MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012253436 · doi:10.1021/ef8009958

Catalytic Decomposition of Biomass Tars with Dolomites

2009· article· en· W2012253436 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth Gusta, Ajay K. Dalai, Md. Azhar Uddin, Eiji Sasaoka

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDolomitetar (computing)Biomass (ecology)DecompositionChemistryCatalysisIsothermal processCarbon fibersChemical engineeringPyrolysisMineralogyPulp and paper industryOrganic chemistryMaterials scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Catalytic gasification of wood biomass was carried out using a double-bed microreactor in a two-stage process. Temperature-programmed steam gasification of biomass was performed in the first bed at 200−850 °C. Following in series was isothermal catalytic decomposition and gasification of volatile compounds (including tars) in the second bed containing various dolomites. Dolomites from Canada, Australia, and Japan were examined for their effects on tar conversion and the overall gaseous product. A total of 74% of biomass carbon was emitted as volatile matter during tar gasification (200−500 °C biomass bed temperature). Dolomites improved tar conversion to gaseous products by an average of 21% over noncatalytic results at a 750 °C isothermal catalyst bed temperature using 1.6 cm 3 dolomite/g of biomass. The iron content in dolomite was found to promote tar conversion and the water−gas shift reaction, but the effectiveness reached a plateau at 0.9 wt % Fe in Canadian dolomites. The maximum tar conversion of 66% was achieved at 750 °C using a Canadian dolomite with 0.9 wt % Fe (1.6 cm 3 /g of biomass). Carbon conversion to gaseous products increased to 97% using 3.2 cm 3 dolomite/g of biomass at the same temperature. The dolomite seemed stable after 15 h of cyclic use at 800 °C.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations89
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207