Kinetic study of pyrolysis of high‐density polyethylene (HDPE) waste at different bed thickness in a fixed bed reactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study is to investigate the kinetic characteristics of the high‐density polyethylene (HDPE) waste pyrolysis process based on thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and using a fixed bed pyrolytic reactor (FBPR) at different temperatures. In addition, the influence of material bed thickness on the yield distribution and the composition of products was examined over a temperature range of 425–550°C. A higher wax fraction was obtained in the thin bed of the FBPR bed at 425°C. With temperature above 500°C, more oil and wax products were generated in the thick bed of the FBPR. Based on the experimental study, a discrete first‐order kinetic lumping model, comprising three independent parallel reactions (lumps), was developed to describe the yield distribution of gases, oil fractions, wax fractions, and solid residue, coupling with secondary cracking reactions of the wax fractions into lighter fractions (i.e., oil and gas). The overall apparent activation energy (E a ) and pre‐exponential factor (A 0 ) of HDPE pyrolysis were estimated in the FBPR. The results showed that the thickness of the bed of plastics has a pronounced influence on the pyrolysis kinetics of HDPE.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".