ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Pellet Production from Pruning and Alternative Forest Biomass: A Review of the Most Recent Research Findings.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Typically, coniferous sawdust from debarked stems is used to make pellets. Given the high lignin content, which ensures strong binding and high calorific values, this feedstock provides the best quality available. However, finding alternative feedstocks for pellet production is crucial if small-scale pellet production is to be developed and used to support the economy and energy independence of rural communities. These communities have to be able to create pellets devoid of additives and without biomass pre-processing so that the feedstock price remains low. The features of pellets made from other sources of forest biomass, such as different types of waste, broadleaf species, and pruning biomass, have attracted some attention in this context. This review sought to provide an overview of the most recent (2019-2023) knowledge on the subject and to bring into consideration potential feedstocks for the growth of small-scale pellet production. Findings from the literature show that poor bulk density and mechanical durability are the most frequent issues when making pellets from different feedstocks. All of the tested alternative biomass typologies have these shortcomings, which are also a result of the use of low-performance pelletizers in small-scale production, preventing the achievement of adequate mechanical qualities. Pellets made from pruning biomass, coniferous residues, and wood from short-rotation coppice plants all have significant flaws in terms of ash content and, in some cases, nitrogen, sulfur, and chlorine content as well. All things considered, research suggests that broadleaf wood from beech and oak trees, collected through routine forest management activities, makes the best feasible feedstock for small-scale pellet production. Despite having poor mechanical qualities, these feedstocks can provide pellets with a low ash level. High ash content is a significant disadvantage when considering pellet manufacture and use on a small scale since it can significantly raise maintenance costs, compromising the supply chain's ability to operate cost-effectively. Pellets with low bulk density and low mechanical durability can be successfully used in a small-scale supply chain with the advantages of reducing travel distance from the production site and storage time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.