Next Article in Journal
Kinetic Model Implementation of Fluidized Bed Devolatilization
Previous Article in Journal
Advancements and Prospects of Hydrogel Sweat Cooling Technology in Multiphase Heat Transfer Applications: A Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 17
Issue 13
10.3390/en17133153
energies-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

Evaluation of Growth and Energy Parameters of One-Year-Old Raspberry Shoots, Depending on the Variety

by
Grzegorz Maj
1,
Kamil Buczyński
2,*,
Kamila E. Klimek
3 and
Magdalena Kapłan
2
1
Department of Power Engineering and Transportation, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Głęboka 28, 20-612 Lublin, Poland
2
Institute of Horticulture Production, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Głęboka 28, 20-612 Lublin, Poland
3
Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Głęboka 28, 20-612 Lublin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2024, 17(13), 3153; https://doi.org/10.3390/en17133153
Submission received: 18 May 2024 / Revised: 18 June 2024 / Accepted: 20 June 2024 / Published: 26 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Section B: Energy and Environment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The article examines the influence of six varieties of primocane raspberries, Rubus idaeus L., on the growth parameters and energy properties of the biomass. The unique aim of this study was to show the impact of primocane raspberry varieties, grown for a single harvest, on the growth parameters of the bushes and the energy and emission characteristics of the biomass obtained from the pruned canes. To the best of our knowledge, there is no such analysis connected to varieties of raspberries available in the literature. The following primocane raspberries were assessed: Polana, Polesie, Delniwa, Poemat, Polonez, and Poranek. Among the studied raspberry varieties, Polana was characterized by the highest number of side shoots and the greatest sum of the shoot lengths, while the Polonez variety was characterized by the highest average shoot length and shoot thickness. In the tested raspberry varieties, the weight of the shoots per hectare varied significantly, ranging from 6.06 t in the Poranek variety to 9.05 t in the Delniwa variety. It was shown that the raspberry variety had a significant impact on the higher heating value (HHV) and the lower heating value (LHV). The lowest energy value was found in the Delniwa (HHV—17.32 MJ·kg−1; LHV—16.07 MJ·kg−1) and Polana (HHV—17.33 MJ·kg−1, LHV—16.19 MJ·kg−1) varieties, and the significantly highest value was observed in the Poranek variety (HHV—17.63 MJ·kg−1, LHV—16.39 MJ·kg−1). The assessment of the total volume of exhaust gases showed the highest value of this parameter for the Polesie and Delniwa varieties (6.89 m3·kg−1), with the lowest for the Polana variety (6.69 m3·kg−1).

1. Introduction

Managing the entire energy sector, in light of legal and environmental requirements, necessitates a new vision, mission, and strategy [1]. The adverse effects of fossil-fuel use on the environment and public health have become the foundation for continuous research and development in regards to renewable energy [2]. Bioenergy has been recognized as a key alternative to fossil fuels, offering a potential for replacement in the short to medium term and contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions [3,4]. The primary challenge in bioenergy production is managing the supply chain while optimally considering economic, environmental, and social factors [5]. As a renewable resource, biomass has been recognized as an alternative fuel that can provide sustainable energy solutions for the future [6,7]. Traditionally, biomass in the form of firewood was used to generate energy through direct combustion, which constituted the primary method of its utilization [8]. Continuous efforts are being made to refine biomass processing technologies to reduce the costs of bioenergy production [9]. The pursuit of bioenergy development is driven by the depletion of fossil fuel resources and climate change concerns. It is vital to promote the use of biomass to transform civilization towards a low-emission economy. However, using crop residues without analyzing energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions may lead to disturbances in the energy and environmental balance [10]. Global interest in its use for bioenergy production is growing due to its renewability, availability, and ecological benefits [11].
Over the years, various conversion technologies have been developed that allow biomass to be processed into different types of energy [12]. In a closed-loop economy, the energetic utilization of agricultural by-products is an essential component [13]. The use of animal and agricultural waste as an alternative in renewable energy seems to be a promising solution that can lead to a more sustainable energy system, significantly contributing to effective waste management [14]. Globally, solid biomass waste ranks fourth as an energy source, after coal, oil, and gas, comprising approximately 14% of global energy demand. The potential for using biomass materials depends on the availability of raw materials and their composition [15]. Moreover, physicochemical and structural analyses of agricultural biomass can vary significantly, depending on the type of raw material used [16,17]. To achieve optimal integration, it is crucial to classify biomass waste based on the available bioprocesses [18].The cultivation of specialized energy crops significantly contributes to environmental burdens due to water consumption and the use of chemical fertilizers. Therefore, prioritizing the use of residual biomass from the forestry and agro-industrial sectors should be emphasized [19]. Current research suggests that orchard waste biomass, specifically branches from cherry, pear, and apple trees, can be effectively utilized as a feedstock for the production of high-energy solid fuels [20]; this finding also provides hope for the potential use of biomass obtained from fruit bushes for energy production.
Raspberry is among the most popularly cultivated berry plants worldwide. The estimated area of raspberry cultivation globally in 2022 was 116,393 hectares, with Poland, a global leader in the production of this fruit, possessing an area of about 21,700 hectares [21]. In the cultivation of primocane raspberry varieties, the canes are manually pruned or mechanically mowed during the winter period, or partially pruned in the winter, followed by complete removal in the summer. It is optimal, from a phytosanitary perspective, to completely remove canes from the cultivation area, generating residues that can be used as biomass for bioenergy production. Residues from raspberry production are also used in biogas production, which indicates a great potential for generating biomass as biofuel [22]. Similarly, leaves from raspberry cultivation are used for energy generation purposes [23]. Issues related to the management of crop residues are the subject of research in the field of grape cultivation [24,25], agrobiomass [26,27,28], and organic waste from various industries [29,30]. The use of crop residues is undoubtedly an attempt to achieve the effect of a closed cultivation cycle and sustainable development. Hence, the use of anaerobic digestate [31,32] and ashes [33,34] from this type of raw material for fertilizer purposes provides the basis for rational crop and energy management. If the use of agricultural waste as biomass for energy production increases, it could lead to the transformation of previously overlooked residues into a productive socio-economic collaboration between the agriculture and energy sectors [35]. Due to the lack of studies in the literature indicating the relationship between raspberry varieties and emission and energy parameters, the aim of this study was to demonstrate the impact of primocane raspberry varieties grown for a single harvest on the growth parameters of the bushes and the energy and emission characteristics of the biomass obtained from the pruned canes.

2. Materials and Methods

The experimental raspberry crop was planted in the fall of 2021, from bare-root seedlings, in the eastern part of Poland, located on the Lublin Upland (51°11′ N; 21°49′ E). The research covered six varieties of primocane raspberries (Rubus idaeus L.) from Polish breeding programs: Delniwa, Poemat, Polana, Polesie, Polonez, and Poranek. The plantation was irrigated using a fertigation system, and protection was implemented according to the current raspberry protection program in force in Poland. The woody canes designated for the study were collected in winter, during the winter pruning of the bushes after the second vegetative season. The canes were harvested from 15 bushes of each variety. They were completely cut at ground level, and all canes were subjected to measurement. Based on the conducted measurements, the following parameters were determined: the number and mass of canes per bush, the number of lateral branches, and the diameter of the canes at the base.
In the conducted studies, the energy parameters were evaluated by determining the higher and lower heating values and also by performing proximate and ultimate analyses. An emission evaluation was also conducted by estimating the theoretical composition of the exhaust gases, based on the performed elemental and technical analyses. The entire procedure of the conducted studies is presented in Figure 1.
The results obtained in the experiment were statistically analyzed using SAS 5.1 software. For the obtained results, the normality of the distribution was checked using the Shapiro–Wilk test, then the ANOVA analysis was performed, and the significance was assessed with Tukey’s HSD test.

3. Results

The subject of the analysis was the estimation of the growth parameters for six raspberry varieties (Figure 2).
The number of lateral branches per cane varied significantly, ranging from 10.72 for the Poranek variety to 16.68 for the Polana variety. It was observed that the bushes of the Polana and Polonez varieties exhibited significantly more lateral branches when compared to the other varieties studied. No significant differences were noted in this count between the Poemat and Polesie varieties. The average number of canes per bush ranged from 6.33 for the Polonez variety to 10.0 for the Polana variety (Figure 2). For the other varieties studied, the number of canes per bush was more than eight, with no significant differences between them. Similarly, the total length of canes per bush varied, ranging from 1157.0 cm to 1679.7 cm. Orzeł et al. [46] reported that the average number of young shoots for the Polka variety was 10.1, for Polana, it was 7.3, and for Polesie, it was 5.8.
In the raspberry varieties tested, the weight of shoots per hectare varied significantly, ranging from 6.06 t in the Poranek variety to 9.05 t in the Delniwa variety. The research showed that the weight of the shoots depended on the variety, with the lowest weight recorded for the Poranek and Polesie varieties and the highest for the Polonez and Delniwa varieties (Figure 3).
A multidimensional cluster analysis was performed, the aim of which was to indicate the similarities of varieties in terms of total weight (Figure 4). Clear similarities were found between the Polonez and Delniwa varieties, forming a clear cluster, and between two subgroups consisting of the Polesie and Poranek and Polana and Poemat varieties, which then created one common group.
The subject of the analysis was to determine the energy parameters for one-year-old shoots of the tested raspberry varieties (Table 1).
Statistical analysis of the obtained test results showed that in the case of LHV and HHV, there was a significant impact of the variety on the assessed parameters (Table 1). In the case of both parameters, the significantly lowest value was observed in the Delniwa (HHV—17.32 MJ·kg−1; LHV—16.07 MJ·kg−1) and Polana (HHV—17.33MJ·kg−1, LHV—16.19 MJ·kg−1) varieties, and the significantly highest value was noted in the Poranek variety (HHV—17.63 MJ·kg−1; LHV—16.39 MJ·kg−1). The HHV and LHV values in the Polana and Polonez varieties did not differ significantly from the value in the Delniwa variety. Biomass obtained from Rubus glaucus can be an abundant source for obtaining raw material with great potential for the energy industry [47]. Marian et al. [48] suggested the possibility of using biomass resulting from bush pruning as part of a mixture of 70% sea buckthorn biomass + 10–20% blackberry biomass + straw biomass, or a maximum of 20% blackberry biomass and the rest sea buckthorn biomass, intended for the production of solid fuels in the form of pellets. The properties of biomass and the nature of its recovery process significantly affect the amount of energy that can be obtained from this material [49]. The obtained higher heating value results are higher than those for coconut shell, garden waste, fruit waste, corn cobs [50], and rice husk [51], but lower than those for sawdust, peat, and straw [52]. The level of LHV and HHV depends on the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and moisture content in the biomass (solid fuels). Statistical analysis showed differences in the indicated features, apart from hydrogen content [53]. The differences in the obtained levels of LHV and HHV are the result of significant differences in the contents of individual components. Moreover, LHV also depends on the hydrogen and moisture content in the fuel [39], hence in the examined case, the LHV was shaped by the moisture content between the samples. The location of the tested materials in relation to other types of biomass is mainly the result of the carbon content in the shoots of the tested raspberries.
The significantly highest carbon (C) content was obtained in the Polonez (44.40%) and Poranek (44.18%) varieties and the significantly lowest in the Polana variety (43.44%). The Delniwa, Polesie, and Poemat cultivars did not differ significantly in terms of carbon content. In the study of Perez et al. [54], the carbon content in the dry matter obtained from the biomass of Rubus ulmifolius shoots and leaves was 45.98%; therefore, the results obtained are comparable. The approximate carbon content in their study is obtained from corn cobs, fruit waste [50], olive prunings [55], or rice husks [51].
The results of the analyzed hydrogen content did not show a significant impact of the variety on the tested parameter. In the study by Perez et al. [54], the hydrogen content in the dry mass obtained from the biomass of Rubus ulmifolius shoots and leaves was 6.01%. In the case of the analyzed varieties, the hydrogen content was approximately 1.5% higher, which may be related to the plant species. The obtained hydrogen content results for raspberry shoots are higher than for other plant biomasses [17,51,52,56].
The level of nitrogen content differed significantly between the evaluated combinations. It was shown that in the Delniwa (1.12%) and Polesie (1.15%) cultivars, the value of the assessed parameter was significantly higher than in the Polana, Polonez, and Poranek cultivars. In the study by Perez et al. [54], the nitrogen content in the dry matter obtained from the biomass of Rubus ulmifolius shoots and leaves was 2.24% nitrogen, which indicates that the material tested in our study has a much lower nitrogen content. Similar nitrogen content values were also recorded in the studies conducted by Dorokhov et. al. [52] for coal slime, peat, and straw.
When assessing the sulfur content, a significant influence of the variety on the value of this parameter was also demonstrated. The significantly highest value was obtained in the Delniwa (0.43%) and Polonez (0.41%) varieties, and the significantly lowest value was obtained for the Poranek variety (0.04%). It was shown that the level of the assessed parameter in the Polesie variety was significantly higher than that in the Poemat and Polana varieties. Analyzing the literature data, the sulfur content was very high compared to that noted for other types of biomass of plant origin [57]. This may result from the nature of raspberry cultivation, mainly from the fertilization plan for the cultivation of the examined varieties.
The oxygen level ranged from 44.16% to 44.94%. The Poemat variety has the highest content of this element, and the Delniwa variety has the lowest. The oxygen level in the Poemat, Polana, Polesie, and Polonez cultivars did not differ significantly. In the study by Perez et al. [54], the oxygen content in the dry mass obtained from the biomass of Rubus ulmifolius shoots and leaves was 45.77%; hence, the obtained values were comparable.
In the case of ash content (A), three varieties—Delniwa (2.88%), Polana (3.05%), and Poranek (2.99%)—exhibited the significantly highest values, which did not differ significantly between them. The significantly lowest ash content was found in the Polonez variety (1.94%). In the study by Perez et al. [54], the ash content, depending on the moisture level, of biomass obtained from Rubus ulmifolius shoots and leaves oscillated between 3.59% and 3.89%; hence, the tested biomass showed a lower content, which is positive in regards to using the material as a biofuel. A low ash content was demonstrated for shoots of all tested varieties, and the values are similar to olive prunings, river bank residues [55], sawdust [52], or miscanthus [58].
The analysis of the content of volatile matter showed the highest level of these substances in the Polana variety (72.16%) and the significantly lowest level in the Polesie variety (70.88%). The Polonez (71.07%) and Poranek (71.23%) varieties did not differ significantly from the Delniwa variety. The obtained results of the volatile matter content are identical to those obtained for biomass of plant origin [59].
The conducted research showed that the analyzed raspberry variety shoots are characterized by different energy values. According to variation in the obtained biomass due to, among other factors, obtaining it from different species, origins, processing techniques, and storage methods, results in differences in the raw material obtained [60,61].
The aim of the multivariate cluster analysis was to indicate the overall combustion value (Figure 5). Clear similarities were observed between the Polana and Delniwa varieties, which form a common cluster with the Polonez variety. Identical relationships were found between the Poemat, Polesie, and Poranek varieties.
The research also analyzed the theoretical composition of exhaust gases for the tested shoots of six raspberry varieties (Table 2).
The analysis showed the highest carbon dioxide content—0.83 m3·kg−1—in the combustion products from the Polonez and Poranek varieties, and the significantly lowest content in the Polana variety, at 0.81 m3·kg−1; for the rest of the varieties, the value of this parameter was 0.82 m3·kg−1, which did not differ significantly between them (Table 2). In the case of sulfur dioxide emissions, the emission is at a low level, with the lowest for the Poranek variety (0.0002 m3·kg−1) and the highest for the Delniwa variety (0.0030 m3·kg−1). For the H2O content in the exhaust gases, there was no significant influence of the variety on the value of this parameter. The theoretical nitrogen content in exhaust gases differed significantly, depending on the variety. The highest value was demonstrated by the Delniwa variety (4.41 m3·kg−1), and the significantly lowest by the Polana (4.24 m3·kg−1) variety. The nitrogen (VN2) present in the fuel is considered inert in this case and therefore, does not react with other elements. However, in reality, nitrogen oxides (NOx) are produced in the combustion process when fuels are burned at high temperatures. Additionally, the nitrogen (VN2) in the exhaust gases comes from the combustion air. This amount is added to the nitrogen content in the exhaust gases from the fuel [44,45]. Extreme values (the highest and lowest) for the theoretical oxygen demand were obtained for the Polonez (6.55 m3·kg−1) and Polana (6.39 m3·kg−1) varieties. The assessment of the total volume of exhaust gases showed a similar value for this parameter. The highest value of this parameter was found for the Delniwa and Polesie varieties (6.89 m3·kg−1), and the lowest for the Polana variety (6.69 m3·kg−1). The total value of the stoichiometric volume of dry exhaust gases for the Poemat, Polonez, and Poranek varieties did not differ significantly, while the highest value was found for the Delniwa (5.24 m3·kg−1) and Polesie (5.23 m3·kg−1) varieties, which did not differ significantly, and were significantly the lowest in the Polana variety (5.05 m3·kg−1).

4. Conclusions

Among the examined raspberry varieties, Polana was characterized by the largest number of shoots and the highest number of side branches. The Polonez variety exhibited the largest shoot diameter. The significantly lowest shoot weight was obtained in the Poranek and Polesie varieties, and the significantly highest in the Polonez and Delniwa varieties. The conducted research showed that the shoots of the analyzed raspberry varieties are characterized by differing energy values.
This research has shown that one-year-old raspberry shoots, as crop residues, constitute a valuable biofuel. The calorific value for the tested varieties ranged from 16.07 to 16.39 MJ·kg−1, which indicates a similar potential to that of typical biomass of plant origin. The highest calorific value was recorded for the Poranek variety; therefore, taking into account the energy yield from waste biomass obtained from raspberry cultivation, the indicated variety will contribute to this application. The smallest exhaust gas volume was recorded for the Poranek variety; hence, this variety is also characterized by low emissions when disposed of in the direct combustion process. One-year-old shoots of the Poranek variety exhibit high values as a potential biofuel and can supplement the fuel and energy balance of a farm.
Taking the above results into account, obtaining material in the form of raspberry shoots can supplement the fuel balance of a farm. In this case, direct combustion provides the greatest economic efficiency, as well as high energy efficiency. Research has shown that, apart from yield, raspberry cultivation can also be guided by energy yield from bio-waste in the form of shoots, which can be an additional energy carrier to be used for farm purposes. As a unique feature, it should be noted that the raspberry variety affects energy and emission parameters. Therefore, in order to conduct ecological cultivation, apart from the cultivation aspect, one can also focus on minimizing the impact of crop residues on the environment and maintaining a closed cultivation cycle. The Polana variety was considered the most effective variety in the research, as it is characterized by an average lower heating value (16.19 MJ·kg−1) and the lowest volume of generated exhaust gases (6.69 m3·kg−1) from the combustion process. The generated energy potential for bio-waste generated from the cultivation of the examined raspberry varieties ranges from 106.8 GJ·ha−1, in the case of the Poranek variety, to 145.4 GJ·ha−1 for the Delniwa variety. The presented research indicates that raspberry variety has a significant impact on the number of shoots generated, their weight per crop area, and energy and emission values, which are important factors to consider for obtaining a pro-ecological renewable energy carrier for the local fuel and energy balance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.M., M.K. and K.E.K.; methodology, G.M.; software, K.B. and K.E.K.; validation, K.B. and K.E.K.; formal analysis, K.E.K. and G.M.; investigation, G.M. and M.K.; resources, G.M.; data curation, M.K.; writing—original draft preparation, K.B. and M.K.; writing—review and editing, K.B. and M.K.; visualization, K.E.K.; supervision, G.M.; project administration, K.E.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The cost was incurred from funds financed by the IDUB University Development Strategy for 2024-2026 in the discipline of Mechanical Engineering as part of the task “Stage: 1, payment from funds: SUBB.RNN.24.019.” and from funds financed by the IDUB University Development Strategy for 2024-2026 in the discipline of Environmental Engineering, Mining and Energy as part of the task “Stage: 1, payment from funds: SUBB.RNN.24.019.”

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Borowski, P.F. Management of Energy Enterprises in Zero-Emission Conditions: Bamboo as an Innovative Biomass for the Production of Green Energy by Power Plants. Energies 2022, 15, 1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Obi, O.F.; Pecenka, R.; Clifford, M.J. A Review of Biomass Briquette Binders and Quality Parameters. Energies 2022, 15, 2426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aboelela, D.; Saleh, H.; Attia, A.M.; Elhenawy, Y.; Majozi, T.; Bassyouni, M. Recent Advances in Biomass Pyrolysis Processes for Bioenergy Production: Optimization of Operating Conditions. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ujados Lorenzo, C.; Paredes Sánchez, J.P.; Laine Cuervo, G.; Xiberta Bernat, J. Bioenergy as an Environmental Alternative in Energy Systems: A Case Study. Proceedings 2018, 2, 1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Roudneshin, M.; Sosa, A. Optimising Agricultural Waste Supply Chains for Sustainable Bioenergy Production: A Comprehensive Literature Review. Energies 2024, 17, 2542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yogalakshmi, K.N.; Poornima Devi, T.; Sivashanmugam, P.; Kavitha, S.; Yukesh Kannah, R.; Varjani, S.; AdishKumar, S.; Kumar, G.; Rajesh Banu, J. Lignocellulosic Biomass-Based Pyrolysis: A Comprehensive Review. Chemosphere 2022, 286, 131824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023: Special Edition; The Sustainable Development Goals Report; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2023; ISBN 978-92-1-002491-4. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2023/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2023.pdf (accessed on 11 June 2024).
  8. Ahmed, H.; Abolore, R.S.; Jaiswal, S.; Jaiswal, A.K. Toward Circular Economy: Potentials of Spent Coffee Grounds in Bioproducts and Chemical Production. Biomass 2024, 4, 286–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lee, S.Y.; Sankaran, R.; Chew, K.W.; Tan, C.H.; Krishnamoorthy, R.; Chu, D.-T.; Show, P.-L. Waste to Bioenergy: A Review on the Recent Conversion Technologies. BMC Energy 2019, 1, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Havrysh, V.; Kalinichenko, A.; Brzozowska, A.; Stebila, J. Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Carbon Dioxide Emissions of Agricultural Residue Feedstock for Bioenergy. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kalak, T. Potential Use of Industrial Biomass Waste as a Sustainable Energy Source in the Future. Energies 2023, 16, 1783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tshikovhi, A.; Motaung, T.E. Technologies and Innovations for Biomass Energy Production. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vaskalis, I.; Zabaniotou, A. Comparative Feasibility and Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton Stalks Gasification and Pyrolysis. Biomass 2024, 4, 23–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bijarchiyan, M.; Sahebi, H.; Mirzamohammadi, S. A Sustainable Biomass Network Design Model for Bioenergy Production by Anaerobic Digestion Technology: Using Agricultural Residues and Livestock Manure. Energ. Sustain. Soc. 2020, 10, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, K.; Tester, J.W. Sustainable Management of Unavoidable Biomass Wastes. Green Energy Resour. 2023, 1, 100005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Suman, S.; Mohan Yadav, A.; Tomar, N.; Bhushan, A. Combustion Characteristics and Behaviour of Agricultural Biomass: A Short Review. In Renewable Energy—Technologies and Applications; Taner, T., Tiwari, A., Selim Ustun, T., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021; ISBN 978-1-83881-000-9. [Google Scholar]
  17. George, O.S.; Dennison, M.S.; Yusuf, A.A. Characterization and Energy Recovery from Biomass Wastes. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2023, 58, 103346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ochieng, R.; Gebremedhin, A.; Sarker, S. Integration of Waste to Bioenergy Conversion Systems: A Critical Review. Energies 2022, 15, 2697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zucaro, A.; Ansanelli, G.; Cerbone, A.; Picarelli, A.; Rinaldi, C.; Beltrani, T.; Sbaffoni, S.; Fiorentino, G. Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Production from Different Biomass Sources in Italy. Energies 2024, 17, 2771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Saletnik, B.; Bajcar, M.; Saletnik, A.; Zaguła, G.; Puchalski, C. Effect of the Pyrolysis Process Applied to Waste Branches Biomass from Fruit Trees on the Calorific Value of the Biochar and Dust Explosivity. Energies 2021, 14, 4898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2024. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/qcl (accessed on 11 June 2024).
  22. Samoraj, M.; Izydorczyk, G.; Krawiec, P.; Moustakas, K.; Chojnacka, K. Biomass-Based Micronutrient Fertilizers and Biofortification of Raspberries Fruits. Environ. Res. 2022, 215, 114304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wu, L.; Yang, J.; Wang, C.; Li, N.; Liu, Y.; Duan, A.; Wang, T. Chemical Compositions of Raspberry Leaves Influenced by Growth Season, Cultivars and Leaf Position. Sci. Hortic. 2022, 304, 111349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kapłan, M.; Maj, G.; Klimek, K.E. The Analysis of Energy Potential in Vine Leaves of the ‘Regent’ Cultivar as Bio-Waste Depending on the Year of Cultivation and the Type of Rootstock Used. J. Water Land Dev. 2023, 58, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Amine, D.; Abdeltif, A.; Tounsia, A.; Naima, B. Characterization of Cardinal Vine Shoot Waste as New Resource of Lignocellulosic Biomass and Valorization into Value-Added Chemical Using Plackett–Burman and Box Behnken. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 2023, 13, 6331–6344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rahimi, Z.; Anand, A.; Gautam, S. An Overview on Thermochemical Conversion and Potential Evaluation of Biofuels Derived from Agricultural Wastes. Energy Nexus 2022, 7, 100125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Enes, T.; Aranha, J.; Fonseca, T.; Matos, C.; Barros, A.; Lousada, J. Residual Agroforestry Biomass–Thermochemical Properties. Forests 2019, 10, 1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Maj, G.; Najda, A.; Klimek, K.; Balant, S. Estimation of Energy and Emissions Properties of Waste from Various Species of Mint in the Herbal Products Industry. Energies 2020, 13, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Maj, G.; Szyszlak-Bargłowicz, J.; Zając, G.; Słowik, T.; Krzaczek, P.; Piekarski, W. Energy and Emission Characteristics of Biowaste from the Corn Grain Drying Process. Energies 2019, 12, 4383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Greinert, A.; Mrówczyńska, M.; Szefner, W. The Use of Waste Biomass from the Wood Industry and Municipal Sources for Energy Production. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chojnacka, K.; Moustakas, K. Anaerobic Digestate Management for Carbon Neutrality and Fertilizer Use: A Review of Current Practices and Future Opportunities. Biomass Bioenergy 2024, 180, 106991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lee, M.E.; Steiman, M.W.; Angelo, S.K.S. Biogas Digestate as a Renewable Fertilizer: Effects of Digestate Application on Crop Growth and Nutrient Composition. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2021, 36, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zając, G.; Maj, G.; Szyszlak-Bargłowicz, J.; Słowik, T.; Krzaczek, P.; Gołębiowski, W.; Dębowski, M. Evaluation of the Properties and Usefulness of Ashes from the Corn Grain Drying Process Biomass. Energies 2020, 13, 1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhai, J.; Burke, I.T.; Stewart, D.I. Beneficial Management of Biomass Combustion Ashes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 151, 111555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ertuğrul, Ö.; Daher, B.; Özgünaltay Ertuğrul, G.; Mohtar, R. From Agricultural Waste to Energy: Assessing the Bioenergy Potential of South-Central Texas. Energies 2024, 17, 802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. EN-ISO 16948:2015-07; Solid Biofuels—Determination of Total Content of Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
  37. ISO 16994:2016; Solid Biofuels—Determination of Total Content of Sulphur and Chlorine. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
  38. Alves, J.L.F.; da Silva, J.C.G.; Mumbach, G.D.; Domenico, M.D.; da Silva Filho, V.F.; de Sena, R.F.; Machado, R.A.F.; Marangoni, C. Insights into the Bioenergy Potential of Jackfruit Wastes Considering Their Physicochemical Properties, Bioenergy Indicators, Combustion Behaviors, and Emission Characteristics. Renew. Energy 2020, 155, 1328–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. EN-ISO 1928:2009; Solid Mineral Fuels—Determination of Gross Calorific Value by the Bomb Calorimetric Method and Calculation of Net Calorific Value. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
  40. EN-ISO 18122:2016-01; Solid Biofuels. Determination of Ash Content. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
  41. EN-ISO 18123:2016-01; Solid Fuels—Determination of Volatile Content by Gravimetric Method. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
  42. EN-ISO 18134-3:2015; Solid Biofuels—Determination of Moisture Content—Oven Dry Method—Part 3: Moisture in General Analysis Sample. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
  43. Choudhury, N.D.; Saha, N.; Phukan, B.R.; Kataki, R. Characterization and Evaluation of Energy Properties of Pellets Produced from Coir Pith, Saw Dust and Ipomoea Carnea and Their Blends. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util. Environ. Eff. 2021, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kovacs, H.; Szemmelveisz, K.; Koós, T. Theoretical and Experimental Metals Flow Calculations during Biomass Combustion. Fuel 2016, 185, 524–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Paraschiv, L.S.; Serban, A.; Paraschiv, S. Calculation of Combustion Air Required for Burning Solid Fuels (Coal / Biomass / Solid Waste) and Analysis of Flue Gas Composition. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Orzeł, A.; Król-Dyrek, K.; Jagła, J.; Lech, W.; Bieniasz, M.; Krośniak, M. Recent Progress in Polish Black Raspberry Breeding at the Niwa Berry Breeding Ltd. Acta Hortic. 2020, 1277, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dávila, J.A.; Rosenberg, M.; Cardona, C.A. A Biorefinery for Efficient Processing and Utilization of Spent Pulp of Colombian Andes Berry (Rubus Glaucus Benth): Experimental, Techno-Economic and Environmental Assessment. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 223, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Marian, G.; Ianuș, G.; Istrate, B.; Banari, A.; Nazar, B.; Munteanu, C.; Măluțan, T.; Gudîma, A.; Ciolacu, F.; Daraduda, N.; et al. Evaluation of Agricultural Residues as Organic Green Energy Source Based on Seabuckthorn, Blackberry, and Straw Blends. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ighalo, J.O.; Adeniyi, A.G. Biomass to Biochar Conversion for Agricultural and Environmental Applications in Nigeria: Challenges, Peculiarities and Prospects. Mater. Int. 2020, 2, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Siddiqi, H.; Bal, M.; Kumari, U.; Meikap, B.C. In-Depth Physiochemical Characterization and Detailed Thermo-Kinetic Study of Biomass Wastes to Analyze Its Energy Potential. Renew. Energy 2020, 148, 756–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lo, S.-L.; Huang, Y.-F.; Chiueh, P.-T.; Kuan, W.-H. Microwave Pyrolysis of Lignocellulosic Biomass. Energy Procedia 2017, 105, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dorokhov, V.V.; Nyashina, G.S.; Romanov, D.S.; Strizhak, P.A. Combustion and Mechanical Properties of Pellets from Biomass and Industrial Waste. Renew. Energy 2024, 228, 120625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gupta, R. Analysis of Solid and Liquid Fuel Calorific Value. J. Sci. Technol. (JST) 2021, 6, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
  54. Pérez, S.; Renedo, C.J.; Ortiz, A.; Delgado, F.; Fernández, I. Energy Potential of Native Shrub Species in Northern Spain. Renew. Energy 2014, 62, 79–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cavalaglio, G.; Cotana, F.; Nicolini, A.; Coccia, V.; Petrozzi, A.; Formica, A.; Bertini, A. Characterization of Various Biomass Feedstock Suitable for Small-Scale Energy Plants as Preliminary Activity of Biocheaper Project. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Maj, G. Emission Factors and Energy Properties of Agro and Forest Biomass in Aspect of Sustainability of Energy Sector. Energies 2018, 11, 1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Vassilev, S.V.; Baxter, D.; Andersen, L.K.; Vassileva, C.G. An Overview of the Chemical Composition of Biomass. Fuel 2010, 89, 913–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hossain, T.; Jones, D.S.; Godfrey, E.; Saloni, D.; Sharara, M.; Hartley, D.S. Characterizing Value-Added Pellets Obtained from Blends of Miscanthus, Corn Stover, and Switchgrass. Renew. Energy 2024, 227, 120494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Maj, G.; Krzaczek, P.; Stamirowska-Krzaczek, E.; Lipińska, H.; Kornas, R. Assessment of Energy and Physicochemical Biomass Properties of Selected Forecrop Plant Species. Renew. Energy 2019, 143, 520–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Vassilev, S.V.; Vassileva, C.G.; Vassilev, V.S. Advantages and Disadvantages of Composition and Properties of Biomass in Comparison with Coal: An Overview. Fuel 2015, 158, 330–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Williams, O.; Eastwick, C.; Kingman, S.; Giddings, D.; Lormor, S.; Lester, E. Investigation into the Applicability of Bond Work Index (BWI) and Hardgrove Grindability Index (HGI) Tests for Several Biomasses Compared to Colombian La Loma Coal. Fuel 2015, 158, 379–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 17 03153 g001aEnergies 17 03153 g001b
Figure 1. Methodology of analyses of energy and emission properties [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45].
Figure 1. Methodology of analyses of energy and emission properties [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45].
Energies 17 03153 g001aEnergies 17 03153 g001b
Energies 17 03153 g002
Figure 2. The influence of raspberry variety on selected growth parameters.
Figure 2. The influence of raspberry variety on selected growth parameters.
Energies 17 03153 g002
Energies 17 03153 g003
Figure 3. Total weight of shoots of all analyzed varieties on an area of 1 ha.
Figure 3. Total weight of shoots of all analyzed varieties on an area of 1 ha.
Energies 17 03153 g003
Energies 17 03153 g004
Figure 4. Analysis of the main components of the total mass of shoots from the considered raspberry varieties.
Figure 4. Analysis of the main components of the total mass of shoots from the considered raspberry varieties.
Energies 17 03153 g004
Energies 17 03153 g005
Figure 5. Analysis of the main components of the combustion parameters of the considered raspberry varieties.
Figure 5. Analysis of the main components of the combustion parameters of the considered raspberry varieties.
Energies 17 03153 g005
Table 1. Proximate and ultimate analysis of one-year-old shoots of selected primocane raspberry varieties.
Table 1. Proximate and ultimate analysis of one-year-old shoots of selected primocane raspberry varieties.
ParameterVariety of Raspberryp-Value
DelniwaPoematPolanaPolesiePolonezPoranek
HHV, MJ·kg−117.32 c* ± 0.1217.49 b ± 0.1217.33 c ± 0.0717.49 b ± 0.1417.39 bc ± 0.1317.63 a ± 0.11<0.0001
LHV, MJ·kg−116.07 d ± 0.1216.28 bc ± 0.1516.19 bcd ± 0.0716.24 bc ± 0.1416.13 bcd ± 0.1316.39 a ± 0.10<0.0001
C,%43.86 b ± 0.3543.76 b ± 0.1843.44 c ± 0.1743.87 b ± 0.1544.40 a ± 0.3344.18 a ± 0.18<0.0001
H, %7.55 a ± 0.037.55 a ± 0.047.47 a ± 0.027.49 a ± 0.037.53 a ± 0.037.45 a ± 0.040.1065
N, %1.12 a ± 0.131.06 ab ± 0.070.98 bc ± 0.081.15 a ± 0.080.96 c ± 0.071.03 bc ± 0.06<0.0001
S, %0.43 a ± 0.040.29 c ± 0.060.29 c ± 0.040.35 b ± 0.030.41 a ± 0.090.04 d ± 0.01<0.0001
M, %7.68 bc ± 0.237.46 d ± 0.137.61 cd ± 0.117.99 a ± 0.167.80 b ± 0.127.60 cd ± 0.14<0.0001
O, %44.16 c ± 0.3544.94 a ± 0.2344.76 ab ± 0.4144.75 ab ± 0.2744.76 ab ± 0.5144.43 bc ± 0.45<0.0001
A, %2.88 a ± 0.462.39 b ± 0.203.05 a ± 0.392.38 b ± 0.311.94 c ± 0.202.88 a ± 0.43<0.0001
V, %71.40 bc ± 0.6772.00 ab ± 0.3172.16 a ± 0.3870.88 c ± 0.6571.07 c ± 0.8171.23 c ± 0.62<0.0001
FC, %18.03 c ± 0.3718.15 c ± 0.1717.19 d ± 0.3618.76 b ± 0.4519.19 a ± 0.5318.30 c ± 0.36<0.0001
* Significant difference; a,b,c,d,ab,bc,bcd,cd—the same letter in a row shows no significant difference at α = 0.05.
Table 2. The balance of the amount of substances in the process of burning raspberry shoots.
Table 2. The balance of the amount of substances in the process of burning raspberry shoots.
ParameterVariety of Raspberryp-Value
DelniwaPoematPolanaPolesiePolonezPoranek
V C O 2 , Nm3·kg−10.82 b* ± 0.010.82 b ± 0.000.81 c ± 0.000.82 b ± 0.000.83 a ± 0.010.83 a ± 0.00<0.0001
V S O 2 , Nm3·kg−10.0030 a ± 0.00030.0021 c ± 0.00040.0020 c ± 0.00030.0025 b ± 0.00020.0029 a ± 0.00060.0002 d ± 0.0009<0.0001
V H 2 O H , Nm3·kg−10.94 a ± 0.000.94 a ± 0.010.93 a ± 0.000.94 a ± 0.020.94 a ± 0.020.93 a ± 0.020.0799
V H 2 O a , Nm3·kg−10.72 ab ± 0.010.71 bc ± 0.000.70 c ± 0.000.71 bc ± 0.010.72 a ± 0.010.71 ab ± 0.01<0.0001
V H 2 O , Nm3·kg−11.66 a ± 0.011.65 ab ± 0.011.64 b ± 0.011.65 ab ± 0.021.66 a ± 0.031.64 ab ± 0.030.0107
V N 2 , Nm3·kg−14.41 a ± 0.094.34 ab ± 0.054.24 bc ± 0.074.41 c ± 0.074.31 cd ± 0.084.33 d ± 0.07<0.0001
V O 2 , Nm3·kg−16.51 ab ± 0.056.46 bc ± 0.036.39 c ± 0.046.46 bc ± 0.066.55 a ± 0.116.49 ab ± 0.10<0.0001
Vga, Nm3·kg−16.89 a ± 0.086.80 bc ± 0.056.69 d ± 0.076.89 ab ± 0.086.80 bc ± 0.106.79 c ± 0.10<0.0001
Vgu, Nm3·kg−15.24 a ± 0.085.16 b ± 0.055.05 c ± 0.075.23 a ± 0.075.14 b ± 0.085.15 b ± 0.07<0.0001
* Significant difference; a,b,c,d,f,ab,bc—the same letter in row shows no significant difference at α = 0.05.
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

Maj, G.; Buczyński, K.; Klimek, K.E.; Kapłan, M. Evaluation of Growth and Energy Parameters of One-Year-Old Raspberry Shoots, Depending on the Variety. Energies 2024, 17, 3153. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17133153

AMA Style

Maj G, Buczyński K, Klimek KE, Kapłan M. Evaluation of Growth and Energy Parameters of One-Year-Old Raspberry Shoots, Depending on the Variety. Energies. 2024; 17(13):3153. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17133153

Chicago/Turabian Style

Maj, Grzegorz, Kamil Buczyński, Kamila E. Klimek, and Magdalena Kapłan. 2024. "Evaluation of Growth and Energy Parameters of One-Year-Old Raspberry Shoots, Depending on the Variety" Energies 17, no. 13: 3153. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17133153

APA Style

Maj, G., Buczyński, K., Klimek, K. E., & Kapłan, M. (2024). Evaluation of Growth and Energy Parameters of One-Year-Old Raspberry Shoots, Depending on the Variety. Energies, 17(13), 3153. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17133153

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