MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Contribution to the Understanding of Secondary Pyrolysis of Biomass-Based Slurry under Entrained-Flow Gasification Conditions

2016· article· en· W2472750082 on OpenAlexafffund
P. Stoesser, Johannes Ruf, Rajender Gupta, Neda Djordjevic, Thomas Kolb

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta InnovatesHelmholtz-Gemeinschaft
KeywordsPyrolysisCharCenosphereChemical engineeringSootStrawSlurryThermogravimetric analysisPyrolysis oilChemistryMaterials scienceCombustionOrganic chemistryComposite materialInorganic chemistryFly ash

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to gain insight into the secondary pyrolysis of biomass-based slurry under entrained-flow gasification conditions. The focus was set on the types of solid products from secondary pyrolysis, their mechanism of formation, and subsequent conversion behavior. Primary chars and pyrolysis oils from wood and wheat straw were produced in a screw pyrolysis reactor. A suspension fuel (slurry) was prepared composed of primary straw char and straw pyrolysis oil. A drop tube reactor was used to study the secondary pyrolysis of the different fuels at 1200 °C and 3 s residence time. The secondary pyrolysis of both chars yielded approximately 60 m% of secondary char. While the wood char reactivity was unchanged by the secondary pyrolysis, the straw char showed signs of massive deactivation, which is most likely explained by the loss of catalytic activity. The secondary pyrolysis of both pyrolysis oils yielded approximately 20 m% of secondary char and soot. Cenospheres could be identified with diameters close to the initial droplet diameter. Oil cenospheres and soot had similar chemical compositions but showed very different reactivities, which is likely to be explained by their different structures. The secondary pyrolysis of the straw-based slurry showed results similar to those of the secondary pyrolysis of oil with primary char particles being embedded in the cenosphere carbon shell. Additional thermogravimetric measurements revealed possible conversion mechanisms of cenospheres from oil and slurry feed.

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 score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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