Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 636–649

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Potential commercialisation of biocoke production in Malaysia—A best T

evidence review
⁎
Adila Maisyarah Mansora,b, Wai Lip Theoa,b, Jeng Shiun Lima,b, , Farid Nasir Anic,
Haslenda Hashima,b, Wai Shin Hoa,b
a
Process Systems Engineering Centre (PROSPECT), Research Institute for Sustainable Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 81310 UTM Johor Bahru,
Johor, Malaysia
b
Faculty of Chemical and Energy Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
c
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Global depletion of fossil fuels, growing awareness on the effects of carbon emissions and greenhouse gases and,
Biocoke the need for renewable energy, has increased the attention towards biocoke research and active engagement
Agricultural biomass with various research groups and industrial players. Biocoke production and utilisation is crucial as it con-
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) tributes to the efficient management of agricultural residue and municipal solid waste. The technologies in-
Pyrolysis
volved in the biocoke production and the viability of Malaysia's agricultural waste as a feedstock was described
Fuel
Metallurgical industry
in this paper. In addition, the paper provided background information about the biocoke characteristics and the
Renewable energy feedstocks that dictate quality. Comparisons of commercial coal coke and biocoke production technologies that
may be applicable to Malaysia were also addressed. Moreover, the paper demonstrated the challenges towards
Malaysia's biocoke commercialisation despite its viability from biomass feedstocks characteristics, availability,
and evidence of calorific value estimations.

1. Introduction
Global issues pertaining to fossil fuel depletion, energy price fluc-
tuations, energy security, the carbon footprint of the energy industry
and, climate change have demanded the attention towards renewable
energy. Efforts to synthesise and utilise renewable energy was reported
in Germany [1], Australia [2], Chile [3], China [4], Romania [5],
Mexico [6], India [7], Small Island Developing States (SIDS) [8], and
developing countries [9]. While some of these countries are progres-
sively developing their expertise in wind [10] and solar power [11],
biomass is one of the renewable energy resources with established
conversion technologies and proven track record [12–15] of success.
Concerns about the significant carbon footprint in the steel-making
industry have to lead to innovation in biomass-based fuel and reducing
agents [16]. For example, Malaysia's metallurgical industries recorded
steel production of 7.5 million tonnes in 2004 [17], which contributed
to the increased industrial carbon dioxide emissions trend as re-
produced from Shahid et.al [18] as shown in Fig. 1.
There have been many reports on the increased use of biocoke in the
steel-making and metallurgy processes, however, its full utilisation is
still not practical [19]. This might be due to its application was enabled
by partial substitution of top coke with biocoke and partial replacement
of pulverised coal with biocoke through injection [20]. Extensive re-
views of the biocoke synthesis and utilisation in metallurgical industries
were conducted by M.Wei [21] and Suopajarvi [22]. This paper pro-
vided a comprehensive review of the current biocoke production
technologies and the comparative viability of Malaysia's agricultural
waste as diverse biocoke resources and feedstocks. In addition, this
paper also addressed the challenges of biocoke application in Malaysia
in terms of commercialisation barriers and competition with the com-
mercial solid fuels for its full-scale implementation.
2. Biocoke feedstock
Biocoke, as a sustainable biomass-derived carbonaceous solid fuel,
is characterised by low sulphur content, high feedstock availability and
has an economically efficient production process [23]. Hence, the
characteristics are attributed to biocoke's production route of a biomass
pyrolysis [24], which is an irreversible process in which organic ma-
terials undergo thermochemical decomposition at an elevated tem-
perature with the absence of oxygen [24]. Moreover, biocoke could also
be formed by upgrading the pyrolysis oils from spent wheat grain and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jslim@cheme.utm.my, jslim@utm.my (J.S. Lim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.008
Received 10 February 2017; Received in revised form 20 November 2017; Accepted 9 March 2018
1364-0321/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.M. Mansor et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 636–649

2.1. Agricultural residue

A review was conducted on the agricultural residue as a biomass

Fig. 1. Trends in carbon dioxide emissions from various sectors in Malaysia
from 1971 to 2010 [18].
rapeseed meal biomasses using Thermo-T process which is similar to
vis-breaking technology [24]. Furthermore, since biocoke is either fully
or partially made up of photosynthetic plant matters, its low sulphur
content implies minimum pollutant emissions [25]. Biocoke is efficient
in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission mitigation by enabling arbon-neutral
combustion [26] and, can defer biomass decomposition in a landfill
[27]. Biocoke production cost was 31% lower than the biomass bri-
quette synthesis yet, had a higher product selling price [28]. When
biocoke's high bulk density is enhanced with biomass briquette [29],
the resulting compound enabled low-cost fuel storage, handling and
transportation [29].
Biocoke is classified as a solid fuel because it is a solid material
which is compatible with fuel utilisation to provide thermal energy and
to generate electric power [30]. Unlike conventional destructive dis-
tillation of coals, biocoke is formed by blending the biomass materials
with coal in a coke production process [30] that results in a carbonation
or pyrolytic treatment of biomass feedstocks [30]. Additionally, bio-
coke is a hybrid between conventional coke and renewable biomass
resource [30]. Unlike direct biomass fuel utilisation (i.e. combustion of
wood, dried agricultural residue, or biomass briquette), biocoke re-
quires a transformation of biomass to adapt coal-like properties [31]. In
contrast to coke, biocoke incorporates a renewable biomass resource
[31]. This hybridization exhibited several desirable solid fuel properties
as listed in Table 1 [32].
An assessment of on the characteristics of each biomass material
yielded its viability as a biocoke. For example, the high volatile matter
content of a biomass increased the ignitability of the biocoke with a
moderate ignition temperature [33]. Moreover, with a calorific value
comparable to fossil fuels [34] and biomass fuel pellets [35], biocoke
had a higher fixed carbon content that made it more durable with
higher control on the heat release compared to a pure biomass resource
[35]. Biocoke has multiple resources because it can be produced by
using any photosynthetic plant waste [35] or mixed municipal solid
waste (MSW) as reviewed in the following section.
[36]. Fruit peels [24,26], waste shell biomass [25], woody and vegetal
biomasses [29,30,31] rice wastes [27], biomass sawdust [17,19,24],
and oil palm biomass and green wastes [16,26,30], were shown as vi-
able feedstocks for biocoke synthesis.
Biocoke synthesis from orange and banana peels was examined by
Murata, Hanaka [37] demonstrated a high mechanical strength with
compressive strengths of 98.4 MPa and 167.0 MPa at initial moistures of
1.81 wt% and 0.52 wt% [37] respectively. In another study, waste
chestnut sawdust had a very low ash content at about 13 wt% and
negligible sulphur content, indicating its high potential as biocoke
feedstock with partial briquette for product densification [29]. Despite
achieving greenhouse effect mitigation, the incorporation of biomass
sawdust in a coal blend could possibly deteriorate the coke quality, bulk
density [38], and thermoplastic property [25].
Evidence has shown that the waste shell biomass with an ash con-
tent below 12 wt%, was also a viable feedstock for producing biocoke to
avoid slag formation during iron production [39]. According to S.Jung
et al. [40], the waste shell biomass produced ash content in the range of
7–8 wt% while the apparent density and compressive strength were
about 0.9 g/cm3 and 89–149 MPa at 700 °C. For practical fuel applica-
tion under high pressure, biocoke's compressive strength should be in
the range of 60–200 MPa [27]. Additionally, it was shown that the char
resulted from waste shell biomass appeared to meet the essential che-
mical and mechanical requirements to be qualified as biocoke. Simi-
larly, high-density biocoke products derived from broccoli, dead cherry
tree leaves and mango seeds were evaluated by S. Mizuno et.al [41] in
terms of their fuel quality. It was found that mango seed, with the
highest volatile matter removal rate, exhibited the greatest ignitability
whereas broccoli biocoke had the greatest compressive strength of
130 MPa at an initial moisture of 5% and a processing temperature of
413 K.
An investigation on the effect of green tea ground biocoke specimen
size (i.e. diameter) on its mechanical strength demonstrated that if
fabricated in 12 mm diameter, the biocoke specimen could achieve the
high ultimate compressive strength of up to 67 MPa [33]. Moreover,
rice husk was found to produce biocoke with the hot maximum com-
pressive strength of 4.8 MPa at a processing temperature of 973 K,
which was greater than other biomass materials. In addition, the pre-
sence of silica and fibre resulted in an extra structural integrity of rice
husk biocoke [42].
Woody and vegetal biomasses were evaluated for their compat-
ibility with biocoke production. In particular, Qin and Thunman [43]
verified the compliance of waste wood, straw and bark biocoke with a
coke quality requirement (with a low ash content of 0.41−7.13 wt%
and reasonable char mass yield of 19.4−29.5%). The authors found
that straw biocoke exhibited the greatest combustion reactivity due to

Table 1
Characteristics of an ideal solid fuel [32].
Characteristic Definition

1. High calorific value (CV)
2. Moderate ignition temperature
3. Low moisture content
4. Low non-combustible matter
5. Inert products of combustion
6. Low production cost
7. Easy to transport
8. Controllable combustion
9. Non-spontaneous combustion
11. Low storage cost
12. High combustion efficiency
It should produce a large amount of heat on burning. CV depends on the nature of the fuel, especially the moisture content.
Ignition temperature is the lowest temperature in which the fuel must be preheated so that it starts burning smoothly. Fuel with the low
ignition temperature catches fire easily which makes it dangerous for storage and transportation. Excessively high ignition temperature may
cause difficulty in kindling. Therefore, it should have moderate ignition temperature.
Low moisture content is needed as it will affect the CV.
The non-combustible material will vanish in the form of ash which will decrease the CV of fuel.
Waste of combustion should not be harmful and cause pollution to the atmosphere.
The continuous production should be cheap which requires high availability of feedstocks and simple production process.
It should be easy to handle at a low-cost.
It should release heat at a reasonably high rate, but without the explosion hazard.
It should be non-spontaneous otherwise may cause fire hazards.
It should be easily stored at a low-cost.
It should have low ash content, in which no residues shall remain at the end of combustion process with proper air-to-fuel ratio.

637
 Table 2
Summary of biocoke feedstock characteristics.
Feedstocks Proximate Composition Ultimate Composition Calorific Value Key Findings/ Recommendations Reference
A.M. Mansor et al.

Baseline
Pulverized Coal 27.7 wt% volatile matter, 72.3 wt% fixed 86.4 wt% C, 4.9 wt% H, 6.0 wt% O, 31.6 MJ/kg - Suopajarvi [22]
carbon, and 9.5 wt% ash 2.1 wt% N, and 0.6 wt% S
Agricultural Wastes
Banana Peel - 45.90 wt% C, 5.38 wt% H and 18.07 MJ/kg The banana fruit peels are suitable for biocoke synthesis, enabling potential Murata et al. [37]
1.54 wt% N energy recovery from unutilized biomass waste in Southeast Asian countries
Orange Peel - 47.68 wt% C, 5.60 wt% H and 18.04 MJ/kg
1.58 wt% N
Matooke Peel < 8 wt% moisture content and about 30 wt% - 22.44 − 27.27 Carbonised briquette from Matooke peel had comparable heating value as Tumutegyereize et al. [55]
ash content MJ/kg charcoal but its price doubles that of the latter, making it less competitive;
Modification of manufacturing technique for reduction of cost per unit
energy output is recommended
Broccoli - 43 wt% C - This study recommended synthesis of biocoke from proper mixture of mango Mizuno et al. [41]
Dead cherry tree leaf - 47 wt% C - seed and broccoli, with higher carbon content and compressive strength
Mango seed - 49 wt% C -
Green tea ground - - - Upper boundary specimen size for green tea ground biocoke production with Mizuno et al. [33]
reasonable mechanical strength (i.e. compressive strength above 60 MPa) was
found to be 20 mm
Chestnut sawdust 78.8 wt% volatile matter and 1.3 wt% ash 50.2 wt% C, 5.7 wt% H, 0.5 wt% N, - Addition of biomass sawdust wastes into coal blend generally reduced the Montiano et al. [25]
content 43.0 wt% O, and no sulphur content fluidity of biocoke; the adverse impact on biocoke fluidity was in the
Oak sawdust 81.9 wt% volatile matter and 0.5 wt% ash 50.2 wt% C, 5.9 wt% H, 0.4 wt% N, - following order: pine sawdust < oak sawdust < chestnut sawdust;
content 0.02 wt% S, and 44.0 wt% O This implies that incorporation of biomass in coking would reduce the
Pine sawdust 84.8 wt% volatile matter and 0.3 wt% ash 50.7 wt% C, 6.1 wt% H, 0.3 wt% N, - coke quality
content 42.5 wt% O, and no sulphur content
Chestnut sawdust 78.8 wt% volatile matter and 1.3 wt% ash 50.2 wt% C, 5.7 wt% H, 0.5 wt% N, - In general, incorporation of waste chestnut sawdust briquette improved Montiano et al. [29]

638
content 43.0 wt% O, and negligible sulphur the biocoke mechanical strength, but reduced its fluidity;
content Up to 15 wt% of chestnut sawdust briquette fraction was allowed without
significant degradation of biocoke reactivity
Palm kernel shell 6.6 wt% moisture content, 68.2 wt% volatile 52.1 wt% C, 5.9 wt% H, 1.0 wt% N, - Biocoke from CNS was found to be the most suitable source for Jung et al. [40]
(PKS) matter, 13.5 wt% fixed carbon, and 11.7 wt% and 41.0 wt% O metallurgical biocoke application, with reasonable yield of 30.3 −
ash content 31.4%, apparent density of 0.9 g/cm3, compressive strength of 89 −
Walnut shell (WS) 11.2 wt% moisture content, 79.1 wt% 45.9 wt% C, 5.7 wt% H, 0.4 wt% N, - 149 MPa, and low ash content of 6.5 − 7.2 wt% (below 12 wt%);
volatile matter, 8.7 wt% fixed carbon, and and 48.0 wt% O Activated carbon samples produced from CNS biomass wastes had alkaline
1.0 wt% ash content pH and large surface area of 400 − 800 m2/g, implying their potential for
Cashew nut shell 1.4 wt% moisture content, 85.2 wt% volatile 51.3 wt% C, 6.2 wt% H, 1.0 wt% N, - acidic pollutant adsorption
(CNS) matter, 9.0 wt% fixed carbon, and 4.4 wt% and 41.5 wt% O
ash content
Wood 8.40 wt% moisture content, 0.41 wt% ash, 45.94 wt% C, 5.50 wt% H, 39.65 wt 17.13 MJ/kg Char contents of wood, straw and bark samples were found to be 18.87 − Qin and Thunman [43]
74.14 wt% volatile matter, and 17.05 wt% % O, 0.08 wt% N, and 0.02 wt% S 20.24%, 23.92 − 26.33%, and 28.04 − 31.05%; [46]
fixed carbon Straw biocoke was found to have the lowest ignition temperature and highest
Straw 11.03 wt% moisture content, 7.13 wt% ash, 38.88 wt% C, 5.44 wt% H, 36.75 wt 14.35 MJ/kg combustion reactivity due to its highest potassium content;
66.40 wt% volatile matter, and 15.44 wt% % O, 0.70 wt% N, and 0.01 wt% S Wood biocoke exhibited the greatest combustion stability (i.e. lowest
fixed carbon variability in kinetics) in this study
Bark 8.26 wt% moisture content, 3.39 wt% ash, 48.35 wt% C, 5.28 wt% H, 34.26 wt 17.71 MJ/kg
65.66 wt% volatile matter, and 22.69 wt% % O, 0.43 wt% N, and 0.02 wt% S
fixed carbon
Pinus pinaster (pine) 10.8 wt% moisture content, 64.4 wt% 57.7 wt% C, 72.wt% H, 0.3 wt% N, 15.7 MJ/kg Pinewood biocoke samples produced in this study were found to be compatible Solar et al. [56]
wood volatile matter, 1.2 wt% ash, and 23.6 wt% and 34.8 wt% O and inorganics with metallurgical bio-reducer application (i.e. high fixed carbon content of 86
fixed carbon − 91 wt%, and low ash content of 2 − 3 wt%);
Reasonable yield of 19 − 31 wt% was observed
Pruned branches of 8.8 wt% moisture content, 74.3 wt% volatile 49.4 wt% C, 6.2 wt% H, 0.3 wt% 16.10 MJ/kg Biocoke from waste olive wood was eligible for metallurgical industrial Adrados et al. [57]
Olive tree matter, 14.8 wt% fixed carbon, and 2.1 wt% N, < 1 wt% S, and 43.1 wt% O and application with high fixed carbon and low volatile matter contents;
ash content inorganics Decreased heating rate increased the biocoke yield and reduced the formation
of tar
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 636–649
 Table 2 (continued)

Feedstocks Proximate Composition Ultimate Composition Calorific Value Key Findings/ Recommendations Reference

Yellow Poplar 5.31 wt% moisture content, 81.52 wt% 47.66 wt% C, 5.91 wt% H, 45.58 wt 19.67 MJ/kg Increased biomass fraction in biomass/coal coking blend decreased the product Seo et al. [58]
A.M. Mansor et al.

volatile matter, 11.63 wt% fixed carbon, and
8.68 wt% ash content;
- -
Olive wood 8.8 wt% moisture content, 74.3 wt% volatile
matter, 14.8 wt% fixed carbon, and 2.1 wt%
ash content;
Eucalyptus wood 11.4 wt% moisture content, 69.7 wt%
volatile matter, 16.8 wt% fixed carbon, and
2.1 wt% ash
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
% O, 0.85 wt% N and no sulphur
content
49.4 wt% C, 6.2 wt% H, 0.3 wt%
N, < 0.1 wt% S, and 44.1 wt% O and
inorganics
52.7 wt% C, 3.7 wt% H, 0.1 wt%
N, < 0.1 wt% S, and 43.5 wt% O and
inorganics
size, mass yield, energy yield, and volatile emissions, but improved its specific area
(i.e. combustion reactivity) at final temperature of 700 °C
Addition of woody biomass into coal blend increased the biocoke reactivity Jeong et al. [59]
due to the presence of weaker ether bonds in biomass lignocellulosic
components;
Biocoke from hard-coking coal/ Yellow Poplar blend forms macro-pore
structure which was more suitable for char application
16.1 MJ/kg Reactivity of Olive and Eucalyptus wood biocoke as reducing agent was higher Adrados et al. [60]
than conventional metallurgical coke, due to their greater micro-pore
equivalent surface areas
16.6 MJ/kg Olive and Eucalyptus wood biocoke have higher real densities (comparable to
metallurgical coke) than anthracite and petroleum coke;
Novel biocoke had lower moisture, ash and sulphur contents compared to
commercial reducers;
Weaknesses:
Olive wood biocoke's high volatile content could not meet product
specification;
The biocokes tend to react with carbon dioxide and lack mechanical strength,
therefore limiting their application in a blast furnace.
Recommendations:
Modifications in the manufacturing method shall be introduced for decreasing the
volatile content of Olive wood-derived biocoke and improving mechanical
strengths of these wood biocoke (i.e. via pretreatment or alteration of pyrolysis
conditions)

639
MSW 33.0 − 33.2 wt% moisture content, 50.0 − 0.97 −1.38 wt% organic chlorine, 18.03 − 21.92 MSW hydro-char resulted from MSW hydrothermal treatment was found to be Yoshikawa and
54.5 wt% combustible fraction, and 12.3 − and 1.27 − 1.63 wt% total chlorine MJ/kg more homogenous and suitable for co-firing with coal (with lower chlorine Prawisudha [49]
17.0 wt% ash content content)
Cardboard 17.7 wt% moisture content, 2.7 wt% ash, 48.6 wt% C, 8.2 wt% H, 0.3 wt% N, 19.5 MJ/kg Cardboard found to be more suitable for biocoke production’ Ghorbel et al. [61]
79.5 wt% volatile matter, and 0.1 wt% fixed and < 0.5 wt% S In this study, high yield of 87.5% was observed for cardboard at processing
carbon temperature of 250 °C; the resulted biocoke had high calorific value of 26.1
Compost blend 47.34 wt% moisture content, 19.9 wt% ash, 14.8 wt% C, 2.7 wt% H, 2.5 wt% N, 10.3 MJ/kg MJ/kg and low sulphur content (i.e. below 0.1 wt%)
39.5 wt% volatile matter, and 6.9 wt% fixed and < 0.5 wt% S
carbon
Paper towel 2.6 wt% ash, 4.0 wt% volatile matter, and 85.1 wt% C, 3.1 wt% H, and 11.8 wt - Biocoke produced from construction wood wastes, paper towels and Mitchell et al. [54]
93.4 wt% fixed carbon % O and inorganics newspapers had high fixed carbon content, and are suitable for long-term
Newspaper 1.2 wt% ash, 3.3 wt% volatile matter, and 76.6 wt% C, 2.6 wt% H, and 20.8 wt - carbon sequestration and amending soil with low organic carbon content;
95.5 wt% fixed carbon % O and inorganics biocoke derived from paper, cardboard and green wastes had high ash content
Whitepaper 30.2 wt% ash, 6.4 wt% volatile matter, and 47.1 wt% C, 1.5 wt% H, and 51.4 wt - and are compatible for amending soils lacking mineral contents;
63.4 wt% fixed carbon % O and inorganics MSW biocoke exhibited greater capability for soil cation retention compared to
Corrugated cardboard 10.7 wt% ash, 10.6 wt% volatile matter, and 65.3 wt% C, 2.4 wt% H, and 32.3 wt - activated carbon;
78.7 wt% fixed carbon % O and inorganics MSW biocoke had lower specific area for contaminant adsorption compared to
Cardboard paper roll 18.4 wt% ash, 11.3 wt% volatile matter, and 58.9 wt% C, 2.0 wt% H, and 39.1 wt - the conventional activated carbon;
70.3 wt% fixed carbon % O and inorganics MSW biocoke exhibited pH range from 7 to 9 (i.e. alkaline) and could come in
Particleboard 2.7 wt% ash, 7.2 wt% volatile matter, and 80.3 wt% C, 3.1 wt% H, 13.5 wt% O - handy for neutralising acidic soils;
90.1 wt% fixed carbon and inorganics, and 3.1 wt% N The soil amendment properties of MSW biocoke were not practically tested in
Demolition wood 2.7 wt% ash, 7.5 wt% volatile matter, and 82.0 wt% C, 3.3 wt% H, and 14.7 wt - this preliminary laboratory study, and incubation experiment shall be expected
89.8 wt% fixed carbon % O and inorganics to examine their actual capabilities for soil property adjustment/ improvement
Spruce chip 1.6 wt% ash, 6.1 wt% volatile matter, and 83.3wt5 C, 3.2 wt% H, and 13.5 wt% -
92.3 wt% fixed carbon O and inorganics
Maple leaf 17.5 wt% ash, 16.1 wt% volatile matter, and 60.0 wt%, 2.4 wt% H, and 36.5 wt% -
66.4 wt% fixed carbon O and inorganics
Grass 18.2 wt% ash, 10.7 wt% volatile matter, and 55.1 wt% C, 2.1 wt% H, 38.5 wt% O -
71.1 wt% fixed carbon and inorganics, and 4.3 wt% N
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 636–649
A.M. Mansor et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 636–649

its highest potassium content. Moreover, Solar et al. [44] investigated
the production of biocoke from waste pine wood through an auger re-
actor. The study reported that the higher pyrolysis temperatures en-
hanced the biocoke quality but reduced its yield due to a greater extent
of charcoal-consuming secondary reaction. Diez and Borrego [45] ex-
amined Eucalyptus and Olive woods for biocoke synthesis under tran-
sient gasification conditions at a constant temperature. Results in-
dicated a low ash content of 0.5 5 wt% and 0.17 wt%, and negligible
sulphur content [45].
In another study, biocoke briquette was produced from Japanese
knotweed by high-pressure compression at high temperature, with a
reasonable calorific value of 17.9 MJ/kg and acceptable low ash con-
tent of around 7 wt% [46]. Moreover, vegetal biomass samples of
coffee, tea, orange and weed had low ash (below 10 wt%) and sulphur
content and, dewatering pre-treatment exhibited compatibility as bio-
coke feedstocks [47]. In a study by Jeong et al. [48], the Yellow Poplar
was applied for co-pyrolysis with weak and hard-coking coals under the
isothermal and non-isothermal conditions. It was found that increased
biomass fraction in the coal/biomass blend led to higher reaction ki-
netics and lower activation energy from the resulting biocoke. More-
over, the hard coal/biomass blend demonstrated macro-pore structure
which is suitable for the biocoke application.
In short, evidence has shown that it is feasible to derive biomass
from agricultural waste and their biocoke process could yield alternate
fuels of varying quality which will be useful for various applications.
2.2. Municipal solid waste (MSW)
and municipal solid waste [49,54,61] were evidently viable to be syn-
thesised as biomass fuel as summarised in Table 2.
2.3. Biocoke feedstock in Malaysia
2.3.1. Malaysian agricultural waste
As indicative of the uses of agricultural waste from other countries,
Malaysia's prolific agricultural sector [62] can potentially contribute to
the availability of agricultural biomass for biocoke production. In 2014,
the agricultural yield in Malaysia increased to 6.0% compared to 4.7%
in 2013, which contributed approximately 9.2% to the gross domestic
product (GDP) [62]. At 46.8%, palm oil was the major contributor,
followed by forestry and logging (7.8%), and rubber (6.7%). Acreage
for planted areas were significantly increased as compared to 2013,
specifically by 16.7% for cocoa (2.3 thousand hectares), 3.1% for oil
palm (162.3 thousand hectares), 2.7% for paddy (18.0 thousand hec-
tares), and 0.4% for rubber (2.8 thousand hectares) [62]. Coconut,
pineapple, banana, watermelon, durian, jackfruit, and guava produc-
tion increased to 100% in 2013 [66]. An increasing rise in the demand,
implied a commensurately high volume of agricultural waste, in-
dicating its continuous availability for biocoke production.
More specifically, in 2013 Malaysia's total annual energy potential
of biocoke derived from agricultural wastes was estimated up to
811,839 TJ. According to Table 3, as reproduced from a report by
Ministry of Agriculture & Agro-Based Industry Malaysia [63], in 2013
oil palm biomass and paddy residue comprised the major agricultural
biocoke feedstock contributing to 78.96% and 15.78% due to their

Mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) and its constituents (i.e. bio- Table 3
mass fraction), as well as waste from paper and cardboard, could also Summary of the 2013 Malaysian agricultural waste production, calorific values
be used feedstocks for biocoke production. The hydrothermal tech- and estimated biocoke energy potential [63].
nology was introduced to upgrade mixed MSW into a solid bio-fuel with
Agricultural Availability/ Calorific Biocoke Percentage
low chlorine content for co-firing with coal. Specifically, Yoshikawa Residue Production Value (MJ/ Energy Contribution
and Prawisudha [49] found that MSW/ coal blend would enhance vo- (tonne) kg) Potential (%)
latile release and fuel ignitability. (TJ)
In Canada, cardboard and farm breeding compost have been tested
Oil palm waste 641,045 78.96
for biocoke synthesis through pyrolysis. Ghorbel et al. [50] reported empty fruit 18,022,000 18.84 339,534 41.82
that cardboard was found to be more suitable feedstock with greater bunch
biocoke yield (at 87.5%) and calorific value, and the optimum pyrolysis (EFB)
temperature was 250 °C. The potential of newspaper, woodchip, card- Palm pressed 11,059,000 19.07 210,895 25.98
fibre (PPF)
board and green waste as biocoke precursor materials was also ex-
Palm kernel 4506,000 20.11 90,616 11.16
amined [51] in which the study concluded that MSW could be pro- (shells)
mising feedstocks to synthesise biocoke for soil amendment in Qatar Cocoa waste 85 0.010
[51]. The newspaper waste resulted in greatest MSW biocoke yield at Cocoa pod 5025 17.00 85 0.010
350 °C, while cardboard waste biocoke was found to have the highest husk
Sugarcane waste 0.035
cation exchange capacity. Moreover, another study indicated that Bagasse 7406 14.40 107 0.013
higher pyrolysis temperature could enhance the ability of MSW biocoke Leaves and 10,146 17.39 176 0.022
for retention of water and nutrient, promoting soil microorganism tops
growth, soil cation exchange process, and long-term carbon sequestra- Paddy residue 128,130 15.78
Rice husk 926,886 15.84 14,682 1.81
tion [52].
Rice straw 7518,073 15.09 113,448 13.97
In a physical-mechanical and thermal characteristic study of card- Coconut waste 8479 1.04
board and sawdust, a chemical composition analysis showed the low Husk 234,189 16.22 3799 0.47
sulphur content of 0.088 wt% and 0.062 wt% and high carbon content Shell 104,156 17.86 1860 0.23
of 38.32 wt% and 43.4 wt%; with proper mixing ratio. Additionally, the Empty bunch 31,700 15.39 488 0.06
Frond 145,560 16.02 2332 0.29
materials exhibited high calorific value and compressive strength with
Banana waste 12,461 1.53
low ash content [53]. Mitchell [54] synthesised and characterised Peels 803,938 15.50 12,461 1.53
biocoke produced from 18 lignocellulosic MSW components. It was Leaves (average)
shown that biocoke from construction wood wastes, paper towels and Pseudostems
Pineapple waste 4526 0.56
newspapers had low ash and volatile matter content but high fixed
Peel 185,328 15.20 2817 0.35
carbon content, which were suitable for carbon sequestration and Crown leaf 90,404 18.90 1709 0.21
supplementing organic carbon-deficit soils. On the other hand, biocoke Agro-forestry residue 16,830 2.07
from paper, cardboard, and green wastes, which had higher ash con- Logging 17,000,000 0.99 16,830 2.07
tent, were recommended for enriching soil inorganic minerals [54]. The Primary (average)
Plywood
results from this study indicated that the cardboard and sawdust can be
Secondary
used as feedstocks in producing the biocoke. Total biocoke annual energy potential (TJ) 811,839 100.00
In conclusion, the agricultural residue [25,29,33,37,40,41,43,55–58]

640
A.M. Mansor et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 636–649

Table 4 as high as 641,045 TJ.

Summary of biomass energy potentials for conversion into biocoke in several
countries worldwide.
2.3.1.2. Cocoa waste. Each tonne of cocoa fruit harvested could
Country Biomass (biocoke) Energy Reference produce approximately 750 kg of cocoa pod husk wastes [80]. In
Potential (TJ) 2015, the cultivated area of cocoa plants was estimated to be
18,427 ha, and the annual cocoa production achieved was 6700 t
United States 2635,200 Pandey et al. [64]
Europe Union 1256,040 [62]. Hence, it implies estimation of an annual production of 5025 t
(EU) of cocoa pod husks in 2015. Moreover, a calorific value of 17.0 MJ/kg
Russia 3349,440 [81], was equivalent to a biomass energy potential of 85 TJ per year.
India 567,648−1576,800
Australia 27,342 Department of Industry,
Geoscience Australia [65] 2.3.1.3. Sugarcane. According to the ASEAN Food Security Information
China 146,500,000 Fernandez [66] System (AFSIS) [82], Malaysia produced 49,370 metric tonnes of
Japan 139,756 Goto et al. [67] sugarcane in 2012. Since 30% of the biomass feedstock weight
Korea 152,360 USDA Foreign Agriculture
Service [68]
typically transformed as bagasse at the end of the process [83],
Taiwan 23,368 The Japan Institute of Energy approximately 14,811 t of bagasse wastes were produced and, with a
[69] 50% moisture content, which was equivalent to a total annual dry
Southeast Asia weight of 7406 t. The calorific value of dry bagasse is up to 14.4 MJ/kg
Malaysia 811,839
[84] which suggests that the estimation of the total energy potential of
Thailand 337,582 Department of Alternative
Energy Development and 107 TJ and above could be achieved through the fuel utilisation of
Efficiency [70] sugarcane bagasse.
Indonesia 756,083 Prastowo [71] During the replanting process, sugarcane wastes such as leaves and
Myanmar 439,614 Asian Development Bank [72] tops, which make up 68.5% of total harvested sugarcane weight, are
Laos 25,735 Akgün et al. [73]
burned. The calorific value estimated was 17.39 MJ/kg [84]. If they are
Cambodia 139,169 GERES [74]
Vietnam 1346,400 Leinonen and Cuong [75] utilised for biocoke application, about 176 TJ of energy could be re-
covered (referring to a production in 2012). This can reduce costs as-
sociated with solid waste management.
abundance amount. From a global perspective, Malaysia had about
0.51% share of the worldwide biomass energy potential, while con- 2.3.1.4. Rice husk and straw wastes. In the crop year 2015/2016,
tributing to 21.05% of the South-east Asian biomass energy potential. Malaysia produced a total of 3432,910 t of paddy [82]. About
The estimation was derived by considering the biocoke energy potential 0.41–3.96 kg of rice straw and 0.20–0.33 kg of rice husk were
by agricultural residue times with hundred and divided by the total of produced for each kilogram of rice paddy harvested [85]. This
biocoke energy potential (TJ) from agricultural residue in Malaysia. A indicates that in 2015/2016, 926,886 t of husk productions and
comprehensive summary of theoretical biocoke or biomass energy po- 7518,073 t of rice straw produced in Malaysia. With calorific values
tential of different countries is shown in Table 4. of 15.84MJ/kg and 15.09MJ/kg [85], rice husk and rice straw are
The results indicate that Malaysia has the potential to contribute abundant biomass fuel sources with an ideal energy potential of
towards resolving the renewable energy issues and to mitigate problems 128,130 TJ. Additionally, paddy residues could serve as potent pre-
from traditional energy production and use. A review of Malaysia's cursor materials for efficient biocoke production due to its low moisture
diverse biomass resources and feedstock described as follows. content.

2.3.1.1. Oil palm biomass waste. The increase of oil palm planted areas 2.3.1.5. Coconut waste. In 2015, Malaysia produced a total of 646,932 t
is associated with the increase in oil palm biomass waste production of coconut [86]. Table 6, reproduced from S.M.Shafie et al. [84] shows
[76]. The lignocellulosic biomass wastes resulted from palm oil milling the typical biomass waste yields (per unit weight of coconut
activities include oil palm trunks (OPT), empty fruit bunches (EFB), production) and calorific values of different coconut biomass by-
fronds, palm pressed fibre (PPF) and shells [78]. Table 5 shows the products. Based on above data, in 2015, Malaysia produced 234,189 t
results reproduced from the records of the biomass wastes in 2013 [76]. of coconut husk, 104,156 t of coconut shell, 31, 700 t of empty bunches,
A total of 91 million tonnes of oil palm biomass wastes were produced and 145,560 t of the frond. With proper energy conversion technology,
in 2013. By using oil palm wastes as fuel, the greenhouse effect can be these coconut wastes could contribute to approximately 8.5 TJ of
reduced because of biomass waste decomposition at landfills or disposal biomass energy for fuel applications.
sites [79]. From the calorific values of oil palm biomass wastes
reproduced from [77] in Table 5, the potential energy that could be 2.3.1.6. Banana waste. In 2012, Malaysia had a total banana yield of
harnessed from this biomass residue through biocoke synthesis could be 334,974 t which corresponded to 803,938 t of banana biomass (i.e.
banana peels, leaves and pseudostems) production [87]. The banana
Table 5 peels, leaves and pseudostems had higher heating values of 15.7 MJ/kg
Wastes from palm oil production [76] in 2013 and moisture contents and ca- [88], 17.1 MJ/kg [89], and 13.7 MJ/kg [90]. With the average calorific
lorific values of solid by-products from palm oil mill [77]. value of 15.5 MJ/kg, the banana biomass wastes could serve as a
Wastes Quantity (in Moisture Content Calorific Value
1000 t) [76] (%) [77] (MJ/kg) [77] Table 6
Biomass waste yields and calorific values of different coconut wastes [84]
Fronds 46,837 – –
produced in 2015.
empty fruit bunches 18,022 67 18.84
(EFB) Coconut Waste Biomass Mass Yield (%) Calorific Value (MJ/kg)
Palm pressed fibres 11,059 37 19.07
(PPF) Husk 36.2 16.22
Oil palm trunks 10,827 – – Shell 16.1 17.86
(OPT) Empty Bunch 4.9 15.39
Shell 4506 12 20.11 Frond 22.5 16.02

641
A.M. Mansor et al.
renewable energy resource with the annual energy potential of
12,461 TJ [90].
2.3.1.7. Pineapple waste. In 2015, Malaysia produced 452,020 t of
pineapple [91] where typically, one kilogram of pineapple discards
0.41 kg pineapple peels and 0.20 kg pineapple crown leaves [91].
Accordingly, this suggests that 185,328 t and 90,404 t of pineapple
peels and crown leaves were produced. The calorific values of these
biomass wastes were reported as 15.2 MJ/kg [88] and 18.9 MJ/kg [92].
Therefore, through a biomass energy harnessing programme, about
4526 TJ of energy could be potentially recovered.
2.3.1.8. Wood residues. Wood industries, comprising of logging,
sawmilling, panel product, moulding and furniture industries,
contributed a significant amount of wood residue [69]. In 2011, the
annual agro-forestry residue production in Malaysia was estimated to
be at 17 million tonnes [93]. With recoverable energy content of 988.88
TJ/ million tonnes [69], harnessing wood residues such as logging
residues, sawdust, plywood mill residues, and furniture mill residues for
biocoke production could recover up to 16,811 TJ of biomass energy.
This amount is equivalent to 533 MW of renewable power generation
capacity.
2.3.2. Municipal solid waste (MSW)
Municipal solid waste (MSW) is another abundant resource with
biomass and lignocellulosic waste components, which could be com-
patible with biocoke production. The average MSW production rate in
Malaysia was 183−292 kg/capita/year [94]. In 2015, there were
30,116,502 Malaysians [95], translating to 5.5−8.8 million tonnes of
annual MSW production. With the current population growth rate, this
MSW is projected to grow 11.3 million tonnes by 2020 [95]. With an
average calorific value of 9.12;MJ/kg [94], this huge energy reserve
could provide up to 6520 TJ of recoverable energy each year for heat
and power generation.
3. Biocoke properties
Biocoke is a promising alternative substitute for coal coke because it
exhibited several desirable fuel characteristics. Table 7 shows the
comparison of main characteristics of coal coke and biocoke. Firstly,
with a range of 18–31 MJ/kg, biocoke had a comparable calorific value
to conventional coke. Secondly, unlike raw MSW and direct biomass
Table 7
Comparisons of major properties of coal coke and biocoke [27].
Functional criteria Coke [27]
Calorific value (MJ/kg) 29.29
Ash content (wt%) Foundry coke: 6−10;Metallurgical coke: 10 – 12
Carbon content (wt%) 90
Sulphur content (wt%) Foundry coke: 0.6−0.7
Metallurgical coke: 0.7
Compressive strength (MPa) 20 MPa
Apparent specific gravity 1.1
Porosity (%) Foundry coke: 30−40;
Metallurgical coke: 45 – 50
Thermal fluidity (ddpm) 1000–20,000
642
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 636–649
Table 8
Comparison between Biocoke and conventional solid fuels [13,98].
Criteria Biocoke Wood pellets Wood chips
Ignitability Low High High
Combustion temp. 1300–1500 °C (in melting 600–800 °C 410 °C (in
range furnace) stove)
Combustion time Long Short Short
Clinker generations Almost none Much Much
fuels, biocoke had a lower moisture content, higher combustibility,
homogeneous combustion characteristic, the lower tendency for water
retention, lower bulk density, and low degradability [96]. This suggests
that biocoke allows controllable and high-quality heating in addition to
better storage and transportation characteristics. Thirdly, biocoke had
moderate combustion reactivity, greater combustion period (refer to
Table 8), and higher energy density compared to biomass fuels [97].
This indicated that biocoke is characterised by high compressive
strength (i.e. 38−149 MPa), which is greater than that of coal coke (i.e.
20 MPa). Hence, it would be able to withstand high load pressure and is
suitable for steel blast furnace applications at extreme temperature.
Some biomass cokes have been found to exhibit ash content lower than
those of foundry and metallurgical cokes (i.e. Eucalyptus wood and
Maple wood biocoke), indicating less slag formation, higher tempera-
ture, and increased carbon absorption by molten iron in metallurgical
applications. Finally, biocoke has negligible sulphur content which
avoids potential metallurgical product contamination and pollutant
emissions.
Additionally, biocoke production was cheaper compared to biomass
briquette [28], since its grinding process is less energy intensive.
However, biocoke exhibits greater porosity and total specific surface
area as compared to the conventional coal coke. This is because biomass
feedstock has high volatile matter content and significant pore forma-
tion results as volatiles are driven off during the pyrolysis process which
might pose a safety issue in the steel-making process. Hence, more re-
search on strategies to reduce the biocoke porosity needed for its
practical usage in this industry. On the other hand, the characteristics of
biocoke indicate the potential of biocoke (akin to coal and coke) in
activated carbon and adsorbent applications, with the inclusion of the
appropriate physical or chemical activation process. Another problem
with biocoke is its lower mechanical fluidity due to the presence of a
lignocellulosic ether functional group (i.e. oxygen content) of biomass
feedstock [25]. This rheological defect would adversely influence the
Biocoke
Eucalyptus wood: 31.0−31.6, Olive wood: 28.8−30.8 [60];
Olive branches: 27.1−29.0 [57];
Japanese knotweed: 17.9 [46]
Olive pruned branch: 9.2−12.8 [57];
Olive wood: 9.2−9.5, Eucalyptus wood: 5.9−6.2 [60];
Maple wood: 0.39–1.63 [96]
Olive branch: 81.1−85.7 [57];
Olive wood: 86.0−94.5, Eucalyptus wood: 88.0−90.1 [60]
Olive wood: < 0.1, Eucalyptus wood: < 0.1 [60];
Maple wood: negligible [96]
Banana peel: 98.4, Orange peel: 167.0 [37];
Broccoli: 130.0, Dead cherry tree leaf: 38.0, Mango seed: 57.0 [41];
Green tea ground: 67.0 [33];
Cashew nut shell: 89−149 [40]
15 wt% chestnut sawdust: 0.776 [29];
Olive wood: 1.871, Eucalyptus wood: 1.83 [60];
Japanese knotweed: 1.30 [46];
Cashew nut shell: 0.90 [40]
Chestnut sawdust: 51−54 [29]
Waste chestnut: 286−1336 [29]
A.M. Mansor et al.
biocoke melting and softening during metallurgical processes, its re-
action with metal ores, and subsequently affect the quality of the final
product. This comparison reproduced from [13,98] is shown in Table 8.
3.1. Non-fuel properties
Biocoke has high carbon content, (80−95 wt%) as shown in
Table 7. Additionally, biocoke exhibits a large total surface area, such
as 160–240 m2/g and 120–160 m2/g for hardwood biocoke and biocoke
produced from the mixture of hardwood, soft waste and paper waste
respectively, high electrical conductivity (2000–3000 µS/cm for MSW
biocoke prepared at 750 °C), high surface charge (2.0–2.5 mmol H+/g
for MSW biocoke prepared at 300 °C) [52], satisfactory cation exchange
capacity (84.5–218.2 mmol/kg for biocoke samples produced from
paper waste, cardboard waste, construction wood waste, and green
waste), and alkalinity [54]. Due to its non-fuel properties, biocoke
could be amended to soils for increasing soil organic carbon content,
improving soil water retention and cation exchange capability [99],
decreasing nitrogen nutrient (i.e. nitrate and ammonium) leaching, and
neutralising soil pH [100]. The low bio-degradability and stability of
biocoke make it an ideal choice for soil carbon sequestration purposes
[101] and strengthening soil mechanical integrity.
3.2. High environmental sustainability
Biocoke is produced by all types of photosynthetic plants and
agricultural wastes [27]. Hence, biocoke production results in the ef-
ficient management of agricultural wastes with energy recovery be-
cause of its continuous production which is incentivized by low feed-
stock cost (due to its high availability) and potential waste management
revenue [102]. While conventional combustion biomass utilisation still
produces waste itself (i.e. fly ash) [103], biocoke synthesis could ef-
fectively reduce the net residual waste production because pyrolysis
completely converts its input materials into gas, liquid and solid fuels
[104].
3.3. High retention of biomass energy
Evidence has shown the absence of biomass weight loss results from
biocoke production [105]. For example, if 10 g of empty fruit bunch
(EFB) is used as feedstock, then the amount of resulted biocoke is 10 g
(i.e. input and output remain same). Therefore, biocoke production will
not waste any energy (and mass) of feedstocks. This also proves that
biocoke production does not generate atmospheric emissions, rendering
it a zero-emission fuel [27].
3.4. Comparative analysis and insight
The biocoke feedstocks and characterization of study outcomes are
summarised in Table 2. Most of the agricultural biomass residues tested
for biocoke production exhibited low ash content of less than 12 wt%,
especially for woody biomass and negligible sulphur content. There-
fore, their application in the coking process would efficiently prevent
slag formation and lower the sulphur dioxide emissions. In addition,
higher volatile matter content of biomass feedstocks (i.e. 65–80 wt%) as
compared to pulverised coal increased biomass pyrolytic reactivity and
improves the kinetics of coking. In contrast, biomass that has a higher
oxygen content due to the presence of lignocellulosic ether functional
groups has a deleterious effect on the biocoke fluidity property. Sub-
sequently, this would results in production of lower quality biocoke
which could not be treated by thermal pre-treatment. Hence, further
research focusing on the development of additives for improving the
biocoke mechanical fluidity is needed.
A recent review of the MSW sheds light on the significance of hy-
drothermal treatment in producing hydro-char, which is suitable for co-
firing with coal. However, it has high moisture content and requires
643
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 636–649
further drying prior to the practical fuel application. Biocoke derived
from MSW is rather more compatible with soil amendment and acti-
vated carbon applications. Hence, to extend the MSW bio-char appli-
cations in the described fields, translational research emphasizing on
the actual implementation (i.e. soil incubation tests and pilot-scale
adsorption facility development) is highly recommended.
4. Application of biocoke
Biocoke is still confined to metallurgical applications, particularly
with bio-reducer application in the iron manufacturing process from
iron ores because of its rich carbon source [97]. Moreover, due to its
low reactivity, high mechanical strength, and low ash and sulphur
content, biocoke shows no technical complication to substitute up to
20% of coal coke in iron casting process, wherein it serves to supply
heat, initiate decarburization reaction, and provide mechanical support
to the pig iron in a copula furnace [27].
Biocoke is able to produce continuous heating at high-temperature
ranges of between 600 and 1200 °C. In addition, biocoke could also
replace coal-coke as a heat source in the forging process, wherein the
metal material is plastically deformed into a specified shape and di-
mension by machinery compression [105]. It was also found that bio-
coke was a competent energy source for fueling gasification and direct
melting furnaces, with a 50% substitution rate [106]. Moreover, bio-
coke derived from the hydrothermal treatment of MSW was shown to
be suitable for co-firing with coal [49], and therefore can be a sup-
plementary energy resource for coal power plants.
Extensive research on could lead to the use of biocoke as a potential
soil amendment agent for improving yields and environmental sus-
tainability of agricultural activities. Specifically, rice husk biocoke has
been found to be effective in improving the soil aggregation, cation
exchange capacity, water retention and flow properties of sandy and
loamy soils in Sri Lanka [107]. Additionally, rice husk biocoke
amendment in cultivation soils also aids in the soil carbon stabilization
and reduces nitrous oxide emission from the soils which in turn miti-
gates the greenhouse effect of agricultural activities [108]. Moreover,
biocoke exhibits potential for soil ammonium and nitrate ion retention
while increasing phosphorus availability in the low phosphorus index
soil [109]. In another study, amendment of rice husk biocoke with ni-
trogen fertilizer improved the yield of lowland rice without significant
changes in the soil quality [110].
Biocoke could be utilised for environmental management.
Particularly, Herath et al. [111] suggested the application of steam
activated rice husk biocoke for decontamination of herbicide-polluted
agricultural wastewater because the authors managed to achieve “82%
glyphosate removal at the optimal pH of 4”. It was found that rice husk
biocoke materials outperformed tea leaves in terms of carbofuran
(pesticide) separation efficiency with an equilibrium absorption capa-
city of 25.2 mg/g [112]. Furthermore, potassium hydroxide activated
rice husk biocoke was proven to have high aqueous cadmium removal
efficiency of 95–97% [113].
5. Biocoke production technologies
Various thermal conversion technologies have been established for
biocoke production from the biomass feedstocks. Technologies included
slow pyrolysis, intermediate pyrolysis, fast pyrolysis, hydrothermal
carbonisation, microwave pyrolysis, and pressure-assisted carbonisa-
tion [114] are described in the following section.
5.1. Slow pyrolysis
Slow pyrolysis involves a slow heating rate of 0.1–100 °C/min [12]
which translates to a longer time frame for materials to reach peak
temperature and a longer residence time for the biomass charring
process. This slow thermal decomposition process allows the pyrolysis
A.M. Mansor et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 636–649

Table 9
Summary of slow pyrolysis technologies with case studies on their pilot and full-scale plants worldwide.
Slow Pyrolysis Technology Description [96] Pilot/ Industrial Plant

Drum Pyrolyser Biomass feedstock is paddled through the cylindrical reactor, and thermally Pacific Pyrolysis Commercial Facility in Melbourne [116]
decomposed by external heat; Capacity: 8000–16,000 t per annual;
Requires high residence time, and non-condensable pyrolysis gases are Capital cost: USD 8–15 million
utilised to provide heat for pyrolysis process
Rotary Kiln Biomass feedstock movement through the rotating kiln (reactor) is driven by Rotary kiln pyrolysis pilot plant at University of Perugia, Italy
gravity; [117]
Residence time is about 5−30 min Dimension: 1.5 m diameter and 2.5 m long;
Power range: 30–100 kW
Screw conveyor speed up to 3 rpm;
Heat source: 8.4 kW electric shells
Biocoke mass yield: 41.6%
Auger Pyrolyser Biomass feedstock is moved through the pyrolysis zone by an auger; PYREG twin-screw pyrolyser in Austria [118]
Heat is supplied externally, or through mixing with heat carrier i.e. sand, a Capacity: 1000 t per year
metal sphere, etc. Feedstock condition: particle size below 30 mm and moisture
content below 50%
Power output: 150 kW
Footprint: 40 ft
Upfront cost: USD 400,000
Flash Carboniser Pyrolysis of biomass occurs in a packed bed with flash fire under aerated and CSIRO Pyrolysis Pilot Plant in Clayton, Victoria [119]
highly pressurised conditions Dimension: 0.6 m inner diameter and 2.75 m high;
Capacity: 100–300 kg/hour
Product mass yield: 30%
Vacuum Pyrolysis Vacuum is created by continuous removal of pyrolysis gas, and the operation Prairie Biogas Ltd's commercial vacuum pyrolysis facility - The
is conducted at 15kPa and 450 °C; CarboniserTM [120]
Low heat transfer, vapour residence time, and the product distribution was Capacity: 15–100 t/day
similar to the slow pyrolysis result; Capital cost: USD 2.5−3.5 million
Capable of processing biomass feedstock with large particle size, and suitable Yield: 200–500 L bio-oil/ tonne feedstock, and 250−350 kg
for the biocoke production biocoke/ tonne feedstock

gas, liquid and solid products to interact with one another, subse-
quently increase the production of biocoke via secondary char forma-
tion at the expense of pyrolytic liquid yield [114]. Slow pyrolysis is
suitable to produce a biocoke synthesis with high yield i.e. 25–35 wt%
[115] and established among the conventional technologies. Common
slow pyrolysis technologies include drum pyrolyser, rotary kiln, auger
pyrolyser, flash carbonised, and vacuum pyrolyser [96], as described in
Table 9 with the summary of the pilot and industrial plant case studies
[96,116–120].
5.2. Fast pyrolysis
Fast pyrolysis is characterised by high heating rates of more than
100 °C/min, a moderate temperature range of 400−600 °C and, the
short residence time of 0.5−2.0 s. The fast pyrolysis process is typically
compatible when a greater fraction of pyrolysis liquid product is desired
[114]. Brief descriptions and overview of the pilot studies or com-
mercial plants for different fast pyrolysis technologies are summarised
in Table 10 [96,121–123].
5.3. Intermediate pyrolysis
Intermediate pyrolysis technology involves a heating rate and re-
sidence time that ranges between the slow and fast pyrolysis processes.
This technology has been credited for enabling char catalysis in pyr-
olysis process, which in turn improves the quality of pyrolysis liquid
product. This results in lower water content, lower molecular weight
organic fraction and, higher calorific value [124]. Hence, Aston Uni-
versity developed and patented a 20 kg/h-capacity Pyroformer inter-
mediate pyrolysis reactor with 0.20 m diameter and 1.80 m height
[124]. The study includes a pilot-scale intermediate pyrolysis facility
which is a screw pyrolysis reactor with an internal char recycling that
heated the carrier and catalysed secondary cracking reactions [124].
With wood and barley straw biomass inputs, this technology was re-
ported to have biocoke yield of 28.5−30.1%, and higher bio-oil yield of
49.0−54.3% [124].
5.4. Microwave pyrolysis
This technology could be used to conduct slow, intermediate and
fast pyrolysis treatments of biomass feedstock [114]. In contrast to
other technologies that relied on the conduction and convection for
heat transfer, microwave pyrolysis used the microwave radiation to
drive volumetric heating of biomass particles and pyrolysed them from
their cores [114]. Microwave pyrolysis had high operational efficiency
but its practical implementation is still prohibited by its high cost and
safety issue [114]. Table 11 summarises the findings of the microwave
pyrolysis pilot plants in Sweden and United States.
5.5. Hydrothermal carbonisation (HTC)
HTC involves treatment of a biomass feedstock in an aqueous en-
vironment at a temperature range of 150−350 °C and autogenous
pressure generated by water evaporation in a closed reactor vessel for
producing co-firing fuel [114]. HTC is advantageous in terms of high
carbon retention (about 80%), high biomass energy content retention as
only one-third is released during the treatment process, tolerance with
high moisture content of feedstocks, and greater biocoke stability
[114]. Information on the two commercial hydrothermal treatment
plants in Japan is summarised in Table 12.
5.6. Pressure-assisted carbonisation
Several patents have been filed for pressure-assisted carbonization
technology. Specifically, in the study of one-dimensional steady com-
bustion of highly densified biomass briquette by Nakahara et al. [46], a
standard patented biocoke production procedure with a patent number
of 4088933 [129] was applied. The technology described the pulver-
isation of the Japanese knotweed into a certain size, followed by the
compaction and compression of pulverised particles in cylindrical
moulds at a specific pressure. The product is heated and cooled to room
temperature prior to proceeding for further experimental work.
In another patented (WO2012164162A1) method, mechanical im-
purities were first removed from the biomass materials. Pre-

644
A.M. Mansor et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 636–649

Table 10
Summary of fast pyrolysis technologies with case studies on their pilot and full-scale plants worldwide.
Fast pyrolysis Description [96] Pilot/ Industrial plant
technology

Bubbling fluidised bed
Circulating fluidised
bed
Rotating cone reactor
Ablative pyrolysis
Auger/ Screw reactor
Char and vapour residence times are controlled by fluidising the gas flow velocity; Agri-Therm Inc. Commercial Mobile Facility [121]
Fluidization homogenises temperature distribution to enable good temperature Capacity: 10 dry tonnes per day;
control; Biomass: Corn stover
Char is collected by entrainment from pyrolysis bed, and the process does not involve Feedstock condition: 20 wt% moisture content
sprouting of particles Energy self-sufficiency with energy recovery from
pyrolysis vapour combustion;
Yield: 21.9 wt% gas, 61.6 wt% bio-oil, and 17.0 wt%
bio-char;
Capital cost: USD 1.5 million
Operating cost: USD 863,500
Revenue: USD 543,000
Sprouting of pyrolysis products and heating medium (i.e. sand) occurs, and they will Ensyn Red Arrow Rapid Thermal Processing (RTP)
be recollected by cyclone and brought back to combustion reactor, commercial facilities [122]
In the combustion reactor, char is burnt to provide heat to the process through sand as *Rhinelander, Wisconsin
heat carrier Capacity: 40 t/day;
Biomass: Hardwood waste;
*Renfrew, Ontario
Capacity: 100 t/day;
Feedstock: Wood residues
Feedstock condition: 5−6 wt% moisture content, and
0.125−0.25 in. particle size;
Yield: 70 wt% bio-oil, 15 wt% gas, and 15 wt% biocoke
Biomass is moved upwards through a cone-shaped reactor by centrifugal force (from Pytec demonstration-scale ablative pyrolysis facility in
rotational movement at 600 rpm); North Germany [123]
Rotating cone reactor is combined with bubbling char combustor and riser for sand Capacity: 6 t/day;
recycling Biomass: Wood chip;
Processing temperature: 700 °C;
Yield: 70 wt% bio-oil, 15−20 wt% gas, and 10−15 wt%
biocoke
Pyrolysis of large biomass pieces (i.e. wood) through direct contact with reactor wall; Biomass Technology Group's commercial ablative
Mechanical movement applied to allow complete contact between the biomass and pyrolysis facility in Netherlands
pyrolysis zone Capacity: 250 kg/h
Biomass: Wood
Refer to Table 5; ABRI-Tech mobile auger pyrolyser in Ottawa, Canada
May involve pre-drying process, and hot steel shot heat transfer mechanism Capacity: 50 t/day
Biomass: Wood waste
Yield: 44−62 wt% bio-oil

comminuting and pre-drying are carried out to remove the water con-
tent. Then, the biomass feedstock is comminuted into the processing
fineness, followed by a drying process. Lastly, a carbonising process is
applied to the feedstocks to produce biocoke. While the basic steps
remain the same, there were other steps to produce and prepare the
biocoke in terms of machines used and standard operating procedures
(SOP) [130].
EFB resulted from the palm oil extraction is used as feedstock in a
project based in Malaysia to develop a technology by Nippon Steel
Engineering. The process involved compaction of the waste materials
into a certain shape, followed by the heating and compression pro-
cesses. Finally, the compacted materials are carbonised to produce
biocoke.
Kindai University and Osaka Gas engineering collaboratively en-
gaged in a research focusing on the efficient conversion of oil palm
biomass waste into biocoke. Based on this environmental concern, the
biocoke research has been actively conducted by Kindai University in
Japan since 2011, under the auspices of Professor Dr Tamio Ida [28].
Subsequently, the research was extended in 2014 by the same team in
Malaysia to investigate the oil palm waste from empty fruit bunches

Table 11
Summary of microwave pyrolysis pilot plants.
Scale Location/ Developer Feedstock Specification Reference

Pilot plant Malmo, Sweden Waste glass fibre reinforced plastic Capacity: 100−150 kg/h; Stena Metall AB, University of Boras
(shredded wind turbine blade) Microwave power: 60 kW; [125]
Yield: 70 wt% recovered glass fibre, 17 wt%
pyrolysis oil, and 13 wt% gas
University of Minnesota, Canola and corn cob feedstocks Capacity: 10 kg/h; Karunanithy and Muthukumarappan
United States Microwave power: 4.5 kW; [126]
*Yield:
Corncob at 300 W: 14.36 wt% gas, 16.34 wt%
liquid, and 69.3 wt% biocoke;
Corncob at 1 kW: 46.88 wt% gas, 30.16 wt%
liquid, and 22.96 wt% biocoke;
Canola at 300 W: 7.52 wt% gas, 13.76 wt%
liquid, and 79.72 wt% biocoke;
Canola at 1 kW: 23.64 wt% gas, 43.64 wt%
liquid, and 32.72 wt% biocoke

645
A.M. Mansor et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 636–649

Table 12
Summary of some commercial hydrothermal treatment plants in Japan.
Scale Location/ Developer Feedstock Specification Reference

Continuous commercial plant
Batch commercial plant
Tokyo Tech, Japan Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Capacity: 100 t/day; Yoshikawa [127]
Feedstock condition: 65 wt% moisture content;
Mass yield: 100%
Capital cost: USD 3 million
Operating cost: USD 0.15 million/ year
Capacity: 1 t per batch; Jin [128]
Condition: 200 °C and 2 MPa;
Residence time: 1 h;
Product characterization:
75–80% volume reduction;
Good drying characteristic;
Calorific value of 18 − 22 MJ/kg

Fig. 2. Biocoke production process flow [27].

(EFB) as feedstock for biocoke production [27]. The authors found that
the EFB had high potential to become a feedstock for the biocoke. The
methods used in this research provided some ideas on the application of
biomass that produced by Malaysia. The process flow of the biocoke
production is shown in Fig. 2. Biocoke is produced by pulverising
biomass waste and loading them into a container. Heat and pressure are
applied to the container's content at specified conditions. While the
conventional method requires heating of materials at 800 °C for car-
bonisation, the new solidifying transformational technology developed
by Kindai University (as illustrated in point 2) is conducted at 180 °C
and 20 MPa [27]. The principle is to lower the operating temperature
by exerting greater pressure during the biocoke production which
minimises the carbonisation and volume loss of feedstock materials.
This leads to the production of biocoke with greater compressive
strength (as shown in Fig. 3) [27].
6. Key challenges and prospects of biocoke development in
Malaysia
6.1. Commercial barrier
Unlike Japan, United States, and European countries, biocoke pro-
ducts are yet to gain confidence in steel-making and metallurgical in-
dustries from Malaysian due to the abundance of fossils fuels avail-
ability besides the cost of the fossil fuel still accepted.
A Japanese research team actively engaged in the biocoke research
and pilot-scale facility development in Malaysia under the Next
Generation Technology Transfer Programme (NexTEP), where the re-
sultant products were expected to be exported to and commercialised in
Japan [27]. This long-term plan to harness oil palm kernel shells which
are unavailable in Japan suggested as a cheap feedstock for biocoke
production. Therefore, this effort may provide the opportunity for ex-
tending the biocoke supply-demand chain to include the local industrial
players in the future.

646
A.M. Mansor et al.
Fig. 3. Correlation between extent of carbonisation and biocoke mechanical
strength [27].
6.2. Technology barrier
The demand for the coal, coke and fossil fuels still high, although
limited by its commercial viability. Furthermore, the technical con-
straint has also hindered the practical implementation of biocoke uti-
lisation in Malaysia. Therefore, the collaborative initiative between the
local research team and Kindai University might yield better biomass
feedstock for biocoke synthesis. Technically sound personnel with the
capability to operate and troubleshoot full commercial-scale biocoke
production plants are still lacking. Currently, there is no commercial-
scale biocoke production facility in Malaysia for establishing a viable
local supply chain. Additionally, no trial biocoke application has been
conducted despite not requiring major modifications in existing blast
furnace facilities for biocoke [131]. The limited efforts towards in-
novation have made research-to-commercialisation transition challen-
ging, even with a relentless effort from the side of research organiza-
tions.
6.3. Policy barrier
Currently, there is lack of policies, campaigns and regulatory en-
forcement for incentivizing industrial-scale biocoke utilisation in
Malaysia. Furthermore, carbon dioxide emission reduction is not
gaining serious concerns from the industrial and commercial sectors.
The situation is exacerbated when Malaysia's clean development me-
chanism (CDM) was discontinued in 2012, leading to deprivation of
incentives and funds for supporting biocoke research as a strategy for
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission mitigation.
In contradiction, Japan is a role model to be emulated since it has
established several policies for promoting biomass resource utilisation.
The policies include Biomass-Nippon Comprehensive Strategy 2002,
Basic Act for the Promotion of Biomass Utilisation 2009, Biomass
Application Promotion Basic Plan 2010, and Biomass Industrialisation
Strategy 2012. It should be noted that establishment of the policies
fosters the financial allocation for renewable energy subsidies and tax
reduction, promotion of biomass conversion technology commerciali-
sation, and further research and development which can contribute
towards achieving the nation's targeted biomass utilisation ratio by
2020 [132]. Further support was made through the establishment of the
2013 Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM) that aimed to introduce and
647
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 636–649
develop low-carbon technologies and GHG mitigation measures in
South-east Asian countries [133]. The Japan Science and Technology
Agency has also provided supporting funds through the NexTEP pro-
gramme to financially buffer the interested Japanese renewable energy
companies against developmental risks [134]. This prompted Osaka
Gas Engineering Co. Ltd. to invest in the biocoke technology developed
by Kindai University. Subsequently, the organization developed a palm
kernel shell biocoke pilot plant in Malaysia in 2014 to commence a
sustainable biocoke production and supply chain [27]. Such strategies
toward enhancing clean energy growth and reducing GHG emission
mitigation for sustainable development are yet to be emulated and
executed in Malaysia.
6.4. Prospect of biocoke development
Despite the challenges, biocoke utilisation is an important agenda
for the development of sustainable energy sector in Malaysia. In 2013,
the local power plants and metallurgical industries consumed up to
566,348 TJ and 64,477 TJ of coal and coke resources for their opera-
tions [135]. The total figure, 630,825 TJ was equivalent to 77.7% of the
estimated theoretical biomass potential in Malaysia. This implies that
establishment of technologies for biocoke utilisation will lead to viable
local commercialisation in Malaysia. Moreover, Malaysia could be a
strategic site for biocoke production as the agricultural sector is an
economic pillar. Annually, thousands of tonnes of agricultural wastes
are produced from the palm oil, sugar cane, pineapple and rice husk
supply-demand chains. Therefore, utilisation of their biomass as a
reusable energy resource, solid waste landfills could be significantly
reduced and the local economy could be improved by increasing the use
of local biomass products.
For Malaysia, biocoke seems to be a promising renewable substitute
with competitive production cost as compared to other biomass utili-
sation technologies (i.e. briquette and pelletization). This also helps to
mitigate the depletion of conventional coal feedstock [1]. Moreover,
biocoke utilisation may also useful for reducing the energy industry's
dependency on fossil fuel price fluctuations while at the same time
increasing local energy security. By identifying the gaps, more research
and development work may be conducted to increase the development
of biocoke production technologies, decrease the biocoke manu-
facturing cost, introduce more reliable adaptive technologies, and
widen the biocoke potential application areas.
7. Conclusion
This review concludes that biocoke synthesis and its utilisation is
crucial for harnessing biomass resources. Subsequently, this would re-
duce the reliance on conventional solid fuels for heat and power gen-
eration, increase the efficiency of agricultural waste management and
energy recovery, and minimize GHG emissions through a carbon-neu-
tral combustion process. Moreover, biocoke is known as a potential
source for soil amendment and fertilisation, carbon capture and storage
(CCS), and pollutant adsorption. The compatibility of a variety of
agriculture biomass residues and MSW as a precursor for the production
of biocoke with desired properties of high compressive strength, good
co-firing characteristics, adsorption capacity, high compactness, cation
exchange capability, high carbon content, and low ash content, were
described. Among the pyrolysis and carbonation technologies, the slow
pyrolysis and pressure-assisted carbonation were found to be suitable
for biocoke production due to their high yield. To improve the biocoke
mechanical property, a modified carbonation method was introduced
with more pressure exertion to reduce the required processing tem-
perature. The annual agricultural waste produced in Malaysia and the
high consumption of energy by industries indicate that biocoke pro-
duction should be commercialised. Further research and development
to utilise all types of biomass waste are recommended to modify the
existing biocoke production process and to introduce pre-treatments for
A.M. Mansor et al.
increasing the feasibility of biocoke utilisation.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to acknowledge the financial support in the
form of research grant by UTM with grant no. Q.J130000.2446.03G62.
References
[1] Renn O, Marshall JP. Coal, nuclear and renewable energy policies in Germany:
from the 1950s to the “Energiewende”. Energy Policy 2016;99(2016):224–32.
[2] Hua Y, Oliphant M, Hu EJ. Development of renewable energy in Australia and
China: a comparison of policies and status. Renew Energy
2016;85(2016):1044–51.
[3] Nasirov S, Silva C, Agostini CA. Assessment of barriers and opportunities for re-
newable energy development in Chile. Energy Sources, Part B: Econ, Plan, Policy
2016;11(2):150–6.
[4] Dai H, et al. Green growth: the economic impacts of large-scale renewable energy
development in China. Appl Energy 2016;162(2016):435–49.
[5] Zamfir A, Colesca SE, Corbos R-A. Public policies to support the development of
renewable energy in Romania: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;58(2016):87–106.
[6] Cancino-Solórzano Y, et al. The development of renewable energy resources in the
State of Veracruz, Mexico. Uti Policy 2016;39(2016):1–4.
[7] Tripathi L, et al. Renewable energy: an overview on its contribution in current
energy scenario of India. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;60(C):226–33.
[8] Dornan M, Shah KU. Energy policy, aid, and the development of renewable energy
resources in small island developing states. Energy Policy 2016;98(2016):759–67.
[9] Kimura F, et al. Financing renewable energy in the developing countries of the East
Asia Summit region: introduction. Energy Policy 2016.
[10] Devine‐Wright P. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for un-
derstanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 2005;8(2):125–39.
[11] Patel MR. Patel MR, editor. Wind and solar power systems: design, analysis, and
operation. CRC press; 2005.
[12] Basu P. Basu P, editor. Biomass gasification, pyrolysis and torrefaction: practical
design and theory. Academic press; 2013.
[13] Chartier P, Beenackers AACM, Grassi G. Biomass for energy, environment, agri-
culture and ndustry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 2013.
[14] Chartier, P. and W. Palz, Energy from Biomass: Proceedings of the EC Contractors’
Meeting held in Copenhagen, June 23–24 1981. 2012: Springer Netherlands.
[15] Grassi G, Zibetta ACH. Biomass for energy, industry and environment. In:
Proceedings of 6th E.C. Conference; 2003, Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd. 1464.
[16] Suopajrvi H, Pongrcz E, Fabritius T. The potential of using biomass-based reducing
agents in the blast furnace: a review of thermochemical conversion technologies
and assessments related to sustainability. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;25(2013):511–28.
[17] Rashid RZA, et al. Reduction of low grade iron ore pellet using palm kernel shell.
Renew Energy 2014;63(2014):617–23.
[18] Shahid S, Minhans A, Puan OC. Assessment of greenhouse gas emission reduction
measures in transportation sector of Malaysia. J Teknol 2014;70(4):1–8.
[19] Timizar N. Bio-fuels. Olives, "biocoke"… all for the production of energy. Info
Chim Mag 2007;44(483):28.
[20] Wei W, et al. Utilization of biomass for blast furnace in Sweden - Report I: biomass
availability and upgrading technologies. Swedish Energy Agency (STEM); 2013.
[21] Mellin P, et al. Biomass availability in Sweden for use in blast furnaces. Energy
Procedia 2014;61(2014):1352–5.
[22] Suopajarvi H. Bioreducer use in blast furnace ironmaking in Finland: techno-
economic assessment and CO2 emission reduction potential. Oulu: Faculty of
Technology, University of Oulu; 2014.
[23] Huang X, et al. Interaction of bio-coke with different coal tar pitches. Fuel
2016;179(2016):179–92.
[24] Sanna A, Ogbuneke K, Andrésen JM. Bio-coke from upgrading of pyrolysis bio-oil
for co-firing. Fuel 2009;88(12):2340–7.
[25] Montiano MG, Barriocanal C, Alvarez R. Effect of the addition of waste sawdust on
thermoplastic properties of a coal. Fuel 2013;106(2013):537–43.
[26] Montiano MG, Díaz-Faes E, Barriocanal C. Effect of briquette composition and size
on the quality of the resulting coke. Fuel Process Technol 2016;148(2016):155–62.
[27] Mizuho Information and Research Institute. Feasibility study of biocoke tech-
nology JCM project in Thailand, in FY 2014 Project for promoting the spread of
technologies to counter global warming; 2015.
[28] Fuchigami Y, et al. Analysis of effect on CO2 emission reduction and cost esti-
mation for the use of Bio-coke: a case study of Osaka, Japan. J Wood Sci
2016;62(1):93–100.
[29] Montiano MG, Díaz-Faes E, Barriocanal C. Partial briquetting vs direct addition of
biomass in coking blends. Fuel 2014;137(2014):313–20.
[30] Ng K, et al. Reactivity of bio-coke with CO2. Fuel Process Technol
2011;92(4):801–4.
[31] Loison R, Foch P, Boyer A. Lois R, editor. Coke: quality and production.
Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2014.
[32] McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass.
Bioresour Technol 2002;83(1):37–46.
[33] Mizuno S, et al. Effect of specimen size on ultimate compressive strength of Bio-
coke produced from green tea grounds. Mech Eng J 2016;3(1):15–00441.
648
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 636–649
[34] Liu Z, et al. Reduced carbon emission estimates from fossil fuel combustion and
cement production in China. Nature 2015;524(7565):335–8.
[35] Ito H, et al. Combustion of bio-coke (highly densified biomass fuel) block in high-
temperature air flow. In: Proceedings of the 8th Thermal Engineering Joint
Conference, ASME/JSME 2011; 2011. Honolulu, HI.
[36] International Energy Agency. Deploying renewables in Southeast Asia: trends and
potentials. Paris Cedex, France: International Energy Agency; 2010.
[37] Murata H, et al. Forming properties of bio-coke using fruit peels as raw material:
effective utilization of unused biomass resources obtained from imported fruit
from ASEAN countries. J Smart Process 2014;3(5):276–82.
[38] Montiano MG, et al. Influence of biomass on metallurgical coke quality. Fuel
2014;116(2014):175–82.
[39] Zandi M, Martinez-Pacheco M, Fray TA. Biomass for iron ore sintering. Miner Eng
2010;23(14):1139–45.
[40] Jung S, et al. Production and characterization of microporous activated carbons
and metallurgical bio-coke from waste shell biomass. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis
2014;109(2014):123–31.
[41] Mizuno S, Ida T, Fuchihata M. A study of physical properties of high-density solid
biomass, bio-coke, with unutilized biomass. J JSEM 2011;11(2011):SS19–24.
[42] Mizuno S, et al., Formation characteristics of bio-coke produced from waste
agricultural biomass, In: Proceedings of international technical conference and
exhibition on packaging and integration of electronic and photonic microsystems
collocated with the ASME 2015 Proceedings of the 13th international conference
on nanochannels, microchannels, and minichannels; 2015, The American Society
of Mechanical Engineers: San Francisco, California, United States. p.
V003T05A004.
[43] Qin K, Thunman H. Diversity of chemical composition and combustion reactivity
of various biomass fuels. Fuel 2015;147(2015):161–9.
[44] Solar J, et al. Influence of temperature and residence time in the pyrolysis of
woody biomass waste in a continuous screw reactor. Biomass- Bioenergy
2016;95(2016):416–23.
[45] Diez MA, Borrego AG. Evaluation of CO2-reactivity patterns in cokes from coal and
woody biomass blends. Fuel 2013;113(2013):59–68.
[46] Nakahara T, et al. Study on one-dimensional steady combustion of highly densified
biomass briquette (bio-coke) in air flow. Proc Combust Inst 2015;35(2):2415–22.
[47] Li P, Kanda H, Makino H. Simultaneous production of bio-solid fuel and bio-crude
from vegetal biomass using liquefied dimethyl ether. Fuel 2014;116(2014):370–6.
[48] Jeong HM, et al. Pyrolysis kinetics of coking coal mixed with biomass under non-
isothermal and isothermal conditions. Bioresour Technol 2014;155(2014):442–5.
[49] Yoshikawa K, Prawisudha P. Hydrothermal treatment of municipal solid waste for
producing solid fuel. In: Jin F, editor. Application of Hydrothermal Reactions to
Biomass Conversion. Springer:Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; 2014.
[50] Ghorbel L, et al. Value-added performance of processed cardboard and farm
breeding compost by pyrolysis. Waste Manag 2015;38(2015):164–73.
[51] Bansode R. et al., Biochars From Solid Organic Municipal Wastes For Soil Quality
Enhancement. In: Qatar Foundation Annual Research Conference Proceedings;
2014.
[52] Rehrah D, et al. Physico-chemical characterization of biochars from solid muni-
cipal waste for use in soil amendment. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis
2016;118(2016):42–53.
[53] Lela B, Barišić M, Nižetić S. Cardboard/sawdust briquettes as biomass fuel: phy-
sical–mechanical and thermal characteristics. Waste Manag
2016;47(2016B):236–45.
[54] Mitchell PJ, Dalley TS, Helleur RJ. Preliminary laboratory production and char-
acterization of biochars from lignocellulosic municipal waste. J Anal Appl
Pyrolysis 2013;99(2013):71–8.
[55] Tumutegyereize P, et al. A comparative performance analysis of carbonized bri-
quettes and charcoal fuels in Kampala-urban, Uganda. Energy Sustain Dev
2016;31(2013):91–6.
[56] Solar J, et al. Influence of temperature and residence time in the pyrolysis of
woody biomass waste in a continuous screw reactor. Biomass and Bioenergy
2016;95:416–23.
[57] Adrados A, et al. Avoiding tar formation in biocoke production from waste bio-
mass. Biomass- Bioenergy 2015;74(2015):172–9.
[58] Seo MW. et al., Carbonization characteristics of biomass/coal blend for bio-coke,
In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on fluidization – from fun-
damentals to products, ECI Symposium Series; 2013.
[59] Jeong HM, et al. Pyrolysis kinetics of coking coal mixed with biomass under non-
isothermal and isothermal conditions. Bioresour Technol 2014;155(2014):442–5.
[60] Adrados A, et al. Biomass pyrolysis solids as reducing agents: comparison with
commercial reducing agents. Materials 2016;9(1):p3.
[61] Ghorbel L, et al. Value-added performance of processed cardboard and farm
breeding compost by pyrolysis. Waste Manag 2015;38(2015):164–73.
[62] Department of Statistics Malaysia. Selected Agricultural Indicators, Malaysia 2015.;
2015.
[63] Malaysia MoAA-B. Malaysia Agriculture Production.; 2013.
[64] Pandey A, et al. Recent advances in thermochemical conversion of biomass.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier: Amsterdam; 2015.
[65] Department of Industry, Geoscience Australia, and B.o.R.a.E. Economics.
Bioenergy, in Australian Energy Resource Assessment. Second edition, 2014
Australia: Commonwealth of Australia; 2014.
[66] Fernandez M Biomass Energy in China. 2016 [cited 2016 2nd August]; Available
from: 〈http://www.bioenergyconsult.com/biomass-energy-china/〉.
[67] Goto S, et al. IEA Bioenergy Task 40 Country report 2011 for Japan. National
Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST); 2012.
[68] USDA Foreign Agriculture Service. Korea, Republic of Bio-Fuels, Bio-Fuels
A.M. Mansor et al.
Production Report.; 2008.
[69] The Japan Institute of Energy. Biomass situation in Asian countries. Asia Biomass
Handbook. Japan: The Japan Institute of Energy; 2015.
[70] Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency. Biomass database
potential in Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand: Ministry of Energy; 2016.
[71] Prastowo B. Biomass availability and identification of feedstock potential in
Indonesia. Jakarta, Indonesia: Indonesian Center for Estate Crops Research and
Development, Ministry of Agriculture; 2012.
[72] Asian Development Bank. Myanmar energy sector initial assessment.
Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank; 2012.
[73] Akgün O. et al., Theoretical bioenergy potential in Cambodia and Laos, in World
Renewable Energy Congress 2011 - Sweden.: Linkoping, Sweden; 2011.
[74] GERES. Biomass energy consumption patterns in Cambodia: challenges and op-
portunities. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: EuroCham Cambodia; 2015.
[75] Leinonen A, Cuong ND. Development of biomass fuel chains in Vietnam. Finland:
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland; 2013.
[76] Abdullah N, Sulaiman F. The oil palm wastes in Malaysia. In: Matovic MD, editor.
Biomass now - sustainable growth and use. InTech; 2013.
[77] Nasrin AB, et al. Oil palm biomass as potential substitution raw materials for
commercial biomass briquettes production. Am J Appl Sci 2008;5(3):179–83.
[78] Samiran NA, et al. A review of palm oil biomass as a feedstock for syngas fuel
technology. J Teknol 2015;72(5):13–8.
[79] Ko C-H, et al. Carbon sequestration potential via energy harvesting from agri-
cultural biomass residues in Mekong River basin, Southeast Asia. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2016.
[80] Daud Z, et al. Cocoa pod husk and corn stalk: alternative paper fibres study on
chemical characterization and morphological structures. Adv Mater Res
2014;911(2015):331–5.
[81] Syamsiro M, et al. A preliminary study on use of cocoa pod husk as a renewable
source of energy in Indonesia. Energy Sustain Dev 2012;16(2012):74–7.
[82] ASEAN Food Security Information System (AFSIS). Report on ASEAN agricultural
commodity outlook. Bangkok, Thailand: Office of Agricultural Economics (OAE),
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives; 2014.
[83] Kadir AA, Maasom N. Recycling sugarcane bagasse waste into fired clay brick. Int J
Zero Waste Gener 2013;1(1):21–6.
[84] Shafie SM, et al. A review on electricity generation based on biomass residue in
Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(1):5879–89.
[85] Lim JS, et al. A review on utilisation of biomass from rice industry as a source of
renewable energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(5):3084–94.
[86] World Atlas. The world leaders in coconut production. 2016 [cited 2016 22 July];
Available from: 〈http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-world-leaders-in-
coconut-production.html〉.
[87] Aditiya HB, et al. Second generation bioethanol potential from selected Malaysia's
biodiversity biomasses: a review. Waste Manag 2016;47(2016):46–61.
[88] Nanda S, et al. Gasification of fruit wastes and agro-food residues in supercritical
water. Energy Convers Manag 2016;110(2016):296–306.
[89] Sellin N, et al. Oxidative fast pyrolysis of banana leaves in fluidized bed reactor.
Renew Energy 2016;96(2016):56–64.
[90] Sellin N, et al. Use of banana culture waste to produce briquettes. Chem Eng Trans
2013;32(2013):349–54.
[91] Malaysian Pineapple Industry Board, Pineapple Crop Acreage 2015. 2016.
[92] Braga RM, et al. The energetic characterization of pineapple crown leaves. Environ
Sci Pollut Res Int 2015;22(23):18987–93.
[93] Griffin WM, et al. Availability of biomass residues for co-firing in peninsular
Malaysia: implications for cost and GHG emissions in the electricity sector.
Energies 2014;7(2014):804–23.
[94] Kathirvale S, et al. Energy potential from municipal solid waste in Malaysia.
Renew Energy 2004;29(4):559–67.
[95] Manaf LA, Samah MAA, Zukki NIM. Municipal solid waste management in
Malaysia: practices and challenges. Waste Manag 2009;29(11):2902–6.
[96] Cruz DC. Production of bio-coal and activated carbon from biomass. The School of
Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies. Ontario, United States: The University of
Western Ontario; 2012.
[97] Rautiainen M, Havimo M, Gruduls K. Biocoal production, properties and uses in The
Development of the Bioenergy and Industrial Charcoal (Biocoal) Production
(Report of BalBiC -project cb46) - Report 1/2012 Production and Logistics.
Finland: Baltic Bioenergy and Industrial Charcoal; 2012.
[98] Chaney JO. Combustion characteristics of biomass briquettes. Biomass
2010;35(2016):3884–90.
[99] Dai Z, et al. Principle component and hierarchical cluster analysis of soil properties
following biochar incorporation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 2013;78(1):205–13.
[100] Dai Z, et al. The effects and mechanisms of soil acidity changes, following in-
corporation of biochars in three soils differing in initial pH. Soil Sci Soc Am J
2013;78(5):1606–14.
[101] Leng LY, Hanif AHBM, Wahid SA. Stability of pineapple leaf residue chars gen-
erated by controlled combustion and by field burning in tropical peat. Clean - Soil,
Air, Water 2013;41(9999):1–9.
[102] Bories C, et al. Challenges and opportunities in agro-waste management: an Asian
perspective what is agrowaste? J Environ Manag 2009;143(2009):186–96.
649
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (2018) 636–649
[103] Jenkins BM, et al. Combustion properties of biomass. Fuel Process Technol
1998;54(1–3):17–46.
[104] Adrados A, et al. Avoiding tar formation in biocoke production from waste bio-
mass. Biomass- Bioenergy 2015;74(2015):172–9.
[105] Tamio IDA K, Yoshimasa K, Kamio-cho, Jun S, Sachiura. Biocokes producing
method and apparatus. Osaka (JP): Naniwa Roki Co Ltd; Kinki University; 2012.
p. 6.
[106] Takeshi U, Keiichi O, Hajime A. Reduction of coke consumption in high-tem-
perature gasifying and direct melting system. JFE Tech Report
2013;19(2013):145–52.
[107] Vidana Gamage DN, et al. Effect of rice-husk biochar on selected soil properties in
tropical Alfisols. Soil Res 2016;54(3):302–10.
[108] Nguyen DH, et al. Rice husk biochar and crop residue amendment in subtropical
cropping soils: effect on biomass production, nitrogen use efficiency and green-
house gas emissions. Biol Fertil Soils 2016;52(2):261–70.
[109] Pratiwi EPA, et al. The effects of rice husk char on ammonium, nitrate and
phosphate retention and leaching in loamy soil. Geoderma 2016;277(2016):61–8.
[110] Munda S, et al. Combined application of rice husk biochar and fly ash improved
the yield of lowland rice. Soil Res 2016;54(4):451–9.
[111] Herath I, et al. Mechanistic modeling of glyphosate interaction with rice husk
derived engineered biochar. Microporous Mesoporous Mater
2016;225(2016):280–8.
[112] Vithanage M, et al. Kinetics, thermodynamics and mechanistic studies of carbo-
furan removal using biochars from tea waste and rice husks. Chemosphere
2016;150(2016):781–9.
[113] Prapagdee S, Piyatiratitivorakul S, Petsom A. Physico-chemical activation on rice
husk biochar for enhancing of cadmium removal from aqueous solution. Asian J
Water, Environ Pollut 2016;13(1):27–34.
[114] Masek O, Ronsse F, Dickinson D. Biochar production and feedstock. In: Shackley S,
editor. Biochar in European Soils and Agriculture: Science and Practice.
Technology & Engineering; 2016.
[115] Ding Z, et al. Sorption of lead and methylene blue onto hickory biochars from
different pyrolysis temperatures: importance of physicochemical properties. J Ind
Eng Chem 2016;37(2016):261–7.
[116] Mike Ritchie & Associates. Waste management options study. Australia: Blue
Mountains City Council; 2013.
[117] Zajec L. Slow pyrolyis in a rotary kiln reactor: optimization and experiments.
Akureyri, Iceland: School for Renewable Energy Science, University of Iceland and
University of Akureyri; 2009.
[118] Gustafsson M. Pyrolysis for heat production: biochar – the primary byproduct.
Gavle, Sweden: Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, University
of Gavle; 2013.
[119] Jahanshahi S. et al. BiomassL providing a low capital route to low net CO2
emissions. In: Proceedings of IEAGHG/IETS iron and steel industry CCUS & pro-
cess integration workshop; 2013.
[120] Ireland I Waste Diversion for Smaller Communities.
[121] Marshall AJS. Commercial application of pyrolysis technology in agriculture.
Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC); 2013.
[122] Lynch S, Reno M. Sustainable biofuels from fast pyrolysis. In: Proceedings of APEC
Workshop on implications of Bio-refineries for Energy and Trade in the APEC
Region; 2009.
[123] Strezov V, Evans TJ. Biomass processing technologies. CRC Press; 2014.
[124] Yang Y, et al. Intermediate pyrolysis of biomass energy pellets for producing
sustainable liquid, gaseous and solid fuels. Bioresour Technol
2014;169(2014):794–9.
[125] Stena Metall AB. University of Boras, and Gisip AB, Recycling of waste glass fibre
reinforced plastic with microwave pyrolysis (LIFE07 ENV/S/000904). Malto,
Sweden: European Commission; 2012.
[126] Karunanithy C, Muthukumarappan K. Rheological characterization of bio-oils
from pilot scale microwave assisted pyrolysis. In: Bernardes MAd.S, editor.
Biofuel's Engineering Process Technology. 2011.
[127] Yoshikawa K Innovative Japanese waste-to-green product technologies: econom-
ically viable BECCS.
[128] Jin F. Application of hydrothermal reactions to biomass conversion. Springer
Science & Business Media; 2014.
[129] Ida T, Nakanishi A. Osaka TLO: Patent Number 4088933 (in Japanese); 2006.
[130] Metsärinta ML. Method for producing bio-coke, Google Patents; 2012.
[131] Ng KW, Giroux L, MacPhee T. Biofuel ironmaking strategy from a Canadian per-
spective: short-term potential and long-term outlook, In: Proceedings of the 1st
international conference on energy efficiency and CO2 reduction in the steel in-
dustry: Dusseldorf, Germany; 2011.
[132] Lambrecht S. The clean energy sector in Japan: an analysis on investment and
industrial cooperation opportunities for EU SMEs. Minerva and EU-Japan Centre
for Industrial Cooperation; 2014.
[133] Government of Japan. Recent development of the joint crediting mechanism
(JCM).; 2015.
[134] Agency JST. Next Generation Technology Transfer Programme (NexTEP).; 2009.
[135] Energy Commission. Malaysia energy statistics handbook 2015. Putrajaya,
Malaysia: Energy Commission; 2015.