollution.
Each year, millions of tons of agricultural wastes are generated which are either destroyed or
burnt inefficiently in loose form causing air pollution which in turn causes lung and respiratory
diseases killing people each year (Sriram et al., 2014). These wastes can be recycled and can
provide a renewable source of energy (Maninder et al., 2012).
In Ghana for instance a large number of agricultural waste especially coconut waste is produced
each day and briquetting of these wastes could mitigate these pollution problems.

Plate 2.1-Plate 2.3 indicate pollution problems with regards to coconut waste.

Plate 2.1: Burning of Coconut Plate 2.2: Improper disposable of Plate 2.3: Pollution of Water Bodies
Waste Causes Eye and Respiratory Coconut Waste leading to
Diseases Environmental Pollution
Plate 2.2: Improper disposable of
Coconut Waste leading to
Plate 2.3: Pollution of Water
Environmental PollutionPlate 2.3:
BodiesPlate 2.1: Burning of
Pollution of Water Bodies
Coconut Waste Causes Eye and 6 of the various
Table 2.4: Energy Values
Respiratory Diseases parts of CoconutPlate 2.2: Improper
disposable of Coconut Waste leading to
Environmental Pollution Plate 2.2: Improper disposable of
Coconut Waste leading to
Many countries are resulting to the development of a clean, pollution free sustainable energy
resources. Among the various potential sources of renewable energy, briquettes are of most
interest and it is expected to play a key role in the global energy infrastructure in the future
(Sriram et al., 2014).
Briquetting Technology is one of the promising solution to the problem at hand.

2.2 Coconut Production in Ghana

Agriculture in Ghana is done on a smaller holder basis (MOFA, 2011). Ninety percent of farms
in Ghana are less than 2 hectares in size although there are some large farms and plantations
particularly rubber, oil palm and coconut (MOFA, 2010).

2.3 Energy Potential of the Components of Coconut

The coconut is very special in that, the components of the nut have equally large energy
sources. The amount of energy associated with the coconut husk is so large as to merit the large
expense and serious effort is needed by studies to fully exploit these energy sources (Banzon,
1980).
Table 2.4 shows the energy content of the various part of coconut as analysed by Julian A.
Banzon

Table 2.4: Energy Values of the various parts of Coconut

Energy Percent of Total
Component Kg
Table 2.4: Energy Values of the various parts of Coconut Kcal Energy
Coconut oil 0.12 1080 27.7
Shell 0.18 990 25.4
Table 2.4: Energy Values of the various parts of Coconut
Husk 0.4 1600 41.1

Table 2.4: Energy Values of the various parts of Coconut

Observations from Table 2.4 show that energy content in the coconut husk is higher as
compared
Table 2.4: to the shell
Energy andofthe
Values theoil and this
various partsisofgood for briquetting.
Coconut

Table 2.4: Energy Values of the various parts of Coconut

Table 2.4: Energy Values of the various parts of Coconut

Table 2.4: Energy Values of the various parts of Coconut

7

PLATE 3.1: DRIED COCONUT HUSK READY TO UNDERGO

CHARRING
2.4 Waste Management of Coconut Husk

Solid waste management is the supervised handling of waste material from generation at the
source through the recovery processes to disposal (source: Glossary of Environmental Statistics
in Methods, 1997). Management of solid waste eliminates adverse impacts on the
environmental and human health and supports economic development and it also improves the
quality of life. Coconut husk which is considered as waste in Ghana is extremely difficult to
manage. They are littered everywhere causing pollution to the environment. According to
Ogawa (2005), challenges facing Ghana with respect to coconut husk management are; low
collection coverages, inadequate waste infrastructure and irregular collection services. Proper
waste collection and proper disposal of refuse are big issues facing Ghanaians (Puopiel, 2010).
Coconut husk is very loose and friable a material that much attention has not been paid to it in
terms of the conversion of coconut husk into briquette.

2.4.1 Uses of Coconut Husk

The coconut husk has become a very useful substance in today’s environmental and economic
concerns. Coconut husk could be effectively managed and utilised by supplying it to the local
manufacturers for the manufacturing of carpets, egg crates, crop manure and compost, yarn
and ropes and this can be achieved through the process of recycling (Amoah, 2016).

2.5 Briquetting

Briquetting is the process of compaction of residues into a product of higher density, it is also
known as densification (Kaliyan and Morey,2008). If produced at a low cost and made
conveniently accessible to consumers, briquettes could serve as compliments to firewood and
charcoal for domestic cooking and agro-industrial operations, thereby reducing the high
demand for both (Wilaipon, 2008). The briquetting of biomass improves its handling
characteristics, increases the volumetric calorific value, reduces transportation costs and makes
it available for a variety of application.

2.5.1 Briquetting Technology

Biomass densification represents a set of technologies for the conversion of biomass residues
into a convenient fuel. The technology is also known as briquetting or agglomeration
(Maninder et al., 2012). Depending on the types of equipment used, it could be categorized
into five main types:

- Piston press densification

8
 - Screw press densification
- Roll press densification
- Pelletizing
- Low pressure or manual presses
On the basis of compaction, briquetting technologies can be divided into;

High pressure compaction, medium pressure compaction with a heating device and low
pressure compaction with a binder (Grover and Mishra, 1996).

2.5.1.1 High and Medium Pressure Compaction

High and medium pressure compaction normally do not use any additional binder. If fine
materials which deform under high pressure are pressed, no binders are required. The strength
of such compacts is caused by van der Waals’ forces, valence forces, or interlocking. Natural
components of the material may be activated by the prevailing high pressure forces to become
binders (Grover and Mishra, 1996).

In high pressure compaction, biomass residues are compressed under high temperature and
pressure (Chaney, 2010). These residues contain lignin that is a non-crystallized aromatic
polymer with no fixed melting point, but at 200–300°C, lignin starts to become soft, melted
and liquefied.

2.5.1.2 Low Pressure Compaction

Low pressure briquetting needs a binding agent to assist the formation of bonds between the
biomass particles.

Binding agents can be divided into two main groups: organic and inorganic binders.

Organic binders
1. Molasses
2. Coal tar
3. Bitumen
4. Starch
5. Resin
Inorganic binders
1. Clay
2. Cement
3. Lime
4. Sulphite liquor
5. Waste paper
Binding Agents can also be subdivided into combustible and non-combustible binders.

9
 Combustible binders
1. Natural or synthetic resins
2. Tar
3. Animal manure
4. Sewage Mud
5. Fish waste
6. Algae
7. Starch

Non Combustible binders

1. Slime
2. Clay
3. Mud
4. Cement

Although the non-combustible binder lowers the heating value of the briquette and increases
the ash content, it does not make possible the use of the materials which otherwise would be
valueless as fuel.

2.5.2 Ram/Piston and Screw Press Technologies

Currently, there are two high pressure technologies; ram/piston press and screw press which
are both used for briquetting. Briquettes produced by a piston press are completely solid whiles
screw press briquettes have a concentric hole which gives it better combustion characteristics
due to a larger specific area. In screw press and piston press technology, binding material is not
needed and high pressure is applied which increases the temperature of biomass. The
compaction ratio of screw presses ranges from 2.5:1 to 6:1 or even more. In this process, the
biomass is extruded continuously by one or more screws through a taper die which is heated
externally to reduce the friction (Maninder et al.,2012). In the screw press technology due to
the application of high pressures, the temperature rises fluidizing the lignin present in the
biomass which acts as a binder. The outer surface of the briquettes obtained through this process
is carbonized and has a hole in the centre which promotes better combustion and the standard
size of the briquette is 60 mm in diameter (Maninder et al., 2012). The screw press briquettes
do not break easily and they have a high rate of combustion (Grover and Mishra 1996).

10
Table 2.5 shows a comparison between a screw extruder and a piston press.

Table 2.5 Comparison of a screw extruder and a piston press

Piston Press Screw Extruder
Optimum moisture content of 10-15% 8-9%
raw material
Wear of contact parts Low in case of ram and die High in case of screw
Output from the machine In strokes Continuous
Power consumption 50 kWh/ton 60 kWh/ton
Density of briquette 1-1.2 gm/cm³ 1-1.4 gm/cm³
Maintenance High Low
Combustion performance of Not so good Very good
briquettes
Carbonisation to charcoal Not possible Makes good charcoal
Suitability in gasifiers Not suitable Suitable
Homogeneity of briquettes Non-homogenous Homogenous
(Eriksson, 1990)

Briquetting is yet to gain grounds in many developing countries like Ghana because of the
technical constraints involved and also the lack of knowledge necessary in adapting the
briquetting technology. According to Grover and Mishra, overcoming the many operational
problems associated with the briquetting technology and ensuring the quality of the raw
material used are important factors in determining its economic success.

2.5.3 Other Briquetting Technologies

Roller Press
In the roller press technology, the feedstock falls in between two rollers, rotating in opposite
directions and is compacted into pillow-shaped briquettes. Briquetting biomass usually
requires a binder. This type of machine is used for briquetting carbonized biomass to
produce charcoal briquettes (Maninder et al., 2012).

Pelletizing
This is closely related to briquetting except that it uses smaller dies (approximately 30 mm)
so that the smaller products are called pellets. The pelletizer has a number of dies arranged

11
 as holes bored on a thick steel disk or ring and the material is forced into the dies by means
of two or three rollers. The two main types of pellet presses are: flat/disk and ring types.
Other types of pelletizing machines include the Punch press and the Cog-Wheel pelletizer.
Pelletizers produce cylindrical briquettes between 5 mm and 30 mm in diameter and of
variable length. They have good mechanical strength and combustion characteristics.
Pellets are suitable as a fuel for industrial applications where automatic feeding is required
(Maninder et al., 2012).

Manual Presses and Low Pressure Briquetting

There are different types of manual presses used for briquetting biomass feed stocks. They
are specifically designed for the purpose or adapted from existing implements used for
other purposes. Manual clay brick making presses are a good example. They are used both
for raw biomass feedstock or charcoal. The main advantages of low-pressure briquetting
are low capital costs, low operating costs and low levels of skill required to operate the
technology. Low-pressure techniques are particularly suitable for briquetting green plant
waste such as coir or bagasse (sugar-cane residue). The wet material is shaped under low
pressure in simple block presses or extrusion presses. The resulting briquette has a higher
density than the original material but still requires drying before it can be used. The dried
briquette has little mechanical strength and crumbles easily and the use of a binder is
imperative.

2.5.4 Types of Briquettes

Briquettes can be charred, acting as a substitute for charcoal, or non-carbonized, often replacing
firewood and raw biomass fuel. Carbonized fuel briquettes are made from waste materials that
have undergone carbonization (the conversion of organic substances into carbon in the absence
of oxygen) (Source: www.cleancookstoves.org). Non-carbonized briquettes are produced from
waste materials that are partially decomposed and then dried and can be made manually by
hand, with presses, or with a mechanized mould or extruder, and by mixing the feedstock with
water and a binder and drying them (Source: www.cleancookstoves.org).

12
2.5.4.1 Charred and Uncharred Processes
Charred process

In this process, the feedstock is first partially burned in an environment where fresh air is
controlled. The process is known as charring or carbonisation. Once carbonised, a binding
material is added and then the materials are then compacted using a briquette press. The
advantage with carbonised briquettes is that they are virtually smokeless and this is a key
consideration for household users (Grover and Mishra, 1996).

Uncharred process
This is the process of making briquettes without first carbonising them. The biomass materials
are simply prepared and compacted to produce briquettes.
This is simpler (and cheaper) process for a micro and small scale enterprises than carbonising
but only suited to applications where smoke is not an issue. For industrial applications however,
it requires sophisticated machines to achieve the level of compactness (Grover and Mishra,
1996).

2.5.5 Characteristics of a Good Briquette

Generally, a good briquette should have the following characteristics;

Hardness and Toughness

The briquette should be sufficiently hard, but not too hard to cause it to be less coherent
when subjected to rough handling.
Weathering
The briquette should stand long exposure to the weather with little deterioration.
A dense briquette will stand the weather better than a porous one.
In the process of briquette manufacturing, they are liable to crack if they lack the proper
proportion of binder, or if the mixture has been improperly mixed.
Burning Qualities
The ease with which a briquette will ignite depends largely on the slack used, but can
be regulated to some extent. Large briquettes ignite less readily than small ones.

2.5.6 Applications of Briquettes

Briquettes have many numerous uses which include both domestic and small industrial
applications (Ahmed et al., 2008). They are often used as an intervention to replace firewood,

13
charcoal, or other solid fuels. This is due to the current fuel shortage and its ever rising prices,
consumers are therefore looking for affordable alternative fuels and briquettes fill this gap.

Briquettes can be applied in;

Cooking and water heating in households

Heating productive processes, fruits drying, poultry rearing etc.
Firing ceramics and clay wares such as improved cook stoves, pottery, bricks etc.
Fuel for gasifiers to generate electricity
Powering boilers to generate steam.

2.5.7 Advantages of Briquettes

Briquettes are easy, light in weight and cheap in transportation as compared to firewood.
The use of briquette does not contribute to deforestation and land degradation like
firewood. Various research on briquettes indicate that briquettes used in an advanced
stove decrease emission.
In terms of affordability, raw materials for briquetting are abundant in many developing
countries like Ghana, and productive use of them could save on the cost of waste
disposal.
Briquettes are clean and smokeless other than firewood which emits smoke to cause
eye and respiratory diseases.
Helps improve the management of waste thereby creating employment.

2.5.7.1 Advantages of Using Briquettes Compared to other Solid Fuels

Briquettes are cheaper than coal.
There is no sulphur in briquettes, thus does not pollute the environment.
Biomass briquettes have a higher practical thermal value.
Briquettes have much lower ash content (2 % to 10 % as compared to 20% to 40% in
coal).
Combustion is more uniform compared to coal
Briquettes give much higher boiler efficiency because of low moisture and higher
density.
There is no fly ash when burning briquettes.
(Manoj et al., 2015)

14
2.5.8 Conventional Fuels that Briquettes Can Replace
Diesel
Kerosene
Furnace oil
Lignite
Coal
Firewood
(Manoj et al., 2015)

2.5.9 Limitations of the Briquetting Process

As many advantages the briquetting process appears to have, it has the following drawbacks.

Briquettes can only be used as solid fuels, it cannot be used as liquid fuel such as the
one used in internal combustion engine (Grover and Mishra ,1996).
Another setback identified with the briquetting process is with the lifespan of the screw.
Usually the screw wears out within work 3-4hrs and it becomes unusable. Repairing of
the screw takes time, it delays work and the screws cannot be repaired more than 10
times (Mishra, 1996).
High investment cost and energy consumption input to the process
Sometimes undesirable combustion characteristics are often observed e.g., poor
ignitability, smoking, etc.
Tendency of briquettes to loosen when exposed to water or even high humidity weather

2.6 Factors Affecting Densification/ Briquetting

The factors that greatly influence the densification process and determine briquette quality are:

Temperature and Pressure

- Thorough observations indicated that compression strength of densified biomass
depended on the temperature at which densification was carried out.
- Maximum strength was achieved at a temperature around 220°C.
- It was also found that at a given applied pressure, higher density of the product was
obtained at higher temperature.
Moisture Content
- Moisture content has an important role to play as it facilitates heat transfer.
- Too high moisture causes steam formation and could result into an explosion.
- Suitable moisture content could be of 8 % to 12 % (Maninder et al., 2012).

15
 Drying
- Depends on factors like initial moisture content, particle size, types of densifier,
throughout the process.
Particle Size and Size reduction
- The finer the particle size, the easier is the compaction process.
- Fine particles give a larger surface area for bonding.
- It should be less than 25 % of the densified product.
- Could be done by means of a hammer mill.
- Wood or straw may require chopping before hammer mill

2.6.1 Quality of Biomass Residues for Briquetting

Factors to be considered before an agricultural residue goes through briquetting process, it
should have the following characteristics;

Low moisture content. The moisture content should be as low as possible, ranging from
10-15 % (Grover and Mishra, 1996). High moisture content poses grinding problems.
Low ash content. The ash content should be low so as to reduce the slagging behaviour
of the biomass.
A higher density is required to give the briquette a higher calorific value and makes the
briquette burn more slowly as compared to the raw materials from which the briquettes
are made (Kaliyan and Morey, 2009).

2.6.2 Physical and Combustion Properties of Briquettes

The physical properties include;

Density
Shatter Index: This is also known as friability. This factor is a measurement of the
briquette’s ability to resist mechanical action that will affect them when handled and
transported. The shatter index also has to with the durability of the briquettes. This
involves dropping the briquette samples repeatedly from a specific height onto a solid
base.
Water Resistance
Moisture content
Average length
Average diameter
Colour

16
The combustion properties include;

Volatile Matter: This refers to the part of the biomass that is released when the biomass
is heated up to 400-500oC.
Ash Content: The ash content is an organic component/matter left out after complete
combustion of the biomass. Generally, it contains mainly Calcium, Potassium,
Magnesium and Phosphorus elements that affect ash fusion.
Water Boiling Test
Energy Content: This expresses the amount of potential energy contained
in the briquette.
Calorific value: This is the amount of energy per kg it gives off when burned.
Heat capacity: The amount of heat needed to raise the system’s temperature by
one degree.
Fixed Carbon: This is the solid combustible residue that remains after a coal particle is
heated and the volatile matter is expelled.
Gas Emission Analysis
Particulate Matter: A widespread air pollutant, consisting of a mixture of solid
and liquid particles suspended in the air (WHO,2013).
Carbon Monoxide: A colourless, odourless gas that is formed when the carbon
fuels do not completely burn.

2.6.3 Binding Material for Briquetting

Briquetting can be done with or without a binder. Doing without the binder is more convenient
but it requires sophisticated and costly presses and drying equipment which makes such
processes unsuitable in a developing country like Ghana (Janczak,1980). Observations made
by Wamukonya and Jenkins (1995), indicate that for the briquetting industry to be successful
in the less industrialized countries, the equipment should consist of locally designed simple,
low-cost machines. Some binders include; ash, cow dung, starch etc. The cost of the binding
material can be critical to the economic success of the project, so the smallest amount of binder
necessary for an acceptable briquette should be used.

2.6.4 Qualities desired in Binders

A good binder necessary to make a good briquette include;

It should be sufficiently cheap to make the production of briquette profitable.

17
 It must bind strongly, producing a hard but not too brittle briquette.
It should be able to hold the briquette together satisfactorily in the fire.
It should not cause smoke or emit corrosive gases

2.6.5 Analysis made by Emerhi E.A on the Proximate Composition of Briquettes

According to Different Binders
Table 2.6 indicates the combustion properties of different binders.
Binders % Volatile Matter % Ash Content Heating Values

Ash 60.39 ± 1.41 28.13 ± 0.37 24,160.67 ± 136.63

Cow dung 75.67 ± 2.83 14.89 ± 0.05 28,578.33 ± 53.77

Starch 89.47 ± 0.22 16.94 ± 2.55 33,078.67 ± 133.52

It can be deduced from the table above that cassava starch is a good organic binder and it has
a high efficiency in briquette production. Also cassava starch has the best physical and
combustion properties with other binders.

2.6.6 Advantages of Starch as a Binding Material over other Binding Materials

Starch possesses the advantages of;

It does not add a smoke producing material to the briquette

It is non-volatile
It is widely available
It holds the briquette together
2.6.7 Step By Step Production of Charred and Uncharred Briquettes
The briquetting process usually starts with the collection of the residues followed by size
reduction, drying and compaction by extruder or press. Briquetting can be carried out with or
without a binder. The one without a binder is more convenient, but it requires sophisticated and
costly presses and drying equipment (Tabil, 1997).

Listed in sections 2.6.7.1-2.6.7.6 are procedural steps for uncharred briquette production.

2.6.7.1 Sorting
This is also referred to as sieving. Usually, all unwanted materials or large biomass wastes are
removed.All the unwanted pieces within the feedstock can be sieved out with a wire mesh.

18
2.6.7.2 Size Reduction
The raw material is first reduced in size by chopping, crushing,breaking, rolling, hammering,
milling, grinding, cutting, etc.,until it can pass through a screen or reaches a suitably small and
uniform size. Under this process, the size of the biomass material is reduced so as to enhance
their workability and compactness.

2.6.7.3 Mixing
This is normally required in situations where different range of biomass feed stocks is to be
used primarily to optimize the burning characteristics of the final fuel. This process is done in
situations where ones wants to use a range of different feedstock to optimise the burning
characteristics of the final fuel. For example, biomass materials with high ash content could be
mixed with biomass material of low ash content. Biomass with low energy content such as
papers can be appropriately mixed with those of high energy content. This helps to attain the
right quality (long burning period, non-smoking and odour free) that will make briquettes
competitive in the market.

2.6.7.4 Application of a Binder

A binder is used for strengthening the briquettes. The application of binder depends on the
technique of briquetting employed. In addition to biomass mixing, an appropriate binder is
added and mixed with the biomass thoroughly, especially if a low pressure technique is to be
employed. This enhances the compactness of the biomass materials and prevents them from
disintegrating apart. According to Tabil (1997), typical examples of such binders include film
binders (tar, petroleum asphalt and portland cement), matrix binders (coal, and sodium silicate)
and chemical binders (pitch water, sodium silicate and lingosulfonates).

2.6.7.5 Addition of Water

Water is usually added to the feedstock to make them loose and easy to work on. Some biomass
materials require to be soaked in water for a number of days to ensure that they are soft enough
to work on (Musa, 2007).

2.6.7.6 Compaction and Drying

Finally, the feedstock is ready for compaction, either by machine or by hand. This will be
followed by ejection from the mould after some dwell time has been observed (Oladeji, 2011
Ph.D).

19
2.6.8 Production of Carbonized Briquettes
2.6.8.1 Carbonisation Process
The collected biomass is packed into a kiln.
After loading the biomass into the kiln, the top of the kiln is closed with a metal attached
to a conical chimney.
A small amount of biomass is used in the firing portion to ignite in the kiln and the
doors are shut tightly for the pyrolysis process to start.
Without air,burning is very slow so the kiln has perforations underneath so that the fire
can slowly spread to the biomass.
After the biomass is fully carbonised,the lid is removed and water is sprinkled oer the
char.
A binding material is then added to the resultant char and it undergoes briquetting.

20
 CHAPTER THREE

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Materials/Equipment Used

Moisture meter
Bomb Calorimeter
Infrared thermometer
Oven
Furnace
Hand mould
Hammer mill
Electronic Weighing Balance
Tyler Sieves
Vernier Calliper
Charring Unit

The analysis of samples was undertaken at the Cookstove Testing and Expertise Laboratory
(C-LAB, KNUST), the Food Science Technology Laboratory, KNUST and the Food
Processing Lab (F-Lab, KNUST).

3.2 Collection of Dried Coconut Husk

Dried waste coconut husks were collected from Ayigya market in Kumasi, where heap of
coconut husks were thrown away.

3.3 Determination of the Moisture Content

The moisture content of the dried coconut husk was measured using Delmhorst Moisture meter
(J-2000) and the values obtained indicated they would be good for converting into briquettes.

3.4 Charring of the Dried Coconut Husk

The charring experiment was carried out at the Food Processing Lab (F-Lab) of Technology
Consultancy Centre (T.C.C), KNUST. The charring kiln is a cylindrical metallic drum with the
top cut out to place the chimney. The drum has holes punched beneath to allow for a limited
amount of oxygen. Brick stones were mounted to act as a support for the charring kiln and also
to allow limited amount of oxygen to get into the kiln.

21
 Five kilograms of the dried coconut husk was weighed with the aid of an electronic balance.
The dried coconut husk was put into the drum, a match was lighted and charring began. The
lid was fitted unto the kiln to stop more oxygen from entering the kiln and also to serve as a
passage way for the smoke to escape.

PLATE 3.1: DRIED COCONUT PLATE 3.2: SET UP FOR PLATE 3.3: THE INITIAL
HUSK READY TO UNDERGO CHARRING PROCESS CHARRING PROCESS
CHARRING

PLATE 3.1: DRIED COCONUT PLATE 3.2: SET UP FOR

PLATE 3.4: THICK FUMES AS HUSK READY TO UNDERGO CHARRING PROCESSPLATE 3.3:
CHARRING WAS ON CHARRINGPLATE 3.2: SET UP THE INITIAL CHARRING
GOINGPLATE 3.1: DRIED FOR CHARRING PROCESS PROCESS
COCONUT HUSK READY TO
UNDERGO CHARRING

PLATE 3.1: DRIED COCONUT PLATE 3.2: SET UP FOR

HUSK READY TO UNDERGO CHARRING PROCESS
PLATE 3.4: THICK FUMES AS CHARRING
CHARRING WAS ON GOING

PLATE 3.1: DRIED COCONUT

PLATE 3.4: THICK FUMES AS HUSK READY TO UNDERGO
PLATE 3.5: BURNING RATE CHARRING WAS ON CHARRINGPLATE 3.2: SET UP
PLATE 3.4: THICK
OF THE FUMES AS
HUSK BEING PLATE 3.5: BURNING RATE PLATE 3.6 A SAMPLE OF THE
CHARRING WAS ON GOINGPLATE 3.1: DRIED FOR CHARRING PROCESSPLATE
OBSERVEDPLATE 3.4:GOING
THICK OF THE HUSK BEING
COCONUT HUSK READY TO
CHARRED COCONUT
3.3: THE INITIAL HUSK
CHARRING
FUMES AS CHARRING WAS OBSERVED
UNDERGO CHARRINGPLATE PROCESS
ON GOINGPLATE
After 5 minutes3.1:ofDRIED
burning, an3.2:
infrared
SET UP thermometer
FOR CHARRING was used to check the degree of hotness
PLATE 3.5:HUSK
COCONUT BURNING
READY RATETO PLATE 3.7: CRUSHING OF
PROCESS
andTHE
OF a temperature
UNDERGO HUSK BEING
CHARRING of 132.5 0CPLATE
was recorded. Charring
3.6 A SAMPLE was done in batches
OF THE to ensure
THE CHARRED accurate
HUSKPLATE
OBSERVEDPLATE 3.4: THICK PLATE 3.2: SET UP FOR
results.
FUMES From the beginning
AS CHARRING WAS of theCHARRED COCONUT
charring process about3.6 A SAMPLE OF THE
to its end took CHARRING
45 minutes for every 3.3:
PROCESSPLATE
HUSKPLATE 3.5: BURNING CHARRED COCONUT HUSK
ON GOING PLATE 3.1: DRIED COCONUT THE INITIAL CHARRING
batch.
PLATE The chimney
3.4: THICK FUMESwas AS half opened
RATE OF in between
THE HUSK
HUSK READY TO UNDERGO
time to check the burning ratePROCESS
BEING of the coconut
CHARRING WAS ON OBSERVED
husk. The brick CHARRINGPLATE
stones were carefully removed for 3.2:the
SET UP
charring drum to sit on the bare floor to
GOINGPLATE 3.1: DRIED FOR CHARRING PROCESS PLATE 3.7: CRUSHING OF
PLATE
COCONUT 3.5:HUSK
disallow BURNING
READY
oxygen RATE
from TOfurther entering the drum for about 10 minutes.THE TheCHARRED
temperature was
HUSK
OF THE HUSK
UNDERGO BEING
CHARRING PLATE 3.2: SET UP FOR
PLATE 3.6 A SAMPLE OF THE
checked using the infrared thermometer CHARRING PROCESS
OBSERVED CHARREDand it was observed
COCONUT HUSK that the temperature was gradually
PLATE 3.1: DRIED COCONUT
decreasing. The temperature decreased
HUSK READY to about 52 0C. The burnt coconut
TO UNDERGO PLATE husk was carefully
3.9: SAMPLE OF THE
PLATE 3.4: THICK FUMES AS CHARRING GROUND CHARRED
PLATE 3.6 A SAMPLE
CHARRING OF THE
WAS ON GOING PLATE 3.1: DRIED COCONUT
PLATE 3.7: CRUSHING OF COCONUT HUSKPLATE 3.7:
CHARRED COCONUT HUSK READY TO UNDERGO
THE CHARRED HUSKPLATE CRUSHING OF THE CHARRED
HUSKPLATE 3.5: BURNING CHARRINGPLATE 3.2: SET UP
3.6 A SAMPLE 22OF THE HUSKPLATE 3.6 A SAMPLE OF
RATE OF THE HUSK BEING PLATE 3.4: THICK FUMES AS FOR CHARRING PROCESS
PLATE 3.5: BURNING RATE CHARRED COCONUT THE CHARRED COCONUT
OBSERVEDPLATE 3.4: THICK CHARRING WAS ON
OF THE HUSK BEING HUSKPLATE 3.5: BURNING HUSK
FUMES AS CHARRING WAS GOINGPLATE 3.1: DRIED
OBSERVEDPLATE 3.4: THICK RATE OF THE HUSK BEING
ON GOING COCONUT HUSK READY TO PLATE 3.1: DRIED COCONUT
FUMES AS CHARRING WAS OBSERVED
 poured out of the drum into a collector and water was sprinkled on it for it to cool and then it
was collected, labelled and stored.

3.5 Size Reduction of the Charred Coconut Husk

The charred coconut husk was reduced in size by crushing with the aid of a thick wood after
which it was sieved with the aid of Tyler sieves. The sieved charred husk was divided into two
particle sizes that is, particle size greater than 2 mm and particle size less than 2 mm.

PLATE 3.7: CRUSHING OF PLATE 3.8: SIEVING OF THE PLATE 3.9: SAMPLE OF THE
THE CHARRED HUSK CRUSHED COCONUT HUSK GROUND CHARRED
COCONUT HUSK
3.6 Size Reduction of the uncharred Dried Coconut Husk
PLATE 3.9: SAMPLE OF THE PLATE 3.10: FRONT VIEW OF
The dried coconut
GROUND CHARREDhusk was chopped into smaller
HAMMER pieces and3.8:
MILLPLATE crashed using a hammer
PLATE mill. The
3.8: SIEVING OF THE
COCONUT HUSKPLATE 3.7: SIEVING OF THE CRUSHED CRUSHED COCONUT
ground OF
CRUSHING coconut husk was then sieved toCOCONUT
THE CHARRED get rid of the chaff. The particle size of the powdered
HUSK HUSKPLATE 3.9: SAMPLE OF
HUSK
coconut husk was determined using sieves. The ground coconut husk wasTHE sieved to a uniform
GROUND CHARRED
COCONUT HUSK
size of 1.2 mm, labelled and storedPLATE
for briquetting.
3.10: FRONT VIEW OF
PLATE 3.9: SAMPLE OF THE HAMMER MILL
GROUND CHARRED PLATE 3.8: SIEVING OF THE
COCONUT HUSK CRUSHED COCONUT HUSK

PLATE 3.11: FEEDING OF

PLATE 3.8: SIEVING OF THE PLATE 3.10: FRONT VIEW OF
CHOPPED COCONUT HUSK
CRUSHED COCONUT HAMMER MILLPLATE 3.8:
INTO HAMMER MILLPLATE
HUSKPLATE 3.9: SAMPLE OF SIEVING OF THE CRUSHED
3.10: FRONT VIEW OF
THE GROUND CHARRED COCONUT HUSKPLATE 3.9:
HAMMER MILLPLATE 3.8:
COCONUT HUSKPLATE 3.7: SAMPLE OF THE GROUND
SIEVING OF THE CRUSHED
CRUSHING OF THE CHARRED CHARRED COCONUT HUSK
COCONUT HUSK
HUSK

PLATE 3.10: FRONT VIEW OF PLATE

PLATE 3.10:
3.11: FRONT VIEW
FEEDING OF OF PLATE 3.8: SIEVING OF THE
PLATE 3.9: SAMPLE
HAMMER MILL OF THE CHOPPED PLATE 3.12: ACOCONUT
CRUSHED SAMPLE OF
HAMMER
COCONUT MILLPLATE 3.8:
HUSK INTO THE UNCHARRED, GROUND
GROUND CHARRED HUSKPLATE 3.9: SAMPLE OF
SIEVING
HAMMER OFMILL
THE CRUSHED COCONUT HUSK
COCONUT HUSKPLATE 3.7: THE GROUND CHARRED
COCONUT HUSK
CRUSHING OF THE CHARRED COCONUT HUSK
HUSK
PLATE 3.11: FEEDING OF
PLATE 3.11: FEEDING OF PLATE 3.12: A SAMPLE OF
CHOPPED COCONUT
PLATE 3.10: 23 HUSK
FRONT INTOOF
VIEW
CHOPPED COCONUT HUSK THE UNCHARRED,
PLATE 3.8: SIEVINGGROUND
OF THE
HAMMER MILL
HAMMER MILL
INTO HAMMER
PLATE MILLPLATE
3.9: SAMPLE OF THE COCONUT
CRUSHED HUSKHUSK
COCONUT
3.10:GROUND
FRONT VIEW OF
CHARRED
HAMMER
COCONUT MILL
HUSK
PLATE 3.11: FEEDING OF
 3.7 Preparation of a Binding Material
Cassava starch was used as a binding material for the briquetting. The reason for using cassava
as a binding material is its relative availability and ease of preparation (Oyelaran et al., 2014)
Cassava starch possesses the advantage of not adding smoke producing material to the
briquette, it is non-volatile and it binds the briquette particles together. The cassava starch was
prepared by mixing 100 g of it with 800 ml of water and was boiled until it became sticky.
Three binding ratios, 5 %,10 % and 15 % by weight of sample were used to determine the
effect of binder on the physical and combustion characteristics of the briquettes produced.

3.8 Briquette Production

The experimental process of briquette production was done at the Cookstove and Testing
Lab(C-Lab). Fifty grams of ground and uniformly sieved sample of the dried coconut husk
(both charred and uncharred samples) were thoroughly mixed with cassava starch until a
uniform mixture was obtained. Water was added to the mixture for easy compaction of the
briquettes.
The proportions of sample: binder ratios were 50:2.5, 50:5.0 and 50:7.5. The sample-binder
mixture was then hand fed gradually into a hand mould and compacted at a pressure of 344.82
kNm-2 with the aid of a plunger. The plunger was then hammered to make the briquette compact
after which the briquette was removed from the mould. At each level of the binder, 7 replicates
were produced.
The diameter of the briquettes was taken at two different points with the aid of a digital calliper,
the thickness and the weight were also recorded.

Plate 3.13: Hammering Of The Plate 3.14: Samples Of Freshly

Plunger To Make The Briquette Plate 3.15: Weighing Of Uncharred
Produced Charred And Uncharred
Compact Briquette
Briquettes
24

Plate 3.15: Weighing Of Uncharred Plate 3.17: Determining The

Plate 3.13: Hammering Of The
BriquettePlate 3.13: Hammering Of Length Of Uncharred Briquette
Plunger To Make The Briquette
The Plunger To Make The Using A Digital Vernier
CompactPlate 3.14: Samples Of
 Plate 3.16: Drying Of The Plate 3.17: Determining The Plate 3.18: Pictorial View Of The
Briquettes In The Solar Drier Length Of Uncharred Briquette Hand Mould
Using A Digital Vernier Calliper

Plate 3.18: Pictorial View Of The Plate 3.19: Transferring Of

Hand MouldPlate 3.16: Drying Of Plate 3.16: Drying Of The Fragmented Briquettes Into The
3.9 Determination of Physical
The Briquettes In The Solar Drier
Properties
Briquettes In The Solar DrierPlate OvenPlate 3.18: Pictorial View Of
3.17: Determining The Length Of The Hand Mould
3.9.1 Density Uncharred Briquette Using A
Three briquettes (both charred andDigital
Plate 3.18: Pictorial View Of The
uncharred) each were selected randomly from each
Vernier Calliper

production batch for evaluation of physical properties. The mean compressed

Hand Mould Plate 3.19:density was Of
Transferring
Fragmented Briquettes Into The
determined immediately after removal fromDrying
Plate 3.16: the mould
Of The as a ratio of measuredOven weight to
Briquettes In The Solar Drier
calculated
Plate volume (Olorunnisola,
3.19: Transferring Of 2007). Relaxed density (density determined after drying) and
Fragmented Briquettes Into The
compaction
OvenPlate ratio (i.e.
3.18: Pictorial View ratio
Of of compressed density to relaxed density) of Plate the briquette were
3.20: Researcher
The Hand MouldPlate 3.16: Drying Plate 3.18: Pictorial View Of The Transferring Samples Into The
determined after keeping the briquettes in a solar 3.16:
Hand MouldPlate dryerDrying
withinOfa period of four days to a constant
Of The Briquettes In The Solar FurnacePlate 3.19: Transferring Of
weight at an ambient temperature.The
Drier TheBriquettes In The Solar
weights of the produced briquettes were Briquettes
Fragmented determinedInto The
DrierPlate 3.17: Determining The OvenPlate 3.18: Pictorial View Of
using an electronic weighing balance,Lengthwhile the average
Of Uncharred diameter, thickness and
Briquette The height of the
Hand Mould
Using A Digital Vernier Calliper
Platebriquettes were
3.18: Pictorial taken
View Of Theusing the digital calliper and the volume was recorded for density
Hand MouldPlate 3.16: Drying Of
determination.
The Briquettes In The Solar Drier Plate 3.19: Transferring Of
Plate 3.16: Drying Of The Fragmented Briquettes Into The
Density=weight of briquette/volume of briquette
Briquettes In The Solar DrierPlate OvenPlate 3.18: Pictorial View Of
3.17: Determining The Length Of
PlateBriquette stability
3.18: Pictorial was
View Of measured in terms of its dimensional changes whenThe
The Uncharred Briquette Using A
exposed to the
Hand Mould
Hand Mould
atmosphere (Sotannde et.al, 2010). InDigital
determining the dimensional stability, the length of three
Vernier Calliper

representative briquettes from each production batch (from both charred and Transferring
Plate 3.19: uncharred Of
Plate 3.19: Transferring Of at 0,30,60,1440 Fragmented Briquettes Into The
samples) were measured and Drying
Plate 3.16: 10,080Ofminutes’
The intervals. Oven
Fragmented Briquettes Into The Briquettes In The Solar Drier
OvenPlate 3.18: Pictorial View Of
3.9.2 Shatter Resistance Test
The Hand Mould
The durability of the briquettes was determined using the shatter index which
Plate involved
3.20: Researcher
Plate 3.18: Pictorial View Of The Transferring Samples Into The
dropping the briquette samples Hand
repeatedly from3.16:
MouldPlate a specific
Drying height
Of of FurnacePlate
1.5 m unto a3.19:
solid base.
Transferring Of
Plate 3.19: Transferring Of The Briquettes In The Solar Drier
Fragmented Briquettes Into The Fragmented Briquettes Into The
Oven Oven
25
Plate 3.18: Pictorial View Of The
Hand Mould Plate 3.20: Researcher
Plate 3.20: Researcher
Transferring Samples Into The
Transferring Samples Into The
The percentage weight loss of briquette was expressed as the percentage of the initial mass of
the material remaining on the solid base whiles the shatter resistance was obtained by
subtracting the percentage weight loss from 100 (Ghorpade, 2006 and Sengar et al., 2012).

Percentage weight loss= 𝑥100

Shatter resistance=100-percentage weight loss

3.9.3 Water Resistance

At each binder level for both charred and uncharred briquettes, one briquette was immersed in
a clear container of tap water at 27ºC for 120 sec. The percentage of water gain was calculated
using the formula by Davies et al., 2013:
Percentage of water gained by briquette= 𝑥100

Water Resistance Capacity=100-% water gained

where, w1= initial weight of briquette and w2= final weight of briquette

3.9.4 Percentage Moisture Content

The percentage moisture content was determined by drying the briquettes in a solar dryer and
taking their corresponding decrease in weight daily until constant weight was achieved.
The moisture content was calculated using the formula:
( ) ( )
%M.C= 𝑥100 (Tembe et al., 2014)
( )

3.10 Determination of Combustion Properties

The following combustion properties were used to determine the suitability of briquettes as
cooking fuels.

3.10.1 Percentage Volatile Matter

The percentage volatile matter was first determined by keeping 2 g of fragmented briquettes
(both charred and uncharred) in an oven for a period of two hours at a temperature of 110 oC
to obtain a constant weight, after the fragmented briquettes were cooled, it was then kept in a
crucible with an oven dry weight(w2) in a furnace for 10 mins at 550oC to obtain weight (w3)
(Emerhi, 2011).

( ) ( )
%V.M= 𝑥100%
( )

26
 Plate 3.19: Transferring Of Plate 3.20: Researcher Plate 3.21: Samples Of The
Fragmented Briquettes Into The Transferring Samples Into The Fragmented Briquettes After
Oven Furnace Removal From The Furnace

Plate 3.20: Researcher Plate 3.21: Samples Of The Plate 3.21: Samples Of The
3.10.2 Percentage
Transferring Samples Ash Content Fragmented Briquettes After
Into The Fragmented Briquettes After
FurnacePlate 3.19: Transferring Of Removal From The FurnacePlate
In determining the ash content, 2 g of oven dried fragmented briquettes wasFrom
Removal weighed in a
The Furnace
Fragmented Briquettes Into The 3.20: Researcher Transferring
crucible(w2).
OvenThis was placed in a Samples
furnaceInto
for The
3 hrs at 600 oC to obtain the ash weight (w4)
Furnace
(Tembe,2014). Plate 3.21: Samples Of The
Fragmented Briquettes After
Percentage ash
Plate 3.20: content was calculated
Researcher Plateusing
3.21: the formula;
Samples Of The Removal From The Furnace
Transferring Samples Into The Fragmented Briquettes After
( )
%Ash Content=
Furnace 𝑥100%
Removal From The Furnace
( )
Plate 3.21: Samples Of The
Fragmented Briquettes After
Plate 3.21: Samples Of The
3.10.3 Percentage Fixed Carbon Plate 3.21: Samples Of The
Fragmented Briquettes After
Removal From The Furnace
Fragmented Briquettes After
This was
Removal calculated
From by subtracting
The FurnacePlate the summation of %volatile matter and %ash content from
Removal From The FurnacePlate
3.20: Researcher Transferring
100. 3.20: Researcher Transferring Plate 3.21: Samples Of The
Samples Into The FurnacePlate Samples Into The Furnace Fragmented Briquettes After
Hence,
3.19: %F.C=100-
Transferring (%VM+%Ash Content)
Of Fragmented
Briquettes Into The Oven Removal From The Furnace

Plate 3.21: Samples Of The

3.10.4 Energy Content Determination
Fragmented Briquettes After
Plate 3.20: Researcher Plate 3.21: Samples Of The
Removal
The energy content (calorific value From
and heat The FurnacePlate
capacity) of both charred and uncharred
Fragmented briquettes
Briquettes After
Transferring Samples Into The 3.20: Researcher Transferring
FurnacePlate 3.19: Transferring Of Removal From The Furnace
was determined using the bomb calorimeter interfaced
Samples Into with a
The Furnace computer at the Cook Stove and
Fragmented Briquettes Into The
Expertise Laboratory
Oven (C-Lab), KNUST.
Plate 3.21: Samples Of The
One gram (1g) of the pulverised briquette (both
Plate 3.21: charred
Samples and uncharred)
Of The was measured into a
Fragmented Briquettes After
Fragmented Briquettes After
crucible by using
Plate 3.20: a pair of tweezersRemoval
Researcher and it was
Fromweighed on an analytical
The Furnace balance.
Removal TheThe
From crucible
Furnace
Transferring Samples Into The
was then placed on the crucible support of the bomb. The firing wire was connected to the two
Furnace
electrode rods, touching the samplePlate
in the crucible.
3.21: Samples Of The
Plate 3.21: Samples Of The
Fragmented Briquettes After
Fragmented Briquettes After Removal From The Furnace
Plate 3.21: Samples Of The Removal From The Furnace
Fragmented Briquettes After
Removal From The FurnacePlate 27
3.20: Researcher Transferring Plate 3.20: Researcher
Samples Into The Furnace Plate 3.21: Samples Of The Transferring Samples Into The
Fragmented Briquettes After Furnace
Removal From The Furnace
 Ten millilitres of distilled water was poured into the oxygen bomb, the sample was placed into
it and the lid was closed tightly. The oxygen bomb was filled with oxygen at pressure range of
2.5-4.0MPa for about 10 seconds after which the pressure valve was released. The bomb was
then placed in a bowl of water to determine if there were some leakages. It was then transferred
into the bomb calorimeter, the necessary data on the briquette (weight and type of briquette)
was keyed in on the computer and the lid was closed to automatically engage the process. It
took about fifteen minutes to complete the combustion after which the bomb was removed. The
heat capacity and calorific values were displayed on the screen of the computer. The test was
repeated three times after which the average heat capacity and calorific values were computed.
By knowing the calorific value and the burning rate of the briquette (both charred and
uncharred), the heat released was calculated using the formula;
Heat Released= Calorific value x Burning Rate (Faizal et al., 2009).

Oxygen Tank

Oxygen Tank

Bomb
Calorimeter
Oxygen Tank
Computer

Plate 3.22: Weighing of Plate 3.23: Winding of The Bomb

Oxygen Tank
Plate 3.24: Calorimeter System at T.C.C, C-
Computer
Pulverised Briquettes Using Firing Wire On the Electrode Calorimeter
an Analytical Balance Lab
Rods
Oxygen Tank
3.10.5 Water Boiling Test Bomb Computer
Plate 3.23: Winding Of The Firing Wire On
Plate 3.24: Calorimeter Plate 3.25 Section of The Calorimeter
The Electrode RodsPlate 3.24: Calorimeter
The water
System boiling
At T.C.C, test was carried out
C-LabPlate to compare
Laboratory the efficiencies of the briquettes and charcoal
Emission
3.22: Weighing Of Pulverised OxygenSystem
Tank At T.C.C, C-Lab
Monitoring SystemPlate 3.23:
(sweet acacia variety).
Briquettes Using An The water boiling test measured the time taken for each set of briquette
Computer
Winding Of The Firing Wire
Bomb
andAnalytical Balance
the charcoal to boil an equal volume of water under
On The Electrode Rods similar conditions.
Plate Calorimeter
3.23:
Oxygen Winding Of The Firing Wire On
Tank
Briquettes (both charred and uncharred) and charcoal weighing 387.5 g were Theused to boil
Electrode 2500
Computer
Rods

gPlate 3.24: Calorimeter

of water using a stainless steel pot.
PlateThe
3.25initial
Sectiontemperature
of The of the water was measured using
System At T.C.C, C-Lab Laboratory Emission Bomb
Oxygen Tank
a thermocouple thermometer before the pot System
Monitoring was placed on thePlate
stove.
3.25The briquette
Section
Calorimeter of The was
Laboratory
Computer
Emission Monitoring SystemPlate 3.23:
sprinkled with a little amount of kerosene and it was then ignited. The smoke
Winding emitted
Of The Firing was
Wire On The
Plate 3.23: Winding Of The Oxygen Tank
measured with
Onthe aid of an air pollution Electrode RodsPlate 3.24: Calorimeter
Firing Wire The Plate 3.28:meter. Bomb
System At T.C.C,Computer
Ongoing Water
C-Lab
Electrode RodsPlate 3.24: Boiling TestPlate 3.25 Section Calorimeter
Calorimeter System At of The Laboratory Emission
T.C.C, C-LabPlate 3.22: 28
Monitoring SystemPlate 3.23: Oxygen Tank
Weighing Of Pulverised Computer
Plate 3.23: Winding Of The Firing Wire On
Winding Of The Firing Wire
Briquettes Using An On The Electrode Rods Bomb
The Electrode RodsPlate 3.24: Calorimeter
Analytical Balance Calorimeter
Oxygen System
Tank At T.C.C, C-Lab
At boiling temperature, the pot was removed from the stove and weighed. The fire was quickly
put out and the remaining fuel was weighed.
This procedure was followed when using charcoal to determine the water boiling test.
During this test, other fuel properties like the burning rate and specific fuel consumption were
also determined (Jean and R. Owsianowksi, 2009) and the level of smoke was also observed.
Burning rate is the ratio of the mass of the fuel burnt(g) to the total time taken (mins).
The specific fuel consumption indicates the ratio of the mass of fuel consumed (g) to the
quantity of boiling water (litres) (Onuegbu et al., 2011).
( )
Burning Rate= ( )
( )
Specific fuel consumption= ()

The water boiling test is an essential test required to determine the thermal efficiency of the
briquettes.
The thermal efficiency of the briquettes was determined using the formula;
∆
Ƞ (%)= x100%

Where,
Ƞ= Thermal efficiency, %
Mw= Initial mass of water taken, kg
Cp=Specific heat of water, kJ/kgK
∆T= Rise in temperature of water
F= quantity of fuel used, kg
C.V= calorific value, kJ/kg

The following parameters were determined;

For uncharred briquette;
Weight of pan+lid=815.5g
Weight of uncharred briquette(6pcs) =387.5g
Weight of water= 2.5 litres
Atmospheric Temperature= 32.00C
Relative Humidity= 56%
Ignition Time = 2:35pm
Final boiling Time=3:05pm

For charred briquette

Weight of pan+lid=815.5g
Weight of charred briquette(6pcs) =241.5g
Weight of water= 2.5 litres
Atmospheric Temperature= 30.60C
Relative Humidity= 57%

29
 Ignition Time = 11:05am
Final boiling time =11:40am

For charcoal
Weight of pan+lid=815.5g
Weight of charcoal = 387.5g
Weight of water= 2.5 litres
Atmospheric Temperature= 31.70C
Relative Humidity= 57%
Ignition Time = 1:00pm
Final boiling time =1:22pm

Plate 3.25 Section of Plate 3.26: Samples of Plate 3.27: Samples of Plate 3.28: Ongoing
The Laboratory Ignited Uncharred Ignited Charred Water Boiling Test
Emission Monitoring Briquettes Briquettes
System
Plate 3.27: Samples of
Plate 3.27: Samples of Plate 3.26: Samples of Ignited Charred
3.10.6 Gas Emission Analysis Ignited Charred Ignited Uncharred
Plate 3.28: Ongoing BriquettesPlate 3.28:
The study
Water Boilinganalysed
TestPlateemission from the combustion of BriquettesPlate
Briquettes the briquettes 3.27:
and charcoal. ItOngoing
was done
Water
3.25 Section of The Samples of Ignited Boiling Test
using the indoor
Laboratory Emissionair pollution meter. The main gas considered in the analysis was carbon
Charred Briquettes
Monitoring System
monoxide (CO) since it is one of the most harmful gases to the health of humans. This analysis
Plate 3.26: Samples of
Ignited Uncharred Plate 3.27: Samples of
was done basically to compare the quantity
BriquettesPlate 3.27:of carbon Plate
monoxide and particulate
3.26: Samples of matter emitted
Ignited Charred
Plate 3.28: Ongoing Samples of Ignited Ignited Uncharred Briquettes
by the briquettes and charcoal. When combustion of the briquettes started, the indoor air
Water Boiling Test Charred Briquettes BriquettesPlate 3.27:
pollution metre was hanged in the laboratory to monitor the emission
Samples of Ignited during the test. After
Charred Briquettes
combustion, the meter was turned off and time was recorded as “test ends”. A Plate
secure3.26: Samples of
digital
Plate 3.27: Samples of Plate 3.26: Samples of Ignited Uncharred
(SD) card was in the indoor air pollution metre which stored the data on the meter. Terreterm 3.27:
Ignited Charred Ignited Uncharred BriquettesPlate
BriquettesPlate 3.28: BriquettesPlate 3.27: Plate 3.26: Samples of Samples of Ignited
is a software program
Ongoing Water Boiling that was used
Samples of to connect
Ignited the metre directly
Ignited to the computer. The
Uncharred data
Charred
TestPlate 3.25 Charred Briquettes BriquettesPlate 3.27:
Section of using Microsoft Excel Software. This software analyses theBriquettesPlate
was then processed logged data, 3.28:
The Laboratory Samples of Ignited Ongoing Water
convertsMonitoring
Emission it into physical concentrations and provide output in graphical
Charred Briquettesand tabular form.
Boiling Test
System Plate 3.26: Samples of
Ignited Uncharred
BriquettesPlate 3.27: Plate 3.26: Samples of Plate 3.27: Samples of
Plate 3.28: Ongoing Samples of Ignited Ignited Uncharred Ignited Charred
Water Boiling TestPlate Charred Briquettes 30 BriquettesPlate 3.27: BriquettesPlate 3.28:
3.25 Section of The Samples of Ignited Ongoing Water
Laboratory Emission Charred Briquettes Boiling Test
Monitoring System Plate 3.26: Samples of
 CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Physical Characteristics of Charred and Uncharred Briquettes

Tables 4.1 to 4.3 show the results of physical characteristics of charred and uncharred
briquettes.

Table 4.1 Physical Characteristics of Uncharred Briquette

Binder Colour Mean Average Height Average

Level Compressed (mm) Diameter
(%) Weight (g) (mm)

5 103.07 49.34 51.64

10 Brown 104.43 51.11 51.68

15 107 52.06 51.51

The mean compressed weights of uncharred briquette ranged from 103.07 g to 107 g at 5 %,
10 % and 15 % binder levels. The average heights at 5 %, 10 % and 15 % binder levels
ranged from 49.34 mm to 52.06 mm and the average diameters at 5 %, 10 % and 15 % binder
levels ranged from 51.51 mm to 51.68 mm. Based on the values obtained it can be deduced
that the mean compresses weight and average height values increased with increase in binder
level.

Table 4.2 Physical Characteristics of Charred Briquette (P<2 mm)

Binder Colour Mean Average Height Average

Level Compressed (mm) Diameter
(%) Weight (g) (mm)

5 83.64 36.63 50.35

10 Black 86.64 37.03 50.29

15 88.43 37.96 50.09

31
The mean compressed weights of the charred briquette (P<2 mm) ranged from 83.64 g to 88.43
g at 5 %, 10 % and 15 % binder levels. The average heights at 5 %, 10 % and 15 % binder
levels ranged from 36.63 mm to 37.96 mm and the average diameters with 5 %, 10 % and 15
% binder levels ranged from 50.09 mm to 50.35 mm. Generally, the mean compressed weight
and average height values increased with increase in binder level but the average diameter
values decreased with increase in binder level.

Table 4.3 Physical Characteristics of Charred Briquette (P>2 mm)

Binder Colour Mean Average Height Average

Level Compressed (mm) Diameter
(%) Weight (g) (mm)

5 81.25 47.50 50.89

10 Black 82.13 46.50 50.49

15 85.63 46.75 51.22

The mean compressed weights of the charred briquette (P>2 mm) ranged from 81.25 g to
85.63 g at 5 %, 10 % and 15 % binder levels. The average heights with 5 %, 10 % and 15 %
binder levels ranged from 46.50 mm to 47.50 mm and the average diameters with 5 %, 10 %
and 15 % binder levels ranged from 50.49 mm to 51.22 mm. The mean compressed weight
values increased with increase in binder level.

4.2 Effects of Binder Level on Density of Briquettes

Table 4.4 Results of Densities of Uncharred Briquette

Binder Level Mean Compressed Mean Relaxed Compaction
(%) Density(kgm-3) Ratio
Density (kgm-3)

5 999.06 656.05 1.52

10 968.14 629.55 1.54

15 987.42 681.07 1.44

32
The mean compressed density of uncharred briquette ranged from 968.14 kgm-3 to 999.06
kgm-3 with 5 %, 10 % and 15 % binder levels. Also the mean relaxed density of the uncharred
briquette ranged from 629.55 kgm-3 to 681.07 kgm-3 which gave a compaction ratio ranging
from 1.44 to 1.54.

Table 4.5 Results of Densities of Charred Briquette (P<2mm)

Binder Level Mean Compressed Mean Relaxed Compaction
(%) Density(kgm-3) Ratio
Density (kgm-3)

5 1149.40 657.88 1.75

10 1153.07 696.84 1.65

15 1210.83 764.74 1.58

The mean compressed density of the charred briquette (P<2 mm) ranged from 1149.40 kgm-3
to 1210.83 kgm-3 with 5 %, 10 % and 15 % binder levels. The mean relaxed density of the
charred briquette with (P<2 mm) ranged from 657.88 kgm-3 to 764.74 kgm-3 which gave a
compaction ratio ranging from 1.58 to 1.75. The mean compressed and relaxed densities
increased with increase in binder level.

Table 4.6 Comparative Results of Densities of Charred Briquette (P>2 mm)

Binder Mean Compressed Mean Relaxed Compaction

Level (%) -3 Density(kgm-3) Ratio
Density (kgm )

5 842.40 557.56 1.51

10 884.90 583.05 1.52

15 901.20 620.64 1.45

The mean compressed density of charred briquette (P>2 mm) ranged from 842.40 kgm-3 to
901.20 kgm-3 which gave a compaction ratio ranging from 1.58 to 1.75. The mean compressed
and relaxed densities increased with increase in binder level.

33
Density is a very important parameter in that, the higher the density, the higher the volume
ratio. Hence high density products are desirable in terms of transportation, storage and handling
and also cost effective (Davies and Davies, 2013). It was observed from Tables 4.4 to 4.6 that
the charred briquette (P< 2 mm) recorded the highest compaction ratio of 1.75 (5 % binder
level). The least was recorded at 15 % binder level in all samples. The compaction ratio values
as recorded by Sotannde et al., (2014) for briquettes produced from charcoal and Arabic gum
were 1.11 and 1.32. These values are lower than the values obtained for the briquettes in this
study. Higher compaction ratio indicates more void in the compressed materials and it is an
indication of good and quality briquettes (Davies and Mohammed, 2013).

4.3 Equilibrium Moisture Content

Moisture Content
Table 4.7: Moisture Content (wet basis) of uncharred briquette at varying binder levels

Moisture Content (w.b) (%)

Binder Levels
TIME(Minutes) 5% 10 % 15 %
Initial Weight (g)= 103.15 Initial Weight (g)= 104.73 Initial Weight (g)= 107.19
0 103.15 104.73 107.19
60 93.33 94.83 101.00

Moisture Content at Moisture Content at Moisture Content at

60mins= 9.52 % 60mins=9.45 % 60mins=5.77 %
1440 72.46 74.37 75.28
Moisture Content at Moisture Content at Moisture Content at
1440mins= 22.36 % 1440mins= 21.58 % 1440mins= 25.47 %
2880 65.03 68.80 71.31
Moisture Content at Moisture Content at Moisture Content at
2880mins= 10.25 % 2880mins= 7.49 % 2880mins= 5.27 %
4320 50.98 52.04 53.04

Moisture Content at Moisture Content at Moisture Content at

4320mins= 21.61 % 4320mins= 24.36 % 4320mins= 25.62 %
5760 48.17 49.08 49.98
Moisture Content at Moisture Content at Moisture Content at
5760mins= 5.51 % 5760mins= 5.69 % 5760mins= 5.77 %
Average Moisture Average Moisture Content= Average Moisture
Content= 13.85 % 13.71 % Content= 13.58 %

34
Table 4.8: Moisture Content (wet basis) of charred briquette (P<2mm) at varying binder
levels

Moisture Content (%)

Binder Levels
TIME(Minutes) 5% 10 % 15 %
Initial Weight (g) = 83.75 Initial Weight (g)= 85.67 Initial Weight (g)= 88.41
0 83.75 85.67 88.41
60 78.50 80.00 83.67
Moisture Content at Moisture Content at 60 Moisture Content at 60
60mins= 6.27 % mins= 6.62 % mins= 5.36 %
1440 62.16 66.97 67.12
Moisture Content at 1440 Moisture Content at 1440 Moisture Content at
mins= 20.82 % mins= 16.29 % 1440 mins= 19.78 %
2880 43.13 46.38 47.29
Moisture Content at 2880 Moisture Content at 2880 Moisture Content at
mins= 30.61 % mins= 30.75 % 2880 mins= 29.54 %
4320 39.37 40.94 41.81
Moisture Content at Moisture Content at Moisture Content at
4320mins= 8.72 % 4320mins= 11.73 % 4320mins= 11.59 %
5760 38.50 38.36 39.04
Moisture Content at Moisture Content at Moisture Content at
5760mins= 2.21 % 5760mins= 6.30 % 5760mins= 6.63 %
Average Moisture Average Moisture Average Moisture
Content=13.73 % Content=14.34 % Content=14.58 %

Table 4.9: Moisture Content (wet basis) of charred briquette (P>2mm) at varying binder
levels

Moisture Content (%)

Binder Levels
TIME (Minutes) 5% 10 % 15%
Initial Weight (g)=81.25 Initial Weight (g)=82.13 Initial Weight (g)=85.63
0 81.25 82.13 85.63
60 75.13 77.25 81.88
Moisture Content at Moisture Content at Moisture Content at
60mins= 7.53% 60mins= 5.94% 60mins= 4.38%
1440 56.50 56.25 59.63
Moisture Content at Moisture Content at Moisture Content at
1440mins= 24.80% 1440mins= 27.18% 1440mins= 27.17%

35
 2880 47.53 49.37 51.95
Moisture Content at Moisture Content at Moisture Content at
2880mins= 15.88% 2880mins= 12.23% 2880mins= 12.88%
4320 40.01 42.34 43.85
Moisture Content at Moisture Content at Moisture Content at
4320mins= 15.82% 4320mins= 14.24% 4320mins= 15.59%
5760 39.37 40.07 40.21
Moisture Content at Moisture Content at Moisture Content at
5760mins= 1.60% 5760mins= 5.36% 5760mins= 8.30%
Average Moisture Average Moisture Average Moisture
Content=13.13% Content=12.98% Content=13.67%

As shown in Table 4.7, the equilibrium moisture content of the uncharred briquettes ranged
from 13.58 % to 13. 85 % (w.b) for 5 % to 15 % binder levels. For the charred briquettes
(P<2 mm), the values ranged from 13.73 % to 14.58 % (w.b). Also for the charred briquette
(P>2 mm), the values ranged from 12.98 % to 13.67 % (w.b). Observations made by Jack
Huang, (2014) indicated that when the moisture content is lower than 10 % or higher than 18
%, the briquettes are not consistent and they tend to fall into pieces.
Raju et al. (2014) recorded moisture content that ranged from 15.32 % to 16.82 % w.b for
paper rice husk and coconut coir briquettes and these values tend to be higher than the values
obtained in this research. High percentage of moisture in biomass materials prevents their
applications for thermo-chemical conversion processes including combustion (Raju et al.,
2014). Moisture content in excess of 20 % would result in considerable loss of energy
required for water evaporation during combustion at the expense of the calorific value and
such a fuel may not be stable in storage (Aina et al., 2009). Hence the lower the moisture
content of briquettes, the higher the calorific value.

4.4 Shatter Resistance of Briquettes

The measurement of the shatter resistance of briquettes is essential in terms of its handling,
transportation, storage and weather conditions.

4.4.1 Effects of Binder Level on Weight Loss and Shatter Resistance

Table 4.10 Weight Loss and Shatter Resistances of the uncharred briquette

Binder Initial Final Percentage Shatter

Level (%) Weight(g) Weight(g) Weight Resistance
Loss (%)

36
 5 47.485 42.225 11.08 88.92
10 47.460 46.650 1.71 98.29
15 47.205 40.985 13.18 86.82

Table 4.11 Weight Loss and Shatter Resistances of charred briquette (P<2 mm)
Binder Initial Final Percentage Shatter
Level (%) Weight(g) Weight(g) Weight Resistance
Loss (%)
5 38.475 24.82 35.49 64.51
10 38.040 31.12 18.19 81.81
15 39.320 28.59 27.28 77.72

Table 4.12 Weight Loss and Shatter Resistances of charred briquette (P>2 mm)
Binder Initial Final Percentage Shatter
Level (%) Weight(g) Weight(g) Weight Resistance
Loss (%)
5 40.96 27.90 31.88 68.12
10 41.24 39.38 4.51 95.49
15 41.09 40.18 2.21 97.79

The weight loss of the charred briquette (P>2 mm and P<2 mm) and the uncharred briquette
due to variations in binder level was highly significant. In Table 4.10, the uncharred briquette
at 15 % binder level recorded the highest weight loss of 13.18. Higher shatter resistance
indicates that briquettes had high shock and impact resistance.
In Table 4.11, the charred briquette (P<2 mm), had a shatter resistance which ranged from
64.51 % to 81.81 % and the 5 % binder level recorded the highest weight loss which in turn
produced the least shatter resistance.
In Table 4.12, the shatter resistance of the charred briquette (P>2 mm) ranged from 68.12 % to
97.79 %. The 5 % binder level recorded the highest weight loss which also accounted for the
least shatter resistance of 68.12 %.
In the charred briquette (P<2 mm and P>2 mm), the least shatter resistance was recorded at 5
% binder level. Unlike the uncharred briquette, the least shatter resistance was recorded at 15
% binder level.

37
As observed by Husain et al. (2002), the durability of briquettes is a major function of the
moisture content and density. Also, the higher the moisture content, the lesser the durability of
briquettes but density tends to enhance it.

4.5 Briquette Stability (Length Expansion)

Stability serves as an index of the extent of resistance of briquettes to changes in their initial
physical dimensions and shape (Mitchual, 2014). Briquettes compressed in an enclosed
cylinder have the tendency to expand as the pressure is released. Normally the expansion
takes place in the direction in which the load is applied. The briquette stability was measured
in terms of its dimensional changes when exposed to the atmosphere.

LENGTH INCREMENT AGAINST TIME FOR

UNCHARRED BRIQUETTE
6
Increase in Length/mm

5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Time/min

5% Binder Level 10% Binder Level 15% Binder Level

Figure 4.1: Height stability of uncharred briquette

LENGTH INCREMENT AGAINST TIME FOR

4
CHARRED BRIQUETTE (P<2mm)
Increase in Length/mm

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Time/min
5% Binder Level 10% Binder Level 15% Binder Level

Figure 4.2: Height stability of Charred Briquette (P <2 mm)

38
 LENGTH INCREMENT AGAINST TIME FOR
CHARRED BRIQUETTE (P>2mm)
4.5
4
Increase in Length/mm

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Time/min
5% Binder Level 10% Binder Level 15% Binder Level

Figure 4.3: Height stability of Charred Briquette (P >2 mm)

The results from the stability test is evident of the trend observed in compressed and relaxed
densities of the briquettes. The observed linear expansions were generally minimal. From
figure 4.1, the uncharred briquette at various binder levels were all unstable with regards to
height differences. The uncharred briquette at 5 % binder level recorded a least final difference
in height (0.53mm) with the uncharred briquette at 15 % binder level recording the highest
final difference in height of 3.22 mm.
The charred briquette with (P<2 mm) was also very unstable with respect to the changes in
height. The 15 % binder level recorded the least final difference in height of 1.93 mm and it
was also the most unstable of all the binder levels. The highest final difference in height
recorded was 2.65 mm at 10 % binder level and it was more stable of all the binder levels.
Five percent binder level of the charred briquette (P>2 mm) was the most stable of all the binder
levels but it recorded the least final difference in height (0.195 mm).
Also, 15 % binder level of the charred briquette (P>2 mm) recorded the highest final height
difference of 1.675 mm.
From observations, the final difference in height of the uncharred briquette increases as the
binder level increases but that cannot be said of the charred briquette (P<2 mm) which has the
10 % of the binder level being the highest and the charred briquette (P>2 mm) having the 15
% of the binder level being the highest. This confirms that stability of the briquette is a
function of the binder levels (Suparin et al., 2008).

39
It was observed by Bruhn et al. (1959) that the type of material briquetted is an essential factor
that have appreciable effects on product expansion. It is desirable that briquettes maintain their
initial state, hence the less the change, the more stable the product (Al-Widyan et al., 2002).

4.6 Water Resistance

Figure 4.4 shows a graph of water resistance of briquettes at 5 %, 10 % and 15 % binder levels.
98 97.09
96.51
95.74
96

94 92.91
91.69
92 91.01 90.7
89.94
90
87.91
88

86

84

82
UNCHARRED BRIQUETTE CHARRED BRIQUETTE (P<2mm) CHARRED BRIQUETTE (P>2mm)

5% Binder Level 10% Binder Level 15% Binder Level

Figure 4.4: Water Resistance of Briquettes at different binder levels

The highest water resistance capacity was recorded at 10 % binder level with a value of 97.09
% and at 5 % binder level the least water resistance was recorded with a value of 95.74%.
The charred briquette (P<2 mm) recorded the highest water resistance of 92.91% at 5%
binder level and recorded the least water resistance of 91.01 % at 15 % binder level.
Also, the charred briquette (P>2 mm) recorded the least water resistance of 87.91 % at 15 %
binder level and the highest water resistance of 90.70 % at 5 % binder level.
It was observed that at 5% binder level for charred briquette both (P<2 mm and P>2 mm)
produced the highest water resistance capacity which is an indication that the less the binder
level, the higher the water resistance capacity.
Birwatkar et al. (2014) observed water resistance values of briquettes produced from mango
leaves, Subabul leaves and saw dust ranging from 91.93 % to 94.16 % and the values
obtained from this study are much higher with the highest value being 97.09 %.
The results obtained from the water resistance property of the briquettes produced from water
hyacinth ranged from 52 % to 97.1 % as obtained by Davies et al. (2013).

40
The values obtained in this study is an indication that short-term exposure to rain or high
humidity conditions during transportation and storage could not adversely affect the quality of
the briquette.

4.7 Combustion Properties of Uncharred and Charred Briquettes

4.7.1 Effects of Binder levels on Combustion Properties of Briquettes
Ash Content

Figure 4.5 shows a graph of ash content of briquettes at 5 %, 10 % and 15 % binder levels.
35
31.51
30

25 23.44 23.34
Ash Content (%)

21.71 21.47
20
15.69 15.17
15

10 7.73 7.33

0
UNCHARRED BRIQUETTE CHARRED BRIQUETTE CHARRED BRIQUETTE
(P<2mm) (P>2mm)

5% Binder Level 10% Binder Level 15% Binder Level

Figure 4.5: Ash Content of Briquettes at 5 %, 10 % and 15 % binder levels

The binder levels had an effect on the ash content of the briquettes. Fifteen percent binder level
of the uncharred briquette recorded the least ash content of 7.33 % whiles the 5 % binder level
of the uncharred briquette recorded the highest ash content of 31.51 %.
Low ash content offers high heating values for briquettes (Obi et al., 2013). 15 % of the binder
level of charred briquette (P<2 mm) recorded the least ash content of 21.57 % and the highest
was recorded at 5 % binder level (23.44 %).
Also the least ash content was recorded at 10 % binder level of charred briquette (P>2 mm)
and the highest ash content was recorded at 15 % binder level.
Nicholas Akhaze Musa (2012) recorded ash content values of briquettes produced from rice
husk, groundnut shell and saw dust ranging from 2.1 % to 18.21 %.
High ash content is said to reduce ignitibility of briquettes (Bhattacharya et al., 1990).

41
Volatile Matter
Figure 4.6 shows a graph of volatile matter of briquettes at 5 %, 10 % and 15 % binder levels.
80 75.25 75.46
71.27
70

60 57.21
Volatile Matter(%)

50 46.77

40 36.85 37.63
29.55 29.91
30

20

10

0
UNCHARRED BRIQUETTE CHARRED BRIQUETTE CHARRED BRIQUETTE
(P<2mm) (P>2mm)

5% Binder Level 10% Binder Level 15% Binder Level

Figure 4.6: Volatile Matter of Briquettes at 5%, 10% and 15% binder levels

The highest volatile matter recorded was 75.25 %, at 15 % binder level and the least recorded
was 57.21 % at 5 % binder level for uncharred briquettes. Also for charred briquettes (P<2
mm), the highest volatile matter was recorded at 15% binder level (75.46 %) and the least was
recorded at 5 % binder level (29.55 %). The charred briquette(P>2 mm) recorded the least
volatile matter of 29.91 % at 5 % binder level (29.91 %) and the highest volatile matter recorded
was 37.63 % at 15 % binder level.
Observations made indicated that the higher the binder level, the higher the volatile matter for
all the briquettes. The lower the volatile matter, the more the briquette is suitable for
combustion. Birwatkar et al. (2014) recorded volatile matter values of briquettes produced from
mango leaves, Subabul leaves and saw dust and the values obtained ranged from 68.7 % to
70.77 %.

Fixed Carbon
Figure 4.7 shows a graph of fixed carbon values of briquettes at 5 %, 10 % and 15 % binder
levels.

42
 60 54.4

47.01 47.98
50
39.03
40
31.52
30
20.99
20 17.42
11.28
10
3.07
0
UNCHARRED BRIQUETTE CHARRED BRIQUETTE CHARRED BRIQUETTE
(P<2mm) (P>2mm)

5% Binder Level 10% Binder Level 15% Binder Level

Figure 4.7: Fixed Carbon of Briquettes at different binder levels

The fixed carbon of a fuel is the percentage of carbon available for combustion (Efomah and
Gbabo, 2015). The fixed carbon was also affected by the binder levels. At 10 % binder level,
the uncharred briquette recorded the highest fixed carbon value of 20.99 % with the least
being 11.28 % at 5 % binder level. Also, at 15 % binder level, the charred briquette (P<2
mm) recorded the least fixed carbon of 3.07 % and the highest recorded was 47.01 % at 5 %
binder level. Furthermore, at 5 % binder level of charred briquette (P>2 mm),54.40 % fixed
carbon was the highest recorded with the least recorded being 39.03 % at 15 % binder level.
Thus, the fixed carbon decreased as the binder level increased for the charred briquette and so
the less the binder level, the better, in this case 5 % binder level is the best.
The low fixed carbon content tends to prolong cooking time by its low heat release (Raju et al.,
2014). Also the higher the fixed carbon content the better the charcoal produced because the
corresponding calorific energy is usually high (FAO, 1995).
Ikelle et al. (2014) recorded fixed carbon values of briquette produced from coal dust and rice
husk ranging from 27 % to 61.76 %.
Raju et al. (2014) recorded fixed carbon content values of briquettes produced from paper, rice
husk and coconut coir and had values that ranged from 17.9 % to 18.6 %. The high fixed carbon
values of briquettes in this study shows that the time used in cooking will reduce by its high
release of heat.

43
Calorific Value
Figure 4.8 shows a graph of volatile of briquettes at 5 %, 10 % and 15 % binder levels.

30000
24989.5

25000 23452.51
20758.57
Calorific Value/kkJ/kg

16805.78
20000 17894.94
15747.88 16074.83
15000 13610

10000 8450

5000

0
UNCHARRED BRIQUETTE CHARRED BRIQUETTE CHARRED BRIQUETTE
(P<2mm) (P>2mm)

5% Binder Level 10% Binder Level 15% Binder Level

Figure 4.8: Calorific Values of Briquettes at different binder levels

The calorific value is the standard measure of the energy content of the fuel (Ikelle et al., 2014).
Calorific values which also have a great significance on the level of binder recorded the highest
value of 16805.78 kJ/kg at 10 % binder level for the uncharred briquette. The least was recorded
at 5 % binder level at a calorific value of 15747.88 kJ/kg. The highest calorific value recorded
was 17894.94 kJ/kg at 10% binder level and the least calorific value was 8450 kJ/kg at 5%
binder level for the charred briquette (P<2 mm).
For charred briquettes (P>2 mm), the highest calorific value was recorded at 10 % binder level
and the least calorific value, was recorded at 15 % binder level. Generally, the highest calorific
value was recorded at 10 % binder level for all briquettes.
Ikelle et al. (2014) obtained calorific values of briquettes produced from coal and rice husk and
these values ranged from 90.23 kJ/kg to 164.34 kJ/kg and these values are lower than the
calorific values obtained in this study.
High calorific values in this study show that the energy content is high enough to produce heat
required for household cooking and small scale industrial applications (Raju et al., 2014).

Heat Capacity
Figure 4.9 shows a graph of the heat capacity of briquettes at 5 %, 10 % and 15 % binder
levels.

44
 20
17.50
18
16 13.55
Heat Capacity/kJ/kg

13.40
14 12.51
12 10.76
9.79
10 7.83
7.73 7.88
8
6
4
2
0
UNCHARRED BRIQUETTE CHARRED BRIQUETTE CHARRED BRIQUETTE
(P<2mm) (P>2mm)
5% Binder Level 10% Binder Level 15% Binder Level

Figure 4.9: Heat Capacity of Briquettes at different binder levels

The heat capacity is also an important parameter which forms part of the energy content.
The heat capacity at 15 % binder level recorded the highest value of 13.40 kJ/K and the least
recorded was 9.79 kJ/K at 5 % binder level for the uncharred briquette.
The charred briquette (P<2mm) at 15% binder level recorded the highest heat capacity value
of 17.50 kJ/K and the least recorded was 12.51 kJ/K at 5% binder level.
With the charred briquette (P>2 mm), the highest value recorded was 7.88 kJ/K at 15 % binder
level and the least value recorded was 7.73 kJ/K at 5 % binder level.
The values obtained indicated that the heat capacity increased with increase in binder level.

4.7.2 Effects of Starch on the Calorific Value and the Heat Capacity
The binding material (starch) had a great influence on the calorific value of the raw biomass.
The raw uncharred coconut husk recorded a calorific value of 16898 kJ/kg which made it higher
than the calorific value of the uncharred briquette. The raw uncharred coconut husk recorded a
heat capacity of 9.78 kJ/K. Also, the raw charred coconut husk recorded a calorific value of
21307kJ/kg which made it higher than the calorific value of the charred briquette (P<2 mm).
The raw charred coconut husk (P<2 mm) recorded a heat capacity of 7.61 kJ/K.
The charred coconut husk (P>2 mm) recorded a calorific value of 17471 kJ/kg which was lower
than the charred briquette (P>2 mm). The raw charred coconut husk(P>2 mm) recorded a heat
capacity of 10.56 kJ/K.

45
Table 4.13: Results of calorific value and heat capacity analysis of raw uncharred coconut
husk and raw charred coconut husk (P<2 mm, P>2 mm)

Samples Calorific Value (kJ/kg) Heat Capacity (kJ/K)

Raw Uncharred Coconut Husk 16,898 9.781

Raw Charred Coconut Husk, 21,307 7.61

P<2 mm

Raw Charred Coconut Husk, 17,471 10.56

P>2 mm

From Table 4.13, the calorific values of the raw coconut husk samples are higher than the
briquette samples and this means that the starch present in the briquettes could be a factor for
the reduction in the calorific values of briquettes.

4.7.3 Water Boiling Test Results

4.7.3.1 Comparison of the Briquettes with Charcoal
The water boiling tests were carried out to check the suitability of the briquettes in domestic
use as fuel (Birwatkar, 2014). It was observed that briquettes burnt completely with uniform
flame. The burning rate (how fast the fuel burns) and the calorific value (how much heat is
released) are two combined factors that control the water boiling time (Onuegbu et al., 2011).
The recorded duration for the water boiling tests were 30 mins for uncharred briquettes,35 mins
for charred briquettes and 22 minutes for charcoal. It can further be deduced that amongst all,
charcoal had the shortest water boiling time. Also the value of burning rate for uncharred
briquette was 1.63 g/min, charred briquette, 1.66 g/min and charcoal recorded a burning rate
value of 11.11g/min which was the highest among the briquettes.
Onuegbu et al. (2011) reported factors that could be responsible for burning rate of briquettes
such as chemical composition, volatile matter content and geometry of the briquettes. With this
study, volatile matter content and geometry influenced the burning rates of briquettes.
The specific fuel consumption of the three fuel sources were 19.6g/l (uncharred briquette),
23.2g/l (charred briquettes) and 97.8g/l (charcoal).
The lower the specific fuel consumption, the more economical the fuel source (Onuegbu et al.
2011).

46
Thermal Efficiency
Figure 4.10 shows the thermal efficiency values of briquettes and charcoal

92.42
95 88.03
Thermal Efficiency(%)

90

85
77.1
80

75

70

65
UNCHARRED CHARRED CHARCOAL
BRIQUETTE BRIQUETTE

Figure 4.10: Thermal Efficiencies of Briquettes and Charcoal

The thermal efficiencies of the studied fuel sources were uncharred briquettes-88.03 %, charred
briquettes-92.42 % and charcoal-77.10 %, making the charred briquette the highest followed
by the uncharred briquette.
Murali et al. (2015) reported thermal fuel efficiency of briquettes produced from coconut pith
(63.63 %), sawdust (61.62 %) and sugarcane (53.85 %). These values are lower than the
obtained values in this study.

4.7.4 Emission Analysis of Charcoal, Charred and Uncharred Briquettes

The charcoal produced from sweet acacia recorded an average value of 1,765 µg/m3 for
particulate matter (PM) concentration and 561.1 ppm for carbon monoxide concentration. The
charred briquette recorded an average value of 9,863 µg/m3 of particulate matter concentration
and 340.6 ppm for carbon monoxide concentration. The uncharred briquette recorded an
average value of 14,328 µg/m3 for particulate matter concentration and 519.7 ppm for carbon
monoxide concentration.
The uncharred briquette recorded the highest average particulate matter of 14,328 µg/m3
followed by the charred briquette (9,863 µg/m3) with the least being charcoal (1,765 µg/m3).

47
The values obtained show that charcoal (sweet acacia variety) recorded the highest carbon
monoxide value with the least being the charred briquette. This means charcoal (sweet acacia)
emits more carbon monoxide than the briquettes.

The high particulate matter of the briquettes could be attributed to the type of raw material and
its physical and chemical compositions. Also, as seen from the results it can be concluded that
carbonisation reduce particulate matter concentration and this accounted for low particulate
matter emissions in charcoal.

High particulate matter concentrations are very harmful to human health affecting both the
lungs and heart and as such the particulate matter of the briquettes should be controlled.

Figures 4.11 to 4.13 show the results of particulate matter and carbon monoxide of briquettes
and charcoal.

PM and CO During Test PM

100,000 1200.0
backgr
90,000 ound
1000.0
80,000 test
70,000
800.0 CO
60,000
PM (µg/m3)

50,000 600.0
CO (ppm)
40,000
400.0
30,000
20,000
200.0
10,000
0 0.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

minutes elapsed

Figure 4.11: Graphical Representation of the Particulate Matter (PM) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) of
Uncharred Briquette during Indoor Air Pollution Test.

48
 PM and CO During Test PM
40,000 1200.0
backgroun
35,000 d
1000.0 test
30,000
CO
800.0
25,000
PM (µg/m3)

CO (ppm)
20,000 600.0
15,000
400.0
10,000
200.0
5,000
0 0.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

minutes elapsed

Figure 4.12: Graphical Representation of Particulate Matter (PM) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) of
charred briquette during Indoor Air Pollution Test

PM and CO During Test

100,000 1200.0 PM

90,000
80,000 1000.0 backgro
und
70,000 800.0 test
PM (µg/m3)

60,000
CO (ppm)

50,000 600.0
CO
40,000
30,000 400.0
20,000 200.0
10,000
0 0.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Minutes Elapsed

Figure 4.13: Graphical Representation of Particulate Matter (PM) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) of
charcoal during Indoor Air Pollution Test

49
 CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion
Briquettes have gained worldwide recognition as an alternative source of energy compared to
charcoal due to the fact that it is environmentally friendly, reduces deforestation and its
associated negative impacts.
The conclusions drawn from this study are as follow;

1. The highest calorific value recorded for charred briquettes with particle size greater
than 2mm, particle size less than 2mm and uncharred briquette were 24989.50 kJ/kg,
17894.94 kJ/kg and 16805.78 kJ/kg all at 10% binder level respectively.
2. Charred briquette had the highest thermal efficiency (92 %), followed by uncharred
briquette (88 %) with charcoal having the lowest thermal efficiency (77 %). Increase in
thermal efficiency will generally reduce fuel requirement during cooking.
3. The charred briquette recorded the lowest carbon monoxide concentration (340 ppm),
followed by the uncharred briquette with a carbon monoxide concentration of 519
ppm with charcoal recording the highest carbon monoxide emission (561ppm). This
indicates that charcoal poses more health problems. Also, the uncharred briquette
recorded the highest particulate matter– 14,328 µg/m3, followed by the charred
briquette- 9,863 µg/m3 with the least being charcoal- 1,765 µg/m3.

5.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations are being made for the furtherance of this study:
1. Research and development on dried coconut husk briquettes should include cost-
effective emission reduction strategies such as more efficient and improved cook
stoves.
2. Due to the high potentials of raw biomass, there is a need for a further research on other
biomass for the production of quality briquettes to help contribute to quality health and
environmental management.
3. To help reduce particulate matter concentrations, the briquettes should be well
carbonised before usage and for industrial applications, a centrifugal collector or a
fabric filter should be used.

50
4. In order to ensure a uniform and complete combustion and also reduce harmful gases
and smoke, a hole should be created in the briquette.

51
 REFERENCES
1. Ahmed S. Rahman, M. M. Islam, M.M. Mashud, M., Nawsher, M., and Ali, M. (2008),
“Moral Role of Biomass Briquetting in the Renewable Energy Sector and Poverty
Diminution for Bangladesh” Proceedings of the 4th BSME-ASME International Conference
on Thermal Engineering 27-29 December, 2008, Dhaka, Bangladesh
2. Aina, O.M., Adetogun, A.C and Iyiola, K.A (2009). Heat Energy from Value-Added Sawdust
Briquettes of Albizia Zygia. Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and Management.
Vol.2 No.1.2009.
3. Al-Widyan M.I, Al-Jahil, M.M, Abu-Zreig and N.H. Abu-Hamdeh (2002). Physical
Durability and Stability of Olive Cake Briquettes.
4. Amoah Yeboah Derrick (2016). Analysis of Emissions and Energy Content of Coconut husk.
5. Banzon A. Julian (1980). The Coconut as A Renewable Energy Source. Philippine Journal
of Coconut Studies.
6. Bhattacharya S.C., Sett S., Shrestha, R.M. (1990). Two approaches for producing briquetted
charcoal from wastes and their comparison, Energy 15(6) 499.
7. Birwatkar V.R., Khandetod Y.P., Mohod A.G. and Dhande K.G (2014). Physical and Thermal
Properties of Biomass Briquetted Fuel. Ind. J. Sci. Res. And Tech. 2014 2(4): 55-62
8. Bradley Walter L., Poel Jason and Huang Howard (2006). Cocos Nucifera: An Abundant
Renewable Source of Energy. Baylor University, Waco, Texas 76798.
9. Bruhn H.D., A. Zimmerman and R.P. Niedermier 1959. Developments in pelleting forage
crops. Agricultural Engineering. 204-207.
10. Chaney, J: Combustion Characteristics of Biomass Briquettes. University of Nottingham,
Dissertation (2010).
11. Davies R.M and Davies O.A. (2013). Physical and Combustion Characteristics of Briquettes
made from Water Hyancinth and Phytoplankton Scum as Binder. Hindawi Publishing Corp.
Journal of Combustion. Volume 2013, Article ID 549894.
12. Davies Rotimi Moses, Davies Onome Augustina, Mohammed Usman Shehu (2013).
Combustion Characteristics of Traditional Energy Sources and Water Hyacinth Briquettes.
ISSN: 2322-4983
13. Davies, R.M. and U.S. Mohammed, 2013. Effect of Processing Variables on Compaction and
Relaxation Ratio of Water Hyacinth Briquettes. International Journal of Scientific Research
in possible fuels for Kenya. Biomass and Bioenergy, Knowledge, 1(9): 308-316.
14. Efomah Ndudi Andrew and Agidi Gbabo (2015). The Physical, Proximate and Ultimate
Analysis of Rice Husk Briquettes Produced from a Vibratory Block Mould Briquetting
Machine. ISSN 2348-7968.

52
15. Emerhi, E. A. (2011). Physical and combustion properties of briquettes produced from sawdust
of three hardwood species and different organic binders. ISSN: 0976-8610
16. Eriksson, S. and Prior, M. (1990): The briquetting of Agricultural Wastes for fuel. FAO.
Publication (1990).
17. Faizal H. M., Latiff Z.A., Wahud Mazlan A., Darus A. N., (2009). Physical and Combustion
Characteristics of Biomass Residues from Palm Oil Mills.
18. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Statistics Division (2015).
19. Ghana Investment Promotion Centre (GIPC), 2016. Investing in Ghana's Cash Crops. Sector
Overview. Retrieved from http://gipcghana.com/17-investment-projects/agricultureand-
agribusiness/cash-crops/287-investing-in-ghana-s-cash-crops.html
20. Ghorpade, S.S; Moule, A.P. (2006). Performance Evaluation of Deoiled Cashew Shell waste
for fuel properties in Briquetted form. B. Tech. Thesis (unpub.), Dapoli 15
21. “Greening the Savannah Project” (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.ecofibersghana.com/view-content/15/Projects-2.html on October 29, 2015.
22. Grover P.D. and Mishra S.K. (1996). Biomass Briquetting: Technology and Practice, Bangkok.
23. http://es.scribd.com//...//Factsheet-Briquette Web Final
24.http://Glossary of Environmental Statistics
25. http://cleancookstoves.org
26. Huang Jack, (2014). Factors that Influence your briquettes burning.
http//renewableenergyworld.com
27. Husain Z., Z. Zainac and Z. Abdullah 2002. Briquetting of palm fibre and shell from the
processing of palm nuts to palm oil. Biomass and Bioenergy 22:505-509.
28. Ikelle Issie Ikelle, Anyigor Chukwuma and Ogah Sule Philip Ivoms (2014). The
Characterisation of the Heating Properties of Briquettes of Coal and Rice Husk. IOSR Journal
of Applied Chemistry. e-ISSN: 2278-5736. Volume 7, Issue 5 Ver.II.(May, 2014).
29. Janczak J. 1980. Compendium of simple technologies for agglomerating and/or densifying
wood, crop and animal residues. FAO Report, Forestry Department, Rome.
30. Kaliyan, N., and Morey, R. V., (2008), “Densification Characteristics of Corn Cob” American
Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph Michigan.
31. Maninder, Rupinderjit Singh Kathuria, Sonia Grover (2012). Using Agricultural Residues as a
Biomass Briquetting: An Alternative Source of Energy. ISSN: 2278-1676 Volume 1, Issue 5
(July-Aug, 2012).
32. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Gohil Priyank, Nikita Sharma (2015). Biomass Briquette Production: A
Propagation of Non-Convention Technology and Future of Pollution Free Thermal Energy
Sources. e-ISSN: 2320-0847 p-ISSN: 2320-0936. Volume-04, Issue-0, pp-44-50.
33. Ministry of Food and Agriculture, (2011). Agriculture in Ghana, Facts and Figures.

53
34. Mitchual Stephen Jobson (2014). Densification of Sawdust of Tropical Hardwoods and Maize
Cobs at Room Temperature Using Low Compacting Pressure without a Binder.
35. Murali G., Channankaiah1, P. Goutham1, I. Enamul Hasan1, P. Anbarasan1 (2015).
Performance Study of Briquettes from Agricultural Waste for Wood Stove with Catalytic
Combustor. ISSN: 0974-4290. Vol.8, No.1, pp 30-36.
36. Musa Akhaze Nicholas (2012). Determination of Chemical Composition, Heating Value and
Theoretical Parameters of Composite Agricultural Waste Briquettes. International Journal of
Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 3. ISSN 2229-5518.
37. Muyengi Z. E., Msuya E. and Lazaro E. (2015). Assessment of factors affecting coconut
production in Tanzania. ISSN 2327-3151. Journal of Agricultural Economics and
Development Vol. 4(6), pp.083-094, September 2015.
38. Obi, O. F., Akubuo, C. O., Okonkwo, W. I. (2013). Development of an Appropriate Briquetting
Machine for Use in Rural Communities. ISSN: 2249-8958, Volume-2, Issue-4, April 2013.
39. Ogawa, H. (2005). Sustainable Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries. Retrieved
from http://www.gdrc.org/uem/waste/swm-fogawa1.html on January 30, 2016.
40. Oladeji, J.T., (2011), “The Effects of Some Processing Parameters on Physical and Combustion
Characteristics of Corncob Briquettes” Ph.D. Thesis of the Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria.
41. Olorunnisola A. (2007). Production of Fuel Briquettes from Waste Paper and Coconut Husk
Admixtures. Manuscript EE 06 006. Vol. IX. February, 2007.
42. Omont Hubert (2001). IPGRI – Commodity Chains
43. Onuegbu T.U., Ekpunobi U.E., Ogbu I.M., Ekeoma M.O. and Obumselu F.O (2011).
Comparative Studies of Ignition Time and Water Boiling Test of Coal and Biomass
Briquettes Blend. Vol7Issue”/IJRRAS_7_2_08.pdf
44. Oyelaran O. A., Bolaji B.O, Waheed M.A and Adekunle M.F (2014). Effects of Binding Ratios
on Some Densification Characteristics of Groundnut Shell Briquettes. Iranica Journal of
Energy & Environment 5 (2): 167-172, 2014 ISSN 2079-2115.
45. Punchihewa P.G. and Arancon R.N (1999). COCONUT: Post-harvest Operations
46. Puopiel, F. (2010). Solid waste management in Ghana. The case of Tamale Metropolitan.
(Master’s thesis, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana).
Retrieved from
http://ir.knust.edu.gh/bitstream/123456789/146/1/Felix%20Puopiel%20thesis.pdf
47. Raju Ch. A.I., Jyothi Ramya K., Satya M., Praveena U. (2014). eISSN: 2319-1163
Studies on Development of Fuel Briquettes for Household and Industrial Purpose
48. Raju Ch. A. I., U. Praveena, M. Satya, K. Ramya Jyothi1, Prof. S. Sarveswara Rao (2014).
Studies on Development of Fuel Briquettes using Biodegradable Waste Materials. ISSN:
2348 –3768.

54
49. Sengar S.H, Mohod, A.G; Khandetod Y.P; Patil S.S and Chendake A.D (2012) Performance
of Briquetting Machine for Briquette fuel. International Journal of Energy Engineering
50. Shreya Shukla, Savita Vyas (2015). Study of Biomass Briquettes, Factors Affecting Its
Performance and Technologies Based on Briquettes. e-ISSN: 2319-2402, p-ISSN: 2319-
2399. Volume 9, Issue 11 Ver. II (Nov.2015).
51. Sotannde, O. A., Oluyege, A. O. and Abah, G. B. (2010). Physical and Combustion Properties
of Briquettes from Sawdust of Azadirachta indica. Journal of Forestry Research, 21(1): 63 –
67.
52. Sriram N, Sikdar D.C., Sunil H, Mahesh KumarShetty (2014). Study of Briquetting of Cotton
Waste. e-ISSN: 2320-8163, www.ijtra.com Volume 2, Issue 6 (Nov-Dec 2014).
53. Suparin C, Suwit S, Prattana K., (2008): Development of fuel briquettes from biomass-lignite
blends. Chiang. Mai. J. Sci., 35(1):43-50.
54. Tabil, L. G., (1997), “Binding and Pelleting characteristics of alfalfa” An Unpublished Ph.D
diss. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada:- University of Saskatchewan, Department of
Agricultural and Bio-resources Engineering.
55. Tembe, E.T., Otache, P.O. and Ekhuemelo, D.O. (2014). Density, Shatter index, and
Combustion properties of briquettes produced from groundnut shells, rice husks and saw dust
of Daniellia oliveri. Journal of Applied Biosciences 82:7372 – 7378 ISSN 1997–5902
56. Wamukonya, L. and B. Jenkins, 1995. Durability and Relaxation Ratio of Water Hyacinth
Briquettes. relaxation of sawdust and wheat-straw briquettes as possible fuels for Kenya.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 8(3): 175-179.
57. Wilaipon, P., (2008), “The Effect of Briquetting Pressure on Banana-Peel Briquette and the
Banana Waste in Northern Thailand”. American Journal of Applied Sciences 6(1): 167-171
58. World Health Organisation, 2013. Health effects of particulate matter: Policy implications for
countries in eastern Europe, Caucasus and central Asia.
(http://www.euro.who.int/_data/assets/pdf_fle/0006/189051/ Health-effects-of-particulate-
matter-final-Eng.pdf).
59. World Health Organisation, 2006. Fuel for Life Household Energy and Health. WHO Press.20
Avenue Appaia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland.

55
 APPENDIX

Briquette Stability
Table 4.14 Results of length increment against time for uncharred briquette
Increase in Length(mm)

TIME(Minutes) 5% 10% 15%

0 0.6 0 0.6

60 1.0 3.8 4.08

1440 0.75 0.5 0.5

2880 2.65 4.2 4.91

4320 0.5 1.3 3.22

5760 0.53 0.74 3.22

Table 4.15 Results of length increment against time for charred briquette(P<2mm)

Increase in Length(mm)

TIME(Minutes) 5% 10% 15%

0 2.5 3.5 3.25

60 0.5 1 1.5

1440 0.985 0.485 1.66

2880 1.093 1.785 2.895

4320 1 1.5 2

5760 0.195 1.28 1.675

Table 4.16 Results of length increment against time for charred briquette(P>2mm)

Increase in Length(mm)

TIME(Minutes) 5% 10% 15%

0 1.3 0.551 0.365

60 1.58 0.8313 1.93

1440 1.74 0.476 1.14

56
2880 2.68 1.48 4.15

4320 1.91 1.91 3.195

5760 2.12 2.65 1.868

Decrease In Weight Against Time

DECREASE IN WEIGHT AGAINST TIME FOR

UNCHARRED BRIQUETTE
120

100
Decrease in Weight /g

80

60

40

20

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Time/min
5% Binder Level 10% Binder Level 15% Binder Level

Figure 4.14: Decrease in Weight of Uncharred Briquette

DECREASE IN WEIGHT AGAINST TIME FOR

CHARRED BRIQUETTE (P<2mm)
100
Decrease in Weight/g

80

60

40

20

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Time/min

5% Binder Level 10% Binder Level 15% Binder Level

Figure 4.15: Decrease in Weight of Charred Briquette(P<2mm)

57
 DECREASE IN WEIGHT AGAINST TIME FOR
CHARRED BRIQUETTE (P>2mm)
90
80
Decrease in Weight/g

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Time/min

5% Binder Level 10% Binder Level 15% Binder Level

Figure 4.16: Decrease in Weight of Charred Briquette(P>2mm)

Shatter Resistance

120
98.29 95.49 97.79
100 88.92 86.82
81.81
77.72
80
64.51 68.12

60

40

20

0
UNCHARRED BRIQUETTE CHARRED BRIQUETTE CHARRED BRIQUETTE
(P<2mm) (P>2mm)

5% Binder Level 10% Binder Level 15% Binder Level

Figure 4.17: Shatter Resistance of Briquettes at Varying Binder Levels

Water Resistance

Table 4.17 Water Resistance Test Results of uncharred briquette at varying binder levels

58
 Binder Level Initial Final Weight(g) Water gained by Water
Weight(g) briquettes (%) Resistance
Capacity
(%)
5 47.00 49.00 4.26 95.74
10 46.66 48.02 2.92 97.08
15 47.55 49.21 3.49 96.51

Table 4.18 Water Resistance Test Results of charred briquette(P<2mm) at varying binder
levels
Binder Level Initial Final Weight(g) Water gained by Water
Weight(g) briquettes (%) Resistance
Capacity
(%)
5 38.06 40.76 7.09 92.91
10 37.90 41.05 8.31 91.69
15 39.04 42.55 8.99 91.01

Table 4.19 Water Resistance Test Results of charred briquette(P>2mm) at varying binder
levels
Binder Level Initial Final Weight(g) Water gained by Water
Weight(g) briquettes (%) Resistance
Capacity
(%)
5 39.37 43.03 9.30 90.70
10 40.07 44.10 10.06 89.94
15 40.21 45.07 12.09 87.91

Combustion Properties
Table 4.20: Combustion Properties of Uncharred briquettes at Varying Binder Levels
Binder Ash Content Volatile Fixed Calorific Heat
Levels (%) (%) Matter (%) Carbon (%) Value(kJ/kg) Capacity(kJ/K)

5 31.51 57.21 11.28 15747.88 9.79

10 7.73 71.27 20.99 16805.78 10.76

59
 15 7.33 75.25 17.42 16074.83 13.40

Table 4.21: Combustion Properties of charred briquettes(P<2mm) at Varying Binder Levels

Binder Ash Content Volatile Fixed Calorific Heat

Levels (%) (%) Matter (%) Carbon (%) Value(kJ/kg) Capacity(kJ/K)

5 23.44 29.55 47.01 8450 12.51

10 21.71 46.77 31.52 17894.94 13.55

15 21.47 75.46 3.07 13610.00 17.50

Table 4.22: Combustion Properties of charred briquettes(P>2mm) at Varying Binder Levels

Binder Ash Content Volatile Fixed Calorific Heat
Levels (%) (%) Matter (%) Carbon (%) Value(kJ/kg) Capacity(kJ/K)

5 15.69 29.91 54.40 23452.51 7.73

10 15.17 36.85 47.98 24989.50 7.83

15 23.34 37.63 39.03 20758.57 7.88

Water Boiling Test

Table 4.23: Water Boiling Test Results of uncharred briquette

Initial Mass of Water(kg) 2.5

Final Mass of Water(kg) 2.26
Water Evaporated(kg) 0.24
Initial Water Temperature(0C) 32.2
Final Water Temperature(0C) 99
Mass of fuel consumed(kg) 0.049
Specific heat of water(kJ/kgK) 4.187
Specific fuel consumption(kg/l) 0.0196
Thermal Efficiency (%) 88.03
Burning Rate(kg/min) 0.00163
Heat Released(kJ/min) 26.47

60
Table 4.24: Water Boiling Test Results of charred briquette
Initial Mass of Water(kg) 2.5
Final Mass of Water(kg) 2.3865
Water Evaporated(kg) 0.1135
Initial Water Temperature(0C) 30.8
Final Water Temperature(0C) 99
Mass of fuel consumed(kg) 0.058
Specific heat of water(kJ/kgK) 4.187
Specific fuel consumption(kg/l) 0.0232
Thermal Efficiency (%) 92.416
Burning Rate(kg/min) 0.00166
Heat Released 22.068

Table 4.25: Water Boiling Test Results for charcoal

Initial Mass of Water(kg) 2.5
Final Mass of Water(kg) 2.379
Water Evaporated(kg) 0.121
Initial Water Temperature(0C) 30.6
Final Water Temperature(0C) 99.9
Mass of fuel consumed(kg) 0.2445
Specific heat of water(kJ/kgK) 4.187
Specific fuel consumption(kg/l) 0.0978
Thermal Efficiency (%) 77.1
Calorific Value (kJ/kg) 19200
Burning Rate(kg/min) 0.01111
Heat Released(kJ/min) 213.312

61
Gas Emission Analysis

Table 4.26: Results of Indoor Air Pollution Test of briquettes and charcoal
Samples Start End Average Average Average Average
Time of Time of Particulate Carbon Temperature Humidity
Test Test Matter Monoxide (ºC)
Period Period (µg/m3) Concentration (%)
(ppm)

Charcoal 1:05 pm 1:23pm 1765 561.1 33.5 67

Uncharred 2:30 pm 3:06 pm 14,328 519.7 34.8 64
Briquette
Charred 11:05 11:57 9863 340.6 32.6 65
Briquette am am

62