Table 3.

Ultimate analysis of dry leaves (% wt dry basis)

Parameters Plant leaf material	Ultimate analysis (%)						References
	C	H	O	N	S	HHV (MJ/kg)
Musa sapientum Linn	44.28	6.23	37.90	0.80	0.30	17.70	Mata-Alvarez et al. (2014)
Zea mays Linn	47.04	5.41	46.82	0.68	0.05	17.37	Danishac et al. (2015)
E. polybractea	52.19	6.55	39.19	1.35	0.72	–	Burton and Wu (2016)
Prunus dulcis	42.50	3.80	31.40	1.10	0.35	–	Raju et al. (2014)
Eucalyptus	46.96	6.22	44.82	1.25	0.77	18.9	Mishra et al. (2010) and Liu et al. (2013)
Cynara cardunculus	34.10	4.90	29.80	1.40	0.20	17.90	Damartzis et al. (2010)
Senna alexandrina	36.20	4.72	37.49	4.29	–	18.13	Grover et al. (2002)
Saccharum	39.75	5.55	46.82	0.17	–	17.40
Casuarina equisetifolia	46.12	6.90	42.64	1.18	–	18.48	Sugumaran and Seshadri (2009)
Lantana camara	45.01	6.68	43.79	2.02	–	–
Phoenix dactylifera	49.40	5.80	42.30	1.20	1.30		Sait et al. (2012)
Pinus sabiniana	47.65	5.43	46.21	0.27	0.44	18.70	García et al. (2014)
F. simplex	48.02	4.99	36.77	1.15	1.13	–	Xiao et al. (2011)
Populus nigra	41.77	4.42	36.75	1.11	0.26	16.85	Zhou et al. (2013)
Smilax china L	48.06	4.43	37.06	0.92	0.30	19.12
Ginkgo biloba	41.35	5.54	50.88	1.36	0.87	15.28	Zhou et al. (2015)
Arecaceae	40.40	5.58	52.09	1.94	–	–	Abnisa et al. (2013)
Bambusoideae	40.50	5.80	52.80	0.70	0.20	–	Huang et al. (2011)
Arctostaphylos glandulosa	52.77	6.32	40.13	0.78	–	–	Fletcher et al. (2007)
Ceanothus crassifolius	52.94	6.30	01.08	39.67	–	–
Chamise	51.48	6.61	01.31	40.60	–	–
Scrub oak	51.47	6.5	01.99	40.03	–	–
Gambel oak	49.15	6.23	42.10	2.52	–	–
Bigtooth maple	45.93	6.14	45.82	2.11	–	–
Utah juniper	49.92	6.88	41.87	1.33	–	–
Big sagebrush	48.52	6.46	42.77	2.25	–	–
Teak leaves	48.88	5.83	30.04	0.55	–	–	This study

HHV higher heating value