School of Chemical and

Process Engineering

CAPE3401
Laboratory Report, 2023/24

Student Name Sari Miari

Student ID 201689737
Experiment No. 2&3
Experiment Title Bomb Calorimeter and
Proximate and Ultimate
Analysis
Date of Experiment 16/11/2023
Date of Submission 14/12/2023
The author confirms that this report is their own work, while
acknowledging the help of their group in obtaining the
experimental data presented within.

Signature: .........................................................
Abstract
1
This laboratory experiment employed proximate analysis to assess the moisture, ash, mineral
matter, volatile matter, and fixed carbon contents of both coal and biomass samples. Subsequently,
ultimate analysis was utilised to determine the elemental compositions, including carbon, hydrogen,
nitrogen, sulphur, and oxygen. The Gross Calorific Value (GCV) was calculated using Dulong's
formula based on the obtained elemental compositions. On air-dried basis the GCV of biomass
calculated was 13.9607 MJ kg-1, and the GCV of the coal sample was calculated to be 12.3015 MJ
kg-1. To further refine the GCV, a bomb calorimeter was employed to measure the GCV. Titration
was performed to correct the GCV for the acids formed during the combustion process. On air-dried
basis the corrected GCV of biomass calculated was 16.3680 MJ kg-1, and the corrected GCV of the
coal sample was calculated to be 25.7646 MJ kg-1. The factors influencing the difference in GCV
calculated from proximate analysis and the bomb calorimeter are discussed. Furthermore, the GCV
was calculated on different basis including dry basis, dry, ash-free basis, dry, mineral matter-free
basis, and moist mineral matter-free basis. This is to see how different measurement bases influence
the GCV. The comprehensive analysis of both proximate and ultimate parameters, along with the
corrected GCV, provides a thorough understanding of the fuel characteristics and energy potential
of the examined coal and biomass samples.

Nomenclature
Symbol Quantity SI Unit
2
 Ash Ash content of sample wt %
FC Fixed carbon content wt %
GCV Gross caloric value MJ kg-1
MM Mineral matter content wt %
Moisture Total moisture content of sample wt %
NCV Net caloric value MJ kg-1
QN Correction for the formation of nitric acid J
QS Correction for the formation of sulphuric acid J
V1 Volume of Ba(OH)2 solution required to titrate the bomb washings mL
V2 Volume of HCL solution required to titrate the bomb washings mL
VM Volatile matter content wt %
Weight Sample weight g
m1 Mass of empty crucible and lid g
m2 Mass of crucible, lid and sample before heating g
m3 Mass of crucible, lid and sample after heating g
wC Carbon content wt %
wH Hydrogen content wt %
wO Oxygen content wt %
wS Sulphur content wt %
ΔT Change in temperature °C

Subscripts and superscripts

Symbol Quantity
ad Air-dried basis
d Dry basis
daf Dry, ash free basis
dmmf Dry, mineral matter-free basis
mmmf Moist, mineral matter-free basis

Table of Content
s
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................1
3
2. Literature Review.......................................................................................................................2
3. Methodology................................................................................................................................4
3.1 Proximate Analysis for Moisture Content.............................................................................4
3.2 Proximate Analysis for Ash Content......................................................................................4
3.3 Proximate Analysis for Volatile Matter Content...................................................................4
3.4 Ultimate analysis.......................................................................................................................5
3.5 Bomb Calorimeter....................................................................................................................5
3.6 Bomb Calorimeter Correction for Acids................................................................................6
4. Results..............................................................................................................................................7
4.1 Proximate Analysis Results on Air-Dried Basis....................................................................7
4.1.1 Moisture Content Calculations........................................................................................7
4.1.2 Ash Content Calculations.................................................................................................7
4.1.3 Volatile Matter Content Calculations..............................................................................8
4.1.4 Fixed Carbon Content Calculations................................................................................8
4.2 Proximate Analysis Results on Dry Basis...............................................................................8
4.3 Proximate Analysis Results on Dry, Ash-Free Basis.............................................................9
4.4 Proximate Analysis Results on Dry, Mineral Matter-Free Basis.........................................9
4.5 Ultimate Analysis Results......................................................................................................10
4.5.1 Ultimate Analysis Air-Dried Basis Calculations...........................................................10
4.5.2 Ultimate Analysis Dry Basis Calculations.....................................................................10
4.5.3 Ultimate Analysis Dry, Ash-Free Basis Calculations...................................................10
4.5.4 Ultimate Analysis Dry, Mineral Matter-Free Basis Calculations...............................11
4.5.5 Ultimate Analysis Moist, Mineral Matter-Free Basis Calculations for Coal.............11
4.6 Bomb Calorimeter Results....................................................................................................11
4.6.1 Bomb Calorimeter Air-Dried Basis Results and GCV Calculations..........................11
4.6.2 Bomb Calorimeter GCV Calculations on All Basis.....................................................12
4.6.3 Bomb Calorimeter NCV Calculations...........................................................................12
5. Discussion..................................................................................................................................13
5.1 Proximate Analysis.................................................................................................................13
5.1.1 Moisture Content.............................................................................................................13
5.1.2 Ash Content......................................................................................................................15
5.1.3 Volatile Matter Content..................................................................................................16
5.1.4 Fixed Carbon Content.....................................................................................................17
5.2 Ultimate Analysis....................................................................................................................18
5.3 Classification of coal...............................................................................................................18
5.3.1 Seyler Classification of coal............................................................................................18
5.3.2 BS ISO 11760 Classification of coal...............................................................................19
5.3.3 ASTM D338 Classification of coal.................................................................................19
5.4 Base Measurement Influence on Fuel Properties and Classification................................20
5.5 Bomb Calorimeter..................................................................................................................20
4
 5.5.1 Difference between uncorrected GCV of coal and biomass........................................20
5.5.2 GCV Acid Formation Correction..................................................................................20
5.5.3 Influence of measurement base on GCV.......................................................................21
5.5.4 GCV of the coal sample compared to other coals of different ranks..........................21
5.5.5 GCV of the biomass sample compared to other types of biomass..............................21
6. Conclusion.................................................................................................................................22
7. References.................................................................................................................................22

1. Introduction
Coal is a non-renewable energy source, it is a non-clastic sedimentary rock, which is the fossilised
remains of plants (Mahmut, 2021). It predominantly composes of carbon, but also contains different
elements such as hydrogen, sulphur, nitrogen and oxygen (Mahmut, 2021). Depending on the type
5
of plant material, varying degrees of carbonisation, and the presence of impurities, different ranks
of coal are formed, including lignite, sub-bituminous coal, bituminous coal and anthracite (Meij,
1997). Hilt’s law states that the deeper the coal, the higher its rank (composes of more carbon),
because in deeper depths, the material encounters greater temperatures and pressure, and more plant
debris is transformed into carbon (Civek et al, 2008). On the other hand, biomass is a renewable
energy source which is derived from organic material, such as wood shavings from trees. It also
mainly composes of carbon and incorporates other essential elements.
The elemental composition of fuels directly influence their combustion characteristics. The higher
the hydrogen, carbon and/or sulphur contents, the higher the calorific value, which is a measure of
energy released upon combustion. The calorific value of a fuel can be measured using an instrument
called a bomb calorimeter. Hydrogen has the highest impact on the HHV while sulphur has the
lowest impact (Kharasch, 1929). Moreover, although nitrogen can combust into NOx, its impact on
the HHV is negligible (Kharasch, 1929), and O2 does not combust and thus has no impact at all on
the HHV. However, a high content of N2 and/or O2 can effectively dilute the energy content of the
fuel, leading to a lower HHV. Furthermore, combustion of fuels can release various pollutants such
as CO2, SO2 and NOx. The extent of these emissions is influenced by the fuel’s composition. For
instance, coal has a high sulphur content thus it produces more SO2 upon combustion. Therefore,
methods such as Ultimate Analysis is utilised in industry to determine the elemental carbon,
hydrogen, nitrogen, sulphur and oxygen present in a sample of solid fuel.
Moreover, a fuel’s physical properties affects its suitability for use in industry, this includes the
moisture, ash, mineral matter and volatile matter contents. The moisture content decreases the
calorific value, this is because the energy used to evaporate the water is lost as heat, reducing the
amount of energy available for useful work (Demirbas, 2007). Moreover, higher moisture content
means lower net energy density by mass, owing to the weight of the water (Huangfu, 2014). This
means that transport is also less efficient as a significant proportion of the load is water.
Furthermore, the ash content, which is the residue left after combustion, can negatively impact the
operation of boilers and furnaces due to erosive effects (National geographic, 2022), making fuels
with higher ash content less desirable. Moving on, a higher content of mineral matter decreases the
calorific value. This is due to endothermic reactions of decomposition of the mineral matter
(Shirazi, 1995). Finally, the volatile matter (VM) content aids the ignition of the fuel. Moreover,
VM consists of components that can be readily vaporised and combusted, contributing to increase
the calorific value (Bowen & Irwin, 2008). And therefore, proximate analysis is applied to
determine those physical properties of the fuel.
In this experiment, proximate and ultimate analysis will be utilised to characterise a coal and a
biomass sample. Furthermore, a bomb calorimeter will be used to determine the calorific value of
the 2 solid fuels, while also considering the correction value for the formation of acid gases in the
bomb calorimeter. Comprehending the physical properties and elemental composition of fuels is
paramount in the industrial context, as the inherent characteristics of a fuel play a pivotal role in
determining its suitability for diverse industrial processes and exert a substantial influence on the
overall design of these processes. Moreover, the elemental composition and physical properties of a
fuel play a pivotal role in determining its calorific value, thereby impacting the efficiency and
energy output of industrial operations.
2. Literature Review
As of 2022, coal contributed only 2% to the UK's electricity generation (Macdonald, 2023),
reflecting a deliberate reduction in reliance due to its high carbon intensity and air pollution
concerns. The UK government aims to limit global temperature rise by 1.5 ℃ by phasing out coal
6
in electricity generation (Gov.uk, 2021). In contrast, biomass generated 11% of the UK's electricity
in 2022 (Gov.uk, 2023). Biomass is considered carbon-neutral as plants absorb CO2 during their
lifetime via photosynthesis (Gaille, 2020). Additionally, biomass is processed from waste products
which reduces landfill (BBC, 2022).
Hydrogen, carbon and sulphur contents affect the fuel’s energy density directly, this can be seen
from Dulong’s formula below (Sath, 2021):

( (
q V , gr , ad=0.3386 × wC , ad + 1.444 × w H ,ad − ))
wO ,ad
8
+0.09428 × wS ,ad [Equation1]

Equation 1 reveals the contributions to gross calorific value: hydrogen (144.4 MJ/kg), carbon (33.86
MJ/kg), and sulphur (9.428 MJ/kg). These values are divided by 100 as they are multiplied by the
wt % of their elemental compositions. These constant values represent the weighted heat of
combustion of each constituent element (Atkins & Escudier, 2013). Furthermore, the subtraction of
hydrogen by oxygen/8 in Dulong’s formula is specifically related to the combustion process of
hydrogen. When hydrogen burns, 2 atoms of hydrogen combine with 1 atom of oxygen present in
the fuel to form water, meaning that 1 g hydrogen reacts with 8 g of oxygen to give 9 g of water
(Panigrahi, 2020), thus it is subtracted from the total hydrogen. Unlike hydrogen, carbon and
sulphur directly combine with oxygen from the air, eliminating the need to subtract oxygen content
when calculating their contribution to gross calorific value (Hosokai et al, 2016).
It can be seen from Dulong’s formula that hydrogen has the biggest impact on increasing the GCV,
and when hydrogen burns it forms water vapour, which is environmentally benign compared to
other GHGs like CO2 because water vapour does not accumulate in the atmosphere and contribute
to long-term global warming. Instead, it’s part of a fast, natural cycle where it’s regularly condensed
and precipitated out as rain (Gencer, 2021). Therefore, fuels with higher hydrogen content are
preferred. However, higher hydrogen content also increases the risk of flammability and detonation
(Abohamzeh, 2021), introducing safety risks in storage and transportation. Depending on the coal’s
rank, coal can have 0.8-7.5 wt % of hydrogen on dry basis (United Nations, 1998), while biomass
usually has 6 wt % (Baxter et al, 2005).
Moreover, higher carbon content in coal also leads to a higher GCV. However, it also leads to
higher CO2 emissions upon combustion, contributing to global warming (Tajeddin, 2019). Coal
usually composes of 40-98 wt % of carbon on dry basis depending on its rank (Carbon coefficients,
2012). While biomass composes of 45 wt % (Clarke, 2011).
Finally, sulphur also increases the calorific value of a fuel. However, sulphur combusts into sulphur
dioxide which contributes to air pollution and acid rain, which can damage buildings, monuments
and crops (Fino, 2019). Moreover, SO2 can lead to the corrosion of equipment in the power plant.
(Merriman, 2020). Therefore, the risks and problems that the sulphur presence introduces outweighs
its benefits in increasing the fuel’s calorific value. Thus, fuels with a lower sulphur content are
preferred. Coal’s sulphur content varies from 0.5-10 wt % (Pak et al, 2016). In May 2021 in the
UK, it became unlawful to sell domestic coal that contains over 2 wt % of sulphur (Gov.uk, 2020).
However, for coal used in power stations, the focus has been more on controlling the emissions
after combustion using desulphurisation units which capture SOx from the flue gas. (Cheremisinoff,
2012). Moreover, biomass usually composes of less than 0.1 wt % (Forest research, 2022).
Ultimate analysis is a crucial method for determining the elemental composition of solid fuels. It
works by completely combusting the substance and analyse the combustion products, it determines
the carbon, hydrogen, sulphur, and nitrogen content (Ronsse, et al 2015). While the oxygen
composition is indirectly estimated, by assuming that the remainder weight percentage is due to
7
oxygen. (Mahajan, 1984). This method is essential for understanding the chemical composition of
industrial fuels, aiding in optimising their use and assessing their environmental impact.
Table 1. Shows ultimate analysis results of different coal ranks and biomass samples (Baxter et al, 2005)

A bomb calorimeter can also be used to measure the GCV of a fuel. The process involves burning a
precise measure of the fuel sample in a sealed container, known as a bomb, which is immersed in a
water bath, the bomb is pressurised with oxygen to ensure complete combustion, and an electric
ignition is used to start the combustion reaction, and the heat released from the combustion reaction
raises the temperature of the water bath (Babu, 2019). This temperature change is measured and can
be compared to a reference sample in order determine the GCV (Babu, 2019).
Moving on, moisture content decreases the calorific value, this is because the energy used to
evaporate the water is lost as heat (Demirbas, 2007). In solid fuels, moisture can be present in three
main forms. The first is surface moisture, which is acquired during storage and cleaning, this type
of moisture is usually the easiest to remove through drying (Mahapatra, 2015). The second form
is inherent moisture, which is trapped within the capillary pores of the solid fuel, it is more
difficult to remove than surface moisture and can affect the combustion efficiency of the fuel
(Mahapatra, 2015). The third form is loosely bonded combined moisture, which includes hydrates
and other forms of moisture that are loosely bonded to the fuel, while not as easily removed as
surface moisture, this type of moisture can often be reduced through proper storage and handling
(Clemens, 1996). Each of these forms of moisture can impact the fuel’s combustion efficiency,
handling, and storage characteristics, making the understanding and management of moisture
content in solid fuels an important aspect of fuel utilisation. The moisture content is determined by
heating a sample to 105 °C under nitrogen until the weight becomes stable (Niksa, 2020).
Ash content in fuel represents inorganic, non-combustible material. Higher ash content can reduce
the GCV and impair boiler fan efficiency (Woodyard, 2009). Coal ash primarily comprises silica,
alumina, iron oxide, calcium oxide, and alkali oxides, and biomass ash contains similar oxides, but
the proportions may vary, with higher levels of alkali oxide and silica (Bhatt et al., 2019). Improper
ash management can lead to environmental pollution in groundwater and air (US EPA, 2023).
Determining ash content involves heating coal samples to over 800 °C, while for biomass, where
alkali oxides are volatile, determination is conducted at 550 °C (Reinmöller, 2023).
Finally, volatile matter in fuels refer to the components of the fuel, except for moisture, which are
liberated at high temperature (900 °C) in the absence of air (Bowen & Irwin, 2008). This is usually
a mixture of short- and long-chain hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, tars and some sulphur
(Bowen & Irwin, 2008). The presence and quantity of volatile matter in coal influence its
combustion behaviour, flame characteristics, and the amount of smoke and pollutants produced
during burning (Sha et al, 2021). High-volatile fuels tend to ignite more easily and burn with a more
intense flame (Sha et al, 2021). Thus, the volatile matter content is one of the factors considered in
classifying and characterising different types of fuels for various industrial applications.
3. Methodology
The crucibles utilised in this experiment were already pre-heated at the maximum temperature
employed in each test to eliminate any moisture and combustible matter that might have affected
the analysis data. Subsequently, they were stored in a desiccator, which constituted a sealed glass
8
vessel containing silica gel granules capable of absorbing water and preventing atmospheric
moisture from settling on the crucibles.
3.1 Proximate Analysis for Moisture Content
The weight of an empty moisture determination crucible with its lid was recorded used an analytical
balance showing in figure 1, followed by the removal of the lid and taring of the balance. Coal 1.0 g
± 0.1 g) was then carefully weighed into the crucible, ensuring even distribution. The weight of the
coal was recorded, then the lid was replaced on the crucible, and it was subsequently removed from
the balance to prevent sample loss through air draughts. A duplicate sample of the coal was
prepared using the same procedure. These steps were then also repeated for the wood biomass
sample. The four samples were then placed on a metal tray with their lids removed and positioned
in a nitrogen-purged electric oven (100 °C ± 5 °C, 1hr). Some coals are susceptible to reactions with
air at relatively low temperatures, so nitrogen was used to prevent misleading data. Afterwards, the
crucibles were taken out from the oven, their lids were replaced, and the samples were transferred to
a desiccator. Following the cooling of the samples to room temperature, they were reweighed
promptly. The calculation of the percent moisture content was then calculated using equation 2.

Figure 1. A sketch of the analytical balance used to measure the samples’ weight (Drawn by author).

3.2 Proximate Analysis for Ash Content

The samples were weighed into four quartz ash crucibles with aluminium lids, employing a
procedure similar to that used for moisture content determination. The samples were then
transported to the muffle furnace, and upon removal of the lids, the crucibles containing the samples
were placed into the cold furnace. The heating process commenced gradually, reaching a
temperature of 450–500 °C within one hour. The heating of the samples continued until a final
temperature of 700–750 °C was achieved. Subsequently, the crucibles were removed from the
furnace using tongs and allowed to cool initially on a metal heat sink. To prevent the loss of ash, the
lids were placed on the crucibles using tongs. After a five-minute interval, the crucibles with lids
were placed into a desiccator, allowing them to cool to room temperature. Each crucible with its lid
was re-weighed as soon as it had cooled down, and the ash content was calculated using equation 3.
3.3 Proximate Analysis for Volatile Matter Content
The samples were weighed into four quartz VM crucibles with their quartz lids, employing a
procedure similar to that used for moisture content determination. The lid was then placed on the
crucible, ensuring a snug fit on the crucible rim while allowing easy lifting to release the evolved
VM. The four crucibles were arranged in a metal rack, and their positions were noted. The rack was
then placed into the VM furnace and heated at 900 °C ± 5 °C for 7 minutes. Afterwards, the sample
rack was removed from the furnace using tongs and allowed to cool initially on a metal heat sink.
After five minutes, the sample rack was placed in a desiccator using tongs and allowed to cool to

9
room temperature. Each crucible with its lid was re-weighed as soon as it had cooled down, and the
volatile matter was calculated using equation 5.
3.4 Ultimate analysis
The samples were already prepared by the demonstrators an put in a plastic sample tray. The
samples were then loaded into the auto-sampler of a Thermo Scientific Flash EA2000 elemental
analyser by laboratory staff, where the elements in the sample combusted completely and the
combustion products were analysed, determining the elemental compositions of carbon, hydrogen,
sulphur, and nitrogen content in the sample. The oxygen composition was calculated, by assuming
that the remainder weight percentage is due to oxygen.
3.5 Bomb Calorimeter
An air-dried sample of each coal and biomass were provided. A plastic weighing boat was placed
on the analytical balance shown in figure 1, the balance doors were closed, then the balance was
tared. The balance door was then opened, and the coal sample was added to the boat, with a
specified weight range of 0.30 g ± 0.05 g. Firing fine powders can lead to an explosive burn, which
is inefficient and potentially damaging to the bomb. To mitigate this risk, the coal was pressed into
a pellet before analysis using a manual hydraulic press shown in figure 2. Firstly the bottom rod was
placed inside the die hole, then the weighted sample was put into the die hole, then the top pushing
rod was placed inside the die. The die had a vent tube connected to it, which facilitated the removal
of air from the sample and the die cavity during the palletisation process. The die was then placed
on the base of the instrument right under the press head, and the extension screw was twisted until
the press head touched the die. The hydraulic lever pump was then gripped and moved in a
downward and upward motion until the pressure gauge reading went up to 5 tons. The press head
was then lifted up by twisting the ram extension screw and the sample was taken out of the die as a
pellet. This procedure was then repeated for the biomass sample.

Vent
tube
Figure 2. A sketch of the manual hydraulic press used to pelletise the samples (Drawn by author).
Following this, a steel calorimetry crucible was placed on the analytical balance, and the balance
doors were closed before the balance was tared. The coal pellet was transferred to the crucible using
tweezers, and the weight was recorded.
In the preparation of the instrument, a 10 cm length of fuse wire was cut and threaded through the
holes on the lid electrodes, forming a U-shaped loop hanging down towards the sample crucible
holder as shown in figure 2. The remaining ends of the fuse wire were wrapped around the
electrodes. Subsequently, 10 ml of deionised water was poured into the bomb body to wet all
internal surfaces and aid in absorbing acid gases. The cleanliness of the bucket was ensured before
placing it on the top-pan balance and taring the weight. The bucket was then filled with deionised
water until the balance read exactly 2000.0 g. Then the full bucket was placed in the calorimeter
carefully to ensure it did not touch the walls, the three indentations on the bucket's bottom were
aligned with the calorimeter's feet. The assembly of the bomb and its pressurisation with pure
oxygen to 30 bar gauge were performed by the demonstrator.

10
Figure 3. A sketch of the calorimeter bomb components (Drawn by author).
The bomb was then placed in the bucket, and the electrode leads for the ignition wire were
connected by the demonstrator. Subsequently, the bomb was checked for oxygen leakage, and the
calorimeter lid was closed to initiate the firing sequence. The firing process was fully automated
and occurred when the temperature of the water in the bucket became sufficiently stable. The
indication of bomb firing was accompanied by a beeper warning.
3.6 Bomb Calorimeter Correction for Acids
After the temperature of the water in the bucket became sufficiently stable following firing, a
provisional results page was displayed, presenting the temperature rise and GCV. The bomb was
then removed from the calorimeter and placed in a fume cupboard by the demonstrator. This was to
allow sufficient time for the acid gases to dissolve, a waiting period of 10 minutes was observed
after the conclusion of firing. Subsequently, the demonstrator gently released the gas from the
bomb. The bomb was then opened by the demonstrator, allowing for an inspection inside.
Following this, a thorough rinsing of the internal surfaces, electrodes, and crucible was carried out
with deionised water. The washings were collected in the bomb, transferred into a conical flask, and
further rinsing of the bomb was performed multiple times to ensure the complete transfer of the
washings. The aim was to achieve a final volume of approximately 100 ml.
The washings were boiled for 2 minutes to expel carbon dioxide, dissolved as carbonic acid.
Following this, a few drops of phenolphthalein indicator were added to the hot washings, and
titration was carried out with barium hydroxide solution (0.05 mol/l) while still hot. To avoid burns
or scalds, heat-resistant gloves were used. The volume of Ba(OH)2 required to cause the indicator to
change from colourless to a magenta colour was recorded. This volume was utilised to calculate the
correction needed for the formation of nitric acid. Next, 20 ml of sodium carbonate solution (0.05
mol/l) was added to the warm washings. The precipitate formed was removed by filtering the
washings into a second conical flask while still warm. The first flask was rinsed with deionized
water multiple times to ensure the complete transfer of the sample. The filtrate was allowed to cool,
and two or three drops of screened methyl orange indicator were added to the washings. Titration
with HCl solution (0.1 mol/l) followed, and the colour changed from grey to green due to
phenolphthalein. Despite this colour change, acid was continuously added dropwise until the colour
changed from green to pink/purple. The volume of acid used was recorded and utilised to calculate
the correction needed for the formation of sulphuric acid.

11
 4. Results
4.1 Proximate Analysis Results on Air-Dried Basis
4.1.1 Moisture Content Calculations
The moisture content of the sample on air-dried basis is calculated using the equation below:
m2−m3
Moisture ad= ×100 [Equation 2]
m2−m1
All sample calculations shown are for biomass sample 1 unless stated otherwise, and the same
calculation is carried out for all other samples.
34.18919−34.10020
Moisture ad= ×100=8.11878 wt %
34.18919−33.09309
Table 2. Results for the moisture content of the samples.
Sample m1 (g) m2 (g) m3 (g) Moisturead (wt %) Moisturead,avg (wt%)
Biomass 1 33.09309 34.18919 34.10020 8.11878 8.04734
Biomass 2 32.69885 33.73585 33.65314 7.97589
Coal 1 32.89119 33.85429 33.22500 8.23279 8.18971
Coal 2 32.99518 33.92710 33.85118 8.14662

4.1.2 Ash Content Calculations

The ash content of the sample on air-dried basis is calculated using the equation below:
m3−m1
Ashad= ×100 [Equation 3]
m2−m1
29.96438−29.96299
Ashad= ×100=0.14045 wt %
30.95269−29.96299
Table 3. Results for the ash content of the samples.
Sample m1 (g) m2 (g) m3 (g) Ashad (wt %) Ashad,avg (wt %)
Biomass 1 29.96299 30.95269 29.96438 0.14045 0.10502
Biomass 2 25.62435 26.55845 25.625 0.06959
Coal 1 22.16006 23.15371 22.21605 5.63478 5.622415
Coal 2 25.18432 26.25365 25.24431 5.61005
The mineral matter content of the coal sample on air-dried basis is calculated using Parr’s formula
as shown below:
MM ad =( 1.08 × Ashad ) +(0.55 × wS ,ad , avg )[Equation 4 ]

MM ad for coal sample 1=( 1.08 ×5.63478 )+ ( 0.55× 8.13 )=10.55706 wt %

The w S , ad , avg value was obtained from the ultimate analysis in section 4.5. And the same
calculation was carried out for coal sample 2.
Table 4. Results for the mineral matter content of the coal samples.
Sample Ashad (wt %) wS,ad (wt %) MMad (wt %) MMad,avg (wt %)
Coal 1 5.63478 10.55706
8.13 10.543705
Coal 2 5.61005 10.53035

12
4.1.3 Volatile Matter Content Calculations
The volatile matter content of the sample on air-dried basis is calculated using the equation below:

VM ad=
( m2 −m3
m2−m1 )
×100 −Moisture ad , avg [Equation 5]

VM ad= ( 22.27833−21.37564
22.27833−21.19707
×100 )−Moisture ad ,avg =75.43767 wt %

Table 5. Results for the volatile matter content of the samples.

Sample m1 (g) m2 (g) m3 (g) VMad (wt %) VMad,avg (wt %)
Biomass 1 21.19707 22.27833 21.37564 75.43767 75.608165
Biomass 2 23.51362 24.44394 23.66409 75.77866
Coal 1 26.39518 27.44093 27.00579 33.42062 33.632865
Coal 2 28.02197 29.05145 28.61871 33.84511

4.1.4 Fixed Carbon Content Calculations

The fixed carbon content of the sample on air-dried basis is calculated using the equation below:
FC ad =100− ( Moisturead + Ash ad+ VM ad ) [Equation 6]

FC ad =100− ( 8.04734+0.10502+75.608165 )=16.23948 wt %

Table 6. All results for Proximate Analysis on Air-Dried Basis.
Sample Moisturead (wt %) Ashad (wt %) MMad (wt %) VMad (wt %) FCad (wt %)
Biomass 8.04734 0.10502 N/A 75.60816 16.23948
Coal 8.18971 5.62242 10.54371 33.63286 52.55501

80
70
60
50
wt %

40
30
20
10
0
Moisture Ash MM VM FC

biomass coal

Figure 4. Bar chart comparing obtained results from the proximate analysis for the Coal & Biomass
samples on Air-Dried Basis.

4.2 Proximate Analysis Results on Dry Basis

The results can be presented in dry basis by using the equation below:
Component ad
Component d = [Equation7 ]
(100−Moisture )/100

13
 0.10502
Ashd = =0.11421 wt %
(100−8.04734 )/100
The same calculation was used for the other components for both samples. But moisture content is
assumed to be 0 as it is dry-basis.
Table 7. All results for Proximate Analysis on Dry Basis.
Sample Moistured (wt %) Ashd (wt %) MMd (wt %) VMd (wt %) FCd (wt %)
Biomass 0 0.11421 N/A 82.22510 17.66070
Coal 0 6.12395 11.48423 36.63300 57.24305

4.3 Proximate Analysis Results on Dry, Ash-Free Basis

The results can be presented in dry, ash-free basis by using the equation below:
Component d
Component daf = [Equation 8]
(100− Ashd )/100
82.22510
VM daf = =82.31911 wt %
(100−0.11421)/100
The same calculation was used for the other components for both samples. But moisture content
and ash content are assumed to be 0 as it is dry, ash-free basis.
Table 8. All results for Proximate Analysis on Dry, Ash-Free Basis.
Sample Moisturedaf (wt %) Ashdaf (wt %) MMdaf (wt %) VMdaf (wt %) FCdaf (wt %)
Biomass 0 0 N/A 82.31911 17.68089
Coal 0 0 12.23340 39.02273 60.97727

4.4 Proximate Analysis Results on Dry, Mineral Matter-Free Basis

The results for the coal sample can be presented in dry, mineral matter-free basis by using the
equation below:
Component d
Component dmmf = [ Equation9]
(100−MM d )/100
36.63300
VM dmmf = =41.38585 wt %
(100−11.48423)/100
The same calculation was used for the other components for both samples. But moisture content
and mineral matter are assumed to be 0 as it is dry, mineral matter-free basis.
Table 9. All results for Proximate Analysis on Dry, Mineral Matter-Free Basis.

14
 Sample Moisturedmmf (wt %) Ashdmmf (wt %) MMdmmf (wt %) VMdmmf (wt %) FCdmmf (wt %)
90
Coal 80
0 6.91849 0 41.38585 53.66989
70
60
50
wt %
40
30
20
10
0
B,ad B,d B,daf C,ad C,d C,daf C,dmmf

Moisture Ash MM VM FC

Figure 5. Bar chart comparing obtained results from the proximate analysis for the Coal & Biomass
samples on Air-Dried Basis, Dried-Basis, Dry, Ash-Free Basis, and Dry, Mineral Matter-Free Basis.
4.5 Ultimate Analysis Results
4.5.1 Ultimate Analysis Air-Dried Basis Calculations
The oxygen content of the sample on air-dried basis is calculated using the equation below:
w O , ad=100−( w C ,ad + w H , ad +w N ,ad + wS ,ad + Ashad ) [Equation 10]

w O , ad=100−( 44.95+ 4.75+1.88+0.07+ 0.11 ) =48.24 wt %

Furthermore, the GCV is calculated using equation 1 (Dulong’s formula) from the literature review.

GCV ad=0.3386 × 44.95+ 1.444 × 4.75−

( ( 48.24
8 ))
+ 0.09428× 0.07=13.3783 MJ /kg

Table 10. Recorded results for the elemental weight compositions of samples from ultimate analysis on Air-
Dried Basis, and calculated results of their GCV.
Sample wC,ad wH,ad wN,ad wS,ad wO,ad GCVad
(wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (MJ/kg)
Biomass 1 44.95 4.75 1.88 0.07 48.24 13.3783
Biomass 2 45.92 5.24 1.24 0.00 47.49 14.5431
Coal 1 40.90 3.20 1.85 8.56 39.87 12.0800
Coal 2 42.00 3.24 2.09 7.70 39.35 12.5230

4.5.2 Ultimate Analysis Dry Basis Calculations

The data can be presented in dry-basis by using equation 7:
44.95
w C ,d = =48.88 wt %
(100−8.04734)/100
The same equation is used for ash and all other elements except oxygen. Oxygen is calculated using
equation 10.
Table 11. Calculated results for the elemental weight compositions of samples on Dry Basis, and calculated
results of their GCV.
Sample wC,d wH,d wN,d wS,d Ashd wO,d GCVd
(wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (MJ/kg)
Biomass 1 48.88 5.17 2.04 0.08 43.72 16.1279
0.11421
Biomass 2 49.94 5.70 1.35 0.00 42.90 17.3946

15
 Coal 1 44.55 3.49 2.02 9.32 34.50 14.7682
6.12395
Coal 2 45.75 3.53 2.28 8.39 33.94 15.2507

4.5.3 Ultimate Analysis Dry, Ash-Free Basis Calculations

The data can be presented in dry, ash- free basis by using equation 8:
48.88
w C ,d = =48.94 wt %
(100−0.1142)/100
The same equation is used for all other elements except oxygen. Oxygen is calculated using
equation 10.

Table 12. Calculated results for the elemental weight compositions of samples on Dry, Ash-Free Basis, and
calculated results of their GCV.
Sample wC,daf wH,daf wN,daf wS,daf Ashdaf Ashdaf wO,daf GCVdaf
(wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (MJ/kg)
Biomass 1 48.94 5.17 2.05 0.08 43.77 16.1463
0.11421 0
Biomass 2 50.00 5.71 1.35 0.00 42.95 17.4145
Coal 1 47.45 3.71 2.15 9.93 36.75 15.7316
6.12395 0
Coal 2 48.73 3.76 2.42 8.93 36.15 16.2456

4.5.4 Ultimate Analysis Dry, Mineral Matter-Free Basis Calculations

Data for the coal sample can be presented in dry, mineral matter-free basis by using equation 9:
44.55
w C ,dmmf = =50.33 wt %
(100−11.48423)/100
The same equation is used for all other elements except oxygen. Oxygen is calculated using
equation .
Table 13. Calculated results for the elemental weight compositions of samples on Dry, Mineral Matter-Free
Basis, and calculated results of their GCV.
Sample wC,dmmf wH,dmmf wN,dmmf wS,dmmf Ashdmmf MMd wO,dmmf GCVdmmf
(wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (MJ/kg)
Coal 1 50.33 3.94 2.28 10.53 26.01 19.0261
6.91849 11.48423
Coal 2 51.68 3.99 2.57 9.47 25.37 19.5712

4.5.5 Ultimate Analysis Moist, Mineral Matter-Free Basis Calculations for Coal
Data for the coal sample can be presented in moist, mineral matter-free basis by using the
equation below:
Component ad
w C ,mmmf = [ Equation11]
(100−MM ad )/100
48.88
w C ,mmmf = =48.94 wt %
(100−11.48423 )/100
The same equation is used for ash & all other elements except oxygen. Oxygen is calculated using
equation .

16
Table 14. Calculated results for the elemental weight compositions of samples on Moist, Mineral Matter-
Free Basis, and calculated results of their GCV.
Sample wC,mmmf wH,mmmf wN,mmmf wS,mmmf Ashmmmf MMad wO,mmmf GCVmmmf
(wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (MJ/kg)
Coal 1 45.72 3.58 2.07 9.57 32.78 15.6318
6.28510 10.54371
Coal 2 46.95 3.62 2.34 8.61 32.20 16.1270

4.6 Bomb Calorimeter Results

4.6.1 Bomb Calorimeter Air-Dried Basis Results and GCV Calculations
Table 15. Recorded results from the bomb calorimeter for each sample on Air-Dried Basis.
Sample Weight (g) ΔT (°C) GCVad (MJ/kg) V1 (mL) V2 (mL)
Biomass 0.33730 0.5995 17.8254 5.7 42
Coal 0.27582 0.7648 27.9400 9.5 48
Titration was carried out as mentioned in section 3.6, and correction factors from BS ISO 1928 are
employed to calculate the correction value for nitric acid (QN) and sulphuric acid (QS) that form.
The equations used are shown below:
Q N =6 × ( 20−V 1) [Equation 12]

QS =15.1 ×(V 1+V 2 −20)[Equation 13]

Q N =6 × ( 20−5.7 )=85.8 J
QS =15.1 × ( V 1 +V 2−20 )=418.3 J

The corrected calorific value was then calculated using the equation below:
Q N +Q S
GCV corrected =GCV uncorrected − [ Equation14 ]
(Weight × 1000)
85.8+418.3
GCV corrected =17.8524− =16.3680 MJ /kg
( 0.33730 × 1000 )

Table 16. Calculated results for the corrected GCV for each sample on Air-Dried Basis.
Sample V1 V2 QN QS GCVad,uncorrected GCVad,corrected
(mL) (mL) (J) (J) (MJ/kg) (MJ/kg)
Biomass 5.7 42 85.8 418.3 17.8254 16.3680
Coal 9.5 48 63 566.3 27.9400 25.7646

4.6.2 Bomb Calorimeter GCV Calculations on All Basis

The GCVad,corrected can be presented in dry basis, dry, ash-free basis, dry, mineral matter-free basis
and moist mineral matter-free basis using equations 7, 8, 9 and 11 respectively.
Table 17. Calculated results for the corrected GCV for each sample on All basis.
Sample GCVad,corrected GCVd,corrected GCVdaf,corrected GCVdmmf,corrected GCVmmmf,corrected
(MJ/kg) (MJ/kg) (MJ/kg) (MJ/kg) (MJ/kg)
Biomass 16.3680 17.8005 17.8192 N/A N/A
Coal 25.7646 28.0629 29.7347 31.7038 28.8013

4.6.3 Bomb Calorimeter NCV Calculations

The NCV can be calculated using the equation below:
17
 NCV d=(GCV d −212 ×w H , d−0.8 × wO ,d )×(1−0.01 × M ¿¿ T )−24.43 × M T [ Equation15]¿
For this equation the units of NCV and GCV are J/g
For wH,d and wO,d, an average was taken from the 2 biomass samples and the 2 coal samples used in
ultimate analysis in section 4.5.2. For MT, an average moisture was taken too from section 4.1.1.

NCV d=( 17800.5−212× 5.435−0.8 × 43.31 ) × ( 1−0.01× 8.04734 )−24.43 ×8.04737=15080.1

Table 18. Calculated results for the corrected NCV for each sample on Dry basis.
Sample GCVd,corrected wH,d wO,d MT NCVd,corrected
(MJ/kg) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (MJ/kg)
Biomass 17.8005 5.435 43.31 8.04734 15.0801
Coal 28.0629 3.51 34.22 8.18971 24.8562

5. Discussion
What does ‘rank’ mean when applied to coals?
The term ‘rank’ when applied to coals refers to the degree of coalification that has occurred. It’s a
measure of the coal’s maturity and is determined primarily by the depth of burial and temperature to
which the coal was subjected over time (Kopp, 2018). The rank of coal indicates its stage of
transformation in the natural series from peat to anthracite (USGS, 2021). This transformation,
known as coalification, involves the buried plant matter changing into an ever denser, drier, more
carbon-rich, and harder material (USGS, 2021). The four major ranks of coal are lignite,
subbituminous, bituminous, and anthracite, and each rank has distinct characteristics and uses.

5.1 Proximate Analysis

5.1.1 Moisture Content
As can be seen from figure 4, the bar chart shows that the coal sample had a slightly higher
moisture content (8.18971 wt %) than the wood biomass sample (8.04734 wt %). Obtained results
show to be accurate compared to literature, because wood biomass moisture content is usually in the
range of 5 to 9 wt % (Loffer, 2020), while the moisture content of coal ranges from 2 to 39 wt %,
depending on the coal rank (The Engineering Toolbox, 2003). Coal and biomass can have similar
moisture content due to their natural water content, environmental factors such as humidity and
rainfall, and the methods used for their processing and storage. Both materials absorb and retain
water, which can be influenced by their storage conditions.
What factors influence moisture content in biomass?
As mentioned in section 2, moisture content can be due to different reasons. For both coal and
biomass, surface moisture is caused by the handling process and the storage method and its
duration.
The inherent moisture in wood biomass is influenced by factors like wood species and density.
Various wood species inherently have different moisture contents, and denser woods generally have
less moisture, this is because of their lower porosity due to their compact composition, preventing
them from taking in moisture as much as the more porous species (Canning, 2023). Storage
conditions is another factor; if biomass is stored in damp or humid environments, it can absorb
more moisture (Forest Research, 2022). Additionally, mixing wood species can contribute to
moisture content variability (Leoni et al, 2021).

18
Finally, the loosely bonded combined moisture in wood biomass is affected by several other factors.
Environmental conditions such as air temperature and humidity can affect the moisture content.
Low air temperature causes less evaporation and thus a higher moisture content. Higher humidity
causes more moisture to be absorbed (Trimble, 2022). Humid conditions in storage can also cause
an increase in loosely bonded combined moisture. Table 19 shows how the humidity of the location
in-use of growing the plant species affects its moisture content. Lastly, soil conditions such as
temperature, soil moisture, nutrient availability, soil type and compaction can also affect the
moisture content (Trimble, 2022).

Table 19. Shows the effect of environment humidity on biomass moisture content (Loffer, 2020).
On the other hand, the inherent moisture content in coal is influenced by factors such as coal rank,
geological conditions during formation, and coal composition. As coal rank increases (from lignite
to sub-bituminous, bituminous, and finally to anthracite), the coal undergoes metamorphism, which
involves the gradual removal of moisture and volatile matter under conditions of high temperature
and pressure over millions of years, this process leads to a decrease in moisture content, so high-
rank coals like anthracite typically have lower moisture content (Dasgupta, 2021). Furthermore,
coal beds formed in wet environments also exhibit elevated moisture levels (Lee et al, 2017). The
chemical composition of coal, including the presence of oxygen and hydrogen, influences its
inherent moisture content. Coals with higher oxygen and hydrogen content tend to have higher
inherent moisture (Wagner, 2021). Furthermore, conditions under which coal is stored and handled
can affect its moisture content. Exposure to humidity, rainfall, or inadequate storage practices can
lead to moisture absorption by coal (University of Kentucky, 2023). Moreover, the methods used
for coal mining, such as open-pit mining or underground mining, can influence the exposure of coal
to external moisture, improper mining practices that allow water ingress can contribute to higher
inherent moisture (University of Kentucky, 2023).
Loosely bonded moisture content in coal, is also affected by storage and handling conditions, with
exposure to humid or damp environments during storage leading to increased loosely bonded
moisture (Schobert, 1995). The particle size distribution of coal also affects this moisture content,
with finer particles having a larger surface area and being more prone to moisture absorption (Xi et
al, 2022). Moreover, grinding coal for industrial applications may expose fresh surfaces, potentially
increasing moisture absorption sites (Tanhua, 2022). Strategies to minimise loosely bonded
moisture involve proper storage practices, particle size optimisation and effective coal washing, all
crucial for enhancing the handling, transportation, and combustion characteristics of coal in
industrial processes.
19
How does moisture content influence combustion?
Higher moisture content decreases the calorific value, this is because the energy used to evaporate
the water is lost as heat (Demirbas, 2007). Thus, managing moisture content is crucial for industrial
applications like combustion for power generation because high moisture content can impact
calorific value and combustion efficiency. Therefore, solid fuel drying and proper storage practices
are employed to mitigate moisture effects.

5.1.2 Ash Content

As can be seen from figure 4, biomass had a very low content of ash (0.10502 wt %), while coal
had a higher ash content (5.62242 wt %). Obtained results show to be accurate compared to
literature, as wood biomass ash content is usually less than 0.5 wt % (Biomass burn characteristics,
2011), while the ash content of coal ranges from 5 to 45 wt % in coal (Dasgupta, 2021). Coal has a
higher ash content than biomass primarily due to the geological transformation and coalification
processes over millions of years, concentrating ash-forming minerals in coal. Biomass, derived
from recent plant materials, has lower mineral concentrations, resulting in lower ash content
(Dasgupta, 2021).
What factors influence ash content in biomass and coal?
The ash content in biomass, denoting the proportion of inorganic constituents within the biomass
material, is subject to a multitude of factors that collectively influence its composition. The type of
plant species plays a pivotal role, as different species exhibit varying propensities to accumulate
minerals, inherently dictating their ash content (Kleinhans et al, 2018). Furthermore, the specific
plant part harvested contributes to this variability, with leaves and bark generally exhibiting higher
ash content compared to stems or wood (Kleinhans et al, 2018). Environmental conditions during
the plant's growth phase, such as soil composition and climate impacts the mineral uptake;
influencing ash content, and geographical location further contributes to this equation, as regional
disparities in soil composition are reflected in the biomass ash content (Ullah et al, 2023). The use
of fertilizers, while enhancing plant growth, can also elevate ash content if not judiciously applied
(Wiklund, 2017). Lastly, storage conditions post-harvest are crucial; biomass stored in contact with
soil or exposed to weathering may accumulate additional minerals (Mayer et al, 2020).
On the other hand, the ash content in coal is influenced by factors such as coal rank, this is because
geological formation processes during coal genesis contribute to its mineral composition,
influencing ash content as a result (Renton & Repine, 2016). The coal rank, indicative of carbon
content and maturity, correlates inversely with ash content, with higher-rank coals generally
possessing lower ash content (Khatami, & Levendis, 2016). Furthermore, high presence of mineral
matter in the precursor material, such as peat, can increase ash content in the final coal product
(Speight, 2015). Moreover, impurities within the coal seam, like clay or shale, can elevate ash
content, as can contaminants introduced during mining, transportation, and handling (Luttrell,
2012).
How does ash content influence combustion?
High ash content can reduce the GCV and impair boiler fan efficiency (Woodyard, 2009).
Furthermore, improper ash management can lead to environmental pollution in groundwater and air
(US EPA, 2023). Therefore, industries must carefully evaluate ash content in solid fuels, when
selecting and processing fuels to optimise energy production, reduce environmental impact, and

20
adhere to regulatory standards. Furthermore, efficient combustion is essential for minimising ash-
related challenges, such as slag formation, corrosion, and particulate emissions, which can affect the
longevity of equipment and environmental compliance (Abelha et al, 2019). To mitigate these
challenges and reduce ash content, industries often employ advanced technologies and processes. In
the case of coal, methods like coal washing can be utilised to remove impurities and lower ash
content (Luttrell, 2012). Similarly, biomass feedstocks can undergo pre-processing treatments, such
as sieving or washing, to reduce mineral content (Koppejan, 2019). Additionally, advancements in
combustion technologies, such as fluidised bed combustion and gasification, contribute to more
effective ash management (Pettersson et al, 2013). The integration of these strategies enables
industries to enhance energy production efficiency while minimising the environmental footprint
associated with ash content in fuels.

5.1.3 Volatile Matter Content

As can be seen from figure 4, biomass had a very high content of volatile matter (75.60816 wt %),
while coal had a lower volatile matter content (33.63286 wt %). Obtained results show to be
accurate compared to literature, as wood biomass moisture content is usually in the range of 70 to
85 wt % (Sher et al, 2020), while the volatile matter content of coal ranges from 5 to 40 wt %,
depending on the coal rank (Gale & Totemeier, 2004). Biomass has a much higher volatile matter
(VM) content than coal due to its recent plant origin, rich in volatile organic compounds. The short
geological processes and carbonisation of coal over millions of years result in a more carbon-rich
structure with lower VM content compared to biomass (Gale & Totemeier, 2004).
What factors influence volatile matter content in biomass and coal?
The volatile matter (VM) content in biomass, is subject to a multitude of factors. The type of
biomass plays a pivotal role, as diverse biomasses, such as wood or crop residues, exhibit inherent
differences in their organic composition, directly impacting VM content (İşçen et al, 2023).
Moreover, moisture content emerges as a key determinant, as elevated levels can suppress the
release of volatile components during combustion, necessitating careful consideration or removal in
order to obtain accurate measurements (Li et al, 2022). Moreover, the maturity of biomass is
another factor, younger and less mature biomass may have higher VM content compared to older,
more mature biomass (Wojcieszak et al, 2022). Moreover, geographical location and environmental
conditions during growth further contribute to the composition of VM in biomass (Ullah, 2023).
On the other hand, the VM content in coal, is subject to different factors that collectively contribute
to the intricate composition of the fuel. The type and rank of coal emerge as fundamental
influencers, with lower-rank coals, like lignite, exhibiting higher VM content compared to their
higher-rank counterparts such as anthracite (Gale & Totemeier, 2004). The geological formation
processes during coal genesis play a crucial role, with variations in coalification stages directly
impacting the VM content (Renton & Repine, 2016). Maceral composition, referring to the
microscopic organic components, also influences VM, as liptinite macerals rich in volatile matter
contribute significantly (Suárez & Ward, 2008). The mineral matter content in coal is another
determinant. For instance, minerals like iron, calcium, and potassium can catalyse the
decomposition of organic matter in coal, leading to a higher release of volatile components, while
other minerals like silica and alumina can form a protective layer around the coal particles,
inhibiting the release of volatile matter (Sengupta & Majumder, 2023). Moreover, particle size
distribution, surface area, and combustion rate play key roles in determining the efficiency of
volatilisation during combustion. Finer particles with increased surface area tend to combust more
rapidly, facilitating efficient release of volatile matter (Sumbane et al, 2021).

21
How does volatile matter content influence combustion?
Volatile matter content significantly influences combustion dynamics in wood biomass and coal.
Higher volatile matter facilitates easier ignition, flame stability, and increased energy release during
combustion (Sha et al, 2021). In wood biomass, industries may select species with inherently higher
volatile matter or optimise drying processes to enhance combustibility (Sha et al, 2021). In coal,
beneficiation techniques such as washing and selective mining can increase volatile matter content.
Controlling particle size, a common strategy in both materials enhances surface area and
combustion efficiency (Sha et al, 2021). Advanced combustion technologies also play a role in
optimising volatile matter release. Industries strategically tailor these factors to improve combustion
efficiency and overall performance in various applications.

5.1.4 Fixed Carbon Content

As can be seen from figure 4, biomass had a lower content of fixed carbon (FC) (16.23948 wt %),
while coal had a higher FC content (52.55501 wt %). Obtained results show to be accurate
compared to literature, as wood biomass FC content is usually around 15 wt % (Sher et al, 2020),
while the FC content of coal ranges from 40 to 91 wt %, depending on the coal rank (Gale &
Totemeier, 2004). Coal possesses a higher fixed carbon (FC) content compared to biomass due to
its geological origin and formation processes. Over millions of years, coal undergoes extensive
carbonisation and coalification, concentrating carbon in a condensed and structurally distinct
manner. The geological transformation and higher ranks of coal contribute to its elevated fixed
carbon content, distinguishing it from biomass, which originates from recent plant materials and
lacks the prolonged geological processes leading to lower fixed carbon concentrations (Gale &
Totemeier, 2004).
What factors influence fixed carbon content in biomass and coal?
The FC content in biomass is subject to the influence of various factors. The type of biomass plays
a pivotal role, as different biomass varieties, such as wood, agricultural residues, or energy crops,
inherently possess varying compositions that impact FC content. The maturity of biomass emerges
as a critical factor, with more mature biomass generally exhibiting higher FC content (Wojcieszak
et al, 2022). Furthermore, the geographical location of biomass cultivation introduces variations tied
to soil types, climate, and regional characteristics (Ullah et al, 2023). Storage conditions post-
harvest can impact FC content, as prolonged exposure to high humidity or improper storage may
lead to compositional changes. Biomass processing techniques, such as chipping or palletisation,
influence FC content by altering the physical and chemical properties of the biomass (Sokhansanj et
al, 2018). The specific plant part, whether leaves, stems, or bark, can also impact FC content, with
wood from the stem often possessing higher FC content than leaves (Berry et al, 2021). Inorganic
content, particularly ash-forming minerals, can affect FC content by diluting the overall carbon
fraction. Finally, the overall composition of biomass, including the proportions of cellulose,
hemicellulose, and lignin, contributes to FC content, with lignin being a significant contributor to
the FC fraction (Ma et al, 2019).
On the other hand, the FC content in coal, is intricately influenced by a range of different factors.
The type and rank of coal play a fundamental role, with higher-rank coals such as anthracite
generally exhibiting higher FC content compared to lower-rank coals (Gale & Totemeier, 2004).
Geological formation processes during coal genesis significantly impact FC content, as the degree
of metamorphism and carbonisation influences the carbon-rich composition (Dasgupta, 2021).
Maceral composition, encompassing microscopic organic components, contributes to FC, with
vitrinite being a primary source (Suárez & Ward, 2008). Storage conditions post-mining can impact
FC content through potential compositional changes induced by prolonged exposure to
22
environmental elements. Coal seam impurities, such as shale or clay, influence FC content,
introducing variations in the carbon fraction (Dai et al, 2022). The conditions under which coal
undergoes combustion, including temperature and oxygen availability, can influence the release of
FC, with higher combustion temperatures favouring more complete combustion.
How does fixed carbon content influence combustion?
The fixed carbon content in both wood biomass and coal significantly influence combustion,
impacting ignition, flame stability, energy release, and temperature during the process. Higher fixed
carbon content correlates with increased heating value and sustained combustion. In wood biomass,
industries optimise species selection and employ efficient drying processes to increase fixed carbon
content (Sha et al, 2021). For coal, beneficiation techniques, such as washing, remove impurities
and enhance fixed carbon content. Controlling particle size and utilising advanced combustion
technologies are common strategies in both biomass and coal to promote efficient combustion (Sha
et al, 2021). These practices are essential for industries seeking to maximise energy output and
minimise environmental impact in various applications.

5.2 Ultimate Analysis

Results from section 4.5 show that the biomass sample had a higher weight % content of carbon,
hydrogen and oxygen compared to coal, while the nitrogen content was similar, and finally the
sulphur content in the biomass was close to 0 but it was around 8 wt % in the coal sample.
The elemental composition disparities between the biomass and coal samples significantly influence
their respective calorific values. The biomass sample, with its higher hydrogen and carbon contents,
contributes positively to the calorific value by enhancing energy release during combustion. But the
higher hydrogen content is particularly important because hydrogen has a higher calorific value per
unit mass compared to carbon. Furthermore, while a higher carbon content in a fuel source may
result in a higher calorific value, it also has environmental implications due to the release of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere which is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming and
climate change (Gencer, 2021). Furthermore, while sulphur can also enhance the calorific value of a
fuel source by releasing additional energy during combustion, the associated risks, such as the
formation of sulphur dioxide and its negative impacts on health and the environment, often
outweigh the potential benefits (Fino, 2019). Therefore, the absence of sulphur in the biomass
sample would be preferred in many industries due to its cleaner combustion. Moreover, the
comparable nitrogen content in both samples suggests similar potential for nitrogen oxides
formation during combustion, impacting combustion efficiency and emissions similarly. Overall,
understanding the comprehensive elemental composition is crucial for assessing the energy
potential and environmental implications of these fuel sources.

5.3 Classification of coal

5.3.1 Seyler Classification of coal

23
One of the earliest classifications of coal that is still in use, Seyler plotted the carbon content against
hydrogen content on a dmmf basis using the Parr formula to produce a “coalification band” that is
dependent on rank. Seyler also related the elemental composition of typical coals to properties such
as VM content. After some modifications Seyler’s coal chart was developed, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Shows Seyler’s coal classification chart

As shown in the calculations in section 4.4, the VM in dmmf basis of the coal sample is 41.38585
wt %. Furthermore, as can be seen from the calculation in section 4.5.4, the average hydrogen and
carbon content for the 2 sample replicates are 3.965 and 51.005 wt %dmmf basis respectively. Finally,
section 4.6.2 shows the corrected GCV calculation in dmmf as 31.7038 MJ kg-1dmmf which is
equivalent to 7500 kCal kg-1dmmf. Using those values and the Seyler’s classification chart, it can be
concluded that the coal sample used is a P-Bituminous coal. The ‘P’ prefix stands for para which
means that the coal sample has a lower carbon content than typical.

5.3.2 BS ISO 11760 Classification of coal

The BS ISO 11760 classification system ranks coals based its mean random vitrinite reflectance
(Rr). Lignites have Rr less than 0.4%, sub-bituminous coal falls between 0.4% and 0.5%,
bituminous coal ranges from 0.5% to less than 2.0% Rr, and anthracite coal has Rr equal to or
greater than 2.0% but less than 6.0%. These groups further subdivide based on specific Rr values.
Then, the maceral group composition serves as the third defining parameter. Finally, ash content is
used as the fourth subdivider, it has five bands from very low ash (<5wt%) to high ash (30–50wt%).
Since the Rr and the maceral group composition were not measured in this experiment then the coal
sample cannot be classified by the BS ISO 11760 classification system. However, as shown in table
3 in section 4.1.2 the ash content was calculated to be 5.62 wt %. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the fourth category of the coal sample will be low ash.

5.3.3 ASTM D338 Classification of coal

ASTM D388 Classification (US/International) Originally developed for American coals, the ASTM
D388 scheme uses the VM and FC to categorise higher-rank coals. Lower-rank coals are
differentiated by GCV, as shown in Table 20.
Table 20. Coal classification to ASTM D388

24
As can be seen from table 17 in section 4.6.2, the average GCV of the 2 coal sample replicates in
mmmf basis calculated was 28.8 MJ kg-1. This result shows that the coal sample falls in the II
Bituminous class, in the high volatile B bituminous group. Furthermore, section 4.4 shows that
the VM and FC contents are 41.39 and 64.67 wt % dmmf respectively. Those values are not
available in the table provided by ASTM D388, which do not contradict the possibility of the coal
sample being in the high volatile B bituminous group.

5.4 Base Measurement Influence on Fuel Properties and Classification

The choice of measurement base in assessing fundamental fuel properties plays a pivotal role in
accurately characterizing and classifying fuels. The measurement base directly influences the
reported values, impacting the comparability and reliability of fuel assessments. For instance, the
accurate determination of moisture content is vital for assessing energy content, while choosing the
appropriate calorific value basis is crucial for energy-related calculations. The correct measurement
base ensures consistency in fuel grading, allowing for fair and reliable comparisons between
different samples. Additionally, it is of particular importance in environmental assessments, such as
evaluating sulphur content for regulatory compliance. Standardising measurement bases enhances
the precision of fuel classification, supporting informed decision-making in industries reliant on
accurate fuel property data.

5.5 Bomb Calorimeter

5.5.1 Difference between uncorrected GCV of coal and biomass
As can be seen from section 4.6.1, the uncorrected GCV of the biomass sample was 17.83 MJ kg-1
and for the coal sample it was 27.94 MJ kg-1. This difference in GCV between the biomass and coal
samples measured using a bomb calorimeter can be attributed to variations in their chemical
composition, moisture content, volatile matter, ash content, and combustion efficiency. Different
fuels exhibit distinct compositions of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulphur, directly
impacting their calorific values. Biomass, being plant-derived, may contain higher moisture levels
and different elemental ratios than coal, resulting in a lower GCV. Additionally, differences in
volatile matter and ash content, as well as variations in combustion efficiency, contribute to the
observed disparity in calorific values between the two samples. However, ultimate analysis results
suggested that the GCV of biomass is higher than of coal’s, which contradicts the results given by
the bomb calorimeter which show a much higher GCV for coal than biomass. Furthermore, the
calculated calorific values using Dulong’s formula from ultimate analysis results were much lower
than the corrected calorific values obtained from the bomb calorimeter. This could be because the
25
bomb calorimeter ensures complete combustion, capturing all released energy in an oxygen-rich
environment, while Dulong's formula relies on assumptions and may not account for incomplete
reactions. Additionally, the bomb calorimeter directly measures heat, considering the real
composition of the sample, moisture content, and applying corrections for heat losses, providing a
more accurate result. In contrast, Dulong's formula employs simplified assumptions, potentially
leading to underestimations in GCV calculations (Lamprecht, 1999).

5.5.2 GCV Acid Formation Correction

GCV is the total amount of heat released by a unit quantity of a fuel when it is burned completely.
The combustion of a fuel which contains nitrogen and sulphur will cause the formation of SOx and
NOx, these gases can react with water and form sulphuric and nitric acid in an exothermic reaction
which releases heat. Thus, the formation of these acids release additional heat, which can artificially
inflate the GCV. Therefore, it’s important to correct the GCV for the heat released by these acid
formations to ensure an accurate measure of the usable energy content of the fuel. This correction
allows for a more precise comparison between different fuels and helps in optimising combustion
processes for energy efficiency and environmental considerations. Without this correction, the GCV
could be overestimated in certain fuels, leading to inefficient and potentially environmentally
harmful usage. Hence, GCV correction for acid formation is a critical aspect of fuel analysis and
combustion engineering.
5.5.3 Influence of measurement base on GCV
As can be seen from table 17 in section 4.6.2, the GCV changes significantly when changing the
measurement base, for the coal sample, the lowest GCV was on air-dried basis, then the dry basis,
followed by the moist mineral matter-free basis, then dry ash-free basis and finally the dry mineral
matter-free basis had the highest GCV. The difference between the ad and dmmf basis was 6 MJ kg-1,
which signifies the importance of using the correct basis when classifying a fuel sample based on its
GCV. The importance of selecting the appropriate measurement base lies in ensuring accuracy and
consistency in assessing the energy content of fuels, aiding decision-making in applications from
power generation to environmental impact assessments. It allows for meaningful comparisons,
facilitating informed choices regarding fuel selection, combustion efficiency, and environmental
considerations.

5.5.4 GCV of the coal sample compared to other coals of different ranks
The calorific value of coal varies with its rank, which denotes the degree of coalification that the
original plant material has undergone. The GCV of coal increases as the rank increases. The sample
tested had a GCVmmmf of 28.8 MJ kg-1, and was ranked as a II Bituminous class based on the
ASTM D338. In order for a coal to be ranked as a I Anthracitic, the ASTM D338 suggests that it
must have a GCVmmmf higher than 32.6 MJ kg-1, and then satisfy a minimum of 86 and 8 wt % of
FCdmmf and VMdmmf respectively. Furthermore, the ASTM D338 suggests that for a coal to be ranked
as III Sub-bituminous, it must have a GCVmmmf in the range of 19.3 to 26.7 MJ kg-1. Finally the
ASTM D338 suggests that for a coal to be ranked as an IV Lignitic, the GCVmmmf must be lower
than 19.3 MJ kg-1.
Measuring the GCV in coal is of paramount significance for the industrial sector. The GCV serves
as a key parameter for optimising combustion processes, ensuring efficient energy production, and
managing costs associated with coal utilisation. Industries rely on GCV data to design and operate
boilers and furnaces effectively. It also plays a crucial role in emissions control, helping industries
adhere to environmental regulations. Coal quality control, feasibility studies, and compliance with
energy standards are facilitated by accurate GCV measurements. In negotiations and contracts for
26
coal procurement, GCV information is pivotal for securing a consistent and reliable supply. Overall,
GCV measurements are fundamental for informed decision-making regarding the utilisation of coal
in industrial applications.

5.5.5 GCV of the biomass sample compared to other types of biomass

As can be seen from table 17 in section 4.6.2, the corrected GCV on dry basis of the wood biomass
sample was calculated to be 17.8 MJ kg-1. Other types of biomass such as crop waste have a GCVad
in the range of 13.4 to 15.9 MJ kg-1 (GEMCO energy, 2023). Furthermore, other types such as
peanut shell, pine, wheat straw and weed have a GCVd of 21.4, 19.0, 18.5 and 16.2 MJ kg-1
respectively (GEMCO energy, 2023).
Measuring the GCV in biomass holds paramount importance for the industrial sector.
Understanding the energy content of biomass enables industries to optimise combustion processes,
plan energy production efficiently, and manage costs effectively. GCV data aids in emissions
control, ensures fuel quality, and influences the design of combustion systems. It also plays a
crucial role in negotiations and contracts for biomass procurement, contributing to a reliable and
consistent supply chain. Additionally, GCV measurements are essential for feasibility studies,
renewable energy compliance, and research and development activities, shaping the sustainable
integration of biomass in industrial processes.
6. Conclusion
This experiment involved a comparative analysis of coal and biomass through three tests which
were proximate analysis, ultimate analysis, and bomb calorimeter. On air-dried basis, the results
from proximate revealed that the biomass and coal samples had a similar moisture content, while
biomass had a much lower ash and fixed carbon content than coal, but biomass had a much higher
volatile matter content than coal. Furthermore, the experiment investigated the impact of
measurement basis on various parameters, leading to significant variations between different
measurement basis. Among the calculated basis, the dry, ash free basis of biomass, as shown in
table 17, recorded the highest gross calorific value at 17.8192 MJ kg-1, while the dry, mineral
matter-free basis recorded the highest gross calorific value at 31.7038 MJ kg-1. Additionally, from
the bomb calorimeter results, a corrected gross calorific value was calculated after titration was
carried out, this is to prevent the overestimation of the gross calorific value caused by the additional
heat released by the formation of acids in exothermic reactions. Coal showed a higher decrease in
the gross calorific value which means that more acids formed in the combustion of coal compared
to biomass, this could be because the coal sample had a higher sulphur content than biomass.
Finally, the net calorific value was calculated for both biomass and coal, with coal showing the
highest difference between GCV and NCV due to a higher moisture content in the coal sample.

7. References
belha, P., Mourão Vilela, C., Nanou, P., Carbo, M., Janssen, A. and Leiser, S. 2019. Combustion
improvements of upgraded biomass by washing and torrefaction. Fuel (London, England). Vol 253,
pp 1018–1033. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236119307951

Abohamzeh, E., Salehi, F., Sheikholeslami, M., Abbassi, R. and Khan, F. 2021. Review of
hydrogen safety during storage, transmission, and applications processes. Journal of loss prevention
in the process industries. Vol 72, pp 311-316. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950423021001790

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1998. Standard Classification of Coals by
Rank, Vol 5. Gaseous Fuels; Coal and Coke; Bio-energy and Industrial Chemicals from Biomass;
27
Catalysts. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Material.

Atkins, A.G. and Escudier, M. 2013. A dictionary of mechanical engineering. 1st edition. Available
from: https://www.oxfordreference.com/abstract/10.1093/acref/9780199587438.001.0001/acref-
9780199587438-e-1716

BBC. 2022. Biomass fuels. BBC. [Online]. [Accessed 2 December 2023]. Available from:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/znrwdp3/articles/z2362v4.

Babu, D. 2019. Influence of fuel injection timing and nozzle opening pressure on a CRDI-assisted
diesel engine fueled with biodiesel-diesel-alcohol fuel In: Advances in Eco-Fuels for a Sustainable
Environment. Vol 13, pp.353–390. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-
and-planetary-sciences/bomb-calorimeter

Baxter, L., Tree, D., Lu, H. 2005. Distinguishing biomass combustion characteristics and their
implications for sustainable energy. [Online Article]. Available from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264869025_Distinguishing_biomass_combustion_charact
eristics_and_their_implications_for_sustainable_energy

Berry, Z.C., Ávila-Lovera, E., De Guzman, M.E., O’Keefe, K. and Emery, N.C. 2021. Beneath the
bark: Assessing woody stem water and carbon fluxes and its prevalence across climates and the
woody plant phylogeny. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. Vol 4, pp 153-169. Available
from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2021.675299/full

Bhatt, A., Priyadarshini, S., Acharath Mohanakrishnan, A., Abri, A., Sattler, M. and
Techapaphawit, S. 2019. Physical, chemical, and geotechnical properties of coal fly ash: A global
review. Case studies in construction materials. Vol 11, p 263-270. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214509518303735

Biomass burn characteristics. 2011. ontario.ca. [Online]. [Accessed 3 December 2023b]. Available
from: https://www.ontario.ca/page/biomass-burn-characteristics.

Bowen, B. H., & Irwin, M. W. 2008. CCTR Basic Facts Research. [online] [Accessed 2 December
2023]. Available from: https://purdue.edu/discoverypark/energy/assets/pdfs/cctr/outreach/Basics8-
CoalCharacteristics-Oct08.pdf

Canning, J. 2023. Density of various wood species. [Online]. [Accessed 6 December 2023].
Available from: https://johncanningco.com/blog/density-of-various-wood-species/.

Carbon coefficients. 2012. Coal climate mitigation services rick Heede carbon majors project.
Climateaccountability.org. [Online]. [Accessed 3 December 2023a]. Available from:
https://climateaccountability.org/pdf/Sums/Coal%20Sums/Coal%20CarbonCoefficient%208p.pdf.

Cheremisinoff, N.P. 2012. Solid Wastes In: Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner
Production. Vol 2, pp 31–61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/flue-gas-
desulphurization

Clarke, S. 2011. Biomass burn characteristics. ontario.ca. [Online]. [Accessed 3 December 2023a].
Available from: https://www.ontario.ca/page/biomass-burn-characteristics.
28
Clemens, A. 1996. The role of moisture in the self-heating of low-rank coals. Fuel (London,
England). Vol 75, pp 891–895. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0016236196000105

Dai, S., Finkelman, R.B., French, D., Hower, J.C., Graham, I.T. and Zhao, F. 2021. Modes of
occurrence of elements in coal: A critical evaluation. Earth-science reviews. Vol 222, pp 103815-
103815. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825221003160

Dasgupta, P. 2021. Coal: Chemical behaviour with increasing rank In: Encyclopedia of Mineral and
Energy Policy. Vol 1, pp 1–5. Available from: Coal:
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-642-40871-7_110-2

Demirbas, A. 2007. Effects of moisture and hydrogen content on the heating value of fuels. Energy
Sources Part A Recovery Utilization and Environmental Effects. Vol 29, pp 649–655.
https://doi.org/10.1080/009083190957801

Fino, A. 2019. Air Quality Legislation In: Encyclopedia of Environmental Health. Vol 4, pp 61–70.
Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/sulphur-dioxide

Forest Research. 2022. Effect of moisture content. [Online]. [Accessed 6 December 2023].
Available from: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/biomass-energy-
resources/fuel/woodfuel-production-and-supply/woodfuel-processing/drying-biomass/effect-of-
moisture-content/.

GEMCO Energy. 2017. The comparison between biomass pellets & coal. [online] [Accessed 1
December 2023]. Available from: http://www.biomass-energy.org/blog/biomass-pellets-and-coal-
comparison.html

GEMCO energy. 2023. Calorific value of different biomass pellets. Pellet-making.com. [Online].
[Accessed 9 December 2023d]. Available from: http://www.pellet-making.com/blog/wood-pellets-
calorific-value.html.

Gaille, L. 2020. biomass energy advantages and disadvantages. Vittana.org. [Online]. [Accessed 2
December 2023]. Available from: https://vittana.org/23-biomass-energy-advantages-and-
disadvantages.

Gale, W.F. and Totemeier, T.C. 2004. Smithells Metals Reference Book. 8th edition. Chapter 28.
Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780750675093500312

Gencer, E. 2021. Hydrogen. MIT Climate Portal. [Online]. [Accessed 2 December 2023c].
Available from: https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/hydrogen.

Gov.uk. 2020. [Online]. [Accessed 3 December 2023]. Available from:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1095/pdfs/uksiem_20201095_en.pdf.

Gov.uk. 2021. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy 2021. End to coal power
brought forward to October 2024. [Online]. [Accessed 2 December 2023]. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/end-to-coal-power-brought-forward-to-october-2024.

29
Gov.uk. 2023. Department for Energy Security & Net Zero. Biomass Strategy. [Online]. [Accessed
2 December 2023]. Available from:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
1178897/biomass-strategy-2023.pdf

Hosokai, S. Matsuoka, K. Kuramoto, K. Suzuki, Y. 2016. "Modification of Dulong's formula to

estimate heating value of gas, liquid and solid fuels". Fuel Processing Technology. Vol 152. pp
399–405. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Modification-of-Dulong%27s-formula-to-
estimate-value-Hosokai-Matsuoka/69f3bcc1fe6e100a8759cd4fa6535c393e282515

Huangfu, Y., Li, H., Chen, X., Xue, C., Chen, C. and Liu, G. 2014. Effects of moisture content in
fuel on thermal performance and emission of biomass semi-gasified cookstove. Energy for
sustainable development: the journal of the International Energy Initiative. Vol 21, pp.60–65.
Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0973082614000490

Kharasch, M. 1929. Heats of combustion of organic compounds. Vol 41, pp 364-430. Available
from: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/2/jresv2n2p359_A2b.pdf

Khatami, R. and Levendis, Y.A. 2016. An overview of coal rank influence on ignition and
combustion phenomena at the particle level. Combustion and flame. Vol 164, pp 22–34. Available
from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010218015003879

Kleinhans, U., Wieland, C., Frandsen, F.J. and Spliethoff, H. 2018. Ash formation and deposition in
coal and biomass fired combustion systems: Progress and challenges in the field of ash particle
sticking and rebound behavior. Progress in energy and combustion science. Vol 68, pp 65–168.
Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360128517300795

Kopp, O.C. 2018. coal classification. Encyclopedia Britannica. [Online]. [Accessed 8 December
2023]. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/science/coal-classification

Koppejan, J. 2019. Biomass pre-treatment for bioenergy. Ieabioenergy.com. [Online]. [Accessed 8

December 2023]. Available from:
https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Pretreatment_PolicyReport.pdf.

Lamprecht, I. 1999. Combustion Calorimetry In: From Macromolecules to Man. Vol 1, pp.175–
218. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/bomb-
calorimetry#:~:text=The%20use%20of%20bomb%20calorimetry,be%20accurately%20identified
%20and%20analyzed.

Lee, S., Kim, S., Chun, D., Choi, H. and Yoo, J. 2017. Upgrading and advanced cleaning
technologies for low-rank coals In: Z. Luo and M. Agraniotis, eds. Low-Rank Coals for Power
Generation, Fuel and Chemical Production. Vol 4, pp 73–92. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780081008959000048

Leoni, E., Mancini, M., Aminti, G. and Picchi, G. 2021. Wood fuel procurement to bioenergy
facilities: Analysis of moisture content variability and optimal sampling strategy. Processes (Basel,
Switzerland). Vol 9, p.359. Available from:

30
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349319825_Wood_Fuel_Procurement_to_Bioenergy_Fac
ilities_Analysis_of_Moisture_Content_Variability_and_Optimal_Sampling_Strategy

Loffer, L. 2020. Acceptable moisture levels in wood - knowing the moisture content. Wagner
Meters. [Online]. [Accessed 6 December 2023]. Available from:
https://www.wagnermeters.com/moisture-meters/wood-info/acceptable-moisture-levels-wood/.

Luttrell, G.H. and Honaker, R.Q. 2012. Coal Preparation In: Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science
and Technology. Vol 70, pp 2194–2222. Available from:
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3_431

Ma, Z., Yang, Y., Wu, Y., Xu, J., Peng, H., Liu, X., Zhang, W. and Wang, S. 2019. In-depth
comparison of the physicochemical characteristics of bio-char derived from biomass pseudo
components: Hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin. Journal of analytical and applied pyrolysis. Vol
140, pp.195–204. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165237018311744

MacDonald, P. 2023. The UK’s coal to clean journey. Ember. [Online]. [Accessed 2 December
2023]. Available from: https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/the-uks-coal-to-clean-journey/.

Mahajan, O.P. 1984. Determination of organic oxygen content of coals. Fuel (London, England).
Vol 64, pp 973–980. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001623618590153X/pdf?
md5=fa837859e2bcff61eafda56c6dafaca4&pid=1-s2.0-001623618590153X-main.pdf

Mahapatra, D. (2015). A Review on Steam Coal Analysis-Moisture. Vol 10, pp 315-325. Available
from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323767550_A_Review_on_Steam_Coal_Analysis-
Moisture

Mahmut, M. 2021. Coal. Geology Science. [online] [Accessed 1 December 2023] Available from:
https://geologyscience.com/rocks/coal/

Mayer, M., Prescott, C.E., Abaker, W.E.A., Augusto, L., Cécillon, L., Ferreira, G.W.D., James, J.,
Jandl, R., Katzensteiner, K., Laclau, J.-P., Laganière, J., Nouvellon, Y., Paré, D., Stanturf, J.A.,
Vanguelova, E.I. and Vesterdal, L. 2020. Tamm Review: Influence of forest management activities
on soil organic carbon stocks: A knowledge synthesis. Forest ecology and management. Vol 466,
pp 118127-118127. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112720300268

Meij, R. 1997. Prediction of environmental quality of by-products of coal-fired power plants. In

Studies in Environmental Science. Vol 71, pp 311–325. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/coal-composition

Merriman, D. 2020. The danger of sulfur in a gas turbine. Identifying Threats. [Online]. [Accessed
3 December 2023]. Available from: https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/identifying-threats/the-
danger-of-sulfur-in-a-gas-turbine/.

31
Miller, K. 2013. Coal analysis In: D. Osborne, ed. The Coal Handbook: Towards Cleaner
Production. Vol 1, pp 151–189. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B978085709422350006

Nationalgeographic.org. 2022. [online] [Accessed 1 December 2023]. Available from:

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/coal/

Pak, Y.N., Ponomaryova, M.V. and Pak, D.Y. 2016. Monitoring the sulfur content of coal. Coke
and chemistry. Vol 59, pp 8–13. Available from:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3103/S1068364X16010051

Panigrahi, P. 2020. Fuels. Module 3. Available from: Module-III_Fuels.pdf (gcekbpatna.ac.in)

Pettersson, A., Niklasson, F. and Moradian, F. 2013. Reduced bed temperature in a commercial
waste to energy boiler — Impact on ash and deposit formation. Fuel processing technology. Vol
105, pp 28–36. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378382011003158?via%3Dihub

Reinmöller, M., Schreiner, M., Laabs, M., Scharm, C., Yao, Z., Guhl, S., Neuroth, M., Meyer, B.
and Gräbner, M. 2023. Formation and transformation of mineral phases in biomass ashes and
evaluation of the feedstocks for application in high-temperature processes. Vol 210, pp 627–639.
Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148123005189

Renton, J and Repine, T. 2016. Coal Genesis. Wvu.edu. [Online]. [Accessed 8 December 2023].
Available from: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1004&context=earthscience_readings.

Ronsse, F., Nachenius, R.W. and Prins, W. 2015. Carbonization of Biomass In: Recent Advances in
Thermo-Chemical Conversion of Biomass. Vol 3, pp 293–324. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ultimate-analysis

Sath, M. k. 2021. Dulong’s Formula. Blogspot.com. [Online]. [Accessed 2 December 2023].

Available from: https://educationksath.blogspot.com/2021/02/dulongs-formula-according-to-
dulongs.html.

Schobert, H. 1995. Chapter 8 Moisture in lignite In: Coal Science and Technology. Vol 23, pp 383–
409. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167944906800091

Sengupta, S. and Majumder, T. 2023. Mineral matters in coal: Their implication In: Encyclopedia
of Mineral and Energy Policy. Vol 1, pp.1–10. Available from: Mineral Matters in Coal: Their
Implication | SpringerLink

Sha, D., Li, Y., Zhou, X., Zhang, J., Zhang, H. and Yu, J. 2021. Influence of volatile content on the
explosion characteristics of coal dust. ACS omega. Vol 6, pp 27150–27157. Available from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8530163/#:~:text=The%20lower%20the
%20volatile%20content%20of%20coal%2C%20the%20lower%20the,likely%20it%20is%20to
%20burn.&text=Compared%20with%20highly%20volatile%20coal,significant%20impact%20on
%20the%20explosion.

32
Sher, F., Pans, M.A., Afilaka, D.T., Sun, C. and Liu, H. 2017. Experimental investigation of woody
and non-woody biomass combustion in a bubbling fluidised bed combustor focusing on gaseous
emissions and temperature profiles. Energy (Oxford, England). Vol 141, pp.2069–2080. Available
from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054421731976X

Shirazi, A. R., Börtin, O., Eklund, L., & Lindqvist, O. 1995. The impact of mineral matter in coal
on its combustion, and a new approach to the determination of the calorific value of coal. Fuel. Vol
74(2), pp 247–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-2361(95)92661-o

Sivek, M., Čáslavský, M., & Jirásek, J. 2008. Applicability of Hilt’s law to the Czech part of the
Upper Silesian Coal Basin (Czech Republic). International Journal of Coal Geology. Vol 73(2), pp
185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2007.05.006

Sokhansanj, S., Ebadian, M., Rezaei, H., Oveisi, E., Ghiasi, B., Yazdanpanah, F.B., Asikainen, A.
and Luke, J.R. 2018. Ieabioenergy.com. [Online]. [Accessed 8 December 2023]. Available from:
https://itp-hightemperatureheat.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2018/09/CS2-Forest-
biomass-pre-treatment.pdf.

Speight, J.G. 2015. Offshore geology and operations In: Subsea and Deepwater Oil and Gas Science
and Technology. Chapter 2, pp 45–70. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781856175586000027?via%3Dihub

Sumbane, L., Bunt, J., Piketh, S., Neomagus, H., Waanders, F. and Matjie, R. 2021. The influence
of particle size on the thermal performance of coal and its derived char in a Union stove. Energy
Geoscience. Vol 2, pp 148–159. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666759220300536

Suárez, I. and Ward, C.R. 2008. Basic factors controlling coal quality and technological behaviour
of coal In: Applied Coal Petrology. 2nd edition, pp 19–59. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/maceral-analysis

Tajeddin, A. 2019. Designing a reliable wind farm through hybridization with biomass energy.
Applied thermal engineering. Vol 154. pp 171–179. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/carbon-based-fuel

Tanhua, A., Peltoniemi, M., Kallio, R., Peräniemi, S. and Luukkanen, S. 2022. The effects of dry
grinding and chemical conditioning during grinding on the flotation response of a Cu-Zn sulphide
ore and a spodumene pegmatite silicate ore. Minerals engineering. Vol 189, pp 107865-107865.
Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892687522004757

The Engineering Toolbox (2003). Coal - Classification. [Online]. [Accessed 6 December 2023].
Available from: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/classification-coal-d_164.html

Trimble, S. 2022. What Factors Affect Biomass Accumulation in Plants? CID Bio-Science.
[Online]. [Accessed 6 December 2023]. Available from: https://cid-inc.com/blog/what-factors-
affect-biomass-accumulation-in-plants/.

33
Tumuluru, Jaya Shankar & Hess, J. & Boardman, Richard & Wright, Christopher & Westover,
Tyler. (2012). Formulation, Pretreatment, and Densification Options to Improve Biomass
Specifications for Co-Firing High Percentages with Coal. Industrial Biotechnology. Vol 8, pp 113-
132. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228083713_Formulation_Pretreatment_and_Densification
_Options_to_Improve_Biomass_Specifications_for_Co-Firing_High_Percentages_with_Coal

USGS. 2021. What are the types of coal? Bing.com. [Online]. [Accessed 8 December 2023].
Available from: http://edgeservices.bing.com/edgesvc/redirect?url=https%3A%2F
%2Fwww.usgs.gov%2Ffaqs%2Fwhat-are-types-coal&hash=L7PJnktfP3rhJ6QoaLj
%2BsGAh4UmYrU1Gc52FE8abu4k%3D&key=psc-underside&usparams=cvid%3A51D
%7CBingProd
%7CC61C111465EAAE70F442957532085AE9B80122AE59ADC84E3D3B522373B08629%5Ert
one%3APrecise.

Ullah, S., Liu, Q., Wang, S., Jan, A.U., Sharif, H.M.A., Ditta, A., Wang, G. and Cheng, H. 2023.
Sources, impacts, factors affecting Cr uptake in plants, and mechanisms behind phytoremediation of
Cr-contaminated soils. The Science of the total environment. Vol 899, pp 165726-165726.
Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969723043498

United Nations. 1998. International Classification of in-Seam Coals. Available from:

https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pdfs/coal/1998_International_Classification_of_In-
Seam_Coals_-January_1998.pdf

University of Kentucky. 2023. Kentucky Geological Survey n.d. Moisture in coal, coal analysis,
Kentucky geological survey, university of Kentucky. Uky.edu. [Online]. [Accessed 4 December
2023]. Available from: https://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coal-analyses-moisture.php.

Us Epa. 2023. Coal ash basics. [Online]. [Accessed 3 December 2023]. Available from:
https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics#:~:text=Coal%20ash%20contains%20contaminants
%20like,drinking%20water%2C%20and%20the%20air.

Wagner, N.J. 2021. Geology of coal In: Encyclopedia of Geology. Vol 5, pp 745–761. Available
from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124095489125345?via%3Dihub

Wiklund, J. 2017. Effects of wood ash on soil fertility and plant performance in southwestern
Kenya. Master’s thesis in Soil Science. [Online]. [Accessed 8 December 2023]. Available from:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/211580566.pdf.

Woodyard, D. 2009. Fuels and lubes: Chemistry and treatment in: Pounder’s Marine Diesel Engines
and Gas Turbines. Vol 2, pp 87–142. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ash-content

İşçen, A., Öznacar, K., Tunç, K.M.M. and Günay, M.E. 2023. Exploring the critical factors of
biomass pyrolysis for sustainable fuel production by machine learning. Sustainability. Vol 15, pp
14884-14904. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/20/14884

34
35