Microsoft Word - 23-2411_s


Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 8, No. 6, 2018, 3609-3613 3609  
  

www.etasr.com Solangi et al: Investigation of Quantity, Quality and Energy Content of Indigenous Sugarcane Trash … 

 

Investigation of Quantity, Quality and Energy 

Content of Indigenous Sugarcane Trash in Naoshehro 

Feroze District, Sindh 
 

Sajjad Hussain Solangi 

Department of Mechanical Engineering, 

Quaid-e-Awam University College of 

Engineering, Science and Technology, 

Larkano, Pakistan 

sajjad05me14@yahoo.com 

Abdul Qayoom Jakhrani 

Department of Chemical Engineering, 

Quaid-e-Awam University of 

Engineering, Science and Technology, 

Nawabshah, Pakistan 

aqunimas@hotmail.com 

Kishan Chand Mukwana 

Department of Energy and Environment 

Engineering, Quaid-e-Awam University 

of Engineering, Science and Technology, 

Nawabshah, Pakistan 

kcmukwana@quest.edu.pk 

Abdul Rehman Jatoi 

Department of Energy and Environment Engineering, 

Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering, Science and 

Technology, Nawabshah, Pakistan 

arjatoi@quest.edu.pk 

Muhammad Ramzan Luhur 

Department of Mechanical Engineering, 

Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering, Science and 

Technology, Nawabshah, Pakistan 

ramzanluhur@yahoo.com 
 

 

Abstract—Quantity, characteristics, and energy content in 

sugarcane trash of six different indigenous sugarcane varieties 

were computed for their possible utilization. Results revealed that 

the total sugarcane trash weight percentage was 24.0% of the 

total sugarcane crop. Among all examined varieties, variety 240 

produced the highest and the variety HS12 the lowest percentage 

of sugarcane trash with 28% and 18.6% respectively. Moisture 

and ash content were found less in brown leaves and more in the 

tops of sugarcane trash parts. The fixed carbon values in brown 

leaves, green leaves, and tops of the variety Thatta10 were the 

highest found, with 18.4%, 15.5%, and 17.3% respectively. 

Carbon element’s percentage in brown leaves of variety HS12 

was the highest with 50.0% and in Thatta10 was the lowest with 

43.4%. Highest heating value was found in Thatta10 with 

16.0MJ/kg, which is close to the literature reported values.  

Keywords-energy content; higher heating value; proximate 

analysis; ultimate analysis; sugarcane trash   

I. INTRODUCTION  

The major sources of biomass are crop residues, animal 
manure and municipal solid waste. Some major crop residues 
are wheat straw, rice husk, rice straw, sugarcane trash, bagasse 
and cotton sticks [1]. Sugarcane is a suitable agricultural 
energy crop [2]. Sugarcane crop can be divided into different 
parts: stem, fresh leaves, and dry leaves. Sugarcane trash is the 
field residue remaining after harvesting green leaves (fresh 
leaves), dry leaves (brown leaves) and tops. The brown 
sugarcane trash almost remains un-utilized and is burnt openly 
in the fields and the remaining trash (green leaves and tops) is 
collected to feed farm animals [2]. Sugarcane produces mainly 
two types of biomasses, namely sugarcane trash and bagasse. 
Sugarcane trash or cane trash is an excellent biomass resource, 

as it is being used as a raw material for energy production. The 
worldwide bioenergy potential of sugarcane trash is around 
9475GWh/year [3].  

It is estimated that around 26,280,000 hectares of land are 
under cultivation in Pakistan [3]. Sugarcane is one of the major 
crops in Pakistan, being cultivated on 1,029,000 hectares in 
2010-2011, which is about 4% of the total cropped area in the 
country. It is estimated that about 5,752,800 metric tonnes of 
sugarcane trash are being generated from a total sugarcane 
production of 63,920,000 metric tonnes [4, 5]. The production 
of sugarcane trash depends on the plant variety, crop age, type 
of soil and weather conditions of the area. There are different 
varieties of the sugarcane in Pakistan. These differ from each 
other in color, production magnitude and size. The major 
sugarcane varieties cultivated in Sindh province are Thatta10, 
240, 246, 234, HS12 and Sibea. The yield of the sugarcane 
crop can be estimated by measuring the production of the 
sugarcane (tonnes) per unit of cultivated area (acre). The 
sugarcane trash quantity can be evaluated by measuring the 
sugarcane trash produced per unit tonne of the sugarcane crop. 
It is reported that the average sugarcane trash (green leaves, 
brown leaves and tops) per yield (tonne) of sugarcane crop is 
around 13% [6] and 15% [3]. The energy content of the 
sugarcane trash can be determined either through direct 
measurement of the heating value of the crop residue through 
bomb calorimeter or indirectly by proximate and ultimate 
analysis. In proximate analysis, moisture content, volatile 
matter, ash content and fixed carbon are determined. In 
ultimate analysis, the quantitative analysis of various elements 
present in the matter such as carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, oxygen, 
and nitrogen is determined. The proximate and ultimate 
analysis of the sugarcane trash showed that the volatile matter 



Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 8, No. 6, 2018, 3609-3613 3610  
  

www.etasr.com Solangi et al: Investigation of Quantity, Quality and Energy Content of Indigenous Sugarcane Trash … 

 

was 74% to 80%, ash 6% to 10%, and fixed carbon 12% to 
17%. The moisture content in sugarcane trash was about 19.3% 
[7, 8]. The tops of sugarcane contained 1.5% to 5% more fixed 
carbon than the leaves. The heating values of sugarcane trash 
ranged from 17.7 to 18.9MJ/kg [7], and 17 to 21MJ/kg [9]. 
Nitrogen (N), sulfur (S), and chlorine (Cl) in the trash were less 
than 1%. Authors in [10] and [11] determined the proximate 
and ultimate analysis of sugarcane trash as shown in Tables I 
and II respectively. Sugarcane leaves were found as sustainable 
biomass feedstock for the production of biofuels. Authors in 
[12] reported that the sugarcane tops, leaves and bagasse can 
generate 9TWh electricity in Thailand, which could decrease 
greenhouse gas emissions by 4.8Mt of CO2 equivalents per 
year. Author in [13] reported that about one-third of the energy 
is available in the tops and leaves of sugarcane crop. At 
present, sugarcane residues in Pakistan are being burnt 
outdoors, which not only damages the natural environment but 
it is also a waste of energy. Sugarcane growers do not have the 
knowledge of its energy content, and environmental benefits. 
Besides, there is no proved scientific method for proper 
quantification and quality analysis of sugarcane trash. The 
purpose of this study was to determine and quantify the 
composition and energy content of sugarcane trash in district 
Naushahro Feroze of Sindh province, Pakistan. 

TABLE I.  PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSIS RESULTS [10] 

Proximate analysis Ultimate analysis 

Properties Values Properties Values 

Fixed carbon [wt.%] 21.26 Carbon (C) 51.21 

Volatile matter [wt.%] 70.86 Hydrogen (H)  5.16 

Moisture content [wt.%]  4.55 Nitrogen (N)  1.93 

Ash [wt.%]  3.33 Oxygen (O) 40.33 

Heating Value [MJ/kg] 18.3 Sulfur (S)  1.37 

TABLE II.  PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSIS RESULTS [11] 

Proximate Analysis (% weight) 

Parameters 
Dry 

leaves 

Green 

Leaves 
Tops Bagasse 

Moisture Content 13.5 67.7 82.3 50.2 

Ash  3.9  3.7  4.3  2.2 

Fixed Carbon 11.6 15.7 16.4 18 

Volatile Matter 84.5 80.6 79.3 79.9 

Ultimate Analysis (%) 

Carbon (C) 46.2 45.7 43.9 44.6 

Hydrogen (H)  6.2  6.2  6.1  5.8 

Nitrogen (N)  0.5  1.0 0.8  0.6 

Oxygen (O) 43.0 42.8 44.0 44.5 

Sulfur (S)  0.1  0.1  0.1  0.1 

Chlorine (Cl)  0.1  0.4  0.7 0.02 
 

II. MATERIALS AND METHODS 

A. Study Area 

The study was carried out in the geographical area of 
Naushahro Feroze district, Sindh, Pakistan. The district is 
located at the center of Sindh province covering an area of 
2,945km

2
. In this district, about 25 to 30 thousand acres are 

being used for cultivation of sugarcane, and a huge quantity of 
sugarcane trash is produced and wasted. The average sugarcane 
yield per acre is about 20 tonnes with the sugarcane trash of 
around 4.8 tonnes. Two fields in the district, namely, Dhearan 

and Moro were selected for collection, quantification, and 
characterization of sugarcane trash samples. Six varieties of 
sugarcane crop, namely 240, Sibea, 234, HS12, Thatt10 and 
246 were investigated.  

B. Quantification of Sugarcane Trash 

The quantification of the sugarcane trash was done by 
estimating the total cultivated area of the sugarcane crop and by 
the knowing of the average sugarcane trash (brown leaves, 
green leaves and tops) quantity produced per tonne and 
sugarcane crop. The total sugarcane cultivated area in the 
district was estimated by survey, interviews of farmers, 
landlords and administrators of different sugar mills, and 
through satellite pictures. The production of sugarcane trash 
per tonne of sugarcane crop was determined by taking 40kg of 
sugarcane crop of each variety from the selected fields. The 
sugarcane trash produced per 40kg of the crop was weighted. 
Green leaves (GL), brown leaves (BL) and tops of each variety 
were collected and weighted separately. 

C. Characteristic and Energy Content of Sugarcane Trash 

The characteristic and energy content of sugarcane trash 
was determined by taking three samples of each variety. 
Proximate and ultimate sample analyses were carried out for 
the determination of their physical and chemical characteristics, 
and indirect computation of energy content. The energy content 
or heating value of the samples was also directly determined 
using bomb calorimeter. In proximate analysis, moisture, 
volatile matter, ash, and fixed carbon content were determined. 
The moisture content (MC) of the samples was computed by 
the percentage of loss in weight. The equipment used was a 
drying oven, china crucible of 32cc volume, electronic micro 
balance and desiccators following the ASTM-E871. The MC of 
the samples was determined by (1) [16]: 

100[%] ×











−

−
=

ci

fii

WW

WW
MC    (1) 

where Wi is the initial sample weight, Wfi is the final sample 
weight and Wc is the crucible weight. The volatile matter (VM) 
was found by percentage in weight loss by ASTM-E872. The 
equipment used was chromium-nickel crucible with lid and an 
electrically operated electric furnace. The VM content of the 
samples was determined by (2) [16]: 

100100[%] ×











−

−
×=

ci

fii

WW

WW
VM

 

  (2) 

Similarly, the ash content (AC) of the samples was 
calculated by the mass percentage of the remains after process 
of dry oxidation at 575 ºC for a time period of 3 hours by 
adopting ASTM-E1755. The equipment used was a crucible, 
electric muffle furnace, drying oven and desiccator. The AC of 
the samples was determined by (3): 

100[%] ×










−

−
=

contod

contash

mm

mm
Ash    (3) 

where mash is the final mass of the ash, mcont is the tare of the 
container, and mod is the initial mass of 105ºC dried sample and 
container. The fixed carbon (FC) was calculated from the 



Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 8, No. 6, 2018, 3609-3613 3611  
  

www.etasr.com Solangi et al: Investigation of Quantity, Quality and Energy Content of Indigenous Sugarcane Trash … 

 

resultant of the summation of the percentage of MC, VM and 
AC subtracted from 100 as in (4):  

[%][%][%]100[%] AshVMMCFC −−−=   (4) 

The ultimate (elemental) analysis of the samples was 
carried out by adopting the procedures given by the 
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC), (AOAC-
2005), and International Organization for Standardization 
(ISO-17025). In this analysis carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur 
and oxygen concentrations of the samples were determined. 
The total carbon content of sugarcane trash samples was 
estimated by dividing the organic matter with the factor 1.82 
[17]. The amount of the hydrogen was measured using thermo 
scientific flash method (thermo scientific Flash EA series 
USA). Total nitrogen content was measured using Kjeldahl 
apparatus BUCHI K-314, with 0.1M NaOH as standardized 
titrant and 0.50% methyl red solution was employed as an 
indicator. The sulfur content was computed as per ASTM-2007 
by precipitating sulfur in the form of BaSO4 using 40% BaCl2 
solution. Oxygen content of the samples was calculated with 
the use of the difference method by using (5): 

100O[%] C[%] H[%] S[%] N[%] Ash[%]= − − − − − (5) 

Energy content, i.e. the higher heating value (HHV) of 
sugarcane trash samples was determined using adiabatic bomb 
calorimeter by adopting ASTM-E-711. The calibration of the 
calorimeter was done by the burning of benzoic acid. After 
that, the burned sample was weighted. Finally, the HHV was 
determined by the difference of the temperature before and 
after combustion taking place. Moreover, the quantification of 
sugarcane samples and their characteristics were compared 
with the results of other studies. The comparison was done in 
order to know the quantity and quality of sugarcane with 
respect to other areas of the world, whether the results obtained 
provide similar trends or variations from other researchers.  

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

The results include quantification, proximate and ultimate 
analysis, and energy content of different sugarcane trash 
varieties.  

A. Quantification of the Sugarcane Trash  

The total average sugarcane trash was found about 24% of 
the sugarcane crop. Average GL, BL, and tops produced per 
40kg of sugarcane crop were 8%, 11% and 5% respectively. It 
is observed that the variety 240 gave 11.19kg/40kg (28.0%), 
which is the largest quantity and the variety HS12 gave 
7.42kg/40kg (18.6%), which is the least quantity among all 
examined sugarcane crop varieties (Figure 1). It is shown that 
the variety 240 showed maximum BL value with 5.16kg/40kg, 
and Sibea BL had the minimum value with 4.08kg/40kg. 
Similarly, the maximum GL quantity was produced from the 
variety 234 and was 4.0kg/40kg and the minimum was from 
HS12 with a value of 2.0kg/40kg. Likewise, the top produced 
from the variety 240 was 3.0kg/40kg which was the greater, 
and HS12 produced 1.2kg/40kg, which was the lowest among 
all examined varieties. The average values of BL, GL and tops 
produced from all varieties were 4.5kg, 3.3kg and 2.2kg 
respectively. 

B. Characterization of the Sugarcane Trash  

The characterization of the sugarcane trash consists of 
proximate and ultimate analysis. 

1) Proximate Analysis 

The results of proximate analysis of the sugarcane trash 
samples are presented in Figure 2, with moisture content (MC), 
volatile matter (VM), ash and fixed carbon (FC) measured for 
each part of each variety. MC in the brown leaves of all 
examined varieties was less, and tops was more among the 
different parts of sugarcane trash. The average moisture content 
in BL, GL and tops was 5.0%, 6.6% and 37.0% respectively. 
The least MC was found in BL of Sibea with 2.3%, the GL of 
246 with 4.7%, and the tops of 234 with 23.6% therefore, these 
parts of sugarcane trash were found more practicable. As far as 
the VM was concerned, it was found more in the BL and less in 
the tops. 

 

 

Fig. 1.  Weight of sugarcane trash per 40kg of sugarcane crop. 

 

 

Fig. 2.  Average proximate analysis results of sugarcane trash. 

The average VM of all the varieties in BL, GL and tops is 
75.1%, 74.4% and 41.5% respectively. In general, the VM in 
the tops was less and in the BL more among the other parts in 
all varieties. The average ash content (AC) was found more in 
the tops, and less in the BL as compared to different parts of 
sugarcane trash. The average AC in BL, GL and tops was 
3.8%, 4.3% and 4.9% respectively. The average FC was found 
greater in the BL, and less in the GL as compared to different 
parts of sugarcane trash. The average FC in BL, GL and tops 



Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 8, No. 6, 2018, 3609-3613 3612  
  

www.etasr.com Solangi et al: Investigation of Quantity, Quality and Energy Content of Indigenous Sugarcane Trash … 

 

was 16.7%, 14.5% and 15.9% respectively among all varieties. 
FC content was found greater in Thatta 10. The FC content in 
BL, GL and tops of Thatta 10 were 18.4%, 15.5% and 17.3% 
respectively. The FC content was found less in the GL and 
more in BL than the other parts of sugarcane trash. 

2) Ultimate Analysis 

The results of ultimate analysis are given in Figures 3 to 5. 
Three samples of each part of sugarcane trash of all varieties 
were examined. It was found that the percentage of carbon is 
greater than other elemental percentages in the samples with 
oxygen being the second major element. The carbon percentage 
of all varieties and samples lied between 40% and 50%. The 
percentage of hydrogen ranged from 3.5% to 6%, nitrogen 
ranged from 0.25% to 1%, oxygen ranged from 34.5% to 
42.5% and sulfur ranged from 0.13% to 0.21%. The average 
values of carbon in BL, GL, and tops were found 46.6%, 
44.3% and 41.8% respectively. The respective hydrogen 
percentage was 5.0%, 4.8% and 4.4%. Likewise, the nitrogen 
percentage was 0.4%, 0.8% and 0.62% respectively. The 
oxygen percentage was 39.7%, 37.5% and 39.0% and the sulfur 
percentage was 0.2%, 0.2% and 0.2%. 

 

 
Fig. 3.  Ultimate analysis results of different varieties of sugarcane trash 

 
Fig. 4.  Ultimate analysis results of different components of sugarcane 

trash 

3) Higher Heating Value 

Energy content i.e. the HHV of the sugarcane trash was 
determined with the help of a bomb calorimeter. Eighteen 

samples of all parts of sugarcane trash, namely BL, GL and 
tops of all six varieties were examined as shown in Figure 6. 
The recorded results showed that the energy content of the 
sampled BL lied between 14.0 and 17.7MJ/kg. The heating 
value of the sampled GL lied between 10.0 and 13.7MJ/kg. The 
heating value in tops was found between 11.0 and 15.0MJ/kg.  

 

 
Fig. 5.  Nitrogen and sulphur content of different components of sugarcane 

trash  

 

Fig. 6.  Energy content of different varieties of sugarcane trash 

It is observed that BL had the highest average HHV and GL 
the lowest among the other parts of sugarcane trash. The 
average heating values were: 16.0MJ/kg for BL, 12.5MJ/kg for 
GL and 14 MJ/kg for tops.  

IV. OBTAINED RESULTS-REPORTED VALUES COMPARISON 

The results obtained during quantification, proximate and 
ultimate analysis and HHV were compared with the work of 
other researchers in the same field. The total sugarcane trash 
quantity in weight percentage reported in [18] was 25.0% and 
23.0% in [13] and the obtained value was 24.0%. The BL 
percentages reported in [11] and [13] were 14.0% and 12.3% 
respectively, whereas, the measured value was slightly less 
with 11.0%. Regarding the results of proximate analysis, it was 
found that the MC in BL, GL and tops of sugarcane trash 
determined in [11] were 13.5%, 67.7% and 82.3% and the 
obtained values were 5.0%, 6.6% and 37.0%. The VM content 
VM in BL, GL, and tops of sugarcane trash determined in [11] 
were 84.5%, 67.7% and 79.3% and the obtained values were 
75.1%, 74.4% and 41.5% respectively. The AC in BL, GL and 



Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 8, No. 6, 2018, 3609-3613 3613  
  

www.etasr.com Solangi et al: Investigation of Quantity, Quality and Energy Content of Indigenous Sugarcane Trash … 

 

tops of sugarcane trash determined in [11] were 3.9%, 3.7% 
and 4.3%, and the obtained values were 3.8%, 4.3 and 4.9%. 
The FC content in BL, GL and tops determined in [11] were 
11.6%, 15.7 and 16.4% and the obtained values were 16.7%, 
14.5% and 15.9%. Regarding the ultimate analysis parameters, 
the carbon percentage reported in [11] and [10] was 45.3% and 
51.2% respectively and the measured values were 44.2%. The 
hydrogen content given in [11] was 6.2% and in [10] 5.2% and 
the measured value was 4.7%. The nitrogen given in [11] was 
0.8% and in [10] 1.9%, and the measured one was 0.6%. The 
oxygen level reported in [11] was 43.3% and in [10] 40.3%, 
while the measured value was 38.7%. The sulphur percentage 
reported in [11] was 0.1%, in [10] 1.4% and the measured 
value was 0.2%. The energy content (i.e. HHV) of sugarcane 
trash reported in [11] was 17.1MJ/kg and in [10] 18.3MJ/kg, 
while the measured value was 16.0MJ/kg. It is found that all 
results are comparable with the reported values of other 
researchers.  

V. CONCLUSIONS 

The total sugarcane trash weight percentage reported by 
two different researchers was 25.0%, 23.0%, and the measured 
value was 24.0%. The variety 240 produced the highest, and 
the variety HS12 the lowest percentage of sugarcane trash with 
28% and 18.6% respectively among all examined varieties. 
Moisture and AC in BL was less and the tops gave more 
among sugarcane trash components and examined varieties. 
The FC values in BL, GL and tops of Thatta10 were found the 
greatest with 18.4%, 15.5% and 17.3% respectively. On the 
basis of ultimate analysis, the most carbon percentage was 
found in the BL of HS12 and the least in Thatta10. The HHV 
in the BL of sugarcane trash samples reported in [11], [10] and 
[19] were 17.1MJ/kg, 18.3MJ/kg and 17.4MJ/kg respectively 
and the measured value was 16.0MJ/kg. The obtained value of 
energy content in the examined samples and the reported 
values were found comparable with ±6% diversity. It is 
suggested that the quantification of different components of 
sugarcane trash may be carried out separately using different 
varieties and areas with higher, moderate and lower yield 
fields. Water and soil analysis may be carried out in order to 
see the reason behind sugarcane crop yield variation. In 
addition, sugarcane trash samples may be tested for making 
charcoal briquettes and for cogeneration systems with biomass 
gasification gas turbine integrated with sugar mills. 

REFERENCES 

[1] N. Aziz, “Biomass energy potential in Pakistan”, available at: 
https://www.bioenergyconsult.com/biomass-pakistan, 2018 

[2] T. Suramaythangkoor, Z. Li, “Energy policy tools for agricultural 
residues utilization for heat and power generation: A case study of 
sugarcane trash in Thailand”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy 
Reviews, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 4343-4351, 2012 

[3] S. Zafar, “Biomass resources from sugar industry”, available at: 
https://www.bioenergyconsult.com/biomass-resources-from-sugar-
industry, 2018 

[4] B. Patel, B, Gami, “Biomass characterization and its use as solid fuel for 
combustion”, Iranica Journal of Energy & Environment, Vol. 3, No. 2, 
pp. 123-128, 2012 

[5] D. Szczerbowski, A.P. Pitarelo, A. Zandona Filho, L. P. Ramos, 
“Sugarcane biomass for biorefineries: comparative composition of 

carbohydrate and non-carbohydrate components of bagasse and straw”, 
Carbohydrate Polymers, Vol. 114, pp. 95-101, 2014 

[6] F. J. Tian, J. L. Yu, L. J. Mckenzie, J. I. Hayashi, T. Chiba, C. Z. Li, 
“Formation of NOx precursors during the pyrolysis of coal and biomass. 
Part VII. Pyrolysis and gasification of cane trash with steam”, Fuel, Vol. 
84, No. 4, pp. 371-376, 2005 

[7] S. Q. Turn, V. Keffer, M. Staackmann, Analysis of Hawaii Biomass 
Energy Resources for Distributed Energy Applications, Honolulu: 
Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, University of Hawaii, 2002 

[8] M. R. L. Leal, M. V. Galdos, F. V. Scarpare, J. E. Seabra, A. Walter, C. 
O. Oliveira, “Sugarcane straw availability, quality, recovery and energy 
use: A literature review”, Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 53, pp. 11-19, 
2013  

[9] K. Deepchand, “Characteristics, Present use and potential of sugar cane 
tops and leaves”, Agricultural Wastes, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 139-48, 1986 

[10] W. Treedet, R. Suntivarakorn, “Sugar cane trash pyrolysis for bio-oil 
production in a fluidized bed reactor”, World Renewable Energy 
Congress, Linkoping, Sweden, May 8-13, 2011 

[11] S. J. Hassuani, M. R. L. V. Leal, I. Macedo, Biomass Power Generation, 
Sugar Cane Bagasse and Trash, Programa das Nacoes Unidas Para o 
Desenvolvimento and Centro De Technologi a Canavieriva, Peracicaba, 
Brazil, 2005 

[12] S. Jenjariyakosoln, S. H. Gheewala, B. Sajjakulnukit, S. Garivait, 
“Energy and GHG emission reduction potential of power generation 
from sugarcane residues in Thailand”, Energy for Sustainable 
Development, Vol. 23, pp. 32-45, 2014 

[13] L. Smithers, “Review of sugarcane trash recovery systems for energy 
cogeneration in South Africa”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy 
Reviews, Vol. 32, pp. 915-925, 2014 

[14] H. Jin, E. D. Larson, F. E. Celik, “Performance and cost analysis of 
future, commercially mature gasification-based electric power 
generation from switchgrass”, Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 
Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 142-173, 2009 

[15] V. Mangut, E. Sabio, J. Ganan, J. F. Gonzalez, A. Ramiro, C. M. 
Gonzalez, A. Al-Kassir, “Thermogravimetric study of the pyrolysis of 
biomass residues from tomato processing industry”, Fuel Processing 
Technology, Vol. 87, No. 2, pp. 109-115, 2006 

[16] N. Cellatoglu, M. Ilkan, “Solar torrefaction of solid olive mill residue”, 
Bio Resources, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 10087-10098, 2016 

[17] G. Selvaraju, N. K. A. Bakar, “Production of a new industrially viable 
green-activated carbon from Artocarpus integer fruit processing waste 
and evaluation of its chemical, morphological and adsorption 
properties”, Journal Of Cleaner Production, Vol. 141, pp. 989-999, 2017 

[18] B. Nachiappan, Z. Fu, M. T. Holtzapple, “Ammonium carboxylate 
production from sugarcane trash using long-term air-lime pretreatment 
followed by mixed-culture fermentation”, Bioresource Technology, Vol. 
102, No. 5, pp. 4210-4217, 2011 

[19] J. Parikh, S. A. Channiwala, G. K. Ghosal, “A correlation for calculating 
HHV from proximate analysis of solid fuels”, Fuel, Vol. 84, No. 5, pp. 
487-494, 2005