Developing and Testing an Environmentally Friendly Firelog Using a Bio-based Binder

1. Developing and Testing an Environmentally Friendly Firelog Usinga Bio-based Binder Cornelis F. deHoop, Associate Professor Louisiana Forest Products Development Center School of Renewable Natural Resources LSU Agricultural Center

2. Sponsors • SERBEP - Southeastern Regional Biomass Energy Program • Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry

3. Purpose To develop a firelog utilizing an agricultural, non-petroleum binder with wood residue that produces lower emissions than firewood or commercial firelogs when combusted.

4. Firelogs Currently Available • “Presto logs” • very dense and difficult to light. • no binder added. • use high pressures to form. • Petroleum-based wax • helps decrease density. • promotes ignition and combustion.

5. The project consisted of two parts: 1. Firelog development 2. Air emission tests

6. Firelog Development Concentrated on different binders that were not petroleum based. • rice starch • sugarcane wax • soybean wax The soybean wax was selected for further testing.

7. Modified Log Splitter

8. Modified Log Splitter

9. Modified Log Splitter

10. Try it out

11. Air Emissions Testing

12. Fireplace

13. Instruments Gas Analyzers • CO • CO2 • O2 • Total Hydrocarbons, THC Mass Spectrometer • CO2 • NOx • O2 • SOx

14. Air Emissions Testing • The testing consisted of three replications. • Five commercial firelogs, red oak firewood, and 25%, 33%, 50%, and 60% soy-wax firelogs. • Data on CO2, CO, O2, THC, and NOx. • Other parameters measured were stack flow rate, particulates, temperatures, and weight change during combustion.

15. Emission Results • The results for SOx, and NOx were negligible for all of the burns. • The results for O2 were the inverse of the results for CO2. • The results for CO, CO2, and THC are discussed in the following slides.

16. Carbon Dioxide Results • Variations in CO2 output could not be explained by firelog type. • No statistical difference in output between commercial firelogs, oak firewood or the soybean wax firelogs. • In the soybean wax firelogs, CO2 output increased with an increase in wax content. (linear contrast: p > 0.0078)

17. Carbon Monoxide Results • The soybean wax firelogs: • produced 32% less CO than the commercial firelogs tested. • produced 60% less CO than the oak firewood tested. • produced less CO as the wax content increased. • The commercial firelogs: • produced 42% less CO than the oak firewood tested.

18. Total Hydrocarbons Results The soybean wax firelogs: • produced 66% less THC than the commercial firelogs tested. • produced 55% less THC than the oak firewood tested.

19. Conclusions • The soybean wax firelogs produced fewer CO and THC emissions than the oak firewood tested. • The commercial firelogs produced fewer CO emissions than the oak firewood tested.

20. Conclusions • The soybean wax firelogs produced fewer CO and THC emissions the commercial firelogs tested. • Based on the assumption that the oak firewood and commercial firelogs tested are a representative sample of what is being used, the soybean wax firelogs produce less CO and THC emissions than what is available on the market.

21. Conclusions • CO2 emissions did not vary with firewood or firelog type. • CO2 emissions for the soybean wax firelogs increased with an increase in wax content. • CO emissions for the soybean wax firelogs were lower with an increase in wax content.

22. Trends • As expected, the CO2 emissions were highest early in the burn. • With CO and THC the peaks were different. • CO and THC peaks for oak firewood were similar to CO2. • CO and THC peaks for commercial firelogs and the 60% soybean wax firelogs occurred late in the burn.

23. Example of Oak and Commercial Firelog CO Peaking

24. Example of Oak and Commercial Firelog THC Peaking

25. Recommendations • Improved firelog production process: multiple firelogs • Development of a wrapper to promote ignition. • Testing of a more malleable wax. • Increase the replications performed. • Market research to ascertain potential demand.

26. Questions? cdehoop@lsu.edu (225) 578-4242