## 4 Conclusions  
The investigation described in the article showed that absorptivity of materials is affected by a number of factors. It has been proved that different types of biomass even differ in their ability to form pellets. Differences in absorptivity have been observed not only between different types of wood biomass, but also between different types of plant biomass. It may be concluded that the utilization of biomass as a substitute in the sintering process is therefore possible and very feasible. Excellent results of absorptivity have been observed with Miscanthus plant, which exhibited the best values of absorption out of all the examined materials. The availability of this plant, as well as its growing potential and speed of growing, have been evaluated in many studies as optimal for the use of Miscanthus as a source of fuel in many industries, including the sintering process. Its excellent properties have been confirmed again in this study. According to the study results, biomass consisting of lavender is not a suitable alternative for the sintering process. The lower absorptivity of lavender, compared to Miscanthus, may be explained by comparing the structures of both plants in the longitudinal cross-section in terms of specific surface. The specific surface of Miscanthus was 3-fold larger than the specific surface of lavender. As for wood biomass, both types of the analysed sawdust (pine and oak) may be recommended as a substitute for coke dust in the sintering process. The least satisfactory results across the examined materials were observed when cold water was used, and the best results were obtained with industrial tensile or soapy water. This phenomenon was identical for both plant and wood biomasses. The research results indicate that partial replacement of coke dust with biomass, wooden or plant, in the sintering process is possible and feasible. Still, further research on biomass and the search for potential biomass optimization should be carried out in the future.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Granulometry** & **Warm Water** & **Cold Water** & **Soap Water** & **Tenzide** \\  & **[mm]** & **[mm]** & **[mm]** & **[mm]** & **[mm]** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**English Oak**} & 0.5 & 17 & 1 & 7 & 17 \\  & 0.5–1 & 18 & 9 & 11 & 28 \\  & 1–2 & 11 & 5 & 10 & 20 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Coke Breeze**} & 0.5 & 45 & 44 & 10 & 46 \\  & 0.5–1 & 27 & 36 & 23 & 36 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 1–2 & 15 & 13 & 6 & 20 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Cont.  
**Author Contributions:** [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] performed the experimental analysis; [PERSON] carried out the investigation, conceptualization, writing--original draft preparation, and writing--review and editing; [PERSON], [PERSON] evaluated the results, and conducted the formal analysis; [PERSON] carried out the investigation and validation; [PERSON] performed visualization and project administration; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
**Funding:** This research was funded by [APVV] Slovak Research and Development Agency, Slovak Republic number APVV-16-0513.  
**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.