Briquettes Produced With a Mixture of Urban Pruning Waste, Glycerin and Cassava Processing Residue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The briquette is considered a solid biofuel, made from the compaction of lignocellulosic residues used for the generation of energy. This work aimed to study the production of briquettes from mixtures of Urban Pruning Waste (RPU) (pruning of leaves and thin branches of trees), glycerin and cassava bagasse (Manihot esculenta). Samples of RPU, cassava bagasse and glycerol were mixed to yield treatments T1 (100% RPU), T2 (92% RPU and 8% cassava bagasse), T3 (97% RPU and 3% glycerin), T4 (89% RPU, 8% cassava bagasse and 3% Glycerin), T5 (94.5% RPU, 4% cassava bagasse and 1.5% glycerin) and T6 (control). Following this step, physical, chemical and energetic analyses (moisture content, volatile material content, fixed carbon and ash content, superior, inferior and useful calorific value, mechanical resistance, apparent and energetic density) of the briquettes were carried out. Treatment T2 had a lower fixed carbon value and volatile content, as well as higher ash content and mechanical strength. The percentages of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen did not differ statistically between the treatments. The higher, lower and useful heating values were higher in treatment T3. The results showed that treatments T1, T2 and T3 were more efficient, producing briquettes with properties that meet market specifications, besides presenting great energetic potential, being good substitutes for firewood.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".