Fuel 86 (2007) 1710–1719

www.fuelfirst.com

A correlation for calculating elemental composition from

proximate analysis of biomass materials
a,*
Jigisha Parikh , S.A. Channiwala b, G.K. Ghosal c

a
Chemical Engineering Department, Sarvajanik College of Engineering and Technology, Surat 395 001, India
b
Mechanical Engineering Department, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat 395 007, India
c
Petroleum Refining and Petrochemical Technology Department, Laxminarayan Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India

Received 8 December 2006; accepted 23 December 2006

Available online 23 February 2007

Abstract

Elemental composition of biomass is an important property, which defines the energy content and determines the clean and efficient
use of the biomass materials. However, the ultimate analysis requires very expensive equipments and highly trained analysts. The prox-
imate analysis on the other hand only requires standard laboratory equipments and can be run by any competent scientist or engineer.
This work introduces a general correlation, based on proximate analysis of biomass materials, to calculate elemental composition,
derived using 200 data points and validated further for additional 50 data points. The entire spectrum of solid lignocellulosic materials
have been considered in the derivation of the present correlation, which is given as: C = 0.637FC + 0.455VM, H = 0.052FC + 0.062VM,
O = 0.304FC + 0.476VM, where FC – 4.7–38.4% fixed carbon, VM – 57.2–90.6% volatile matter, C – 36.2–53.1% carbon, H – 4.36–8.3%
hydrogen and O – 31.37–49.5% oxygen in wt% on a dry basis. The average absolute error of these correlations are 3.21%, 4.79%, 3.4%
and bias error of 0.21%, 0.15% and 0.49% with respect to measured values C, H and O, respectively. The major advantage of these
correlations is their capability to compute elemental components of biomass materials from the simple proximate analysis and thereby
provides a useful tool for the modeling of combustion, gasification and pyrolysis processes.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Biomass materials; Proximate analysis; Ultimate analysis

1. Introduction average absolute error of 1.45% and average bias error of

The field of thermo chemistry is one of the foundation
stones of our modern energy dependant society. The prox-
imate and ultimate analysis of biomass and coal are neces-
sary for their efficient and clean utilization, while the HHV
of these materials determine the quantitative energy con-
tent of these fuels. There exists a variety of correlations
for predicting HHV from ultimate analysis of fuel [1].
One such correlation, presented in the earlier work by
Channiwala and Parikh [1], encompasses the complete
spectrum of fuel ranging from gaseous, liquid, solid and
refuse derived fuels. This correlation offers predictions with
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kamal_parikh@yahoo.com (J. Parikh).
0%. This generalized correlation, while being extremely
useful in performance modeling of thermal systems, suffers
from the drawback that it needs an elemental analysis as an
input data, which needs expensive equipment and highly
skilled analysts [2–4]. Considering this, another correlation
was developed for predicting higher heating value (HHV)
of solid fuels from the proximate analysis, which is much
easier to perform and needs only a balance, a furnace
and moderately trained analysts [5]. This correlation has
been derived using 450 data points and additional 100 data
points used for its validation, and it offers predictions with
average absolute error of 3.74% and average bias error of
0.12%.
During this study, it was observed that despite the
rapidly developing biomass literature and many recent

0016-2361/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.029
 J. Parikh et al. / Fuel 86 (2007) 1710–1719
conferences on finding new ways of extracting energy out
of coal and biomass, relatively few efforts have been
devoted to finding correlations between feedstock composi-
tion and properties. Another important fact revealed from
the literature review is that no correlation is available, to
predict elemental composition from proximate analysis of
biomass materials except the correlation given by Vakkilai-
nen [6] specifically for black liquor only. The characteriza-
tion of biomass is vital for establishment of its potential as
well as the efficient operation of an energy conversion sys-
tem. The analysis as above focuses towards the need for
development of correlations to predict elemental composi-
tion from the proximate analysis of biomass materials.
2. Derivation of the correlation of elemental composition
with the proximate analysis
The steps involved in the development and derivation of
correlations are listed below:
2.1. Step 1: Collection and generation of data
To obtain the correlation, proximate and ultimate anal-
ysis data pertaining to different biomass-forest and agricul-
tural wastes – have been used, so as to cover a wide range
of different values of fixed carbon, volatile matter, ash con-
tent as well as carbon, hydrogen and oxygen contents.
2.1.1. Collection of data
Data pertaining to a large number of biomass materials
like pits, shells, seeds, cobs, energy crops, fuel wood, bark,
straws, stalks, hull-husk, fibrous material etc., were col-
lected from the published literature.
2.1.2. Generation of data
Since there are no standard sampling procedures speci-
fied for biomass materials, the samples were collected with
due care to get the most representative samples. The prep-
aration of samples was carried out in accordance with
ASTM D 2013-86 [7]. The procedure requires samples to
be in powder form of up to 250 lm grain size. The proxi-
mate analysis of samples were carried out in accordance
with ASTM D 3172-73(84) [8] standard. The moisture con-
tent in test samples was determined according to ASTM D
3173-87 [9] method in a Sartorious infrared moisture meter.
The volatile matter contents in the test samples were deter-
mined according to ASTM D 3175-89 [10] modified
method for sparking fuels. For coconut shell, fiber, pith
and bagasse, ash fusion was observed at 950 °C and hence
these samples were analyzed for volatile matter contents
only up to 750 °C. Determination of the ash content in
the test samples was carried out according to ASTM D
3174-89 [11] method in the electric muffle furnace. The
fixed carbon content of the test samples was calculated
by difference. The ultimate analysis of these samples was
carried out according to ASTM Standard D 3176 to 79–
84 [12–14].
1711
2.2. Step 2: Selection of suitable data
Through the process of collection and generation of
data, information on about 250 biomass materials was col-
lected. Out of these, 200 data points have been used for the
purpose of the derivation of the correlation, while 50 were
used for validation of the correlation.
In order to develop a generalized correlation to the
extent possible, care was taken to include data points of
the widest range of proximate analysis and ultimate analy-
sis. Table 1 presents the summary of few such data points
used for derivation and validation of the correlation. In
total, 250 data points comprising 28 data points of pits,
shells and seeds, 80 data points for bark, wood and energy
crops, 45 data points for straws/stalks/cobs, 47 data points
for fibrous material/hull-husk/dust and 50 data points for
miscellaneous material like grass, leaves, waste etc. have
been used for derivation and validation of the correlation.
The spectrum of samples was so selected that it approx-
imately represents the relative proportions of their occur-
rence in nature and thus permits the derivation of a truly
useful correlation.
The range of data points considered for correlation
between ultimate and proximate analysis includes the car-
bon content between 36.2% and 53.1%, hydrogen content
4.36–8.3%, oxygen content 31.37–49.5%, volatile matter
content 57.2–90.6% and fixed carbon content 4.7–38.4%
(wt% on dry basis).
2.3. Step 3: Selection of suitable forms of correlations
The proximate analysis on a dry basis gives volatile mat-
ter, ash and fixed carbon content whereas the ultimate
analysis shows carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc., in the ele-
mental composition. The fixed carbon indicates the extent
of non-volatile organic matter in the sample, which may
also contain oxygen along with hydrogen. The volatile
matter content reflects extent of the volatile organic matter
in the sample. Considering both types of analysis i.e., ulti-
mate and proximate, which indicate the presence of
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc., in different forms, it is log-
ical to assume a relation between the results of these two
analyses.
In view of the above, it can be said that elemental car-
bon, hydrogen and oxygen are proportional to the fixed
carbon and volatile matter content of the material. Hence,
it is assumed that carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are inde-
pendently a function of fixed carbon (FC, wt%) and vola-
tile matter (VM, wt%). Table 2 presents the different
forms of algebraic expressions with criteria for their selec-
tion. An exhaustive computer algorithm has been devel-
oped based on a generalized method of least squares to
evaluate the constants of these assumed algebraic expres-
sions. It is worth noting that the algorithm is capable of
incorporating any number of variables and data points.
Using this algorithm and 200 data points, the constants
of these algebraic expressions were evaluated.
 1712
Table 1
Summary of few salient data used for derivation and validation of correlations
Serial no. Raw material Proximate analysis Ultimate analysis (wt% by dry basis) References
(wt% by dry basis) Carbon (%) Hydrogen (%) Oxygen (%)
FC VM ASH Measured Calculated Error Measured Calculated Error Measured Calculated Error
1 Olive pit 21.2 75.6 3.2 48.81 47.90 1.86% 6.23 5.79 7.07% 43.48 42.43 2.41% [15]
2 Peach pit 19.8 79.1 1.1 49.14 48.60 1.09% 6.34 5.93 6.41% 43.52 43.67 0.35% [16]
3 Coconut shell 22.1 77.19 0.71 50.22 49.20 2.03% 5.7 5.93 4.12% 42.56 43.46 2.12% [17]
4 Akhrot shell 18.78 79.98 1.2 49.81 48.35 2.92% 5.64 5.94 5.24% 42.94 43.78 1.96% [17]
5 Pistachio shell 16.84 82.03 1.13 48.79 48.05 1.52% 5.91 5.96 0.87% 43.41 44.17 1.74% [18]
6 Groundnut shell 19.48 73.72 6.8 45.72 45.95 0.51% 5.96 5.58 6.32% 41.02 41.01 0.02% PS
7 Brazil nut shell 22.2 76.1 1.7 49.15 48.77 0.78% 5.7 5.87 3.03% 42.8 42.97 0.40% [19]

J. Parikh et al. / Fuel 86 (2007) 1710–1719

8 Castor seed shell 20 72 8 44.25 45.50 2.82% 5.64 5.50 2.41% 41.94 40.35 3.79% [20]
9 Loblolly pine 33.9 65.7 0.4 56.3 51.49 8.55% 5.6 5.84 4.22% 37.7 41.58 10.29% [21]
10 Douglas fir bark 32.79 65.46 1.75 53.1 50.67 4.57% 6.1 5.76 5.51% 40.6 41.13 1.30% [22]
11 Wood bark 31.8 66.6 1.6 53.1 50.56 4.78% 6.1 5.78 5.20% 40.6 41.37 1.89% [23]
12 Wood chips 23.5 76.4 0.1 48.1 49.73 3.39% 5.99 5.96 0.52% 45.74 43.51 4.87% [15]
13 Canyon live oak 11.3 88.2 0.5 47.84 47.33 1.07% 5.8 6.06 4.41% 45.76 45.42 0.75% [16]
14 Madrone 15.1 84.5 0.3 48.56 48.07 1.02% 6.05 6.02 0.43% 45.08 44.81 0.59% [16]
15 Beech wood 24.6 74 0.4 49.5 49.34 0.32% 6.2 5.87 5.37% 41.2 42.70 3.65% [23]
16 Mango wood 11.36 85.64 2.98 46.24 46.20 0.08% 6.08 5.90 2.95% 44.42 44.22 0.45% [17]
17 Eucalyptus 16.15 82.62 1.23 47.1 47.88 1.66% 6.00 5.96 0.63% 45.43 44.24 2.63% PS
18 Subabul wood 18.52 81.02 1.2 48.15 48.66 1.06% 5.87 5.99 1.98% 44.75 44.20 1.24% [17]
19 Casuarina 19.58 78.58 1.83 48.5 48.23 0.56% 6.04 5.89 2.48% 43.32 43.36 0.08% [17]
20 Sudan grass 18.6 72.75 8.65 44.58 44.95 0.83% 5.35 5.48 2.39% 39.18 40.28 2.82% [18]
21 Babul 19.00 79.28 1.72 45.39 48.18 6.14% 6.12 5.90 3.54% 46.44 43.51 6.30% PS
22 Red wood 19.92 79.72 0.36 50.64 48.96 3.31% 5.98 5.98 0.03% 42.88 44.00 2.62% [18]
23 Spruce wood 28.3 70.2 1.5 51.9 49.97 3.72% 6.1 5.82 4.52% 40.9 42.02 2.73% [23]
24 Peltophorum 15.82 82.45 1.73 45.99 47.59 3.48% 6.09 5.93 2.55% 45.88 44.06 3.98% PS
25 Orchard 14.6 83.3 2.1 49.15 47.20 3.96% 5.95 5.92 0.44% 43.24 44.09 1.96% [16]
26 Poplar 16.35 82.32 1.33 48.45 47.87 1.20% 5.85 5.95 1.78% 43.69 44.15 1.06% [18]
27 Blockwood 14.59 83.32 2.09 46.9 47.20 0.65% 6.07 5.92 2.40% 43.99 44.10 0.24% [17]
28 Corncob 18.54 80.1 1.36 46.58 48.26 3.60% 5.87 5.93 1.03% 45.46 43.76 3.73% [18]
29 Straw 18.3 77.3 3.4 47.1 46.83 0.58% 6 5.74 4.26% 43.3 42.36 2.18% [24]
30 Alfalfa seed straw 20.15 72.6 7.25 46.76 45.87 1.91% 5.4 5.55 2.76% 40.72 40.68 0.09% [18]
31 Wheat straw 23.5 63 13.5 45.5 43.63 4.10% 5.1 5.13 0.55% 34.1 37.13 8.89% [23]
32 Barley straw  1 13.29 82.41 4.3 45.47 45.96 1.08% 5.61 5.80 3.40% 44.57 43.27 2.92% [25]
33 Rye straw-kustro 15.01 83.02 1.97 46.63 47.34 1.51% 5.62 5.93 5.48% 45.85 44.08 3.86% [26]
34 Paddy straw 11.8 72.7 15.5 35.97 40.60 12.86% 5.28 5.12 3.01% 43.08 38.19 11.35% [20]
35 Corn stover 14.5 78.1 7.4 46.5 44.77 3.72% 5.81 5.60 3.68% 39.67 41.58 4.82% [27]
36 Cotton stalk 19.9 62.9 17.2 39.47 41.30 4.63% 5.07 4.93 2.67% 38.09 35.99 5.51% [15]
37 Sugarcane bagasse 14.95 73.78 11.27 44.8 43.09 3.81% 5.35 5.35 0.03% 39.55 39.66 0.29% [18]
38 Coconut coir 29.7 66.58 3.72 50.29 49.21 2.14% 5.05 5.67 12.32% 39.63 40.72 2.75% [18]
39 Coconut fibre 26.6 70.6 2.8 46.43 49.07 5.68% 5.49 5.76 4.93% 43.78 41.69 4.77% [20]
40 Pine needles 26.12 72.38 1.5 48.21 49.57 2.82% 6.57 5.85 11.02% 43.72 42.39 3.03% [28]
 J. Parikh et al. / Fuel 86 (2007) 1710–1719 1713

2.4. Step 4: Selection of the best correlation

References

To facilitate the selection of correlation, the average

[18]
[29]
[30]

[31]

[20]
[32]
[20]

[18]

[16]
PS

absolute and bias errors for each of these correlations as

derived above were computed as follows:
4.07%
7.61%
0.99%

0.10%
2.22%

0.28%
0.27%
1.38%

0.67%

2.07%
Error

Average Absolute Error

n  
1X  Calculated Value  Measured Value
¼  100% ð1Þ
n Measured Value
Calculated

i¼1

Average Bias Error

41.17
33.76
37.52

43.93
42.21

43.04
43.76
40.47

36.63

45.92

n  
1X Calculated Value  Measured Value
¼ 100%
n i¼1 Measured Value
Oxygen (%)
Measured

ð2Þ
39.56
31.37
37.89

43.88

43.16
43.88
41.04

36.38

44.99
41.3

The correlation giving minimum error levels over 200 data

points was selected as the best one.
3.00%
3.17%
0.56%

2.68%
1.23%

4.13%
3.53%
5.44%

5.75%

1.09%

The following are the correlations which turned out to

Error

be the best in this manner with an average absolute error

of 3.21%, 4.79%, 3.4% and bias error of 0.21%, 0.15%
and 0.49% with respect to measured values of C, H and
Calculated

O, respectively:
4.55
5.07

5.89
5.62

5.91
5.77

5.88

5.57

4.96

6.10

C ¼ 0:637FC þ 0:455VM ðwt%Þ ð3Þ

H ¼ 0:052FC þ 0:062VM ðwt%Þ ð4Þ
Hydrogen (%)

O ¼ 0:304FC þ 0:476VM ðwt%Þ ð5Þ

Measured
5.46

6.07

5.69
6.13

5.89

5.26

6.03

Covering the range of various contents as shown below:

4.7
5.1

5.7

57:2% 6 VM 6 90:6%
3.96%
1.94%
5.52%
5.40%

0.67%
3.15%

2.15%

0.67%

1.64%

3.26%

4:7% 6 FC 6 38:4%
Ultimate analysis (wt% by dry basis)

Error

36:2% 6 C 6 53:1%
4:36% 6 H 6 8:3%
Calculated

31:37% 6 O 6 49:5%
47.17
46.66
36.56
41.02

47.18
47.94

48.69

47.00

40.24

47.08

where VM, FC, C, H and O represents volatile matter,

fixed carbon, elemental carbon, hydrogen and oxygen con-
Carbon (%)

tent of biomass material, respectively, expressed in mass

Measured

percentages on dry basis.

45.37
45.77

38.92

47.50

47.67

46.69

39.59

48.67

From the data in Table 1, there is a good relation

38.7

49.5

between the determined and the calculated elemental com-

position and Eqs. (3)–(5) have given acceptable approxima-
5.89

2.30
ASH

tions to the measured values.

24.6
15.8

2.5

17.6
3.4

1.7

6.3

0.2
(wt% by dry basis)
Proximate analysis

3. Validation of the correlation

73.02

82.70

82.1
69.3

74.7

76.5

69.7

67.3

90.6
VM

63

To confirm the validity of these equations, a variety of

various samples were examined. Table 1 shows the results
21.09

15.00

15.4
12.4
14.9

21.9

21.8

15.1

9.2

obtained, which demonstrate that the equations provide a

FC

24

simple and rapid way to obtain good estimates of ele-

Raw material

Alabama oak

mental composition of various varieties of lignocellulosic

Peanut hulls

wood waste
RH  CP 4
Rice husk-

Cottongin
W-pallets
Tea bush
Saw dust

materials.
Coconut

Tan oak

PS, present study.

waste

Validation of the correlation developed under the pres-

patni

trash

ent work has been carried out by comparison of computed

and measured values of elemental analysis over 50 data
Serial

points. The measured and computed values of elemen-

no.

41
42
43

44
45

46
47
48

49

50

tal analysis of data have been presented graphically in

 1714
Table 2
List of algebraic equations tested for the development of correlation
Serial Proposed equation Criteria for selection
no.
1 C = aFC + b(FC/VM) + cVM H = aFC + b(FC/VM) +cVM O = aFC + b(FC/VM) + cVM Assuming elemental carbon C,
H, O is distributed in fixed
carbon and volatile matter
linearly and is also a function
of its ratio
2 C = aFC + bFC2 + c(FC * VM) + dVM H = aFC + bFC2 + c(FC * VM) + dVM O = aFC + bFC2 + c(FC * VM) + dVM Assuming elemental carbon C,
+eVM2 + eVM2 + eVM2 H, O to be polynomial
function of its fixed carbon

J. Parikh et al. / Fuel 86 (2007) 1710–1719

and volatile matter content
3 C = a1FC + b1VM H = a1FC + b1VM O = a1FC + b1VM Assuming elemental carbon C,
H, O to be linear function of
its fixed carbon and volatile
matter content
4 C = a1FC + b2VMC2 H = a1FC + b2VMC2 O = a1FC + b2VMC2 Assuming elemental carbon C,
H, O to be linear function of
its fixed carbon and nonlinear
function of its volatile matter
content
5 C = a3FCd3 + b2VMC2 H = a3FCd3 + b2VMC2 O = a3FCd3 + b2VMC2 Assuming nonlinear effect of
volatile matter and nonvolatile
matter on elemental C,
H and O
6 C = a4FCd4 + b1VM H = a4FCd4 + b1VM O = a4FCd4 + b1VM Assuming linear effect of
volatile matter and nonlinear
effect of nonvolatile matter on
elemental C, H and O
7 C = FC + bVM H = FC + bVM O = FC + bVM Assuming linear effect of
volatile matter and
considering nonvolatile matter
as constant
C, wt% dry basis; H, wt% dry basis; O, wt% dry basis; FC, wt% dry basis; VM, wt% dry basis.
 J. Parikh et al. / Fuel 86 (2007) 1710–1719 1715

Pit / Shell / Seeds Pit / Shell / Seeds

55 50
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line -- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV. ABS ERROR = 3.23 % AV. ABS ERROR = 2.38 %
AV. BIAS ERROR = -1.37 % AV. BIAS ERROR = - 0.24 %
NO. OF DATA = 18 NO. OF DATA = 18

50 45

Predicted Value
Predicted Value

(O%)
(C%)

40
45

35
40 35 40 45 50
40 45 50 55
Measured Value (O%)
Measured Value (C%)
Fig. 1c. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental oxygen
Fig. 1a. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental carbon (pit/shell/seed).
(pit/shell/seed).

Pit / Shell /Seeds

7
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line
Wood / Bark / Energy Crops / Pruning
55
AV. ABS ERROR = 6.83 % -- - - - - +/- 7 % Line
AV. BIAS ERROR = 3.05 % AV. ABS ERROR = 2.55 %
NO. OF DATA = 18 AV. BIAS ERROR = - 0.85 %
NO. OF DATA = 61
6
Predicted Value

50
Predicted Value

(C%)
(H%)

5 45

40
4 40 45 50 55
4 5 6 7 Measured Value (C%)
Measured Value (H%)
Fig. 2a. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental carbon
Fig. 1b. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental hydro- (wood/bark/energy crops/pruning).
gen (pit/shell/seed).

Figs. 1a–1c, 2a–2c, 3a–3c, 4a–4c, 5a–5c. Figs. 6a–6c present Wood / Bark / Energy Crops / Pruning
this comparison for a whole range of fuels. The error band 7
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line
of ±7% has been also shown in these figures. The study of AV. ABS ERROR = 2.66 %
this comparison indicates that the average absolute errors AV. BIAS ERROR = 0.28 %
for pit/shell/seeds, wood/bark/energy crops/pruning, NO. OF DATA = 61
Predicted Value

straw/stalk, hull/husk/dust, miscellaneous material and

(H%)

whole range of biomass materials are 3.23%, 2.55%,

5.5
3.71%, 3.42%, 4.06% and 3.2%, respectively, for carbon
content, 6.83%, 2.66%, 5.67%, 6.49%, 5.64% and 4.78%,
respectively, for hydrogen content and 2.38%, 2.39%,
4.47%, 4.06%, 4.89% and 3.4%, respectively, for oxygen
content while the average bias errors are 1.37%,
0.85%, 2.83%, 0.48%, 2.26% and 0.21%, respectively, 4
for carbon content, 3.05%, 0.28%, 0.43%, 1.78%, 4 5 6 7
2.26% and 0.17%, respectively, for hydrogen content Measured Value (H%)
and 0.24%, 0.92%, 2.62%, 1.86%, 1.35% and 0.51%, Fig. 2b. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental hydro-
respectively, for oxygen content. gen (wood/bark/energy crops/pruning).
1716 J. Parikh et al. / Fuel 86 (2007) 1710–1719

Wood / Bark
Hull/ /Energy
Husk / Crops
Dust / Pruning Straw / Stalk
507 50
-- --
- ------ - +/-7+/-7
% % Line
Line -- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV.
AV. ABSABS ERROR
ERROR= =2.39 % %
6.49 AV. ABS ERROR = 4.47 %
AV.
AV. BIAS
BIAS ERROR
ERROR = =0.92
-1.78
% % AV. BIAS ERROR = -2.62 %
NO.
NO. OFOF DATA = =61 29
DATA 45 NO. OF POINTS = 23
Value

456
Value

Predicted Value
(O%)
Predicted

(O%)
(H%)

40
Predicted

405
35

354 30
4 5 6 7 30 35 40 45 50
35 40 45 50
Measured Value (H%) Measured Value (O%)
Measured Value (O%)
Fig. 3c. Comparison between measured and calculated values oxygen
Fig. 2c. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental oxygen
(straw/stalk).
(wood/bark/energy crops/pruning).

Straw / Stalk Hull / Husk / Dust

55 55
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV. ABS ERROR = 3.71 %
AV. ABS ERROR = 3.42 %
AV. BIAS ERROR = 2.83 % AV. BIAS ERROR = -0.48 %
50 NO. OF POINTS = 23 50 NO. OF DATA = 29
Predicted Value

Predicted Value
(C%)
(C%)

45 45

40 40

35 35
35 40 45 50 55 35 40 45 50 55
Measured Value (C%) Measured Value (C%)

Fig. 4a. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental carbon

Fig. 3a. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental carbon
(hull/husk/dust).
(straw/stalk).

Straw / Stalk
7 Hull / Husk / Dust
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV. ABS ERROR = 5.67 %
7
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV. BIAS ERROR = 0.43 % AV. ABS ERROR = 6.49 %
NO. OF POINTS = 23 AV. BIAS ERROR = -1.78 %
NO. OF DATA = 29
6
Predicted Value

6
Predicted Value
(H%)

(H%)

5 5

4 4
4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7
Measured Value (H%) Measured Value (H%)

Fig. 3b. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental hydro- Fig. 4b. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental hydro-
gen (straw/stalk). gen (hull/husk/dust).
 J. Parikh et al. / Fuel 86 (2007) 1710–1719 1717

Hull / Husk / Dust Miscellaneous

50 50
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line -- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV. ABS ERROR = 4.06 % AV. ABS ERROR = 4.89 %
AV. BIAS ERROR = 1.86 % AV. BIAS ERROR = 1.35 %
NO. OF DATA = 29. NO. OF DATA = 25
45 45

Predicted Value
Predicted Value

(O%)
40
(O%)

40

35 35

30 30
30 35 40 45 50 30 35 40 45 50
Measured Value (O%) Measured Value (O%)
Fig. 4c. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental oxygen Fig. 5c. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental oxygen
(hull/husk/dust). (miscellaneous).

Miscellaneous
55 Whole Range
-- - - - - +/- 7 % Line 60
AV. ABS ERROR = 4.06 % -- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV. BIAS ERROR = 2.26 %
AV. ABS ERROR = 3.20 %
NO. OF DATA = 25
55 AV. BIAS ERROR = 0.20 %
50 NO. OF DATA = 156
Predicted Value
Predicted Value

50
(C%)
(C%)

45 45

40
40
35

35 30
35 40 45 50 55 30 40 50 60
Measured Value (C%) Measured Value (C%)

Fig. 5a. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental carbon Fig. 6a. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental carbon
(miscellaneous). (whole range of biomass materials).

Miscellaneous Whole Range

7 8
-- - - - - +/- 7 % Line -- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV. ABS ERROR = 5.64 % AV. ABS ERROR = 4.78 %
AV. BIAS ERROR = -2.26 % AV. BIAS ERROR = -0.17 %
NO. OF DATA = 25 NO. OF DATA = 156
7
Predicted Value

6
Predicted Value

(H%)
(H%)

5
5

4 4
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Measured Value (H%) Measured Value (H%)

Fig. 5b. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental hydro- Fig. 6b. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental hydro-
gen (miscellaneous). gen (whole range of biomass materials).
1718
Whole Range
55
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV. ABS ERROR = 3.4 %
50 AV. BIAS ERROR = 0.51 %
NO. OF DATA = 156
Predicted Value
45
(O%)
40
35
30
25
25 35 45
Measured Value (O%)
Fig. 6c. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental oxygen
(whole range of biomass materials).
4. Utility of the correlations
Having established the validity and merits of the pro-
posed correlations, a few of its applications have been sum-
marized below:
(i) The correlations can be used for computation of ele-
mental composition (C, H and O) and HHV of any
biomass material, from its proximate analysis.
(ii) They are useful in performance modeling, combus-
tion, gasification and pyrolysis processes.
(iii) The correlation provides the facility of using elemen-
tal component as an algebraic expression in terms of
fuel constituents, which in turn is useful in studying
the energy balance and influence of proximate analy-
sis of a fuel on process performance.
5. Conclusions
The present correlations have been derived based on a
large number of data points having widely varying proxi-
mate and elemental composition and encompassing all cat-
egories of solid lignocellulosic materials. This means that,
within the specified range of FC, VM, ash, carbon, hydro-
gen and oxygen as wt%, and within the stated average
absolute error limit of 3.21%, 4.79% and 3.4% with respect
to measured values of C, H and O, respectively, the present
correlations may be accepted as ‘general correlations’ for
estimating elemental composition of biomass materials on
dry basis.
The main advantage of these correlations is, based on
using only proximate analysis data, a rapid, easy and
economical estimation of the elemental components. This
may be of particular interest in the contexts where more
sophisticated and expensive equipments for experimental
elemental components measurement are not always
available.
J. Parikh et al. / Fuel 86 (2007) 1710–1719
6. Limitations of the present correlations
The correlations for estimation of C, H and O from
proximate analysis are derived based on available data in
the literature wherein measurement of oxygen is not explic-
itly defined. Further, material may contain Nitrogen and
Sulfur too. As a result, the use of these correlations needs
a prior knowledge of nitrogen and sulfur to make more
correct predictions.
References
[1] Channiwala SA, Parikh PP. A unified correlation for estimating HHV
55 of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels. Fuel 2002;81:1051–63.
[2] Kucukbayrak S, Durus B, Mericboyu AE, Kadioglu E. Estimation of
calorific values of Turkish lignites. Fuel 1991;70:979–81.
[3] Cordero T, Marquez F, Rodriquez – Mirasol J, Rodriguez JJ.
Predicting heating values of lignocellulosic and carbonaceous mate-
rials from proximate analysis. Fuel 2001;80:1567–71.
[4] Fernandez P, Diaz RM, Xiberta J. Correlations of properties of
Spanish coals with their natural radionuclides contents. Fuel
1997;76(10):951–5.
[5] Parikh J, Channiwala SA, Ghosal GK. A correlation for calculating
HHV from proximate analysis of solid fuels. Fuel 2005;84:487–94.
[6] Vakkilainen EK. Estimation of elemental composition from proxi-
mate analysis of black liquor. PAPERI JA PUU – Paper Timber
2000;82(7):450–4.
[7] ASTM D 2013-86, Standard method of preparing coal samples for
analysis, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke section 5, Annual book of
standards, vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 226.
[8] ASTM D 3172 – 73(84), Standards method of proximate analysis of
coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke section 5, Annual book
of ASTM standards, vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 299.
[9] ASTM D 3173-87, Standards test method for moisture in the analysis
sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke section 5,
Annual book of ASTM standards, vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 300.
[10] ASTM D 3175-89, Standards test method for volatile matter in the
analysis sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke
section 5, Annual book of ASTM standards, vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 305.
[11] ASTM D 3174-89, Standards test method for ash in the analysis
sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke section 5,
Annual book of ASTM standards, vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 302.
[12] ASTM D 3176-84, Standards method for ultimate analysis of coal and
coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke, section 5, vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 308.
[13] ASTM D 3178-84, Standards test method for carbon and hydrogen in
the analysis sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke,
section 5, vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 315.
[14] ASTM D 3179-84, Standards test method for nitrogen in the analysis
sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke, section 5,
vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 519.
[15] Jenkins BM. Downdraft gasification characteristics of major Califor-
nia residue derived fuels. Ph.D thesis, University of California, Davis,
1980.
[16] Rossi A. Fuel characteristics of wood and non-wood biomass fuels.
In: Tillman DA, Jahn EC, editors. Progress in biomass conversion,
vol. 5. New York: Academic Press; 1984. p. 69.
[17] Channiwala SA. On biomass gasification process and technology
development – some analytical and experimental investigations. Ph.D
thesis, Mechanical Engineering Department, IIT, Mumbai; 1992.
[18] Jenkins BM, Ebeling JM. Correlation of physical and chemical
properties of terrestrial biomass with conversion: symposium energy
from biomass and waste IX IGT; 1985. p. 371.
[19] Bonelli PR, Della Rocca PA, Cerrella EG, Cukierman AL. Effect of
pyrolysis temperature on composition, surface properties and thermal
degradation rates of Brazil nut shells. Bioresour Technol
2001;76:15–22.
 J. Parikh et al. / Fuel 86 (2007) 1710–1719
[20] Grover PD, Iyer PVR, Rao TR. Biomass – thermochemical charac-
terization. third ed. IIT Delhi: MNES; 2002.
[21] Risser PG. Agricultural and forestry residues. In: Soffer SS, Zaborsky
OR, editors. Biomass conversion processes for energy and fuels. New
York: Plenum Press; 1981. p. 25–56.
[22] Tran DQ, Rai C. A kinetic model for pyrolysis of Douglas fir bark.
Fuel 1978;57:293–8.
[23] Demirbas A. Calculation of higher heating values of biomass fuels.
Fuel 1997;76(5):431–4.
[24] Sainz-Diaz CI, Griffiths AJ. Activated carbon from solid wastes using
a pilot scale batch flaming pyrolyzer. Fuel 2000;79:1863–71.
[25] Ghaly AE, Ergudenler A. A comparative study on the thermal
decomposition of four cereal straws in an oxidizing atmosphere.
Bioresour Technol 1994;50:201–8.
[26] Ghaly AE, Ergudenler A. Reaction kinetics of rye straw for
thermochemical conversion. Can J Chem Eng 1994;72:651–6.
1719
[27] Gregory MK, Rose GR, Nandi SP, Onischak M, Zabransky RF,
Babu SR. Development of biomass gasification to produce substitute
fuel. In: Proceedings 14th biomass thermochemical conversion
contracot’s meeting; 1982. p. 71–147.
[28] Grover PD, Anuradha G. Thermochemical characterization of
biomass for gasification, Report on physico-chemical parameters of
biomass residues, IIT – Delhi; 1988.
[29] Mansaray KG, Ghaly AE. Determination of kinetic parameters of
rice husks in oxygen using TGA. Biomass Bioenerg 1999;17:19–31.
[30] Maheshwari RC. Utilization of rice husk as fuel. Ph.D thesis,
Agricultural Engineering Department, IIT, Kharagpur, India; 1975.
[31] Boley EC, Landers WS. Entrainment drying and carbonization of
wood waste, Report of investigation 7282, Bureau of Mines,
Washington; 1969.
[32] Reina J, Velo E, Puigjaner L. Kinetic study of the pyrolysis of waste
wood. Ind Eng Chem Res 1998;37:4290–5.