Hydrothermal Conversion of Cattle Manure to Biooil: Effects of Conversion Parameters on Biooil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to intensive feedlots operations, the role of cattle manure has changed from a cheap fertilizer to an agricultural waste. Hydrothermal conversion (HTC) is a potential technology of converting cattle manure waste to biooil. In this paper, HTC of cattle manure was studied with regards to the effects of conversion temperature, pressure, residence time, process gas and mass ratios of cattle manure to water on yields and properties of biooil. Results showed that within the temperature range of 260 ∼ 360 °C, biooil yield first increased and then decreased. The maximum biooil yield was obtained at 310 °C. The biooil yield was not further improved by higher initial operating pressure. In contrast, it decreased biooil yields from 38.49% under 0 psig to 6.51% under 150 psig. Longer residence times also reduced biooil yield. Compared with 38.49% of biooil produced with 15-minute residence time, only 12.95% of biooil remained after 40-minute residence time. Process gases also had important impacts on biooil yield. When N2 was replaced with CO, the maximum biooil yield increased to 48.76%. But, when air was used as process gas, the biooil yield decreased to 27.97%. Also, biooil yield decreased with larger mass ratios of cattle manure to water. When the ratio was 2, biooil yield was only 1.46% much less than 48.76% with ratio of 0.25. Therefore, biooil yield from HTC of cattle manure largely depended on the conversion temperatures and process gases. Higher conversion pressures, longer residence time and larger mass ratios of cattle manure to water had negative impacts on biooil yield. The mean high heating value of biooil from HTC of cattle manure was 37.0 MJ/kg.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".