MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340405514 · doi:10.82308/2448

Assessment of Pyrolysis techniques of lignocellulosic biomass for Biochar production

2010· article· en· W2340405514 on OpenAlexfundno aff
B. Dutta

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiocharBiomass (ecology)PyrolysisPulp and paper industryProduction (economics)Lignocellulosic biomassEnvironmental scienceBioenergyBiofuelWaste managementNatural resource economicsBusinessAgronomyEconomicsEngineeringMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biomass pyrolysis at temperatures above 300°C, with the biochar being returned to the soil is a possible strategy for climate change mitigation and reducing fossil fuel consumption. In this study, an attempt has been made to develop a finite element model (FEM) in order to couple thermal heating and heat and mass transfer phenomena during pyrolysis. This numerical modelling and simulation approach helped the visualization of the process and optimized the production of biochar. In this work, cylindrical sections of birch wood biomass were pyrolysed in a laboratory-scale thermal desorption unit. The influences of final pyrolysis temperature, heating rate, and pyrolysis atmosphere on the product yields were investigated. Results showed that the yield of pyrolysis products was reduced with increasing time and temperature. On the other hand, the char content in the wood increased together with increasing pyrolysis temperature as well as time for both slow and fast pyrolysis. A technique to maximize the amount of char in the product was also identified through this study and optimized along with the yield. The resulting biochar was tested through proximate analysis and differential scanning calorimetry to determine its thermodynamic qualities, which were analysed and compared according to their physical characteristics like porosity and reflectance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207