MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987204959 · doi:10.32964/tj10.3.27

Environmental aspects of wood residue combustion in forest products industry boilers

2011· article· en· W2987204959 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arun V. Someshwar, Jay P. Unwin, William E. Thacker, LAUREL EPPSTEIN, BARRY MALMBERG

Bibliographic record

VenueTAPPI Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombustionCoalWaste managementParticulatesEnvironmental scienceSulfur dioxideNOxFossil fuelClean coal technologyBoiler (water heating)ChemistryFuel oilEnvironmental chemistryPulp and paper industryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted a comprehensive review of air emissions resulting from burning wood residues in industrial boilers and potential methods to control these emissions. This report compares average emissions with similar data published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the burning of fossil fuels coal, oil, and natural gas in industrial boilers. As compared with coal or oil combustion, wood combustion in boilers generally leads to lower emissions of trace metals, hydrochloric acid, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOx); higher emissions of carbon monoxide, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and total volatile organic compounds; and comparable emissions of particulate matter and polychlorinated dibenzo-dioxins and -furans (PCDDs/Fs) (both of which are highly dependent on the efficiency of the ultimate particulate matter control device). Most importantly, wood combustion is carbon dioxide-neutral, a distinct advantage over fossil fuel combustion. Firing wood in stoker units with sulfur-containing fuels, such as coal and oil, leads to a reduction in expected SO2 emissions because of the high carbon and alkali content of most wood ash, and cofiring wood with coal also has some benefits for NOx reduction. This report also discusses the generation and types of combustion ashes resulting from wood burning in mostly combination boilers in the United States and Canada, and provides an overview of ash management practices and the salient characteristics of such ashes relative to their trace metal, organic, and PCDD/F contents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTAPPI JournalSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207