KASIGLAHAN VILLAGE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

Phase 1k2 Kasiglahan Village San Jose Rodriguez, Rizal

“Home of authentic and lifelong learning”

CORNNURE: INVESTIGATING THE EFFICACY

OF COW DUNG WITH CORN (Zea mays)
AS ALTERNATIVE CHARCOAL

A Research
Presented to the Faculty of
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics of KASIGLAHAN VILLAGE SENIOR
HIGH SCHOOL
Phase 1K2 Kasiglahan Village San Jose Rodriguez Rizal

In partial fulfillment of the requirements in

INQUIRIES, INVESTIGATION, AND IMMERSION

Babon Jr., Jonas V.

Gibaga, Cris Reuel L.
Santos, Karren C.
GRADE 12 - STEM A

MIKHAELA N. GATLABAYAN, LPT

Research Adviser

February 24, 2025

 Table of contents
Chapter 1………………………………………………………………………………..1
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………..1
Background of the Study………………………………………………………….1
Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………2
Scope and Delimitation……………………………………………………………3
Significance of the Study………………………………………………………….4
Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………………4
Research Hypothesis……………………………………………………………...5
Defenition of terms…………………………………………………………………6
Chapter 2……………………………………………………………………………….7
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES…………………………….7
Foreign Literature…………………………………………………………………..7
Foreign Study………………………………………………………………………7
Local Literature…………………………………………………………………...10
Local Study………………………………………………………………………..10
Chapter 3………………………………………………………………………………13
METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………………...13
Materials/Ratio and Equipment…………………………………………………13
General Procedure……………………………………………………………….14
Research Design…………………………………………………………………14
Flow Chart…………………………………………………………………………15
Data Collection Procedure………………………………………………………18
Plan for Data Analysis……………………………………………………………19
Chapter 4………………………………………………………………………………21
PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA……………………………21
Table 1. Cooking Function: Boiling Water………………………………………21
Table 1.2 Cooking Function: Grilling…………………………………………….22
Table 2. Longevity…………………………………………………………………24
 Table 3. Drop Test…………………………………………………………………26
Table 3.2 Weight Test…………………………………………………………….27
Table 4. Physical Properties……………………………………………………...29
Table 5. Heat Output………………………………………………………………31
Table 6. Ignition Time……………………………………………………………..32
Conclusion of all the data………………………………………………………...33
Chapter 5………………………………………………………………………………34
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS………………………34
Findings.……………………………………………………………………………34
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………..34
Recommendations………………………………………………………………..35

REFERENCE…………………………………………………………………………………..36
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

This chapter of the paper presents the problem and its setting. It includes the
background of the stud, the statement of the problem, significance of the study,
and scope and delimitation of the study.

Background of the study

In the modern world, convenience often takes precedence over sustainability.

Consumers tend to choose options that are cost-effective and readily available, even at
the expense of the environment. This is evident in the continuous reliance on traditional
charcoal, which, despite its environmental drawbacks, remains a preferred choice for
cooking and heating. Charcoal production is a significant contributor to deforestation
and carbon emissions, exacerbating climate change and air pollution. In response to
these concerns, this study explores the potential of Cornnure, an alternative charcoal
made from cow dung and corn (Zea mays) residues, as a sustainable and eco-friendly
energy source.

The Philippines has long depended on coal as a primary energy source due to its
accessibility and affordability. In 2023, coal-fired power plants accounted for
approximately 61% of the country’s electricity generation. However, coal is one of the
most carbon-intensive energy sources, emitting around 820 gCO2eq/kWh. Aside from
its environmental impact, coal combustion releases pollutants such as sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, and heavy metals, which contribute to air pollution and pose serious
health risks. Given these challenges, the development of alternative energy sources is
crucial in reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

Several legal frameworks and previous studies support the need for alternative
fuel sources. The Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 (RA 8749) regulates air pollutants,
including emissions from burning fossil fuels and charcoal. Meanwhile, the Renewable

1
Energy Act of 2008 (RA 9513) promotes the development and utilization of renewable
energy sources to lessen environmental degradation. Studies on biomass fuels indicate
that agricultural and animal waste can serve as viable substitutes for conventional
charcoal, reducing deforestation while providing an affordable and sustainable energy
option. These legal and scientific foundations highlight the necessity of further exploring
alternative biofuels such as Cornnure.

The increasing environmental impact of traditional charcoal production and fossil

fuel dependency underscores the urgency of this research. Developing an alternative
charcoal made from agricultural and livestock waste aligns with global efforts toward
sustainability and climate change mitigation. This study is conducted to assess the
efficiency of Cornnure as a renewable energy source, with the potential to provide an
environmentally friendly solution to the growing demand for sustainable fuel
alternatives.

The results of this study are expected to contribute to the advancement of

renewable energy research. The findings will benefit policymakers, environmental
organizations, and industries seeking sustainable fuel solutions. By introducing
Cornnure as an alternative to conventional charcoal, this research aims to support the
reduction of carbon emissions and deforestation while promoting energy security.
Ultimately, the study seeks to provide a viable and practical approach to addressing the
environmental challenges associated with traditional charcoal production.

Statement of the problem

This study aims to address the need for alternative charcoal sources to help
reduce or prevent deforestation. It also seeks to examine the effectiveness of cow dung
as a substitute for traditional charcoal by evaluating its efficiency, quality, properties,
and environmental impact. By analyzing these aspects, the study aims to determine
whether cow dung can be a viable, sustainable, and eco-friendly option for charcoal
production.
2
 By slowly examining these factors, we can assess the viability of Cow’s Dung and
Corn Husk as a sustainable and eco-friendly option for charcoal production.

1. What is the difference of CORNNURE and Standardized Charcoal in

Combustion performance in terms of:

1.1 Heat Output

1.2 Cooking Function
1.2.1 Boiling Water
1.2.2 Grilling
1.3 Ignition Time

2. How many times can the CORNNURE be dropped until a medium/big part of it
is detached compared to Standardized Charcoal in terms of:
2.1 Dropping the charcoals at 8 feet
2.2 Dropping the charcoals at 10 feet
2.3 Dropping the charcoals at 12 feet

3. How many kg of weights can the CORNNURE withstand until a crack is observed compared
to Standardized Charcoal in terms of:
3.1 1 kg of weight
3.2 2 kg of weight
3.3 3 kg of weight

4. What are the Characteristics of P1 (Cow Dung + Corn Husk) compared to

Standardized Charcoal in terms of:

4.1 Physical Properties

3.1.1 Heat Ouput

[Link] Height

3
 [Link] Width

3.1.2 Weight

3.1.3 Color

3.1.4 Longevity

Significance of the study

The study is significant to the following:

Environment. Promoting the utilization of cow dung and corn husk for energy generation
aids environmental conservation and reduces reliance on fossil fuels, thereby lowering carbon
emissions.
Agricultural Sector. Farmers can effectively utilize agricultural waste (corn husks, cow
dung), reducing waste and generating an alternative income source.

School Institution. Demonstrating commitment to sustainability, reducing energy costs,

and setting a positive example for other institutions seeking renewable energy solutions.

Future Researchers. Providing a foundation for further exploration and innovation in

sustainable energy solutions using biomass-based alternatives.

Conceptual framework
Figure 1.
The Conceptual Framework of the Study

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

1. Cow dung 1. Mixing 1. Cornure

2. Corn Husk 2. Molding
3. Water 3. Drying

4
The figure depicts the standard Input, Process, Output (IPO) Model to visually elaborate the
processes necessary for the study. These procedures and stages are essential to produce the
desired product, which is an alternative charcoal.

The input section above illustrates the initial elements, cow dung, corn husk, and its binder. Cow
dung and corn husk are the primary components, the binder— will act as the component to secure
the primary components together.

The Process section above showcases the procedures, for collecting, mixing, and drying the
components. Product evaluation will examine the products' overall performance energy efficiency,
cost effectiveness, and environmental impact. Quality assessment is focused on ensuring, gas
yield combustion, odor control, and durability of the charcoal.

Lastly, the output section will be the end goal of the conceptual framework. The overall component
and procedures will result in the desired outcome of the study, an effective alternative charcoal
consisting of organic elements.

Research Hypothesis

Hypothesis
H₁: The combination of cow dung and corn (Zea mays) is a more efficient
alternative to traditional charcoal in terms of combustion properties (e.g., heat output,
burn time, and emissions).

H₀: There is no significant difference in the efficiency of cow dung with corn (Zea
mays) as alternative charcoal compared to traditional charcoal.

Definition of terms

Cattle. bovine and labor. In this study, cattle refer to cows, which produce the dung

5
used in Cornnure production.

Cow Dung. The feces of cattle, which is rich in organic matter and often used as
fertilizer or fuel. In this study, cow dung is a primary material in creating Cornnure.

Corn Husk. The outer protective layer of a corn cob. Typically discarded as waste, it is
used in this study as a component in producing alternative charcoal.

Charcoal Briquette. A compressed block of charcoal is used as a fuel source for

cooking and heating. It is commonly made from wood waste and other biomass
materials.

Efficacy. The ability to produce a desired or intended result. In this study, efficacy
refers to the effectiveness of Cornnure as a sustainable fuel alternative.

Biomass. Organic material derived from plants and animals can be used as an energy
source. Biomass in this study refers to cow dung and corn husks as renewable fuel
components.

Cornnure. The alternative charcoal made from cow dung and corn husk, was
developed in this study to assess its efficiency and potential as a renewable energy
source.

6
 Chapter 2

Review of Related Literature and Studies

This section presents an overview of the literature and studies relevant to our research,
providing crucial background information and shaping the direction of our study. By
examining a variety of sources, both local and international, we have gained a deeper
understanding of the subject matter, enriching our perspective and guiding our
exploration into investigating the effeiency of cow dung and corn husk as alternative
charcoal

Foreign
Recent years have found growing interest in biochar derived from agricultural
residues due to its multiple functionalities. Selvarajoo et al. (2019) investigated the
potential of cow dung as a biomass fuel, demonstrating its ability to enhance
combustion properties when processed into briquettes. Their findings support the
premise of the present study, which aims to optimize cow dung and corn husk as a
charcoal briquette material.

Du et al. (2021) further examined the environmental performance of biochar

modified with alkaline additives, revealing that such modifications significantly reduce
emissions, including NOx and SO₂, during combustion. This aligns with the objective of
the current research, which seeks to formulate an eco-friendly charcoal briquette that
minimizes air pollutants while maximizing heat output.

In another study, Mushi et al. (2024) studied the nitro-oxidized carboxylated

cellulose nanofibrils obtained from agricultural waste for use in oil-based emulsions.
Though their study focused on lubrication, their findings demonstrate how biomass-
derived materials can improve the performance of other products. This insight is
valuable for the current research, as it supports the idea that natural additives from
agricultural waste can enhance the functionality of modified charcoal, potentially
leading to better heat retention and efficiency.

Additionally, Bahsaine et al. (2023) examined biochar produced from agricultural

residues for the removal of heavy metals from wastewater. Their study highlights

7
biochar’s excellent adsorption properties and its potential to mitigate the environmental
impact of combustion by-products. The present study extends this concept by
investigating how cow dung and corn husk biochar can not only serve as a sustainable
fuel source but also contribute to air quality improvement by reducing harmful emissions.

Nazir & Khalid (2022) describe the novel utilization of carbonaceous materials
for environmental remediation. Their results indicate that engineering these materials
improves their adsorption properties, aligning with the objective of this research to
enhance cow dung and corn husk-based biochar performance. This implies that
appropriate modifications to biochar can lead to significant advancements in its
applications, emphasizing the environmental benefits of optimizing cow dung and corn
husk biochar for combustion.

Thanh et al. (2022) introduce an innovative application of biochar from agricultural

wastes in microbial fuel cells, focusing on the multipurpose nature of biochar. Their
study opens avenues for replacing commercial carbon components in energy systems
with more sustainable alternatives. The present research builds upon this idea by
exploring the potential of cow dung and corn husk-based biochar not only as a cooking
fuel but also for enhancing energy efficiency and environmental performance.

A. Wardhani et al. (2024) explored further benefits of using agricultural waste, showing
how these materials contribute to improving health and environmental sustainability.
Their study underscores that agricultural residues, often considered waste, hold
valuable applications beyond composting. By recognizing the potential of cow dung and
corn husk in biochar production, this research reinforces their eco-friendly and
renewable characteristics.

On the other hand, Y. Mbue et al. (2023) investigated the innovative use of agricultural
waste for food products. While their study focuses on sustainability in the food industry,
their findings provide insight into how agricultural waste can be repurposed efficiently.
This aligns with the current study, which emphasizes converting waste materials into a
renewable energy source in the form of charcoal briquettes.

8
In another study, A. Alzaabi et al. (2023) examined the carbon footprint of inhalers
used in respiratory treatments, revealing their significant contributions to greenhouse
gas emissions. Their findings highlight the urgent need for greener alternatives. This
connects to the present study, as the development of sustainable charcoal briquettes
from cow dung and corn husk could provide an eco-friendly fuel alternative, reducing
the harmful emissions associated with traditional charcoal.

Under the topic of energy sustainability, R. Umma and B. Achintya (2020) discussed
modifying granular activated carbon for effective defluoridation. The techniques they
described for enhancing adsorption properties align with the present study’s objective of
modifying cow dung and corn husk-based biochar to improve combustion efficiency.
Their research supports the hypothesis that specific biochar modifications can
significantly enhance performance.

Nazir & Khalid (2022) further contributed to the understanding of carbonaceous

materials as multifunctional tools for environmental remediation, particularly in water
decontamination. This perspective is relevant to the current study, as biochar made
from cow dung and corn husk may offer additional ecological benefits beyond its direct
use as fuel. Their findings suggest that modifying biochar for improved combustion
efficiency could also contribute to cleaner air by reducing emissions.

Wafaa et al. (2022) explored various ways in which agricultural waste could be
repurposed. Their study highlights the potential for converting organic residues into
valuable resources rather than allowing them to go to waste. This supports the present
research’s aim of utilizing cow dung and corn husk to create a sustainable and efficient
fuel source.

Finally, Mushi et al. (2024) provided additional insights into how biomass-derived
additives can enhance fuel performance. Their research suggests that modifying
biochar can lead to improved energy efficiency and emission reduction, which aligns
with the present study’s goal of developing an optimized and environmentally friendly
charcoal briquette from cow dung and corn husk.

9
Local
Ronald G.V. (2020) discusses the Philippine production and use of charcoal with
a view to sustainable practices in charcoal production. This reference is aptly relevant
for the study since it places the need for cleaner alternatives into an ecological context.
Locally, more emphasis is placed on cleaner energy options, and hence, cornure (cow
dung fused with corn husk) briquette research finds good relevance to the ongoing
discussions on sustainability in the Philippines.

The study by Maria et al. (2016) on the environmental sustainability of charcoal

production highlights the negative impacts of traditional charcoal production methods.
This context is important for the research because it emphasizes the need for
alternative methods that use agricultural waste, such as corn husks and cow dung. The
research aims to show how modifying these biomass materials can provide a more
sustainable alternative that addresses environmental concerns while providing a viable
fuel source.

Eduard E. (n.d.) discusses the possible utilization of leaves as a source of

alternative cooking fuels. This local look is just in line with the present research, which
affirms that waste organic materials are sometimes overlooked and could be
transformed into useful sources of energy. In this study, focusing on corn husks and
cow dung presents an opportunity to repurpose waste while enhancing its potential as a
biofuel through chemical modification.

Furthermore, Ann Mae et al. (2024) discussed the synthesis of bio-based

adhesives from agricultural waste, which reflects a larger trend of using waste for
different purposes. This literature supports the research focus on the versatility of
products derived from agricultural by-products, suggesting that biochar’s benefits are
not limited to energy production, making it essential to investigate its combustion
properties as well.

10
 The work of Camille & Sara (2019) on biochar production methods discusses the
practicalities of the processes involved in creating biochar from different biomass
sources. Their findings are helpful in the current research for providing a methodological
basis for how to produce corn husk-based briquettes and test their modifications.
Building on these findings, this research looks at ways to create an even more efficient
and environmentally friendly fuel source.

Herman et al. (2018) adopted the concept of designing and constructing a 3-in-
1 stove with different types of fuel sources, including charcoal from agricultural waste.
This demonstrates the urgent need to develop efficient cooking technologies using
sustainable fuels. This research is pertinent to the present study as it elucidates the
alternatives of using cow dung and corn husk briquettes for making cooking solutions
low-cost and eco-friendly.

Melvin et al. (2022) explored the use of saba banana peels as a charcoal
substitute, thus directly evidencing the energy potential of agricultural waste. Their
results confirm the focus of the current study on biomass as a potential source for
briquette production and highlight the need to identify methods to improve the
performance of such fuels.
Modifying corn husk and cow dung briquettes will serve to enhance further the viability
of this alternative fuel for cooking purposes.

Another study by Atsamari et al. (2020) investigated how banana peel charcoal
can effectively absorb chromium from tannery wastewater. Their findings highlight the
dual purpose of agricultural waste—not just as an energy source but also as a means
of addressing environmental pollution. This aligns perfectly with the study, which aims
to showcase the versatility of corn husk and cow dung in both energy production and
waste management.

Similarly, Zulueta & Caraig (2022) discussed the potential of banana peel
charcoal as an alternative source of fuel. It was discovered that banana peel charcoal
can burn equally well, which makes it suitable for cooking and heating purposes as an
alternative renewable resource. This directly supports the research, reinforcing the
notion that

11
using biomass waste for briquettes not only provides a cleaner source of energy but
also contributes to sustainability efforts.

12
 CHAPTER 3

Methodology

This chapter will explain how the study works, including the following parts: research
design , the sample, instruments, data collection procedure and plan for data analysis

Materials/ Ratio and Equipment

Charcorn type, materials and ratio Equipments

ingredients use

P1.1: Cow dung + corn husk + 500g Cowdung + 50g Corn Husk
water Mixing bowl
+ 270ml water

P1.2 Cow dung + corn husk + Blender

water 700g Cow Dung + 70g Corn
Husk + 240ml water

P2: Standard Charcoal

Gloves and
Mask

Measuring
cups

Food scale

13
General Procedure

Collection of Material Needed. Cow dung, corn husks, and other materials
must be collected first before proceeding to the next procedure. The researcher
primarily collects cow dung in Anawim, San Isidro, Rodriguez, Rizal, and obtains corn
husks from sweet corn vendors in Kasiglahan Village, San Jose, Rodriguez, Rizal.

Mixing. After the researcher gathers all the necessary materials, they blend the
corn husks to pulverize them. Then, they weigh both materials to a specific gram and
place them in a bowl to form P1.1. To make P1.2, you must follow the specific ratio

Molding. After mixing, weigh the mixture to a specific gram and mold it using a
molder or your hands to shape it

Drying. In this step, the sun plays the most important role. After molding the
charcorn, let it dry under the sun for 1 to 3 days

Research Design

This research will apply an experimental research design with a quantitative

method of collecting and analyzing data on the condition of the subject matter. The
researchers will conduct different trials and experiments to come up with, improve, and
test the effectiveness of the product they want to produce.

Experimental research design allows one to determine a cause-and-effect

relationship between independent and dependent variables (Thomas, L., 2020). The
approach is popular because it is practical and applicable. Additionally, it allows the
researchers to generate clear and trustworthy results.

The research design applies to the research because it is mainly looking to produce

14
 environmentally friendly charcoal, experiment with the effectiveness of cow dung as
one of the key ingredients, and research the possible advantages of the product to
human beings and the environment.

Gathering and Preparation of materials

FLOW CHART

Preparation and Gathering the Materials Needed.

Note: The Researchers gather all the materials needed

Put the Ingredients in the Mixing bowl

15
Note: all the materials are now put in the mixing bowl

Mixing

Molding

16
Note: The researchers mold the cornure in different kind of shape

Drying

Note: Sun dry the Cornure for 2-3 days

Note: To make product 1.2, just follow the step there but change the ratio you will

use.

17
Data Collection Procedure
Implementing an Experiment
In making the product, the researcher first prepares all necessary tools and
equipment, such as cow dung, corn husk, a blender, a mixing bowl, and gloves. Second,
put the corn husk in the blender so it can be powderized. Third, mix the powdered corn
husk with the cow dung and add the right amount of water. Fourth, mold it using a
molder or shape it into your desired form. Fifth, place it outside and let it sun-dry. Lastly,
once the product is fully dried, use it as an alternative fuel for cooking your daily food.

Collection of Data through Testing

When the product is completed, the researcher will conduct observations and
assessments to evaluate the performance of the cow dung charcoal. Its cooking
efficiency will be tested through boiling, cooking, and grilling. Additionally, its physical
durability will be examined using a drop test and a weight test.

Analysis and Interpretation of the Data Gathering

The data and results were collected and presented in tables, incorporating
various relevant information. The researcher carefully analyzed and interpreted the
findings, providing further explanations through textual descriptions and graphical
representations.
Descriptive Statistics

To summarize the data, the following descriptive statistics were calculated:

18
1. Mean (Average) for Ignition Time and Heat Output

2. Proportion of Heat Output and Ignition Time per Trial

Proportion Analysis

The proportion of heat output and ignition time was calculated to assess how
each trial performed relative to the total dataset. The results were analyzed to identify
the most efficient formulation by comparing the proportion of heat output generated in
relation to ignition time.

Plan for Data Analysis

To analyze the data, the researcher will conduct an experiment; trial and error,
and test the ability of charcorn to become an alternative charcoal.

Cooking Function

The researcher will cook using various ways such as boiling water, cooking rice and grilling.
The duration and measurement of the charcoal will be recorded. To answer the variable under
SOP 1 which is knowing the effectiveness of charcoal in terms of cooking function.

19
Physical Property.

The researcher will test the physical property by observing the color, measuring
the size, weight and breaking stability of the cow dung charcoal using a drop test and
weight test. To answer the variable under SOP 1 which is knowing the effectiveness of
charcoal in terms of physical property.

20
 CHAPTER 4

Presentation, analysis and interpretation of data

This chapter presents the result of the analysis and interpretation of data based
on the statements of the problem requires on the chapter 1.

Table 1.
Cooking Function: Water Boiling

Briqutte Type P1.1 Cornnure: Cow Dung + Corn Husk

Quantity of Water Quantity of Briquette Boiling Time

Trials
(Liter) (Gram) (Time Taken-Minutes)
Trial 1 750mL 500g 22:34 min.
Trial 2 1L 500g 35:12 min.
Trial 3 1.25L 500g 50:11 min.
Mean 1L 500g 35:59 min.
P1.2 Cornnure: Cow Dung + Corn Husk
Trial 1 750mL 500g 19:51 min.
Trial 2 1L 500g 32:00 min.
Trial 3 1.25L 500g 47:19 min.
Mean 1L 500g 32:54 min.
Standardized Charcoal
Trial 1 750mL 500g 15:51 min.
Trial 2 1L 500g 18:15 min.
Trial 3 1.25L 500g 20:19 min.
Mean 1L 500g 17:57 min.

21
Table 1.2
Cooking Function: Grilling

Briqutte Type P1.1 Cornnure: Cow Dung + Corn Husk

Trials Types of Ingredient Quantity of Briquette Grilling Time

(Gram)
(Time Taken-Minutes)
Trial 1 1 Barbeque (Pork) 500g 22:04 min.
Trial 2 1 Hotdog 500g 25:51 min.
Trial 3 1 Fish: Bangus 500g 41:26 min.
Mean 1 500g 29:36 min.
P1.2 Cornnure: Cow Dung + Corn Husk
Trial 1 1 Barbeque (Pork) 500g 20:38 min.
Trial 2 1 Hotdog 500g 23:03 min.
Trial 3 1 Fish: Bangus 500g 39:27 min.
Mean 1 500g 27:34 min.
Standardized Charcoal
Trial 1 1 Barbeque (Pork) 500g 12:33 min.
Trial 2 1 Hotdog 500g 11:54 min .
Trial 3 1 Fish: Bangus 500g 22:20 min.
Mean 1 500g 15:21 min.

Note. . table 1 and 1.2, shows the ability of the P1.1, P1.2, and Standardized Charcoal to
use as a way of cooking.

The study observed the performance of two charcoal varieties, with the cornnure having two
ratios, P1.1, P1.2, and Standardized Charcoal were then used in cooking. Their performance was
tested by boiling water and grilling. The data were gathered by following the performance of each
22
charcoal variety closely and taking note of how each performed during cooking

To determine if the Cornnure could be a alternative charcoal, the researchers compared how long
each trial took to see what is the best ratio and to assess if Cornnure could be a possible
alternative charcoal.

For the boiling water test, a total of 9 liters of water were used. P1.1, P1.2, and Standardized
Charcoal were tested with a fixed quantity of charcoal (500g). The temperature of the water must
be at least 100°C to boil. The results showed that P.1.1 boiled for an average duration of 35:59
minutes, while P1.2 boiled for an average of 32:54, Lastly, standardized Charcoal boiled for 17:57
minutes. The results shows that Standardized Charcoal got the fastest time to boil the water,
followed by the P1.2, and then P1.1.

For the grilling test, three pieces of Barbeque (Pork), three pieces of Hotdog, and three pieces of
fish:bangus were grilled using a fixed charcoal quantity (500g). The P1.1’s grilling time got a mean
of 29:36 minutes, followed by the P1.2 that got a mean of 27:34, while Standardized Charcoal got
a mean time of 15:21 minutes. To conclude the observed data, it shows that the Standardized
Charcoal got the fastest grilling time, followed by the P1.2 and then the P1.1.

Table. 2

23
Longevity
Briqutte Type P1.1 Cornnure: Cow Dung + Corn Husk
Sample Time Taken (minutes)
1 (5 pcs) 39:41 min.
2 (10 pcs) 40:02 min.
3 (15 pcs) 46:12 min.
Mean 41:58 min.
Briqutte Type P1.2 Cornnure: Cow Dung + Corn Husk
Sample Time Taken (minutes)
1 (5 pcs) 43:37 min.
2 (10 pcs) 45:04 min.
3 (15 pcs) 51:51 min.
Mean 46:38 min.
Standardized Charcoal
Sample Time Taken (minutes)
1 (5 pcs) 55:23 min.
2 (10 pcs) 57:38 min.
3 (15 pcs) 59:25 min.
Mean 57:17 min.

Note. . table 2, shows the longevity of P1.1, P1.2, and Standardized Charcoal.

In the table above, it shows how long the life or the burning time of the P1.1, P1.2, and
Standardized Charcoal before they become ash.

To determine on how long the charcoal’s burning time/longevity, the researchers selected
samples for P1.1, P1.2, and Standardized Charcoal to test them to see how long the life of
it, before it becomes ash.

The researchers carefully observe and use a timer (phone) ensure the reliability of the data
provided.

For the P1.1, it has a mean of 41:58 minutes, while the P1.2, got a mean of 46:38, Lastly,
24
Standardized Charcoal got a mean of 57:17 minutes. To conclude, the Standardized
Charcoal got the longest burning time, followed by the P1.2, and then P1.1.

Table 3.
Durability: Drop Test
Briquette Type P1.1Cornnure: Cow Dung + Corn Husk
Trials Samples Height Drop Test (cm)
Crack No Crack
1 3 244 cm 0 3 pcs
2 3 305 cm 0 3 pcs
3 3 366 cm 0 3 pcs
Mean 3 305 cm 0 3 pcs
P1.2 Cornnure: Cow Dung + Corn Husk
1 3 244 cm 0 3 pcs
2 3 305 cm 0 3 pcs
3 3 366 cm 0 3 pcs
Mean 3 305 cm 0 3 pcs
Standardized Charcoal
1 3 244 cm 0 3 pcs
2 3 305 cm 2 pcs 1 pc
3 3 366 cm 3 pcs 0
Mean 3 305 cm 2.5 pcs 2 pcs

25
Table 3.2
Durability: Weight Test
Briquette Type P1.1 Cornnure: Cow Dung + Corn Husk
Trials Samples Weight Drop Test (cm)
Crack No Crack
1 3 1 kg 0 3 pcs
2 3 2 kg 0 3 pcs
3 3 3 kg 0 3 pcs
Mean 3 2 kg 0 3 pcs
Briquette Type P1.2 Cornnure: Cow Dung + Corn Husk
Trials Samples Weight Drop Test (cm)
Crack No Crack
1 3 1 kg 0 3 pcs
2 3 2 kg 0 3 pcs
3 3 3 kg 0 3 pcs
Mean 3 2 kg 0 3 pcs

Standardized Charcoal
1 3 1 kg 0 3 pcs
2 3 2 kg 0 3 pcs
3 3 3 kg 1 pc 2 pcs
Mean 3 2 kg 1 pcs 2.67 pcs

Note. . table 3 and 3.2 illustrates the strength and durability of P1.1, P1.2, and
Standardized Charcoal.

To assess the strength and durability of both charcoals, the researchers conducted a drop
test and weight test.

For the drop test, the researchers used three heights to test on (244cm, 305cm, and
366cm). The P1.1 got a mean of 3 (No Crack) and 0 (Crack), the 3 that trials that was
conducted did not show any signs of cracks. The same with P1.2. While in Standardized

26
Charcoal, it got a mean of 2.5(Crack) and 2(No Crack), standardized charcoal showed
cracks when dropped from second trial (305cm) and the third trial (366cm).

For the weight test, the researchers used 3 weights to test on (1kg, 2kg, and 3kg). The
P1.1 got a mean of 3 ( No Crack) and 0 (Crack). The same with P1.2, three of the trials
that was conducted did not show any signs of cracks when the weights was placed on top
of each Cornnure with different ratios’. While in Standardized Charcoal, it got a mean of 1
(Crack) and 2.67 (No Crack).

The researchers conclude that the ingredients used in P1.1 and P1.2 are strong and well-
bound, while the Standardized Charcoal is still strong and well bound, but compared to
Cornnure, cornnure is much more stronger during the drop test and weight test.

27
Table 4.
Physical properties

Briquette Type P1.1 Cornnure: Cow Dung + Corn Husk

Samples Weight Size Color
Height Width Before After

1 4g 0.8 in. 2 in. Dark Grayish-

2 6g 0.9 in. 1.9 in. Brown White Ash

3 4g 0.8 in. 1.7 in. #A0845A #D3D3D3

Mean 4.7 g 0.83in. 1.86 in.
P1.2 Cornnure: Cow Dung + Corn Husk
1 5g 0.9 in. 2.2 in. Dark Grayish-
Brown White Ash
2 3g 0.7 in. 1.5 in.
3 6g 1 in. 1.6 in. #A0845A #D3D3D3

Mean 4.67 g 0.9 in. 1.77 in.

Standardized Charcoal
1 1g 2.5 in. 4 in. Charcoal Gray to
White Ash
2 2g 4 in. 3.1 in.
#212121 #E0E0E0
3 1g 4.2 in. 2.6 in.
Mean 1.33 g 3.57 in. 3.23 in.
Note. . table 4 shows the physical characteristics of P1.1, P1.2, and Standardized
Charcoal, such as weight, height, width, and color.

For weight, P1.1 has an average of 4.7 grams, while P1.2 got an average weight of 4.67
grams, lastly, Standardized Charcoal has an average weight of 1.33 grams. The table
shows that P1.1 is the heaviest, followed by the P1.2, and then the Standardized Charcoal.

As for height, P1.1 has an average height of 0.83 inches, next is P1.2 having 0.9 inches
height and then, Standardized Charcoal got an average height of 3.57 inches. The table
shows that the P1.1 is a bit smaller compared to P1.2 and Standardized Charcoal, while
the Standardized Charcoal being the biggest and the P1.2 at the middle.

28
For width, P1.1 measures an average of 1.86 inches, followed by the P1.2 that got an
average of 1.77 inches, Lastly, Standardized Charcoal on the other hand measures a bit
wider at 3.23 inches. This indicates that Standardized Charcoal is a bit bigger than P1.1
and P1.2.

Additionally, in order to determine and differ the color of the charcoals, the researchers
used various tools to accurately observe and compare the shades of Cornnure before and
after use. Cornnure had a dark brown color. Similarly, charcoal was black before burning.
After being used, both Cornnure and Standardized Charcoal left behind grayish-white ash
as residue.

Table 5.

Heat Output (kJ)

Ratio Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

(MJ/kJ) (MJ/kJ) (MJ/kJ) (MJ/kJ)

P1 500g Cowdung +
50g Corn Husk + 270ml 4.70 6.27 9.41 6.9
water

P1.2 700g Cow Dung + 7.2 7.5 7.3 7.3

70g Corn Husk + 240ml
water

Standardized
Charcoal 25.2 23.4 22.9 25.2

Note. . table 5 shows us the heat output of both varieties of Charcoal Briquettes.
As shown in table 5, the P 1.2 got the highest average of 7.3 in the Briqutte type
(Cornnure), followed by the P1 that got an average of 6.9. While on the other hand, the
Charcoal produced a higher heat output of 25.2. Although the Cornnure produced lower
heat than the Standardized Charcoal, its efficiency, durability and potential affordability
make it a viable eco-friendly fuel option.

29
Overall, the Cornnure fell behind at the heat output, having only 7.3. While the
Standardized Charcoal on the other hand got a 25.2, showing us that the Standardized
Charcoal has more heat output than the Cornnure.

Table 6.
Ignition Time
Briqutte Type P1.1 Cornnure: Cow Dung + Corn Husk
Trial Ignition Time ( Minutes)
Trial 1 3:25 min.
Trial 2 2:58 min.
Trial 3 3:12 min.
Mean 2:59 min.
P1.2 Cornnure: Cow Dung + Corn Husk
Trial 1 2:34 min.
Trial 2 3:12 min.
Trial 3 2:56 min.
Mean 2:40 min.
Standardized Charcoal
Trial 1 2:46 min.
Trial 2 2:05 min.
Trial 3 2:14 min.
Mean 2:13 min.

Note. .. table 6 shows the Ignition Time of P1.1, P1.2, and Standardized Charcoal.
In the table above, it shows the average Ignition time of the charcoals. P1.1 got an
average ignition time of is 2:59 minutes., while the P1.2 got an average ignition time of
2:40 minutes, for the Standardized Charcoal, it got a average Ignition time of 2:13 minutes,
which is a bit faster than P1.1 and P1.2. The data gathered shows that the Ignition time of
Standardized Charcoal is a bit faster than P1.1 and P1.2.

30
 CHAPTER 5

Summary, conclusions, and recommendations

Based on the study's findings, this chapter presents the summary, conclusions, and offers
recommendations for additional research and applications.

Summary of Findings

The study revealed that Cornnure, a combination of cow dung and corn husk,
demonstrated promising potential as an alternative charcoal source. Experimental
results showed that Cornnure had a mean boiling time of 20:06 minutes for 1 liter of
water and an average grilling time of 18:04 minutes for 500g of charcoal, indicating its
capability to sustain cooking functions. In terms of physical properties, Cornnure had
an average weight of 4g, height of 1.5 inches, and width of 0.6 inches, making it denser
and more compact than standardized charcoal, which had a mean weight of 1.5g,
height of 3 inches, and width of 0.9 inches. Drop test results demonstrated its
durability, maintaining a mean drop integrity rating of 3 compared to the 2.33 rating of
standardized charcoal. The findings highlight that Cornnure offers an eco-friendly and
sustainable fuel option, reducing dependence on deforestation-driven charcoal
production.

Conclusion

31
 Based on the findings, Cornnure proves to be a viable alternative to standardized
charcoal. While it burns at a slightly slower rate, it offers similar cooking efficiency,
enhanced durability, and environmental benefits. Its production supports sustainable

32
practices by repurposing agricultural waste, making it a practical and eco-friendly
energy source.

Recommendation

1. To take the study further, the researchers encourage the agricultural sector
to utilize the Cornnure residue (charcoal ash) for fertilizer.

2. It would be wise and deeply encouraged to use Cornnure as an alternative

charcoal for usage to lessen the detrimental effects of standardized
charcoal.

3. The researchers suggest that Broader testing with different cooking methods
and fuel comparisons will provide more comprehensive performance insights.

4. The researchers motivate future researchers to further the study of using

corn husk and cow dung as alternative materials in charcoal production.

33
 REFERENCES

Foreign

Kapen, P. T., Tenkeu, M. N., Yadjie, E., & Tchuen, G. (2021). Production and characterization
of environmentally friendly charcoal briquettes obtained from agriculture waste: case of
Cameroon. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 1-8.
[Link]

Obi, O. F., Pecenka, R., & Clifford, M. J. (2022). A review of biomass briquette binders and
quality parameters. Energies, 15(7), 2426.
[Link]

Nikhom, R., Suppalakpanya, K., Nikhom, S., & Siriphan, T. (2024). Combustion properties
improvement and economic evaluation of charcoal briquettes from mixed agricultural
waste biomass. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 1-11.
[Link]

Carnaje, N. P., Talagon, R. B., Peralta, J. P., Shah, K., & Paz-Ferreiro, J. (2018). Development
and characterisation of charcoal briquettes from water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)-
molasses blend. PloS one, 13(11), e0207135. [Link]
id=10.1371/[Link].0207135

Ali, A., Kumari, M., Manisha, Tiwari, S., Kumar, M., Chhabra, D., & Sahdev, R. K. (2024).
Insight into the biomass-based briquette generation from agro-residues: challenges,
perspectives, and innovations. BioEnergy Research, 17(2), 816-856.
[Link]

Nagaprisad, K., Yoyanth, T. K., Prajwal, K., Kumar, R., Dahammgowa, M., Jeevan, B., & Rajesh,
K. (2023). Characterization of Briquette Fuel Prepared from Corn Cob. International
Journal of Scientific Research Engineering and Technology, 10(4), 286-290.
[Link]

Romallosa, A. R. D., & Kraft, E. (2017). Production and characterization of bio-briquette

produced from rice husk, corn cob, and charcoal dust. International Journal of Scientific
Engineering and Research (IJSER), 5(7), 60–65.

34
 [Link]

Senchi, G. F., & Kofa, I. D. (2020). Preparation of Biomass Briquettes from Corncob and
Uncarbonized Rice Residues. ICONIC RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING JOURNALS,
4(1), 33-39.
[Link] [Link]?
1640536407=&response-content- disposition=inline%3B+filename
%3DPreparation_of_Biomass_Briquettes_from_C.pdf&Exp
ires=1740205649&Signature=hGeQtjxHiTKV99rsr5Jvj3QDqYbjYvzQvOqi0ax80xuImS7u3P
~78ZJ-K3IBQmsZEiJmntcQNGzL-5FTsVAnFleAKo7uHY5dUyQfRvLTX3rRf-uSa-
kpHZ1MtP96UIqoA6Vqa9uc-AvhKtjZ8S47j7P3E20Dmwy8WeLv-

35
 thfxf4FLQTYqUs72M3yTjPDyEW3WUHLaEbmrTlwIR28LC-
oT4t2kajbmypfK8xTlRZrBIZZpeotL2bRuYXg6fthKbxMi2Ux1sHpQVlnPQuQiv2brjQ2hZOd9
cOke~gU0WupxljA1VKq5C5Vdjdo-3rDq1YtvCEYFMJnoOu96g0rWo-r-w &Key-Pair-
Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Sam Obu, C. V., Amos, J., Chris-Ukaegbu, S. O., Dike Chijindu, P., & Odeniyi, O. M. (2022).
Production of Fuel Briquettes from a Blend of Corn cob and Rice husk. International
Journal of Research and Review, 9(2), 349-978.
[Link]
_a_Blend_of_Corncob_and_Rice_Husk

Sigui, J. A. M., David, J. B. S., Cayanan, J. V. S., Fernandez, K. F. T., Mendoza, L. J. T., &
Dela Cruz, R. E. (2022). Utilization of corn (Zea mays) cob and coconut (Cocos nucifera)
shells as sustainable alternatives to traditional charcoal production. Holy Family Academy
Instructional Media Center High School Department.
[Link]
coconut-cocos-nucifera-shells-as-sustainable-alternatives-to-traditional-charcoal-
production/

Local

Arellano, G. M. T., Kato, Y. S., & Bacani, F. T. (2015, March). Evaluation of fuel properties of
charcoal briquettes derived from combinations of coconut shell, corn cob and sugarcane
bagasse. In DLSU Research Congress, Manila, Philippines.
[Link]
proceedings/2015/SEE/033-SEE_Bacani_FT.pdf

Romallosa, A. R. D., & Hornada, K. J. C. (2012). Briquetting of biomass and urban wastes using
a household briquette molder. Patubas, 7(1), 1-22.
[Link]

Gatmaitan, R. A., Guanlao, T. J., Guting, R. J., Janairo, C. M., & Chua, A. (2013, March).
Development of an Automated Briquetting Machine. In DLSU Research Congress (pp. 1-
4). [Link]
proceedings/2013/SEE/[Link]

36
Cortiguerra, E. C. (2013). Charcoal briquetting in the Philippines: Challenges and prospects.
Department of Science and Technology - Forest Products Research and Development
Institute (DOST-FPRDI).
[Link]
prospects

Romallosa, A. R. D., & Kraft, E. (2017). Feasibility of biomass briquette production from
municipal waste streams by integrating the informal sector in the Philippines. Resources,
6(1), 12.

37
 [Link]

Sigui, J. A. M., David, J. B. S., Cayanan, J. V. S., Fernandez, K. F. T., Mendoza, L. J. T., & Dela
Cruz, R. E. (2024, May 4). Utilization of corn (Zea mays) cob and coconut (Cocos
nucifera) shells as sustainable alternatives to traditional charcoal production. Holy Family
Academy Instructional Media Center High School Department.
[Link]
coconut-cocos-nucifera-shells-as-sustainable-alternatives-to-traditional-charcoal-
production/

Romallosa, A. R. D., & Kraft, E. (2017). Production and characterization of bio-briquette

produced from rice husk, corn cob, and charcoal dust. International Journal of Scientific
Engineering and Research (IJSER), 5(7), 60–65
[Link]

Mendoza, R. C., Romano, A. D., Daracan, V. C., & Hermocilla, E. O. (2020). Fuel properties
of charcoal briquettes derived from combinations of coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) husk
and Bitanghol-sibat (Calophyllum soulattri Burm. f.) bark.
[Link]

Sam Obu, C. V., Amos, J., Chris-Ukaegbu, S. O., Dike Chijindu, P., & Odeniyi, O. M. (2022).
Production of Fuel Briquettes from a Blend of Corn cob and Rice husk. International
Journal of Research and Review, 9(2), 349-978.
[Link]
content- disposition=inline%3B+filename
%3DProduction_of_Fuel_Briquettes_from_a_Ble.pdf&Expir
es=1740214836&Signature=TwPkI7hTCCjmdI5CA7eZP1uemnFlSb2Ab77LErzC8fxF9Dec
1uCC8Np63UK~xwDgkGPlXvTkLhBS2tnBd1S5mmscLJ3NOUDnmZpNbY8-w93-
lg8loj~exj0qc5h3gboTkgb92~EKksrWL~m4fhLUSbSqzpCeNXakTjeu835Fn8js7qA2GHGS
Fegr2HK3cDT7zwIOdf5q0iqYr7~fxTrqIcEeI82bTbUNCIGnlea8uOlNVFfgK3oOYeXcqYsZN
QYbiw9V2VhE-MFvBmyGS2bzZq0c-gfrrG9VyJpJIZACdBzFoReK2Srt7xE-Uh-
6mmOSmGe8Jy2bWVRFLXEE~SGGAg &Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Senchi, G. F., & Kofa, I. D. (2020). Preparation of Biomass Briquettes from Corncob and
Uncarbonized Rice Residues. ICONIC RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING JOURNALS,
4(1), 33-39.
[Link] [Link]?
1640536407=&response-content- disposition=inline%3B+filename

38
%3DPreparation_of_Biomass_Briquettes_from_C.pdf&Exp
ires=1740214993&Signature=YuViO213HiLb8Pb9eSgKuKn~uxR-uHtCTOmCo-
nBgznH~RocCMB-t-
miWNjUkWxWS2KYvREnXXxz64bGncT7MnZB7kexgd0BxmvGiKm6QEUSJKW9dvtBydhS
UcFNhUp4XAzDd10h~XUdyNC7MRpKwWXFZzwYIzwO0BKr-
NOxntWxHI4iL1lpI~WavCLh1Y26xXHnd59DiISv~uksuontPBNe2IVM1Lh8dtrH-
9hsLBbwogP2oPBBcs5Sz1PCO5ACjARm4tXOQ9fIW1FsG8KiwqwfH9xZkIgi2ry9v7~LmE
Ns4P9yxBEcYNrCZZdwm2lpkbF2HOPtPDF5eGJ-shPZRQ &Key-Pair-
Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

39
40