Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorV. Geethalakshmi

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Research Article

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 49 issue 5 (october 2015) : 456-459

Engineering properties of cotton stalks (Gossypium hirsitum L.)

Gagandeep Kaur Sidhu, Sandhya
1Department of Processing & Food Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141 001, India.
Cite article:- Sidhu Kaur Gagandeep, Sandhya (2025). Engineering properties of cotton stalks (Gossypium hirsitum L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 49(5): 456-459. doi: 10.18805/ijare.v49i5.5811.

ABSTRACT

Different physical and thermal properties of chaffed and ground cotton stalks were evaluated. The moisture content of chaffed and ground cotton stalk was 10.01 and 12.31% respectively. The size of chaffed cotton stalk was 40.3 mm, whereas the equivalent diameter of chaffed and ground cotton stalk was estimated as 30.5 and 4.5 mm respectively. The mean value of bulk density of chaffed and ground cotton stalks was 206.16 and 217.30 kg/m3, whereas true density varied between 727.70 and 313.60 kg/m3. The porosity of chaffed cotton stalks was estimated to be greater than ground cotton stalks. Angles of repose for chaffed and ground cotton stalks were 43.18 and 34.35o respectively. The coefficient of internal friction for ground cotton stalks was 0.85, whereas coefficient of external friction for chaffed and ground cotton stalks was estimated to be 0.54 and 0 .68 respectively. The calorific value of chaffed and ground cotton stalks came out to be 16.70, 16.79MJ/kg respectively. Ash content of both chaffed and ground cotton stalks were almost same i.e. 6.93 and 6.87 % respectively.

REFERENCES

  1. Aggarwal, S. P and Khanna, R. (2006). Micromeritics and powder rheology, Physical Pharmacy. 2nd edition, CBS Publishers and Distributors, New York, USA: 41-2.
  2. AOAC. (1999). Official Methods of Analysis, Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington DC, USA.
  3. AOAC. (2000). Official Methods of Analysis, Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington DC, USA.
  4. Balasubramanya, R. H. (1981). An edible mushroom crop on cotton stalks. J Indian Society for Cotton Improvement, 6: 104–106.
  5. Bhattacharya, K. R.; Sowbhagya, C. M. and Swamy, Y. M. I. (1972). Some physical properties of paddy and rice and their interrelationship. J Sci. Fd. Agric., l3: 171.
  6. Parlikar, K. M.; Bhatawdekar, S. P. (1987). Microcrystalline cellulose from cotton stalk pulp. J Indian Society for Cotton Improvement, 12: 146–147.
  7. Purohit, P.; Tripathi, A. K.; Kandpal, T. C. (2006). Energetics of coal substitution by briquettes of agricultural residues. Energy. 31: 1321–1331.
  8. Richard, W. and Donald. (1954). Friction coefficient of some agricultural materials. Agril. Engg., 35: 411-14.
  9. Shaikh, A. J.; Sundaram, V. (1988). Corrugated boxes from cotton stalks. Indian Farming, 38: 36–37.
  10. Singh, A.; Panwar J. S.; Kumar, A.; Jha, S. K. and Pandeya, A. (2002). Management of animal feed materials through densification. J Agricultural Engineering, 39: 9–15.
  11. Stegner, W. (1972). Angle of Repose by Penguin Twentieth-Century Classics.
  12. Sundaram, V.; Balasubramanya, R. H.; Shaikh, A. J.; Bhatt, I. G. and Sitaram, M. S. (1989). Utilization of cotton stalks. Journal of Indian Society for Cotton Improvement, 14: 94–99.
  13. Vander, W. T.; Devos, W. and Kay, S. 2009. Common Agricultural Policy and Spatial Data Infrastructures. Precision Agriculture, 909:973.
  14. Wamukonya, L.; Jenkins, B. (1995). Durability and relaxation of sawdust and wheat straw briquettes as possible fuels for Kenya. Biomass and Bioenergy, 8: 175–179.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)