MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029828170 · doi:10.1115/fbc2005-78019

Fouling Tendency of Ash Resulting From Burning Mixtures of Biofuels

2005· article· en· W2029828170 on OpenAlexaff
Mischa Theis, Bengt‐Johan Skrifvars, Mikko Hupa, Honghi Tran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoulingStrawSuperheaterBiofuelPeatPulp and paper industryPulp (tooth)Boiler (water heating)Pulp millBiocharRenewable energyWaste managementChemistryEnvironmental scienceMaterials sciencePyrolysisEnvironmental engineeringEffluent

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Specified mixtures of peat with bark and peat with straw were burned in a lab-scale entrained flow reactor that simulates conditions in the superheater region of a biomass-fired boiler. Deposits were collected on an air-cooled probe that was inserted into the reactor at the outlet. For both mixtures, the deposition behaviour followed a non-linear pattern, which suggests that physico-chemical interaction between the ashes of the different fuels has taken place. The results indicate that it is possible to burn up to 30 wt-% bark (renewable biofuel and pulp mill waste) and up to 70 wt-% straw (renewable biofuel and agricultural waste) in mixtures with peat without encountering increased deposition rates in the reactor. The deposit composition was compared to the fuel ash composition using chemical fractionation analysis and SEM/EDX. While the composition of deposits obtained from pure fuels resembles the feed composition, a considerable change is observed in deposits obtained from mixtures. K and S compounds are attached to Si spheres and the substrate surface. The deposition rate is significantly lowered when removing K, S, Cl and Na in bark prior to burning by washing and mechanical/thermal dewatering.

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations53
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207