MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078010235 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20584

Study of sawdust pyrolysis and its devolatilisation kinetics

2011· article· en· W2078010235 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Aqsha Aqsha, Nader Mahinpey, Thilakavathi Mani, Feridoun Salak, Pulikesi Murugan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSawdustPyrolysisThermogravimetric analysisCharMaterials scienceActivation energyParticle sizeKineticsOrder of reactionKinetic energyYield (engineering)Analytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryComposite materialReaction rate constantOrganic chemistryPhysical chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pyrolysis of sawdust was studied using a thermogravimetric analyser (TGA) to understand the devolatilisation process and to obtain its global kinetic parameters. The influences of particle size, initial weight of the sample and heating rate on the devolatilisation of sawdust particles have been studied. Results from proximate analysis show that smaller particle size has more ash content compared to larger particle size. The TG and derivative TG curve for variation in particle size and initial weight of the sample showed significant difference in the third stage of the pyrolysis. In addition, the pyrolysis of sawdust differed significantly for variation in heating rate. As the heating rates increased, the char yield also increased. The devolatilisation kinetics was studied considering different stages of pyrolysis. The kinetic parameters for thermal devolatilisation of the sawdust were determined through a nonlinear optimisation method of two independent parallel n th‐order reaction models. The kinetic parameters such as activation energy, frequency factor and order of the reaction for the two stages considered in the model were: E 2 = 79.53 (kJ/mol), E 3 = 60.71 (kJ/mol); k 02 = 1.90 × 10 6 (1/min), k 03 = 1.01 × 10 3 (1/min); n 2 = 0.91, n 3 = 1.78, respectively. The results show good agreement between the proposed model and the experimental data of the sawdust pyrolysis.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207