Determination of the lower calorific value of biomass using mechatronic system elements
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31210/spi2026.29.02.28Keywords:
biomass, measurement, lower calorific value, energy crops, mechatronic measurement systemsAbstract
Achieving environmental sustainability requires an immediate transition to energy-saving technologies and renewable energy sources. It has been confirmed that, in addition to classical renewable sources (solar, hydro, wind, and geothermal energy), plant biomass represents a valuable raw material. It enables the sustainable production of biofuels, providing an alternative to fossil fuels. This role of biofuels determines the need for a thorough study and justification of the energy characteristics of relevant renewable agricultural crops. Plant biomass, which includes wood and shrubs of various species, possesses distinctive fuel properties that can be described by well-known parameters such as the heat of combustion (higher and lower calorific values), ash melting characteristics, ash content, and chemical composition. The presented generalization represents a new scientific contribution aimed at developing a methodology and conducting experimental and comparative studies to determine the relative indicators of the calorific value of organic plant-based samples using original and more affordable equipment with elements of mechatronic systems. The dry plant material of each energy crop was analyzed using a laboratory device – a “biofuel analyzer.” The original laboratory setup was manufactured in accordance with applicable technical regulations. The research showed that the results of calorific value measurements of plant biomass obtained with the developed laboratory setup, equipped with mechatronic measuring components, were in good agreement with the data obtained using a standard bomb calorimeter. This consistency is confirmed by statistical significance (LSD0.05 at p<0.05). Under the experimental conditions, the calorific value of six plant-based material samples was determined as follows: Castor bean (Ricinus communis) – 9.78 MJ/kg; Sorghum (Sorghum) – 17.97 MJ/kg; Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) – 14.71 MJ/kg; Paulownia (Paulownia) – 10.67 MJ/kg; Virginia mallow (Sida hermaphrodita) – 13.93 MJ/kg; and Sorrel hybrid (Rumex patientia × Rumex tianschanicus) – 12.35 MJ/kg.
References
1. Gorb, O., Rębilas, R., Aranchiy, V., Yasnolob, I., Boiko, S., & Padalka, V. (2020). Strengthening competitiveness of the national economy by inhancing energy efficiency and diversifying energy supply sources in rural areas. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, 11 (5), 1114. https://doi.org/10.14505//jemt.v11.5(45).09
2. Cicea, C., Ciocoiu, C. N., & Marinescu, C. (2021). Exploring the research regarding energy–economic growth relationship. Energies, 14 (9), 2661. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14092661
3. Giraudet, L.-G., & Missemer, A. (2023). The history of energy efficiency in economics: Breakpoints and regularities. Energy Research &Amp; Social Science, 97, 102973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.102973
4. Padalka, V., Gorbenko, O., Ivankova, O., Dudnyk, V., & Horiunov, B. (2025). Justification of the parameters of the active conical wood deformer. Technology Audit and Production Reserves, 3 (1(83)), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.15587/2706-5448.2025.329722
5. Canuto, E., Mazza, D., & Novara, C. (2024). Projection of the airborne CO2 concentration by land/ocean absorption dynamics and fossil-fuel reserve depletion. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 29 (6), 1167–1187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-024-09985-7
6. Mercure, J.-F., & Salas, P. (2013). On the global economic potentials and marginal costs of non-renewable resources and the price of energy commodities. Energy Policy, 63, 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.040
7. Badger, P. C. (2002). Processing cost analysis for biomass feedstocks (Report No. ORNL/TM-2002/199). Oak Ridge National Laboratory. https://doi.org/10.2172/814666
8. Avelin, A., Skvaril, J., Aulin, R., Odlare, M., & Dahlquist, E. (2014). Forest biomass for bioenergy production – Comparison of Different forest species. Energy Procedia, 61, 1820–1823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.12.221
9. Kamani, M. H., Eş, I., Lorenzo, J. M., Remize, F., Roselló-Soto, E., Barba, F. J., Clark, J., & Mousavi Khaneghah, A. (2019). Advances in plant materials, food by-products, and algae conversion into biofuels: use of environmentally friendly technologies. Green Chemistry, 21 (12), 3213–3231. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8gc03860k
10. Gravalos, I., Xyradakis, P., Kateris, D., Gialamas, T., Bartzialis, D., & Giannoulis, K. (2016). An experimental determination of gross calorific value of different agroforestry species and bio-based industry residues. Natural Resources, 07 (01), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.4236/nr.2016.71006
11. Bušić, A., Marđetko, N., Kundas, S., Morzak, G., Belskaya, H., Ivančić Šantek, M., Komes, D., Novak, S., & Šantek, B. (2018). Bioethanol production from renewable raw materials and its separation and purification: a review. Food Technology and Biotechnology, 56 (3). https://doi.org/10.17113/ftb.56.03.18.5546
12. Jain, S., & Kumar, S. (2024). A comprehensive review of bioethanol production from diverse feedstocks: Current advancements and economic perspectives. Energy, 296, 131130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.131130
13. Knight, B., & Westwood, A. (2005). World biomass review: biomass as a global power source [Abstract]. Fuel and Energy Abstracts, 46(4), 280. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6701(05)81938-1
14. Yan, Z., Li, G., & Wan, S. (2023). Oil crops: A potential source of biodiesel. Engineering, 29, 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2023.07.011
15. Elgharbawy, A. S., Sadik, Wagih. A., Sadek, O. M., & Kasaby, M. A. (2021). A review on biodiesel feedstocks and production technologies. Journal of the Chilean Chemical Society, 66 (1), 5098–5109. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0717-97072021000105098
16. Abdul Hakim Shaah, M., Hossain, Md. S., Salem Allafi, F. A., Alsaedi, A., Ismail, N., Ab Kadir, M. O., & Ahmad, M. I. (2021). A review on non-edible oil as a potential feedstock for biodiesel: physicochemical properties and production technologies. RSC Advances, 11 (40), 25018–25037. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1ra04311k
17. McKendry, P. (2002). Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass. Bioresource Technology, 83 (1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-8524(01)00118-3
18. Muir, J. P., Sanderson, M. A., Ocumpaugh, W. R., Jones, R. M., & Reed, R. L. (2001). Biomass production of ‘Alamo’ switchgrass in response to nitrogen, phosphorus, and row spacing. Agronomy Journal, 93(4), 896–901. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2001.934896x
19. Ledda, L., Deligios, P. A., Farci, R., & Sulas, L. (2013). Biomass supply for energetic purposes from some Cardueae species grown in Mediterranean farming systems. Industrial Crops and Products, 47, 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.03.013
20. Vogel, K. P., Brejda, J. J., Walters, D. T., & Buxton, D. R. (2002). Switchgrass biomass production in the Midwest USA: harvest and nitrogen management. Agronomy Journal, 94(3), 413–420. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2002.0413
