MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Natural Additives on the Properties of Sawdust Fuel Pellets

2018· article· en· W2787035437 on OpenAlexafffund
Ali Abedi, Cheng He, Ajay K. Dalai

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Light Source
KeywordsPelletsSawdustPelletPelletizingLigninRaw materialPorosityMaterials scienceTorrefactionPulp and paper industryBulk densityWater contentBiomass (ecology)Composite materialChemistryPyrolysisAgronomyOrganic chemistryEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additives play a key role in the quality of fuel pellets. It can improve the physical, chemical, and thermal properties of the pellets. In this study, the effects of various natural additives on the quality of the sawdust fuel pellets have been investigated, and then the emissions resulting from gasification of the best pellet formulation were determined at various gasification conditions. The quality of pellets was evaluated based on density, mechanical strength (durability and hardness), porosity, and water resistance. For the pelletization process, spruce sawdust was used as a feedstock and lignin (L), lignosulfonate (LS), proline (P), corn starch (CS), and torrefied oat hull (TOH) were used as bioadditives. A lab-scale single-pelleting unit was used to compress sawdust pellets at 100 °C and 4000 N for 60 s. Results showed that lignin and proline produced the best pellets using sawdust feedstock with a preadjusted moisture content to 16%. Central composite design (CCD) was used to determine the impacts of proline and lignin contents on the quality of the pellets. Increasing proline and decreasing lignin had a positive impact on the density and mechanical strength of the pellets. Adding TOH to the pellet formulation increased heating value and slightly water resistance, but it decreased density and mechanical strength. Computed tomography (CT) analysis of the pellets showed that increasing the proline content in the pellet formulation decreased the porosity of the pellet, whereas increasing lignin or torrefied binder increased the porosity of the pellets. In the second stage, the best pellet formulation, which contained 5% lignin and 10% proline, was used to investigate the effects of gasification conditions, such as equivalence ratio (ER) and temperature, on the distribution of gaseous, liquid, and solid products as well as the composition of the produced syngas. Using a noncatalytic fixed bed downdraft gasifier, steam gasification of sawdust pellets showed that increasing ER and temperature increased total gas and syngas yields and H 2 concentration, and decreased CH 4 and C 2 H 4 concentrations as well as char and tar yields.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations38
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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