energies

Article
Quality Assessment of Biofuel Briquettes Obtained from
Greenhouse Waste Using a Mobile Prototype Briquetting
Machine with PTO Drive
Önder Kabaş 1 , İlker Ünal 2 , Salih Sözer 1 , Kemal Cagatay Selvi 3 and Nicoleta Ungureanu 4, *

1 Department of Machine, Technical Science Vocational School, Akdeniz University, 07070 Antalya, Turkey
2 Department of Mechatronics, Technical Science Vocational School, Akdeniz University, 07070 Antalya, Turkey
3 Department of Agriculture Machinery and Technologies Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture,
Ondokuz Mayıs University, 55139 Samsun, Turkey
4 Department of Biotechnical Systems, Faculty of Biotechnical Systems Engineering,
University Politehnica of Bucharest, 006042 Bucharest, Romania
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Turkey has a large agricultural area and produces 55–60 million tons of biomass waste/year.
This study aimed to obtain bio-briquettes from three types of dried greenhouse wastes and to
determine their strength parameters. A prototype of a mobile briquetting machine driven by power
take-off (PTO), with hydraulic pistons, and comprising a shredder and grinding or crushing unit
with a briquetting pressure in the range of 0–190 MPa, was used. The physical parameters of the
obtained briquettes were determined, including density, tumbler and shatter resistance, compression
resistance, water intake capacity, and resistance to moisture-humidity. The results of physical and
mechanical tests showed that the briquettes are of an extremely high quality. The maximum density,
shatter and tumbler resistance were 1143.52 kg·m−3 , 99.24% in pepper plant waste, and 98.52%
in eggplant plant waste, respectively. Based on the analysis of compression tests obtained under
Citation: Kabaş, Ö.; Ünal, İ.; Sözer, S.; 190 MPa (maximum compaction force of 450 kN), the maximum compression force, compression
Selvi, K.C.; Ungureanu, N. Quality stress, and specific compression force were found in briquettes made from tomato plant wastes
Assessment of Biofuel Briquettes (3315 N, 69.43 N·mm−2 , 40.09 N·mm−1 , respectively). Overall, the results and variables affecting
Obtained from Greenhouse Waste the strength parameters showed that greenhouse waste biomass is an excellent feedstock for the
Using a Mobile Prototype Briquetting production of high quality bio-briquettes. The valorization of briquetted greenhouse waste with the
Machine with PTO Drive. Energies proposed prototype contributes to the sustainability of the environment and to a reduction in energy
2022, 15, 8371. https://doi.org/
costs for farmers.
10.3390/en15228371

Academic Editor: Byong-Hun Jeon Keywords: waste; greenhouse; biomass energy; briquette; prototype machine

Received: 8 October 2022

Accepted: 8 November 2022
Published: 9 November 2022
1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
Currently, the primary energy sources are fossil fuels, such as coal, crude oil, natural
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
gas, and nuclear energy, which account for about 80% of global annual energy consump-
published maps and institutional affil-
tion [1]. These energy sources are expected to run out in the next 40 to 50 years. In addition
iations.
to the fact that they are polluting, these fossil sources cannot easily be replaced by natural
means at a rate fast enough to keep up with consumption. Hence, it is imperative to
find and use alternative energy sources. Renewable energy sources, derived from natu-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
ral sources or processes that are constantly renewed, include wind energy, solar energy
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. (thermal, photovoltaic, and concentrated), hydro energy, tidal energy, geothermal energy,
This article is an open access article ambient heat captured by heat pumps, and biomass. The search for alternative energy
distributed under the terms and sources that can meet the needs of the world’s population, which are usually met by hy-
conditions of the Creative Commons drocarbons, has shifted the research focus not only to new sources such as solar, hydro,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// or nuclear energy, but also to the reuse of waste materials from other processes such as
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ feedstock for biomass applications. Biomass refers to any organic waste or material, and
4.0/). mainly plant waste is used for energy purposes [2].

Energies 2022, 15, 8371. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15228371 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2022, 15, 8371 2 of 14

Biomass is an abundant and a continuously available resource; it was the dominant

source of energy long before fossil fuels, but in recent years it has been reintegrated into
large-scale bioenergy supply [3]. Bioenergy is derived from a wide range of raw materials,
including agricultural residues, dedicated energy crops, wood processing residues, algae,
the organic fraction of municipal solid waste, and food waste.
Biomass is promoted as one of the few energy sources with a carbon footprint close to
zero, because, although burning biomass generates CO2 emissions, during their growth the
plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere [4].
Direct conversion of biomass, such as combustion, and indirect conversion methods,
such as pyrolysis, gasification, and liquefaction, are methods of obtaining compounds that
can be used as fuels [5]. Biomass conversion techniques have become a rapidly growing
branch of science, and a technology aimed at meeting ever-increasing energy demand while
reducing CO2 emissions by 70–90% [6].
The use of biomass as feedstock for biofuels production is often seen as a way to
bridge the growing gap between energy demand and supply, especially given the finite
nature of non-renewable energy sources such as fossil fuels [7].
Biomass, which includes agricultural residues, accounts for about two-thirds of all po-
tential renewable energy sources in Turkey [8], a country with vast agricultural production
areas that offer enormous potential for renewable energy. Turkey’s energy consumption
has increased rapidly due to its growing population and its status as a developing country.
Turkey is one of the most important greenhouse centers in the world. The total
greenhouse area in Turkey is 77,210 ha, of which 7811 ha are under glass, and 69,399 ha
are under plastic [9]. In Turkey, greenhouses are used for growing tomatoes, peppers, and
eggplant. On a wet basis, the annual amount of biomass waste generated in greenhouses
from the cultivation of tomatoes, peppers, and eggplant is about 1690 thousand tons, and
on a dry basis, 253 thousand tons [10]. Although greenhouses in Turkey produce huge
amounts of agricultural waste every year, it is burned, disposed of from the greenhouses,
or ground into the greenhouse soil [11].
Biomass waste, especially agricultural residues, is a durable feedstock for biofuels,
with a minimal impact on food security [12]. However, its high moisture content and low
bulk density are the main drawbacks in conversion technologies [13,14]. However, biomass
properties can be improved by increasing its density, which can facilitate storage and
transportation as well as the ability or capacity to generate energy by applying a modest
amount of energy [7].
Bio-briquetting consists of the densification or compaction of solid biomass (dis-
carded or secondary and referred to as waste in industrial and agricultural production
processes) under high pressure [15], and high temperature, with or without binders [16].
Bio-briquetting is one of the most efficient methods to valorize biomass waste, by which
a low-cost, environmentally friendly, renewable, and certified solid biofuel called bio-
briquette is obtained. Compared to the raw biomass, the bio-briquettes are characterized
by increased bulk density, uniform shapes (usually cylindrical or rectangular) and sizes
(diameter between 25 and 100 mm and length between 10 and 400 mm) [17], low moisture
content, higher energy content, and improved combustion characteristics [18,19]. This
method of biomass valorization can also drastically reduce the storage and transport costs
of biomass waste, and contributes to environmental sustainability because it avoids the de-
composition of biomass waste and the generation of greenhouse gases. The waste generated
from briquetting is further recycled into the bioeconomy, reducing Turkey’s dependence on
imported energy.
Bio-briquettes are usually used for domestic heating, and co-firing with coal in heat
and power generation centers or thermal power plants. In addition, the briquettes obtained
by agricultural enterprises from their greenhouse waste are high in quality and suitable for
use instead of fossil fuels in greenhouse heating.
As a result of the literature studies, it was found that the grinding and crushing process
required for briquetting biomass is carried out in two different machines, and the ground
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

tained by agricultural enterprises from their greenhouse waste are high in quality and
suitable for use instead of fossil fuels in greenhouse heating.
Energies 2022, 15, 8371 3 of 14
As a result of the literature studies, it was found that the grinding and crushing
process required for briquetting biomass is carried out in two different machines, and the
ground material is then processed into briquettes using immobile, screw, piston, or hy-
material is then
draulic press processed into
technologies briquettes
with using
an electric immobile, screw, piston, or hydraulic press
motor.
technologies with an electric motor.
Hazelnut residues [1], a mixture of rice husks and pine sawdust [2], vineyard wastes
[16],Hazelnut
tea wasteresidues
[20,21], [1],
wooda mixture of rice
processing husks and
residues pine sawdust
(sawdust, mulch[2],
andvineyard wastes[22],
wood crisps) [16],
tea waste [20,21], wood processing residues (sawdust, mulch and wood crisps) [22], woody
woody and herbaceous biomass blends [23], lignite mixed with woody waste [24], saw-
and herbaceous biomass blends [23], lignite mixed with woody waste [24], sawdust and
dust and rapeseed cake [25], palm kernel fibers [26], cotton and sesame stalks [27], vari-
rapeseed cake [25], palm kernel fibers [26], cotton and sesame stalks [27], various green-
ous greenhouse plant wastes [28], straws, reed and hemp stalks [29], cotton stalks [30],
house plant wastes [28], straws, reed and hemp stalks [29], cotton stalks [30], reed species
reed species as energy crops [31], sunflower stalks [32], various energy crops (Salix vim-
as energy crops [31], sunflower stalks [32], various energy crops (Salix viminalis, Miscanthus
inalis, Miscanthus sinensis, Rosa multiflora, Polygonum sachalinensis, Helianthus tuberosus,
sinensis, Rosa multiflora, Polygonum sachalinensis, Helianthus tuberosus, Sida hermaphrodita
Sida hermaphrodita and Spartina pectinata) [33], kiwi cuttings [34], corn stalks [35], sugar-
and Spartina pectinata) [33], kiwi cuttings [34], corn stalks [35], sugarcane bagasse and
cane bagasse and straws [36], were previously briquetted in hydraulic presses, piston or
straws [36], were previously briquetted in hydraulic presses, piston or conical screw
conical screw presses with electric motor drive under different briquetting pressures,
presses with electric motor drive under different briquetting pressures, particle sizes or
particle sizes or moisture contents, in order to valorize biomass waste as solid biofuels
moisture contents, in order to valorize biomass waste as solid biofuels and contribute to
and contribute to environmental sustainability.
environmental sustainability.
Theobjective
The objectiveof of this
this study
study was
was to
to bio-briquette
bio-briquette the
the biomass
biomass waste
waste of
of pepper,
pepper, tomato,
tomato,
and eggplant
and eggplantcropscropsgrowngrown in greenhouse,
in greenhouse, usingusing a prototype
a prototype of power of take-off
power take-off
(PTO)-
( PTO)-driven mobile hydraulic piston briquetting machine, and to
driven mobile hydraulic piston briquetting machine, and to evaluate the quality evaluate the quality
of theof
the bio-briquettes as solid fuel. The processes of shredding, grinding, and
bio-briquettes as solid fuel. The processes of shredding, grinding, and briquetting were briquetting
were carried
carried out onoutsiteon
in site in a single
a single machine
machine withoutwithout
havinghaving to transport
to transport the waste
the dried dried waste
from
from place
place to place.to place.

2. Materials
2. Materials andand Methods
Methods
2.1.
2.1. Bio-Briquetting Procedures
Bio-Briquetting Procedures
The
The experimental tests
experimental tests were
were conducted
conducted atat Akdeniz
Akdeniz University,
University, Vocational
VocationalSchool
Schoolofof
Technical Sciences, Department of Machinery, and Ondokuz Mayıs University,
Technical Sciences, Department of Machinery, and Ondokuz Mayıs University, Faculty Faculty of
Agriculture,
of Agriculture,Department
Department of Agricultural Machinery,
of Agricultural Machinery, respectively.
respectively.
The
Theharvesting
harvestingwaste
wasteof ofpeppers,
peppers,tomatoes,
tomatoes,and and eggplant
eggplant grown
grownin in greenhouses
greenhouseswas
was
used
used inin this
this study
study as
asbiomass
biomassfeedstock.
feedstock. The
The moisture
moisture content
content of
of pepper,
pepper, tomato
tomato and
and
eggplant wastes was reduced between 7% and 9%, by drying in the
eggplant wastes was reduced between 7% and 9%, by drying in the sun under normal sun under normal
conditions
conditions as asprescribed
prescribedininthe standard
the standard ENEN14774-1
14774-1[37]. TheThe
[37]. dried wastes
dried werewere
wastes briquet-
bri-
ted using a mobile, hydraulic, PTO-driven piston briquetting machine
quetted using a mobile, hydraulic, PTO-driven piston briquetting machine which con- which contains a
crusher and grinder with a briquetting range of 0–190 MPa, developed
tains a crusher and grinder with a briquetting range of 0–190 MPa, developed as a pro- as a prototype
(Figures 1 and 2).1 No
totype (Figures andbinder
2). Nowas used
binder during
was used the briquetting
during process.process.
the briquetting

Figure1.1. Prototype
Figure Prototypeof
ofmobile
mobilebriquetting
briquettingmachine.
machine.
 Energies
Energies 2022,
2022, 15, 15, x FOR
x FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 4 of4 15
of 15
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15
Energies 2022, 15, 8371 4 of 14

Figure
Figure 2. Prototype
2. Prototype mobile
mobile briquetting
briquetting machine
machine driven
driven by by PTO,
PTO, with
with hydraulic
hydraulic piston.
piston.
machine driven
Figure 2. Prototype mobile briquetting machine driven by
by PTO,
PTO, with
with hydraulic
hydraulic piston.
piston.

TheThe
The dried
drieddried wastes
wastes
wastes were
were
were initially
initially
initially shredded
shredded
shreddedin in
the
in the shredding
shredding unitunit
of ofthe the prototype
prototype
The dried wastes were initially shredded in the
the shredding
shredding unit
unit of
of the
the prototype
prototype
machine,
machine,
machine,whichwhich
which consists
consists
consists of
of of
40
4040 hammers
hammers
hammers made
made
made of
of of hardox
hardox
hardox steel
steel
steel andandand
16 16 16 counter
counter
counter blades,
blades,
blades, which
machine, which consists of 40 hammers made of hardox steel and 16 counter blades,
which
which
takes takes
takes
its its its
movement movement
movement from fromfrom
the the the
tractor tractor
tractor
PTO PTOPTO
with with
thewith
the the belt-pulley
belt-pulley
belt-pulley system system
system
and and and
rotate rotate
rotate
at a at at
speed
which takes its movement from the tractor PTO with the belt-pulley system and rotate at
aofspeed
a speed of of
2550 rpm.25502550 rpm.
rpm.
The rpm. The The
drawings drawings
drawings of of
thethe shredder
shredder unit,
unit, obtained
obtained in in SolidWorks,
are presentedare
SolidWorks, are
a speed of 2550 The of the shredder
drawings of theunit, obtained
shredder in obtained
unit, SolidWorks, in SolidWorks, in
are
presented
presented
Figure in Figure
3,inand
Figure
the 3, 3, and
and
isometricthethe isometric
isometric
assembly assembly
assembly
drawings drawings
drawings
are presentedareare presented
presented
in Figure in Figure
4.in Figure 4. 4.
presented in Figure 3, and the isometric assembly drawings are presented in Figure 4.

Figure
Figure
Figure 3. SolidWorks
3. SolidWorks
3. SolidWorks drawings
drawings of the
of the shredder
shredder unit.
unit.
Figure 3. SolidWorks drawings of the shredder unit.

Figure
Figure 4. Shredder
4. Shredder unit
unit assembly
assembly drawings.
drawings.
Figure 4. Shredder
Figure 4. Shredder unit
unit assembly
assembly drawings.
drawings.

Then,
Then,
Then, the
thethe shredded
shredded
shredded material
material
material taken
taken
taken from
from
from the
thethe shredding
shredding
shredding unit
unit
unit to the
to
to the the grinding
grinding
grinding unit
unit
unit waswas
was
Then, the shredded material taken from the shredding unit to the grinding unit was
brought
brought
brought to
to
to the the
the required
required
required piece
piece
piece size
sizesize for
forfor briquetting
briquetting
briquetting in
in
in the the
the grinding
grinding
grinding unit
unit
unitunit on
on
on on the
thethe prototype
prototype
prototype
brought to the required piece briquetting in the grinding prototype
machine,
machine,
machine, which
which
which consists
consists ofofof
consists 242424
hammers
hammers
hammers made
made
made of of
of hardox
hardox
hardox steel and
steel
steel and 58
58counter
and 58 blades
counter
counter rotating
blades
blades ro-ro-
machine, which consists of 24 hammers made of hardox steel and 58 counter blades ro-
at 2200 rpm. The SolidWorks drawings of the grinding unit are given in Figure 5, and the
isometric assembly drawings are seen in Figure 6.
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15

Energies 2022, 15, 8371 5 of 14

tating at
tating at 2200
2200 rpm.
rpm. The
The SolidWorks
SolidWorks drawings
drawings of of the
the grinding
grinding unit
unit are
are given
given in
in Figure
Figure 5,
5,
and the
and the isometric
isometric assembly
assembly drawings
drawings are
are seen
seen in
in Figure
Figure 6.
6.

Figure 5.
Figure5. SolidWorks
5.SolidWorks drawings of the grinding unit.
SolidWorks drawings
Figure of the grinding unit.

Figure 6. Drawings of the grinding unit assembly.

Figure
Figure6.6.Drawings
Drawingsof
ofthe
thegrinding
grindingunit
unitassembly.
assembly.

The
The properties of
The properties of greenhouse
greenhousewastes
greenhouse wastes(pepper,
wastes (pepper, tomato,
tomato,
(pepper, and
and
tomato, eggplant)
eggplant)
and used
used
eggplant) in bri-
bri-
in briquet-
used in
quetting experiments
ting experiments
quetting are
are given
experiments given in
in Table
are given Table
1. 1.
in Table 1.

Table 1. Properties of ground

Properties of
of ground pepper, tomato and eggplant waste used in the experiments.
Table 1.
Table 1. Properties ground pepper, tomato and eggplant waste used in the experiments.
Biomass Waste
Biomass Waste
Biomass Waste
Waste Properties
Waste Properties
Waste Properties
Density (kg·m )
Density (kg·m −3 Moisture content
content (%)
(%)
Density (kg·m ) )
−3 −3 Moisture
Moisture content (%)
200.47
200.47 8.23
8.23
200.47 8.23
Aubergine plant
Aubergine plant Sieve analysis
Sieve analysis and and size
size distribution
distribution of of material
material
Aubergine plant Sieve analysis and size distribution of material
0–1 (mm)
0–1 (mm) 1–2 (mm)
1–2 (mm) 2–3 (mm)
2–3 (mm) >3 (mm)
>3 (mm)
0–156.32
(mm) 1–2
36.73(mm) 2–3 (mm)
4.27 >3 (mm)
2.68
56.32 36.73 4.27 2.68
56.32Density (kg·m36.73−3) Moisture
4.27 content (%)
2.68
Density (kg·m−3) Moisture content (%)
Density198.53
(kg
198.53· m −3 ) 8.65
Moisture8.65
content (%)
Tomato plant
Tomato plant Sieve
Sieve analysis and size distribution of
analysis and size distribution of material
198.53 material
8.65
0–1 (mm) 1–2
0–1 (mm) Sieve analysis (mm)
1–2 (mm) 2–3 (mm)
2–3 (mm) >3 (mm)
Tomato plant and size distribution of material >3 (mm)
50.48
50.48 38.71
38.71 5.71 5.10
0–1 (mm) 1–2 (mm) 2–3 5.71
(mm) >3 5.10
(mm)
Density (kg·m−3))
Density (kg·m −3 Moisture content
Moisture content (%)
(%)
50.48 38.71 5.71 5.10
203.25
203.25 −3 7.82
7.82
Pepper plant
plant Density
Sieve(kg ·m ) and size distribution
analysis Moisture
of content (%)
material
Pepper Sieve analysis and size distribution of material
0–1 (mm)
0–1 (mm) 203.25 1–21–2 (mm)
(mm) 2–3 (mm)
2–3 (mm) 7.82 >3 (mm)
>3 (mm)
Pepper plant 58.41 Sieve analysis
58.41 36.64and size distribution
36.64 2.52
2.52of material 2.43
2.43
0–1 (mm) 1–2 (mm) 2–3 (mm) >3 (mm)
After obtaining
After obtaining particles
particles of
of the
the requisite
requisite sizes
sizes (0–2
(0–2 mm),
mm), moisture
moisture contents
contents were
were
58.41 36.64 2.52 2.43
determined again,
determined again, and
and the
the particles
particles were
were briquetted
briquetted using
using the
the prototype
prototype briquetting
briquetting
machine with hydraulic piston operated by PTO (Figure
machine with hydraulic piston operated by PTO (Figure 7). 7).
After obtaining particles of the requisite sizes (0–2 mm), moisture contents were deter-
mined again, and the particles were briquetted using the prototype briquetting machine
with hydraulic piston operated by PTO (Figure 7).
 Energies
Energies
Energies 2022,
2022,
2022, 15,
15,
15, x FOR
x 8371
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 6 6of 15
6 of1514

Figure
Figure
Figure7.7.7. Hydraulic
Hydraulic piston
piston
Hydraulic briquetting
briquetting
piston unit.
unit.
briquetting unit.

The
TheThe compaction
compaction
compaction pressure
pressure of
ofof
the the
the hydraulic
hydraulic
hydraulic piston
piston
piston press
press
press can
can can
bebe be adjusted
adjusted
adjusted from
from
from 0 to
0 to 0190
190to
190
MPa.
MPa. MPa.
TheThe The conical
conical
conical diedie die
has
has anhas
an andiameter
inlet
inlet inlet diameter
diameter ofof
6060 of
mm,
mm, 60anmm,
an an diameter
outlet
outlet outlet
diameterdiameter
ofof
5555 of 55
mm,
mm, mm,
and
and aa
and
piston
piston a diameter
piston diameter
diameter ofof54.5 of
54.5 54.5
mm.
mm. Tomm. To prevent
Toprevent
prevent jamming
jamming jamming
ininthe indie
thediethe die during
during
during the briquetting
thebriquetting
the briquetting pro-
pro-
process,
cess,
cess, thethethe conical
conical
conical diediedie
was was
was supported
supported
supported bybybyclamps
clamps
clamps with
with
with spring
spring
spring nuts
nuts
nuts andand
and bent
bent
bent during
during
during pressing
pressing
pressing
if
if if necessary.
necessary.
necessary.
Briquetting
Briquettingof
Briquetting ofofgreenhouse
greenhouse
greenhouse plant
plant
plant waste
waste
waste was
wascarried
was outout
carried
carried using the maximum
outusing
using themaximum
the compaction
maximum com-
com-
pressure
paction
paction of 190
pressure
pressure MPa
ofof
190(maximum
190 MPa
MPa compaction
(maximum
(maximum force
compaction
compaction of 450 kN).
force
force ofof The
450450 bio-briquettes
kN).
kN). The
The obtained
bio-briquettes
bio-briquettes
from
obtained
obtained greenhouse
from
from waste had
greenhouse
greenhouse wastea diameter
waste hadhad of 55 mm
a diameter
a diameter ofof and
5555mmmm lengths
and
and between
lengths
lengths 45 and
between
between 454550
andandmm
5050
(Figure
mm 8).
(Figure
mm (Figure 8). 8).

Figure
Figure
Figure8.8.8. Bio-briquettes
Bio-briquettes obtained
obtained
Bio-briquettes from
from
obtained from greenhouse
greenhouse
greenhouse wastes.
wastes.
wastes.

2.2.
2.2.
2.2. Experimental
Experimental
Experimental Measurements
Measurements
Measurements ofofof Bio-Briquettes
Bio-Briquettes
Bio-Briquettes Quality
Quality
Quality
Measurements
Measurementswere
Measurements were carried
werecarried
carried out
outoutin accordance
inin accordance
accordance with European
with
with standard
European
European standard
standard ENEN 13183-1
EN13183-1 [38].
13183-1
Moisture
[38].Moisture
[38]. content
Moisture (MC)(MC)
content
content was
(MC) measured
wasmeasured
was by drying
measured 20 randomly
bybydrying
drying selectedselected
2020randomly
randomly briquette samples,
selectedbriquette
briquette
for 24 h at 105 ◦
samples,
samples, forfor 2424hChatinat105
a105
laboratory dryer.
°C°Cinina alaboratory
laboratoryThedryer.
samples
dryer.The were
The weighed
samples
samples onweighed
were
were aweighed
laboratory
onona balance
alabor-
labor-
with
atory
atory an accuracy
balance
balance with
with of
anan0.001 g.
accuracy
accuracy ofof 0.001
0.001 g.g.
Moisture
Moisturecontent
Moisture content
contentisis defined
definedasas
isdefined the
asthe mass
themass fraction
fractionofof
massfraction water
ofwater contained
containedinin
watercontained the
inthe samples
thesamples
samples
according
according
according to
toto the
thethe formula
formula
formula [39]:
[39]:
[39]:
m0 − m1
MC = mm – m1
–0m (1)
MC= 0m0 1
MC= (1)
(1)
mm0
where m0 is mass of initial weight of sample 0(g), and m1 is mass of final weight of
where
where
sample mm is0 is
0(g). mass
mass ofof initial
initial weight
weight ofof sample
sample (g),
(g), and
and mm 1 is
1 is mass
mass ofof final
final weight
weight ofof sample
sample
(g). The individual bio-briquette density was measured using an electronic caliper to
(g).
Theindividual
The
determine individual
length and bio-briquette
bio-briquette
diameter indensity density
two waswasmeasured
perpendicular measured using
using
directions ananelectronic
(0.01 electronic
mm). calipertoto
Oncaliper
laboratory
determine
determine
scales, thelength length
mass and
of and diameter
diameter
individual inin twotwo
briquettes perpendicular
perpendicular directions
(0.001 g) wasdirections
determined. (0.01
(0.01 mm).
mm).
The OnOn
following laboratory
laboratory
formula
scales,
scales,
was usedthe
the tomass
mass ofof individual
individual
calculate the density briquettes
briquettes (0.001
(0.001
of bio-briquettesg)g) was
was determined.
determined.
[38]: The
The following
following formula
formula
was
was used
used toto calculate
calculate thethe density
density ofof bio-briquettes
bio-briquettes [38]:
[38]:
4·m
ρ =ρ 2 (2)
ρ π·d ·h (2)(2)
 where m is the mass of an individual briquette (kg), d is average diameter of briquette
(m), and h is briquette length (m).
Bio-briquette resistance to breakage by impact (Tumbler index) and after falling
(Shatter index) were assessed using ASTM D 440-86 [40] and ASAE S269.4 [41] standards,
Energies 2022, 15, 8371 7 of 14
respectively.
In the Tumbler resistance test, five briquette samples were weighed and placed in
the tester. The bio-briquettes were then tumbled for 3 min at 40 rpm. After the comple-
where
tion ofmthe is the mass ofprocess,
rotation an individual briquette
briquettes were(kg), d is average
withdrawn fromdiameter of briquette
the tester and weighed(m),
and h isTumbler
again. briquetteresistance
length (m).was evaluated as a percentage of weight loss that occurred
Bio-briquette
during the testingresistance to breakage by impact (Tumbler index) and after falling (Shatter
(Figure 9).
index)Individual
were assessed using ASTM
bio-briquettes were D 440-86 [40] and
dropped ASAEfrom
10 times S269.4a [41] standards,
height of 1 m respectively.
onto a con-
In the Tumbler resistance test, five briquette samples were
crete floor in the shatter resistance test. Before and after the test, each weighed andbriquette
placed in was
the
tester. The bio-briquettes were then tumbled for 3 min at 40 rpm.
weighed. Shatter resistance was determined as a percentage based on how much weightAfter the completion
of
wasthelost
rotation
duringprocess, briquettes
the dropping test.were withdrawn
During from
the shatter andthetumbler
tester and weighed
resistance again.
tests, the
Tumbler resistance
broken pieces werewas evaluated
screened withasa a20percentage
mm sieve,ofand
weight loss that occurred
the remaining pieces onduring the
the sieve
testing
were not (Figure 9).
considered to be lost [42].

Figure9.9.Tumbler
Figure Tumblertest.
test.

The compression
Individual test does
bio-briquettes werenot correspond
dropped 10 timesto any
fromtechnical
a height standard
of 1 m onto that must be
a concrete
followed.
floor in theItshatter
was revealed
resistance on test.
the basis
Before of and
a previous
after the scientific
test, each survey that referred
briquette to the
was weighed.
Shatter resistance
mechanical was determined
properties as a percentage
of pressed materials [43]. The based on how much
methodology weight here
described was lost
was
during
used tothe droppingthe
determine test. Duringofthe
hardness theshatter
examinedand tumbler
briquetteresistance
samples, tests,
whichthe broken
influences
pieces were screened
their potential damage with
in atransportation
20 mm sieve, and storage.the remaining
Compressionpieces on theof
tests sieve were not
bio-briquette
considered
were carried to out
be lost [42].with ASTM E9-89 [44], with some parts of EN12504-1 [45] taken
in line
into The compression
consideration. test doestesting
A universal not correspond
machine (LLOYDto any technical
LRK Plus, standard
with forcethat must be
capacity of
followed. It was revealed on the basis of a previous scientific survey
5000 N, minimum load resolution of 0.001 N, and data sampling rate of 8 kHz) consisting that referred to the
mechanical properties
of two compressing of pressed
plates was used.materials [43]. The methodology
The bio-briquette sample was pressed described here was
between two
used
platestoof
determine
the testingtheequipment
hardness of at the examined
a speed briquette samples,
of 20 mm·min −1 . which influences their
potential
The damage
applied in transportation
compression forceand storage.atCompression
increased a constant rate tests
and of continued
bio-briquette were
until the
carried out in line with ASTM E9-89 [44], with some parts of EN12504-1
bio-briquette broke, and the application forces were transferred to the computer during [45] taken into
consideration. A universalresistance
the test. The compression testing machine (LLOYD LRKwas
of the bio-briquettes Plus,calculated
with force ascapacity
N, and the of
5000 N, minimum load resolution of 0.001 N, and data sampling
specific compression resistance of the bio-briquettes (in N·mm ) was calculated by di- rate
−1 of 8 kHz) consisting
of two compressing
viding plates was
the pressure resistance toused. The bio-briquette
the briquette length [31,46]. sample was pressed between
two plates of the testing equipment at a speed of 20 mm · min −1 .
Immersion tests have long been used to assess water intake resistance. Each
bio-briquette was submerged for 30 seconds in water at 27 °C, and thecontinued
The applied compression force increased at a constant rate and until the
water resistance of
bio-briquette broke, and the application forces were transferred
the briquettes was measured as a percentage based on the weight gain. Elongation, to the computer during the
test. The compression
swelling, and the timeresistance
it took forofeachthe bio-briquettes was calculated
briquette to totally disintegrate as were
N, and therecorded
also specific
compression resistance of the bio-briquettes (in N · mm −1 ) was calculated by dividing the
[47].
pressure resistance to the briquette length [31,46].
Bio-briquettes were stored in a room with a temperature of 20 °C and a humidity of
Immersion tests have long been used to assess water intake resistance. Each bio-
50% for 21 days for the equivalent humidity content (humidity resistance) test. Before
briquette was submerged for 30 seconds in water at 27 ◦ C, and the water resistance of the
and after the test, each briquette was weighed. Depending on the weight increase occur-
briquettes was measured as a percentage based on the weight gain. Elongation, swelling,
ring during the storage, humidity resistance was determined as a percentage [11].
and the time it took for each briquette to totally disintegrate were also recorded [47].
Bio-briquettes were stored in a room with a temperature of 20 ◦ C and a humidity of
50% for 21 days for the equivalent humidity content (humidity resistance) test. Before and
after the test, each briquette was weighed. Depending on the weight increase occurring
during the storage, humidity resistance was determined as a percentage [11].
All bio-briquettes were maintained for 7 days at a temperature of 20 ◦ C and a relative
humidity of 50% to guarantee that they were stable before the test. All tests performed
Energies 2022, 15, 8371 8 of 14

to determine the quality characteristics of the briquettes were performed with three repli-
cations, and the arithmetic average of the obtained results was taken and analyzed for
variance, and each test was performed on 50 randomly selected briquette samples.
This study analyzed the quality parameters of briquettes formed from greenhouse
waste using briquetting pressures of 190 MPa, moisture contents of 7–9%, and particle sizes
of 1–2 mm in order to assess their potential as solid biofuel made by the prototype briquette
machine. Pressure was selected according to studies described by Zhang and Guo [48] and
Krizan et al. [49].
All physical and mechanical properties of bio-briquettes were investigated by three
replications with 20 determinations for each replication. Variance analysis was carried out
on bio-briquettes from greenhouse waste (eggplant, tomato, and pepper) and the difference
between the means was evaluated using the LSD test. Mean values were represented with
the standard error.

3. Results
3.1. Moisture Content of Bio-Briquette Samples
The moisture content was determined immediately after briquetting the greenhouse
waste. The data of the briquette moisture content obtained in the experiment are shown
in Table 2. When the moisture content measured after briquetting is compared with the
moisture content before briquetting, it is found that the moisture content of the samples
decreases between 30 and 35%. Additionally, the heating of the material by the friction in
the mold due to the pressure generated during briquetting effectively reduces the moisture
content of the material.

Table 2. Moisture contents of bio-briquettes (on average) obtained with the prototype machine.

Biomass Waste Moisture Content of Ground Waste (%) Moisture Content of Briquette (%)
Aubergine plant 8.23 ± 0.03 5.66 ± 0.05
Tomato plant 8.65 ± 0.06 5.98 ± 0.04
Pepper plant 7.82 ± 0.04 5.14 ± 0.07
Note: ±, standard deviation.

As can be seen from Table 2, the moisture content of the briquettes was generally
below 10%. The highest moisture content was found for the organic briquettes made from
tomato plant waste (5.98%). The lowest moisture content was found for pepper plant waste
(5.14%). The low moisture content of the briquettes obtained is important for the durability
of the briquettes and the quality of the fuel.
There is no difference between the moisture content of the briquettes produced with
the prototype briquetting machine and the moisture content of the briquettes produced
with other different briquetting machines (piston press and conical screw with electric
motor). There was a parallelism with the results obtained by Bilgin et al. [11], Kurklu
and Bilgin [27], and Karaca [50], who found values of moisture content of the briquettes
between 4.5 and 7%.
Grover and Mishra [51] recommended low moisture content (8–10%) for biomass
materials to produce strong and crack-free briquettes. The briquettes produced in our
study with the prototype were found to be very strong and crack-free, while their moisture
content was in the range of 5–6%, so these conclusions can be confirmed. Moreover, the
values of moisture content of the briquettes produced in the prototype briquetting machine
show that the standard TSEN-ISO-17225-7 is below the class A products compared to the
briquettes produced with other briquetting machines. It seems to be an acceptable good
fuel in terms of briquette moisture.
Energies 2022, 15, 8371 9 of 14

3.2. Density of Bio-Briquette Samples

In general, the moisture content of biomass briquettes affects their density, as shown
by other studies [52]. Density is a physical property that determines the quality of the
briquette, and it is desirable that its value be as high as possible [35].
Table 3 shows the briquette density data from the experimental tests and the results of
the analysis of variance. Considering that the raw material density of greenhouse waste
ranges from 198.53 to 203.25 kg·m−3 , one can see how much the volume of biomass is
reduced by briquetting.

Table 3. Density (average values) and variance analysis results of briquettes.

Biomass Waste Density of Ground Waste (kg·m−3 ) Density of Briquette (kg·m−3 )

Aubergine plant 200.47 1045.74 ± 16.36
Tomato plant 198.53 1150.18 ± 25.53
Pepper plant 203.25 1143.52 ± 21.42
Level of significance n.s
Note: ±, standard deviation; ns: the difference between values in the same column is statistically insignificant.

The density results showed that eggplant waste particles had better compaction
capacity than tomato and pepper plant waste particles. It can be observed that the increase
of the eggplant waste fraction affected the increase of the briquette’s density. The average
densities of eggplant, tomato, and pepper plant waste briquettes were 1045.74 kg·m−3 ,
1150.18 kg·m−3, and 1143.52 kg·m−3 , respectively.
The difference between the densities of briquettes obtained from greenhouse wastes
was found to be statistically insignificant. In their studies, Karaca and Başçetinçelik [53],
Gendek et al. [39] and Brunerová et al. [54] used a conical screw, piston, and hydraulic
type press briquetting machine. They found the density of briquette as 1573.58 kg·m−3
for groundnut shell waste, 938.55 kg·m−3 for pinewood waste, and 1022.44 kg·m−3 for
sugarcane bagasse, respectively.
The standard briquette density is expressed as 900 kg·m −3 and above according to
EN14961-3 [55] standard and in another study, it was reported that the acceptable briquette
density was between 1000 and 1400 kg·m−3 [51]. Therefore, based on these findings,
briquette samples made by prototype machines from greenhouse waste were identified as
suitable, as they meet the standard briquette density requirement.

3.3. Tumbler and Shatter Resistance Index

Tumbler and Shatter tests are used to determine the briquettes’ durability, as well as
any losses that may occur during storage and transportation. These tests are carried out
with specialized equipment, and the results are presented as a percentage, and a test value
of 95% or more is normally considered satisfactory according to EN14961-3 [55]. The data
on the Tumbler and Shatter resistance indexes of the briquettes obtained in the trials carried
out according to the ASAE S269.4 [41] standard is shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Tumbler-Shatter resistance indexes and variance analysis results of obtained briquettes
(on average).

Biomass Waste Tumbler Index (%) Shatter Index (%)

Aubergine plant 98.52 a 90.73 b
Tomato plant 97.26 a 98.67 a
Pepper plant 93.61 b 99.24 a
Level of significance ** **
Note: ** The difference between the values in the same column is statistically significant at the 1% alpha level.
Letters a and b indicate the statistical differences between values in columns.
Energies 2022, 15, 8371 10 of 14

As seen in Table 4, the tumbler (93.61–98.52%) and shatter (90.73–99.24%) indexes were
determined for the briquettes obtained with the prototype briquette machine, which shows
that the briquettes’ durability is quite high. Although the Tumbler index of the briquettes
obtained from pepper waste and the fragmentation index of the briquettes obtained from
eggplant wastes were below 95%, no fragmentation was observed in the briquettes. The
highest tumbler index was determined for eggplant waste bio-briquettes (98.52%), and
a lower tumbler index was noted for pepper plant waste bio-briquettes (93.61%). As for
the shatter index, the highest value was determined for pepper plant waste bio-briquettes
(99.24%), and a lower value was noted for eggplant waste bio-briquettes (90.73%).
According to the results of the statistical analysis, the difference between the tum-
bler and shatter indexes of the briquettes obtained from different greenhouse wastes is
statistically significant (p < 0.01). These findings reveal that briquettes made from various
materials have varying levels of resistance.
The results obtained in Shatter and Tumbler resistance tests are evaluated between 0.5
and 1.0 (or 50 and 100%) [56]. The quality of the briquettes increases as the results approach
a value of (1.0). According to this information, when Table 3 is examined, it can be said
that the briquettes have a very strong structure since the shatter and tumbler resistance
values of the briquettes obtained from tomato, pepper, and eggplant plant wastes are very
close to one (1) value. Similar results were found with the tumbler and shatter index values
of the briquettes obtained in other studies by Saeed et al. [7], Kaliyan and Morey [46],
Brunerová et al. [54], Bazargan et al. [57], and Fengmin and Mingquan [58], respectively,
using different briquetting machines and compression methods.

3.4. Compression Resistance Analysis of Bio-Briquettes

The compression resistance is a measure of the briquettes’ durability and strength
against physical impacts. It is desired that the losses caused by stacking the briquettes
during storage are at a minimum. The data of the briquette compression resistance obtained
in the experiment are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Compression resistance and variance analysis results of obtained briquettes (on average).

Biomass Waste Compression Force (N) Compression Stress (N·mm−2 ) Specific Compression Force (N·mm−1 )
Aubergine plant 3090 b 62.85 c 35.68 b
Tomato plant 3315 a 69.43 a 40.09 a
Pepper plant 3117 b 64.38 b 36.42 b
Level of significance * ** *
Note: **: The difference between the values in the same column is statistically significant at the 1% alpha level.
*: The difference between the values in the same column is statistically significant at the 5% alpha level. Letters a,
b and c indicate the statistical differences between values in columns.

According to Table 5, the maximum compression force, compression stress, and

specific compression force were recorded in briquettes made from tomato plant wastes
(3315 N, 69.43 N·mm−2 , and 40.09 N·mm−1 , respectively), whereas the lowest values
were observed in briquettes made from eggplant waste (3090 N, 62.85 N·mm−2 , and
35.68 N·mm−1 , respectively).
Analyzing the results of the statistical analysis, the difference between the means
of compression force and specific compressive force rates at briquette made by different
greenhouse wastes was found to be significant (p < 0.05), and the difference between
the means of compression stress rates at briquette made by different greenhouse waste
was found to be significant too (p < 0.01). Similar results were found with the values
obtained in studies with machines using other briquetting methods [59,60]. In addition,
the overall assessment of the compression strength of the briquettes obtained with the
prototype briquetting machine has proven satisfactory when compared with the briquette
compression strength data obtained with other machines [61,62].
Energies 2022, 15, 8371 11 of 14

3.5. Compression Resistance Analysis of Bio-Briquettes

The resistance to moisture-humidity, water intake capacity, and their variance analysis
results determined by immersing the briquettes obtained by the prototype machine in
water are given in Table 6.

Table 6. The resistance to moisture-humidity, water intake capacity, and variance analysis results of
obtained briquettes. (on average).

Biomass Waste Water Intake Capacity (%) Resistance to Moisture-Humidity (%)

Aubergine plant 84.45 a 94.92
Tomato plant 84.14 a 94.71
Pepper plant 80.63 b 95.05
Level of significance * ns
Note: *: The difference between the values in the same column is statistically significant at the 5% alpha level;
ns: The difference between values in the same column is statistically insignificant. Letters a and b indicate the
statistical differences between values in columns.

In Table 6, according to the statistical analysis results, the difference between the water
absorption resistance of the briquettes was significant (p < 0.05), and the difference between
the equivalent moisture content was insignificant.
In previous studies it was stated that the water intake rate of the briquettes should
not exceed 50% [56]. According to data in Table 6, it was determined that the percent-
age of increase for the briquettes produced with the prototype machine varied between
15.55 and 19.37 on average. The results prove that the briquettes obtained from the green-
house wastes with the prototype machine are quite robust in terms of water intake resis-
tance. Additionally, from Table 6, when the equivalent moisture contents of the briquettes
were examined, there was not much change in the weight of the briquettes at the end of the
21st day. As a result, properly packed briquettes can be stored in good storage conditions
for a long time without structural deterioration.

4. Conclusions
The main objective of the present study was to determine whether the prototype mobile
briquette machine and waste from high production value vegetables such as tomatoes,
eggplant, and peppers can be used to produce organic briquettes. The results obtained in
the tests we carried out showed that the briquetted biomass with the briquette machine
prototype has very good characteristics, so they can be used as solid biofuel. Additionally,
in the production of the briquette, the briquetting machines working with an electric
motor are generally used. As an energy dependent country, the use of electricity in
the commercial production of biomass briquettes is controversial. However, using the
mobile hydraulic briquetting machine, which takes its movement from the tractor, which is
designed and manufactured, briquettes can be produced at much lower cost without the
need for electricity consumption.
The durability and breaking strength of the briquettes were found to be quite high.
The moisture content and particle size were found to be quite suitable for briquetting. The
materials are compacted to a density about 5–6 times higher. Selected mechanical and
physical characteristics of the briquettes, including compressive strength, longevity, and
density, were assessed. The evaluated physico-mechanical characteristics of the generated
briquettes were strongly impacted by modifications in the densification process parameter.
The water resistance of the briquettes was found to be quite durable up to a certain
period of time, and they were also found to have a longer shelf life than when they were
first produced if well packaged. To be used as solid biofuels, briquettes must meet the
requirements set out in the technical standard ISO 17225. Tests results showed that the
briquettes obtained with the prototype briquetting machine meet these standards, and they
are quite robust.
Energies 2022, 15, 8371 12 of 14

In general, all measurements and tests performed within the present research provided
satisfactory results, and hence, the use of greenhouse wastes (tomato, pepper, and eggplant)
and the prototype mobile briquette machine for the production of bio-briquettes is highly
recommended. This study will be an exemplary application for the design studies of
prototype machines that will use different briquetting techniques in the future.
Briquetting surplus agricultural waste for use as solid biofuel may help close the
world’s energy gap and fight global warming. Additionally, by encouraging the develop-
ment of new, agricultural-based enterprises, the use of agricultural waste as an alternative
energy source can help to increase employment in agricultural communities. In addition to
improving the quality and quantity of scientific data, further research is necessary to draw
public attention to the energy potential of agricultural waste.
This research is also expected to contribute to a better understanding of waste man-
agement principles, briquetting technology, and the use of all types of biomass waste to
create ecologically acceptable solid biofuels.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Ö.K., İ.Ü. and S.S.; methodology, Ö.K. and İ.Ü.; software,
K.C.S.; validation, Ö.K., İ.Ü. and K.C.S.; formal analysis, N.U.; investigation, S.S.; resources, K.C.S.;
data curation, İ.Ü. and S.S.; writing—original draft preparation, Ö.K. and İ.Ü.; writing—review and
editing, Ö.K. and N.U.; visualization, N.U.; supervision, Ö.K. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by The Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Akdeniz
University, project number: FBA-2017-1980. The APC was funded by University Politehnica of
Bucharest, Romania, within the PubArt Program.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: We are very grateful to the Akdeniz University Technical Sciences Vocational
School technicians for their cooperation and effort in supporting the experiments.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Krajnc, N. Wood Fuel Handbook; Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations: Pristina, Republic of Kosovo, 2015.
2. Niño, A.; Arzola, N.; Araque, O. Experimental study on the mechanical properties of biomass briquettes from a mixture of rice
husk and pine sawdust. Energies 2020, 13, 1060. [CrossRef]
3. Archer, S.A.; Steinberger-Wilckens, R. Systematic analysis of biomass derived fuels for fuel cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43,
23178–23192. [CrossRef]
4. Catuti, M.; Milan, E.; Alessi, M.; Egenhofer, C. Biomass and Climate Neutrality. CEPS Policy Insights 2020, No 2020-19. Avail-
able online: https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/PI2020-19_Biomass-and-climate-neutrality.pdf (accessed on
2 November 2022).
5. 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. [CrossRef]
6. Sohni, S.; Norulaini, N.A.N.; Hashim, R.; Khan, S.B.; Fadhullah, W.; Omar, A.K.M. Physicochemical characterization of Malaysian
crop and agro-industrial biomass residues as renewable energy resources. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2018, 111, 642–650. [CrossRef]
7. Voicea, I.; Vlăduţ, V.; Cârdei, P.; Matache, M.; Găgeanu, I.; Voicu, G.; Popescu, C.; Paraschiv, G.; Kabas, O. Compacting process
and mathematical analysis of miscanthus briquettes expansion. In Proceeding of the 43rd International Symposium “Actual
Tasks on Agricultural Engineering”, Opatija, Croaţia, 24–27 February 2015; Volume 43, pp. 667–676.
8. Angın, D.; Şensöz, S. Effect of drifting gas (N2 ) flow on pyrolysis of safflower seed pulps and characterization of liquid product.
Sci. Eng. J. Fırat Univ. 2006, 18, 535–542.
9. Tüzel, Y.; Gül, A.; Öztekin, B.G.; Engindeniz, S.; Boyacı, F.; Duyar, H.; Cebeci, E.; Durdu, T. Türkiye’de örtüaltı yetiştiriciliği ve
yeni gelişmeler. In Proceedings of the Türkiye Ziraat Mühendisliği IX.Teknik Kongresi, Ankara, Turkey, 13–17 October 2020.
(In Turkish).
10. Çerçioğlu, M. Sürdürülebilir atık yönetiminde sera atıklarının kompost olarak değerlendirilmesi. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Ziraat
Fakültesi Derg. 2019, 33, 167–178. (In Turkish)
11. Bilgin, S.; Yılmaz, H.; Koçer, A. Briquetting of greenhouse pepper crop residues. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2015, 185–192. Available
online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282220438_Briquetting_of_greenhouse_pepper_crop_residues (accessed on
13 September 2022).
12. Rosa, L.; Mazzotti, M. Potential for hydrogen production from sustainable biomass with carbon capture and storage. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 157, 112123. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 8371 13 of 14

13. Găgeanu, I.; Cujbescu, D.; Persu, C.; Tudor, P.; Cârdei, P.; Matache, M.; Vlădut, , V.; Biris, , S.; Voicea, I.; Ungureanu, N. Influence of
input and control parameters on the process of pelleting powdered biomass. Energies 2021, 14, 4104. [CrossRef]
14. Ungureanu, N.; Vlădut, , V.; Voicu, G.; Dincă, M.; Zăbavă, B.S, . Influence of biomass moisture content on pellet properties—A
review. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference Engineering for Rural Development, Jelgava, Latvia, 23–25 May 2018;
Volume 17, pp. 1876–1883. [CrossRef]
15. Vaish, S.; Kaur, G.; Sharma, N.K.; Gakkhar, N. Estimation for Potential of Agricultural Biomass Sources as Projections of
Bio-Briquettes in Indian Context. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5077. [CrossRef]
16. Senila, L.; Tenu, I.; Carlescu, P.; Scurtu, D.A.; Kovacs, E.; Senila, M.; Cadar, O.; Roman, M.; Dumitras, D.E.; Roman, C.
Characterization of biobriquettes produced from vineyard wastes as a solid biofuel resource. Agriculture 2022, 12, 341. [CrossRef]
17. Kpalo, S.; Zainuddin, M. Briquettes from agricultural residues; an alternative clean and sustainable fuel for domestic cooking in
Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Energy Power 2020, 10, 40–47. [CrossRef]
18. Saeed, A.; Harun, N.Y.; Bilad, M.; Afzal, M.; Parvez, A.; Roslan, F.; Rahim, S.A.; Vinayagam, V.; Afolabi, H. Moisture content
impact on properties of briquette produced from rice husk waste. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3069. [CrossRef]
19. Yang, W.; Lv, L.; Han, Y.; Li, Y.; Liu, H.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, W.; Yang, H. Effect of densification on biomass combustion and particulate
matter emission characteristics. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 1582. [CrossRef]
20. Manyuchi, M.M.; Mbohwa, C.; Muzenda, E. Potential to produce biomass briquettes from tea waste. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Washington, DC, USA, 27–29 September 2018.
21. Thekedar, K.; Karale, S.; Awari, G. A systematic review on the future potential of tea waste and other admixtures in bio briquetting
from rice husk. AIP Conf. Proc. 2021, 2417, 020008. [CrossRef]
22. Obi, O.F.; Pecenka, R.; Clufford, M.J. A review of biomass briquette binders and quality parameters. Energies 2022, 15, 2426.
[CrossRef]
23. Tumuluru, J.S.; Fillerup, E. Briquetting characteristics of woody and herbaceous biomass blends: Impact on physical properties,
chemical composition, and calorific value. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 2020, 14, 1105–1124. [CrossRef]
24. Ajiboye, T.K.; Abdulkareem, S.; Anibijuwon, A.O.Y. Investigation of mechanical properties of briquette product of sawdust-
charcoal as a potential domestic energy source. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 2016, 20, 1179–1188. [CrossRef]
25. Stahl, M.; Berghel, J. Energy efficient pilot-scale production of wood fuel pellets made from a raw material mix including sawdust
and rapeseed cake. Biomass Bioenerg. 2011, 35, 4849–4854. [CrossRef]
26. Aigbefo, V.; Jeje, A. Production of palm fibre briquettes and the determination of elemental composition and calorific value. SAU
Sci.-Tech. J. 2019, 4, 107–116.
27. Kurklu, A.; Bilgin, S. Pamuk ve susam saplarının briketlenmesi üzerine bir çalışma. Tarım Makinaları Bilim. Derg. 2007, 3, 151–159.
(In Turkish)
28. Callejón-Ferre, A.J.; López-Martínez, J.A. Briquettes of plant remains from the greenhouses of Almeria (Spain). Span. J. Agric. Res.
2009, 7, 525–534. [CrossRef]
29. Kak, ı̄tis, A.; Nulle, I.; Ancāns, D. Mechanical properties of composite biomass briquettes. Environment, technology and resources.
In Proceedings of the 8th International Scientific and Practical Conference, Rēzeknes Augstskola, Rēzekne, Latvia, 20–22 June 2011;
RA Izdevniecı̄ba: Rēzekne, Latvia, 2011; Volume 1, pp. 175–183. [CrossRef]
30. Akman, H.E.; Bilgin, S. A research on the briquetting of cotton stalks with hydraulic type machine. J. Agric. Mach. Sci. 2012, 8,
99–106.
31. Bilgin, S.; Ertekin, C.; Kürklü, A. Enerji bitkisi olarak farklı kamış türlerinin briketlenmesi üzerine bir araştırma. Akdeniz
Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Derg. 2014, 27, 43–50. (In Turkish)
32. Bilgin, S.; Yılmaz, H.; Koçer, A.; Acar, M.; Dok, M. Ayçiçeği saplarının konik helezon tip briket makinesinde briketlenmesi.
Akdeniz Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Derg. 2014, 27, 91–97. (In Turkish)
33. Urbanovičová, O.; Krištof, K.; Findura, P.; Jobbágy, J.; Angelovič, M. Physical and mechanical properties of briquettes produced
from energy plants. Acta Univ. Agric. Et Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2017, 65, 219–224. [CrossRef]
34. Dok, M.; Acar, M.; Çelik, A.E.; Atagün, G.; Akbaş, U. Farklı parçacık boyutlarındaki kivi budama artıklarından elde edilen
briketlerin yakıt özelliklerinin karşılaştırılması. Tarım Makinaları Bilim. Derg. 2018, 14, 73–78. (In Turkish)
35. Dok, M.; Acar, M.; Çelik, A.E.; Atagün, G.; Akbaş, U. Briquetting of corn stalk as a renewable energy source and determination of
physical properties of briquettes. MKU. Tar. Bil. Derg. 2019, 24, 61–70.
36. Masullo, L.S.; Alesi, L.S.; Quadros, T.M.C.; Silva, D.; De Pádua, F.A.; Yamaji, F.M. Use of blends containing different proportions
of straw and sugarcane bagasse for the production of briquettes. Rev. Virtual Quím. 2018, 10, 641–654. [CrossRef]
37. EN 14774-1; Solid Biofuels—Determination of Moisture Content—Oven Dry Method—Part 1: Total Moisture. Reference European
Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
38. EN 13183-1; Moisture Content of a Piece of Sawn Timber—Part 1: Determination by oven dry method. Reference European
Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2002.
39. Gendek, A.; Aniszewska, M.; Malat’ák, J.; Velebil, J. Evaluation of selected physical and mechanical properties of briquettes
produced from cones of three coniferous tree species. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 117, 173–179. [CrossRef]
40. ASTM D 440-86; International Standard Test Method of Drop Shatter Test for Coal. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. ASTM:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1998.
Energies 2022, 15, 8371 14 of 14

41. ASAE S269.4; Cubes, Pellets, and Crumbles Definitions and Methods for Determining Density, Durability, and Moisture Content.
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2000.
42. CRA. Le Densification de la Biomass. In Commission des Communuates Europeennes; Centre de Recherches Agronomiques:
Gembloux, Belgium, 1987.
43. Kabas, O.; Vlădut, , V. Determination of some engineering properties of pecan (Carya illinoinensis) for new design of cracking
system. Erwerbs-Obstbau 2016, 58, 31–39. [CrossRef]
44. ASTM E9-89; International Standard Test Methods of Compression Testing. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. ASTM: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018.
45. EN 12504-1; Testing concrete in structures—Part 1: Cored specimens—Taking, examining and testing in compression. Reference
European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
46. Kaliyan, N.; Morey, R.V. Factors affecting strength and durability of densified biomass products. Biomass Bioenergy 2009, 33,
337–359. [CrossRef]
47. Lindley, J.; Vossoughi, M. Physical properties of biomass briquettes. Trans. ASAE 1989, 3, 361–366. [CrossRef]
48. Zhang, J.; Guo, Y. Physical properties of solid fuel briquettes made from caragana korshinskii kom. Powder Technol. 2014, 256,
293–299. [CrossRef]
49. Križan, P.; Šooš, L.; Matúš, M.; Beniak, J.; Svátek, M. Research of significant densifcation parameters influence on final briquettes
quality. Wood Res. 2015, 60, 301–316.
50. Karaca, C. Çukurova Bölgesindeki tarıma dayalı sanayi atıklarının enerjiye dönüşüm olanaklarının incelenmesi. Ph.D. Thesis,
Çukurova Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Tarım Makinaları Anabilim Dalı, Adana, Turkey, 2008. (In Turkish)
51. Grover, P.D.; Mishra, S.K. Biomass briquetting: Technology and practices. In Regional Wood Energy Development program in Asia,
Field Document No. 46; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Bangkok, Thailand, 1996.
52. Tumuluru, J.S. Effect of process variables on the density and durability of the pellets made from high moisture corn stover. Biosyst.
Eng. 2014, 119, 44–57. [CrossRef]
53. Karaca, C.; Başçetinçelik, A. Yerfıstığı kabuğunun briketleme özelliklerinin ve yanma emisyonlarının belirlenmesi. Vı. Yeni Ve
Yenilenebilir Enerji Kaynakları Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı, Ekim. 2011. Available online: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/
mkutbd/issue/51091/653985 (accessed on 13 September 2022).
54. Brunerová, A.; Roubík, H.; Brožek, M.; Van Dung, D.; Phung, L.D.; Hasanudin, U.; Herak, D. Briquetting of sugarcane bagasse as
a proper waste management technology in Vietnam. Waste Manag. Res. 2020, 38, 1239–1250. [CrossRef]
55. EN 14961-3; Solid Biofuel—Fuel Specification and Classes. Part 3: Wood Briquettes for Non-İndustrial Use. Reference European
Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
56. Eriksson, S.; Prior, M. The Briquetting of Agricultural Wastes for Fuel (No. 11); Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations: Bangkok, Thailand, 1990.
57. Bazargan, A.; Rough, S.L.; McKay, G. Compaction of palm kernel husk biochars for application as solid fuel. Biomass Bioenergy
2014, 70, 489–497. [CrossRef]
58. Fengmin, L.; Mingquan, Z. Technological parameters of biomass briquetting of macrophytes in Nansi Lake. Energy Procedia 2011,
5, 2449–2454. [CrossRef]
59. Supatata, N.; Buates, J.; Hariyanont, P. Characterization of fuel briquettes made from sewage sludge mixed with water hyacinth
and sewage sludge mixed with sedge. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 2013, 4, 179–181. [CrossRef]
60. Davies, R.M.; Davies, O.A. Physical and combustion characteristics of briquettes made from water hyacinth and phytoplankton
scum as binder. J. Combust. 2013, 2013, 549894. [CrossRef]
61. Brožek, M. The effect of moisture of the raw material on the properties briquettes for energy use. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel.
Brun. 2016, 64, 1453–1458. [CrossRef]
62. Brunerová, A.; Brožek, M.; Müller, M. Utilization of waste biomass from post–harvest lines in the form of briquettes for energy
production. Agron. Res. 2017, 15, 344–358.