Effect of water stress on renewable energy from sugarcane biomass

Esta é uma pré-visualização de arquivo. Entre para ver o arquivo original

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
Effect of water stress on renewable energy from sugarcane biomass
Rubens Duarte Coelhoa,⁎,1, Jonathan Vásquez Lizcanob,2, Timóteo Herculino da Silva Barrosa,3,
Fernando da Silva Barbosaa,4, Daniel Philipe Veloso Leala,5, Lucas da Costa Santosa,6,
Nathalia Lopes Ribeiroa,3, Eusímio Felisbino Fraga Júniora,7, Derrel L. Martinc,8
a Universidade de Sao Paulo, Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”, ESALQ, Biosystems Engineering Department, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
b Universidad de Ciencias Aplicadas y Ambientales, Bogota, Colombia
cUniversidade de Nebraska Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, College of Engineering, Biological Systems Engineering Department, Lincoln, NE, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Water use efficiency
Water productivity
Drip irrigation
Higher heating value
Bioenergy
Potential energy
Saccharum spp
A B S T R A C T
The higher heating value (HHV) of sugarcane biomass components has been well documented; however, the
effect of different soil water levels (abiotic stress) during the growing season on HHV has not been assessed for
this energy crop. Drip irrigation in sugarcane production presents a potential to be a disruptive technology for
sugarcane mills in terms of water-energy-nexus, making this inextricable relationship more efficient. The ob-
jective of this article was to quantify the higher heating value and useful energy from biomass partitions of
different sugarcane varieties (Saccharum spp.) drip irrigated at four water levels and four maturation processes
(drying off intensity prior to harvesting time); this information is not available in literature to date. The con-
tribution of this article to the state of the art of knowledge are: a) the heating values for sugarcane partitions:
bagasse, leaves and pointers did not vary significantly for varieties, water stress levels under drip irrigation and
maturation processes; conversely, the heating value for the sheath biomass partition vary significantly for
varieties. The average heating values for all treatments for the bagasse, sheaths, leaves and pointers were 18.16,
17.21, 17.64 and 17.84 MJ kg−1 respectively; b) the useful energy in sugarcane is almost totally dependent on
the biomass produced per unit of area; drip irrigation levels and sugarcane variety traits are important in es-
tablishing the bioenergy productivity per area; the average value obtained for all treatments was 660.29 GJ ha−1
year−1 (36.90 Mg dry mass ha−1 year−1). Drip irrigated sugarcane crops at higher water levels in the soil,
resulted a higher intensive land use and less deforestation pressure at sugarcane bioenergy production areas.
1. Introduction
Renewable energy sources continue to gain significance attention as
countries strive to manage climate change and growing energy needs
globally. Electrical production from biomass conversion is one source of
renewable energy that has a promising future. Approximately sixty-two
countries produce and commercialize electricity from biomass. The
United States is the dominant producer of bioelectricity with 26% of the
world production, followed by Germany (15%), Brazil (7%), Japan
(7%) and the United Kingdom (5%) [1].
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.025
Received 6 April 2018; Received in revised form 1 December 2018; Accepted 12 December 2018
Abbreviations: HHV, Higher heating value; LHV, Lower heating value; V, Sugarcane variety; L, Irrigation level during sugarcane growing season; M, Drying off
intensity on soil during sugarcane maturation phase
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rdcoelho@usp.br (R.D. Coelho), timoteo@usp.br (T.H. da Silva Barros), fernando.barbosa@ifsuldeminas.edu.br (F. da Silva Barbosa),
nathalia.lr@usp.br (N.L. Ribeiro), eusimiofraga@ufu.br (E.F.F. Júnior), derrel.martin@unl.edu (D.L. Martin).
1 Full Professor of Agricultural Engineering, Specialist in Irrigation Systems and Water Management. Caixa Postal 09, Piracicaba - SP, Brazil, CEP 13418-900.
2 Assistant Professor at the Universidad de Ciencias Aplicadas y Ambientales, Calle 222 No. 55-37, Bogota, Colombia, Code Postal 111166.
3 PhD Graduated Student at the Universidade de Sao Paulo, ESALQ - Biosystems Engineering Department. Caixa Postal 09, Piracicaba - SP, Brazil, CEP 13418-900.
4 Professor at the Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Southern Minas - Inconfidentes Campus. Praça Tiradentes, 416, Inconfidentes - MG,
Brazil, CEP 37576-000.
5 Professor at the Associated Colleges of Uberaba, Tutuna Ave. 720, Uberaba - MG, Brazil, CEP 38061-500.
6 Assistant Professor at Universidade de Goiás (UEG), 153 Hwy, Barreiro do Meio Farm 3105, Anapolis - GO, Brazil, CEP 75132400.
7 Adjunct Professor at Federal Universidade de Uberlândia (UFU), 746 Highway km 1 LMG, Monte Carmelo - MG, Brazil, CEP 38500-000.
8 Professor of Biological Systems Engineering, Extension Specialist in Irrigation and Water Resources Engineering. 243 L. W. Chase Hall, East Campus. Lincoln, NE -
USA, Zip Code 68583-0726.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 103 (2019) 399–407
Available online 09 January 2019
1364-0321/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13640321
https://www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.025
mailto:rdcoelho@usp.br
mailto:timoteo@usp.br
mailto:fernando.barbosa@ifsuldeminas.edu.br
mailto:nathalia.lr@usp.br
mailto:eusimiofraga@ufu.br
mailto:derrel.martin@unl.edu
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.025
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.025&domain=pdf
The domestic energy supply in Brazil reached 288.3 Mtoe in 2016,
(toe - Mg of oil equivalent, 1 toe = 41.87 GJ). Renewable energy
sources in Brazil represented 43.5% of the total supply [2] which is
among the highest fractional utilizations in the world. The majority of
bioelectricity produced in Brazil is derived from processing sugarcane
crop. In 2016, energy production of biomass from sugarcane re-
presented 17.5% of the total supply in Brazil.
Sugarcane is widely cultivated in tropical zones around the world
[3] and Brazil produces the most sugar quantity of any country [1].
Sugarcane biomass is characterized by a fibrous material rich in cel-
lulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Sugarcane bagasse, a solid residue
from the milling process of fresh stalks from sugarcane, is the most
commonly used component of biomass in electrical cogeneration [4].
Biomass is transformed into electrical energy when burned in a boiler to
heat water and generate steam that powers turbines in electric gen-
erators. Most sugar and ethanol production plants export the electrical
surplus generated in their industrial process to an electric grid where
the electricity is transmitted and distributed by energy vendors.
The energy derived from biomass can be expressed in several ways.
The American Standard D5468-02 [5] defines the lower heating value
(LHV) as the heat produced by the combustion of a unit amount of
liquid or solid fuel when burned at a constant pressure of 0.1 MPa and
in a manner that retains the water formed during burning in the vapor
form after combustion. The higher heating value (HHV) accounts for
the energy water vapor releases when converted into a liquid. This
occurs after combustion and decreases the excitation of water particles
[6]. The LHV assumes that the water formed by combustion, as well as
that contained in the fuel, remains in the vapor state [7]; therefore HHV
is always higher than LHV [6]. The higher heating value (HHV) re-
presents a measure of the potential energy in the fuel; but the lower
heating value (LHV) represents the usable heat [7]. The full exploita-
tion of the potential energy in the biomass would occur after burning
and reducing the temperature of the combustion products below the
dew point.
Various forms of biomass
could be used to produce bioelectricity.
The energy content of the biomass is one factor that will determine the
desirability of a given material. The higher heating value (HHV) of
several forms of biomass varies from 5.63 to 23.46 MJ kg−1 [8]. The
higher heating value of sugarcane is generally in the upper levels of that
range. The higher heating value (HHV) of sugarcane bagasse ranges
from 17.02 to 19.27 MJ kg−1.
In California, a study comparing 62 kinds of biomass found HHV of
17.33 MJ kg−1 for sugarcane bagasse [6]. In Brazil, for RB86–7515
sugarcane variety, biomass trash presented HHV of 17.90 MJ kg−1,
while residual bagasse presented HHV of 19.27 MJ kg−1 [9]. In Zim-
babwe an economic analysis reveals that bagasse power generation is
economically feasible for a HHV of 19.25 MJ kg−1 [10]. Another bra-
zilian study regarding the correlation between elemental components
(carbon, hydrogen and oxygen) and ash content, presented a HHV for
sugarcane bagasse of 18.88 MJ kg−1 [11]. A unified correlation study
for calculating the higher heating value of fuels ranging from gaseous,
liquid, coals, biomass material, presented a HHV of 18.73 MJ kg−1 for
sugarcane bagasse [12].
Usually sugarcane bagasse presents a certain level of humidity
around 49% which reduces the HHV under fresh weight to around 8.43
MJ kg−1 [13]. In a thermochemical characterization of biomass re-
sidues for gasification in India, sugarcane bagasse presented a HHV
around 18.95 MJ kg−1 [14]. A gasification process study with su-
garcane bagasse and trash suggested HHV for palletized sugarcane
bagasse of 18.75 MJ kg−1, baled trash 17.44 MJ kg−1 and loose trash
14.31 MJ kg−1 [15]. On a thermal analysis and devolatilization kinetics
study, the HHV considered for sugar cane bagasse was 18.73 MJ kg−1
[16]. Other studies presented HHV for sugarcane bagasse close to 18.5
MJ kg−1 [17,18].
The HHV of dry sugarcane leaves is about 17.40 MJ kg−1 [15] while
the HHV of straw (leaves + sheaths) ranges from 17.90 to 17.19 MJ
kg−1 [9,17]. The HHV of pointers ranges from 16.40 to 18.40 MJ kg−1
[13,15]; whereas, the HHV from the residual biomass (SCAR) composed
of green and dry leaves, sheaths, dead tillers and pointers is approxi-
mately 17.43 MJ kg−1 [19]. Thus, sugarcane biomass contains sig-
nificant amounts of energy that could be utilized to meet renewable
energy production goals; however, the effects of water availability
during growing season on the energy content are not well documented.
As with other crops, sugarcane is highly influenced by water deficit,
which is the most important abiotic stress and responsible for sig-
nificant yield gap year after year [20,21]. However, there are records
that water limitation does not only compromise the yield of biomass,
but also its quality, which depends on its composition [22,23].
There are different ways of qualitatively describing biomass, how-
ever, the biochemical approach, which is limited to biopolymers, is
generally the most used, cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, which
assume different proportions in the vegetal biomass [24].
Regarding the energetic potential of each of the lignocellulosic
fractions, lignin presents higher energy content than cellulose or
hemicellulose. One gram of lignin presents 2.27 kJ, which corresponds
to 30% more than the cellulosic carbohydrate energy [25]. These dif-
ferences in plant biomass can be increased in response to genetic var-
iation of the species and varieties being explored [26,27], as well as to
the environmental factor, such as water stress [23,28], which justifies
the investigation of sugarcane as a bioenergetic crop.
Much has been discussed about water-energy nexus on ethanol and
bioeletricity production [29], trying to quantify and to model the main
links between water and energy production in the most diverse forms
[30], in this way being able to suggest strategies and technologies that
increase bioenergy water use efficiency in sugarcane crop systems [31].
The use of sugarcane crop to produce bioenergy could impact on the
current dynamics of water use, due to the need for expansion of culti-
vated area and increase of productivity, even this crop having low
water footprint, low induced deforestation and low emission of green-
house gases [32].
As a country highly dependent on hydroelectric power, water
scarcity becomes alarming in Brazil, especially for the electric sector
[33] Thus alternative sources of electric energy production have be-
come great allies, having been highlighted the electric generation from
thermal energy based on natural gas and sugarcane bagasse [34].
Despite the significant participation of sugarcane irrigated area in
Brazil, it is notable that the demand for water per unit of area is much
lower in this energy crop than other crops, mainly due to deficit irri-
gation practices implemented by mills (salvation irrigation / lower
cost) and regulatory mandates on the waste water reuse (vinasse) from
the ethanol industrial production [35]. Total energy from bioelectric
generation depends on the amount and quality of biomass produced per
unit land area and the energy quality (HHV) of the biomass, as well as,
the conversion technology used to extract the energy. The biomass
quality is defined by the higher heating value: lignin, fiber and ash
contents.
In this article, it is hypothesize that the higher heating values of
sugarcane biomass partitions (bagasse, sheaths, leaves and pointers)
vary according to the sugarcane variety, soil water conditions during
the growth cycle (drip irrigation levels) and water stress levels during
crop maturation prior to harvest (drying off technique). Previous re-
searches do not documented the effect of soil water conditions during
the growing season or the influence of varieties and biomass compo-
nents on the higher heating value of sugarcane biomass (HHV).
The objective of this paper is to present the higher heating values
(HHV) and the useful energy derived from dry partitioned biomass for
drip irrigated sugarcane varieties, subjected to different soil water
availability at all growing season and at pre-harvesting time, based on
the application of 50%, 75%, and 100% irrigation levels and different
drying-off periods and intensities before harvesting, in order to de-
termine in details, the sugarcane water use efficiency (water pro-
ductivity), a main parameter to access the water-energy nexus of this
R.D. Coelho et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 103 (2019) 399–407
400
bioenergy crop.
2. Material and methods
The experiment was carried out at the Biosystems Engineering
Department (LEB), Universidade de Sao Paulo (ESALQ), in Piracicaba -
SP, Brazil, under a test facility specifically designed for sugarcane ex-
perimentation [36]. The greenhouse consisted of three contiguous
spans, with a total area of approximately 400m2 and a ceiling height of
5.2 m. A transparent plastic cover (diffuser film) shielded against UV
rays (Ginegar Palstic Products® - Kibbutz Ginegar, Israel) and a black
screen on the sides that intercepted 50% of the incident radiation. A
representative soil type was selected from the sugarcane regions in
Brazil, where most sugarcane is produced; the soil was a yellow-red
Latosol with a sandy-loam texture.
The experiment was based on a randomized block design with split-
split-plots and three replications per treatment. Eight sugarcane vari-
eties (V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6, V7 and V8) were subjected to four irri-
gation levels (L50, L75, L75* and L100) and four water deficits treat-
ments prior to harvest (M1, M2, M3 and M4), resulting an experiment
with 384 useful plots plus 12 border plots (Total of 396 plots). Layout
design of the experiment is presented in the supplementary material.
Seven varieties were selected from the Brazilian sugarcane breeding
programs: CTC, RIDESA and IAC, and another variety came from South
Africa (NCo - DSSAT Software Sugarcane Reference). The codifications
of the varieties are as follows: V1 - CTC15, V2 - CTC 17,
V3 - RB867515,
V4- RB92579, V5 - RB931011, V6 - RB966928, V7 - IAC SP 5000 and V8
- NCo 376.
Varieties were collected from their original breeding program to
confirm the authenticity of sugarcane seedlings and ensure that selected
genetic material matched those planted. This process assured that the
sugarcane stems, between 10 and 12 months old, were favorable for
seedling production. Base and pointer buds were discarded from se-
lected sugarcane stems because buds from the middle third of the stalk
were more uniform, enhancing production of a consistent quality of
pre-budded seedlings (MPB).
Seedlings were irrigated daily to keep substrate moisture at field
capacity, just before transplanting to plots. Foliar fertilization was ne-
cessary, supplying extra nutritional needs for the seedlings that were
not supplied by fertigation. Pre-budded plants were transplanted 40
days after the buds were planted (DAP). The traditional sugar cane
cycle in Brazil is 12 months, so the experiment was carried out during a
period of 365 days, from March 1st, 2013 to February 28th, 2014.
2.1. Stress timing
The effect of the water stress timing during the growing season on
the energy production was analyzed by varying the replacement frac-
tion throughout the ripening stage. Two stress timing treatments (M1
and M2) consisted of gradually decreasing the irrigation levels during
the last 60 days before harvesting, reducing to 60% and 30% of the
reference irrigation depth, respectively (partial drying off). The M3
maturation stress treatment consisted in maintaining full irrigation
until harvesting. The M4 maturation stress treatment (total drying off)
consisted in suspending irrigation completely 15 days before harvesting
so that the available water in the root zone was completely deplete by
harvest time. The 15-day period was determined according to the soil
water holding capacity (Total Available Water - TAW) and the evapo-
transpiration rate of sugarcane during this final stage, in order to run
out soil water moisture at harvesting time.
2.2. Irrigation
Drip irrigation system used in this experiment, total of 396 in-
dependent plots, was based on a pressure compensating emitters with
anti-siphon and anti-drainage protection. A small drip line with five
emitters spaced 0.20m apart with a flow rate of 1.6 L h−1 was installed
in each plot (1.0 m dripping tube) resulting a flow rate of 8 L h −1 per
plot. This provided individual control for each experimental plot (396
valves).
Irrigation management was based on the soil matric potential
monitored in three replications of reference plots L100M3 for each
variety. Tensiometers were installed at 0.10m, 0.30m and 0.50m
depths providing measurement of potential in the center of three 0.2m
soil layers throughout the 0.6 m root zone. Irrigation for the L100 level
was computed by adding the water necessary to increase the soil water
to field capacity for all three 0.2m soil layers. The amount of soil water
in each layer before irrigation was estimated from the matric potential
using the van Genuchten soil water retention equation [37]. The matric
potential was measured with a digital portable tensimeter (needle in-
sertion) in three experimental parcels controlled, for each variety,
where the L100 M3 treatment was implemented (total of 72 tensi-
ometers installed). This arrangement provided control of irrigation
management for each variety individually.
Irrigation depths for remaining water management levels: L75 * ,
L75 and L50 at each variety treatment, was based on a fraction strategy
from L100 treatment; the depth of applied water to each level was a
fraction of the depth of water applied to the reference treatment L100.
For example, a L50 treatment received 50% of the depth applied to the
L100 plot, while L75 plots received 75% of the L100 plots. In this way,
L100 irrigation depth for variety V1 was different from L100 irrigation
depth for variety V2, and so on until V8.
The L75* treatment presented varied water levels during the
growing season by adjusting the replacement fraction. Water applica-
tion was gradually varied from the initial fraction of 125–75% and
finished at 50%, resulting in the same accumulated irrigation depth as
the continuous L75 treatment.
2.3. Biomass partitions
Biomass harvested at the end of the experiment was partitioned and
packed into paper bags, and then dried at 65 °C in a convection oven.
The sugarcane pointers were dried for 48 h, they were wetter and still
green at harvesting time, while the bagasse, sheaths, leave and dead
tillers were dried for 24 h. After drying, the partitions were weighed to
obtain the dry biomass. The partitions were then disintegrated and
homogenized through a cane disintegrator (Engehidro DCE-2600) and
homogenizer (Engehidro HCE-250). A subsample of this disintegrated
material was collected for each partition.
Sugarcane biomass partitions were divided into three categories:
• total dry biomass (biomass total)
• straw dry biomass (biomass straw)
• usable dry biomass for electric energy generation (biomass useful)
The dry biomass was measured individually for each plant (clump)
in a plot. The biomass produced per unit area was extrapolated by
considering the influence area of each plot.
The total dry biomass (biomass total) was the sum of the dry biomass
of roots and aerial parts. The sugar biomass was computed from the
sugar content and the total biomass. The root biomass was estimated
using a root/shoot ratio for each sugarcane variety based on samples
from the experimental plots. Soil samples were washed in sieves to
remove soil and retain root biomass.
Along the experiment, dry leaves accumulated in the lower part of
the canopy near electric cables was creating a fire hazard for the pro-
ject, in this way, dry leaves were harvested three times during the
growing season, keeping leaf´s sheats adhered to the stalks until har-
vesting time. The straw dry biomass (biomass straw) comprised the dry
biomass of the sheaths, leaves for all three harvest dates, dead tillers
and pointers. The samples (sugar, bagasse, sheaths, leaves, dead tillers,
pointer and roots) were milled and passed through a 60-mesh sieve in a
R.D. Coelho et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 103 (2019) 399–407
401
Willye type mill TE-650/1 TECNAL. The resulting pulverized material
was dried for 24 h at 65 °C.
The useful biomass (biomassuseful) was estimated by adding up usable
straw biomass to bagasse biomass, discounting 5 t ha−1 of straw that
must be left in the field to maintain organic matter levels in the soil.
2.4. Combustion calorimeter
The higher heating value (HHV) of the sugarcane partitions, the
total dry weight of biomass partitioned from sugarcane and the po-
tential energy of total dry biomass were measured and analyzed. The
values of these variables correspond to the average values observed in
the experimental plots (two clumps per plot). It was processed 1215
samples in the combustion calorimeter:
• 108 bagasse samples (plants 1 and 2 simultaneously)
• 216 sheath samples (plant 1 and plant 2)
• 648 leaf samples (3 leaf collection times x 2 plants - plant 1 and
plant 2)
• 12 dead tiller samples
• 216 pointer samples (2 plants - plant 1 and plant 2)
• 12 root samples.
About four samples were processed per hour in the calorimeter,
resulting more than 300 operational hours in the laboratory. Parr 6200
isoperibolic calorimeter was used. The standard calorimeter operation
was adopted as detailed in standard ASTM D5468-02. The test site was
kept free of air drafts; in addition, the calorimeter was protected from
direct radiation from sunlight and other sources of energy.
Water and oxygen were the main reagents used in the determination
of the higher heating value of the dry biomass. The water was used to
clean and wash the inside walls of the pump after combustion, while the
oxygen was used to fill the pump before each test. The purity of the
oxygen used was 99.5%. The standardization of the Parr
6200
Isoperibolic Calorimeter was performed in relation to the higher
heating value of the benzoic acid: 6314.4 cal g−1 or 26,419.5 J g−1.
Dry biomass samples were pelletized using a manual press (Parr
2811). The pellet mass was between 0.4 and 0.6 g as measured on an
analytical balance (with a resolution of 0.0001-g); this size of pellet
avoided an excessive temperature rise during combustion. Pelletizing
biomass prevents part of the sample from "blowing" to other regions of
the combustion pump as oxygen fills the chamber or at the beginning of
ignition. Thus, pelletizing minimizes incomplete burning of samples,
which would give lower heating values than actually contained in the
biomass. This is often the main error with this kind of equipment.
Pellets were positioned inside the burning capsule, mounted inside
the combustion camera with an ignition fuse installed (cotton line). The
combustion pump was charged with high purity oxygen (99.5%) at a
constant pressure of 3MPa (~435 psi). The combustion pump was then
placed on the Parr 6200 isoperibolic calorimeter and the ignition
terminals were connected to the calorimeter ignition cables. Thermal
analysis began with the combustion of the pellet. Once the test was
complete, the calorimeter was opened and the combustion pump was
withdrawn from the water bath. The vessel was depressurized at a
uniform rate over an approximately one minute interval. The vessel was
then opened and visually examined. If unburned biomass (dust) was
observed inside the pump, the thermal analysis was rejected due to the
incomplete combustion. After a valid test, the combustion pump was
cleaned before starting another analysis.
2.5. Statistic analyzes
The experiment used a randomized block design with split-split-
plots and three replications per treatment. A univariate analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was employed to evaluate treatment effects on the
energy content of the biomass as measured in the combustion
calorimeter. Thirty-six treatments with three replications per treatment
required 108 experimental plots with two plants per plot (experimental
unit). Four levels of stress during maturation (M1, M2, M3 and M4),
four irrigation levels (L50, L75, L75 * and L100) were used on three
sugarcane varieties (V1, V4 and V8). Each plot consisted of two cane
clumps (2 plants) planted in a "vase" with approximately 0.33m3 of soil
volume for the development of the root system at a maximum depth
0.76m.
The R software environment version 3.1.1 (R CORE TEAM, 2014) was
used in the analysis of variance. The normality and homogeneity of the
residuals for treatments were verified by Shapiro-Wilk (SHAPIRO-WILK,
1965) and homocedasticity by Levene tests (BOX, 1953). The assump-
tions of residual independence and additivity were assured by the ex-
perimental design. When a significant influence was verified in the
ANOVA test, Tukey test was applied at the 5% probability level.
3. Results and discussion
The fiber content of the bagasse for varieties V8, V2, V4, V7, V3, V5,
V6, and V1 were 8.78%, 9.56%, 9.77%, 9.92%, 10.41%, 10.51%,
10.55% and 10.78% respectively. To reduce the number of calorimeter
analysis in this work, the sugarcane varieties treatments were ranked
from smallest to largest fiber content and only three contrasting vari-
eties where selected for the initial HHV determinations: V1, V4 and V8.
The selected varieties represent the range of fiber contents. It was only
considered fiber content because chemical composition and extractives
content for HHV have been shown to be poorly correlated [38]. Dif-
ferences in bagasse fiber content for the M2 and M3 stress-timing
treatments were not statistically different based on the Scott Knott test
using at 5%. Therefore, only biomass from the M1, M3 and M4 treat-
ments were analyzed for HHV using the combustion calorimeter.
Drip irrigation at different watering levels in this experiment, re-
sulted a intermittent water stress imposition strategy on treatments,
because even the lower watering levels (L50 and L75) were applied at
high frequency irrigation (1 or 2 days) throughout the growing season.
Shortages on drier plots were not continuous and severe as compared to
sugarcane under rainfed conditions.
Soil water matric potential at 10, 30 and 50 cm depths based on
tensiometers readings, were monitored at L100 M3 treatments plots
(n= 3 replications) for each variety individually; it was not observed
any level of sugarcane water stress during the experiment, because soil
moisture tension did not transpassed the - 45 kPa limit that usually
affects sugarcane productivity [39].
The average accumulated irrigation volume per area for L100 M3
and L100 M4 treatments throughout the growing season is presented in
Table 1 for each variety. Regarding the treatment with higher water
availability in the soil (L100 M3), it can be observed that the yield of
fresh stalks ranged from 189.77 to 288.02 Mg ha−1, while the demand
for water in the growth cycle ranged from 6993.6 to 10,549.6 m3H2O
ha−1; these values of productivity are of the same order of magnitude
as the values observed in a study of the potential production of su-
garcane for the same area in Brazil [40], corroborating the values
presented in Table 1.
For the lower water level treatment (L50 M4) that is very close to
rainfed conditions in the field, it was observed that fresh stalks yield
ranged from 100.95 to 155.98 Mg ha−1, while the demand for water in
the growth cycle ranged from 3819.7 to 5654.2 m3 H2O ha−1; the real
fresh stalks productivity (field data) presented in literature for rainfed
conditions in the same region [40] range from 91 to 100 Mg ha−1, the
difference observed on these yields are due to field management issues
(pests, diseases, weeds, fertility, soil compaction, etc.) that were mini-
mized in the present study compare to field data.
The higher heating value (HHV) for biomass components at the
contrasting treatments (M3 and M4) for all irrigation levels are sum-
marized for varieties 1, 4 and 8 in Table 2. The HHV values are above
the Brazilian cane quality average of 7.4 MJ / kg [41] because are on
R.D. Coelho et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 103 (2019) 399–407
402
dry mass base, approximately 50% moisture. About the bagasse and
leaves components, these values are closer to other references in lit-
erature 18.1 MJ kg−1 to bagasse and 17.4 MJ kg−1 to leaves [15];
however, pointers components data are 4.5% above than those ob-
served by these authors. In a sugarcane varieties study (n=113) it was
found HHV values of 18.4 MJ kg−1 for the bagasse component, similar
to the values observed in this study [42].
The box-plot graphs for the HHV of dry partitioned biomass for V1,
V4 and V8 varieties are shown in Fig. 1. The HHV values for sugarcane
biomass obtained in this experiment are comparable to the range
(17.32–19.27 MJ kg−1) from other researchers [9,11,18] and [43].
Results of the univariate variance analysis (ANOVA) for the higher
heating values from the 1215 samples for bagasse (HHVbagasse), sheaths
(HHVsheaths), leaves (HHVleaves) and pointers (HHVpointers) were not
significant (p≥ 0.05), except for sheath partition where a significant
difference was observed at variety treatment (Table 3).
The variety difference might be explained by the ability of ab-
sorbing fertilizer. Higher heating value of maize and oilseed rape were
found to very similar for fertilizer treatments [44]; however, HHV of
hemp was significantly increased when sewage sludge or conventional
fertilizer was applied. Mass fractions of K, N and ash for energy cane
biomass were usually decreased with later harvest, occasionally, in-
creases in these fractions were observed due to changes in biomass
composition (leaf drop and sugar degradation), thus reflecting
differences on early, middle and late cane varieties [45,46].
The average higher heating values (HHV) for the variety biomass
components were: a) 18.16 MJ kg−1 for bagasse, b) 17.84 MJ kg−1 for
pointers, c) 17.64
MJ kg−1 for leaves and d) 17.21 MJ kg−1 for sheaths.
These values are comparable to results reported by other researchers
such as (GARCÌA-PÈREZ; CHAALA; ROY, 2002) who found a value of
18.00 MJ kg−1 for sugarcane bagasse with 12% humidity and 7% ash,
and (ZANATTA et al., 2016) who reported production of approximately
16 MJ kg−1 with 15 MJ kg−1 of HHV for sugarcane bagasse.
It was hypothesized for this work that the HHV of bagasse, sheaths,
leaves and pointers would be significantly influenced also by irrigation
levels and stress timing; however, statistical analysis does not support
this conclusion, a possible explanation is the high irrigation frequency
under drip irrigation even for the lower watering levels (L50 and L75)
that do not imposed a continuous water stress as under sugarcane
rainfed conditions.
Others authors have shown that the HHV of the biomass from poplar
plants from the first and second rotation cycles were comparable when
the annual precipitation was similar [47]. In other circumstances [44],
HHV of hemp was significantly increased when sewage sludge or syn-
thetic fertilizer was applied. This was due to significant annual varia-
tions between years, especially annual rainfall differences.
Total dry biomass of bagasse and energy per area was significantly
influenced by varieties and irrigation levels treatments, corroborating
with other previous work [48]; the lesser hectares needed, the greater
the sustainability. The univariate variance analysis (ANOVA) for dry
biomass bagasse and dry bagasse energy for V1, V4 and V8 varieties of
sugarcane under four irrigation levels presented a significant interac-
tion (Table 4). In literature it is presented a value of 153 GJ ha−1 of
available energy for 1 G sugarcane ethanol under rainfed conditions
[49], this result is almost half of the dry bagasse energy from L50
treatment in this paper, which is almost equivalent on a wet bagasse
base. One must be very cautious when comparing biomass energy va-
lues because biomass moisture content are not always precisely de-
scribed on papers.
The ANOVA for average biomass and dry straw available energy
differed for the irrigation levels and varieties (5%). The average dry
straw biomass per ha for irrigation levels and varieties were sig-
nificantly different. Likewise, the average dry straw available energy
differed for the irrigation levels and varieties (Tables 5 and 6).
The estimated useful energy per hectare for the varieties based on
the average heating values of the biomass components (excepted sugar
energy) are shown in Fig. 2, where it was not considered the sugar
energy componet because it is a food issue.
The energy supply from sugarcane is mainly influenced by the
amount of biomass produced per unit of area rather than the quality of
the energy in the biomass.
To calculate sugarcane useful energy it was discounted 5 Mg of
straw per ha from the total energy, in order to keep some sugarcane
residue over the soil to maintain soil organic matter content along the
Table 1
Productivity and water consumption of sugarcane varieties for contrasting
treatments: water levels and maturation intensity (L100 M3 and L50 M4), for a
12 months sugarcane growing season.
Fresh Stalk Sugar Aerial Dry Biomass Water Demand
Variety Productivity Productivity Productivity Growth Cycle
(Mg ha−1) (Mg ha−1) (Mg ha−1) (m3H2O ha−1)
Treatment L100 M3
V1 266.74 A 28.10 A 95.09 A 10,549.6
V2 260.96 A 23.08 B 82.91 B 10,431.4
V3 205.12 C 20.70 C 70.51 C 8907.5
V4 288.02 A 27.67 A 92.48 A 10,399.5
V5 224.06 B 23.00 B 79.24 B 8768.4
V6 197.27 C 24.55 B 67.97 C 8038.6
V7 225.90 B 25.23 B 82.78 B 9170.2
V8 189.77 C 15.01 D 55.32 D 6993.6
Mean 232.23 23.42 78.29 9157.4
Treatment L50 M4
V1 132.69 A 14.74 A 49.79 A 5654.2
V2 137.37 A 13.82 A 48.51 A 5619.8
V3 120.39 A 12.49 A 42.63 B 4825.9
V4 155.98 A 16.35 A 54.41 A 5628.3
V5 121.40 A 12.01 A 41.42 B 4767.8
V6 100.95 A 12.44 A 35.86 B 4395.4
V7 122.37 A 13.23 A 46.40 A 4928.2
V8 116.24 A 9.75 A 34.65 B 3819.7
Mean 125.92 13.10 44.21 4954.9
Table 2
Average higher heating values (HHV) for biomass components according to water level and contrasting maturation intensity treatments (MJ kg−1).
Maturation Water Bagasse Sheaths Leaves Pointers
Intensity Levels V1 V4 V8 V1 V4 V8 V1 V4 V8 V1 V4 V8
M3 L50 18.23 aA 18.16 aA 18.03 aA 17.16 aB 17.40 aA 17.04 aB 17.81 aA 17.78 aA 17.81 aA 17.88 aA 17.75 aA 17.73 aA
L75 18.52 aA 18.03 aA 18.34 aA 17.41 aA 17.25 aB 17.33 aA 17.91 aA 17.87 aA 17.79 aA 18.21 aA 17.98 aA 17.94 aA
L75 * 18.14 aA 18.24 aA 18.23 aA 17.18 aA 17.13 aB 17.26 aA 17.44 aA 17.79 aA 17.7 aA 17.52 aA 17.67 aA 17.85 aA
L100 18.17 aA 18.26 aA 17.93 aA 17.27 aB 17.41 aA 16.99 aB 17.65 aA 17.68 aA 17.62 aA 17.83 aA 18.21 aA 17.6 aA
M4 L50 18.14 aA 18.08 aA 17.82 aA 16.72 aB 17.36 aA 17.05 aB 17.44 aA 17.74 aA 17.65 aA 17.58 aA 17.96 aA 17.74 aA
L75 18.45 aA 18.33 aA 18.21 aA 17.08 aB 17.48 aA 17.26 aB 17.54 aA 17.72 aA 17.48 aA 17.76 aA 18.12 aA 17.75 aA
L75 * 18.28 aA 18.14 aA 17.83 aA 17.28 aB 17.68 aA 17.22 aB 17.75 aA 17.63 aA 17.61 aA 17.96 aA 17.81 aA 17.73 aA
L100 18.06 aA 18.43 aA 18.20 aA 17.19 aB 17.40 aA 16.68 aB 17.44 aA 17.55 aA 17.33 aA 17.87 aA 18.04 aA 17.85 aA
Irrigation levels identified with lowercase letters for the same variety differ at the 5% probability level by the Tukey test. Varieties identified with capital letters are
distinct within the same irrigation levels for each biomass component.
R.D. Coelho et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 103 (2019) 399–407
403
years. The average useful energy for varieties V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6,
V7 and V8 was 790.2; 766.7; 629.6; 792.2; 623.5; 542.5; 677.0; 462.3
GJ ha−1, respectively (Fig. 2). There is considerable variation in the
useful energy between varieties: variety V4 produced approximately
65% more energy than variety V8; the useful energy contained in the
bagasse is always greater than useful energy contained in the sugarcane
useful straw partition.
The average total potential energy (aerial plus underground bio-
mass) for all sugarcane varieties and irrigation treatments was 1241.87
GJ ha−1 for 71.41 t ha−1 of total dry biomass for a 12 months growing
cycle. The average percentage distribution of potential energy of all
treatments for the biomass components are: 30% bagasse, 21% sugar,
19% roots, 14% leaves, 8% sheaths, 7% pointers and 1% dead tillers
[36].
The bagasse contains the largest fraction of the potential energy.
Roots and sugar together represent 40% of the energy content but that
energy is not used in bioenergy production. Seventy percent of the
potential energy is contained in the roots, sugar and bagasse.
In Table 7 it is possible to verify the water productivity for total
biomass, for total energy, for useful biomass, for useful energy and for
fresh stalks in this experiment, according to each sugarcane variety.
Recently a detailed study was presented about the water footprint for
sugarcane production in the main producing countries of the world
[50]. The most efficient country in terms of water productivity in su-
garcane production is Peru (120m3H20/ton Fresh Stalks), while the least
efficient is Cuba (410m3H20/ton Fresh Stalks), with an average value of
209m3H20/Mg Fresh Stalks for all countries. Brazil ranks fourth in terms
of water productivity under rainfed conditions: 140m3H20/Mg Fresh
Stalks.
The average value of water productivity measured in this drip irri-
gated experiment in Brazil (n= 8 varieties) was 74.16m3H20/Mg Fresh
Stalks, highlighting the potential that drip irrigation presents to become
Fig. 1. Boxplot for the higher heating values (HHV) of sugarcane dry biomass partitions.
Table 3
Higher heating values (HHV) for sheath partition of su-
garcane varieties V1, V4 and V8.
Variety HHV sheaths (MJ kg−1)
V1 17.14 b
V4 17.36 a
V8 17.12 b
HHV sheaths, superior heating value of the sugarcane
sheaths. Averages followed by the same letter do not differ
significantly at the 5% probability level by the Tukey test
(p < 0.05).
Table 4
Dry
bagasse biomass and dry bagasse energy per hectare, for a 12 months su-
garcane growing season. Interaction between irrigation level (L) x variety (V).
Irrigation Level Sugarcane Varieties
V1 V4 V8
Dry bagasse biomass Mg ha−1
L50 17.10 cA 17.10 cA 11.94 bB
L75 24.84 bA 25.81 bA 14.52 bB
L75 * 24.84 bA 25.81 bA 15.48 bB
L100 32.58 aA 32.90 aA 20.32 aB
Dry bagasse energy GJ ha−1
L50 313.55 cA 308.06 cA 216.13 cB
L75 455.81 bA 470.97 bA 266.13 bB
L75 * 454.52 bA 468.06 bA 282.58 bB
L100 590.97 aA 601.94 aA 364.52 aB
Irrigation levels identified with lowercase letters for the same variety differ at
the 5% probability level by the Tukey test. Varieties identified with capital
letters are distinct within the same irrigation levels.
Table 5
Biomass and available energy of sugarcane straw (dry) by hectare for all irri-
gation levels (Sugarcane growing season of 12 months).
Irrigation Level (L) Biomass straw Energy straw
(Mg ha−1) (GJ ha−1)
L50 17.10c 301.29c
L75 20.65 b 362.58 b
L75 * 21.61 b 378.71 b
L100 26.77 a 473.87 a
Average values followed by the same letter in column do not differ significantly
at the 5% probability level by the Tukey test.
Table 6
Biomass and available energy of dry sugarcane straw per hectare, for varieties
V1, V4 and V8 (Sugarcane growing season of 12 months).
Variety (V) Biomass straw Energy straw
(Mg ha−1) (GJ ha−1)
V1 24.84 a 435.81 a
V4 24.19 a 424.19 a
V8 15.81 b 277.42 b
Average values followed by the same letter in column do not differ significantly
at the 5% probability level by the Tukey test.
R.D. Coelho et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 103 (2019) 399–407
404
a disruptive technology in the global sugarcane industry. Considering
total sugarcane production in the world, the following main producers
are: Brazil 42%, India 16%, China 7%; Thailand 4% and Mexico 3%; in
the same sequence the following average values of water productivity
in each country are: Brazil 140, India 280, China 205, Thailand 265 and
Mexico 180m3H20/Mg Fresh Stalks [50]. India, China and México the
most important competitors against Brazil in the sugarcane industry,
have much lower sugarcane water productivity compared to the results
of this study. In terms of bioenergy production sustainability, drip ir-
rigated sugarcane in Brazil will have a bright future, as water scarcity is
increasing in Asia and Central America.
Treatments in this experiment with lower water levels did not differ
significantly in terms of water productivity, except for the variety
treatment. V4 and V8 varieties presented the lowest water consump-
tion: 69.10 and 69.71m3H20/Mg Fresh Stalks respectively; meanwhile
variety V7 presented the highest water consumption 80.68m3H20/Mg
Fresh Stalks, being considered the less efficient variety in terms of water
productivity (Table 7).
Table 8 shows that water productivity for different water levels in
this experiment were similar for total biomass, total energy and fresh
stalks; for useful energy and useful biomass, water productivity de-
creased with lower water level under drip irrigation, which corrobo-
rates with the results of other sugarcane study [51]. On the other hand,
water productivity in maize grains [52] and in cotton fiber increased
with increasing drought stress but the quantity per area of the material
produced is reduced [53].
4. Practical implications of this study
The results obtained in this study precisely estimate the water re-
quirements for sugarcane bioenergy production in an intensive drip
irrigated production system, under full and deficit irrigation conditions,
taking into account the response of contrasting sugarcane varieties in
terms of “useful energy water productivity”.
Deficit irrigation under high-frequency drip irrigated sugarcane
crop, does not significantly alters the higher heating values (HHV) of
the biomass components produced, even under a 50% water level, be-
cause photosynthesis only occurs under optimal conditions of light,
water uptake and CO2 assimilation.
On the other hand, drip irrigation technology (L100) allows higher
biomass productivity per area, far above rainfed sugarcane fields (L50).
Since soil water stress accounts for approximately 70% of the sugarcane
yield gap in Brazil [21], drip irrigation has the potential to be a dis-
ruptive technology in terms of bioenergy productivity per unit of area
and per unit of water transpired.
The methodology presented in this work, can be set as a reference to
compare at sugarcane variety levels, the major players in ethanol and
bioenergy markets in the world, regarding the water use efficiency in
the agriculture production. This information can be used as a bench-
marking among sugarcane breeding companies around the world, with
focus on the water-bioenergy nexus related to the sugarcane industry.
5. Conclusions
This paper focus on the quantification of the higher heating values
(HHV) and the useful energy derived from dry partitioned biomass for
drip irrigated sugarcane varieties, subjected to full and deficit irrigation
levels (50%, 75%, and 100%) for different drying-off periods and in-
tensities before harvesting time, aiming to determine the sugarcane
Fig. 2. Average useful energy values for straw component
(total straw dry mass minus 5 t ha−1 of straw left in the
field) and for bagasse component for sugarcane varieties
V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6, V7 and V8 for all water stress
levels and maturation treatments, during 12 months su-
garcane growing season. Total straw = sheaths + leaves
+ dead tillers + pointers. Sugar energy componet was not
considered as useful energy due to food issues priorities.
Table 7
Average Water Productivity (WP) for total biomass, total energy, useful bio-
mass, useful energy and of each sugarcane variety for all water stress levels and
ripening processes treatments.
Variety WP WP WP WP Useful
Energy
WP**
Total
Biomass
Total Energy Useful
Biomass
Fresh Stalks
(kg m−3) (MJ m−3) (kg m−3) (MJ m−3) (m3 Mg−1)
V1 11.10 A* 193.05 A 5.74 A 102.89 A 75.42 B
V2 10.73 A 186.39 A 5.57 B 99.67 B 76.18 B
V3 10.85 A 188.31 A 5.43 B 97.12 B 73.99 B
V4 10.77 A 188.26 A 5.74 A 102.96 A 69.10 A
V5 10.36 B 180.05 B 5.43 B 97.23 B 76.45 B
V6 10.75 A 186.39 A 5.08 C 90.97 C 71.76 B
V7 10.93 A 189.94 A 5.67 A 101.46 A 80.68 C
V8 9.93 C 171.93 C 5.13 C 91.66 C 69.71 A
Mean 10.68 185.54 5.47 97.99 74.16
* Varieties applied with distinct letters in column differ significantly at 5%
level by Scott Knott test.
** Sugarcane growing season of 12 months.
Table 8
Average water productivity per irrigation level treatment.
Irrigation WP WP WP WP Useful WP
Level Total
Biomass
Total Energy Useful
Biomass
Energy Fresh Stalks
Treatment (kg m−3) (MJ m−3) (kg m−3) (MJ m−3) (m3 Mg−1)
L50 10.62 Aa 184.05 A 5.24 B 93.60 B 74.09 A
L75 10.99 A 191.29 A 5.66 A 101.34 A 73.11 A
L75a 10.49 A 182.18 A 5.38 B 96.29 B 75.78 A
L100 10.61 A 184.64 A 5.63 A 100.75 A 73.67 A
Mean 10.68 185.54 5.47 97.99 74.16
a Varieties applied with distinct letters and different levels of 5% of the test
by the Scott Knott test.
R.D. Coelho et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 103 (2019) 399–407
405
water use efficiency (water productivity), a main parameter for the
sustentabilty of this bioenergy crop around the world.
The results showed up here are based on a very controlled experi-
ment with 384 plots: eight sugarcane varieties, four water levels, four
maturation processes under three replication blocks (split-split-plot);
the main findings were as follows:
a) There was no difference in the higher heating values (HHV) of su-
garcane biomass major components (bagasse, leaves and pointers)
for the selected varieties, water levels and maturation processes. For
the sheath sugarcane biomass component the higher heating value
(HHV) was significantly affected only by variety treatment;
b) The higher heating average values for sugarcane biomass partitions
were: 18.16 MJ kg−1 for bagasse, 17.21 MJ kg−1 for sheaths, 17.64
MJ kg−1 for leaves and 17.84 MJ kg−1 for
pointers;
c) Watering levels (L50, L75, L75 * and L100) directly influenced the
total biomass production per unit of area (ha) under drip irrigation.
Water levels of L75 (continuous level) and L75* (variable level) pre-
sented similar values of total useful energy and higher heating va-
lues;
d) The average useful energy available in the biomass (12 months
growing cycle) per unit of area, for all sugarcane varieties was
660.29 GJ ha−1; the highest value was 792.2 GJ ha−1 for V4 variety
(RB 92579 - Brazil) and the lowest value was 462.3 GJ ha−1 for V8
variety (NCo376 - South Africa: International reference);
e) At sugarcane variety level, “higher useful energy per area” is not al-
ways correlated with “higher useful energy per unit of water transpired”
(water productivity).
f) The effect of “water stress” on the sugarcane “renewable energy pro-
duced” is totally dependent of the biomass quantity produced per
unit of area. Sugarcane biomass quality “higher heating value (HHV)”
is insensitive to water levels during growing season, excepted for
biomass “sheat” component.
Acknowledgments
This experiment was supported by the Brazilian Research Agency
“Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo” - FAPESP
2012/50083-7 - "Biomass Water Productivity and Energy for Sugarcane
Varieties at Different Irrigation Levels: Experimentation and
Simulation", approved at the “Research Program in Partnership for
Technological Innovation (PITE)” in collaboration with the
Universidade de Sao Paulo and ETH Bioenergy Company. This work is
linked to Jonathan Vásquez Lizcano MSc. Thesis under the supervision
of Prof. Rubens Duarte Coelho. Special thanks to: a) Robert B.
Daugherty Water for Food Institute - University of Nebraska (Dr. Ronnie
D. Green) for the initial support in this collaborative research,
b) Vinicius Perin, Liz Rabelo de Oliveira, Marcos Antonio Correa Matos
do Amaral and Renato da Silva Barbosa for helping us at the sugarcane
harvesting period and c) Prof. Gerrit Hoogenboom and Dr. Geoff Inman-
Bamber for visiting the experimental area.
Conflict of interests
We declare no conflicts of interest in this paper;
Funding
We declare receiving funding sources from FAPESP (Fundação de
Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo), Universidade de Sao Paulo
and ETH Bioenergy Company (Atvos Company);
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.025.
References
[1] Evans A, Strezov V, Evans T. Sustainability considerations for electricity generation
from biomass. Renew Sustain Energy 2010.
[2] Empresa de Pesquisa Energética EPE. Balanço nacional energético 2014: ano base
2013. Rio Janeiro EPE; 2014.
[3] Lopes Silva DA, Delai I, Delgado Montes ML, Roberto Ometto A. Life cycle assess-
ment of the sugarcane bagasse electricity generation in Brazil. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2014;32:532–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.056.
[4] Botha T, Blottnitz H Von. A comparison of the environmental benefits of bagasse-
derived electricity and fuel ethanol on a life-cycle basis. Energy Policy 2006.
[2654–2651].
[5] Standard A. D5468-02. Stand Test Method Gross Calorific Ash Value … n.d; 2007.
[6] Ebeling JM, Jenkins BM. Physical and Chemical Properties of Biomass Fuels. Trans
ASAE 1985;28:898–902.
[7] Hugot E. Hand Book for Cane Sugar Engineering 3rd Completely Revised Ed; 1986.
[8] Nhuchhen DR, Abdul Salam P. Estimation of higher heating value of biomass from
proximate analysis: a new approach. Fuel 2012;99:55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.fuel.2012.04.015.
[9] Innocente A. Cogeração a partir da biomassa residual de cana-de-açúcar estudo de
caso. UNESP; 2011.
[10] Mbohwa C, Fukuda S. Electricity from bagasse in Zimbabwe. Biomass- Bioenergy
2003;25:197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00011-4.
[11] Protásio T, de P, Bufalino L, Tonoli GHD, Couto AM, Trugilho PF, Guimarães Júnior
M. Relação entre o poder calorífico superior e os componentes elementares e mi-
nerais da biomassa vegetal. Pesqui Florest Bras 2011;31:113–22. https://doi.org/
10.4336/2011.pfb.31.66.113.
[12] Channiwala S, Parikh P. A unified correlation for estimating HHV of solid, liquid
and gaseous fuels. Fuel 2002.
[13] Rípoli TCC, Molina Jr WF, Rípoli MLC. Energy potential of sugar cane biomass in
Brazil. Sci Agric 2000;57:677–81. [doi:10.1590/S0103-90162000000400013].
[14] Grover P. Thermochemical characterization of biomass residues for gasi/cation.
Biomass Research Laboratory. Dep Indian Inst Technol Delhi, India; 1989.
[15] Hassuani S, Leal M, Macedo I. Biomass power generation. Sugar Cane Bagasse;
2005.
[16] Munir S, Daood S, Nimmo W, Cunliffe A. Thermal analysis and devolatilization
kinetics of cotton stalk, sugar cane bagasse and shea meal under nitrogen and air
atmospheres. Bioresource 2009.
[17] Suarez J, Luengo C, Felfli F, Bezzon G. Thermochemical properties of Cuban bio-
mass. Sources; 2000.
[18] Lee Y, Park J, Ryu C, Gang KS, Yang W, Park Y-K, et al. Comparison of biochar
properties from biomass residues produced by slow pyrolysis at 500°C. Bioresour
Technol 2013;148:196–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.08.135.
[19] Jorapur R, Rajvanshi A. Sugarcane leaf-bagasse gasifiers for industrial heating ap-
plications. Biomass- Bioenergy 1997.
[20] Ferreira THS, Tsunada MS, Bassi D, Araújo P, Mattiello L, Guidelli GV, et al.
Sugarcane water stress tolerance mechanisms and its implications on developing
biotechnology solutions. Front Plant Sci 2017;8:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpls.2017.01077.
[21] Monteiro LA, Sentelhas PC. Sugarcane yield gap: can it be determined at national
level with a simple agrometeorological model? Crop Pasture Sci 2017. https://doi.
org/10.1071/CP16334.
[22] Moura JCMS, Bonine CAV, de Oliveira Fernandes Viana J, Dornelas MC, Mazzafera
P. Abiotic and biotic stresses and changes in the lignin content and composition in
plants. J Integr Plant Biol 2010;52:360–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.
2010.00892.x.
[23] van der Weijde T, Huxley LM, Hawkins S, Sembiring EH, Farrar K, Dolstra O, et al.
Impact of drought stress on growth and quality of miscanthus for biofuel produc-
tion. GCB Bioenergy 2017;9:770–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12382.
[24] Cai J, He Y, Yu X, Banks SW, Yang Y, Zhang X, et al. Review of physicochemical
properties and analytical characterization of lignocellulosic biomass. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2017;76:309–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.072.
[25] Novaes E, Kirst M, Chiang V, Winter-Sederoff H, Sederoff R. Lignin and biomass: a
negative correlation for wood formation and lignin content in trees. Plant Physiol
2010;154:555–61. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.110.161281.
[26] Lingle SE, Thomson JL. Sugarcane Interno Compos Crop Dev 2012:168–78. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12155-011-9153-3.
[27] Ogata BH. Caracterização das frações celulose, hemicelulose e lignina de diferentes
genótipos de cana-de-açúcar e potencial de uso em biorrefinarias. MSc Dissertation.
University of Sao Paulo, 2013.
[28] Brombini A, Bottcher A, Kiyota E, Lischka J, Mayer S, Vicentini R, et al. Water stress
alters lignin content and related gene expression in two sugarcane genotypes. J
Agric Food Chem 2015;63:4708–20. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf5061858.
[29] Shannak S, Mabrey D, Vittorio M. Moving From theory to practice in the water-
energy-food nexus: an evaluation of existing models and frameworks. Water-Energy
Nexus 2018:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wen.2018.04.001.
[30] Wallington K, Cai X. The food–energy–water nexus: a framework to Address sus-
tainable development in the tropics. Trop Conserv Sci 2017;10. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1940082917720665.
[31] Hess TM, Sumberg J, Biggs T, Georgescu M, Haro-Monteagudo D, Jewitt G, et al. A
sweet deal? Sugarcane, water and agricultural transformation in sub-Saharan
Africa. Glob Environ Chang 2016;39:181–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.
2016.05.003.
[32] Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH. Land-water-energy
nexus of sugarcane production in
Thailand. J Clean Prod 2018;182:521–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.
R.D. Coelho et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 103 (2019) 399–407
406
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref1
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.056
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref3
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref3
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref3
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref4
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref4
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.04.015
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.04.015
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00011-4
https://doi.org/10.4336/2011.pfb.31.66.113
https://doi.org/10.4336/2011.pfb.31.66.113
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref8
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref8
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref9
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref9
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref10
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref10
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref10
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.08.135
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref12
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref12
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01077
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01077
https://doi.org/10.1071/CP16334
https://doi.org/10.1071/CP16334
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2010.00892.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2010.00892.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12382
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.072
https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.110.161281
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-011-9153-3
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-011-9153-3
https://doi.org/10.1021/jf5061858
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wen.2018.04.001
https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082917720665
https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082917720665
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.085
02.085.
[33] Nogueira Vilanova MR, Perrella Balestieri JA. Exploring the water-energy nexus in
Brazil: the electricity use forwater supply. Energy 2015;85:415–32. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.083.
[34] Semertzidis T, Spataru C, Bleischwitz R. Cross-sectional Integration of the Water-
energy Nexus in Brazil. J Sustain Dev Energy, Water Environ Syst 2017;6:114–28.
https://doi.org/10.13044/j.sdewes.d5.0169.
[35] Bellezoni RA, Sharma D, Villela AA, Pereira Junior AO. Water-energy-food nexus of
sugarcane ethanol production in the state of Goiás, Brazil: an analysis with regional
input-output matrix. Biomass- Bioenergy 2018;115:108–19. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.biombioe.2018.04.017.
[36] Lizcano JV. Poder calorífico, energia e cinzas da biomassa de cana-de-açúcar irri-
gada por gotejamento, para diferentes variedades, lâminas e processos de
maturação. PhD Thesis Universidade de São Paulo, 2015.
[37] van Genuchten MT. A closed-form equation for Predicting the hydraulic con-
ductivity of unsaturated Soils1. Soil Sci Soc Am J 1980;44:892. https://doi.org/10.
2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x.
[38] Carmona R, Nuñez T, Alonso MF. Biomass yield and quality of an energy dedicated
crop of poplar (Populus spp.) clones in the Mediterranean zone of Chile. Biomass-
Bioenergy 2015;74:96–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.01.004.
[39] Alamilla-Magaña JC, Carrillo-Ávila E, Obrador-Olán JJ, Landeros-Sánchez C, Vera-
Lopez J, Juárez-López JF. Soil moisture tension effect on sugar cane growth and
yield. Agric Water Manag 2016;177:264–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.
2016.08.004.
[40] Monteiro LA, Sentelhas PC. Potential and actual sugarcane yields in southern Brazil
as a function of climate conditions and crop management. Sugar Tech
2014;16:264–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-013-0275-0.
[41] Leal MRLV, Galdos MV, Scarpare FV, Seabra JEA, Walter A, Oliveira COF.
Sugarcane straw availability, quality, recovery and energy use: a literature review.
Biomass- Bioenergy 2013;53:11–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.03.
007.
[42] Benjamin Y, Cheng H, Görgens JF. Evaluation of bagasse from different varieties of
sugarcane by dilute acid pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis. Ind Crops Prod
2013;51:7–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.08.067.
[43] Sannigrahi P, Ragauskas AJ, Tuskan GA. Poplar as a feedstock for biofuels: a review
of compositional characteristics. Biofuels, Bioprod Bioref 2010;4:209–26. https://
doi.org/10.1002/bbb.206.
[44] Seleiman MF, Santanen A, Jaakkola S, Stoddard FL, Ma PSA. Biomass- yield Qual
bioenergy Crops grown Synth Org Fertil 2013;9:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2013.07.021.
[45] Knoll JE, Johnson JM, Huang P, Lee RD, Anderson WF. Effects of delayed winter
harvest on biomass yield and quality of napiergrass and energycane. Biomass-
Bioenergy 2015;80:330–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.06.018.
[46] Knoll JE, Anderson WF, Richard EP, Doran-peterson J, Baldwin B, Hale AL, et al.
Harvest date effects on biomass quality and ethanol yield of new energycane
(Saccharum hyb.) genotypes in the Southeast USA. Biomass- Bioenergy
2013;56:147–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.04.018.
[47] Fernández MJ, Barro R, Pérez J, Losada J, Ciria P. Influence of the agricultural
management practices on the yield and quality of poplar biomass (a 9-year study).
Biomass- Bioenergy 2016;93:87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.06.
027.
[48] Rossler RL, Singels A, Olivier FC, Steyn JM. Growth and yield of a sugarcane plant
crop under water stress imposed through deficit drip irrigation. Proc South Afr
Sugar Technol Assoc 2013;86:170–83.
[49] García CA, Manzini F, Islas JM. Sustainability assessment of ethanol production
from two crops in Mexico. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;72:1199–207. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.035.
[50] Gerbens-Leenes W, Hoekstra AY. The water footprint of sweeteners and bio-ethanol.
Environ Int 2012;40:202–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.06.006.
[51] da Silva V de PR, da Silva BB, Albuquerque WG, Borges CJR, de Sousa IF, Neto JD.
Crop coefficient, water requirements, yield and water use efficiency of sugarcane
growth in Brazil. Agric Water Manag 2013;128:102–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
AGWAT.2013.06.007.
[52] Li X, Kang S, Zhang X, Li F, Lu H. Deficit irrigation provokes more pronounced
responses of maize photosynthesis and water productivity to elevated CO2. Agric
Water Manag 2018;195:71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGWAT.2017.09.017.
[53] Shareef M, Gui D, Zeng F, Waqas M, Zhang B, Iqbal H. Water productivity, growth,
and physiological assessment of deficit irrigated cotton on hyperarid desert-oases in
northwest China. Agric Water Manag 2018;206:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
AGWAT.2018.04.042.
R.D. Coelho et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 103 (2019) 399–407
407
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.085
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.083
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.083
https://doi.org/10.13044/j.sdewes.d5.0169
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.04.017
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.04.017
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.01.004
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.08.004
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.08.004
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-013-0275-0
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.03.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.03.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.08.067
https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.206
https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.206
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.07.021
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.07.021
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.06.018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.04.018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.06.027
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.06.027
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref39
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref39
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1364-0321(18)30820-7/sbref39
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.035
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.035
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.06.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGWAT.2013.06.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGWAT.2013.06.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGWAT.2017.09.017
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGWAT.2018.04.042
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGWAT.2018.04.042
	Effect of water stress on renewable energy from sugarcane biomass
	Introduction
	Material and methods
	Stress timing
	Irrigation
	Biomass partitions
	Combustion calorimeter
	Statistic analyzes
	Results and discussion
	Practical implications of this study
	Conclusions
	Acknowledgments
	Conflict of interests
	Funding
	Supplementary material
	References