Review

A Review of Biomass Briquette Binders and Quality Parameters

Okey Francis Obi 1,2,*, Ralf Pecenka 1 and Michael J. Clifford 3

1 Department of Postharvest Technology, Leibniz‐Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy,

Max‐Eyth‐Allee 100, 14469 Potsdam, Germany; rpecenka@atb‐potsdam.de
2 Agricultural and Bioresources Engineering Department, University of Nigeria, Nsukka 410001, Nigeria

3 Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK;

[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] or oobi@atb‐potsdam.de

Abstract: The adverse effect of the use of fossil fuels on the environment and public health has given
rise to a sustained renewable energy research and development. An important component of global
renewable energy mix is the use of loose biomass, including agricultural and forestry residues, to
produce solid fuels in the form of briquettes. Briquettes play a significant role in bioenergy mix in
developing and developed countries. The production of biomass briquettes often entails the collec‐
tion, transportation, storage, processing, and compaction of loose biomass that meet specific quality
parameters. The densification process often involves the addition of binders to improve the cohesive
strength of the briquette material. This paper surveys recent literature from 2012 to 2021 to establish
the current state of research on the use of binders in briquette production; and reviews current pa‐
rameters used in assessing the quality of biomass briquettes with focus on mechanical and handling
properties. While a number of quality parameters were identified, their assessment methodologies
varied widely in the literature, thus necessitating standardization for comparability purposes. The
review also includes factors affecting the wide production and adoption of biomass briquettes in
most developing economies and proposes ways of overcoming the bottlenecks.

Keywords: densification; binders; briquettes; biomass; bioenergy; bioeconomy

Citation: Obi, O.F.; Pecenka, R.;
Clifford, M.J. A Review of Biomass
Briquette Binders and Quality
Parameters. Energies 2022, 15, 2426.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072426
1. Introduction
Globally, biomass energy has continued to remain an important renewable energy
Academic Editor: Adam Cenian
component. It is an important part of national energy mix both for developed and develop‐
Received: 8 March 2022 ing countries towards achieving sustainable energy for heating applications, reducing en‐
Accepted: 23 March 2022 vironmental impact, creating bio‐economies, reducing over dependence on fossil fuel, im‐
Published: 25 March 2022 proving quality of rural and urban life, and for the production of various biofuels [1–5]. One
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu‐ of the challenges with the utilization of biomass is that they are mostly in loose form having
tral with regard to jurisdictional low energy density. Biomass briquetting, a densification technology, is one of the technolo‐
claims in published maps and institu‐ gies used in improving the potential energy use of biomass primarily for household heating
tional affiliations. applications and power generation [6]. The general steps in utilizing biomass for solid fuel
(briquette) production include sourcing, collection and transportation, drying, size reduc‐
tion, and densification. Densification process involves the compaction of biomass with or
without a binding agent under relatively high temperature and pressure to achieve higher
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Li‐ energy per volume of the material. Densification generally increases the bulk density, im‐
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. proves the handling and logistics, reduces the labor costs, improves the thermal properties
This article is an open access article
of biomass as well as the direct or co‐combustion of biomass [7,8].
distributed under the terms and con‐
Densified biomass in the form of briquettes (Figure 1a) could take different shapes
ditions of the Creative Commons At‐
and sizes, including cylindrical, cubic, and rectangular, with or without a hole in the cen‐
tribution (CC BY) license (https://cre‐
ter [9]. A number of densification systems are employed in the production of briquettes
ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
and they include hydraulic piston presses, mechanical piston and ram presses, roller

Energies 2022, 15, 2426. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072426 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2022, 15, 2426 2 of 23

presses, manual presses, and screw extruders [10,11]. A detailed review of biomass bri‐
quette production processes and the various accompanying briquetting machines has re‐
cently been carried out [12]. While biomass pellets (Figure 1b) are also products of the
densification process, they are relatively smaller compared to briquettes. They are usually
cylindrical in shape with a diameter of between 3 and 27 mm and a length of between 3
and 31 mm [13]. Briquettes of cylindrical shape are generally between 18 and 55 mm in
diameter and 10 and 100 mm in length [14,15]. However, there are generally no recognized
standard dimensions distinguishing biomass pellets from briquettes [7].

(a) (b)
Figure 1. (a) Sample of biomass briquettes and (b) biomass pellet samples.

In the past 10 years (2012 to 2021), the number of research publications focused on bi‐
omass briquetting has consistently been on the increase on a yearly basis, as identified in the
online databases of Web of Science (Web of Science Core Collection. Available online:
https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/summary/19d74b6d‐60c7‐4273‐a1fa‐
a27fb2ea65b6‐2c437953/relevance/1 (accessed on 3 January 2022)) and Science Direct (Peer‐
reviewed journal articles search. Available online: https://www.sciencedi‐
rect.com/search?qs=biomass%20briquettes (accessed on 3 January 2022)). In Web of Science,
only 24 publications were identified in 2012, and the number rose to 105 in 2021; while in
Science Direct, 143 articles were published in 2012, while 439 were published in 2021. This
suggests a growing research interest in this area of study. A total of 10 countries account for
more than 77% of the total publications (636) identified in the Web of Science database for
the 10‐year period under consideration and they include China, Brazil, USA, Poland, India,
Nigeria, Canada, Spain, England, and Malaysia, in that order (Figure 2). This data is based
on the location of the authors of the publications.
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 3 of 23

Others
21% China
25%

Malaysia
4%

England
4%
Spain Brazil
4% 13%
Canada
4%
Nigeria
5% USA
India 7%
Poland
6%
7%

Figure 2. Share of publications on biomass briquetting by the location of authors (2012–2021).

Source: https://www.webofscience.com/ (accessed on 3 January 2022)

A number of studies have broadly reviewed different aspects of densification tech‐

nology, including production processes and briquetting machines [12], devices used for
the measurement of various solid fuel properties [7], biomass feedstock, processing char‐
acteristics, and the economics of densifying biomass [16], briquetting process variables
and combustion [11], and the economics of biomass briquetting [17]. However, recent re‐
views on the current state of research on biomass briquette binders and briquette quality
parameters is lacking in the literature. The main objective of this study is to review the
current state of research on the use of binders in biomass briquette production, and bri‐
quette quality parameters with the focus on mechanical and handling properties. The bri‐
quette qualities considered in this study focus only on the mechanical and handling prop‐
erties resulting from the briquetting process. It is noteworthy to state that this study did
not consider combustion and emission quality factors and only recent literature spanning
the period of 10 years from 2012 to 2021 were reviewed.

2. Methodology
In this study, literature including journals, book chapters, PhD theses, and conference
proceedings on biomass briquetting spanning a 10‐year period from 2012–2021 were con‐
sidered. Only literatures available in the English language or published in other languages
but accompanied with an English translation were considered. The search for literature
was conducted over the internet using online databases, including Google Scholar, Sco‐
pus, Web of Science, and Science Direct. The search was done using various combinations
of key words relevant to the subject matter, such as biomass briquettes, biomass bri‐
quetting, biomass briquette and binders, biomass briquette and quality factors or param‐
eters, biomass briquette and adoption or use, biomass briquettes and developing econo‐
mies or countries. Non‐biomass (e.g., coal) related papers were discarded. Based on title
and abstract content, only literature that address biomass briquette binders, quality as‐
sessment, and briquette adoption or use in developing countries were selected and re‐
viewed. Furthermore, bibliography in key selected documents were also examined with
the aim of identifying other relevant papers.
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 4 of 23

3. Biomass Availability
Biomass generally refers to all biological materials derived from living organisms,
including animal, and plant. Within the context of biomass briquetting, an example of
biomass would include a wide range of materials, such as wood shavings from forest op‐
erations, agricultural residues from agro‐processing activities, industrial wastes, animal,
and domestic and municipal wastes. Figure 3 shows samples of biomass used for briquette
production. The energy contained in biomass can be released through direct combustion
or alternatively converted to other biofuels [18]. Biomass may be classified according to
their origin as shown in Figure 4.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3. Examples of biomass for briquette production (a) agro‐processing residues—breadfruit
shells, (b) wood fibre, and (c) forest residues—chips from tree branches and small‐diameter trees.

The biomass materials are mostly organic remainder generated because of human
activities (residual biomass including agroforestry residue, and industrial and municipal
bio‐wastes) or naturally grown in nature, e.g., energetic crops or naturally growing
grasses. For biomass briquetting, vegetable‐ or plant‐derived raw materials are the pre‐
ferred densification material, while animal‐derived biomass is often used as binding ma‐
terial, e.g., cow dung. The predominant use of vegetable or plant biomass sources could
be attributed to its wide availability compared to animal derived biomass. Table 1 shows
the global quantity of selected biomass from agricultural crops burnt in 2009 and 2019.
This represents potential amount of biomass available for biomass briquetting with little
or no alternative competitive use. For most of the crops, the amount of burnt biomass has
continued to rise, especially in Africa, Asia, and South America. In addition to agrofor‐
estry residues, there has been a growing interest in the use of urban and industrial wastes
for briquetting [19,20]. This could be attributed to the increasing rural–urban migration
resulting in increased generation of industrial and municipal solid wastes. Urban and in‐
dustrial wastes are expected to find more use in biomass briquetting, particularly in
mixed‐material briquetting, due to the increasing need to effectively manage such wastes
in a sustainable manner.
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 5 of 23

Figure 4. Classification of biomass based on the origin (adapted from [21]).

Table 1. Regional burnt biomass (dry matter, Mt).

Burnt Biomass Dry Matter (Mt)

Region Year
Maize Rice, Paddy Sugar Cane Wheat
Africa 2009 30.30 4.87 0.93 4.12
2019 40.71 9.41 1.04 3.90
North America 2009 33.31 0.69 0.23 11.94
2019 34.40 0.55 0.24 9.88
South America 2009 19.60 2.87 6.47 3.35
2019 28.15 2.24 7.54 3.75
Asia 2009 53.48 76.94 6.31 40.44
2019 66.47 76.23 7.13 39.46
Europe 2009 13.93 0.37 ‐ 24.47
2019 18.35 0.34 ‐ 24.95
Oceania 2009 0.09 0.01 0.29 5.43
2019 0.08 0.01 0.31 4.18
(Source: FAOSTAT, 2021).

For commercial and sustainable production of fuel briquettes, suitable biomass feed‐
stock must be available, easily collected, transported, and stored for further processing
prior to compaction. Agricultural and forest biomass may be considered but they should
be readily available in a sustainable manner. Concerns have been expressed on the poten‐
tial competitive impact of the use of biomass for bioenergy purposes could have on other
uses, including food and fodder [21]. The allocation of less fertile lands for the cultivation
of energy crops through thought‐out mechanisms, regulations, and cooperation among
stakeholders have been suggested as means of mitigating against this [22]. Another major
constraint in the commercial briquetting of biomass is within the context of supply chain
management—the sustainable supply of biomass resource at cost‐effective price and vol‐
ume. This is influenced by a number of factors, including biomass structure, seasonal har‐
vest, and the scattered geographical distribution of biomass that makes it difficult for their
collection, transportation, and storage on a large scale [23]. The design of an efficient and
effective biomass supply chain thus becomes critical in facilitating sustainable raw mate‐
rial preprocessing and supply for commercial briquetting [24,25]. However, in most de‐
veloping countries, particularly in sub‐Saharan Africa where domestic energy sources are
still comprised mainly of firewood, there appears to be non‐existence of any formal bio‐
mass supply chain structure.
In addition, concerns about raw material quality have also been expressed [26]. To
address this, the use of composite raw materials has been explored in the production of
briquettes [17,27,28]. This strategy aims to take advantage of differences in the structural
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 6 of 23

and chemical characteristics of different biomass materials on the bonding strength and
overall properties of the briquettes. Composite briquettes from materials with similar and
compensating characteristics have been studied. Chungcharoen and Srisang [28] sug‐
gested the use of small cashew nut sizes in the briquetting of cashew and areca nuts in a
composite ratio of 65% to 25%, respectively, to produce high‐quality composite briquettes.
Lubwama, et al. [29] demonstrated the benefits of producing composite briquette from
rice husks, coffee husks, and groundnut shell over single constituent briquettes. The study
reported improved heat transfer in composite briquette of coffee and rice husks without
binders when placed sequentially in the briquette composition. Obi [30] suggests an opti‐
mum blending ratio of 50:50 for composite briquettes of palm kernel shell and sawdust
feedstock. However, the increased addition of palm kernel shell reduced the weathering
ability of the briquettes. Exploring opportunities in producing composite briquettes thus
require further investigations particularly in identifying biomass materials that compen‐
sate their individual bonding and combustion properties.

4. Binders in Biomass Briquetting

Biomass generally contain naturally occurring structural binders or stabilizing
agents, such as lignin and proteins that are released and activated when biomass is den‐
sified at relatively high levels of temperature and pressure [31,32]. This improves the
structural particle bonding in biomass briquettes. However, in some cases, the biomass
may not contain significant amount of natural binder (lignin) or due to the densification
conditions, additional binders may be required to achieve the desired briquette hardness
and durability. Briquette binders can be broadly divided into organic and inorganic bind‐
ers. It could further be divided into organic, inorganic, and compound binders based on
their composition [33,34]. The choice of binders among the various types is largely de‐
pendent on a number of factors, including the desired bonding strength, low emissions,
the effect on combustion performance of the briquette, environmental friendliness, and
sustainability and economic availability.
While binders are used to improve bonding between biomass particles during den‐
sification, actual mechanism of the bonding process is complex and yet to be fully com‐
prehended [35]. Previous studies have propagated a number of theories to explain particle
bonding in biomass densification including attraction forces between biomass particles,
adhesion and cohesion forces, solid bridges and mechanical interlocking bonds, interfacial
forces, and capillary pressure [36–38]. These theories have been approached from both
mechanical and chemical point of views thus explaining the influence of biomass struc‐
tural and chemical substances on the bonding process during densification. In a recent
study, Anukam, Berghel, Henrikson, Frodeson and Ståhl [35] provide a detailed review
of the current state of knowledge on bonding mechanisms in biomass during the densifi‐
cation process.

4.1. Classification of Briquette Binder

As earlier mentioned, the three broad classes of briquette binders include organic,
inorganic, and composite binders. Zhang, et al. [39] noted that organic binders generally
have good binding properties, including high impact and abrasion strength, and high‐
water resistance. However, at high temperature, they decompose easily having poor ther‐
mal stability and mechanical strength [40]. They are mostly characterized by extensive
availability, low price, high heating value, and low ignition temperature. There are four
main types of organic binders and they include biomass (agricultural wastes, forestry bi‐
omass, etc.), tar pitch and petroleum bitumen (coal tar pitch, tar residues, etc.), lignosul‐
phonate, and polymer binders (resins, polyvinyl, and starch). Miao, et al. [41] noted that
organic binders could further be divided into hydrophobic binders (e.g., asphalt, and coal
tar) and hydrophilic binders (e.g., biomass) based on their reaction to water. The poor
thermal stability of organic binders has contributed in limiting their commercial applica‐
tion in biomass briquetting [42].
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 7 of 23

Inorganic binders have strong adhesion, non‐pollution with sulfur capture charac‐
teristics, low cost, and good hydrophilicity, however, their combustion efficiency is lower
due to their limited calorific values, and the ash content is often high [43]. Examples are
clay, bentonite, ammonium nitrate, etc. Inorganic binder could be classified into three
main types, industrial (bentonite clay, cement, sodium silicate, and magnesium chloride),
civilian (limestone, and clay) and environmental protection (desulfurization agents, e.g.,
iron oxide, magnesium oxide, and calcium oxide) inorganic binders [39]. However, the
use of inorganic binders in recent literature for biomass briquetting appears to be limited
[44–46]. Compound binders comprise the combination of two or more binders with the
aim of taking advantage of the multiple binding benefits offered by the different binders,
thus yielding briquettes with high mechanical strength and thermal stability. Examples
are starch and bentonite, molasses, and carbide lime [47,48]. Zhang, Sun and Xu [39] de‐
scribes in details the various classifications of briquette binders. Table 2 shows an over‐
view of the strengths and weaknesses of the various binder types.

Table 2. An overview of the binder types and their characteristics [39].

Binder
Examples Advantages Disadvantages
Classification
Low ignition
Water hyacinth, starch, High heating value, widely temperature, emission
Organic molasses, lignin, and guar available, low price, and pollutants, low thermal
gum. high mechanical strength. stability, and low
water‐proofing.
High bonding strength,
Limestone, calcium oxide, wide availability, good
High ash content, low
Inorganic clay, cement, bentonite, and thermal stability, sulfur
heat ,and high price.
iron oxide. retention, and
hydrophilicity.
Good thermal stability,
Bentonite and starch, high bonding strength,
Mostly high price and
Compound resin and starch, pitch, high water resistance,
high ash content.
and molasses. and high mechanical
properties.

4.2. Binder Selection

The choice of binders in biomass briquetting is often influenced by a number of fac‐
tors, including availability, cost, the raw material properties, moisture content of the mix,
the densification pressure, and the desired energy content of the briquettes [49]. In most
developing communities, cost and availability of the binders are the most important fac‐
tors that are considered in the selection of binders. The type and quantity of binders ap‐
plied in biomass briquetting have been linked to the resulting properties of briquettes in‐
cluding their combustion and mechanical properties [29,50,51]. Furthermore, the degree
of their influence on the properties of biomass briquettes varies among binders. In the
study of the effects of different binders on the briquette properties of carbonized corncob,
Aransiola, Oyewusi, Osunbitan, and Ogunjimi [50] reported that briquettes produced
with corn starch exhibited better moisture content, relaxed density, and compressive
strength compared to those with corn starch and gelatin. An increase in the concentration
of African Elemi resin as a binder resulted in increased strength and density of charcoal
briquettes [33]. Furthermore, in the production of briquettes from rice and coffee husks
using cassava starch and clay as binders, Lubwama and Yiga [52] noted that cassava starch
produced briquettes with better physical and calorific properties compared to clay binder.
Hence, in the selection of binders for commercial biomass briquetting, assessing the im‐
pact of the type and quantity of the binders on the properties of the resulting briquette is
significantly important.
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 8 of 23

In terms of briquetting energy requirement and cost of the briquetting process,

Muazu and Stegemann [53] observed that the type of binder applied in the briquetting
process may influence the required compaction pressure, temperature, and wear on the
production equipment, thus reducing the overall cost of the briquetting process. Gill, et
al. [54] observed that the addition of cotton stalk as a binder up to 30% by weight of
chopped rice straw significantly reduced the energy requirement for briquetting from 40.4
kW at 10% binder level to 36.6 kW at 30% binder level. Notwithstanding the positive ef‐
fects of the addition of binders in the densification of loose biomass, some binders could
negatively affect some briquette properties (e.g., reduced density, deposit formation,
emissions, etc.) and could be competing for other uses including food and industrial uses
[55,56]. Studies that are more recent have focused on new binders that are cheaper, im‐
prove briquette qualities, sustainable in their use as well as optimizing biomass–binder
ratio which are all important in long‐term commercial production of biomass briquettes
[54,57,58].

4.3. Common Biomass Briquette Binders

As earlier stated, binders are added to biomass densification process in other to im‐
prove the compressive strength, abrasion resistance and, in some cases, the energy content
of briquettes [53]. Different types of raw materials require different binder types due to
their underlying material bonding mechanisms [39]. Binders that are widely used in bio‐
mass briquette production are discussed below. Additional examples of commonly used
binders identified in the literature are presented in Table 3.

4.3.1. Glycerol
Crude glycerin, a by‐product in biodiesel production, has been successfully used as
a binding agent in biomass briquetting with significant positive effects on the briquette
properties [57,59–61]. Although crude glycerin can be purified into valuable chemical for
use in the pharmaceutical, food and cosmetics industries, the purification process is rather
expensive and inefficient due to a wide variety of impurities it often contains [62]. The
glycerin market on the other hand is well saturated and its disposal at landfills is environ‐
mentally unsustainable [63,64]. Thus, the price of glycerin has continued to decline mak‐
ing it economically attractive for use as a binder in biomass briquette production. Glycerin
has also been used in biomass pellet production [65].
While the production of biomass briquettes with the addition of low—quantity glyc‐
erol has shown desirable briquette qualities, high‐quantity addition of the binder in sug‐
arcane and sorghum residues briquettes up to 30 wt.% results in poor briquette quality,
including high hygroscopic nature, low energetic value, and poor aesthetics and durabil‐
ity [62].

4.3.2. Starch
Starch is a white powder mostly extracted from various crops, including cereals, rhi‐
zomes, and roots, in the form of semi‐crystalline granules which are unique to the indi‐
vidual crop source [66]. The application of heat and water to starch brings about the for‐
mation of intermolecular hydrogen bonds between the two major polysaccharide compo‐
nents in starch—amylose and amylopectin. This is achieved through the disruption of the
granular structure of the starch molecules leading to swelling, hydration, and solubiliza‐
tion [67]. This results in a viscous solution called starch paste that gels as it cools. The
transition from granules to starch paste is accompanied by increased viscosity which in‐
creases the paste resistance to deformation showing significant binding strength [68]. The
high‐energy content of starch in addition to its chemical and structural properties makes
it an excellent binding agent in biomass densification and remains the most common bio‐
mass briquette binder in the literature [28,29,69,70]. However, its use in commercial bri‐
quetting has been limited due to its high cost, low coking, and water‐proof properties [39].
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 9 of 23

Borowski, et al. [71] reported a positive effect of native wheat starch and modified
wheat starch on the mechanical, physical, and burning properties of charcoal briquettes.
Differences were, however, observed between the starch types in terms of the briquette
firing up time, burning time, temperature distribution, and smoke intensity. Wirabuana
and Alwi [72] used starch at various concentrations in the production of briquettes from
Durian peel charcoal. At 3% (w/w) starch concentration, the briquette exhibited the best
quality in terms of the parameters assessed. In the study evaluating the effect of cassava
starch binder on groundnut shell briquettes, Oyelaran, Bolaji, Waheed and Adekunle [32]
reported improvements in the burning rates, specific fuel consumption and thermal effi‐
ciencies of the briquettes. Shone and Jothi [51] used cassava starch in the preparation of
briquettes from dried teak and rubber tree leaves. The authors recommended a 3:5 bio‐
mass–binder ratio as the leafy biomass do not adhere well upon compaction with lower
binder content.
While starch binders generally improve physical and mechanical properties of bri‐
quettes, Lubwama, Yiga, Muhairwe and Kihedu [29] reported an inhibition of heat trans‐
fer in carbonized composite briquettes from rice husks, coffee husks, and groundnut
shells. This suggests the need for a more comprehensive assessment of the effects of bind‐
ers on both physico–mechanical and thermal properties of briquettes, which is currently
scarce in the literature.

4.3.3. Algae
Algae are a group of photosynthetic, heterotrophic single‐celled organisms inhabit‐
ing fresh‐ and seawater ecosystems, and can easily be cultivated; its production rate is
about 50 times faster than most terrestrial biomass [73]. Algae has potential applications
in biomass binding due to its high protein and lignin content [74]. The binding capability
of algae has been linked to the combination of two constituents of algae, chitin, and pro‐
teins, which act as natural binding agents [75]. Algae biomass possesses some character‐
istics that make them energetically and environmentally attractive for use as a binder in‐
cluding possible year‐round cultivation, its ability to thrive in diverse climates and in ar‐
eas unsuitable for agriculture, and their positive atmospheric effect [76,77].
Muazu and Stegemann [53] investigated the effect of microalgae on the properties of
briquettes produced from a blend of rice husk, corncob, and bagasse. The addition of mi‐
croalgae as a binder significantly improved the density, durability, energy value, mass
loss during combustion, and afterglow time of the briquettes. In the production of
Jatropha epicarp briquettes with the addition of algal biomass, Costa, Calijuri, Avelar,
Carneiro and de Assis [76] reported a decrease in hygroscopicity and fixed carbon content
of the briquettes, however an increase was observed in the bulk density, ash content, and
energy density. They concluded that the production of Jatropha epicarp briquettes with
algal biomass is technically feasible.
While algae have been used as a binding agent, other researchers have used it as the
main feedstock after drying to produce briquettes [78]. Marangon, et al. [79] proposed the
development of microalgae biomass briquetting as a means of achieving more sustainable
energy products with less pressure on the environment. Haykiri‐Acma, Yaman and
Kucukbayrak [73] produced briquettes from carbonized algae (seaweed) with the addi‐
tion of binders. The authors reported satisfactory briquette properties irrespective of the
binder used. However, inorganic content of the algae became concentrated following car‐
bonization. Amarasekara, et al. [80] produced briquettes from naturally grown algae bio‐
mass collected from lakes after open‐air drying without the addition of binders. This sug‐
gests that algal biomass could potentially serve as briquette raw material or as a binding
agent.

4.3.4. Molasses
Molasses represents a low‐cost liquid by‐product discharged by the centrifuge in the
last stage of extraction of sugar from cane or beets by means of repetitive crystallization
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 10 of 23

[81]. It is a thick non‐transparent brown to dark brown high‐density liquid fully soluble
in hot and cold water. The carbohydrate content range from 48 to 53% and the water con‐
tent lower than 25% [82]. Molasses is often characterized by excellent stability and shelf
life due to its high osmotic potential linked to its antimicrobial properties. Furthermore, it
is recognized as a cheap and environmentally safe promoter of bonding mechanisms
among fine particles as it contains sucrose and gum (including starch) [83]. The bonding
property of molasses has traditionally been exploited in the feed industry for the prepa‐
ration of compound feed, and only in recent decades has it found use in the bioenergy
sector [81,84].
In the briquetting study of carbonized water hyacinth, Carnaje, et al. [85] used mo‐
lasses as the binding agent at different raw material/binder ratio. The results suggest that
varying the quantity of molasses in briquettes significantly affect briquette characteristics.
Increases were recorded in the volatile matter and fixed carbon content of the briquettes
while the ash content decreased as the binder content increased. While Carnaje et al. rec‐
ommended biomass–molasses ratio of 30:70 by volume in their study, Jittabut [86] used a
ratio of 100:50 by mass in briquetting blends of rice straw and sugar cane leaves with
molasses as the binding agent. Sen, et al. [87] utilized molasses in the production of bri‐
quettes from cassava rhizomes and reported an improvement in density of the briquettes
with the addition of molasses. Furthermore, molasses was considered to have added eco‐
nomic benefits. In general, the use of molasses as a binder in briquette production could
significantly improve briquette combustion characteristics [73,88].

Table 3. Binders used in biomass briquette production.

Biomass Briquette Type Binder Used Binder Source Competing Binder Uses References
Organic binders
Exhibits effective anti‐fungal, bacte‐
Oozes out at the abscission rial and microbial activities. May
Rice husk and coconut Mango sap/
zone of mango tree stem be suitable for use as a preservative [89–91]
shell mucilage
during mango harvesting. and flavouring agent in the
food industry.
Blends of rice husk, By‐product of anaerobic Treated biosolids contain valuable
corn cob and bagasse; Biosolids digestion of wastewater organic matter as such can be used [53]
charcoal briquettes sludge during treatment. as organic manure in agriculture.
A thick brownish semi‐liquid
bio‐waste that generated Used as manure, feed
Palm oil mill
Sawdust by palm oil mills during supplement and feedstock [92,93]
sludge/effluent
the processing of the palm in the biofuel industry.
fruit for palm oil production.
The stem is used as vegetable, fibre
and rope. Although not commer‐
Obtained by blending and cially available, it could potentially
Rice husk and bran Okra stem gum [94,95]
hydrating the okra plant stem. be used as a coating and flavouring
material in the pharmaceutical
and food industries.
A large amount of rice dust is
Rice husk and bran Rice dust generated during the milling Mostly discarded or fed to poultry. [94]
of rice kernels into flour.
Generated during the Mostly discarded but have found
Rice straw Sawdust [96]
processing of timber. use in the construction industry.
Widely used in the food,
pharmaceutical, and cosmetic
Obtained from animal collagen
industries for a variety of purposes
Corncob Gelatin by the process of hydrolysis [50,97,98]
due to their excellent
with either acid or alkaline.
biocompatibility, biodegradability,
and weak antigenicity.
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 11 of 23

Neem leaves, fruit, and bark of the

tree all possess beneficial medicinal
Could be obtained from
Sawdust Neem powder properties and are widely used [99,100]
neem leaves or the tree.
in the personal hygiene and
cosmetic industries.
Lignosulfonate has excellent
By‐product of the wood dispersing properties, and is
Energy cane and
Lignosulfonates pulping industry from the utilized as a superplasticizer [101]
Napier grass
production of wood pulp. in concrete or gypsum to
maintain adequate fluidity.
Obtained through waste‐paper
Manufacturing of paper‐based
Banana leaves, corn cob recycling involving mixing of
Waste paper pulp and industrial materials, [17,102]
and oil palm trunk bark used paper with water and
e.g., books, filters, etc.
chemicals to break it down.
It is widely used as a thickening
Gums (xanthan It is obtained from sugary
Spent coffee grounds and gelling additive in the food [103]
and guar) substrates.
and feed industries.
A by‐product of anaerobic
Used in feed and compost
Corn stover biogas‐slurry digestion produced from [104,105]
making in agriculture.
biogas plant.
Inorganic binders
An industrial by‐product
Potential uses include
from centrifuge fermentation
Corn straw NovoGro bioremediation and soil‐ [106,107]
of broth through heating and
improvement purposes.
lime amendment.
Thermo plastics,
Elephant grass, e.g., polyethylene Waste from food and other
For recycling and production
empty fruit bunch, terephthalate material packaging, [108–111]
of plastic‐based items.
and wood residues and high‐density storage, or container.
polyethylene.

5. Briquette Quality Parameters

The production of briquettes is usually followed by storage, transportation, handling,
and usage. The briquettes often experience different levels of degradation during trans‐
portation, storage, and handling due to action of forces (including impact, shear, and com‐
pressive) from different equipment acting on the product as well as the influences of en‐
vironmental factors, such as humidity and rain, leading to swelling and structural losses
[112]. Standards are used in assessing quality differences between materials, processes
and products, and they provide information on the expected level of performance from
products to potential users. The quality and suitability of briquettes for energy use are
generally measured by means of some physical and mechanical properties. The most im‐
portant biomass briquette quality factors include its resistance to crushing (compressive
strength), durability (abrasion resistance), impact resistance, and water penetration re‐
sistance that are all influenced by the density of briquettes [99,113–115].

5.1. Compressive Strength

Compressive strength simulates the maximum compressive force a briquette can
withstand during transportation, handling and storage. For densified biomaterial, com‐
pressive strength is defined as the maximum axial force it could withstand until fracture
or rupture, or a measure of its internal bonding strength [116]. If the force is applied per‐
pendicular to the cylinder axis, the resultant measurement is referred to as tensile
strength. Bazargan, Rough and McKay [15] noted that, in general, briquette strength is
higher in the cylindrical axis direction (compressive strength) compared to the strength of
the briquette when measured perpendicular to the cylindrical axis (tensile strength)
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 12 of 23

(Figure 5a,b). This presents a basis to argue that determining tensile strength might be
more appropriate for briquettes, as noted in Gilvari, de Jong and Schott [7].
Different equipment with similar working principles can be used to measure the
compressive strength of biomass briquettes [33,117,118]. The sample material is placed
between two horizontal plates and the sample is compressed at a constant rate until frac‐
ture or breakage. The rate of application of pressure on the plates, however, varies in the
literature and this potentially makes it difficult to compare the strength of biomass bri‐
quettes. In particular, the relationship between compression rate and compressive/tensile
strength is missing in the literature [7]. Other methods have also been explored in express‐
ing the strength of biomass briquettes and they include hardness (a measure of the force
required to break or disintegrate a briquette) [119], and bending strength—the maximum
force a material can withstand in bending when concentrated on a spot [120]. However,
compressive strength of briquettes has remained the preferred quality parameter of choice
in the literature [121–124].

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Typical orientation of biomass briquette sample during (a) compressive strength, and (b)
tensile strength testing.

5.2. Abrasion Resistance (Mechanical Durability)

Abrasion resistance is a measure of briquettes ability to remain intact under the in‐
fluence of abrasive forces during handling, storage, and transportation [125]. Information
on biomass briquette durability is important in mitigating against dust generation and
possible dust explosion. Two different equipment is widely used in the literature for de‐
termining the durability of biomass briquettes, and they include rotating drum and tum‐
bler. The rotating drum (Figure 6a) consists of a cylindrical chamber with baffles inside
which rotates around its axial direction [7] while a tumbler (Figure 6b) generally consists
of a tubular vessel, a rotation speed‐setting devices and a motor; the tubular vessel rotates
against its cylindrical axis [126]. A cuboid formed using angle iron frame rotated by means
of a hollow shaft fixed diagonally through it has also been used as a tumbler [99]. The
general operating principle entails placing a known mass of briquette sample in the de‐
vice, which exposes them to shocks and abrasion for a specified period of time and rota‐
tional speed. Durability is then calculated as a percentage of the mass loss obtained
through sieving divided by the initial mass of the sample.
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 13 of 23

(a) (b)

Figure 6. (a) Rotating drum adapted from [7] and (b) schematic of a tumbler adapted from [126].

Severy, et al. [127] placed nine briquettes in a 572 mm diameter cylindrical tumbler
rotating at 21 rpm for 5 min. After tumbling, all the material remaining on a 50.8 mm mesh
sieve was weighed as the durable fraction of the briquettes. Tumuluru, et al. [128] in their
study tumbled 10 briquettes in a tumbling durability tester for 3 min at 40 rpm. Ţenu,
Roman, Senila, Roşca, Cârlescu, Băetu, Arsenoaia, Dumitrachi, and Corduneanu [125]
used a rotating drum of 598 mm in length and 598 mm diameter. The drum was rotated
at 21 rev/min for a total of 5 min. The durability of the briquettes was expressed as a ratio
of the initial weight of the briquette to its final weight not passing a 45 mm sieve. Granado,
et al. [129] rotated cassava residue briquettes in a rotating drum at a speed of 35 rpm for
15 min after which the briquette was passed through a sieve of 2.36 mm. The mass of the
briquette retained on the sieve was used to calculate the durability of the briquette.
Information in the literature suggest that there is no single recognized procedure for
assessing the abrasion resistance of biomass briquettes that allows for comparability of
different briquettes. Irrespective of the equipment used, researchers often use different
rotational speeds and different sieve sizes to obtain the mass loss, making it difficult to
compare reported values. An increase or decrease in operation time and rotational speed
of the working chamber of durability devices, for example, could influence the durability
of briquettes [130]. Temmerman, et al. [131], in an earlier study comparing the durability
of densified briquettes, reported that the durability of briquettes was influenced by meas‐
urement methods. This therefore necessitates the need for a standardized methodology
for measuring biomass briquette durability that could be compared among different bri‐
quette types. An initial attempt in developing a standard device for determining the du‐
rability of briquettes is reported in Obidziński, et al. [132].

5.3. Impact Resistance

The impact resistance of briquettes measures their resistance to breakage when
dropped from a specified test height onto a floor of known material surface. The percent‐
age weight loss is reported as a measure of the briquette resistance to impact. The re‐
sistance is mostly influenced by the binding strength of the briquette material. In the lit‐
erature, impact resistance is also referred to as shattering resistance, shattering test, or
drop test [99,133]. Impact resistance is important in understanding the behavior of bri‐
quettes during unloading or emptying onto ground surfaces or transferring from chutes
into bins.
Impact resistance index (IRI) introduced by Richards [113] remains prominent in the
literature. IRI is based on the percentage ratio of average number of times a biomass bri‐
quette is dropped on a concrete floor from a specified height of 2 m until it fractures to the
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 14 of 23

average number of resulting pieces the briquette breaks into. Richards [113] recommends
a minimum acceptable IRI of 50 for biomass briquettes produced for domestic and indus‐
trial applications. Saikia and Baruah [134] dropped rice straw, banana leaf, and teak leaf
briquettes twice from a height of 1.83 m onto a concrete floor. The authors reported an
impact resistance index of 200. Okot, et al. [135] and Okot, et al. [136] determined the im‐
pact resistance of biomass briquettes by allowing them to fall under gravity four times
from a height of 1.85 m onto a metallic plate. Percentage residual weight of the briquettes
was determined after each drop and the piece with the highest weight was used for the
next drop until the fourth. The impact resistance was expressed as a percentage of the
final weight to the initial weight. Sawadogo, et al. [137] followed the procedure described
by Richards [113], however the number of times the briquettes were dropped from a
height of 2 m and the nature of the ground surface were not stated.
Sunnu, Adu‐Poku, and Ayetor [114] determined the IRI of biomass briquettes from
agricultural wastes by dropping the briquettes five times from a height of 2 m onto a con‐
crete surface. After five drops, the broken pieces of briquettes because of the impact were
collected and weighed, however, only the pieces that weighed 5% or more of the initial
weight were considered when calculating the IRI following Equation (1).
N
IRI ൌ ൈ 100 (1)
n
N is the number of drops and n is the number of pieces that weighed 5% or more of
the initial weight of the briquette after N drops. For composite briquette of coal and wood
fines, Adeleke, Odusote, Ikubanni, Lasode, Malathi, and Pasawan [115] dropped three
samples of the composite briquettes from a height of 2 m until fracture. The number of
drops was however divided by the drop height and the IRI expressed as in Equation (2).
Average number of drops⁄2 m
IRI ൌ ൈ 100 (2)
Average number of pieces
It is clear that while the impact resistance of biomass briquettes entails a free fall from
a known height onto a specified surface, the number of drops, the height of fall, and the
selection of the resulting pieces due to the impact forces are not consistent in the literature.
Even in comparing similar briquettes, the number of drops were varied [33]. Until there
is consistency in the procedure for calculating impact resistance, comparability of bri‐
quette quality on this basis will remain unrealistic, leaving users to subjectively assess the
impact resistance of briquettes based on usage experience.

5.4. Water Penetration Resistance

Biomass‐based materials are hydrophilic in nature and so are biomass briquettes;
some biomass‐based briquettes are very sensitive to moisture and a small amount of water
could significantly decrease their quality [7,138]. In the literature, water‐resistance ability
of biomass briquettes is measured by a water‐immersion test done in the laboratory as
opposed to the open environment. This quality parameter is particularly important for the
storage and transportation of briquettes in high humid environment or when exposed to
rain. While moisture adsorption test (to determine the amount of moisture a sample can
adsorb under constant temperature and humidity) is common with pellets, it is rarely ap‐
plied to briquettes [7,139].
Fadele, et al. [140] and Anggraeni, et al. [141] measured the water resistance of bio‐
mass briquettes by immersing them in a water bath for two minutes and calculating the
percentage of water absorbed using Equation (3). The water resistance of the briquettes
was then determined by subtracting the percentage water absorbed from 100.
M୦ െ M୧
% water absorbed by briquette ൌ ൈ 100 (3)
M୧
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 15 of 23

where M୦ is the mass of the hydrated briquette (g) and M୧ is the initial mass of the bri‐
quette before hydration (g). Other researchers immersed the briquettes in water for 30 s
at room temperature [142,143]. In some studies, water resistance has been expressed as a
measure of time taken before the onset of dispersion of briquettes when immersed in wa‐
ter at room temperature [58,144,145].
One key factor that influences the water resistance of briquettes is the amount of
binding agent used in the briquette making, particularly hydrophobic binders [140]. Re‐
searchers have reported significant influence of binders on the water resistance of biomass
briquettes [39,99]. The increased water resistance of briquettes has been linked to the in‐
creasing interlocking of the briquette particles thus resulting in negligible pore spaces as
binder quantity is increased [140]. Similarly, briquettes with large particle sizes exhibit
poor water resistance due to their porous nature thus allowing for easy water penetration
[141]. Other factors influencing water resistance of briquettes include briquetting temper‐
ature and holding time [142].
At the moment, there is no uniform standard or procedure for assessing the water‐
resistance capability of briquettes; the closest to uniformity appears to be a measure of the
time before the onset of dispersion of briquettes when immersed in water. A standard
method could help provide a more realistic expectation on the condition of briquettes
when stored in different environmental conditions.

5.5. Briquette Density

The density of briquettes can be expressed as either compressed density or relaxed
density. The compressed density is the density of the briquette just immediately after com‐
paction while the relaxed density represents the density measured after a certain period
following compaction. These density measures have become an important factor due to
the possible volume expansion or shrinkage of briquettes in the axial and lateral directions
immediately after densification. Relaxation ratio is often used to measure the relative ex‐
pansion or shrinkage of briquettes after production. It is expressed as the ratio of the com‐
pressed density to the relaxed density [30,146].
Density itself is generally measured as the ratio of mass and sample volume, which
includes the existing pore volume. The compressed density of briquettes is generally de‐
termined immediately after ejection from the briquetting machine as the ratio of measured
weight to the calculated volume [146]. For relaxed density, Mitchual, Frimpong‐Mensah,
and Darkwa [117] it for sawdust briquettes 30 days after densification. The mass of the
briquettes was determined using a laboratory electronic balance and the dimensions
measured using a digital vernier caliper. Other studies measured the relaxed density after
the briquette reached a constant moisture constant following densification [30]. The den‐
sity of biomass briquettes could be significantly influenced by a number of process varia‐
bles, including moisture content, particle size, quantity of binder, compaction tempera‐
ture, and pressure [11,92,147].
The bulk density of a group of briquettes has also been reported; it is an important
property of briquettes for packaging, transportation, and storage efficiency. Karunanithy,
et al. [148] measured the bulk density of briquettes using 2000 mL glass container follow‐
ing the procedure described in [149]. The bulk density was calculated from the mass of
the briquettes that occupied the container. Brand, et al. [150] measured the bulk density
of briquettes by means of geometric measurements suggesting that the bulk density of
cylindrical shaped briquettes can be calculated using their individual dimensions. Bulk
density of briquettes should however be regarded as a dynamic property rather than static
as they are not dependent only on the biomass material but on the briquette arrangement,
container material and its surface roughness, the capacity of the container, the filling
method, and the density measurement method [7,151].
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 16 of 23

6. Briquette Utilization in Developing Economies

Generally, biomass energy has continued to remain the preferred alternative in meet‐
ing rural heating energy requirement in most developing countries [9]. This is mainly due
to the benefits it potentially offers including driving rural bio‐economic activities (such as
establishing new markets, creating new job opportunities, etc.), environmental benefits
(carbon neutrality, and improved waste management), and increased energy independ‐
ence [23,152]. Further, it leads to improved use of locally available biomass resources, thus
contributing to better and sustainable living condition [153].
Biomass briquette is used extensively for household heating applications and power
generation in Europe, America, and some parts of Asia, but its use in some developing
countries (e.g., Sub‐Saharan Africa) has been significantly limited [154]. Most of the heat‐
ing energy needs of rural people are met by the direct burning of wood and other loose
biomass in three‐stone fire and other low‐efficiency stoves. The limited production and
use of briquettes could be linked to a lack of developed supply chain structure for biomass
in both agricultural and forestry‐related industries [23,154]. An efficient and structurally
developed supply chain is essential in providing appropriate biomass in a sustainable
manner for the production and development of markets for biomass briquettes. The fi‐
nancial viability of biomass briquetting is largely dependent on the cost of the feedstock
which is influenced by the location, type of biomass, and, on a broader scope, the existence
of efficient supply chain networks [155]. Typical supply chain structure would comprise
primary biomass producers/suppliers (household owners, wood processors, forest own‐
ers, etc.), intermediaries or purchasing agents, briquette enterprises, and the briquette fuel
users.
The lack of appropriate government‐backed policies (laws, regulations, and stand‐
ards) that could drive biomass energy use in rural areas is another factor affecting the
wide spread use of abundant biomass for briquette production. Nguyen, et al. [156] high‐
lighted two important issues that need to be addressed by governments of developing
countries, and they include policy and regulatory uncertainties, and high investment
risks. Shen, et al. [157] suggest that the adoption of cleaner fuels may require more re‐
search evidences on its potential economic, environmental, and health benefits that could
provide references for policy‐makers. The literature, however, is filled with a plethora of
data on the positive impacts of biofuels. While some countries have adopted the use of
densified biomass on industrial scale, its use in some countries is limited. The level and
scale of biomass briquette adoption could be a case of individual government priority.
Policy‐based issues that require government attention include enforcement of existing for‐
estry regulations, ease of setting up briquette businesses, tax exemptions, and creating
new markets for biomass briquettes [158].
Another key factor limiting the development of biomass briquette industry is the lack
of appropriate technology suitable for developing bio‐economies. While attempts have
been made at developing low‐cost briquetting machines [144,159], they often lack the ca‐
pacity for commercial‐scale production and may not meet the quality requirements for
commercial briquettes. Encouraging and supporting the development and transfer of ap‐
propriate technologies remain an effective strategy for the rapid development of biomass
briquette driven rural bioeconomy. In addition, appropriate briquetting machines must
be followed up with commercially available improved cook stoves that are both appro‐
priate for the target users in terms of culture, burning efficient, emissions, and conven‐
ience [157]. Both market development and appropriate briquette technology could signif‐
icantly influence the wide adoption of biomass briquettes [160]. The governments through
strategic education and sensitization programs must carefully address issues, such as
technical specification and standardization, proper installation and use of briquetting ma‐
chines and cook stoves, and potential health and environmental benefits from the use of
briquettes.
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 17 of 23

7. Conclusions and Future Research Direction

Biomass briquetting technology has continued to remain an important part of global
bioenergy supply, particularly for heating application and power generation both in de‐
veloping and developed economies. Beyond household heating applications, the bri‐
quetting of loose biomass into solid fuel makes the materials suitable for further energy
applications, including biochemical, thermochemical, and co‐firing applications. The co‐
hesion ability of densified biomass is significantly influenced by the use of binders, which
could be organic, inorganic or composite, and they could further influence the overall cost
of briquette production. This becomes significantly important for low‐lignin‐content bio‐
mass, thus making the identification and selection of binders a significant process in bio‐
mass briquetting.
The important quality parameters of biomass briquettes include compressive
strength, mechanical, impact‐ and water‐resistance, and briquette density, and are meas‐
ured using different standard measurement procedures. This makes it difficult comparing
different biomass briquettes based on these quality parameters. There is the urgent need
for the standardization of measurement procedures for biomass briquette quality assess‐
ment. The wide production and adoption of biomass briquettes in developing countries
has continued to remain limited and the motivation for biomass‐driven clean‐energy tech‐
nology is low. However, government incentives through favorable policies in the form of
financial support, knowledge, and awareness creation, indigenous and appropriate tech‐
nology transfer, and improved power supply can significantly improve the development
of rural biomass briquette industry in developing economies.
To continue to promote the briquetting of biomass as a sustainable alternative bioen‐
ergy option, the standardization of briquette quality measurement will continue to remain
an important consideration for both briquette producers and consumers. This thus pre‐
sents a relatively broad scope of research opportunities in briquette quality measurement
and methods standardization. A key research direction in this regards is identifying how
different quality measurement methodologies influence measured quality parameters of
briquettes using a wide range of biomass types. Furthermore, identifying and or develop‐
ing methodologies that reflect the true quality of briquettes, which could serve as standard
procedures for measuring key biomass briquette quality parameters, could help address
the long established problem of comparability of briquettes from difference biomass. It is
important that standard procedures developed for biomass briquette quality measure‐
ment are both effective and simple to carry out without significant technicalities in terms
of processes and equipment requirement. This is in consideration that biomass are largely
available in rural or developing economies where the briquettes are produced for cost‐
effectiveness. As such, it should be easy to measure briquette quality parameters at such
locations. This could solve the challenge of comparability of briquettes from biomass of
different types and production processes.
While important biomass briquette quality parameters are discussed in this study,
the quality requirements for the future may differ from what it is today. This is because
biomass briquette production needs, processes, and utilization routes are constantly im‐
proving and changing with the discovery of new options. Research in this direction will
need to keep evolving with new demand from the industry. Ultimately, the future quality
requirement for briquettes will be determined by the needs of the industry and consumers
utilizing the briquettes for various bioenergy purposes.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, O.F.O. and R.P.; methodology, O.F.O.; resources, O.F.O.
and R.P.; writing—original draft preparation, O.F.O., R.P., and M.J.C.; writing—review and editing,
O.F.O., R.P., and M.J.C.; supervision, R.P.; funding acquisition, O.F.O. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Bonn, Germany.
The publication of this article was funded by the Open Access Fund of the Leibniz Association.
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 18 of 23

Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. IEA. International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook. 2021. Available online: https://iea.Blob.Core.Windows.Net/as‐
sets/4ed140c1‐c3f3‐4fd9‐acae‐789a4e14a23c/worldenergyoutlook2021.Pdf (accessed on 13 November 2021).
2. Hoang, A.T.; Nguyen, X.P. Integrating renewable sources into energy system for smart city as a sagacious strategy towards
clean and sustainable process. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 305, 127161.
3. Atabani, A.; Tyagi, V.K.; Fongaro, G.; Treichel, H.; Pugazhendhi, A.; Hoang, A.T. Integrated Biorefineries, Circular Bio‐Economy,
and Valorization of Organic Waste Streams with Respect to Bio‐Products; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; p. 1.
4. Hoang, A.T.; Ong, H.C.; Fattah, I.R.; Chong, C.T.; Cheng, C.K.; Sakthivel, R.; Ok, Y.S. Progress on the lignocellulosic biomass
pyrolysis for biofuel production toward environmental sustainability. Fuel Process. Technol. 2021, 223, 106997.
5. Hoang, A.T. 2‐methylfuran (mf) as a potential biofuel: A thorough review on the production pathway from biomass, combus‐
tion progress, and application in engines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 148, 111265.
6. Carter, E.; Shan, M.; Zhong, Y.; Ding, W.; Zhang, Y.; Baumgartner, J.; Yang, X. Development of renewable, densified biomass
for household energy in china. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2018, 46, 42–52.
7. Gilvari, H.; de Jong, W.; Schott, D.L. Quality parameters relevant for densification of bio‐materials: Measuring methods and
affecting factors‐a review. Biomass Bioenergy 2019, 120, 117–134.
8. Chaney, J.; Clifford, M.; Wilson, R. On the heat pulse method for the determination of the thermal properties of biomass bri‐
quettes. Int. Rev. Mech. Eng. 2012, 6, 277–283.
9. Chaney, J.; Clifford, M.; Wilson, R. An experimental study of the combustion characteristics of low‐density biomass briquettes.
Biomass Mag. 2010, 1, 1–8.
10. Tumuluru, J.S.; Wright, C.T.; Hess, J.R.; Kenney, K.L. A review of biomass densification systems to develop uniform feedstock
commodities for bioenergy application. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 2011, 5, 683–707.
11. Dinesha, P.; Kumar, S.; Rosen, M.A. Biomass briquettes as an alternative fuel: A comprehensive review. Energy Technol. 2019, 7,
1801011.
12. Marreiro, H.M.; Peruchi, R.S.; Lopes, R.M.; Andersen, S.L.; Eliziário, S.A.; Rotella Junior, P. Empirical studies on biomass bri‐
quette production: A literature review. Energies 2021, 14, 8320.
13. Jiang, L.; Yuan, X.; Xiao, Z.; Liang, J.; Li, H.; Cao, L.; Wang, H.; Chen, X.; Zeng, G. A comparative study of biomass pellet and
biomass‐sludge mixed pellet: Energy input and pellet properties. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 126, 509–515.
14. Sengar, S.; Mohod, A.; Khandetod, Y.; Patil, S.; Chendake, A. Performance of briquetting machine for briquette fuel. Int. J. Energy
Eng. 2012, 2, 28–34.
15. Bazargan, A.; Rough, S.L.; McKay, G. Compaction of palm kernel shell biochars for application as solid fuel. Biomass Bioenergy
2014, 70, 489–497.
16. Bajwa, D.S.; Peterson, T.; Sharma, N.; Shojaeiarani, J.; Bajwa, S.G. A review of densified solid biomass for energy production.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 96, 296–305.
17. Kpalo, S.Y.; Zainuddin, M.F.; Abd Manaf, L.; Roslan, A.M. Evaluation of hybrid briquettes from corncob and oil palm trunk
bark in a domestic cooking application for rural communities in Nigeria. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 284, 124745.
18. Sahu, S.G.; Chakraborty, N.; Sarkar, P. Coal–biomass co‐combustion: An overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 575–
586.
19. Tumuluru, J.S.; Yancey, N.A.; Kane, J.J. Pilot‐scale grinding and briquetting studies on variable moisture content municipal
solid waste bales–impact on physical properties, chemical composition, and calorific value. Waste Manag. 2021, 125, 316–327.
20. Manirakiza, N.; Ndikumana, T.; Jung, C.G. Towards the promotion of fuel briquettes using municipal solid waste and residual
biomass in Burundi. Int. J. Environ. 2020, 9, 14–31.
21. Roberts, J.J.; Cassula, A.M.; Prado, P.O.; Dias, R.A.; Balestieri, J.A.P. Assessment of dry residual biomass potential for use as
alternative energy source in the party of general pueyrredón, argentina. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 568–583.
22. Vávrová, K.; Knápek, J.; Weger, J. Modeling of biomass potential from agricultural land for energy utilization using high reso‐
lution spatial data with regard to food security scenarios. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 35, 436–444.
23. Liu, L.; Wang, D.; Gao, L.; Duan, R. Distributed heating/centralized monitoring mode of biomass briquette fuel in chinese north‐
ern rural areas. Renew. Energy 2020, 147, 1221–1230.
24. Lin, T.; Rodríguez, L.F.; Davis, S.; Khanna, M.; Shastri, Y.; Grift, T.; Long, S.; Ting, K. Biomass feedstock preprocessing and long‐
distance transportation logistics. GCB Bioenergy 2016, 8, 160–170.
25. Nunes, L.J.; Matias, J.C.; Loureiro, L.M.; Sá, L.C.; Silva, H.F.; Rodrigues, A.M.; Causer, T.P.; DeVallance, D.B.; Ciolkosz, D.E.
Evaluation of the potential of agricultural waste recovery: Energy densification as a factor for residual biomass logistics opti‐
mization. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 20.
26. Zakaria, I.H.; Ibrahim, J.A.; Othman, A.A. Introducing Briquette Storage System in Value Chain of Oil Palm Fiber Waste for
Optimal Electricity Grid Supply: Biogas. In AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing LLC: Melville, NY, USA, 2018; p. 020156.
27. Rezania, S.; Din, M.F.M.; Kamaruddin, S.F.; Taib, S.M.; Singh, L.; Yong, E.L.; Dahalan, F.A. Evaluation of water hyacinth (eich‐
hornia crassipes) as a potential raw material source for briquette production. Energy 2016, 111, 768–773.
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 19 of 23

28. Chungcharoen, T.; Srisang, N. Preparation and characterization of fuel briquettes made from dual agricultural waste: Cashew
nut shells and areca nuts. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120434.
29. Lubwama, M.; Yiga, V.A.; Muhairwe, F.; Kihedu, J. Physical and combustion properties of agricultural residue bio‐char bio‐
composite briquettes as sustainable domestic energy sources. Renew. Energy 2020, 148, 1002–1016.
30. Obi, O.F. Evaluation of the physical properties of composite briquette of sawdust and palm kernel shell. Biomass Convers. Biore‐
fin. 2015, 5, 271–277.
31. Mani, S.; Sokhansanj, S.; Bi, X.; Turhollow, A. Economics of producing fuel pellets from biomass. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2006, 22, 421–
426.
32. Oyelaran, O.A.; Bolaji, B.O.; Waheed, M.A.; Adekunle, M.F. Performance evaluation of the effect of binder on groundnut shell
briquette. Appl. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2015, 8, 11–19.
33. Kivumbi, B.; Jande, Y.A.; Kirabira, J.B.; Kivevele, T.T. Production of carbonized briquettes from charcoal fines using African
elemi (Canarium schweinfurthii) resin as an organic binder. In Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental
Effects; Taylor Francis: Abingdon‐on‐Thames, UK, 2021; pp. 1–17.
34. Montiano, M.; Fernández, A.; Díaz‐Faes, E.; Barriocanal, C. Tar from biomass/coal‐containing briquettes. Evaluation of pahs.
Fuel 2015, 154, 261–267.
35. Anukam, A.; Berghel, J.; Henrikson, G.; Frodeson, S.; Ståhl, M. A review of the mechanism of bonding in densified biomass
pellets. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 148, 111249.
36. Ibitoye, S.E.; Jen, T.‐C.; Mahamood, R.M.; Akinlabi, E.T. Densification of agro‐residues for sustainable energy generation: An
overview. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2021, 8, 1–19.
37. Manickam, I.N.; Ravindran, D.; Subramanian, P. Biomass densification methods and mechanism. Cogener. Distrib. Gener. J. 2006,
21, 33–45.
38. Samuelsson, R.; Larsson, S.H.; Thyrel, M.; Lestander, T.A. Moisture content and storage time influence the binding mechanisms
in biofuel wood pellets. Appl. Energy 2012, 99, 109–115.
39. Zhang, G.; Sun, Y.; Xu, Y. Review of briquette binders and briquetting mechanism. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 477–
487.
40. Han, H.; Duan, D.; Yuan, P. Binders and bonding mechanism for rhf briquette made from blast furnace dust. ISIJ Int. 2014, 54,
1781–1789.
41. Miao, Z.; Zhang, P.; Li, M.; Wan, Y.; Meng, X. Briquette preparation with biomass binder. In Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery,
Utilization, and Environmental Effects; Taylor Francis: Abingdon‐on‐Thames, UK, 2019; pp. 1–11.
42. Yun, Z.; Dongsheng, F.; Huaan, Z.; Yang, Y.; Wenjing, W. Research progress of briquette binder. Clean Coal Technol. 2014, 20,
24–28.
43. Shu, M.Y.; Yin, H.Y.; Liu, G.H. In Experimental researches on composite bentonite‐based briquette binder. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012,
496, 276–280.
44. Chukwuneke, J.; Umeji, A.; Obika, E.; Fakiyesi, O. Optimization of composite briquette made from sawdust/rice husk using
starch and clay binder. Int. J. Integr. Eng. 2021, 13, 208–216.
45. Gebresas, A.; Asmelash, H.; Berhe, H.; Tesfay, T. Briquetting of charcoal from sesame stalk. J. Energy 2015, 2015, 1–6.
46. Afsal, A.; David, R.; Baiju, V.; Suhail, N.M.; Parvathy, U.; Rakhi, R. Experimental investigations on combustion characteristics
of fuel briquettes made from vegetable market waste and saw dust. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 33, 3826–3831.
47. Deshannavar, U.B.; Hegde, P.G.; Dhalayat, Z.; Patil, V.; Gavas, S. Production and characterization of agro‐based briquettes and
estimation of calorific value by regression analysis: An energy application. Mater. Sci. Energy Technol. 2018, 1, 175–181.
48. Buravchuk, N.; Gur’yanova, O. Technology for the joint briquetting of waste coal and sawdust. Solid Fuel Chem. 2018, 52, 308–
312.
49. Olugbade, T.; Ojo, O.; Mohammed, T. Influence of binders on combustion properties of biomass briquettes: A recent review.
BioEnergy Res. 2019, 12, 241–259.
50. Aransiola, E.; Oyewusi, T.; Osunbitan, J.; Ogunjimi, L. Effect of binder type, binder concentration and compacting pressure on
some physical properties of carbonized corncob briquette. Energy Rep. 2019, 5, 909–918.
51. Shone, C.; Jothi, T. Preparation of gasification feedstock from leafy biomass. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 9364–9372.
52. Lubwama, M.; Yiga, V.A. Characteristics of briquettes developed from rice and coffee husks for domestic cooking applications
in Uganda. Renew. Energy 2018, 118, 43–55.
53. Muazu, R.I.; Stegemann, J.A. Biosolids and microalgae as alternative binders for biomass fuel briquetting. Fuel 2017, 194, 339–
347.
54. Gill, N.; Dogra, R.; Dogra, B. Influence of moisture content, particle size, and binder ratio on quality and economics of rice straw
briquettes. BioEnergy Res. 2018, 11, 54–68.
55. Obernberger, I.; Thek, G. Physical characterisation and chemical composition of densified biomass fuels with regard to their
combustion behaviour. Biomass Bioenergy 2004, 27, 653–669.
56. Muazu, R.I.; Stegemann, J.A. Effects of operating variables on durability of fuel briquettes from rice husks and corn cobs. Fuel
Process. Technol. 2015, 133, 137–145.
57. Petricoski, S.M.; Feiden, A.; de Oliveira, A.F.; Tokura, L.K.; Siqueira, J.A.C.; Bonassa, G.; Zilli, B.M.; Gentelini‐Marquez, D.P.; de
Souza, S.N.M.; Feiden, E. Briquettes produced with a mixture of urban pruning waste, glycerin and cassava processing residue.
J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 12, 158–169.
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 20 of 23

58. Samomssa, I.; Nono, Y.J.; Cârâc, G.; Gurău, G.; Dinică, M.R.; Kamga, R. Optimization of fuel briquette production from cassava
peels, plantain peels and corn cobs. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2021, 2021, 1–13.
59. Wongwuttanasatian, T.; Sakkampang, C. Combustion characteristics and emission of briquette fuel from biomass mixed with
glycerin. Combust. Sci. Technol. 2016, 188, 1011–1019.
60. Raslavičius, L. Characterization of the woody cutting waste briquettes containing absorbed glycerol. Biomass Bioenergy 2012, 45,
144–151.
61. Helwani, Z.; Ramli, M.; Rusyana, A.; Marlina, M.; Fatra, W.; Idroes, G.M.; Suhendra, R.; Ashwie, V.; Mahlia, T.M.I.; Idroes, R.
Alternative briquette material made from palm stem biomass mediated by glycerol crude of biodiesel byproducts as a natural
adhesive. Processes 2020, 8, 777.
62. de Almeida Moreira, B.R.; da Silva Viana, R.; Moreira, S.D.; dos Santos Lima, M.; Magalhães, A.C.; Miasaki, C.T.; Caraschi, J.C.
Biomass‐glycerol briquettes are not necessarily mechanically stable and energetically effective. Waste Dispos. Sustain. Energy
2020, 2, 291–303.
63. Ayoub, M.; Abdullah, A.Z. Critical review on the current scenario and significance of crude glycerol resulting from biodiesel
industry towards more sustainable renewable energy industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 2671–2686.
64. Hartini, S.; Puspitasari, D.; Aisy, N.R.; Widharto, Y. In Eco‐efficiency level of production process of waste cooking oil to be
biodiesel with life cycle assessment. E3S Web of Conf. 2020, 202, 10004.
65. Bala‐Litwiniak, A.; Radomiak, H. Possibility of the utilization of waste glycerol as an addition to wood pellets. Waste Biomass
Valoriz. 2019, 10, 2193–2199.
66. Bertoft, E. Understanding starch structure: Recent progress. Agronomy 2017, 7, 56.
67. Ai, Y.; Jane, J.‐L. Understanding starch structure and functionality. In Starch in Food; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
2018; pp. 151–178.
68. Zobel, H.F. Gelatinization of starch and mechanical properties of starch pastes. In Starch: Chemistry and Technology; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1984; pp. 285–309.
69. Velusamy, S.; Subbaiyan, A.; Thangam, R.S. Combustion characteristics of briquette fuels from sorghum panicle–pearl millets
using cassava starch binder. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 21471–21485.
70. Okwu, M.O.; Samuel, O.D. Adapted hyacinth briquetting machine for mass production of briquettes. Energy Sources Part A
Recovery Util. Environ. Effects 2018, 40, 2853–2866.
71. Borowski, G.; Stępniewski, W.; Wójcik‐Oliveira, K. Effect of starch binder on charcoal briquette properties. Int. Agrophys. 2017,
31, 571.
72. Wirabuana, A.D.; Alwi, R.S. Influence of starch binders composition on properties of biomomass briquettes from durian peel
(durio kutejensis becc). In AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing LLC: Melville, NY, USA, 2021; p. 020020.
73. Haykiri‐Acma, H.; Yaman, S.; Kucukbayrak, S. Production of biobriquettes from carbonized brown seaweed. Fuel Process. Tech‐
nol. 2013, 106, 33–40.
74. Nagarajan, D.; Varjani, S.; Lee, D.‐J.; Chang, J.‐S. Sustainable aquaculture and animal feed from microalgae–nutritive value and
techno‐functional components. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 150, 111549.
75. Ververis, C.; Georghiou, K.; Danielidis, D.; Hatzinikolaou, D.; Santas, P.; Santas, R.; Corleti, V. Cellulose, hemicelluloses, lignin
and ash content of some organic materials and their suitability for use as paper pulp supplements. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98,
296–301.
76. De OliveiraCosta, T.; Calijuri, M.L.; Avelar, N.V.; de Cassia de Oliveira Carneiro, A.; de Assis, L.R. Energetic potential of algal
biomass from high‐rate algal ponds for the production of solid biofuels. Environ. Technol. 2017, 38, 1926–1936.
77. Savage, P.E.; Hestekin, J.A. A perspective on algae, the environment, and energy. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2013, 32, 877–
883.
78. Rawat, S.; Kumar, S. Critical review on processing technologies and economic aspect of bio‐coal briquette production. Prep.
Biochem. Biotechnol. 2021, 23, 1–17.
79. Marangon, B.B.; Calijuri, M.L.; de Siqueira Castro, J.; Assemany, P.P. A life cycle assessment of energy recovery using briquette
from wastewater grown microalgae biomass. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 285, 112171.
80. Amarasekara, A.; Tanzim, F.S.; Asmatulu, E. Briquetting and carbonization of naturally grown algae biomass for low‐cost fuel
and activated carbon production. Fuel 2017, 208, 612–617.
81. Olbrich, H. The Molasses; Biotechnologie‐Kempe GmbH: Kleinmachnow, Germany, 2006; p. 128.
82. Mordenti, A.L.; Giaretta, E.; Campidonico, L.; Parazza, P.; Formigoni, A. A review regarding the use of molasses in animal
nutrition. Animals 2021, 11, 115.
83. Ashori, A.; Marashi, M.; Ghasemian, A.; Afra, E. Utilization of sugarcane molasses as a dry‐strength additive for old corrugated
container recycled paper. Compos. Part B Eng. 2013, 45, 1595–1600.
84. Zhang, S.; Wang, J.; Jiang, H. Microbial production of value‐added bioproducts and enzymes from molasses, a by‐product of
sugar industry. Food Chem. 2021, 346, 128860.
85. Carnaje, N.P.; Talagon, R.B.; Peralta, J.P.; Shah, K.; Paz‐Ferreiro, J. Development and characterisation of charcoal briquettes from
water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)‐molasses blend. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0207135.
86. Jittabut, P. Physical and thermal properties of briquette fuels from rice straw and sugarcane leaves by mixing molasses. Energy
Procedia 2015, 79, 2–9.
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 21 of 23

87. Sen, R.; Wiwatpanyaporn, S.; Annachhatre, A.P. Influence of binders on physical properties of fuel briquettes produced from
cassava rhizome waste. Int. J. Environ. Waste Manag. 2016, 17, 158–175.
88. Anatasya, A.; Umiati, N.A.K.; Subagio, A. The effect of binding types on the biomass briquette calorific value from cow manure
as a solid energy source. E3S Web Conf. 2019, 125, 13004.
89. Rodiah, S.; Al Jabbar, J.; Ramadhan, A.; Hastati, E. Investigation of mango (Mangifera odorate) sap and starch as organic adhesive
of bio‐briquette. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1943, 012185.
90. Karunanayake, K. A qualitative analysis of mango (mangifera indica L.) latex and anatomy of latex canals. J. Sci. 2019, 10, 11–20.
91. Negi, P.; John, S.K.; Rao, P.U. Antimicrobial activity of mango sap. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2002, 214, 327–330.
92. Obi, O.F. Evaluation of the effect of palm oil mill sludge on the properties of sawdust briquette. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2015, 52, 1749–1758.
93. Foo, K.; Hameed, B. Insight into the applications of palm oil mill effluent: A renewable utilization of the industrial agricultural
waste. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 1445–1452.
94. Yank, A.; Ngadi, M.; Kok, R. Physical properties of rice husk and bran briquettes under low‐pressure densification for rural
applications. Biomass Bioenergy 2016, 84, 22–30.
95. Bemiller, J.N.; Whistler, R.L.; Barkalow, D.G.; Chen, C.‐C. Aloe, chia, flaxseed, okra, psyllium seed, quince seed, and tamarind
gums. In Industrial Gums; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,1993; pp. 227–256.
96. Rahaman, S.A.; Salam, P.A. Characterization of cold densified rice straw briquettes and the potential use of sawdust as binder.
Fuel Process. Technol. 2017, 158, 9–19.
97. Liu, D.; Nikoo, M.; Boran, G.; Zhou, P.; Regenstein, J.M. Collagen and gelatin. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 6, 527–557.
98. Su, K.; Wang, C. Recent advances in the use of gelatin in biomedical research. Biotechnol. Lett. 2015, 37, 2139–2145.
99. Rajaseenivasan, T.; Srinivasan, V.; Qadir, G.S.M.; Srithar, K. An investigation on the performance of sawdust briquette blending
with neem powder. Alex. Eng. J. 2016, 55, 2833–2838.
100. Novotnik, B.; Zuliani, T.; Ščančar, J.; Milačič, R. Content of trace elements and chromium speciation in neem powder and tea
infusions. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2015, 31, 98–106.
101. Manouchehrinejad, M.; Yue, Y.; de Morais, R.A.L.; Souza, L.M.O.; Singh, H.; Mani, S. Densification of thermally treated energy
cane and napier grass. BioEnergy Res. 2018, 11, 538–550.
102. Bamisaye, A.; Rapheal, I.A. Effect of binder type on the naoh‐treated briquettes produced from banana leaves. Biomass Convers.
Biorefin. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399‐021‐01771‐9
103. Espuelas, S.; Marcelino, S.; Echeverría, A.; Del Castillo, J.; Seco, A. Low energy spent coffee grounds briquetting with organic
binders for biomass fuel manufacturing. Fuel 2020, 278, 118310.
104. Sun, Y.; Ding, N.; Xing, Y. Key techniques and parameters for briquetting corn stover sprayed with biogas slurry in a cold region
in china. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util. Environ. Effects 2016, 38, 1219–1235.
105. Zhu, L.; Yan, C.; Li, Z. Microalgal cultivation with biogas slurry for biofuel production. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 220, 629–636.
106. Wang, T.; Li, Y.; Zhi, D.; Lin, Y.; He, K.; Liu, B.; Mao, H. Assessment of combustion and emission behavior of corn straw biochar
briquette fuels under different temperatures. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 250, 109399.
107. Wang, T.; Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, J.; Liu, Y.; Sun, L.; Liu, B.; Mao, H.; Lin, Y.; Li, W. Evaluation of the potential of pelletized
biomass from different municipal solid wastes for use as solid fuel. Waste manag. 2018, 74, 260–266.
108. Vieira, S.M.d.M.; Knop, M.d.C.; Mesquita, P.d.L.; Baston, E.P.; Naves, F.L.; Oliveira, L.F.C.d.; França, A.B. Physicochemical
properties of a solid fuel from biomass of elephant grass charcoal (Pennisetum purpureum schum.) and recyclable pet and hdpe.
Mater. Res. 2020, 23, 1–5.
109. Faizal, H.M.; Latiff, Z.; Iskandar, M.M.; Nazri, M.M. Physical characteristics of briquettes contain mixture of pulverized empty
fruit bunch and polyethylene plastics. J. Adv. Res. Mater. Sci. 2015, 11, 1–7.
110. Hanaffi Mohd Fuad, M.A.; Faizal, H.M.; Rahman, M.R.A.; Latiff, Z. Torrefaction of densified empty fruit bunches with addition
of plastics waste. Biofuels 2020, 11, 491–501.
111. Song, B.; Cooke‐Willis, M.; Theobald, B.; Hall, P. Producing a high heating value and weather resistant solid fuel via briquetting
of blended wood residues and thermoplastics. Fuel 2021, 283, 119263.
112. Schott, D.; Tans, R.; Dafnomilis, G.; Hancock, V.; Lodewijks, G. Assessing a durability test for wood pellets by discrete element
simulation. FME Trans. 2016, 44, 279–284.
113. Richards, S. Physical testing of fuel briquettes. Fuel Process. Technol. 1990, 25, 89–100.
114. Sunnu, A.; Adu‐Poku, K.; Ayetor, G. Production and characterization of charred briquettes from various agricultural waste.
Combust. Sci. Technol. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/00102202.2021.1977803
115. Adeleke, A.; Odusote, J.; Ikubanni, P.; Lasode, O.; Malathi, M.; Pasawan, D. Physical and mechanical characteristics of composite
briquette from coal and pretreated wood fines. Int. J. Coal Sci. Technol. 2021, 8, 1088–1098 .
116. Kambo, H.S.; Dutta, A. Strength, storage, and combustion characteristics of densified lignocellulosic biomass produced via
torrefaction and hydrothermal carbonization. Appl. Energy 2014, 135, 182–191.
117. Mitchual, S.J.; Frimpong‐Mensah, K.; Darkwa, N.A. Effect of species, particle size and compacting pressure on relaxed density
and compressive strength of fuel briquettes. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 2013, 4, 1–6.
118. Onukak, I.E.; Mohammed‐Dabo, I.A.; Ameh, A.O.; Okoduwa, S.I.; Fasanya, O.O. Production and characterization of biomass
briquettes from tannery solid waste. Recycling 2017, 2, 17.
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 22 of 23

119. Rynkiewicz, M.; Trávníček, P.; Krčálová, E.; Mareček, J. Influence of annealing temperature of straw briquettes on their density
and hardness. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2013, 61, 153.
120. Swietochowski, A.; Lisowski, A.; Dabrowska‐Salwin, M. Strength of Briquettes and Pellets from Energy Crops. In Proceedings
of the 15th Internal Scientific Conference Engineering for Rural Development, Jelgava, Latvia, 25–27 May 2016; pp. 547–551.
121. Afra, E.; Abyaz, A.; Saraeyan, A. The production of bagasse biofuel briquettes and the evaluation of natural binders (lnfc, nfc,
and lignin) effects on their technical parameters. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123543.
122. Wu, S.; Zhang, S.; Wang, C.; Mu, C.; Huang, X. High‐strength charcoal briquette preparation from hydrothermal pretreated
biomass wastes. Fuel Process. Technol. 2018, 171, 293–300.
123. Song, X.; Zhang, S.; Wu, Y.; Cao, Z. Investigation on the properties of the bio‐briquette fuel prepared from hydrothermal pre‐
treated cotton stalk and wood sawdust. Renew. Energy 2020, 151, 184–191.
124. de Oliveira, P.R.S.; Trugilho, P.F.; de Oliveira, T.J.P. Briquettes of acai seeds: Characterization of the biomass and influence of
the parameters of production temperature and pressure in the physical‐mechanical and energy quality. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
2021, 29, 1–10.
125. Ţenu, I.; Roman, C.; Senila, L.; Roşca, R.; Cârlescu, P.; Băetu, M.; Arsenoaia, V.; Dumitrachi, E.P.; Corduneanu, O.‐R. Valorization
of vine tendrils resulted from pruning as densified solid biomass fuel (briquettes). Processes 2021, 9, 1409.
126. Ueki, Y.; Nunome, Y.; Yoshiie, R.; Naruse, I.; Nishibata, Y.; Aizawa, S. Effect of woody biomass addition on coke properties. ISIJ
Int. 2014, 54, 2454–2460.
127. Severy, M.A.; Chamberlin, C.E.; Eggink, A.J.; Jacobson, A.E. Demonstration of a pilot‐scale plant for biomass torrefaction and
briquetting. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2018, 34, 85–98.
128. Tumuluru, J.; Tabil, L.; Song, Y.; Iroba, K.; Meda, V. Impact of process conditions on the density and durability of wheat, oat,
canola, and barley straw briquettes. Bioenergy Res. 2015, 8, 388–401.
129. Granado, M.P.P.; Suhogusoff, Y.V.M.; Santos, L.R.O.; Yamaji, F.M.; De Conti, A.C. Effects of pressure densification on strength
and properties of cassava waste briquettes. Renew. Energy 2021, 167, 306–312.
130. Dyjakon, A.; Sobol, Ł.; Krotowski, M.; Mudryk, K.; Kawa, K. The impact of particles comminution on mechanical durability of
wheat straw briquettes. Energies 2020, 13, 6186.
131. Temmerman, M.; Rabier, F.; Jensen, P.D.; Hartmann, H.; Böhm, T. Comparative study of durability test methods for pellets and
briquettes. Biomass Bioenergy 2006, 30, 964–972.
132. Obidziński, S.; Zyskowski, S.; Miastkowski, K.; Joka, M. Universal device for assessment of the kinetic durability of pressure
agglomeration products. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2015, 60, 69–73.
133. Khorasgani, N.B.; Sengul, A.B.; Asmatulu, E. Briquetting grass and tree leaf biomass for sustainable production of future fuels.
Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 2020, 10, 915–924.
134. Saikia, M.; Baruah, D. Analysis of physical properties of biomass briquettes prepared by wet briquetting method. Int. J. Eng.
Res. Dev. 2013, 6, 12–14.
135. Okot, D.K.; Bilsborrow, P.E.; Phan, A.N. Effects of operating parameters on maize cob briquette quality. Biomass Bioenergy 2018,
112, 61–72.
136. Okot, D.K.; Bilsborrow, P.E.; Phan, A.N. Briquetting characteristics of bean straw‐maize cob blend. Biomass Bioenergy 2019, 126,
150–158.
137. Sawadogo, M.; Tanoh, S.T.; Sidibé, S.; Kpai, N.; Tankoano, I. Cleaner production in Burkina Faso: Case study of fuel briquettes
made from cashew industry waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 1047–1056.
138. Felfli, F.F.; Luengo, C.A.; Suárez, J.A.; Beatón, P.A. Wood briquette torrefaction. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2005, 9, 19–22.
139. Zhang, H.; Fredriksson, M.; Mravec, J.; Felby, C. Hydration properties of briquetted wheat straw biomass feedstock. BioResources
2017, 12, 9024–9037.
140. Fadele, O.; Amusan, T.; Afolabi, A.; Ogunlade, C. Characterisation of a briquette from forest wastes: Optimisation approach.
Res. Agric. Eng. 2021, 67, 138–147.
141. Anggraeni, S.; Girsang, G.C.S.; Nandiyanto, A.B.D.; Bilad, M.R. Effects of particle size and composition of sawdust/carbon from
rice husk on the briquette performance. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2021, 16, 2298–2311.
142. Orisaleye, J.; Jekayinfa, S.; Pecenka, R.; Onifade, T. Effect of densification variables on water resistance of corncob briquettes.
Agron. Res. 2019, 17, 30–150.
143. Saha, K.K.; Hossain, M.M.; Ali, M.R.; Alam, M.M. Feasibility study of coconut coir dust briquette. J. Bangladesh Agric. Univ. 2014,
12, 369–376.
144. Obi, O.; Akubuo, C.; Okonkwo, W. Development of an appropriate briquetting machine for use in rural communities. Int. J.
Eng. Adv. Technol. 2013, 2, 578–582.
145. Guo, Z.; Wu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, F.; Miao, Z.; Zhao, X.; Guo, Y. Analysis of enhancing moisture‐proof and waterproof perfor‐
mance for lignite powder briquette. Int. J. Coal Prep. Util. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/19392699.2020.1861604.
146. Ujjinappa, S.; Sreepathi, L. Production and quality testing of fuel briquettes made from pongamia and tamarind shell. Sādhanā
2018, 43, 1–7.
147. Guo, L.; Wang, D.; Tabil, L.G.; Wang, G. Compression and relaxation properties of selected biomass for briquetting. Biosyst.
Eng. 2016, 148, 101–110.
148. Karunanithy, C.; Wang, Y.; Muthukumarappan, K.; Pugalendhi, S. Physiochemical characterization of briquettes made from
different feedstocks. Biotechnol. Res. Int. 2012, 2012, 165202.
Energies 2022, 15, 2426 23 of 23

149. ASAE. Cubes, Pellets, and Crumbles‐Definitions and Methods for Determining Density, Durability, and Moisture Content; ASABE
Standards: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
150. Brand, M.A.; Jacinto, R.C.; Antunes, R.; da Cunha, A.B. Production of briquettes as a tool to optimize the use of waste from rice
cultivation and industrial processing. Renew. Energy 2017, 111, 116–123.
151. Gil, M.; Schott, D.; Arauzo, I.; Teruel, E. Handling behavior of two‐milled biomass: Srf poplar and corn stover. Fuel Process.
Technol. 2013, 112, 76–85.
152. Balasubramani, P.; Anbumalar, V.; Nagarajan, M.; Prabu, P.M. Biomass briquette manufacturing system model for environ‐
ment. J. Alloy. Compd. 2016, 686, 859–865.
153. Akhtari, S.; Sowlati, T.; Day, K. The effects of variations in supply accessibility and amount on the economics of using regional
forest biomass for generating district heat. Energy 2014, 67, 631–640.
154. Ericsson, K.; Werner, S. The introduction and expansion of biomass use in Swedish district heating systems. Biomass Bioenergy
2016, 94, 57–65.
155. Sahoo, K.; Bilek, E.; Bergman, R.; Mani, S. Techno‐economic analysis of producing solid biofuels and biochar from forest resi‐
dues using portable systems. Appl. Energy 2019, 235, 578–590.
156. Nguyen, X.P.; Le, N.D.; Pham, V.V.; Huynh, T.T.; Dong, V.H.; Hoang, A.T. Mission, challenges, and prospects of renewable
energy development in vietnam. Energy Source Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Effects 2021,
https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2021.1965264
157. Shen, G.; Lin, W.; Chen, Y.; Yue, D.; Liu, Z.; Yang, C. Factors influencing the adoption and sustainable use of clean fuels and
cookstoves in china‐a chinese literature review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 741–750.
158. Mwampamba, T.H.; Owen, M.; Pigaht, M. Opportunities, challenges and way forward for the charcoal briquette industry in
sub‐saharan Africa. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2013, 17, 158–170.
159. Dairo, O.U.; Adeleke, A.E.; Shittu, T.; Ibrahim, N.A.; Adeosun, O.J.; Iyerimah, R.B. Development and performance evaluation
of a low‐cost hydraulic‐operated biomass briquetting machine. FUOYE J. Eng. Technol. 2018, 3, 2579–2617.
160. Mugabi, P.; Kisakye, D. Status of production, distribution and determinants of biomass briquette acceptability in Kampala city,
uganda. Maderas Ciencia Tecnol. Source 2021, 23, 4067.