## 3 Results and Discussion
### Comparative Analysis with Other Traditional Fuels
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Indicator** & **Briquette** & _Pinus_ spp.** & _Quercus_ spp.** \\ \hline Calorific power (MJ/kg) & 17.6 & 17.8 & 19.5 \\ Moisture content (\%) & 13.2 & 32 & 25 \\ Lignin content (\%) & 25.8 & 28 & 24.59 \\ Ash content (\%) & 1.55 & 3 & 0.95 \\ Unitary production cost (\$/kg) & 10.29 & 0.4 & 0.5 \\ Amount of first-use wood (kg) & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Real values of the indicators. The processing and graphing of the data were carried out using MULTIBERSO software, a tool for multi-criteria analysis and indicators of sustainability that presents results in the form of graphs, as can be observed in Figure 15.  
Figure 15 shows the indicators used in the analysis to identify the potential of the briquettes produced compared to conventional fuels. This graphic presentation allows the reader to appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of various aspects, from a focus on energy, to one on economics, to one on the environment. The indicator calorific power shows that the relation of the three fuels is similar, as no significant differences were found. In terms of lignin content, the relevant indicators report similar values, although the oak-based fuel was higher. With respect to the unitary production cost, the graph shows that the cost of producing briquettes is higher than that of pine or oak firewood, but it is important to understand that firewood is simply extracted from forests directly, and does not undergo any transformation process to turn it into fuel. The material for the briquettes, in contrast, is obtained from the sawing process so the cost added is only that of converting wood into densified material. For the indicator amount of first-use wood, the graph shows that the briquettes-a non-first-use wood-are made of waste material that is exploited to generate added value to a process (sawing) that produces solid waste. In terms of this indicator, then, the briquettes represent the ideal case. Turning to the ash content of the three fuels, we find that it is low, a property that makes them ideal for combustion, especially for all manner of domestic tasks. Finally, for the factor moisture content the study found that the initial moisture of the material used to make the briquettes is much lower than the values for pine and oak firewood. Thus, in this aspect, the briquettes differ significantly from the other two fuels. In synthesis, the briquettes represent a fuel that is competitive with pine and oak firewood \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Indicator** & **Briquette** & _Pinus spp._ & _Quercus spp._ \\ \hline Calorific power (MJ/kg) & 8.41 & 8.51 & 9.32 \\ Moisture content (\%) & 7.64 & 4.28 & 5.53 \\ Lignin content (\%) & 7.37 & 8.0 & 7.03 \\ Ash content (\%) & 9.15 & 8.35 & 9.48 \\ Unitary production cost (S/kg) & 8.71 & 9.95 & 9.94 \\ Amount of first-use wood (kg) & 10.00 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Normalized values of the indicators. Figure 15: Formulation of indicators with different parameters using the MULTIBERSO program. in all three parameters considered: economic, energy, and environment. Conclusion: these briquettes constitute a fuel source that has positive indicators of sustainability.