MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Recent Development of Biomass Fast Pyrolysis Technology and Bio-Oil Upgrading: An Overview

2014· article· en· W2025874270 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nurul Suhada Ab Rasid, Mohammad Asadullah

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced materials research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Teknologi MARAUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsRenewable energyPyrolysisBiomass (ecology)Fossil fuelRaw materialWaste managementRenewable fuelsEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringLiquid fuelPyrolysis oilEngineeringCombustionChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing demand of energy has led to the development of renewable energy in order to mitigate the dependency of fossil fuels. Fast pyrolysis of biomass is one of the most anticipated renewable energy technologies since it has a huge potential to become the efficient, environmentally sustainable, and cost effective technology for energy. Fast pyrolysis process produces liquid bio-oil as a main product, along with solid char and combustible gas. Bio-oil can be utilized for heat and power generation as well as it can be used as a feedstock for pure chemicals production. Over the last decades, numerous researches have been conducted in order to develop the process in terms of reactor design and process optimization in order to achieve the high yield of liquid with high organics and less water content. The aim of this review is to provide the state of the art on fast pyrolysis of biomass with some suggestions presented on upgrading the bio-oil. Based on the recent reactor configurations, current status of biomass fast pyrolysis in commercial scale around the world, the fuel and chemical characteristic of bio-oil compared to the conventional fossil fuels, and the potential application of bio-oil in the future, some recommendations are proposed.

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)0.001
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 score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced materials researchSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207