MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083951192 · doi:10.1021/ef020073z

Synthesis Gas Production from Steam Gasification of Biomass-Derived Oil

2003· article· en· W2083951192 on OpenAlexaff
S. Panigrahi, Ajay K. Dalai, S. T. Chaudhari, Narendra N. Bakhshi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyngasBiomass (ecology)Heat of combustionPulp and paper industryGas compositionChemistryEnvironmental scienceFossil fuelProducer gasHydrogenFuel gasWaste managementCombustionOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioresources comprised of over 220 billion oven-dry tonnes (about 4500 EJ) of annual production are potentially the world's largest sustainable source of energy. At present, technologies exist to pyrolyze biomass to produce a liquid product, namely, biomass-derived oil. This biomass-derived oil has found a variety of applications. In this investigation, biomass-derived oil (BDO) is gasified to synthesis gas and gaseous fuels. The gasification reaction of BDO was carried out at 800 °C under atmospheric pressure in an Inconell tubular fixed-bed down-flow microreactor using mixtures of CO 2 and N 2, and H 2 and N 2 . Also, steam gasification was performed by feeding biomass-derived oil at a flow rate of 5 g/h along with steam (2.5−10 g/h) and nitrogen (30 mL/min) as a carrier gas. The gas product essentially consisted of H 2, CO, CO 2, CH 4, C 2, C 3, and C 4+ components. Composition of various gas components ranged as syngas (H 2 + CO) from 75 to 80 mol % including 48−52 mol % H 2, and CH 4 from 12 to 18 mol %. Heating values of the product gas ranged between 460 and 510 Btu/Scf. The present study shows that there is a strong potential of making syngas, hydrogen, and medium-heating-value Btu gas from the steam gasification of biomass-derived oil.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations61
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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