Can Biomass Quality Be Preserved through Tarping Comminuted Roadside Biomass Piles?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Storage conditions play a vital role in maintaining biomass quality as a suitable bioenergy feedstock. Research has shown that biomass undergoes significant changes under different storage conditions and that these may influence its suitability for various biorefining and bioenergy opportunities. This study explores the effects of different tarp covers on the properties of stored-comminuted forest harvest residue from the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Forest. Characteristics of the biomass were evaluated upon harvesting and after one year in storage. The physical state of the different tarps used for pile coverage was monitored onsite. Results indicated that tarp material considerably affects micro-climatic conditions inside piles, yielding variation in the characteristics of stored biomass over the storage period. While plastic based tarps were easier to work with and lasted longer than paper-based tarps, the paper-based tarps were more breathable and resulted in less degradation of biomass. However, the paper-based tarps did not maintain their structural integrity for the full duration of the storage period. Moisture content of original biomass (48.99%) increased to a maximum of 65.25% under plastic cover after 1 year of storage. This negatively influenced the net heating value of the biomass, causing it to decrease from 8.58 MJ/kg to 4.06 MJ/kg. Overall, the use of covers was not considered successful in preserving the original quality of biomass but may enhance its quality for other biorefinery opportunities.
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 | 0.001 | 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".