briquetting of dry sugarcane leaves by using press mud

Research ArticleBriquetting of Dry Sugarcane Leaves by Using Press Mud CowDung and Buffalo Dung as Binders

Rahul A Patil12 Umesh B Deshannavar 2 M Ramasamy34 Sampath Emani4

Alibek Issakhov5 and Nima Khalilpoor 6

1Chemical Engineering Department D Y Patil College of Engineering and Technology Kasaba Bavada Kolhapur 416006 India2Chemical Engineering Department KLE Dr M S Sheshgiri College of Engineering and Technology Belagavi 590008 India3Chemical Engineering Department Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Bandar Seri Iskandar Perak Malaysia4Centre for Systems Engineering Institute of Autonomous Systems Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Bandar Seri IskandarPerak Malaysia5Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics Department of Mathematical and Computer ModellingAl-Farabi Kazakh National University Almaty Kazakhstan6Department of Energy Engineering Graduate School of the Environment and EnergyScience and Research BranchIslamic Azad University Tehran Iran

Correspondence shouldbeaddressed toUmeshBDeshannavardeshannavargmailcomandNimaKhalilpoornimakhalilpoorgmailcom

Received 20 April 2021 Accepted 20 May 2021 Published 27 May 2021

Academic Editor Alireza Baghban

Copyright copy 2021 Rahul A Patil et al )is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Licensewhich permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited

)e worldrsquos population is increasing rapidly )is means that energy consumption and demand for energy are also increasing atthe same rate It is estimated that energy will need to be provided to 9 to 10 billion people by 2040 India is a leading consumer ofenergy in the world In particular it consumes a large amount of oil and natural gas to fulfil its energy demand Due to uncertaintyin the supply of oil and natural gas and their prices as well as environmental pollution there is a need to shift towards other energysources Biomass is one of the first energy sources with specific properties and abundant availability Today 10 to 14 of theworldrsquos energy supply is provided by biomass sources Using agricultural waste (biomass) to make briquettes to generate powercan be an alternative solution to the problems related to their disposal and pollution )e present work investigates the optimumratio of dry sugarcane leaves to binders and optimum load and selects the best binder (cow dung buffalo dung and press mud) formaking high-quality briquettes )e physical parameters and proximate analysis of the dry sugarcane leaf briquettes with the cowdung buffalo dung and press mud binders are investigated )e dry sugarcane leaf briquettes with the cow dung binder have thehighest gross calorific value net calorific value split tensile strength tumbling resistance shatter resistance and energy densityratio (1626231 kJkg 153621 kJkg 7164 kNm2 8784 1275 and 09296 respectively) )e estimated results show that cowdung is a better binder for making high-quality dry sugarcane leaf briquettes than the buffalo dung and press mud binders

1 Introduction

Energy is an important parameter in a civilianrsquos lifeToday the lifestyle of civilians is largely dependent onenergy and the amount of energy required by the pop-ulation and industrial sector is increasing )e require-ment for energy will always be higher than the energysupply To fulfil the requirement for energy there is thus aneed to generate energy from various renewable

resources [1] To fulfil its demand for energy India islargely dependent on oil and natural gas Of total oildemand 70 is imported which affects the economy ofthe country [2] Further the use of oil and natural gas as asource of energy results in environmental pollutionRenewable sources are therefore an urgent solution forboth pollution and economic problems Examples ofrenewable sources are biomass nuclear hydro tidalgeothermal solar and wind energy [3]

HindawiInternational Journal of Chemical EngineeringVolume 2021 Article ID 8608215 12 pageshttpsdoiorg10115520218608215

11 Source of Energy Biomass Biomass an organic matter orbiological material derived from living organisms is the bestalternative to oil and natural gas It can be transformed intosolid liquid and gaseous biofuels that generate energy onburning [4] Biomasses in different forms are available inlarge quantities in developing countries Biomass accountsfor 115 of energy demand and is expected to increase tobetween 15 and 50 by 2050 [5 6] )e cost of energyproduced from biomass is relatively low [7] )e worldrsquosbiomass energy potential in 2020 is presented in Table 1 [8]

Human waste food processing animal waste agricul-tural waste and forestry are examples of biomass [9] Intotal 320 million tonnes of agricultural waste such as drysugarcane leaves bagasse rice straw rice husks wheat strawand corncobs are produced by India )is residue is oftenburnt in an open atmosphere creating smoke and fly ashproblems Approximately 100 million tonnes of agriculturalwaste are burnt in open fields creating air pollution [10]Burning this agricultural waste results in a huge loss ofenergy However the great task is converting this biomassinto briquettes to generate energy [11ndash13]

12 Dry Sugarcane Leaves Sugarcane plants are the best ex-amples of how nature has provided us with renewable biomassto generate energy Research has examined how such plants canbe a substitute for coal oil and natural gas For exampleconverting the waste of sugarcane plants into solid fuel such asbriquettes could be the best solution to deforestation which is ahot topic [14] A large amount of sugarcane is producedglobally especially in India [15] In 2015 1877105 thousandmetric tonnes of sugarcane were produced globally Indiaranked in second place with 341200 thousand metric tonnesafter Brazil (739267 thousand metric tonnes) with China inthird (125536 thousand metric tonnes) )e top 10 sugarcane-producing countries are presented in Table 2 [14 16] and thetop three sugarcane-producing states in India areUttar PradeshMaharashtra and Karnataka (1324276842 696480768 and35732 thousand metric tonnes respectively) )e top 10 sug-arcane-producing states in India are presented in Table 3 [17]

)e modification of the agricultural sector has produceda huge amount of waste which has the potential to producelow-cost energy compared with oil and natural gas [18ndash21]A large amount of agricultural waste is produced aftercleaning sugarcane stems )is agricultural waste mostlyconsists of leaves and tops which remain unused in thesugar production process [22] Approximately 279 millionmetric tonnes of residue such as dry leaves and bagasse aregenerated by the sugarcane industry [15] Although 3500 kgof dry sugarcane leaves is produced from one hectare ofsugarcane crops and the gross calorific content of drysugarcane leaves is 16919667 kJkg converting dry sugar-cane leaves into biofuels has hardly been explored [23] Drysugarcane leaves are the major source of energy that could beused to make briquettes

13 Briquetting )e technique of compacting loose bio-mass is known as briquetting [12 14] Techniques includehigh-pressure and low-pressure briquetting )ese are

classified depending on the method applied to makebriquettes such as using a piston press screw press pelletmill and hydraulic press )e types of binders used tomake dry sugarcane leaf briquettes are starch proteinfibre fatoil lignin cattle dung press mud molasses andpulp and paper

)e objective of the present study was to explore dif-ferent binders for making dry sugarcane leaf briquettes andexamine the expediency of briquettes by determining theirphysical parameters and proximate analysis

2 Materials and Methods

21 Material Dry sugarcane leaves of species 86032 whichwere used to make the briquettes were collected from anagricultural field in Kolhapur Maharashtra India Breed86032 is cultivated in large quantities in Maharashtra andacross India)e cow dung and buffalo dung binders used tomake the briquettes were collected from a local dairy farm inwestern Maharashtra and the press mud binder was col-lected from a sugar manufacturer in western Maharashtra

Table 1 Worldrsquos biomass potential [8]

Energy resource (biomass) 2020 (metric tonnes)Crop residue 480ndash499Wood 1791ndash2025Energy crops 2971ndash3535Animal waste 994Municipal waste 516Total 6752ndash7569

Table 2 Top 10 sugarcane producers [14ndash16]

Rank Country Production (thousand metric tonnes)1 Brazil 7392672 India 3412003 China 1255364 )ailand 1000965 Pakistan 637506 Mexico 611827 Colombia 348768 Indonesia 337009 Philippines 3187410 USA 27906

Table 3 Top 10 sugarcane-producing states in India [17]

Rank Country Production (thousand metric tonnes)1 Uttar Pradesh 13242768422 Maharashtra 6964807683 Karnataka 357324 Tamil Nadu 33919175 Andhra Pradesh 155676 Bihar 12741427 Gujarat 126908 Haryana 74379 Uttarakhand 67848210 Punjab 5919

2 International Journal of Chemical Engineering

22 Instruments )e following instruments were used toanalyse the dry sugarcane leaves cow dung buffalo dungpress mud and briquettes A digital balance (model SJVibra Mumbai India) was used to weigh the requiredamount of briquettes A hot air oven (model no Digital1874 Lab Hosp Mumbai India) was used to measure themoisture content of the sample A muffle furnace (modelno 591010 Shital Scientific Ind Mumbai India) was usedto determine the volatile matter and ash content )e grosscalorific value (GCV) was measured using a bomb calo-rimeter (model BCA Dynamic Engineering Mumbai In-dia) A tumbling machine (Shital-Gayatree EnterpriseRajkot India) was used to measure the tumbling resistance(TR) Split tensile strength (STS) was measured using ahydraulic press (model no TUE-C400 Fine Spavy Asso-ciates Pvt Ltd Miraj India)

23 Experimental Setup A hydraulic press or universaltesting machine (model no UTM-8608003 SuperfineTesting Equipment Kolhapur India) was used to make thebriquettes A cutting machine (Arihant Fabrication andEngineering Minache Kolhapur India) was used to cut thedry sugarcane leaves A digital weight balance (model noPNM101 Padmini Industries Sangli) was used to measurethe required amount of the sample )e dry sugarcane leavesand binders were placed in a die of 015m inner diameterand 013m height )e sample was compressed with a blockof 0147m diameter and a height of 0075m )e die andblock were held between two plates of 0117m in diameteron the universal testing machine

24 Methodology

241 Experimental Procedure for Making Dry SugarcaneLeaf Briquettes from Different Binders First 02 kg of drysugarcane leaves was weighed by using an electronicweighing balance )e dry sugarcane leaves were mixed with1 kg of the binder (cow dung buffalo dung and press mudbinders separately) )e mixture was placed in the die andthe block was adjusted over the sample )e load wasgradually applied to the sample At a high load the originalmoisture present in the sample came out along with some ofthe binder )is load was 22 kN for the cow dung binder11 kN for the buffalo dung binder and 12 kN for the pressmud binder After the removal of the sample from the diethe briquette was disintegrated Further experiments werecarried out at a lower load (20 kN for the cow dung binder9 kN for the buffalo dung binder and 10 kN for the pressmud binder)

)e experiments were conducted for the followingweight ratios of dry sugarcane leaves to binders 1 05 1 11 15 1 2 1 25 1 3 1 35 1 4 1 45 and 1 5 )eoptimum weight ratio was chosen depending on the bri-quette formation )e optimum weight ratio of the dry

sugarcane leaves to the cow dung binder was 1 35 to thebuffalo dung binder was 1 4 and to the press mud binderwas 1 2 )ese were the ratios at which suitable briquetteformation took place )e optimum weight ratio sampleswere applied with different loads A suitable briquette for-mation took place for the cow dung binder at 18 kN thebuffalo dung binder at 9 kN and the press mud binder at10 kN Before the optimum load no briquette formationoccurred )en the sample was tested by adding water (1mland 2ml) When the water was added to the samplemoisture came out along with some of the binder and thebriquette was disintegrated after it was removed from thedie )e dry sugarcane leaf briquettes with the cow dungbinder (DSLCD) buffalo dung binder (DSLBD) and pressmud binder (DSLPM) were analysed based on the optimumweight ratios and optimum load

25 Analytical Procedure

251 Physical Parameters

(1) Bulk density (BD) the BD of the briquettes wasdetermined by using a standard procedure Anempty container with a known volume was weighed)e container was then filled with the sample andweighed )e BD was calculated using the followingequation [24]

bulk density kgm31113872 1113873

W2 minus W1( 1113857

V (1)

whereW2 is the weight of the container + sampleW1is empty weight of the container and V is the volumeof the container

(2) Relaxed density (RD) or BD of the briquettes bygeometric measurements if the briquettes are cy-lindrical their density can be calculated from theirgeometry)e RD was calculated using the followingformula [24]

relaxed density kgm31113872 1113873

weight of briquette(π4) times D

2times H

(2)

where D is the diameter of the briquette and H is theheight of the briquette

(3) BD of briquettes by using the water displacementmethod the briquettes were coated with an adhesivetape (cellux self-adhesive tape) to prevent any waterpenetration when submerged in water )e weightsof the briquettes were measured before and aftercoating with the tape )e coated briquette wassubmerged in water and the volume of the waterdisplaced was measured )e BD of the briquetteswas obtained using the following formula

International Journal of Chemical Engineering 3


(weight of coated briquette minus weight of briquette)volume of water displaced

(3)

(4) Degree of densification (DD) the DD is thebounding ability of biomass It increases in thedensity of dry sugarcane leaves and binders due to

briquetting It was calculated using the followingequation [25]

degree of densification (density of briquette minus density of dry sugarcane leaves)

density of dry sugarcane leaves (4)

(5) Compression ratio (CR) the CR is the ratio of thedensity of a briquette to the density of dry sugarcaneleaves As the briquetting load increases the CRincreases in a similar manner to the BD [25]

(6) STS STS is the maximum load at which the failure ofa briquette takes place A briquette was held betweentwo parallel flat plates A gradually increasing loadwas applied using a hydraulic press (model noTUE-C400 Fine Spavy Associates Pvt Ltd MirajIndia) until the failure of the briquette took place)e load at which the failure of the briquette tookplace was noted STS was calculated using the fol-lowing formula [26]

split tensile strength kNm21113872 1113873

(2 times P)

π times D times L (5)

where P is the load at which cracking occurs D is thebriquette diameter and L is the briquette length

(7) TR test the TR is the resistance to the stress or forceof a briquette )e weight of the briquette wasmeasured and placed in the metallic cylinder of 02minner diameter and 024m length )e opening onthe top of the cylinder was closed )e cylinder wasrotated in the tumbling machine (Shital-GayatreeEnterprise Rajkot India) at 70 rpm for 5 minutes)e weight of the briquette after the tumbling testwas noted and the TR was calculated using thefollowing equation [25]

weight loss() W3 minus W4( 1113857

W3 times 100 (6)

where W3 is the weight of the briquette before thetumbling test and W4 is the weight of the briquetteafter the tumbling test

tumbling resistance() 100 minus weight loss (7)

(8) Shatter resistance (SR) test the hardness of a bri-quette is determined using an SR test )e weight ofthe briquette before the SR test was measured )esample was then dropped on a concrete floor from a1m height )e procedure was repeated for 10 drops)e weight of the briquette after 10 drops was

measured )e SR of the briquette was calculatedusing the equations given below [25]


W5 times 100 (8)

where W5 is the weight of the briquette before theshatter test andW6 is the weight of the briquette afterthe shatter test

shatter resistance() 100 minus weight loss (9)

252 Proximate Analysis

(1) Moisture content the moisture content was mea-sured by using a standard method (ASTM) )eweight of the briquette before drying was measuredand then the briquette was placed in an oven (modelno Digital 1874 Lab Hosp Mumbai India) at 378Kfor 240 to 300 minutes until a constant weight wasreached )e weight of the sample after drying wasnoted )is method of measuring the moisturecontent is called the oven drying method )emoisture content of the sample was calculated usingthe following equation [25]

moisture content() W8 minus W9( 1113857

W8 minus W7( 1113857times 100 (10)

where W7 is the weight of the crucible W8 is theweight of the crucible + sample before drying andW9 is the weight of the crucible + sample afterdrying

(2) Volatile matter the dried briquette left from theprocedure described in Section 241 was used tocalculate the volatile matter )e crucible with thedried sample was covered with a lid )en it wasplaced in a muffle furnace (model no 591010 ShitalScientific Ind Mumbai India) at 873K for 10minutes according to the standard method (ASTM))e crucible was removed from the furnace andcooled in air and then in desiccators )e weight ofthe crucible was noted )e percentage of the volatilematter was calculated using the following formula[25]


volatilematter() W12 minus W13( 1113857

W11 minus W10( 1113857times 100 (11)

where W10 is the weight of the crucible W11 is theweight of the crucible + sample W12 is the weight ofthe crucible + sample in the muffle furnace and W13is the weight of the crucible + sample after heating

(3) Ash content the residual sample from the volatilematter content was heated without a lid in a mufflefurnace at 973K for 240 to 300 minutes until aconstant weight was reached )e crucible was re-moved from the furnace and cooled in air and then indesiccators )e percentage of the ash content wascalculated following ASTM standards )e weight of

the crucible was recorded )e percentage of the ashcontent was calculated using the following formula[25]

ash content() W16 minus W14( 1113857

W15 minus W14( 1113857 (12)

where W14 is the weight of the crucible W15 is theweight of the crucible + sample and W16 is theweight of the crucible + ash

(4) Fixed carbon content the percentage of the fixedcarbon content was determined using the followingequation [25]

fixed carbon() 100 minus (ash content + volatilematter + moisture content) (13)

(5) GCV the GCV was measured by using a standardprocedure (ASTM) )e complete combustion of thesample was carried out in an adiabatic bomb calo-rimeter (model BCA Dynamic EngineeringMumbai India) at 25 atm of oxygen To measure thewater equivalent of the apparatus a powder of

001 kg of pure and dry benzoic acid was burnt in abomb calorimeter under the same conditions Al-together 6324 caloriesgm of the calorific value ofbenzoic acid was taken )e GCV was determinedusing the following formula

GCV(kJkg) (calorimeter constant times rise in temperature)

Xtimes 100 (14)

where X is the mass of the sample briquette taken inthe crucible

(6) Net calorific value (NCV) the NCVwas calculated asfollows

net calorific value(kJkg) GCV minus (5283 times of hydrogen)

(15)

253 Energy Density Ratio (EDR) )e EDR measures theenergy content per unit volume of a briquette )e BD andGCV were used to calculate the EDR [13]

energy density ratio energy content of briquette kJm3

1113872 1113873

energy content of dry sugarcane leaves kJm31113872 1113873

(16)

3 Results and Discussion

)e physical analysis and proximate analysis were carriedout after one week of briquette production )e briquetteswere sun-dried at a temperature between 305 and 310K anda humidity between 62 and 69

31 Physical Parameters of the Briquettes with DifferentBinders

311 BD of the Briquettes Figure 1 shows that the highestBD was 2168 kgm3 for DSLBD )e BDs for DSLCD andDSLPM were 1981 kgm3 and 1919 kgm3 respectively A


high-quality briquette should have a high BD which willburn for longer periods have a high content energy pervolume and be easy to handle and store [27] Due to the highload application a solid bridge may be developed betweenparticles van der Waals forces developed with the help ofmoisture also aggregate the particles Lignin which ispresent in dry sugarcane leaves and the buffalo dung binderacts as a binding agent and helps the binding process At ahigh load lignin comes from the biomass particles and helpsform a solid bridge between them [28] Because of thisprocess the BD of DSLBD is high As the amount of thebinder in the briquettes increases the BD increases It alsodepends on the load applied for briquetting [29] )eproportion of the buffalo dung binder present in the drysugarcane briquette is 1812 )e load applied to make abriquette is 9 kN )e BDs of DSLBD and DSLCD arehigher than that of wheat straw bale briquettes reported tobe 100 kgm3 to 120 kgm3 [29]

312 RD or BD of the Briquettes by Geometric MeasurementsFigure 2 shows that as the load increases the height of abriquette decreases )is decrease in height reduces thevolume of the briquette )erefore the RD decreases [30])e volumes of DSLCD and DSCBD were found to be000257m3 and 0002629m3 respectively )e RD wasfound to be low for DSLCD 16940 kgm3 and high forDSLBD 17495 kgm3 )e RD for DSLPM was 17131 kgm3)e RDs of DSLCD DSLBD and DSLPMwere higherthan those of cotton stalk sunflower stalk and groundnutshell briquettes reported to be 9458 kgm3 11178 kgm3 and 90127 kgm3 respectively [30]

313 BD of Briquettes Using the Water DisplacementMethod )e BD when using the water displacementmethod depends on the size and shape of a particulate solidWhen a solid is submerged in water the volume of waterdisplaced is the same as the volume of the solid particle[31 32] As the volume of DSLBD was more the BD whenusing the water displacement method of DSLBD had thehighest value whereas the equivalent BDs of DSLCD DSLBD and DSLPMwere 328 kgm3 346 kgm3 and 1923 kgm3 respectively as shown in Figure 3 A high-quality bri-quette should have a higher BD when using the waterdisplacement method [33]

314 DD of the Briquettes )e DD is the ratio of thedifference in the density of a briquette and the raw materialto the density of the raw material To calculate the DD theBDs of the briquettes and dry sugarcane leaves were usedFigure 4 shows that the DD of DSLCD was 0033 that ofDSLBD was 01315 and that of DSLPM was 000156 )eDD is the bounding ability of biomass and it depends on theload applied and particle size [25 34] )e highest DD wasfound to be for DSLBD

315 CR of the Briquettes )e CR is the ratio of the densityof a briquette to the density of the raw material )e BDs ofthe briquettes and dry sugarcane leaves were considered tocalculate the CR)e highest CR of 1131 was found for DSLBD and the lowest CR of 10015 was found for DSLPM theCR for DSLCD was 1033 as shown in Figure 5 As the

0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

328 kgm3

346 kgm3

1923 kgm3

Figure 3 BDs of the briquettes with different binders when usingthe water displacement method

170 180 190 200 210 220

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1981 kgm3

2168 kgm3

1919 kgm3

Figure 1 BDs of the briquettes with different binders

166 168 170 172 174 176

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1694 kgm3

17495 kgm3

17131 kgm3

Figure 2 RDs of the briquettes with different binders


briquetting load increased the CR increased in a similarmanner to the BD A high CR is good for packing briquettes)e CRs recorded for the other briquettes were 380 for ricehusk briquettes and 42 for groundnut briquettes [35 36]

316 STS of the Briquettes )e STSs of DSLCD DSLBDand DSLPM were found to be 7164 kNm2 559 kNm2and 698 kNm2 respectively as shown in Figure 6 )ecellulosic and hemicellulosic fibres present in the cow dungbinder were 110 and 1310 respectively higher thanthose of the buffalo dung and press mud binders During thecompression load fibres become twisted or entrapped andfold over each other to interlock )is interlocking increasesthe resistance to the STS test [37] )e STS of the briquettesincreased with an increasing binder percentage and drysugarcane leaf percentage which itself is a high-densitymaterial [38] With an increasing load during briquettemaking the STS of the briquettes increased due to plasticdeformation )e load applied to make the briquettes withthe cow dung binder was 18 kN higher than the load used tomake the DSLBD and DSLPM briquettes STS may alsodepend on the physical properties of biomass High STS wasobserved for DSLCD which is good for transporting andstoring briquettes [39]

317 TR of the Briquettes )e TR is the resistance to thestress or force of a briquette Figure 7 shows that the TR forDSLCD was 8784 that for DSLBD was 8413 and thatfor DSLPM was 8666 )e maximum TR was thus forDSLCD A high-quality briquette should have a high TR for

ease of handling transportation and storage)e increase inthe TR was due to the binder percentage in the briquettesand application of a high load during briquette making [40])e percentage of the binder and load applied to make DSLCD were 2055 and 18 kN higher than those of DSLBDand DSLPM

318 SR of the Briquettes )e hardness of the briquette wasdetermined by using the SR test to measure its resistance toimpact )e DSLCD showed some resistance to impact andDSLBD and DSLPM disintegrated after the drops asshown in Table 4 )e SR is useful for loading and unloadingthe briquettes from trucks as well as storing in silos and bins[28] )e increase in the TR is due to the binder percentagein the briquettes and application of a high load duringbriquette making [41 42] )e percentage of the binder andload applied to make DSLCD were 2055 and 18 kNhigher than those of DSLBD and DSLPM

32 Proximate Analysis of the Briquettes with DifferentBinders )e values of the fixed carbon volatile matter andash content of the briquettes depend on the composition ofthe dry sugarcane leaves and binders A change was observedby mixing heterogeneous materials [43]

321 Moisture Content of the Briquettes )e briquetteswere difficult to handle after their removal from the die)eywere sun-dried for one week at a temperature between 305and 310K and a humidity between 62 and 69 After

0 002 004 006 008 01 012 014

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

0033

01315

000156

Figure 4 DD of the briquettes with different binders

09 095 1 105 11 115

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1033

1131

10015

Figure 5 CRs of the briquettes with different binders

0 2 4 6 8

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

7164 kNm2

559 kNm2

698 kNm2

Figure 6 STS of the briquettes with different binders

8200 8300 8400 8500()

8600 8700 8800

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

8784

8413

8666

Figure 7 TR of the briquettes with different binders


drying the briquettes were easy to handle )e moisturecontent of the briquettes was observed to be 2561 for DSLCD 3389 for DSLBD and 652 for DSLPM as shownin Figure 8 )is percentage of moisture should be reducedto less than 18 before combustion to generate the maxi-mum heat [44] In the briquette-making process water is anatural binding agent present in binders )is helps developthe van der Waals forces between the particles to bind themtogether However higher moisture content briquettes aredifficult to handle)erefore a suitable moisture content in abriquette is important for easy handling and making thebriquette stable It has been reported that an increase in thecalorific value of a briquette can be because of a lowermoisture content [45] )e lower moisture content in thebriquettes was caused by removing the moisture from themixture by compression during briquette making [46] )elowest moisture content was observed to be for DSLPM

322 Ash Content of the Briquettes )e impurity left aftercombustion is called ash )e ash content of the briquettesincreased by increasing the percentage of the binder in thebriquette A low ash content increases the calorific value of thebriquette ensures suitable thermal and biological conversionand lowers the corrosion of equipment [47] )e ash contentalso affects the oxygen diffusion and heat transfer of the bri-quette [48] Figure 9 shows that the ash contents of DSLCDDSLBD and DSLPM were 1099 986 and 1888 re-spectively )e ash content was found to be low for DSLBDbecause the original ash content of the buffalo dung binder was423 lower than that of the cow dung and press mud binders)e binder percentage in the briquettes was 1812 lower thanthose of DSLCD and DSLPM )e ash contents for DSLBDand DSLCD were lower than those of sugarcane leaf and ricestraw briquettes recorded as 1285 [43]

323 Fixed Carbon Content of the Briquettes )e fixedcarbon content is the solid fuel (coal) available for com-bustion after the vaporisation of the volatile matter A highervalue of the fixed carbon content has a positive effect on thecalorific value It adds to heat generation during briquetteburning [49] Figure 10 shows that the fixed carbon contentwas 293 for DSLCD 796 for DSLBD and 687 forDSLPM )e fixed carbon contents of DSLBD and DSLPM were more than that of coconut leaf briquettes whichwas found to be 472 )is value is encouraging as it canlengthen the energy release [50]

324 Volatile Matter Content of the Briquettes )e volatilematter contents of DSLCD DSLBD andDSLPMwere foundto be 6047 4829 and 6773 respectively as shown inFigure 11 )is is equivalent to the components of carbon

hydrogen and oxygen which can result in easy ignition andincrease the flame length A low volatile matter content resultsin incomplete combustion which results in smoke and harmfulgas emissions )e volatile matter recorded for rice husk bri-quettes was 6820 that for sawdust charcoal briquettes was71 and that for rice strawsugarcane leaf briquettes was7467 [50ndash52] DSLCD and DSLPMmet the requirement ofthe volatile matter content of the briquettes Most of the bri-quettes are converted into vapor and burn as gas in thecombustion chamber [51] )e maximum volatile mattercontent was found to be 6773 in the briquettes with the pressmud binder (DSLPM)

325 GCV of the Briquettes )e GCV is the heat generatedby combustion when the water produced is allowed to return tothe liquid state )e GCV is an important property of high-quality briquettes )e GCV depends on the composition andGCV values of the raw material [53] as well as the moisturecontent of the briquette [45] At a high compression load thedry sugarcane leaf briquettes reported good heat content [44])e maximum GCV (16262308kJkg) was for DSLCD )eminimum GCV was found to be 15257428kJkg for DSLPM)e GCV of DSLBD was 16232999kJkg as shown in Fig-ure 12 )e GCVs of DSLCD DSLBD and DSLPM werefound to be higher than those of rice husk briquettes groundnut shell briquettes cowpea briquettes and soybean briquetteswhich were measured as 15175kJkg 12600kJkg [54]1437293 kJkg and 12953 kJkg respectively [55 56] )eGCVs of DSLCD DSLBD and DSLPM are much higher fordomestic and industrial applications )e maximum GCVbriquette burns without difficulty and is superior to the lowGCV [55]

326 NCV of the Briquettes )e NCV is the heat generatedby combustion when the water produced remains in vapourform )e NCV is an important property of a briquette It iscontingent on its GCV moisture content and hydrogencontent Nitrogen oxygen and the ash content have less effecton the NCV [53] A maximum NCV briquette burns withoutdifficulty and is superior to a low NCV [55] )e maximumNCV was found to be 15362103kJkg for DSLCD )eminimum NCV was found to be 13473766kJkg for DSLBD)e NCV was 13972019kJkg for DSLPM as shown in Fig-ure 13 A high-quality briquette should have a higher NCV

33EDRof theBriquettes )eEDR is the energy content of abriquette fuel per unit volume to the energy content of theraw biomass per unit volume [25] To calculate the EDR theGCV and BD were used Figure 14 shows that the highestEDR was found to be 09296 for DSLCD and the lowestEDR was found to be 08478 for DSLBD )e EDR was09003 for DSLPM

34 Comparison of DSLCD DSLBD and DSLPM forSelecting theBestBinder )is research aimed to find the bestbinder formaking high-quality dry sugarcane leaf briquettesTable 5 compares the physical parameters proximate

Table 4 SR test

Sr no Briquette SR ()1 DSLCD 12752 DSLBD Disintegrated after seven drops3 DSLPM Disintegrated after six drops


analysis and ultimate analysis of DSLCD DSLBD andDSLPM

High-quality briquettes for domestic and industrialapplications require higher values of the GCV NCV BDSTS TR SR and EDR and lower values of moisturecontent and ash content All briquettes should have thesemain properties )e other properties such as the fixedcarbon content and volatile matter which contribute tothe GCV should also have higher values

)e GCV and NCV are the main properties of bri-quettes )e higher the values of the GCV and NCV arethe higher the quality of the briquettes is )e GCV andNCV of DSLCD were found to be 1626231 kJkg and153621 kJkg respectively higher than those of DSLBDand DSLPM )e STS TR SR and EDR of DSLCD werefound to be 7164 kNm2 8784 1275 and 09296respectively higher than those of DSLBD and DSLPM)erefore it can be suggested that cow dung was thebetter binder for making high-quality dry sugarcane leafbriquettes compared with the buffalo dung and press mudbinders

000 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

2561

3389

652

()

Figure 8 Moisture content of the briquettes with different binders

000 500 1000 1500 2000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1099

986

1888

()

Figure 9 Ash content of the briquettes with different binders

000 200 400()

600 800

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

293

796

687

Figure 10 Fixed carbon content of the briquettes with differentbinders

000 1000 2000 3000 4000()

5000 6000 7000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

6047

4829

6773

Figure 11 Volatile matter content of the briquettes with differentbinders

12500 13000 13500 14000 14500 15000 15500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

15362103kJkg

13473766kJkg

13972019kJkg

Figure 13 NCV of the briquettes with different binders

14500 15000 15500 16000 16500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

16262308kJkg

16232999kJkg

15257428kJkg

Figure 12 GCV of the briquettes with different binders


4 Conclusions

Dry sugarcane leaves are produced in huge quantities andusually burnt directly in an open atmosphere creatingenvironmental pollution Dry sugarcane leaves have aGCV of 16919667 kJkg which can be converted intobriquettes or otherwise be wasted )ese briquettes are agood choice for generating energy for households andindustrial applications From the above results the fol-lowing conclusions can be drawn

(1) )e proximate analysis and physical properties of thebriquettes estimated in this study show that cow dungis a better binder for making high-quality dry sugar-cane leaf briquettes compared with the buffalo dungand press mud binders )e dry sugarcane leaf bri-quettes with the cow dung binder satisfy the mainparameters required for high-quality briquettes )e

highest values of the GCV NCV STS TR SR andEDR were found to be 1626231 kJkg 153621 kJkg7164 kNm2 8784 1275 and 09296 respectively

(2) We provided evidence that there is no need to addwater during briquette making Briquettes can bemade using the moisture naturally present in drysugarcane leaves and binders

(3) A dry sugarcane leaf briquette has great potential tofulfil demand for energy

(4) Dry sugarcane leaf briquettes can be short-termquick-fix solution for the energy problems faced byIndia

Data Availability

)e data used to support the findings of this study are in-cluded within the article

08 082 084 086 088 09 092 094

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

09296

08478

09003

Figure 14 EDR of the briquettes with different binders

Table 5 Comparison of the briquettes with different binders

DSLCD DSLBD DSLPMPhysical propertiesBD (kgm3) 1981 2168 1919RD (kgm3) 16947 17495 17131BD when using the water displacement method (kgm3) 328 346 1923DD 0033 01315 0001565CR 1033 1131 10015STS (kNm2) 7164 559 698TR () 8784 8413 8666SR () 1275 Disintegrated after seven drops Disintegrated after six dropsProximate analysisMoisture () 2561 3389 652Ash () 1099 986 1888Fixed carbon content () 293 796 687Volatile matter () 6047 4829 6773GCV (kJKg) 16262308 16232999 15257428NCV (kJKg) 15362103 13473766 13972019EDR 09296 08478 090034


Conflicts of Interest

)e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

References

[1] L Dai N Zhou H Li et al ldquoRecent advances in improvinglignocellulosic biomass-based bio-oil productionrdquo Journal ofAnalytical and Applied Pyrolysis vol 149 pp 1ndash49 2020

[2] M Goyal and R Jha ldquoIntroduction of renewable energycertificate in the Indian scenariordquo Renewable and SustainableEnergy Reviews vol 13 no 6-7 pp 1395ndash1405 2009

[3] M Guo W Song and J Buhain ldquoBioenergy and biofuelshistory status and perspectiverdquo Renewable and SustainableEnergy Reviews vol 42 pp 712ndash725 2015

[4] A J Ragauskas C KWilliams B H Davison et al ldquo)e pathforward for biofuels and biomaterialsrdquo Science vol 311no 5760 pp 484ndash489 2006

[5] K G Nodooshan R J Moraga S-J G Chen C NguyenZ Wang and S Mohseni ldquoEnvironmental and economicoptimization of algal biofuel supply chain with multipletechnological pathwaysrdquo Industrial amp Engineering ChemistryResearch vol 57 no 20 pp 6910ndash6925 2018

[6] M Kashanian M S Pishvaee and H Sahebi ldquoSustainablebiomass portfolio sourcing plan using multi-stage stochasticprogrammingrdquo Energy vol 204 pp 1ndash38 2020

[7] L J R Nunes T P Causer and D Ciolkosz ldquoBiomass forenergy a review on supply chain management modelsrdquoRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews vol 120 pp 1ndash82020

[8] G Fisher and L Schrattenholzer ldquoGlobal bioenergy potentialsthrough 2050rdquo Biomass and Bioenergy vol 20 no 3pp 151ndash159 2001

[9] C Karunanithy Y Wang K Muthukumarappan andS Pugalendhi ldquoPhysiochemical characterization of briquettesmade from different feedstocksrdquo Biotechnology Research In-ternational vol 2012 Article ID 165202 12 pages 2012

[10] R M Jorapur A K Rajvanshi P J Paul and H S MukundaldquoOperating experience and economics of a 15 kVA Gensetgasifier system running on chopped sugarcane leavesrdquo RecentAdvances in Biomass Gasification and Combustion pp 257ndash273 Interline Publishing Bangalore India 1993

[11] S P Rajput S V Jadhav and B N )orat ldquoMethods toimprove properties of fuel pellets obtained from differentbiomass sources effect of biomass blends and bindersrdquo FuelProcessing Technology vol 199 pp 1ndash12 2020

[12] H Jain Y Vijayalakshmi and T Neeraja ldquoPreparation ofbriquettes using biomass combinations and estimation of itscalorific valuerdquo International Journal of Science and Researchvol 4 no 3 pp 322ndash324 2015

[13] M Iftikhar A Asghar N Ramzan B Sajjadi andW-y ChenldquoBiomass densification effect of cow dung on the physico-chemical properties of wheat straw and rice husk basedbiomass pelletsrdquo Biomass and Bioenergy vol 122 pp 1ndash162019

[14] C Tiwari ldquoProducing fuel briquettes from sugarcane wasterdquoin Proceedings of the 2011 National Research amp EducationConference Our Global Future EWB UK Sheffield UK March2011

[15] A K Chandel S S da Silva W Carvalho and O V SinghldquoSugarcane bagasse and leaves foreseeable biomass of biofueland bio-productsrdquo Journal of Chemical Technology amp Bio-technology vol 87 no 1 pp 11ndash20 2012

[16] Food and Agricultural Organization of the United NationsldquoEconomic and social department the statistical divisionrdquo2018 httpsenwikipediaorgwikisugarcane

[17] Department of Agriculture and Cooperation ldquoHorticulturedivision (2016) 128ndash185rdquo 2018 httpeandsdacnetnicin

[18] R H Kaul T U Ornvall L Gustafsson and B P OrjessonldquoIndustrial biotechnology for the production of bio-basedchemicals a cradle cradleto-grave perspectiverdquo Trends inBiotechnology vol 25 pp 119ndash124 2007

[19] C Somerville H Youngs C Taylor S C Davis andS P Long ldquoFeedstocks for lignocellulosic biofuelsrdquo Sciencevol 329 no 5993 pp 790ndash792 2010

[20] A K Chandel and O V Singh ldquoWeedy lignocellulosicfeedstock andmicrobial metabolic engineering advancing thegeneration of ldquobiofuelrdquo Applied Microbiology and Biotech-nology vol 89 no 5 pp 1289ndash1303 2011

[21] A Pandey C R Soccol P Nigam and V T Soccol ldquoBio-technological potential of agro-industrial residues I sugar-cane bagasserdquo Bioresource Technology vol 74 no 1pp 69ndash80 2000

[22] P R Bonelli E L Buonomo and A L Cukierman ldquoPyrolysisof sugarcane bagasse and co-pyrolysis with an argentineansubbituminous coalrdquo Energy Sources Part A Recovery Uti-lization and Environmental Effects vol 29 no 8 pp 731ndash7402007

[23] Y Shinogi and Y Kanri ldquoPyrolysis of plant animal andhuman waste physical and chemical characterization of thepyrolytic productsrdquo Bioresource Technology vol 90 no 3pp 241ndash247 2003

[24] B V Shinde andM Singaravelu ldquoBulk density of biomass andparticle density of their briquettesrdquo International Journal ofAgricultural Engineering vol 7 no 10 pp 221ndash224 2014

[25] U B Deshannavar P G Hegde Z Dhalayat V Patil andS Gavas ldquoProduction and characterization of agro-basedbriquettes and estimation of calorific value by regressionanalysis an energy applicationrdquo Materials Science for EnergyTechnologies vol 1 no 2 pp 175ndash181 2018

[26] B D Kanawade V P Kulkarni S B Kandekar andA J Mehetre ldquoCompression and split tensile strength ofconcrete containing different aggregatesrdquo InternationalJournal of Engineering Research amp Technology vol 3 no 3pp 469ndash473 2014

[27] A Olorunnisola ldquoProduction of fuel briquettes from wastepaper and coconut husk admixtures international commis-sion of agricultural engineering (CIGR Commission Inter-nationale du Genie Rural)rdquo E-Journal vol 9 2007

[28] N Kaliyan and R Vance Morey ldquoFactors affecting strengthand durability of densified biomass productsrdquo Biomass andBioenergy vol 33 no 3 pp 337ndash359 2009

[29] A Demirbas ldquoPhysical properties of briquettes from wastepaper and wheat straw mixturesrdquo Energy Conversion ampManagement vol 40 pp 437ndash445 1999

[30] R F Temmermana M T Bohmb H H Peter J RathbauerdJ Carrascoe and M Fernandeze ldquoParticle density determi-nation of pellets and briquettesrdquo Biomass and Bioenergyvol 30 no 11 pp 954ndash963 2006

[31] W L McCabe J C Smith and P HarriottUnit Operations ofChemical Engineering McGraw Hill Book Co Singapore 5thedition 1993

[32] U L Steeter Fluid Mechanics McGraw Hill Book Co NewYork NY USA 5th edition 1971

[33] S H Sengar A G Mohod Y P Khandetod S S Patil andA D Chendake ldquoPerformance of briquetting machine for


briquette fuelrdquo International Journal of Energy Engineeringvol 2 no 1 pp 28ndash34 2012

[34] F Karaosmanoglu E Tetik B Gurboy and I Sanli ldquoChar-acterization of the straw stalk of the rapeseed plant as abiomass energy sourcerdquo Energy Sources vol 21 pp 801ndash8101999

[35] G CWakchaure and I Mani ldquoEffect of binders and pressureson physical quality of some biomass briquettesrdquo Journal ofAgricultural Engineering vol 46 no 4 pp 24ndash30 2009

[36] J T Oladeji ldquoFuel characterization of briquettes producedfrom corncob and rice husk residuesrdquo Pacific Journal ofScience and Technology vol 11 no 1 pp 101ndash106 2010

[37] A Demirbas and A Sahin ldquoEvaluation of biomass residue 1Briquetting waste paper and wheat straw mixturesrdquo FuelProcessing Technology vol 55 pp 175ndash183 1998

[38] H Qiang S Jingai Y Haiping Y Dingding W Xianhua andC Hanping ldquoEffects of binders on the properties of bio-charpelletsrdquo Applied Energy vol 157 pp 508ndash516 2015

[39] N Kaliyan and R V Morey ldquoDensification characteristics ofcorn cobsrdquo Fuel Processing Technology vol 91 no 5pp 559ndash565 2010

[40] M Matus P Krizan L Soos and J Beniak ldquo)e effect ofpapermaking sludge as an additive to biomass pellets on thefinal quality of the fuelrdquo Fuel vol 219 pp 196ndash204 2018

[41] S Yaman M Sahan H Haykiri-accedilma K Sesen andS Kuccedilukbayrak ldquoProduction of fuel briquettes from oliverefuse and paper mill wasterdquo Fuel Processing Technologyvol 68 no 1 pp 23ndash31 2000

[42] A Demirbas and A S Demirbas ldquoBriquetting properties ofbiomass waste materialsrdquo Energy Sources vol 26 no 1pp 83ndash91 2014

[43] P Jittabut ldquoPhysical and thermal properties of briquette fuelsfrom rice straw and sugarcane leaves by mixing molassesrdquoEnergy Procedia vol 79 pp 2ndash9 2015

[44] R Shuma and D M Madyira ldquoProduction of loose biomassbriquette from agricultural and forestry residuesrdquo ProcediaManufacturing vol 7 pp 98ndash105 2016

[45] S Mani L G Tabil and S Sokhansanj ldquoEffects of com-pressive force particle size and moisture content on me-chanical properties of biomass pellets from grassesrdquo Biomassand Bioenergy vol 30 no 7 pp 648ndash654 2006

[46] U G Beker ldquoBriquetting of Afsin-Elbistan lignite of Turkeyusing different waste materialsrdquo Fuel Processing Technologyvol 51 no 1-2 pp 137ndash144 1997

[47] S V Vassilev C G Vassileva and V S Vassilev ldquoAdvantagesand disadvantages of composition and properties of biomassin comparison with coal an overviewrdquo Fuel vol 158pp 330ndash350 2015

[48] J O Akowuah F Kemausur and S J Mitchual ldquoPhysico-chemical characteristics and market potential of sawdustcharcoal briquetterdquo International Journal of Energy and En-vironmental Engineering vol 3 no 20 pp 1ndash11 2012

[49] S V Vassilev D Baxter L K Andersen C G Vassileva andT J Morgan ldquoAn overview of the organic and inorganicphase composition of biomassrdquo Fuel vol 94 pp 1ndash33 2012

[50] J O Chaney Combustion characteristics of biomass briquettesPhD thesis University of Nottingham Nottingham UK2010

[51] S V Loo and J Koppejan Ge Handbook of Biomass Com-bustion and Co-Firing Earthscan London UK 1st edition2008

[52] F d S Costa and D Sandberg ldquoMathematical model of asmoldering logrdquo Combustion and Flame vol 139 pp 227ndash238 2004

[53] I Obernberger and G )ek Ge Pellet Handbook Ge Pro-duction andGermal Utilization of Biomass Pellets EarthscanLondon UK 1st edition 2010

[54] A N Efomah and A Gbabo ldquo)e physical proximate andultimate analysis of rice husk briquettes produced from avibratory block mould briquetting machinerdquo IJISET vol 2no 5 pp 814ndash822 2015

[55] C C Enweremadu J O Ojediran J T Oladeji andI O Afolabi ldquoEvaluation of energy potential of husks fromsoybeans and cowpeardquo Science Focus vol 8 pp 18ndash23 2004

[56] S A Channiwala and P P Parikh ldquoA unified correlation forestimating HHV of solid liquid and gaseous fuelsrdquo Fuelvol 81 no 8 pp 1051ndash1063 2002


11 Source of Energy Biomass Biomass an organic matter orbiological material derived from living organisms is the bestalternative to oil and natural gas It can be transformed intosolid liquid and gaseous biofuels that generate energy onburning [4] Biomasses in different forms are available inlarge quantities in developing countries Biomass accountsfor 115 of energy demand and is expected to increase tobetween 15 and 50 by 2050 [5 6] )e cost of energyproduced from biomass is relatively low [7] )e worldrsquosbiomass energy potential in 2020 is presented in Table 1 [8]

Human waste food processing animal waste agricul-tural waste and forestry are examples of biomass [9] Intotal 320 million tonnes of agricultural waste such as drysugarcane leaves bagasse rice straw rice husks wheat strawand corncobs are produced by India )is residue is oftenburnt in an open atmosphere creating smoke and fly ashproblems Approximately 100 million tonnes of agriculturalwaste are burnt in open fields creating air pollution [10]Burning this agricultural waste results in a huge loss ofenergy However the great task is converting this biomassinto briquettes to generate energy [11ndash13]

12 Dry Sugarcane Leaves Sugarcane plants are the best ex-amples of how nature has provided us with renewable biomassto generate energy Research has examined how such plants canbe a substitute for coal oil and natural gas For exampleconverting the waste of sugarcane plants into solid fuel such asbriquettes could be the best solution to deforestation which is ahot topic [14] A large amount of sugarcane is producedglobally especially in India [15] In 2015 1877105 thousandmetric tonnes of sugarcane were produced globally Indiaranked in second place with 341200 thousand metric tonnesafter Brazil (739267 thousand metric tonnes) with China inthird (125536 thousand metric tonnes) )e top 10 sugarcane-producing countries are presented in Table 2 [14 16] and thetop three sugarcane-producing states in India areUttar PradeshMaharashtra and Karnataka (1324276842 696480768 and35732 thousand metric tonnes respectively) )e top 10 sug-arcane-producing states in India are presented in Table 3 [17]

)e modification of the agricultural sector has produceda huge amount of waste which has the potential to producelow-cost energy compared with oil and natural gas [18ndash21]A large amount of agricultural waste is produced aftercleaning sugarcane stems )is agricultural waste mostlyconsists of leaves and tops which remain unused in thesugar production process [22] Approximately 279 millionmetric tonnes of residue such as dry leaves and bagasse aregenerated by the sugarcane industry [15] Although 3500 kgof dry sugarcane leaves is produced from one hectare ofsugarcane crops and the gross calorific content of drysugarcane leaves is 16919667 kJkg converting dry sugar-cane leaves into biofuels has hardly been explored [23] Drysugarcane leaves are the major source of energy that could beused to make briquettes

13 Briquetting )e technique of compacting loose bio-mass is known as briquetting [12 14] Techniques includehigh-pressure and low-pressure briquetting )ese are

classified depending on the method applied to makebriquettes such as using a piston press screw press pelletmill and hydraulic press )e types of binders used tomake dry sugarcane leaf briquettes are starch proteinfibre fatoil lignin cattle dung press mud molasses andpulp and paper

)e objective of the present study was to explore dif-ferent binders for making dry sugarcane leaf briquettes andexamine the expediency of briquettes by determining theirphysical parameters and proximate analysis

2 Materials and Methods

21 Material Dry sugarcane leaves of species 86032 whichwere used to make the briquettes were collected from anagricultural field in Kolhapur Maharashtra India Breed86032 is cultivated in large quantities in Maharashtra andacross India)e cow dung and buffalo dung binders used tomake the briquettes were collected from a local dairy farm inwestern Maharashtra and the press mud binder was col-lected from a sugar manufacturer in western Maharashtra

Table 1 Worldrsquos biomass potential [8]

Energy resource (biomass) 2020 (metric tonnes)Crop residue 480ndash499Wood 1791ndash2025Energy crops 2971ndash3535Animal waste 994Municipal waste 516Total 6752ndash7569

Table 2 Top 10 sugarcane producers [14ndash16]

Rank Country Production (thousand metric tonnes)1 Brazil 7392672 India 3412003 China 1255364 )ailand 1000965 Pakistan 637506 Mexico 611827 Colombia 348768 Indonesia 337009 Philippines 3187410 USA 27906

Table 3 Top 10 sugarcane-producing states in India [17]

Rank Country Production (thousand metric tonnes)1 Uttar Pradesh 13242768422 Maharashtra 6964807683 Karnataka 357324 Tamil Nadu 33919175 Andhra Pradesh 155676 Bihar 12741427 Gujarat 126908 Haryana 74379 Uttarakhand 67848210 Punjab 5919




24 Methodology








W2 minus W1( 1113857

V (1)





2times H

(2)






(3)








(2 times P)





W3 times 100 (6)






W5 times 100 (8)






W8 minus W7( 1113857times 100 (10)





W11 minus W10( 1113857times 100 (11)





W15 minus W14( 1113857 (12)







Xtimes 100 (14)




(15)



1113872 1113873


(16)











0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

328 kgm3

346 kgm3

1923 kgm3


170 180 190 200 210 220

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1981 kgm3

2168 kgm3

1919 kgm3


166 168 170 172 174 176

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1694 kgm3

17495 kgm3

17131 kgm3










0 002 004 006 008 01 012 014

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

0033

01315

000156


09 095 1 105 11 115

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1033

1131

10015


0 2 4 6 8

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

7164 kNm2

559 kNm2

698 kNm2


8200 8300 8400 8500()

8600 8700 8800

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

8784

8413

8666












Table 4 SR test






000 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

2561

3389

652

()


000 500 1000 1500 2000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1099

986

1888

()


000 200 400()

600 800

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

293

796

687


000 1000 2000 3000 4000()

5000 6000 7000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

6047

4829

6773


12500 13000 13500 14000 14500 15000 15500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

15362103kJkg

13473766kJkg

13972019kJkg


14500 15000 15500 16000 16500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

16262308kJkg

16232999kJkg

15257428kJkg



4 Conclusions







Data Availability


08 082 084 086 088 09 092 094

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

09296

08478

09003







References






























































24 Methodology








W2 minus W1( 1113857

V (1)





2times H

(2)






(3)








(2 times P)





W3 times 100 (6)






W5 times 100 (8)






W8 minus W7( 1113857times 100 (10)





W11 minus W10( 1113857times 100 (11)





W15 minus W14( 1113857 (12)







Xtimes 100 (14)




(15)



1113872 1113873


(16)











0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

328 kgm3

346 kgm3

1923 kgm3


170 180 190 200 210 220

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1981 kgm3

2168 kgm3

1919 kgm3


166 168 170 172 174 176

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1694 kgm3

17495 kgm3

17131 kgm3










0 002 004 006 008 01 012 014

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

0033

01315

000156


09 095 1 105 11 115

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1033

1131

10015


0 2 4 6 8

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

7164 kNm2

559 kNm2

698 kNm2


8200 8300 8400 8500()

8600 8700 8800

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

8784

8413

8666












Table 4 SR test






000 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

2561

3389

652

()


000 500 1000 1500 2000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1099

986

1888

()


000 200 400()

600 800

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

293

796

687


000 1000 2000 3000 4000()

5000 6000 7000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

6047

4829

6773


12500 13000 13500 14000 14500 15000 15500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

15362103kJkg

13473766kJkg

13972019kJkg


14500 15000 15500 16000 16500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

16262308kJkg

16232999kJkg

15257428kJkg



4 Conclusions







Data Availability


08 082 084 086 088 09 092 094

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

09296

08478

09003







References






























































(3)








(2 times P)





W3 times 100 (6)






W5 times 100 (8)






W8 minus W7( 1113857times 100 (10)





W11 minus W10( 1113857times 100 (11)





W15 minus W14( 1113857 (12)







Xtimes 100 (14)




(15)



1113872 1113873


(16)











0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

328 kgm3

346 kgm3

1923 kgm3


170 180 190 200 210 220

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1981 kgm3

2168 kgm3

1919 kgm3


166 168 170 172 174 176

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1694 kgm3

17495 kgm3

17131 kgm3










0 002 004 006 008 01 012 014

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

0033

01315

000156


09 095 1 105 11 115

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1033

1131

10015


0 2 4 6 8

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

7164 kNm2

559 kNm2

698 kNm2


8200 8300 8400 8500()

8600 8700 8800

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

8784

8413

8666












Table 4 SR test






000 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

2561

3389

652

()


000 500 1000 1500 2000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1099

986

1888

()


000 200 400()

600 800

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

293

796

687


000 1000 2000 3000 4000()

5000 6000 7000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

6047

4829

6773


12500 13000 13500 14000 14500 15000 15500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

15362103kJkg

13473766kJkg

13972019kJkg


14500 15000 15500 16000 16500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

16262308kJkg

16232999kJkg

15257428kJkg



4 Conclusions







Data Availability


08 082 084 086 088 09 092 094

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

09296

08478

09003







References





























































W11 minus W10( 1113857times 100 (11)





W15 minus W14( 1113857 (12)







Xtimes 100 (14)




(15)



1113872 1113873


(16)











0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

328 kgm3

346 kgm3

1923 kgm3


170 180 190 200 210 220

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1981 kgm3

2168 kgm3

1919 kgm3


166 168 170 172 174 176

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1694 kgm3

17495 kgm3

17131 kgm3










0 002 004 006 008 01 012 014

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

0033

01315

000156


09 095 1 105 11 115

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1033

1131

10015


0 2 4 6 8

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

7164 kNm2

559 kNm2

698 kNm2


8200 8300 8400 8500()

8600 8700 8800

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

8784

8413

8666












Table 4 SR test






000 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

2561

3389

652

()


000 500 1000 1500 2000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1099

986

1888

()


000 200 400()

600 800

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

293

796

687


000 1000 2000 3000 4000()

5000 6000 7000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

6047

4829

6773


12500 13000 13500 14000 14500 15000 15500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

15362103kJkg

13473766kJkg

13972019kJkg


14500 15000 15500 16000 16500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

16262308kJkg

16232999kJkg

15257428kJkg



4 Conclusions







Data Availability


08 082 084 086 088 09 092 094

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

09296

08478

09003







References

































































0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

328 kgm3

346 kgm3

1923 kgm3


170 180 190 200 210 220

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1981 kgm3

2168 kgm3

1919 kgm3


166 168 170 172 174 176

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1694 kgm3

17495 kgm3

17131 kgm3










0 002 004 006 008 01 012 014

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

0033

01315

000156


09 095 1 105 11 115

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1033

1131

10015


0 2 4 6 8

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

7164 kNm2

559 kNm2

698 kNm2


8200 8300 8400 8500()

8600 8700 8800

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

8784

8413

8666












Table 4 SR test






000 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

2561

3389

652

()


000 500 1000 1500 2000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1099

986

1888

()


000 200 400()

600 800

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

293

796

687


000 1000 2000 3000 4000()

5000 6000 7000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

6047

4829

6773


12500 13000 13500 14000 14500 15000 15500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

15362103kJkg

13473766kJkg

13972019kJkg


14500 15000 15500 16000 16500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

16262308kJkg

16232999kJkg

15257428kJkg



4 Conclusions







Data Availability


08 082 084 086 088 09 092 094

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

09296

08478

09003







References



































































0 002 004 006 008 01 012 014

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

0033

01315

000156


09 095 1 105 11 115

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1033

1131

10015


0 2 4 6 8

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

7164 kNm2

559 kNm2

698 kNm2


8200 8300 8400 8500()

8600 8700 8800

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

8784

8413

8666












Table 4 SR test






000 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

2561

3389

652

()


000 500 1000 1500 2000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1099

986

1888

()


000 200 400()

600 800

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

293

796

687


000 1000 2000 3000 4000()

5000 6000 7000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

6047

4829

6773


12500 13000 13500 14000 14500 15000 15500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

15362103kJkg

13473766kJkg

13972019kJkg


14500 15000 15500 16000 16500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

16262308kJkg

16232999kJkg

15257428kJkg



4 Conclusions







Data Availability


08 082 084 086 088 09 092 094

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

09296

08478

09003







References





































































Table 4 SR test






000 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

2561

3389

652

()


000 500 1000 1500 2000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1099

986

1888

()


000 200 400()

600 800

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

293

796

687


000 1000 2000 3000 4000()

5000 6000 7000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

6047

4829

6773


12500 13000 13500 14000 14500 15000 15500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

15362103kJkg

13473766kJkg

13972019kJkg


14500 15000 15500 16000 16500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

16262308kJkg

16232999kJkg

15257428kJkg



4 Conclusions







Data Availability


08 082 084 086 088 09 092 094

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

09296

08478

09003







References































































000 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

2561

3389

652

()


000 500 1000 1500 2000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

1099

986

1888

()


000 200 400()

600 800

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

293

796

687


000 1000 2000 3000 4000()

5000 6000 7000

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

6047

4829

6773


12500 13000 13500 14000 14500 15000 15500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

15362103kJkg

13473766kJkg

13972019kJkg


14500 15000 15500 16000 16500

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

16262308kJkg

16232999kJkg

15257428kJkg



4 Conclusions







Data Availability


08 082 084 086 088 09 092 094

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

09296

08478

09003







References




























































4 Conclusions







Data Availability


08 082 084 086 088 09 092 094

DSLCD

DSLBD

DSLPM

09296

08478

09003







References






























































References




























































briquetting of dry sugarcane leaves by using press mud

Documents