See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233726394

Heating values of wood pellets from different

species

Article in Biomass and Bioenergy · May 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.02.043

CITATIONS READS

55 2,980

2 authors, including:

José L. Louzada
Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro
147 PUBLICATIONS 704 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: José L. Louzada
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 09 October 2016
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 6 3 4 e2 6 3 9

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Heating values of wood pellets from different species

C. Telmo a,*, J. Lousada b

a
University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), Forestry Department, Quinta dos Prados Apartado 1013-5001-801 Vila Real,
Portugal
b
CITAB, Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environment and Biological Sciences, UTAD, Quinta dos Prados Apartado
1013-5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal

article info abstract

Article history: The calorific values of wood pellets from different wood species were determined using
Received 11 March 2009 a Parr 6300 bomb calorimeter, following the CEN/TS 14918:2005. The aim of this study was
Received in revised form the thermo characterization of the wood pellets. Softwoods had a high calorific value
15 February 2011 between 19660.02 and 20360.45 kJ/kg, and the hardwoods had a ranging interval between
Accepted 22 February 2011 17631.66 and 20809.47 kJ/kg, in accordance to Phyllis distribution of HHV. The highest HHV
Available online 8 April 2011 (Higher Heating Value) and LHV (Low Heating Value) were obtained by Bowdichia nitida
(20809.47e17907.85 kJ/kg). Cedrus atlantica was the softwood with the highest HHV
Keywords: (20360.45 kJ/kg). Pinus pinaster was the softwood with the highest LHV (16935.72 kJ/kg).
Higher Heating Value Fagus sylvatica was the National hardwood with the highest HHV (19132.47 kJ/kg). Fraxinus
Low Heating Value angustifolia was the National hardwood with the highest LHV (16450.82 kJ/kg). Eucalyptus
Moisture globulus obtained the lowest HHV and LHV (17631.66e14411.54 kJ/kg).
Wood pellets ª 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Linear regression

1. Introduction same time aiding countries in meeting their GHG reduction

The amount of land area covered by forest in Portugal is 38% of
the total land area of the country Table 1, the forest area
increased 2% between 1995 and 2006 to a total of 3,136,800 ha
according to the National Forest Inventory 2006. These area is
occupied mainly by Quercus suber 736700 ha, Pinus pinaster
710600 ha and Eucalyptus globulus 646,700 ha Table 2. The most
important forest products are cork, wood pulp, paper pulp,
paper board, cellulose and wood (furniture; construction).
Portugal is the premier producer of cork in the world about
50% of the total cork production, and the fifth producer of pulp
and paper in Europe. In this sense, the forest sector, as
generator of great amounts of residues assumes an important
role respecting the use of biomass for energy.
In the future, biomass has the potential to provide a cost-
effective and sustainable supply of energy, while at the
targets [1]. In the short to medium term, biomass is expected
to dominate energy supply. For the generation of electricity
and heat, while using advanced combustion technology,
organic wastes can be used as modern biomass [2]. Also,
a number of crops and crop residues may fit modern bio-
energy chains [3,4]. In addition, biomass production can create
employment and if intensive agriculture is replaced by less
intensively managed energy crops, there are likely to be
environmental benefits, such as reduced leaching of fertilizers
and the use of pesticides [5].
In Portugal, there is currently an energy density growing,
pelletizing of biomass as biofuels increases energy density,
improves storability and reduces handling and transport
costs. This process is a major key factor in the transition from
fossil fuels to renewable biomass refined as solid biofuels. The
fast growing pellet industry is today producing more than

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ351 914165175; fax: þ351 259350859.

E-mail address: telmimore@hotmail.com (C. Telmo).
0961-9534/$ e see front matter ª 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.02.043
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 6 3 4 e2 6 3 9 2635

content of wood fuel is evaporated as it burns, that process

Table 1 e Area by soil use in Portugal (IFN 2005/6).
Soil use Area (103 ha)
Forest 3136.8
Bushes 1898.6
Agriculture 3028.3
Social areas 413.5
Water (inside) 143.8
1.7 Gj wood pellets in Sweden e one of the leading nations to
utilize bioenergy in its energy blend.
2. Higher and Low Heating Value
The most important parameter to characterize a substance as
combustible is the calorific value. The number of units of
energy produced by the combustion of a unit mass of a fuel is
termed calorific value. The calorific value of wood can be
expressed as follow:
 Higher Heating Value at constant volume (dry basis)
 Low Heating Value at constant pressure (dry basis)
 Low Heating Value at constant pressure (wet basis or as
received)
The Higher Heating Value is the absolute value of the
specific energy combustion, in joules for unit mass of a solid
biofuel burned in oxygen in a calorimetric bomb under speci-
fied conditions. Combustion products consist of oxygen,
nitrogen, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide of liquid water [6].
Condensing the water vapour increases the amount of
energy recovered from the wood. The water vapour can arise
from two sources: the moisture content of the wood and the
formation of water from the hydrogen in the wood. There is
little difference in the Higher Heating Values of oven dry wood
from different tree species. Bark does have lower energy
content than stem wood.
The Low Heating Value is the absolute value of the specific
energy of combustion, in joules, for unit mass of the biofuel
burned in oxygen under conditions of constant volume and
such that all the water of reaction products remains as water
vapour [6]. The Low Heating Value in wet basis, is perhaps the
most practical measure of energy content. The moisture
requires energy.
The most common methods currently being practiced to
evaluate the heating of biomass are by using the equation
derived by Dulong, or experimentally, by using the bomb
calorimeter. There have been numerous other mathematical
equations, which where created based on the data from
physical composition, proximate or elemental analysis of
biomass [7e9]. The calculation of HHV available in literature
was based on correlations for a wide range of coals as well as
other fuels and have drawn the attention of many
researchers. Selvig and Gibson [10], Strach and Lant [11], Ste-
uer [12], Vondracek [13], Sumegi [14], Mott and Spooner’s [15].
Others have estimated the calorific power as in Refs. [7,16,17]
and created more mathematical models like in Refs. [8,18].
It has been given a great contribution by Demirbas [19e21]
in thermal studies of biomass fuels, a unified correlation for
estimating HHV of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels was devel-
oped by Channiwala and Parikh in 2001. More recently they
created new correlations for calculating HHV from proximate
analysis of solid fuels [9].
The aim of this study was the thermo characterization of
the wood pellets from different species.
3. Materials and methods
Twelve of the main wood species in Portugal and five industry
wood tropical residues have been studied. The main species
were: Castanea sativa; E. globulus; Fagus sylvatica; P. pinaster;
Quercus robur; Fraxinus angustifolia; Prunus avium; Pseudotsuga
menziesii; Salix babilonica; Populus euro-americana (cl. I-214); Acer
pseudoplatanus; Cedrus atlantica. The wood industry residues
were: Chlorophora excelsa; Entandrophragma cylindricum; Goss-
weilerodendron balsamiferum; Bowdichia nitida; Hymenaea cour-
baril. The samples were prepared according to the general
analysis test sample CEN/TS 14780 [22]. For the determination
of moisture used technical specification CEN/TS 14774-3:2004
e Solid biofuels e Methods for the determination of moisture
content e Oven dry method Part 3: Moisture in general anal-
ysis sample [23].
After oven-dried to constant weight at 105  C and weighed
to determine the dry weight the determination of the moisture
as a percentage by mass, was calculated using the formula
according to [23]:

ðm2  m3 Þ
Table 2 e Forest species in Portugal (IFN 2005/6). Mad ¼  100
ðm2  m1 Þ
Species Area (103 ha)
where m1 is the mass of the empty weighing dish plus lid in
Eucalyptus globulus 646.7 grams; m2 is the mass of the weighing dish plus lid plus
Pinus pinaster 710.6 sample before drying in grams; m3 is the mass of the weighing
Quercus suber 736.7
dish plus lid plus sample after drying in grams.
Quercus ilex 388.3
Quercus spp 117.9
The calorific value was measured using an Automated
Pinus pinea 83.9 Isoperibol Fixed Bomb Parr 6300 bomb calorimeter, following
Castanea sativa 28.2 the CEN/TS 14918:2005 [6], in an atmosphere of O2 that assures
Softwood (others) 14.2 the complete combusting of the sample. To begin a test:
Hardwood (others) 96.8
Other wood formation 18.0
1. Weigh the sample 0.5e0.6 g.
Young formation 295.5
2. Tap the capsules that contain powdered samples to
Total 3136.8
compact the material.
2636 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 6 3 4 e2 6 3 9

Table 3 e Mean ± SD (CV %) of Higher and Low Heating values, moisture content (Mar) of the samples.
Sample Species HHV (kJ/kg) LHV (kJ/kg) Mar (%)

P4 Pinus pinaster 20237.89  374.12 (1.849) 16935.72  335.46 (1.981) 10.3

P8 Pseudotsuga menziesii 19660.02  32.29 (0.164) 16704.30  29.46 (0.176) 8.8
P12 Cedrus atlantica 20360.45  187.30 (0.920) 15629.71  154.00 (0.985) 17.8
P1 Castanea sativa 18754.86  218.64 (1.166) 15468.56  194.33 (1.256) 11.1
P2 Eucalyptus globulus 17631.66  326.53 (1.852) 14411.54  289.03 (2.006) 11.5
P3 Fagus sylvatica 19132.47  231.97 (1.212) 15818.67  206.36 (1.304) 11.0
P5 Quercus robur 18696.82  47.00 (0.251) 15361.13  41.63 (0.271) 11.4
P6 Fraxinus angustifolia 19090.90  306.18 (1.604) 16450.82  283.92 (1.726) 7.3
P7 Prunus avium 18256.48  120.86 (0.662) 15552.33  111.18 (0.715) 8.0
P9 Salix babilonica 18279.41  348.08 (1.904) 15372.32  316.07 (2.056) 9.2
P10 Populus euro-americana. 18791.20  248.45 (1.322) 16130.08  229.78 (1.424) 7.5
P11 Acer pseudoplatanus 18637.91  152.15 (0.816) 15615.05  137.43 (0.880) 9.7
P13 Chlorophora excelsa 20314.74  378.88 (1.865) 17287.67  345.38 (1.998) 8.8
P14 Entandrophragma cyli. 19053.87  113.65 (0.596) 15691.61  100.73 (0.642) 11.4
P15 Gossweilerodendron b. 20499.80  338.74 (1.652) 17170.12  303.73 (1.769) 10.3
P16 Bowdichia nitida 20809.47  354.05 (1.701) 17907.85  325.83 (1.819) 8.0
P17 Hymenaea courbaril 19296.38  187.61 (0.972) 16183.69  169.18 (1.045) 9.8

3. Carefully place the capsule into the capsule holder. moisture in the analysis sample, in percentage by mass. qv,gr is
4. Attach 10 cm of ignition thread. the Higher Heating Value at constant volume of the fuel as
5. Install bomb head in calorimeter. analysed, in joules per gram.
6. Close calorimeter cover making certain the latch is engaged The Low Heating Value can be determined at constant
7. Select determination on Operating Mode, heater and pump pressure or at constant volume. The Low Heating Value at
on. constant pressure is however the generally used, since it is the
8. Press START to begin the test. Calorimeter will prompt one that is usually used in combustion. His determination is
operator for Cal ID number, Sample ID numbers and fundamental at the time of evaluating a substance and also
weights. gives an idea of the potential to generate and propagate fires
[25]. The Low Heating Value at constant pressure for a dry
The 6300 Isoperibol Calorimeter System requires avail- sample is derived from the corresponding Higher Heating
ability of Oxygen, 99.5% purity, with CGA 540 connection, Value according to equation in Ref. [6]:
2500 psig, maximum. Approximately 4 L of tap water, with  
a total hardness of 85 ppm or less, are required for filling the qp;net;d ¼ qv;gr;d  212; 2  wðHÞd 0; 8  wðOÞd þwðNÞd
calorimeter jacket reservoir. The inlet pressure should be in where: qp,net,d is the Low Heating Value in dry basis at constant
the range of 20e60 psi. The required flow rate is on the order of pressure (MJ/kg); qv,gr,d is the Higher Heating Value in dry basis
0.5 L/min. The temperature of the water should not exceed (MJ/kg); w(H )d is the hydrogen content, in percentage by mass,
25  C. of the moisture-free (dry); w(O)d is the oxygen content, in
The 6300 Isoperibol Calorimeter automatically makes all the
calculations necessary to produce a gross heat of combustion for
the sample. Corrected temperature rises reading automatically,
the fuse correction would be (42 j) from electrical heating, (50 j) Table 4 e TukeyeKramer HSD test to HHV.
from burning thread. A mass of 1 mg per centimetre of the thread Level Mean (kJ/kg)
results in a total fuse correction (209 j) in which test thermo-
Bowdichia nitida A 20809.47
chemical corrections set on for all the tests used this value [24].
Gossweilerodendron b. A 20499.80
Precise temperature measurements are made with Cedrus atlantica A B 20360.45
thermistor thermometry providing 0.0001  C resolution over Chlorophora excelsa A B 20314.74
the operating range of the calorimeter. This system differs Pinus pinaster A B 20237.89
from adiabatic operation in which the jacket temperature Pseudotsuga menziesii B C 19660.02
must be adjusted continuously to match the bucket temper- Hymenaea courbaril C D 19296.38
Fagus sylvatica C D 19132.47
ature in an attempt to maintain a zero temperature differen-
Fraxinus angustifolia C D 19090.90
tial with no heat leaks between the bucket and its
Entandrophragma cyli. C D E 19053.87
surroundings. Higher Heating Value in dry basis calculated by Populus euro-americana. D E F 18791.20
the equation according to Ref. [6]: Castanea sativa D E F 18754.86
Quercus robur D E F 18696.82
100 Acer pseudoplatanus D E F 18637.91
qv;gr;d ¼ qv;gr x
ð100  Mad Þ Salix babilonica E F G 18279.41
Prunus avium F G 18256.48
where: qv,gr,d is the Higher Heating Value at constant volume
Eucalyptus globulus G 17631.66
of the dry (moisture-free) fuel, in joules per gram; Mad is the
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 6 3 4 e2 6 3 9 2637

Table 5 e TukeyeKramer HSD test to LHV.

Level Mean (kJ/kg)

Bowdichia nitida A 17907.85

Chlorophora excelsa A B 17287.67
Gossweilerodendron b. B 17170.12
Pinus pinaster B C 16935.72
Pseudotsuga menziesii B C D 16704.30
Fraxinus angustifolia C D E 16450.82
Hymenaea courbaril D E F 16183.69
Populus euro-americana. D E F G 16130.08
Fagus sylvatica E F G H 15818.67
Entandrophragma cyli. F G H 15691.61
Cedrus atlantica F G H 15629.71
Acer pseudoplatanus F G H 15615.05
Prunus avium F G H 15552.33
Castanea sativa G H 15468.56
Salix babilonica H 15372.32
Quercus robur H 15361.13
Eucalyptus globulus I 14411.54
Fig. 1 e High and Low calorific value by species.

percentage by mass of the moisture-free biofuel; w(N )d is the

nitrogen content, in percentage.
Note: (H ), (O), (N ) content (% dry basis) used in these
calculations are the default values of most used biofuels
according to Ref. [6], wood without bark, needles and leaves.
The Low Heating Value (as received) calculated according
to Ref. [6]:
100  Mar
qp;net;m ¼ qp;net;d   0; 02443  Mar
100
where: qp,net,m is the Low Heating Value (at constant pressure)
as received (MJ/kg); qp,net,d is the Low Heating Value (at
constant pressure) in dry basis (MJ/kg); Mar is the moisture
content as received [w%]; 0, 02443 is the correction factor of
the enthalpy of vaporization (constant pressure) for water
(moisture) at 25  C [MJ/kg per 1 w% of moisture].
TukeyeKramer test (HHV; LHV) used in conjunction with
an ANOVA (One way), done with JMP 7.0, to find which group
of means is significantly different from one another. Levels
not connected by the same letter are significantly different
Tables 4 and 5.
Table 4 is an arrangement of different species, according to
descending values of Higher Heating Values. Levels not con-
nected by the same letter are significantly different. Letter
A corresponds to the 5 higher HHV where C. atlantica and
P. pinaster were included. B. nitida had the highest HHV
(20809.47 kJ/kg), C. atlantica was the softwood with the highest
HHV (20360.45 kJ/kg). F. sylvatica was the National hardwood
with the highest HHV (19132.47 kJ/kg). E. globulus had the
lowest value of HHV (17631.66 kJ/kg), as well as P. avium
(18256.48 kJ/kg) and S. babilonica (18279.41 kJ/kg), but the
differences in this three HHV were not statistically significant.
The existing Higher Heating Values in the Phyllis Database [28]
for softwood ranging from 18,398 to 20,519 kJ/kg and for
hardwood ranging from 17,384 to 23,052 kJ/kg. According to
our study, the softwoods had a high calorific value between
19660.02 and 20360.45 kJ/kg and the hardwoods had a ranging
interval between 17631.66 and 20809.47 kJ/kg, in accordance to
Phyllis distribution of HHV.
In what concerns to Low Heating Values, the softwoods
ranging from 15629.71 to 16935.72 kJ/kg and hardwoods
ranging from 14411.54 to 17907.85 kJ/kg.

4. Results and discussion 18000

17500
The Table 3 shows mean; standard deviation; coefficient of r=0.386 (n.s.)
17000
NCV ( K j/ k g) w. b.

variation of HHVeLHV and moisture content (Mar) for all the

samples. There are differences between the Higher Heating 16500
Values and Low Heating Values for the different species. The 16000
HHV is greater since it is the sum of the LHV and the heat
15500
released by the condensation of water vapour. With exception
of B. nitida and Hymenea courbaril (Tropical residues), the mean 15000
HHVeLHV corresponding to softwood are higher than the 14500
other Fig. 1, as a consequence of oil and resins production [26]. 14000
Their study has the same result. Also Demirbas [27] says that 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
softwoods are considered to have greater HHVs because of Mar(%)
their resin or extractive contents. Variation among the
samples (reflecting intraspecific variation and measurement Fig. 2 e Linear fit of Low Heating Value (LHV) by moisture
error) was relatively low with an average variation of 1.2%. (Mar).
2638 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 6 3 4 e2 6 3 9

being statistically significant ( p < 0.05). Concerning the

Table 6 e Mean, SD in brackets, TukeyeKramer test of
calorific values and moisture contents (Mar) of wood. hardwoods, it was found that the tropical species had Higher
and Low Heating Values, being statistically significant differ-
Species HHV (kJ/kg) LHV (kJ/kg) Mar (%)
ences in their Higher and Low Heating Values.
Hardwoods (H) 19089.0 a 16030.1 a 9.6 a
(889.9) (919.6) (1.5)
Softwoods (S) 20086.1 a 16423.2 a 12.3 a 5. Conclusions
(374.1) (696.9) (4.8)
Hardwoods National (HN) 18585.7 a 15575.6 a 9.6 a
The study showed differences in calorific values of wood
(468.0) (568.8) (1.7)
Softwoods National (SN) 20086.1 b 16423.2 a 12.3 a pellets from different species. Softwoods had Higher Heating
(374.1) (696.9) (4.8) Value between 19660.02 and 20360.45 kJ/kg. The hardwoods
Hardwoods National (HN) 18585.7 a 15575.6 a 9.6 a had HHV ranging between 17631.66 and 20809.47 kJ/kg, in
(468.0) (568.8) (1.7) accordance to Phyllis distribution of HHV.
Hardwoods Tropical (HT) 19994.9 b 16848.2 b 9.7 a According to the amount of Low Heating Values, the soft-
(773.7) (894.3) (1.3)
woods ranging from 15629.71 to 16935.72 kJ/kg and hardwoods
a: There are statistically no significant differences. b: There are ranging from 14411.54 to 17907.85 kJ/kg.
statistically significant differences. The highest HHV and LHV were obtained by B. nitida
(20809.47e17907.85 kJ/kg). C. atlantica was the softwood with
the highest HHV (20360.45 kJ/kg). P. pinaster was the softwood
Table 5 shows an arrangement of different species with the highest LHV (16935.72 kJ/kg). F. sylvatica was the
according to descending values of Low Heating Values. Results National hardwood with the highest HHV (19132.47 kJ/kg). F.
show 9 groups from A to I. B. nitida had the highest LHV angustifolia was the National hardwood with the highest LHV
(17907.85 kJ/kg), P. pinaster was the softwood with the highest (16450.82 kJ/kg). E. globulus obtained the lowest HHV and LHV
LHV (16935.72 kJ/kg). F. angustifolia was the National hardwood (17631.66e14411.54 kJ/kg).
with the highest LHV (16450.82 kJ/kg). E. globulus had the The correlation between Low Heating Values and moisture
lowest value of HHV (17631.66 kJ/kg), as well as P. avium (LHV-Mar) was not statistically significant, but it can be seen
(18256.48 kJ/kg) and S. babilonica (18279.41 kJ/kg). that it occurs as C. atlantica had Higher Heating Value than P.
The descending in LHV of C. atlantica in Table 5, when pinaster but also the highest moisture contents, that is why
compared with the HHV in Table 4, is according to his higher lower the Low Heating Value when compared with that pine
value of moisture. Maximum values of LHV correspond to and other species.
minimum moisture content, according to Ref. [29] as the higher Softwoods species have Higher and Low Heating Values
wood moisture content is lower than the Low Heating Value. than hardwoods, statistically significant differences were
Linear Regression fit data points for LHV versus moisture. found in the case of the Higher Heating Values of National
Fig. 2 shows a descending tendency but totally not explained wood.
by the moisture content. The species factor has a strong Concerning the comparison between national vs tropical
influence on the calorific value variation, because the same hardwoods, it is concluded that tropical species have Higher
value of moisture corresponds a big dispersion of moisture and Low Heating Values. The differences were statistically
values. significant in Higher and Low Heating Values.
According to Ref. [30] LHV behaviour is not as regular, as it
depends on moisture content which is different depending on
references
the season and the residue fraction. The interspecific varia-
tion in the LHV according to his moisture content was not
statistically significant (r ¼ 0.386), with Low Heating Values
[1] Demirbas A. Energy priorities and new energy strategies.
ranging from 14411.54 to 17907.85 kJ/kg and moisture content Energy Edu Sci Technol 2006>;16:53e109.
values of 7.3e17.8%. The influence of moisture content in [2] Demirbas A. Modernization of biomass energy conversion
calorific value is great in all the species. This value can be facilities. Energy Sources Part B 2007>;29:227e35.
double when the samples are totally dry [3]. [3] Haberl H, Geissler S. Cascade utilization of biomass:
However measurements of the Higher Heating Values and strategies for a more efficient use of a scarce resource. Ecol
the calculations of Low Heating Values, gave a low error based Eng 2000;16:S111e21.
[4] Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, van den Broek R, Berndes G, Gielen D,
on the three repetitions by sample and mean determination
Turkenburg W. Exploration of the ranges of the global
for which species value. The maximum error was 2% on the potential of biomass for energy. Biomass Bioenergy 2003;25:
calorific value determination. 119e33.
In Table 6, based on the results, we have seen that although [5] Mckendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 1):
the Higher and Low Heating Values, and moisture contents in overview of biomass. Bioresour Technol 2002;83:37.
softwoods tend to be higher than hardwoods, the differences [6] DD CEN/TS 14918. Solid bio fuels e method for the
determination of calorific value; 2005.
are not statistically significant given the high variability found
[7] Demirbas A. Calculation of higher heating values of biomass
within each group. However, when this comparison had only
fuels. Fuel 1997;76:431e4.
National wood species, the tendency to softwoods had Higher [8] Kathiravalea S, Yunus MNM, Sopian K, Samsuddin AH,
Heating Values than the hardwoods was more pronounced to Rahman RA. Modeling the heating value of municipal solid
the extent of differences in Higher Heating Values already wastes. Fuel 2003;82:1119e25.
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 6 3 4 e2 6 3 9
[9] Parikha J, Channiwala SA, Ghosal GK. A correlation for
calculating HHV from proximate analysis of solid fuels. Fuel
2005;84:487e94.
[10] Selvig WA, Gibson IH. Calorific value of coal. In: Lowry HH,
editor.
[11] Strache H, Lant R. Kohlenchemie. Leipzig: Akademische
Verlagsgesellschaft; 1924. p. 476.
[12] Steuer W. Brennstoff-Chem 1926;7:344e7.
[13] Vondracek R. Brennstoff-Chem 1927;8:22e3.
[14] Sumegi L. Magyar Mernok Epiteszegylet Kozlonye 1939;73:
345e6 [Chem Abstr 1940;34:1459].
[15] Mott RA, Spooner CE. Fuel; 1940:226e31 [also pages 242e51].
[16] Jenkins BM, Ebeling JM. Correlation of physical and chemical
properties of terrestrial biomass with conversion. In: Klass DL,
editor. Proc. From energy and biomass from wastes IX.
Chicago: Institute of Gas Technology; 1985. p. 371e403.
[17] Cordero T, Marquez F, Rodriquez-Mirasol J, Rodriguez JJ.
Predicting heating values of lignocellulosic and
carbonaceous materials from proximate analysis. Fuel 2001;
80:1567e71.
[18] Arın G, Demirbas A. Mathematical modeling the relations of
pyrolytic products from lignocellulosic materials. Energy
Sources 2004;26:1023e32.
[19] Demirbas A, Demirbas AH. Estimating the calorific values
of lignocellulosic fuels. Energy Explor Exploit 2004;22:
135e43.
[20] Demirbas A. Linear equations on thermal degradation
products of wood chips in alkaline glycerol. Energy Convers
Mgmt 2004;45:983e94.
2639
[21] Demirbas A. Combustion characteristics of different biomass
fuels. Prog Energy Combus Sci 2004;30:219e30.
[22] DD CEN/TS 14780. Solid bio fuels e Methods for sample
preparation; 2005.
[23] DD CEN/TS 14774-3. Solid biofuels e methods for the
determination of moisture content e oven dry method e part
3: moisture for general analysis sample; 2004.
[24] Parr Instruments Company. The 6300 Parr calorimeter
operating instruction manual. Fifty-third street Moline,
Illinois 61265, USA.
[25] Perez S, Renedo CJ, Ortiz A, Manana M. Energy potential of
waste from 10 forest species in the North of Spain
(Cantabria). Bioresour Technol J 2008;99:6339e45.
[26] Gaur Siddartha, Reed Thomas B. An atlas of thermal data for
biomass and other fuels. USA: Colorado School of Mines;
2005.
[27] Demirbas A. A. Relationship between moisture contents and
heating values of biomass. Energy Convers Manage 2001;42:
183e8.
[28] PHYLLIS e a database for biomass and waste; http://www.
ecn.nl/phyllis. (Status: May 2002). Petten, Netherlands:
Netherlands Energy Research Foundation ECN.
[29] Swingon Jerzy, Longauer Jaroslav. Energy consumption in
wood pellets production. Folia Forestalia Polonica 2005;36:
77e83.
[30] Nunez-Regueira L, Proupin-Castineiras J, Rodriguez Anon JA.
Energy evaluation of forest residues originated from
Eucalyptus globulus Labill in Galicia. Bioresour Technol 2002;
82:5e13.