Biomass Densificatoin

Jaya Shankar Tumuluru
Biomass
Densification
Systems, Particle Binding, Process
Conditions, Quality Attributes,
Conversion Performance, and
International Standards
Biomass Densification
Biomass Densification
Systems, Particle Binding, Process Conditions,
Quality Attributes, Conversion Performance,
and International Standards
Biological Processing Department
Idaho National Laboratory
Idaho Falls, ID, USA
ISBN 978-3-030-62887-1 ISBN 978-3-030-62888-8 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62888-8
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or
information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
I dedicate this book to my wife, Mrs. Naga Sri
Valli Gali, and two daughters, Priya Lasya
Tumuluru and Siva Lalasa Tumuluru.
Preface
Biorefineries primarily use woody, herbaceous, and municipal solid waste (MSW)
biomass for biofuels and biopower production. Biomass is considered a renewable
energy source as it is carbon neutral, can be regrown in short amounts of time, and
the CO2 released during its conversion to energy is naturally a part of the carbon
cycle. Of the total amount of biomass fuel used to create primary energy in the
United States in 2016, 48% came from ethanol, 41% from woody and wood-derived
biomass, and the remaining 11% from MSW. According to the US Billion-Ton
Report, there are more than one billion tons of biomass available for bioenergy
applications in the United States. Among the many types of biomasses used for
biofuels production—forest-based biomass; agricultural residues, such as corn sto-
ver; and dedicated energy crops, such as switchgrass and miscanthus—all have
low-density and variable moisture content, which create handling and storage issues
and limit the viability of long-distance transportation. The density of wood chips and
ground herbaceous and MSW biomass is typically about 5–15 pounds per cubic foot,
depending on the grind size, feedstock type, and moisture content. Among the
various biomasses available, woody biomass chips have a higher density, as well
as a definite size and shape. Increasing the density of agricultural and corn residues
to >25–45 lb/ft3 is critical in handling large volumes. The density requirement of
biomass changes based on the mode of transportation used (i.e., transporting by
truck is weight-limited, whereas transporting by rail or ship is volume-limited). For
weight-limited systems, such as trucks, a maximum density of 20–25 lb/ft3 can fill
the truck completely full. Selecting the right type of densification system—as well as
process variables to meet the density requirements for different modes of transpor-
tation—will be critical to reducing densification costs and increasing transportation
efficiencies.
Biorefineries are currently unable to use all the billion tons of biomass available in
the United States for bioenergy applications due to issues such as irregular size and
shape, low density, lower energy content, and the chemical and biochemical compo-
sition of the biomass. Currently, the biggest challenges that biorefineries face are
in transporting biomass efficiently, handling it, and finding a way to feed it through the
ix
x Preface
system in a more uniform manner. Indeed, biorefineries around the world have
incurred major challenges in terms of their inability to handle ground biomass due
to its moisture and particle size variability and the chemical and biochemical changes
the biomass undergoes during storage issues, as well as the great challenges inherent in
transporting low-density biomass over longer distances. The good news is that many
of these challenges can be overcome by mechanical and thermal preprocessing and
pretreatment technologies. Mechanical preprocessing technologies such as grinding
and densification can help produce an aerobically stable high-density product. One of
the major challenges with this strategy is that biomass densification technology is
currently cost- and energy-intensive. The future success of the biofuels industry will
depend on the development of other ways to densify biomass economically. Densifi-
cation converts biomass material into something much more suitable as a commodity
product. The largest advantages of densification are: (a) improved handling and
conveyance efficiencies throughout the supply system and biorefinery infeed;
(b) controlled particle size distribution for improved feedstock uniformity and density;
(c) fractionated structural components for improved compositional quality; and
(d) conformance to predetermined conversion technology and supply system specifi-
cations. Densification systems commonly used for biomass include: (i) a pellet mill;
(ii) a cuber; (iii) a briquette press; (iv) a screw extruder; (v) a tablet press; and (vi) an
agglomerator. These systems are adapted from the food, feed, and pharma industries.
Among these, the pellet mill, briquette press, and screw extruder are the most common
systems used for bioenergy production. The quality of densified biomass produced
using these systems is evaluated with the existing international standards developed
for pellet mill and briquette press systems; there are no systems-specific standards
developed for the others.
Different densification systems are widely available. This book will focus on:
(a) how these densification systems impact the quality of the densified products;
(b) how each of the densification system variables impacts cost and quality; (c) how
the different biomass properties impact quality; and (d) the different densification
process models, as well as the process optimization and international standards for
densified biomass. Another emphasis of the book is the advancement of densifica-
tion technologies and the process used to reduce the costs of the densified biomass to
make densification a variable technology regarding cost, quality, and conversion
performance for the biofuels industry.
Organization of the Book
Based on the subject matter, the book has six chapters. The first chapter focuses on
different feedstocks and their physical properties, chemical and biochemical com-
position, and their importance for biofuels production. The second chapter focuses
on densification systems, binding mechanisms, process variables, and quality attri-
butes, with an emphasis on how the quality of the densified products is influenced by
the process variables and densification systems. The third chapter focuses on the
Preface xi
densification process models, the scale-up methodology, and the optimization of the
process using statistical and novel evolutionary algorithms. The fourth chapter
discusses the advancements in the biomass densification process and the positive
impact these advancements generate on the overall cost and quality. The novel
preprocessing technologies that are developed at Idaho National Laboratory (INL),
such as fractional milling, high-moisture pelleting, and low-temperature drying, are
also discussed in this chapter, as well as a discussion about efficient moisture
management in the biomass using dewatering technologies and advanced commi-
nution technologies to reduce moisture removal costs from the biomass. The fifth
chapter discusses the European, international, and American standards that are
available for evaluating the quality of the densified products, as well as a comparison
of the quality of pellets and briquettes produced using a pellet and a briquette press at
different stages of the process. Finally, the last chapter discusses the suitability of the
resulting pellets and briquettes for biochemical, thermochemical, and biopower
applications.
Who Will Benefit from This Book?
This book will help biomass engineers, biorefineries managers, and academic
researchers to understand how mechanical methods, such as size reduction
dewatering and densification, can help to overcome some of the biomass limitations,
in terms of physical properties such as low density, variable moisture, irregular size
and shape, and morphological characteristics, as well as a discussion on how the
densified products impact the biochemical and thermochemical conversion. This
book will also help science and engineering students understand why biomass needs
to undergo mechanical preprocessing for producing a uniform, stable, and densified
product for biofuels applications. Further, the book will help policymakers and
energy systems planners in creating awareness on how biomass limitations in
terms of density, size, shape, and moisture should be overcome to make biorefineries
successful.
US Department of Energy Disclaimer
This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the

U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of
their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use
would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific com-
mercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise do not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,
xii Preface
or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions
of authors and editor expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the
U.S. Government or any agency thereof.
Idaho Falls, ID, USA Jaya Shankar Tumuluru

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Dr. Richard Hess, INL Bioenergy Program Rela-
tionship Manager, Bioenergy Technologies Office, U.S. Department of Energy; Dr.
Fredrick Stewart, INL Biological & Chemical Science & Engineering Department
Manager; and Dr. Vicki Thompson, INL Group Lead, Biological Processing, for
their support in getting this book published. The author would also like to sin-
cerely thank Mr. David Combs, INL Art Director and Branding Specialist, and
Mr. Gordon Holt, INL Senior Editor, for their invaluable support in publishing
this book. Finally, the author would like to express extreme gratitude and thanks
to his family for their help and support.
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy under DOE Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-
AC07- 05ID14517. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains and the publisher, by
accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the U.S. Government retains
a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the
published form of this manuscript or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government
purposes.
xiii
Contents
1 Bioenergy Feedstock Types and Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.2 Various Biomass Types According to the International
Standards Organization (ISO-17225-1: 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.3 Fruit Biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.4 Converting Biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Biomass Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.1 Proximate and Ultimate Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.2 Ash Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.3 Calorific Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.4 Biochemical Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2.5 Moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.2.6 Bulk Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.2.7 Biomass Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2 Binding Mechanism, Densification Systems, Process Variables, and
Quality Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.1.1 Densification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.1.2 Bonding Mechanism During Densification . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.1.3 Densification Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.1.4 Feedstock Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.1.5 Biomass Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
xv
xvi Contents
3 Densification Process Models and Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.1.1 Compression Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.1.2 Application of the Compression Models for Process
Scale-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.1.3 Testing the Scale-Up Model in a Pilot-Scale Ring Die
Pellet Mill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.1.4 Response Surface Models and Optimization of the
Pelleting Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4 Advances in Biomass Densification and Its Impact on Cost
and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.1.1 Techniques to Overcome the Particle Handling
Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5 Biochemical and Thermochemical Conversion Performance
of Densified Products for Biofuels Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.1.1 Biochemical Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5.1.2 Densification Impact on the Sugar Yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5.1.3 Thermochemical Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
6 International Standards for Densified Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
6.2 Global Wood Pellet Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
6.3 Pellet Quality and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
6.4 International Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
6.5 CEN Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
6.6 European Common Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
6.7 ISO Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
6.7.1 Comparison of CEN, ISO, and PFI Standards . . . . . . . . . . 174
6.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Abbreviations
% percent
%, w.b. percent wet basis
VR volume ratio
ρf particle rearrangement

C degrees Celsius
μm micron
ACO ant colony algorithm
AFEX ammonia fiber expansion
BTU British thermal unit per pound
C carbon
Ca calcium
CBP conventional briquetting process
CBU cellobiase unit
CCE carbon conversion effciency
CDP continuous dewatering press
CEN European Committee for Standardization
CGE cold gas efficiency
Cl chlorine
CO2 carbon dioxide
CPP conventional pelleting process
CrI cellulose crystallinity index
CT computed tomography
CV calorific value
DA dilute acid
DDGS dried distillers grains with solubles
DMA dynamic mechanical analysis
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
EFB empty fruit bunch
EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
xvii
xviii Abbreviations
EtOH ethanol
FC fixed carbon
FIB focused ion beam
FP formulated pellets
FPU filter paper unit
ft. feet
g/cm3 grams per cubic centimeter
GA genetic algorithm
H hydrogen
H 2O water
HHV high heat value
HMPP high-moisture pelleting process
HPB hydrophobic
HPL hydrophyllic
HTC hydrothermal carbonization
HTTP hydrothermal pellets
IEA International Energy Agency
IL ionic liquid
in. inch
INL Idaho National Laboratory
ISO International Organization for Standardization
ITEBE French International Association of Bioenergy Professionals
K potassium
kcal/kg kilocalorie per kilogram
kg kilogram
kg/m3 kilograms per cubic meter
kg/min kilograms per minute
kJ/kg kilojoule per kilogram
kWh/t kilowatt-hours per ton
L/D length to diameter ratio
lb/ft3 pounds per cubic foot
LHV lower heating value
Mg magnesium
MJ/kg megajoules per kilogram
mm millimeter
MMBTU million British thermal units per pound
MPa megapascal
MPa/s megapascals per second
MSS milled sunflower seeds
MSW municipal solid waste
N nitrogen
Na sodium
NaOH sodium hydroxide
NMR nuclear magnetic resonance
Abbreviations xix
NOx nitrogen oxides

O oxygen
O&M operation and maintenance
OAc 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate [C2mim]
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P phosphorus
PC pyrolysis char
PDU process demonstration unit
PFFP plate and frame filter press
PFI Pellet Fuels Institute
PMB packed moving bed
ppm parts per million
psi pounds per square inch
PSO particle swarm optimization
rpm revolutions per minute
RSM response surface model
S sulfur
SA simulated annealing
SAA soaking in aqueous ammonia
SD standard deviation
SEM scanning electron microscopy
SEP steam-exploded pellets
SHF separate hydrolysis with fermentation
SOT state of technology
SP straw pellet
SRC short rotation coppice
SSF saccharification fermentation
SS-NMR solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance
TEA techno-economic analysis
Tg glass transition
ton/hr metric ton per hour
TOP torrefied pellets
TWC torrefied wood chip
U.S. United States
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
UK United Kingdom
VM volatile material
VOC volatile organic compound
WP softwood pellet
wt.% (d.b.) weight percent on a dry basis
WV water vapor
XRD X-ray diffraction
Chapter 1
Bioenergy Feedstock Types and Properties
Abstract Various woody, herbaceous, and municipal solid waste (MSW) biomass
feedstocks such as such as lodgepole pine, hybrid poplar, corn stover, other agricul-
tural straws, switchgrass, miscanthus, and other forms of MSW are available for
bioenergy applications. All of these have different feedstock physical and chemical
compositions. The focus of this chapter is to understand the physical properties of
these biomass feedstock sources, such as bulk density, chemical composition (i.e.,
proximate and ultimate composition, energy content, and biochemical composition),
and calorific value. This chapter also discusses the biomass types based on ISO
standards, as well as providing information regarding the various standard methods
that are available for measuring the raw and densified biomass physical properties,
chemical, and biochemical composition.
Keywords Biomass · Woody · Herbaceous · Fruit · Municipal solid waste · Physical

properties · Chemical and biochemical composition · Calorific value
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 Biomass
World energy consumption has grown by 39% in the last two decades and is
expected to grow by more than 50% in the next two decades. In today’s world,
fossil-based energy is a significant contributor. For example, petroleum, coal, and
natural gas are the primary sources of energy. The challenge with fossil-based
energy is that these types of fuel sources are finite—and they are depleting every
day. Another major challenge in using fossil-based energy has to do with greenhouse
gas emissions, which contributes to an increase in the Earth’s temperature. Biomass
is one of the largest providers of domestic renewable energy (accounting for 47%),
which supplies over 3% of total energy consumption in the United States. In his
review on energy production from biomass, McKendry (2002) pointed out how
using biomass to produce energy can play a vital role in helping the developed world
to reduce the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels.
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

J. S. Tumuluru, Biomass Densification,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62888-8_1
2 1 Bioenergy Feedstock Types and Properties
The 2015 Paris Agreement resulted in a global-wide commitment to reduce

annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 to keep the temperature of the
Earth below 2 C above pre-industrial levels (Clémençon 2016). Producing more
energy from renewable energy resources, such as biomass, can help to reach this
goal. Biomass is one of the significant sources of energy for humanity and is
presently estimated to contribute on the order of 10–14% of the world’s energy
supply. The term “biomass” is used for all organic materials, including algae, trees,
crops, and other sources. Biomass is considered to be organic because energy from
the sun is stored in chemical bonds, per research conducted by the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA 2018).
According to the 2016 Billion-Ton Report jointly published by the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL),
more than 1.2 billion tons of biomass is currently produced in the United States
annually, which could sustainably be used for energy production (DOE 2016a). This
abundance of biomass comes from a variety of sources, such as agricultural
resources like cereal crops and oilseeds, as well as from perennial crops to poten-
tially be planted on available forest-based idle acres. Indeed, biomass produced in
the United States is well positioned to make a considerable impact on renewable
energy production in the future (DOE 2016b).
1.1.2 Various Biomass Types According to the International

Standards Organization (ISO-17225-1: 2014)
1.1.2.1 Woody Biomass
Woody biomass comes from trees, bushes, and shrubs—including forest, plantation,
and other virgin wood that might have been subjected to size reduction, debarking,
drying, or wetting. The forest, plantation, and other virgin wood also include wood
from forests, parks, gardens, and plantations, as well as from short-rotation forests
and coppice. The by-products and residues from the wood processing industry are
also classified in this group. These sources can be chemically treated (e.g., glued,
painted, coated, lacquered, or otherwise treated wood) or untreated (e.g., residues
from debarking, sawing, size reduction, shaping, and pressing), as long as they do
not have heavy metals or other halogenated organic compounds, which can be
caused by treating this material with preservatives and coatings. Used wood,
which is considered as post-consumer or post-society-used wood waste, also gets
categorized as woody biomass. Only the natural or just the mechanically processed
wood with insignificant contamination during its use can be categorized as this type
of biomass, which includes the contaminants not found in the wood in its natural
state (e.g., pallets, transport cases, boxes, wood packages, cable reels, construction
wood). Used wood should not contain any higher amounts of heavy metals than that
found in virgin wood, or halogenated organic compounds because of treating this
wood with preservatives or coatings. Blends and mixtures also refer to woody
1.1 Introduction 3
biomass. The mixing can be intentional, which is categorized as blends, or

unintentional, known as mixtures.
1.1.2.2 Herbaceous Biomass
Herbaceous biomass comes from plants and non-woody material, which die at the
end of the growing season. Material that comes directly from the field after a period
of storage and may only have been subject to size-reduction and drying is included in
this grouping. It covers herbaceous material from agricultural and horticultural fields
and gardens and parks. By-products and residues from the agricultural and horticul-
ture industry refer to any herbaceous biomass material that is left over after industrial
handling and treatment. The examples of residues are sugar from sugar beets, barley
malt residues from beer production, and raw vegetable residues from the food
processing industry. Biomass blends refer to the intentional mixing of the various
herbaceous biomasses, while mixtures refer to the unintentional mixing of these
sources.
1.1.3 Fruit Biomass
Fruit biomass sources are those that derive from orchards and horticulture fruit from
trees, bushes, and fruit from herbs (e.g., tomatoes and grapes). The by-products of
fruit biomass sources are those leftover after industrial handling and treatment.
1.1.3.1 Aquatic Biomass
Hydrophytic plants or hydrophytes that are adapted to living in or part of aquatic

environments are considered as aquatic biomass. Aquatic biomasses are divided into
the following main species: algae, water hyacinth, lake, and seaweed.
1.1.3.2 Blends and Mixtures
In the case of blends, the biomass is intentionally mixed, and in the case of mixtures,
the biomass is mixed unintentionally. The origin of these blends and mixtures should
be described.
1.1.4 Converting Biomass
During energy production using biochemical and thermochemical conversions—

such as digestion, gasification, pyrolysis, and incineration—various bonds in the
biomass are broken, which help to release stored energy (Gumisiriza et al. 2017).
However, the major challenge in doing this is processing the biomass energy
efficiently and meeting the necessary specifications for different conversion path-
ways. Researchers around the world have been developing novel ways to process
and convert biomass into energy efficiently. If biomass is handled efficiently and
sustainably, it can have a huge impact on the emissions of greenhouse gas. Energy
from biomass is produced in either a solid or a liquid form. In solid form, biomass is
burned in power generation plants to produce biopower, whereas biochemical and
thermochemical conversion routes are used to produce liquid fuels. Another signif-
icant impact of using large amounts of biomass for bioenergy production is that it
can have a very positive effect on rural economies.
The interest in utilizing biomass in large-scale applications has been increasing
consistently in the last two decades. The initial focus was to use small percentages of
biomass to “cofire” it with coal due to its less expensive costs, low risk, and more
efficient processes for generating electricity (Tumuluru et al. 2012). The term
“cofiring” means burning two types of material in a boiler. According to DOE, the
definition of “cofiring” means mixing biomass with fossil fuels in conventional
power plants following the modification of existing boilers. Up to 15% of biomass
cofiring with coal is recommended after making boiler modifications (Tumuluru
et al. 2012). Burning higher percentages of biomass with coal can result in the loss of
boiler efficiencies, which is due to the moisture and energy content properties in the
biomass. Another major limitation of burning biomass at higher percentages with
coal is the quality of the ash content. In general, the ash produced from burning coal
is used in cement production, but the ash from biomass is not currently used in the
cement industry.
During 1995–2005, first-generation biofuels—mainly ethanol—derived from
corn grain, sugarcane, and vegetable oil feedstock became available in the United
States, European Union, United Kingdom, Brazil, and many other countries around
the world. Still, they were limited due to the food versus fuel controversy. Since
2005, second-generation biofuels that are produced using non-food, lignocellulosic
material, such as municipal waste and wood chips, along with dedicated crops like
switchgrass and miscanthus, have gained a lot of attention. Currently, the use of
municipal solid waste (MSW) for the generation of biofuels is gaining a lot of
interest. According to Liu et al. (2015), proper MSW management is crucial for
public health. Swanson (2008) also states that with the increase in the economies of
many countries, there is a higher demand for natural resources and consumer goods.
This greater demand for consumer goods has resulted in the generation of high
amounts of solid waste. Improperly managed solid waste can result in: (a) risk to
human health and the environment by contaminating water streams; (b) attracting
rodents and inset growth; and (c) flooding due to blocked drainage of canals, water
1.2 Biomass Properties 5
streams, and other water bodies (EPA 2002). The EPA developed a report that
includes information on MSW generation, recycling, and disposal. In 2013, 254 mil-
lion tons of trash were generated and recycled, while 87 million tons of material were
composted, which is equivalent to a 34.3% recycling rate. The major challenge in
using MSW or other biomass feedstocks for bioenergy applications is the variability
in its physical properties and chemical composition (EPA 2013; Tumuluru 2016;
Tumuluru 2018a).
Some of the major challenges in using diverse biomass resource types and the
conditions under which they are produced include the variability in their composi-
tion and physical properties limits, as well as their commercial-scale applications.
Another major challenge is the reliable supply of high-quality biomass to
biorefineries. Technical limitations of using biomass for biopower and biofuels
include its high moisture content, irregular size and shape, low bulk density, higher
organic volatile matter, and lower energy density, thereby resulting in lower heating
value and higher concentrations of alkali and alkaline-earth elements (e.g., potas-
sium [K], sodium [Na], calcium [Ca], magnesium [Mg]), and higher concentrations
of phosphorous (P), chlorine (Cl), and water vapor (WV). The elastic and cohesive
nature of this biomass results in bridging during storage and feeding, which has a
negative influence on grindability. In addition, high moisture content and a fibrous
nature increases grinding energy and produces irregular particle sizes and shapes of
biomass (Tumuluru et al. 2012; Tumuluru 2018a; Tumuluru et al. 2011). However,
there is increased interest in utilizing biomass for biofuels in Europe and in the
United States due to: (a) improvements in biomass production and conversion
technologies; (b) the production of food in surplus; and (c) climate change due to
greenhouse gas emissions (Popp et al. 2014). Figure 1.1 shows the various types of
biomass that are typically used for biofuels and biopower generation.
1.2 Biomass Properties
1.2.1 Proximate and Ultimate Composition
The quality of the biomass used for biofuels and biopower generation is defined
based on its individual chemical and physical properties. McKendry (2002) indi-
cated that there are various biomass physical, chemical, and energy properties that
have an impact on the conversion process. In his studies on the approaches to predict
biomass cofiring with pulverized coal, Beloŝević (2010) indicated that variability in
biomass physical and chemical properties has a significant impact on the character-
istics of feeding and conversion. Fuel analysis is based on volatile material
(VM) content, ash, and moisture, while fixed carbon (FC)—determined by differ-
ence—is termed the proximate analysis of fuel. Elemental analysis of fuel, presented
as carbon (C), nitrogen (N), hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), and sulfur (S), together with
ash content, is termed the ultimate analysis of fuel. The typical proximate and
ultimate compositions of woody and herbaceous biomasses are given in Table 1.1
Fig. 1.1 Various types of biomass types available for bioenergy production
(Hartmann 2007). It is clear from Table 1.1 that woody biomass has a much higher
moisture content as compared to herbaceous biomass. Woody biomass also has
better fuel properties in terms of proximate and ultimate composition and energy
properties as compared to herbaceous biomass. The content of VM and FC helps in
understanding the ease with which the biomass can be burned and further gasified
and oxidized. From Table 1.1, it is also clear that fossil fuels, such as coal, have
higher C content but lower O content.
Proximate analysis of fuel indicates the percentage of the material that burns in a
gaseous state and a solid state. For example, volatiles burn in a gaseous state, while
fixed carbon (FC) and ash burn in a solid state. The proximate and ultimate analysis
is developed for solid fuels, such as coal, which has energy stored within it in either a
solid or a gaseous phase. VM and moisture content in the solid fuel is driven-off in
the form of as-by heating at 950 C for 7 min, whereas FC is the leftover mass after
burning the volatiles. Tables 1.2 and 1.3 provide the chemical and ash composition
of sorted MSW, which is used for gasification or incineration applications. Tables 1.4
and 1.5 provide the proximate composition of woody and herbaceous biomass
sources, respectively, while Tables 1.6 and 1.7 provide the ultimate composition
of woody and herbaceous biomass sources, respectively (Williams et al. 2017).
Recent studies were conducted by Tumuluru and Fillerup (2020) on briquetting of
blends of lodgepole pine, switchgrass, and corn stover. These authors have indicated
that lodgepole pine, switchgrass, and corn stover have volatiles of about 85.46%,
79.53%, and 66.93% and fixed carbon values of about 13.73%, 15.05%, and
10.47%, respectively. The carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen content of these
Table 1.1 Typical wood and herbaceous proximate and ultimate weight percent on a dry basis (wt.
% [d.b.]) composition
C H O N K S Cl
Spruce with bark 49.8 6.3 43.2 0.13 0.13 0.015 0.005
Beech with bark 47.9 6.2 43.3 0.22 0.22 0.015 0.006
Poplar short-rotation 47.5 6.2 44.1 0.42 0.35 0.031 0.004
coppice (SRC)
Willow SRC 47.1 6.1 44.2 0.54 0.26 0.045 0.004
Coniferous bark 51.4 5.7 38.7 0.48 0.24 0.058 0.019
Virgin wood mate- 47–54 5.6–7.0 40–44 <0.1–0.5 – <0.01–0.05 <0.01–0.03
rials (coniferous
wood)
Virgin wood mate- 48–52 5.9–6.5 41–45 <0.1–0.5 – <0.01–0.05 <0.01–0.03
rials (deciduous
wood)
Virgin bark materials 51–56 5.9–6.5 36–43 0.3–1.2 – 0.02–0.20 <0.01–0.05
Virgin logging 50–53 5.9–6.3 40–44 0.3–0.8 – 0.01–0.08 <0.01–0.04
residues
Virgin SRC 47–51 5.8–6.7 40–46 0.2–0.8 – 0.02–0.10 <0.01–0.05
Miscanthus 47.5 6.2 41.7 0.73 0.70 0.150 0.220
Wheat straw 45.6 5.8 42.4 0.48 1.00 0.082 0.190
Triticale (grains) 43.5 6.4 46.4 1.68 0.60 0.110 0.070
Rape cake 51.5 7.4 30.1 4.97 1.60 0.550 0.019
Fossil fuels
Coal 72.5 5.6 11.0 1.30 – 0.940 <0.1
Lignite 65.9 4.6 23.0 0.70 – 0.390 <0.1
Heating oil 85–86 11–13 1–4 – – – –
Natural gas 75 25 – – – – –
Derived from Hartmann (2007)
Table 1.2 Proximate composition of MSW

Moisture on a percent wet basis (%, Standard deviation Ash FC
Feedstock w.b.) (SD) (%) (%) SD
MSW 3.51 0.01 13.89 14.75 0.30
Table 1.3 Ultimate composition and higher heating value of MSW

H N Higher heating value
Feedstock C (%) SD. (%) SD. (%) SD. (Btu/lb) SD
MSW 42.34 0.32 5.87 0.04 3.57 0.06 7608.48 160.71
feedstocks were also analyzed. Corn stover has carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen
content of 38.64%, 4.77%, and 0.66%; switchgrass has about 46.84%, 5.64%, and
0.64%; and lodgepole pine has about 50.48%, 5.88%, and 0.12%, respectively.
Table 1.4 Proximate feedstock compositions for specific herbaceous biomass; average (standard
deviation)
Feedstock Corn Energy cane Mixed
composition stover Switchgrass Sorghum (bagasse) grasses Miscanthus
Volatiles (%) 78.1 (5.0) 82.4 (4.1) 77.0 (3.7) 82.2 (1.9) 78.6 (2.8) 82.5 (3.5)
Ash (%) 6.3 (3.5) 4.0 (2.0) 7.2 (2.6) 3.4 (1.6) 6.6 (1.7) 2.6 (1.3)
FC (%) 15.6 (4.4) 13.6 (3.0) 15.7 (2.3) 14.4 (1.0) 14.8 (2.4) 14.8 (2.9)
Table 1.5 Ultimate feedstock compositions for specific woody feedstocks: average (standard
deviation)
Feedstock Shrub Hybrid Other Other
composition willow poplar Pine softwoods hardwoods
H (%) 6.0 (0.2) 6.0 (0.1) 6.1 (0.1) 6.1 (0.1) 6.1 (0.1)
C (%) 50.3 (0.9) 50.0 (1.1) 51.5 (1.0) 51.8 (0.9) 50.2 (0.5)
N (%) 0.36 (0.10) 0.35 (0.17) 0.17 (0.12) 0.27 (0.21) 0.55 (0.49)
O (%) 42.6 (0.4) 42.8 (1.2) 41.4 (1.0) 39.7 (1.8) 41.1 (1.6)
S (%) 0.04 (0.01) 0.03 (0.01) 0.02 (0.01) 0.03 (0.01) 0.05 (0.05)
Table 1.6 Ultimate feedstock compositions for specific herbaceous biomass: average (standard
deviation)
Energy
Feedstock Corn cane Mixed
H (%) 5.7 (0.3) 5.9 (0.2) 5.7 (0.2) 6.1 (0.1) 5.8 (0.3) 5.8 (0.1)
C (%) 47.1 (2.3) 47.1 (1.1) 46.4 (1.3) 48.8 (0.9) 47.6 (1.1) 48.9 (1.5)
N (%) 0.63 (0.32) 0.60 (0.26) 1.04 (0.38) 0.43 (0.20) 1.38 (0.54) 0.35 (0.17)
O (%) 40.3 (2.2) 42.4 (2.3) 40.3 (0.6) – 39.5 (0.7) 42.3 (1.1)
S (%) 0.14 (0.53) 0.06 (0.03) 0.11 (0.01) – 0.12 (0.02) 0.04 (0.02)
Table 1.7 Proximate feedstock compositions for specific woody feedstocks: average (standard
deviation)
Feedstock Shrub Hybrid Other Other
composition willow poplar Pine softwoods hardwoods
Volatiles (%) 84.7 (0.8) 84.0 (1.3) 83.5 (2.5) 81.3 (2.9) 85.1 (3.0)
Ash (%) 1.5 (0.4) 1.3 (0.5) 0.7 (0.6) 2.1 (2.0) 1.8 (1.2)
FC (%) 13.8 (0.7) 14.6 (0.1) 15.7 (1.9) 16.5 (1.6) 13.1 (1.8)
1.2.2 Ash Content
Biomass consists of inorganic matter called ash. There are two types of ash:
introduced ash and anatomical ash. The total ash content, which is the sum of the
introduced and anatomical ash, is dependent on the type of feedstock, harvest
method followed, and soil condition in which it was harvested. Tumuluru et al.
Table 1.8 Multi-pass corn Windrower Removal Ash (wt.% d.b.)

stover collected from
Bar rake Low 12.9
Nebraska in 2010, focusing on
residue removal rates Bar rake High 14.5
Wheel rake Low 8.8
Wheel rake High 11.5
Flail shredder Low 8.1
Flail shredder High 9.3
Flail shredder High 10.9
Derived from Tumuluru et al. (2016)
(2016) indicated that ash content decreases with maturity. These authors identified
some of the factors that can influence the ash content and composition, such as
delaying the harvest from fall to late winter results in environmental changes, soil
type, soil chemistry, water quality, fertilization chemistry, and elemental composi-
tion of the soil. Table 1.8 indicates how residual removal rates impact the ash content
of corn stover.
Following the biochemical and thermochemical conversion of the biomass, the
leftover ash is called the solid residue. In the case of thermochemical conversion,
higher ash content presents significant operational and conversion problems. The ash
can form slag at higher temperatures, which reduces a plant’s operating capacity and
increases costs. In the case of biochemical conversion, the nonhydrolyzed material
left over after enzymatic conversion is a combination of the ash and remaining C,
which is not converted further. The other impact that higher ash content in biomass
can have is in the handling and processing costs. The variability in terms of chemical
and ash composition can have a significant impact on the overall economics of
biofuels production. Anatomical ash in biomass has an alkali metal content, such as
Na, K, Mg, P, and Ca, which are important during thermochemical conversion. At
higher temperatures, alkali metals with silica can produce slag, which is sticky and
mobile in a liquid phase and can block furnaces and boiler air pathways. Recent
studies at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) on processing biomass with higher ash
content have indicated that the wear and tear of the preprocessing equipment is
higher. This can result in the frequent changeout of processing equipment parts,
which can have a significant impact on processing costs. Recent interactions with the
preprocessing industry have suggested that when biomass material with a higher ash
content is hammermilled, the need exists to change the hammer every week.
Table 1.9 shows the ash content and ash melting temperature of different types of
woody and herbaceous biomass.
1.2.3 Calorific Value
Table 1.10 provides the typical calorific values (CVs) of woody and herbaceous
biomass. The energy content is measured as heat content in the sample per unit mass
Table 1.9 Ash content and ash melting temperature of different woody, herbaceous, and municipal
solid waste biomass
Feedstock type Ash (wt.% d.b.)
Typical calorific values (CVs) for virgin wood materials (coniferous wood) 0.2–0.5
Typical CVs for virgin wood materials (deciduous wood) 0.2–0.5
Typical CVs for virgin bark materials 2–10
Typical CVs for virgin logging residues 1.5–2
Typical CVs for willow and poplar SRC 2
Spruce with bark 0.6
Beech with bark 0.5
Poplar (SRC) 1.8
Willow (SRC) 2.0
Coniferous tree bark 3.8
Vinewood chips 3.4
Miscanthus 3.9
Wheat straw 5.7
Triticale (grains) 2.1
Rape cake 6.2
Municipal solid waste (INL experimental data) 3.74
Corn stover 22.60
Switchgrass 5.42
Lodgepole pine 0.8
Derived from Francescato et al. (2008), Tumuluru and Fillerup (2020)
or volume (McKendry 2002). The CV is usually measured using an adiabatic or

isoperibolic calorimeter. The heat content of the biomass is dependent on the C, H,
and O content in the biomass. CV is the amount of heat content in biomass when
burned in air. CV is normally expressed as either a higher heating value or a lower
heating value. Higher heating value is the total energy in the material when burned in
the air (this calculation also includes latent heat of vapor). In a practical application,
the water vapor in the material cannot be used effectively; therefore, a lower heating
value is more appropriate to use for the energy calculation. CV is usually determined
by a calorimeter, but a theoretical value can be calculated from Eq. (1.1):
Calorific value ðkcal=kg of fuelÞ ¼ ð8100C þ 34000ðH‐0=8ÞÞ=100 ð1:1Þ
where C, H, and O represent the percentages in 1 kg of fuel.

C yields 8080 kcal/kg when completely burned, H yields 34,000 kcal/kg, and O is
already assumed to be attached to its proportion of H; that is, an amount of H equal to
one-eighth the weight of the O is nullified. The S compounds are assumed to have
their combustion heat nullified by the O-N compounds (Woodyard 2009). The
calorific values of some herbaceous and woody biomasses are given in Table 1.10.
Many researchers have modeled the CV calculation using the ultimate composition
data. Velázquez-Martí et al. (2017) modeled the CV of biomass from fruit trees using
elemental analysis data. These authors have developed indirect models for heating
Table 1.10 Calorific value of specific woody and herbaceous biomasses measured
Feedstock type Net CV (M.J./kg)
Typical CVs for virgin wood materials (coniferous wood) 18.8–19.2
Typical CVs for virgin wood materials (deciduous wood) 18.5–19.2
Typical CVs for virgin bark materials 19–21
Typical CVs for virgin logging residues 19–20
Typical CVs for short-rotation coppice (SRC) (willow and poplar) 18.6–19.2
Spruce with bark 18.8
Beech with bark 18.4
Poplar (SRC) 18.5
Willow (SRC) 18.4
Coniferous tree bark 19.2
Vinewood chips 19.8
Miscanthus 17.6
Wheat straw 17.2
Triticale (grains) 16.9
Rape cake 21.2
Lodgepole pine 20.24
Switchgrass 19.19
Corn stover 15.90
Derived from Francescato et al. (2008), Tumuluru and Fillerup (2020)
value prediction of biomass from orange trees (Citrus sinensis Osbeck), almond
trees (Prunus dulcis [Mill]), and olive trees (Olea europaea L) using elemental
analysis data. They reasoned that the development of these equations reduces:
(a) the biomass CV determination time; and (b) the biomass characterization costs.
The equations developed by these authors for the CV calculation are given in
Table 1.11.
1.2.4 Biochemical Composition
The typical biochemical compositions (e.g., lignin, protein, extractives) of specific

herbaceous and woody biomasses are given in Tables 1.12, 1.13, and 1.14 (Williams
et al. 2017). In general, woody biomass has a higher lignin content as compared to
herbaceous biomass. The amount of lignin and cellulose in the biomass is important
in the biochemical conversion process. In the case of biochemical conversion, the
feedstock that has a higher percentage of cellulose and hemicellulose is preferred.
The lignin in the biomass is potentially an abundant energy source, which is left over
after hydrolysis. This lignin is currently used for burning in boilers. Many
researchers are working on utilizing lignin for producing higher-value products.
Table 1.11 Equations developed for calculating higher heating values of various biomass species
R2 adj.
Species Model (%)
Mixing three HHV ¼ 717.79 + 380.85C + 7.61 % leaves 14.00 % bark 97.35
species HHV ¼ 863.61 + 383.93C 15.257 % leaves 96.97
HHV ¼ 769.58 + 371.80C + 8.02 % leaves 97.14
HHV ¼ 928.66 + 374.30C 96.73
Prunus dulcis HHV ¼ 7624.11 + 237.76C + 228.75N 83.37 % w 97.13
HHV ¼ 1024.04 + 412.99C + 272.54N 96.74
HHV ¼ 1106.84 + 422.77C 94.63
Citrussinensis HHV ¼ 4323.54 + 301.46C 72.74 % bark 88.12
HHV ¼ 1254.39 + 365.79C 83.17
Olea europaea HHV ¼ 790.92 + 421.37C 94.85
Derived from Velázquez-Martí et al. (2017)
HHV High heat value (kJ/kg), C Carbon, N Nitrogen, %w: Moisture content in wet basis
Table 1.12 Average biochemical composition of specific herbaceous feedstocks (standard

deviation)
Energy
Feedstock Corn cane Mixed
Cellulose (%) 34.3 (2.5) 34.2 (2.7) 28.6 (2.6) 32.1 (3.2) 28.9 (2.9) 38.9 (3.2)
Hemicellulose 20.7 (2.0) 21.9 (2.6) 15.4 (1.6) 19.5 (1.9) 16.7 (3.9) 20.1 (1.4)
(%)
Lignin (%) 15.2 (1.6) 19.2 (1.4) 12.2 (1.9) 16.3 (1.8) 15.7 (1.7) 21.1 (1.6)
Table 1.13 Average biochemical composition of specific woody biomasses (standard deviation)
Feedstock composition Hybrid poplar Pine Other softwoods Other hardwoods
Cellulose (%) 43.8 (1.2) 47.4 (2.2) 42.1 (7.1) 50.8 (6.9)
Hemicellulose (%) 14.7 (0.1) 21.9 (4.9) 25.1 (5.2) 29.7 (4.3)
Lignin (%) 25.7 (0.3) 28.6 (0.7) 29.1 (1.7) 19.5 (4.1)
Table 1.14 Biochemical composition of woody and herbaceous biomass

% Extractives
Feedstock type % Total protein % Lignin % Ethanol (EtOH) % Water (H2O)
Corn stover 2.54 15.29 2.64 6.52
Wheat straw 3.59 13.19 2.41 7.34
Lodgepole pine 0.21 26.48 4.43 4.06
Pinyon-juniper 1.83 32.86 5.40 7.65
Sorghum 4.03 12.90 2.89 13.49
MSW (INL data) 0.97 25.79 1.38 4.08
Derived from Tumuluru (2018b)
1.2.5 Moisture
Table 1.15 shows the moisture content of woody and herbaceous biomass. Both
woody and herbaceous biomass is available at higher moisture content. The herba-
ceous biomass moisture content depends on the type of harvesting method followed
and the harvesting time. The water in the biomass is present in two forms—bound
and free water. Bound moisture is present in the cell walls, whereas the free water is
available in liquid pockets in the void spaces. In general, the transition zone where
the bound and free moisture occurs is called the fiber saturation point (Stamm 1971).
Normally, biomass is dried below the fiber saturation point to keep it aerobically
stable. Various active drying technologies are used to dry the biomass to keep it
aerobically stable. For example, a rotary dryer is used to dry large quantities of
woody and herbaceous biomass. However, the two major challenges in using rotary
dryers are the capital and operating costs (Lamers et al. 2015). These dryers operate
at high temperatures (i.e., generally, the inlet temperature is about 500 C, while the
outlet temperature is kept at about 212 C to avoid condensation of the moisture as
the material exits the dryer). In addition, high-temperature drying results in volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions, which are not good for the environment, nor
human beings should they happen to inhale it (Tumuluru 2016). Low-temperature
dryers, such as belt dryers, operate between 60 C and 80 C and are now being
widely used in wood chip drying. These dryers require less capital and operating
costs and can typically avoid the environmental concerns frequently observed in
high-temperature dryers (Tumuluru 2016). Moisture content in biomass has a great
impact on biomass processing, especially size reduction. In their studies on using
different types of grinders (e.g., hammermill, rotary shear, vortex mill), Tumuluru
and Yancey (2018) indicated that increasing moisture content increases grinder
energy consumption and has a great impact on particle size distribution.
1.2.6 Bulk Density
Bulk density of biomass is an important characteristic as it has a great impact on

feeding, storage, and transportation. Woody biomass has a higher density as com-
pared to herbaceous biomass, as shown in Table 1.16. Tumuluru et al. (2015)
discussed the physical properties of woody and herbaceous biomass and thermally
Table 1.15 Typical moisture content of woody and herbaceous biomass after harvesting
Feedstock type Moisture content (%, w.b.)
Corn stover after harvesting 5–50% (w.b.) (Tumuluru et al. 2016; Womac et al. 2005)
Stem wood at harvest 45–50% (w.b.) (Saralecos et al. 2014)
Energy sorghum stems at harvest 70–85% (w.b.) (McKinley et al. 2018)
Switchgrass after harvest 70% (w.b.) (Khanchi and Birrell 2015)
Small diameter fuel wood >50% (w.b.) (Routa et al. 2016)
Table 1.16 Bulk density of Feedstock type Bulk density

woody and herbaceous
Corn stover 157.9 (3.27)
biomass
Wheat straw 151.8 (3.85)
Lodgepole pine 246.2 (4.2)
Pinyon-juniper 257.47 (7.1)
Sorghum 223.7 (1.46)
Derived from Tumuluru (2018b)
Table 1.17 Physical properties of herbaceous, woody, and torrefied biomass (n ¼ 3)

Moisture content (%, Bulk density Particle density
Feedstock type w.b.) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) Porosity
Ground 10.21 151 650 0.76
switchgrass
Wood pellets 5.02 710 1210 0.41
Wood chips 12.12 265 580 0.54
Torrefied wood 1.8 225 505 0.55
chips
Table 1.18 Ground MSW physical properties from a stage-1 grinder

Particle size (mm) Physical properties
Stage-1 Grinder Geometric mean d10 d50 d90 Bulk density
screen size particle size SD (mm) (mm) (mm) (kg/m3) SD
50.8 6.16 1.02 0.83 7.29 11.53 25.34 3.88
Table 1.19 Ground MSW physical properties from a stage-2 grinder

Particle size (mm) Physical properties
Stage-2 Grinder Geometric mean d10 d50 d90 Bulk density
screen size particle size SD (mm) (mm) (mm) (kg/m3) SD
19.05 3.62 0.36 0.24 3.34 8.79 32.88 1.64
12.7 2.35 0.21 0.17 2.50 10.93 40.06 4.32
6.35 1.98 0.98 0.20 1.78 5.45 57.74 20.82
pretreated biomass used for biofuels production, as shown in Table 1.17. It is clear
from Table 1.17 that the bulk density of woody biomass increases by almost four to
five times after densification using a pellet mill. The porosity of the biomass
decreases after densification. Thermally pretreated biomass has a lower bulk density
as compared to raw woody biomass. This is primarily due to the loss of moisture and
volatiles after thermal pretreatment. The bulk density and particle dimensions—such
as d10, d50, d90, and geometric mean particle length for an MSW grind in a
hammermill (stage-1 and stage-2 grinder) fitted with different screens—are given
in Tables 1.18 and 1.19, respectively. The measured particle dimensions are greatly
impacted by screen size. In addition, the MSW bulk density changed with the screen
size of the grinder. Smaller grinder screen sizes increase the bulk density marginally.
In his studies, Tumuluru (2019) found that the bulk density of the raw corn stover,
switchgrass, and lodgepole pine increased after briquetting. Lodgepole pine bri-
quettes recorded a maximum bulk density of 489 kg/m3, switchgrass recorded about
446 kg/m3, and corn stover recorded about 497 kg/m3. They also reported that
lodgepole pine when ground using a hammermill fitted with a 4.8 and a 12.7 mm
screen size produced particle with geometric mean particle length of about 1.13 and
1.64 mm; switchgrass recorded about 0.75 and 2.35; and corn stover measured about
0.85 and 1.05 mm, respectively.
To increase the density of herbaceous biomass, they are baled and transported.
The density of woody chips and bales do not meet transportation efficiencies. To
further increase transportation efficiencies, biomass is densified using mechanical
compression systems. Commonly used densification systems include the pellet mill,
briquette press, and cubers. When compressed and extruded, the bulk density of
these systems increases both the woody and herbaceous biomasses by almost four to
five times. After using these systems, the final bulk densities of woody and herba-
ceous biomass will be in the range of 450–700 kg/m3. The commonly used standards
for measuring the raw and densified biomass physical, chemical, and biochemical
compositions are given in Table 1.20. There are ISO (2014a), ASTM (2015a, b,
2019), ASABE (1988, 2008), and PFI methods for physical properties and chemical
composition, and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Laboratory
Analytical Procedure (LAP), and National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) methods for biochemical composition.
1.2.7 Biomass Limitations
Harvested biomass lacks both the physical properties and chemical composition to
produce biofuels on a commercial scale. The physical properties, such as low bulk
density, irregular size, and inconsistent shape, result in feed, handling, and trans-
portation problems. Flow issues associated with biomass also make it difficult to
move from one location to another. Limitations in the physical properties result in
logistics issues as well. The lower-energy content of biomass fuels results in high
volumes of biomass requirements, which again result in storage, transportation, and
feed handling issues for both biochemical and thermochemical conversions and
biopower generation.
The moisture variability in biomass is another major limitation for processing and
conversion to fuels. High moisture in biomass creates physical and chemical prop-
erties issues. Preprocessing, feeding, and handling of biomass are influenced by
moisture variability. In preprocessing, moisture in the biomass influences the grind-
ing process. Higher moisture content results in higher grinding energy and produces
variable particle sizes. In their studies on the grinding energy and physical properties
of chopped and hammer-milled barley, wheat, oat, and canola straws, Tumuluru
et al. (2014) indicated that the fibrous nature of biomass increases with moisture
content and increases the grinding energy. In addition, higher moisture content
Table 1.20 Standards commonly used for physical properties, chemical, and biochemical compo-
sition, and calorific value of raw and densified biomass
ISO standard references for biomass
CEN/TS 14779 (CEN/TS 2005a) Solid biofuels—sampling—methods for pre-
paring sampling plans and sampling
certificates
CEN/TS 14780 (CEN/TS 2005b) Solid biofuels—methods for sample
preparation
EN 14774-3 (EN 2009a) Solid biofuels—determination of moisture
content—Stufe drying method part 3 moisture
content analysis for overall sample analysis
EN 14918 (EN 2009b) Solid biofuels—determination of calorific
value
CEN/TS 15104 (CEN/TS 2005c) Solid biofuels—determination of total carbon,
hydrogen, and nitrogen—instrumental
methods
CEN/TS 15290 (CEN/TS 2006) Solid biofuels—determination of major
elements
EN 14961-1 (EN 2009c) Solid biofuels—fuel specifications and clas-
ses—part 1: general requirements
ISO 17225-1:2014b (ISO 2014b) Solid biofuels—fuel specifications and clas-
ses—part 1: general requirements
ISO 17830:2016 (ISO 2016) Solid biofuels—particle size distribution of
disintegrated pellets
ISO 17830:2016 (ISO 2016) Determination of particle size distribution of
material within pellets
ISO 18125:2017 (ISO 2017) Solid biofuels—determination of calorific
value
ISO 16559:2014c(en) (ISO 2014c) Solid biofuels—terminology, definitions, and
descriptions
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers standards for biomass physical
properties
American Society of Agricultural and Biologi- ASABE S269.4, Cubes, Pellets, and Crum-
cal Engineers society has developed standards bles—Definitions and Methods for Determin-
for physical properties such as moisture con- ing Density, Durability, and Moisture
tent, density, particle size distribution, and Content (ASABE 2008)
durability of raw and densified products ASABE S358.2, Moisture Measurement—
Forages (ASABE 1988)
ANSI/ASAE S424.1, Method of Determining
and Expressing Particle Size of Chopped For-
age Materials (ANSI/ASAE 1992)
ASTM International Standards for proximate and ultimate composition and calorific value
ASTM standards are commonly used for prox- ASTM D7582–15, Standard Test Methods for
imate and ultimate composition analysis and Proximate Analysis (ASTM 2015b)
calorific value ASTM D3176–15, Standard Practice for Ulti-
mate Analysis (ASTM 2015a)
(continued)
Table 1.20 (continued)

ISO standard references for biomass
ASTM D5865/D5865M-19, Standard Test
Method for Gross Calorific Value (ASTM
2019)
Pellet Fuel Institute
Pellet Fuel Institute (PFI) has standards for The PFI standards program is a third-party
pellets to be traded in the United States accredited program that enables consumers to
easily identify PFI graded fuel—consistent,
reliable pellets from producers whose facilities
are subject to regular third-party inspection and
lab testing.
NREL and NIST standards for biochemical composition
The biochemical composition, such as lignin, hemicellulose, and cellulose, is measured using
NREL methods (Sluiter et al. 2012)
%Structural ash is measured from the extractive-free solid and is corrected to a whole mass basis
using the %Total extractives value
%Extractable inorganics is calculated by subtracting %Structural ash from %Whole ash
%Extractable protein is calculated by subtracting %Structural protein from %Whole protein
%H2O extractives others is calculated by subtracting the components listed above as being a part
of %H2O extractives from the measure H2O extractives mass value
There are two different methods to analyze non-structural sugars: one includes %sucrose and the
other includes %free glucose using a megazyme kit
National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce (NIST), methods
are also used for measurement of the chemical and biochemical composition of the biomass.
makes biomass more elastic and cohesive, which in turn increases the feed handling,
plugging of screens, and bridging of particles in feedstock bins.
First-generation biorefineries are having challenges in feeding, handling, transpor-
tation, and storage of raw biomass with variable physical properties, such as variable
moisture and formats and different physical properties and chemical compositions.
These properties result in biomass bridging with uneven flows into the bioreactor,
thereby impacting the efficiency of the reactor. The physical, chemical, and rheolog-
ical properties of raw biomass are currently limiting biorefineries to operate at their
desired capacities. Solving these problems can increase production capacity, reduce
the interruption of normal operations, and reduce preprocessing and conversion costs.
Solving the biomass inherent physical, chemical, and rheological issues is crucial to
enable biorefineries to operate at their designed capacities.
Preprocessing of biomass using mechanical systems, such as grinding and den-
sification, helps to improve the biomass bulk density limitations, size, shape, and
moisture variability issues. Improving these specifications help to improve the front-
end unit operations of the biorefineries. The major limitation of using current
mechanical processing systems for biomass processing is their high costs. The
INL studies indicate that preprocessing costs are the major bottleneck. The industry
is currently looking at developing novel energy-efficient grinding and densification
technologies. In general, the grinding energies and particle size distribution of
biomass are primarily influenced by moisture content. Higher moisture content
results in higher grinding energy and uneven particle size distribution. Commonly
used grinding systems, such as hammermills, are not suitable for high moisture
biomass. New grinding systems, such as the rotary shear developed by the Forest
Concepts company (Tumuluru and Yancey 2018), are less sensitive to moisture
content and are gaining attention. The major limitation in using densification for
biomass is that it has to be dried to about 10% (w.b.) moisture content before it can
be compressed and extruded in a pellet mill or briquette press. Optimizing the
grinding and densification systems for various biomass feedstock properties is
very important to reduce preprocessing costs.
1.3 Conclusions
The major limitation of using biomass for biofuels application at the commercial scale
is its variable physical properties and different chemical compositions. Woody and
herbaceous biomass has different physical properties and chemical and biochemical
compositions. Woody biomass has high bulk densities as compared to herbaceous
biomass. In addition, woody biomass, when harvested, has a higher moisture content
as compared to herbaceous biomass. Typical woody biomass moisture content after
harvest is around 50–60% (w.b), whereas herbaceous biomass is around 20–30%
(w.b.). In terms of the chemical composition, woody biomass has a higher C content
and a lesser ash content. In contrast, herbaceous biomass has a lesser C content and a
higher ash content. Also, biomass physical property limitations result in logistics,
feeding, handling, storage, and transportation issues. Various preprocessing and pre-
treatments can help to improve biomass physical properties and chemical composi-
tions. Mechanical preprocessing systems, such as grinding and densification, are
commonly used techniques that can help to improve biomass physical properties
like density, size, and shape, and reduce the overall moisture content. Typical densi-
fication systems used for biomass are the pellet mill and briquette press. These systems
help to increase the bulk density of biomass by four to five times. Optimizing the
grinding and densification systems to meet the desired feedstock properties is very
important to make biomass easy to store, transport, and feed.
References
ANSI/ASAE S424.1 (1992) Method of determining and expressing particle size of chopped forage
materials by screening. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, March 1992
ASABE S358.2 (1988) Moisture measurement—Forages. American Society of Agricultural and
Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, USA
ASABE S269.4 (2008) 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
References 19
ASTM D3176-15 (2015a) Standard practice for ultimate analysis of coal and coke. American
Society for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA
ASTM D7582-15 (2015b) Standard test methods for proximate analysis of coal and coke by macro
thermogravimetric analysis. American Society for Testing and Materials International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA
ASTM D5865/D5865M-19 (2019) Standard test method for gross calorific value of coal and coke.
American Society for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA
Beloŝević S (2010) Modeling approaches to predict biomass cofiring with pulverized coal. Open
Thermodyn J 4:50–70
CEN/TS 14779 (2005a) Solid biofuels – Sampling – Methods for preparing sampling plans and
sampling certificates. BSI British Standards, London, England
CEN/TS 14780 (2005b) Solid biofuels. Methods for sample preparation. BSI British Standards,
London, England
CEN/TS 15104 (2005c) Solid biofuels. Determination of total content of carbon, hydrogen and
nitrogen. Instrumental methods. BSI British Standards, London, England
CEN/TS 15290 (2006) Solid biofuels. Determination of major elements. BSI British Standards,
London, England
Clémençon R (2016) The two sides of the Paris climate agreement: dismal failure or historic
breakthrough? J Environ Dev 25(1):3–25
DOE (2016a) Billion-ton report: Advancing domestic resources for a thriving bioeconomy, Volume
1: Economic availability of feedstocks, ORNL/TM-2016/160. Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge. 448p. https://doi.org/10.2172/1271651
DOE (2016b) Billion-ton report: Advancing domestic resources for a thriving bioeconomy, Volume
2: Environmental sustainability effects of select scenarios from Volume 1, ORNL/TM-2016/
727. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge. 642p. https://doi.org/10.2172/1338837
EIA (2018) Biomass explained, 21 June 2018. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/.
Accessed 5 Mar 2020
EN 14774-3 (2009a) Solid biofuels. Determination of moisture content. Oven dry method. Moisture
in general analysis sample. BSI British Standards, London, England
EN 14918 (2009b) Solid biofuels. Determination of calorific value. BSI British Standards, London,
England
EN 14961-1 (2009c) Solid biofuels-fuel specifications and classes, Part 6- non-woody pellets for
non-industrial use. BSI British Standards, London, England
EPA (2002) Protecting water resources with smart growth. EPA 231-R-04-002, May 2004.
Washington DC, USA. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-04/documents/
protecting-water-resources.pdf. Accessed 5 Mar 2020
EPA (2013) Municipal solid waste, 29 March 2016. https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/
municipal/web/html/. Accessed 5 Mar 2020
Francescato V, Antonini E, Bergomi LZ, Metschina C, Schnedl C, Krajnc N, Koscik K, Gradziuk P,
Nocentini G, Stranieri S (2008) Wood fuels handbook: production, quality requirements,
trading. AIEL – Italian Agriforestry Energy Association, Agripolis, Italy. http://www.
biomasstradecentre2.eu/scripts/download.php?file¼/data/pdf_vsebine/literature/wood_fuels_
handbook.pdf. Accessed 5 Mar 2020
Gumisiriza R, Hawumba JF, Okure M, Hensel O (2017) Biomass waste-to-energy valorisation
technologies: A review case for banana processing in Uganda. Biotechnol Biofuels 10(11):1–29
Hartmann H (ed) (2007) Handbook bioenergy small plants. 2nd ed. Special publication by the
German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Consumer Protection (BMVEL) and the
German Agency for Renewable Resources (FNR), Gülzow, 224 S
ISO (2014a) Solid biofuels — Fuel specifications and classes — Part 1: General requirements.
ISO-17225-1:2014, May 2014
ISO 17225-1 (2014b) Solid biofuels — Fuel specifications and classes — Part 1: General require-
ments. BSI British Standards, London, England
ISO 16559 (2014c) Solid biofuels — Terminology, definitions, and descriptions. BSI British
Standards, London, England
ISO 17830 (2016) Solid biofuels — Particle size distribution of disintegrated pellets. BSI British
Standards, London, England
ISO 18125 (2017) Solid biofuels — Determination of calorific value. BSI British Standards,
London, England
Khanchi A, Birrell S (2015) Influence of weather and swath density on drying characteristics of corn
stover and switchgrass. 2015 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers
(ASABE) Annual International Meeting, Paper Number 152190753, 26–29 July 2015, New
Orleans, LA, USA
Lamers P, Roni MS, Tumuluru JS, Jacobson JJ, Cafferty KG, Hansen JK, Kenney K, Teymouri F,
Bals B (2015) Techno-economic analysis of decentralized biomass processing depots. Bioresour
Technol 194:205–213
Liu YY, van Dijk AIJM, de Jeu RAM, Canadell JG, McCabe MF, Evans JP, Wang G (2015) Recent
reversal in loss of global terrestrial biomass. Nat Clim Change 5:470–474
McKendry P (2002) Energy production from biomass (Part 1): Overview of biomass. Bioresour
Technol 83:37–46
McKinley BA, Olson SN, Ritter KB, Herb DW, Karlen SD, Lu F, Ralph J, Rooney WL, Mullet JE
(2018) Variation in energy sorghum hybrid TX08001 biomass composition and lignin chemistry
during development under irrigated and non-irrigated field conditions. PLoS One 13(4):
e0195863
Popp J, Lakner Z, Harangi-Rákos M, Fári M (2014) The effect of bioenergy expansion: Food,
energy, and environment. Renew Sust Energ Rev 32:559–578
Routa J, Kolström M, Ruotsalainen J, Sikanen L (2016) Validation of prediction models for
estimating the moisture content of logging residues during storage. Biomass Bioenergy
94:85–93
Saralecos JD, Keefe RF, Tinkham WT, Brooks RH, Smith AMS, Johnson LR (2014) Effects of
harvesting systems and bole moisture loss on weight scaling of Douglas-Fir sawlogs
(Pseudotsuga Menziesii var. glauca Franco). Forests 5(9):2289–2306
Sluiter A, Hames B, Ruiz R, Scarlata C, Sluiter J, Templeton D, Crocker D (2012) Determination of
structural carbohydrates and lignin in biomass. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
Laboratory Analytical Procedure (LAP), NREL/TP-510-42618
Stamm AJ (1971) Review of nine methods for determining the fiber saturation points of wood and
wood products. Wood Sci 42:114–128
Swanson T (2008) Economic growth and environmental regulation: A discussion of international
experiences. University College of London, London, England
Tumuluru JS (2019) Effect of moisture content and hammer mill screen size on the briquetting
characteristics of woody and herbaceous biomass. KONA Powder Part J 36:241–251
Tumuluru JS (2016) Specific energy consumption and quality of wood pellets produced using high
moisture lodgepole pine grind in a flat die pellet mill. Chem Eng Res Des 110:82–97
Tumuluru JS (2018a) Effect of pellet die diameter on density and durability of pellets made from
high moisture woody and herbaceous biomass. Carbon Resour Convers 1(1):44–54
Tumuluru JS (2018b) Why biomass preprocessing and pretreatments? In: Tumuluru JS
(ed) Biomass Preprocessing and Pretreatments for Production of Biofuels. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, pp 1–14
Tumuluru JS, Fillerup E (2020) Briquetting characteristics of woody and herbaceous biomass
blends: Impact on physical properties, chemical composition, and calorific value. Biofuels
Bioprod Biorefin, First published: 03 July 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2121
Tumuluru JS, Hess JR, Boardman RD, Wright CT, Westover TL (2012) Formulation, pretreatment,
and densification options to improve biomass specifications for cofiring high percentages with
coal. Ind Biotechnol 8(3):113–132
Tumuluru JS, Lim CJ, Bi XT, Kuang X, Melin S, Yazdanpanah F, Sokhansanj S (2015) Analysis on
storage off-gas emissions from woody, herbaceous, and torrefied biomass. Energies 8
(3):1745–1759
References 21
Tumuluru JS, Searcy E, Kenney KL, Smith WA, Gresham GL, Yancey NA (2016) Impact of
feedstock supply systems unit operations on feedstock cost and quality for bioenergy applica-
tions. In: Kumar R, Singh S, Balan V (eds) Valorization of Lignocellulosic Biomass in a
Biorefinery: From Logistic to Environmental and Performance Impact. Nova Science Pub-
lishers, New York, NY, USA, pp 1–45
Tumuluru JS, Tabil LG, Song Y, Iroba KL, Meda V (2014) Grinding energy and physical properties
of chopped and hammer-milled barley, wheat, oat, and canola straws. Biomass Bioenergy
60:58–67
Tumuluru JS, Wright CT, Hess JR, Kenney KL (2011) A review of biomass densification systems
to develop uniform feedstock commodities for bioenergy application. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin
5(6):683–707
Tumuluru JS, Yancey N (2018) Conventional and advanced mechanical preprocessing methods for
biomass: performance quality attributes and cost analysis. In: Tumuluru JS (ed) Biomass
Preprocessing and Pretreatments for Production of Biofuels. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
USA, pp 15–49
Velázquez-Martí B, López-Cortés I, Salazar-Hernández D, Callejón-Ferre ÁJ (2017) Modeling the
calorific value of biomass from fruit trees using elemental analysis data. In: Tumuluru JS
(ed) Biomass Volume Estimation and Valorization for Energy. IntechOpen, Zagreb, pp 271–292
Williams CL, Emerson RM, Tumuluru JS (2017) Biomass compositional analysis for conversion to
renewable fuels and chemicals. In: Tumuluru JS (ed) Biomass Volume Estimation and Valori-
zation for Energy. IntechOpen, Zagreb, pp 251–270
Womac AR, Igathinathane C, Sokhansanj S, Pordesimo LO (2005) Biomass moisture relations of
an agricultural field residue: Corn stover. Trans ASAE 48:2073–2083
Woodyard D (2009) Fuels and lubes: Chemistry and treatment. In: Woodyard D (ed) Pounders
Marine Diesel Engines and Gas Turbines. Butterworth-Heinemann Publishers, Oxford,
England, pp 88–141
Chapter 2
Binding Mechanism, Densification Systems,
Process Variables, and Quality Attributes
Abstract Raw biomass is difficult to use as a feedstock for biofuels production at

the commercial scale. In its raw form, biomass is bulky, wet, and scattered. Densi-
fication technologies help to convert the raw biomass into a solid product that has
improved storage, transport, and handling characteristics. The commonly used
densification technologies that are used for biomass are pelleting, briquetting,
cubing, extrusion, and agglomeration. Pelleting and briquetting have been success-
fully used for many years in many countries. All produce densified products with
different quality attributes. The quality attributes of the densified product depend on
the biomass, physical properties, chemical composition, and densification process
variables. The focus of this chapter will be understanding how processing these
feedstocks using different densification systems and process variables impact their
overall quality attributes, such as unit, bulk, and tapped density, and durability.
Keywords Densification systems · Particle binding mechanism · Process variable ·

Densified product quality attributes
2.1 Introduction
Biomass, as harvested, has less bulk density, which makes storage, feeding, and
transportation difficult. Typical bulk densities of herbaceous biomass after
harvesting and baling are about 150–160 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3). It can
be further reduced in size by using a grinder, typically around 80–150 kg/m3, based
on the screen size used in the grinder. The woody biomass after harvesting and
chipping is about 200–220 kg/m3 (Tumuluru et al. 2016). Two major densification
limitations in using biomass before it is converted include its extreme difficulty to
move from one place to another during feeding, which results in bridging of the
biomass particle, and storage, which requires a large amount of space due to its low
density. Another major limitation with biomass is its variable moisture content,
which results in dry matter losses during storage that greatly influences grinding
energy, throughput, and particle size distribution. Typically, high-moisture content
greater than 20% (w.b.) results in a need for higher grinding energy, which in turn

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62888-8_2
24 2 Binding Mechanism, Densification Systems, Process Variables, and Quality. . .
leads to irregular particle sizes and shapes, increased grinder throughput, and
non-uniform particle size distribution (Tumuluru and Yancey 2018), thereby directly
causing inconsistent mass and heat transfer in conversion. According to Tumuluru
(2018a), variability in the moisture content of the biomass results in preprocessing
and conversion issues. The particle size variability (coarse, medium, and fine
particles in the grind) causes plugging in storage bins and augurs, not completely
cooking effectively in the digesters, and the subsequent plugging of the downstream
equipment—or particles that are too small, which can cause fires and explosions, the
plugging of the weep holes of the feeder, inconsistent heat and mass transfer during
conversion, and detrimental influence on the ash content and composition, as well as
serious health hazards for workers.
2.1.1 Densification
One way to address the variability issues related to moisture, particle size, and shape
in the biomass can be by mechanical densification. During mechanical densification,
the biomass is compressed and extruded, and the particles are densely packed in the
die, which reduces the void spaces between the particles. Densely packing the
particles in the die increases the bulk density of the biomass by about four to five
times (Tumuluru et al. 2011). The conventional mechanical densification systems
that are used in biomass processing include the pellet mill, the briquette press, and
the cubers (Tumuluru et al. 2011). These same authors state that densification
converts biomass into an aerobically stable feedstock with consistent size, shape,
and increased density. In addition, they reasoned that biomass densification is critical
to improving handling and transportation efficiency to biorefineries. It also produces
a product with consistent size, shape, density, and moisture content. In fact, the
components in the biomass during the densification process get fractionated, which
further improves the performance of the feedstock during biochemical and thermo-
chemical conversions. Finally, the densified material can be designed for
predetermined specifications desired for conversion and logistics systems.
2.1.2 Bonding Mechanism During Densification
Tabil (1996) and Tabil and Sokhansanj (1996a, b) suggested that the elastic and
plastic deformation of the particles during the application of pressure results in
particle binding. This is one of the most critical aspects of the pelleting to form
pellets with the desired density. Many authors have concluded that the agglomera-
tion of the particles during densification is due to the formation of solid bridges
because of the chemical reactions between the biomass components (mainly the
binders), binder hardening, and the solidification of melted substances (Rumpf 1962;
Sastry and Fuerstenau 1973; York and Pilpel 1972; Pietsch 1984). Most of the
2.1 Introduction 25
Fig. 2.1 Deformation mechanisms of powder particles under compression (derived from Comoglu
2007, and Denny 2002)
reactions that happen in biomass are primarily due to the presence of moisture in the
biomass. Moisture, in the presence of temperature and pressure, results in modifica-
tion of the chemical components in the biomass, thus resulting in particle bonding.
According to Sastry and Fuerstenau (1973), Pietsch (1984), and Ghebre-Sellassie
(1989), moisture in the pendular state fills the voids. In the funicular state, the liquid
content increases and reduces the pore volume. In the capillary and droplet state, the
agglomerate is completely covered by the liquid, where the surface tension is the
primary force to hold the primary particles. According to Schineberger (1971) and
Sherrington and Oliver (1981), the particle attraction is due to van der Waal’s
electrostatic or magnetic forces and inter-particle attraction, which contribute to
particle bonding. As proposed by Comoglu (2007) and Denny (2002), Fig. 2.1
suggests there are three stages in the powder compaction process. In the first stage,
the particles rearrange and retain most of their properties, while in the second stage,
these particles are forced against each other and undergo plastic and elastic defor-
mation. Also at this stage, the particle rheological properties and morphological
characteristics are influenced where particle bonding occurs due to van der Waal’s
electrostatic forces. In the third and final stage, reduction volume occurs due to the
application of higher pressure, where the density of the pellet reaches the true density
of the individual components of the powders. Also, at this stage, the particles that
have undergone deformation cannot change their position in the compact due to
reduced activities. The densification or compaction process is governed by the
process variables and powder properties. Controlling the process variable, which
influences the inter-particle cavities, helps to produce a desirable product.
The composition is another variable that has a significant impact on the binding
behavior of biomass. Chemical compositions—such as cellulose, hemicellulose,
protein, starch, lignin, crude fiber, fat, and ash—impact the type of chemical
bonds that are formed during densification. According to Briggs et al. (1999), the
protein and starch plasticize at higher compression forces and temperatures, which
act as a binder to form a strong pellet. Wood (1987) and Thomas et al. (1998)
Fig. 2.2 Changes in biomass components due to the application of moisture, temperature, and
pressure (derived from Tumuluru 2018a)
concluded that the starch in the biomass gelatinizes and results in better binding. In
addition, the lignin in the lignocellulosic biomass softens in the presence of mois-
ture, temperature, and pressure, which acts as a binder. Tumuluru (2018a) developed
a figure to understand how moisture, temperature, and pressure affect various
biomass contents—such as cellulose, lignin, starch, portion, and waxes, as observed
in Fig. 2.2. The figure clearly indicates that various biomass components have
different impacts when subjected to pressure, temperature, and moisture. Studies
conducted in understanding the glass transition (Tg), temperature of biomass com-
ponents using dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA), and solid-state nuclear mag-
netic resonance (SS-NMR) have indicated that the Tg of lignin and starch is greatly
influenced by temperature and moisture content (Tumuluru 2018a), as observed in
Figs. 2.3 and 2.4. The DMA curve indicated that a low preheating temperature of
about 50–70 C could help to activate some of the biomass components, such as
lignin, waxes, water-soluble carbohydrates, protein, and others to take an active part
in the densification process. The solid-state NMR spectrum has indicated that the
Dipolar dephased spectrum of wet biomass shows xylans and lignin as the mobile
components, while the 13C spin-lattice relaxation rate constants show that the
hemicellulose mobility is increased more than the lignin in the presence of water,
as observed in Table 2.1.
Compared to ceramic and pharmaceutical powders, biomass has natural binders,
such as lignin, protein, and starch. In addition, the heterogeneous nature of biomass
further complicates our understanding of the binding phenomena. According to
Bilanski and Graham (1984) and O’Dogherty and Wheeler (1984), the higher
pressure applied during densification can crush the biomass and open up the cell
structure, which makes some of the components in the biomass—such as protein and
pectin—act as binders. Several authors (Tabil and Sokhansanj 1996a, b; Adapa et al.
2.1 Introduction 27
Fig. 2.3 Compression-torsion DMA of ground corn stover immersed in an aqueous buffer with a
pH of 7 (left) and in glycerol (right). Thermal transitions are defined by peaks in the tan δ curve (tan
δ ¼ loss modulus storage modulus) (derived from Tumuluru et al. 2017)
Fig. 2.4 (a) Solid-state NMR spectrum of wet corn stover and (b) spectrum with dipolar dephasing
(derived from Tumuluru et al. 2017)
2002, 2009; Mani et al. 2004) concluded that starch, lignin, and protein takes an
active part in the pelleting of alfalfa, wheat, and barley grind. Kaliyan and Morey
(2006) used scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to understand the solid-type
bridges formed due to pelleting and briquetting of corn stover and switchgrass.
13
Table 2.1 C T1 mobile component relaxation rate constants
Chemical shift (ppm)
72.7 (HC) 70.4 (HC) 62.8 (HC) 53.6 (LI) 19 (HC)
Dry corn stover 12 s 12 s 4.2 s 3.0 s 10 s
Wet corn stover 4.5 s 4.6 s 1.6 s 2.3 s 6.5 s
Fig. 2.5 CT scan images of a corn stover pellet (derived from Tumuluru et al. 2019, 2020)
Recent studies by Tumuluru et al. (2019) using computed tomography (CT) scan and
focused ion beam (FIB) tomography has helped to define the agglomeration behav-
ior of corn stover particles, in addition to microstructure formation due to the impact
of process variables, such as moisture content, grind size, compressive force, and
residence time. Advanced characterization of the pellets using an X-ray CT scan,
which is a 3D non-destructive imaging process that can enable spatial and morpho-
logical characterization without destroying the pellet and can help to understand the
particle agglomeration behavior (Tumuluru et al. 2019). Some of the CT scans and
SEM images that help us to understand the particle agglomeration and lignin
mobilization during pelleting are given in Figs. 2.5 and 2.6. It is very clear from
the CT scan image that after densification, the particles come closer and form a dense
compact with a clear indication of quarks and void spaces. In addition, it is possible
to see the dense features in the pelleted corn stover (see Fig. 2.5). The SEM image
indicates that during the pelleting process, the biomass structure undergoes signif-
icant changes (see Fig. 2.6). The cellular structure is largely disrupted but still shows
residual evidence of the previously existing structure. In addition, the SEM images
indicate that stomata and villi are still visible after pelleting. Stomata guard cells tend
to have high-lignin content, which remains intact after the pelleting process, indi-
cating only a partial mobilization of all the lignin present during the pelleting
2.1 Introduction 29
Fig. 2.6 SEM images of pelleted corn stover (derived from Tumuluru et al. 2019, 2020)
process. More studies at a micro-level using these techniques will be useful in

understanding the interaction of feedstock and process variables on the microstruc-
ture formation in the pellets.
2.1.3 Densification Systems
The densification systems currently used by the biomass industry are baling,
pelleting, extrusion, briquetting, and agglomeration. Among the various densifica-
tion methods used by the industry, pelleting and briquetting are the most common.
These include the high-pressure densification process where biomass particles are
bound together without any binder. These technologies are also referred to as
“binderless technologies” (Sokhansanj et al. 2005).
2.1.3.1 Pellet Mill
Pellet mill has perforated hard steel die with two or three rollers. Rotating die or
rollers force the feedstock through the perforations to form densified pellets. In pellet
mills, the raw biomass is compressed and extruded to produce smaller densified
products called pellets. Fig. 2.7 shows the various pellet mill components used for
the continuous production of pellets (Tumuluru et al. 2011). Two types of pellet
mills exist: the flat die pellet mill and the ring die pellet mill. The principle of
operation in both are the same where the raw biomass is compressed and extruded,
but the quality of the pellets, die dimensions, and how the raw material is fed into the
die is different.
Fig. 2.7 Pellet mill components (derived from Tumuluru et al. 2011)
Fig. 2.8 Various components of the screw conditioner (derived from Tumuluru et al. 2010a)
2.1.3.2 Preconditioning of Biomass
Biomass is initially fed into screw conditioners where the biomass is pretreated with
steam. Figure 2.8 indicates the various components of the screen conditioner. The
addition of steam helps to soften some of the biomass components, such as
2.1 Introduction 31
mobilizing the lignin and gelatinizing the starch, which results in better binding of
the particles in the pellet die. The steam-conditioned biomass is further discharged
into the feed spout, which leads to the pellet die. The flights that are provided in the
die cover help to feed the biomass evenly in each of the rollers, and the feed
distributors spread the feed evenly on the face of the die. Some pellet mills are
provided with force-feed augurs, which can help to move the material into the die
more uniformly and consistently. In addition, force-feed augurs help to feed biomass
material that is low and variable in density, such as municipal solid waste (MSW).
Pellet mills are further provided with knives to cut the extruded pellets to their
desired lengths.
2.1.3.3 Flat Die Pellet Mills
Flat die pellet mills come in two types—rotating rollers and rotating dies. In the
rotating roller, the roller is moving where the die is stationary, whereas, in the
rotating die, the pellet die moves where the rollers sit on the die. Two more rollers
are typically used in flat die mills, where the biomass is dropped by its own weight
into the pellet mill chamber where it gets compressed between the rollers and the die
and extrudes pellets through the die hole. Figure 2.9 indicates the flat die pellet mill
and the extrusion of pellets through the die. The major advantages of the flat die
pellet mill are its small size and light weight, its compact design, its relatively easy
cleaning and maintenance capacity, and its ability to be used for both feeding and
producing pellet fuels. The major challenge with flat die mills is adjusting the gap
Fig. 2.9 Design and operating principles of the flat die pellet mill (derived from Gemco Energy
2019)
between the rollers. In addition, the die can be tricky and needs to be adjusted based
on the type of raw materials being fed into it.
2.1.3.4 Ring Die Pellet Mills
The basic principle of pelleting biomass in a ring die pellet mill is its distribution
over the inner surface of the rotating perforated die ahead of the rollers, which is
further compressed into the die holes to form the pellets. Figure 2.10 indicates the
pelleting mechanism in a ring die pellet mill. In general, a ring die pellet mill is used
for the production of fuel and feed pellets. Ring die pellet mill generate less wear and
tear as the roller travels the same distance and are more energy-efficient than flat
die pellet mills that are available in higher capacities. The major drawback with
using a ring die pellet mill is the slip of the biomass during squeezing into the pellet
die. Proper die design can help to overcome this issue. Table 2.2 indicates the
comparison of flat die and ring die pellet mills.
2.1.3.5 Briquette Press
There are two types of briquette presses: the hydraulic press and the mechanical
press. Mechanical presses generate more pressure than hydraulic presses. Mechan-
ical piston presses are used for large-scale production of densified biomass. In the
briquetting process, the plunge connected to the continuously rotating center mass
Fig. 2.10 Design and operating principle of the ring die pellet mill (derived from Gemco Energy
2019)
2.1 Introduction 33
Table 2.2 Comparisons between the flat die and ring die pellet mills
Flat die pellet mill Ring die pellet mill
Cost ($) Low High
Throughput Low capacity mills High-capacity mills
(ton/hr.)
Feeding By gravity and material weight Forced feed
mechanism
Pressure Adjustable because the diameter of the Limited pressure because the diameter
rollers is not limited by the diameter of of the rollers is limited by the diameter
the pellet die of the pellet die
Damage Less damage due to low rotational More damage due to high-rotary speed
speed of the ring die
Wear More Less
Energy Less energy efficient More energy efficient
efficiency
Slide slip of Lower Higher
material
Derived from Gemco Energy (2019)
Fig. 2.11 Briquetting of biomass in a C-150 briquette press
forces the biomass through a restricted opening. Electric or hydraulic motors are
typically used. For commercial-scale production, electric motors are used, whereas,
for small- and medium-scale production, hydraulic motors are used. The challenge
with hydraulic motors, however, is when the oil heats up. Some hydraulic presses are
provided with cooling fans to reduce the heat in the hydraulic oil. A typical working
mechanism in a hydraulic briquette press is given in Fig. 2.11. Additionally, the four
different stages needed for processing biomass in a hydraulic briquette press are also
shown in Fig. 2.11. Initially, the material is preprocessed in the augur connected to a
hopper. In the next stage, the preprocessed biomass is pressed with a load pusher. In
Fig. 2.12 Continuous piston-type briquetting press (derived from Tumuluru et al. 2010a)
the third stage, the briquette is produced via the application of pressure using a
hydraulic ram. Finally, the formed briquette is discharged from the press in the
fourth stage through the die opening.
In the case of a mechanical press, which is driven by electric motors, the loss of
energy during the briquetting process is less than that seen with a hydraulic press. In
addition, the return on investment by using a mechanical press is higher than that
seen with a hydraulic press. Figure 2.12 shows the typical briquette production in a
mechanical press. In general, for the briquetting process, larger particle size is
preferred as the binding of the particle is more due to mechanical interlocking.
The major application of produced briquettes is used for heating furnaces, which
tend to be much better than those observed with conventional log use because they
have higher heating value, less particulate emissions, and they can be stored and
transported more efficiently due to a more uniform size and shape, in addition to a
higher density.
2.1.3.6 Screw Extruder
In a screw extruder, a screw rod is used to extrude biomass material where the
extruder barrel is heated from outside to maintain a constant temperature during
compression and extrusion. During extrusion, the biomass undergoes mixing, shear-
ing, and compression. During extrusion, the lignin and starch content in the biomass
2.1 Introduction 35
Fig. 2.13 Typical extruder for pelleting applications
is softened, which helps to form a densified biomass. There are two types of
extruders: single- and twin-screw extruders. Single- and twin-screw extruders are
typically used in the food, feed, and polymer industries. The twin-screen extruder
has two mutual clenching shifting screw rods, which are mainly used to bring
significant changes to the physical properties of the feedstock, in terms of size,
shape, surface area, morphological characteristics, and chemical composition. Dur-
ing the extrusion process, when the biomass material is passed through the extruder,
the shearing and mixing occur due to the wall and internal friction in the biomass.
This results in an increase in internal temperature in the extruder. If the generated
temperature is not sufficient, then external heaters are provided to maintain the
extruder barrel at the desired temperature. The heated, sheared, and mixed biomass
is further extruded through a constricted die hole to form densified biomass; as such,
the design of the screw has a great impact on the resulting quality of the extruded
products. The most common screw design configurations are the helix angle, length
to diameter (L/D) ratio (also known as the compression ratio), and a number of
mixing elements. Figure 2.13 shows a typical single-screw extruder used in the food,
feed, and biomass processing industries (Crowley et al. 2007). Extruders are divided
into different types, such as high- and low-shear extruders. High-shear extruders are
used to produce precooked, gelatinized, and heat-treated products. These extruders
are classified as high-temperature, short-time extruders, where the biomass is
preheated with steam or hot water and processed further (Harper 1981). Low-shear
extruders are equipped with moderate-shear, high-compressed, and grooved barrels
to enhance mixing. These extruders are used for low viscous materials (Harper 1979,
1981).
2.1.3.7 Roller Press
The primary operating principles for a typical roller press are pressure and agglom-
eration. The press is provided with two rollers of the same diameter rotating
horizontally in opposite directions, as observed in Fig. 2.14. These two rollers are
arranged in such a way that there is a small gap between them. When the raw
material is passed through the gap of the rollers, a briquette is formed. Various
process variables impact the quality of the produced briquette, such as the roller
diameters, the gap between the force of the rollers, and the shape of the die.
According to Yehia (2007), the gap between the rollers depends on many factors,
such as the type of the biomass, the particle size, the moisture content, and the
addition of binders. The shape of the densified biomass depends on the type of die
being used. For example, a smooth roller is used if the machine output is a sheet
having a specific thickness. Currently, researchers are looking at developing new
roller presses with multiple rollers that can produce high-quality densified products,
as seen in Fig. 2.15. These new designs are aimed toward pre-agglomerating the
biomass before it is fed to the roller press. Studies conducted by Larsson et al. (2008)
indicate that pre-compaction before pelleting helps to enhance the stable reed canary
grass pellet production process.
Fig. 2.14 Roller press for briquette production

2.1 Introduction 37
Fig. 2.15 New conceptual roller press design for biomass densification (derived from Sokhansanj
et al. 2005)
2.1.3.8 Agglomerator
The term “agglomeration” refers to the particle size growth of the powders by using
either natural or chemical binders. Agglomeration technologies are widely used in
the pharmaceutical, chemical, and mineral industries. For example, hydrated lime,
pulverized coal, iron ores fly ash, cement, and other minerals are commonly
agglomerated using binders. In the ore industry, disc granulators or pelletizing
discs are commonly used. These systems work on a tumbling technique principle
of agglomeration. In this process, inclined discs are quite commonly used. The
resulting feed is usually a fine powder mixed with a liquid—most commonly
water. The particles collide with each other in a spinning disc. If the bonding forces
are stronger than the repulsion forces, the particles coalesce and grow. In this
process, the agglomerate grows either by coalescence or by layering. The major
forces that result in this binding are van der Waals, magnetic, and electrostatic. The
agglomeration is also strongly dependent on the weight of the solid. If the weight of
the solid is higher, it can work against agglomeration. The various process variables
that impact the agglomeration of powders are: (a) pan-tilt angle; (b) rotation speed;
(c) powder-to-binder feed ratio; (d) powder feed rate; (e) feeder points; (f) rim
height; and (g) scraper position (Tumuluru et al. 2010a). According to Mani
(2014), agglomerates are produced due to: (a) the attraction of forces between
Fig. 2.16 Pan type agglomerator
solid particles; (b) interfacial forces and capillary pressure in movable liquid sur-
faces; (c) adhesion and cohesion forces in non-freely movable binder bridges; and
(d) mechanical interlocking. Studies on the agglomeration of agricultural or woody
biomass are scarce. The process of biomass agglomeration consists of the following
steps: (a) fine grinding of biomass; (b) mixing the finely ground biomass with a
binder; (c) agglomeration of finely ground biomass with a binder; and (d) drying of
the agglomerates. Figures 2.16 and 2.17 show the pan- and disk-type agglomerator
typically used by the industry. Studies conducted by Mani (2014) on the agglomer-
ation of lime-treated switchgrass and torrefied wood powder using a corn starch
binder at different concentrations (e.g., 2.5, 5.0, 7.5 wt. % [d.b.]) indicated that lime-
treated granules have a bulk density of 175–194 kg/m3, while torrefied wood powder
granules showed a bulk density of 330–387 kg/m3. Figure 2.18 shows an example of
granules produced at different conditions using torrefied wood powder.
2.1.3.9 Tablet Press
A tablet press is provided with a hydraulic motor, which turns and feeds the 4–6-inch
diameter cylindrical mold. Figure 2.19 shows a single punch tablet press (Kumar
2.1 Introduction 39
Fig. 2.17 Disk

agglomerator typically used
in the industry
Fig. 2.18 Granulation of torrefied pine chips with a starch binder using (a) raw pinewood starch
granules; and torrefied pinewood starch granules at (b) 250 C; (c) 275 C; and (d) 300 C (derived
from Mani 2014)
2011). The process of a tablet press includes three stages: (a) filling; (b) compression;
and (c) ejection. A single tablet press is also called an eccentric press or a single
station press. In this press, the compaction force on the material is exerted by the
upper punch only. Dies define the size and shape of the table formed. The major
Fig. 2.19 Energy tablet-making machine from biomass
advantages of this press are as follows: (a) a small structure; (b) a high utilization
ratio; (c) high-pressure use capability; and (d) raw material loading control. Typi-
cally, very high pressure of 20,000 pounds per square inch (psi) is applied during
compression, which results in the binding of particles without having to add binders.
The application of using a tablet press for biomass was completed by the Bradford
Research and Extension Center at the University of Missouri. Figure 2.20 shows a
sample tablet produced using corn stover. In this process, a larger particle can be
used in the binding due to mechanical interlocking and lignin mobilization because
of the high pressure. The application of high pressure in the range of 20,000 psi
results in high-unit density tablets (55 lb./ft3). Currently, tests are being conducted to
understand how these biomass tablets perform in power plant and gasification
applications (Gibson 2010).
2.1.3.10 Energy Consumption of the Densification Systems
Tumuluru et al. (2010a) and Tumuluru et al. (2011) discussed the energy consump-
tion of various densification systems. The results indicated that feedstock type and
2.1 Introduction 41
Fig. 2.20 Densified

biomass produced using a
tablet press. (Source:
Bradford Research and
Extension Center,
University of Missouri)
the specific equipment used for densification both influenced the energy consump-
tion of the process. According to Mewes (1959), 37–40% of the total energy needed
for doing this is required to compress, where the remaining energy is needed to
overcome frictional resistances. Studies conducted by Tumuluru et al. (2011) indi-
cated that for moist biomass (around 15%), energy consumption decreased as
compared to that needed for lower moisture materials (<10%, w.b.). In addition, at
very low-moisture content, a lot of steam must be added to the biomass before it goes
into the pellet mill. Studies conducted by Aqa and Bhattacharya (1992) indicated
that densification process variables, such as die temperature and preheating temper-
ature of the sawdust, have an impact on the quality and energy consumption of
the process. Their research focused on the quality and energy consumption of the
briquettes produced when sawdust is preheated to 115 C and concluded that the
energy inputs to the briquetting machine motor, die heaters, and overall system
reduced by 54, 30.6, and 40.2%, respectively. These authors also concluded that
higher throughputs through the briquetting machine reduced the electrical energy
requirements per kilogram (kg) of sawdust. Additional studies conducted by
Tumuluru et al. (2017) on pelleting corn stover at moisture content values in the
range of 13–30% (w.b.) indicated there is a slight increase in energy consumption up
to 22% (w.b.) moisture content, whereas further increasing the moisture content
values also increased energy consumption exponentially, as observed in Fig. 2.21.
Tumuluru (2015) discussed how pelleting energy changes in a flat die pellet mill for
corn stover pelleted at 28–38% (w.b.) moisture content values, as shown in Fig. 2.22.
They concluded that higher rotation speed increases the throughput of the mill,
thereby decreasing the specific energy consumption of the process. Also, they
reported that increasing the preheating temperature reduces the specific energy
consumption of the pelleting process. Tumuluru et al. (2016) studied the effect of
a starch-based binder impact on the energy consumption of corn stover pelleting
Fig. 2.21 Energy consumption of the pelleting process with respect to corn stover moisture content
in a ring die pellet mill with a 1 ton/hr. throughput
Fig. 2.22 Effect of preheating, die speed, and feedstock moisture content on net specific energy
consumption (derived from Tumuluru 2015)
process in a flat die pellet mill (Fig. 2.23). Their findings indicated that adding 4%
starch almost reduced the energy consumption by half. Similar results were observed
by Tumuluru et al. (2016) on the pelleting of woody biomass at higher moisture
2.1 Introduction 43
Fig. 2.23 Effect of feedstock moisture content and starch binder on specific energy consumption
Fig. 2.24 Effect of die speed and preheating temperature on specific energy consumption
content values of 33–39% (w.b.), where higher preheating temperatures and higher
die speeds reduced the specific energy consumption of the process, as observed in
Fig. 2.24. In the case of the briquette press, Tumuluru (2019a) has suggested that
moisture content and the particle size of the grind has a significant impact on the
Fig. 2.25 Energy consumption of the briquette production process at different process conditions
energy consumption of the process, as observed in Fig. 2.25. Their results indicated
that with a larger particle grind size of 12.7 mm and a higher moisture content value
of 18% (w.b), the energy consumption of the process increased to around 110 kilo-
watt-hours per ton (kWh/t).
Tumuluru et al. (2011) discussed the suitability of densified products for various
end-use applications. They also reported the optimum process conditions suitable for
different densification systems. This data was updated in a revised table based on the
conclusions obtained from these researchers, with additional data published in the
literature, as observed in Table 2.3. Tumuluru et al. (2011) also concluded that using
a pellet mill and a screw press help to produce a homogenous product. The major
reason for this is that by using both processes, the densification of raw material gets
mixed into the die before being extruded, and because the extruder can go to high
temperatures, carbonization of the resulting extrudate is possible. Most of the final
products can then be used for both biochemical and thermochemical conversion
applications in the production of biofuels. Their review also indicated that wear is
higher for the pellet mill, screw extruder, and roller press as compared to a typical
piston and agglomerator. Table 2.4 provides updated information regarding the
comparison of different densification systems for biofuels production.
2.1 Introduction 45
Table 2.3 Specific energy consumption for the densification of different feedstocks
Materials Type of densification unit Specific energy consumption (kWh/t)
Sawdust Pellet mill 36.8
Municipal solid waste Pellet mill 16.4
Bark + wood Pellet mill 30–45
Straws + binders Pellet mill 37–64
Straws Pellet mill 22–55
Grass Pellet mill 33–61
Switchgrass Pellet mill 74.5
Alfalfa Pellet mill 30
Straws + binders Cubing machine 75
Grass Cubing machine 28–36
Cotton trash Cubing machine 60
Hay Cubing machine 37
Sawdust Piston press 37.4
Straws Screw press 150–220
Grass Piston press 77
Straws + binder Ram extruder 60–95
2.1.3.11 Densification Process Variables
Densification system variables play a significant role in achieving the desired

densified biomass properties, such as density and durability. Controlling the densi-
fication process variables such as temperature, pressure, and retention time; feed-
stock properties such as moisture content and particle size; and biomass components
such as protein, lignin, starch, wax, and binders impact the quality of the densified
products that are produced. In general, preheating of the biomass before densifica-
tion has a great impact on the quality attributes (such as density and durability) of the
densified products. Adding heat to the biomass before densification helps to activate
biomass components, such as lignin, as well as reduces densification energy, but
results in a high-quality product. Tumuluru (2014) found that preheating corn stover
to 110 C improves pellet quality and reduces the energy consumption of the process.
Hall and Hall (1968) found that, for a given moisture content value, the pressure
addition of heat in the die reduces energy consumption and improves the durability
of the densified biomass. Hill and Pulkinen (1988) found that pellet durability of
alfalfa pellets increases by 30–35% when the pelleting temperature is increased from
60 to 104 C. Sokhansanj et al. (2005) and Mani et al. (2003) observed similar results
where they found that increasing the preheating temperature reduces the particle
resistances in the die, which in turn increases the quality of the pellets. During
densification, increasing the preheating temperature reduces the expansion of the
product as the material leaves the pellet or briquette die. Studies conducted by
Tumuluru et al. (2016) on woody biomass pelleting indicated that the expansion
ratio is influenced by preheating temperature and moisture content. Studies
46
Table 2.4 Comparison of different densification equipment for biofuels and biopower production
Extruder Briquette press Roller press Pellet mill Agglomerator
Pelleting moisture range for woody bio- 10–40 10–18 10–15 10–39 40–50
mass (%, w.b.)
Pelleting moisture range for herbaceous 10–40 10–18 10–15 10–38 40–50
biomass (%, w.b.)
Particle size Smaller Medium to larger Medium to larger Medium to larger Smaller
(4.76–6.35 mm) (4.76–19.05 mm) (4.76–12.07 mm) (4.76–12.07 mm) (135–397 μm)
Wear of contact parts High Low High High Low
Output from machine Continuous In strokes Continuous Continuous Continuous
Specific energy consumption (kWh/t) 36.8–150 37.4–77 29.91–83.1 16.4–74.5 No information
Throughputs (ton/hr.) 5 2.5 5–10 5 5
Density of briquette 1–1.4 g/cm3 1–1.2 g/cm3 0.6–0.7 g/cm3 0.7–0.8 g/ cm3 0.4–0.5 g/ cm3
Maintenance Low High Low Low Low
Combustion performance of briquettes Very good Moderate Moderate Very good No information
Carbonization of the feedstock during Makes good Not possible Not possible Not possible Not possible
densification charcoal
Suitability in gasifiers Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable
Suitability for cofiring Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable
Suitability for biochemical conversion Not suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable No information
Homogeneity of densified biomass Homogenous Not homogenous Not homogeneous Homogeneous Homogenous
Derived from Tumuluru et al. (2011), Tumuluru (2014, 2016, 2018b, 2019a), Karunanithy and Muthukumarappan (2010), and Mani (2014)
2 Binding Mechanism, Densification Systems, Process Variables, and Quality. . .
2.1 Introduction 47
conducted by Kaliyan and Morey (2006) on understanding Tg temperature found

that it is inversely related to moisture content. These authors conducted densification
studies using three different preheating temperatures—two that were within the Tg
temperature and one that was outside. Results indicated that durability was higher for
densified products produced within the Tg temperature as compared to the one
completed outside. Similar results were observed by Tumuluru et al. (2017),
where it was determined that corn stover moisture content influenced the Tg
temperature of biomass components. Studies conducted by Tumuluru (2014, 2016)
on the pelleting of herbaceous and woody biomass indicated that higher preheating
temperatures of 110 C produce pellets with higher durability values.
The compressive force applied during pelleting has a great impact on the density
and durability of the produced pellets. Butler and McColly (1959) found that the
density of alfalfa pellets is directly proportional to the natural logarithm. In general,
an increase in applied pressure increases the unit density to the maximum value, yet a
further increase does not improve density but may, in fact, have a negative impact on
pellet quality. The optimum pressure depends upon die configuration and feedstock
type, but going beyond the optimum pressure does not improve density (Ndiema
et al. 2002). In general, the application of pressure results in plastic deformation of
the biomass particles, thereby influencing the mechanical strength of the densified
products. Studies conducted by Yaman et al. (2000) indicated there is an optimum
pressure that can influence the plastic deformation of the biomass particles. Feed-
stock moisture content has a great impact on the pressure necessary to form a
densified product. Lower moisture and higher pressure produce a dense pellet,
whereas, at high-moisture content, increasing pressure results in moisture loss during
extrusion of the pellet out of the die, which reduces pellet density. According to
Comoglu (2007) and Denny (2002), the pressure applied in the presence of moisture
during densification makes the biomass particles move closer together, which helps
to form solid bridges due to chemical modifications. Studies by Demirbas et al.
(2004) on the compaction of wastepaper at 7% moisture content showed that an
increase in pressure also increased the density. Studies by Li and Liu (2000)
suggested that increasing the pressure from 0.24 to 5.0 megapascals per second
(MPa/s) increased the density oak sawdust significantly. Holm et al. (2006)
suggested that the necessary amount of pelleting pressure depends on the dimensions
of the die, such as length and diameter, friction coefficient, and prestressing pressure.
These authors also concluded that during pelleting, a back pressure needs to be
generated to initiate agglomeration of the particles. The amount of applied pressure
has a great impact on the relaxed density of the densified products. Relaxed density
also depends on the moisture content of the biomass. Higher moisture content results
in higher relaxation of the particles after densification, which can result in the
expansion of the product and a reduction in the final density. The final relaxed
density of the formed densified product depends on many factors, such as die
configuration, compression mode and intensity, and the feedstock properties
(Wamukonya and Jenkins 1995). According to Carre et al. (1987) and Miles and
Miles (1980), the expansion rate of the densified biomass is higher immediately after
pressure removal but will decrease with time until it attains a constant volume.
Shrivastava and Shrivastava (1990) used statistical analysis of rice husks to establish
a multiple correlation equation to describe percent volume expansion with respect to
die temperature and pressure, as observed in Eq. (2.1).
Y ¼ α0 þ α1 P þ α2 T ð2:1Þ
where:
Y ¼ percent volume expansion; die pressure (P) ¼ (kg/m2); die temperature ¼ T
( C).
α0, α1, and α2 ¼ constants.
The particle residence time in the die has a great impact on the quality of the
densified products that are produced (Tabil and Sokhansanj 1996c). Studies
conducted by Li and Liu (2000) suggested that retention time has a more significant
effect at a lower pressure as compared to that at higher pressures. A 10-second
increase in retention times increased log density by 5%, whereas increasing the
residence time to greater than 20 s diminished the effect significantly. These results
indicated an increase in density up to 40 s of residence time, but had a negligible
effect after 40 s. Tumuluru et al. (2020) found that increasing the residence time from
45 to 150 s during pelleting increased the unit density of the corn stover pellets for
the two hammermill grind sizes (e.g., 6.35 and 11.11 mm) tested. Studies conducted
by Al-Widyan et al. (2002) on olive cake briquetting found that increasing particle
residence times from 5 to 20 s did not result in a significant increase in the olive cake
briquettes.
The compression ratio of the pellet die is derived from the ratio of the length of
the die to the diameter (L/D) of the die. This is also referred to as die geometry and
helps to understand the degree of compression the material undergoes in the pellet
die. This is an important densification process variable that has a great impact on the
energy consumption of the overall process, as well as the energy consumption of the
pelleting process. Studies by Butler and McColly (1959) indicated that a higher L/D
ratio increased the density and durability of the pellets. Pelleting studies conducted
on alfalfa by Hill and Pulkinen (1988) indicated that pellet durability could be
increased by about 30–35% by selecting higher L/D ratios of 8–10 and a higher
preheating temperature of 104 C. In general, smaller die diameters result in higher
durability values. Heffiner and Pfost (1973) indicated that the quality of the produced
pellets using the smallest die had the highest durability values. Studies by Tumuluru
et al. (2010b) on pelleting distillers dried grains corroborated with the Heffiner and
Pfost (1973) studies where pellets produced using 7.2 mm had lower durability
values as compared to pellets produced using 6.4 mm.
2.1 Introduction 49
2.1.4 Feedstock Properties
Feedstock properties (such as moisture content, particle size, particle shape, and
distribution) impact the quality of the produced pellets. Moisture in the biomass in
the presence of temperature and pressure activates starch gelatinization, protein
denaturation, and fiber solubilization. During compression and extrusion, the starch
undergoes gelatinization and protein undergoes denaturation, which supports the
binding of the particles (Tumuluru 2018a). The moisture in the biomass up to a
certain level acts as a binder by increasing the particle bonding via van der Waal’s
forces. Studies on the pelleting of spruce wood sawdust at 7–15% (w.b.) resulted in
high-strength and dense pellets (Demirbas et al. 2004). Most of the biomasses need
about 10% (w.b.) moisture content to make a good quality pellet in terms of density
and durability. In the case of alfalfa, the protoplasm acted as a binder at a higher
moisture content value of about 19% (w.b.) (Tabil and Sokhansanj 1996c). Bio-
masses rich in starch can be pelleted at a higher moisture content, as starch in the
presence of moisture gelatinizes and helps in binding the particles. On the other
hand, biomasses higher in lignin can be pelleted at lower moisture content values.
Studies conducted on understanding the compaction characteristics of food powders
indicated that increasing moisture content values decreased deformation stresses. In
the case of wet powders, they were not deformable as compared to dry powders
because they needed more time to reach the preset load (Ollette et al. 1993; Heckel
1961; Peleg and Moreyra 1979). Tumuluru (2014, 2016, 2018a) indicated that good-
quality herbaceous and woody biomass pellets could be made in a flat die pellet mill
at moisture content values in the range of 28–39% (w.b.).
The other feedstock property that impacts the quality of densified products is
grind size. In general, smaller size particle materials results in higher density pellets
due to their high-contact surface areas. MacBain (1966) and Payne (1978) indicated
that medium to smaller particle size materials is desirable due to their higher surface
area and moisture content values, as well as better gelatinization of starch molecules.
They also indicated that a certain amount of fine, medium, and coarse grinds is
necessary to make high-quality pellets. The particle size should be optimized in
terms of production capacity. Going for smaller particle sizes result in high-
preprocessing costs, whereas going for bigger particle sizes result in lower quality
pellets. Particle size distribution should be focused on reducing preprocessing costs,
simultaneously maximizing quality. In their studies on alfalfa pellets, Hill and
Pulkinen (1988) indicated that increasing the screen size from 2.8 to 6.4 mm resulted
in a reduction in durability by 15%. These same authors concluded that the grind size
of the material should be optimized in terms of quality and production costs. Recent
studies conducted by Tumuluru et al. (2017) on pelleting corn stover using both a
6.35 and 11.05 mm hammermill grind at 20% (w.b.) moisture content value have
indicated that there is about a 50 kg/m3 of reduction in bulk density, but the
durability values of the pellets made with both grind sizes are >97.5%.
2.1.5 Biomass Composition
Biomass composition contributes significantly to the quality of the densified mate-

rials. During the densification process, variables like temperature, pressure, and die
geometry in the presence of moisture impact the chemical compositions of the
biomass. The major reactions that will occur in the biomass are protein-starch
reactions, starch gelatinization, protein denaturation, and lignin mobilization.
Tumuluru (2018b) described how the various components of biomass change due
to pressure, temperature, and moisture content values.
According to Collado and Corke (2003), starch undergoes gelatinization, pasting,
and retrogradation reactions in the presence of pressure and temperature. Gelatini-
zation of the starch plays a major role in particle binding during densification.
Protein, when heated during densification, undergoes denaturation, which leads to
the formation of new bonds and structures with the other components in the biomass
(Thomas et al. 1998; Nyanzi and Maga 1992). In his studies on the pelleting of
alfalfa, Tabil (1996) indicated that binding improves when there is enough protein in
the biomass. The fat in the biomass acts as a lubricant during densification, which
reduces friction and increases throughput (Thomas et al. 1998). If the biomass has a
higher amount of fat, then binders should be added to produce more durable pellets.
Hemicellulose, which is a heteropolysaccharide, has many sugars and other glucose
molecules. The amorphous nature of hemicellulose is due to branching, which
makes hydrolysis easier in the alkali solution. Hemicellulose can cause natural
bonding due to adhesive products that are produced during degradation. Cellulose
is an abundant source of carbon in biomass. Zandersons et al. (2004) concluded that
the binding in wood-based products mainly depends on converting cellulose to an
amorphous state. Hon (1989) indicated that cellulose is a semi-crystalline structure
that is bonded by hydrogen, which makes cellulose difficult to dissolve in solvents.
Hon (1989) also concluded that cellulose alone is not suitable as an adhesive.
Lignin molecules in plants provide structural support by acting as a glue for the
cellulose fibers. Lignin in biomass plays a major role in binding the biomass particles
during densification. Above the Tg temperature of >140 C, lignin exhibits thermo-
setting properties and acts as an intrinsic resin that helps to produce pellets. Many
studies have indicated that moisture in the biomass influences the Tg temperature of
lignin. Studies conducted by Lehtikangas (1999) indicated that the lignin molecule
softens at about 8–15%, which helps to improve the quality of the pellets. An
external binder in very small amounts (e.g., <3% by weight) is added to improve
the binding characteristics of lignocellulosic biomass, which have less natural
binding components and produce a more durable densified product. Binders also
help to reduce wear in production equipment. In pellet production, the addition of
external binders is allowed, but they should be clearly specified on the final product.
The addition of certain binders results in a corresponding increase in the sulfur
content of densified biomass.
2.1 Introduction 51
2.1.5.1 Densified Biomass Physical Properties
Physical properties (such as density, durability, size, shape, and moisture content
values, chemical composition, and energy content) has a major impact on feeding,
handling, storage, transportation, and biofuels production. The quality of the densi-
fied biomass is dependent on the feedstock type and composition, as well as the
densification process variables. It is so important to have densified products to meet
quality attributes and standards to retain their quality during storage, transport
feeding, and handling.
The final moisture of the densified products, such as the pellets, the briquettes, or
the cubes, is generally <10% (w.b.) to make them aerobically stable. Also, lower
moisture content values help to reduce losses due to microbial degradation, which
results in dry matter losses. In order to maintain lower moisture content values after
densification, it is recommended to dry the biomass feedstock to about 10–12%
(w.b) before densification. However, the major challenge in doing this is the cost.
The final moisture content of the densified product depends on the initial moisture
content, temperature, and pressure that are applied. Higher moisture content in the
densified products is observed when the initial moisture content of the feedstock is
higher. Figures 2.26, 2.27, and 2.28 show how process variables impact the final
moisture content of woody and herbaceous biomass pellets when pelleted at high-
moisture content values, respectively. Studies conducted by Tumuluru (2014, 2016)
on pelleting corn stover and lodgepole pine at higher moisture content values of
>28% (w.b) found that the pellet moisture content value was about 15–20% (w.b.),
which was dependent on their initial moisture content values. This author also
reasoned that the high-moisture pellets could be further dried in low-temperature
Fig. 2.26 The impact of process conditions on final moisture content values of corn stover pellets
made on a flat die pellet mill
Fig. 2.27 The impact of initial moisture content on the final moisture content of corn stover pellets
made in a ring die pellet mill
Fig. 2.28 The effect of preheating temperature and moisture content of lodgepole pine (LPP) grind
on pellet moisture content
2.1 Introduction 53
Fig. 2.29 The effect of initial moisture content values on the bulk density of corn stover pellets
made in a ring die pellet mill
dryers to <10% (w.b.) in order to keep the pellets aerobically stable. Very low
moisture content in the pellets is undesirable as it can result in breakdown issues, fine
generation, and the creation of fire issues. In their studies on trying to understand the
quality of pellets produced by companies in British Columbia, Canada, Tumuluru
et al. (2010b) concluded that moisture content >10% (w.b.) could result in spoilage
due to microbial and fungal damage, as well as significant dry matter losses.
The major reason why biomass needs to be densified is that it increases the bulk
density of the feedstock by four to six times. The increase in density depends on the
type of densification system used. In the case of the pellet mill, the final bulk density
that can be reached ranges from 550 to 750 kg/m3 for woody, herbaceous, and blends
of woody and herbaceous biomass pellets (Tumuluru et al. 2010b; Yancey et al.
2013). In the case of briquettes, they reach a maximum density of about
400–500 kg/m3 (Tumuluru 2019a). An increase in density has a great impact on
the storage, handling, and transportation of biomass. According to many researchers,
the final density of the biomass feedstock is largely influenced by the initial particle
size of the grind, feedstock moisture content, preheating temperature, and applied
pressure (Tumuluru 2014, 2016, 2018b; Tumuluru et al. 2016; Mani et al. 2006;
Rhen et al. 2005). Figures 2.29, 2.30, and 2.31 show the impact of process conditions
on the bulk density of corn stover and woody biomass pellets, respectively. It is clear
from these figures that process variables (such as preheating temperature and initial
moisture content value) impact bulk density. Studies conducted by Tumuluru et al.
(2010b) on the pelleting of distillers dried grains have found that die temperatures
and feedstock moisture content value have a significant impact on bulk density. In
addition, the densification of biomass not only increases density but also improves
Fig. 2.30 The effect of corn stover moisture content, preheating temperature, and die speed on bulk
density in a flat die pellet mill
Fig. 2.31 The effect of preheating temperature and moisture content of lodgepole pine (LPP) grind
on bulk density
2.1 Introduction 55
the calorific value (CV). According to Kumar et al. (2009), densified biomass
products are preferred over raw material due to its high CV, low-moisture content,
and slow-burning properties. It is generally accepted that the grind size of the
feedstock has a great impact on density (Mani et al. 2006). Studies conducted by
Bergström et al. (2008) indicated there is a marginal impact on density when the
particle size distribution of Scots pine sawdust was changed.
The durability of the pellets or other densified products is measured to understand
the integrity of pellets during storage, handling, and transportation. Durability or
abrasive resistance measurements help to simulate either mechanical or pneumatic
handling forces, which help to control pellet quality. In general, moisture in the
biomass helps to improve the durability of the densified product. In his studies on
pelleting and briquetting, Tumuluru (2019a, b) found that medium- to higher-
moisture content values >15% is desirable for improving the durability of the pellets
and the briquettes. In addition, when the feedstock is rich in water-soluble starch, the
high-moisture content values are desirable because they can act as a binder. Protein
in the biomass also helps to improve the durability in the presence of temperature
and moisture (Winowiski 1988; Briggs et al. 1999). In most lignocellulosic biomass,
lignin plays a major role in the binding of the particles. When pelleting temperatures
reach the Tg temperature of lignin, this will help to bind the particles. Typically, at a
low-moisture content value of 10%, the Tg temperature of lignin is 140 C, whereas,
at a higher moisture content value, the Tg temperature comes down. In addition,
studies conducted by Bradfield and Levi (1984) suggest that higher amounts of
lignin and other extractives >36% reduces the durability of the densified products.
They reasoned that the auto-adhesive nature of lignin and other extractives decreases
due to its excessive gum nature. High amounts of fats in the feedstocks also reduce
the durability as it acts as a lubricant rather than a binder. The particle size of the
grind has a significant impact on durability. It is generally recommended that
medium to bigger particle sizes (e.g., 1/2–1/4-inch) are desirable for briquetting,
whereas pelleting particles with a <1/4-inch grind are more desirable. But recent
studies on pelleting corn stover at 20% (w.b.) using either a 6.35 or 11.11 mm screen
size grind indicated that the durability of the pellets for both grind sizes is >97.5%
(Tumuluru et al. 2017), as shown in Fig. 2.32 and Table 2.5. These studies indicate
that grind size has more of an impact on bulk density, but not on durability. It is clear
from Table 2.5 that increasing the screen size of the stage-2 grinder has impacted
bulk density and energy consumption, but not durability. Figure 2.33 indicates how
preheating temperature and feedstock moisture content values impact the durability
of the wood pellets. It is very clear from Fig. 2.33 that higher preheating tempera-
tures and lower moisture content values improved durability values.
Pellets produced under sub-optimal process conditions (i.e., lower moisture,
lower temperature, smaller particle sizes, less compressive force, lower residence
times, and less binder) result in less durable pellets. When stored and transported,
these pellets result in the generation of fines, which are obviously undesirable. The
production of fines results in lost revenue for the pellet producer. The lesser the
number of fines, the higher the revenue becomes for the pellet producer. Another
major disadvantage of having more fines in pellets is the fire hazards they create. The
Fig. 2.32 Effect of corn stover moisture content, preheating temperature, and die speed on pellet
durability in a flat die pellet mill
Table 2.5 Pellet quality in terms of density and durability for high-moisture pellets made using
different hammermill grind sizes
Pellet quality
Bulk Green Cured
Stage-2 grinder Pellet moisture density durability durability Pelleting
screen size (in.) content (%, w.b.) (kg/m3) (%) (%) (kWh/ton)
1/4 13.5 608.4 97.6 97.9 73.78
5/16 15.3 585.5 98.3 98.8 74.97
3/8 15.8 573.6 98.4 98.6 75.73
7/16 15.5 545.5 98.4 98.6 84.34
percentage of fines once they cross threshold levels in terms of particle size and
quantity in the storage silos can lead to a dust explosion.
Calorific value (CV) is another important property of biomass feedstock for
power generation. Generally, pellets with a higher density have a higher CV as
compared to raw biomass. CV is dependent on pelleting process conditions, feed-
stock properties, and feedstock composition. The typical CVs of pellets are about
18–19 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg), according to Tumuluru et al. (2010b).
Currently, novel pretreatment technologies, such as torrefaction and hydrothermal
carbonization, are being developed with a focus on the improvement of the chemical
compositions (e.g., proximate and ultimate properties) and CVs of the biomass.
2.2 Conclusions 57
Fig. 2.33 Effect of preheating temperature and moisture content of lodgepole pine (LPP) grind on
durability
2.2 Conclusions
There are different densification systems that can be used for producing densified
biomass. The most commonly used processes are the pellet mill and the briquette
press. During densification, the biomass is subjected to compression pressure, and
temperature in the presence of moisture initiates the bonding of biomass particles.
Natural binders (such as protein, carbohydrates, and lignin) help the biomass particle
to agglomerate. SEM, dynamic analysis, and CT scan analysis indicate that the
mobilization of biomass binding components (such as lignin) helps the biomass to
form a more densified product. The energy consumption of various densification
equipment varies for different densification systems. There are various feedstock
properties and densification process variables, which have a great impact on the
quality of densified products and energy consumption of the process. Higher mois-
ture reduces density and durability, whereas higher pressures result in higher bulk
density products. The major physical properties that have a great impact on feed
handling, storage, and transportation are moisture content, bulk density, and dura-
bility. The other physical properties (such as fines and CV) impact biofuels conver-
sion processes.
References
Adapa P, Bucko J, Tabil Jr. L, Schoenau G, Sokhansanj S (2002) Pelleting characteristics of

fractionated sun-cured and dehydrated alfalfa grinds. ASAE/CSAE North-Central Intersectional
Meeting, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, 27–28 September 2002
Adapa P, Tabil Jr. L, Schoenau G (2009) Compression characteristics of selected ground agricul-
tural biomass. Ag Eng Int: CIGR Ejournal, Manuscript 1347, 11, June 2009
Al-Widyan MI, Al-Jalil HF, Abu-Zreig MM, Abu-Handeh NH (2002) Physical durability and
stability of olive cake briquettes. Can Biosyst Eng 44:341–345
Aqa S, Bhattacharya SC (1992) Densification of preheated sawdust for energy conservation. Energy
17(6):575–578
Bergström D, Israelsson S, Öhman M, Dahlqvist S-A, Gref R, Boman C, Wästerlund I (2008)
Effects of raw material particle size distribution on the characteristics of Scots pine sawdust fuel
pellets. Fuel Process Technol 89(12):1324–1329
Bilanski WK, Graham VA (1984) A viscoelastic model for forage wafering. T Can Soc Mech Eng 8
(2):70–76
Bradfield J, Levi MP (1984) Effect of species and wood to bark ratio on pelleting of southern
woods. For Prod J 34:61–63
Briggs JL, Maier DE, Watkins BA, Behnke KC (1999) Effects of ingredients and processing
parameters on pellet quality. Poult Sci 78:1464–1471
Butler JL, McColly HF (1959) Factors affecting the pelleting of hay. Agric Eng 40:442–446
Carre J, Hebert L, Lacrosse L, Schenkel Y (1987) Briquetting agricultural and wood residues:
Experience gained with a heated die cylindrical screw press, First FAO/CNRE Workshop on
Handling and Processing of Biomass for Energy, 14–15 September 1987, Hamburg, Germany
Collado LS, Corke H (2003) Starch properties and functionalities. In: Kaletunç G, Breslauer KJ
(eds) Characterization of Cereals and Flours. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY, USA, pp
473–506
Comoglu T (2007) An overview of compaction equations. J Fac Pharm Ankara 36(2):123–133
Crowley MM, Zhang F, Repka MA, Thumma S, Upadhye SB, Kumar S, McGinity JW, Martin C
(2007) Pharmaceutical application of hot-melt extrusion: Part-1. Drug Dev Ind Pharm
33:909–926
Demirbas A, Şahin-Demirbaş A, Hilal Demirbaş A (2004) Briquetting properties of biomass waste
materials. Energ Source 26:83–91
Denny PJ (2002) Compaction equations: a comparison of the Heckel and Kawakita equations.
Powder Technol 127:162–172
Gemco Energy (2019) Anyang GEMCO Energy Machinery Co., Ltd. website ©2020. http://www.
biofuelmachines.com/. Accessed 8 Apr 2020
Ghebre-Sellassie I (ed) (1989) Mechanism of pellet formation and growth: pharmaceutical pellet-
ization technology. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp 123–143
Gibson L (2010) Energy tablets, 26 October 2010. Biomass Mag. http://biomassmagazine.com/
articles/5086/energy-tablets. Accessed 13 May 2020
Hall GE, Hall CW (1968) Heated-die wafer formation of alfalfa and bermuda grass. Trans ASAE
11:578–581
Harper JM (1979) Food extrusion. CRC Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 11:155–215
Harper JM (1981) Extrusion of foods, Vol. I and II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 203–212
Heckel RW (1961) An analysis of powder compaction phenomena. T Metall Soc AIME
221:1001–1008
Heffiner LE, Pfost HB (1973) Gelatinization during pelleting. Feedstuffs 45(23):32
Hill B, Pulkinen DA (1988) A study of factors affecting pellet durability and pelleting efficiency in
the production of dehydrated alfalfa pellets: A special report. Saskatchewan Dehydrators
Association, Tisdale, SK, Canada
Holm JK, Henriksen UB, Hustad JE, Sorensen LH (2006) Toward an understanding of controlling
parameters in softwood and hardwood pellets production. Energy Fuel 20:2686–2694
References 59
Hon DNS (1989) Cellulosic adhesives. In: Hemmingway RW, Conner AH (eds) Adhesives from
Renewable Resources. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 289–304
Kaliyan N, Morey R (2006) Densification characteristics of corn stover and switchgrass, ASABE
Annual International Meeting, 9–12 July 2006, Portland, OR, USA. ASABE Paper No. 066174,
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, USA
Karunanithy C, Muthukumarappan K (2010) Influence of extruder temperature and screw speed on
pretreatment of corn stover while varying enzymes and their ratios. Appl Biochem Biotech
162:264–279
Kumar R, Chandrashekar N, Pandey KK (2009) Fuel properties and combustion characteristics of
Lantana Camara and Eupatorium spp. Curr Sci India 97(6):930–935
Kumar RA (2011) Single punch tablet press: current pharmaceutical aspects of industry.
Pharmastuff.blogspot.com (https://pharmastuff.blogspot.com/2011/11/single-punch-tablet-
press-ppt.html)
Larsson SH, Thyrel M, Geladi P, Lestander TA (2008) High quality biofuels pellet production from
precompacted low-density raw materials. Bioresour Technol 99(15):7176–7182
Lehtikangas P (1999) Quality properties of fuel pellets from forest biomass, Ph. D dissertation. The
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
Li Y, Liu H (2000) High pressure densification of wood residues to form an upgraded fuel. Biomass
Bioenergy 19:177–186
MacBain R (1966) Pelleting animal feed. Regional Feed School. American Feed Manufacturers
Association, Arlington
Mani S (2014) Low cost granulation of lignocellulosic biomass. Final report submitted to the
SunGrant Initiative. https://ag.tennessee.edu/sungrant/Pages/SGDOTCompGrants2009-Mani.
aspx. Accessed 8 Apr 2020
Mani S, Tabil LG Jr, Sokhansanj S (2003) An overview of compaction of biomass grinds. Powder
Handl Process 15(3):160–168
Mani S, Tabil LG Jr, Sokhansanj S (2004) Evaluation of compaction equations applied to four
biomass species. Can Biosyst Eng 46:3.55–3.61
Mani S, Tabil LG Jr, Sokhansanj S (2006) Specific energy requirement for compacting corn stover.
Bioresour Technol 97:1420–1426
Mewes E (1959) Berechung der druckverteilung an stroh-und heupressen (Calculation of the
pressure distribution in straw and hay balers). Landtechnische Forschung 9(6):160–170
Miles TR, Miles TR Jr (1980) Densification systems for agricultural residues. In: Jones JL, Radding
SB (eds) Thermal Conversion of Solid Wastes and Biomass. American Chemical Society,
Washington, DC, pp 179–191
Ndiema CKW, Manga PN, Ruttoh CR (2002) Influence of die pressure on relaxation characteristics
of briquetted biomass. Energ Convers Manage 43:2157–2161
Nyanzi FA, Maga JA (1992) Effect of processing temperature on detergent-solubilized protein in
extrusion-cooked cornstarch/soy protein subunit blends. J Agric Food Chem 40:131–133
O’Dogherty MJ, Wheeler JA (1984) Compression of straw to high densities in closed cylindrical
dies. J Agric Eng Res 29(1):61–72
Ollett AL, Kirby AR, Parker R, Smith AC (1993) A comparative study of the effects of water
content on the compaction behavior of some food materials. Powder Technol 75:59–65
Payne JD (1978) Improving quality of pellet feeds. Milling Feed Fert 161:34–41
Peleg M, Moreyra R (1979) Effect of moisture on the stress relaxation pattern of compacted
powders. Powder Technol 23:277–279
Pietsch WB (1984) Size enlargement methods and equipments—Part 2: Agglomerate bonding and
strength. In: Fayed ME, Otten L (eds) Handbook of Powder Science and Technology. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY, USA, pp 231–252
Rhen C, Gref R, Sjöström M, Wästerlund I (2005) Effects of raw material moisture content,
densification pressure, and temperature on some properties of Norway spruce pellets. Fuel
Process Technol 87(1):11–16
Rumpf H (1962) The strength of granules and agglomerates. In: Knepper WA (ed) Agglomeration.
Interscience Publishers, New York, NY, USA, pp 379–418
Sastry KVS, Fuerstenau DW (1973) Mechanisms of agglomerate growth in green pelletization.
Schineberger GL (1971) Understanding adhesives. Hitchcock Publishing Co., Wheaton, pp 3.6–3.7
Sherrington PJ, Oliver R (1981) Fundamentals of particle size enlargement by granulation. In:
Sherrington PJ, Oliver R (eds) Granulation. Heyden and Sons Ltd., London, England, pp 7–54
Shrivastava M, Shrivastava P (1990) Briquetting of rice husk under hot compression. In: Salokhe
VM, Ilangantileke SG (eds) Proceedings of the International Agricultural Engineering Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Bangkok, Thailand, 3–6 December 1990, pp 663–672
Sokhansanj S, Mani S, Bi X, Zaini P, Tabil Jr. LG (2005) Binderless pelletization of biomass,
ASAE Annual International Meeting, 17–20 July 2005, Tampa, FL, USA. ASAE paper
no. 056061. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, USA
Tabil Jr. LG (1996) Binding and pelleting characteristics of alfalfa, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,
Department of Agricultural and Bioresource Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saska-
toon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Tabil LG Jr, Sokhansanj S (1996a) Compression and compaction behavior of alfalfa grinds: Part 1:
Compression behavior. Powder Handl Process 8(1):17–23
Tabil LG Jr, Sokhansanj S (1996b) Compression and compaction behavior of alfalfa grinds: Part 2:
Compaction behavior. Powder Handl Process 8(2):117–122
Tabil LG Jr, Sokhansanj S (1996c) Process conditions affecting the physical quality of alfalfa
pellets. Appl Eng Agric 12(3):345–350
Thomas M, van Vliet T, van der Poel AFB (1998) Physical quality of pelleted animal feed 3:
Contribution of feedstuff components. Anim Feed Sci Tech 70:59–78
Tumuluru JS (2014) Effect of process variables on the density and durability of the pellets made
from high moisture corn stover. Biosyst Eng 119:44–57
Tumuluru JS (2015) High moisture corn stover pelleting in a flat die pellet mill fitted with a 6 mm
die: Physical properties and specific energy consumption. Energy Sci Eng 3(4):327–341
Tumuluru JS (2018a) Why biomass preprocessing and pretreatments? In: Tumuluru JS
(ed) Biomass Preprocessing and Pretreatments for Production of Biofuels. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, USA, pp 1–14
Tumuluru JS (2018b) Effect of pellet die diameter on density and durability of pellets made from
Tumuluru JS (2019a) Effect of moisture content and hammer mill screen size on the briquetting
Tumuluru JS (2019b) Pelleting of pine and switchgrass blends: effect of process variables and blend
ratio on the pellet quality and energy consumption. Energies 12(7):1198
Preprocessing and Pretreatments for Production of Biofuels. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
USA, pp 15–49
Tumuluru JS, Wright CT, Kenney KL, Hess JR (2010a) A review on biomass densification
technologies for energy applications. Idaho National Laboratory Technical Report
INL/EXT-10-18420, Idaho Falls, Idaho, USA. http://www.inl.gov/bioenergy. Accessed 8 Apr
2020
Tumuluru JS, Tabil Jr. LG, Opoku A, Mosqueda MR, Fadeyi O (2010b) Effect of process variables
on the quality characteristics of pelleted wheat distiller’s dried grains with soluble. Biosyst Eng
105(4):466–475
5(6):683–707
References 61
Tumuluru JS, Conner CC, Hoover AN (2016) Method to produce durable pellets at lower energy
consumption using high moisture corn stover and a corn starch binder in a flat die pellet mill. J
Vis Exp 112:e54092
Tumuluru JS, Yancey N, McCulloch R, Fox C, Conner CC, Hartley D, Dee M, Plummer M (2017)
Biomass engineering: size reduction, drying, and densification of high moisture biomass.
Feedstock supply and logistics platform, 2017 project peer review, US Department of Energy
(DOE) Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO), 7 March 2017, Denver, CO, USA. https://
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/05/f34/fsl_tumuluru_1222.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2020
Tumuluru JS, Fillerup E, Kane J, Murray DJ (2019) Biomass engineering: size reduction, drying,
and densification of high moisture biomass, feedstock supply and logistics platform, US
Department of Energy, Project Peer Review, DOE Bioenergy Technologies Office, 6 March
2019, Denver, CO, USA. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/04/f61/Size%20Reduc
tion%2C%20Drying%20and%20Densification%20of%20High%20Moisture%20Biomass_
NL0026654.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2020
Tumuluru JS, Fillerup E, Kane J, Murray DJ (2020) Advanced imaging techniques to understand
the impact of process variables on the particle morphology in a corn stover pellet. Chem Eng
Res Des 161:130–145
Wamukonya L, Jenkins B (1995) Durability and relaxation of sawdust and wheat-straw briquettes
as possible fuels for Kenya. Biomass Bioenergy 8(3):175–179
Winowiski T (1988) Wheat and pellet quality. Feed Manage 39:58–64
Wood JF (1987) The functional properties of feed raw materials and the effect on the production and
quality of feed pellets. Anim Feed Sci Tech 18:1–17
Yaman S, Şahan M, Haykiri-açma H, Şeşen K, Küçükbayrak S (2000) Production of fuel briquettes
from olive refuse and paper mill waste. Fuel Process Technol 68:23–31
Yancey NA, Tumuluru JS, Wright CT (2013) Drying, grinding, and pelletization studies on raw and
formulated biomass feedstocks for bioenergy applications. J Biobaased Mater Bioenergy
7:549–558
Yehia KA (2007) Estimation of roll press design parameters based on the assessment of a particular
nip region. Powder Technol 177:148–153
York P, Pilpel N (1972) The effect of temperature on the mechanical properties of some pharma-
ceutical powders in relation to tableting. J Pharm Pharmacol 24:47P–56P
Zandersons J, Gravitis J, Zhurinsh A, Kokorevics A, Kallavus U, Suzuki CK (2004) Carbon
materials obtained from self-binding sugar cane bagasse and deciduous wood residues plastics.
Biomass Bioenergy 26:345–360
Chapter 3
Densification Process Models
and Optimization
Abstract Compression tests and models are commonly used to understand the
densification characteristics of metal, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and food. Com-
pression models help reveal the behavior of biomass grinds or particles during
pelleting and can help to optimize the pressures required to manufacture a quality
pellet. Pellets are formed by using either pressure agglomeration or compaction
processes in which the particles are bound together with or without binders. The
compression models expressing the relationship between pressure and time during
the compaction of different raw materials are available in the literature. This chapter
will focus on the various compression models and their suitability for different
biomass feedstocks. This chapter also focus on how response surface methodology
and advanced computational methods can be used for densification process model-
ing and optimization.
Keywords Compression process models · Process variables · Product properties ·

Response surface methodology · Optimization · Evolutionary algorithms
3.1 Introduction
The compaction characteristics of ground biomass depend on the mechanical prop-

erties of the solid particles in their makeup. The process variables that impact these
compression characteristics are moisture, pressure, and residence time of the particle
in the pellet die. Fundamental understanding of the compression process is necessary
to design the densification system and to produce a densified product with the
desired quality attributes such as density. The compaction behavior of the powder
varies based on the power type. In general, the quality of the densified product
depends on the physical forces necessary to help the particles bind together (Tabil
and Sokhansanj 1996). According to Adapa et al. (2002), the three physical forces
that impact densified biomass production are thermal, mechanical, and atomic. There
are three different stages in compaction. In the first, the particles rearrange them-
selves to form a closely packed mass. In this stage, the particle retains most of its
original material properties, even though the energy is dissipated into the particles

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62888-8_3
64 3 Densification Process Models and Optimization
due to interparticle and particle-to-wall friction. As the compaction pressure

increases in the second stage, the particles undergo elastic and plastic deformation
as they are pressed up against each other. According to Rumpf (1962) and Sastry and
Fuerstenau (1973), an increase in the interparticle contact area results in bonding due
to van der Waal’s forces. At this stage, the particles that have not undergone elastic
and plastic deformation become brittle and break, which also contributes to mechan-
ical interlocking (Gray 1968). Where the compaction pressures are further increased
during the third and final stage, the pores inside the particles are broken, and the
density of the compacted biomass approaches the true or solid densities of its
component ingredients. If a eutectic mixture is formed at this point, then the heat
generated at the contact points can result in local material melting. Once the molten
material is cooled, solid bridges are formed. The various components that exist in the
biomass are lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose, protein, fiber, and wax. Tumuluru
(2018) discussed how these components interact during the application of pressure
and temperature in the presence of moisture. Among these components, lignin—
which is available in large quantities in biomass—has a glass transition temperature
of about 140 C. When biomass is heated in the die, the lignin softens, melts, and
exhibits setting properties (van Dam et al. 2004). Tabil and Sokhansanj (1996)
observed a similar compaction mechanism during the pelleting of alfalfa. Studies
conducted by Alderborn and Wikberg (1996) on the compaction of pharmaceutical
powders observed mechanisms such as particle rearrangement, deformation, densi-
fication, fragmentation, and attrition. Additional studies conducted by Johansson
et al. (1995) and Johansson and Alderborn (1996) on the microcrystalline behavior
during pharmaceutical table formation indicated there are two types of mecha-
nisms—permanent deformation (change in the shape of individual particles) and
densification (porosity decrease of the individual compacts). According to
Sonnergaard (2001), the compression of the particle occurs in different stages; it is
challenging to develop a mono-variate equation for the entire range.
3.1.1 Compression Models
Walker (1923), Heckel (1961), Cooper and Eaton (1962), and Kawakita and Lüdde
(1971) proposed several models to understand the compaction behavior of powders.
Denny (2002) and Mani et al. (2003) reviewed the application of these models for
pharmaceutical and biomass powders. In pharmaceutical compaction studies, the
Heckel and Cooper-Eaton models are widely used, whereas, for soft and fluffy
material, the Kawakita and Lüdde model is widely used. Studies conducted by
Tabil and Sokhansanj (1996) reviewed the application of different models for alfalfa
pellet production. They concluded that the Heckel, Kawakita and Lüdde, and
Cooper-Eaton models all fit the alfalfa compression data well.
3.1 Introduction 65
3.1.1.1 Spencer and Heckel Model
Spencer and Heckel (Heckel 1961) developed an equation to relate the density in
terms of packing fractions as a function of applied pressure:
1
ln ¼ mρ þ b ð3:1Þ
1 ρf
where:
ρ
ρf ¼ : ð3:2Þ
ρ1 x 1 þ ρ2 x 2
Equations (3.1) and (3.2) are used to describe the compression behavior of the
powder materials where the two stages of compression are described by the con-
stants m and b—pre-occupation and particle rearrangement—due to densification.
Shivanand and Sprockel (1992) indicated that constant b is related to the relative
density at particle rearrangement (ρf) by Eq. (3.3):
1
b ¼ ln : ð3:3Þ
1 ρf
Based on Eq. (3.3), higher ρf results in higher volume reduction due to more
particle rearrangement, whereas m is the mean yield pressure required to induce
elastic deformation. Higher m values higher plastic deformation due to low yield
pressure, which can be an indicator that the material is easy to compress.
3.1.1.2 Walker Model
A model was developed by Walker (1923) based on the experimental data on the
compressibility of powders and expressed the volume ratio (VR) as a function of
applied pressure (P):
V R ¼ m ln P þ b ð3:4Þ
V
VR ¼ ð3:5Þ
Vs
where:
P ¼ applied pressure per megapascal (MPa)
VR ¼ volume ratio
V ¼ volume of the compact at pressure P (m3)
Vs ¼ solid material that is free of the void (m3)
3.1.1.3 Jones Model
A density- and pressure-based model was developed by Jones (1960) for compacted
metal powder:
ln ρ ¼ m ln P þ b ð3:6Þ

1 ρ
b ¼ ln and ρf ¼ ð3:7Þ
1 ρ0 ρ1 x 1 þ ρ2 x 2
where:
ρf ¼ material relative density after particle rearrangement
ρ0 ¼ powder mixture relative density (kg/m3)
ρ1 and ρ2 ¼ component of the mixture particle density (kg/m3)
x1 and x2 ¼ component of the mixture mass fraction
Constants b and m are determined based on the intercept and slope of the
1
extrapolated linear region of the plot ln 1ρf vs. P.
Higher values of ρf will indicate increased volume reduction of the samples due to
particle rearrangement.
Constant m is shown as reciprocal to the mean yield pressure required to induce
the elastic deformation (York and Pilpel 1972). A higher m value will indicate that
yield pressure is low and plastic deformation onsets at relatively low pressures,
showing that the material is more compressible.
3.1.1.4 Cooper-Eaton Model
The Cooper-Eaton model (Cooper and Eaton 1962) assumes compression as nearly
two independent probabilistic processes: (1) filling of voids of the same size as the
particles and (2) filling of voids smaller than the particles:
V0 V k1 k2
¼ a1 e P þ a2 e P ð3:8Þ
V0 Vs
where:
V0 ¼ volume of the compact at zero pressure (m3), a1, a2
k1, k2 ¼ Constants for Cooper-Eaton model
Understanding the physical significance of the constants in the equation is the
practical limitation of the model (Cooper and Eaton 1962).
According to Comoglu (2007), it is more suitable for single-component systems.
3.1 Introduction 67
3.1.1.5 Kawakita and Lüdde Model
The Kawakita and Lüdde model (Kawakita and Lüdde 1971) includes the pressure
and volume factors:
P 1 P
¼ þ ð3:9Þ
C ab a
V V
C¼ 0 ð3:10Þ
V0
where:
C ¼ degree of volume reduction or engineering strain
a and b ¼ Kawakita-Lüdde model constants related to characteristics of the powder
P
C and P values can be evaluated graphically.
According to Denny (2002) and Kawakita and Lüdde (1971), the equation holds
true for soft and fluffy powders. The fluctuations in the measured value of V0 can
result in any deviations from this expression. A study conducted by Mani et al.
(2004) indicated that constant a is equal to the initial porosity of the sample, whereas
the constant 1b is due to failure stress in the case of piston compression.
3.1.1.6 Sonnergaard Model (Log-Exp-Equation)
A log-exp equation that considers a logarithmic decrease in volume by fragmenta-

tion and an exponential decay representing the plastic deformation of powders was
developed by Sonnergaard (2001).
V ¼ V 1 w log P þ V 0 exp ðP=Pm Þ ð3:11Þ
where:
V1 ¼ volume at pressure 1 (MPa)
Pm ¼ mean pressure (MPa)
w ¼ model constant
Sonnergaard (2001) suggests that his model provides better regression values
than either the Cooper-Eaton (Cooper and Eaton 1962) or the Kawakita and Lüdde
(1971) models. In general, this model suits the best for medium pressure applications
(approximately 50 MPa).
3.1.1.7 Panelli-Filho Model
Equation 3.12 gives the model developed by Panelli-Filho (2001):
1 pffiffiffi
ln ¼A PþB ð3:12Þ
1 ρr
where:
ρr ¼ relative density of the compact
A ¼ particle deformation parameter related to densification
B ¼ powder density parameter at the start of compression
Adapa et al. (2009) studied the compression characteristics of wheat, oat, canola,
and barley straws at 10% (w.b.) moisture content. Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5
indicate the compression models constants for barley, canola, oat, and wheat straw
using the Jones, Heckel, Cooper-Eaton, Kawakita-Lüdde, and Panelli-Filho models,
respectively. Their results indicated that the Kawakita-Lüdde model provided an
excellent fit with the R2 values of 0.99 for all the selected straws. The models also
indicated that the oat and the canola had the highest failure stress and porosity,
respectively. The Cooper-Eaton model indicated that the wheat straw samples got
Table 3.1 Jones model con- Constants

stants for barley, canola, oat,
Feedstock m b R2 value
and wheat straw
Barley straw 0.052 6.643 0.42
Canola straw 0.138 6.243 0.71
Oat straw 0.120 6.333 0.62
Wheat straw 0.089 6.418 0.47
Table 3.2 Heckel model Constants

constants for barley, canola,
Feedstock m b R2 value
oat, and wheat straw
Barley straw 0.001 0.959 0.31
Canola straw 0.002 0.724 0.70
Oat straw 0.002 0.771 0.55
Wheat straw 0.001 0.740 0.34
Table 3.3 Cooper-Eaton model constants for barley, canola, oat, and wheat straw
Constants R2 value
Feedstock a1 a2 k1 k2 R2 value
Barley straw 0.7025 0.2000 1.3025 1.3024 0.52
Canola straw 1.8141 0.9117 1.6542 6.0377 0.72
Oat straw 0.8958 0.0202 4.5734 31.7373 0.64
Wheat straw 1.4503 0.6091 11.3827 23.3329 0.64
3.1 Introduction 69
Table 3.4 Kawakita-Lüdde Constants

model constants for barley,
Feedstock a 1/b R2 value
canola, oat, and wheat straw
Barley straw 0.738 0.776 0.99
Canola straw 0.749 3.801 0.99
Oat straw 0.751 3.149 0.99
Wheat straw 0.720 1.727 0.99
Table 3.5 Panelli-Filho Constants

model constants for barley,
Feedstock A B R2 value
canola, oat, and wheat straw
Barley straw 0.020 0.866 0.36
Canola straw 0.045 0.530 0.74
Oat straw 0.046 0.576 0.57
Wheat straw 0.023 0.634 0.40
easily compacted, but according to the Jones model, the canola and oat straws
compressed more easily as compared to the barley and wheat straws.
Mani et al. (2004) studied the compression characteristics of wheat, straw, barley
straw, corn stover, and switchgrass. These authors also varied the hammermill screen
size and moisture content of each of the feedstocks. The Heckel, Copper-Eaton, and
Kawakita-Lüdde models were the ones studied, as shown in Table 3.6. Mani et al.
(2004) concluded that based on the Cooper-Eaton model parameters, the dominant
compaction mechanism for the biomass tested was the rearrangement of the particles
followed by elastic and plastic deformation, but the mechanical interlocking mech-
anism was found to be negligible. The Kawakita-Lüdde model predicted the highest
and lowest yield strength for the corn stover. Fig. 3.1 indicates that the Kawakita-
Lüdde model fits best for the agricultural biomass—such as the wheat straw, barley
straw, corn stover, and switchgrass—while Fig. 3.2 shows how the density changes
with alterations in applied pressure for these feedstocks (Adapa et al. 2009).
3.1.1.8 Holm’s Model
The fundamental relationship between the length to diameter (L/D) ratio, extrusion
pressure, preheating temperature, and feedstock moisture was used to develop the
scale-up methodology. Holm et al. (2006) showed that by balancing the frictional
forces on the pellet/die interface with the compression forces acting on the top of the
pellet, the relation of pressure to the L/D ratio could be expressed as:
PNo
PðxÞ ¼ ð exp ð4μνLR xÞ 1Þ ð3:13Þ
νLR
where x is the ratio of the L/D, P(x) is the extrusion pressure, PNo is the prestressing
pressure required to initiate pelleting, νLR is Poisson’s ratio for radial strain given
lateral stress, and μ is the kinetic coefficient of friction between the pellet and the die.
Table 3.6 Heckel, Copper-Eaton, and Kawakita-Lüdde models for wheat straw, barley straw, corn
stover, and switchgrass
Moisture content (%, w.b.)
Model Hammermill screen Wheat Barley Corn
parameters size (mm) straw straw stover Switchgrass
12 15 12 15 12 15 12 15
Pr (MPa) 3.2 2.0 1.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.7 3.3 4.8
1.6 0.8 1.7 1.3 0.6 0.8 0.5 2.3 4.8
0.8 0.4 0.6 3.1 1.9 0.9 0.6 5.5 5.1
Pd (MPa) 3.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.7 3.3 2.0
1.6 2.0 1.7 1.8 2.0 0.8 0.5 2.0 2.0
0.8 2.0 0.6 2.0 1.9 0.9 0.6 2.0 2.0
a1 + a2 3.2 1.01 1.0 1.0 0.99 1.01 0.99 1.03 1.03
1.6 0.9 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.98
0.8 0.97 0.95 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.97 1.0 0.97
A 3.2 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.91 0.91
1.6 0.91 0.89 0.91 0.89 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.85
0.8 0.89 0.86 0.91 0.89 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.82
a* 3.2 0.91 – 0.91 – 0.89 – 0.88 –
1.6 0.92 – 0.91 – 0.88 – 0.86 –
0.8 0.91 – 0.91 – 0.89 – 0.85 –
1/b (MPa) 3.2 1.64 1.60 0.71 1.07 1.09 0.63 3.65 3.92
1.6 1.71 1.15 1.78 1.68 0.59 0.44 2.04 4.03
0.8 1.29 1.32 3.05 1.70 0.75 0.6 3.97 4.03
*Indicates theoretical initial porosity of biomass grinds
Material properties and the prestressing pressure term are determined experimentally
using single pelleting tests conducted with an Instron model 5982 and a 100 kN load
cell. Initially, a small amount of material is compressed against a backstop. Material
is added and compressed until the desired length—and thus the L/D ratio—is
achieved, at which point the backstop is removed, and the maximum force required
to initiate motion is recorded.
Changing the L/D ratio affects extrusion pressure and, in turn, pellet density.
Stelte et al. (2012) considered pellet properties and scale-up based on changing the
L/D ratio up to five. These authors proved that a gap exists between their experi-
mental data and an industrial scale pellet press, as shown in Fig. 3.3. In this work, we
have developed experimental data for a wide L/D ratio, ranging from two up to nine.
3.1 Introduction 71
Fig. 3.1 The Kawakita-Lüdde model matched up with the experimental data obtained from the
densification of selected agricultural biomass (derived from Adapa et al. 2009)
3.1.2 Application of the Compression Models for Process

Scale-Up
3.1.2.1 Scale-Up Methodology
This work combines Holm’s extrusion pressure model with the Kawakita-Lüdde
density model under the assertion by Stelte et al. (2012) that for steady-state
operation, the extrusion pressure must be equal to the compaction pressure in the
die channel. The coupling of these two models is illustrated in Fig. 3.4, where step
1 defines the L/D ratio, step 2 determines the extrusion pressure for the L/D ratio, and
step 3 determines the density at the compaction pressure from step 2 (Tumuluru et al.
2017).
An experimental plan was developed to quantify the impact of different
preheating temperatures, moisture content values, and L/D ratios (see Table 3.7).
For the Holm model, the independent variables were preheating temperature,
Fig. 3.2 The density of the pellets and their empirical equations for four agricultural straw samples
at four pressure levels
moisture content values, and L/D ratio, while the dependent variable was extrusion
pressure. For the Kawakita-Lüdde model, the independent variables were preheating
temperature, moisture content values, and compaction pressure, while the dependent
variable was unit density. Fig. 3.5 indicates the single pellet press used in the present
study (Tumuluru et al. 2017).
Typical model constants for the Holm and Kawakita-Lüdde models for corn
stover at 110 C and moisture contents between 20 and 30% (w.b.) are given in
Tables 3.8 and 3.9, respectively. The coefficient of determination values indicates
that the models have adequately described the experimental data. Similar model
constants were obtained for other preheating temperatures and feedstock moisture
contents based on Table 3.7 (Tumuluru et al. 2017).
Figure 3.6 shows the pellets produced for a typical Holm model experiment for
corn stover at 110 C preheating temperature for various L/D ratios and moisture
content values between 20 and 30% (w.b.), for a constant compaction pressure of
3.1 Introduction 73
Fig. 3.3 Qualitative description showing how Holm’s model can be used for scale-up (derived
from Stelte et al. 2012)
Fig. 3.4 Output and coupling between the Holm and Kawakita-Lüdde models
190 MPa. Figure 3.7 shows typical pellets produced for the Kawakita-Lüdde
experiment for corn stover at 110 C preheating temperature at different feedstock
moisture content values. A family of curves was constructed for different combina-
tions of moisture content values, preheating temperatures, and L/D ratios based on
Table 3.9. A typical family of curves for 110 C is shown in Fig. 3.8 for corn stover.
Table 3.7 Experimental plans for both the Holm and Kawakita-Lüdde models
Model Independent variable Range Dependent variable
Holm Preheating temperature 70–110 C Extrusion pressure (MPa)
Moisture content 20–30% w.b.
L/D ratio 1–8
Kawakita-Lüdde Preheating temperature 70–110 C Unit density (kg/m3)
Moisture content 20–30% w.b.
Compaction pressure 30–170 MPa
Fig. 3.5 Single pellet press

used for generating data
using Holm and Kawakita-
Lüdde model
These curves help to predict the L/D ratios and extrusion pressures necessary to
produce a pellet with a certain unit density at a given feedstock moisture content
value. The single pelleting studies indicate that the die dimensions (e.g., L/D ratio)
govern the pressure—and in turn, the density—of the produced pellet. The Holm and
3.1 Introduction 75
Table 3.8 Empirical constants for Holm’s model using corn stover
Temperature ( C) Moisture content (% w.b.) PNo νLR μ R2
110 30 0.676 0.167 0.730 0.99
25 0.669 0.161 0.660 0.96
20 0.281 0.203 0.715 0.99
Table 3.9 Empirical constants for Kawakita-Lüdde’s model using corn stover
Temperature ( C) Moisture content (% w.b.) a b R2
110 30 0.905 1.183 0.85
25 0.913 1.277 0.99
20 0.892 0.855 0.97
Fig. 3.6 Corn stover pellets made at different L/D ratios and feedstock moisture content values at
110 C preheating temperature (derived from Tumuluru et al. 2017)
Fig. 3.7 Corn stover pellets made at different moisture contents, 110 C preheating temperature,
and 140 MPa (derived from Tumuluru et al. 2017)
Kawakita-Lüdde models show that the process is scalable; however, this must be
validated in a pilot-scale pelleting system.
Single pelleting study results show that increasing the preheating temperature,
decreasing the moisture content value, and increasing the L/D ratio results in a higher
pellet unit density, matching with the data received from the laboratory-scale flat die
pellet mill experiments (Tumuluru 2014, 2015, 2016; Tumuluru et al. 2017). Also,
Fig. 3.8 Family of curves for corn stover at 110 C for different L/D ratio and compression
pressure based on Holm and Kawakita-Lüdde model (derived from Tumuluru et al. 2017)
single pelleting studies indicate that moisture content value is an important factor in
influencing the density of a product, as observed in our earlier research on the flat die
pellet mill. The unit densities of the pellets produced at 25% and 30% (w.b.) using an
Instron matched closely with the laboratory-scale flat die pellet mill data, as shown
previously in Fig. 3.8. Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) studies have validated
the hypothesis that the glass transition temperature of lignin and other components is
lower at higher moisture content values, which helps to bind biomass particles at
higher moisture content values. The single pellet tests agree with flat die laboratory-
scale tests in confirming the DMA results for lignin glass transition
(Tg) temperatures for the high-moisture pelleting process.
3.1.3 Testing the Scale-Up Model in a Pilot-Scale Ring Die

Pellet Mill
The scale-up model developed for the corn stover pelleting process using the Holm
and Kawakita-Lüdde models was further tested in a pilot-scale ring die pellet mill.
Based on the scale-up process at an L/D ratio, the extrusion pressure was about
80 MPa for a 20% (w.b.) moisture content value. At a steady-state pellet production
process, the extrusion and compaction pressures balance each other out. At
200 MPa, the predicted value of the unit density of the produced corn stover pellet
was about 1100 kg/m3. Experiments were conducted to test the process in a pilot-
scale ring die pellet mill that was fitted with a die having an L/D ratio of nine. Corn
stover pelleting was conducted at different moisture content values ranging from
15 to 30% (w.b). The unit density of the produced pellets was about 1180 kg/m3,
which was close to the predicted value of 1150 kg/m3.
3.1 Introduction 77
3.1.4 Response Surface Models and Optimization

of the Pelleting Process
3.1.4.1 Experimental Design
Experimental designs help in product development with a minimum number of

experimental runs. The experiments are carried out for each variable at different
levels. Some of the experimental designs commonly used in product design and
process optimization are factorial, central composite, Box-Behnken, and rotatable.
According to Mullen and Ennis (1979), for product development, the rotatable
design is the best as it reduces the number of experiments for the process variables
that are tested. In the experimental design, each variable has a different value range
over which the variable will vary between upper and lower limits. Combining all the
levels for the tested variables gives the total experimental combinations. Experimen-
tal design has been used by many researchers to develop response surface models
(RSMs) for process optimization and product development (Shankar and
Bandyopadhyay 2004, 2005; Shankar et al. 2010; Rout and Bandyopadhyay 1999;
Bandyopadhyay and Rout 2001). These RSMs can be used for process optimization
using statistical or evolutionary methods (Khuri and Cornell 1987; Frazier et al.
1983; Rout and Bandyopadhyay 1999; Giri and Bandyopadhyay 2000; Sacchetti
et al. 2004; Shankar and Bandyopadhyay 2004, 2005).
According to Montgomery (1976), RSM is a collection of mathematical and
statistical techniques used in the modeling and optimization of the process. The
general form of the RSM is found in Eq. (3.14) (Montgomery 1976):
y ¼ f ð x1 , x 2 , x 3 , . . . x n Þ þ ε ð3:14Þ
where:
y ¼ response or dependent variable
x1, x2, x3, . . . xn ¼ process or independent variables
ε ¼ observed noise or error in measured the response variable y
With RSM, the first step is to find a suitable approximation for the true functional
relationship between y and the independent variables tested. In general, a lower order
polynomial in the independent variables tested is considered. If a linear model is well
fitted for the independent variables, then the approximate model fitted is a first-order
model, as shown in Eq. (3.15). If the process involves curvature, then a second-order
polynomial model is used, as shown in Eq. (3.16). These models can help to identify
the optimum process conditions for obtaining the desirable product quality attributes
(Montgomery 1976):
y ¼ β 0 þ β 1 x1 þ β 2 x2 þ β 3 x3 þ . . . β k xk þ ε ð3:15Þ
0
120
1 5 0
Unit density 1
0 0
11
5 0
10
0 0
10 > 1100
5 0
(kg m )
9 < 1060
900 < 1010
< 960
–3
850 < 910

800 < 860
110 0
Pr 10 0 38 )
eh 9 6 b.)
ea 8 0 3 (w.
tin 0 4 %
g 7 3 t(
te 60 ten
m 0 32 c on
pe 5 re
ra
tu 40 30 oistu
re 0 2 8 k m
3 c
(°C sto
) ed
Fe
Fig. 3.9 The effect of preheating temperature and feedstock moisture content on unit density
(derived from Tumuluru 2014)
X
k X
k XX
y ¼ β0 þ β i xi þ βii xi 2 þ βij xi x j þ ε ð3:16Þ
i¼1 i¼1 i<j
Tumuluru (2014, 2016) used RSM for the optimization of the pelleting of woody
and herbaceous biomass to understand the interaction effect of the process variables
on product properties. Tumuluru (2014, 2016) also used the Box-Behnken design to
understand the impact of the process variables on pellet quality attributes, such as
density and durability. This author developed second-order RSMs to describe the
pelleting process with respect to the process variables, such as feedstock moisture
content value, the rotational speed of the die, preheating temperature on pellet
quality attributes (such as unit, and bulk density and durability), and specific energy
consumption. Using these models, the author developed surface plots, as shown in
Figs. 3.9, 3.10, and 3.11, respectively (Tumuluru 2014).
RSM is probably the most common optimization method and has been widely
used for process modeling and optimization (Khan et al. 2005; Ravindra and
Chattopadhyay 2000; Madamba and Lopez 2002; Azoubel and Murr 2004). In
their research, Shankar et al. (2010) suggested the interpretation of the results
becomes difficult if the process is very complex, primarily when the process vari-
ables are greater than three.
Biomass preprocessing processes—such as densification using an extruder, bri-
quette press, or pellet mill, or grinding using a hammermill, rotary, or collision
mill—are complex and involve both the systems and feedstock variables. These
complex problems can be successfully optimized using evolutionary algorithms,
3.1 Introduction 79
640
620
600
Bulk density (kg m )
580
560
540
520 > 620
520 < 612
480 < 572
460 < 532
–3
440 < 492

420 < 452
110 0
Pr 10 90 38 .))
eh 36 .b
ea 80 0 (%
(w
tin 7 34 t
g 0 n ten
te co
m 6 50 32 re
pe tu
ra 40 30 mois
tu ck
re 30 28 sto
(°C d
) Fee
Fig. 3.10 The effect of preheating temperature and feedstock moisture content on bulk density
100
98
96
94 > 96
Durability (%
92 < 96
90 < 94
88 < 92
86 < 90
84 < 88
82
)
< 86
80 < 84
78 < 82
76 < 80
0
11
0
Pr 10 38 .))
eh b
90
ea 36 (w.
80
tin
g 34 n t (%
70
te te
on
80
m 32
pe ec
tur
50
ra
t 30 i s
ur mo
40
e 28 k
toc
30
(°C
) eds
Fe
Fig. 3.11 The effect of preheating temperature and feedstock moisture content on durability
Fig. 3.12 Hybrid GA software, developed by Tumuluru and McCulloch (derived from Tumuluru
and McCulloch 2016)
such as genetic algorithms (GAs). The evolutionary algorithm can solve a complex
problem where deterministic methods might fail. Tumuluru and McCulloch (2016)
suggested that stochastic algorithms—such as a GA—have shown more efficiency in
optimizing these complex problems.
These authors developed a new hybrid GA and tested it for biomass unit
operation grinding and pelleting optimization, as shown in Fig. 3.12. Shankar and
Bandyopadhyay (2004, 2007) and Shankar et al. (2010) successfully used GAs and
artificial neural networks to understand and optimize real-life time problems, such as
extrusion processes. These authors used a combination of RSM and GA to under-
stand better and optimize the pelleting process. Their studies were aimed at figuring
out how process variables (such as barrel temperature, screw speed, and L/D ratio)
and feedstock variables (such as feed moisture content and feed content of the
biomass mix) affect flow behavior and quality attributes (such as expansion ratio,
bulk density, and hardness). Shankar and Bandyopadhyay (2004), Tumuluru and
McCulloch (2016), Tumuluru (2019), and Tumuluru and Heikkila (2019) tested the
genetic and hybrid GAs for the optimization of food and biomass processing (such as
the grinding and pelleting process). They found that the RSMs developed for more
than three variables can be successfully optimized using evolutionary algorithms
(such as genetic and hybrid GAs). There are numerous optimization algorithms—
3.2 Conclusions 81
such as the ant colony (ACO) algorithm, simulated annealing (SA), tabu search, and
particle swarm optimization (PSO)—which are widely used for the optimization of
complex problems. These algorithms work extremely well in finding real-time
solutions to complex systems. The ACO is a probabilistic technique to solve
computational problems. SA is a global optimization technique, which finds solu-
tions by traversing the search space by generating neighboring solutions to the
current solution. A tabu search functions in a similar fashion as SA, which tests
the mutations of the individual solutions in the search space. The major difference
between a SA and a tabu search is that the former generates only one mutated
solution, whereas the latter generates many mutated solutions and moves the solu-
tion toward the lowest fitness values generated (Holland 1992; Deb 2000). On the
other hand, the PSO algorithm belongs to direct search methods that can be used to
find optimized solutions in a given search space for a given objective function. PSO
algorithm has many advantages, such as the basic algorithm that can be implemented
by the programmer quickly. Also, it can be used by a non-programmer for optimi-
zation of objective functions without any background to complex mathematical
optimization theory.
3.2 Conclusions
In this chapter, the existing compression models were reviewed. The suitability of
these equations for different biomasses was also presented. For agricultural biomass,
the Kawakita-Lüdde model provided an excellent fit having R2 values of 0.99. The
parameter of the model provides a good parameter to understand compression
characteristics. For example, studies conducted by the researchers indicate the
parameters of the Cooper-Eaton model show the ground straw samples were densi-
fied easily by the particle rearrangement method. In contrast, the Jones model
indicated that canola and oat straw was more compressible as compared to the barley
and wheat straw. In addition, the compression models can be used for the scale-up of
the pelleting process. Data obtained using the Holm and Kawakita-Lüdde models
can be used further to develop the relationship for compression pressure to density
and L/D ratio to extrusion pressure, which can, in turn, be used to identify the desired
L/D ratio necessary to produce pellets with desired density. New algorithms, such as
genetic and hybrid GAs, can be used in combination with RSM to optimize
densification process models.
References
Adapa PK, Bucko J, Tabil Jr. LG, Schoenau G, Sokhansanj S (2002) Pelleting characteristics of
fractionated sun-cured and dehydrated alfalfa grinds. ASAE/CSAE North-Central Intersectional
Meeting, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. 27–28 September 2002
Adapa PK, Tabil Jr. LG, Schoenau G (2009) Compression characteristics of selected ground
agricultural biomass. Ag Eng Int: CIGR Ejournal Manuscript 1347, vol XI. June 2009
Alderborn G, Wikberg M (1996) Granule properties. In: Alderborn G, Nyström C (eds) Pharma-
ceutical Powder Compaction Technology. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 323–373
Azoubel P, Murr F (2004) Mass transfer kinetics of osmotic dehydration of cherry tomato. J Food
Eng 61:291–295
Bandyopadhyay S, Rout RK (2001) Aquafeed extrudate flow rate and pellet characteristics from
low-cost single-screw extruder. J Aquat Food Prod T 10(2):3–15
Comoglu T (2007) An overview of compaction equations. J Fac Pharm Ankara 36(2):123–133
Cooper AR, Eaton LE (1962) Compaction behavior of several ceramic powders. J Am Ceram Soc
45(3):97–101
Deb S (2000) Optimization for engineering design: algorithms and examples. Prentice-Hall of India
Private Ltd, New Delhi
Denny PJ (2002) Compaction equations: A comparison of the Heckel and Kawakita equations.
Frazier PH, Crawshaw A, Daniels NWR, Eggitt PWR (1983) Optimization of process variables in
extrusion cooking of soya. In: Jowitt R (ed) Extrusion Cooking Technology. Elsevier Applied
Science Publishers, London, England, pp 1–26
Giri SK, Bandyopadhyay S (2000) Effect of extrusion variables on extrudate characteristics of fish
muscle-rice flour blend in single screw extruder. J Food Process Press 24:177–190
Gray WA (1968) Compaction after deposition. In: Gray WA (ed) The Packing of Solid Particles.
Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 89–107
Heckel RW (1961) An analysis of powder compaction phenomena. T Metall Soc AIME
221:1001–1008
Holland JH (1992) Genetic algorithms. Sci Am 267:66–72
Holm JK, Henriksen UB, Hustad JE, Sorensen LH (2006) Toward an understanding of controlling
parameters in softwood and hardwood pellets production. Energy Fuel 20:2686–2694
Johansson B, Alderborn G (1996) Degree of pellet deformation during compaction and its rela-
tionship to the tensile strength of tablets formed of microcrystalline cellulose pellets. Int J Pharm
132(1–2):207–220
Johansson B, Wikberg M, Ek R, Alderborn G (1995) Compression behaviour and compactability of
microcrystalline cellulose pellets in relationship to their pore structure and mechanical proper-
ties. Int J Pharm 117(1–2):57–73
Jones WD (1960) Fundamental principles of powder metallurgy. Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd,
London, England, pp 242–370
Kawakita K, Lüdde KH (1971) Some considerations on powder compression equations. Powder
Technol 4(2):61–68
Khan M, Andres A, Shankar T, Oliveira F, Cuhna L (2005) Analysis of the effect of process
variables on the osmotic dehydration of mango and process optimization using a genetic
algorithm approach. In: Proceedings of the III International Symposium on Applications of
Modelling as an Innovative Technology in the Agri-Food Chain, Leuven, Belgium. 29 May
2005, 674:181–188
Khuri AZ, Cornell JA (1987) Response surfaces: Designs and Analyses. Marcel Dekker Inc.,
New York, NY, USA
Madamba PS, Lopez RI (2002) Optimization of the osmotic dehydration of mango (Mangifera
Indica L.) slices. Dry Technol 20(6):1227–1242
Mani S, Tabil LG Jr, Sokhansanj S (2003) An overview of compaction of biomass grinds. Powder
Hand. Process 15(3):160–168
References 83
Mani S, Tabil LG Jr, Sokhansanj S (2004) Evaluation of compaction equations applied to four
biomass species. Can Biosyst Eng 46:3.55–3.61
Montgomery DC (1976) Design and Analysis of Experiments, 4th edn. Wiley, New York, NY,
USA
Mullen K, Ennis DM (1979) Rotatable design in product development. J Food Technol 33
(7):74–75, 78–80
Panelli R, Filho FA (2001) A study of a new phenomenological compacting equation. Powder
Technol 114:255–261
Ravindra M, Chattopadhyay P (2000) Optimization of osmotic preconcentration and fluidized bed
drying to produce dehydrated quick-cooking potato cubes. J Food Eng 44:5–11
Rout RK, Bandyopadhyay S (1999) A comparative study of shrimp feed pellets processed through
cooking extruder and meat mincer. Aquac Eng 19:71–79
Rumpf H (1962) The strength of granules and agglomerates. In: Knepper WA (ed) Agglomeration.
Interscience Publishers, New York, NY, USA, pp 379–418
Sacchetti G, Pinnavaia GG, Guidolin E, Dalla Rosa M (2004) Effects of extrusion temperature and
feed composition on the functional, physical, and sensory properties of chestnut and rice flour-
based snack-like products. Food Res Int 37(5):527–534
Sastry KVS, Fuerstenau DW (1973) Mechanisms of agglomerate growth in green pelletization.
Shankar TJ, Bandyopadhyay S (2004) Optimization of extrusion process variables using a genetic
algorithm. Food Bioprod Process 82(2):143–150
Shankar TJ, Bandyopadhyay S (2005) Process variables during single screw extrusion of fish and
rice flour blends. J Food Process Preserv 29:151–164
Shankar TJ, Bandyopadhyay S (2007) Prediction of extrudate properties using artificial neural
networks. Food Bioprod Process 85(1):29–33
Shankar TJ, Sokhansanj S, Bandyopadhyay S, Bawa AS (2010) A case study on optimization of
biomass flow during single-screw extrusion cooking using genetic algorithm (GA) and response
surface method (RSM). Food Bioprocess Tech 3:498–510
Shivanand P, Sprockel OL (1992) Compaction behavior of cellulose polymers. Powder Technol
69:177–184
Sonnergaard JM (2001) Investigation of a new mathematical model for compression of pharma-
ceutical powders. Eur J Pharm Sci 14:149–157
Stelte W, Sanadi A, Shang L, Holm J, Ahrenfeldt J, Henriksen U (2012) Recent developments in
biomass pelletization—A review. Bioresources 7(3):4451–4490
Tabil LG Jr, Sokhansanj S (1996) Process conditions affecting the physical quality of alfalfa pellets.
Appl Eng Agric 12(3):345–350
Tumuluru JS (2015) High moisture corn stover pelleting in a flat die pellet mill fitted with a 6 mm
die: physical properties and specific energy consumption. Energy Sci Eng 3(4):327–341
Tumuluru JS (2018) Effect of pellet die diameter on density and durability of pellets made from
Tumuluru JS (2019) Pelleting of pine and switchgrass blends: effect of process variables and blend
ratio on the pellet quality and energy consumption. Energies 12(7):1198
Tumuluru JS, Heikkila DJ (2019) Biomass grinding process optimization using response surface
methodology and a hybrid genetic algorithm. Bioengineering 6(1):12
Tumuluru JS, McCulloch R (2016) Application of hybrid genetic algorithm routine in optimizing
food and bioengineering processes. Foods 5(4):76
Biomass engineering: size reduction, drying, and densification of high moisture biomass.
Feedstock supply and logistics platform, 2017 project peer review, US Department of Energy
(DOE) Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO), 7 March 2017, Denver, CO, USA. https://
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/05/f34/fsl_tumuluru_1222.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2020
van Dam JEG, van den Oever MJA, Teunissen W, Keijsers ERP, Peralta AG (2004) Process for
production of high density/high performance binderless boards from whole coconut husk—Part
1: Lignin as intrinsic thermosetting binder resin. Ind Crop Prod 19(3):207–216
Walker EE (1923) The properties of powders—Part VI: The compressibility of powders. T Faraday
Soc 19:73–82
York P, Pilpel N (1972) The effect of temperature on the mechanical properties of some pharma-
ceutical powders in relation to tableting. J Pharm Pharmacol 24:47P–56P
Chapter 4
Advances in Biomass Densification and Its
Impact on Cost and Quality
Abstract Even though densified products have many advantages in terms of stor-
age, handling, transportation, and conversion performance, existing methods to
produce dense biomass pellets are currently not considered due to the prohibitive
costs to densify them. At present, new preprocessing technologies are developed to
address the cost and quality issues associated with conventional methods. This
chapter will focus on the advances achieved by industry and national laboratories
in terms of biomass size reduction and densification that have a significant impact on
energy consumption, cost, and quality. Also, the unit operations and their impact on
conventional and advanced preprocessing unit operations are discussed in this
chapter.
Keywords Rotary shear grinding · Fractional milling · High-moisture pelleting ·

Low-temperature drying · Dewatering · Techno-economic analysis
4.1 Introduction
The feedstock handling systems at biorefineries have historically experienced prob-

lems typically resulting from variability in the physical characteristics of the mate-
rial, including composition, moisture content, particle size, and throughput, thereby
causing inconsistent conversion of mass and heat transfer within the thermal con-
version process. Herbaceous biomass used for bioenergy applications is more
homogenous in terms of their physical properties and chemical compositions.
Feedstocks like municipal solid waste (MSW) are more heterogeneous. They contain
a wide variety of materials (e.g., wood, paper, plastic, and other organics) that
comprise the waste stream, resulting in less consistent feed handling behavior as
compared to homogenous feedstocks.
A 1980s-era Rand Corporation study showed that plants processing bulk solids
typically operate at less than 50% of design capacity during their first year of
operation, the primary reason being an inadequate understanding of the behavior
of particle systems. As depicted in Fig. 4.1, feedstock type can impact system
efficiency and operability by causing plugging of bins, augurs, downstream

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62888-8_4
86 4 Advances in Biomass Densification and Its Impact on Cost and Quality
Fig. 4.1 Feedstock type impact on the operability of the refineries
equipment, and microbial contamination due to the non-uniform cooking of particles

in the reactor (Bell 2005).
In general, particles can almost be described as the fourth state of matter. They
can develop cohesive strength and transfer stresses like a solid. They can also retain
air, take on fluid-like properties, and may be compressible and elastic. Gases and
liquids do not grow, but the particles agglomerate, aggregate, or suffer attrition, and
their behavior often does not scale.
4.1.1 Techniques to Overcome the Particle Handling

Problems
There is a wide range of alternative techniques to address these particle handling

problems. They include design improvements, control systems, and material engi-
neering. Some of the techniques that are commonly used to overcome the particle
systems limitations are described in more detail in the sections that follow.
4.1.1.1 Design Improvements
The first technique that can be used to address these issues is to implement design
improvements in the preprocessing system and/or handling equipment based on the
biomass material properties. However, this technique can be limited if: (a) a system
is being retrofitted; (b) the wrong symptom is being targeted, thereby only leading to
the creation of another challenge; (c) based on material properties (e.g., flow
behavior) that are empirical and subjective; and (d) designed only to the worst-
case scenario, which could be cost-prohibitive.
4.1 Introduction 87
4.1.1.2 Control Systems
The second technique is to develop control systems that monitor and adjust
processing conditions to maintain a consistent feedstock quality and production
rate. Examples include reactive controls, which keep a more constant mass flow,
and adaptive control that maintains feedstock specifications. This technique requires:
(a) a good understanding of the infeed material properties, particle characteristics,
and particle interactions with process equipment, which can be unpredictable; and
(b) the installation of added controls (e.g., software, sensors, and actuators) to create
a fully integrated system. The benefits include maximizing processing system and
equipment performance and control data, which provide additional knowledge of
particle systems and the opportunity to improve equipment and material engineering
solutions further.
4.1.1.3 Material Engineering
The third technique is to implement material engineering solutions. With this

technique, new systems would be inserted into existing processing systems that
are designed to alter biomass material properties. This includes: (a) densification of
biomass to overcome compressible and elastic behavior; (b) the addition of flow
additives to address cohesiveness; and (c) heat treatment to cause the mild decon-
struction of the biomass cell structures. The benefits of this technique include
implementing a solution designed to address a specific material property and scal-
ability of the solution. Limitations may include an increase in capital and operational
costs and adaptability to changing material properties. Further analysis and assess-
ment must be conducted to better understand the feasibility, efficiency, and costs for
engineering solutions and whether the capital costs are outweighed in terms of value
added by improvements in feed handling, conveyance, and storage safety.
4.1.1.4 Conventional Densification Process
Variability in the physical properties of the biomass—such as density, moisture,

particle size, shape, and composition—makes the techniques used for processing,
handling, and transporting the biomass-derived feedstocks difficult. Variability in
moisture will not only create complexities with feed handling, but could also
increase costs associated with additional preprocessing and drying equipment.
Biomass preprocessing is done to make the product aerobically stable, as well as
easy to transport, flow, and feed through the conversion process to produce biofuels.
The general preprocessing steps for woody and herbaceous biomass include size
reduction, drying, and densification. Size reduction includes unit operations—such
as chipping, grinding, and chopping—using different grinders—such as
hammermills, knife mills, collision mills, and shear mills. Drying is done to make
Fig. 4.2 Various unit operation in the conventional pelleting process (derived from Lamers et al.
2015)
Stage I Grinder 94 (kWh/ton)

9.3%
17.9% Stage II Grinder 43 (kWh/ton)
Rotary Dryer 340 (kWh/ton)
Pellet Mill 49 (kWh/ton)
8.21%
65%
Fig. 4.3 Energy consumption for the different unit operations in lodgepole pine biomass pelleting
the biomass aerobically stable. Typically, both woody and herbaceous MSW bio-
mass is available at moisture content values of >30% (w.b.). At higher moisture
contents, biomass loses dry matter during storage, which results in the lowering of its
energy content. Drying or removing the moisture from the biomass is critical to keep
it aerobically stable. Typically, biomass is dried to <10% (w.b.) using high-
temperature dryers, such as rotary dryers. Biomass drying also reduces its size.
This dried biomass can then be further densified in a pellet mill, briquette press, or
cuber to improve its physical properties, such as density, as well. Figure 4.2 shows
the various stages and energy consumption requirements typically used in the pellet
production process.
Conventional pellet production processes used in biomass energy facilities can be
capital- and energy-intensive, as seen in Fig. 4.2 (Tumuluru 2015). Figure 4.3
indicates the energy consumption of various unit operations in pellet production
processes. Table 4.1 shows the energy consumption of pellet production from woody
and herbaceous biomass and their blends. Drying using rotary dryers takes about
4.1 Introduction 89
Table 4.1 Energy constipation of various unit operations in the pellet production of woody and
herbaceous biomass pellets (derived from Yancey et al. 2013)
Conventional pelleting unit operations
Stage I Rotary Stage II
grinding drying grinding Pelletization
Biomass type (kWh/ton) (kWh/ton) (kWh/ton) (kWh/ton)
4 Crop (corn stover+switchgrass 54.83 185.64 56.52 76.36
+eucalyptus+lodgepole pine)
mix
Switchgrass 11.72 18.55 45.20
Eucalyptus 94.11 401.78 49.97 124.13
Lodgepole pine 94.11 340.77 43.21 48.94
Corn stover 19.38 34.54 56.43
65–70% of the total energy of the process. Rotary dryers have several disadvantages,
including the need for: (a) high-quality heat; (b) emission control equipment for
particulate matter and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions; (c) additional
fire protection and suppression equipment; and (d) more accurate control of material
moisture content (Tumuluru 2014). These emissions represent a significant environ-
mental challenge in the high-temperature biomass drying process. Studies conducted
by Bengtsson (2004) indicated that pine contains more extractives than spruce, and
the hydrocarbon emissions depend on the initial concentration of the hydrocarbons
in the biomass material. Studies by Rupar and Sanati (2003) on the drying of woody
biomass have indicated that monoterpene and sesquiterpene hydrocarbons, and a
negligible amount of diterpene hydrocarbons, are emitted. Jukka-Pekka and Pekka
(2003) reviewed the organic compounds emissions during the drying of biomass. At
temperatures below 200 C, most of the compounds that are emitted are lipophilic
compounds, where at temperatures higher than 200 C, hydrophilic extractives and
wood particulate compounds are observed. The emissions are about 2–5% (d.b.) for
coniferous compounds and 2–4% (d.b.) for those coming from broad-leaved trees
(Jukka-Pekka and Pekka 2003). The VOC emissions from the drying of hardwoods
and softwoods are methanol and formaldehyde—both hazardous environmental
pollutants (Jukka-Pekka and Pekka 2003). Also, these same authors indicated that
low-temperature drying helps to reduce VOC emissions significantly. In terms of
investment, rotary driers, pelletizers, and belt dryers all require additional capital.
Figure 4.4 indicates the changes in the bulk density of baled and densified
biomass. Densification increases bulk density by three to five times. Figure 4.5
shows the durability of the pellets produced using various woody and herbaceous
biomass feedstocks and their blends. One way to reduce the cost of pellet production
is to manage moisture more efficiently. The major challenge is the cost of pellet
production. According to Lamers et al. (2015), it takes about $65 to produce 1 ton
wood pellets, as observed in Fig. 4.6.
Fig. 4.4 Bulk density of raw, ground, and pelleted woody and herbaceous material (derived from
Yancey et al. 2013)
Fig. 4.5 The durability of herbaceous, woody, and formulated biomass pellets (derived from
Yancey et al. 2013)
4.1 Introduction 91
Fig. 4.6 Techno-economic analysis of the conventional pelleting process (derived from Lamers
et al. 2015)
Fig. 4.7 Cost-effective techniques for moisture management (derived from Tumuluru and Yancey
2018)
4.1.1.5 Efficient Moisture Management Through Preprocessing
Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has developed advanced preprocessing technolo-

gies that can help to manage moisture more efficiently, thereby reducing
preprocessing costs (Fig. 4.7). Kenney et al. (2013) presented a feasible approach
to reduce preprocessing costs. According to these authors, a combination of tech-
nologies such as fractional milling to reduce grinding costs, high-moisture pelleting,
and low-temperature can reduce preprocessing costs by more than 50% as compared
to 2013 state of technology (SOT) for corn stover pellet production, as observed in
Fig. 4.6. The final product delivered with 2013 SOT is a 1-inch (50.4 mm) grind;
however, using the advanced preprocessing methods shown in Fig. 4.7 not only
helps to manage moisture efficiently but also produces a pellet as the final product.
Converting biomass into pellets helps to address both moisture and particle size
variability, as well as elastic and cohesive property issues.
4.1.1.6 Fractional Milling
In the fractional milling process, the screen size of a stage-1 grinder is increased, and
a separator is inserted between the stage-1 and stage-2 grinders to bypass the
material or fraction that has already met the specifications (Kenney et al. 2013;
Tumuluru and Yancey 2018). This process helps to decouple stage-1 and stage-2
grinding, save energy, and avoid redundant processing and tighter particle size
distribution with reduced fines. Figures 4.8 and 4.9 indicate the energy consumption
for the stage-1 and stage-2 corn stover grinding processes. It is very clear from the
figures that the moisture content in the biomass and the screen size of the grinder are
inversely related to grinding energy for both stage-1 and stage-2 grinders and that the
grinding energy increases exponentially with smaller screen sizes in both of the
stage-1 and stage-2 grinders at higher moisture content values of 30% (w.b.). One
way to reduce the grinding energy of high-moisture biomass is to introduce a
separator between the stage-1 and stage-2 grinders and bypass the material that
has already met the required specifications. Figure 4.10 shows the separator effi-
ciency for different screen sizes. It is clear from Fig. 4.10 that a separator fitted with a
7/16-inch screen will bybass about 50% of the material, with the remaining material
sent to the stage-2 grinder. If the separator is fitted with a 6.35 mm screen, about 35%
of the material will be bypassed, with the remaining material sent to the stage-2
grinder. The effect of separation on grinding energy is provided in Fig. 4.11. From
Fig. 4.8 The effect of moisture content and screen size on stage-1 grinding energy
4.1 Introduction 93
Fig. 4.9 The effect of moisture content and screen size on stage-2 grinding energy
Fig. 4.10 The effect of separator screen size on separation efficiency
the figure, it is obvious that grinding energy can be significantly reduced by

bypassing the material that has already met the required specifications.
Fractional milling studies were conducted to understand the impact of stage-1
grinder screen size, corn stover bale moisture content, and grinder feed rate. Fig-
ure 4.12 indicates the fractional milling process tested. Experiments were conducted
on corn stover using fractional milling technology using the hammermills currently
part of the Process Demonstration Unit (PDU) at INL. Data on separation efficiency
Fig. 4.11 The effect of separation efficiency on grinding energy
Meet the specifications
Outputs
Corn Stage-1 Separator Stage-2 ∑ Total energy of
stover grinder (1/4-inch grinder the stage 1& 2
bales (2, 3, 4, and (6.35 mm) (1/4-inch grinding
6-inch (50.4, grind) (6.35 mm) (kWh/ton)
76.2, 101.6, grind)
∑ Geometric
152.4 mm)
mean particle
screen) size (mm)
Does not meet the
specifications ∑ Final moisture
of the grind
(%, w.b.)
Fig. 4.12 Flow diagram of the fractional milling process tested for different moisture corn stover
bales
Table 4.2 Process variables tested for corn stover fractional milling studies
Process variables Lower limit Upper limit
Stage-1 grinder screen size (inch) (x1) 2-inch (50.4 mm) 6-inch (152.4 mm)
Bale moisture content (%, w.b.) (x2) 5 25
Feed rate (%) (x3) 2 12
were collected from testing at INL, Rotex Screeners, and Bulk Handling Systems
BHS LLC. The process data on stage-1, stage-2, and separations were collected and
modeled. Table 4.2 indicates the process variables used for the fractional milling
4.1 Introduction 95
studies. The product properties are geometric mean particle size, % bypassed, and
final moisture of the grind. Also, the total grinding energy was measured.
Surface plots were developed to understand the effect of process variables on the
product properties and total energy consumption. Surface plots were drawn for the
grinding process variables (i.e., screen size, bale moisture content, and feed rate)
with respect to total grinding energy and ground corn stover properties, such as
geometric mean particle size, % bypassed, and final moisture content of the grind.
4.1.1.7 Total Grinding Energy (Stage-1 + Stage-2 Grinders)
Figures 4.13 and 4.14 show how total grinding energy (stage-1 + stage-2) changes
with respect to bale moisture content, screen size, and feed rate. It is very clear from
Fig. 4.13 that increasing bale moisture content had a greater impact on increasing the
total grinding energy than increasing the screen size. Figure 4.14, which is drawn
between feed rate and screen size, indicated that higher feeding rates of 12% and a
bigger screen size of 6 mm help to reduce the total grinding energy to about
<27 kWh/ton for bales at 20% moisture content. The same figure indicates that
screen size has a less significant effect on the grinding energy compared to feed rate.
Lowering the biomass feed rate increased the total grinding energy to >55 kWh/ton.
Fig. 4.13 Effect of stage-1 grinder screen size and bale moisture content on the total grinding
energy at a 10% feed rate
Fig. 4.14 Effect of feed rate and stage-1 grinder screen size on the total grinding energy at 20%
bale moisture content
4.1.1.8 Geometric Mean Particle Size
Surface plots were also drawn for the geometric mean particle size of the particles
produced during fractional milling. Figure 4.15 is drawn for the screen size of the
stage-1 grinder and bale moisture content. The results indicated that both the screen
size of the stage-1 grinder and bale moisture content has a significant effect on the
geometric mean particle size. The geometric mean particle size increased with
increasing bale moisture content and screen size. Using a 6-inch screen in
the stage-1 grinder and a 1/4-inch screen in the stage-2 grinder at 25% bale moisture
content produced a particle with geometric particle size >1.2 mm, whereas using a
2-inch screen in the stage-1 grinder and a 1/4-inch screen in the stage-2 grinder at a
bale moisture content of 5% produced a geometric mean particle size <0.825 mm.
For a 3-inch screen size in the stage-1 grinder, increasing the bale moisture content
and feed rate increased the geometric mean particle size (Fig. 4.16). A maximum
geometric mean particle size of >1.1 was observed at 25% (w.b.) bale moisture
content and 12% feed rate. Figure 4.17 indicates that both bale moisture content and
feed rate has a significant effect on the geometric mean particle size. The smallest
mean particle size of <0.76 mm was observed at a bale moisture content of 5% and a
feed rate of 2%. Figure 4.17, which is drawn for feed rate and screen size, indicates
that lowering the feed rate to 2% and going for a smaller screen size of 2 inches in
the stage-1 grinder at 20% bale moisture content reduces the geometric mean particle
size to <0.9 mm.
4.1 Introduction 97
Fig. 4.15 Effect of stage-1 grinder screen size and bale moisture content on the geometric mean
particle size at a 10% feed rate
Fig. 4.16 Effect of bale moisture content and feed rate on the geometric mean particle size for
3-inch screen size
Fig. 4.17 Effect of feed rate and stage-1 grinder screen size on the geometric mean particle size at
20% bale moisture content
4.1.1.9 Grind Moisture Content
Surface plots were drawn to understand how the screen size in the stage-1 grinder,
the feed rate, and the bale moisture content affect the final moisture content of the
grind produced after fractional milling. Figure 4.18 indicates that bale moisture
content has a significant impact on the final moisture content of the grind produced
after fractional milling. At 25% bale moisture content and a 2% feed rate, the final
moisture content of the grind was about 12.5%. This indicates that there is about
12–13% moisture loss during the fractional milling process. Figure 4.19 indicates
that the feed rate did not have a significant impact on the final grind moisture
compared to bale moisture content. At 25% bale moisture content and a 2% feed
rate, the final moisture content was about >14% for a 3-inch screen. Figure 4.20
drawn for screen size and feed rate indicates that both the process variables had a
significant effect on the grind moisture content. Similar plots were drawn for percent
bypass using the equation in Table 4.1. The results indicate that increasing the screen
size, moisture content, and feed rate have reduced the percent bypass of the material
that has met the specifications. Further work is aimed at developing response surface
models, which can help to understand the interactive effect of the process variables
on the total grinding energy, geometric mean particle size, final moisture content of
the grind, and percent bypass.
4.1 Introduction 99
Fig. 4.18 Effect of stage-1 grinder screen size and bale moisture content on final grind moisture
content at a 10% feed rate
Fig. 4.19 Effect of bale moisture content and feed rate on the final grind moisture content for
3-inch screen size
Fig. 4.20 Effect of feed rate and stage-1 grinder screen size on the final grind moisture content at a
20% bale moisture content
4.1.1.10 High-Moisture Pelleting and Low-Temperature Drying
One way to decrease drying costs and manage feedstock moisture content more
efficiently is to use a high-moisture pelleting process coupled with a
low-temperature drying method. High-moisture pelleting differs from current
pelleting SOT by replacing the drying step (typically using a rotary dryer) after
grinding with a low-temperature dryer (approximately 110 C) for a short duration
(typically several minutes) prior to pelleting. Instead, drying is an optional process
that is inserted after pelleting. The main advantage of this method is that it provides
an economical alternative to biomass drying. The combination of preheating, fric-
tional heat generated in the pellet die, and cooling the pellets in a pellet cooler all
help to partially dry the biomass, thereby removing about 10–12 points of moisture
(e.g., from 30% down to about 18 to 20% w.b.) (Tumuluru 2014, 2015; Tumuluru
et al. 2016). The produced pellets can be dried further, if necessary, to stable
moisture content values of <10% (w.b.) using low-temperature and low-capital
cost dryers, such as grain dryers (Kenney et al. 2013). In their studies, Lamers
et al. (2015) indicated that a 5 ton/hr. rotary drier costs about $340,000, where a
grain dryer costs about $33,000. Further, by moving the drying step to the end of the
process, drying becomes optional and only used when high-durability, stability, and
density are required, such as with long-distance transportation. INL believes that
pelleting (even without drying) will provide a viable solution for feedstock handling
and feeding problems, mainly when dealing with high- or variable-moisture
feedstocks.
4.1 Introduction 101
4.1.1.11 Fractional Milling and High-Moisture Pelleting Demonstration
The fractional milling, high-moisture pelleting, and low-temperature drying tech-

nologies not only help to reduce the cost of preprocessing by 50% as compared to
current SOT for corn stover, but also turn the corn stover into an aerobically stable
densified product (Kenney et al. 2013). In 2016, fractional milling and high-moisture
pelleting were demonstrated for corn stover at the pilot-scale (Tumuluru et al. 2017).
In September 2017, the integrated demonstration of fractional milling and higher
moisture pelleting, as well as the further cooling of the pellets in a pellet cooler, was
demonstrated using a 5 ton/hr. process demonstration unit (PDU) in the Biofuels
Department at INL. In this demonstration, corn stover bales at 25% moisture content
were processed based on the criteria provided previously in Fig. 4.7. The results
indicated this process has a very significant effect on the cost of pellet production, as
well as the quality of the pellets. This process has also helped to manage moisture
content more efficiently. Combined fractional milling and high-moisture pelleting
have reduced the moisture content in a corn stover bale from 25% down to about
12–13% (w.b.). These pellets were then cooled further in a pellet cooler to bring the
moisture content down to <10% (w.b). The wet or high-moisture pellet durability
was >97.5% in all the different process conditions tested. Another important variable
that has improved the high-moisture pelleting process is the screen size of the stage-2
grinder. Commercial pellet producers recommend using a 1/4-inch grind in a
hammermill to produce good quality pellets. But recent studies have indicated that
using a 1/4-inch screen in the stage-2 grinder, especially at high-moisture content,
increases the grinding energy significantly (Tumuluru et al. 2019). In its fractional
milling and high-moisture pelleting demonstration project, INL changed the screen
size of the stage-2 grinder to 7/16-inch and 1/2-inch to make grinding energy less
sensitive to moisture content. This larger grind size was further sent to the pellet mill
to produce pellets (Tumuluru et al. 2019).
Data regarding pellet quality produced after cooling is provided in Fig. 4.21,
which indicates that the pellet has a smooth surface texture as compared to the pellets
produced using conventional methods. In addition, the quality of the produced
pellets was similar to the pellets made using a conventional method (Yancey et al.
2013). From the figure, it is evident that the pellets produced using high-moisture
corn stover bales meet the quality specifications as defined by the Pellet Fuels
Institute (PFI) and the European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Bulk density
and durability are >630 kg/m3 and > 97.5%, respectively (Tumuluru et al. 2019). The
results indicate that the change in the particle grind size used for pelleting did not
impact the quality of the pellets but resulted in a slight increase in pelleting energy
(e.g., 40 kWh/dry ton for 1/4-in., 51 kWh/dry ton for 7/16-in., 62 kWh/dry ton for 1/
2-in.). A full-blown techno-economic analysis (TEA) was conducted based on this
data in terms of throughput, energy consumption, and capital costs of fractional
milling, high-moisture pelleting, and cooling. The results indicate there is about a
65% reduction in pellet production costs as compared to the conventional pelleting
method followed by industry, as observed in Fig. 4.22.
Fig. 4.21 Corn stover pellets produced using novel preprocessing technologies developed by INL
(corn stover bales were processed using commercial-scale grinders and pellet mills available with
Biomass National User Facility, INL)
Fig. 4.22 Techno-economic analysis of fractional milling and low-temperature drying using the
data produced using BFNUF (Biomass Feedstock National User Facility)
INL also observed that the length to diameter (L/D) ratio of the pellet die and the
moisture content of the corn stover grind during high-moisture pelleting has a
significant impact on pellet quality, especially bulk density and durability. Fig-
ures 4.23, 4.24, and 4.25 show the effect of L/D ratio and corn stover grind moisture
content on bulk density, durability, and pelleting energy consumption, respectively.
This data was produced using a pilot-scale ring die pellet mill (1 ton/hr.). The results
indicate that bulk density, durability, and pelleting energy are influenced by both the
moisture content of the biomass and the L/D ratio of the die. A higher L/D ratio and a
lower corn stover moisture content increase the density and durability, whereas
lower density in the range of 25–30 lbs./ft3 is achievable at a higher moisture content
and a lower L/D ratio. The high-moisture pelleting process is so flexible that the
process can be optimized to produce pellets that are more desirable for transportation
and conversion process requirements.
Fig. 4.23 Pellet die L/D ratio and grind moisture effect on bulk density
Fig. 4.24 Pellet die L/D ratio and grind moisture content effect on cured durability
Fig. 4.25 Pellet die L/D ratio grind moisture content effect on pelleting energy
4.1.1.12 TEA of Fractional Milling, High-Moisture Pelleting,

and Low-Temperature Drying
Figure 4.26 shows how grinding energy changes by using the stage-1 and stage-2
grinders. It also shows how moisture content impacts grinding energy. The conven-
tional preprocessing cost to produce a densified product, such as a pellet, is given in
Table 4.3. This table indicates that drying and stage-1 grinding account for the
majority of the costs as compared to stage-2 grinding and pelleting. Figures 4.8 and
4.9 previously described the grinding costs for stage-1 and stage-2 grinders using the
conventional method followed by industry. Table 4.4 indicates the grinding costs
with stage-1 and stage-2 grinders with a separator (Tumuluru and Yancey 2018). It is
clear from this table that changing the screen size from 25.4 mm to 6.35 mm in the
stage-2 grinder increases grinding costs by almost six times. In addition, moisture
content has a significant effect on grinding costs as well.
Fig. 4.26 Corn stover grinding cost using a stage-1 and stage-2 grinder for different moisture
content values and screen sizes (derived from Tumuluru and Yancey 2018)
Table 4.3 Conventional 2013 State of technology (2011 $/dry T)

preprocessing systems cost
Grinder 1 16.80
(derived from Kenney et al.
2013) Grinder 2 11.60
Drying 15.20
Densification 7.70
Totals 51.30
Table 4.4 Grinding cost demonstrated in 2016 using stage-1 and stage-2 grinders and a separator
(derived from Tumuluru and Yancey 2018)
Cost (in 2014 $/dry ton)
10% M.C. 30% M.C. 10% M.C. 30% M.C.
Grinding 76.2 mm screen 76.2 mm screen 76.2 mm screen 76.2 mm screen
conditions in stage-1 and in stage-1 and in stage-1 and in stage-1 and
(bale moisture 25.4 mm screen 25.4 mm screen 6.35 mm screen 6.35 mm screen
and screen size) in stage-2 in stage-2 in stage-2 in stage-2
Stage 1 grinder $2.55 $11.67 $2.55 $11.67
costs
Separator $0.37 $0.37 $0.37 $0.37
Stage 2 grinder $1.06 $3.09 $2.33 $13.42
costs
Total $3.98 $15.13 $5.25 $25.45
4.1.1.13 High-Moisture Pelleting
The TEA shown in Table 4.5 provides the cost of pelleting production using the
high-moisture pelleting and low-temperature drying process. The cost to produce
corn stover pellets using a rotary dryer and low-moisture pelleting is $22.50/dry ton,
as shown in Table 4.5. The high-moisture pelleting conducted on corn stover at 20%
(w.b.) cost about $9.38/dry ton, which is also shown in Table 4.5. The high-moisture
pelleting reduces pelleting costs by about $12.92/dry ton—a reduction of 40% as
compared to the conventional pelleting process. In the conventional case, the dryer is
a rotary dryer, and the high-moisture pelleting case uses a crossflow grain dryer, both
fueled by natural gas at $7.55/MMBTU (million BTU). Additionally, the type of
dryer has changed from a traditional grain dryer with a capital cost of $270,000,
which is more efficient, has a less capital-intensive crossflow grain dryer, and a
capital cost of $35,009 (Lamers et al. 2015). The change from a rotary dryer
(conventional case) to a crossflow grain dryer has significantly reduced costs
(Lamers et al. 2015). Table 4.6 indicates the cost to preprocess a bale with a 30%
w.b. moisture content using fractional milling with a 3-inch screen in the stage-1
grinder and a 1/4-inch screen in the stage-2 grinder, followed by high-moisture
pelleting and low-temperature drying. The table clearly indicates that the cost to
produce pellets using corn stover bales at a 30% w.b. moisture content using
fractional milling, high-moisture content, and low-temperature drying has reduced
by about 50% as compared to the traditional method (Lamers et al. 2015). Table 4.7
indicates the cost of pellet production when the screen size of the stage-2 grinder is
switched from 1/4-inch to 7/16-inch. It is also clear from the table that increasing the
stage-2 grinder screen size to a 7/16-inch screen reduces the pellet production cost by
about $4/dry ton.
Table 4.5 TEA of conventional and high-moisture pelleting process (derived from Tumuluru and
Yancey 2018)
Total
Densifier ($/dry
Case studies ($/dry ton) Dryer ($/dry ton) ton)
Conventional 7.70 15.20 (from initial moisture of 30% w.b. to final 22.50
(Kenney et al. moisture of 12% w.b. using a rotary dryer)
2013)
HMPP with a 8.31 1.27 9.58
grain dryer
Table 4.6 Overall costs to produce pellets using fractional milling, high-moisture pelleting, and
low-temperature drying (derived from Tumuluru and Yancey 2018)
Corn stover feedstock Cost Moisture loss Mill throughput
(30% w.b.) ($/ton) Energy (kWh/ton) (% w.b.) (dry ton/hr.)
Stage-1 (3-in. grind) 10.78 15.9 30 3.0
Stage-2 (1/4-in. grind) 8.52 35.3 (54.3 w/ 35% 25 2.2
bypass)
Separator screen size 0.21 1 5
(1/4-in.)
Pelleting 8.31 73 19 4.8
Drying (grain dryer) 1.27 50 10 5
Total 29.09
Table 4.7 The effect of stage-2 grinder screen size on pellet production costs (derived from
Tumuluru et al. 2017)
Stage-2 grinder screen size Pellet production cost ($/dry ton)
Case-1 (stage-2 grinder fitted with 1/4-in. screen size) 29.09
Note: Preprocessing cost targets achieved with fractional milling, high-moisture pelleting, and
low-temperature drying using pilot-scale systems
4.1.1.14 Comparison of Conventional Pelleting, High-Moisture

Pelleting, and Conventional Briquetting Processes
Figures 4.27 and 4.28 indicate the total energy consumption and overall costs,
respectively, for making pellets using a conventional pelleting process (CPP), a
high-moisture pelleting process (HMPP), and a conventional briquetting process
(CBP) where the raw material is dried to 10% (w.b.) before briquetting with a bigger
hammer screen size of 1/2-inch (Tumuluru et al. 2014). The TEA indicated that even
though the energy consumption of the conventional briquetting process is less as
compared to the CPP, the total costs are higher by about 9.8% (w.b.) for briquettes as
compared to pellets. This increase in the total cost can be attributed to higher capital
costs involved in a briquetting press due to limitations in their production capacities,
Fig. 4.27 Comparison of energy consumption for the different densification processes (derived
from Tumuluru et al. 2014)
Fig. 4.28 Comparison of costs for the different densification processes (derived from Tumuluru
et al. 2014)
which equates to 2 ton/hr. as compared to 5 ton/hr. for a pellet mill. The TEA also
indicated that a significant reduction in energy consumption and costs could be
achieved using the high-moisture pelleting process as compared to the CPP and
CBP.
4.1.1.15 Novel Technologies to Reduce the Biomass Preprocessing Costs

Using Low-Temperature Drying and Dewatering Technologies
According to Roos (2013), biomass drying helps to improve combustion efficiency,

which results in higher steam production, a reduction in emissions, and an increase
in boiler efficiency. For example, with wood chips at 45% (w.b.) moisture content,
the maximum boiler efficiency achieved using a standard system is about 74%
(w.b.), whereas if dried woodchips at about 10% (w.b.) are used in the same system,
the system efficiencies go up to about 80% (w.b.). This increase in system efficien-
cies can also result in higher steam production (Roos 2013). The other challenges in
burning high-moisture wood chips are to keep the flame burning, whereas dry fuels
tend to burn hotter and more evenly for longer, as well as to reduce ash quantity.
Another significant advantage in drying biomass fuels is that it reduces fuel trans-
portation costs and keeps the fuel aerobically stable (i.e., minimizing dry matter
losses). The moisture content of woody and some herbaceous biomasses after
harvesting is higher than 30% (w.b.). Table 4.8 provides a list of the high-moisture
content values for some of the more common woody, herbaceous, food waste, and
manure biomasses (Roos 2013), such as apple pomace, cherry, pine chips, pulp, and
paper mill sludges, corn cob, cow manure, and MSW.
Table 4.8 Moisture content by weight of several biomass feedstocks as received

Feedstock Moisture content (%, w.b.)
Food wastes
Fruits
Apple pomace 72
Cherry 37.8
Orange peels 10.8
Melon shells 27.6
Nuts
Black walnut Shell 11.6
Peanut hulls 9
Peanut skins 8
Vegetables
Wet potato wastes 86
Forest products
Pine chips 54.6
Pine sawmill waste 11.3
Construction waste 12–17
Pulp & Paper Mill Sludge 50–70
Agricultural waste
Rice husks 10 (as received) 8 (air-dried)
Corn cob 10–43
Soy hulls 9
(continued)

Feedstock Moisture content (%, w.b.)
Food wastes
Lactating cow manure 88 (as excreted)
98 to 99.7 (from milk house or parlor)
Fresh and marine biomass
Municipal waste >95
Sewage sludge-biosolids 90–97
Septage-biosolids 98
Municipal solid waste 12–32
Other
Fish waste 76
Fruits and vegetables waste-grocery store 88
4.1.1.16 Low- and Medium-Temperature Drying Technologies
Low- and medium-temperature drying technologies are gaining a lot of attention as

compared to high-temperature biomass drying. This is primarily due to: (a) lower
capital costs; (b) low-operational costs; (c) low-volatile organic emissions during
drying; (d) fewer particulate emissions; and (e) fewer fire hazards. As indicated in
Table 4.7, most of the biomass used for biofuels production at the time of harvest
results in high moistures. However, these also need to be dried to even less moisture
content (typically up to 10%, w.b.) in order to effectively mill and further densify.
High-moisture content values in the biomass have a negative impact on grinding as
most grinding systems currently used by industry are sensitive to moisture. There are
two methods of drying—passive and active. The major drawback of passive drying
is that it takes more time and limits the availability of biomass for biorefineries. In
addition, high-temperature drying—such as using a rotary dryer—commonly used
by biorefineries, paper, and pulp factories, and lumber mills are very energy-
intensive, requiring a high-quality heat. Studies conducted by many researchers
have suggested that drying is the major energy consumer in the pellet production
process (Tumuluru 2015, 2016). All these issues resulted in biorefineries to look for
alternative ways to dry biomass at lower costs.
4.1.1.17 Low-Temperature Drying of Biomass
Compared to high-temperature drying processes (i.e., rotary dryers),

low-temperature drying methods are less expensive and require less equipment
and less external energy input. The commonly used low-temperature dryers are
belt dryers, where fans blow the drying medium in either an upward or downward
direction (Tumuluru and Yancey 2018) as these dryers operate at temperatures
<100 C, low-grade fuel—such as hog fuel—can be used to generate heat. A typical
conveyor or belt dryer used by industry is shown in Fig. 4.29. The typical
Fig. 4.29 Typical conveyor or belt dryer for biomass drying
temperatures used for the drying of biomass using low-temperature methods are
somewhere between 60 and 80 C. Examples of low-temperature dryers are cabinet
dryers, grain dryers, and belt dryers (Lamers et al. 2015).
The major advantages of low-temperature drying are: (a) decreasing air pollutants
from the drying process; and (b) energy-efficiency due to low-temperature dryer
settings. The increase in efficiency is due to less heat loss through the dryer due to a
smaller temperature gradient. The other advantage of low-temperature drying is low
fuel consumption. This gives the flexibility to utilize low-potential heat sources—like
sun, heat pumps, and waste heat—from production. Low-temperature is widely used
in food processing industries—especially in the drying of fruits, vegetables, and
grains. As the components of food and other physical, color, and textural properties
are sensitive to higher temperatures, low-temperature drying is the most preferred
option (Nagaya et al. 2006; Zlatanović et al. 2013). In Europe, low-temperature drying
technologies are gaining more importance in biomass drying due to environmental and
cost concerns. In their study on methods to produce durable pellets at lower energy
consumption, Tumuluru et al. (2016) indicated that low-temperature drying methods
have several advantages: (a) higher efficiency; (b) a reduced fire hazard; (c) no need of
high-quality heat; (d) reduced VOC emissions; (e) reduced particulate emissions;
(f) no high-clay agglomeration or sticky biomass; and (g) easy access for maintenance
(Tumuluru et al. 2016). Currently, low-temperature dryers such as grain or belt dryers
are available at a commercial scale (e.g., >5 ton/hr.). These dryers are so flexible that
they can be used for a variety of products. Examples of companies currently selling
these commercial-scale belt dryers include Haarslev Industries A/S, Bogensevej DK,
and Perry of Oakley, Devon, UK. Conveyor dryers are available in single- and multi-
layer formats. The footprint of single-pass conveyor dryers is typically larger than a
comparably sized rotary dryer. Multi-pass conveyors are arranged one above the other
with material cascading down from the upper conveyors to the lower conveyers,
saving a considerable amount of space. Multi-pass dryers are very common in many
industries due to their small footprint and lower costs. The capital cost of conveyor and
rotary dryers is often comparable. However, a conveyor dryer may require less
ancillary equipment for the treatment of emissions. As such, for new installations,
the overall costs may be less. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are higher for
these types of dryers as compared to rotary dryers. Multi-pass dryers are more complex
than single-pass dryers. As such, they have higher O&M costs than single-pass dryers.
4.1.1.18 Medium-Temperature Dryers
Cascade dryers, flash dryers, and superheated steam dryers operate at medium drying
temperatures. These dryers are widely used for biomass drying. The biomass
material in these dryers is introduced into a hot air stream current. The air is initially
carried upward and further cascades back to the bottom where it is lifted again. Flash
dryers are generally cost-effective only at larger scales. Electricity use by flash
dryers is greater than that of other dryer types because high airflows are required
to keep the material suspended. Flash dryers require a small particle size, so
shredders may be required, which leads to increased electrical use. Flash dryers
have a small footprint. On the downside, they are subject to corrosion and erosion
problems. They also have a fire risk following the shutdown of the dryer.
Cascade dryers typically operate at intermediate temperatures of lower and higher
temperature dryers. In the case of flash dryers, the feedstock is suspended in an
upward flow of the drying medium, which is generally flue gas. These dryers are
used for a wide variety of materials. The particle needs to be smaller in size to
suspend them in the flue gas in a flash dryer. Superheated dryers are like flash dryers,
but instead of flue gas, steam is used in the medium. In steam dryers, the temperature
of the steam is normally kept above the saturation temperature in order to avoid
steam condensation, thereby transferring the only sensible heat.
These dryers can be operated in a closed-loop with low-pressure steam from the
dryers where the steam can be reheated and injected back into the dryer. As there is a
large quantity of steam that leaves the dryer, the excess steam can be recovered and
used in other processes where a lot of this energy can be recovered. There are no
emissions associated with these dyers, as well as no fire hazards. Therefore, the
footprint of these dryers is smaller as compared to high-temperature rotary dryers.
4.1.1.19 Dewatering Technologies to Manage Moisture More Efficiently
Among the various unit operations in the pellet production process, drying is the
most energy-intensive. As investigated by many researchers, drying takes about
65–70% of the total energy. The high-energy consumption of drying is due to the
high-quality heat requirement. One way to reduce drying costs is to design the
pelleting process with a low-temperature energy supply. There is a lot of waste
energy in the biorefinery that can be used for drying, which can have a significant
impact on pelleting costs. According to Frodeson et al. (2019), if the waste energy
from saw and pulp mills can be used as an energy source for biomass drying, pellet
production costs can be reduced significantly.
Frodeson et al. (2019) state that biomass drying is divided into three phases.
During the first and second phases, the diffusion of water occurs between the air
moisture interface, which is influenced by the thermal energy of the dryer. In the last
phase, the moisture is transported through the biomass, which is based on concen-
tration gradients. The last phase takes a lot of energy to drive the moisture. Industrial
pelleting data has indicated that two-step drying is more efficient in the pellet
production process. According to Ståhl and Berghel (2008), recirculating the drying
gases makes the drying process more energy-efficient due to the recovery of more
energy in the condenser. The other way to reduce drying energy is to mechanically
dewater the biomass before thermal drying. Most of the surface moisture or loosely
bound moisture can be removed using the mechanical dewatering process. Mechan-
ical dewatering can increase the overall efficiency of the moisture removal process.
Dewatering the biomass is financially gainable, saves energy, and provides a sus-
tainable solution for the environment.
Drying beds, filters, screens, presses, and centrifuges are just a few of the
dewatering pieces of equipment used by industry. The type of dewatering used for
specific applications depends on feedstock type and the initial moisture content of
the feedstock. According to Roos (2013), mechanical dewatering systems can reduce
moisture content significantly. Some of the more passive drying methods, such as
filter bags, are impervious to rain, but allow moisture to seep out, which can help to
reach moisture content values of 30% (w.b.). However, the major challenge is it
takes longer times to achieve–approximately two to three months. The different
types of mechanical presses typically used for dewatering applications include the
belt filter, a V-type, the ring, the screw, and the drum presses (Roos 2013). In a belt
press, the material is pressed against a porous belt and is further passed through the
rollers to squeeze out the moisture. Belt presses are commonly used in many
industries, especially in wastewater treatment plants. They contain three solid and
liquid separations as follows: (a) the gravity zone, where water in the feed is allowed
to drain freely through the porous belts; (b) the wedge zone, where the solids are
prepared for pressure applications; and (c) the pressure zone, where solids are
subjected to medium and high pressure. However, the major challenge in using
this process is the frequent need for replacement belts due to wear and tear (e.g.,
typically, belts only have a lifespan of 2 to 3000 hrs.). Figure 4.29 shows a typical
belt dryer used for the dewatering application (Perinpanayagam 2013).
A centrifuge system works by moving the material into a stationary tube that is
further fed into a rotary bowl, which contains an accelerating inlet rotary, as shown
in Figs. 4.30 and 4.31. The rotary turns at a speed of 3400 revolutions per minute
(rpm), creating high-centrifugal forces pushing the solids to the bowl wall. The
conveyor in the centrifuge rotates in the opposite direction of the rotor, which further
moves the solids to the wall (Perinpanayagam 2013).
Fig. 4.30 Belt filter press schematic
Fig. 4.31 Typical centrifuge thickening and dewatering system (derived from EPA 2000)
A screw press consists of a hollow cylindrical screen mounted at an angle or

horizontally, which is rotated at low speeds, as is shown in Fig. 4.32. As the material
is conveyed through the barrel length, the tapered screw helps to squeeze the water
from the solids. The low-concentration solids (i.e., 1–3%) are dewatered (i.e.,
15–30%) by gradual application of pressure and polymer addition. The outputs of
the screw press are filtrates and dewatered solids.
The plate and frame filter press (PFFP) is one of the oldest solid separation
methods producing the highest concentration of solids, as observed in Fig. 4.33. It
consists of chambers created by a series of recessed plates arranged vertically side by
side. These plates are supported on a frame connected to the stationary feed head.
The chambers are filled with the material through the center hole. With an increase in
pressure, the free water drains through the filter cloth, and solids are retained in the
chamber. Typically, the feed pumps should develop high pressures of 100–225
pounds per square inch (psi). Once the pump reaches the desired pressure, the
pumps are switched off.
Fig. 4.32 FKC screw press schematic diagram
Fig. 4.33 Schematic diagram of the PFFP operation
The drum press has a perforated drum with a revolving press inside of it that
presses it against the perforated drum. This press is commonly used for biomass
materials, such as hog fuel and bark (Roos 2013). The rotary press uses backpressure
to produce sludge cake, as shown in Fig. 4.34. The sludge is fed through the inlet
into the space between the two parallel plated screens and the rotor. The
backpressure applied at the discharge end pushes the material to dewater. The filtrate
passes through the screen as the material continues to dewater as it moves through
the channel. Due to the slow moving of the screen, the frictional force is developed
that also helps to dewater. Most of these presses are currently used in biosolids
processing. These technologies need to be modified for use in biomass applications.
Drinor Corporation in Sweden developed a mechanical continuous dewatering press
(CDP) specifically for biomass. This press can be used as a pretreatment that can
Fig. 4.34 Rotary press schematic diagram
increase the efficiency of the drying process and reduce energy consumption. The
CDP prevents the reabsorption of water and delivers a product with a constant
moisture content of about 30% (w.b.). Biomass, such as woodchips and sawdust,
can be successfully used for efficient surface water removal.
In general, moisture removal using thermal methods is more energy-intensive as
compared to the mechanical dewatering process. According to Liu and Haygreen
(2007), the mechanical dewatering process helps to remove the free moisture under
hydrostatic pressure and is more energy-efficient than traditional thermal drying.
Studies conducted by Laurila et al. (2014) on a laboratory-scale compression dryer
indicated that compressive drying is an effective solution for removing the moisture
up to 30% (w.b), which is about 7–12% above the fiber saturation process. In their
studies on roller compression with thermal drying, Yoshida et al. (2010) discovered
that using this method saves about 58% of the energy than by just employing the
thermal drying method alone. Studies conducted by Holmberg and Stenström (2014)
indicated that dewatering, in combination with thermal heating, makes water
removal more efficient. Frodeson et al. (2019) did a case study to understand how
mechanical dewatering combined with the thermal method helps to reduce the
energy consumption of the pellet production process, as shown in Fig. 4.35.
Table 4.9 indicates the energy balance for pellet production by using the continuous
drying system alone, as well as combining it with dewatering (Frodeson et al. 2019).
It is clear from the table that electric power is much higher when dewatering is used.
In addition, Table 4.9 indicates that the throughput of the system is higher when the
Fig. 4.35 Mechanical dewatering press and packed moving bed (PMB) dryer in a pellet production
chain (Frodeson et al. 2019)
Table 4.9 Inlet data for continuous drying system and dewatering + continuous drying system
(Frodeson et al. 2019)
Continuous dewatering
Packed moving press + packed moving bed
bed (PMB) dryer (CDP + PMB)
Average inlet air temperature 75 C 75 C
Heat power provided to the heat 10.1 MW 5.1 MW
exchangers
Electric power supplied to the fans in 0.450 MW 0.22 Mw
the dryer
Thermal losses from packed moving 10% of inlet 10% of inlet power
bed (PMB) dryer power
Inlet mass flow of sawdust 18.53 ton/hr. 18.58 ton/hr.
Inlet sawdust moisture content 52.0% 52.0%
Outlet sawdust moisture content 12.5% 12.5%
Outlet sawdust moisture from con- – 36.7%
tinuous dewatering press (CDP)
Current load CDP – 209A
Voltage CDP – 400 V
dewatering and drying system is employed. Novel and energy-efficient water man-
agement technologies are needed in order to reduce the drying costs, especially for
higher moisture biomass.
4.1.1.20 Advanced Grinding Concepts
The biomass after harvesting is in the form of a baled, log, or chip form to store and
transport. Hammermills are typically used for size reduction of low-moisture bio-
mass. When the moisture changes, the grinding energy and physical properties of the
biomass are impacted, such as particle size and distribution, mean particle size, and
bulk density. Biomass grinding is completed in two stages. In the first, the typically
30% (w.b.) biomass is ground in a hammermill fitted with larger-size screens. In the
second, the ground biomass is further ground with smaller-size screens that are less
than 1-inch. Figures 4.8 and 4.9 previously showed the energy consumption of the
hammermill with changes in moisture content. From the figures, it is very clear that
the hammermill works well for lower-moisture content in terms of energy consump-
tion, throughput, and particle size distribution (Tumuluru and Yancey 2018). Still,
most of the biofuels processing industries are currently using hammermill technol-
ogy for grinding high- and low-moisture woody and herbaceous biomass. According
to Tumuluru and Yancey (2018), hammermills are sensitive to moisture, and they
work for low-moisture woody and herbaceous biomass. This necessitates the need to
develop new grinding technologies that are less sensitive to moisture content. New
grinding technologies based on shearing and cutting are being investigated to
determine their suitability for biomass grinding. Forest Concepts, LLC, developed
Crumbler model M24, which is a biomass size reduction technology based on
shearing (Tumuluru and Yancey 2018), which employs 70-cm-wide interlocking
disks. This technology is less sensitive to moisture content. The spacing between
cutters has a great impact on the resulting particle size distribution, where tighter
particle size distribution can be achieved.
The use of a vortex mill, which is widely used in ore processing, is also currently
being tested for use on biomass. Figure 4.36 indicates the energy consumption of the
different grinding systems at different moisture content values. The vortex or
collision mill required more energy to process biomass, especially high-moisture
biomass, as compared to the other two technologies. The shearing technology
performed the best on high-moisture corn stover. The hammermill performed better
than the other two technologies for woody material. Integrating the new grinding
technologies with the pelleting process can help to reduce the cost of pellet produc-
tion significantly. Studies conducted by Bitra et al. (2009) on understanding the
grinding characteristics of switchgrass, wheat straw, and corn stover using a knife
mill indicated that the total specific energy decreased gradually by 55%, 49%, and
75%, respectively, with an increase in mass feed rate from 2–11 kilograms per
Fig. 4.36 Specific grinding energy for three grinder types

4.2 Conclusions 119
minute (kg/min), 2–9 kg/min, and 2–7 kg/min for switchgrass, wheat straw, and corn
stover, respectively. For the same operating conditions, the effective specific energy
increased marginally by 11% and 4% for switchgrass and wheat straw, respectively,
but decreased marginally by 7% for corn stover. Lower specific energy at higher feed
rates can be attributed to grinding of more material in a specified time and because of
better utilization of the full length of the rotor. So, it is recommended to run these
grinders at higher feed rates to lower their energy consumption. However, these
higher feed rates can have an impact on physical properties, such as density and
particle size distribution. In the case of using a knife mill with a screen size of
24.40 mm and a rotor speed of 250 rpm, the feed rates of 7.6, 5.8, and 4.5 kg/min,
respectively, provided total specific energy rates of 7.57, 10.53, and 887 kWh/Mg,
respectively. These authors concluded that screen size, mass feed rate, and rotor
speed had a significant effect on the total specific energy consumption of the
grinding process. Selecting the right grinding technology based on the type of
feedstock can have a substantial impact on the pellet production cost. Further
research is needed to manage moisture efficiently and to reduce the energy con-
sumption of the various preprocessing unit operations to reduce the pellet production
cost.
4.2 Conclusions
Currently, preprocessing contributes to about 35–40% of the overall feedstock costs

supplied to the biorefineries. The major energy consumers are drying biomass to
10% (w.b.) to make it aerobically stable, as well as grinding the high-moisture
biomass using hammermills. New grinding, pelleting, and drying technologies are
gaining importance as these technologies help to reduce the total energy consump-
tion of preprocessing, and in turn, significantly reduce costs. INL has developed a
fractional milling, high-moisture pelleting, and low-temperature process that helps to
minimize pellet production costs by more than 50% as compared to the methods
currently followed by industry. Typically, hammermills are sensitive to moisture and
screen size, whereas higher moisture and smaller screen size exponentially increase
grinding energy. New grinding technologies, such as the rotary shear, are gaining
confidence throughout the industry as they are less sensitive to moisture. In addition,
studies conducted by researchers have indicated that herbaceous biomass can be
pelleted at even bigger grind sizes (e.g., 11.11 mm) as compared to the screen size
currently employed by industry, which is typically 6.35 mm. This reduces grinding
energy consumption, especially when high-moisture biomass is used for pelleting. In
biomass preprocessing, the major energy consumer is moisture removal. Thermal
methods to reduce the biomass moisture, like using a rotary dryer that is now
commonly used, remain one of the major bottlenecks in reducing overall
preprocessing costs. Researchers are also integrating dewatering and
low-temperature drying technologies in the pellet production process to reduce the
overall total energy consumption for pelleting biomass.
References
Bell TA (2005) Challenges in the scale-up of particulate processes-an industrial perspective.

Bengtsson P (2004) The release of hydrocarbons from softwood drying: measurement and model-
ing. Maderas: Ciencia y Tecnología 6(2):109–122
Bitra VSP, Womac AR, Igathinathane C, Miu PI, Yang YT, Smith DR, Chevanan N, Sokhansanj S
(2009) Direct measures of mechanical energy for knife mill size reduction of switchgrass, wheat
straw, and corn stover. Bioresour Technol 100:6578–6585
Frodeson S, Berghel J, Stahl M, Granstrom K, Romlin C, Thelander A (2019) The potential for a
pellet plant to become a biorefinery. PRO 7(4):233
Holmberg A, Stenström S (2014) Dewatering and drying of bark. Int J Energy Eng 4:8–16
Jukka-Pekka S, Pekka A (2003) Reduction of organic emissions by using a multistage drying
system for wood-based biomasses. Drying Technol 22(3):541–561
Kenney KL, Cafferty KG, Jacobson JJ, Bonner IJ, Gresham GL, Hess JR, Ovard LP, Smith WA,
Thompson DN, Thompson VS, Tumuluru JS, Yancey N (2013) Feedstock supply system design
and economics for conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to hydrocarbon fuels. conversion
pathway: Biological conversion of sugars to hydrocarbons: The 2017 design case.
INL/EXT-13-30342. Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, USA
Technol 194:205–213
Laurila J, Havimo M, Lauhanen R (2014) Compression drying of energy wood. Fuel Process
Technol 124:286–289
Liu Z, Haygreen JG (2007) Drying rates of wood chips during compression drying. Wood Fiber Sci
17:214–227
Nagaya K, Li Y, Jin Z, Fukumuro M, Ando Y, Akaishi A (2006) Low-temperature desiccant-based
food drying system with airflow and temperature control. J Food Eng 75(1):71–77
Perinpanayagam M (2013) Mechanical dewatering alternatives evaluation. City of Folsom –
Utilities Department. 14 August 2013. Folsom, CA, USA [Online]. Available at: https://www.
folsom.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid¼21076 Accessed 30 April 2020
Roos CJ (2013) Biomass drying and dewatering for clean heat and power. WSUEEP08–015.
U.S. Department of Energy CHP Technical Assistance Partnerships, Northwest Division.
October 2013. Olympia, WA, USA [Online]. Available at: http://northwestchptap.org/
NwChpDocs/BiomassDryingAndDewateringForCleanHeatAndPower.pdf Accessed 30 April
2020
Rupar K, Sanati M (2003) The release of organic compounds during biomass drying depends upon
the feedstock and/or altering drying heating medium. Biomass Bioenergy 25(6):615–622
Ståhl M, Berghel J (2008) Validation of a mathematical model by studying the effects of
recirculation of drying gases. Drying Technol 26:786–792
from high-moisture corn stover. Biosyst Eng 119:44–57
Tumuluru JS (2015) High-moisture corn stover pelleting in a flat die pellet mill fitted with a 6 mm
die: physical properties and specific energy consumption. Energy Sci Eng 3(4):327–341
Tumuluru JS (2016) Specific energy consumption and quality of wood pellets produced using high-
Preprocessing and Pretreatments for Production of Biofuels. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 15–49
Tumuluru JS, Cafferty KG, Kenney KL (2014) Techno-economic analysis of conventional, high-
moisture pelletization and briquetting process. American Society of Agricultural and Biological
Engineers, 2014 Annual Meeting, paper no. 141911360, 13–16 July 2014, Montreal, Quebec
References 121
Canada [Online]. Available at: https://elibrary.asabe.org/abstract.asp?aid¼45007 Accessed

30 April 2020
consumption using high-moisture corn stover and a corn starch binder in a flat die pellet mill. J
Vis Exp 112:e54092
Biomass engineering: size reduction, drying, and densification of high-moisture biomass.
Feedstock Supply and Logistics Platform, 2017 Project Peer Review, U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO), 7 March 2017, Denver, CO, USA
[Online]. Available at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/05/f34/fsl_tumuluru_
1222.pdf Accessed 8 April 2020
Tumuluru JS, Yancey N, Conner CC, Egan E, Dee M, Landon C, Scouten D, Fillerup E, Kane J,
Murray DJ (2019) Biomass engineering: size reduction, drying, and densification of high-
moisture biomass. Feedstock Supply and Logistics Platform, 2019 Project Peer Review,
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Biotechnologies Office (BETO), 6 March 2019, Denver,
CO, USA [Online]. Available at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/04/f61/Size%
20Reduction%2C%20Drying%20and%20Densification%20of%20High%20Moisture%20Bio
mass_NL0026654.pdf Accessed 30 April 2020
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2000) Biosolids technology fact sheet: centrifuge
thickening and dewatering. EPA 832-F-00-053, September 2000. Office of Water, Washington,
DC, USA [Online]. Available at: http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ecommerce/products/WW_
GeneralInformation/WWFSGN201DL.pdf
formulated biomass feedstocks for bioenergy applications. J Biobased Mater Bioenergy 7
(5):549–558
Yoshida T, Sasaki H, Takano T, Sawabe O (2010) Dewatering of high-moisture wood chips by
roller compression method. Biomass Bioenergy 34(7):1053–1058
Zlatanović I, Komatina M, Antonijević D (2013) Low-temperature convective drying of apple
cubes. Appl Therm Eng 53(1):114–123
Chapter 5
Biochemical and Thermochemical
Conversion Performance of Densified
Products for Biofuels Production
Abstract The primary question many biofuels producers have is the suitability of
densified products for biochemical and thermochemical conversion processes to
produce liquid fuels. In general, the belief is the densification of biomass will
increase biomass recalcitrance for both biochemical and thermochemical conver-
sions. This chapter will discuss the suitability of densified products such as pellets
and briquettes for biochemical conversion and thermochemical conversion path-
ways, such as gasification, pyrolysis, and combustion.
Keywords Densified products · Pellets · Briquettes · Biochemical conversion ·

Thermochemical conversion · Biopower
5.1 Introduction
With growing concerns over climate change, there is a significant interest in using
biomass for the production of transportation fuels. According to DOE’s 2016
Billion-Ton Report, a high potential exists in energy production from biomass.
More than one billion tons of agricultural, forestry, waste, and algal biomass
currently exist in the United States, which is capable of displacing approximately
30% of petroleum consumption without having any negative impact on the environ-
ment, food, or agricultural products (Ray et al. 2017). The major challenge in using
biomass for biofuels and biobased product production is variability in moisture,
particle size, and density, which creates logistics issues. In addition, other issues
related to storage and handling exist. Currently, most biorefineries are having issues
related to storage, handling, feeding, and transportation. Typical routes for the
production of energy from biomass are biological processes, such as anaerobic
digestion and fermentation, thermochemical conversion, such as direct combustion,
gasification, pyrolysis, and chemical conversion processes, such as esterification. To
efficiently use the biomass resources for both biochemical and thermochemical
conversion routes, the supply chain cost, quality of the feedstock, and conversion
performance are important as they have an impact on process efficiencies and
economics (Ray et al. 2017). According to Tumuluru (2016), large-scale deployment

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62888-8_5
124 5 Biochemical and Thermochemical Conversion Performance of Densified Products for. . .
of lignocellulosic biomass is limited by high logistics and preprocessing costs, as

well as the low quality of biomass feedstocks.
The inherent physical (e.g., particle size and density) and chemical (e.g., proxi-
mate, ultimate, energy properties) characteristics of raw biomass restrict its use for
higher percentages in biofuels production. Most of the woody biomass that is
typically used for thermochemical conversion is available at high-moisture content
values of 30–60% (w.b). Herbaceous biomasses, such as agricultural residues and
dedicated energy crops, are available at variable moisture content values ranging
from 20 to 35% (w.b.). Biomass needs to be dried to less than a moisture content
value of <10% (w.b) and ground to about a 2 mm particle size to improve conversion
process efficiencies, especially thermochemical conversion (Bridgewater and
Peacocke 2000).
In the case of biochemical conversion, variability in feedstock moisture content is
not a major limitation. Still, for thermochemical conversion, both moisture and
particle size are critical feedstock specifications. The major challenge in producing
particles desirable for the biochemical and thermochemical conversion is variable
moisture content, which impacts grinding energy and particle size distribution.
Furthermore, grinding raw biomass with high-moisture content is challenging due
to its fibrous nature. Tumuluru and Yancey (2018) indicated that grinding energy
increases with a corresponding increase in moisture content, which can negatively
impact particle size distribution. Other challenges in using high and variable mois-
ture in biomass include the plugging of drop chutes, conveyors, and augurs. All of
these challenges result in an uneven flow of biomass into the bioreactor, which
affects efficiency. In addition, other problems in terms of chemical composition and
CV for commercial-scale production of biofuels and bioproducts also exist.
Tumuluru et al. (2016) studied the impact of feedstock supply system unit opera-
tions, as well as feedstock quality and cost. These authors concluded that advanced
preprocessing and pretreatments help to overcome the significant biomass limita-
tions in terms of physical properties and chemical composition, making feedstock
more suitable for both biochemical and thermochemical conversion.
One of the major limitations identified with using biomass for large-scale appli-
cations is its low density and variable moisture content. In their review of biomass
densification, Tumuluru et al. (2011) concluded that biomass densification is critical
to converting biomass feedstock into a commodity-type product. The various advan-
tages with densification include: (a) the production of a product with a definite size
and shape that is suitable for the supply chain and biorefinery infeed; (b) an increase
by almost four to five times in the bulk density of the biomass, which produces a
product with improved controlled particle size distribution and uniformity;
(c) fractionated structural components, which can have improved conversion per-
formance; and (d) the development of densified products that meet conversion and
supply system specifications. Various densification systems most commonly used
for biomass include: (a) the pellet mill; (b) the cuber; (c) the briquette press; (d) the
screw extruder; (e) the tablet press; and (f) the agglomerator. Among the various
densified products, pellets produced using a pellet mill are commonly used for
biofuels and biopower generation. Currently, most biorefineries are not ready to
use densified products for biofuels due to pellet production costs. However, the
novel grinding and pelleting technologies being developed by industries and
national laboratories are helping to reduce pellet production costs. Advanced
preprocessing technologies, such as fractional milling, high-moisture pelleting, and
low-temperature drying developed by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) have
reduced pellet production costs by more than 50% (Tumuluru et al. 2017). This
chapter discusses the suitability of the densified products, such as pellets produced
using lignocellulosic biomass, for biofuels production.
5.1.1 Biochemical Conversion
In biochemical conversion pathways, biomass is pretreated to give enzymes access

to cellulose to convert complex carbohydrates into fermentable sugars. Several
chemical pretreatment technologies exist, such as ammonia fiber expansion
(AFEX), dilute acid (DA), alkaline, and ionic liquid (IL), to disrupt the crystalline
structure of cellulose and depolymerize the lignin. DA pretreatment is a sulfuric acid
(0.25–2 wt. %) pretreatment in the presence of high temperature (e.g., 140–200 C)
for a short period ranging from seconds to minutes. This pretreatment helps to
solubilize hemicellulose and improves access to cellulose for the enzymes. Alkaline
pretreatment helps to solubilize the lignin and deacetylation under relatively mild
conditions (e.g., 60–180 C) with sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or ammonium hydrox-
ide (i.e., soaking in aqueous ammonia [SAA]) as a catalyst (Ray et al. 2017). AFEX
pretreatment helps the enzymes to access the cellulose by breaking the crystalline
structure of cellulose and depolymerizing the lignin (Hoover et al. 2014). Recently,
researchers have also used ionic liquid pretreatment to: (a) break the cell wall and
reduce cellulose crystallinity; (b) depolymerize the lignin; and (c) improve the
porosity and surface area of the biomass to increase the enzymatic digestibility.
5.1.2 Densification Impact on the Sugar Yields
The physical pretreatment methods commonly used are comminution and densifi-
cation. Different grinding systems, such as chipping, grinding, and/or milling used
for size reduction, can also reduce cellulose crystallinity. Biomass comminution is
done in two stages (Yancey et al. 2013). In stage-1, the biomass is ground to bigger
screen sizes using 2–6-inch screens and then is further reduced in size during stage-2
with a grinder fitted with smaller screen sizes (e.g., <1-inch (50.4 mm)). According
to Kumar et al. (2009), biomass comminution reduces cellulose crystallinity. These
authors also indicate the material after chipping has a particle size that is typically
somewhere between 10 and 30 mm, while after milling, it generally is between 0.2
and 2 mm. In general, a vibratory ball mill is more effective than an ordinary ball mill
in reducing cellulose crystallinity of woody biomass. The grinding energy of the
biomass is dependent on the final particle size and moisture content. New grinding
technologies are currently developed to make biomass grinding energy less sensitive
to moisture and screen size, as indicated by Tumuluru and Yancey (2018). Cadoche
and Lopez (1989) reported that if the final particle size is in the range of 3–6 mm, the
energy input can be kept below 30 kWh/ton. They also proposed that cellulose
irridation by γ-rays leads to cleavage of the alpha 1,4-glycosidic bonds and gives a
larger surface area with lower crystallinity. But the challenge becomes whether or
not this process is energy-intensive at larger-scale operations.
Low bulk density of ground herbaceous biomass is typically less than
150 kg/m3, which has a great impact on transportation efficiencies. In addition,
low bulk density results in feed handling and storage issues. Biomass is densified
using mechanical systems like a pellet mill or a briquette press to overcome this
limitation. During densification, biomass is exposed to temperatures of 100 C and
pressures of 4000 psi, which help the biomass to undergo some structural changes
that can have a positive impact on conversion performance.
Pellets are commonly used densified products utilized for power generation.
Millions of wood pellets produced in the United States and Canada are transported
to Europe every year. Currently, great interest exists to use pellets for biochemical
conversion to produce sugars and gasification and pyrolysis to produce syngas and
bio-oil. The quality of the pellets is influenced by various process variables, feed-
stock properties, and chemical compositions. During pelleting, the raw material is
steam-conditioned and further extruded through a narrow constricted die hole
(Tumuluru 2016). Various pelleting process variables, feedstock properties, and
feedstock types impact the quality of the densified product produced. Tumuluru
(2018) discussed in detail how the various biomass components, such as lignin,
cellulose, hemicellulose, protein, starches, and waxes, interact with moisture, tem-
perature, and pressure. During pelleting, the natural binders in the biomass, such as
lignin, protein, and starches, get activated and help the particles to agglomerate. Ray
et al. (2013) reported that modifications to the biomass components that densifica-
tion brings could impact its reactivity to pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis.
Many researchers have tested pellets for biochemical conversion using different
pretreatment technologies. Indeed, there is a lot of published literature on how
pelleting impacts sugar yields. Most of these studies have indicated that higher
sugar release and ethanol yields were observed in a pelleted format when compared
to the non-pelleted format after pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis.
Guragain et al. (2013) evaluated the effect of alkaline pretreatment on sugar
release and ethanol production in pelleted and non-pelleted wheat straw, corn stover,
big bluestem, and sorghum stalk. The alkali pretreatment increased the mass recov-
ery by 14%, 11%, 2%, and 5%, respectively, as compared to non-pelleted biomass.
Except for sorghum, the volumetric sugar production increased for all the feed-
stocks. Nahar and Pryor (2014) reported that combining pelleting and pretreatment
with SAA treatment reduced cellulase loading to achieve a 90% glucose yield at
10 FPU per gram glucan in switchgrass. Pelleting, the switchgrass did not affect
feedstock composition as compared to non-pelleted switchgrass. Bals et al. (2014)
tested the susceptibility of AFEX-treated corn stover pellets to enzymatic hydrolysis
at high-solids loading (e.g., 18–36%). The studies indicated that pelleting marginally
increased the initial rate of hydrolysis relative to raw biomass.
Similarly, Rijal et al. (2012) demonstrated that DA-treated switchgrass did not
impact glucose yield in the finer ground and pelleted materials as compared to the
native material. However, glucose yields from SAA pretreatment, followed by
enzymatic hydrolysis, were higher for both powder and pelleted materials as com-
pared with the native material. Glucose yield for the DA- and SAA-treated and
pelleted switchgrass was 98% and 79%, respectively. Theerarattananoon et al.
(2012) evaluated the impact of pelleting conditions on sugar release and chemical
composition of corn stover, wheat straw, sorghum stalk, and big bluestem grass. DA
pretreatment and subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis increased glucan content in the
pretreated solids as compared to the non-pelleted companion feedstock for corn
stover, wheat straw, and big bluestem prairie grass. Glucan content in pretreated
pelleted sorghum stalks was slightly less than that for non-pelleted sorghum stalks.
Enzymatic hydrolysis results suggested that pelleting increased cellulose yield for all
feedstocks, while wheat straw had the highest cellulose yield at 94.1%.
Dien et al. (2018) studied how pelleted big bluestem, switchgrass, and
low-diversity grass mixtures were converted into sugars for bioethanol production.
Their studies indicated that pelleting increased bulk density to 528–554 kg/m3. After
pelleting, the glucan and xylan contents reduced slightly during pelletizing (by 23
and 16 g/kg, respectively), as well as theoretical ethanol yields, which are based on
total carbohydrate contents. Pretreating pelleted and milled straws with hot water or
low-moisture ammonium hydroxide that were further hydrolyzed with cellulases
indicated that the glucose and total sugar yields were similar for non-pellets and
pellets, but carbohydrates present in the pellets are more efficiently recovered as
compared to non-pellets. Figure 5.1 shows the sugar yields from pelletized and
non-pelletized samples pretreated with liquid hot-water pretreatment using commer-
cial cellulases and hemicellulases enzyme for hydrolysis (Dien et al. 2018). The
sugar yield efficiencies for different feedstocks are also different.
Shi et al. (2013) conducted a series of studies on understanding the impact that
mixed feedstocks and feedstock densification have on sugar yields. These authors
indicated that mixed feedstocks in a flour or pellet form are processes that efficiently
employ the IL pretreatment process. They also indicated that processed four blend
feedstocks (i.e., switchgrass, lodgepole pine, corn stover, and eucalyptus) in flour
and pellet form using the IL 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate could have a
positive impact. For both formats, the sugar yields reached 90% within 24 hr. of
saccharification. Shi et al. (2013) also used X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns on the
four blend feedstocks, as observed in Fig. 5.2. The cellulose crystallinity index (CrI)
for untreated mixed flour and pellets did not change significantly (e.g., 0.37 and
0.33, respectively), suggesting that pelletization did not impact cellulose crystallin-
ity. Treating both the flour and pellets with 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate
[C2mim][OAc] altered the crystalline structure significantly, and the samples essen-
tially displayed amorphous structures with a limited long-range order, as observed in
Fig. 5.2. Calculated residual CrI for the IL-treated mixed flour and pellets are 0.03
and 0.05, respectively (Shi et al. 2013). Figure 5.3 indicates enzyme digestibility (%)
Fig. 5.1 (a, b) Impact of pelleting on sugar yield and sugar extraction of different biomass
feedstocks
with time for treated and untreated flour and pellets made using the four blend
feedstock. It is clear that pelleting improves enzyme digestibility as compared with
the flour, whereas IL pretreatment significantly improves enzyme digestibility.
Fig. 5.2 X-ray diffraction patterns of mixed feedstock flour and pellets before and after
pretreatment with 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate. Pretreatment conditions: biomass load-
ing ¼ 100 g/l, 160 C for 3 hr. (IL ionic liquid)
Ray et al. (2013) studied the effects of pelleting on the recalcitrance and biocon-
version of DA pretreated corn stover under low- and high-solids conditions. Pellets
were made using corn stover milled to 6.35 mm. These authors also performed
low-solids acid pretreatment and simultaneous saccharification and fermentation on
both the 2 mm ground and corn stover pelleted using a 6.35 mm hammermill grind.
They also studied the sugar yields in two scenarios—low-solids dilute acid
pretreatment, and high-solids dilute acid pretreatment. The results indicated that
monomeric xylose yields were significantly higher for pellets (60%) than they
were for ground formats (38%). Pellets achieved approximately 84% of a theoret-
ical ethanol yield; ground stover formats had similar profiles, reaching approxi-
mately 68% of theoretical ethanol yield. Figures 5.4 and 5.5 show the xylose and
theoretical maximum ethanol yield from low DA pretreatment. Both indicate that the
pellets performed better as compared to the products of the 6.35 mm and 2 mm grind.
Figure 5.6 shows the percentage of xylose yield from high DA pretreatment, which
shows that the pellets produced better xylose and theoretical ethanol yields as
compared with those produced from the 6.35 and 2 mm grinds. These authors
concluded that pelleting corn stover did not induce any recalcitrance in the biomass,
but enhanced ethanol yields. Figure 5.7 indicates the glucose yields for a 6.35 mm
grind and pelleted formats using high and low DA solids pretreatment. It is clear
from this figure that corn stover in a pelleted format performed better as compared to
raw corn stover at lower pretreatment severities.
Fig. 5.3 Comparison of enzymatic hydrolysis profiles of untreated and ionic liquid-pretreated
mixed feedstock flour and pellets. Biomass loading ¼ 20 g/l; enzyme loading 20 mg CTec2 protein/
g glucan and 0.26 mg HTec2 protein/g glucan. (IL ionic liquid)
Fig. 5.4 Low-solids, dilute acid pretreatment impact on the monomeric and total xylose yields for
different corn stover formats
Fig. 5.5 Maximum theoretical ethanol yield for three corn stover formats for 3, 5, and 7 days of
simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (note: TEY theoretical maximum ethanol yield)
Fig. 5.6 High-solids, dilute acid pretreatment impact on the monomeric and total xylose yields for
different corn stover formats
A study conducted by Hoover et al. (2014) indicated that pelleting AFEX-treated

corn stover either increased or had no effect on sugar (e.g., glucose and xylose)
yields. Pelleting process variables, such as die speed, did not have any impact on the
sugar yields for both high- and low-solids loading. Preheating the AFEX-pretreated
corn stover before pelleting had either a neutral or a negative effect on sugar yields.
Fig. 5.7 Glucose yields for 6.35 mm and pellets formats using high and low dilute acid solids
pretreatment
This research shows that higher pellet die speeds are preferred because they do not
negatively impact sugar yields, but can actually increase the throughput of the mill,
and in turn, reduce energy consumption. In terms of feedstock properties, a 4 mm
particle size is preferred to a 6 mm size due to higher sugar yields and the fact that
preheating is not necessary unless it assists other pellet physical properties, such as
density, durability, and the overall energy consumption of the process.
Studies conducted by Rijal et al. (2012) corroborates with the findings by Ray
et al. (2013) regarding higher sugar yields for pelleted switchgrass. This research
clearly indicates that the grinding and pelleting of switchgrass increased the hydro-
lyzate glucose yields by 37% by SAA. In addition, xylose yields from
SAA-pretreated switchgrass pellets were 42% higher than those from the original
switchgrass. Figures 5.8 and 5.9 compare the effects of pelleting on xylose and
glucose yields (Rijal et al. 2012). Both figures show that pelleting significantly
increases the glucose and xylose yields due to its positive effect on the biochemical
conversion process. Rijal et al. (2012) concluded that the increase in sugar yields
after pelleting could be attributed to grinding and heating of the biomass in a pellet
mill during the pelleting process. Rijal et al. (2012) also observed that pelleting alone
does not have a negative impact on deacetylation pretreatment efficiency, but
improves the SAA pretreatment. They concluded that pelleting could allow the use
of less severe pretreatment conditions, or they can reduce enzyme loading and still
obtain high sugar yields. In addition to improved yields, pelleting can provide
additional supply chain benefits, such as handling, transportation, and storage.
Pandey et al. (2019) studied the pretreatment severity and enzymatic hydrolysis
for corn stover pellets following a reduction in SAA. In their studies, pelleted and
loose corn stover were treated under the same pretreatment and hydrolysis
Fig. 5.8 The effect of pelleting on xylose yields
Fig. 5.9 The effect of pelleting on glucose yields
conditions. Table 5.1 indicates the impact of pretreatment conditions on the compo-
sition of loose and pelleted corn stover (e.g., solid recovered, glucan, xylan, total
lignin, total delignification). Pelleting of switchgrass and higher preheating temper-
atures, time, and ammonia concentration improved these values. The studies also
indicated that glucose yields from pelleted biomass reached 90% with reduced
pretreatment severities, enzyme loadings, and hydrolysis time. At the highest
enzyme loadings, the use of pelleted corn stover reduced hydrolysis time by up to
58%. Pelleted corn stover also reduced enzyme loading by 80% at higher
Table 5.1 Impact of pretreatment conditions on the composition of loose and pelleted corn stover
(derived from Pandey et al. 2019)
Solid Total Total
recovered Glucan Xylan lignin delignification
Treatment condition (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Loose corn stover
Untreated – 31.2 20.8 18.9 –
PT-1: Temperature: 40 C, time 84.9 31.1 23.5 17.0 23.6
4 (h), Ammonia concentration
10 (% as w/v)
PT-2: Temperature: 45 C, time 74.2 35.1 21.9 15.3 40
12 (% as w/v)
14 (% as w/v)
16 (% as w/v)
18 (% as w/v)
Pelleted corn stover
Untreated – 32 21.0 17.3 –
10 (% as w/v)
12 (% as w/v)
14 (% as w/v)
16 (% as w/v)
18 (% as w/v)
pretreatment conditions. At moderate pretreatment conditions, enzyme loading and

hydrolysis time was reduced by 40 and 48%, respectively. These authors concluded
that the use of pelleted feedstock gives great flexibility to the biorefinery to test
different processing options. The results also indicated that the total lignin content
decreased after pelleting, which might have resulted in higher solid recovery.
Extrusion pelleting is another densification technology used for biomass.
A Karunanithy et al. (2013) study indicated that 28.2, 66.2, and 49.2% of combined
sugar recovery could be achieved for switchgrass, big bluestem, and prairie
Fig. 5.10 Sugar recovery at different extruder speeds for prairie cordgrass
cordgrass, respectively. The extruder process conditions tested are screw speeds of
200, 200, and 150 rpm, respectively, and barrel temperatures of 75, 150, and 100 C,
respectively, when cellulase and β-glucosidase at a ratio of 1: 4 is used. Sundaram
and Muthukumarappan (2016) used this ratio to evaluate the effect that laboratory-
scale single screw extrusion process variables have on pellet bulk density, hardness,
and sugar recovery from enzymatic hydrolysis on AFEX-pretreated corn stover,
switchgrass, and prairie cordgrass. The process variables tested included moisture
content, hammermill particle size, and extruder barrel temperature. The glucose
release from AFEX-pretreated pellets for corn stover was in the range of
88.9–94.9%; for prairie grass, it was about 90.1–94.9%; and for the switchgrass, it
was in the range of 87.0–92.9%. The glucose and xylose yields were 1.6, 2.1, 2.3,
1.6, 1.4, and 2.0 fold higher, respectively, for AFEX-treated pellets as compared to
untreated pellets. These studies indicate that the extrusion temperature or particle
size impacted neither glucose nor xylose. A low extrusion temperature of 75 C is
sufficient to produce pellets desirable for conversion. This research indicated that
biomass extrusion does not negatively impact the conversion process, but can
positively impact the yields and can also help to reduce the severity of the
pretreatment and enzyme loadings, as shown in Fig. 5.10.
Rijal et al. (2014) used a ComPAKco briquetting system to produce briquettes
with dimensions of 1 in 0.5 in 4 in. The AFEX-pretreated biomass was then
subjected to simultaneous saccharification fermentation (SSF) at 4% glucan loading
and separate hydrolysis with fermentation (SHF) at 1% glucan loading with an
enzyme loading of 15 filter paper units (FPU) and 64 cellobiase units (CBU) per
gram of glucan for hydrolysis. The sugar yields of the briquettes made with a 2 mm
grind yielded 5% higher ethanol content as compared to the briquettes made with
8 mm AFEX-pretreated materials. The ethanol yields from the SSF did not signif-
icantly differ for the AFEX-treated corn stover or switchgrass when compared to the
densified AFEX-treated material. Still, they noted a negative impact on the prairie
cordgrass densified material by 16%.
Biersbach et al. (2015) studied ethanol yields from AFEX-treated corn stover,
switchgrass, and prairie cordgrass briquettes to assess the impact that enzyme
loading has during SSF and SHF following long-term storage. Ethanol yields
improved for all of the feedstocks after AFEX pretreatment irrespective of enzyme
dose or fermentation regimen. These authors concluded that the AFEX-pretreated
corn stover briquettes resulted in a 13% increase in ethanol yields. In comparison,
the switchgrass and prairie cordgrass briquettes resulted in a 7% and 22% decrease in
ethanol yields, respectively. The different ethanol yields for the different feedstocks
could be attributed to glucan content, pretreatment efficiency, and enzyme loading.
Steam explosion is a physicochemical pretreatment commonly used for lignocel-
lulosic biomass. In this process, the biomass is subjected to saturated pressure, which
is then suddenly released, thereby resulting in explosive decompression. The tem-
perature and pressure are usually in the range of 160–260 C and 0.69–4.83 MPa,
respectively. The time duration of the steam-explosion process varies from a few
seconds to a few minutes and is expressed as the severity of the process. This process
primarily helps to hydrolyze the hemicellulose, while the lignin transformation
increases the cellulose hydrolysis potential. Steam explosion increases the efficiency
of enzymatic hydrolysis by 90% as compared to only 15% of the untreated samples,
which can be due to the removal of hemicelluloses from the microfibrils and
redistribution of lignin and expose the cellulose surface for enzyme accessibility.
Researchers are testing novel pretreatment methods to improve sugar yields. Cur-
rently, the idea of using supercritical carbon dioxide (CO2) explosion, which helps to
reduce temperature, is being considered as a replacement to steam explosion. CO2
forms carbonic acid when dissolved in water, which increases the hydrolysis rate of
the acid. CO2 molecules comparable to the size of water and ammonia molecules
will help to penetrate small pores that are accessible to water and ammonia mole-
cules. Explosive release of the CO2 pressure—the disruption of the cellulosic
structure—increases the available surface area of the substrate to hydrolysis.
Table 5.2 gives a summary of the pretreatment methods used for lignocellulosic
biomass.
5.1.3 Thermochemical Conversion
The properties of the various feedstocks after densification were provided in

Table 5.2. There are different thermal pretreatment technologies—such as
torrefaction, hydrothermal carbonization, and steam explosion—to improve the
biomass chemical properties and CV. Integrating densification with these thermal
pretreatment methods helps to improve physical properties, such as size, shape, and
density.
Table 5.2 Impact of pretreatment on the lignocellulosic biomass (derived from Kumar et al. 2009)
Pretreatment process Advantages
Mechanical pretreatment
Comminution Reduces the cellulose crystallinity
Densification Presence of heat, pressure, and temperature reduces the cellulose
crystallinity
Physicochemical
Steam explosion Degrades hemicellulose and distribution of lignin and is cost-effective
Chemical
Ammonia fiber (a) Increases the surface area of the biomass
explosion (b) Eliminates the lignin and hemicellulose and prevents the formation of
inhibitors in the downstream process
CO2 explosion (a) Increases the biomass particle surface area
(b) More cost-effective
(c) Does not cause the formation of inhibitory compounds
Ozonolysis (a) Reduces lignin content
(b) Does not produce toxic residues
Acid hydrolysis (a) Hydrolyzes hemicellulose to xylose and other sugars
(b) Alters lignin structure
Alkaline hydrolysis (a) Removes hemicellulose and lignin
(b) Increases biomass particle surface area
Organosolv (a) Hydrolyzes lignin
(b) Hydrolyzes hemicelluloses
Biological (a) Degrades lignin and hemicelluloses
(b) Low energy
5.1.3.1 Torrefaction
Torrefaction is a thermal pretreatment process where the biomass is typically heated

in the range of 200–300 C for a period of 30 min (Tumuluru et al. 2011). Both the
temperature and residence time have an impact on the degree of torrefaction.
Torrefaction impacts the physical properties, chemical compositions, and energy
properties of the biomass (Tumuluru 2016). Thermal pretreatment makes biomass
properties similar to coal, thus making it suitable for cofiring with coal at higher
percentages.
Figure 5.11 describes the impact of torrefaction temperature on various biomass
components where three temperature regimes are identified: (a) a non-reactive zone
that is between 150 and 200 C; (b) a reactive zone that is between 200 and 250 C;
and (c) a destructive zone that ranges from 250 to 300 C (Tumuluru et al. 2011). At
the non-reactive temperature regime, the biomass loses most of its moisture, which
can result in shrinkage. In this temperature zone, the biomass chemical composition
remains intact. At the reactive temperature zone, the breakage of hydrogen and
carbon bonds will occur and result in the emission of lipophilic extractives. In the
destructive temperature zone, most inter- and intra-molecular hydrogen bonds and
C-C and C-O bonds are broken, which results in the formation of hydrophilic
extractives, carboxylic acids, alcohols, aldehydes, ether, and gases like CO, CO2,
Fig. 5.11 Impact of thermal pretreatment on biomass components (derived from Tumuluru et al.
2011)
and CH4. At these temperatures, the biomass cell structure is destroyed and also
loses its fibrous nature and becomes brittle. In this zone, the typical chemical
reactions that take place are dehydration, devolatilization, and carbonization.
These reactions result in significant changes in biomass composition and heating
values. Figure 5.12 gives higher heating values of raw and torrefied woody biomass
samples. Increasing the temperature and residence time increases the higher heating
value. The van Krevelen diagram, which is the ratio of H/C and O/C, clearly
indicated that torrefied biomass samples are closer to commercially available
coals, as observed in Fig. 5.13. Table 5.3 shows the improvements that torrefaction
brings in terms of logistics, storage, and physical and chemical properties.
Fig. 5.12 Heating value in lodgepole pine grind at different torrefaction process conditions
Fig. 5.13 The van Krevelen diagram for raw, torrefied lodgepole pine grind, and commercial coals
5.1.3.2 Hydrothermal Carbonization
Hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) converts raw biomass energy-densified

hydrochar, which is suitable as a solid biofuel (Hoekman et al. 2018). During the
Table 5.3 Summary of torrefaction effects on biomass quality attributes (derived from Tumuluru
and Hess 2015)
process, the biomass is exposed to hot and pressurized water, usually at temperatures
of 200–300 C and autogenous pressure. The various reactions during hydrothermal
carbonization are hydrolysis, dehydration, decarboxylation, condensation-
polymerization, and aromatization. During these reactions, the oxygen content in
the biomass is removed, and the C/O ratio is increased. The biomass properties, in
terms of heating values, grindability, and hydrophobicity, are improved. Also, this
process enhances densification characteristics. The degree of properties improve-
ment depends on the severity of the process conditions selected. According to
Hoekman et al. (2018), when process severity is low, little energy densification
(5–10%) is achieved, whereas, at higher severity, the increase in energy density is
about 30–40%. These same authors reviewed the hydrothermal carbonization of
various biomass feedstocks at different process conditions. Some of the feedstocks

treated with a hydrothermal carbonization process are given in Table 5.4.
5.1.3.3 Steam Explosion
Steam explosion loosens biomass structure and helps to break up large molecules
into smaller ones. The severity of deconstruction depends on the severity of the
steam treatment (i.e., temperature, the water content of the steam, and treatment
duration). According to Lam et al. (2015) and Zimbardi et al. (1999), biomass steam
is used as a hydrolysis pretreatment for biochemical conversion. During this process,
the biomass is exposed to temperatures between 180 and 240 C and pressures of
1.03–3.45 MPa for several minutes, which is further depressurized to ambient
temperature. The explosive depressurization alters the biomass chemical composi-
tion and dimensions in terms of size and shape. According to Shaw et al. (2009), the
physiochemical alteration of biomass due to steam explosion results in pellets with a
density of 1226 kg/m3, whereas the untreated pellets had a density of about
1086 kg/m3 for poplar wood. Studies conducted by Adapa et al. (2010) corroborated
with the observations made by Shaw et al. (2009), where steam-exploded wheat
straw had small particle size and higher densities after pelleting. Lam (2011)
discussed the effect that different steam-explosion temperatures and times have on
compression and extrusion energy, as well as the unit density of the produced pellet,
as observed in Table 5.5. It is clear that compression and extrusion energy are higher
in the steam-treated biomass than is observed in the untreated samples. In addition,
there is not much significant difference in solid density. However, steam explosion
increases particle bonding and can help to produce pellets with higher durability
values. Table 5.6 shows the woody biomass properties of raw, steam-treated,
pelletized, and torrefied samples. It is clear from the table that steam-exploded
switchgrass pellets had a higher calorific value, density, and durability as compared
to the raw switchgrass pellets.
5.1.3.4 Biochemical Conversion of Steam-Exploded Pellets
Tang et al. (2018) studied the influence of the steam-explosion process on the
durability and enzymatic digestibility of wood pellets. These authors also tested
ground poplar treated with steam at different regimes, including autohydrolysis, SO2
catalysis, and deacetylation, as well as both acidic and neutral sulfonation for both
dried and pelleted poplar. These authors concluded that the use of pelleted feedstock
in an enzyme-based biorefinery has a positive impact on the economies of scale.
They also accommodate a greater variety of biomass feedstock types for enzyme-
based conversion biorefineries. The results of this study indicate that steam explo-
sion improves both the ease of enzymatic conversion and pellet durability at the
Table 5.4 Effect of hydrothermal carbonization process conditions on hydrochar properties (derived from Hoekman et al. 2018)
Biomass HTC reaction conditions Hydrochar yield and properties
Temp Hold W/B Severity Mass yield Energy yield HHV Energy density
Name ( C) time ratio factor (%) (%) (MJ/Kg) ratio O/C
Woody biomass
Loblolly pine 200 1 min 30/1 2.944 79.1 84.8 21.4 1.07 0.62
3 min 3.421 73.7 79.9 21.7 1.08 0.61
5 min 3.643 72.9 80.5 22.1 1.10 0.60
Norway spruce 210 30 min 4.716 74.1 80.3 22.4 1.08 0.52
222 5 min 4.291 73.8 80.7 22.6 1.09 0.51
Loblolly pine 290 20–30 s 3–4 5.293 83.5 101 24.5 1.21 0.48
290 20–30 s 3–4 5.293 83.5 100 24.3 1.20 0.48
Beech wood chips 210 3h 7/1 5.494 68 81 22.9 1.19 0.49
Slash pine 235 6 min 4.753 60.9 68.8 22.8 1.13 0.52
235 12 min 5.054 69.7 80.1 23.2 1.15 0.49
275 6 min 5.931 54.2 76.4 28.6 1.41 0.26
275 12 min 6.232 53.6 75.6 28.4 1.41 0.28
Pinyon/Juniper 176 30 min 8/1 3.715 77.4 81.1 21.2 1.05 0.59
218 5.570 71.5 80.8 23.2 1.13 0.46
239 6.306 62.7 74.6 24.1 1.19 0.42
264 6.718 50.6 69.6 28.3 1.38 0.25
278 7.219 49.6 69.8 28.5 1.41 0.25
295 48.6 66.3 28.0 1.36 0.23
Herbaceous biomass
Corn stalk 250 4h 10/1 6.797 36 60.1 29.2 1.67 0.17
Sugarcane 180 5 min 10/1 3.054 70.4 75.9 18.5 1.08 0.82
bagasse 30 min 10/1 3.833 60.8 66.1 18.6 1.09 0.78
Coconut fiber 220 30 min 10/1 5.010 57 76.7 24.7 1.34 0.37
250 5.894 45 65.7 26.7 1.45 0.30
300 7.366 40 65.0 29.4 1.60 0.21
350 8.838 37 55.8 28.7 1.56 0.21
Corn stover 178 30 min 8/1 3.774 67.0 68.5 18.2 1.02 0.72
5.1 Introduction
216 4.893 56.6 64.6 20.0 1.14 0.53

239 5.570 56.4 68.5 21.3 1.21 0.46
261 6.218 40.0 56.3 24.7 1.41 0.25
277 6.689 42.4 60.7 25.2 1.43 0.23
296 7.248 38.0 56.2 26.3 1.48 0.20
Sunflower stalk 190 20 h 20/1 5.729 39.7 58.9 24.5 1.49
230 6.907 29.2 50.4 28.5 1.74
Distillers grains 200 2h 4/1 5.024 38.9 57.2 29.7 1.47 0.23
Corn stalk 250 4h 10/1 6.797 36 60.1 29.2 1.67 0.17
143
Table 5.5 Forces and input energy to make steam-exploded wood pellets and unit density of
produced pellets (derived from Lam 2011)
Treatment (steam temperature/ Max Compression Extrusion Solid density
treatment duration) force (N) Energy1 (J) Energy2 (J) (g/cm3)
Untreated 4290 22.3 0.049 1.43
200 C for 5 min 4190 25.0 0.118 1.42
200 C for 10 min 4120 31.8 0.117 1.43
220 C for 5 min 4297 38.8 0.178 1.42
220 C for 10 min 4079 40.4 0.235 1.42
Table 5.6 Forces and input energy to make steam-exploded wood pellets and unit density of
produced pellets (derived from Lam 2011)
HHV Density Durability
Conditions (MJ/kg) (g/cm3) tumbler (%)
Pellets made from steam-treated feedstock and torrefied 22.8 1.23 99.2
Douglas fir (DF) pellet (torrefaction at 280 C for 15 min)
Torrefied Douglas fir (DF) pellet made from untreated 23.2 1.14 98.4
biomass (torrefaction at 280 C for 15 min)
Pellet made from steam-treated Douglas fir (DF) but not 20.3 1.29 99.7
torrefied
Douglas fir (DF) pellets made from untreated biomass and 18.8 1.17 98.1
not torrefied (control)
Steam-treated and torrefied switchgrass pellet (260 C for 21.3 1.2 99.0
15 min)
Torrefied switchgrass pellet (260 C for 15 min) 21.8 1.05 98.2
Steam-treated switchgrass pellet (210 C for 5 min) 19.0 1.3 99.3
Switchgrass raw pellet 17.3 1.15 97.8
expense of increased energy consumption during the pelletization process. Different

pretreatment methods are used to enhance the durability and hydrolyzability of the
pellets. Neutral sulfonation during steam pretreatment has helped to recover most of
the carbohydrates, increase the hydrophilicity of the lignin, and decrease the enzyme
loading for the hydrolysis. The same authors found that increasing the hydrophilicity
increases the drying energy; consequently, the durability of the higher heating values
becomes lower, thereby making them less suitable for biopower applications. The
autocatalysis and SO2 steam explosion resulted in pellets that are suitable for
thermochemical conversion with higher heating value and hydrophobicity. These
authors concluded that pretreatment should be integrated into the pellet production
process and should be tailored to the end-use application.
Kumar et al. (2012) studied how densification influences the steam-pretreatment
and enzymatic hydrolysis of softwood to sugars. These authors indicated that
pelleting did not result in significant hemicellulose loss and that steam-pretreated
pellets were found to be readily hydrolyzed like steam-pretreated chips. When
steam-pretreated prior to pelleting, the wood chips did not require further grinding
prior to pelleting. In addition, excellent cellulose hydrolysis was achieved with a
Fig. 5.14 Post-treatment (neutral sulfonation) impact on the enzymatic hydrolysis of the cellulose
present in pretreated pellets, wood chips, and steam-stabilized pellets
need for subsequent steam-pretreatment after pelleting. These authors concluded that
steam-pretreatment enhanced the pelleting characteristics of chips, good hemicellu-
lose, and cellulose recovery that can be readily hydrolyzed.
Figure 5.14 shows the results of pelleted, steam-treated, and post-treated wood
chips reported by Kumar et al. (2012). These authors indicated that sulfonation did
not result in significant delignification of the substrates. Both the rate and the extent
of enzymatic hydrolysis increased significantly for all the substrates. For the sub-
strate that was steam-pretreated and pelleted, sulfonation was less effective. This
study indicated that 85% of the cellulose in the substrate was hydrolyzed, whereas in
the case of never-dried and non-pelleted material, more than 90% of the cellulose
present in both the steam-pretreated wood chips and pellets was hydrolyzed within
24 hr. (Kumar et al. 2012). It is quite clear from Fig. 5.14 that the hydrolysis rate is
slightly higher for the pelleted samples as compared to the wood chips. This slight
increase can be due to slight variations in the severity experienced by these sub-
strates during steam-pretreatment and its subsequent influence on sulfonation. Stud-
ies by Kumar et al. (2011) indicated that pretreatment severity could bring structural
changes to the lignin, which further influences the ability of the post-treatments to
bring changes to the lignin (Kumar et al. 2011). Table 5.7 indicates the properties of
the densified products prepared using raw and pretreated biomass. It is clear from
this table that most of the densified products after thermal pretreatment are closer in
composition to coal, indicating that these products can be used as an alternative solid
fuel for power generation.
Table 5.7 Properties of raw and pretreated densified biomass compared to coal (derived from Tumuluru et al. 2012)
Wood chips Briquettes Wood pellets Extruded Logs FP SEP HTP TOP Coal
Moisture content (% wt) 30–45 <10 5–7 <8 4–7 5–7 3–6 1–5 10–15
Calorific value (MJ/kg) 9–12 17–19 17–19 19–20 17 20–21 20–25 20–24 23–28
Volatiles (% db) 70–75 70–75 70–75 <60 65 ~75–77 70–75 55–65 15–30
Elemental carbon (% bd) 30–35 45 45 45–50 42 53–55 60 55–60 80–90
Bulk density (g/cm3) 0.2–0.25 0.45–0.55 0.6–0.7 0.3–0.4 0.6–0.7 0.7–0.8 0.75–0.8 0.75–0.8 0.8–0.85
Unit density (g/cm3) N/A 0.8–1.0 1.0–1.1 1.3–1.4 1.1–1.2 1.1–1.3 1.1–1.4 1.1–1.4 N/A
Dust Average Average Less Less Less Less Less Less Less
Hygroscopic properties HPL HPL HPL HPL HPL HPB HPB HPB HPB
Biological degradation Yes Yes Yes Low Yes No No No No
Milling requirement Special Special Special Special Special Classic Classic Classic Classic
Handling requirements Special Special Easy Special Easy Easy Easy Easy Easy
Product consistency Limited Limited High High High High High High High
Transport cost High Average Average Average Average Low Low Low Low
Note: SEP steam-exploded pellets, HTTP hydrothermal pellets, TOP torrefied pellets, HPL hydrophilic, HPB hydrophobic, FP (formulated pellets): equal
proportions of corn stover, switchgrass, eucalyptus, and pine
5.1.3.5 Thermochemical Conversion
Gasification
Figure 5.15 shows the various biomass reactions that can occur during thermal
conversions. Gasification is a process that converts organic or fossil fuels into syngas
or synthesis gas or producer gas. This is achieved by subjecting the biomass to a
higher temperature of >700 C under a controlled amount of steam and oxygen. The
syngas is a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, and
smaller hydrocarbons. The solids that were produced are called char, which are made
up of unconverted organic fraction, fixed carbon, and ash. Of all the thermochemical
conversion processes, gasification is the most cost-effective process to produce
gaseous biofuels. Extensive gasification research has been completed and published
in the literature since World War II. There are a series of reactions that occur during
gasification in an oxygen-deficient environment—such as drying, pyrolysis, reduc-
tion, and oxidation, as observed in Fig. 5.15. Drying temperatures occur at 150 C,
where an increase in temperature causes the carbonaceous materials, such as cellu-
lose and lignin, to become decomposed into small species by cracking the chemical
bonds within a temperature range of 250–700 C. Equation 5.1 provides various
products that are produced during biomass gasification. During gasification, there
Fig. 5.15 Various reactions during the thermal conversion of biomass (derived from Wang et al.
2017)
are many heat, mass transfer, and reaction kinetics. The reaction temperature impacts
the kinetics. At lower temperatures, the heat and mass transfer kinetics are limited.
The syngas is formed through the complicated reactions between the gas mixture and
the char. The major reactions include the carbonation of char, water gas shift
reactions methanation, tar decomposition, and steam reforming.
Biomass ! H 2 þ CO þ CO2 þ Hydrocarbons þ H 2 OðgÞ þ Tar þ Char ð5:1Þ
Pyrolysis
In the pyrolysis process, the biomass is thermally decomposed in the absence of

oxygen. This is achieved during slow heating of biomass over longer residence times
of 5–30 min, which increase the production of char products. A fast heating rate with
a shorter residence time increases the bio-oil production and valuable chemicals.
Decomposition typically occurs relatively at low temperatures between 300 and
600 C in just a few seconds at atmospheric pressure. Short reaction times and
medium temperatures support the production of bio-oil and other chemicals from
biomass feedstocks. Figure 5.16 shows the products that are produced during
pyrolysis.
Biomass feedstock complexity, pyrolysis, and the production of various products
make it challenging to understand the pyrolysis mechanism. During the initial phase,
water is removed due to dehydration reactions. During the next stage, the transfer of
Fig. 5.16 Primary and secondary pyrolysis, including arrows indicating the reaction pathway
(thermal conversion of solid biomass particle under inert atmosphere) (derived from Shen et al.
2017)
heat causes the formation of char, bio-oil, gas, and water. Biomass surface proper-
ties, such as particle size, shape, and surface area, impact the heat transfer, oil
quality, and other products. In general, smaller particle sizes are preferred for
pyrolysis. For the pyrolysis process, biomass is typically mechanically ground into
a fine powder prior to the reaction. During the secondary stage, further decomposi-
tion occurs in addition to various other reactions, resulting in an increase in gaseous
products.
Suitability of Densified and Pretreated and Densified Biomass for Gasification

and Pyrolysis
Sarkar et al. (2014) studied the gasification performance of pretreated switchgrass,

specifically torrefaction and densification. In this study, four switchgrass pretreat-
ments were observed during torrefaction at 230–270 C, densification, and com-
bined torrefaction and densification at three gasification temperatures (e.g., 700, 800,
and 900 C). The gasification tests were done using a fixed bed externally heated
reactor, which uses air as the oxidizing agent. Both the densification and the
torrefaction/densification combination had an impact on gasification performance.
Results indicated that the pretreatment of switchgrass had a significant effect on
syngas yields, the heating value of syngas, carbon conversion, and cold gas efficien-
cies. Increasing gasification temperature improved the H2 and CO yields, syngas
lower heating value, and gasifier efficiency, whereas the values of CH4, CO2, and N2
were all reduced. Among the different scenarios tested, torrefaction and densification
proved to have the best effect for gasification, followed by densified, raw, and
torrefied switchgrass, respectively. Table 5.8 indicates the syngas yields from
switchgrass for different pretreatment and densification conditions. Gasification of
combined torrefied and densified switchgrass resulted in the highest yields of H2
Table 5.8 Effect of pretreatment on the gas yields for lower heating value, CCE, and CGE
H2 CH4 Lower Carbon
yields CO yield yield heating conversion Cold gas
(kg/kg (kg/kg (kg/kg value effciency efficiency
Pretreatment biomass) biomass) biomass) (MJ/m3) (CCE, %) (CGE, %)
No pretreatment 0.014 0.41 0.10 4.46 87.61 58.28
Torrefaction 0.010 0.23 0.11 4.06 67.58 43.43
(230 C for
30 min)
Torrefaction 0.006 0.16 0.12 3.89 58.11 33.46
(270 C for
30 min)
Densification 0.020 0.49 0.08 4.47 89.58 63.98
Torrefaction 0.030 0.63 0.07 4.98 90.69 64.76
(270 C for
30 min) and
densification
Table 5.9 Syngas composition with respect to biomass type

SP WP TWC PC MSS
CO (%) 11.9 12.2 7.2 9.0 8.6
CO2 (%) 9.4 10.0 8.6 8.4 7.2
H2 (%) 6.53 5.9 8.2 6.2 4.0
CH4 (%) 2.92 3.10 3.4 1.4 2.8
C2H6 (%) 0.4 0.1 0.01 0 na
C2H4 (%) 1.23 1.49 0.8 0.01 na
C3+ (%) 0.14 na na 0 na
N2 (%) 67.5 67.2 71.9 75 76.7
H2/CO 0.87 0.48 1.14 0.69 0.47
Tar (gC/Nm3) 4.3 9.4 0.99 1.94 32.8
Total S (ppm) 242 22 17 22.3 na
H2S (ppm) 104 34 12.7 7.5 10
COS (ppm) 19 3.9 1.2 14.5 18
Methylmercaptane (ppm) 0.8 0.4 0.7 na na
Note: na not analyzed, SP straw pellets, WP softwood pellets, TWC torrefied wood chips, PC
pyrolysis char, MSS milled sunflower seed
Table 5.10 Results for biomass gasification experiments

SP WP TWC PC MSS
Fluidization velocity (m/s) 0.41 0.43 0.43 0.24 0.17
Residence time (s) 1.22 1.17 1.17 2.11 2.95
Cold gas efficiency (%) 69 56 53 16 17.3
Carbon conversion (%) 82.2 69.7 59.1 25.9 26.7
Gas yield (Nm3/kg fuel) 2.83 2.47 3.12 2.25 1.31
Calorific value of the syngas per Nm3 (MJ/Nm3) 4.40 4.25 3.50 2.33 2.51
Calorific value of the syngas per kggasified fuel (MJ/kg 12.46 10.52 10.89 5.24 3.29
fuel)
(0.03 kg/kg biomass) and CO (0.72 kg/kg biomass) and the highest syngas of lower
heating value (LHV) (5.08 MJ m3), carbon conversion efficiency (CCE) (92.53%),
and cold gas efficiency (CGE) (68.40%) at the gasification temperature of 900 C.
Işık-Gulsac et al. (2016) discussed the thermochemical conversion behavior of
different biomass feedstocks, such as straw pellet (SP), softwood pellet (WP),
torrefied wood chip (TWC), pyrolysis char (PC), milled sunflower seeds (MSS),
and distillers grains and solubles (DDGS). On one hand, the results indicate that the
highest cold gas efficiency, carbon conversion, and calorific values were obtained for
the gasification of SP. On the other hand, SP had some drawbacks regarding its high
agglomeration tendency and low deformation temperature. Among all feedstocks,
the gasification reactivity of MSS was found to be lower. MSS seemed to expose to
pyrolization instead of gasification. WP and TWC were gasified with acceptable
conversion values and efficiencies when compared with SP Table 5.9, and
Table 5.10 indicates the syngas composition and biomass gasification experiments.
It is clear from the results that WP is the best choice for gasification. Teixeira et al.
(2012) studied the gasification of char from wood pellets and wood chips. In their
research, these authors used a fixed bed gasifier where char is converted to syngas.
The research focus was to understand how the bed compaction impacts the gasifi-
cation of char by using two types of products: (a) low-density biomass char from
wood chips; and (b) high-density char from wood pellets. These two products were
gasified in a pilot-scale continuous fixed bed reactor. During gasification, the authors
measured the char bed for temperature, gas species concentration, char composition,
char bed density, char particle velocity, and specific char and gas sampling tech-
niques. Within the operating conditions, the char bed reactive zone is three times
longer for chips (45 cm) than for pellets (16 cm). The results indicate that pelletiza-
tion has no effect on char bed compaction, final char conversion (about 95%), and
syngas quality (16% H2 and 13% CO). Erlich and Fransson (2011) studied the
gasification of pellets made of a wood and palm-oil residue in downdraft gasifica-
tion. This study has indicated that pellets can be used in a downdraft gasifier. The
results show that one and the same reactor can be used for a variety of fuels in pellet
form, but at varying air-fuel ratios, temperature levels, gas compositions, and lower
heating values. Gasification of wood pellets results in a rich producer gas, while
empty fruit bunch (EFB) pellets result in a lower-quality producer gas with higher
amounts of non-combustible compounds. In this study, a linear relationship between
the air-fuel ratio and cold-gas efficiency was observed, and better efficiencies were
observed at higher air-fuel ratios.
Yang et al. (2014a, b) worked on the intermediate pyrolysis of biomass energy
pellets to produce sustainable liquid and solid fuels. These authors conducted
experiments in pilot-scale systems using energy pellets for pyrolysis. The oil yields
were 34.1 wt% and 12.0 wt% for woody and barley straws, respectively. The
produced oils are rich in heterocyclic and phenolic compounds and have heating
values over 24 MJ/kg. The char produced using woody and barley straw pellets were
about 30 wt.% with heating values like sub-bituminous coal. The gas yields were
about 20 wt.% with heating values similar to the producer gas produced by using the
downdraft gasifier. Based on the produced products, the process efficiency was
calculated at about 75%. Table 5.11 gives the various compounds of the bio-oil
produced using wood and barley pellets. Interestingly, the study indicated that the
wood pyrolysis contained less carbon and higher hydrogen than the barley straws,
indicating higher combustion energy. Compositional analysis of bio-oil produced
using wood and straw pellets indicated they are similar to that of fossil fuels rich in
paraffin, naphthenes, and aromatics. Bio-oil produced from wood pellets had
67.43% of phenolic compounds and 16.94% of furanic acids, which can be due to
biopolymers like lignin that is present in the biomasses. For wood oil, aromatic
compounds are the major constituents represented by 67.43% of phenolic com-
pounds and 16.94% of furanic compounds. The presence of these compounds was
attributable to biopolymer textures of the biomass feedstocks, especially lignin,
which is composed of mainly polymerized aromatics.
Studies conducted by Xing et al. (2018) on understanding the characteristics of
biochar pellets from corn stover at different pyrolysis temperatures (e.g., 400, 450,
Table 5.11 Compounds of the bio-oil produced using wood and barley straw pellets
Wood Barley straw
Compound (%) (%)
Furanic 16.94 1.62
Phenolic 67.43 30.68
Aromatic hydrocarbons – 13.52
Cyclopentenone-based compounds 7.54 8.09
Other heterocyclic – 7.80
Organic acids 2.93 –
Long-chain hydrocarbon-based compounds (including chloride and – 18.15
nitrile)
Other and unknown 5.16 20.15
500, 550, and 600 C) indicated that higher heating values increased the yield to
24.55 MJ/kg. These authors concluded that biochar pellets could reduce transporta-
tion costs and storage issues. The excellent properties of biochar pellets, in terms of
their physical and chemical properties, can help to replace coals, such as lignite and
sub-bituminous coal. Pelleting also helped some of the functional groups to weaken
or disappear in the biochar showing a compact structure. A Yang et al. (2014a, b)
study on the effect of torrefaction and densification on switchgrass pyrolysis prod-
ucts indicated that torrefaction and densification favored the sugars and phenols
production. Torrefaction of switchgrass improved the energy and carbon contents.
The sugars and phenols are higher for torrefied switchgrass as compared to raw
switchgrass. This study also indicated that increasing the torrefaction temperature
from 230 C to 270 C increased the sugars and phenols content in the pyrolysis
products, whereas the guaiacols content decreased. A higher pyrolysis temperature
of 600 C or 700 C, instead of 500 C, increased the lignin decomposition, while the
anhydrous sugars increased the phenolics, furans, and aromatics. Densification of the
torrefied biomass improved the depolymerization of cellulose and hemicellulose
during the pyrolysis. Table 5.12 provides a list of the pyrolysis products typically
produced at 700 C for raw switchgrass, densified switchgrass, torrefied switchgrass,
and torrefied and densified switchgrass. It is clear from this research conducted by
many different researchers that densifying biomass and further using it for biochem-
ical and thermochemical conversion improves fuel quality.
Biopower
The biopower industry is a complex array of power utilities and non-utilities using
many technologies and inputs to produce electricity. Biomass is pulverized and
cofired with coal. The generated heat converts water into steam. The steam then
turns the turbine blades and shaft to produce power. Water is drawn into a condenser,
where the steam is turned back into water and reused in the plant. Figure 5.17 shows
Table 5.12 Pyrolysis products of raw, densified, torrefied, and densified switchgrass
Raw switchgrass Torrefaction Torrefaction Torrefied and pelleted
Chemicals Group (6.35 mm screen size) Pelleted temperature 230 ( C) temperature 230 ( C) (270 C + pelleted)
Cellulose/hemicellulose derived compounds (area%)
Benzofuran, 2,3-dihydro- Furans 10.71 6.30 3.13 9.69 3.81
5.1 Introduction
Furfural Furans 3.82 2.94 – 3.17 –

Furan, 2-methyl- Furans – – 2.80 – 2.41
Furan, 2,5-dimethyl- Furans – – 2.23 – 2.12
2-Furancarboxaldehyde, Furans 1.71 1.63 1.06 1.17 1.61
5-methyl-
2(3H)-Furanone, 5-methyl- Furans – 2.46 1.78 1.59 –
5-Hydroxymethylfurfural Furans – 1.39 1.21 – –
2-Furanmethanol Furans – 1.22 – 1.33 –
Acetic acid Acid 4.01 2.07 1.58 – 1.33
d-Allose Sugars – 5.78 – 2.82 3.61
β-d-Glucopyranose, Sugars 1.05 6.62 – 4.94 3.55
1,6-anhydrous-
2-Cyclopenten-1-one, Ketones 1.08 – 1.30 1.13 1.00
2-hydroxy-3-methyl-
1,2-Cyclopentanedione Ketones 1.97 1.36 – – 1.69
Lignin-derived compounds (area%)
Phenol Phenols 2.99 2.83 5.01 2.03 3.52
p-Cresol Phenols 2.95 – – – 3.72
Catechol Phenols 3.90 4.44 3.20 2.80 2.58
Phenol, 2-methyl- Phenols 1.24 1.02 2.05 2.01 1.43
Phenol, 4-ethyl- Phenols 1.44 1.46 1.40 – 1.10
Phenol, 2,4-dimethyl- Phenols 1.19 1.17 1.72 – 1.40
(continued)
153
Raw switchgrass Torrefaction Torrefaction Torrefied and pelleted
Chemicals Group (6.35 mm screen size) Pelleted temperature 230 ( C) temperature 230 ( C) (270 C + pelleted)
1,2-Benzenediol, Phenols 1.64 1.89 – – –
3-methyl-
1,2-Benzenediol, Phenols 2.29 2.76 1.39 1.50 –
4-methyl-
2-Methoxy-4-vinylphenol Guaiacols 4.45 3.79 2.25 6.37 2.35
Creosol Guaiacols – 2.57 1.89 1.81 1.08
Phenol, 2-methoxy- Guaiacols – 1.47 1.78 1.44 1.28
Phenol, 2,6-dimethoxy- Syringols 1.37 2.07 1.72 2.04 1.18
Toluene Aromatics 3.80 3.15 4.30 2.97 3.86
Benzene Aromatics 2.55 1.61 3.49 – 3.07
Xylene Aromatics 1.24 1.16 1.42 – –
Styrene Aromatics 1.28 – 1.78 – 1.22
Fig. 5.17 Power generation in the U.S. using various fuel sources (EIA 2017)
U.S. electricity generation by fuel type in 2016. Biomass and waste fuels made up
about 2% of this total.
In 2016, biomass and waste fuels generated about 71.4 billion kilowatt-hours
(U.S. Energy Information Agency [EIA], 2017). Biomass is defined as any
non-fossil, carbon-based energy source, whereas waste is defined as non-biogenic
waste. Wood-based solid biomass, such as chips and other densified products,
accounted for nearly one-third of the electricity generated from biomass and
waste. The major sources of woody biomass are logging and mill residues, wood,
paper, discarded large timber products, furniture manufacturing waste, railway ties,
utility poles, and marine pilings (EIA 2017). Wood-derived fuels that are
by-products from the chemical processing of wood are also used for biofuels
production. Wood-derived fuels are the by-product produced during the making of
paper-related products. The black liquor is the major wood-derived product made
from the paper-making process. In 2016, black liquor accounted for 27% of the
electricity generated from waste. Other waste products derived from the paper-
making process include sludge waste, wood-waste liquids, and other biomass
liquids, which contributed to about 0.5% of the electricity. Another major resource
of renewable energy from biobased material is municipal solid waste (MSW). EIA
estimates that biogenic sources such as wood, paper, food, rubber, and yard trim-
mings contributed to about 51% of MSW-based electricity in 2016 (EIA 2017).
Wood Pellets for Biopower Generation
The United States exports most of its wood pellets produced to Europe. According to
data released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 546,435.2 metric tons
of wood pellets were exported by the United States in February 2020, which is
higher by 500,904 tons in January 2020 and 501,563.9 tons in February 2019
(Voegele 2020). These pellets were exported to 18 countries. About 418,529.9
tons of pellets were exported to the United Kingdom, 91,970.5 tons to Belgium-
Luxembourg, and 32,137.5 tons to the Netherlands. The value of U.S. wood pellet
exports reached $76.51 million in February 2020, up from $56.95 million in January
Fig. 5.18 Pellets used for

power generation
Fig. 5.19 Power generation

by burning the pellets
2020, and $63.73 million in February 2019. During the first two months, the United
States exported nearly 1.05 million tons of wood pellets at a value of $145.82
million, whereas it is about 888,342.7 tons at a value of $117.65 million during
the same period of 2019 (Voegele 2020). In the United States, Drax Corporation
established pellet production facilities that have been running for the last five years.
The wood pellets produced from this company were transported from Baton Rouge,
LA, USA, to the United Kingdom’s largest power station, which was then used to
generate electricity for millions of homes in the United Kingdom. Drax has three
pellet mills in the United States which use the wood from the forests of Louisiana,
Arkansas, and Mississippi to produce wood pellets. About two-thirds of the 7.5
million metric tons of wood pellets that Drax uses each year comes from the United
States. Figures 5.18 and 5.19 show how the pellets can be used in boilers for
biopower generation.
References 157
5.2 Conclusions
Currently, biorefineries are not operating at designed capacities due to storage,

transportation, and handling issues. The preprocessing of biomass helps to not
only improve the logistics, storage, and feed handling processes, but biomass
conversion efficiencies as well. The challenge in preprocessing is the cost, which
adds additional costs to feedstock preparation overall. However, the advantages it
provides in terms of reducing storage and transportation costs by improving feed
handling and conveyance are not quantified in terms of cost, as it has never been
studied in detail. Improving transportation and storage logistics, as well as improv-
ing feed handling and conveyance, provides an opportunity for biorefineries to
operate at designed capacities and thereby increase their profitability. Studies indi-
cated that biomass preprocessing not only improves feedstock characteristics but
also improves conversion efficiency. They also indicate that pelleted biomass
improves the biochemical conversion of herbaceous biomass and produces higher
sugar yields. The thermochemical conversion of pelleted biomass also indicated that
the quality of syngas and bio-oil yields are better as compared to the raw biomass
tested. The physical and mild chemical changes produced in the biomass during
densification is one of the primary reasons for better performance during conversion.
References
Adapa PK, Tabil LG Jr, Schoenau GJ (2010) Compression characteristics of non-treated and steam
exploded barley, canola, oat, and wheat straw grinds. Appl Eng Agric 26(4):617–632
Bals BD, Gunawan C, Moore J, Teymouri F, Dale BE (2014) Enzymatic hydrolysis of pelletized
AFEX™-treated corn stover at high solid loadings. Biotechnol Bioeng 111(2):264–271
Biersbach G, Rijad B, Pryor SW, Gibbons WR (2015) Effects of enzyme loading, densification, and
storage on AFEX-pretreated biomass for ethanol production. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 177
(7):1530–1540
Bridgewater AV, Peacocke GVC (2000) Fast pyrolysis processes for biomass. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 4:1):1–1)73
Cadoche L, Lopez GD (1989) Assessment of size reduction as a preliminary step in the production
of ethanol from lignocellulosic wastes. Biol Wastes 30:153–157
Dien BS, Mitchell RB, Bowman MJ, Jin VL, Quarterman J, Schmer MR, Singh V, Slininger PJ
(2018) Bioconversion of pelletized big bluestem, switchgrass, and low-diversity grass mixtures
into sugars and bioethanol. Front Energy 6:1–17
EIA (2017) Biomass and waste fuels made up 2% of total US electricity generation in 2016
[Online]. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id¼33872#:~:
text¼Biomass%20and%20waste%20fuels%20generated,based%20(biogenic)%20energy%
20sources) Accessed 23 June 2020
Erlich C, Fransson TH (2011) Downdraft gasification of pellets made of wood, palm-oil residues
respective bagasse: experimental study. App Eng 88(3):899–908
Guragain YN, Wilson J, Staggenborg S, McKinney L, Wang D, Vadlani PV (2013) Evaluation of
pelleting as a preprocessing step for effective biomass deconstruction and fermentation.
Biochem Eng J 77:198–207
Hoekman SK, Broach A, Felix L (2018) Hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) of biomass for energy
applications. In: Tumuluru JS (ed) Biomass Preprocessing and Pretreatments for Production of
Biofuels. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 196–254
Hoover AN, Tumuluru JS, Teymouri F, Moore J, Gresham G (2014) Effect of pelleting process
variables on physical properties and sugar yields of ammonia fiber expansion pretreated corn
stover. Bioresour Technol 164:128–135
Işık-Gulsac I, Durak-Cetin Y, Engin B, Gafarova-Aksoy P, Karataş H, Sarıoğlan A (2016)
Thermochemical conversion behavior of different biomass feedstocks: pyrolysis and gasifica-
tion. J Turkish Chem Soc A 3(3):731–746
Karunanithy C, Muthukumarappan K, Gibbons W (2013) Effect of extruder screw speed, temper-
ature, and enzyme levels on sugar recovery from different biomasses. ISRN Biotechnol
2013:942810
Kumar P, Barrett DM, Delwiche MJ, Stroeve P (2009) Methods for pretreatment of lignocellulosic
biomass for efficient hydrolysis and biofuels production. Ind Eng Chem Res 48:3713–3729
Kumar L, Chandra R, Saddler J (2011) Influence of steam-pretreatment severity on post-treatments
used to enhance the enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated softwoods at low enzyme loadings.
Biotechnol Bioeng 108:2300–2311
Kumar L, Tooyserkani Z, Sokhansanj S, Saddler JN (2012) Does densification influence the steam-
pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of softwoods to sugars? Bioresour Technol 121:190–198
Lam PS (2011) Steam-explosion to biomass to produce durable wood pellets. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Lam PS, Lam PY, Sokhansanj S, Bi XT, Lim CJ, Melin S (2015) Effect of steam-explosion
pretreatment on size reduction and pellet quality of woody and agricultural biomass. In:
Tannous K (ed) Innovative Solutions in Fluid-Particle Systems and Renewable Energy Man-
agement. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 27–53
Nahar N, Pryor SW (2014) Reduced pretreatment severity and enzyme loading enabled through
switchgrass pelleting. Biomass Bioenergy 67:46–52
Pandey R, Nahar N, Tumuluru JS, Pryor SW (2019) Quantifying reductions in soaking in aqueous
ammonia pretreatment severity and enzymatic hydrolysis conditions for corn stover pellets.
Bioresour Technol Rep 7:100187
Ray AE, Hoover AN, Nagle N, Chen X, Gresham G (2013) Effect of pelleting on the recalcitrance
and bioconversion of dilute-acid pretreated corn stover under low- and high-solids conditions.
Biofuels 4(3):271–284
Ray AE, Li C, Thompson VS, Daubaras DL, Nagle NJ, Hartley DS (2017) Biomass blending and
densification: Impacts on feedstock supply and biochemical conversion performance. In:
Tumuluru JS (ed.) Biomass Volume Estimation and Valorization for Energy. IntechOpen.
https://doi.org/10.5772/67207
Rijal B, Igathinathane C, Karki B, Yu M, Pryor SW (2012) Combined effect of pelleting and
pretreatment on enzymatic hydrolysis of switchgrass. Bioresour Technol 116:36–41
Rijal B, Biersbach G, Gibbons WR, Pryor SW (2014) Effect of initial particle size and densification
on AFEX-pretreated biomass for ethanol production. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 174
(2):845–854
Sarkar M, Kumar A, Tumuluru JS, Patil KN, Bellmer DD (2014) Gasification performance of
switchgrass pretreated with torrefaction and densification. Appl Energy 127:194–201
Shaw MD, Karunakaran C, Tabil LG Jr (2009) Physicochemical characteristics of densified
untreated and steam-exploded poplar wood and wheat straw grinds. Biosyst Eng 103
(2):198–207
Shen Y, Ma D, Ge X (2017) Co2-looping in biomass pyrolysis or gasification. Sustainable Energy
& Fuels 1:1700–1729
Shi J, Thompson VS, Yancey NA, Stavila V, Simmons BA, Singh S (2013) Impact of mixed
feedstocks and feedstock densification on ionic liquid pretreatment efficiency. Biofuels 4
(1):63–72
References 159
Sundaram V, Muthukumarappan K (2016) Impact of AFEX™ pretreatment and extrusion pelleting

on pellet physical properties and sugar recovery from corn stover, prairie cord grass, and
switchgrass. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 179(2):202–219
Tang Y, Chandra RP, Sokhansanj S, Saddler JN (2018) Influence of steam-explosion processes on
the durability and enzymatic digestibility of wood pellets. Fuel 211:87–94
Teixeira G, Van de Steene L, Martin E, Gelix F, Salvador S (2012) Gasification of char from wood
pellets and from wood chips: textural properties and thermochemical conversion along a
continuous fixed bed. Fuel 102:514–524
Theerarattananoon K, Xu F, Wilson J, Staggenborg S, McKinney L, Vadlani P, Pei XJ, Wang DH
(2012) Effects of the pelleting conditions on chemical composition and sugar yield of corn
stover, big bluestem, wheat straw, and sorghum stalk pellets. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 35
(4):615–623
Tumuluru JS (2018) Thermal pretreatment of biomass to make it suitable for biopower application.
In: Tumuluru JS (ed) Biomass Preprocessing and Pretreatments for Production of Biofuels. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, pp 255–291
Tumuluru JS, Hess JR (2015) New market potential: torrefaction of woody biomass. Materials
World [Online]. Available at: https://www.iom3.org/materials-world-magazine/feature/2015/
jun/02/new-market-potential-torrefaction-woody-biomass Accessed 3 June 2020
Preprocessing and Pretreatments for Production of Biofuels. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 15–49
5(6):683–707
Tumuluru JS, Searcy E, Kenney KL, Smith WA, Gresham GL, Yancey NA (2016) Impact of
feedstock supply systems unit operations on feedstock cost and quality for bioenergy applica-
tions. In: Kumar R, Singh S, Balan V (eds) Valorization of Lignocellulosic Biomass in a
Biorefinery: From Logistic to Environmental and Performance Impact. Nova Science Pub-
lishers, Inc., Hauppauge, pp 1–45
Biomass engineering: Size reduction, drying, and densification of high moisture biomass.
Feedstock Supply and Logistics Platform, 2017 Project Peer Review, US Department of Energy
(DOE) Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO), 7 March, Denver, CO, USA [Online]. Avail-
able at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/05/f34/fsl_tumuluru_1222.pdf Accessed
8 April 2020
Voegele E (2020) USDA: US wood pellet exports top 546,435 tons in February. Biomass Magazine
[Online]. Available at: http://www.biomassmagazine.com/articles/16940/usda-us-wood-pellet-
exports-top-546-435-tons-in-february Accessed 15 June 2020
Wang AG, Austin D, Song H (2017) Catalytic biomass valorization. In: Tumuluru JS (ed.) Biomass
Volume Estimation and Valorization for Energy. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/65826
Xing X, Fan F, Jiang W (2018) Characteristics of biochar pellets from corn straw under different
pyrolysis temperatures. R Soc Open Sci 5(8):172346
(5):549–558
Yang Y, Brammer JG, Mahmood ASN, Hornung A (2014a) Intermediate pyrolysis of biomass
energy pellets for producing sustainable liquid, gaseous, and solid fuels. Bioresour Technol
169:794–799
Yang Z, Sarkar M, Kumar A, Tumuluru JS, Huhnke RL (2014b) Effects of torrefaction and
densification on switchgrass pyrolysis products. Bioresour Technol 174:266–273
Zimbardi F, Viggiano D, Nanna F, Demichele M, Cuna D, Cardinale G (1999) Steam-explosion of
straw in batch and continuous systems. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 77–79:117–125
Chapter 6
International Standards for Densified
Products
Abstract The primary solid fuel standard used in the United States is the Pellet Fuel
Institute (PFI) standard. In contrast, combined standards throughout various
European countries—such as Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, and
Denmark—are governed by what is known as the European Committee for Stan-
dardization (CEN). CEN/TC 335 developed technical specifications and testing
methods for solid biofuels. CEN/TS 14961 gives the standards for densified solid
fuels like pellets and briquettes. International standards for pellets and briquettes
(ISO 17225-1:2014) are guided by the International Standards Organization (ISO).
This chapter compares the quality of these densified products produced from various
woody, herbaceous, and municipal solid waste (MSW) with respect to the existing
standards.
Keywords Pellet quality · Physical properties · Chemical composition ·

International standards · Pellet Fuel Institute (PFI) · European Committee for
Standardization (CEN) · International Standards Organization (ISO)
6.1 Introduction
Biomass pellets are considered a renewable, clean-burning fuel. In general, recycled

wood waste is used for making pellets. There is also quite a lot of other woody and
herbaceous biomass sources, such as cordwood, wood pellets, wood chips, and
waste paper, along with dozens of other agricultural products and by-products to
produce pellets for energy applications. The pellets are preferred densified products
as they are consistent in terms of size, shape, and density, as well as their burn
efficiency and their reduced particulate emissions. In addition, biomass has become
sustainable with the management practices that are currently developed. The signif-
icant advantages of using pellets for power generation are: (a) low moisture;
(b) higher density; (c) uniform size and shape, which help to feed smaller systems;
and (d) easier handling and improved transportation efficiencies.
Pellet production has grown significantly throughout the world in the last
20 years. There are many factors that have contributed to this accelerated growth.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62888-8_6
162 6 International Standards for Densified Products
These factors include: (a) the use of pellets in coal power plants; and (b) the
increased use of pellets in pellet stoves and boilers. Europe has significantly
increased the production of pellets to the point that it is now responsible for
producing and supplying up to 51% of the market share (Cocchi et al. 2011).
Germany, Sweden, Latvia, and Austria are the primary countries in Europe that
are contributing to the vast majority of this pellet production (Cocchi et al. 2011).
North America provides a substantial amount of wood pellet production as well.
The United States contributes about 27% of the world’s total wood pellet production,
while Canada is responsible for another 7%. Most of the pellets produced in the
United States and Canada are often shipped overseas for use in Europe. The
European market is the primary reason for the expansion of the wood pellet industry
in Canada, especially in British Columbia. Among the 1.3 million tons of pellets
exported from Canada in 2007, 600,000 tons were exported to Europe; the main
contributor of this supply is British Columbia (Will 2009). With vast forest resources
in North America, the potential exists for a great production. Indeed, many compa-
nies are looking to tap into this expanding market. Currently, a huge demand for
wood pellets exists in Asia, as many countries are planning to phase out coal power
plants.
Figure 6.1 shows the world’s overall wood pellet production shares as they stood
in 2016. The figure clearly indicates that Europe provides 39% of this production,
followed by North America at 27%, and China providing another 20%. Figure 6.2
indicates the global pellet outlook up to 2024. It is also evident from the figure that
the use of these pellets in both industrial and heating applications has significantly
grown since 2004 and is expected to continue this trend over the next 5 years.
Fig. 6.1 Percentage of world wood pellet production shares in 2016 (derived from the International
Energy Agency EPC Survey 2017)
6.2 Global Wood Pellet Consumption 163
Fig. 6.2 Global pellet demand in millions of tons from 2004 to 2024 (derived from Gemco Energy
2020)
6.2 Global Wood Pellet Consumption
Global wood pellet consumption in 2000 was 1.7 million tons, while in 2015, that
number grew to 28 million tons—15 million tons for heat supply and another
13 million tons for use in power plants. As stated previously, most of the pellets
produced in North America are consumed in Europe, with about 80% of the overall
use in the world (Gemco Energy 2020). The European countries consuming most of
these produced pellets are England, Italy, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Belgium,
France, and Austria. For example, the Drax power plant in the United Kingdom has
converted its boilers to use pellets to create electricity instead of burning coal. One of
the primary reasons for doing this is that many European governments have begun to
charge high rates for taxes on coal, oil, and gas, but provide rebates on those using
renewable energy sources instead (Gemco Energy 2020).
In addition, many countries in Asia, such as Japan, South Korea, and China, are
beginning to see the advantages of using biomass pellets. The pellet consumption in
these countries is growing rapidly. One of the major driving factors for this is the
increasing desire to replace fossil-based coal sources with biomass-based densified
biomass. Due to its incredibly favorable political and environmentally friendly
nature, using clean-burning pellets in its plants instead of creating pollution from
burning coal is much desired. The other environmental factor influencing the
demand for pellets in Asia has been global warming, which has been responsible
for higher winter temperatures throughout the continent, thereby driving the price of
crude oil down significantly.
In North America, the desire to use pellets for heating has become strongly
correlated to the price of heating oil and propane. The demand for wood pellets
and pellet stoves has gone up along with the price of oil for heating. Government
policy also has an impact on the industrial wood pellet market as follows: (a) Canada
has raised the price of carbon to restrain carbon emissions; and (b) the Alberta
province has enacted laws to stop power generation from coals by 2030. As such,
North America now consistently consumes about 11% of the total pellets produced
throughout the world (Gemco Energy 2020).
6.3 Pellet Quality and Standards
High pellet quality is necessary to obtain constant and optimal heating. With changes
in process conditions, densified products with varied quality are often produced.
Densified products, such as pellets and briquettes with different physical properties
and chemical compositions, are available. The densified product physical properties
and chemical compositions are influenced based on the type of feedstock, growing
conditions, densification process conditions, and binders used to produce high-
quality densified products. With such a difference in the quality of the densified
products that are available throughout the market, there is a need to have standards
that can help the power producers or individual pellet stove owners that they are
using the right quality of fuel in their equipment. Using poor quality densified
products can have an impact on power production efficiency. In addition, disturbing
the combustion process can damage appliances and increase maintenance costs.
Pellet quality is much more important for smaller appliances like boilers or stoves
because when using pellets at a smaller scale, these systems have much less
tolerance. With larger systems, however, pellet quality in terms of physical proper-
ties may not cause problems, but chemical compositions such as ash (alkali and
alkaline earth metals), chlorine, sulfur, etc., can damage boilers and other biopower
generating systems. Tumuluru et al. (2012) discussed how various physical proper-
ties and chemical compositions could have a significant impact on biopower gener-
ating systems, as shown in Table 6.1.
In general, biomass ash composition is highly variable. Normally, herbaceous
biomass, such as straws, residues, and dedicated energy crops used for biopower
generation, has a high amount of ash, whereas woody biomass has a lower ash
content. For biopower generation, woody biomass is the most preferred feedstock for
co-firing and biopower generation. Table 6.2 shows the ash content of various
woody and herbaceous biomass sources. According to Tumuluru et al. (2012), the
ash content and composition of biomass typically depends on plant growth condi-
tions, such as soil type, water quality, and the harvesting methods followed.
Tumuluru et al. (2016) discussed how harvesting methods would impact the ash
content in corn stover used for biofuels production.
6.3 Pellet Quality and Standards 165
Table 6.1 Impact of physical and chemical characteristics of biomass and their effects on co-firing
Physical properties Effects
Moisture content High and variable moisture results in dry-matter losses, spontaneous
combustion, and reduce calorific value.
Volatile content Higher volatile content influences the local fuel-air mixing and com-
bustion considerations, soot formation, and radiation phenomenon
impacts.
Bulk density Bulk density influences the logistics (e.g., storage, transport, handling
costs).
Ash content Higher ash content results in particle emissions, ash utilization and
disposal, heat transfer surface fouling, combustion chemistry interac-
tions, SCR catalyst dusting, and poisoning.
Particle size/shape Particle size, shape, and distribution influence (a) fuel feeding system,
distributions (b) combustion chemistry, (c) drying properties, (d)dust formation, and
(e) safety (explosion considerations).
Chemical compositions
Carbon and hydrogen Positive effect on gross calorific value.
Oxygen Negative effect on gross CV and peak flame temperature.
Chlorine Result in corrosion, enhanced mercury capture (conversion of elemental
mercury to particulate chlorides).
Nitrogen Result in NOx, N2O, and HCN emissions (potentially reduces fuel/
prompt).
Sulfur Result in SOx emissions and corrosion generally reduced.
Fluorine Hydrogen fluoride emissions and corrosion.
Potassium and sodium Corrosion, lower ash melting temperature, aerosol formation, and cat-
alyzes coal char reactions.
Magnesium Hotter ash melting temperature.
Calcium Ash utilization and catalyzes coal char reactions.
Phosphorus Hotter ash melting temperature.
Heavy metals Emissions of pollutants, aerosol formation, ash utilization, and disposal
issues.
Table 6.2 Ash content of different biomass fuels and coal (derived from Tumuluru et al. 2012)
Biomass fuel Ash content (% wt, w.b.)
Bark 5–8
Wood chips with bark (forest) 1–2.5
Wood chips without bark (industrial) 0.8–1.4
Sawdust 0.5–1.1
Waste wood 3–12
Starch and cereals 4–12
Miscanthus 2–8
Coal 5–45 (8.5–10.5 on average)
Ash content in biomass, in general, comes from one of four different forms:
(a) easily leachable salts; (b) inorganic elements; (c) minerals; and (d) inorganic
materials. Biomass ash content is rich in alkaline metals, which results in the fouling
of heat transfer surfaces and ash melting temperatures. For example, chlorine—
which is a minor constituent in biomass—results in harmful alkaline and chlorine
compounds, thereby causing the fouling of boiler surfaces. Even in small quantities,
elemental nitrogen content in biomass can have a significant impact on emissions,
thus resulting in the formation of thermal nitrogen oxides (NOx). NOx contains
hydrocarbons, which photochemically leads to the formation of ozone—a lung and
eye irritant that has become a significant issue in urban environments (Robinson
et al. 1998).
Another critical characteristic of biomass is its moisture content, which impacts
thermal efficiency. If the biomass has a higher amount of moisture content, it takes a
much higher amount of heat to evaporate that moisture. In addition, higher moisture
content impacts storage stability, which leads to microbial and fungal degradation
and results in dry matter losses that decrease the calorific value (CV) of densified
biomass. In general, a higher CV is desirable for power generation. Typically, for
densified woody biomass such as pellets, CV is in the range of 18.5–19.5 MJ/kg,
whereas for herbaceous biomass, CV is in the range of 17.5–18.5 MJ/kg. Other
physical properties, such as bulk density and percent fines, also impact transportation
efficiencies and revenue to pellet producers. Therefore, getting good-quality pellets
is very important for different applications. Table 6.3 provides a list of some of the
quality standards that can have a significant impact on biopower generation.
6.4 International Standards
There are International, European, and American standards for solid fuels. European
standards are defined by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN).
International standards were developed by the International Standards Organization
(ISO). The Pellet Fuels Institute (PFI) developed standards for pellets in the United
States. Table 6.4 provides a brief look at the PFI standard specification. There are
three grades of pellets—premium, standard, and utility—according to PFI. These
standards do not include information regarding heavy metals. The major difference
in these three quality pellets is durability, percent fines, inorganic ash, and moisture
content.
6.5 CEN Standards
Table 6.5 shows the individual standards used by the European countries, such as
Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, and Denmark. A special environ-
ment label for solid biomass fuels was devised by the Austrian Federal Ministry for
the Environment. Natural wood (e.g., sawdust, shavings, etc.) is allowed for making
6.5 CEN Standards 167
Table 6.3 Impact of various biomass densification specifications on biofuels power generation
Densified product
specification Impact
Ash content The residue left after the complete combustion of biomass is ash. The
pellet will burn more efficiently if the ash content is low. Higher ash
content can lead to more cleaning and maintenance.
Ash melting temperature The ash melting temperature influences the slag formation. Higher
slag formation influences the combustion efficiency, and blocking of
the equipment can lead to higher maintenance costs.
Length, diameter, and Pellet dimensions such as length (mm), diameter (mm), and bulk
bulk density density (kg/m3) are important parameters. They impact energy den-
sity, ease of feeding, and can help to increase transportation effi-
ciency. Higher energy density increases boiler efficiency.
Fines Lower fines in the densified biomass are desirable as it impacts the
storage, handling, transportation, emissions during combustion, and
maintenance. Higher fines in the pelleted biomass can result in reve-
nue loss to the pellet producers as they are paid for the whole pellet. In
addition, fines can result in safety issues, such as fire hazards and
more pellet off-gassing.
Heating value Heating value is the amount of heat in the biomass in a certain mass. It
is generally expressed as MJ/kg or kWh/kg, which identifies it as
having a higher heating value or a lower heating value. Lower heating
value is more relevant as it does not consider moisture in biomass.
Moisture content Moisture content reflects the quantity of water in the pellets. The
lower moisture in wood pellets results in a higher heat output per kg.,
in general, pellets have about 5–7% (w.b.) moisture (Tumuluru et al.
2010a).
Mechanical durability Durability measures pellet integrity. It refers to the resistance of the
pellets to various unit operations it is exposed to during storage,
handling, and transportation. In general, higher durability is preferred
as they are less prone to breakdown and crumbling during storage,
transport, and handling in fuel feed augers, and produces fewer fines.
Nitrogen, sulfur, and These parameters impact the polluting emissions and corrosion of
chlorine boiler surfaces.
Heavy metals Impact polluting emission, combustion behavior, and ash content.
solid fuels. The use of packaging, coatings, glues, chipboard, or fiberboard residues
is not allowed in solid fuel production. Swedish wood pellet trade body Pellsam set
up by manufacturers of pellet heating equipment developed the standards for solid
biofuels. The United Kingdom pellet market introduced wood pellets to the country
with its Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). British BioGen developed Codes
of Good Practice for biofuel pellets and pellet-burning room heaters <15 kW. These
were developed as interim standards that will be further superseded with European
Standards. The French International Association for Bioenergy Professionals
(ITEBE) created a Pellet Club with the aim of promoting high-quality solid fuels.
The aim of this body is not only to promote the standards but to provide specific
advice to determine the quality of pellets for various applications as well. In
Table 6.4 Standard specification for residential/commercial densified fuel based on Pellet Fuel
Institute (PFI) (derived from PFI 2008)
Fuel property PFI premium PFI standard PFI utility
Normative information—mandatory
Bulk density (lb/ft3) 40.0–46.0 38.0–46.0 38.0–46.0
Diameter (in.) 0.230–0.285 0.230–0.285 0.230–0.285
Diameter (mm) 5.84–7.25 5.84–7.25 5.84–7.25
Pellet durability index (PDI) 96.5 95.0 95.0
Percent fines (at the mill gate) 0.50 1.0 1.0
Inorganic ash (%) 1.0 2.0 6.0
Length (% greater than 1.50 in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0
Moisture (%) 8.0 10.0 10.0
Chloride (ppm) 300 300 300
Informative only—not mandatory
Ash fusion NA NA NA
Heating value NA NA NA
Denmark, general environment labels such as Svanenmärket (the Scandinavian Blue

Angel) or Die Blumme are used for pellets. Table 6.5 shows the comparison of
various pellet standards used in Europe by different countries prior to CEN. All
individual standards developed by various countries in Europe have since been
replaced with the one developed by CEN (CEN 2014).
6.6 European Common Standard
The European Common Standard (CEN) solid biofuels standard was established to
avoid the ambiguity that had arisen due to the various standards previously available.
Solid biofuels technical specifications and testing methods are developed by
CEN/TC 335. Here are some of the other standards developed by CEN for the
classification and properties of solid biofuels:
1. The classification of biomass-based origin from CEN/TS 14961, which is broken
down into the following subcategories: wood biomass, herbaceous biomass, fruit
biomass, and blends and mixtures (see Table 6.6).
2. CEN technical specifications for pellets and briquettes are given in Tables 6.7
and 6.8.
Table 6.5 National standards and codes of good practice for fuel pellets in various European Countries (derived from Tumuluru et al. 2010a)
Germany DIN 51731/DIN British BioGen/UK codes of
Specification Austria ÖNORM M7135 Sweden SS 18 71 20 plus Italy CTI – R 04/5 good practice
Holzpresslinge Rindenpresslinge Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 5 Längenklassen sonst 4 categories according origin and with or without pressing aids A, no
gleich [cm] additives A, with additives B C
Pellets Briketts:
Size Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Length diameter 6 & 8 mm 6 & 8 mm 6 & 8 mm 10–25 mm <4 mm– >10 mm–
diameter 20–120 mm 4 mm dia 5 mm dia 6 mm dia HP1 >30 > 10 20 mm <20 mm
4–20 mm and diameter and HP2 15–30 6–10
100 mm length 400 mm length HP3 10–15 3–7
HP4 <10 1–4
HP5 <5 0.4–1
Bulk density 600 kg/m3** 500 kg/m3 500 kg/m3 620–720 kg/m3 620–720 kg/m3 620–720 kg/m3 550 kg/m3 >600 kg/m3** >500 kg/m3**
Fines in% 0.8 1.5 1.5 <0.5% <0.5%
<3 mm
Unit density 1.0 kg/dm3 1.0 kg/dm3 1–1.4 g/cm3 >40 pounds/
cubic ft. +
Moisture 12% 18% 10% 10% 12% <12% 10% 10% 10% 15% 10% 10%
content
Ash content 0.5%* 6.0%*) 0.7% 1.5% >1.5% >1.5% 0.7% 0.7% 1.5% To be stated < 1%, <3% or <1%, <3% or
6 6
Caloric 18.0 MJ/kg* 18.0 MJ/kg*) 16.9 MJ/kg 16.9 MJ/ 16.9 MJ/ 17.5–19.5 16.9 MJ/kg 16.9 MJ/kg 16.2 MJ/kg To be stated >4.7 kWh/kg >4.2 kWh/kg
value 4.7 kWh/kg kg kg MJ/kg ***
4,7 4.7
kWh/kg kWh/kg
Sulphur 0.04%* 0.08%* 0.08% 0.08% Anges <0.08 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% To be stated <300 ppm <300 ppm
Nitrogen 0.3%* 0.6%* <0.3 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% To be stated
Chlorine 0.02%* 0.04%* 0.03% 0.03% Anges <0.03 0.03% 0.03% To be stated <800 ppm <800 ppm
Arsenic <0.8 mg/kg
Cadmium <0.5 mg/kg
Chromium <8 mg/kg
Copper <5 mg/kg
Mercury <0.05 mg/kg
Lead <10 mg/kg
Zinc <100 mg/kg
(continued)
Germany DIN 51731/DIN British BioGen/UK codes of
Specification Austria ÖNORM M7135 Sweden SS 18 71 20 plus Italy CTI – R 04/5 good practice
EOX, <3 mg/kg 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% To be stated
extractabl.
org,halogens
Fines. Maximum 1% Maximum 1%
Before
delivery to
customer
Additives Maximum 2% To be stated None To be stated
onlynatural
Ash melting Temperature to be stated
point
Durability 97.7% 97.7% 95.0% 90.0%
*: Dry basis; **: At factory; ***: Without ash and water
6.6 European Common Standard 171
Table 6.6 CEN-based classification of origin and sources of woody biomass (derived from Hahn
2004 and Alakangas 2011)
1.1 Forest and plantation wood
1.1.1 Whole trees 1.1.1.1 Deciduous wood
1.1.1.2 Coniferous wood
1.1.1.3 Short-rotation coppice
1.1.1.4 Bushes
1.1.1.5 Blends and mixtures
1.1.2 Stem wood 1.1.2.1 Deciduous
1.1.2.2 Coniferous
1.1.3 Logging residues 1.1.3.1 Fresh/green (including leaves/
needles)
1.1.3.2 Dry
1.1.4 Stumps 1.1.4.1 Deciduous wood
1.1.4.2 Coniferous wood
1.1.4.3 Short-rotation coppice
1.1.4.4 Bushes
1.1.5 Bark (from forestry operations)*
1.1.6 Landscape management woody biomass
1.2 Wood processing industry, by-products, and residues
1.2.1 Chemically untreated wood residues 1.2.1.1 Wood without bark
1.2.1.2 Wood with bark*
1.2.1.3 Bark (from industry operations)*
1.2.2 Chemically treated wood residues 1.2.2.1 Wood without bark
1.2.2.2 wood with bark*
1.2.2.3 Bark (from industry operations)*
1.2.3 Fibrous waste from the pulp and paper 1.2.3.1 Chemically untreated fibrous waste
industry 1.2.3.2 Chemically treated fibrous waste
1.3 Used wood
1.3.1 Chemically untreated wood 1.3.1.1 Wood without bark
1.3.1.2 Bark*
1.3.2 Chemically treated wood 1.3.2.1 Wood without bark
1.3.2.2 Bark*
1.4 Blends and mixtures
Table 6.7 Technical specifications for pellets, according to CEN (derived from Alakangas 2011)
Origin: according to Table 6.1 in (1) Herbaceous biomass; (2) woody biomass; (3) fruit
CEN/TS 14961:2004 biomass; and (4) blends and mixtures
Traded form (see Table 6.2) Pellets
Normative specifications
Dimensions (mm) D06 6 mm 0,5 mm and L 5 diameter;
Diameter and length (L)a D08 8 mm 0,5 mm and L 4 diameter;
D10 10 mm 0,5 mm and L 4 diameter;
D12 12 mm 1 mm and L 4 diameter;
D25 25 mm 1 mm and L 4 diameter
Moisture (wt. % as received) M10 10%; M15 15%; M20 20%
Ash (wt. % of dry basis) A0.7 0.7 to A6.0 6.0%; A6.0+ > 6.0% (actual
value to be stated)
Sulfur (wt. % of dry basis)b S0.05 0.05% to S0.10 0.10%; S0.20+ > 0.20%
(actual value to be stated)
Mechanical durability (wt. % of pellets DU97.5 97.5; DU95.0 95.0; DU90.0 90.0
after testing)
Amount of fines (wt. % <3.15 mm)c F1.0 1.0% to F2.0 2.0%; F2.0+ > 2.0% (actual
value to be stated)
Additives (weight percent of the pressed Type and content of pressing aids, slagging inhibitors,
mass) or any other additives used need to be stated.
Nitrogen (wt. % of dry basis) N0.3 0.3% to N3.0 3.0%
N3.0+ > 3.0% (actual value to be stated).
Informative specifications
Energy density (kWh/m3 loose) or net The recommendation is to be informed by the retailer.
caloric value (MJ/kg as received)
Bulk density as received (kg/m3 loose) The recommendation is to be stated if traded on a
volume basis.
Chlorine, Cl (weight of dry basis wt. %) Recommendation is to be stated in category Cl 0.03,
to Cl 0.10, und Cl 0.10+ (actual value to be stated if Cl
>0.10%).
a
Maximum of 20 wt. % of the pellets may have a length of 7. 5 diameter
b
If chemically treated biomass or sulfur-containing additives are used, it is normative to mention
sulfur percent
c
Measured at the last possible place in the pellet production or after production at the factory gate
6.7 ISO Standards
ISO, which is the International Organization for Standardization, is a worldwide

union of national standards bodies where the work on the standards is carried out
through ISO technical committees. Each interested member of the body has the right
to be represented on the committee for which the technical committee has been
established. Various international organizations, governmental, and
nongovernmental organizations in liaison with the ISO will also take part in the
work. ISO-17225-1, ISO-17225-2, and ISO-17225-3 (2014a, 2014b, 2014c) define
the solid biofuels/fuels specification and classes. The objective of these standards is
6.7 ISO Standards 173
Table 6.8 CEN-based technical specifications of properties for briquettes (derived from the
Swedish Standards Institute SIS-CEN/TS 14961:2005)
Origin: according to Table 6.1 in CEN/TS (1) Herbaceous biomass, (2) woody biomass,
14961:2004 (3) fruit biomass, (4) blends and mixtures
Traded form (see Table 6.2) Pellets
Normative specifications
Dimensions (mm) used are: Diameter (D) or D40
equivalent (diagonal or crosscut), mm D50
D60
D80
D100
D125
D125+
Length (L) L50
L100
L200
L300
L400
L400+
Moisture (wt. % as received) M10
M15
M20
Ash (wt. % of dry basis) A0.7
A1.5
A3.0
A6.0
A10.0
Sulfur (wt. % of dry basis)a S0.05
S0.08
S0.10
S0.20
S0.20+
Particle density (kg/dm3) DE0.8
DE1.0
DE1.1
DE1.2
Additives (weight percent of the pressed Type and content of pressing aids, slagging inhib-
mass) itors, or any other additives used need to be stated.
Nitrogen, N (wt. % dry basis) N0.3
N0.5
N1.0
N3.0
M3.0+
(continued)

Informative specifications
Energy density (kWh/m3 loose) or net The recommendation is to be informed by the
caloric value (MJ/kg as received) retailer.
Bulk density as received (kg/m3 loose) The recommendation is to be stated if traded on a
volume basis.
Chlorine, Cl (weight of dry basis wt. %) Recommendation is to be stated in category Cl
0.03 to Cl 0.10, and Cl 0.10+ (Actual value to be
stated if Cl >0.10%).
a
Maximum of 20 wt. % of the pellets may have a length of 7. 5 diameter
b
If chemically treated biomass or sulfur-containing additives are used, then it is normative to
mention sulfur percent
c
Measured at the last possible place in the pellet production or after production at the factory gate
to serve as a tool to enable efficient trading of biofuels by providing clear and

unambiguous classification principles for solid biofuels, which can help a good
understanding between the buyer and seller. This also acts as a communication
tool for equipment manufacturers. According to the ISO standards, solid biomass
covers organic and nonfossil material made up of a biological origin that can be used
for heat or power generation. “Graded” in the product standards means that the solid
biofuels are used in industrial or public sector buildings, small commercial, or
household applications. The solid biofuels are traded in different shapes and sizes.
The size and shape of the traded solid fuel influences the fuel properties, such as
density, which in turn influences the fuel handling and combustion behavior.
Table 6.9 indicates the major traded forms and raw materials of solid fuels. Biomass
traded forms based on CEN and ISO are the same. The fuel specifications of
compressed solid fuels based on ISO, such as pellets and briquettes, are given in
Tables 6.10 and 6.11. The main origin-based solid biofuel groups are: (a) woody
biomass; (b) herbaceous biomass; (c) fruit biomass; (d) aquatic biomass; and
(e) blends and mixtures.
6.7.1 Comparison of CEN, ISO, and PFI Standards
Comparison of biomass pellets and briquettes standards developed by ISO, CEN,

and PFI is given in Tables 6.12 and 6.13. In the case of CEN, the moisture is in the
range of 10–20% (w.b), whereas for ISO and PFI, the maximum and minimum
moisture content values are less than or equal to 5 and 8% (w.b.), respectively. In the
case of ash content, the minimum value is less than 1%, whereas the maximum value
is 6% for PFI standards. The maximum ash content limit is given in the ISO
standards (i.e., >10%), whereas the lowest ash limit is given in the CEN standard
(<0.7%). In the case of durability, there are only two levels at 95.0% and 96.5%
for the PFI standard, respectively, where for the ISO and CEN standards, the highest
durability value is 97.5%. The lowest value for CEN is 90.0%, whereas, for ISO,
Table 6.9 Major traded forms and raw material of solid biofuels (derived from ISO 2014a)
Typical particle
Fuel name size Common preparation method
Whole tree >500 mm No preparation or delimbed
Wood chips 5–100 mm Cutting with sharp tools
Hog fuel Varying Crushing with blunt tools
Stemwood/ >100 cm Cutting with sharp tools
roundwood
Firewood 5–10 cm Cutting with sharp tools
Slabs and offcuts Varying Cutting with sharp tools
Bark Varying Debarking residue from trees (shredded or
unshredded)
Bundle Varying Lengthwise oriented and bound
Fuel powder <1 mm Milling
Sawdust 1–5 mm Cutting with sharp tools
Shavings 1–30 mm Planing with sharp tools
Briquettes Diameter > 25 mm Mechanical compression
Pellets Diameter 25 mm Mechanical compression
Bales
(a) Small (a) 0.1 m3 (a) Compressed and bound to squares
square bales
(b) Big square (b) 3.7 m3 (b) Compressed and bound to squares
bales
(c) Round bales (c) 2.1 m3 (c) Compressed and bound to cylinders
Chopped straw 10–200 mm Chopped during harvesting or before combustion
and Energy grass
Grain or seed Varying No preparation or drying except for process opera-
tions necessary for storage for cereal grain
Fruit stones or 5–150 mm No preparation or pressing and extraction by
kernel chemicals
Fiber cake Varying Prepared from fibrous waste by dewatering
Charcoal Varying Charcoal is prepared by the destructive distillation
and pyrolysis of biomass
Thermally treated Varying Mild pretreatment of biomass at a temperature
biomass between 200 and 300 C for a short time period (e.g.,
60 min)
the lowest value is <95.0%, anything lower than that the minimum value needs to be
stated. According to the PFI standard, bulk density should be in the range of
608–736 kg/m3, whereas for CEN, it needs to be included if the pellets are
transported based on a volume basis. In the case of the ISO standard, the lowest
value is 550 kg/m3, and the maximum is >800 kg/m3. In the case of nitrogen and
chlorine, PFI does not specify, whereas CEN and ISO have maximum and minimum
values of 0.3% and 0.2%, and maximum values are >3% and > 0.30%, respec-
tively. Fixed carbon (F.C.), volatiles content, CV, and particle size distribution are
not part of CEN and PFI standards, but according to ISO standards, they are
included.
Table 6.10 Specifications of properties for pellets (derived from ISO 2014b)
Traded form Pellets
Normative Origin 1: Herbaceous biomass; 2: woody biomass;
3: fruit biomass; 4: aquatic biomass,; 5:
blends and mixtures.
Dimensions Diameter and length
D06 6 mm 1.0 mm and
3.15 mm < L 40 mm
D08 8 mm 1.0 mm and
3.15 mm < L 40 mm
D10 10 mm 1.0 mm and
3.15 mm < L 40 mm
D12 12 mm 1.0 mm and
3.15 mm < L 50 mm
D25 25 mm 1.0 mm, and
10 mm < L 50 mm
Moisture, M (wt. % as received)
M05; M08; M10; M12; M15 5%; 8%; 10%; 12%; 15%
Ash, A (wt. % of dry basis)
A0.5 to A10.0; A10.0+ 0.5% to 10.0%; > 10.0%(maximum
value to be stated)
Mechanical durability (D.U.) (wt. %
of pellets after testing)
DU97.5; DU96.5; DU95.0; DU95.0- 97.5%; 96.5%; 95.0%; < 95.0%
(minimum value to be stated)
Amount of fines, F (wt. %, <
3.15 mm) after production when
loaded or packed
F1.0 to F6.0; F6.0+ 1.0% to 6.0%; > 6.0% (maximum
value to be stated)
(wt. % of pressing mass) b Pressing aids type and content, slagging
inhibitors or any other additives used need
to be stated
Bulk density (BD) (kg/m3 as
received)
BD550; BD580; BD600; BD625; 550 kg/m3; 580 kg/m3; 600 kg/m3;
BD650; BD700; BD750; BD800+ 625 kg/m3; 650 kg/m3; 700 kg/m3;
750 kg/m3; > 800 kg/m3 (minimum
value to be stated)
Net CV, Q (MJ/kg or kWh/kg as Minimum value to be statedc
received)
Normative/ Nitrogen, N (wt. % of dry basis)
informative N0.2 to N3.0; N3.0+ 0.2% to 3.0%; > 3.0%(maximum value
to be stated)
Sulfur, S (wt. % of dry basis)
S0.02 to S0.20; S0.20+ 0.02% to 0.20%; > 0.20% (maximum
value to be stated)
Chlorine, Cl (wt. % of dry basis)
(continued)

Traded form Pellets
Cl0.01 to Cl0.30; Cl0.30+ 0.01% to 0.30%; > 0.30% (maximum
value to be stated)
Fixed carbon, C d (wt. % of dry Minimum value to be stated
basis) Normative only for thermally treated bio-
mass pellets
Volatile matter (V.M.) (wt. % of dry Minimum value to be stated.
basis Normative only for thermally treated bio-
mass pellets
Particle size distribution of Values to be stated of pellets for industrial
disintegrated pellets (wt. % of dry use
basis)
Informative Ash melting behavior ( C) Should be stated
a
Amount of pellets longer than 40 mm (or 50 mm) can be 5 wt.%. The maximum length for classes
D06, D08, and D10 shall be 45 mm. Pellets are longer than 3.15 mm if they stay on a round hole-
sieve of 3.15 mm
b
Maximum amount of additive is 20 wt.% of pressing mass. Type stated (e.g., starch, corn flour,
potato flour, vegetable oil, lignin). If the amount is greater, then raw material for pellet is the blend
c
Minimum value for torrefied or other thermally treated biomass pellets is usual 18 M.J./kg.
d
Fixed carbon (%) is calculated by the following: 100 – [moisture (wt. %) + ash (wt. %) + volatile
matter (wt. %)]. All percentages are on the same moisture basis
e
Special attention should be paid to the ash melting behavior for some biomass fuels, for example,
eucalyptus, poplar, short-rotation coppice, straw, miscanthus, and olive stone. It is recommended
that all characteristic temperatures (shrinkage starting temperature (SST), deformation temperature
(D.T.), hemisphere temperature (H.T.), and flow temperature (F.T.)) in oxidizing conditions should
be stated. Pre-ash temperature other than 550 C should be stated
PFI has not developed standards for other densified products, such as briquettes.
CEN and ISO have developed standards for the briquettes. In the case of CEN, the
manufacturer has concluded that the length and diameter of the briquette must be
included, whereas the ISO standard does not require that information. Moisture
content values, according to CEN, should be 10 to 20% (w.b.), while according
to ISO, they should be 10 to 15% (w.b.). The minimum value of ash content
according to CEN and ISO is 0.7 and 0.5, respectively, whereas the maximum is
>6 and > 10%, respectively. In the case of sulfur, the minimum values according to
CEN and ISO are 0.05 and 0.02%, respectively, whereas the maximum is >0.2%.
The CEN standard does not consider mechanical durability, while ISO has lower and
upper values specified (e.g., < 90.0%, minimum value to be stated) and 95.0%.
The particle density of the briquette is included in both standards. Lower values of
nitrogen and chlorine for CEN and ISO were 0.3 and 0.03%, and maximum values
were > 3% for nitrogen and > 0.1% for chlorine. According to ISO, it is >0.3%. F.C.,
volatile content, particle size distribution, and CV are required to be included if
chemically treated biomass is used for making densified products, such as briquettes.
The pellets produced using commercial- and laboratory-scale pelleting systems
using different woody and herbaceous biomass feedstocks, different feedstock
Table 6.11 Specifications of properties for briquettes (derived from ISO 2014c)
Traded form Pellets
Normative Origin 1: Herbaceous biomass; 2: woody
biomass; 3: fruit biomass; 4: aquatic
biomass; 5: Blends and mixtures
Dimensions Diameter and length
Moisture, M (wt. % as received)
M10; M12; M15 10%; 12%; 15%
Ash, A (wt. % of dry basis)
A0.5 to A10.0; A10.0+ 0.5% to 10.0%; > 10.0% (max-
imum value to be stated)
Particle density, DE (g/cm3, as received)
DE0.8 to DE1.1; 0.8 g/cm3 to 1,1 g/cm3; > 1,2 g/
DE1.2+ cm3 (maximum value to be stated)
a
Additives (wt. % of Need to state the type and content of
the press mass) pressing aids, slagging inhibitors or
any other additives
Net CV, Q (MJ/kg or The minimum value to be statedb
kWh/kg as received)
Normative/informative: Only Mechanical durabil-
if traded in bulk ity (DU) (wt. % of pel-
lets after testing)
DU95.0; DU90.0; 95,0%; 90,0%; < 90,0% (mini-
DU90.0- mum value to be stated)
Normative: chemically treated Nitrogen, N (wt. % of
biomass dry basis)
Informative: all fuels that are N0.2; N0.3; N0.5; 0.2 to 3.0%; > 3,0% (maximum
not chemically treated N0.7; N1.0; N1.5; value to be stated)
N2.0; N3.0; N3.0+
Normative: chemically treated Sulfur, S (wt. % of
biomass or if additives that dry basis)
have sulfur are used
Informative: all fuels that S0.02 to S0.10; S0.20; 0.02% to 0.10%; 0.20%; >
which not chemically treated S0.20+ 0.20% (maximum value to be stated)
Normative: chemically treated Chlorine, Cl (wt. % of dry basis)
biomass
Informative: all fuels that are Cl0.01 to Cl0.30; 0.01% to 0.30%; > 0.30%
not chemically treated Cl0.30+ (maximum value to be stated)
Normative/informative Fixed carbon, Cc (wt. % of dry basis)
Minimum value to be Normative only for thermally treated
stated biomass briquettes
Normative/informative
(continued)

Traded form Pellets
Volatile matter (VM)
(wt. % of dry basis)
Maximum value to be Normative only for thermally treated
stated biomass briquettes
Informative Ash melting behaviord Should be stated
( C)
a
The maximum amount of additive is 20 w-% of pressing mass. Type stated as chemical substance
(e.g., starch, corn flour, potato flour, vegetable oil, lignin). If the quantity is higher, then raw
material for briquette is the blend
b
Minimum value for torrefied or other thermally treated biomass briquettes is usually 18 MJ/kg
c
Fixed carbon (%) is calculated by the following: 100 – [moisture (w-%) + ash (w-%) + volatile
matter (w-%)]. All percentages are on the same moisture basis
d
Ash melting behavior for some biomass fuels needs special attention, for example, eucalyptus,
poplar, short-rotation coppice, straw, miscanthus, and olive stone. It is recommended that all
characteristic temperatures (shrinkage starting temperature (SST), deformation temperature
(D.T.), hemisphere temperature (H.T.), and flow temperature (F.T.)) in oxidizing conditions should
be stated
moisture content values, and different types of mills are provided in Table 6.14.
In his studies on the pelleting of woody (e.g., lodgepole pine, eucalyptus) and
herbaceous (e.g., switchgrass, corn stover) biomass, Yancey et al. (2013) indicated
that pellets made using woody biomass have more bulk density as compared to
herbaceous biomass. Tumuluru (2014, 2016) reported that pellet quality made using
lodgepole pine changes with moisture content. Table 6.14 shows the bulk density
and durability of pellets made using lodgepole pine, eucalyptus, corn stover, switch-
grass, and their blends at different moisture content values and mill types. Pelleting
from both woody and herbaceous biomass at lower moisture content values of
10–12% (w.b.) helps to meet the high-quality standards established by CEN, PFI,
and ISO. Also, pellets made using blends of lodgepole pine, switchgrass, eucalyptus,
and corn stover in equal proportions by weight at a moisture content value of
10–12% (w.b) has helped to meet the high-quality standards established for bulk
density and durability. Tumuluru et al. (2019, 2020) and worked on producing
woody, herbaceous, and blends of biomass briquettes at various moisture content
values and using different hammermill screen sizes. These studies also indicated the
properties of the briquettes change with process conditions, such as moisture,
hammermill screen size, and blend ratios and meet some of the physical properties,
such as size, shape, density, and durability, and ash content, as observed in
Table 6.15. Figure 6.3 shows the pellets and briquettes produced using woody,
herbaceous, and blends of woody and herbaceous biomass.
Biorefineries are currently operating in a way so that they can produce biofuels
using both woody and herbaceous biomass. Still, they face significant challenges in
doing so in terms of storage, quality, handling, and transportation. Most of the
herbaceous biomass used by biorefineries comes in a less convenient form to
transport efficiently and with high and variable moisture content values. In addition,
Table 6.12 Some of the comparisons of CEN, ISO, and PFI standards for densified biomass such
as pellets briquettes
Densified product type:
pellets CEN ISO PFI
Moisture content (wt. % as 10% to 20% 5% to 5 8.0 to
received) 10.0
Ash (wt. % of dry basis) 0.7% > 6.0% 0.5% to >10.0% 1.0 to
(maximum value to be 6.0
stated)
Sulphur (wt. % of dry basis) 0.05% > 0.20% 0.02% to >0.20%
Mechanical durability 97.5 to 90.0 97.5% to <95.0% 95.0
(wt. % of pellets after (minimum value to be and 96.5
testing) stated)
Amount of fines (wt. % 1.0% to >2.0% 1.0% to >6.0% (after 0.50 to
<3.15 mm) production when loaded 1.0 (at the
or packed) mill gate)
Bulk density Need to specify if 550 kg/m3 to 608 kg/m3–
transported in volume > 800 kg/m3. 736 kg/m3
basis
Nitrogen, N (wt. % of dry 0.3% to >3.0% 0.2% to >3.0%.
basis)
Chlorine, Cl (weight of dry 0.03%- > 0.10% 0.01% to >0.30%. 0.03%
basis wt. %)
Fixed carbon, C d (wt. % of NA Minimum value to be N.A.
dry basis) stated
Normative only for
thermally treated bio-
mass pellets
Volatile matter (VM) (wt. % NA Minimum value to be N.A.
of dry basis) stated
Normative only for
thermally treated bio-
mass pellets
Particle size distribution of NA Values to be stated of NA
disintegrated pellets(w-% of pellets for industrial use
dry basis)
CV The recommendation Minimum value to be NA
is to be stated at the stated
retail level
the fibrous nature of biomass makes it difficult to feed into the reactors due to the
bridging of particles resulting in conveyor and drop chute jamming, as well as the
uneven discharge of the materials into the bioreactors. Tumuluru et al. (2010b)
indicated that the densification of biomass into either a pellet or a briquette is critical
to improving the storage, handling, and conveying efficiencies of biorefineries.
Changing the moisture content values, such as aiming for higher moisture
content, produces pellets with different density and durability values. Typically,
high-quality pellets in terms of density and durability are needed for long-distance
Table 6.13 Comparison of CEN and ISO standards for briquettes

Densified product type: briquettes
CEN ISO
Length (mm) 50 to 400 (actual value to N/A
be stated)
Diameter (mm) 25 D 40 to 125 (actual N/A
value to be stated)
Moisture content (wt. % as 10% to 20% 10%; 12%; 15%
received)
Ash (wt. % of dry basis) 0.7% > 6.0% 0.5% to >10.0%
Particle density (g/cm3) 0.8 g/cm3 to 1.20 g/cm3 0.8 g/cm3 to >1.20 g/cm3
(maximum value to be
stated).
Sulphur (wt. % of dry basis) 0.05% > 0.20% 0.02% to >0.20%
Mechanical durability(wt. % of NA 95,0%
pellets after testing) 90,0%
< 90,0%
(minimum value to be
stated).
Note: informative: only if
the briquettes are traded in
bulk
Amount of fines (wt. % N/A N/A
<3.15 mm)
Bulk density The recommendation is to be N/A
stated if traded by volume
basis
Nitrogen (N) (wt. % of dry basis) 0.3%; > 3.0% (actual value 0.2% to >3.0% (maxi-
to be stated) mum value to be stated)
Normative: chemically
treated biomass
Informative: fuels which
are not chemically treated
Chlorine (Cl) (weight of dry 0.03%; >0.10%(actual value 0.01% to >0.30%
basis wt. %) to be stated) Normative: chemically
treated biomass
Informative: fuels that are
not chemically treated
Fixed carbon (FC) (wt. % of dry N/A Minimum value to be stated
basis) Normative: only for ther-
mally treated biomass
pellets
(continued)

Densified product type: briquettes
CEN ISO
Volatile matter (VM) (wt. % of N/A Minimum value to be stated
dry basis) Normative: only for ther-
mally treated biomass
pellets
Particle size distribution of N/A Values to be stated of pellets
disintegrated pellets (wt. % of for industrial use
dry basis)
CV The recommendation is to be Minimum value to be stated
stated at the retail level.
transportation, such as shipping the material to Europe and Asia. Transporting

pellets within the United States may not demand a very high-quality pellet in
terms of density and durability, as the quality is directly related to the cost. For
example, if the pellets are transported by truck, which is limited by weight, the
maximum density desirable to fill the truck full is about 400 kg/m3. A process that
can produce pellets with different density and durability values can help reduce
pelleting costs, as well as help to meet different transportation scenarios. Studies
conducted by Lamers et al. (2015) indicated that producing pellets at higher moisture
content values reduces pellet production costs by about 50%, as compared to the
conventional method followed by the industry. Currently, costs associated with the
conventional pelleting process (e.g., size reduction, drying, densification) does not
off-set transportation costs. There are other advantages in using pelleted feedstocks,
such as handling and storage benefits, which have been quantified in terms of cost-
savings. Reducing pelleting and transportation costs, as well as quantifying the
storage, quality, and handling benefits, can make pelleting a cost-effective solution
for biorefineries.
6.8 Conclusions
Europe is a significant pellet producer and supplier, taking up to 51% of the market
share in 2016. In North America, the United States produces about 27% of the
world’s total wood pellet production, whereas Canada produces about 7%. The
province of British Columbia, Canada, is a major pellet producer. Many factors
influence pellet production demand, such as government policy (i.e., high govern-
ment levy taxes on gas, oil, and costs), environmental factors, such as winter
temperatures, and the overall cost of heating oil. Various physical properties, such
as density and moisture impact handling, storage, transportation, and conversion
efficiencies and chemical compositions, impact biopower generation and biofuels
production. Densification of biomass into pellets and briquettes helps to overcome
these limitations. The densified products that are produced using various woody and
Table 6.14 Comparison of bulk density and durability of pellets made using woody, herbaceous, and blends with the existing international standards
Moisture content
Physical property value (%, w.b.) Durability (%) Diameter (mm) Bulk density (kg/m3)
CEN standard M10 10% DU97.5 97.5 D06 6 mm 0.5 mm It is recommended
DU95.0 95.0 D08 8 mm 0.5 mm to state the bulk
6.8 Conclusions
DU90.0 90.0 density if traded in

volume basis
Pellet fuel institute (utility standard) 10 >95 10 576–736
ISO standards 5–15 97.5; 96.5; 6–25 550–800
95.0 and < 95.0
(minimum value to
be stated).
Commercial wood pellets quality (Tumuluru et al. 2010a) 3.44–6.31 >97.5% 6 mm 0.5 mm 787–880
Corn stover pellets made at 10–12% moisture content <8 98.5 6 mm 0.5 mm 645
(Yancey et al. 2013) (pellet mill used: 5 ton/h capacity)
Switchgrass pellets made at 10–12% moisture content <8 97.5 6 mm 0.5 mm 716
Lodgepole pellets made at 10–12% moisture content <8 96.8 6 mm 0.5 mm 712
Eucalyptus pellets made at 10–12% moisture content <8 95.4 6 mm 0.5 mm 665
Four blend (corn stover: lodgepole pine: switchgrass: <8 97.9 6 mm 0.5 mm 730
eucalyptus) pellets made at 10–12% moisture content
(Yancey et al. 2013) (pellet mill used: 5 ton/h)
Lodgepole pine wood pellets made at 33–39% (w.b.) <10 93–96.5 8 0.5 mm 368–562
moisture content (Tumuluru 2015) (flat die pellet mill:
40 lb./h)
(continued)
183
184
Moisture content
Physical property value (%, w.b.) Durability (%) Diameter (mm) Bulk density (kg/m3)
Corn stover pellets made at 28–38% (w.b.) moisture con- <10 83–96 8 0.5 mm 399–626
tent (Tumuluru, 2016) (flat die pellet mill: 40 lb./h)
Switchgrass + lodgepole pine blend pellets made at <10 80–95 8 0.5 mm 407–618
20–30% (w.b.) moisture content (50:50) ratio (flat die
pellet mill: 40 lb./h)
pellet mill: 40 lb./h)
pellet mill:40 lb./h)
6
International Standards for Densified Products
Table 6.15 Comparison of briquette physical properties (density and durability) produced using woody, herbaceous, and blends of woody and herbaceous
biomass blends according to ISO standards
Moisture content value Diameter Length
Physical property (%, w.b.) Durability (%) (mm) (mm) Bulk density (kg/m3)
CEN standard M10: 10% DU97.5 97.5 D40: L50: 50 It is recommended to
6.8 Conclusions
M15: 15% DU95.0 95.0 25 D 40 L100 state the bulk density if

DU90.0 90.0 D50 L200 traded
D60 L300 in volume basis
D80 L400
D100 L400+
D125
D125+
ISO standards M10 10% DU95.0 95.0 Diameter, height, width, It is recommended to
M12 12% DU90.0 90.0 and length need to be stated state the bulk density if
M15 15% DU90.0 < 90.0 (minimum value to traded
be stated) in volume basis
Corn stover briquettes <11% (w.b.) 92–99 50.4 50–100 393–489
Moisture 12–18% (w.b.);
Hammermill screen
size:4.8–19.05 mm
Switchgrass briquettes <11% (w.b.) 79–98 50.4 50–100 331–497
Hammermill screen
size:4.8–19.05 mm
Lodgepole pine briquettes <11% (w.b.) 86–97 50.4 50–100 368–489
Hammermill screen
size:4.8–19.05 mm
(continued)
185
186
Moisture content value Diameter Length

Physical property (%, w.b.) Durability (%) (mm) (mm) Bulk density (kg/m3)
Woody and herbaceous biomass blends
Switchgrass: corn stover <12% (w.b.) 98.5–95 50.4 50–70 356–457
Moisture content: 12–18%
(w.b.);
Hammermill screen size:
4.8–12.7 mm
Lodgepole pine: corn stover <12% (w.b.) 95–98 50.4 60–70 340–433
(w.b.);
4.8–12.7 mm
Lodgepole pine: switchgrass <12% (w.b.) 97.5 50.4 66 340
6

(w.b.);
12.7 mm
Lodgepole pine: switchgrass: <12% (w.b.) 95.5–97.6 50.4 61–73 420–439
corn stover
Moisture: 12–18% (w.b.);
12.7 mm
International Standards for Densified Products
References 187
Fig. 6.3 Pellets and briquettes produced using different biomass feedstocks (Tumuluru 2019;
Tumuluru, 2018; Tumuluru, 2019a; Tumuluru and Fillerup, 2020)
herbaceous biomass are completed according to the respective international stan-

dards. The United States is governed by the PFI standards, while Europe follows the
standards developed by CEN and ISO. ISO standards are also used for comparing
pellet and briquette quality using woody, herbaceous, and blends of biomass. It can
be concluded that the ISO standards are more flexible in terms of accommodating
various types of biomass for energy applications.
References
Alakangas E (2011) European standards for fuel specification and classes of solid biofuels. In:
Grammelis P (ed) Solid Biofuels for Energy. Green energy and technology. Springer, London
Cocchi M, Nikolaisen L, Junginger M, Goh CS, Heinimo J, Bradley D, Hess R, Jacobson J, Ovard
LP, Thran D, Hennig C, Deutmeyer M, Schouwenberg PP, Marchal D (2011) Global wood
pellet industry market and trade study. IEA Bioenergy—Task 40: Sustainable International
Bioenergy Trade [Online]. Available at: http://task40.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/
2013/09/t40-global-wood-pellet-market-study_final_R.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2020
EPC Survey (2017) IEA Bioenergy Task 40. FAO, CREIA
European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2014) Solid biofuels. CEN/TC 335 [Online].
Available at: https://standardsceneu/dyn/www/f?p¼204:7:0::::FSP_ORG_ID:19930&
cs¼17158638AB0C35D5E52A369017E54A1D6. Accessed 16 July 2020
Gemco Energy (2020) Wood Pellet Market in Europe, North America, and Asia. GEMCO Energy
Machinery Co, Ltd [Online] Available at: http://wwwgemcopelletmills/wood-pellet-markethtml
Accessed 12 June 2020
Hahn B (2004) Existing guidelines and quality assurance for fuel pellets: Pellets for Europe project.
UMBERA, Umweltorientierte Betriebsberatungs-, Forschungs- und Entsorgungs-Gesellschaft
m.b.H., Schießstattring 25/4, Pölten, Austria
International Standards Organization (ISO) (2014a) Solid biofuels: Fuel specifications and classes:
Part 1: General requirements. ISO 17225-1:2014. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland
International Standards Organization (ISO) (2014b) Solid biofuels: Fuel specifications and classes:
Part 2: Graded wood pellets. ISO 17225-2:2014. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland
International Standards Organization (ISO) (2014c) Solid biofuels: Fuel specifications and classes:
Part 3: Graded wood briquettes. ISO 17225-3:2014. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland
Technol 194:205–213
Pellet Fuel Institute (PFI) (2008) Standard specification for residential/commercial densified fuel.
PFI, Seattle. [Online]. Available at: https://www.pelletheat.org/assets/docs/
standardspecificationwithcopyright.pdf Accessed 12 June 2020
Robinson AL, Baxter LL, Junker H, Shaddix C, Freeman M, James R, Dayton D (1998) Fireside
issues associated with coal-biomass cofiring, NREL/TP-570-25767, December 1998. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden
Swedish Standards Institute (2005) Solid biofuels: fuel specifications and classes, SIS-CEN/TS
14961:2005. Swedish Standards Institute, Stockholm. [Online] Available at: https://wwwsisse/
api/document/preview/39467/. Accessed 12 June 2020
Tumuluru JS (2015) High moisture corn stover pelleting in a flat die pellet mill fitted with a 6-mm
die: physical properties and specific energy consumption. Energy Sci Eng 3:327–341
Tumuluru JS (2019) Effect of moisture content and hammer mill screen size on the briquetting
Tumuluru JS, Fillerup E, Kane J, Murray DJ (2019) Biomass engineering: size reduction, drying,
and densification of high moisture biomass. Feedstock Supply and Logistics Platform, US
Department of Energy, Project Peer Review, DOE Bioenergy Technologies Office, 6 March,
Denver, CO, USA [Online]. Available at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/04/f61/
Size%20Reduction%2C%20Drying%20and%20Densification%20of%20High%20Moisture%
20Biomass_NL0026654.pdf. Accessed 8Apr 2020
Tumuluru JS, Fillerup E, Kane JJ, Murray D (2020) Advanced imaging techniques to understand
the impact of process variables on the particle morphology in a corn stover pellet. Chem Eng
Res Des 161:130–145
Tumuluru JS, Wright CT, Kenney KL, Hess JR (2010a) A review on biomass densification
technologies for energy applications, INL/EXT-10-18420. Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho
Falls
Tumuluru JS, Sokhansanj S, Lim CJ, Bi X, Anthony L, Staffan M, Sowlati T, Ehsan O (2010b)
Quality of wood pellets produced in British Columbia. Appl Eng Agric 26(6):1013–1020
consumption using high moisture corn stover and a corn starch binder in a flat die pellet mill. J
Vis Exp 112:e54092
Will S (2009) An overview of the wood pellet industry: ‘A British Columbia perspective.’ WOOD
493. A Report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor
of Science in Wood Products Processing in the Faculty of Forestry at the University of British
Columbia [Online]. Available at: https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/
undergraduateresearch/52966/items/1.0103096 Accessed 16 July 2020
(5):549–558
Index
A C
Advanced grinding concepts, 117–119 Calorific values (CVs), 9–12, 16, 17, 55–57,
Agglomerator, 37, 44, 46, 124 124, 136, 141, 146, 150, 165, 166,
Aquatic biomass, 3, 174, 176, 178 175–178, 180, 182
Ash content, 4, 5, 8, 9, 18, 24, 164, 165, 167, Centrifuge thickening and dewatering system,
169, 174, 177, 179 114
Chemical composition, 5, 15, 17, 18, 25, 35, 50,
51, 56, 85, 124, 126, 127, 137, 141, 164,
B 165, 182
Belt dryers, 13, 89, 110, 111, 113 Compression process models, 63
Belt filter press, 114 Conventional densification process, 87, 89
Biochemical composition, 11, 12, 15–18 Cooper-Eaton model, 64, 66, 68, 69, 81
Biochemical conversion, 9, 11, 46, 124–126,
132, 141, 145, 146, 157
Biomass, 1, 23, 63, 85, 123, 161 D
composition, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 138 Densification, 14, 23, 64, 87, 124, 164
conversion, 157 process variables, 41, 45, 47, 48, 50,
limitations, 15, 17, 18, 124 51, 57
types, 2, 6, 89, 150 systems, 15, 18, 23–57, 63, 124
Biopower, 4, 5, 15, 46, 124, 144, 152, 155, 156, Densified biomass physical properties, 51,
164, 166, 182 53–56
Blends, 2, 3, 6, 53, 88, 89, 127, 128, 168, Densified products, 16, 29, 36, 44, 45,
171–174, 176–179, 183–187 47–51, 55, 57, 63, 101, 105, 123–157,
Briquette press, 15, 18, 24, 32–34, 43, 46, 57, 161–187
78, 88, 124, 126 Dewatering technologies, 109, 110, 112–114,
Briquettes, 15, 33, 34, 36, 41, 44–46, 48, 51, 53, 116
55, 107, 135, 136, 146, 164, 168, Durability, 16, 45, 47–49, 51, 55–57, 78, 79,
173–175, 177–182, 185, 187 89, 90, 101, 103, 104, 132, 141, 144,
Bulk density, 5, 13–18, 23, 24, 38, 49, 53–55, 166, 167, 170, 172, 174, 176–181, 184,
57, 79, 80, 89, 90, 101, 103, 117, 124, 185
126, 127, 135, 146, 165–169, 172, Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA), 26,
174–176, 179–181, 183–186 27, 76

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62888-8
190 Index
E M
Energy consumption, 1, 13, 40, 42–46, 48, 55, Mixtures, 2, 3, 64, 66, 127, 147, 148, 168, 171,
57, 78, 88, 92, 95, 101, 103, 107, 108, 173, 174, 176, 178
111, 116, 117, 119, 132, 144 Moisture content, 5, 24, 68, 85, 165
European Committee for Standardization Moisture management, 91, 92
(CEN), 16, 101, 166, 168, 172–174, Municipal solid waste (MSW), 4, 6, 7, 10, 12,
177, 179–181, 183, 185, 187 14, 31, 45, 85, 88, 109, 110, 155
Evolutionary algorithms, 78, 80
O
F Optimization, 63–81
Feedstock properties, 18, 45, 47, 49, 56, 57,
126, 132
Flat die pellet mill, 29, 31, 42, 49, 51, 54, 56, P
75, 183, 184 Packed moving bed (PMB) dryer, 117
Forest and plantation wood, 171 Panelli-Filho model, 68, 69, 72
Fractional milling, 91–96, 98, 101, 103, Particle binding mechanism, 24
105–107, 119, 125 Particle handling, 86–119
Fruit biomass, 3, 168, 172–174, 176, 178 Pellet, 14, 24, 63, 88, 124
Pellet Fuel Institute (PFI), 15, 17, 101, 166,
168, 174, 177, 179–181, 183, 185, 187
G Pellet mills, 15, 18, 24, 29–33, 41, 42, 44, 46,
Gasification, 4, 6, 40, 123, 126, 147–154 49, 51–54, 56, 57, 75, 76, 78, 88,
Geometric mean particle length, 14, 15 101–103, 108, 124, 126, 132, 156, 183
Grinding energy, 5, 15, 18, 23, 92, 94, 95, 98, Pellet quality and standards, 164–166
101, 105, 117–119, 124, 126 Pellets, 161
Grind moisture, 98, 103, 104 Physical properties, 5, 13–16, 18, 35, 51,
53–57, 85, 87, 88, 117, 119, 124, 132,
136, 137, 141, 164, 166, 179, 182, 185
H Plate and frame filter press (PFFP), 114, 115
Herbaceous biomass, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11–15, 18, 23, Preconditioning, 30
46, 51, 53, 85, 87–89, 109, 118, 119, Process variables, 23–57, 63, 77, 78, 80, 94, 98,
124, 126, 157, 161, 164, 166, 168, 126, 131, 135
172–174, 176–179, 182, 185, 186 Product properties, 78, 95
Holm’s model, 69, 75 Proximate and ultimate composition, 5, 7,
8, 16
Pyrolysis, 4, 123, 126, 147–154, 175
I
International standards, 161–187
International Standards Organization (ISO), 2, R
15, 16, 166, 172, 174, 176–183, 185, 187 Response surface methodology, 77–81, 98
Ring die pellet mill, 29, 31–33, 42, 52, 53, 76,
103
J Roller press, 36, 37, 44, 46
Jones model, 66, 68, 69, 81 Rotary press, 115, 116
K S
Kawakita and Lüdde model, 64, 67–71, 73–76, Scale-up methodology, 69, 71, 72, 74–76
81 Scanning electron microscope (SEM), 27–29,
57
Screw extruder, 34, 35, 44, 124
L Screw press, 44, 45, 114, 115
Low- and medium-temperature drying Solid-state NMR, 26, 27
technologies, 110 Sonnergaard Model (Log-Exp-Equation), 67
Index 191
Spencer and Heckel model, 65 U

Steam explosion, 136, 137, 141, 144 Used wood, 2, 171
Sugar Yields, 125–129, 131, 132, 135–137, 157
W
T Walker model, 65
Tablet press, 38, 41, 124 Wood processing industry, by-products, and
Technoeconomic analysis (TEA), 91, 101, 102 residues, 171
Thermochemical conversion, 4, 9, 15, 24, 44, Woody biomass, 2, 6, 10–13, 18, 23, 38, 42, 45,
123–157 46, 49, 53, 89, 124, 125, 138, 141, 142,
Torrefaction, 56, 136–140, 144, 149, 152, 154 155, 164, 166, 171–174, 176, 178, 179

Biomass Densificatoin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biomass Densificatoin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biomass Densificatoin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jaya Shankar Tumuluru

ISBN 978-3-030-62887-1 ISBN 978-3-030-62888-8 (eBook)

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Organization of the Book

Who Will Beneﬁt from This Book?

US Department of Energy Disclaimer

This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the

Idaho Falls, ID, USA Jaya Shankar Tumuluru

1 Bioenergy Feedstock Types and Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

3 Densiﬁcation Process Models and Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

NOx nitrogen oxides

Keywords Biomass · Woody · Herbaceous · Fruit · Municipal solid waste · Physical

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

The 2015 Paris Agreement resulted in a global-wide commitment to reduce

1.1.2 Various Biomass Types According to the International

1.1.2.1 Woody Biomass

biomass. The mixing can be intentional, which is categorized as blends, or

1.1.2.2 Herbaceous Biomass

1.1.3 Fruit Biomass

1.1.3.1 Aquatic Biomass

Hydrophytic plants or hydrophytes that are adapted to living in or part of aquatic

1.1.3.2 Blends and Mixtures

1.1.4 Converting Biomass

During energy production using biochemical and thermochemical conversions—

1.2 Biomass Properties

1.2.1 Proximate and Ultimate Composition

Table 1.2 Proximate composition of MSW

Table 1.3 Ultimate composition and higher heating value of MSW

1.2.2 Ash Content

Table 1.8 Multi-pass corn Windrower Removal Ash (wt.% d.b.)

1.2.3 Caloriﬁc Value

or volume (McKendry 2002). The CV is usually measured using an adiabatic or

Calorific value ðkcal=kg of fuelÞ ¼ ð8100C þ 34000ðH‐0=8ÞÞ=100 ð1:1Þ

where C, H, and O represent the percentages in 1 kg of fuel.

1.2.4 Biochemical Composition

The typical biochemical compositions (e.g., lignin, protein, extractives) of speciﬁc

Table 1.12 Average biochemical composition of speciﬁc herbaceous feedstocks (standard

Table 1.14 Biochemical composition of woody and herbaceous biomass

1.2.6 Bulk Density

Bulk density of biomass is an important characteristic as it has a great impact on

Table 1.16 Bulk density of Feedstock type Bulk density

Table 1.17 Physical properties of herbaceous, woody, and torreﬁed biomass (n ¼ 3)

Table 1.18 Ground MSW physical properties from a stage-1 grinder

Table 1.19 Ground MSW physical properties from a stage-2 grinder

1.2.7 Biomass Limitations

Table 1.20 (continued)

Abstract Raw biomass is difﬁcult to use as a feedstock for biofuels production at

Keywords Densiﬁcation systems · Particle binding mechanism · Process variable ·

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 23

2.1.2 Bonding Mechanism During Densiﬁcation

process. More studies at a micro-level using these techniques will be useful in

2.1.3 Densiﬁcation Systems

2.1.3.1 Pellet Mill

2.1.3.2 Preconditioning of Biomass

2.1.3.3 Flat Die Pellet Mills

2.1.3.4 Ring Die Pellet Mills

2.1.3.5 Briquette Press

Fig. 2.11 Briquetting of biomass in a C-150 briquette press

2.1.3.6 Screw Extruder

Fig. 2.13 Typical extruder for pelleting applications