Next Article in Journal
How Does the Development of Forestry Service Outsourcing Organizations Affect Households’ Forestland Leasing?
Previous Article in Journal
A Critical Review: Unearthing the Hidden Players—The Role of Extremophilic Fungi in Forest Ecosystems
Previous Article in Special Issue
Strategy and Performance of Biomethane Production Through Woody Biomass Gasification, Electrolysis and Methanation: A Case Study for Kočevje Region in Slovenia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/f16050856
forests-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Chemical and Energetic Evaluation of Densified Biomass of Quercus laurina and Quercus rugosa for Bioenergy Production

by
María Elena Jiménez-Mendoza
1,
Faustino Ruiz-Aquino
1,*,
José Guadalupe Rutiaga-Quiñones
2,
Rossy Feria-Reyes
3,
Wenceslao Santiago-García
1,
Mario Ernesto Suárez-Mota
1,
Ramiro Puc-Kauil
4 and
Rosalío Gabriel-Parra
1
1
División de Estudios de Postgrado-Instituto de Estudios Ambientales, Universidad de la Sierra Juárez, Avenida Universidad s/n, Ixtlán de Juárez 68725, Mexico
2
Facultad de Ingeniería en Tecnología de la Madera, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Edif. D, Ciudad Universitaria, Morelia 58040, Mexico
3
Tecnológico Nacional de México, Instituto Tecnológico del Valle de Etla, Abasolo S/N, Barrio del Agua Buena, Santiago Suchilquitongo, Oaxaca 68230, Mexico
4
División de Ingeniería Forestal, Tecnológico Nacional de México, Instituto Tecnológico Superior de Venustiano Carranza, Av. Tecnológico S/N, Colonia El Huasteco, Puebla 73049, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2025, 16(5), 856; https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050856
Submission received: 12 April 2025 / Revised: 12 May 2025 / Accepted: 19 May 2025 / Published: 20 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Forest-Based Biomass for Bioenergy)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Fuels obtained from woody forest resources such as oaks have been traditionally used in various regions due to their availability and energy properties. In the search for sustainable bioenergy sources and the transition towards cleaner alternatives, biomass-derived fuels, such as charcoal and pellets, represent a relevant option for rural and urban communities. This study determines the chemical composition, physical and mechanical properties, and energy quality of pellets from two oak species (Quercus laurina and Q. rugosa) in San Sebastián Coatlán, Miahuatlán, Oaxaca. The chemical composition was determined in an Ankom fiber analyzer; the energetic, physical, and mechanical analysis was carried out with UNE-EN ISO and ASTM standards. On average, 56.18% and 54.63% cellulose, 17.81% and 17.87% lignin, and 13.96% and 13.78% hemicelluloses were obtained for Quercus laurina and Q. rugosa, respectively. Mechanical durability ranged from 87% to 95% for Q. laurina stump and Q. rugosa stem, respectively; for calorific value, values from 19.79 MJ Kg−1 to 20.31 MJ Kg−1 were recorded for Q. laurina stem and Q. rugosa stump, respectively. The forest biomass of both oak species is viable for pellet production.

1. Introduction

The use of petroleum-based fuels poses several environmental challenges, such as global warming, a term that refers to the impact of human activities on the climate, particularly the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas, together with deforestation, which emit large amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Therefore, the need to substitute fossil fuels with clean and renewable energy sources, such as forest biomass for bioenergy purposes, has increased [1,2,3].
Oaks are an example of forest biomass, and several species of oaks have been underutilized due to the lack of biological information regarding their distribution and abundance; in addition, there is a shortage of technical data for this genus, including market aspects, productivity and appropriate technology for processing; one of the ways to efficiently exploit residual forest biomass is the production of pellets or briquettes; however, not all species are suitable for pelletization given their anatomical, chemical, and physical characteristics [4,5,6].
In terms of species diversity, ecological dominance and economic value, the Quercus genus is one of the most important in the northern hemisphere, dominating a wide variety of habitats [7]. Recent studies indicate that the diversity of oak trees in the world is around 435 species [8], of which 241 species are distributed in the Americas, with Mexico being the country with the largest distribution with 174 species [9]. The state of Oaxaca has the highest diversity of oaks in Mexico, with 48 species [10].
Locally, Quercus laurina and Q. rugosa are used as firewood, so they play an important role as a source of energy. Oak wood has high volumetric shrinkage, and this is an indicator of lower dimensional stability, so greater care is needed in the drying process of the wood, as there is a greater tendency to the presence of cracking and splitting in the material; however, since they have high hardness, they can also be used in the manufacture of heavy traffic flooring, moldings, boards, and furniture, In addition, oak wood has shown good performance in the transformation of firewood to charcoal [11,12,13].
Worldwide, annual cellulosic biomass production is estimated at 181.5 billion tons [14]. Particularly in Mexico, the annual wood production was 8.3 million m3 in 2018, of which 14.5% corresponds to oak wood [15].
Cellulosic biomass is an alternative for use as biofuel in the form of bioethanol, biodiesel, densified fuels, and chemicals. Different thermal routes are followed for the conversion of biomass into biofuels, for example, thermal conversion by combustion, thermochemical conversion by gasification and pyrolysis, and biological conversion using biocatalysts [16,17,18].
The chemical composition of wood is important to optimize its use, such as in biofuel, and is directly related to the calorific value, that is, the amount of energy it can release; in addition, for the production of pellets, this chemical composition plays a fundamental role in deciding whether or not to use additives, since lignin acts as a binder at high temperatures, which causes the lignin to soften and can bind particles [19,20,21].
Biomass pelletization can become a low-carbon renewable energy source that can challenge the use of fossil fuels and replace them in specific economic sectors, offering several advantages such as allowing year-round storage which ensures constant product availability, offering the opportunity to add value to biomass that is not used in the forest industry, and helping to reduce forest fires and pests in forests, as well as increasing the calorific value of biomass [22].
The current market demands high-quality pellets, which are classified into two main categories: residential and industrial pellets. The former are intended for small-scale combustion systems, while the latter are used in larger applications. To ensure their quality, there are specific standards, including European standards, which divide pellets into three classes: A1, A2 and B. Classes A1 and A2 correspond to residential pellets, which are characterized by stricter standards. Class B pellets, on the other hand, are intended for industrial use and have wider tolerances in terms of diameter, ash content, nitrogen, sulfur, chlorine and net calorific value [23].
Pelletization offers multiple benefits, including facilitating year-round storage, ensuring the continuous availability of the resource, adding value to biomass residues not used by the forest industry, promoting employment, diversifying income, improving the quality of life, especially in rural communities, contributing to the prevention of forest fires and pests, and improving the calorific value per unit volume of biomass. To ensure its sustainability, it is essential to provide training in the production, use and maintenance of pellets, as well as to implement community policies and projects that include incentives, subsidies and government support [22,24,25].
Several studies have focused specifically on the manufacturing process of densified fuels and their physicochemical characterization: Ruiz-García et al. [26] describe the manufacture and characterization of pellets obtained from the pruning of guava trees, indicating good potential for their use as fuel; Soria-González [27] determined the potential energy use of avocado pruning by-products as densified solid biofuels and suggested their use in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors at the regional level; Ramírez-Ramírez et al. [28] made briquettes from hardwood sawdust without using adhesive, and indicate that this lignocellulosic residue can be used for densification at the industrial level.
In this context, the objective of the present study was to determine the chemical composition of the biomass of the stump, stem, and branches of two oak species and evaluate the energy properties of the pellets for bioenergy production.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Tree Selection and Sample Preparation

In the municipality of San Sebastián Coatlán, Miahuatlán, Oaxaca, Mexico (15°57′ and 16°15′ N., 96°48′ and 96°58′ W.) [29], samples were collected from two oak species: Quercus laurina Humb & Bonpl and Quercus rugosa Née, which according to Jiménez-Mendoza et al. [12], are two of the main species used as fuel in this area. Two trees of each species were felled and sectioned into three parts: stump, stem, and branches, from which 2 cm long slices were extracted. The slices were chipped using a band saw (5C-14, CELA, Puebla, México) and a hand tool. The chips were then ground in a conventional Micron equipment (K20F, Micron Mixer, México City, México) to obtain ground wood. In a vibratory sifter (RX-29, ROTAP, Mentor, OH, USA), the wood was sieved in mesh sizes from 6 (3.35 mm) to 60 (0.250 mm). For chemical analysis, wood from the 40-mesh sieve (425 µm) was used, according to ASTM D 1105-96 [30], and the rest of the material was used for pelletizing.

2.2. Chemical Analysis of Wood

The chemical analysis of the samples was carried out on afiber analyzer (A200, ANKOM, Macedon, NY, USA); this equipment automates the chemical digestion process of the samples under controlled conditions, including agitation, temperature, and time, replacing the traditional Gooch crucible method, reducing measurement errors. This analysis was performed once [26,31], and to determine the content of inorganic substances, ground wood was used in a 50 mL crucible in a muffle at 580 °C for 6 h [32].

2.3. Pellets Processing and Analysis

Pellets were made from each of the three parts of the oak (stump, stem, and branches); the biomass was dried under shade until it reached a constant weight, and the moisture content of the biomass was determined on a thermobalance (PMB53, Adam Equipment, Oxford, CT, USA). The material was introduced into a ZSLP-R300 industrial flat disk pelletizer without using adhesive; the pelletizer consisted of a flat disk with dies of 8 mm length and 6 mm diameter [33], and it produces pellets with average lengths of 20 mm and 6 mm diameters. The particle density was determined using EN 18847 [34] and the bulk density of the pellets with EN 17828 [35]; the length and diameter were measured with a electronic vernier (HER-414, STEREN, CDMX, México City, México) [36] and the mass of each pellet was obtained by weighing 3 pellets on an analytical balance (PW 254, Adam Equipment, Oxford, CT, USA). The mechanical durability test was performed under EN 17831-1 [37]. The moisture content, volatile matter, ash content, fixed carbon content, and upper and lower calorific value were calculated according to ASTM standards [32,38,39,40,41], respectively. An outline of the methodology is shown in Figure 1.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data analysis was performed in triplicate for each experimental unit, evaluating the physical, mechanical, and energetic variables of the pellets. A completely randomized design was used to evaluate if significant differences exist, and Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was used with a significance level of α = 0.05 in the statistical package SAS® version 9.0 [42,43].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Chemical Analysis

The results of the chemical composition are shown in Table 1. A value of 12.90% hemicelluloses was recorded for the Q. laurina stump, of 14.27% for the stem, and of 14.72% for the branches, values lower than those reported by Herrera-Fernández et al. [44], who reported 33.27% for the heartwood and 23.51% for the sapwood of the same species. As mentioned by Honorato-Salazar et al. [45], these differences can be attributed to the solvent mixture used in the extraction.
Quercus rugosa had a value of 13% for the three parts of the tree; however, Ruiz [46] mentions that there are different proportions of hemicelluloses in the trunk, branches, roots and bark of the same tree, and hemicelluloses play a fundamental role in the production of pulp for paper making, as it increases its yield and resistance.
Regarding cellulose, a value of 56% was recorded for the stem and branches of Quercus laurina (Table 1). Honorato and Hernández [4] obtained the same value (56%) for the sapwood and heartwood of this species. Q. rugosa had values of 52.7%, 55.24%, and 56.39% for the stem, branches, and stump, respectively, while Bautista and Honorato [47] reported a value of 52.9% for the heartwood and sapwood mixture of this species. In this work, the results indicate that the cellulose content exceeded 50%, which suggests that it can be used for paper production; however, pulping and paper physics tests are necessary, particularly since oak wood has short fibers and could negatively influence certain physical and mechanical characteristics of the paper [4].
For lignin, Q. laurina presented a value of 18% for both the stump and the trunk (Table 1). These data are within the ranges previously reported by various authors for this species, which range from 14.67% to 25.5% [4,44,48]. Q. rugosa presented values of 14.98%, 17.05%, and 21.58% for the stump, branches and stem, respectively, and similar values were found for the sapwood of the same species, with 18.84%, for the heartwood with 16.16% and the bark with 22.83%. It should be noted that the bark has a higher concentration of lignin than the wood [44,49].
The lignin content is positively related to the calorific value; additionally, this chemical component has a high compressive strength and allows the wood to change shape at high temperatures due to its thermoplastic nature; therefore, a high lignin content in biomass is a key factor for the production of densified biofuels. On the other hand, biomass with low amounts of lignin is more suitable for the production of cellulosic pulp [49,50,51].
For extractable substances, Q. rugosa presented the maximum value with 13.00% in the stump part (Table 1), a value higher than the 10.2% reported by Rutiaga-Quiñones et al. [50] for Q. candicans stem. The extractable substances have a positive influence on the calorific value since biomass with a high content of extracts has a higher calorific value, in addition to having an indirect impact on the mechanical properties of the wood since it affects the basic density [48,52].
Quercus laurina presented the highest value of ash with 1.94% for the stem part, and Quercus rugosa in the stump part presented the lowest value with 1.59%. Vega-Nieva et al. [53] mention that ash can cause problems during combustion in boilers, while Solla-Gullón et al. [54] argue that, depending on its composition, it can act as a nutrient for the soil, helping to reduce the degree of acidity. With ash and nitrogen fertilization, the level of nutrients is improved.

3.2. Physical Characteristics of Pellets

Before the pelletizing process, Quercus rugosa stump presented the highest initial moisture content with 10.40%, and Q. laurina branches presented the lowest initial moisture content with 9.06% (Table 2). These results fall within the range of 8% to 15% biomass moisture content, ideal for pelletizing [55]. Statistically, Q. laurina branches and Q. rugosa stem are as different as Q. rugosa stump and Q. laurina branches (Table 3). The moisture content of forest biomass is a key property regarding its potential as an energy source, specifically in the production of pellets, as it is directly linked to calorific value, transport, and storage [56,57].
For bulk density, statistical differences were found among tree parts (Table 2), except for Q. rugosa branches and stump. Q. rugosa presented a bulk density of 593 kg m3, 566 kg m3, and 584 kg m3 for the stump, stem, and branches, respectively, and these values are within the bulk density range (557–703 kg m−3) reported by Núñez-Retana et al. for four species of oaks [33]. Pellets made from Q. laurina stump are within category A1 of the UNE-EN 14961-2 standard [58], as they have a bulk density greater than 600 kg m3. This variable influences the commercial value of the pellets, since at high densities, there is a reduction in the transportation, handling, and processing costs of the fuel, in addition to reducing the space required for storage [59].
Regarding the particle density of the pellets, statistically, there is no difference between tree parts and species (Table 2); this varied from 1.18 to 1.35 g cm3 for Q. laurina branches and Q. rugosa branches, respectively, data similar to those found by Núñez-Retana et al. [6] for the particle density of four Quercus species. Particle density influences the bulk density and combustion process of densified fuels [60].

3.3. Mechanical Durability of Pellets

The mechanical durability ranged from 87.88% to 95.96% (Table 3) for the Q. laurina stump and the Q. rugosa stem, respectively. According to the durability classification performed by Adapa et al. [61], the pellets of these two species present high durability because they exceed 80% hardness; however, according to the UNE-EN 14961-2 standard [58], pellets with a durability greater than 96% are considered good quality; under this criterion, only the stump and trunk pellets of Q. rugosa are considered good quality, as they showed values slightly lower than 96%. An alternative to improve the durability of oak pellets is to add coniferous sawdust and use high-performance pelletizers [6,62]. Statistically, there is a significant difference between the pellets of both species (Table 3).

3.4. Energy Properties of Pellets

3.4.1. Moisture Content

For moisture content, statistically Q. rugosa is the species that presents equality in the three parts of the tree, unlike Q. laurina (Table 4). According to UNE-EN 14961-2 [58], the two pellet species with their respective tree parts fall into category A1, since they have a moisture content of less than 10%. This variable is important as it influences the storage of the pellets. The pellets have a low moisture content, unlike the unprocessed biomass, which limits the growth of microorganisms [63].

3.4.2. Volatile Matter

The species with the highest volatile content was Q. rugosa in the stem with 83.68%, while the species with the lowest value was Q. laurina in the stem with 81.19% (Table 4). Statistically, there is equality in the two species with their respective compartments (Table 4). Volatile matter is the loss of mass that occurs when heating biomass; the combustion of these volatiles produces a bright flame, whose color and temperature are determined by the chemical composition of the wood [64].

3.4.3. Ash Content

The ash content ranged from 1.59% to 1.94% (Table 4) for the stump of Q. rugosa and the stem of Q. laurina, respectively; values reported by Gutiérrez-Acosta et al. [17] range within percentages of 1% to 3.1% for the biomass of two species of Quercus spp. The statistical analysis indicates that the ash content within the tree parts and species is equal (Table 4). According to the UNE-EN 14961-2 standard [58], the three parts of the Q. laurina tree as well as the trunk and branches of Q. rugosa fall into category B, since they have an ash content of less than 3.5%; only the stump of Quercus rugosa falls into category A2 since it has an ash content equal to 1.5%. Vega-Nieva et al. [53] mention that ash can cause problems during combustion in boilers, while Solla-Gullón et al. [54] argue that, depending on its composition, it can act as a nutrient for the soil, helping to reduce the degree of acidity, and that the level of nutrients is improved with ash and nitrogen fertilization.

3.4.4. Fixed Carbon

The fixed carbon of pellets ranged from 14.51% to 16.85% (Table 4) for Q. rugosa stem and Q. laurina stem, respectively, with higher values that for four oak species ranging from 6.65% to 8. 88% [6] but values like those reported by Rutiaga-Quiñones et al. [16] for the biomass of two species of Quercus spp. According to the statistical analysis, this indicates that there is no significant difference between the means by parts of the tree or by species (Table 4). The fixed carbon content is positively related to the density and calorific value, making biomass with a high carbon content ideal for combustion processes [64,65].

3.4.5. High Heating Value

For the calorific value, the Q. laurina stem had the lowest value with 19.79 MJ kg−1, and the Q. rugosa stump had the highest value with 20.31 MJ kg−1 (Table 4), like that found by Ramírez-Ramírez et al. [28] for briquettes of the genus Quercus spp. with values from 19.91 MJ kg−1 to 20.10 MJ kg−1. Statistically, there is no difference in tree parts or species (Table 4). The calorific value is the amount of energy per unit weighed; therefore, Q. laurina and Q. rugosa in the stump, stem, and branches are suitable for use as densified biofuels [64].

3.4.6. Low Heating Value

The lower calorific value for the two species was 18 MJ kg−1, except for the Q. rugosa stump, which was 19 MJ kg−1. The three tree parts and the two species have statistical equality in the means (Table 4). The lower calorific value is the net energy released per unit mass after complete combustion [65]. According to UNE-EN 14961-2 [58], the three tree parts of the two species fall into category A1 since they are within the range of 16.5 to 19 MJ kg−1.

4. Conclusions

The initial moisture content of the three parts of the two oak tree species is within the range of 8% to 15%, so the biomass is suitable for pellet production.
The Q. rugosa stump pellets showed the highest mechanical durability with 95.26%, the highest fixed carbon with 15.90%, and the highest calorific value with 20.31 MJ kg−1; these parameters are important to consider when prospecting stump biomass as a raw material to produce pellets; however, it is possible to improve the pelletizing process to increase mechanical durability.
According to the UNE-EN 14961-2 standard, considering the lower calorific value and moisture content of the pellets, the two species, with their respective compartments, fall into category A1, i.e., high-quality pellets. It should be noted that to improve the durability of pellets with this species, it is possible to mix them with coniferous wood or use binding additives to obtain a higher percentage of this parameter
The biomass of the stem of Q. rugosa presented a higher lignin content, and the pellets presented higher durability, higher upper and lower calorific values, and lower moisture and volatile matter contents; therefore, the stem part of Q. rugosa is the optimum to produce densified biofuels.
It is important to mention that, despite the available information on densified biofuels from the Quercus genus, a significant energy transition has not yet been consolidated in Mexico. Therefore, it is essential to analyze the social, political, regulatory, and ecological challenges involved in replacing fossil fuels with forest biomass-based energy sources.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.R.-A., M.E.J.-M. and J.G.R.-Q.; methodology, M.E.J.-M. and J.G.R.-Q.; software, W.S.-G. and M.E.S.-M.; validation, R.F.-R. and R.P.-K.; formal analysis, F.R.-A., M.E.J.-M., R.G.-P., W.S.-G., M.E.S.-M., R.P.-K. and J.G.R.-Q.; investigation, F.R.-A., M.E.J.-M. and J.G.R.-Q.; resources, F.R.-A., M.E.J.-M. and J.G.R.-Q.; writing—original draft preparation, F.R.-A., M.E.J.-M., R.G.-P., W.S.-G., M.E.S.-M., R.P.-K. and J.G.R.-Q.; writing—review and editing, F.R.-A., M.E.J.-M., R.F.-R. and J.G.R.-Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank the municipality of San Sebastián Coatlán, Miahuatlán, Oaxaca, for donating the study materials and Artemio Carrillo-Parra for his support in the production of the pellets.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Houghton, J. Global warming. Rep. Prog. Phys. 2005, 68, 1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Rehman, H.K.; Jawaid, M.; Alothman, O.Y. Agricultural Biomass Based Potential Materials; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; 508p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Martins, F.; Felgueiras, C.; Smitkova, M.; Caetano, N. Analysis of Fossil Fuel Energy Consumption and Environmental Impacts in European Countries. Energies 2019, 12, 964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Honorato Salazar, J.A.; Hernández, P.J. Determinación de componentes químicos de la madera de cinco especies de encino del estado de Puebla. Madera Bosques 1998, 4, 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. De la Paz Pérez Olvera, C.; Dávalos Sotelo, R.; Guerrero Cuacuil, E. Aprovechamiento de la madera de encino en México. Madera Bosques 2000, 6, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Núñez-Retana, V.D.; Rosales-Serna, R.; Prieto-Ruíz, J.A.; Wehenkel, C.; Carrillo-Parra, A. Improving the physical, mechanical and energetic properties of Quercus spp. wood pellets by adding pine swdust. PeerJ 2020, 8, e9766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nixon, K.C. Global and neotropical distribution and diversity of oak (genus Quercus) and oak forests. In Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Montane Oak Forests; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 3–13. [Google Scholar]
  8. Denk, T.; Grimm, G.W.; Manos, P.S.; Deng, M.; Hipp, A.L. An updated infrageneric classification of the oaks: Review of previous taxonomic schemes and synthesis of evolutionary patterns. In Oaks Physiological Ecology. Exploring the Functional Diversity of the Genus Quercus L. Cham; Gil-Pelegrin, E., Peguero-Pina, J.J., SanchoKnapik, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 13–38. [Google Scholar]
  9. Uzun, A.; Uzun, S.P. World oak trees (Quercus): Silent guardians of the forest ecosystems. Agric. For. Aquac. Sci. 2024, 301. [Google Scholar]
  10. Valencia, S. Diversidad del género Quercus (Fagaceae) en México. Bol. Soc. Bot. México 2004, 75, 33–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ortega-Gutiérrez, J.O.; Alvarado-Segura, A.A.; Machuca-Velazco, R.; Borja-de-la-Rosa, A. Caracterización anatómica y propiedades físicas de la madera de monte bajo de dos especies de Quercus del volcán Popocatépetl. Madera Bosques 2023, 29, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jiménez-Mendoza, M.E.; Ruiz-Aquino, F.; Aquino-Vásquez, C.; Santiago-García, W.; Santiago-Juárez, W.; Rutiaga-Quiñones, J.G.; Fuente-Carrasco, M.E. Aprovechamiento de leña en una comunidad de la Sierra Sur de Oaxaca, México. Rev. Mex. Cien. 2023, 14, 22–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ruiz-Aquino, F.; González-Peña, M.M.; Valdez-Hernández, J.I.; Romero-Manzanares, A. Estructura anatómica de la madera de dos encinos de Oaxaca. Madera Bosques 2016, 22, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dahmen, N.; Lewandowski, I.; Zibek, S.; Weidtmann, A. Integrated Lignocellulosic Value Chains in a Growing Bioeconomy: Status Quo and Perspectives. GCB Bioenergy 2018, 11, gcbb.12586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. SEMARNAT. Anuario Estadístico de la Producción Forestal 2017. Anuarios Estadísticos. 2018. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/semarnat/documentos/anuarios-estadisticos-forestales (accessed on 4 April 2024).
  16. Rutiaga-Quiñones, J.G.; Pintor-Ibarra, L.F.; Orihuela-Equihua, R.; González-Ortega, N.; Ramírez-Ramírez, M.A.; Carrillo-Parra, A.; Carrillo-Ávila, N.; Navarrete-García, M.A.; Ruiz-Aquino, F.; Rangel-Méndez, J.R.; et al. Characterization of Mexican Waste Biomass Relative to Energy Generation. BioResources 2020, 15, 8529–8553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gutiérrez-Acosta, J.M.; Orihuela-Equihua, R.; Pintor-Ibarra, L.F.; González-Ortega, N.; Hernández-Solís, J.J.; Ruiz-Aquino, F.; Navarrete-García, M.A.; Rutiaga-Quiñones, J.G. On the basic chemical composition of selected biomass types from four regions of Mexico, for bioenergetic purposes. BioResources 2021, 16, 5694–5705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Haq, I.U.; Qaisar, K.; Nawaz, A.; Akram, F.; Mukhtar, H.; Zohu, X.; Xu, Y.; Mumtaz, M.W.; Rashid, U.; Ghani, W.A.W.A.K.; et al. Advances in Valorization of Lignocellulosic Biomass towards Energy Generation. Catalysts 2021, 11, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Martín, F.M. Pélets y briquetas. Ecología 2005, 1–9. Available online: https://infomadera.net/uploads/articulos/archivo_2293_9990.pdf (accessed on 11 July 2023).
  20. Kaliyan, N.; Vance, M.R. Factors affecting strength and durability of densified biomass products. Biomass Bioenergy 2009, 33, 337–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fearon, O.; Kuitunen, S.; Ruuttunen, K.; Alopaeuss, V.; Vuorinen, T. Detailed modeling of kraft pulping chemistry. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 12977–12985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tauro, R.; García, C.A.; Skutsch, M.; Masera, O. The potential for sustainable biomass pellets in Mexico: An analysis of energy potential, logistic costs and market demand. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 380–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Obernberger, I.; Thek, G. The Pellet Handbook. The Production and Thermal Utilisation of Pellets. Earthscan: London, UK, 2010; pp. 1–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. García, C.A. Sustentabilidad de los biocombustibles sólidos. In Aplicaciones Energéticas de la Biomasa: Perspectivas para la Caracterización local de Biocombustibles Sólidos, 1st ed.; Universidad Intercultural Indígena de Michoacán: Morelia Michoacán, Mexico, 2023; pp. 253–274. [Google Scholar]
  25. Morales, M.M.; Parra, A.M. Producción y tecnología rural apropiada para uso final de los biocombustibles sólidos en comunidades rurales. In Aplicaciones Energéticas de la Biomasa: Perspectivas para la Caracterización Local de Biocombustibles Sólidos, 1st ed.; Universidad Intercultural Indígena de Michoacán: Morelia Michoacán, Mexico, 2023; pp. 275–298. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ruiz-García, V.M.; Huerta-Mendez, M.Y.; Vázquez-Tinoco, J.C.; Alvarado-Flores, J.J.; Berrueta-Soriano, V.M.; López-Albarrán, P.; Masera, O.; Rutiaga-Quiñones, J.G. Pellets from Lignocellulosic Material Obtained from Pruning Guava Trees: Characterization, Energy Performance and Emissions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Soria-González, J.A.; Tauro, R.; Alvarado-Flores, J.J.; Berrueta-Soriano, V.M.; Rutiaga-Quiñones, J.G. Avocado Tree Pruning Pellets (Persea americana Mill.) for Energy Purposes: Characterization and Quality Evaluation. Energies 2022, 15, 7514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ramírez-Ramírez, M.A.; Carrillo-Parra, A.; Ruiz-Aquino, F.; Hernández-Solís, J.J.; Pintor-Ibarra, L.F.; González-Ortega, N.; Orihuela-Equihua, R.; Carrillo-Ávila, N.; Rutiaga-Quiñones, J.G. Evaluation of selected physical and thermal properties of briquette hardwood biomass biofuel. Bioenergy Res. 2022, 15, 1407–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Monjaraz, S.C. Plan Municipal de Desarrollo de San Sebastián Coatlán, Miahuatlán, Oaxaca. Trienio 2011–2013; Gobierno del Estado de Oaxaca: Oaxaca, Mexico, 2013; pp. 1–158. [Google Scholar]
  30. D 1105-96; Standard Test Method for Preparation of Extractive-Free Wood. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2007; pp. 1–2.
  31. Van Soest, P.J.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. JDS 1991, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. D 1102-84; Standard Test Method for Ash in Wood. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2007; pp. 1–2.
  33. Núñez-Retana, V.D.; Whenkel, C.; Vega-Nieva, D.J.; García-Quezada, J.; Carrillo-Parra, A. The bioenergetic potential of four oak species from Northeastern Mexico. Forest 2019, 10, 869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. EN ISO 18847:2016; Biocombustibles Sólidos. Determinación de la Densidad de Partícula de Pellets y Briquetas. Asociación Española de Normalización: Madrid, España, 2017; pp. 1–20.
  35. EN ISO 17828:2015; Biocombustibles Sólidos. Determinación de la Densidad a Granel. Estándar Europeo, Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (AENOR): Madrid, España, 2016; pp. 1–14.
  36. EN ISO 17829:2015; Biocombustibles Sólidos. Determinación de la Longitud y el Diámetro de Pellets. Estándar Europeo, Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (AENOR): Madrid, España, 2016; pp. 1–10.
  37. EN ISO 17831-1:2015; Biocombustibles Sólidos. Determinación de la Durabilidad Mecánica de Pellets y Briquetas. Parte 1: Pellets. Estándar Europeo, Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (AENOR): Madrid, Spain, 2016; pp. 1–13.
  38. E 871-82; Standard Test Method for Moisture Analysis of Particulate Wood Fuels. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1998; pp. 1–2.
  39. E 872-82; Standard Test Method for Volatile Matter in the Analysis of Particulate Wood Fuels. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1998; pp. 1–3.
  40. E 870-82; Test Method for Analysis of Wood Fuels. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1998; pp. 1–2.
  41. E 711-87; Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of Refuse-Derived Fuel by the Bomb Calorimeter. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2004; pp. 1–8.
  42. Montgomery, D.C. Design and Analysis of Experiments; Wiley J, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1997; pp. 1–699. [Google Scholar]
  43. SAS Institute Inc. SAS Version 9.0 (TS M0) Software Update; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2014; Available online: http://ftp.sas.com/techsup/download/hotfix/90_updates.html (accessed on 6 February 2024).
  44. Herrera-Fernández, A.C.; Carrillo-Parra, A.; Pedraza-Bucio, F.E.; Correa-Méndez, F.; Herrera-Bucio, R.; López-Albarrán, P.; Rutiaga-Quiñones, J.G. Densidad, composición química y poder calorífico de la madera de tres especies de encino (Quercus candicans, Q. laurina y Q. Rugosa). Cienc. Nicolita 2017, 72, 136–154. [Google Scholar]
  45. Honorato-Salazar, J.A.; Colotl-Hernández, G.; Apolinar-Hidalgo, F.; Aburto, J. Principales componentes químicos de la madera de Ceiba pentandra, Hevea brasiliensis y Ochroma pyramidale. Madera Bosques 2015, 21, 131–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ruiz, C.K. Optimización del Proceso Etanosolv para la Obtención de Celulosa Biomásica y Valoración de Diferentes Rutas de Acetilación del Material. Ph.D. Thesis, Centro de Investigación en Materiales Avanzados S.C., Chihuahua, Mexico, 2018; pp. 1–131. [Google Scholar]
  47. Bautista, H.R.; Honorato, J.A. Composición química de la madera de cuatro especies del género QuercusRev. Mex. Cien. 2005, 30, 25–49. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ruiz-Aquino, F.; González-Peña, M.M.; Valdez-Hernández, J.I.; Revilla, U.S.; Romero-Manzanares, A. Chemical characterization and fuel properties of wood and bark of two oaks from Oaxaca, Mexico. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 65, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pintor-Ibarra, L.F.; Carrillo-Parra, A.; Herrera-Bucio, R.; López-Albarrán, P.; Rutiaga-Quiñones, J.G. Physical and chemical properties of timber by-products from Pinus leiophylla, P. montezumae and P. pseudostrobus for a bioenergetics use. Wood Res.-Slovak. 2017, 62, 849–862. [Google Scholar]
  50. Rutiaga-Quiñones, J.G.; Windeisen, E.; Strobel, C. Composición química del duramen de la madera de Quercus candicans Neé. Madera Bosques 2000, 6, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. García, E.L.; Guindeo, C.A.; Peraza, O.C.; De palacios, P.P. Pared Celular. In La Madera y su Anatomía; Ediciones Mundi-Prensa; Fundación Conde del Valle de Salazar: Madrid, Spain, 2003; pp. 1–321. [Google Scholar]
  52. Mauladdini, R.; Nawawi, D.S.; Syafii, W. Effect of wood extractives on calorific value. J. Ilmu Kehutan. 2022, 16, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Vega-Nieva, D.J.; Fernández, L.M.; Ortiz, T.L.; Corral-Rivas, J.J. Caracterización bioenergética de los residuos de cosecha de las principales especies forestales del Noroeste de España. Inf. Tecnol. 2015, 26, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Solla-Gullón, F.; Rodríguez-Soalleiro, R.; Merino, A. Evaluación del aporte de cenizas de madera como fertilizante de un suelo ácido mediante un ensayo en laboratorio. Investig. Agrar. 2001, 16, 379–394. [Google Scholar]
  55. Ortíz, L.; Tejada, A.; Vázquez, A.; Piñeiro, V.G. Aprovechamiento de la biomasa forestal producida por la cadena Monte-Industria. Parte III: Producción de elementos densificados. CIS-Madera 2003, 11, 17–32. [Google Scholar]
  56. Suirezs, T.M.; Berger, G. Descripciones de las Propiedades Físicas y Mecánicas de la Madera, 1st ed.; Posadas, Ed.; UNAM-Editorial Universitaria de la Universidad Nacional de Misiones: Misiones, Argentina, 2010; pp. 1–58. [Google Scholar]
  57. Nganyo, H.M.; Foroughbakhch, P.R.; Carrillo-Parra, A.; Maiti, R.; Salsas, C.L.R. Timber-Yielding plants of the Tamaulipan thor scrub: Forest, fodder, and bioenergy potential. In Biology, Productivity, and Bioenergy of Timber-Yielding Plants, an Experimental Technology; Ngangyo, H.M., Maiti, R., Foroughbakhch, P.R., Carrillo-Parra, A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 1–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. UNE-EN 14961-2; Bicombustibles Sólidos. Especificaciones y Clases de Combustibles. Parte 2: Pellets de Madera para uso no Industrial. Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (AENOR): Madrid, Spain, 2011.
  59. Stasiak, M.; Molena, M.; Banda, M.; Wiacek, J.; Parafiniuk, P.; Gondek, E. Mechanical and combustion properties of sawdust-straw pellets blended in different proportions. Fuel Process. Technol. 2016, 156, 366–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Qin, X.; Keefe, R.F.; Daugaard, D.E. Small landowner production of pellets from green, beetle-killed, and burned lodgepole pine. Energies 2018, 11, 648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Adapa, P.K.; Schoenau, G.J.; Tabil, L.G.; Sokhansanj, S.; Crerar, B. Pelleting of fractionated Alfalfa products. Asabe 2003, 27–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Picchio, R.; Di Marzio, N.; Cozzolino, L.; Venanzi, R.; Stefanoni, W.; Bianchini, L.; Pari, L.; Latterini, F. Pellet production from pruning and alternative forest biomass: A review of the most recent research findings. Materials 2023, 4689, 4689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lehtikangas, P. Storge effect pn pelletised sawdust, logging residues and bark. Biomass Bioenergy 2000, 19, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Meincken, M.; Tyhoda, L. Biomass quiality. In Bioenegy from Wood Sustainable Production in the Tropics. Managing Foresta Ecosystems; Seifert, T., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 1–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Liu, Z.; Bingbing, M.; Jiang, Z.; Fei, B.; Cai, Z.; Liu, X. Improved bulk density of bamboo pellets as biomass for energy production. Renew. Energy 2015, 86, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 16 00856 g001
Figure 1. Pellet processing and evaluation.
Figure 1. Pellet processing and evaluation.
Forests 16 00856 g001
Table 1. Chemical composition of two Quercus species (%).
Table 1. Chemical composition of two Quercus species (%).
SpeciesTree PartsHemicelluloseCelluloseLigninExtractable Substances
Q. laurinaStump12.9055.7418.9710.29
Stem14.2756.2918.668.45
Branches14.7256.5215.7910.76
Q. rugosaStump13.6756.3914.9813.00
Stem13.8452.2721.5810.31
Branches13.8455.2417.0511.84
Table 2. Initial moisture content, bulk density, and particle density.
Table 2. Initial moisture content, bulk density, and particle density.
SpeciesTree PartsMoisture Content (%)Bulk Density (Kg m−3)Particle Density (g cm−3)n
Q. laurinaStump9.88 (0.45) a, b616.61 (2.78) a1.27 (0.01) a3
Stem9.78 (0.13) a, b595.61 (8.37) b1.26 (0.01) a3
Branches9.06 (0.06) b558.33 (8.02) c1.18 (0.10) a3
Q. rugosaStump10.40 (0.28) a593.61 (3.31) b1.22 (0.05) a3
Stem10.34 (0.43) a566.94 (8.99) c1.23 (0.03) a3
Branches9.93 (0.46) a, b584.50 (1.30) b1.35 (0.21) a3
n: number of replicates; values in parentheses represent standard deviation. Equal letters in column directions indicate statistical equality (p ≥ 0.05). Moisture content (%) refers to the material before pelletizing.
Table 3. Mechanical durability of pellets from two Quercus species.
Table 3. Mechanical durability of pellets from two Quercus species.
SpeciesTree PartsDurability (%)n
Q. laurinaStump87.88 (1.50) d3
Stem90.07 (0.56) c, d3
Branches91.71 (2.57) b, c3
Q. rugosaStump95.26 (0.21) a, b3
Stem95.96 (0.60) a3
Branches91.55 (1.10) c, d3
n: number of replicates; values in parentheses represent standard deviation. Equal letters in column directions indicate statistical equality (p ≥ 0.05).
Table 4. Energy properties of pellets from two species of Quercus.
Table 4. Energy properties of pellets from two species of Quercus.
Tree PartsMoisture Content (%)Volatile Matter (%)Ash (%)Fixed Carbon (%)High Heating Value (MJ Kg−1)Low Heating Value (MJ Kg−1)n
Q. laurinaStump5.02 (0.02) b83.30 (0.63) a1.76 (0.08) a14.92 (0.58) a19.90 (0.13) a18.77 (0.12) a3
Stem5.32 (0.08) b81.19 (0.08) a1.94 (0.05) a16.85 (0.12) a19.79 (0.33) a18.60 (0.30) a3
Branches6.09 (0.14) a82.48 (2.68) a1.79 (0.26) a15.72 (2.64) a20.28 (0.54) a18.88 (0.50) a3
Q. rugosaStump5.00 (0.09) b82.50 (1.46) a1.59 (0.06) a15.90 (1.40) a20.31 (0.31) a19.16 (0.30) a3
Stem5.34 (0.14) b83.68 (0.33) a1.79 (0.02) a14.51 (0.34) a20.09 (0.05) a18.87 (0.08) a3
Branches5.22 (0.19) b83.21 (1.17) a1.62 (0.12) a15.15 (1.18) a19.98 (0.09) a18.79 (0.09) a3
n: number of replicates; values in parentheses represent standard deviation. Equal letters in column directions indicate statistical equality (p ≥ 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

Jiménez-Mendoza, M.E.; Ruiz-Aquino, F.; Rutiaga-Quiñones, J.G.; Feria-Reyes, R.; Santiago-García, W.; Suárez-Mota, M.E.; Puc-Kauil, R.; Gabriel-Parra, R. Chemical and Energetic Evaluation of Densified Biomass of Quercus laurina and Quercus rugosa for Bioenergy Production. Forests 2025, 16, 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050856

AMA Style

Jiménez-Mendoza ME, Ruiz-Aquino F, Rutiaga-Quiñones JG, Feria-Reyes R, Santiago-García W, Suárez-Mota ME, Puc-Kauil R, Gabriel-Parra R. Chemical and Energetic Evaluation of Densified Biomass of Quercus laurina and Quercus rugosa for Bioenergy Production. Forests. 2025; 16(5):856. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050856

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jiménez-Mendoza, María Elena, Faustino Ruiz-Aquino, José Guadalupe Rutiaga-Quiñones, Rossy Feria-Reyes, Wenceslao Santiago-García, Mario Ernesto Suárez-Mota, Ramiro Puc-Kauil, and Rosalío Gabriel-Parra. 2025. "Chemical and Energetic Evaluation of Densified Biomass of Quercus laurina and Quercus rugosa for Bioenergy Production" Forests 16, no. 5: 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050856

APA Style

Jiménez-Mendoza, M. E., Ruiz-Aquino, F., Rutiaga-Quiñones, J. G., Feria-Reyes, R., Santiago-García, W., Suárez-Mota, M. E., Puc-Kauil, R., & Gabriel-Parra, R. (2025). Chemical and Energetic Evaluation of Densified Biomass of Quercus laurina and Quercus rugosa for Bioenergy Production. Forests, 16(5), 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050856

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