Pyrolysis characteristic of kenaf studied with separated tissues, alkali pulp, and alkali lignin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To estimate the potential of kenaf as a new biomass source, analytical pyrolysis was performed using various kenaf tissues, i.e., alkali lignin and alkali pulp. The distribution of the pyrolysis products from the whole kenaf was similar to that obtained from hardwood, with syringol, 4-vinylsyringol, guaiacol, and 4-vinylguaiacol as the major products. The phenols content in the pyrolysate from the kenaf core was higher than that from the kenaf cuticle, reflecting the higher lignin content of the kenaf core. The ratios of the syringyl and guaiacyl compounds in the pyrolysates from the core and cuticle samples were 2.79 and 6.83, respectively. Levoglucosan was the major pyrolysis product obtained from the kenaf alkali pulp, although glycol aldehyde and acetol were also produced in high yields, as previously observed for other cellulosic materials. Moreover, the pathways for the formation of the major pyrolysis products from alkali lignin and alkali pulp were also described, and new pyrolysis pathways for carbohydrates have been proposed herein. The end groups of carbohydrates bearing hemiacetal groups were subjected to ring opening and then they underwent further reactions, including further thermal degradation or ring reclosing. Variation of the ring-closing position resulted in the production of different compounds, such as furans, furanones, and cyclopentenones.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".