See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358981458

Agro-waste research and augmentation (Awra) phase 2: Carbonization of rice

husk, corn stem and husk and giant taro peel as raw materials for charcoal
briquettes

Article  in  International Journal of Educational Research · February 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 13

1 author:

Teody Lester Verdeflor Panela

Northwest Samar State University
15 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Teody Lester Verdeflor Panela on 03 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Educational Research and Development
www.journalofeducation.in
Online ISSN: 2664-7095, Print ISSN: 2664-7087
Received: 08-01-2022, Accepted: 24-01-2022, Published: 09-02-2022
Volume 4, Issue 1, 2022, Page No. 22-26

Agro-waste research and augmentation (Awra) phase 2: Carbonization of rice husk,

corn stem and husk and giant taro peel as raw materials for charcoal briquettes

Teody Lester V Panela

College of Education, Northwestern Samar State University, Samar, Philippines

Abstract
This study used experimental approach in coming up with substitute material for charcoal briquettes as
alternative fuel. Three agricultural waste were utilized and compared in the study, namely Rice (Oryza sativa)
husk, Corn (Zea mays) Stem and Husk, and Giant Taro (Alocasia macrorrhizos) peels. It was found out that giant
taro charcoal briquettes had the shortest duration recorded under the boiling ability test, allowing water to reach
boiling point at the shortest amount of time though it was noted that among three alternatives, it burned out
easily to ash. No significant differences were noted in terms of burning time and boiling ability. This study
showed the potential of agricultural waste for bioconversion, to be specific carbonization as material for charcoal
briquettes. It is looking into reusing agricultural waste and turning it for potential income source for the farmers.
It could lessen the demand for hard wood charcoals thus minimizing the threat for deforestation. Carbonization
can create smokeless fuel which could lessen the damage to the ozone layer further contributing the prevention
of global warming. The study could be comprehensive by recalibration of proportion for charcoal briquettes to
determine the perfect consistency for maximum effect. Further studies and a more in-depth investigation of
alternative sources and reusing agricultural waste is recommended.

Keywords: farmer, agricultural waste management, alternative fuel, charcoal briquettes

Introduction
Technical Description
 Rationale
Agricultural waste management has recently received attention among researchers who are interested in
understanding its nature and sustainability (Foley et al., 2011) [8]. In the past, agricultural waste management
researchers focused on the facet of this management variable in areas of understanding the concept (Obi,
Ugwuishiwu, & Nwakaire, 2016) [19], generation (Girotto, Alibardi, & Cossu, 2015) [11], production (Chandra,
Takeuchi, & Hasegawa, 2012) [2], food bioconversion (Uçkun Kiran, Trzcinski, Ng, & Liu, 2014) [24], utilization
(Väisänen, Haapala, Lappalainen, & Tomppo, 2016) [25], biodegradation (Emadian, Onay, & Demirel, 2017) [5],
valorization (Tuck, Pérez, Horváth, Sheldon, & Poliakoff, 2012) [23], and profitability (Mel, Yong, Avicenna,
Ihsan, & Setyobudi, 2015) [16].
Globally, humans generate 998 million tons of agro-waste annually which makes up 15% of the total waste
generation (André, Pauss, & Ribeiro, 2018) [1]. The Philippines, in particular, is generating agricultural waste of
0.078 kg/cap/day or 780,000 tons of agro-waste in a year (Agamuthu, 2009). The country is looking into zero
waste initiative (Sapuay, 2016) [22] that could lessen the production thus doing less damage to the environment.
In Region 8, rice, corn and cassava are the top three crops produced. It posted a 1.11% growth in rice production
from 984,017 to 994,972 metric tons or a 98% sufficiency index. Likewise, cassava production increased by
3.95% from 78,805.43 to 81,918.12 metric tons (Department of Agriculture - Regional Field Unit VIII, 2015).
With all of the information given, it bounces back to the question, why there are so much agro-waste generated?
Are there necessary steps taken to solve it? Is there a way to convert agro-waste into something useful? Is
bioconversion even possible?
The questions presented motivated the researcher to focus on agricultural waste (rice husk, corn stem and husk,
and giant taro peels) carbonization as material for charcoal briquettes. There is a need to look into the
acceptability of these materials and how it would fare with the traditional charcoal, hence the conduct of this
study.

 Objectives
General Objective
This study opted to carbonize agricultural waste from the utilization of Rice (Oryza sativa) husk, Corn (Zea
mays) Stem and Husk, and Giant Taro (Alocasia macrorrhizos) peels as biomass converted to charcoal
briquettes.

22
International Journal of Educational Research and Development www.journalofeducation.in

Specific Objectives
1. Find out the potential of agricultural waste from the utilization of Rice (Oryza sativa) husk, Corn (Zea mays)
Stem and Husk, and Giant Taro (Alocasia macrorrhizos) peels as alternative materials for charcoal
briquettes in terms of its:
2. Burning Time
3. Boiling Ability
4. Compare the quality of agricultural waste from the utilization of Rice (Oryza sativa) husk, Corn (Zea mays)
Stem and Husk, and Giant Taro (Alocasia macrorrhizos) peels as alternative materials for charcoal
briquettes in terms of its:
5. Burning Time
6. Boiling Ability
7. Find out which from the three (3) alternative material for charcoal briquettes has the best qualities in terms
of its:
8. Burning Time
9. Boiling Ability

Review of Literature
Sixty percent (60%) of the world’s population heats and cooks on charcoal and wood. Making the latter the most
important source of energy than oil (Gochicoa-Rangel & Torre-Bouscoult, 2011) [13]. This, in turn, poses a
disastrous consequence on trees, threats of deforestation (Chidumayo & Gumbo, 2013) [3]. Furthermore, such
action contributes to the emission of harmful gases, carbon dioxide with emission of 71.20 million tons
(Yazdanparast et al., 2013) [27] and methane with 1.3 million tons (Kopetz, 2013) [15]. With such issues of
ecological hazards, researches on sustainability (Felix, 2015) [7] and alternative source of substitute fuel (Nunes,
Matias, & Catalão, 2016) [18] over conventional fuel, such as wood, charcoal, and coal, is of most importance. In
a world where human population is growing at an unprecedented rate, the demand for conventional fuel
increases (John, Anisha, Nampoothiri, & Pandey, 2011) [14]. Resulting to more trees being cut outfacing the
growth of new tress (Phillips et al., 2010) [20]. An increase demand could lead to soaring prices (Gkanoutas-
Leventis & Nesvetailova, 2015) [12], which could present dire consequences of wasteful burning of woods and
irreversible spread of treeless scenery. Continuing concerns on energy security (Dolata, 2017) [4] and obvious
visibility of climate change and global warming (Foster, 2018) [9], alternative source of energy is coming into
prominence and is entering a new chapter of high importance. With the Philippines, generating 780,000 tons of
agro-waste in a year, the country is looking into a hot bed of possibilities (Agamuthu, 2009). Agricultural waste
carbonization is an alternative way of producing materials for charcoal briquettes instead of the usual wood
(Ronsse, Nachenius, & Prins, 2015) [21]. Instead of agricultural waste burning, using it as a fuel source (Fatih
Demirbas, Balat, & Balat, 2011) [6] slows deforestation advancement by eliminating the need to cut down trees
for wood fuel. Charcoal briquettes are smokeless advanced fuel and can be stored for longer periods without
episodes of degradation (Mwampamba, Owen, & Pigaht, 2013) [17]. Repurposing the agricultural waste could not
only help in attaining a zero-waste future but could also expand farming potentials and opportunities (Yahya, Al-
Qodah, & Ngah, 2015) [26].

Methodology
 Materials and Equipment Needed

Table 1
Quantity Description Source
Materials
1000 grams Rice Husk Agro-waste
1000 grams Corn Husk and Stem Agro-waste
1000 grams Giant Taro Peels Agro-waste
Equipment
1 box Disposable Gloves Local Market
1 piece Weighing Scale Residence
1 piece Food Processor Residence
2 pieces Mixing Bowl Residence
1 piece Spatula Residence
1 piece Improvised Carbonizer Local Market and Residence

 Proportion of Materials per Charcoal Briquettes

Table 2
Proportion A Proportion B Proportion C Proportion D
Charcoal Briquette A Charcoal Briquette B Charcoal Briquette C Wood Charcoal

23
International Journal of Educational Research and Development www.journalofeducation.in

195 grams Rice Husk 195 grams Corn Husk and Stem 195 grams Giant Taro Peels 200 grams Wood
5 grams Biomass Binder 5 grams Biomass Binder 5 grams Biomass Binder Charcoal

 Process Flowchart

Fig 1

 Research Design
This study utilized a controlled experimental design, specifically quasi-experimental design, of which isolation,
augmentation, control, as well as data analysis are conducted under laboratory conditions (Fraenkel & Wallen,
2006) [10].

 Experimental Phase and Data Analysis

For gauging the effectiveness of the charcoal briquettes, burning time and boiling ability tests were conducted.
Testing the burning time simply means from the ignition of the briquette samples as well as the control and
measuring the duration or how long will it sustain the flame until it completely turns to ash. Likewise, measuring
boiling ability means subjecting each proportion to boiling a 100 ml of water, measuring the time for the water to
reach its boiling point. The variation in time for the two tests were subjected to statistical analysis, both
descriptive and inferential statistics, with the aid of Microsoft Excel Data Analysis and SPSS.

 Results and Discussion

The technology generated in the study centers around the utilization of agricultural waste, bioconversion in the
form of carbonization and tackling the issues on agricultural waste management, threats of deforestation and
alternative fuel sources. This study is brainchild of the Agro-Waste Research and Augmentation (AWRA) Phase
1 study with the same aim of farmer empowerment and agricultural innovation. It is looking into reusing
agricultural waste and turning it for potential income source for the farmers. It could lessen the demand for hard
wood charcoals thus minimizing the threat for deforestation. Carbonization can create smokeless fuel which
could lessen the damage to the ozone layer further contributing the prevention of global warming.

Burning Time Test

Table 3
Trials in Time (Minutes) Average
Proportions
1 2 3 (Minutes)
Charcoal Briquette A (Rice) 38:07.9 39:30.1 49:58.21 42:32.07
Charcoal Briquette B (Corn) 39:57.6 48:26.11 40:27.6 42:70.43
Charcoal Briquette C (Giant Taro) 37:48.7 36:31.8 39:28.7 37:39.73
Wood Charcoal 48:50.27 50:16.9 49:16.4 49:27.85

24
International Journal of Educational Research and Development www.journalofeducation.in

Table showed the result of the burning time test which highlighted that the proportion with the longest duration
of burning time or with the highest average is that of the wood charcoal with 49 minutes, 27 seconds. Likewise,
it can be gleamed that giant taro proportion had the shortest burning time duration with 37 minutes and 39
seconds. This means that the giant taro briquettes quickly turned to ash. Proportions A and B, rice charcoal
briquettes and corn charcoal briquettes manifested an almost the same average burning time.

Boiling Ability Test

Table 4
Trials in Time (Minutes)
Proportions Average (Minutes)
1 2 3
Charcoal Briquette A (Rice) 6:27.53 5:31.24 4:05.49 5:21.42
Charcoal Briquette B (Corn) 5:35.50 6:18.14 5:10.53 5:54.07
Charcoal Briquette C (Giant Taro) 6:09.28 4:52.19 4:38.65 5:00.04
Wood Charcoal 5:11.11 7:35.44 5:22.71 6:29.75

Table showed the result of the boiling ability test between alternative charcoal briquettes and wood charcoal in
three trials. Likewise, it can be noted that giant taro briquettes posted the lowest time for water to reach the
boiling point, specifically, 5 minutes. This means that the giant taro briquettes can generate a higher temperature
compared to the other three proportions. Wood charcoal posted the lowest average time, 6 minutes and 29
seconds, thus it takes longer for water to reach its boiling point when exposed to wood charcoal.
Upon subjecting the results of both test to statistical analysis, it was found that there was no significant
difference in the burning time and boiling ability of the the alternative charcoal briquettes and wood charcoal.

Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation

 Summary
It was found out that giant taro charcoal briquettes had the shortest duration recorded under the boiling ability
test, allowing water to reach boiling point at the shortest amount of time though it was noted that among three
alternatives, it burned out easily to ash. No significant differences were noted in terms of burning time and
boiling ability.

 Conclusion
This study showed the potential of agricultural waste for bioconversion, to be specific carbonization as material
for charcoal briquettes. It is looking into reusing agricultural waste and turning it for potential income source for
the farmers. It could lessen the demand for hard wood charcoals thus minimizing the threat for deforestation.
Carbonization can create smokeless fuel which could lessen the damage to the ozone layer further contributing
the prevention of global warming.

 Recommendations
The study could be comprehensive by recalibration of proportion for charcoal briquettes to determine the perfect
consistency for maximum effect. Further studies and a more in-depth investigation of alternative sources and
reusing agricultural waste is recommended.

References
1. André L, Pauss A, Ribeiro T. Solid anaerobic digestion: State-of-art, scientific and technological hurdles.
Bioresource Technology, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.003
2. Chandra R, Takeuchi H, Hasegawa T. Methane production from lignocellulosic agricultural crop wastes: A
review in context to second generation of biofuel production, 2012. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.11.035
3. Chidumayo EN, Gumbo DJ. The environmental impacts of charcoal production in tropical ecosystems of the
world: A synthesis. Energy for Sustainable Development, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.07.004
4. Dolata P. Energy security. In The Palgrave Handbook of Security, Risk and Intelligence, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53675-4_3
5. Emadian SM, Onay TT, Demirel B. Biodegradation of bioplastics in natural environments. Waste
Management, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.006
6. Fatih Demirbas M, Balat M, Balat H. Biowastes-to-biofuels, 2011. Energy Conversion and Management.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.10.041
7. Felix M. Future prospect and sustainability of wood fuel resources in Tanzania, 2015. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.034
8. Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Zaks DPM. Solutions for a
cultivated planet, 2011. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452

25
 International Journal of Educational Research and Development www.journalofeducation.in

9. Foster I. Climate change. In On the Ecology of Australia’s Arid Zone, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-93943-8_14
10. Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE. The Basic of Educational Research. In How to design and evaluate resaerch in
education with PowerWeb, 2006.
11. Girotto F, Alibardi L, Cossu R. Food waste generation and industrial uses: A review. Waste Management,
2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.06.008
12. Gkanoutas-Leventis A, Nesvetailova A. Financialisation, 2015. oil and the Great Recession. Energy Policy.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.05.006
13. Gochicoa-Rangel L, Torre-Bouscoult L. Pollution/biomass fuel exposure and respiratory illness in children.
Paediatric Respiratory Reviews, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1526-0542(11)70030-6
14. John RP, Anisha GS, Nampoothiri KM, Pandey A. Micro and macroalgal biomass: A renewable source for
bioethanol. Bioresource Technology, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.139
15. Kopetz H. Renewable resources: Build a biomass energy market, 2013. Nature.
https://doi.org/10.1038/494029a
16. Mel M, Yong ASH, Avicenna Ihsan SI, Setyobudi RH. Simulation Study for Economic Analysis of Biogas
Production from Agricultural Biomass. Energy Procedia, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.01.026
17. Mwampamba TH, Owen M, Pigaht M. Opportunities, challenges and way forward for the charcoal briquette
industry in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2013. Energy for Sustainable Development.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.10.006
18. Nunes LJR, Matias JCO, Catalão JPS. Wood pellets as a sustainable energy alternative in Portugal, 2016.
Renewable Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.07.065
19. Obi F, Ugwuishiwu B, Nwakaire J. Agricultural Waste Concept, Generation, Utilization and Management,
2016. Nigerian Journal of Technology. https://doi.org/10.4314/njt.v35i4.34
20. Phillips OL, van der Heijden G, Lewis SL, López-González G, Aragão LEOC, Lloyd J et al. 2010 Drought-
mortality relationships for tropical forests. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
8137.2010.03359.x
21. Ronsse F, Nachenius RW, Prins W. Carbonization of Biomass. In Recent Advances in Thermochemical
Conversion of Biomass, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63289-0.00011-9
22. Sapuay GP. Resource Recovery through RDF: Current Trends in Solid Waste Management in the
Philippines. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.030
23. Tuck CO, Pérez E, Horváth IT, Sheldon RA, Poliakoff M, 2012. Valorization of biomass: Deriving more
value from waste. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218930
24. Uçkun Kiran E, Trzcinski AP, Ng WJ, Liu Y. Bioconversion of food waste to energy: A review, 2014. Fuel.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.05.074
25. Väisänen T, Haapala A, Lappalainen R, Tomppo L. Utilization of agricultural and forest industry waste and
residues in natural fiber-polymer composites: A review. Waste Management, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.04.037
26. Yahya MA, Al-Qodah Z, Ngah CWZ. Agricultural bio-waste materials as potential sustainable precursors
used for activated carbon production: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.051
27. Yazdanparast T, Salehpour S, Reza Masjedi M, Mohammad Seyedmehdi S, Boyes E, Stanisstreet M et al.
Global warming: Knowledge and views of Iranian students. Acta Medica Iranica, 2013.

26

View publication stats