MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimization of process variables for briquetting of biochar from corn stover

2020· article· en· W3042420213 on OpenAlexaff
Wenqiao Jiao, Lope G. Tabil, Xin Mingjin, Yuqiu Song, Bowen Chi, Liyan Wu, Tianyou Chen, Jun Meng, Xuewei Bai

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiocharBriquetteCorn stoverMaterials scienceBiomass (ecology)Pulp and paper industryWater contentMoistureHeat of combustionBulk densityStoverResidence time (fluid dynamics)Environmental scienceCharcoalWaste managementPyrolysisBiofuelComposite materialAgronomyCoalSoil scienceCombustionChemistryMetallurgySoil waterGeotechnical engineeringCrop

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Instead of compressing biomass into briquettes, this study considers the compression of biochar. Densification is necessary for biochar to increase bulk density for convenience of handling, transportation, and storage. Response surface methodology was employed, and briquetting of biochar from corn stover was carried out in this study to investigate the effects of moisture content (at levels of 16, 17.6, 20, 22.4, and 24%), pressure (at levels of 21.5, 25, 30, 35, and 38.5 MPa), and residence time (at levels of 4, 6.4, 10, 13.6, and 16 s), on crushing resistance, dimensional stability of briquettes, and specific energy consumption of briquetting. The results showed that the effects of the variables on each evaluation index were significant (P < 0.01), the influence order was obtained, and the regression models are set up. The optimum condition for the briquetting process was moisture content of 18.5%, pressure of 38.5 MPa, and residence time of 4 s, giving mean values of the briquette crushing resistance of 49.9 N, dimensional stability of 93.8%, and specific energy consumption of briquetting of 4.41 MJ/t, respectively. The errors between the predicted values and the experimental values are all less than 5%.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207