MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020243402 · doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c01862

Using CO<sub>2</sub> as an Oxidant in the Catalytic Pyrolysis of Peat Moss from the North Polar Region

2020· article· en· W3020243402 on OpenAlexaff
Taewoo Lee, Sungyup Jung, Jinkyu Hong, Chi‐Hwa Wang, Daniel S. Alessi, Sang Soo Lee, Young‐Kwon Park, Eilhann E. Kwon

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsPeatMossPyrolysisPolarEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceCatalysisChemistryEcologyOrganic chemistryBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As global warming and climate change become perceived as significant, the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) stored in the earth’s polar regions is considered a matter of concern. Here, we focused on exploiting GHGs to address potential global warming challenges in the north polar regions. In particular, we used CO2 as a soft oxidant to recover energy as syngas (CO and H2) and to produce biochars from pyrolysis of peat moss. CO2 expedited homogeneous reaction with volatile matters from peat moss pyrolysis, and the mechanistic CO2 role resulted in the conversion of CO2 and peat moss to CO at ≥530 °C. Steel slag waste was then used as an ex situ catalyst to increase reaction kinetics, addressing the issue of the role of CO2 being limited to ≥530 °C, with the result where substantial H2 and CO formation was achieved at a milder temperature. The porosity of biochars, a solid peat moss pyrolysis product, was modified in the presence of CO2, with a significant improvement in CO2 adsorption capacity compared to those achieved by N2 pyrolysis. Therefore, CO2 has the potential to serve as an initial feedstock in sustainable biomass-to-energy applications and biochar production, mitigating atmospheric carbon concentrations.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations50
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207