Next Article in Journal
Artificial Intelligence and Extraction of Bioactive Compounds: The Case of Rosemary and Pressurized Liquid Extraction
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamic Energy Absorption Performance of Titanium Slag Reinforced Concrete: An Experimental and Numerical Simulation-Based Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/pr13061878
processes-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

Energy Production and Process Costing for Biomass Obtained from Underutilized Plant Species in México and Colombia

by
Julio César Ríos-Saucedo
1,
Rigoberto Rosales-Serna
1,*,
Artemio Carrillo-Parra
2,
Cynthia Adriana Nava-Berumen
2,*,
Antonio Cano-Pineda
3,
Martín Aquino-Ramírez
4 and
Jesús Manuel Martínez-Villela
5
1
Campo Experimental Valle del Guadiana, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias, Carretera Durango-El Mezquital km 4.5, Durango 34170, Durango, México
2
Instituto de Silvicultura e Industria de la Madera, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, Blvd. Guadiana 501, Fracc. Ciudad Universitaria, Durango 34120, Durango, México
3
Campo Experimental Saltillo, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias, Carretera Saltillo-Zacatecas, km. 342 + 119, No. 9515, Saltillo 25315, Coahuila, México
4
Campo Experimental Edzná, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias, Carretera Campeche-Pocyaxum km 15.1, Campeche 24520, Campeche, México
5
Programa de Ciencia y Tecnología Ambiental, Centro de Investigación de Materiales Avanzados, Calle CIMAV #110, Durango 34147, Durango, México
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2025, 13(6), 1878; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13061878
Submission received: 4 April 2025 / Revised: 19 May 2025 / Accepted: 28 May 2025 / Published: 13 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomass Energy Conversion for Efficient and Sustainable Utilization)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

The objectives were to evaluate the energy potential of biomass and pellets produced from five underutilized herbaceous and woody plant species in México and Colombia; characterize pellet quality parameters; and calculate the preliminary production costs and energy requirement during the densification process. Harvest and sawmill residues were obtained for five non-timber and woody plant species. The volatile compounds, ash, and fixed carbon were evaluated, as well as the higher heating value (HHV) and pellet impact resistance (PIR); in addition, lignin, hemicellulose, and cellulose were quantified. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviation. The volatile compounds ranged from 65.9–77.5%, ash 2.5–17.2%, fixed carbon 5.4–19.9%, HHV 16.4–21.9 MJ kg−1, and PIR (0.6–99.1%). Considerable intra- and inter-specific differences were observed for all the variables, which expanded the options for the selection of biomass sources used in bioenergy production. Biomass processing costs ranged from 675.9 to 679.3 EUR t−1. Optimization of these processes is required to implement more efficient technologies that significantly reduce operating costs in biomass use in biofuel industry. The systematic study of different plant species, both introduced and native, will provide new sources of biomass to produce bioenergy, fertilizers, and other organic inputs.

1. Introduction

In many regions of the Americas, numerous biomass sources remain underutilized despite the potential for their use as raw material for bioenergy production in the form of heat [1,2], and as organic fertilizers [3]. Particularly in México and Colombia large quantities of straw and hull are produced from rice (Oryza sativa) and cacay (Caryodendron orinocense), as well as sawdust, and other waste from timber and industrial species such as rubber tree (Castilla elastica), teak (Tectona grandis) and melina (Gmelina arborea). The worldwide annual rice production reach 750 million tons of grain and 150 million tons of husk [4]. In México, a total of 36,393 ha was harvested in 2023, yielding 252,000 t of rice grain [5]; considering that one hectare produces between 4.9 and 5.4 t of straw, a total of 176,870 t of straw and 63,000 t of husk were generated [6]. In the department of Meta, Colombia, an annual rice production of 2.5 million t generates approximately 5.8 million t of straw and 0.5 million t of rice husks [7].
The cacay tree offers multiple benefits to the Los Llanos region of Colombia. Beyond its oil-rich nut, its cultivation leads to the production of approximately 11.6 t of by-products (cuesco) per hectare, which remain after processing [8,9]. These agricultural residues represent a biomass that is hard to process and currently lacks added value [10]. The rubber tree, endemic to southeastern México, has laticifers containing latex, known as natural rubber, which has various uses; its wood is white and moderately heavy, used as fuel, and is considered an important source of pulp for the paper industry [11].
Teak is native to South Asia and was introduced to México, where it is cultivated in the country’s southeast and western regions for its high-quality wood [12]. In México, 30,775 ha were planted with this plant species, and its wood has high economic value due to its usefulness in furniture and other applications [12]. The melina tree was introduced to México from Asia and its wood is used for sawmilling, construction, and the production of pallets, firewood, furniture, and other multiple uses [13]. All of the above species generate different residues, which are used for energy production, contributing to the generation of value-added biomass products, providing components for environmental conservation programs.
The assessment of biomass energy potential requires quantification of the content of volatile compounds, ash, and fixed carbon, as well as the higher heating value (HHV) [14]. Volatile material is the most flammable component of biomass and is related to the components resulting from the thermochemical decomposition process, caused by the increase in the temperature of the biomass. Volatile material is an important component because it constitutes the most representative fraction of the total biomass, which is above 75% and sometimes reaches values close to 90% [15,16]. The concentration of ash is also an important fraction of biomass, calculated as the total amount of residue generated during the combustion process, with products showing low-ash content being preferred. Ash reduces the thermal efficiency of wood energy biomass and generates corrosiveness inside the combustion equipment; therefore, levels of less than 5% are recommended in biofuel products [17,18,19]. Fixed carbon is defined as the total amount of energy provided by biomass, which causes slow burning during the combustion process, with longer residence time and lower occupancy volume [20]. The HHV represents the amount of energy per unit mass or volume that is released after combustion of the biomass [21].
On the other hand, biomass-to-energy transformation processes are essential to achieve a more uniform, energy-dense feedstock suitable for a variety of conversion technologies [22]. The production costs and energy consumption associated with these transformation processes, such as drying, chipping, shredding, and pelletizing, are critical factors in determining the economic viability and sustainability of bioenergy and biofuel production [23]. The costs for drying, chipping, pelletizing, maintenance, labor, and energy consumption (kWh t−1) should be recorded in terms of hourly output (kg h−1). It is also necessary to quantify the operating costs per hour, including labor.
Although there is extensive research on the energy characteristics of multiple biomass sources and pellets [24,25], there are few studies that systematically analyze production efficiency in terms of labor input and machine-specific energy consumption during key processing phases (chipping, shredding, pelletizing, and briquetting). This lack of information restricts the development of optimized and cost-effective biomass recovery systems.
The selection of a good-quality biomass for energy generation helps improve industrial efficiency while also promoting environmental protection [26]. In addition, it facilitates the management of biomass waste, promotes productive sustainability, and adds value to by-products from the agricultural and forestry sectors. Therefore, this study aimed to characterize the energy potential and chemical composition of biomass from five underutilized plant species in México and Colombia, evaluate the physical and mechanical properties of the resulting pellets, and quantify both labor inputs and energy consumption during key processing phases (chipping, grinding, and pelletizing).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Material Sampling

In 2024, six random samples of 5.0 kg each were collected according to UNE-CEN/TS 14778-1 [27], generating a composite sample of 202 kg of by-products derived from the harvest of rice and cacay at the Llanos Orientales Region (Orinoquía), in the department of Meta, Colombia. For the biomass collected in México, a composite sample of 15 kg of each plant species was obtained from five random samples taken from the sawmill (Aserradero) waste banks of the company Maderas y Pisos Intermex, Predio la Foresta, Balancán, Tabasco. The geographical location is 17° 52′ 16.29′ N and 91° 26′ 57.17′ W. Table 1 shows the biomass type collected in both countries, considering different plant organs. The pellet production process for all sources was according to the Figure 1.

2.2. Proximal Analysis and Higher Heating Value

The original biomass and pellets were characterized in the laboratory of the Instituto de Silvicultura e Industria de la Madera (ISIMA-UJED) (Figure 1). The volatile material, ash, and fixed carbon were determined, as well as the higher heating value (HHV) and pellet impact resistance (PIR). The ash content was determined by the ISO 18122 [19], and volatile material and fixed carbon were ascertained based on the standard ASTM D-1762-84 [16]. To determine HHV, a bomb calorimeter was used in accordance with the standard ASTM D5865-11 [28].

2.3. Pellet Impact Resistance Test

The impact resistance of the pellets was evaluated following the standardized drop test methodology [29]. Each pellet was weighed (m1), then dropped twice from a height of 1.85 m onto a ceramic-tiled surface. After impact, the largest remaining fragment was collected and weighed (m2). Pellet Impact Resistance (PIR) was calculated using Equation (1):
P I R % = m 1 − m 2 m 1 100
where m1 and m2 represent the initial and post-impact masses, respectively. Triplicate tests were performed for each pellet type to ensure statistical reliability.

2.4. Chemical Composition

The chemical composition of the biomass of all species was determined by the ANKOM method [30], which allows the determination of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF). NDF is composed of hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin, while NDF includes cellulose and lignin.

2.5. Costs of Labor Input and Machine-Specific Energy Consumption During Production

Labor costs related to conditioning (chipping, grinding, and drying) and densification of biomass were determined by establishing the working time taken by operators to process one cubic meter (1 m3 = 1 t) of biomass. The time measurement and recording were carried out for each phase of the process separately. Considering a working day of 8 h and a daily wage of 500.00 MXN (equivalent to 22.87 EUR h−1), the specific cost per unit of biomass processed was calculated. The values obtained included both the direct operation of the equipment and auxiliary activities (feeding of raw material, supervision, and cleaning).
The energy consumption analysis was conducted in compliance with CONUEE standards [31]. First, all processing equipment for the biomass conditioning and densification process was identified, and their rated electrical parameters were documented from technical specifications. Subsequently, voltage values were recorded for each machine at 20 s intervals during three separate 5 min operational trials under real working conditions. Finally, these measurements enabled the calculation of average power demand, estimation of hourly energy consumption per machine, and determination of the system’s total energy consumption. The calculation of the cost of energy used was based on the Domestic High Demand Medium Voltage Hourly Tariff (GDMTH), according to CFE (2025) [32].

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The data obtained were analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) for the three samples of each of the species included in the study. The analysis of the experimental data was carried out with the Excel 14.5.6® version computer program.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Proximal Analysis

The cacay residues showed the highest value for volatile material, with an observed range among plant species of between 65.9% (rice straw) and 77.5% (cacay) (Table 2). The residues from the cacay nut processing showed low quality for energy production, because a high content of volatiles is related to a significant increase in smoke production during biomass combustion. In addition, low energy efficiency is observed during biomass use for cooking food and obtaining other domestic products [15,33]; moreover, there is a significant increase in pollutant emissions.
The plant residues showed slightly low values of volatile material compared to international recommendations, which suggest levels above 75%. This makes it necessary to look for options to compress the biomass and make mixtures between species to increase energy efficiency, economic benefits, and productive sustainability.
The highest ash content was recorded for rice (17.2%) and rubber tree (16.3%), with lower values ranging from 2.5% (melina) to 2.7% (teak) for the rest of the plant species. The ash content was slightly lower than that reported in other studies, where values varying from 17.5 to 21.2% were obtained for rice husk [15,33]. The results obtained for rubber tree differed from those obtained in previous studies on wood of different stem heights, 0.55—0.99% [34]. Based on the above, the type of biomass used in each study and other attributes that influence the energy quality need to be considered, including production environment, plant species (structure and age), canopy stratum, and processing management of the biomass waste.
An in-depth study of the chemical composition of the ash is also required to establish its innocuousness when dispersed in the environment due to the presence of potentially toxic elements in some types of forest biomass [35]. Additionally, biomass mix levels of different species and densification techniques need to be implemented to optimize bioenergy content and reduce the ash content of the final biofuel products.
The highest fixed carbon content was recorded in cacay (19.9%), with lower values in the rest of the evaluated plant species, ranging from 5.4% (rubber tree) to 16.9% (teak). The level of fixed carbon present in cacay residues provides thermal stability to the biomass obtained from this plant species, which makes it burn more slowly, have a longer residence time, and shows a low volume of storage space occupation [20].
The highest values for HHV were recorded in teak (21.9 MJ kg−1) and melina (21.3 MJ kg−1), while the rest of the plant species showed levels between 16.4 MJ kg−1 (rice) and 19.7 MJ kg−1 (rubber tree). The values observed for rice were similar to those previously reported for other grasses (16.1 MJ kg−1) [36]. The melina exceeded the values recorded in other plant trees established at different population densities [37]. Intra- and inter-specific fluctuation was observed for HHV, due to variations in plantation management, plant age, and type of biomass used, so clarification of the specifications and seasonality of residue availability should be established for raw materials used in bioenergy generation programs.

3.2. Pellet Impact Resistance

Impact resistance was higher in rubber tree pellets (0.6%), while the lowest average value was observed in cacay, with 99.1% of the pellets disintegrating (breaking down into dust and small pieces). The latex present in the rubber tree acted as a natural binder in the pellets, which favored their integrity during the resistance evaluation process. Other binders need to be identified for efficient pellet production when using different lignocellulosic residues for bioenergy production in México and Colombia. Systematic studies performed in different plant species provide new insights into their particular properties for the selection of efficient and sustainable biomass sources, which strengthen energy generation and organic fertilizer production.

3.3. Chemical Composition

The rubber tree biomass showed the lowest lignin content (13.8%), which was related to the reduction in the wood quality and energy level. The lignin values obtained in this study ranged from 6.1% to 39.0%, with the highest proportion for tree species (19.0–39.0%). It is necessary to consider the characteristics of the biomass and its relationship with other plant traits, canopy strata, and environmental factors at the production site, because in previous studies, the highest lignin levels (21.9 and 22.1%) were recorded for rubber tree [38], while melina obtained intermediate lignin levels. High lignin content has been related to wood hardness and durability, as well as to the bioenergetic properties of wood industry residues [39], due to the fact that lignin shows a high calorific value (25.8 MJ/kg) [40]. In contrast, it has been established that hemicelluloses are determinant in the functionality of the cell wall, which has a direct impact on the production of energy from biomass. Thermal degradation of hemicelluloses occurs at relatively low temperatures, which influences the release of volatiles and consequently the energy yield and characteristics of the biofuel. This aspect is crucial in processes such as pyrolysis and gasification, where the chemical composition of the biomass defines the energy efficiency and the quality of the final product [41].
It is essential to develop appropriate technology for México to enable the efficient isolation and utilization of lignin for the production of organic and sustainable biofuels. Lignin is a highly abundant compound in feedstocks and residues from agricultural, forestry, and livestock production, representing a valuable yet underutilized resource for bioenergy applications [33]. Therefore, biomass lignin needs to be considered as an efficient and low-cost option for sustainable bioenergy production.
The rubber tree showed the highest level of hemicellulose, thus outperforming teak and melina. The content of these compounds was related to the maintenance of the cell wall in the rubber tree [41], which has a low lignin content and high density of laticifers in the phloem portion, formed towards the outside of the cambium, and which is related to the light and fragile portion of the wood of this tree [42]. Tree bark has also been identified as the primary source of ash [42]; consequently, the specialized components of this fraction in the rubber tree were expected to exhibit a stronger association with hemicellulose and ash content.
The cellulose content was high in teak (53.5%) and melina (51.0%) (Table 3), while a low proportion of this compound was observed in the rubber tree. Despite the variation, the values remained within the previously established range (40–60%) [43]. The results highlight the potential of biomass residues from the wood industry and latex production as valuable raw materials for biofuel production. Fibers and other woody tree residues are used for cellulose and pulp extraction, contributing to sustainable paper production [44].
High variation was observed in the biomass compounds of intra- and inter-plant species, so the genetic component and the production environment must be taken into consideration when using biomass resources [45], as well as the age, structure and height of the tree used as raw material at an industry and domestic level [46,47]. The systematic characterization and classification of biomass sources available in México and Colombia provided a basis for optimizing the use of native and cultivated species for biomass production.

3.4. Solid Biomass and Pellet Production Costs

The price of commercial solid biofuels varies widely, ranging from as low as 140.00 MXN m−3 (10.00 EUR m−3) for sawdust to approximately 700.00 MXN m−3 (31.31 EUR m−3) for firewood, while pellets can reach up to 10,000 MXN m−3 (447.25 EUR m−3). In rural households, mesquite and red oak are commonly used as biomass sources (i.e., firewood) for bioenergy generation [48], achieving high heating values (HHV) of up to 31.9 MJ kg−1. The high cost of processed solid fuels, such as pellets and briquettes—derived from agricultural and forestry residues—hinders their widespread adoption. In regions close to natural pine-oak and mesquite forest ecosystems, the availability of low-cost solid fuels and access to high-energy-quality alternatives contribute to the limited acceptance of processed biofuels (Table 4).
The energy consumption of the pellet production process demands 57.6 kW h−1 (Table 5), with the most demanding machinery being the grinding machines (22.5 kW h−1), the chipper (12.5 kW h−1), and the hammer mill (12.5 kW h−1), which together account for 82% of the electric energy consumption. During the pellet production process, the biomass mill had the highest demand (11.9 kW h−1), whereas the lowest was for the air extractor (0.4 kW h−1) and motor 1 of the screw conveyor (1.0 kW h−1). This distribution shows that the central biomass processing phases of particle size reduction and densification recorded higher energy expenditure, while the auxiliary systems of conveying and ventilation had lower energy requirements.

4. Conclusions

The systematic study of native and introduced plant species offers an opportunity to find new sources of biomass for the sustainable production of bioenergy, fertilizers, binders, and other industrial inputs. The biomass characteristics evaluated exhibited considerable variation among species, and these traits were influenced by environmental factors. The binder properties of latex from the rubber tree were considered as a valuable opportunity for enhancing the production of reconstituted biofuels, adding economic value to agricultural and industrial residues. A comprehensive and systematic characterization of México’s plant residue diversity is an essential research activity to identify sustainable biomass sources for the biomass-processing industry and agriculture. Biomass diversity enables the development of optimized formulations to enhance the energy level of high-quality biofuels, both for direct use and for industrial processing into pellets, briquettes, and other liquid and gaseous fuels. Pellet-producing machinery showed high energy consumption (82% of the total), which translates into higher operating costs. Processing costs ranged from 675.9 to 679.3 EUR/t according to plant species and residue type. Optimization of biofuel production processes is required to implement more efficient technologies that significantly reduce operating costs in the biomass-processing industry. Biomass costs are currently low, but as demand scales up, the costs and industrial competition for this input will increase. Future research should focus on improving the energy efficiency of equipment used for pelletization. In addition, more long-term field trials are needed to assess the agronomic, environmental and economic viability of underutilized native species as biomass sources under different ecological conditions.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pr13061878/s1, File S1. Proximate analysis; File S2. Structural analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.C.R.-S. and R.R.-S.; methodology, J.C.R.-S.; validation, A.C.-P. (Antonio Cano-Pineda) and C.A.N.-B.; formal analysis, J.C.R.-S., J.M.M.-V. and R.R.-S.; investigation, A.C.-P. (Antonio Cano-Pineda), A.C.-P. (Artemio Carrillo-Parra) and J.M.M.-V.; resources, R.R.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C.-P. (Antonio Cano-Pineda), A.C.-P. (Artemio Carrillo-Parra), R.R.-S. and J.C.R.-S.; writing—review and editing, C.A.N.-B.; visualization, A.C.-P. (Antonio Cano-Pineda), A.C.-P. (Artemio Carrillo-Parra) and M.A.-R.; supervision, M.A.-R. 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 this study are included in the article/Supplementary Materials. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Laboratorio Nacional CONAHCYT de Biocombustibles Sólidos (BIOENER) (ApoyoLNC-2023-40).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 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, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Paris, E.; Carnevale, M.; Vincenti, B.; Palma, A.; Guerriero, E.; Borello, D.; Gallucci, F. Evaluation of VOCs Emitted from Biomass Combustion in a Small CHP Plant: Difference between Dry and Wet Poplar Woodchips. Molecules 2022, 27, 955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Sierra-Zurita, D.; Santana-Espinoza, S.; Rosales-Serna, R.; Ríos-Saucedo, J.C.; Carrillo-Parra, A. Productivity and Characterization of Biomass Obtained from Pruning of Walnut Orchards in México. Energies 2023, 16, 2243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kordi, M.; Farrokhi, N.; Pech-Canul, M.I.; Ahmadikhah, A. Rice husk at a glance: From agroindustrial to modern applications. Rice Sci. 2024, 31, 14–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. SIAP, S. Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera, Secretaría de Agricultura Ganadería y Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación 2023. Available online: https://nube.agricultura.gob.mx/agroprograma/ (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  6. Valmaseda, A.R.Z.; Núñez, B.C.; López, Y.A. Evaluación Agronómica y Medioambiental Del Uso de La Paja de Arroz Como Substrato En La Producción de Biogas. Cienc. Intercult. 2014, 15, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gonzalez, L.V.P.; Gómez, S.P.M.; Abad, P.A.G. Aprovechamiento de Residuos Agroindustriales En Colombia. RIAA 2017, 8, 141–150. [Google Scholar]
  8. Coronel, D.A.Q.; Rodas, Y.L.; Martínez, L.A.C. Desarrollo de Un Modelo de Gasificación En Equilibrio Químico Para Evaluar El Potencial Energético Del Cuesco En Plantas Extractoras de Aceite de Palma En Colombia. Inge Cuc 2018, 14, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sharma, P.; Gaur, V.K.; Sirohi, R.; Larroche, C.; Kim, S.H.; Pandey, A. Valorization of Cashew Nut Processing Residues for Industrial Applications. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 152, 112550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Álvarez, A.C.G.; Jiménez, L.A.R.; Chacón, J.R.L.; Muñoz, L.G.L. Evaluación de La Eficiencia Energética Del Cuesco de Cacay (Caryodendron orinocense). Rev. Sist. Prod. Agroecol. 2020, 11, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Montero-Hernández, D.B.; Vargas-Simón, G.; Núñez-Piedra, M.L. Distribución Ecogeográfica y Áreas de Ocupación de Castilla elastica Cerv. En México. Bot. Sci. 2023, 101, 76–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Flórez, J.B.; Trugilho, P.F.; Lima, J.T.; Hein, P.R.G.; Silva, J.R.M.d. Caracterización de La Madera Joven de Tectona grandis L. f. Plantada En Brasil. Madera Bosques 2014, 20, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Martínez-Zurimendi, P.; Domínguez-Domínguez, M.; Juárez-García, A.; López-López, L.M.; de-la-Cruz-Arias, V.; Álvarez-Martínez, J. Índice de Sitio y Producción Maderable En Plantaciones Forestales de Gmelina arborea En Tabasco, México. Rev. Fitotec. Mex. 2015, 38, 415–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pintor-Ibarra, L.F.; Méndez-Zetina, F.D.; Rutiaga-Quiñones, J.G.; Alvarado-Flores, J.J. Capítulo 5: Caracterización Proximal de Los Biocombustibles Sólidos. In Aplicaciones Energéticas de la Biomasa: Perspectivas para la Caracterización Local de Biocombustibles Sólidos; Universidad Intercultural Indígena de Michoacán: Pátzcuaro, México, 2023; pp. 87–116. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ibarra, B.J.C.; Rueda, Y.J.O. Biomasa Para El Aprovechamiento Energético. In Una Revisión de la Caracterización y los Modelos por Descomposición Termoquímica; Research Group on Energy and Environment GIEMA: Bucaramanga, Colombia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  16. ASTM D-1762-84; Standard Method for Chemical Analysis of Wood Charcoal. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2001.
  17. ASTM E830-87; Standard Test Method for Ash in the Analysis Sample of Refuse-Derived Fuel. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2004.
  18. ASTM D1102; Standard Test Method for Ash in Wood. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2021.
  19. ISO 18122:2016; Solid Biofuels—Determination of Ash Content. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 1–16.
  20. Gauna, J.M.; Raffaeli, N.; Tonello, M.L.; Harrand, L.; Mastrandrea, C.A.; Martinez, M.S.; Oberschelp, G.P.J.; Barotto, J. Potencial de Especies, Clones Puros e Híbridos de Eucaliptos Para Elaboración de Carbón Vegetal. 2022. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364348131_POTENCIAL_DE_ESPECIES_CLONES_PUROS_E_HIBRIDOS_DE_EUCALIPTOS_PARA_ELABORACION_DE_CARBON_VEGETAL (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  21. Pintor-Ibarra, L.F.; Alvarado-Flores, J.J.; Rutiaga-Quiñones, J.G.; Alcaraz-Vera, J.V.; Ávalos-Rodríguez, M.L.; Moreno-Anguiano, O. Chemical and Energetic Characterization of the Wood of Prosopis laevigata: Chemical and Thermogravimetric Methods. Molecules 2024, 29, 2587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Zhou, Y.; Zhao, N.; Li, X.; Yu, Y.; Elshareef, H.; Qian, M.; Lei, H. Thermal Processing of Biomass for Energy and Fuel Production. In Advances in Bioenergy; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; Volume 7, pp. 271–341. ISBN 2468-0125. [Google Scholar]
  23. Moiceanu, G.; Paraschiv, G.; Voicu, G.; Dinca, M.; Negoita, O.; Chitoiu, M.; Tudor, P. Energy Consumption at Size Reduction of Lignocellulose Biomass for Bioenergy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kpalo, S.Y.; Zainuddin, M.F.; Manaf, L.A.; Roslan, A.M. A Review of Technical and Economic Aspects of Biomass Briquetting. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Marreiro, H.M.P.; Peruchi, R.S.; Lopes, R.M.B.P.; Andersen, S.L.F.; Eliziário, S.A.; Rotella Junior, P. Empirical Studies on Biomass Briquette Production: A Literature Review. Energies 2021, 14, 8320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sasikumar, C.; Sundaresan, R.; Nagaraja, M.; Rajaganapathy, C. A Review on Energy Generation from Manure Biomass. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 45, 2408–2412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. UNECEN/TS 14778-1; Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación Biocombustibles Sólidos. Muestreo Parte 1: Métodosmuestreo. AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2007.
  28. ASTM D5865-11; Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of Coal and Coke. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2011.
  29. Richards, S.R. Physical Testing of Fuel Briquettes. Fuel Process. Technol. 1990, 25, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. ANKOM. Acid Detergent Fiber in Feeds. Filter bag technique (ANKOM200). Ankom Technology 2005. Available online: https://www.ankom.com/sites/default/files/document-files/Method_12_ADF_A2000.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  31. CONUEE Informe de Desempeño Anual. Comisión Nacional Para El Uso Eficiente de La Energía; Secretaría de Energía: México City, México, 2018.
  32. CFE. Comisión Federal de Electricidad Esquema Tarifario Vigente. CFE. 2025. Available online: https://app.cfe.mx/Aplicaciones/CCFE/Tarifas/TarifasCRECasa/Casa.aspx (accessed on 17 April 2025).
  33. Afanasjeva, N.; Castillo, L.C.; Sinisterra, J.C. Biomasa Lignocelulósica. Parte I: Transformación de Biomasa. J. Sci. Technol. Appl 2017, 3, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. 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]
  35. Smołka-Danielowska, D.; Jabłońska, M. Chemical and Mineral Composition of Ashes from Wood Biomass Combustion in Domestic Wood-Fired Furnaces. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 19, 5359–5372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ventura Ríos, J.; Santiago Ortega, M.A.; Barrera-Martínez, I.; Álvarez Vázquez, P.; Carrillo López, P.; Honorato Salazar, J.A. Caracterización Del Pasto Mombaza Como Materia Prima Para Producir Bioetanol. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agric. 2021, 12, 235–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Salazar-Zeledón, E. Influencia de Altas Densidades de Plantación En El Poder Calorífico y Propiedades Físicas de La Madera Para La Especie Gmelina arborea Roxb. Ex Sm. Rev. For. Mesoam. Kurú 2016, 13, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Boadu, K.B.; Anokye, R.; Afrifah, K.A.; Tetteh, E.N.; Anning, O.F.; Osei, B.K. Characterization of the Fibre Morphology and Chemical Composition of Aged PB 260 and IRCA 41 Clones of Rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) Wood for Pulp and Paper Making. J. Indian Acad. Wood Sci. 2022, 19, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gracia-Vitoria, J.; Gándara, S.C.; Feghali, E.; Ortiz, P.; Eevers, W.; Triantafyllidis, K.S.; Vanbroekhoven, K. The Chemical and Physical Properties of Lignin Bio-Oils, Facts and Needs. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2023, 40, 100781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jin, W.; Singh, K.; Zondlo, J. Pyrolysis Kinetics of Physical Components of Wood and Wood-Polymers Using Isoconversion Method. Agriculture 2013, 3, 12–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhang, S.-Y.; Wang, C.-G.; Fei, B.-H.; Yu, Y.; Cheng, H.-T.; Tian, G.-L. Mechanical Function of Lignin and Hemicelluloses in Wood Cell Wall Revealed with Microtension of Single Wood Fiber. Bioresources 2013, 8, 2376–2385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pasztory, Z.; Mohácsiné, I.R.; Gorbacheva, G.; Börcsök, Z. The Utilization of Tree Bark. Bioresources 2016, 11, 7859–7888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Erick, R.-U. Determinación de Los Principales Componentes de La Biomasa Lignocelulosica; Celulosa, Hemicelulosa y Lignina de La Paja de Trigo Para Su Posterior Pretratamiento Biológico. In Proceedings of the Actas del XVII Congreso Internacional en Ciencias Agrícolas Agricultura sustentable: Uso Eficiente del Agua, Suelo y Fertilizantes; Mexicali, México, 9–10 October 2014; Volume 9, pp. 114–118. [Google Scholar]
  44. Amorim, E.P.; Menucelli, J.R.; Germano, A.D.; de Faria, R.F.P.; de Andrade Barbosa, J.; de Andrade Pádua, F.; de Freitas, M.L.M.; de Moraes, M.A.; Cambuim, J.; de Moraes, M.L.T. Technological Potential of Fibers from 20 Hevea brasiliensis Clones for Use as Pulp, Paper, and Composite Materials. Res. Soc. Dev. 2021, 10, e549101019102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Riyaphan, J.; Phumichai, T.; Neimsuwan, T.; Witayakran, S.; Sungsing, K.; Kaveeta, R.; Phumichai, C. Variability in Chemical and Mechanical Properties of Pará Rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) Trees. ScienceAsia 2015, 41, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bedia, J.; Rosas, J.; Márquez, M.; Guerrero, M.; Ruiz, R.; Cotoruelo, L.; Rodríguez, J.; Cordero, T. Materiales de Carbono a Partir de Lignina. Boletín del Grupo Español del Carbón (GEC) (12). 2009, 2–8. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235920643_Materiales_de_Carbono_a_partir_de_Lignina (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  47. Chukwuemeka, O. Wood Density of Rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) Grown in South-Eastern Nigeria for Utilization Purposes. Int. J. Adv. Res. Soc. Eng. Dev. Strateg. 2016, 4, 40–45. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ríos, S.J.C.; Rosales-Serena, R.; Carrillo-Parra, A.; Cano Pineda, A.; Aquino Ramirez, M. Densidad Básica de La Madera y Calidad de Carbón Obtenido de Encino Rojo Producido En Durango. XIV Reunión Nacional de Investigación Agrícola. Aguascalientes, México, 2024. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392263949_DENSIDAD_BASICA_DE_LA_MADERA_Y_CALIDAD_DE_CARBON_OBTENIDO_DE_ENCINO_ROJO_PRODUCIDO_EN_DURANGO (accessed on 20 April 2025).
Processes 13 01878 g001
Figure 1. The schematic diagram of energy production from biomass.
Figure 1. The schematic diagram of energy production from biomass.
Processes 13 01878 g001
Table 1. Biomass from cultivated plant species in tropical and subtropical areas of México and Colombia.
Table 1. Biomass from cultivated plant species in tropical and subtropical areas of México and Colombia.
Sample IDSpeciesCollection SiteCoordinatesBiomass
INI-1Rice
(Oriza sativa)		Villavicencio, Meta,
Colombia		04° 02′ 41.85″ N; 73° 07′ 41.86″Straw
INI-2Cacay
(Caryodendron orinocense)		Lejanías, Meta, Colombia03° 28′ 49.83″ N; 73° 52′ 04.26″Cob (endocarp)
INI-3Rubber tree
(Castilla elastica)		Balancán, Tabasco, México17° 52′ 16.29′ N; 91° 26′ 57.17′ WTwigs, leaves, sawdust
INI-4Teak
(Tectona grandis)		Balancán, Tabasco, México17° 52′ 16.29′ N; 91° 26′ 57.17′ WTwigs, leaves, sawdust
INI-5Melina
(Gmelina arborea)		Balancán, Tabasco, México17° 52′ 16.29′ N; 91° 26′ 57.17′ WTwigs, leaves, sawdust
Table 2. Variables evaluated in biomass from plant species used in tropical and subtropical zones of México and Colombia.
Table 2. Variables evaluated in biomass from plant species used in tropical and subtropical zones of México and Colombia.
SpeciesVolatile Material (%)Ash
(%)		Fixed Carbon (%)HHV 1 (MJ kg−1)PIR
(%)		PD (g cm−3)
Rice (Oriza sativa)65.9 ± 0.217.2 ± 0.016.8 ± 0.216.4 ± 0.0----
Cacay (Caryodendron orinocense)77.5 ± 0.32.6 ± 0.119.9 ± 0.418.3 ± 0.199.1 ± 0.3--
Rubber tree (Castilla elastica)70.7 ± 0.316.3 ± 0.35.4 ± 0.019.7 ± 0.40.6 ± 0.0--
Teak (Tectona grandis)72.6 ± 0.62.7 ± 0.116.9 ± 0.521.9 ± 0.27.7 ± 0.20.6 ± 0.0
Melina (Gmelina arborea)73.5 ± 0.22.5 ± 0.116.5 ± 0.121.3 ± 0.27.5 ± 0.10.6 ± 0.0
1 HHV = higher heating value, PIR = pellet impact resistance, PD = particle density.
Table 3. Lignocellulosic content in biomass from tree species cultivated in tropical and subtropical zones of México and Colombia.
Table 3. Lignocellulosic content in biomass from tree species cultivated in tropical and subtropical zones of México and Colombia.
SpeciesLignin
(%)		Hemicellulose
(%)		Cellulose
(%)
Rubber tree (Castilla elastica)13.8 ± 0.99.6 ± 0.739.2 ± 0.8
Teak (Tectona grandis)27.3 ± 0.47.3 ± 0.253.5 ± 1.2
Melina (Gmelina arborea)19.8 ± 0.18.0 ± 0.951.0 ± 0.2
Table 4. Biomass price and labor costs for biomass conditioning and the densification process.
Table 4. Biomass price and labor costs for biomass conditioning and the densification process.
Plant SpeciesBiomass Price (EUR t−1)Labor
Costs (EUR t−1)		Energy Costs (EUR t−1)Total
(EUR t−1)
Rice (Oriza sativa)2.528.8644.6675.9
Cacay (Caryodendron orinocense)3.328.8644.6676.7
Rubber tree (Castilla elastica)4.528.8644.6677.9
Teak (Tectona grandis)5.928.8644.6679.3
Melina (Gmelina arborea)5.228.8644.6678.6
Table 5. Energy consumption by equipment used for biomass processing operations during pellet production.
Table 5. Energy consumption by equipment used for biomass processing operations during pellet production.
EquipmentProcessEnergy Consumption
(kW h−1)		Consumption
in the Process
(kW)
Hammer millGrinding9.022.5
Chipper12.5
Screw conveyor drive moto 11.0
Conveyor beltBiofuel
production		1.117.6
Biofuel mill11.9
Screw conveyor drive moto 23.1
Screw conveyor drive moto 21.0
Air extractor0.4
Total57.6
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

Ríos-Saucedo, J.C.; Rosales-Serna, R.; Carrillo-Parra, A.; Nava-Berumen, C.A.; Cano-Pineda, A.; Aquino-Ramírez, M.; Martínez-Villela, J.M. Energy Production and Process Costing for Biomass Obtained from Underutilized Plant Species in México and Colombia. Processes 2025, 13, 1878. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13061878

AMA Style

Ríos-Saucedo JC, Rosales-Serna R, Carrillo-Parra A, Nava-Berumen CA, Cano-Pineda A, Aquino-Ramírez M, Martínez-Villela JM. Energy Production and Process Costing for Biomass Obtained from Underutilized Plant Species in México and Colombia. Processes. 2025; 13(6):1878. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13061878

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ríos-Saucedo, Julio César, Rigoberto Rosales-Serna, Artemio Carrillo-Parra, Cynthia Adriana Nava-Berumen, Antonio Cano-Pineda, Martín Aquino-Ramírez, and Jesús Manuel Martínez-Villela. 2025. "Energy Production and Process Costing for Biomass Obtained from Underutilized Plant Species in México and Colombia" Processes 13, no. 6: 1878. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13061878

APA Style

Ríos-Saucedo, J. C., Rosales-Serna, R., Carrillo-Parra, A., Nava-Berumen, C. A., Cano-Pineda, A., Aquino-Ramírez, M., & Martínez-Villela, J. M. (2025). Energy Production and Process Costing for Biomass Obtained from Underutilized Plant Species in México and Colombia. Processes, 13(6), 1878. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13061878

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