MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901617792 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23397

Predicting the biomass conversion performance in a fluidized bed reactor using isoconversional model‐free method

2018· article· en· W2901617792 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Madhumita Patel, Adetoyese Olajire Oyedun, Amit Kumar, Rajender Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsThermogravimetric analysisFluidized bedPyrolysisBiomass (ecology)DecompositionThermal decompositionArrhenius equationMaterials scienceInert gasActivation energyChemistryChemical engineeringPulp and paper industryOrganic chemistryComposite materialGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first objective of this study to analyze the detailed pyrolysis kinetics of four Canadian feedstocks through two techniques: thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) using the isoconversional model‐free method; and fast pyrolysis in a fluidized bed reactor using the simple Arrhenius model. The four biomass feedstocks were pyrolyzed in a fluidized bed reactor at 400–520 °C. The experiments were conducted for three size fractions. The thermogravimetric analysis was performed at four heating rates (2, 5, 10, and 15 °C/min) in an inert atmosphere. TGA experiments showed that the decomposition rate of agricultural residues was significantly lower than woody biomass due to high volatiles and low ash content in the latter. The range of average activation energy from fluidized bed experiments was 150–168 kJ/mol and 160–180 kJ/mol from TGA experiments. The difference is attributed to different methodology in the experiments and the determination of kinetic parameters. The second objective was to apply the global kinetic parameters from the TGA to predict the decomposition of biomass to biochar and to compare it with the experimental biochar left in the fluidized bed reactor at different temperatures. This study also confirmed that at high temperatures for all the feedstocks, average kinetics parameters obtained from the TGA could produce fluidized bed biomass conversion results with an average variation of 4 %.

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)0.001
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 score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207