Steam Gasification of Biomass-Derived Char for the Production of Carbon Monoxide-Rich Synthesis Gas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing interest in the conversion of biomass and related materials into gaseous and liquid fuels. During fast pyrolysis of biomass in a fluidized-bed reactor, 15% of biomass is converted to char whereas 70% is converted to liquid and the rest to gas. In the present work, a systematic study has been conducted to explore the possibilities of using biomass-derived char for the production of various types of gaseous fuels and synthesis gas through pyrolysis and steam gasification in a tubular reactor. The pyrolysis experiments were carried out in the presence of nitrogen ( flow rate of 20 mL/min) in the temperature range of 700−800 °C. Steam gasification experiments were carried out in the temperature range of 650−800 °C, steam flow rate of 2.5−15 g/h/g of char. The reaction time was varied from 0.5 to 2.0 h. It has been found that a combination of lower steam flow rate (about 2.5 g/h/g of char), lower temperature (about 700 °C), along with lower reaction time (about 0.5 h) produces synthesis gas having a molar ratio of H 2 /CO favorable for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. On the other hand, synthesis gas having very high H 2 /CO molar ratio (about 5−6) can be produced via the steam gasification reaction at a temperature of 800 °C, steam flow rate of about 10 g/h/g of char and a reaction time of 0.5 h. The heating value of the product gas at different process conditions has also been calculated.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".