MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068323132 · doi:10.1021/ef402227m

Upgrading Fast Pyrolysis Oil via Hydrodeoxygenation and Thermal Treatment: Effects of Catalytic Glycerol Pretreatment

2014· article· en· W2068323132 on OpenAlexaff
Ehsan Reyhanitash, Matthew Tymchyshyn, Zhongshun Yuan, Katherine Albion, Guus van Rossum, Chunbao Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsLambton CollegeWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycerolHydrodeoxygenationChemistryPyrolysisCatalysisAqueous solutionPyrolysis oilOrganic chemistryNuclear chemistrySelectivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of stabilizing fast pyrolysis oil (PO) with glycerol via catalytic glycerol pretreatment on upgrading via hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) or thermal treatment (TT) were studied. Nonstabilized (original) fast pyrolysis oil was also upgraded via HDO or TT to obtain benchmarks. Generally, HDO decreases the molecular weight of PO. The major beneficial effect of stabilization with glycerol was reduction in molecular weight of the upgraded oil. However, it was observed that the molecular weight reduction was largely induced by the dilution effect of glycerol/glycerol-derived fragments. It should also be noted that glycerol-consuming reactions via decreasing the carboxylic acid and phenolic contents of PO (e.g., via esterification) may play a role in reducing self-polymerization during HDO or TT. Stabilization of PO with glycerol, however, led to an increase in the yield of aqueous fractions of HDO and TT due to the formation of hydrophilic fragments from glycerol and PO constituents. After HDO, the oil fractions of stabilized and nonstabilized PO exhibited similar H/C and O/C molar ratios, suggesting that oxygen removal from the oil fractions was not significantly affected by stabilization.

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 score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207