MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043618496 · doi:10.1115/fbc2005-78089

A Novel Approach Towards Waste Treatment in FBC

2005· article· en· W2043618496 on OpenAlexaff
Fadi Eldabbagh, Karl Rink, Janusz A. Koziński

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombustionFly ashNOxPollutantEnvironmental scienceWaste managementMunicipal solid wasteEnvironmental chemistryHeat of combustionChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Waste combustion has the potential to play an important role in the energy production despite its contribution to heavy metals emissions. A new multi-zone temperature combustion technique, known as a Low-High-Low (LHL) temperature method, was developed to reduce pollutant emissions, particularly heavy metals, from FBCs. This paper focuses on the environmental impacts of biowaste combustion at different FBC conditions with emphasis on gas and solid emissions. The biowaste (de-inking sludge) studied contained 15% moisture, 27% carbon, 18% oxygen, and 35% ash. Ash elemental analysis shows a dominance of SiO2, Al2O3 and CaO (38%, 28% and 19%, respectively) with selected alkalis Na2O and K2O (0.3% and 0.2%, respectively). The used biowaste material had a heating value of 10,000 kJ/kg, which indicates that its combustion may be used to treat a portion of the total solid waste produced, while generating energy. The paper reports the following results of LHL vs. Classical FBC: (1) average axial profiles of gas concentrations (NO, NOx, and CO2) as well as their final averages at the exhaust, (2) final heavy metals leachability from generated fly ash. During the multi-temperature combustion experiments (LHL), the final average gas measurements for NO, NOx, and CO2 were 91 ppm, 175 ppm, and 6.1%, respectively. As for the classical FBC experiments, the final average gas measurements were similar (94 ppm, 141 ppm and 5.9% for NO, NOx and CO2, respectively). The final fly ash sample had leachability rates of 0.14 ppm and 0.061 ppm for Cd and Cr, respectively. Such low leachability rates are due to the LHL’s ability to form dense and compact final fly ash structures. On the contrary, 30.7 ppm and 14.3 ppm of Cd and Cr leached out of the porous no-LHL final fly ash structures, respectively. These results confirm that the LHL combustion could be considered as an effective waste-to-energy approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207