Gas Adsorption Capacity of Wood Pellets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, temperature-programmed desorption (TPD) analysis was used to measure and analyze the adsorption of off-gases and oxygen by wood pellets during storage. Such information on how these gases interact with the material helps in the understanding of the purging/stripping behavior of off-gases to develop effective ventilation strategies for wood pellets. Steam-exploded pellets showed the lowest carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) uptake compared to the regular and torrefied pellets. The high CO 2 adsorption capacity of the torrefied pellets could be attributed to their porous structure and therefore greater available surface area. Quantifying the uptake of carbon monoxide by pellets was challenging due to chemical adsorption, which formed a strong bond between the material and carbon monoxide. The estimated energy of desorption for CO (97.8 kJ/mol) was very high relative to that for CO 2 (7.24 kJ/mol), demonstrating the mechanism of chemical adsorption and physical adsorption for CO and CO 2, respectively. As for oxygen, the strong bonds that formed between the material and oxygen verified the existence of chemical adsorption and formation of an intermediate material.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".