Propoasal Final

Design Development and Testing of Biochar pelletizer for Sustainable Soil Fertility and Carbon Sequestration
Abstract
Agriculture lies at the heart of many fundamental global challenges faced by humanity
including food security, economic development, environmental degradation, and climate
change. we have far too much carbon in the air, our soils are losing fertility, and we need
local means to produce cheap energy as well as organic fertilizer. The majority of the
chronically hungry are smallholder farmers in developing countries who practice
subsistence agriculture on marginal soils, lack access to inputs and financial resources
to procure costly chemical fertilizer and other agrochemicals that might enhance the
productivity of their land.
Biochar has the potential to improve soil nutrients status, increase crop yield and
sequester carbon (C) in the soil. However, storage, transportation and soil application of
biochar are challenging because biochar is brittle, and has wide particle size distribution
and low density. Its loss is as high as 30% by wind‐blown during handing, transport to the
field and soil application of biochar. In particular, 25% of the biochar applied was lost
during spreading to the field. 20 ‐ 53% of biochar incorporated into soil was also lost by
surface runoff during intense rain events.
Therefore to deliver this Biochar product direct to the root zone to minimize the run off
and loss of nutrient value with the exact amount of nutrient Biochar should be pelletized.
Standing on such problems of biochar and there is no biochar pelletizer machine in
Ethiopia biochar pelletizer will be designed and developed in this research paper.
Then the developed machine will be evaluated its performance under different process and
feeding condition. In addition the produced pellet will be investigated for their release of
nutrients, effect of different processing and feeding conditions and durability of the pellets.
Projection of Carbon credit allowable for Biochar based indigenous fertilizer will be
described.
This study contributes for commercialization of Biochar based indigenous fertilizer by

designing and developing Biochar pelletizer (specifically Disc pelletizer) locally by
integrating the existing technologies from a variety of studies and designs, as well as
creating opportunities like coffee processing industries for using there by product as
energy source and producing organic fertilizer.
Key words: Biochar, soil fertility, carbon sequestration, pellet, pelletizer
Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page i

Table of Contents
Abstract ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ i
LIST OF TABLES and FIGURES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iv
1. Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.1. Background ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.1.1.Ethiopian Green Economy and Transformation plan ------------------------------------------------------- 3
1.1.2.Biomass resource Assessment------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4
1.2. Design of Biochar pelletizer--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
1.2.1. Pelletization ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5
1.2.1.1 Balling Disc Machine (Pelletizer) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
1.2.1.2. Ring Die Pellet Mill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
1.2.1.3. Flat Die Pellet mill ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
2. Problem of statement ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
3. LITERATURE REVIEW ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
3.1. Biochar ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
3.1.1. Biochar production ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11
3.2.2. Biochar properties and effects on soil ------------------------------------------------------------------ 12
3.2.3. Biochar effect on carbon sequestration---------------------------------------------------------------- 13
3.2.4. Biochar initiatives for developing countries----------------------------------------------------------- 14
3.3. Biochar agglomerator optimization---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
3.3. Factors that affect the quality of Biochar embedded compost pellets ------------------------------- 17
3.3.1. Effects of moisture content ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
3.3.2. Compressive force ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
3.3.3. The effect of rotational speed of the disc granulator ----------------------------------------------- 18
3.3.4. Effects of Binders on fertilizer granulation ------------------------------------------------------------ 19
3.4. Quantifying Pellet Strength and Durability ------------------------------------------------------------------ 21
3.4.1. Strength -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22
3.4.2. Durability ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 23
3.4.3. Pellet stability ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25
3.5. Post Production Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25
3.5.1. Timing of Measurement ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25
Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page ii

3.5.2. Cooling and Drying ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 26

3.6. Suggestions by previous researchers -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26
3.7. Scope of the study ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26
4. OBJECTIVES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27
4.1. General Objective -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27
4.2. Specific objectives-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27
5. METHODOLOGY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28
5.1. Production of biochar --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28
5.2. Pelletization of nutrient-embedded biochar ---------------------------------------------------------------- 28
5.3. Characterization of biochar pellets ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28
5.4. Biochar pelletizer design and development ----------------------------------------------------------------- 29
5.4.1. Design Considerations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29
5.4.2. Prototype production --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29
5.5. Experimental test work ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29
5.5.1. Material will be used for the experiment -------------------------------------------------------------- 29
5.5.2. Biochar pelletizer performance assessment ----------------------------------------------------------- 29
5.5.3. Biochar pellet yield measurement ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 30
5.6. Method of processing and analysis of data ------------------------------------------------------------------ 30
6. EXPECTED OUT COME --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31
7. BUDGET --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32
7.1. Raw material cost -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32
7.2. Machining cost ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 33
7.3. Labor cost ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 33
7.4. Cost of raw material collection --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33
7.5. Stationary cost ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 33
7.6. Cost of Experimental test ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34
7.7. Costs for Bringing machine from Addis Abeba -------------------------------------------------------------- 34
8. ACTION PLAN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35
9. REFERENCES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36
Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page iii

LIST OF TABLES and FIGURES

1. Fig.1: Disc pelletizer machine ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7
2. Fig.2: Growing path of pellets ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7
3. Fig. 3: ring die pellet mill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
4. Fig. 4: flat die pellet mill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
5. Table 1: Types of production process -----------------------------------------------------------------------------12
6. Fig. 5: Position of granules or balls in a pan-shaped agglomerator ---------------------------------------15
7. Fig. 6: Agglomeration as a function of material properties and process parameters -----------------17
8. Table 2; General classification of binders ------------------------------------------------------------------------19
9. Table 3: List of parameters to be collected and calculated from the machine for Performance
assessment ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------29
Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page iv

1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Agriculture lies at the heart of many fundamental global challenges faced by humanity
including food security, economic development, environmental degradation, and climate
change. There is no humanitarian goal more crucial than feeding a world population
projected to expand beyond nine billion by 2050. Meeting increases in food demands
associated with growing population and income levels is likely to require increases in total
food production of 50 percent or more by mid‐century (Alexandratos, Bruinsma, 2012.)
Furthermore, no other economic sector is more vital to safeguarding human livelihoods.
Agriculture provides employment for 2.6 billion people worldwide and accounts for 20 to
60 percent of the gross domestic product of many developing countries, forming the
backbone of rural economies, contributing to local employment, and ensuring food security
for poorer populations. (Hoffman, 2011)
With consumption of all natural resource commodities increasing under the pressures of
population growth and rising standards of living, there is continuing pressure for
agriculture to expand and intensify. While governments, bilateral development agencies,
and multilateral financial institutions are dedicating significant resources to increasing
agricultural yields globally, less emphasis has been placed on making agriculture
environmentally sustainable. Croplands and pasturelands already cover nearly 40 percent
of the earth’s land area, (Foley, J, 2011) and agriculture consumes 70 percent of freshwater
used by humans, much of which is sourced from non‐renewable aquifers.( Pimentel,
D.,2008)
Agriculture is the world’s largest driver of species loss and habitat conversion, and is a
major contributor to toxic and nutrient pollution, soil degradation, and invasive species
introductions. These pressures on our resources will only continue to grow as global
population and income levels rise.
The agricultural sector is also a major contributor to GHG emissions. Most studies attribute
about twenty to twenty‐five percent of all global GHG emissions to the production of food,
feed, and biofuels, including emissions from agriculture‐driven land use change. Though
these numbers are substantial and comparable in aggregate to the transportation sector,
agriculture’s potential contributions to GHG mitigation have received little attention the
international dialogs on climate change mitigation. If agricultural systems are to meet the
future needs of an expanding global population, significant progress will need to be made
in helping the agricultural sector as a whole—and farmers in particular—increase the
resilience of farming systems to climate change, better preserve soil fertility and
freshwater flows, and reduce impacts on deforestation, biological diversity, and GHG
emissions.
Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 1
For these problems of agriculture Biochar is applied for the amending of soil quality and
increasing crop production and sequestrating carbon has been documented in literature
(Lehmann et al., 2011).
Biochar is spread on agricultural fields and incorporated into the top layer of soil. Biochar
has many agricultural benefits. It increases crop yields, sometimes substantially if the soil
is in poor condition. It helps to prevent fertilizer runoff and leeching, allowing the use of
less fertilizers and diminishing agricultural pollution to the surrounding environment. And
it retains moisture, helping plants through periods of drought more easily. Most
importantly, it replenishes exhausted or marginal soils with organic carbon and fosters the
growth of soil microbes essential for nutrient absorption, particularly mycorrhizal fungi.
Studies have indicated that the carbon in biochar remains stable for millennia, providing a
simple, sustainable means to sequester historic carbon emissions that is technologically
feasible in developed or developing countries alike. The syngas and excess heat can be used
directly or employed to produce a variety of biofuels. (Biochar Overview.html)
When biochar is created from biomass, approximately 50% of the carbon that the plants
absorbed as CO2 from the atmosphere is Fixed In the charcoal. As a material, the carbon in
charcoal is largely inert, showing a relative lack of reactivity both chemically and
biologically, and so it is strongly resistant to decomposition. Research scientists have found
charcoal particles as old as 400 million years in sediment layers from wildfires that
occurred when plant life first began on earth. (James S.)
Although biochar is incorporated into soil as an amendment, organic or inorganic fertilizer
is still required to maximize crop production. However, conventional fertilizers are
inefficient, in particular, in soils with low cation exchange capacity and in humid
climate conditions. Low nutrient retention capacity in soil causes low crop production and
contaminates the ground water leading to financial loss for farmers. Therefore, it is
essential to design slow‐release fertilizers with low solubility that can supply nutrients to
soil and plants over long period of time.
Biochar embedded with compost is one potential way to slowly release nutrients to soil
throughout plant growing season and to provide most of the nutrients to bioenergy crops
without leaching losses. In addition, nutrients already contained in the biochar, such as P
and K, are recycled into soil. These benefits will increase energy crop yields and reduce
costs for fertilizer. Therefore, utilization of biochar pellets embedded with compost and
fertilizer could enhance soil productivity and quality in terms of bioenergy crop production
and carbon sequestration. In this work, I will develop a soil fertilizer product by designing
and manufacturing “biochar pelletizer” which produces Biochar based indigenous fertilizer
to maximize bioenergy crop production and reduce CO2 emissions in soil and therefore it
will be an environmentally benign slow‐release fertilizer.

1.1.1. Ethiopian Green Economy and Transformation plan

Ethiopia is the second‐most populous country in Sub‐Saharan Africa with a population will
be 98,942,102 by 2015 (www.Worldometers.info). The country’s per capita income of
US$470 is substantially lower than the regional average of US$1,257 (Atlas Method, 2013).
The government aspires to reach middle income status (current threshold: US$1,025) over
the next decade.
Ethiopia is experiencing the effects of climate change. Besides the direct effects such as an
increase in average temperature or a change in rainfall patterns, climate change also
presents the necessity and opportunity to switch to a new, sustainable development model.
The Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has therefore initiated the
Climate‐Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) called the Growth and Transformation Plan
(GTP), initiative to protect the country from the adverse effects of climate change and to
build a green economy that will help to realise its ambition of reaching middle income
status before 2025
Preliminary projections suggest that climate change can have a sizeable impact that ranges
in order of 7‐8% of Gross domestic product (GDP) loss per year, with stronger impacts in
later decades and on the poor. Ethiopia’s economy has generally low carbon intensity.
Ethiopia is low emission country both at the aggregate value and per capita. However, if the
growth trajectory follows the business as usual scenario, the Ethiopia’s greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions will increase from 155 Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt
CO2e) today to almost 400 Mt CO2e in 2030. Under a low carbon growth trajectory,
however, Ethiopia could offset in the order of 250 Metric ton (Mt) of carbon dioxide
equivalent per annum. At the modest carbon price, this has the potential to generate
around 2.5 billion per annum.
If Ethiopia were to pursue a conventional economic development path to achieve its

ambition of reaching middle‐income status by 2025, GHG emissions would more than
double from 150 Mt CO2e today to 400 Mt CO2e in 2030. Ethiopia’s development could
result in unsustainable use of natural resources, in being locked into outdated technologies,
and in losing an ever‐increasing share of GDP to fuel imports. Ethiopia would lose the
opportunity of making its development sustainable.
The adoption of sustainable agricultural practices depends on the amount and availability
of biomass resources (e.g., crop residues, animal dung). This is because benefits of most

sustainable agriculture practices (e.g., erosion control, moisture conservation, soil fertility
enhancement, carbon sequestration) are directly related to the amount of biomass used as
soil amendments. (Minale k. 2009)
Therefore for Ethiopia, green growth is a necessity as well as an opportunity to be seized. It

is an opportunity to realize our country’s huge potential in renewable energy and a
necessity so as to arrest agro‐ecological degradation that threatens to trap millions of our
citizens in poverty.
1.1.2. Biomass resource Assessment

Ethiopia produces considerable amount of biomass each year which has been utilized for
domestic energy purpose, mainly by direct combustion. On the contrary, coffee husk from
coffee processing industries is not used as a fuel in most cases due to the poor handling of
coffee husk to be used as domestic fuel with the current technology. In the southern part of
Ethiopia almost171, 000 tons of processed coffee is supplied to the international market
per year. During the process, more than 20,000 tons of residue coffee husk is disposed of.
(Sileshi et al., 2013)
Prosopis is a wild tree (shrub) that grows across hundreds of hectares of the Afar and
Somali regions. They use the Prosopis wood as fuel wood and for fence and house
construction. The Afars have continuously appealed for the eradication of this noxious
plant, complaining of the injuries they suffer from the thorns of the plant. Because it has
formed thick forest, Prosopis also serves as shelter for warthogs and hyenas that have
been blamed for attacking gardens and people. The economic and social benefits of using
Prosopis wood or branches as a fuel energy for industry are quite evident. (Yishak et al.
Maize is one of the most important cereals cultivated in Ethiopia. It ranks second after Teff
in area coverage and first in total production. The results of the year 2011/12, Meher
season postharvest crop production survey indicate that total land areas of about
12,086,603.89 hectares were covered by grain crops. Out of the total grain crop areas,
79.34% (9,588,923.71 hectares) was under cereals. Of this maize covered 17% (about
2,054,723.69 hectares) and gave 6069413 tons of grain yields. (On R. FDRE REPORT, 2013)
Since corn cob is the solid residues from maize, it is a good resource potential for the
biochar based fertilizer production.
So driven by massive amount of biomass resource with more than 80% agriculture
dependent population, biomass(agricultural residue, organic waste materials) is expected
to be source of Ethiopian Biochar based indigenous organic fertilizer.

1.2. Design of Biochar pelletizer

Biochar, which is similar to charcoal, can be created from agricultural, farm or animal
waste through gasification or pyrolysis, a form of incineration that chemically decomposes
organic materials by heat in the absence of oxygen. Gases given off during the process can
be a source of heat or energy. Based on the type of feedstock, as well as the time and
temperature used to produce it, different types of biochar can be produced. “If biochar
combined with fertilizer, compost or manure or whatever put on soil, it can enhance the
ability of the fertilizer or compost. It acts as an enhancer to that product.
Therefore to deliver this Biochar product direct to the root zone to minimize the run off
and loss of nutrient value with the exact amount of nutrient Biochar should be supplied in
pellet form. This biochar based pellets will be designed to:
 Supply “starter” nutrients to support germination;

 Replace nutrients removed by the previous crop;
 Supply high analysis, slow release fertilizers to sustain the new crop; and
 Supply catalytic minerals to stimulate soil microbial activity and over soil quality
 Provide a substantial biochar component in each pellet, equivalent to a
broadcasting rate of approx. 10 t/ha, but supplied only to the root zone to improve
cost effectiveness.
1.2.1. Pelletization
Moisture content, high volume and non‐uniform materials are the factors which limit the
usage of biochar embedded compost. Normally due to low density, the transport and
handling of this compost is difficult and expensive. Compression and pelleting are the
methods to reduce transportation costs, increase economic efficiency and management for
distribution of these materials in farms.
There are different ways to convert organic manures to platform. The instrument platforms
which are used for this goal are extruders, die rollers and Balling disc machines (which are
mainly used for production of balls and agglomerates pellets) (Adapa et al., 2003).
Extruders have a cylinder and the raw material drives into the cylinder by a screw. The
materials will be compacted by pressure of the screw and friction between the wall and
screw and then the compacted materials will be exited out of the die by the screw pressure
in the shape of narrow cylindrical shapes. These materials will be cut by a knife, at different
lengths and even to various forms of rod, bullet, tape or a continuous spiral (Keshvari,
2011).
Variables such as machine geometry format, duration and amount of storage material in
the form of pressure, the inlet roller and process variables such as temperature, moisture

content and steam conditions (volume and vapor pressure are used) and the amount of
material fed into the machine on the quality pellets affect (McMahon, 1984).
1.2.1.1 Balling Disc Machine (Pelletizer)

Agglomeration of fine particles without pressure, by growth and tumbling in the presence
of a liquid or binder, or both is usually called pelletizing. Pelletizing–the forming of
spherical or spheroidal pellets–occurs in a rotating disc (Masayuki, 2001).
A balling disc machine also known as pelletizing machine is specialized equipment it is

used for pelletizing of powder materials into balls/pellets of agglomerates. It is original and
peculiar with large scale disc‐pellet machine and designed on the basis of the large‐ scale
disc‐pellet machine that is used in industries like iron and steel industry, chemical industry,
pharmaceutical industry, cement industry, ceramics industry, railway corporations, seen in
metallurgical workshops and some related industries.
This machine adapts to pelletizing many kinds of powder material provided it is mixed
with a particular solvent. The rotation disk is automatic and raw material collection and
granulating capacity will be higher. The disc balling machine is used in the balling granular
used to make damp granule into antique pellets. Pelletizing principles involve the following
sequential steps:
 Fine raw material is continually added to the pan and wetted by a liquid binder
spray.
 The disc’s rotation causes the wetted fines to form small, seed‐type particles
(nucleation).
 The seed particles “snowball” by coalescence into larger particles until they
discharge from the pan.
While pellets can be formed in batches, almost all tonnage pelletizing is accomplished
through continuous processes using a comparatively simply‐designed disc pelletizer. Disc
balling granulator is suitable for mixing material pelletizing equipment with nutrient [5]. It
has the following advantages:
 High balling rate

 Big roundness intensity of particles
 Visual operation and easy for maintenance.
They are of different kinds and forms ranging from its sizes, shapes, method of operation
(manual or automatic), capacity, function, etc.

Fig.1: Disc pelletizer machine Fig.2: Growing path of pellets (Bijen, 1986).
1.2.1.2. Ring Die Pellet Mill

Also known as round die pellet mill. The ring die pellet mill has even wear between roller
and die. The consumable cost is lower and the efficient energy saving is better; the ring die
pellet mill and its die & rollers are much bigger, heavier and more expensive than flat die
pellet mill (causing daily maintenance, and adjustments is quite different from flat die
pellet mill).
1.2.1.3. Flat Die Pellet mill

Is better for small production capacity and/or residential use. It has the following
advantages:
 compact structure makes it small in size and lightweight;

 portable roller and die are cheaper, easier to clear and faster to change than these
on a ring die pellet mill;
 Because of its design and structure, the pelleting process can be monitored
directly by watching the pelleting chamber. This will help to solve the production
trouble quickly.
Generally there are two different designs of flat die pellet mill. One is with a rotating die
and another is with a rotating roller. The first type has a stationary roller with a rotating
die. During pellet making process, the die is rotating and the rollers are stationary. The
mechanical action of the second type is completely different from the previous one, it has a
stationary die with a rotating roller, when it is working the die is stationary but the rollers
are rotating.

Fig. 3: ring die pellet mill Fig. 4: flat die pellet mill

2. Problem of statement
Biochar is a carbon‐rich product that is produced from biomass through thermochemical
process, pyrolysis and gasification, under limited or absent oxygen (Lehmann et al., 2011).
Biochar contains recalcitrant carbonaceous structures and minerals depending on biomass
types and operation parameters of process. Biochar produced from lignocellulosic
feedstock has high carbon content, whereas biochar generated from nutrient‐rich feedstock
such as poultry litter has characteristics similar to a fertilizer (Cantrell et al., 2012). Biochar
pH ranges from 5 to 13, ash content from 1.4% to 73%, carbon content from 66.5 to 91.6%,
and surface areas range from 1 to 400 m2g‐1. Cation exchange capacity (CEC) of biochar
ranges from 10 to 69cmol kg‐1(Kim et al., 2013). When applied to soil, biochar provides
plant nutrients, increases Cation Exchange Capacity and water holding capacity, and
improves the soil as a microbial habitat (Lehmann et al., 2011).
When lignocellulosic biomass‐derived biochar produced by fast pyrolysis is incorporated

into soil application, organic or inorganic fertilizers are still needed to improve crop yield.
Many studies that have investigated value‐added biochar as a soil amendment suggested
the blending of lignocellulosic biochar with nutrient‐rich manures, compost or poultry
litter before soil application (Hua et al., 2009; Ro et al., 2010). The incorporation of biochar
with sludge composite into land application was found to significantly reduce nitrogen loss
(Hua et al., 2009).
However, storage, transportation and soil application of biochar are challenging because
biochar is brittle, and has wide particle size distribution and low density. Blue Leaf Inc.
reported a loss as high as 30% by wind‐blown during handing, transport to the field and
soil application of biochar. In particular, 25% of the biochar applied was lost during
spreading to the field (Husk & Major, 2008). 20 ‐ 53% of biochar incorporated into soil was
also lost by surface runoff during intense rain events (Major et al., 2010).
In addition Compost made from livestock manure and Biochar blending is an effective
material for improving the physical and chemical condition of soil. However, composted
livestock manure usually has high moisture content, and a high volume per unit of weight.
As a result, it is difficult and costly to transport. And also, the quality of the compost and its
nutrient content will not be constant which limits the efficient use of compost.
Therefore, it is essential to design value‐added biochar materials that can supply nutrients
to soil over long period of time with minimum loss of biochar and nutrients. Pelletization of
biochar embedded compost is one potential way to reduce transportation and handling
costs and significantly decrease loss of biochar during soil application (Reza et al., 2012).
Biochar pellet has been used as an alternative to biomass pellet mostly for heating material

(Abdullah & Wu, 2009). For soil application, lignocellulosic and poultry litter feed stocks
were blended, pelletized and slowly pyrolyzed to produce biochar pellets (Cantrell &
Martin II, 2012).
However, there is little information available on biochar pellets that can control nutrient
release rate from the pellets as a slow release fertilizer. Slow release fertilizer is required
to gradually release nutrients to soil throughout the growing season and to provide
most of the nutrients to plant without leaching losses (Fernández‐Escobar et al., 2004),
which can, furthermore, reduce loss in farmer profit and minimize potential damage to the
environment (Mortain et al., 2004).
Hence standing on these problems and Climate‐Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) initiative
and Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) of the government, poverty reduction by
designing of Biochar based indigenous fertilizer (Biochar pelletizer) for improving soil
fertility and carbon sequestration through biochar application directs the researcher to
design Biochar pelletizer.
Therefore, the objective of this study is design and manufacturing biochar pelletizer to
develop biochar pellets embedded with compost as an environmentally benign slow‐
release fertilizer. Biochar generated in the process of by slow pyrolysis in kiln was
composted with different ratio of animal dung, poultry litter and different biomass wastes
and subsequently pelletized. The produced biochar pellets will be mechanically and
chemically characterized and their capacity to release nutrients will be assessed.

3. LITERATURE REVIEW
Carbon dioxide is present in the atmosphere at 396 ppm, compared to 280 ppm in pre‐
industrial times (Tans & Keeling, 2012). The concentration of CO2 is increasing at a rate of
approximately 3 ppm per year (Tans & Keeling, 2012). Carbon dioxide is produced
predominately by human activity, with major sources including fossil fuel combustion and
land use change (i.e. the conversion of natural ecosystems into a land use managed by
humans, (Guo and Gifford, (2002)) (Solomon et al., 2007a)
Fossil fuel use, agriculture and land use change have been the dominant sources of
increased atmospheric GHG concentrations in the last 250 years (Solomon et al., 2007).
Agricultural land occupies 40 to 50% of the world’s surface, and in 2005 accounted for 10–
12% (5.1 to 6.1 Gt CO2eq. yr‐1) of total anthropogenic GHG emissions (Smith et al., 2007)
3.1. Biochar
Charcoal‐rich soils were discovered during the 20th century in the Amazon basin of South
America (Lehmann et al., 2004). These ‘Amazonian Dark Earths’ were the result of human
management over many centuries and contained significantly greater amounts of charcoal‐
derived C, SOC(soil organic carbon) and nutrients than adjacent soils (Glaser et al., 2001;
Lehmann et al., 2006). Researchers suggested that soil quality elsewhere could be
improved and concurrently contribute to climate change mitigation by the addition of
charcoal (Lehmann, 2007; Woolf et al., 2010). ‘Biochar’ was the term employed to
designate charcoal produced in a controlled environment with the intention of adding it to
soil (Lehmann et al., 2006).
3.1.1. Biochar production

Biochar is created by heating biomass to between 350 and 600°C in an oxygen‐limited
environment, a process called pyrolysis (Sohi et al., 2010). It can be made from a wide
range of biomass feed stocks, including wood‐derived materials, agricultural residues and
manures. Its physical and chemical properties are similar to those of charcoal, typified by
its high C content, low N content, high surface area and cation exchange capacity
compared to unheated biomass.(Singh, et al., 2010).
The production of biochar is a field of research in itself (Garcia‐Perez et al., 2010; Meyer et
al., 2011). All production processes produce a variety of gases, bio‐oils as well as biochar.
Production methods can be generalised to four main processes that are characterized by

different heating temperature, time of heating and the biochar yield. These processes are
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Types of production process, adopted from (Brown, 2009; Brownsort, 2009). Biochar yield refers to the
% of initial carbon in the biomass remaining as biochar C.
The biochar production process emits GHGs from the decomposition of the biomass,
releasing substances such as water vapor, CO2 and carbon monoxide (CO). Although much
of the remaining C in biochar created via slow pyrolysis is more labile than the remaining C
in biochar created via fast pyrolysis (a % content that can vary widely according to process
conditions and feedstock), it was concluded in one life cycle assessment paper that the
production system of biochar produced via slow pyrolysis had a greater carbon abatement
(Hammond et al., 2011). More modern production processes can better minimise or
capture waste gases from the pyrolysis process (Brown, 2009).
Biochar can be produced concurrently with energy production from biomass (Laird et al.,
2009). Several life cycle assessments have demonstrated that producing bioenergy and
biochar concurrently resulted in reductions in total CO2eq. Emissions compared to
producing bioenergy alone, primarily by increasing long‐term C storage in the soil and
reducing soil N2O emissions (Gaunt & Lehmann, 2008; Roberts et al., 2010; Woolf et al.,
2010; Hammond et al., 2011).
3.2.2. Biochar properties and effects on soil

Biochar amendment to soil can have a wide range of effects on soil physical,
chemical and biological properties. These effects depend significantly on the properties
of the biochar itself (Lehmann et al., 2011; Jeffery et al., 2011; Spokas et al., 2012a).
The properties of biochar are determined by its production method. Along with feedstock
type, heating temperature is the primary control on resulting biochar properties from
pyrolysis (Brownsort, 2009). With increasing pyrolysis temperature, there is a decrease in
the proportion of volatile compounds on the biochar surface and an increase in the
proportion of recalcitrant (aromatic) C compounds (Joseph et al., 2010; Spokas, 2010).
Therefore, biochar from high temperature pyrolysis is more resistant to mineralization and
contains lower amounts of volatile matter on its surface (Spokas, 2010). Spokas et al.,

(2010) predicted that biochar created at 400°C or above (O: C ratio < 0.6) had a minimum
half‐life of 100 years, while those created at temperatures of 600°C or above (O: C ratio <
0.2) were predicted to have a half‐life of at least 1000 years. These findings suggest that
biochar C has a significant residence time in soil and that it can be used to effectively
sequester CO2 from the atmosphere over long time scales (Woolf et al., 2010)
Biochar has a lower bulk density (BD) and higher water holding capacity (WHC) than that
of soil alone, therefore the addition of this material to soil may affect these soil properties
and hence increase soil aeration (Sohi et al., 2010; Karhu et al., 2011; Basso et al., 2012).
The relationship between soil CO2 emissions and soil aeration is unclear; emissions of soil‐
derived CO2 may be highest within an ‘optimal moisture content’ range or increase with
soil moisture content up to saturation (Xu et al., 2004; Cook & Orchard, 2008). The effect of
biochar addition on soil aeration may be particularly important immediately after mixing
biochar into the soil. Mixing soil (e.g. ploughing) can increase CO2 emissions in the days
following disturbance, by re‐mobilizing soil nutrients, soil microbes and increasing O2
availability within previously‐inaccessible soil layers (Reicosky et al., 1997; Reicosky,
1997).
3.2.3. Biochar effect on carbon sequestration

Burning bioenergy for heating purposes can maintain the present CO2 level, but it cannot
reduce air CO2 levels, as biochar production can. One kg biochar buried in the soil
corresponds to 3.67 kg CO2 removed from the atmosphere.
It is generally accepted that reducing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 by permanently

sequestering C in the soil could reduce the impact of climate‐related damage. Increasing
soil organic carbon (SOC) storage by conventional soil management practices such as
conservation tillage, no‐till, and perennial cropping systems can take many years and there
is uncertainty about the C sequestration potential of these systems (Baker et. al., 2007;
(Denman et al., 2007). By contrast, application of biochar to agricultural soils is an

immediate and easily quantifiable means of sequestering C and is rapidly emerging as a
new management option that may merit high value C credits (McHenry, 2008; Glaser at al.,
2009; Tenenbaum, 2009; Steinbeiss et. al., 2009). Soils low in organic matter typically
exhibits the greatest increase in C with the addition of any biochar.
The net effect of biochar on GHG emissions depends not only on the impact of biochar on
the soil to which it is applied, but also on the macroeconomic impact of a pyrolysis‐biochar
industry on markets for food, feed, and fiber and any associate indirect land‐use changes.
Depending on those factors, the net values of GHG emissions can be negative (more CO2eq.
reductions than emissions) or positive (Roberts et. al., 2010). Life cycle analysis of biochar
produced from corn Stover, yard waste, and switch grass revealed that the yard waste

system resulted in the largest reductions in GHG emissions (‐885 kg CO2eq t‐1 dry
biomass), primary because of limited emissions associated with transportation, and no
emissions associated with production and collection of the biomass. For the switch grass
system, on the other hand, the net GHG emissions were estimated to be positive (36kg
CO2eg t‐1dry biomass) as a result of both direct and indirect land‐use changes (Roberts et.
al., 2010).
In general the biochar proves to be stable and effective carbons sink. The carbon locked in
them do not release as CO2 due to the microbial activity. The carbon in the biomass is
subjected to easy degradation since they contain low grade carbon. However in biochar,
pyrogenic carbon is formed by pyrolysis, it remain in the soil for long periods
(Shenbagavalli et al., 2012; Bird, 2012).
3.2.4. Biochar initiatives for developing countries
Though the concept of biochar is relatively new, several significant initiatives have been
launched to bring the benefits of biochar to least developed countries.
World Stove Company, Robert Flanagan and others are developing a small‐scale biochar
cook stoves which could replace biomass and charcoal fueled cooking methods. The
potential benefits from small‐scale, high‐efficiency range for reduced drudgery (especially
for women and children) in fuel wood collection, reduced smoke inhalation (especially for
women and children), reduced pressure on forest ecosystems, increased time to engage in
micro‐enterprises, creation of fertilizer which could improve household self‐sufficiency,
and potential wealth generation from access to carbon markets.
The Biochar Fund is working on a social profit model of reversing the downward spiral of
environmental destruction and resource impoverishment by bringing the benefits of
biochar to improve soil fertility, stave off hunger, create financial opportunities for the
poorest people of the world access to carbon credit markets, reduce deforestation, create a
distributed electrical power grid that runs on biomass, and provide perhaps one of the
lowest cost means of sequestering carbon while simultaneously lifting people out of
poverty. (Biochar Farms.html)
3.3. Biochar agglomerator optimization

Agglomeration is a method of increasing particle size by gluing powder particles together.
This technology is used for a variety of powders, such as hydrated lime, pulverized coal,
iron ores, fly ash, cement, fertilizer and many others. The application of agglomeration for
biomass is limited (Beaudequin et al. 1985; Reynieix 1987).

The most commonly used method is called “tumbling agglomeration.” The equipment
consists of a rotating volume that is filled with balls of varying sizes and fed with powder
and often a binder. The rotation of the agglomerator results in centrifugal, gravitational,
and frictional forces from the smooth rolling balls. These forces, together with inertial
forces, press the balls against the powder, helping them to stick together and grow
(Siemons et al. 1989).
Segregation of the balls takes place as their diameter starts growing. Large balls tend to
“float” on the surface, whereas small balls are mainly located at the bottom of the vessel.
With an increased number of balls during the process, larger balls are pushed outside as
the bulk volume size of the agglomerator is limited (Siemons et al. 1989). Typical position
of granules or balls in a pan‐shaped agglomerator is shown in Figure 5; the agglomerator
can also be drum, conical, or plate shaped. The following are important parameters for a
rotating agglomerator:
 Pan‐tilt angle
 Rotation speed
 compost‐to‐binder feed ratio
 Absolute compost feed rate
 Number and location of feeder points
 Rim height
 Scraper position
.
Fig. 5: Position of granules or balls in a pan-shaped agglomerator (adapted from Siemons et al. 1989).
No specific rules exist to design agglomeration equipment. The final choice of a balling
device rests on a careful consideration of the particular application by individuals
experienced in the field (Snow 1984). For any particular agglomerator, the main process

parameters are the ball residence time (depending on compost feed rate, acting volume,
and pan‐tilt angle) and proper rolling action (depending on scraper position, binder
premixing, and pan‐tilt angle). These parameters are interrelated, and process settings
depend very much on the powder characteristics (Seimons et al. 1989). An agglomerator
using granulation involves the following steps:
 Fine raw material is continually added to the pan and wetted by a liquid binder
spray.
 The disc’s rotation causes the wetted fines to form small, seed‐type particles
(nucleation).
 The seed particles “snowball” by coalescing into larger particles until they
discharge from the pan.
While pellets can be formed in batches, almost all tonnage pelletizing is accomplished
through continuous processes using a disc pelletizer with a comparatively simple design.
The fundamental problem in an agglomerator is maintaining a uniform ball‐size
distribution during the operation. This problem grows out of the fact that large balls not
only grow by powder layering, but also by consuming considerably smaller balls. This is
because the largest balls in an agglomerator producing 30‐mm balls are 1,000 times
heavier than the 3‐mm balls present in the same machine. This difference in diameters is
the main reason for the operation instabilities. In order to overcome this problem,
automatic agglomeration machines are designed for step‐wise diameter increase—the
product balls from one agglomeration step serve as the nuclei for the next one, and so on,
until the desired ball diameter is reached (Siemons et al. 1989).
Literature on agglomeration of agricultural or woody biomass is scarce. In principle, the

biochar agglomeration process may consist of the following steps: biochar grinding,
agglomeration of the powder with a binder, and drying. The efficiency of agglomeration can
be improved by mixing biochar powder separately and feeding it into the agglomerator.
Mani (2008) proposed the following mechanism for pellet/granules formation:
 Attraction forces between solid particles

 Interfacial forces and capillary pressure in movable liquid surfaces
 Adhesion and cohesion forces in non‐freely movable binder bridges
 Mechanical interlocking
 Solid bridges.
Agglomeration is a function of material properties and process parameters (Mort 2009).

Figure 16 shows the process of agglomeration as a function of various material properties
and process parameters (Mort 2009).

Fig. 6: Agglomeration as a function of material properties and process parameters
3.3. Factors that affect the quality of Biochar embedded compost

pellets
3.3.1. Effects of moisture content

The moisture ratio should not be too high or too low, because excessive moisture ratio will
cause loose pellets due to excessive water between pellets, and this will yield a poor
briquetting effect (Serrano et al., 2011).
Moisture determination of compost mixture was very important for Extruder

machines and Disk pelletizer machines. Moisture of compost mixture has a strong effect on
compost cohesion and on the speed of pellet compost process. The suitable moisture for
Extruder machine was from 35% to 45% and from 25% to 35% for disk pelletizer machine
(Hara, 2001). Furthermore, conventional compost is very important for making pellet
compost, so we should make sure that it does not contain hard waste and stones that can
damage the machine, thus requiring more spending on machine repair. Pellet compost is
used as an organic fertilizer and its production is expensive because it should be produced
with high quality standards, and nutrient substances (Hara, 2001).

The most important factor moisture content of the materials for modeling machine which
greatly influences the hardness and durability of the pellet. The fluidity of materials falls at
lower moisture content and friction resistance increases while the compacted manure
passes through the hole of the die. Although, it is postulated that initially wet (less than
10% MC) strengthened the bond between individual particles in a pellet. But, the
subsequent increase in volume of the pellets due to increased moisture content was not
sufficient to offset these binding forces. Therefore, the strength of the pellets increases. The
results were similarly observed by Masayuki (2001) in wet compost and by McMullen et al.
(2005) in poultry litter. According to Masayuki (2001) the best moisture content is about
40% for an extruder and about 20% for a disk pelletizer. Observation from the results
indicated that strength of the pellets decreased with increase in moisture content. In
general, as moisture content of biomass increased, pellet solidity decreased. In general,
there was a slight increase in bulk density as the moisture content of the manure increased.
The amount of storage space that will be required per unit mass of material will therefore
increase with increase in moisture content. In contrast, porosity and particle density of the
pellets increased with increase in moisture content.
3.3.2. Compressive force

The effect of compressive force on the mechanical properties of manure pellets showed
that as compressive load increased, the density of the pellet approached close to the
particle density value of sample. This is reason to explain the effect of compressive force. In
similarly study by on biomass grind was observed same results (Mani et al., 2006). For all
biomass samples, as compressive load increased, the density of the pellet approached close
to the particle density value of the sample and increased strength of pellets. This may be
due to the stiffness of particles and different elastic properties of manure, which make the
particles rigid to compression pressure. Also, when manure grind is more compressed, the
lignin in materials became soft and protein make a binding agent between different particle
duration compaction.
3.3.3. The effect of rotational speed of the disc granulator

One of the important parameters is disc rotational speed. With low rotation speed, the
granulate slides about the bottom of the pan with little agitation of the granules, with
increasing pan speed the granule begins to roll, cascading occurs and the probability of
agglomeration increases (Sherrington and Oliver, 1981). It has been suggested that the
optimum drum speed is half the critical speed, where the critical speed is defined as the
speed at which the compost material will be carried around the drum by centrifugal force
(Walker et al., 2007).

3.3.4. Effects of Binders on fertilizer granulation

Binders are defined as additives to the material being agglomerated that produce bonding
strength in the final product. A binder can be a liquid or solid that forms a bridge, film or
matrix filler or that causes a chemical reaction. (W. H. Engelleitner, 1990)
A binding material (or binder) is a compound able to bind particles and allow holding,
limiting breakdown of the pellets until they are applied to the soil. One of the most
important characteristic of a binding material is plasticity, that is, its ability to undergo
permanent deformation under load (Reiter, 2008). Even though high plasticity is generally
recommended, it is to be noted that there is no generalized and standardized measuring
methods for the plasticity. Plasticity index can be used to compare similar materials (e.g.,
soils). For other applications, other physical and easily measurable properties are
sometimes preferred, such as the ductility and extrudability, typically used for ceramics
industry. Good water holding capacity (i.e., hydrophilic compound) and high cation
exchange ratio (15–40meq/100 g), a good measure of the ability to retain and supply
nutrients to a crop, are also useful when binding a compost fertilizer (Jones, C., & Jacobsen,
J. 2001.)
The choice of a binding material depends on the type of material to pelletize. If the compost
has a low fluidity (e.g., contains a high percentage,>40%, of a bulking agent such as
sawdust), the processing speed might be slow and the pellets might lack strength. Thus,
will more binder be required. As shown in Table 2, binders may be classified into three
main groups, taking into account the mechanism involved in the binding process (Reiter,
2008; Tabil, 1996).
Table 2; General classification of binders (adopted from Reiter, 2008; Tabil, 1996; Berzioli, 2011)

3.3.4.1. Water
Water, as moisture, is one of the most useful agents that are employed as a binder and
lubricant. Water is particularly suitable as an aid in pelletizing materials containing water
soluble constituents such as sugars, soda ash, sodium phosphate, potassium salts, calcium
chloride, and starches. Water acts by strengthening and promoting bonding and by
increasing the contact area of the particles (Reiter, 2008; Pietsch, 2002). A thin film of
water around the particles would exhibit bonds via capillary sorption between particles.
Required moisture content depends on the type of material to be pelletized as well as on
the type of pelletizer used (Hara, 2001).
3.3.4.2. Beeswax
Beeswax is a wax produced by honeybees and used for construction of their combs.
Greatest quantities of beeswax are generated during the growth phase of bees’ colonies,
when climatic conditions are favorable (e.g., temperature between 33 and 36oC
Akangaamkum et al., 2010)
Beeswax is inert and has a high plasticity, even higher than those of other waxes, but its
physical properties vary as ambient temperature or its age increase. It softens at40–45oC,
melts at 60–70oC and may be denaturized by excessive heat while stiffness and elasticity
increase with storage time. Beeswax is not water soluble and can resist many acids.
However, beeswax became dispersible in an alkaline pH environment. It is sparingly
soluble in alcohol, but very soluble in chloroform, ether, and in fixed and volatile oils.
The specific gravity of beeswax is around 0.96 while its pH is about neutral (Berzioli, 2011;
Bradbear, 2009). Currently, beeswax has many uses, for example, as wax print, for candles
or as waterproof agent for wood and leather. It is also used by cosmetics and
pharmaceutical industries.
3.3.4.3. Clay
The term “clay” refers to a naturally occurring material composed primarily of fine‐grained
minerals (<2mm), which is generally plastic at appropriate water contents and will harden
when dried or heated. Looking into the chemical structure, clay is mainly a hydrous silicate
of alumina; that is a compound of alumina and silica chemically combined with water. The
chemical compounds present in clay are aluminum oxide or alumina (Al2O3), which is
responsible for the clay’s refractoriness; potassium oxide (K2O) and sodium oxide (Na2O)
determine the moisture expansion capacity and the vitreous temperature of the clay; ferric
oxide(Fe2O3), which gives the color of the clay (Nsiah, 2007)

Because of its plasticity, wet clay can be molded into any shape and maintain it when
released/dry. This property gives it the ability to act as a binder. However, plasticity level
of clay is variable and depends on the shape of the particles, size of the particles,
chemical/electrical attraction between particles, and the presence of carbonaceous
(organic) matter. The higher the presence of organic matter, the more plastic the clay is.
Therefore, pure kaolin has less plasticity because of low amounts of organic matter as
compared with secondary clay (e.g., montmorillonite). Nevertheless, various types of clay
have been successfully used to bind pellets. Clay loses its plasticity when subjected to high
temperature. The presence of clay in a soil gives the soil a fine texture and slows down
water and air movement (Brady, 1990).
3.3.4.4. Starch
Starch is one of the commonly used binding agents. It is a complex carbohydrate
(specifically polysaccharide) that is composed of several glucose elements. Starch is white
in color, tasteless, and odorless. It can be found in potatoes, rice, corn, wheat, cassava, and
many other vegetables. The variety/type of crop or its age can greatly affect the quality/
characteristics of the starch product. Because raw starches have limited binding properties,
they are usually transformed (chemical, physical, and enzymatic modification) before use
(IITA, 2012; Rahmouni et al. 2002). These modifications are performed to improve specific
properties, such as adhesiveness in pelletization.
3.4. Quantifying Pellet Strength and Durability

Pellets are subjected to several loads both mechanical and hydro‐thermal during
production and transport. Due to the handling and transport product material to the farm
level in the countries, pellets have often broke and changed into dust (30‐50% dust
products have been reported) (Hill and pulkinen, 1988). Therefore, in attention to high
amount of wastes, the pellets are subjected to improved quality to optimum condition
include of environmental and machines parameters is essential. Durability, an important
physical property of pellets, is measure of their ability to withstand the destructive loads
and forces during handling and transport. Especially, pellet for transport to far region must
are durable than others. Achievement to high quality is related to physical forces that bond
the particles together in level of production.
In the investigation of the characterization of a quality pellet, it was evident that a number
of definitions exist regarding the strength and durability of pellets. Kaliyan and Morey
(2006) present clear definitions of each. Strength and durability in this paper refer to the
definitions established in their work and are enumerated in the subsequent sections.

3.4.1. Strength
Strength refers to both the compressive and impact resistance of a pellet. Compressive
resistance testing simulates the loading due to self‐weight in storage and the crushing of
pellets in a screw conveyor. Impact resistance testing models the impact forces induced on
pellets during handling in the filling of silos, bins or storage bays when pellets are dropped
either on a hard floor or onto one another. Strength is most important when considering
bulk delivery systems, which are uncommon in the United States.
Compressive resistance, also referred to as hardness, is defined as the maximum

compressive load that a pellet can incur before cracking. Compressive resistance is
modeled using a diametrical compression test in which a single pellet is placed between
two flat, parallel platens and an increasing load is applied at a constant rate until fracture.
The load at fracture is read off of a recorded stress‐strain curve and referred to as the
compressive strength of the pellet (Kaliyan and Morey, 2006).
Several methods have been used to establish the impact resistance of pellet materials. All
involve dropping a single particle several times from an established height and recording
the mass or number of pieces retained above a specified particle size. ASTM method D440‐
86 (ASTM, 1998) of a drop‐shatter test for coal was employed by Li and Liu (2000) for
testing the durability of biomass logs. An impact resistance index (IRI) (Richards, 1990)
was then calculated using equation below.
= 100 equ(1)
Where;
N = number of drops
N = total number of pieces after N drops
Since the standard number of drops employed by Li and Liu (2000) was always two, the
maximum value of IRI was 200. Since briquettes often broke into many small pieces,
particles weighing less than 5% of the original mass of the log were not considered in n and
were not included in the second drop. Sah et al. (1980), Khankari et al. (1989), Shrivastava
et al. (1989), and Al‐Widyan and Al‐Jalil (2001) used an impact resistance test to determine
the durability of pellets.
Pellets were dropped from a height of 1.85 m onto a metal plate four times. Impact
resistance was defined as the percentage of the initial weight retained after dropping.
Lindley and Vossoughi (1989) employed a similar method to measure the impact
resistance of pellets.

3.4.2. Durability
Durability was determined by the drop‐testing method given by Oveisi, et al. (2013). A
sample mass of 300 g of pellets filled in a 250x300 mm fabric bag having a zip lock on its
one side was used. Before each test, pellets were sieved mechanically by using sieve
analysis apparatus with 3.15 mm sieve size to separate the broken pellets. After the
separation of broken pieces, pellets were put in the bag. The loosely filled bag was dropped
from a height of 8 m building onto a marble floor. The pellets were once again passed
through a 3.15 mm sieve and the unbroken pellets were weighed (Oveisi, et al. (2013)).
Percent breakage was determined using the following formula:
= ∗ 100 eqn(2)
Where:
D = Durability (%),
M = Initial mass of pellets before drop (g),
Mf = Final mass of pellets after drop (g).
Durability is considered high if it is above 80 %, intermediate when it varies from 70‐80 %
and low when it is less than 70 %( Colley, et al. 2006).
Durability is defined by Kaliyan and Morey (2006) as the abrasive resistance of a densified
product. Durability, as defined here in, is the most prevalent form of pellet quality analysis
employed by pellet manufacturers and is used to adjust parameters during the pelleting
process (Winowiski, 1998).
There are two distinct classifications of durability tests. Mechanical tests simulate the
forces experienced by pellets in screw conveyance (augers), and model the handling
systems commonly employed in the United States. In Europe, handling is largely conducted
with the use of pneumatics. Pneumatic tests were developed to simulate the impacts
experienced in pneumatic conveyance. The handling methods of the product during
transportation and storage should determine which test is used in the analysis of pellet
durability. The Holmen test (Franke and Ray, 2006) and Ligno test (Winowiski, 1998) are
commonly used to simulate the forces induced on pellets during pneumatic conveyance
and will not be addressed at length here. The tumbling can method (ASABE Standards,
2003) is the most common method used by feed manufacturers in the United States
(Winowiski, 1998). The Dural Tester was developed at the Agricultural Process
Engineering Laboratory at the University of Saskatchewan and has distinct advantages over
the tumbling can method (Sokhansanj and Crerar, 2006).
The equipment design and standard methodology for the tumbling can tester are defined
by ASABE Standard S269.4 (ASABE, 2003). The tester itself consist of a rectangular box
with inside dimensions 30.5 x 30.5 x 12.7cm with a 5.1 x 22.9 cm baffle fixed inside the box

on a diagonal of one of the square sides. The box must be sealed so that no dust can escape
during tumbling. The tumbling can method calls for a 500 g sample of pellets to be tumbled
for 10 minutes at 50 rpm. Following tumbling, the sample is sieved using a sieve size
approximately 0.8 times that of the pellet diameter. It is not necessarily the absolute mesh
size that matters but the fact that the same mesh size is used before and after tumbling. By
using the same screen size, a consistent definition for fines is established, and results will
be repeatable. The ASABE Standard (S269.4) calls for two replications of the test. Pellet
durability index, or PDI, is expressed as percentage of the initial mass retained on the sieve
and is calculated using equation 2.
The tumbling method has been modified by several mill operators and researchers with the
addition of ball bearings or hex nuts to increase the rigor of the test and obtain a wider
range of values (Kaliyan and Morey, 2006).
The Dural tester (Sokhansanj and Crerar, 2006) is similar in design to a food blender. It
contains an impeller with blades at a 45 degree angle inside of a canister. The method for
sample preparation calls for a 100 g sample to be hand sieved 30 times through a sieve 0.9
times that of the pellet diameter. As with the tumbling can method, achieving a sieve size
exactly 90% of pellet diameter is unlikely; again, however, consistency is more important
than accuracy. Following sieving, the sample is placed in the tester, which is run at 1600
rpm for 30 seconds. The sample is again sieved (30 times) by hand and durability
calculated as a percentage of the initial weight retained on the sieve after testing using
equation 2.
The Dural tester holds several distinct advantages over the tumbling can method. First, it is
more rigorous; it yields a wider range of values that are more realistic than those from the
tumbling can method. Hill and Pulkinen (1998) estimated that breakage in pellet shipments
was approximately 30% after transport. The ASABE tumbler method typically yields PDI
values between 80 and 100. The Dural tester provides a more accurate representation of
durability values, yielding values ranging from 5 to 90% for pellets that were predicted by
the tumbling can method to have durability between 85 and 95% (Sokhansanj and Crerar,
2006). Other marked advantages of the Dural tester include the requirement of a smaller
sample and shorter testing duration (30 s vs. 15 to 20 min) than the tumbling can method.
The shorter duration is a distinct advantage for quality control, as operators can more
quickly establish pellet durability values and adjust parameters accordingly. While the
Dural tester is clearly a more effective and robust method for evaluating pellets durability,
it has not been adopted by the pellet industry. The standard in the pellet industry remains
the tumbling can method. Further, of the quality metrics, durability is the best indicator of
pellets’ ability to withstand the transportation, storage and handling processes that is
considered by the pellet industry.

3.4.3. Pellet stability

Stability of a pellet was determined by evaluating changes in its dimensions (or volume)
with time. A general trend was observed: the volume of the pellets would increase (spring‐
back) with time after they were taken out from the mold. The stability of the pellets was
measured by the spring‐back of the pellets which was calculated by
− = equ(3)
where, stable pellet volume is the volume of pellets measured when their volume become
stable, and initial pellet volume is the volume of the pellet measured right after the pellet is
taken out from the mold. Five pellets were measured for each production condition. The
volume of each pellet was measured once a day for 10 days. Pilot tests showed that
the pellet volumes became stable after three days since pelleting (Zhang, et al., 2011). The
stable volume for a pellet was then determined by taking the average value of the volumes
of each pellet from day 4 to day 10.
3.5. Post Production Conditions

Post production conditions play a significant role in both strength and durability values.
The timing of measurement in addition to cooling and drying condition is identified by
Kaliyan and Morey (2006) to impact durability and strength. Shocks in moisture content
during storage and handling can reduce the structural integrity of pellets, and should be
avoided. Moisture content considerations, including shocks in relative humidity and
exposure to the elements, are similar to those of grains and other hygroscopic commodities
and pellets should be handled with the same considerations in mind.
3.5.1. Timing of Measurement

Kaliyan and Morey (2006) distinguish between the “green” strength and the cured strength
of pellets. Green strength refers to measurement carried out immediately after production
and cured strength refers to testing conducted approximately one week later. Timing of
measurement affects both durability and compressive resistance measurements.
Payne (1978) observed that the timing of measurement significantly impacted the
hardness values of dairy feed pellets when measured immediately after production and 24
hours later. Compressive resistance increased from 78.5 to 131.4 N with additional curing.
He attributed this to the formation of solid bridges as the pellets cooled.

3.5.2. Cooling and Drying

Due to friction experienced in pelleting, pellets exit the process at temperatures and
moisture contents higher than that of ambient equilibrium. Immediately after production,
pellets are cooled and dried, usually with the use of forced air, to within 5oC and 0.5% of
equilibrium moisture content at ambient conditions (Turner, 1995). Cooling and moisture
reduction that occurs too rapidly can result in the cracking of pellets. Proper cooling
promotes the formation of solid bridges and increases the viscosity of liquid components,
improving the overall structural integrity of pellets (Thomas et al., 1997).
After producing pellet compost, it should be dried under the roof around 4 to 7 days so its
water content could be reduced to 20% or less, being this suitable moisture for storage
(Hara, 2001). When drying pellets, some of them may crack, and so it might be necessary to
separate them by sacking with a plastic net. Then, pellet compost is packed in plastic bags
in order to keep stable moisture.
3.6. Suggestions by previous researchers

Litster and Liu (1989) in their research on the granulation of fertilizers have found that
coalescence is the most probable mechanism for low temperature fertilizer granulation
using a feed with a broad particle size distribution.
The binder composition in the pellet has significant influence on release pattern. The
release sustained for longer period as the binder fraction increases. Increased binder
fraction offers strong and impervious pellet makes the release slow. (Bala, 2011)
3.7. Scope of the study

Current work is focused on selecting the best performing biochar blended compost
pelleting machine and incorporating some modification to address the problems and to
make the operation safer.
Since Pelletization of Biochar for soil amendment is a recent idea, safe application and
handling of the Biochar is necessary and therefore designing and manufacturing of disc
pelletizer machine for the biochar blended compost pelletization using locally available
materials is the scope of this project.
In addition experimental test will be done on the pellet quality, at different process
conditions (speed of the pan, angle of inclination of the pan) and feed conditions, and the
performance of machine will be tested at different feed conditions (i.e. compost moisture
content, compost binder ratio). GHG emission analysis of produced pellets will be
evaluated. Pellet durability and stability also will be evaluated.

4. OBJECTIVES
4.1. General Objective

The general objective of this thesis work is to design and develop biochar pelletizer
machine for producing Biochar based indigenous fertilizer for sustainable soil fertility and
carbon sequestration in Ethiopia.
4.2. Specific objectives

 To design and manufacture Biochar pelletizer machine to commercialize Biochar
based indigenous fertilizer in Ethiopia.
 To produce and evaluate the quality of Biochar pellet with different operating
condition experimentally.
 To develop road map for biochar based indigenous fertilizer production in Ethiopia.

5. METHODOLOGY
The thesis work will be under taken in Jimma university Institute of Technology
Mechanical Engineering department.
5.1. Production of biochar

Air dried coffee husk will be taken from local coffee processers and farmers around Jimma
City. The dried coffee husk will be pyrolyzed above 4000C for an hour using kiln.
5.2. Pelletization of nutrient-embedded biochar

The coffee Husk char produced by the kiln (pyrolysis oven) is blended with chicken waste
and Farm yield manure (with high moisture content) which is taken from Jimma University
Agriculture college animal dairy with 3:1:1 ratio. To increase the microbial activity of the
compost 3% to 4% of soil can be added. Then the blended biochar will be composted for at
list two months. The longer it composted the smaller the particle size of the biochar
becomes and it allows 2mm to 6mm diameter pellet size production.
The composted biochar which has 25% to 35% moisture content will be blended with
different percentage of binder (clay, molasses or water). Then the mixed biochar will be
pelletized using disc pelletizer which is designed and manufactured for pelletization of
biochar based fertilizer, that consist of 0.25m diameter stainless steel disc which designed
with inclination from 40 to 600 and rotates 5rpm to 50rpm speed. When the disc rotates
the moisturized biochar pushes by centrifugal force, at the same time it rolls to one side of
the pan due to gravitational force and frictional force created by the contact surface the
contact surface of the pan and the biochar blended compost. Water will be added as binder
based on the requirement of Pelletization process. Then through this agglomeration
process the size of the particles increases due to nucleation of particles. Depend on the
inclination of the disc the pellet size gets 2mm to 38mm and it will drop out of the pan to
the pellet collector pan.
Finally the produced pellets will be taken to dry four to seven days and it will be
characterized for different properties of the pellets specially durability, stability and bulk
density.
5.3. Characterization of biochar pellets

The biochar based pellets produced which dries at different ambient condition will be
mechanically and chemically characterized.
Density of biochar Pellets will be calculated by measuring diameter and mass of ball type
biochar embedded pellets.

Durability of the pellets will be evaluated by dropping 500g of pellets from a height of 1.5m
to 8m height on the concrete floor. After dropping, the pellets were screened using a 2 mm
sieve. Then particles that fall through screen will be weighed and percentage durability will
be calculated.
5.4. Biochar pelletizer design and development
5.4.1. Design Considerations

 Using Low cost and locally available material
 Less complex manufacturing method.
 Easley and safely assembly and disassembly of the pelletizer component during
maintenance.
 Easy operation and Control system.
5.4.2. Prototype production
5.5. Experimental test work
5.5.1. Material will be used for the experiment

 Digital thermometer
 Watch
 Weight measurement
 Emission analyzer (to measure pollutant emission)
 PH meter
 Moisture meter
 Biochar embedded compost
 Binder (water, molasses)
 Plastic bag (for pellet durability test)
5.5.2. Biochar pelletizer performance assessment

Table 3: List of parameters to be collected and calculated from the machine for Performance assessment
No. Data to be collected No. Variables that will be calculated

1 Mass/Volume of biochar embedded 1 Production of pellets per hour(in
compost before Pelletization (kg/m3) Kilogram)
2 Moisture of the compost before test 2 Efficiency of the machine
3 Pellet temperature(degree Celsius) 3 Energy consumption(kJ/Kg of
compost)
4 Moisture content of the pellets

5.5.3. Biochar pellet yield measurement

In this investigation speed of the machine, inclination of the pan and moisture content will
be taken as the independent variable (the factors) for the compost, whereas pellet yield,
surface area, durability and density of the Biochar pellet is the dependent variable.
Speed of the machine High and Low (two level)
Angle of inclination High and low (two level)
Moisture level High and low (two level)
Replication two
For surface area, sears method will be used.
For PH, Standard Test Methods (ASTM) for pH of Soils will be used
For Bulk density, ASTM D2854‐96 will be used.
For Durability Impact test
5.6. Method of processing and analysis of data

The data will be analyzed using simple statistical tool (SPSS, SAS…) and multiple
comparison tests using ANOVA. Effects of disc rotational speed, binder and angle of
inclination on density of pelleted biochar compost, An ANOVA analysis using a general
linear model of the main factors (temperature, moisture and compacting pressure) in
Minitab software (Minitab Inc, USA) is used to see the effect on pellet density.
Effects of disc rotational speed, binder and angle of inclination on strength of pelleted
biochar embedded compost, an ANOVA analysis using a general lineal model of the main
factors (temperature, moisture and compacting pressure) in Minitab software (Minitab
Inc, USA) is used to see the effects on pellet durability.

6. EXPECTED OUT COME

 Energy efficient biochar embedded compost pellet making machine will be
developed from locally available materials.
 Bulk density, durability, surface area and stability of pellets produced at different
process and feed conditions will be identified.
 Biochar based indigenous fertilizer will be produced.

7. BUDGET
7.1. Raw material cost

S. Item Unit Qty Unit price Total Remar
No (Birr) price(Birr) k
1 Sheet metal 3x1000x2000mm pcs 1 2892 2892
2 Sheet metal 1 x1000x2000mm pcs 1 1500 1500
3 Square pipe 40*40 pcs 1 470 470
4 Square pipe 45*45 pcs 1 520 520
5 Key pcs 10 6 60
6 Electrode pac 1 250 250
7 Stainless steel 1.5*1000*2000mm pcs 1 3300 3300
8 Stainless steel bar 6*100 pcs 1 2200 2200
9 Adjusting screw pcs 2 100 200
10 Ball Bearing pcs 8 200 1600
11 Rectangular bar 60*40 meter 2 1092 2184
12 Angle iron Pcs 1 630 630
13 Round bar (mild steal) pcs 1 3312 3312
diam.40mm
14 Chain Pcs 1 150 150
15 Chin Sprocates Pcs 2 275 550
16 Bolt & nut Pcs 40 8 240
17 Motor 0.13HP, 1725rpm Pcs 1 1000 1000
18 Piping Pcs 1 50 50
19 Needle valve Pcs 1 150 150
20 Pressure gauge Pcs 1 250 250
21 Flexible tubing and nozzle. Pcs 1 120 120
22 Paint Kg 2 110 220
23 Painting brush Pcs 1 40 40
24 Gear, C45 steel diam. 100mm M 6 572 3433
25 Round bar (mild steel) diam. M 6 85 510
25mm
26 Screw Pack 1 120 120
27 Speed control pcs 1 600 600
28 Switch pcs 1 50 50
Sub total 26,601.00birr

7.2. Machining cost

No Operation Machining cost(unit price Birr ) Qty Total price Remark
(birr)
1 Gear 748 6 4488
2 Shaft 1530 1 1530
machining
3 scraper 748 1 748
4 Disc(pan) 150 1 150
5 Drilling 293 1 293
6 Welding 60 1 60
structure
Sub total 7296
7.3. Labor cost

S. Item No of No of Per Total amount (Birr) Remark
No worker days diem(Birr)
1 Machinist 2 20 150 6000
2 Welder 1 5 150 750
Sub total 6750
7.4. Cost of raw material collection

S. Item Code No of Per diem or Total amount (Birr) Remark
No days or transport cost
trip (Birr)
1 Researcher Per diem 25 206 5150
2 Researcher Transport 6 110 660
cost
Sub total 5810
7.5. Stationary cost

S. Item Unit Qty Unit price Total Remark
No (Birr) price(Birr)
1 Writing paper desta 1 110 110
2 Pen pcs 2 5 10
3 Printing pages 600 1 600
4 Binding pcs 5 10 50
Sub total 770

7.6. Cost of Experimental test

S. Item No of No of Per Total amount (Birr) Remark
No worker days diem(Birr)
1 Technical 2 5 150 1500
assistant
Sub total 1500
7.7. Costs for Bringing machine from Addis Abeba

S. Item Code No of Per diem or Total amount (Birr) Remark
No days or transport cost
trip (Birr)
1 Researcher Per diem 2 206 412
2 Driver Per diem 2 190 380
3 Benzene Littre 144 18 2592
Sub total 3384
The Total cost of the Research is 52,111.00 birr

8. ACTION PLAN
Table : List of activities and schedule for thesis work
Activities Schedule
Feb Mar Apr May Jun

15D 15D 15D 15D 15D 15D
1 Literature review
2 Design and Material
purchasing
3 Manufacturing
4 Experimental testing and
data collection
5 Data analysis and report
writing
6 Final defense

9. REFERENCES
1. Abdullah, H., Wu, H. 2009. Biochar as a Fuel: 1. Properties and Grind ability of Biochar
Produced from the Pyrolysis of Mallee Wood under Slow‐Heating Conditions. Energy &
Fuels, 23(8), 4174‐4181.
2. Abiyot Berhanu and Getachew Tesfaye. The prosopisdilemma, impacts on dry land
biodiversity and some controlling methods journal of the dry lands 1(2): 158‐164,
2006
3. Adapa, P.K., Schoenau, G.J., Tabil, L.G., Sokhansanj, S. and Crerar, B.J. 2003. Pelleting of
fractionated alfalfa products. ASABE Paper No.036069. ASABE, St. Joseph, MI.
4. Akangaamkum, A.D., Agbenorhevi, M. & Okudzeto, C.(2010). The honey industry in
Ghana: An overview (p.52). Ghana, Netherlands Development Organization.
5. Alexandratos N., Bruinsma J. (2012). World agriculture towards 2030/2050, the 2012
revision. (ESA working paper No. 12‐03).Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.
6. Al‐Widyan, M.I., and H.F. Al‐Jalil. 2001. Stress‐density relationship and energy
requirement of compressed olive cake. Applied Eng. In Agric. 17(6): 749‐753.
7. ASABE Standards. 2003. S269.4: Cubes, pellets, and crumbles – Definitions and
methods for determining density, durability, and moisture content. St. Joseph, Mich.:
ASABE.
8. ASTER SHIMELIS. OPTIMIZATION OF COFFEE WASTES FOR THE CULTIVATION OF
PLEUROTUS OSTREATUS, A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of
Addis Ababa University in Partial fulfillments for the Degree of Master of Science in
biology (Applied Microbiology), JUNE, 2011.
9. ASTM. 1998. D440‐86: Standard test method of drop shatter test for coal. Annual book
of ASTM Standards, vol. 05.05. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing
and Materials. Pp.188‐191
10. Baker, J.M., T.E. Ochsner, R.T. Venterea, and T.J. Griffis. 2007. Tillage and soil carbon
sequestration: What do we really know? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 118:1‐5.
11. Bala Bharathi, P*., Vikky. K., Varalakshmi Devi. M, Rajendra Prasad. P, and Sujatha, V.
International Journal of applied biology and pharmaceutical technology, (April – June‐
2011), ISSN 0976‐4550
12. Basso, A.S., Miguez, F.E., Laird, D.A., Horton, R., & Westgate, M. 2012. Assessing
potential of biochar for increasing water‐holding capacity of sandy soils. GCB
Bioenergy 5, 132–143.
13. Berzioli M. (2011). An analytical and applicative approach to the cleaning of artworks
(p. 133), Ph.D. dissertation, Universita’ Degli Studi Di Parma, Italia.
14. Bijen JMJM (1986). Manufacturing processes of artificial lightweight aggregates from
fly ash. Int. J. Cement Composite. Lightweight concrete. 8(3): 191‐9.

15. BIRD MI. Algal biochar : effects and applications. Global Change Biology Bioenergy.
2012; 61–9.
16. Bradbear, N. (2009). Bees and their role in forest livelihoods A guide to the services
provided by bees and the sustainable harvesting, processing and marketing of their
products; Production and trade of beeswax (Chapter 10),FAO, 103‐111 (194 p).
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i0842e/i0842e00.pdf.
17. Brady, N.C. (1990). The Nature and Properties of Soils (10th Edition; p. 621), New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
18. Brown, R. 2009. Biochar production technology. p. 127 – 139. In Lehmann, J., Joseph, S.
(eds.), Biochar for environmental management. Earth scan, Sterling, Virginia.
19. Brownsort, P.R. 2009. Biochar pyrolysis processes: Review of scope, control and
variability. UK Biochar Research Centre, School of Geosciences, University of
Edinburgh.
20. Cantrell, K.B., Hunt, P.G., Uchimiya, M., Novak, J.M., Ro, K.S. 2012. Impact of pyrolysis
temperature and manure source on physicochemical characteristics of biochar.
21. Colley, Z., Fasina, O.O., Bransby, D., Lee, Y.Y., 2006. Moisture effect on the physical
characteristics of switch grass pellets. T ASAE 49, pp. 1845 1851.
22. Cook, F.J., & Orchard, V.A. 2008. Relationships between soil respiration and soil
moisture. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40, 1,013–1,018.
23. Denman, K.L., G. Brasseur, A. Chidthaisong, P. Ciais, P.M. Cox, R.E. Dickinson, D.
Hauglustaine, G. Heinze, E. Holland, D. Jacob, U.Lohmann, S. Ramachandran, P.L. da
Silva Dias, S.C. Wofsy, X. Zhang. 2007. Couplings between changes in the climate system
and biogeochemistry.
24. Fernández‐Escobar, R., Benlloch, M., Herrera, E., Garcıa‐Novelo, J.M. 2004. Effect of
traditional and slow‐release N fertilizers on growth of olive nursery plants and N
losses by leaching. Scientia Horticulturae, 101(1–2), 39‐49.
25. Foley, J., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K., Cassidy, E., Gerber, J., Johnston, M., Mueller, N.,
O’Connell, C., Ray, D., West, P., Balzer, C., Bennett, E., Carpenter, S., Hill, J., Monfreda, C.,
Polasky, S., Rockstrom, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., Tilman, D. (2011). Solutions for a
Cultivated Planet. Nature, 478, 337‐342.
26. Franke, M., and A. Rey. 2006. Pelleting quality. World Grain May 2006: 78‐79
27. Garcia‐Perez, M., Lewis, T., & Kruger, C.E. 2010. Methods for producing biochar and
advanced biofuels in Washington State ‐ Part 1: Literature review of pyrolysis reactors.
First project report. Department of Biological Systems Engineering and the Center for
Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, Pullman, WA, USA.
28. Gaunt, J.L., & Lehmann, J. 2008. Energy balance and emissions associated with biochar
sequestration and pyrolysis bioenergy production. Environmental Science &
Technology 42, 4,152–4,158.

29. Glaser, B., M. Parr, C. Braun, and K. Goodspeed. 2009. Biochar is carbon negative.
Nature Geoscience, 2:2.
30. Growth, productivity, and nitrogen use efficiency of maize. 2013
31. Hammond, J., Shackley, S., Sohi, S., & Brownsort, P. 2011. Prospective life cycle carbon
abatement for pyrolysis biochar systems in the UK. Energy Policy 39, 2,646–2,655.
32. Hara, 2001. Fertilizer pellet made from composted livestock manure. Extension
Bulletins, An International Information Center for Farmers in the Asia Pacific Region.
33. Henok Kassa, Hammed Suliman and TenawWorkayew. Evaluation of composting
process and quality of compost from coffee by‐products (coffee husk & pulp),
Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and Management Vol. 4 No.4 2011.
34. Hill, B. and D.A. Pulkinen, 1988. A Study of the Factors Affecting Pellet Durability and
Pelleting Efficiency in the Production of Dehydrated Aifalfa Pellets.SEC, Canada.
35. Hoffman, U. (2011). Assuring food security in developing countries under the
challenges of climate change: Key trade and development issues of a fundamental
transformation of agriculture. (Discussion Paper No. 201). Geneva: United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development.
36. Hua, L., Wu, W.X., Liu, Y.X., McBride, M., Chen, Y.X. 2009. Reduction of nitrogen loss and
Cu and Zn mobility during sludge composting with bamboo charcoal amendment.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 16(1), 1‐9.
37. Husk, B., Major, J. 2008. Commercial scale agricultural biochar field trial in Quebec,
Canada, over two years: Effects of biochar on soil fertility, biology, crop productivity
and quality. Blue Leaf.
38. IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture).(2012). Cassava Starch
Production (p. 3). Integrated Cassava Project, IITA.
39. James Samuel Clark, Sediment Records of Biomass Burning and Global Change.
40. Jeffery, S., Verheijen, F.G.A., van der Velde, M., & Bastos, A.C. 2011. A quantitative
review of the effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta‐
analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 144, 175–187.
41. Jones, C., & Jacobsen, J. (2001). Plant nutrition and soil fertility. Nutrient management
module 2. Montana State University Extension Service, Publication 4449‐2.
42. Joseph, S.D., Camps‐Arbestain, M., Lin, Y., Munroe, P., Chia, C.H., Hook, J., van Zwieten,
L., Kimber, S., Cowie, A., Singh, B.P., Lehmann, J., Foidl, N., Smernik, R.J., & Amonette, J.E.
2010. An investigation into the reactions of biochar in soil. Soil Research 48, 501–515.
43. Kaliyan, N., and R.V. Morey. 2009. Densification Characteristics of Corn Stover and
Switchgrass. Transactions of the ASABE. 52(3):907‐920.
44. Kaliyan, N., and R.V. Morey. 2006. Factors affecting the strength and durability of
densified products. Presented to: Annual International Meeting of the ASABE. Portland.

45. Karhu, K., Mattila, T., Bergström, I., & Regina, K. 2011. Biochar addition to agricultural
soil increased CH4 uptake and water holding capacity – Results from a short‐term pilot
field study. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 140, 309–313.
46. Keshvari Sarani, N. A. 2011. Determination of single screw extruder parameters to
produce pellet by municipal waste compost. M.Sc. thesis. College of Abouraihan,
University of Tehran. Iran. (In Farsi)
47. Khankari, K.K., M. Shrivastava, and R.V. Morey. 1989. Densification characteristics of
rice hulls. ASABE Paper No. 89‐6093. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE.
48. Kim, P., Johnson, A.M., Essington, M.E., Radosevich, M., Kwon, W.T., Lee, S.H., Rials, T.G.,
Labbe, N. 2013. Effect of pH on surface characteristics of switchgrass‐derived biochars
produced by fast pyrolysis. Chemosphere, 90(10), 2623‐2630.
49. Laird, D.A., Brown, R.C., Amonette, J.E., & Lehmann, J. 2009. Review of the pyrolysis
platform for coproducing bio‐oil and biochar. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 3,
547–562.
50. Lehmann, J., Rillig, M.C., Thies, J., Masiello, C.A., Hockaday, W.C., Crowley, D. 2011.
Biochar effects on soil biota – A review. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 43(9), 1812‐
1836.
51. Li, Y., and H. Liu. 2000. High‐pressure densification of wood residues to form an
upgraded fuel.Biomass and Bioenergy 19: 177‐186.
52. Lindley, J.A., and M. Vossoughi. 1989. Physical properties of biomass briquettes. Trans.
ASABE32 (2): 361‐366.
53. LITSTER J. D., LIU, L. X ,1989, Population balance modelling of fertilizer granulation,
Proc 5th International Symposium on Agglomeration, Sept 25‐27, Brighton UK, 611‐
621.
54. Major, J., Lehmann, J., Rondon, M., Goodale, C. 2010. Fate of soil‐applied black carbon:
downward migration, leaching and soil respiration. Global Change Biology, 16(4),
1366‐1379.
55. Mani, S., L.G. Tabil and S. Sokhansanj, 2006. Effects of compressive force, particle size
and moisture content on mechanical properties of biomass pellets from grasses.
Biomass Bioenergy, 30: 648‐654.
56. Masayuki, H., 2001. Fertilizer pellets made from composted livestock manure.
Agriculture Research Division Mie Prefectural Science and Technology Promotion
Center Kawasakita 530, Uresinochou, Itisigun, Mie, 515‐2316, Japan, 2001‐11‐01.
57. McHenry, M. P. 2008 Agricultural bio‐char production, renewable energy generation
and farm carbon sequestration in Western Australia: Certainty, uncertainty and risk.
Agric. Ecosystems Environ, 129:1‐7.
58. McMahon, M. J. 1984. Physical quality measurement. In Manufacture of Animal Feed.
ed. Beaven, D.A., 71‐73. Herts, England: Turret‐Wheatland Ltd.

59. McMullen, J., O.O. Fasina, C.W. Wood and Y. Feng, 2005. Storage and handling
properties of pellets from poultry litter. Applied Eng. Agric., 21: 645‐651.
60. Menale Kassie and Precious Zikhali.Brief on Sustainable Agriculture Prepared for the
Expert Group Meeting on "Sustainable Land Management & Agricultural Practices in
Africa: Bridging the Gap between Research & Farmers" Gothenburg, Sweden, April 16 ‐
17, 2009.
61. Meyer, S., Glaser, B., & Quicker, P. 2011. Technical, Economical, and Climate‐Related
Aspects of Biochar Production Technologies: A Literature Review. Environmental
Science & Technology 45, 9,473–9,483.
62. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED). Ethiopia: Building on
Progress A Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End poverty (PASDEP),
(2005/06‐2009/10) Volume I: Main Text, September, 2006 Addis Ababa
63. Mohsenin, N., and J. Zaske. 1976. Stress relaxation and energy requirements in
compaction ofunconsolidated materials. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 21(2): 193‐205.
64. Mortain, L., Dez, I., Madec, P.J. 2004. Development of new composites materials,
carriers of active agents, from biodegradable polymers and wood. Comptes Rendus
Chimie, 7(6‐7), 635‐640.
65. Nsiah, J.K. (2007). The study of Mfensi clay in the Ashanti Region of Ghana, Ghana
Journal of Science, 47, 123–129.
66. Oveisi, E., et al., 2013. Breakage behavior of wood pellets due to free fall. Powder
Technology. 235,pp. 493‐499.
67. On R. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, central statistical agency report on
area and production of major crops. 2013.
68. Payne, J.D. 1978. Improving quality of pellet feeds. Milling Feed and Fertilizer 162: 34‐
41.
69. Pietsch, W. (2002). Agglomeration technologies. In: Agglomeration Processes:
Phenomenon, Technologies, Equipment (pp. 133–408), Weinheim: Wiley‐Vch Verlag
GmbH.
70. Pimentel, D., Berger, B., Filiberto, D., Newton, M., Wolfe, B., Karabinakis, E., Clark, S.,
Poon, E., Abbett, E., Nandagopal, S. (2004). Water Resources: Agricultural and
Environmental Issues. Bioscience, 54, 909‐918.; Rost, S., Gerten, D., Bondeau, A., Lucht,
W., Rohwer, J., Schaphoff, S. (2008.) Agricultural green and blue water consumption
and its influence on the global water system. Water Resources Research, 44, 1748‐
9326.
71. Rahmouni, M., Lenaerts, V., Massuelle, D., Doelker, E. &Leroux, J.‐C. (2002). Influence of
physical parameters and lubricants on the compaction properties of granulated and
non‐granulated cross‐linked high amylose starch. Chemical and Pharmaceutical
Bulletin 50, 1155–1162.

72. Reicosky, D.C. 1997. Tillage‐induced CO2 emission from soil. Nutrient Cycling in Agro
ecosystems 49, 273–285.
73. Reicosky, D.C., Dugas, W.A., & Torbert, H.A. 1997. Tillage‐induced soil carbon dioxide
loss from different cropping systems. Soil and Tillage Research 41, 105–118.
74. Reiter, M.S. (2008). Environmental and agronomic evaluation of value‐added nitrogen
fortified poultry litter and bio solids fertilizers. Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, University of Arkansas, United States of America.
75. Reza, M.T., Lynam, J.G., Vasquez, V.R., Coronella, C.J. 2012. Pelletization of Biochar from
Hydrothermally Carbonized Wood. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy,
31(2), 225‐234.
76. Richards, S.R. 1990. Physical testing of fuel briquettes. Fuel Process. Tech. 25: 89‐100.
77. Roberts, K.G., Gloy, B.A., Joseph, S., Scott, N.R., & Lehmann, J. 2010. Life cycle
assessment of biochar systems: estimating the energetic, economic and climate change
potential. Environmental Science & Technology 44, 827–833.
78. Ro, K.S., Cantrell, K.B., Hunt, P.G. 2010. High‐Temperature Pyrolysis of Blended Animal
Manures for Producing Renewable Energy and Value‐Added Biochar. Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research, 49(20), 10125‐10131.
79. Serrano, C., E. Monedero, M. Lapuerta, and H. portero. 2011. Effect of moisture
content, particle size and pine addition on quality parameters of barley straw pellets.
Fuel Process Technology, 92(3): 699‐706.
80. Shenbagavalli .S Mahimairaja.S. Production and characterization of biochar from
different biological wastes. International journal of plant, animal and environmental
sciences. 2012; 197–201.
81. SHERRINGTON P. J., OLIVER R, 1981, Globulation processes, in granulation, Heyden
and Son ltd, London, 118–140.
82. Shrivastava, M., P. Shrivastava, and K.K. Khankari. 1989. Densification characteristics of
rice husk under cold and hot compression. In Agricultural Engineering: Proceedings of
the11th International Congress on Agricultural Engineering, Dublin, 4‐8 September
1989, 2441‐2443. V.A. Dodd and P. M. Grace, eds. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema Pub.
83. SileshiKore, AbebayehuAssefa et.al. Steam Gasification of Coffee Husk in Bubbling
Fluidized Bed Gasifier, Steam Gasification of Coffee Husk in Bubbling Fluidized Bed
Gasifier, BIONATURE 2013 : The Fourth International Conference on Bio environment,
Biodiversity and Renewable Energies
84. Singh, B., Singh, B.P., & Cowie, A.L. 2010b. Characterization and evaluation of biochar
for their application as a soil amendment. Soil Research 48, 516–525.
85. Smith, P.D., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B., Ogle, S.,
O’Mara, F., Rice, C., Scholes, B., & Sirotenko, O. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation.
Contribution of Working 6. References 157 Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In Metz, B., Davidson, O.R., Bosch,

P.R., Dave, R., Meyer, L.A. (eds.), Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
86. Sohi, S.P., Krull, E., Lopez‐Capel, E., & Bol, R. 2010. A review of biochar and Its use and
function in soil. p. 47–82. In Advances in Agronomy. Academic Press, Burlington.
87. Sokhansanj S; Crerar W J (1999). Development of a durability tester for pelleted and
cubed animal feed. SAE Technical Paper Series—1999‐01‐2830. Society of Automotive
Engineers, Inc. Warrendale, PA
88. Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Alley, R.B., Berntsen, T., Bindoff, N.L., Chen, Z.,
Chidthaisong, A., Gregory, J.M., Hegerl, G.C., Heimann, M., Hewitson, B., Hoskins, B.J.,
Joos, F., Jouzel, J., Kattsov, V., Lohmann, U., Matsuno, T., Molina, M., Nicholls, N.,
Overpeck, J., Raga, G., Ramaswamy, V., Ren, J., Rusticucci, M., Somerville, R., Stocker,
T.F., Whetton, P., Wood, R.A., & Wratt, D. 2007a. Technical Summary. In Climate Change
2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
89. Spokas, K.A. 2012. Impact of biochar field aging on laboratory greenhouse gas
production potentials. GCB Bioenergy 5, 165–176.
90. Steinbeiss, S., G. Gleixner, M. Antonietti. 2009. Effect of biochar amendment on soil
carbon balance and soil microbial activity. Soil Biology Biochemistry, 41: 1301‐1310.
91. Tabil, L.G. (1996). Binding and pelleting characteristics of alfalfa. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Agricultural and Bio resource Engineering, University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
92. Tenenbaum, D.J. 2009. Carbon mitigation from the ground up. Environ. Health
Perspectives, 117:A70‐A73.
93. Thomas, M., D.J. van Zuilichem, and A.F.B. van der Poel. 1997. Physical quality of
pelleted animal feed. 2. Contribution of processes and its conditions. Animal Feed Sci.
Tech.64:173‐192.
94. Turner, R. 1995. Bottom line in feed processing: achieving optimum pellet quality. Feed
Mgmt.46 (12): 30‐33.
95. WALKER, G. M, 2007, Chapter 4: Drum Granulation Processes, Handbook of Powder
Technology, 11, 219–254.
96. W. H. Engelleitner, Glossary of Agglomeration Terms, 1990
97. Winowiski, T. 1998. Examining a new concept in measuring pellet quality: which test is
best? Feed Mgmt. 49(1): 23‐26.
98. Woolf, D., Amonette, J.E., Street‐Perrott, F.A., Lehmann, J., & Joseph, S. 2010. Sustainable
biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature Communications 1, Article number
56, 1 – 9.

99. Xu, L., Baldocchi, D.D., & Tang, J. 2004. How soil moisture, rain pulses, and growth alter
the response of ecosystem respiration to temperature. Global Biogeochemical Cycles
18, GB4002.
100. Zhang, P.F., Zhang, M., Song, X.X., Zhang, Q., Cong, W.L., Qin, N., Pei, Z.J., Deines, T.,
and Wang, D.H., 2011, “Ultrasonic vibration‐assisted pelleting of cellulosic biomass for
biofuel manufacturing,” CD‐ROM Proceedings of 2011 NSF Civil, Mechanical and
Manufacturing Innovation Grantees and Research Conference, Atlanta, GA, US, January
4‐7.
101. Gross National Income, Atlas Method 2013
102. (www.Worldometers.info
103. www.Biochar Farms.html
104. http://www.undp.orgcontentethiopiaenhomeoperationsprojectsenvironment_and_
energy project_sample11.html

Propoasal Final

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Propoasal Final

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Design Development and Testing of Biochar pelletizer for Sustainable Soil Fertility and Carbon Sequestration

This study contributes for commercialization of Biochar based indigenous fertilizer by

Key words: Biochar, soil fertility, carbon sequestration, pellet, pelletizer

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page i

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page ii

3.5.2. Cooling and Drying ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 26

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page iii

LIST OF TABLES and FIGURES

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page iv

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 2

1.1.1. Ethiopian Green Economy and Transformation plan

If Ethiopia were to pursue a conventional economic development path to achieve its

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 3

Therefore for Ethiopia, green growth is a necessity as well as an opportunity to be seized. It

1.1.2. Biomass resource Assessment

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 4

1.2. Design of Biochar pelletizer

 Supply “starter” nutrients to support germination;

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 5

1.2.1.1 Balling Disc Machine (Pelletizer)

A balling disc machine also known as pelletizing machine is specialized equipment it is

 High balling rate

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 6

1.2.1.2. Ring Die Pellet Mill

1.2.1.3. Flat Die Pellet mill

 compact structure makes it small in size and lightweight;

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 7

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 8

When lignocellulosic biomass‐derived biochar produced by fast pyrolysis is incorporated

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 9

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 10

3.1.1. Biochar production

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 11

3.2.2. Biochar properties and effects on soil

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 12

3.2.3. Biochar effect on carbon sequestration

It is generally accepted that reducing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 by permanently

(Denman et al., 2007). By contrast, application of biochar to agricultural soils is an

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 13

3.2.4. Biochar initiatives for developing countries

3.3. Biochar agglomerator optimization

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 14

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 15

Literature on agglomeration of agricultural or woody biomass is scarce. In principle, the

Mani (2008) proposed the following mechanism for pellet/granules formation:

 Attraction forces between solid particles

Agglomeration is a function of material properties and process parameters (Mort 2009).

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 16

Fig. 6: Agglomeration as a function of material properties and process parameters

3.3. Factors that affect the quality of Biochar embedded compost

3.3.1. Effects of moisture content

Moisture determination of compost mixture was very important for Extruder

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 17

3.3.2. Compressive force

3.3.3. The effect of rotational speed of the disc granulator

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 18

3.3.4. Effects of Binders on fertilizer granulation

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 19

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 20

3.4. Quantifying Pellet Strength and Durability

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 21

Compressive resistance, also referred to as hardness, is defined as the maximum

N = total number of pieces after N drops

Henok Atile, MSC in Sustainable Energy Engineering Page 22