MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090871836 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450790609

Production of H<sub>2</sub> and medium heating value gas via steam gasification of lignins in fixed‐bed reactors

2001· article· en· W2090871836 on OpenAlexaffvenue
D. Ferdous, Ajay K. Dalai, Shyamal K. Bej, Ronald W. Thring

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSubcritical and Supercritical Water Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLigninKraft paperCatalysisHeat of combustionChemistryVolumetric flow ratePulp and paper industrySulfurChemical engineeringMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryComposite materialCombustionThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this work, steam gasification of Alcell and Kraft lignins were carried out in a fixed‐bed reactor in order to produce H 2 and medium heating value gas. The conversion of lignins increased from a low of 64 wt% for Alceil lignin to a high of 88 wt% for Kraft lignin with increasing steam flow rate and temperature. Maximum H 2 production of 60.7 mol% was obtained at 800°C and at a steam flow rate of 15 g/h/g of Kraft lignin, whereas maximum heating value of 18000 kl/m 3 of the product gas was obtained at 650°C and at 5 g/h/g of Alcell lignin. Also, the performance of a Ni‐based steam reforming catalyst for the production of H 2 was studied for both types of lignin in a dual fixed‐bed reaction system. A maximum H 2 production of 63 mol% was obtained at a catalyst bed temperature of 750°C and at a catalyst loading of 0.3 g for Alcell lignin. The sulfur present in Kraft lignin had detrimental effect on the catalyst performance.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 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

Citations26
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicSubcritical and Supercritical Water ProcessesFrench-language works237,207