MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determining the Severity of Torrefaction for Multiple Biomass Types Using Carbon Content

2018· article· en· W2888069677 on OpenAlexafffund
W. A. Campbell, Richard W. Evitts

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsTorrefactionBiomass (ecology)Raw materialCarbon fibersChemistryYield (engineering)StrawCorrelation coefficientPulp and paper industryAgronomyMathematicsMaterials sciencePyrolysisOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research concerns the investigation of an alternative measurement to directly indicate the severity of torrefaction. Composition and process data from both batch and continuous torrefaction experiments using willow, wheat straw, and cattail biomass were combined and analyzed. The mass yield, which is an indication of torrefaction severity was correlated to the net change in residual carbon concentration (ΔC), and second the total change in mass (ΔMt) was correlated to net change in mass of carbon per 100 g of feedstock (ΔMc). Analysis of the experimental data show a polynomial relationship between the dry mass yield (Ym) and the change residual carbon concentration (ΔC). This relationship is Ym = 5.05ΔC2 – 3.96ΔC + 0.98 (R2 = 0.89). The uncertainty in this correlation is ±7.3% (w/w). The relation between total change in mass (ΔMt) and change in carbon mass (ΔMc) meanwhile was found to fit a linear model by ΔMc = 0.36ΔMt + 1.04 with a coefficient of determination of 0.96. Each of these models was then validated by introducing experimental data from numerous published materials focused on biomass torrefaction. That data included bench and pilot scale experiments that examined a wide range of biomass including soft and hardwoods, grasses, and agricultural residues. Analysis of the combined data set confirmed a second order polynomial model is predictive of the mass yield based on the change in carbon concentration where both parameters are expressed on a dry, ash-free basis. This model, Ym = 4.29ΔC2 – 3.66ΔC + 0.98 (R2 = 0.935), is predictive for torrefaction experiments with initial masses of 500 g and greater and for mass yields as low as 60%. The uncertainty in this second correlation is ±4.6% (w/w). Since this expression relies only on the concentration of carbon in each of the feed and output product streams, this model could be used to predict mass yield of continuous torrefaction in real-time if the carbon content of each stream were sampled periodically and if the raw biomass ash content were sampled intermittently. The relation between change in total mass and change in mass of carbon meanwhile was confirmed with the inclusion of all of the literature review data; the linear regression model was found to be ΔMc = 0.37ΔMt + 1.26 which had an R2 of 0.93. In practical terms, this expression indicates that for the average of these experiments, the first 3.4% of mass loss in torrefaction occurs without loss of significant carbon, and below 97% mass yield, carbon will consistently represent close to 37% of total mass loss, a figure which appears to hold to as low as 40% mass yield (w/w).

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 score0.286

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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