4.3 Article

STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING MOISTURE CONTENT IN FOREST RESIDUES AT THE HARVEST SITE

Journal

APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE
Volume 34, Issue 1, Pages 25-33

Publisher

AMER SOC AGRICULTURAL & BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.13031/aea.12427

Keywords

Feedstock quality; Logging slash; Transect sampling method; Woody biomass energy

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy under the Biomass Research and Development Initiative program [DE-EE0006297]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The moisture content (MC) of biomass derived from forest residues can pose a challenge to biomass utilization. It plays a significant role in determining the cost of transportation and subsequent market price. Additionally, emerging biomass conversion technologies, such as gasification, torrefaction, and briquetting, have very narrow specifications for the MC (e.g., <15%) in their feedstocks. The goal of this study was to develop strategies for reducing moisture content by evaluating different arrangement patterns of forest residues and its effect on MC reduction at the harvest site. The study compared four different arrangement patterns including criss-cross, teepees, traditional piling (processor piled), and scattered residues in three different timber harvest units in northern California. Two of the arrangement patterns (criss-cross and processor piled) were also covered with a plastic cover. Samples were collected from each treatment using a transect method and were recorded for 12 months. There was an overall drop of MC from 52% (freshly cut) to 12% between all arrangements over the study period. The cost of construction per pile, averaged $37, $41, and $48 for teepees, criss-cross, and processor piles, respectively. Even though, there was no significant difference in MC reduction between piles (except scattered), each pile arrangement of forest residues directly affected biomass feedstock operations, logistics, and costs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available