Torrefaction of non ‐lignocellulose biomass waste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Torrefaction of some non‐lignocellulose waste biomass was attempted to examine if such materials could benefit from this process as conventional lignocellulose biomass does. Experiments were conducted on chicken litter, digested sludge, and undigested sludge from a municipality in Canada. Effects of two important torrefaction process parameters: temperature and residence time on the torrefaction yield were studied. For reference, torrefaction of three lignocellulose biomass (switch grass, coffee husk, and wood pellet) was also carried out in the same apparatus under identical conditions. A comparison of torrefaction yield and other properties of these biomass showed that in spite of the large difference in their constitution the torrefaction behaviour of non‐lignocellulose and lignocellulose biomass were similar. The increase in energy density after torrefaction and the effect of temperature and residence time on torrefaction were also similar for these two types. The present research made an important addition to the existing database on torrefaction of biomass by adding missing information on torrefaction of sludge and poultry litter. Additionally, this work unearthed a potential option for production of composite pellets of waste (e.g., sludge) mixed with biomass (e.g., switch grass). © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".