MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115478140 · doi:10.1016/j.ecmx.2020.100069

Advancing the application of bio-oils by co-processing with petroleum intermediates: A review

2020· review· en· W3115478140 on OpenAlexafffund
Haoxiang Wang, Yimin Zeng, Jing Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Conversion and Management X · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaNatural Resources Canada
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceOffice of Energy Research and DevelopmentNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCo-processingOil refineryEnvironmental scienceWaste managementBiofuelRenewable energyRenewable fuelsFossil fuelBiomass (ecology)PetroleumGasolineProcess engineeringRaw materialEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crude bio-oils, as sustainable and renewable energy sources generated from thermochemical conversion of forest, agriculture, waste and algae biomass feedstocks, have attracted particular attention to partially and even completely replace the fossil fuels over the past decades. However, due to their undesirable qualities such as high oxygen content, thermal instability, and high corrosivity, further upgrading is required for the direct application of bio-oils for petrol engines or thermal power plants. Various upgrading pathways, including emulsification , hydrotreating , supercritical fluid treatment, and co-processing are being investigated by different international research groups to produce marketable drop-in renewable transportation biofuels. Among them, co-processing bio-oils with petroleum streams in existing refineries is recognized as a more promising solution compared to other conventional upgrading methods because of less capital investment and higher fuel productivity. This work reviewed the up-to-date research activities in bio-oil co-processing including process scale-up, focusing more on the most recent work about pyrolysis oils co-processing in the fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) unit and its industrial implementation. The significant knowledge gaps in the co-processing are also outlined for future investigations.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations63
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy Conversion and Management XSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207