# Optimization of the Production of Ecological Briquettes Based on Cardboard Paper Linked to Dead Biomass of Pennisetum sp. and Wood Chips and Community Acceptability

Alexis Dzokom, Roger Djouldé Darman

► To cite this version:

Alexis Dzokom, Roger Djouldé Darman. Optimization of the Production of Ecological Briquettes Based on Cardboard Paper Linked to Dead Biomass of Pennisetum sp. and Wood Chips and Community Acceptability. Sahel Nature Consulting Revue, In press, Briquette Biomass, 9 (10), pp.1-7. hal-05010203

HAL Id: hal-05010203

https://hal.science/hal-05010203v1

Submitted on 28 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Optimization of the Production of Ecological Briquettes Based on Cardboard Paper Linked to Dead Biomass of *Pennisetum* sp. and Wood Chips and Community Acceptability

Alexis DZOKOM¹, ², Roger Djouldé DARMAN ³

¹Sahel Nature Consulting

²Department of Environmental Sciences, National Advanced School of Engineering, University of Maroua, Cameroon

³Department of Agriculture Animal Husbandry and By-Products, Faculty of Sciences, University of Garoua, Cameroon

## Abstract

Eco-friendly briquettes offer an alternative solution to traditional fuels, aiming to reduce environmental impacts and improve energy management in rural communities. This study explores the optimization of eco-friendly briquette production using cardboard paper, Pennisetum sp. biomass, and wood chips. The objective is to identify the best mixture of these materials to maximize briquette quality, particularly their calorific value, mechanical resistance, and durability. Performance tests revealed that formulation F1 (50% cardboard paper, 30% Pennisetum, 20% wood chips) provides the best results in terms of calorific value (18.4 MJ/kg), combustion duration (42.6 min), and mechanical resistance (1.92 MPa). Community acceptability analysis showed a favorable perception among potential users (over 75% satisfaction regarding ease of use and thermal performance). Integrating these briquettes into local renewable energy policies could significantly contribute to combating deforestation, reducing energy costs, and improving living conditions in rural populations.

**Keywords:** Eco-friendly briquettes, Cardboard paper, Pennisetum sp. biomass, Wood chips, Production optimization, Community acceptability, Sustainable energy.

## Introduction

Optimizing the production of eco-friendly briquettes provides a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels and firewood, addressing environmental and socio-economic challenges. The use of abundant and renewable raw materials, such as cardboard paper, dead biomass from Pennisetum sp., and wood chips, allows for waste valorization while reducing pressure on forest resources (Demirbas, 2004). The production of eco-friendly briquettes aligns with the energy transition and deforestation mitigation strategies, particularly in the Sahelian region, where the demand for firewood remains high (Zulu & Richardson, 2013; Kemausuor et al., 2015).

Given the challenges posed by the scarcity of firewood and forest ecosystem degradation, several initiatives aim to promote biomass-based alternative energy sources. Previous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of various organic and inorganic binders in producing

briquettes from agricultural and industrial residues (Felfli et al., 2011; Dzokom, 2022; Dzokom & Djouldé, 2023; Dzokom et al., 2021). Integrating cardboard paper as a binder, combined with dead Pennisetum biomass and wood chips, could improve briquette energy density and mechanical stability (Sotannde et al., 2010). However, the success of this alternative depends on its acceptability among local communities, who need to be aware of its energy efficiency and environmental benefits. This study aims to optimize the manufacturing process, evaluate briquette quality, and analyze community acceptability among potential users, considering their cooking habits, fuel preferences, and socio-economic constraints.

Briquette optimization relies on thermodynamic and mechanical approaches to enhance their calorific value and shock resistance (Mishra et al., 2011; Dzokom et al., 2024a,b; Dzokom, 2024). Briquette energy efficiency depends on the type of
binder used and the physicochemical
properties of the raw materials (Grover &
Mishra, 1996). Additionally, community
acceptability can be analyzed through
sociological and economic approaches,
highlighting key determinants of energy
innovation adoption in rural areas
(Mulugetta, 1999; Rodrigues, 2015;
Dzokom, 2025; Dzokom et al., 2021a;
Dzokom & Darman, 2021; Dzokom, 2023;
Dzokom, 2021). How can the production
and acceptability of eco-friendly briquettes
made from cardboard paper, dead
Pennisetum biomass, and wood chips be
improved to offer a viable alternative to
firewood in the Sahelian region?

**Materials and Methods**

Optimizing the production of eco-friendly
briquettes involves an experimental and
analytical approach combining raw material
characterization, briquette formulation, and
their physicochemical and mechanical
evaluation. Additionally, a socio-economic
study was conducted to assess community
acceptability of the produced briquettes.

**1. Materials**

**1.1. Raw Materials**

The raw materials used for producing eco-
friendly briquettes include:

*   **Recycled cardboard paper:** Used as the main binder due to its high cellulose fiber content and agglomeration potential (Sotannde et al., 2010).

*   **Dead Pennisetum sp. biomass:** Naturally decomposed grass providing carbonizable plant fibers for stable combustion (Demirbas, 2004).

*   **Wood chips:** Sawmill residues acting as structural reinforcement to enhance briquette density and mechanical resistance (Grover & Mishra, 1996).

*   **Water:** Used to homogenize the mixture and facilitate briquette formation.

**1.2. Equipment and Tools**

*   **Crusher and sieve (2 mm mesh)** to refine and homogenize raw materials (Felfli et al., 2011; Dzokom & Djouldé, 2023; Dzokom et al., 2021).

*   **Metal compression molds** for briquette shaping.

*   **Hydraulic press (10 MPa pressure)** to compact mixtures and improve briquette cohesion (Mishra et al., 2011; Dzokom et al., 2024a,b; Dzokom, 2024).

*   **Drying oven set at 105°C** to remove excess moisture before combustion.

*   **Thermal analyzer** to measure briquette calorific value.

**2. Methods**

**2.1. Briquette Preparation and Formulation**

1. Raw Material Pretreatment:

o Air-drying of dead Pennisetum biomass and wood chips until moisture content is below 12% (Zulu & Richardson, 2013).

o Grinding wood chips and Pennisetum fibers to obtain homogeneous particles (≤ 2 mm).

o Soaking recycled cardboard paper for 24 hours to form a homogeneous binder paste (Felfli et al., 2011; Dzokom et al., 2021).

**2. Briquette Formulation:**

Three formulations were tested by varying raw material proportions:

F1: 50% cardboard
paper, 30%
Pennisetum, 20%
wood chips

- F2: 40% cardboard paper, 40% Pennisetum, 20% wood chips
* **F3:** 30% cardboard paper, 50% Pennisetum, 20% wood chips

* Each mixture was homogenized and compacted under 10 MPa pressure.

* Briquettes were dried for 72 hours at ambient temperature before analysis (Mishra et al., 2011; Dzokom et al., 2024a,b; Dzokom, 2024).

## 2.2. Briquette Performance Evaluation

### 2.2.1. Physicochemical Analysis

* **Moisture content (%):** Measured by drying at 105°C until constant mass (Zulu & Richardson, 2013).

* **Bulk density (g/cm³):** Determined based on compacted briquette mass and volume (Grover & Mishra, 1996).

* **Chemical composition:** Carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen content analyzed via chromatography (Felfli et al., 2011; Dzokom, 2022; Dzokom & Djouldé, 2023; Dzokom et al., 2021).

### 2.2.2. Energy Performance

* **Calorific value (MJ/kg):** Measured using a bomb calorimeter (Demirbas, 2004).

* **Combustion duration (min):** Tested on an improved stove by measuring the burning time of a 100 g briquette (Mulugetta, 1999).

* **CO, CO₂, and fine particulate emissions:** Analyzed via infrared spectrometry (Sotannde et al., 2010).

### 2.2.3. Mechanical Tests

* **Compression resistance:** Tested by applying a progressive load until rupture (Felfli et al., 2011).

* **Storage durability:** Observing cracking and deformation after 30 days.

## 3. Community Acceptability Study

A field survey was conducted among 100 rural households to assess their perception and willingness to use eco-friendly briquettes.

## 3.1. Survey Methodology

**Sampling:** Random selection of households traditionally using wood or charcoal.

**Data collection tool:** Semi-structured questionnaire covering energy preferences, acceptable costs, and acceptability criteria.

## Results and Discussion

The optimization of the production of eco-friendly briquettes made from cardboard paper, dead biomass of *Pennisetum*, and wood chips has yielded significant results in terms of physicochemical, energetic, and mechanical performance. Furthermore, the assessment of community acceptability revealed interesting trends regarding the potential adoption of these briquettes by local populations.

## 1. Experimental Results

### 1.1. Physicochemical Properties of Briquettes

The briquettes were analyzed in terms of moisture content, bulk density, and chemical composition.

<table><caption>Table 1: Physicochemical Properties of Briquettes</caption><thead><tr><th>Parameter</th><th>F1 (50% cardboard, 30% Pennisetum sp., 20% wood chips)</th><th>F2 (40% cardboard, 40% Pennisetum sp., 20% wood chips)</th><th>F3 (30% cardboard, 50% Pennisetum sp., 20% wood chips)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Moisture content (%)</td><td>7.5 ± 0.2</td><td>8.1 ± 0.3</td><td>8.6 ± 0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Bulk density (g/cm³)</td><td>0.85 ± 0.02</td><td>0.78 ± 0.01</td><td>0.71 ± 0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Carbon content (%)</td><td>62.4 ± 0.5</td><td>60.1 ± 0.4</td><td>58.7 ± 0.6</td></tr><tr><td>Oxygen content (%)</td><td>30.2 ± 0.3</td><td>32.5 ± 0.2</td><td>33.8 ± 0.4</td></tr></tbody></table>
The moisture content of the briquettes remained below 10%, which complies with recommended standards to ensure proper combustion (Demirbas, 2004; Strezov et al., 2019). Bulk density decreases as the proportion of *Pennisetum* increases. This reduction may be due to the fibrous structure of *Pennisetum*, which is less dense than cardboard and wood chips (Felfli et al., 2011; Dzokom, 2022; Dzokom & Djoulde,

2023; Dzokom et al., 2021). The highest carbon content (62.4%) was observed in F1, indicating a better energy potential (Zulu & Richardson, 2013; Ramachandra et al., 2000).

## 1.2. Energy Performance and Combustion

Combustion performance was evaluated based on calorific value, burning duration, and gas emissions.

<table><caption>Table 2: Energy Performance and Combustion</caption><thead><tr><td>Parameter</td><td>F1</td><td>F2</td><td>F3</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Calorific value (MJ/kg)</td><td>18.4 ± 0.2</td><td>17.1 ± 0.3</td><td>16.3 ± 0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Burning duration (min)</td><td>42.6 ± 0.5</td><td>38.4 ± 0.6</td><td>35.8 ± 0.7</td></tr><tr><td>CO₂ emissions (%)</td><td>4.1 ± 0.2</td><td>4.5 ± 0.3</td><td>4.8 ± 0.4</td></tr><tr><td>CO emissions (%)</td><td>0.52 ± 0.02</td><td>0.61 ± 0.02</td><td>0.73 ± 0.03</td></tr></tbody></table>

The calorific value decreases as the proportion of *Pennisetum* sp. increases. The F1 formulation, with 50% cardboard paper, has the highest calorific value of 18.4 MJ/kg, close to that of charcoal (~20 MJ/kg) (Grover & Mishra, 1996). Burning duration follows the same trend: F1 burns longer, suggesting better energy density and more efficient combustion (Mishra et al., 2011; Dzokom et al., 2024a,b; Dzokom,

2024). CO and CO₂ emissions slightly increase with the proportion of *Pennisetum* sp., likely due to the faster and incomplete combustion of this biomass (Sotannde et al., 2010; Prempeh, 2024).

## 1.3. Mechanical Strength and Storage

The briquettes were subjected to compression strength tests and integrity assessment after storage.

<table><caption>Table 3: Mechanical Strength and Storage</caption><thead><tr><td>Parameter</td><td>F1</td><td>F2</td><td>F3</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Compression strength (MPa)</td><td>1.92 ± 0.1</td><td>1.74 ± 0.1</td><td>1.55 ± 0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Deformation after 30 days (%)</td><td>3.1 ± 0.2</td><td>4.3 ± 0.3</td><td>5.6 ± 0.3</td></tr></tbody></table>

Mechanical strength decreases as *Pennisetum* sp. content increases, suggesting the need for binder adjustment (Demirbas, 2004). Deformation after storage is more pronounced for F3, confirming the necessity of optimal drying

and a better binder proportion (Zulu & Richardson, 2013).

## 2. Community Acceptability

A survey of 100 households revealed contrasting perceptions.

<table><caption>Table 4: Community Acceptability</caption><thead><tr><td>Evaluation Criterion</td><td>% of Favorable Households</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ease of use</td><td>83%</td></tr><tr><td>Calorific value</td><td>76%</td></tr><tr><td>Affordable cost</td><td>64%</td></tr><tr><td>Absence of excessive smoke</td><td>79%</td></tr><tr><td>Availability of raw materials</td><td>71%</td></tr></tbody></table>
83% of households found these briquettes easy to use, which is a key indicator of adoption (Mulugetta, 1999; Dzokom, 2025; Dzokom et al., 2021a; Dzokom & Darman, 2021; Dzokom, 2023; Dzokom, 2021). 76% considered the calorific value satisfactory, although slightly lower than charcoal. Only 64% found the cost affordable, suggesting that subsidies could encourage adoption (Zulu & Richardson, 2013). The optimization of eco-friendly briquettes made from cardboard paper, Pennisetum biomass, and wood chips has yielded promising results.

# Conclusion and Recommendations

## 1. Conclusion

The study on the optimization of eco-friendly briquette production using cardboard paper, dead *Pennisetum* biomass, and wood chips allowed for an evaluation of the physical, energy, and mechanical performance of the tested formulations. The key findings indicate that:

* The F1 formulation (50% cardboard paper, 30% *Pennisetum*, 20% wood chips) offers the best performance in terms of calorific value (18.4 MJ/kg), combustion duration (42.6 min), and mechanical strength (1.92 MPa).

* Increasing the proportion of *Pennisetum* sp. reduces the density and mechanical strength of the briquettes but can improve combustion and lower smoke production.

* The community acceptability analysis revealed a favorable perception from potential users (over 75% satisfaction in terms of ease of use and thermal performance). However, production costs remain a major challenge for widespread adoption.

These results confirm that briquettes made from this combination of raw materials are a viable alternative to traditional fuels while contributing to waste valorization and deforestation reduction.

# 2. Recommendations

## 2.1. Technical Optimization

* Improve binder formulation to enhance the mechanical strength of the briquettes, particularly by testing different proportions of natural binders such as cassava starch or clay.

* Optimize the drying process to reduce residual moisture and maximize the energy efficiency of the briquettes.

* Explore the addition of other biomass sources (such as agricultural residues) to increase the flexibility of locally available raw materials.

## 2.2. Strengthening Community Acceptability

* Raise awareness among local populations about the environmental and economic benefits of using eco-friendly briquettes.

* Develop pilot projects and practical demonstrations to encourage adoption and use.

* Work with local authorities and NGOs to integrate these briquettes into deforestation mitigation and energy poverty reduction programs.

## 2.3. Economic Viability and Large-Scale Production

* Assess the economic profitability of large-scale production and identify strategies to reduce costs.

* Encourage cooperatives and local micro-enterprises to engage in the production and commercialization of briquettes.

* Explore subsidy opportunities or financial support to facilitate access to more efficient production equipment.

# 3. Future Perspectives

Future research could include:
* A comparative assessment between these briquettes and other commonly used energy sources in the region.

* A detailed analysis of the environmental impact, particularly in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and wood consumption.

* The development of a sustainable economic model for large-scale briquette production and distribution.

Integrating these briquettes into local renewable energy policies could significantly contribute to combating deforestation, reducing energy costs, and improving the living conditions of rural populations.

## References

1. **Alexis, D., & Darman, P. R. D.** (2021). *Deinking Effect of Paper-Cartons Wastes on Calorifique Value of Combustibles Briquettes*.

2. **Alexis, DZOKOM.** (2021). *VALORISATION ENERGETIQUE ET ENVIRONNEMENTALE DES DECHETS PAPIERS ET CARTONS* (Doctoral dissertation, Thèse Doctorat/Ph. D. en Sciences de l'Ingénierie de l'environnement, Option: Génie de l'Environnement, Ecole Nationale Supérieure Polytechnique de Maroua (ENSPM) de l'Université de Maroua).

3. **Demirbas, A.** (2004). "Combustion characteristics of different biomass fuels." *Progress in Energy and Combustion Science*, 30(2), 219-230.

4. **Dzokom, A.** (2022). "Made of Combustible Briquette By Using Azadirachta indica Dead Leaves Associed to Stem Of Sorghum sp." *Revue Sahélienne d'Ingénierie et Sciences Appliquées (RSIA)*, 1(1), 71-75.

5. **Dzokom, A.** (2023). *Environmental Management Tools and Techniques*

in the Cameroonian Sahelian Zone: Sustainable Approach and Practices. Available at SSRN 5171289.

6. **Dzokom, A.** (2024). "Economic index of Ecological Charcoal Based on *Prosopis juliflora*-*Eichhornia crassipes* Mix and their carbon sequestration potential." Available at SSRN 4873958.

7. **Dzokom, A.** (2025). *Outils Et Techniques De Gestion De L'environnement En Zone Sahélienne Camerounaise: Approche Et Pratiques Durables. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences*, 5(5), 1-16.

8. **Dzokom, A., Darman, R. D., & Koda, J. T.** (2021). "Assessment of Papers and Cardboard Wastes and Their potential use for the Production of Combustible Briquettes." *International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology*, 6(1), 1261-1264.

9. **Dzokom, A., Djoulde, D. R.** (2023). "Effects of Sand-Clay Composite Binder on the Performance of Ecological Coal based on the Biomass of *Eichhornia crassipes*." Available at SSRN 4881064.

10. **Dzokom, A., Koda, J. T., & Darman, R. D.** (2021). "Deinking Effect of Paper-Cartons Wastes on Calorifique Value of Combustibles Briquettes." *International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)*, 3(7), 3451-3458.

11. **Dzokom, A., Kodji, E., Hamadou, F., Metsena, P., Koda, J. T., & Darman, R. D.** (2024a). "Effects of Ecological Charcoal Production Processes Based on *Eichhornia crassipes* on its Characteristics as Cooking Energy." *TIJER-INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL*, 11(4), a427-a432.
12. Dzokom, A., Kodji, E., Koda, J. T., & Darman, R. D. (2024).b. "Study of the Performance of Organic and Inorganic Binders for the Production of Ecological Charcoal Fuels Based on Dead Biomass of Azadirachta indica." GSJ, 12(4), 330-338.

13. Felfli, F., Luengo, C., Suárez, J., & Beatón, P. (2011). "Wood briquette torrefaction." *Renewable Energy*, 36(2), 586-591.

14. Grover, P. D., & Mishra, S. K. (1996). *Biomass briquetting: Technology and practices*. FAO Regional Wood Energy Development Programme.

15. Kemausuor, F., Addo, A., Ofori, E., Darkwah, L., Bolwig, S., & Nygaard, I. (2015). "Assessment of technical potential and selected sustainability impacts of second generation bioenergy in Ghana."

16. Mishra, R. K., Mohanty, M., & Das, S. (2011). "Comparative study of binderless and binder-based biomass briquetting." *Renewable Energy*, 36(6), 1624-1630.

17. Mulugetta, Y. (1999). "Energy for rural livelihoods: A framework for sustainable decision making." *Energy Policy*, 27(13), 891-902.

18. Prempeh, C. O. (2024). *Generation of biogenic silica from biomass residues for sustainable industrial*

material applications (Doctoral dissertation, Universitätsbibliothek Rostock).

19. Ramachandra, T. V., Joshi, N. V., & Subramanian, D. K. (2000). "Present and prospective role of bioenergy in regional energy system." *Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews*, 4(4), 375-430.

20. Rodrigues, A., Bordado, J., & Mateus, M. (2015). "An evaluation of SRCs as a Potential carbon neutral source of biomass for energy and Chemicals." *International Journal of Energy, Environment and Economics*, 23(4/5), 479.

21. Sotannde, O. A., Oluyege, A. O., & Abah, G. B. (2010). "Physical and combustion properties of charcoal briquettes from neem wood residues." *International Journal of Agriculture and Forestry*, 3(1), 186-192.

22. Strezov, V., Anawar, H. M., & Strezov, V. (2019). *Renewable Energy Systems from Biomass*. Boca Raton FL: CRC Press.

23. Zulu, L. C., & Richardson, R. B. (2013). "Charcoal, livelihoods, and poverty reduction: Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa." *Energy for Sustainable Development*, 17(2), 127-137.