[go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Assessment of Environmental Pollution and Risks Associated with Tailing Dams in a Historical Gold Mining Area of Ecuador
Previous Article in Journal
Mechanical Performance of Bentonite Plugs in Abandonment Operations of Petroleum Wells
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Resources
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/resources13080104
resources-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Characterization of Beech Wood Pellets as Low-Emission Solid Biofuel for Residential Heating in Serbia

by
Vasilije Matijašević
1,
Zdeněk Beňo
2,
Viktor Tekáč
2 and
Van Minh Duong
2,*
1
Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy, University of Belgrade, Karnegijeva 4, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
2
Faculty of Environmental Technology, University of Chemistry and Technology Prague, Technická 5, 166 28 Prague, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Resources 2024, 13(8), 104; https://doi.org/10.3390/resources13080104
Submission received: 20 June 2024 / Revised: 17 July 2024 / Accepted: 23 July 2024 / Published: 25 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Topic Energy Management and Sustainable Development from Economic, Social and Environmental Aspects)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Schematic layout of the test bench equipment arrangement.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Emission profiles from the test runs of the investigated beech pellets.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study evaluated the suitability of two types of beech wood pellets as renewable, low-emission biofuel sources in order to combat the energy mix and poor air quality in Serbia. Key solid biofuel characteristics, including the heating values (18.5–18.7 MJ/kg), moisture content (5.54–7.16%), and volatile matter (82.4–84.4%) were assessed according to established standards. The elemental composition (mass fractions of 48.26–48.53% carbon, 6% hydrogen, 0.12–0.2% nitrogen, 0.02% sulfur, non-detected chlorine) and ash content (0.46–1.2%) demonstrated that the analyzed beech pellets met the criteria for high-quality classification, aligning with the ENplus A1 and ENplus A2 standards. The emissions of O2, CO2, CO, NOx, SO2, and TOC were quantified in the flue gas of an automatic residential pellet stove and compared with the existing literature. While combustion of the beech pellets yielded low emissions of SO2 (6 mg/m3) and NOx (188 mg/m3), the fluctuating CO (1456–2064 mg/m3) and TOC (26.75–61.46 mg/m3) levels were influenced by the appliance performance. These findings underscore the potential of beech wood pellets as a premium solid biofuel option for Serbian households, offering implications for both end-users and policymakers.

1. Introduction

In response to the global energy crisis and escalating climate change concerns, there has been a notable shift toward renewable energy sources [1,2,3]. Biomass energy, characterized by its low greenhouse gas emissions, abundance, and versatility, has emerged as a promising alternative to traditional fossil fuels, contributing significantly to energy diversification [4,5,6]. Currently, bioenergy constitutes approximately 10–14% of the global energy supply, making it the second-largest energy source worldwide, following non-renewable fossil fuels [7]. Solid biofuels, derived from various biomass sources, such as plants, animals, and municipal waste, play a crucial role in electricity generation, heating, and cooking applications. [8,9].
Wood pellets, derived from wood scraps or unprocessed wood, undergo a pelletization process involving cutting, grinding, and compression to yield pellets typically sized between 6 mm and 8 mm in diameter and ranging from 5 mm to 30 mm in length [10,11]. Known for their homogenous structure, high packing density, and concentrated energy content, rendering them superior to traditional solid biofuels such as firewood [12,13,14], wood pellets are standardized according to the ISO 17225-2 scope [15], which classifies them into quality categories A1, A2, and B based on various properties [16,17]. In Serbia, pellet production primarily utilizes firewood, long-length roundwood, and slabs [18]. Between 2012 and 2015, pellet consumption surged by an average of 20.4% annually, reaching 89,000 tons in 2015, with notable growth in household and commercial usage in the country. However, despite this increase, nearly 40% of the total production is exported, highlighting potential for greater domestic utilization [18]. Pellet production and consumption continued to grow until 2021, reaching 470,500 tons and 489,500 tons, respectively. However, between 2021 and 2023, pellet production and consumption fell by 17% and 26%, respectively. This decline can be attributed to challenges in securing a steady supply of wood raw materials and warmer winters in Serbia in the past two years [19].
Thermochemical conversion routes for wood pellets primarily involve direct combustion or co-combustion with fossil fuels like coal [19,20,21]. Larger combustion facilities, exceeding 100 MW, exhibit higher energy efficiency and lower pollutant emissions compared to small-scale domestic appliances [22,23,24]. In Serbian households, small-scale pellet combustion appliances, including pellet stoves, boilers, and ovens, are used for heat and steam production, with pellet heating accounting for 5.1% of household usage, where pellet stoves represent 0.9% and pellet boilers 6% [25]. Small-scale heating appliances emit pollutants that pose significant health risks, including cardiovascular, respiratory, and nervous system issues, leading to short-term effects and premature death [26]. Emissions vary depending on the appliance type, age, operating conditions, and fuel characteristics [27]. Understanding detailed emission factors for different wood pellets is crucial to prevent and mitigate the adverse effects of biofuel combustion on local air quality.
The majority of wood pellets in Serbia are sourced from beech wood [28], a deciduous species belonging to the genus Fagus, comprising approximately 10 timber and ornamental trees endemic to subtropical and temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere [29]. European beech (Fagus sylvatica) is particularly prevalent and significant in Europe [30,31], growing up to 30–50 m and thriving in humid climates with well-drained soil [32,33]. Known for its hardness, wear resistance, and strength, beech finds diverse applications, including furniture building, boat construction, instruments, pulp, and firewood [30,34]. In Serbia, beech constitutes the most common tree type, accounting for 63% of the total tree volume, which amounts to 82,074,497.5 m3 [35].
This study aims to analyze the fuel characteristics of commercially available wood pellets and the gaseous emissions during the combustion process to supplement the existing database on air quality in Serbia. Two types of beech wood pellets, classified as A1 and A2 according to the producer and devoid of additives or bonding agents, are examined. The analysis includes proximate analysis (moisture, volatile matter, ash, and fixed carbon content), specific energy testing, ultimate analysis of six elements (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and chlorine), and assessment of the ash melting temperature. The emission measurements encompass oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and organic gaseous pollutants from combustion within small-scale heating appliances. This research adds valuable data to the existing knowledge on low-emission biofuels and offers practical insights for improving air quality and promoting sustainable energy practices in Serbia and similar regions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Solid Biofuel Characterization

The pellet sampling adhered to ISO 21945:2020 for small-scale applications [36], while the sample preparation followed the ISO 14780:2017 guidelines [37]. The proximate analysis utilized samples with a 2 mm diameter, while the elemental analysis employed samples with a 0.25 mm diameter. The specific energy analysis samples were prepared by compressing previously milled pellets (2 mm diameter) into cylinders measuring 12 mm in diameter and 4 mm in height using a Silfradent 660 hydraulic press.
The proximate analysis of the beech pellets included moisture content measurement (wet basis), volatile matter, ash, and fixed carbon content (dry basis), with three measurements per sample averaged. The moisture content was determined per ISO 18134–3:2015 [38] by drying samples in a 105 °C furnace until constant mass. The volatile matter analysis followed ISO 18123:2015 [39], with the samples dried overnight at 105 °C then heated to 900 °C for 7 min. The ash content, analyzed as per ISO 18122:2015 [40], involved gradually raising the sample temperature to 550 °C overnight. The fixed carbon content was calculated by subtracting the sum of the ash and volatile matter mass fractions from 1.
The specific energy analysis was conducted following the ISO 18125:2017 guidelines [41] using an IKA C 200 bomb calorimeter. The calibration tests were performed with certified benzoic acid. The bomb calorimeter measured the gross calorific value (HHV) [MJ/kg] after 14 min, with benzoic acid as the weight standard. This process was repeated twice for each sample type. The net calorific value (LHV) [MJ/kg] was then calculated from the obtained gross calorific value.

2.2. Emissions Testing

The elemental analysis was conducted in accordance with the ISO 16948:2015 [42] and ISO 16994:2016 [43] guidelines using a Thermo Scientific Flash EA 1112 CHNS analyzer. The carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulfur contents were determined. The chlorine content was determined following ISO 16995:2015 [44] using a titration method with 0.01 M silver nitrate (AgNO3) and 5% potassium chromate (K2CrO4) as an indicator. A calibration curve was established using a sodium chloride (NaCl) standard solution. The oxygen content was calculated by subtracting the combined mass fractions of ash and carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur, and chlorine from 1.
The determination of the ash melting temperature was performed following the ISO 21404:2020 guidelines [45]. The samples were prepared and subjected to controlled temperature increases from room temperature to 250 °C (5 °C per min) for 180 min, followed by a ramp to 550 °C (10 °C per min) for 120 min. After cooling, the ash samples were moistened with ethanol, compressed into cylindrical molds using a spring press, and heated incrementally. Changes in the ash shape were recorded, including the deformation temperature (DT), shrinkage starting temperature (SST), hemisphere temperature (HT), and flow temperature (FT). Temperature recordings were taken at 5 °C intervals from 550 °C onward to accurately determine the ash melting characteristics.
The emissions from the pellet combustion were measured by determining the mass concentration and flow of pollutants generated during residential heating appliance operation. Due to the limitations of the prevailing methods, the pollutant mass flow was derived from the concentration and waste gas flow rate. In small-capacity appliances (<200 kW), the fuel gas flow rate measurement uncertainty led to computation using the fuel consumption, composition, flue gas composition, and combustion stoichiometry. Continuous analysis of the O2, CO, CO2, SO2, NO, and NO2 utilized a PG 350 gas analyzer (HORIBA) with ±2% relative uncertainty. The gas composition analysis employed paramagnetic, chemiluminescence, and non-dispersive infrared spectroscopy methods. The organic compounds were measured as the total organic carbon (TOC) using a THERMO FID analyzer (SK-Elektronik GmbH). The pollutant volume fractions were measured directly, and the TOC volume fraction in wet flue gas was recalculated into the dry flue gas volume fraction. The mass concentration was calculated using established equations. The flue gas flow was assumed to contain only CO2, water vapor, excess oxygen, and nitrogen for the flow calculation. The pollutant emission factor, both mass-based and energy-based, was calculated accordingly.
The combustion experiment utilized the Toledo IV 32 automatic residential space heater produced by Haas + Sohn, operating within the framework of European standard EN 16510-1:2018 [46]. Developed by the UCT Prague Emission and Immissions Measurement Laboratory, the apparatus features core components in line with standard specifications. The pellets were conveyed to the burner pot via a rotating auger conveyor, initiating combustion through an electric spark ignition system. The primary combustion air entered through the bottom and side openings, while the unburned material descended to the ash pan. Cleaning cycles, occurring every 30 min, increased the air volume to remove ash and residue. The actual operation of the test appliance was monitored on a touch screen panel. The technical parameters, dimensions, and performance characteristics are detailed in Table 1.
Figure 1 illustrates the layout of the test bench, including the construction arrangement and measurement devices. The test setup involved connecting the measurement section of the appliance to the flue socket using an uninsulated flue connector and flue adapter, with the steel flue connector measuring 2 m in length, 1 mm in thickness, and Ø 80 mm in diameter. Integration with the downstream measuring section, as shown in Figure 1, was facilitated through the flue adapter. This downstream measuring section encompassed the temperature, pressure, and gaseous inorganic pollutants and TOC measurements, featuring a diameter matching that of the flue socket. The temperature readings were captured using GMH 3200 series thermoelements, while the chimney draught was monitored with GMH 3100 series differential manometers by Greisinger GmbH, with the manufacturer’s recommended optimal pressure ranging between 5 and 15 Pa. Two exhaust gas samples were collected for quantitative analysis, with solid particles removed using PSP 4000-H gas sample probes by Testo AG equipped with sintered ceramics filters, heated to 200 °C for effective particle elimination. The conditioned gas sample was transported via heated pipes operating at 200 °C, with a THERMO FID analyzer by SK-Elektronik GmbH installed directly on the heated line for determining the gaseous organic compounds. The moisture content in the gas sample was eliminated using a PSS 5 cooling and drying unit from M&C Tech Group installed on a separate pipeline. Following gas conditioning, the PG 350 analyzer by HORIBA was employed for the determination of the O2, CO, CO2, SO2, NO, and NO2 in the exhaust gas. The analyte values were recorded at 30 s intervals within the internal memory of the measuring apparatus and later manually transferred to a computer via USB.
The test procedure encompassed two distinct phases: the pre-test and the main test phase. During the pre-test, a sufficient quantity of pellets was loaded into the pellet hopper through the top stove hatch to establish stable combustion conditions. This phase commenced from a cold start and lasted approximately 30 min to ensure optimal conditions before initiating the measurement test phase. Each test measurement for the different pellet types was preceded by this pre-test period.
For the A1 and A2 class beech pellets, the main test phase involved adding 5 kg of pellets to the appliance hopper at the beginning of the test. After the combustion of the first batch, an additional 5 kg of pellets was added. The pellet consumption was determined based on the remaining pellets in the hopper at the end of the test. The air to fuel ratio (λ) was maintained at approximately 1.5, ensuring optimal combustion conditions. The temperature in the furnace, where the pellets were combusted, was consistently monitored and maintained within the range of 800–900 °C throughout the test runs. The test duration was 6.25 h (375 min), as detailed in Table 2.
Throughout the test run with the A1 class beech pellets, the average pellet consumption rate was calculated to be 1.587 kg/h, resulting in a total consumption of 9.92 kg over the 6.25 h period. The average room temperature during this test was recorded at 20.1 °C, with the average flue gas temperature measured at 193 °C, the exhaust gas draught pressure averaging 35.3 Pa, and the flow rate at 17.11 m3/h. The combustion of the A1 class beech pellets yielded ash characterized by a fine particle size and homogeneous distribution.
During the 6.25 h test run with the A2 class beech pellets, a total of 11.25 kg of pellets was combusted, corresponding to an average consumption rate of 1.80 kg/h. The ambient temperature in the test room was recorded at 19.5 °C, with an average exhaust gas temperature of 211.3 °C and an exhaust gas draught pressure averaging 35.3 Pa. The average flue gas flow rate was measured at 19.6 m3/h. The combustion of the A2 class beech pellets also resulted in the production of ash characterized by a fine particle size.

3. Results and Discussion

The fuel characterization analysis results for the beech wood pellets of quality classes A1 and A2 are summarized in Table 3, depicting the mean values of the proximate analysis and specific energy. These results provide insights into the composition and properties of the pellets, including the major elements, moisture content, volatile matter, ash content, and fixed carbon across different bases: raw, dry, and dry ash-free (daf).

3.1. Fuel Characterization

For the A1 type pellets, the dry basis analysis reveals a carbon mass fraction of 48.53% and hydrogen at 6.06%, contributing to a higher heating value of 18.5 MJ/kg, which indicates a high potential heat release [47]. The moisture content of 7.16% falls within the normative range of 5–10% for wood pellets, with minimal influence on the combustion behavior and gross calorific value. The high volatile matter mass fraction of 84.4% on the dry basis indicates significant vaporization before the gas phase homogeneous combustion reaction occurs, influencing the thermal decomposition [48]. The nitrogen content of 0.12%, sulfur content of 0.04% and chlorine content under the level of detection on the dry basis meet the specifications for ENplusA1 class pellets, being ≤0.3%, ≤0.04% and ≤0.02% respectively, as specified by the ISO 17225-2 scope [15]. Additionally, the ash content of 0.46% is within the range requirements of class A1 and the statement of the producer, being a mass fraction of ≤0.7% on the dry basis. The low ash level suggests adequate pre-treatment of the pellets and minimal influence on the combustion conditions, the process of the de-ashing, and ash disposal [49]. Furthermore, the ash melting temperatures were observed, showing signs of deformation and starting to shrink at 890 °C and 900 °C, forming a hemisphere shape at 1450 °C, and finally, spreading out in a thin layer at 1460 °C.
On the other hand, the A2 class beech pellets exhibit slightly lower carbon and hydrogen mass fractions of 48.26% and 5.98% on a dry basis, indicating a high potential heat release, which resulted in a higher heating value of 18.7 MJ/kg [47]. Furthermore, a moisture content of 5.54% is at the low end of the normative range of 5–10%, presenting a negligible effect on the higher heating value and the combustion behavior. The volatile matter mass fraction of 82.4% on the dry basis implies that the largest fraction of the beech pellets was vaporized before gas phase combustion occurred [48], similarly to the A1 pellets. The mass fractions of nitrogen of 0.2% and sulfur and chlorine, which were under the limit of detection, on the dry basis were within the scope of the ISO 17225-2 specifications of ≤0.5% for nitrogen, ≤0.05% for sulfur and ≤0.02%, the specified limits for the ENplus A2 class of wooden pellets [15]. Additionally, the ash content of 1.2% meeting the ENplus A2 class requirements of ≤1.2% further confirms the manufacturer’s diligent pellet pre-treatment, as well as its minimal impact on the combustion conditions, the de-ashing process, and ash disposal procedures [49]. The ash melting temperatures were relatively elevated, as evidenced by the observation of the edge rounding of the ash test piece at 980 °C, shrinking occurring at 1000 °C, and the formation of a hemispherical shape and thin layer at 1430 °C and 1440 °C, respectively. The elevated ash melting temperatures indicate a tendency for volatile inorganic compounds to decrease, with partial decomposition observed in key ash-forming elements [25].
A comparison between the A1 and A2 beech wood pellets reveals a notable difference in the ash content, with the A1 pellets having a significant 2.6 times lower mass fraction. This suggests potential differences in the quality of the pre-treatment process, such as the cleaning, barking, or sieving of wood feedstock for the pelletization of the A1 and A2 class pellets. The gross calorific values of 18.5 MJ/kg and 18.7 MJ/kg on the dry basis for the A1 and A2 classes, respectively, exhibit a minimal disparity, which is unsurprising given the closely comparable mass fractions of carbon, hydrogen, and volatile matter in these pellet types. Nonetheless, the A2 beech pellets exhibit a moisture content 1.29 times lower than that of the A1 variant, resulting in a higher gross calorific value on the raw basis. Specifically, the raw basis values of both variants are 17.6 MJ/kg and 17.2 MJ/kg, respectively. Additionally, the nitrogen content of the A1 class pellet is 1.67 times lower, whereas the sulfur content is slightly higher compared to the A2 pellets.
Several studies have assessed the fuel properties of beech wood pellets in recent years [50,51,52,53]. A study in 2019 reported a gross calorific value of 19,113 ± 102 kJ/kg and an ash content of 3.09%, both higher than our measured values [51]. The study by B. Ciupek and K. Gołoś indicated carbon and hydrogen contents of 41.5% and 4.77%, respectively, with ash and moisture values of 2.1% and 18%, and a gross calorific value of 16.1 MJ/kg [52]. In comparison, the Serbian beech pellets exhibit superior fuel characteristics, with higher calorific values due to the greater carbon and hydrogen content, and a significantly lower ash and moisture content. M. Masche et al. reported a moisture content of 8.4% and a high calorific value of 18.4 MJ/kg for beech pellets, closely aligning with our findings for Serbian A1 pellets [53]. Additionally, a study in 2023 on the ash melting temperatures of various wood pellets found similar values for beech sawdust pellets, with hemisphere and flow temperatures of around 1500 °C [54]. Several studies have also analyzed the fuel characteristics of wood pellets made from oak and pine trees [52,55,56,57,58]. Oak wood pellets generally exhibit moisture and ash content similar to our examined beech pellets and have a gross calorific value that is comparable or slightly higher [55,56,57]. Pine pellets show similar ash and moisture content, but their gross calorific value is slightly lower than that of beech pellets [52,58]. According to J. I. Arranz et al., pine wood pellets have ash melting temperatures of around 1200–1300 °C, lower than those of beech pellets, while oak pellets exhibit slightly better ash melting temperatures, with HT and FT over 1500 °C [59].

3.2. Emission Profile Analysis

The combustion of beech pellets primarily emits oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and organic compounds, consistent with the expected chemical reactions during solid wood biofuel combustion. Table 4 provides comprehensive data on the measurement readings, mass concentration, average mass flow, and emission factor of these six main gas components in the exhaust gas stream from the combustion of A1 and A2 class beech pellets.
Throughout the test runs for both the A1 and A2 class beech pellets, the volume fractions of oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (expressed as NO2), and gaseous organic compounds (expressed as the total organic carbon) were monitored in the exhaust gas and reported as percentages for O2 and CO2 or in ml/m3 for NO2, SO2, CO and total organic carbon. Subsequently, the volume fractions were converted into mass concentrations under standard conditions [mg/m3] and then further transformed into the average mass flow of the analytes [g/h], average emission factor [g of analyte per kg of burnt fuel], and emission factor based on the energy content of the fuel [mg/MJ]. The emission factor based on the fuel energy content is particularly noteworthy as it quantifies the pollutants emitted per unit of energy generated during fuel combustion. This parameter enables a comparison of the emission levels and environmental impacts among different solid biofuels.
Figure 2 complements the data presented in Table 4 by illustrating the emission profiles of the main gaseous components in the exhaust gas stream during the 6.25 h test runs for both the A1 and A2 class beech pellets, demonstrating how the volume fractions of these gases change over time. The fluctuation of the oxygen levels, a critical factor influencing emissions, was observed in 30 min intervals, with average volume fraction values of 15.42% (beech A1) and 14.36% (beech A2). Figure 2 illustrates that variations in the O2 fraction correlated with changes in the volume fractions of CO2, CO, SO2, NO2, and TOC. These fluctuations coincided with the burn test conducted by the heating appliance software every 30 min, during which an increased volume of air was blown into the burner.
During these fluctuations, the CO, SO2, and TOC values increased due to suboptimal combustion conditions resulting from the low flame temperatures. Conversely, the NO2 emissions decreased due to the reduced production of NOx from atmospheric nitrogen in the lower temperature flame. The average volume fraction of the CO emissions was 1149 mL/m3, corresponding to a mass concentration of 2064 mg/m3 under standard conditions, resulting in an emission factor of 1293 mg/MJ for the beech A1 pellets. For the beech A2 pellets, the average volume fraction of the CO emissions was 815 mL/m3, with a corresponding mass concentration of 1456 mg/m3 and an emission factor of 906 mg/MJ, as summarized in Table 4. These elevated CO levels, accompanied by fluctuating patterns, indicate incomplete combustion, which is a significant concern in non-industrial practice, suggesting that the current combustion process needs improvement. The variability in the CO emissions can be attributed to several factors inherent to small-scale residential combustion settings, including the operational load, mechanical feeding, turbulence within the combustion chamber, and ash deposits in the fire bed. Additionally, the reduction of the flame affects both the temperature level and oxidation efficiency, crucial factor impacting the CO emission levels. Optimizing the combustion parameters, enhancing the air distribution, and ensuring proper ventilation could potentially mitigate incomplete combustion with elevated CO levels [60].
The nitrogen oxide (NO and NO2) emissions were aggregated as NO2. For beech pellet class A1, the nitrogen dioxide volume fraction ranged from 8.7 to 97.2 mL/m3, with an average of 63.9 mL/m3 and a mass concentration under normal conditions of 188 mg/m3. The energy-based NO2 emission factor was 118 mg/MJ, consistent with values reported in previous studies [61,62]. Studies by J. A. Perez [60], O. Sippula [61], and G. Shmidt [62] indicated lower NO2 emissions for spruce stem pellets (95 ± 28 mg/MJ), willow stem pellets (103 ± 28 mg/MJ) and pine stem pellets (82 ± 16 mg/MJ) compared to the beech class A1 pellets analyzed here. Conversely, higher NO2 emissions were observed for pine bark (131 ± 28 mg/MJ), willow bark (282 ± 74 mg/MJ) and oak pellets (147 ± 30 mg/MJ). For the beech pellets class A2, the NO2 volume fraction ranged from 13.7 mL/m3 to 129.7 mL/m3, averaging 93.7 mL/m3, with a mass concentration under normal conditions of 276 mg/mL, higher than the recorded average values of the A1 class beech pellet NO2 emissions. The difference in the NO2 content between the two beech pellet types can be attributed to the higher oxygen volume fraction during combustion of the A1 pellets, indicating a lower flame temperature and thus lower NOx production from air nitrogen, as well as the higher nitrogen content of the A2 class beech pellets, which converted into NOx during combustion (see Table 3). The calculated NO2 emission factor value was 171 mg/MJ, slightly higher than the values reported for the pine, spruce, and oak pellets in previous studies [60,61,62].
The sulfur dioxide volume fraction in the exhaust gas stream exhibited low average values of 1.5 mL/m3 and 1.6 mL/m3, with average mass fractions under referent conditions of 6.08 mg/m3 and 6.47 mg/m3, for beech pellets class A1 and A2, respectively. The SO2 emissions observed in thermochemical conversion facilities’ exhaust gas streams are notably influenced by the sulfur content present in the fuel. Given the low sulfur content of beech pellets (see Table 3), these low emissions are consistent with expectations. Typically, solid wood biofuels contain trace amounts of sulfur or soluble forms of sulfur. In our experiment with beech wood pellets, we ensured uniform quality by pelletizing them cylindrically without alkaline-based additives or washing processes, thereby minimizing the initial sulfur and non-metallic element removal through mixing or pre-treatment. The slightly higher values observed for the beech A2 pellets, despite their non-detected sulfur content, can be attributed to CH4 interference with the detection method. The calculated emission factors based on the fuel energy content were 4.1 mg/MJ for the A1 pellets and 4.0 mg/MJ for the A2 pellets, falling at the lower end of the spectrum compared to the values reported in a study on emissions from small-scale boilers. In that study, the emission factors ranged from 0.05 mg/MJ to 13.3 mg/MJ for wood pellets and from 37.6 mg/MJ to 41.4 mg/MJ for crop straw pellets [63].
The volume fraction and mass fraction under standard conditions of total organic carbon in the exhaust gas for the A1 beech pellets were measured at 26.4 mL/m3 and 61.46 mg/m3, respectively. Similar to the CO values, the measured values for the A2 class beech pellets were lower, at 11.5 mL/m3 and 26.75 mg/m3, under standard conditions. The observed higher emissions of both pollutants from the A1 beech pellets can be attributed to incomplete combustion, likely stemming from the higher moisture content of the A1 pellets compared to the A2 pellets, as indicated by data in Table 3. Additionally, the higher chimney draught during combustion of the A1 pellets, as evidenced by a higher oxygen volume fraction in the exhaust gas, may further contribute to the observed emissions differences between the A1 and A2 pellets.
The stable combustion of the A1 and A2 class beech pellets, coupled with the low emissions of gaseous pollutants, aligns with the values reported for various wood pellets obtained in earlier studies. These findings underscore the suitability of beech pellets as a high-quality biofuel for combustion in household pellet stoves.

4. Conclusions

This study provides valuable insights into the properties of Serbian beech (Fagus Sylvatica) biomass pellets and their potential utilization in small-scale combustion units. The comprehensive analysis of the beech pellets, covering the physicochemical properties, fuel quality, and ash characteristics, demonstrates their suitability as a desirable wood biofuel. Moreover, based on their elemental composition, ash content, and moisture content, the beech pellets meet the requirements for the high-quality class ENplus A1 and ENplus A2 specified by the normative reference ISO 17225–2:2021.
The combustion of beech pellets in the small-combustion appliance was found to be efficient, resulting in complete combustion and the production of fine gray ash residues. The recorded emissions of NOx and SO2 were notably low, underscoring the environmentally friendly nature of the beech pellets. However, the emissions of organic gaseous pollutants and CO exhibited some variability, likely due to the inherent limitations of the test appliance, indicating the need for further refinement of combustion technology for residential applications involving solid biofuel. Nonetheless, the measured emissions did not significantly deviate from those observed in previous studies involving different types of wood pellets.
Overall, this study highlights the favorable characteristics and importance of beech pellets as a renewable, low-emission fuel. By offering an effective means of diversifying the energy mix, promoting sustainable energy practices, and mitigating poor air quality in urban areas of Serbia, beech pellets represent a promising solution for advancing toward a greener and more environmentally conscious future.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.M.D.; methodology, V.T. and V.M.D.; validation, V.T. and Z.B.; formal analysis, V.M., V.T. and Z.B.; investigation, V.M.D. and Z.B.; resources, V.T.; data curation, V.M. and Z.B.; writing—original draft preparation, V.M.; writing—review and editing, V.M.D. and V.M.; visualization, V.M.; supervision, V.M.D.; project administration, V.M.D.; funding acquisition, V.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the European Commission for their coordination and support throughout the project IMATEC within the Erasmus + Programme, Key Action 1, which facilitates scientific collaboration among European research institutions. We would also like to express special gratitude to the analytical expert group at the coordinating institutions for their invaluable insights, excellent consulting, and outstanding expertise. Their contributions have been instrumental in the success of this research endeavor.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Fawzy, S.; Osman, A.I.; Doran, J.; Rooney, D.W. Strategies for mitigation of climate change: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2020, 18, 2069–2094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Olabi, A.; Abdelkareem, M.A. Renewable energy and climate change. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 158, 112111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Abas, N.; Kalair, A.; Khan, N. Review of fossil fuels and future energy technologies. Futures 2015, 69, 31–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. IEA. Bioenergy, Energy System Overview; IEA: Paris, France, 2022; Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/bioenergy (accessed on 3 March 2023).
  5. Ganguly, R.; Garlapati, V.K. Comparative Account of Carbon Footprints of Burning Gasoline and Ethanol. In Advances in Sugarcane Biorefinery; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. EEA. Air Pollution Emission Inventory Guidebook; EEA: Oslo, Norway, 2019; Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2019/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/1-energy/1-a-combustion/1-a-4-small-combustion/view (accessed on 3 March 2023).
  7. Guo, M.X.; Song, W.P.; Buhain, J. Bioenergy and biofuels: History, status, and perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 42, 712–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Manandhar, A.; Mousavi-Avval, S.H.; Tatum, J.; Shrestha, E.; Nazemi, P.; Shah, A. Solid biofuels. In Biomass, Biofuels, Biochemicals; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 343–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zbytek, Z.; Adamczyk, F. Possibility of Solid Biomass Use. Part 1. Legal Regulations and Division of Solid Biomass. Technika Rolnicza Ogrodnicza Leśna. 2017. Available online: http://agro.icm.edu.pl/agro/element/bwmeta1.element.agro-97ff5bcd-1386-41fc-a794-c6a8dbad9ee9 (accessed on 5 March 2023).
  10. Van Meerbeek, K.; Muys, B.; Hermy, M. Lignocellulosic biomass for bioenergy beyond intensive cropland and forests. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 102, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, L.; Skjevrak, G.; Hustad, J.E.; Grønli, M.G. Effects of Sewage Sludge and Marble Sludge Addition on Slag Characteristics during Wood Waste Pellets Combustion. Energy Fuels 2011, 25, 5775–5785. Available online: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ef2007722 (accessed on 19 March 2023).
  12. Nunes, J.; Freitas, H. An indicator to assess the pellet production per forest area. A case-study from Portugal. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 70, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Telmo, C.; Lousada, J. Heating values of wood pellets from different species. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 2634–2639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Venturini, E.; Vassura, I.; Agostini, F.; Pizzi, A.; Toscano, G.; Passarini, F. Effect of fuel quality classes on the emissions of a residential wood pellet stove. Fuel 2018, 211, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. ISO 17225-2:2021; Solid Biofuels—Fuel Specifications and Classes—Part 2: Graded Wood Pellets. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:17225:-2:ed-2:v1:en (accessed on 5 October 2023).
  16. Duca, D.; Pedretti, E.F.; Toscano, G. Wood pellet quality with respect to EN 14961-2 standard and certifications. Fuel 2014, 135, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. García-Maraver, A.; Popov, V.; Zamorano, M. A review of European standards for pellet quality. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 3537–3540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Glavonjić, B.; Lazarević, A.; Čomić, D. Impact of wood pellets export on the development of their production in Serbia with the effects of substituting energy from fossil fuels and reduction of carbon dioxide emission. Glas. Šumarskog Fak. 2016, 114, 55–74. Available online: http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?ID=0353-45371614055G (accessed on 7 March 2023). [CrossRef]
  19. Glavonjić, B. Wood pellets market in the Western Balkans: State and prospects for development. In Proceedings of the 7th Central European Biomass Conference, Graz, Austria, 18 January 2023. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kurchania, A. Biomass energy. In Biomass Conversion: The Interface of Biotechnology, Chemistry and Materials Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 91–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lam, M.K.; Minh Loy, A.C.; Yusup, S.; Lee, K.T. Biohydrogen production from algae. In Biohydrogen; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 219–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. EUBIA. Biomass Co-Combustion. 2023. Available online: https://www.eubia.org/cms/wiki-biomass/co-combustion-with-biomass/ (accessed on 16 March 2023).
  23. Li, J.; Brzdekiewicz, A.; Yang, W.; Blasiak, W. Co-firing based on biomass torrefaction in a pulverized coal boiler with aim of 100% fuel switching. Appl. Energy 2012, 99, 344–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fang, M.; Yang, L.; Chen, G.; Shi, Z.; Luo, Z.; Cen, K. Experimental study on rice husk combustion in a circulating fluidized bed. Fuel Process. Technol. 2004, 85, 1273–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Win, K.M.; Persson, T. Emissions from residential wood pellet boilers and stove characterized into start-up, steady operation, and stop emissions. Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 2496–2505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pavlović, B.; Ivezić, D.; Živković, M. State and perspective of individual household heating in Serbia: A survey-based study. Energy Build. 2021, 247, 111128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. HEAL. Air Pollution and Health in Serbia; HEAL: Brussels, Belgium, 2014; Available online: https://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/heal_briefing_air_serbia_eng.pdf (accessed on 19 March 2023).
  28. Czech, H.; Miersch, T.; Orasche, J.; Abbaszade, G.; Sippula, O.; Tissari, J.; Michalke, B.; Schnelle-Kreis, J.; Streibel, T.; Jokiniemi, J.; et al. Chemical composition and speciation of particulate organic matter from modern residential small-scale wood combustion appliances. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 612, 636–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. All Companies in Serbia, Pellet Production. Available online: https://kompanije.co.rs/kategorija/proizvodnja-peleta (accessed on 15 February 2023).
  30. Britannica, Beech. Encyclopedia Britannica. Available online: https://www.britannica.com/plant/beech (accessed on 6 March 2023).
  31. Packham, J.R.; Thomas, P.A.; Atkinson, M.D.; Degen, T. Biological Flora of the British Isles: Fagus sylvatica. J. Ecol. 2012, 100, 1557–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fang, J.; Lechowicz, M.J. Climatic limits for the present distribution of beech (Fagus L.) species in the world. J. Biogeogr. 2006, 33, 1804–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. De Rigo, D.; Caudullo, G.; Durrant, T.H.; San-Miguel-Ayanz, J. The European Atlas of Forest Tree Species: Modelling, Data and Information on Forest Tree Species; Publication Office of the European Union: Luxemburg, 2016; pp. 40–45. Available online: https://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/media/atlas/Fagus_sylvatica.pdf (accessed on 6 March 2023).
  34. Walthert, L.; Pannatier, E.G.; Meier, E.S. Shortage of nutrients and excess of toxic elements in soils limit the distribution of soil-sensitive tree species in temperate forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 297, 94–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Horgan, T.; Keane, M.; McCarthy, R.; Lally, M.; Thompson, D. A Guide to Forest Tree Species Selection and Silviculture in Ireland; National Council for Forest Research and Development (COFORD): Wexford, UK, 2003; Available online: http://www.coford.ie/media/coford/content/publications/projectreports/speciesmanual.pdf (accessed on 6 March 2023).
  36. Srbijašume. Glavne Vrste Šumskog Drveća. 2021. Available online: https://srbijasume.rs/gazdovanje-sumama/sumski-fond/glavne-vrste-sumskog-drveca/ (accessed on 7 March 2023).
  37. ISO 21945:2020; Solid biofuels — Simplified Sampling Method for Small Scale Applications. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/72270.html (accessed on 8 April 2023).
  38. ISO 14780:2017; Solid biofuels—Sample Preparation. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14780:ed-1:v1:en (accessed on 8 April 2023).
  39. ISO 18134–3:2015; Solid Biofuels—Determination of Moisture Content—Oven Dry Method. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:18134:-3:ed-1:v1:en (accessed on 8 April 2023).
  40. ISO 18123:2015; Solid Biofuels—Determination of Volatile Matter. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:18123:ed-2:v1:en (accessed on 9 April 2023).
  41. ISO 18122; Solid Biofuels—Determination of Ash Content. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:18122:ed-2:v1:en (accessed on 9 April 2023).
  42. ISO 18125:2017; Solid Biofuels—Determination of Calorific Value. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:18125:ed-1:v1:en (accessed on 10 April 2023).
  43. ISO 16948:2015; Solid Biofuels—Determination of Total Content of Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:16948:ed-1:v1:en (accessed on 10 April 2023).
  44. ISO 16994:2016; Solid Biofuels—Determination of Total Content of Sulfur and Chlorine. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:16994:ed-2:v1:en (accessed on 12 April 2023).
  45. ISO 16995:2015; Solid Biofuels—Determination of the Water Soluble Chloride, Sodium and Potassium Content. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/58083.html (accessed on 12 April 2023).
  46. ISO 21404:2020; Solid Biofuels—Determination of Ash Melting Behaviour. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:21404:ed-1:v1:en (accessed on 14 April 2023).
  47. EN 16510-1:2018; Residential Solid Fuel Burning Appliances—Part 1: Genereral Requirements and Test Methods. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. Available online: https://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/f?p=204:110:0 (accessed on 16 April 2023).
  48. Sanlisoy, A.; Melez, H.; Carpinlioglu, M.O. Characteristics of the solid fuels for the plasma gasification. Energy Procedia 2017, 141, 282–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mansaray, K.; Ghaly, A.E.; Al-Taweel, A.M.; Hamdullahpur, F.; Ugursal, V.I. Air gasification of rice husk in a dual distributor type fluidized bed gasifier. Biomass Bioenergy 1999, 17, 315–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Duong, V.M.; Flener, U.; Hrbek, J.; Hofbauer, H. Emission characteristics from the combustion of Acacia Mangium in the automatic feeding pellet stove. Renew. Energy 2022, 186, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Spirchez, C.; Lunguleasa, A. Comparative study of spruce and beech pellets in terms of physical, mechanical, and energy properties. Pro Ligno 2019, 15, 321–328. Available online: http://www.proligno.ro/en/articles/2019/4/SPIRCHEZ.pdf (accessed on 21 April 2023).
  52. Ciupek, B.; Gołoś, K. Concentration of nitrogen oxides when burning wood pellets of various origins. J. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 21, 229–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Masche, M.; Puig-Arnavat, M.; Jensen, P.A.; Holm, J.K.; Clausen, S.; Ahrenfeldt, J.; Henriksen, U.B. From wood chips to pellets to milled pellets: The mechanical processing pathway of Austrian pine and European beech. Powder Technol. 2019, 350, 134–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kantová, N.; Holubčík, M.; Čaja, A.; Trnka, J.; Hrabovský, P.; Belány, P. Co-Combustion Investigation of Wood Pellets Blended with FFP2 Masks: Analysis of the Ash Melting Temperature. Forests 2023, 14, 636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Saletnik, B.; Saletnik, A.; Zaguła, G.; Bajcar, M.; Puchalski, G. The Use of Wood Pellets in the Production of High Quality Biocarbon Materials. Materials 2022, 15, 4404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Lunguleasa, A.; Spirchez, C.; Olarescu, A.M. Calorific Characteristics of Larch (Larix decidua) and Oak (Quercus robur) Pellets Realized from Native and Torrefied Sawdust. Forests 2022, 13, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Miranda, T.; Montero, I.; Sepúlveda, F.J.; Arranz, J.I.; Rojas, C.V.; Nogales, S. A review of pellets from different sources. Materials 2015, 8, 1413–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Aniszewska, M.; Gendek, A. Comparison of heat of combustion and calorific value of the cones and wood of selected forest tree species. Lesn. Pr. Badaw. 2014, 75, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Arranz, J.; Miranda, M.T.; Montero, I.; Sepúlveda, F.J.; Rojas, C.V. Characterization and combustion behaviour of commercial and experimental wood pellets in South West Europe. Fuel 2015, 142, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Perez-Jimenez, J.A. Gaseous Emissions from the Combustion of Biomass Pellets. Biomass Pelletization Stand. Prod. 2015, 2, 85. Available online: https://books.google.cz/books?hl=sr&lr=&id=Mn_6CAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA85&ots=yJ9V8XrjeB&sig=MhJUm3mn2P0c21UloLF9BivdSEo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 30 April 2023).
  61. Sippula, O.; Hytönen, K.; Tissari, J.; Raunemaa, T.; Jokiniemi, J. Effect of wood fuel on the emissions from a top-feed pellet stove. Energy Fuels 2007, 21, 1151–1160. Available online: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ef060286e (accessed on 30 April 2023). [CrossRef]
  62. Schmidt, G.; Trouvé, G.; Leyssens, G.; Schönnenbeck, C.; Genevray, P.; Cazier, F.; Dewaele, D.; Vandenbilcke, C.; Faivre, E.; Denance, Y.; et al. Wood washing: Influence on gaseous and particulate emissions during wood combustion in a domestic pellet stove. Fuel Process. Technol. 2018, 174, 104–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lamberg, H.; Tissari, J.; Jokiniemi, J.; Sippula, O. Fine particle and gaseous emissions from a small-scale boiler fueled by pellets of various raw materials. Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 7044–7053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Resources 13 00104 g001
Figure 1. Schematic layout of the test bench equipment arrangement.
Figure 1. Schematic layout of the test bench equipment arrangement.
Resources 13 00104 g001
Resources 13 00104 g002
Figure 2. Emission profiles from the test runs of the investigated beech pellets.
Figure 2. Emission profiles from the test runs of the investigated beech pellets.
Resources 13 00104 g002
Table 1. Specifications of the residential space heater model Toledo IV 32.
Table 1. Specifications of the residential space heater model Toledo IV 32.
ParameterValueUnit
Nominal heat output8[kW]
Range of heat output2.4–8.3[kW]
Type of fuelWood pellets
Start-up methodElectric ignition
Capacity of pellet hopper32[kg]
Combustion time per hopper (min./max.)20/60[h]
Thermal efficiency90/95[%]
Temperature of flue gas206[°C]
Chimney draught at nominal heat output11[Pa]
Chimney draught at minimal heat output5[Pa]
Flue gases mass flow rate5.6[g/s]
Dimensions
Height1201[mm]
Width544[mm]
Depth499[mm]
Flue gas outlet diameter80[mm]
Weight110[kg]
Table 2. Parameters recorded during the test run of the investigated beech pellets.
Table 2. Parameters recorded during the test run of the investigated beech pellets.
ParameterValueUnit
A1A2
Start time08:4516:45[hh:mm]
End time15:0023:00[hh:mm]
Actual measurement duration6.256.25[h]
Solid biofuel mass9.9211.25[kg]
Solid biofuel mass flow1.5871.800[kg/h]
Ambient temperature9.37.0[°C]
Atmospheric pressure10241023[hPa]
Atmospheric relative humidity5969[%]
Average room temperature20.119.5[°C]
Average exhaust gas temperature193.5211.3[°C]
Average negative pressure in the exhaust gas draught34.235.3[Pa]
Average exhaust gas flow rate at standard conditions17.1119.6[m3/h]
Air to fuel ratio (λ)1.51.5[-]
Power consumption27.3031.71[MJ/h]
Table 3. Characteristics of the analyzed pellets as the test solid biofuel.
Table 3. Characteristics of the analyzed pellets as the test solid biofuel.
ParameterValueUnit
A1A2
RawDryDafRawDryDaf
Proximate analysis
   Moisture content7.160.000.005.540.000.00[%]
   Volatile matter78.3584.4084.7977.8882.4583.45[%]
   Ash content0.430.460.001.131.200.00[%]
   Fixed carbon14.0615.1515.2115.4516.3516.55[%]
Specific energy
   HHV17,20518,53218,61717,62018,65318,879[kJ/kg]
   LHV15,80417,21117,29016,25317,34917,559[kJ/kg]
Ultimate analysis
   C45.0648.5348.7545.5948.2648.84[%]
   H5.626.066.095.655.986.05[%]
   N0.110.120.120.190.200.20[%]
   S0.040.040.040.000.000.00[%]
   Cl0.000.000.000.000.000.00[%]
   O41.5844.7944.9941.9144.3744.90[%]
Ash melting temperature
   DT890980[°C]
   SST9001000[°C]
   HT14501430[°C]
   FT14601440[°C]
Table 4. Emissions of gaseous compounds from the test runs of the examined beech pellets.
Table 4. Emissions of gaseous compounds from the test runs of the examined beech pellets.
Air PollutantValueUnit
A1A2
Measurement readings
   Oxygen15.4214.36[%]
   Carbon dioxide5.306.35[%]
   Carbon monoxide1149815[ml/m3]
   Nitrogen oxides as NO263.993.7[ml/m3]
   Sulfur dioxide1.51.6[ml/m3]
   Total organic carbon as C3H826.411.5[ml/m3]
Mass concentration at standard conditions
   Carbon monoxide20641465[mg/m3]
   Nitrogen oxides as NO2188276[mg/m3]
   Sulfur dioxide6.086.47[mg/m3]
   Total organic carbon as C3H861.4626.75[mg/m3]
   Average mass flow
   Carbon monoxide35.3128.72[g/h]
   Nitrogen oxides as NO23.225.41[g/h]
   Sulfur dioxide0.100.13[g/h]
   Total organic carbon as C3H81.050.52[g/h]
Average emission factor referring to the fuel quantity
   Carbon monoxide22.2515.96[g/kg]
   Nitrogen oxides as NO22.033.01[g/kg]
   Sulfur dioxide0.070.07[g/kg]
   Total organic carbon as C3H80.660.29[g/kg]
Average emission factor referring to the fuel energy content
   Carbon monoxide1293906[mg/MJ]
   Nitrogen oxides as NO2118171[mg/MJ]
   Sulfur dioxide4.14.0[mg/MJ]
   Total organic carbon as C3H83917[mg/MJ]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Matijašević, V.; Beňo, Z.; Tekáč, V.; Duong, V.M. Characterization of Beech Wood Pellets as Low-Emission Solid Biofuel for Residential Heating in Serbia. Resources 2024, 13, 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources13080104

AMA Style

Matijašević V, Beňo Z, Tekáč V, Duong VM. Characterization of Beech Wood Pellets as Low-Emission Solid Biofuel for Residential Heating in Serbia. Resources. 2024; 13(8):104. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources13080104

Chicago/Turabian Style

Matijašević, Vasilije, Zdeněk Beňo, Viktor Tekáč, and Van Minh Duong. 2024. "Characterization of Beech Wood Pellets as Low-Emission Solid Biofuel for Residential Heating in Serbia" Resources 13, no. 8: 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources13080104

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop