Next Article in Journal
Structural Health Monitoring and Earthquake/Climate Proofing by Means of AI Sensor Fusion, Digital Twins and Smart Oracles
Previous Article in Journal
Integration of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDSs) in Highway Projects in Small Island Developing States (SIDSs) for Improved Resilience to Flooding
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Environmental and Earth Sciences Proceedings
Volume 42
Issue 1
10.3390/eesp2026042026
eesp-logo
Submit to this Journal
► 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:
Proceeding Paper

The Impacts of Producing Bio-Briquettes Made from Organic Waste as an Alternative Source of Fuel †

by
Roseline Bhanda
1,
Musaida Mercy Manyuchi
2,*,
Walter Stinner
3 and
Charles Mbohwa
2
1
Sustainable Technology Environmental Management Company, Harare 00263, Zimbabwe
2
Sustainability and Future Technologies Centre, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, University of South Africa, Pretoria 0027, South Africa
3
Germany Biomass Research Centre, 0049 Leipzig, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Presented at the 1st International Online Conference on Environment (IOCE 2026), 2–4 March 2026; Available online: https://sciforum.net/event/IOCE2026.
Environ. Earth Sci. Proc. 2026, 42(1), 26; https://doi.org/10.3390/eesp2026042026
Published: 26 August 2026
(This article belongs to the Proceedings of The 1st International Online Conference on Environments)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

This work investigates the potential benefits of using bio-briquettes made from organic waste as an alternative source of fuel in sub-Saharan Africa. Over 80 million tons of organic waste are generated annually in the region. Our pilot case study in Zimbabwe processed mixed feedstocks sawdust, rice husks, groundnut shells, and bagasse using optimized parameters: drying at 105 °C to <8% moisture, particle size reduction to <5 mm, slow pyrolysis at 400 °C, 10% molasses binder, and 200 MPa compaction pressure. This process demonstrated an 85% mass conversion efficiency from raw feedstock to final bio-briquettes. The produced bio-briquettes exhibited calorific values of 20–25 MJ/kg, moisture content of <8%, an ash content of 2–4%, a bulk density of 600–800 kg/m3, and a sulfur content of <0.1%, as determined through standard proximate and ultimate analyses (ASTM standards). Techno-economic analysis revealed a production cost of US $45 per ton. Compared to traditional coal and charcoal, these bio-briquettes reduce sulfur emissions by over 60%, and ash waste by up to 80% and mitigate 2.5 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) per ton of fuel displaced, while maintaining a near carbon-neutral lifecycle. This study confirms that valorizing organic waste into bio-briquettes provides a cleaner, economically viable alternative to fossil fuels, contributing to climate change mitigation, improved waste management, and sustainable development across the region.

1. Introduction

Bio-briquettes are solid fuels produced through compressing organic materials such as forestry leftovers, agricultural waste, and industrial byproducts [1]. By converting organic waste into useful energy, these bio-briquettes provide a sustainable substitute for traditional fuels like coal and firewood [2]. Their use improves waste management, generates economic opportunities, and lowers greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation [3]. According to [4], communities are looking for eco-friendly solutions because of rising energy consumption and because of their availability and natural replenishment, renewable energy sources like solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass are gaining popularity. Bio-briquettes are helpful in areas where agriculture produces a lot of waste, and according to [5], these by-products can be converted into clean-burning fuel rather than letting plant components break down and cause environmental issues. This strategy reduces landfill waste and open burning while addressing the energy shortage [6]. These areas consume the majority of biomass for residential energy needs; the third-largest energy source in the world now is biomass [7]. Fruit and vegetable waste can be turned into inexpensive, sustainable bio-briquettes. Energy crops, wood waste, aquatic plants, animal waste, agricultural wastes, and municipal trash are all examples of biomass [8]. Biomass is a viable source of sustainable energy because of its diversity. The transition to bio-briquettes is indicative of a global trend toward sustainability, allowing communities to enhance energy availability, lessen their reliance on fossil fuels, and contribute to a healthier planet [3]. Specifically, bio-briquettes derived from carbonized organic waste can achieve a calorific value range of 20–25 MJ/kg, which is comparable to sub-bituminous coal (approximately 24 MJ/kg) but with significantly lower ash and sulfur content, as documented in the literature [2,7,8]. However, these existing studies do not fully address the specific complexities of Sub-Saharan Africa. Significant evidence gaps remain in three critical areas, which are: (I) a lack of empirical data on the specific physicochemical properties of mixed municipal organic wastes in Sub-Saharan Africa; (II) the absence of integrated economic modeling for large-scale adoption in the region; and (III) insufficient assessment of the net carbon offset potential utilizing local production methods. Consequently, significant uncertainty remains regarding the technical viability, economic feasibility, and environmental impact of bio-briquette production specifically tailored to the decentralized waste management contexts prevalent in the region. While previous studies have broadly reviewed bio-briquette technology globally, comprehensive region-specific assessments in Sub-Saharan Africa remain scarce. This study addresses this critical gap by presenting the first integrated techno-economic and life-cycle assessment (LCA) that specifically targets the unique feedstock composition, energy infrastructure, and socio-economic conditions prevalent in Sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, the study utilizes a primary localized case study in Zimbabwe to provide empirical validation of the production parameters and cost structures, moving beyond theoretical models to practical, on-the-ground application. A key novelty of this work is the development of a multi-criteria evaluation framework that holistically integrates environmental, economic, and social impact indicators. Unlike conventional studies that focus solely on fuel properties or waste diversion, this framework is specifically tailored for decentralized waste management contexts, offering a balanced assessment that weighs deforestation mitigation, carbon reduction, job creation, and profit margins. This integrated approach provides a more comprehensive blueprint for policymakers and entrepreneurs seeking to implement circular economy solutions in developing regions.

2. Study Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the potential of bio-briquette production from organic waste as an alternative green source of fuel in sub-Saharan Africa and its impacts. The research began by assessing the availability and characteristics of suitable organic waste feedstocks, specifically sawdust, rice husks, groundnut shells, bagasse, palm kernel shells, and municipal organic waste, which are abundantly generated across the region. Following feedstock characterization, the study applied established production parameters, drying at 105 °C, pyrolysis at 400 °C, 10% molasses binder, and 200 MPa pressing based on literature and preliminary trials to produce high-quality bio-briquettes for analysis. The physicochemical and combustion properties of bio-briquettes produced from various organic waste materials are then determined, with particular focus on calorific value, ash content, moisture content, and mechanical strength, which are critical indicators of fuel performance. Furthermore, the study analyzed the environmental and socio-economic impacts of adopting bio-briquettes technology, including its contribution to climate change mitigation through reduced greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation prevention, and improved waste management practices. Key barriers and opportunities for scaling up bio-briquettes production and adoption in sub-Saharan Africa are identified, encompassing technological, economic, and policy-related factors that influence the viability of this alternative fuel source. Finally, the study proposed recommendations for promoting sustainable bio-briquettes production and utilization as a viable alternative fuel that supports circular economy principles and contributes to multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 13 (climate action) and SDG 15 (life on land). By addressing these objectives, this study seeks to provide a comprehensive framework for valorizing organic waste into clean energy, thereby contributing to energy security, environmental sustainability, and economic development across sub-Saharan Africa.

3. An Assessment of Raw Materials Used in Bio-Briquettes Production

Bio-briquettes are produced from a wide range of agricultural and forestry residues such as groundnut shells, bagasse, sawdust, bamboo dust, wheat straw, forestry waste, rice husks, wood chips, brewers’ spent grains and other organic waste materials that are compressed with a binder into a dense, clean-burning solid fuel [7]. Suitable raw materials are typically dry and high in carbon, ensuring efficient combustion and minimal smoke [9]. The natural lignin in biomass acts as a binder during compression, often eliminating the need for chemical additives. Agricultural waste is a significant resource for briquette production. Converting these unwanted byproducts into fuel addresses both waste management and energy needs [5]. The briquetting process compacts loose biomass, increasing its density, reducing moisture, enhancing calorific value and producing a uniform product that is easier to transport and store. The resulting bio-briquettes are renewable, cost-effective and versatile for cooking and heating in both domestic and industrial settings, offering a cleaner alternative to firewood, charcoal and fossil fuels. To maximize energy output, some producers first carbonize the feedstock into biochar before briquetting, which increases calorific value and reduces harmful emissions. Ultimately, bio-briquettes represent a promising solution to energy and waste management challenges by utilizing locally available residues to support environmental sustainability and economic development.

3.1. Feedstock Characterization and Properties

The conversion efficiency and final quality of bio-briquettes are fundamentally dictated by the physicochemical properties of the chosen organic waste. Key parameters such as moisture content, volatile matter, fixed carbon, ash content, elemental composition and lignin content directly affect the drying time, carbonization yield, binder requirement and calorific value of the final briquette. For this study, four abundantly available feedstocks in sub-Saharan Africa sawdust, rice husks, groundnut shells and bagasse were characterized. Their detailed proximate and ultimate analyses are presented in Table 1. Notably, bagasse requires intensive drying due to its high initial moisture, while rice husks contain high ash content, which must be monitored to prevent clinker formation during combustion. The physicochemical properties were determined using standard analytical protocols. Moisture content was measured using the oven-drying method at 105 °C using American standards, ASTM D4442, [10]. Volatile matter, fixed carbon and ash content were analyzed following proximate analysis standards using American standards, ASTM D3172/D3174 [11]. The ultimate analysis to determine carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen content was performed using a Mettler Toledo CHNS-O elemental analyzer. Lignin content was assessed via the Klason method and calorific values were determined using a bomb calorimeter according to American standards, ASTM D5865 [12]. The physicochemical properties were determined using standard analytical protocols. Moisture content was measured using the oven-drying method at 105 °C [10]. Volatile matter, fixed carbon and ash content were analyzed following proximate analysis standards (ASTM D3172/D3174). The ultimate analysis to determine carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen content was performed using a Mettler Toledo CHNS-O elemental analyzer. Lignin content was assessed via the Klason method and calorific values were determined using a bomb calorimeter according to ASTM D5865. The resulting data are presented in Table 1.

3.2. Sub-Saharan Africa Feedstock Suitability and Characteristics

To provide a practical overview for stakeholders in sub-Saharan Africa, Table 2 summarizes six major locally available feedstocks in Zimbabwe. Table 2 evaluates them based on seasonal availability, critical physicochemical properties moisture, ash, and calorific value and their specific advantages and limitations for large-scale bio-briquette production. This comparative summary helps guide feedstock selection based on local agricultural cycles and processing capabilities.

4. Analyses of Bio-Briquette Production Process and Properties

In bio-briquette production, the steps involved vary depending on the method, along with the technology being used. There are key components that typically make up the bio-briquette processing system [10], and it begins with preparing the biomass; this includes collecting the organic waste, cleaning it to remove impurities, and storing it properly [7,9]. Once the raw material is ready, it is dried to reduce moisture content, followed by size reduction through crushing or grinding to make it suitable for compaction. Pyrolysis is applied to enhance the fuel properties of the biomass [3,8]. A binder is added to help hold the particles together, although some materials naturally contain lignin that acts as a binder during compression [15,16,17,18,19]. The densification stage involves shaping and sizing the briquettes, and finally, they are dried to ensure they are solid and ready for use. The operating parameters used in this pilot study were chosen based on established literature [15,21,36] and confirmed through preliminary trials, using final calorific value and mechanical durability as the quality indicators. Figure 1 shows a summary of the briquetting production process for producing bio-briquettes from bio-waste.

4.1. Organic Waste Drying

The categorized organic waste undergoes a drying process to diminish its moisture levels; ensuring a low moisture level is crucial, as excessive moisture can result in decreased energy production and the emergence of detrimental emissions when burnt [14,15]. The acceptable moisture content is between 5 and 15%. In our experimental setup, forced drying was conducted using a convection oven maintained at 105 °C for 4 h to achieve the target 8% moisture content. Drying is done through natural drying or forced drying [14]. Natural drying is defined as a method where biomass is exposed to solar radiation and wind to allow material to be dried naturally without heating externally [7]. The time used in natural drying depends on the moisture content and the surrounding temperature and humidity. Organic waste moisture content should be reduced to the optimum level required for densification [16]. On the other hand, forced drying is defined as an industrial process to reduce the moisture content of biomass fuel down to a specified range of 5–10% suitable to start densification. Biomass is dried by contact with the hot internal sub-rounding process face of the cylinder [4]. Indirect dryers are usually used when the moisture content of the biomass is more than 50% [6,17]. Proper feedstock quality control, including moisture verification and contamination checks, is essential at this stage to ensure uniform drying and prevent issues such as mold growth, microbial decay, and reduced binding efficiency during later stages [18].

4.2. Organic Waste Size Reduction

Organic waste size reduction allows for easy handling, combustion and transportation [5,19,20]. Size reduction depends on the biomass, but it can be classified as chopped, chipped or ground. Organic waste is chopped into granules, and sticks are shredded; bulky biomass is chopped into small pieces to improve their workability and compactness, such as ground waste and bagasse [21]. Choosing the right particle size for the bio-briquettes manufacturer should result in high-quality briquettes. To ensure uniform compaction in this study, the biomass was processed through a hammer mill and sieved to a particle size of less than 5 mm.

4.3. Organic Waste Carbonization

The organic waste was first converted to biochar through the process of carbonization (pyrolysis), whereby the organic waste is heated in the absence of oxygen at medium temperatures of 300–800 °C to high temperatures of 800–1300 °C, which produces biochar, liquid, and gaseous products [22,23]. Pyrolysis is classified into two types: conventional or slow pyrolysis, in which carbonization and torrefaction processes occur [5,24,25]. This is used for briquette production because it produces a higher percentage of solid than gas and liquid [15,29]. Secondly, there is also the fast and fast pyrolysis, which produces liquid and gaseous products [27]. Optimal carbonization parameters, including temperature, heating rate, and residence time, are critical to achieving high fixed carbon content, reduced volatile matter, and improved calorific value [4]. Specifically, our optimized process utilized slow pyrolysis at a temperature of 400 °C with a uniform heating rate of 10 °C/min and a residence time of 45 min in an oxygen-free retort. Properly carbonized feedstock yields briquettes with higher calorific values and cleaner burning characteristics [23,28].

4.4. Binding Agents

The binding agents are added to stop the compressed bio-briquettes from eventually springing back and taking their former shape; the binding agent is required [1,28]. This agent can either be part of the material itself in the form of lignin, or it can be introduced to the process [25,27]. Most agricultural leftovers contain lignin, called sulfuric lignin, which fits the definition of a thermoplastic polymer since it starts to soften and flow at temperatures over 100 °C [24,29]. The important step in high-pressure briquetting is the lignin softening and subsequent cooling of the material while it is still under pressure [14,28]. Organic binders include molasses, coal tar, bitumen, starch and resin [1,30]. Inorganic binders, which include clay, cement, lime and sulfide liquor, can be used [5,31]. For the optimized production process employed in this study, molasses was selected as the organic binder due to its high availability and low cost across Sub-Saharan Africa. The optimal binder-to-feedstock ratio was experimentally determined to be 10% by weight. The binding agent was thoroughly mixed with the carbonized biomass at a constant temperature of 30 °C for 15 min prior to densification. This specific ratio and temperature were found to provide maximum particle adhesion without weakening the structural integrity or significantly diluting the caloric value of the final briquette.

4.5. Briquetting and Densification

Briquetting and densification are central to transforming loose, low-energy biomass like sawdust, straw and husks into compact and high-performance bio-briquettes. Through compression, these bio-briquettes become denser, more energy-rich and easier to store and transport, making them a practical alternative to coal or firewood. The process begins with preparing the feedstock by grinding it to a uniform size, adjusting moisture levels and sometimes adding natural binders for cohesion. The size of the crushed biomass plays a crucial role in determining the quality of the bio-briquettes, including resistance to breakage, moisture repulsion and shape retention [32]. To ensure high quality and machine efficiency, raw material particles must be consistently fine and smaller than the mold opening; uneven chunks can cause structural cracks and increase energy consumption during the pressing stage. Then, using hydraulic or screw presses, the biomass is shaped into solid briquettes whose quality depends on factors like particle size, pressure, temperature and mold design. Key briquetting parameters include applied pressure, residence time in the die and pressing speed. For this study, a hydraulic piston press operating at a compaction pressure of 200 MPa was utilized to ensure strong particle interlocking and high briquette durability. Higher pressure enhances bonding between particles and reduces voids, but excessive pressure may cause equipment wear. Poorly controlled densification leads to weak and brittle briquettes that disintegrate during storage or transport [33]. Post-processing steps like drying and optional carbonization further enhance durability and combustion efficiency. Briquetting supports climate goals by reducing emissions, boosts rural economies through job creation and provides cleaner, affordable energy. However, it requires careful energy management and technical precision. Poorly densified briquettes can break easily and discourage adoption. Ultimately, this technology plays a vital role in sustainable development by turning agricultural waste into a valuable energy resource [22]. The 85% mass conversion efficiency reported in this study accounts for material losses during drying, carbonization, and pressing, and this net yield is directly factored into the production cost of US$85 per ton presented in Table 3.

4.6. Briquettes Drying

Drying is a vital step in bio-briquettes production, ensuring that the compressed biomass achieves durability, energy efficiency and sustainability needed for real-world use [6,7]. After pressing, bio-briquettes retain moisture from feedstock and binders, which, if left unchecked, can lead to cracking, microbial decay and reduced combustion performance [9,17]. Drying them to an optimal 8–12% moisture content boosts their calorific value, allows for cleaner and hotter burning and improves shelf life and transportability. Techniques range from simple solar drying to advanced fluidized bed systems, with temperatures typically kept between 60 and 105 °C to avoid charring or structural damage. Factors like initial moisture, feedstock type and drying duration all influence the final quality. Effective drying requires careful control of drying time, temperature and airflow to ensure even moisture removal. Uneven drying causes inconsistent briquette quality, while excessively high temperatures may degrade biomass structure and reduce binding properties. Importantly, using renewable energy for drying, such as solar or biomass waste heat, can significantly reduce the carbon footprint of the process. When done right, drying transforms briquettes into a reliable, clean-burning fuel that supports climate goals and rural energy access.

4.7. Quality Control

Quality control in bio-briquette production is essential to ensure that the final product meets durability and safety standards. In the production process, feedstock is checked for moisture content, particle size and contamination to maintain uniformity, whereas carbonization is carefully monitored to achieve the desired carbon content and minimize emissions [22]. During densification and drying, compaction pressure, moisture levels and structural integrity are regularly inspected using pressure gauges, load cells and moisture analyzers. Finished bio-briquettes undergo rigorous testing, which includes calorific value determination using calorimeters, mechanical strength evaluation through compression and drop tests and proximate analysis to measure ash content and fixed carbon content. Key physical and mechanical properties assessed include bulk density, moisture content, porosity, compressive strength, impact resistance and durability. High-density briquettes contain more energy per unit volume and burn longer, while good impact resistance ensures they do not fracture when dropped [34]. Environmental and safety compliance is also verified through air quality and heat monitoring. Process monitoring techniques, including moisture meters, thermocouples, pressure gauges, gas analyzers and humidity sensors, are essential for maintaining product quality and operational efficiency. Increasingly, IoT devices and AI-driven analytics allow real-time monitoring and predictive maintenance [30]. Implementing these quality control measures ensures that the produced bio-briquettes are durable, efficient and safe for use while maintaining consistency and sustainability across production batches. High-quality bio-briquettes generally exhibit calorific values ranging between 15 and 25 MJ/kg, depending on the type of bio-waste, level of carbonization and moisture content.

5. Impacts of Briquettes Production on Sustainable Development and Climate Change Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa

Bio-briquette production plays an important role in building a more sustainable future; it is a cleaner and more efficient alternative to traditional fuels like firewood and coal, which makes a huge difference for both the environment and the communities that rely on it [34]. By using agricultural leftovers and forestry residues to make bio-briquettes, there is a reduction in deforestation and the amount of waste that ends up in landfills. In addition, bio-briquettes help lower greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality, which is especially important for households that cook indoors [29]. They also open doors for economic opportunities, like small-scale businesses and jobs in local communities. But to really make bio-briquettes a widespread solution, there are some key challenges like the cost of production, access to proper tools and technology and helping people understand the benefits.

5.1. Positive Impacts

To validate the sustainability claims, we performed a quantitative techno-economic and environmental assessment based on our pilot production setup. Economic viability is demonstrated in Table 3, while the environmental benefits are quantified in Table 4. To provide a quantitative comparison against traditional fuels, the study compared the specific energy content, bulk density and emission factors of our produced bio-briquettes against coal, firewood and charcoal. As shown in Table 5, while firewood has a lower heating value of 15–18 MJ/kg, the briquettes from this study offer a superior calorific value of 22–25 MJ/kg, which is comparable to low-grade coal with calorific values of 24–29 MJ/kg. Additionally, bio-briquettes contain less than 0.1% sulfur, representing an over 60% reduction in sulfur emissions compared to coal. This study is poised to bring meaningful progress toward sustainable development by directly impacting several key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG 1 aims to reduce energy poverty, SDG3 is for lower exposure to harmful health conditions, SDG 5 eases the burden on women who traditionally spend long hours gathering wood fuel, and SDG 7 expands access to clean and modern energy. Furthermore, SDG 13 supports efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and bolster community resilience to climate challenges, while SDG 15 also eases the strain on forests and biodiversity. Over its lifetime, the initiative is expected to directly benefit around 11.4 million people and indirectly reach over 30.6 million by 2030. The overarching goal is to promote clean cooking and widespread use of improved cookstoves driven by enterprise-based solutions that encourage large-scale, sustainable adoption. The study revealed that bio-briquette technology holds significant promise in curbing deforestation, tackling climate change and fostering job creation [35]. However, it also points to key obstacles such as weak market systems, restricted access to technology, widespread misconceptions within communities, and inadequate political backing [36]. To overcome these hurdles and accelerate growth in Zimbabwe’s bio-briquettes sector, the study proposes several strategic measures, most notably technical training and resource support to enhance production and product quality, alongside active engagement with policymakers to push for enabling policies and incentives [14]. Strengthening marketing and distribution networks is also highlighted as crucial. Ultimately, the analysis underscores Zimbabwe’s strong potential to scale up its biomass briquette industry, offering wide-ranging social, environmental, and economic advantages. Yet realizing this potential will depend on a coordinated, multi-stakeholder effort involving government bodies, researchers, development partners, NGOs and local communities.
Table 4 gives quantitative environmental impact metrics per ton of fuel with regard to bio-briquettes in comparison to traditional fuels. In terms of sulfur content, ash content and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the bio-briquettes proved to be eco-friendly in comparison to coal.
As shown in Table 4, the bio-briquettes produced in this study contain less than 0.1% sulfur, representing a 60–90% reduction compared to coal, while ash content is reduced by up to 80%. A comparative analysis of the bio-briquettes’ physicochemical properties against traditional fuels such as coal, firewood and charcoal are given in Table 5. The results indicate that bio-briquettes have heating values and other properties, such as fixed carbon, that allow them to be used as a source of eco fuel.

5.1.1. Environmental Benefits

Bio-briquettes offer a smart, eco-friendly alternative to fossil fuels. When burned, they release only as much CO2 as the original biomass absorbed while growing, making them carbon neutral [37]. What is even better is that these bio-briquettes are typically produced from organic waste materials that might otherwise end up in landfills, helping tackle global waste issues. As demand for renewable energy continues to rise, the uses for bio-briquettes have expanded alongside it. People are looking for green energy solutions that are both affordable and easy to use and bio-briquettes deliver on both fronts; that is why they are gaining renewed interest as a practical substitute for firewood and coal [7]. Bio-briquettes burn cleaner and hotter, cost less and are far easier to store and manage, minimizing deforestation, unlike traditional fuels like firewood and charcoal that rely on unsustainable logging practices, leading to deforestation and habitat loss. However, bio-briquettes use agricultural residues and other bio-waste materials, reducing the pressure on forests and conserving valuable ecosystems [38]. This helps maintain biodiversity and safeguard the carbon stored in forests.

5.1.2. Economic and Social Benefits

With the recognition of economic benefits, bio-briquettes have captured consumer interest, leading to a steady rise in demand. The push for renewable energy has opened even more opportunities for briquetting, which has driven prices upward and put pressure on suppliers to keep pace with an increasingly dynamic market. In many cases, this has made briquetting a highly profitable enterprise [39]. Furthermore, compacting biomass into bio-briquettes plays a vital role in how the fuel is managed and traded. This densification streamlines logistics, making transportation and storage easier, while also producing a uniform product with high energy value, an essential trait for turning biomass into a viable commercial fuel [31]. This study highlighted promising avenues for investors, researchers, policymakers, citizens and industrial sectors, particularly in exploring alternative energy sources derived from waste management and forest conservation [4]. Bio-briquettes offer notable advantages, such as reduced cooking times for households, efficient heating for industries and the creation of job opportunities [4].

5.1.3. Technological

Bio-briquetting technology offers a promising way to turn agricultural and forestry waste like sawdust, husks and bagasse into compact, transportable fuel, helping reduce open burning and methane (CH4) emissions while supporting circular economy principles. By increasing fuel density through high-pressure compaction, bio-briquettes burn more efficiently, and [33] innovations like controlled pyrolysis further cut harmful emissions such as carbon monoxide, improving both health and climate outcomes. Decentralized briquetting plants also promote rural industrialization and energy access, especially in off-grid areas, aligning with global clean energy goals. When integrated with biochar systems and powered by renewables, briquetting can become carbon-neutral or carbon-negative, storing carbon in soils and minimizing lifecycle emissions [5].

5.1.4. Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Forest Preservation

Bio-briquettes are labeled as carbon-neutral because the CO2 they emit during burning is approximately equal to the amount absorbed by the plants during their growth cycle [40]. This is a stark contrast to fossil fuels, which release ancient carbon stores into the atmosphere, intensifying climate change. This reduces the pressure to harvest trees for fuel, helping to conserve forests that are essential for absorbing carbon and supporting diverse ecosystems.

5.1.5. Improved Waste Utilization and Supporting Circular Economy

By transforming agricultural leftovers and organic debris into fuel, bio-briquettes provide an effective solution for managing waste. This not only prevents open burning, which contributes to air pollution, but also turns discarded materials into a practical energy source. The lifecycle of bio-briquettes aligns with the principles of a circular economy, where materials are continuously repurposed to minimize waste and optimize resource use. This model encourages sustainability and reduces dependence on finite resources [14].

5.2. Negative Impacts

Despite the positive environmental and economic attributes discussed in Section 5.1, the production and utilization of bio-briquettes are not without challenges. The following subsections outline the potential negative impacts associated with feedstock sourcing, production processes, lifecycle emissions and market adoption.

5.2.1. Deforestation and Unsustainable Biomass Sourcing

Using raw materials like wood chips, sawdust, or forest residues without sustainable practices can unintentionally drive deforestation [38]. Overharvesting agricultural by-products, e.g., straw and husks, may deplete soil nutrients, lower organic carbon levels, and contribute to land degradation, undermining the long-term sustainability of the agricultural system.

5.2.2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Air Pollution During Production

Briquetting processes such as drying, grinding and pressing rely on diesel or grid electricity. In areas with fossil-fuel-dominant energy sources, this increases the carbon footprint of production. Inefficient carbonization methods for producing bio-briquettes can emit CH4, carbon monoxide and other volatile compounds, diminishing their overall climate benefits [37]. Bio-briquettes made with unsuitable binders release hazardous pollutants when burned. Incomplete combustion of low-grade briquettes may emit fine particulate matter and black carbon, pose significant health risks and contribute to global warming [33].

5.2.3. Water Use and Resource Conflicts

Bio-briquetting operations consume significant water volumes, especially during binder mixing or carbonization, which can be a critical issue in water-scarce regions [41]. Biomass residues often have competing uses such as bioethanol production or animal bedding, leading to tensions between energy, agricultural and industrial needs.

5.2.4. Economic and Social Implications

Commercializing biomass for briquetting can limit rural access to affordable residues traditionally used for cooking, livestock feed or soil enrichment [40]. Without financial support or a viable market, briquetting ventures may struggle to remain economically viable, risking premature shutdowns and wasted investments.

5.2.5. Lifecycle Emissions and Net Impact

Transporting bulky, low-density biomass to centralized facilities is energy-intensive, reducing the overall climate advantage of the final briquette [41]. An LCA is crucial, as if briquettes replace sustainably sourced firewood instead of coal, the net reduction in greenhouse gases may be minimal or even negative.

5.2.6. Technical and Adoption Barriers

Bio-briquettes with poor physical properties such as low density, high moisture, or excessive ash perform inefficiently and may deter user adoption. Weak supply chains and an absence of enforced quality standards can erode consumer confidence, slowing the transition to cleaner fuels [36].

5.3. Potential Climate Drawbacks of Bio-Briquettes

While bio-briquettes are often seen as a greener alternative to fossil fuels, their environmental footprint can still be significant. Various stages in their lifecycle from raw material sourcing to final combustion can introduce climate-related concerns [31].

5.3.1. Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Airborne Particulates

Despite their reputation for being carbon-neutral, the manufacturing process, especially under high-temperature carbonization, can emit substantial amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, challenging the net-zero emission claims. Binders and additives used during production emit volatile organic compounds and other toxic substances during combustion, posing risks to both air quality and public health [29]. Burning bio-briquettes can generate fine particulate matter, which not only affects respiratory health but may also influence atmospheric conditions and contribute to regional air pollution.

5.3.2. Dependence on Non-Renewable Energy

Some production methods rely on fossil-based energy sources for machinery and transportation, which can undermine the environmental advantages of bio-briquettes [44].

5.3.3. Unsustainable Biomass Harvesting and Land Use Impacts

If the biomass used is not sourced responsibly, it can lead to deforestation and forest degradation, reducing the carbon absorption capacity of landscapes and harming biodiversity. Growing crops specifically for briquette production can alter land use patterns, potentially releasing stored carbon soil and disturbing natural habitats, which is a significant consideration in lifecycle assessments [14]. Moving raw materials and finished briquettes over long distances can generate substantial emissions that offset some of the climate benefits, highlighting the importance of localized, decentralized production models.

6. Conclusions

This study successfully provides a comprehensive framework for converting organic waste into bio-briquettes in sub-Saharan Africa. Through a detailed quantitative analysis of six major regional feedstocks—sawdust, rice husks, bagasse, groundnut shells, palm kernel shells and municipal organic waste—we established that these materials possess suitable physicochemical properties for briquetting. Applying optimized production parameters, specifically, drying at 105 °C to <8% moisture, particle size reduction to <5 mm, slow pyrolysis at 400 °C for 45 min, 10% molasses binder and densification at 200 MPa resulted in an 85% mass conversion efficiency. The resulting bio-briquettes exhibited a calorific value of 22–25 MJ/kg, comparable to low-grade coal, with a bulk density of 600–800 kg/m3 and significantly lower ash (2–4%) and sulfur (<0.1%) content compared to traditional fuels. Techno-economic analysis confirmed strong financial viability, with a production cost of US130 per ton, yielding a net profit of US$45 per ton. Furthermore, the environmental assessment demonstrated the potential to mitigate 2.5 tCO2e per ton of coal displaced, reduce sulfur emissions by over 60% and minimize deforestation by valorizing waste. However, the industry faces notable adoption barriers, including high initial capital costs for machinery, seasonal feedstock variability and the need for standardized quality control frameworks. To overcome these hurdles, we recommend specific policy interventions, implementing tax waivers on briquetting machinery to support SMEs, establishing mandatory national quality standards (bulk density > 1.0 g/cm3, moisture < 10%), and integrating bio-briquette production into national circular economy frameworks. By acting on these recommendations, Sub-Saharan Africa can transform a growing waste crisis into a driver for rural job creation, energy independence and significant climate change mitigation, directly supporting SDGs 7, 13 and 15.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.B. and M.M.M.; methodology, R.B. and M.M.M.; validation, W.S. and C.M.; formal analysis, M.M.M.; investigation, R.B. and M.M.M.; resources, C.M. and W.S.; data curation, C.M.; writing—original draft preparation, R.B.; writing—review and editing, M.M.M., W.S. and C.M.; visualization, R.B.; supervision, M.M.M., C.M. and W.S.; project administration, M.M.M.; funding acquisition, C.M. 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 data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data is not publicly available due to privacy and confidentiality agreements with participating farmers and waste managers.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the farmers and waste management personnel in South Africa, Kenya, Ghana, and Zimbabwe who participated in this study. The authors also acknowledge the technical support provided by the Sustainable Technology Environmental Management Company and the University of South Africa.

Conflicts of Interest

Roseline Bhanda is employed by Sustainable Tech Environmental Management Company as a researcher. This work was solely for research purposes only.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AIArtificial Intelligence
CH4Methane
CO2Carbon dioxide
GHGGreenhouse gases
IoTInternet of Things
MJ/kgMegajoules per kilogram
SDGsSustainable Development Goal

References

  1. Jekayinfa, S.O.; Orisaleye, J.I.; Pecenka, R. An assessment of potential resources for biomass energy in Nigeria. Resources 2020, 9, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Dinesha, P.; Kumar, S.; Rosen, M.A. Biomass briquettes as an alternative fuel: A comprehensive review. Energy Technol. 2019, 7, 1801011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Pode, R.; Diouf, B.; Pode, G. Sustainable rural electrification using rice husk biomass energy: A case study of Cambodia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 44, 530–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Adeleke, O.; Bamisaye, A.; Adegoke, K.A.; Adegoke, I.A.; Jen, T.C. Optimizing the energy values of solid biofuel through acidic pre-treatment: An evolutionary-based neuro-fuzzy modelling and feature importance analysis. Fuel 2025, 380, 133182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Talaat, M.; Alblawi, A.; Tayseer, M.; Elkholy, M.H. FPGA control system technology for integrating the PV/wave/FC hybrid system using ANN optimized by MFO techniques. Sust. Cities Soc. 2022, 80, 103825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Bot, B.V.; Axaopoulos, P.J.; Sakellariou, E.I.; Sosso, O.T.; Tamba, J.G. Energetic and economic analysis of biomass briquettes production from agricultural residues. Appl. Energy 2022, 321, 119430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Yunusa, S.U.; Mensah, E.; Preko, K.; Narra, S.; Saleh, A.; Sanfo, S. A comprehensive review on the technical aspects of biomass briquetting. Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 2024, 14, 21619–21644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Lubwama, M.; Birungi, A.; Nuwamanya, A.; Yiga, V.A. Characteristics of rice husk biochar briquettes with municipal solid waste cassava, sweet potato and matooke peelings as binders. Mater. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2024, 13, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Sanchez-Roque, Y.; Orantes-Flores, H.J.; López-de-Paz, P.; Pérez-Luna, Y.C.; Canseco-Pérez, M.A.; Zenteno-Carballo, A.G. Biomass briquettes: Raw material, technologies and densification parameters, quality and future challenges. Sci. Agropecu. 2025, 16, 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. ASTM D4442-20; Standard Test Methods for Direct Moisture Content Measurement of Wood and Wood-Based Materials. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020. Available online: https://store.astm.org/d4442-20.html (accessed on 23 August 2026).
  11. ASTM D3174-12(2018) e1; Standard Test Method for Ash in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke from Coal. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018. Available online: https://store.astm.org/standards/d3174 (accessed on 23 August 2026).
  12. ASTM D5865/D5865M-19; Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of Coal and Coke. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2019. Available online: https://contitesting.com/astm-d5865/ (accessed on 23 August 2026).
  13. ASTM D4239-18e1; Standard Test Method for Sulfur in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke Using High-Temperature Tube Furnace Combustion. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018. Available online: https://store.astm.org/d4239-18e01.html (accessed on 23 August 2026).
  14. Manyuchi, M.M.; Mbohwa, C.; Mutusva, T.N.; Stinner, W. An analysis of the effect of temperature and pressure on bio pellets physicochemical properties. S. Afr. J. Chem. Eng. 2025, 54, 29–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Fawzy, S.; Osman, A.I.; Doran, J.; Rooney, D.W. Strategies for mitigation of climate change: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2020, 18, 2069–2094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Mansyur, S.; Nugroho, A.P. Proximate analysis of rice husk waste briquettes and dried leaves as alternative fuel. J. Engine Energi Manufaktur Dan Mater. 2025, 9, 206–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Rashif, M.N.; Hartini, S.; Sari, D.P.; Ramadan, B.S.; Matsumoto, T.; Balasbaneh, A.T. Life cycle assessment of biomass waste briquettes as renewable energy. Glob. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 2025, 11, 207–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Soeherman, G.P.; Putri, P.G.; Joen, D.A.Z.; Indrawan, I.; Pratiwi, N. Characterization of Biobriquette from Carbonized Durian Peel Using Coconut Shell as the Binder. Asian J. Appl. Res. Community Dev. Empower. 2023, 7, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Waheed, M.A.; Akogun, O.A.; Enweremadu, C.C. An overview of torrefied bioresource briquettes: Quality-influencing parameters, enhancement through torrefaction and applications. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2022, 9, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  20. Silva, D.A.L.; Filleti, R.A.P.; Musule, R.; Matheus, T.T.; Freire, F. A systematic review and life cycle assessment of biomass pellets and briquettes production in Latin America. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 157, 112042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Ferronato, N.; Mendoza, I.J.C.; Portillo, M.A.G.; Conti, F.; Torretta, V. Are waste-based briquettes alternative fuels in developing countries? A critical review. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2022, 68, 220–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Velusamy, S.; Kasilingam, K.; Ayyasamy, T.; Shanmugamoorthy, M.; Subramaniam, N.K.; Sivakumar, V.; Subbaiyan, A. Energy Harvesting from Agro Biomass in the Form of Solid Briquettes and Its Combustion Characteristics: A Review. Solid Fuel Chem. 2026, 60, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Obi, O.F.; Pecenka, R.; Clifford, M.J. A review of biomass briquette binders and quality parameters. Energies 2022, 15, 2426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Zhang, X.; He, Z.; Wu, Y.; Yu, W.; Liu, T. Corn-distillers-derived hard carbon: A sustainable high-rate, long-life anode for sodium-ion batteries. Acta Phys.-Chim. Sin. 2025, 41, 100199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Fikri, E.; Sartika, C. Study on the Use and Composition of Bio-Charcoal Briquettes Made of Organic Waste. J. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 19, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  26. Nunes, L.J.R.; Matias, J.C.O.; Catalão, J.P.S. Biomass combustion systems: A review on the physical and chemical properties of the ashes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 53, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Ibitoye, S.E.; Mahamood, R.M.; Jen, T.C.; Loha, C.; Akinlabi, E.T. Design and fabrication of biomass densification machine for teaching and research purposes. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2024, 14, 24253–24264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Sengar, A.; Sharma, V.; Joshi, K.; Agrawal, R. A fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process based analysis for prioritization of enablers to pine briquettes-based energy generation. Biomass Bioenergy 2022, 168, 106580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Olugbade, T.O.; Ojo, O.T. Biomass torrefaction for the production of high-grade solid biofuels: A review. BioEnergy Res. 2020, 13, 999–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Marreiro, H.M.P.; Peruchi, R.S.; Lopes, R.M.B.P.; Yamaji, F.M.; Silva, D.A.L. Empirical studies on biomass briquette production: A literature review. Energies 2021, 14, 8320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Nakimuli, C.N.; Kaggwa, F.; De Greef, J.; Okot, D.K.; Blondeau, J.; Kawuma, S. Review of machine learning applications for predicting the quality biomass briquettes for sustainable and low-carbon energy solutions. Green Energy Resour. 2025, 3, 100130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. He, H.; Wang, Y.; Sun, Y.; Sun, W.; Wu, K. From raw material powder to solid fuel pellet: A state-of-the-art review of biomass densification. Biomass Bioenergy 2024, 186, 107271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Eling, J.; Okot, D.K.; Menya, E.; Atima, M.R. Densification of Raw and Torrefied Biomass: A Review; Mbarara University of Science and Technology: Mbarara, Uganda, 2024; Available online: http://ir.must.ac.ug/handle/123456789/3588 (accessed on 23 August 2026).
  34. Roman, K.; Grzegorzewska, E. The comparison of physical and chemical properties of pellets and briquettes from hemp (Cannabis sativa L.). Energies 2024, 17, 2210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Bot, B.V.; Sosso, O.T.; Tamba, J.G.; Lekane, E.; Bikai, J.; Ndame, M.K. Preparation and characterization of biomass briquettes made from banana peels, sugarcane bagasse, coconut shells and rattan waste. Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 2023, 13, 7937–7946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Mulyana, C.; Suryaningsih, S. Integrated model of utilization of organic waste into bio briquettes with community empowerment in West Java. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 550, 012007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Alanya-Rosenbaum, S.; Bergman, R.D. Life-cycle impact and exergy-based resource use assessment of torrefied and non-torrefied briquette use for heat and electricity generation. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 918–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Saba, S.; El Bachawati, M.; Malek, M. Cradle to grave Life Cycle Assessment of Lebanese biomass briquettes. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 253, 119851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Nganko, J.M.; Koffi, E.P.M.; Toure, A.O.; N’Guessan, Y.A.; Kouassi, E.A. Comparative assessment of pollutant emissions between biofuel briquettes and charcoal: Implications for domestic cooking fuel selection. Carbon Res. 2025, 4, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Kizito, G. Assessment of the socio-economic and technical aspects of biomass waste derived briquettes for energy supply in Uganda. Master’s Thesis, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda, 2024. Available online: https://makir.mak.ac.ug/handle/10570/14135 (accessed on 23 August 2026).
  41. Sarker, T.R.; Nanda, S.; Dalai, A.K.; Meda, V. A review of torrefaction technology for upgrading lignocellulosic biomass to solid biofuel. BioEnergy Res. 2021, 14, 645–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Mwampamba, T.H.; Owen, M.; Pigaht, M. Opportunities, challenges and way forward for the charcoal briquette industry in Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2013, 17, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Kpalo, S.Y.; Zainuddin, M.F.; Abd Manaf, L.; Roslan, A.M. A review of technical and economic aspects of biomass briquetting. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Granado, M.P.P.; Suhogusoff, Y.V.M.; Santos, L.R.O.; Yamaji, F.M.; De Conti, A.C. Effects of pressure densification on strength and properties of cassava waste briquettes. Renew. Energy 2021, 167, 306–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Zinla, B.T.D.; Yobouet, Y.A.; Trokourey, A. Life Cycle Assessment of cashew nutshell briquettes produced in Côte d’Ivoire. Open J. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2411–2430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Eesp 42 00026 g001
Figure 1. Bio-briquette production process from bio-waste valorization (this study).
Figure 1. Bio-briquette production process from bio-waste valorization (this study).
Eesp 42 00026 g001
Table 1. Physicochemical Properties of Selected Organic Feedstocks.
Table 1. Physicochemical Properties of Selected Organic Feedstocks.
FeedstockMoisture %Volatile Matter (%)Fixed Carbon (%)Ash (%)Carbon (C) (%)Hydrogen (H) (%)Nitrogen (N) (%)Oxygen (O) (%)Lignin (%)Calorific Value (MJ/kg)
Sawdust8.278.012.31.548.06.00.543.028.018.9
Rice Husks10.565.24.519.841.05.00.433.025.014.2
Groundnut Shells9.070.517.33.250.05.50.840.030.018.1
Bagasse50.075.019.52.548.06.00.343.022.017.5
Table 2. Major feedstocks for bio-briquette production in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Table 2. Major feedstocks for bio-briquette production in Sub-Saharan Africa.
FeedstockSeasonal AvailabilityMoisture (%)Ash (%)Calorific Value (MJ/kg)Potential AdvantagesMain LimitationsReferences
SawdustYear-round8–101–218–19High lignin (self-binding), easy to processRequires collection from sawmills; high transport costs if centralized.[7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]
Rice HusksSeasonal (harvest)10–1218–2014–15Massively abundant, very cheap High silica content causes clinker formation
requires high-temperature combustion.		[16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]
BagasseSeasonal (sugarcane) 45–502–317–18High energy content, abundant in sugar-producing regionsExtremely high moisture requires intensive drying; often used internally in sugar mills.[5,7,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]
Groundnut ShellsSeasonal8–103–418–19High fixed carbon, good binding propertiesLimited to harvest seasons; requires bulk storage for year-round production.[4]
Palm Kernel ShellsYear-round10–151–220–22Very high calorific value, low ash, hard and durableHighly sought after industrial export, creating local market competition.[41]
Municipal Organic WasteContinuous60–8010–2010–15Constant supply directly solves urban waste management crisesVery high moisture, high contamination (plastics, glass) requiring rigorous sorting and cleaning[6,17]
Table 3. Techno-economic analysis per ton of bio-briquettes produced.
Table 3. Techno-economic analysis per ton of bio-briquettes produced.
Cost/Revenue ItemAmount (USD)
Direct Production Costs
Feedstock Collection & Transport$20.00
Electricity, Machinery & Maintenance$30.00
Binder (Molasses) & Labor$35.00
Total Cost per Ton$85.00
Revenue
Local Market Selling Price per Ton$130.00
Net Profit per Ton$45.00
Table 4. Quantitative environmental impact metrics (per ton of fuel).
Table 4. Quantitative environmental impact metrics (per ton of fuel).
MetricTraditional CoalBio-Briquette (This Study)Environmental BenefitMeasurement Method
Sulfur Content0.8–1.5%<0.1%60–90% reduction in acid rain[13] (Ultimate/Bomb Calorimetry)
Ash Content10–20%2–4%80% reduction in ash waste[11] (Proximate Analysis)
CO2 Emissions (kg CO2e/MJ)~0.095~0.000 carbon neutralNet-zero climate impactLiterature-based LCA calculation [42,43,44,45]
Deforestation ImpactHigh (mining)Low (waste valorization)Preserves local forestsQualitative assessment based on feedstock sourcing
Table 5. Comparative fuel properties: bio-briquettes vs. traditional fuels.
Table 5. Comparative fuel properties: bio-briquettes vs. traditional fuels.
PropertyUnitCoalFirewoodCharcoalBio-Briquette (This Study)
Calorific valueMJ/kg24–2915–1828–3222–25
Bulk Densitykg/m3700–900200–400200–300600–800
Sulfur Content%0.8–1.5<0.1<0.1<0.1
Ash Content %%10–201–32–52–4
Emission Factor(CO2) g CO2~95~80 ~70 ~0 (Net neutral)
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

Bhanda, R.; Manyuchi, M.M.; Stinner, W.; Mbohwa, C. The Impacts of Producing Bio-Briquettes Made from Organic Waste as an Alternative Source of Fuel. Environ. Earth Sci. Proc. 2026, 42, 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/eesp2026042026

AMA Style

Bhanda R, Manyuchi MM, Stinner W, Mbohwa C. The Impacts of Producing Bio-Briquettes Made from Organic Waste as an Alternative Source of Fuel. Environmental and Earth Sciences Proceedings. 2026; 42(1):26. https://doi.org/10.3390/eesp2026042026

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bhanda, Roseline, Musaida Mercy Manyuchi, Walter Stinner, and Charles Mbohwa. 2026. "The Impacts of Producing Bio-Briquettes Made from Organic Waste as an Alternative Source of Fuel" Environmental and Earth Sciences Proceedings 42, no. 1: 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/eesp2026042026

APA Style

Bhanda, R., Manyuchi, M. M., Stinner, W., & Mbohwa, C. (2026). The Impacts of Producing Bio-Briquettes Made from Organic Waste as an Alternative Source of Fuel. Environmental and Earth Sciences Proceedings, 42(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/eesp2026042026

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop